http://www.nba.com/spurs/playoffs/130530_finals_facts

Duncan/Parker/Ginobili have more wins than any trio other than Magic/Kareem/Cooper. (12 wins back)

Tim is the definition of longevity and greatness in the nba.

9 International Players on the spurs roster-

quote:

---

The Spurs roster features nine international players – the most ever in NBA history on any team – and this has fueled global interest: Aron Baynes (Australia), Nando De Colo (France), Boris Diaw (France), Tim Duncan (U.S. Virgin Islands – yes, TD gets counted), Manu Ginobili (Argentina), Cory Joseph (Canada), Patty Mills (Australia), Tony Parker (France), Tiago Splitter (Brazil). Seven of these nine competed in the 2012 Olympic Games (all but Duncan and Joseph).

---

Never ceases to amaze me how little attention the Spurs' consistent greatness gets.

Only 5 franchises have more conference titles than Duncan. Only 3 have more rings.

I wish I could find a list of playoff wins by franchise, but apparently that list doesn't exist where I can get to it.

Yeah, I found that too but it's worthless. Why would they even leave that up, it's 5 years out of date.

As far as wins go, I wonder where Dirk ranks.

Quite impressive stats by Duncan though.

I don't think there is any question that SA is the third most successful all time among NBA franchises. Very impressive given that they don't enjoy the big market advantages of LA, Boston, Chicago, NY, Houston, Dallas, Phily, etc.

I was trying to figure out if there are any teams over whom Duncan has more playoff wins or even win shares, but apparently the number of playoff wins by franchise is a secret too dangerous for mortal minds.

quote:

---

I don't think there is any question that SA is the fourth most successful all time among NBA franchises.

---

FIFY

Celtics
Lakers
Bulls
Spurs

Bulls had two three year runs with Jordan, but other than that have been a wildly unsuccessful franchise.

In 47 seasons, they have 32 playoff appearances and a .519 win percentage.

In 37 NBA seasons, the Spurs have 33 playoff appearances and a .610 win percentage.

6> 4

What does this have to do with the fact that Olajuwon was the more dominant player than Duncan. ......... But seriously, I'd definitely rank the Spurs over the Bulls. I'd give the Bulls the nod if you stopped at 2000, but the last 12-13 years make it an easy call to make.

We've had this debate before. I don't think the Spurs have really separated, but the Bulls have been really bad for most of their history. The Spurs have only had a handful of losing seasons and rarely miss the playoffs going back 40-50 years.

I made a thread about this a few months back. Personally, I think if the Spurs win it this year you pretty much have to put the Spurs above the Bulls. The one extra championship the Bulls would have wouldn't be enough to offset the many, many more years of regular season and playoff success the Spurs have had throughout their existence.

For reference:

Bulls (1966-present): 6 championships, 6 conference titles, 9 division titles, .519 franchise record, 32 playoffs

Spurs (1973-present): 4 championships, 5 conference titles, 19 division titles, .590 franchise record, 41 playoffs

Put me in the category of just counting rings.

When ranking franchises over the course of NBA history it's really hard due to the insane years of 5+ HOF players on the Celtics and Lakers for decades.

As I read in one of the ESPN 5 on 5 articles, the modern era is harder to create the type of dynasties that the Lakers and Celtics of the earlier days had. There is more parity in more teams and the CBA makes teams like the Heat almost impossible to do because of salaries.

If we start from '90 (arbitrary year) when most of the all time greats stopped playing or their careers were close to ending, we have the following teams winning championships:

Lakers: 5
Celtics: 1
Pistons: 2
Bulls: 6
Rockets: 2
Spurs: 4
Mavericks: 1
Heat: 1

If this were NCAA football I'd pick the year scholarship limits were put in place or in the NFL when free agency started as my starting time frame. I'm not as well versed in NBA history to know how or why super-teams like the Showtime Lakers and the '60s Celtics fell away. I'm guessing a new CBA came about but I don't know what year.

Given that lack of information, since '90 the teams would rank (by rings):

Bulls
Lakers
Spurs
Rockets/Pistons

Personally, I like to use 80 because it was a few years after the ABA integrated and the year the 3-point line began AND Magic/Bird's rookie season. Magic/Bird seem to have ushered in the new era of the NBA.

1985 was the first salary cap year (at ~3.5mm/team)

Taking '80:

Lakers: 10
Celtics: 4
76ers: 1
Pistons: 3
Bulls: 6
Rockets: 2
Spurs: 4
Mavericks: 1
Heat: 1


By rings we end up with:
Lakers
Celtics
Bulls
Spurs

I also rank the Bulls (slightly) over the Spurs b/c the Bulls Title teams would have beaten any of the Spurs' Title teams.

Any? Please

They would have been all very close series. The Bulls would have had NO answer for a Duncan and Robinson front court. That would have been ****ing comical. Then the 05 and 07 teams which came out of a VERY deep West and had in their primes Duncan, Manu and a coming into his own Parker (who again, would have given the Bulls fits). The Spurs would have at least had good/great defenders on the wing in Bowen, Elliot, Elie, Horry & Jackson to throw at Pippen/Jordan. Those are better matchups in the Spurs favor than Rodman, Longley, Grant (the only guy that would have stood a chance of slowing either down a tad), Parish, whoever was trying to take on an in his prime Duncan, or even worse a Duncan/Robinson combo. Not to mention the defensive dominance SA would have had in the paint.


[This message has been edited by Syd_X_Barrett (edited 6/7/2013 10:19a).]

BJ Armstrong would have pwned Parker.

I agree the Spurs would have been matchup nightmares for the Lakers. Trust Rodman/Longley/Winnington on Robinson/Duncan?

Bowen on Jordan would have been beautiful to watch. Either extreme frustration or incites Jordan to score 85 a game out of pure hatred and rage.