Hollinger: '99 Spurs 8th Best Finals Team Ever

[zekes]

our favorite numbers guru...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10

[CubanMustGo]

'05: 16
'06: 18

Mavs: #32

[timvp]

Three in the top 20 with an order of 1999, 2005 and 2003.

Now isn't a time to start a discussion of ranking the best Spurs teams, but it was an interesting read.

[Spurminator]

Hope he updates this after the 2007 Finals.

[Obstructed_View]

Three in the top 20 with an order of 1999, 2005 and 2003.

Now isn't a time to start a discussion of ranking the best Spurs teams, but it was an interesting read.
Four more wins, and the battle begins...

[Saguaro]

Typical. Hollinger is an absolute Spurs homer. None of the Spurs title teams should be in the top 30, and none should rank above the '93 Suns.

[SilverPlayer]

I disagree with his formula, it penalizes teams too much when they had an evenly matched rival. The Bulls were often untested. They were great but they never ran into a Shaq and Kobe lead lakers. I think Houston would have given them a hell of a run the two years Jordan was out as well. But the results are pretty good, I just feel the need to nit pick with the lack of weighting how tough the competition was, which of course quintuples the amount of work you would have to do, but still...

[timvp]

Typical. Hollinger is an absolute Spurs homer. None of the Spurs title teams should be in the top 30, and none should rank above the '93 Suns.

:lmao

Still bitter? Let it go.

Next year when Horry hip checks Nash again, maybe only one of your players will be dumb enough to come off the bench.

[Vito Corleone]

I would put the 83 Sixers much higher on that list, and I would add the 95 Rockets into that top 10. I still think the 03 spurs were better than the 99 team.

1. 96 Bulls
2. 95 Rockets
3. 83 Sixers
4. 87 Lakers
5. 01 Lakers
6. 03 Spurs
7. 97 Bulls
8. 92 Bulls
9. 86 Celtics
10 98 Bulls

[samikeyp]

Typical. Hollinger is an absolute Spurs homer. None of the Spurs title teams should be in the top 30, and none should rank above the '93 Suns.

And Hollinger is a homer? :lol

[Saguaro]

:lmao

Still bitter? Let it go.

Next year when Horry hip checks Nash again, maybe only one of your players will be dumb enough to come off the bench.
Enjoy your tainted Western Conference crown, as Cleveland humiliates your Spurs.

[Vito Corleone]

93 suns were not as good as the 94 suns and neither were as good as the 99 Spurs or the 03 Spurs or the 05 Spurs or the 07 spurs.

The Suns have never been more than fodder for the real champions.

[ShoogarBear]

Typical. Hollinger is an absolute Spurs homer. None of the Spurs title teams should be in the top 30, and none should rank above the '93 Suns.http://www.acornbrewery.net/Barnsley%20Bitter.jpg

Who's fault is it that the Suns fans keep buying into no-defense coaches?

[samikeyp]

Enjoy your tainted Western Conference crown, as Cleveland humiliates your Spurs.

Just like Utah was supposed to, right?

The only taint around here is you.

[timvp]

This was the Suns year :cry


http://spurstalk.com/nashowned.jpg

Guess not.

:hat

[polandprzem]

Who've got access to next ones????????????????????

[ShoogarBear]

Having said that, I would put the 83 Sixers much, much higher. That team essentially knew they were winning the championship from day one, and it was never really in doubt.

[makedamnsure]

I never rated the 99 team so high. Maybe that's because I was 8 and didn't appreciate the way we handled all those teams in the playoffs.

[ClingingMars]

Typical. Hollinger is an absolute Spurs homer. None of the Spurs title teams should be in the top 30, and none should rank above the '93 Suns.

Suns homers like you make me :lmao

-Mars

[ClingingMars]

Enjoy your tainted Western Conference crown, as Cleveland humiliates your Spurs.

You, sir, are a true dumbass. Enjoy watching our celebration in Cleveland after Game 5.

-Mars

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs walked through four really good teams in '99 after going on an incredible run during the season. I remember watching that game where they got killed by Utah before I got on a plane in Orlando. I never dreamed that team could be so good.

[Saguaro]

http://spurstalk.com/nashowned.jpg

Guess not.

:hat
I guess it's Cleveland's year. :elephant

[naico]

Who've got access to next ones????????????????????

check the nba forum!!! dang

[Spurminator]

Andy (Denver): You didn't mention where this Spurs team would rank all-time after a sweep or a 5 game series win.

John Hollinger: (4:43 PM ET ) San Antonio might be able to bust into the top 10 if they win in four or five with a healthy scoring maring. More likely, they'll end up in the 11-14 range.

[Martin R]

Enjoy your tainted Western Conference crown, as Cleveland humiliates your Spurs.

lol. I can even see BLOOD all over your post. :lol

[easjer]

I recall an article running numbers after '99 that suggested, statistically, that the Spurs were better than the previous three year's Bulls team. Don't know how that would have played in real time, but it was an interesting theory.

[SRJ]

In NBA history, 17 championship teams won at least 75% of all their games (regular season plus playoffs). The 1999 Spurs are in that group, the only Spurs team to do so. Here's the list ranked by combined record:

1. 1996 Chicago Bulls (87-13, .870)
2. 1972 Los Angeles Lakers (81-16, .835)
3. 1997 Chicago Bulls (84-17, .832)
4. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers (79-17, .823)
5. 1986 Boston Celtics (82-18, .820)
6. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks (78-18, .813)
7. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers (77-18, .811)
8. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers (80-20, .800)
9. 1992 Chicago Bulls (82-22, .789)
10. 2000 Los Angeles Lakers (82-23, .781)
11. 1989 Detroit Pistons (78-21, .788)
12. 1999 San Antonio Spurs (52-15, .776)
13. 1991 Chicago Bulls (76-23, .768)
14. 1950 Minneapolis Lakers (62-19, .765)
15. 1985 Los Angeles Lakers (77-24, .762)
16. 1965 Boston Celtics (70-22, .761)
17. 1960 Boston Celtics (67-21, .761)

[florige]

Enjoy your tainted Western Conference crown, as Cleveland humiliates your Spurs.




Suns fans, worst trolls ever!!!! :lol

[TampaDude]

From the article...



A forgotten great team because of the lockout, the Spurs began the year 6-8 … and then went 46-7 the rest of the way, with nary a losing streak. An awesome defensive squad led by big men David Robinson and Tim Duncan, San Antonio's 84.7 points allowed per game is far and away the least of any of these 60 squads. That 15-2 postseason mark ain't too shabby either, including sweeps of the Blazers and Lakers. So stingy was the defense that only twice in 17 playoff games did San Antonio's opponent muster 90 points.


Wow...that has to be one of the best defenses of all time in the NBA...if not THE best. The '99 Spurs are still my favorite of the 3 Spurs championship teams. That Game 5 against the Knicks was unforgettable, and my favorite Spurs game of all time...so far! :toast

[dbreiden83080]

The 99 team is actually probably overated guys. I mean that finals with the Knicks was not easy and Ewing did not play. They won games 1 and 2 pretty easy but lost game 3. Games 4 and 5 were very tough games. Knicks had a lead in that game 5 with under a min to play. Robinson was still very good in 99 as was Sean but Avery is not as good as Tony. Manu was such a huge factor in 05 i think that was the best team although this team may change my mind and slide into the 1 slot.

[Spurminator]

Was the series against the Knicks the only Playoff series the 1999 team played?

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I disagree with his formula, it penalizes teams too much when they had an evenly matched rival. The Bulls were often untested. They were great but they never ran into a Shaq and Kobe lead lakers. I think Houston would have given them a hell of a run the two years Jordan was out as well. But the results are pretty good, I just feel the need to nit pick with the lack of weighting how tough the competition was, which of course quintuples the amount of work you would have to do, but still...

I totally agree. This should be waited towards the mid to late eighties, and it should also consider the quality of players on the team. "Objective" or statistical records are awful at judging the quality of teams.

[dbreiden83080]

Was the series against the Knicks the only Playoff series the 1999 team played?

It was the biggest one and they did not dominate a very short handed Knick squad. Played well but not great. I say it is close between the 05 team and the 99 team not by much i give it to the 05 team. This current team may be the best one of all.

[dbreiden83080]

Oh yeah and the 86 Celts and the 87 lakers would have killed MJ's bulls in the finals. That 96 squad is not the best team ever by a long shot.

[Tek_XX]

I think the list is pretty good.

[Obstructed_View]

It was the biggest one and they did not dominate a very short handed Knick squad. Played well but not great. I say it is close between the 05 team and the 99 team not by much i give it to the 05 team. This current team may be the best one of all.
The '99 Knicks got better after Ewing got hurt. They had a lot of talent and Sprewell was a matchup nightmare. A lot of people forget how good a player he was.

[Nikos]

The '99 Knicks got better after Ewing got hurt. They had a lot of talent and Sprewell was a matchup nightmare. A lot of people forget how good a player he was.

They weren't better without Ewing. They played better than expected without Ewing -- but how could they really be better without their best defensive player, who was also most of the time their best offensive player as well?

[Obstructed_View]

They weren't better without Ewing. They played better than expected without Ewing -- but how could they really be better without their best defensive player, who was also most of the time their best offensive player as well?
The Knicks played better as a team without him. They whipped Indiana without him and played the Spurs really well. They went 9-5 without him in the regular season. I don't know how to explain it, but the Ewing Theory tries to. It was around before '99.