loading . . . Second Best NBA Team of the 2000s User Matt15 posed a question on the RealGM Basketball Player Comparisons board: What was the second best NBA team of the 2000s (2000-01 through 2009-10) after the 2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers. I’ll begin by noting that one could quibble with the 2000-01 Lakers in the top spot. While that Lakers team had a historically dominant 15-1 postseason run, it was one of the weaker NBA champions in terms of regular season performance. But I will accept the 2000-01 Lakers as the best team of the 2000s (it certainly was for its playoff run) in order to entertain Matt15’s question.
The obvious candidates for next best team of the 2000s all came in the latter-half of the decade: 2006-07 San Antonio Spurs, 2007-08 Boston Celtics, and 2008-09 Los Angeles Lakers. One could plausibly add the 2004-05 Spurs into the mix, which featured better versions of Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili than the 2006-07 edition, but the 06-07 Spurs were better in the regular season and did not come perilously close to losing in the NBA Finals, so I will tab them as being better than the 2004-05 Spurs. I will dismiss out of hand the other champions of the decade, the 2001-02 and 2009-10 Lakers (demonstrably weaker than the 2000-01 and 2008-09 editions), 2002-03 Spurs (strong record and best version of Tim Duncan, but not much talent outside of Mr. Duncan), 2003-04 Pistons (which I have covered in long-article form), and 2005-06 Miami Heat (statistically the weakest champion of the decade, but good playoff run) for one reason or another. We also do not need to entertain non-champions here, but I will note that the 2000-01 Spurs (lost [badly] WCF), 2001-02 Sacramento Kings (lost WCF), 2002-03 Dallas Mavericks (lost WCF), 2005-06 Spurs (lost WSF), 2006-07 Phoenix Suns (lost WSF), 2008-09 Cleveland Cavaliers (lost ECF) and Boston Celtics (lost ESF, but “injury what-if” with the mid-season loss of Kevin Garnett), and 2009-10 Orlando Magic (lost ECF) present some interesting “what if” cases.
Of the three teams I tabbed as candidates for the “second best team of the 2000s” crown, I am inclined to go with the 2006-07 Spurs. That Spurs team posted a big +9.3 regular season net rating and had a fairly easy run through the playoffs, with their toughest series being a second-round matchup against the Phoenix Suns (where the Spurs were helped by some ill-timed Suns suspensions). This was one case where the championship was likely decided in the semifinals. One knock on the Spurs’ title run is that its other three playoff opponents were all fairly weak (especially the Cavaliers in the Finals). The 2007-08 Celtics had the best regular season net rating since the 1996-97 Chicago Bulls (+11.2), but were taken to seven games by two teams with negative regular season SRS, the Atlanta Hawks and Cavaliers, in the first two rounds of the playoffs. While the Hawks series was not as “close” as it looked, the Celtics were outscored by Cleveland in the semifinals and nearly lost a close game seven. Boston was much better against strong competition in the final two rounds, but it was an odd playoff run. The 2008-09 Lakers had a weaker regular season net rating than the Spurs and Celtics (+8.1). While its playoff run was less rocky than the Celtics’, the Lakers were taken the full seven game distance in the West Semifinals by the Houston Rockets, who were without Tracy McGrady for the entire series and without Yao Ming for games 4-7 (which the Riockets split 2-2). Similarly to the 2006-07 Spurs, the 2008-09 Lakers did not face great competition, albeit the Orlando Magic were a respectable Finals opponent.
For related reading, see my essay Best Record vs Best Net Rating in 51 NBA Seasons.
You can reply to this article from your own site by sending a Webmention. https://social.emucafe.org/naferrell/second-best-nba-team-of-the-2000s-04-20-26/
