Reply With Quote
Yeah, but what's the Spurs' best 56-game stretch over that time?
I did this last year, but I thought I'd do it again just to remind myself how good the Spurs have been during the Duncan era. Since the start of the 1997-98 season, the Spurs have gone 559-229 in their 788 regular season games (with or without Tim Duncan). That's a winning percentage over that time of .709 -- projected to 82 games, that a 58-win pace. But how good have the Spurs been against the each of the other teams in the NBA? I decided to break down the numbers just to see:
.944 -- Boston (17-1)
.868 -- Golden State (33-5)
.868 -- LA Clippers (33-5)
.833 -- Charlotte (5-1)
.795 -- Houston (31-8)
.795 -- Memphis (31-8)
.792 -- New Orleans/Charlotte (19-5)
.788 -- Atlanta (14-4)
.744 -- Denver (29-10)
.737 -- Utah (28-10)
.737 -- Chicago (14-5)
.737 -- Orlando (14-5)
.737 -- Toronto (14-5)
.722 -- Indiana (13-5)
.722 -- Miami (13-5)
.722 -- New Jersey (13-5)
.722 -- Washington (13-5)
.718 -- Portland (28-11)
.684 -- Seattle (26-12)
.684 -- Detroit (13-6)
.684 -- Philadelphia (13-6)
.667 -- New York (12-6)
.632 -- Sacramento (24-14)
.632 -- Cleveland (12-7)
.605 -- Minnesota (23-15)
.600 -- Dallas (24-16)
.579 -- Phoenix (22-16)
.526 -- LA Lakers (20-18)
.444 -- Milwaukee (8-10)
Use it however you wish -- I can't imagine that there are too many teams that are over .500 against all but one team over that span (or a comparable span) and the fact that they're over .600 against virtually every team in the league strikes me as fairly remarkable.
The Spurs obviously can't beat Milwaukee on a consistent basis (that continues to baffle me). The teams that have sustained runs as playoff teams in the West have managed to put together the best records against the Spurs (that's not surprising).
A couple of extraneous notes concerning the bottom end of the scale:
* The Spurs were 10-10 against Phoenix in the first 5 years of Duncan's career (through 01-02), but have gone 12-6 against them since.
* The Spurs were 15-5 against Dallas through 01-02, but are 9-11 against the Mavericks since then.
* The Spurs were 12-15 against the Shaq/Kobe Lakers but are 8-3 against LAL since Shaq went to Miami.
As an aside, over the course of their long history, as so many already know, the Spurs have the 2nd best regular season winning percentage in NBA history with a record of 1493-1017, a .595 winning percentage in NBA games. The Lakers have won at a .611 percentage over their NBA history and are first in this category; the Celtics are a close third now at .594. In that time, the Spurs are at .500 or better against every NBA club other than the Suns and Lakers -- against each of those clubs, the Spurs are 63-65. If the Spurs can win the season series against each this year and get at least a split with Atlanta and Milwaukee (the Spurs are exactly .500 historically against each), the Spurs will hold at least a .500 record against every other NBA franchise.
Yeah, but what's the Spurs' best 56-game stretch over that time?
Oh, andthe Bucks. I don't think I've seen the Spurs beat them yet live.
Does this record include the games Duncan did not even play in, ie the injury year?
RIF. It's in the original post.
With Tim extended thru 2012 now, hopefully we can put some distance between ourselves and Boston. I think their "dream team" may last 2 maybe 3 seasons at most, and then they'll suck for a LONG time again, having traded their best youth.
That would be awesome!
Excellent work on your data-gathering FromWayDowntown! Very interesting, and of course we all knew about "The Good Land" not being so good to the Spurs.
Two words: Glenn Robinson
He's the main reason Milwaukee had that record against us. He tore us up when he was there.
How in the heck do the Hawks have that bad of a record against us? Seems like they beat us once a year for the Duncan era as well.
Oh...and the Celtics winning PCT is now 587%
If the Spurs win 24 game more than they lose this year they'll join the Lakers and Celts as the only teams 500+ games over 500.
They are already the only other team besides the Lakers and Celts 400 over 500.
Robinson left the Bucks after 2001-02 season. Michael Redd has taken the role of Spurs' killer since Glenn left. Since Glenn left, the Bucks have beaten the Spurs at least 4 times with Michael Redd doing much of the damage and some occasional help from Mo Williams.
How much did they beat us when he was there?
I remember a few sweeps in there....it seemed like they swept us 3 years in a row during one stretch.
Thanks for that FWD!
Yeah, the Bucks are a horrible bunch to play. I made a post recently about how they used to own the Spurs, along with other players who were money from midrange.
Big Dog along with Cassell were big reasons the Spurs used to struggle against the Bucks. Spurs defense forces players to take uncomfortable (for most) shots from weird angles, but the Bucks have always had players that excel in that area. Now Michael Redd and Mo Williams seem to do particuly well against the Spurs. I also recall Timmy having a game winning dunk taken away from him because time ran out just before he dunked it, that was in Milwaukee. Also, I feel as if the scheduling always seems to have the Spurs playing the Bucks in the middle of the season, before All-Star break when the Spurs are still gelling and getting new players used to the system. I could be wrong there, but I bet the amount of meetings post All-Star break are minimal.
The main thing is the Spurs beat them on D-Rob appreciation night. (Speedy almost had a triple double that night)
Great job FWD
Very good stats
Let's just call the Bucks the exception that proves the Spurs RULE!Oh, and
Forget the repeat nonsense, the Spurs' goal this year should be to sweep Milwaukee; those bas s!
I'm surprised with as well as Houston plays us, our winning percentage is against them is so high. Really, it doesn't seem like we've beaten them 31 times in the past 10 years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
