Reply With Quote
Pop said it best,
"When you lose, you are old, when you win, you are experienced"
Legitimate contenders for 08/09 NBA championship: Celtics, Lakers, Cavs, maybe even the Rockets. Let’s see… who are we forgetting? Oh yeah, the Spurs. Nah, they’re too old. Right? Well, let’s see…
Are the Spurs old? Yes… but no.
SPURS 30+ PLAYERS:
Bruce Bowen – 37
Kurt Thomas – 36
Michael Finley – 34
Fabricio Oberto – 33
Jacque Vaughn – 33
Tim Duncan – 32
Manu Ginobili – 31
San Antonio does feature the oldest roster in the league with an average age of 29. That is a fact. But it’s a misleading one.
The first five names featured in the list above are role players, all of whom perform their roles competently, and none of whom play long enough minutes for their 33-37 year-old legs to become an issue.
Bowen may have lost a half-step, but he’s still as tough a perimeter defender as there is in the league. And it doesn’t matter that Finley no longer has all of the explosiveness that made him an all-star in Dallas. It isn’t his job–here and now–to slash his way to the basket. He still knocks down open shots, creates mid-range offense, plays solid defense, and comes through in the clutch. That’s plenty.
Thomas? Oberto? Vaughn? All very capable pieces of the puzzle. Were any these guys markedly different players when they were 3-4 years younger?
Which brings us to the two NON-role players on the Spurs’ 30-something list.
Is “32” old? If your name is Shaquille O’neal… yes, it’s old. But even Shaq, who hasn’t aged as gracefully as some other Hall of Fame caliber big men, helped lead his team to a championship at age 32.
And if your name is Tim Duncan… no, 32 is not old. As Pat Riley recently commented, "Duncan reminds me a lot of Kareem… Kareem wasn't a physical center, he was a finesse center. And he played until he was 41 years old.''
Unless the injury bug bites hard in the years ahead, Duncan will likely have a career arc quite similar to that of Kareem Abdul Jabbar or fellow Power Forward great, Karl Malone… both of whom averaged 20+ plus points and nearly 10 rebounds per game all the way through their late 30’s.
At age 32, few would argue that Duncan does not remain one the game’s elite big men. And we all know Pop will limit his minutes through the regular season, so I’m afraid I can’t see how his age is relevant at the moment.
Manu Ginobili may still be getting his “game legs” back after a late start to his season, but I see no indication that he’s slowing down in any respect at age 31.
Interestingly, Tim Duncan’s age is frequently discussed during the Spurs’ nationally televised broadcasts, while the age of Kevin Garnett, also 32, is seemingly never called into question. Kobe Bryant is a mere 11 months younger than Manu Ginobili yet, like Garnet, Kobe’s age is rarely mentioned. What’s more, few fans realize that Boston’s “big 3” of Kevin Garnett (32), Paul Pierce (31), and Ray Allen (33) is actually older than San Antonio’s trio of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili.
While the Spurs remain a veteran team, they did receive an infusion of new blood over the summer with the departure of Robert Horry and Brent Barry, and the arrival of George Hill and Roger Mason. Both have had an immediate positive impact.
Consider also the fact that at age 26, Tony Parker is now entering his “prime”. Anyone who saw his 55 point performance in Minnesota last month can see that he has clearly taken his game to another level over the past season or two. He established himself as an all-star a few years ago. Now he appears ready to establish himself as an NBA super-star. On a team with such a balanced offense, he may not finish with the PPG average to get “super-star” recognition on a wide scale, but accolades–or lack thereof–in no way affect his value to this team.
Are the Spurs too old to win a championship? Ask that question again in a few years.
As for this season? If San Antonio has an entirely healthy “big 3” when their inevitable playoff rematch with the Lakers rolls around (something they did NOT have during their last playoff matchup)… the Spurs will be as legitimate a contender for the 08/09 crown as there is in the game.
In this case, age really is nothing more than a number.
Last edited by Kent_in_Atlanta; 12-13-2008 at 04:28 PM.
Pop said it best,
"When you lose, you are old, when you win, you are experienced"
yes.
PS - they were old in 05 and 07, as well.
they shouldn't have won it then.
Very true.
Can't forget about the hornets. They are gonna be tough to beat this year.
Ages of the '97-98 Champion Bulls:
Jordan, 34
Pippen, 32
Rodman, 36
Harper, 34
Kerr, 32
Longley, 29
Kukoc, 29
Great read. Really enjoyed it.
no.
We're not to old. We have alot of talent. Its just that the Lakers are younger and better. All of the teams that are contenders have 1 player who you isolate for and let them take over a game. Kobe in LA. Paul in Boston. James in Cleveland. We have Manu. CP3 in NO. One of these guys is gonna take over the game, and the rest is history for this season. One of these guys is gonna have a better team to play on. Thats gonna help a bunch.
Great read.
The spurs are definitively not too old to win.
I think so.
Hard to see how they could get past the Lakers this year.
The champion will come out of the west this year. If you beat us, I pick Spurs to win it all. Doesn't matter against who from the east.
we definitely aren't too old..we have young rotation players for the first time in a while..Parker, Hill, Mason, Bonner and hopefully Ian will be in our rotation by the end of the year..
Lakers are soft.
The Fakers will be the season-long favorites, and they should be. They'll be a tough out for any team. However, I'm not sold on their defensive capabilities. That said and provided the team is healthy, I like the Spurs chances in a 7-game series with them.
They lost last year because Ginobili was hurt. Against a great team, you've got to fire on all cylinders.
Now, saying that they lost because Ginobili was hurt is not the same thing as saying they would have won had he been healthy. I don't know if they would have won it or not. But it would have been a of a lot closer if Ginobili were himself in that series, and the Spurs very well may have won it.
In the playoffs (when healthy), Ginobili takes his game up a notch. In the 4th quarter of playoff games, he takes it up another notch. In the 4th quarter of close playoff games, he has been as great as anyone in the NBA over the last several years.
Someone did a feature on these numbers last year... I want to say it was ESPN, but I can't remember. I do remember the conclusion though. In Manu, you're talking about one of the top 5 players in basketball in crunch time situations.
The Spurs were, for all intents and purposes, without him against the Lakers. And that's too big a loss to overcome.
As for how the Spurs can get past the Lakers this year...
Offensively, they can beat you on the post with Duncan... they can beat you outside with the 3-ball... that can penetrate and get to the dish with Tony and Manu... they are a very good passing team... and they have several big crunch time players who can take the big shot.
And defensively, they are still one of the best in the league, both inside and on the perimeter.
If the Lakers have all of those same things going for them, then it will come down to health, and who has the most things roll their way in the series.
If both teams are at their best, it should be a uva series!
Last edited by Kent_in_Atlanta; 12-13-2008 at 10:59 PM.
I'm getting tired of this "The Spurs are too old to win anymore" crap.
Its funny that The Spurs keep winning and they still say they're too old to win anything. Talk about ignorant.
the Lakers are obviously the favorites in the West..but to say we CAN'T beat them would be ridiculous..they've had some major flaws in the past few weeks on the defensive end..Fisher/Farmar is arguably the worst defensive tandem at the PG position, their entire team gambles too much, they can't rotate well..Laker fans have been criticizing their team heavily for a few weeks now..
One thing I learned in '06 and '07 anything is possible. Nobody thought Miami would be champs in '06 and we saw what happened despite their old age when everything clicked on all cylinders. '07 was really a lot like this year you had two teams in the west that had won 60 plus games but still faded away in the playoffs due to having weak defenses. Honestly I don't think the Lakers are great and if they win against the spurs this year it will be because the spurs didn't have another good rebounder to help Duncan. Thats the only thing I really see the spurs lacking is another big who can play along Duncan and get rebounds.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Ginobili's injury was THE only reason the Spurs lost that series. Sure, it was the biggest of deals, but there were other factors involved that were masked by the attention brought by Ginobili's injury. Factors that were borne out throughout the 2nd half of the season and that lingered into the playoffs.
Scoring: Spurs endured some of their worse offensive droughts of the Duncan era. These scoring deficiencies were on display for most of the season, and all of the playoffs. Recall how the Spurs routinely blew big leads or got down by huge deficits because of these prolonged droughts. While the Spurs had a similar regular season record to the Hornets, they were literally "blown out" by several contending teams during various games in the regular season. These droughts were equally horrible on back-to-back nights. While Duncan was a beast during the series, his lone brilliance was not enough. The Spurs were relying on Ginobili to generate offense for himself and others. The Fakers did a masterful job keeping TP out of the lane. With Manu injured and Parker neutralized, there was no other source of offense, besides Duncan. I would add that Barry provided some unexpected relief, but it wasn't enough.
Diminished performance of role players: The Spurs got routinely outquicked, outrebounded and outhustled by younger, quicker, opposing players. The result was occasional defensive breakdowns, numerous second-chance opportunities for the opposition. Much of which can be traced to having to rely on older, role players (Vaughn, Thomas, Horry, Barry, Finley), who either didn't perform to the level they had in years past or were at the end of their careers, or both. It's fair to call this an age-related issue.
Grueling playoff schedule: The playoff schedule-makers did the club no favors with the every-other-day playoff schedule. These short turnarounds, plus travel, made it even more difficult for this team to bounce back and play well. While it affects both teams, it usually affects olders teams more.
The infusion of Hill and Mason and key contributors, along with the health of the Big Three, should give this years team a decided advantage over last year's squad.
Last edited by SenorSpur; 12-13-2008 at 06:33 PM.
If G Hill and Mason keep contributing as well as Bonner and hopefully Mahinmi how many more championships can this team win?
Any body got time to do a weight-age average?
Essentially, each player has their age multiplied by the minutes they play, and then have that expressed as a per 48 average.
For example, a team with 5 30 year olds averaging 40 minutes, and a bunch of 7 40 years old 8 minutes a game will only have a weighted average age of 31.67 years old, because the players who are 30 years old takes up 5/6 of the court time, while the 40 years old take up 1/6, and the "contribution" of the older player is less. However, if you just take an average, the team has an average age of 35.83 years old, much older than the actual weighted average.
What I am trying to say is, a team is older if a 35 year old play a significant role, a younger if the same player plays a significantly less role.
For the Spurs, the total average weighted age is about 30 years and 213 days.
while the average age is 29.73. The reason is beacuse players who play a significant role on the Spurs are playing longer minutes, and the injury by Ginobili has significantly cut in his playing time, and giving more of that to players like Finley and Bowen.
Great post
I think this year TD is the best we seen in 2 or 3 seasons
Spurs Will Be There In The End Again. But This Time We're Goin All The Way That's All I Gotta Say!!!!!!!
The following list is based upon NBA Opening-Day rosters for the 2008-09 season, which was October 28, 2008.
Team Avg Exp Avg Age
Atlanta 3.60 25.41
Boston 5.47 27.16
Charlotte 3.29 25.13
Chicago 3.57 25.41
Cleveland 5.53 27.32
Dallas 6.71 28.29
Denver 6.43 28.34
Detroit 4.73 27.09
Golden State 2.93 24.19
Houston 5.43 28.16
Indiana 4.27 27.18
LA Clippers 5.64 27.50
LA Lakers 5.64 26.78
Memphis 3.21 24.78
Miami 3.87 26.08
Milwaukee 5.33 28.03
Minnesota 4.80 27.07
New Jersey 4.13 25.80
New Orleans 5.80 28.78
New York 5.53 26.90
Oklahoma City 3.60 25.18
Orlando 5.60 27.88
Philadelphia 5.71 27.30
Phoenix 5.62 27.95
Portland 2.94 24.46
Sacramento 4.43 26.94
San Antonio 6.00 29.96
Toronto 3.23 26.57
Utah 4.47 26.06
Washington 4.87 27.05
NBA Average 4.74 26.81
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
