Talk:San Antonio Spurs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the San Antonio Spurs article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
NBA This article is part of WikiProject National Basketball Association, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide of the NBA on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the WikiProject National Basketball Association, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. June 2005 – February 2007

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 hollaHard work 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 hollaMy work 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Table colours

Present Proposed

Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Third opinion

Hey. I saw that someone requested a third opinion for the reputation section. First off, I believe that the current section needs a great deal of work. Statements like "the Spurs seem as low key as the residents" are inappropriate and should be removed. I'm open to discussing whether or not the section should even exist. If there are enough notable sources/articles about the team's reputation, then they should be mentioned here before being added into the page. Until then, the section seems like weighted cruft. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly good with leaving the section off the article completly. Maybe one or two quick sentences, but not an entire section like that. I'm for deleting the section myself. Dknights411 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleting the reputation section or allowing more sourced material there would work for me. I agree that it is full of statements that are inadequately sourced and even opinions. Jacksonthor (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, great. Let's see what other people have to say. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions out there???? Jacksonthor (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

...Er, alright then. Jackson, do you want to trim this section down? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's ok just to delete the section entirely, right? Jacksonthor (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the section should have been entirely deleted. As I said above... the Spurs are seen, off the court, as a franchise and players that consistently give back to the community. 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) 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)