Best Team Of The '00's?

[Guest The REAL STL10]

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..

 

The Blazers up by 15 in the 4th quarter and then the Lakers started getting bull[expletive] foul calls.

 

Typical NBA refs in the playoffs.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldY8bcrmdPI

 

Edited November 11, 2010 by The REAL STL10

[Real Deal]

LOL.

[Nitro]

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

 

You can read my earlier posts regarding the 08 Celtics vs. the 3-peat Lakers, but as for the 2003 Spurs, it would be an interesting series. I do think, however, the 08 Celtics were a far, far more balanced team. That Spurs team relied on Duncan to do superhuman things to carry them as Parker and S-Jax were only 2nd year players, Manu was a rookie, and both Kerr and Robinson were about to retire. That post-season Manu, Jackson, Parker, Rose and Bowen all shot below 42% from the field, Kerr played in less than half those post-season games, and no one else on the team was contributing. Prime Duncan was indeed a better player than 08 KG, but if there has ever been a PF in the last decade that could at least slow Duncan a little, it would be KG. Offensively, KG would also make Duncan work, and would take him away from the basket, possibly limiting Duncan's impact on the boards and defensively around the rim a bit. Also, even though Parker was probably better that season, I don't think he was much better than 08 Rondo, and defensively I think Rondo would have a better chance at keeping Parker in front of him than vice versa. Bowen would definitely give Pierce problems, but Ray would also give Jackson major problems. I think the Celtics had a much stronger bench as well.

 

Overall, after Duncan, the Spurs would have a lot of problems finding offense against the Celtics. The Celtics would also have problems, but they had a lot more offensive weapons and an equally impressive defense. I'd take the 08 Celtics in a 7-game series.

[Multi-Billionaire]

My best team would be the 2003-04 Detroit Pistons.

 

- They held 5 consecutive teams to under 70 points.

- Not even 2007-08 Celtics can touch this, KG was nice, but he's no Ben Wallace in his prime.

- They steam-rolled the "favorite" Lakers in the Finals, almost sweeping them, had it not been Kobe's three that force OT in Game 2.

- In Game 3, the offensive juggernaut Lakers with arguably the most dominant big man (Shaq) and arguably the most dominant Robin in the history of NBA (Kobe) only managed 68 points as a team.

 

 

No Spurs, no Celtics defense can best this 2003-04 Detroit team's.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Multi-Billionaire

[Oliver P]

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.

 

Exactly. When I'm asked who's team is the best one the first thing I'm looking at is the playoffs. Because it's the only thing that matters, the purpose of the regular season is just to make the playoffs.Besides 56 wins is definitely good enough, especially that it was the second best record in the league. Also the main reason why they didn't win more games in the season was because of Shaq and Kobe's fights who took a new dimension that year. Fortunately for them, and with the help of Jax, every went back to normal (momentarily) in playoffs time. And the level they reached that season was just beyond belief. The most amazing team I've seen play at the exception of the Jordan Bulls. O'Neal was just unstoppable at the time, no one could stop him, Harper even said that it was easier to play with him than with Jordan, all you had to do was to give him the ball in the paint, sometimes there were even three defenders on him but it was just impossible to stop him, the player not named Jordan that impressed me the most, Bryant reached a new level that year, the kid became a man, and their help was better than the other years, Horry, Fish and Fox were at their finest, Grant, even if he was getting old, still brought all his experience in the post, Harper wasn't in the rotation anymore but Shaw and Lue brought a serious help, and their chemistry was unbelievable.

 

This 2000-01 Lakers team just had the best record in the post season in the history of the game. And they swept four teams that all won at least 50 wins in the regular season. I can tell that there was no one in the world who thought that they would dominate that easily teams like the Spurs, Blazers and Kings. And even if the Sixers didn't look as impressive as those three western teams on paper, they still had heart and were absolutely fantastic in the playoffs, especially thanks to Iverson who had the best year of his career. So it's not that surprising that they were the only one to win one game against (in overtime though) that amazing Lakers team.

 

We cannot know for sure but there is honestly no doubt in my mind that no other teams this decade could have beaten this 2001 Lakers squad.

 

 

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..

 

That's what I was about to say either. This is the problem I had with this Celtics team. I agree that they were an amazing team but they were not particularly impressive in the playoffs, that's the least we can say... Not only they had to play seven games to beat a Hawks team that was certainly not as good as they are now, but they also had to play seven games against Cleveland and at the time the Cavs were certainly not close to what they were those past two years, LeBron's only valuable helps were Z, Hughes (who was never comfortable in Cleveland) and Gooden... and the Cavs only won 45 games that year. And they had to play 6 games to beat the Pistons and Lakers after that, yet the Pistons were certainly not as good as they were in 2004 and 2005, no one was able to make up for Big Ben's departure, and Pau Gasol had just arrived in LA and didn't have much time to adapt to the team. Not only that but Ariza and Bynum were injured... The Lakers were certainly not as good as they were those past two years, they only had Odom and Gasol inside and Radmanovic even had to start...

 

So for those reasons even if the Celtics were a very good team I certainly don't think that they can be mentioned in this thread.

 

 

the 03 Spurs would take a giant dump on the 08 Celtics.

 

I am not so sure about that.. The 2003 Spurs were not particularly impressive IMO. First they had trouble against the Suns, despite the fact that the Suns were not even close to what they were after that year (Marbury isn't Steve Nash... and Stat was still a kid) then they beat a Lakers team who was totally washed up (Shaq and Kobe couldn't stand each other for good and their help was ONLY George, Horry, Fox and Fish, not only that Horry had one of his worst years ever, everyone even thought that he was done (I did for sure)), and again they had to play six games against them nonetheless, they also had to play six games against the Mavs, and at the time Dallas cared ONLY about offense and was not even close to the 2006 Mavs. Finally they had to play six games once again against the worst team I ever seen in the Finals, the New Jersey Nets. The East was quite weak at the time and this Nets team couldn't pass the second round now IMO. They had no one inside (Martin is not a true inside player, he has no post moves, and Mutombo was totally washed up), and their bench was quite weak.

 

Besides Parker and Ginobili were still babies at the time, they were not at the level at which they play now yet. At the time the Spurs were basically only Duncan.

 

So no the 03 Spurs are outta the discussion IMO. You should have picked the 05 Spurs, certainly the best Spurs team that I saw, Duncan was still at his peak, Ginobili and Parker had reached a new level (it was a true big three) and Horry got back to his best level. Alright they lost in 7 games agaisnt Detroit but at the time the Pistons were still at their best and it was definitely a WAY tougher team to beat than the weak Nets...A case can be made for that team IMO, even if, as I said, my pick is the 01 Lakers.

 

 

EDIT : About the Kings I agree that it was a great team as well (my favorite non Knicks team of the decade with teh 01 Sixers and the Mavs), one of the best chemistries I ever saw, but as they didn't win a ring I certainly don't think that they can be mentioned here.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Oliver P

[AboveLegit]

This 2000-01 Lakers team just had the best record in the post season in the history of the game. And they swept four teams that all won at least 50 wins in the regular season. I can tell that there was no one in the world who thought that they would dominate that easily teams like the Spurs, Blazers and Kings. And even if the Sixers didn't look as impressive as those three western teams on paper, they still had heart and were absolutely fantastic in the playoffs, especially thanks to Iverson who had the best year of his career. So it's not that surprising that they were the only one to win one game against (in overtime though) that amazing Lakers team.

 

We cannot know for sure but there is honestly no doubt in my mind that no other teams this decade could have beaten this 2001 Lakers squad.

 

So no the 03 Spurs are outta the discussion IMO. You should have picked the 05 Spurs, certainly the best Spurs team that I saw, Duncan was still at his peak, Ginobili and Parker had reached a new level (it was a true big three) and Horry got back to his best level. Alright they lost in 7 games agaisnt Detroit but at the time the Pistons were still at their best and it was definitely a WAY tougher team to beat than the weak Nets...A case can be made for that team IMO, even if, as I said, my pick is the 01 Lakers.

Actually, I'd take the 2000 team before I'd take the 2001 Lakers team. People get a little caught up in how the 01 Lakers ran threw the West in the playoffs that season, but they were pretty flawed team. They payed two shell shocked teams in the Blazers and Kings who had convinced themselves that season (because of the previous year's mistakes) that they couldn't beat the Lakers and they face a banged up and over the hill Spurs team (they started Danny Ferry and Terry Porter, and played Antonio Daniels a lot) and finally took on a banged up Sixers team (who still managed to take a game from them based on a herculean effort by Iverson). They had a mediocre bench (really none at all) and got through the playoffs because no one could stand up to Shaq and they were facing teams whose perimeter defense was fairly sub par. I'd definitely take the more versatile 2000 Lakers. They struggled a little more in the playoffs, but I think they were ultimately the better team.

 

Shaq was at his peak (and hadn't gone on his chicken and waffles diet yet), Kobe didn't think he was the man yet and thus wasn't just gunning, Rice was still a serviceable player, and Fisher, Fox, and Horry were all coming off the bench (only Horry was coming off the bench in 01 and none of them were in 02).

 

And I agree, the 03 Spurs were probably the second weakest of the Spurs championship teams. Parker played poorly enough in the playoffs that Speedy Claxton was taking crunch time minutes away from him. I don't think they'd really stand a chance against the Celtics from this season. The 07 Spurs were probably the best of the Spurs championship teams IMO.

 

I like Duncan in 03, he carried his decidedly mediocre team (in terms of championship teams) to an NBA title against the Nets. He was at the peak of talents then, it's just the rest of the team I don't think would be up to snuff. I think the Celtics have enough quality bigs to throw at Shaq and Duncan to somewhat contain them.

[Oliver P]

Actually, I'd take the 2000 team before I'd take the 2001 Lakers team. People get a little caught up in how the 01 Lakers ran threw the West in the playoffs that season, but they were pretty flawed team. They payed two shell shocked teams in the Blazers and Kings who had convinced themselves that season (because of the previous year's mistakes) that they couldn't beat the Lakers and they face a banged up and over the hill Spurs team (they started Danny Ferry and Terry Porter, and played Antonio Daniels a lot) and finally took on a banged up Sixers team (who still managed to take a game from them based on a herculean effort by Iverson). They had a mediocre bench (really none at all) and got through the playoffs because no one could stand up to Shaq and they were facing teams whose perimeter defense was fairly sub par. I'd definitely take the more versatile 2000 Lakers. They struggled a little more in the playoffs, but I think they were ultimately the better team.

 

Shaq was at his peak (and hadn't gone on his chicken and waffles diet yet), Kobe didn't think he was the man yet and thus wasn't just gunning, Rice was still a serviceable player, and Fisher, Fox, and Horry were all coming off the bench (only Horry was coming off the bench in 01 and none of them were in 02).

 

I could not disagree more with you about that ABL. Saying that the 2001 Lakers were flawed is more than wrong. And it's not only because they ran threw the West in the playoffs that season that I pick them over the other Lakers teams, no, it's just that they were clearly a better team overall that year.

 

As a matter of fact the 2000 Lakers were pretty flawed. First of all Rice was always a major disappointment in LA, he never was even close to the fantastic level at which he played in Miami and Charlotte (especially Charlotte), and the only thing that he brought to that team was his offensive skills which were not as good as they used to be... He was totally useless otherwise (let's not talk about his defense...). Not only that but he never fit in that team. He never managed to adapt to the Lakers. It was obvious in 2000 that the Lakers would trade him, which they did to get Horace Grant. Rick Fox became a way more valuable SF, there is no doubt about that.

 

Ron Harper was washed up. He was clearly past his prime and the reason why he started was because Fisher was not ready yet (and many people thought that he could never become a starter at the time anyhow...). AC Green was washed up as well. As for Kobe he wasn't used to play that far in the playoffs and was clearly not at his best, those 2000 Finals are even the worst of his career. And Horry started to feel a bit more comfortable in LA that year (as a matter of fact since his trade from Phoenix in which he barely played.., Horry always felt lost in LA until that year).

 

So when you look at it you have a team with pieces who just don't fit, which is not good for chemistry (their chemistry was not even close to what it was a year later, you can trust me on that), two washed up starters, and players who were not at their best yet (Kobe, Fisher, Horry), etc... so yeah when you look at it you had only Shaq who was really at his best in that team.

 

And all of this showed in the playoffs, the only valuable team that they met in the playoffs was the Blazers in fact, and they had to play seven games to beat them. And I don't know if you saw that seventh game but you have to know that it was really a miracle and no one knows how the Blazers could lose that game... The Blazers led 71-58 after the third, everyone thought that they would win for sure... Probably even themselves and that's certainly why they lost. It's just the biggest game 7 comeback after the third quarter.

 

The other teams they met were not quite impressive, the Kings were a very young team with no experience, they didn't have Christie and Bibby at the time, this Kings team had nothing to do with the fantastic 02 Kings, yet the Lakers had to play five games to beat them (the first round was a five game series at the time). Let's not talk about the Suns who had basically only Kidd, the other two best players were Penny and Uncle Cliffy... And in the Finals the Pacers had nothing to do with the fantastic 98 squad, they were clearly too old and didn't belong here anymore. 2000 is the worst year of the decade for the East IMO, all the best Eastern teams of the past years had a last run, a last chance to win but they were all (Knicks, Pacers, Heat) not as good as the previous years, they were clearly done, and it's no surprise that they all had a terrible season in 2001, they all lost in the first round. It's rather the less bad team than the better one who made the Finals that year. Yet the Lakers had to play six games to beat them, they should have dominated more easily as they were clearly better.

 

While the following year the team got rid of Rice, Bryant became a clearly better player and started to reach his peak, Fisher became a true starter and was more valuable than Harper the year before, just like Fox who brought a lot more in that team than Rice ever did, Horry was more clutch than ever, Grant was getting old but he was still less old than Green and more valuable than him, and let's not forget about Shaw and Lue, especially Lue whose defense was very important against Iverson in the Finals. Most importantly all the pieces fitted together this time, and the chemistry was obviously clearly better than the year before. Besides the team knew how to win and was more familiar with the high level of the playoffs, there is no doubt for me that they were a better team.

 

As for what you said about the Blazers and Kings, that is certainly not true. Convinced themselves that they couldn't beat the Lakers ?! It's the total opposite, the Blazers were still mad that the Lakers beat them, especially due to the way the Blazers lost that 7th game... The Blazers were even more impressive on paper as they added Dale Davis, Kemp and Rod Strickland. Although they didn't play as well as the previous season, that's true but they were still very good and I'd say that it was their last truly good season until their rebirth a couple of years ago. And that year the Blazers wanted to beat the Lakers at the same time more than anything and more than anybody else. Yet the Lakers just destroyed them 3-0.

 

As for the Kings they had no reason to convince themselves of anything, they were the surprised team the year before, no one was expecting them to play that good and to give so much trouble to the Lakers in the first round. If anything this experience allowed them to get some confidence in themselves, and in 2001 they were even a better team, they got rid of Nick the Brick and Delk, and Hedo, Bobby Jackson and Christie had arrived. There were only one piece missing in that puzzle and that piece was Mike Bibby... Well anyway they were clearly a better team that year and wanted more than anything to do what they almost did the year before (and a year after...), they wanted to beat LA. But the Lakers were just too strong that year and they destroyed them too 4-0.

 

And no the Spurs were not "down the hill", quite the opposite they were clearly better than the year before. Robinson was still playing at a high level (he was better than in 2003), Derek Anderson had the best year of his career, and they still had a lot of talented players like Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, etc... And yeah they started Daniels, but you're saying that like it was a terrible thing... You have to be aware that Daniels at the time had nothing to do with the player he became those past years, he was a terrific player, it's definitely in San Antonio that he had the best years of his career. And when Pop decided to start Parker over him the following year Duncan was strongly against it. He wanted Daniels to start. As for Ferry, well it's Pop style, he was always like that, he likes to start players who are not necessarily true starters to have talented players on the bench... As for Porter it's true that he was getting old, but he still played at a good level nonetheless.

 

I mean this team was certainly not washed up. They won 58 games that year, that shows how good they truly were. In fact this 2001 season is one of the best of the decade for the Western Conference, there were 7 (!) teams in the West who won at least 50 games. That is huge. Yet the Lakers heavily dominated them all. This shows how fantastic this team was. And it's true that the Sixers were in fact the less talented team on paper that the Lakers met but you clearly underrate them though. When people think of the Sixers that year they usually think only about Iverson and Mutombo and forget about players like Lynch, McKie, Snow, Hill, etc... Iverson was the center piece but even if they were not stars all the players that surrounded him were fantastic that year, and this team's D was very impressive. The Sixers deserved to make the Finals and they were clearly a better team than the old 2000 Pacers IMO. Not only they won the first game but they had a strong chance to win game 2 and 3, the first three games were really close. The Sixers SHOWED that they deserved to be there. It was harder for them in games 4 and 5 though, because, well first the Sixers started to be really tired after those long playoffs and second the Lakers were just too strong that year. No one could stop them.

 

And I agree, the 03 Spurs were probably the second weakest of the Spurs championship teams. Parker played poorly enough in the playoffs that Speedy Claxton was taking crunch time minutes away from him. I don't think they'd really stand a chance against the Celtics from this season. The 07 Spurs were probably the best of the Spurs championship teams IMO.

 

I like Duncan in 03, he carried his decidedly mediocre team (in terms of championship teams) to an NBA title against the Nets. He was at the peak of talents then, it's just the rest of the team I don't think would be up to snuff. I think the Celtics have enough quality bigs to throw at Shaq and Duncan to somewhat contain them.

 

Just two things about what you said here : second weakest ? Who's the weakest then ? The 99 Spurs ? Well I kinda disagree with you there, I think that the 99 Spurs were better than the 03 ones. I mean Robinson was clearly better, they had Avery Johson who's always been a very underrated PG (but he was truly one of the best), and still had Sean Elliot, Mario Elie, Rose, Daniels, Kersey, and the surprising Jaren Jackson. The team was clearly more deep than in 03. They also had a better defense then. So even if I didn't like this team I have to say that I would put them ahead of the 03 squad.

 

Also I wouldn't say that TP played poorly, he was still very young but he was literally amazing against Kidd in the first three games of the Finals. Sadly for him he was far from being that great in the last three ones... But anyway he wasn't as good as he's now, that's for sure.

 

And I disagree with you about the 07 Spurs, I personally think that the 05 Spurs are the best Spurs of the decade. Two reasons : first Duncan was starting to get older in 07, while he was still clearly at his peak in 05, and Horry was clearly done in 2007. While in 2005, when he got back to his best level, he was almost as important to that team as the big three. Besides Nazr was a more valuable big man than Oberto IMO, especially thanks to his defense. Even if Oberto did a fine job... And very important as well Parker was not alone as the PG in 2005, contrary to 2007..., there was Udrih on the bench. And Barry was clearly better in 2005. So yeah I would give the edge to the 2005 Spurs, best Spurs team ever IMO.

 

One last thing : I would not say that the 03 Spurs were "mediocre", it's true that Duncan had more importance in that team than he had with the other championship teams and that this team was not good enough to be considered as the best team of the decade as well, but Duncan had a valuable help nonetheless, Parker and Ginobili were not the players that they are now but they were already very good, and Jackson had the best year of his career. He was very important in the playoffs, they clearly missed him the following year in the 04 Lakers-Spurs series when no Spurs could hit a shot. And they also had Bowen of course, Malik Rose, Willis, Claxton as you said, and Steve Kerr, let's not forget about Kerr, who was VERY important against the Mavs. I honestly doubt that they would have beaten the Mavs without him. But it was clearly one of Duncan's very best years in the league nonetheless, I agree with you about that.

[Real Deal]

By the way, OTR has the best group of basketball minds I've ever seen here, and that's six years of posting. And, only because of volume, sites like RealGM and ISH are the ones that rival this current group, but if you stick our best in a debate with theirs, I wouldn't be surprised if we rip their hearts out.

 

Just putting that out there.

[AA25 Mamba]

The two teams that come to my mind off the bat, are the 07-08 Celtics, and the 06-07 Spurs.

 

The Celtics were obviously a huge turnaround, and I'm going to pick them because they were built on team chemistry and defense. The big three meshed together so well right off the bat that it was ridiculous. And the postseaon for them was dramatic to say the least. The reason I give them the edge, however, is because during the three month postseaon, Paul Pierce was the best player in the world.

 

The Spurs were a great team too, the way they dominated the postseason, but if I had to choose, I would pick the Celtics.