Why were the Spurs a much better team than the Heat in 2014?

[Gougou]

Duncan/Parker/Gino + Young Kawhi + Pop + bench players like Diaw.

That team had a way much offense the Heat can't handle it, Wade/Bosh played very bad too. Wade got locked by Green/Kawhi

[Mr Feeny]

Siakam > 2014 Wade

So an all time great like Wade looked horrible playing with Lebron? As did Bosh? As did Allen and Battier?
While Kawhi elevated lesser players like Siakam?

Interesting.

[Manny98]

Kawhi elevates his teammates?

Might be the dumbest statement i've ever heard

[AussieSteve]

Why?

Because they had 4 of the best 5 players in the series.

It's pretty obvious.

[Micku]

sonics do have the historic team problem cant be blamed for losing, jazz a little less so however. On the other hand, the jazz loss in 6 was a lot closer than the sonics. it should be considered how much you lose by.

I get your point about the spurs having to rest, it's true and age is a flaw of theirs. My point was more to emphasize their full strength play was undersold by their srs. I think I cite backpicks too much here but this is informative and shows the 14 spurs are the 6th best healthy team of all time based on srs(playoffs included) http://www.backpicks.com/2016/07/18/...n-nba-history/

To answer your question, I think it's just a case by case basis but i dont doc a team too much overall. I use a combination of rs+ps but I weigh rs more than most. I will give credit to a team that really stomps their playoff competition however. It's an indicator they coasted 01 lakers being an obvious example and their competition was good. You kind of have to judge competition separately, basing how good they are on one series is a mistake imo.

It's a mathematical fact that if two teams are completely evenly matched, there's a 12.5% chance the series ends in a sweep. We never worry too much when a great team loses 3 in a row during the rs, it's a bigger deal in the playoffs since you're focused giving full effort but a lot is possible in a short 7 game series.

I wouldnt doc the warriors too much in 16 and 18, the thunder and rockets are elite teams. They are clearly worse than the 17 warriors but not just because the 17 warriors didnt have a competitive playoff series. There's a rs gap too.

I would have celtics pretty high too but not top 10 or anything. It may be the playoff series but they also dont have the rs resume of the greatest teams. There's a difference between playing down to your competition and actually getting challenged however which can be pretty subjective to decide. I think that's the case the hawks series at least however. It's something to doc the spurs for since I dont think they really played down vs the mavs but this is something that can be easily disagreed on

Yeah, I was wondering about that. I mostly agree with you that it's a case by case basis on the playoff series. It depends on the matchup and how well each team adapts to one another. However, I still feel a certain way when a great RS team struggles a bit in the playoffs. It depends on the team that they face and the context of what happened within that series, but it always makes me wonder "If they THAT great?" in the first place. Not necessary saying that they aren't a great team, but what happened in the playoffs that doesn't translate into playoff dominance? I'm talking about like Cavs 09, 10. GSW 16. Going back further, late 90s Lakers and mid to early 90s Spurs.

Like I remember in 98, ppl had the Lakers as a championship contender and a possibility for them to battle the Bulls in the finals. Then they got swept by the Jazz. Pretty much dominated two years in a row. Then ppl say they weren't ready, they may have the talent, but not the actual team play, they were too young, and etc. Clearly they weren't together like the Jazz were despite being so close in record.

But this kept happening like 3 years in row. The year prior and the year after. It was only when Phil Jackson got there did things changed. Hence going back to the another point. At which point could we acknowledge that a team, despite their success in the RS, they would just have tougher time in the playoffs? Like they weren't as good as their record stat they are or the other team is better than they record is?

Although upsets do happen, but somehow if a great team were to struggle in the playoffs against a team that they shouldn't have that much trouble trying to beat, it always make stop, pause and ask why. Sometimes it's injury, sometimes it's just the other team playing it's heart out, sometimes the team with the better record is playing like trash, sometimes it's just that the team with the better record is just not better than the other team despite what the stats would tell us. I do find it's more rare for top tier teams to have this problem, but it happens.

And it goes both ways I suppose. I think there are times even with Team A beating Team B, but imo I still don't think they are necessary better than that team. Like the Kings 2002. I don't really think the Lakers 02 were really better than the Kings 02. They got lucky. Luck I guess is all part of the game, but still.

Same thing with the GSW 16. Like the Cavs were amazing on the comeback and win of that series. But if they were to go again, I don't really think they are better. But I don't think the GSW 16 were that dominate either in the post season. Whatever it's due to health or just them struggling. I just felt they were beatable since the Thunder almost beat them.

[RoseCity07]

That Spurs team played some of the best basketball I've ever seen. They were a buzz saw team. No one could slow them down. it was perfect team ball.

[3ball]

The Lebron/CP3/Nash skillset has always disappointed in the playoffs with underwhelming team ceilings

The only reason lebron didn't meet the same career-losing fate as his fellow ball-dominators is because he team-hopped for extra talent.. otherwise, his low ball movement and team assist brand would get beat every year instead of almost every year
.

[thefatmiral]

They were better both years. Gino just threw one chance away.

[Rico2016]

So an all time great like Wade looked horrible playing with Lebron? As did Bosh? As did Allen and Battier?
While Kawhi elevated lesser players like Siakam?

Interesting.

3ball alt confirmed

Mr. Weeny Ball