Are the 2001 Lakers the best playoff team ever?

[Lkr]

I can't think of any team that went 15-1 or better besides them. Does this make them the best automatically? They were also 8-0 on the road and the only loss came in overtime. Is there a team that was more dominant in a post season?

[Nitro]

They definitely had the most dominant post-season run in NBA history, but does that make them the best playoff team ever? Not necessarily. They had probably the most dominant version of Shaq, and Kobe was starting to reach his peak, but the rest of the team was rather unremarkable. Fisher, Fox and Horry all were great role players, but after that the team really lacked depth...an old Horace Grant, old Brian Shaw and Tyronne Lue made up the rest of the playoff rotation, and all were average to below average that season. I don't think they would have beaten the '96 Bulls (I think the '93 Bulls would have probably taken them out as well), and there are a few other recent teams ('04 Pistons, '08 Celtics) that would have given them some trouble as well.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Nitro

[EastCoastNiner]

No Bulls team would have last six games against the 2001 Lakers.

[Real Deal]

I don't know about the pre-Rodman Bulls, but post-Rodman, you could make an argument for. Mutombo was an excellent defensive player, don't get me wrong, but he gave up so much weight to Shaq, and the bigger problem was, he played O'Neal like Hakeem tried to do in the mid-90s. Rodman would've helped Longley out quite a bit (and Longley wasn't a scrub on defense, either), contesting those shots and making life more difficult for Shaq. Jordan or a prime Pippen would've defended Bryant. Tough, tough match-up for those Lakers.

[kingfish]

No. They had 2 great players, and thats pretty much it. The role players were good, but none of them really did anything great. They werent snipers, lock down defenders, great passers, or rebounders. That team had some clutch shooters, but thats about it. The postseason is all about matchups, and that year there was simply not anyone that could matchup with Kobe and Shaq.

[Oliver P]

No. They have the best playoffs record ever, and definitely can be considered as one of the very best playoffs teams of the history of the game but I certainly do not believe that they are the best playoffs team ever.

 

It has nothing to do with Shaq and Kobe's teammates though. Shaq and Kobe were the only superstars, and actually stars for that matter, in that team but the fact is that all the players in that team knew their role and played it to perfection which is why that team as a whole was so impressive. The preceeding year they had another star in the team, Glen Rice, but they were not as good as a whole nonetheless. It is not because you have more stars that you are better as a whole. In fact, as I said many times, most of the best teams ever (on paper) didn't win a ring. It is essential to have role players in a team. The important thing is that everyone does what they are expected to. It is better to have a well balanced team than having three superstars. For example the 94 Rockets had only one star, Olajuwon, the rest of the team was at best above average role player. Yet they were better than the next season, when they had another star (Clyde Drexler) but a team that was not as well balanced and ended the season as 6th in the West. They won the ring nonetheless that year.. But I watched both teams play and there is no doubt in my mind that the 94 one was overall better. Then the Rockets got first Barkley then Pippen and they clearly not as good as they were in 94.

When we look at it the Bulls had only two stars as well. Jordan and Pippen. As good as he was Grant was an above average role player and the rest of the team were role players. As for the second three peat team, well they had Rodman, one of the best defensive players (arguably the best) but who was useless offensively and cannot be considered a superstar because of that. No player, aside from Pip and Mike, could carry the team offensively. Kukoc was a very good offensive player but he was too irregular. He could get on fire at times but he could miss all his shots the following game. He was not enough solid in his head, which is why he never became the star that he was supposed to be. Harper used to be a star, a fantastic offensive player, but he was no longer in Chicago, not even close to what he used to be. He surprisingly became a defensive specialist in Chicago. He was nothing more but a role player. The rest of the team were just role players.

So no it's not because they had only two stars that the Lakers are not the best playoffs team ever.

 

The first reason why I do not believe that they are is because the lack of competition this year. As a matter of fact, when we look at it, there was no other team that had a chance to win a ring that year. In the first round they beat the Blazers who were not even close to what they were the preceeding year. They were a good team but had no chance whatsoever to win a ring any longer. In the second they beat the Kings who were getting better but were definitely not at the level they played the following year. In the WCF they beat the Spurs, who had just acquired Parker, didn't have Ginobili yet and were still in the process of rebuilding. Clearly not as good as they were in 2003/07. In the Finals they beat the Sixers, a team that Ioved a lot, that had a lot of hearts, but who frankly didn't belong in the Finals. The reason why the Sixers made the Finals that year is because the East was not even close to what they were in the 90's and to what they are now. Nowadays this Sixers team wouldn't pass the second round. Same for the 90's. The same can be said for the Nets and Pacers, the Nets were, just like the Sixers, not talented enough to win a ring, and the Pacers were just too old in 2000. Between 98 and 2004 there was just no team in the East that was good enough to win a ring. I'm not trying to take anything from the 2000-2002 Lakers, they were very impressive indeed. Three of the best teams I've seen play. Especially the 2001 one. But the fact remains that they didn't face a great team in the Finals. The only two "truly" great teams (I mean by that teams that really had a chance to win it all) that they played against were the 2000 Blazers and 2002 Kings. Another great team that they could, and I would even say SHOULD have faced were the 2001 Heat. As a matter of fact this team was very impressive, Riley had done a fantastic job during the following summer to get them better with the arrivals of Mason, Brian Grant and Eddie Jones, but unforunately for them Mourning fell sick during that summer, right after the Olympics and was out for the season. He came back for the playoffs but was not even close to the player he used to be. He sadly never reached his true level afterwards.. Otherwise I'm that this team would have faced the mighty Lakers in the 2001 Finals.

 

Nevertheless the Lakers record was very impressive that year, it was still not easy to beat all those teams and literally dominated them the way they did. But all of this has definitely to be taken in consideration.