No team has repeated since 02 Lakers...why?

Burton · Post #21 » by **Burton** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:41 am

Because sheed left horry open

Sedale Threatt · Post #22 » by **Sedale Threatt** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:42 am

Spurtatcus wrote:.4 and Manu's foul.

Otherwise, there's a Spurs 5-peat.

/thread

The Spurs haven't even strung TWO together and you're dreaming about five?!?!

retrospect24 · Post #23 » by **retrospect24** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:44 am

Spurtatcus wrote:.4 and Manu's foul.

Otherwise, there's a Spurs 5-peat.

/thread

And if it wasn't for Diaw and Amare getting off the bench, no 2007 championship. Yay, I can play the "what if" game too.

Spicy P · Post #24 » by **Spicy P** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:49 am

Because they don't have Kobe Bryant

TAI8 · Post #25 » by **TAI8** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:50 am

Sedale Threatt wrote:
Spurtatcus wrote:.4 and Manu's foul.

Otherwise, there's a Spurs 5-peat.

/thread

The Spurs haven't even strung TWO together and you're dreaming about five?!?!

Although I'm not so sure the Spurs would've beaten the '04 Pistons had not .4 happened, I know for a fact that they would've beaten Miami....Wade doesn't go off on Bowen like that and Tim Duncan never loses in the Finals..

TAI8 · Post #26 » by **TAI8** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:52 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
PP 4 Three wrote:
AChand90 wrote:Because KG got injured.
Yup.

One could argue that if the 08' Lakers had a healthy Bynum & Ariza, they would be going for a 3 peat this year......

No way..The '08 Lakers were clearly a step below the '08 Celtics..Healthy Bynum and Ariza wouldn't have made much of a difference..

Bucs80 · Post #27 » by **Bucs80** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:56 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Repeating in a major sport is VERY HARD, that's why.

When Pat Riley made that back 2 back guarantee back in 87', it's was an outlandish statement because it hadn't been done in the NBA since 1969. LA was that good of a team, and the BadBoys followed up with their own after Kareem retired & Bird started to decline.

By 92', Magic was gone, Bird was just about done, and many stars were aging. The talent pool was dilluted by the expansion era, and that benefitted great teams already intact(Chicago, Portland). So throughout 92' -99', there wasn't much depth or disruption amongst the top 2 or 3 teams. Houston(a good, not great team) win 2 in a row speaks volumes to how much lower the competition was during that time.

The late 90's introduced a lot of young talent, and many foreign players who replenished the NBA talent pool. So by 00' it once again became extremely hard to repeat. LA lucked out by having Kobe/Shaq/Phil, and they beat some TOUGH teams like the Blazers, Spurs and Kings during the 00'-02' period. The Spurs weren't a great team in their own right, but much like the 80's Celtics, they were able to win 2 in a row due to the high level of competition.

Fast forward to today, and I think LA has a legit chance at going back to back mainly because their built to withstand injury and have the best player. But it won't be easy.

What in the World....

Teams Like The Utah Jazz, Seattle Supersonics, Orlando Magic, Houston Rockets, Phoenix Suns, Portland Trail-Blazers, Indiana Pacers, and New York Knicks.

There were alot of great quality teams in the 90's... It just happend to be a man named Michael Jordan. A guy who was so selfish that he stole Championships left and right in the NBA in the during that time.

I can easily argue that the Lakers played against crap in the 00's.. Only teams that come to mind that even stood into the Lakers way was the Kings, Spurs, and the Trail-Blazers. Nobody in the east was really even that good. Teams like the Nets and Sixers who were pretty much One Man teams made the finals. Pacers were pretty decent though, but I couldn't say they had a possibility to beat the Lakers. Not take anything from the Lakers, but they didn't have to go through much to get to win championships. And things were much easier when you have the most dominate big man in his prime, and one of the premier wing players in the league on your team.

Why has no one repeated since 02 Lakers, because teams got better, and there never really was a clear cut great team which everyone thought would win.

Warhammer3025 · Post #28 » by **Warhammer3025** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:06 am

Prime Shaq was a force of nature and couldnt be stopped. Fill the appropriate pieces around him and you're good to go. That shoulda been the team to 4peat and beyond damn....

Post #29 » by **Paydro70** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:18 am

Salary cap + luck. To be statistically significant about the best team winning a playoff series, you'd have to play best out of 23 or so. Even if a team stays the best from year to year, odds are pretty good they get knocked off just due to luck.

cuad · Post #30 » by **cuad** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:29 am

Bucs80 wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Repeating in a major sport is VERY HARD, that's why.

When Pat Riley made that back 2 back guarantee back in 87', it's was an outlandish statement because it hadn't been done in the NBA since 1969. LA was that good of a team, and the BadBoys followed up with their own after Kareem retired & Bird started to decline.

By 92', Magic was gone, Bird was just about done, and many stars were aging. The talent pool was dilluted by the expansion era, and that benefitted great teams already intact(Chicago, Portland). So throughout 92' -99', there wasn't much depth or disruption amongst the top 2 or 3 teams. Houston(a good, not great team) win 2 in a row speaks volumes to how much lower the competition was during that time.

The late 90's introduced a lot of young talent, and many foreign players who replenished the NBA talent pool. So by 00' it once again became extremely hard to repeat. LA lucked out by having Kobe/Shaq/Phil, and they beat some TOUGH teams like the Blazers, Spurs and Kings during the 00'-02' period. The Spurs weren't a great team in their own right, but much like the 80's Celtics, they were able to win 2 in a row due to the high level of competition.

Fast forward to today, and I think LA has a legit chance at going back to back mainly because their built to withstand injury and have the best player. But it won't be easy.

What in the World....

Teams Like The Utah Jazz, Seattle Supersonics, Orlando Magic, Houston Rockets, Phoenix Suns, Portland Trail-Blazers, Indiana Pacers, and New York Knicks.

There were alot of great quality teams in the 90's... It just happend to be a man named Michael Jordan. A guy who was so selfish that he stole Championships left and right in the NBA in the during that time.

I can easily argue that the Lakers played against crap in the 00's.. Only teams that come to mind that even stood into the Lakers way was the Kings, Spurs, and the Trail-Blazers. Nobody in the east was really even that good. Teams like the Nets and Sixers who were pretty much One Man teams made the finals. Pacers were pretty decent though, but I couldn't say they had a possibility to beat the Lakers. Not take anything from the Lakers, but they didn't have to go through much to get to win championships. And things were much easier when you have the most dominate big man in his prime, and one of the premier wing players in the league on your team.

Why has no one repeated since 02 Lakers, because teams got better, and there never really was a clear cut great team which everyone thought would win.

Someone doesn't remember the Milwaukee Bucks.

Blame Rasho · Post #31 » by **Blame Rasho** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:33 am

Well it is because it is hard to do...

Edrees · Post #32 » by **Edrees** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:51 am

Spurtatcus wrote:.4 and Manu's foul.

Otherwise, there's a Spurs 5-peat.

/thread

I think it's ridiculous to claim that the spurs would have beaten the pistons no questions asked. it woulda been a closer series than the lakers gave them , but to lay it "0.4" alone is assuming a bit too much there.

Jwade · Post #33 » by **Jwade** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:54 am

Blue_and_Whte wrote:
Kobe8Player wrote:
Jwade wrote:1) Injuries
2) 82 game seasons
3) Salary cap

any other questions?

Amm, it's always been 82 games.

Yeah like that's changed.

I'd say players going to different teams via trades or FA signings.

No one said it's changed sherlock. That was one of 3 contributing factors.

Welcome to English.

rocketsballin · Post #34 » by **rocketsballin** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:55 am

Eh, blame rasho.

Mamba Venom · Post #35 » by **Mamba Venom** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:09 am

more balanced league

lots of teams are stacked

better recon and ability to beat a team

LAKESHOW · Post #36 » by **LAKESHOW** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:39 am

the only team that had a legitimate shot was the spurs. not the celtics. not the pistons. and not the LAKERs immediately after shaq left. now if you ask the spurs why, they'll say injuries.

so thats the answer, injuries.

the celtics would not have done it, they didnt defeat the LAKERs twice last year with KG. and the LAKERs were a team on a mission. and in those years, it is extremely tough defeating that team. whether baseball, footall, basketball etc... there are years where a team has had just about enough, and resume the following year on a tear and with a mission. the LAKERs were not going to be denied.

but back to the spurs, injuries and maybe pop rode 'em too hard. but thats it, only the spurs had a TRUE opportunity to repeat after the LAKERs 3peat.

Bigdog1 · Post #37 » by **Bigdog1** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:44 am

Everybody knows it is harder to repeat then win for the first time.

Dr Aki · Post #38 » by **Dr Aki** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 6:44 am

wone wrote:No way..The '08 Lakers were clearly a step below the '08 Celtics..Healthy Bynum and Ariza wouldn't have made much of a difference..

the lakers missing 2/3 of their top defensive players was the reason celtics held the upper hand, and instead of having lamar off the bench, it was ronny turiaf... quite a big difference

the lakers had to match gasol on perkins, lamar on KG and radmanovic on pierce was the reason had such as easy time murdering the lakers soft front court.

saying a healthy bynum and ariza wouldnt have made much of a difference is plain ignorant.

do you remember the christmas game last year?

Rasheeed!!! · Post #39 » by **Rasheeed!!!** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 7:04 am

LAKESHOW wrote:the only team that had a legitimate shot was the spurs. not the celtics. not the pistons. and not the LAKERs immediately after shaq left. now if you ask the spurs why, they'll say injuries.

so thats the answer, injuries.

the celtics would not have done it, they didnt defeat the LAKERs twice last year with KG. and the LAKERs were a team on a mission. and in those years, it is extremely tough defeating that team. whether baseball, footall, basketball etc... there are years where a team has had just about enough, and resume the following year on a tear and with a mission. the LAKERs were not going to be denied.

but back to the spurs, injuries and maybe pop rode 'em too hard. but thats it, only the spurs had a TRUE opportunity to repeat after the LAKERs 3peat.

Except that the Pistons were 12 mins away from back-to-back championships.....if that isn't a TRUE opportunity then i don't know what is.

Puertorique · Post #40 » by **Puertorique** » Fri Nov 6, 2009 7:38 am

Like someone said earlier it's hard to do.

But since we are doing this topic I guess I should also mention no team has won 6 titles in 8 years since the Bulls.

No team has won 8 titles in 8 straight years since the Celtics.

No pro basketball team has won 4 straight titles since the Houston Comets.

If you ask me all those feats are far more impresive then a simple 3 peat or back to back. That is true dominance.

If you consider pure basketball the top players to ever play the game and win titles as captains are Bill Russell 11 total 8 straight, Cynthia Cooper 4 straight, Michael Jordan 6 in 8 years 2 three peats. That is dominance in the sport of basketball. The way they won and how short of a time frame is dominance.