There are 113 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

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

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.

I think if Perkins had an injury, but an injury that still allowed him to play (a la Bynum's situation), that still would have helped out as it wouldn't have thrown the matchups all askew. Also, I think there's a difference in that Perkins' injury was just a freak, sudden injury that anyone could have suffered. Bynum's knee situation is just a part of who he is and how his body is structured. His knee will always be an issue and you have to just take that into account as far as how you evaluate him as a basketball player. It wasn't like a freak thing from an unfortunate accident that will get to 100% over time like with Perkins. And I don't necessarily agree that he is overrated. Top 3-5 interior defenders and very good rebounders SHOULD be rated highly.

And yes, the game was tied, you're right, but Phoenix had a stranglehold on the momentum from the end of regulation and I think the odds are certainly that they would have won in overtime, though that is obviously speculation on my part.
the pistons were fun to watch.. a real TEAM.. plus they beat a stacked lakers squad lol
Originally posted by bayarealuv:
the pistons were fun to watch.. a real TEAM.. plus they beat a stacked lakers squad lol

No, the REAL team beat the Pistons the following year.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
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.

Hahah, ya I don't know what Joecool is talking about.
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
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.

Hahah, ya I don't know what Joecool is talking about.

God dammit! I was looking at the wrong 2001 season interval. I hate that the NBA spans across two years.
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by bayarealuv:
the pistons were fun to watch.. a real TEAM.. plus they beat a stacked lakers squad lol

No, the REAL team beat the Pistons the following year.

lol.. okay.. you are spurs biased i know

----

i liked the 08 celtics too.. for obvious reasons..
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
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.

Hahah, ya I don't know what Joecool is talking about.

God dammit! I was looking at the wrong 2001 season interval. I hate that the NBA spans across two years.

I feel you on that. I wish they started the season in early January instead of early November. Then you'd just have one year associated with a season which makes it way easier to reference and it would push the season til mid August, solving the problem of July being by far the most brutally boring sports month. I can't even watch Sportscenter as I pass out because it's essentially just Baseball Tonight.
[ Edited by andes14 on May 19, 2011 at 10:06 AM ]
I have no idea how you have teams who lost in the Finals ranked higher than the teams who beat them for the trophy.

This whole thread is fail.
Originally posted by TheSixthRing:
I have no idea how you have teams who lost in the Finals ranked higher than the teams who beat them for the trophy.

This whole thread is fail.

Only 2. '06 Mavs and '10 Lakers. '10 Lakers for reasons I have explained, and '06 Mavs because I think they had a significantly better regular season record to go along with the fact that I believe Wade went to the FT line more than he should have in a game or two, potentially costing the Mavs a win or two. The Mavs also outscored the Heat in that series. The winner of a game or series is not always the better team. Do you think the '09 Magic were better than the '09 Celtics even though they beat them in a series. Of course not, because they got pushed to 7 even without facing their opponent's best player in any game. Do you think the Lakers deserved to beat the Kings in '02?
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by TheSixthRing:
I have no idea how you have teams who lost in the Finals ranked higher than the teams who beat them for the trophy.

This whole thread is fail.

Only 2. '06 Mavs and '10 Lakers. '10 Lakers for reasons I have explained, and '06 Mavs because I think they had a significantly better regular season record to go along with the fact that I believe Wade went to the FT line more than he should have in a game or two, potentially costing the Mavs a win or two. The Mavs also outscored the Heat in that series. The winner of a game or series is not always the better team. Do you think the '09 Magic were better than the '09 Celtics even though they beat them in a series. Of course not, because they got pushed to 7 even without facing their opponent's best player in any game. Do you think the Lakers deserved to beat the Kings in '02?

By that same token, do you think the '07 Spurs are really the 3rd best team then? Because in the WCF's against Phoenix, the series was tied 2-2 going back to Phoenix when Horry-gate occured, costing the Suns Amare and Diaw for game 5. Despite missing their two best big men, the Suns were leading nearly the entire game before losing control in the waning minutes. Without Horry-gate, the Suns probably win game 5 and go on to win the series.

That Spurs team was better than the 15-1 Laker squad? Really?
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
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.

Hahah, ya I don't know what Joecool is talking about.

God dammit! I was looking at the wrong 2001 season interval. I hate that the NBA spans across two years.

I feel you on that. I wish they started the season in early January instead of early November. Then you'd just have one year associated with a season which makes it way easier to reference and it would push the season til mid August, solving the problem of July being by far the most brutally boring sports month. I can't even watch Sportscenter as I pass out because it's essentially just Baseball Tonight.

It would be awesome if the NBA started in Jan. It would make the NFL offseason go by fast. But I guess during the NFL, the NBA can generate fans on the weeknights whereas it would be competing with MLB for those weeknights/days.
Originally posted by TheSixthRing:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by TheSixthRing:
I have no idea how you have teams who lost in the Finals ranked higher than the teams who beat them for the trophy.

This whole thread is fail.

Only 2. '06 Mavs and '10 Lakers. '10 Lakers for reasons I have explained, and '06 Mavs because I think they had a significantly better regular season record to go along with the fact that I believe Wade went to the FT line more than he should have in a game or two, potentially costing the Mavs a win or two. The Mavs also outscored the Heat in that series. The winner of a game or series is not always the better team. Do you think the '09 Magic were better than the '09 Celtics even though they beat them in a series. Of course not, because they got pushed to 7 even without facing their opponent's best player in any game. Do you think the Lakers deserved to beat the Kings in '02?

By that same token, do you think the '07 Spurs are really the 3rd best team then? Because in the WCF's against Phoenix, the series was tied 2-2 going back to Phoenix when Horry-gate occured, costing the Suns Amare and Diaw for game 5. Despite missing their two best big men, the Suns were leading nearly the entire game before losing control in the waning minutes. Without Horry-gate, the Suns probably win game 5 and go on to win the series.

That Spurs team was better than the 15-1 Laker squad? Really?

Even if they did wind up losing to that Suns team (it was the semis by the way), that was an outstanding Suns team that is probably better than at least 7 or so teams on the list. So potentially losing to an outstanding team does little to disprove merit. For example, I wouldn't take anything away from the '05 Pistons even if perhaps they should have lost the ECF to Miami, because even if they did lose, they would have been losing to a Miami team was OUTSTANDING. And I already said that I could see the logic to having the '01 Lakers higher than where I had them.
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by TheSixthRing:
I have no idea how you have teams who lost in the Finals ranked higher than the teams who beat them for the trophy.

This whole thread is fail.

Only 2. '06 Mavs and '10 Lakers. '10 Lakers for reasons I have explained, and '06 Mavs because I think they had a significantly better regular season record to go along with the fact that I believe Wade went to the FT line more than he should have in a game or two, potentially costing the Mavs a win or two. The Mavs also outscored the Heat in that series. The winner of a game or series is not always the better team. Do you think the '09 Magic were better than the '09 Celtics even though they beat them in a series. Of course not, because they got pushed to 7 even without facing their opponent's best player in any game. Do you think the Lakers deserved to beat the Kings in '02?

Get out the gif and boo this man! BOOOOOOO!
I appreciate the good thread topic and the willingness to rationalize your point, but come on, this thread is ridiculous.