Reply With Quote
In other words, TD >>> Amare.
Q.
If Tim Duncan went out for the season today, would the Spurs have as good as season and post-season as the Suns did when Amare went out??
Suns
2005-06 Phoenix Suns
Franchise Index: Previous Season / Next Season
54-28, Finished 1st in NBA Pacific Division (Game Results)
View League Season Summary
Scored 8886 points, Allowed 8431 points (Expected W-L: 55-27)
Coached by Mike D'Antoni (54-28)
Pace Factor: 95.8 (1st out of 30), League = 90.5
Points Per 100 Possessions: Offense = 111.6 (2nd out of 30), Defense = 105.7 (16th out of 30), League = 106.2
RPI: .544 (4th out of 30)
Playoffs:
Lost West Conf Finals (4-2) to Dallas Mavericks
Won West Conf Semis (4-3) over Los Angeles Clippers
Won West Conf 1st Rd (4-3) over Los Angeles Lakers
source
Basketball-Reference.com
In other words, TD >>> Amare.
I seriously thought he was trying to make that point.
yourcheatinheart and da_suns_fan do the impossible, they bring Spurs and Mavs fans together.
A better question would be if TD and Steve Nash both went down who would have the better season? It's not an even comparison to take the Spurs' franchise player away and then only remove a complimentary player like Amare from the Suns.
If you make TD and Nash away from their respective teams you're basically asking who has the better second tier player(s). Tony Parker would lose a lot of ground without TD, but Amare is nothing without Steve Nash. Did you watch the FIBA America's tournament? Amare looked greatly diminished even against inferior compe ion when he didn't have Stevie.
and yet none of you answer the god damn question and continue to pussy foot around questions that make spurs fans uncomfortable. amare and tim are both teams best post men. if you take the spurs best post man out for the season could they have as good a season as the suns did when amare went out.
so basically you want to know what would happen if the Spurs best player went out for the season, and compare it to when it happened to the Suns' 3rd best player?
This might be the biggest self-ownage thread in ST history not started by NorCal.
It's true that Duncan and Amare are each team's best post players, but that statement is, at the same time, substantially misleading.
The big difference is that if Duncan missed a season, the Spurs would be deprived of an offensive force that makes things easier for his teammates while at the same time losing the league's premier defensive big man. Amare's loss, while significant for the Suns, isn't the same because Amare's offense doesn't do much to ease the game for his teammates -- in fact, one could argue quite credibly that Amare succeeds primarily because his teammates (Nash, in particular) make things easy for him -- and Amare isn't even close to being in Duncan's league defensively.
In the end, the answer to your question is Probably Not. I'd expect that a Spurs team without Duncan for a season at this point would probably win 35-45 games. I'm not sure, though, what the point of that revelation might be -- if you're trying to suggest that the Suns are actually the better team, I think your basis for comparison is woefully inapt.
Duncan means substantially more to the Spurs than Amare means to the Suns.
thank you for a well thought out, classy answer.
however i see Amare more than that. he was the one the Suns looked to in a half court set and get to the line. he was the one that got doubled in the post and created kick outs for easy 3 point shots. when Amare went down the whole partybus for Phoenix stopped to a screeching halt. even us fans doubted the Suns would be able to salvage any of that season, especially after trading Joe Johnson for a schlub named Boris Diaw. that season showed why d'antoni won coach of the year the season before. to put an unproven oversized point guard like Boris Diaw at center and create missmatches from was ballsy. not to mention how Boris stepped up getting double doubles all the time. when Amare went down nobody thought the Suns would make the playoffs, then the go ahead and get to the WCF losing in 6.
so your telling me there is nobody on the SA bench who could break out and have a season like Diaw did that year? or Pop couldn't devise something to make the Spurs utilize what the got to stay compe ive?
If Duncan would go down for the entire season, the Spurs would be a lottery team and get the #1 overall pick with their choice of Derrek Rose, OJ Mayo, or Michael Beasley.
if i thought you were anything but a fourteen year old, acne riddled, ridiculed, little cipher in the snow i might have given that comment a second look. dicaprio, star wars
findog effectivly does the impossible and waves a mavs flag while simultaneously juggling the spurs balls in his mouth. remarkable.
Kurt Thomas
No, the Spurs would not finish better than Phoenix finished without Amare. But Phoenix is a team based on run-and-gun offense. Phoenix still has their best player (Nash) who can create great plays for anyone. With an efficient offense (although no defense) fueled by Nash, they finish better.
Now, with Duncan being the Spurs' best player, you really need to ask: Would the Spurs without Duncan be as good as the Suns without Nash? We have yet to see an Amare without Nash, we have seen the Spurs pull off some impressive victories (back to back double-OT wins in 2005) when Duncan was out.
...and you for your poorly thought out proposal as well as your subsequent absurd, unitelligent blatherings. Now ask a real question or go back to crying about your not-good-enough Suns.
Please...Next time you make a thread like this put "Hypothetical Question" FIRST.
NEVER start a thread in a Spurs Forum with the phrase "TD out for the season."
Some of us had to catch our breath before we could even finish reading the le.
Thank you.
historicaly the suns are not very good without nash.
Last edited by yourcheatinheart; 09-07-2007 at 08:54 PM.
go chug 32oz stein of raid you ing aroach.
Last edited by yourcheatinheart; 09-07-2007 at 08:49 PM.
The Spurs depend on TD more than the Suns depend on Amare so the Spurs would have more difficulty if Duncan were out. Conversely, the Suns would have more trouble without Nash than the Spurs would have without Parker. The franchise player for the Suns is Nash and for the Spurs, Timmy.
I'm bored, so I'll answer the question.
As has been said, comparing the relative contributions to their teams of Duncan and Amare is incorrect. Duncan is the centerpiece of the Spurs; both offensively and defensively. Amare, while a great complementary player, is just that...complementary. Losing him for a season would not cause the Suns to have to scrap their offensive and defensive (whatever that may be) systems. Instead, they would just plug a 'lesser' player into his position. The contributions from that position may change, but the systems would remain fundamentally the same.
If the Spurs lost Duncan for a complete season, the Spurs would need to readjust both their offensive and defensive schemes. That being said, I could see them winning anywhere from 30-40 games, depending on the health of Parker and Ginobili; maybe even a bit more. However, the Spurs would quickly turn into the worst rebounding team in the league.
looks like you already did
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
