I'm not mad.
And I was using the Lakers as an example. Especially if you realize the Lakers are #2 in defensive efficiency. And many pundits thought adding a premier perimeter defender increased their defensive ability. So your "when were the Lakers known for defense" retort is very clever but nonsensical Realikoast.
Lurker, just because the Lakers have had a good month and a half of defense does not mean they are known for their defense. Boston and San Antonio are known for their defense because it's been solid for years. I hardly think anyone would consider a 1 1/2 month stretch of good defense to all the sudden subplant the idea that the Lakers are an offensive juggernaut with Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol with the idea they are in the same category as the Celtics or Spurs. Not even the most delusional Laker fans think that.
Their defense has been lackluster since Christmas. I hardly think a team known for their defense would have a 3 week lapse like this. The Lakers have consistently given up a lot of points to teams like the Clippers and Kings. They've only won games against Miami, Bucs, and Kings not because of defense but because of a last second shot by Kobe.
Your retort to my retort (lol) is nonsensical. This Laker team hasn't been known for its defense. In fact it's never been known for it's defense, even in the Showtime era when it was pretty good, they've always been looked at as an offensive juggernaut. It was Showtime Lakers because of the fast break on offense. In the first part of the last decade it was Shaq's offensive post dominance and Kobe's offensive dominance on the perimeter. Same applies now but change Shaq with Pau. While they were a solid defensive team during the threepeat, no one considered them a 'defensive' minded team. Correct me if I am wrong but no one is calling Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum the twin towers in the post because of how well they protect the paint.
But then let's look at the entire NBA. There is only 1 team besides the Spurs that has less than 10 games where the opponent scored over 100. So is the number of times your opponent score 100+ a good analysis tool? My guess is it isn't since all of the teams with better records than the Spurs have allowed more games over 100. Would Boston's figures make you happy? They have allowed 11 teams to score over 100 including powerhouses like Knicks, Sixers, Raptors, Wizards, Grizzlies. Are they not "known for their defense"? Do you realize that half of the league is averaging over 100 points a game?
When your team has held most opponents over the last decade in the 80-85 range, yes I think if you are forming the argument the defense is slipping, then high lighting teams that do not have major offensive weapons is reasonable. Having a team that has Lebron James on it going for 100 is not a big deal. When a team who has one of their top offensive options being Al Jefferson (and no disrespect to him) score up towards that mark is a different story.
While the Spurs have had their share of injuries this year, so has Boston. KG is currently playing with a real bad knee and Paul Pierce has been out for 3-4 weeks. That might explain why they've slipped up a bit in the last month. Their team defense has slipped. No doubt about that. Just because Boston's defense has been slipping doesn't make it okay for the Spurs to do the same. Again, this thread is about the Spurs and not necessarily what the Lakers or Celtics are (or not) doing.
Most of the teams in this league have shifted towards a more offensive minded approach. The league has made changes to rules and the way games are called to get the scoring up higher for the fans. I know I don't even need to say this to you but did you forget this is the reason why the Spurs were one of the most dominate teams over the last decade? While everyone else was gearing up to score points the Spurs slowly and methodically stuck to defense. While the Phoenix Suns were watching the finals at home 10 years in a row the Spurs racked up 4 titles. Seriously, saying the Spurs are on par with the rest of the league is pretty much saying they've slipped.
Almost every metric shows that the Spurs are a much better defensive team (top 10) than you are giving them credit for...but you don't want to believe it. Even when a nonSpurs fan (jem) chimes in. In short I still believe that you are searching way too hard to justify your position that the Spurs have slipped.
A team going from top 3 every year to slipping to top 10 and I'm trying too hard? The numbers show they've slipped.
In short, I believe you are trying way too hard to make excuses for your team. The Spurs have slipped, I think maybe you should just admit that. If they didn't you could barrage me with stats that show they are playing the same level of defense they have in the last 5 years.
