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

[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?

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.

04 Pistons closest game against NJN was 6 points where NJ shot 19-26 from line. So that doesn't count

08 Celtics won 4 point game where Cleve was 22-26 from line; 5 point game where they were 25-35 - so that doesnt count

09 Lakers closest win was 13 points - no luck there

12 Heat had one 4 point win where Boston shot 26-29.

So that would make the Spurs the only one of the group who got lucky in their opponents shooting poorly from the line.

[sp6r=underrated]

So that would make the Spurs the only one of the group who got lucky in their opponents shooting poorly from the line.

First, you have to actually look at the players who missed free throws. Based on the players who went to line Dallas should have scored 4.4 more points than they did from the stripe. SAS should have scored 2.1 more points. Accordingly you are incorrect that free throw variance is the deciding factor in the game. SAS would have won this game with normal free throw shooting.


Second other teams have won games due to luck at the line. I'll highlight the example of the 02 lakers in G7 against Sacramento. In regulation time of G7 Sacramento went 16-30 from the stripe. Sacramento should have gone 21-30. The lakers in that game actually shot above expectations. The kings should have won by 5 in regulation

[sp6r=underrated]

I'd also note that this focus on the false allegation that SAS only won because of free throws is a classic case of losing the big picture. When evaluating teams you want to look at all of the games played. SAS MOV in the RS and PS is strongly above the typical NBA champion.

[richboy]

2014 Mavs only went 7 games because it took SAS most of the series to decide playing defense. They had completely owned Dallas and had taken them for granted to start that series.

This is just me. Once Diaw was playing big minutes in the OKC and Miami series San Antonio look like a team on another level. If they bring back everyone next year and start Diaw at PF I think they will have an all-time great season next year. I'm not going to pick them to win 72 because Pop wouldn't let them do that. I could see high 60 wins and top 10 all time SRS.

As for what champs would beat them. They had a record breaking 118.5 offensive rating against Miami. Miami defense was not as good during the year but they slacked during the year. in the playoffs they were still pretty good. They also killed a really good OKC defense. I think San Antonio is the best offensive team I've seen in a long time.

I've said this in the past and still think that the 01 Lakers might be a little overrated. They were not great in the regular season. They went nuts in the playoffs. Somethings really went well for them in the playoffs. They played a San Antonio team hit with injuries. This was before Bruce Bowen. They had nobody who could guard Kobe. Kobe had went from a 22ppg guy to a 29 ppg player. Teams were not ready for that dynamic of the Lakers.

I picked the 01 Lakers to win but I don't see Kobe lighting up Kawhi. Duncan defended Shaq as good as anyone in the league. Fisher shot 52% from the 3 point line during that run in the playoffs. He was sub 40% during the regular season. I'll pick the 01 Lakers. In my mind if the 01 Spurs had someone like Kawhi to defend Kobe that series would have been much more difficult.

[CaliBullsFan]

2014 Mavs only went 7 games because it took SAS most of the series to decide playing defense. They had completely owned Dallas and had taken them for granted to start that series.

This is just me. Once Diaw was playing big minutes in the OKC and Miami series San Antonio look like a team on another level. If they bring back everyone next year and start Diaw at PF I think they will have an all-time great season next year. I'm not going to pick them to win 72 because Pop wouldn't let them do that. I could see high 60 wins and top 10 all time SRS.

As for what champs would beat them. They had a record breaking 118.5 offensive rating against Miami. Miami defense was not as good during the year but they slacked during the year. in the playoffs they were still pretty good. They also killed a really good OKC defense. I think San Antonio is the best offensive team I've seen in a long time.

I've said this in the past and still think that the 01 Lakers might be a little overrated. They were not great in the regular season. They went nuts in the playoffs. Somethings really went well for them in the playoffs. They played a San Antonio team hit with injuries. This was before Bruce Bowen. They had nobody who could guard Kobe. Kobe had went from a 22ppg guy to a 29 ppg player. Teams were not ready for that dynamic of the Lakers.

I picked the 01 Lakers to win but I don't see Kobe lighting up Kawhi. Duncan defended Shaq as good as anyone in the league. Fisher shot 52% from the 3 point line during that run in the playoffs. He was sub 40% during the regular season. I'll pick the 01 Lakers. In my mind if the 01 Spurs had someone like Kawhi to defend Kobe that series would have been much more difficult.

The reason the 01 Lakers were so good is because Shaq and Kobe in the triangle is pretty much the perfect duo and they were playing off each other perfectly averaging 60/20/10 every night with the perfect role players surrounding them

Oh and young Kobe would rip Kawhi's heart out and feed it to him for lunch.

[ElGee]

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.

04 Pistons closest game against NJN was 6 points where NJ shot 19-26 from line. So that doesn't count

08 Celtics won 4 point game where Cleve was 22-26 from line; 5 point game where they were 25-35 - so that doesnt count

09 Lakers closest win was 13 points - no luck there

12 Heat had one 4 point win where Boston shot 26-29.

So that would make the Spurs the only one of the group who got lucky in their opponents shooting poorly from the line.

Maybe I wasn't clear -- the expected free throw shooting in the Mavs game you are referring to cost Dallas four points. Since they did not lose the game by 3 points, it's very strange to say that free throw shooting cost them the game.

Also, the series that I referenced had nothing to do with free throw shooting.

[richboy]

2014 Mavs only went 7 games because it took SAS most of the series to decide playing defense. They had completely owned Dallas and had taken them for granted to start that series.

This is just me. Once Diaw was playing big minutes in the OKC and Miami series San Antonio look like a team on another level. If they bring back everyone next year and start Diaw at PF I think they will have an all-time great season next year. I'm not going to pick them to win 72 because Pop wouldn't let them do that. I could see high 60 wins and top 10 all time SRS.

As for what champs would beat them. They had a record breaking 118.5 offensive rating against Miami. Miami defense was not as good during the year but they slacked during the year. in the playoffs they were still pretty good. They also killed a really good OKC defense. I think San Antonio is the best offensive team I've seen in a long time.

I've said this in the past and still think that the 01 Lakers might be a little overrated. They were not great in the regular season. They went nuts in the playoffs. Somethings really went well for them in the playoffs. They played a San Antonio team hit with injuries. This was before Bruce Bowen. They had nobody who could guard Kobe. Kobe had went from a 22ppg guy to a 29 ppg player. Teams were not ready for that dynamic of the Lakers.

I picked the 01 Lakers to win but I don't see Kobe lighting up Kawhi. Duncan defended Shaq as good as anyone in the league. Fisher shot 52% from the 3 point line during that run in the playoffs. He was sub 40% during the regular season. I'll pick the 01 Lakers. In my mind if the 01 Spurs had someone like Kawhi to defend Kobe that series would have been much more difficult.

The reason the 01 Lakers were so good is because Shaq and Kobe in the triangle is pretty much the perfect duo and they were playing off each other perfectly averaging 60/20/10 every night with the perfect role players surrounding them

Oh and young Kobe would rip Kawhi's heart out and feed it to him for lunch.

Well Lebron and Durant are better than young Kobe and didn't get anything ripped out.

Yes if you let Kobe and Shaq go off then your going to lose. Kawhi is exactly the type of defender that has given Kobe problems threw the years. Kobe never played that well against the Spurs in a series again after 01. He played amazing when the Spurs lost the starting SG Anderson and got to rip Antonio Daniels.

[kurtis48239]

It seems it's the consensus that the Spurs would take down Detroit in 04. I don't agree, that Pistons team was one of the most incredible defensive teams I've ever seen. If the Spurs were threatened by Ibaka, imagine a prime Ben Wallace. Spurs would struggle to even initiate their offense against the Pistons once they reached half court.

That would be something though, one of the best modern offensive teams against one of the best modern defensive teams.

Not to mention the 04 pistons has the better bench.

[sca]

01 Lakers - lose
02 Lakers - win
03 Spurs - win
04 Pistons - undecided
05 Spurs - lose
06 Heat - win
07 Spurs - undecided
08 Celtics - lose
09 Lakers - win
10 Lakers - win
11 Mavericks - undecided
12 Heat - win
13 Heat - win

[sp6r=underrated]

Maybe I wasn't clear -- the expected free throw shooting in the Mavs game you are referring to cost Dallas four points. Since they did not lose the game by 3 points, it's very strange to say that free throw shooting cost them the game.

Also, the series that I referenced had nothing to do with free throw shooting.

Beyond being irrelevant to evaluating the quality of teams it also isn't accurate to say SA won the game due to free throw variance. I ran the numbers Dallas lost 2 net points when you factor in the free throw shooting of all the players on SAS and Dallas. Dallas had some relatively poor shooters go to the line which makes the percentage look worse than it was and SAS had top shooters shoot at the line disproportionately which makes their shooting look better than it was.

[Cyrusman122000]

2001 lakers- lose
2002 lakers- win
2003 spurs- win
2004 pistons- this is a tossup. I honestly don't know
2005- lose
2006- win
2007- win
2008-lose
2009- lose
2010-win
2011- lose
2012-win
2013-win

[BballTechnique]

Posters are pretending this is a "who would actually win the matchup" thread, but like every other longitudinal team/player comparison thread, it's actually a "evaluate how much general admiration is associated with each team" thread.

To be completely honest, the 14 Spurs would absolutely eviscerate older teams, including the heralded 01 Lakers, that had no idea how to defend the 3. The game has evolved. More recent teams would stand a better chance. I think the 14 Spurs should be favored against everyone except maybe the 12 Heat and the 08 Celtics, which are tossups.

Great post. Nostalgia is very powerful among sports fans.

It would take a great, new-age system to compete. Thibodeau's Celtics and Carlisle's Mavs are examples, along with the 2012 Heat, like you said, since their athleticism would give the Spurs' problems.

Basketball has evolved, it's all about team defense, spacing, ball movement and schemes. Look at OKC, a team with the 2nd best player in the league and arguably the 3rd-5th best. If they had played in an earlier era, they wouldn't receive nearly as much scrutiny as they do now for not having a system and running primarily ISO offense, as that's what most teams did in the 90s and 2000s.

The Spurs really weren't that innovative but on defense the 2011 Mavs zone was much more innovative. The Heat were just a really good matchup for them because of their lack of size and lack of true lockdown perimeter defenders. There's no way Kwahi Leonard drops 29 on the same Ron Artest that shut down Kevin Durant or the Kobe that locked down Melo.

And there's a ton of lineups that the Spurs ran against the Heat that they would never dare against Kobe/Artest/Odom/Bynum/Gasol.... like running Mills and Parker at the same time.

And the Spurs have really never found an answer for Lamar Odom. He's too fast for Duncan and too big for everyone else. Even if he's not scoring he's going to dominate the boards.

And Spliter vs Bynum would probably be a murder all by itself. The two championship Laker teams were made to dismantle the Spurs.

[BballTechnique]

Yes if you let Kobe and Shaq go off then your going to lose. Kawhi is exactly the type of defender that has given Kobe problems threw the years. Kobe never played that well against the Spurs in a series again after 01. He played amazing when the Spurs lost the starting SG Anderson and got to rip Antonio Daniels.

He destroyed Bowen in 2004 and 2008. 53.3% from the field in 2008. In 2004, Bowen was so useless against Kobe that Pop decided it was better to use an offensive player (Devin Brown) and just trap or double him every time he touched the ball.

Even on the out of bounds play they took the man off the inbounder to double Kobe 40 feet from the hoop with 0.4 seconds left.

One major difference between Kobe and Lebron is that LBJ can be defended by smaller players or slower players without help. I'm rewatching the series now and it's really amazing how many times the Spurs would switch off Parker or Green or Diaw on to Lebron and not pay a price. You do that to Kobe and you better send help immediately and hope he doesn't score as well.

[Basileus777]

Well Lebron and Durant are better than young Kobe and didn't get anything ripped out.

LeBron put up dominant offensive statistics in these finals, Leonard's defense was hardly effective on him at all. Leonard is benefiting from a narrative here that defies the actual numbers.

[DQuinn1575]

Maybe I wasn't clear -- the expected free throw shooting in the Mavs game you are referring to cost Dallas four points. Since they did not lose the game by 3 points, it's very strange to say that free throw shooting cost them the game.

Also, the series that I referenced had nothing to do with free throw shooting.

Beyond being irrelevant to evaluating the quality of teams it also isn't accurate to say SA won the game due to free throw variance. I ran the numbers Dallas lost 2 net points when you factor in the free throw shooting of all the players on SAS and Dallas. Dallas had some relatively poor shooters go to the line which makes the percentage look worse than it was and SAS had top shooters shoot at the line disproportionately which makes their shooting look better than it was.

It's not really irrelevant to the quality of the teams - SA barely survived a first round playoff series, and had they lost I believe most people on this board would regard SA less than they currently do.

How your team does at the FT line is totally under your control; so if they made 2 or missed 2 more than normal, then it is all on SA - if they won a game by shooting 100% from the line - well that's what they did, and they deserve any and all credit for that action.

Now, if they play great FT defense, and force a team to miss 4 more free throws then they normally would, well that's a little different. Your opponent FT% is pretty much luck.

[sp6r=underrated]

How your team does at the FT line is totally under your control; so if they made 2 or missed 2 more than normal, then it is all on SA - if they won a game by shooting 100% from the line - well that's what they did, and they deserve any and all credit for that action.

Now, if they play great FT defense, and force a team to miss 4 more free throws then they normally would, well that's a little different. Your opponent FT% is pretty much luck.

First, This is probably the most illogical thing I've ever read on realgm. If you are going to treat Dallas's missed free throws in comparison to regular season performance as just random variance you absolutely have to do the same with SA.

To not do so is highly and obviously intellectually inconsistent. You're saying Dallas missed free throws are just random luck but SAS were due to structural flaws with the team. That makes utterly no sense. Either you treat both teams missed free throws as random noise or neither. However you can't have it both ways.


BTW: anything to say about G7 Lakers-Kings. Kings would have won G7 in regulation.

It's not really irrelevant to the quality of the teams - SA barely survived a first round playoff series, and had they lost I believe most people on this board would regard SA less than they currently do.

If SAS did not win the WCSF, WCF and NBA Finals by an average of 12.5 ppg people would think of less of them. I agree. However, they did win those series by an average of 12.5 ppg and accordingly we should include it in our analysis.

[ardee]

Kobe never played that well against the Spurs in a series again after 01.

Kobe averaged 29.3/6.1/4.9 on 48/36/75 from 2001 to 2008 in 5 series against the Spurs.

Do you expect him to put up 34/7/7 every series? Just because he didn't do that doesn't mean he didn't roast the Spurs every time they played.

[sp6r=underrated]

First, Bryant slaughtered the Spurs in 08.

Second, what is the utility of looking at the 01 and 02 series for determining how the Spurs would do against the lakers? They have a completely different style of play.

[barborous]

The source of many misconceptions here is that people don't want to just chalk up things to randomness, luck, and statistical variance. But stochastic fluctuation is a far, far more powerful force in basketball than any human, who naturally wants to believe in neat narratives and consistent performances based on ephemeral concepts like how "good" a team is, can really intuitively grasp.

The fact is that with some extremely good luck (what would be in retrospect characterized as getting "hot"), the 14 Mavs could have swept the 14 Spurs. It was incredibly unlikely, and the reverse was magnitudes of order more likely (and probably more likely than what actually happened), but it could have happened. That's a majority of the reason why you see dominant teams like the 14 Spurs, the 08 Celtics, and many others, struggling with far lesser opponents, and are surprised - that's the stochastic reality of the situation clashing with the narratives you've constructed in your head. Sometimes some of the bull narratives we concoct for ourselves like "they took them for granted" or "it was a bad matchup" are actually true to some degree as well, but for the most part, they're just stories we tell ourselves so we don't admit to ourselves that we're basically rabidly following a giant weighted random number generator.

To focus on just one aspect of "luck" - missing a few free throws - without realizing that basically the entire game is equally based on luck, is hilariously ridiculous. Normally I wouldn't put this so bluntly and be so dismissive of narratives, since they do make following teams more entertaining, but the fact that a poster is selectively chalking up aspects of the game to luck to suit some agenda was just so absurd that I felt the need to point it out.

[Sedale Threatt]

It seems it's the consensus that the Spurs would take down Detroit in 04. I don't agree, that Pistons team was one of the most incredible defensive teams I've ever seen. If the Spurs were threatened by Ibaka, imagine a prime Ben Wallace. Spurs would struggle to even initiate their offense against the Pistons once they reached half court.

That would be something though, one of the best modern offensive teams against one of the best modern defensive teams.

Not to mention the 04 pistons has the better bench.

What? This Spurs team is one of the deepest in NBA history...