1994-'96 Spurs w/ Prime Steve Nash

[Matt15]

How far would they go each year?

1994 Spurs-'05 Nash
1995 Spurs-'06 Nash
1996 Spurs-'07 Nash

[tsherkin]

Mmmm. Not seeing enough range out of D Rob's jumper to milk the PnR quite the same way. Also, the 94 SPurs were dead-last in pace, before being 7th and 8th the years following. Rodman making them essentially play 4 on 5 on offense wouldn't be helping that much, offensive rebounding notwithstanding, though Nash would certainly enjoy the pulled-in 3 during the 95 and 96 seasons.

All that said, it probably makes a huge difference to have real ball-handling and playmaking, and some extra scoring punch, from the guard slots. VDN and Avery Johnson was not hot stuff as a backcourt.

[Cavsfansince84]

Definitely strong chances at titles all 3 years. It'd be interesting to see how much more effective Robinson would be playing with Nash. Nash might need to up his scoring though.

[uberhikari]

Hakeem definitely doesn't get a championship in 94 although he might get one in 95. The Spurs might make it to the Finals in '96 but the Bulls have way too much perimeter defense.

[Stan]

'94 was such a weak year, Robinson/Nash would blow away any other teams top 2 players, I'd pick them to ring that year.

'95 you add Rodman, and while their competition would be tougher, they'd be my choice to ring again.

'96 I don't think they're beating the Bulls, but making the Finals would definitely be a legit possibility.

[eminence]

Assuming Steve Nash is allowed to play somewhat like Steve Nash, they romp to the first two titles, and I think they beat the Bulls too, though that's a close one.

Adding a prime MVP to a good team makes a great team, who knew?

[homecourtloss]

Assuming Steve Nash is allowed to play somewhat like Steve Nash, they romp to the first two titles, and I think they beat the Bulls too, though that's a close one.

Adding a prime MVP to a good team makes a great team, who knew?

I have to agree with this. I loved that ‘94 Rockets’ team and went to a few of their games, but it wasn’t a strong title team even though it had a top 10 player ever at the height of his powers. To be honest with you, it shows the dearth of high-end competition that the Bulls’ dynasty had. Jordan takes a year off and then you have two teams that aren’t title contenders in most years in the Finals. The ‘94 Bulls themselves out score the Knicks over seven games and more perhaps a questionable called away from winning that series and they have a legitimate shot against the Pacers as well.

Looking at the 1994 to 1996 San Antonio Spurs, you really have to appreciate the floor raising capabilities of David Robinson. Adding Nash, and letting Nash be Nash, makes that upper 5s SRS, +2.5 to +4.0 rORtg in to another stratosphere. I see a title in both 1994 and 1995 with a good shot against the Bulls in 1996.

[falcolombardi]

I just realized that david robinson can de everythingh (more or less) than amare did offensively but being an all time defender instead of a weak one

That would be a crazy duo in the 00' suns if you replaced amare with robinson

[eminence]

A somewhat interesting bit - does Rodman ever get traded to Chicago if Nash is there and they're coming off two titles, and I think Rodman would probably get along with Nash a bit better than Robinson as well.

If the Bulls had Perdue instead of Rodman in this hypothetical I'd go with San Antonio pretty clearly even vs the Bulls, though of course it'd be possible they could make a different move than the Rodman trade.

[AEnigma]

Abstractly, adding an MVP level player and offensive GOAT to a 50+ win team should give you good results, yes. On the granular level, not sure it is totally clear cut.

First, that pair has to work. I think it is fine to conclude based on Robinson’s skillsets that they would, but it is hardly an absolute guarantee. For the exercise though, we will say it does.

Then you look at how the Spurs lost in this period. In 1994, their offence takes a massive hit against the Jazz (down nine points per 100 from regular season) and their defence allows the Jazz to improve their offence by two points per 100. Nash does not fix that defence, so does he make up ten points of offence? Big number, but in the sense that Spurs team in particular had poor creation without any replacement for Avery Johnson’s exit, Nash seems to fix a lot of that. With league best offensive rebounding from Rodman (who was there in 1994 despite what some of you are suggesting), a good wing shooter in Dale Ellis, and a complementary big in David Robinson, that sounds like a potent offence to me. If they can best the Jazz then I absolutely think they can push for a title, and if they somehow lose to a one-man Rockets team then Hakeem really is the GoAT centre.

In 1995, they should beat the Rockets. It was already a competitive series, and now their offence is receiving a notable boost. Kenny and Cassell are not slowing down Nash, and then in the Finals, Shaq is getting torched. Oddly enough, I feel a lot better about this year than I do about 1994: the benefits of avoiding your worst matchup!

Speaking of which, the story is similar in 1996 as it was in 1994… except the Jazz perform even better on offence and the Spurs perform even worse. In their main rotation, they lost Rodman, replaced Dale Ellis with a similar archetype in Chuck Person, and had both Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson back in the fold. So right away we can partially see the consequence of going from top in the league offensive rebounding to near bottom of the league , but also, with Avery being there, the rate of improvement with Nash is theoretically lessened. I say theoretically because with Nash they actually do spout a four-out lineup around Robinson, and that sounds possibly more lethal in Nash’s hands than 1994 did… but maybe I am discounting the sheer value of Rodman’s offensive rebounding.
Regardless, with the Jazz performing as they did, this seems like a tougher ask even before getting into the Bulls matchup…
… but what if the Spurs could just dodge the Jazz entirely? The Jazz were a consistently rough matchup for the Spurs in this period. Against other teams, they might fare a lot better. In 1994, facing the Jazz is effectively inevitable. In 1996? Well, if the Spurs and Sonics swap seeds, as they should with Nash, then Sonics/Jazz becomes a second round matchup, and the Jazz lost that one. Beating the Sonics is no easy feat (unless you are an 8-seed ), but they probably give the Spurs fewer troubles than the Jazz do. Those who are lower on Nash (or inordinately high on all Jordan’s competitors…) might argue Payton would eat Nash alive. Personally, I do not see it, but the Bulls matchup that would follow is pretty tough to call (always encouraging when you cannot defend Jordan), so here we can fairly say that a title would be questionable at best.

All told, giving them a title in 1995, probably a title in 1994, and a small chance at a title in 1996.