2001 Lakers vs 2014 Spurs

[AMW27]

Who wins in a seven game series?

Do you think it would be a game 7, or would the Lakers dominate them like they did the other teams in the playoffs that year?

Can the Spurs beat them in five like they did the Heat in 2014?

[Hook_Em]

Spurs in 7. Third year Kawhi was a stud defender by then who they could stick on Kobe to make him work. Shaq is Shaq but the Spurs out shoot them.

[One_and_Done]

Spurs and it's not close. The game had changed alot from 2001 to 2014.

[AdagioPace]

[ShotCreator]

Depends on if you buy LA’s defense being just that good against a truly elite offense.

LA’s defense is the primary reason they unleashed such all-time beatings that postseason. I mean their offense was amazing, but it was a usual level for a prime Shaq playoff offense. Shaq had never been on a defensive team that dominant in his career before or since.

Matchup wise, Kobe could’ve been in a serious trouble. SA was stacked with elite defense on the wings in Manu/Leonard/Green.

I don’t see how Shaq would’ve been too contained, but defensively he might have had trouble with the shooting/screening heavy lineups.

I think it’d be a wild series. I don’t see a clear edge on either side right now.

[Slava]

Lakers in 4. It’s prime Shaq against Duncan in a 10lb leg brace. Spurs would constantly be in the bonus trying to foul Shaq.

[lessthanjake]

Depends on if you buy LA’s defense being just that good against a truly elite offense.

LA’s defense is the primary reason they unleashed such all-time beatings that postseason. I mean their offense was amazing, but it was a usual level for a prime Shaq playoff offense. Shaq had never been on a defensive team that dominant in his career before or since.

Just to clarify one thing, the 2001 Lakers’ offense in the playoffs was pretty far above any other Shaq playoff offense. Their playoff rORTG was +12.2 and their playoff rDRTG was -7.5. The best playoff rORTG a Shaq-led team otherwise had was +9.5, and that was in a conference finals loss (in 1998). The best playoff rORTG a Shaq-led team ever had in any other year he went to the Finals was +8.7 in 2000. For defense, the best a Shaq-led team did otherwise was a -4.7 rDRTG in 2002. So the gap between 2001 and the next best Shaq year was pretty similar on offense and defense. I think you’re right that the 2001 Lakers’ playoff defense was more of an outlier in general compared to Shaq-led teams, because he had a lot of very mediocre playoff defenses, while the playoff offenses were virtually always at least good. But the 2001 Lakers were definitely far ahead of the pack on both sides of the ball compared to other Shaq-led teams.

_______

Anyways, to answer the question of the thread, I think the answer is probably the 2014 Spurs simply because they play a more modern form of basketball that we now know is more effective. But if you put the 2014 Spurs into an NBA with 2001-era thinking and the Spurs played consistent with the thinking of the era, then the 2001 Lakers would certainly be favored. So I think it’s just an example of each team being better in their respective eras. Which makes sense when talking about great teams. Obviously truly great teams are all very talented, but a truly great team often is that great in part because it is *particularly* well-suited to its era. It’s hard to be a historically great team without having factors like that pointing in your direction too. So we would expect that there’d be falloff when such a team is put outside of that favorable context.

[Asianiac_24]

If Kobe still plays out of his mind, Fisher shoots like 50% from 3, I don’t see how the Spurs win. 01 Lakers were just clicking in every way possible

[f4p]

If Kobe still plays out of his mind, Fisher shoots like 50% from 3, I don’t see how the Spurs win. 01 Lakers were just clicking in every way possible

exactly. you can't say "2001 lakers" and then just act like you're using a random number generator to see how they play. "2001 lakers" basically implies a playoffs buzzsaw where all role players are playing out of their minds and kobe is having arguably his best playoffs ever, while shaq is healthy and at his peak. that team took a +8 2001 spurs team to the woodshed and beat them by 22 ppg. the 2014 spurs were also a +8 team so unless they are 22 points better than the 2001 spurs for no apparent reason, they don't seem to have a ton of hope. maybe they'd fare a little better in the 2014 nba, but certainly they have no hope if they are playing in the 2001 nba.

[parsnips33]

If Kobe still plays out of his mind, Fisher shoots like 50% from 3, I don’t see how the Spurs win. 01 Lakers were just clicking in every way possible

exactly. you can't say "2001 lakers" and then just act like you're using a random number generator to see how they play. "2001 lakers" basically implies a playoffs buzzsaw where all role players are playing out of their minds and kobe is having arguably his best playoffs ever, while shaq is healthy and at his peak. that team took a +8 2001 spurs team to the woodshed and beat them by 22 ppg. the 2014 spurs were also a +8 team so unless they are 22 points better than the 2001 spurs for no apparent reason, they don't seem to have a ton of hope. maybe they'd fare a little better in the 2014 nba, but certainly they have no hope if they are playing in the 2001 nba.

This doesn't make sense to me, just because they are both +8 doesn't mean they are the same team. Maybe the 2014 version would match up better than the 2001 version, even if they are not "22 points better" in any given context

[AdagioPace]

If Kobe still plays out of his mind, Fisher shoots like 50% from 3, I don’t see how the Spurs win. 01 Lakers were just clicking in every way possible

exactly. you can't say "2001 lakers" and then just act like you're using a random number generator to see how they play. "2001 lakers" basically implies a playoffs buzzsaw where all role players are playing out of their minds and kobe is having arguably his best playoffs ever, while shaq is healthy and at his peak. that team took a +8 2001 spurs team to the woodshed and beat them by 22 ppg. the 2014 spurs were also a +8 team so unless they are 22 points better than the 2001 spurs for no apparent reason, they don't seem to have a ton of hope. maybe they'd fare a little better in the 2014 nba, but certainly they have no hope if they are playing in the 2001 nba.

not every +8 team is born equal.
the 2001 Spurs were the weakest prime Duncan's team along with the 2002 version. Typical RS overperforming team with a lot of flaws in the roster.

[Asianiac_24]

If Kobe still plays out of his mind, Fisher shoots like 50% from 3, I don’t see how the Spurs win. 01 Lakers were just clicking in every way possible

exactly. you can't say "2001 lakers" and then just act like you're using a random number generator to see how they play. "2001 lakers" basically implies a playoffs buzzsaw where all role players are playing out of their minds and kobe is having arguably his best playoffs ever, while shaq is healthy and at his peak. that team took a +8 2001 spurs team to the woodshed and beat them by 22 ppg. the 2014 spurs were also a +8 team so unless they are 22 points better than the 2001 spurs for no apparent reason, they don't seem to have a ton of hope. maybe they'd fare a little better in the 2014 nba, but certainly they have no hope if they are playing in the 2001 nba.

not every +8 team is born equal.
the 2001 Spurs were the weakest prime Duncan's team along with the 2002 version. Typical RS overperforming team with a lot of flaws in the roster.

Not all born equal, but the 01 Lakers were playing at a different level. When all the role players are hitting shots like throwing bricks into the ocean, Kobe playing like MJ, and Shaq being Shaq, how is 14 Spurs going to beat that?

[An Unbiased Fan]

The Laker sweep them

The 01 Spurs beat the 14 Spurs in 5 or 6 too

[Dr Aki]

Lakers sweep

[Homer38]

The Laker sweep them

The 01 Spurs beat the 14 Spurs in 5 or 6 too

I take the lakers too but the 2014 spurs team were much better on offense and they had with better depth that the 2001 spurs.They were a complete team.The 2001 spurs backcourt was below average

[MacGill]

Stop it! 2001 Lakers PS > everyone in the history of the league.

[OdomFan]

2001 Lakers in 6. Maybe 5. I will be fair because I respect the hell out of that 2014 Spurs squad. They brought an amazing unselfish style of basketball that I wont forget, but the 01 Lakers are on higher level. Even with Pop and Duncan from 2014 there, remembering the battles that they had with that Laker team. I can't see them pulling that off.

[AMW27]

I have to go with the 2001 Lakers. Maybe not having a superstar would catch up to the Spurs at some point.