Where does this San Antonio side sit in NBA Histroy?

[Gridlock'd]

Now that the Spurs have won their third NBA Championship in five years, and their fourth in nine years, I beg the question, 'Where does this side sit in NBA history?

As we have seen in the NBA, to get any kind of success is very difficult, as many franchises have gone without a Championship since they have existed. When you look at this Spurs side who won their, first championship in 98/99 and later went on to win in 02/03, 04/05 and 06/7, this is a massive accomplishment. They have had sustained success over a period of 9 years, and even in the years they did not win the Championship, they were very competitive and came close to winning. For the past few years, I know at the start of the season that the San Antonio Spurs are a shot at winning the Championship.

Obviously they are not quite at the great level of the Boston Celtics side who won 8 in a row in the 50s and 60s, or the Chicago Bulls side who won 6 in 8 years in the 90s. However, I still believe that this San Antonio side will go down as one of the greatest NBA sides in history.

 

[DoubleA]

Obviously they are not quite at the great level of the Boston Celtics side who won 8 in a row in the 50s and 60s, or the Chicago Bulls side who won 6 in 8 years in the 90s. However, I still believe that this San Antonio side will go down as one of the greatest NBA sides in history.

Apart from the 2 you mentioned, it would have to wouldnt it, the only other team really that could give it a run would be the 00-02 Lakers. I guess you could make a case for post Parker/Ginobbili and pre, in other words technically this squad has only won 3 titles as it did change a lot after their first title, but I mean, the competition has never been more even, and they do it all while only having the 11th highest salary. 4 titles in 9 years, have to be a top 5 if not top 3 team of all time.

 

[apollo_creed]

Comparing teams from different eras is a difficult/impossible exercise. Ultimately you're defined by your success.
Comparitively how your success compares is generally how/where you're ranked.

It's not to say this current team isn't better than other teams with > success but there's no definitive answer to such a question so statistics are generally the consulting device.

Consider the Brisbane Lions x 3 success.
Is their achievement > than Hawthorn's of the 80's or the Collingwood team who were champions x 5? (or something similar)

I say yes, more teams, > competiveness in the competition.

So, the question posed is? is the competition more difficult/harder to win? more teams? worthy opponents? etc.
Boston did win 8 in a row in 50s and 60s but such would be impossible to achieve in todays basketball.

Do you hold that against them though?

It's like saying Bradman isn't the > becuase averaging 99 in today's cricket is impossible + competing teams + opponents are of superior quality. This is a valid point.

I don't think such can be held against former teams/person(s).
However, we can have opinions. (like mine relating to Brisbane 00's > Collingwood x 5 team)

Conclusively, you are defined by how dominant were in your era.

The primary way to appropriate comparisons is through statistical means, which isn't the best way just the only one.

 

[peternorth]

Golden rules in comparing teams from different eras:

1. Look at their opposition.
2. When all else fails - the older they are, the better they become.

 

[Gridlock'd]

Comparing teams from different eras is a difficult/impossible exercise. Ultimately you're defined by your success.
Comparitively how your success compares is generally how/where you're ranked.

It's not to say this current team isn't better than other teams with > success but there's no definitive answer to such a question so statistics are generally the consulting device.

Consider the Brisbane Lions x 3 success.
Is their achievement > than Hawthorn's of the 80's or the Collingwood team who were champions x 5? (or something similar)

I say yes, more teams, > competiveness in the competition.

So, the question posed is? is the competition more difficult/harder to win? more teams? worthy opponents? etc.
Boston did win 8 in a row in 50s and 60s but such would be impossible to achieve in todays basketball.

Do you hold that against them though?

It's like saying Bradman isn't the > becuase averaging 99 in today's cricket is impossible + competing teams + opponents are of superior quality. This is a valid point.

I don't think such can be held against former teams/person(s).
However, we can have opinions. (like mine relating to Brisbane 00's > Collingwood x 5 team)

Conclusively, you are defined by how dominant were in your era.

The primary way to appropriate comparisons is through statistical means, which isn't the best way just the only one.

Well said.

Do you have a conclusion as to where San Antonio will fit into history from that argument?

 

[Peninsula Boy]

The big question is, are they finished winning titles.

 

[Gridlock'd]

The big question is, are they finished winning titles.

Thats an interesting one.

Parker and Manu, two of their three key players are still in their prime. Tim Duncan is a machine and I cant see his output dropping anytime soon. Bruce Bowen will always give his all.

If the Spurs are to drop, it will come from a dip in form of their role players, who are starting to get a bit long in the tooth. Robert Horry, solid role player, who does what he does best, now has 7 rings and is probably starting to lose a bit of motivation. Brent Barry, is also servicable but isnt getting any younger, same thing goes for Michael Finley.

If the Spurs are to win more titles in the near future, they need further development from the likes of Fabricio Oberto, Matt Bonner, Francisco Elson and Beno Udrih. At the moment, these guys dont come close to covering Horry, Barry and Finley, so alot of work needs to be done. I wouldnt be suprised if Pop adds another veteran type player to the roster this season, to add a bit more experience and depth.

The way I see it is, at the start of the next season, the Spurs will go in as defending champions, and it will up to the likes of the Suns, Mavs, Cavs and co to dethrone them.

 

[jo172]

The thing with the Spurs the way they are now is that there are always a few quality vets think Finley, Robinson and NVE who are willing to sign on for not much cash because they know they'll have a shot at a title with Timmy D and that they have to leave the ego at the door and become role players. You wouldn't rule out the Spurs picking up someone else this off season of that ilk.

 

[eathb]

Spurs are the most deciplined team by a mile in the league though, which helps with their bond, old age + experience and especially from Pops. Whenever a player loses his man, their defence rotation happens in a flash and is quick.

Also, Pops would bench guys if they were being stupid or taking bad shots, he's done it to Parker, Manu and would even let Timmy D hear it too if he isn't playing like he should.

Too bad George Karl is like "oh thats alright, that's how we play as a team" and only benching JR Smith and K-Mart.

 

[Portmanteau]

Look at what the Spurs have been doing this year - Jackie Butler and James White inactive, just to name two. You can bet that they are being learned in the ways of the Force for future use, when the likes of Bones and Big Shot Bob give it away. Not that this is the overriding reason for their dynasty, just wanted to point it out. (Then you've got the likes of Scola, Markota, Mahinimi and Karaulov waiting overseas)

They are able to do it for the same reason that veterans will sign up on the cheap - for the shot at the championship. Duncan's selflessness and buying-into Pop's system means that everyone else falls into line.

Easily the best run franchise in sports... although a bit of luck got the ball rolling. I wouldn't go as far as to say that they'll keep winning rings in the post-Duncan era, but they're set up nicely.

 

[JKCeagle]

Even if they're not you team, you don't mind seeing them win - can't say the same of teams like Detroit, the Lakers or Dallas.

Also, the Spurs players in the post-game presentation showed grace, humility and class that AFL players could learn from: 5 or 6 players interviewed in the middle of their elation and euphoria and with a live TV audience probably in the tens of millions, and not one single F-bomb

 

[Bourky23]

denver will win next year

 

[apollo_creed]

Cheap shot Bob!#%

 

[eathb]

Nugs will win next year

We went 11-5 in May/April and were starting to gel.

Also the Nuggets which had the worst defensive record in the West playoffs actually defended better against the Spurs then Pheonix, Jazz and Cleveland did and kept the Spurs to their lowest ppg in the playoffs.

 

[ekzistenz]

I'd love to see them pick up Grant Hill. I reckon he'd fit pretty well into the Spurs.

BTW Duncan's only 1 year older then Manu. So neither of them are spring chickens. Parker, Bonner, Butler, Udrih and White are the only guys under 27 years old.

 

[GmeUP]

In comparison to others this side would sit atop as the greatest team ever. Given the way they play for each other without the dominant names other teams were built around. Whilst Parker and Manu are well above average players adding them with Duncan doesn't give you a star studded lineup like Shaq and Kobe in LA or MJ,Pip and Worm in Chicago. Those sides were carried by individuals whereas the sperms really had to progress as a team.

 

[jod23]

The Spurs are a good team but dont compare with the 90's Bulls, 80's Lakers or 50's/60's Celtics.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Yeah, I liked how they got a few big guys in so it would take the heat off Duncan during the regular season. Thinking about the way he plays, more fundamental than power and athleticism, can he keep it going for a lot longer than we think.

If they got another solid scorer, I think they would be happy.

I'm not a big fan of the franchise form a personal point of view but I admiree them and seeing Manu play 6th man and want to win more says a lot about them.

 

[CURVE]

As the NBA's most recent champions.

 

[justthedukes]

The Spurs are a good team but dont compare with the 90's Bulls, 80's Lakers or 50's/60's Celtics.

Yeap, does any1 think the fact they didnt win back to back championships takes away some of the admiration from ppl?? I mean it takes a very very very good team to win back to back, the expectation from people all year. There was no reason why SA couldnt have beat dallas in game 7 last year, thank god they didnt.

 

[Altum Volantes]

I reckon they are a team more comparable to the standing of the Pistons of the late 80s and the Rockets of the mid 90s then the likes of the Bulls of the 90s.

So a great team that would probably be part of group of teams that snagged 2-3 titles.

The 1999 team is completely different so I wasn't really including that title.

 

[Gridlock'd]

I reckon they are a team more comparable to the standing of the Pistons of the late 80s and the Rockets of the mid 90s then the likes of the Bulls of the 90s.

So a great team that would probably be part of group of teams that snagged 2-3 titles.

The 1999 team is completely different so I wasn't really including that title.

Yes the 1999 team was completely different, however it contains two key components which have been involved in the last three championships.

Timmy D and Pops.

Without these two, I dont believe the Spurs would have the championships that they have, and therefore it is fair to class the 1999 win, with the other 3 championships.

 

[peternorth]

umm, caption time!

ughhhhhhh

eva: who are these other stiffs hanging around?

 

[lookkg386]

The Spurs are a good team but dont compare with the 90's Bulls, 80's Lakers or 50's/60's Celtics.

AGREE, SPURS ARE A SUPER SIDE BUT NOT IN THE TOP 5 BEST EVER.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

All things being equal, there are no real powerhouses than have proven themselves and no dominant big man/guard combo that could penetrate the Spurs.

The Pistons seem to stagnate a bit. The spurs have always had the wood on the Suns and Mavs. dunno if Chicago can go places or if Bryant will sign somewhere like Minnesota to play with a big man or Houston getting over a talented double act who are injury prone.

Dunno.

What happens if they win one or two more in the next three years?