Around the NBA

[MathiasPW]

It is a matter of frequency. Spurs are always in the hunt, always capable of competing. We obviously pay attention to the times in which luck went in their favor, but the truth is they are always around for such opportunities to happen in the first place.

[thamadkant]

It is a matter of frequency. Spurs are always in the hunt, always capable of competing. We obviously pay attention to the times in which luck went in their favor, but the truth is they are always around for such opportunities to happen in the first place.

Spurs are in the hunt (always it seems), due to their organizational core values.

Popovic is a big factor and Buford too.


Thats why talent is not just the ONLY factor when choosing players... you have to choose players willing to sacrifice for the team.

Kobe Bryant is a top 5 SG all time, but would NEVER be welcomed to the Spurs.... would he accept a role like Parker, Ginobili or Duncan current does?... NOPE.


Popovic wants coachable system players FIRST, then talent comes a close second....
He wants players willing to sacrifice individual stats and roles for the team.

Suns need that in the front office.

[bwgood77]

It is a matter of frequency. Spurs are always in the hunt, always capable of competing. We obviously pay attention to the times in which luck went in their favor, but the truth is they are always around for such opportunities to happen in the first place.

True, they did need luck each and every year they won the finals, but they were there to take advantage when the opportunity was there for the taking, and had their own injury problems in the 90s (though of course that led to Duncan). But yeah, you add a guy like Duncan to your team....probably a top 8 player of all time, and you are always going to be in the running, particularly if you pair him with the Admiral or some other solid players, or a young Kawhi. Now they have Kawhi and LaMarcus for the heavy lifting.

I just particularly remember thinking in 2003 that it was finally the Kings year, and in 2007 maybe it was finally ours, and in 2013 OKC looked unbeatable. Even if JJ was healthy in 2005 I think they still get that one, and if Ibaka was healthy in 2014, they still probably get that one, even though it went 7 anyway. I guess you can give them 99 as well though they did face an 8 seed in the finals.

But you mention luck going in their favor; I think of luck more as a bad turnover, or an ball rimming out. Not having to not play the best team at all or at full strength due to injuries or suspensions to key players. I just hate to see things decided because of injuries. It rarely does to them though. Maybe they have the best training staff. People thought they were too old like 5 years ago and they only got better after that and never see injuries....some of that may be due in recent years to guys not playing a lot of minutes, but I don't know if that was the case prior to this decade.

[bwgood77]

And in 2001, the Spurs posted the best record in basketball, only to lose one of their three best players, slashing swingman Derek Anderson, to a third-degree separated shoulder caused by Juwan Howard's Flagrant Two foul at the close of the first half of Game One of the Western Conference Semifinals versus Dallas.

http://a.espncdn.com/nba/playoffs2001/2001/0505/1191871.html

Anderson was San Antonio's second-leading scorer that season, their third leading assists-man, and their leader in steals. He shot .399 on threes, rendering him a fine perimeter threat to spread the floor for Duncan and David Robinson inside, but his versatility is what made him a pivotal player. Anderson gave the Spurs not only a three-point shooter—his .399 conversion rate, while terrific, ranked just seventh on the team—but an athletic slasher who diversified the club's offense. He averaged 4.9 free throw attempts per game, shot .851 on free throws, and represented the only San Antonio player well-equipped to match up with Kobe Bryant defensively. The Spurs defeated Dallas easily enough without Anderson, winning that series in five games, but without him for the first two contests of the Western Conference Finals against the defending champion Lakers, San Antonio could hardly compare, even at home. Bryant averaged 36.5 points, 8.5 rebounds, and 4.5 assists as the Lakers won both games in the old Alamodome.

Anderson returned ahead of schedule for Games Three and Four, but he clearly had not recovered from the injury. He shot a combined 0-10 from the field and totaled 4 points and 1 assist as the Spurs—who, again, had led the league in wins and Defensive Rating (points allowed per possession) during the regular season—lost the two games in Los Angeles by a total of 68 points. Thus injuries played a major role in derailing San Antonio's championship hopes for two straight seasons, 2000 and 2001, after the Spurs had won their initial title in 1999.

Of course we will never know, but I don't think anyone was beating the Lakers that year. IIRC, Shaq did his usual rest the first half of the year and play his way into shape for the playoffs which is probably why they didn't have the best regular season record. They were about as big of force that year in the playoffs as any that I've seen.

But yes, as I mentioned in my last post, they did have their share of injuries in the 90s to major players and you pointed out another one in 2000 with Duncan.

I didn't remember the injury in 2013 that you mentioned, but despite that, they should have won that series against Miami but had terrible bounces, rim outs, etc in the final minute or so of game six that killed them....I mean like our luck when Kobe missed that game 6 shot in 2010 so bad that Artest just caught it and put it in...but amplified and on a bigger stage.

[GMATCallahan]

Of course we will never know, but I don't think anyone was beating the Lakers that year. IIRC, Shaq did his usual rest the first half of the year and play his way into shape for the playoffs which is probably why they didn't have the best regular season record. They were about as big of force that year in the playoffs as any that I've seen.

I concur; prior to that postseason, I predicted that the Lakers would defeat the Spurs in the Western Conference Finals in seven games, winning Game Seven in San Antonio. In March 2001, I definitely felt that the Spurs constituted the best team in the NBA, but the Lakers really came on strong after Derek Fisher, who had missed the entire year up until that point, returned for the final 20 regular season games. The Lakers went 15-5 with Fisher back in the lineup and ended the regular season on an eight-game winning streak.

However, the point is that the Spurs that year posted the best record in the league (playing in the West, of course) and led the NBA in both Defensive Rating (points allowed per possession) and three-point field goal percentage (they shot .407 on threes as a team, in addition to their dominant interior game with Duncan and Robinson). They really did possess a wonderful club that season. But without a healthy Anderson against the Lakers, San Antonio was never able to give itself a legitimate chance. He was their second-leading scorer and a very important player on both sides of the ball, and without him (or without him at anywhere close to full health), the Spurs were unable to show what they had been as a squad that year. All that you want is a chance with your 'true' team, and San Antonio did not have that.

The situation was analogous to when the Suns' Michael Finley sprained his ankle in Phoenix's meaningless regular season finale at Houston in 1996 and thus could not play in the forthcoming First Round series versus San Antonio. Finley was an indispensable player for that team, especially in a matchup with the Spurs. Not only was he Phoenix's third-leading scorer, behind Charles Barkley and Kevin Johnson, but Finley constituted one of the Suns' best perimeter defenders and the only regular Phoenix player with the combination of size and athleticism to reasonably defend San Antonio's All-Star small forward, Sean Elliott, one-on-one. With Finley, perhaps the Suns could have pulled off the upset, but without him, the team possessed virtually no chance and ended up being blown out twice in four games, losing three games to one. And if anything, Derek Anderson was of even greater value to San Antonio in 2001 than the rookie Finley had been to Phoenix in 1996, for Anderson was not a rookie and, unlike the first-year Finley, he was a terrific three-point shooter.

I didn't remember the injury in 2013 that you mentioned, but despite that, they should have won that series against Miami but had terrible bounces, rim outs, etc in the final minute or so of game six that killed them....I mean like our luck when Kobe missed that game 6 shot in 2010 so bad that Artest just caught it and put it in...but amplified and on a bigger stage.

Yes, the Spurs should have won that Game Six regardless: they missed a couple of big free throws, Popovich made some questionable coaching and substitution decisions, the Heat grabbed a couple of huge offensive rebounds, and so forth. But if Parker had been healthier, perhaps none of that would have mattered because the game may not have been close enough to begin with—the results may have been more like 2014, when San Antonio wiped the floor with Miami in game after game.

Overall, the point is that the Spurs having won five championships in the last eighteen postseasons (since Tim Duncan joined the team) is not an aberration or a matter of luck (which I know is not exactly what you are saying). For every year that the Spurs did receive a big break on their way to the title, there was at least one other year when San Antonio suffered a major injury, or some lingering injury issue, or some bad luck that prevented the club from winning the championship that season. One can even look at 2004 when Derek Fisher hit that miraculous game-winning jumper in San Antonio, or 2012 when the top-seeded Spurs went up 2-0 on Oklahoma City in the Western Conference Finals, giving them an astonishing 20 straight wins dating back to the regular season and 31 wins in their last 33 games. Then the tide turned and the Thunder won four straight games. Was Oklahoma City the better team? Perhaps, but the Thunder went down to the Heat pretty easily in the NBA Finals (in five games), whereas the Spurs would play Miami much tougher in the next two NBA Finals.

So in the abstract, if the Spurs had not won the championship in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2014 (in addition to 1999), they may well have won the title in 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2013 (in addition to 1999). That is the value of a large sample size: the good luck and the bad luck more or less even out, and you have something representative. Take your pick of the years, and those can be shuffled around based on good luck and bad luck, but the Spurs having won five of the last eighteen championships is probably right about what they should have won. With above-average luck, San Antonio very well could have won six, seven, or eight titles over that span. With below-average luck, they might have won two or three. But five of eighteen makes sense. (Do not quite apply this logic to baseball's postseason, though, as in that sport, randomness often plays a wildly disproportionate role in small samples, helping explain why the top seeds in each league have only faced each other in the World Series three times in the last twenty years, since the sport moved to a three-tiered playoff format.) In the NBA, randomness probably players a more modest role—marginally disproportionate, at the most, on a year-to-year basis. In any given postseason, it could constitute a greater factor, but taken over a span of years, the results make sense: the Celtics winning eleven championships in Bill Russell's thirteen seasons, the Lakers winning five championships in the 1980s, the Bulls winning six championships in Michael Jordan's last full six seasons in Chicago, the Spurs winning five championships in Tim Duncan's first eighteen years, and so forth.

[bwgood77]

Spoiler:

Of course we will never know, but I don't think anyone was beating the Lakers that year. IIRC, Shaq did his usual rest the first half of the year and play his way into shape for the playoffs which is probably why they didn't have the best regular season record. They were about as big of force that year in the playoffs as any that I've seen.

I concur; prior to that postseason, I predicted that the Lakers would defeat the Spurs in the Western Conference Finals in seven games, winning Game Seven in San Antonio. In March 2001, I definitely felt that the Spurs constituted the best team in the NBA, but the Lakers really came on strong after Derek Fisher, who had missed the entire year up until that point, returned for the final 20 regular season games. The Lakers went 15-5 with Fisher back in the lineup and ended the regular season on an eight-game winning streak.

However, the point is that the Spurs that year posted the best record in the league (playing in the West, of course) and led the NBA in both Defensive Rating (points allowed per possession) and three-point field goal percentage (they shot .407 on threes as a team, in addition to their dominant interior game with Duncan and Robinson). They really did possess a wonderful club that season. But without a healthy Anderson against the Lakers, San Antonio was never able to give itself a legitimate chance. He was their second-leading scorer and a very important player on both sides of the ball, and without him (or without him at anywhere close to full health), the Spurs were unable to show what they had been as a squad that year. All that you want is a chance with your 'true' team, and San Antonio did not have that.

The situation was analogous to when the Suns' Michael Finley sprained his ankle in Phoenix's meaningless regular season finale at Houston in 1996 and thus could not play in the forthcoming First Round series versus San Antonio. Finley was an indispensable player for that team, especially in a matchup with the Spurs. Not only was he Phoenix's third-leading scorer, behind Charles Barkley and Kevin Johnson, but Finley constituted one of the Suns' best perimeter defenders and the only regular Phoenix player with the combination of size and athleticism to reasonably defend San Antonio's All-Star small forward, Sean Elliott, one-on-one. With Finley, perhaps the Suns could have pulled off the upset, but without him, the team possessed virtually no chance and ended up being blown out twice in four games, losing three games to one. And if anything, Derek Anderson was of even greater value to San Antonio in 2001 than the rookie Finley had been to Phoenix in 1996, for Anderson was not a rookie and, unlike the first-year Finley, he was a terrific three-point shooter.

I didn't remember the injury in 2013 that you mentioned, but despite that, they should have won that series against Miami but had terrible bounces, rim outs, etc in the final minute or so of game six that killed them....I mean like our luck when Kobe missed that game 6 shot in 2010 so bad that Artest just caught it and put it in...but amplified and on a bigger stage.

Yes, the Spurs should have won that Game Six regardless: they missed a couple of big free throws, Popovich made some questionable coaching and substitution decisions, the Heat grabbed a couple of huge offensive rebounds, and so forth. But if Parker had been healthier, perhaps none of that would have mattered because the game may not have been close enough to begin with—the results may have been more like 2014, when San Antonio wiped the floor with Miami in game after game.

Overall, the point is that the Spurs having won five championships in the last eighteen postseasons (since Tim Duncan joined the team) is not an aberration or a matter of luck (which I know is not exactly what you are saying). For every year that the Spurs did receive a big break on their way to the title, there was at least one other year when San Antonio suffered a major injury, or some lingering injury issue, or some bad luck that prevented the club from winning the championship that season. One can even look at 2004 when Derek Fisher hit that miraculous game-winning jumper in San Antonio, or 2012 when the top-seeded Spurs went up 2-0 on Oklahoma City in the Western Conference Finals, giving them an astonishing 20 straight wins dating back to the regular season and 31 wins in their last 33 games. Then the tide turned and the Thunder won four straight games. Was Oklahoma City the better team? Perhaps, but the Thunder went down to the Heat pretty easily in the NBA Finals (in five games), whereas the Spurs would play Miami much tougher in the next two NBA Finals.

So in the abstract, if the Spurs had not won the championship in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2014 (in addition to 1999), they may well have won the title in 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2013 (in addition to 1999). That is the value of a large sample size: the good luck and the bad luck more or less even out, and you have something representative. Take your pick of the years, and those can be shuffled around based on good luck and bad luck, but the Spurs having won five of the last eighteen championships is probably right about what they should have won. With above-average luck, San Antonio very well could have won six, seven, or eight titles over that span. With below-average luck, they might have won two or three. But five of eighteen makes sense. (Do not quite apply this logic to baseball's postseason, though, as in that sport, randomness often plays a wildly disproportionate role in small samples, helping explain why the top seeds in each league have only faced each other in the World Series three times in the last twenty years, since the sport moved to a three-tiered playoff format.) In the NBA, randomness probably players a more modest role—marginally disproportionate, at the most, on a year-to-year basis. In any given postseason, it could constitute a greater factor, but taken over a span of years, the results make sense: the Celtics winning eleven championships in Bill Russell's thirteen seasons, the Lakers winning five championships in the 1980s, the Bulls winning six championships in Michael Jordan's last full six seasons in Chicago, the Spurs winning five championships in Tim Duncan's first eighteen years, and so forth.

I agree. Many say they could have easily won in 2004 and 2006. But losing to LA on that miracle shot in 2004 wasn't even the conference finals, and if I remember, they had made what they thought was a last second shot to take the lead prior to that. But even had they won, they would have then faced (who I believe was the #1 seeded) TWolves, who ended up with their own injury problem when one of their three best players, Cassell, got injured, though Minnesota still maybe wins that series against LA had Kareem Rush not uncharacteristically hit like 8 3s in a game. Then of course, LA, a team who had beaten the Spurs in a close series, did lose in 5 to Detroit in the finals. Now of course this is the same team SA beat a year later in 7, but they were a slightly better team in 2005 with a better record and more experienced with Manu in his 3rd year and Parker in his 4th.

But, conversely, in 2006, due to the crazy playoff format, they were definitely one of the two best teams along with Dallas, but they got the 4th seed because of division winners getting the top 3, which benefited the Suns but forced the Spurs to play the Mavs in the 2nd round, and lose the series in 7 in OT, where it only went into OT because of (I believe) a last second shot (maybe by Manu?) that bounced in and out or something. Sure, they would have had to face the same team later had Dallas been the 2 seed, but regardless, they did get beat by the lower seeded team.

But I think anyone can also claim that a team is a great organization when teams with to 8-10 players ever play there. Of course the Lakers were a great organization because of Kareem having them a contender for more than a decade, much of it with Magic as well. And the Celtics earlier with Russell and other big names, or Bird all those years who were surrounded by stars.

Of course you have to make sure to put the right pieces around such teams, and for longevity you have to not screw it up like many teams do, but I do think it's a star driven league, and often times (imo) stars get a little less credit and coaches/organizations possibly a little too much for being lucky enough to have had the the balls bounce their way in the lottery to acquire such stars.

[MathiasPW]

Ok. You guys are clearly subscribers to www.bballsecretsauces.com

[Damkac]

People were saying that you can't do what Warriors are doing without Curry. You can, all you need is defense, high iq players and lots of shooters. It won't be as good but this is the best way to go.
Book and Warren don't have tools to be great defenders but let's hope they can be at least decent. Both have good iq (Warren is not good at passing but he is great at moving without the ball). Len seems like a solid passer for a center.
Good defense and fast offense with ball movement and good shooting is what Suns should aim for. You play slow only if you have star big man (and Suns aren't getting any soon).

[King4Day]

I really hope the Hornets win their series. I love how they're playing right now.

[gaspar]

Goran Dragic sucks clap clap clap

[King4Day]

Goran Dragic sucks clap clap clap

Certainly not a game changer. That' for sure.

[saintEscaton]

Goran Dragic sucks clap clap clap

Certainly not a game changer. That' for sure.

But not as much as Knight

[saintEscaton]

Goran Dragic sucks clap clap clap

Certainly not a game changer. That' for sure.

But not as much as Knight

[TeamTragic]

Goran Dragic sucks clap clap clap

Certainly not a game changer. That' for sure.

But not as much as Knight

At least Knight can light it up. What did Goran have last night?

10pts/6reb/3ast. Monster game

[Mulhollanddrive]

Looking at all these first round exits like Dallas, Memphis, Boston, they're now us without a top 5 pick.

Why is our goal to be them?

[lilfishi22]

Looking at all these first round exits like Dallas, Memphis, Boston, they're now us without a top 5 pick.

Why is our goal to be them?

Boston does have the Net's pick which is currently #4. They have their own pick as well as Dallas' 1st rounder and they have a great young coach going forward. They are in a great situation.

[GMATCallahan]

Looking at all these first round exits like Dallas, Memphis, Boston, they're now us without a top 5 pick.

Why is our goal to be them?

The Celtics are a rising team with plenty of young talent. Their roster is flawed and its upside may be limited, but Boston also possesses a lot of draft picks and cap room moving forward. (Also, injuries played a role in their loss to Atlanta, and with one more win in the regular season, Boston would have been the third seed in the East.)

Injuries crushed Memphis this season, yet the Grizzlies still made the playoffs.

The Mavericks' situation is more muddled and has been for years.

What is unfortunate, frankly, is that during the Suns' last couple of years with Steve Nash and Grant Hill, Phoenix's goal—in effect, was to be a First Round loser, and the Suns could not even accomplish that goal. The result was that they neither reached the playoffs nor scored anything higher than the thirteenth pick in the draft—lottery seasons that produced Markieff Morris and Kendall Marshall.

[Mulhollanddrive]

The exact teams don't matter, it's more the point if you're knocked out, you're knocked out, you're now the same with us, without a top 5 pick (unless giving up assets for).

Why do we aim to be them without a top 5 pick?

[GMATCallahan]

Boston does have the Net's pick which is currently #4. They have their own pick as well as Dallas' 1st rounder and they have a great young coach going forward. They are in a great situation.

#3, right?

[GMATCallahan]

The exact teams don't matter, it's more the point if you're knocked out, you're knocked out, you're now the same with us, without a top 5 pick (unless giving up assets for).

Why do we aim to be them without a top 5 pick?

The aim, at least in the long term, is certainly not to lose in the First Round, but every year, twenty-two teams either fail to reach the playoffs or lose in the First Round.

I am not sure what exactly you are suggesting; are you saying that the Suns should trade Eric Bledsoe and Brandon Knight, for instance, and aim for a Philadelphia-style scorched earth approach to rebuilding? (One could argue for that scenario, although it is risky.)