Robert Horry: The 2001 Lakers Is The Best 3 Peat Team Ever

[Koolaid_Man]

:lol sorry MJ and Boston

Robert Horry calls the 2000-01 Lakers the best of three-peat run
"The 2001 team was probably the best," Horry said. "We went [15-1], which will never be accomplished again. You should have looked at us after we lost that first game [against the Philadelphia 76ers in the NBA Finals], we were so disappointed. We were so hurt that we didn't sweep everybody in the playoffs, because that was our goal."

"Everybody talks about the rivalry with Sacramento [Kings] but that Portland team ... that team was a monster team," he said.
Horry noted that Scottie Pippen's knowledge of Jackson's triangle offense, with which he won six titles in Chicago with the Bulls, gave the Portland forward an advantage defensively against what the Lakers were trying to run.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakers/lakersnow/la-sp-ln-lakers-robert-horry-20140908-story.html

[spurraider21]

horry also said kobe didn't matter in the 2000 finals :lol

[scanry]

Horry also said he played with 3 of the best alphas ever. So which is it?

[elmanutres]

absolutely no bias from horry whatsoever.

[illusioNtEk]

Horry said they also could have won without Kobe

[Infinite_limit]

Why is he so sure 15-1 will not be accomplished again?

[ambchang]

Why is he so sure 15-1 will not be accomplished again?

Because you now have to win 16

[Killakobe81]

that 2001 team was the Lakers closest version to what the Spurs had last year but with Shaqobe near their prime. Not saying he is right cuz that is obviously and inherently debatable ... but they definitely in the convo.

[Brazil]

Because you now have to win 16

:lol

[ambchang]

that 2001 team was the Lakers closest version to what the Spurs had last year but with Shaqobe near their prime. Not saying he is right cuz that is obviously and inherently debatable ... but they definitely in the convo.

That team was nothing like the 2014 Spurs. They are both very very good teams, and I think the 2001 Lakers team was probably one of the best teams in NBA history, but that was an iso-oriented team, with posting up Shaq, kick out to three point shooters/Triangle/Kobe iso type of team. Most, if not all of the offense was generated with Shaq, sprinkled with a bit of Kobe.

The Spurs team was well balanced, with everybody playing a role in creating offense.

Defensively, the Lakers had issues with defending pick and rolls (due to Fisher and Shaq), while the Spurs had a much more disciplined approach.

Overall, I rank the 2001 Lakers over the 2014 Spurs, but if they were going head to head, I think the Spurs would win due to the matchups.

[scanry]

that 2001 team was the Lakers closest version to what the Spurs had last year but with Shaqobe near their prime. Not saying he is right cuz that is obviously and inherently debatable ... but they definitely in the convo.

Different eras tbh but their shooters were nowhere near the Spurs in terms of efficiency. They did have the only thing that mattered though - a prime 350 pounder Shaq Diesel. I don't think any team could've beaten Shaq.

[Killakobe81]

That team was nothing like the 2014 Spurs. They are both very very good teams, and I think the 2001 Lakers team was probably one of the best teams in NBA history, but that was an iso-oriented team, with posting up Shaq, kick out to three point shooters/Triangle/Kobe iso type of team. Most, if not all of the offense was generated with Shaq, sprinkled with a bit of Kobe.

The Spurs team was well balanced, with everybody playing a role in creating offense.

Defensively, the Lakers had issues with defending pick and rolls (due to Fisher and Shaq), while the Spurs had a much more disciplined approach.

Overall, I rank the 2001 Lakers over the 2014 Spurs, but if they were going head to head, I think the Spurs would win due to the matchups.

People's memories are short. the 2001 version was not all Shaq post-ups or Kobe iso's especially during the playoffs when Fisher returned. they had great ball movement and "clutch" shooting. I agree nowhere near as good a 3 point shooting team as the 2014 spurs but everytime we needed a big 3 versus the better teams Horry, Fisher and Shaw delivered them. yes the Lakers were not great pnr defenders ... but Neither is Parker ... And duncan is not as good as it as once was either ...

Tough to say who would win but I would bet on 2001 Lakers but it would be a good match-up.

[Jenks]

:lol sorry MJ and Boston
I can't tell if you're functionally retarded or a masterful troll. The fact that I can't tell suggests the latter, but the sheer number of shitty threads you crank out has me leaning towards the former.

[Infinite_limit]

Because you now have to win 16
What a cheeky fucker. But 17-0 > 16-1 > 15-1

It shall be done

[Thread]

I just remember Adelmann begging CWEBB not to leave Hor.

tee, hee. He left 'em. tee, hee.

[Infinite_limit]

I just remember Adelmann begging CWEBB not to leave Hor.

tee, hee. He left 'em. tee, hee.
Bibby was elbowed.

[Thread]

Bibby was elbowed.

All CWEBB had to do was stay where Ad put him.

But, no. He knew better.

Solly Cholly.

[lefty]

Because you now have to win 16
:lol

[lefty]

I can't tell if you're functionally retarded or a masterful troll. The fact that I can't tell suggests the latter, but the sheer number of shitty threads you crank out has me leaning towards the former.
It's timvp

[ambchang]

People's memories are short. the 2001 version was not all Shaq post-ups or Kobe iso's especially during the playoffs when Fisher returned. they had great ball movement and "clutch" shooting. I agree nowhere near as good a 3 point shooting team as the 2014 spurs but everytime we needed a big 3 versus the better teams Horry, Fisher and Shaw delivered them. yes the Lakers were not great pnr defenders ... but Neither is Parker ... And duncan is not as good as it as once was either ...

Tough to say who would win but I would bet on 2001 Lakers but it would be a good match-up.

I can't agree with the ball movement comments. The Spurs were #1 in assists in 2014 (compared to competition playing under the same rules).The Spurs only shot 74% of their shots as 2 pters. The spurs were #4 in 2pt FG% and #1 in 3pt FG%. The Spurs ranked #6 in the league in assisted% on 2 pters at 56.5%, and #8 on 3pters

The Lakers were #9 in assists in 2001. 81% of the Lakers attempts were 2 pters of the total shot attemps overall. The Lakers were #1 in 2pt FG% and #20 in 3pt FG%. The Lakers ranked #13 in the league in assisted # on 2 pters at 56.5%, and #14 on 3 pters.

Sure the game has changed with even more reliance on 3pters in today's game, but even compared to other teams with the same rules, the Lakers, by all accounts, were an average or slightly above average passing team. The Spurs were above average to best in the league.

The Spurs were much closer to those Webber Kings.

[Galileo]

4-0 > 4-1

[Franklin]

can't recall another 3peat team Horry had played for, homer pick tbh.

[Killakobe81]

I can't agree with the ball movement comments. The Spurs were #1 in assists in 2014 (compared to competition playing under the same rules).The Spurs only shot 74% of their shots as 2 pters. The spurs were #4 in 2pt FG% and #1 in 3pt FG%. The Spurs ranked #6 in the league in assisted% on 2 pters at 56.5%, and #8 on 3pters

The Lakers were #9 in assists in 2001. 81% of the Lakers attempts were 2 pters of the total shot attemps overall. The Lakers were #1 in 2pt FG% and #20 in 3pt FG%. The Lakers ranked #13 in the league in assisted # on 2 pters at 56.5%, and #14 on 3 pters.

Sure the game has changed with even more reliance on 3pters in today's game, but even compared to other teams with the same rules, the Lakers, by all accounts, were an average or slightly above average passing team. The Spurs were above average to best in the league.

The Spurs were much closer to those Webber Kings.

Like I said the Lakers were not good at 3's but good at clutch 3's. and I was talking more about playoffs, not regular season. If you care that much crunch the numbers for the post-season. I do agree that the "Webber Kings were a better comparison but they did not win so who cares? I meant out of the teams that won multiple titles outside of the 1984 - 1986 Celts I felt that was the one Laker team that moved the ball in a "Similar fashion". Was it exactly the same? No. But I never said that. but thanks for the data. That is the Amb, i have a man crush on ...

Edit: 2011 Mavs were closer from a 3 point shooting aspect but only won one title I am not mistaken Kool's OP referenced teams that won more than once ...Kings won none.

[Koolaid_Man]

Like I said the Lakers were not good at 3's but good at clutch 3's. and I was talking more about playoffs, not regular season. If you care that much crunch the numbers for the post-season. I do agree that the "Webber Kings were a better comparison but they did not win so who cares? I meant out of the teams that won multiple titles outside of the 1984 - 1986 Celts I felt that was the one Laker team that moved the ball in a "Similar fashion". Was it exactly the same? No. But I never said that. but thanks for the data. That is the Amb, i have a man crush on ...

Edit: 2011 Mavs were closer from a 3 point shooting aspect but only won one title I am not mistaken Kool's OP referenced teams that won more than once ...Kings won none.


I'm pretty certain you wear Spurs colored underwear. :lol

[Arnold Toht]

:lmao The Spurs couldn't even 2-peat.

[ambchang]

Like I said the Lakers were not good at 3's but good at clutch 3's. and I was talking more about playoffs, not regular season. If you care that much crunch the numbers for the post-season. I do agree that the "Webber Kings were a better comparison but they did not win so who cares? I meant out of the teams that won multiple titles outside of the 1984 - 1986 Celts I felt that was the one Laker team that moved the ball in a "Similar fashion". Was it exactly the same? No. But I never said that. but thanks for the data. That is the Amb, i have a man crush on ...

Edit: 2011 Mavs were closer from a 3 point shooting aspect but only won one title I am not mistaken Kool's OP referenced teams that won more than once ...Kings won none.

Whether the kings won or not really isn't that relevant, unless you want to strictly compare championship teams. But even so, the 13 heat and 86 celtics were probably better comparisons.

The 01 lakers were more similar to the 95 rockets or the 05 spurs with the inside out offense.

If you want to say they both made clutch 3 pters, then it would apply to almost every single championship since 94. They all made clutch 3 pointers.

[Killakobe81]

Whether the kings won or not really isn't that relevant, unless you want to strictly compare championship teams. But even so, the 13 heat and 86 celtics were probably better comparisons.

The 01 lakers were more similar to the 95 rockets or the 05 spurs with the inside out offense.

If you want to say they both made clutch 3 pters, then it would apply to almost every single championship since 94. They all made clutch 3 pointers.

Horry's comments were about 3peat champions IIRC, and mine were about champions periods.

[Jenks]

Horry's comments were about 3peat champions IIRC
Horry's comments were about the 00-02 Lakers. I can't believe how many people got trolled by this thread title.

[baseline bum]

I thought this one was the best

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/WiUMBX3zUd4/0.jpg

[ambchang]

Horry's comments were about the 00-02 Lakers. I can't believe how many people got trolled by this thread title.

Yes, people should take the time to actually read the article.

Back to topic, I agree with Horry, 2001 was the best of those three Laker teams, Shaq was in peak form, and nothing else really matters. 2000 team was pretty good as the entire offense was built around Shaq, and nobody could stop it. 2002 went down a little as Shaq took on less offensive responsibilities, Kobe got better, but as Horry said earlier, he could be replaced. The key was, and always will be, Shaq.