PDA

View Full Version : Are the 99' Lockout Spurs underrated?



Chronz
04-04-2012, 04:42 PM
Phils words are famous (or notorious) by now, I wonder if his feelings would be different had the Bulls still competed. More importantly, how would they have fared against this methodical machine? The Spurs started the year off slow, D-Rob in particular took awhile to get going but once they did they finished the season from March to April with 31-5 Record and historical defensive marks anchored by the Towers. They were unique champions in a flawed season but they were still dominant. Would they have been just as dominant in a regular season?

I think they would, they went 15-2 in the Playoffs, which I think would be as competitive of basketball in any season, which brings them to a dominant 46-7 from March onward.

So its not a question of them being champions to me, its more of where they rank as a group. Would the 98 Bulls have beaten the 99 Spurs? Would any other contender from recent memory topple that championship team?

JordansBulls
04-04-2012, 04:46 PM
I honestly think the 1998 Spurs were better, they just avoided Utah in 1999.

kdspurman
04-04-2012, 04:54 PM
I think they are pretty underrated. It was a shortened season. Will that happen to the champion this year? Probably depends on who wins it to be honest.

Those guys were incredibly stingy defensively, and had a great core of young guys/older guys. It would've been tough to beat them in 7 games, but I can't doubt what that 98 Bulls team could've done. I've always wondered how that match up might've winded up. Makes for great speculation.

8. 1999 SAN ANTONIO SPURS

SCORE: 267.1
Regular-season record: 37-13
Postseason record: 15-2
Avg. scoring margin: +8.1
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +7.2
Finals result: Beat New York, 4-1 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Tim Duncan, 21.7 ppg
Rebounds: Tim Duncan, 11.4 rpg
Assists: Avery Johnson, 7.4 apg
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Finals MVP: Tim Duncan

A forgotten great team because of the lockout, the Spurs began the year 6-8 … and then went 46-7 the rest of the way, with nary a losing streak. An awesome defensive squad led by big men David Robinson and Tim Duncan, San Antonio's 84.7 points allowed per game is far and away the least of any of these 70 squads. That 15-2 postseason mark ain't too shabby either, including sweeps of the Blazers and Lakers. So stingy was the defense that only twice in 17 playoff games did San Antonio's opponent muster 90 points.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2011/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10

Chronz
04-04-2012, 04:56 PM
I honestly think the 1998 Spurs were better, they just avoided Utah in 1999.
You think Malone could have handled the towers at their peak?

kdspurman
04-04-2012, 05:02 PM
I honestly think the 1998 Spurs were better, they just avoided Utah in 1999.

That's tough to say. Even tho Utah beat them in 98 I think they could've very well won if they matched up again. All of those games were close (Utah won by an avg margin of 5.75 points per game) and SA got better offensively in their next season. They struggled to put up points at times.

Joshtd1
04-04-2012, 05:05 PM
People want to put an * next to the title, but I find that BS. Playoffs were still the same number of games and the Spurs just dominated them. They still had to win 15 games then just like everyone else.

That team was just crazy defensively though.

Raph12
04-04-2012, 05:08 PM
Definitely underrated in 99, the "twin towers" were at their best (during their tenure togther) and completely dominated the league... They were as good a team as any IMHO.

JordansBulls
04-04-2012, 05:11 PM
Also playing the Knicks made everything easier. Might have been different playing Indiana or Miami that year.

Chronz
04-04-2012, 05:12 PM
That's tough to say. Even tho Utah beat them in 98 I think they could've very well won if they matched up again. All of those games were close (Utah won by an avg margin of 5.75 points per game) and SA got better offensively in their next season. They struggled to put up points at times.
Yea the offense was brutal in 98, 99 marked the year Duncan started posting a higher usage while on the floor. It helped D-Rob stay healthy and it helped his Defense.




Definitely underrated in 99, the "twin towers" were at their best (during their tenure togther) and completely dominated the league... They were as good a team as any IMHO.
Thoughts on the 98 tandem? I dont recall that series vs Utah at all, were they legit contenders from day 1 or did they really need Duncan to take over for D-Rob?

Joshtd1
04-04-2012, 05:15 PM
Also playing the Knicks made everything easier. Might have been different playing Indiana or Miami that year.

The Knicks had a pretty good team. Houston/Spreewell/Camby/LJ isn't exactly easy. We'll never know how harder the Heat or Pacers would have been since the easier Knicks ended up beating the supposedly harder teams.

Chronz
04-04-2012, 05:18 PM
Also playing the Knicks made everything easier. Might have been different playing Indiana or Miami that year.

Do you think not having Ewing helped the Knicks? I think most agree that it was what sparked their run to the Finals, but Ive always felt the Finals was when they could have really used him. To this day I dont know why they didnt try to go big on them. Putting LJ on Duncan was a mistake. I would have made LJ my 6th man.

JordansBulls
04-04-2012, 05:27 PM
Do you think not having Ewing helped the Knicks? I think most agree that it was what sparked their run to the Finals, but Ive always felt the Finals was when they could have really used him. To this day I dont know why they didnt try to go big on them. Putting LJ on Duncan was a mistake. I would have made LJ my 6th man.

They needed him in the finals to deal with Duncan and Robinson. Camby just couldn't cut it.

Hangtime
04-04-2012, 09:28 PM
I don't take anything away from that 99 Spurs team and I remember them well. Scary defensive squad. But you know had the Spurs not gone on to win any more championships they would probably get no respect. I remember them being decimated by injuries the following year. I think winning 3 more championships really help cement that legacy from 99. So I wouldn't say that they are a forgotten team.

Drewlius
04-04-2012, 09:45 PM
The 2012 Lockout Spurs sure are.

KB-Pau-DH2012
04-04-2012, 09:46 PM
The Knicks had a pretty good team. Houston/Spreewell/Camby/LJ isn't exactly easy. We'll never know how harder the Heat or Pacers would have been since the easier Knicks ended up beating the supposedly harder teams.

The Knicks were an 8th seed that beat the first seeded Heat in the first round 3-2 with a Allan Houston leaning jumper that hit the front of the rim, then the back and in at the buzzer.

Raph12
04-05-2012, 12:02 AM
Thoughts on the 98 tandem? I dont recall that series vs Utah at all, were they legit contenders from day 1 or did they really need Duncan to take over for D-Rob?

The '98 tandem was good, but TD really came into his own in '99; he closed the gap between him and DRob significantly and took his game to another level... The '99 team was more lethal than the '98 team because they utilized both of the bigs moreso than just Timmy playing off of DRob.

The '99 Spurs team was definitely underrated due to the lockout/shortened season, they dominated their opponents.

JayW_1023
04-05-2012, 03:53 AM
I still remember Mario Elie taunting those Knick fans. LOL.