June 17, 201412 yr If we're going by this generation (i.e. the draft lottery, 16 team playoffs, etc.), I think a few teams have been comparable: 1. Lakers (1987): "Showtime" Lakers. They only lost 3 games, with 2 of those coming to the Celtics in the Finals. Won in the playoffs by an average of 11 points per game, which is impressive if you look at the kind of talent teams like the Celtics, Rockets (who'd eliminated them the year before), etc. 2. Bulls (1996): Lost 10 regular season games. Jordan. Pippen. Rodman. Only 3 losses in the playoffs, and two of those came when they had a 3-0 lead in the series, meaning it was basically over anyway. Beat the Sonics in the Finals. 3. Bulls (1991): Jordan's first taste of an NBA title. Only lost 2 games in the entire playoffs, 1 of those coming in the Finals. 4. Pistons (1989): The Bad Boys swept the Finals, only lost 2 games to Jordan's Bulls. The Lakers, who were their finals opponent that year, had swept every team they played before them. 5. Lakers (2001): Shaq & Kobe's harmonious Lakers. They only lost 1 playoff game, and it was in OT. In terms of talent, coaching, ability, etc. they had it all. They were so good I hated them because you knew they were going to win. 6. Bulls (1992): Jordan's Bulls during their run. Only lost 15 regular season games. Had some tough series with New York and Portland once they got to the playoffs. If we're going solely on how they looked in the playoffs, then the total number of losses they had really hurts them. If we're talking about teams I'd pick in terms of pitting the teams on the list against one another in a series, they are one of my top teams. This was in the midst of a string of titles for them, so losing a bit of focus is more understandable. 7. Bulls (1997): Only lost 13 regular season games. The Jordan "flu game" in Utah. Only lost 4 games in the postseason, two of which were to the Jazz in the Finals. 8. Celtics (2008): Lost only 16 regular season games, had the "Big 3" of Garnett, Pierce, and Allen turn into the "Big 4" with the play of Rondo. Not a great record in the playoffs (16-10), but they beat the Lakers in 6 in the Finals and the kind of defense they played is possibly underrated because they were great defensively. 9. Bulls (1993): Jordan's Bulls at the end of their run. In contrast to the 1992 team that rolled through the regular season and sputtered in the playoffs, this team is the opposite. They beat a Phoenix team who' only lost 20 games in the regular season in 6. 10. Lakers (2002): I put them here because I honestly think that the Kings were the better team and proved that in the Playoffs, but the league screwed them. Anyway, the Lakers won the title and only lost 4 playoff games that season, 3 of them coming to the Kings. Kobe and Shaq. Horry, Fisher, and Fox in supporting roles. Pretty much the same team as the 2001 version. Looking at those teams, have I omitted any that you think should be included? If so, why? Where do you rank the Spurs in this group? The '72 Lakers, with Chamberlain, West, and Goodrich won 69 games, including 33 straight. I would not put this Spurs team in the top 10 because I would not put any of their opponents in the playoffs in the top 30. Bosh and Wade are both overrated, IMO. Miami is great when Bosh and Wade show up to play but they are not consistent.
June 17, 201412 yr Putting them in the group with the 2008 Celtics, 1993 Bulls, etc. is fair. That's around the spot I'd probably rank them too. When people look back 10-20 years from now, how far Leonard progresses will probably have a big effect on how they're viewed. As far as the list I made went, there are a few different ways you could look at the teams: how they performed in the playoffs, how they performed in over the course of the season, and how they'd stack up against the rest of the teams on the list. Looking at things as a whole, there's kind of a break between the top 7 teams and the rest of the teams, and what kind of preference you have in terms of the factors kind of differentiates them. In terms of where they rank overall, I think of this year's Spurs as a "total team" champion in the ilk of the mid-90's Rockets (who would match up really well with them... Olajuwon vs. Duncan, etc.) or the early 2000's Pistons. The difference is that San Antonio has more overall depth and talent than any of those teams. I think the 2008 Boston team is being a little underrated on here and that they'd give this year's Spurs fits with their ability to defend if we're matching them up head-to-head. Rondo on Parker, Garnett on Duncan, those would be good match ups. They are also match up well because, unlike Miami, they had a number of guys who could score, meaning that Leonard would probably shut down Pierce (or maybe take Rondo to try and disrupt the flow of the offense), but, seeing as how he could only guard one person, you'd still have to rely on some guys like Parker and Ginobili to slow down Rondo, Allen, and/or Pierce. The Allen we're talking about them shutting down isn't the Allen that still got his in this year's playoffs either, it's the version of him that's 5 years younger. The Spurs would also struggle to play Diaw against him the way they did the Heat, which is something that really made their offense click, because he'd stubble to keep Perkins from getting position. Starting Splitter means they prevent that, but lose a lot of what made their offense so lethal. I think this version of the Spurs would be able to take the 2002 Lakers because Kawhi could frustrate Kobe and Shaq and Duncan could neutralize one another enough. The 2002 Kings offense operated much like the Spurs' and they should have beaten the Lakers that season anyway. What this Spurs' team had that the Kings didn't, however, was a guy in Kawhi that could score the basketball as well as defend, whereas the Kings' Doug Christie was primarily used to defend Kobe, but didn't contribute nearly as much on offense. I'll take the Spurs' supporting cast over Fisher, Fox, and Horry, as it would be tough for Fisher to chase a guy like Parker or Ginobili only to get a "break" when Mills, Green, or even Belinelli came in. Splitter and Diaw are comparable enough to Fox and Horry, though I think that's still an advantage for San Antonio. In the end, I think the balance and depth of the Spurs would win out, especially when they started to frustrate the Lakers and only widen the rift between Shaq and Kobe. I don't know how this team would match up with the 1993 Bulls because of what an awkward matchup it'd be, though it'd be fun to see Phil and Popovich play chess with their squads. Good as Kawhi is, he's not stopping Jordan. Do you put him on Pippen, let Jordan get his, and just hope that everyone else around him (including a guy in Pippen whose probably not going to be completely shut out by Kawhi), isn't enough to beat you? If you opt to put Pippen on Kawhi, which one of your guards tries slowing Jordan? Parker? Ginobili? Please. At the same time, if I'm the Spurs, I like my chances on the interior with Duncan, Splitter, and Diaw being checked by one great defender in Horace Grant and then whoever else the Bulls wanted to throw at me. I'm going to give the nod to the 1993 Bulls because ultimately, I think the Spurs would be limited because you are expecting too much if you are asking Kawhi to defend Michael when you are playing by the "Jordan Rules" (and not the kind that the Pistons used to hurt the Bulls). There's a pretty good argument that Jordan wouldn't even have needed superstar calls to neutralize Kawhi's defensive presence, because, unlike LeBron, Jordan would have constantly attacked him by looking to score.
June 17, 201412 yr I think they're better than the 2008 Celtics. Me two. Me three. These Spurs would pass circles around the 2008 Celtics.
June 17, 201412 yr Author They crack the top 10 - over at least the '08 Celtics and maybe the '93 Bulls. The '86 Celts were the best of the Celts great 80s teams. They are at least #7 on the list.
June 17, 201412 yr Anyone who thinks 2014 Duncan can handle 2002 Shaq has been hanging in Colorado for way too long. :lol2: Nobody could neutralize 2002 Kobe either and neither would Kawhi. Come on now.
June 17, 201412 yr Let's not get crazy. I don't think they beat the first Heat Championship team. That team had a healthy, in prime DWade and wa completely different.
June 17, 201412 yr Let's not get crazy. I don't think they beat the first Heat Championship team. That team had a healthy, in prime DWade and wa completely different. I agree.
June 17, 201412 yr Let's not get crazy. I don't think they beat the first Heat Championship team. That team had a healthy, in prime DWade and wa completely different. Prisoners of the moment. I'm still mad Joker says they were better than 2002 Lakers. :lol2:
June 17, 201412 yr Anyone who thinks 2014 Duncan can handle 2002 Shaq has been hanging in Colorado for way too long. :lol2: Nobody could neutralize 2002 Kobe either and neither would Kawhi. Come on now. That's the beauty of the Spurs. These matchups don't really matter. It is about team, not about two stars being better than the other team's stars. LeBron is far better than anyone on the Spurs but what good did that do the Heat. No one on the Spurs is nearly as good as Durant and Westbrook - Spurs blow them out.
June 17, 201412 yr That's the beauty of the Spurs. These matchups don't really matter. It is about team, not about two stars being better than the other team's stars. LeBron is far better than anyone on the Spurs but what good did that do the Heat. No one on the Spurs is nearly as good as Durant and Westbrook - Spurs blow them out. The 2002 Lakers team was a better defensive team than the 2014 Spurs.
June 17, 201412 yr If we're going by this generation (i.e. the draft lottery, 16 team playoffs, etc.), I think a few teams have been comparable: 1. Lakers (1987): "Showtime" Lakers. They only lost 3 games, with 2 of those coming to the Celtics in the Finals. Won in the playoffs by an average of 11 points per game, which is impressive if you look at the kind of talent teams like the Celtics, Rockets (who'd eliminated them the year before), etc. 2. Bulls (1996): Lost 10 regular season games. Jordan. Pippen. Rodman. Only 3 losses in the playoffs, and two of those came when they had a 3-0 lead in the series, meaning it was basically over anyway. Beat the Sonics in the Finals. 3. Bulls (1991): Jordan's first taste of an NBA title. Only lost 2 games in the entire playoffs, 1 of those coming in the Finals. 4. Pistons (1989): The Bad Boys swept the Finals, only lost 2 games to Jordan's Bulls. The Lakers, who were their finals opponent that year, had swept every team they played before them. 5. Lakers (2001): Shaq & Kobe's harmonious Lakers. They only lost 1 playoff game, and it was in OT. In terms of talent, coaching, ability, etc. they had it all. They were so good I hated them because you knew they were going to win. 6. Bulls (1992): Jordan's Bulls during their run. Only lost 15 regular season games. Had some tough series with New York and Portland once they got to the playoffs. If we're going solely on how they looked in the playoffs, then the total number of losses they had really hurts them. If we're talking about teams I'd pick in terms of pitting the teams on the list against one another in a series, they are one of my top teams. This was in the midst of a string of titles for them, so losing a bit of focus is more understandable. 7. Bulls (1997): Only lost 13 regular season games. The Jordan "flu game" in Utah. Only lost 4 games in the postseason, two of which were to the Jazz in the Finals. 8. Celtics (2008): Lost only 16 regular season games, had the "Big 3" of Garnett, Pierce, and Allen turn into the "Big 4" with the play of Rondo. Not a great record in the playoffs (16-10), but they beat the Lakers in 6 in the Finals and the kind of defense they played is possibly underrated because they were great defensively. 9. Bulls (1993): Jordan's Bulls at the end of their run. In contrast to the 1992 team that rolled through the regular season and sputtered in the playoffs, this team is the opposite. They beat a Phoenix team who' only lost 20 games in the regular season in 6. 10. Lakers (2002): I put them here because I honestly think that the Kings were the better team and proved that in the Playoffs, but the league screwed them. Anyway, the Lakers won the title and only lost 4 playoff games that season, 3 of them coming to the Kings. Kobe and Shaq. Horry, Fisher, and Fox in supporting roles. Pretty much the same team as the 2001 version. Looking at those teams, have I omitted any that you think should be included? If so, why? Where do you rank the Spurs in this group? Way to high on Detroit and Boston
June 17, 201412 yr 1. 87 Lakers 2. 96 Bulls 3. 97 Bulls 4. 86 Celtics 5. 93 Bulls 6. 01 Lakers 7. 00 Lakers 8. 83 Sixers 9. 72 Lakers 10. 91 Bulls 11. 92 Bulls 12. 98 Bulls 13. 71 Bucks 14. 89 Pistons 15. 94 Rockets 16. 14 Spurs 17. 13 Heat 18. 65 Celtics 19. 77 Blazers 20. 08 Celtics 21. 02 Lakers 22. 67 Sixers 23. 62 Celtics 24. 70 Knicks 25. 03 Spurs
June 18, 201412 yr Prisoners of the moment. I'm still mad Joker says they were better than 2002 Lakers. :lol2: Not more talented, just better 1-10. Who guards who for the Lakers? Devean George? Rick Fox? I think they'd give them trouble in a 7 game series. The Lakers would probably beat other teams worse though.
June 18, 201412 yr 1. 87 Lakers 2. 96 Bulls 3. 97 Bulls 4. 86 Celtics 5. 93 Bulls 6. 01 Lakers 7. 00 Lakers 8. 83 Sixers 9. 72 Lakers 10. 91 Bulls 11. 92 Bulls 12. 98 Bulls 13. 71 Bucks 14. 89 Pistons 15. 94 Rockets 16. 14 Spurs 17. 13 Heat 18. 65 Celtics 19. 77 Blazers 20. 08 Celtics 21. 02 Lakers 22. 67 Sixers 23. 62 Celtics 24. 70 Knicks 25. 03 Spurs Nice list. I only went back to like 84-85 in mine because of the lottery and 16 team playoffs (comparing playoff records), but I like yours a lot.
June 18, 201412 yr Nice list. I only went back to like 84-85 in mine because of the lottery and 16 team playoffs (comparing playoff records), but I like yours a lot. I like that list also. I'll 02 Lakers behind the 14 Spurs since he has 00 and 01 so high.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.