Reply With Quote
The return/enter key is your friend. I promise.
As far as I can see, the Spurs aren't playing any different than last season. The rest of the league has just gotten better. Something that NBA commentators, sports writers, and every other suck up to Dallas has been ignoring, is that the Spurs are 2nd in the league at opponent's points allowed per game (meaning, only Houston allows fewer points per game than SA) I mean, that's just the same defense as years' past, isn't it?.
Let's look at some of the losses the Spurs have had this season. Will regular season losses to teams like the Bobcats, Warriors, Bucks, Bulls, and Timberwolves, really matter when the postseason gets here? Sure they have lost games to Dallas, Phoenix, and Utah, but all of those 3 teams have at least lost one game to each other this season already (exception of Dallas-Phoenix), Spurs included. As long as the Spurs show that they can play with the top teams and not get blown out (they have already had at least 1 win against Dallas, Utah, Phoenix, and LA), there's no reason to panic.
Just because the media hypes Dallas as the favorite, does not mean they will win. In fact, it's very unlikely that a team that lost in the Finals coming out of the West, would even make it back the next year, unless you're in the Eastern Conference. I don't see Dallas going past the semi-finals this year, it's fool's gold (example: Detroit's 64 win season last year, Sacramento's 62 win season in 2001-2002). Look what happened last season. The past 3 seasons, the media hyped Lakers in 2004, Pistons in 2005, and Mavericks in 2006 as the favorites to win the championship. None of those happened.
Do not be fooled by who the sports writers and commentators think is the best team in the NBA. They always pick the good on paper teams. The only thing Dallas is doing different than SA, is beating the teams they are supposed to beat, the teams like Bobcats, Hawks, Warriors, etc. SA has simply lost to teams that won't even be in the playoffs. When you think about it, it doesn't really matter.Yes, the Mavs, they too have lost against top West teams like SA, Utah, Houston, and LA, remember?. Remember, best teams win championships (Dallas has how many? None. They have a regular season championship, not a real one).
The championship core of Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen are all still there. Don't forget Horry who could hit those big shots when called to. Phoenix and Dallas have more wins, but those teams have returned to the run-and-gun style that has yet to win a championship this decade. Spurs, despite their so-called "aging roster who isn't playing well" have the 3rd best record in the standings, and if people are calling the Spurs bad, then the 27 (yeah... 27, shocking isn't it?) teams behind us in the standings must really be bad too, which means 27 out of 30 NBA teams stink then, right, NBA commentators? I'll see you guys at the Riverwalk in June for the Spurs 4th NBA championship parade.
Last edited by Kori Ellis; 02-03-2007 at 05:03 PM.
The return/enter key is your friend. I promise.
That "enter" button helps out for those who are reading.
But what you're failing to note is that the losses to teams the Spurs shouldn't be losing to causes the gap in the division to widen and lessen the opportunity for home-court advantage, which the Spurs would greatly benefit from even with the aura of playing against the Spurs in San Antonio diminishing.
The Phoenix team the Spurs beat at the beginning of the season was a much different team than the one they lost to this week. A healthy and confident (in the stength of his knees) Amare Stoudamire is a scary prospect with a Suns team that is scoring well.
People love to say that Dallas is winning the "regular-season" championship and that they have no experience - well, guess what, the Spurs didn't have championship experience in 1999 and hadn't even made a Finals before then. I refuse to believe a Dallas team that has tasted the Finals before is simply going to make the mistake of letting up in the post-season and anybody who truly believes that Dallas will simply roll over in the playoffs is forgetting that they defeated the Spurs last season in the WCSF.
The spurs didn;t miss this many wide open shots last year.
we don't have a winning record against any of the teams you mentioned, the mavs do.
and 1 win against a playoff team doesn't win a 7-game series
I don't know what the deal is with you guys talking about enter keys. Perfect way to ignore the obvious but hidden facts staring you in the face:
1. The Phoenix team we see now is just about the same Phoenix team that we dropped in the 2005 WCF: Stoudemire dominating throwing some dunks in, Nash with a bunch of assists, everyone else run-and-gun and making a bunch of wild shots. Again, when has this style of play won a championship this decade?
2. Is Dallas playing well? Yes. Did they beat us last year? Yes. But if the only difference between Dallas, SA, and Phoenix this year is how well they play against non-playoff teams, does it really matter then? If SA was 6th or 7th in the standings, then we could make the arguments for this being a not-so-hot team. I know Dallas made an impressive run to the Finals last year, but what is it about Dallas that made them lose to an aging, slowed down, un-athletic team like the Miami Heat? I have yet to here a real answer other than "Oh the refs gave it to Miami". Dallas lacks the "it" that SA would have were they to make the Finals again.
For one thing that people can watch for themselves as a sign of what's different this season compared to previous seasons, watch how many open jumpers opponents get without someone running out to them to get a hand in their face."As far as I can see, the Spurs aren't playing any different than last season."
It used to be that teams almost never got wide open shots. The Spurs were famous for contesting EVERY shot. NBA2Night/FastBreak/Sportscenter would have segments about the Spurs defense showing highlights of how on every shot the shooter would have a hand in the face or someone running at them.
That isn't the case this year, I''ve noticed it since early December that this was the worst Spurs defensive closeout team I've seen in the Duncan era, and then a few weeks later Pop came public about this being the worst defensive team in many years. It wasn't lip service from Pop to try to fire his guys up, it's true. The shot contesting is just a part of it, but it matters.
Those core 3 along with a down Bowen aren't good enough to win the le. The Lakers tried it in 03 when Shaq and Kobe had the aging Fox, Shaw and Horry and scrubs like Medvedenko and Pargo (who has improved since then). It wasn't enough. They took the Spurs six games, and maybe if Horry's shot in game 5 went down they could have advanced, but they just didn't have the talent.The championship core of Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen are all still there. Don't forget Horry who could hit those big shots when called to.
BTW, Robert Horry has been atrocious in the playoffs 3 of the last 4 seasons. He was brutally awful with the Lakers in 03, so bad he was on the bench most of the second half of game 6 for Medvedenko. He was nowhere for the Spurs in 04. And he was so bad in 06 that smallball became the full time lineup.
He was good throughout the entire 05 playoffs. Good throughout the regular season too, he was huge in the double OT Clipper game for instance.
But at some point people have to ask themselves what's more likely: the 75% chance of being revolting, or the 25% chance of contributing and making big plays?
Boundless optimism is useful sometimes and I think that in a time when so many Spurs fans are abjectly pessimisitc about this teams, it is good to see someone trying to find the silver linings in the black clouds.
With that said, I think the big problem isn't so much the outcomes of games, but the consistent issues that seem to lead to the losses that the Spurs have suffered. Like jeffdrums22, I sat back a couple of weeks ago and thought: "Well, the Spurs had great chances with under 30 seconds to go in regulation to tie or win both Dallas games in San Antonio, the Charlotte loss, the Minnesota loss, the loss at home to Los Angeles, (and now, the second loss in Utah)," and considered that had they gotten a break here or there, they might have reasonably expected to win about half of those games.
The problem is that the Spurs put themselves in position to make games a 50/50 proposition by performing poorly in certain aspects of the game and failing to play the game it should be played, I think. The most obvious shortcoming is the rebounding problem, which doesn't really warrant any more discussion.
I think the Spurs are also "struggling" defensively more than they have in the past for at least two reasons: (1) Parker, for all of the good things that he does, is a terrible defensive player in two-man games and anytime that opponents involve him in a screen -- because he doesn't hold up his end on those plays, the defense behind him is out of position and gives up too many layups and other good looks; and (2) the Spurs other perimeter defenders are learning that they can't gamble like they once did, because they no longer have "positionally solid" bigs behind them who rotated as the defensive system demanded and contested shots.
Numbers don't always tell the truth; with this Spurs team, I think the numbers can be quite misleading sometimes.
I think this team also gets itself into trouble in stretches of games because it is far too willing to settle for 3PTA or long field goal attempts. There are long stretches of games where the Spurs don't make any real effort to attack the rim. When they do bother to attack the rim, they can be a good offensive team; when they hit 3's, they can appear to be a good offensive team; when they're clanging away as volume shooters from behind the arc, they are a bad offensive team. Too many times this season, the Spurs have fallen behind a bit, settled for a series of 3'd in the ensuing possessions, and looked up to find themselves down by 8 or 10 after conceding a long run to the opposition. To their credit, they've found ways to get back into those games, but I think sometimes they did the hole too deep for themselves by making foolish offensive decisions.
Mavs and Suns are light year better than Spurs right now but Spurs in may/june will likely be way better than now (and it's not wishfull thinking, old teams usually do that).
Now, will it be enough to be at their level ?
See, much easier to read.
spurs losses:
1 loss to Charlotte
1 loss to Chicago (above .500, possible playoff team)
2 losses to Cleveland (above .500, playoff team)
2 losses to Dallas
1 loss to Golden State
2 losses to Houston (above .500, playoff team)
2 losses to Lakers (playoff team)
1 loss to Milwaukee
1 loss to Minnesota
1 loss to Phoenix
2 losses to Utah
Total of 4 losses to sub .500 teams
turn those into wins AND WE'RE STILL BEHIND DALLAS in the standings!
wrong,Phoenix has improved by bringing more defensive minded guys like bell and Boris Diaw.The spurs just brought in some useless like Finley(last year)and .........well we have so much in our bench.
another thread just like the other dozens
I'd dispute that it's the same team. They're far better defensively this year then they've been in the past -- particularly when Bell is healthy. They have the ability to rebound the ball better, as well. And some of their peripheral players like Barbosa are much, much better than the guys who played similar roles for that team in 2005.
I think you sell the Mavericks short if you think that the only difference between them and the Spurs is beating bad teams. Right now, the biggest gap in the West is the difference between being #2 and being #3, and that has much, much more to do with the consistency of the effort that the Mavericks and Suns give and the superior ability of those teams to close games against any opponent, regardless of record. The Spurs, in case you haven't noticed, struggle to close out teams most nights and, with alarming frequency, get "out-executed" down the stretch by opponents.
Sure, the Spurs have wins over the "good" teams (Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, LA, Utah). But they haven't beaten Dallas, Phoenix or Houston since November 14. They got a nice win at home over Utah, but I can't imagine that anyone really believes that Utah is going to compete for a le this season. The win over LA was an enticing suggestion that this team might still have some upside; but it may have just masked the fact that the team still has major problems (in terms of being compe ive for les).
Oh,and going back to Phoenix,barbosa is Healthy this year.For one or other reazons he wasnīt 100% phisically last year and the year before.
The rest of the league is NOT better than the last year.
The Spurs are a far worse defensive team this year than last year. I don't need to crunch numbers or anything to know that. The points allowed might be skewed because every once in a while the Spurs blow someone out or because they hold teams down for a couple quarters. But this team is no where close to as good defensively as last year's team.
By the way, in all seriousness, you really need to use the enter key if you want responses. Your posts are extremely hard to read without paragraph breaks.
I for one, agree w/ you. I'm not worried at all. Did I just read someone "claiming" Boris Diaw was defensive minded?????? WTF.
I'm going to have to disagree with that take. There was a time last year when Parker was using all his energy on the offensive end and his defense suffered. He picked it up some as the playoffs neared, but he never reached his 2004-05 defensive levels.
This year, his defense is back to be around the same level it was in 2004-05. Not quite all the way back, but about 95% back. He's putting pressure on the other team's point guards and is rarely losing focus. I only remember a couple poor defensive games (one each against Deron Williams and Rafer Alston, although a couple more could exist that I can't think of off the top of my head).
Looking at the stats, it pretty much backs up the thoughts that Parker's defense was best in 2004-05 and is close to that level again. Here are what point guards average against Parker when he's on the court:
2006-07: 11.4 points, 4.4 assists, 2.3 turnovers
2005-06: 13.1 points, 4.5 assists, 1.9 turnovers
2004-05: 11.7 points, 4.3 assists, 2.4 turnovers
2003-04: 12.5 points, 4.8 assists, 1.9 turnovers
2002-03: 15.5 points, 5.2 assists, 1.8 turnovers
Parker can still pick it up a notch defensively, but I don't see him as being one of the main problems. To hold opposing point guards down to the degree he has this year is impressive, especially considering that the Spurs' interior defense is worse than anytime since David Robinson was drafted.
In 2002-03, you could say Parker was a below average defensive player and the stats point to that. He give up huge numbers ... and that was with Tim and David in the middle. But this year, I'm not sure you can make the claim.
I know what you are talking about Parker struggling some in two-man situations, but I just haven't seen it much this year. Last year, yeah, you could say that for a lot of the regular season. But this season, I'd grade him rather highly on the defensive end of the court.
Plus, the way Pop utilizes Parker this year, I see nothing to indicate that he's lost confidence in Parker's defense. In fact, when asked why he doesn't put Bowen on Steve Nash, Pop said he prefers to go with Parker because Parker is the best Spur at guarding the pick-and-rolls.
Okay, I am done with this thread. People ignore FACTS. First of all, what's the point of having statistics if "numbers can be misleading" or whatever nonsense that was. I guess let's just not have an NBA Finals anymore either, because NBA Finals are misleading too now, right? It's not called boundless optimism, it's called looking at the standings and statistics (3rd best in the league, one of the top road records, 2nd in opponent's points per game allowed), not picking apart Spurs losses against the Sealions and the Bears or whoever, and saying: OMG they left Mark Madsen wide open for a jumper! Season's over! It's also called looking at the history of the style of the play of DAL/PHX and it's championship success (in this case, non-success) this decade. You know, if Dallas had won the championship, this would be a completely different thread, because they would have proved that jump shooting and wild shots win championships...was just not the outcome. Oh, and since we're allowed to make up wild stories about misleading numbers, try this: Phoenix is 1-6 vs Spurs, Dallas, Utah, and some other team, either houston or LA.
I really think that the points allowed have something to do with the way the spurs play the game,not with the defence,cause I really think we suck this year on Defence.may be cause the spurs always use the shot clock and donīt have that many fastbreak points is that teams canīt reach 100 pts or so in 48 minutes.
The differences between this Spurs team and last year's:
1) Their defense is worse. Points per game is not the right metric. Points per possession is, because that takes into account game pace. For years, the Spurs have been the most efficient defensive team. This year, they have slipped behind Houston and Chicago, and aren't that much better than Dallas.
2) They struggle against good defensive teams. Their lineup of aging jump shooters can get the job done against many teams, but the elite defensive teams rotate over quickly enough to squelch open shots. This is the same problem the team had in 2001 and 2002, the last time the geriatic brigade got so many minutes.
3) They struggle against efficient offenses. Again, this relates to age and lack of athleticism. The pass that a couple of years ago against the Spurs did not lead to an easy shot, now does.
4) Duncan has to do too much. The lack of competent center play means that Duncan has to spearhead the defense and rebounding essentially by himself. This leaves little margin for error.
The differences between this Spurs team and last year's are not night and day statistically, but they become quite evident against the elite teams.
Bell and Diaw were both there last year. Try again, Einstein.
The comparison is between the 2007 and 2005 Suns. Sorry.
excuse me,but I was talking about the deference between the 2004-2005 phoenix(without bell and diaw)when they lost to the spurs,with this yearīs Phoenix.
so,try again later extatico!
And if you donīt belive me,check his quote again,he was talking about the 2004-05 Suns.
youīre gonna have to do better tham that to get to own me dudie.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
