Was 2000 an underrated season?

[Duderonomy]

The kobe-Shaq Lakers first chip
The Pacers only finals appearance
Pip's best season after Chicago
The kings started to emerge
Somehow the Suns beat the Spurs with no serviceable big men.

[TheGoatest]

Somehow the Suns beat the Spurs with no serviceable big men.

Tim Duncan missed the 2000 playoffs entirely.

But the quality of basketball in the 1999-00 had definitely improved from the watered-down 90s. Not as good as the 80s, but definitely better than the 90s.

[rawimpact]

Are you kidding? Who underrates the 2000 season? There were stars on almost every team, this was before the whole collusion of stars in their prime.

It really was enjoyable being able to watch 2-3 games a week because every team had talent.

[1987_Lakers]

We were moments away from having a Blazers-Pacers Finals. Not really a stacked era.

[HoopsNY]

The kobe-Shaq Lakers first chip
The Pacers only finals appearance
Pip's best season after Chicago
The kings started to emerge
Somehow the Suns beat the Spurs with no serviceable big men.

It was a great season. Portland had started the season like 42-9 IIRC. They were neck and neck with LAL before they tanked during the last 17 games of the season.

The Eastern Conference was also interesting because the Pacers, Heat, and Knicks were all contenders. I actually thought Miami was gonna win the East.

2000 was when And1 started becoming popular and street ball style gameplay started becoming much more of a thing. You could say 1999 but we saw a lot more flashy passing and crossover dribbling, plus insane dunks (due to Vince) in the 2000 season. I think that was the year Nike had that famous commercial with guys making beats by dribbling. Good times man.

[HoopsNY]

We were moments away from having a Blazers-Pacers Finals. Not really a stacked era.

I'd beg to differ. While those teams weren't stacked in terms of superstars, they were definitely stacked in terms of depth. The talk of the town in 1999 was how Portland added Steve Smith, Detlef Schrempf, and Scottie Pippen. they had already added Mighty Mouse, together with Grant, Sabonis, Anthony, and Sheed, looked to be an insanely deep team that stood the best chance at winning it all.

The Lakers were stacked with Kobe-Shaq-Rice, together with lots of great veteran leadership in Shaw, Harper, Green, and Horry. And of course, the Zen Master.

But even Indiana had depth. Jalen Rose had emerged as a great playmaker and scorer for Indiana, together with Smits, Jackson, Miller, and Dale Davis (who became an All-Star), and guys off the bench like Best, Croshere, McKey, and veterans like Perkins and Mullin. Yea, that roster doesn't seem to stand out, right? But somehow, it was good enough to be the #1 offense in the league.

I'd say a lot of teams were deep more so than being stacked with superstars, per se.

[SouBeachTalents]

You had a GOAT level season from Shaq, and an iconic game/moment in the Blazers Game 7 collapse and the alley oop to Shaq.

Outside of that, 2000 wasn’t any notable year. I felt like the star power the very next year in ‘01 was much stronger imo. It also provided one of the best teams in league history, and as great and iconic a game as we’ve seen with the Sixers handing the Lakers their only loss of the postseason.

[HoopsNY]

You had a GOAT level season from Shaq, and an iconic game/moment in the Blazers Game 7 collapse and the alley oop to Shaq.

Outside of that, 2000 wasn’t any notable year. I felt like the star power the very next year in ‘01 was much stronger imo. It also provided one of the best teams in league history, and as great and iconic a game as we’ve seen with the Sixers handing the Lakers their only loss of the postseason.

Iverson had heart. That was a great game for sure.

[NBAGOAT]

eh 00 blazers were only challenge to the lakers in the west imo. Apologies to a good but old malone/stockton. East was better than the next few years and competitive but as other people said the rosters still didnt stand out. heat/knicks were 2/3 of the big contenders and past their prime compared to 90s versions. I prefer something stuff from 02-04 even with the ugly basketball. Up to 4 contenders in the west each year and east was weak in terms of contenders but those teams were competitive with each other.

Better superstar play too which matters. Shaq/iverson/carter were worse but duncan/kg/kobe/tmac/dirk/kidd were better. Some guys from the 90s at the end of their prime doesnt make up for that imo

[pandiani17]

eh 00 blazers were only challenge to the lakers in the west imo. Apologies to a good but old malone/stockton. East was better than the next few years and competitive but as other people said the rosters still didnt stand out. heat/knicks were 2/3 of the big contenders and past their prime compared to 90s versions. I prefer something stuff from 02-04 even with the ugly basketball. Up to 4 contenders in the west each year and east was weak in terms of contenders but those teams were competitive with each other.

Better superstar play too which matters. Shaq/iverson/carter were worse but duncan/kg/kobe/tmac/dirk/kidd were better. Some guys from the 90s at the end of their prime doesnt make up for that imo

East was a joke from 2001-2003. Everybody knew that the real NBA finals were the Western Conference Finals. I think that in the year 2000 the Eastern teams still were taken into account for the post-season predictions. From then on, until the Pistons shocked the world in 2004, the East teams weren't thought to be in the NBA's elite.

[HoopsNY]

eh 00 blazers were only challenge to the lakers in the west imo. Apologies to a good but old malone/stockton. East was better than the next few years and competitive but as other people said the rosters still didnt stand out. heat/knicks were 2/3 of the big contenders and past their prime compared to 90s versions. I prefer something stuff from 02-04 even with the ugly basketball. Up to 4 contenders in the west each year and east was weak in terms of contenders but those teams were competitive with each other.

Better superstar play too which matters. Shaq/iverson/carter were worse but duncan/kg/kobe/tmac/dirk/kidd were better. Some guys from the 90s at the end of their prime doesnt make up for that imo

Keep in mind the Kings took the Lakers to 5 games in 2000. This was before they extended the 1st round to 7 games. Then the NBA rigged the 2002 series, which also went 7 games, but really belonged to the Kings.

[NBAGOAT]

Keep in mind the Kings took the Lakers to 5 games in 2000. This was before they extended the 1st round to 7 games. Then the NBA rigged the 2002 series, which also went 7 games, but really belonged to the Kings.

Yea but I see that series as one of those series that’s unlikely and that’s helped by the series only being 5 games. The kings weren’t contenders yet that year imo

[HoopsNY]

Yea but I see that series as one of those series that’s unlikely and that’s helped by the series only being 5 games. The kings weren’t contenders yet that year imo

You're not entirely wrong, but if you recall, the Lakers looked very beatable in that playoffs. Even the fact that they lost 2 games to Indy was odd. And that doesn't even account for the series with Portland going 7 games.

The only series that was a cakewalk was the Phoenix series, which would have been more interesting if SA was in it instead. A lot of speculation at the time was that the Spurs could have beaten the Lakers if Duncan didn't get injured.

Yea, LAL won 67 games that year, but I would probably say that the 2001 Lakers were a better team.