Reply With Quote
Look back in the give-away losses that Tim played in, we were outrebounded or even RB in some of them.
hope you don't mean the Spurs as good this team is, is expected to win 82-82, huh?
Look back in the give-away losses that Tim played in, we were outrebounded or even RB in some of them.
No, it doesn't mean that -- I think its more like 75/82. But losses to those teams deemed "inferior" are simply not acceptable under any cir stances and demonstrate that the Spurs are "inconsistent."
I lost count of the tally, but right now I think boutons is upset with a record that is anything other than about 47-3.
"I lost count of the tally"
... expected for someone who couldn't find his own gonads.
I wrote very clearly what I mean about give-away losses to inferior teams. Address that point or STFU with the straw man BS takes.
PHX will lose again, as will the Spurs, in the race for HCA all the way through the playoffs, but you expect/accept to lose by playing well and getting beat by someobody playing equal or better.
But looking at the 11 losses of PHX and SA, even a homer jerkoff like WDT can see the quality of the PHX losses vs the quality of the Spurs losses is very different. A healthy PHX just hssn't lost by playing crappy against inferior teams.
If PHX can do it, why can't the Spurs? I was hoping the Spurs would have gotten that tendency behind them by mid-Feb.
..and those wide-open shots he would have created for Manu or Barry...
Hey boutons -- it's nice to see that when you have no argument, you can resort to the old standby -- the "no balls" smack.
I'm not a homer. I'm a realist. I've been to this rodeo too many times to get worked up over isolated losses that don't signify any discernable trend. Teams lose games. Teams lose games that they should have won. Teams lose games because they don't execute. Personally, I have no quarrel with occasional losses, so long as the team plays hard. Last night (as with virtually every other loss this season) the Spurs played their guts out. Shots didn't fall. They missed layups. They didn't get to the line. They were a step slow on defense. It happens. You choose to get worked up over it, seeing it as some inherent flaw in the team; I choose to see it as a reality of the NBA season. But, I've also realized that as a Spurs fan, I have a great luxury compared to fans of other teams in the league. I can reasonably expect that my team could win every game it plays. With that, I think, comes the understanding that they won't.
I do take exception to your contention that the Spurs have suffered more bad losses than Phoenix:
Gosh, if the Spurs are THAT inconsistent, then how on Earth can the Suns' losses to the Spurs be anything other than bad losses??
I think this argument is silly. But, for the sake of argument, here's a comparison of the Spurs losses and the Suns losses
SA
@SEA
@TOR
@MEM
SEA
@HOU
@ORL
@SAC
@UTH
@HOU
@PRT
@WAS
PNX
@CLE
SAC
MIN
@SA
@UTH
@IND
@WAS
@DET
MEM
SA
@MEM
Obviously, the teams share 3 losses (team and location) in common [in bold]. If those are bad losses for the Spurs, they have to be bad losses for Phoenix, too, don't they?
They also share another trait. They've lost very few games to teams that would not qualify for the playoffs. Phoenix has lost 2 games to teams that would not qualify as of this moment -- at home to Minnesota (who the Spurs beat, by the way) and on the road at Utah. The Spurs have only 3 losses against teams that wouldn't qualify for the playoffs -- @ TOR, @UTH (like Phoenix), and @PRT. I guess I CAN see a big difference there!!
Here's another fact -- the Spurs have only 14 games remaining against the teams that would qualify for the playoffs as of today and 7 of those are at home. Phoenix still has 17 games remaining against those same teams, with 9 of those on the road.
And here's one more fact -- the Spurs have beaten Phoenix twice and hold the tiebreaker.
I realize that you are willing to discount the quality of certain opponents to aggrandize your argument. Earlier this year, you said that the loss at Sacramento was not a loss against a quality team (amazingly, despite the fact that SAC has the 5th best record in the NBA). Even with more than 60% of the season played, quality, in your argument, remains an entirely subjective quality. Still, I'm sure, in an effort to come back at me, you'll spin out the differences with fine-line distinctions about health and opponent quality. But those differences just don't exist.
The Spurs lost at Washington without Tim Duncan and the Suns lost at Washington without Steve Nash.
The Spurs lost at Utah with Tim Duncan and the Suns lost at Utah with Steve Nash.
Where do you go from there?
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 02-10-2005 at 10:29 AM.
Antawn Jamison's double-double helped carry the Wizards past the Spurs on Wednesday night. He played 46 minutes and had 35 points, 11 rebounds, two assists, and two steals. It was his 18th double-double of the season.
fanball.com
"If those are bad losses for the Spurs, they have to be bad losses for Phoenix, too, don't they? "
Of course not, dumb . This is probably going to stretch you bird-brain, but try to follow:
A "bad loss" is not WHO you play, it's not WHERE you play, it's HOW you play and HOW the other team plays. A "bad loss" is last night, the Spurs playing crappy and losing to a crappy team playing their average game.
This approach is way too sophisticated for many of dumbasses on this board, but here goes anyway:
NO wins @POR last night, and Spurs lose @POR. That means nothing by itself to me, you conclude it means something, but you're dumb, and I'm smart.
What IS meaningful is that when the Spurs lost @POR, a "good loss", crappy POR played way over their own heads, shootig 55+% in FG!!, and in 3Gs!!, both numbers way over the NBA's best season percentages by the best teams, and this from a screwed up lottery team. And beat the Spurs by less than only 10 points.
From their side, the Spurs turned in a solid game @POR and lost to a team turning in their season-best game, maybe their decade-best game, to beat the Spurs. When other teams would have lost by 30 to an opponent shooting 55+%, the Spurs were in the game to the very end, it was closer than the score indicates. Tremendous credit to the Spurs. I'm a Spurs "Top10 hater"? GMAFB
If you look at the stats for NO@POR, you see that POR played a horrendously crappy game and lost to the a really crappy team that hustled their butts, but I didn't see the game, so I can't tell whether NO really hustled, or whether POR just stunk so bad that even NO could win.
conclusion: you can't say anything about NO and SA because of their @POR games, and you can't say anything about PHX and SA just based on who they played in common. I look further, you clearly don't, or can't.
In comparing the PHX and SA loss records, you have to remove all the PHX losses where Nash (and Barbosa) was absent, since we know Nash is the PHX difference maker, the Pixie Power-Up Dust that creates the PHX magik, AND AND, PHXs backup PG is way below Nash.
I refuse to remove last night's loss @WIZ with Tim absent, since the Spurs are fully capable, with their widely proclaimed depth, of playing their average game, of beating a Wiz playing a mediocre game.
ie, remove Tim from the Spurs and you still have a Top5 NBA team (and this rates me a Top10 hater? you assholes). Remove MVP Nash from the PHX, and you have a severely damaged team, as their 5 or 6 losses show when he was out.
So now, look at the stats for the PHX losses, both for PHX and for the winner.
In the 2 PHX losses vs Spurs, the Spurs, first, played an incredible game and blew PHX out. Not a bad loss for PHX because they got blown out by the best team playing their best game, @SBC.
Then the Spurs beat PHX @PHX. A "very good loss' for the PHX, because PHX played a very good game, good enough to beat anybody anyday, except for the Spurs playing a legendary game, and the Spurs stilll needed OT to eke out a win. No shame for PHX.
In the PHX loss @MEM, which I saw, it was an excellent game on both sides, and MEM sneaked out a win at the very end. No shame for PHX, they played a great game, and got beat by a solid, qualtiy WC team playing, and coaching, a superb game.
Now remove the Spurs losses @SEA and @POR, and look at how the Spurs played in those 9 other losses, look at how the other, inferior teams played in their 9 Spurs wins, and you see the Spurs losing by playing mostly to really crappy against an inferior team playing average to crappy.
My point? PHX lose their games in good efforts by PHX and the other team. Spurs lose their games in crappy effort by Spurs and the other team. Does this analysis make any difference, above all in the playoffs?
1. for HCA vs PHX, yes. PHX will, I predict, lose from here on only like they have lost so far, playing consistently well but losing a few games by getting outplayed by a quality team. ie, PHX plays consistently good ball, winning or losing The Spurs will lose the same types of games, no complaints, no shame. So PHX and Spurs will have equal records. Let's call it 66 - 16 for both.
BUT, and I really had hoped the Spurs had turned the corner, the Spurs will ALSO lose stinkers like last night. ie, the Spurs DON'T play consistently good ball, winning or losing, with or without Tim, result: PHX will probably end up with a better record, by only 1 or 2, max, games, gets HCA all the way throught the playoffs. PHX 66 - 16, and Spurs at 65 -17 or 64 - 18. (the absolute numbers aren't my point, it's the relative number of losses)
Spurs start the series with two games @PHX. Nice. And you assholes tell me the season doesn't count, and losses like last night are Ok, "just gonna happen". Maybe so, for the Spurs. But then forget about HCA vs PHX.
2. For the playoff results, I don't know. The Suns-Spurs series I expect will be legendary, based on the season. I would greatly increase Spurs' playoff chances if they win again @PHX in a few weeks, but some people want to ignore the season results, good or bad. I really don't the think how a team plays in the season and how they play in the playoffs is totally unrelated.
In any other season, without this year's PHX, the above would mean all, and the Spurs would romp alone.
But in the year where we all agree the Spurs have one of the best Spurs teams ever, they have to contend with a surprising, equally powerful, equally successful, more consistent PHX team, a team that Pop has said has ALWAYS given the Spurs fits (even in 03 playoffs).
While I'm looking forward to the playoffs, I'm not looking forward to taking on PHX without HCA. And with more give-aways like last night, I expect the Spurs will not have HCA vs PHX.
Why don't you become a Suns fan, then?
You're obviously enamored of the quality losses and so terribly disappointed by the inconsistencies of the far-too-human Spurs.
boutons works feverishly to improve his FSP Playa Hata Hall of Fame© ranking.
Boutons,
Do you believe if Pop played his starters in the 35-43 minute range instead of the 29-35 range they could have turned any of the losses into wins? I don't know but I think it is possible. Point being that perhaps Spurs gearing for later. But, I do agree with you on one thing. Much rather have HCA against the Suns. You want them shooting all those threes away from home.
"Why don't you become a Suns fan"
I leave that to Jim, he's got stars in his eyes about the Suns.
I just respect the Sun's season, their Ws and L's, and how consistently they play, showing (the Spurs) that consistency isn't super-human, or unachieveable.
Will the Suns bring-it-every-game win them the NBA? I really don't think so, since the Spurs defense, if they play it, over 7 playoffs games, will probably beat PHX's offense, even without Spurs having HCA. A LOT tougher without HCA, but I think the Spurs can do it. However, any defensive stumble by the Spurs vs PHX will be very costly, because PHX's offense just doesn't go away.
The great thing about the Spurs vs PHX so far is that we destroyed their offense @SBC, and then went out to PHX and beat them with the Spurs offense!!
March 9th is looming huge.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions