NBA Basketball 2014

[-Jrabbit]

But they didn't. Instead, they "managed" to choke one away.

Yes, Popovich did a great job managing minutes for his aging roster this year. An interesting, but ultimately tangential, fact.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, Popovich did a great job managing minutes for his aging roster this year. An interesting, but ultimately tangential, fact.

And significant to their ability as a team. Sure Jordan was good, what have the Bulls done before or since?

[-Jrabbit]

So you want to overlook the fact that the Spurs failed to deliver a win with the championship basically in their hands in 2013.
Then in 2014, the Heat stage their own epic collapse. But THAT you want to use as evidence to promote a team of chokers into the best of all time?

No. Just, no.

We're done here.

[SlowwHand]

Kareem and the Lakers had significant successSan Antonio has a very good team. This is a no-win opinion deal.

[Ben Kenobi]

We're done here.

I'm surprised the Bulls haven't changed their name to the Chicago Jordans yet.

to promote a team of chokers

Winning 5/6 of finals makes you a choker? Wow.

Win percentage wise, the Spurs are just 2 wins shy of the Lakers' .6142 NBA all-time franchise record.

[-Jrabbit]

Giving up a 5-pt lead with 28 seconds left in potentially clinching Game 6 of the Finals makes you a choker.
Blowing a point-blank layup to tie in the closing seconds of Game 7 makes you a choker.
And hey, wasn't that the same Spurs team that took a 2-0 lead, then lost 4 straight to the OKC Thunder in the 2012 conference finals?

Yup. They choked.

This year, they are champions. They beat the Heat. Well done.

[Sava]

The Bulls would have had 8 championships if Jordan didn't "retire" the first time.

[rah]

At least the 90's Bulls never lost in a finals 6/6. So obviously you can't consider a team that was 5/6 better.

[Ben Kenobi]

Giving up a 5-pt lead with 28 seconds left in potentially clinching Game 6 of the Finals makes you a choker.

They've been in the playoffs every year since 1998. They've only missed once since 1990. That's 24 years, with 23/24 years making the playoffs.

How about them bulls? They went 6 years straight without a single playoff appearance. 0 finals appearances even in the Leastern Conference.

And hey, wasn't that the same Spurs team that took a 2-0 lead, then lost 4 straight to the OKC Thunder in the 2012 conference finals?

Yes, and? How many times have the Bulls even made the conference finals post Jordan? Once? Sans Jordan they have only once been to an Eastern Conference finals. Once!

This year, they are champions. They beat the Heat. Well done.

It's the Leastern conference. After three tough, tough matches including the real final in OKC, it was time to take a breather.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Bulls would have had 8 championships if Jordan didn't "retire" the first time.

Which explains why Jordan was so great. He managed to take a bottom feeder and turn it into a contender.

To put it in context - the Spurs have missed the playoffs only once dating back to before the first Bulls championship. Says it all, really. The Spurs were good when the Bulls were good, but they are even better now.

The Bulls were the South Beach of the 90s.

[-Jrabbit]

So you're saying Duncan took a consistent playoff team and made them, um, somewhat better. Fair enough. No championships without him, then 5 in 16 years with him. Frankly, if they're really all you claim they are, they should have more.

Your argument makes a good claim for better team management. It takes great basketball knowledge and planning (and some good fortune) to stay in contention so long in a salary-capped, player-oriented league.

Also, let's not forget that, for much of the Jordan Era, the East (with Chicago, Detroit, Boston and New York, later Shaq/Orlando) was considered the stronger conference.

Regarding the post-Jordan Bulls: That is not part of this discussion. Stop moving the goalposts.

[rah]

That's all he's got.

[Sava]

Tim Duncan is a fantastic player. In the early part of his career, I'd say he was probably the best prototypical power forward in NBA history...

22-25 PPG, 12 RPG

Having said that, Tim Duncan would have been the third best player on the early Bulls. And perhaps, the fourth best player on the second three-peat Bulls. Yes, Duncan is a better overall player than Rodman... but for the Bulls' needs, Rodman was a better player. Pure rebounding god.

The Spurs, all time, aren't in the conversation as best ever team/dynasty.

You might be able to put then in the top 5. Arguably, they might be the 4th best. The top three best teams/dynasties are:

90's Bulls
Bill Russell-era Celtics
Magic's Lakers

I'd probably put the post-2000 Lakers above the Spurs as well... maybe even the 80's Celtics too. Less championships, but better teams.

I do have a fondness for SA just because they've denied Lebron a title twice.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're saying Duncan took a consistent playoff team and made them, um, somewhat better. Fair enough. No championships without him, then 5 in 16 years with him. Frankly, if they're really all you claim they are, they should have more.

Where did I claim Duncan was as good as Jordan? He's not. The team however is better than the Jordan-era Bulls.

Your argument makes a good claim for better team management. It takes great basketball knowledge and planning (and some good fortune) to stay in contention so long in a salary-capped, player-oriented league.

Odd then I would claim that the Spurs as a TEAM are better than the Jordan Bulls.

Regarding the post-Jordan Bulls: That is not part of this discussion. Stop moving the goalposts.

When assessing the team as a whole and not just Jordan? Absolutely part of the discussion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Having said that, Tim Duncan would have been the third best player on the early Bulls.

Totally delusional. Duncan is top five all time. He has an argument for being a better Power-forward than the Mailman. The best PF is either him or Duncan.

He's better than Pippen, but not as good as Jordan.

And perhaps, the fourth best player on the second three-peat Bulls. Yes, Duncan is a better overall player than Rodman... but for the Bulls' needs, Rodman was a better player. Pure rebounding god.

Rodman, and Pippen can't hold Duncan's jock. Duncan has more playoff blocks than anybody, Wilt included.

The Spurs, all time, aren't in the conversation as best ever team/dynasty.

As a franchise, they are just 2 wins shy of the .6142 record of the Lakers. Yeah, they have an argument for being the best franchise of all time.

You might be able to put then in the top 5. Arguably, they might be the 4th best.

Spurs being 4 isn't debatable. They have 5 rings. Who else has 5? Bulls, Celtics, Lakers. That's it.

I'd probably put the post-2000 Lakers above the Spurs as well... maybe even the 80's Celtics too. Less championships, but better teams.

Duncan era Spurs are > Kobe+Shaq Lakers. Only better dynasties are the Russell Celtics, and the Showtime Lakers. That's it. I think the Duncan-era Spurs are better than Jordan Bulls.

I do have a fondness for SA just because they've denied Lebron a title twice

You can't say they don't play good basketball. They have a great system that's fun to watch.