Spot Number 24 - Top 50 Spurs

[Obstructed_View]

Pre-injury, TC was perhaps one of the Spurs top five forwards all-time.

I have no other response but . If that's true, then we're taking the players' entire career into account, and Dominique has to be on the list before TC. Seriously, the only all time Spurs list of any stat I recall TC being on is for turnovers. If he'd played his entire career for the Spurs I'd be right there with you. He was a great player, and he was a big name acquisition for the team, but his contribution to the Spurs doesn't deserve that kind of consideration.

Wow, a poster completely forgot that mings was the Spurs' leading scorer in the 1990 series with Portland and a couple years later again against Phoenix.

No, I didn't forget, I just don't see how it makes him worthy of a top 25 spot ahead of someone like Elie or Kerr or either Jackson. So he was the leading scorer in two series that the Spurs lost, the second when David injured his thumb and Antoine Carr was the starting center. I know the 90's Spurs had an abysmal playoff record, but being the leading scorer in a series you lost 0-3 isn't compelling under any cir stances.

[Obstructed_View]

I'm supremely confident that team would rip any other Spurs team of all time to shreds. I think a lot of people forget just how good the 99 Spurs were.

Amen to that. I think the '03 team was probably the most talented, but the '99 team played at such a consistently high level that nobody else could have touched them.

[timvp]

I just don't see how it makes him worthy of a top 25 spot ahead of someone like Elie or Kerr or either Jackson.

Steve Kerr over Terry mings?

[FromWayDowntown]

No, I didn't forget, I just don't see how it makes him worthy of a top 25 spot ahead of someone like Elie or Kerr or either Jackson. So he was the leading scorer in two series that the Spurs lost, the second when David injured his thumb and Antoine Carr was the starting center. I know the 90's Spurs had an abysmal playoff record, but being the leading scorer in a series you lost 0-3 isn't compelling under any cir stances.

You seem to argue that the difference for the Spurs in the early 90's was Robinson and Elliott; my sole point is to offer that mings was every bit as important as Elliott in the early part of that era (during the true transition to contender) and that he played as well as Robinson at times during that era, too. Certainly, the high water mark for that early group was the 1990 series against Portland (it was the high water mark until '95, certainly) and mings was a huge part of that.

It's a dubious argument to me to say that Elie (whose numbers were trivial and who only played 2 years in SA) or Kerr (who was an infrequent contributor whose unfairly given the bulk of the credit for one big playoff win in 2003) are more important in Spurs history than mings, unless you're going to argue that rings trump all, in which case Gerard King is more important in Spurs history than George Gervin.

[baseline bum]

TC was certainly better than Elliott on those early 90s Spurs teams. He was a legit second star who could go off for huge games. I remember going to a game against Charlotte where he dropped 52 points. He is unquestionably more important to the Spurs than Kerr or even Stephen Jackson.

However, there's just no way to ignore that the Spurs stopped playing like es and steamrolled the league in response to Mario's challenge to the team on NBC and his subsequent ejection from that Utah game they were getting blown out in. I don't think the Spurs win the le with any other SG of comparable talent in that spot. I doubt they even beat Shaq&Kobe in that second round had they just kept Vinny Del Negro.

[Obstructed_View]

You seem to argue that the difference for the Spurs in the early 90's was Robinson and Elliott; my sole point is to offer that mings was every bit as important as Elliott in the early part of that era (during the true transition to contender) and that he played as well as Robinson at times during that era, too. Certainly, the high water mark for that early group was the 1990 series against Portland (it was the high water mark until '95, certainly) and mings was a huge part of that.

I agree that mings was a great player before he came to the Spurs, and that greatness lasted for a short time in San Antonio, even resulting in relative playoff success, an oasis in a several year desert of disappointment. I'll never question his toughness and how much I like him doesn't really enter into the equation. I wasn't going to give him extra points just because he sang the Midnight Basketball theme.

It's a dubious argument to me to say that Elie (whose numbers were trivial and who only played 2 years in SA) or Kerr (who was an infrequent contributor whose unfairly given the bulk of the credit for one big playoff win in 2003) are more important in Spurs history than mings, unless you're going to argue that rings trump all, in which case Gerard King is more important in Spurs history than George Gervin.

I've already stated in previous posts that I've decided, right or wrong, to give more weight to guys who contributed to les. Granted, if you'd like to argue numbers, then Elie or Kerr aren't going to garner much attention, but neither, IMHO, is mings.

At this point on the list someone who stuck with the team long enough to amass some stats doesn't carry as much weight as any of those guys, TC included. I've already pointed out that the argument for Elie and Kerr have nothing to do with statistics, although Kerr did play in 45 more games than Speedy Claxton, filling his role for much of the season, and had a huge impact on a really big playoff game at both ends of the floor in a series that the Spurs won, in a year where they went on to win the le.

Gerard King played 14 minutes in the playoffs in '99. If you need to beat on a strawman that weak, you should probably re-think your side of the argument.