GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT -- #1 71 Bucks v. #16 99 Spurs

[penbeast0]

For this tournament, I will seed 16 of the greatest teams in history by their SRS. I didn't use multiple year iterations of roughly the same team, though the Russell Celtics, Jordan Bulls, and Duncan Spurs are each represented twice.

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era. This hopefully will eliminate a bit of the recency bias. Health is as it was, if a player was 75% during the playoffs that year, assume he's only 75% now, this is a playoff tournament, not a regular season seeding.

One last thing. VOTES WITHOUT ANALYSIS (or with what in my personal subject opinion is stupid analysis) WONT BE COUNTED.

1971 Milwaukee Bucks
Lew Alcindor (Kareem)
Greg Smith
Bob Dandridge
Jon McGlocklin
Oscar Robertson

Luscius Allen
Bob Boozer

The highest SRS of all time, the best offense AND the best defense in the league, Kareem surrounded by talent, what's not to like? Kareem was energized by the arrival of Oscar Robertson, not peak Oscar but still one of the strongest and smartest guards to ever play. Bob Dandridge provided a nice 2 way 3rd star, McGlocklin was a pure jump shooter who could play point and Smith was a dirty work player. Allen and Boozer provided starter quality minutes off the bench, both playing over 20 mpg in the playoffs as coach Larry Costello shortened his rotation to 7 players.

1999 San Antonio Spurs
David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Sean Elliot
Mario Elie
Avery Johnson

Jared Jackson
Malik Rose
Jerome Kersey

The greatest twin tower team in history. David Robinson had come back from his brutal knee injury to have his best post injury year, giving up offensive primacy to Duncan but still arguably the most impactful defensive force in the game. Duncan was the focus of the offense with little Avery Johnson pushing the ball and well rounded Sean Elliot and early 3 and D player Mario Elie on the wings (as he was for Hakeem's titles). The Spurs won with best in league defense, shutting down the inside game with two HOF centers, they were only 11/29 offensively and in the playoffs, Elie and the bench were pretty much shut down. Note that in addition to the 3 bench guys listed (cutoff was playing 10+mpg), the Spurs also had Steve Kerr, Will Perdue, and Antonio Daniels for a lot of practice floor talent. They only played 50 games that year so they might have been a bit more rested than a typical playoff team as well.

Who wins and why?

[penbeast0]

This will be an interesting challenge for Milwaukee as the Spurs are ideally suited to fact Kareem and the slashing midrange games of Robertson and Dandridge. They can hide Avery Johnson on McGlocklin who, while tall, was mainly a jump shooter and Luscius Allen is more of a traditional sized shooting point. Robinson isn't really the type of physical banging center who gave Kareem the most trouble (Thurmond, Wilt, Moses), but he's tall enough and still athletic enough to stay with Kareem and they can switch him in and out with Duncan. The lack of 3 point shooting hurts Elliot and Jared Jackson which is a little problem for San Antonio, but both had decent midrange games as well, Elie didn't but most of his scoring at this point in his career came off his off ball cuts into the lane or on the break.

I still see Milwaukee winning this, they have a much stronger lineup 3-7 but there is no way Greg Smith and Bob Boozer (both combo forwards who more easily slid to the 3 than the 5) could cope with either Duncan or Robinson so I see this going 6 or 7 games and a couple of breaks could give it to the Spurs. Neither team were great running teams preferring to work the ball inside to their superstars.

[70sFan]

Don't have enough time, but I'd say quickly that it's an interesting matchup because:

1. Twin Towers would do damn good job on Kareem.
2. Oscar could be a key factor. His ability to read the defense is on the highest level and if anyone could beat 1999 Spurs defense, it's him. Rim protection is nothing uncommon for him to face, as he played tons of games against Russell and Wilt in playoffs.

[trex_8063]

This is a really interesting match-up. I mean, I think the '71 Bucks are one of the tip-top most dominant teams ever assembled, and the SRS comparison really isn't close. So from that standpoint, it seems like Bucks "easily".

But otoh, the '99 Spurs create all kinds of match-up issues for the Bucks due to the twin towers. Although, I suppose the Bucks could just play less of the ultra-undersized combo forward Greg Smith and more of Bob Boozer (I honestly don't know what kind of defender Boozer was). Additionally, they could dip a little deeper and counter with back-up C Dick Cunningham (who was a legit 6'10" and at the very least appears a very solid rebounder). So they're not completely without a counter-foil for this. I will note that they played at least one team with a notably bigger primary frontcourt in the playoffs (Warriors had 6'11" Thurmond, 6'8" [rebounding giant] Jerry Lucas, and 6'10" Clyde Lee)........Bucks still rolled over them in the playoffs [Warriors stole one game by 2 pts, but lost the other four by double-digits, including an embarrassing 50-pt blowout in G5].

I can't decide how much the lack of 3pt-line will hurt the Spurs. They were only 24th/29 in 3PAr and 19th/29 in 3pt%. otoh, multiple of their perimeter scorers were so by way of 3pt shooting (Jackson, Elie, Elliott). Jackson and Elie in particular I think are significantly mitigated by lack of 3pt line.
I think the Bucks have a really nice cover for Elliott in Bob Dandridge, too.

The Spurs do have who I think would be a nice cover for Oscar in Jaren Jackson, if they're willing to play him more. However, Jackson's already limited offensive utility is significantly mitigated by the lack of a 3pt line, fwiw.
I suppose Mario Elie is a good cover for Oscar, too [I remember Elie being a fairly tough/decent defender, am I mis-remembering?]; though I don't know how well they can "hide" Avery Johnson on Jon McGlocklin, as has been suggested, if they put Elie on Oscar.

McGlocklin, imo, was one of the "lights out" spot-up shooters of that era, imo. He was dropping almost 16 ppg (even adjusted down for pace, that'd be like 14+ ppg today) on +6.3% rTS (56.3% is respectable even by current league standards). I mean, the guy could just flat-out shoot; covering him with a guy he's got 7" on just makes his job that much easier. I'd not be surprised if he goes off for 20 ppg on nice efficiency if they go with Avery guarding him.

I also wonder who you use to cover Dandridge if Elie is on Oscar. Elliott was a couple inches taller, but I don't remember him being all that good defensively [unless I mis-remember]. Dandridge was a beast in the post, and capable of scoring on larger forwards in there. So it could be that Milwaukee offers the Spurs some match-up problems, too.

Lucius Allen was a nice young, athletic young guard (who had a really nice playoff run that year, fwiw). Between Oscar, Dandridge, McGlocklin, and Allen, I really like Milwaukee's perimeter core over S.A.'s (especially without a 3pt line). And while S.A. has the twin towers, the Bucks have they guy who is [imo, comfortably] the best player in the series in '71 Kareem. The dude was unstoppable in single coverage, and an excellent passer out of the doubles (and an outstanding defensive anchor in his own right).

I just can't bet against them without a really good reason.

Vote: '71 Bucks (probably in 6 games??)

[penbeast0]

... I suppose the Bucks could just play less of the ultra-undersized combo forward Greg Smith and more of Bob Boozer (I honestly don't know what kind of defender Boozer was). Additionally, they could dip a little deeper and counter with back-up C Dick Cunningham (who was a legit 6'10" and at the very least appears a very solid rebounder).
...
The Spurs do have who I think would be a nice cover for Oscar in Jaren Jackson, if they're willing to play him more. However, Jackson's already limited offensive utility is significantly mitigated by the lack of a 3pt line, fwiw.
I suppose Mario Elie is a good cover for Oscar, too [I remember Elie being a fairly tough/decent defender, am I mis-remembering?]; though I don't know how well they can "hide" Avery Johnson on Jon McGlocklin, as has been suggested, if they put Elie on Oscar.
...
I also wonder who you use to cover Dandridge if Elie is on Oscar. Elliott was a couple inches taller, but I don't remember him being all that good defensively [unless I mis-remember]. Dandridge was a beast in the post, and capable of scoring on larger forwards in there. So it could be that Milwaukee offers the Spurs some match-up problems, too.
....

Boozer was another combo forward without a significant size advantage on Greg Smith, despite being a bit taller. Boozer was more an offensive focused player, Smith a defensive specialist. Cunningham isn't going to be much help, he was a typical BWS (big white stiff) though he did tend to be more of a jump shooter (set shooter?) rather than having serious post moves from what I remember of him. He was also going bald very young, though that's not really important. Elliot wasn't bad defensively, he wasn't bad offensively, just always seemed too passive, think Otto Porter with no 3 point line. And, if McGlocklin is going to abuse Avery, think what Oscar would do to him. Elie was a very good defender with excellent athleticism but not a great handle or ability to get separation on his jump shot. He was like Michael Cooper lite.

[trex_8063]

... I suppose the Bucks could just play less of the ultra-undersized combo forward Greg Smith and more of Bob Boozer (I honestly don't know what kind of defender Boozer was). Additionally, they could dip a little deeper and counter with back-up C Dick Cunningham (who was a legit 6'10" and at the very least appears a very solid rebounder).
...
The Spurs do have who I think would be a nice cover for Oscar in Jaren Jackson, if they're willing to play him more. However, Jackson's already limited offensive utility is significantly mitigated by the lack of a 3pt line, fwiw.
I suppose Mario Elie is a good cover for Oscar, too [I remember Elie being a fairly tough/decent defender, am I mis-remembering?]; though I don't know how well they can "hide" Avery Johnson on Jon McGlocklin, as has been suggested, if they put Elie on Oscar.
...
I also wonder who you use to cover Dandridge if Elie is on Oscar. Elliott was a couple inches taller, but I don't remember him being all that good defensively [unless I mis-remember]. Dandridge was a beast in the post, and capable of scoring on larger forwards in there. So it could be that Milwaukee offers the Spurs some match-up problems, too.
....

Boozer was another combo forward without a significant size advantage on Greg Smith, despite being a bit taller. Boozer was more an offensive focused player, Smith a defensive specialist. Cunningham isn't going to be much help, he was a typical BWS (big white stiff) though he did tend to be more of a jump shooter (set shooter?) rather than having serious post moves from what I remember of him. He was also going bald very young, though that's not really important.

Watch it there, fella.....I also started balding young.
Anyway, yeah, I've never read anything to suggest Boozer was defensively inclined, just pointing out he's a little bigger, and mentioning options.

Elliot wasn't bad defensively, he wasn't bad offensively, just always seemed too passive, think Otto Porter with no 3 point line.

I didn't say he was bad; I just said I didn't remember him as being particularly good defensively. And Dandridge can be a tough cover in the post [particularly if one is relatively passive??]. I def think Otto Porter is better defensively, btw.

And, if McGlocklin is going to abuse Avery, think what Oscar would do to him.

Well, that's kinda what I'm implying: Johnson is a defensive liability no matter what they do. Oscar can back him down and score and/or pass over top of him with ease all day long......and he can't truly be "hidden" on McGlocklin either, as I think Jon'll feast upon a shorter defender. He's the primary match-up Milwaukee can exploit.....unless they simply opt not to play Avery; but then they sorely lack playmakers.

Elie was a very good defender with excellent athleticism but not a great handle or ability to get separation on his jump shot. He was like Michael Cooper lite.

Ironic you call Elie "lite", given he's a much bulkier frame than the lanky Cooper. But I get what you're saying. I still stand by what I said: ONE of Oscar or McGlocklin is going to go off in this series unless they play more Jaren Jackson over Avery Johnson (but that's gonna hurt their offense significantly without a 3pt line).

[pandrade83]

Rule Impacts

Even though the metrics don't scream that this hurts the Spurs, I don't love the loss of a 3 point line because of the value it takes away from so many key players (Ellie, Kerr, Jackson) and this feels like it reduces this down to Duncan/Robinson + a bunch of replacement level guys. . .

Which is Why I'm taking the Bucks

In this setting, it very much feels like the Bucks have the best player on the court by a fair margin plus 4 of the 6 best guys. Robinson/Duncan are obviously going to wreak havoc in the paint, but I love this version of Kareem against those 2. Oscar should have his way on the perimeter & orchestrate a robust Milwaukee offense.

I feel like I'm making it a bit cut & dry, but I'm taking the Bucks in 5.

[trex_8063]

Wish this project was getting more participation. I think it's an interesting idea.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote - 71 Bucks

Both teams have a young star and veteran, but the Bucks have the most dominant player (Kareem) and the better balance with a PG and C instead of PF/C. Spurs are a good defense against Kareem, but Kareem's defense should do well against them too. Dandridge is a strong two way 3rd guy. Both teams have a great defense but mainly due to Oscar the Bucks offense is better.

[Bel]

Yeah I wish this was more popular too.

I'm not as familiar with the 71 Bucks beyond their playoff games, but it really does seem like the Spurs backcourt would just get worn out on D and wouldn't be able to create enough on offense. Kareem is such a big threat which leaves more room for the outside Bucks players, so I think there's too many ways the Bucks can squeak past the twin towers versus the more rigid Spurs offense. The one plus side is the expected coverage of Kareem: the twin towers showed that they could really hinder peak Shaq in these years - Kareem offers different threats, but D-Rob and young Duncan are both very flexible in coverage.

The degree of era performance is massive though. The Bucks were 6.45 SRS higher than the #2 team in the league. Unreal. That's 50% higher than next best 2017 Warriors or the 1996 Bulls. Then they went 12-2 in the playoffs.

Bucks in 5 or 6. Duncan might be able to squeeze out a couple outstanding games but the Bucks have so many options.

[eminence]

Another vote for the 71 Bucks. I'd guess in 5?

Agreed that the 3pt loss doesn't look terrible for the Spurs at first glance, but that's really all a couple of their guys do so it kinda is a real problem. Think Oscar will be able to generate decent looks for the Bucks even against this vaunted defense. Would be interesting to see who the Spurs put on KAJ and who the Bucks put KAJ on the other end. But really I just don't have enough faith in the Spurs to generate consistent offense.

[Samurai]

I would vote for the 71 Bucks, but I see it a little closer than some others do. I could see this going 6 or even 7 games.

While a lot of discussion has been made of the Twin Towers vs. Kareem match-up, I think the Bucks end up winning due to their guards. Oscar loves to post-up. I would assume Elie would be assigned to him, but I don't see him stopping Big O or staying out of foul trouble trying to guard him. And while it is true that McGlocklin is best remembered for the "McGlocklin Bombs" - his high-arching shots from long range, he was also willing to be a midrange post-up player if he had a mismatch. And he would have a huge mismatch if the Spurs tried to put Avery Johnson on him.

The Spurs have a big advantage in whichever Twin Tower Kareem does not guard. Greg Smith would be largely rendered to a cheerleader role and Boozer can't defend either TD or DRob in the lowpost. It isn't clear to me how health/availability is supposed to be interpreted for this. This is 2 years removed from his broken foot and I don't know how the 1971 court conditions, medical trainers and quality of shoes he would be forced to use would or would not hinder his play. I am making an assumption that the 1971 conditions/equipment would not impact him, hence I see this as a 6 or 7 game series. If he feels some discomfort running/jumping in those shoes and on those courts, it could be a 4 or 5 game series for the Bucks.

Playing under 1971 rules and conditions, the Bucks would be a very tough team to beat.

[JordansBulls]

I'd go with Bucks as well in 6 over the Spurs. Although seeing Robinson and Duncan vs Kareem would be interesting.

No analysis so vote does not count