If You Guys Dont Catch Us Now You Never Will

[phyzik]

all kinds of tpark action going on in here...

[ambchang]

see but if you told me that a certain team would have the best record in the nba over the last 7 years and ONLY won 3 rings then that tells me that something is very wrong. call my perception wrong and blind all you want, but winning 6 of 7 is one thing, but to win 3 out 7 when you are on top of the league is a slight bit of a letdown

I guess this helps me understand your thinking. Perhaps you can go back, and see how many times the top team in the regular season actually won the NBA championship. If you can tell me that it is 6 out of 7 times, then great, call the Spurs soft, if not, go and admit that what you just said is simply a ridiculous claim.
I don't have time to go through 50+ years of NBA, so I will just look at it since 1990:
Year/Best Record/Championship
2005/Suns/Spurs
2004/Pacers/Detroit
2003/Spurs and Mavs/Spurs
2002/Kings/Lakers
2001/Spurs/Lakers
2000/Lakers/Lakers
1999/Spurs and Jazz/Spurs
1998/Bulls and Jazz/ Bulls
1997/Bulls/Bulls
1996/Bulls/Bulls
1995/Spurs/Rockets
1994/Sonics/Rockets
1993/Suns/Bulls
1992/Bulls/Bulls
1991/Blazers/Bulls
1990/Lakers/Pistons

In 16 years, which I consider to be a representative sample, especially a close reflection of the NBA at this stage, the best regular teams won the le 7 times, with the Spurs doing it 2 out of 4 times (slightly above average). Taking the Bulls from the equation, which did it 4 out of 4 times, and is probably one of the most dominant teams in the history of the league, the best regular season team has won the le 3 out of 12 times, in fact, the ONLY team other than the Spurs and the Bulls to accomplish that in the last 16 years was the Lakers, who did it once.
The Blazers, Suns, Sonics, Pacers, Jazz and Kings have a total of ZERO les with their stellar record, it is not because they suck, or because they were mentally soft, it simply is because it is THAT hard to win a championship.
I would have guessed that a fan would be more grateful for his/her favourite sports team when the team has regularly churned out regular season and postseason success, but I guess I was wrong. Perhaps there were Bull fans in the 90s who complained about the team never going 15-0 in the postseason, and 82-0 in the regular season.

[Peter]

Thanks for digging that up. I found myself contemplating that very issue the other day.

It's ok, the Spurs will just go into their house again and....





...the rest is history.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I guess this helps me understand your thinking. Perhaps you can go back, and see how many times the top team in the regular season actually won the NBA championship. If you can tell me that it is 6 out of 7 times, then great, call the Spurs soft, if not, go and admit that what you just said is simply a ridiculous claim.
I don't have time to go through 50+ years of NBA, so I will just look at it since 1990:
Year/Best Record/Championship
2005/Suns/Spurs
2004/Pacers/Detroit
2003/Spurs and Mavs/Spurs
2002/Kings/Lakers
2001/Spurs/Lakers
2000/Lakers/Lakers
1999/Spurs and Jazz/Spurs
1998/Bulls and Jazz/ Bulls
1997/Bulls/Bulls
1996/Bulls/Bulls
1995/Spurs/Rockets
1994/Sonics/Rockets
1993/Suns/Bulls
1992/Bulls/Bulls
1991/Blazers/Bulls
1990/Lakers/Pistons

In 16 years, which I consider to be a representative sample, especially a close reflection of the NBA at this stage, the best regular teams won the le 7 times, with the Spurs doing it 2 out of 4 times (slightly above average). Taking the Bulls from the equation, which did it 4 out of 4 times, and is probably one of the most dominant teams in the history of the league, the best regular season team has won the le 3 out of 12 times, in fact, the ONLY team other than the Spurs and the Bulls to accomplish that in the last 16 years was the Lakers, who did it once.
The Blazers, Suns, Sonics, Pacers, Jazz and Kings have a total of ZERO les with their stellar record, it is not because they suck, or because they were mentally soft, it simply is because it is THAT hard to win a championship.
I would have guessed that a fan would be more grateful for his/her favourite sports team when the team has regularly churned out regular season and postseason success, but I guess I was wrong. Perhaps there were Bull fans in the 90s who complained about the team never going 15-0 in the postseason, and 82-0 in the regular season.

i dont winning a championship is hard but being on top for that amoutn fo time and only having 3 rings to show for it either makes you

A) a soft team
B) a season team and not a playoff team

and i highly doubt that the answer is B

and if you're #1 in the league there's no reason for you to NOT win the le barring injuries. you got to the #1 spot by playing well. if you cant do it when it matters and go all the way, then you just dont have what it takes.


3 rings is great but the spurs aren't mentally tough by any means

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Thanks for digging that up. I found myself contemplating that very issue the other day.

It's ok, the Spurs will just go into their house again and....





...the rest is history.

i hope so man but unfortunately those pics are from 2005 and in 2006 the only people doing that were the pistons in our house and theirs

[Melmart1]

i dont winning a championship is hard but being on top for that amoutn fo time and only having 3 rings to show for it either makes you

A) a soft team
B) a season team and not a playoff team


3 rings is great but the spurs aren't mentally tough by any means

ONLY three rings? Jesus, you will never be happy, will you? Oh, and ONLY having three rings does not necessarily mean you are soft or not a playoff team. It could mean that injuries happen, it could mean that happens. It could mean that a Lakers team was plain better than you for awhile.

If three rings is not enough, I suggest you become a Bulls or Lakers fan and bask in their past glory.

[Peter]

Reg season means nothing. Sack up.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

ONLY three rings? Jesus, you will never be happy, will you? Oh, and ONLY having three rings does not necessarily mean you are soft or not a playoff team. It could mean that injuries happen, it could mean that happens. It could mean that a Lakers team was plain better than you for awhile.

If three rings is not enough, I suggest you become a Bulls or Lakers fan and bask in their past glory.

if the lakers team was plain better than the "best team of the last 10 years" must be a misleading stat if we werent the true "best team" i'm not saying i'm dissatisfied with their ring count. i'm not the only one who think the team is soft. in 99 they were incredible going 16-2 in the playoffs but they had a lot of letdowns in 2003 but thankfully still won it and 2005 some letdowns as well but at the end they got the ring which mattered. but 2004 was absolutely inexcusable as was 2002 when we had the lead going into the 4th of EVERY game except for game 6. thats not being mentally tough enough to take care of business. were other teams obivously better? yes, but if we're gonna do the "best team of major sports of the last 10 years" which is quite the thing to have on your resume, 3 rings is a letdown

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Reg season means nothing. Sack up.

true. but unfortunately the pistons aren't a reg season team by any means. if tim's PF goes away come playoff time we should be fine. if not well......

[Melmart1]

So who was a better team in the last ten years that won more than 3 rings, in any sport? I have a feeling there are no too many answers to that question, which proves that you are full of it. 3 in 10, with potential for more. You act like they have no chance in to win anymore rings. But even if they didn't, 3 in the last 10 will put them in some pretty elite company.

And who exactly said they were the best team of the last 10 years? Why does this even matter? Sounds pretty subjective and inconsequential to me.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

So who was a better team in the last ten years that won more than 3 rings, in any sport? I have a feeling there are no too many answers to that question, which proves that you are full of it. 3 in 10, with potential for more. You act like they have no chance in to win anymore rings. But even if they didn't, 3 in the last 10 will put them in some pretty elite company.

And who exactly said they were the best team of the last 10 years? Why does this even matter? Sounds pretty subjective and inconsequential to me.

according to the stats the spurs have had the best record in ALL PRO SPORTS of the last 10 years. the lakers are better than the spurs of the last 10 years b/c they truly were dominant winning 3 straight when the spurs have yet to defend their le once much less twice. the lakers broke apart after choking to the pistons. i'm not saying the spurs dont deserve to be respected, or are a team, they are simply soft. they dont have the killer mentality that the early 2000's lakers had, the 90's bulls or even the yankees had for a slight amount of time. and of course, in 2006 they could repeat for the 1st time and this whole conversation could be mute cuz 4 out of 8 aint bad at all. i'm just talking about the last 10 years and the "best w-l record of the last 10 years in all pro sports" which is an impressive thing to be #1 on. but when you only have 3 rings to show for it when you've been on average what shoud]ld be #1 over the last 10 years, it means you've missed out on a lot more oppurtunities than you should have. and of course the spurs have chances to win more rings, its not like TD's retired and manu got traded. I'm just saying as it stands, the spurs arent a mentally tough as nails team like a majority of the championship teams are. there's a reason why they're listed towards the bottom of the "greatest nba champions of all time" ESPN once put the 2003 spurs like 2nd from last place on their greatest nba champions ever list. i'm not saying what espn says is 100% correct, but it does make you wonder

[Melmart1]

So... YOU are saying the Spurs are best in last 10 years. And based on YOUR assumptions of what that entails, the Spurs should have had more rings.

Well, I am sure the Spurs are just heartbroken that they don't meet your standards. Why don't you wait until Tim Duncan retires and then tell me how dissapointed you are in the amount of rings they had.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

So... YOU are saying the Spurs are best in last 10 years. And based on YOUR assumptions of what that entails, the Spurs should have had more rings.

Well, I am sure the Spurs are just heartbroken that they don't meet your standards. Why don't you wait until Tim Duncan retires and then tell me how dissapointed you are in the amount of rings they had.

see there's no reason for that. i'm not out here to piss people off i'm just stating my opinion. if i "hated" the spurs or were truly "disgusted" with them why post here and be a fan? I've loved the team since '98 or so and will continue to support them regardless of what happens. am i a little bit too pessimistic for my own good? probably, but so what? I'm just one guy, i dont get why you all need to get your panties in a wad, i'm just saying the spurs should have more than 3 rings and aren't as dominating as other champions have been. they are the only team along with detroit to not have repeated their le since 1984. a ring is a ring, so maybe who cares if they dont do it as dominatingly as the other teams of the past. I'm just saying based on potential we should've at least won it all in 2004 and 2002. and had duncan not gotten injured in 2000 who knows? you guys attack personally way too much and get so offended so easily its ridiculous. take a page from kori's mellow at ude. there's a reason she's as respected as she is.

[Peter]

In 1995 did anyone anticipate the 6th seeded and defending champs repeating? Christ, we have the possibility of not getting homecourt in one series and suddenly the season's over. Well great. I guess I'll chop off my nutsack today.

[Melmart1]

Trust me, you are hardly getting my panties in a wad. I just find it hard to believe that any fan of the Spurs could possibly be dissapointed in all this team has accomplished. Take a step back and realize that Tim Ducan should be wearing Celtic green and maybe you will appreciate it more.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

In 1995 did anyone anticipate the 6th seeded and defending champs repeating? Christ, we have the possibility of not getting homecourt in one series and suddenly the season's over. Well great. I guess I'll chop off my nutsack today.

woah peter! is your boss at work asking you to come in on saturday AND sunday again!?! i'm not saying the season's over, and what houston did in 1995 was amazing for sure, but with tim's nagging PF lets be realistic. pistons are tough and we may not have hca. if tim gets more healthy and manu plays upto last years level at playoff time we'll be fine. i mean we just have to wait and see, but this team right now today will not win the championship if the playoffs were to start today. thankfully they start in april

[Peter]

All we need is health in June.

[cs100]

The Spurs have NOT had the best record in all pro sports. The Spurs have had the best Winning Percentage in all of Sports msince Tim was signed. There is a difference. The reason is that year in and year out they are up there with the best. Only one team in 30 can win a championship. Does that mean that there are 29 soft teams and one great team? If you are one of the top 4-8 teams left standing (2nd round and on), this increases your winning percentage. To say a team is soft that reaches this level year in and year out is oxymoronic, IMO. All it means is that there are some pieces missing to make it to that final step. The Spurs have done that by adding TP and Manu. I agree that they should have won last year, but they were NOT soft. They just couldn't make shots to close out game five.

This year, the Spurs have the best record in games decided by 6 or less points. I think that even if Tim is not 100%, we can still win the le. Tim was playing on TWO sprained ankles last finals and we won. It was close and compe ive, but we won.

[5ToolMan]

Glad to see other Spurs fans speaking and shattering daysleeper's contention that the Spurs are soft. Scoreboard says he is just a mindless parrot repeating what other fools have told him to think.

Wake up DAYSLEEPER! Playing tough defense is not soft. Being the toughest defense AND having the highest winning percentage AND having as much hardware as any team AND having more hardware than all but 2 teams over the last 10 years are not accomplishments of a soft team.

Your "Spurs are soft ... because daysleeper says they are soft" does not pass the smell test when put up against SCOREBOARD!


When you wake up, you really need to punt.

[ambchang]

i dont winning a championship is hard but being on top for that amoutn fo time and only having 3 rings to show for it either makes you

A) a soft team
B) a season team and not a playoff team

and i highly doubt that the answer is B

and if you're #1 in the league there's no reason for you to NOT win the le barring injuries. you got to the #1 spot by playing well. if you cant do it when it matters and go all the way, then you just dont have what it takes.


3 rings is great but the spurs aren't mentally tough by any means

Could you please read my full post before posting? In the last 16 seasons, only 3 teams who had the best regular season record won the championship. The Bulls did it 4 out of 4 times, the Spurs did it 2 out of 4 times, and the Lakers did it once. A whole slew of other teams couldn't get the crown after winning the most regular season games.
The Spurs won 3 championships in its history, and to put that in perspective, only the Celtics (16), Lakers (14), and Bulls (6) have won more than that, the Pistons did it 3 times as well. The 76ers won it twice, but won it another time when they were the Syracuse Nationals. Now you try and convince me winning a championship is not that hard. In the old days, where there were 8 teams, the chance of getting a ring is of course easier, but today, with 30 teams, it is extremely hard to win a championship. Providing winning a championship is purely random (which of course it isn't, it takes a team 90 years to win 3 championships), the Spurs did it in only 28 years, that is an AMAZING feat (I am excluding those ABA days).

[ambchang]

if the lakers team was plain better than the "best team of the last 10 years" must be a misleading stat if we werent the true "best team" i'm not saying i'm dissatisfied with their ring count. i'm not the only one who think the team is soft. in 99 they were incredible going 16-2 in the playoffs but they had a lot of letdowns in 2003 but thankfully still won it and 2005 some letdowns as well but at the end they got the ring which mattered. but 2004 was absolutely inexcusable as was 2002 when we had the lead going into the 4th of EVERY game except for game 6. thats not being mentally tough enough to take care of business. were other teams obivously better? yes, but if we're gonna do the "best team of major sports of the last 10 years" which is quite the thing to have on your resume, 3 rings is a letdown

Trust me, you must be the only person in the world who would hold the Spurs record against them. As I have shown on multiple location, there is some correlation between the seasons best regular team and that year's champs, but the correlation is quite low.
As for the last 10 years, it only means that the Spurs management has been able to rebuild the team while not taking the team out of contention. To do the math, a team could be ridiculously dominating for a few years (see the Bulls), but then drop off the face of the earth. In the few years of domination, they win championships, but over a long period of time, their record is not as stellar because the average is dragged down by the next few years of suckiness. The Spurs were able to be a team who contends for a le WHILE rebuilding, and that is an amazing accomplishment. If you would rather the Spurs not think about the future, and put all the focus in one year, you will not see a championship in 2005, you would not have seen a championship in 2003, and I would love to ask you how you could have improved the team over the last 10 years, year by year, so that they would have won MORE than 3 championship.

[ambchang]

see there's no reason for that. i'm not out here to piss people off i'm just stating my opinion. if i "hated" the spurs or were truly "disgusted" with them why post here and be a fan? I've loved the team since '98 or so and will continue to support them regardless of what happens. am i a little bit too pessimistic for my own good? probably, but so what? I'm just one guy, i dont get why you all need to get your panties in a wad, i'm just saying the spurs should have more than 3 rings and aren't as dominating as other champions have been. they are the only team along with detroit to not have repeated their le since 1984. a ring is a ring, so maybe who cares if they dont do it as dominatingly as the other teams of the past. I'm just saying based on potential we should've at least won it all in 2004 and 2002. and had duncan not gotten injured in 2000 who knows? you guys attack personally way too much and get so offended so easily its ridiculous. take a page from kori's mellow at ude. there's a reason she's as respected as she is.

you are a fan since 1998, and you are complaining about the Spurs not winning more les? You are talking about the softness of the team? Try living through the disappointments in 80's and 90's. All I am saying is that you are a disgrace of a fan to hold a team's stellar record against them, and attack the team's integrity based on your own ignorance of NBA history.
The team went 15-2 in the postseason in 1999, not 16-2
The 84 and 86 Celtics did not repeat, the 85 Lakers did not repeat. The 90s were a time when we witnessed some of the largest disparity of talent in the league in a long time, thus massive changes in salary cap rules to even out the talent dispersion.
And no, we do not want to be like some other person and be cool about ignorant statements, people who refuse to read other's people's post, ignoring facts and historical figures, while continuously using ones own opinions as arguments.

[Peter]

Spurs fans also act like the team has been healthy for the entire season. All we need is health come April.

[ambchang]

btw, I am starting to wonder about the best record in pro sports in the last 10 years, in 96-97 (which is part of the last 10 years), the Spurs went 20-62, that is some pretty crappy record to drag down the average record.

[cs100]

ambchang, you need to reread my post. The Spurs have had the best winning percentage in pro sports since Duncan started playing. It is not the best record and it did not include the 96-97 season.

Just trying to help clarify the error posters are making in this thread. Thanks.