Which Was the Greatest Team the Spurs Defeated On the Way to a le?

[baseline bum]

He was healthy enough when the Finals started. A 26-19 double-double isn't indicative of ankles that were bothering him. And his free throw wows also weren't from bad ankles. Tim was a much worse free throw shooter back then. Especially in 4th Quarters whether he was healthy or not. Game 5 wasn't that unique in that respect. What I remember about Seattle Game 6 was Pop saying Duncan's ankle would be "jelly" or something like that. Also, one of this ankle stuff negates the fact that Duncan still put up good up numbers against Rasheed Wallace who had always defended him well.

I think you really don't remember that Finals too well. Duncan shot a terrible 41.8% that series and said his ankles flared up like every fourth quarter. If you don't believe me, it's not hard to find Game 5 of the 05 Finals on torrent to watch the report from Tafoya.

[gameFACE]

I think you really don't remember that Finals too well. Duncan shot a terrible 41.8% that series and said his ankles flared up like every fourth quarter. If you don't believe me, it's not hard to find Game 5 of the 05 Finals on torrent to watch the report from Tafoya.

It's not that I don't believe you. I don't dispute that his ankles were hurting him. But he was healthy enough to play. And he put decent numbers up against someone who always gave him trouble. You could deduce that with fully healthy ankles he could have put up better numbers against Detroit and be done with the series on 6. I don't believe that to be the case. Duncan's numbers were comparable to what he put up anyway. He overcame and played through the ankle issue, Tafoya's report or not. And Detroit was a tough team. Defending champs. They were part of the reason for that 41.8%. That's why I voted for '05 Detroit over '03 Lakers. "03 Lakers are a close second.

[ajh18]

People are mistaking the difficulty the Spurs had with these teams for their overall greatness. A lot of that is match-up driven, and also based on how well the Spurs are playing at the time.

The 2003 Lakers were a dominant team. People saying they were bored forget that they were literally crying after the loss, and just how good Tim Duncan was that year. You can put basically any player, from any year, on that Spurs team in Duncan's place (including Lebron from the last few years) and they don't beat that Lakers team.

2005 Pistons were great as well and matched up very well with those early-2000s Lakers teams because they had their two dominant bigs and decent perimeter D with Billups and Prince to guard Kobe. They may have struggled a bit more with this year's Heat team (and also this year's Thunder) however, because those teams both have great shooting on the perimeter and mid-range.

The 2014 Heat were a great team, and I think it's disappointing to see the media and people on this board diminish them because the Spurs beat them down so badly. The Spurs this year were just THAT GOOD. We were basically a better version of the SSoL Suns on offense, and a top defensive team as well. No other team in the league this year beats the Heat in the finals, including OKC who matches up much worse with them than we do (and ironically matches up better against us than the Heat do). I think the Heat from this year beat any team on the list easily outside of the 2003 Lakers and 2005 Pistons, and may well have given the latter a run for their money.

Those are the top three by far, followed by a second tier of the SSoL Suns and the 2014 Thunder.

[Jenks]

I voted 03 Lakers but definitely would switch to 05 Pistons if I could. 2004 finals were pretty 1 sided, the four Pistons wins were 20, 13, 12, and 8 points. Kobe 38% from the field, 17% from 3.

05 Pistons.

[Mark in Austin]

An interesting matchup would be a healthy 05 Spurs team against the 04 Pistons that destroyed the league after trading for Rasheed. That 04 team got so much from its starting lineup and then had pretty crazy depth too. Not sure which way that matchup would have gone, as the 05 Spurs were a monster.

Yeah everybody seems to assume that if not for Fisher's shot in 04, the Spurs win the le that year, but Detroit was a monster. I still can't make sense out of Joe Dumars as an exec. He builds that nightmare matchup of a team, they go to the finals twice, and then they sign Villaneuva and Ben Gordon? I don't get it. But for those two years, and especially 04 Detroit was no joke. I'd give the matchup even odds at best - I would love to see that series.

Manu's '06 foul on Dirk to me is the real lost opportunity to add a ring. The Spurs would have swept that Heat team; maybe by more total points than the beatdown they gave them this year.

[soxxx]

LOL all these people here parroting the ESPN storyline of the 2014 Heat sucking. The 2014 Heat were an awesome team than ran into a ing buzzsaw. The Pistons series in 05 only went 7 because Duncan was on two bad ankles. You put 04 Duncan or even 06 Duncan (pf and all) and the Spurs mop the floor with Detroit. I know the 05 Spurs were the best team in franchise history on paper, but Duncan wasn't healthy.

Im starting to believe that more and more. ESPN put out this image that the Spurs beat a Heat team that was just complete crap outside of Lebron James when truthfully they outplayed the Spurs the first 2 games, would have won game three 9/10 times if it werent for the Spurs incredible half. Game 4 and 5 is where everything changed, heading into game 4 the whole world said the Heat would win, yet after the game everyone was saying the roster is crap. Rewatching that game, Dwayne Wade single-handedly killed the Miami Heat, he started 1 of 11 and just gave off such a negative vibe around the whole team. Then in game 5, I mean come on, the series was a wrap. I can say 3 out of the 5 games the Heat were fully capable of winning, its not like this was some high school lineup.

[baseline bum]

Yeah everybody seems to assume that if not for Fisher's shot in 04, the Spurs win the le that year, but Detroit was a monster. I still can't make sense out of Joe Dumars as an exec. He builds that nightmare matchup of a team, they go to the finals twice, and then they sign Villaneuva and Ben Gordon? I don't get it. But for those two years, and especially 04 Detroit was no joke. I'd give the matchup even odds at best - I would love to see that series.

Manu's '06 foul on Dirk to me is the real lost opportunity to add a ring. The Spurs would have swept that Heat team; maybe by more total points than the beatdown they gave them this year.

It kind of does make sense though. Big Ben was just an afterthought in the sign and trade that sent Grant Hill to Orlando. Chauncey Billups was a complete bust who never lived up to his draft selection slot. Scoreless Williamson was a scrub coming from a finished Kings team. Tayshaun Prince was too skinny to make it into the NBA and fell to the mid 20s. Mehmet Okur was a Turkish nobody. Mike James was a roster filler. Elden Campbell hadn't been since the late 90s. The one player who had any value at the time of acquisition was Rip Hamilton, who Dumars traded his only star, Stackhouse, for. And then Rasheed was the league pariah, the cancer you could never win with, when he got dumped by Portland and then Atlanta. But Detroit had incredible coaching to make these pieces fit: namely, Rick Carlisle and then Larry Brown. I mean that team had no business being good after losing Hill; what a gut punch that was. But Dumars thought he could do it again, only garbage coaches like Michael Curry and John Keuster aren't going to put such flawed pieces together into a strong whole. That great Pistons team is such a testament to Carlisle and Brown.

Rick Carlisle made them into a team and Larry Brown made them good enough to win it all.

[superbigtime]

I can see how someone would put in a vote for the 2005 Pistons. They were the defending champs and pushed SA to 7 games. Although this poll is based on opinions (which believe it or not can be very ridiculous), though, I have to think that you'd be insane to vote for anyone other than them, or the team with my vote, the 2003 Lakers. Voting for other teams makes me question how much basketball one actually watches....

The 2003 Lakers had just THRASHED San Antonio the last two years in the playoffs to the tune of a sweep and a 4-1 series. 8-1 over the last two series. They had two of the top 5 players in the league, arguably the greatest NBA coach of all time in Phil and had just come off of a THREE-PEAT! Bored or not, you cannot ignore the record. They even went on the next year to once again beat San Antonio in the 2004 Playoffs. I'm sure I don't need to remind too many of the members of this board of .4....

The Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers have already gone down as one of the great teams of all time. Pop said it best when he compared them breaking up to the breakup of the Soviet Union. No other team truly gave SA the trouble that LA did in the last 15 years in the playoffs. Look at it this way....10 Championships between them since 1999. That's 10 out of the last 15 champions. Five and five. The Lakers also made it to 2 other finals. No offense, but to me choosing another team would be shortchanging what the Lakers were able to accomplish. I can understand the Silver and Black blinders that many in here have on. Most long time Spurs fans have a healthy hatred of the Purple and Gold. They and the Spurs are the only two teams that have any claim to the "Best Post Jordan Team" le. Not even the Heat of the last 4 years comes close.

Seeing San Antonio beat them in game six, with Kobe and Fish crying on the sideline was one of my favorite Spurs moments....right up there with the Memorial Day Miracle. Epic, epic defeat of a great team.

Awesome post. You definitely convinced me. The defeated Lakers bench .. so sweet. All those teams listed were awesome. Would love to see OKC vs Pistons.

[ViceCity84]

2005 Pistons.That was the hardest series Spurs won en route to a championship.

Overrated-2003 Lakers and 2014 Heat

[therealtruth]

The 2014 Heat were a great team, and I think it's disappointing to see the media and people on this board diminish them because the Spurs beat them down so badly. The Spurs this year were just THAT GOOD. We were basically a better version of the SSoL Suns on offense, and a top defensive team as well. No other team in the league this year beats the Heat in the finals, including OKC who matches up much worse with them than we do (and ironically matches up better against us than the Heat do). I think the Heat from this year beat any team on the list easily outside of the 2003 Lakers and 2005 Pistons, and may well have given the latter a run for their money.

Those are the top three by far, followed by a second tier of the SSoL Suns and the 2014 Thunder.

The numbers basically say the 2014 Heat weren't great defensively and that's exactly what we saw. They went against some weak offenses in the East and still gave up alot of points. Against high powered offense WC team they would have been fighting for their lives. All we had to do was play OK defense and that series was ours.

You can say they won game 2. But it took Lebron going into god mode for that to happen. They beat us 98-96. We scored >98 in every game we won. They simply didn't have enough to outscore us and they're defense wasn't good enough to hold us to low 90's which is what they would have to do. That's exactly why I thought it would be a 5 game series. I gave Lebron 1 god mode game.

[DMC]

2013 Heat

[Cry Havoc]

Awesome post. You definitely convinced me. The defeated Lakers bench .. so sweet. All those teams listed were awesome. Would love to see OKC vs Pistons.

The 2004 Pistons would smash OKC. 6 games. The 2005 Pistons would probably beat them in 6 as well.

The 2003 Lakers were a good team, but the Spurs were not an all-time great. That was by far the weakest championship Spurs team of all time, and they beat the Lakers pretty convincingly. A much BETTER Spurs team in 2005 was tied after 27 quarters with the Pistons -- this lends itself to the Lakers being better, how exactly? The 05 Spurs beat the 03 Spurs in 5 games. 05 was a better Spurs team at virtually every position. MUCH better Tony Parker and Manu playing out of this world, he was a top 3 guard in the playoffs that year. Bowen is a wash. Duncan was better in 03 by a small to decent margin but still completely dominant in 05.

So a weaker (weakest le team) Spurs team beat the 03 Lakers in 6.

A stronger Spurs team got taken to 7 by Detroit.

It's Detroit. They DESTROYED the Lakers team that upgraded to Malone & Co. that beat the Spurs that season. The Spurs, in turn, got a lot better, and then barely scraped by the Pistons.

[RoyerReptiles]

The 2004 Pistons would smash OKC. 6 games. The 2005 Pistons would probably beat them in 6 as well.

The 2003 Lakers were a good team, but the Spurs were not an all-time great. That was by far the weakest championship Spurs team of all time, and they beat the Lakers pretty convincingly. A much BETTER Spurs team in 2005 was tied after 27 quarters with the Pistons -- this lends itself to the Lakers being better, how exactly? The 05 Spurs beat the 03 Spurs in 5 games. 05 was a better Spurs team at virtually every position. MUCH better Tony Parker and Manu playing out of this world, he was a top 3 guard in the playoffs that year. Bowen is a wash. Duncan was better in 03 by a small to decent margin but still completely dominant in 05.

So a weaker (weakest le team) Spurs team beat the 03 Lakers in 6.

A stronger Spurs team got taken to 7 by Detroit.

It's Detroit. They DESTROYED the Lakers team that upgraded to Malone & Co. that beat the Spurs that season. The Spurs, in turn, got a lot better, and then barely scraped by the Pistons.

I'd first off start by saying that the 2003 Spurs and 2007 Spurs were almost a wash. While Parker and Manu were better in '07, the same cannot be said about Duncan or Bowen. The 2003 versions of those two players were better than the 2007 versions. The 2003 team was excellent defensively as well. Defensively, the 2003 Spurs allowed 90.4 points per game to 90.1 in 2007. The difference was what they scored: 95.8 in 2003 to 98.5 in 2007. I find that hard to describe as "by far". The 2003 team also finished the regular season with a better record of 60-22 vs. 58-24 in 2007. The 2003 Spurs were also STACKED! Duncan, Robinson, Manu, Parker, Bowen, the Steves: Kerr, Smith, Jackson, Malik Rose, Kevin Willis and Speedy Claxton. Depth was not an issue in San Antonio in 2003.

It's a subjective poll, with the definition of "greatest team" being so very open to interpretation. That's why in my post I said that you couldn't go wrong with choosing either team, but my case led me to the Lakers as being considered "greatest" team. You really can't go wrong picking either, but you have to pick one, so my choice is based on overall results. Defeating the defending three time champs that boasted arguably two of the top ten players of all time, coached by arguably the best coach of all time was HUGE for San Antonio in '03, especially after the complete obliteration the Spurs went through at the hands of the Lakers the previous two years.

[barbacoataco]

I'm not sure the 2003 team was so weak. Duncan was at his best. No comparison at all between 2003 and 2005 Duncan. Also Bowen was better in 2003, he shot 17 for 26 3ptrs in that series and the whole Spurs shot .473 3pt which is phenomenal. That was also a great defensive team. They didn't face a great team in the finals, and I think people hold that against them.

[Cry Havoc]

I'd first off start by saying that the 2003 Spurs and 2007 Spurs were almost a wash. While Parker and Manu were better in '07, the same cannot be said about Duncan or Bowen. The 2003 versions of those two players were better than the 2007 versions. The 2003 team was excellent defensively as well. Defensively, the 2003 Spurs allowed 90.4 points per game to 90.1 in 2007. The difference was what they scored: 95.8 in 2003 to 98.5 in 2007. I find that hard to describe as "by far". The 2003 team also finished the regular season with a better record of 60-22 vs. 58-24 in 2007. The 2003 Spurs were also STACKED! Duncan, Robinson, Manu, Parker, Bowen, the Steves: Kerr, Smith, Jackson, Malik Rose, Kevin Willis and Speedy Claxton. Depth was not an issue in San Antonio in 2003.

It's a subjective poll, with the definition of "greatest team" being so very open to interpretation. That's why in my post I said that you couldn't go wrong with choosing either team, but my case led me to the Lakers as being considered "greatest" team. You really can't go wrong picking either, but you have to pick one, so my choice is based on overall results. Defeating the defending three time champs that boasted arguably two of the top ten players of all time, coached by arguably the best coach of all time was HUGE for San Antonio in '03, especially after the complete obliteration the Spurs went through at the hands of the Lakers the previous two years.

The fact that you list 2003 Parker as a reason that team was stacked (to say nothing of the s that DRob was that year) shows how rose-tinted your memories of that team are. Parker was TERRIBLE and even got benched repeatedly for Speedy Claxton. That was possibly the 2nd best NBA playoff performance of all time by ANY player with what Duncan did, and we still dropped two games to everyone, even truly bad teams. 2014 Spurs SWEEP that nets team. If they were that deep and overpowering we wouldn't have needed Duncan to post absurd (ABSURD) numbers in the entirety of the playoffs, and we would have beaten some of those teams more convincingly.

[barbacoataco]

They played some good teams in 2003, and Parker wasn't terrible. Inconsistent, but not terrible. He had blazing speed that caused problems for opponents. It's true his ball handling wasn't all the way there, but they had Speedy who was very solid. Also, the presence of SJax gave that team a toughness. With Bowen that is two great defenders at the wing position, and then Duncan and Robinson down low. And DRob still had some game.

Yes they lost 2 games in every series, but they were never really pushed that hard and were in control of every series. I think they are underrated on this board. I would say 2007 was the team that was a notch below the rest.

[baseline bum]

They played some good teams in 2003, and Parker wasn't terrible. Inconsistent, but not terrible. He had blazing speed that caused problems for opponents. It's true his ball handling wasn't all the way there, but they had Speedy who was very solid. Also, the presence of SJax gave that team a toughness. With Bowen that is two great defenders at the wing position, and then Duncan and Robinson down low. And DRob still had some game.

Yes they lost 2 games in every series, but they were never really pushed that hard and were in control of every series. I think they are underrated on this board. I would say 2007 was the team that was a notch below the rest.

They were pushed pretty hard in the LA series. Rob's shot drops in Game 5 and it's a goddamn nightmare.

[wildbill2u]

So many fans in Spurs Talk are relatively new. The Spurs-Piston finals was a war with every game a nail-biter in the balance. The Pistons were a tough team with a great pedigree during those years.

[G-Dawgg]

2003 Lakers by far was our best compe ion ever. Shaq and Kobe together at their PRIME, with Fox, Horry and Fisher. That team won multiple of championships together for a reason. Shaq in his prime was unstoppable and Kobe has always been a fierce compe or. Throw in Phil Jackson as coach.. I personally think that team could have easily beat this year's Heat or Thunder in a 7 game series.

[Cry Havoc]

It blows my mind that people actually think that the 2003 Spurs were loaded. I guess that's why Duncan needed to average 25, 15.4, 5.3, and 3 blocks a game to get us by the Starbury led Suns, and an atrocious Finals team in the Nets.

[baseline bum]

It blows my mind that people actually think that the 2003 Spurs were loaded. I guess that's why Duncan needed to average 25, 15.4, 5.3, and 3 blocks a game to get us by the Starbury led Suns, and an atrocious Finals team in the Nets.

The Spurs had a phenomenal team in 2003.

Ginobili's stats may not be impressive, but he made some huge plays. He hit a really difficult floater on the baseline to win Game 3 of the Finals. He assisted on I think two of those threes that Stephen Jackson made to put away Game 6. He had the steal on Jefferson that completely broke the Nets and made that 19-0 run happen. Manu ing massacred the Lakers in Game 2.

Tony Parker outplayed Kidd the first two games of the Finals and had a huge Game 5. Parker was also huge in Game 6 of the real finals to close out the Lakers. Dude is 20 years old, walks into Staples Center, and hangs 27 on the 3x defending champs in a must-win for them on their homecourt.

Malik Rose was a perfect smallball four, and played the game of his life down 0-1 in Game 2 of the WCF against Dallas.

Bruce Bowen was the best perimeter defender since Pippen, and destroyed Kobe in Game 2 of real finals with 7 three pointers.

Stephen Jackson played out of his mind in the first round against a Suns team that owned the Spurs and then stepped up and took Game 6 in Dallas, not to mention his three threes in the 19-0 run to win the le.

Kevin Willis was big off the bench for going against Shaq.

David Robinson at age 37 was still a top 5 center, and had what, 13 and 17 in the close-out game?

Steve Kerr hit big shots in Games 5 and 6 of the Finals, in addition to his legendary performance to close out Dallas.

Speedy Claxton ran a train on the Lakers in Game 2, and then did the Nets the same in Game 6.

I mean that is a ing deep team with tons of weapons.

[TampaDude]

So many fans in Spurs Talk are relatively new. The Spurs-Pistons finals was a war with every game a nail-biter in the balance. The Pistons were a tough team with a great pedigree during those years.

^ this

The 2005 Pistons were the defending champs, and basically the same team that raped the Lakers in the 2004 Finals.

TBQH, if not for Horry, we lose to the Pistons in the 2005 Finals.

Best.

Finals.

Ever.

[baseline bum]

^ this

The 2005 Pistons were the defending champs, and basically the same team that raped the Lakers in the 2004 Finals.

TBQH, if not for Horry, we lose to the Pistons in the 2005 Finals.

Best.

Finals.

Ever.

Ask a Piston fan if those were the same teams.

[baseline bum]

Whereas the 2003 Lakers actually were the same team that won their third in a row in 02.

[RoyerReptiles]

The fact that you list 2003 Parker as a reason that team was stacked (to say nothing of the s that DRob was that year) shows how rose-tinted your memories of that team are. Parker was TERRIBLE and even got benched repeatedly for Speedy Claxton. That was possibly the 2nd best NBA playoff performance of all time by ANY player with what Duncan did, and we still dropped two games to everyone, even truly bad teams. 2014 Spurs SWEEP that nets team. If they were that deep and overpowering we wouldn't have needed Duncan to post absurd (ABSURD) numbers in the entirety of the playoffs, and we would have beaten some of those teams more convincingly.

It blows my mind that people actually think that the 2003 Spurs were loaded. I guess that's why Duncan needed to average 25, 15.4, 5.3, and 3 blocks a game to get us by the Starbury led Suns, and an atrocious Finals team in the Nets.

Okay, you pick one player out of the list of how many? Let's just gloss over the TEN other players I listed. Parker had a rough few games in the finals for sure (games 4 and 6), but look at his point totals in the other 4 finals games: 16, 21, 26 and 14. Dude, that's no scrub. He averaged nearly 15 points per game in the playoffs. You prove the point of the depth of the team, though, by bringing up the fantastic job Speedy did when he came in for Parker during those rough patches. That's the definition of deep team.

Next, you obviously don't look at any of the analytics that were listed. They were basically the same team defensively, based on the numbers (I'd argue that a prime Duncan/Bowen with a "s " David Robinson was possibly our best defensive front line ever. Sean in 99 was good, though, but not Bowen). The main difference was on offense, where the 2007 team put up 3 more points per game more than the 2003 team. Again, "by far" is a bit of a stretch. The depth of the 2003 team was one of it's strengths. That "s " of David Robinson from 2003 is still the best center that Duncan has paired up with since DRob's retirement. Yes, better than Splitter/Rasho/Nazi and whoever else you'd like to list.

And as far as Duncan "need" to smash teams, seriously, regardless of how deep your team is, if you have the two time MVP (fresh off getting his trophy) on your team, regardless of the rest of the team, wouldn't he be the focal point? Especially considering how dominant he is on offense AND defense? That doesn't take away from the depth of that team. The 2003 version of Duncan was easily the best of all five champs.

The Rosy Eyed quote was just, well, what can I say . I've got rosy eyes for every one of the Spurs le teams, but to call 2003 "BY FAR" the worst championship team short changes them considerably. That's all I'm saying. I've already made a case for them being right there with the 2007 team. I also like you bring up the Phoenix and Net teams. So what? Not every great team has to go through four great teams to get the Larry O'Brien. The Mavs were a powerhouse that year. They had the leagues best offense (103 pts per game), as well as the highest SRS rating in the league that year, a rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. Do I need to go over the Lakers from that year again? The three time defending champs have already been covered.