Modern NBA: Steph/Klay/Dray or TP/Manu/Duncan

[rand]

With everyone at the level of their average prime season, which trio would you take for one season in today's NBA?

[70sFan]

It's the core of my favorite team of all-time, how can I choose anyone else than Spurs trio?

[parsnips33]

It's the core of my favorite team of all-time, how can I choose anyone else than Spurs trio?

You took (most of) the words right out of my mouth

[Doctor MJ]

With everyone at the level of their average prime season, which trio would you take for one season in today's NBA?

Interesting that we're tied at 50/50 here.

Let's make clear one thing from the jump:

The Warriors have been more dominant than the Spurs were if you take longevity out of the mix, and I don't think this should be controversial to say. The Warriors are 18-0 in Western Conference playoff series in their last 6 years with these 3 playing together, while the Spurs never made it through the Western Conference in back to back years when these guys were in prime.

Given this alone, I think folks need to ask themselves whether they were thinking in these terms when they voted for the Spurs trio, and if they were, what made them choose the less dominant core in the comparison? I'm not saying there can't be a good reasoning here, but I think it should be seen as something of a surprising conclusion...and I doubt people are thinking in these terms given the fact that the Spurs won more titles and Duncan is generally agreed upon to be the highest on the GOAT list of anyone in the conversation. Those two facts I think make it pretty easy to assume we're talking about at least comparably dominant runs, but they really aren't.

Then there's that thing about "today's NBA". With the Spurs, we're talking about a core who when they were in prime were using an offensive scheme built around a post-scorer with far less 3's that no one would even consider using today, and thus I really don't think people should assume that they'd be as (or more) effective today than they were back then. Someone could certainly make the argument for how much better the Spurs back then would have been if they'd just played more like today's game, and that that's why they should be the choice in this particular comparison, but that certainly shouldn't be something that's just assumed.

As a general rule, I think it probably makes sense to think that among cores from the past, the better those cores were at shooting from range, the better they'd translate to the modern game. And of course, in that Spurs trio, you only have one guy (Ginobili) who is really good at shooting, and he wasn't anywhere near as good at shooting as Curry & Thompson.

So yeah, I'm interested in people's thoughts here - I'm sure there's some very knowledgeable basketball folks picking the Spurs - but I went for the Warriors, and the points above were key to why.

[toodles23]

With everyone at the level of their average prime season, which trio would you take for one season in today's NBA?

Interesting that we're tied at 50/50 here.

Let's make clear one thing from the jump:

The Warriors have been more dominant than the Spurs were if you take longevity out of the mix, and I don't think this should be controversial to say. The Warriors are 18-0 in Western Conference playoff series in their last 6 years with these 3 playing together, while the Spurs never made it through the Western Conference in back to back years when these guys were in prime.

Given this alone, I think folks need to ask themselves whether they were thinking in these terms when they voted for the Spurs trio, and if they were, what made them choose the less dominant core in the comparison? I'm not saying there can't be a good reasoning here, but I think it should be seen as something of a surprising conclusion...and I doubt people are thinking in these terms given the fact that the Spurs won more titles and Duncan is generally agreed upon to be the highest on the GOAT list of anyone in the conversation. Those two facts I think make it pretty easy to assume we're talking about at least comparably dominant runs, but they really aren't.

Then there's that thing about "today's NBA". With the Spurs, we're talking about a core who when they were in prime were using an offensive scheme built around a post-scorer with far less 3's that no one would even consider using today, and thus I really don't think people should assume that they'd be as (or more) effective today than they were back then. Someone could certainly make the argument for how much better the Spurs back then would have been if they'd just played more like today's game, and that that's why they should be the choice in this particular comparison, but that certainly shouldn't be something that's just assumed.

As a general rule, I think it probably makes sense to think that among cores from the past, the better those cores were at shooting from range, the better they'd translate to the modern game. And of course, in that Spurs trio, you only have one guy (Ginobili) who is really good at shooting, and he wasn't anywhere near as good at shooting as Curry & Thompson.

So yeah, I'm interested in people's thoughts here - I'm sure there's some very knowledgeable basketball folks picking the Spurs - but I went for the Warriors, and the points above were key to why.

To make it more simple, I don't think many would dispute that the Warriors core is better offensively than TP/Manu/Duncan, both on paper and for actual team level results. Defensively I don't think it's clear at all that the Spurs guys have an advantage here, there's a good argument that Draymond is a more ideal defender for the modern spaced out/highly switchable game than Duncan is (though he was more versatile and switchable in his early-mid 20s than you might expect), and Parker is easily the worst defender of the bunch here.

Playoff offenses in the modern game are so often about hunting a team's weakest defender and involving them in the action as much as possible, and with how much more switching there is and the amount of space making it harder to help, Parker's defense would be much more of a problem now than it was in his era. I feel pretty comfortable taking the Warriors core here.

[HeartBreakKid]

With everyone at the level of their average prime season, which trio would you take for one season in today's NBA?

Interesting that we're tied at 50/50 here.

Let's make clear one thing from the jump:

The Warriors have been more dominant than the Spurs were if you take longevity out of the mix, and I don't think this should be controversial to say. The Warriors are 18-0 in Western Conference playoff series in their last 6 years with these 3 playing together, while the Spurs never made it through the Western Conference in back to back years when these guys were in prime.

Given this alone, I think folks need to ask themselves whether they were thinking in these terms when they voted for the Spurs trio, and if they were, what made them choose the less dominant core in the comparison? I'm not saying there can't be a good reasoning here, but I think it should be seen as something of a surprising conclusion...and I doubt people are thinking in these terms given the fact that the Spurs won more titles and Duncan is generally agreed upon to be the highest on the GOAT list of anyone in the conversation. Those two facts I think make it pretty easy to assume we're talking about at least comparably dominant runs, but they really aren't.

Then there's that thing about "today's NBA". With the Spurs, we're talking about a core who when they were in prime were using an offensive scheme built around a post-scorer with far less 3's that no one would even consider using today, and thus I really don't think people should assume that they'd be as (or more) effective today than they were back then. Someone could certainly make the argument for how much better the Spurs back then would have been if they'd just played more like today's game, and that that's why they should be the choice in this particular comparison, but that certainly shouldn't be something that's just assumed.

As a general rule, I think it probably makes sense to think that among cores from the past, the better those cores were at shooting from range, the better they'd translate to the modern game. And of course, in that Spurs trio, you only have one guy (Ginobili) who is really good at shooting, and he wasn't anywhere near as good at shooting as Curry & Thompson.

So yeah, I'm interested in people's thoughts here - I'm sure there's some very knowledgeable basketball folks picking the Spurs - but I went for the Warriors, and the points above were key to why.

To make it more simple, I don't think many would dispute that the Warriors core is better offensively than TP/Manu/Duncan, both on paper and for actual team level results. Defensively I don't think it's clear at all that the Spurs guys have an advantage here, there's a good argument that Draymond is a more ideal defender for the modern spaced out/highly switchable game than Duncan is (though he was more versatile and switchable in his early-mid 20s than you might expect), and Parker is easily the worst defender of the bunch here.

Playoff offenses in the modern game are so often about hunting a team's weakest defender and involving them in the action as much as possible, and with how much more switching there is and the amount of space making it harder to help, Parker's defense would be much more of a problem now than it was in his era. I feel pretty comfortable taking the Warriors core here.

Ideal or not Duncan is a top ten defender of all time dude. Most dominant defenders today are bigger and not as good as switching as Green today but they're still anchoring good defenses - there is obviously more to defense than that. Tim Duncan is incredibly agile for a 7 footer, he would be in argument for best shot blocker, and he would be among the leaders in rebounding.

In addition while Parker is the weakest defender he is playing the least impactful position. So sure, Parker is the worst perimeter defender and worst defender overall, but Manu is probably the best perimeter defender among the 4.

Duncan, Manu and Parker are more balanced. They have better ball handling, better rim protection, better rebounding, better playmaking, better driving, and are better in the paint. While shooting and switchability have become more pronounced in today's game it's not the only thing that matters.

Manu is a more efficient player than Klay Thompson despite not being as good of a shooter, and is really just a higher level player than either Thompson or Green are imo.


Also Doc pointing out their western conference record but somehow missing out that they missed the playoffs two years in a row is missing a ton of context. Kind of reminds me of the Jordan is 6-0 finals thing.


The Warriors are not more dominant than the Spurs...the Spurs w/l records are insane. The ratios that guys like Duncan, Manu and even Leonard have are pretty incredible. They have a pretty comparable level of dominance, the whole "the Spurs never did back to back and "only" did every other year" has always been an incredibly arbitrary criticism. They're still winning championships, who cares if they lose in between years instead of after?

How is that better than the Warriors winning a title in 2015 and then not winning another one w/o Durant until 2022? Doesn't seem all that dominant to me. That seems a lot worse than every other year.



To summarize that last point. If the criticism is that the Spurs only won every other year then the core of Green/Thompson/Curry have never even done that. They did not win in 2016 and are not winning in 2023 (they might not even make the post season, again). Durant included would make them a different core which isn't part of the question.

The Spurs are more consistent than the Warriors. The Warriors have not won more titles or more games in the RS off the top of my head.

[Matt15]

Steph/Klay/Draymond for todays league

[toodles23]

Ideal or not Duncan is a top ten defender of all time dude. Most dominant defenders today are bigger and not as good as switching as Green today but they're still anchoring good defenses - there is obviously more to defense than that. Tim Duncan is incredibly agile for a 7 footer, he would be in argument for best shot blocker, and he would be among the leaders in rebounding.

Duncan was a top 10 defender of all time in his era, yeah. For in era impact, Russell is by far the GOAT defender and arguably the GOAT overall, but in today's league he's probably not having even half of that impact because of how the game has changed. It's pretty reasonable to think that Duncan's impact defensively would be diminished in today's league - I don't think it's at all crazy to say that the responsibilities for a defensive big have changed more between now and Duncan's prime than it did between Russell's era and Duncan's. Rudy Gobert is still a great defender but he would be quite a bit more dominant 15+ years ago.

Yes, Duncan was very agile for a 7 footer, something I said in my post already, but Draymond is on a completely different level. There isn't some binary where you either are agile and switchable or you aren't, this is a sliding scale.

In addition while Parker is the weakest defender he is playing the least impactful position. So sure, Parker is the worst perimeter defender and worst defender overall, but Manu is probably the best perimeter defender among the 4.

This is an outdated take. The reason guard defense was considered unimportant was because they were the least involved defensive players, and the entire point of playoff offenses targeting the weakest defender is to get them involved as much as possible. A weak link in the chain defensively is much more damaging now than it was 15 years ago.

Duncan, Manu and Parker are more balanced. They have better ball handling, better rim protection, better rebounding, better playmaking, better driving, and are better in the paint. While shooting and switchability have become more pronounced in today's game it's not the only thing that matters.

Most of the things you listed here is related to offense, yet I hope you wouldn't dispute that the the Warriors core has the clear edge offensively. The idea that they're better ball handlers seems wrong to me, Draymond and Steph are both terrific ball handlers, and Duncan is easily the worst ball handler of the six players here. I think the fact that two of the three Spurs guys are absolute zeros from three is a huge deal, as is the fact that Curry and Klay are the best shooting backcourt in NBA history. Once again all of this is a sliding scale and not a binary checkbox.

Better playmaking is also ridiculously wrong, the Warriors guys have a massive edge there. Tony Parker had decent assist numbers because he was the Spurs primary ball handler but he was not a particularly notable playmaker. He was a low error guy but he racked up plenty of empty Rondo assists. Manu was a great playmaker but had limited volume. Once you consider volume, Curry is the best playmaker here by a lot even evaluating him from a traditional on ball standpoint, and once you factor in his cutting and gravity he blows any of the Spurs guys away. Draymond is also a really good playmaker, and Klay has some playmaking value when you consider his shooting gravity (but he has no on ball playmaking value).

Maybe this is partly an issue of semantics and you consider more latent value like shooting gravity and screening/cutting etc. to not be "playmaking", idk. But even then I would still give the playmaking edge to Curry/Klay/Draymond.

Manu is a more efficient player than Klay Thompson despite not being as good of a shooter, and is really just a higher level player than either Thompson or Green are imo.

Manu was great, he should have been the 2005 FMVP, but the idea that he was better than peak Draymond does not seem reasonable to me. Draymond was the best defender in the league for multiple years and has anchored a top 5 defense in five seasons, and was also a very reliable ball handler, an excellent playmaker if non traditional (he clearly has more value there than Parker in my mind), and in his best seasons even a decent outside shooter (though if you think that was fluke shooting variance that's fair).

[70sFan]

The Warriors have been more dominant than the Spurs were if you take longevity out of the mix, and I don't think this should be controversial to say. The Warriors are 18-0 in Western Conference playoff series in their last 6 years with these 3 playing together, while the Spurs never made it through the Western Conference in back to back years when these guys were in prime.

Wow Doc, if I didn't know you I'd think that you just used very insolet manipulation here...

The Warriors are 18-0 in the last 6 years... except they missed the playoffs 2 times in a row during that period, so not really. I know that you will respond that Klay was absent in these years, but what does it change? If you take Warriors trio, you'll have to deal with Curry and Klay missing a lot of games throughout the years.

Spurs didn't make WCF back to back - yeah, that's a fact. When you present it, it seems that their accomplishements look clearly less impressive. Except that if you take 2005-07 Spurs period you get 2 titles and one WCSF game 7 loss. To get a better 3 year peak from Warriors duo, you have to include seasons with Kevin Durant, which... is pointless in this thread. I'm quite sure that the Spurs would have won a lot more if you give them Dirk Nowitzki in 2005-07 period. Using 2017-18 Warriors to conclude that Warriors duo is better is intelectually dishonest.

I know, you will point out that the Warriors went to the finals back to back in 2015 and 2016. Great, but why is it more impressive than 2005 and 2007 titles? What makes "back to back" so important?

About consistency - that's false narrative again, because you use KD years to conclude how consistent Warriors trio is. In reality, Warriors trio resume includes missing playoffs two straight times, losing in the first round and being on pace to miss another playoffs this year (though I think they will get there). Spurs from 2003-14 never missed playoffs.

The last thing to note is that Warriors trio all reached their primes at the same time and have been consistently on that level throughout the years (maybe with the exception for Klay last year), while Manu and Parker were much younger than Duncan and their peaks didn't happen at the same time.

It's perfectly fine to choose Warriors trio, but I don't like what you did here and I'm sure it wasn't intentionally. Still, it doesn't look good from my prespective.

[70sFan]

I'd add that Duncan was definitely a better ball-hanlder than Klay to me

[AdagioPace]

With everyone at the level of their average prime season, which trio would you take for one season in today's NBA?

Interesting that we're tied at 50/50 here.

Let's make clear one thing from the jump:

The Warriors have been more dominant than the Spurs were if you take longevity out of the mix, and I don't think this should be controversial to say. The Warriors are 18-0 in Western Conference playoff series in their last 6 years with these 3 playing together, while the Spurs never made it through the Western Conference in back to back years when these guys were in prime.

Given this alone, I think folks need to ask themselves whether they were thinking in these terms when they voted for the Spurs trio, and if they were, what made them choose the less dominant core in the comparison? I'm not saying there can't be a good reasoning here, but I think it should be seen as something of a surprising conclusion...and I doubt people are thinking in these terms given the fact that the Spurs won more titles and Duncan is generally agreed upon to be the highest on the GOAT list of anyone in the conversation. Those two facts I think make it pretty easy to assume we're talking about at least comparably dominant runs, but they really aren't.

Then there's that thing about "today's NBA". With the Spurs, we're talking about a core who when they were in prime were using an offensive scheme built around a post-scorer with far less 3's that no one would even consider using today, and thus I really don't think people should assume that they'd be as (or more) effective today than they were back then. Someone could certainly make the argument for how much better the Spurs back then would have been if they'd just played more like today's game, and that that's why they should be the choice in this particular comparison, but that certainly shouldn't be something that's just assumed.

As a general rule, I think it probably makes sense to think that among cores from the past, the better those cores were at shooting from range, the better they'd translate to the modern game. And of course, in that Spurs trio, you only have one guy (Ginobili) who is really good at shooting, and he wasn't anywhere near as good at shooting as Curry & Thompson.

So yeah, I'm interested in people's thoughts here - I'm sure there's some very knowledgeable basketball folks picking the Spurs - but I went for the Warriors, and the points above were key to why.

I might sound simplistic but I think prime Draymond had more value than Ginobili (and I say this as a major Manu fan since his Virtus Bologna days). I think the Warriors trio is a bit better overall due to Draymond. This is the tiebraker for me,even though longevity favours Manu (and so windows to contend for the title). On a 15 years period (with all 3 primes starting together) I would definitely trust the Spurs trio more.

[AdagioPace]

The Warriors have been more dominant than the Spurs were if you take longevity out of the mix, and I don't think this should be controversial to say. The Warriors are 18-0 in Western Conference playoff series in their last 6 years with these 3 playing together, while the Spurs never made it through the Western Conference in back to back years when these guys were in prime.

Wow Doc, if I didn't know you I'd think that you just used very insolet manipulation here...

The Warriors are 18-0 in the last 6 years... except they missed the playoffs 2 times in a row during that period, so not really. I know that you will respond that Klay was absent in these years, but what does it change? If you take Warriors trio, you'll have to deal with Curry and Klay missing a lot of games throughout the years.

Spurs didn't make WCF back to back - yeah, that's a fact. When you present it, it seems that their accomplishements look clearly less impressive. Except that if you take 2005-07 Spurs period you get 2 titles and one WCSF game 7 loss. To get a better 3 year peak from Warriors duo, you have to include seasons with Kevin Durant, which... is pointless in this thread. I'm quite sure that the Spurs would have won a lot more if you give them Dirk Nowitzki in 2005-07 period. Using 2017-18 Warriors to conclude that Warriors duo is better is intelectually dishonest.

I know, you will point out that the Warriors went to the finals back to back in 2015 and 2016. Great, but why is it more impressive than 2005 and 2007 titles? What makes "back to back" so important?

About consistency - that's false narrative again, because you use KD years to conclude how consistent Warriors trio is. In reality, Warriors trio resume includes missing playoffs two straight times, losing in the first round and being on pace to miss another playoffs this year (though I think they will get there). Spurs from 2003-14 never missed playoffs.

The last thing to note is that Warriors trio all reached their primes at the same time and have been consistently on that level throughout the years (maybe with the exception for Klay last year), while Manu and Parker were much younger than Duncan and their peaks didn't happen at the same time.

It's perfectly fine to choose Warriors trio, but I don't like what you did here and I'm sure it wasn't intentionally. Still, it doesn't look good from my prespective.

the synchronistic primes are important to underline, as you did. Imagine 2005-07 Manu and 2001-03 TD playing together + parker. I think they could have hit an all-time great regular season (10+ SRS). The lack of a RS like this maybe makes them look less dominant than 2015 and 2016 Warriors. When it comes to Durant-less PS, Warriors don't look that better.

[SpreeS]

Peak - GSW
Prime - SAN/GSW
Longevity - SAN

[CodeBreaker]

The trio that went 73-9

[Doctor MJ]

The Warriors are not more dominant than the Spurs...the Spurs w/l records are insane. The ratios that guys like Duncan, Manu and even Leonard have are pretty incredible. They have a pretty comparable level of dominance, the whole "the Spurs never did back to back and "only" did every other year" has always been an incredibly arbitrary criticism. They're still winning championships, who cares if they lose in between years instead of after?

So, this just makes me think I should get more into the data. I'll post something here, feel free to post other things that might point in the same direction.

First, we all agree that the Spur trio played longer together and that that matters when evaluating who achieved the most, but I don't think it makes sense to include longevity as a factor when asking about which group you'd rather have in the Modern NBA.

With this in mind, the Warrior run began in '14-15 and the last post season was '21-22, so I think it makes sense to compare 8 year runs by the two cores. For the Spurs then, that means from '02-03 to '09-10.

Before I list any data I'll note that of course the Warriors have had major injury problems in '19-20 and '20-21 - people previously felt like I was manipulating the situation by ignoring those seasons, so here I'll just include them. I certainly wouldn't mind if people ignored those seasons and just focused on 6-year stretches, but my impression is that others are objecting to me doing this, so I won't.

Over those 8 seasons, here are the PM/G of each of the 6 players in question, RS & PS combined:

Curry +9.37
Green +7.22
Thompson +7.01
Duncan +6.20
Ginobili +5.48
Parker +4.86

Now, I could certainly see someone pointing out the Durant factor here. I don't have time right now to do a more thorough analysis trying to normalize for that factor, but by all means, if others want to do this and show data, that would be a worthwhile contribution and perhaps it will tell a different story.

But I think this data makes clear why it seems strange to me that people see these two cores as having comparably dominant success. In general, I think what I've shown here goes alongside what I said before pertaining to getting to the finals.

Last note regarding "Who cares about back to back?":

In terms of total accomplishment, I think it's reasonable not to care about the ability to succeed at the greatest scale without unevenness...but again, I just don't see the point of focusing on longevity given the premise in this thread.

This doesn't mean you can't make your decision based on the durability of one core over another, but it hardly makes sense to say that you think TP/Manu/Duncan would be better in the modern NBA than Steph/Klay/Dray because Tim Duncan played until he was 39 and to this point none of the Warriors are old enough to have done this.

[eminence]

Question - is it the average prime season of the trio as a group (this leads me to the Warriors pretty cleanly), or a mishmash of each trios primes (more interesting, as Parker didn't really have his prime overlap much with Duncan).

I think regardless I lean towards the Warriors trio, and plenty of the arguments here seem to be arguing against them based of longevity/injury issues, which to me is not generally the spirit of the question (Duncan/Manu of course had their own injury issues over the years, though not as notable as Steph/Klay).

[Doctor MJ]

The Warriors have been more dominant than the Spurs were if you take longevity out of the mix, and I don't think this should be controversial to say. The Warriors are 18-0 in Western Conference playoff series in their last 6 years with these 3 playing together, while the Spurs never made it through the Western Conference in back to back years when these guys were in prime.

Wow Doc, if I didn't know you I'd think that you just used very insolet manipulation here...

The Warriors are 18-0 in the last 6 years... except they missed the playoffs 2 times in a row during that period, so not really. I know that you will respond that Klay was absent in these years, but what does it change? If you take Warriors trio, you'll have to deal with Curry and Klay missing a lot of games throughout the years.

Spurs didn't make WCF back to back - yeah, that's a fact. When you present it, it seems that their accomplishements look clearly less impressive. Except that if you take 2005-07 Spurs period you get 2 titles and one WCSF game 7 loss. To get a better 3 year peak from Warriors duo, you have to include seasons with Kevin Durant, which... is pointless in this thread. I'm quite sure that the Spurs would have won a lot more if you give them Dirk Nowitzki in 2005-07 period. Using 2017-18 Warriors to conclude that Warriors duo is better is intelectually dishonest.

I know, you will point out that the Warriors went to the finals back to back in 2015 and 2016. Great, but why is it more impressive than 2005 and 2007 titles? What makes "back to back" so important?

About consistency - that's false narrative again, because you use KD years to conclude how consistent Warriors trio is. In reality, Warriors trio resume includes missing playoffs two straight times, losing in the first round and being on pace to miss another playoffs this year (though I think they will get there). Spurs from 2003-14 never missed playoffs.

The last thing to note is that Warriors trio all reached their primes at the same time and have been consistently on that level throughout the years (maybe with the exception for Klay last year), while Manu and Parker were much younger than Duncan and their peaks didn't happen at the same time.

It's perfectly fine to choose Warriors trio, but I don't like what you did here and I'm sure it wasn't intentionally. Still, it doesn't look good from my prespective.

Okay, so, let me try to parallel the '05-07 Spurs run, since you single that our as the best time for the Spurs.

I can't use '16-17 or else you and others will bring up KD, so I'll focus on '13-14 to '15-16. No KD, and a year of Mark "No NBA team should ever hire him again" Jackson.

If I do the same sort of analysis I just did over 8 years, for those respective 3 year runs, here's what I get:

Curry +9.64
Green +8.19
Thompson +7.97
Duncan +7.70
Ginobili +7.29
Parker +5.81

Tells a very similar story.

As always, if you want to do a different analysis, feel free to post it. I'm not saying these analyses I'm doing are the most thorough analyses possible, but they are what I can do with the time I have.

Now, I can tell you're trying to be nice based on some of the things you say, and I appreciate it, but there's still an overarching pattern here that's frustrating to me (and not just pertaining to you):

People are so quick to think I'm manipulating data toward my agenda...without themselves coming back with a superior data analysis themselves.

Now, I think the truth for some folks is that they can't do this datawork themselves, and that's no sin, but as someone who can do this work, it's not useful to me to spend time trying to put forth data patterns people can understand if those people will only see that data as rhetoric to be torn down rather than made use of.

I don't mind people saying something like, "Okay, but of course there is the Durant factor and I'd really like to see what it looks like with that part scooped out.", but the fact that my simple analyses have flaws isn't something that people should be thinking I either a) don't understand, or b) understand and am purposefully injecting the flaws in. The flaws are typically obvious, but I'm sharing what I can give in the time I have. I'm humble about my ability to do these analyses - knowing full well how much more sophisticated the cutting edge has gotten while I've spent most of my time on my actual job - but I'm sharing what I think can add to the discussion at hand under the assumption that other people are like me and look to use the information shared with them to help them build a richer understanding of what happened.

Suffice to say though, if people aren't like that, then there's no point in me contributing here. I should either start a blog where I remove all comments, or stop sharing anything at all as the world that I find interesting is to others simply a threat to what they think know, and thus to their identity.

Very last thought:

As someone who was active on these boards in the '05-07 time period, I think it has to be emphasized that people in the 2020s seem to view those Spurs as more dominant than people at the time did, and I find this to be strange but interesting. The same is true about Duncan's career in general. He definitely feels like he's getting elevated by people coming into serious analysis after his prime was over.

This doesn't mean the new people are wrong - and lord knows I can be wrong - but I do think that the 2000s Spurs would be viewed differently by newcomers had the Spurs not had their 2010s resurgence to put a bow on things, and I think it would be fruitful for people to consider how they'd think about the Spurs if, say, the Spurs run ended with Duncan's prime.

All these guys deserve credit for what they did in the 2010s of course, and as someone who sees value in being a part of enabling and sustaining a healthy team culture, believe me when I say it is helping the players in question on my GOAT lists...but none of that later work should be going back and re-framing the 2000s run as more dominant than it was.

[Doctor MJ]

Question - is it the average prime season of the trio as a group (this leads me to the Warriors pretty cleanly), or a mishmash of each trios primes (more interesting, as Parker didn't really have his prime overlap much with Duncan).

This is a reasonable point.

From my perspective Duncan & Ginobili peaked in roughly the same era (remember, they were only born a year apart), and both were vastly superior to where Parker peaked, so while in theory you could create a team where the primes aligned better, I don't find myself thinking that a mid-00s Spurs team with a prime Parker yields that much of an improvement.

On the other hand if we want to ask how good the Spurs would have been had they developed their offense entirely around Ginobili and pace & space, that is worth discussion.

[DCasey91]

I think ceiling, scaling and peak all belong to GSW.

If you split 2015/2016 one for each of the Cavs/GSW respectively (both teams had injury so a split is right to me)

It was basically injury that stopped them winning in 2019.

I also didn’t like one finals series of Curry when he basically went shot jacking but that’s neither here nor there. They were going to win regardless

The only bad mark I believe is 2020 losing to a green Memphis team whereby both Green/Curry had numerous turnovers in critical situations. They ran up I think 13 from memory which is very bad. And over half were run of the mill plays. In fact to my memory even though hazy that’s been the biggest downfall along with inside defence in certain matchups.

I do think Spurs are the better playmaking/defensive team although when GSW had the full quota Iggy/KD/Fit Klay, Wiggins/Payton/THT/Porter to go along they always had elite perimeter players defensively with a lot of depth.

GSW are more volatile in a good way if you will if that’s a word to describe it because Klay to me is largely overrated in context yet is easily the biggest nuke when on.

Either way you are getting a fantastic core that will win a lot lol.

[rand]

Question - is it the average prime season of the trio as a group (this leads me to the Warriors pretty cleanly), or a mishmash of each trios primes (more interesting, as Parker didn't really have his prime overlap much with Duncan).

I think regardless I lean towards the Warriors trio, and plenty of the arguments here seem to be arguing against them based of longevity/injury issues, which to me is not generally the spirit of the question (Duncan/Manu of course had their own injury issues over the years, though not as notable as Steph/Klay).

Each player's average prime season individually, not their historical average prime season as a group