Rank 1-22 the best NBA finals teams from 2000-2010

My order:

1. '05 Spurs
2. '08 Celtics
3. '07 Spurs
4. '00 Lakers
5. '01 Lakers
6. '04 Pistons
7. '05 Pistons
8. '06 Mavs
9. '10 Celtics
10. '06 Heat
11. '03 Spurs
12. '02 Lakers*
13. '09 Lakers
14. '10 Lakers
15. '00 Pacers
16. '04 Lakers
17. '09 Magic**
18. '07 Cavs
19. '08 Lakers***
20. '02 Nets
21. '03 Nets
22. '01 Sixers

*should have been Sacramento, recall gm. 6 of '02 WCF
**should have been Boston easily if they had Garnett
***perhaps should have been SAS?

Originally posted by ads_2006:

Originally posted by jrg:

Originally posted by ads_2006:

Why do we have the 2nd place has beens?

Originally posted by sincalfaithful:

Originally posted by jrg:

Originally posted by ads_2006:

2001 Lakers are #1 and it's not even close.

-15-1 throughout the playoffs (best in NBA history).

-Swept the Portland in the 1st Round by an average margin of 14.6ppg.

-Swept the Kings in the 2nd Round by an average of 9.3ppg.

-Swept the Spurs in Conference Finals by an average of 22.3ppg.

-Lost one game in the Finals and had a +6.8ppg differential in that series.


That squad played the other three best teams of that era (Jailblazers, Webber's Kings, Duncan/Robinson Spurs) and swept each of them by LARGE margins.

5th?

And at the '10 Celtics being ranked 9th while the '10 Lakers are ranked 14th.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
2001 Lakers are #1 and it's not even close.

-15-1 throughout the playoffs (best in NBA history).

-Swept the Portland in the 1st Round by an average margin of 14.6ppg.

-Swept the Kings in the 2nd Round by an average of 9.3ppg.

-Swept the Spurs in Conference Finals by an average of 22.3ppg.

-Lost one game in the Finals and had a +6.8ppg differential in that series.


That squad played the other three best teams of that era (Jailblazers, Webber's Kings, Duncan/Robinson Spurs) and swept each of them by LARGE margins.

5th?

Actually, David Robinson was barely able to play that year due to injury. But, I still agree those Lakers should be #1. Spurs had bad luck with injuries in some years they did not make it to the Finals but you can't deny a team that 3-peats from the top 3 even though they didn't really 3-peat and one year was rigged.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
2001 Lakers are #1 and it's not even close.

-15-1 throughout the playoffs (best in NBA history).

-Swept the Portland in the 1st Round by an average margin of 14.6ppg.

-Swept the Kings in the 2nd Round by an average of 9.3ppg.

-Swept the Spurs in Conference Finals by an average of 22.3ppg.

-Lost one game in the Finals and had a +6.8ppg differential in that series.


That squad played the other three best teams of that era (Jailblazers, Webber's Kings, Duncan/Robinson Spurs) and swept each of them by LARGE margins.

5th?

Actually, David Robinson was barely able to play that year due to injury. But, I still agree those Lakers should be #1. Spurs had bad luck with injuries in some years they did not make it to the Finals but you can't deny a team that 3-peats from the top 3 even though they didn't really 3-peat and one year was rigged.

Robinson played about 30 mpg in that series.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
2001 Lakers are #1 and it's not even close.

-15-1 throughout the playoffs (best in NBA history).

-Swept the Portland in the 1st Round by an average margin of 14.6ppg.

-Swept the Kings in the 2nd Round by an average of 9.3ppg.

-Swept the Spurs in Conference Finals by an average of 22.3ppg.

-Lost one game in the Finals and had a +6.8ppg differential in that series.


That squad played the other three best teams of that era (Jailblazers, Webber's Kings, Duncan/Robinson Spurs) and swept each of them by LARGE margins.

5th?

You have a fair point about '01 Lakers. I just tend to struggle to consider them better than the '00 squad because I believe Shaq that year may have had the greatest single season in NBA history (and even though they almost lost against Portland, I still believe most, if not all teams would have won the title that year if they had Shaq). So yes, perhaps that top-5 is pretty interchangeable. I do disagree about '10 C's vs. '10 Lakers. I also have '06 Mavs ahead of '06 Heat even though they lost. I still think they may have been a better team. Considering the Celtics almost won game 7 even without Perkins, I think it's fair to say he would have put them over the top and Gasol would not have gotten 18 boards (which was as big a reason as any for the W) with KP's presence. The Garnett/Perkins frontcourt is paramout to stopping LAL as KG is more than capable of slowing down Odom/Gasol and Perkins more than capable of slowing down Gasol/Bynum. Without Perkins, you have matchups like Garnett on Bynum, heavy mins of Baby on Gasol, etc. Also, the '10 Lakers were a Pau Gasol tip-in from a game 7 in the first round. The Suns were one of the weaker teams in recent memory to make the conference finals and yet they were a Ron Artest tip-in on a Kobe airball from going home up 3-2. I just think they were very fortunate to win the title that year and even the LAL squad from the prior year was significantly better.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
2001 Lakers are #1 and it's not even close.

-15-1 throughout the playoffs (best in NBA history).

-Swept the Portland in the 1st Round by an average margin of 14.6ppg.

-Swept the Kings in the 2nd Round by an average of 9.3ppg.

-Swept the Spurs in Conference Finals by an average of 22.3ppg.

-Lost one game in the Finals and had a +6.8ppg differential in that series.


That squad played the other three best teams of that era (Jailblazers, Webber's Kings, Duncan/Robinson Spurs) and swept each of them by LARGE margins.

5th?

Actually, David Robinson was barely able to play that year due to injury. But, I still agree those Lakers should be #1. Spurs had bad luck with injuries in some years they did not make it to the Finals but you can't deny a team that 3-peats from the top 3 even though they didn't really 3-peat and one year was rigged.

Robinson played about 30 mpg in that series.

He wasn't healthy. Those were the only 4 games he played the entire playoffs.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
2001 Lakers are #1 and it's not even close.

-15-1 throughout the playoffs (best in NBA history).

-Swept the Portland in the 1st Round by an average margin of 14.6ppg.

-Swept the Kings in the 2nd Round by an average of 9.3ppg.

-Swept the Spurs in Conference Finals by an average of 22.3ppg.

-Lost one game in the Finals and had a +6.8ppg differential in that series.


That squad played the other three best teams of that era (Jailblazers, Webber's Kings, Duncan/Robinson Spurs) and swept each of them by LARGE margins.

5th?

You have a fair point about '01 Lakers. I do disagree about '10 C's vs. '10 Lakers. I also have '06 Mavs ahead of '06 Heat even though they lost. I still think they were a better team. Considering the Celtics almost won game 7 even without Perkins, I think it's fair to say he would have put them over the top and Gasol would not have gotten 18 boards with KP's presence. The Garnett/Perkins frontcourt is paramout to stopping LAL as KG is more than capable of slowing down Odom/Gasol and Perkins more than capable of slowing down Gasol/Bynum. Without Perkins, you have matchups like Garnett on Bynum, heavy mins of Baby on Gasol, etc. Also, the '10 Lakers were a Pau Gasol tip-in from a game 7 in the first round. The Suns were one of the weaker teams in recent memory to make the conference finals and yet they were a Ron Artest tip-in on a Kobe airball from going home up 3-2. I just think they were very fortunate to win the title that year and even the LAL squad from the prior year was significantly better.

Bynum was hobbling around on a torn meniscus for that entire series and could barely walk. If Boston gets to play the "what if" game with Perkins being healthy for 1 3/4 games...do I get to play the "what if" game with Bynum being healthy for the entire series?

It's incredible how overrated Kendrick Perkins has become.

As for the bolded, that game was tied. If Artest doesn't get the tip in, the game goes to overtime.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
2001 Lakers are #1 and it's not even close.

-15-1 throughout the playoffs (best in NBA history).

-Swept the Portland in the 1st Round by an average margin of 14.6ppg.

-Swept the Kings in the 2nd Round by an average of 9.3ppg.

-Swept the Spurs in Conference Finals by an average of 22.3ppg.

-Lost one game in the Finals and had a +6.8ppg differential in that series.


That squad played the other three best teams of that era (Jailblazers, Webber's Kings, Duncan/Robinson Spurs) and swept each of them by LARGE margins.

5th?

Actually, David Robinson was barely able to play that year due to injury. But, I still agree those Lakers should be #1. Spurs had bad luck with injuries in some years they did not make it to the Finals but you can't deny a team that 3-peats from the top 3 even though they didn't really 3-peat and one year was rigged.

Robinson played about 30 mpg in that series.

He wasn't healthy. Those were the only 4 games he played the entire playoffs.

He played in all 13 games that the Spurs played in the playoffs that year, and he played 80 games during the regular season.

I think I'm done talking hoops here for a while.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
2001 Lakers are #1 and it's not even close.

-15-1 throughout the playoffs (best in NBA history).

-Swept the Portland in the 1st Round by an average margin of 14.6ppg.

-Swept the Kings in the 2nd Round by an average of 9.3ppg.

-Swept the Spurs in Conference Finals by an average of 22.3ppg.

-Lost one game in the Finals and had a +6.8ppg differential in that series.


That squad played the other three best teams of that era (Jailblazers, Webber's Kings, Duncan/Robinson Spurs) and swept each of them by LARGE margins.

5th?

You have a fair point about '01 Lakers. I do disagree about '10 C's vs. '10 Lakers. I also have '06 Mavs ahead of '06 Heat even though they lost. I still think they were a better team. Considering the Celtics almost won game 7 even without Perkins, I think it's fair to say he would have put them over the top and Gasol would not have gotten 18 boards with KP's presence. The Garnett/Perkins frontcourt is paramout to stopping LAL as KG is more than capable of slowing down Odom/Gasol and Perkins more than capable of slowing down Gasol/Bynum. Without Perkins, you have matchups like Garnett on Bynum, heavy mins of Baby on Gasol, etc. Also, the '10 Lakers were a Pau Gasol tip-in from a game 7 in the first round. The Suns were one of the weaker teams in recent memory to make the conference finals and yet they were a Ron Artest tip-in on a Kobe airball from going home up 3-2. I just think they were very fortunate to win the title that year and even the LAL squad from the prior year was significantly better.

Bynum was hobbling around on a torn meniscus for that entire series and could barely walk. If Boston gets to play the "what if" game with Perkins being healthy for 1 3/4 games...do I get to play the "what if" game with Bynum being healthy for the entire series?

It's incredible how overrated Kendrick Perkins has become.

As for the bolded, that game was tied. If Artest doesn't get the tip in, the game goes to overtime.

Don't talk about that game!