By full credit, I mean would you consider them a team that could match up well against championship teams in the past? They faced a watered down east in those years where the talent pool wasn't great at all...ESPECIALLY at center. I mean, Shaq is one of the greatest of all times. In his prime, you could match him up with Lamar Odom and they'd win a ring in todays NBA right?
Look they faced Indiana in 2000 - (Rik Smits)
76ers in 2001 - (Dikembe Mutombo)
And swept the Nets in 2002 - (Todd MacCulloch)
What do you think people, is this like a "great" Laker team of the past? Or were they fortunate to have Shaq in his prime facing a weak east??
2007-06-13 04:27:25 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Basketball
I see what some of you are saying...but with a weak east all they had to do is run through whatever $hitty team they faced.
Like this year, the Cavs are $hit...but someone had to get there right?
The power in the NBA was definitely more balanced last decade.
2007-06-13 04:48:59 · update #1
"Answerman"- Lakers, Phoenix, Utah were weak in the early to mid '90's are you kidding me??? LOL
Whoa, the Jazz would have had two rings easily in todays NBA. That Suns team with Barkley ate everyone up. The Lakers were old, I'll give you that but they still were the "Lakers" and MJ put the dagger in 'em hahahahahahahahahaha
2007-06-13 04:57:52 · update #2
Well, having Shaq in his prime is not an argument against them at all. All great teams had great players. Arguing that is like saying the Celtics didn't deserve to win with Bill Russell or Larry Bird, or that the Bulls didn't deserve it when they had Michael Jordan. Shaq was a part of the team.
That said, I think your argument that other teams were weak has some bite to it. They didn't have a good rival or serious threat for a long time.... but isn't that still a credit to how good they were? And you say that the East was weak, but they still had to play the teams in the West to get to the finals. I have to say that those Lakers teams were as good as any, unless you want to make the general argument that the players in the NBA during those years were not as good as players in other years. That's a hard argument to make. Comparing generations always is.
2007-06-13 04:34:00 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Answerman are you serious!? Who did Jordans Bulls beat? I am from Chicago and I can tell you who they beat six different times! How about Magic and the Lakeers, Clyde and Blazers, Barkley in his MVP year and the Suns, Kemp and Payton of the Sonics, and then two years in a row against MVP Karl Malone and Stockton in their prime. So I think the Bulls played good teams for all there rings, especially much harder teams then Shaq and Kobe....I mean the Nets? Come on....Did'nt Shaq also get swept in the finals back in the day against the Rockets?...So theres one center he couldnt match up with.
2007-06-13 05:19:28 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. G 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't say that the Lakers only won the rings because of the waterdowned East. The Lakers had to get through the west first. Also, no center was a good matchup against Shaq in his prime. He is a one-of-a kind player. The 00'-02' Lakers were very good and deserve all the rings they have.
2007-06-13 04:44:44 · answer #3 · answered by celtics34330 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it had nothing to do with a watered down east or the futile match up at center.
what accounted for 2 of the lakers championships were 2 of the BIGGEST choke jobs in the western conference finals.
portland losing a 10-15 pt lead in the 4th qtr of game 7 in 2000 ( u remember...where scottie pippen was supposed to emerge for mj's shadow as being more than a sidekick...what a joke)
and sacramento's airball and missed free throw escapade in game 7 of the 2002 wcf. that as a die hard kings fan, still hurts!
2007-06-13 04:44:49 · answer #4 · answered by carlos l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Lakers beat the Spurs those 3 years, didn't they? So why shouldn't they get full credit for the rings? You beat the Spurs, you're almost guaranteed a ring, unless it's the 2004 Lakers when Kobe played like he wanted MVP and not the championship or if you're a choker like Dirk in 2006.
2007-06-13 04:41:11 · answer #5 · answered by DMAN 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter about the East. Do you remember of all the teams they had to go through? Do you remember all the rivalry the Lakers had with many great teams?
They had to go through Portland TrailBlazers, Sacramento Kings, Dallas Mavericks, San Antonio Spurs, Minnesota Timerwolves. Its unfortunate that the East are weak.
2007-06-13 05:03:13 · answer #6 · answered by cuhris84 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 2000 Lakers were reputable....to reputable to offer up. The spurs raped the cavs. and so a methods because the nice and comfy temperature, D wade gave both the pistons and the Mavs a clean butt hollow to make caca with. no one replaced into preventing Wade those video games.
2016-11-23 17:22:29 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you my friend are a crack smoker.....
it was a dominant team NO DOUBT.....the fact that everyone else pailed in comparision should tell you that...
I mean who did Jordans Bulls beat??????? Those teams were weak compared to the Bulls...it doesn't mean the bulls were soft...
The Lakers are the best team throughout NBA history...from Miken, to Wilt, "THE LOGO", Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe....
all other teams do pale in comparision.
2007-06-13 04:32:52 · answer #8 · answered by Answerman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you are correct! the laker teams of that era are nowhere as good as the magic showtime team!! the lakers that battled the celtics with larry bird are far better than the shaq teams!!
2007-06-13 04:31:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
shaq should get full credit. he should have all 3 of kobes rings too.
2007-06-13 04:48:14 · answer #10 · answered by c g 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋