I think the '14 Spurs were the best team since '86 Celtics

[Gotterdammerung]

The 2014 Spurs were a great team, but their greatness is predicated on matchups more than straight dominance. They did not dominate the playoffs the same way they did in the regular season, and only in the Finals did they absolutely demonstrate greatness - in a 3 game demolition of the back to back titlist. That alone puts the hypothetical ranking in doubt.

Instead of comparing the Spurs to the teams of the 80s or the 90s, which involved a different brand of basketball, and it would depend on which team imposed their will on the game first, and which adjusted best, it would behoove comparing them to the championship teams of the same era.

2013 Miami Heat: They were not as good as the 2012 edition (Battier and Wade were worse, and Bosh turned into a three point specialist) although they added Ray Allen and the Birdman. Plus Mike Miller could still hit from outside. The 2014 Spurs were deeper than the 2013 version (Patty Mills and Bellinelli), and give Diaw more minutes than he got in the 2013 Finals (16 minutes per) by starting him over Splitter, and Manu Ginobili was healthier as well. Pop will outcoach Spoelstra as a result.
Spurs in 6

2012 Miami Heat: Without Ray Allen or Birdman, the Heat still had a red-hot Shane Battier and Mike Miller. The 2012 edition was the thinnest of all the 4 versions of the Superfriends, given that Bosh was injured. The difference between '12 LBJ and '14 LBJ, besides from coasting during the regular season? LBJ looked even better but he got tired quicker. The '14 Spurs would force Spoelstra to bench Haslem because he would neither guard Duncan straight up or stay with Diaw on the perimeter.
Spurs in 6

2011 Dallas Mavericks: Naturally you might be thinking the obvious - "hey if the 2014 Dallas Mavericks took them to 7, wouldn't the 2011 version wipe the floor with 'em?" Obviously, the '11 Mavericks weren't the same team besides Dirk and Shawn Marion. After all they had a superior backcourt in Jason Kidd, Lance Stevenson, and Jason Terry over Devin Harris, Jose Calderon, and Monta Ellis. They had trouble with ultraquick guards like Wade. Yes, Parker isn't as good as Wade was in 2011, but if Tyson Chandler got in foul trouble, it'll be a clinic. If Tiago Splitter guarded Dirk as well as he did in 2014 (staying home, be physical without fouling, not buying all those fakes), then the Spurs will beat the 2011 Mavericks.
Spurs in 7

2010/2009 LA Lakers: It would be a dead heat between the '14 Spurs and the '09 Lakers, but the '10 Lakers would lose. It all comes down to the basic question: the Lakers' perimeter defense. The Lakers could stick Derek Fisher on Danny Green, just like how he guarded Ray Allen in the 2010 Finals. Kobe on Kawhii Leonard. Odom on Diaw. Gasol on Duncan. Bynum on Splitter.

Sure, Leonard would force Kobe to work for every bucket, but once Leonard got into foul trouble, it would tip into the Lakers' favor. Green had the height and length, but not the strength to guard Kobe on post-ups. Lakers were younger (most of their guys could go 40 minutes a game) and while Duncan and Manu Ginobili could for a game or two, they couldn't maintain for 7 games.

The '10 Lakers would have more problems because Ron Artest and Derek Fisher weren't quick enough to guard point guards. No, you can't stick Kobe on them for 40 minutes. Thus Parker would run amok like opposing point guards did in the 2010 Playoffs. Moreover, the '10 Lakers were older, losing that elasticity and stamina edge from the previous year.
Spurs over 2010 Lakers in 6
Spurs/2009 Lakers: PICK


2008 Boston Celtics: This would be the all-time finals matchup if it happened. Elite offense versus Elite defense. 60 plus win teams. Probably another Mexican Standoff. Both teams were deep, loaded with veterans with top notch coaches. Rondo vs Parker. Allen vs Green. Leonard vs Pierce. Duncan vs KG.
The Spurs had far more chemistry on their side than the 08 Celtics had at this time, because they had been playing together for 3 years. However the Celtics were slightly more talented and younger.
PICK

The best way to stop the Spurs?

Stay on their shooters, force their veterans to beat you one on one, expand more energy. You must have an athletic rim defender to stop Tony Parker's Layup Machine act.

A championship caliber team that could defend the three point shooters and stop point guard penetration has the best shot at beating those Spurs.

[jayfan]

Last year's warriors were the best team I've seen since I started watching seriously in 2002.

Top 5, maybe.

[LAZERUSS]

65-17 during the r.s without even caring in the last 2 games (they could have matched the '86 Celtics' decade record if they did). Posted an SRS (which adjusts for strength of schedule) miles better than any other Showtime Lakers version. Magic at his peak, AC Green and Mychal Thompson would rest Kareem and Rambis. Bench had Thompson, Rambis, Cooper. All their core players, healthy. This team is easily an all-time great, regardless of who they faced in the playoffs. After all, last time I checked, the '86 Celtics didn't exactly match with powerhouses in the playoffs, either: 30 win Bulls (let's say, a 50% level team with Jordan, who scored 112 pts in his first 2 games against the Celtics), 50 win Atlanta, 57 win Milwaukee, which, however, played with an unready Moncrief in the playoffs (so, not the equivalent of a 57 win team) and a 51 win team in the Finals that they needed 6 games to beat. That's not necessarily in order to make a comparison to the Lakers' path (although the Lakers' SRS reveals they were dominant regardless of schedule), but on an all-time scale, their own playoff road wasn't exactly the stuff of legend, either.

THIS.

I would carry it even further. I would take ANY Laker team from '84 thru '87 over ANY Celtic team in that same time frame. The Lakers just had too many match-up problems for Boston.

The reality was, LA was a BETTER team in '84 (even Bird himself admitted that the Lakers should have SWEPT Boston that year); they won four of the last five in the '85 Finals, including a retribution game for the first game massacre, and then a road win in Boston to clinch; and they annihilated the Celtics in '87. They routed Boston in three of those games, and should have swept them. The Celtics only outplayed them in one game in that series.

BTW, Magic just DESTROYED Boston in '87. In their two regular season H2H's he averaged... get this... 37 ppg! And he murdered them in the Finals with one of the GOAT Finals in NBA history (26-8-13 .541, .960.)

[JohnnySic]

THIS.

I would carry it even further. I would take ANY Laker team from '84 thru '87 over ANY Celtic team in that same time frame. The Lakers just had too many match-up problems for Boston.

The reality was, LA was a BETTER team in '84 (even Bird himself admitted that the Lakers should have SWEPT Boston that year); they won four of the last five in the '85 Finals, including a retribution game for the first game massacre, and then a road win in Boston to clinch; and they annihilated the Celtics in '87. They routed Boston in three of those games, and should have swept them. The Celtics only outplayed them in one game in that series.

BTW, Magic just DESTROYED Boston in '87. In their two regular season H2H's he averaged... get this... 37 ppg! And he murdered them in the Finals with one of the GOAT Finals in NBA history (26-8-13 .541, .960.)

Anyone who brings up '87 is a knucklehead Lakers homer; the Celtics were decimated by injuries that year, it isn't even worth discussing.

And no Lakers team ever was better than the '86 Celtics. Only the '96 Bulls and maybe the '83 Sixers have an argument here.

[LAZERUSS]

Anyone who brings up '87 is a knucklehead Lakers homer; the Celtics were decimated by injuries that year, it isn't even worth discussing.

And no Lakers team ever was better than the '86 Celtics. Only the '96 Bulls and maybe the '83 Sixers have an argument here.

NOPE.

Player-for-player, the Lakers were a better team. Not even a question. AND, the Lakers had "the Bird-Killer" in Cooper, as well.

[ArbitraryWater]

The 4 best Spurs teams are rather clearly the 2005, 2006 (massive drop off in 2007), 2013, 2014 ones...

the 2001 version is their worst outside of the 2009-2011 years.

[BIZARRO]

Mychal Thompson was a stiff. Just saying.


.

11 and 5 while shooting 56%, and 16 and 10 in the clinching game is not a stiff. And he wasn't that season. He was important for them to reduce Kareem's load and provided the extra type of ingredient Walton had the year before.

I'll say it again, for those of you who weren't watching back then, I was a big Bird/Celtics fan in the 80's and Bulls in the 90's. But the 1987 Lakers were the best team I ever saw.

You can tell me all you want, but if you weren't watching back then, you really have no idea. Btw, the 83 Sixers and 89 Pistons were pretty awesome too.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Like '86 Celtics, Spurs could not repeat.

[RidonKs]

if there were ever a foil for bird/mchale, it'd be leonard/duncan

mchale would have a really hard time against virtually any age duncan... too fundamental.

[riseagainst]

96 Bulls?

[rmt]

The best way to stop the Spurs?

Stay on their shooters, force their veterans to beat you one on one, expand more energy. You must have an athletic rim defender to stop Tony Parker's Layup Machine act.

A championship caliber team that could defend the three point shooters and stop point guard penetration has the best shot at beating those Spurs.

This. The absolute worse way to defend the Spurs is the way the Heat did - with swarming defense. Then quick, decisive ball movement beats that every time - especially since the Spurs' big men are all good passers. If you just stick to your man and force the big 3 to create/score, none of them are good enough to carry a team for a game - much less a series. For the Spurs, the whole is greater than the sum of their parts.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

As much as I like the '01 Lakers, they were pretty overrated. Beyond Shaq and Kobe, they really didn't have much besides some above average role players.

So beyond two top 10-ish players, both in their primes (one arguably the mde), some above average role players, and maybe the best coach ever, they didn't really have much. You're right. Terrible roster makeup.

[rmt]

As much as I like the '01 Lakers, they were pretty overrated. Beyond Shaq and Kobe, they really didn't have much besides some above average role players.

Must be why they went 15-1 in the playoffs

[1987_Lakers]

The 2014 Spurs & 2015 Warriors will probably go down as one of the best teams of all-time as time passes. The Spurs for their high IQ and team play that hasn't been seen in a few decades and the Warriors for having the #1 scoring offense, #1 defense, plus winning 67 games.

But I don't agree with the OP, Spurs were great but I would have a hard time putting them above the '87 Lakers or the '96 Bulls.

To me the '86 Celtics are still currently the GOAT team, they had an offense ALMOST as deadly as the Showtime Lakers, they also had the #1 defense and were #1 in rebounding, they had without question the greatest frontcourt of all time and the greatest collection of talent for a single season. 4 HOF players in the starting line-up (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ) and another HOF player off the bench (Walton), not fair.

[Spurs m8]

2014 spurs > 2015 warriors

warriors struggled against half a cavs team and had the easiest run to the finals anyone has ever seen lmao