No team thats beaten the Spurs in the playoffs has gone on to win the Championship...

[Amuseddaysleeper]

...since 2002.


Something to think about.

[FromWayDowntown]

So when the Spurs haven't been good enough to win les, they also haven't been good enough to beat teams that aren't good enough to win les, I guess.

[roycrikside]

Well it's clearly bad luck to beat them then. Obviously they should lose to them so they'll have a better chance.

[will_spurs]

So when the Spurs haven't been good enough to win les, they also haven't been good enough to beat teams that aren't good enough to win les, I guess.

More likely the Spurs fell because of bad matchups (the Grizz or OKC comes to mind) more than being beaten by a team that's significantly better.

[FromWayDowntown]

More likely the Spurs fell because of bad matchups (the Grizz or OKC comes to mind) more than being beaten by a team that's significantly better.

I was mostly being sarcastic, but your point is well-taken.

[Brunodf]

They got tired after playing against the Spurs

[Brazil]

They got tired after playing against the Spurs

winner

[therealtruth]

I definitely felt that happened to the Mavs in '06. I think they peaked against the Spurs. If they had kept playing that way the should have won easily.

[Dex]

I definitely felt that happened to the Mavs in '06. I think they peaked against the Spurs. If they had kept playing that way the should have won easily.

Same with OKC vs. Miami last year.

The Thunder straight up went bananas from mid-range against the Spurs, and that proved to be the difference. San Antonio's defensive philosophy is that if you are going to give up a shot to the opponent, it's best to give up the least effective shot in the game, which is a long two-pointer. Unfortunately, OKC feasted from that buffet. Per timvp's breakdown following that series:

So, how did the Spurs lose the series if the offense was fine, the rebounding was solid, the free throws weren’t murderous and the interior defense was great? The Thunder shot the damn lights out from the perimeter. It’s just sickening (for a Spurs fan, at least) how well they shot the ball.

The Thunder made 52.7% of their two-pointers outside of 15 feet for the series. Normally, OKC shoots 42.6% from that range. Normally, the Spurs allow their opponents to shoot 40.6% from that range. But, unfortunately for the Spurs, the Thunder’s long-range shooting was abnormally deadly this series. Yes, San Antonio gave up some perimeter looks by design, but 52.7% isn’t sustainable by any team (or any player, for that matter) over the long haul. That said, give the Thunder credit. Their players stepped up and knocked down the most inefficient shots in the game of basketball at a shockingly efficient rate.

Oklahoma City’s marksmanship extended beyond the three-point line. The Thunder shot 40.4% on three-pointers for the series, which is up from their regular season accuracy (36%) and much better than they shot in the first two rounds (even though the Lakers and Mavs are poor at defending the three-point line and the Spurs are elite). Again, give the Thunder all the credit.

How much did OKC’s shooting from the perimeter influence this series? If the Thunder shoot their usual percentage from the perimeter, they would have scored 37 fewer points -- or 99.7 points per game instead of 105.8. Do you think that would have made a difference? Yeah, so do I.

Fast forward to the Finals, and all of those shots that were falling against the Spurs were no longer falling. Maybe it was Miami's stringent defense, or maybe their luck just finally broke, but OKC simply did not look like the same team that back-door swept the Spurs once they put their Finals jerseys on. They shot only 44.8% on two-pointers outside of 15 feet (up from their regular season average, but well below what they shot against the Spurs), and shot only 30.5% from the three-point arc.

I kept saying all last season that the Thunder were a jump-shooting team, and that it was impossible for them to sustain that through an entire championship run. Unfortunately for the Spurs, however, they were able to sustain it for the first three rounds.

[freetiago]

miamis periemter defense allows them to switch and help but still recover on their man
they can stop pick and roll penetration and still get out to contest abakas mid range jump shot

[therealtruth]

Same with OKC vs. Miami last year.

The Thunder straight up went bananas from mid-range against the Spurs, and that proved to be the difference. San Antonio's defensive philosophy is that if you are going to give up a shot to the opponent, it's best to give up the least effective shot in the game, which is a long two-pointer. Unfortunately, OKC feasted from that buffet. Per timvp's breakdown following that series:



Fast forward to the Finals, and all of those shots that were falling against the Spurs were no longer falling. Maybe it was Miami's stringent defense, or maybe their luck just finally broke, but OKC simply did not look like the same team that back-door swept the Spurs once they put their Finals jerseys on. They shot only 44.8% on two-pointers outside of 15 feet (up from their regular season average, but well below what they shot against the Spurs), and shot only 30.5% from the three-point arc.

I kept saying all last season that the Thunder were a jump-shooting team, and that it was impossible for them to sustain that through an entire championship run. Unfortunately for the Spurs, however, they were able to sustain it for the first three rounds.

The irony of it is that jumpshots are the shots that are affected most by good defense and contesting shots. For instance it's harder to really affect three point percentages and inside scoring percentages. Your best bets for those two are reducing the amount of shots.

[td4mvp21]

Four have made the Finals (2004 Lakers, 2006 Mavs, 2008 Lakers, 2012 Thunder) and three have not (2009 Mavs, 2010 Suns, 2011 Grizzlies). I think the bad matchup thing can only apply to 2006, 2009, and 2011. You don't lose four straight games to an inferior team in the playoffs (2004, 2010, 2012).

[100%duncan]

So when the Spurs haven't been good enough to win les, they also haven't been good enough to beat teams that aren't good enough to win les, I guess.

Dayum.

[DJB]

They got tired after playing against the Spurs

Spurs bored them to death.

[therealtruth]

Four have made the Finals (2004 Lakers, 2006 Mavs, 2008 Lakers, 2012 Thunder) and three have not (2009 Mavs, 2010 Suns, 2011 Grizzlies). I think the bad matchup thing can only apply to 2006, 2009, and 2011. You don't lose four straight games to an inferior team in the playoffs (2004, 2010, 2012).

The losing 4 straight is the thing that bothers me the most. I feel if the Spurs had even won one more game in those situations they probably win the series. It just shows the lack of the ability to adjust on the Spurs and the ability for the other coach to adjust. You don't go from losing a series to winning 4 straight without making good adjustments.

[DapDaGenius]

It's the Spurs Curse...you beat us, you don't win. I forget who they sacrificed to get this curse to work.

[TampaDude]

It's the Spurs Curse...you beat us, you don't win. I forget who they sacrificed to get this curse to work.