Spurs: Predict how the Spurs will lose this year

[DMC]

Why is it an either or? You are basing this on the assumption that Duncan's leadership is the only factor that matters.

It's not.

Then winning it all doesn't indicate what you said it does. I've given you every possible scenario. You already said the team isn't great and that a win would mean Tim basically carried them through with his leadership.

It's not a great team. So if they win, they deserve credit for going above expectations. What part of that do you not understand.

Tim's leadership. You keep ignoring that part.

It's like saying, if you can get your head out of your ass, you deserve credit, because it's something that is not expected of you. But if you keep your head in your ass, you don't deserve blame, because it's something expected of you.

Expectations and blame/credit are unrelated. There are reasons a team loses, and you can find those and those are to blame. It doesn't mean you expected that to not be the case. We expect Chris Paul to falter in the playoffs, and he does. That doesn't negate his part in the loss.

You saw your logic where in my original post? Where did I say if the Spurs win it would have been because of Duncan?

"The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities."

[Killakobe81]

Then winning it all doesn't indicate what you said it does. I've given you every possible scenario. You already said the team isn't great and that a win would mean Tim basically carried them through with his leadership.

Tim's leadership. You keep ignoring that part.

Expectations and blame/credit are unrelated. There are reasons a team loses, and you can find those and those are to blame. It doesn't mean you expected that to not be the case. We expect Chris Paul to falter in the playoffs, and he does. That doesn't negate his part in the loss.

"The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities."

[ambchang]

My boy amb loves to play the semantics game ...
2nd round?
That is your official prediction?

Yeah, I would say 2nd round is about where the Spurs will end up. Anything more than that is gravy.

Then winning it all doesn't indicate what you said it does. I've given you every possible scenario. You already said the team isn't great and that a win would mean Tim basically carried them through with his leadership.

I did? I said if they won it would be Tim carried them through with his leadership? How did you interpret that as a proud Amer

Tim's leadership. You keep ignoring that part.

How did I ignore that? I brought it up in my first post. Tim's leadership deserves credit if the Spurs win the championship. Do you want me to write that in every single post?

Expectations and blame/credit are unrelated. There are reasons a team loses, and you can find those and those are to blame. It doesn't mean you expected that to not be the case. We expect Chris Paul to falter in the playoffs, and he does. That doesn't negate his part in the loss.

I didn't expect CP3 to falter in the playoffs.

"The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities."

And? The Spurs really aren't that great of a team where they can just go into the season and expect a championship. If they win, Duncan's greatness and leadership abilities deserve credit. How is that me saying if the Spurs win it would be (solely) BECAUSE of Duncan's leadership?

[Killakobe81]

Yeah, I would say 2nd round is about where the Spurs will end up. Anything more than that is gravy.



I did? I said if they won it would be Tim carried them through with his leadership? How did you interpret that as a proud Amer



How did I ignore that? I brought it up in my first post. Tim's leadership deserves credit if the Spurs win the championship. Do you want me to write that in every single post?



I didn't expect CP3 to falter in the playoffs.



And? The Spurs really aren't that great of a team where they can just go into the season and expect a championship. If they win, Duncan's greatness and leadership abilities deserve credit. How is that me saying if the Spurs win it would be (solely) BECAUSE of Duncan's leadership?

So your prediction for this year's Spurs is the same as mine for the 2012 Lakers? Very interesting.

[ambchang]

So your prediction for this year's Spurs is the same as mine for the 2012 Lakers? Very interesting.

Wasn't yours WCF?

[Killakobe81]

Wasn't yours WCF?

Jesus Amb i predicted 2nd round with WCF as a ceiling if everything broke right ...what part of that is so hard to understand? I even said which you quoted yesterday they only finished one round below my prediction ...

[ambchang]

Jesus Amb i predicted 2nd round with WCF as a ceiling if everything broke right ...what part of that is so hard to understand? I even said which you quoted yesterday they only finished one round below my prediction ...

I know I am good, but you don't have to commit blasphemy and proclaim me to be something I am not.

I seemed to recall you predicted WCF, but whatever you say.

[Killakobe81]

I know I am good, but you don't have to commit blasphemy and proclaim me to be something I am not.

I seemed to recall you predicted WCF, but whatever you say.

Your memory is ty then. I said what I said then and the past two days and we have argued about it before I said WCF Ceiling ...

Here is an example of ceiling floor scenario from NFL.com

IF I say (and I am leaning this way) that the 2015 Clippers have a WCF ceiling and a 1st round floor but 2nd round loss is "probable" ... that means at best (if things break right) I expect a trip to the WCF. At worst, I expect a first round loss but a 2nd round ouster is the most likely outcome.

I said the same about the 2012 Lakers (minus the first round sweep of course). It's funny you dont remember but I do. In fact, I remember arguing with you and Deeps about what a "contender" was ... If you recall, Deeps even argued that by me saying they could make the WCF (as a ceiling) they were legit contenders and I argued they were not. This also came up when the Rox got Dwight and I argued (mostly with Deeps and Djohn and the Rox faithful) that they were not legit contenders either.

That year and the year before and even last year ...you have placed higher expectations on the Lakers roster than is reasonable, buying hype that I have not bought. I watched over 70 Lakers game a year (most years all 82 plus playoffs). I want them to win but yet YOU predicted more wins than I did. I get it ... you are using those expectations to slam Kobe... but taken at face value you suck at predicting the Lakers or are just full of or both.

Either way Spur fan better hope you are wrong about dem Spurs ...either way I aint buying what you are selling.

[Killakobe81]

For the record my early legit contenders:

1A. Cavs
1B. Spurs
3. Warriors

Darkhorses: Clippers, Rox & OKC but not sure if any of these teams are mentally tough enough to ring ...

I only see those first 3 teams as legit contenders the other 3 are long-shots ... if someone other than those 3 teams ring I will be shocked. IF it's someone outside of those 6 (Bulls, Grizz, Heat, Hawks) I dont know about NBA ball.

[ambchang]

Your memory is ty then. I said what I said then and the past two days and we have argued about it before I said WCF Ceiling ...

Here is an example of ceiling floor scenario from NFL.com

IF I say (and I am leaning this way) that the 2015 Clippers have a WCF ceiling and a 1st round floor but 2nd round loss is "probable" ... that means at best (if things break right) I expect a trip to the WCF. At worst, I expect a first round loss but a 2nd round ouster is the most likely outcome.

I said the same about the 2012 Lakers (minus the first round sweep of course). It's funny you dont remember but I do. In fact, I remember arguing with you and Deeps about what a "contender" was ... If you recall, Deeps even argued that by me saying they could make the WCF (as a ceiling) they were legit contenders and I argued they were not. This also came up when the Rox got Dwight and I argued (mostly with Deeps and Djohn and the Rox faithful) that they were not legit contenders either.

That year and the year before and even last year ...you have placed higher expectations on the Lakers roster than is reasonable, buying hype that I have not bought. I watched over 70 Lakers game a year (most years all 82 plus playoffs). I want them to win but yet YOU predicted more wins than I did. I get it ... you are using those expectations to slam Kobe... but taken at face value you suck at predicting the Lakers or are just full of or both.

Either way Spur fan better hope you are wrong about dem Spurs ...either way I aint buying what you are selling.

Well, you should remember your own takes more than I do, it's not like I have a mental database of what you predicted, but you did repeat over and over again about the WCF ceiling, so I took it at that.

The Lakers are bad this year, they are worse than I thought, and Kobe is not helping. The Lakers simply played the same or better without him on the floor, that's a fact.

[ambchang]

For the record my early legit contenders:

1A. Cavs
1B. Spurs
3. Warriors

Darkhorses: Clippers, Rox & OKC but not sure if any of these teams are mentally tough enough to ring ...

I only see those first 3 teams as legit contenders the other 3 are long-shots ... if someone other than those 3 teams ring I will be shocked. IF it's someone outside of those 6 (Bulls, Grizz, Heat, Hawks) I dont know about NBA ball.

I actually see the Cavs having the same chances as the Spurs. The Warriors are really the favourites. Clippers are next.

Cavs and Spurs are probably after that, Rox is not likely because I see that team is deeply flawed, but I can see them being on the same level as the Spurs, OKC has a punchers chance if they are all healthy, but I am not counting on it.

I am still very high on the Memphis Grizzlies, and am unreasonably optimistic about the Bulls chances.

[Killakobe81]

I actually see the Cavs having the same chances as the Spurs. The Warriors are really the favourites. Clippers are next.

Cavs and Spurs are probably after that, Rox is not likely because I see that team is deeply flawed, but I can see them being on the same level as the Spurs, OKC has a punchers chance if they are all healthy, but I am not counting on it.

I am still very high on the Memphis Grizzlies, and am unreasonably optimistic about the Bulls chances.

Let's be real ...

Odds are aginst a dubs repeat. Teams that repeat are teams that have truly dominant players in their primes. Spurs had one of the better ones and could not do it ..I dont see Curry leading this team to a repeat either. Players like Shaq, Lebron, MJ Magic lead repeats ... teams led by players like KG, Dirk, Wade etc, lead one and dones. curry is closer to the second list than the first and I love Curry.

[ambchang]

Let's be real ...

Odds are aginst a dubs repeat. Teams that repeat are teams that have truly dominant players in their primes. Spurs had one of the better ones and could not do it ..I dont see Curry leading this team to a repeat either. Players like Shaq, Lebron, MJ Magic lead repeats ... teams led by players like KG, Dirk, Wade etc, lead one and dones. curry is closer to the second list than the first and I love Curry.

I am not entirely sure about that. The Bad Boys Pistons repeated, and I wouldn't call him truly dominant. Besides, you are basically saying Shaq, Magic, and Hakeem in their primes > Duncan in his prime, and I disagree. Numbers showed that they are very similar.

Bird in his prime was about as prime as they come, and yet he couldn't repeat.

It depends on compe ion and teammates as well. Your worldview of superstars leading everything is simply incorrect, and history has shown as such.

The thing about GSW is that they are very versatile and can play many types of offense and defense. They were historically great last year, and I fail to see a huge fall off from last year to this year. Keep in mind that they were inexperienced last year, and still managed to win. They don't have many weaknesses, and if one player goes cold, they can subs ute another similar player in for most positions. Curry is pretty much the only irreplaceable player on that roster, and he won the MVP last year (so he shouldn't be irreplaceable).

There really aren't that many teams that has that versatility GSW has. The only way I see them lose is if the entire league goes big, and that would wear out the Warriors after a couple of rounds.

If GSW goes against Spurs, Clippers, and Memphis, and if each of these teams decide to pound the ball inside over and over and over again, I can see GSW wearing out eventually and losing in one of the rounds.

[Killakobe81]

I am not entirely sure about that. The Bad Boys Pistons repeated, and I wouldn't call him truly dominant. Besides, you are basically saying Shaq, Magic, and Hakeem in their primes > Duncan in his prime, and I disagree. Numbers showed that they are very similar.

Bird in his prime was about as prime as they come, and yet he couldn't repeat.

It depends on compe ion and teammates as well. Your worldview of superstars leading everything is simply incorrect, and history has shown as such.

The thing about GSW is that they are very versatile and can play many types of offense and defense. They were historically great last year, and I fail to see a huge fall off from last year to this year. Keep in mind that they were inexperienced last year, and still managed to win. They don't have many weaknesses, and if one player goes cold, they can subs ute another similar player in for most positions. Curry is pretty much the only irreplaceable player on that roster, and he won the MVP last year (so he shouldn't be irreplaceable).

There really aren't that many teams that has that versatility GSW has. The only way I see them lose is if the entire league goes big, and that would wear out the Warriors after a couple of rounds.

If GSW goes against Spurs, Clippers, and Memphis, and if each of these teams decide to pound the ball inside over and over and over again, I can see GSW wearing out eventually and losing in one of the rounds.

It's not my worldview it's facts. Duncan is an outlier and I already said that ... I was not calling him out for not repeating ... you did. My point is if Duncan could not no curry aint because tim is greater than Steph. You are right shaq, Dirk, Kobe, Lebron, etc stopped a Duncan repeat. I am betting on Tim/Lebron to do the same to curry. Sure it's a team game etc. blah, blah. but the best teams have great players and I love Curry but he is not of that class.

As for Bird he was stopped from a repeat by Magic/Kareem and Dr.J/Moses no shame there ... also no shame if Lebron does the same to Curry

[ambchang]

It's not my worldview it's facts. Duncan is an outlier and I already said that ... I was not calling him out for not repeating ... you did. My point is if Duncan could not no curry aint because tim is greater than Steph. You are right shaq, Dirk, Kobe, Lebron, etc stopped a Duncan repeat. I am betting on Tim/Lebron to do the same to curry. Sure it's a team game etc. blah, blah. but the best teams have great players and I love Curry but he is not of that class.

As for Bird he was stopped from a repeat by Magic/Kareem and Dr.J/Moses no shame there ... also no shame if Lebron does the same to Curry

I don't know what post you were reading but I never called Duncan out. I said it doesn't take great players in their primes to repeat. Isiah Thomas did it and no way is isiah better than Duncan.

It has more to do with the superstar, team makeup and compe ion plays a huge role and the GSW has the tools and ci stances to do this.

Bird proved you wrong, Moses proved you wrong, Duncan proved you wrong, Isaiah proved you wrong, wily proved you wrong, and even Kareem proved you wrong (he never won b2b in his prime).

And how is superstars leading everything a fact？ if that's the case then the best player should win the championship every year. Lebron should be an eight time defending champ by now.

[spurs10]

The trick is continued excellence. I can't think of any team that has done that for a very long time.

[Mark Celibate]

Jesus Amb i predicted 2nd round with WCF as a ceiling if everything broke right ...what part of that is so hard to understand? I even said which you quoted yesterday they only finished one round below my prediction ...

I think a poster's avatar fairly reflects the intellectual level of the poster himself/herself, tbh.

[Mark Celibate]

I actually see the Cavs having the same chances as the Spurs. The Warriors are really the favourites. Clippers are next.

Cavs and Spurs are probably after that, Rox is not likely because I see that team is deeply flawed, but I can see them being on the same level as the Spurs, OKC has a punchers chance if they are all healthy, but I am not counting on it.

I am still very high on the Memphis Grizzlies, and am unreasonably optimistic about the Bulls chances.

The warriors are just as flawed as the Lockets as far as you are concerned. They played great last season but it wasn't liked they dominated the playoffs as the Mavs did in 2011. If OKC were healthy or if the Spurs hadn't been eliminated in the first round due to bull officiating, the Warriors would've had a hard time qualifying for the WCF even, tbh. Also, it's hilarious to say the Clippers, a team led by a player who's never made the WCF in his lifetime, will have any chance at the championship just because they added a TOSB Pierce and a horribly overrated contract during the off-season.

[Killakobe81]

The warriors are just as flawed as the Lockets as far as you are concerned. They played great last season but it wasn't liked they dominated the playoffs as the Mavs did in 2011. If OKC were healthy or if the Spurs hadn't been eliminated in the first round due to bull officiating, the Warriors would've had a hard time qualifying for the WCF even, tbh. Also, it's hilarious to say the Clippers, a team led by a player who's never made the WCF in his lifetime, will have any chance at the championship just because they added a TOSB Pierce and a horribly overrated contract during the off-season.

I like the Warriors but what about this team speaks of enough dominance to repeat? They were the best regular season team stat wise but the playoffs exposed some flaws in the team ...but no opponent was good enough to make them pay for it. Much credit to Kerr and his staff for making adjustments. But smart money is to bet against a repeat ...and some of that is .. as good as Curry is I dont know if he can "drive" that team to a repeat. It not only takes talent but a repeat is really about a team's will as much as it about a great player's dominance we will see if I am wrong but I dont see either from the Warriors.

[Killakobe81]

I don't know what post you were reading but I never called Duncan out. I said it doesn't take great players in their primes to repeat. Isiah Thomas did it and no way is isiah better than Duncan.

It has more to do with the superstar, team makeup and compe ion plays a huge role and the GSW has the tools and ci stances to do this.

Bird proved you wrong, Moses proved you wrong, Duncan proved you wrong, Isaiah proved you wrong, wily proved you wrong, and even Kareem proved you wrong (he never won b2b in his prime).

And how is superstars leading everything a fact？ if that's the case then the best player should win the championship every year. Lebron should be an eight time defending champ by now.

You called him out by making excuses for him when I already said he was an exception ... but whatever. I think the umbrage you take with the underrating of Moses is how I feel about Isiah. Thomas was (and still may be) the 2nd best PG. Was he a shoot first type? Y es but he still lead the NBA in assists one year and was the leader of a team that repeated and appeared in 3 straight Finals 5 straight ECF with two rings and had to beat teams led by Larry, Magic, MJ and Drexler going 2-1 in the Finals in that span and the conference losses to Bird and MJ led teams. yes that was a great team and Laimbeer and Dumars deserve plenty of credit too but that his team and he was clearly the best player on it.

[ambchang]

The warriors are just as flawed as the Lockets as far as you are concerned. They played great last season but it wasn't liked they dominated the playoffs as the Mavs did in 2011. If OKC were healthy or if the Spurs hadn't been eliminated in the first round due to bull officiating, the Warriors would've had a hard time qualifying for the WCF even, tbh. Also, it's hilarious to say the Clippers, a team led by a player who's never made the WCF in his lifetime, will have any chance at the championship just because they added a TOSB Pierce and a horribly overrated contract during the off-season.

Curry never made the WCF before last year either, yet he won MVP and got the ring. Clippers reminds me a lot of the Webber Kings in the sense that they are made up of a bunch of very talented chokers. The talent is there, but they just have to get over that mental hump. I am not sure if they can do it, but your guess is as good as mine. The Spurs has the opposite problem, they have the mental makeup of champions, but I am no longer sure if they have championship talent.

I also fail to see how GSW would be as flawed as Houston. Houston relies on the drive and kick, and really have one person who can create a shot. GSW have multiple players who can create shots, and have better outside shooting, can defend better, and can play both big and small.

[Mark Celibate]

Curry never made the WCF before last year either, yet he won MVP and got the ring. Clippers reminds me a lot of the Webber Kings in the sense that they are made up of a bunch of very talented chokers. The talent is there, but they just have to get over that mental hump. I am not sure if they can do it, but your guess is as good as mine. The Spurs has the opposite problem, they have the mental makeup of champions, but I am no longer sure if they have championship talent.

I also fail to see how GSW would be as flawed as Houston. Houston relies on the drive and kick, and really have one person who can create a shot. GSW have multiple players who can create shots, and have better outside shooting, can defend better, and can play both big and small.

Spurs ain't shorter than no one in terms of talent for the 15-16 season imho, with the acquisition of LMA. Their bench may be thinner this year, but their starting five that consist of LMA/Duncan/Kawhi/Green/Parker is still one of the most formidable lineups in the league. Good depth of bench is mostly just an insurance against some unexpected injuries, since a 7-8 guys' rotation is normally sufficient for the playoffs if everyone is healthy.

GSW got exposed multiple times in the playoffs and they were lucky enough they didn't have to confront the Spurs. The Cavs were basically just a replica of the 07' team with Irving and Love both injured, a team carried by Bron himself, yet the Warriors, despite how stacked they looked on paper, still needed 6 games to beat the crippled Cavs team. Yes, they have a good variety of game plans, but when it comes to big time you still need a go-to guy to win you the game, and Curry is unfortunately not the player you can safely count on when it really matters. Curry is a good player there's no doubt about that, but there's still a good distance between him and those great ones who can and deserve to win consecutive championships as the #1 guy, imho.

[Killakobe81]

Spurs ain't shorter than no one in terms of talent for the 15-16 season imho, with the acquisition of LMA. Their bench may be thinner this year, but their starting five that consist of LMA/Duncan/Kawhi/Green/Parker is still one of the most formidable lineups in the league. Good depth of bench is mostly just an insurance against some unexpected injuries, since a 7-8 guys' rotation is normally sufficient for the playoffs if everyone is healthy.

GSW got exposed multiple times in the playoffs and they were lucky enough they didn't have to confront the Spurs. The Cavs were basically just a replica of the 07' team with Irving and Love both injured, a team carried by Bron himself, yet the Warriors, despite how stacked they looked on paper, still needed 6 games to beat the crippled Cavs team. Yes, they have a good variety of game plans, but when it comes to big time you still need a go-to guy to win you the game, and Curry is unfortunately not the player you can safely count on when it really matters. Curry is a good player there's no doubt about that, but there's still a good distance between him and those great ones who can and deserve to win consecutive championships as the #1 guy, imho.

This. I would say he is great not just good (Curry) ...but not as great as the guys we discussed. Great post.

[ambchang]

Spurs ain't shorter than no one in terms of talent for the 15-16 season imho, with the acquisition of LMA. Their bench may be thinner this year, but their starting five that consist of LMA/Duncan/Kawhi/Green/Parker is still one of the most formidable lineups in the league. Good depth of bench is mostly just an insurance against some unexpected injuries, since a 7-8 guys' rotation is normally sufficient for the playoffs if everyone is healthy.

Parker really suck now. I am not one of those Parker bashers, but look at what he has done since 11-12, he is going downhill fast. Really fast.

As for bench, it was true what you said, because the thought process goes that once you are in the playoffs, you ride your best players throughout so the bench is less relevant. However, in today's NBA, versatility is key and the bench provides a lot of those talents. It's becoming more and more of a matchup game and the smart coaches pick up on that.

Duncan, as great as he is, is old. Green is a good 3-D guy. LMA is a great talent, and so is Kawhi, but Clippers with CP3/Blake/DJ/Pierce/Red with Smith/Stephenson/Crawford/Prigioni is more talented. GSW with Curry/Thompson/Green/Barnes/Bogut is more talented, and even HOU has a case.

GSW got exposed multiple times in the playoffs and they were lucky enough they didn't have to confront the Spurs. The Cavs were basically just a replica of the 07' team with Irving and Love both injured, a team carried by Bron himself, yet the Warriors, despite how stacked they looked on paper, still needed 6 games to beat the crippled Cavs team. Yes, they have a good variety of game plans, but when it comes to big time you still need a go-to guy to win you the game, and Curry is unfortunately not the player you can safely count on when it really matters. Curry is a good player there's no doubt about that, but there's still a good distance between him and those great ones who can and deserve to win consecutive championships as the #1 guy, imho.

I attribute a lot of that to nerves, you see that in young teams. Now that they have proven they can win it all, they will have that at ude to them.

We will see how they react, but I would think the Warriors will be better this year than last (not in terms of regular season record, but in terms of overall effectiveness of the team).

[DMC]

Yeah, I would say 2nd round is about where the Spurs will end up. Anything more than that is gravy.



I did? I said if they won it would be Tim carried them through with his leadership? How did you interpret that as a proud Amer

From what you said. It's right there. Why are you denying it?

How did I ignore that? I brought it up in my first post. Tim's leadership deserves credit if the Spurs win the championship. Do you want me to write that in every single post?

You brought it up in your first post then ignored it when I called you out on it. Now you're pretending you never said it. Since that first mention, you've only discussed the rest of the team. Odd, in that they all were covered under the "not great" umbrella while Tim was "great" and had great leadership skills". Google "confirmation bias".

I didn't expect CP3 to falter in the playoffs.

That's because you're a ing idiot.

And? The Spurs really aren't that great of a team where they can just go into the season and expect a championship. If they win, Duncan's greatness and leadership abilities deserve credit. How is that me saying if the Spurs win it would be (solely) BECAUSE of Duncan's leadership?

Now you're toning it down to "deserves credit" from being the take away from the win. You know, the Bulls were not that great of a team, the fact that they won just shows how great MJ was. What? I was giving them all credit! I didn't say ONLY MJ.