Three Most Dominant Teams of All-Time

[Galileo]

Ok, ever heard that the Spurs are great, but not one of the dominant teams of all time?

Well, the facts show otherwise.

In the entire history of the NBA, only THREE teams have swept the NBA Finals 4-0, after winning the conference finals 4-1.

(no team has ever swept both)

These three elite teams?

2007 Spurs

1983 Sixers

1971 Bucks

No Jordan, no Russell, no Wilt, no Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, no Bird, no Magic, no Hakeem.

Just Duncan, Moses, and Jabber at the height of the peak.

Also note that the Sixers trailed at halftime in all four games against the Lakers in the '83 Finals, and that the Bucks beat the shittiest team to ever play in the Finals, the Bullets, while the Spurs dominance in the first halves of games one & two of thr finals is unmatched in NBA history.

The Spurs had the NBA title won by halftime of game two.

In addition to the 2007 Spurs, we also have the 1999 Spurs that finished the season (regular season + playoffs) 46-7, the best 53 game finish by any team in history.

No Jordan.

So the next time you hear any chump-talk against the Spurs, here is another factoid brought to you courtesy of Galileo!

[urunobili]

2003 Spurs > 2005 Spurs > 2007 Spurs

[Josepatches_]

2003 Spurs > 2005 Spurs > 2007 Spurs


I would say 2005>2003>2007 but anyway the thread has no sense

We won 4-0 because the Cavs weren't very good.In 2007 we played the "real" Finals against Phoenix with Duncan being the real MVP of the playoffs

[stretch]

Galileo is quite possibly the worst poster of all time.

[xtremesteven33]

2006 Spurs > 2005 Spurs > 2007 Spurs > 2003 Spurs


We lost in 2006 due to Pop. No offense Pop.

[stretch]

2006 Spurs > 2005 Spurs > 2007 Spurs > 2003 Spurs


We lost in 2006 due to Pop. No offense Pop.

2006 Mavericks > 2006 Spurs

Therefore the Mavericks are a better team than any of the spurs championship winning teams, and they didn't have to even win a championship, which shows how pathetic the Spurs really are.

:p:

[xtremesteven33]

2006 Mavericks > 2006 Spurs

Therefore the Mavericks are a better team than any of the spurs championship winning teams, and they didn't have to even win a championship, which shows how pathetic the Spurs really are.

:p:


How tall are you?

[kace]

just a thought: what is this obsession in US sport forum to always rank things ? teams, players, of the season, of all-time etc ......

not particulary this thread, but it's amazing how many times people discuss about these top 3, top 10 or whatever.

you really don't see too much this kind of discussion in european sport discussion or forum.

once again, just a thought.

[IronMexican]

I stand by my pick of "Which thread starter makes you cringe before even clicking on the thread"

[cnyc3]

granted its the other way around, but lakers went 4-0 on conf finals (vs spurs) and 4-1 in the finals back in '01

but anyways, yes 2003 Spurs > 2005 Spurs > 2007 Spurs

[xtremesteven33]

granted its the other way around, but lakers went 4-0 on conf finals (vs spurs) and 4-1 in the finals back in '01

but anyways, yes 2003 Spurs > 2005 Spurs > 2007 Spurs



2003 wasnt that great of a team.

Had the most talent no doubt, but was not the best.

[cnyc3]

2003 wasnt that great of a team.

Had the most talent no doubt, but was not the best.

maybe so, i am partial to 03 due to the admiral :lobt2:

[jdev82]

05 spurs were our best yet

[The Truth #6]

The 1999 squad was the most dominating. Not even close. We lost what, 2 games in the whole playoffs? The 03 squad lost two games in every single round of the playoffs.

[xtremesteven33]

The 1999 squad was the most dominating. Not even close. We lost what, 2 games in the whole playoffs? The 03 squad lost two games in every single round of the playoffs.



2003 Spurs > 1999 Spurs

[slayermin]

I hate mentioning the Lakers so prominently but you have to give credit where it's due.

1. 86-87 Lakers
2. 95-96 Bulls
3. 82-83 76ers

Honorable Mention: 71-72 Lakers

[tlongII]

Personally I thought San Antonio's 1999 club was their best ever. They were devastating defensively.

[CIA Pop]

2006 Spurs > 2005 Spurs > 2007 Spurs > 2003 Spurs


We lost in 2006 due to Pop. No offense Pop.

None taken.

[Spurminator]

The Cavs were probably only the 6th or 7th best team in the NBA that year and easily one of the worst teams to ever make the NBA Finals.

[The Truth #6]

2003 Spurs > 1999 Spurs

Based on what assumption? After a bad start to the shortened season, the 99 team steamrolled through the rest of the season.

The fact that the 99 team lost only twice in the playoffs whereas the 03 team lost, what, 8 times doesn't seem to impress you.

[xtremesteven33]

Based on what assumption? After a bad start to the shortened season, the 99 team steamrolled through the rest of the season.

The fact that the 99 team lost only twice in the playoffs whereas the 03 team lost, what, 8 times doesn't seem to impress you.



If its about the better record then yes the 1999 team but i would think that every Spurs fan would agree that the 2003 team had the far better players(not just talent) than the 1999 team.


Elliott,Ellie,Johnson,J Jackson,Rose

or

Parker,Ginobili,SJax,Bowen,Rose(far better than 99)

[DrHouse]

IMHO the best team of this decade is the 2001 Lakers.

Their regular season record is nothing to sneeze at, mostly due to injuries and what not, but once they got healthy they steamrolled through the playoffs losing only once in OT.

Shaq in his absolute prime, Kobe in his athletic prime, incredible role players like Fox, Fisher, and Horry. That team would have given Jordan's Bulls a run for their money.

[George.W.Bush]

2003

2005

2007

2009

[xtremesteven33]

IMHO the best team of this decade is the 2001 Lakers.

Their regular season record is nothing to sneeze at, mostly due to injuries and what not, but once they got healthy they steamrolled through the playoffs losing only once in OT.

Shaq in his absolute prime, Kobe in his athletic prime, incredible role players like Fox, Fisher, and Horry. That team would have given Jordan's Bulls a run for their money.


Lakers wouldve beat that Bulls team...IMHO

[Brazil]

IMHO the best team of this decade is the 2001 Lakers.

Their regular season record is nothing to sneeze at, mostly due to injuries and what not, but once they got healthy they steamrolled through the playoffs losing only once in OT.

Shaq in his absolute prime, Kobe in his athletic prime, incredible role players like Fox, Fisher, and Horry. That team would have given Jordan's Bulls a run for their money.

Wow DrHouse has an humble opinion ?

[Galileo]

The 2007 Spurs went through the playoffs 16-4, one of the better showings in NBA history. The whole trip was pretty easy, with only Phoenix being a nuisance.

The only time the Spurs were ever behind in a series was when they were down 0-1 versus Denver.

They came back against Denver, and won 3 solid games, then blew 'em out in game 5, and never looked back.

The Cavs, someone here claimed were one of the worst teams to ever be in the finals?

Bunk!

The Cavs were 12-4 coming into the finals, the same as the Spurs.

[Galileo]

IMHO the best team of this decade is the 2001 Lakers.

Their regular season record is nothing to sneeze at, mostly due to injuries and what not, but once they got healthy they steamrolled through the playoffs losing only once in OT.

Shaq in his absolute prime, Kobe in his athletic prime, incredible role players like Fox, Fisher, and Horry. That team would have given Jordan's Bulls a run for their money.

Even thought they lost game one to the non-finals worthy Sixers?

[Mugen]

2003 Duncan > Duncan in all other championship years.

That's why i gotta rank the 2003 team better than the other championship teams. If Duncan was fully healthy in 2006, then I think the 2006 Spurs team is probably the best one of our decade. We just ran into a tough matchup in Dallas.

2003 was clutch though.

[sananspursfan21]

2006 Mavericks > 2006 Spurs

Therefore the Mavericks are a better team than any of the spurs championship winning teams, and they didn't have to even win a championship, which shows how pathetic the Spurs really are.

:p:

xtremesteven guy must have made a bit of an error there saying the 06 team was the best. probly the best spurs team would've been the 2005, they really couldn't have been stopped, but i don't think there was truly ever a season that the mavericks were actually better than the spurs, even in 2006. spurs could have won that game 7 if bowen didn't foul dirk, but hey, no excuses right?

[xtremesteven33]

xtremesteven guy must have made a bit of an error there saying the 06 team was the best. probly the best spurs team would've been the 2005, they really couldn't have been stopped, but i don't think there was truly ever a season that the mavericks were actually better than the spurs, even in 2006. spurs could have won that game 7 if bowen didn't foul dirk, but hey, no excuses right?



2006 team best in terms of the perfect mix of prime playing and experience.

Manu was still in 2005 mode and Duncan was still a beast. Bowen was as good as ever and Parker was still good.

the 2006 team also had the best Spurs record in franchise history....some of yall forgot that also right?

[Mugen]

xtremesteven guy must have made a bit of an error there saying the 06 team was the best. probly the best spurs team would've been the 2005, they really couldn't have been stopped, but i don't think there was truly ever a season that the mavericks were actually better than the spurs, even in 2006. spurs could have won that game 7 if bowen didn't foul dirk, but hey, no excuses right?

it was manu :depressed

[The Truth #6]

If its about the better record then yes the 1999 team but i would think that every Spurs fan would agree that the 2003 team had the far better players(not just talent) than the 1999 team.


Elliott,Ellie,Johnson,J Jackson,Rose

or

Parker,Ginobili,SJax,Bowen,Rose(far better than 99)

The 99 twin towers, together, were way better than the 03 version.

Avery in 99 was better than Parker in 03. Parker couldn't even finish the games.

Jaren Jackson was pulling SJax style 3 point heroics throughout the whole playoffs on an even larger level.

Ninja and Ellie were solid in defense and scoring.

In 03 Bowen often sat on the bench during the 4th quarter because of SJax's solid play, so I don't think he was the same factor as he was in 05.

In 03 Ginobili was not close to the same dominance he showed in 05.

I'm still with the 99 squad.

[slayermin]

IMHO the best team of this decade is the 2001 Lakers.

Their regular season record is nothing to sneeze at, mostly due to injuries and what not, but once they got healthy they steamrolled through the playoffs losing only once in OT.

Shaq in his absolute prime, Kobe in his athletic prime, incredible role players like Fox, Fisher, and Horry. That team would have given Jordan's Bulls a run for their money.

'99 Spurs and '03 Spurs were better than that team.

[TheManFromAcme]

'99 Spurs and '03 Spurs were better than that team.

:lmao Surely you jest.

:lmao:rollin:lol:sleep:td:nope

You should be :hang for a comment like that.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Galileo is quite possibly the worst poster of all time.

:lol



Plus 80% of the past NBA Champions would've gone 8-1 against the 2007 Cavs and Jazz

Gimme a break

[Galileo]

:lol



Plus 80% of the past NBA Champions would've gone 8-1 against the 2007 Cavs and Jazz

Gimme a break

The Cavs and Jazz had a combined playoff record when not playing the Spurs of 20 wins and 8 losses.

Against the Spurs they were 1-8.

[baseline bum]

I hate mentioning the Lakers so prominently but you have to give credit where it's due.

1. 86-87 Lakers
2. 95-96 Bulls
3. 82-83 76ers

Honorable Mention: 71-72 Lakers

Damn, picking a top 3 is tough:

1. 82-83 Sixers
2. 84-85 Lakers
3. 91-92 Bulls

1 vs 2 is really a coin flip IMO, and I hate to leave the 85-86 Celtics and the 66-67 Sixers off the list.

[stretch]

xtremesteven guy must have made a bit of an error there saying the 06 team was the best. probly the best spurs team would've been the 2005, they really couldn't have been stopped, but i don't think there was truly ever a season that the mavericks were actually better than the spurs, even in 2006. spurs could have won that game 7 if bowen didn't foul dirk, but hey, no excuses right?

it was really a joke more than anything.

the Mavericks had a hell of a team, and i think, had they won the title that year, their confidence would have been MUCH higher, and they wouldn't have fucked up against golden state the next year. they very possibly could have repeated. unfortunately their psyche wasnt the same after that finals loss.

however, I do honestly think that the 2006 spurs team was the best of all spurs teams as well, they just ran into a damn good dallas team that matched up extremely well with them, much like the 2007 Mavericks were a damn good team that faced a GS team that matched up really well with them also.

basketball is a game of matchups and confidence.

[rascal]

just a thought: what is this obsession in US sport forum to always rank things ? teams, players, of the season, of all-time etc ......

not particulary this thread, but it's amazing how many times people discuss about these top 3, top 10 or whatever.

you really don't see too much this kind of discussion in european sport discussion or forum.

once again, just a thought.

Good post. The Lakers teams with Magic were far better teams than the Spur teams of the 2000s. Just because the Lakers didn't sweep the finals doesn't mean anything other then maybe they were playing a very good opponent.

[rascal]

it was really a joke more than anything.

the Mavericks had a hell of a team, and i think, had they won the title that year, their confidence would have been MUCH higher, and they wouldn't have fucked up against golden state the next year. they very possibly could have repeated. unfortunately their psyche wasnt the same after that finals loss.

however, I do honestly think that the 2006 spurs team was the best of all spurs teams as well, they just ran into a damn good dallas team that matched up extremely well with them, much like the 2007 Mavericks were a damn good team that faced a GS team that matched up really well with them also.

basketball is a game of matchups and confidence.

The 1999 spurs team was their best team. That team was special with Robinson still a force.

[galvatron3000]

Lakers wouldve beat that Bulls team...IMHO

Pippen would have guarded Kobe and the Bulls three headed monster would have kept O'Neal on the line. Jordan would have destroyed Kobe, Fisher, Fox and whoever they would have thrown at him. Heck, the 1989 Pistons would have beat up that entire squad but you can't take away from the Lakers, to me that's their best team in the entire 3 peat run they had. They absolutely destroyed the Spurs, the memory still lingers in my mind especially when I thought we would have won that series, but the flaws and injuries killed the Spurs at the worst time.

[remingtonbo2001]

After considering the facts, my vote is 99.

It may have not been the most talented team, however, they were playing the best basketball.

[rascal]

If its about the better record then yes the 1999 team but i would think that every Spurs fan would agree that the 2003 team had the far better players(not just talent) than the 1999 team.


Elliott,Ellie,Johnson,J Jackson,Rose

or

Parker,Ginobili,SJax,Bowen,Rose(far better than 99)

You forget Robinson was a far better player in 99.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Cavs and Jazz had a combined playoff record when not playing the Spurs of 20 wins and 8 losses.

Against the Spurs they were 1-8.

That's all fine and dandy, but standing alone, it's not exactly a basis to conclude that either team was particularly good.

The 2007 Jazz squeaked through a 7 game first round series against Houston, only to find themselves the immediate beneficiaries of the biggest upset in the history of the NBA playoffs: they had home court advantage (something their seeding normally wouldn't have allowed) and they drew a Warriors team that had just slayed Dallas, that had finished the regular season a mere 2 games over .500 and still has the fewest regular season wins of any West playoff qualifier since 2000, that had massive matchup problems with everyone other than Dallas, and that was playing with house money. That Utah beat them 4-1 isn't exactly a mark of greatness.

The 2007 Cavs, meanwhile, started those playoffs against a Washington Wizards team had finished .500 in the regular season and that played the entire series without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler -- their 1st and 3rd leading scorers. After that, the Cavs drew a Nets team that finished the regular season at .500 and which reached the 2nd round only by sneaking past the Baby Raptors. I'm not sure that any team in the history of the league has ever gotten to a conference final by playing worse teams.

Context. There's always context -- unless you're talking to Galileo.

[FromWayDowntown]

Also, there's no doubt in my mind that the best single team of the 2000's is, was, and will always be that 2001 Lakers' team. That team absolutely dismantled really good teams from Sacramento and San Antonio on the way to the Finals. Other teams have had dominant runs through the playoffs but even those teams suffered some bad losses along the way -- the '03 Spurs got crushed in LA in Game 3; the '04 Pistons suffered a 15-point loss to the Pacers and were beaten badly a couple of times by the Nets; the '05 Spurs got smoked in Seattle in Game 4 and were throttled by the Pistons a couple of times in the Finals; the '06 Heat got blown out by the Bulls in one game in their first round series; the '07 Spurs got shellacked in Salt Lake City in Game 3 and thumped in Game 2 in Phoenix as well; the '08 Celtics got smacked by the Pistons and the Cavs.

The '01 Lakers lost once, in overtime.

[Galileo]

That's all fine and dandy, but standing alone, it's not exactly a basis to conclude that either team was particularly good.

The 2007 Jazz squeaked through a 7 game first round series against Houston, only to find themselves the immediate beneficiaries of the biggest upset in the history of the NBA playoffs: they had home court advantage (something their seeding normally wouldn't have allowed) and they drew a Warriors team that had just slayed Dallas, that had finished the regular season a mere 2 games over .500 and still has the fewest regular season wins of any West playoff qualifier since 2000, that had massive matchup problems with everyone other than Dallas, and that was playing with house money. That Utah beat them 4-1 isn't exactly a mark of greatness.

The 2007 Cavs, meanwhile, started those playoffs against a Washington Wizards team had finished .500 in the regular season and that played the entire series without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler -- their 1st and 3rd leading scorers. After that, the Cavs drew a Nets team that finished the regular season at .500 and which reached the 2nd round only by sneaking past the Baby Raptors. I'm not sure that any team in the history of the league has ever gotten to a conference final by playing worse teams.

Context. There's always context -- unless you're talking to Galileo.

crappy teams make the playoffs every year. Your research has turned up nothing new.

[FromWayDowntown]

crappy teams make the playoffs every year. Your research has turned up nothing new.

Right, but the fact that one team handles (relatively, speaking) a couple of crappy teams and then gets beaten by a better team does not provide proof that the better team is historically dominant, as you seem to suggest here.

You have an interesting way of excising context from most of your analysis.

[Galileo]

Right, but the fact that one team handles (relatively, speaking) a couple of crappy teams and then gets beaten by a better team does not provide proof that the better team is historically dominant, as you seem to suggest here.

You have an interesting way of excising context from most of your analysis.

It wasn't that many years ago that several sub-.500 teams made the playoffs, including some teams 10 games or more below .500.

Take a look at the history of sub-.500 teams in the first round against elite teams. They usually won at least one game.

[West Coast Spur]

The Cavs, someone here claimed were one of the worst teams to ever be in the finals?

Bunk!

The Cavs were 12-4 coming into the finals, the same as the Spurs.

They may have been 12-4, but that was going through a HORRIBLE Eastern Conference. Whoever came out of the East was going to get smashed.

[sananspursfan21]

it was manu :depressed

yah, i guess it was, bowen was defending him though, i remember being very dissapointed in him when dirk was fouled. oh well, you learn something new everyday.