• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

Props to the Spurs' trio

Tai Chi≈Surfing

Phenom~Vet~HOFer
104,698
21,051
1,033
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Location
San Francisco -- The edge of the western world.
Hoopla Cash
$ 147,849.53
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The San Antonio Spurs owe their historic longevity to a great number of factors, but perhaps none loom as large as the continued greatness of stars Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker. On Monday night, that trio hit a milestone that helps prove just how amazing they've been in the context of NBA history.


With the Spurs' 122-105 win over the Oklahoma City Thunder in Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals, the trio of Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker achieved their 110th playoff win together. That moves them into tie with Showtime-era Los Angeles Lakers teammates Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Michael Cooper for the all-time NBA record for playoff wins by a group of three.


The Spurs' trio came together in the 2002-03 season, when Ginobili went to the NBA after a very successful career in Europe. At the time, Duncan was about to win his second-straight MVP award and the 20-year-old Parker was just starting to hone his considerable talents and become a young star. The Spurs won the NBA title that season — the first of three for this group and the second of four in the history of the franchise.


Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker achieved these 110 postseason wins in their 12th season together. Over that stretch, the Spurs have never missed the playoffs and lost in the first round three times. The trio of Johnson, Abdul-Jabbar, and Cooper won their 110 games from the 1980 through 1989 postseasons, over which the Lakers won five titles and failed to make the NBA Finals just twice. They also hit that mark despite playing several seasons in which the top two teams in a conference received a first-round bye to bypass a best-of-three first round. For the 1984 postseason, the NBA extended the first round to a best-of-five series for all playoff participants. That didn't change until 2003 — the first year these Spurs played together — when the first round became a best-of-seven competition.


Nevertheless, what the Spurs have done is arguably just as impressive, particularly when you consider that Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili have been the team's top three scorers for all but their first and most recent two seasons together and figure to team up in at least one more postseason. Plus, their careers have occurred over a period of widespread player movement — it's pretty much unheard of for any three teammates to play together in 12 consecutive seasons.


This is not the first time that these two trios of teammates have been seen together in the record books. In March, the Spurs passed those Lakers for most regular-season games played together and moved beyond them for second-most wins, trailing only the Boston Celtics trio of Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish. If the Spurs team up again in 2014-15, they should be able to grab that record, as well.

:suds:
 

Hornsstampede2.0

Guy Who Never Responds
13,354
3,567
293
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
Ellicott City, MD
Hoopla Cash
$ 3,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
No offense to those Lakers, but they did play in a historically weaker western conference
Heck, the Lakers played 8 playoff series versus teams with less than 40 wins.
The East of today looks like the 1996 Bulls compared to the west of the 1980s.

The 1987 Lakers made it the finals without ever playing a team with 43 wins.

For now, I give credit to those 1980s Celtics.
Philly and Detroit were very capable of winning titles.
Even Atlanta, Chicago, and Milwaukee were excellent teams.


The Spurs are in a similar era.
The Lakers, Mavericks, Suns, Thunder, Kings, Clippers, Nuggets, Grizzlies, Rockets, Jazz, Portland, and Hornets have all won 54+ games in this era.
 

HammerDown

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member Level 3
68,257
5,320
533
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 198.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The 1987 Lakers made it the finals without ever playing a team with 43 wins.

Because the '87 Lakers were the greatest basketball team in history. They devastated that West. They were a relentless steamroller. Nothing could stand before Magic and the Showtime fast break. Nothing then or ever.
 

logic

Well-Known Member
3,718
1,658
173
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 69,974.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Originally Posted by Hornsstampede2.0
The 1987 Lakers made it the finals without ever playing a team with 43 wins.


Because the '87 Lakers were the greatest basketball team in history. They devastated that West. They were a relentless steamroller. Nothing could stand before Magic and the Showtime fast break. Nothing then or ever.

Well okay, that accounts for 4 losses for those Western conference teams in 82 games; still a lot of bad basketball being played.
 

lakersrule

ANUSTART
5,491
593
113
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Location
Los Angeles
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Because the '87 Lakers were the greatest basketball team in history. They devastated that West. They were a relentless steamroller. Nothing could stand before Magic and the Showtime fast break. Nothing then or ever.

10 more wins than the second best team in the West. Yeah, I'd say they dominated.
 

piss-tons

New Member
1,182
0
0
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Because the '87 Lakers were the greatest basketball team in history. They devastated that West. They were a relentless steamroller. Nothing could stand before Magic and the Showtime fast break. Nothing then or ever.

The 86 Celtics were definitely better than the 87 Lakers.
 

LogicMan

Watch out for Berniedoodles and Trumpers
29,209
9,636
533
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Yet we probably never will discuss Spurs as a dynasty. And in a way they are . In this era they are the wests closest example. Nice post
 

logic

Well-Known Member
3,718
1,658
173
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 69,974.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Yet we probably never will discuss Spurs as a dynasty. And in a way they are . In this era they are the wests closest example. Nice post

And yet in the NFL the Patriots are discussed as a dynasty when they have had only Brady and Belichick as the constant factor over the years. Spurs are definitely a dynasty.
 

Johnnydollaz89

Well-Known Member
20,821
1,298
173
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,976.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
No doubt in my mind this team is a dynasty. They turn their play up to another level come playoff time. Doesn't even matter what they do in the regular season.
 

Tai Chi≈Surfing

Phenom~Vet~HOFer
104,698
21,051
1,033
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Location
San Francisco -- The edge of the western world.
Hoopla Cash
$ 147,849.53
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The spurs, like those celtics and lakers teams of the past, have been blessed with a great timely confluence of stars (pun intended), coaching, and role players. As much as I used to hate them, they're certainly fun to watch, just from a fundamental appreciation of basketball as a fan.....and the same goes for those other 2 teams in hindsight.
 

LogicMan

Watch out for Berniedoodles and Trumpers
29,209
9,636
533
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The Bulls won 6 rings in 7 years. The Celtics won 8? in 10 years?

No other teams ever controlled the NBA like those two organizations did. They monopolized it.
 

gordontrue

Bandwagoner
10,359
3,027
293
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Location
TX
Hoopla Cash
$ 2,550.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Props, indeed.

Has there ever been a trio of champions go so long after winning multiple titles without winning one, all while still playing together? I don't think so. I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just a sincere question.

- 3 titles in 5 years together
- now they're at 6 years and counting without one... despite three #1 seeds, a #2 seed, and 2 #3 seeds. Other than last year, they didn't even come close to a Finals appearance, losing 4 straight games in each of their only 2 WCF appearances.
 

Jims_Doors

Active Member
4,260
1
38
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Dynasties in the NBA are defined by consecutive championships won or 3 in 4yrs etc....From a teammate standpoint...yes, you could call the Spurs a dynasty with those 3 players staying together all these years. Why ask out though when you're having such good success by drafting and bringing in the right players? Obviously keeping a coach that is well liked has to do with not wanting to test free agency.

Remember, though.... SA did win a title in 1999 w/o Parker and Manu.
 

LALakersboy24.7

I am the Lizard King
17,650
1,230
173
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Hoopla Cash
$ 206.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
No doubt in my mind this team is a dynasty. They turn their play up to another level come playoff time. Doesn't even matter what they do in the regular season.

What surprises me, is that they never won back to back titles. Most dynasty teams win back to backs or 3 peat's
 

Hornsstampede2.0

Guy Who Never Responds
13,354
3,567
293
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
Ellicott City, MD
Hoopla Cash
$ 3,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
They have had just as much freakish bad luck as anyone.


The 1999 team was the best of the Pop era. They flat out had ownership of Shaq/Kobe.
They were the kryptonite of the Lakers again in 2000...but Duncan gets hurt in the last week and misses the playoffs. They were not repeating with Tim Duncan in street clothes.

The 2004 team should have repeated. They were good enough.
But the miracle of ".4 seconds" will forever be one of those crazy moments.
That was such a crushing way to lose....that even Pop could not rally them for game 6.

The 2006 team #1 overall seed played the #2 overall record team in the 2nd round.
The seeding rules were changed in 2007 because it was absurd.
Even still, they had that series won.....except for the most boneheaded Ginobli meltdown of all time.

The 2008 team probably wasn't good enough to beat Kobe/Gasol.
Ginobili getting hurt in the 2nd round certainly wasn't helping.



".4 seconds PLUS what the fuck are you doing Ginobili??????? nooooooo" still haunts us.
 

gordontrue

Bandwagoner
10,359
3,027
293
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Location
TX
Hoopla Cash
$ 2,550.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The even years have never been good to the Spurs. Can they break the trend?
 

HammerDown

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member Level 3
68,257
5,320
533
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 198.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
 

Heatles84

Well-Known Member
20,772
6,750
533
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
Key West, FL
Hoopla Cash
$ 654.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Yet we probably never will discuss Spurs as a dynasty. And in a way they are . In this era they are the wests closest example. Nice post

The Spurs are a dynasty (going from 2003-2014). Five trips to the Finals and 4 titles in 11 years with the same core is a dynasty. This doesn't account Timmy's title in '99 either.
 
Top