For more than a decade the Spurs have been the bleeding edge of the NBA. One of the first teams to truly scout international players, to embrace the use of statistics and analytics, to heavily utilize their D-league team to develop and test their players and schemes, the Spurs have been at or near the forefront of the NBA. Last season the Spurs did the unthinkable... they completely discarded the notion of playing your "star" players heavy minutes. The Spurs didn't play a single player over 30mpg last season and still won 62 games. They followed a similar philosophy in the Finals, and swept the Heat in dominant fashion. Mike Honkasalo breaks down this remarkable achievement in minutes management. http://hoopshabit.com/2014/06/20/stat-central-2013-14-spurs-redefined-nba-rotation/ His graph outlining the actual minutes distribution is shocking in the reliance on bench minutes and production when compared to the rest of the NBA. Player development, building through non-lottery and 2nd round picks, and the high utilization of bench players throughout the season seem to be the hallmarks of the Spurs. Danny Green wasn't putting the ball on the floor last year. Marco Belinelli was a terrible defender when he joined the Spurs. Kawhi Leonard didn't have a jump shot when he joined the Spurs. Patty Mills barely got minutes last year. Boris Diaw was considered washed up when he joined the Spurs. Are the Spurs a one off? Are they a blueprint for NBA teams in the future? If you can't load up on all stars in their prime through FA, is this the best route for the other 25 teams? The Spurs 15+ years of excellence and continued success in the face of an aging core begs the question. Were the Spurs an anomaly? Or are they the cutting edge and a precursor of things to come? Just some things to think about...
look at their salary structure they've gotten 1 title in Duncan's decline, and you will never beat the spurs and spursing
I vote Anomaly, since they have a perfect storm that few teams will replicate: 1. Aged key stars who really need their minutes held down. 2. Amazing management that identifies excellent role players / shooters / passers for budget-friendly numbers. 3. Great offensive and defensive systems that mask the deficiencies of their 2nd-unit. Since the systems are superior to basically every other team they play, their 6 to 9 bench players can hold their own or even whoop ass. So I'm voting anomaly!
I reckon their bench is as strong as they are cos they get the opportunity to play together. ie. lots of playing time. When their bench comes in, the pressure doesnt let up. If we played our bench as much as theirs do, I really think our bench would be pretty strong as well. Look at ABrooks. Couldnt get minutes here. I think the same would happen to DMo, Garcia and to a certain extent, Casspi. So, I am leaning towards ground breaking.
They play team ball Their player development is unreal None of their players averaged over 30mpg and they finish #1 seed = unheard of Watching them play is like watching someone really good at art paint a masterpiece= its almost artistic- its beautiful to watch the way they play defensively and offensively Team chemistry- no one complains about touches ect.. these reasons are why Pop is better the Phil Jackson- though by a hair because they are the two best coaches of all time but Pops team reeks good coaching
Anomaly. I can't think of three other star players who would be able to accept limited minutes and buy so wholeheartedly into the team system, not to mention tolerate a coach who isn't afraid to chew them out on national TV as if it were the NCAA. The majority of the stars in the league would be demanding a larger role, grumbling in public, or demanding a trade. Maybe the fact that two of the spurs stars are European has something to do with it. Or maybe it's Duncan's relationship to Popovich that sets the tone for the entire team.
What?! There's nothing anomalous about implementing high efficiency offense, defense, quality scouting, internal player development, managing minutes ... It's a lot of intelligence, experience and hard work, not some anomalous accidental occurrence.
no idea what people mean about player development, leonard is the first guy they've really developed since parker. That team has a huge turnover, they're just very very good at targeting the specific skillsets that suits their needs in already established players.
So you think a bunch of other teams will be doing the same thing described by the OP? I sure don't. You're correct that part of the equation includes intelligence, experience, and hard work... that's a big reason it's an anomalous situation in the NBA.
Excellent post, so I'm adding my voice to The B-Bob Theory, which explains the Spurs Perfect Storm of Splendiferous Play! Anomaly for the win!
All your points can be done by smart management and coaching. That means it can be done by other teams. Normally, what can't be replicated is star players. You can't just conjure up star players. But you can always do smart management and coaching.
Exactly, It's not some unquantifiable "something" that separates them from others, unless you want to say that high competence of their FO is an anomaly.
Yes, to the extent that two of my points *were* verbatim smart management and coaching. :grin: As usual, the thread is just devolving to semantics. My claim, which I think I've stated plainly: incredibly smart coaching and incredibly smart management, especially over a long period of time in one place, are completely anomalous in the NBA. Thus my vote, especially when paired with the older stars in this case. EDIT: definition, if it helps... "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected." That's an anomaly. It's not something completely random or unexplained.
Don't overplay the Euro angle. Just ask Rasho, Hedo and Beno. Pop tarred, feathered and ran those guys out of dodge when they didn't conform and play with the intensity he demands. Pop rules with a rod of iron. It's his way or the highway. He is the alpha dog of that team. He is also the only NBA coach TD, TP and Manu have ever had. That may have something to do with their willingness to go along with his program. Winning 3-4 championships along the way also helps.
It took Pop a good half of Parker's career to tame him. They cut out Stephen Jackson for whatever reasons. An article I read pointed out that they didn't dismantle the team when they got bounced first round in 2011 by the Grizzlies. That core and all the plays and schemes they knew was probably the key for lasting the 82 season grind with 30 min rotations and smoothing out their bench's inexperience and weaknesses.
Certainly an anomaly. Tim Duncan has been their best player, and he is still their best player if you look at actual on court impact. When you're best player fully buys into a system it's easy to expect that of everybody else. Ginobill and Parker could also put up much bigger numbers on lesser teams. To have star talents without star egos is extremely rare On top of that, the simple fact is most teams can't play their benches like this because their system isn't good enough. Just because somebody does it, it doesn't mean it can be easily mimicked. Lastly the core of this team has been together forever. They haven't had to install a brand new system since they got Duncan, they have just slowly evolved. It really is a perfect storm.
For what it's worth, the Spurs giving their stars limited minutes is not new this season, they've been doing that for a while now.
