Rank all 16 NBA championship playoff runs this century

[UNT Eagles 2016]

In order from easiest, lamest, and least impressive to hardest, most spectacular, and most impressive.

Y'all don't have to explain. But I will. Here goes:


2015 Warriors No question. Literally every team was saddled by injuries (while they remained impeccably healthy at a historical level) while dodging all of the contenders that gave them matchup problems. This isn't really close
2009 Lakers One of the easier runs in memory, facing easily the biggest pushover team the NBA Finals has seen in a long time and had a difficult time with (and needed some lucky breaks against) the talent-starved Rockets and unpredictable Nuggets.
2007 Spurs Another easy run; the Spurs coasted during the regular season, but the only formidable opponent in the playoffs was the Suns and they completely dodged the Mavs by incredible fortunate luck. The Cavs were a pushover.
2010 Lakers Admittedly, the Celtics series was rough, but their only other noteworthy opponent was the Suns, they had HCA throughout, and they barely managed to fend off the young and raw Thunder. Nothing too impressive here.
2008 Celtics It's not very often you see teams that lose a double-digit amount of times in the playoffs and still win a championship. Especially when one of those teams is the eighth-seeded Hawks. Still, owned the Lakers in the Finals, so props there.
2012 Heat While they overcame adversity no doubt, this title seemed sort of expected and inevitable. LeBron seemed to play amazing whenever he wanted to, and they absolutely annihilated the Thunder.
2001 Lakers Were a dominating force in the playoffs no doubt, but they faced a far worse Blazers squad than the previous year's iteration, a Kings team that wasn't quite ready, the Spurs, and the one-man 76ers. Still, 16–1 is pretty amazing.
2004 Pistons Though the Lakers were the most hyped team in the league that year, Malone missed the Finals and the Lakers were compromised by Kobe's situation that year. Also, their competition in the East was not very good at all.
2002 Lakers This is where it gets more interesting. The Lakers generally faced tough competition, but the game 6 rigging and the Nets being complete pushovers knocks this one down a notch.
2013 Heat Faced a good deal of adversity in the playoffs after the huge regular season to win the championship. Obviously, the comeback from down 5 with 0:28 to play in a do-or-die situation in the Finals brings this up a notch.
2003 Spurs Sentimentally, this was my favorite Spurs championship because of the mediocre regular season start and Robinson's last year. By the time the playoffs came, the Spurs were favorites and Dirk got hurt. Still an awesome feat, however. Suns were a particularly tough out, they ended the Lakers' tired three-peat, and the Nets were much improved from the previous year.
2011 Mavericks After roughly a decade as the NBA's poster boys for choking and defeat not too unlike their football counterparts, they re-wrote history by unseating the defending champions, crushing the upstart Thunder, and embarrassing the media darling "Heatles" -- overall very badass.
2006 Heat This one ranks oddly high on this list due to the unexpected factor. All eyes were on the Pistons and the West elites. The Heat were 15 strong and stuck together to the end, beating tough foes both East and West (mainly without HCA) and earned an unlikely ring.
2005 Spurs If you guys don't remember, the Nuggets were a thorn in the Spurs' sides, the Sonics were tough as hell to beat this particular year, the Suns were just incredible, and the Pistons were defending champions and better (McDyess + improved bench) than a year ago. Epic Finals win.
2000 Lakers Though they had HCA throughout, they faced some of the better competition ever faced in the NBA Playoffs (Kings, Suns, loaded Blazers and well-oiled Pacers) and fought to the end and ultimately triumphed, becoming the first dynasty of the twenty-first century.
2014 Spurs Biased or not, this is one of the greatest runs ever after the most imaginably bitter defeat in 2013. An ultimate revenge tour not without adversity, they beat DAL, OKC, and MIA in the same run–oh, and had the best winning margin in playoff history.

[Buddy Mignon]

Any of the Lakers teams can beat any of those teams up there.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Any of the Lakers teams can beat any of those teams up there.
No... 2000 and maybe 2001 would beat the majority of the above, but even then that's no cinch because the Lakers benefited like crazy from the strict illegal defense violation rules back then (no "hedging in" on Shaq, which forced help defenders either to commit to him or to the deadly clutch three point shooters like Fisher, Shaw, Horry, etc.)

It's hard to justify any of those teams that the 2009-2010 Laker iterations would definitely beat.

[daslicer]

Any of the Lakers teams can beat any of those teams up there.

'03 Spurs could beat any of the Laker teams. Then again they did beat the 3 peat Lakers team with both Shaq and Kobe in their primes.

[TDMVPDPOY]

'03 Spurs could beat any of the Laker teams. Then again they did beat the 3 peat Lakers team with both Shaq and Kobe in their primes.

03 team a bunch of clowns still havnt reach their prime yet
05 team all of them hit their prime at the same time


ps. if only the spurs kept jax after 03, 03/04 ring was possible...

[Buddy Mignon]

'03 Spurs could beat any of the Laker teams. Then again they did beat the 3 peat Lakers team with both Shaq and Kobe in their primes.

We were exhausted from dominating for three straight years. You've never defended so you cant relate.

[Buddy Mignon]

No... 2000 and maybe 2001 would beat the majority of the above, but even then that's no cinch because the Lakers benefited like crazy from the strict illegal defense violation rules back then (no "hedging in" on Shaq, which forced help defenders either to commit to him or to the deadly clutch three point shooters like Fisher, Shaw, Horry, etc.)

It's hard to justify any of those teams that the 2009-2010 Laker iterations would definitely beat.

What do you mean we benefitted? The rule applied to everyone.

[daslicer]

We were exhausted from dominating for three straight years. You've never defended so you cant relate.

'03 was the first time since '99 the Lakers had to play a prime Tim that had a few talented players on the roster. The '03 team to me exposes how overrated the 3 peat lakers really were. The '00 Lakers dominated the weakest era of basketball since the 60's.

[Buddy Mignon]

'03 was the first time since '99 the Lakers had to play a prime Tim that had a few talented players on the roster. The '03 team to me exposes how overrated the 3 peat lakers really were. The '00 Lakers dominated the weakest era of basketball since the 60's.

Not according to Lebron and DPG. You niggas need to make up your mind. Kobe is the only player in history to repeat during two different eras. Jim couldn't do it once.

[daslicer]

Not according to Lebron and DPG. You niggas need to make up your mind. Kobe is the only player in history to repeat during two different eras. Jim couldn't do it once.

He's also has lead his team to 3 lottery appearances something Tim has never done.

[Mark Celibate]

Sweeping the defending champs in the 2nd round ain't something that many teams have done tbh.

[ambchang]

I don't really rank championship runs. Injuries are part of the game, and everybody play through the exact same schedule.

The GSW could be seen as "fortunate", but they can also be shown as deep such that they can avoid/offset injuries. Not to mention that they were so dominant their starters really didn't have to put up monster minutes during the regular season.

They did show that they are not historically great during the post season, like the 2008 Celtics, but they really did a lot of things right. The team was well balanced, and took advantage of the rule changes the league imposed.

I also find it humourous that the team with the easiest run came exactly a year after the team with the toughest run in the same conference. How is that possible? What exactly change in a year. A LOT of coincidences must have occurred in that single year to have such a drastic change.

[Koolaid_Man]

In my view..the Spurs never had a championship run....:lmao

I mean how could you if you never repeated....sure they won championships but it was never a run :lol

[Killakobe81]

Not according to Lebron and DPG. You niggas need to make up your mind. Kobe is the only player in history to repeat during two different eras. Jim couldn't do it once.

:lol

[Horse]

No... 2000 and maybe 2001 would beat the majority of the above, but even then that's no cinch because the Lakers benefited like crazy from the strict illegal defense violation rules back then (no "hedging in" on Shaq, which forced help defenders either to commit to him or to the deadly clutch three point shooters like Fisher, Shaw, Horry, etc.)

It's hard to justify any of those teams that the 2009-2010 Laker iterations would definitely beat.
How about Timmy being out in 2000 and Portland throwing game 7.

[Killakobe81]

I don't really rank championship runs. Injuries are part of the game, and everybody play through the exact same schedule.

The GSW could be seen as "fortunate", but they can also be shown as deep such that they can avoid/offset injuries. Not to mention that they were so dominant their starters really didn't have to put up monster minutes during the regular season.

They did show that they are not historically great during the post season, like the 2008 Celtics, but they really did a lot of things right. The team was well balanced, and took advantage of the rule changes the league imposed.

I also find it humourous that the team with the easiest run came exactly a year after the team with the toughest run in the same conference. How is that possible? What exactly change in a year. A LOT of coincidences must have occurred in that single year to have such a drastic change.
I don't quibble with his rankings but just the reasons people gave for their arguments. But whatever. Golden State finished with some historical advanced metrics to the point that some stat heads ranked them ahead of plenty of the acknowledged all-time great teams. so that brings up questions I would love the some of the the advanced metrics crowd to answer and they should be able to provide some good ones...

Not saying I think these things but I would just love to see some consistency and clarity in these shitty debates for once.

1. So Goldenstate loses points as a great team because of injury? Even though they were historic in the regular season which is a considerably larger sample size and still won the chip? Wasnt the Western conference this year one of the best in recent memory. Injuries or not they crushed the regular season won the West and although Cavs were depleted beat the best player in the world in the Finals. PERIOD.

2. Spurs get points for exacting revenge and God bless them but didnt plenty of teams on this list exact revenge? None failed in as crushing fashion as the spurs did in 2013 but the point remains.

3. Didnt plenty of teams get lucky because of injury? Spurs benefited from OKC injuries previous years same as Warriors did. Devaluing a title run due to injury seems biased.


4. I also see plenty of elevation of some teams and dismissing of others to strengthen the argument or the case for some of these teams in these type of debates. Lot's of bias.

Personally I dont care and this is just based off my eyes but since 2000 ...


Best PLAYOFF runs (no order):
2011 Mavs
2001 Lakers
2014 Spurs

5 Best teams since 2000 (factoring regular season no order):

2008 Celts
2015 GSW
2012 Heat
2014 Spurs
2000 Lakers


As far as who is truly great in my own order:

1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2008 Celts
3. 2000 Lakers
4. 2012 Heat
5. 2014 Spurs

[Buddy Mignon]

How about Timmy being out in 2000 and Portland throwing game 7.

Jim wouldn't have made a difference. It he played in 01 and 02... we rang.

[tbdog]

I don't quibble with his rankings but just the reasons people gave for their arguments. But whatever. Golden State finished with some historical advanced metrics to the point that some stat heads ranked them ahead of plenty of the acknowledged all-time great teams. so that brings up questions I would love the some of the the advanced metrics crowd to answer and they should be able to provide some good ones...

Not saying I think these things but I would just love to see some consistency and clarity in these shitty debates for once.

1. So Goldenstate loses points as a great team because of injury? Even though they were historic in the regular season which is a considerably larger sample size and still won the chip? Wasnt the Western conference this year one of the best in recent memory. Injuries or not they crushed the regular season won the West and although Cavs were depleted beat the best player in the world in the Finals. PERIOD.

2. Spurs get points for exacting revenge and God bless them but didnt plenty of teams on this list exact revenge? None failed in as crushing fashion as the spurs did in 2013 but the point remains.

3. Didnt plenty of teams get lucky because of injury? Spurs benefited from OKC injuries previous years same as Warriors did. Devaluing a title run due to injury seems biased.


4. I also see plenty of elevation of some teams and dismissing of others to strengthen the argument or the case for some of these teams in these type of debates. Lot's of bias.

Personally I dont care and this is just based off my eyes but since 2000 ...




The regular season was a pretty injured one. The Spurs starting 5 played a total of 20mins before the allstar break. The MVP Durant played 29 games. The 2nd seed Rockets had Howard played like 40 games. Griffin missed some time. Blazers were just an injured mess. The Pacers were the number 1 seed in the east the year before and lost PG in the USA camp. The Bulls were, mainly Noah also injury prone. The Warriors lost Lee at the start and he never played a role until what 5 or 6 of the finals. There is no doubt that it got worse in the playoffs, but the west was pretty injured in the regular season as well.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I also find it humourous that the team with the easiest run came exactly a year after the team with the toughest run in the same conference. How is that possible? What exactly change in a year. A LOT of coincidences must have occurred in that single year to have such a drastic change.
Let's see:::

- Durant was out, and Ibaka too for much of the year, and OKC missed the playoffs... OKC went from the 2nd best team in the West and an elite contender to a 9th seed. Drastic much already?
- Lebron went to a team that was already worse to start, and then they lost their two best players around Lebron. This was the FINALS matchup.
- The Warriors faced the one-trick-pony ROCKETS in the WCF... who were already banged-up and had one of the sorriest benches ever. C'mon!
- The Pelicans with a raw young superstar surrounded by scrubs were a MUCH easier first-round opponent than the Mavericks, who had a savvy coach, experienced stars and a well-coordinated system.

[ambchang]

I don't quibble with his rankings but just the reasons people gave for their arguments. But whatever. Golden State finished with some historical advanced metrics to the point that some stat heads ranked them ahead of plenty of the acknowledged all-time great teams. so that brings up questions I would love the some of the the advanced metrics crowd to answer and they should be able to provide some good ones...

Not saying I think these things but I would just love to see some consistency and clarity in these shitty debates for once.

1. So Goldenstate loses points as a great team because of injury? Even though they were historic in the regular season which is a considerably larger sample size and still won the chip? Wasnt the Western conference this year one of the best in recent memory. Injuries or not they crushed the regular season won the West and although Cavs were depleted beat the best player in the world in the Finals. PERIOD.

They lose points because of their less than stellar showing in the playoffs. It wasn't horrible, it just wasn't that great, especially considering the quality of the opposition. NOP wasn't that great, I still believe Grizzlies would won the series if Conley was healthy, Rockets are pretenders, and the Cavs should have been steamrolled in the finals.

And their numbers weren't really historically great. They had a ORTG-DRTG of 8.2 in the playoffs, and 10.1 in the regular season. The 86 Celtics, which to mean, is one of the, if not THE best team of all time, had a playoff difference of 10.4, and regular season of 9.2. The Celtics actually picked up their game in the playoffs, and when they had to go through very tough competition in the East. The Warriors did the reverse.


2. Spurs get points for exacting revenge and God bless them but didnt plenty of teams on this list exact revenge? None failed in as crushing fashion as the spurs did in 2013 but the point remains.

I know, exacting revenge isn't a criteria. I don't know why it is to begin with.


3. Didnt plenty of teams get lucky because of injury? Spurs benefited from OKC injuries previous years same as Warriors did. Devaluing a title run due to injury seems biased.

Agreed.


4. I also see plenty of elevation of some teams and dismissing of others to strengthen the argument or the case for some of these teams in these type of debates. Lot's of bias.

Ditto


Personally I dont care and this is just based off my eyes but since 2000 ...


Best PLAYOFF runs (no order):
2011 Mavs
2001 Lakers
2014 Spurs

5 Best teams since 2000 (factoring regular season no order):

2008 Celts
2015 GSW
2012 Heat
2014 Spurs
2000 Lakers


As far as who is truly great in my own order:

1. 2001 Lakers
2. 2008 Celts
3. 2000 Lakers
4. 2012 Heat
5. 2014 Spurs

I can't put the 08 Celtics that high. They really disappointed in the playoffs, ditto GSW. I'd put the 05 Spurs above both of them.

And even including regular season, you can't put 00 Lakers above the 01 Lakers. We all knew the 01 Lakers were just cruising in the regular season, and everybody knew they would turn it on.

Also, the 05 Spurs are just getting massively underrated. It has the combined excellence on defense with the crazy unpredictability on offense to really stand out.

The 14 Spurs will also smoke the 12 Heat, and I'd put them above the 00 Lakers. Kobe wasn't that great in 00, and Shaq wasn't in his absolute peak peak prime (that would be 01).

You are also missing the 04 Pistons, which I thought was one of the greatest defensive teams of all time (followed by the 99 and 05 Spurs, and 08 Celtics).

[ambchang]

Let's see:::

- Durant was out, and Ibaka too for much of the year, and OKC missed the playoffs... OKC went from the 2nd best team in the West and an elite contender to a 9th seed. Drastic much already?
- Lebron went to a team that was already worse to start, and then they lost their two best players around Lebron. This was the FINALS matchup.
- The Warriors faced the one-trick-pony ROCKETS in the WCF... who were already banged-up and had one of the sorriest benches ever. C'mon!
- The Pelicans with a raw young superstar surrounded by scrubs were a MUCH easier first-round opponent than the Mavericks, who had a savvy coach, experienced stars and a well-coordinated system.

So OKC and Lebron made the league from one of the toughest in 15 years to one of the easiest?

You really have got to be kidding me. Either you are massively underrating the warriors, massively overrating the Spurs, or both.

[Sportcamper]

2003 stands out…MY SA calling it a rebuilding year…Speedy Claxton, Stephen Jackson, Malik Rose, Kevin Willis…Team really came together…

2000 Nobody gave the Lakers a chance of getting past the stacked Portland Trail Blazers…

[Killakobe81]

They lose points because of their less than stellar showing in the playoffs. It wasn't horrible, it just wasn't that great, especially considering the quality of the opposition. NOP wasn't that great, I still believe Grizzlies would won the series if Conley was healthy, Rockets are pretenders, and the Cavs should have been steamrolled in the finals.

And their numbers weren't really historically great. They had a ORTG-DRTG of 8.2 in the playoffs, and 10.1 in the regular season. The 86 Celtics, which to mean, is one of the, if not THE best team of all time, had a playoff difference of 10.4, and regular season of 9.2. The Celtics actually picked up their game in the playoffs, and when they had to go through very tough competition in the East. The Warriors did the reverse.



I know, exacting revenge isn't a criteria. I don't know why it is to begin with.



Agreed.



Ditto



I can't put the 08 Celtics that high. They really disappointed in the playoffs, ditto GSW. I'd put the 05 Spurs above both of them.

And even including regular season, you can't put 00 Lakers above the 01 Lakers. We all knew the 01 Lakers were just cruising in the regular season, and everybody knew they would turn it on.

Also, the 05 Spurs are just getting massively underrated. It has the combined excellence on defense with the crazy unpredictability on offense to really stand out.

The 14 Spurs will also smoke the 12 Heat, and I'd put them above the 00 Lakers. Kobe wasn't that great in 00, and Shaq wasn't in his absolute peak peak prime (that would be 01).

You are also missing the 04 Pistons, which I thought was one of the greatest defensive teams of all time (followed by the 99 and 05 Spurs, and 08 Celtics).

My list, old friend ...and I can do whatever the fuck I want on it. Put your own list out and stand/argue behind it this is all subjective but glad we agree on plenty above.

As for 2000 vs . 20001 yes the 2001 team is greater ...I think I put that on the bottom list ...but it was so frustrating watching them play on "cruise control". I dont hate Shaq but my disappointment in his lacksadasical attitude started there. I never cared about him doing movies etc. I just thought his excuses for getting out of shape was laughable and would eventually lead to his decline.that started the off season between 2000 and 2001. and thwhy it bugged me he was in his best Laker shape in his 2000 MVP year strong but still quick. That being said by the finals and playoffs he was a BEAST whenever he was avoiding foul trouble despite not giving a shit about the regular season.

But I enjoyed the 2000 team more at least until the playoffs. They hardly took any nights off and that is a criteria for an all time GOAT team for me. That is part of why the Celts also rate high on my post 2000 list. The Pistons of 2004 would of been the next team up ... so many here underrate that team. Werent all-time great but played soooo hard and unselfishly minus some dumb Billups heat checks. So we agree there as well.

But of course many wont give them due credit to shit on the 2004 Lakers ....

[baseline bum]

The 2011 Mavs had the hardest run to a title since the 1995 Rockets.

[DMC]

Ranking champions is for pussies. You won or you didnt. You got the same trophy as every other winner.

[TrainOfThought5]

If 2014 Spurs are #1 then 2013 Heat have to be top 3.

[Arcadian]

In my view..the Spurs never had a championship run....:lmao

I mean how could you if you never repeated....sure they won championships but it was never a run :lol

Fortunately, your view is worth less than a sack of diseased shit. Less than that of a blind, deaf, retarded person. A good rule of thumb is, whatever your view is, the opposite is probably true. Fucker.

[TheGreatYacht]

I don't see the Sacramento Kings and Trailblazers of the early 2000's

[spurraider21]

Any of the Lakers teams can beat any of those teams up there.
coming from a laker fan, this really means a lot

[Buddy Mignon]

coming from a laker fan, this really means a lot


Well... the weakest Laker team up there beat the second and third best team up there. Kobe beat the Celtics and Spurs in the playoffs.

The End

[SuperCam]

2012 Heat. Beat the Big 3 still in Boston, physical Paul george led Pacers, and then in the finals beat an OKC team that bitchslapped the best of the west, and who had three guys who only a season or two later would all be top 10 in the league. And not only did they beat them, they administered a backdoor sweep in which they weren't even competitive by the last game.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

2003 stands out…MY SA calling it a rebuilding year…Speedy Claxton, Stephen Jackson, Malik Rose, Kevin Willis…Team really came together…

2000 Nobody gave the Lakers a chance of getting past the stacked Portland Trail Blazers…
And 2003 really looked like a rebuilding year, maybe not from the gutter but at least a few years of mediocrity after cutting ties with mainstays like Antonio Daniels, Terry Porter, etc and handing young Parker the full-time keys at PG... David's back had about had it, and guys like Steve Smith and Danny Ferry were much worse than in 2001-02. In contrast to the 20–4 start the Spurs had in 2001-02, the Spurs were truly mediocre in the first couple months of the 02-03 season, finishing a four-in-five night road trip out East at 19–13 and in a tie with the Suns for sixth/seventh place in the West; extremely underwhelming, and with the worst of the schedule (crazy RRT, other aspects) still ahead of them. Around Christmastime, nobody in SA would have predicted anything better than about a 52-54 win season or so and a second round exit at best.

After all, the 19–13 start had included losses @ Denver (a team with zero talent at the time), @New York & @Atlanta (Leastern bottom-feeders at the time), at home to Seattle (a lottery team), @Golden State and @LA Clippers (bottom-feeders), and @Washington (Leastern lottery team). Nobody in their right mind

[ambchang]

My list, old friend ...and I can do whatever the fuck I want on it. Put your own list out and stand/argue behind it this is all subjective but glad we agree on plenty above.

As for 2000 vs . 20001 yes the 2001 team is greater ...I think I put that on the bottom list ...but it was so frustrating watching them play on "cruise control". I dont hate Shaq but my disappointment in his lacksadasical attitude started there. I never cared about him doing movies etc. I just thought his excuses for getting out of shape was laughable and would eventually lead to his decline.that started the off season between 2000 and 2001. and thwhy it bugged me he was in his best Laker shape in his 2000 MVP year strong but still quick. That being said by the finals and playoffs he was a BEAST whenever he was avoiding foul trouble despite not giving a shit about the regular season.

But I enjoyed the 2000 team more at least until the playoffs. They hardly took any nights off and that is a criteria for an all time GOAT team for me. That is part of why the Celts also rate high on my post 2000 list. The Pistons of 2004 would of been the next team up ... so many here underrate that team. Werent all-time great but played soooo hard and unselfishly minus some dumb Billups heat checks. So we agree there as well.

But of course many wont give them due credit to shit on the 2004 Lakers ....

So the first list is basically the list of teams you enjoy more, and it seems to have nothing to do with true greatness.

2004 Pistons were a great great team. I would say that the 2004 Pistons > 2005 Spurs. Regardless, the Lakers losing in the Finals, and especially in such embarrassing fashion, was a huge upset.

[ambchang]

Well... the weakest Laker team up there beat the second and third best team up there. Kobe beat the Celtics and Spurs in the playoffs.

The End

:rofl A Lakers team beat a Celtics team and a Spurs team, therefore all Lakers team are better than all Celtics team and Spurs team. Despite the fact that the Spurs AND the Celtics both beat the Lakers team.

You are just horrible at this.

BTW, how about that 4-2 schtick? Want to pull it out now? You've been avoiding me like the plague.

[Buddy Mignon]

:rofl A Lakers team beat a Celtics team and a Spurs team, therefore all Lakers team are better than all Celtics team and Spurs team. Despite the fact that the Spurs AND the Celtics both beat the Lakers team.

You are just horrible at this.

BTW, how about that 4-2 schtick? Want to pull it out now? You've been avoiding me like the plague.


Avoiding you? I can't smell you from here. The Spurs did not beat the Kobe/Pau repeat team. Try again, jackass.

[ambchang]

Avoiding you? I can't smell you from here. The Spurs did not beat the Kobe/Pau repeat team. Try again, jackass.

You have been hiding like a little roach. Never even attempted to respond to your highly flawed 4-2 "logic" of yours.

And finally you have pulled in MVPau, but you got the order wrong, it's MVPau/Kobe, not the other way around. And yeah, the Spurs never beat that core, because Kobe was too busy snapping Achilles to avoid the Spurs in the first round.

And :lol, beating a Celtics team missing it's starting center based on a 20+FTA advantage in Game 7, TWO years after the Celtics won the championship when the core of the Celtics were old to begin with.

[Buddy Mignon]

You have been hiding like a little roach. Never even attempted to respond to your highly flawed 4-2 "logic" of yours.

And finally you have pulled in MVPau, but you got the order wrong, it's MVPau/Kobe, not the other way around. And yeah, the Spurs never beat that core, because Kobe was too busy snapping Achilles to avoid the Spurs in the first round.

And :lol, beating a Celtics team missing it's starting center based on a 20+FTA advantage in Game 7, TWO years after the Celtics won the championship when the core of the Celtics were old to begin with.

That team went to 3 straight Finals, dummy. And who the fuck is Perkins sorry ass. We knocked him him... he didn't miss shit.

[ambchang]

That team went to 3 straight Finals, dummy. And who the fuck is Perkins sorry ass. We knocked him him... he didn't miss shit.

Yeah, one of the defeated by the Celtics.

Perkins was instrumental in a series against the lakers, because the Lakers were a loaded front court team.

Use your brain sometimes, you are not going to sell it in the used market for a higher price in "mint" condition, like you could with your naruto comics.

[Buddy Mignon]

Yeah, one of the defeated by the Celtics.

Perkins was instrumental in a series against the lakers, because the Lakers were a loaded front court team.

Use your brain sometimes, you are not going to sell it in the used market for a higher price in "mint" condition, like you could with your naruto comics.

Your chasing your tail, kid. That team kicked the shit out of the Spurs with a prime Parker, Jim and Manu... then went on to defend their title against a team that just two year prior was called great.

[ambchang]

Your chasing your tail, kid. That team kicked the shit out of the Spurs with a prime Parker, Jim and Manu... then went on to defend their title against a team that just two year prior was called great.

You know what two years did to your lakers? Three time defending champs to the lottery. Two time champs to the most disappointing team in the history of the league.

And lol on prime big three. The big three never had their primes at the same time.

[Venti Quattro]

1. 2000-01 Lakers

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Your chasing your tail, kid. That team kicked the shit out of the Spurs with a prime Parker, Jim and Manu... then went on to defend their title against a team that just two year prior was called great.
You didn't even play us in 2009 or 2010, and Manu was out in 2009 and Duncan was injured in 2010 (plus Manu's broken nose). Do you even history?

[Horse]

Jim wouldn't have made a difference. It he played in 01 and 02... we rang.

Yeah Duncan never really made a difference for the Spurs did he.

[Horse]

Your chasing your tail, kid. That team kicked the shit out of the Spurs with a prime Parker, Jim and Manu... then went on to defend their title against a team that just two year prior was called great.

You mean after the Spurs were mysteriously left overnight on a plane in new Orleans and Manu was injured?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Avoiding you? I can't smell you from here. The Spurs did not beat the Kobe/Pau repeat team. Try again, jackass.
We went 9–8 against that particular team in the regular season, from when yall got Pau up through the Bynum for Howard trade.

[Leetonidas]

2001 Lakers had the most impressive record. 2011 Mavs had the most impressive story. 2014 Spurs dominated with the most blowouts. 2008 Celtics probably had the best championship team overall. 2004 Pistons had the biggest upset. All others are meh

[Buddy Mignon]

2001 Lakers had the most impressive record. 2011 Mavs had the most impressive story. 2014 Spurs dominated with the most blowouts. 2008 Celtics probably had the best championship team overall. 2004 Pistons had the biggest upset. All others are meh

And the 2013 Spurs had the biggest choke job of all time.

[LkrFan]

1) '87 Lakers
2) '01 Lakers
3) '96 Bulls
4) '86 Celtics
5) '08 Celtics

[mingus]

I'd pick the '04 Pistons first reason being I think they could match up pretty well with any team, including the 01 Lakers where I think Prince would prove to be similarly effective against Bryant on d as he was in '04, where he made him look pedestrian. Then I'd go with '14 Spurs, then 01 Lakers. I might put '14 Spurs ahead of '04 Pistons tho

[Buddy Mignon]

I'd pick the '04 Pistons first reason being I think they could match up pretty well with any team, including the 01 Lakers where I think Prince would prove to be similarly effective against Bryant on d as he was in '04, where he made him look pedestrian. Then I'd go with '14 Spurs, then 01 Lakers. I might put '14 Spurs ahead of '04 Pistons tho

The '14 Spurs were a fluke team that couldn't defend their title. Imagine that team trying to guard Shaq and a prime Kobe. Wake up, faggot.

[HemisfairArena]

And the 2013 Spurs had the biggest choke job of all time.

Lakers losing to the biggest underdog in NBA Finals history 4-1 in 2004 is the biggest choke job,,,as bad as Tyson losing to Douglas,,

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I'd pick the '04 Pistons first reason being I think they could match up pretty well with any team, including the 01 Lakers where I think Prince would prove to be similarly effective against Bryant on d as he was in '04, where he made him look pedestrian. Then I'd go with '14 Spurs, then 01 Lakers. I might put '14 Spurs ahead of '04 Pistons tho
2004 Pistons had a really tough time scoring against any team that wasn't composed of matadors on that end. Fortunately, the Lakers couldn't guard the simpleton plays the Pistons ran, and guys like Hamilton were able to get screen shots, Malone's pathetic backups couldn't guard Rasheed, and Chauncey schooled the geriatric Payton. The Nets damn near beat Detroit in the ECSF though, and the Pacers were certainly competitive against them too. The Lakers simply ran into a bad matchup

[Buddy Mignon]

Lakers losing to the biggest underdog in NBA Finals history 4-1 in 2004 is the biggest choke job,,,as bad as Tyson losing to Douglas,,


Nope... Spurs gave back one... they were selling your shit and miraculously you found a way to lose it.

[mingus]

The '14 Spurs were a fluke team that couldn't defend their title. Imagine that team trying to guard Shaq and a prime Kobe. Wake up, faggot.

Ok buddy

[HemisfairArena]

Nope... Spurs gave back one... they were selling your shit and miraculously you found a way to lose it.

You had the parade mapped out before the '04 Finals even started,,heart ripped out,,,series over,,,,Spurs exacted revenge,,,Lakers traded Shaq and folded like a cheap lawn chair,,,,

[Leetonidas]

And the 2013 Spurs had the biggest choke job of all time.

See: 2004 Lakers

[HemisfairArena]

Aids and Thread have run for cover,,,,Luv is to stupid to do so,,,,,

[Venti Quattro]

See: 2004 Lakers

The 2003/04 Lakers were pummeled throughout the series, so that was the more agonizing choke job.

But the bigger choke job? The one which required only two free throws to seal the series and the championship

[Leetonidas]

Meh. That game was down to the wire and the spurs hit tough shots in the final minute just to be ahead at all. Its not like they had a 20 pt lead going into the 4th and they shat the bed and lost it.

[HemisfairArena]

2004 Lakers,,,easily. They want to down play it but I wont let 'em,,,,they were the biggest NBA Finals favorite going into the series ever,,,biggest choke job

[beirmeistr]

2000 lakers don't count for this millenium. They closed out the last millenium.

[Kool Bob Love]

2004 Lakers,,,easily. They want to down play it but I wont let 'em,,,,they were the biggest NBA Finals favorite going into the series ever,,,biggest choke job

Even tho I was just a boy I remember 04 like it was yesterday Hemi. Peep this pimp.


http://youtu.be/OI9QHZaKEA0

[UZER]

Those poor 04 Lakers. They just never got "a fair shake" according to Phil. He was crying the entire series.