Gregg Popovich with Ron Mercer instead of Tim Duncan in the 97 draft

[Edrees]

Who knows. Without TIm Duncan and Kawhi Leonard no one knows who Popovich is.

I'm pretty sure without Kawhi and with only Tim everyone would still know Pop

[gh123]

From "hahaha Serbia is trash" to "Pop is the worst coach of all time" )))

[AMW27]

Obviously if Spurs don't get Duncan then the Spurs dont have the sucess they had. Not saying the franchise wouldn't have any titles( never know what they would look like in later years).

If they dont get Duncan then they would continue to be a playoff team but not win it all. Robinson declines then comes a rebuild.
Which could've resulted in coaches and people in the front office losing their jobs.

An interesting question is if spurs dididnt win the lottery to draft Duncan would Pop continued to be the coach. Or would he have went back up to the office and hired a new coach?

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using RealGM mobile app

[The_Hater]

If Popovich landed the #2 pick and ended up with Keith Van Horn he’d be fired before 2000.

Naw, Van Horn was decent enough his first 3-4 years and Pop would have got the best our of him, people forget that KVH started for a Nets teams that played in the finals. Plus they still would have had DRob there.

The Spurs wouldn't have won a 'ship but they would have had a good team during that period in large part because Pop is a very good coach.

[Han Solo]

:nonono: The disrespect in this thread

For sure. I’ve always hated the Spurs (because of the 04-05 Finals), but Pop is one of the best coaches in game history. Easily top 5, maybe top 3

[-Sammy-]

If Popovich landed the #2 pick and ended up with Keith Van Horn he’d be fired before 2000.

No he wouldn't have. He was the GM. He would have never come down to the bench to steal Bob Hill's job, if they hadn't won the lottery.

No truer words than these.

Pop started coaching during the season before the Spurs won the lottery-- so those words are factually untrue.

But it's a moot point anyhow; Bob Hill's peerless body of work speaks for itself, and he doesn't need any advocacy. He's everybody's all-American.

[druggas]

"Hill piloted the San Antonio Spurs to an NBA-best 62 wins in 1994–95 before losing to the Houston Rockets in the Western Conference finals. After a 3-15 start to the 1996–97 season, Hill was fired by one of his bosses, Gregg Popovich, who thereafter replaced Hill as the Spurs coach. Hill's firing at the time was puzzling to some and deeply angered Hill, considering his previous success and the fact that the poor start to the season was due in large part to injuries to David Robinson and Sean Elliott, the team's two best players"

That's being set up to fail.

[Jabroni Lames]

No he wouldn't have. He was the GM. He would have never come down to the bench to steal Bob Hill's job, if they hadn't won the lottery.

No truer words than these.

Pop started coaching during the season before the Spurs won the lottery-- so those words are factually untrue.

But it's a moot point anyhow; Bob Hill's peerless body of work speaks for itself, and he doesn't need any advocacy. He's everybody's all-American.

Hill won 62 and 59 games back-to-back and then he got fired by Pop, when Robinson and Elliot were injured. A .740 winning percentage? That's cold-blooded. All indications are that Hill would have had the same success as Pop when Duncan arrived.

[udfa]

"Hill piloted the San Antonio Spurs to an NBA-best 62 wins in 1994–95 before losing to the Houston Rockets in the Western Conference finals. After a 3-15 start to the 1996–97 season, Hill was fired by one of his bosses, Gregg Popovich, who thereafter replaced Hill as the Spurs coach. Hill's firing at the time was puzzling to some and deeply angered Hill, considering his previous success and the fact that the poor start to the season was due in large part to injuries to David Robinson and Sean Elliott, the team's two best players"

That's being set up to fail.

Hill won 62 and 59 games back-to-back and then he got fired by Pop, when Robinson and Elliot were injured. A .740 winning percentage? That's cold-blooded. All indications are that Hill would have had the same success as Pop when Duncan arrived.

A few notes:

Before Bob Hill joined SAS in 1995 they had 5 consecutive playoff berths (and 5 winning seasons), won their division (7 teams) twice and averaged 52 wins per season. They had their best season to date in Hill's inaugural campaign, winning 62 and losing in the WCF to the champ Rockets. Then in 1996 they won 59 and lost in the West Semis.

Hill went 3-15 before he was fired in the 96-97 season and had been blownout in three straight games including a 16 point home loss to the expansion franchise Vancouver who won 14 games. Sean Elliott played 17 of those 18 games. After Pop took over the Spurs went 17-47 despite only having Elliott for 21 of those 64 games. Pop replacing Hill resulted in an improvement by win pct from .167 to .266.

At SA, Bob Hill had a win pct of .681. At his three other teams a win pct of .401 and a 3-9 playoff record. Pop went on to lead SA to 5 NBA titles.

[druggas]

"Hill piloted the San Antonio Spurs to an NBA-best 62 wins in 1994–95 before losing to the Houston Rockets in the Western Conference finals. After a 3-15 start to the 1996–97 season, Hill was fired by one of his bosses, Gregg Popovich, who thereafter replaced Hill as the Spurs coach. Hill's firing at the time was puzzling to some and deeply angered Hill, considering his previous success and the fact that the poor start to the season was due in large part to injuries to David Robinson and Sean Elliott, the team's two best players"

That's being set up to fail.

Hill won 62 and 59 games back-to-back and then he got fired by Pop, when Robinson and Elliot were injured. A .740 winning percentage? That's cold-blooded. All indications are that Hill would have had the same success as Pop when Duncan arrived.

A few notes:

Before Bob Hill joined SAS in 1995 they had 5 consecutive playoff berths (and 5 winning seasons), won their division (7 teams) twice and averaged 52 wins per season. They had their best season to date in Hill's inaugural campaign, winning 62 and losing in the WCF to the champ Rockets. Then in 1996 they won 59 and lost in the West Semis.

Hill went 3-15 before he was fired in the 96-97 season and had been blownout in three straight games including a 16 point home loss to the expansion franchise Vancouver who won 14 games. Sean Elliott played 17 of those 18 games. After Pop took over the Spurs went 17-47 despite only having Elliott for 21 of those 64 games. Pop replacing Hill resulted in an improvement by win pct from .167 to .266.

At SA, Bob Hill had a win pct of .681. At his three other teams a win pct of .401 and a 3-9 playoff record. Pop went on to lead SA to 5 NBA titles.

Hill could have 5 titles with Duncan too and Robinson too.

[-Sammy-]

No truer words than these.

Pop started coaching during the season before the Spurs won the lottery-- so those words are factually untrue.

But it's a moot point anyhow; Bob Hill's peerless body of work speaks for itself, and he doesn't need any advocacy. He's everybody's all-American.

Hill won 62 and 59 games back-to-back and then he got fired by Pop, when Robinson and Elliot were injured. A .740 winning percentage? That's cold-blooded. All indications are that Hill would have had the same success as Pop when Duncan arrived.

What are these indicators? What did Hill ever accomplish before or after his stint in San Antonio?

I anticipate 'What did Pop ever accomplish without Duncan?' as a response to this, and it would've been a fair question in 1996-- but in 2019, it's just a fun question to answer: leading a team through two complete overhauls/rebuilds, both of playing philosophy and of roster construction, winning titles with each iteration; winning titles in three different decades; keeping his team in the playoffs for 22 consecutive seasons with a 50-win pace for 19 straight seasons despite those rebuilds and adjustments; turning the last pick of the first round in 2001 (Parker) and the second-to-last pick of the entire 1999 draft (Gino) into champions and hall-of-fame candidates; turning mid-first-rounder (Leonard) into a two-time Finals MVP and top-five player; and let's not forget winning an average of 52 games per season in the three years since Duncan retired, despite the disaster surrounding Leonard two seasons ago, being battered by injuries last year, and despite having to run all-timers such as Kyle Anderson and Patty Mills in the starting lineup during that stretch. Pop's oeuvre speaks for itself.

Let's not pretend like Duncan was prime in 2014 when we won perhaps our most impressive title of all, either; it was the system ('the beautiful game') that won us that title, and everyone knows it.

Hill, on the other hand, didn't land another coaching job for nine years after leaving S.A., and when he did, he lasted less than two seasons, with a .395 winning percentage. And let's not act like he didn't inherit a 55-win team when he came to San Antonio; is John Lucas an all-time-great, too? He did as well in the RS as Hill ever did. If we're going to attribute all of a coach's success to a player, as many seem to want to do with Pop and Duncan, take note of the fact that Hill is 138-173 without David Robinson; Pop is almost exactly the reciprocal-- 173-137-- in non-Duncan seasons.

There's a reason he commands universal respect around both the league and the basketball world; there's a reason nearly one-third of the entire league's coaching and management trees can trace their roots back to Pop. Or maybe he has all those people fooled, but a handful of people on an internet message board know the real story.

[Jabroni Lames]

Pop started coaching during the season before the Spurs won the lottery-- so those words are factually untrue.

But it's a moot point anyhow; Bob Hill's peerless body of work speaks for itself, and he doesn't need any advocacy. He's everybody's all-American.

Hill won 62 and 59 games back-to-back and then he got fired by Pop, when Robinson and Elliot were injured. A .740 winning percentage? That's cold-blooded. All indications are that Hill would have had the same success as Pop when Duncan arrived.

What are these indicators? What did Hill ever accomplish before or after his stint in San Antonio?

I anticipate 'What did Pop ever accomplish without Duncan?' as a response to this, and it would've been a fair question in 1996-- but in 2019, it's just a fun question to answer: leading a team through two complete overhauls/rebuilds, both of playing philosophy and of roster construction, winning titles with each iteration; winning titles in three different decades; keeping his team in the playoffs for 22 consecutive seasons with a 50-win pace for 19 straight seasons despite those rebuilds and adjustments; turning the last pick of the first round in 2001 (Parker) and the second-to-last pick of the entire 1999 draft (Gino) into champions and hall-of-fame candidates; turning mid-first-rounder (Leonard) into a two-time Finals MVP and top-five player; and let's not forget winning an average of 52 games per season in the three years since Duncan retired, despite the disaster surrounding Leonard two seasons ago, being battered by injuries last year, and despite having to run all-timers such as Kyle Anderson and Patty Mills in the starting lineup during that stretch. Pop's oeuvre speaks for itself.

Let's not pretend like Duncan was prime in 2014 when we won perhaps our most impressive title of all, either; it was the system ('the beautiful game') that won us that title, and everyone knows it.

Hill, on the other hand, didn't land another coaching job for nine years after leaving S.A., and when he did, he lasted less than two seasons, with a .395 winning percentage. And let's not act like he didn't inherit a 55-win team when he came to San Antonio; is John Lucas an all-time-great, too? He did as well in the RS as Hill ever did. If we're going to attribute all of a coach's success to a player, as many seem to want to do with Pop and Duncan, take note of the fact that Hill is 138-173 without David Robinson; Pop is almost exactly the reciprocal-- 173-137-- in non-Duncan seasons.

There's a reason he commands universal respect around both the league and the basketball world; there's a reason nearly one-third of the entire league's coaching and management trees can trace their roots back to Pop. Or maybe he has all those people fooled, but a handful of people on an internet message board know the real story.

Whether it was Bob Hill or not.... a 60-win coach adding a future top-10 GOAT talent to the roster is a pretty good indicator of future success. That's not even considering the culture impact of Duncan, because of his unselfish demeanor and professional work ethic. Pop gets way more credit than he deserves for the Spurs culture. Spurs culture didn't work with Kawhi and Pop butted heads on & off with Aldridge.

[Capn'O]

Hill, on the other hand, didn't land another coaching job for nine years after leaving S.A.

Can't believe Pop blackballed Bob Hill like that. Added to a legacy of shame. SHAME!

Spoiler:

It's amazing how there are haters for literally everyone.

[Jabroni Lames]

Hill, on the other hand, didn't land another coaching job for nine years after leaving S.A.

Can't believe Pop blackballed Bob Hill like that. Added to a legacy of shame. SHAME!

Spoiler:

It's amazing how there are haters for literally everyone.

Nobody's hating on Pop. People are legitimately wondering how much success he would have had if Duncan hadn't arrived on the scene. And how much success a different coach would have had if Duncan fell into their lap.

It's a fair question. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

[Indomitable]

Make your guess on where he would be now.

Philipines?

Canada?

College?

China? No, forget that , he does not seem to win in China.

He mostly stays in the front office and never becomes the coach. He was the GM.

[-Sammy-]

Spoiler:

Hill won 62 and 59 games back-to-back and then he got fired by Pop, when Robinson and Elliot were injured. A .740 winning percentage? That's cold-blooded. All indications are that Hill would have had the same success as Pop when Duncan arrived.

What are these indicators? What did Hill ever accomplish before or after his stint in San Antonio?

I anticipate 'What did Pop ever accomplish without Duncan?' as a response to this, and it would've been a fair question in 1996-- but in 2019, it's just a fun question to answer: leading a team through two complete overhauls/rebuilds, both of playing philosophy and of roster construction, winning titles with each iteration; winning titles in three different decades; keeping his team in the playoffs for 22 consecutive seasons with a 50-win pace for 19 straight seasons despite those rebuilds and adjustments; turning the last pick of the first round in 2001 (Parker) and the second-to-last pick of the entire 1999 draft (Gino) into champions and hall-of-fame candidates; turning mid-first-rounder (Leonard) into a two-time Finals MVP and top-five player; and let's not forget winning an average of 52 games per season in the three years since Duncan retired, despite the disaster surrounding Leonard two seasons ago, being battered by injuries last year, and despite having to run all-timers such as Kyle Anderson and Patty Mills in the starting lineup during that stretch. Pop's oeuvre speaks for itself.

Let's not pretend like Duncan was prime in 2014 when we won perhaps our most impressive title of all, either; it was the system ('the beautiful game') that won us that title, and everyone knows it.

Hill, on the other hand, didn't land another coaching job for nine years after leaving S.A., and when he did, he lasted less than two seasons, with a .395 winning percentage. And let's not act like he didn't inherit a 55-win team when he came to San Antonio; is John Lucas an all-time-great, too? He did as well in the RS as Hill ever did. If we're going to attribute all of a coach's success to a player, as many seem to want to do with Pop and Duncan, take note of the fact that Hill is 138-173 without David Robinson; Pop is almost exactly the reciprocal-- 173-137-- in non-Duncan seasons.

There's a reason he commands universal respect around both the league and the basketball world; there's a reason nearly one-third of the entire league's coaching and management trees can trace their roots back to Pop. Or maybe he has all those people fooled, but a handful of people on an internet message board know the real story.

Whether it was Bob Hill or not.... a 60-win coach adding a future top-10 GOAT talent to the roster is a pretty good indicator of future success. That's not even considering the culture impact of Duncan, because of his unselfish demeanor and professional work ethic. Pop gets way more credit than he deserves for the Spurs culture. Spurs culture didn't work with Kawhi and Pop butted heads on & off with Aldridge.

Obviously, the Spurs were primed for success. The difference between the pro-Pop and anti-Pop crowds is that the former doesn't want to take away Duncan's enormous role in our success; the anti-Pop side is the only side asserting that one man is entirely responsible for the other's success.

It should be pretty clear by now that the Kawhi issue had nothing to do with the Spurs culture.

As for Aldridge, yeah, they butted heads; that happens with coaches and players. They also worked it out, and Pop publicly admitted that he was wrong. Pop also butted heads with guys such as Parker and (brace yourself) Duncan in their early years with the team. Success takes struggle and adjustment. I don't see what any of that has to do with Bob Hill or theories of sabotage.

Can't believe Pop blackballed Bob Hill like that. Added to a legacy of shame. SHAME!

Perhaps if Hill had some Highlander blood in his veins, he'd have fared better.
(That's an inside Inside INSIDE joke, so the rest of y'all know)

[Capn'O]

...

User signature removed.

Hill, on the other hand, didn't land another coaching job for nine years after leaving S.A.

Can't believe Pop blackballed Bob Hill like that. Added to a legacy of shame. SHAME!

Spoiler:

It's amazing how there are haters for literally everyone.

Nobody's hating on Pop. People are legitimately wondering how much success he would have had if Duncan hadn't arrived on the scene. And how much success a different coach would have had if Duncan fell into their lap.

It's a fair question. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

Not even the poster who also happened to be the OP who suggested he'd be overseas in one of the "developing" world leagues? Just all normal, rational questions about his legacy? Got it.

[Capn'O]

He'd be regarded similarly to Larry Brown, though without all the switching around.

Unless we're not giving him Parker or Manu either. Or any good players.

[Effigy]

Why are you sticking him with Mercer? Maybe he takes McGrady?

[contestedlayups]

With Ron Mercer, Pop wins 8 titles instead of 5. Duncan was a slacker, obvi.