Prove to me the 2005 Spurs were not.......

[lebomb]

.......... the best championship Spurs team. I think they had the toughest road to the finals and then had to be a DAMN good defending championship Detroit Pistons team.

Discuss............... :toast

[InRareForm]

i miss that ginobili :depressed

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Both forums?

[lebomb]

Imho

2005
1999
2007
2003

[urunobili]

03/05/99/07

[lebomb]

03/05/99/07

2003 team could not shoot well. I remember how awful the series was with New Jersey. Both teams chunking up bricks.

[samikeyp]

Two words...

David Robinson.

[Spurs1234]

Because the 2007 team was just better. Duncan had bad wheels the entire playoffs, tony parker was still just a very good player, and Nazr Mohammed couldn't catch a pass to save his life. Fast forwarad to the 2007 team, Duncan was fully healthy, first time since 2004 he had been that healthy in the playoffs, tony parker was a final mvp, and while Manu was not quite as consistent as he was in 2005, he still was spectacular in 3 out of every 4 games that year in the playoffs. Not to mention, JV was a solid backup PG, and the team was a fine tooled machine at that point. They only lost 4 games in the entire playoffs, with one being an upset in the first game vs. DEN, one vs the suns after winning game 1 which was a give away game after getting HC back, and one being vs. the suns when there were horrible calls in game 4 and one vs. the jazz in the usual game 3 on the road after going up 2-0. They crushed the competition that year. The 2005 team, did the same thing in the first round and wcf, but were challenged in the second round vs. the sonics and of course the finals were very difficult, but that is not a knock on them, the pistons were good and the cavs were not. With that being said, the 2003 team won the most reg. season games of any of the teams, and beat the three time lakers team and a 60 win team in the wcf...i think if you add up reg. season wins vs. the competition, the 2003 probably would have the highest. And the 1999 team only lost one playoff game...you could make an argument any of the 4 were the best IMO.

[urunobili]

2003 team could not shoot well. I remember how awful the series was with New Jersey.

05 team shot very poorly in Detroit too...
03 was tougher and deeper... they'd defeat in 5 the 05 Spurs...

[MaNu4Tres]

99 Team swept through Kobe Shaq and then a more talented Blazers team. Spurs went 15-2 in that playoff run and only two of those seventeen games did teams score 90 points or more. That 1999 team was the best defensive team the Spurs have ever had.

[lebomb]

05 team shot very poorly in Detroit too...
03 was tougher and deeper... they'd defeat in 5 the 05 Spurs...

I think Detroit would have beaten in 4-5 games ANY of the other teams the Spurs faced in the other championships.

They would have beaten NY 4-1
New Jersey in 5
and probably would have swept Cleveland

[samikeyp]

The 05 Spurs with DRob beat Detroit in 5.

He is better right now than the C's on the roster.

[Spurs1234]

1999 - Best defensive team (although don't stats suggest 2004 team was)
2003 - Most dynamic team, could come back from 20, or give up a 20 point lead, anyone that remembers that year can attest to that
2005 - Another overall good team, to me, at the time, the 2005 team was the best overall team, until the 2007 team slightly improved upon this with a healthy TD and awesome TP.
2007 - Overall best team, one of the best executing teams ever, basically the 2005 team just slightly more mature, and better defined. Basically put it this way, everyone says experience and stuff matters in the nba, you think the same team basically from 2005, is just going to get slightly worse after two years...of course they got better at this point. Honestly, the 2005 vs. 2007 team is the easiest to compare, since they were basically the same team, the 1999 and 2003 team were a lot different than the 2005/2007 team.

[samikeyp]

Fixed it For ya

no it was right the first time.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

no it was right the first time.

:lol

[urunobili]

no it was right the first time.

:depressed

[NickiRasgo]

Damn! Obi-wan Ginobili and the big shot bob Robert Horry of Game 5. Good ol' memories. :D

[Steve Kerr]

Two words...

Steve Kerr.


fixed.

[samikeyp]

:lol

Ok, him too.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

:lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

99 team ftw

young slimshady tim duncan had everything, post spin moves and1, 79% ft shooter, automatic bank shot, 18ft jumper...defensive beasts

[samikeyp]

99 team ftw

young slimshady tim duncan had everything, post spin moves and1, 79% ft shooter, automatic bank shot, 18ft jumper...defensive beasts

Tim Duncan was a white rapper?

:wow


:)

[rascal]

The 1999 was the best.

[poop]

99 team ftw

young slimshady tim duncan had everything, post spin moves and1, 79% ft shooter, automatic bank shot, 18ft jumper...defensive beasts

yeah people forget just how good Tim was prior to the 2000 injury. he had actual young legs back then and was considerably quicker and could actually leap. that Tim literally shit on the '03 tim and all other forms of tim...98 through 99 he was as good as Olajuwon in his prime, there was literally nothing he didnt do,on offense and defense. he was as effective a player as there has ever been in the NBA.

[Yuixafun]

03 probably most exciting playoff run, having to go to game 6 every round and closing it on peoples home floor, that uncertainty made you relish the victories more.

In 07, seemed like there was too much of a gap in quality teams. I mean we swept the Cavs with disdain. I would like to have seen them get tested.

05 funnest run for me. (includes the season, not just post)

I knew we were the best team in the NBA, and best of the best, not best because the teams were weak that year.

Ended the Laker's 3peat, closed it out on their home floor.

Duncan was still devastating in the post more consistently. Just felt like we were more balanced and not as perimeter orientated, and we would attack the paint. Manu and Park attacking fearlessly.

Parker had entered the upper echelon of Pg's, and was juicy with that floater and flighty on the fast breaks with people that could run.

Bowen was a beast that year, maybe top 2-3 DPOY? Regardless that's when he had all his steps and it was lovely to watch.

And Ginobili was at his peak, fresh of Olympic gold, marriage, new contract and then he came in and put in an all-star year. He still had hair! Cross over dunk on 4 Lakers...

That Detriot team was tough man.. just watch those game again defensive execution everywhere everybody getting after it.

Game 7 hung in the balance till the final minutes and you could see the collective wills of everyone on the floor go up a notch. No one lost that game, the Spurs took it.

That's just the short answer I gotta jet.

When I have time to reminisce I can submit a more substantial viewpoint.

[sabar]

1999 team was dominant

[baseline bum]

Duncan was on two badly sprained ankles. The 99 team would beat them in 5-6 games.

[SpursFanInAustin]

2003 and 1999 Spurs teams kick the living shit out of 2005.

2003 was probably the most talented and deepest championship team out of all of them. The only knock on them is that the rotation players sans "D-Rob and Bruce" were relatively young and had not developed a killer instinct and crush a team's heart with a younger Parker, Ginobili, Jackson, Speedy, Malik Rose. The only time it really happened that playoffs was the 110-82 defeat of the Lakers in Game 6. They beat Shaq and Kobe in their primes and dethroned the 3-time champs. That IMO was tougher than beating the 1-time defending champ Detroit in the Finals. It was a mental hurdle they had to go through.

1999 was the most mentally tough Spurs team, where D-Rob was 33 yrs old and still spry and fresh and Duncan was 23 and had more athleticism and lateral quickness. The majority of the team was an older team, but with the addition of Mario Elie, Steve Kerr, and Jerome Kersey (guys who had been to the Finals, and 2 of the 3 experience winning a title), the Spurs were making "one last run" for guys like D-Rob, Sean, and Avery while they still had gas left in the tank.

[Sissiborgo]

I miss that team when MG was unstopable and TD was playing damn good!:toast

[HarlemHeat37]

'99 isn't even debatable..that team was one of the greatest teams of all-time..

[Galileo]

.......... the best championship Spurs team. I think they had the toughest road to the finals and then had to be a DAMN good defending championship Detroit Pistons team.

Discuss............... :toast

They were the only Spurs champs to beat an elite team in the Finals.

[ducks]

Two words...

David Robinson.

yep duncan needs help done low

[lebomb]

They were the only Spurs champs to beat an elite team in the Finals.

Yep...............exactly.

[ploto]

2007 was the worst championship Spurs team by far- the 2006 team that lost to Dallas was better than it and the 2004 team, as well

[ploto]

'99 isn't even debatable..that team was one of the greatest teams of all-time..

People forget just how good Sean was, especially on defense.

[tmtcsc]

For me:

Top to Bottom:

2005 - Great team that toughed out a victory over the defending Champs. They were also the most exciting team we have floored in the finals.

1999 - This team was the best defensive team we ever floored. If we needed a stop, you just knew we would get it. Tough mentally and defensively, our Championship was NEVER in doubt. Closing out the Forum with a sweep was awesome. - Triple Tower line-up at times with Tim, David and Will Perdue. Remember that ?

2003 - This team gave me heartburn. We had a lot of talent but always seemed to have mental lapses and blow big leads. We lost HCA to Phoenix, Dallas and New Jersey along the way and almost lost to the Lakers. -- Robert Horry's unbelievable IN/OUT 3 pter.

2007 - I appreciate them all but this was the least exciting and it seemed we just did enough to win. The Cavs sucked and it was nice to sweep them.

[ffadicted]

Ginobili = '05 Finals MVP, and we all know it :depressed:toast

[duncan228]

Ginobili = '05 Finals MVP, and we all know it :depressed:toast

Not for me.

Manu was incredible, and it was almost Co-MVP's (the vote was 6-4 Duncan; 9 media votes and the NBA.com fan vote). But without Duncan we don't win that year. The whole playoffs, but especially the last 18 minutes of game 7. I think Duncan deserved it, and I mean no disrespect to Manu.

[lefty]

03/05/99/07

Looks like the Spurs' total points in each of their last 4 games of the Dallas series

[baseline bum]

2007 was the worst championship Spurs team by far- the 2006 team that lost to Dallas was better than it and the 2004 team, as well

No way. The 2006 team was banged up like hell, while everyone was healthy for the stretch run in 07. In particular, Duncan and Parker were in far better shape in 07. Horry was also contributing big in 07 while being mostly nonexistent in 06. The 07 Spurs would have mopped the floor with the 06 version. The only player who was better on the 06 team was Finley.

[baseline bum]

OIC, the 06 team was better because they had Rasho. :lmao

[Sean Cagney]

99 Team swept through Kobe Shaq and then a more talented Blazers team. Spurs went 15-2 in that playoff run and only two of those seventeen games did teams score 90 points or more. That 1999 team was the best defensive team the Spurs have ever had.

CO SIGN, that team just had it all. They could shoot, they could D you up and shut you DOWN in the end of any game. That 99 team was just flat out TOUGH.

Oh yeah D Rob was still an all star then, two all star twin towers! GOOD LORD.


I got the 03 next, they could play any game you threw at them, they were so damn deep and talented it was just rediculous.

[Sean Cagney]

2003 and 1999 Spurs teams kick the living shit out of 2005.

2003 was probably the most talented and deepest championship team out of all of them. The only knock on them is that the rotation players sans "D-Rob and Bruce" were relatively young and had not developed a killer instinct and crush a team's heart with a younger Parker, Ginobili, Jackson, Speedy, Malik Rose. The only time it really happened that playoffs was the 110-82 defeat of the Lakers in Game 6. They beat Shaq and Kobe in their primes and dethroned the 3-time champs. That IMO was tougher than beating the 1-time defending champ Detroit in the Finals. It was a mental hurdle they had to go through.

1999 was the most mentally tough Spurs team, where D-Rob was 33 yrs old and still spry and fresh and Duncan was 23 and had more athleticism and lateral quickness. The majority of the team was an older team, but with the addition of Mario Elie, Steve Kerr, and Jerome Kersey (guys who had been to the Finals, and 2 of the 3 experience winning a title), the Spurs were making "one last run" for guys like D-Rob, Sean, and Avery while they still had gas left in the tank.

Those two my fave championship teams by FAR! They were just so damn special. My fave finals win though was 05, what a damn war! That was just flat out thrilling to watch as a fan! That 05 team was not my fave team, but that was the best finals we had.

[baseline bum]

I got the 03 next, they could play any game you threw at them, they were so damn deep and talented it was just rediculous.

The 03 team was pretty versatile, but I thought the 05 Spurs were the best chameleons: they could run up and down the floor one night with Phoenix and the next beat the hell out of each other vs. Big Ben & Sheed. The 99 team was so good they'd only allow you to play one way though. :lol

[Sean Cagney]

http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_spurs1999.html


Read this, they won 46 out of the last 53 games, held teams to 40.2% SHOOTING! THAT is unheard of, seriously they were just too damn dominant that year. I loved that team. D wins titles, yes it did.

[whottt]

03 was the best team.

They beat a 3 time defending champion, a 60 win in-state rival, and a returning conference finalist. They were deep, experienced, versatile, and won every big game they played in. Tremndous chemistry on that team.

The 03 was the best Spurs team IMO.

99 was the second best, and they were also the one that charted the path to the finals so they were definitely the mold breaker. But their playoff opponents were not as tough as the 03 team. Not anywhere freaking close.


The 05 I put down as the grittiest Spurs team. They won back to back double OT games in the regular season...they overcame a ton of injuries. They just seemed to come up with a way to win, whether is was playing D, running, grinding it out. They just seemed to be the scrapper of the Spurs championship teams.

That is the one Spurs championship team that seemed to get better the more beat up it got.


The 07 team was the luckiest Spurs team. Despite being the one that swept their finals.



I go

03
99
05
07

[whottt]

Just to touch once more on 03...

There was one game against the Mavs, I don't know if Drob was hurt or what, can't really remember the details, but Malik freaking Rose went off for 25 and 10 against..

Now you guys imagine our 3rd or 4th best big from any of the recent teams doing something like that...we're lucky to get that out of Duncan a lot of times now, much less the 3rd or 4th best big.

Everything just went perfect for that team.

After get our asses kicked by LA the previous 2 years, all of a sudden in Drob's final year we take them out. Career journeyman like Jack comes out of nowhere to become starting 2 guard. Our Argie rookie turns out to be a huge playmaker, our 20 years old PG matched up against an ALL Pro level PG in just about every series holds his own against them. Kevin Willis comes up huge in LA...when our offense stagnates Kerr comes off the bench and shoots like %70 from 3 for the playoff run.

That team was just bad ass.


I know the 99 team is special for many, it is for me to. I don't know maybe it's because I really wasn't expecting 99 and was more in shock over it, but nothing in any of my years as a sports fan tops David Robinson going out a champion and going through Shaq Phil Kobe , even Robert Horry, and their 3 time defending champion squad along the way.

That was just storybook, as most things about that team and that season were. And they kicked every good teams ass that they played multiple times.


That season to me is what you call fucking sweet. It just doesn't get any better than doing what that team did, the way they did it.

[VivaPopovich]

i think the 2003 squad was a better squad, but the 2005 series was a MUCH better finals series, and in general is one of the most underrated finals series of all time

pop v. brown at the nba finals, basketball at its finest.

[spursfan98]

2003 team could not shoot well. I remember how awful the series was with New Jersey. Both teams chunking up bricks.

umm... stephen jackson, steve kerr, manu ginobili, bruce bowen, and steve smith on the team in 2003. Are you sure you watched the 2003 Spurs playoffs run? Or did you jump on the bandwagon after that year?

I guess you wouldn't remember Steve Kerr's heroic 3 pointers to beat the Mavs in the 03 Western Conference Finals.

Or when Stephen Jackson started that run in Game 6 of the Finals (the final game) by hitting a bunch of consecutive three's which led to a huge offensive run..

2003 team had the best defense and shooting we have had. So shooting sure was not a problem for the 03 Spurs.

So next time you open up your mouth about the 03 Spurs, maybe you should buy/rent the 03 championship DVD and learn up on the history of the team before you jumped on the bandwagon.

[baseline bum]

Just to touch once more on 03...

There was one game against the Mavs, I don't know if Drob was hurt or what, can't really remember the details, but Malik freaking Rose went off for 25 and 10 against..

Now you guys imagine our 3rd or 4th best big from any of the recent teams doing something like that...we're lucky to get that out of Duncan a lot of times now, much less the 3rd or 4th best big.

Everything just went perfect for that team.

After get our asses kicked by LA the previous 2 years, all of a sudden in Drob's final year we take them out. Career journeyman like Jack comes out of nowhere to become starting 2 guard. Our Argie rookie turns out to be a huge playmaker, our 20 years old PG matched up against an ALL Pro level PG in just about every series holds his own against them. Kevin Willis comes up huge in LA...when our offense stagnates Kerr comes off the bench and shoots like %70 from 3 for the playoff run.

That team was just bad ass.


I know the 99 team is special for many, it is for me to. I don't know maybe it's because I really wasn't expecting 99 and was more in shock over it, but nothing in any of my years as a sports fan tops David Robinson going out a champion and going through Shaq Phil Kobe , even Robert Horry, and their 3 time defending champion squad along the way.

That was just storybook, as most things about that team and that season were. And they kicked every good teams ass that they played multiple times.


That season to me is what you call fucking sweet. It just doesn't get any better than doing what that team did, the way they did it.

That was game 2, an absolute must-win for this team after Bennett Salvatore handed Dallas 50FT to give them game 1. You knew the breaks were finally going to fall our way when Willis hit that halfcourt shot in game 1 vs LA. :lol

[sam1617]

umm... stephen jackson, steve kerr, manu ginobili, bruce bowen, and steve smith on the team in 2003. Are you sure you watched the 2003 Spurs playoffs run? Or did you jump on the bandwagon after that year?

I guess you wouldn't remember Steve Kerr's heroic 3 pointers to beat the Mavs in the 03 Western Conference Finals.

Or when Stephen Jackson started that run in Game 6 of the Finals (the final game) by hitting a bunch of consecutive three's which led to a huge offensive run..

2003 team had the best defense and shooting we have had. So shooting sure was not a problem for the 03 Spurs.

So next time you open up your mouth about the 03 Spurs, maybe you should buy/rent the 03 championship DVD and learn up on the history of the team before you jumped on the bandwagon.

Yeah, that team could shoot. The vast majority of the issue was super solid defense from both teams IMO. The Nets only allowed something like 90 ppg.

[spursfan98]

Yeah, that team could shoot. The vast majority of the issue was super solid defense from both teams IMO. The Nets only allowed something like 90 ppg.

I agree. IMO the 03 team had the best shooting team of all our championship teams. And you are right, shooting was no problem, both teams had great D

[lebomb]

Yeah, that team could shoot. The vast majority of the issue was super solid defense from both teams IMO. The Nets only allowed something like 90 ppg.


I watched every second of that series and although there was defense, they both bricked like crazy.

Team Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Game 5 Game 6 Wins
San Antonio (West) 101 85 84 76 93 88 4
New Jersey (East) 89 87 79 77 83 77 2

[spursfan98]

I watched every second of that series and although there was defense, they both bricked like crazy.

Team Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Game 5 Game 6 Wins
San Antonio (West) 101 85 84 76 93 88 4
New Jersey (East) 89 87 79 77 83 77 2

Good defensive teams make other teams brick shots. In that case, both teams were GREAT defensive teams (best 2 in the league) and that is why you saw bricks. Shooting was no problem for that team though.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think my problem with calling the 2005 Spurs the best of the title teams is the fact that the 2005 Spurs took 3 major league whallopings during their title run (Game 4 at Seattle, Game 3 at Detroit, and Game 4 at Detroit).

In 2003, the Spurs lost more games, but they lost on a crazy buzzer beater to Phoenix in Game 1 (made possible by a crazy three from Stoudemire at the end of regulation) and lost by 2 on the road in Game 4. They had a bad loss at Staples in Game 3, but were extremely close to winning Game 4 and then blew out the Lakers in Game 6. They lost by 3 in the free throw shooting contest that was Game 1 of the WCF and melted down late to lose Game 5. And they lost by 2 and by 1 in the Finals. That 2003 team went 16-8 in the playoffs, but lost 6 of its 8 games by 4 points or less; 10 of the 16 wins came by double digits with 5 of those double-digit wins occurring on the road. The 2003 team's average margin of victory was more than 10 points; its average margin of loss was 5.

The 2005 team also had 10 double-digit wins among its 16, but only 3 of those came on the road and 2 of those 3 were in the first round. Among the 2005 team's 7 losses, only 1 came in a one-possession game (game 3 at Seattle) and 3 of the losses were by 12 or more, including a 31-point loss at Detroit in Game 4. The 2005 team's average margin of victory was better -- 12.7 points per win -- but its average margin of loss was 11.6 points per loss.

I think what those numbers have always suggested to me is that the 2003 team, with all of its youth and seeming inconsistency, was an extremely tenacious team that kept itself in virtually every game and might have gotten through with its run in much prettier fashion with a couple of breaks here or there. I think the overall quality of their run was better than the overall quality of the run by the 2005 team, mostly because I think that 2003 LA team would have beaten everyone the 2005 Spurs beat and because I think the 2003 Mavericks (particularly with a healthy Dirk) would have done the same. If you get into geeky metrics like pythagorean records, which project's a team's record based on its statistics and endeavors to balance things like exceptional good luck in measuring performance, the quality of the teams the Spurs faced in 2003 was the best of all 4 runs (collectively, the pythagorean winning percentage of the Spurs' opponents in 2003 was .638; in 1999, that number was .615, in 2005 that number was .628, and in 2007, that number was .626). By actual record, the 2005 opponents were probably the best the Spurs faced, but the projections suggest that all 4 of those teams had better records than their team stats should have allowed -- suggesting some good fortune during the regular season to inflate their records. By comparison, the 2003 opponents underperformed to their numbers and their records were probably artificially deflated.

It's not a matter that can be proven in any real sense. It's a matter of eyeballing and preferences, I think. At the end of the day, I think the 2003 Spurs were the best combination of youth and age, athleticism and savvy, poise and determination. And, to me, that makes them the best of the title teams.

[barbacoataco]

One factor that I think is left out, in 2003 Bruce Bowen was at his best, doing a great job on Kobe. By 2005 he was still good but lost maybe 1/2 step, and by 2007 he was not the same player, though he managed to pull it together when it counted.

I have thought about this a lot and decided that there is no real answer. Duncan was at his best in 2003, Ginobili in 2005 and Parker in 2007. SJax maybe made up for Ginobili not being as developed in 2003, but the PG position was a little weak in 2003 since Parker was still learning and could get rattled by heavy pressure. But then they had Speedy too.

The 2003 team (Lakers and Mavs) and 2005 team (Suns Pistons) faced the toughest roads to victory. The 1999 team maybe was the best, but didn't face a team that pushed them to the limit. That makes it hard to say what their limit was. The 2005 Pistons pushed the Spurs to the limit, so we go to see how good they were.

[Fingaroll44]

http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_spurs1999.html


Read this, they won 46 out of the last 53 games, held teams to 40.2% SHOOTING! THAT is unheard of, seriously they were just too damn dominant that year. I loved that team. D wins titles, yes it did.

Stern changed rules because of that team :toast

[rascal]

The 99 team was the best and they had the record down the stretch and in the playoffs to support that.

[baseline bum]

The 2003 team (Lakers and Mavs) and 2005 team (Suns Pistons) faced the toughest roads to victory. The 1999 team maybe was the best, but didn't face a team that pushed them to the limit. That makes it hard to say what their limit was. The 2005 Pistons pushed the Spurs to the limit, so we go to see how good they were.

The fact that the 99 Spurs swept and humiliated the team that won the next three titles tells you all you need to know about how good that team was.

[Dave McNulla]

1999 is my favorite. they had different rules, though. if they play 99 rules, they win hands down. if they don't, they couldn't stop anybody's drives.

[iilluzioN]

I loved how we had a 6'8 Monster called S.Jackson at the SF position.

[Sense]

I gotta go with 2005...
it was just epic... the series they had in the playoffs... how you saw the fire in Manu and Tim and Tony's eyes...

Beating an almost unbeatable Suns team.. then going against some tough teams in Denver and the Sonics...
Overall I loved watching that run... the adrenaline just watching it was awesome, and then finishing it off against the mirror team in the East in 7 games? It just can't get better..


1999
2003
2007


after that

[lefty]

- 1999 team was just a machine
But the Lakers figured us out in 2001: unbalanced team with 2 big, with stationary 3 pt shooters and a small PG you could shut down with Kobe.

- 2003 was the most talented (and Duncan was on steroids); it was supposed to be a transition season; amazing memories

- 2005 was the best balance of offense and defense; definitely the best team

- 2007: yawn..........when the NBA has officially started to suck big time

[barbacoataco]

- 2003 was the most talented (and Duncan was on steroids)

Duncan was on steroids?

[lefty]

- 2003 was the most talented (and Duncan was on steroids)

Duncan was on steroids?
:lmao

[duncan228]

Duncan was out of his mind in '03.

[JustinJDW]

The 05 Team did have long haired Manu Ginobili, and long haired Manu Ginobili was pretty good. :rolleyes

[ploto]

OIC, the 06 team was better because they had Rasho. :lmao

Given that I think the 99 team was better than the 2005 and Rasho was on the 2005 one pretty much destroys your theory.

[Yuixafun]

Just for fun!

'99 Drob, '03 Duncan, '05 Manu, '07 Tp.

A man can dream...

[baseline bum]

Given that I think the 99 team was better than the 2005 and Rasho was on the 2005 one pretty much destroys your theory.

So explain how the 06 team with Duncan and Ginobili banged up and Horry not doing anything was better than an 07 team that was 100% healthy with Rob having come back to life in the playoffs. About the only thing anyone could hold onto to claim the 06 team as better is the disparity in regular-season records between the two teams, but as this year's playoffs (and almost every other one of this decade) has shown, the regular season doesn't mean a lot.

[baseline bum]

- 1999 team was just a machine
But the Lakers figured us out in 2001: unbalanced team with 2 big, with stationary 3 pt shooters and a small PG you could shut down with Kobe.


I don't agree with this at all. David got old. AJ got old and was almost useless by 01, versus when he was a damn good point guard in 99. Sean was never the same player after the kidney transplant. The 2001 Spurs replaced a quick point guard with an incredibly slow one in Porter, an athletic wing who could attack the basket and play very good defense in Elliott with a one-trick pony in Ferry, and they had Antonio Daniels guarding Kobe Bryant. There wasn't a lot for the Lakers to figure out; their team was a nightmare matchup for the old Spurs even when Derek Anderson was in the lineup, much less when he was on the bench with a nasty shoulder separation. Of course you could throw Kobe Bryant on Porter; Porter moved as if he was running through quicksand. That whole Lakers team save Horace Grant was in its prime and most of that Spurs team was old as dirt.

[barbacoataco]

Agree with this last post. the 2001 Spurs team was not the same as 1999. By then Mario Elie, Elliott, DRob were all less effective or gone, and the Spurs did not have great defensive cohesion.

[Sense]

I think my problem with calling the 2005 Spurs the best of the title teams is the fact that the 2005 Spurs took 3 major league whallopings during their title run (Game 4 at Seattle, Game 3 at Detroit, and Game 4 at Detroit).

In 2003, the Spurs lost more games, but they lost on a crazy buzzer beater to Phoenix in Game 1 (made possible by a crazy three from Stoudemire at the end of regulation) and lost by 2 on the road in Game 4. They had a bad loss at Staples in Game 3, but were extremely close to winning Game 4 and then blew out the Lakers in Game 6. They lost by 3 in the free throw shooting contest that was Game 1 of the WCF and melted down late to lose Game 5. And they lost by 2 and by 1 in the Finals. That 2003 team went 16-8 in the playoffs, but lost 6 of its 8 games by 4 points or less; 10 of the 16 wins came by double digits with 5 of those double-digit wins occurring on the road. The 2003 team's average margin of victory was more than 10 points; its average margin of loss was 5.

The 2005 team also had 10 double-digit wins among its 16, but only 3 of those came on the road and 2 of those 3 were in the first round. Among the 2005 team's 7 losses, only 1 came in a one-possession game (game 3 at Seattle) and 3 of the losses were by 12 or more, including a 31-point loss at Detroit in Game 4. The 2005 team's average margin of victory was better -- 12.7 points per win -- but its average margin of loss was 11.6 points per loss.

I think what those numbers have always suggested to me is that the 2003 team, with all of its youth and seeming inconsistency, was an extremely tenacious team that kept itself in virtually every game and might have gotten through with its run in much prettier fashion with a couple of breaks here or there. I think the overall quality of their run was better than the overall quality of the run by the 2005 team, mostly because I think that 2003 LA team would have beaten everyone the 2005 Spurs beat and because I think the 2003 Mavericks (particularly with a healthy Dirk) would have done the same. If you get into geeky metrics like pythagorean records, which project's a team's record based on its statistics and endeavors to balance things like exceptional good luck in measuring performance, the quality of the teams the Spurs faced in 2003 was the best of all 4 runs (collectively, the pythagorean winning percentage of the Spurs' opponents in 2003 was .638; in 1999, that number was .615, in 2005 that number was .628, and in 2007, that number was .626). By actual record, the 2005 opponents were probably the best the Spurs faced, but the projections suggest that all 4 of those teams had better records than their team stats should have allowed -- suggesting some good fortune during the regular season to inflate their records. By comparison, the 2003 opponents underperformed to their numbers and their records were probably artificially deflated.

It's not a matter that can be proven in any real sense. It's a matter of eyeballing and preferences, I think. At the end of the day, I think the 2003 Spurs were the best combination of youth and age, athleticism and savvy, poise and determination. And, to me, that makes them the best of the title teams.

didn't read this before posting... changed my mind

[/thread]