How would the 14 Spurs do against every champion since 2001?

[therealbig3]

Surprised there was so many people that Picked 2012 Heat over them. It doesn't make sense to me, the 2012 Heat were not better than 2013 heat imo. Also i don't see how this isn't the best Spurs team ever.

I think the fact that Wade was a lot better in 2012 than he was in 2013, and LeBron being about the same level in 2012, would have made a bigger difference. Bosh did get injured during the playoffs, so picking the 2012 Heat would be dependent on Bosh being able to play full minutes, like he did in the 2012 Finals. Role players like Battier and Miller stepped up big in the playoffs that year too, and Chalmers wasn't completely useless, he could actually be counted on to hit some 3s and have some randomly good games here and there.

Funny how nobody was saying this until they played the Spurs. Those Heat barely beat the Pacers. Wade wasn't that great against the Spurs last year as well. Really I'm like others. Don't get that thought process. Manu is much better. Diaw is better. Patty Mills better. Kwahi much better. You can talk about Mike Mller but your also losing Rashard Lewis. Unless your giving me prime Dwade I don't see Wade being able to change the series that much.

It isn't like they didn't play Miami last year. They pretty much beat them last year with not nearly as much. We have people saying the Heat would have won in 6. It took them 7 against last year Spurs. Unless people think the Spurs are worst I don't get it.

The difference between last year Spurs and this years Spurs vs Miami is last year the Spurs were a high PNR team driven by Tony Parker . They spent the entire series trying to run a play that Miami defends as good as anyone in the league. They still almost won the series. This year Spurs relied on ball movement. Diaw completely changed the OKC and Miami series. I don't think MIami could beat any team that moves the ball that much. There entire defensive scheme is built on shutting down dribble drives and PNR.

San Antonio just had the greatest offensive rating in finals history. A spot up shooter like Mike Miller isn't changing that. Either is last years version of Shane Battier.

I said the 2012 Heat would beat the 2014 Spurs. The 2013 Heat would lose to the Spurs for sure.

[ElGee]

At the Pearly Gates, if God said "I grant you one wish" (after asking me what my favorite swear word was), I would say "to see the 08 Celtics v the 14 Spurs."

The Spurs played 61 games this year with Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard and Tiago Splitter. They were a +11.8 SRS team in those games with a 113.6 (+7.1) ORtg and -5.9 DRtg. The team shot 57.9% TS% and 54.5% on eFG% (with a relatively low 23.1% OREB%, The eFG% ranks them 7th all-time, behind 4 Steve Nash Suns teams, Miami the last 2 seasons and the 85 Lakers.

I think that makes the 14 Spurs a legit 10+ SRS team...not watered down by expansion either. There aren't many of those in NBA history. I'm not willing to say they are GOAT-level team -- they probably aren't quite there -- but they are on the short list and are also matchup resilient. The 97 Bulls were a +15 SRS team for 39 games with Kukoc, Rodman and Longley in the lineup. Still, that needs to be curved slightly because of the expansion teams and smaller sample (the rest of the 96-97 Bulls performances are around 12-13). The 04 Pistons were +10 with Rasheed (including a -10.9 DRtg). The 05 Spurs +10 with Duncan and Ginobili. The 08 Celtics +10 with KG and Pierce. The 08 Lakers +10 with Gasol. 86 Celtics +9 with McHale and Bird. What the 14 Spurs did this year, on the heels being a +9 team last year, is staggering.

I do think they are vulnerable to some athleticism, but they can do very well with most other situations. I'll do this based on win probability of 14 SAS on a neutral court:

13 Heat 55%
12 Heat 65%
11 Mavs 65%
10 Lakers 65%
09 Lakers 60%
08 Celtics 50%
07 Spurs 55%
06 Heat 75%
05 Spurs 55%
04 Pistons 55%
03 Spurs 70%
02 Lakers 55%
01 Lakers 50%

[ElGee]

Yep, the same team that the 2014 Mavs took to 7 games would take out a far superior 2011 Mavs team, with a far superior version of Dirk, in 5 games.

The 2011 Mavs team IS far superior, but it's not the same team as the current team upgraded, but a different matchup entirely. Consider that against this year's Mavs, the healthy Spurs played 8 games, outscored them by about 3 ppg and struggled defensively. This could be luck, Carlisle, matchup issues (Dirk?) or a combination, but it's also fair to say that they don't have to be +7 against every team, including the 2014 Mavs, to be able to beat the 2011 Mavs or any other champion.

The 96 Bulls struggled with Raptors, as they always seemed to struggle with jitterbug point guards.

[TheRightAnswer]

I said in another thread, as a neutral fan and having watched the NBA the last 15 seasons they're easily a top-3 team in that time span. I'm just basing that on the 'ole--definitely limited--eye test, though. Stat junkies might paint a different picture, I don't know.

But the last time I'd seen a team dominate to that extent was the '01 Lakers.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think they probably beat any of these teams except the '01 Lakers, and I'm a bit skeptical about the '02 Lakers and '08 Celtics. LA just got by Sacramento without HCA and I think that Kings team was more individually talented than these Spurs, but Peja was injured and I trust these Spurs more than those Kings under pressure. I'll give the Spurs the edge. As for the Celtics, it'd be very interesting to see how they defend against the Spurs ball movement, especially since you can't focus on 1 guy, but the Spurs are an excellent defensive team themselves. They seem to have players to throw at all of Boston's big 3. Leonard to guard Pierce, Manu or Green to guard Allen and Splitter to guard KG. I'll give the Spurs the edge there.

[CaliBullsFan]

Anyone who thinks the 14 Spurs would stand a chance against the 01 Lakers is out of their mind

[therealbig3]

Yep, the same team that the 2014 Mavs took to 7 games would take out a far superior 2011 Mavs team, with a far superior version of Dirk, in 5 games.

The 2011 Mavs team IS far superior, but it's not the same team as the current team upgraded, but a different matchup entirely. Consider that against this year's Mavs, the healthy Spurs played 8 games, outscored them by about 3 ppg and struggled defensively. This could be luck, Carlisle, matchup issues (Dirk?) or a combination, but it's also fair to say that they don't have to be +7 against every team, including the 2014 Mavs, to be able to beat the 2011 Mavs or any other champion.

The 96 Bulls struggled with Raptors, as they always seemed to struggle with jitterbug point guards.

But Carlisle and the matchup issues, specifically with regards to Dirk, are still present with the 2011 Mavs...and the Mavs have an even bigger advantage in 2011. Dirk was a better player in 2011, and the supporting cast had better talent and more versatile defenders.

IDK if it's a different matchup entirely. The 2014 Mavs were led offensively by a declined but still good Dirk, and a combo guard in Monta Ellis. The 2011 Mavs were led by a prime Dirk and a combo guard in Jason Terry (who was still a very good player and although he came off the bench, he played over 30 mpg and for all intents and purposes, was basically a starter). Furthermore, the 2011 Mavs had a better Shawn Marion as well, and they had a better starting C (Chandler vs Dalembert), even though both guys play a similar way. And off the bench, the 2011 Mavs also had Barea, Stojakovic, Stevenson, and Haywood. The 2014 Mavs had Carter, Harris, Wright, Blair and Crowder. These guys fulfilled similar roles, and had similar talent. Don't really see a real advantage for either bench. Instead of Jason Kidd, however, the 2014 Mavs had Jose Calderon, who basically did the same thing: a ball handler that made the right passes and spaced the floor. But Kidd was a far superior defender, and was thus the more valuable player.

Overall, I see similar matchups across the board...the 2011 Mavs are just upgraded at pretty much every matchup compared to the 2014 Mavs. The biggest difference being Dirk in 2011 vs Dirk in 2014, especially since Dirk in his prime routinely gave the Spurs a rough time.

[GSP]

Yep, the same team that the 2014 Mavs took to 7 games would take out a far superior 2011 Mavs team, with a far superior version of Dirk, in 5 games.

The 2011 Mavs team IS far superior, but it's not the same team as the current team upgraded, but a different matchup entirely. Consider that against this year's Mavs, the healthy Spurs played 8 games, outscored them by about 3 ppg and struggled defensively. This could be luck, Carlisle, matchup issues (Dirk?) or a combination, but it's also fair to say that they don't have to be +7 against every team, including the 2014 Mavs, to be able to beat the 2011 Mavs or any other champion.

The 96 Bulls struggled with Raptors, as they always seemed to struggle with jitterbug point guards.

But Carlisle and the matchup issues, specifically with regards to Dirk, are still present with the 2011 Mavs...and the Mavs have an even bigger advantage in 2011. Dirk was a better player in 2011, and the supporting cast had better talent and more versatile defenders.

IDK if it's a different matchup entirely. The 2014 Mavs were led offensively by a declined but still good Dirk, and a combo guard in Monta Ellis. The 2011 Mavs were led by a prime Dirk and a combo guard in Jason Terry (who was still a very good player and although he came off the bench, he played over 30 mpg and for all intents and purposes, was basically a starter). Furthermore, the 2011 Mavs had a better Shawn Marion as well, and they had a better starting C (Chandler vs Dalembert), even though both guys play a similar way. And off the bench, the 2011 Mavs also had Barea, Stojakovic, Stevenson, and Haywood. The 2014 Mavs had Carter, Harris, Dalembert, Wright, Blair and Crowder. These guys fulfilled similar roles, and had similar talent. Don't really see a real advantage for either bench. Instead of Jason Kidd, however, the 2014 Mavs had Jose Calderon, who basically did the same thing: a ball handler that made the right passes and spaced the floor. But Kidd was a far superior defender, and was thus the more valuable player.

Overall, I see similar matchups across the board...the 2011 Mavs are just upgraded at pretty much every matchup compared to the 2014 Mavs. The biggest difference being Dirk in 2011 vs Dirk in 2014, especially since Dirk in his prime routinely gave the Spurs a rough time.

Agreed. Only difference is Vc is better than any bench player 11 Dallas had but Dallas was a deep team anyways. Mavs could beat u with the pass too they murdered the Lakers with it the Spurs ball movement wasnt that much better than Dallas TBH and in game 2 Dallas took away Spurs ball movement and killed them with their own. They didnt help on the role playerslike Patty, Green or Kawhi and they didnt get going in the series. They stayed in a structured man defense with some changes in zone here and they isolated them on the pickandroll. That forced them to score more in iso and attacking the rim which they arent as good at. Theres absolutely no reason to think the 11 Mavs couldnt follow the same gameplan and have even better results specially with huge defensive improvements in Kidd, younger Matrix and Chandler. Carlisle is the only coach who can outcoach Pop and he arguably did this playoff but the Spurs had much more talent

[Swagalicious]

vs 01 Lakers: loss
vs 02 Lakers: loss, but a bit closer
vs 03 Spurs: win
vs 04 Pistons: loss. DET beat a Lakers team that beat a superior version of the Spurs.
vs 05 Spurs: loss
vs 06 Heat: win
vs 07 Spurs: loss
vs 08 Celtics: loss
vs 09 Lakers: loss
vs 10 Lakers: win
vs 11 Mavs: loss
vs 12 Heat: loss
vs 13 Heat: win

4/12

[ShaqAttack3234]

vs 04 Pistons: loss. DET beat a Lakers team that beat a superior version of the Spurs.

The Lakers were in no way superior to this Spurs team. Normally Shaq and Kobe as a duo will take you a long way, but Shaq was declining and past his prime at 32, while Kobe was limited below prime form due to injuries and off the court problems, then Malone's injury left their power forward position awful and Payton was unbelievably bad in the finals. Plus, this Spurs defense is considerably better than the '04 Lakers and the Spurs had vastly superior chemistry and much more depth.

[Effercon]

2001: Lose
2002: Lose
2003: Win
2004: Win
2005: Win
2006: Win
2007: Lose
2008: Lose
2009: Lose
2010: Lose
2011: Lose
2012: Lose
2013: Win

[Swagalicious]

vs 04 Pistons: loss. DET beat a Lakers team that beat a superior version of the Spurs.

The Lakers were in no way superior to this Spurs team. Normally Shaq and Kobe as a duo will take you a long way, but Shaq was declining and past his prime at 32, while Kobe was limited below prime form due to injuries and off the court problems, then Malone's injury left their power forward position awful and Payton was unbelievably bad in the finals. Plus, this Spurs defense is considerably better than the '04 Lakers and the Spurs had vastly superior chemistry and much more depth.

Malone wasn't injured until the Finals, though. The Pistons had a great defense in terms of how it'd fit with containing SAS' style. They'd pressure the fck out of ball handlers and there'd be no need to double or shade anyone consistently ala 04 Kobe so they can stick to everyone man-to-man. The Heat played unbelieably lazy defense in these Finals, LeBron included. Yes, the Spurs offense was incredible but how much credit do we assign to them? Would their sharp execution be sharp enough against Detroit?

Regarding the 04 Lakers vs 14 Spurs, I'm trusting Shaq/Kobe against SA. Kobe has historically came up huge in the biggest moments against San Antonio, whether he was attacking the twin towers or torching Bowen and Manu. Not to mention he has raped them regardless of the clutch moments, too. And also, who's stopping Shaq? What's SAS version of 04 Wallace to be able to contain him single-coverage? They'd need to collapse the defense on both Kobe and Shaq. They'd also have to concede mid-range shots to beat them which Malone and Kobe would capitalize off.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Malone wasn't injured until the Finals, though. The Pistons had a great defense in terms of how it'd fit with containing SAS' style. They'd pressure the fck out of ball handlers and there'd be no need to double or shade anyone consistently ala 04 Kobe so they can stick to everyone man-to-man. The Heat played unbelieably lazy defense in these Finals, LeBron included. Yes, the Spurs offense was incredible but how much credit do we assign to them? Would their sharp execution be sharp enough against Detroit?

Regarding the 04 Lakers vs 14 Spurs, I'm trusting Shaq/Kobe against SA. Kobe has historically came up huge in the biggest moments against San Antonio, whether he was attacking the twin towers or torching Bowen and Manu. Not to mention he has raped them regardless of the clutch moments, too. And also, who's stopping Shaq? What's SAS version of 04 Wallace to be able to contain him single-coverage? They'd need to collapse the defense on both Kobe and Shaq. They'd also have to concede mid-range shots to beat them which Malone and Kobe would capitalize off.

Malone got injured in game 6 vs Minnesota and the injury made him useless in the finals. Detroit played Shaq mostly 1 on 1 conceding that he'd get his, but they wanted to shut everyone else down, which they did with pretty much every other Laker shooting below 40%. And they wanted to bait Kobe into long jumpers as they guarded him with Prince who was long enough to make it tough for him to get a good look, and they'd often shade and cheat over with help and collapse when Kobe put the ball on the floor. These strategies worked because LA didn't have anyone else to beat Detroit and make them pay, and 2004 Shaq wasn't 2000 or 2001 Shaq where he'd pretty much beat a team by himself like when he averaged 38/17 vs Indiana for example.

With the Spurs, the strategy of making other players beat them wouldn't work because they didn't rely on 1 or even 2 guys. Sure, they didn't have a player comparable to even the 2004 versions of Shaq and Kobe, but as good as Detroit's defense was, I have a hard time seeing them completely shutting down these Spurs. Plus, the 2004 Pistons weren't a particularly good offensive team themselves, so can they score enough to beat the Spurs?

[Warspite]

I would like to see the Spurs play against a team that could play defense on the NBA level before I would put them up against some of the all time great teams of the last decade. I fully expect any NBA player to be able to hit wide open shots that the Heat gave out.

IMHO: The 2014 Heat is closer the bottom than the Spurs are to the top. Spurs looked great (at times) but never did the Heat look good.

I just cant buy that the Spurs would be so efficient running the offense through Boris Diaw vs past champs. Would this offense even work playing in 2001-2005 rules?

Boris Diaw being guarded by Ben Wallace and then he is going to have to turn around and guard who?

Vs Shaq Splitter would have to get big mins and that would reduce Diaws impact right away.

The Spurs built a team to win in 2014 which is a yr in which there is no frontcourt scoring or defense. That strength for 2014 becomes a weakness vs other yrs.

[ceiling raiser]

At the Pearly Gates, if God said "I grant you one wish" (after asking me what my favorite swear word was), I would say "to see the 08 Celtics v the 14 Spurs."

The Spurs played 61 games this year with Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard and Tiago Splitter. They were a +11.8 SRS team in those games with a 113.6 (+7.1) ORtg and -5.9 DRtg. The team shot 57.9% TS% and 54.5% on eFG% (with a relatively low 23.1% OREB%, The eFG% ranks them 7th all-time, behind 4 Steve Nash Suns teams, Miami the last 2 seasons and the 85 Lakers.

I think that makes the 14 Spurs a legit 10+ SRS team...not watered down by expansion either. There aren't many of those in NBA history. I'm not willing to say they are GOAT-level team -- they probably aren't quite there -- but they are on the short list and are also matchup resilient. The 97 Bulls were a +15 SRS team for 39 games with Kukoc, Rodman and Longley in the lineup. Still, that needs to be curved slightly because of the expansion teams and smaller sample (the rest of the 96-97 Bulls performances are around 12-13). The 04 Pistons were +10 with Rasheed (including a -10.9 DRtg). The 05 Spurs +10 with Duncan and Ginobili. The 08 Celtics +10 with KG and Pierce. The 08 Lakers +10 with Gasol. 86 Celtics +9 with McHale and Bird. What the 14 Spurs did this year, on the heels being a +9 team last year, is staggering.

I do think they are vulnerable to some athleticism, but they can do very well with most other situations. I'll do this based on win probability of 14 SAS on a neutral court:

13 Heat 55%
12 Heat 65%
11 Mavs 65%
10 Lakers 65%
09 Lakers 60%
08 Celtics 50%
07 Spurs 55%
06 Heat 75%
05 Spurs 55%
04 Pistons 55%
03 Spurs 70%
02 Lakers 55%
01 Lakers 50%

Very happy to see that we're on the same page in terms of the two toughest matchups. Great SRS analysis too.

Just wondering, what's the earliest year you're comfortable comparing this 2014 Spurs team against (before lack of spacing and lack of defense become a huge issues)?

[DQuinn1575]

At the Pearly Gates, if God said "I grant you one wish" (after asking me what my favorite swear word was), I would say "to see the 08 Celtics v the 14 Spurs."

The Spurs played 61 games this year with Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard and Tiago Splitter. They were a +11.8 SRS team in those games with a 113.6 (+7.1) ORtg and -5.9 DRtg. The team shot 57.9% TS% and 54.5% on eFG% (with a relatively low 23.1% OREB%, The eFG% ranks them 7th all-time, behind 4 Steve Nash Suns teams, Miami the last 2 seasons and the 85 Lakers.

I think that makes the 14 Spurs a legit 10+ SRS team...not watered down by expansion either. There aren't many of those in NBA history. I'm not willing to say they are GOAT-level team -- they probably aren't quite there -- but they are on the short list and are also matchup resilient. The 97 Bulls were a +15 SRS team for 39 games with Kukoc, Rodman and Longley in the lineup. Still, that needs to be curved slightly because of the expansion teams and smaller sample (the rest of the 96-97 Bulls performances are around 12-13). The 04 Pistons were +10 with Rasheed (including a -10.9 DRtg). The 05 Spurs +10 with Duncan and Ginobili. The 08 Celtics +10 with KG and Pierce. The 08 Lakers +10 with Gasol. 86 Celtics +9 with McHale and Bird. What the 14 Spurs did this year, on the heels being a +9 team last year, is staggering.

I do think they are vulnerable to some athleticism, but they can do very well with most other situations. I'll do this based on win probability of 14 SAS on a neutral court:

13 Heat 55%
12 Heat 65%
11 Mavs 65%
10 Lakers 65%
09 Lakers 60%
08 Celtics 50%
07 Spurs 55%
06 Heat 75%
05 Spurs 55%
04 Pistons 55%
03 Spurs 70%
02 Lakers 55%
01 Lakers 50%

The Mavericks make their free throws and the Spurs are a first round loser.

Win by 4 with the opponents going 18 for 28 from the line.

How many of the above teams won a playoff series by luck?

[Texas Chuck]

Trust me as a guy who watched every second of the 2011 and 2014 versions of the Mavs--those teams are really quite different. Monta and JET play very very very different games. As do Jose and Kidd. I'm stunned at people suggesting differently. And Daly/Blair/Wright is nothing like Tyson/Haywood/Ian in style or impact.

It's irrelevant how the 14 Mavs did. Even if the roster was much more similar it would be irrelevant, but considering the only remotely relevant pieces are Marion and Carlisle(sorry 14 Dirk was a really good player, but 2011 is prime(and many of you would say peak) Dirk and that's a whole different beast.

I have no idea who would win, but stop bringing the 14 Mavs into it. What I do know is what an absolute joy that series would be to watch.

[ElGee]

At the Pearly Gates, if God said "I grant you one wish" (after asking me what my favorite swear word was), I would say "to see the 08 Celtics v the 14 Spurs."

The Spurs played 61 games this year with Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard and Tiago Splitter. They were a +11.8 SRS team in those games with a 113.6 (+7.1) ORtg and -5.9 DRtg. The team shot 57.9% TS% and 54.5% on eFG% (with a relatively low 23.1% OREB%, The eFG% ranks them 7th all-time, behind 4 Steve Nash Suns teams, Miami the last 2 seasons and the 85 Lakers.

I think that makes the 14 Spurs a legit 10+ SRS team...not watered down by expansion either. There aren't many of those in NBA history. I'm not willing to say they are GOAT-level team -- they probably aren't quite there -- but they are on the short list and are also matchup resilient. The 97 Bulls were a +15 SRS team for 39 games with Kukoc, Rodman and Longley in the lineup. Still, that needs to be curved slightly because of the expansion teams and smaller sample (the rest of the 96-97 Bulls performances are around 12-13). The 04 Pistons were +10 with Rasheed (including a -10.9 DRtg). The 05 Spurs +10 with Duncan and Ginobili. The 08 Celtics +10 with KG and Pierce. The 08 Lakers +10 with Gasol. 86 Celtics +9 with McHale and Bird. What the 14 Spurs did this year, on the heels being a +9 team last year, is staggering.

I do think they are vulnerable to some athleticism, but they can do very well with most other situations. I'll do this based on win probability of 14 SAS on a neutral court:

13 Heat 55%
12 Heat 65%
11 Mavs 65%
10 Lakers 65%
09 Lakers 60%
08 Celtics 50%
07 Spurs 55%
06 Heat 75%
05 Spurs 55%
04 Pistons 55%
03 Spurs 70%
02 Lakers 55%
01 Lakers 50%

The Mavericks make their free throws and the Spurs are a first round loser.

Win by 4 with the opponents going 18 for 28 from the line.

How many of the above teams won a playoff series by luck?

Mavericks were 4 points worse that game than expected from line. I also consider many teams great even if they lose.

I don't know how you are defining "luck" in this setting, but I would say that the following teams won close series against weaker teams:
04 Pistons v NJN
08 Celtics v Cle
09 Lakers v Hou
12 Heat v Bos

So that would make the Spurs the 5th champion in 14 years to fit that bill.

[ElGee]

Yep, the same team that the 2014 Mavs took to 7 games would take out a far superior 2011 Mavs team, with a far superior version of Dirk, in 5 games.

The 2011 Mavs team IS far superior, but it's not the same team as the current team upgraded, but a different matchup entirely. Consider that against this year's Mavs, the healthy Spurs played 8 games, outscored them by about 3 ppg and struggled defensively. This could be luck, Carlisle, matchup issues (Dirk?) or a combination, but it's also fair to say that they don't have to be +7 against every team, including the 2014 Mavs, to be able to beat the 2011 Mavs or any other champion.

The 96 Bulls struggled with Raptors, as they always seemed to struggle with jitterbug point guards.

But Carlisle and the matchup issues, specifically with regards to Dirk, are still present with the 2011 Mavs...and the Mavs have an even bigger advantage in 2011. Dirk was a better player in 2011, and the supporting cast had better talent and more versatile defenders.

IDK if it's a different matchup entirely. The 2014 Mavs were led offensively by a declined but still good Dirk, and a combo guard in Monta Ellis. The 2011 Mavs were led by a prime Dirk and a combo guard in Jason Terry (who was still a very good player and although he came off the bench, he played over 30 mpg and for all intents and purposes, was basically a starter). Furthermore, the 2011 Mavs had a better Shawn Marion as well, and they had a better starting C (Chandler vs Dalembert), even though both guys play a similar way. And off the bench, the 2011 Mavs also had Barea, Stojakovic, Stevenson, and Haywood. The 2014 Mavs had Carter, Harris, Wright, Blair and Crowder. These guys fulfilled similar roles, and had similar talent. Don't really see a real advantage for either bench. Instead of Jason Kidd, however, the 2014 Mavs had Jose Calderon, who basically did the same thing: a ball handler that made the right passes and spaced the floor. But Kidd was a far superior defender, and was thus the more valuable player.

Overall, I see similar matchups across the board...the 2011 Mavs are just upgraded at pretty much every matchup compared to the 2014 Mavs. The biggest difference being Dirk in 2011 vs Dirk in 2014, especially since Dirk in his prime routinely gave the Spurs a rough time.

I don't see equivalency because:

The 14 Mavs played an offensive first, heavy PnR PG point guard who can shoot the lights out (Calderon) and tried to pair him (or run primarily through) quick slashers -- Ellis and Harris. Again, SAS is vulnerable to athleticism. The 11 Mavs used Kidd as a spot-up shooter and defensive clogger, and brought Terry in -- even when Terry was creating offense if wasn't because he was slashing like Ellis. Stevenson/Peja used as a spacers because they are excellent shooters, unlike Ellis. This not only changes the matchup but the fundamental of the way Dallas runs its offense then vs. now. And since their success is primarily on being able to score well vs. the Spurs, I don't see how you can just automate that success into a lineup with a defensive slant running a different offense.

[sp6r=underrated]

With regards to the 14 Mavs, why do we exclusively focus on the 7 game series? I know on realgm player comparisons board the view is you should exclusively focus on the post-season and ignore the regular season, something I've been guilty of many times, but it doesn't make sense.

RS games contain valuable data. They beat Dallas by an average of 11.5 ppg during the RS. If Dallas had some staggering match-up advantage over SAS why didn't it show at all in the RS. SAS weren't 14 points a game better than Miami and they were better than 2 ppg against Dallas. In all likelihood a small sample size explains why SAS just crushed Miami and struggled against Dallas.

I posted this in another thread but I'll post it here to give people an idea of how good SAS have been during the 2012-14 period.

RS

BOS (84-86): 192-54 (.78), 7.32 (SRS)
LAL (85-87): 189-57 (.77), 7.22 (SRS)
SAS (12-14): 170-60 (.74), 7.32 (SRS)
LAL (00-02): 181-65 (.74), 6.43 (SRS)

PS
BOS: 43-19, 5.45 (MOV), 2.64 (opp SRS), 8.09 (PS SRS)
LAL: 38-13, 9.90, 1.33, 11.23
SAS: 41-17, 7.66, 3.99, 11.64
LAL (00-02): 45-13, 5.69, 5.04, 10.73 SRS

SRS is back of the envelope and is slightly off from official formula. That said the evidence is pretty overwhelming that SAS has been playing at an extremely high level for the last 3 years. Given this level of play the real surprise is they only have one title and not more. By the data it is very hard to separate SAS as being qualitatively worse than the heart of Showtime, Bird's Celtics and Shaq's lakers.

If you're going to bring up the Ibaka injury you really have to look in depth at other teams. Those two Ibaka games were utter destructions. There is basically no data saying he is worth that much to OKC. Accordingly, if you're going to completely * those two games how do you look at say the 02 WCF when Peja missed 1/2 the series and was hurt for other games. Those games SAC lost were a hell of a lot closer than the Ibaka games.

I bring this up not to attack the 02 lakers but rather to get the point across that injuries are a factor all the time in the post-season. You can't factor in injuries in some series and brush them aside in others. Furthermore, injuries is one reason we shouldn't exclusively look at PS when ranking teams.