Reply With Quote
Tanking was the best decision ever..
No, if there was a team that could have been accused of tanking that year it was Patino's Celtics, not the injury depleted Spurs.
Then again in 2006-07 the C's were actually accused of tanking ahead of the Oden/Durant draft, shortly after which they traded for Allen and Garnett.
Tanking was the best decision ever..
Excellent point. When has he EVER rushed anyone back for any reason?
No tank. A true tank is to get the most balls in the hopper. Boston had 3 1st round opps to get Tim. No go.
Chronic, in this case, sucked because it meant injuries.
Maybe Spurs tanked that season.
But what about the other parts of big 3 which provides us 3 more championships? Did we tank to draft Tony Parker or Manu?
This. It takes a team.
One point to take into consideration is the kind of injury suffered by the Admiral.
If it's true that it was the back injury, well...we've seen the seasons after how that injury has limited Robinsn's carrier : in the last years (see 2001, 2002) he was suffering a lot at the point than when he had to play to his strenghts - see O'Neal- it was obvious that he didn't have any chance to handle him.
So, if the en y of the injury was so strong to 'cause the (partial, at least) decline of D.Rob., the choice not to hurry him back is not only legitimate, but inevitable...and with no chance of a Robinson's came back, the Spurs were in no way a playoff team and their behavior during that season was no more tanking than the one of all the other teams involved in the last places of the standings (see what has already being said about Celts, Denver...).
Those balls that got Duncan would have had another teams logo on it had the spurs not chose to sit Robinson the entire season.
They tanked by sitting Robinson. They moved up and increased their chances to the 2nd best to land Duncan.
Well they didn't really choose to sit him the entire season, did they?
Lottery changed my life
chances were third best - it was just that boston had 1st and 2nd best chances.
when you hear Laker or Mav fan talk about it, they make it sound like San Antonio won 10 less games than anybody else and wound up with a 90% chance to win the lottery. san antonio had a 1 in 5 chance of winning the lottery after that season. there was no reason to expect a shot at getting duncan despite the struggles that year.
the "tanking" was just as much about protecting robinson for 1997-1998 than it was getting a high pick.
Funny how people choose to believe the media and ignore obvious factors.
Forget Robinson actually came back for 6 games before fracturing his foot. It is not uncommon for foot fractures to take up to 16 weeks to heal. Robinson broke his foot around Christmas time, add 4 months to that, and it takes you to April. Forget about the time it takes for a professional athlete to come back full force and play at an NBA level, it's just logical and obvious that Robinson shouldn't have played that season.
Additionally, as already mentioned, Popovich is the kind of coach that would not sacrifice the career of an athlete for short term glory. We saw that in 2000 with Duncan out of the playoffs. Did Pop tank the playoffs that year?
Everyone thought TD was going to Boston.
The problem here is the definition of tanking. To me, tanking is purposefully losing games to gain advantage on your chances at a high draft pick. To others, it means holding your best player out of the last 20 games after being legitimately injured for half of an already pointless season.
Tim Duncan was the only prize and a sure #1 pick in an otherwise very weak draft pool. Did the Spurs make decisions that would buoy their chances? Yes. Did they make these decisions with the faith that it was a sure thing that they would get Duncan? Absolutely not. It was a measured risk, but a risk nonetheless.
They took a pretty big gamble and they won. If that is what the universally accepted definition of tanking is, then I will have to agree.
Tanks a lot. Well said.
There was no risk or gamble involved. It was the only play.
How was it a gamble? If we rush a less than 100% robinson back, the Spurs win 27-28 games instead of 20. There was nothing on the line.
Clearly that was CIA Pop covering his tracks. All these years.
The safest bet was just to sit David Robinson out than rush him back. Especially for a big man as athletic as he was.
Last edited by Cane; 02-17-2011 at 10:52 AM.
That's just it... the remainder of Robinson's career was on the line.
Robinson had a major back injury and then broke his foot... [it was a lost season period].
Spurs nation should be grateful that Robinson's injuries coincided with Duncan's draft eligibility - a consensus #1 pick. That said, ask the Rockets or the Cavs how drafting a consensus #1 pick automatically guarantees one a championship (Yao, Bron). Robinson didn't plan on being hurt.
Duncan is a special player... the Spurs simply "made limonade" out of that horrible season.
The Spurs ended the season by winning games (games against the very teams that they were jockeying lottery position with)... I don't know how that could be considered tanking...
Boston had two top 5 picks that year and by far the highest chance of winning the Lottery... but like most here already mentioned (from the Bill Simmons article)
The Spurs not only landed the "TEST" ping-pong ball.
The Spurs were drawn on the second ball. (1st legitimate ball = 1st pick)
and The Spurs were drawn the third ball. (ignored since we had already obtained the first pick).
There was no way anyone else would have landed Duncan that year. It was meant to be.
Even after we got the #1 pick there was still speculation that we'd take duncan. We cad a center already.
No there wasn't.
Oh - I agree. I'm saying that there was no gamble in NOT playing Robinson (i.e. tanking as some people are calling it). There was nothing to be gained in playing him, thus there was no opportunity cost in sitting him.
The risk was in hoping the balls to bounce in their favor for the consensus #1 pick. What's your consolation prize? Keith Van Horn?
It was a weak draft pool. Tim Duncan was the only sure thing.
I agreed that holding back Robinson was wise. Did you not read that part?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
