Spurs: The importance of Repeating.

[Killakobe81]

I always thought the Rockets match up well with the Bulls in those years, especially the 94 version. I think Maxwell, because as much of a nutcase as he was, would match up with Jordan well (better than Drexler), and Hakeem would just beast on the Bulls frontline. Horry and Pippen would be a great matchup like you said, but the Bulls will not have enough perimeter defenders to hone in on all those three point shooters. You double Hakeem and one of the three point shooters will be open, you don't double Hakeem and it's two points. On the other end, Hakeem shuts down the paint, and the perimeter defenders like Maxwell, Elie and Horry will stop pretty much anyone.

That said, those five with repeats are:

Heat - fantastic team, but great? Please.
Lakers - great great teams in 87 and 88, 00 to 02 (though 00 and 02 are slightly overrated due to 01), but 09 and 10 were some of the weaker champs in recent years. I mean MVPau is great and all, but he's not like Shaq or Duncan great.
Celtics - All of them were in the 60s, and besides, wasn't those Bird Celtics great? 08 Celtics were also better than 09 or 10 Lakers.
Pistons - Changed the way the game was played, but were they great? Kind of. They are, however viewed mostly as a bridge between the Celtics/Lakers and the Bulls
Bulls - great teams, no arguing that.

Repeats can be due to a number of factors:
1) Historically great teams, and you can see those with the Bulls and lakers, and to an extent the Russell Celtics
2) Weak compe ion, MVPau lakers, Heat to a degree
3) Changing rules and ability to adapt - Pistons, Heat, Lakers
4) Luck - Hurt Isiah, mysterious suspension of all types of Rockets and Mavs players when the entire league was doing drugs, injuries to Celtics, 20+ FTA in the fourth quarter, getting a foul by busting somebody's nose with your elbow, 6, Hamstring injuries

Out of all those repeat teams, I can only say that the Bulls and Celtics were the only ones who would repeat under almost any cir stances (other than plane crash and meteor hit the stadium events), the other teams had a lot of things that went right for them to repeat.

Amb,

some of what you said makes sense, but ...
Spurs had some of the same compe ion as the Kobepau repeat, Shaqobe 3peat and Heat repeat yet still was not able to do it not once in 5 tries.

Spurs sure are unlucky after a le and very lucky when they rang?
MvpauLakers ...so predictable

[da_suns_fan]

Out of all those repeat teams, I can only say that the Bulls and Celtics were the only ones who would repeat under almost any cir stances (other than plane crash and meteor hit the stadium events), the other teams had a lot of things that went right for them to repeat.

The 2001 Lakers lost ONE GAME in the playoffs for their first repeat.

They curb-stomped the Spurs in the WCF, winning games 3 & 4 by a combined 70 points.

[Killakobe81]

The 2001 Lakers lost ONE GAME in the playoffs for their first repeat.

They curb-stomped the Spurs in the WCF, winning games 3 & 4 by a combined 70 points.

The shaqobe Lakers were the most dominant team since Mj's Bulls better than the heatles, 2014 Spurs, state in 2015 and the 2008 Celts tbh ...and of course the Kobepau Lakers.

[ambchang]

Amb,

some of what you said makes sense, but ...
Spurs had some of the same compe ion as the Kobepau repeat, Shaqobe 3peat and Heat repeat yet still was not able to do it not once in 5 tries.

Spurs sure are unlucky after a le and very lucky when they rang?
MvpauLakers ...so predictable

The Spurs really weren't that great of a team. Nobody really mentioned any Spurs team as all time great squads, with the exception of the 14 squad, which I really think is just a "got-hot-at-the-right-moment" team. The 99 Spurs is probably the greatest defensive squad of all time, but have glaring holes on offense. Besides, the MVPau Lakers were playing in a league more or less devoid of talent, including the Spurs. Richard Jefferson? Ime Udoka? Are you kidding me?

The Spurs have issues to deal with in each of those seasons, and I wrote them out in another post. The only year where the Spurs can't blame luck was 06, and maybe 15. But the Mavs matched up with the Spurs perfectly in 06, and the Spurs just didn't have it in 15. Spurs were really lucky in 07 as they didn't have to face the Mavs. Spurs got hot in 14, got the right players to step up in 99 and 03 in clutch moments (you have to get the right players as well), and got timely shots in the Finals from Horry in 05. You sort of put yourself in the position to win, but a few minor events could have been more or less championships for the Spurs. Like I said, the Spurs were never really so clearly better than every other team in those 5 championship years that minor events wouldn't impact the outcome (tweaked ankle for a role player, ball bouncing a certain way, the ref calling differently in crucial moments, etc ...). The only teams that can say that they will win no matter what due to their dominance (other than major injuries to key players) were the 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 92 Bulls, 96 and 97 Bulls, 01 Lakers, 82 Sixers and those Russell Celtics. 08 Celtics and 04 Pistons have a case, but I attribute those to weak compe ion more than anything. Notice two of those teams didn't repeat.

[ambchang]

The 2001 Lakers lost ONE GAME in the playoffs for their first repeat.

They curb-stomped the Spurs in the WCF, winning games 3 & 4 by a combined 70 points.

Winning in 2001 counts as a repeat now?

[da_suns_fan]

The shaqobe Lakers were the most dominant team since Mj's Bulls better than the heatles, 2014 Spurs, state in 2015 and the 2008 Celts tbh ...and of course the Kobepau Lakers.

Yes. Shaq was too dominant.

I remember after Portland's 2000 disaster the Blazers went out and got a couple more bigs to try and send "wave after wave" against Shaq. After 2001, though, everyone said " it".

[da_suns_fan]

Winning in 2001 counts as a repeat now?

WTF?

Yeah. They won in 2000. They won in 2001. How is that not a repeat?

[ambchang]

WTF?

Yeah. They won in 2000. They won in 2001. How is that not a repeat?

Then you would clue in that what I was saying above was that the 00 and 02 Lakers were not so ridiculously dominant that they would have won the championship in almost all situations like the 01 lakers would.

[Killakobe81]

The Spurs really weren't that great of a team. Nobody really mentioned any Spurs team as all time great squads, with the exception of the 14 squad, which I really think is just a "got-hot-at-the-right-moment" team. The 99 Spurs is probably the greatest defensive squad of all time, but have glaring holes on offense. Besides, the MVPau Lakers were playing in a league more or less devoid of talent, including the Spurs. Richard Jefferson? Ime Udoka? Are you kidding me?

The Spurs have issues to deal with in each of those seasons, and I wrote them out in another post. The only year where the Spurs can't blame luck was 06, and maybe 15. But the Mavs matched up with the Spurs perfectly in 06, and the Spurs just didn't have it in 15. Spurs were really lucky in 07 as they didn't have to face the Mavs. Spurs got hot in 14, got the right players to step up in 99 and 03 in clutch moments (you have to get the right players as well), and got timely shots in the Finals from Horry in 05. You sort of put yourself in the position to win, but a few minor events could have been more or less championships for the Spurs. Like I said, the Spurs were never really so clearly better than every other team in those 5 championship years that minor events wouldn't impact the outcome (tweaked ankle for a role player, ball bouncing a certain way, the ref calling differently in crucial moments, etc ...). The only teams that can say that they will win no matter what due to their dominance (other than major injuries to key players) were the 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 92 Bulls, 96 and 97 Bulls, 01 Lakers, 82 Sixers and those Russell Celtics. 08 Celtics and 04 Pistons have a case, but I attribute those to weak compe ion more than anything. Notice two of those teams didn't repeat.

I think the 2005/2006 Spurs were pretty damn great ...not all time GOAT level but definitely capable of repeating.

[da_suns_fan]

Then you would clue in that what I was saying above was that the 00 and 02 Lakers were not so ridiculously dominant that they would have won the championship in almost all situations like the 01 lakers would.

I have no clue what youre stupid theory is nor do I care.

The Lakers repeated in 2001 and 2002. "What if" time machine/different-era bull is for insecure -bags.

[ambchang]

I think the 2005/2006 Spurs were pretty damn great ...not all time GOAT level but definitely capable of repeating.

I think so too. I think out of all the Spurs team, the 05 team was the greatest. That said, their one great flaw was defending the mid range, and the Mavs were that team.

[ambchang]

I have no clue what youre stupid theory is nor do I care.

The Lakers repeated in 2001 and 2002. "What if" time machine/different-era bull is for insecure -bags.

So did the 94 95 Rockets, and nobody would ever rate them as greater teams than the Bird Celtics or Walton Blazers.

And about insecure, ratings smack.

Honestly, I would probably even rate the 93 Suns over the 94 Rockets, too bad the Suns didn't win a championship. But if the 94 Rockets deserved a parade, the 93 Suns sure did as well.

[Killakobe81]

Yes. Shaq was too dominant.

I remember after Portland's 2000 disaster the Blazers went out and got a couple more bigs to try and send "wave after wave" against Shaq. After 2001, though, everyone said " it".

No doubt Shaq was a bully on the block especially 2000 all year and 2001 playoffs.

[Thread]

Yes. Shaq was too dominant.

I remember after Portland's 2000 disaster the Blazers went out and got a couple more bigs to try and send "wave after wave" against Shaq. After 2001, though, everyone said " it".

Except for Colangelo. He convened that blue ribbon committee to address Daddy. It was the beginning of the end. He, more than anything conducted the end of the NBA big man as we knew him.

[djohn2oo8]

And one of them are the Rockets, which just tells you how unimpressive it really is.

Well the Spurs have had 5 chances to defend their le, and never could. So that shows you just how impressive it is.

[Killakobe81]

Well the Spurs have had 5 chances to defend their le, and never could. So that shows you just how impressive it is.

[djohn2oo8]

What's funny is, Ambchang and his crew will say MJ would have 8 peated had he not retired, yet will say repeating is unimpressive when it comes to the Spurs.

[ambchang]

Well the Spurs have had 5 chances to defend their le, and never could. So that shows you just how impressive it is.

It shows you how meaningless it is.

[ambchang]

What's funny is, Ambchang and his crew will say MJ would have 8 peated had he not retired, yet will say repeating is unimpressive when it comes to the Spurs.

I always thought the Rockets match up well with the Bulls in those years, especially the 94 version. I think Maxwell, because as much of a nutcase as he was, would match up with Jordan well (better than Drexler), and Hakeem would just beast on the Bulls frontline. Horry and Pippen would be a great matchup like you said, but the Bulls will not have enough perimeter defenders to hone in on all those three point shooters. You double Hakeem and one of the three point shooters will be open, you don't double Hakeem and it's two points. On the other end, Hakeem shuts down the paint, and the perimeter defenders like Maxwell, Elie and Horry will stop pretty much anyone.

Don't let the vinegar blind you.

[Clipper Nation]

The shaqobe Lakers were the most dominant team since Mj's Bulls better than the heatles, 2014 Spurs, state in 2015 and the 2008 Celts tbh ...and of course the Kobepau Lakers.

I don't recall a "Shaqobe Lakers" or a "Kobepau Lakers." I remember the Shaqorry Lakers and the Pauodom Lakers, though.

[Killakobe81]

I don't recall a "Shaqobe Lakers" or a "Kobepau Lakers." I remember the Shaqorry Lakers and the Pauodom Lakers, though.

They have vitamins that help with that ...

[Thread]

I don't recall a "Shaqobe Lakers" or a "Kobepau Lakers." I remember the Shaqorry Lakers and the Pauodom Lakers, though.

I'll just bet you do.

[djohn2oo8]

It shows you how meaningless it is.

If it was meaningless, the Warriors wouldn't have gone for the 73 win record if they knew it would mean not repeating. If it was meaningless, then no other team ever would have accomplished this feat. It's okay that the Spurs have failed the most times at this.

[ambchang]

If it was meaningless, the Warriors wouldn't have gone for the 73 win record if they knew it would mean not repeating. If it was meaningless, then no other team ever would have accomplished this feat. It's okay that the Spurs have failed the most times at this.

I thought the Warriors were focusing on the le, I didn't know that they said to themselves last year, "guys, we want to repeat, it's not about this year, it's about next". I thought players just want to win as many championships as possible

As for your second "point". I don't even know what you were talking about.

Btw, Duncan's better than Hakeem all time, because he won 5 vs 2 for Hakeem. Nobody ever ranks players based on repeats.

Edit: the Spurs didn't fail the most times. The Celtics failed on 8 occasions.

[tonight...you]

I keep thinking about that time I lost count of our repeats and Kool had to tote 'em up proper for me.

Alzheimer's truly sucks. Just wait til you wake up and some black face you can't recognize is injecting something up, or is it out of(?) your ass, telling you to "Relax, sir," and- bro, you got no choice. You're already hooked up.
You recognize the drool dribbling off your chin, but for some reason, you don't really care- there's a giant plunger sucking things from your ass right now and things are getting fuzzy anyways... And what's connected to your head?! Sweet Jesus!

Ah... look forward to it, bud. You're almost there. Good times.