I don't want the #1 seed in the West!

[Kool Bob Love]

ONE MO TIME- for those who can read. Even if Pop can maintain the current minutes for the BIG 3, they will be worn out come playoff time. I would sacrifice the #1 seed in order to have the BIG 3 rested and healthy. Instead of upping their minutes, Pop should reduce them by not playing Tim and Manu in back to backs. Tony is 28 but has played a lot of ball. He needs to rest too. If the Little 9 can secure the #1 seed, go for it. If not, I want our Big 3 as fresh as daiseys for the playoffs.
I believe that the Spurs are deep enough this year to get to the finals. Don't waste B3 energy trying for the #1 seed. The higher the better but save the B3 for the long, long, long playoff run.
If responders can't write more than one sentence to contradict or post only an avatar--you are morons.

Of course this is the plan all along.

[lotr1trekkie]

One line and a big ass girl pic---really informative!

[Agloco]

OP makes no sense.

This

The OP fails miserably since he/she doesn't take into consideration that either LA or Dallas will end up as #1 if we don't.

That would set up:

The #4 seed would be somewhat detrimental because it would likely require that the Spurs would possibly face both the Mavs and Fakers in consecutive rounds (WCSF & WCF) in the playoffs.

[senorglory]

Via ESPN Stats and Information:

SERIES WON BY TEAM WITH HOME-COURT ADVANTAGE, since 1983-84 (when the NBA went to a 16-team format)

First Round: 166-50 (.769)
Conference Semifinals: 85-23 (.787)
Conference Finals: 37-17 (.685)
NBA Finals: 21-6 (.778)

Clearly there's a significant link between success and the home court advantage in the NBA playoffs. Not surprisingly, the same principles extend to seeding, as well.

Western Conference Postseason Series Win/Loss By Seed, Since 1983-84

1 Seed: 72-19 (.791, eight NBA les)
2 Seed: 41-24 (.631, three les)
3 Seed: 40-25 (.615, two les)
4 Seed: 15-27 (.357, no les)
5 Seed: 17-27 (.386, no les)

http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/...ose-home-court

[Agloco]

Western Conference Postseason Series Win/Loss By Seed, Since 1983-84

1 Seed: 72-19 (.791, eight NBA les)
2 Seed: 41-24 (.631, three les)
3 Seed: 40-25 (.615, two les)
4 Seed: 15-27 (.357, no les)
5 Seed: 17-27 (.386, no les)

Interesting that the 6th seed isn't included in this list. I could have sworn that Houston was the 6th seed during their 2nd le run.

[easjer]

ONE MO TIME- for those who can read. Even if Pop can maintain the current minutes for the BIG 3, they will be worn out come playoff time. I would sacrifice the #1 seed in order to have the BIG 3 rested and healthy. Instead of upping their minutes, Pop should reduce them by not playing Tim and Manu in back to backs. Tony is 28 but has played a lot of ball. He needs to rest too. If the Little 9 can secure the #1 seed, go for it. If not, I want our Big 3 as fresh as daiseys for the playoffs.
I believe that the Spurs are deep enough this year to get to the finals. Don't waste B3 energy trying for the #1 seed. The higher the better but save the B3 for the long, long, long playoff run.
If responders can't write more than one sentence to contradict or post only an avatar--you are morons.

Let me make sure I'm clear - you want them to play the Big 3 even less, even while their minutes are being managed well by Pop and there have been no significant injuries?

You are assuming that Pop's intention is to maintain this pace/winning percentage at the cost of minutes, which is not necessarily true. There is certainly a higher emphasis on winning early this year, but indications are that it is precisely so that minutes can be managed later in the season without detriment to the Spurs' standings in the conference.

If Pop were overplaying the Big 3, your point might be valid. But he isn't overplaying them, as has been pointed out. As the season progresses, they have to play more minutes, or they won't be conditioned for the playoff slog. That's just basic preparedness.

Your arguments make no sense. And the fact I wrote multiple paragraphs to explain at length what Mel 13 said in one concise sentence doesn't make me smarter, really. Just loquacious.

[senorglory]

Interesting that the 6th seed isn't included in this list. I could have sworn that Houston was the 6th seed during their 2nd le run.

lol. yep, Rockets won in '95 from 6th seed. i double checked, and it's not a cut/paste error on my part, the espn article leaves off the 6th seed, in order to make their point.

[phyzik]

1] To get it we would have to wear out out Big 3. Miami can play their big 3 every nite for 38 minutes and it will all be good. The Mavs will push for it because of 0 rings. The Lakers feel obligated to get it.
2] The # 4 seed would be perfect
3] Hopefully, Splitter and Anderson will add to the bench which will be vital this season.
4] Defensively, we need to improve by the playoffs. We really have only one BIG. If Splitter can get up to 2o minutes a game, we will be stronger.
Somehow, the NBA has become more like the NFL. Unlike other years the grind to championship in the East will be brutal. Rest the BIG 3 and build on this improved bench!