Talk:San Antonio Spurs/Archive 1

Go Spurs Go

The sunset is complete Go spurs go—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.226.100.216 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 2 June 2005 (UTC).

Current status too rah rah

Now, I'm a huge Spurs fan...I love 'em. But the "Current Status" section at the end is totally too "Rah-rah" and not NPOV to be included in an encyclopædia article.--JRed 18:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

On one hand, it seems like a good idea to update a teams progress, but you're right about the NPOV issue. I'm thinking about trashing the Current Status section all together, or just shortening it to just say that the Spurs are in the finals. Any thoughts?--Dknights411 22:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

About "Go Spurs Go"

Apparantly, the "Go Spurs Go" chant IS the official rallying cry for the Spurs, as the phrase pops up all over Spurs marketing. However, I agree that the phrase is better left ommited from the article. It doesn't stand out. Dknights411 06:48, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

More on Go Spurs Go

I'm the one who put it in the article originally.

I'll not argue with the guy who called it "stupid". Hard to argue against a biased opinion like that.

Whether it "Stands out" or not, Go Spurs Go is just as much a part of who the team is as the mascot or logo. When the Spurs are in the playoffs, the cheer is *everywhere* around San Antonio, and on the lips of most fans. It really has become a part of the city spirit for the team. If something is such a visible part of the team, at least in their home town, doesn't it belong in an article about the team, whether or not it "stands out".

OTOH, maybe there's a better way to label it. Something better than "Rallying Cheer". TexasAndroid

Agreement on Go Spurs Go

I agree that "Go Spurs Go" does have a place somewhere in this article. Where, I am not sure, but the phrase is important enough and relevent enough to the organization and city that its inclusion would be constructive. Perhaps just in a simple sentence rather than a bullet point, something like "Throughout the entire city, the cheer of "Go Spurs Go" is posted, and the abundance of this rallying cry multiplies abundantly when the team advances through the playoffs."

Hope we can come to an agreement.

EWS23 05:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think that EWS' idea can be expanded in a sort of "Spurs in San Antonio" section in the article. I feel that the relationship between the team and the city is worth mentioning in this article. Anyone else agree? Dknights411 06:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Go Spurs Go and the playoffs

Actually, it's mostly a playoff phenomenon. It was first put into use by the team 7-8 years ago. I think it was the year that they ended up winning their first championship, but it might have been a year or two before then. They wanted something simple to rally the fans around as they drove towards the championship. And they introduced Go Spurs Go (GSG). And it caught on within the community. Since then, whenever the Spurs are in the playoffs, GSG returns. It really is everywhere around town. From shoe polish messages on cars, to marque sign outside large numbers of businesses, to huge banners hanging on the side of buildings, to a gigantic GSG flag flying over a local flag company.

I think it's simplicity is part of what makes it work. Some of the best marketing phrases are the most effective, and GSG is very effective.

TexasAndroid

---

Dknights: I think that's a good idea. While I know a fair amount about this subject, I think there are plenty of others who know more and would be able to write a better paragraph.

TexasAndroid: While I agree that the print version of GSG is mostly a playoff phenomenon, it is certainly a spoken phenomenon throughout the entire season. At every Spurs home game, you will hear this chant probably about two dozen times, several of those times started officially by The Coyote or the big screen, and many others simply by the crowd's programmed response to certain PA rhythms.

EWS23 04:56, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rivals

I don't have a strong opinion as to whether there should be a Rival tag. Just here to answer Dknights411 questions from the History section.

I think that the other Texas Teams make logical rivals, mostly for proximity issues. Fans are able to easily travel to opposing home games, and in general the geographical close-ness promotes rivalry. Especiall now with all three in the same division.

Another source of rivalry tends to come from who regularly plays spoiler to the other. In this version I would list one of SA's biggest rivals of the last few years as the Lakers. Quite a few times in the last 7-8 years these two team have met in the playoffs, with one of them sending the other into the offseason. This trend has put LA high on the SA fan's hit-list, and I would suspect the reverse is true as well.

As for Utah, before the recent reorg SA and Utah were in the same division. And, for a number of years SA and Utah did seem to have a fairly heated rivalry going. This has cooled off recently, in part because of the reorg moving them into different divisions, and in part because (IMHO) Utah hasn't had a strong team for several year, lessening the threat to SA, and thus cooling the flames of rivalry, at least on the Spurs fan's side.

I guess as I type about it, I would be inclined to say that the whole tag does not belong. While there are exceptions, Rivalries can be a very subjective thing. And is subjective in SA's case. Look at the discussions (mostly on the history page) that are being had over *who* is SA's rival. If it's this hard to identify the rival(s), then how can it be put in the entry as a factual statement?

TexasAndroid

To-Do

Just kind of keeping notes publically here.

IMHO, at some point the 2004-2005 recap should be moved up into the "New century" historical data. The title of "New Centry" will need to change, at the least to say "two more titles".

The question is when this move is appropriate. At the latest, it should be done before the next season begins, and a new Current Status section takes form. But when between now and then does 04-05 move from "current" to "historical". Not really sure.

Also talked about is writing a new section for Spurs and the community. Just wanting to make sure that this doesn't get forgotten. Not sure who will end up writing it, but almost certainly not me, as I am not that great a writer.

TexasAndroid

Ownership

I think the Owner tag is incorrect, but I really don't know how best to fix it, so I'm tossing my concerns out here. Peter Holt isn't really the owner. Peter Holt is owner and operator of Holt Caterpillar, one of a number of local businesses that together jointly own the Spurs. I think it's something like 22 different businesses. Peter Holt is the public front man for the group, and holds operating positions within the Spurs, but he's not really the "Owner". TexasAndroid

Well, Peter Holt is the majority owner, meaning he holds a larger percent than any of the other owners. This situation is common, especially in the NBA, and very few teams have a single owner. However, if anyone should be considered the "owner" of the Spurs, it's Peter Holt. So, without changing all NBA team pages (and most professional sports pages, for that matter), it's probably best to just keep the majority owner in that information slot on the page. EWS23 21:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was Holt Caterpiller, not Peter Holt himself, who owned the share. Not necessarily a huge difference, since Holt owns Holt Cat, but....

And I thought he/it was the largest owner share-wise, but far from a majority owner. Somewhere in the teens or twentys, percentage wise. I remember that being a part of the point of splitting up the ownership amoung multiple San Antonio companies, so there was no single "Majority" owner, making it very difficult for the team to ever be sold and moved out of SA. TexasAndroid 21:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right, I had a feeling I'd regret that wording...I guess that would make him the plurality owner, or something along those lines. There are lots of owners, like David Robinson, who own less than 3 percent, but that adds up quickly. EWS23 05:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject

I had a few ideas for the this article, which turned into a few ideas for all the NBA pages. So I created a WikiProject, which can be found here. I hope you guys will help contribute!!! Dknights411 July 8, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Tim Duncan's Mother

I've also posted this on the Tim Duncan "Talk" page, but I figured I'd post it here for more exposure. Someone in the past couple of days has been trying to change Tim's mother's name to "Delysia" rather than "Ione." Baffled by this, I did a search, and found BOTH of them in articles. For now I have changed it back to Ione, since there are more sources that have this name and seem to be more credible sources, but I would really like a definitive answer on this if anyone knows for sure or can find a very good source. I couldn't find a name on Tim Duncan's official site, [www.slamduncan.com], but perhaps someone else can. Thanks for your time. EWS23 20:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Carver Academy

I've created a stub for the Carver Academy. If anyone knows about the school, please expand it. If there are no takers, I will likely expand it to a point. EWS23 19:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Go Spurs Go" Concur

"Go Spurs Go" belongs in the article. The local media recently noted the San Antonio Alamodome crowds that attending the replaced New Orleans Saints games had chanting "Go Saints Go." The local media joked about the city borrowing from one professional team. "Go Spurs Go" belongs in the Wiki article. 70.129.22.10 13:07, December 26, 2005 (UTC)

• It's already in there. See the "Spurs in San Antonio" section. Dknights411 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

James Silas

I was browsing the page, and I was very surprised to see that James Silas didn't have an article. So, now he does. Please feel free to look over this new page and add as much as you know/can find, as I honestly knew little about him before I started doing the research for the article. Please leave me feedback either here or on my talk page. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I35 Rivalry

I think you must add the Dallas Mavericks as a Strong I35 Rivalry. In three times san antonio and dallas have played in the playoffs and san antonio has won the first two 4-1 and 4-2 and now pending the third one in a tied series 3-3.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.128.99 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

Famous fans

Could anyone please put a list for famous fans of the Spurs? I know someone deleted this before. I know they are many notable fans. Taylor Hicks and Eva Longoria are the only ones that I know, I'm pretty sure they're might be more.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.114.193 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

Oh, good idea. I know that you could also add Shirley Manson from Garbage in that "famous fans" list. I'm unsure of any other people who could be added to the list. But three is a good start. (Krushsister 06:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

New addition to "famous fans" roster: English footballer Thierry Henry, whose Wiki article (a.) states this and (b.) also states that he's friends with Mr. Tony Parker! Wow, this celeb supporter list is growing. Slowly. (Krushsister 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Spurs' Name

Anyone know for sure where the name Spurs came from when they moved to SA? I've heard that they were named after Red McCombs' home town of Spur, Texas. The story I heard goes that as the team moved to SA, the business association in charge of the team move held a contest here in SA. The winner was suppose to be picked by the committee, and then the winner would receive something like 4 season's worth of tickets. However, as the contest drew down to just a few finalists, the committee decided that they didn't like any of the entries. At some point in this, McCombs stated that the name should be associated with Texas/San Antonio, but be short. After the committee threw out all of the contest entries, one of the committee members mentioned going with McCombs' idea and naming it after his hometown, Spur. I thought about adding this to the article, but I can't find a reference for this story anywhere, and I'd rather not added it till we know it as fact and not some SA urban legend. Can anyone help out on this? --Brownings 00:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The link looks like a sufficiently reliable source to justify including the origin of the name http://www.sanantonionames.com/pages/exerpts.html --Mikebrand 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned Draftees

I'm thinking of creating a new subheading possibly called Unsigned Draftees (open to better suggestions). It would be located under the Current Roster heading (at contents position 6.2) and include links to players such as Ian Mahinmi, Luis Scola and Robertas Javtokas. The point would be to provide a quick reference to the drafted players considered "projects" by the Spurs. I'm imagining a table with columns for name, position, year drafted, nationality, and current team. Any thoughts? --Mikebrand 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, so long as we're able to keep it up-to-date with their current teams. An intro to the section would be nice as well, such as "The San Antonio Spurs have used _ of their last _ draft picks on foreign-born players, and have had arguably more success than any other club in finding foreign talent, selecting All-Stars Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili..." Sources would obviously be nice, but I think they're probably the only club to have drafted two foreign-born All-Stars. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a try. I decided to list in the table only facts that will not change (or are unlikely to change: position). The items that change (eg, which league and team they currently play for) would be best listed in their personal profiles. My introductory para may need some editing. It is possible that a similar explanatory para should be written for the whole NBA, and this entry merely link to it. --Mikebrand 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten

Every time I come by this article, the "Not to be forgotten" section on former players has expanded. It has reached the point where it is not very useful. It should either be cut down to the 5-10 most notable who don't fit into another list (AJ and a few others) or cut entirely. Eluchil404 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Selecting the 10 worthy of inclusion would be a very subjective process. An alternative would be to change the title to "Former Spurs" and make it very inclusuve. That could actually be a useful list as I don't think such a list exists elsewhere in WP. --Mikebrand 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A fully inclusive list would be equal to Category:Spurs players. It would also be too long for its current place in the article. My first choice would be to just delete the section outright as POV and unneccessary but I wouldn't object to a seperate page List of former Spurs players with information like numbers and seasons with the team. Eluchil404 17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The separate list of former players (with numbers and years) sounds like a good idea to me. --Mikebrand 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

Ah man, I cant beleive we still dont have any safely free images on this page. Looks like Ill have to go to a spurs game and shoot some myself! Too bad the Detroit game is already sold out!--Zereshk 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Derek Fisher shot controversy

Quadzilla99 has been removing the "controversial" adjective from "...controversial game-winning shot." Considering the amount of press this shot received after the Spurs filed a protested, claiming the clock did not start when it should have, I believe the adjective fits (as did the editor that put it there some time ago). Here is everyone's opportunity to comment on this shot. (Considering the fact it even needs to be discussed supports its controversy.) Clipper471 03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See my and Clippers talk pages and this for more details on the discussion:[1] Quadzilla99 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The shot was certainly controversial. Whether that shot should count or not was the talk of the town for the next several days. While it is true that Fisher released the ball before the clock expired, he held the ball for more than 0.4 seconds. The issue is, does 0.4 seconds mean 0.4 seconds of possesion, or does it mean 0.4 seconds from when the ref starts the clock. By NBA rules, it is the later, but try to explain that to a Spurs fan and you have a controversy. --Mikebrand 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see one reliable source stating he did not get the shot off in time. AP report: "replays showed Fisher got off the shot in time."[2] Washington Post:"The miraculous bucket, which was reviewed on video by all three game officials and declared good,"[3], and I'm a Spurs fan, so that holds no water. I stopped using forums a while ago but here's a one of my old forum profiles:[4] Quadzilla99 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just say the shot was heavily contested but later proved to be legitimate by NBA rules. People may still remember the shot and feel hard done by but that does not alone make it controversial. That said, if it can be shown, as Clipper41 submits that the press framed the shot as a controversy, then we have the evidence. Chensiyuan 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"I've yet to see one reliable source stating he did not get the shot off in time." -- You won't see a source that will say that. Do you not understand it's about not starting the clock in time? Clipper471 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which means, if there are sources saying the clock was not started in time (allegedly, perceived, actually, or otherwise), then that helps. Chensiyuan 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in local media was not whether the shot was released before the buzzer (it was, no controversy there). The discussion was about how long it legitimately takes the clock to start once it is in a player's possession. There was plenty of media controversy about that length of time (ie, immediate or after some fraction of a second, like 0.4). The fact that this discussion has generated multiple responses in less than an hour indicates it is still controversial, even several years later. --Mikebrand 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then prove the media controversy! It's very simple. These events happened in the age of the internet, I am sure something can be found. Manderiko 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll chime in, several responses in an hour is proof of nothing. You need valid sources. I'm a big NBA and Spurs fan and I never heard of any real controversy. The replays all showed it to be good. Harvey100 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning! I suspect Harvey100 may be a sock puppet belonging to Quadzilla99. Quadzilla99 has made an edit on Harvey100's user page indicating as such. This should be considered when considering his message. However, in response to Harvey100's message, how do you source a controversey? Was there a cover up to the JFK assination? According to the Warren Commission, no. So I guess there's no controversey? Clipper471 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Source with exact verbiage: "So, while his teammates rushed to view a replay of Derek Fisher's controversial game-winning shot, the Spurs' guard sat quietly alone in the locker room, considering what might have been had Fisher misfired with his desperation jumper." ("Parker perplexed once again", San Antonio Express-News, Tom Osborn, May 14, 2004) Clipper471 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another source: "The Los Angeles Lakers brought Hollywood to San Antonio on Thursday night, complete with suspense, action - and some might argue a robbery." ("S.A. is heartbreak city", San Antonio Express-News, Amy Dorsett, May 14, 2004) Clipper471 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay kudos you found some sources if you did that an hour ago this could have gone a lot smoother. However those are all San Antonio sources. To call a play controversial means it was controversial in general not just in San Antonio. I've put it in context, and please start putting the Fisher statement in there he never admits anything. He says he makes shots all the time with .4 remaining, it proves my point. Quadzilla99 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added another source, the Houston Chronicle with comments from Jeff Van Gundy. Clipper471 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is rediculous. Even as a die hard Spurs fan, I saw nothing wrong with that shot, and i saw no evidence concerning any complaints by the Spurs, not even from the Express-News. There was NO controversy at ALL. The replay showed that the ball was in the air by .1 second. Besides, there is absolutly no need to elaborate on any details concrning this issue on this article (even though I'm sure it's all speculative). Just simply say that Derek Fisher sunk that shot and that's it. Anything else would be irrelevent to the article. Dknights411 15:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The references have been added to the article. Please do not remove these. Read the articles for the "evidence concerning the complaints by the Spurs", including the appropriate adjectives and comments from other leagure sources. Clipper471 03:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Massive changes

I've reverted a massive change to the article applied by an anonymous user (71.41.180.99). Many of the changes were added without sourcing. Please propose such changes that will dramatically alter the article here before applying them. Clipper471 11:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

San Antonio Gunslingers?

Is there any documentation that shows that was supposed to be the original name for the Spurs in San Antonio? I never knew that and it seems all made up. DandyDan2007 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced

I added an unsourced tag this article needs more inline citations, see the Toronto Raptors article for an example of a well sourced article. Tayquan ^holla_{Hard work} 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

How come this article doesn't have more sources like a lot of the other Wikipedia sports articles like Wayne Gretzky? Aaron Bowen 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No answers? Aaron Bowen 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

• Merge and redirect. Clipper471 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• merge - I agree, the other article is unsubstantial. --MJHankel 00:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge If someone ever wants to expand the history of the Gunslingers franchise they can expand it and create a separate article. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Its been a month, merge. --Knowpedia 14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Table colours

Present	Proposed

Should the table colours be silver on black, or black and silver? Currently the {{… NBA Champions}} templates use the latter, but the other tables use the former. I think silver and black is more appropriate because on their logo, SPURS is black on silver while SAN ANTONIO is white on black. —LOL 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Spurs road uniform and home court color scheme emphasizes black more than silver. The current scheme fits better than the proposed one and should therefore stay IMHO. Dknights411 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the uniforms use black more than silver, but I’m still wondering if they should determine the colours on the article. In addition to the logo, the Spurs website uses mostly a silver background and black text. —LOL 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's the Spurs special playoff section that you see first off right now. If you find the actual home page, it fits more of the predominantly black scheme. Dknights411

After viewing other teams’ sites, I didn’t expect the playoffs section to be much different from the index. I’m guessing now that the {{… NBA Champions}} templates should be changed to silver on black for consistency. —LOL 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a big problem with the NBA Champions templates. Whoever created them made it so that the text color couldn't be changed so easily. I'll try to fix it, through. Dknights411 20:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to change it to silver on black, but I can’t override the colour of the links. I put it here because it may be difficult to read the links on a black background. What do you think? —LOL 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Future outlook

Isn't the future outlook section kind of crystal ballish? I mean I don't think it really belongs in an encyclopedia. Marcus Taylor 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm kinda 50/50 about it myself. Although it does mention that Tim, Manu, and Tony are all under contract till at least 2010 I beleive. But I'm not entirely sure on my own judgement about this. Dknights411 18:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the contract status of those players be mentioned in the text somewhere and the section removed? Marcus Taylor 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can think of a way to do this. Marcus Taylor 12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The author of this section makes the common mistake of confusing salary cap number with payroll. — 24.21.100.212

I'll work on it tomorrow. Marcus Taylor 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed 2007 June 26

People need to refrain from adding information to the records section until it actually happens! vertigo315 11:57 14, June 2007

Update Stats to reflect the 2007 season

The stats need to be updated in the table to reflect the 2006-07 season. Miranda 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

San Antonio as only 37th biggest market?

You guys sure about this? SA's population has increased massively in recent years and they're the 7th biggest city in the USA. Of course, they have few suburbs and are not joined to another large city like Dallas/Ft.Worth are so their MSA is not nearly the 7th largest, but according to the SA wikipedia page, as of '05 they were still 29th and probably have moved up/will move up...I realize there are differences between "media market size," NSA population, city size, etc, and probably even different ways to define "media market size," so I'll let you guys make the call. -Thermal0xidizer

Those figures are correct. The San Antonio/Del Rio Designated Market Area (DMA) is currently (2006-07) ranked 37th largest in the nation as defined by Nielsen Media Research and the San Antonio MSA is the 29th largest.

The DMA ranking is based on population within a geographic region designated for that market. Some DMA's include large geographic areas with little poplulation and in some cases they cross state lines.

Given those variables, individual city population and metropolitan area population rankings rarely correlate with a DMA ranking. For example, Houston is the 4th largest city in the country and the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA is the 6th largest, but is the 10th largest DMA. By the way the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA is the fourth largest in the nation and is the 6th largest DMA.

I hope that clears thing up.IceBRG 22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

New Era not so new any more

I'm thinking we need a new section title for what is currently titled "A new era (1997-present)". An era that's a decade old now is really not so new, IMHO. In keeping with the lightly humorous nature of the Robinson Era section title, I was thinking of what could be done with Duncan's name. The obvious one that comes to mind is something like "Slam Duncan (1997-present)". It's simple, it made a basketball pun off of Duncan's name, though a fairly obvious one, but it would give IMHO a nice theme to the current section. Anyone have any other ideas? Or think that the current section title is fine as it is? - TexasAndroid 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried using titles like "the Duncan era" or the championship era, but I kepp getting rv'd. I still have a few ideas though. Dknights411 20:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of why I came in here first. If we can get a consensous here on talk first, it's easier to get it to stick on the page itself. - TexasAndroid 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest something like "Twin-Tower Era" (not sure the spelling). Duncan era is not quite right because he still plays. -- Lerdsuwa 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. Chris! _{my talk} 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please do not use rumors and alleged reports as an excuse to update a team's roster. If you want to update a team's roster, please check the Spurs roster on their official website [www.nba.com/spurs] for news and changes. This way, team roster information is kept official and up-to-date.Dknights411 18:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

ok --86.133.144.179 17:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spurs/Suns series

I see no reason I can't add that many people did consider the series the de facto NBA Finals. There is no source cited for it being "controversial," but that's included.

I could have cited a hundred sources when the series was being played and right before. Do I have to order tapes of ESPN for that week?

There are many sentences on wikipedia that aren't cited to anything and are far less well-known statements.Theknightswhosay 08:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This story - "NBA suspends Stoudemire, Diaw for leaving bench," by Marc Stein, ESPN, May 16, 2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2871615 - should be used as a source on why the series was so controversial. I tried to point out that NBA commissioner Stern decided to suspend two key Suns players - Stoudemire and Diaw - for Game 5 for leaving the bench during Game 4 but did not see fit to suspend a key Spur player - Duncan - for Game 5 for leaving the bench during another incident in Game 4.

This is a key point that made the series so controversial. It was the real NBA finals since the West was stronger than the East in 2007, and these were the top two seeded teams left after Dallas was eliminated in the first round. And that decision by Stern tipped the series and the 2007 NBA title directly to the Spurs. I've watched a lot of NBA basketball and never seen a playoff series so directly influenced by a decision by a commissioner that could have gone either way. To me, you either suspend Stoudemire, Diaw AND Duncan, or suspend no one. Leaving the bench is leaving the bench.

I put this in the story, but it was taken out by somebody. Jacksonthor (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, leaving the bench is not just "leaving the bench". According to the NBA rules, if you leave the bench DURING AN ALTERCATION, you recieve an one game suspension. There was not an altercation occuring on the court during the Duncan incident so Duncan did not break the rule there. Amare, on the other hand, left the bench during an altercation (Nash tried to retaliate against Robert Horry for his hip check). The circumstances behind the two incidents are entirely different, so they just can't be lumped together like what you tried to do. Based on just that, we can't say that Duncan broke the rule and should have been suspended, when that absolutly not the case at all. Moreover, the statements you made in your edits, particularly the part about the "real NBA Finals" is just way out there to list it as a part of an encyclopedia. The whole assumptions wou mad in your edits seems like they are just from one fan's point of view. We can't base anything in Wikipedia off of editorials and opinions. That's not what an encyclopedia is there for. Let's just stick with saying that the suspensions happened and leave it at that. Dknights411 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put the part about this series being the real NBA finals - someone else did.

There was an altercation going on when Duncan left the bench. Two players were entangled, and that was an much of an altercation as what Nash and Horry were involved in. You are wrong that Nash tried to retaliate. He didn't but Bell said something to Horry. Still that wasn't a real altercation. But all I put in was that Suns officials lobbied to have Duncan suspended, which is the truth. It's not an opinion. A

And if wikipedia is not based on opinions as you say, why is the section on reputation allowed to stand????? That is ALL opinions such as the spurs are seen as "good men." WTF?????? Jacksonthor (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a sports chat board; all of this op-ed based commentary does not belong here. A better idea would be to clean up the puffery in the 'reputation' section instead of continuing to add poorly sourced negative information for 'balance'. Feel free to propose changes, or simply make the changes and let other editors craft compromises. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To Jacksonthor, if you watch the replay of the Duncan incident, Duncan came off the bench after his teammate went down under the basket. This isn't an "altercation" because no one tried to start a fight afterward, as opposed to Amare's circumstance when several Suns players (including Steve Nash) tried to go after Robert Horry after his hip check. In other words, there was a definate threat of a full blown brawl during the Amare incident, while that threat did not exist at all during the Duncan incident. Just look at the video of the two incidents in question and you can see the difference (Duncan video Amare video). I'm also going to concur with what Kuru said in his reply. Next time you have a concern, discuss it first instead of making negative edits like that. Dknights411 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So Kuru and Dknights411 are both living in San Antonio and Dknights is a Spurs fan, according to your information. Kuru sounds like a Spurs fan too. How am i adding "negative information" just by trying to provide balance to your opinions on this page? My part was not poorly sourced - many people have called Duncan and Ginobili whiners and Bowen dirty. I cited two of those sources and you or someone else took them out. Jacksonthor (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And you can say what you want about the Duncan incident, but that's still just your opinion. All I want is something in here saying that Suns officials complained about Duncan going on the court in the same game. That is a fact because they did complain about that. Whether it was a real altercation or not is an opinion.Jacksonthor (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding "by some homers" was not the mature rewrite of the overly positive paragraph I had in mind. I hope that's not your best attempt. If you'd like, I'll take a look at it this weekend and clean it up; but please refrain from making edits in the meantime if you're not going to take this seriously. Kuru ^talk 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure take a look at it. I just put that part in because when I did some more mature additions, they were taken out by someone here. I still think something needs to be said somewhere about how the Suns lobbied to have Duncan suspended too, but maybe that better belongs in the article on the 2007 NBA playoffs in general. Jacksonthor (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Spurstalk.com?

An anon IP has been adding a link to SpursTalk.com in. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10, links to forums should be avoided. The site doesn't even have any content; it's a forum, straight up. Does anyone see any reason why this should be added? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I saw links to other forums and even a blog page I thought it would be only fair to list the most active (by far) Spurs fan forum on the internet. Can you please explain why are some forums allowed and others not?--193.77.147.15 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Odds are that the others shouldn't be included either. Depends on the situation and their individual notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the selective removal of only the link to Spurstalk then? Wouldn't you agree that the rules should be the same for everybody? On the subject of notability Spurstalk is by far the most active and largest Spurs fan community on the internet. Several members are accredited journalists (the owner and creator of the forum is such a person) and because of the sheer size and dedication of its members, quite a few news have broken on that forum - the latest example was the Brent Barry re-signing. Spurstalk was where the first reliable (emphasis on reliable) information on the subject was published, approx. 6 hours before the national media. So what's the solution? Leave the Spurstalk.com link or remove all the others? My vote is to leave it there since it's an excellent source of information and opinions for Spurs fans.--193.77.147.15 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Until now, I haven't really taken a look at the External links section, but upon inspection, I don't think that most of those links should be there either. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for linkspam. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just treat them all equally is what I ask. It is stupid to have links to some forums that are not really that good and not to the arguably best one. I checked a few other teams wiki pages and some actually do have forums in their external links, while others don't. I agree that the rules are against it, so I'll expect to see the other disappear as well.--193.77.147.15 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:75.58.163.152

I start this discussion because User:75.58.163.152 keeps inserting references of the Spurs being a dynasty to the article. I reverted him since he is pushing pro-Spurs pov while downplaying the accomplishment of Celtics by vandalizing the article of Boston Celtics. As of now, he continues to revert my edit. —Chris! _ct 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to downplay the Celtic's accomplishments. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to refer to them as a dynasty in the 1946-1956 era when they're 10 years away from winning their first title. By that logic we should move to the Bulls page and insert a "1983-1984 Dynasty" statement. Doesn't make sense right? Also, the Spurs are very much a dynasty. David Stern refers to them as a dynasty so that should tell you something. 75.58.163.152 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it does seem like you're hijaking the article for yourself. if you want changes made, discuss it here or on the NBA Wikiproject talk page. Moreover, I strongly suggest creating a wikipedia account for yourself if you're going to be editing on a regular basis. Dknights411 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

world champions

The champions of the NBA are not world champions208.114.167.95 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but the NBA regularly uses "World Champions", despite being an obvious misnomer. It's been that way since the beginning. Why? I don't know. Dknights411 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The title, I think, the NBA uses is "NBA World Champions" which literally speaking is correct. 75.38.51.224 04:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And, there is the fact that the NBA is, like it or not, the most prestigious basketball league of the world. like the Wimbledon of Tennis. Congradz San Antonioooo! Keep on sweeepin baby!!--Zereshk 06:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do people call the winner of Wimbledon the World Champion now? Is the winner of the Masters in golf a world champion also? Is the person who wins NASCAR a World Champion? How far do you want to take it? It seems that to be called World Champion would mean beating teams of a variety of countries. One Canadian team does not make it a worldwide league. I think that's what the original commenter was getting at.Theknightswhosay 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the term, "World Champions" should not be used by the NBA since it's sort of depicting some superiority with other basketball leagues. They should stick with the term, "NBA Champions." 199.38.51.134 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's beause the NBA is superior to the rest of the basketball leagues in the world. 75.58.163.152 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the NBA! lol. Chensiyuan 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reputation

This section should have a more inclusive and balanced history. For example, there is no mention of the "Charmin" era.

This section is also riddled with biased opinions that are not backed up. For instance, it says the Spurs "are often seen as a team of 'good men with big hearts.'" But the only "objective" source it cites is a column by a writer from a San Antonio paper.

I doubt many people in Phoenix or Houston or Dallas would say the Spurs are "good men with big hearts." Bowen and now Horry are considered among the dirtiest players in the NBA.

The Spurs, especially Duncan and Ginobili, have gotten a reputation of being whiners and complaining about every call - see http://www.bullz-eye.com/paulsen/2007/0523.htm and http://sports.aol.com/photos/biggest-whiners-in-sports - AOL Sports recently named Duncan among the biggest whiners in sports.

That whining reputation would also contradict the statement that "the Spurs seem as low key as the residents." A whiner is not low key. That's a myth about these spurs and not supported by any evidence in this section.

There is this statement that still doesn't have a citation: "The Spurs share a unique bond with the city of San Antonio that is unmatched by other teams.[citation needed]" Most teams share such a bond and do community work.

I would edit out this entire section - which seems like it was written by a biased Spurs fan - or let those of us who know otherwise contribute our parts. Jacksonthor (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given a third opinion below on this subject. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A section on reputation should be added, as the Spurs are seen, off the court, as a franchise and players that consistently give back to the community. Many comments in this discussion refer only to how other players may percieve them "on the court." The Spurs consistently rank in the Top 2 in ESPN's "Ultimate Standings" http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/mag/franchiseRanks, which ranks teams in a variety of sports and community related areas. It's safe to say that the Spurs run a quality organization that wins consistently, gives back, and has a special relationship with their community; this should be inserted somewhere into this article. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?name=franchise08rank2 This could all be done in an informative, non-biased manner. --Cdman882 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)