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

[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 le teams is the fact that the 2005 Spurs took 3 major league whallopings during their le 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 le 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/chal...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 les, yes it did.

Stern changed rules because of that team

[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 les 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?

[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.

[ploto]

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

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 le teams is the fact that the 2005 Spurs took 3 major league whallopings during their le 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 le teams.

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

[/thread]