How Much Does the 2001 Loss to the Lakers Detract from Duncan's Career?

[onedayattatime]

Been thinking about this topic because of some recent threads about it, and it's also been mentioned in the top 100 project. The general premise is that the Spurs, despite being the higher seed, were swept with an average deficit of over 22 points. I think a possible interpretation is that the Spurs, despite being a legitimately strong contender, had a fragile roster that ultimately placed too much of a load on Tim Duncan. I think this roster is cleverly constructed around Duncan and Robinson (from a financial standpoint), in that almost every perimeter player is a reliable old guy being used as a spot-up shooter. The only relevant 'non-old guy' being Derek Anderson, who was actually the team's second leading scorer.

In the 2001 Western Conference Finals, Anderson was injured, and while David Robinson was still relevant, he was A) 35 years old; B) playing under 30 mpg; C) tasked with defending peak Shaq. Did this not place a 24-year-old Duncan in the Allen Iverson role? No one outside of those three was averaging double figures, and Robinson was frequently in foul trouble vs. Shaq, which greatly simplified the Lakers' options on defense. Conversely, the Spurs were left without any sensible options for matching up with Kobe. Or am I missing something?

[One_and_Done]

Not at all. The Spurs support cast in 2001 was terrible. In particular the backcourt was horrendous. Go look it up, particularly their stats in the Lakers series. They were basically invisible. Sure, Derek Anderson was hurt, but to be frank he wasn't even that good.

[LukaTheGOAT]

It was just a tough series loss. The 2001 Lakers were a GOAT-level team, and the Spurs loss. Bad losses happen.

[ceiling raiser]

Not at all. The Lakers and Spurs had comparable #2 players in 2001, but Lakers had a big coaching and depth advantage.

[SHAQ32]

What would have happened if Duncan didn't miss the 2000 playoffs though??

[One_and_Done]

Here are some actual, not made up stats from the Spurs/Lakers 2001 series.

Post kidney disease Sean Elliot, who played 19mpg: 1.3 ppg, 1.7 rpg on 202 TS%.

D.Anderson, who tried playing hurt for 2 games, and put up 2ppg & 2rpg in 20 mpg on 170 TS%

Avery Johnson had 6 & 2 in 22mpg on 383 TS%.

These guys were so bad that the Spurs played career back up shooting guard Antonio Daniels a ludicrous 42mpg, much of it at point guard.

Other key contributors included 37 year old Terry Porter putting up 6 & 2 on 412 TS% and 35 year old Dan Ferry putting up 3 & 3 on 467 TS%. Hideous. Nome of those guys could play D either. I also just named 3 of the Spurs 5 starters. The other was a past prime D.Rob and Duncan.

The Spurs were completely outgunned.

[f4p]

the spurs were significant SRS favorites and, even against a popular team like the lakers, only barely underdogs from a gambling perspective at +125. meaning, even people who would be factoring in the lakers slacking off in the regular season thought it was basically a coinflip. and the spurs literally lost by a bigger average margin of defeat than any laker victory in the rest of the playoffs. part of why the 2001 lakers are seen as a GOAT team is precisely because of how badly they destroyed the spurs. they were just seen as another mild championship favorite when that series began. remember, this lakers team needed an epic portland collapse and rigged series against the kings to win in the years before and after. even the sixers took a game off of them and made the rest of the games competitive.

[One_and_Done]

It clearly wasn't a coin flip, because the Lakers showed their real strength in 00, and guys like Kobe were better players in 01. They just coasted.

[Doctor MJ]

It clearly wasn't a coin flip, because the Lakers showed their real strength in 00, and guys like Kobe were better players in 01. They just coasted.

'99-00 Lakers could have easily lost to either Portland or Indiana. They weren't as good as their regular season record yet, and there was good reason to think the Spurs should be the favorite in the 2001 playoffs because, frankly, they probably were better than the '99-00 Lakers.

'00-01 Lakers also did not coast. Shaq & Kobe were starting to rip themselves apart, found a crystalized focus for those playoffs, and then continued eroding their chemistry. Truly, had the team not reached this peak that off-season, we'd never realize how much stronger they could be than those Spurs.

[Doctor MJ]

The Spurs were completely outgunned.

The issue really is not that the Spurs lost, or even lost badly, but lost worse than everyone else.

Portland lost by 14.7 PPG.
Sacramento lost by 7.2 PPG.
San Antonio lost by 22.2 PPG.
Philadelphia lost by 6.8 PPG.

The Spurs were considered the other top tier team in the league and even injured, no one thought anything like this would happen. Contenders simply don't lose series like this...and yet this Spur team was absolutely a contender.

[Doctor MJ]

Been thinking about this topic because of some recent threads about it, and it's also been mentioned in the top 100 project. The general premise is that the Spurs, despite being the higher seed, were swept with an average deficit of over 22 points. I think a possible interpretation is that the Spurs, despite being a legitimately strong contender, had a fragile roster that ultimately placed too much of a load on Tim Duncan. I think this roster is cleverly constructed around Duncan and Robinson (from a financial standpoint), in that almost every perimeter player is a reliable old guy being used as a spot-up shooter. The only relevant 'non-old guy' being Derek Anderson, who was actually the team's second leading scorer.

In the 2001 Western Conference Finals, Anderson was injured, and while David Robinson was still relevant, he was A) 35 years old; B) playing under 30 mpg; C) tasked with defending peak Shaq. Did this not place a 24-year-old Duncan in the Allen Iverson role? No one outside of those three was averaging double figures, and Robinson was frequently in foul trouble vs. Shaq, which greatly simplified the Lakers' options on defense. Conversely, the Spurs were left without any sensible options for matching up with Kobe. Or am I missing something?

To your question:

I think the reality is that at least here in 2023, it really doesn't effect Duncan's career.

Back when it happened it basically killed any idea that the Spurs were at the same level as the Lakers at their best for another decade.

Re: Cast Duncan as Iverson. I think you need to understand that Philly did way, way, WAY better than the Spurs against the Lakers, so even if you try to use that as a starting point, it makes Duncan look not so great.

Incidentally, this is coming from me as a guy who ranks Duncan ahead of both Shaq & Kobe and who ranks AI outside the Top 100. I'm absolutely not looking to say Duncan was worse than Iverson, but if all we know about these guys was the 2001 playoffs, it's hard to imagine how Iverson wouldn't rank higher. So yeah, we should always be careful not to judge a guy based on his worst moment, but the idea that extenuating circumstances in injuries could justify a humiliating defeat like the Spurs experienced just doesn't make sense because of the scale of the problem.

[One_and_Done]

It clearly wasn't a coin flip, because the Lakers showed their real strength in 00, and guys like Kobe were better players in 01. They just coasted.

'99-00 Lakers could have easily lost to either Portland or Indiana. They weren't as good as their regular season record yet, and there was good reason to think the Spurs should be the favorite in the 2001 playoffs because, frankly, they probably were better than the '99-00 Lakers.

'00-01 Lakers also did not coast. Shaq & Kobe were starting to rip themselves apart, found a crystalized focus for those playoffs, and then continued eroding their chemistry. Truly, had the team not reached this peak that off-season, we'd never realize how much stronger they could be than those Spurs.

That's just a round about way of saying the RS record didn't reflect their real strength. You're basically agreeing with me.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

0 to me.

You can take any player in NBA history at any stage of their careers and insert them on that Spurs team in Duncan's shoes and they would've been swept as well vs that Lakers team.

[Cavsfansince84]

To me it doesn't mean that much. It also means nothing in comparison to the other series the Lakers played because things like that happen in sports sometimes and it's 4 games. The Lakers were obviously primed for that series way more than any of their others, much like when the Spurs played the Heat in 2014 and the Spurs just couldn't match that intensity. I could sit here and list at least 50-100 other instances of something similar happening in sports. It's not much of a black mark on Duncan's resume imo.

[giberish]

The biggest issue that that it shows just how wildly the 2001 Spurs overachieved during the regular season. This is something that really occurs throughout the Duncan/Pop era. Even when the supporting cast is badly flawed, they still play at a high level during the regular season. This is a major contrast to Kobe era Lakers teams, where they would fall off majorly during the regular season with weaker surrounding rosters (and sometimes even with stacked rosters like 2001). This leads to people claiming that Kobe overachieved during the playoffs while Duncan comparatively underachieved in the playoffs, but IMO it was more Laker teams underachieving during the regular season while the Spurs overachieved.

Of course the extreme margin of victory does look bad (even against a stacked team other opponents were much more competitive). If that was the only series to go on that would be a big deal, but as there are tons of other Duncan Spurs playoff series it's pretty minor.

[One_and_Done]

The biggest issue that that it shows just how wildly the 2001 Spurs overachieved during the regular season. This is something that really occurs throughout the Duncan/Pop era. Even when the supporting cast is badly flawed, they still play at a high level during the regular season. This is a major contrast to Kobe era Lakers teams, where they would fall off majorly during the regular season with weaker surrounding rosters (and sometimes even with stacked rosters like 2001). This leads to people claiming that Kobe overachieved during the playoffs while Duncan comparatively underachieved in the playoffs, but IMO it was more Laker teams underachieving during the regular season while the Spurs overachieved.

Of course the extreme margin of victory does look bad (even against a stacked team other opponents were much more competitive). If that was the only series to go on that would be a big deal, but as there are tons of other Duncan Spurs playoff series it's pretty minor.

Yup. But in the playoffs the flaws of your mediocre players is exposed. I mean look at those role player stats on the Spurs I cited. What can Duncan do about all his role players sucking? Nothing.

[f4p]

The biggest issue that that it shows just how wildly the 2001 Spurs overachieved during the regular season. This is something that really occurs throughout the Duncan/Pop era. Even when the supporting cast is badly flawed, they still play at a high level during the regular season. This is a major contrast to Kobe era Lakers teams, where they would fall off majorly during the regular season with weaker surrounding rosters (and sometimes even with stacked rosters like 2001). This leads to people claiming that Kobe overachieved during the playoffs while Duncan comparatively underachieved in the playoffs, but IMO it was more Laker teams underachieving during the regular season while the Spurs overachieved.

Of course the extreme margin of victory does look bad (even against a stacked team other opponents were much more competitive). If that was the only series to go on that would be a big deal, but as there are tons of other Duncan Spurs playoff series it's pretty minor.

Yup. But in the playoffs the flaws of your mediocre players is exposed. I mean look at those role player stats on the Spurs I cited. What can Duncan do about all his role players sucking? Nothing.

so would you agree that 2003 duncan beating the lakers wasn't very impressive, since the lakers had guys like horry going 0-18 on 3's in that series?

[One_and_Done]

The biggest issue that that it shows just how wildly the 2001 Spurs overachieved during the regular season. This is something that really occurs throughout the Duncan/Pop era. Even when the supporting cast is badly flawed, they still play at a high level during the regular season. This is a major contrast to Kobe era Lakers teams, where they would fall off majorly during the regular season with weaker surrounding rosters (and sometimes even with stacked rosters like 2001). This leads to people claiming that Kobe overachieved during the playoffs while Duncan comparatively underachieved in the playoffs, but IMO it was more Laker teams underachieving during the regular season while the Spurs overachieved.

Of course the extreme margin of victory does look bad (even against a stacked team other opponents were much more competitive). If that was the only series to go on that would be a big deal, but as there are tons of other Duncan Spurs playoff series it's pretty minor.

Yup. But in the playoffs the flaws of your mediocre players is exposed. I mean look at those role player stats on the Spurs I cited. What can Duncan do about all his role players sucking? Nothing.

so would you agree that 2003 duncan beating the lakers wasn't very impressive, since the lakers had guys like horry going 0-18 on 3's in that series?

I think that's disanalogous for a number of reasons.
1) Horry is one guy having a bad shooting series. I just cited 6 of the Spurs 9 rotation guys (and the other 3 rotation guys can't shoot 3s at all).
2) It's about your usual form as well. The Lakers as a team shot 356. from 3pt shots in 2003. In the Spurs series they shot 336. It's silly to then chalk up the Lakers losing to unlucky 3pt shooting because they shot as expected. I also note the Lakers in their previous 3 title runs shot 354, 344 and 329. It's disingenuous to point to it as the reason they lost. That team was always built on their superstar duo, not red hot 3pt shooting.
3) When a player shuts down another player that is generally a reason to criticise the player shut down, and to credit the guys who shut them down. When I see those Spurs role players stinking it up it proves that when the intensity went up in the playoffs, and teams were scheming for guys more, they couldn't deliver. Nobody is here acting like the Spurs were unlucky; we're saying those role players were shooting badly because they sucked. In a similar vein, the Spurs should get credit in 03 for having better defensive play that let them slow down Horry and helped contribute to his bad shooting.

I would point to 03 as Duncan having more help in 03. Still not alot, but enough that he could drag the Spurs ovet the line. Duncan pulling that off was impressive as hell.

[AdagioPace]

The Spurs were completely outgunned.

The issue really is not that the Spurs lost, or even lost badly, but lost worse than everyone else.

Portland lost by 14.7 PPG.
Sacramento lost by 7.2 PPG.
San Antonio lost by 22.2 PPG.
Philadelphia lost by 6.8 PPG.

The Spurs were considered the other top tier team in the league and even injured, no one thought anything like this would happen. Contenders simply don't lose series like this...and yet this Spur team was absolutely a contender.

First, losing a piece like Derek Anderson, a guy that played 82 games (2nd most minutes on the team!), is going to create some instability, especially for a highly flawed team like 01 Spurs (despite him not being a star).
Secondly, Kobe was a nigthmare matchup for the Spurs. Kings and Blazers were definitely more equipped to face him.
Third: I don't remember that 76ers team too well, but having a lesser "hot shooting" series is not something unheard of.

Granular context is always important.
2001 Spurs vs 2007 spurs....both were in theory a 8 SRS team. Just look at the rosters. There's no comparison.

[onedayattatime]

To your question:

I think the reality is that at least here in 2023, it really doesn't effect Duncan's career.

Back when it happened it basically killed any idea that the Spurs were at the same level as the Lakers at their best for another decade.

Re: Cast Duncan as Iverson. I think you need to understand that Philly did way, way, WAY better than the Spurs against the Lakers, so even if you try to use that as a starting point, it makes Duncan look not so great.

Incidentally, this is coming from me as a guy who ranks Duncan ahead of both Shaq & Kobe and who ranks AI outside the Top 100. I'm absolutely not looking to say Duncan was worse than Iverson, but if all we know about these guys was the 2001 playoffs, it's hard to imagine how Iverson wouldn't rank higher. So yeah, we should always be careful not to judge a guy based on his worst moment, but the idea that extenuating circumstances in injuries could justify a humiliating defeat like the Spurs experienced just doesn't make sense because of the scale of the problem.

This is just a theory, but I think the differences in performances can be explained by roster construction. In 2023, no one is surprised that '3&D player' is one archetype of the ideal roleplayer. Interestingly, in 2001, Philly and the Spurs each seem to have the two opposite halves of that archetype. The Sixers supporting cast was all D but no 3 players, whereas the Spurs support is all 3 but no D. I think this means that for the Sixers, their ceiling was way lower than that of the Spurs: having all of those players who can't score means they're never being that Lakers team in a series, not if they played it 100 times. However, they're probably never losing like the Spurs did because that supporting cast can always give you defense.

Conversely, I think that Spurs roster could *theoretically* have beaten the Lakers if everything goes right for them. The synergistic effect of having shooters as supporting cast can reach that height, but it's also more vulnerable to adversity because if the non-roleplayers can't possibly score enough in single coverage, why even leave these guys open? So maybe there is some detraction of Duncan in that he could never threaten to outscore Shaq & Kobe by himself, and some greats could sort of do that? I'm not sure; it's a rather high bar.