Just a tidbit from the Weekly Countdown.
Weekly Countdown
Ian Thomsen
SI.com
...question rescued from the spam
I have to qualify my statements with the fact that I am a Mavs fan. But I still do not understand your reasoning that a healthy Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili would have driven the Spurs past Dallas.
Even without Ginobili for much of the season and with a hobbled Duncan, the Spurs won enough games to earn the No. 3 seed. Based on that logic, they should have at least had the capability to beat the No. 6 seed in the playoffs with the players they had. Look back to when these teams played each other in the playoffs and were healthy: The Mavs beat the Spurs on their home court with the same core group of players, albeit in a different year and with different role players. I don't agree with your statements implying it was a given that the healthy Spurs would have won the series, and also that nobody had any interest in this series besides fans of the teams.
-- Aaron K., Dallas
I understand why you cared about your series in Texas, and you should understand why the rest of the country didn't. At their best, the Spurs haven't drawn a large national audience (as proven by their low ratings in NBA Finals), and they became less intriguing when Ginobili's season-ending injury took them out of le contention.
The Mavs were deeper and far more promising three years ago, when they edged past San Antonio in the conference semifinals. I don't think I'm being reckless when I draw on years of ac ulated evidence to say that if Ginobili, Duncan and Tony Parker were healthy, then the Spurs would be the No. 2 contender in the West. I credit the Mavericks for exploiting the Spurs' weaknesses, but this simply was not a provocative series.