Spurs: Predict how the Spurs will lose this year

[Killakobe81]

I already posted Vegas odds but since Amb says spurs are not faves ... some respected guys plenty who love advanced metrics love dem Spurs

NBA com click here (Favorites Warriors or Spurs)

From Lowe at Grantland

I could go on ... Lowe even addresses the same concerns you have above and still thinks the Spurs once they work LMA in their offense could be "devastating". Are they slamdunk favorites? No. But only dumbass casual fans, Laker homers and ty media thought the 2012 Lakers were slamdunks. Like everyone else they point to Lebron's path as an advantage ...and hard to argue Cavs are not the favorites ...but they have ?'s too. their #2 and #3 have both had significant injuries the past two years and Lebron has played A LOT of minutes the past 8 years especially the past 5 seasons.

[DMC]

Not true. If a bunch of high school kids beat the Spurs, the leader of that high school team deserves credit. If they lost, it's simply because they were out matched. Your bias assumption was faulty.

Last I checked Tim doesn't play on a high school team. So you made a bad analogy.

If one HS team beat another HS team and no one told you why, and you said "well that just speaks to the leadership of that coach" and then you find out the score was reversed by mistake and you say "well, it's not that coach's fault", you're guilty of using a double standard.

If the Spurs win, it would only speak to Tim's leadership if that leadership were responsible. If they lost, it would only speak to Tim's leadership if that leadership or lack thereof was responsible. Since no one knows why your hypothetical scenario played out as a win, you've set the standard by crediting Tim's leadership sans any knowledge, so you have special pleading going on to say that without also allowing that the same suggestion would then be true for the loss. Sure you could reshape your prediction so that Tim's leadership becomes the major factor, and that they still lose because 3 other starters are injured, but you didn't do that. It's also possible that the other team had injured players.

Your assumptions lack basic logic.

I didn't make an assumption, you did. You suggested the win and the reason for it. I only made the logical conclusion based on your rules.

Use you brain, fat hands.

You don't understand logic. It's ok, you're a forum hole so I was just taking my turn.

[cjw]

I'm going to go with Duncan finally gets a season ending injury

Lakers fans forget Duncan has already had a season-ending injury in 2000 that paved the way for Shaq's first le.

[ambchang]

You were here. I said WCF ceiling, you do know what that means, right? Meaning if everything breaks right that is how high I saw that team. Some of that was out of respect for OKC and LAC ...and I predicted 2nd round loss plenty that year you can look it up ...not even knowing the injuries at the time.

In My rankings just like yours losing one round earlier is not a huge failure based on MY predictions, if that is the case. SO does that absolve the Lakers from failing that year just because I did not see them ringing?

I dont give a if you want to try and downplay this and getting your blame game sights on Tony's fatass, if you guys dont ring ... I will be doing all the same bull you do about 2012.

Get your ass ready because my foot is getting warmed up just in case ...

Well, what do you mean by "if everything breaks right?" If everything breaks right for the Lakers in 2012, they would have won the championship, it would be true for every team, but unfortunately for you, nothing broke right for the Lakers that year, and they ended up 7th and swept in the 1st round.

When I read "everything breaks right", I would imagine it being everything went according to plan and within expectations. According to most people, that would be a championship, according to you, that would be a WCF. They ended up 7th (really struggle to even get to the playoffs, aided by a su ious streak of FTA disparity not only for them, but for teams that compete with them for the 8th spot in the final few months of the season (see the post I made back then, too lazy to dig it up). Therefore, even according to your standards, it was a failure.

I already posted Vegas odds but since Amb says spurs are not faves ... some respected guys plenty who love advanced metrics love dem Spurs

NBA com click here (Favorites Warriors or Spurs)

From Lowe at Grantland

I could go on ... Lowe even addresses the same concerns you have above and still thinks the Spurs once they work LMA in their offense could be "devastating". Are they slamdunk favorites? No. But only dumbass casual fans, Laker homers and ty media thought the 2012 Lakers were slamdunks. Like everyone else they point to Lebron's path as an advantage ...and hard to argue Cavs are not the favorites ...but they have ?'s too. their #2 and #3 have both had significant injuries the past two years and Lebron has played A LOT of minutes the past 8 years especially the past 5 seasons.

So ... Lowe said they are not a slamdunk favourite, and that they are in the running for the le, and I agree with that, because Duncan is ALWAYS in the running for the le (except 2009 to around 2011). In fact, Lowe said:

The Spurs? They always win. It’s too early to declare them undisputed favorites, especially since the reloading Cavs have a much easier path to the Finals. The Thunder could earn their way back into this stratosphere fast. The defending champs are young, and the Spurs are leaning on at least five key players over 30. But the Spurs have a chance to be devastating.

What's this? "a chance to be devastating", "It’s too early to declare them undisputed favorites, especially since ...." Doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement to me.

The article is absolutely right, the Spurs were the biggest winners in the offseason, no question about that. It also didn't say the Spurs are odds-on favourites to win it all.

[ambchang]

Last I checked Tim doesn't play on a high school team. So you made a bad analogy.

If one HS team beat another HS team and no one told you why, and you said "well that just speaks to the leadership of that coach" and then you find out the score was reversed by mistake and you say "well, it's not that coach's fault", you're guilty of using a double standard.

If the Spurs win, it would only speak to Tim's leadership if that leadership were responsible. If they lost, it would only speak to Tim's leadership if that leadership or lack thereof was responsible. Since no one knows why your hypothetical scenario played out as a win, you've set the standard by crediting Tim's leadership sans any knowledge, so you have special pleading going on to say that without also allowing that the same suggestion would then be true for the loss. Sure you could reshape your prediction so that Tim's leadership becomes the major factor, and that they still lose because 3 other starters are injured, but you didn't do that. It's also possible that the other team had injured players.

Last I checked, you said:

If Duncan's leadership is responsible for winning, then it must be to blame for not winning. He cannot only benefit without risk.

You just said it in your response, which I predicted was your intent in your post to which I first responded.

Your responses are tiresome and lack abstract thought.

See above, Balky.

So if a person's leadership is responsible for winning, then it must be to blame for not winning.

You were saying something about benefit without risk and abstract thought?

I didn't make an assumption, you did. You suggested the win and the reason for it. I only made the logical conclusion based on your rules.

You don't understand logic. It's ok, you're a forum hole so I was just taking my turn.

You made an assumption, you assumed that if the presence of success leads to credit, then the absence of it must lead to blame. I showed you not to be true.

I didn't suggest the reason for the win, I suggested that Duncan is the leader of the team, which is what have been observed quite consistently for years.

, you talking about logic. The fat in your hands must have traveled to your brain and blocked your ability to think.

[DMC]

Last I checked, you said:



So if a person's leadership is responsible for winning, then it must be to blame for not winning.

You were saying something about benefit without risk and abstract thought?



You made an assumption, you assumed that if the presence of success leads to credit, then the absence of it must lead to blame. I showed you not to be true.

I didn't suggest the reason for the win, I suggested that Duncan is the leader of the team, which is what have been observed quite consistently for years.

, you talking about logic. The fat in your hands must have traveled to your brain and blocked your ability to think.

I already explained this to you.

For the others on the forum who might be as slow as you:

Lose in the second round.

The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities.

This is you assigning credit to Tim Duncan's leadership abilities with zero exception for anything else that might cause the Spurs to win That means I am not assuming anything. You're inferring that the presence of success leads to credit since you've assigned it with only one condition: success. Way to kick your own ass.

You're also hedging your bets here, that much is obvious. Cherry picking is on the table as well, since winning validates Tim's abilities while losing does not invalidate them.

If I were to take your story at face value, I'd think Tim's leadership ability is the key to winning. You're saying now that it's not. But then again you're saying that it is. You don't know whether to or go blind.

If the Spurs win it all and Tim is injured and sitting on the bench the entire time, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

If Tim dies in a car accident and the Spurs win it all regardless, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

In each of those, they won it all and yet Tim Duncan wasn't on the court. In the first example Tim must be leading from the bench, and in the 2nd he must be leading from the afterlife.

Wipe your mouth and get off your knees now.

[Killakobe81]

Well, what do you mean by "if everything breaks right?" If everything breaks right for the Lakers in 2012, they would have won the championship, it would be true for every team, but unfortunately for you, nothing broke right for the Lakers that year, and they ended up 7th and swept in the 1st round.

When I read "everything breaks right", I would imagine it being everything went according to plan and within expectations. According to most people, that would be a championship, according to you, that would be a WCF. They ended up 7th (really struggle to even get to the playoffs, aided by a su ious streak of FTA disparity not only for them, but for teams that compete with them for the 8th spot in the final few months of the season (see the post I made back then, too lazy to dig it up). Therefore, even according to your standards, it was a failure.



So ... Lowe said they are not a slamdunk favourite, and that they are in the running for the le, and I agree with that, because Duncan is ALWAYS in the running for the le (except 2009 to around 2011). In fact, Lowe said:


What's this? "a chance to be devastating", "It’s too early to declare them undisputed favorites, especially since ...." Doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement to me.

The article is absolutely right, the Spurs were the biggest winners in the offseason, no question about that. It also didn't say the Spurs are odds-on favourites to win it all.

Apparently, DMC decided to break his foot off in your ass first, no room left for my size 12's ... so We can take this up later ... But do I really have to explain the concept of "ceiling" to you? Or argue that if "everything breaks right" for the T'wolves or Sixers this year it STILL wont = a championship?! Seriously?

Has DMC slapped you stupid? What is going on around here?

[Killakobe81]

I already explained this to you.

For the others on the forum who might be as slow as you:



This is you assigning credit to Tim Duncan's leadership abilities with zero exception for anything else that might cause the Spurs to win That means I am not assuming anything. You're inferring that the presence of success leads to credit since you've assigned it with only one condition: success. Way to kick your own ass.

You're also hedging your bets here, that much is obvious. Cherry picking is on the table as well, since winning validates Tim's abilities while losing does not invalidate them.

If I were to take your story at face value, I'd think Tim's leadership ability is the key to winning. You're saying now that it's not. But then again you're saying that it is. You don't know whether to or go blind.

If the Spurs win it all and Tim is injured and sitting on the bench the entire time, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

If Tim dies in a car accident and the Spurs win it all regardless, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

In each of those, they won it all and yet Tim Duncan wasn't on the court. In the first example Tim must be leading from the bench, and in the 2nd he must be leading from the afterlife.

Wipe your mouth and get off your knees now.

havent read all of the recent stuff but this post right here? that is vintage DMC. You are still an asshole, and I still wont wage with you anymore ...but good to see the old fire spittin' borderline racist back.

[ambchang]

I already explained this to you.

For the others on the forum who might be as slow as you:



This is you assigning credit to Tim Duncan's leadership abilities with zero exception for anything else that might cause the Spurs to win That means I am not assuming anything. You're inferring that the presence of success leads to credit since you've assigned it with only one condition: success. Way to kick your own ass.

You're also hedging your bets here, that much is obvious. Cherry picking is on the table as well, since winning validates Tim's abilities while losing does not invalidate them.

If I were to take your story at face value, I'd think Tim's leadership ability is the key to winning. You're saying now that it's not. But then again you're saying that it is. You don't know whether to or go blind.

If the Spurs win it all and Tim is injured and sitting on the bench the entire time, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

If Tim dies in a car accident and the Spurs win it all regardless, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

In each of those, they won it all and yet Tim Duncan wasn't on the court. In the first example Tim must be leading from the bench, and in the 2nd he must be leading from the afterlife.

Wipe your mouth and get off your knees now.

So your assumption is if Tim dies that his past leadership has no effect on the team? I disagree. Duncan put his stamp on this team, and it has a lasting effect. You not being able to grasp is not my problem.

Which is another point you are making from your original point, which was if Tim gets credit for winning, he MUST be held responsible for losing, which I have shown is not the case.

But then, your fat hands may have blocked the view of your monitor.

[ambchang]

Apparently, DMC decided to break his foot off in your ass first, no room left for my size 12's ... so We can take this up later ...proceed.

You are above this, DMC horrible "logic" has been exposed. Please don't tell me you are as stupid as he is, or would sink so low to agree with something that stupid so that you can "argue" with me.

[DMC]

So your assumption is if Tim dies that his past leadership has no effect on the team? I disagree. Duncan put his stamp on this team, and it has a lasting effect. You not being able to grasp is not my problem.

It's very simple:

If the team loses, was Tim's leadership not up to snuff?
If the team wins, was Tim's leadership up to snuff?

I predict you will say Tim's leadership would be up to snuff regardless, which makes it not the deciding factor in a win or a loss.

Which is another point you are making from your original point, which was if Tim gets credit for winning, he MUST be held responsible for losing, which I have shown is not the case.

Tim wouldn't get credit for winning if he wasn't on the court. He'd get a ring, but so would Peter Holt.

But then, your fat hands may have blocked the view of your monitor.

I've bested you and that's all you can come up with? It wasn't funny the first couple of times, it's not going to suddenly become funny.

[Killakobe81]

You are above this, DMC horrible "logic" has been exposed. Please don't tell me you are as stupid as he is, or would sink so low to agree with something that stupid so that you can "argue" with me.

Havent read it all yet not choosing sides ...I just gave him credit for spitting with fire not his logic. And yes you make great arguments but are calling him "fat hands" repeatedly ... not usually a sign of "winning" an argument when you are name-calling.
But the fight is still early and I need to review the early rounds ... but that last round went to DMC ... for being the the more aggressive and busier fighter. Sometimes accuracy is less important than ferocity especially when this can not be decided with facts.

You know amb, you one of my faves I do not choose to argue with you I think you choose to argue with me more ... but that's our thing ...can't be mad either way. We just leave Kobe alone for now because duncan has been elevated over him on my list ...not sure what else you have to gain by continuing with me ...do you want me to place Pau over him too?

[ambchang]

It's very simple:

If the team loses, was Tim's leadership not up to snuff?
If the team wins, was Tim's leadership up to snuff?

No and yes. No what?

I predict you will say Tim's leadership would be up to snuff regardless, which makes it not the deciding factor in a win or a loss.

Tim wouldn't get credit for winning if he wasn't on the court. He'd get a ring, but so would Peter Holt.

You heard me say Peter Holt doesn't deserve credit if the Spurs win the championship?

I've bested you and that's all you can come up with? It wasn't funny the first couple of times, it's not going to suddenly become funny.

It wasn't funny, it's just true you have fat hands.

[ambchang]

Havent read it all yet not choosing sides ...I just gave him credit for spitting with fire not his logic. And yes you make great arguments but are calling him "fat hands" repeatedly ... not usually a sign of "winning" an argument when you are name-calling.

He does have fat hands. After typing "you" and "DMC" for so many times, I have to come up with something else.

And spitting fire is not usually a sign of "winning" an argument either.

But the fight is still early and I need to review the early rounds ... but that last round went to DMC ... for being the the more aggressive and busier fighter. Sometimes accuracy is less important than ferocity especially when this can not be decided with facts.

Who made you the judge? The rounds will go to DMC because he is taking your side. It's like asking you to judge a beauty pageant with your daughter being a contestant.

You know amb, you one of my faves I do not choose to argue with you I think you choose to argue with me more ... but that's our thing ...can't be mad either way. We just leave Kobe alone for now because duncan has been elevated over him on my list ...not sure what else you have to gain by continuing with me ...do you want me to place Pau over him too?

MVPau should be ranked below Kobe, it really isn't a fair ranking, but it's tough to argue otherwise. If MVPau played with Shaq and a team with a competent wing, he may be ranked much higher. Player rankings are based on a lot of things, and you can't deny that team success is one of them, which means that the ranking of an individual is based on cir stances outside his control (along with compe ion, team location, franchise history, etc ....). For how high Kobe ranked, it was due almost EXCLUSIVELY to these other factors, which to me is just hilarious. Other than points, he really isn't great at any stats (and he got a lot of points with questionable efficiency), traditional or advanced, he does have a lot of accolades but many of those are reputation based (his D-team selections come to mind), his own individual dominance never really coincided with team success. In fact, his best years were his sidekick years (undisputed ones next to Shaq, not the MVPau ones), and you just have to look at it and say, which top 10, or even top 20 player has that resume?

[Killakobe81]

He does have fat hands. After typing "you" and "DMC" for so many times, I have to come up with something else.

And spitting fire is not usually a sign of "winning" an argument either.



Who made you the judge? The rounds will go to DMC because he is taking your side. It's like asking you to judge a beauty pageant with your daughter being a contestant.



MVPau should be ranked below Kobe, it really isn't a fair ranking, but it's tough to argue otherwise. If MVPau played with Shaq and a team with a competent wing, he may be ranked much higher. Player rankings are based on a lot of things, and you can't deny that team success is one of them, which means that the ranking of an individual is based on cir stances outside his control (along with compe ion, team location, franchise history, etc ....). For how high Kobe ranked, it was due almost EXCLUSIVELY to these other factors, which to me is just hilarious. Other than points, he really isn't great at any stats (and he got a lot of points with questionable efficiency), traditional or advanced, he does have a lot of accolades but many of those are reputation based (his D-team selections come to mind), his own individual dominance never really coincided with team success. In fact, his best years were his sidekick years (undisputed ones next to Shaq, not the MVPau ones), and you just have to look at it and say, which top 10, or even top 20 player has that resume?

yawwwwwwwwwwwwn. There is no official judge. I gave my opinion, because this is a forum and it's place for it. Don't like to be judged? Don't post. Where do I agree with him or he with me? DMC is one of the posters I agree with the least, doesn't mean he can't be right from time to time.

[Raven]

Al qaeda agent Kirby self explodes in the AT&T center

[DMC]

No and yes. No what?

You're saying Tim's leadership wasn't up to snuff if the team loses? You're being purposely obtuse. Specify your claim.

You heard me say Peter Holt doesn't deserve credit if the Spurs win the championship?

Would you say that, if the Spurs win, it a testament to Peter's great leadership? How about the last man in the rotation? How about the front office worker? Why did you make a claim about Tim then pretend it's not restricted to Tim?

It wasn't funny, it's just true you have fat hands.

You have poor reasoning skills. That's on full display.

[ambchang]

yawwwwwwwwwwwwn. There is no official judge. I gave my opinion, because this is a forum and it's place for it. Don't like to be judged? Don't post. Where do I agree with him or he with me? DMC is one of the posters I agree with the least, doesn't mean he can't be right from time to time.

Since when I did say I didn't want to be judged. I said your judging is biased.

And you straight out said you agreed with him in this thread and another. What the ?

[ambchang]

You're saying Tim's leadership wasn't up to snuff if the team loses? You're being purposely obtuse. Specify your claim.

Typo. No to the first question then yes to the second. I meant to type "now what?" Not "no what"

Would you say that, if the Spurs win, it a testament to Peter's great leadership? How about the last man in the rotation? How about the front office worker? Why did you make a claim about Tim then pretend it's not restricted to Tim?

They all deserve credit. Because they have a hand in the winning of the championship. Duncan's share is obvious because he has been the leader of the team for years.

You have poor reasoning skills. That's on full display.

How so? Like how blame must be present in failures when credit is due in success? See how great your logic was in that one.

[Killakobe81]

Since when I did say I didn't want to be judged. I said your judging is biased.

And you straight out said you agreed with him in this thread and another. What the ?

I was shocked as you but i meant with the argument in this thread ...all of us are biased even the metric lovers here.

[ElNono]

If we lose, it's probably because there was a better team, tbh

[DMC]

Typo. No to the first question then yes to the second. I meant to type "now what?" Not "no what"

Still obtuse.

Either way:

1. No, Tim's leadership isn't up to snuff if the team loses = that's what I said initially.
2. Yes, Tim's leadership is up to snuff even if they lose = Tim's leadership isn't the deciding factor

They all deserve credit. Because they have a hand in the winning of the championship. Duncan's share is obvious because he has been the leader of the team for years.

They all deserve credit, he says. This is after saying the team isn't great, and that if they win it highlights Tim's great leadership abilities. You called out one person and yet you're now saying everyone would deserve credit.

How so? Like how blame must be present in failures when credit is due in success? See how great your logic was in that one.

I don't see a problem with that concept. You didn't say if they win because of Tim, Tim should receive credit. You said if they win it will be because of Tim. That's not giving credit, that's assigning responsibility. Responsibility doesn't change hands when you lose.

[benefactor]

Spurs will win the last game they play.

[ambchang]

Still obtuse.

Either way:

1. No, Tim's leadership isn't up to snuff if the team loses = that's what I said initially.
2. Yes, Tim's leadership is up to snuff even if they lose = Tim's leadership isn't the deciding factor

Why is it an either or? You are basing this on the assumption that Duncan's leadership is the only factor that matters.

It's not.

They all deserve credit, he says. This is after saying the team isn't great, and that if they win it highlights Tim's great leadership abilities. You called out one person and yet you're now saying everyone would deserve credit.

It's not a great team. So if they win, they deserve credit for going above expectations. What part of that do you not understand.

It's like saying, if you can get your head out of your ass, you deserve credit, because it's something that is not expected of you. But if you keep your head in your ass, you don't deserve blame, because it's something expected of you.

I don't see a problem with that concept. You didn't say if they win because of Tim, Tim should receive credit. You said if they win it will be because of Tim. That's not giving credit, that's assigning responsibility. Responsibility doesn't change hands when you lose.

You saw your logic where in my original post? Where did I say if the Spurs win it would have been because of Duncan?

Lose in the second round.

The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities.

[Killakobe81]

Why is it an either or? You are basing this on the assumption that Duncan's leadership is the only factor that matters.

It's not.



It's not a great team. So if they win, they deserve credit for going above expectations. What part of that do you not understand.

It's like saying, if you can get your head out of your ass, you deserve credit, because it's something that is not expected of you. But if you keep your head in your ass, you don't deserve blame, because it's something expected of you.



You saw your logic where in my original post? Where did I say if the Spurs win it would have been because of Duncan?

My boy amb loves to play the semantics game ...
2nd round?
That is your official prediction?