How do the San Antonio Spurs do it?

[ssspence]

Not sure what reviewing old playoffs series has to do with the OP's point.

The Spurs are playing very very good basketball right now. Their win against last night was really strong -- a classic Pop win filled with surgical attacking of LAC's weaknesses.

It's impressive that they have the top record in the league at this point in the season. Admiration of the Spurs as a franchise is certainly well warranted.

[BballTim]

Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.

Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.

  I don't think anyone saw the Pistons or Lakers as pushovers that year. The 3rd toughest team we faced was probably the Cavs.

[Lightskinsmurf]

I used to say the celtics were the spurs of the east. However, I stopped saying that awhile ago. That's disrespectful to the spurs and pop.

[Lightskinsmurf]

Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.

Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.

  I don't think anyone saw the Pistons or Lakers as pushovers that year. The 3rd toughest team we faced was probably the Cavs.

I was talking about teams the celtics faced in the eastern conference so that doesn't include the lakers. I put the cavs as the toughest team out of respect that they pushed us further than anyone else. We were mins away from losing that series.

[BleedGreen1989]

The funny thing to me is they've won 16 of their last 17...and yet somehow all everybody wants to talk about is the LA teams and Lebron (understandable when Lebron went stupid here recently)

[BballTim]

Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.

Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.

  I don't think anyone saw the Pistons or Lakers as pushovers that year. The 3rd toughest team we faced was probably the Cavs.

I was talking about teams the celtics faced in the eastern conference so that doesn't include the lakers. I put the cavs as the toughest team out of respect that they pushed us further than anyone else. We were mins away from losing that series.

  The Celts improved as the playoffs went on that year. The Pistons were probably 3rd or 4th best team in the league that year.

[scaryjerry]

How do they do what?

People here are whining that they're "forced to watch a couple of aging hall of famers muddle through the season and exit in the first/second round".

Well, since the last time they won a title, the Spurs have 2 first round and 1 second round exit in five years. And they haven't Www been to the NBA finals. They only just started making more serious noise this year.

What exactly are they doing that we aren't?

Playing consistently every night of the regular season, winning more games, and playing in a tougher conference...if they were in the east they'd go further then us every year..quite clear to me they wouldn't struggle in 7 games against the pathetic 76ers of the world.
They'd sweep them.

[bdm860]

3) Financial discipline ~~ they don't overpay role guys. If Jeff Green had gotten his current deal in an offer from the Kings or the Blazers or the Bobcats, they'd have said -- good for you. Good luck. Better to lose you than to be handcuffed bu you. Yes, sometimes they trade for overpaid guys who have a couple of years left, but they always get attached talent back in return that fits the plan in #2 above.

Actually they did just that.  When Richard Jefferson opted out of a his $15m final year of his contract everybody thought he was crazy because he played terrible for the Spurs.  Then a lot of people thought the Spurs were crazy when they gave him a $39m/4year deal.  Basically they gave an older version of Jeff Green, with less upside, more money.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=greenje02&y1=2013&p2=jefferi01&y2=2011

They also didn't re-sign 3rd leading scorer Stephen Jackson after their 2003 championship.  Instead he signed with the Hawks for $1m//1yr.  (A little more complicated though because they did offer $10m/3years but took it off the table).  I'm sure a lot of fans in San Antonio thought they messed up after getting knocked out of the 2nd round of the playoffs in 2004, and Jackson went on to average 18ppg (and 22ppg over the last 41 games) for the Hawks. 

Though I agree the Spurs have a great front office, they make some of mistakes too.  But if you followed them closely you might be questioning some of their moves and why they haven't been able to win a championship or even get to the Finals since 2007.

[kozlodoev]

How do they do what?

People here are whining that they're "forced to watch a couple of aging hall of famers muddle through the season and exit in the first/second round".

Well, since the last time they won a title, the Spurs have 2 first round and 1 second round exit in five years. And they haven't Www been to the NBA finals. They only just started making more serious noise this year.

What exactly are they doing that we aren't?

Playing consistently every night of the regular season, winning more games, and playing in a tougher conference...if they were in the east they'd go further then us every year..quite clear to me they wouldn't struggle in 7 games against the pathetic 76ers of the world.
They'd sweep them.

Quite clear to me that conjecture is just that.

[Lord of Mikawa]

Their coach knows how to adapt to a changing league. Ours doesn't.

[Celtics18]

I admire the Spurs.  They are an elite, well-run organization, but I can't stand all the Spurs envy around here. 

That said, if we aren't in the hunt anymore, I wouldn't mind seeing them get another title.

[ssspence]

3) Financial discipline ~~ they don't overpay role guys. If Jeff Green had gotten his current deal in an offer from the Kings or the Blazers or the Bobcats, they'd have said -- good for you. Good luck. Better to lose you than to be handcuffed bu you. Yes, sometimes they trade for overpaid guys who have a couple of years left, but they always get attached talent back in return that fits the plan in #2 above.

Actually they did just that.  When Richard Jefferson opted out of a his $15m final year of his contract everybody thought he was crazy because he played terrible for the Spurs.  Then a lot of people thought the Spurs were crazy when they gave him a $39m/4year deal.  Basically they gave an older version of Jeff Green, with less upside, more money.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=greenje02&y1=2013&p2=jefferi01&y2=2011

They also didn't re-sign 3rd leading scorer Stephen Jackson after their 2003 championship.  Instead he signed with the Hawks for $1m//1yr.  (A little more complicated though because they did offer $10m/3years but took it off the table).  I'm sure a lot of fans in San Antonio thought they messed up after getting knocked out of the 2nd round of the playoffs in 2004, and Jackson went on to average 18ppg (and 22ppg over the last 41 games) for the Hawks. 

Though I agree the Spurs have a great front office, they make some of mistakes too.  But if you followed them closely you might be questioning some of their moves and why they haven't been able to win a championship or even get to the Finals since 2007.

Nitpicking. Yes, we all make mistakes, but they're widely considered to have the wisest front office in the league.

[CelticConcourse]

Not sure what reviewing old playoffs series has to do with the OP's point.

The Spurs are playing very very good basketball right now. Their win against last night was really strong -- a classic Pop win filled with surgical attacking of LAC's weaknesses.

It's impressive that they have the top record in the league at this point in the season. Admiration of the Spurs as a franchise is certainly well warranted.

Not impressive anymore, now it's just an expectation

They are simply the best every year

[CoachBo]

They do the best job of bringing in the role players that fits their style better then any other team. 

Pop then asks players to do what they can instead of trying to make them do what they can't.  (think the Celtics early this season having Terry play the Ray Allen role)

This in spades.

Pop builds systems around his talent - and his front office hits a higher percentage of its talent choices than any other team in the league.

He's also a master of managing minutes for his aging stars, and they put together depth that allows them to do that effectively.

As noted above, they also are very astute in cutting bait with players who don't fit their model - something the Celtics have struggled with under Ainge.

Anyone think Pop would have clung this long to Rondo? Of course not.

Ask yourself this: Would the Spurs draft the Purduo? Would the Spurs draft Fab Melo? Not a chance.

The Spurs don't hit all of them. No one does. But they certainly are better at what they do than Ainge and Doc are.

[Boris Badenov]

Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.

Yeah, but they've done that after a previous decade in which they won three titles and were a legitimate contender every year.

We had to stink for ten years in order to get a shot at being good again.

The amazing thing about them is not success over any five year period, it's the sustained success over what is twenty years now, as a small market team.