When you say ground breaking, that means something that can be copied.such as when you talked about the Spurs being the first to use analytics in the NBA and track Euro talent. However, the Spurs themselves an anomaly because you have an HOF franchise player, HOF coach, HOF GM and probably a HOF owner all on the same team. The closest I can remember that happening was the Bulls with MJ, Phil Jackson and their GM Krause, but even then their owner was just using the Bulls to fund his White Sox team. Pops right now is also in that sweet spot MJ was during his peak, his rivals like Larry Brown, Adelman and PJ have already retired or are way too old and his younger threats are still developing or are in bad teams and right now he has the entire league in the palm of his hand, no one even comes close in terms of overall technical knowledge and strategy. To replicate the Spurs dynasty would need way too much stuff to go right and IMHO it is pretty much impossible.
By your definition even star players aren't anomalies because star players pretty much do the same thing. What's the difference when Kobe hits the dagger 3 and when Kevin Durant hits the dagger 3? When Shaq dunks the ball and Hakeem dunks the ball? Both result in an unstoppable score and a game winning shot, yet why is it they can't be replicated? I don't understand how you can claim you can't conjure up star players and then turn around and say you can always do smart management and coaching. If all it took to coach like Popovich and make GM moves like Buford is just to decide that you're gonna be a smart GM/coach, why is it Mike Brown who studied under Popovich was clueless and Danny Ferry who came from the Spurs gave Larry Hughes a max contract? To sum it up both you and Gregas have no idea what anomaly means, I don't even understand the point of this thread it should be no debate.
How about Splitter, DeJuan Blair, Matt Bonner etc? Those guys played some role in the Spurs. More importantly it's not like these players are finished products, even the oldest guy is around 35 years old so there' still stuff for them to learn in the game of basketball. When a dude like Boris Diaw who was out of shape and who avoids contact like everyone has a contagious disease is suddenly in tip top shape and fighting tooth and nail for the reb what do you call that? Being established doesn't mean you can't still develop for better or worse, D-Will was already an established superstar in Utah but he became a shell of his former self once he left.
Ok, but then what is an anomaly? If you consider Spurs FO and it's moves an anomaly, transcendent players Durant, LJ an anomaly, forming big threes an anomaly, you can consider every championship team in history an unrepeatable anomaly, which is clearly not true, because similar approaches have been used throughout nba history to form the top tier teams. Draft a superstar, surround him with complementary talent and a good coach, and you'll have a contending team. It's the FO job to do that to the maximum extend possible. Spurs ticked all the boxes on that list and built a good team. They're not the first nor the last to do it. And nobody suggested that you can magically implant the mind process of pop into an inferior mind, you cant just copy paste somebodies whole way of thinking and reasoning into somebody else by just deciding you're going to do it, LOL.
It's not ground breaking. Not everyone has R.C. Buford, Pop, A superstar who took a pay cut, and a bench who can compete with most teams starters. A lot more has to go right w/ this kind of team than a team full of stars. The spurs are a rarity, not a model every team should try and follow
They happened to tank in the Duncan year. If they my had tanked in another year, or if Duncan had come out as a junior, and they ended up with Chauncey Billups or McGrady -or maybe even busted with Antonio Daniel s or gotten a so-so Keith van horn - none of what we witnessed would have happened, though they would still been hardworking strivers. Anomaly. Even among HOFers Duncan is unusual - only Kareem and Wilt remained as effective in their late 30 as Duncan.
I agree, they're most certainly a rarity. Not only on the pure businesses side, but also on forming an impressive internal culture that transcends pure financial gain.
Yeah, they were lucky there. So were the cavs with Lebron, but they still didn't mange to build a championship team around him. You almost always need a superstar as a basis for your championship team. It's not an anomaly, it's a rule.
It is all about played development Most Coaches don't seem to do that nowadays it use to be done in collegee . . but college is more about winning than development esp consider everyone wants to be a ONE AND DONE and College coaches get Calipari deals for WINNING not Developing Utilization of D-Leagues and TEACHING rather than saying "They in the NBA they should know everything by now . .. . if they don't know I ain't got time to teach them" mentality that I think most NBA coaches have . . .. making the effort to develop the player completely . .. . helps Rocket River 90% of COACHING HAPPENS IN PRACTICE . .. not in the game.
The thing I find even more amazing about the spurs championship run this year, (even more so than the minutes and aging stars) is that the spurs, along with the 2004 Piston are the only teams in nba history to win the title without a top ten, top 15 or maybe even top 20 player? You can argue that maybe Rasheed/Wallace/Billups was top fifteen in 04 but it is much more difficult to do so with Duncan/Manu or Parker. No spurs made any of the all nba teams nor were any in the top ten of the MVP vote (Duncan at 12th). In 2004 Ben Wallace was on the 2nd all Nba team and 7th in MVP voting. Like the Pistons, the Spurs defeated teams led by the very best players in the NBA in route to winning the title. To get to the finals they beat the MVP & second best player in Durant along with a top 5 or 10 player in Westbrook, arguably the NBA's best dust duo. In winning the tilte, the Spurs only needed to overcome Lebron James the NBA's best player and a team which had made it to 4 consecutive nba finals since forming. The question is, are the Spurs like the 04 Pistons merely the result of chance/luck/serendipity or is that in today's NBA, system, team play and coaching can finally overcome talent. It has always been about the best players in the NBA, from Magic, Bird, Jordan, to Shaq, Kobe and KG/Lebron's big three... the team with the superstar(s) win, talent wins. The Spurs title clearly destroyed that thought in routing the Heat/Thunders. Some argue it was simply a case of good furtune, ie.. Miami's talent eroding due to Wade's sudden decline or OKC being without Ibaka for 2 games. Or that it was simply matchup problems or their opponents lack of depth & team play. Yet those problems (wade, depth, teamplay) didnt stop Miami from crushing the Pacers to reach the finals for the 4th consecutive time nor did it stop Durant and Westbrook from easily beating one of the most talented teams in the nba in the Clippers. While I don't think system, coaching > talent or that superstars/talent are no longer the most important thing in the NBA, I think the Spurs are not an anomaly and are in fact evidence that in today's NBA, the right system and best coaching can more readily and capably overcome talent than in the past.
Spurs minute management (i.e. no one playing over 30mpg) and their bench getting lots of minutes during the regular season was an anomaly that was forced to them mainly due to their established stars being their age and some key injuries to Parker as well as Kawhi. As so it happens that it was actually a blessing in disguise since it allowed their bench to develop more so than other teams. However, what makes the Spurs different and able to get away from doing this compared to the other teams is their core (having been together for awhile) and the team having a winning formula for over a decade. From the coaching staff to their veteran core players, trainers....new players can easily come in, have a clear guideline on their proven formula and values. Like any company, the values and formula that makes up the companies brand (which are set by the people at the top) is just as important as the talent they recruit.
Like B-Bob said, it's pretty much semantic. To me, "anomaly" is something random, unrepeatable. Smart management and coaching is clearly not random and can be done by any good organization. The Spurs organization is not an anomaly in that sense just like Google, McDonald's, or Coca Cola is not an anomaly. But if you define anomaly as something exceptional, then yeah, of course what the Spurs have done is exceptional, just like those aforementioned companies are. To land star players needs luck. You don't get a LeBron or a Durant just by smart management. You also need some luck. That's something unrepeatable.
Parker made the all NBA 2nd team and I would probably put both him and Duncan still in the top 20. I don't think it has anything to do with "today's NBA" I think that every once in a while teams like this are going to pop up and be able to do what they did with the more team approach. Teams are going to get the right matchups, have their role guys get hot at the right times and take advantage of all the things they need to.
An anomaly is a deviation from the norm. An unselfish superstar is the definition of that, it's sort of an oxymoron. I don't think you can say that about any other superstar player but Tim. And to get 17 years of super star level play from one guy is certainly an anomaly too. Who else in history has performed as well that long, Jabbar maybe?
The hiring of David Blatt a team oriented euro coach is showing that the NBA is starting to take notice of how the Spurs have played. Its too bad someone like Kawhi Leonard will soon have an overbloated ego and want max money and superstar status that the Spurs cant afford. He'll end up in a team like the Nets and find out hes not as great as he thinks because there isnt as much ball movement and open shots in other teams outside the Spurs. I think the Spurs have a near perfect system that requires a full game of on court pressure on both ends with a heavy loaded depth of players with specific roles. I think they can win a ring again next year with the exact some people.
OK, but the 10% that happens in the game is more important because the coach has to force the principles developed and repeated on the practice floor into real games. Players can't be allowed to fall back into personal comfort zones on offense and bad habits on defense that negate practice. This is where McHale fails and where JVG failed (on offense). Harden does what he wants whenever he wants on either end of the floor, including iso-ball on offense and outright laziness on D. Same for McGrady under JVG. Besides being brilliant, this is what sets Pop and Carlisle apart from most other coaches. They impose their will on players. Some coaches do it on only one end of the floor (Mike Brown's D in his first run in Cleveland and D'Antoni's offense with the Suns).
