It's not that any one of the Spurs was the best player in his position. It's that the Spurs had lots of good players, and a great system bringing them all together. Duncan's still got it, in limited minutes. Efficiency wise, and per 36 minutes, he still plays like an All-Star. In addition, his defense is still probably one of the best in the league. Tony Parker's a legit All-Star caliber player. Ginobili didn't play much due to injury, but he played like a superstar when he was on the floor. Per 36, he was a 20-5-7 player with 24.1 PER and 0.668 TS%. That's insane. Per 36, Tiago Splitter was an 18-10 player with 20.0 PER, 0.649 TS%. They basically had two All-Star caliber talents coming off the bench. The Spurs' depth was great last year. Among their top 12 players in minutes, they had 7 players over 15.0 PER. The above four significantly so. Some teams out there only have about four players over 15 PER in total. And here's the kicker: Only 1 of the top 12 players in minutes had a TS% below league average. That player was James Anderson, #11 in minutes with only 11.8 mpg. So basically everyone on their team was a decent to very good shooter. The Spurs ran a great system with lots of penetration and corner 3's, the best shots in basketball. Not surprising that they had the #1 rated offense in points per possession last year.
I love the semantic hair splitting between "superstar" and "hall of famer." Either way you cut it, the Spurs were stacked with talent last year.
Many people would disgree with your opinion. Others might feel that Kevin Love, Rose, D12, CP3 all have a greater impact on their respective teams than Parker. Bulls, TWolves, Magic, Clippers were the one-star ponies. Magic was third best team before DH's injury. After that the bottom fell out. Same with Bulls. Without CP3, Clippers probably wouldnt make the playoffs, let along beat the Grizzlies in the first round. CP3 singlehandly turned the series around in the last eight miniutes of that miracle comeback. If you say Parker was the team MVP, not many will disagree. He was an MVP on a team with the best record. Their new offense relied heavily on Parker by running everything through him and it became a double edge sword in the playoffs. IMO, Spurs lost WCF because their average defensive and 6'7" Sefolosha ability to shut down Parker, Spurs focal point of attack. When Parker got shut down, their offense simply collapsed. It was more due to a system than a player.
The Spurs have been successful for so many of the reasons listed in this thread, but one reason that hasn't gotten much airtime is their starting lineup continuity. Parker+Duncan+Ginobili have been together for many years, and as a result, their chemistry is outstanding. This matters -- as we've seen in international play as teams like Argentina, Spain, and Greece give the US problems despite a talent gap the size of the Grand Canyon. Duncan was the best big man in the league for years, although today is likely underrated as he has advanced in years.... and Popovich is the best coach in the league.
This was exactly what I was getting at. Not one Spur was a top in his position, yet they achieved the improbable. But if look beyond 2 years, their core of three were better players individually, simply by being in prime, but they weren't as efficiently as they are now. This is what really intrigued me and made me look further into their system. Look at the vids and people will see the huge difference in their offense, lots of penetrations and corner 3's. Teams dont make a huge jump from 9th to almost 1st in efficiency without major changes.
Forgot about Kevin Love. Although thats probably cause he doesn't jump out to be superstar yet. Either way the Rockets will do well if Parson develops like Ginobilli
this thread downplays team player and give too much love to solo artist. Both Parker and Ginobili can carry a team, and I don't need to talk about Duncan, do I? only reason they are not so highly mentioned as other superstar is because they share balls and Pop limits their mins.
Spurs will have at least 4-5 HOFs in between their championships. Tim Duncan is not a household name, but he is first-ballot HOF. Of course we know about David Robinson, then they have Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen and possibly Manu Ginobili. Spurs probaly picked better players, having a constant in coach and maybe better owner who lets GM does his job, not shared like Rockets. If Yao didn't get injured and McGrady talk himself out of the Rockets, we would be knocking some heads instead we get 1st round failures, now can't make the playoffs. Without Duncan, they'll suffer like we are right now.
TC must not watch a lot of basketball... Ginobili was/is one of the top 3 SGs in the league (behind Wade, Kobe) Tony Parker is a consistent all-star and the Finals MVP in 2007..one of the top 10 PGs in the league for certain. Tim Duncan is a freakin HOFer whos going to go down as one of the ten best players of all time. This thread is a joke. There's nothing a team can do that'll allow them to bypass getting a superstar. Yes, Spurs have incredible management and coaching that's allowed them to be a good club for over a decade, but you still need a franchise player + a few stars in order to do that. EDIT: Sorry, I am just bitter at Rockets management squandering the last 3 years away instead of properly rebuilding. Your post is more about the offensive plays Rockets can run..I agree, copying some of the most successful offenses around the league will improve our win rate. But not by much if we don't have top talent to run it.
I have a half-baked theory about the lack of white American superstars in recent years. If you look at the superstars capable of being the cornerstone to a contending team, you need either freakish athletic gifts or creativity to give you either the edge to dominate physically in the former case or mentally in the latter case. The edge in creativity is why Magic, Bird, and Isiah could dominate without being exceptional physically. But creativity is something that you have to develop over time. As much as people blame the AAU system for cultivating players that are too individualistic, it also helps to develop individual creativity. Ideally, you have both fundamentals and creativity. But I have to wonder if the teams white players grow up playing on focus too much on fundamentals at the expense of creativity. It can help them become good college players (like Jimmer or Morrison), but when you get to the NBA, the edge of fundamentals is not much of an advantage against pros who mostly have the fundamentals, except for the few athletically freakish drafted as 'projects'. The overemphasis on fundamental basketball can actually sometimes kill creativity that you need to get that edge. Think about how Pop used to get pissed at Manu when he first came over when he would make crazy passes or plays until he realized he needed to give Manu some leash to be creative. One source of creativity is to play other sports especially soccer (e.g. Hakeem, Nash, Rubio), which every kid in Europe or Argentina plays. I think it's interesting that the closest case of a white superstar we've had is Steve Nash (even though he's Canadian). The guy is obsessed with soccer, which he learned from his dad, which gives him his ability to create plus maintain good footwork.
Better owner, better GM, better players, better system.....brutal but true. Rockets run in place. If these rookies don't turn into All Stars, more of the same. Our only hope is "luck" because it is clear that nobody in charge knows what they are doing. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it.
Actually, Scola would have played, it is just that they told him he wasn't needed because Duncan was still at his peak when they drafted him. He was then sort of forgotten for a few years before the Rockets traded for him and brought him over where he took over the PF position and became the best we had since Barkley.
With our young gunz I wouldn't mind the dantoni pick and rolls, yet I also feel we have enough talent to do the Phil Jackson triangle. http://m.youtube.com/results?q=sports science triangle offense#/watch?v=aJ7QMNUFqMw
*tanked with a good team won the lotto & drafteda an all time great, paired him with another HOF'er. *first mover advantage picking up two more probable HOF'rs before most teams had good european scouting operations. *all of these guys were relatively durable and willing to stay in SA Honestly in basketball that's all it takes. Very difficult to recreate this confluence of circumstances though. The amount of luck it took them to land Duncan is insanely ridiculous. A 50+ win team goes into the lotto for one year, not only 1. wins the lotto, but 2. lands an all-star, who is 3. HOF, all-time great big man, greatest ever PF (if that's what you consider him...) who 4. is of a more low-key temperament/relatively modest (with the opposite being a LeBron-Kobe-Jordan more spotlight-craving type) and thus willing to commit to a tiny market for the long term. Honestly, it's like 1 in a zillion that that happened, but it did; if Robinson's injury happened the next year, or Duncan comes out a year early - instead of ending up with Duncan, they have Keith Van Horn, Mike Bibby, Kandi-Man, Vince Carter or Raef LaFrentz, most likely (unless they toss a curve and pick Dirk or Pierce earlier than everybody else have them...though I don't see Pierce staying in SA forever)
