If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Why the San Antonio Spurs are proof that America is a nation of sports hypocrites   (slate.com) divider line 175
    More: Obvious, spur, San Antonio, NBA, Gregg Popovich, Manu Ginobili, field goal percentage, Phoenix Suns, Matthew Yglesias  
•       •       •

3919 clicks; posted to Sports » on 30 May 2012 at 1:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-30 02:43:42 PM
I'm going to set aside my hatred for the Spurs jeeeyyuuuuust long enough to react to this article as an American sports fan.

First of all, I hate being told what I think & what I want. I don't like the Spurs for a myriad of reasons & none of them include their style of play or because their players are squeaky clean. To imply that we all want the bad boys is asinine. The MEDIA wants the bad boys because then they have something to write about. See: TO

Second, I can't speak for the nationwide popularity of the Spurs, but in Texas, I am in the minority as one who dislikes them. But there's also this to consider: a lot of people outside of SA who like the Spurs are primarily Mavs & Rockets fans, so they're not going to buy Spurs gear and knock themselves out to get to games. I mean, I'll go when they're in town playing the Mavs, but only to heckle them. I know it will shock you all to learn that I can be quite the loudmouth. Um, anyway. So I don't know where the author of TFA is getting his data that the Spurs are unpopular. Seems to me like they get a lot of Sunday afternoon spots on ESPN, which is where all the popular basketball teams go.

Thirdiddlydo, the Spurs are huge in SA. They are the only pro sports team in the city and everyone I know who is from there or within a 100 mile radius of SA is all moon-eyed over them.

And finally, this:

protectyourlimbs: So the sports nation are hypocrites because they aren't frontrunners?


*drops mic*

FIN
 
2012-05-30 02:47:00 PM

Gunny Highway: Eh. I am getting tired of all the biatching about flopping and refs.


And yet you enjoy the team that benefits the most from both. You'll have to show me how you have your cake while eating it some time.
 
2012-05-30 02:48:20 PM

The_Sponge: SnarfVader: You know, I would've had no problem with it if Bennet had been upfront about moving the team when he bought the Sonics. But noooooo.... He's a thief, liar, and deserves to be on a list with the likes of Art Modell. And Stern belongs there too for approving the move.

I've always held the suspicion that Stern and Bennett host weekly lemon parties.


why does everyone alwasy leave that douchenozzle piece of shiat howard schultz out of the conversation?

A) he was a farking terrible owner that was working hard to kill the sonics. See: An Insider's Notes On The Shabby Death Of The Seattle SuperSonics. highlights include incredible cheapness; "[Schultz] gave each employee a Starbucks gift card...we would later learn, ordinary customers couldn't buy a Starbucks card with a value of less than $5. These were custom $3.50 gift cards."

2) he sold them to clay knowing damn well that clay/stern were going to hijack the team and move them to okc.

/fark starbucks
 
2012-05-30 02:50:58 PM

EyeballKid: Gunny Highway: Eh. I am getting tired of all the biatching about flopping and refs.

And yet you enjoy the team that benefits the most from both. You'll have to show me how you have your cake while eating it some time.


I enjoy watching the game. Do I like it when my team wins? Yes. Do I stop watching when they lose? No.

Also, who do you think I root for?
 
2012-05-30 02:51:20 PM

Gunny Highway: GQueue: Doogled: As fun as it is to watch them pick apart the Thunder, there's honestly not a lot of drama because I don't believe the Spurs have a chance of losing as long as Tony Parker is on the court.

I think they're now something like 45-4 this year when Parker plays. Guessing some of those losses came when Manu was out too.

And he is only 30. He is always left out of the top PGs conversation somehow.


Because he hasn't been playing this well the past few years. Before this year, would you call his play aggressive? Would you say that he plays with swagger and confidence?
 
2012-05-30 02:52:45 PM

Gunny Highway: I enjoy watching the game. Do I like it when my team wins? Yes. Do I stop watching when they lose? No.

Also, who do you think I root for?


I'm sorry, I may have taken too much from your statement that the Spurs are fun to watch. I happen to feel that the special treatment and flopping make their games less fun to watch.
 
2012-05-30 02:52:58 PM
I'd say the only reason we aren't celebrating the Spurs is because they're not in New York or Los Angeles.
 
2012-05-30 02:55:22 PM

IAmRight: "The brutal, slow-it-down Knicks and Heat teams of the late-1990s didn't exactly strike out-of-towners as lovable, but they were iconic. At a minimum, people loved to hate those teams. "

Um, no. No one liked them, either. But hey, let's revise history so it fits in with our made-up story.


...It's not a matter of "like". It's a matter of "care". People cared if the Knicks won the title. People don't care if the Spurs win the title, and that's why the NBA dreads having them in the Finals, not because people hate them. At least if people hated them, they'd be tuning in to root against them.
 
2012-05-30 02:56:27 PM
Why do I find the Spurs boring? Because they play basketball.
 
2012-05-30 02:56:47 PM

you have pee hands: T.rex: The article makes a point, but its countering a self-constructed concept....
I don't hear people walking around saying, "Hard work and teamwork should be rewarded"...

Lots of people do criticize 1-on-5 hero ball like Iverson played or Carmelo plays.


But Iverson and Carmelo make the highlight reel, while Duncan's layups - and 50+% shooting do not. They may criticize, but they still buy their jerseys.
 
2012-05-30 02:58:33 PM

IlGreven: I'd say the only reason we aren't celebrating the Spurs is because they're not in New York or Los Angeles.


nah, it's because nike's market department doesn't back them. tim's boring and quiet, tony's french, and manu is manu. also, america like the promise of the future (it's why folks care about shiat like the draft and prospects). which partially explains why folks are excited about the zombies.
 
2012-05-30 02:59:31 PM

you have pee hands: Lots of people do criticize 1-on-5 hero ball like Iverson played or Carmelo plays.


in Iverson's defense, at least Anthony had four other professional basketball players for teammates. Iverson was, both literally and figuratively, playing 1-on-5.
 
2012-05-30 02:59:34 PM
This is what Stern gets for making a league of stars, players over teams, and double standards for fouls. They don't market the Spurs, and as a result there's no interest and then no one watches the Finals because it's the product of a vicious cycle.

I don't know whether it's the fact that the NBA does a bad job of marketing, or the stars-first marketing has made it an inferior sport, but I keep hearing from the media that this team or that team "would be bad for the finals because the ratings would be down", and that to me is absolute heresy for sports. No one cares if Pittsburg or Kansas City or Green Bay is in the Super Bowl, because they'll still watch the game, because it's the freaking Super Bowl. Yet the NBA Finals or the World Series has to have a big-market team.

I'll keep rooting for the Spurs, because they ruin the image the NBA has tried to manufacture, and because of Tim Duncan.
 
2012-05-30 03:06:54 PM

EyeballKid: Gunny Highway: I enjoy watching the game. Do I like it when my team wins? Yes. Do I stop watching when they lose? No.

Also, who do you think I root for?

I'm sorry, I may have taken too much from your statement that the Spurs are fun to watch. I happen to feel that the special treatment and flopping make their games less fun to watch.


I cant argue with your opinion. I have always enjoyed watching them play.

Doogled: Because he hasn't been playing this well the past few years. Before this year, would you call his play aggressive? Would you say that he plays with swagger and confidence?


Maybe not but the fact that he was dealing with an aging, fragile team may have had something to do with that. You are probably right though.
 
2012-05-30 03:10:12 PM

tortilla burger: This year's Spurs team somehow managed to earn less recognition than its predecessors even as it has finally demolished the longstanding excuses for America's refusal to embrace our most successful sports franchise.

Whoa whoa whoa...hold the phone here. Who exactly is this "our" referring to? The SA Spurs aren't even the most successful franchise in Texas, much less America. San Antonio, maybe.


I thought that was odd. It's pretty obvious what the most successful American sports franchises are: Yankees, Celtics, Packers, and Red Wings.
 
2012-05-30 03:12:45 PM

PunchDrunkPanda: in Iverson's defense, at least Anthony had four other professional basketball players for teammates. Iverson was, both literally and figuratively, playing 1-on-5.


They knew that that was the only way Iverson was willing to play, so they tried to surround him with rebounders and defenders. It didn't exactly work, but it was probably the best approach they could take.
 
2012-05-30 03:14:04 PM

meanmutton: I thought that was odd. It's pretty obvious what the most successful American sports franchises are: Yankees, Celtics, Packers, and Red Wings.


Lakers. Cowboys. Steelers. Cubs.*


*Look, I know what you're thinking but they have managed to hold onto a crazy-ass loyal fandom despite their abominable W/L record for decades upon decades. That has to count for something.
 
2012-05-30 03:17:36 PM
I always hated the Spurs because they were a "dry" team in my book, as a boring defensive team etc... I could not believe the awesomeness that is the Spurs. WOW. I thought that the west would be won by OKC with ease.

- Much respect from a SIXERS fan
 
2012-05-30 03:23:29 PM
Duncan complains at the refs too much. Ginobilli flops a lot.

Other than that, they play the most appealing team basketball in the NBA currently. I'd say Miami plays the most entertaining ball when Lebron and Wade are locked in, but the Spurs are definitely fun to watch when they get the ball rotating and players moving.
 
2012-05-30 03:23:46 PM
It could also be because they play a really boring game and are a somewhat small-market team.
 
2012-05-30 03:32:09 PM

Di Atribe: meanmutton: I thought that was odd. It's pretty obvious what the most successful American sports franchises are: Yankees, Celtics, Packers, and Red Wings.

Lakers. Cowboys. Steelers. Cubs.*

*Look, I know what you're thinking but they have managed to hold onto a crazy-ass loyal fandom despite their abominable W/L record for decades upon decades. That has to count for something.


Championships are, to me, the most important measure. Lakers have 11; Celtics have 17. Cowboys have 5, Steelers have 6; Packers have 13.
 
2012-05-30 03:33:17 PM

save russian jews: It could also be because they play a really boring game


I guess if you prefer endless iso plays over real ball and player movement, yea.
 
2012-05-30 03:38:29 PM

IlGreven: It's not a matter of "like". It's a matter of "care". People cared if the Knicks won the title.


Did they? I certainly don't remember caring about them as they tried to kill the league with sh*tty foul-ball. The only thing those teams had going for them was the occasional fight.

Di Atribe: That has to count for something.


What's fun is that I'm doing a timeline for one of our professors, who is turning 100...and I realized that he was hired here the last time the Cubs made it to the World Series. I kind of want to include that in the things that have happened during his career section.
 
2012-05-30 03:40:07 PM

Di Atribe: I don't like the Spurs for a myriad of reasons & none of them include their style of play or because their players are squeaky clean.


I find it funny that the team that employed Bruce Bowen for years somehow has a rep for being squeaky clean. The guy kicked someone in the face during a basketball game. How does that even happen?
 
2012-05-30 03:40:59 PM

Neeek: Di Atribe: I don't like the Spurs for a myriad of reasons & none of them include their style of play or because their players are squeaky clean.

I find it funny that the team that employed Bruce Bowen for years somehow has a rep for being squeaky clean. The guy kicked someone in the face during a basketball game. How does that even happen?


He wears a bow tie on TV now. And nobody who wears a bow tie can be a dirty player.
 
2012-05-30 03:42:27 PM

meanmutton: Championships are, to me, the most important measure.


Well, 11 of the Celtics' titles occurred back in the '60s, so that's like calling the Canadiens the most successful franchise even though they suck and have sucked for a long time.

/hell, even since the first Spurs title, the Lakers have more championships
//that's enough to ignore the claim that they're the most successful sports franchise...but hey, it's Slate, who needs facts?
 
2012-05-30 03:43:33 PM
Manu Ginobili's Bals Spot
 
2012-05-30 03:44:09 PM
*Bald
 
2012-05-30 03:45:00 PM

Neeek: The guy kicked someone in the face during a basketball game. How does that even happen?


And kicked Ray Allen in the back when they were both on the ground. And routinely sprained ankles by putting his foot under jump-shooters. And kicked Stoudemire in his Achilles tendon while Amare was dunking and Bowen made no effort at an actual basketball play.

And intentionally kneed Steve Nash in the junk.

/that's just off the top of my head
//that's part of why they're disliked - simultaneously being the floppiest team AND getting away with dozens of cheap shots.
 
2012-05-30 03:45:35 PM
But now that Bowen is gone and Ginobili doesn't flop as much due to age, they're a lot less hateable.
 
2012-05-30 03:46:06 PM
Let's not act like the Pistons/Spurs or Cavs/Spurs series were all that fun to watch, that might be their problem. This year they will more than likely get a whole lot of attention. They are playing beautiful basketball, are playing the most hyped western conf team, and are more than likely going to be playing the overhyped Heat (and most people will root for SA for the first time ever in that scenario).
 
2012-05-30 03:46:35 PM

meanmutton: Championships are, to me, the most important measure. Lakers have 11; Celtics have 17. Cowboys have 5, Steelers have 6; Packers have 13.


Well, I think it's boring to just look at championships and be done with it. There's so much more to sports than who won the championship that year.

IAmRight: What's fun is that I'm doing a timeline for one of our professors, who is turning 100...and I realized that he was hired here the last time the Cubs made it to the World Series. I kind of want to include that in the things that have happened during his career section.


That is amazing. I think you should, but you know, I'm biased. :)
 
2012-05-30 03:49:58 PM
And yet, the Spurs are about to win a fifth in thirteen years. and James can say for a second time - " This is the team I want to be". And San Antonio fans should not care less about what the rest of the nation thinks. This city is about to get title five. Enjoy it. Love it. Love the coming parade. Who gives a flying fark what other's think of this city? This is the city of Fiesta. It pisses me off when San Antonian's biatch about "no respect".

/homer
//lifelong
///proud
////not a flopper
 
2012-05-30 03:53:08 PM
I've never seen so much butthurt in a Fark thread. Okay, so that's an exaggeration for effect, but still.

Which team is it that owns the NBA's longest winning streak in the playoffs? I can't think of their name . . .
 
2012-05-30 03:54:18 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: Championships are, to me, the most important measure.

Well, 11 of the Celtics' titles occurred back in the '60s, so that's like calling the Canadiens the most successful franchise even though they suck and have sucked for a long time.

/hell, even since the first Spurs title, the Lakers have more championships
//that's enough to ignore the claim that they're the most successful sports franchise...but hey, it's Slate, who needs facts?


I hate the Canadiens with the blinding fury of a thousand suns but they are the most successful hockey franchise that ever.
 
2012-05-30 03:57:14 PM
And another thing . . . (famous last words)

"Success" isn't defined by championships. When the author (and me and many other people) say that the Spurs are the "most successful" sports franchise, they're talking about much more than championships.

From a much better article in the New Yorker recently . . .

"The Spurs have had the same core of players-Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan-for much of the past decade. All three have spent their careers with the team: they've just played their hundred and thirtieth playoff game together. There have been no Decisions; no one has taken his talents to Miami, or anywhere else. Parker never dunks. Ginobili dunks, but only rarely. When Duncan dunks, he simply drops the ball into basket, then turns to figure out where he should be on defense. Nothing to see here, folks, move along. The main reason for the team's success is Duncan, a player so efficient and squeaky clean that the best way to understand him, or at least the public perception of him, is to peruse the archives of The Onion, which has crafted an image of Duncan as our country's most noble citizen. (From this season: "Groans Abound as Tim Duncan Raises Hand Once Again at City Council Meeting.") Duncan has missed the All-Star game only twice in his career-chances are he hasn't missed any parent-teacher conferences. The N.B.A., more than any other league, is driven by personalities, and a great deal of the interest in the league is driven by the flaws, actual or perceived, that have made Kobe, LeBron, Carmelo, and others so fascinating to talk about. Just about the only critical thing anyone has found to say about Duncan is to suggest that he, at thirty-six, might be getting too old. Oh, to age so gracefully.

In their old age, the no-drama Spurs have produced one of the most efficient, elegant-and, partially explaining the low levels of interest in the team, least acrobatic-offenses in recent memory. There's no way to write this sentence without sounding like a basketball snob, but it must be said: If you care about the game, at its most pure, then the Spurs are the team you should be watching. Basketball at its best, the way the Spurs play it, requires a kind of chemistry among teammates in service of operating an offense that should look something like Henry Ford's assembly line: multiple parts-five, in this case-moving in complete unison.

If much of the N.B.A. is playing checkers, what the Spurs do is something closer to chess. The Rink Rats have held an ongoing discussion of the North American and European styles of play in hockey; in basketball, the Spurs play a decidedly international game. They have mobile big men, led by Duncan; slashing guards; and an armada of three-point shooters. Their primary offensive set, "motion weak," is a multi-step process primed to offer multiple angles of attack and to take advantage of the team's strengths. At each point in the set's progression, Parker and Ginobili are given choices: to drive, to dish, to shoot. To effectively make these choices, they have to know and trust that the other members of the team will be in the proper position at the proper moment. (Here's a good, wonky explanation.) Simply giving the ball to Duncan in the post may be one of the most effective plays in the game, but for the Spurs it is a last resort, used only if an easier basket can't be found. Consider this: In the first round of the playoffs, the Spurs used isolation plays-give it to your best player, one-on-one, and let him try to score-just twenty-four times. In the Knicks' first round series against the Heat, New York did so a hundred and twenty-four times."
 
2012-05-30 03:57:58 PM

YRThereSchool: Which team is it that owns the NBA's longest winning streak in the playoffs? I can't think of their name . .


Current streak?

Because the Lakers have the all-time record for wins to start a playoff year (assuming the previous season ended in a playoff loss - I haven't bothered to check on what the records are based on teams that won the title in their previous playoff appearance).
 
2012-05-30 04:01:10 PM
I suppose the No. 1 reason to hate the Spurs now is because they're becoming the team for hipsters to like in the NBA because they're "unpopular" and successful.
 
2012-05-30 04:02:35 PM

YRThereSchool: Consider this: In the first round of the playoffs, the Spurs used isolation plays-give it to your best player, one-on-one, and let him try to score-just twenty-four times. In the Knicks' first round series against the Heat, New York did so a hundred and twenty-four times."


In fairness, the Knicks were missing their starting PG and lost two more guards (Shumpert, Davis) due to injuries in the series. That'll f*ck with your offense.
 
2012-05-30 04:04:19 PM

IAmRight: YRThereSchool: Consider this: In the first round of the playoffs, the Spurs used isolation plays-give it to your best player, one-on-one, and let him try to score-just twenty-four times. In the Knicks' first round series against the Heat, New York did so a hundred and twenty-four times."

In fairness, the Knicks were missing their starting PG and lost two more guards (Shumpert, Davis) due to injuries in the series. That'll f*ck with your offense.


Which is why the Spurs didn't win it all last year. Just saying'.
 
2012-05-30 04:09:05 PM
I stopped caring after the Tim Donaghy stuff broke.

/I don't support excellence in fixing games
 
2012-05-30 04:10:16 PM
I didn't even know sa had a team.

What are we talking about?

When's football start?
 
2012-05-30 04:10:33 PM

YRThereSchool: "Success" isn't defined by championships.


That's just something on which we have a fundamental disagreement. As far as the rest of it goes? I am unconvinced by your argument.

Let's pick a nice, round number: 15 years. In the last 15 years, the Spurs have been very good -- they've won four championships, 9 division titles, had Tim Duncan time be just dominant. That's pretty awesome.

In the same 15 years, the Lakers won five championships and 8 division titles and had Kobe Bryant be just dominant.

In the same 15 years, the New England Patriots won 3 Super Bowls and 10 division titles and had Tom Brady set a bazillion records and just be dominant.

In the same 15 years, the Detroit Red Wings have won 4 Stanley Cups and 10 division titles and had around a dozen different Hall of Fame players play for them, including guys like Steve Yzerman and Nick Lidstrom who played their entire careers in a Red Wings uniform.

In the same 15 years, the New York Yankees have won 4 World Series and 11 division titles and had just incredible player after incredible player.

Yeah, over the past 15 years, the Spurs have been really good but they haven't been the hands-down best American sports franchise during that time. One of the best? Sure. The hands-down best? No way.

Before Time Duncan came on board? The Red Wings were still a historically grand franchise; the Yankees were still a historically grand franchise; the Lakers were still a historically grand franchise. What were the Spurs?
 
2012-05-30 04:11:14 PM
Hating something because hipsters like it makes you a hipster.

Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-05-30 04:13:18 PM
The Spurs are professorial Barack Obama. We want fat asshole Chris Christie.
 
2012-05-30 04:14:02 PM
For the record, 20 straight breaks the Lakers all-time winning streak, regular season and playoffs combined.
 
2012-05-30 04:17:07 PM

YRThereSchool: Hating something because hipsters like it makes you a hipster.

Your argument is invalid.


I don't hate the Spurs. I just don't think that they're the greatest American sports franchise. I really don't think they're top 10. They just aren't the Yankees, Packers, Red Wings, Celtics, Lakers, Steelers, Cowboys, Bruins, 49ers, or Bulls.
 
2012-05-30 04:17:10 PM

YRThereSchool: And another thing . . . (famous last words)

"Success" isn't defined by championships. When the author (and me and many other people) say that the Spurs are the "most successful" sports franchise, they're talking about much more than championships.

That's because you and the author don't understand what the word "success" means.

 
2012-05-30 04:17:59 PM

SoCalSurfer: I didn't even know sa had a team.

What are we talking about?

When's football start?


Nice. concur. when the cowboys hold camp here, we can count trophies. I can count San Diego's on my, well on nothing.

/I love San Diego
//Wish I lived there.
 
2012-05-30 04:20:34 PM

riverwalk barfly: SoCalSurfer: I didn't even know sa had a team.

What are we talking about?

When's football start?

Nice. concur. when the cowboys hold camp here, we can count trophies. I can count San Diego's on my, well on nothing.

/I love San Diego
//Wish I lived there.


San diego sports make me cry, weather makes up for it though
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report