Dynasty Time

Speaking of disappointing endings, how about that Game 2, eh? Super-uncompetitive all the way through and then, suddenly, Cleveland comes out of nowhere to make it look like you're gonna be watching a basketball game and then . . . no. They say the ratings for Game 1 were historically bad, and going up against The Sopranos can't have helped Game 2 (thanks to the magic of DVR I saw both; it was even possible to "catch up" to realtime by skipping the adds in the Cavs-Spurs game) do any better. At this point, I think the NBA needs to seriously consider disbanding the San Antonio Spurs franchise. Meanwhile Chad Ford's mock draft says the Spurs are likely to snag a European guard with a late pick. Dude's name is Marco Bellinelli and he's a "A long, lanky combo guard who knows how to put the ball in the basket. Big-time scorer with an excellent 3-point shot." What's more, "He's a very smart player, with excellent court vision and a handle that would allow him to play the point occasionally in the NBA. Good athlete with nice quickness."

I feel like this situation has "I can't believe this guy slipped to 28" / "how does RC Buford do it" material written all over it. Haven't we seen this story before? I'm nervous. I don't even hate the Spurs. Indeed, I kind of like the Spurs, which is what makes watching them so depressing. If they were more dynamically despicable, things would be more interesting.

Comments

Usually, dynasties are good for sports. Casual fans take more notice, people end up picking sides, etc. But this doesn't seem to be the case at all for the Spurs. cf the rest of post-1980 NBA history, New England Patriots, "Bash Brothers" A's team in the 1980s, etc.

I'm not sure whether the "blame" belongs: on the Spurs, the NBA, or the rest of the sports media, all of which have put more interest on the Suns, Mavs, Lakers, and Heat & Pistons in recent years. An additional factor is the seeming decision by the NBA not to market its imported players, even Tony Parker after he won his first championship.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 11, 2007 12:57 AM

The East should just sit out the next couple of Finals, and let the #2 West team take their place.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 11, 2007 12:58 AM

As an avid Cleveland sports fan and someone who is absolutely yearning for something good to happen to this city, I can honestly say I have given up nearly all hope of the Cavs winning this series. I believed initially that LeBron would sprinkle magic-play-like-a-good-player dust on the rest of the team, but it's fairly clear that we're just not there yet.

Although, the impact of this team on the city should not be overlooked. It's been 10 years since we've been in a championship series and before 1995, it was countless decades. LeBron will bring us a title before the end of the decade I am absolutely sure.

But damn...the Spurs are good. And unlike the Pistons, who are stacked with more villains than a Batman sequel, the Spurs have quality players and more importantly quality human-beings. How can you hate Duncan?

The only player I hate on the Spurs is Tony Parker, for obvious non-basketball related issues.

Posted by Jason R | June 11, 2007 2:04 AM

I love Tim Duncan's game - works hard, rebounds, excellent footwork and post moves, shots a bank shot, does everything well but isn't flashy etc. etc. I can't root for him since he plays on a team full of floppers, whiners, cheap shot artists and Bruce Bowen. The Spurs are the 'neutral zone trap' era New Jersey Devils.

Posted by suns need upgrade | June 11, 2007 2:06 AM

"At this point, I think the NBA needs to seriously consider disbanding the San Antonio Spurs franchise."

The Spurs aren't a dynasty. They don't dominate the association.

They're an elite team, and they're a threat to win next year. But don't forget that they're vulnerable. They only had to beat one elite team this year to win the trophy, and they got a big bolt of luck to win that series.

Only Phil Jackson coached teams have been dynasties in the past 15 years. The Spurs are merely really good. The Spurs are beatable.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 2:14 AM

Jason R. must not see enough Spurs against teams he cares about, or he'd hate them a lot more... even Suns Need an Upgrade almost hits it right calling them a bunch of "floppers, whiner, cheap shot artists and Bruce Bowen," but he leaves Duncan out of that equation... Duncan is the A-1 champion whiner of the league.

For basketball reasons, Tony Parker may be the only member of the team not to hate!

Posted by Lukeness | June 11, 2007 3:36 AM

I would echo Petey in saying that the Spurs have had a remarkable run as an elite team, but that they are not a dynasty. I don't know how you could really think they compare favorably to the Showtime/Shaq Lakers, the Bird/McHale Celtics, or the Jordan Bulls.

My question with the Spurs is always... didn't they change that rule? I mean, the hand checking rule. I don't know a lot about defense, but it seems to me that Bruce Bowen is constantly doing the things that were expressly banned by the Association a few years ago. How about the whining? Remember the technical foul you were supposed to get starting at the beginning of the year? Ginobili would be in Guantanamo by now if that was enforced. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I do think the officiating in the NBA is remarkably bad. I wonder if the officials don't get caught up in the whole "playing the right way" bullshit meme about the Spurs and let Popovich work them into submission.

Posted by Freddie | June 11, 2007 7:04 AM

"My question with the Spurs is always... didn't they change that rule? I mean, the hand checking rule. I don't know a lot about defense, but it seems to me that Bruce Bowen is constantly doing the things that were expressly banned by the Association a few years ago."

You are correct that you don't know a lot about defense.

Bowen manages to do what he does without hand checking.

While it is true that team schemes have a lot to do with how the Spurs are fucking with LeBron, Bowen has a lot to do with it too.

If I had an MVP vote, I'd vote for Bowen at the current moment. Obviously he won't win it, but the job he's doing on LeBron so far seems more important to me than Timmy's admittedly large contributions.

And whenever you hear someone going nuts about how Tony Parker is an elite player, just remind them that he's the fourth best player on the Spurs, coming in behind Duncan, Bowen, and Ginobili, in that order.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 7:54 AM

"The Spurs are the 'neutral zone trap' era New Jersey Devils."

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 8:00 AM

Having only watched the first three quarters of last night's Globetrotters/Generals debacle, apparently I missed out on all the fun.

As a more casual watcher of the NBA, I don't find the Spurs to be especially whiney. They're more like The Borg. Sure, they can be beat, but they are relentlessly efficient.

Until the Cavaliers start making jump shots with consistency they will continue to be fileted.

Posted by Pat | June 11, 2007 8:16 AM

"They're more like The Borg. Sure, they can be beat, but they are relentlessly efficient."

Exactly.

They're quite beatable, but they're not going to do your work for you.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 8:19 AM

My friend works in scouting for the Spurs, and I'm always pestering him for insider information about why the Spurs get such quality picks so low in the draft. I think Buford is just really really good at what he does, has a bunch of smart people around him (although Presti is leaving to run Seattle), and was willing to take a chance on Euro (and Euro-like) guards before others would. And he's also had the luxury recently to stockpile assets that don't necessarily have to contribute right away--a luxury that was built on the Spurs lucking into two franchise center number one picks.

Posted by Jerry | June 11, 2007 9:14 AM

Have we already forgotten how "beatable" some of those other dynasty teams were?

Shaq and Kobe were dominant champions exactly once, in 2001. If not for Disney-movie level collapses by the Blazers and Kings in 2000 and 2002, respectively, they win one title only. The Spurs have been at an elite level for as long as the Showtime Lakers and Bird's Celtics, and after this series ends, will likely be between them in number of titles won. And those teams were beatable also, to which Rockets and 76ers (among others) would testify.

Posted by Curtis | June 11, 2007 9:44 AM

Thank you, Curtis. The magnificence of the 2000-2001 Lakers marquee far outshown their collective skill as a basketball team. But please, let's distinguish between those 2000 Blazers (one of the biggest late-championship game choke jobs ever) and the 2002 Kings (done in by awful officiating).

Posted by Bragan | June 11, 2007 9:57 AM

My friend works in scouting for the Spurs, and I'm always pestering him for insider information about why the Spurs get such quality picks so low in the draft.

I think Buford is an excellent GM. But it's also a lot easier when you have Duncan to build around. Duncan is one of a small handful of players whose team would win close to 50 games even if you stuck him on the worst roster in the league each year. His presence allows Buford to look for complimentary players instead of taking chances on potential "franchise" guys who turn out to be busts. Buford deserves all the credit in the world for finding nice players, but keep in mind that Duncan has never played with another "superstar." That's because Buford has never drafted or signed another superstar. And hey, maybe that's a good thing. But the only reason it keeps working is because Tim Duncan is there.

As for the "dynasty" debate...it's really a matter of how you define the word. The Spurs are similar to the New England Patriots - only truly dominant for short stretches, but really good every year, and always tough to beat. I think more people are willing to give the Pats the "dynasty" title based on the intense pressure the modern NFL salary cap creates - teams don't stay good very long in the NFL, much less great.

But the Spurs deserve a lot of credit for longevity. They have watched teams like the Lakers and Pistons more or less come and go, and they have stayed close to great throughout it all. The Spurs embody Duncan's personality as much as any team has personified its leader's personality over the years. Appreciating the Spurs, much like appreciating Duncan himself, requires a look at the total body of work, over the long haul. The relentless consistency and efficiency they deliver year after year might not be "dynasty" material. But it's still pretty unique and impressive.

Posted by owenz | June 11, 2007 9:57 AM

If I had an MVP vote, I'd vote for Bowen at the current moment.

This kind of declaration is the poser's calling card. After Peyton Manning throws for 400 yards in the Super Bowl, they're the one trying to tell you the left guard was the "real" MVP, just to show you how deeply they understand the game. This just in: if you thought the Mavericks were "obviously" going to beat Golden State, even after getting clobbered in Game 1, you just might not be the all-knowing sage of the NBA.

Posted by Steve | June 11, 2007 10:25 AM

"if you thought the Mavericks were "obviously" going to beat Golden State, even after getting clobbered in Game 1, you just might not be the all-knowing sage of the NBA."

I can be the all-knowing the sage of the NBA and still not have perfect predictive ability.

I'm readily willing to reveal that my record in betting the NBA at Tradesports is in the black, but not by much.

"This kind of declaration is the poser's calling card. After Peyton Manning throws for 400 yards in the Super Bowl, they're the one trying to tell you the left guard was the "real" MVP"

Casual hoops fans tend to focus on scoring above other facets of the game. Bowen has been able to neutralize the only player on the court who can beat the Spurs. If that's not worthy of being in the MVP conversation, I don't know what is.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 10:31 AM

hey petey, I think you said something about the Spurs only having to beat one elite team during these playoffs. I don't think that is right. I think the spurs have beaten 3 teams that are better than the Cavs. Anyone of those teams would be kicking their ass. I would rank them Suns, Nuggs, Jazz, Cavs.

Suns: Nash, Amare, Marion, Barbosa. Sick.
Nuggs: Melo, Iverson, Camby, Nene. Sick.
Jazz: Boozer, Dwill,Kirelinko,Okur. kinda sick.
Cavs: Lebron. Lame.

Those top two teams are definately elite, and maybe the third. So I hereby disagree with you.

Posted by MP | June 11, 2007 11:42 AM

Re: dynasties,

If the Spurs don't deserve dynasty status because they're "beatable," then the Shaq-era Lakers don't either. Those Lakers teams were very beatable. They had one truly great playoff run (2001, I think) where they were pretty unstoppable. But in 2000, they lucked out and missed the Spurs in round 2 because of a Duncan knee injury. And then they still needed Portland's epic collapse in game 7 of the conference finals (13 straight 4th-quarter misses or something like that) to pull of the come-back. In 2002, to knock off the Kings, they needed the help of a fluke play (Horry's 3 on the Vlade tip), one of the worst officiated games of all time (Game 6), and a subsequent Kings choke job in game 7.

Even when they got back to the finals and self-destructed against the Pistons, it took Fisher's .4 shot to get past the Spurs.

Now, I'm not trying to begrudge the Lakers their titles. You could make a similar list of lucky breaks for any championship team in any sport, including the Spurs. But just because the Lakers strung their lucky runs back to back to back never made them any more "unbeatable" than the Spurs, whose luck only seems to come in odd-numbered years.

Posted by matt w. | June 11, 2007 11:42 AM

Duncan has never played with another "superstar."

Excuse me? You're going to tell me that David Robinson doesn't qualify as a "superstar". And trying to pretend that Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili are not certified superstars at this point is just plain ignorance.

The Spurs are kind of like the 2000-2001 New York Yankees - a damn good team that plays the fundamentals better than anyone else and without a bunch of egotistical "superstars" hogging the limelight.
Someone compared Tony Parker to Derek Jeter the other day. I guess that would make Tim Duncan the Bernie Williams equivalent and Manu would be Jorge Posada?

Posted by Mike Thomas | June 11, 2007 11:47 AM

"I think you said something about the Spurs only having to beat one elite team during these playoffs. I don't think that is right."

There were only four elite teams in the association as we began the playoffs. The Spurs were one of those four. The Cavs were not.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 11:49 AM

i love the silliness of claiming the spurs aren't a dynasty. they compare very favorably to the 80s celtics already, likely will end up with about the same number of rings as showtime. and just like those dynasties interfered with each other -- so they weren't totally dominant in their time -- the spurs bumped into another dynasty in the shaq/kobe lakers (the spurs would have more rings if not for the lakers and vice versa).

i also love the silliness of people claiming the spurs' rings are tainted. so duncan just lucked into 3 (soon 4) rings? funny, but i can't think of any other team that lucked into 4 rings. what are the odds on that.

Posted by dj superflat | June 11, 2007 12:11 PM

, likely will end up with about the same number of rings as showtime.

How many rings do you think the Lakers won under Magic? How many times do you think they were in the Finals?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 11, 2007 12:18 PM

And whenever you hear someone going nuts about how Tony Parker is an elite player, just remind them that he's the fourth best player on the Spurs, coming in behind Duncan, Bowen, and Ginobili, in that order.

Gawd, you're a moron. Is there anyone else on earth that thinks that--given a chance to raid the Spurs--any other NBA team would take Bowen before Parker? Bueller? Bueller?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 11, 2007 12:21 PM

How exactly does Matthew go about getting this post to be a Henry Abbott bullet?

Anyway, enough with the Bowen love. I like the guy, but he's not even the best defender on his own team. MVP talk is silly.

Posted by Al | June 11, 2007 12:26 PM

"Is there anyone else on earth that thinks that--given a chance to raid the Spurs--any other NBA team would take Bowen before Parker?"

I'd take Parker before Bowen. Age matters.

But if I had a team for next year only, and if I thought my team could contend for the title, I'd take Bowen over Parker. Dude's the best perimeter defender in the association. That's an incredibly valuable thing to have come playoff time.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 12:39 PM

I saw Bellinelli in the world championships last year, and he totally lit up a USA team of NBA all-stars. His NBAdraft.net comparison is Ray Allen. I think the guy will be a very good player, and I'm hoping my Knicks grab him at 23. If not, you'd expect the Suns to give him a good look at 24, especially with D'Antoni's Italian connections. I'm so over the Spurs. I hope nobody good falls to them in the draft for the next 10 years.

Posted by Robin | June 11, 2007 12:51 PM

Well, I am glad to hear from non-San Antonio people favoring the Spurs. This seems to be a very intelligent group of posters. Anyways, I would argue that both Bowen and Parker are great players, I would have to select Bowen first. Defense is one of the most important pieces of a championship. A guy who can guard Kobe, Nash, Nowitzki and countless others...you have to pick Bowen.

Posted by Dennis | June 11, 2007 12:59 PM

Petey, you claim that Bowen single handidly neutralizes LeBron.

Well, imagine LeBron vs Bowen, one on one. What do you think the score would be then?

It takes 5 guys to stop a great player and the spurs play the best help defense in the league. This is why LeBron has struggled so far, not because he can't shake Blackjack Bowen.

Posted by Mike Poop Brown | June 11, 2007 1:04 PM

Bowen's a nice player, excellent defender, but let's not pretend that he's shutting down LeBron. The entire Spurs D is focused on shutting him down, which is an effective strategy because the rest of the Cavs stink. The team defense of the Spurs is a sight to behold-even when LeBron can draw 2-3 defenders on a drive, they still recover to get a hand in the face of the 3 point shooters when he kicks it out.

Posted by Chris | June 11, 2007 1:07 PM

Hey Petry, if the spurs are so beatable, why do they have the best winning precentage of any professional sports team in the last decade. Are all the other teams just not playing. And as far as whinners go, lets look at some others shall we. The great Bill Lambeer, Mr. Kevin Mchale, Dennis Rodman, Rasheed Wallace, I mean every player is going to argue a call, I don't think the Spurs are any worse than any other team I have seen. The reason people don't like the spurs is there is nothing to pick on about thier game and they win, every year, maybe not the championship but they are always there.

Posted by Trey Luce | June 11, 2007 1:10 PM

Right On Chris!

Fire Mike Brown! He's the worst in game coach I've ever seen.

If i have to watch him make Lebron catch the ball at the top of the key and run screen and roll with the inept Cavs big men one more time I'm going to go crazy.

Screen and roll for LeBron? They trap him immediately every time leaving Z or Varejo wide open but still completely useless. Unbelievable. Do you want LeBron to be trapped 30 feet from the hoop every time? Run screen and role.

How about a post up game, an Iso, a spread and kick game. God Almight Mike Brown pull your head out of your ass and run a different offense.

Posted by Mike Poop Brown | June 11, 2007 1:11 PM

I will refer folks to my original comment upthread, which continues to seem eminently reasonable to me.

While it is true that team schemes have a lot to do with how the Spurs are fucking with LeBron, Bowen has a lot to do with it too.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 1:13 PM

"Fire Mike Brown! He's the worst in game coach I've ever seen."

Disagree strongly. Brown is doing quite a bit to help the Spurs in his role as Popavich's assistant. That is still his job, right? Or am I confused?

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 1:16 PM

Excuse me? You're going to tell me that David Robinson doesn't qualify as a "superstar". And trying to pretend that Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili are not certified superstars at this point is just plain ignorance.

I suppose you could argue that Robinson was still putting up superstar numbers in Duncan's rookie year, but the Admiral's peak was clearly 1989-1996, when he was good for 25 ppg, 14 rbg, and 3.0 bpg. From 1999-2003, I would argue he was merely very good. It's a matter of opinion, of course.

As for Parker and Ginoboli...do you consider either player to be one of the top 15 guys in the league? I don't. And I doubt many NBA GM's would either. Would the Spurs be better if you replaced Ginobili with, say, Michael Redd? Of course they would.

Someone compared Tony Parker to Derek Jeter the other day. I guess that would make Tim Duncan the Bernie Williams equivalent and Manu would be Jorge Posada?

The Yankees analogy is okay, but the person who made that comparison was an idiot. Duncan is one of the best players in NBA history...better at basketball than even Derek Jeter is at baseball. To compare him to Bernie Williams - a player who won't even sniff the MLB hall of fame - is an absolute insult to Duncan. Inexcusable.

The better comparison is the Patriots, with Duncan as Tom Brady - and the rest of the Spurs as Brady's somewhat unknown, but always reliable supporting cast. The Spurs may not be a "team of superstars," but Duncan is a Super Duper Star.

Posted by owenz | June 11, 2007 1:24 PM

You think LeBron needs a screen to get open or to creat an open shot? Watch old tapes of MJ, see how often they ran screen and roll. Never.

Why because it just brings an extra defender right over to LeBron who is standing still, waiting to run off a Z or Varejo screen. He gets trapped immediately and is forced to make a difficult pass over the taller defender, often Duncan.

Cavs run more screen and roll than any other play. Infact it might be their only offensive set. How many times did we get to see LeBron posting up the smaller Bowen? Iso? Off the ball curls? Anything else please. No more screen and roll, it just isnt working. It could not be more clear.

Watch the tapes and count how many times they run high screen and roll for Lebron and how successful it is.

Posted by Mike Poop Brown | June 11, 2007 1:24 PM

I think what we have seen in these play-offs is that there were not so many elite teams as we thought. Detroit certainly didn't look elite.

My thoughts before the play-offs were that there were four teams with realistic title shots - Dallas, Phoenix, Detroit, and San Antonio - and four teams who were interesting darkhorses - Cleveland, Chicago, Denver, and Houston - and a bunch of also-rans.

Based on the post-season, Detroit gets bumped down into the second-tier and Utah gets bumped up into the second-tier. I agree with MP that the Spurs will have beaten three teams better than Cleveland, but I also agree with Petey that the Spurs only had to beat one of the other three (now two) elite teams to win the title.

As for the comments about other Spurs superstars over the years, I think that Robinson surely qualifies, at least for the period of 1997-2000, and I also think Ginobili will be a Hall of Famer, though much of his resume for such will be European and International competition. I take Manu well before I take either Bowen or Parker if we are choosing up sides.

I don't see Bellinelli lasting to the Spurs. I think he probably goes 5-8 picks before them.

Posted by Curtis | June 11, 2007 1:28 PM

But if I had a team for next year only, and if I thought my team could contend for the title, I'd take Bowen over Parker.

Insane. If you offered the team competing for the title right now--the Cavaliers--the chance to use a player from the Spurs' roster for the rest of the series, Bowen would be the fifth player picked: Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Oberto (or Elson; on the off chance one of them could slow Duncan down), Bowen. I might be convinced that the Cavs would pick Ginobili over Parker because of Gibson. Or that the Cavs realize that no one can slow Duncan down, and Bowen should move up a spot. That's about it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 11, 2007 1:29 PM

I don't think the Spurs are any worse than any other team I have seen.

All the other players and teams you mention get called on it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 11, 2007 1:33 PM

"I might be convinced that the Cavs would pick Ginobili over Parker because of Gibson."

Of course the Cavs have low need for Parker because of Gibson.

But you overrate Parker in general, SCMT. He's a nice player. He's above average. But he only seems special because of which team he plays on.

He's more replaceable than Ginobili.

And you seem to drastically underrate Bowen. He's better than anyone else in the league at neutralizing the opponent's best non-big. That's a really, really important asset in winning most playoff series. Check out his minutes.

Plus, for gravy, he's found a niche as successful offensive player on a Tim Duncan team so he doesn't hurt his team on that end of the court.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 1:44 PM

Parker is becoming one of the great point guards of all time, right in front of our eyes. He's passed Ginobili, who peaked a couple years ago in the finals against detroit. Manu is still great though and Parker was great and is getting even better. Lets not discount the amount of help Duncan has had over the years for these past few spurs teams. Manu was unbelievable and still is at times and parker is starting to show the consistency of a hall of famer.

'99 Twin Towers of Duncan and Robinson was an awesome defensive presence, the likes of which has not been seen since.

Yes Duncan has been the center piece but still just another piece to the puzzle. He is not much greater than the other key pieces (David, Parker, Manu). In my estimation Duncan is the ultimate role player. not a superstar but a do it all, team player who contributes every way he can to the cause of winning. maybe that does make him a superstar... i dont know

Posted by Mike Poop Brown | June 11, 2007 1:47 PM

Here's some support for Petey statement that the Spurs aren't really a dynasty;
Team Years Opp W-L Pyth W-L
Spurs 1998-2007 49-33 51-31
Shaq-Lakers 1999-2004 55-27 55-27
Bulls 1990-1998 58-24 59-23
Rockets 1993-1995 57-25 60-22
Magic-Lakers 1979-1991 60-22 57-25
Celtics 1980-1987 54-28 52-30

It sort of explains the usual ratings drop when the Spurs reach the Finals too. Even the year they faced a true quality opponent (Detroit in 2005) they couldn't possibly match up against the preceding year Lakers-Pistons, ratings-wise.

Posted by Carlos | June 11, 2007 1:53 PM

Would the Spurs be better if you replaced Ginobili with, say, Michael Redd?

Michael Who? Wait, that's a joke, right?
Of course they WOULD NOT be better. The Spurs have found a certain chemistry with their current lineup that works amazingly well. If you replace a key component like Manu or Tony with Superstar X it could very easily screw up that balance and result in a team that doesn't play as well together.
This is not the PGA for crying out loud. Basketball is a team sport.
Go back to my Yankees analogy. Look back at the 1999-2002 Yankees and compare them to the current bunch now in the Eastern division cellar. Wouldn't you say there are more Superstars there now, than before? A-Rod, Giambi, Damon, etc. But the chemistry just isn't there.

Posted by Mike Thomas | June 11, 2007 2:06 PM

The Spurs would not be world beaters or champs without Duncan. How did they get Duncan? Robinson, already on a very good team, was sidelined with an injury, and the Spurs faltered for one year only and got the number one pick on the year Duncan was available, as the result of a lottery fluke (see Durant etc.). So luck, was the deciding factor in this dynasty. and the ridiculous operation of the lottery. On a less significant level, yes, the Lakers had a dynasty in the 80's, but didn't they unload Gale Goodrich in the late 70's to get someone we've all heard of for gosh sakes on the management challenged rightly named New Orleans Jazz, pulled in Kareem and then Shaq to play in LA rather than Milwaukee and Orlando. Red drafted Bird as a junior(can you still do that?) and a year later snookered the managerially challenged Golden State Warriors to give up their one (who Attles made Joe Barry Carroll) for Parish and their three (who Red made Kevin McHale).So how can teams maintain a dynasty?

Posted by Jim | June 11, 2007 2:11 PM

Bowen is overrated as a defender. He is good at invading the space of a jump shooter, but he doesn't have the quickness to sty in front of people anymore. The reason the Spurs are containing LBJ is more Duncan, and their team concept, than Bowen. At this point, there are plenty of ther defenders I'd rather have on the perimter. Prince, Kobe, even Marion are better defenders than Bowen. Bowen is coasting on reputation.

Posted by Al | June 11, 2007 2:12 PM

In my estimation Duncan is the ultimate role player. not a superstar but a do it all, team player who contributes every way he can to the cause of winning. maybe that does make him a superstar... i dont know

Yes, you don't know. Anyone who puts up 20+ ppg and 10+ rpg to go along with some off 3 blocks per game AND takes his team to the Finals very other year is a legit superstar.

Posted by downtownjoe | June 11, 2007 2:13 PM

And you seem to drastically underrate Bowen.

As do, apparently, 29 other teams. I don't quite recall his contract negotiations, but he makes less than the MLE. I'd have thought that some other team would have offered at least that to the second best Spur.

Bowen is, like Finley and arguably Horry, a useful luxury that a team like the Spurs can afford because the team is so well-constructed and coached.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 11, 2007 2:18 PM

"Prince, Kobe, even Marion are better defenders than Bowen. Bowen is coasting on reputation."

Kobe can't defend the opposition's best player over a series cuz he's got to make buckets. Marion's not quite as good a defender. Prince, likewise. And the artist formerly known as Ron-Ron seems to have lost focus.

It's all elite company, but Bowen's a fucking freak in ways we all don't like to admit because of his step-under dirtiness.

I've watched him on Iverson (and 'Melo), then Nash, and then LeBron. The Spurs play great team defense, and Timmy is an exceptional anchor, but having Bowen making love to the other guys' star all game is the crucial element.

Dude is Rodman on the perimeter, straight up.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 2:21 PM

"As do, apparently, 29 other teams. I don't quite recall his contract negotiations, but he makes less than the MLE. I'd have thought that some other team would have offered at least that to the second best Spur."

Dave Berri is wrong about most everything, but he's right that you get paid for making buckets. Check out what Raja Bell makes.

(Actually, bigs who don't make buckets get paid, but not perimeter players.)

And why do you think Bowen is leading the team that's going to win the title in minutes as a 36 year old '2' guard, SCMT? Do you think Popavich just has a sadistic desire to make him sweat?

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 2:29 PM

The Spurs are very good team, although boring to watch. They just methodically beat you to death with strong fundamental play. I think we are used to seeing our "dynasties" work hard to win championships against other teams with mulitiple superstars. The Eastern Conference have no teams with multiple superstars, so the finals will continue to bore us for years. I think the Suns or Mavericks are the only other current teams that have a remote chance against them. These Spurs will win a few more championships, so get used to seeing a lot of 90 to 80 games in the finals.

Posted by Waterguy | June 11, 2007 2:35 PM

Maybe I am just watching a different Finals than Petey, who knows. In the Finals I am watching, LBJ is going around Bowen all the time, but is having a hard time because Duncan is behind Bowen (along with others) all the time. Granted, LBJ is having a tough time straight up jump shooting, but that's not where he is most dangerous.

Also, Bowen is having a horrible offensive sewries.

Posted by Al | June 11, 2007 2:39 PM

The Spurs are very good, and contrary to some people's opinion, they play an entertaining unselfish style - with great ball movement and passing.

However, I find them very unlikable, due to their flopping,whining, cheating, dirty play, undeserved goodie-too shoes reputation (they get away with murder), etc.

Duncan's play is great. His whining and special treatment by the refs is frustrating (i.e .never getting called for over the back when he does it constantly)

I find Tony Parker (and Michael Finley) to be the only likable guys on the team. I hope Parker wins the MVP this time.

Posted by john | June 11, 2007 2:41 PM

"In the Finals I am watching, LBJ is going around Bowen all the time,"

He funnels you where the Spurs want you to go.

Same deal with the Denver series. Iverson could always get past Bowen due to his speed, but Bowen would reliably slow him enough for help to assemble, funnel him into the help, and use his arms to cut off his passing lanes to the open player.

You can get by him, but you have to spend the time and effort getting by him every time you've got the ball, and you may not like the court configuration once you do get by him. He's a hassler, not a stopper. But he does that better than anyone, and it's a surprisingly effective asset to have on an elite team.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 2:49 PM

Bowen is, like Finley and arguably Horry, a useful luxury that a team like the Spurs can afford because the team is so well-constructed and coached.

Yes, exactly, and what Al said as well. It's just like Rodman with the Pistons and Bulls; the guy was great at what he did, but it was the top-drawer talent around him that allowed him to take up space in the lineup in the first place. No one was foolish enough to suggest Rodman was the "real" Finals MVP.

Petey really summed up the argument when he said "Kobe can't defend the opposition's best player over a series cuz he's got to make buckets." That's right, friends - Bowen is a more valuable player BECAUSE he can't score! All Petey is doing is fetishizing a role player for filling his role really well.

Duncan is the Spurs' MVP because he's the only player you can't imagine them winning a title without. Everyone else in the lineup is at least conceivably dispensable; Parker, for example, may run the offense, but he takes the occasional quarter or half or game off and they still win. And does anyone want to argue that the Spurs couldn't win a title without Bruce Bowen? Please.

Posted by Steve | June 11, 2007 2:51 PM

How many people think that detroit losing ben wallace led to the bron cavs winning that series thus getting spurs cavs

Posted by stevie | June 11, 2007 2:53 PM

Bowen is extremely useful to the Spurs but Parker is probably more irreplaceable. Of course, it comes down to what a team needs; Utah would have much more use for Bowen than for Parker but Houston would be in the reverse situation. But ultimately, very good perimeter defenders who barely score aren't that hard to find, which is the reason why they don't get paid that much. A PG who can give you 20+ pts. a game shooting a high percentage, on the other hand, is a much rarer commodity.

Posted by Carlos | June 11, 2007 2:57 PM

"No one was foolish enough to suggest Rodman was the "real" Finals MVP."

The almost always wrong Berri argued that Rodman "produced more wins" than Jordan for those teams. So someone is sorta foolish enough.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think Berri is wrong about this.

I think Jordan was a more valuable player to those teams than Rodman, just as I think Duncan is a more valuable player to the Spurs than Duncan.

But all I'm saying is that in this particular series, given that the Cavs are a one man band, the guy who's stealing the bandleader's groove deserves some consideration as the most valuable.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 2:58 PM

Edit:

I think Jordan was a more valuable player to those teams than Rodman, just as I think Duncan is a more valuable player to the Spurs than Bowen.

Posted by Petey | June 11, 2007 3:00 PM

all the serious dynasty stuff is already being sufficiently bandied about, so just for a trio of small points (can't recall who raised them up higher):

iirc, red was able to draft bird as a junior because he had redshirted a year, and he had to sign bird by the time of the next draft.

i agree - speaking as a bernie williams fan - that comparing duncan to bernie is a real insult to duncan.

and baseball being the one sport where simply having the best player at each position does put you in a good spot to win, the reason the yanks aren't doing as well now with more "stars" than they were with fewer is that the starting rotation hasn't been good enough, not because the "chemistry" as such is a problem.

Posted by howard | June 11, 2007 3:15 PM

stevie, detroit with ben wallace barely got by lebron last year, so no, i don't think a declining wallace would have been sufficient to stop the cavs this year. i think the person up above who noted that, in the end, detroit wasn't as good as we thought they were said all that needed to be said.

Posted by howard | June 11, 2007 3:17 PM

Someone would vote Bowen for MVP? Are you kidding me? Bowen is the dirtiest player in the game. It is the only way he still has a job. You do not accidently fall underneath that many people when they go up for shots, or accidently kick your leg out when someone is guarding you to create separation right in the groin over and over again. If Bowen got MVP the league would officially be over. A new basketball league would take over, much like the NBA took over the ABA. David Stern places certain refs in games that do things that he wants them to do. If he wants the Spurs to win he will put a ref in the game that likes to call big calls for the home teams (like he did for Wade and the Heat last year in the finals). The NBA is the closest thing to a fixed league that there is in professional sports. David Stern has become power crazy and he is making it half pro wrestling with the fixing of things, and half women's soccer... no I take that back women's soccer allows more contact than the current NBA does. Bottom line is that the NBA is going downhill because David Stern wants teams like the Spurs to win. The Suns are the ones that should be cutting the nets down this week or next, and I am a Cavs fan. This hate Stern has for finesse basketball teams has led to the downfall of USA basketball as well because that is what the international game is and our thug NBA players who can not create contact or play the finesse game are now getting their butts beat up and down the floor. Bravo David Stern. You have ruined a great professional sport and ruined our domination of that sport internationally. It is players like Bowen that help Stern create this madness.

Posted by j.d. | June 11, 2007 3:51 PM

Of course they WOULD NOT be better. The Spurs have found a certain chemistry with their current lineup that works amazingly well. If you replace a key component like Manu or Tony with Superstar X it could very easily screw up that balance and result in a team that doesn't play as well together.

I couldn't disagree more. This is like saying that Jordan's Bulls were dependent on "chemistry" while overlooking the far more obvious truth: they are dependent on their superstar(s). Everything else falls in line. Even Dennis Rodman, in the Bulls' case.

Duncan is the team, the system, the chemistry. If you replaced Manu or Tony or Bowen with better players, the Spurs would be better. Because none of them, on his own, is essential to the team's success. Don't get me wrong, skills and attitude matter. You wouldn't want to replace these guys with just anybody. But the notion that Manu or Bowen or Parker - or even all three of them - are somehow "the key" is downright silly.

Put Tim Duncan on next year's Memphis Grizzlies and they make the playoffs. Put him on the Bulls and they are the clear-cut favorites to win the title. That is how the NBA works. The Spurs have tremendous support players, but that's all they are. Pair Duncan with a legitimate second banana - the way Shaq had Kobe or Jordan had Pippen - and they would be crushing every opponent in their path. The fact that Duncan wins without a second star on his team is simply a testament to his greatness.

Posted by owenz | June 11, 2007 4:00 PM

I agree that Duncan is great-probably the best power forward of all time. But owenz, I think you are being a bit unfair to Manu and Tony. They're both capable of creating their own shots and scoring very efficiently, while at the same time being willing to defer to Tim. How many other players in the league are capable of that? Less than you'd think. With lesser teammates, Duncan still gets the team to the playoffs but not necessarily championships-exhibit A, 2000-2002.

Posted by jamie | June 11, 2007 4:08 PM

Anyone who calls the Spurs boring must need a sports equivalent of Sports Viagra to get them excited about anything. To see the way Tony Parker somehow puts the ball through the hoop on his driving lay-ups, or the erratic/crazy play of Manu will not be bored. Just watch a game or two and then make comments. Don't be like little mocking birds or dumb parakeets that repeat everything the media says. That's all the boring talk is. It doesn't come from knowledgeable fans who watch the games, but dumb fans who have just repeat what they read in articles or hear from commentators. Like Parker said, if this team were in L.A. then the nation would be ranting and raving about how great and exciting they truly are.

Posted by Matt | June 11, 2007 4:38 PM

Bowen needs an elbow in the nose and a knee in the groin. After that we can talk about what a good defender he is.

Posted by to the hole | June 11, 2007 4:52 PM

They Spurs ARE boring. Tim Duncan is a GREAT player (although he whines far too much to be considered amongst the top 5 of all time) but he is boring to watch because the team tries to keep him out of foul trouble. He never really gets to match up with the physical players, they let the grunt workers on the team do that. Duncan is entertaining on the offensive end, I will give you that. He is a master at what he does there, because he uses the whole basket and not just the rim. However, the rest of his team is so boring. Tony should be a sprinter not a basketball player. He just zooms around players and then he looks like he doesn't know what to do with the ball after that, and he isn't a very good passer 90% of the time so he drops an awkward tear drop that he has started to perfect thanks to Pop realizing it was all he had. Manu is boring... all he does is run all over the floor until he gets open then gets a pass and shoots the ball. If a guy puts his arms up then he flops to the ground like he just got mugged. Bowen is not boring because you never know when he is going to end someone's career for the idiotic things that he pulls. The rest of the team is just like any other team without the toughness of truly historic great teams.

Posted by j.d. | June 11, 2007 4:55 PM

It's been mentioned many times, but it's not just about the stars. The coach matters a lot more than NBA fans want to give them credit for, especially in the playoffs. In a 7-game series, the adjustments are what matters and it's pretty clear that Mike Brown has no idea what he's doing, just like it was pretty clear that Flip Saunders had no idea what he was doing, just like it was clear that Mike D'Antoni has a good idea of what he's doing, but the Spurs are a bad matchup for the Suns.

Popovich is a great coach which is one of the big reasons the Spurs do so well in the post-season. Sure, you could put Duncan on the Grizzlies and they'd have success in the regular season, but that would be it if they still had an idiot making game-to-game adjustments.

Posted by spike | June 11, 2007 5:00 PM

Pop is overrated. Duncan and the fact that Stern likes them and feels bad about the ref situation tossing Duncan for laughing earlier in the year is what is getting them a championship. If Stern really wanted to be fair he would have tossed Duncan and Bowen for Game 5 against the Suns. The fact is Stern hates finesse basketball and is trying to make it up to his friend Pop and the future hall of famer Duncan from earlier this season. Duncan has become a player that if he came out said anything negative after the fact, then heads will roll. The NBA could not afford that kind of negative PR. It is all political with the NBA. Stern is ruining the game. Thank God Baseball season is here... oh wait their GM is a complete moron. At least he isn't smart enough to figure out how to fix games.

Posted by j.d. | June 11, 2007 5:07 PM

you guys are ignorant. spurs suck. i just go to the games for tony.

Posted by eva longoria | June 11, 2007 5:11 PM

Don't hate the Spurs because they beat you ;)

Posted by John | June 11, 2007 5:18 PM

I just have to weigh in on this stuff. First, Duncan is the MVP of the Spurs and this series. Bowen does an excellent job of covering his man on the perimeter and they rotate well. They force you to the baseline and leave the man open in the opposite corner. It's a hard pass to make since all the Spurs are contracting to cut off the lanes and running like hell to challenge the shooter. However, Duncan's timing is insane. He's almost always in a position to block a shot or at least challenge. Also, he always seems to be in position for the rebound. If he isn't then the rest of the Spurs are. Look at how often they are gang rebounding.

I disagree that Duncan is the best power forward ever. He's one of the best centers ever. He's the biggest guy on the court for the Spurs. He usually covers the other team's best post player, with the exception of early in his career when the Admiral was there. He is their only post threat and he anchors the defense with shot blocking and rebounding. He's just labeled Power Forward. I mean, is Horry playing center for his minutes? Nesterovic was a stiff playing center to lean on big men, but Duncan's the center.

Ginobli is the 2nd best player on their team. He's the one guy who can get his own shot on the perimeter and he plays good defense. HE also can heat up like no other player on their team and take the game over. He's harder to double team because he's not in a fixed position like Duncan.

That said, I hate the Spurs. They do whine. It was a miscarriage of justice in that Phoenix season. Did anyone catch Horry complaining at the end of the half when he hit Lebron in the head after missing a shot? The gall!

Posted by Kman | June 11, 2007 5:23 PM

James Mainly Hype

Can LeBron be a truly great and dominant player? I have no doubts that he can, but right now he's showing me nothing special.

Admittedly, the Spurs team defensive concept is well executed, perhaps the best in the league, but LeBron has performed far short of a premier player. The scoring outburst he had in Game 5 of the Eastern finals was incredible, but it isn't anything I haven't seem before (albeit on different stages).

I personally feel that based on James' play so far, the Cavs would be better off with Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, or Gilbert Arenas. The thing that made Jordan great, especially in the playoffs, was that he brought it every night. He played his butt off on both ends and was a great defender. The majority of the time, LeBron seems passively interested in the game. When James turns it on, its something to behold, but those games are too few and far between.

Posted by bored at work | June 11, 2007 5:38 PM

They Spurs ARE boring....
Pop is overrated....
I hate the Spurs. They do whine....

Sheesh! Talk about whining!

Posted by Mike Thomas | June 11, 2007 5:40 PM

(hey great blog)
i'd also like to leave an opinion. lol

in the last 9 years only 2 western conference teams have won championships. the spurs and the lakers.

99 spurs
00 lakers
01 lakers
02 lakers
03 spurs

the lakers even tried to retool their team in 04 and add payton and malone to beat the spurs. they ended up losing that year to detroit.

after that, the only team to win a championship (other than the spurs '05) has been the miami heat. (with shaq)

if they win the championship again this year it will be 4 in the last 9 yrs, and 3 in the last 5, in my opinion that makes them a dynasty.

and i dont buy all this talk about other teams in the west being so much better than teams in the east either.

a healthy shaq and wade maybe miami gets back one more time, with the only bigman other than tim duncan who has that much finals exp.

if they or detroit (tested teams) were to meet the likes of dallas or phoenix, i'd imagine what happened to dallas last year might happen again this year.

cleveland is a very good defensive team. they run a similar system to the spurs. the only problem is, they're facing the same kind of defense - played better.

imo - the post jordan years have belonged to duncan and shaq, and they probably will until they retire. but cleveland has a chance to build something special in the east. (to be there year in and year out, like the spurs have over the last decade)

as far as how you build dynasties... is it better with ping pong balls or buying a franchise player out of orlando? i dont know about that one.

Posted by lucas | June 11, 2007 5:52 PM

A little late to this party but.....

Petey, don't be silly. Bowen isn't the one doing all of the shutting down. Just look what a great job he did in the Utah series against DWill who he shut down to the tune of about 29 and 9 over the first 4 games. On the other hand....what did Boozer do in that series? Who was guarding him? Right that Duncan guy I think.

Bowen guards one player and crowds him and periodically gives him some dirty elbows. Bowen can only afford to do this because when the faster players blow around him they face the best paint defender in the league. Bowen's good defense is a product of the system he is in. The spurs are the only team good enough that they can hide his weaknesses on both D and O and take advantage of his strengths (crowding perimeter players and draining open threes).

Posted by Dan | June 11, 2007 6:18 PM

"Screen and roll for LeBron? They trap him immediately every time leaving Z or Varejo wide open but still completely useless. Unbelievable. Do you want LeBron to be trapped 30 feet from the hoop every time? Run screen and role."

I totally agree. What easier way to play help defense on Lebron than when he has the ball 90% of the time? If he is coming off screens you can't double team him until he actually catches the ball(hopefully closer to the basket). Then when they collapse hopefully Gibson can knock down a 3 or 2 and Z can get a few jump shots.

Posted by BJ | June 11, 2007 6:39 PM

The Spurs may have had a "boring" offense in the late 90's early 2000's, but now they move the ball in their motion offense with such skill and precision that it is silly to call their offense "boring".

Ginobili is one of the best players in the world when he gets going, and is almost impossible to guard. He sells the charge as well as anyone, so this makes him a "flopper" to Spurs haters, but he also takes a lot of hits when he's going to the basket and NEVER complains. If you think Ginobili is a "whiner" then you've never watched him play.

Parker is 25, and is only getting better. He works as hard as anyone on his game and might just be on the cusp of super-stardom. Parker also takes a lot of hits on his way to the basket, yet never gets any respect for his toughness.

Duncan is a Super-Star because he is dominant on both ends of the floor. You can count on 2 fingers the number of players who can guard him one-on-one. His scoring is never going to be as high as a perimeter player because of the constant double-teams he faces.

Did anyone notice that he was 2 assists and 1 rebound short of a triple-double in Game 2?

Posted by jeff | June 11, 2007 6:55 PM

Mike Brown's offense of high screen and rolls for Lebron is pathetic to watch. It is by far and away the play the Cavs have the most of so far. 100% of the time it is ran the Spurs double team Lebron immediately forcing him to make difficult passes far away from the hoop on every single screen and roll.

It is one thing having bowen on him but Mike Brown is just inviting Duncan to trap him outside the three point line by running the high screen and roll with his bigs and LBJ.

His coaching strategy, if you wish to call it that, is repetive and ineffective on the offensive end. I'd like to see much more lebron in the post, off curls and cuts, and most of all, iso'd, spread everyone out. Let the King do what he does best, dribble drive and create and of course dunk.

Posted by Mike Poop Brown | June 11, 2007 7:05 PM

All these comments and we still haven't agreed on whether the Spurs are a dynasty. Probably because we all have different definitions of the term.

To me, you know you have a dynasty when the water cooler talk is always about whether someone will manage to take you down this year. You may not win it every time, but the narrative is still you vs. everyone else. (Or, in the case of competing dynasties like Lakers vs. Celtics, the narrative is simply which of you will win this year.)

The Spurs have never met this definition, although maybe after this year they'll get their due. You can hardly count the 1999 championship as part of the proposed dynasty, since they were completely dominated by the Lakers for three years after that. In fact, if the Lakers had met expectations and beaten the Pistons in 2004, the second Spurs title would be seen as nothing but a blip in the middle of a dominant Lakers stretch.

The Spurs have been a very good team for a long time, but I can't think of any other "dynasty" in sports that took 8 years to acquire its cachet.

Posted by Steve | June 11, 2007 7:16 PM

many of these comments have to be jokes, right? people are seriously suggesting that a guy who's on the verge of winning his fourth ring as the go to guy on his team, with a different cast than he started out with, with 3 finals MVPs, two season MVPs, is not one of the best ever? who else in recent memory even has 4 rings, let alone as the center (pun intended) of their team? bird only has 3 rings, and had serious help. magic won 5 times, just one more than what duncan is likely to have come next week. and did so with kareem, worthy, etc. you can fairly find fault with some of the competition in the finals itself (cavs and knicks), but it's just silly to claim it's somehow luck, could've happened to any big guy in the right place at right time, etc.

Posted by dj superflat | June 11, 2007 7:53 PM

who else in recent memory even has 4 rings, let alone as the center (pun intended) of their team?

Shaq? Or is that too long ago for you?

Posted by Steve | June 11, 2007 8:50 PM

Finally, a pretty intelligent group of posters who seem to have progressed beyond 4th grade english.

To those who find the Spurs "boring", please stop watching them if you find that's the case. No one's forcing you to watch a "boring" team. San Antonio fans would agree that being perennial championship contenders and winning every other year is far from boring. All sports teams would love to be in that situation.

Calling a team "boring", when they can play uptempo and keep up and beat a team like Phoenix and also play a solid halfcourt game against the likes of Utah, smacks of ignorance. The Spurs precision, adaptability to any opponent, and the consistent way they execute at a high level is impressive.

San Antonio assembles their roster based on team chemistry and how a player fits within their system. I remember Popovich discussing this a few years back. It's not so much about collecting and plugging in as many superstars as they can, but building the best team possible with the right pieces. Looking at their current roster, this is hard to argue as they have very few, if any, weaknesses.

Compare this to the pseudo "Dream Team" the Lakers assembled with Malone, Payton, etc. Theoretically a great team with O'Neal and Bryant as the main cogs with a very good supporting cast. Granted some of the players were brought in later in their careers but were still well above average as far as the level of talent goes. But even with all that talent, they still couldn't beat Detroit in the Finals.

Lastly, David Robinson was a superstar (wasn't he voted to the All-Star team several times and named one of the 50 Greatest Players of all time?), and the Spurs are a dynasty (maybe not in terms of consecutive championship years, but because of their resumé of 3 - soon to be 4 - trophies and maintaining a high level of excellence for 9 consecutive years). Dynasties are as much about longevity as anything else.

Posted by ed18 | June 11, 2007 9:54 PM