If Grizz@Suns and Spurs win tonight ....

[boutons]

... Spurs move into NBA first place.

[Rummpd]

Something postive!

Ah yes, but about the road record you always harp about? Bottom line, despite some un-even play Spurs at times very dominant and overall very good start to season.

There is no top team that has beat them 2x (cannot count Houston as a top team = they are an up and down lame team that had a fluke win and then won on a lamer Spurs effort) except Seattle and they have not been overly impressive of late.

Portends good finish to season if team without major injury to big three and keeps winning at home and improves just slightly on road = probable top seed.

MadDoc

[PM5K]

Seattle beat the Spurs twice if I recall correctly....

[boutons]

"about the road record you always harp about"

I didn't make up the 1-6 record. 1-6 is a fact, the fact, aka "some (very serious) uneveness", that kept the Spurs out of first place for weeks while the most consistent (but less powerful) team held first place.

The Spurs have 3 chances between this and next Friday to begin to redress the 1 - 6 road record. I expect the Spurs will use those chances to move the record to 4 - 6.

You can "harp" back at me for my position, but given the "best start in Spurs history", that 1-6 is a worm in the (playoff) apple.

Holding serve @SBC is expected for these Spurs (as it is for any top team). But for a team so overwhelmingly dominant, 20-1 (.952), on their home court, it's not expecting too much for the Spurs to be at least a .500 road team, instead of .143 road team, against better teams. If the Spurs were 4-3 or 3-4 at this point, then no comment.

While I'm thoroughly enjoying the season, the season is only a preparation for the more difficult playoffs, right? Weaknesses and softnesses that will stop us in the playoffs need to be addressed in the season.

[MosesGuthrie]

according to NBA.com the Spurs record on the road is 11-8. What is the 1-6 you are referring to?

[boutons]

"1-6" on the road against playoff quality teams, teams in WC/EC that are top 4 or so in the conference standings. ie, the teams the Spurs are mostly likely to face in the playoffs.

Beating the crap out of, eg, GSW, or ATL is fun, but totally useless as a measure of how the Spurs are doing.

[MosesGuthrie]

thank you for the clarification.

[FromWayDowntown]

"1-6" on the road against playoff quality teams, teams in WC/EC that are top 4 or so in the conference standings. ie, the teams the Spurs are mostly likely to face in the playoffs.

Beating the crap out of, eg, GSW, or ATL is fun, but totally useless as a measure of how the Spurs are doing.

Wait -- who are you including in that calculation?

By my calculation, the Spurs have these road wins:

@ LAL, @ ATL, @ PHIL, @ BOS, @ DEN, @ DAL, @ MIL, @CHI, @ NO, @ PRT, @ LAC

I'll assume, in subjectively giving the Spurs only one meaningful road win, that you take that win in Dallas to be that. But, I'm thinking about the Spurs road losses, which include:

@ Seattle, @ Memphis, @ Toronto, @ Houston, @ Orlando, @ Sacramento, @ Utah, @ Houston

Of those team, there are only two who are, in your words, "playoff quality teams, teams in WC/EC that are top 4 or so in the conference standings": Seattle and Sacramento.

If you're including Houston, Orlando, and Memphis in your calculation (which I assume you are), then I don't think you can discount the win at Los Angeles against the Lakers, since LA (20-16, .556) has a better record than either Houston (20-19 .513) or Memphis (21-18, .538). I think it's also a bit hard to discount the value of the win in Chicago, given how well the Bulls are playing.

In fact, against teams that would qualify for the playoffs today, the Spurs actually are 4-3. (Houston would be on the outside in the West; Chicago and Philly would both make the playoffs in the East)

[ALVAREZ6]

Spurs will win.

[boutons]

yes, my single road W is DAL

my six road L's are:

@ Seattle L 94 - 113
@ Memphis L 90 - 93
@ Houston L 80 - 81
@ Orlando L 87 - 93
@ Sacramento L 81 - 86
@ Houston L 67 - 73

========================

6 - 8 playoff seeds I figure don't count in the WC. In the EC really only the top 5, maybe even top 4 in EC make any sense as "serioius".

UTA is out of playoffs

PHI is now 8th in the fucking EC

ORL is the only significant EC team we've played on the road.

HOU has beat us twice (which gives them automatic weight), and then probably moving up in 2nd half of season.

LAL sucks and is probably moving down from 6th seed

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh, so in other words, your analysis is entirely subjective?

Good to know . . . . I'll keep that in mind in reading your other Chicken Little takes.

[T Park]

What chicken Little takes, that ANYONE makes in here, are not subjective.

[boutons]

Chicken Shit, what abosoluely hard facts do you have, if any, to counter my selecting those teams as the teams most likely to stand between now and a Spurs title?

[FromWayDowntown]

Chicken Shit, what abosoluely hard facts do you have, if any, to counter my selecting those teams as the teams most likely to stand between now and a Spurs title?

Well, rather than assuming what teams will do, and discounting things that might hurt my argument with subjective assessments like the Lakers are "probably moving down from the 6th seed," my earlier discounting of your take relies on teams' records and actual standings. Whether you like it or not, what teams have done to this point are facts. You want to bitch about the Spurs, so you concoct a statistic to prove some point, and then discount the fact that actual standings belie your complaint.

Besides, your assessments are internally inconsistent. You say that teams that are 6-8 in the West don't count in your analysis, but then you harp on the Spurs losses to a team that is currently 9th!! And you somehow justify that inconsistency only by your assessment that Houston is "probably moving up in the 2nd half of the season."

Explain to me again how yours is objective?

[boutons]

"then you harp on the Spurs losses to a team that is currently 9th!!"

That's two different takes:

1. Spurs giving away games to teams they should beat (as opposed to getting beat by teams playing well), aka playing down AND losing.

2. Spurs mediocre road record actually hides with a horrible road record vs better teams.

If you want to include the win @LAL, fine. That makes my take 2-6, which negates nothing about my point.

Give or take a road W or L against better teams doesn't really matter. The Spurs need to toughen up on the road, esp against better teams. As I pointed out earlier, the Spurs who collapsed against the Lakers, including 2 losses @LA, were the same Spurs who were 4-7 on the road after Jan 04 against top playoff teams. Co-incidence? I think not. (The 03 champions were the best NBA road team.)

In the next 8 days, my Chicken Little list of road games:

@PHX
@SAC
@SEA

So, we'll see soon enough.

Last night's win was a excellent step in the right direction of the Spurs playing tougher, good crunch performance, winning a close game, hitting crunch FTs, even though the Spurs offense went completely cold in the 4th.

[bigzak25]

look at the spurs record vs. detroit, miami, and phoenix.

[boutons]

I don't have to, simply becauase we've beaten those teams all/only @SBC, but haven't played one them @team. The whole point of my point is SA's road performance, where the best teams prevail almost as well as they prevail on their home court.

[Sec24Row7]

We have the best record in the league.

We have home court throughout.

We win .952 of 4 out of 7 games at home

and (2 of 6) using your revised figures... .333 percent of 3 of 7 on the road.

Statistically we still win every series and the championship the way we are playing NOW.

So you can shut the fuck up.

:smokin