I have just realized thst the best team in the League Since 2000.....

[robert_shaww]

2000: Los Angeles Lakers
2001: Los Angeles Lakers
2002: Los Angeles Lakers
2003: San Antonio Spurs
2004: Detroit Pistons
2005: San Antonio Spurs
2006: San Antonio Spurs
2007: San Antonio Spurs
2008: San Antonio Spurs
2009: Los Angeles Lakers
2010: Los Angeles Lakers
2011: Miami Heat
2012: Miami Heat
2013: San Antonio Spurs
2014: San Antonio Spurs

Nearly every single year the Spurs or Lakers except 2011 and 2012 (2004 is arguable)

Pd: 2008 Ginobili was injured, thats why Boston won the ring, but we could say its a tie.

[navy]

2000: Los Angeles Lakers
2001: Los Angeles Lakers
2002: Los Angeles Lakers
2003: San Antonio Spurs
2004: Detroit Pistons
2005: San Antonio Spurs
2006: San Antonio Spurs
2007: San Antonio Spurs
2008: San Antonio Spurs
2009: Los Angeles Lakers
2010: Los Angeles Lakers
2011: Miami Heat
2012: Miami Heat
2013: San Antonio Spurs
2014: San Antonio Spurs

Nearly every single year the Spurs or Lakers except 2011 and 2012 (2004 is arguable)
The Celtics were the best team in 2008.
The Heat were the best team in 2013.

[bballnoob1192]

what 2008 spurs are not the best team in the league. lmfao.

[Suguru101]

2008 - Boston (Manu was injured too) And no, it's not a tie.
2013 - Miami (Salty)
2006 - Dallas (wasn't Duncan injured? Or Manu?)

[DMAVS41]

2000: Los Angeles Lakers
2001: Los Angeles Lakers
2002: Los Angeles Lakers
2003: San Antonio Spurs
2004: Detroit Pistons
2005: San Antonio Spurs
2006: San Antonio Spurs
2007: San Antonio Spurs
2008: San Antonio Spurs
2009: Los Angeles Lakers
2010: Los Angeles Lakers
2011: Miami Heat
2012: Miami Heat
2013: San Antonio Spurs
2014: San Antonio Spurs

Nearly every single year the Spurs or Lakers except 2011 and 2012 (2004 is arguable)

Pd: 2008 Ginobili was injured, thats why Boston won the ring, but we could say its a tie.

What are you talking about?

06 was the Heat...or if you are factoring in the regular season largely...the Mavs...definitely not the Spurs
08 was clearly the Celtics
11 was clearly the Mavs...how on earth were the Heat better? Not only did the Mavs have as good or better regular season, but they beat them in the finals
13...Heat

clown

[Timmy D for MVP]

I just realized something:

00: Lakers
01: Lakers
02: Lakers
03: Spurs
04: Pistons
05: Spurs
06: Heat
07: Spurs
08: Celtics
09: Lakers
10: Lakers
11: Mavs
12: Heat
13: Heat
14: Spurs

The best teams aren't hard to figure out. I used a pretty hard formula. Can you guess it?

[tpols]

What are you talking about?

06 was the Heat...or if you are factoring in the regular season largely...the Mavs...definitely not the Spurs
08 was clearly the Celtics
11 was clearly the Mavs...how on earth were the Heat better? Not only did the Mavs have as good or better regular season, but they beat them in the finals
13...Heat

clown
You're literally just picking who won the championship though lol


I can easily see an argument for 2013 spurs > 2013 Heat... they really outperformed them the whole way only to choke in a 1% probability of losing.

2011 Heat same thing.. they were whooping the mavs ass before they gave up a 15 point lead with like 2 minutes left in the game to go up 2-0 and had their best player underperform like no other great ever has. If the 2011 Heat just play average in the Finals they wouldve beat the mavs in 5 or less games. They played way below what they showed all playoffs long.


Winning and losing can be tricky.. theres a lot of luck involved in this stuff. If you replay the 11 Finals 10 times for example the heat win that shit 7 or 8 times out of 10. They were the better team.. they just choked/underperformed.

[navy]

You're literally just picking who won the championship though lol


I can easily see an argument for 2013 spurs > 2013 Heat... they really outperformed them the whole way only to choke in a 1% probability of losing.
.
The Heat won 66 games, had a 27 game win streak, and won the championship beating the Spurs in not only Game 6 but also Game 7. And yet the Spurs outperformed them the whole way? :rolleyes:

[DMAVS41]

You're literally just picking who won the championship though lol


I can easily see an argument for 2013 spurs > 2013 Heat... they really outperformed them the whole way only to choke in a 1% probability of losing.

2011 Heat same thing.. they were whooping the mavs ass before they gave up a 15 point lead with like 2 minutes left in the game to go up 2-0 and had their best player underperform like no other great ever has. If the 2011 Heat just play average in the Finals they wouldve beat the mavs in 5 or less games. They played way below what they showed all playoffs long.


Winning and losing can be tricky.. theres a lot of luck involved in this stuff. If you replay the 11 Finals 10 times for example the heat win that shit 7 or 8 times out of 10. They were the better team.. they just choked/underperformed.

I could see an argument for the 13 Spurs...although I think they were grossly over-rated and actually lucked out with Wade being hurt. That 13 Heat team when right was the best team in my opinion. They had the best regular season record and then won the title with a hobbled/slumping team. If that doesn't earn you the best team...I don't know what does.

But you lose me in 2011...how were the Heat better?

The Mavs won 57 games and the Heat won 58 games.

The Mavs played in the tougher conference....and Dirk missed 9 games and was the most important player in the league to his team. So what...because the Heat won one more regular season game in the worse conference they were better?

Then the Mavs went 16-5 in the playoffs and beat the Heat.

Uhhhhh....just no...there is no argument for the Heat being better here.

[ThePhantomCreep]

what 2008 spurs are not the best team in the league. lmfao.

They weren't better than the Lakers either.

[tpols]

The Heat won 66 games, had a 27 game win streak, and won the championship beating the Spurs in not only Game 6 but also Game 7. And yet the Spurs outperformed them the whole way? :rolleyes:

I thought the spurs looked better throughout the playoffs.. they went 12-2 out west while the Heat struggled to beat the pacers. They were outperforming Miami all the way up to sure victory until they choked in a infinitely small odds situation.. up 5 under 30 seconds to win the title in 6 games and you choke that somehow?

[ThePhantomCreep]

2008 - Boston (Manu was injured too) And no, it's not a tie.
2013 - Miami (Salty)
2006 - Dallas (wasn't Duncan injured? Or Manu?)

Spurs fans loooooovvve that excuse, but no, they were healthy that year.

[DMAVS41]

I thought the spurs looked better throughout the playoffs.. they went 12-2 out west while the Heat struggled to beat the pacers. They were outperforming Miami all the way up to sure victory until they choked in a infinitely small odds situation.. up 5 under 30 seconds to win the title in 6 games and you choke that somehow?

On that logic...how can you then turn around and say the Heat were better in 2011?

[kennethgriffin]

I just realized something:

00: Lakers ( Blazers, thanks kobe )
01: Lakers
02: Lakers ( Kings, thanks kobe )
03: Spurs ( Lakers, thanks horry )
04: Pistons ( indiana, thanks stern )
05: Spurs
06: Heat ( Dallas, thanks stern )
07: Spurs
08: Celtics
09: Lakers ( cavs, thanks lechoke )
10: Lakers ( cavs, thanks lechoke )
11: Mavs ( bulls, thanks rose )
12: Heat ( bulls, thanks rose )
13: Heat ( spurs, thanks ray ray )
14: Spurs

The best teams aren't hard to figure out. I used a pretty hard formula. Can you guess it?

fixed

[JT123]

Shut up Milbuck. :facepalm

[tpols]

I could see an argument for the 13 Spurs...although I think they were grossly over-rated and actually lucked out with Wade being hurt. That 13 Heat team when right was the best team in my opinion. They had the best regular season record and then won the title with a hobbled/slumping team. If that doesn't earn you the best team...I don't know what does.

But you lose me in 2011...how were the Heat better?

The Mavs won 57 games and the Heat won 58 games.

The Mavs played in the tougher conference....and Dirk missed 9 games and was the most important player in the league to his team. So what...because the Heat won one more regular season game in the worse conference they were better?

Then the Mavs went 16-5 in the playoffs and beat the Heat.

Uhhhhh....just no...there is no argument for the Heat being better here.

The mavs won a similar amount of regular season games in a tougher conference... and yet many were predicting them to lose in the first round to portland.:oldlol:

What does that even mean?


The Heat looked more dominant out east against boston and chicago than the mavs did in their series.. the Heat were the favorites all year long.. the Heat were laying a smackdown on your team before one of the biggest chokes in Finals history occured.. Dallas pulled off a miracle victory.. I dont think they couldve replicated it if we replayed it a bunch of times. Sometimes the underdog wins though.

[navy]

I thought the spurs looked better throughout the playoffs.. they went 12-2 out west while the Heat struggled to beat the pacers. They were outperforming Miami all the way up to sure victory until they choked in a infinitely small odds situation.. up 5 under 30 seconds to win the title in 6 games and you choke that somehow?
They werent sure of victory though. Miami took the lead then the Spurs gained it back only to tie and go to overtime. They lost.

Had another chance in Game 7. Lost again.

You dont get credit for almost winning. Especially when you lost 4 times.

I mean Tony Parker had a shot bounce in to seal game 1. Shit happens.

[fpliii]

01 Lakers, 08 Celtics, 14 Spurs are the clear-cut best three IMO.

[tpols]

On that logic...how can you then turn around and say the Heat were better in 2011?
the logic matches up..

13 spurs were the better team, but they choked.

11 heat were the better team, but they choked.


Both were on their way to victory and more dominant through the playoffs as a whole, but they let it slip.

[JT123]

The mavs won a similar amount of regular season games in a tougher conference... and yet many were predicting them to lose in the first round to portland.:oldlol:

What does that even mean?


The Heat looked more dominant out east against boston and chicago than the mavs did in their series.. the Heat were the favorites all year long.. the Heat were laying a smackdown on your team before one of the biggest chokes in Finals history occured.. Dallas pulled off a miracle victory.. I dont think they couldve replicated it if we replayed it a bunch of times. Sometimes the underdog wins though.
More revisionist history. :facepalm The Lakers were the favorite all year long and you know it. Even after falling behind 0-3 against Dallas most "experts" were still picking them to win that series and the title.

[DMAVS41]

the logic matches up..

13 spurs were the better team, but they choked.

11 heat were the better team, but they choked.


Both were on their way to victory and more dominant through the playoffs as a whole, but they let it slip.


I see...you are going off not what what happened.

I was going off what actually happened.

Yea...the Heat should have won more than 58 games and should have won the title, but they didn't...so I'm going off that.

[DMAVS41]

The mavs won a similar amount of regular season games in a tougher conference... and yet many were predicting them to lose in the first round to portland.:oldlol:

What does that even mean?


The Heat looked more dominant out east against boston and chicago than the mavs did in their series.. the Heat were the favorites all year long.. the Heat were laying a smackdown on your team before one of the biggest chokes in Finals history occured.. Dallas pulled off a miracle victory.. I dont think they couldve replicated it if we replayed it a bunch of times. Sometimes the underdog wins though.

You seem to be basing this all of perception and not actually looking at what happened. Which is fine by the way...and to an extent I agree about the Heat.

I was more looking at it reflecting back.

The main problem I see with you here...is that your Lakers were actually the favorites all year long. Yet I see you Kobe/Lakers fans make excuses about how you weren't really that good...etc.

So I think there is a bit of hypocrisy here from Lakers fans calling the 11 Heat the clear favorites all year. When, that just was not the case...it was the Lakers.

[ImKobe]

2000: Los Angeles Lakers
2001: Los Angeles Lakers
2002: Los Angeles Lakers
2003: San Antonio Spurs
2004: Detroit Pistons
2005: San Antonio Spurs
2006: San Antonio Spurs
2007: San Antonio Spurs
2008: San Antonio Spurs
2009: Los Angeles Lakers
2010: Los Angeles Lakers
2011: Miami Heat
2012: Miami Heat
2013: San Antonio Spurs
2014: San Antonio Spurs

Nearly every single year the Spurs or Lakers except 2011 and 2012 (2004 is arguable)

Pd: 2008 Ginobili was injured, thats why Boston won the ring, but we could say its a tie.

Because Manu was injured, Boston won the ring? :roll:

Manu was 4th in minutes for the Spurs for that series against LA and Kobe flat out dominated that series every single game and went to the rim at will (finishing over Duncan whenever he wanted). Duncan had a pathetic TS% of 46,5, 12% lower than Kobe's.

2006 & 2013 are debatable since Spurs didn't win anything. You could also say they were the best team in 2012 because they had such a huge winning streak going into the WCF, blowing a 2 - 0 series lead.

[GrapeApe]

Isn't there a system in place to determine the best team? When did the NBA become college football?

[Timmy D for MVP]

Isn't there a system in place to determine the best team? When did the NBA become college football?

I guess winning a title is not considered good enough in the NBA, the only sport in which it actually is good enough.

[robert_shaww]

Because Manu was injured, Boston won the ring? :roll:

Manu was 4th in minutes for the Spurs for that series against LA and Kobe flat out dominated that series every single game and went to the rim at will (finishing over Duncan whenever he wanted). Duncan had a pathetic TS% of 46,5, 12% lower than Kobe's.

2006 & 2013 are debatable since Spurs didn't win anything. You could also say they were the best team in 2012 because they had such a huge winning streak going into the WCF, blowing a 2 - 0 series lead.

answer me this:

the best team in 1994 and 1995 please.