After 68 games, at 48-20, the Spurs:
1. They allow the fewest PPG of any NBA team
2. They shoot the third-best FG% in the league, and allow the third-lowest FG% (Yes, *gasp* better than Dallas in both stats categories)
3. SA allows the 2nd-lowest 3-pt. FG% of opponents in the league. (Better than Dallas again)
4. SA allows the fewest assists per game in the league.
What do you all think of that? Is it because teams have bad games against SA? Or is it Spurs Defense?
Either way, those 4 team stats = playoff success if they continue and keep it up.
And how come no one is happy? Keep in mind these stats are after ALL 68 games, not just that stretch of 10-10 between January 1 and February 11, which everyone is basing the Spurs' season on.
Although the Spurs are giving all those rebounds to the other teams, is it really as bad as you think? I mean, using the offensive rebounds as example, apparently the defense is quite capable of holding off those second shot attempts, right? otherwise how can you explain the Spurs holding the opponents to the lowest average scoring? Of course, grabbing those rebounds would be much more better, but I do not believe that you should be much concerned, in particular when with just a little improvement they can climb the ladder, after all the difference with the better rebounding team, Denver, is just 3.1 rebounds / game
In 2005-06, being 2nd in Points Against in the regular season (88.8 ppg allowed), 4th in FG%, 3rd in FG% against, and in the top 5 in 3pt FG% against = 2nd round exit
Yes, and they lost a tight seven game series to the eventual Finalists (who blew a championship they should have won pretty easily IMO).
It's not like the Spurs got pwned by a dirty scrub team - they lost very closely to a very good team that should have won the championship.
If seeding had been done correctly, that would have been a loss in the Conference Finals, assuming everything else stayed the same.
I'm glad the Spurs are performing well in these categories. Obviously, it's a guarantee of nothing, but we at least have evidence that the Spurs are playing at a very high level, capable of winning the le.
Dallas is still the favorite, of course. But I like our chances.
The 2004 Spurs team was statistically the best defensive team in NBA history. They were also the best rebounding Spurs team in history.
And they got swept out of the playoffs.
Regular season stats stop meaning anything when the playoffs tip off.
So then we shouldn't be worried abou the regular season stats that the doom and gloomers post?
RIGHT ON!!!
The 60 year history of the NBA says otherwise.
The 2004 Spurs team was statistically the best defensive team in NBA history. They were also the best rebounding Spurs team in history.
And they got swept out of the playoffs.
Regular season stats stop meaning anything when the playoffs tip off.
So if a team has the best regular season stats they can suck in the playoffs and they'll still win?
The point is you can't look at the Spurs' regular season stats and try to predict which team is championship material and which ones aren't. I've tried to find a common link between 1999, 2003 and 2005 that separates them from the other Spurs teams, and the link doesn't exist.
Non-championship Spurs teams in the mid-90's and in the Tim Duncan era have put up ridiculous stats. Regular season stats wise, you can make a case that the 2003 team had the worst stats of any Tim Duncan team.
Overall, this season's stats tell us that the Spurs will be in contention to win it all. But most Spurs fans should know that already.
No, and of course they don't hand out the trophy for the best regular season - I try not to be literal when making a point. If I was literal, I couldn't say "Kobe is killing the Grizzlies tonight" without law enforcement getting involved.
I just have a particular distaste for the notion that the regular season means nothing - the fact of the matter is regular season success corresponds to playoff success pretty regularly; in NBA history, the team holding or sharing the best record has won 30 of 60 championships. Second place has won 17 out of 60, third place has won 4 out of 60. That's 51 championships out of 60 from first through third place (league-wide, not division or conference standings).
Based upon that, I'd rather be in Dallas' shoes than Houston's. I'd rather be in Phoenix' shoes than Cleveland's. And I'd rather be in the Spurs' shoes than in Golden State's.
Given those numbers, I'd rather be in the Mavericks' or Suns' place than the Spurs.
I get all that. But that's not really in relation to what timvp was saying, so I don't know what provoked your response. Anyway, he just clarified in the post right before yours, so it's all fine.
exactly
no matter how much championship experience the spurs have, going through the playoffs without HCA after round 1 (unless the team makes the finals) is gonna be one of an uphill battle
Eh, it can be done.
They did it in 05 against a better Suns team than they are now.
oh it definitely can be done, but to go through phoenix AND dallas without HCA will be extremely tough
not impossible, but very tough
also when you can argue that this team isn't nearly as good as the 05 and that the suns and dallas team now are better
(i'd take 07 suns > 05 suns personally)
First of all, without stating which stats were ridiculous or worst, I can't comment upon any claim of the statistical quality of a given team. I can say that many, many team stats are a reflection of a style of play rather than a team's quality. For example, the Nuggets under Paul Westhead were the D'Antoni Suns of that era, but they lost and lost and lost. Never sniffed the playoffs, let alone advanced to conference finals as the Suns have these past two years.
I can say that in two particular critical statistical measures, winning percentage and point differential, the Spurs championship teams have performed very, very well:
1999, 37-13 record, T-1 (Utah); Point differential 8.4, 1st
2003, 60-22, T-1 (Dallas); PD 5.4, 3rd (Dallas, Sacramento)
2005, 59-23, T-2 (Phoenix 62-20); PD 7.8, 1st
And yes, there have been seasons (1995, 2001) when the Spurs had the best record in the league and didn't win the le; there have also been seasons (2001, 2004, 2006) when the Spurs had the best point differential and didn't win the le. You're right to say that there is no statistically foolproof predictor of championships, but the history of the regular season gives us a pretty good indication of where to place our bets. When last year's playoffs started, I certainly wouldn't have bet a dime on Miami, and I'll bet most honest people living outside of Dade county would have said the same. Sure, that turned out to be incorrect, but that's why rules have exceptions - you're not going to find five other champions in league history that did it Miami's way.
Yes, but a 2nd round exit where the difference was a foul. What does that say about our compe ion?
If the difference was....getting dominated every game of that series, then I have something to be concerned about.
Last edited by SpursDynasty; 03-25-2007 at 01:50 AM.
Do you all not think Dallas will be out of gas by the WCF, having to go through Golden State and Utah?
Let's hope GS and Utah keep their seeds. If Clippers end up with the 8 seed, Dallas will sweep them in the first round. If Dallas plays Houston in the 2nd round, that's another sweep for Dallas. GS and Utah could take the series to 6 and 7 games with Dallas, possibly an upset.
uhhh, looks SpursDynasty
would you rather face utah and GS or would you rather face Denver/LA and Phoenix?
I thought so
Utah would not get past Houston. McGrady and Yao are so much better now.
That there are three teams in the race for the WC championship, is a no brainer. I don't think that anyone here (Spur fan that is) is giving up on that. I think that what they are saying is that they are not the favorate to win, and they don't like that.
The truth is that it doesn't matter if your the favorate or not, the game still has to be played.
Now most on this board believe that the Suns will be an easy out for the Spurs, although I don't particularly believe that, Its not something that could be proven one way or the other.
The problem, IMO, is that the Spurs fans are seeing four things that they don't like.
1) The Mavs have improved, not just in record, but in most statisical catagories from last years team.
2) The Spurs are not improved over last years team. This is not to say that they are a bad team, as last years team was very good. It is to say that the team that fell "One Foul" short last year, in now not as close to the Mavs as they were.
3) The question marks about last years the team have not been adressed. They still lack the SF that they want, and rebounding is still a problem.
4) The way that the series went last year is still a distint possability. The Spurs are on course to try the same tactic to win this year as last year ... Against an improved team that beat them at that game last year.
No matter how many times you say it "It was one foul", it will not make it true. There was over five minutes to play in that game ... Five minutes that the Spurs didn't play.
In the same way that Spurs fans say "One Foul". The Mavs say the following
Game 1 - "Down by two, 13 seconds and the ball" ... We'll take out chances.
Game 5 - "Down by two, A Terry 15 footer and a Dirk tip-in" ... We'll take our chances
How close were the Spurs to being sweeped? "Thirteen seconds and the ball"
How close were the Spurs from going out in Five? "A Terry shot and Dirk tip-in"
If you are going to judge how close the Spurs were in that series on a final play, why not look at all the games?
I understand that to the Spurs those other games don't matter, but it the teams were that close and one has noticable improved and the other has not ... Well, this leads to a little "Dome and gloom" thinking
LOL, you better keep those fingers crossed SpursDynasty. As of the time you wrote this comment the Clippers were a game up on the Warriors for 8th seed and the Rockets are only a game behind the Jazz, although if you had any sense you would be rooting for the Rockets to play the Mavs, not for the Jazz to play the Mavs. Rockets took us to a 7 game first round series two years ago.
The Rockets would flat out suck in the playoffs. McGrady has never won a playoff series in his life, and the Jazz have played Dallas as good as any team this year has. They are one team not intimidated by Dallas.
So in summary, McGrady sucks and Yao Ming is just about the same. Two stars the team plays no better than when its just one of them out there.
Yeah, keep thinking SA hasn't improved since last year. Each and every Spurs game is being judged harder than last year due to the second round loss last year, so the Spurs haven't gotten worse than last season. The end.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
