NBA Free Agency

[Manwiththeplan]

They've had the best 17 year stretch EVER in NBA History. Meaning NOBODY has ever done that. But you go right ahead and say they're merely "really good".

The 1957-1974 Boston Celtics disagree. Matter of fact, go up to 1976.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I'm not a Spurs fan. They are the team of the last two decades.

If you look at the last 2 decades as a whole, the Spurs are the best team. Both them and LA have 5 championships, but the Spurs haven't been out of the playoffs once. However, if you look at each decade individually 00-09 and 10-14, they aren't the best team in either decade.

 

[RastaRocket]

You mean win the draft lottery twice in 10 years when dominant big men were available? Not many.

They were so bad in the mid/late 80's before Robinson, there was talk they were going to move the team. The year before Duncan became available, Robinson and Sean Elliot got hurt and they stunk again (20-62). They had the third worst record, but won the lottery. The odds favored Boston to get the pick, but it went to the Spurs.

The difference for them has been to get Popovich and pick up foreign players late like Parker and Ginobelli.

What are you trying to say?

They've had one of the most successful runs of all time. It's not easy to do what they have done.

 

[Silver Surfer]

What are you trying to say?

OK, I'll type slower.

Without Robinson and/or Duncan since 1989, the Spurs wouldn't have been anything special, even with Popovich. I think modern NBA history shows you can't be successful consistently without a dominant big man unless you have Michael Jordan on your team.... no matter who your coach is. You can argue the ebbs and flows of team success are meant to be mitigated by draft position, so I won't debate the David Robinson acquisition. The Spurs were awful for several years before he arrived, so in that sense, they "earned" the right to draft high. In their case, the Spurs were fortunate that Robinson was available when they had the top pick. But that's no different than when Orlando got to draft Shaq and Milwaukee got to draft Lew Alcindor. That's part of the NBA's plan to help the competitive balance of the league.

In the Duncan draft, however, the Spurs were extremely lucky. They were 59-23 the previous year. Unless you think they would have tanked with Elliot and Robinson, there's no way they would have had the W/L record that put them in the third spot in the draft unless both of those guys get hurt. Even then, they had to get lucky to get Duncan. I submit that without Duncan as their lynchpin and his longevity, their run would have been much shorter. If you look at the talent in the 1997 draft, unless you think Tracy McGrady would have propelled them to the championship, there was no other elite talent in that draft - none. Given McGrady's subsequent health issues, if the Spurs had drafted third and selected him, I don't see any way they continue their "run" they way they have so far.

What I will credit them with is the ability to spot talent lower in the draft. Without the supporting talent of Parker and Ginobelli, would they have been as good as long? Probably not. In terms of their "run", they've been the beneficiaries of good talent selection, good coaching, but just as importantly, good luck.

 

[RastaRocket]

OK, I'll type slower.

Without Robinson and/or Duncan since 1989, the Spurs wouldn't have been anything special, even with Popovich. I think modern NBA history shows you can't be successful consistently without a dominant big man unless you have Michael Jordan on your team.... no matter who your coach is. You can argue the ebbs and flows of team success are meant to be mitigated by draft position, so I won't debate the David Robinson acquisition. The Spurs were awful for several years before he arrived, so in that sense, they "earned" the right to draft high. In their case, the Spurs were fortunate that Robinson was available when they had the top pick. But that's no different than when Orlando got to draft Shaq and Milwaukee got to draft Lew Alcindor. That's part of the NBA's plan to help the competitive balance of the league.

In the Duncan draft, however, the Spurs were extremely lucky. They were 59-23 the previous year. Unless you think they would have tanked with Elliot and Robinson, there's no way they would have had the W/L record that put them in the third spot in the draft unless both of those guys get hurt. Even then, they had to get lucky to get Duncan. I submit that without Duncan as their lynchpin and his longevity, their run would have been much shorter. If you look at the talent in the 1997 draft, unless you think Tracy McGrady would have propelled them to the championship, there was no other elite talent in that draft - none. Given McGrady's subsequent health issues, if the Spurs had drafted third and selected him, I don't see any way they continue their "run" they way they have so far.

What I will credit them with is the ability to spot talent lower in the draft. Without the supporting talent of Parker and Ginobelli, would they have been as good as long? Probably not. In terms of their "run", they've been the beneficiaries of good talent selection, good coaching, but just as importantly, good luck.

So what you're saying is they made a bunch of great decisions and had one of the most successful runs in NBA history. How dare them. You're right, they're lucky. It didn't take hard work to accomplish what they have.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Yeah, it was a "great decision" to have Robinson and Elliot get hurt. Put down the fanboy flag. You're starting to embarrass yourself.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

The Spurs fans are right in this thread. The Spurs have had the most impressive long-term consistent successful run since the Celtics of 50 years ago. There's no denying their consistency and greatness. Never missed the playoffs, won 5 titles. No doubting that.

I would say, however, having been an avid fan of the NBA the entire 17 year stretch, that the Spurs went under the radar for most of this stretch. When the Bulls were on top of the world for 8 years (minus the 2 years in between when Jordan retired), you couldn't not notice the Bulls. They were as relevant as a team as LeBron has been as a player. It was the Bulls and everyone else.

It was never like that with the Spurs. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. That's sort of in the Spurs' identity. They're sort of that franchise that goes unnoticed. But it's pretty true. Outside of die-hard Spurs fans, most people didn't notice the Spurs that much over this 17 year stretch. The Lakers had a dominant 3-peat dynasty, playing in 5 NBA Finals, with the Shaq/Kobe combo during the Spurs' reign. Then Kobe teamed up with Pau and had another little mini dynasty. The Heat took the world by storm, were all anyone talked about for 4 years, and made the Finals every year, winning twice (not to mention the year they won with Shaq and Wade).

All I'm saying is, when the other teams reigned, they made every other team irrelevant. The Spurs never did that. They never even won back-to-back or even played in back-to-back Finals. And they flew under the radar in a few of the Finals they did win.

It's definitely been an impressive 17 year stretch. It's just been different. I'd definitely call them consistent (no denying that), but it's hard to really call them dominant.

 

[RastaRocket]

Yeah, it was a "great decision" to have Robinson and Elliot get hurt. Put down the fanboy flag. You're starting to embarrass yourself.

Sorry, I'm a Mavericks fan. I just give credit where credit is due. I respect San Antonio and everything they have accomplished.

 

[burmafrd]

57-74 Celtics were clearly more dominant. Only stupid spurs homers would even try to say otherwise.

 

[bounce]

You mean win the draft lottery twice in 10 years when dominant big men were available? Not many.

They were so bad in the mid/late 80's before Robinson, there was talk they were going to move the team. The year before Duncan became available, Robinson and Sean Elliot got hurt and they stunk again (20-62). They had the third worst record, but won the lottery. The odds favored Boston to get the pick, but it went to the Spurs.

The difference for them has been to get Popovich and pick up foreign players late like Parker and Ginobelli.

So...the difference for them is coaching, scouting and player development? Yeah, I'd say that's a fair assessment.

 

[bounce]

Nobody has compared the 1999-2014 Spurs to the 1957-1974 Celtics other than the people trying to say that the Spurs aren't anywhere near the Celtics. They won 11 of 13 titles, they dominated the league of that day. Nobody is denying that, nor touching that mark.

But comparing across massive generations is futile. Half the teams that they played against aren't even in existence, anymore. Heck, it was midway through that run when they were the first team to have 5 starting black guys. There wasn't a shot clock, three point line, etc. It's like comparing the Murderers Row Yankees to the 2000s Yankees. It's a totally different sport.

 

[WoodysGirl]

As ESPN.com reported last month, Detroit and Sacramento have engaged in trade discussions that would potentially land Smith in the same frontcourt with DeMarcus Cousins andRudy Gay. Initial talks called for Sacramento to send Jason Thompsonand either Derrick Williams or Jason Terry to the Pistons for Smith, but those discussions reached an impasse and were pushed into July along with the rest of both teams’ free-agent business, sources said.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...sacramento-kings-resume-josh-smith-trade-talk

 

[jterrell]

I'm not a Spurs fan. They are the team of the last two decades.

do you mean last 20 years? or you mean team of the oughts and team of the teens?

those are least realistic time periods.

The team of the 90's was quite easily the Bulls.
The 00's is far more close to call. The team with the most titles that decade is the Lakers.
The teens has seen 4 NBA Finals all attended by the Heat. They have the highest win percentage and most Titles and most Finals trips.

My team is the Mavs and they won at least 50 games and made the playoffs 12 straight seasons. That is consistent quality basketball. but it wasn't elite or transcendent. The 12 year number is something that matters only to a Mavs fan.

 

[jterrell]

Nobody has compared the 1999-2014 Spurs to the 1957-1974 Celtics other than the people trying to say that the Spurs aren't anywhere near the Celtics. They won 11 of 13 titles, they dominated the league of that day. Nobody is denying that, nor touching that mark.

But comparing across massive generations is futile. Half the teams that they played against aren't even in existence, anymore. Heck, it was midway through that run when they were the first team to have 5 starting black guys. There wasn't a shot clock, three point line, etc. It's like comparing the Murderers Row Yankees to the 2000s Yankees. It's a totally different sport.

Your point shows the silliness of Spurs fan with the histrionics over the 17 year run.
The Spurs have been really, really good and the Celtics of 57-74 were truly great.

The Yankees had similar runs.

The Spurs are not on that type of level and don't even compare with Man United in soccer.

 

[bounce]

Your point shows the silliness of Spurs fan with the histrionics over the 17 year run.
The Spurs have been really, really good and the Celtics of 57-74 were truly great.

The Yankees had similar runs.

The Spurs are not on that type of level and don't even compare with Man United in soccer.

Gotcha. We're comparing to soccer dynasties now.

How many teams since 1999 wouldn't trade their success for the Spurs? The Lakers, probably the Heat...and?

 

[Aggie87]

Your point shows the silliness of Spurs fan with the histrionics over the 17 year run.
The Spurs have been really, really good and the Celtics of 57-74 were truly great.

The Yankees had similar runs.

The Spurs are not on that type of level and don't even compare with Man United in soccer.

I'll grant the Celtics won more championships over that 17 year span, with 11. They were truly great, I agree. But their record during those 17 years was 930-423, for a winning percentage of .687.

The Spurs won 5 championships over their 17 year span, and went 950-396, for a percentage of .706.

So the Celtics won more Finals, but the Spurs won more games. The team you have called "really really good" (repeatedly) had a better record than the team you call "truly great". I say that makes them both truly great.

I also don't think the Celtics had quite as much high caliber competition as the Spurs have had, meaning it was probably easier to get wins during the regular season, especially with Bill Russell dominating for a good portion of that.

 

[jterrell]

Gotcha. We're comparing to soccer dynasties now.

How many teams since 1999 wouldn't trade their success for the Spurs? The Lakers, probably the Heat...and?

I never compared them that way until I was told how they were the best historical team ever....

Since 1999 in just the NBA? Probably only the Lakers and Heat, yes.
As I said, they are very, very good.

 

[jterrell]

I'll grant the Celtics won more championships over that 17 year span, with 11. They were truly great, I agree. But their record during those 17 years was 930-423, for a winning percentage of .687.

The Spurs won 5 championships over their 17 year span, and went 950-396, for a percentage of .706.

So the Celtics won more Finals, but the Spurs won more games. The team you have called "really really good" (repeatedly) had a better record than the team you call "truly great". I say that makes them both truly great.

I also don't think the Celtics had quite as much high caliber competition as the Spurs have had, meaning it was probably easier to get wins during the regular season, especially with Bill Russell dominating for a good portion of that.

not sure how to say you have basic issues that go beyond my ability to fix if you think 5 titles is better than 11.

 

[Aggie87]

not sure how to say you have basic issues that go beyond my ability to fix if you think 5 titles is better than 11.

What I'm saying is that that's not the only measuring stick of sustained excellence. For you it appears to be the be-all, end-all.

The Spurs also had 16 out of those 17 seasons with 50+ wins. They would have been 17 of 17, had 1998-99 not been a strike shortened season.

The Celtics had 10 consecutive seasons of 50+ wins.

 

[bounce]

not sure how to say you have basic issues that go beyond my ability to fix if you think 5 titles is better than 11.

In 1956-1957, there were eight teams in the entire league. Six teams made the playoffs - three from each conference. There were only four teams even above .500. The team they beat in the Finals had a record of 34-38.

In 1957-58: 8 teams, 4 over .500. Celtics lose.

1958 - 59: 8 teams, 3 over .500. Celtics win.

1959 - 1961: 8 teams. Celtics won both.

1961 - 1962: Nine teams. Celtics won.

1962 - 1963: Nine teams. Celtics win.

1963 - 1964: Nine teams. Celtics win.

1964 - 1965: Nine teams. Celtics win.

1965 - 1966: Nine teams. Celtics win.

1966 - 1967: Ten teams. Celtics don't make the finals.

1967 - 1968: Twelve teams. Celtics win.

1968 - 1969: Fourteen teams (now we're getting somewhere). Celtics win.

The Celtics never played in a league with more than 14 teams during that span. And most of the teams were under .500 for that span. Their record breaking run occurred with 9 teams total. They dominated the people on the court opposite them. The problem is, there weren't that many people opposite them. On opening day each year, they started the season with a 11-12.5% chance to be the champs. Each team now starts with a 3.3% chance.

They were the kings of their era. And no team will ever experience success like that ever again, because it's almost mathematically impossible. Stop comparing runs across eras like it's proving some sort of point.

Winning now is far more impressive than winning in the 50s-60s. Compare them to the 90s Bulls or the 00s Lakers, if you want - but 50 years ago, it was a different sport.