Your Official 2017 Western Conference Playoffs Thread, R2 - home of the real MVP...

[didaksrightfoot]

Didn't work last year. Or the year before that. At the end of the day they beat a team that won 7 less games than them in 6 games. Pretty standard.

I know it's harsh, but Spurs have been underachieving for year.







In before they knock off the Warriors...

Underacheiving? Cmon- we have Kawhi, half a LMA and then a bunch of guys who really are role players at this stage - a number of whom wouldnt really have been given shots with any other club. On paper our roster is far worse than you guys and the cavs - the only reason we stand a chance against either team is Pop. (And lets be honest - that has also applied for each of the last 2 seasons - our regular season records have been a testament to Pop and the organisation - not the rosters that hit the floor- the playoffs have shown that)

For the record I reckon we are good enough to beat the cavs but definitely not the warriors - our only chance is if Mike Brown returns to being 2007 Mike Brown and Kerr cant intervene in time - or Draymond gets himself suspended for 2+ games.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I don't know if anyone picked up on this, but did a media member accidentally reveal the MVP? That person named 'Doris' was talking after the game and said the Spurs had gone into this game minus the MVP. Did anyone else notice this?

Surely she meant "their mvp"? I didn't hear it though

 

[stewie griffen]

So.... Spurs are gonna get obliterated in the Conference Finals...

Or are they

Parker out could actually be a blessing. Patty will play Steph with plenty of energy. Cant afford foul trouble tho
Green v Klay - Danny can defend with the best of them, even if his shot hasnt been falling
Kawhi v KD - Oh yes
LMA v Dray - Tasty. I dare say the Dubs will look to play a lot of small ball and get LMA up on the 1/5 pnr and take advantage of his relative lack of speed
Pau v Zaza - Meh x2. Pau is basically unplayable when Zaza is off. Dedmon might get some minutes tho
Simmons showed a bit in G6 and Lee has shown bits and pieces, but ultimately the depth really isnt there, especially with Parker down. Anderson and Murray got minutes in G6 as well, but dont really see them contributing a hell of a lot in this series. Backup point is a worry, the Spurs may well go with Murray in spots

Dubs obviously have more weapons, and the Spurs will rely on big numbers from their Big 2, which is where the Dubs ability to throw multiple defenders at Kawhi will make life tough.

 

[djrossie16]

So.... Spurs are gonna get obliterated in the Conference Finals...

Or are they

Parker out could actually be a blessing. Patty will play Steph with plenty of energy. Cant afford foul trouble tho
Green v Klay - Danny can defend with the best of them, even if his shot hasnt been falling
Kawhi v KD - Oh yes
LMA v Dray - Tasty. I dare say the Dubs will look to play a lot of small ball and get LMA up on the 1/5 pnr and take advantage of his relative lack of speed
Pau v Zaza - Meh x2. Pau is basically unplayable when Zaza is off. Dedmon might get some minutes tho
Simmons showed a bit in G6 and Lee has shown bits and pieces, but ultimately the depth really isnt there, especially with Parker down. Anderson and Murray got minutes in G6 as well, but dont really see them contributing a hell of a lot in this series. Backup point is a worry, the Spurs may well go with Murray in spots

Dubs obviously have more weapons, and the Spurs will rely on big numbers from their Big 2, which is where the Dubs ability to throw multiple defenders at Kawhi will make life tough.

After this latest performance by the Spurs it has become a bit more interesting

 

[DontArgue4]

I don't know if anyone picked up on this, but did a media member accidentally reveal the MVP? That person named 'Doris' was talking after the game and said the Spurs had gone into this game minus the MVP. Did anyone else notice this?

westbrook won it

theres a post floating around that compiled all the known votes, there are only around 10 that were unknown

Westbrook was at 540 points and Harden was 2nd with like 450, it was a lead that couldnt be made up

leonard only had like 5 first place votes

 

[vanders]

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

We need some meditation in here as well

 

[largebus]

We need some meditation in here as well

We could learn from the master

 

[peternorth]

And who predicted this? Houston join the vanquished. Would've loved to have seen houston and the warriors battle it out in a high scoring series. But alas, not this year. Houston can be proud they have unearthed super harden, and with a full pre season of lou williams expect great things next season.

If you're not first, you're last. I've been saying that since day 1 of the lakers season

 

[Son of Skeletor]

That person named 'Doris' was talking after the game and said the Spurs had gone into this game minus the MVP. Did anyone else notice this?

That'd be Doris Burke.

And with a name like Doris, it's pretty safe to assume she's a woman, not a 'person'.

 

[PP34]

Despite still expecting Warriors domination, I'm interested to see if Kerr being out has much of an effect in this series. They coped last year with Walton but Mike Brown is far better suited as an assistant coach. Him taking on Popovich is a bit worrisome if Pop figures out a way to cause issues for the Warriors.

 

[Satan]

Combining 2 threads

 

[peternorth]

Well now the West is down to two, am happy to sticky one of our great posters new thread when the time comes.

 

[fidstar]

Despite still expecting Warriors domination, I'm interested to see if Kerr being out has much of an effect in this series. They coped last year with Walton but Mike Brown is far better suited as an assistant coach. Him taking on Popovich is a bit worrisome if Pop figures out a way to cause issues for the Warriors.

Warriors now 47-4 without Kerr. He's been holding them back!

 

[fidstar]

Underacheiving? Cmon- we have Kawhi, half a LMA and then a bunch of guys who really are role players at this stage - a number of whom wouldnt really have been given shots with any other club. On paper our roster is far worse than you guys and the cavs - the only reason we stand a chance against either team is Pop. (And lets be honest - that has also applied for each of the last 2 seasons - our regular season records have been a testament to Pop and the organisation - not the rosters that hit the floor- the playoffs have shown that)

For the record I reckon we are good enough to beat the cavs but definitely not the warriors - our only chance is if Mike Brown returns to being 2007 Mike Brown and Kerr cant intervene in time - or Draymond gets himself suspended for 2+ games.

Ahh, sorry, my post may not have been clear. I was talking about previous seasons.

Here's a post I wrote earlier about it. They obviously overachieved between 99 and 08, but since then they've been pretty poor considering how good they have been in the regular season. And they have dodged criticism about it.



They've underachieved a fair bit since 2009

2009 - Went into the playoffs as the 3rd seed and got thumped in the first round to the 6th seed (Dallas) - 4-1 - Dallas then proceeded to get well beaten in the next round 4-1

2010 - They actually caused an upset in the first round beating Dallas, before being swept in the 2nd round

2011 - Were the top seed (61 wins) and got beaten comfortably by the 8th seed in 6 games in the first round

2012 - Had the best record in the league. Got beaten in the WCF

2013 - WC went as expected. They started each series with HC and won. Lost to Miami in the Finals. Miami had HC.

2014 - Finished with the leagues best record. Struggled in the 1st round and needed 7 games. Took care of business in the next two rounds. Then split the first two games in the Finals at home, before playing 3 GOAT like games to close it out. I still wonder how that series goes if LeBron doesn't cramp.

2015 - In the first round the Spurs were the 6th seed to Clips 3rd, but there was only 1 game win difference between the two. Spurs finished that regular season on fire, and many believed they were the biggest non-LeBron danger to the Warriors. I think they started the series against Clips as comfortable favorites. They got eliminated.

2016 - 67 wins. Top 10 record of all time. They got eliminated by a 55 win team in OKC in the second round.

Since 2011 they've averaged more than 60 wins per season and have 1 championship to show for it. If a LeBron led team had done that, you could imagine the media reaction.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Ahh, sorry, my post may not have been clear. I was talking about previous seasons.

Here's a post I wrote earlier about it. They obviously overachieved between 99 and 08, but since then they've been pretty poor considering how good they have been in the regular season. And they have dodged criticism about it.



They've underachieved a fair bit since 2009

2009 - Went into the playoffs as the 3rd seed and got thumped in the first round to the 6th seed (Dallas) - 4-1 - Dallas then proceeded to get well beaten in the next round 4-1

2010 - They actually caused an upset in the first round beating Dallas, before being swept in the 2nd round

2011 - Were the top seed (61 wins) and got beaten comfortably by the 8th seed in 6 games in the first round

2012 - Had the best record in the league. Got beaten in the WCF

2013 - WC went as expected. They started each series with HC and won. Lost to Miami in the Finals. Miami had HC.

2014 - Finished with the leagues best record. Struggled in the 1st round and needed 7 games. Took care of business in the next two rounds. Then split the first two games in the Finals at home, before playing 3 GOAT like games to close it out. I still wonder how that series goes if LeBron doesn't cramp.

2015 - In the first round the Spurs were the 6th seed to Clips 3rd, but there was only 1 game win difference between the two. Spurs finished that regular season on fire, and many believed they were the biggest non-LeBron danger to the Warriors. I think they started the series against Clips as comfortable favorites. They got eliminated.

2016 - 67 wins. Top 10 record of all time. They got eliminated by a 55 win team in OKC in the second round.

Since 2011 they've averaged more than 60 wins per season and have 1 championship to show for it. If a LeBron led team had done that, you could imagine the media reaction.

Let me direct you to one I prepared earlier: (admittedly 2 years out of date)
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-it-means-for-the-eastern-conference.1101161/

You can't compare Lebron because his run to the finals each year has been laughably easy. You put any of his teams in the Western Conference and his playoff record would be equivalent to all the very good teams in the west over that time.

If you want to call the Spurs run underachieving then what do you call OKC (with 2 of the top 5 players in the game), Dirk's mavs, the Clippers, the Grizzlies, or the 73 win warriors? Or any of the Suns teams, or the Kobe-Nash-Dwight Lakers?
The common denominator - these teams all came up against each other, and only one can make it to the finals.

The thing is - if you want to talk about the Spurs pre-08/9 then that is the period they underachieved. A young and healthy Timmy with Manu and Tony in their peaks. They were two split seconds away from being a chance for 5 in a row from 03-07. (0.4 vs the Lakers, and Manu stupidly giving Dirk a 3-point play in game 7 when we're up by 3) - win those two series' and they would've been favourites against both eventual champions (IMO). That is the period they underachieved - never repeating is the one stain on Pop's record.

But since '09?
The Spurs had Timmay and Manu on their last legs for close to a decade, TP being a shadow of himself for 3-4 years, and have kept rotating through enough fresh talent to keep us near the top with only 1 significant free agent signing (unless you include R-Jeff, lol) and only one draft pick in the top 20 (which we traded up for). Basically every other player brought in has been a discard from elsewhere. The fact that the Spurs have stayed relevant over that period is a testament to Pop and the organisation - when every season people have tipped the Spurs to fall away.

 

[PP34]

I think it's a somewhat fair assessment by fidstar

I find the OKC losses hard to agree with because that Thunder team was a terrible matchup for the Spurs every year and were always close in wins.

The thing about the Spurs from 2009 onwards though is that they've been a very well coached team that overachieves in the wins department each season. They might have won 60 games each year, but unlike a team like the Warriors when they've won 60 games lately you never thought the Spurs were the clear contender out in the West. With their reliance on an ageing core they have always been ripe for underachieving in the playoffs I think. Playoff series really did allow teams to expose their weaknesses which Pop could hide more easily in the regular season. Teams could go at Duncan, Parker etc and make them struggle at times due to athletic advantages. The Thunder each year they were healthy always looked a greater threat purely because they were younger and possessed the best player in the series each time.

The past 5-10 years there's really been a trend of these teams that are coached really well and end up with a record that really overrates their actual talent level. This has been the Spurs a lot the past few seasons. Until Kawhi began to come along as a star the Spurs were basically a souped up 2015 Atlanta Hawks and that made things tough when you go up against Durant/Westbrook or CP3/Griffin who can win games on their talent alone.

 

[DaveyBoy123]

Lots of arguing over not much in here today... But I don't really have a great deal to add.

A disappointing end to a very good season for the Rockets in every which way... Right down to the lack of a crowd up until quarter time.

I'm a believer in old-fashioned values (probably why I'm a Spurs fan) and I thought we were a really good shot today because the Rockets used only 7 players in Game 5... an OT game, no less. I understand that Nene would have made it 8, but most playoff teams have at least 1 player injured come the playoffs. 7 players on the court over 53 minutes should tell the Rockets something.

Can the Spurs beat the Warriors? Probably not, since the match-ups aren't great, the Warriors are well rested & the Spurs will actually miss TP playing out of his skin every 3rd game or so. It would require a monumental coaching (or multiple Kawhi) performances to give it a shot, but you gotta be in to win it.

Have the Spurs over or under achieved? I'm with PP34 on this one in that it probably balances out over the regular season & playoffs. But I can tell you 1 thing: I didn't expect the Spurs to win as many games as they have this season, nor make the Western Conference finals. So, this year they have over-achieved.

And the future looks quite good too. If they can hold on to Patty (sorry hbkaus) to work in conjunction with Murray, then once the wages of Manu & TP come off the books, they can likely add some genuine quality. The key will be how great Pop can make Jonathon Simmons - presuming he can persuade him to stay whenever he becomes a free agent.

 

[fidstar]

Let me direct you to one I prepared earlier: (admittedly 2 years out of date)
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-it-means-for-the-eastern-conference.1101161/

You can't compare Lebron because his run to the finals each year has been laughably easy. You put any of his teams in the Western Conference and his playoff record would be equivalent to all the very good teams in the west over that time.

If you want to call the Spurs run underachieving then what do you call OKC (with 2 of the top 5 players in the game), Dirk's mavs, the Clippers, the Grizzlies, or the 73 win warriors? Or any of the Suns teams, or the Kobe-Nash-Dwight Lakers?
The common denominator - these teams all came up against each other, and only one can make it to the finals.

The thing is - if you want to talk about the Spurs pre-08/9 then that is the period they underachieved. A young and healthy Timmy with Manu and Tony in their peaks. They were two split seconds away from being a chance for 5 in a row from 03-07. (0.4 vs the Lakers, and Manu stupidly giving Dirk a 3-point play in game 7 when we're up by 3) - win those two series' and they would've been favourites against both eventual champions (IMO). That is the period they underachieved - never repeating is the one stain on Pop's record.

But since '09?
The Spurs had Timmay and Manu on their last legs for close to a decade, TP being a shadow of himself for 3-4 years, and have kept rotating through enough fresh talent to keep us near the top with only 1 significant free agent signing (unless you include R-Jeff, lol) and only one draft pick in the top 20 (which we traded up for). Basically every other player brought in has been a discard from elsewhere. The fact that the Spurs have stayed relevant over that period is a testament to Pop and the organisation - when every season people have tipped the Spurs to fall away.

All I'm saying, is compared to regular season win/loss, they've underachieved. Which is just how it is.

It's not easy to win a championship. No doubt.

The other teams you mentioned

OKC - Yes, they underachieved. But that team didn't have a coach that could actually get them to play together
The Clippers - Have they actually finished higher than a 3rd seed?
Mavs - Probably overall. But they only had one season they won more than 60 games.
Griz - wat?
Warriors - obviously underachieved last year. But they've been in the hunt for 2 season and won it once. Not bad in the scheme of things
Suns - Yep, underachieved. Had issues with being in the time of two super teams in Lakers/SA
Lakers (howard times) - lol

SA are averaging 61 wins a game over those 8 or so season. Those teams above probably combine for 8.

All I'm saying if it was an LA or LeBron or Knicks, the media would have made a big deal about it.

I also think it shows that this whole "Pop is the best with the resting to save them for the playoffs" is completely overrated.

I know, it's first world problems for SA supporters. Other than LeBron (and whoever he happens to be playing for), they've had the best of the last 8 years or so.

 

[fidstar]

I think it's a somewhat fair assessment by fidstar

I find the OKC losses hard to agree with because that Thunder team was a terrible matchup for the Spurs every year and were always close in wins.

The thing about the Spurs from 2009 onwards though is that they've been a very well coached team that overachieves in the wins department each season. They might have won 60 games each year, but unlike a team like the Warriors when they've won 60 games lately you never thought the Spurs were the clear contender out in the West. With their reliance on an ageing core they have always been ripe for underachieving in the playoffs I think. Playoff series really did allow teams to expose their weaknesses which Pop could hide more easily in the regular season. Teams could go at Duncan, Parker etc and make them struggle at times due to athletic advantages. The Thunder each year they were healthy always looked a greater threat purely because they were younger and possessed the best player in the series each time.

The past 5-10 years there's really been a trend of these teams that are coached really well and end up with a record that really overrates their actual talent level. This has been the Spurs a lot the past few seasons. Until Kawhi began to come along as a star the Spurs were basically a souped up 2015 Atlanta Hawks and that made things tough when you go up against Durant/Westbrook or CP3/Griffin who can win games on their talent alone.

If you don't think a team that won 67 games in a season, with a point dif of +10.6 (both top 10 of all time), being only 2 seasons removed from being champions, is a clear contender, I'm not sure what they need to do.

Hindsight is great, but the world was ready to explode when the Warriors and SA were destined to meet in the WCF last season.

 

[PP34]

If you don't think a team that won 67 games in a season, with a point dif of +10.6 (both top 10 of all time), being only 2 seasons removed from being champions, is a clear contender, I'm not sure what they need to do.

Hindsight is great, but the world was ready to explode when the Warriors and SA were destined to meet in the WCF last season.

I was extremely pro Warriors last year and didn't see anybody beating them. I was stunned to see them fall in a hole against OKC.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

All I'm saying, is compared to regular season win/loss, they've underachieved. Which is just how it is.

It's not easy to win a championship. No doubt.

The other teams you mentioned

OKC - Yes, they underachieved. But that team didn't have a coach that could actually get them to play together
The Clippers - Have they actually finished higher than a 3rd seed?
Mavs - Probably overall. But they only had one season they won more than 60 games.
Griz - wat?
Warriors - obviously underachieved last year. But they've been in the hunt for 2 season and won it once. Not bad in the scheme of things
Suns - Yep, underachieved. Had issues with being in the time of two super teams in Lakers/SA
Lakers (howard times) - lol

SA are averaging 61 wins a game over those 8 or so season. Those teams above probably combine for 8.

All I'm saying if it was an LA or LeBron or Knicks, the media would have made a big deal about it.

I also think it shows that this whole "Pop is the best with the resting to save them for the playoffs" is completely overrated.

I know, it's first world problems for SA supporters. Other than LeBron (and whoever he happens to be playing for), they've had the best of the last 8 years or so.

Go to the start of those seasons and tell me in how many of those were the Spurs tipped to win the title? or even make it out of the West?
That is how you should fairly judge over or under achieving.

I understand what you're saying - that our playoff record over that time hasn't been good enough for a team with those regular season numbers - but surely you could just claim the reverse:
We have overachieved in the regular seasons because Pop can make depth players look better than they actually are (hence our history of every season having minimum salary guys move on to $5-10m deals elsewhere and then not achieving much) but that the playoff results have actually shown where our level of top end talent actually is.
The fact is, the two probably balance out.

This is the club that has stayed relevent for 20 years. You're not gonna win the championship everytime - it's ridiculous to call a 5x championship winning team "underacheving" because they didn't fall away like every other team has done over that time.
Come back to me in 2030 if Curry is still winning titles.

 

[fidstar]

Go to the start of those seasons and tell me in how many of those were the Spurs tipped to win the title? or even make it out of the West?
That is how you should fairly judge over or under achieving.

I understand what you're saying - that our playoff record over that time hasn't been good enough for a team with those regular season numbers - but surely you could just claim the reverse:
We have overachieved in the regular seasons because Pop can make depth players look better than they actually are (hence our history of every season having minimum salary guys move on to $5-10m deals elsewhere and then not achieving much) but that the playoff results have actually shown where our level of top end talent actually is.
The fact is, the two probably balance out.

This is the club that has stayed relevent for 20 years. You're not gonna win the championship everytime - it's ridiculous to call a 5x championship winning team "underacheving" because they didn't fall away like every other team has done over that time.
Come back to me in 2030 if Curry is still winning titles.

They have won 1 championship in the time period I have said. 1 championship in 8 years, while averaging 61 wins a season. That's not great. If over that period they had been averaging 50 wins a season, I say nothing.

And people saying that they have overachieved during the regular season. ???? Wat? That's hindsight at it's best. You're basing that on the fact they lost in the playoffs. Oh... they must have overachieved in the season. That's what the season is for! To rank teams in how good they are at playing basketball for that season!

Preseason predictions are great. But it really comes down to what you think a team will do come playoff time (fwiw Spurs probably started at least half those seasons as one of the favorites to win it all). No one has ever said going into the playoffs. Oh the Spurs suck. Yes, last year OKC were a bad matchup for them, but they went into the series paying $1.42 to OKC $2.35. They were comfortable favorites.

Like I said, first world problems. That still doesn't change what I said.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

They have won 1 championship in the time period I have said. 1 championship in 8 years, while averaging 61 wins a season. That's not great. If over that period they had been averaging 50 wins a season, I say nothing.

Just read that again to yourself.
So if they won less games you would say they weren't underacheiving?

----
These are the seasons they topped the conference:
'14 - won the championship
'12 - lost to OKC in WCF
'11 - lost to Memphis in 1st round
'06 - lost to Mavs in WCS
'03 - won the championship
'01 - lost to Lakers in WCF
'99 - won the championship

And to balance it out:
'13 - 2nd in West - lost in Finals
'07 - 3rd in West - won the championship
'05 - 2nd in West - won the championship.

If you assume that regular season record determines playoff chances, then:
So wow - in total we had 4 times when we would've been favourite in the west and didn't make it to the finals (and won the title the 3 other times - I'm happy with those odds): 2 of those times were in the WCF and one was against the eventual finalist. Only the loss to memphis was clearly underacheiving.
Also balance that out by 3 times when we weren't favourite and made it to the finals - with 2 rings.

Any other "60 win" season is irrelevent because we werent top of the west, so according to you we shouldn't have been favourite to win it.
---

And I'm not sure why you are abritrarily wanting to talk about the last 8 years?
Funny that that coincides with the significant decline of Timmy, Manu, and then Tony, and the repeated rebuilding of every single other position on our roster. Any other team wouldve completely dropped off the map over that time - and the Spurs were predicted to on many occasions. The run will end at some point, and every year until it does is a bonus. But you can't seriously be faulting the team just because they keep finding ways to stay competitive, even if it means they aren't good enough to go all the way?
In that time the Lakers have imploded (at least) twice. The Celtics sold the farm to rebuild. The Cavs tanked post-lebron to get THREE NUMBER 1 PICKS, only to have Bron come home. And the Heat have had 2 "rebuilds" (if you can call the decision a rebuild). And the Pistons have been in the wildnerness since their title. Really the only team that can compete with the Spurs for consistency over that time is arguably the Mavs - and they have 1 ring to show for it.
The Spurs ARE NOT championship favourites. They were not last year either. Just accept that and enjoy the run - it will end soon: there is a big rebuild already underway and soon to be accelerated... time will tell if they can continue to be competitive or if one of these seasons is the year they finally drop way behind the pack.

I really don't see why you keep going on about this with the Spurs?
Your warriors have been the absolute dominant team for the last 3 season and your roster shits all over ours. You will likely win this series in 5, maybe 6, games - potentially a sweep. Is this some little brother mentality that finally you get to beat the aging spurs in a finals series?
---

And to put the Spurs record in historical perspective:

The Duncan-Spurs 5 rings is only bettered by Jordan's Bulls and Russel's Celtics. (And on par with 3 lakers instalments - Mikans, Magics and Kobes).

No one else comes close. It is not an underacheivement to not continue winning rings - its not an easy thing to do.

 

[fidstar]

I'm talking about the last 8 years, because that's when they've underachieved. They didn't underachieve before that. They achieved what they should have (if not more) based on their regular season (haven't really checked it deeply). This all came about when Spurs were struggling in the first round against Memphis (2 all if I remember), and I cast my mind back thinking if they got knocked out quite often earlier than usual the last several years.

I don't have a vendetta against the Spurs. I'm just presenting facts. Ask Cavs, Rockets or OKC fans and they probably say the same things about me for their teams.

The Spurs haven't underachieved this year (in isolation). Based on their regular season they have got to where they should. Anything more than now is a bonus. If they had beaten OKC last year, and lost to the Warriors, that would have been the same.

I'm not sure why you think what I'm saying is wrong. And I'm objective. I don't get upset when people say Steph Curry has under-performed in the Finals the last two seasons. He has. The facts are obvious. I hate it because I love the man, but facts are facts.

The Spurs constantly win 60 games because they are a good team. Really good! That doesn't happen year after year by accident. They just haven't performed that well in the playoffs.