Takeaways from this season

[alpha_HaZE]

If LA was a bit healthier this season we are third, last two games vs Pelicans and LA for example. Same if Rudy had played 5 more games, and none of this criticism applies, like it didn't apply last year.

The good news is we have a better team without Kawhi this year, good enough for third when healthy and fringe playoff team with injuries. That's pretty darn impressive.

Other than the warriors, I don't see any other team that can do that. Rocket's without Harden and with CP3, Capela missing a significant amount of time, would they be third now??? I don't think so, I doubt they would make the playoffs.

[r0drig0lac]

. We have a bad roster. We need a complete overhaul and try to get rid of these horrible contracts

[TD 21]

The problem is essentially that Pau doesn't threaten the opposing team on offense consistently enough to take heat off Aldridge. He's terrible posting up most of the time, settles for shots off the dribble and passes up open looks left and right. The "style" would work just fine with Prime Diaw or 12-14 Duncan, who could take advantage of not being the main focus while also keeping Aldridge involved. I don't even think it would be bad with an Al Jefferson-type, excluding the defensive end. Posting up is better than PPP may suggest it is, but it can be countered if it relies on only one big surrounded with declining shooters.

Obviously, the guard rotation is a big problem. That whole end relies on Parker, Manu or Green finding some magic from the le run. One of them can do it like 70 percent of the time, but two or more rarely do, and I don't remember the last time all three did. Pop definitely needed to get new blood on the perimeter but chose Pau instead. That's where most of these problems started. Had the team secured a combo-guard in 2016 and lived without a high-paid big next to Aldridge for a year, then could have gone into the 2017 off-season with legit cash to attack the position. Or they could have waited until this upcoming off-season. Damned shame that Tim couldn't hold it together a final year, for a lot of reasons.

Murray starting is causing all types of problems that the stats may not capture. The team is 13-16 in his starts, against 23-11 when he doesn't. Him being in the first unit has forced Green and Pau out of the starting roles for worse players who can provide the spacing Murray can't. And unlike DeJounte, those other players don't add enough on either end to be positives. It would be more of the same with Kawhi instead of Anderson. Murray should be coming off the bench between Manu and Patty. Tony, Green and Pau should be starting. Joff should only be playing if he beat out legit compe ion for his spot. None of this was hard, but Pop has been flailing so much this year that he's pretty much broken everything and doesn't seem to be able to fix it.

I will say though that the timeline thing doesn't hold water for me. You don't have sustained success by focusing everything on peaking in one year. Duncan was able to remain effective for so long because Tony was younger and able to take the load. When Aldridge legit starts to slow down, he'd be able to let Murray take over more of a role. That's the way it "should" work. However, Murray isn't even ready to be a third banana now, let alone a Robin to LMA's Batman. I don't disagree that if they can get Walker, they probably should, though just getting for a year with Kawhi likely still gimpy and with LMA liable to have a drop-off isn't my idea of a "must-make" trade. I'm not even sure the team isn't closer to moving Kawhi than building around him at this point. If that's the case, being a lower-tier playoff team while letting Murray and some others grow doesn't seem horrible.

Spurs declining shooters isn't the issue in relation to posting up. The league has collectively decided that, in most cases they'll live with Aldridge taking mostly the types of shots defenses want to give up because even if he makes them at a higher rate than most would, it's not 3s, layups or free throws.

The style won't work, no matter the talent executing. This is now definitively an offense first league and it doesn't matter how good you are defensively, Warriors and Rockets are going to score big. Over the course of a series, you can't possibly keep up being bottom 10 in 3s made and attempted, paint points and free throws made and attempted.

Agree with the third paragraph. That's another issue with Murray. Either they'll have to play 4 on 5 offensively while Leonard or Aldridge have the ball or they'll be relegated to more of an off ball role for a sub par offensive player. Neither scenario makes sense.

Peaking in one year? A core of Leonard, Aldridge, Walker, Green, Williams, should be elite for a while and outside of Gasol, Parker and maybe 1 more season of Ginobili, they'd be surrounded by youth. Parker was only 6 years younger than Duncan; Murray is a whopping 11 years younger than Aldridge. The span is too wide to think they'll ever be a point where Leonard and them form a big 3, if Murray even becomes good enough to be a part of one.

[Chinook]

Spurs declining shooters isn't the issue in relation to posting up. The league has collectively decided that, in most cases they'll live with Aldridge taking mostly the types of shots defenses want to give up because even if he makes them at a higher rate than most would, it's not 3s, layups or free throws.

The league hasn't decided that at all. Teams consistently double-team Aldridge when he gets hot. The Warriors literally triple-teamed him in the WCF last year. I understand the basic math about three-pointers being more efficient, but against SA, teams tend to shoot fewer threes and at a worse rate. Thus, they can't afford to rely on their outside shooting to take the day. That's what Houston learned last year.

The style won't work, no matter the talent executing. This is now definitively an offense first league and it doesn't matter how good you are defensively, Warriors and Rockets are going to score big. Over the course of a series, you can't possibly keep up being bottom 10 in 3s made and attempted, paint points and free throws made and attempted.

But that IS a talent issue. Pop had made multiple moves to add shooting to the starting lineup. He keeps giving Forbes minutes, even when that means playing 11 or more guys. He knows threes are important. But too many guys on the team suck or are too streaky to pencil in night in and night out, or are just too hesitant to shoot the shots the offense gives them. That's why I haven't hated on Davis for his shot-selection. Forbes, Pau and Green should all be letting any decent look go, because the team doesn't have the talent or chemistry to go for good to great. I don't remember the last time Pop yelled at a shooter for taking an open spot-up three.

Peaking in one year? A core of Leonard, Aldridge, Walker, Green, Williams, should be elite for a while and outside of Gasol, Parker and maybe 1 more season of Ginobili, they'd be surrounded by youth. Parker was only 6 years younger than Duncan; Murray is a whopping 11 years younger than Aldridge. The span is too wide to think they'll ever be a point where Leonard and them form a big 3, if Murray even becomes good enough to be a part of one.

You're assuming they re-up Walker, and I wouldn't at all, especially since you're assuming Williams is part of the deal and that Parker and Pau remain on the roster. There are ways of making a trade work with like Gay and Mills, but Kawhi on a supermax, Kemba on a Conley-esque deal and Aldridge on his contract doesn't leave a lot of room for Danny, Tony and guys like Bertans, Anderson and Milutinov to get paid. I would assume the window is only a year long until/unless they find a way to extend it with new contracts.

Tim is six years older than Parker, who's three years older than Aldridge, who's six years older than Leonard, who's five years older than Murray. That is how you have an open window for two decades. Of course, Kawhi leaving breaks that to pieces, but if he stays, the team would transition from Kawhi/LMA to Kawhi/LMA/Murray to Kawhi/Murray to Murray/Kawhi/X and so on. Provided Murray develops into a star, of course, which is like the opposite of a given.

[MaNu4Tres]

The problem is essentially that Pau doesn't threaten the opposing team on offense consistently enough to take heat off Aldridge. He's terrible posting up most of the time, settles for shots off the dribble and passes up open looks left and right. The "style" would work just fine with Prime Diaw or 12-14 Duncan, who could take advantage of not being the main focus while also keeping Aldridge involved. I don't even think it would be bad with an Al Jefferson-type, excluding the defensive end. Posting up is better than PPP may suggest it is, but it can be countered if it relies on only one big surrounded with declining shooters.

Obviously, the guard rotation is a big problem. That whole end relies on Parker, Manu or Green finding some magic from the le run. One of them can do it like 70 percent of the time, but two or more rarely do, and I don't remember the last time all three did. Pop definitely needed to get new blood on the perimeter but chose Pau instead. That's where most of these problems started. Had the team secured a combo-guard in 2016 and lived without a high-paid big next to Aldridge for a year, then could have gone into the 2017 off-season with legit cash to attack the position. Or they could have waited until this upcoming off-season. Damned shame that Tim couldn't hold it together a final year, for a lot of reasons.

Murray starting is causing all types of problems that the stats may not capture. The team is 13-16 in his starts, against 23-11 when he doesn't. Him being in the first unit has forced Green and Pau out of the starting roles for worse players who can provide the spacing Murray can't. And unlike DeJounte, those other players don't add enough on either end to be positives. It would be more of the same with Kawhi instead of Anderson. Murray should be coming off the bench between Manu and Patty. Tony, Green and Pau should be starting. Joff should only be playing if he beat out legit compe ion for his spot. None of this was hard, but Pop has been flailing so much this year that he's pretty much broken everything and doesn't seem to be able to fix it.

I will say though that the timeline thing doesn't hold water for me. You don't have sustained success by focusing everything on peaking in one year. Duncan was able to remain effective for so long because Tony was younger and able to take the load. When Aldridge legit starts to slow down, he'd be able to let Murray take over more of a role. That's the way it "should" work. However, Murray isn't even ready to be a third banana now, let alone a Robin to LMA's Batman. I don't disagree that if they can get Walker, they probably should, though just getting for a year with Kawhi likely still gimpy and with LMA liable to have a drop-off isn't my idea of a "must-make" trade. I'm not even sure the team isn't closer to moving Kawhi than building around him at this point. If that's the case, being a lower-tier playoff team while letting Murray and some others grow doesn't seem horrible.

I disagree with the bolded and its not because I'm a Murray guy. Advance stats prove Spurs are much better with Murray on the floor -- he's actually improved to 19th in RPM out of all PGs in the NBA (Spurs are better with him on the floor and outscore their opponents w/ him more than any other PG on the roster. Most of their losses are in the last 5 minutes when Pop elects to go with TP or Mills instead. As for Tony, he shouldn't start or have any significant role -- he's not an impactful player anymore and it shows in his advanced stats such as RPM -- where he's 78th among point guards in the NBA. Your logic would be sound if statistics backed up your theory, but they simply do not.

[TD 21]

The league hasn't decided that at all. Teams consistently double-team Aldridge when he gets hot. The Warriors literally triple-teamed him in the WCF last year. I understand the basic math about three-pointers being more efficient, but against SA, teams tend to shoot fewer threes and at a worse rate. Thus, they can't afford to rely on their outside shooting to take the day. That's what Houston learned last year.



But that IS a talent issue. Pop had made multiple moves to add shooting to the starting lineup. He keeps giving Forbes minutes, even when that means playing 11 or more guys. He knows threes are important. But too many guys on the team suck or are too streaky to pencil in night in and night out, or are just too hesitant to shoot the shots the offense gives them. That's why I haven't hated on Davis for his shot-selection. Forbes, Pau and Green should all be letting any decent look go, because the team doesn't have the talent or chemistry to go for good to great. I don't remember the last time Pop yelled at a shooter for taking an open spot-up three.



You're assuming they re-up Walker, and I wouldn't at all, especially since you're assuming Williams is part of the deal and that Parker and Pau remain on the roster. There are ways of making a trade work with like Gay and Mills, but Kawhi on a supermax, Kemba on a Conley-esque deal and Aldridge on his contract doesn't leave a lot of room for Danny, Tony and guys like Bertans, Anderson and Milutinov to get paid. I would assume the window is only a year long until/unless they find a way to extend it with new contracts.

Tim is six years older than Parker, who's three years older than Aldridge, who's six years older than Leonard, who's five years older than Murray. That is how you have an open window for two decades. Of course, Kawhi leaving breaks that to pieces, but if he stays, the team would transition from Kawhi/LMA to Kawhi/LMA/Murray to Kawhi/Murray to Murray/Kawhi/X and so on. Provided Murray develops into a star, of course, which is like the opposite of a given.

Says the guy who doesn't watch non Spurs games, at least with any frequency. Outside of a blatant mismatch, teams only double Aldridge because they know he has a sub par handle, is a sub par passer and there's no one (healthy) on the perimeter who can consistently make plays on this team.

Even with better talent, this style isn't winning a championship anymore. It's not just the lack of 3s, it's the lack of layups/dunks and free throws too. If Pop really valued 3s to the degree he should, he wouldn't allow so many of the rotation players to subsist on mid rangers. Forbes and Bertans don't count because they'd be on the deep bench, if healthy.

Spurs don't make that trade without being committed to re-signing Walker and he'd more than likely want to remain on an elite team. Given the oversaturated nature of his position and cap space drying up, he's not getting anything close to what Conley did, unless Hornets reverse course and retain him long term.

Bertans would likely go to Nets as a sweetner for taking Mills' contract. Williams replaces him and they probably get him to pull a Jefferson/Gasol with his player option. Milutinov is a middling prospect who'll have to decide on playing in the league or not for whatever they can give him.

This is not the big 3 era. The formula for winning then isn't the same formula for what wins now. In this era, you're not winning a championship without 2 dynamic perimeter players and at least one better be a superstar. I'd rather a potential 3-5 season run of contention out of a Leonard, Aldridge, Walker core over no chance now and long shot hopes of long term contention. Bird in the hand.

[coachmac87]

I mean most teams would appear pretty flawed when you have a max slot/top 3-5 player missing 90% of the season

Like people need to stop pretending to act surprised they’ve struggled so much..like what expectations did you have going into to this? Most players have been asked to do more and it hasn’t worked out..also doesn’t help Spurs lost Gay for 20+ games or so either..

Hindsight is always 20/20 and it’s easy to criticize a team who’s been dealt the worst hand by any “contender” by far in the league...

[Chinook]

I disagree with the bolded and its not because I'm a Murray guy. Advance stats prove Spurs are much better with Murray on the floor -- he's actually improved to 19th in RPM out of all PGs in the NBA (Spurs are better with him on the floor and outscore their opponents w/ him more than any other PG on the roster. Most of their losses are in the last 5 minutes when Pop elects to go with TP or Mills instead. As for Tony, he shouldn't start or have any significant role -- he's not an impactful player anymore and it shows in his advanced stats such as RPM -- where he's 78th among point guards in the NBA. Your logic would be sound if statistics backed up your theory, but they simply do not.

It doesn't matter how much Murray apparently helps on the court if the team is losing games. It really doesn't. Murray starting is directly leading to guys like Mills getting more time, because DeJounte wouldn't be passable on offense without him. I've commented multiple times that Murray is pretty much breaking stats right now. It's similar to how Carlos Boozer broke individual DRtg back in the day.

[Chinook]

Says the guy who doesn't watch non Spurs games, at least with any frequency. Outside of a blatant mismatch, teams only double Aldridge because they know he has a sub par handle, is a sub par passer and there's no one (healthy) on the perimeter who can consistently make plays on this team.

This is firstly just a ty ad homenim. You don't know how many games I watch and if the amount I watch would affect my argument. More importantly though, you specifically mentioned how teams are letting Aldridge beat them. I don't have to watch other teams to know that's not the case. I can just look at Spurs games and get every detail as to how teams are defending Aldridge. However, the bolded is exactly a talent/decline issue.

Even with better talent, this style isn't winning a championship anymore. It's not just the lack of 3s, it's the lack of layups/dunks and free throws too. If Pop really valued 3s to the degree he should, he wouldn't allow so many of the rotation players to subsist on mid rangers. Forbes and Bertans don't count because they'd be on the deep bench, if healthy.

They'd get more threes with better talent, as well as more layups. Guys are generally incompetent and/or hesitant to score. Portland had little problem getting good shots for Lillard, Batum and Matthews. There's a horribly misguided assumption that what we are seeing is a team completely built to suit Aldridge's style, and it's not that at all. It's filled with ty, declining and/or inconsistent guys who have nothing to hang their hats on night in and night out. You won't get any other type of offense when no one on the roster can provide it (/anymore).

Spurs don't make that trade without being committed to re-signing Walker and he'd more than likely want to remain on an elite team. Given the oversaturated nature of his position and cap space drying up, he's not getting anything close to what Conley did, unless Hornets reverse course and retain him long term.


Bertans would likely go to Nets as a sweetner for taking Mills' contract. Williams replaces him and they probably get him to pull a Jefferson/Gasol with his player option. Milutinov is a middling prospect who'll have to decide on playing in the league or not for whatever they can give him.

This is very presumptuous. First, that the Spurs would trade for Walker. Second that Walker would be willing to give the team anything less than maybe a haircut discount. And third that this particular trade is workable. There are others, but those are the main assumptions. The reality of having Kawhi at $35 Million, Aldridge at $25 Million and Walker at $25-30 Million requires a lot of financial sacrifice for a small-market team that can't turn a profit in a 60-win season. Assuming Walker is good enough to be the second-best player on a le team is already stretching it, but if he is more good enough to where he's getting Conley money, the trade isn't worth it anyway. They can be the second-best team in the league playing the style they choose and with the roster they prefer. They've already demonstrated that.

This is not the big 3 era. The formula for winning then isn't the same formula for what wins now. In this era, you're not winning a championship without 2 dynamic perimeter players and at least one better be a superstar. I'd rather a potential 3-5 season run of contention out of a Leonard, Aldridge, Walker core over no chance now and long shot hopes of long term contention. Bird in the hand.

It hasn't been the "Big Three Era" in almost a decade. The team has survived through the changing eras through a rotating cast of impact players. They went through plenty of years where they were a really good team with teams built better for the time period. That they probably can't beat Golden State outside of miracle scenarios wouldn't be a sign they have to force it, not if they really believe in Murray. They didn't move Tony in 2002 to try to get ahead of the three-peat Lakers. They didn't trade Hill for Carter in 2010 to match up with the Heatles. Ignoring that they probably wouldn't NEED to trade Murray with White looking like a good prospect and Walker's asking price only falling as an expiring, I don't think they would do so just to increase their le hopes minutely.

[acoelho1]

We are not losing games because of Murray. You are not going to win much with your top 2 players out. The elephant in the room is Kawhi and if he had played,I have no doubt that we would be in first place. Also, I’ll remind you that outside of the Rockets and Warriors, the entire West has been up and down. The supporting cast is good enough to win it all in this style of play but injuries have killed us.

[spurraider21]

i cant remember the last time a team has been judged this much with its MVP missing the year

[Chinook]

i cant remember the last time a team has been judged this much with its MVP missing the year

Depends on what you're judging them on. It's more than fair to question the decision to pay Mills and Pau and in general have so many old and/or gimpy players on the roster. I don't think it makes sense to make assumptions about what styles can or can't work in today's league, though. I think PATFO's plan to beat GS is sound but that their execution has been flawed. Hopefully, we'll get to see the team give a real best shot against them at least once. However, I do find the constant fellating of the Rockets hilarious, like they've been more compe ive over the last few years than SA or something.

[spurraider21]

Depends on what you're judging them on. It's more than fair to question the decision to pay Mills and Pau and in general have so many old and/or gimpy players on the roster. I don't think it makes sense to make assumptions about what styles can or can't work in today's league, though. I think PATFO's plan to beat GS is sound but that their execution has been flawed. Hopefully, we'll get to see the team give a real best shot against them at least once. However, I do find the constant fellating of the Rockets hilarious, like they've been more compe ive over the last few years than SA or something.

a superstar player has such a monumental effect in the NBA, though... it's impossible to judge this squad without kawhi. again, if the criticism is "this team isn't built to win with kawhi out"... then yeah, sure.

we saw essentially this squad last year and we had about as good a chance as anybody to take down GSW. i dont think losing simmons has hurt us much, though dedmon's absence has been felt.

[Chinook]

a superstar player has such a monumental effect in the NBA, though... it's impossible to judge this squad without kawhi. again, if the criticism is "this team isn't built to win with kawhi out"... then yeah, sure.

we saw essentially this squad last year and we had about as good a chance as anybody to take down GSW. i dont think losing simmons has hurt us much, though dedmon's absence has been felt.

Losing Simmons didn't hurt at all. Dude is the poster-child for krews who want to find something to complain about. Dedmon's absence has hurt, but not like Lee's does. They went from West to Lee to Joff in terms of their third big. Quite the decline.

I think Kawhi coming back would only underline those issues, though. Like if Mills needs Kawhi to make him not ty on D, then what's the point in giving him huge money?

[vy65]

Losing Simmons didn't hurt at all. Dude is the poster-child for krews who want to find something to complain about. Dedmon's absence has hurt, but not like Lee's does. They went from West to Lee to Joff in terms of their third big. Quite the decline.

I think Kawhi coming back would only underline those issues, though. Like if Mills needs Kawhi to make him not ty on D, then what's the point in giving him huge money?

underrated but solid take

[spurraider21]

Losing Simmons didn't hurt at all. Dude is the poster-child for krews who want to find something to complain about. Dedmon's absence has hurt, but not like Lee's does. They went from West to Lee to Joff in terms of their third big. Quite the decline.

well, dedmon would be the third big. he could play alongside either Pau or LMA

I think Kawhi coming back would only underline those issues, though. Like if Mills needs Kawhi to make him not ty on D, then what's the point in giving him huge money?

he would mask a lot of deficiencies. and i hate patty's deal as much as anybody

[Chinook]

well, dedmon would be the third big. he could play alongside either Pau or LMA

I doubt it. Dedmon, as he was in SA, wasn't going to play with another center. His Hawks form probably could. Though Dewayne was like distilled Murray -- his defensive stats were godly, but anyone who actually watched games saw why he didn't play more.

he would mask a lot of deficiencies. and i hate patty's deal as much as anybody

He would, but the fact those guys need to be masked is worthy of criticism, even though Leonard isn't playing.

[baseline bum]

Danny Greens inability to be a consistent legitimate threat to drive the ball and SCORE is not working in today's NBA. The faster pace of today's game means you need to be able to attack the defense quickly and decisively. You can't break down the D if you're not even a threat to score at the rim. Everyone knows he will probably turn it over or pick up his dribble mid-way, so they just home in their man. He creates nothing.

Sure he's improved, but considering how low that bar was, his improvement is still nowhere near good enough.

Green would work great in today's NBA if he was still playing with the 2014 Spurs. He'd be devastating on Golden State. On teams that aren't stacked with elite passers all his weaknesses come right to the forefront, and it's definitely time for the Spurs to move on this summer since the beautiful game ain't coming back until they draft another Manu at the very least.

[SAGirl]

He would, but the fact those guys need to be masked is worthy of criticism, even though Leonard isn't playing.

Your point about Mills is one of the most crystal clear and well put I have read about the matter.

In one sentence you summarized why the deal is so bad. If Mills needs an entire team of all nba defenders and near all nba defenders to attempt to keep him on the floor, while offensively he’s only so, so (we aren’t talking near all star levels offense) then he’s a roleplayer limited enough to not be worth such a big $ deal, specially in such a long contract. Sure one can cite some extravagant deals from this past summer but they were short term, like one year or two at most.

[MaNu4Tres]

It doesn't matter how much Murray apparently helps on the court if the team is losing games. It really doesn't. Murray starting is directly leading to guys like Mills getting more time, because DeJounte wouldn't be passable on offense without him. I've commented multiple times that Murray is pretty much breaking stats right now. It's similar to how Carlos Boozer broke individual DRtg back in the day.

One player starting or not starting isn't the reason why Spurs have been losing. The uptick in strength of schedule, terrible luck at end of games, bad play at the end of games, LaMarcus injury/Gay injury all play a part of the recent decline. As well as individual performances and regression from a few players. You blaming Murray for the losing record because he's starting is pretty absurd, especially when the Spurs actually outscore their opponents whenever he is on the floor. It doesn't really get anymore clear than that.

[Chinook]

One player starting or not starting isn't the reason why Spurs have been losing. The uptick in strength of schedule, terrible luck at end of games, bad play at the end of games, LaMarcus injury/Gay injury all play a part of the recent decline. As well as individual performances and regression from a few players. You blaming Murray for the losing record because he's starting is pretty absurd, especially when the Spurs actually outscore their opponents whenever he is on the floor. It doesn't really get anymore clear than that.

But it's not that simply. The math is agnostic to the rest of the unit. Maybe Murray's stats are so good because of the guys he has to play with. Or maybe the cascade that comes from him getting more playing time makes the rest of the team worse by concentrating bad defenders. Or a lot of other reasons. On-Off numbers are not the end-all be all. There's a reason why people have been trying to make "better" plus-minus stats rather than just look at that one. Murray's started at multiple points of the season, and he has an abysmal record of doing so. Whether it's "his fault" or not, it's not leading to wins. Pop has been floudering trying to cover up all the wholes that have come up over the past few weeks since Murray has taken over. No numbers catch that.

[MaNu4Tres]

But it's not that simply. The math is agnostic to the rest of the unit. Maybe Murray's stats are so good because of the guys he has to play with. Or maybe the cascade that comes from him getting more playing time makes the rest of the team worse by concentrating bad defenders. Or a lot of other reasons. On-Off numbers are not the end-all be all. There's a reason why people have been trying to make "better" plus-minus stats rather than just look at that one. Murray's started at multiple points of the season, and he has an abysmal record of doing so. Whether it's "his fault" or not, it's not leading to wins. Pop has been floudering trying to cover up all the wholes that have come up over the past few weeks since Murray has taken over. No numbers catch that.

You thinking Murray starting is the reason why Spurs have been losing is just more than absurd. That is all.

[tholdren]

One player starting or not starting isn't the reason why Spurs have been losing. The uptick in strength of schedule, terrible luck at end of games, bad play at the end of games, LaMarcus injury/Gay injury all play a part of the recent decline. As well as individual performances and regression from a few players. You blaming Murray for the losing record because he's starting is pretty absurd, especially when the Spurs actually outscore their opponents whenever he is on the floor. It doesn't really get anymore clear than that.

Dumb. Just dumb

[Chinook]

You thinking Murray starting is the reason why Spurs have been losing is just more than absurd. That is all.

I never said Murray was THE reason. I have said that Murray's stats belie the reality that the team has not been successful with him in the first unit. I think it was Pop's attempt to find a spark and it has just cascaded into more instability. Murray's no more "the reason" behind their losses than he'd be "the reason" behind them winning with Kawhi. But I also think they'd be just as successful if not more with Kawhi and Parker than with Kawhi and Murray. I don't think his defense has been worth it.

[MaNu4Tres]

I never said Murray was THE reason. I have said that Murray's stats belie the reality that the team has not been successful with him in the first unit. I think it was Pop's attempt to find a spark and it has just cascaded into more instability. Murray's no more "the reason" behind their losses than he'd be "the reason" behind them winning with Kawhi. But I also think they'd be just as successful if not more with Kawhi and Parker than with Kawhi and Murray. I don't think his defense has been worth it.

Advanced analytics say otherwise. He's overall the best option they have at the point guard position and it's really not close. He's actually been on of the only bright spots during this recent descend.