PDA

View Full Version : Best Team in Post Jordan Era



lavell12
01-16-2014, 06:35 PM
Excuse me if this has been debated before. I wanted to see what people think.

Minimal
01-16-2014, 06:36 PM
Shaqs Lakers

lavell12
01-16-2014, 06:38 PM
I would rank them in order: Lakers, Spurs, Heat.

PurpleLynch
01-16-2014, 06:48 PM
Shaq/Kobe Lakers were just too dominant,I'd say that they are still the best team after Jordan era.

Tony_Starks
01-16-2014, 07:03 PM
Lakers......Spurs. Pretty much took turns sharing chips for a decade.

Hawkeye15
01-16-2014, 08:16 PM
grouping them together like that isn't fair. I think the top teams since the Jordan era were:

99-00' Lakers
04-05' Spurs
12-13' Heat
00-01' Lakers

NBA_Starter
01-16-2014, 08:24 PM
99-00 Lakers

DallasTrilla23
01-16-2014, 08:25 PM
Shaquille O'Neal

JEDean89
01-17-2014, 01:33 AM
maybe that detroit team cause they beat the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton Lakers.

Bruno
01-17-2014, 01:40 AM
2001 Lakers.

no other team since Jordans Bulls could have beaten those Lakers in a best of seven. Jordans Bulls would have had their hands full themselves with the 2001 Lakers. good thing is that MJ is brilliant and retired before his legacy could be altered by the next young team.

have to give a nod to the 2003 Spurs too.

shep33
01-17-2014, 01:50 AM
Shaq-Kobe Lakers. Absolutely unstoppable in 2000-2001.

tapajafri
01-17-2014, 02:52 AM
Webber's Kings. They were the best team post-Jordan era. They just don't have the legacy because of a few unfortunate occurrences. On the court though, they were the best team after Jordan's Bulls.

If you wanna go with "best success" post-Jordan, then it would probably be the early 2000's lakers. The best TEAM that played on the court though, was Webber's Kings.

jerellh528
01-17-2014, 02:57 AM
The recent heat teams have more talent top to bottom but the Kobe/shaq lakers were just 2 unstoppable forces that complimented each other beautifully. Spurs are the spurs, behind Duncan and pop they're always in the discussion for best as well.

Chronz
01-17-2014, 01:52 PM
01 Lakers

Some other teams, maybe 04 Pistons or 05 Spurs.

MonroeFAN
01-17-2014, 02:11 PM
My vote would go for the Duncan led Spurs team(s). 2005 seems like a good year.

FYL_McVeezy
01-17-2014, 03:20 PM
I gotta go with the Spurs......nothing short of excellence for the past decade, 4 championships, 5 Finals appearances, 50+ wins every year, and a legit contender even when you think their too old and they can't compete deep into the playoffs anymore...

Shaq and Kobe is second IMO.....Their period of dominance was obviously much shorter than the Spurs but I think the Lakers of the 2000's > Heat of the 2010's(No I could give two ****s less about the Lebron lovers opinion so don't bother)


Edit: OP meant single season? Then I will go with the 99-00 Lakers followed by the 04-05 Spurs and the 12-13 Heat

Raps18-19 Champ
01-17-2014, 03:22 PM
Between 1 of the Spurs or Lakers championship teams.

Hawkeye15
01-17-2014, 03:36 PM
how are the 01' Lakers better than the 00' Lakers? If the only argument you can use is their playoff record, fine, but the 00' Laker team was MUCH better in the regular season, and still won the chip going 15-7 in the playoffs.

Chronz
01-17-2014, 04:54 PM
how are the 01' Lakers better than the 00' Lakers? If the only argument you can use is their playoff record, fine, but the 00' Laker team was MUCH better in the regular season, and still won the chip going 15-7 in the playoffs.

Defending champions shouldn't be judged by regular season play, they lack the same enthusiasm and motivation as opposed to an inexperienced team that needs every inch of hope to contend. The 01 Lakers would WHOOP on the 00 Lakers in a series.

I started a thread on it and I still dont know the answer but Kobe was a very different player for that run, that was the main difference between the 2 squads.

Kashmir13579
01-17-2014, 04:55 PM
grouping them together like that isn't fair. I think the top teams since the Jordan era were:

99-00' Lakers
04-05' Spurs
12-13' Heat
00-01' Lakers no Detroit 03-04?

Hawkeye15
01-17-2014, 08:09 PM
Defending champions shouldn't be judged by regular season play, they lack the same enthusiasm and motivation as opposed to an inexperienced team that needs every inch of hope to contend. The 01 Lakers would WHOOP on the 00 Lakers in a series.

I started a thread on it and I still dont know the answer but Kobe was a very different player for that run, that was the main difference between the 2 squads.

so we are neglecting the 82 games previous to the 20-25? As an entire season, the 99-00' Lakers had a better resume. They DOMINATED the regular season, won 11 more games, were elite on both ends, etc.

I am not going to disagree that the Lakers meshed at the perfect time, and their playoff run was incredible, but I am not throwing out 82 games of evidence because they were "bored".

Hawkeye15
01-17-2014, 08:09 PM
no Detroit 03-04?

they wouldn't beat any of the teams I listed, nor a handful of others, imo...

Chronz
01-17-2014, 08:48 PM
so we are neglecting the 82 games previous to the 20-25?
In the case of a defending champ, absolutely, they trend not to go full bore when theyre already battle tested. Especially if that team had some injury concerns and then entered the playoffs completely healthy. Especially given that its the same exact core for the most part. You won't find a single fan that thinks those lakers would lost to least experienced/less star driven/less dominant.

But you don't have to ignore the entire regular season, look st what they did once they got healthy and decided to started gearing up for the playoffs.

Not a single fan of the lakers would side with you on this one.


As an entire season, the 99-00' Lakers had a better resume. They DOMINATED the regular season, won 11 more games, were elite on both ends, etc.
they had to, they didn't know how to win when it mastered most, why prioritize regular season success in this situation?




I am not going to disagree that the Lakers meshed at the perfect time, and their playoff run was incredible
They got healthier as well




, but I am not throwing out 82 games of evidence because they were "bored".
why not? they proved what they could do when healthy/motivated against a level of competition that was more impressive.

Why ignore history that suggests champions dont take the proceeding regular season as seriously?

Chronz
01-17-2014, 08:51 PM
they wouldn't beat any of the teams I listed, nor a handful of others, imo...

u seem to prioritize regular season play but what do you focus on when a team makes a midseason trade as profound as the Wallace trade?

How do you account for health of you focus on just the aggregate instead of peak performance when it matters most?

Hawkeye15
01-17-2014, 09:20 PM
In the case of a defending champ, absolutely, they trend not to go full bore when theyre already battle tested. Especially if that team had some injury concerns and then entered the playoffs completely healthy. Especially given that its the same exact core for the most part. You won't find a single fan that thinks those lakers would lost to least experienced/less star driven/less dominant.

But you don't have to ignore the entire regular season, look st what they did once they got healthy and decided to started gearing up for the playoffs.

Not a single fan of the lakers would side with you on this one.

I don't deny any point you are trying to make. I am simply taking the entire season as a whole, and measuring it. The 99-00' Lakers had a better season. All sorts of reasons. Sure there are factors, but that can be said of every team in history, no matter how good or bad. The fact is, the 99-00' Lakers went 82-22, the 00-01' Lakers 81-27. The 99-00' team was more dominant from Nov 1-late June.


they had to, they didn't know how to win when it mastered most, why prioritize regular season success in this situation?

again, I value the entire season. I don't pretend to ignore that many/most teams coming off a chip pace themselves, I am only evaluating season by season.



They got healthier as well

Sure. But should we use factors or results when naming the best team since "said team"? The greatest teams in history mostly got healthy at the right time. The NBA season is a war. I can't ignore the 82 games that got them there. That is WHEN injuries happen.


why not? they proved what they could do when healthy/motivated against a level of competition that was more impressive.

Why ignore history that suggests champions dont take the proceeding regular season as seriously?

The question was, which team is the best post Jordan era. I named a 67 win team that went 15-7 in the playoffs, and were elite on both ends throughout its 104 games, winning over 80% of them.

Hawkeye15
01-17-2014, 09:21 PM
u seem to prioritize regular season play but what do you focus on when a team makes a midseason trade as profound as the Wallace trade?

How do you account for health of you focus on just the aggregate instead of peak performance when it matters most?

In this specific thread, I am taking the season as a whole. The direct question was which team is best since Jordan's. The measurement starts game 1, in November.

Ebbs
01-17-2014, 09:38 PM
07 Pats. wait?

Bruno
01-17-2014, 10:34 PM
In this specific thread, I am taking the season as a whole. The direct question was which team is best since Jordan's. The measurement starts game 1, in November.
which Lakers team would you take in a best of seven? i looked at it like that, and removed records from the equation. too many other factors to consider when i don't just break it down into a best of seven for myself.

Losing Rice might have taken a hit on the 2001 Lakers ability to repeat their regular season dominance from the year before (especially in a regular season where Shaq and Kobe combine to miss 22 regular season games), but when compressed into the vacuum of a best of seven I'd say the maturation of Kobe (and Fisher really), and the addition of Horace Grant transformed the Lakers into a more stable, top dominant team. I'd always go with top talent and '01 had a heavier right hand with Kobe making the jump from all-star to a dominant player. The bench didn't get considerably worse the next year either, just a bunch old guys hitting shots, playing hard D and not relying on too much athleticism.

Chronz
01-17-2014, 11:22 PM
In this specific thread, I am taking the season as a whole. The direct question was which team is best since Jordan's. The measurement starts game 1, in November.

I'm sorry but thats straight garbage. Why would what a completely different unit did matter? The pistons didnt become the best defensive team of all time until they added Sheed.

That you would say they couldn't best an inferior team based on irrelevant measures are beneath you, pistons would toy with some of the teams you mentioned. Hell they were within a whisker of beating the Spurs you listed despite losing some key depth.

Chronz
01-17-2014, 11:42 PM
I don't deny any point you are trying to make. I am simply taking the entire season as a whole, and measuring it.

Yes, my point is youre not measuring them correctly of youre simply looking at the aggregate.


The 99-00' Lakers had a better season. All sorts of reasons. Sure there are factors, but that can be said of every team in history, no matter how good or bad. The fact is, the 99-00' Lakers went 82-22, the 00-01' Lakers 81-27. The 99-00' team was more dominant from Nov 1-late June.
I highly doubt the same could be said of every team considering you can't even say these things about the very team youre directly comparing.




again, I value the entire season. I don't pretend to ignore that many/most teams coming off a chip pace themselves, I am only evaluating season by season.

Same here



Sure. But should we use factors or results when naming the best team since "said team"? The greatest teams in history mostly got healthy at the right time. The NBA season is a war. I can't ignore the 82 games that got them there. That is WHEN injuries happen.

Well yeah, why would I care about how the team performed when it wasn't in playoff form and/or injured ? Why value durability above peak playoff performance?
Same concept for judging individuals, playoffs reveal more, no point in valuing a win against scum teams as equally as postseason annihilation? can't we have abit of both while considering the factors you would rather ignore? I mean really, explain how the very same core is somehow worse despite having an easier time defending its chip against better comp no less.




The question was, which team is the best post Jordan era. I named a 67 win team that went 15-7 in the playoffs, and were elite on both ends throughout its 104 games, winning over 80% of them.
Yeah, but why would anyone care when youre ignoring clearly relevant factors?

Again, its not like youre comparing drastically different teams here, then I could understand the virtues u preach, if this were a different core or franchise, but the same guys just toying against superior comp is a statement you shouldn't ignore

Chronz
01-17-2014, 11:46 PM
which Lakers team would you take in a best of seven? i looked at it like that, and removed records from the equation. too many other factors to consider when i don't just break it down into a best of seven for myself.

Losing Rice might have taken a hit on the 2001 Lakers ability to repeat their regular season dominance from the year before (especially in a regular season where Shaq and Kobe combine to miss 22 regular season games), but when compressed into the vacuum of a best of seven I'd say the maturation of Kobe (and Fisher really), and the addition of Horace Grant transformed the Lakers into a more stable, top dominant team. I'd always go with top talent and '01 had a heavier right hand with Kobe making the jump from all-star to a dominant player. The bench didn't get considerably worse the next year either, just a bunch old guys hitting shots, playing hard D and not relying on too much athleticism.

Seriously, that team would crush the younger version , that may not matter in other comps but its the same freaking team. Why ignore Shaqs clearly different approach to a regular season that mattered less when it led to destruction when it mattered most ?

holditdown
01-18-2014, 12:06 AM
It can't be the Heat because they can't rebound.

It can't be the Spurs because they were a 1 man show during Duncan's prime (2003)

So it's Shaq and the Lakers.

todu82
01-18-2014, 01:47 AM
The Lakers

Kashmir13579
01-19-2014, 05:08 PM
no Detroit 03-04?

they wouldn't beat any of the teams I listed, nor a handful of others, imo... disagree. Underrated championship team due to lack of superstar. They could ball with any of the teams you listed. Especially defensively.

Kashmir13579
01-19-2014, 05:13 PM
I'm sorry but thats straight garbage. Why would what a completely different unit did matter? The pistons didnt become the best defensive team of all time until they added Sheed.

That you would say they couldn't best an inferior team based on irrelevant measures are beneath you, pistons would toy with some of the teams you mentioned. Hell they were within a whisker of beating the Spurs you listed despite losing some key depth. chronz speaking the truth, here. That team was as cohesive as they come.

KnicksorBust
01-19-2014, 05:32 PM
This year's Heat.

detzfish
01-19-2014, 08:52 PM
The 03-04 pistons hands down

Slug3
01-19-2014, 09:59 PM
You just could not stop Shaq in his hey day.

Bruno
01-20-2014, 12:26 AM
You just could not stop Shaq in his hey day.

it's be nice to see prime moses malone put a body on Shaq with 80s officiating. him and hakeem and wilt are the only players ever who could have stood a chance against him.

Kashmir13579
01-20-2014, 12:54 AM
it's be nice to see prime moses malone put a body on Shaq with 80s officiating. him and hakeem and wilt are the only players ever who could have stood a chance against him.

Sick sig, man..

Iron24th
01-20-2014, 01:37 AM
01 Lakers

We lost 1 game in playoffs...1 game...

Chrisclover
01-20-2014, 03:39 AM
The recent heat teams have more talent top to bottom but the Kobe/shaq lakers were just 2 unstoppable forces that complimented each other beautifully. Spurs are the spurs, behind Duncan and pop they're always in the discussion for best as well .
Not really, the Spurs were just 7th seed in the 2010 playoffs although they beat the Mavs in the first round. In 2011 they were the 1st but ended up losing to Grizzlys in the first round. So many people thought they were at the end and it was time to disintegrate the GDP and start the rebuilding process. Surprisingly, they were still the contender in 2012,2013and so far, they look good this season.
I do agree that Duncan and Pop are phenomenal but they are not always the best.

Chrisclover
01-20-2014, 04:07 AM
I dont have a clear idea which team is entitled to be called the best ever since Jordan retired. But I would like to give you my list of the the championship teams which surprised the fans most:04Pistons, 11Mavs.
04Pistons beat the Lakers which had prime time Kobe and Shaq ,declining superstars Malone and Payton who were chasing a ring. What caught people off guard was that the Pistons did not even have an Allstar that year yet they made the Finals. And the Lakers ?they were literately unstoppable in the playoffs because they seldom get the losses.The always conceited lakers were a laughing stock and people said you could not mass Stars and win a championship banner. The 2012-2013Lakers wanted to duplicate the big 4 but they were once again beaten by others. People may say Lakers are rich but they do not agree that Lakers are always right and winning even with so many Stars
11Mavs were backed up by a tons of Lebron haters including fans and players. Everybody wanted to beat the crap out of the Heat. The Heat did not start their season well due to lack of chemistry but then they gradually compliment each other better, with the 2nd best record in the East. The Mavs were the 3rd in the West and the defending- champion Lakers were 2nd. In the playoffs, Mavs swept the Lakers and thus giving Phil Jackson an embarrassing retirement. In the Finals, the Mavs was down in the beginning and most fans thought LBJ was finally going to crown himself. Yet, they came back strong and then Mark Cuban laughed. The insurmountable Heat was proven vulnerable. Bosh didnt fall asleep that night ,instead he stayed awake in his balcony. LBJ didnt touch basketball for quite a while because he wanted some relief.

majmarcus
01-20-2014, 05:12 AM
Regular season 99-00 Lakers/postseason '01 Lakers...the end

Chronz
01-20-2014, 11:56 AM
chronz speaking the truth, here. That team was as cohesive as they come.

I guess this question boils down to how you rank squads. The form they entered the Finals, their overall playoff+regular season success, or their level of play at their best.

Because the regular season is such a grind/marathon, I consider the context involved with the regular season, if a team is injured or makes a profound trade mid-season, I consider the stretch with the new player (in this case Sheed) to be of far more importance, and once Detroit added Sheed, they were the best defensive team in History IMO. What they did to Kobe while limiting Shaq 1 on 1 was something to behold.

All that said, they had some injury issues in the playoffs, which I think we should consider in the sense that if these teams all played each other just to get to the Finals, shouldn't we factor in playoff durability? Ultimately tho, thats a minor point compared to peak form so long as they displayed it against the contenders. Pistons destroyed the Lakers and went toe to toe with the 05 Spurs the very next year with a depleted cast. Thats a pretty good statement.

I dont know where I would rank them but its up there

Chronz
01-20-2014, 12:11 PM
Toadd to the 00 Lakers vs 01 Lakers debate.

The 00 Lakers faced the following teams, a 44 win Kings team (which was better than its record suggested considering they had a young/ascending core) and were pushed to the brink of elimination. A 53-Win Suns team that was prolly worse than that considering Jason Kidd was recovering from an injury, they easily disposed of them. Then they faced their biggest challenge, a 59 Win Blazers squad that was within minutes of defeating them. And then to top it all off they faced a 56-Win Pacers squad and had to play with an injured Kobe who shot below 40% IIRC.


Compared to the powerhouse of 01; 50-Win Blazers, DESTROYED. 55 Win Kings, DESTROYED. And the team with the highest SRS of all the competitors, a 58 Win Spurs team, DESTROYED. Even the Eastern Finalist represented more of a challenge IMO, with the MVP/DPOY on the team, 56 Win Sixers.


So the 00 Lakers didn't even face the defending champs due to injury, they faced an injured Suns team and had to play in the Finals with an injured Kobe and they faced elimination twice that year, only once to a team comparable to the squads they faced the very next year.

How are those Lakers suppose to match up to a healthier, wiser version of itself when they appeared so vulnerable against inferior competition?

PhillyFaninLA
01-20-2014, 12:39 PM
Other....Oh wait you didn't give us the option to have an opinion other then yours.....a good poll always has an other option or says out of these choices.


Horrible poll