Thunder: Trounced a 67 win team and took a 73 win team to 7....

[da_suns_fan]

I actually agree with OP over here.

Careful...non bitter spurs fans arent appreciated much around here.

[baseline bum]

No one else (Suns included) even comes close to their rate of failing against inferior opponents.

I don't know son, that stat about highest winning percentage with no les disagrees.

[Clipper Nation]

Who cares?

You seem to care a lot about the Spurs' failures. Surely you care even more about your own team's much longer list of failures?

[resistanze]

Valiant attempt by OP at trolling. Played both sides (GSW and OKC) in order to talk . However, being a Suns fan makes this unsustainable.

[ambchang]

Who cares?

Why are the Spurs the kings of losing to lower seeds? No one else (Suns included) even comes close to their rate of failing against inferior opponents.

When you lose half the time to lower seeds, can it still be called an "upset"?

Because the other teams didn't play well enough to get a higher seed in the regular season. This is what happens to perennial 50-win teams.

You are penalizing the Spurs for doing well in the regular season, then losing in the playoffs, and rewarding teams for doing poorly in the regular season then losing in the playoffs.

[Poolboy5623]

I'm sure in 20 years, everyone will remember this OKC team, for ALMOST getting to the finals

[Sean Cagney]

I'm sure in 20 years, everyone will remember this OKC team, for ALMOST getting to the finals

You bet, they will say but they did beat the SPURS! That is the le now.

[da_suns_fan]

Because the other teams didn't play well enough to get a higher seed in the regular season. This is what happens to perennial 50-win teams.

You are penalizing the Spurs for doing well in the regular season, then losing in the playoffs, and rewarding teams for doing poorly in the regular season then losing in the playoffs.

No, I am penalizing them for losing a series in which they had home court advantage.

There are also plenty of seasons in which the Spurs lost when they didnt have HCA (twice to Lakers, Suns, Heat, Clippers etc). No dings there.

But losing to a lower seeded team is embarrassing and usually needs some sort of explanation. In the Spurs' case, it happens a lot.

Like I said, for every time Kobe has lost to a lower seed, Duncan has lost four. They had comparable number of playoff years and championships so Im not being unfair.

[ambchang]

No, I am penalizing them for losing a series in which they had home court advantage.

There are also plenty of seasons in which the Spurs lost when they didnt have HCA (twice to Lakers, Suns, Heat, Clippers etc). No dings there.

But losing to a lower seeded team is embarrassing and usually needs some sort of explanation. In the Spurs' case, it happens a lot.

Like I said, for every time Kobe has lost to a lower seed, Duncan has lost four. They had comparable number of playoff years and championships so Im not being unfair.

Your statistic is penalizing them for winning in the regular season. You pulling in Kobe losing twice in 14 years to a lower seed didn't take into account that the Lakers didn't have as many chances to so because he didn't even have homecourt for a number of seasons. Same with the Thunder.

Losing to a lower seeded team is embarrassing how? So any team that has the best regular season should always win the le or else that is an embarrassment? That certainly is not the case for a large proportion of champions in the past.

[Arcadian]

But losing to a lower seeded team is embarrassing and usually needs some sort of explanation.

Explanation: the western conference has been stacked with good teams, while the east has been ty, for like 20 years now. Seeding is much more fine-grained in the west. Last year, one game separated the 2 and 6 seeds.

[Spurtacular]

Durant and Westbrook are so so good they almost won a le by themselves.

Yea, cos Spur Killer Ibaka didn't go NBA Jam on us; and Adams/Canter didn't kill us on the boards. And Roberson didn't reincarnate Barnes either.

Spurs actually contained Durant/Westbrook for that matter.

The problem is those two boneheads forgot how they won and choked versus the Warriors.

[da_suns_fan]

Explanation: the western conference has been stacked with good teams, while the east has been ty, for like 20 years now. Seeding is much more fine-grained in the west. Last year, one game separated the 2 and 6 seeds.

But twelve games separated the Spurs and the Thunder and the Thunder still kicked their ass.

And this without James Harden.

[offset formation]

But twelve games separated the Spurs and the Thunder and the Thunder still kicked their ass.

And this without James Harden.

One bucket difference in game 2 and this goes back to OKC with SA up 2-0. You can call it an ass kicking all day long and continue your douchbaggery, but a bucket here or there and SA could have easily been up 3-1 coming back home.

I don't understand the loser mentality that makes one go on to an opposing teams fan site and talk , especially when that fan represents da- ibg-suns.

Grow the up. Your team sucks. You suck.

[da_suns_fan]

One bucket difference in game 2 and this goes back to OKC with SA up 2-0. You can call it an ass kicking all day long and continue your douchbaggery, but a bucket here or there and SA could have easily been up 3-1 coming back home.

I don't understand the loser mentality that makes one go on to an opposing teams fan site and talk , especially when that fan represents da- ibg-suns.

Grow the up. Your team sucks. You suck.

Except they rolled over in game 6. Im sure their asses still hurt.

[Arcadian]

But twelve games separated the Spurs and the Thunder and the Thunder still kicked their ass.

And this without James Harden.

That shows that RS records aren't good at predicting playoff success. We've known this.

[da_suns_fan]

That shows that RS records aren't good at predicting playoff success. We've known this.

Says who?

Kobe and the Lakers had comparable number of championships and playoff seasons and only lost to a lower seed twice.

Are you really claiming the Spurs lost to lower seeds because their opponents had deflated records from not caring about the regular season?

Did the Thunder "Mail in" the regular season? Should they have had 70 wins too?

[ambchang]

Says who?

Kobe and the Lakers had comparable number of championships and playoff seasons and only lost to a lower seed twice.

Are you really claiming the Spurs lost to lower seeds because their opponents had deflated records from not caring about the regular season?

Did the Thunder "Mail in" the regular season? Should they have had 70 wins too?

Because the Lakers didn't routinely win 50+ games and overachieve in their regular season.

Your basic assumption is that the regular season record is a true indication of the strength of the team, while the playoffs results reflect how well a team performs based on that indication.

This may or may not be true.

Another way to look at it is that the playoffs is the true indication of the strength of a team, and the regular season has no bearing on it.

2001 Lakers were the perfect example. We all knew it was the strongest team in the league going into the season, but then Shaq coasted and they got a good, but not stellar record. They then proceed to win the championship in historical fashion.

Some teams are better built for the playoffs than others.

[DMC]

Says who?

Kobe and the Lakers had comparable number of championships and playoff seasons and only lost to a lower seed twice.

Are you really claiming the Spurs lost to lower seeds because their opponents had deflated records from not caring about the regular season?

Did the Thunder "Mail in" the regular season? Should they have had 70 wins too?

I recall the Suns having the best RS record in 2005. How did that go?

[DMC]

Because the Lakers didn't routinely win 50+ games and overachieve in their regular season.

Your basic assumption is that the regular season record is a true indication of the strength of the team, while the playoffs results reflect how well a team performs based on that indication.

This may or may not be true.

Another way to look at it is that the playoffs is the true indication of the strength of a team, and the regular season has no bearing on it.

2001 Lakers were the perfect example. We all knew it was the strongest team in the league going into the season, but then Shaq coasted and they got a good, but not stellar record. They then proceed to win the championship in historical fashion.

Some teams are better built for the playoffs than others.

The playoffs is a different game basically. B2B nights don't happen, so you don't need young legs. You don't need a deep bench in the playoffs. You have to be able to adjust your game in the playoffs. In the RS you have a game model and you hit a team in the mouth from the start and they fold. In the playoffs, you hit them in with that same look in game 1 as the Spurs did to the Thunder, they adjust for game 2. Never happens in the RS. If the RS was grouped in series instead of random games against this or that team, the best record at the end would be a stronger indication of the eventual champion.

Teams that have the ability to go deep in the playoffs don't usually need to have the best seeding because they can beat whomever is put in front of them. Then you have the juggernaut sometimes who gets the best RS record because their game model cannot be cracked easily, and they carry that into the playoffs. You see the dent now and then like the Thunder made in GS but eventually the juggernaut team breaks the hold and moves on. The Spurs have never been a juggernaut team. They've played well in the RS because they are well coached and they have players who fit the system. Other teams just improvise most of the time and its obvious. Once the playoffs start other teams find a system that works for a while, or the Spurs change their approach because Pop wants play Bobby Fischer and micromanages the game into absurdity.

[da_suns_fan]

Because the Lakers didn't routinely win 50+ games and overachieve in their regular season.

Your basic assumption is that the regular season record is a true indication of the strength of the team, while the playoffs results reflect how well a team performs based on that indication.

This may or may not be true.

Another way to look at it is that the playoffs is the true indication of the strength of a team, and the regular season has no bearing on it.

2001 Lakers were the perfect example. We all knew it was the strongest team in the league going into the season, but then Shaq coasted and they got a good, but not stellar record. They then proceed to win the championship in historical fashion.

Some teams are better built for the playoffs than others.

Thats cherry picking one loss.

What about both respective Thunder teams. And both respective Mavs teams. The 2004 Lakers werent coasting with Malone and Payton.

What about losing to Grizz at an eighth seed in 2011. Were the Gizz also "coasting"?

[ambchang]

Thats cherry picking one loss.

What about both respective Thunder teams. And both respective Mavs teams. The 2004 Lakers werent coasting with Malone and Payton.

What about losing to Grizz at an eighth seed in 2011. Were the Gizz also "coasting"?

They matched up with the Spurs better, and were clearly the better team in the series. Injuries happened.

You seem to act like Ginobili with a broken arm isn't an issue. It was, and was clearly an issue against a team with the second best record after the all-star break.

Thunder and Mavs match up perfectly with the Spurs, just like how the Spurs match up well with the Suns.

2004 Lakers had Shaq out 15 games that season, and the lakers were 7-8 in those games. Take those off and they are a 60-win team.

[midnightpulp]

I know DSF is trolling, but it's not in' rocket science why the Spurs lost a few playoff series as a higher seed.

2000: Tim Duncan was injured

2001: Spurs were the higher seed in the Lakers series, but everyone on the in' planet knew the Lakers were winning that series, since they were a historically great team. Furthermore, the Spurs lost Derek Anderson, who was their best perimeter player that season. Not that it would've made a difference, but that killed any hope.

2004: This was a chokejob. Spurs should've won that series.

2006: The Spurs and Mavs had identical records. Neither team really had a significant advantage over the other, and given the Spurs and Mavs rivalry during that period, home court meant little.

2009: Manu Ginobili missed the playoffs. Our best wing was a 40 year old Michael Finley.

2011: Not really that good of a team. Undersized and ty defensively.

2012: Should've won. I'll own this as a choke.

2016: OKC lost a lot of close 4th quarters this season. They probably should've won a comparable amount of games as the Spurs. They also should've beaten the "Greatest Team of All Time" if they didn't choke themselves.

So, let's count it: In the Spurs total history, they've lost 15 playoff series in which they were the higher seed since the merger. The Suns have lost 9.

But the Suns have played in only 26 playoff series in which they were the higher seed. Their record?

17-9

The Spurs have played in 52 series. Their record?

37-15 + 5 les. The Suns also have the distinction of being one of the few teams to lose the championship with home court

Relative winning percentages:

Suns: 64%

Spurs: 71%

So yeah, more clutch as the higher seed than the ty Suns, per par

[midnightpulp]

And let's put the final nail in DSF's coffin, Duncan-from-3 style.

Tim Duncan's record vs. the Suns in the playoffs:

5-1

[LkrFan]

Since 2000, the following teams have defeated the Spurs as a lower seed:

1) The Lakers (twice)
2) The Thunder (twice)
3) The Mavericks (twice)
4) The Grizzlies (an eight seed)
5) The Suns (although Duncan was injured...still, a loss is a loss).

Thats 8 times in 16 years.

To put that in perspective, Kobe and the Lakers lost to a lower seed twice in 14 years of making the playoffs.

The Thunder have lost to a lower seed once in six years of making the playoffs.

No one comes close to San Antonio when it comes to rolling over.

Oh snap! midnightpulp this shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!

[da_suns_fan]

2006: The Spurs and Mavs had identical records. Neither team really had a significant advantage over the other, and given the Spurs and Mavs rivalry during that period, home court meant little.

No they didnt.

Did you go to the monos school of making up your own facts?