1999 Spurs VS 2001 Lakers

[mdonnelly1989]

Not sure how often this has been done but I have not seen this. And I think it would go at least 6.

[roriobane]

Lakers sweep. No team in history is beating the 01 Lakers in a playoff series.

[DEEP3CL]

OP let me simplify this for you, the 99 Spur team brought back pretty much the same core that won it in 99 and got waxed in the first round in 2000. The Laker brought back much of the same core in 2001 and won the title again in 2002.

There's your answer on how this match up would go. The 99 Spurs would be road kill stepping in front of the Lakers of 2001.

[LALifer49]

OP let me simplify this for you, the 99 Spur team brought back pretty much the same core that won it in 99 and got waxed in the first round in 2000. The Laker brought back much of the same core in 2001 and won the title again in 2002.

There's your answer on how this match up would go. The 99 Spurs would be road kill stepping in front of the Lakers of 2001.

Yeah pretty much the same core-Tim Duncan...

[Quotatious]

Lakers in 6. It'd be close and Shaq would have a relatively tough time against the '99 version of Duncan and Robinson (they held him to 23.8 ppg on 50.6% TS in the '99 WCSF), but the Spurs have no answer for the 2001 playoff version of Kobe.

[DEEP3CL]

OP let me simplify this for you, the 99 Spur team brought back pretty much the same core that won it in 99 and got waxed in the first round in 2000. The Laker brought back much of the same core in 2001 and won the title again in 2002.

There's your answer on how this match up would go. The 99 Spurs would be road kill stepping in front of the Lakers of 2001.

Yeah pretty much the same core-Tim Duncan...

Yeah I know Tim missed the playoffs that year, but the Spurs were still good enough to beat those Maubury led Suns.

[Quotatious]

OP let me simplify this for you, the 99 Spur team brought back pretty much the same core that won it in 99 and got waxed in the first round in 2000. The Laker brought back much of the same core in 2001 and won the title again in 2002.

There's your answer on how this match up would go. The 99 Spurs would be road kill stepping in front of the Lakers of 2001.

Yeah pretty much the same core-Tim Duncan...

That's an epic fail by DEEP3CL. 2000 Spurs were a strong title contender with Duncan, but without him, it's not much a surprise they lost so early.

[Quotatious]

Yeah I know Tim missed the playoffs that year, but the Spurs were still good enough to beat those Maubury led Suns.

Suns didn't have Marbury in 2000. Kidd was still on that team, but he only played one game in that series, so both teams basically played without their best players - Duncan and Kidd.

[DEEP3CL]

Lakers in 6. It'd be close and Shaq would have a relatively tough time against the '99 version of Duncan and Robinson (they held him to 23.8 ppg on 50.6% TS in the '99 WCSF), but the Spurs have no answer for the 2001 playoff version of Kobe.

It wasn't just those two...it was an army effort of Tim,Dave along with Rose and Purdue. Shaq picked up a lot of offensive fouls especially when matched against Rose because he tried to over power him often, this led to the ineffectiveness in his shooting.

[JordansBulls]

Spurs went 15-2 in 1999 in the playoffs and played a healthy Lakers squad.

[DEEP3CL]

Yeah I know Tim missed the playoffs that year, but the Spurs were still good enough to beat those Maubury led Suns.

Suns didn't have Marbury in 2000. Kidd was still on that team, but he only played one game in that series, so both teams basically played without their best players - Duncan and Kidd.

I stand corrected, he came in 2001. Still doesn't matter though in the context of the question asked....it's no way in hell the 99 Spurs are beating the 2001 Lakers. So there.....

[JordansBulls]

Yeah I know Tim missed the playoffs that year, but the Spurs were still good enough to beat those Maubury led Suns.

Suns didn't have Marbury in 2000. Kidd was still on that team, but he only played one game in that series, so both teams basically played without their best players - Duncan and Kidd.

I stand corrected, he came in 2001. Still doesn't matter though in the context of the question asked....it's no way in hell the 99 Spurs are beating the 2001 Lakers. So there.....

How so? Lakers went 15-1 and Spurs went 15-2 in the playoffs. Not like they struggled. Also Duncan was about the same from 1999 to 2001 but Robinson was much better in 1999 and Shaq would struggle with both at that time. May not struggle but certainly worse overall numbers vs them. Also 1999 Spurs had better role players in Elliot and Elie.

[DEEP3CL]

Spurs went 15-2 in 1999 in the playoffs and played a healthy Lakers squad.

That 99 Laker squad was healthy but had internal strife.

[Quotatious]

Spurs went 15-2 in 1999 in the playoffs and played a healthy Lakers squad.

On the other hand, 2001 Lakers swept 2001 Spurs in the WCF.

And DEEP3CL is right - 1999 Lakers had some internal strife. Shaq played very poor defense that year (probably the worst of his prime), Kobe was too young and not a real star yet, Rice was a good scorer but one dimensional and poor defensively. Coaching was poor, too. Kobe had to grow and develop and a great coach like Phil was needed.

[DEEP3CL]

How so? Lakers went 15-1 and Spurs went 15-2 in the playoffs. Not like they struggled.

The difference between both those squads is that in 2001 the Laker pretty much wrecked their comp....all sweeps until the one Finals loss.

The 99 Spurs had several games they struggled to win. Just because they won those series, doesn't mean they didn't struggle to win the games.

[DEEP3CL]

Suns didn't have Marbury in 2000. Kidd was still on that team, but he only played one game in that series, so both teams basically played without their best players - Duncan and Kidd.

I stand corrected, he came in 2001. Still doesn't matter though in the context of the question asked....it's no way in hell the 99 Spurs are beating the 2001 Lakers. So there.....

How so? Lakers went 15-1 and Spurs went 15-2 in the playoffs. Not like they struggled. Also Duncan was about the same from 1999 to 2001 but Robinson was much better in 1999 and Shaq would struggle with both at that time. May not struggle but certainly worse overall numbers vs them. Also 1999 Spurs had better role players in Elliot and Elie.

What's going over your head is the fact we're talking in terms of the players and how they played for the years suggested. In 2001 Shaq was a total beast and destroyed Robinson while from 2001-2003 Robinson was a shell of himself those last 3 years of his career in every aspect of his game. Shaq was destroying his comp in the playoffs at center from 2000-2003, so there is no way to justify that Dave could hold his own.

[bballexpert]

Tim Duncan was the main source of Offense as shown by Robinson in the 2000 with out Duncan could not score effectively really. Plus with out the Duncan you lose half your d pretty much because a twin tower is gone Shaq was lucky Duncan knee went out. 2001 spurs compared to 1999 spurs d was worse in playoffs because Robinson slowed down big time and also all the role players were just worse. I would give 1999 great chance Duncan best player that year Robinson a deadly D anchor and all the role players just simple better. Really sucks that Duncan got hurt but as you know the spurs can not repeat it seams cursed.

[The Infamous1]

The Spurs have always had the same problem in the playoffs in that they can't stop Kobe. They would have at least 7 rings since the Duncan/pop era if he never existed.

[Nbafanatic]

I think that 2001 series sweep by the Lakers tend to get a little blew out of proportion. Yes, overall it was a very lopsided series, but mostly because of games 3 and 4, when the Spurs spirit was already crushed, and the Lakers won the games in blowouts. But games 1 and 2 were close, and the Spurs were missing their best backcourt player in Derek Anderson. Derek was far from being a super player, but he was good enough to perhaps be able to give Kobe a litlle trouble, and maybe get enough more punch offensively to swing one of those games, especially game 1. I'm by no means saying that the Spurs could have won that series, the Lakers were clearly superior, but it could have been a six game series if the Spurs were healthy. For the comparison, I think it's close, the 99 Spurs would have a chance against the 2001 Lakers, but with a gun to my head, I would pick Los Angeles.

[nolunch]

The difference is Shaq was smarter and Kobe was better in 2001. And Fisher was nightmare for Spurs though.