PDA

View Full Version : Rank the Title Teams this Decade (2000-2009) in Order from Best to Worst



JordansBulls
06-16-2009, 02:42 PM
Rank the Title Teams this Decade (2000-2009) in Order from Best to Worst

Here are the Champions Each Year?


2000 Lakers - 67-15 Season - 15-7 Playoffs
2001 Lakers - 56-26 Season - 15-1 Playoffs
2002 Lakers - 58-24 Season - 15-4 Playoffs
2003 Spurs - 60-22 Season - 16-8 Playoffs
2004 Pistons - 54-28 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2005 Spurs - 59-23 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2006 Heat - 52-30 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2007 Spurs - 58-24 Season - 16-4 Playoffs
2008 Celtics - 66-16 Season - 16-10 Playoffs
2009 Lakers - 65-17 Season - 16-7 Playoffs




Here is how I would rank them:

1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2000 Lakers
3. 2002 Lakers (Won Game 7 on the ROAD in Conference Finals)
4. 2008 Celtics
5. 2009 Lakers
6. 2005 Spurs
7. 2003 Spurs
8. 2007 Spurs
9. 2006 Heat
10. 2004 Pistons (they were the closest to being beat before the conference finals. Down 3-2 in the Semifinals)

Chronz
06-16-2009, 04:11 PM
Why would I be impressed with the Lakers winning game 7 on the road as opposed to the Spurs taking care of business all season long, securing HCA and then defeating the opposing team on the road well before a game 7 ever needed to occur?

Anyways I dont want to get into this trivial subject any more so Ill play along, especially because you and I have eerily similar mindsets at this point in the season, you like to reflect on where the Lakers title team stacks up in history dont you, I was literally creating the exact same thread only I was ranking the top 15 teams in the decade to make room for the non-title teams that were better than the title team. Those 2002 Kings deserve some kind of mention, they were a far better team than the 06 Heat. **** the 05 Heat wouldve spanked the 06 version if it were healthy...


I think your massively underrating the Pistons. Easily the best defensive team of the bunch, and could dictate tempo with 4 separate post options. The Nets may not have been talented but you should know better than anyone how a rivalry can fuel competitive desire. Yes the Pistons should have smashed on the Nets, and its discouraging that Kidd went down how he did, but how in any way does that diminish what they accomplished?

And your reasoning isnt very sound or accurate, the Celtics were pushed to 7 in the first round vs Atlanta. Besides the Pacers were a very good team that year and the Pistons took them out despite not having your precious HCA.

Oh and one of those Spurs team Im pretty sure it was 03 that was better than the 02 Lakers, Manu and Duncan were still in their primes, D-Rob was still very effective on both sides of the court, and TP wasnt a teen anymore. But the 05 team was arguably even greater which is odd considering D-Rob left the team but Manu and TP stepped their games up.

_KB24_
06-16-2009, 04:19 PM
Here is how I would rank them:

1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2000 Lakers
3. 2002 Lakers (Won Game 7 on the ROAD in Conference Finals)
4. 2008 Celtics
5. 2009 Lakers
6. 2005 Spurs
7. 2003 Spurs
8. 2007 Spurs
9. 2006 Heat
10. 2004 Pistons (they were the closest to being beat before the conference finals. Down 3-2 in the Semifinals)

I believe it also went in to overtime? Anyways yeah, pretty good list except maybe putting the Heat over the 07 Spurs. Even for a Spurs team, that 07 team was the DEFINITION of boring.

thesparky33
06-16-2009, 04:23 PM
'01 Lakers
'00 Lakers
'08 Celtics
'02 Lakers
'07 Spurs
'04 Pistons
'05 Spurs
'03 Spurs
'09 Lakers (pretty weak league this year IMO with all of the contending owners not willing to spend and trade to get better)
'06 Heat

cmacmath
06-16-2009, 04:29 PM
1. 2000 Lakers - Dominant, 2 HOF's, destroyed a decent pacers team
2. 2001 Lakers - Same as above, destroyed a decent sixers team
3. 2005 Spurs - beat a very good pistons team in their prime as well as came out of a very good west
4. 2004 Pistons - everything just seemed to click and destroyed a lakers team with a lot of HOFs, albeit they were ALL aging
5. 2002 Lakers - still the same squad as above, just getting slightly older as evidenced by '03 and '04 losses...beat up on a weak NJ that came out of a terrible east
6. 2008 Celtics - everything clicked for 3 potential HOFs, but didn't have to go thru the caliber of opponent either in their own conference or finals as some of the above teams
7. 2003 Spurs - good team, but also beat up on a weak NJ opponent
8. 2009 Lakers - good team, hate to take anything away from them, but don't have the HOF star power as some of the above teams and didnt have to play the quality of opponent as even their former Laker teams (Sacto, Por, SA, etc.)
9. 2007 Spurs - kudos to them for goin thru the west, but beat up on an incredibly weak Cleveland team that should not have been there
10. 2006 Miami Heat - only ranking them last because lets be serious, they were gift wrapped this title from the refs and did not deserve it, so since they should not have won, i am putting them last

AllTheWay
06-16-2009, 04:36 PM
1. 2000 Lakers
2. 2001 Lakers
3. 2004 Pistions
4. 2005 Spurs
5. 2003 Spurs
6. 2002 Lakers
7. 2009 Lakers
8. 2008 Celtics
9. 2007 Spurs
10. 2006 Miami Heat

LAKERMANIA
06-16-2009, 04:53 PM
1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2000 Lakers
3. 2002 Lakers
4. 2003 Spurs
5. 2009 Lakers
6. 2008 Celtics
7. 2005 Spurs
8. 2007 Spurs
9. 2004 Pistons
10. 2006 Heat

mikantsass
06-16-2009, 05:24 PM
2000 Lakers - 67-15 Season - 15-7 Playoffs
2001 Lakers - 56-26 Season - 15-1 Playoffs
2002 Lakers - 58-24 Season - 15-4 Playoffs
2003 Spurs - 60-22 Season - 16-8 Playoffs
2004 Pistons - 54-28 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2005 Spurs - 59-23 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2006 Heat - 52-30 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2007 Spurs - 58-24 Season - 16-4 Playoffs
2008 Celtics - 66-16 Season - 16-10 Playoffs
2009 Lakers - 65-17 Season - 16-7 Playoffs

1. 2000 LAL
2. 2003 SA
3. 2001 LAL
4. 2008 BOS
5. 2002 LAL
6. 2005 SA
7. 2004 DET
8. 2007 SA
9. 2006 MIA
10. 2009 LAL

king4day
06-16-2009, 05:50 PM
1. 2000 LAC
2. 2001 LAC
3. 2002 LAC
4. 2003 LAC
5. 2004 LAC
6. 2005 LAC
7. 2006 LAC
8. 2007 LAC
9. 2008 LAC
10. 2009 LAC

Sorry kiddies, the Clippers are champions every year in my mind.

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 05:58 PM
'01 Lakers
'00 Lakers
'08 Celtics
'02 Lakers
'07 Spurs
'04 Pistons
'05 Spurs
'03 Spurs
'09 Lakers (pretty weak league this year IMO with all of the contending owners not willing to spend and trade to get better)
'06 Heat

There were 4 60 win teams this year muh man. Definitely not a weak league. Not to mention the fact that there were 6 50 win teams in the West and all 8 had over 48 wins. Weak? Nope. More like one of the best.

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 06:03 PM
1. 2001 Lakers- Shaq and Kobe. When they clicked and got it together mentally, they went on a 19 game winning streak and a 23-1 tear to end the season. They swept the #1 seeded Spurs with Duncan and beat them by 39 and 29 respectively. This Lakers squad had the most dominant player in basketball and the best all around player in basketball.
2. 2000 Lakers- Again, MVP Shaquille O'neal and a young Kobe Bryant. A dominant duo that went 67-15 in the regular season.
3. 2002 Lakers- Shaq and Kobe.
4. 2003 Spurs- Tim Duncan and David Robinson. A DOMINANT defensive team.
5. 2009 Lakers- Kobe and Pau. 65 wins in the regular season and became dominant on both ends in both the Conference and NBA Finals.
6. 2005 Spurs- Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobli, and Tony Parker.
7. 2007 Spurs- Tim Duncan again. A much improved Tony Parker and 6th man of the year Ginobli. Great defensive squad.
8. 2008 Celtics- Great defensive squad. Garnett, Pierce, and Allen.
9. 2004 Pistons- Great defensive squad.
10. 2006 Heat- Wade and Shaq. Needed some outside help though.

Lakersfan2483
06-16-2009, 07:16 PM
1. 2001 Lakers (15-1 during the entire postseason) Dynamic duo of Shaq and Kobe
2. 2000 Lakers
3. 2002 Lakers
4. 2003 Spurs
5. 2004 Pistons (Better than most people give them credit for)
6. 2009 Lakers
7. 2008 Celtics
8. 2005 Spurs
9. 2007 Spurs
10. 2006 Heat

GspLAL
06-16-2009, 08:29 PM
There were 4 60 win teams this year muh man. Definitely not a weak league. Not to mention the fact that there were 6 50 win teams in the West and all 8 had over 48 wins. Weak? Nope. More like one of the best.

That's what I was thinking, last year and this years conference's have been pretty damn strong as far as wins go, how can you say it's weak? stop trying to downplay it.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-16-2009, 08:36 PM
Rank the Title Teams this Decade (2000-2009) in Order from Best to Worst

Here are the Champions Each Year?


2000 Lakers - 67-15 Season - 15-7 Playoffs
2001 Lakers - 56-26 Season - 15-1 Playoffs
2002 Lakers - 58-24 Season - 15-4 Playoffs
2003 Spurs - 60-22 Season - 16-8 Playoffs
2004 Pistons - 54-28 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2005 Spurs - 59-23 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2006 Heat - 52-30 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2007 Spurs - 58-24 Season - 16-4 Playoffs
2008 Celtics - 66-16 Season - 16-10 Playoffs
2009 Lakers - 65-17 Season - 16-7 Playoffs




Here is how I would rank them:

1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2000 Lakers
3. 2002 Lakers (Won Game 7 on the ROAD in Conference Finals)
4. 2008 Celtics
5. 2009 Lakers
6. 2005 Spurs
7. 2003 Spurs
8. 2007 Spurs
9. 2006 Heat
10. 2004 Pistons (they were the closest to being beat before the conference finals. Down 3-2 in the Semifinals)

1.2001 Lakers - 56-26 Season - 15-1 Playoffs
2.2000 Lakers - 67-15 Season - 15-7 Playoffs
3.2002 Lakers - 58-24 Season - 15-4 Playoffs
4.2003 Spurs - 60-22 Season - 16-8 Playoffs
5.2008 Celtics - 66-16 Season - 16-10 Playoffs
6.2009 Lakers - 65-17 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
7.2005 Spurs - 59-23 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
8.2007 Spurs - 58-24 Season - 16-4 Playoffs
9.2004 Pistons - 54-28 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
10.2006 Heat - 52-30 Season - 16-7 Playoffs

philab
06-16-2009, 08:38 PM
1. 2001 Lakers- Shaq and Kobe. When they clicked and got it together mentally, they went on a 19 game winning streak and a 23-1 tear to end the season. They swept the #1 seeded Spurs with Duncan and beat them by 39 and 29 respectively. This Lakers squad had the most dominant player in basketball and the best all around player in basketball.
2. 2000 Lakers- Again, MVP Shaquille O'neal and a young Kobe Bryant. A dominant duo that went 67-15 in the regular season.
3. 2002 Lakers- Shaq and Kobe.
4. 2003 Spurs- Tim Duncan and David Robinson. A DOMINANT defensive team.
5. 2009 Lakers- Kobe and Pau. 65 wins in the regular season and became dominant on both ends in both the Conference and NBA Finals.
6. 2005 Spurs- Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobli, and Tony Parker.
7. 2007 Spurs- Tim Duncan again. A much improved Tony Parker and 6th man of the year Ginobli. Great defensive squad.
8. 2008 Celtics- Great defensive squad. Garnett, Pierce, and Allen.
9. 2004 Pistons- Great defensive squad.
10. 2006 Heat- Wade and Shaq. Needed some outside help though.

I've liked this the best so far. I'd make just a few adjustments:

2001 LA
2000 LA
2003 SA
2002 LA
2008 Boston
2009 LA
2005 SA
2007 SA
2008 Detroit
2005 Miami

This is based on a sort-of "if they played" criterion. I didn't want to put Boston ahead of 2009 LA, but last year's Finals make me think I have to (even though LA was a better team this year with Bynum and Ariza taking over for VladRad).

JWO35
06-16-2009, 08:43 PM
1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2000 Lakers
3. 2004 Pistons
4. 2002 Lakers
5. 2005 Spurs
6. 2006 Heat
7. 2003 Spurs
8. 2007 Spurs
9. 2009 Lakers
10.2008 Celtics

MiamiHeat
06-16-2009, 08:44 PM
1. 2000 Lakers - Dominant, 2 HOF's, destroyed a decent pacers team
2. 2001 Lakers - Same as above, destroyed a decent sixers team
3. 2005 Spurs - beat a very good pistons team in their prime as well as came out of a very good west
4. 2004 Pistons - everything just seemed to click and destroyed a lakers team with a lot of HOFs, albeit they were ALL aging
5. 2002 Lakers - still the same squad as above, just getting slightly older as evidenced by '03 and '04 losses...beat up on a weak NJ that came out of a terrible east
6. 2008 Celtics - everything clicked for 3 potential HOFs, but didn't have to go thru the caliber of opponent either in their own conference or finals as some of the above teams
7. 2003 Spurs - good team, but also beat up on a weak NJ opponent
8. 2009 Lakers - good team, hate to take anything away from them, but don't have the HOF star power as some of the above teams and didnt have to play the quality of opponent as even their former Laker teams (Sacto, Por, SA, etc.)
9. 2007 Spurs - kudos to them for goin thru the west, but beat up on an incredibly weak Cleveland team that should not have been there
10. 2006 Miami Heat - only ranking them last because lets be serious, they were gift wrapped this title from the refs and did not deserve it, so since they should not have won, i am putting them last
how can a team that made it all the way to the Finals and won it not deserve it?
:pity:
if Lebron would have won it this year, you would of said the same thing right?

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 08:50 PM
I've liked this the best so far. I'd make just a few adjustments:

2001 LA
2000 LA
2003 SA
2002 LA
2008 Boston
2009 LA
2005 SA
2007 SA
2008 Detroit
2005 Miami

This is based on a sort-of "if they played" criterion. I didn't want to put Boston ahead of 2009 LA, but last year's Finals make me think I have to (even though LA was a better team this year with Bynum and Ariza taking over for VladRad).

That is how I based mine on as well. Truthfully, I just believe that any of the San Antonio teams and Laker teams do not lose to Detroit, the Celtics, or Miami. The reason why I feel the Spurs wouldn't lose to the Celtics is because I believe Duncan is superior to Garnett and that Parker would take advantage of Rondo. Bowen is great defensively, which would negate either Allen or Pierce IMO.

mlisica19
06-16-2009, 08:51 PM
the heat were the underdogs and prevailed... they are not the last in my book. the san antonio spurs had an easy victory in lebrons series and boston lost every away game almost. I dont really agree with these but ihvae no time 2 make my own

_KB24_
06-16-2009, 09:17 PM
Yeah the 07 Spurs should be definitely last. Controversy or not, the Heat did win the title and I believe they were a better team than the 07 Spurs IMO. I do believe that none of the above teams would beat the 00-02 Lakers, with the 03 Spurs having the best shot.

Wrigheyes4MVP
06-16-2009, 09:17 PM
The 2002 Lakers should have lost to the Kings...Tim Donahue rigged game 6 of that series.

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 09:25 PM
the heat were the underdogs and prevailed... they are not the last in my book. the san antonio spurs had an easy victory in lebrons series and boston lost every away game almost. I dont really agree with these but ihvae no time 2 make my own

The Heat were favorites going into the series...

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 09:26 PM
The 2002 Lakers should have lost to the Kings...Tim Donahue rigged game 6 of that series.

1. Who is Tim Donahue?

2. If you are speaking of Tim Donaghy, then you are severely wrong as Timmy did not officiate that game.

BoltLakerPadre
06-16-2009, 09:37 PM
I believe it also went in to overtime? Anyways yeah, pretty good list except maybe putting the Heat over the 07 Spurs. Even for a Spurs team, that 07 team was the DEFINITION of boring.

That 2002 game 7 in Sacramento that went to OT was intense. It wasn't as good as the 2000 game 7 against Portland, but it was great.

juggla53
06-16-2009, 09:44 PM
Haha i love watching Basketball but that pistons/spurs series was about as exciteing as watching a highschool JV game

Chronz
06-16-2009, 09:47 PM
There were 4 60 win teams this year muh man. Definitely not a weak league. Not to mention the fact that there were 6 50 win teams in the West and all 8 had over 48 wins. Weak? Nope. More like one of the best.

The problem with looking at numbers in a vacuum is that you lose any and all context. The West was extremely competitive, the fact that the Lakers were so far ahead of the pack in the regular season proves they were the best but those wins were a product of the talent the team had available in the regular season, not so much in the playoffs, just about every team was injured this year, Utah, N.O., SAS, DAL, HOU not to mention Phoenix lost its best player in the middle of their resurgence. And in a comparison of every title winner you have to take that into account.

The only teams that werent hurt were the ones that capitalized (Denver Portland) and may not see the same level of success the next year if things go differently this coming year. Then KG went out, and the Cavs were never legit contenders. Quite frankly what the Lakers did last year was more impressive considering the talent difference (No Ariza/Bynum against tougher comp.)

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 09:53 PM
The problem with looking at numbers in a vacuum is that you lose any and all context. The West was extremely competitive, the fact that the Lakers were so far ahead of the pack in the regular season proves they were the best but those wins were a product of the talent the team had available in the regular season, not so much in the playoffs, just about every team was injured this year, Utah, N.O., SAS, DAL, HOU not to mention Phoenix lost its best player in the middle of their resurgence. And in a comparison of every title winner you have to take that into account.

The only teams that werent hurt were the ones that capitalized (Denver Portland) and may not see the same level of success the next year if things go differently this coming year. Then KG went out, and the Cavs were never legit contenders. Quite frankly what the Lakers did last year was more impressive considering the talent difference (No Ariza/Bynum against tougher comp.)

At the same time, the Lakers defeated a healthy Nuggets and Magic in the two toughest and highest stages of competition in the NBA. In the Conference Finals and NBA Finals, the Lakers got it done in convincing fashion. They stepped up in a huge way on both ends of the floor. They became dominant. Truthfully, the Lakers were lackadaisical all season despite the fact that they ended up with a fantastic record. They were waiting for the real test and once they got there, I don't think there is any doubting who the best team in 2009 was.

Bring The Heat
06-16-2009, 10:03 PM
The Heat were favorites going into the series...

lol nah man everybody picked the mavericks to spank us that year...

How is miami last when they were the underdogs and DOWN 2-0 in the series with the backs against the wall and in game 3 about to go down 3-0 which pretty much would've been over for us.... mount a comeback from 14 down with about 5 or 6mins left and win the game....i can't believe people on this board still think the refs handed it to the heat...who told them to blow that lead in game 3 which would've wrapped up the series? who told dirk to miss his freethrows in clutch time? or better yet told them to get spanked the following game after game 3? too many haters on this board for real....


if you think the Heat should be last then that's pretty sad to hear from a basketball fan

Bring The Heat
06-16-2009, 10:05 PM
Oh and btw I believe the Heat are one of only 3 teams to ever come back from a 2-0 deficit....bet yet their ranked last...lol

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 10:11 PM
lol nah man everybody picked the mavericks to spank us that year...

How is miami last when they were the underdogs and DOWN 2-0 in the series with the backs against the wall and in game 3 about to go down 3-0 which pretty much would've been over for us.... mount a comeback from 14 down with about 5 or 6mins left and win the game....i can't believe people on this board still think the refs handed it to the heat...who told them to blow that lead in game 3 which would've wrapped up the series? who told dirk to miss his freethrows in clutch time? or better yet told them to get spanked the following game after game 3? too many haters on this board for real....


if you think the Heat should be last then that's pretty sad to hear from a basketball fan

1. Coming back down 2-0 doesn't make that team better than all the other teams. It just means they came back from being down 2-0.

2. The Heat were the favorites (IIRC). I still remember after them being down 2-0, Walton and other ESPN analysts saying that they had no doubt in their minds that the Heat were going to win the next 4 games.

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 10:11 PM
Oh and btw I believe the Heat are one of only 3 teams to ever come back from a 2-0 deficit....bet yet their ranked last...lol

Again, how is it relevant?

GspLAL
06-16-2009, 10:26 PM
Again, how is it relevant?

Nice sig :D where is that guy now?

Bring The Heat
06-16-2009, 10:31 PM
1. Coming back down 2-0 doesn't make that team better than all the other teams. It just means they came back from being down 2-0.

2. The Heat were the favorites (IIRC). I still remember after them being down 2-0, Walton and other ESPN analysts saying that they had no doubt in their minds that the Heat were going to win the next 4 games.


The heat coming back from 2-0 has no significance to win 4 STRAIGHT? Being one of only 3 teams to accomplish it? without HCA....beating a Mavericks team that took down the spurs and that had a great season that year? If that doesn't separate you from other teams that I don't know what does

Bring The Heat
06-16-2009, 10:33 PM
Again, how is it relevant?


How is that not relevant? a team showing it resiliency with their backs against the wall pretty much written off to lose the series doesn't mean anything or have any relevance? A rare accomplishment like that doesn't rank them higher....I guess your judging the teams solely on how they looked on paper

Chronz
06-16-2009, 10:38 PM
At the same time, the Lakers defeated a healthy Nuggets and Magic in the two toughest and highest stages of competition in the NBA. In the Conference Finals and NBA Finals, the Lakers got it done in convincing fashion. They stepped up in a huge way on both ends of the floor. They became dominant. Truthfully, the Lakers were lackadaisical all season despite the fact that they ended up with a fantastic record. They were waiting for the real test and once they got there, I don't think there is any doubting who the best team in 2009 was.
Yea thats kind of the point, the best teams came down to that level of competition for the Lakers. Denver wouldnt have been a 2nd seed had San Antonio been healthy, had the Rockets never lost Yao and to another degree Tmac they too wouldve been more of a challenge. Utah was a team that gave the Lakers a decent fight the year prior, they werent the same. The only contending teams that came into the 2009 Playoffs relatively healthy were the Nuggs, Blazers and Rockets before Yao went down.

And nobody is debating whos the best in 2009, that was never really the point of my post in a thread discussing a decades worth of title winners. But what you said about the Lakers lackadaisical play is probably the most truthful statement. They were far from their best this season and these playoffs, odds are they will be even greater next year barring any defections, injuries, or Kobes immediate and sudden decline. Comparing the potential of 2010 Lakers to the results of the 09 team are greater chip or not, like if the Lakers beat a healthy Celtics team or a Bron led contender that would make them superior than beating up on the inexperienced Nuggets or Magic whos best players had never been that far.

Ill take the 09 Lakers over the 08 one for sure, but Id also favor the competition the Lakers faced in 09 over most other years because so many of the heavyweight teams lost their best players.

Chronz
06-16-2009, 10:40 PM
How is that not relevant? a team showing it resiliency with their backs against the wall pretty much written off to lose the series doesn't mean anything or have any relevance? A rare accomplishment like that doesn't rank them higher....I guess your judging the teams solely on how they looked on paper

Well if on paper they dominated their teams and never showed the weakness of being down 0-2 in the first place, whats wrong with that?

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 10:47 PM
How is that not relevant? a team showing it resiliency with their backs against the wall pretty much written off to lose the series doesn't mean anything or have any relevance? A rare accomplishment like that doesn't rank them higher....I guess your judging the teams solely on how they looked on paper

No. I judge them by how good they were. Doing what they did does not make them a better team because of that.

Would you take that squad over Shaq and Kobe? Would you take that squad over Duncan/Robinson and Duncan/Parker? Would you take that squad over this Lakers squad? Would you take the Miami ball club over the two great defensive teams in Detroit and Boston?

That is the question here. They were Champions. They are all Champions and we are basically splitting hairs here (except for the 2001 Lakers). Being 10th isn't a knock as the Heat will always be the 2006 NBA Champions.

Bring The Heat
06-16-2009, 10:47 PM
Well if on paper they dominated their teams and never showed the weakness of being down 0-2 in the first place, whats wrong with that?

Down 0-2 but winning 4 straight and the last one on their home floor....thats not impressive to you? and deserves a last place ranking? especially against a stacked team like the Mavericks at the time...The heat made their adjustments and played hard....resiliency and being able to overcome adversity which not many teams have done before in the past usually..... shows a great team to me don't know about you...I'm not saying Heat should be #1...but definitely not last like almost every laker fan has put them

ARMIN12NBA
06-16-2009, 10:49 PM
Nice sig :D where is that guy now?

I don't know. One day he was posting and the next he wasn't.

Chronz
06-16-2009, 10:57 PM
Down 0-2 but winning 4 straight and the last one on their home floor....thats not impressive to you? and deserves a last place ranking? especially against a stacked team like the Mavericks at the time...The heat made their adjustments and played hard....resiliency and being able to overcome adversity which not many teams have done before in the past usually..... shows a great team to me don't know about you...I'm not saying Heat should be #1...but definitely not last like almost every laker fan has put them

Not as impressive as securing HCA, sweeping the West and losing 1 game in the Finals. Thats pretty much my drift, it doesnt have to be that one example but can you name a team thats not better than the 06 Heat?

One thing I will say in your teams defense, is that they were better than their record led on, Shaqs play in the Finals put a damper on his season, but before that he played better defense than he had in years and absolutely carried Wade in the ECF. The teams defense had finally came together. The biggest thing Miami has going against them is the fact that their 3rd option offensively was Walker, a fact that is somewhat negated by him being their 5th best player overall.

Bring The Heat
06-16-2009, 11:04 PM
Not as impressive as securing HCA, sweeping the West and losing 1 game in the Finals. Thats pretty much my drift, it doesnt have to be that one example but can you name a team thats not better than the 06 Heat?

One thing I will say in your teams defense, is that they were better than their record led on, Shaqs play in the Finals put a damper on his season, but before that he played better defense than he had in years and absolutely carried Wade in the ECF. The teams defense had finally came together. The biggest thing Miami has going against them is the fact that their 3rd option offensively was Walker, a fact that is somewhat negated by him being their 5th best player overall.

I rank them higher than the 07 spurs...and to be honest with you if Wade was healthy that year in game 7 against the pistons they most likely advance and have a good shot beating the spurs....

Chronz
06-16-2009, 11:24 PM
I rank them higher than the 07 spurs...and to be honest with you if Wade was healthy that year in game 7 against the pistons they most likely advance and have a good shot beating the spurs....

Agree with you on that one but that 05 Heat team was also better than the 06 version, the only difference was that they werent as healthy. So if your talking about any truly completely healthy team then there are a few other teams that are up there as well, the 04 Lakers wouldve bested those Heat IMO. But we have to take it for what it is, the Heat werent healthy so we cant put them above anyone.

Since you named the 07 Spurs, Spurs fans will likely point out the fact that those Spurs feature a still in his prime Tim Duncan, a still in his prime Manu, and a TP developed enough to win a Finals MVP, an All-League defensive 3pt specialist, and sharpshooters galore in Finley and Barry.

Im not so sure about the 05 Spurs being better than their 07 counterparts so I doubt either Heat team stands a chance against them, the 05 team faced heavier competition than the 07 did, but their best players werent complimenting eachother as great as they would be once TP rose to that level of play.

Baller1
06-16-2009, 11:24 PM
A lot of people seem to be underrating Boston's team. They completely dominated the NBA last year.

jiggajay23
06-16-2009, 11:32 PM
i agree with your rating except i think the 09 lakers should be ahead of the 08 celtics. the reason for that is that kobe stopped taking ******** shots like he did in the 08 finals and was more physical in 09 finals. Plus, they had bynum and although he wasnt on the floor much and wasnt that effective, i think his presence alone gives more of a front line intimidation against the celtics although pierce and rondo would probably foul him out in 3 minutes if he played in 08

MTar786
06-16-2009, 11:38 PM
I rank them higher than the 07 spurs...and to be honest with you if Wade was healthy that year in game 7 against the pistons they most likely advance and have a good shot beating the spurs....

05 Heat would have def beaten the 05 pistons if it werent for wades injury.. They were up 3-2.game 7 was in miami. still doesnt mean miami would have beaten san antonio. the 06 heat team was one of my all time favs.. only if shaq were one year younger.. that team would have been top 5 on this list. with zo, walker, haslem, williams, payton and posey to back up shaq and wade. with one of the best coaches ever. i'd still put the 06 heat over the 07 spurs tho.

2001 lakers 15-1 playoff record and killing their opponents
2000 lakers 67-15 if they had prior championship experience and kobe in his prime this would have been the best team of all time in my opinion
2003 spurs they did eliminate the lakers from a 4peat
2002 lakers last title of laker dynasty
2008 celtics thank bynum and ariza ur on his list
2009 lakers better than 08 celtics but tainted with the not so great competition they had
2005 spurs this was sac towns last real shot n they gave it up n the only other really good team won
2004 pistons shaq and kobe blow up GAVE them the title
2006 heat heart, good coaching, n a great team
2007 spurs beat a team that shouldnt have been there AND shouldve lost to phoenix too

JordansBulls
06-16-2009, 11:39 PM
The Heat were favorites going into the series...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/series?series=dalmia


Dallas had the HCA that series and had knocked off the champs.

Chronz
06-17-2009, 12:01 AM
A lot of people seem to be underrating Boston's team. They completely dominated the NBA last year.

Yea its weird, in terms of regular season dominance, no team has dominated more than the C's, they sustained a defensive effort that no other team of this decade ever has. Yet the one thing every other team did have was more impressive playoff performances, blame Ray Allen for not showing up in the earlier rounds. Should that matter, that depends on someone establishing a weighted criteria on what should matter more, reg season wins or playoff wins, how much does the talent base of your team and competition play a part.

Chronz
06-17-2009, 12:03 AM
i agree with your rating except i think the 09 lakers should be ahead of the 08 celtics. the reason for that is that kobe stopped taking ******** shots like he did in the 08 finals and was more physical in 09 finals. Plus, they had bynum and although he wasnt on the floor much and wasnt that effective, i think his presence alone gives more of a front line intimidation against the celtics although pierce and rondo would probably foul him out in 3 minutes if he played in 08
Your not giving Boston enough credit for forcing Kobe into those same shots that Houston forced him into earlier. It only looks like Kobe was more physical because the defense on him was immensely less physical, and Orlando was a great defensive team, just not great at defending 2's, considering they have no prototypical 2-guards.

jiggajay23
06-17-2009, 12:06 AM
Your not giving Boston enough credit for forcing Kobe into those same shots that Houston forced him into earlier. It only looks like Kobe was more physical because the defense on him was immensely less physical, and Orlando was a great defensive team, just not great at defending 2's, considering they have no prototypical 2-guards.

you make a good point there...agreed

ARMIN12NBA
06-17-2009, 12:52 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/series?series=dalmia


Dallas had the HCA that series and had knocked off the champs.

The analysts favor the Mavs 3-2 and that isn't counting Walton who went with the Heat. Essentially it was 3-3. No favorites then...

Drewlius
06-17-2009, 01:20 AM
lol @ the plethora of laker nuthuggers in this thread.

Bleeds Blue
06-17-2009, 01:32 AM
1. 2001 Lakers (Unstopable in the playoffs)
2. 2000 Lakers (Young Kobe/Shaq/Rice's 3s)
3. 2003 Spurs (Deep and Talented with stifling D)
4. 2005 Spurs
5. 2004 Pistons (decimated super talented Lakers in Finals)
6. 2008 Celtics (awesome d)
7. 2009 Lakers
8. 2002 Lakers
9. 2006 Heat
10 2007 Spurs (crusty Spurs)

thesparky33
06-17-2009, 03:08 AM
There were 4 60 win teams this year muh man. Definitely not a weak league. Not to mention the fact that there were 6 50 win teams in the West and all 8 had over 48 wins. Weak? Nope. More like one of the best.

That further proves my argument.

If there are so many 60 and upper 50 win teams, than how crappy must the other 20ish or so teams in the league have been? Wouldnt that further inflate the number of wins for each of the "good" teams?

JayW_1023
06-17-2009, 05:28 AM
1. 2001- Lakers: Swept the West and would've swept their way to the title if not for the fluke Game 1 win by Philly. They sleepwalked through the regular season, but their torrid playoff run that postseason showed the rest of the league the gap was wider than everyone thought.
2. 2000- Lakers: Beat an incredibly deep talented Pippen-led Portland team in the Western Finals and beat a solid Pacers team with Reggie in his final prime season. 67 wins was the most of any title team this decade.
3. 2003- Spurs: Tim Duncan in his MVP-prime he nearly singlehandedly made a deep Spurs team upset title favorite LA. Manu and Parker had yet to hit their prime, and the Admiral was way past his prime...but this Spurs team was very complete at all facets.
4. 2005- Spurs: This Spurs team had Manu in his prime...who was probably the most complete shooting guard after Kobe in those days. They beat a championsip Pistons team in the Finals, and Manu was every bit as good as Duncan that series.
5: 2008- Celtics: Arguably the best defensive team of the decade. The only problem is that they lacked consistency throughout the playoffs, often playing down to the competition. When it mattered though, no defense was stingier.
6: 2002- Lakers: Shaq showed signs of slowing down, but Kobe was slowly hitting his prime. This was definately the first year the Lakers showed some cracks in their armor. The previous two title teams would've swept the Nets.
7: 2004- Pistons: A team of no real superstars but really good players overall playing together as one tough unit. They beat a Lakers team limping to the Finals and finishing them like a predator on a wounded animal.
8: 2009- Lakers: Kobe finally proved he belongs as a top 10 player of all time with probably his best finals performance ever, leading the Lakers over a terrific Magic team. A great versatile team that shows finesse, intelligence and flair.
9: 2007- Spurs: The year where Duncan, Manu and Parker were all in their prime. They had the Suns number simply because they played defense, and they made LeBron James look mortal in the finals.
10: 2006 Heat: They were a great team, and Dwyane Wade was dominating individually. But they won because Dallas choked horribly. The Heat looked overmatched in the first two games, and they simply won because they were mentally tougher than the imploding Mavs.

dos132
06-17-2009, 05:41 AM
lakers have 4 title this decade... thats big....

JaySmoke
06-17-2009, 08:44 AM
1. 2000 Lakers - Dominant, 2 HOF's, destroyed a decent pacers team
2. 2001 Lakers - Same as above, destroyed a decent sixers team
3. 2005 Spurs - beat a very good pistons team in their prime as well as came out of a very good west
4. 2004 Pistons - everything just seemed to click and destroyed a lakers team with a lot of HOFs, albeit they were ALL aging
5. 2002 Lakers - still the same squad as above, just getting slightly older as evidenced by '03 and '04 losses...beat up on a weak NJ that came out of a terrible east
6. 2008 Celtics - everything clicked for 3 potential HOFs, but didn't have to go thru the caliber of opponent either in their own conference or finals as some of the above teams
7. 2003 Spurs - good team, but also beat up on a weak NJ opponent
8. 2009 Lakers - good team, hate to take anything away from them, but don't have the HOF star power as some of the above teams and didnt have to play the quality of opponent as even their former Laker teams (Sacto, Por, SA, etc.)
9. 2007 Spurs - kudos to them for goin thru the west, but beat up on an incredibly weak Cleveland team that should not have been there
10. 2006 Miami Heat - only ranking them last because lets be serious, they were gift wrapped this title from the refs and did not deserve it, so since they should not have won, i am putting them last

wow ur joking.. the mavs just look for an excuse ebery year.. they got beat in 4 straight we werent gift wrapped ****... mavs lose evry year and they always look for an excuse then come back the next year and get spanked again..

JaySmoke
06-17-2009, 08:47 AM
you should make the most exciting finals series of the decade.. it has to be the heat and mavs.. this year was probably the most boring of the decade.. and team with the spurs or piston were also boring.. so it is either between lakers and celtics and mavs vs heat..

J_M_B
06-17-2009, 03:25 PM
1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2000 Lakers
3. 2005 Spurs
4. 2002 Lakers
5. 2006 Heat**
6. 2009 Lakers
7. 2008 Celtics
8. 2003 spurs
9. 2004 Pistons
10 2007 Spurs

**very exciting to watch. Miami coming back from a 2-0 deficit and to win 4 straight was amazing to watch. Dwyane Wade had a great individual performance as well.

F()()TBALL
06-17-2009, 05:10 PM
Rank the Title Teams this Decade (2000-2009) in Order from Best to Worst

Here are the Champions Each Year?


2000 Lakers - 67-15 Season - 15-7 Playoffs
2001 Lakers - 56-26 Season - 15-1 Playoffs
2002 Lakers - 58-24 Season - 15-4 Playoffs
2003 Spurs - 60-22 Season - 16-8 Playoffs
2004 Pistons - 54-28 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2005 Spurs - 59-23 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2006 Heat - 52-30 Season - 16-7 Playoffs
2007 Spurs - 58-24 Season - 16-4 Playoffs
2008 Celtics - 66-16 Season - 16-10 Playoffs
2009 Lakers - 65-17 Season - 16-7 Playoffs




Here is how I would rank them:

1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2000 Lakers
3. 2002 Lakers (Won Game 7 on the ROAD in Conference Finals)
4. 2008 Celtics
5. 2009 Lakers
6. 2005 Spurs
7. 2003 Spurs
8. 2007 Spurs
9. 2006 Heat
10. 2004 Pistons (they were the closest to being beat before the conference finals. Down 3-2 in the Semifinals)

Well there was no way in hell stern would let them LOSE game 7.

JordansBulls
06-17-2009, 05:16 PM
you should make the most exciting finals series of the decade.. it has to be the heat and mavs.. this year was probably the most boring of the decade.. and team with the spurs or piston were also boring.. so it is either between lakers and celtics and mavs vs heat..

Probably Detroit vs San Antonio. It was the only one that went 7 and where nothing was decided until the last 5 minutes of the 4th.

Big E
06-17-2009, 05:35 PM
you should make the most exciting finals series of the decade.. it has to be the heat and mavs.. this year was probably the most boring of the decade.. and team with the spurs or piston were also boring.. so it is either between lakers and celtics and mavs vs heat..

The Pistons - Spurs is easily the best NBA finals this decade. 7 games and it was between the last 2 champions. Very underrated series.
But Mavs - Heat is second IMO.
D-Wade probably had the best individual NBA finals tho.

Kings Faithful
06-17-2009, 05:53 PM
1. 2002 Kings
2. 2001 Lakers
3. 2000 Lakers
4. 2008 Celtics
5. 2005 Spurs
6. 2004 Pistons
7. 2003 Spurs
8. 2007 Spurs
9. 2006 Heat
10. 2009 Lakers

:)

ko8e24
06-17-2009, 06:00 PM
Correction: 2000 Lakers went 15-8, not 15-7 in the postseason en route to 1st title since '88