PDA

View Full Version : Will San Antonio's win usher in a new era for the NBA?



FOBolous
06-16-2014, 01:48 PM
San Antonio and Miami are the archetype of two contrasting teams and styles.

One team is the paragon of team basketball with a focus on ball movement and getting everyone involved. everyone on the team touched the ball regardless of their "role" on the team. and everyone on the team has the green light to shoot if they have a good look.

The other team is the paragon of the star-centric basketball that has became the norm in the NBA. No team in the NBA epitomizes this star-centric style of basketball than the Miami Heat. No team in the NBA utilizes this star-centric style of basketball better than the Miami Heat. Their success with this star-centric style of basketball is why they've made the NBA Finals every year for the past 4 years winning 2 of the championships. with this style of basketball, everything on the team starts and ends with the star(s). the star(s) carries all the load and "wills" his team to victories. Another team that plays this brand of basketball with notable success if the Oklahoma City Thunders. the biggest flaw with this style of basketball, a flaw that has been exposed repeatedly in the playoffs, is that if you shut down the star(s), you shut down the team. again, the most notable example of this failure is the Oklahoma City Thunders. with San Antonio's brand of team basketball...there really isn't one or two players you can focus on to shut down the team. every player contributes. the fact that everyone contributes and everyone has a chance with the ball is a big reason why Miami's defense was so helpless vs San Antonio.

my question is...will San Antonio's win usher in a new era where teams shift their focus away from a star-centric style of basketball to a more team-oriented style of basketball? especially considering that this focus on the team, rather than the star, has kept San Antonio competitive for 10+ years and have helped them beat the best star-centric team the NBA has ever seen since the Kobe/Shaq Lakers....or in the opinion of some, the best star-centric team the NBA has ever seen since MJ's Bulls.

Nikeman
06-16-2014, 01:54 PM
I still think we will see your "star-centric" basketball.

In San Antonio's glory days, Duncan was the best PF in the game, Parker is a top 3-4 PG in this league still, and Manu was one of the best pure scorers in the league. San Antonio has their stars, you cannot win in the league without them.

That being said, I don't think we will see another version of the Spurs for a while. All the talk this free agency is of stars teaming up. Its what the league has become quite honestly.

raiderfaninTX
06-16-2014, 01:57 PM
No!!!!!

The Captain
06-16-2014, 01:59 PM
I stopped reading after "archetype" and "paragon (x2)"

FOBolous
06-16-2014, 02:01 PM
I stopped reading after "archetype" and "paragon (x2)"

ok cool guy.

JWO35
06-16-2014, 02:02 PM
"If a Big 3 doesn't work, get a Big 4."
-NBA Logic

AddiX
06-16-2014, 02:06 PM
No it won't, because no other team will have the patience and longevity of the same players on the roster + pop.

If this team was in a big market, the roster would of been broken up already. Not may years ago we were talking about how the spurs were too old and couldn't compete with the new super teams. But they stuck with it, and won with there amazing chemistry.

No other team will do this. That was years and years of chemistry and basketball experience, that put together that all time great performance.

You may not see a performance like that ever again in all honesty.

ManRam
06-16-2014, 02:12 PM
I just hope people stop obsessing over the notion that you need a "true" or "pass-first" point guard to be successful. For whatever reason I've always hated the notion that they were necessary and it always grinds my gears. I've long said "give me a team with a number of play makers and a number of unselfish passers over a team with one PG who is expected to do it all". I think there's a reason why for multiple decades now we haven't seen a team win while led by one of those "true" or "pass-first" point guards. Rondo was the closest thing, but he wasn't the player he eventually became at the time.

NBA defenses are too good these days. You gotta operate as a team and really work hard to get good looks for everyone. The Spurs just did that as well as any team in recent memory, and it should be what teams strive for. Stars run this league, but great teams still can trump them.

Kevj77
06-16-2014, 02:30 PM
I doubt it coaches like Pop are rare. To have the knowledge to coach the right way and adapt to the league or your players strengths is one thing. To be able to get a bunch of very young cocky millionaires to play for the name on the front of the jersey is another. Pop is one of the few that can do both.

bucketss
06-16-2014, 02:36 PM
hopefully.. but it will be tough to fix what jordan ruined.

Chronz
06-16-2014, 02:37 PM
Im sorry but I dont buy the notion that San Antonio isn't one of those star studded teams. That they play exceptional as a unit on top of being talented is why they are champions. Miami was prolly the 4th best team in the league this year IMO, they have the leagues best player , Bosh, and the corpse of Wade so they have the name power, but its obvious that Wade is no longer an elite player.

Chronz
06-16-2014, 02:41 PM
I just hope people stop obsessing over the notion that you need a "true" or "pass-first" point guard to be successful. For whatever reason I've always hated the notion that they were necessary and it always grinds my gears. I've long said "give me a team with a number of play makers and a number of unselfish passers over a team with one PG who is expected to do it all". I think there's a reason why for multiple decades now we haven't seen a team win while led by one of those "true" or "pass-first" point guards. Rondo was the closest thing, but he wasn't the player he eventually became at the time.

NBA defenses are too good these days. You gotta operate as a team and really work hard to get good looks for everyone. The Spurs just did that as well as any team in recent memory, and it should be what teams strive for. Stars run this league, but great teams still can trump them.
Winning is about what you do on both ends. Chauncey and Zeke were true PG's IMO. Both needed insane defense to win but thats because they are midgets and cant effect the game so much on that end.

GrkGawdofWalkz
06-16-2014, 02:44 PM
It is really about the players that you draft or bring in who can buy into the culture. San Antonio has been doing their thing for 17 years and its not about to change. Unlike other cities who are more of the classic "star first" approach. It will not work everywhere.

Crackadalic
06-16-2014, 03:55 PM
Parker is still a star
Duncan at his age is a borderline allstar
Manu is one of the best 6th man ever
Sugar K is finals MVP

This team has stars so let's not act like just team oriented basketball will win chips. The rare thing about the spurs is that they have stars and use fundamental basketball and they don't rely on one to two stars to win.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-16-2014, 03:59 PM
Lol, no.

That roster is once in a generation. Majority of teams who have won still had superstars.

ewing
06-16-2014, 04:06 PM
Winning is about what you do on both ends. Chauncey and Zeke were true PG's IMO. Both needed insane defense to win but thats because they are midgets and cant effect the game so much on that end.



I don't understand what this means. Which end could Isiah nor Chauncey have much effect on? Whichever, one you think it is, i am pretty sure i disagree. Both players were excellent 2 way players IMO and Chauncey had pretty good size too

ewing
06-16-2014, 04:07 PM
paragon

WadeKobe
06-16-2014, 05:07 PM
The problem here is an imprecise and conveniently shifting definition of "star".

What is typically meant, and reflected in the rhetoric and player rankings as well as stats like PER and WinShares is the belief that a team needs high usage scorers, or that high usage scoring makes a player more valuable.

That is, you need a "shooter of last resort" and a "first option", and player rankings always utilize the concept of "shot creation". Even some of the better and smarter posters on this site do the same.

My hope is that not only will this change the way teams are built, but that it will ultimately influence the way that analytics is done.

You don't need a shot creator, and players do not "create shots". Shots are a function of the shot clock and teams. Shots exist and will be taken. A good shot is one that goes in 50% of the time (break even point for wins) and a player that is valuable is one who can shoot at or above a league average clip and pass out of shots that don't go in at that clip.

This Spurs team brought basketball back to the NBA, and hopefully it will bring basketball back to analytics.

RaiderLakersA's
06-16-2014, 05:33 PM
Will there be other teams that try to duplicate the Spurs? Yes.

Will they succeed? No.

Why? Because as much as we'd like to think that the Spurs are not one of those "superstar" based teams, let's not forget that Tony, Manu and Duncan are still the core of that team and legitimate superstars. They're just older superstars.

BALLER R
06-16-2014, 05:52 PM
Spurs got 3 hall of famers

DreamShaker
06-16-2014, 06:34 PM
Marketability is another huge factor in why teams get stars. Not every team can win a championship. But if you have stars, you can compete and make money.

beasted86
06-16-2014, 06:42 PM
No.

Teams usually don't have a top 10 all-time player with the longevity of Duncan. Teams usually can't convince their stars to repeatedly take below market value. Teams usually can't avoid both freak and debilitating injuries year after year like this either.

Reyes6
06-16-2014, 06:58 PM
I think the only difference we'll see is perhaps more GM's willing to stay pat on the trade deadline and building around their current roster in hopes of chemistry development rather than getting that "star" player. But I don't thing we'll see a significant change in anything.

kdspurman
06-16-2014, 07:11 PM
No.

Teams usually don't have a top 10 all-time player with the longevity of Duncan. Teams usually can't convince their stars to repeatedly take below market value. Teams usually can't avoid both freak and debilitating injuries year after year like this either.

Agreed with all, but not the injuries part. To name a few, Parker's hamstring last year, Manu's had a bunch injuries (most recent significant was the fractured elbow/arm in 2011), Duncan battling plantar fascitiis and tearing his meniscus in 2000. They just have happened a little less, I guess because Pop manages their minutes extremely well. But they've dealt with their fair share of injuries

KnicksorBust
06-16-2014, 07:28 PM
I cant elaborate more bc I am on my phone but I say yes to a degree. The difference will be seen on the court not in the front office. Teams will still clear cap space for the LeBrons and Durants but the level of play (ball movement/motion) will change for the better.

Jarvo
06-16-2014, 07:37 PM
Parker is still a star
Duncan at his age is a borderline allstar
Manu is one of the best 6th man ever
Sugar K is finals MVP

This team has stars so let's not act like just team oriented basketball will win chips. The rare thing about the spurs is that they have stars and use fundamental basketball and they don't rely on one to two stars to win.

I mean just a while ago some were saying Parker is a product of the system lol but that's a whole different topic on a different day.

But to answer the question at hand I look at a team like Portland and see some Spurs in them if they can keep that young team intact and add some bench players watch out! I want to say OKC but I think if they come up short again Westy is gonna be gone or KD and that'll be the end of that.

ink
06-16-2014, 07:42 PM
The problem here is an imprecise and conveniently shifting definition of "star".

What is typically meant, and reflected in the rhetoric and player rankings as well as stats like PER and WinShares is the belief that a team needs high usage scorers, or that high usage scoring makes a player more valuable.

That is, you need a "shooter of last resort" and a "first option", and player rankings always utilize the concept of "shot creation". Even some of the better and smarter posters on this site do the same.

My hope is that not only will this change the way teams are built, but that it will ultimately influence the way that analytics is done.

You don't need a shot creator, and players do not "create shots". Shots are a fiction of the shot clock and teams. Shots exist and will be taken. A good shot is one that goes in 50% of the time (break even point for wins) and a player that is valuable is one who can shoot at or above a league average clip and pass out of shots that don't go in at that clip.

This Spurs team brought basketball back to the NBA, and hopefully it will bring basketball back to analytics.

Awesome post. I'm going to dig up a great article about "shot creators" I read recently that supports what you're saying.

ink
06-16-2014, 07:44 PM
Will there be other teams that try to duplicate the Spurs? Yes.

Will they succeed? No.

Why? Because as much as we'd like to think that the Spurs are not one of those "superstar" based teams, let's not forget that Tony, Manu and Duncan are still the core of that team and legitimate superstars. They're just older superstars.

They're also internally developed superstars who learned most of what they know with the Spurs.

This might be wishful thinking but I do see a slight change in approach among teams in the league, and in hoping the new CBA makes it harder and harder for stars to collude and ring chase.

kdspurman
06-16-2014, 08:24 PM
I mean just a while ago some were saying Parker is a product of the system lol but that's a whole different topic on a different day.

But to answer the question at hand I look at a team like Portland and see some Spurs in them if they can keep that young team intact and add some bench players watch out! I want to say OKC but I think if they come up short again Westy is gonna be gone or KD and that'll be the end of that.

I don't know about OKC because I don't think they have the mental side of the game down. Talent wise of course, but not the other side.

It's funny you can see when the Hawks play how similar they are to SA already. Bud really did a great job there. That's where it starts, a strong FO who has a coach they can trust. From there, you obviously need to get lucky and have talent, but you start bringing in guys who care more about the team than individual success. And that's where most teams will struggle. It's hard to find guys like that

Wade n Fade
06-16-2014, 09:09 PM
Believe me when I said this, but San Antonio has the same script from the past and for the future. They manage their players minutes well, focus on drafting specific guys that play their roles and have specific characteristics, and have an excellent training and coaching staff respectively. Sure, there is some luck involved when you find diamonds in the rough because you can use math to determine probabilities of success, but nothing is perfect. San Antonio has great continuity. By tanking in one season, they landed Duncan. Duncan is the best PF to play the game. Adding international guys that they draft and stash is important. They have extreme patience too. Danny Green had a stint before being let go and brought back at a later time. Their bench is good enough to beat several teams just playing them. RC Buford is one terrific GM. It's nothing new what San Antonio does, but it's more apparent in the league. That's why San Antonio's tree extends further today. Presti was Buford's subordinate. Budhenolzer, Horaneck, Brown, etc were assistants under Pops. Teams are trying to emulate their success, but it's so difficult. Miami is even following the script w/ D-Wade.

Jarvo
06-16-2014, 09:19 PM
I don't know about OKC because I don't think they have the mental side of the game down. Talent wise of course, but not the other side.

It's funny you can see when the Hawks play how similar they are to SA already. Bud really did a great job there. That's where it starts, a strong FO who has a coach they can trust. From there, you obviously need to get lucky and have talent, but you start bringing in guys who care more about the team than individual success. And that's where most teams will struggle. It's hard to find guys like that


It is which is ashame, You have to put your pride and ego aside sometimes but players don't realize that til towards the end of their careers.

kblo247
06-16-2014, 09:54 PM
No. They have never defended a title, never been a true dynasty, and thus never defined an era where teams mimick them to try and win it all.

They need to actually be fighting champs for once to change the way people play instead of just one and done like always

WadeKobe
06-16-2014, 10:01 PM
No. They have never defended a title, never been a true dynasty, and thus never defined an era where teams mimick them to try and win it all.

They need to actually be fighting champs for once to change the way people play instead of just one and done like always

Three straight trips tothe WCF and two straight to the finals. Yea. They're super inconsistent.

SluggeR
06-16-2014, 10:04 PM
I hope the Spurs motivate these other organizations to start hiring legit scouts and some real coaches. The NBA as a whole sucks when it comes to scouts and coaches. They try to blame the poor basketball being played in the NBA on kids coming out too early, but the truth is the coaching is pathetic.

Verbal Christ
06-16-2014, 10:07 PM
Teams with the best player(s) will normally win.

SA was not your ordinary team. When guys play together for a decade it brings in another element. Chemistry personified.

I'd still choose whoever Lebron plays for next year as the favorite to win it all.

kblo247
06-16-2014, 10:19 PM
Three straight trips tothe WCF and two straight to the finals. Yea. They're super inconsistent. they are. To define how to win, you actually have to win, defend it, and so on. Phil's teams, Rudy's rockets, etc all did that. San Antonio never has, it's not a proven consistent way to win. When MJ and pip were on top people tried to mold their way into a wing tandem. Hell Houston in the modern times has tried to recreate Kobe and Shaq twice because they won, won, won, and beat off challengers who came after their title.

San Antonio needs to defend a title to make people want to follow their way

WadeKobe
06-16-2014, 10:36 PM
they are. To define how to win, you actually have to win, defend it, and so on. Phil's teams, Rudy's rockets, etc all did that. San Antonio never has, it's not a proven consistent way to win. When MJ and pip were on top people tried to mold their way into a wing tandem. Hell Houston in the modern times has tried to recreate Kobe and Shaq twice because they won, won, won, and beat off challengers who came after their title.

San Antonio needs to defend a title to make people want to follow their way

This is the single most flawed mindset in this thread, and if GMs really think this way it is no surprise so few win.

In a league with limited actual star resources, how do you build a consistent winner who can challenge for a chip every year within the confines of a salary cap/luxury tax system?

The answer so far (and wha you are advocating) has been right for those limited resources with little success and high failure rate, spending too much money on non-stars (Joe Johnson) who are the seemingly best available.

The answer should be: "use cap space on maximizing complete roster talent".

If you can get a Durant or LBJ, awesome. If not, get a couple of very good rebounders who shoot a high percentage down low, fit them with a low turnover ball handler who preferably shoots a high percentage from the field and flank them with two high percentage three point shooters.

On the bench, have a low turnover ball handler who shoots high percentage, one solid rebounder, and a bunch of high percentage three point shooters.

Stay young, let players to when they cost too much. Pay only the very great players. When they are no longer great, pay them less or send tem on their way.

FOBolous
06-16-2014, 10:51 PM
I never said SA doesn't have any stars. Nor have I said stars aren't important. They are and they always will be because they're your most consistent players. I was comparing their style of play and commenting on how the teams are built.

Except for SA, literally every team in the NBA run their offense through their stars. And just like how the Suns pioneered the "run and gun" offense that's so popular in the NBA now, will teams in the NBA start adopting SA's style of play where the stars aren't the focal point...where there really isn't a focal point? An offense predicated on ball movement and finding the man with the best look vs the man who's the best player?

And to make such an offense work, teams have to focus on finding good role players vs throwing all their salary cap at star players.

I mean...it makes sense. The drawbacks of the star-centric brand of basketball are clear. It makes your team easy to defend because Opposing teams only has to focus their defense on 1, 2, and sometimes 3 players (i.e. OKC). It also marginalized certain players and underutilizes them (i.e. Bosh). There's also a problem with role players standing around being spectators because the ball is in the hands of star players so much (i.e. Lin). With SA's success and consistency, it makes sense for other teams to start emulating their style of team-oriented play.

IversonIsKrazy
06-17-2014, 02:54 AM
I think GM's will continue to go for the Big 3 or 4, but Coaches are going to try adapting more of Spurs offense. A team I think that has might be first doing that is Warriors with Kerr as HC. He's watched this Spurs team offense and even played for it back in the day, I feel like a lot of coaches are going to try adopting it, but GMs are going to continue going for the star players

Bostonjorge
06-17-2014, 03:10 AM
Superstars are the key. Miami had wade(a corpse) and bosh who are super stars. They played awful but was still enough to carve up the east. Even Indian who had the best record out east got destroyed by the corpse and bosh. Stars take u to the finals.

IgglesFanInCO
06-17-2014, 03:38 AM
The only way Spurs type basketball could become the new norm is if there were other coaches out there on Pops level

This league is criminally undercoached, worst coached major sport by a very large margin IMO

jmaest
06-17-2014, 09:08 AM
Superstars are the key. Miami had wade(a corpse) and bosh who are super stars. They played awful but was still enough to carve up the east. Even Indian who had the best record out east got destroyed by the corpse and bosh. Stars take u to the finals.

True BUT the concept of what a star is will change, IMO. Prior to Jordan a "star" didn't score 30 a night and do little to anything else. A "star" did everything to some degree or another. He'd play defense, he passed, he rebounded, he moved without the ball. Go look at Magic & Bird's stat sheet. Those guys dove on the floor for loose balls and everything else. Dr. J the same thing.

One of the reasons Jordan is so idolized is that he did ALL of those things AND scored 30 a night. It's what made him unique. Sportscenter changed the game because all they showed were the highlights and highlights don't show you what basketball really is. They're just highlights.

Tim Duncan is a star. The Big Fundamental. In many ways he is much better than Lebron or Kobe or any other player since Jordan. He simply does everything flawlessly. He passes, he rebounds, he defends, moves without the ball, hustles, scores from the outside, from the post, or face up to the basket. He even uses the glass like no other player in history.

If you were going to teach a kid how to play basketball, you wouldn't show him videos of Lebron, you'd show him videos of Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, or Larry Bird. I think we're going to start seeing more of that. I could make a case that the latest wave of superstars are already playing that way.

MrfadeawayJB
06-17-2014, 12:02 PM
I hope we at least see apg go up and a more unselfish and team oriented NBA. It's more exciting that way IMO

mRc08
06-17-2014, 12:33 PM
I think its obvious to everyone that you need really good players/borderline starts to win. The main reason the mindset won't switch is that there just are not any coaches like pop that can put in place a system/culture that allows a team like the spurs to beat out mega teams. Only coaches that come to mind that may be capable of such a feat are phil, larry brown, maybe thibs, pat riley.

RaiderLakersA's
06-17-2014, 03:06 PM
I hope we at least see apg go up and a more unselfish and team oriented NBA. It's more exciting that way IMO

That would be nice to see, but I have my doubts. Do owners, general managers, etc., have the patience to truly build and develop a winning squad? When you see someone like Mark Jackson get fired despite the fact that he's coming off of a winning season and his players love him, you have to wonder.

jmaest
06-17-2014, 03:38 PM
I think its obvious to everyone that you need really good players/borderline starts to win. The main reason the mindset won't switch is that there just are not any coaches like pop that can put in place a system/culture that allows a team like the spurs to beat out mega teams. Only coaches that come to mind that may be capable of such a feat are phil, larry brown, maybe thibs, pat riley.

I think that's a cop out and a really bad assumption.

There's a lot of great coaches out there. Look at what Doc did for the Clippers. You mentioned Thibs. Carlisle in Dallas. Kidd got a lot out of Brooklyn--which shocked me. Atlanta is on the rise. The Wizards are looking good as well.

The issue is that the NBA hasn't REWARDED team play. It's not coaching. The optimism is coming from the hope that now the NBA will reward team play again the way it used to.

xnick5757
06-17-2014, 04:02 PM
Lol, no.

That roster is once in a generation. Majority of teams who have won still had superstars.

^


its extremely hard to win a playoff series when you don't have the best player in the series on your team.

jmaest
06-17-2014, 04:18 PM
^

its extremely hard to win a playoff series when you don't have the best player in the series on your team.

That is a conditioned mindset and it is not true. There are plenty of examples throughout history where the best team beats the best player. Bulls vs Pistons for many years. Lakers beat Celtics in the 80's. Celtics beat Lakers in the 60's & 70's. Sixers losing to the Lakers. Knicks beating Bulls. I could keep going.

It used to happen all the time when the game was actually a team sport.

xnick5757
06-17-2014, 04:25 PM
That is a conditioned mindset and it is not true. There are plenty of examples throughout history where the best team beats the best player. Bulls vs Pistons for many years. Lakers beat Celtics in the 80's. Celtics beat Lakers in the 60's & 70's. Sixers losing to the Lakers. Knicks beating Bulls. I could keep going.

It used to happen all the time when the game was actually a team sport.


80's Lakers had Magic (best player in the series)

Celtics had Russell

Lakers had Shaq

jmaest
06-17-2014, 04:42 PM
80's Lakers had Magic (best player in the series)

Celtics had Russell

Lakers had Shaq

Bird was the best player on the court in the 80's.
Chamberlain >> Russell.
Lakers v Sixers when the Sixers had Dr. J.
Knicks beat Bulls when Pippen was the best player.
Indiana beat Knicks when Ewing was the best player.
Suns beat Rockets with Hakeem.
Trailblazers beat Rockets with Hakeem.
Pistons beat Bulls with Jordan.
Celtics swept Bulls with Jordan.
Celtics beat Lakers with Kobe.
Pistons beat Lakers with Shaq & Kobe.
Dallas beat Miami with Wade & Lebron.

I could do this all day.

beasted86
06-17-2014, 05:02 PM
Agreed with all, but not the injuries part. To name a few, Parker's hamstring last year, Manu's had a bunch injuries (most recent significant was the fractured elbow/arm in 2011), Duncan battling plantar fascitiis and tearing his meniscus in 2000. They just have happened a little less, I guess because Pop manages their minutes extremely well. But they've dealt with their fair share of injuries
Manu is the only guy who qualifies. Parker's hamstring and sprained ankles are not serious injuries. He's never had any real surgery in his 12 year career except eye surgery that had nothing to do with sports. Duncan hasn't had any debilitating injuries or surgeries. IE: Playing without a meniscus, or dealing with chronic tendinitis.

IversonIsKrazy
06-17-2014, 07:58 PM
Even if other don't follow, I think Spurs will try to. For example, say Timmy and Manu retire after next season (both contracts are up), I don't think spurs are going to rebuild, they're going to try to keep it as a system and plug-in other players. Out of the FA's I see in 2015, guy like Al Jefferson can fill in for what will be a 39 year-old Timmy and Monta Ellis can fill in for what will be a 37 year-old Manu. I mean if u look at a guy like David Robinson, his presence is still felt by the current Spur team. Same thing would be w/Timmy, even if he retires, he would likely to be at every game and his leadership would still be felt. I think Spurs can continue

PowerHouse
06-17-2014, 09:01 PM
Your question depends on the coaching and their system rather than the rosters. If the head coach preaches ball movement and "if you're open then shoot" mentality to his players, and if he can gain enough respect from the players to put egos aside and buy in to the system, then that will be the system they play. But Poppovich is a special type of coach. There arent too many like him left out there.

torocan
06-18-2014, 12:10 AM
Your question depends on the coaching and their system rather than the rosters. If the head coach preaches ball movement and "if you're open then shoot" mentality to his players, and if he can gain enough respect from the players to put egos aside and buy in to the system, then that will be the system they play. But Poppovich is a special type of coach. There arent too many like him left out there.

On the flip side, the Spurs winning may have made other coaches' jobs a bit easier in terms of selling team ball.


“What Pop and the Spurs have done will make it much easier for college coaches to coach,” Self said during the Big 12’s summer teleconference. “Listen to the timeouts, ‘Ball can’t stick, ball can’t stick.’ Those are the exact same words that coaches all across America and certainly we have used daily — ball movement, body movement.

“I think this will certainly help re-emphasize what coaches are selling at all levels, which I think will be great for our game.”...

Smith and the Red Raiders have hosted a youth camp this week.

“I can see with the campers how — because we teach ball movement, passing game, motion offense, share the ball, pass and cut — I’ve seen a real difference in the young kids,” Smith said. “And I hope our players will appreciate it also. I think it will help coaches in the future at the college level and at the high school level watching the Spurs play.

“They epitomize how the game should be played.”

http://newsok.com/article/4927177

Kneejerk? Probably. However, never let it underestimate the impact of seeing the best player in the World get demolished by 15 guys, most of whom nobody outside of basketball junkies have even heard of...

Boris Diaw? Patty Mills? Thiago Splitter? Kawhi Leonard?

It may be a singular moment, but it left a heck of an impression on a LOT of people young and old.

PowerHouse
06-18-2014, 01:09 AM
On the flip side, the Spurs winning may have made other coaches' jobs a bit easier in terms of selling team ball.



But who else plays team ball like the Spurs? I dont think any other coaches made the effort to push that sale. Or they dont command the respect from their players to conform to the system.

Purch
06-18-2014, 01:11 AM
Synder, Bud, Brown. Slowley but surely the spurs coaching tree is gonna have an effect on the league

the wise man
06-18-2014, 01:26 AM
Do people really thinks that having three all stars means you don't play as a team? First of all, When the Heat won the last two years, Wade and Bosh had a lot of bad games were they performed like role players, do anybody here thinks that nobody else contributed? And people forget that the Spurs not only play as a team, they have a lot of talent, even if the talent doesn't reach star level. Players like Diaw were already very talented players before coming to the Spurs, they just didn't used it correctly. Finally, no other team have Pop, possibly the best coach in NBA history.

FreeAgentZero
06-18-2014, 03:14 PM
Probably not. They've been successful for so long that every team would obviously love to copy their blueprint, but it's easier said than done.
First off, how many stars are like Tim Duncan that you can build a team around? How many Popovich's are there in the league? How many players can you grab in the late 1st round or 2nd round that turn into Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and the many role players they've grabbed out of nowhere?
Teams would love to do what San Antonio does, but not many have the brains and luck to make it actually happen.