Spurs versus Kings 1999-2005

[Purple Reign]

After seeing the Spurs celebrate a third championship in seven years. It got me to thinking what are the elements that put San Antonio in the postion they are in compared to where the Kings are today. In other words why has the Spurs franchise been so successful for the last seven years and all the Kings have to show for the last seven years is two Pacific Division titles and a bunch of 50 win seasons. Not that that is not anything to sneeze at, but compared to 3 NBA Titles. What is the big difference between us and San Antonio? Here are the simularilties:

San Antonio - a one team market
Sacramento - a one team market

R.C Buford - a genius front office executive
Geoff Petrie - a genius front office executive

Tony Parker - an upper echelon point guard
Mike Bibby - an upper echelon point guard

Manu Ginobli - a foreign born peremeter player that can penetrate
Peja Stojakovic - a foreign born peremeter player that can shoot

Tim Duncan - a low post superstar, MVP
Chris Webber - a low post superstar, MVP caliber (pre 2004)

Greg Popovich - a defensive minded, dictator
Rick Adelman - an offensive minded players coach

Bruce Bowen - a shutdown defender
Doug Christie - a shutdown defender

Spurs - welcome foreign born players
Kings - welcome foreign born players

Now I know that there are some subtle differences in a lot of these comparisons. But for the most part the Sacramento Kings have done it the right way and the same way as the Spurs with little to show. The only difference to me is the structure of the ownership: maloofs versus whoever owns the Spurs (I do not know)

Am I too far off? What is the huge difference between us and them that they can celebrate 3 titles and we are still waiting for our very first.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Luck, fate, and freethrows.

 

[NewMonkey]

Tim Duncan has always been a lot better than Chris Webber. Duncan also accepted his role as a post player, where Webber never did. Ginobili and Peja couldn't be more different. Ginobili is ALL guts, and Peja...well, he isn't. Lastly, EVERYONE on the Spurs plays defense and they always have. The WCF year, the Kings were a good defensive team. Every other year they were average or worse, and this year they were among the worst in the league.

 

[LPKingsFan]

The Spurs team of 1999 had only two similarites here: Duncan and Pop. The Spurs playoffs of 2003 would have been vastly different had Webb not gone down in Dallas. This year's Kings are obviously very different. Of course, this is all coulda, woulda, shoulda... so I'm staying away.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I think the Kings are actually better off modeling themselves after the Pistons, if Petrie isn't bluffing about keeping the "core" intact. Let's see, you have....

Billups...Bibby. Clutch shooting point guard with ice in the veins. Billups is a lot stronger on D, however, but what else is new.

Hamilton...Peja (or Kevin Martin in 2/3 years?). Scorer/shooter who works best when moving without the ball. Both have trouble against Bruce Bowen.

Prince....Evans? This is where the Kings come up short in the comparison. They really need an athletic perimeter defender. Could Evans become this? Possibly. Other options include the Draft, free agency, or trade. The ideal would be Larry Hughes, but that's wishful thinking.

Big Ben...?? Even worse here for the Kings. They have no one here that can really compare, and are killed every year for it. It took Big Ben about four years in the league to become the rebounding and blocking beast that he is, so maybe Petrie can snag someone on the verge... Reggie Evans? Stro Swift? Someone in the draft??

Sheed...Miller. This one's a stretch. They're really only similar in their pouting, whining, and shooting. If Miller regains his Chicago and Indiana era toughness, that would be great along with his passing, but he'll never be the defender or shotblocker that Sheed is. He was a triple double threat two years ago, something Sheed as never been.

As for the bench...

Hunter... Bobby. Scoring/defense punch off the bench. If Bobby stays healthy...

McDyess...?? Kenny Thomas? Songaila? I don't know about this one either...

Corliss...Corliss... Yeah, I know he wasn't on this year's team. But he won last year, and he's with us now. So that has to count for something, right?

 

[Ryle]

Greg Popovich - a defensive minded, dictator
Rick Adelman - an offensive minded players coach

This is a BIG reason why they have won their titles.

 

[Diabeticwonder]

No Robert Horry = title for the Kings in '02 and no title for the Spurs in '05.

 

[Bricklayer]

Reason #1: Tim Duncan

Reason #2: David Robinson

Reason #3: Injuries -- If we are healthy in '03 its likely 2 titles to 1, rather than 3-0. If we have Peja in '02, its entirely possible its 2 titles to 2.

Reason #4: Shorter window -- the Spurs window remains open as long as Duncan is there. Classic superstar powered titles. We put together an older team, added in older pieces, the window shut with age and injury.

 

[Andriod_KiNg]

I would have to agree, a Superstar Big Man is the key which would be Duncan for them ... we have a good role playing team.. but until we find someone like Duncan or Pre Injury Webber... we will continue to have a medicore team IMO...

 

[Purple Reign]

I guess my question would be "is it as simple as the core of ...

Duncan, D. Robinson, Ginobili, Parker, Bowen, Popovich, Buford

better than the core of....

Webber, Divac/Miller, Peja, Bibby, Christie, Adelman, and Petrie. Because looking at it from face value I do not see such a wide difference where they have won three times and we have not won even once.

I know Duncan is better than Webber. But outside of that there is not much difference there. Is it? To me luck and injuries are a part of the game, so I don't even consider that. To me, and I hate like hell to feel like this, but the difference is in the front offices and ownership. I have to go, I will come back and finish my thought.

 

[ONEZERO]

No Robert Horry = title for the Kings in '02 and no title for the Spurs in '05.

so true.

 

[Bricklayer]

To me luck and injuries are a part of the game, so I don't even consider that.

That makes no sense. The fact is that that list of players you put together for the Kings NEVER had a chance to play together to win the title. Not once were they all together, all healthy. I could have MJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt and Oscar as my starting linuep, but if they are all injured, they aren't really on the team at all and we lose anyway. The "injuries are part of the game" thing is a tired old high school coaching cliche. Yes they are a part of the game. A part of the game that is absolutely determinative of who wins and loses sometimes.

Spurs lose Duncan in '03, Webber stays healthy, guess who wins the title? Lakers lose Kobe in '02, Peja stays healthy (not same level player obviously), guess who wins? They are sbaolutely a part of the story, a MAJOR part of the Kings story over the years. Denying it based on principle is just pointless. If you fail to take injuries into accoutn, you are going to spend a disproportionate and entirely unnecessary amount of your time wondering how and why things happen in the NBA. Injuries suck, but its just the way it was.

 

[John Galt]

Reasonable people can disagree on just what constitutes "pointless". I happen to be firmly in the Purple Reign school.

"If only x player hadn't been hurt...." to me is a pointless discussion. Otherwise, seriously - you might as well just do the whole thing on Yahoo Fantasy Basketball and figure out who, in a world with no bad calls and no injuries, would have won. Pointless as can be.

Besides, to a certain degree conditioning, technique, and intelligence (ie not running your face into Shaq's elbow recklessly) go a way toward determining who ends up hurt and who doesn't. It is not only luck.

Just my point of view. "Injuries are part of the game".

 

[quick dog]

Discussion of injuries as a major factor in a team's success is absolutely relevant. The initial discussion of this thread was a comparison of the Kings and Spurs. The fact is that the Kings, without a series of devestating injuries to key players, could have been two-time NBA Champions. The current discussion relates to the development and fielding of winning teams. Available evidence indicates that the Kings organization was, and is, fully capable of fielding a championship team. That's the important implication of this discussion.

The fact that Chris Webber and other key players have been repeatedly injured for five years should not reflect upon the coaching abilities of Rick Adelman, Greg Popovic, Larry Brown, or Phil Jackson. Usually, it is better to be lucky than good.

That said, none of us has any idea as to the future success of the Kings. There are simply too many variables, including a huge variable, luck.

 

[Venom]

The injury thing counts for something, but Duncan also played through two bad ankles and Manu played through a bruised thigh.

 

[Bricklayer]

Reasonable people can disagree on just what constitutes "pointless". I happen to be firmly in the Purple Reign school.

"If only x player hadn't been hurt...." to me is a pointless discussion. Otherwise, seriously - you might as well just do the whole thing on Yahoo Fantasy Basketball and figure out who, in a world with no bad calls and no injuries, would have won. Pointless as can be.

Besides, to a certain degree conditioning, technique, and intelligence (ie not running your face into Shaq's elbow recklessly) go a way toward determining who ends up hurt and who doesn't. It is not only luck.

Just my point of view. "Injuries are part of the game".

Well let's put it this way -- I am much better able to predict and diagnose what will happen and what has happened than somebody who denies the obvious. And because I am willing to acknowledge what is right before my eyes rather than settling into silly dogmatism, I would never, for instance fire the coach, fry the GM, and chase the owners out of town for "mysteriously" messing up somehow -- I don't know how, but somehow they did it -- when the explanation is sitting right there in the open for all to see. When Duncan got hurt in '00 the Spurs "mysteriously" lost. When Shaq, Kobe or Malone were hurt, the Lakers did not win. When Wade went down in the ECF, it may well have decided the series for Detroit. This is life, not a slogan.

Here is the extent of our "blame" for the injuries:

1) we constructed the team around several injury prone players (Webber, BJax, Peja, Miller) as well as several iron men (Vlade, Doug).

2) because we depended on depth rather than sueprstars to win, we had a far greater percentage of our roster who's health was absolutely necessary for us to win a title (at least 50% in any given year).

And point #1 still falls under the "bad luck" rubric as you watch teams like the Lakers, constructeed around Shaq and Kobe, both of whom consider 70gms a long season, win multiple titles. Point #2 may hold the real key to whatever fault is ours, which isn't much. If you've been around sports at all, you know that some guys get hurt, some guys don't. And its rarely got anythign to do with conditioning. Vlade never got hurt. BJax always does. Just the way it goes.

 

[Bricklayer]

The injury thing counts for something, but Duncan also played through two bad ankles and Manu played through a bruised thigh.

Those are aches and pains though. We've had some of those, but the big ones during our best runs were major injuries right in the middle of the playoffs. Webber suffered a career-altering knee injury. That's not one you tough out. Peja blew out his ankle, was on crutches and would likely have missed a month in the regular season. he still hadn;t fully recovered by the time of NT play that summer, and it ended up dogging him well into the next season. Difference between being banged up, and just being phsycially unable to go.

If Duncan blows out hsi knee or suffers his ankle injury in May instead of March, its lghts out and the Pistons are champs. Just luck. **** happens.

 

[Venom]

Discussion of injuries as a major factor in a team's success is absolutely relevant. The initial discussion of this thread was a comparison of the Kings and Spurs. The fact is that the Kings, without a series of devestating injuries to key players, could have been two-time NBA Champions. The current discussion relates to the development and fielding of winning teams. Available evidence indicates that the Kings organization was, and is, fully capable of fielding a championship team. That's the important implication of this discussion.

The fact that Chris Webber and other key players have been repeatedly injured for five years should not reflect upon the coaching abilities of Rick Adelman, Greg Popovic, Larry Brown, or Phil Jackson. Usually, it is better to be lucky than good.

That said, none of us has any idea as to the future success of the Kings. There are simply too many variables, including a huge variable, luck.

Well, if we are comparing front offices I think the Spurs win hands down. The Spurs picks that were considered diamonds in the rough, like Parker and Ginobili were well established on their national and club teams. Whereas we have been drafting on potential and have not had a guy truly pan out since Peja. JWill was exciting, but no playoff caliber PG. Hedo is solid but a journeyman. Wallace is an athletic wunderkind but hasn't really caught on. We traded away the Dickau pick. And I'm not terribly excited with Kevin Martin.

The draft is how you keep the window open. We had some bad luck with the Webber injury, but really, to be honest, Petrie has not been drafting well. Now, he makes some wicked good trades, but that's just substituting talent, not restocking the talent pool.

 

[Venom]

Those are aches and pains though. We've had some of those, but the big ones during our best runs were major injuries right in the middle of the playoffs. Webber suffered a career-altering knee injury. That's not one you tough out. Peja blew out his ankle, was on crutches and would likely have missed a month in the regular season. he still hadn;t fully recovered by the time of NT play that summer, and it ended up dogging him well into the next season. Difference between being banged up, and just being phsycially unable to go.

If Duncan blows out hsi knee or suffers his ankle injury in May instead of March, its lghts out and the Pistons are champs. Just luck. **** happens.

I agree, but I guess my point is that I still think the Spurs are mentally tougher than our old core was. Of course, the Spurs have managed to duck some incredible mismatches during their three title runs, and they have never been a pantheon type team, but I still they think they had more of whatever it takes to win a championship than we did. Twenty years from now nobody will talking about the Spurs the way they mention the Bulls, Lakers, Celtics, Rockets, or even Bad Boy Pistons, but they win when they should.

 

[D-Mass]

To me it's simple (and, please, don't get me wrong here...I love our current and former players...just an analysis):

Duncan is better than Webber (even then)

Ginobili is better than Peja (I love Peja, but he doesn't have the complete game that Ginobili has)

Robinson was better than Vlade

Bibby is probably better than Parker (in very different ways)

Bowen and Christie cancel each other out

The Spurs have been a better team over the past 7 years than the Kings have...that's the bottom line. They happen to have the combination of players that are skilled at their positions AND play together. Even at full strength, I think the best Spurs team would still beat the best Kings team in a 7 game series.

 

[AriesMar27]

The injury thing counts for something, but Duncan also played through two bad ankles and Manu played through a bruised thigh.

true... but webber couldnt have played through his.... iverson always plays hurt... he couldnt hit the floor with a bball if he were healthy.... he needs to be hurt inorder to play... but hes totally different...

 

[John Galt]

The fact is that the Kings, without a series of devestating injuries to key players, could have been two-time NBA Champions.

fact??? I guess it's a "fact" that any team "could have been" two-time NBA Champions.

 

[John Galt]

Injuries make for a much sexier excuse than "yips from the free throw line" and "being scared to death".

I think free throw jitters and inexperience were the real tangible factors that kept the Kings from winning in 2002 and I just don't have a lot of patience for injury related "what ifs", Dick Bavetta "what ifs", Peja injury "what ifs", and Robert Horry lucky shot "what ifs", when the free throw thing is so "in our face".

 

[uolj]

If you're trying to determine whether the Kings deserved to have multiple championships instead of the Spurs, then of course injuries don't count, they are part of the game and the Spurs played and won their games, the Kings lost theirs.

If you're trying to determine why the Kings did not win and the Spurs did, then of course injuries are part of it. You cannot just ignore that fact, it had an obvious effect on the outcome.

 

[uolj]

Injuries make for a much sexier excuse than "yips from the free throw line" and "being scared to death".

I think free throw jitters and inexperience were the real tangible factors that kept the Kings from winning in 2002 and I just don't have a lot of patience for injury related "what ifs", Dick Bavetta "what ifs", Peja injury "what ifs", and Robert Horry lucky shot "what ifs", when the free throw thing is so "in our face".

Missed free throws are part of the game. The Lakers missed lots of free throws when they barely edged the Blazers in game 7 in 2000. Duncan missed tons of free throws in the fourth quarters of big games. Yet those teams still won. None of them won with one of the main players getting a major injury. I'd say that shows that the injuries were a much bigger factor than missed free throws.

Being scared to death is also part of the game, and while that was a big reason why the Kings failed to win in their best chance in 2002, I don't see how the Spurs played any less scared in their recent championship playoff runs.

 

[Elektrik]

Tim Duncan has always been a lot better than Chris Webber. Duncan also accepted his role as a post player, where Webber never did. Ginobili and Peja couldn't be more different. Ginobili is ALL guts, and Peja...well, he isn't. Lastly, EVERYONE on the Spurs plays defense and they always have. The WCF year, the Kings were a good defensive team. Every other year they were average or worse, and this year they were among the worst in the league.

In fairness to Chris, Webb always played duncan well. At least Ducan couldn't stop him any more than Webb could stop Duncan. Call it a wash.
In watching game 7, I realized that the two teams playing had the number 1 and #2 best defenses in the NBA. That, my friends, was no coincidence. They have always said that defense wins championships and this year it proved to be true again. Had we gotten by Seattle this year we would have had our butts handed to us against either Detroit, Miami, or San Antonio.
Which leads me to next year. We have got to get out of this offense is more fun to watch mode. It may be, but I have to tell you that when Duncan was holding both trophies in his hands it made me realize that we have to get MUCH better defensivly. I was so envious of the Spurs fans. This Kings group may be a bunch of likable guys but compared to the Spurs and Pistons we are a joke (at least defensivly). Therefore we have to take a gamble and go for a guy like Artest or another player like him that thinks defense first. We have to shake things up a bit and change the defensive makeup and mindset of the team. We dont have the horses to get it done right now. As of now we have some quality players that could bring a good return of defensive players. Defensive players are virtually nonexistent on our team. Until we get players that want to play defense or a coach that can motivate players to play defense we will be perpetually stuck as a team that never gets it done. Reminds me of the Cubs. We've given this style of basketball 6 years. Now is the time for change. Time to take a different approach.

 

[Evenstar]

the difference between the spurs and the kings is TIM DUNCAN

the spurs had won NOTHING until duncan came. theyhad a top 50 player in david robinson for all those years, and didn't win a title. robinson gets hurt, they win duncan in the lottery, title the next year.

3 titles, 3 finals MVP's for duncan.

he's the reason that team took off, and why it will be a title contender for the rest of the decade.

i suggest the kings find someone who can be physical with duncan ( no one is going to stop him, slow him down maybe???) and someone who can stop manu if the kings have any intrest in beating the spurs in the playoffs anytime soon. oh and someone who can outwit pop.

go kings go has a nice ring to it

 

[ReinadelosReys]

Great cap management....The Spurs won titles and their Owners actually MADE money---interesting concept, I know!

Luck of the draw & Taking your bumps in the road to ride into the sunset...They have one lousy year, draw the # 1 pick and get Duncan, not to mention drafting Manu in the late second round and Parker in the late first. Good scouting and really, getting lucky.

However, in my humble opinion, the Spurs stuck with the conventional model of creating a basketball team, of playing, while the Kings on the other hand were constructed by taking chances and trying to win a different way. I have always thought of Geoff Petrie as some sort of gambler, taking big risk in order to get big reward and thinking in a non-conventional way. Of course, this all is not really taking in all of the intangibles. I would have loved to see the two teams meet--all things being even-- at least once in that 6 year period.

 

[BigWaxer]

if I say what the truth is I think many will get mad... but purple look at ur post... also do the same for Detriot, LA, Houston, all the teams that have won in the last 15 years.

Were any of them offensive minded coaches? I love RA but honestly offensise is NOT OUR DEFFENSE as they all say.

 

[loopymitch]

One word--DEFENSE