5 reasons I 2nd seed is better

[Darkwaters]

I don't care at all about Spurs having the 1st or 2nd seed. Being healthy is the only priority.

Bingo

[Seventyniner]

1: Lakers aren't that good, and the Rockets have beaten us twice this year and played us hard and close one of the other 2 times. You'd rather play them than a team we've blown out twice? I wouldn't.

2: And the Warriors have kicked our asses too. But I would rather play them than the Rockets. Still, that's a gamble that was about as likely as us playing the Lakers as the one seed.

3: This is the only one I would agree with, but the Nuggets aren't in total control of the 3 seed. They may drop down to the 4 due to the injuries. Meaning the 1 seed would be better, not that we'll see them in the 2nd round either way with both of their injuries.

4: ??? We haven't done anything without HCA either. Ever. We nearly got to the Finals last year when reasonably healthy and having HCA too. The best odds are the ones we want to be playing with. The higher the seed the better. "well this and this happened before" doesn't matter. It's still the highest odds.

5: We're not under the radar anymore with two straight #1 seeds and another #1 or #2 again. We'd be under more pressure now because we've just choked away a locked up top seed in the span of about a week and a half. Now more than ever they're going to talk about how the Spurs are chokers. Getting the 1 seed is the only way to dispel that talk. Pretty much too late now though, so the undeserving Thunder fluke back into the 1 seed because we choked.

Wow. A five-point post where every single point is wrong.

1. The Rockets have only beaten the Spurs once this season. The Spurs are 2-0 against the Lakers, but the wins are by a total of 5 points.
2. The Warriors have only beaten the Spurs once this season. It wasn't an asskicking; it went into OT.
3. If Denver drops, it would have to be to #5 because the Clippers have to get a top 4 seed due to winning their division.
4. The Spurs didn't have HCA against the Suns in either 2005 or 2007 and won those series anyway.
5. Top 2 seeds don't go under the radar. Unless it's this year's Knicks or Pacers. Other teams have far more respect for the Spurs than you would think by watching ESPN.

[rascal]

If you can get OK City, Lakers, Memphis and Clippers all on the same side then the Spurs would only have to play one out of that bunch for the WC. The other teams, Golden State, an injured Denver team, Houston the Spurs should have no problem beating.

[Gagnrath]

I think getting parker healthy is most important. I frankly don't care with manu at this point, I love the guy but I want him to talk to Tim Duncan's trainers and spend the next month trying to get his body right then stay on that all summer. At that point if he is physically ok then think about basketball.

Neal as the back-up 2 is a defensive issue but not that bad, and he has shown the ability to score nearly at will, and he can facilitate well enough especially if paired with Nando or Johnson.

I really think the Key to the spurs hopes this year are Diaw, having him reasonably aggressive on offense and fairly warm shooting makes the spurs very hard to beat.

I don't know why but for some reason I think tonight is a preview of play-off splitter for the next 2 years untill someone tells him the play-off are alot more physical and you are allowed to dunk and half to go strong about everything.

[rascal]

1. Much rather play anyone but the Lakers in round 1.

2. We still have a good chance to draw the Warriors instead of the Rockets in Rd 1 which will be ideal. I much rather play them than any other team.

3. I like much better to play Denver as a 3rd seed in the second round (Gallinari and Lawson could both be out) than the winner of LAC and MEM.

4. We havent done anything with HCA throughout the playoffs last two seasons. Maybe its better to be the agressor and go steal one on the road than to have to protect your home against OKC?

5. I like the status of the team under the radar and not thinking of choking a 1 seed again. Just play ball, no pressure.

The lakers have given the Spurs fits over the years and match up well against them with their size advantage. I wanted to see a healthy laker team vs the Spurs to really see how good the Spurs are. The Spurs need to be tested, not get a cakewalk to the WCF like last year then get steamrolled by the first real test they see.

[Sean Cagney]

One more thing. Spurs vs thunder this season split on their home courts....so there is no positive to losing hca over thunder, in the playoffs the home calls for thunder will be magnified.

I know people are trying to. Be positive, but without a healthy Parker, we have no logical reason to be optimistic, sorry its the truth.

I agree with you 100% there. This is the truth whether some are in denial or not.

[Phenomanul]

People keep pointing out that the Denver Nuggets' injuries means we would face a 'weakened' version of them in the 2nd round. No matter where they land, they are not getting to the 2nd round because of those injuries. Furthermore, their opponent will surely be rested before the start of the 2nd round. That does not benefit the Spurs in any way.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Being healthy is the only priority.

Bingo

Yep.

[benstanfield]

1: Lakers aren't that good, and the Rockets have beaten us twice this year and played us hard and close one of the other 2 times. You'd rather play them than a team we've blown out twice? I wouldn't.

2: And the Warriors have kicked our asses too. But I would rather play them than the Rockets. Still, that's a gamble that was about as likely as us playing the Lakers as the one seed.

3: This is the only one I would agree with, but the Nuggets aren't in total control of the 3 seed. They may drop down to the 4 due to the injuries. Meaning the 1 seed would be better, not that we'll see them in the 2nd round either way with both of their injuries.

4: ??? We haven't done anything without HCA either. Ever. We nearly got to the Finals last year when reasonably healthy and having HCA too. The best odds are the ones we want to be playing with. The higher the seed the better. "well this and this happened before" doesn't matter. It's still the highest odds.

5: We're not under the radar anymore with two straight #1 seeds and another #1 or #2 again. We'd be under more pressure now because we've just choked away a locked up top seed in the span of about a week and a half. Now more than ever they're going to talk about how the Spurs are chokers. Getting the 1 seed is the only way to dispel that talk. Pretty much too late now though, so the undeserving Thunder fluke back into the 1 seed because we choked.

1-2: Wrong about the games we've played, haven't beaten the Lakers by more than 3 IIRC. And you fail to comprehend that the Lakers halfcourt friendly style will make them tougher in the playoffs than teams that play track meet offense. Houston and GS will almost certainly be less difficult than any team with Howard and Pau in the playoffs.

3: Nuggets will be the three seed almost certainly. If the Clippers can make up 2.5 games in the next week maybe I'm wrong, but even then HOU/GS then LAC is better than LAL then MEM.

4: "The best odds are the ones we want to be playing with." HCA will not be affected if we get the 2-seed until the WCF (assuming OKC even makes it), so saying that 1 seed gives us the best odds is akin to saying that it is a given that we will advance to the WCF. You are saying that the possibility of having game 7 in SA rather than OKC (assuming they get to WCF, assuming we get to WCF, assuming it goes 7 games) is more valuable than playing 2 significantly easier opponents in the first and second round. Just awful logic.

5. This was incoherent. We should get the 1 seed to "dispel that talk" rather than rest our guys and get the easiest path we can?

[Sean Cagney]

1-2: Wrong about the games we've played, haven't beaten the Lakers by more than 3 IIRC. And you fail to comprehend that the Lakers halfcourt friendly style will make them tougher in the playoffs than teams that play track meet offense. Houston and GS will almost certainly be less difficult than any team with Howard and Pau in the playoffs.

3: Nuggets will be the three seed almost certainly. If the Clippers can make up 2.5 games in the next week maybe I'm wrong, but even then HOU/GS then LAC is better than LAL then MEM.

4: "The best odds are the ones we want to be playing with." HCA will not be affected if we get the 2-seed until the WCF (assuming OKC even makes it), so saying that 1 seed gives us the best odds is akin to saying that it is a given that we will advance to the WCF. You are saying that the possibility of having game 7 in SA rather than OKC (assuming they get to WCF, assuming we get to WCF, assuming it goes 7 games) is more valuable than playing 2 significantly easier opponents in the first and second round. Just awful logic.

5. This was incoherent. We should get the 1 seed to "dispel that talk" rather than rest our guys and get the easiest path we can?

Yes, now lets hope to GOD Tony is alright and just needs some rest because all of this is MOOT if he is not.

[bklynspursfan]

Getting Houston also means a chance to knock out Harden just for good measure on the way to take out his boys in OKC. (just randomly thinking )

[TE]

Playing Houston will get the offense up and going. Who knows?...maybe we can get last year's rthym by playing them.

[InRareForm]

No Parker vs Houston, I would call it a coin flip series, only because of Spurs homecourt advantage.

[TE]

No Parker vs Houston, I would call it a coin flip series, only because of Spurs homecourt advantage.

Coin flip series? We'd win in 6 games or less tbh. Harden would go super mario on us per par but other than that we'd pull it out imo.

[boutons_deux]

"(Gallinari and Lawson could both be out)"

both are out for the season.

George Karl can't catch a break.

[therealtruth]

The lakers have given the Spurs fits over the years and match up well against them with their size advantage. I wanted to see a healthy laker team vs the Spurs to really see how good the Spurs are. The Spurs need to be tested, not get a cakewalk to the WCF like last year then get steamrolled by the first real test they see.

Yeah I don't think the Clippers tested the Spurs enough.

[Kidd K]

Wow. A five-point post where every single point is wrong.

1. The Rockets have only beaten the Spurs once this season. The Spurs are 2-0 against the Lakers, but the wins are by a total of 5 points.
2. The Warriors have only beaten the Spurs once this season. It wasn't an asskicking; it went into OT.
3. If Denver drops, it would have to be to #5 because the Clippers have to get a top 4 seed due to winning their division.
4. The Spurs didn't have HCA against the Suns in either 2005 or 2007 and won those series anyway.
5. Top 2 seeds don't go under the radar. Unless it's this year's Knicks or Pacers. Other teams have far more respect for the Spurs than you would think by watching ESPN.

1: We're till undefeated against the Lakers, who haven't been very good for most of the year. I was mistaken in thinking we lost to the Rockets twice since I didn't look it up first. I must've been thinking of last year. Their win/loss record this year I posted was off by one game. I would rather play LA than the Rockets. The Spurs have been able to control LA whereas our games against the Rockets have all seemed stressful and in some cases lucky to come out with a win.

2: You're debating semantics over the definition of "ass kicking"., in no way was my point wrong.

3: More semantics. Being out of the 3 seed was not even half the point, much less all of it as you're lazily pretending it is. They will not make it to round 2 with those injuries regardless. Whether they're the 4 or the 5, the outcome is the exact same.

4: And? The Spurs were a much different team in 2005 and 2007. You're talking about 6 and 8 years ago back when Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili were still in their 20's, not in their mid 30's. Stats from when Duncan and Manu were in their 20's and our entire team besides the main 3 guys was different are completely irrelevant. Terrible point.

5: You're arguing for my point with that comment, not against it. But somehow mine was wrong apparently.

[rascal]

The easiest scenario is getting Lakers(8), Memphis(4 or 5), OK City(1) and the Clippers(4 or 5) all on the same side so the Spurs only have to play one of those teams in the WCF. The Spurs should get past the other teams in the west, Hoston will push them but they don't have enough to beat the Spurs and Denver has been weakened by injuries.

[td4mvp21]

Spurs are 1-6 in OKC the last two seasons, playoffs included. I think that speaks volumes about how important the 1st seed is.

However, with how the team has been playing lately, it's looking like the 2nd seed may be the better option. WCF was/is their ceiling anyway.

[mavs>spurs]

still trying to figure out why they let harden go instead of porkins tbh

[FromWayDowntown]

The Spurs haven't won a road game since February. They need the number 1 seed or they aren't sniffing the NBA finals

That sounds worse than it really is; they're 0-4 on the road since February, having lost at Minnesota, at Houston (by 1), at Memphis (by 2), and at Oklahoma City. I don't dispute that the Spurs would benefit from having the best seed possible, but your point is slightly disingenuous given the extraordinarily home heavy schedule the Spurs have played.

[emanueldavidginobili]

It's crazy how bad we can play and alll these injuries anstill have a top 2 record in the enitire NBA. We will be fine come playoffs, its a whole new ball game and this team will be hungry for a championship. As long as we are healthy I am not worried about getting out of the west tbh.

[FromWayDowntown]

At this point, the Spurs next win clinches a top 3 seed no matter what -- it should also clinch the Southwest Division. Another win beyond that (or the next Denver loss) clinch a top 2 spot for SA.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

do the spurs have a better pick if they get 2nd seed? besides rest, that's the only benefit i can think of.

i don't buy into this match up stuff. i think denver (even injured, they still have al ude, depth, and a good coach) and okc are the only teams that seriously might knock the spurs out this season.

grizz, clipps, warriors, rockets, lakers, or even the jazz/mavs... meh. i think it's a bad omen, if the spurs drop to 2nd. they're all formidable foes, but i don't think any of them are worth willfully droppin hca over okc. hca is vital against okc, final season stretch rest for the big 3 is vital for a successful playoff run. to me that spells an expectation of greatness in the final season stretch for decolo, green, kawhi, diaw, and splitter.

i wouldn't spew a crappy list of reasons for a bad argument like 2nd seed is better. i'd ask, "who's going to have the worst final season stretch: decolo, green, kawhi, diaw, or splitter?"

imho, my money is on decolo or maybe diaw. imh(omer)o, all 5 outta be good enough to carry a big 3less spurs into the playoffs as a 1 seed. that would be a good omen.

[james evans]

the lakers aren't scary, the officiating in laker games is what's scary. nothing about that laker team puts fear in me, but the fact that they are allowed to play physical, foul when they wanna, but the opposing teams are constantly called for touch fouls. that's what i'm afraid of. and if we play them, i'm sure joe crawford will be officiating half of the games.