Just posing the question. The '96 Bulls in my mind were the best team ever until Sunday. I'm not sure they would beat the Spurs in a seven game series. I know the first thing people want to do is something like this: Parker > Harper Green <<<Jordan Leonard<<Pippen Diaw < Rodman Duncan>>Longley But I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Jordan and Pippen were better than Lebron and Wade, but were they that much better? I'm not sure I'm ready to coin them the greatest team of all time, but I can't think of anyone who would beat them. Sure there are teams who had better collections of talent. Hell I can name two or three from this year. But to go back to the '96 Bulls, they were built very similar to Miami. They relied on turnovers and transition offense. They were better than Miami in the half court game though. What do you guys think?
I ran the computer simulation on http://www.whatifsports.com/nba/boxscore.asp?GameID=9487145&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1 And the '96 Bulls won in 6
Lol. I ran the same simulation but with the current Miami Heat and the series ended up in a 4-0 Miami sweep. Those simulations are not accurate at all.
overall i think the bulls are better coached than miami, play better defense than miami, and their role players outside of jordan probably play better imo.
I think the best way to put it is: those simulators, and the questions they try to address, aren't meaningful at all. May as well pit Bruce Lee against Kublai Khan. That said, I could see the Spurs cracking a top ten for sure.
Not even in the top 10. I would take all the Shaq and Magic Laker teams over this year's spurs. I would also take the 80's celtic teams. I would also take the 82 Sixers with Moses over this team. I would also take both Rocket's teams. Prime Dream would abuse old Duncan and Diaw. I would also take 93 and 96 Bulls teams. The Dallas championship team would have abused this team also. Dirk was just sick that year.
Can't say they are a great all time team. They significantly lack high power talents compared to some of the great teams in history. They just played their best ball at the right time.
If we are basing on the finals and finals alone, then their demolition of the Heat would have to be up their (i.e. Not team has beaten another team in the finals by an avg of +13pts per game). But then you need to consider the opponent (ask yourself, if the Heat were in the West, would they have made the conference finals?) If you take the whole season into consideration, then they prob could crack top 10. 95/96 Bulls 72-10 and only lost 3 playoff/finals games, 85/86 Celtics 67-15 and only lost 3 playoff/finals games etc... (you get my drift).
Not in order, here are the teams I consider better than these Spurs: 70 Knicks 72 Lakers 85 Lakers 86 Celtics 87 Lakers 89 Pistons 91 Bulls 96 Bulls Maybe the 99 Spurs.
I want to say yes...but its tough. It also depends on the rules, if it was by today's rules then it would be spurs, but by the old rules maybe the 95 squad.
The '96 and 97 Bulls teams would have taken out the Spurs in 5 or 6 games. - The Shaq/Kobe Lakers are better. - The Magic Showtime Lakers are better. - Larry Bird's Celtics are better. - The 94 and 95 Rockets are maybe better, although it's close. SA would have NO answer for Olajuwon; he would have abused Splitter, Diaw, etc. On the other hand, Popovich is a much better coach than Rudy T. - The '99 Twin Towers Spurs with the Admiral and a young Duncan are arguably better. That team was easily better defensively. The '14 Spurs would have difficulty scoring in the paint. The '14 Spurs are a great team that plays wonderful unselfish basketball, but I'd put them about on par with the '97 and '98 Utah Jazz with Malone/Stockton/Hornacek (that lost in the finals to the Bulls).
Pretty much no non-Rockets fan would take the championship Rocket teams over this Spurs team. Spurs were the number 1 seed and won the finals with historic dominance. Really, their only blemish was the Mavs series. Otherwise, they managed to win 62 games despite not even really trying to win regular season games. I don't think they're in the top tier of teams which is the 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 82 Sixers, 2001 Lakers, 96 Bulls. But they have a good argument for any place after that.
Spurs had a pretty easy path to the finals, and faced an even easier opponent that anyone they played in the west (besides their first round matchup). Miami simply wasn't tested, they ran through a joke of an eastern conference that highlighted a Pacers team that would be hard-pressed to win an 8th seed out west with their current roster and form. Not taking away from the Spurs, but I personally would take a few teams from this decade alone over them.
The Shaq/Kobe Lakers had a hard time with the 2002 Kings. That team was in some ways similar to the Spurs but with far weaker defense and less depth. So I would put the Spurs over those Laker teams.
How do they remind you of those Detroit teams. That team featured awesome guard tandem, and a tremendous defense, combined with a will to win that was bought from several failed attempts. But their style of play, I think, was quite different. I might just be missing what you see as the similarity, so I'd like to hear some more detail.
