Forgot About Tim

Photo by Dave Gorman

The by-week preview of the No Football Era of American sports got off to a promising start with a thrilling Spurs-Lakers Sunday afternoon game on ABC. I realized that I don't think I've actually seen a full Spurs game so far this season (they start late, you know) and that San Antonio has weirdly dropped off the map as a championship contender according to most commentators. The case for the Spurs, however, seems very strong.

For one thing, the balance of curmudgeonly clichés overwhelmingly favors the Spurs. They trounce the competition in terms of players who Know How to Win the Big Games. They've got Popovich. They've played 30 games against the Wester Conference and Phoenix has only played 23. Defense wins championships. Tim Duncan's a lock for the hall of fame. I'm not a big believer in these kind of sportswriter perennials, but it's unnerving to never hear them. And I do believe in them at least a little; when you have a veteran team that's won championships before, you don't necessarily ask them to put the league-best regular season together. They're confident, maybe coasting a little, maybe making sure there's gas in the tank for the playoffs. But besides that, the Spurs also have quantitative factors going for them -- Dallas has the better record, but the Spurs have the better point differential. Phoenix is amazing, and, obviously, they're aesthetically brilliant as well as good at winning games, but I do think their act won't work nearly as well in the playoffs. So it still looks like San Antonio to me.

Comments

in general, the sports pundit class is better informed and more insightful than the political pundit class, but they do share many of the same problems.

i don't really keep up with sports pundit chatter about potential nba champs in january, but sheesh, if it's really true that no one is taking san anotonio seriously as a title threat, that's astonishing....

Posted by howard | January 28, 2007 6:58 PM

It's interesting, then, that the sports press--who absolutely worship their own Conventional Wisdom, probably even more than the political press--are failing to appreciate San Antonio, who as Matt points out, are the ultimate sportswriters' choice.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 7:03 PM

If you're looking for evidence, check out the ESPN.com midseason roundup -- nobody picks San Antonio. It's freaking crazy. Do they not know this is an odd numbered year?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 28, 2007 7:20 PM

matthew, i didn't doubt you for a second; it's just astonishing, is all.

coming into this season, the reasonable threats to win it all were miami, detroit, dallas, phoenix, and san antonio.

basically, they remain the reasonable threats to win it all.

how could anyone paid to think about and write about sports have already written off any of those 5 teams? i could see adding to the list (although in my estimation i think we then move from "reasonable" to "potential"), but not deleting from it....

Posted by howard | January 28, 2007 7:27 PM

I admit to having written SA off simply because they are, for lack of a better word, creaky. I just don't see them as athletic enough to make in out of the west. Ginobili is playing great, but qualitatively, his game is more compact. Their one true 'athlete' is Parker, and given his stature and their lack of servicable back up PG play, can you see him making it through three rounds intact? Bowen has, by all accounts, taken a giant step back.

Posted by Pooh | January 28, 2007 7:35 PM

Just. Too. Old.

They could steal one series against an elite team, but I can't see them stealing two. So, being in the West, they're going to need a lucky break with Phoenix or Dallas getting knocked off by a pretender in order to actually win the title.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 8:02 PM

I'm gonna have to go with the conventional wisdom here...the Mavs seem to have the Spurs' number.

Posted by Mr. Noah | January 28, 2007 8:55 PM

It could be that the Conventional Wisdom also says that Old Folks Can't Win, but that sportswriters think it...unsporting to mention, so they are, in fact, operating within their own ideological constraints, one tenet of which they refuse to admit from behind their desks topped with donuts.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 9:09 PM

Agree with Pooh. I'm surprised they're doing as well as they are, and I think they're going to get caught by season's end by at least one of the following teams: Jazz, Rockets, or Lakers. Rightly or wrongly, I don't fear them at all in the playoffs. Especially with the anti-whining rules being called.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 28, 2007 9:17 PM

And back to the last thread...

The 'zards consecutive wins on the road in Detroit and Boston are impressive. I'm still not fully prepared to believe they can win the East, but they are going to be a tough out.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 9:34 PM

For me, the safe bet has always been Dallas (unless they are totally psychologically damaged). They are substatially the same team that was one quarter away from winning it all. That experience should have improved them.

In fact, I think it's going to be Dalla/Miami, with Dallas winning easy. Miami because the east is so bad and because of Wade. He has that Jordanesque ability to be able to take control of games while keeping his teammates involved. Sports writer perennial, I know.

Posted by cw | January 28, 2007 9:43 PM

Was that a little grey around Robert Horry's temples?

Does San Antonio specialize in great players who know that being a good person is better than being a great player?

Must be a great organization...but...too old.

Posted by adams | January 28, 2007 9:45 PM

My mind hasn't changed since before the season...Phoenix, with a healthy Amare, is the team to beat. Nothing in the regular season has served to change my mind about that. The Suns would likely beat the Spurs in 5, because they'd run around and (Amare) over them. I'd put Dallas and the Spurs next, in that order, but I don't think the Spurs will make it to the WCF this season. The two sleepers are the Lakers, when they're 100% healthy, and the Nuggets, with AI/Melo/Camby and good supporting cast. I shouldn't leave out the Rockets either, but I just don't see them putting it all together this season. Maybe next. Last two teams in the West making the playoffs? Jazz and Warriors.

Posted by Jimm | January 28, 2007 9:52 PM

Pistons or Cavs coming out of the East. Out west--who knows? I can imagine the Mavs, the Suns, the Lakers, or Houston going through.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 28, 2007 9:54 PM

in the last 20 years, i count four "aging" teams that have won titles: last year's heat (with, admittedly, a youthful superstar), the '97-'98 bulls (with, admittedly, michael probably knowing that this was it), the '94-'95 rockets (with, admittedly, a youthful cassell and horry), and the '87-'88 lakers (with the refs making - ask haggai! - a key call in game 6 on reputation).

which is to say, i don't favor the spurs to win it all this year, but i think they have a reasonable shot, and to discount them today, before we see matchups and health and even roster changes prior to april, is a mistake....

Posted by howard | January 28, 2007 9:56 PM

I'm not convinced that the Spurs don't have a reasonable shot. To add to what howard writes, the idea that the Spurs are an "old" team is fairly misleading. Their big three are not old - Duncan is 30, Ginobelli is 29 and Parker is 24. That's the heart of the team. Of the "old" role players, most don't play a lot of minutes - the only one that plays major minutes is Bowen. The rest play 18 - 21 minutes a game. So age is not really a factor, at least in terms of wearing down.

The thing that bothers me a bout the Spurs is that, other than the big three, the other players are just not that good. The quality of the supporting cast isn't that much different than a couple of years ago, but it could be that that season isn't repeatable.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 12:10 AM

The Spurs will not make the WCF unless they acquire another big man before the trade deadline.

Aside from Duncan, they suck up front.

Posted by Jimm | January 29, 2007 12:23 AM

Phoenix is amazing, and, obviously, they're aesthetically brilliant as well as good at winning games, but I do think their act won't work nearly as well in the playoffs.

But wouldn't it be good if it were? I care precious little about basketball, but as a supporter of the game with the round ball and two nets, I enjoy watching Steve Nash rule the midfield.

I do think that their recent playoff experience will work for them this time round, as long as there's sufficient justice in the world for them to avoid star injuries. Which, there being none, will doubtless happen. They're the 1970s Netherlands with their very own Cruyff, and an equal lack of trophies.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 29, 2007 1:40 AM

Didn't Steve Blake get slammed around here a while ago. How is he doing in Denver?

Posted by dwight Meredith | January 29, 2007 8:58 AM

it's been mentioned already, but age and the lack of other interior options are big factors. describing SA as creaky seems particularly apt.

god that game was boring for the first 3 quarters. the spurs were on pace to have the worst shooting percentage in a game EVER. they managed to get it up to 33 percent when it was all said and done.

Posted by looj | January 29, 2007 9:54 AM

It appears Dallas has SA's number? dude. To get by SA last year, Dallas needed a questionable foul, a questionable non-call, and overtime of a game 7 in one of the most competive series in memory. Suddenly Dallas has SA's number? i might say they are favored...but do you think either dallas or phoenix is stoked about seeing SA in round 2? no way. the fact is, phoenix and dallas are both on dazzling midseason runs. historic runs. so historic that they are a whopping 4 games up over SA. by april, that spread will be 1-2 games. just like every damn year since 1999.

Posted by MP | January 29, 2007 11:45 AM

pop was right when he said everyone would be singing a different tune if the spurs had pulled out about the closest series in history (yes, dallas was close to a sweep with a made three at the end of game one, but there's also ginobli's unbelievably dumb foul in game 7). and duncan wasn't completely healthy, either. plus, the spurs added elson (big step up) and bonner (who likely can help). so writing them off seems a little silly, and it does remind me of those bulls teams where the older guys find a way to get it done.

put another way, i don't buy that dallas, having melted down once, now has the experience not to melt down again. they could just end up being a footnote like the kings or the pacers or any number of other teams that kept getting close, but never made it. and phoneix hasn't even made it to the finals yet, so i have little reason to think that they might not tighten up and blow it (nash seems preternaturally calm, but i'm not yet willing to assume all the other suns will keep their heads under real pressure).

Posted by dj superflat | January 29, 2007 11:55 AM

oh, forgot to mention that anyone who thinks the current impressive win streaks/records of the mavs and sun mean much obviously can't remember all the way back to . . . last year, when detroit was so obviously running away with it all that they just had to put all starters on the all-star team, the pistons were locks to get to the finals, etc. (and i could easily see (e.g.) the jazz or the lakers surprising either the mavs or the suns in the playoffs, let alone the spurs.)

Posted by dj superflat | January 29, 2007 11:58 AM

Obviously, the half court, grind-it-out style works in the playoffs, when the refs myseriously lose their whistles. And San Antonio has played this style as well as anyone in recent history. The problem, of course, is that this style also takes a mental and physical toll on a team - and San Antonio has been grinding it out for a pretty long time. Thus, the question is whether the Spurs can make it all the way to the Finals with enough gas in their tank to steam roll the Eastern Conference chumps.

I, for one, wish the NBA would pressure the refs to call the playoffs the same way they call the regular season - so that Phoenix would head into the tournament as the clear favorite. Sports reporters and announcers seems satisfied with the notion that the NBA playoffs are "a different game," and that it's perfectly ok for a team like Phoenix to face clutching, grabbing, banging and fouling in the playoffs that was against the rules during the regular season.

The other major sports have taken great pains in recent years to push uniform officiating, to the point where it is now fairly difficult to identify the "difference" between the playoffs and regular season in MLB and the NFL. David Stern should do the same in the NBA.

Posted by owenz | January 29, 2007 12:54 PM

...almost forgot.

I would hate to miss the opportunity to point out that Tim Duncan IS the greatest player of his generation. Which is worth mentioning for people like Bill Simmons, who insist that the NBA has evolved to such a degree in recent years that is just impossible to compare the current era of spectacular athleticism to bygone eras of slow, caveman-like NBA basketball.

Note to Bill: Tim Duncan's game is so conventional, he makes Pat Ewing look like Pete Marovich. Yet he's the best player of his generation. Huh! And Steve Nash - a skinny small guy who can't dunk - is not far behind. And Ben Wallace - at a full inch shorter than Bill Russell - just one back-to-back Defensive Player of the Year awards. But the league has evolved so much...

(Ok, off the soapbox)

Posted by owenz | January 29, 2007 1:01 PM

I'd love nothing more than to see Phoenix win it, but my major concern is Nash - if I'm playing the suns, I beat the crap out of him all game, every game in the series. Their backup PG play is almost as bad as SA's (Banks is just not in sync with what they do yet, and Barbosa is not and never really will be a PG) and if you take Nash away, Marion, Bell and Amare become instantly less formidable

Posted by Pooh | January 29, 2007 1:05 PM

Pooh's use of "creaky" is nice.

I agree with Barkley on this. The Spurs aren't a-tha-letic enough. Where it will count most is defensively where Duncan will have to have four tremendous defensive performances to win a series against the West playoff representatives for them to have a chance. While I think Duncan is truly great (yes, better than Garnett by more than most people think), I don't think he'll be able to win 3 straight series on the strength of his inside defense, as good as it is.

Posted by Sigh | January 29, 2007 2:38 PM

I've watched a ton of Lakers-Spurs games over the years and these are just not the same old Spurs. For starters, Bowen used to give Bowen fits, now he just blows by Bruce. By putting him out there they're gaining very little offensively or defensively.

Other than that, they have an athleticism problem that manifests itself primarily as a lack of bench production. Sure Finley can come in and hoist up a few triples, but they just don't have those energy guys coming off the bench, making the other team work while Duncan and Ginobli are off the floor. They're still a stong team that plays smart and effective basketball, but they just aren't the elite team they've been for the past decade. Course they're probably just one good addition away.

Posted by Mavis Beacon | January 29, 2007 2:48 PM

I would hate to miss the opportunity to point out that Tim Duncan IS the greatest player of his generation.

Which generation is that? Shaq's four years younger than Duncan.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 2:51 PM

"Shaq's four years younger than Duncan."

Duncan's pretty damn spry for a 39 year old...

Posted by Petey | January 29, 2007 2:54 PM

Sorry, reverse it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 2:55 PM

Observing that the Suns play no defense is based on box scores, not watching actual games.

Phoenix allows points because it SCORES points. When you make 76 points in the first half, as the Suns did vs. Washington last week, that means Washington gets the ball back a lot more often than they do vs a team that scores 40-45 points.

Notice the number of blocked shots, steals and turnovers generated by the Suns defense, and you get a different picture. The number of Suns shots taken vs. opponents, and the percentage made. The whole idea is to get teams playing faster than they're able to play. It's working awfully well.

There's a lot of situational play too in an 82 game season. Once Phoenix has a ten to fifteen point lead against, say, Cleveland, sure they're gonna coast a bit. Tonight's game in Minn. will be the 5th road game in 7 days. Makes my thighs ache just thinking about it. So far they've won six.

If Nash gets hurt?

Well, what if Tim Duncan gets hurt? Dirk Nowitzki?

Of course the Suns will be in trouble if their most important player goes down.

I agree with the poster who objects to overly rough playoff games. I also think it's interesting the NBA now has a new promo on the theme of team play, a big improvement over what I think is the mistaken idea of pushing individual "stars" like LeBron James, making spectacular dunks on mediocre teams.

It's the GAME!

Posted by Jethro | January 29, 2007 3:13 PM

Observing that the Suns play no defense is based on box scores, not watching actual games.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone here is claiming that PHX plays "no" defense. They play decent defense. They just may not play the type of playoff-tested, championship-winning defense that, e.g., San Antonio or Houston plays.

If you want an offensive-minded team that plays "no" defense, you need to look at Matthew's Wizards.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 3:29 PM

obviously an enormous debate, but there's a real case to be made that duncan's better than shaq (how many rings would tim have if he'd played with kobe or wade?). and tim still has a couple years to tie or exceed shaq's ring count, while shaq looks done (though only a fool calls shaq done based on early season absences/indifference).

Posted by dj superflat | January 29, 2007 4:30 PM

Petey,

You have a point with Shaq. It's a good argument. Shaq was probably better during his run with the Lakers, but Duncan has won two rings (and two Finals MVPs) since the last Laker title. I don't think the Miami version of Shaq is better than Duncan (nor do I think Duncan was the better player when he won in 1999). It all comes down to how long a "generation" is.

Regardless, I think my point stands: Tim Duncan has been the best player in the league for at least four years, despite a highly conventional game that encorporates none of the athleticism that supposedly makes today's NBA so superior to that of yesteryear.

Posted by owenz | January 29, 2007 5:00 PM

obviously an enormous debate, but there's a real case to be made that duncan's better than shaq

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Shaq's been to five Finals, and come away with four rings. He had three straight championship wins. He and Kobe went to their last Finals as the team was imploding. I tend to think of the Spurs' championships as interstitial championships. There's a lockout, there's drama in LA, there's drama in Detroit, etc.

I don't think Kobe gets nearly the credit he should for the early championships, and I really don't like Shaq. But he was a freak of nature.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 5:04 PM

SomeCallMeTim - I never argued that Duncan was better than Shaq. If that's the debate, I give Shaq the slight edge. I simply believe Duncan is the best player of THIS generation...which I readily admit could be termed the "post-Shaq/pre-Lebron" era.

Despite Shaq's title with the Heat last year, I think Duncan was the best player in the league in 2005-06. I think he's been the best player in the league 02-03, when he won the first post-Laker title. Is that a generation? Who knows. But Tim has been at the top for a nice little chunk of time.

Posted by owenz | January 29, 2007 5:10 PM

SomeCallMeTim - I never argued that Duncan was better than Shaq. If that's the debate, I give Shaq the slight edge. I simply believe Duncan is the best player of THIS generation...which I readily admit could be termed the "post-Shaq/pre-Lebron" era.

Despite Shaq's title with the Heat last year, I think Duncan was the best player in the league in 2005-06. I think he's been the best player in the league 02-03, when he won the first post-Laker title. Is that a generation? Who knows. But Tim has been at the top for a nice little chunk of time.

Posted by owenz | January 29, 2007 5:10 PM

But, of course, SCMT, Duncan never, ever played with another player as good as Shaq's sidekicks for those championships - Kobe and Wade. (Even when he won the championship with the Admiral, Robinson was just a shadow of his former self.) Put Kobe or Wade on Duncan's teams and yeah, they'd win more championships too.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 5:12 PM

Woops. I see dj superflat beat me to that punch.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 5:14 PM

I've always thought it makes more sense to think of Duncan as a center for the purpose of historical comparison. He is, without question, the greatest PF of all time if you choose to place him there (Malone, Barkley, and McHale are all far behind). As a center, I think he's in front of Olajuwan, but somewhere behind Russell, Chamberlain, Abdul Jabbar, and Shaq. (Let's call him the 5th best low post player of all time.)

Not sure why I consider him a center. Probably just because he's got such a classic center's game.

It will be interesting looking back at his body of work once he's finished. It may be the case that we regard a healthy Shaq as the more dominant force, but Duncan the better longterm performer in terms of playing on consistently great teams for which he was the only legitimate star. The total number of titles may tip the scales...

Posted by owenz | January 29, 2007 5:20 PM

I think that disagreement about Shaq/Duncan is probably indicative of a deeper divide about how each of us evaluates players, and even what we enjoy about the game. (And I acknowledge that I think owenz/Al/dj's method may be better.) Duncan and the Spurs--like LB's Pistons, and the NE Patriots, for that matter-- seem to me to win by doing everything correctly, and letting the other team beat itself. As a general rule, I think both Duncan and the Spurs are likely to play to potential. Shaq, OTOH, rarely played to potential. I think he should have had at least a couple more championships. When I evaluate players or teams, I assume each would play to potential. And so I choose Shaq over Duncan. (And McHale over Duncan. And definitely Hakeem over Duncan.)

But you go into the game with the Shaq you have, not the Shaq you want. So, as I said above, owenz analysis feels more appropriate, even if I cannot bring myself to agree with the conclusion.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 5:51 PM

i know this is perverse, but i almost view shaq as a cautionary tale. can you imagine what he could have done if he hadn't gained the weight over the years? on the other hand, can you imagine what he wouldn't have done if he hadn't had one of the greatest competitors in the league (kobe or wade) to carry the water when someone really needed to step up with a will to win? shaq clearly had the potential to be the greatest, most dominant, but i really don't think he's lived up to it, which is scary.

Posted by dj superflat | January 29, 2007 6:39 PM

i know this is perverse, but i almost view shaq as a cautionary tale. can you imagine what he could have done if he hadn't gained the weight over the years?

See the comments to Shoals' latest for the FD take on just that...

Posted by Pooh | January 29, 2007 7:03 PM

I agree a bit with the Shaq-as-underachiever theory. One thing that's always struck me about Shaq are his relatively low rebounding numbers. I know, I know...on what planet is 11.7 rebounds per game "low"? But with Shaq's unique combination of size, strength and athleticism, couldn't he have easily averaged 15 or 16 reb/game? Rebounding is largely a measure of effort, and I'm not sure Shaq has "wanted it" quite as much as some of the all time greats. His sheer talent and ability to dominate are unquestioned, however.

In line with what SomeCallMeTim is talking about, I think part of what has made Tim Duncan "the best player in the NBA for the last five years" is his consistent, grinding performance. I mean that in the sense that: on any given night, over the course of the last five years, Tim Duncan hasbeen the best guy on the court more than anyone else. As opposed to Shaq, who's been one of the most disruptive wrecking balls of a player in history...when he wants to be.

Posted by owenz | January 29, 2007 7:21 PM

i was going to let this thread go, but since the topic has turned to shaq and unfulfilled potential:

if we rate shaquille on his actual performance, i put him tied for fifth on the alltime center list with moses malone.

if we rate shaquille on what someone with his combination of size, quickness, footwork, and passing ability could have accomplished, then we have to view him as a case of unfulfilled potential.

at the end of the day, though, if we rate him on rings, he's got 'em....

Posted by howard | January 29, 2007 7:43 PM

Shaq has never been a better basketball player than Tim Duncan. If Duncan had Shaq's size, he would be the greatest player of all-time hands down. Shaq mostly overpowers people...Tim has real game. And Tim has 3 rings of his own, some MVPs, and when everything was on the line, this dude came up with some huge games, here being one example:

In the last game of the 2003 NBA Finals, Duncan was two blocks away from a quadruple-double, finishing with 21 points, 20 rebounds, 10 assists and 8 blocks.

Posted by Jimm | January 29, 2007 8:32 PM

Jimm,

The only problem is that size is part of what makes basketball players great. Would Michael Jordan have done what he did at 6'3"? How about Larry Bird at 6'5"?

I understand your point about Shaq's relative lack of skills, but I don't think it's fair to hold Shaq's size against him when we don't with other players.

Posted by owenz | January 29, 2007 10:16 PM

Agree with owenz. I'm never sure what to make of those sorts of appraisals. They seem to spring from a desire to measure and praise character, hard work, and the like--IIRC, there was once an SI piece on Larry Bird called "The Gifts God Didn't Give." I understand that those things are important parts of sports to many (most) people, but I have an unreasoning dislike for those measures of merit. If anything--and perhaps as suggested above--I come from the other side, wanting something organic or pseudo-organic in a favorite player.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 10:24 PM

This discussion really got me thinking about which I would prefer: the guaranteed top performance or the risky ultra performance. Then I saw the stats Jimm quoted. A monster game like that is almost indescribable. If I was building a team to win championships for the next 10 years I'd take Duncan in a heartbeat. If Duncan had Wade or Kobe I can't imagine him having less than four rings.

Posted by eriks | January 29, 2007 10:34 PM

Remember who he had that beautiful line (and it is beautiful) against.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 10:42 PM

Haha, if Tim Duncan were a Boston Celtic, you can guarantee that I would have a deep and abiding appreciation for Tim's fundamentally sound, businessman-like approach to basketball. Of course, he's not a Celtic...so I have no problem saying that I find him a bit boring, despite his greatness. I would take Shaq for the quotes alone.

Posted by owenz | January 30, 2007 11:37 AM