RealGM

Which was the best team of all time among those that lost in their conference semifinals round?

My short list:
2003 Lakers
2004 Spurs
2006 Spurs
2007 Suns

Which contenders am I missing?

Of these 4, it's the Suns.

I think the 1990 Lakers deserve a mention to. That was a 63 win team led by MVP Magic in arguably his peak season.

Of those options it's between 06 Spurs and 07 Suns. Probably go 06 Spurs.

Other choices:

1971/72 Chicago Bulls
1980/81 Philadelphia 76ers
1998/99 Utah Jazz
2015/16 San Antonio Spurs

70sFan wrote:Other choices:

1971/72 Chicago Bulls
1980/81 Philadelphia 76ers
1998/99 Utah Jazz
2015/16 San Antonio Spurs

Not as knowledgeable on the others but the 2016 Spurs get overrated by their record and SRS. Outside of Kawhi, Green and Aldridge they were just an old team(Duncan 39, Parker 33, Manu 38, Diaw 33, West 35), and Duncan in particular just had nothing left in the tank when they went against OKC. That team wasn't a realistic contender, and they would've gotten dusted by GSW even if they did manage to beat OKC.

2020 Milwaukee Bucks

No-more-rings wrote:

70sFan wrote:Other choices:

1971/72 Chicago Bulls
1980/81 Philadelphia 76ers
1998/99 Utah Jazz
2015/16 San Antonio Spurs

Not as knowledgeable on the others but the 2016 Spurs get overrated by their record and SRS. Outside of Kawhi, Green and Aldridge they were just an old team(Duncan 39, Parker 33, Manu 38, Diaw 33, West 35), and Duncan in particular just had nothing left in the tank when they went against OKC. That team wasn't a realistic contender, and they would've gotten dusted by GSW even if they did manage to beat OKC.

The relationship between post-season and regular season success is enormous. If a team wins 66 Games and has a +10 SRS they are legit.

Those Spurs, while they only won 1 title were never outscored in a series from 2013-16.

No-more-rings wrote:

70sFan wrote:Other choices:

1971/72 Chicago Bulls
1980/81 Philadelphia 76ers
1998/99 Utah Jazz
2015/16 San Antonio Spurs

Not as knowledgeable on the others but the 2016 Spurs get overrated by their record and SRS. Outside of Kawhi, Green and Aldridge they were just an old team(Duncan 39, Parker 33, Manu 38, Diaw 33, West 35), and Duncan in particular just had nothing left in the tank when they went against OKC. That team wasn't a realistic contender, and they would've gotten dusted by GSW even if they did manage to beat OKC.

if the 2014 spurs had slipped and lost againsr dallas we would now call them pretenders and paper tigers too

the 16 spurs played super close a team that went toe to toe the warriors (okc outscorer warriord actually)

the thunder were a secret juggernaut that per ben taylor played +9 basketball at full strenght and proved it by going dead even against two different +10 srs teams

sp6r=underrated wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

70sFan wrote:Other choices:

1971/72 Chicago Bulls
1980/81 Philadelphia 76ers
1998/99 Utah Jazz
2015/16 San Antonio Spurs

Not as knowledgeable on the others but the 2016 Spurs get overrated by their record and SRS. Outside of Kawhi, Green and Aldridge they were just an old team(Duncan 39, Parker 33, Manu 38, Diaw 33, West 35), and Duncan in particular just had nothing left in the tank when they went against OKC. That team wasn't a realistic contender, and they would've gotten dusted by GSW even if they did manage to beat OKC.

The relationship between post-season and regular season success is enormous. If a team wins 66 Games and has a +10 SRS they are legit.

Those Spurs, while they only won 1 title were never outscored in a series from 2013-16.

in fairness the only reason okc didnt outscore them in 2016 was for one outlier game they won in blowout

change that win to a 20 point win instead and okc would outscore them by a bit which is more in line with how the series actually went

sp6r=underrated wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

70sFan wrote:Other choices:

1971/72 Chicago Bulls
1980/81 Philadelphia 76ers
1998/99 Utah Jazz
2015/16 San Antonio Spurs

Not as knowledgeable on the others but the 2016 Spurs get overrated by their record and SRS. Outside of Kawhi, Green and Aldridge they were just an old team(Duncan 39, Parker 33, Manu 38, Diaw 33, West 35), and Duncan in particular just had nothing left in the tank when they went against OKC. That team wasn't a realistic contender, and they would've gotten dusted by GSW even if they did manage to beat OKC.

The relationship between post-season and regular season success is enormous. If a team wins 66 Games and has a +10 SRS they are legit.

Those Spurs, while they only won 1 title were never outscored in a series from 2013-16.

And this is supposed to change my mind why?

What do you consider "legit" that the Spurs could've legitimately won the title that year? I disagree. Old teams like that can catch a bad matchup and/or run out of gas as the playoffs go on. That's exactly what happened.

No-more-rings wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:Not as knowledgeable on the others but the 2016 Spurs get overrated by their record and SRS. Outside of Kawhi, Green and Aldridge they were just an old team(Duncan 39, Parker 33, Manu 38, Diaw 33, West 35), and Duncan in particular just had nothing left in the tank when they went against OKC. That team wasn't a realistic contender, and they would've gotten dusted by GSW even if they did manage to beat OKC.

The relationship between post-season and regular season success is enormous. If a team wins 66 Games and has a +10 SRS they are legit.

Those Spurs, while they only won 1 title were never outscored in a series from 2013-16.

And this is supposed to change my mind why?

What do you consider "legit" that the Spurs could've legitimately won the title that year? I disagree. Old teams like that can catch a bad matchup and/or run out of gas as the playoffs go on. That's exactly what happened.

do you also consider 2014 spurs not legit ?

the team that beat spurs went on to outscore and barely choke away a win against the defending champion and 73 win raptors and had a +9 srs when healthy

that they lost to another juggernaut doesnt make them bad
or do you think they are literally the only +10 team ever and only them to be a paper tiger?

falcolombardi wrote:
if the 2014 spurs had slipped and lost againsr dallas we would now call them pretenders and paper tigers too

Why are you referring to what ifs vs what we actually know to have happened? This is a silly game we can play with any team probably every year at that.

falcolombardi wrote:the 16 spurs played super close a team that went toe to toe the warriors (okc outscorer warriord actually)

They didn't play them super close though. Not really. OKC won 3 in a row to end it, 2 of which were by 14 points. Duncan was practically getting run off the floor at times.

falcolombardi wrote:the thunder were a secret juggernaut that per ben taylor played +9 basketball at full strenght and proved it by going dead even against two different +10 srs teams

I never said the Thunder weren't great. They too had flaws though and it reared it's ugly head in that blown 3-1 lead.

falcolombardi wrote:
do you also consider 2014 spurs not legit ?

They won it and did so in impressive fashion, why wouldn't I?

falcolombardi wrote:the team that beat spurs went on to outscore and barely choke away a win against the defending champion and 73 win raptors and had a +9 srs when healthy

This is true.

falcolombardi wrote:or do you think they are literally the only +10 team ever and only them to be a paper tiger?

I think they are a rare case of putting forth a great regular season effort, only to show their age a lot as the playoffs went on. I don't get what's so controversial about my take.

No-more-rings wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:
do you also consider 2014 spurs not legit ?

They won it and did so in impressive fashion, why wouldn't I?

falcolombardi wrote:the team that beat spurs went on to outscore and barely choke away a win against the defending champion and 73 win raptors and had a +9 srs when healthy

This is true.

falcolombardi wrote:or do you think they are literally the only +10 team ever and only them to be a paper tiger?

I think they are a rare case of putting forth a great regular season effort, only to show their age a lot as the playoffs went on. I don't get what's so controversial about my take.

How do you prove a team that lost in the 2nd round is legit if RS records/SRS aren't valid data?

2016 Spurs Easily. If not for the fact they faced a bad matchup with OKC I'm sure they could beat Cleveland and give them a decent shot vs GS. That team was soo good.

Of the four options listed, probably the 2006 Spurs. Defending champion that won 63 games and lead the league in net rating.

The 2016 Spurs are a forgotten fascinating team. I couldn't see them getting past the Warriors but the Warriors won 73 **** games and were a unicorn at the time in terms of playstyle. But that Spurs team would be the best team in the league in a lot of seasons, they basically mastered traditional two-big, drop coverage defense. I always thought that the best three teams that year were the Warriors, Spurs and Thunder, I think the Spurs could have beaten the Cavs in the Finals if they made it there.

That OKC series was very close. The Spurs were up 2-1 in that series and had double digit leads in Games 4 and 5. Game 6 was the only blowout, and even in that one the Spurs made a pretty big run once Pop finally went smaller. Duncan injured his one good knee in January or February if I remember correctly, before that he looked the same as he had the couple of years prior. If he had managed to stay healthy that year I think they would have beaten OKC. West and Diaw being overwhelmed on the offensive glass was a big reason they lost, but Duncan was like 40 so him getting injured wasn't exactly unlikely. Pop's refusal to go with Kawhi at the 4 was maybe the biggest reason they lost that series.

No-more-rings wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:
do you also consider 2014 spurs not legit ?

They won it and did so in impressive fashion, why wouldn't I?

falcolombardi wrote:the team that beat spurs went on to outscore and barely choke away a win against the defending champion and 73 win raptors and had a +9 srs when healthy

This is true.

falcolombardi wrote:or do you think they are literally the only +10 team ever and only them to be a paper tiger?

I think they are a rare case of putting forth a great regular season effort, only to show their age a lot as the playoffs went on. I don't get what's so controversial about my take.

because you are low on 2016 spurs for losing a close series against a much better team thab the 2014 mavs but not low on the 14 spurs for barely beating a much worse team

2020 Bucks were a 63 win pace, 9.4 SRS team, lost in 5 games ECSF
2020 Raps were a 60 win pace, 6 SRS team, lost in 7 games ECSF
2018 Raps were a 59 win, 7.3 SRS team lost in 4 games in ECSF
2010 Cavs were a 61 win, 6.2 SRS team lost in 6 games in ECSF
2009 Celtics were a 62 win, 7.4 SRS team, lost in 7 games ECSF

1981 Bucks were a 60 win, 7.1 SRS team, lost in 7 games ECSF

Of these teams the 09 Celtics (if healthy) and 2020 Bucks (if healthy) are probably the best candidates.

I think there's a slew of western conf teams which would qualify for this list in the 90's. Suns teams, Jazz teams and others. Also, 81 & 85 Bucks.

falcolombardi wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:
do you also consider 2014 spurs not legit ?

They won it and did so in impressive fashion, why wouldn't I?

falcolombardi wrote:the team that beat spurs went on to outscore and barely choke away a win against the defending champion and 73 win raptors and had a +9 srs when healthy

This is true.

falcolombardi wrote:or do you think they are literally the only +10 team ever and only them to be a paper tiger?

I think they are a rare case of putting forth a great regular season effort, only to show their age a lot as the playoffs went on. I don't get what's so controversial about my take.

because you are low on 2016 spurs for losing a close series against a much better team thab the 2014 mavs but not low on the 14 spurs for barely beating a much worse team

I am low on the 2016 Spurs compared to the Thunder or Warriors for having a relatively weak primary lineup and "padding" their SRS with bench units that don't see play in the postseason. Those are concerns that have never been answered in this forum.

The 2014 Spurs starters and top 5 lineups were a +14 (2016 Thunder or Warriors tier) compared to a +9 (great but not juggernaut) in 2016. Big difference.