How do you think these teams would matchup. We know the Lakers today beat the Spurs pretty convincingly (or at least in 01). But how do you think the experienced, veteran led/tough Spurs of 99 would matchup against the best Lakers championship team of the recent three peat (Lakers 01).?
Objectively, it would be a damn good series. I'm not one of those who put an asterisks on the Spurs title because of the 50 game season. The Spurs and 28 other NBA teams played the same amount of games right? The reason why the Spurs COULD win is because their bench was ridiculously deep, and they had contributions from everyone during that playoff run. However, I have to wonder how good the teams that SA faced were. I think LA wins in 6 or 7, because they know that they will get theirs from Kobe and Shaq. For SA it would be Duncan, and then who else? Though the Spurs bench seemed to do their job more often than not. Just the fact that the Spurs wouldn't be able to slow down Shaq at all makes me lean to LA.
The Lakers would rape the Spurs of 99. I would be more interested to see the 94 95 rockets against the lakers of today. The Rockets team was better than the spurs title team
The 94-95 Rockets team = Spurs 99 team Both teams had unbelievable runs through the playoffs. The major difference is that SA didn't lollygag and have to come back from 0-2 or 1-3 deficits. SA just blitzed through the playoffs. Lucky or not, it was an impressive run. The Rockets 95 run was impressive from the WCF to the Finals. But SA ran the gauntlet without a scratch. Both teams were very good, so it's hard for me to say which was better. Though Drexler might push the edge to Hou. Either way, neither team beats the Lakers.
The 99 Spurs might play decently against the 2002 Lakers. Against the 2001 Lakers? No way. That team was playing to near-perfection at the time. Shaq was utterly unstoppable that year. No injuries, etc. While I don't place an asterisk on that championship either, I think they got lucky because of a talent vacuum. The Lakers had not yet come into their own, and the Rockets and Bulls had faded. They were a very good team that gelled very well in a year without a great team. The 2001 Lakers were a great team.
Haha... I never expected the day to come where kidrock was the voice of reason. That Spurs team was dominant. There's no other way around it. The West had some very quality teams that year... Utah was still at their peak. Portland was on their way up, with a load of talent and without Quitten. The Lakers had Kobe, Shaq, and Rice near his prime. The Spurs didn't just beat those teams... they dominated. 15-2 record... 12 straight wins. I don't care how great that 01 Lakers team was (and they were great), there's not a team in league history that could "rape" the 99 Spurs. They had everything clicking. They had clearly the best player in the game. They had another good player down low who could defend. They had superior outside shooting (Jaren Jackson), great slashing and perimeter defense (Sean Elliott), and tenacity and leadership (Elie and Avery Johnson). They may not have had two stars, but that team had everything going for them in chemistry, and one of the greatest defenses of all time. I think they could beat the Lakers, but it's too tough to say definitively. Neither team is good enough to blow out the other. It would come down to who was better at executing in the final six minutes of the game... Kobe Bryant or Tim Duncan. Remember, Duncan was a damn great clutch player in his own right when he actually had perimeter players that could relieve pressure from him. Shaq's not much of a fourth quarter player... especially against good defenders. The teams would trade shots for the first three and a half quarters, and it would come down to Bryant and Duncan making plays to decide it.
Haven- As usual I agree 100%. The 2001 Lakers rolled through more legit competition IMO, than the 99 Spurs. The level of play in 99 was pretty piss-poor all in all. Por had JR Rider at the time, that's all you really need to know. The Knicks were an 8 seed...
Not quite, kidrock. Sacramento had Jason Williams at the time, which tells you all you need to know about them. The Spurs were without their second best player. It's not to say that the Lakers of 01 weren't a great team... but the talent they faced wasn't all that superior to 1999.
The Spurs 99 team was all "intangibles". The 01 Lakers were intangibles + talent. Cat-I still disagree that the teams in 99 were all that strong. You bring up Utah, but the Spurs didn't have to face them. At the time, the Lakers were renowned chokers in the playoffs. Utah was still a good team, but they weren't as good as the 98 or 97 team. Por might not have had quitten, but it had Rider and Jimmy Jackson. They still had chemistry/identity issues.
They played Por in the 1st round. Who did SA play in 1st round in 99? I remember morons who thought that Por would give LA trouble. I also remember the "experts" who said SA were the odds-on favorites because they were the #1 seed. I really don't know how much Derek Anderson would have made a difference. Maybe the Spurs would have actually won 1 game, but Anderson isn't a difference maker. Like you've said before, Duncan is the whole team right? Maybe I overexaggerated how tough LA's road to the Finals was, but I still think it was a little harder than SA in 99.
Well, they played the team that beat Utah. Portland actually prided themselves on their team chemistry that year... their motto was "no superstars no egos no problems". It was actually the year that Rider cooperated. That was the first year of the modern-day Lakers, imo... you can't really compare them to the earlier teams. 99 was the first year that Kobe really came into his own and became a star, which made them a totally different team. It's not to say that they were as good as the championship years, but they were a very, very good team.
SA played Minnesota. Minnesota's always a pretty good team... that year, they actually stole game 2 in San Antonio during the first round. Of course, the Spurs won 12 consecutive playoff games afterwards. I think DA's the difference in a couple of games. As I've said before, the Spurs become terrible in the fourth quarter when they line up Duncan with a group of spot up shooters, and there's no room for Duncan to operate. DA, at 100%, is the slasher the Spurs really needed to take some of the heat off of Duncan. The Lakers would've still won... but it would've been a lot more of a challenge. The Spurs team without DA lost a lot.
Maybe they didn't have problems with each other, but Por had problems with chemistry as well as folding it in after the Memorial Day Miracle. If you consider how Por has melted down the last few years, it would be safe to assume that they weren't exactly the most unified team, no matter what motto they conjure up. And that beating the team that beat whoever really holds no weight, as basketball is all about matchups. Not, I beat you so you should beat joe schmoe. The Lakers had a good team. But they lacked any insight to winning. No team with Kurt Rambis as coach will win. The Lakers didn't become who they were until Phil came. Once Phil came, Shaq and Kobe matured very quickly, because they finally had a coach who they had to respect.
Bryant wasn't really a super star in 99. He was Pippen to Shaq's Jordan. Right now, I think one would say that Shaq is first among equals with Bryant. back then, the "Boy Wonder" was just a side-kick. IMO, Portland was the only team that was even very good that the Spurs ever had to play. And remember, Portland, like LA, was assumed to be a team on the rise. They had lots of talent, but the center-piece, Wallace, was young and hadn't peeked. Sabonis was a good player, but hardly great. The others were all solid starters, but unexceptional. The Lakers had a super star who couldn't shoot free throws and a kid who had Lots of Talent. The Jazz were already declining from their only real chance at the title (they probably couldh ave beaten the Bulls in 98, had everything gone their way). And, of course, the Knicks were a huge joke.
I don't think the competetion in 01 was better than 99. The Spurs in 01 didnt have DA, and if the spurs second best player doesnt play the first two games I dont care what you say, that is a disadvantage. What if the Lakers didnt have Kobe? Would people say anything? Yet Derick Anderson couldnt play and everyone assumes the Lakers would have swept the Spurs anyway. Also the Spurs did not have Elie and AJ and Elliot were clearly on the downslide (especially Elliot). And the Spurs did not have a clutch shooter in Jaren Jackson. And who did the Lakers beat that year? The Sacto Kings with J.Will? The 76ers who were Iverson and bunch of solid to very good defenders? Who else could score consistently besides Iverson? And the Portland Blazers who were a 6 seed and have always been known to self-destruct? Sounds like not one team they faced had a LEGIT second star......So how is the Lakers competetion better in 01 than Spurs had in 99? Spurs swept the Lakers (who had Shaq and Rice, even though Kobe wasnt the same as he is now). Why do people let Shaq off the hook back then? He had decent talent and he got swept......All of sudden he dominates? Why? Cause Kobe is the best guard in the game and the Lakers have solid role players. Does Duncan have a legit second star now? NO. Not yet. Does he have clutch shooters? No. Could this be why Shaq and the Lakers beat the Spurs so easily the past two years? Yes. Spurs did not have GREAT COMPETETION, but it was no worse than the lakers of 01, thats for darn sure.
The Cat-Were any of the games in the 2001 LA-SA series close? I can't remember, but what I do remember is LA winning like 2-3 games by 10+ points. To the point (no pun intended) where having DA wouldn't have mattered.
Wow. If you haven't noticed the Spurs "#2" guy for the last 3 years or so is probably the least relied upon "#2" guy in the NBA. The Spurs are built 99% around Duncan. DA has proven that he was made good because of Duncan. Yet, you're trying to tell me that he's going to take games over? He's warming the bench for Por now. Also, the Lakers are built around Kobe and Shaq. Kobe is not a role player, DA is. A more equivalent comparison, would be what if LA didn't have Derek Fisher (who had a nice playoff run in 2001). Fisher, like DA, is a role player.
The point is, the Spurs SECOND BEST PLAYER was Derrick Anderson. As pathetic as it sounds, he was and just taking him away is like taking away half the SPURS OFFENSE or threat of the their offense. DA was a slasher and you actually had to GUARD HIM. Thats the whole point. Just becuase he wasnt half the player Kobe was does not mean you can take him off the team and act like the Spurs would have done the same. Thats my point. I dont care if Kobe was better than MJ.....Taking away DA was big for the Spurs..
DA would have to expend most of his energy defensively, trying to slow down Kobe, which means his offensive game wouldn't be as existent. And, you are drastically overrating DA, if you think he was half of the offense. Maybe 1 out of every 10 possesions would SA run plays for him. Whatever it is, it's nowhere near 50%. DA would have helped a little, but not enough to win maybe 1 or 2 games. BTW, what were the Lakers margin of victory in the 4 games? If they were more than 10+ points, then you really have no point that DA would have helped.
You don't think there's a diffence between losing 1 of 7 or 8 role players, to losing one of your 2 go-to guys? Even though DA was the #2 guy, he was anything but a go-to guy. The offense wasn't built around him. His main role was nail open 3s, and then slash, when he actually did have plays run for him.
