Comments on: Missing Rings: 2000s Edition (Part III)

By: Away Lakers Playoff Tickets

Away Lakers Playoff Tickets — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:54:20 +0000

Very nice Los Angeles Lakers information. I hope to be in Los Angeles for a game this spring.

By: Andrew Norris

Andrew Norris — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:36:18 +0000

The 2001 Spurs were incredibly good, and certainly were not just built for the regular season. If the Lakers had been in the East, the Spurs would have rolled to the finals easily, and a lot of people thought they would beat the Lakers until they played the games. Don't forget -- the Spurs swept the Lakers in '99 (pre-Phil, but they had Shaq and Kobe in place), and Duncan was injured for the 2000 playoffs, so the Lakers won that title without ever having to face off against the Spurs. Of course, then they played the games, and we all know what happened there. While 2001 was unfathomably painful -- Spurs fans expected our team to beat the Lakers now that Duncan was back and healthy, and the sweep was just plain brutal -- the toughest beats were definitely '04 and '06. A break here or there -- the 0.4 second shot, the foul on Dirk -- and we probably would have won the title (though the Pistons and Heat might have had something to say about that). Then again, in '03 we had Horry's in-and-out shot for the Lakers and Dirk's injury, in '05 we had the blown defense on the Horry shot at the buzzer against the Pistons, and in '07 we had the Suns suspensions -- though I think we win the Phoenix series even without those, personally.

By: Art

Art — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:48:56 +0000

Every Mavs fan ALWAYS mentions the officitaing crew in the Finals in regards to Wade. However, NO MAVS FAN mentions that same treatment Dirk got in the WCF against the Spurs that year.

Duncan fouled out because Dirk stepped on his shoe. Dirk gets the late game call on Ginobili, but seconds later, the refs swallow the whistles on a Duncan shot to win the game.

Face it Mavs fans, if you want to blame the refs for giving the Heat the title, you have to accept that the refs put you in the Finals in the first place.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:59:50 +0000

The 2003 Mavs had an awesome record largely due to a 14-0 start to the season. Having to go through 7 games against Portland, and 7 games against a depleted Kings team (lost Webber through injury in Game 2) showed their mettle. Yes, they took the Spurs to 6, winning Game 1 ugly (each team shot 50 free throws and the Spurs aren't gonna win a free throw shooting contest), but those Spurs won every series in 6 that year with the Mavs series being arguably the least competitive. No. I think the 2006 Mavs team was much tougher.

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:40:22 +0000

I remember reading Dr. Jack Ramsay on ESPN's website previewing the 2001 Lakers-Spurs WCF, saying that there was no way the Lakers would cruise through that series and it would go seven games, with the Lakers winning...hard to remember now that the Spurs were so good that season because they got run over by the best postseason in history.

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:36:47 +0000

If the Spurs hadn't won 3 times in 00's this list would depress me. But instead makes me happy that my team not only won 3 times but was probably (I said probably for you laker fans) the best team of the decade.

By: The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:21:42 +0000

Ugh. Any cite of Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings series in 2002 (especially if the mention is coupled with the legitimately bad call on Walker's halftime three in Game 4 that should not have counted) should also mention the horrifically one-sided officiating in Sacramento's favor in Games 2 and 5.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:40:17 +0000

No problem. I empathize with the frustration Kings and Mavs fans must feel over those particular series -- to be that close, and to have the outcome swing on a circumstance beyond the team's control is tough to swallow. So it's perfectly understandable to still be upset about what happened.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:28:18 +0000

Yeah, sorry, I hate to be so negative. Thanks for the list, though, and taking the time to put it together.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:11:25 +0000

That's a terrific point about the Nowitzki injury, which obviously changed the entire complexion of that series. And they were still right there at the end, if not for Kerr and Stephen Jackson making some ridiculously clutch shots. But I wanted to focus on the quality of that team over the entire season -- I don't think a lot of people appreciate just how good that team was, especially on offense. Nash and Nowitzki were a beautiful pairing to watch. Regarding the refs, just like in the 2002 Kings-Lakers series, I don't really want to get into debating the calls too much. There's not a lot of use in making value judgments on calls that happened years ago, since none of us were ever NBA referees and we have a lot of benefits (hindsight, replays, etc.) that they didn't have at the time. Even with the Donaghy accusations, I think we have no choice but to believe the calls were made in good faith, lest the sanctity of the game become compromised forever. Were there bad calls in those series? Absolutely. But was it part of a conspiracy to rig games? I don't want to go down that road, because it leads to a place where we can't trust any of the games we watch, any of the numbers on this site, or any of the championship banners that hang in arenas around the league.