Here's the deal...let's cut the nonsense.

[FromWayDowntown]

Okay, I am done with this thread. People ignore FACTS. First of all, what's the point of having statistics if "numbers can be misleading" or whatever nonsense that was. I guess let's just not have an NBA Finals anymore either, because NBA Finals are misleading too now, right?

You're right -- statistics really tell the tale of a team's success; that must be why the team with the best record at the end of each season wins the le.

Statistics are helpful to understanding what you see, but they don't tell the whole story because they are ridiculously imprecise. If you really want to base arguments on nothing other than statistics, I'd suggest that you dig around at places like 82games.com or popcornmachine to find numbers that truly explain something meaningful.

It's not called boundless optimism, it's called looking at the standings and statistics (3rd best in the league, one of the top road records, 2nd in opponent's points per game allowed), not picking apart Spurs losses against the Sealions and the Bears or whoever, and saying: OMG they left Mark Madsen wide open for a jumper! Season's over!

It is optimism if you're willing to point to the standings as proof of an argument without including in your analysis things that happen on the court and are obvious to most other observers. The Spurs, for most of the 1990's, were a team that looked dominant in the standings every year, but had no chance in playoff series against teams that could exploit their rather obvious weaknesses. This team, compared to the rest of the league, looks more like a mid-90's Spurs team than a 1999-2005 Spurs team. I think most people who watch them would tell you that, despite their record. I hope that changes.

It's also called looking at the history of the style of the play of DAL/PHX and it's championship success (in this case, non-success) this decade. You know, if Dallas had won the championship, this would be a completely different thread, because they would have proved that jump shooting and wild shots win championships...was just not the outcome. Oh, and since we're allowed to make up wild stories about misleading numbers, try this: Phoenix is 1-6 vs Spurs, Dallas, Utah, and some other team, either houston or LA.

In the first place, Dallas isn't a run-and-gun team like it was under Don Nelson. If you want to talk about statistics, according to John Hollinger's numbers, the Mavericks actually play at a slower pace, night-in and night-out, than the Spurs do. In fact, only the Blazers and the Pistons play at a slower pace than the Mavericks. So, in terms of style of play, the Mavericks are virtually identical to the Spurs in that respect. The Mavericks are far more efficient on the offensive end at that pace, but they don't play the same style as Phoenix. If you really think that, you haven't been watching much basketball of late. I generally despise the Mavericks, but right now, I have no doubt that they are the best team in basketball. They are far more like the 2004-05 Spurs than this group of Spurs is. They defend pretty well, they're efficient on the offensive end, they are witches in the 4th quarter, and they can win playing any style.

Even if the Mavericks played the up-and-down style that you suggest they do -- and they clearly don't -- the notion that "well that style hasn't won in a while and it won't win now" strikes me as outrageously simplistic. At some point, as the style of play around the league changes, someone who plays at a fast pace is likely going to win a le.

[timvp]

In my opinion, the biggest problems on defense are:

1) The bigs. Duncan's defense is much, much better than it was earlier this year. Still not great, but over the last five or so games he has picked it up.

In Elson's time on the court, he averages 4.8 points. The player he is guarding is averaging 7.3 points. In Oberto's time on the court, he averages 5.0 points. The player he is guarding is averaging 8.3 points. That's pretty horrible man-to-man defense ... and that's not even counting all the points they give up by not being able to guard the paint effectively.

2) Finley and Barry both get lit up more than the Riverwalk on Christmas. Opponents average 6 more points per 100 possessions with Finley on the court and 9 more points with Barry on the court. It seems like age and all those Nellie minutes have caught up to Finley, but I can't use that same excuse for Barry because he doesn't looked run down. I think Barry just isn't puttuing in the effort that he was last year ... and Pop can't bench him to prove a point because everyone else on the bench sucks worse.

3) Beno and Vaughn suck. Beno couldn't guard his own shadow and while Vaughn is active, his activity doesn't really translate to anything.

4) Rule changes. As the NBA gives more and more freedom to penetrating swingmen, that hurts the Spurs more and more. Not only do the lack they shotblockers of the past, but it's also harder to force opponents to go baseline. Refs call almost any contact now, so opponents can go middle or force the Spurs to get into foul trouble.

5) Rebounding. The Spurs are on pace to get the least amount of rebounds in franchise history. The Spurs have one player who averages more than five boards. Against the better teams in the league, the Spurs just can't get it done rebounding wise. They've been outrebounded by the Mavs 13 games in a row. Although overlooked, this could very well be the Spurs' biggest flaw.

[mabber]

You're right -- statistics really tell the tale of a team's success; that must be why the team with the best record at the end of each season wins the le.

Statistics are helpful to understanding what you see, but they don't tell the whole story because they are ridiculously imprecise. If you really want to base arguments on nothing other than statistics, I'd suggest that you dig around at places like 82games.com or popcornmachine to find numbers that truly explain something meaningful.



It is optimism if you're willing to point to the standings as proof of an argument without including in your analysis things that happen on the court and are obvious to most other observers. The Spurs, for most of the 1990's, were a team that looked dominant in the standings every year, but had no chance in playoff series against teams that could exploit their rather obvious weaknesses. This team, compared to the rest of the league, looks more like a mid-90's Spurs team than a 1999-2005 Spurs team. I think most people who watch them would tell you that, despite their record. I hope that changes.



In the first place, Dallas isn't a run-and-gun team like it was under Don Nelson. If you want to talk about statistics, according to John Hollinger's numbers, the Mavericks actually play at a slower pace, night-in and night-out, than the Spurs do. In fact, only the Blazers and the Pistons play at a slower pace than the Mavericks. So, in terms of style of play, the Mavericks are virtually identical to the Spurs in that respect. The Mavericks are far more efficient on the offensive end at that pace, but they don't play the same style as Phoenix. If you really think that, you haven't been watching much basketball of late. I generally despise the Mavericks, but right now, I have no doubt that they are the best team in basketball. They are far more like the 2004-05 Spurs than this group of Spurs is. They defend pretty well, they're efficient on the offensive end, they are witches in the 4th quarter, and they can win playing any style.

Even if the Mavericks played the up-and-down style that you suggest they do -- and they clearly don't -- the notion that "well that style hasn't won in a while and it won't win now" strikes me as outrageously simplistic. At some point, as the style of play around the league changes, someone who plays at a fast pace is likely going to win a le.

Good post! I totally agree with you in regards to stats and the fact that eventually somone who plays at a fast pace is gonna win a le as the league changes, etc.

You understand how the Mavericks play better than a few of the Mav posters on here ...and MUCH better than most of the Spur's posters.

[Big Shot Rob]

I'm not very good with stats--I am the first to concede that point.

My gut feeling is that barring an injury to the Mavs, they would be the team that I would put my hard-earned cash on to take it all this year.

I think we could give the Suns a good compe ive series. As much as our bench sucks, we were pretty much even within the last 3-4 minutes of the game. If just one guy hit a key bucket here or there, the game might have been different. Unfortunately, that did not happen and the floodgates opened for the Suns and they beat the out of us in the closing minutes.

Unfortunately, I still think the Mavs would clobber us if we don't change something--a player, rotation--something.

Quite honestly--if I had to choose, I think I'd rather see Dirk get a ring than that ing prick Raja Bell. And I'd rather see Avery get a ring as a coach than that prick from the Suns.

Still--we're still in this thing--keep hope alive. I felt like jumping off the ledge after the Phoenix game.

After a day or two of reflection--as bad as our bench is--in a back to back game in Phoenix, the game could just as easily turned out the other way--we can still compete with the Suns in a seven game series.

[spurschick]

Beating all of the contenders in the regular season and pulling off a couple of sweeps in the playoffs would be great, but you have to admit that the drama and uncertainty of this season is going to make for a great championship dvd.

[FromWayDowntown]

Beating all of the contenders in the regular season and pulling off a couple of sweeps in the playoffs would be great, but you have to admit that the drama and uncertainty of the this season is going to make for a great championship dvd.

It's like our long-time ally, Phil Jackson, told Marc Stein:

"They're kind of like the Lakers were in 2001 or 2002," Phil Jackson says of the Spurs, comparing them to his turn-it-on, switch-flipping teams of the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant era.

"Older players know their limitations. They know what the regular season means. They're running the marathon, not trying to lead the pack. They know they can win on the road. They're comfortable with how they can play in playoff situations. Popovich knows how to do this.

"It's too early to say anything [dismissive] about them. They're still a team that has to be considered very, very dangerous."

This comes from a guy, remember, who has never been a member of any Gregg Popovich fan clubs.

[duncandaman]

we just have to many old guys around da big 3 and thats it, we need some athletic guys

[SenorSpur]

You're right -- statistics really tell the tale of a team's success; that must be why the team with the best record at the end of each season wins the le.

Statistics are helpful to understanding what you see, but they don't tell the whole story because they are ridiculously imprecise. If you really want to base arguments on nothing other than statistics, I'd suggest that you dig around at places like 82games.com or popcornmachine to find numbers that truly explain something meaningful.



It is optimism if you're willing to point to the standings as proof of an argument without including in your analysis things that happen on the court and are obvious to most other observers. The Spurs, for most of the 1990's, were a team that looked dominant in the standings every year, but had no chance in playoff series against teams that could exploit their rather obvious weaknesses. This team, compared to the rest of the league, looks more like a mid-90's Spurs team than a 1999-2005 Spurs team. I think most people who watch them would tell you that, despite their record. I hope that changes.



In the first place, Dallas isn't a run-and-gun team like it was under Don Nelson. If you want to talk about statistics, according to John Hollinger's numbers, the Mavericks actually play at a slower pace, night-in and night-out, than the Spurs do. In fact, only the Blazers and the Pistons play at a slower pace than the Mavericks. So, in terms of style of play, the Mavericks are virtually identical to the Spurs in that respect. The Mavericks are far more efficient on the offensive end at that pace, but they don't play the same style as Phoenix. If you really think that, you haven't been watching much basketball of late. I generally despise the Mavericks, but right now, I have no doubt that they are the best team in basketball. They are far more like the 2004-05 Spurs than this group of Spurs is. They defend pretty well, they're efficient on the offensive end, they are witches in the 4th quarter, and they can win playing any style.

Even if the Mavericks played the up-and-down style that you suggest they do -- and they clearly don't -- the notion that "well that style hasn't won in a while and it won't win now" strikes me as outrageously simplistic. At some point, as the style of play around the league changes, someone who plays at a fast pace is likely going to win a le.

That's a touchdown!

I hate the Mavs like everyone else, yet if you watch basketball you can see the obvious difference in the way they're playing and in the "steely" determination with which they are methodically carving up their opponents night in and night out. Kinda Spurs like of a couple seasons ago.

[spurschick]

IMO, one of the reasons that the Spurs haven't been able to win back-to-back les is because playing deep into June has it's long-term effects in the following season's playoffs. Dallas, while obviously hungry, is playing at a pretty mean pace right now and I can't help but wonder if they're going to run out of gas some time in May.

As for the Suns, I still don't think they can beat the Spurs in a 7 game series.

[Extra Stout]

IMO, one of the reasons that the Spurs haven't been able to win back-to-back les is because playing deep into June has it's long-term effects in the following season's playoffs. Dallas, while obviously hungry, is playing at a pretty mean pace right now and I can't help but wonder if they're going to run out of gas some time in May.

As for the Suns, I still don't think they can beat the Spurs in a 7 game series.

The Mavericks have no player averaging as many as 37 minutes per game. Run out of gas?

[1Parker1]

IMO, one of the reasons that the Spurs haven't been able to win back-to-back les is because playing deep into June has it's long-term effects in the following season's playoffs. Dallas, while obviously hungry, is playing at a pretty mean pace right now and I can't help but wonder if they're going to run out of gas some time in May.

As for the Suns, I still don't think they can beat the Spurs in a 7 game series.

Mavs are too deep of a team to run out of gas. I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "mean pace" do you mean run and gun play style ala Mavs or winning many games all at once?

Either way, they have guys like Stackhouse, Devean George, even Croshure to help bail them out if they ever get into any offensive droughts. IMO, that is what the Spurs are missing desperately right now in their regular season losses. Despite the obvious rebounding and defense issues that have been discussed in this thread, Spurs were still in a position to win many of those games. Problem is, they're usually playing 3 on 5 in those situations. If we had just one other bench player step up for us, I think it'd be huge for them in terms of regular season wins. Horry, Beno, and Finley are shooting a combined 36% or something this season which is insane. Bruce Bowen's offense has also struggled since the New Year began and Barry is too up and down.

These aren't the same Spurs as last year: Last year the Spurs were en route to a 60+ win season, they were holding opponents to league low 42% (now it's something like 45%), and Finley/Bowen/Horry were playing a lot better. While you're right that the regular season rarely counts for anything since anything can happen in the playoffs, this year's losses are showing more and more holes in the Spurs offense and defense.

[1Parker1]

BTW, You know what I miss the most about the Spurs?

Remember back in the days, they would shoot 38-42% for three quarters. Then the 4th quarter would come and all of a sudden for a 7-8 minute stretch, they'd completely shut down the opponent and their will to win and come back from behind and win the game. We saw that momentarily in the Lakers win, but other than that, I think that's a big aspect of the Spurs MO that's been missing. Granted we don't have the personell to do that, but it makes you wonder how this fanchise managed to get away from the ideology so quickly after 2005.

[spurschick]

Mavs are too deep of a team to run out of gas. I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "mean pace" do you mean run and gun play style ala Mavs or winning many games all at once?

Run and gun style - and they've had to slug out some of their wins. I realize they're deep, but it's a just a feeling that I have that they'll show some wear-and-tear around the second round. I don't have stats or anything to back that up... like I said, just a feeling.

[1Parker1]

Run and gun style - and they've had to slug out some of their wins. I realize they're deep, but it's a just a feeling that I have that they'll show some wear-and-tear around the second round. I don't have stats or anything to back that up... like I said, just a feeling.

Well, I sure hope you're right! I just think Avery is too good of a coach to let that happen. Though if the Suns continue to stay on their tails, he may have no choice but to continue giving his starters more time.

[Extra Stout]

Run and gun style - and they've had to slug out some of their wins. I realize they're deep, but it's a just a feeling that I have that they'll show some wear-and-tear around the second round. I don't have stats or anything to back that up... like I said, just a feeling.

The Mavericks don't play run-and-gun. Their game pace is slower than the Spurs' is.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Mavericks don't play run-and-gun. Their game pace is slower than the Spurs' is.

I thought I heard that somewhere.

[Extra Stout]

I thought I heard that somewhere.

Was it from you? Might have been. 82games agrees with you.

[FromWayDowntown]

Was it from you? Might have been. 82games agrees with you.

See above

[Extra Stout]

Spurs average 90 possessions per game. Mavericks average 89.

[spurschick]

The Mavericks have no player averaging as many as 37 minutes per game. Run out of gas?

If you're trying to make the point that I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't care. I am just expressing an opinion that I don't think the Mavs will make it to the finals.

[RC's Boss]

wrong,Phoenix has improved by bringing more defensive minded guys like bell and Boris Diaw.The spurs just brought in some useless like Finley(last year)and .........well we have so much in our bench.

Diaw is not defensive minded. He's a forward w/ a point guards passing ability How the did you get defensive minded and Diaws name in the same sentence

[RC's Boss]

If you're trying to make the point that I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't care. I am just expressing an opinion that I don't think the Mavs will make it to the finals.

Yep, just like Detroit last year, they feel the sting of losing. Actually they feel it worse, Detroit just lost while the Mavs choked. Not to slight them, I believed they were far superior than Miami.

[Marcus Bryant]

The basic problem is that the Spurs allowed the quality of their #4-6 guys in the rotation to wane.

[ploto]

The Spurs used to be able to withstand offensive droughts through their defense, but that simply is not the case anymore. Do you remember the stat shown during the Phoenix game- for the previous few years the Spurs could shoot under 45% and still win over half of those games. The stat for this year was something like 4-12. Does anyone remember? Simply put, the Spurs defense can not be relied on to get stops to hold on when the offense comes up short.

And like it or not, last season the Spur with the best on court defensive numbers in terms of opponents points per 100 possessions- Rasho (96.4).

[Marcus Bryant]

man pick a former Spur to fixate on who actually helped the team win a le. Like say,



or