Gregg Doyel seemed to be. I just don’t get the angle he takes in this column.
SAN ANTONIO -- The wrong team played like there was no tomorrow. The wrong team panicked. The wrong team choked.
Well, since the Spurs were going to be eliminated from the playoffs if they lost, I’d say that they needed to play like there was no tomorrow – because there was no tomorrow.
The New Orleans Hornets blew Game 6 on Thursday night -- losing 99-80 -- and part of me wonders if they blew Game 7 while they were at it.
Nope – Game 7 is at home on Monday. They may lose that game, because the Spurs are a good basketball team, but not because they lost game 6.
If anyone was going to wilt Thursday at the AT&T Center, it should have been San Antonio.
Because they are the defending NBA champions playing at home in a conference semi-finals game against a team in the playoffs in the first time. Yeah, who expected the Spurs to not wilt in that situation!
Granted, home teams haven't done a lot of wilting this NBA postseason -- entering this game, home teams were 19-1 in the conference semifinals -- but San Antonio was facing a game unlike any of those first 20: The Spurs walked onto their home floor facing elimination. And they did so as the defending NBA champions.
Sooo…they were more likely to wilt, because of the pressure? The Popovich/Duncan era Spurs have four fucking rings.
Add that up, and throw in the fact that San Antonio's last elimination game had occurred in the 2006 postseason -- and the Spurs lost that game, to Dallas, in the conference semifinals -- and this had all the makings of a potential San Antonio panic attack.
Oh, well, I hadn’t realized it was there first elimination game (are those the only big games) in two years and they lost the last one. Who didn’t see them losing 2 in a row in that scenario (separated by a mere 2 years)?
But the Spurs were just fine.
Shocking.
The rest of the column is a typical game summary.
Showing posts with label Spurs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spurs. Show all posts
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Bill Simmons Has Good Memory, Part III
Bill Simmons’ latest column is a prediction of who will win the NBA title this year. Here are some excerpts:
If you aren't picking the Spurs to take the 2008 NBA title, your reasoning is simple: They won last year.
You don't care that the Spurs have the best player, best coach and most experience. You don't care that they play so beautifully together, that they didn't lose anyone who matters from last season's team, that they went basically unchallenged last spring except for a brief moment in their series with the Suns. You don't care that no other potential contenders improved except Houston, Boston and maybe Chicago. The Spurs won last season, which means they can't win this season. That's the logic.
Who’s Logic? Since (and including) the 1987-88 Lakers, there have been 6 repeat champions (3 of them were three-peats). I could see that logic in baseball, maybe, but no one carries that thinking into the NBA. I haven't heard of anyone not picking the Spurs because they won last year.
So the Spurs are the only logical pick ... unless you're banking on history, the third -- and best -- approach to choosing an NBA champ. For years now, it has been nearly impossible to repeat without a player like MJ or Magic leading the way.
History suggests that it’s unlikely for the Spurs to repeat? What??? Sure you need Jordan or Magic…..or Isiah Thomas (1989-1990) or Hakeem Olajuwon (1994-1995) or Shaquille O’Neal (2000-2002). Are you saying that Tim Duncan isn’t in that class? I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but you’re not making sense. Are you saying that the rest of us don’t think he is, and that's why we're not picking them to repeat? I mean, they clearly are not a one and done champion, historically, because they've won a bunch of championships lately.
Even in a diluted league, the Spurs have won only in alternate years -- 2003, 2005 and 2007, although they came damned close in 2004, the year of Derek Fisher's miracle shot, and 2006, the year of Dirk's three-point play. You need to stay healthy and hungry, need a little luck, need your dominant player to be just that, need to avoid the pitfalls that come with success.
So it sounds like you’re saying they were sort of unlucky not to repeat. Why are you saying that “the logic” of so many is that they can’t repeat? This all makes zero sense.
In his book "Showtime," Pat Riley unveiled "the disease of more" and argued that "success is often the first step toward disaster." According to Riley, after the 1980 Lakers won, everyone shifted into a more selfish mode. They had sublimated their respective games to win as a group; now they wanted to reap the rewards as individuals, even if those rewards meant having to spend way too much time at Jack Nicholson's house. Everyone wanted more money, playing time and recognition. Eventually they lost perspective and stopped doing the little things that make teams win and keep winning, eventually imploding in the first round of the postseason. So much for defending the title.
And here is where his memory fails. After the 80’s Lakers last championship, a repeat in 1988, these were their playoff exits:
1989 – Lost in Finals
1990 (Kareem now retired) – Lost in Conference Semi-Finals
1991 (Mike Dunleavy now coach) – Lost in Finals
1992 (Magic Johnson now retired) – Lost in first round
So yes, Riley’s Lakers really showed their loss of perspective and lack of doing the little things by losing in the first round…..after Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had retired and while Pat Riley wasn’t coaching the team anymore. The Lakers top 3 scorers in 1991-92 were James Worthy, Sam Perkins, and Sedale Threatt. Of course we all know it was always more more more with Sedale Threatt.
Update: I read this wrong, see comments.
Which makes me wonder how TD and the Spurs get psyched for another 100-game grind. How do they keep tapping into that hunger when it's already been sated? The Bulls never let up because MJ wouldn't let them. Boston never let up because Russell wouldn't let them. What's driving the Spurs? Duncan and Popovich love winning, but they aren't puking before big games like Russell did, and they certainly aren't suffering from Jordan's severe competitive disorder (we learned this for sure in 2004 and 2006).
True, they don’t have Michael Jordan or Bill Russell. But I don’t know, maybe they do it the same way that Magic’s Lakers, Isiah’s Pistons, Hakeem’s Rockets and Shaq’s Lakers did it?
I realize Simmons didn’t forget about all these repeat championships, but he’s acting like his readers must have. He tells us why we’re not picking the Spurs because we think they can’t repeat, and that this particular line of thinking is wrong. Then he's telling us why it will be so hard for them to repeat. Ignoring the fact that repeat champions in the NBA has been fairly common for the last 20 years.
If you aren't picking the Spurs to take the 2008 NBA title, your reasoning is simple: They won last year.
You don't care that the Spurs have the best player, best coach and most experience. You don't care that they play so beautifully together, that they didn't lose anyone who matters from last season's team, that they went basically unchallenged last spring except for a brief moment in their series with the Suns. You don't care that no other potential contenders improved except Houston, Boston and maybe Chicago. The Spurs won last season, which means they can't win this season. That's the logic.
Who’s Logic? Since (and including) the 1987-88 Lakers, there have been 6 repeat champions (3 of them were three-peats). I could see that logic in baseball, maybe, but no one carries that thinking into the NBA. I haven't heard of anyone not picking the Spurs because they won last year.
So the Spurs are the only logical pick ... unless you're banking on history, the third -- and best -- approach to choosing an NBA champ. For years now, it has been nearly impossible to repeat without a player like MJ or Magic leading the way.
History suggests that it’s unlikely for the Spurs to repeat? What??? Sure you need Jordan or Magic…..or Isiah Thomas (1989-1990) or Hakeem Olajuwon (1994-1995) or Shaquille O’Neal (2000-2002). Are you saying that Tim Duncan isn’t in that class? I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but you’re not making sense. Are you saying that the rest of us don’t think he is, and that's why we're not picking them to repeat? I mean, they clearly are not a one and done champion, historically, because they've won a bunch of championships lately.
Even in a diluted league, the Spurs have won only in alternate years -- 2003, 2005 and 2007, although they came damned close in 2004, the year of Derek Fisher's miracle shot, and 2006, the year of Dirk's three-point play. You need to stay healthy and hungry, need a little luck, need your dominant player to be just that, need to avoid the pitfalls that come with success.
So it sounds like you’re saying they were sort of unlucky not to repeat. Why are you saying that “the logic” of so many is that they can’t repeat? This all makes zero sense.
In his book "Showtime," Pat Riley unveiled "the disease of more" and argued that "success is often the first step toward disaster." According to Riley, after the 1980 Lakers won, everyone shifted into a more selfish mode. They had sublimated their respective games to win as a group; now they wanted to reap the rewards as individuals, even if those rewards meant having to spend way too much time at Jack Nicholson's house. Everyone wanted more money, playing time and recognition. Eventually they lost perspective and stopped doing the little things that make teams win and keep winning, eventually imploding in the first round of the postseason. So much for defending the title.
And here is where his memory fails. After the 80’s Lakers last championship, a repeat in 1988, these were their playoff exits:
1989 – Lost in Finals
1990 (Kareem now retired) – Lost in Conference Semi-Finals
1991 (Mike Dunleavy now coach) – Lost in Finals
1992 (Magic Johnson now retired) – Lost in first round
So yes, Riley’s Lakers really showed their loss of perspective and lack of doing the little things by losing in the first round…..after Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had retired and while Pat Riley wasn’t coaching the team anymore. The Lakers top 3 scorers in 1991-92 were James Worthy, Sam Perkins, and Sedale Threatt. Of course we all know it was always more more more with Sedale Threatt.
Update: I read this wrong, see comments.
Which makes me wonder how TD and the Spurs get psyched for another 100-game grind. How do they keep tapping into that hunger when it's already been sated? The Bulls never let up because MJ wouldn't let them. Boston never let up because Russell wouldn't let them. What's driving the Spurs? Duncan and Popovich love winning, but they aren't puking before big games like Russell did, and they certainly aren't suffering from Jordan's severe competitive disorder (we learned this for sure in 2004 and 2006).
True, they don’t have Michael Jordan or Bill Russell. But I don’t know, maybe they do it the same way that Magic’s Lakers, Isiah’s Pistons, Hakeem’s Rockets and Shaq’s Lakers did it?
I realize Simmons didn’t forget about all these repeat championships, but he’s acting like his readers must have. He tells us why we’re not picking the Spurs because we think they can’t repeat, and that this particular line of thinking is wrong. Then he's telling us why it will be so hard for them to repeat. Ignoring the fact that repeat champions in the NBA has been fairly common for the last 20 years.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Nobody At SI Reads Jack McCallum
If you remember last week, Jack McCallum of Sports Illustrated said that the Spurs were not a dynasty (column titled "Hold Off on the "D" Word"). He had some reasons for this that were not very good, and he had a definition for dynasty that I thought the 1980's Lakers met, and he disagreed. You can read our friendly banter here.
So I was surprised when I received my SI yesterday to find the cover looking like this:
The article doesn't mention the D-word that I could see.....so I can only conclude one of the following:
So I was surprised when I received my SI yesterday to find the cover looking like this:
The article doesn't mention the D-word that I could see.....so I can only conclude one of the following:
- Whoever writes the cover does not read Jack's online work, otherwise they'd realize it looks silly to contradict your senior writer, who also wrote the cover story.
- Whoever writes the cover does not like Jack McCallum
- Jack wrote it and he's senile
Monday, June 18, 2007
Imagine Jemele Hill Having a Good Point
Jemele Hill of ESPN Page 2 has jumped on the Spurs get no respect bandwagon that really took off in about 2003. She wants to take you for a ride on that bandwagon, to a place full of imagination and Michael Jackson jackets and Fo Fo Fo’s and Atari’s. In other words, a place that exists solely in her brain, so be prepared to be confused. If you like a lot of imagination in your hoops analysis, go here.
CLEVELAND -- Put the Spurs in Doc's DeLorean. Turn the dial to the 1980s, or early-to-mid 1990s. Just put them in a time when basketball fans weren't huge hypocrites.
I can’t wait to find out how basketball fans, like myself, are hypocrites. She’ll probably have a really good basketball explanation for this.
You know how they say some people are before their time? Well, the Spurs are behind their time. In today's Paris Hilton-obsessin', 360-degree-dunkin'-lovin,' sexy-soundbite-wantin', entertain-me-me-me culture, the Spurs are an Atari in a land full of Wiis.
I get the old/new analogy but it's still kind of weird, since Atari sucks and the Wii is awesome. I think Memphis is an Atari in a land of a variety of game playing consoles, personally. Aren't you trying to say that the Spurs are something great from the past that has withstood the test of time? Anyway, move on.
These millennium Spurs, now winners of four titles in nine years, were born at the wrong time. That's why they are, by far, the most underappreciated, disrespected champion in NBA history.
This is based on what, exactly? She will sort of attempt to tell us, but be prepared to use your imagination. Like crazy.
But imagine them in the '80s with Bird, Kareem, Magic and Zeke. Imagine their execution facing the Pistons' toughness. Imagine Duncan against McHale. Imagine Rodman and Bowen competing for most irritating. Bet we wouldn't call the Spurs unwatchable then.
Imagine Bird vs. Elgin Baylor
Imagine Oscar vs. Magic
Imagine Wilt vs. Shaq
Imagine this had a point.
"I'm going to go on record and say, yeah, we would beat them," said Robert Horry, when asked if these Spurs could beat some of the great Boston teams in the '80s.
Well there’s your unbiased, easy to support opinion. On the record.
Imagine the Spurs in the early-to-mid '90s playing Jordan. Imagine Duncan versus Malone. Imagine Duncan versus Barkley. Imagine Popovich versus Sloan. Imagine the Spurs' big three rolling to Chicago trying to take the crown from Mike. Bet the television ratings wouldn't be so bad then.
The ratings would be great, because people enjoyed watching Michael Jordan.
Did Tim Duncan never match up against Karl Malone or Charles Barkley? Can someone at ESPN pull some video so Jemele’s imagination can take a break? Same with Popovich vs. Sloan. Is that interesting? Haven't they coached against eachother like 9 thousand times? Why do I need to imagine it, should it be giving me a warm feeling?
Also, imagine the ’72 Lakers against the ’01 Lakers. Imagine the ’86 Celtics against the ’96 Bulls. Is this exciting?
Imagine the Spurs against the '82-83 Sixers. Imagine Moses Malone's "fo', fo', fo'" prediction contrasting with Tony Parker's French accent. Bet we wouldn't call the Spurs boring then. We would have just waved our "Beat It" jackets in the air and cheered for the Spurs.
I don’t understand how the first two sentences would result in some Spurs-hater not thinking the Spurs are boring.
“Well I think the Spurs are a giant, boring pile of shit…..wait a minute.….FO’ FO’ FO’!……French accent!….looks like I’m not going anywhere for a while!”….leans back, folds arms behind head…orders a pizza.
"Back then, it was more blue-collar," Horry said. "We're a blue-collar team and guys work hard and they appreciated it a little bit more than they do nowadays. They like flash."
Yes, we do. We talk a good game about wanting to see players with fundamentals, about wanting to see solid defense, about wanting to root for players who are anti-thug, about wanting to see execution, about appreciating good coaching, about wanting guys to just play and not mouth off.
Okay, here’s what that big buildup was for. Lay it on us Jemele, tell us how we’re hypocrites!
And then we predictably tune in for more T.O.
So to paraphrase Jemele: You say you want good basketball, but then you choose to watch an NFL wide receiver that has an attitude problem. Also, I would argue that it's the writers who perpetuate the non-stop analysis on extraneous crap like Terrell Owens. Most people I talk to could care less and would opt for more original, unique sports coverage.
Those asshole Suns that so many people rooted for? The jerk-ass Mavs? The Warriors? Pistons? Heat? Who are the "thugs" on these teams?
Ask yourself: When was the last time one of the Spurs was arrested? When was the last time one of the Spurs whined about playing time? More money? Demanded a trade? Think about that the next time you groan because the Spurs were in the Finals.
After you ask yourself that question, replace the name “Spurs” with all of the other contenders this year. See how many you eliminate. Not many. Robert Horry once threw a towel in his coach’s face when he was with Phoenix. Just sayin’.
We treat the Spurs like they're a punishment.
She’s right. Last night I was sent to my room and ordered to watch highlights of the Spurs and “think about what I’d done.” (I had fed the cat lighter fluid).
It's not the Spurs' fault they still do things the '80s way.
What is the 80’s way? They scored 95 PPG in the regular season. That’s very un-80’s. Oh but they are blue collar, very un-90’s, when no one worked hard for 10 years.
It's not the Spurs' fault that most teams in the NBA aren't committed to defense.
I don’t understand what your point is! The NBA would be more exciting with more defense? Or more exciting teams would be able to beat the Spurs? I'm lost in your imagination land.
It's not the Spurs' fault all the worst general managers are in the league's biggest markets (Isiah Thomas, Mitch Kupchak, Danny Ainge).
I agree, not the Spurs fault and those GM’s suck. SO WHAT? No one outside of those markets wants those teams to be good anyway.
It's not the Spurs' fault the Eastern Conference is the professional version of the NCAA's Patriot League.
Is anyone blaming the Spurs for any of the NBA’s problems? Then what is the point of this? To remind us they’re good? They just won their 4th title. We know they’re good.
It's not the Spurs' fault they're the best-run organization in the NBA.
I'm really lost on this one. So it's luck? I think it’s absolutely the Spurs “fault” (I’d say “to their credit”) that they are the best-run organization in the NBA.
It's not the Spurs' fault that Tim Duncan, the most accomplished player in the post-Jordan era, doesn't fit the stereotype of black male athletes and therefore won't garner widespread, national attention until he holds up a 7-Eleven.
True, Michael Jordan was nothing until he held up a Quik-e-Mart with a machete. Remember when Mitch Richmond stabbed that guy in the eye? You don’t remember Mitch Richmond all that well, do you? Because he never stabbed anyone in the eye, that’s why.
Okay okay that wasn’t her point. Tim Duncan is not as popular as Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, etc. with the mainstream, apparel buying fans because he’s not exciting to watch play basketball. He plays awesome basketball, but he simply isn’t as fun to watch. Sorry.
Besides, how much attention do you want Tim Duncan to get. EVERYONE KNOWS HE’S GREAT. Just because he’s quiet, writers think they need to defend his greatness at length. Like everyone out there is saying, “Tim Duncan, that real quiet guy? That guy SUCKS at basketball! Because he’s sooooo lame!” Well, we’re not.
There are not enough great teams, and somehow this became the Spurs' problem instead of the league's problem. The Spurs should remind us how basketball used to be played in the NBA, but we've turned on them and sent the message that outside San Antonio it's ABS -- Anybody But the Spurs.
I guess I would sum up her point like this: All of you basketball fans are hypocrites who don’t see that the Spurs greatness is not their fault and imagine if they played the ’83 Sixers!
We're always quick to lament how much today's athlete has changed, but the truth is our fan values have changed just as much. It was once a no-brainer to embrace a team like the Spurs. Wish we could transport them back to a time when we cared more about what they stand for.
I’ll quickly bullet out some reasons why people generally aren't treating this team (or appreciating them) like the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, etc. that you seem to want them treated like….because they’re old school or something.
To be fair to Jemele, she wasn’t arguing their dynasty-dom, just that (I guess) we would like the Spurs more if it was the 1980’s and they were getting whooped by the Lakers every year.
* update: FireJayMariotti had a good write-up on this, as well.
CLEVELAND -- Put the Spurs in Doc's DeLorean. Turn the dial to the 1980s, or early-to-mid 1990s. Just put them in a time when basketball fans weren't huge hypocrites.
I can’t wait to find out how basketball fans, like myself, are hypocrites. She’ll probably have a really good basketball explanation for this.
You know how they say some people are before their time? Well, the Spurs are behind their time. In today's Paris Hilton-obsessin', 360-degree-dunkin'-lovin,' sexy-soundbite-wantin', entertain-me-me-me culture, the Spurs are an Atari in a land full of Wiis.
I get the old/new analogy but it's still kind of weird, since Atari sucks and the Wii is awesome. I think Memphis is an Atari in a land of a variety of game playing consoles, personally. Aren't you trying to say that the Spurs are something great from the past that has withstood the test of time? Anyway, move on.
These millennium Spurs, now winners of four titles in nine years, were born at the wrong time. That's why they are, by far, the most underappreciated, disrespected champion in NBA history.
This is based on what, exactly? She will sort of attempt to tell us, but be prepared to use your imagination. Like crazy.
But imagine them in the '80s with Bird, Kareem, Magic and Zeke. Imagine their execution facing the Pistons' toughness. Imagine Duncan against McHale. Imagine Rodman and Bowen competing for most irritating. Bet we wouldn't call the Spurs unwatchable then.
Imagine Bird vs. Elgin Baylor
Imagine Oscar vs. Magic
Imagine Wilt vs. Shaq
Imagine this had a point.
"I'm going to go on record and say, yeah, we would beat them," said Robert Horry, when asked if these Spurs could beat some of the great Boston teams in the '80s.
Well there’s your unbiased, easy to support opinion. On the record.
Imagine the Spurs in the early-to-mid '90s playing Jordan. Imagine Duncan versus Malone. Imagine Duncan versus Barkley. Imagine Popovich versus Sloan. Imagine the Spurs' big three rolling to Chicago trying to take the crown from Mike. Bet the television ratings wouldn't be so bad then.
The ratings would be great, because people enjoyed watching Michael Jordan.
Did Tim Duncan never match up against Karl Malone or Charles Barkley? Can someone at ESPN pull some video so Jemele’s imagination can take a break? Same with Popovich vs. Sloan. Is that interesting? Haven't they coached against eachother like 9 thousand times? Why do I need to imagine it, should it be giving me a warm feeling?
Also, imagine the ’72 Lakers against the ’01 Lakers. Imagine the ’86 Celtics against the ’96 Bulls. Is this exciting?
Imagine the Spurs against the '82-83 Sixers. Imagine Moses Malone's "fo', fo', fo'" prediction contrasting with Tony Parker's French accent. Bet we wouldn't call the Spurs boring then. We would have just waved our "Beat It" jackets in the air and cheered for the Spurs.
I don’t understand how the first two sentences would result in some Spurs-hater not thinking the Spurs are boring.
“Well I think the Spurs are a giant, boring pile of shit…..wait a minute.….FO’ FO’ FO’!……French accent!….looks like I’m not going anywhere for a while!”….leans back, folds arms behind head…orders a pizza.
"Back then, it was more blue-collar," Horry said. "We're a blue-collar team and guys work hard and they appreciated it a little bit more than they do nowadays. They like flash."
Yes, we do. We talk a good game about wanting to see players with fundamentals, about wanting to see solid defense, about wanting to root for players who are anti-thug, about wanting to see execution, about appreciating good coaching, about wanting guys to just play and not mouth off.
Okay, here’s what that big buildup was for. Lay it on us Jemele, tell us how we’re hypocrites!
And then we predictably tune in for more T.O.
So to paraphrase Jemele: You say you want good basketball, but then you choose to watch an NFL wide receiver that has an attitude problem. Also, I would argue that it's the writers who perpetuate the non-stop analysis on extraneous crap like Terrell Owens. Most people I talk to could care less and would opt for more original, unique sports coverage.
Those asshole Suns that so many people rooted for? The jerk-ass Mavs? The Warriors? Pistons? Heat? Who are the "thugs" on these teams?
Ask yourself: When was the last time one of the Spurs was arrested? When was the last time one of the Spurs whined about playing time? More money? Demanded a trade? Think about that the next time you groan because the Spurs were in the Finals.
After you ask yourself that question, replace the name “Spurs” with all of the other contenders this year. See how many you eliminate. Not many. Robert Horry once threw a towel in his coach’s face when he was with Phoenix. Just sayin’.
We treat the Spurs like they're a punishment.
She’s right. Last night I was sent to my room and ordered to watch highlights of the Spurs and “think about what I’d done.” (I had fed the cat lighter fluid).
It's not the Spurs' fault they still do things the '80s way.
What is the 80’s way? They scored 95 PPG in the regular season. That’s very un-80’s. Oh but they are blue collar, very un-90’s, when no one worked hard for 10 years.
It's not the Spurs' fault that most teams in the NBA aren't committed to defense.
I don’t understand what your point is! The NBA would be more exciting with more defense? Or more exciting teams would be able to beat the Spurs? I'm lost in your imagination land.
It's not the Spurs' fault all the worst general managers are in the league's biggest markets (Isiah Thomas, Mitch Kupchak, Danny Ainge).
I agree, not the Spurs fault and those GM’s suck. SO WHAT? No one outside of those markets wants those teams to be good anyway.
It's not the Spurs' fault the Eastern Conference is the professional version of the NCAA's Patriot League.
Is anyone blaming the Spurs for any of the NBA’s problems? Then what is the point of this? To remind us they’re good? They just won their 4th title. We know they’re good.
It's not the Spurs' fault they're the best-run organization in the NBA.
I'm really lost on this one. So it's luck? I think it’s absolutely the Spurs “fault” (I’d say “to their credit”) that they are the best-run organization in the NBA.
It's not the Spurs' fault that Tim Duncan, the most accomplished player in the post-Jordan era, doesn't fit the stereotype of black male athletes and therefore won't garner widespread, national attention until he holds up a 7-Eleven.
True, Michael Jordan was nothing until he held up a Quik-e-Mart with a machete. Remember when Mitch Richmond stabbed that guy in the eye? You don’t remember Mitch Richmond all that well, do you? Because he never stabbed anyone in the eye, that’s why.
Okay okay that wasn’t her point. Tim Duncan is not as popular as Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, etc. with the mainstream, apparel buying fans because he’s not exciting to watch play basketball. He plays awesome basketball, but he simply isn’t as fun to watch. Sorry.
Besides, how much attention do you want Tim Duncan to get. EVERYONE KNOWS HE’S GREAT. Just because he’s quiet, writers think they need to defend his greatness at length. Like everyone out there is saying, “Tim Duncan, that real quiet guy? That guy SUCKS at basketball! Because he’s sooooo lame!” Well, we’re not.
There are not enough great teams, and somehow this became the Spurs' problem instead of the league's problem. The Spurs should remind us how basketball used to be played in the NBA, but we've turned on them and sent the message that outside San Antonio it's ABS -- Anybody But the Spurs.
I guess I would sum up her point like this: All of you basketball fans are hypocrites who don’t see that the Spurs greatness is not their fault and imagine if they played the ’83 Sixers!
We're always quick to lament how much today's athlete has changed, but the truth is our fan values have changed just as much. It was once a no-brainer to embrace a team like the Spurs. Wish we could transport them back to a time when we cared more about what they stand for.
I’ll quickly bullet out some reasons why people generally aren't treating this team (or appreciating them) like the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, etc. that you seem to want them treated like….because they’re old school or something.
- As great as Duncan is, he doesn’t have an exciting game. That’s his fault. I have watched hundreds of hours of highlights of Jordan, Magic, Bird, Isiah, Shaq, Kobe, etc. over and over again. I would probably not be able to sit through a 1 hour Tim Duncan highlight real. Not a knock on Duncan, but it’s part of the reason why he’s not captivating the country.
- They’ve been unlucky in Finals matchups. ’07 Cleveland, ’03 New Jersey, and the ’99 Knicks are terrible finals teams. They had their chance last year, but lost to the Mavs before they could match up with Miami. That was their fault.
- Many people believe Phoenix got shafted in the playoffs.
- The last time they had a real rival in the West (Lakers), the Spurs were on the losing end consistently. They gave up a 2-0 lead in ’04 by losing 4 in a row, and the ’01 and ’02 series were jokes. That was their fault.
- They haven’t repeated, or even made the finals in consecutive years. It’s hard to get the credit you deserve for being a great team when someone in your conference beats you every other year in the playoffs. That’s their fault.
To be fair to Jemele, she wasn’t arguing their dynasty-dom, just that (I guess) we would like the Spurs more if it was the 1980’s and they were getting whooped by the Lakers every year.
* update: FireJayMariotti had a good write-up on this, as well.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Spurs Not a Dynasty Because They Never Stopped That Tsunami
Jack McCallum is holding all sorts of things outside of the Spurs control against them to determine that they do not meet his arbitrary meaning of the word “dynasty”. It’s all in his column, “Hold off on the 'D' word.”
All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.
• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.
Just so I’m clear, we’re penalizing the Spurs for not beating a Bulls team that they never really played? Duncan was in the NBA for 1 year during that stretch, and he was a rookie. I mean, those were pretty much different Spurs teams with different players. Tim Duncan was in high school when that run started in 1991. Tony Parker was like 9. Eva Longoria was like 16, if that helps. Just to beat this point to death, you’re not allowed to play in the NBA when you’re 9.
Also, Michael Jordan played 5 complete seasons (excluding Wizards years, which didn’t happen, his injury filled ’86 year, and the ’95 half year) that a team other than his won the championship. The only year he had a team at all equipped to make a run, was 1990. So I thinks it’s fair to say that effectively 1 team in NBA history meets this criteria. The 1990 Pistons.
• They play in a league diluted by expansion.
This could be said of a lot of teams. I disagree with it, generally, being a good point. They also play in a league with a ton of foreign players, unlike your old-timey teams can say. Or even 80’s teams. Foreign players are also good now. There was expansion a couple years before and during the Bulls run too, if you want to go there.
• Their first title, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.
So? It’s not like they handed the title to the regular season wins leader. They played the good half of the season, with the playoffs. Shouldn’t we penalize the team for things that they can remotely control. Obviously it wasn’t a fluke, since they won 3 more.
• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.
True, but does that mean that they weren’t good enough to beat another great team? Didn't they come out of a strong conference? How is any of this their fault?
That’s all of Jack’s reasons. Those reasons sucked.
Let's just not bring up the "D" word. The Spurs are not a dynasty. They haven't suggested that about themselves. To me, a dynasty means this: A team must win more than half the championships over a decade and be considered the clear favorite in most of those seasons. A decade is a random measure, of course, but dynasty-dom has to be demonstrated over an extended period of time; the Mings, after all, lasted from 1368 to 1644.
The Yao Mings? Ha!
(Not the Yao Mings.)
Oh.
In my view, only two franchises truly qualify as a dynasty -- the Boston Celtics, who, absurdly, won 11 championships in 13 seasons from 1957 to 1969 during the Bill Russell days, and Jordan's Chicago Bulls, who won six titles in eight years (the franchise's only championships) from '91 to '98.
So why wouldn’t the 1980-1989 Lakers be a dynasty? 10 years, 5 championships (in the first 9 years), and they made the finals 8 times in those 10 years.
Overall, the Celtics have won 16 titles (though a contemporary cynic would have to note that not a single one has come since '86). That career record is challenged only by the Lakers, who have 14 championships, five of them when the team was in Minneapolis, which was the dominant franchise in the NBA's first decade. But the Lakers have never had a true dynasty. They won five titles from '80 to '88, a tremendous achievement to be sure, but they clearly shared the decade with the Celtics, who won three titles in seven seasons.
Okay no dice for the 80’s Lakers I guess. Then by that measure, didn’t the Bulls “share” the period of 1991-1998 with the Rockets? Because Jordan was retired? Or is 3 titles your arbitrary "sharing" minimum? Wouldn’t you say then that Bulls were not a dynasty (shared with Houston), but Jordan was in some way? Who cares, this is stupid.
Also, you do realize that you just penalized the 1980's Lakers, despite meeting your criteria, because they had really good adversary in the other conference . However, you penalized the Spurs above for not playing a good enough opponent this year. So to be a dynasty you need to win 5 championships in 10 years to satisfy Jack McCallum (and be what he considers to be a "clear favorite"), but there better not be a good team that wins a few championships in the 5 that he's allowing you to lose to still qualify for dynasty status....make sense? Those teams he's okay with winning during your dynasty better not be favorites too often! I mean, isn't it better if you lose a few championships to a great team, like Boston, than if there was no Boston in the East and they still won 5 of 9? Also, they were 2 for 3 against Boston in the finals! My head hurts.
What if the Spurs win next year, to make your 5 in 10 mark? Do the '07 Cavs diminish that? Or did they "share" too much of the 10 years with the Lakers, because they won 3 (like the 80's Celtics). I'll be watching you McCallum! To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against the Spurs, specifically, I just hate Jack's reasoning here. I guess I am arguing for the 1980's Lakers.
Dynasty? Depends how you feel like defining it. Then once you define it, it depends on other things you feel like qualifying it with.
All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.
• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.
Just so I’m clear, we’re penalizing the Spurs for not beating a Bulls team that they never really played? Duncan was in the NBA for 1 year during that stretch, and he was a rookie. I mean, those were pretty much different Spurs teams with different players. Tim Duncan was in high school when that run started in 1991. Tony Parker was like 9. Eva Longoria was like 16, if that helps. Just to beat this point to death, you’re not allowed to play in the NBA when you’re 9.
Also, Michael Jordan played 5 complete seasons (excluding Wizards years, which didn’t happen, his injury filled ’86 year, and the ’95 half year) that a team other than his won the championship. The only year he had a team at all equipped to make a run, was 1990. So I thinks it’s fair to say that effectively 1 team in NBA history meets this criteria. The 1990 Pistons.
• They play in a league diluted by expansion.
This could be said of a lot of teams. I disagree with it, generally, being a good point. They also play in a league with a ton of foreign players, unlike your old-timey teams can say. Or even 80’s teams. Foreign players are also good now. There was expansion a couple years before and during the Bulls run too, if you want to go there.
• Their first title, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.
So? It’s not like they handed the title to the regular season wins leader. They played the good half of the season, with the playoffs. Shouldn’t we penalize the team for things that they can remotely control. Obviously it wasn’t a fluke, since they won 3 more.
• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.
True, but does that mean that they weren’t good enough to beat another great team? Didn't they come out of a strong conference? How is any of this their fault?
That’s all of Jack’s reasons. Those reasons sucked.
Let's just not bring up the "D" word. The Spurs are not a dynasty. They haven't suggested that about themselves. To me, a dynasty means this: A team must win more than half the championships over a decade and be considered the clear favorite in most of those seasons. A decade is a random measure, of course, but dynasty-dom has to be demonstrated over an extended period of time; the Mings, after all, lasted from 1368 to 1644.
The Yao Mings? Ha!
(Not the Yao Mings.)
Oh.
In my view, only two franchises truly qualify as a dynasty -- the Boston Celtics, who, absurdly, won 11 championships in 13 seasons from 1957 to 1969 during the Bill Russell days, and Jordan's Chicago Bulls, who won six titles in eight years (the franchise's only championships) from '91 to '98.
So why wouldn’t the 1980-1989 Lakers be a dynasty? 10 years, 5 championships (in the first 9 years), and they made the finals 8 times in those 10 years.
Overall, the Celtics have won 16 titles (though a contemporary cynic would have to note that not a single one has come since '86). That career record is challenged only by the Lakers, who have 14 championships, five of them when the team was in Minneapolis, which was the dominant franchise in the NBA's first decade. But the Lakers have never had a true dynasty. They won five titles from '80 to '88, a tremendous achievement to be sure, but they clearly shared the decade with the Celtics, who won three titles in seven seasons.
Okay no dice for the 80’s Lakers I guess. Then by that measure, didn’t the Bulls “share” the period of 1991-1998 with the Rockets? Because Jordan was retired? Or is 3 titles your arbitrary "sharing" minimum? Wouldn’t you say then that Bulls were not a dynasty (shared with Houston), but Jordan was in some way? Who cares, this is stupid.
Also, you do realize that you just penalized the 1980's Lakers, despite meeting your criteria, because they had really good adversary in the other conference . However, you penalized the Spurs above for not playing a good enough opponent this year. So to be a dynasty you need to win 5 championships in 10 years to satisfy Jack McCallum (and be what he considers to be a "clear favorite"), but there better not be a good team that wins a few championships in the 5 that he's allowing you to lose to still qualify for dynasty status....make sense? Those teams he's okay with winning during your dynasty better not be favorites too often! I mean, isn't it better if you lose a few championships to a great team, like Boston, than if there was no Boston in the East and they still won 5 of 9? Also, they were 2 for 3 against Boston in the finals! My head hurts.
What if the Spurs win next year, to make your 5 in 10 mark? Do the '07 Cavs diminish that? Or did they "share" too much of the 10 years with the Lakers, because they won 3 (like the 80's Celtics). I'll be watching you McCallum! To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against the Spurs, specifically, I just hate Jack's reasoning here. I guess I am arguing for the 1980's Lakers.
Dynasty? Depends how you feel like defining it. Then once you define it, it depends on other things you feel like qualifying it with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)