What happened to 2003 Lakers?

[jonjones]

The 2003 Lakers lost to the Spurs in 6. So I'm looking at the roster from 2002 LA to 2003 and I barely see any change besides the fact that lindsey hunter and mitch richmond were no longer on the team so what happened to them? How and why did they lose to a team where many people consider the Spurs had one of the "weakest" supporting casts in nba playoff history to win a title? And if the Lakers beat San antonio would they have beaten Dallas?

I know this type of thread belongs on the general discussion but i'm not allowed to create threads there for some reason so sorry about putting it here. I'm just interested in the topic at hand.

[ronnymac2]

The Lakers role players were another year older and were simply in decline. Both Rick Fox and Devean George were injured for that series with SA, so the Lakers didn't have a small forward. Robert Horry couldn't hit a damn shot. And Kobe Bryant had an injured shoulder.

With Fox and George out and Horry being a net negative, Bryant had to take on an offensive load that was simply too much considering the injury. He and Shaq both played well and ALMOST carried the Lakers past the Spurs. That Horry miss at the end of game 5 deflated the Lakers since they had to expend so much energy just to come back in that game. Game 6 was dominated by the Spurs.

The Spurs were also underrated a little bit. Duncan was playing like a top 10 player ever, and he had an all-time great defensive supporting cast.

EDIT: I believe Phil Jackson was having health issues in that series, too.

[DJ-Master]

#1. Kobe was injured and played horribly in the first two games (both losses) and in the Final game of the series.
#2. Rick Fox got injured
#3. Horry couldn't hit a shot to save his life.
#4. Duncan was amazing.

That is why they lost.
In reality that team was just Shaq, Kobe & crackers and with Kobe injured and playing poorly / selfishly they couldn't manage to squeak by.

[mikejames23]

This was basically the case of a top heavy team going against a deeper, underrated team. Lakers were fatigued from 3 straight title runs, and Shaq lacked motivation on defense. Duncan outplayed him with ease in the series, and the Spurs supporting cast was somewhat underrated that year. On the surface, it looked like they were nothing special... but like all of Pop's pre-08 Spurs teams, they played excellent D and came up big when it counted.

[BattleTested]

This was basically the case of a top heavy team going against a deeper, underrated team. Lakers were fatigued from 3 straight title runs, and Shaq lacked motivation on defense. Duncan outplayed him with ease in the series, and the Spurs supporting cast was somewhat underrated that year. On the surface, it looked like they were nothing special... but like all of Pop's pre-08 Spurs teams, they played excellent D and came up big when it counted.

Exactly. That Spurs team gets really underrated for some reason. Duncan was at his peak and on any given night one or two of the Parker/Jackson/Robinson/Ginobili supporting cast would step up and give him some real help on offense. Defensively they were great as well.

[Dajadeed]

It's also a case of a team being burnt out. It's tough to go to 3 straight finals. It's a grind on players physically, mentally, emotionally.

[G35]

This was basically the case of a top heavy team going against a deeper, underrated team. Lakers were fatigued from 3 straight title runs, and Shaq lacked motivation on defense. Duncan outplayed him with ease in the series, and the Spurs supporting cast was somewhat underrated that year. On the surface, it looked like they were nothing special... but like all of Pop's pre-08 Spurs teams, they played excellent D and came up big when it counted.

Exactly. That Spurs team gets really underrated for some reason. Duncan was at his peak and on any given night one or two of the Parker/Jackson/Robinson/Ginobili supporting cast would step up and give him some real help on offense. Defensively they were great as well.

This is taking away from Duncan's greatness. This was the same situation as Hakeem in '94 but when you hear Hakeem he gets all the credit for lifting a team of nobody's except at any given time Sam Cassell/Robert Horry/Mario Elie/Vernon Maxwell/Kenny Smith/Otis Thorpe made huge contributions.

http://www.nba.com/rockets/history/look ... inals.html

Reading this will show you how clutch those Rockets were and how close they were to being eliminated several times. However the difference between those Rockets and these Spurs is that the Spurs dominated in the regular season and in the playoff's.

They won 60 games and never went to a seventh game in any of their playoff series. I actually think Hakeem had more help than Duncan did. At least he had Thorpe who averaged a double double compared to those Spurs whose next highest rebound was DRob who was pulled down 7.9 rpg. Those Rockets had experienced veterans all up and down the lineup with Kenny Smith, Maxwell, Thorpe, and Elie (who were in there prime) along with a nice mix of youth in Sam Cassell and Robert Horry.

Those Spurs had Drob who was 37 and a bunch of young guys in Parker who was 20 years old, Ginobli who was a rookie and Stephen Jackson who was in his 2nd year. There were no key contributors that were in their prime. The closest you could say was Bowen and he was all defense with barely any offensive contributions. In the playoff's Duncan was the only one who played over 40 mpg and in the playoff's the Spurs only had three players who scored over 10ppg while the Rockets had 5 players scoring over 10ppg. That Spurs teams was all defense with Duncan doing the heavy lifting on offense.

Which is why KG would not have won a title with this team. His point forward offense was not going to get the Spurs anywhere passing it to Bowen, Parker,Ginobli, or Jackson. They shot a combined TS% of .506 in the playoff's while Duncan was at TS% .577. Which is far above Hakeems TS% in his championship years and KG never came close to that.

I know, I know we are talking about the 2003 Lakers but the reason why they didn't beat the Spurs is because Duncan was playing like a top 10 player that year on the court and on paper......

[GAME TIME]

Mitch Kupchak didn't upgrade the 3 peat roster, while other teams got better, Lakers regressed with Shaq's weight issue and Horry, Fox ect.. role players getting older and not really adding anything to the table

Lakers were actually a Robert Horry 3 pointer away from taking control of that series and possibly closing it out @ home.

Just the Lakers were top heavy with Kobe and Shaq and not much support around them. Spurs had the better team, they had more depth.

Also this was probably Tim Duncan at his best, when he really took it to Shaq in game 6 and closed the game out.

[MisterWestside]

This is taking away from Duncan's greatness. This was the same situation as Hakeem in '94 but when you hear Hakeem he gets all the credit for lifting a team of nobody's except at any given time Sam Cassell/Robert Horry/Mario Elie/Vernon Maxwell/Kenny Smith/Otis Thorpe made huge contributions.

http://www.nba.com/rockets/history/look ... inals.html

Reading this will show you how clutch those Rockets were and how close they were to being eliminated several times. However the difference between those Rockets and these Spurs is that the Spurs dominated in the regular season and in the playoff's.

They won 60 games and never went to a seventh game in any of their playoff series. I actually think Hakeem had more help than Duncan did. At least he had Thorpe who averaged a double double compared to those Spurs whose next highest rebound was DRob who was pulled down 7.9 rpg. Those Rockets had experienced veterans all up and down the lineup with Kenny Smith, Maxwell, Thorpe, and Elie (who were in there prime) along with a nice mix of youth in Sam Cassell and Robert Horry.

Those Spurs had Drob who was 37 and a bunch of young guys in Parker who was 20 years old, Ginobli who was a rookie and Stephen Jackson who was in his 2nd year. There were no key contributors that were in their prime. The closest you could say was Bowen and he was all defense with barely any offensive contributions. In the playoff's Duncan was the only one who played over 40 mpg and in the playoff's the Spurs only had three players who scored over 10ppg while the Rockets had 5 players scoring over 10ppg. That Spurs teams was all defense with Duncan doing the heavy lifting on offense.

I agree. I've always been more impressed with '03 Duncan than '94/'95 Hakeem; his all-around play was something to marvel at.

[Shot Clock]

Looks like it's been well covered. That team really wasn't looking that good all year but the hope they could "flip a switch" prevailed. They really lacked depth and injuries to a team with depth problems are devastating.

They had a lot of guys playing out of position and really missed Fox.

Even uninjured guys like Horry were not playing like themselves. Horry had bailed out LA numerous times in the past but 2003 looked like he was being paid to miss. 0 for 18 from downtown,

One article from during that series.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... id=1553965

Have you taken a close look at this Lakers team? Only its aura as a three-time defending champion remains unbroken. Disassemble it and you'd wonder how it's still in contention. Robert Horry, bless his weary small-forward soul, is paying the price for a year-long masquerade as a power forward. Brian Shaw, 37 going on 52, started at shooting guard in Game 1 and is averaging 21.4 minutes this series, which is more than he played in three of the last four seasons. Kobe, a guard for the last two seasons, is spending half of his time at small forward. Free-agent rookie Jannero Pargo is in the rotation. Shaquille O'Neal is surviving on offensive rebounding and free-throw shooting. Point guard Derek Fisher, expending every ounce of energy on defense, doesn't even think about going to the rim anymore.

Game 5
Only when the game was within striking distance did he put Shaq back on the floor to guard MVP Tim Duncan.

Which is where Coach of the Year Gregg Popovich didn't respond in kind. The Spurs knew going into the game that their offense historically came up dry whenever they ran it through a Shaq-guarded Duncan. Yet they still went to him and, predictably, got nothing.

This is not, by the way, to denigrate Popovich. His best player is shaky shooting the ball under pressure, be at the free-throw line or in the post. His point guard, Tony Parker, is shaky under pressure at everything other than shooting, which is why running pick-and-rolls for him at the end produced just enough for San Antonio to avoid the upset.

Oh how we view things differently now.

As has been discussed in this space before, the definition of league MVP remains purposely vague, but a guy who can terrify an entire arena simply by getting the ball in his hands is a pretty good start. Shaq still has that effect at times, as does Allen Iverson on occasion. Not to be too harsh, but Duncan isn't inspiring that response even though the Lakers are single-covering him with Horry, Mark Madsen and Medvedenko. He's a selfless superstar and his team had the best record -- that, presumably, is what won him the MVP award.

[therealbig3]

^I like how you ignore that in the very next game, the closeout game, the Lakers threw everyone at Duncan, including Shaq, and he still dominated. Bill Walton was gushing about Duncan, talking about how amazing he was, and how Duncan was taking it right at Shaq.

I'll trust Walton's opinion more than Bucher's.

[Shot Clock]

^I like how you ignore that in the very next game, the closeout game, the Lakers threw everyone at Duncan, including Shaq, and he still dominated. Bill Walton was gushing about Duncan, talking about how amazing he was, and how Duncan was taking it right at Shaq.

I'll trust Walton's opinion more than Bucher's.

How's that ignoring it? Bucher said Duncan or Pop has to step it up next game and he did. 1 games doesn't make a legend though.

Walton's opinion? Really? I'm not a Bucher fan but Walton?

[odeski]

2003 lakers..weak bench ,injured key players,lack of motivation,no upgrades + they faced strong spurs team ..they were built to dethroned the lakers.they were stacked on every position defensively and when they played the lakers, all players contributed in all aspect not only scoring...duncan guarded by horry ,medvedenko one on one most of the time..basically it was shaq and kobe show versus the whole spurs team.

[The Infamous1]

Role players sucked and Kobe was injured. Dude was having a legendary all around season too

[LAKERS_1981]

Mitch Kupchak didn't upgrade the 3 peat roster, while other teams got better, Lakers regressed with Shaq's weight issue and Horry, Fox ect.. role players getting older and not really adding anything to the table

Lakers were actually a Robert Horry 3 pointer away from taking control of that series and possibly closing it out @ home.

Just the Lakers were top heavy with Kobe and Shaq and not much support around them. Spurs had the better team, they had more depth.

Also this was probably Tim Duncan at his best, when he really took it to Shaq in game 6 and closed the game out.

I 100% agree . This was just a team that look tired and they were geting worse.
Shaq geting more fat
Kobe injure but still playing great
Horry shooting against the Spurs, i think if he would just be playing avg the Lakers would win this serise and his shoot to win game 5 was the win series/lose series shoot

[therealbig3]

^I like how you ignore that in the very next game, the closeout game, the Lakers threw everyone at Duncan, including Shaq, and he still dominated. Bill Walton was gushing about Duncan, talking about how amazing he was, and how Duncan was taking it right at Shaq.

I'll trust Walton's opinion more than Bucher's.

How's that ignoring it? Bucher said Duncan or Pop has to step it up next game and he did. 1 games doesn't make a legend though.

Walton's opinion? Really? I'm not a Bucher fan but Walton?

Absolutely, Walton knows basketball better than pretty much anyone, and even though he exaggerates everything, he knows what he's talking about. Bucher is a moron. Duncan struggles shooting under pressure? Uh, yeah, sure.

[mikejames23]

This is taking away from Duncan's greatness.

He was the best player in the NBA that year. No one's taking away from his greatness... but it's more the collapse of the Lakers that's interesting.

Kobe Bryant:
But this is his team, so it's time for him to act like it. That means no more coming into camp fat and out of shape, when your team is relying on your leadership on and off the court. It also means no more blaming others for our team's failure, or blaming staff members for not overdramatizing your injuries so that you avoid blame for your lack of conditioning. Also, "my team" doesn't mean only when we win; it means carrying the burden of defeat just as gracefully as you carry a championship trophy.

Fatigue and motivation play a big role in title runs as well. Shaq wasn't all that motivated this year, and the Spurs were hungry. Tony Parker came up big in the last two games to close out the Lakers, while role-players Bruce Bowen led the Spurs in raw +/- on that crucial game 5. showing the overall impact he had while on floor. Admiral played awesome D in Game 1. The Lakers were overrated that year, that's all there is to it.

Also, the perfection with which the Spurs have handled TD's supporting cast, KG never had... until he got to Boston, and he was 32 by then. He may not be have been as good as Duncan, but it's unfair to compare his situation in Minny with one of the best run sports franchises this past decade.

[nolunch]

Beating spurs with prime Duncan, you need a healthy group. Like 2004 Lakers.

[Martin]

I remember how Horry's 3-pointer rimmed out at the final seconds of a game. He had been shooting horribly the whole series but still, when he took that shot and it missed, everyone were shocked.