"Missing Rings" on Basketball-Reference

[mexicanjunior]

We can thank Juwan Howard for screwing our chances of being compe ive with the Lakers in 2001. Once Derek Anderson was out, we didn't have anyone athletic enough to run and gun with that Laker team. I think he would have really helped our chances in those first 2 close games in San Antonio. Once we dropped both of them, the team folded...

[IronMexican]

Awesome list. No 2004 Lakers? Who knows if Malone was healthy, right? And I love America's Game: Missing Rings. Almost makes me cry at times.

[mexicanjunior]

And I love America's Game: Missing Rings. Almost makes me cry at times.

I love that show also...The Bills, Chargers and Bengals episodes were great.

[FromWayDowntown]

Awesome list. No 2004 Lakers? Who knows if Malone was healthy, right? And I love America's Game: Missing Rings. Almost makes me cry at times.

Again, the list has everything to do with teams that were great during the regular season and faced quality playoff pools but came up short. I've argued earlier in this thread that the 2004 Lakers weren't exactly a regular season juggernaut:

While that team had great star-power, it didn't have the flashy regular season that would have made a playoff elimination seem unlikely. They finished with the 3rd best record in the league, but were a pretty pedestrian 7th in differential and, therefore, had a pretty low pythagorean win projection (52-30), which is among the calculations that the author relies upon.

[Phenomanul]

How does one rank the 2001 Spurs at the top of this list and not mention the Derek Anderson injury as a significant detriment? By losing Anderson the Spurs lost their season x-factor, their only true slasher, and one of their most athletic players - it was a more devastating blow to the Spurs' chances than the general NBA community would ever admit - particularly because Anderson never really played out to his potential after leaving the Spurs.

[FromWayDowntown]

How does one rank the 2001 Spurs at the top of this list and not mention the Derek Anderson injury as a significant detriment? By losing Anderson the Spurs lost their season x-factor, their only true slasher, and one of their most athletic players - it was a more devastating blow to the Spurs' chances than the general NBA community would ever admit - particularly because Anderson never really played out to his potential after leaving the Spurs.

I think that's a good point. While I don't think it would have ultimately changed the outcome of that WCF series, I think it might have affected whether the Spurs went out in 4, 5, or 6. Games 1 and 2 of that series were winnable for the Spurs, and with a win in, say, Game 2 (which the Spurs led most of the way) a Game 5 win wouldn't have been out of the question. They weren't ever going to win that series, though.

This list and the frequent inclusion of the Spurs on it led me to ponder another question: did the fiasco in 2001 against LA forever change the public perception of this Spurs "dynasty" and make it impossible for this group to win the widespread view that they are a historically-significant club? I frankly think it might have. I think that had the Spurs lived up to their 2001 billing in that series and at least pushed that Laker team a bit, there would have been less doubt about whether they were historically great. Of course, at the same time, I think the cleansing that came after the Laker beatdown in 2001 led to the culture that now makes the Spurs the always-dangerous team of venerable veterans. But that practicality aside, I think the greatness of the Spurs' run since 1999, while mostly acknowledged, has suffered from that 2001 series. Curious what others think.

[HarlemHeat37]

what was the controversy in 2002 with the kings / lakers ? did the refs hand the game to the lakers?

game 6 of that series was probably the worst officiated game in NBA history..the Kings were completely screwed the entire game, and they managed to have the advantage for most of it, despite the shady officiating..some of the worst calls I've ever seen..it got to the point where even the announcers were talking about how ridiculous it was..

Laker fans like to bring up game 5, but nothing was even close to that game..typical Laker fan ..

[mexicanjunior]

This list and the frequent inclusion of the Spurs on it led me to ponder another question: did the fiasco in 2001 against LA forever change the public perception of this Spurs "dynasty" and make it impossible for this group to win the widespread view that they are a historically-significant club? I frankly think it might have. I think that had the Spurs lived up to their 2001 billing in that series and at least pushed that Laker team a bit, there would have been less doubt about whether they were historically great. Of course, at the same time, I think the cleansing that came after the Laker beatdown in 2001 led to the culture that now makes the Spurs the always-dangerous team of venerable veterans. But that practicality aside, I think the greatness of the Spurs' run since 1999, while mostly acknowledged, has suffered from that 2001 series. Curious what others think.

I think you may be on to something there...