2000-2001 is arguably the greatest NBA team ever assembled
Certinly the best 1-2 punch, but quickly drops off after that relative to some of the other great teams. Would that be enough? Maybe. Depends on the rules to some degree.
In terms of individual talent? I'd agree
But those role players were so perfectly suited for that team. I mean you're running the tri and you have Shaq inside, Kobe outside, Fisher draining 3s and Fox draining 3s and playing defense at the wing.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:13 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
24 wrote:
PurpleAndGOAT wrote:
2000-2001 is arguably the greatest NBA team ever assembled
Certinly the best 1-2 punch, but quickly drops off after that relative to some of the other great teams. Would that be enough? Maybe. Depends on the rules to some degree.
In terms of individual talent? I'd agree
But those role players were so perfectly suited for that team. I mean you're running the tri and you have Shaq inside, Kobe outside, Fisher draining 3s and Fox draining 3s and playing defense at the wing.
And Samaki hitting half court shots. Haha
Yeah, it is entirely too bad that Showtime was such a collection of individual talents that didn't mesh well as a unit. Think what they might have accomplished...
2000-2001 is arguably the greatest NBA team ever assembled
Certinly the best 1-2 punch, but quickly drops off after that relative to some of the other great teams. Would that be enough? Maybe. Depends on the rules to some degree.
In terms of individual talent? I'd agree
But those role players were so perfectly suited for that team. I mean you're running the tri and you have Shaq inside, Kobe outside, Fisher draining 3s and Fox draining 3s and playing defense at the wing.
And Samaki hitting half court shots. Haha
Yeah, it is entirely too bad that Showtime was such a collection of individual talents that didn't mesh well as a unit. Think what they might have accomplished...
The '87 Lakers. It's not really a fair comparison. The '80s was an era of super teams with stacked rosters. The '01 Lakers may have been greater relative to their competition at the time, but the salary cap system had spread the talent out a lot. Just think about the frontcourt on the '86 Celtics: Parrish, McHale, Bird, and a healthy Bill Walton. Try assembling that one today.
I'd like to see how the 2001 Lakers would have done against tougher competition. Every playoff opponent was tough but none of them were that great except for maybe the Spurs, who were missing a key player. Philadelphia wasn't that great and barely made it past Toronto and Milwaukee in the East. Sacramento wasn't really elite yet and they were celebrating a lot when they won in the first round, plus they didn't have Mike Bibby yet. Portland collapsed late in the season and fell all the way down to the 7th seed.
The 2000 and 2002 Lakers beat tougher opponents, so I'm not doubting the 2001 team would have done the same, but I question whether they would have done that so easily. Do the 2001 Lakers beat 2000 Portland and 2002 Sacramento in 4 or 5 games?
But man this is tough. I'm not sure if I should pick 87 or 02. I'd rather have Shaq/Grant/Horry instead of Gasol/Odom/Bynum.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:00 am Post subject:
Chronicle wrote:
Kobe and Shaq were unstoppable that year.
Also, I personally would take 2010 Lakers over 2009
Might also take an earlier showtime team
The 2010 Lakers weren't as good as the 2009 Lakers. Kobe was hampered by knee pain during the playoffs. That team really wouldn't have even won a championship had the 50-32 Celtics not upset the 66 win Cavs. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Also, I personally would take 2010 Lakers over 2009
Might also take an earlier showtime team
The 2010 Lakers weren't as good as the 2009 Lakers. Kobe was hampered by knee pain during the playoffs. That team really wouldn't have even won a championship had the 50-32 Celtics not upset the 66 win Cavs.
Yeah, Kobe didn't really get going in the playoffs until he got his knee drained near the end of the first round. And going from Ariza to Artest really lowered our team speed and athleticism. The 2009 team was better, but I also don't think we beat the Celtics without Artest making Pierce's life miserable.
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 Posts: 10015 Location: Los Angeles/ Alhambra, CA
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:54 am Post subject:
86-87 Lakers in a dog fight over the 2000-01 Lakers. 4 reasons:
(1) Pace. Showtime Lakers could run in regular season and in the playoffs, squeezing out extra points here and there while winding the other teams. Shaq's weight and plantar fascitis issues were already starting to emerge in 2001, as he was playing 30 pounds over his MVP year weight, so a lot of running would wear on him and could help mitigate his offensive dominance.
(2) Post-up play. Shaq could lean on Kareem on D and give him a tough time, sure. But Harper by this time had his minutes drastically reduced to knee injuries, which meant Kobe and Fish were starting... so who would get Magic? Kobe had tons of problems with Portland's Steve Smith posting up on him in 2000, and he had nothing near Magic's strength and post moves. Once that's done, who covers Worthy in the post, who had 10 lbs. and 2 more inches on Fox? Shaq could dominate inside, but Showtime could pound as well as they could run.
(3) Defensive length. Shaq is the biggest advantage the 2001 Lakers would have, but they'd still need to get him the ball. Showtime frequently employed a 1-3-1 trapping defense that exploited its size-speed advantages. Magic had 3 inches of height on Kobe, Scott had 2 inches of height on Fish, and Worthy had 2 inches of height on Fox. Yes, Grant was bigger than Green, but it's not often that Grant would be giving entry passes to Shaq. Plus, Divac gave Shaq a decent fight at 7'1, 265 in 2002, and Kareem himself was 7'2", 265. All in all, the 2000-01 team never had to face a team with the sort of length as Showtime, with the possible exception of the 2000 Blazer team - and that team wasn't as top-to-bottom fast as Showtime.
(4) Firepower balance. By 2001, most teams were lucky to have 2 reliable scorers on their team. While the 2001 team had 2 megastars, the 87 team had 4 guys who averaged 17 or more - Magic at 23.9, Worthy at 19.4, Kareem at 17.5, and Scott at 17. Any of these guys could go off for 20-30 at any time. As solid as the 2001 defense was, they'd have a tough time covering all of these guys at once. As dangerous as the 2002 Kings team was - Showtime was BETTER.
2000-2001 is arguably the greatest NBA team ever assembled
It's up there. Personally, I'd say it's the third best Lakers team, after the 86-87 Lakers and the 71-72 Lakers.
As others have said, it has a great one-two punch but the salary cap rules prevented it from having the depth of superteams from previous decades.
The 85-86 Celtics had four Hall of Famers in the starting lineup (plus one all-star) and a former MVPs and another all-star as their 6th and 7th man. We'll never see that again.
The 82-83 76ers had the league's last two MVPs and two other all-stars.
2000-2001 is arguably the greatest NBA team ever assembled
It's up there. Personally, I'd say it's the third best Lakers team, after the 86-87 Lakers and the 71-72 Lakers.
As others have said, it has a great one-two punch but the salary cap rules prevented it from having the depth of superteams from previous decades.
The 85-86 Celtics had four Hall of Famers in the starting lineup (plus one all-star) and a former MVPs and another all-star as their 6th and 7th man. We'll never see that again.
The 82-83 76ers had the league's last two MVPs and two other all-stars.
Are we talking about on paper? Like, take the actual accomplishments out of the picture and just look at the names on the roster?
Or are we talking about which team accomplished more with what it had?
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:30 pm Post subject:
KBH wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
Chronicle wrote:
Kobe and Shaq were unstoppable that year.
Also, I personally would take 2010 Lakers over 2009
Might also take an earlier showtime team
The 2010 Lakers weren't as good as the 2009 Lakers. Kobe was hampered by knee pain during the playoffs. That team really wouldn't have even won a championship had the 50-32 Celtics not upset the 66 win Cavs.
Yeah, Kobe didn't really get going in the playoffs until he got his knee drained near the end of the first round. And going from Ariza to Artest really lowered our team speed and athleticism. The 2009 team was better, but I also don't think we beat the Celtics without Artest making Pierce's life miserable.
I've never understood why people think Artest locked Pierce down during that series. Pierce averaged 18.0 PPG on 43.9% shooting, which is essentially the same as his playoffs average that year of 18.8 PPG on 43.8% shooting. For the season, he averaged 18.3 PPG on 47.2% shooting. Artest more or less held him to his regular numbers.
Meanwhile, Artest averaged 10.6 PPG on an abysmal 36.1% from the field during that series. We would have won with Ariza too. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Also, I personally would take 2010 Lakers over 2009
Might also take an earlier showtime team
The 2010 Lakers weren't as good as the 2009 Lakers. Kobe was hampered by knee pain during the playoffs. That team really wouldn't have even won a championship had the 50-32 Celtics not upset the 66 win Cavs.
Yeah, Kobe didn't really get going in the playoffs until he got his knee drained near the end of the first round. And going from Ariza to Artest really lowered our team speed and athleticism. The 2009 team was better, but I also don't think we beat the Celtics without Artest making Pierce's life miserable.
I've never understood why people think Artest locked Pierce down during that series. Pierce averaged 18.0 PPG on 43.9% shooting, which is essentially the same as his playoffs average that year of 18.8 PPG on 43.8% shooting. For the season, he averaged 18.3 PPG on 47.2% shooting. Artest more or less held him to his regular numbers.
The 87 Lakers were the greatest team I ever watched. Always consider them the Gold Standard. Magic and Worthy made that team a matchup nightmare. With that said, my favorite teams were the Kobe-Shaq Lakers.
2000-2001 Lakers, Kobe and a prime Shaq. Nuff said.
Shaq in his prime was the single most dominant player to ever step on a basketball court. It's a shame he was so lazy because the dude could've been the greatest of all time if he had the work ethic like Kobe or Magic.
The '87 Lakers. It's not really a fair comparison. The '80s was an era of super teams with stacked rosters. The '01 Lakers may have been greater relative to their competition at the time, but the salary cap system had spread the talent out a lot. Just think about the frontcourt on the '86 Celtics: Parrish, McHale, Bird, and a healthy Bill Walton. Try assembling that one today.
The '87 Lakers. It's not really a fair comparison. The '80s was an era of super teams with stacked rosters. The '01 Lakers may have been greater relative to their competition at the time, but the salary cap system had spread the talent out a lot. Just think about the frontcourt on the '86 Celtics: Parrish, McHale, Bird, and a healthy Bill Walton. Try assembling that one today.
THIS
The top teams back then were stacked.
They were definitely stacked, but the poll question was which was the better team and only one of those 3 teams accomplished the elusive 3peat.
I mean, the Kobe/Dwight/Pau/Nash team was stacked on paper too, but fared worse than the Kobe/Smush/Kwame/Odom team (the latter won more playoff games). So which was the better team?
Is it better to have done less but with more, or more with less?
The '87 Lakers. It's not really a fair comparison. The '80s was an era of super teams with stacked rosters. The '01 Lakers may have been greater relative to their competition at the time, but the salary cap system had spread the talent out a lot. Just think about the frontcourt on the '86 Celtics: Parrish, McHale, Bird, and a healthy Bill Walton. Try assembling that one today.
THIS
The top teams back then were stacked.
They were definitely stacked, but the poll question was which was the better team and only one of those 3 teams accomplished the elusive 3peat.
I mean, the Kobe/Dwight/Pau/Nash team was stacked on paper too, but fared worse than the Kobe/Smush/Kwame/Odom team (the latter won more playoff games). So which was the better team?
Is it better to have done less but with more, or more with less?
The three-peat was done after the watered down salary cap league. The record doesn't mean as much when the competition wasn't on the same level.
The '87 Lakers. It's not really a fair comparison. The '80s was an era of super teams with stacked rosters. The '01 Lakers may have been greater relative to their competition at the time, but the salary cap system had spread the talent out a lot. Just think about the frontcourt on the '86 Celtics: Parrish, McHale, Bird, and a healthy Bill Walton. Try assembling that one today.
THIS
The top teams back then were stacked.
They were definitely stacked, but the poll question was which was the better team and only one of those 3 teams accomplished the elusive 3peat.
I mean, the Kobe/Dwight/Pau/Nash team was stacked on paper too, but fared worse than the Kobe/Smush/Kwame/Odom team (the latter won more playoff games). So which was the better team?
Is it better to have done less but with more, or more with less?
The three-peat was done after the watered down salary cap league. The record doesn't mean as much when the competition wasn't on the same level.
But in the 80s, I thought the top teams were stacked. So, the competition wasn't on the same level there too. So you played a few really, really good teams and a bunch of really bad teams versus playing against all average teams. Looking purely at the roster only, I can totally see what you guys are saying about the 80s team being "better". It's just hard for me to rationalize how a team that went 15-1 and a 3peat didn't do better than a team that didn't.
The 2001 team was 48-26 after 74 games and had to win their last 8 to grab their playoff seeding. What they did in the playoffs (especially to a prime Duncan) should never be discounted.
However the 1986-87 squad was on a mission from training camp after the RALPH Sampson shot in 86. They lost one game in the playoffs before the finals when Sleepy Floyd went absolutely nuts in a quarter. The finals were as one sided a six game series as you can get. The celts barely won game 3 and I think the squad mailed game 5 in to win in front of the fans in game 6. For my money it's 86-87.
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 8287 Location: Oxnard, Ca.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:34 pm Post subject:
A pole like this one should voluntarily include the posters age. I would think most would agree that poles like this one would favor the time period in which the poster grew up.
It's really a problem having so many great teams to pick from, damn. _________________ .....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
