11/05/24
June 06, 2007
(I)t hit me, the Spurs are Nickelback.: They're that band whose music isn't offensive but you've heard it so much you can't stand listening to it anymore. That got us thinking about how other basketball dynasties relate to other music acts from history. Here's what we came up with.
posted by Ufez Jones to basketball at 08:37 PM - 19 comments
Excellent idea, woeful execution. The '88-90 Pistons = Nirvana? The '91-98 Bulls = The Eagles? the '80-91 Lakers = Led Zeppelin? And this after equating the '81-87 Celtics with the Beastie Boys because "they were the white guys dominating a black medium?" So a mostly white team is equated with a white hip-hop group, but three mostly black teams are equated with...tired old white 'classic' rock groups? Huh? How about this: The '88-90 Pistons = NWA (bad boys. original gangstas. etc.) The '91-98 Bulls = Public Enemy (a combination of dominant, serious mc; ultra-competent but relatively quiet dj; goofy sidekick; and behind-the scenes production team that gets it all done) the '80-91 Lakers = Bad Brains (could switch between blindingly fast tempos and dub-like half-court offense at the blink of a hat)
posted by googly at 09:45 AM on June 07, 2007
Great find Ufez. The Bad Boys as NWA is quite the intriguing idea though.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:48 AM on June 07, 2007
I definitely prefer your changes, googly. Calling the Celtics the Beastie Boys was a huge disservice to the Celtics. And, seriously, the Beatles were popular, but saying they "were music" is a pretty big reach. Maybe the '62-73 Lakers should have been the Beach Boys.
posted by bperk at 09:56 AM on June 07, 2007
This is an amazing team with truly amazing players. What's amazing about the Spurs is that I haven't fallen asleep watching them play...yet. Good thing the Cleveland LeBrons, er...Cavaliers are playing. That way I'm sure something exciting can/will happen. I have nothing but respect for the Spurs for what they've done as far as winning championships but in this day & age, it's all about having personalities and the San Antonio Spurs are just a boring team. Ok, a boring team that's won 3 times but they're still boring.
posted by BornIcon at 10:28 AM on June 07, 2007
See, I don't get that. The Spurs make other teams look jaw-droppingly stupid. The plays they run for Duncan seem so simple because they're executed with perfection. He may not be popping his jersey, but I didn't realize that was such a huge component of enjoyable basketball. But I have always considered that one of the biggest "in your face" moments you can inflict on another team is to make it look like they have no idea how to play. The Spurs do that. They look stoppable, but they just aren't. But do people think Manu's game is boring? Or Parker's? I mean, is anyone actually watching these two guys run around? They play like they're on fire. Boring? Hell no. They slash, run and score in highly remarkable ways - and they do it in the paint. It's just some media saturation as far as I'm concerned. It's not actually based in reality. In some respects they take on Tim Duncan's personality in that they're relatively controversy-free, but you'd rather they feature a who's who of gun toting Strip club veterans? Why?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:49 AM on June 07, 2007
The Spurs get the ball, have a few passes, and then a bankshot by Duncan. Repeat over and over. It's not the off-the-court stuff or popping the jersey that makes a team exciting. It's a fast break, an alley-oop, a freakin' dunk on occasion.
posted by bperk at 12:06 PM on June 07, 2007
I think that Rick Rielly of Sports Illustrated read this post. He just called the Cavaliers the N'Sync of basketball basically saying that LeBron is the Justin Timberlake of that team and just brought the rest of them with him to the Grammys. Funny stuff.
posted by BornIcon at 12:37 PM on June 07, 2007
Sorry, forgot to mention that I heard that on the Dan Patrick show.
posted by BornIcon at 12:55 PM on June 07, 2007
The Spurs get the ball, have a few passes, and then a bankshot by Duncan. Repeat over and over. It's not the off-the-court stuff or popping the jersey that makes a team exciting. It's a fast break, an alley-oop, a freakin' dunk on occasion. Bullshit. Duncan only averages 21. Other players, and Duncan himself, are doing the things you're talking about. It's a popular opinion that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of actual evidence. Perhaps, it's because when crunch time hits, the Spurs go fundamental and get that bankshot. Or that open three. But Ginobli and Parker aren't boring players. I can't see how anyone, who actually watches this team play can suggest that those guys are the least bit boring. Prehaps it also because when they're running on all cylinders they tend to dominate teams - therefore the games aren't close enough to be truly exciting. That's the only one I'll give you. They win too much by 11 or more.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:30 PM on June 07, 2007
But Ginobli and Parker aren't boring players. You are right, those players aren't boring, but the team sure is. Here are some of the problems with the team - Duncan's eye bulging, Ginobili's flopping, the complete lack of enthusiam (i.e. straight faces), the fact that they are known for their efficiency, and their superstar is known as the Big Fundamental, and, of course, the dreaded bank shot. Every game I watch of them seems like an exact replica of a different game that I watched with them playing. They suffer by comparison to teams that are electrifying. Teams that you don't want to move away from the television lest you miss something. Teams that have superstars that make you rewind the TiVo to see an amazing play again.
posted by bperk at 02:04 PM on June 07, 2007
They remind me of those Pistons, great team players, no real super star, but plenty of stars. Unselfish play, I really hate them, but they get it done, don't they. I hope Lebron can make it interesting for us, becuase although it's not boring, it is not exciting either. Lebron should make it fun, while the Spurs do their thing.
posted by sap_basis at 04:00 PM on June 07, 2007
But do people think Manu's game is boring? No Manu's game makes me want to punch something. Seeing him drive the lane and then collapse like somebody shot him over and over again just gets rather irritating. What makes it worse is the frequency that he gets the calls.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:36 PM on June 07, 2007
You're absolutely right about Manu...I much prefer Rasheed Wallace's mature, measured response to the game, the other players, and the referees. A smooth, consummate professional, that 'Sheed is. Ying, you have to admit, you've shown yourself to have absolutely no objectivity at all. If they're not the Pistons (or any other Detroit team, for that matter), you hate 'em. Weedy's made several good points, and I have to concur. Yes, Tim Duncan is a boring "face of the franchise," but if you like good basketball, you have no reason to complain about the Spurs. They don't just play good baskeball, they play championship-caliber basketball. Hell, I'll watch that. It ain't Showtime, but it's damn efficient, and other teams just can't hang with it.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:45 AM on June 08, 2007
I never said that Sheed is a smooth, consummate professional. It is actually quite the contrary. While he is a very talented player he gets the Pistons in trouble a lot with his antics. It would be nice to have a player with his talent without all the baggage(but we can't have everything can we?). Throw that in with the overall arrogance of the entire Pistons team and their act can wear thin at times. Ying, you have to admit, you've shown yourself to have absolutely no objectivity at all. If they're not the Pistons (or any other Detroit team, for that matter), you hate 'em That is quite the broad assumption. Show me where I said I hate the Spurs and I'll gladly eat my own words. I'm just not quite sure how after making clear my views on certain teams you can say that I hate all teams other than those in Detroit. True I dislike certain players, everyone does. Ohio State, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Manu Ginobli, I dislike them all. That doesn't mean I don't have objectivity. I am just more vocal about my views when it comes to players or teams I don't like.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:16 PM on June 08, 2007
You're a homer, just accept it. There's no crime in it.
posted by yerfatma at 05:10 PM on June 08, 2007
Oh I know I'm a homer. I'm pretty sure I've admitted as much somewhere. I have enough sense however to show some objectivity (unless the issue is college football in which case I will offer no arguement).
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:34 PM on June 08, 2007
Just to put in my two cents on the article and headline. That's the meanest thing anyone could ever say about the Spurs, in my opinion. But then again, to me, "Nickelback" and "sucks dog balls" are synonymous. And to me, the success the Spurs enjoy, flashy or not, excludes them from Nicklebacking. Hey, cool! I coined a term! It's no asshat, but I like it. Anyone else? Weedy?
posted by tahoemoj at 03:03 PM on June 09, 2007
Nicklebacking...Hmmm. It does have a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
posted by ctal1999 at 05:02 PM on June 09, 2007
In Canada, such a claim can be responded to with deadly force. It's one of the few exceptions to our maple syrup loving peacenik society. Call me Nickelback, and much like the cermonial daggers in some Asian cultures, I get to draw blood. I think the Spurs are the most glaring casualty of the East coast media market bias. They don't care enough to find out about this team. This is an amazing team with truly amazing players.