By diehard Go To PostIts an interesting topic. I honestly always wondered what someone like gtyme would look like on the Spursan all-star methinks.
he's the quintessential system player.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostWarriors and every Carlisle Mavs and Phil Jackson teams did that. Lots of great teams did that. Pop's not the first guy to use a system or to preach ball movement. He hasn't treated anyone that way since he developed a system beyond just pounding it into Timmy.
I disagree with you about LMA and Kawhi. They can take over games plenty, they just like all other Spurs players though, are just there to run the system.
This board is a little hyper defensive about Pop and Timmy. It's…weird. When I first said that the Thunder had a chance to win like 5 guys started to debate with me. Then when I said that Pop is 2-10 in road elimination games, another group of guys got defensive or insisted it was a meaningless stat. Now I said that one Pop weakness is that he doesn't allow his superstars to take over games in the same way or as often as other great teams/coaches that run system offenses do and again a ton of backlash.
Literally all of these things are true and yet any mention of Pop brings out a weird hyper-defense. And I get that I'm the Phil/Kobe stan here, but that doesn't change the fact that that same thing is happening with Pop too.
Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say Pop doesn't do it. A few years ago he routinely had Tony Parker take over games by himself. Manu on occasion and of course prime Duncan did it.
The difference here is that Aldridge will never be a superstar offensive player (ala Kobe, MJ, Shaq, Duncan, Curry, Lebron etc etc) and Leonard isn't near that stage yet.
I hate to be that guy but Kawhi is kind of overrated. I mean, he's by far and away the best perimeter defender and might go down as one of the best all-time when his career is done on that side of the ball. And he's very good offensively but he hasn't hit that IT state the super duper stars hit on offense. I think people think he's only just a slight notch below Curry or Lebron on offense, which is the part I say he's overrated, because he's still a ways below them. People put him over Durant and I think that's nuts. Kawhi is an all-nba player but he's not at that Super Duper tier yet.
Even though TP was never the super duper star, in his prime he was still a ridiculous force offensively in so many games. Kawhi is inconsistent. Like, at the end of game 5, he should have demanded the ball once in the last 4 minutes but instead he never touched it that I can recall. Parker would never allow that 4 years ago. Or Duncan 8. But Kawhi is cool with it.
I do agree that the board is hyper sensitive about Pop/Spurs. The Duncan era Spurs have lost 8 times in the playoffs with HCA. Multiple times with HCA and a 2-0 lead. They've lost multiple series up 3-2. A game 7 at home. It's a really weird era in some ways. Amazing regular season consistency but total schizophrenia in the postseason. They've lost so many times as clear favorites, especially early in the playoffs.
And despite winning 5 titles in the time frame, I feel as if none of them were ever dominant (sorry, 99 lockout doesn't count). Which is weird cuz that's a lot of titles!
This is terrible I'll edit this with my thoughts but there is so much wtf Thoughts in my head, bloody joke
Feel like the Spurs need to step the PG game up. This whole playoffs I was thinking where is Parker? He was tearing it up when they beat the Heat, I feel like they need to upgrade that spot more than anything.
I think a lot of people fail to realize that Tony is what made the zipper series work. In theory it's interchangeable with any gaurd or perimeter player but Tony has a unique speed/quickness/handles/mid range shot to really exploit it.
Pop's real offensive genius imo was that Zipper series, and Tony in 13 and 14 was running it like a machine. Patty Mills/Manu/Kawhi just don't execute it at the same level of effectiveness and Tony's injuries and age the last 2 seasons have hampered it although they've won a bunch of games. Their offense is much easier to stop now then it was in 2014 because Kawhi and LMA aren't allowed to dominate a game the way the zipper series allowed Tony to wreak havoc on opposing defenses.
Kawhi isn't PG good or Durant good at creating his own shot, but I'm not asking for 50 isolation plays a game either. Just for the ability to break the system to put the team on his back. LMA can do the same thing. When Kawhi is effective it's usually within the offense, which is awesome, but it creates an over-reliance on the system to find shots when great players can create shots too.
Pop's real offensive genius imo was that Zipper series, and Tony in 13 and 14 was running it like a machine. Patty Mills/Manu/Kawhi just don't execute it at the same level of effectiveness and Tony's injuries and age the last 2 seasons have hampered it although they've won a bunch of games. Their offense is much easier to stop now then it was in 2014 because Kawhi and LMA aren't allowed to dominate a game the way the zipper series allowed Tony to wreak havoc on opposing defenses.
Kawhi isn't PG good or Durant good at creating his own shot, but I'm not asking for 50 isolation plays a game either. Just for the ability to break the system to put the team on his back. LMA can do the same thing. When Kawhi is effective it's usually within the offense, which is awesome, but it creates an over-reliance on the system to find shots when great players can create shots too.
The other component is, and this should be fairly obvious to X's and O's people, but unless a guy is dominating he's not going to inspire traps and double teams - which make it infinitely easier to get open shots.
Spreading the wealth around is awesome but it doesn't lead to defensive over reactions which means that the system has to create an open shot by fucking up the defense instead of the defense over-reacting to a hot player leading to easy and open shots.
Even systems as brilliant as the triangle and what Kerr runs won't work to their max effectiveness if Curry/Kobe/Melo aren't commanding double teams and high levels of gravity. The way the Spurs operate, unless Green is on fire from 3 with 4 ot 5 makes or Kawhi is busting you for 30 you're not going to be automatically jeapordized as a defense unless the system makes you make a mistake. and those things are rarer than the easy shots you give up when you're forced to double guys who are cooking you.
Talk about team basketball or beautiful basketball all you want, but teams that win chips often times have unstoppable scorers who take over games routinely and just saying "we don't need to play like that" when there are multiple all stars on your team is silly. Many of the best teams do both.
Spreading the wealth around is awesome but it doesn't lead to defensive over reactions which means that the system has to create an open shot by fucking up the defense instead of the defense over-reacting to a hot player leading to easy and open shots.
Even systems as brilliant as the triangle and what Kerr runs won't work to their max effectiveness if Curry/Kobe/Melo aren't commanding double teams and high levels of gravity. The way the Spurs operate, unless Green is on fire from 3 with 4 ot 5 makes or Kawhi is busting you for 30 you're not going to be automatically jeapordized as a defense unless the system makes you make a mistake. and those things are rarer than the easy shots you give up when you're forced to double guys who are cooking you.
Talk about team basketball or beautiful basketball all you want, but teams that win chips often times have unstoppable scorers who take over games routinely and just saying "we don't need to play like that" when there are multiple all stars on your team is silly. Many of the best teams do both.
By blackace Go To Postlol 17 years of 50+ wins doesn't feel dominate
Like I said, it's weird, but I don't feel they've ever had a single dominant team (99 not counting). Never once did I go into a postseason thinking "it's pretty much the Spurs to lose" or "no way someone beats the Spurs." But I've felt that way about the Lakers at times, Lebron's Heat, and last year with GSW.
3SP is right about gravity. Tony Parker used to cause havoc on a defense and pulled gravity towards him. That's exactly what made the 12-14 Spurs so good on offense. But now that that's gone, they've become so much easier to slow down in a playoff series when teams can actually focus.
The Spurs offense without a good Tony Parker or dominant offense force is basically playoffs Kyle Korver.
By blackace Go To Postlol 17 years of 50+ wins doesn't feel dominate
Why is this so impressive? They had an all time great two way player and an all time great coach with no serious injuries to that all time great player who was also flanked by constant HOF caliber players.
Did Russel's Celtics win less than 50 games? Did Magic's lakers? Did bird's Celtics? Health + HOF teammates gets you there when you're a top 10 all time guy.
It's a testament to health and draftingse but not some Herculean on court achievement. What the Blazers did this year, for example, was a higher level of over-achieving in the RS then any year under Timmy.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostWhy is this so impressive? They had an all time great two way player and an all time great coach with no serious injuries to that all time great player who was also flanked by constant HOF caliber players.all great teams that fell apart from injury or FA
Did Russel's Celtics win less than 50 games? Did Magic's lakers? Did bird's Celtics? Health + HOF teammates gets you there when you're a top 10 all time guy.
let's be real the Dream won 50 only twice in his first 7 years and they weren't back 2 back...how is 17+ years not impressive is the question
By blackace Go To Postall great teams that fell apart from injury or FA
let's be real the Dream won 50 only twice in his first 7 years and they weren't back 2 back…how is 17+ years not impressive is the question
I mean as a consistency? Sure. But Pop+Healthy TD + 1-2 other HOF players equals automatic 50 win team. It's not like they were beating the odds and massively over-achieving with the roster they had. They just got super lucky with health (TD's and Pop's) and drafted gems at the perfect time for seamless transitions. You never went into any season going
"Oh boy the Spurs don't have the talent to be a playoff team this year". So yay FO and health I guess.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostI mean as a consistency? Sure. But Pop+Healthy TD + 1-2 other HOF players equals automatic 50 win team. It's not like they were beating the odds and massively over-achieving with the roster they had. They just got super lucky with health (TD's and Pop's) and drafted gems at the perfect time for seamless transitions.
It's like saying Kobe's 81 point game wasn't impressive because he's really good...
No team in history has came close to what they have been doing... and until this year with LMA they have been doing it with a core of 35+ year old stars... TD at 37/38/39 by the every standard form of logic shouldnt be leading a team to 50+ wins... so yeah pretty impressive
By Kidjr Go To PostThis is terrible I'll edit this with my thoughts but there is so much wtf Thoughts in my head, bloody joke
Lol
oh, where's the guy that said the spurs were one of the only teams deserving to be in the playoffs? Both the raps and heat outlasted that fraud squad lol
wait did i miss something?
By P S Y C H Go To Post#PrayForJustise
wait did i miss something?
fucking LOL at the rubes trying to say kawhi's not in the same tier as durant
i guess a ws/48 of .277, a playoff per of 26 and ts% above 60 just aren't good enough
i guess a ws/48 of .277, a playoff per of 26 and ts% above 60 just aren't good enough
You have weird metrics of what success looks like in the NBA if 50+ every full season for 17 years doesn't impress you.
It's so dominant that you come to assume greatness and competence at all times from the spurs, which in turn makes what they do season in and season out seem normal. But it's not normal.
It's so dominant that you come to assume greatness and competence at all times from the spurs, which in turn makes what they do season in and season out seem normal. But it's not normal.
By Trey Go To PostYou have weird metrics of what success looks like in the NBA if 50+ every full season for 17 years doesn't impress you.They have had one losing season in 26 years and six in the 42 years they have been in San Antonio. That is a lot of consistently good basketball.
It's so dominant that you come to assume greatness and competence at all times from the spurs, which in turn makes what they do season in and season out seem normal. But it's not normal.
By Freedom = $1.05 Go To PostIt helps when you've had nearly 3 decades of at least one HOF on your squad at any given moment
You say that like that's not impressive in and of itself. Them being hof players speaks directly to the quality of the franchise as well.
By Freedom = $1.05 Go To PostIt helps when you've had nearly 3 decades of at least one HOF on your squad at any given moment
DWade is one of the three greatest shooting guards ever, and his teams have had a whole bunch of sub 50 win seasons. nearly 20 years of 50 win seasons year in and year out is mind boggling.
By Trey Go To PostYou say that like that's not impressive in and of itself. Them being hof players speaks directly to the quality of the franchise as well.I'm pretty sure you put those HOF guys on other teams and they'll be HOFers there, too. They're not fake, borderline HOFs that the spurs have lucked into but franchise making players.
I'm not trying to take away their accomplishments but sometimes it's a matter of luck. They've lucked into drafting incredible players, and they've shown the ability to keep them healthy and adapt to their styles. So yeah, the franchise deserves some credit but luck definitely played a big part in how well the spurs have done over the years.
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostDWade is one of the three greatest shooting guards ever, and his teams have had a whole bunch of sub 50 win seasons. nearly 20 years of 50 win seasons year in and year out is mind boggling.
dwade has also been pretty injured in those seasons, too, to be fair. I don't think any of those losing seasons didn't deal with either wade being hurt or, like last season, dealing with Bosh's condition while recovering from lebron moving on.
Now, if you want to point to a HOF that didn't carry his team well while healthy i'd point to someone who rhymes with Toe-me
Kawhi is great, and he and LMA aren't the reason the Spurs lost that series. We found a lineup that wreaked havoc against them and our roleplayers played extremely well.
"luck" plays an integral role in every dynasty, every dominant superstar, and every clutch moment. Luck, indeed, plays a role in every single occurrence in our universe as we understand it, so luck is sorta baked into every observation we make in isolation. So it's already accounted for in this situation: "luck" is always involved.
You're basically saying any team could have done what the spurs accomplished if they had the pieces the spurs had, the moments the spurs had, and have done what the spurs have done. Which is a roundabout way of saying "if other teams were the spurs, they'd do what the spurs have done. Which means what the spurs have done is not that special." This is obviously ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is no team has done what the spurs have done over the last two decades. They are an exceptional team that demand exceptional recognition. Would've, could've, should've doesn't count.
You're basically saying any team could have done what the spurs accomplished if they had the pieces the spurs had, the moments the spurs had, and have done what the spurs have done. Which is a roundabout way of saying "if other teams were the spurs, they'd do what the spurs have done. Which means what the spurs have done is not that special." This is obviously ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is no team has done what the spurs have done over the last two decades. They are an exceptional team that demand exceptional recognition. Would've, could've, should've doesn't count.
Kevin Garnett had two sub-35 win season in Minnesota before he got traded. Sure, the second best player on his team was Ricky Davis, but can you imagine a scenario where Tim Duncan loses 50 games in a season?
I love KG, but no, what the Duncan Spurs have done in the last two decades is a monumental achievement in competitive sports.
If anything, the Spurs have been doing this so consistently, and have had so many opportunities that we can safely say they're the best representation of results reflecting process. For every bad break (Fisher 0.4, Manu fouls Dirk), they've gotten the equivalent good break (Diaw/Amare suspension, Ibaka's injury) as well. Luck plays a big factor for individual seasons, but on an aggregate, this is the least luck-dependent run of title contention ever.
I love KG, but no, what the Duncan Spurs have done in the last two decades is a monumental achievement in competitive sports.
By Trey Go To Post"luck" plays an integral role in every dynasty, every dominant superstar, and every clutch moment. Luck, indeed, plays a role in every single occurrence in our universe as we understand it, so luck is sorta baked into every observation we make in isolation. So it's already accounted for in this situation: "luck" is always involved.
You're basically saying any team could have done what the spurs accomplished if they had the pieces the spurs had, the moments the spurs had, and have done what the spurs have done. Which is a roundabout way of saying "if other teams were the spurs, they'd do what the spurs have done. Which means what the spurs have done is not that special." This is obviously ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is no team has done what the spurs have done over the last two decades. They are an exceptional team that demand exceptional recognition. Would've, could've, should've doesn't count.
If anything, the Spurs have been doing this so consistently, and have had so many opportunities that we can safely say they're the best representation of results reflecting process. For every bad break (Fisher 0.4, Manu fouls Dirk), they've gotten the equivalent good break (Diaw/Amare suspension, Ibaka's injury) as well. Luck plays a big factor for individual seasons, but on an aggregate, this is the least luck-dependent run of title contention ever.
By Freedom = $1.05 Go To PostIt helps when you've had nearly 3 decades of at least one HOF on your squad at any given momentthey haven't had a decent pick in 2 decades
By blackace Go To Postthey haven't had a decent pick in 2 decadesThe George Hill-Kawhi pick trade extended their competitive horizon for another decade.
Their drafting record isn't that great overall though, even for where they've been picking.
fair enough. I didn't mean to tear down the spurs, but they've managed to get once-in-a-lifetime talent several times now. Maybe that's a credit to their staff, maybe it's luck. I suppose most of you are right, though, that it's too consistent to be just luck. They deserve credit, fair enough
odds are out on game 1
+400 OKC
-600 GSW
lul--incredible value for OKC, will definitely be taking that in a parlay with Cavs Raps Spread for a potential low risk high reward bet
+400 OKC
-600 GSW
lul--incredible value for OKC, will definitely be taking that in a parlay with Cavs Raps Spread for a potential low risk high reward bet
I love people pointing to Wade post Shaq and Kobe post Shaq and KG in Minny as their examples. Fucking LOL.
TD had at least one, if not two or three HOFer's at ALL FUCKING TIMES as teammates plus a GOAT coach. How are you guys not getting this?
You know what happened when the lakers got Pau (the only other HOFer that Kobe had during the 2008-2012 run) - they jumped from a 40 win team to a ~60 win team overnight.
Wade post Shaq was surrounded by trash, Beasley was the second option, and coached by a rookie/young coach.
What the Spurs did was great in terms of consistency, but they never went into any season without the talent to get to 50 wins. Again, what the Blazers did this season was a more impressive feat of over-achieving than what the Spurs have done in any one of those 17 seasons.
So give them credit for health. Give them credit for drafting. Give them credit for consistency. But comparing Wade's 08 and 09 teams or Kobe's 2014 or 2015 or 2006 teams or KG's Minny teams with the talent that TD has been surrounded with at every moment of his tenure is a pathetic attempt at a good argument.
TD had at least one, if not two or three HOFer's at ALL FUCKING TIMES as teammates plus a GOAT coach. How are you guys not getting this?
You know what happened when the lakers got Pau (the only other HOFer that Kobe had during the 2008-2012 run) - they jumped from a 40 win team to a ~60 win team overnight.
Wade post Shaq was surrounded by trash, Beasley was the second option, and coached by a rookie/young coach.
What the Spurs did was great in terms of consistency, but they never went into any season without the talent to get to 50 wins. Again, what the Blazers did this season was a more impressive feat of over-achieving than what the Spurs have done in any one of those 17 seasons.
So give them credit for health. Give them credit for drafting. Give them credit for consistency. But comparing Wade's 08 and 09 teams or Kobe's 2014 or 2015 or 2006 teams or KG's Minny teams with the talent that TD has been surrounded with at every moment of his tenure is a pathetic attempt at a good argument.
By blackace Go To PostIt's like saying Kobe's 81 point game wasn't impressive because he's really good…
No team in history has came close to what they have been doing… and until this year with LMA they have been doing it with a core of 35+ year old stars… TD at 37/38/39 by the every standard form of logic shouldnt be leading a team to 50+ wins… so yeah pretty impressive
He hasn't been leading them to anything for years now. Parker's been the best player on the team for a long time and his injuries the past couple years have councided with Kawhi - who's not in his 30's and is a dual DPOY and their best offensive player to boot.
If they don't find Kawhi and sign LMA and have TD/Manu/Parker as their 3 best players at this age, no, they don't get to 50 wins most likely.
Spurs won 55 games last year, you're trying to tell me that Kawhi wasn't worth 5 wins? (He had 8.7 win shares last season and almost 14 this season)
Spurs am done blazers for me will have a better season than spurs next season blazers and Celtics will be scare good next season
Someone, I don't remember who said that what TD did this season was more impressive then what Pau did.
Holy shit the homerism is getting to be out of line.
2016 Pau could do for the Spurs what TD did a hell of a lot more effectively than 40 year old TD could play 32 minutes and be relied on as a 17/11 guy night in and night out. If TD tried that his body would break down by game 30.
TD has looked as washed now, and has been as effective as Kareem in his last year. And no sensible person would argue that Kareem in his last year could be relied on to be the 1st or second option on a team for 82 games.
Holy shit the homerism is getting to be out of line.
2016 Pau could do for the Spurs what TD did a hell of a lot more effectively than 40 year old TD could play 32 minutes and be relied on as a 17/11 guy night in and night out. If TD tried that his body would break down by game 30.
TD has looked as washed now, and has been as effective as Kareem in his last year. And no sensible person would argue that Kareem in his last year could be relied on to be the 1st or second option on a team for 82 games.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostI love people pointing to Wade post Shaq and Kobe post Shaq and KG in Minny as their examples. Fucking LOL.
TD had at least one, if not two or three HOFer's at ALL FUCKING TIMES as teammates plus a GOAT coach. How are you guys not getting this?
You know what happened when the lakers got Pau (the only other HOFer that Kobe had during the 2008-2012 run) - they jumped from a 40 win team to a ~60 win team overnight.
Wade post Shaq was surrounded by trash, Beasley was the second option, and coached by a rookie/young coach.
What the Spurs did was great in terms of consistency, but they never went into any season without the talent to get to 50 wins. Again, what the Blazers did this season was a more impressive feat of over-achieving than what the Spurs have done in any one of those 17 seasons.
So give them credit for health. Give them credit for drafting. Give them credit for consistency. But comparing Wade's 08 and 09 teams or Kobe's 2014 or 2015 or 2006 teams or KG's Minny teams with the talent that TD has been surrounded with at every moment of his tenure is a pathetic attempt at a good argument.
lol what the fuck are you talking about? people are only giving the Duncan era Spurs credit for being as good as they were for such a long time.
who cares if they always had a bunch of talent? you need talent to win championships. That's the entire point.
By Trey Go To Postlol what the fuck are you talking about? people are only giving the Duncan era Spurs credit for being as good as they were for such a long time.
who cares if they always had a bunch of talent? you need talent to win championships. That's the entire point.
Shut up and sit down if you're unwilling to read the arguments people make before you mouth off.
I and everyone else here has already credited them with great coaching, great drafting, and great health. So if your response is "who cares if they have those things" when there are people on this literal page talking about how Kobe/Wade/KG haven't done what Duncan has - despite those 3 things being the exact reason why - then that's going to be pointed out.
By KingGondo Go To PostThe George Hill-Kawhi pick trade extended their competitive horizon for another decade.rofl
Their drafting record isn't that great overall though, even for where they've been picking.
Manu at the 57th
Parker at the 28th
Scola at the 55th
Salmons at the 26th
Beno at the 28th
Splitter and Ian at the 28th
Dragic at the 45th
Hill at the 26th
Joseph at the 29th
Horrible drafting
If you go back and look over the last few years, it's very meh with a couple of exceptions. Who knows, maybe some of these Euro-stash guys will have an impact in a couple years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Spurs_draft_history
Also, Dragic and Salmons were both traded on draft day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Spurs_draft_history
Also, Dragic and Salmons were both traded on draft day.
By KingGondo Go To PostIf you go back and look over the last few years, it's very meh with a couple of exceptions. Who knows, maybe some of these Euro-stash guys will have an impact in a couple years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Spurs_draft_history
Also, Dragic and Salmons were both traded on draft day.
They found 3 HOF players outside of the lottery. They could have botched the other 31 picks they've had in 17 years and still be considered good drafters.
I mean I get you're a fan of OKC, but cmon man. Spurs are amazing drafters
Go back and look at that 2010-11 Spurs roster and ask yourself how in the hell they got to 61 wins playing Matt Bonner and Antonio McDyess 21 minutes a game.
EDIT: Kyle Anderson's a solid player. You're judging him by the way he defended Kevin Durant, which is not a fair measure to judge any player
And look at the draft positions. The odds that any of these players drafted 26 or below will post a positive winshare in their NBA careers is pretty damn low.
By KingGondo Go To PostIf you go back and look over the last few years, it's very meh with a couple of exceptions. Who knows, maybe some of these Euro-stash guys will have an impact in a couple years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Spurs_draft_history
Also, Dragic and Salmons were both traded on draft day.
EDIT: Kyle Anderson's a solid player. You're judging him by the way he defended Kevin Durant, which is not a fair measure to judge any player
And look at the draft positions. The odds that any of these players drafted 26 or below will post a positive winshare in their NBA careers is pretty damn low.
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostGo back and look at that 2010-11 Spurs roster and ask yourself how in the hell they got to 61 wins playing Matt Bonner and Antonio McDyess 21 minutes a game.
You had 3 HOFer's who were still really really good then in a conference where the lakers were on the decline, the Warriors and thunder hadn't become the Warriors and the thunder quite yet, and the eventual champions had one all star.
Like, is 3 HOFer's and a goat coach not enough? How much more do you need.
By KingGondo Go To PostIf you go back and look over the last few years, it's very meh with a couple of exceptions. Who knows, maybe some of these Euro-stash guys will have an impact in a couple years.In order to really judge whether that is true or not, I would need to figure out how often a pick from the ranges of 26-36, 50-60, and 26-60 pan out and at what level of player and then compare that to the players drafted by the Spurs from 2009-2013 (to allow for some level of development and production).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Spurs_draft_history
Also, Dragic and Salmons were both traded on draft day.
The analysis would look something like what the bourbonstreetshots guys used to do some years ago: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9XvXCCiSw-wJ:www.bourbonstreetshots.com/2012/06/22/the-value-of-a-draft-pick-and-the-hornets-picks (cached because their site is down right now for some reason)
e: also, i'm not going to do that because holy shit that would be a ton of work to get the datasets i needed. the calculations wouldn't be bad, but getting that data...
Fair enough. But many of blackace's examples were disingenuous, especially the guys who were traded on draft day. In fact, that should be a mark against them just like how we "drafted" Eric Bledsoe then traded him for what turned out to be peanuts.
They've probably outperformed their draft position for sure. But let's not act like they're flawless either.
They've probably outperformed their draft position for sure. But let's not act like they're flawless either.
This convo is fucking weird. Spurs were dominant af, now they're getting old and don't have nearly the same pieces but man trying to diminish their accomplishments, coaching, staff and talent for years is like where am I posting right now. Contrarian bullshit just to be provocative or what.
By 33MillionDollarMen Go To PostThis convo is fucking weird. Spurs were dominant af, now they're getting old and don't have nearly the same pieces but man trying to diminish their accomplishments, coaching, staff and talent for years is like where am I posting right now. Contrarian bullshit just to be provocative or what.LA fans still salty about the rivalry.
By 33MillionDollarMen Go To PostThis convo is fucking weird. Spurs were dominant af, now they're getting old and don't have nearly the same pieces but man trying to diminish their accomplishments, coaching, staff and talent for years is like where am I posting right now. Contrarian bullshit just to be provocative or what.
Who's diminishing any of that?
Tim Duncan had at least two of Robinson, Ginobli, TP, Kawhi, LMA for every one of those 17 years.
Which means Pop coached 3 HOFers minimum every season and they avoided serious injuries to Timmy every season.
How are 50 wins in that context surprising?
Again, credit them for their drafting and their health and keeping their goat coach. But once all 3 things align, the results are entirely predictable.