Maybe a reason why Spurs are allowed to just play

[EastsBeasts]

Hear me out, I'm not saying the Spurs didn't earn their latest championship. I just see a lot of your fans saying what reason does the NBA have for favoring the Spurs? The NBA as you know has been trying to market internationally more aggressively in the past few years. Since the Spurs have for the most part the best player from Argentina, France, and the Virgin Islands it makes sense to me that they would be allowed to just play ball without having favored calls going the other way from other players from other teams. An example I would throw out there is Daniel Gibson's stats against playoff teams. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=4170
The NBA is more about marketing than having the best teams play each other.
You as Spurs fans could say the Pistons defense just wasn't as good as your team. But then you would have to say that the Detroit defense wasn't as good as Washington's and New Jersey's as well, which is not the case.
Like I wrote this isn't a bash at the Spurs but just the NBA in general. So yes the NBA does have something to gain from a championship team loaded with international stars. Then you may say, why did they only allow the finals to only go 4 games? I think the NBA really wanted it to go beyond 4 games as from the score of the final 2 games of the series. The Cavs were given the calls to win those games and just did not come through. Where as in the Pistons series against the Cavs, the Pistons were put in a much deeper hole refereeing wise than the Spurs were.

Maybe that has to do with Spurs management knowing before hand that the NBA was going in an international direction and acquiring high profile foreign players. Good for them for playing out the NBA to the fullest. :clap

[samikeyp]

But if that were the case, wouldn't they pull strings to have the Rockets win? They have the biggest draw in the most populous country in the world.

Sorry bro...still not buying it.

[FromWayDowntown]

My goodness -- do you really believe that no team wins a title without the league's guiding hand? I somehow suspect that you don't think that the league orchestrated the Pistons' win in 2004.

Let go the conspiracy theories.

The best team doesn't always win, but the team that wins is almost always better than every team that it played.

[SAGambler]

I don't know if you watched the same Detroit - Cleveland matchup that I did, but to me it looked like the Pistons thought they could just screw around and turn it up when they wanted to. Didn't work.

For most of the series the Pistons looked almost disinterested. Like it was theirs and then suddenly it wasn"t.

I don't think the Pistons ever took the Cavs seriously and that was their downfall.

[EastsBeasts]

My goodness -- do you really believe that no team wins a title without the league's guiding hand? I somehow suspect that you don't think that the league orchestrated the Pistons' win in 2004.



Maybe somewhat, but how come whenever the Pistons win a championship, the following season David Stern implements a rule change?

[samikeyp]

Maybe somewhat, but how come whenever the Pistons win a championship, the following season David Stern implements a rule change?

So the Spurs were not actually good enough to beat the Pistons in 05?

The Bulls were not actually good enough to beat the Pistons in 91?

Didn't seem to affect them in 90.

[AFBlue]

Maybe somewhat, but how come whenever the Pistons win a championship, the following season David Stern implements a rule change?

Explain the utter dominance and "respect" paid to Dwayne Wade in last year's finals as they went on to beat one of the bigger international stars in this game, Dirk Nowitzki....

I will agree with you to a point though....the NBA does like "superstars" to win it all. Big Daddy Shaq and D-Wade are "superstars". As are Tony, Manu, and Tim.

Unfortunately for you, Billups is as close as you get to a "superstar", and that ain't good. He's a great player, but being a superstar is also about more than that...marketability, etc.

[EastsBeasts]

So the Spurs were not actually good enough to beat the Pistons in 05?


I didn't say that, but how come Stern didn't make it a rule where you couldn't flop like a seal after the Spurs won it in 05?

[xapatan2]

Hear me out, I'm not saying the Spurs didn't earn their latest championship. I just see a lot of your fans saying what reason does the NBA have for favoring the Spurs? The NBA as you know has been trying to market internationally more aggressively in the past few years. Since the Spurs have for the most part the best player from Argentina, France, and the Virgin Islands it makes sense to me that they would be allowed to just play ball without having favored calls going the other way from other players from other teams. An example I would throw out there is Daniel Gibson's stats against playoff teams. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=4170
The NBA is more about marketing than having the best teams play each other.
You as Spurs fans could say the Pistons defense just wasn't as good as your team. But then you would have to say that the Detroit defense wasn't as good as Washington's and New Jersey's as well, which is not the case.
Like I wrote this isn't a bash at the Spurs but just the NBA in general. So yes the NBA does have something to gain from a championship team loaded with international stars. Then you may say, why did they only allow the finals to only go 4 games? I think the NBA really wanted it to go beyond 4 games as from the score of the final 2 games of the series. The Cavs were given the calls to win those games and just did not come through. Where as in the Pistons series against the Cavs, the Pistons were put in a much deeper hole refereeing wise than the Spurs were.

Maybe that has to do with Spurs management knowing before hand that the NBA was going in an international direction and acquiring high profile foreign players. Good for them for playing out the NBA to the fullest. :clap

your example, in throwing the stats of Daniel Gibson is very bad, you just seem to forget the story of this man during the playoffs :

- the first two series, L. Hugues was not a too big liability, he hasn't play that much,
- the serie against detroit, far better team than the two before, was way too difficult for an injured L. Hugues that Cleveland had to come with a other option to support lebron... i am remembering Gibson flying off very very high against Detroit...
- the serie against the spur... : well, it should come abvious to many people here around, and without paying attention to the DCS Rating... :) ( private joke here, some people will understand...), that the spurs are, and by far the best defense team, both on collective and individuals point of view....

This said, it seems natural to me to think that the spurs, having the possibility, when needed, to shut down one to three weapon of an other team, have simply decided to shut down Gibson, and one of our one-to-one defense specialists( private joke, part two:p:),has been assigned to this task, and i do not forget the tremendous impact of our help and bordeline defense ( part 3.:elephant..) ...and gibson numbers went down...

your argument is dead just after throwing thoses stats...

Xap'

[oligarchy]

Maybe somewhat, but how come whenever the Pistons win a championship, the following season David Stern implements a rule change?

What rules were implemented and how did it hurt the Pistons?

[samikeyp]

I didn't say that, but how come Stern didn't make it a rule where you couldn't flop like a seal after the Spurs won it in 05?

Probably because of even more Euro players coming over. :)

If anything that would hurt SA more than Detroit.
(Especially since no Piston players never ever flop! :lol )


What does that have to do with the Pistons losing the title?

You are insinuating that David Stern knowing made policy for the express purpose of hampering the Pistons title hopes. I just disagree. If you have solid proof to back up your claim then I would love to hear it and would even support your argument.

[Reggie Miller]

When a team plays physical defense, it more or less forces the officials to allow it. (You can't foul out all of the starters.) The Spurs have a reputation as a tough defensive team, which helps keep them out of foul trouble.

In general, defending with the body doesn't lead to as many fouls as defending with the hands. Teams that can't put a big body down on the block will also pick up a lot of fouls when playing SA.

Also, I think people that don't watch Duncan very often tend to underestimate him. Timmy doesn't need to foul to alter or block most shots, and at the same time, his man is often deliberately fouling him. I would think Timmy's impact alone would skew the numbers.

EDIT: By the way, has it ever occurred to fans of other teams that the Spurs just might be really, really good?

[EastsBeasts]

2004-2005
• New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.

1990-91
• Penalties for flagrant fouls increased such that an infraction is penalized by two free throw attempts and possession of the ball out-of-bounds. The offender may also be ejected if there is no apparent effort to play the ball and/or, in the official’s judgment, the contact was of such an excessive nature that an injury could have occurred. Ejected players will be automatically fined $250.

[Supergirl]

Oh yeah, because the NBA is just DYING to have the NBA champs located in the smallest market in the NBA. Mmmmhmmmm, that's makes sense.

[EastsBeasts]

Oh yeah, because the NBA is just DYING to have the NBA champs located in the smallest market in the NBA. Mmmmhmmmm, that's makes sense.

Smallest Market? Where in Texas? International marketing not Waco TX.

[samikeyp]

2004-2005
• New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.

Again...this would hurt the Spurs more than help them.

[samikeyp]

Smallest Market? Where in Texas? International marketing not Waco TX

TV market. San Antonio is 37th (although that might have changed) in TV market in the US. Although I do believe Salt Lake City is a smaller one. Not sure. I do know that SA is at least one of the 5 smallest in the NBA.

[Mitch Cumsteen]

I'm sure Detroit being unable to stop Cleveland had nothing to do with the fact that Flip Saunders is a shitty defensive coach, and everything to do with the NBA marketing to France, Argentina, and the 50 people who live in the Virgin Islands. Lebron getting to the rim unmolested from the three point line definitely had more to do with international marketing and nothing to do with the inability of Detroit's defense to rotate to the basket.

It makes perfect sense for the NBA: let's sacrifice our biggest market and the one that supplies virtually all of our live gate in favor of showing games at 4 in the morning in France, where the disdain for America and our culture is palpable. And let's get Argentina too, where 36% of the country lives below the poverty line and the average monthly wage is $675/month. Yeah... David Stern is going to rig the finals to tap into that market for sure.

[EastsBeasts]

OK fine, I agree Saunders sucks and I just will leave you with this. It will explain everything and hopefully drive it home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

^^

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

OK fine, I agree Saunders sucks and I just will leave you with this. It will explain everything and hopefully drive it home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

^^
:wtf Okay......

[Reggie Miller]

2004-2005
• New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.

1990-91
• Penalties for flagrant fouls increased such that an infraction is penalized by two free throw attempts and possession of the ball out-of-bounds. The offender may also be ejected if there is no apparent effort to play the ball and/or, in the official’s judgment, the contact was of such an excessive nature that an injury could have occurred. Ejected players will be automatically fined $250.

As I recall, the defensive rule changes for 2004-2005 had been discussed for some time. Those changes hurt the Spurs, Pistons, and all other defense- oriented teams. The new rules also forced Reggie Miller to retire, because he couldn't defend without hand-checking (but I kid Reggie).

The 1990 flagrant foul rule was directed at Laimbeer and Thomas, as I recall. That was a long time ago, and I'm very sure someone will correct me if that is not the case. In a sense, you could say that rule change was "directed" at the Pistons.

People forget that the league was very hypocritical when it came to the Bad Boys. The league would allow the media to promote Detroit as the "Bad Boys" and even released an official NBA video by that title. At the same time, Stern was routinely condemning and fining Detroit (team or payers). Still, I'm not sure that teams have a right or entitlement to flagrant fouls. In other words, the rule change shouldn't have affected Detroit's chances of winning, unless they were gaining an unfair advantage from mauling people. (That was the perception at the time.)

[hater]

Pistons won in 04 to give thugs+nappy headed hoes hope

[spursfan09]

I don't buy that the NBA wanted to the Spurs to win, but I will agree that they might think its not such a bad thing. I know about that crap about TV small market and stuff but SA is like the 7th largest city in the nation, we do have 2 international superstars and Tim Duncan. It's not like the Spurs don't have anything going for them.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's not as if the rules have never been changed after the Spurs won a title.

After the 1999 Finals, the league essentially made Mario Elie irrelevant by prohibiting wing players from putting a bent arm on an offensive player. The league also allowed teams to zone the ball side, which made it much easier for teams to effectively defend situations like the Spurs' Twin Towers.



1999-00
• In the backcourt, there is no contact with hands and forearms by defenders. In the frontcourt, there is no contact with hands and forearms by defenders except below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may only use his forearm. In the post, neither the offensive player nor the defender is allowed to dislodge or displace a player who has legally obtained a position. Defender may not use his forearm, shoulder, hip or hand to reroute or hold-up an offensive player going from point A to point B or one who is attempting to come around a legal screen set by another offensive player. Slowing or impeding the progress of the screener by grabbing, clutching, holding “chucking” or “wrapping up” is prohibited.

• The official(s) will visually commence a five-second count if an offensive player with the ball and not facing-up starts dribbling below the free throw line extended while being closely guarded; or if he starts dribbling outside and then penetrates below the free throw line extended while being closely guarded. The five-second count commences when the offensive player penetrates the free throw line extended. The penalty is the offensive team’s loss of possession of the ball.

• If the shot clock is below 14 seconds, it is recycled to 14 seconds when a kicked ball, a punched ball, a common foul requiring no free throw attempts or an illegal defense requiring no free throw attempts occurs.

• Any defense is legal on the strong side. Defenders must remain on the weak side outside the paint unless they are double-teaming the ball, picking up a free cutter or closely guarding an offensive player.

[JamStone]

Of course the NBA wants superstars to win to help ratings. Of course the NBA (at least Stern) wants big international stars to have success to help expand globally. But, I don't believe that necessarily discredits any NBA championship team. The NBA likely has desireable match-ups for the NBA Finals. The officials may even favor certain players or teams (consciously or subconsciously). But, people seem to suggest that if something is somehow biased or slanted that it's a complete given. No. Players still have to play. Players still have to make shots. Coaches still have to coach the games.

Even if the b.s. story about Donaghy being the timekeeper for .4 were true, Fisher still had to make the shot. Even if the NBA wanted global exposure with the Spurs, the Spurs players still had to go out and beat the other teams. Even if the NBA wanted Shaq to win another title with Wade, Wade still had to knock down his free throws.

There will always be a question of legitimacy in professional sports. And, it's not just pro basketball. Heck, you can go back to gambling in baseball with the White Sox scandal and Pete Rose. How about Marion Jones and Ben Johnson in track and field? Stacey Augmon and Larry Johnson tanking a college basketball championship game. Even right now, top cyclists in the Tour de France being accused of doping.

It's prevalent throughout sports. This isn't a new phenomenon. Professional athletics breeds the highest competition there is. And, with millions to billions of dollars involved, players, coaches, owners, commissioners, athletes of all kind will try to find the best competitive advantage possible that affects the movement of the almighty dollar.

Is any championship in any pro sport legitimate when you think of it that way? Perhaps not. But, that's the background we're working with as sports fan. Go ahead and assume your conspiracy theory. But, until something is proven, it's all mere conjecture. But, I, for one, choose not to discredit any of the Spurs championships.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

The Pistons lost because they'd rather talk about how disrespected they are and brag how they've been the best team in the league the last four years than actually play basketball. I wonder if they still think they've been the best team in the last five? :lol

[Phenomanul]

I still don't believe that what Pete Rose did was wrong....

I personally don't gamble, or condone gambling... Didn't Pete Rose always bet on his team to win, exactly what is wrong with that... as a coach, don't you play to win???

[ShoogarBear]

I still don't believe that what Pete Rose did was wrong....

I personally don't gamble, or condone gambling... Didn't Pete Rose always bet on his team to win, exactly what is wrong with that... as a coach, don't you play to win???As a coach, you job is to win a title.

It's easy to envision scenarios, especially in baseball, where you might do things to win a few particular games (i.e., burn out top pitchers, not give starters a rest) that may be detrimental to the team in the long run.

Plus, once you start betting and end up in debt, the easiest way to erase that debt is to either make bets to lose, or to pay off the bet by influencing the games in favor of the guys you owe.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

If Stern & Co. were pulling the strings on championships I'm sure teams like San Antonio and Detroit wouldn't have sniffed the Finals.

How many championships have the Knicks won in the last 30 years??? The fix is definitely in.

[K-State Spur]

the spurs were the only team in the playoffs that had a 2:1 free throw deficit AT HOME more than once in the playoffs.

[SequSpur]

the gayest take ever forum