San Antonio Spurs’ classy trio nearing its NBA Finals end (coaches, strategy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm completely at a loss as to how anybody could hate Tim Duncan....other than out of absolute butt hurt.
On top of that the Spurs organization is really well run and has player continuity and a real team sense. There hasn't been heaps of internal strife, they play great TEAM basketball.
Again, just really puzzled given all the poop-hole franchises that just ugly up the NBA year after year.
According to the article he posted, he hates the spurs because they don't have superhuman talent. They are not filled with lebrons and Kobe's and the like.
He hates them because they are a team and not individuals.
According to the article he posted, he hates the spurs because they don't have superhuman talent. They are not filled with lebrons and Kobe's and the like.
He hates them because they are a team and not individuals.
Good reason.
What the article seems to imply is this: we can accept players like LeBron or Kevin Durant doing superhuman things and winning championships etc, because it's obvious that they are practically superhumans. It's not that they're "stars" per se, but that they appear almost inhuman and are very apparently outrageously different than the rest of us. You can just see how very talented they are and you accept that people like that are in a whole different league and operate in a whole different realm that you can't even begin to fathom. Thus, that they would be so successful makes sense.
On the other hand, the Spurs don't strike you as being that sort of thing. They sort of come across as ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Many people celebrate that--me, I don't. I root against the underdog. In college basketball, I HATE and DESPISE it when a "mid major" team beats a top 5 Division I team, I want it to be that the Division 1 top 5 team squashes the mid-major by at least 45 points. I don't like seeing a "weekend warrior" golfer perform as well as a Tiger Woods--that makes no sense logically, and in a way it sorts of mocks the excellence of a Tiger Woods if a weekend warrior with a garage sale set of golf clubs can just strut onto the course on the weekend and compete with a world champion golfer who is an other-worldly talent and makes the sport his life.
Like the ending of the article says: "She will mumble her begrudging respect and express her admiration for the banners hanging in your rafters, but she hates you because you are no different than she. But yet somehow, you always do things better."
That sort of explains it. You understand how a LeBron, Kevin or (years ago) Shaq or Kobe could be a top-tier team (or someone like Dr J or Wilt), but who are THESE people to be doing that? I mentioned college basketball: I'm a Tar Heels fan, and the #1 team on my dislike list is not Duke, but Wake Forest. (That also helps explains this too, as that's where Tim Duncan played.) The reason--because when I became a fan they were a cellar team we always beat easily, but later for awhile it seemed like they beat us a lot, which made no sense if they weren't one of the "premier" teams like a Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, or Connecticut.
It's sort of like "who are YOU to be beating US? You don't even deserve to be in the same GYM as us." I used to nickname them Wake "Wanna-Be" Forest, because they were to me a bunch of "wanna-bes" in terms of being considered in the same league as North Carolina, Duke, Michigan State, Kansas etc. Since they've reverted back to cellar-caliber the past few years, my response has been "good, that's where you BELONG." Unlike many college basketball fans, I cannot STAND parity. I like the prospect of a team doing like UCLA did many years ago and just cremating the snot out of everyone else who dares to think they even deserve to sniff the odor from their old sneakers.
That probably explains it--even if the perception is wrong, the Spurs come across as a bunch of Chris Dudleys playing as well as room full of Shaqs, it comes across as some Karaoke singer jumping on stage with Prince and singing as well as him. Remember when Prince yelled to the Kardashians or whoever "get off the stage?" Exactly--I'm Prince, who are YOU to be on the stage with ME? The Chris Dudleys of the world should NOT be actually competing against the likes of the Shaqs of the world, to follow the analogy, they should get cremated like Vienna Sausage in a blender.
What the article seems to imply is this: we can accept players like LeBron or Kevin Durant doing superhuman things and winning championships etc, because it's obvious that they are practically superhumans. It's not that they're "stars" per se, but that they appear almost inhuman and are very apparently outrageously different than the rest of us. You can just see how very talented they are and you accept that people like that are in a whole different league and operate in a whole different realm that you can't even begin to fathom. Thus, that they would be so successful makes sense.
On the other hand, the Spurs don't strike you as being that sort of thing. They sort of come across as ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Many people celebrate that--me, I don't. I root against the underdog. In college basketball, I HATE and DESPISE it when a "mid major" team beats a top 5 Division I team, I want it to be that the Division 1 top 5 team squashes the mid-major by at least 45 points. I don't like seeing a "weekend warrior" golfer perform as well as a Tiger Woods--that makes no sense logically, and in a way it sorts of mocks the excellence of a Tiger Woods if a weekend warrior with a garage sale set of golf clubs can just strut onto the course on the weekend and compete with a world champion golfer who is an other-worldly talent and makes the sport his life.
Like the ending of the article says: "She will mumble her begrudging respect and express her admiration for the banners hanging in your rafters, but she hates you because you are no different than she. But yet somehow, you always do things better."
That sort of explains it. You understand how a LeBron, Kevin or (years ago) Shaq or Kobe could be a top-tier team (or someone like Dr J or Wilt), but who are THESE people to be doing that? I mentioned college basketball: I'm a Tar Heels fan, and the #1 team on my dislike list is not Duke, but Wake Forest. (That also helps explains this too, as that's where Tim Duncan played.) The reason--because when I became a fan they were a cellar team we always beat easily, but later for awhile it seemed like they beat us a lot, which made no sense if they weren't one of the "premier" teams like a Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, or Connecticut.
It's sort of like "who are YOU to be beating US? You don't even deserve to be in the same GYM as us." I used to nickname them Wake "Wanna-Be" Forest, because they were to me a bunch of "wanna-bes" in terms of being considered in the same league as North Carolina, Duke, Michigan State, Kansas etc. Since they've reverted back to cellar-caliber the past few years, my response has been "good, that's where you BELONG." Unlike many college basketball fans, I cannot STAND parity. I like the prospect of a team doing like UCLA did many years ago and just cremating the snot out of everyone else who dares to think they even deserve to sniff the odor from their old sneakers.
That probably explains it--even if the perception is wrong, the Spurs come across as a bunch of Chris Dudleys playing as well as room full of Shaqs, it comes across as some Karaoke singer jumping on stage with Prince and singing as well as him. Remember when Prince yelled to the Kardashians or whoever "get off the stage?" Exactly--I'm Prince, who are YOU to be on the stage with ME? The Chris Dudleys of the world should NOT be actually competing against the likes of the Shaqs of the world, to follow the analogy, they should get cremated like Vienna Sausage in a blender.
That perception is erroneous, but it is your opinion and I'll respect that. Tim Duncan is indeed an elite basketball player, right on up there with your pantheon of favorites. Just because he isn't people friendly, doesn't do any endorsements other than local ones, and is generally the anti-star star doesn't make him any less of a force than Kevin Durant, LeBron James, or Shaquille O'Neal. Make no mistake, that man is a legitimate star. To lump him in with Chris Dudley is just laughable, to be honest. He isn't like you or me for that matter. He is one of those impact players. He is who he is. He likes to ball and doesn't like to have his life be an open book. What's so wrong with that? Each night he gives his fans what they want on the court.
The Spurs might not be a consortium of marquee talent and San Antonio, Texas might not be such a splashy market but you know what? If you expect to advance in the Western Conference, then you'll have to make a stop through San Antonio, Texas. It has never been about players but rather the sum of every part. The Spurs are a collective machine with a very good coach at the helm. Those analogies you gave are kinda off base dude. These Chris Dudleys not only compete with the Shaqs, they beat them. And I can sit here all day telling you why, but I'm not. I'm a New Yorker for crying out loud and I root for my Texas team because I've always liked the team from the days of the Admiral to now. There's so much to respect and what they've done for their city is amazing.
What the article seems to imply is this: we can accept players like LeBron or Kevin Durant doing superhuman things and winning championships etc, because it's obvious that they are practically superhumans. It's not that they're "stars" per se, but that they appear almost inhuman and are very apparently outrageously different than the rest of us. You can just see how very talented they are and you accept that people like that are in a whole different league and operate in a whole different realm that you can't even begin to fathom. Thus, that they would be so successful makes sense.
On the other hand, the Spurs don't strike you as being that sort of thing. They sort of come across as ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Many people celebrate that--me, I don't. I root against the underdog. In college basketball, I HATE and DESPISE it when a "mid major" team beats a top 5 Division I team, I want it to be that the Division 1 top 5 team squashes the mid-major by at least 45 points. I don't like seeing a "weekend warrior" golfer perform as well as a Tiger Woods--that makes no sense logically, and in a way it sorts of mocks the excellence of a Tiger Woods if a weekend warrior with a garage sale set of golf clubs can just strut onto the course on the weekend and compete with a world champion golfer who is an other-worldly talent and makes the sport his life.
Like the ending of the article says: "She will mumble her begrudging respect and express her admiration for the banners hanging in your rafters, but she hates you because you are no different than she. But yet somehow, you always do things better."
That sort of explains it. You understand how a LeBron, Kevin or (years ago) Shaq or Kobe could be a top-tier team (or someone like Dr J or Wilt), but who are THESE people to be doing that? I mentioned college basketball: I'm a Tar Heels fan, and the #1 team on my dislike list is not Duke, but Wake Forest. (That also helps explains this too, as that's where Tim Duncan played.) The reason--because when I became a fan they were a cellar team we always beat easily, but later for awhile it seemed like they beat us a lot, which made no sense if they weren't one of the "premier" teams like a Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, or Connecticut.
It's sort of like "who are YOU to be beating US? You don't even deserve to be in the same GYM as us." I used to nickname them Wake "Wanna-Be" Forest, because they were to me a bunch of "wanna-bes" in terms of being considered in the same league as North Carolina, Duke, Michigan State, Kansas etc. Since they've reverted back to cellar-caliber the past few years, my response has been "good, that's where you BELONG." Unlike many college basketball fans, I cannot STAND parity. I like the prospect of a team doing like UCLA did many years ago and just cremating the snot out of everyone else who dares to think they even deserve to sniff the odor from their old sneakers.
That probably explains it--even if the perception is wrong, the Spurs come across as a bunch of Chris Dudleys playing as well as room full of Shaqs, it comes across as some Karaoke singer jumping on stage with Prince and singing as well as him. Remember when Prince yelled to the Kardashians or whoever "get off the stage?" Exactly--I'm Prince, who are YOU to be on the stage with ME? The Chris Dudleys of the world should NOT be actually competing against the likes of the Shaqs of the world, to follow the analogy, they should get cremated like Vienna Sausage in a blender.
I guess if Duncan jumped up and down screaming and pounding his chest you'd like him more.....but to think Duncan isn't a beast like some of the guys you name means you either haven't been paying attention or are about 15 years old.
According to the article he posted, he hates the spurs because they don't have superhuman talent. They are not filled with lebrons and Kobe's and the like.
He hates them because they are a team and not individuals.
Good reason.
Pretty dumb reason considering Duncan was 1st team all-nba last year.
I'm done feeding the low-knowledge NBA fans that only show up here when the playoffs come around.
"Don't want no scrubs...." and that's exactly who shows up here every year around this time....scrubs.
The Spurs have been unquestionably the most successful NBA franchise since 1999. I'm not a Spurs fan but I respect what they've done. Truly one of the most professional franchises in major pro sports.
Popovich is a wickedly good coach. He's turned a cast of good and really, really good players into a team for the ages. The Spurs play basketball the way it was meant to be played. In some ways what Pop has done in reinventing the style of play for the Spurs over the past five years has been more impressive than the previous ten, even though he won all of those championships. He's made the Spurs a harder, edgier team, and in many ways, much more difficult to beat. It takes an equally outstanding team to beat the Spurs, and make no mistake about it: Miami is one of the better teams of the last 50 years. If the Spurs could overcome OKC and go on to defeat Miami in the midst of their championship stride, that would probably be their greatest accomplishment as a franchise.
^^^This.
I don't care about personal feelings....the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics and a few others deserve respect for what they've done over and over and over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and that's exactly who shows up here every year around this time....scrubs.
