Best Team Of The '00's?

[Nitro]

Who do ya'll think was the best team of the '00's (2000-2001 through 2009-2010)?

 

My pick would be the 2007-2008 Boston Celtics. I'll explain my pick later on...

[JYD]

Oh...I thought you mean team of the decade. Which is obviously, the Lakers...

 

The Laker teams with Kobe & Shaq were pretty ridiculous.

[Real Deal]

Who do ya'll think was the best team of the '00's (2000-2001 through 2009-2010)?

 

My pick would be the 2007-2008 Boston Celtics. I'll explain my pick later on...

I can't say Boston because I really do think the Lakers would've beaten them had they had a healthy Bynum and Ariza (Drew didn't log a single minute, Ariza was a gimp out there).

 

I realize what they did against LeBron that year, and how they held Bryant as well...fantastic defensive team, potent offense...but I don't think anyone can argue against a 2000 Lakers team that won 67 games, ranked 1st defensively and 5th offensively, and won an NBA championship. Kobe missed 16 games. That Lakers team could've won 70, based on their record with a full roster (46-8, .852 win percentage) and even without Bryant and having everyone else healthy, they went 16-3 (.842), which is pretty scary. They had winning streaks of 19, 16, 11 and 7 games that season.

 

Not to mention that team was the start of the dynasty and contained the duo that is arguably as good as Jordan and Scottie. It's no coincidence they went 15-1 in the playoffs the following season. Had they not walked in thinking they were going to shut Iverson and the Sixers down easily, they would've been the first team to go undefeated.

[kingfish]

Ill say the 2001 Shaq and Kobe team. They won the title only losing once in the postseason (in Overtime). That team was so dominant, and it was one of Shaqs best years while Kobe was starting to enter the dominant phase.

[fish7718]

We've had this topic before, was a pretty big debate...

 

Spurs

[Real Deal]

We've had this topic before, was a pretty big debate...

 

Spurs

You're cheating. You have to pick a specific Spurs team.

[JYD]

I can't say Boston because I really do think the Lakers would've beaten them had they had a healthy Bynum and Ariza (Drew didn't log a single minute, Ariza was a gimp out there).

 

I realize what they did against LeBron that year, and how they held Bryant as well...fantastic defensive team, potent offense...but I don't think anyone can argue against a 2000 Lakers team that won 67 games, ranked 1st defensively and 5th offensively, and won an NBA championship. Kobe missed 16 games. That Lakers team could've won 70, based on their record with a full roster (46-8, .852 win percentage) and even without Bryant and having everyone else healthy, they went 16-3 (.842), which is pretty scary. They had winning streaks of 19, 16, 11 and 7 games that season.

 

Not to mention that team was the start of the dynasty and contained the duo that is arguably as good as Jordan and Scottie. It's no coincidence they went 15-1 in the playoffs the following season. Had they not walked in thinking they were going to shut Iverson and the Sixers down easily, they would've been the first team to go undefeated.

I agree with this...The Kobe & Shaq duo was literally unstoppable. I've never seen a big man dominant like O'Neal did in that era...it was incredible.

[Real Deal]

Niiiiitro, I know you're posting...but I'll reply later. I need to finish up the banners and team forums.

 

 

Everyone else can swing their bats for a while.

[Nitro]

I can't say Boston because I really do think the Lakers would've beaten them had they had a healthy Bynum and Ariza (Drew didn't log a single minute, Ariza was a gimp out there).

 

I realize what they did against LeBron that year, and how they held Bryant as well...fantastic defensive team, potent offense...but I don't think anyone can argue against a 2000 Lakers team that won 67 games, ranked 1st defensively and 5th offensively, and won an NBA championship. Kobe missed 16 games. That Lakers team could've won 70, based on their record with a full roster (46-8, .852 win percentage) and even without Bryant and having everyone else healthy, they went 16-3 (.842), which is pretty scary. They had winning streaks of 19, 16, 11 and 7 games that season.

 

Not to mention that team was the start of the dynasty and contained the duo that is arguably as good as Jordan and Scottie. It's no coincidence they went 15-1 in the playoffs the following season. Had they not walked in thinking they were going to shut Iverson and the Sixers down easily, they would've been the first team to go undefeated.

 

All fair points, and I certainly can't argue against the 2000-2001 Lakers track record. However, that 2000-2001 Laker team only won 56 games (because of Kobe's injuries). The 1999-2000 Lakers are the ones who won 67 games, but that was also the team that was 1 quarter away from being eliminated by the Blazers, and Kobe was just starting to really hit his stride. The years I included in this topic also didn't include that 1999-2000 Lakers squad.

 

My arguement for the 2007-2008 Boston Celtics largely revolves around how they would have handled the other elite teams of the decade (2000-2002 Lakers, 2002-2003 Spurs, 2003-2004 Pistons, 2008-2010 Lakers and 2009-2010 Celtics being the best teams of the decade IMO). First off, their track record and health was pretty amazing. They won 66 games with a point differential being over 10pts. They held teams to 90PPG on under 42% shooting. Not only was their defense amazing, but they were also killing teams on the glass. One of the things I think that separates them from some of those Laker teams, and also the 2009-2010 Celtics, was their health. No key player played less than 70 games, and everyone was healthy for the entire post-season run. Their balance on offense was tremendous, with 3 guys who were #1 options and averaging 22-25PPG the year before. Not only were they top heavy, but the Big 3's chemistry was near-perfect, with a go-to iso scorer in Pierce, arguably the best 3pt shooter ever in Ray Allen, and a do-everything big man in KG. Outside of those guys, the team had a ton of role players who didn't do too much offensively and also defended extremely well (Posey, Perkins, Rondo, Tony Allen, PJ Brown, Powe, House, etc...). The team did tend to lose concentration and would play down to their opponents at times, but when the pressure was on, this team was intense, gritty and performed extremely well in big-game situations.

 

If they had played the 2000-2001 Lakers, I don't think the Lakers would have matched up very well. Much like in 2004 against the Pistons, Shaq would probably get his numbers, but they would force Kobe into a well-contested, perimeter oriented game and low shooting percentage for the series. The Celtics were very, very good at closing out on and defending 3pt shooters, which was the Lakers only real offensive threats outside of Kobe and Shaq. Defensively, I don't think Rick Fox would have had a ton of success defending Pierce, and KG's versatility would have been a major problem for an old Horace Grant and Horry. The Celtics also had an advantage in the depth department, and ultimately just had more weapons on both sides of the ball.

[fish7718]

You're cheating. You have to pick a specific Spurs team.

oh nvm I got the topic wrong, I thought we were picking the best team as a whole throughout the decade, I'd take one of those early Lakers teams then

[ChosenOne]

Brandon hurry up and reply, I need something to do in class. Reading what you and Nitro have to say keeps me awake. Econ is just toooooo boring as hell.

[Real Deal]

All fair points, and I certainly can't argue against the 2000-2001 Lakers track record. However, that 2000-2001 Laker team only won 56 games (because of Kobe's injuries). The 1999-2000 Lakers are the ones who won 67 games, but that was also the team that was 1 quarter away from being eliminated by the Blazers, and Kobe was just starting to really hit his stride. The years I included in this topic also didn't include that 1999-2000 Lakers squad.

When I say the 2000 Lakers, I'm talking the 1999-2000 team. The season starts in 1999, but that's two months of the 7-8 that they play. When someone calls on a particular team, they use the year of that team's championship. The 2000 Lakers started the dynasty, and the 2002 Lakers ended it with the third ring.

 

The decade, from 2000-2010, should include that 2000 Lakers squad. In fact...

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2000.html

 

There's your 2000 Lakers (note the URL), and that's your 1999-2000 67-win team.

 

And because a decade lasts from 2000-2009 (ten full years) and that team played the majority of their games in the year 2000 (and won their title in 2000), they should be considered.

[Keeylay]

2002 roster.

Mike Bibby

Doug Christie

Valde Divac

Peja Stojaovic

Chris Webber

Bobby Jackson

Hedo Turkoglu

C Rick Adelman

This was the reason I started to become a Kings fan. Home Court in Sacramento was the best in the league. I loved to go to the games! sold out every night. I think my heart stopped when we lost to the Lakers in game 7.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Keeylay

[Nitro]

When I say the 2000 Lakers, I'm talking the 1999-2000 team. The season starts in 1999, but that's two months of the 7-8 that they play. When someone calls on a particular team, they use the year of that team's championship. The 2000 Lakers started the dynasty, and the 2002 Lakers ended it with the third ring.

 

The decade, from 2000-2010, should include that 2000 Lakers squad. In fact...

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2000.html

 

There's your 2000 Lakers (note the URL), and that's your 1999-2000 67-win team.

 

And because a decade lasts from 2000-2009 (ten full years) and that team played the majority of their games in the year 2000 (and won their title in 2000), they should be considered.

 

In my OP I included all seasons from 2000-2010 (aka all seasons that began this decade). But yeah, it doesn't matter, we can do it either way.

 

I actually think the 1999-2000 Lakers would have even more trouble than the next year's group. That 2000 post-season the Lakers were starting an old Ron Harper at PG, an old AC Green at PF, and an old Glen Rice at SF. Harper was still a good defender at that age, but he was on his last legs and would either be expected to defend Rajon Rondo, who would get into the paint at will, or Ray Allen, who would run him ragged off screens. Either way it would be an issue on defense, and on offense Harper simply wasn't producing or playing efficiently at that stage. AC Green was a good defensive player, but against KG he'd be giving up 3 inches and a lot of athleticism. Also, like Harper, he wasn't an offensive factor at that point. I like Glen Rice a whole lot better than Rick Fox offensively, but he still was primarily a 3pt shooter at that point, which would play into the Celtics hand. Defensively, he'd have no shot at stopping Pierce. Lastly, Kobe's game developed significantly from the 1999-2000 to 2000-2001 season, and he became more adept at being able to handle greater offensive responsibility (i.e- volume). Against the Celtics, who would force Kobe into a perimeter-oriented game and would require Kobe to be a bigger part of the offense than he was in the 99-00 regular and post-seasons, I'd prefer the 00-01 version over the 99-00 version.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Nitro

[AboveLegit]

I can't say for sure if the Lakers would have beaten these Celtics, because I can't guess what Shaq's reaction would have been after the first game of the series, after feeling the amount of intensity the Celtics bring. Lets face it, the 00-02 Lakers were bullies (how could you not be with Shaq). They pushed teams around and forced them out of their games. But they NEVER played with or against the intensity that the Celtics bring. I've NEVER in my life (not even the Jordan Bulls team) seen a team so focused on dominating defensively in every aspect of the game.

 

Those little things lead to victories. Never giving up on a defensive play, like when you hear the whistle blow, see an opponent shoot up a practice shot, and watch Garnett or Perkins jump up and grab the ball out of the air, just to make sure you don't get a taste for the basket. Or having a hard foul called in which the Celtics defender made sure that their opponent couldn't throw up and easy and 1 basket and then James Posey comes in with hard contact of his own (yes, it is a cheap shot, but he gets away with it every time) after the original foul is called, because he knows that another foul won't get called. Those things weigh on a team. It affected the Lakers so much by the 6th game of the series that they just completely gave up by halftime. All of their whining all series long after the games, their frustration in the locker room and on the sideline, they were mentally broken.

 

I'm not saying that Shaq wouldn't have stepped it up after playing a game or two against that intensity, but if he decided to take it easy like he did in the Pistons series in 03 against a milder version of that pressure, then the Celtics would have routed all three of those Lakers' squads. The Lakers teams were far more talented than the Celtics, but in the finals, its all about who can truly give 100% all the time (like playing with a desperate intensity with 4 minutes left in the 4th even though you're leading by 35 points, which the Celtics did in game 6, meanwhile, the Lakers blew big lead after big lead in the series because they got lackadaisical).

 

Unfortunately, like all comparisons across season lines, we'll never know for sure.

 

Yeah, KG has had trouble against Shaq-led teams but the other big men included Rasho Nesterovic, Gary Trent, Earvin "not Magic" Johnson, Mark Madsen, and the immortal Michael Olowokandi. I'd wager that Kendrick Perkins, PJ Brown, Leon Powe, and Glen Davis are a touch better than that group. This Celtics team has enough quality bigs to throw at Shaq (more so than any team the Lakers faced in 00-02 in the finals at least) that it would at least be able to hold Shaq a little and none of the teams they played and this Celtics perimeter D.

 

I fully support the idea that the Celtics could beat any of the teams since 1999 (and embrace the idea that they'd have a leg up against any team since the 92-93 Bulls). This Celtics team wasn't just good defensively, they put up historically great defensive numbers (which carried them until they finally found their legs offensively in the playoffs against the Pistons).

[Real Deal]

How would Rajon Rondo get into the paint at will? Just because Harper was older? If I'm not mistaken, that's what a lot of people figured would happen when Kobe shifted over to defend Rajon, except Bryant was smarter this time around. Harper's defensive IQ was pretty high. Plus, this was a Rondo that was shooting under 41% in those playoffs, averaging four boards a game, under seven assists, 10 points per contest. Definitely not the same Rondo as the one we see today, or even last year (16/6/9 on 46% FG in the 2010 playoffs).

 

Bryant could've kept up with Ray. With everyone always calling him overrated on defense and saying he was better in his youth...well, here's his youth.

 

Above all that, nobody on the Celtics stops Shaq. He would have 50 points if it was just Perkins defending him, and if Garnett has to help every single time, it almost obliterates any help defense the Celtics utilize on Bryant, who was netting 23 PPG on 47% FG that season, and the same Kobe that put up three-consecutive 30s on the Kings in the first round that year.

 

I don't think Boston beats the 2000 Lakers OR the 2001 Lakers. Yeah, those Lakers nearly lost to the Blazers. Boston nearly lost to Atlanta in the first round that season, and barely got past the Cavs as well...two seven-gamers.

[AboveLegit]

Above all that, nobody on the Celtics stops Shaq. He would have 50 points if it was just Perkins defending him, and if Garnett has to help every single time, it almost obliterates any help defense the Celtics utilize on Bryant, who was netting 23 PPG on 47% FG that season, and the same Kobe that put up three-consecutive 30s on the Kings in the first round that year.

 

You've got to remember that there's one thing the Celtics did really well in all of the playoff series that post season, and that was keep the ball out of the post altogether. Despite Gasols FG% in the series, one of the main reasons the Lakers couldn't get anything going was because of the Celtics denial of passes inside, as well as their collapse inside. Again, that does not mean they could stop Shaq once he got the ball. And there's no way that the 2000 Lakers would get dominated on the boards the way this group did. But through Shaqs prime of 2000-2002, no one attacked him defensively, he always attacked everyone else offensively. Garnett/Perkins/Posey/Brown and Powe would have done everything they could to make sure that when they fouled big daddy, he felt it and didn't make his shots. That wouldn't help when Shaq decided to just dunk, which would still get him 30 a game. But anytime Shaq would get it with a body in between him and the basket, the Celtics would be putting him on the line without an and 1 (which most teams couldn't do). And you all know how effective Shaq is at the line.

 

People tend to forget this (because of the myth that is Shaquille O'Neal in his prime, I guess) but he could be contained by teams with good interior defense, like the Spurs. He had good games against the Spurs, but by his standards, his great games against them were few and far between. The player who usually killed the Spurs was Bryant (why do people forget this?) because the Spurs perimeter defense has always been a bit suspect. But this Celtics team's perimeter defense is nearly as good as their interior defense. As you get further down the Laker's three peat, it gets less and less likely that that players on the perimeter would be able to make the Celtics pay because of their rotation.

 

I'm not confident that the Celtics would win, this is extremely close and could be debated both ways.

[Nitro]

How would Rajon Rondo get into the paint at will? Just because Harper was older? If I'm not mistaken, that's what a lot of people figured would happen when Kobe shifted over to defend Rajon, except Bryant was smarter this time around. Harper's defensive IQ was pretty high. Plus, this was a Rondo that was shooting under 41% in those playoffs, averaging four boards a game, under seven assists, 10 points per contest. Definitely not the same Rondo as the one we see today, or even last year (16/6/9 on 46% FG in the 2010 playoffs).

 

In 99-00 Harper was 5 years older than Kobe was in the Finals last year, had played just as many seasons, and simply wasn't as good of a defender as Kobe is when he decides to make that aspect of his game a focus. Harper was a good, smart defender at the end of his career, but there is no way he's keeping arguably the most quickest PG currently in the NBA out of the paint. None.

 

And while Rondo wasn't the same player he is today, his dribble penetration has always caused problems for defenses, even if he isn't scoring or racking up 10+ assists. In the 2008 post-season he had some flashes of brilliance, including some great games against Cleveland, Detroit, and his 16 assists in Game 2 against the Lakers was the difference in that game (and maybe series). Harper wasn't making the kind of impact in the Lakers 1st championship as Rondo was in Boston's.

 

Bryant could've kept up with Ray. With everyone always calling him overrated on defense and saying he was better in his youth...well, here's his youth.

 

He probably could have kept up with Ray, but Rice and Green aren't keeping up with Pierce and Garnett, and I trust Ray/Posey/T. Allen's defense on a young Kobe considering they did a stellar job on him in that 2008 series. And even if Garnett spends less time focusing on keeping Kobe out of the paint, Kobe did not have the same outside game in 99-00 as the one he eventually developed, and in no circumstance would Kobe be having a feast in the paint against the Celtics. They had too many good individual and help defenders to have that happen. And besides, what I think is a factor is that Kobe was not yet used to being a guy to score in huge volume, which would be necessary against the Celtics. I just don't think young Kobe would be having much success against the Celtics, even if the Celtics throw some doubles at Shaq.

 

Above all that, nobody on the Celtics stops Shaq. He would have 50 points if it was just Perkins defending him, and if Garnett has to help every single time, it almost obliterates any help defense the Celtics utilize on Bryant, who was netting 23 PPG on 47% FG that season, and the same Kobe that put up three-consecutive 30s on the Kings in the first round that year.

 

It isn't about stopping Shaq...that just ain't happening. However, Perkins is a huge body and very good post defender, so I think he could do a similar job as Big Ben did on Shaq in 2004, when Shaq averaged about 29/14 on over 60% shooting for the series and the Lakers still lost in 5. I just think that even if Shaq went for his 30/15, and Kobe managed to go for 25/5 on 45% shooting ( better numbers than his regular and post-season averages that year, which wouldn't happen against the Celtics), the Celtics would still have matched up too well to have been beaten in a 7-game series. Personally, I think the Celtics' big 3 would have out-performed the Lakers' big 2 because of matchups, and I think the Celtics' defense would have shutdown the Lakers' 3pt shooters, which was their only weapon aside from Shaq/Kobe.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Nitro

[Hawks Fly High]

Get EJ, Kenny, and Charles Barkeley out of NBATV and put you 3 in

[Real Deal]

Kobe was criticized for shooting against Boston's miniature, "modified" zone defense. The way to beat the zone is to feed the post and attack the rim. A zone welcomes the shot, and if you aren't knocking them down, you don't beat it (well, for most).

 

Only Tony Allen would be able to keep up with Bryant. Posey was a shooter's defender, and so was Ray Allen (a player who has relied heavily on help defense his entire career, actually). Problem is, Tony Allen played a total of 19 minutes in the NBA Finals...three games, didn't reach double-digit minutes in two of them. He was a non-factor, and it was because Posey was getting all of his minutes. Tony was playing significant minutes until the playoffs rolled around, and no, it wasn't an injury that forced him out...Allen was getting less than 10 minutes against the Hawks in the first round, played under five minutes in 11 of those 15 games he did play.

 

Bryant would have had more success against that Boston defense back then, versus in 2008. The Lakers lost that Finals series for three main reasons: injuries, Bryant and Gasol's lack of physicality (Kobe settling and Gasol not being a man), and shots were not falling. The 2000 Lakers would be injury-free (this is assuming all teams are), Kobe would be driving to the rim more and a more versatile defender, Shaq would be 10 times more physical than Gasol and would be a major reason why Rondo would never drive to the rim (remember, the Lakers were 1st defensively, due to having Kobe on the perimeter and Shaq waiting in the paint), and the Lakers were getting open due to that post presence and Bryant's ability to work on the perimeter.

 

I actually think those five more wins (to make the Lakers a 72-win team) would change almost everyone's opinion on the subject. That LA team would be considered one of the greatest of all-time (right there with Jordan's 72-win Bulls), and suddenly, this wouldn't be such a big debate.

 

By the way, I think that Boston team was the second or third best team in the decade, and it's arguable that they are first. I'm not going to say that the Lakers are, hands down, the ones to select here...but it's too difficult for me not to say Kobe and Shaq.

[ballorama]

Someone earlier stated that the 2000 Lakers almost lost to the Blazers in game 7? Well, the 2008 Celtics had game 7's vs a EIGHT seeded hawks team and the 45 win Cavs team. Just saying..

[Guest mr_sunshine]

i think i'll go with the Spurs, the defense was amazing and tim duncan was incredible. in second i'd take Shaq-Kobe LA, then i'd take Boston...

 

by far the worst team to win a chip in the 00's is Detroit. but was super inspiring. ^_^

[Finch23]

Honestly I think the 01 Lakers or the 03 Spurs would take a giant dump on the 08 Celtics.

 

Prime Bowen could contain PP

Prime Duncan> KG of 08

 

Spurs had a fantastic mixture of youth and veteran leadership.

 

01 Lakers were just nasty..... Not to mention the 08 Rondo isn't anywhere near as good as the 2010 Rondo

[Finch23]

I also want to give some love to the 04 Pistons. They are also better than the 08 Celtics IMO. That team was scary good defensively!

[Guest The REAL STL10]

02 Kings for sure.

 

[expletive] DAVID STERN