Spoiler:
Overall SRS: My combo-SRS from the regular season and playoffs as discussed in the master thread
Standard Deviations: Standard Deviations of Overall SRS from the league mean.
When I post the roster makeup of the team, I try and do it by playoff minutes. The numbers are age, regular season BPM and Playoff BPM (basketball-reference's BPM is being used here).
So if I say: "C: Vlade Divac (22), +2.3 / +4.3" I mean that Vlade Divac was their center, he was 22, he had a BPM of +2.3 in the regular season and a +4.3 in the playoffs. Yes, BPM misses out on a lot of subtle stuff but I thought it a good quick-hits indicator of the skills of the players.
I also list the playoff players (20+ MPG) in order of OLoad (which is usage that integrates assists) and it has everyone's per game average for minutes, points, rebounds, assists and stocks (steals plus blocks), but all of those (including minutes) are adjusted for pace.
I then cover the three highest players in scoring per 100 (with their true shooting relative to league average) and the three highest players in Assists per 100. I realize that these are arbitrary, but I wanted a quick-hits reference for how these teams' offenses ran.
I then talk about Heliocentrism, Wingmen and Depth. Basically I add up all of the team's VORP (again, basketball-reference) and then figure out what percentage of that VORP comes from the #1 player (Heliocentrism), from the #2 and 3 players combined (Wingmen) and Depth (everyone else). I include the ranking among the top 100 for reference. There are only 82 of these rankings, because 18 teams pre-date BPM/VORP, so I only have 82 to work with. I'm not saying that these are particularly meaningful, I just thought they were cool.
Playoff Offensive Rating: Amount by which your playoff offensive rating exceeds the offensive rating you'd expect given the regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents. If you would be expected to post a 99 given your opponents but you post a 104, that's graded as +5. This way we can compare across eras.
Playoff Defensive Rating is the same as Offensive Rating, just the opposite.
Playoff SRS: Is SRS measured *only* in the playoffs. Overall SRS is a mix of both playoffs and regular season.
Total SRS Increase Through Playoffs: Basically their Overall SRS minus their Regular Season SRS. This is basically how much better a team did in the playoffs than you'd guess, relative to their regular season performance.
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: The average regular season offensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Average Playoff Opponent Defense: The average regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Rankings of any kind are out of my list. So if I say that the '91 Lakers had the 42nd best regular season offense, I don't mean "42nd best of All-Time", I mean "42nd best of my Top 100 Teams of All_Time". Which will be pretty comparable, but I want to be clear about this.
I also walk through the playoffs at each round, covering their opponent their SRS (at that time), how many games the series was, the margin of victory (and a "+" is always in the favor of the discussed team; losing a series by +2.0 means that you outscored the other team by two points a game on average despite losing) and for reference I put in an SRS equivalency (beat a +5 SRS team by 5 points a game, that's an equivalent +10 SRS series).
In later entries I also add the Offensive and Defensive Ratings for each playoff series. This is just how well the team did, adjusted by the opponent's regular season average (if you play a team with an average Defensive Rating of 102, and you play them with an offensive rating of 106, you get credited with a +4). Pace for teams below 1973 or so is estimated based on regular season numbers, so it could easily be wrong by some.
In writeups, if I ever say a player shot at "-8%" or something, that means "his true shooting was 8% lower than the league average that year". Any time I say "a player shot" and follow it by a percent, I am *always* using true shooting percentage unless otherwise indicated.
I also have a modern comps section for any teams pre-2011. It's basically me weighting each statistical characteristic and feeding each player's stats into the BackPicks database and choosing the best-rated comp from the list. I might list something like this:
PG: 2017 LeBron James (worse rebounding, better passing, way fewer shots)
What I mean is, "This team's point guard was basically 2017 LeBron James, but make his passing better, make his rebounding worse and make him take way fewer shots).
Anyhow. I don't know how clear any of this will be, so please let me know what does and doesn't work from these writeups. And thanks for reading!
Standard Deviations: Standard Deviations of Overall SRS from the league mean.
When I post the roster makeup of the team, I try and do it by playoff minutes. The numbers are age, regular season BPM and Playoff BPM (basketball-reference's BPM is being used here).
So if I say: "C: Vlade Divac (22), +2.3 / +4.3" I mean that Vlade Divac was their center, he was 22, he had a BPM of +2.3 in the regular season and a +4.3 in the playoffs. Yes, BPM misses out on a lot of subtle stuff but I thought it a good quick-hits indicator of the skills of the players.
I also list the playoff players (20+ MPG) in order of OLoad (which is usage that integrates assists) and it has everyone's per game average for minutes, points, rebounds, assists and stocks (steals plus blocks), but all of those (including minutes) are adjusted for pace.
I then cover the three highest players in scoring per 100 (with their true shooting relative to league average) and the three highest players in Assists per 100. I realize that these are arbitrary, but I wanted a quick-hits reference for how these teams' offenses ran.
I then talk about Heliocentrism, Wingmen and Depth. Basically I add up all of the team's VORP (again, basketball-reference) and then figure out what percentage of that VORP comes from the #1 player (Heliocentrism), from the #2 and 3 players combined (Wingmen) and Depth (everyone else). I include the ranking among the top 100 for reference. There are only 82 of these rankings, because 18 teams pre-date BPM/VORP, so I only have 82 to work with. I'm not saying that these are particularly meaningful, I just thought they were cool.
Playoff Offensive Rating: Amount by which your playoff offensive rating exceeds the offensive rating you'd expect given the regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents. If you would be expected to post a 99 given your opponents but you post a 104, that's graded as +5. This way we can compare across eras.
Playoff Defensive Rating is the same as Offensive Rating, just the opposite.
Playoff SRS: Is SRS measured *only* in the playoffs. Overall SRS is a mix of both playoffs and regular season.
Total SRS Increase Through Playoffs: Basically their Overall SRS minus their Regular Season SRS. This is basically how much better a team did in the playoffs than you'd guess, relative to their regular season performance.
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: The average regular season offensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Average Playoff Opponent Defense: The average regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Rankings of any kind are out of my list. So if I say that the '91 Lakers had the 42nd best regular season offense, I don't mean "42nd best of All-Time", I mean "42nd best of my Top 100 Teams of All_Time". Which will be pretty comparable, but I want to be clear about this.
I also walk through the playoffs at each round, covering their opponent their SRS (at that time), how many games the series was, the margin of victory (and a "+" is always in the favor of the discussed team; losing a series by +2.0 means that you outscored the other team by two points a game on average despite losing) and for reference I put in an SRS equivalency (beat a +5 SRS team by 5 points a game, that's an equivalent +10 SRS series).
In later entries I also add the Offensive and Defensive Ratings for each playoff series. This is just how well the team did, adjusted by the opponent's regular season average (if you play a team with an average Defensive Rating of 102, and you play them with an offensive rating of 106, you get credited with a +4). Pace for teams below 1973 or so is estimated based on regular season numbers, so it could easily be wrong by some.
In writeups, if I ever say a player shot at "-8%" or something, that means "his true shooting was 8% lower than the league average that year". Any time I say "a player shot" and follow it by a percent, I am *always* using true shooting percentage unless otherwise indicated.
I also have a modern comps section for any teams pre-2011. It's basically me weighting each statistical characteristic and feeding each player's stats into the BackPicks database and choosing the best-rated comp from the list. I might list something like this:
PG: 2017 LeBron James (worse rebounding, better passing, way fewer shots)
What I mean is, "This team's point guard was basically 2017 LeBron James, but make his passing better, make his rebounding worse and make him take way fewer shots).
Anyhow. I don't know how clear any of this will be, so please let me know what does and doesn't work from these writeups. And thanks for reading!
#8. The 2001 Los Angeles Lakers
Spoiler:
Overall SRS: +12.20, Standard Deviations: +2.47, Won NBA Finals (Preseason 1st)
PG: Derek Fisher, +0.2 / +3.2
SG: Kobe Bryant, +4.8 / +6.5
SF: Rick Fox, +0.5 / +1.5
PF: Horace Grant, +0.0 / -0.5
C: Shaquille O’Neal, +7.7 / +6.5
6th: Robert Horry, -0.4 / +3.7
Regular Season Metrics:
Regular Season Record: 56-26, Regular Season SRS: +3.74 (92nd), Earned the 2 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +5.4 (26th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: +1.8 (100th)
Shooting Advantage: +2.0%, Possession Advantage: -0.4 shooting possessions per game
Kobe Bryant (SG, 22): 45 MPPG, 31% OLoad, 31 / 6 / 5 / 3 on +3.4%
Shaquille O’Neal (C, 28): 43 MPPG, 30% OLoad, 31 / 14 / 4 / 4 on +5.6%
Rick Fox (SF, 31): 31 MPPG, 17% OLoad, 11 / 4 / 4 / 1 on +4.4%
Derek Fisher (PG, 26): 39 MPPG, 17% OLoad, 13 / 3 / 5 / 2 on +1.6%
Robert Horry (PF, 30): 22 MPPG, 15% OLoad, 6 / 4 / 2 / 2 on -2.9%
Horace Grant (PF, 35): 34 MPPG, 13% OLoad, 9 / 8 / 2 / 2 on -0.7%
Scoring/100: Shaquille O’Neal (38.0 / +5.6%), Kobe Bryant (36.4 / +3.4%), Rick Fox (18.0 / +4.4%)
Assists/100: Kobe Bryant (6.4), Derek Fisher (6.4), Rick Fox (6.0)
Heliocentrism: 48.6% (9th of 84 teams) - Shaq
Wingmen: 41.9% (25th) - Bryant & Fox
Depth: 9.5% (76th)
Playoff Metrics:
Playoff Offensive Rating: +12.2 (3rd), Playoff Defensive Rating: -7.5 (24th)
Playoff SRS: +18.39 (2nd), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +8.46 (1st)
Shooting Advantage: +5.4%, Possession Advantage: +2.4 shooting possessions per game
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.39 (51st), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -3.61 (16th)
Kobe Bryant (SG, 22): 48 MPPG, 30% OLoad, 33 / 8 / 7 / 3 on +3.7%
Shaquille O’Neal (C, 28): 47 MPPG, 30% OLoad, 34 / 17 / 4 / 3 on +4.6%
Rick Fox (SF, 31): 40 MPPG, 15% OLoad, 11 / 6 / 4 / 3 on +4.5%
Derek Fisher (PG, 26): 40 MPPG, 14% OLoad, 15 / 4 / 3 / 2 on +10.0%
Robert Horry (PF, 30): 27 MPPG, 14% OLoad, 7 / 6 / 2 / 3 on -3.2%
Horace Grant (PF, 35): 29 MPPG, 13% OLoad, 7 / 7 / 1 / 2 on -7.8%
Scoring/100: Shaquille O’Neal (37.6 / +4.6%), Kobe Bryant (35.4 / +3.7%), Derek Fisher (19.5 / +10.0%)
Assists/100: Kobe Bryant (7.3), Rick Fox (5.2), Derek Harper (5.0)
Playoff Heliocentrism: 28.3% (71st of 84 teams) - Kobe
Playoff Wingmen: 41.5% (34th) - Shaq & Fisher
Playoff Depth: 30.2% (22nd)
Round 1: Portland Trail Blazers (+4.5), won 3-0, by +14.7 points per game (+19.2 SRS eq)
Round 2: Sacramento Kings (+7.6), won 4-0, by +9.2 points per game (+16.8 SRS eq)
Round 3: San Antonio Spurs (+10.3), won 4-0, by +18.2 points per game (+28.5 SRS eq)
Round 4: Philadelphia 76ers (+4.2), won 4-1, by +6.8 points per game (+11.0 SRS eq)
Offensive / Defensive Ratings from Opposition Regular Season Average:
Portland Trail Blazers: +11.8 / -9.0
Sacramento Kings: +11.1 / -4.6
San Antonio Spurs: +17.1 / -16.2
Philadelphia 76ers: +11.1 / -1.0
Shooting Advantage / Possession Advantage per game (unadjusted):
Portland Trail Blazers: +2.0% / +10.5
Sacramento Kings: +5.7% / -1.8
San Antonio Spurs: +7.3% / +8.7
Philadelphia 76ers: +5.9% / -4.0
Postseason Usage/Efficiency Change adjusted for Opposition:
Derek Fisher: -1.1% / +10.5%
Kobe Bryant: -1.5% / +2.4%
Rick Fox: -2.6% / +2.2%
Horace Grant: -0.1% / -5.0%
Shaquille O’Neal: +0.4% / +1.1%
Robert Horry: -0.7% / +1.8%
Narratives are funny things. If you mention the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, it often evokes a sense of awe, a sense of “how was anyone supposed to stop two of the greatest scorers ever?” Shaq, perhaps the most athletically dominant center since Wilt with a sneaky amount of skill and Kobe with his youthful athleticism, obsessive work-ethic and alpha (mamba came later) mentality. They represented a relatively unusual instance of two great players on the same team. If you look at the RealGM Top 100 Players (top 15 only), you’ve got Magc + Kareem (peak and post-peak), Wilt + West (both old), Kareem + Oscar (Oscar being old) and Shaq and Kobe (legitimate shot at Curry and Durant qualifying for this list at some point). Rarely are two such talents combined onto the same roster when both are at their peak (or close to it).
But this goes beyond mere stars. Since the Russell Celtics there have been only three three-peats. Two were the Jordan Bulls (91-93 and 96-98) and the third was the 00-02 Shaq/Kobe Lakers. And, gonna spoil it here, those six Bulls teams didn’t come close to losing. In 24 playoff series they got taken to Game 7 only twice. Was it because their teams simply didn’t have tough competition? They actually did face strong teams, if not 2011-2020 strong teams (for whatever reason the last decade has been aberrantly dense with great teams). So anyhow. Imagine that you’re a basketball fan. From ‘91-93 the Bulls stomp everyone. Then in ‘96-98 they do it again. And then in ‘00-02 the Lakers three-peat as well. Isn’t it intuitive to put those Lakers teams on the same level? As a representation of total dominance?
But here’s the weird thing. The 2000-02 Lakers actually weren’t that dominant. In 2000 their RSRS was quite good (+8.41, 17th on this list) and they won, though came extremely close to losing to the ‘00 Blazers. In 2002 their RSRS was +7.15 (38th on this list) and they won, but came extremely close to losing to the ‘02 Kings. In ‘03 the same basic team fell to the Duncan Spurs, and in ‘04 a souped up (if old and oft-injured) version of the roster fell hard to the ‘04 Pistons. And in 2001 their team had a really, really low RSRS (+3.74, 92nd on the list). I can go on about this if necessary. From 2000-02 the Lakers were very good. But they weren’t at the level of the Jordan Bulls, and it wasn’t that close. Here’s a stem and leaf of those nine teams’ RSRSs:
11 | ‘96 Bulls
10 | ‘92 Bulls, ‘97 Bulls
9 |
8 | ‘91 Bulls, ‘00 Lakers
7 | ‘98 Bulls, ‘02 Lakers
6 | ‘93 Bulls
5 |
4 |
3 | ‘01 Lakers
Okay, so the Lakers come out looking far worse there. But Shaq and Kobe turned it on in the playoffs, right? Surely they’ll stack up there! How about Playoff SRS?
16| ‘96 Bulls
15|
14| ‘91 Bulls
13|
12| ‘98 Bulls
11| ‘92 Bulls, ‘97 Bulls
10| ‘93 Bulls, ‘02 Lakers
9 |
8 |
7 | ‘00 Lakers
Uh, wow. The ‘00 Lakers were *by far* the weakest of the nine playoff teams, and the ‘02 Lakers were only comparable to the worst of the Bulls. Not all three-peats are created equal.
So here’s my thesis, basically. We remember the Shaq/Kobe Lakers as unstoppable, not unlike the Jordan Bulls. But the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were, comparatively, fairly stoppable. In ‘00 and ‘02 they were great teams, but they only finished #68 and #36 on this list, while only the ‘93 Bulls finished out of the Top 20. The sheer brutal dominance that we remember Shaq and Kobe for came from three things:
1) The fact that they won three championships in a row, which counts;
2) Their proximity to the Jordan Bulls helped them to be painted with the same brush;
3) The 2001 playoffs.
Seriously. Delete the 2001 playoffs and suddenly the ‘00-04 Lakers look like a very strong team that *happened* to win several championships in a five-year span. It wasn’t like nobody could beat Shaq and Kobe together; the Spurs did it, the Pistons did it and the Blazers and Kings came stupid close to doing it. So, I maintain, part of their reputation comes from coincidence, luck and association.
But a big part of it was sixteen games in the spring of 2001. A mere sixteen games. Sixteen games against outstanding competition (Top 20 for both opponent quality and opponent defenses, but among champions 6th in opponent quality and 8th in opponent defenses). And for those sixteen games, the Lakers were about as close to unstoppable as we’ve seen.
There’s a great quote about Hall of Fame pitcher Steve Carlton from his longtime catcher Tim McGarver: “Carlton does not pitch to the hitter, he pitches through him. The batter hardly exists for Steve. He’s playing an elevated game of catch.”
The 2001 Los Angeles Lakers, in the playoffs, were not playing opponents they were playing *through* opponents.
A part of me wants to talk about all the drama. About Kobe demanding to be treated like a veteran and equal to Shaq. About Shaq wanting to be the center of attention. About Phil Jackson telling Shaq to take it easy in the offseason to let his body recover. About Kobe busting his butt in workouts/training and resenting Shaq for showing up to camp out of shape. About two transcendent talents, each insecure about a different thing. Shaq wanted to be loved and given attention, Kobe craved respect. But I don’t know how much it adds, save that the locker room for this team was unpleasantly tense.
And their regular season was a shambles. They had the 9th worst RSRS on this list.
It’s worth mentioning that the ‘01 Lakers are a pretty effective litmus test for a team ranking system. If it weighs the regular season heavily, the ‘01 Lakers will show quite low because their regular season sucked, as far as an ATG list goes. And if it weighs playoff performance heavily, they’ll show very high, because their playoffs were on another level.
Anyhow. Their regular season was a disaster. And it wasn’t that they played badly per se. It’s that they were absolutely wrecked by injuries. Shaq missed 8 games. Kobe missed 14 games. Horace Grant missed 5 games. Derek Fisher missed the first SIXTY TWO games of the season. Ron Harper filled in at PG, but was knocked out of the regular season at game 47. Pretty much the only starter who didn’t miss time was Rick Fox, whose reward was getting a solid role in “Eddie”, a dubious honor since John Salley carried that film anyways (Eddie was released 5 years before this season, I’m just joshing).
I’d love to say that the problems the Lakers had in the regular season were all health related. And I’m sure there’s something to that. But the pattern isn’t entirely clear. When the team was totally healthy (a whopping nine game sample size) they went 6-3 with a +6.8 MoV. Good, but not really blowing anyone’s mind. For the record, here are the breakdowns with the three major time-missers (not adjusted for opponent):
With Shaq, Kobe and Fisher: 7-3, +7.8 MoV
With Shaq & Kobe, no Fisher: 33-17, +3.1 MoV
With Shaq & Fisher, no Kobe: 8-2, +2.3 MoV
With Shaq, no Kobe or Fisher: 3-1, +0.75 MoV
With Kobe, no Shaq or Fisher: 5-3, +2.25 MoV
The wacky thing is, this cursory WOWY analysis makes Fisher look like part of the Big 3, that the team simply didn’t work that well without him. His box-score stats don’t jump off the page (save that he was certainly a better floor-spacer than Harper or Brian Shaw) but his AuRPM with the Lakers was consistently excellent, posting above +3 each year from ‘99 to ‘02, and at +4.5 for 2001 and 2002. According to AuRPM, Fisher was the 20th best player in the league (when on the court) in 2001 (for comparison, Shaq was 2nd and Kobe 8th). How much do I buy all this? I’m not sure; there is little in his box score metrics to suggest that he was a game-changer. Maybe this Lakers offense really needed a PG who was a team-first guy who could also space the floor? And all their other 1s either failed the former criteria (Isaiah Rider) or the latter (Harper and Brian Shaw). Maybe if Rick Fox was the only floor-spacer on the floor Kobe and Shaq couldn’t get enough room to operate? Purely speculative here.
All we really can say definitively is that 1) the Lakers’ best players missed a lot of time to injury; 2) their starting lineup got only nine games together all year and 3) Derek Fisher was a mysteriously critical part of their roster, and missing him for sixty games really stung.
That said, the team was clearly built around Shaq and Kobe. In 2001 Kobe came into his own offensively, at the ripe old age of 22. He rolled at a very high usage rate, shooting at a few percent above league average, capable from anywhere on the floor. His three point shooting wasn’t a strength (30.5%), and he was good (but not great) at the rim (65.3%) but attacked often enough to generate a lot of trips to the line. And Kobe reigned in the mid-range, shooting from the post almost as well as Shaq (40.9% vs 41.7%) and drilling 10-16 footers at a 46.2% clip. He combined his score-from-anywhere game with solid passing.
On the inside was Shaquille O’Neal. Shaq was a bull on the glass, consistently posting top marks in offensive rebounding. And he was an unusually capable (if not great) distributor for a big man. If I set the requirements at 16 rebounds per 100, 2500 total minutes, more than 4.5 assists per 100 and less than 4.5 turnovers per 100, Shaq has two seasons in that range (2000 and 2001). That may not sound great, but only five players ever have more than one (Carlos Boozer and Wes Unseld have two, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett have six apiece). But it’s impossible to talk about him without his scoring. In the post-1974 era Shaq stands alone as a big-man scorer. There are simply zero players at 16 rebounds per 100 who scored more than 37 per 100 besides him (and he did it three times). Shaq was capable out to 16 feet (41.7% in the 3-10 and 37.5% from 10-16) but he dominated at the rim. In 2001 Shaq took almost 43% of his shots at the rim, and converted them at an unbelievable 79.2%. Put it all together and Shaq was an offensive dynamo, and could even be a skilled defender when motivated.
Both players were 30%+ usage, which meant that the rest of the roster was built around low-usage specialists. Fisher, when healthy, represented something of the quintessential Phil Jackson point guard. Which is to say, a strong floor-spacer who passed well when needed and didn’t turn the ball over. Rick Fox was a do-everything floor spacer, who took a lot of threes (making them at 39.3%) but also finishing at the rim well when set up. Horace Grant (who had played for Jackson in Chicago) was clearly past his prime but still played strong defense and canned long twos at a weirdly high 44.8% rate. And Robert Horry, a classic fit for this sort of team, played great defense and shot a ton of threes for a big. It was a supporting cast built around spacing the floor for Shaq and Kobe (both of whom lived inside the arc), playing good defense and not screwing anything up.
So the Lakers, at the intersection of all of these factors, put up a pretty disappointing RSRS (+3.74) but somehow managed to win 56 games in spite of that. And in a very competitive Western Conference, that somehow was enough to get a 2 seed, even though they had only the 6th best SRS in the conference.
In the first round the Lakers drew the Blazers, a team that had taken them to the brink the year prior. In 2001 the Blazers weren’t as good as in 2000, but they were still a +4.5 SRS team (an unusually tough first-round matchup). In retrospect, I’m curious about how the game was billed. A rematch, certainly. But even with the Blazers having had a better SRS in the regular season, I think people had to give the Lakers a fair amount of credit given that they went 15-5 since Fisher had come back. It promised to be a good series.
It wasn’t.
I’m going to do every single game in this playoffs. Because they sure as heck earned it.
Game 1, 4/22/01, LA: The Blazers played the Lakers tough. Shaq struggled with a 24/20/1 on -8.3% shooting (the ‘Sheed / Saba frontcourt was never an easy matchup for him). But Kobe posted a 28 / 6 / 7 on +3.6% (2 steals, no turnovers) and Fisher had a 21/3/3 on +31.3%. The Blazers managed to stay within 2 going into the fourth but the Lakers pulled away, led by Kobe scoring 15 in the final period. Lakers by 13, 1-0.
Game 2, 4/26/01, LA: The two teams actually played each other tight shooting-wise. Kobe had an insane scoring game with a 25/3/7 on +29.4% (3 steals) and the Lakers absolutely owned possession. The Lakers generated 11 steals compared to 6 from Portland (Fox had 5) and the Lakers held the Blazers to only 7 offensive rebounds all game (Shaq alone grabbed 6). All of these combined to give the Lakers a 21-shot advantage. Lakers by 18. 2-0.
Game 3, 4/29/01, POR: The Lakers played absolutely smothering defense, holding Portland to -5.9% shooting as a team, and both Rasheed Wallace and Scottie Pippen to -25% or lower. The Lakers’ offense had a merely strong game, with Derek Fisher posting a 17/8/6 on +8.1% with 0 turnovers and 2 steals. Lakers by 13, 3-0.
Series Summary: Lakers sweep the Blazers, never winning by less than 13. Complete domination of an all-around solid team.
In the Semis the Lakers faced the Sacramento Kings (the team that would give them such a tussle in 2002). The Kings were no joke; they posted a +6.07 RSRS and then whipped the +2.6 Suns in the first round by 9.5 a game. Not only did the Lakers draw a +4.5 team in the first round (unusually tough) but they drew a +7.6 for the semis (which, again, is a crazy tough matchup for the second round).
Game 1, 5/6/01, LA: The Kings fought hard the entire game. Shaq put the offense on his back and carried, posting a stupendous 44/21/4 on +2.7% (7 blocks and only 2 turnovers on 39.5% usage). That really happened. 44 points, 11 offensive boards, 7 blocks. Hide your kids, hide your wife. That said the Kings had a balanced offensive game themselves and the Lakers only really managed an advantage in possession. Lakers by 3, 1-0.
Game 2, 5/8/01, LA: The Lakers defense played fantastically, shutting down the Kings’ offense (-7.2% as a team) but the Lakers’ role players struggled to score (anyone not named Kobe, Shaq, Fox or Grant shot 2 of 22 from the field). Shaq again posted an insane stat line, with a 43/20/2 on +16% (7 offensive boards, 3 blocks, 5 turnovers). It was another tight contest, but between Shaq’s dominant game and the Lakers’ outstanding defensive effort the Lakers prevailed. Lakers by 6, 2-0.
Game 3, 5/11/01, SAC: The first game in Sacramento did not go well for the home team. Once again the Lakers’ absolutely locked down the Kings’ shooters (-11.4% as a team, every single player on the entire roster shooting below league average). Kobe’s statline (36/7/4 on +7.5%) wasn’t as good as it looked (5 turnovers, no offensive boards) but it was easily enough as the Lakers dominated pole to pole. There was no point in the entire game where the Kings had the lead. Lakers by 22, 3-0.
Game 4, 5/13/01, SAC: The Kings pulled out all the stops and played the Lakers tight, even managing to lead by 4 going into the fourth (the first time so far in the playoffs where the Lakers hadn’t led going into the final period). But in the last quarter Kobe scored 15 on only 11 possessions, the Lakers tied the game up only 1:22 into the quarter and never trailed again. Kobe posted a 48/16/3 on +12.4% (9 offensive boards, 2 steals, only 2 turnovers). Lakers by 6, 4-0.
Series Summary: The Kings were, by every objective measure, a borderline contender, better than any team in the East and probably the 3rd best team in the league. The Lakers swept them by 9.25 points per game. Several of the games were close, but in none were the Kings leading with even 8 minutes left in the game. The Lakers (behind some historically great performances from Shaq and Kobe) posted a second series with an adjusted offensive rating above +11.
The Lakers advanced to the Conference Finals. And waiting there were the one-seeded San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs had won the championship only two years earlier, had the league’s best record, the league’s best defense, the league’s best RSRS (+7.92) and had AuRPM’s best player in the league (Tim Duncan). They had also stomped their way through the playoffs so far. In the semis they played the +6.0 Dallas Mavericks (ft. Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash) and absolutely pulverized them, winning by 11.6 points per game and shutting down their offense. It was set up to be a clash of titans, the two last two champions, the two best teams in the league, the two best big men in the league, who had between them lost only two games in four series in a loaded Western Conference. It was obvious, to anyone paying attention, that this was going to be one of the greatest series in history. And it was, if not in the way anyone expected.
Game 1, 5/19/01, SA: The Spurs didn’t have the lead at any point outside of the first quarter. The Spurs who weren’t Tim Duncan struggled to score (Duncan posted a 28/14/6 on +5.9%, with 5 blocks but 7 turnovers and only 3 offensive boards) while the team overall shot only -0.2%. Kobe posted a gaudy 45/10/3 on +6.6% (4 turnovers) and the Lakers got a 10 shot advantage that they leveraged well. The clash of titans hadn’t happened yet, but the series was young. Lakers by 14, 1-0.
Game 2, 5/21/01, SA: Tim Duncan played an outstanding game (40/15/3 on +15% with 4 blocks, 6 offensive boards but 6 turnovers) but the rest of the Spurs were held to 12 of 45 from the floor. The Lakers’ offense wasn’t scintillating (they shot -1.2% as a team) and Shaq was held to a 19/14/4 on -11.6% but given how completely they shut the Spurs down it was more than enough. Lakers by 7, 2-0.
Game 3, 5/25/01, LA: After the Lakers taking the first two games in San Antonio fairly comfortably, it was unknown what would happen when the series went to LA. Well, let me tell you what happened. Tim Duncan was finally held to a bad game, a 9/13/4 on -26.1% (but with 4 steals and 4 blocks). And, as you might guess, with Duncan not scoring the entire Spurs offense basically acted like their health bar had run out in Mortal Kombat and simply reeled in place, waiting to be uppercutted off the bridge. The Lakers obliged them. Kobe posted a 36/9/8 on +6.3%, Shaq had a 35/17/3 on +13.1% and the Lakers Fatalitied the Spurs into oblivion. Lakers by 39, 3-0.
Game 4, 5/27/01, LA: Game 3 had been a complete surprise, with the Lakers running the Spurs off the court like a JV team that had snuck onto the varsity court. The question of the series was quickly becoming not “Who will win?” but “When the Spurs lose, will they retain any dignity?” The answer to that question would be a resounding negative. Duncan took a more passive role on offense (15/7/1 on +1.8% with 4 blocks) while David Robinson increased his scoring load to 29.6% usage. And we all know what happens when Robinson’s usage increases; he posted a stinker of a 12/11/1 on -16.8%. In the meantime Kobe posted a 24/2/11 on +7.3% (2 steals) while Fisher had a 28/6/5 on +52.4% and the Lakers closed out the series in dominant fashion. Lakers by 19, 4-0.
Series Summary: The Lakers swept the Spurs by 18.2 points per game. This series would be pretty impressive against a normal first-round opponent. But the Spurs were objectively the 2nd best team in the league, and may have been considered the best team in the league before this series. I say this without exaggeration: the Lakers complete obliteration of the Spurs in the 2001 Western Conference Finals may have been the most dominant postseason performance . . . ever. The Lakers held the Spurs to an offensive rating 16.2 points below their regular season average. That’s obscene. And yes, the 2001 Spurs were extremely dependent on Duncan to score, and so the Lakers constituted a tough matchup (with Grant/Horry/Shaq to throw at him). But the Spurs’ strength in those years was defense. And the Lakers went through them like crap through a goose, posting an adjusted +17.1 offensive rating. Shaq could be slowed at the rim, but not stopped, and the rest of the Lakers (with their specialization in mid-long twos and threes) were fascinatingly resilient to the Spurs’ historically great rim protection. I don’t want to make it like “Lakers > Spurs, obviously, for matchup reasons”. From 1999 to 2003 the Lakers only lost two playoff series; both were to the Spurs. These were the two best teams of those five years, pretty clearly. But in 2001, for whatever reason, it was not remotely a contest.
And in the NBA Finals waited, arguably, the weakest team the Lakers would face all playoffs. The +4.2 Philadelphia 76ers limped out of the Eastern Conference, being taken to seven by both the +2.7 Raptors and the +5.1 Bucks (with a +0.8 and +0.2 MoV respectively). They were led by a dominant defense with a dominant big-man defender in Dikembe Mutombo, and their offense was run by the wildly inefficient (but historically resilient) Allen Iverson. Iverson was like if you took what was unusual about Kobe’s scoring game and cranked it up to 11 (making him even higher volume, even more resilient, less efficient but also made him six inches shorter and made him 60 pounds lighter. He was a special player, but nobody was wondering if the Sixers would win the series. They were wondering if the Sixers would be able to win a *game*.
Game 1, 6/6/01, LA: The Sixers played the Lakers surprisingly tight, and the Lakers were held to below their regular season offensive rating. Shaq posted a strong 44/20/5 on +6.6%, while Kobe struggled with a 15/3/5 on -18.4% with 6 turnovers. And the Lakers were unable to slow the Sixers’ attack, allowing them to shoot +5.1% as a team. Iverson posted an impressive 48/5/6 on +1.6% with 5 steals and the game went to overtime. And in that overtime, for whatever reason, Iverson scored as many points (7) as the Lakers entire team did, and the Sixers somehow managed to win by 6. Much has been made about this game as a feather in Iverson’s cap. And some of that is fair; when you’re the leading scorer on the only team to beat the ‘01 Lakers, it’s a credit to your efforts. But the real story of the game was Kobe having by far his worst game of the playoffs. In sixteen games he posted game-level BPMs north of +10 five different times, and above +5 ten different times. This game, a -10.5, was by far his worst. It wouldn’t be fair to say that Kobe lost the game for the Lakers, but no more fair than to say that Iverson won it for the Sixers.. Sixers by 6, 0-1.
Game 2, 6/8/01, LA: it was a close game, but the Sixers didn’t lead at all after a minute into the third. The Lakers completely shut down the Sixers’ offense, holding them to -6.6% shooting and Iverson to a 23/4/3 on -14.4% shooting. In contrast Shaq had a 28/20/9 on +8% (8 blocks but 5 turnovers) and Kobe a 31/8/6 on +6.6% (2 steals). The rest of the Lakers didn’t shoot particularly well, but the duo was more than enough to lift the Lakers to the win. Lakers by 9, 1-1.
Game 3, 6/10/01, PHI: Again the Sixers played the Lakers tough, but still they didn’t lead past two minutes into the second quarter. Iverson posted a 35/12/4 on -2.8% (only 2 offensive boards, but only 1 turnover), the Sixers bought themselves 7 extra shooting possessions and Kobe was held to another limited game (32/6/3 on -2.8%). But the Lakers’ offense still worked well enough, with Shaq having a 30/12/3 on +10.8% and 4 blocks, and Robert Horry having an efficient 15/4/3 on +59.1% with 2 blocks in 24 minutes. Lakers by 5, 2-1.
Game 4, 6/13/01, PHI: This time the Sixers lost the lead at 7:30 to go in the first quarter and never got it back. The Lakers’ defense held the Sixers to -4.1% shooting and Iverson was held to an empty-calorie 35/4/4 on -3.4%. The Lakers’ offense shot well (+6.3% as a team) but was not powered by their stars. Fisher, Horry, Ron Harper and Tyronn Lue combined for 33 points on only 19.5 shooting possessions (8 of 12 from three) and with the Sixers shut down that was enough for a comfortable win. Lakers by 14, 3-1.
Game 5, 6/15/01, PHI: It was pretty much the same as the rest of the series. Iverson posted a gaudy point total with low efficiency and limited assists (37/3/2 on +0.3%), the Lakers held the Sixers to weak shooting as a team (-4.5% shooting) and the Sixers managed to squeeze out a lot of extra possessions (10.5) from rebounding and ball-control. And both Shaq and Kobe had decent games (Shaq with a 29/13/2 on +3.2% with 5 blocks but also 5 turnovers and Kobe having a 26/12/6 on +5.1%), but the role-players being the ones boosting the offense (Rick Fox and Derek Fisher combined to shoot 9 of 11 from three). In aggregate the Lakers shot +7.7% as a team. Lakers by 12, 4-1.
Series Summary: The Lakers won the series 4-1 by 6.8 points per game. Compared to the rest of their playoffs it was a merely strong showing, but it still counted. Kobe Bryant had his weakest series of the playoffs (25/8/6 on -1.7%) but the defense and the role players really stepped up to carry this one home. The Lakers had now repeated as champions, and concluded what, to that date, was the most dominant playoff run ever.
I have a weird theory about Bryant’s weak series against the Sixers. I’d imagine that Philly’s tough defense played a role, but I think that Kobe’s competitiveness may have gotten him into trouble. The similarities between Kobe and Iverson are obvious. But one thing that Iverson is remarkable for was his endurance. Iverson averaged 42 minutes per game in the regular season but 46.2 per game in the playoffs. Iverson played 47+ minutes in literally half of his playoff games that year. And, curiously, in the Finals when facing Iverson Kobe’s minutes jumped. He went from averaging 41.8 mpg in the first three rounds to 46.8 mpg in the Finals. And in the ‘01 playoffs Kobe’s minutes had a respectable inverse correlation to his performance (mpg to BPM had an R^2 of 0.26). His worst game of the playoffs was Game 1, when he played 47 minutes in regulation and then all of overtime, and his third worst game of the playoffs was when he played all 48 minutes in Game 3. Is this a real trend, or just a sixteen sample size mirage? I lean slightly toward the latter; in the regular season there was no such trend. But I 100% believe that Kobe played extra minutes to not be upstaged by Iverson. 100%.
So to what do we attribute this massive jump in performance in the playoffs? The 2001 Lakers’ improvement from the regular season to playoffs is easily the biggest ever. The easy way to paint it is that Shaq was just too dominant and the Lakers rode on his coattails. But Shaq’s BPM actually dropped in the playoffs from the regular season (though his scoring improved in both volume and efficiency). Yet VORP actually thinks Kobe became the better player in the ‘01 playoffs. Which is true? I think it’s unmistakable that Kobe played a lot of outstanding games in these playoffs. But look at the Lakers’ opponents. They’re pretty much all great defenses, and three of them were built around ATG defensive big men (‘Sheed/Saba, Duncan/Robinson and Mutombo). In short, Shaq played his sixteen games against one of the toughest defensive gauntlets a center has ever faced and did so while improving his usage *and* his efficiency (relative to the opposing defenses). So even if the overall metrics like Kobe, I cannot help but give Shaq the lion’s share of the credit here.
Do you know who the ‘01 Lakers remind me of a little? The mid-90s Rockets. Because the Rockets’ biggest matchups always seemed to be against dominant bigs who specialized at defense (Robinson and the Spurs, Ewing with the Knicks and young Shaq with the Magic). And Hakeem, for better or for worse, really could not be stopped by opposing centers. You know what else I’m reminded of? The ‘09 Finals. Because the Magic were so good at stopping attacks on the rim . . . except that Kobe didn’t need the rim to score.
On the defensive end (don't forget that the '01 Lakers posted the 24th best defensive rating on this list) I think they were well suited by matchups. The Lakers had a deep set of big-man defenders (Grant, Horry and Shaq) and all their Western Conference foes ran a lot of their offense through the frontcourt ('Sheed/Saba, Webber/Divac and Duncan/Robinson). So however good their defense was normally, I think they were unusually suited to the teams they faced here. And their weakest defensive series was against the Sixers, whose offense was all Iverson. But as for the Lakers' playoff offense . . .
My theory (besides the band finally getting back together, and some unusually hot shooting from the role-players (Fisher’s TS% jumped by 10% from the regular season to the playoffs after being adjusted for opposing defenses)) is that the Lakers had an unusually resilient offense. These great defensive teams dominated by stopping attacks at the rim. But the only Laker who depended on the rim was Shaq, and in his prime Shaq could really not be stopped. So you have dominant rim scoring (that the defense can’t take away), effective midrange scoring (that the defense couldn’t take away) and unusually hot three point shooting . . . it’s a lethal combination against any defense, but especially ones built on defensive bigs denying the paint. I don’t think that explains all of it; the Lakers posted four straight playoff series with adjusted offensive ratings at +11 or higher. It’s the 3rd highest playoff offensive rating on this list, and of the two ahead the ‘17 Cavs played a far weaker set of defenses. Only the ‘05 Suns posted both a better rating and against better defenses, but given that the Lakers did it over more games and didn’t sell out their roster construction for offense, I don’t think you would be wrong if you believed that the ‘01 Lakers boasted the best playoff offense ever. It was just a great team designed to take away its opponents strength and with a roster that came together for 16 amazing games.
The Lakers were nowhere near this good in 2000, nor would they be in 2002.
But in 2001, they planted their flag on such heights that it could be seen for miles.
12 | Lakers
11 |
10 |
9 |
8 |
7 | Spurs
6 |
5 | Hornets, Kings
4 | 76ers, Bucks
3 | Jazz, Mavericks
2 | Raptors, Rockets
1 | Wolves, Suns, Blazers
0 | Knicks, Sonics
-0 | Magic
-1 | Pacers, Nuggets
-2 | Heat, Celtics, Pistons, Clippers
-3 |
-4 | Cavs, Grizzlies
-5 | Nets, Hawks
-6 | Wizards
-7 |
-8 | Warriors
-9 | Bulls
-10|
So where to put the ‘01 Lakers? They had one of the very worst regular seasons on this list and one of the top two playoffs on this list. If you demand consistency from both, they should be lower. If all you care about is pure, unfiltered high-end dominance against the best the league can offer, they should be higher than this.
I confess myself blown away by their playoffs (possible exception of the Finals). You know what blows my mind? If the ‘01 Lakers had fatally crashed in a cornfield on the way to Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals the Spurs would have won the championship. Decisively. The Spurs were far and away the best team in the league that wasn’t the Lakers. And they got swept by 18 points a game.
I’ll tell you what. If I’m picking an all-time team playing at their best to defend my honor, there’s no way I don’t seriously consider the ‘01 Lakers. For a defensively-slanted era, they boasted the ultimate in resilient offense. The 2001 Western Conference was absolutely freaking loaded, and the Lakers went through them like Keyser Soze through the Hungarian mob. It’s hard to put them much higher on account of their regular season . . . but holy hell.
PG: Derek Fisher, +0.2 / +3.2
SG: Kobe Bryant, +4.8 / +6.5
SF: Rick Fox, +0.5 / +1.5
PF: Horace Grant, +0.0 / -0.5
C: Shaquille O’Neal, +7.7 / +6.5
6th: Robert Horry, -0.4 / +3.7
Regular Season Metrics:
Regular Season Record: 56-26, Regular Season SRS: +3.74 (92nd), Earned the 2 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +5.4 (26th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: +1.8 (100th)
Shooting Advantage: +2.0%, Possession Advantage: -0.4 shooting possessions per game
Kobe Bryant (SG, 22): 45 MPPG, 31% OLoad, 31 / 6 / 5 / 3 on +3.4%
Shaquille O’Neal (C, 28): 43 MPPG, 30% OLoad, 31 / 14 / 4 / 4 on +5.6%
Rick Fox (SF, 31): 31 MPPG, 17% OLoad, 11 / 4 / 4 / 1 on +4.4%
Derek Fisher (PG, 26): 39 MPPG, 17% OLoad, 13 / 3 / 5 / 2 on +1.6%
Robert Horry (PF, 30): 22 MPPG, 15% OLoad, 6 / 4 / 2 / 2 on -2.9%
Horace Grant (PF, 35): 34 MPPG, 13% OLoad, 9 / 8 / 2 / 2 on -0.7%
Scoring/100: Shaquille O’Neal (38.0 / +5.6%), Kobe Bryant (36.4 / +3.4%), Rick Fox (18.0 / +4.4%)
Assists/100: Kobe Bryant (6.4), Derek Fisher (6.4), Rick Fox (6.0)
Heliocentrism: 48.6% (9th of 84 teams) - Shaq
Wingmen: 41.9% (25th) - Bryant & Fox
Depth: 9.5% (76th)
Playoff Metrics:
Playoff Offensive Rating: +12.2 (3rd), Playoff Defensive Rating: -7.5 (24th)
Playoff SRS: +18.39 (2nd), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +8.46 (1st)
Shooting Advantage: +5.4%, Possession Advantage: +2.4 shooting possessions per game
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.39 (51st), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -3.61 (16th)
Kobe Bryant (SG, 22): 48 MPPG, 30% OLoad, 33 / 8 / 7 / 3 on +3.7%
Shaquille O’Neal (C, 28): 47 MPPG, 30% OLoad, 34 / 17 / 4 / 3 on +4.6%
Rick Fox (SF, 31): 40 MPPG, 15% OLoad, 11 / 6 / 4 / 3 on +4.5%
Derek Fisher (PG, 26): 40 MPPG, 14% OLoad, 15 / 4 / 3 / 2 on +10.0%
Robert Horry (PF, 30): 27 MPPG, 14% OLoad, 7 / 6 / 2 / 3 on -3.2%
Horace Grant (PF, 35): 29 MPPG, 13% OLoad, 7 / 7 / 1 / 2 on -7.8%
Scoring/100: Shaquille O’Neal (37.6 / +4.6%), Kobe Bryant (35.4 / +3.7%), Derek Fisher (19.5 / +10.0%)
Assists/100: Kobe Bryant (7.3), Rick Fox (5.2), Derek Harper (5.0)
Playoff Heliocentrism: 28.3% (71st of 84 teams) - Kobe
Playoff Wingmen: 41.5% (34th) - Shaq & Fisher
Playoff Depth: 30.2% (22nd)
Round 1: Portland Trail Blazers (+4.5), won 3-0, by +14.7 points per game (+19.2 SRS eq)
Round 2: Sacramento Kings (+7.6), won 4-0, by +9.2 points per game (+16.8 SRS eq)
Round 3: San Antonio Spurs (+10.3), won 4-0, by +18.2 points per game (+28.5 SRS eq)
Round 4: Philadelphia 76ers (+4.2), won 4-1, by +6.8 points per game (+11.0 SRS eq)
Offensive / Defensive Ratings from Opposition Regular Season Average:
Portland Trail Blazers: +11.8 / -9.0
Sacramento Kings: +11.1 / -4.6
San Antonio Spurs: +17.1 / -16.2
Philadelphia 76ers: +11.1 / -1.0
Shooting Advantage / Possession Advantage per game (unadjusted):
Portland Trail Blazers: +2.0% / +10.5
Sacramento Kings: +5.7% / -1.8
San Antonio Spurs: +7.3% / +8.7
Philadelphia 76ers: +5.9% / -4.0
Postseason Usage/Efficiency Change adjusted for Opposition:
Derek Fisher: -1.1% / +10.5%
Kobe Bryant: -1.5% / +2.4%
Rick Fox: -2.6% / +2.2%
Horace Grant: -0.1% / -5.0%
Shaquille O’Neal: +0.4% / +1.1%
Robert Horry: -0.7% / +1.8%
Narratives are funny things. If you mention the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, it often evokes a sense of awe, a sense of “how was anyone supposed to stop two of the greatest scorers ever?” Shaq, perhaps the most athletically dominant center since Wilt with a sneaky amount of skill and Kobe with his youthful athleticism, obsessive work-ethic and alpha (mamba came later) mentality. They represented a relatively unusual instance of two great players on the same team. If you look at the RealGM Top 100 Players (top 15 only), you’ve got Magc + Kareem (peak and post-peak), Wilt + West (both old), Kareem + Oscar (Oscar being old) and Shaq and Kobe (legitimate shot at Curry and Durant qualifying for this list at some point). Rarely are two such talents combined onto the same roster when both are at their peak (or close to it).
But this goes beyond mere stars. Since the Russell Celtics there have been only three three-peats. Two were the Jordan Bulls (91-93 and 96-98) and the third was the 00-02 Shaq/Kobe Lakers. And, gonna spoil it here, those six Bulls teams didn’t come close to losing. In 24 playoff series they got taken to Game 7 only twice. Was it because their teams simply didn’t have tough competition? They actually did face strong teams, if not 2011-2020 strong teams (for whatever reason the last decade has been aberrantly dense with great teams). So anyhow. Imagine that you’re a basketball fan. From ‘91-93 the Bulls stomp everyone. Then in ‘96-98 they do it again. And then in ‘00-02 the Lakers three-peat as well. Isn’t it intuitive to put those Lakers teams on the same level? As a representation of total dominance?
But here’s the weird thing. The 2000-02 Lakers actually weren’t that dominant. In 2000 their RSRS was quite good (+8.41, 17th on this list) and they won, though came extremely close to losing to the ‘00 Blazers. In 2002 their RSRS was +7.15 (38th on this list) and they won, but came extremely close to losing to the ‘02 Kings. In ‘03 the same basic team fell to the Duncan Spurs, and in ‘04 a souped up (if old and oft-injured) version of the roster fell hard to the ‘04 Pistons. And in 2001 their team had a really, really low RSRS (+3.74, 92nd on the list). I can go on about this if necessary. From 2000-02 the Lakers were very good. But they weren’t at the level of the Jordan Bulls, and it wasn’t that close. Here’s a stem and leaf of those nine teams’ RSRSs:
11 | ‘96 Bulls
10 | ‘92 Bulls, ‘97 Bulls
9 |
8 | ‘91 Bulls, ‘00 Lakers
7 | ‘98 Bulls, ‘02 Lakers
6 | ‘93 Bulls
5 |
4 |
3 | ‘01 Lakers
Okay, so the Lakers come out looking far worse there. But Shaq and Kobe turned it on in the playoffs, right? Surely they’ll stack up there! How about Playoff SRS?
16| ‘96 Bulls
15|
14| ‘91 Bulls
13|
12| ‘98 Bulls
11| ‘92 Bulls, ‘97 Bulls
10| ‘93 Bulls, ‘02 Lakers
9 |
8 |
7 | ‘00 Lakers
Uh, wow. The ‘00 Lakers were *by far* the weakest of the nine playoff teams, and the ‘02 Lakers were only comparable to the worst of the Bulls. Not all three-peats are created equal.
So here’s my thesis, basically. We remember the Shaq/Kobe Lakers as unstoppable, not unlike the Jordan Bulls. But the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were, comparatively, fairly stoppable. In ‘00 and ‘02 they were great teams, but they only finished #68 and #36 on this list, while only the ‘93 Bulls finished out of the Top 20. The sheer brutal dominance that we remember Shaq and Kobe for came from three things:
1) The fact that they won three championships in a row, which counts;
2) Their proximity to the Jordan Bulls helped them to be painted with the same brush;
3) The 2001 playoffs.
Seriously. Delete the 2001 playoffs and suddenly the ‘00-04 Lakers look like a very strong team that *happened* to win several championships in a five-year span. It wasn’t like nobody could beat Shaq and Kobe together; the Spurs did it, the Pistons did it and the Blazers and Kings came stupid close to doing it. So, I maintain, part of their reputation comes from coincidence, luck and association.
But a big part of it was sixteen games in the spring of 2001. A mere sixteen games. Sixteen games against outstanding competition (Top 20 for both opponent quality and opponent defenses, but among champions 6th in opponent quality and 8th in opponent defenses). And for those sixteen games, the Lakers were about as close to unstoppable as we’ve seen.
There’s a great quote about Hall of Fame pitcher Steve Carlton from his longtime catcher Tim McGarver: “Carlton does not pitch to the hitter, he pitches through him. The batter hardly exists for Steve. He’s playing an elevated game of catch.”
The 2001 Los Angeles Lakers, in the playoffs, were not playing opponents they were playing *through* opponents.
A part of me wants to talk about all the drama. About Kobe demanding to be treated like a veteran and equal to Shaq. About Shaq wanting to be the center of attention. About Phil Jackson telling Shaq to take it easy in the offseason to let his body recover. About Kobe busting his butt in workouts/training and resenting Shaq for showing up to camp out of shape. About two transcendent talents, each insecure about a different thing. Shaq wanted to be loved and given attention, Kobe craved respect. But I don’t know how much it adds, save that the locker room for this team was unpleasantly tense.
And their regular season was a shambles. They had the 9th worst RSRS on this list.
It’s worth mentioning that the ‘01 Lakers are a pretty effective litmus test for a team ranking system. If it weighs the regular season heavily, the ‘01 Lakers will show quite low because their regular season sucked, as far as an ATG list goes. And if it weighs playoff performance heavily, they’ll show very high, because their playoffs were on another level.
Anyhow. Their regular season was a disaster. And it wasn’t that they played badly per se. It’s that they were absolutely wrecked by injuries. Shaq missed 8 games. Kobe missed 14 games. Horace Grant missed 5 games. Derek Fisher missed the first SIXTY TWO games of the season. Ron Harper filled in at PG, but was knocked out of the regular season at game 47. Pretty much the only starter who didn’t miss time was Rick Fox, whose reward was getting a solid role in “Eddie”, a dubious honor since John Salley carried that film anyways (Eddie was released 5 years before this season, I’m just joshing).
I’d love to say that the problems the Lakers had in the regular season were all health related. And I’m sure there’s something to that. But the pattern isn’t entirely clear. When the team was totally healthy (a whopping nine game sample size) they went 6-3 with a +6.8 MoV. Good, but not really blowing anyone’s mind. For the record, here are the breakdowns with the three major time-missers (not adjusted for opponent):
With Shaq, Kobe and Fisher: 7-3, +7.8 MoV
With Shaq & Kobe, no Fisher: 33-17, +3.1 MoV
With Shaq & Fisher, no Kobe: 8-2, +2.3 MoV
With Shaq, no Kobe or Fisher: 3-1, +0.75 MoV
With Kobe, no Shaq or Fisher: 5-3, +2.25 MoV
The wacky thing is, this cursory WOWY analysis makes Fisher look like part of the Big 3, that the team simply didn’t work that well without him. His box-score stats don’t jump off the page (save that he was certainly a better floor-spacer than Harper or Brian Shaw) but his AuRPM with the Lakers was consistently excellent, posting above +3 each year from ‘99 to ‘02, and at +4.5 for 2001 and 2002. According to AuRPM, Fisher was the 20th best player in the league (when on the court) in 2001 (for comparison, Shaq was 2nd and Kobe 8th). How much do I buy all this? I’m not sure; there is little in his box score metrics to suggest that he was a game-changer. Maybe this Lakers offense really needed a PG who was a team-first guy who could also space the floor? And all their other 1s either failed the former criteria (Isaiah Rider) or the latter (Harper and Brian Shaw). Maybe if Rick Fox was the only floor-spacer on the floor Kobe and Shaq couldn’t get enough room to operate? Purely speculative here.
All we really can say definitively is that 1) the Lakers’ best players missed a lot of time to injury; 2) their starting lineup got only nine games together all year and 3) Derek Fisher was a mysteriously critical part of their roster, and missing him for sixty games really stung.
That said, the team was clearly built around Shaq and Kobe. In 2001 Kobe came into his own offensively, at the ripe old age of 22. He rolled at a very high usage rate, shooting at a few percent above league average, capable from anywhere on the floor. His three point shooting wasn’t a strength (30.5%), and he was good (but not great) at the rim (65.3%) but attacked often enough to generate a lot of trips to the line. And Kobe reigned in the mid-range, shooting from the post almost as well as Shaq (40.9% vs 41.7%) and drilling 10-16 footers at a 46.2% clip. He combined his score-from-anywhere game with solid passing.
On the inside was Shaquille O’Neal. Shaq was a bull on the glass, consistently posting top marks in offensive rebounding. And he was an unusually capable (if not great) distributor for a big man. If I set the requirements at 16 rebounds per 100, 2500 total minutes, more than 4.5 assists per 100 and less than 4.5 turnovers per 100, Shaq has two seasons in that range (2000 and 2001). That may not sound great, but only five players ever have more than one (Carlos Boozer and Wes Unseld have two, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett have six apiece). But it’s impossible to talk about him without his scoring. In the post-1974 era Shaq stands alone as a big-man scorer. There are simply zero players at 16 rebounds per 100 who scored more than 37 per 100 besides him (and he did it three times). Shaq was capable out to 16 feet (41.7% in the 3-10 and 37.5% from 10-16) but he dominated at the rim. In 2001 Shaq took almost 43% of his shots at the rim, and converted them at an unbelievable 79.2%. Put it all together and Shaq was an offensive dynamo, and could even be a skilled defender when motivated.
Both players were 30%+ usage, which meant that the rest of the roster was built around low-usage specialists. Fisher, when healthy, represented something of the quintessential Phil Jackson point guard. Which is to say, a strong floor-spacer who passed well when needed and didn’t turn the ball over. Rick Fox was a do-everything floor spacer, who took a lot of threes (making them at 39.3%) but also finishing at the rim well when set up. Horace Grant (who had played for Jackson in Chicago) was clearly past his prime but still played strong defense and canned long twos at a weirdly high 44.8% rate. And Robert Horry, a classic fit for this sort of team, played great defense and shot a ton of threes for a big. It was a supporting cast built around spacing the floor for Shaq and Kobe (both of whom lived inside the arc), playing good defense and not screwing anything up.
So the Lakers, at the intersection of all of these factors, put up a pretty disappointing RSRS (+3.74) but somehow managed to win 56 games in spite of that. And in a very competitive Western Conference, that somehow was enough to get a 2 seed, even though they had only the 6th best SRS in the conference.
In the first round the Lakers drew the Blazers, a team that had taken them to the brink the year prior. In 2001 the Blazers weren’t as good as in 2000, but they were still a +4.5 SRS team (an unusually tough first-round matchup). In retrospect, I’m curious about how the game was billed. A rematch, certainly. But even with the Blazers having had a better SRS in the regular season, I think people had to give the Lakers a fair amount of credit given that they went 15-5 since Fisher had come back. It promised to be a good series.
It wasn’t.
I’m going to do every single game in this playoffs. Because they sure as heck earned it.
Game 1, 4/22/01, LA: The Blazers played the Lakers tough. Shaq struggled with a 24/20/1 on -8.3% shooting (the ‘Sheed / Saba frontcourt was never an easy matchup for him). But Kobe posted a 28 / 6 / 7 on +3.6% (2 steals, no turnovers) and Fisher had a 21/3/3 on +31.3%. The Blazers managed to stay within 2 going into the fourth but the Lakers pulled away, led by Kobe scoring 15 in the final period. Lakers by 13, 1-0.
Game 2, 4/26/01, LA: The two teams actually played each other tight shooting-wise. Kobe had an insane scoring game with a 25/3/7 on +29.4% (3 steals) and the Lakers absolutely owned possession. The Lakers generated 11 steals compared to 6 from Portland (Fox had 5) and the Lakers held the Blazers to only 7 offensive rebounds all game (Shaq alone grabbed 6). All of these combined to give the Lakers a 21-shot advantage. Lakers by 18. 2-0.
Game 3, 4/29/01, POR: The Lakers played absolutely smothering defense, holding Portland to -5.9% shooting as a team, and both Rasheed Wallace and Scottie Pippen to -25% or lower. The Lakers’ offense had a merely strong game, with Derek Fisher posting a 17/8/6 on +8.1% with 0 turnovers and 2 steals. Lakers by 13, 3-0.
Series Summary: Lakers sweep the Blazers, never winning by less than 13. Complete domination of an all-around solid team.
In the Semis the Lakers faced the Sacramento Kings (the team that would give them such a tussle in 2002). The Kings were no joke; they posted a +6.07 RSRS and then whipped the +2.6 Suns in the first round by 9.5 a game. Not only did the Lakers draw a +4.5 team in the first round (unusually tough) but they drew a +7.6 for the semis (which, again, is a crazy tough matchup for the second round).
Game 1, 5/6/01, LA: The Kings fought hard the entire game. Shaq put the offense on his back and carried, posting a stupendous 44/21/4 on +2.7% (7 blocks and only 2 turnovers on 39.5% usage). That really happened. 44 points, 11 offensive boards, 7 blocks. Hide your kids, hide your wife. That said the Kings had a balanced offensive game themselves and the Lakers only really managed an advantage in possession. Lakers by 3, 1-0.
Game 2, 5/8/01, LA: The Lakers defense played fantastically, shutting down the Kings’ offense (-7.2% as a team) but the Lakers’ role players struggled to score (anyone not named Kobe, Shaq, Fox or Grant shot 2 of 22 from the field). Shaq again posted an insane stat line, with a 43/20/2 on +16% (7 offensive boards, 3 blocks, 5 turnovers). It was another tight contest, but between Shaq’s dominant game and the Lakers’ outstanding defensive effort the Lakers prevailed. Lakers by 6, 2-0.
Game 3, 5/11/01, SAC: The first game in Sacramento did not go well for the home team. Once again the Lakers’ absolutely locked down the Kings’ shooters (-11.4% as a team, every single player on the entire roster shooting below league average). Kobe’s statline (36/7/4 on +7.5%) wasn’t as good as it looked (5 turnovers, no offensive boards) but it was easily enough as the Lakers dominated pole to pole. There was no point in the entire game where the Kings had the lead. Lakers by 22, 3-0.
Game 4, 5/13/01, SAC: The Kings pulled out all the stops and played the Lakers tight, even managing to lead by 4 going into the fourth (the first time so far in the playoffs where the Lakers hadn’t led going into the final period). But in the last quarter Kobe scored 15 on only 11 possessions, the Lakers tied the game up only 1:22 into the quarter and never trailed again. Kobe posted a 48/16/3 on +12.4% (9 offensive boards, 2 steals, only 2 turnovers). Lakers by 6, 4-0.
Series Summary: The Kings were, by every objective measure, a borderline contender, better than any team in the East and probably the 3rd best team in the league. The Lakers swept them by 9.25 points per game. Several of the games were close, but in none were the Kings leading with even 8 minutes left in the game. The Lakers (behind some historically great performances from Shaq and Kobe) posted a second series with an adjusted offensive rating above +11.
The Lakers advanced to the Conference Finals. And waiting there were the one-seeded San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs had won the championship only two years earlier, had the league’s best record, the league’s best defense, the league’s best RSRS (+7.92) and had AuRPM’s best player in the league (Tim Duncan). They had also stomped their way through the playoffs so far. In the semis they played the +6.0 Dallas Mavericks (ft. Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash) and absolutely pulverized them, winning by 11.6 points per game and shutting down their offense. It was set up to be a clash of titans, the two last two champions, the two best teams in the league, the two best big men in the league, who had between them lost only two games in four series in a loaded Western Conference. It was obvious, to anyone paying attention, that this was going to be one of the greatest series in history. And it was, if not in the way anyone expected.
Game 1, 5/19/01, SA: The Spurs didn’t have the lead at any point outside of the first quarter. The Spurs who weren’t Tim Duncan struggled to score (Duncan posted a 28/14/6 on +5.9%, with 5 blocks but 7 turnovers and only 3 offensive boards) while the team overall shot only -0.2%. Kobe posted a gaudy 45/10/3 on +6.6% (4 turnovers) and the Lakers got a 10 shot advantage that they leveraged well. The clash of titans hadn’t happened yet, but the series was young. Lakers by 14, 1-0.
Game 2, 5/21/01, SA: Tim Duncan played an outstanding game (40/15/3 on +15% with 4 blocks, 6 offensive boards but 6 turnovers) but the rest of the Spurs were held to 12 of 45 from the floor. The Lakers’ offense wasn’t scintillating (they shot -1.2% as a team) and Shaq was held to a 19/14/4 on -11.6% but given how completely they shut the Spurs down it was more than enough. Lakers by 7, 2-0.
Game 3, 5/25/01, LA: After the Lakers taking the first two games in San Antonio fairly comfortably, it was unknown what would happen when the series went to LA. Well, let me tell you what happened. Tim Duncan was finally held to a bad game, a 9/13/4 on -26.1% (but with 4 steals and 4 blocks). And, as you might guess, with Duncan not scoring the entire Spurs offense basically acted like their health bar had run out in Mortal Kombat and simply reeled in place, waiting to be uppercutted off the bridge. The Lakers obliged them. Kobe posted a 36/9/8 on +6.3%, Shaq had a 35/17/3 on +13.1% and the Lakers Fatalitied the Spurs into oblivion. Lakers by 39, 3-0.
Game 4, 5/27/01, LA: Game 3 had been a complete surprise, with the Lakers running the Spurs off the court like a JV team that had snuck onto the varsity court. The question of the series was quickly becoming not “Who will win?” but “When the Spurs lose, will they retain any dignity?” The answer to that question would be a resounding negative. Duncan took a more passive role on offense (15/7/1 on +1.8% with 4 blocks) while David Robinson increased his scoring load to 29.6% usage. And we all know what happens when Robinson’s usage increases; he posted a stinker of a 12/11/1 on -16.8%. In the meantime Kobe posted a 24/2/11 on +7.3% (2 steals) while Fisher had a 28/6/5 on +52.4% and the Lakers closed out the series in dominant fashion. Lakers by 19, 4-0.
Series Summary: The Lakers swept the Spurs by 18.2 points per game. This series would be pretty impressive against a normal first-round opponent. But the Spurs were objectively the 2nd best team in the league, and may have been considered the best team in the league before this series. I say this without exaggeration: the Lakers complete obliteration of the Spurs in the 2001 Western Conference Finals may have been the most dominant postseason performance . . . ever. The Lakers held the Spurs to an offensive rating 16.2 points below their regular season average. That’s obscene. And yes, the 2001 Spurs were extremely dependent on Duncan to score, and so the Lakers constituted a tough matchup (with Grant/Horry/Shaq to throw at him). But the Spurs’ strength in those years was defense. And the Lakers went through them like crap through a goose, posting an adjusted +17.1 offensive rating. Shaq could be slowed at the rim, but not stopped, and the rest of the Lakers (with their specialization in mid-long twos and threes) were fascinatingly resilient to the Spurs’ historically great rim protection. I don’t want to make it like “Lakers > Spurs, obviously, for matchup reasons”. From 1999 to 2003 the Lakers only lost two playoff series; both were to the Spurs. These were the two best teams of those five years, pretty clearly. But in 2001, for whatever reason, it was not remotely a contest.
And in the NBA Finals waited, arguably, the weakest team the Lakers would face all playoffs. The +4.2 Philadelphia 76ers limped out of the Eastern Conference, being taken to seven by both the +2.7 Raptors and the +5.1 Bucks (with a +0.8 and +0.2 MoV respectively). They were led by a dominant defense with a dominant big-man defender in Dikembe Mutombo, and their offense was run by the wildly inefficient (but historically resilient) Allen Iverson. Iverson was like if you took what was unusual about Kobe’s scoring game and cranked it up to 11 (making him even higher volume, even more resilient, less efficient but also made him six inches shorter and made him 60 pounds lighter. He was a special player, but nobody was wondering if the Sixers would win the series. They were wondering if the Sixers would be able to win a *game*.
Game 1, 6/6/01, LA: The Sixers played the Lakers surprisingly tight, and the Lakers were held to below their regular season offensive rating. Shaq posted a strong 44/20/5 on +6.6%, while Kobe struggled with a 15/3/5 on -18.4% with 6 turnovers. And the Lakers were unable to slow the Sixers’ attack, allowing them to shoot +5.1% as a team. Iverson posted an impressive 48/5/6 on +1.6% with 5 steals and the game went to overtime. And in that overtime, for whatever reason, Iverson scored as many points (7) as the Lakers entire team did, and the Sixers somehow managed to win by 6. Much has been made about this game as a feather in Iverson’s cap. And some of that is fair; when you’re the leading scorer on the only team to beat the ‘01 Lakers, it’s a credit to your efforts. But the real story of the game was Kobe having by far his worst game of the playoffs. In sixteen games he posted game-level BPMs north of +10 five different times, and above +5 ten different times. This game, a -10.5, was by far his worst. It wouldn’t be fair to say that Kobe lost the game for the Lakers, but no more fair than to say that Iverson won it for the Sixers.. Sixers by 6, 0-1.
Game 2, 6/8/01, LA: it was a close game, but the Sixers didn’t lead at all after a minute into the third. The Lakers completely shut down the Sixers’ offense, holding them to -6.6% shooting and Iverson to a 23/4/3 on -14.4% shooting. In contrast Shaq had a 28/20/9 on +8% (8 blocks but 5 turnovers) and Kobe a 31/8/6 on +6.6% (2 steals). The rest of the Lakers didn’t shoot particularly well, but the duo was more than enough to lift the Lakers to the win. Lakers by 9, 1-1.
Game 3, 6/10/01, PHI: Again the Sixers played the Lakers tough, but still they didn’t lead past two minutes into the second quarter. Iverson posted a 35/12/4 on -2.8% (only 2 offensive boards, but only 1 turnover), the Sixers bought themselves 7 extra shooting possessions and Kobe was held to another limited game (32/6/3 on -2.8%). But the Lakers’ offense still worked well enough, with Shaq having a 30/12/3 on +10.8% and 4 blocks, and Robert Horry having an efficient 15/4/3 on +59.1% with 2 blocks in 24 minutes. Lakers by 5, 2-1.
Game 4, 6/13/01, PHI: This time the Sixers lost the lead at 7:30 to go in the first quarter and never got it back. The Lakers’ defense held the Sixers to -4.1% shooting and Iverson was held to an empty-calorie 35/4/4 on -3.4%. The Lakers’ offense shot well (+6.3% as a team) but was not powered by their stars. Fisher, Horry, Ron Harper and Tyronn Lue combined for 33 points on only 19.5 shooting possessions (8 of 12 from three) and with the Sixers shut down that was enough for a comfortable win. Lakers by 14, 3-1.
Game 5, 6/15/01, PHI: It was pretty much the same as the rest of the series. Iverson posted a gaudy point total with low efficiency and limited assists (37/3/2 on +0.3%), the Lakers held the Sixers to weak shooting as a team (-4.5% shooting) and the Sixers managed to squeeze out a lot of extra possessions (10.5) from rebounding and ball-control. And both Shaq and Kobe had decent games (Shaq with a 29/13/2 on +3.2% with 5 blocks but also 5 turnovers and Kobe having a 26/12/6 on +5.1%), but the role-players being the ones boosting the offense (Rick Fox and Derek Fisher combined to shoot 9 of 11 from three). In aggregate the Lakers shot +7.7% as a team. Lakers by 12, 4-1.
Series Summary: The Lakers won the series 4-1 by 6.8 points per game. Compared to the rest of their playoffs it was a merely strong showing, but it still counted. Kobe Bryant had his weakest series of the playoffs (25/8/6 on -1.7%) but the defense and the role players really stepped up to carry this one home. The Lakers had now repeated as champions, and concluded what, to that date, was the most dominant playoff run ever.
I have a weird theory about Bryant’s weak series against the Sixers. I’d imagine that Philly’s tough defense played a role, but I think that Kobe’s competitiveness may have gotten him into trouble. The similarities between Kobe and Iverson are obvious. But one thing that Iverson is remarkable for was his endurance. Iverson averaged 42 minutes per game in the regular season but 46.2 per game in the playoffs. Iverson played 47+ minutes in literally half of his playoff games that year. And, curiously, in the Finals when facing Iverson Kobe’s minutes jumped. He went from averaging 41.8 mpg in the first three rounds to 46.8 mpg in the Finals. And in the ‘01 playoffs Kobe’s minutes had a respectable inverse correlation to his performance (mpg to BPM had an R^2 of 0.26). His worst game of the playoffs was Game 1, when he played 47 minutes in regulation and then all of overtime, and his third worst game of the playoffs was when he played all 48 minutes in Game 3. Is this a real trend, or just a sixteen sample size mirage? I lean slightly toward the latter; in the regular season there was no such trend. But I 100% believe that Kobe played extra minutes to not be upstaged by Iverson. 100%.
So to what do we attribute this massive jump in performance in the playoffs? The 2001 Lakers’ improvement from the regular season to playoffs is easily the biggest ever. The easy way to paint it is that Shaq was just too dominant and the Lakers rode on his coattails. But Shaq’s BPM actually dropped in the playoffs from the regular season (though his scoring improved in both volume and efficiency). Yet VORP actually thinks Kobe became the better player in the ‘01 playoffs. Which is true? I think it’s unmistakable that Kobe played a lot of outstanding games in these playoffs. But look at the Lakers’ opponents. They’re pretty much all great defenses, and three of them were built around ATG defensive big men (‘Sheed/Saba, Duncan/Robinson and Mutombo). In short, Shaq played his sixteen games against one of the toughest defensive gauntlets a center has ever faced and did so while improving his usage *and* his efficiency (relative to the opposing defenses). So even if the overall metrics like Kobe, I cannot help but give Shaq the lion’s share of the credit here.
Do you know who the ‘01 Lakers remind me of a little? The mid-90s Rockets. Because the Rockets’ biggest matchups always seemed to be against dominant bigs who specialized at defense (Robinson and the Spurs, Ewing with the Knicks and young Shaq with the Magic). And Hakeem, for better or for worse, really could not be stopped by opposing centers. You know what else I’m reminded of? The ‘09 Finals. Because the Magic were so good at stopping attacks on the rim . . . except that Kobe didn’t need the rim to score.
On the defensive end (don't forget that the '01 Lakers posted the 24th best defensive rating on this list) I think they were well suited by matchups. The Lakers had a deep set of big-man defenders (Grant, Horry and Shaq) and all their Western Conference foes ran a lot of their offense through the frontcourt ('Sheed/Saba, Webber/Divac and Duncan/Robinson). So however good their defense was normally, I think they were unusually suited to the teams they faced here. And their weakest defensive series was against the Sixers, whose offense was all Iverson. But as for the Lakers' playoff offense . . .
My theory (besides the band finally getting back together, and some unusually hot shooting from the role-players (Fisher’s TS% jumped by 10% from the regular season to the playoffs after being adjusted for opposing defenses)) is that the Lakers had an unusually resilient offense. These great defensive teams dominated by stopping attacks at the rim. But the only Laker who depended on the rim was Shaq, and in his prime Shaq could really not be stopped. So you have dominant rim scoring (that the defense can’t take away), effective midrange scoring (that the defense couldn’t take away) and unusually hot three point shooting . . . it’s a lethal combination against any defense, but especially ones built on defensive bigs denying the paint. I don’t think that explains all of it; the Lakers posted four straight playoff series with adjusted offensive ratings at +11 or higher. It’s the 3rd highest playoff offensive rating on this list, and of the two ahead the ‘17 Cavs played a far weaker set of defenses. Only the ‘05 Suns posted both a better rating and against better defenses, but given that the Lakers did it over more games and didn’t sell out their roster construction for offense, I don’t think you would be wrong if you believed that the ‘01 Lakers boasted the best playoff offense ever. It was just a great team designed to take away its opponents strength and with a roster that came together for 16 amazing games.
The Lakers were nowhere near this good in 2000, nor would they be in 2002.
But in 2001, they planted their flag on such heights that it could be seen for miles.
12 | Lakers
11 |
10 |
9 |
8 |
7 | Spurs
6 |
5 | Hornets, Kings
4 | 76ers, Bucks
3 | Jazz, Mavericks
2 | Raptors, Rockets
1 | Wolves, Suns, Blazers
0 | Knicks, Sonics
-0 | Magic
-1 | Pacers, Nuggets
-2 | Heat, Celtics, Pistons, Clippers
-3 |
-4 | Cavs, Grizzlies
-5 | Nets, Hawks
-6 | Wizards
-7 |
-8 | Warriors
-9 | Bulls
-10|
So where to put the ‘01 Lakers? They had one of the very worst regular seasons on this list and one of the top two playoffs on this list. If you demand consistency from both, they should be lower. If all you care about is pure, unfiltered high-end dominance against the best the league can offer, they should be higher than this.
I confess myself blown away by their playoffs (possible exception of the Finals). You know what blows my mind? If the ‘01 Lakers had fatally crashed in a cornfield on the way to Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals the Spurs would have won the championship. Decisively. The Spurs were far and away the best team in the league that wasn’t the Lakers. And they got swept by 18 points a game.
I’ll tell you what. If I’m picking an all-time team playing at their best to defend my honor, there’s no way I don’t seriously consider the ‘01 Lakers. For a defensively-slanted era, they boasted the ultimate in resilient offense. The 2001 Western Conference was absolutely freaking loaded, and the Lakers went through them like Keyser Soze through the Hungarian mob. It’s hard to put them much higher on account of their regular season . . . but holy hell.
Back to the Main Thread
). 
