Talk:San Antonio Spurs/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)