Probably a combination of being healthy again and facing a lower level of competition. Can be a big breath of fresh air when the guys you're up against suddenly aren't capable of all the crazy shit that's been giving you fits going against high-level competitors.
In the famous (slightly modified) words of Brian Scalabrine: Smiley is closer to LeBron than we are to Smiley.
But yea, sometimes it's easy to forget the how good players have to be to even be considered for a spot on an NBA roster. That game was a pre-season/fiendly against a team that plays in the Euroleague whose backup C is Donatas "Sweat Puddles" Motiejūnas.
> I may need to go back and check my numbers. What is going on???
Players we associate with the Spurs' drafts around that period like Manu (#57), Parker (#28), Splitter (#28), and Scola (#56) either don't count (Manu and Parker were drafted after the first championship but before the 2003-07 window; Splitter was stashed until 2011), or the player didn't actually play for the Spurs like Scola who couldn't be bought out of his team overseas. They signed his fellow countryman instead, Oberto, who ended playing decent minutes. Scola went on to have a good career in HOU.
And then there are the other guys you listed like Udrih (#28) who had solid careers post-SAS or guys outside that window, like Geroge Hill (#26), who went on help SAS to get Kawhi.
Bertans (#42) was technically a draft-n-stash by IND that never made it into the NBA until he signed with SAS and played his rookie year with them.
There are also guys that were picked by SAS but traded immediately. Dragic, not sure why he was traded, ended up torching the Spurs just two years later in the playoffs. Barbosa was picked by SAS but traded away, probably in order to make room for Kidd, which obviously never materialized.
So while their drafting during that specific 2003-2007 period didn't quite make the impact that most of us would've predicted, they certainly have had an eye for late-draft-pick talent over the years.
The point of my post being: I don't think your numbers are wrong :)
We just justifiably associate the Spurs with good late picks but they just didn't happen to have good picks between 2003-2007 that also made an impact during that same period.
That’s an interesting point, because good drafting (including lower picks) is oftentimes critical to creating the dynasty in the first place (draymond, ginobli).
In terms of sustaining the dynasty in its heydey, I guess the narrow 2003-2007 criterion is fair enough. But if the Spurs of yore are the gold standard we have to see if we can maintain relevance past the halcyon days. That’s where Poole, Wiseman, Kuminga, Moody come in.
Poole is especially interesting in benchmarking against the Spurs, if at least to compare to Keldon Johnson, who the Spurs took right after we took Poole. But all this is too early to tell.
Following up, I think if we can get at least one more chip in the next 5 years, then that’d be fairly comparable to the Spurs being in the thick of things from 2012-2014, culminating in the 2014 championship with the emergence of Kawhi. I’m personally rooting for two more. One more in the next two years in Steph’s “afternoon” prime, and then one more after the young guns become the focal point of the team, with the best (and most expensive) role players ever, lol.
The great picks for the Spurs were pre-sortof-dynasty; Tony Parker with the 28th pick and Manu Genobili with the 57th pick. Pair those guys with David Robinson and Tim Duncan and you've got a pretty good team.
This is true, But not quite the point of the series. All dynasties are built on getting some picks really, really right.
The series is about examining the idea that the front office has failed to “restock” to keep the dynasty going. The Spurs dynasty was so long primarily because they had a great team before falling into some bad injury luck and won the lottery to get #1 pick with a true generational talent available.
Secondarily, they had the vision to take advantage of a market inefficiency in draft evaluation of international players. Then they kept Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili together for 15 years.
The Warriors seem to have drafted well enough with Looney and Poole especially (though Poole didn’t play during the dynasty), and hopefully we get a cornerstone star and a key player from Wise, Kuminga, and Moody picks that can carry forward through the next 15 years. With a long tail for Steph, and hopefully Klay, they should be a great team going forward unless they blow it up for salary reasons.
Wut: https://heavy.com/sports/golden-state-warriors/warriors-smailagic-explodes-new-team/amp/
Probably a combination of being healthy again and facing a lower level of competition. Can be a big breath of fresh air when the guys you're up against suddenly aren't capable of all the crazy shit that's been giving you fits going against high-level competitors.
In the famous (slightly modified) words of Brian Scalabrine: Smiley is closer to LeBron than we are to Smiley.
But yea, sometimes it's easy to forget the how good players have to be to even be considered for a spot on an NBA roster. That game was a pre-season/fiendly against a team that plays in the Euroleague whose backup C is Donatas "Sweat Puddles" Motiejūnas.
> I may need to go back and check my numbers. What is going on???
Players we associate with the Spurs' drafts around that period like Manu (#57), Parker (#28), Splitter (#28), and Scola (#56) either don't count (Manu and Parker were drafted after the first championship but before the 2003-07 window; Splitter was stashed until 2011), or the player didn't actually play for the Spurs like Scola who couldn't be bought out of his team overseas. They signed his fellow countryman instead, Oberto, who ended playing decent minutes. Scola went on to have a good career in HOU.
And then there are the other guys you listed like Udrih (#28) who had solid careers post-SAS or guys outside that window, like Geroge Hill (#26), who went on help SAS to get Kawhi.
Bertans (#42) was technically a draft-n-stash by IND that never made it into the NBA until he signed with SAS and played his rookie year with them.
There are also guys that were picked by SAS but traded immediately. Dragic, not sure why he was traded, ended up torching the Spurs just two years later in the playoffs. Barbosa was picked by SAS but traded away, probably in order to make room for Kidd, which obviously never materialized.
So while their drafting during that specific 2003-2007 period didn't quite make the impact that most of us would've predicted, they certainly have had an eye for late-draft-pick talent over the years.
The point of my post being: I don't think your numbers are wrong :)
We just justifiably associate the Spurs with good late picks but they just didn't happen to have good picks between 2003-2007 that also made an impact during that same period.
That’s an interesting point, because good drafting (including lower picks) is oftentimes critical to creating the dynasty in the first place (draymond, ginobli).
In terms of sustaining the dynasty in its heydey, I guess the narrow 2003-2007 criterion is fair enough. But if the Spurs of yore are the gold standard we have to see if we can maintain relevance past the halcyon days. That’s where Poole, Wiseman, Kuminga, Moody come in.
Poole is especially interesting in benchmarking against the Spurs, if at least to compare to Keldon Johnson, who the Spurs took right after we took Poole. But all this is too early to tell.
Following up, I think if we can get at least one more chip in the next 5 years, then that’d be fairly comparable to the Spurs being in the thick of things from 2012-2014, culminating in the 2014 championship with the emergence of Kawhi. I’m personally rooting for two more. One more in the next two years in Steph’s “afternoon” prime, and then one more after the young guns become the focal point of the team, with the best (and most expensive) role players ever, lol.
Also OT: stumbled across this. For the stats guys...
https://hoopshype.com/lists/advanced-stats-nba-real-plus-minus-rapm-win-shares-analytics/amp/
As a matter of principle, I only trust the metrics that have Curry in the top 5...
Good reality check
OT: ESPN paywalled article name-dropping the Warriors in the headline: https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/32215671/nba-predictions-our-panel-picks-team-turmoil-team-turnaround-pressing-2021-22-questions.
The great picks for the Spurs were pre-sortof-dynasty; Tony Parker with the 28th pick and Manu Genobili with the 57th pick. Pair those guys with David Robinson and Tim Duncan and you've got a pretty good team.
This is true, But not quite the point of the series. All dynasties are built on getting some picks really, really right.
The series is about examining the idea that the front office has failed to “restock” to keep the dynasty going. The Spurs dynasty was so long primarily because they had a great team before falling into some bad injury luck and won the lottery to get #1 pick with a true generational talent available.
Secondarily, they had the vision to take advantage of a market inefficiency in draft evaluation of international players. Then they kept Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili together for 15 years.
The Warriors seem to have drafted well enough with Looney and Poole especially (though Poole didn’t play during the dynasty), and hopefully we get a cornerstone star and a key player from Wise, Kuminga, and Moody picks that can carry forward through the next 15 years. With a long tail for Steph, and hopefully Klay, they should be a great team going forward unless they blow it up for salary reasons.
Salary reasons or injury. Basically the Warriors dynasty extends from this point as far as Stephen Curry stays healthy.
Or if Wise and/or Kuminga become superstars.
Last night's was great for all the right reasons.
Waiting to binge this season, no spoilers!