'16-'18 Fools Gold Regular Seasons Were Worst Thing That Could Happen

[SAGirl]

I don't think they were fool's gold, they did require health and didn't have it, between Timmy busting his one remaining knee, Tony busting a hamstring, and Kawhi famously getting Zaza'd, plus miscellaneous nags here or there, who knows? They were a legit contender, especially b4 Durant to the Warriors happened. But PATFO probably stood complacent resigning the old cast at bloated prices and standing pat, plus more standing pat... and eventually guys got old, the big 3 retired and Kawhi revealed his ultimate end game apparently. It was fun while it lasted, but I did feel at the time, PATFO had a small window and was standing pat too much.

Anyways, now they need to reload through the draft. In spite of wanting to remain compe ive they appear to have taken a step back and that's not a good sign. It's only December, still so we will see what happens. They are not a contender, but are they even a playoff team?

[daslicer]

I don't think they were fool's gold, they did require health and didn't have it, between Timmy busting his one remaining knee, Tony busting a hamstring, and Kawhi famously getting Zaza'd, plus miscellaneous nags here or there, who knows? They were a legit contender, especially b4 Durant to the Warriors happened. But PATFO probably stood complacent resigning the old cast at bloated prices and standing pat, plus more standing pat... and eventually guys got old, the big 3 retired and Kawhi revealed his ultimate end game apparently. It was fun while it lasted, but I did feel at the time, PATFO had a small window and was standing pat too much.

Anyways, now they need to reload through the draft. In spite of wanting to remain compe ive they appear to have taken a step back and that's not a good sign. It's only December, still so we will see what happens. They are not a contender, but are they even a playoff team?

I felt the moves the front office made when it came to the summers of '15 and '16 were good moves. Those teams were contenders and what really held them back was injuries. The FO deserves criticism for the summer of '17 moves in signing Gasol and Mills to bloated contracts. Those are the moves people can get upset about it but prior to that I felt they had made the right moves. Spurs got ed over big time in '17 with the Zaza play and then #2 going rogue. I really do believe if #2 played last year the Spurs had a chance of winning it all. They are the only team that had 4 good wing defenders in #2,Green,Murray,Anderson. The Rox had only 2 good wing defenders in Ariza/Moute and were on the verge of beating the Warriors.

[DMC]

I don't think they thought they could win. I think they thought they could compete. There's money to be made even outside of the Finals, else we'd not have half the NBA teams we have now, but the outward facade is that they build for championships. I think they build to sell tickets.

[anon]

Why compare the 18 raptors to the 17 spurs. We're talking about basketball philosophies here and wether or not it has its merits.

You beat Golden state playing slow with a dominant wing and a big. Thats exactly what the spurs were trying to do. Take the midrange the league is gonna give them, set your defense up as a result.

I liked your thread about pace control being a designed method the entire bball ops and player roster agreed upon to beat GS, apac. It certainly was true for the regular season, and the method still held firm versus the rest of the contending field. It especially held up against falsification when two pace-controlling teams in the Spurs and Grizzlies went to a 6 game series that was ultimately decided by which team had the better one-on-one producer, quan y of possessions being roughly equal.

However. That 2017 WCF Game 1 match threw pace control out of the window. Spurs non-figuratively ran with the Warriors for 4 quarters and were winning for 3 of them. Fastbreaking forwards led the charge with nearly every break resulting in a conversion. I don't remember which pundit exclaimed on national tv how shocked the SSOL Warriors were that the Spurs were playing and beating the Warriors at their own game, probably Miller. At least for Game 1. Always thought the switch in pace was a mind game Pop was playing to plant the seed of doubt in the opponent's head, who would then return to using the entire shot clock for Game 2 when the opponent would be second-guessing themselves. Leonard, Green, Simmons, Mills and Dedmon all leveraged their legs on the open floor for Game 1 and it was paying off. Maybe the team couldn't sustain that pace and win for 7 games. Maybe it was a judicious use of what athleticism the team had to draw first blood and nullify the Warriors' home advantage. Maybe Pop had no hand in it and it was Leonard's initiative to beat GS at their own pace, staking on superior wing and help defense to deny the opponent a possession (that often would have resulted in a 3) while converting on the other end before the opposing defense was set--for multiple 4 or 5 or 6 point swings. We will never know.

There are two teams noteworthy in this 2019 season that took notice of the 2017 Spurs' initial success during Game 1 and have attempted to replicate the marriage of two-way play and SSOL as a season-long philosophy: the Lakers and the Raptors, with Orlando and Sacramento enjoying modest success as well despite lacking the defensive mindset (or ambition) as the former two.

[RC_Drunkford]

I felt the moves the front office made when it came to the summers of '15 and '16 were good moves. Those teams were contenders and what really held them back was injuries. The FO deserves criticism for the summer of '17 moves in signing Gasol and Mills to bloated contracts. Those are the moves people can get upset about it but prior to that I felt they had made the right moves. Spurs got ed over big time in '17 with the Zaza play and then #2 going rogue. I really do believe if #2 played last year the Spurs had a chance of winning it all. They are the only team that had 4 good wing defenders in #2,Green,Murray,Anderson. The Rox had only 2 good wing defenders in Ariza/Moute and were on the verge of beating the Warriors.

The Kawhi/Gay/Aldridge front line would've given the Dubs serious trouble, that's why they signed Gay. Sadly we could never witness that. Add to that that Steph was injured in the beginning of the Playoffs and Spurs could've gone for the le.

The fact that we are the only team going 8-9 against them in the regular season since 2014/15 speaks volumes on how the roster has been constructed. We have the best regular season record against the Dubs in the entire NBA if we don't count Playoffs. I don't count the Playoff series cause we were never fully healthy, not for 1 game.

[daslicer]

The Kawhi/Gay/Aldridge front line would've given the Dubs serious trouble, that's why they signed Gay. Sadly we could never witness that. Add to that that Steph was injured in the beginning of the Playoffs and Spurs could've gone for the le.

The fact that we are the only team going 8-9 against them in the regular season since 2014/15 speaks volumes on how the roster has been constructed. We have the best regular season record against the Dubs in the entire NBA if we don't count Playoffs. I don't count the Playoff series cause we were never fully healthy, not for 1 game.

Agreed that's how I feel.

[TD 21]

The 67 win team couldn't even beat the Thunder, who they were heavily favored to beat (I correctly stated at the time that it was a virtual coin flip and I was skeptical of the Spurs). Yeah, I know that Thunder team pushed and should have beaten the Warriors, but they matched up well with them. The Spurs didn't match up well with either, so if they couldn't beat the former, why would anyone have thought they could beat the latter?

Regular season record vs them is largely irrelevant. The Grizzlies have played them tough over the years too. Were they contenders?

Why compare the 18 raptors to the 17 spurs. We're talking about basketball philosophies here and wether or not it has its merits.

You beat Golden state playing slow with a dominant wing and a big. Thats exactly what the spurs were trying to do. Take the midrange the league is gonna give them, set your defense up as a result.

Because they're a recent and prime example of a team winning lots of regular season games, with a strong point differential, but never really being contenders. Philosophically, I don't think the Spurs obstinance has merit because the margin for error was virtually non existent and they had inferior talent compared to other elites. Given the latter, they couldn't afford to be the former.

Since when were you on the front office's bandwagon? I thought they've been antiquated for years? Now, suddenly they're geniuses . . .

[SAGirl]

I felt the moves the front office made when it came to the summers of '15 and '16 were good moves. Those teams were contenders and what really held them back was injuries. The FO deserves criticism for the summer of '17 moves in signing Gasol and Mills to bloated contracts. Those are the moves people can get upset about it but prior to that I felt they had made the right moves. Spurs got ed over big time in '17 with the Zaza play and then #2 going rogue. I really do believe if #2 played last year the Spurs had a chance of winning it all. They are the only team that had 4 good wing defenders in #2,Green,Murray,Anderson. The Rox had only 2 good wing defenders in Ariza/Moute and were on the verge of beating the Warriors.

That’s true. My timing wasn’t all that accurate but you are right.

[apalisoc_9]

The 67 win team couldn't even beat the Thunder, who they were heavily favored to beat (I correctly stated at the time that it was a virtual coin flip and I was skeptical of the Spurs). Yeah, I know that Thunder team pushed and should have beaten the Warriors, but they matched up well with them. The Spurs didn't match up well with either, so if they couldn't beat the former, why would anyone have thought they could beat the latter?

Regular season record vs them is largely irrelevant. The Grizzlies have played them tough over the years too. Were they contenders?




Because they're a recent and prime example of a team winning lots of regular season games, with a strong point differential, but never really being contenders. Philosophically, I don't think the Spurs obstinance has merit because the margin for error was virtually non existent and they had inferior talent compared to other elites. Given the latter, they couldn't afford to be the former.

Since when were you on the front office's bandwagon? I thought they've been antiquated for years? Now, suddenly they're geniuses . . .

I'm not on the PATFO side. I do think their philosophy doesnt coincide with the available talent in the NBA and the upcoming draft but again their apprach absoultley had merit. From an X and O Standpoint, their plan was exactly how you beat a threeball fast pace oriented team. The Spurs couldnt move towards the threeball appracoh because they didnt velieve they'd acquire the players needed to play Golden State ball against Golden state.

[TD 21]

I'm not on the PATFO side. I do think their philosophy doesnt coincide with the available talent in the NBA and the upcoming draft but again their apprach absoultley had merit. From an X and O Standpoint, their plan was exactly how you beat a threeball fast pace oriented team. The Spurs couldnt move towards the threeball appracoh because they didnt velieve they'd acquire the players needed to play Golden State ball against Golden state.

Based on what? I missed when the blueprint for this was established.

Not true. Virtually every prominent jump shooting big from Aldrige's era, either from common sense or being nudged, migrated to 3 point land years ago.

Parker always needed to do the same to have a chance to age reasonably well. He never did because they never prioritized it.

DeRozan obviously wasn't on the teams I was referencing, but he's another example of their obstinance. He was up to 3.6 attempts from 3 last season. He's down to 1.3 this season (in almost 2 more mpg, but still).

[TDMVPDPOY]

THE 67 WIN TEAM, they shouldve tried keep those bench players who were on 1yr rentals, then the following year they got rid of more players due to FA, then u have this year losing kawhi, green, anderson the spurs whole perimeter defense rotation for a bunch of offensive players who plays no lick of defense

if u knew parker and ginoboli were retiring, why did they give out loyalty contracts to mills and pau?

dont get me started with the players stash in europe...who could be useful but the glut in the roster rotation left them with no space to add anyone without sacrificing anyone...

[Splits]

The 67 win team was absolutely legit, but they had the natural issues of aging & change to deal with.
You can't blame the FO for keeping Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, & Diaw around for a last hurrah while transitioning to a more Kawhi-centric team while also incorporating their first Big Time free agent signing in LMA... In many ways, the LMA experiment worked great that year: He had both the best DRtg and the best FG% of his career... It was also a big deal for the Spurs generally-- I still remember the conventional wisdom that summer being that there was no way LMA would wind up in San Antonio because major free agents "never" considered the Spurs... He wasn't (and isn't) perfect, but it was still a good move at the time, considering Duncan was close to retirement, and there weren't any better options.

I dunno, in a way I find all of this hand-wringing and analysis kind of funny... A team that over two seasons lost Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Kawhi Leonard, and Danny Green, and also lost their young new PG to injury is struggling and having a (relative) down year?? Unimaginable!
In a year of incredible parity in the West so far, the absolute worst season in twenty years finds the Spurs 5.5 games out of first place after 26 games... that's a pretty mild mannered disaster if you ask me.

dont forget there are few if any greater cliff jumping gots with horrific takes than OP

[FkLA]

OP always comes off like an elitist armchair GM. We'd probably be on our way to a ten-peat if he ran the team.

[Chinook]

Those teams were as fool's gold as it gets, which is why the national media never took them all that seriously to begin with. There was no way their archaic, low variance style was beating elite talents in a series. They were fortunate the '17 Rockets lacked anything resembling a 2nd star.

thinking what the national media thinks matters. That a). b) is that they media totally thought the Spurs were contenders in 2015 and 2016. 2017 was the only year where the Spurs were thought to not have much of a chance, and that was when Leonard got Zaza'd. Honestly, this teleological method of thinking you have is getting old. Unless we're going to go by the causal closure of the physical, the Spurs have had chances to win les in many more years than you seem to think they did. Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't beat them, especially considering how close two of those losses were. That was the same year that two teams came back from 1-3 deficits to win series. Did those losing teams "have no chance" despite having huge leads? My guess is you'll say they did have chances, because it's silly to argue otherwise. However, you will continuously support your arguments against the Spurs either by pointing to the loss or just repeating that you don't think they could win. It doesn't make sense.

It's really absurd too that you act as if the Rockets win was some accident when the Spurs won the series going away despite missing two of their three best offensive players. The Spurs weren't lucky at all. They were just better, especially schematically.

You want to argue that the Spurs' desired style is hard to play and that they don't have the personnel to do it? I can agree. You want to say that that style isn't effective, and you come off as a flat-Earther. They were in the top three most successful teams in the league over that stretch, despite how many games their star player missed.

[Fusternino]

thinking what the national media thinks matters. That a). b) is that they media totally thought the Spurs were contenders in 2015 and 2016. 2017 was the only year where the Spurs were thought to not have much of a chance, and that was when Leonard got Zaza'd. Honestly, this teleological method of thinking you have is getting old. Unless we're going to go by the causal closure of the physical, the Spurs have had chances to win les in many more years than you seem to think they did. Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't beat them, especially considering how close two of those losses were. That was the same year that two teams came back from 1-3 deficits to win series. Did those losing teams "have no chance" despite having huge leads? My guess is you'll say they did have chances, because it's silly to argue otherwise. However, you will continuously support your arguments against the Spurs either by pointing to the loss or just repeating that you don't think they could win. It doesn't make sense.

It's really absurd too that you act as if the Rockets win was some accident when the Spurs won the series going away despite missing two of their three best offensive players. The Spurs weren't lucky at all. They were just better, especially schematically.

You want to argue that the Spurs' desired style is hard to play and that they don't have the personnel to do it? I can agree. You want to say that that style isn't effective, and you come off as a flat-Earther. They were in the top three most successful teams in the league over that stretch, despite how many games their star player missed.

I still think if Tiago hadn't gotten injured in 2015 or we had a legit 7-footer (i.e. Dedmon) instead of West in 2016 then we win at least one more championship.

[Chinook]

thinking what the national media thinks matters. That a). b) is that they media totally thought the Spurs were contenders in 2015 and 2016. 2017 was the only year where the Spurs were thought to not have much of a chance, and that was when Leonard got Zaza'd. Honestly, this teleological method of thinking you have is getting old. Unless we're going to go by the causal closure of the physical, the Spurs have had chances to win les in many more years than you seem to think they did. Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't beat them, especially considering how close two of those losses were. That was the same year that two teams came back from 1-3 deficits to win series. Did those losing teams "have no chance" despite having huge leads? My guess is you'll say they did have chances, because it's silly to argue otherwise. However, you will continuously support your arguments against the Spurs either by pointing to the loss or just repeating that you don't think they could win. It doesn't make sense.

It's really absurd too that you act as if the Rockets win was some accident when the Spurs won the series going away despite missing two of their three best offensive players. The Spurs weren't lucky at all. They were just better, especially schematically.

You want to argue that the Spurs' desired style is hard to play and that they don't have the personnel to do it? I can agree. You want to say that that style isn't effective, and you come off as a flat-Earther. They were in the top three most successful teams in the league over that stretch, despite how many games their star player missed.

Both were close. The Spurs matched up very well with the pre-Durant Warriors. I do think that with both teams at 100 percent, SA wins in 15 and GS in 16

[BlackAndWhite]

I agree. DWorst was probably the most unlikeable player on that team

[Popabitch]

Porker falling off the cliff & his extension kicking in right on cue when the league was becoming PnR heavy killed the team.

When Porker played decent they were able to annihilate teams even in the playoffs (Gm 1 vs OKC) but once teams figured Porker was TOSB & forced him to be a scorer it was a struggle to score. Carlisle was the first one that dared Porker to be a scorer but he still had some gas left in tank back in '14 & was able to toast Blair in Gm 7 along with the Glazers in the following round.

In '15, Porker had one of the tiest postseason series by a starting point guard & it took a miraculous shot to beat the team.

In '16, they could have easily beaten OKC (the same team Iggy claimed were the "best in the league") if Porker was able to make a shot in the 4th quarter of Gm 5 when OKC dared anyone but Kawhi to beat them including Softridge. (Let's not talk about the BS foul on Danny.....)

In '17, who knows what would have happened if Zaza didn't take out Kawhi..........

PATFO ed up the summer of '17 when they brought back Fatty/Pau knowing the team needed a secondary playmaker instead of spot up shooters.

[Popabitch]

The 67 win team couldn't even beat the Thunder, who they were heavily favored to beat (I correctly stated at the time that it was a virtual coin flip and I was skeptical of the Spurs). Yeah, I know that Thunder team pushed and should have beaten the Warriors, but they matched up well with them. The Spurs didn't match up well with either, so if they couldn't beat the former, why would anyone have thought they could beat the latter?

Regular season record vs them is largely irrelevant. The Grizzlies have played them tough over the years too. Were they contenders?

In '16, Curry was playing on one leg & Gaymond/Barnes were burnt out along with Iggy having back issues.

[Seventyniner]

Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't beat them

All that needed to be said.

[TD 21]

thinking what the national media thinks matters. That a). b) is that they media totally thought the Spurs were contenders in 2015 and 2016. 2017 was the only year where the Spurs were thought to not have much of a chance, and that was when Leonard got Zaza'd. Honestly, this teleological method of thinking you have is getting old. Unless we're going to go by the causal closure of the physical, the Spurs have had chances to win les in many more years than you seem to think they did. Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't

beat them, especially considering how close two of those losses were. That was the same year that two teams came back from 1-3 deficits to win series. Did those losing teams "have no chance" despite having huge leads? My guess is you'll say they did have chances, because it's silly to argue otherwise. However, you will continuously support your arguments against the Spurs either by pointing to the loss or just repeating that you don't think they could win. It doesn't make sense.

It's really absurd too that you act as if the Rockets win was some accident when the Spurs won the series going away despite missing two of their three best offensive players. The Spurs weren't lucky at all. They were just better, especially schematically.

You want to argue that the Spurs' desired style is hard to play and that they don't have the personnel to do it? I can agree. You want to say that that style isn't effective, and you come off as a flat-Earther. They were in the top three most successful teams in the league over that stretch, despite how many games their star player missed.

They don't, but I'll take a consensus of people who do this for a living over a homer any day. They collectively and correctly jumped off the bang wagon following the Warriors obliterating them in one of the most hyped regular season games ever, in '16.

I didn't say it wasn't effective, I said it wasn't effective enough to win a championship. None of those years were missed opportunities, the way '00, '04, '06, '12 and obviously '13 were.

By this logic, the Raptors, Hawks, Pacers, Grizzlies, at various points in this decade, were contenders.

This thread has been derailed by homers like yourself either missing or ignoring the point, which was they became emboldened by their fool's gold regular seasons and missed the forest from the trees.

[Mr. Body]

Yeah, no. I disagree. The team was built for a last run during the Big Three era. Pop had/has the template to beat the Warriors and might have done it, if Steve Kerr hadn't instructed Zaza Pachulia to take out Kawhi Leonard.

Warriors are just a lucky ing team. They would have lost last year if Paul hadn't gone down.

So, no, it wasn't Fools Gold. What torpedoed everything was ing Kawhi. Biggest soft-ass bust traitor in sports history.

[RC_Drunkford]

Yeah, no. I disagree. The team was built for a last run during the Big Three era. Pop had/has the template to beat the Warriors and might have done it, if Steve Kerr hadn't instructed Zaza Pachulia to take out Kawhi Leonard.

Warriors are just a lucky ing team. They would have lost last year if Paul hadn't gone down.

So, no, it wasn't Fools Gold. What torpedoed everything was ing Kawhi. Biggest soft-ass bust traitor in sports history.

the Warriors won all 3 of their les with an asterix to it. In 15 Kyrie and Love were injured, in 17 they injured Kawhi in game 1 and in 18 Chris Paul was injured for a game 7. They might have 0 championships if they had to play teams at full strength. Not to mention the rounds before those where they also played a bunch of injured team (18 Spurs without Kawhi and so on). I think it was 2016 or 17 where they basically only played injured Western Conference teams. They are not as dominant as people think. I remember wanting a Spurs - Warriors series for 3 years cause I thought we would beat them and then when it finally happened Zaza took out Kawhi

[spurraider21]

Half right.

The Spurs built the 15-17 team as a direct way to compete against pace and threeballs. The team was all about limiting fastbreaks, killing teams in areas they're not accustomed to defending (Aldridge), Midrange and being set defensively in the halfcourt better than anyone in the league. It got them back to back 60 wins.

The issue is that Leonard is gone and to recreate the same team requires specific skillsets thats not as abundant in the NBA anymore.

They screwed up with the Gasol and Mills contract, but the philosophy itself is not without merrit.

apa with... the goods?

[spurraider21]

OP always comes off like an elitist armchair GM. We'd probably be on our way to a ten-peat if he ran the team.

OP has been the biggest crybaby for at least the last several years. its why i pe ioned to have his name changed from TD21 to RJ24