They have 4 players in the top 11 in win shares per 48, 4 players with over 20 PER in the top 25, are top 5 in both offensive and defensive rating, 1st in SRS, all while having one of the oldest rosters in the league. Every year I keep thinking "this is the year the Spurs become too old" and every year I'm wrong. I still think they don't match up well with the Thunder and will lose in a playoff series against them, but holy crap what an organization. I think Pop is the greatest coach of all time. Splitter looks like he's ready to be that next great big man after Duncan finally slows down. They're the best twin tower we've seen since, well, Duncan and Robinson.
They probably won't get out of the 2nd round or maybe 1st if they play a team like Memphis or the Lakers.
Thing is, the Spurs aren't really THAT old, as a team. Sure, their "Big 3" have been together forever - but Parker is only 31 even now; Ginobilli doesn't start - so of their starters, only Duncan is old (and apparently in possession of a 5 year reverse time warp). OKC is not necessarily a horrible match up for them, either - with Splitter starting, the development of Leonard; Diaw and Jackson on board for a whole season....AND Harden no longer around. I think people assuming OKC is getting to the finals unless the Clips stop them are truly (again) overlooking the Spurs. I would say the Thunder have an edge; but that is mainly because the Spurs have more guys more likely to be injured. In a straight up series with both healthy this season (again, that alone is somewhat unlikely)? I like the Spurs.
It's all because they have the best coaching staff in the NBA...bar none. Just look at "washed up" dudes like SJax and Boris Diaw. They went to the Spurs and suddenly they're pretty good again lol. Pops and his staff are amazing at breaking down film and getting players to execute plays. And take a look at Splitter and Kawhi leonard, those guys were pegged as defensive dudes and now they're pretty good all around guys. If they got their hands on Chandler Parsons or Patrick Patterson I'm pretty sure PP would be the next TD and Parsons would be the White Chocolate version of Iguadala. If they got their hands on Harden...MJ 2.0?
While I see where your going and generally agree, it should be noted come playoff time, they have been too old. It's their clear weakness. Pops does all that he can... Also, Splitter as the next great big man for them? I mean dude's an efficiency beast, but I have a hard time believing he can do in 30+ minutes a game what he does in 20+ And, let's not forget these are just really good players. Duncan, Parker and Ginobili should all be 1st ballot HOFers. And Parker isn't ancient... he's only 30. Relative to the Rockets, that's ancient, but not overall. And of the 3 Parker has been the one to rely most on athleticism and even then it's not like he's ever been Russell Westbrook out there athletically. These are first ballet HOFers that have and do rely on skills and basketball IQ more than athleticism ... meaning one would expect they would age somewhat better. How many teams out there have 3 1st ballot HOFers on their rosters, coached by one of the top 5 coaches of all time?
Because they went 8-0 in the first two rounds last season? Or because they are 9 - 2 cumulatively against the Lakers and Grizz in their last 11 meetings?
The Spurs have a system and their players follow that system. That's why they are so good in the regular season. They are not going to do anything in the playoffs.
Yeah, but they FEEL a bunch older, don't they? Hell was just on Lakersground, and a poster their was talking about how old Spurs were - pretty sure the Lakers are older (but don't want to go out on a limb because you have a link to a site with a "weighted age" metric I'm too lazy to look up)
I don't think anyone thought they'd only be defensive dudes. In fact, solid all around players it what I expected of both these guys. And frankly, given the hype coming out of the Spurs camp over the offseason, Leonard isn't exactly excelling offensively relative to what they suggested. If anything, as his mpg has gone up ever so slightly, he's become ever so slightly worse offensively. He is what he was coming out of college and what he's been through is first year and a half. A solid all around player who knows his role and therefor excels in the Spurs system. He's a young slightly worse version of Shane Battier. Pop excels in the way that Sloan excelled. A great system that with the right players can take average NBAers and have them excel at a role, and when surrounded by above average talent, really really excel. Of all the coaches stung by the MJ years, or refs, or whatever, Sloan was stung the most, as he could have won a championship or two. Yes Adelman got screwed by refs and D'Antoni got screwed by refs, but Sloan just had his best teams at the wrong time. So Sloan doesn't have the championships that Pops has, but I view them as very similar coaches. So if you want to know how good of a coach/team the Spurs would be without their big 3, look at some of the Jazz post Malone/Stockton down years. Still overachieving though. What Pops does really well is what Phil did really well. He has a personal style, that combined with his system, gets through to superstars and role players alike, where with other coaches it just doesn't. Getting SJax to stay in line and play that great role player role is something you can absolutely credit Pops that other coaches can't do. So much of those last few championships depended on Parker, and if you consider how young he was, while it was a strange or strained relationship with Pops at times, he clearly managed it to perfection.
What is your definition of "anything"? 10-0 before losing in the WCF is "nothing". Do only two teams each season get to do "something"?
Pop openly claimed when he took over (after firing Bob Hill) that the plan was to "model" the Spurs on Utah. Always respected Sloan.
Duncan is still the best big man in the game, so until duncan retires, they will be in the thick of things. If Duncan goes down, they are in trouble.
Every year in the regular season this thread occurs. Some one says "how are the Spurs still winning?" And every year somebody in the playoffs exposes a weakness in them, and they get destroyed.
The reason OKC beat the Spurs last year was Kendrick Perkins and Serge Ibaka going 18-20 in a playoff game and everything getting messed up because of that. Otherwise, it would be a game 7 in San Antonio. Calling them playoff fodder is just ignorance
Definitely not Spur fan, but losing Conference Finals 4-2 is doing nothing? They also sweep UTAH and Clippers last year in 1st and 2nd round.
