Duncan Spurs Vs Curry Warriors

[JSD]

When it comes to the discussion surrounding the question of which dynasty reigns supreme between Tim Duncan's San Antonio Spurs and Steph Curry's Golden State Warriors, it is an extremely compelling debate.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. Admittedly, I haven’t done much research on it yet. I do know, if course, Tim Duncan has one more ring than Steph Curry does, so one would think that San Antonio has the edge, at least as of now.

[gouki88]

I like the Spurs more due to the way that team came together, much like the Warriors pre-KD. I also think the 14 Spurs was the best team to watch in my lifetime.

It’s hard to compare though. Spurs for longevity, Warriors for short-term dominance

[greg683x]

I’d take the Spurs.

The longevity of the Warriors reign was boosted by having a superstar mercenary join the team.  With KD I feel that Curry had way more star power to fall back on than Duncan did. Many would argue Steph wasn’t even the best player on his team during that period.   Imagine if Tracy Mcgrady dumped the Magic and went to the Spurs for three seasons in his prime

[Roy H.]

I really wish Manu had hit those FTs, or Ray had missed that 3PT, in 2013.  It would have made this clear cut, because the only thing that gives me any pause at all regarding San Antonio is that the never won back-to-back titles.

But ultimately, it's still the Spurs.  Five titles is better than four.

[SparzWizard]

Warriors had KD for those few years.

Duncan Spurs all day

[Moranis]

The difficult thing with this is it isn't like there was just 1 team.  I mean the Durant years, the Warriors were better than they were with Barnes or Wiggins and the Spurs had the Robinson years and then the Parker/Manu years (and a very young Kawhi).  This isn't the Celtics of the 80's where the Bird, McHale, and Parish were on every team (and I know that first title year Cedric and Tiny were more important than certainly McHale if not both Parish and McHale).

Comparing the teams at their absolute best I'd take the 17 Warriors (the best Durant team) vs. the 07 Spurs (Duncan was at his absolute apex prime)

Top 10 (with starters 1st)
Curry, Klay, Durant, Dray, Zaza, Iggy, Livingston, West, Clark, McCaw

vs.

Parker, Bowen, Finley, Duncan, Oberto, Manu, Horry, Elson, Barry, Vaughan

The question in that match-up comes down to how much can Draymond actually limit Duncan.  I think the Bowen/Finley combination on Durant would do ok, and Manu/Parker vs. Curry/Klay wouldn't be a blowout for the Warriors.  So it really comes down to that Draymond/Duncan matchup to me.  If TD is able to be TD, then I think that would put the Spurs over the top, if Draymond limits TD, even just a pinch, then I'd favor the Warriors.

[Kernewek]

The longevity of the Warriors reign was boosted by having a superstar mercenary join the team. 

Well, was it? The Warriors won a title with Kevin Durant but they also won a title with Harrison Barnes at the same position.

So, uh, if we think that Kevin Durant is as important to winning a ring as Harrison Barnes - which seems to be how the history books will play out - then I would say Golden State's run happens with or without a particular frontrunning All-Star Forward.

[celticsclay]

I really wish Manu had hit those FTs, or Ray had missed that 3PT, in 2013.  It would have made this clear cut, because the only thing that gives me any pause at all regarding San Antonio is that the never won back-to-back titles.

But ultimately, it's still the Spurs.  Five titles is better than four.

Roy do you think if manu hits the fts or the three misses and Lebron has only the three titles (with one in the bubble) does it change his all time ranking for you?

[celticsclay]

I appreciate the spurs more cause of how they did it but think the warriors teams were better.

[greg683x]

The longevity of the Warriors reign was boosted by having a superstar mercenary join the team. 

Well, was it? The Warriors won a title with Kevin Durant but they also won a title with Harrison Barnes at the same position.

So, uh, if we think that Kevin Durant is as important to winning a ring as Harrison Barnes - which seems to be how the history books will play out - then I would say Golden State's run happens with or without a particular frontrunning All-Star Forward.

I don’t think that having Harrison Barnes is as important as Kevin Durant to winning a title, but, and I can’t believe I’m about to support Lebron here, but the only time the Warriors faced the Cavs when they were at full strength was when they had KD.  And the year before they got KD, when they had Harrison Barnes, they couldn’t even beat the Cavs when they were missing one of their best players

I know a title is a title, but if we’re comparing teams, I can’t help but think if the warriors never got their mercenary in KD, there’s a very real possibility they lose at least 1 of those two KD years, if not both.  Then at that point this becomes less of a discussion.

Think about the raptors, they beat the warriors and got their title, and it’s great for them, they deserve it.  But if they come up in any conversation about great teams, the first thing that will always be mentioned is they faced the warriors without KD and Klay.


Just my opinion.  I know you can play semantics like this all day but I feel it’s a factor

[SparzWizard]

The longevity of the Warriors reign was boosted by having a superstar mercenary join the team. 

Well, was it? The Warriors won a title with Kevin Durant but they also won a title with Harrison Barnes at the same position.

So, uh, if we think that Kevin Durant is as important to winning a ring as Harrison Barnes - which seems to be how the history books will play out - then I would say Golden State's run happens with or without a particular frontrunning All-Star Forward.

I don’t think that having Harrison Barnes is as important as Kevin Durant to winning a title, but, and I can’t believe I’m about to support Lebron here, but the only time the Warriors faced the Cavs when they were at full strength was when they had KD.  And the year before they got KD, when they had Harrison Barnes, they couldn’t even beat the Cavs when they were missing one of their best players

I know a title is a title, but if we’re comparing teams, I can’t help but think if the warriors never got their mercenary in KD, there’s a very real possibility they lose at least 1 of those two KD years, if not both.  Then at that point this becomes less of a discussion.

Think about the raptors, they beat the warriors and got their title, and it’s great for them, they deserve it.  But if they come up in any conversation about great teams, the first thing that will always be mentioned is they faced the warriors with mount KD and Klay.


Just my opinion.  I know you can play semantics like this all day but I feel it’s a factor

I guess in '14 - '15, Cavs had an injured Love (and I think Kyrie too?).
'15 - '16 Draymond Green got suspended for one game and that affected them.

I still think if Zaza Pachulia did not cheap-shot Kawhi, the Spurs would've taken out the Warriors that one year and taken out LeBron too.

[celticsclay]

The longevity of the Warriors reign was boosted by having a superstar mercenary join the team. 

Well, was it? The Warriors won a title with Kevin Durant but they also won a title with Harrison Barnes at the same position.

So, uh, if we think that Kevin Durant is as important to winning a ring as Harrison Barnes - which seems to be how the history books will play out - then I would say Golden State's run happens with or without a particular frontrunning All-Star Forward.

I don’t think that having Harrison Barnes is as important as Kevin Durant to winning a title, but, and I can’t believe I’m about to support Lebron here, but the only time the Warriors faced the Cavs when they were at full strength was when they had KD.  And the year before they got KD, when they had Harrison Barnes, they couldn’t even beat the Cavs when they were missing one of their best players

I know a title is a title, but if we’re comparing teams, I can’t help but think if the warriors never got their mercenary in KD, there’s a very real possibility they lose at least 1 of those two KD years, if not both.  Then at that point this becomes less of a discussion.

Think about the raptors, they beat the warriors and got their title, and it’s great for them, they deserve it.  But if they come up in any conversation about great teams, the first thing that will always be mentioned is they faced the warriors with mount KD and Klay.


Just my opinion.  I know you can play semantics like this all day but I feel it’s a factor

I guess in '14 - '15, Cavs had an injured Love (and I think Kyrie too?).
'15 - '16 Draymond Green got suspended for one game and that affected them.

I still think if Zaza Pachulia did not cheap-shot Kawhi, the Spurs would've taken out the Warriors that one year and taken out LeBron too.

Sounds silly to say now but bogut also got injured the draymond suspension series and he was a really important piece for them that year. But again you can do this just about every series

[Moranis]

One of the bigger recent what ifs, is what if the Thunder don't choke away a 3-1 lead against the 72 win Warriors?  Does Durant best Lebron that time or do the Cavs still win that title?  Either way, the Thunder in the finals makes Durant leaving the Thunder way less likely and I wonder if he would have picked the Warriors if he still left in that scenario.  I absolutely believe Durant left because they choked that series away and he felt like he'd never win there.  Does that change if they close that one out and get back to the Finals?

[SparzWizard]

One of the bigger recent what ifs, is what if the Thunder don't choke away a 3-1 lead against the 72 win Warriors?  Does Durant best Lebron that time or do the Cavs still win that title?  Either way, the Thunder in the finals makes Durant leaving the Thunder way less likely and I wonder if he would have picked the Warriors if he still left in that scenario.  I absolutely believe Durant left because they choked that series away and he felt like he'd never win there.  Does that change if they close that one out and get back to the Finals?

He wanted to get away from Westbrook. And LeBron's Cavs would've bested OKC Durant that year. They were too much depth and experienced.

I can't believe we almost landed Durant in that summer. We acquired Horford, and we even had stars of other major sports pitching in like Brady, etc.

[JSD]

One of the bigger recent what ifs, is what if the Thunder don't choke away a 3-1 lead against the 72 win Warriors?  Does Durant best Lebron that time or do the Cavs still win that title?  Either way, the Thunder in the finals makes Durant leaving the Thunder way less likely and I wonder if he would have picked the Warriors if he still left in that scenario.  I absolutely believe Durant left because they choked that series away and he felt like he'd never win there.  Does that change if they close that one out and get back to the Finals?

He wanted to get away from Westbrook. And LeBron's Cavs would've bested OKC Durant that year. They were too much depth and experienced.

I can't believe we almost landed Durant in that summer. We acquired Horford, and we even had stars of other major sports pitching in like Brady, etc.

I believe Kevin Durant made a bad choice by not joining the Celtics. Looking at how his career has unfolded, he did win two championships, which cannot be ignored. However, the Celtics had a solid base that could have supported Durant in becoming a championship contender. I firmly believe that if Durant had joined the Celtics, they would have won at least two titles together. Just consider the teams we brought to the eastern conference finals back then.