Matthew Yglesias (June 11, 2007)

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

Calling a team "boring", when they can play uptempo and keep up and beat a team like Phoenix

How would you know? How would any of us know?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 11, 2007 9:57 PM

You would know if you watched San Antonio on a consistent basis. The Suns are without a doubt the best uptempo team in the league (Golden State is getting there). Just take a look at the Western Conference Finals scores this year:

Game 1SAS 111, PHX 106
Game 2PHX 101, SAS 81
Game 3SAS 108, PHX 101
Game 4PHX 104, SAS 98
Game 5SAS 88, PHX 85
Game 6SAS 114, PHX 106

The Spurs KEPT UP WITH AND OUTSCORED Phoenix in three high scoring games. Comprende?

Posted by ed18 | June 11, 2007 10:23 PM

the comment re shaq proves my point. shaq is routinely considered amongst the most dominant players ever, despite the help of kobe and d. wade. in fact, shaq clearly wasn't the heart of that miami squad or even close. duncan has never had the level of help shaq had (anyone ever scored 48 to help timmy out?), has always been the clear star/heart/center of his team. but we're supposed to believe he's just been very fortunate in who he's had to play to win rings, the spurs aren't really any sort of dynasty despite the best record in all of sports since duncan arrived. i attribute it all to lack of self-promotion and small mkt. (funny thing is, if you listen closely, duncan's way funnier and more interesting than just about any other nba star (shaq's got some of same), duncan just hides it; jokes on us really.)

and what irks me about comparisons to 80s teams is that there were no euro players. so league was diluted later, but also had new talent pool. it's not so clear to me being great in the 80s really means you had to play better teams than the west of recent years. (kind of crazy that there's a world in which a team with yao and mcgrady is an also ran.) just to clarify, though, i still think magic's the best ever, don't buy into the mike as obviously best ever.

Posted by dj superflat | June 11, 2007 10:32 PM

For those of you who consider the Spurs a boring team to watch, it would be interesting to know who you consider to be not boring.

Sure, the Suns are exciting to watch, as are the Lakers when Kobe's on fire (though the rest of the team is pretty difficult to watch for the most part). Golden State was probably the most exciting team to watch in these playoffs, but most people didn't start watching them until the playoffs and jumped on the bandwagon like everyone else. And then there's Cleveland, who, with their extremely slow style of play, can be considered exciting only because of LeBron. Who else can be considered exciting? I'd say maybe Washington (Arenas) and Denver (Melo and Iverson). Maybe New Jersey (Kidd and VC)? Even Dallas would be kind of a stretch now that they are much more defensive-minded under Avery. What about Miami? I would argue that even with Wade and Shaq they're still a pretty boring team to watch. Shaq and Wade are exciting individuals, but Miami as a team is pretty bad (third lowest scoring offense in the league). According to my count that's 7, maybe 8, teams in the league that the average fan would probably consider exciting to watch. I'm sure some of you out there will disagree with my choices, but I can't see it being by much.

My point is this. There really aren't too many teams in the league that average fans would consider exciting to watch. That's why the same teams play on tv over and over throughout the season. So why does everyone constantly bitch about the Spurs being boring but not bitch about the other two-thirds-plus of the league that could also be considered boring? It's because the Spurs are really good and are always playing deep into the playoffs. No one cares enough about the 76ers to call them boring, or the Blazers, the Hawks, etc. etc.

Of all the teams I mentioned above that could be considered exciting, how many are actually good enough to be playing deep into the playoffs? Suns and Mavs (with the Mavs a maybe on the exciting factor), that's it. So for all the fans bitching now about watching San Antonio in the finals again, who would you realistically want to be watching instead, other than Phoenix? Sure, throw some other exciting yet undeserving team in there, and watch them get their asses kicked by a less exciting but really good team. With Phoenix being the only really good team in the league that could also be considered really exciting to watch, it appears that one would rather form a team that was good rather than exciting if one wanted to win a championship. Perhaps all of you "fans" out there should change your perceptions of what exciting basketball is and start valuing teams that are highly skilled, efficient and team-oriented, rather than those that feature superstars who can fill up the stat sheet but not the win column. Otherwise I guess the rest of us will have to endure your annual post-season bitching when yet another boring team makes it to the finals.

Of course, this argument all assumes that the Spurs are considered a boring team, which I disagree with entirely. This is not the same Spurs team from the late 90s. As we saw from the Phoenix series (this year and two years ago), this Spurs team can run and score with the best of them. Still, I know how stubborn Spurs haters are, so I thought I'd humor your point of view, if only to show how full of holes it is.

Posted by Keith | June 11, 2007 10:41 PM

Boring? I just can't get over the people who equate uptempo, offensive-focused basketball with quality and excitement. If this were the case, why don't we see a bunch of banners hanging from the rafters in Denver from the mid 80's? Or in Golden State from the early 90's to present? Put simply, defense does (help to) win championships. The Spurs play the most complete offensive and defensive game in the Association and are winning because of it. Television ratings are slipping because of the watering down of talent league-wide and the lack of an ongoing rivalry between teams with legitimate superstars.

Bowen is still a top-notch defender, although he has slowed a step in the past season or two and does need to hand check more than he has in the past. But he is no 'dirtier' than most other players who are considered elite defenders, including Raja Bell, Ron Artest, and Tayshaun Prince. Tim Duncan is a superior defender and the team plays fabulous help defense.

Posted by DaveF | June 11, 2007 10:41 PM

To Keith and DaveF - Good points you've made - thanks for the intelligent comments. The boring tag has gotten old, and well, boring.

Posted by ed18 | June 11, 2007 10:54 PM

The Spurs only kept up with Phoenix in Game 1 because Nash had to sit the last seven minutes. The Spurs did keep with them in Game 3, but every team gets hot at some point that has good shooters. You can ride the first game at home to do amazing things, so good job to them. Game 6 was David Stern giving it to the Suns. The refs would not call anything on the Suns and there were so many non-call fouls on the Spurs that turned into transition points. If we brought in refs that called a fair game the Suns would blow the Spurs out in a four game sweep, maybe the Spurs win that first one at home which makes it a 5-game series.

Personally, I think the Spurs need to either keep the same team in tact over a four year span and win a couple of championships, which this one would suffice if they weren't given it by the commish, or they need to win back to back championships at some point to be called a dynasty. The only thing right now you can call a dynasty is their coach and Duncan. They are the only ones that have been around since the beginning.

If I were the Cavs I would put a guy like Pollard in when Duncan is on the bench.... next time Parker comes down the lane I level him to the ground in the hardest foul you have ever seen. Pollard gets 2 games suspension (no loss) and Duncan gets tossed for 1 game because he will jump off the bench again. Stern won't be able to say it was not an altercation again. Karma shall catch up to them one day... to bad Cleveland is not good enough to help it along.

Posted by j.d. | June 11, 2007 10:56 PM

Speaking of boring, harping on the injustices Phoenix supposedly received in the West Finals is getting old.

Don't get me wrong, I like Phoenix and they're a great team. The fact of the matter is that there were no guarantees Phoenix would have won even with Nash in the last minutes of Game 1. But people act as if that victory was guaranteed if Nash were playing. With this logic, Phoenix would beat San Antonio every time they had their full roster.

Looking at Phoenix's record against San Antonio the past several years, it's clear the Spurs simply have the Suns' number. As great an offense as Phoenix has, their defense still isn't quite good enough to get them over that hump. If Phoenix were the better team, they would beat the Spurs on a consistent basis. You can't blame the refs for everything since EVERY TEAM gets bad calls.

The Spurs also kept up with Phoenix in Game Six, winning 114 - 106. Phoenix couldn't break 110 in any of the games, at home or away. With ALL their players in a do-or-die game, with Nash and both players suspended in Game 5 back, Phoenix still wasn't able to pull it off.

Posted by ed18 | June 11, 2007 11:31 PM

Keith-

Great comment. Well said.

For everyone else:

For those that STILL don't think the Spurs can beat the Suns, I'd like to point to the '05 Western Conference Finals, when the Spurs out-gunned the Suns 4-1.

The Spurs KILLED the Suns in that series and the Suns had home court and a healthy Amare.

Yes, the Spurs are the class of the league on defense, and this makes some of their games "boring" because they shut down other team's high-flying shows. The fact remains that the Spurs have quietly built one of the best and most un-stoppable offenses in the league to compliment their defense.

Cleveland has a pretty good defense, and yet the Spurs are slicing and dicing them up.

So call the Spurs boring all you want. All this proves is that you are a parrot.

Posted by jeff | June 12, 2007 12:23 AM

I am so baffled by those who think Stern wants the Spurs to win and does what he must to ensure that end. The man likes his $$$, no? Handing the Spurs the title is like flushing his money down the toilet.

As to the "boring" label, when the Spurs shut down a team defensively, the game can become excruciatingly boring (even to the Spurs, it seems, as they always seem to lose interest at some point during a blow-out). However when they start flowing, their ball and player movement is unbelievable. Just extraordinary to watch. And exciting! Imagine that. They are so complete.

The Suns, as well as the GSW (admittedly late to jump on that bandwagon), are super exciting to watch but don't very often get to that "zone" as the Spurs can, where they seem to play in some sort of basketball nirvana. It is strangely a rare thing to see a five-man team play as one organism in the NBA.

Spurs and Suns - both the epitome of class and excellence. And they share personnel - Kerr, Del Negro, who else? I love Bell, love Bowen. Both play superb defense and get labeled as dirty. But for some reason I prefer their brand of real, honest (many will disagree with that adjective) D even if it's rougher. They make no bones about the way they play. Love Nash, LOVE Manu (although I can't stand all the charges they accrue; to my mind, sliding right beneath a shooter as he is leaving the ground is more potentially dangerous than what Bowen/Bell do). Duncan is a monster. Nothing more to say.

Let the picking apart begin ;)

Posted by Lydia | June 12, 2007 1:41 AM

Edit to my own lame post:

Who else? Lemme think...uh... D'Antoni? Sheesh.

Posted by Lydia | June 12, 2007 1:48 AM

I want to ask those of you who have stated on this discussion that you believe that David Stern wants the Spurs to win and gives them their titles: Why?

Why? Why? Why?

It really isn't even worth debating your point if your point is that David Stern wants the Spurs to win.

Say it out loud.

"David Stern wants the Spurs to win the title every year."

Did you notice how stupid you sounded?

This argument about the Commissioner conspiring to reward the Spurs is dead. I just buried it.

R.I.P. Idiot Arguments From Spurs' Haters

Posted by jeff | June 12, 2007 2:49 AM

j.d., you are blatantly biased toward the Suns.

First off, not sure if you actually watched, but Nash missed the last minute of game one, not the last seven. It is ridiculously presumptious to state that they would have won had he been in.
The refs screwed the Suns over? Or was your vision blurred by your heavy favoritism for Phoenix? Like any ignorant fan, you assume that all the calls in favor of your team are correct and all the calls favoring the opponent are a conspiracy. Instead, look at the numbers (Phoenix shot twice as many free throws in game 4--AT San Antonio...hardly the new Utah).
Of course there are also the suspensions to bitch about. You can blame Stu Jackson, who stayed consistent with every other ruling on identical situations. Or you can blame the inexperience of Amare and Diaw. Either way, it is also highly speculative to assume the suns would have won games 5 and 7 with their full roster.
And don't forget to blame the "dirty" Spurs for the Suns downfall. I would love to see Phoenix play the late 80s Pistons and 90s Knicks teams (who were esteemed, not hated on, for their physical play) and then cry about the big, bad Spurs.
I didn't hear Phoenix whining about rules last season when the screwy playoff system let them coast to the conference finals while the mavs and spurs (who both had better records) had to play in the 2nd round. I didn't hear any Spurs crying all off-season about how they, as the top seed, should have coasted to the conference finals while the suns and mavs wore each other down.
Phoenix and its fans need to quit making excuses for their shortcomings. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas.

Posted by prodigy | June 12, 2007 3:04 AM

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

Just say it Jason R.:
you hate Parker because he is black.

Not crazy about dem negroes either myself,
so Im glad were on the same side.

Posted by rob enderle | June 12, 2007 3:16 AM

About the officiating, let's face it, refs are human, not perfect, and they do make some boneheaded calls. All teams are victimized and also benefit from bad calls in just about every game.

Sure teams may lose (or win) a game once in a while because of poor officiating. The difference between legitimate championship teams and other teams is that the championship caliber teams are good enough to overcome the bad calls and win games/series in spite of these bad calls.

What's really annoying are the fans who bitch about the bad calls that go against them, but don't mind one bit when a bad call benefits their team.

Posted by ed18 | June 12, 2007 3:34 AM

Marco Belinelli is going to be great in the NBA. I'm from Italy, i've seen him play hundreds of time, and I'm sure he could be a ray allen kind of scorer from the arc. Sefolosha is playing great in Chicago? belinelli destroyed him in front of my own eyes, and i hope you've seen him against YOUR national team in Japan! GO BELI!

Posted by Marco_Leo | June 12, 2007 9:14 AM

David Stern wants the Spurs to win???

Is Rossie on this blog? I think I just saw some black helicopters.

Posted by Leo_2000 | June 12, 2007 4:17 PM

Hey, why can't the Suns beat the Spurs or the Mavs (Avery was a Spur)? Its must be that damn GWB again (Texas).

Posted by Leo_2000 | June 12, 2007 4:24 PM

First of all, I am not a Suns fan. I respect Nash for his hard work though. The Suns got royally screwed in their series with the Spurs, and there really is no debating against that. If Stern wanted it to be fair he had the chance to make it so, even within the rules and he chose not to. Stern and Pop are friends, they have been for years. With the Spurs winning then people think there is a dynasty. Look how well the Pats dynasty worked out for the NFL? It has made the league a huge amount of money in advertising because more people want to see if they can be beat every year. Stern likes the way that the Spurs play, just as he likes the way the Pistons play. He thinks that is the way all the teams in the league should play and therefore he does little things to help that along. Just like he did little things to help Shaq get a ring (the good guy) before Kobe could (the bad guy); it just looks better for the face of the league. Stern is one of the most brilliant commish's in the history of professional sports, if not the most brilliant. Do not fool yourself to think that fair games are played straight up in anything where ref's come down to making or not making a call to end the game. Just last night we saw this in Game 3. Do I think the Cavs could beat the Spurs fairly in a 7-game series? No. However, how does LeBron not get that call on his home floor in the NBA finals when it is so obvious that Bowen actually was TRYING to foul him? Not to mention the foul with about 8 minutes left on Duncan that somehow got called on Barry who whiffed when he went for the ball. That would have changed the game as well.

There is so much evidence that Stern does things to try to help games end up a certain way, and if you think anything else you are naive and probably think the NBA is better off now then it was 20 years ago. This league is dying and Stern is smart but he has gone too far. He is killing the league. No one wants to watch the type of basketball he wants to promote. People like watching teams like the Suns, not teams like the Spurs. The Spurs win and they still whine. The Suns and Cavs get screwed and say there is no excuse, now THAT is actual class. Spurs the best team ever? Not even close. MJ's bulls, Larry's celtics, Magic's Lakers, Akeem's Rockets, and many other actual dynasties are so far beyond what the Spurs are and have become it is not even funny. Of course, that was back when the league used to actually play basketball.

Posted by j.d. | June 13, 2007 12:01 PM

You may not be a Suns fan but your anti-Spurs and anti-Stern bias is obvious.

How do you know how Stern feels or thinks? Did he or someone close to Stern tell you that? Do you have any kind of insider information? The answer in NO! Your opinions don't count as facts. And your conspiracy theories are laughable!

Posted by ed18 | June 13, 2007 12:39 PM

wait a second...so
A. Stern is one of the most brilliant commish's in the history of professional sports, if not the most brilliant.
B. Stern wants the Spurs to win so he cheats to make it so.
C. He is killing the league. No one wants to watch the type of basketball he wants to promote. People like watching teams like the Suns, not teams like the Spurs.

I am no logician, but it seems to me that not all of the above can be true. If he's really that brilliant, he'd realize everyone wants to watch the Suns win, even more than they want to watch a Spurs dynasty (thus making the Patriots example irrelevant). i mean, its not that hard, everyone knows the suns style is more popular.

Posted by jamie | June 13, 2007 12:45 PM

Exactly. The guy's arguements don't really make much sense. He thinks it does, but only in his mind. Has all these opionions with no facts to back them up. Comments like those just dumb down the discussion.

Talks about the Spurs whining but all he does is bitch and whine. Add something good and constructive for a change. And stop whining.

Posted by ed18 | June 13, 2007 2:14 PM

And once again, you only notice the bad calls that go in the favor of the Spurs. Sure, it could have changed the game if that foul on Bowen was called. However, even Van Gundy pointed out the obvious discrepancy where Ginobili was called for a charge and Lebron got free throws for identical plays. If those had been called fairly, it may not have come down to a buzzer beater. Of course refs make bad calls, but you are naive to think that they are one-sided, and possibly a paranoid schizophrenic to think that David Stern arranges for the Spurs to win.

The NBA is a business, and Stern knows as well as anyone that more profit would come from a team like the Suns or Mavs playing in the Finals. Furthermore, I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning that the commissioner would risk his integrity and career to fix a league because "he likes the Spurs."

Or maybe it is fixed. Maybe, like you say, "Stern does things to help the game end up a certain way"...such as? Maybe Stern gave Nash that bloody nose to miss the last minute (or seven minutes according to you) of game one, because of course Phoenix would have won that game if he was in for one more minute (sarcasm). Maybe he used his puppet strings to pull Amare and Diaw 20 feet from the bench during an altercation. And maybe he magically wills the ball into the hoop when the Spurs shoot.

Posted by prodigy | June 13, 2007 5:39 PM

It's amazing to think that a guy has the power to manipulate the results of an entire pro sports league, but instead of using his power to make lots of money, or to promote the big-city teams that attract lots of fans, he instead fixes games solely to reward his preferred style of basketball, a style which everyone else hates. Where do people come up with these theories?

Posted by Steve | June 13, 2007 5:45 PM

Hate to harp on my earlier point about there not being too many exciting teams in the league, but people like j.d. (who, by they way, has so much insider NBA knowledge I'm surprised he hasn't written a tell-all book yet and blown the cover off the entire league) only seem to be clamoring for the Suns to have made it to the finals. You say "people like watching teams like the Suns, not teams like the Spurs". How many other teams are like the Suns? NONE. So your team lost and the only other team good enough to make it to the finals won. I'm sorry you didn't get your wish, but seriously, get over it already.

As for your comparison to the Pats dynasty and how it helped the NFL, last time I checked, the San Antonio TV market was a wee bit smaller than the Boston TV market. And for some reason I can't see Tim Duncan trying out his acting skills on Saturday Night Live anytime soon. So I don't think your argument about trying to recreate that dynasty with the Spurs holds much water.

As for your claim that the Spurs win and still whine, I would beg to differ there as well. Sure, some of them whine during the game when they disagree with calls, but so does the majority of the league. I know, you hate Duncan's bulging eyes. But you can't tell me that that's worse than D'Antoni throwing a tantrum on the sidelines like a 5 year-old who got just got his favorite toy taken away from him. Fact is, after the Spurs lost to the Mavs in the playoffs last year, in a series where there were clearly some questionable calls in favor of the Mavs, you didn't hear any excuses coming out of the Spurs locker room. They knew they had their opportunities to win regardless of the way they games were called, and that's all they could have asked for. Yes, the Cavs are acting with class (kind of hard not to when you're getting your asses handed to you repeatedly), but it's not surprising considering they've tried to mold themselves after the Spurs. As for the Suns, I wouldn't agree that they haven't been making excuses. As diplomatic as they tried to be about it, anyone could read between the lines that they felt they didn't lose the series on their own.

In regards to the rest of your rant, I'm afraid making such outrageous claims hurts whatever credibility you may have had left. Pretty soon you'll be telling everyone you invented the question mark and calling chestnuts lazy.

Posted by Keith | June 13, 2007 9:13 PM

Back to the original subject of whether the Spurs are a dynasty of not, here's an excerpt from an AP article which just came out Wednesday 6/13:

Fisher was a key member on those Lakers teams led by Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal, and although it's tough for him to admit it, Fisher feels what the Spurs have accomplished has eclipsed what he and his teammates did.

"I hate to say it," Fisher began, "but they're probably surpassing us, to be honest. We had that great four-to-five-year period, but you have to kind of look at the Bulls and the Celtics and the Lakers teams of the 80s that dominated an entire period.

"I can honestly say they're surpassing us in terms of recent dynasties and teams that have been able to sustain that level of excellence over a long period of time."

In typical Spurs' low-key fashion, they're downplaying all the
dynasty talk.

Posted by ed18 | June 13, 2007 9:24 PM

Haha, anyone else notice that he included the Rockets as one of the "actual dynasties"? Since when did back to back championships constitute a dynasty?

Jd reminds me of those espn commercials where a guy is talking sports, but the voice is coming from his ass.

Posted by scottymo | June 14, 2007 1:48 AM

Good point, on both counts. I was thinking of the same ESPN commercial after all those delusional comments.

Getting back to the dynasty talk and using the NFL as an example, the 49ers are considered as one of the greatest dynasties in that league, yet they won back-to-back Super Bowls only once ('89-'90). A two-year run would hardly be considered a "dynasty" as scottymo has mentioned.

The Niners were considered a dynasty because they won five Super Bowls over a fifteen-year period. It isn't so much about a simple back-to-back but having success and winning titles over an extended period of time.

Posted by ed18 | June 14, 2007 11:23 AM

You guys are the only NBA fans left, you know the type of people that are too dumb and set in their ways to accept what is right in front of your faces. That's fine, continue to give the NBA your money, its the same as watching pro wrestling in the late '90s except not as entertaining. Do you guys ever wonder why college ball is now more popular than the NBA?

First of all, The Rockets would have won 3-5 in a row if MJ did not come back. Those guys would have stayed around for more and Akeem would not have been by himself. Since when does the inability to win back to back championships make you a dynasty, oh wait it doesn't. It just proves that a good team that is competitive can get lucky breaks every few years and beat out the better teams that they never had to play in the postseason. Bravo. That is something worth counting on. And secondly, who cares what Derek Fischer has to say? If Kobe or Shaq were talking about it then that would be a story. Fischer is in the twilight of his career just looking for self publicity.

Look, I do not care if you guys have the same opinions as me or not. I am just putting the information out there, and you can either sink your money into a crapshoot or look into it for yourself.

Bill Simmons wrote an article last year about how Stern puts certain refs in at certain games because he knows what calls they will make in those situations, just like the ref they put in in the Finals last year that helped DWade get to the line an obscene amount of times when people were whiffing at him. If you think Stern was ever going to allow Cuban to accept the Championship trophy then you really should not even be watching basketball period. It is a fact that the front office does little things to try to help the outcomes along, just like the Ewing Theory from the '85 draft. If you watch the video it is pretty obvious that it was fixed. Ewing going to the Knicks saved the cash for the league, because New York became interesting to watch again. Now there are so many teams that it is not necessary for one team to always sell out, except maybe the Lakers. It would be so easy to fix today's draft as well. The way it is done no one knows what really goes on behind the closed doors in the lottery. It is just one accountant that knows. Like he could not be in on it or be paid off? Please. Stern is a brilliant businessman, but he is an idiot when it comes to basketball. San Antonio is a small market, but fans of other teams watch to see if they will be knocked off. More people tune into a two small market teams finals then would have if the Spurs were not seen as a dirty team or a "bad guy". I respect Pop. He is not a great coach, but he is a tremendous motivator and is very smart with the media. Duncan is a great player.In the Hall of Fame no doubt, but not the best PF ever. He is good, but anyone who plays rough in the paint can easily rattle him. Parker is an ok point guard. He is not the best in the league, but he is good enough for a championship team. Manu is an average player with a great shot. Bruce Bowen I would not give you two dollars for. He is the cheapest player in the game, and it is the only reason that he has a job in the NBA.

Now about the Saturday Night Live skits, last time I checked Manning played for the Colts not the Patriots. Any dynasty is good for business in any sport, and if you can not see why then you really do not understand the pro sport and the business of it.

Do you guys not remember when Duncan got ejected for laughing at the ref earlier this season? Do you not think that Stern was embarrassed and mad about this? Of course he was. He knew he owed one to the Spurs. That came to reality in the Suns series. As said before, if he really wanted that series to remain fair he had the opportunity to, but he didn't suspend Duncan because he had already served an unjust ejection earlier in the season. Is that fact? Pretty close to being fact, but that is an opinion. The evidence is there, but Stern would never say that.

I loved the way the NBA was in the '80s and earlier '90s, but now Stern has focused so much on the business that he has forgotten the fans want it to be about basketball. Take these words for what they are worth. Everyone has their own opinions but I have shown you facts that lead to these theories. Do not mock others comments though because that just shows a lack of intelligence and ability to respect other people.

Posted by j.d. | June 14, 2007 11:41 AM

Sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't matter what a team WOULD have done in light of other circumstances, it matters what they DID do...and by your reasoning, it could just as easily be argued that the Rockets wouldn't have won any championships had Jordan never left in the first place.

Posted by scottymo | June 14, 2007 2:07 PM

JD - Tom Brady hosted Saturday Night Live long before Payton Manning. Look it up, jackass.

If Phil Jackson didn't join the Lakers in 99-00 the Spurs would have won 5 straight titles and been considered the greatest dynasty since the Celtics. Same logic as your Rockets argument. Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

As far as respecting other people's opinions, I think that your comment about Derek Fisher showed a great lack of respect. What, he's not as good as Shaq and Kobe so he's not entitled to an opinion? And accusing him of just trying to get publicity is pretty cheap. Tell me why anyone should respect your disrespectful comments.

I think the only one showing a lack of intelligence here is you. Seriously, with each additional post I question your intelligence more and more. And I don't think I'm alone there. "Everyone has their own opinions but I have shown you the facts that lead to these theories" - that is quite possibly the dumbest thing you have written so far. Keep the posts coming, though. If nothing else they provide some entertainment during the day.

Posted by Keith | June 14, 2007 4:36 PM

Do you have ANY idea how ridiculous and you sound?

Again you twist your opinion into fact saying the Rockets have won 3-5 without Jordan in the way. You know that for a fact? By the same reasoning the Lakers have won 18 championships if it weren't for the Celtics, the Niners have won 7 Super Bowls without Dallas in their way. Fact is, those things never happened. Fact is, you'd write something worthwhile if you weren't clueless.

Who cares what Derek Fisher has to say? Last time I checked, he was an integral part of the Lakers team which won three rings, and still a highly respected NBA veteran. He wasn't promoting himself - he was giving the Spurs credit for their accomplishments. Who cares what YOU have to say? I don't think anyone posting on this thread is an NBA expert, except you that is.

If Stern were such a "brilliant businessman" as you say and had all the manipulative powers you claim, he'd fix events so that the large-market east coast teams such as the Celtics and the Knicks would have the top picks in the coming draft, and Oden and Durant wouldn't be heading to the West Coast. He'd also fix games so only big-market teams would play in the Finals every year. Those things would maximize NBA revenues which is what a "brilliant businessman" would want.

If you're so deluded into believing your NBA manipulation theories have one iota of truth, take your issues to ESPN and Sports Illustrated. Sports fixing is a crime and at the level you're claiming, would blow the steroid scandal right out of the water! The media would pounce on a juicy story like that. SERIOUSLY, DO IT! You'd be laughed out of their buildings! Take it up with Congress. They'd take issue with it as they did with steroids if it were true. Do you honestly think you'd be taken seriously?

As ESPN noted, Duncan wasn't suspended for getting off the bench during that one game because players only get suspended for leaving the bench if there's an altercation. No altercation happened so there was no supension. Again you know so much about the inner workings of Stern' mind that you've figured out why Duncan wasn't suspended.

I'm reminded of the ESPN commercial where the security guard wouldn't let the creepy sports fan past the gate...

Posted by ed18 | June 14, 2007 5:25 PM

I like the spirited comments but again, please refrain from being so mean about it guys. It really shows a lack of respect for other people, and a general lack of intelligence as I said before. I also said that my thoughts were my opinions.

The Spurs could have won 5 in a row, but it likely wouldn't have happened regardless if Phil Jackson joined the lakers or not because Shaq was unstoppable those years that they won 3 in a row.

About Duncan... the fact that he did not get ejected because there was no altercation was how STERN Interpreted the situation. It was up to him and his discretion completely. Why would Duncan have gotten up unless he thought there was an altercation? If you have a reason for that then I'll shut up, but the fact is he could have easily been suspended for that if Stern felt like the situation merited it.

About the draft this year... Stern was again a brilliant businessman if he did fix it. The Celtics and Knicks will always have fans. They did not need these picks. The Pacific Northwest was losing fans quick. Seattle could be moving and Portland needs to be turned around. By these teams getting the top two picks this year it really helps save the NBA in this market. I said it before the lottery that if the draft was fixed it would go to Portland and Seattle because they are the ones that needed it the most in terms of fan base. The NBA would have been gone from the northwest in ten years without these two players. Seattle could still leave, it all depends on how well Durant/Allen do as a tandem.

Do I have a lack of respect for Derek Fischer? I do not think so. I think that he was a decent player, but the fact is the Lakers would have still won 3 in a row without him. He is a nice guy at times, and a hothead at times, but he is a veteran who has an opinion. My point is that there is no point in listening to him about that comment because he wasn't one of the two players that the team needed to win those championships. If one of them say the Spurs are better then you have something.

The Spurs will win Game 4 or 5 or 6 and will have won what 3 championships in 6 years? That is not bad. However, it is not enough to say they are a dynasty. If they win it next year then yes they are the great dynasty of this era, but the Lakers winning 3 in a row is more of dynasty. The first championship does not count in my mind because it was a shortened season and it was a different team other than Duncan. Really the second should not count about whether they are a dynasty or not either because they had Robinson and would not have won it without him. The previous dynasties all had the same top players each year, these Spurs teams have different main players other than Duncan.

I did not know Brady hosted Saturday Night Live, thank you for pointing that out. I stand corrected. On a side note, I'm sure Manning was much more enjoyable to watch.

You guys have good opinions but they are no more convincing or factual than my own. This is some good content and discussion though.

Posted by j.d. | June 14, 2007 5:58 PM

And as for the going to ESPN and such, Bill Simmons has already made suggestions that this goes on, and he wasn't laughed at. However, no one really cared, because it is still entertaining. The NBA is a business when it comes down to it and if they are not betting on it then fixing it really is not a crime.

Posted by j.d. | June 14, 2007 6:00 PM

J.D. - How is this good content and discussion? Basically you make outrageous claims and then the rest of us point out how idiotic your statements are. You try to take actual facts and twist them to support your wild conspiracy theories. About the draft - do you seriously think it was a good business decision to have Oden and Durant go to the Pacific Northwest? Sure, those cities' fan bases get rejuvenated and those franchises are better off because of it. But the league as a whole? Since when does the success of small market teams like Seattle and Portland have a big impact on the league's bottom line? (see: San Antonio)

I'm sure this is what David Stern was thinking when he fixed the lottery: "Hey, the Western Conference is so much more dominant than the East right now that people are completely disinterested in the finals and calling for a shake-up of the playoff seedings. We have two potential franchise cornerstones coming into the league this year that could change the fortunes of two teams for the next 10 years. Sure, I could rig the lottery and send them to huge media markets in the East while also raising the talent level in that conference to be more in line with the West. Nah, who am I kidding? All the talent's already in the West so why not just keep it that way? That's it - Oden and Durant are going West."

Yes, you are entitled to your opinions. I'm sure you think Bush is doing a fantastic job as well. It would certainly be in line with the rest of your thinking. But there are such things as dumb opinions. Most people just tend to keep those to themselves.

Posted by Keith | June 14, 2007 8:25 PM

Congrats to the San Antonio Spurs and my fellow Spurs fans. The dynasty issue seems up for debate until San Antonio repeats. Let's appreciate what our team has accomplshed both this year and over the last decade.

Dynasty or not, other teams would love to be in San Antonio's position right now. Four titles in nine years or three out of the last five - any way you cut it - is a great thing to have.

Posted by ed18 | June 15, 2007 11:23 AM

Dynasty or not, other teams would love to be in San Antonio's position right now. Four titles in nine years or three out of the last five - any way you cut it - is a great thing to have.

Now this statement is finally a mature statement from a Spurs fan that I agree with. I still say the Suns would have won in 7 if Horry would not have gotten cheap and Amare gotten stupid for a brief second, but congrats to the Spurs nonetheless. They were without doubt one of the top two teams in the league this year, because the Mavs imploded. The Spurs really did dominate the last two series and that is impressive against any NBA team with talent.

As for Keith's comments... you obviously do not understand the profit sharing that the NBA has.

Posted by j.d. | June 15, 2007 4:19 PM

J.D. - Could you please explain how the NBA's profit sharing plan works and how Oden and Durant going to Portland and Seattle is beneficial from the perspective of this plan? Thanks

Posted by Keith | June 15, 2007 11:24 PM

Look, I'm not going to paint a picture for you. Do some research. But I will tell you that the more money the small market teams make in today's professional sports the more money the big market teams get to keep of the money they are bringing in. So if teams like Portland, San Antonio, Cleveland, Seattle are all making a good amount of money then the bigger teams like the Lakers do not have to share their own profits as much to compensate other teams in a joint profit sharing league.

Posted by j.d. | June 16, 2007 10:08 AM

I'm sure the Knicks would rather have Oden on their team and all the marketing opportunities that come with it, instead of having him go to Portland just so they can keep more of their profits. If they had Oden their overall profits would increase, even they had to share a larger portion with small market teams. It's all about creating a bigger pie, not splitting the pie up more evenly. The total revenue for the league goes up a lot more with Oden and Durant in bigger markets. Simple math.

Posted by Keith | June 16, 2007 4:53 PM

ticket sales are all that matter.

Posted by j.d. | June 17, 2007 4:00 PM

ticket sales are all that matter. You still do not understand. Research it. And Stern does not care if the Knicks would prefer something.

Posted by j.d. | June 17, 2007 4:01 PM

National TV revenue is shared between the teams. Look it up.

And I didn't say Stern cares if they Knicks prefer something. You argued that if the smaller market teams made more money then the bigger market teams like the Lakers wouldn't have to share their own profits as much. If total revenue was fixed, then yes, this would make sense. But having Oden and Durant go to big market teams increases total revenue a lot more than if they went to small market teams. So big market teams give up more, but they're giving up more from a much larger pie. What part of that can't you understand?

As for what Stern cares about from a league perspective, I'm sure a competitive finals and generating more interest overall in the league is at the top of his list. Both of which are more easily accomplished with Oden and Durant going to larger markets (especially in the East).

Please stop pulling all these arguments out of your ass and come back with something constructive and well thought out.

Posted by Keith | June 18, 2007 7:43 PM

Dynasty Time

Comments (125)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories