Taking a look at the last 10 opponents for the Spurs

[Chomag]

Against us as most though of course they hit them at a 60% or so clip , GO FIGURE! Teams light up against us for some reason, it's a damn curse I tell you.

Or it could just be the defencive pressure.

[TD 21]

Great post, Amuseddaysleeper. When analyzing the recent struggles to win, your research should rightfully be included. Obviously, it doesn't make up for any of the losses or make the current situation look any rosier, however it's indeed interesting and perhaps in hindsight will make the recent woes more understandable.

What about this teams struggles against good teams (this has actually been a trend that dates back further than this season) clearly indicating that they're not a contender, do you guys not get? There is no silver lining at this point to be taken from those losses. It's gotten to the point now where if they can't beat these teams (and they can't), then they're just not that good a team. It's simple. No more "it's early" or "you don't win a championship in (insert month)" nonsense. There's 36 games and roughly 2 and 1/2 months until the playoffs. That may sound like a lot of time to cure what ails this team, but really it's not. Not when you consider the depth of their problems.

If they were going to (as they like to say) "turn the corner", they'd have done it by now. I'm not saying they'd be in playoff form, but we'd have seen more tangible progression than we have. Look at the Bobcats, Grizzlies and Raptors; those are teams that have clearly progressed. They're past the point of just being on a hot streak. I don't have monthly team stats at my disposal right now, but really, I can't think of any steady month-to-month progression in any one area that indicates to me that this team is on their way to being a contender. In most areas, they've either stagnated or declined. Really, other than rebounding and points per game, this is essentially statistically the same team as last season.

[in2deep]

you are stating the obvious. The Spurs cannot beat a really good team this season. Sky is blue.

[TD 21]

you are stating the obvious. The Spurs cannot beat a really good team this season. Sky is blue.

It's not just this season. I don't have the win/loss record against elite teams in the past four seasons, but this is a trend that was beginning to rear it's ugly head in 06-07. By 07-08, it had become alarming and by 08-09 it was a full blown problem. In 09-10, it's gone beyond a full blown problem and turned into a clear indication that this team is just not that good anymore. Many are still clinging to "new guys learning the system" or "it's early in the season" or "the rodeo trip will cure what ails them", but really, all they're doing is setting themselves up for the latest disappointment.

Obvious, really? Have you read this thread? Apparently, it's not an issue. It's completely understandable to consistently lose to other good teams because (get this), shockingly, other good teams are playing good. Who'd have thought that? Never mind that team was at home, rested and mostly healthy. No, none of that matters. Poor them for having to play some actual credible compe ion. And, of course, when they play credible compe ion, there's always got to be a built in excuse(s) to lose.

[in2deep]

It's not just this season. I don't have the win/loss record against elite teams in the past four seasons, but this is a trend that was beginning to rear it's ugly head in 06-07. By 07-08, it had become alarming and by 08-09 it was a full blown problem. In 09-10, it's gone beyond a full blown problem and turned into a clear indication that this team is just not that good anymore. Many are still clinging to "new guys learning the system" or "it's early in the season" or "the rodeo trip will cure what ails them", but really, all they're doing is setting themselves up for the latest disappointment.

Obvious, really? Have you read this thread? Apparently, it's not an issue. It's completely understandable to consistently lose to other good teams because (get this), shockingly, other good teams are playing good. Who'd have thought that? Never mind that team was at home, rested and mostly healthy. No, none of that matters. Poor them for having to play some actual credible compe ion. And, of course, when they play credible compe ion, there's always got to be a built in excuse(s) to lose.

while I agree with some of this. It's very different this time. Last few seasons we were losing because we had one of the worst offensive teams in basketball. we were giving tons of minutes to Bowen, Oberto, Jacque Vaugn, Finley, etc.

This season we have a very good offensive team. Our defense is what is now. we are making players like Boozer, Kirilenko, Noah, Aldridge, Kmart look like first ballot HOFers. That did not use to happen before.

so no, it's not like past seasons. Last seasons if we tightened the rotation and defense, we could have a chance. This season although we have more weapons, our problem is more fundamental.

[HarlemHeat37]

I made a post in November or December about the Spurs struggles against elite teams the past few seasons and I pointed out the records..I also compared it to the records of previous le teams in the past from the 90's until now..the records for the Spurs the past few seasons weren't flattering, TD 21..

From what I remember, there were only 3 le teams in the 90's until now that didn't have a dominant record vs. +.500 teams..only 1 of the teams had a record under .500..the '99 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and the 2006 Heat..

The '99 Spurs' record vs. these types of teams got better as the season went along, and part of the struggles were due to the overall struggle of the team to start the season, as most here would know..

The 2004 Pistons had an average record vs. these types of teams until the Rasheed trade happened..after that, they looked like a much more dominant team and had a good record vs. the good teams in the NBA..

The 2006 Heat were the only team that had an under .500 record vs. teams that were +.500..they were an anomaly in almost every category in comparison to le teams in the modern NBA..they were truly a strange team that nobody would expect to win a le if they just looked at the stats of the team..they certainly benefited from the Mavs' choking, the Spurs losing in OT in game 7 and Wade receiving questionable calls..either way, they won the le and earned it, but they were an anomaly..

Looking at the Spurs record vs. +.500 teams, it's obvious that the Spurs aren't contenders(obviously almost every other factor also shows that the Spurs aren't contenders too)..as we've seen with a few other teams though, a significant trade can spark a team and turn it around in general and vs. the better teams, even though it's unlikely..

[DPG21920]

The thing is that there is a difference in going through some struggles, doing some stat work and realizing you just played a brutal schedule but knowing you can get back to a high level or where you were. But this team is not and has not been playing well and the fact they are losing has nothing to do with their strength of schedule. For right now, that is just something that adds to the problem when the real problem is the level of play.

They have not put together a really good stretch yet of consistent, high-level basketball. Even though they are "not getting blown out", when you watch the game, it feels like they have been. This team needs something and I am not sure what. I still believe that they can turn it around based on some things I have seen, but if it takes a raging fire to win, these Spurs are just an amber right now.

[kace]

it could be interesting (but long) to look at the teams that our opponents faced during their good strecht that the OP pointed.

To know if we were really playing against very hot teams, or just good teams who had the record for the past ten games they were supposed to have considering their opposition.

[TD 21]

while I agree with some of this. It's very different this time. Last few seasons we were losing because we had one of the worst offensive teams in basketball. we were giving tons of minutes to Bowen, Oberto, Jacque Vaugn, Finley, etc.

This season we have a very good offensive team. Our defense is what is now. we are making players like Boozer, Kirilenko, Noah, Aldridge, Kmart look like first ballot HOFers. That did not use to happen before.

so no, it's not like past seasons. Last seasons if we tightened the rotation and defense, we could have a chance. This season although we have more weapons, our problem is more fundamental.

Good point. I know this is a different team, but still, this is something that has continued to trend in the wrong direction for a few seasons, even though (outside of Bowen) the core has remained the same.

People say that about the defense (and I don't disagree), but the stats don't tell the same story. I think right now they're ranked 7th offensively and 9th defensively, so there's not nearly the gulf between the two areas as many presume.

It is like past seasons because the primary issue is still the same (only worse). The only difference is it's a new cast of players.

I made a post in November or December about the Spurs struggles against elite teams the past few seasons and I pointed out the records..I also compared it to the records of previous le teams in the past from the 90's until now..the records for the Spurs the past few seasons weren't flattering, TD 21..

From what I remember, there were only 3 le teams in the 90's until now that didn't have a dominant record vs. +.500 teams..only 1 of the teams had a record under .500..the '99 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and the 2006 Heat..

The '99 Spurs' record vs. these types of teams got better as the season went along, and part of the struggles were due to the overall struggle of the team to start the season, as most here would know..

The 2004 Pistons had an average record vs. these types of teams until the Rasheed trade happened..after that, they looked like a much more dominant team and had a good record vs. the good teams in the NBA..

The 2006 Heat were the only team that had an under .500 record vs. teams that were +.500..they were an anomaly in almost every category in comparison to le teams in the modern NBA..they were truly a strange team that nobody would expect to win a le if they just looked at the stats of the team..they certainly benefited from the Mavs' choking, the Spurs losing in OT in game 7 and Wade receiving questionable calls..either way, they won the le and earned it, but they were an anomaly..

Looking at the Spurs record vs. +.500 teams, it's obvious that the Spurs aren't contenders(obviously almost every other factor also shows that the Spurs aren't contenders too)..as we've seen with a few other teams though, a significant trade can spark a team and turn it around in general and vs. the better teams, even though it's unlikely..

I remember that post, HarlemHeat37.

The '06 Heat were an anomaly. It all comes back to law of averages. Even though championship teams are generally somewhere between very good-great, even amongst those, there's bound to be one that is somewhere between above average-good. The Heat happened to be that one (at least in recent times). Just like the '04 Pistons were an anomaly for a different reason, in that they won without a superstar.

Generally speaking, say 9 times out of 10, you have to be able to beat good teams at least relatively consistently throughout the regular season, in order to be a championship team. You don't just increasingly struggle with them over a 4 year period and then all of a sudden win a championship. That '07 run was really the perfect storm, from Finley and Horry finding the fountain of youth in the playoffs, to the Mavs being eliminated in round one, to the Suns greatly diminishing their chances, due to the suspensions, in round two and the Pistons being eliminated in round three. The Spurs only had to play one of the three other primary contenders and had as easy a Conference Finals opponent and Finals opponent as can be expected.

Agreed. Unless this team makes a trade of some type of significance (Stoudemire is a pipe dream, so I'll say Camby or someone of that ilk, even if it's a non-big), they're not a contender. There's overwhelming evidence to prove this and there's no logical reason left to believe otherwise.

[in2deep]

I made a post in November or December about the Spurs struggles against elite teams the past few seasons and I pointed out the records..I also compared it to the records of previous le teams in the past from the 90's until now..the records for the Spurs the past few seasons weren't flattering, TD 21..

From what I remember, there were only 3 le teams in the 90's until now that didn't have a dominant record vs. +.500 teams..only 1 of the teams had a record under .500..the '99 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and the 2006 Heat..

The '99 Spurs' record vs. these types of teams got better as the season went along, and part of the struggles were due to the overall struggle of the team to start the season, as most here would know..

The 2004 Pistons had an average record vs. these types of teams until the Rasheed trade happened..after that, they looked like a much more dominant team and had a good record vs. the good teams in the NBA..

The 2006 Heat were the only team that had an under .500 record vs. teams that were +.500..they were an anomaly in almost every category in comparison to le teams in the modern NBA..they were truly a strange team that nobody would expect to win a le if they just looked at the stats of the team..they certainly benefited from the Mavs' choking, the Spurs losing in OT in game 7 and Wade receiving questionable calls..either way, they won the le and earned it, but they were an anomaly..

Looking at the Spurs record vs. +.500 teams, it's obvious that the Spurs aren't contenders(obviously almost every other factor also shows that the Spurs aren't contenders too)..as we've seen with a few other teams though, a significant trade can spark a team and turn it around in general and vs. the better teams, even though it's unlikely..

good point but Lakers are not faring much better vs. good teams this year either. I could be wrong but I think Lakers are probably close to 50% vs. teams that win 60% of the time.

Truth is, this year is unlike any other year in the NBA

[HarlemHeat37]

the Lakers are 18-10 vs. +.500 teams..that's a good record..

[in2deep]

the lakers are 18-10 vs. +.500 teams..that's a good record..

60%?

[HarlemHeat37]

That's with an injury to their 2nd best player for a number of games, and I assume they'll get better in those games as well..also, that type of record is pretty common for le teams vs. +.500 teams..

Another thing is that the Lakers are overhyped/overrated by most people, especially coming into the season..

[kace]

60%?

64,285714285714285714285714285714 %

[Kori Ellis]

Good research.

Though I'm not sold on this year's Spurs team, it's always interesting to break it down and see what's really been happening.