All Time Spurs Franchise Team vs. Others....

[Phenomanul]

Silas is unquestionably the top Spurs PG of all time.

He's the only guard other than Gervin to ever be All-League 1st Team, and the only other guard likely to be in the foreseeable future.

And it's close, but Kenon's stats put him on there ahead of Elliott

Yeah I kind of left off two greats in Alvin Robertson and Artis Gilmore....

IMO Parker will be greater than Gilmore.... Parker is still only 23 and can get his numbers in a defense oriented Pop system.... It's rather unfair to compare him to the stat-mongerers of the 80's because players like Gilmore, Kenon, Gervin, Silas etc... all racked up stats in their "run'n'gun" system, but never really won anything meaningful...

[Phenomanul]

My revised squad after consideration of the thread would be:

Rules:
1. Limited to 12 players... all in their primes
2. Must have been a member of the Spurs for at least 2 years

All-Time Spurs Team:
PG: Tony Parker (this cat hasn't even reached his prime)
SG: George Gervin
SF: Sean Elliott
PF: Tim Duncan
C: David Robinson

Coach: Gregg Popovich

Bench:
(In no particular order: now more balanced in terms of position depth)
Manu Ginobili
Robert Horry
Bruce Bowen
Alvin Robertson
James Silas
Artis Gilmore
Larry Kennon

[Phenomanul]

And BTW, I still rank us 4th best All-Time....

and probably 1st All-Defensive All-Time Team....

[wildbill2u]

Yeah I kind of left off two greats in Alvin Robertson and Artis Gilmore....

IMO Parker will be greater than Gilmore.... Parker is still only 23 and can get his numbers in a defense oriented Pop system.... It's rather unfair to compare him to the stat-mongerers of the 80's because players like Gilmore, Kenon, Gervin, Silas etc... all racked up stats in their "run'n'gun" system, but never really won anything meaningful...

You can't compare Parker (guard) with Gilmore (center). Talk about an unfair comparison! And speaking of the failure of the 'stat-mongerers' of the 80s to win anything, if it hadn't been for a bad call in the closing seconds by an NBA ref against the ABA upstarts, we wouldn't be having that conversation.

It's harder--and causes more anguish because you hate to leave a favorite player off--but to properly play this game, you have to make up a realistic squad with starting players for each position and backups.

[Phenomanul]

You can't compare Parker (guard) with Gilmore (center). Talk about an unfair comparison! And speaking of the failure of the 'stat-mongerers' of the 80s to win anything, if it hadn't been for a bad call in the closing seconds by an NBA ref against the ABA upstarts, we wouldn't be having that conversation.

It's harder--and causes more anguish because you hate to leave a favorite player off--but to properly play this game, you have to make up a realistic squad with starting players for each position and backups.

Be that as it may... the revised Spurs All-Time Franchise Squad has a bit more balance than my first one....

In all honesty though... I'm glad our franchise has had enough quality players to stir about these discussions...

[Medvedenko]

Yeah, that's a pretty good spurs team...but nothing compares to the Lakers.....their teams would be top 3....all anchored by Shaq, Wilt, Kareem...plus Magic, Kobe, Worthy, Baylor, West, Mcadoo, Mikan...etc..the list goes on and on.

[Phenomanul]

Medvedenko you are forgetting history's ownage of the Lakers by Russell's Celtics...

[FromWayDowntown]

And BTW, I still rank us 4th best All-Time....

and probably 1st All-Defensive All-Time Team....

I don't see how you get to either conclusion.

If you have the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls in front of the Spurs, you have to put the Sixers ahead of them too.

The All-Time Sixers starting lineup would be better than the Spurs, since, at worst, the following are true:

Chamberlain > Robinson
Barkley =< Duncan
Erving > Elliott
Iverson = Gervin
Cheeks = Moore/Silas/Parker

The Sixers bench would clinch it for me. An All-Time Sixers team would have 4 Hall-of-Famers on the pine:

Billy Cunningham (21.2 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.8 spg, .5 bpg)

Hal Greer (19.2 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 4.0 apg)

Moses Malone (23.8 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 1.2 apg, 1.0 bpg -- worst year in Philly)

Dolph Schayes (18.5 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 3.1 apg)

They'd also have better role players than a Spurs all-time team.

Need a shooter whose not a scorer? Doug Collins shot better than 50% from the floor for his career, while averaging 17.9 ppg.

Need a defender who can give some offense? Bobby Jones was First Team All-NBA defense from 1977 to 1984, was Second Team All-NBA defense in 1985. He also bothered to average 12.1 ppg (on better than 55% shooting for his career), 6.1 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.5 spg, and 1.4 bpg.


As for the greatest defensive unit of the All-Time teams, off the top of my head, I'd argue that the Bulls All-Time team would be defensively better on the perimeter than the Spurs All-Time team. It's not just Jordan and Pippen, who are both Hall-of-Fame quality defenders, though. You have to add in guys like Jerry Sloan, Norm Van Lier, Bob Love. Put a shot blocker like Gilmore in the paint and that becomes a very formidable defensive unit, but also one that would be good and consistent on the offensive end. I'm not sure you could say the same of the Spurs bunch.

[Medvedenko]

I'm not forgetting...different era and can't really compare. That's why I don't even consider Mikan on the team, as he would get abused by the likes of Shaq and Wilt. Great player, but in his time. The Celtics would have a great team, no less.
I guess you go with the Rings, and the Celtics would be there.

[Spurminator]

How about the All-Clipper Team?

PG: Ron Harper
SG: Randy Smith (Buffalo Braves)
SF: Bob McAdoo (Buffalo Braves)
PF: Elton Brand
F/C: Danny Manning

Bench:
G: Gary Grant
G/F: Corey Maggette
F: Loy Vaught
F: Ken Norman
C: Bill Walton


Stacked!!

[jermaine7fan]

How about the All-Clipper Team?

PG: Ron Harper
SG: Randy Smith (Buffalo Braves)
SF: Bob McAdoo (Buffalo Braves)
PF: Elton Brand
F/C: Danny Manning

Bench:
G: Gary Grant
G/F: Corey Maggette
F: Loy Vaught
F: Ken Norman
C: Bill Walton


Stacked!!

LOL

This for a different post...

Someone stated that the Spurs may have the best all-time defensive team... I would have thought the Pistons for that spot... they had two completely different defensive-monster teams that won championships... Isaiah's champ teams and Chauncey's... I don't know much about your historic players on D, but are they really better than those Pistons squads combined?

[2pac]

LOL

This for a different post...

Someone stated that the Spurs may have the best all-time defensive team... I would have thought the Pistons for that spot... they had two completely different defensive-monster teams that won championships... Isaiah's champ teams and Chauncey's... I don't know much about your historic players on D, but are they really better than those Pistons squads combined?

Alvin Robertson was the best defensive PG ever. He averaged 3.0+ SPG in 4 straight years and 5 of 6, the only player to swipe the ball 300 times in a season and even averaged 3.7 SPG while only playing 35MPG. No Detroit 1 or 2 guard (Alvin played both, one of the early combo guards) can compete with that.
DRob and Duncan were/are both great defensive, and Rodman could be used instead of Duncan.
Bowen is a great perimeter defender.
If you wanted to put Rodman at SF, you could have:
Alvin
Bowen
Rodman
Duncan
Robinson

For the Pistons, who are you putting in there besides Rodman and Wallace? Remember that both these players are somewhat undersized. Ben is 6'9 and Rodman was 6'7 (I think listed at 6'8.)
C Ben Wallace
PF Dennis Rodman.
SF Tayshaun Prince (all defense second team once?)
SG Joe Dumars (4 all-defense first teams)
PG Chauncey Billups (all-defense second team once?)

[Medvedenko]

You'd have Bill Laimbeer give forearm shivers to Drob and he would crumble crying into his Sax the first game.

[2pac]

Laimbeer wasnt half the defensive player that Wallace or Rodman were. He wouldnt see court.

[Medvedenko]

All he would have to do is frustrate Drob and TD...then you can put Rodzilla and Bwall on the court....
However, I still think Drob and TD would win...

[2pac]

You do realize DRob is MUCH stronger than Laimbeer ever was?

[Medvedenko]

yes...he's stronger...but mentally....I can't quite say.

[2pac]

Its funny to see someone with a Kobe avatar rag on any other player for being mentally weak.

[mookie2001]

all Bobcat team

ray felton
kareem rush
gerald wallace
sean may
emeka okafor

[Phenomanul]

I don't see how you get to either conclusion.

If you have the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls in front of the Spurs, you have to put the Sixers ahead of them too.

The All-Time Sixers starting lineup would be better than the Spurs, since, at worst, the following are true:

Chamberlain > Robinson
Barkley =< Duncan
Erving > Elliott
Iverson = Gervin
Cheeks = Moore/Silas/Parker

The Sixers bench would clinch it for me. An All-Time Sixers team would have 4 Hall-of-Famers on the pine:

Billy Cunningham (21.2 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.8 spg, .5 bpg)

Hal Greer (19.2 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 4.0 apg)

Moses Malone (23.8 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 1.2 apg, 1.0 bpg -- worst year in Philly)

Dolph Schayes (18.5 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 3.1 apg)

They'd also have better role players than a Spurs all-time team.

Need a shooter whose not a scorer? Doug Collins shot better than 50% from the floor for his career, while averaging 17.9 ppg.

Need a defender who can give some offense? Bobby Jones was First Team All-NBA defense from 1977 to 1984, was Second Team All-NBA defense in 1985. He also bothered to average 12.1 ppg (on better than 55% shooting for his career), 6.1 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.5 spg, and 1.4 bpg.


As for the greatest defensive unit of the All-Time teams, off the top of my head, I'd argue that the Bulls All-Time team would be defensively better on the perimeter than the Spurs All-Time team. It's not just Jordan and Pippen, who are both Hall-of-Fame quality defenders, though. You have to add in guys like Jerry Sloan, Norm Van Lier, Bob Love. Put a shot blocker like Gilmore in the paint and that becomes a very formidable defensive unit, but also one that would be good and consistent on the offensive end. I'm not sure you could say the same of the Spurs bunch.

Robinson was about as athletic as Russell...

We saw how Wilt vs. Russell panned out...
If David had not hurt his back he would have had an amazing career "stat-wise" from beginning to end... as it was he had a storied end...

In their primes however I would have to say that the two would have canceled each other out.... I seriously doubt David would have let Wilt score 50 points against him... history points out no big man ever did...

Chemistry-wise, throwing Iverson into the starting line-up actually weakens that squad... that's only my opinion but no one on the Spurs squad has/had that distinction...

Having read your argument I might concede that the Sixers squad could beat the Spurs squad 11 times out of 20... so that might bump the Spurs squad down a slot... no biggie (time and three more rings might push us up the ladder)....

ON the defensive team issue however.... I say we can field the best defensive squad hands down.... Jordan's Bulls never cracked the elusive 88 ppg against average... The Spurs have and will only get better in this department....

[FromWayDowntown]

Robinson was about as athletic as Russell...

We saw how Wilt vs. Russell panned out...
If David had not hurt his back he would have had an amazing career "stat-wise" from beginning to end... as it was he had a storied end...

In their primes however I would have to say that the two would have canceled each other out.... I seriously doubt David would have let Wilt score 50 points against him... history points out no big man ever did...

You are pretty much alone in arguing that David Robinson = Wilt Chamberlain, historically. I can't make a single compelling argument for the idea that David would "cancel" Wilt out. Even if David held him under 50, Wilt's 30-35 would be more than David's 25-30.

Chemistry-wise, throwing Iverson into the starting line-up actually weakens that squad... that's only my opinion but no one on the Spurs squad has/had that distinction...

I have no idea why you say that. When Iverson has had a cast around him, he's been a wonderful team player. Look at last season: O'Brien asked that Iverson be a distributor and a scorer and Allen had a fantastic season. Had his team been any better, he might have gotten some very serious MVP attention. He shoots a lot, but that's because he doesn't have teammates who can do a damned thing on the offensive end.

Besides, who said anything about chemistry? You're comparing the impossible when you try to consider intangibles like that. You're taking things from one context and dropping them into another context entirely and trying to draw hair-splitting conclusions. It sounds like a hyper-vigalence to protect your belief that the Spurs have an elite all-time team.

And if you really think that having Allen in the all-time Sixers lineup would weaken the team by disrupting its chemistry, then I'll put Cunningham or Greer into the lineup and that team wouldn't miss a beat.

Having read your argument I might concede that the Sixers squad could beat the Spurs squad 11 times out of 20... so that might bump the Spurs squad down a slot... no biggie (time and three more rings might push us up the ladder)....

I still argue that the Sixers are much, much better -- far closer to the Lakers and Celtics than they are to the Spurs. I'd also argue that talent-for-talent, the Spurs all-time team would struggle mightily with all-time teams for the Warriors (Nate Thurmond, Rick Barry, Run-TMC), the Knicks (Reed, Ewing, Monroe, DeBusschere), the Rockets (Olajuwon, Murphy, Malone, McGrady), the Jazz (Stockton, Malone, Maravich), and the Bucks (Alcindor, Robertson, Moncrief, Allen).

ON the defensive team issue however.... I say we can field the best defensive squad hands down.... Jordan's Bulls never cracked the elusive 88 ppg against average... The Spurs have and will only get better in this department....

Again, you're taking a team accomplishment and ascribing it to a group that never played together. If you were comparing the best Spurs team ever (not the best players, but the best team) against other franchise's best team ever (not an All-Star team, but their best teams) your argument makes sense. If you think of it as a comparison of All-Star teams, though, there's no real point of reference to make stats mean anything. Comparing a sheer points allowed number doesn't account at all for pace, for the quality of players in the league, for the scheduling breaks modern teams get (no back-to-back-to-backs; no 5 games in 6 nights), for the allowance of some form of zone defense, even for rules changes (did you know that at one point, the NBA awarded 1 free throw for every team foul committed, and made the bonus a 3-to-make-2 situation? Extra free throw attempts can go a long way to increase scoring while saying very little about a team's defensive prowess).

More to the point, the Bulls that I'm talking about aren't Jordan's Bulls -- they would be some hypothetical team that would add better defenders to the mix (Sloan and Van Lier, to be sure). It's impossible to say what team would be the best all-time, but I'd think that the Bulls could find more premier-type perimeter defenders than just about any other franchise in league history.

[Phenomanul]

You are pretty much alone in arguing that David Robinson = Wilt Chamberlain, historically. I can't make a single compelling argument for the idea that David would "cancel" Wilt out. Even if David held him under 50, Wilt's 30-35 would be more than David's 25-30.

I'm comparing them in their primes only.... Wilt in his prime was cancelled by a more athletic Russell... So why would it be difficult to believe that Robinson could not do the same?

It never really mattered that Wilt managed to score 35 or 40 pts over Russell, even if Russell had only scored 15... Because in the end Russell's team won without Russell having to statistically outplay Wilt... But with Russell having left a "BIG" imprint on the game. I know, I know one of those other contextual comparisons that would be difficult to measure...(Wilt's Era very different from Robinson's).

I will still contend that David Robinson is one of the NBA's All-time most underappreciated players. But in no way would I say he was a better player than Wilt ... History does not allow me to as Wilt had a far more productive career, again statwise (I would have to add that this was against weaker and shorter compe ion)... But I do honestly believe that the Admiral in his best year could have canceled out Wilt in his best year and vice versa.

Just my opinion .... please don't try to condescendingly make me accept yours... I understand your opinion very well (which I tend to agree with on many many other occasions) but again accept my reluctance to agree with you on this one... even if you think I'm the lone wolf.

I have no idea why you say that. When Iverson has had a cast around him, he's been a wonderful team player. Look at last season: O'Brien asked that Iverson be a distributor and a scorer and Allen had a fantastic season. Had his team been any better, he might have gotten some very serious MVP attention. He shoots a lot, but that's because he doesn't have teammates who can do a damned thing on the offensive end.

You may be right... I'm basing it on observations of having witnessed Iverson shoot the ball on like 10-15 straight possesions... Which goes against my better intuitions on what I consider makes teams great ('team ball concept'). I guess his teams just haven't been that great... I would also have to add that he is a great defensive PG (since I had left that particular credential out I'll just prop him now).

I will revert my original comment considering the fact that Iverson would actually bring fire to that squad (Imagine him and Barkley barking at each other... I'm sorry I just can't imagine the Spurs doing that --- Rodman was left off of my squad for a reason, remember?)
which brings me to your next point... intangibles.

Besides, who said anything about chemistry? You're comparing the impossible when you try to consider intangibles like that. You're taking things from one context and dropping them into another context entirely and trying to draw hair-splitting conclusions. It sounds like a hyper-vigalence to protect your belief that the Spurs have an elite all-time team.

And if you really think that having Allen in the all-time Sixers lineup would weaken the team by disrupting its chemistry, then I'll put Cunningham or Greer into the lineup and that team wouldn't miss a beat.

By definition they can't be measured... BUT we know they are important. So important in fact, they are an essential ingredient for winning championships.

The Spurs bench is full of players that have honed their skills to this particular attribute.
Horry = Mr. Clutch = Mr. Intangible
Ginobili = Mr. X-Factor = Señor Intangible
Robertson = Mr. Thief. = Steals are always a plus.

Give Van Exel a 1 year extension (so that he satisfies the 2-year requirement for this fantasy squad comparison) and he will probably add himself to that list (if we three-peat of course).

I know they are hard to relate but that is what makes this particular conversation interesting.

I still argue that the Sixers are much, much better -- far closer to the Lakers and Celtics than they are to the Spurs. I'd also argue that talent-for-talent, the Spurs all-time team would struggle mightily with all-time teams for the Warriors (Nate Thurmond, Rick Barry, Run-TMC), the Knicks (Reed, Ewing, Monroe, DeBusschere), the Rockets (Olajuwon, Murphy, Malone, McGrady), the Jazz (Stockton, Malone, Maravich), and the Bucks (Alcindor, Robertson, Moncrief, Allen).

They would make for some great games....
But if I had to argue...It would come down to who had a player that could impose himself on the game and dominate 'ala Russell.

The Spurs have one of the All-Time Greats in Mr. Timothy Duncan. Most of the other Greats which could theoretically trump Duncan are already listed on the Teams above the Spurs. However none of the players from the other squads that I listed below the Spurs can trump Duncan... no one. (with the possible exception of Hakeem).

Again, you're taking a team accomplishment and ascribing it to a group that never played together. If you were comparing the best Spurs team ever (not the best players, but the best team) against other franchise's best team ever (not an All-Star team, but their best teams) your argument makes sense. If you think of it as a comparison of All-Star teams, though, there's no real point of reference to make stats mean anything. Comparing a sheer points allowed number doesn't account at all for pace, for the quality of players in the league, for the scheduling breaks modern teams get (no back-to-back-to-backs; no 5 games in 6 nights), for the allowance of some form of zone defense, even for rules changes (did you know that at one point, the NBA awarded 1 free throw for every team foul committed, and made the bonus a 3-to-make-2 situation? Extra free throw attempts can go a long way to increase scoring while saying very little about a team's defensive prowess).

More to the point, the Bulls that I'm talking about aren't Jordan's Bulls -- they would be some hypothetical team that would add better defenders to the mix (Sloan and Van Lier, to be sure). It's impossible to say what team would be the best all-time, but I'd think that the Bulls could find more premier-type perimeter defenders than just about any other franchise in league history.

I can counter your perimeter stealth.... because you have severely downplayed the combination of Duncan and Robinson in the lane. Remember both are in their primes.... I still have Bowen and Robertson on my team. Manu is no shabby defender. So I won't concede on this point either.

Later FromWayDowntown I have to go play ball. Good battle blog topic though....

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm comparing them in their primes only.... Wilt in his prime was cancelled by a more athletic Russell... So why would it be difficult to believe that Robinson could not do the same?

It never really mattered that Wilt managed to score 35 or 40 pts over Russell, even if Russell had only scored 15... Because in the end Russell's team won without Russell having to statistically outplay Wilt... But with Russell having left a "BIG" imprint on the game. I know, I know one of those other contextual comparisons that would be difficult to measure...(Wilt's Era very different from Robinson's).

I'm not trying to be condescending here, hegamboa. I just don't think the premise here truly accounts for the pre-1980 history of the game.

Your premise here is a matchup between teams. In a game between two teams, Wilt would outscore David (and probably out-rebound David). The reason the Russell analogy doesn't work for me is that Wilt's surrounding cast would also be better than David's. Russell "trumped" Wilt because his Celtics teams were just better -- Russell was surrounded by Hall-of-Famers (you could make a chicken and egg argument there, but most agree that those guys were Hall-of-Famers on their own merits). In the Celtics/Wilt matchups, the Celtics could always outplay Wilt's team and discount Wilt's performances(except in 1967, when the *ahem* Wilt-led Sixers beat them). I've seen the Spurs on your team play and I don't think they would be able to matchup, even in their primes, with the starters for that Sixers team.

I will still contend that David Robinson is one of the NBA's All-time most underappreciated players. But in no way would I say he was a better player than Wilt ... History does not allow me to as Wilt had a far more productive career, again statwise (I would have to add that this was against weaker and shorter compe ion)... But I do honestly believe that the Admiral in his best year could have canceled out Wilt in his best year and vice versa.

I agree that David often isn't treated fairly by history. But saying that he could match Wilt, or cancel him out strikes me as a bit of overstatement. David could play well against Wilt in his prime. I don't think he could be considered an equal, though.

Just my opinion .... please don't try to condescendingly make me accept yours... I understand your opinion very well (which I tend to agree with on many many other occasions) but again accept my reluctance to agree with you on this one... even if you think I'm the lone wolf.

Honestly, I think that Spurs fans who are excited about this team and what the future holds, tend to slightly overrate the abilities of these current guys. Just as Wilt feasted on guys who were shorter and slower, the Spurs are difficult to measure historically because the NBA is so watered-down. I certainly think our guys are among the best in the present-day NBA, but I don't think that makes them greats of all-time.

By definition they can't be measured... BUT we know they are important. So important in fact, they are an essential ingredient for winning championships.

The Spurs bench is full of players that have honed their skills to this particular attribute.
Horry = Mr. Clutch = Mr. Intangible
Ginobili = Mr. X-Factor = Señor Intangible
Robertson = Mr. Thief. = Steals are always a plus.

Give Van Exel a 1 year extension (so that he satisfies the 2-year requirement for this fantasy squad comparison) and he will probably add himself to that list (if we three-peat of course).

And there were other guys before Horry who were clutch like he is. I'd argue, just in the context of the Sixers idea, that Bobby Jones was as good or better than Ginobili. Jones was an amazing shooter and an all-world defender in his day. Manu can't really touch Jones statistically. And Jones would be some way down on the all-time Sixers team. Just an example.

The Spurs have one of the All-Time Greats in Mr. Timothy Duncan. Most of the other Greats which could theoretically trump Duncan are already listed on the Teams above the Spurs. However none of the players from the other squads that I listed below the Spurs can trump Duncan... no one. (with the possible exception of Hakeem).

I don't know about that. Malone in his prime was certainly as good an individual player as Duncan. Other players could match Duncan as well: Bob Pet averaged 26 ppg and 16 rpg for his career and his Hawks team that won a le that kept the Celtics from a 10-peat. Pet 's teams reached 4 NBA Finals and he won 2 MVP's.

And if you extend it to big men, Duncan's greatness is seriously challenged by the Warriors' Nate Thurmond and by the Bucks Alcindor/Abdul-Jabbar.

In fact, I think most who get into this argument seriously discount the Bucks all-time team, as well. I'll take my chances with any team that has Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor), Oscar Robertson, Sidney Moncrief, a shooter like Ray Allen, Bob Lanier, Marques Johnson, Bobby Dandridge, Glenn Robinson, and role players like Paul Pressey, Ricky Pierce, and Terry mings.

I respect your opinions, hegamboa and you make some pretty good arguments. I just hope that you'll consider some of these other players and their greatness in looking at how you evaluate the historical Spurs. Duncan is a sublime player and David Robinson as a second choice with Ice and Elliott on the wings is a delight to the ears of Spurs fans. I just disagree that they would be among the 4 or 5 best groups in NBA history.


I can counter your perimeter stealth.... because you have severely downplayed the combination of Duncan and Robinson in the lane. Remember both are in their primes.... I still have Bowen and Robertson on my team. Manu is no shabby defender. So I won't concede on this point either.

Later FromWayDowntown I have to go play ball. Good battle blog topic though....[/QUOTE]