Best team to never win a championship together

[stretch]

Who would you say is the best team to not win a championship over the past 3 decades (80s 90s 00s)?

Now when I say this, I don't mean a team like the 03-04 Lakers who had Malone and Payton, because their main team was still Kobe and Shaq, who had won 3 championships already.

Stockton/Malone Jazz?
Payton/Kemp Sonics?
Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings?
Nash/Amare/Marion Suns?
Sabonis/Wallace/Stoudemire Blazers?
Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Robinson Blazers?
Shaq/Penny/Grant Magic?
Miller/Jackson/Rose Pacers?
Ewing/Starks Knicks?
Robinson/Elliott/Avery Spurs?
Aguirre/Blackmon/Harper/Tarpley Mavericks?
Moncrief/Cummings Bucks?
Hardaway/Mourning/Mashburn Heat?
Barkley/Hawkins 76ers?
Barkley/Majerle/KJ Suns?
Other?

[ambchang]

Probably Drexler Blazers (Bulls), followed by Webber Kings (refs). Both teams would have won it all under normal circumstances.

Maybe throw in the Dirk Mavs of the mid 00s, but then they won it all in 11.

[ohmwrecker]

Sonics

[Mel_13]

Jazz

HOF big-2nd in career points, 2x MVP
HOF PG- 1st in career assists and steals
18 years together- extremely durable, both are in top 7 in career games and minutes
15 of those years with a HOF coach
11 50+ win seasons
3 60+ win seasons
2 trips to the Finals

[Ashy Larry]

that Dallas squad from the late eighties was nice as well ..........


no bigger failure than Utah in 1998. Pippen with a bad back. Harper old and sick. Jordan practically launching shots and Utah had home court and playing in a place where they damn near never lose.

[Brazil]

Kings: fucked by ref is worst than having the bad luck to play during MJ era

[Ashy Larry]

Kings: fucked by ref is worst than having the bad luck to play during MJ era


I've said it many times. The Lakers weren't the best team that year. You don't go down 20 points at home in back-to-back games. Lakers better be lucky that replay wasn't allowed back then because the Samaki Walker shot would have been taken off the board. Kings were clearly the better team in that series but they dropped the ball in Game 7. With that said, if weren;t for the refs, there wouldn't have been a game 7 to worry about.

[Girasuck]

Kings: fucked by ref is worst than having the bad luck to play during MJ era

Hardly. Try being fucked by ref AND playing during the MJ era. Too much to overcome.

[Mal]

Kings, when they were fucked by Stern, refs and economy

[Brunodf]

Jazz/Blazzers

[midnightpulp]

I can't feel sorry for the faggot Kings, even despite the screw job. They lost all my sympathy when they proceeded to miss 14 FTs and shoot 2-20 from 3, at home, in game 7. That series was not defined by game 6 alone. Kings fans/supporters complaining they lost the series because of that one game is like Suns fans saying "if not for the Amare suspension..." Point is, the Kings had plenty of chances to put that series on ice. They lost game 1 at home. If Vlade knew how to grab a rebound, Horry never hits that buzzer beater, the Kings go up 3-1 and probably close it out in 5. And as mentioned before, if they could make FTs and hit a damn 3, they win in 7. Not to mention all the big leads they blew over the course of that series.

The Kings didn't get ripped off. They choked.

[Brazil]

I can't feel sorry for the faggot Kings, even despite the screw job. They lost all my sympathy when they proceeded to miss 14 FTs and shoot 2-20 from 3, at home, in game 7. That series was not defined by game 6 alone. Kings fans/supporters complaining they lost the series because of that one game is like Suns fans saying "if not for the Amare suspension..." Point is, the Kings had plenty of chances to put that series on ice. They lost game 1 at home. If Vlade knew how to grab a rebound, Horry never hits that buzzer beater, the Kings go up 3-1 and probably close it out in 5. And as mentioned before, if they could make FTs and hit a damn 3, they win in 7. Not to mention all the big leads they blew over the course of that series.

The Kings didn't get ripped off. They choked.

There shouldn't have been a game 7 to start with. I liked that team a lot and at least in my mind they were the better team. During a serie against a tough opponent you blow leads, you miss 3s (FTs is more inexcusable), you make runs etc... if your point is to say they were not perfect, this we agree. if your point is to say they lost against a better team we disagree. If ref were half decent this serie was over in 6.

[JoeTait75]

I can't feel sorry for the faggot Kings, even despite the screw job. They lost all my sympathy when they proceeded to miss 14 FTs and shoot 2-20 from 3, at home, in game 7. That series was not defined by game 6 alone. Kings fans/supporters complaining they lost the series because of that one game is like Suns fans saying "if not for the Amare suspension..." Point is, the Kings had plenty of chances to put that series on ice. They lost game 1 at home. If Vlade knew how to grab a rebound, Horry never hits that buzzer beater, the Kings go up 3-1 and probably close it out in 5. And as mentioned before, if they could make FTs and hit a damn 3, they win in 7. Not to mention all the big leads they blew over the course of that series.

The Kings didn't get ripped off. They choked.

This. They blew a 24-point lead in Game 4, too. I know they got homered in Game 6 but the Kings made their own bed in that series.

[stretch]

Hardly. Try being fucked by ref AND playing during the MJ era. Too much to overcome.

I'm pretty sure the Jazz didn't deal with both. Just the MJ era. Nice try though.

[baseline bum]

Tough call. I think I'd go with

1. The Kemp/Payton/Hawkins/Schrempf Sonics
2. The Barkley/KJ/Majerle/Dumas Suns
3. The Webber/Divac/Bibby/Stojakovic Kings

as my top 3. Fucking New York, I loved that Knicks team until they traded Mark Jackson and their offense went to hell. Derek Harper was nice defensively, but I have to think Ewing rings if they had Mark Jackson in the mid 90s.

[baseline bum]

I'm pretty sure the Jazz didn't deal with both. Just the MJ era. Nice try though.

He's probably talking about two really awful calls in game 6 of 98:

The Eisley three that was something like 2 seconds before the buzzer but got waved off (lol Bavetta)
A Ron Harper shot in the fourth that didn't beat the shot clock

[spurraider21]

He's probably talking about two really awful calls in game 6 of 98:

The Eisley three that was something like 2 seconds before the buzzer but got waved off (lol Bavetta)
A Ron Harper shot in the fourth that didn't beat the shot clock


MJ pushoff

[midnightpulp]

There shouldn't have been a game 7 to start with. I liked that team a lot and at least in my mind they were the better team. During a serie against a tough opponent you blow leads, you miss 3s (FTs is more inexcusable), you make runs etc... if your point is to say they were not perfect, this we agree. if your point is to say they lost against a better team we disagree. If ref were half decent this serie was over in 6.

I do think the Kings were a better team. If those two teams were to play each other 100 times, the Kings probably win 60 of the games. My central point is the Kings had more than enough chances to put the Lakers away and couldn't do it. Also, there's no guarantee the Kings win game 6 if it was called fairly.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the Lakers. No one loves shitting on their accomplishments more than me, but I just can't grant victimhood to a team that misses 14 FTs and shoots 2-20 from 3 in the most important game of the franchise's history.

[HarlemHeat37]

Agree with mid to an extent..

Game 6 was the worst officiated game in NBA history, to the point where even the Lakers media questioned the officials:lol..however, the Kings choked worse than any team of the 2000s IMO..blowing massive leads, missing free throws..Peja's air ball from the baseline was the hallmark shot for those Kings, tbh..

A team with Chris Webber probably wasn't meant to ring, fate wouldn't allow it, tbh..

[Ashy Larry]

agree with most of the Lakers/Kings talk ......... still feel Sac was the better squad. They farted away chances left and right and really should have gone back to Sac up 3-1

[irishock]

Kings bigger chokers than the 06 Mavs?

[Blake]

1 jazz
2 sonics
3 blazers

I think it's fair to go ahead and scratch any team off that didn't make the finals.

[stretch]

1 jazz
2 sonics
3 blazers

I think it's fair to go ahead and scratch any team off that didn't make the finals.

Not neccesarily. There are squads like the late 80s Mavericks and early 2000's Kings who were better than a lot of teams that have made the finals over the years, arguably even better than some teams who won it, like most any eastern conference team that made it from 2000-2007 (except maybe the Pistons), and the 03 Spurs and 06 Heat for teams that won it.

[Girasuck]

MJ pushoff

Honestly I'm not that upset with the MJ pushoff, and don't blame the refs for not calling it. The other two calls/non calls (Eisley 3, Harper shot) still bother me today.

[mindcrime]

Agree with mid to an extent..

Game 6 was the worst officiated game in NBA history, to the point where even the Lakers media questioned the officials:lol..however, the Kings choked worse than any team of the 2000s IMO..blowing massive leads, missing free throws..Peja's air ball from the baseline was the hallmark shot for those Kings, tbh..

A team with Chris Webber probably wasn't meant to ring, fate wouldn't allow it, tbh..


Webber had a good all around series against the Lakers. He wasn't the one missing 3's and FT's. As midnight said, in game 7 the Kings shot 2-20 from 3 and 16 of 30 from the line. Peja went 0-6 from 3. Vlade made only 5 of his 10 free throw attempts whereas Shaq shot 11-15. The Kings would have been better served had Peja spent the entire series, not just part of it on the bench. Maybe his injury bothered him more than we know. He shot lights out in the 2011 series against the Lakers.

[Brazil]

I do think the Kings were a better team. If those two teams were to play each other 100 times, the Kings probably win 60 of the games. My central point is the Kings had more than enough chances to put the Lakers away and couldn't do it. Also, there's no guarantee the Kings win game 6 if it was called fairly.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the Lakers. No one loves shitting on their accomplishments more than me, but I just can't grant victimhood to a team that misses 14 FTs and shoots 2-20 from 3 in the most important game of the franchise's history.

I don't have a lot of doubts regarding the outcome of the game 6 if it had been officiated like just half decently, if it was called fairly, doubt is imo 0%. Nevertheless you are right saying they choked during the game 7. I believe they were a bit out of the serie in their mind full of game 6 "ifs". A fully proven PO squad would have overcome that in game 7 but it seems it was too much for them.

BTW I am no Lakers hater (well not that much), the team was not responsible for the bad officiating, to their credit they stayed focus, fought and pulled what was necessary to finally take the serie. At the end some basketball reasons killed the hopes of a very talented team.

[baseline bum]

Honestly I'm not that upset with the MJ pushoff, and don't blame the refs for not calling it. The other two calls/non calls (Eisley 3, Harper shot) still bother me today.

Karl Malone getting the Durant treatment at the end of games 1 and 2 of the second round was crap too. LOL foul on Robinson for getting kicked in the nuts.

[timvp]

I was never THAT impressed with those Kings. Webber, Divac, Peja, Christie, Bibby ... I mean that's a good team but hardly a team that should have ever been championship favorites. The Lakers just didn't play that well in that series. It's kinda like the 2005 Spurs vs. Sonics or 1992 Bulls vs. Knicks series where the Spurs and Bulls had a mid-playoff slump and almost choked away a championship. Those Kings were nice but the ref controversy overrates how good they really were. If the 2002 Lakers and the 2002 Kings play 100 times, I'd bet the Lakers win a good 70-75 of the games. Kobe and Shaq were the two best players on the court and PJax > Adelman. It's difficult to overcome that advantage. The Kings almost did it ... but it being that close was fluky, IMO.

(Did I just defend the Lakers and Stern's refs? Ugh.)

The list has to start with the Jazz. It was a massive failure that they had so much talent and never won it all.

The Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Williams/Robinson Blazers might have been the most hardnosed team to never win it.

If we omit seasons in which the best player in the league was suspended for gambling playing baseball, the Hakeem Rockets were pretty good, tbh.

[FkLA]

^The Kings were a team-oriented squad tbh. The fact noone jumps out individually doesnt change the fact that they were a great team. Besides Webber was elite at the time, pretty sure he finished in Top 3 (or maybe Top 5) in MVP voting that season.

EDIT: Webber finished 7th in 02'

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Jazz stand out because of their longetiviy, they've had 15+ seasons to put it together and couldn't.

[midnightpulp]

I was never THAT impressed with those Kings. Webber, Divac, Peja, Christie, Bibby ... I mean that's a good team but hardly a team that should have ever been championship favorites. The Lakers just didn't play that well in that series. It's kinda like the 2005 Spurs vs. Sonics or 1992 Bulls vs. Knicks series where the Spurs and Bulls had a mid-playoff slump and almost choked away a championship. Those Kings were nice but the ref controversy overrates how good they really were. If the 2002 Lakers and the 2002 Kings play 100 times, I'd bet the Lakers win a good 70-75 of the games. Kobe and Shaq were the two best players on the court and PJax > Adelman. It's difficult to overcome that advantage. The Kings almost did it ... but it being that close was fluky, IMO.

(Did I just defend the Lakers and Stern's refs? Ugh.)

The list has to start with the Jazz. It was a massive failure that they had so much talent and never won it all.

The Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Williams/Robinson Blazers might have been the most hardnosed team to never win it.

If we omit seasons in which the best player in the league was suspended for gambling playing baseball, the Hakeem Rockets were pretty good, tbh.

Have to disagree. I think the '02 Lakers are the worst championship team of the first half of the 00s. They got by on grit, experience, and timely chokes from both the Kings and our Spurs (who couldn't fuckin' close out a 4th quarter in that series).

On a side note: Don't know what it is about Phil Jackson led teams, but they just never fuckin' choke and are exceptional at mind-fuckin' their opponents into chokejobs.

Let's review:

'98 Jazz: Choked in the 4th in game 6 at home.

'00 Trailblazers: Choked a 4th quarter 15 point lead to lose game 7.

'02 Spurs and Kings: Numerous 4th quarter chokes from the Spurs. Kings choke at the line in game 7 (also choked away a 20 point lead in game 4 of that series).

'04 Spurs: Choked away a commanding 2-0 lead after Jackson decided to give the Spurs open shots.

'10 Celtics: Choked away a 13 point 3rd quarter lead.

The only instance I can remember of a Jackson coached team coughing one up is when the Lakers blew a 24 point lead in the '08 Finals. I don't really count the 3-1 '06 series against the Suns a choke since the Lakers probably should have never been up 3-1 in the first place.

And I believe his undefeated record after winning game 1 of a playoff series is still intact.

[baseline bum]

I was never THAT impressed with those Kings. Webber, Divac, Peja, Christie, Bibby ... I mean that's a good team but hardly a team that should have ever been championship favorites. The Lakers just didn't play that well in that series. It's kinda like the 2005 Spurs vs. Sonics or 1992 Bulls vs. Knicks series where the Spurs and Bulls had a mid-playoff slump and almost choked away a championship. Those Kings were nice but the ref controversy overrates how good they really were. If the 2002 Lakers and the 2002 Kings play 100 times, I'd bet the Lakers win a good 70-75 of the games. Kobe and Shaq were the two best players on the court and PJax > Adelman. It's difficult to overcome that advantage. The Kings almost did it ... but it being that close was fluky, IMO.

(Did I just defend the Lakers and Stern's refs? Ugh.)

The list has to start with the Jazz. It was a massive failure that they had so much talent and never won it all.

The Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Williams/Robinson Blazers might have been the most hardnosed team to never win it.

If we omit seasons in which the best player in the league was suspended for gambling playing baseball, the Hakeem Rockets were pretty good, tbh.

I don't know man, that was Sacramento's series. They kicked the shit out of LA on their own floor in game 3 and then came in and did the same for most of game 4 despite it being an absolute must-win for LA. The Lakers got really damn lucky to not be down 3-1 in that series going back to Sacramento. LA was really vulnerable that year as Fox had gone from a top of the line perimeter defender to scrub that season and Fisher came back down to Earth after going nuts in the 2001 playoffs. Samaki Walker was hardly 2001 Horace Grant also. LA could get spectacularly hot, like when they erased more than half of a 30 point deficit in maybe 2:15 of gametime in game 3, but that team was beatable. The Spurs gave them a series despite having a starting backcourt of a 19 year-old Parker, the corpse of Steve Smith, and then Mark Bryant starting in Robinson's place the first two games. I really think you're overrating the 02 Lakers.

[Blake]

Not neccesarily. There are squads like the late 80s Mavericks and early 2000's Kings who were better than a lot of teams that have made the finals over the years, arguably even better than some teams who won it, like most any eastern conference team that made it from 2000-2007 (except maybe the Pistons), and the 03 Spurs and 06 Heat for teams that won it.

Are we talking single years or a group of players? There is a difference.

If we are talking a group of players that had multiple chances but could never get to the finals, then no, they don't belong.

[dunkman]

1. The '02 Kings: played 5 on 8 pushed the thing to 7 games. And one of the refs confirmed it was rigged.
2. The '00 Blazers: once again suspect 5 on 8 trough game 7
3. The '07 Suns: Amare and Diaw lost control after Horry hip checked Nash, otherwise they would have won it all.
The other teams weren't really that close.

[AussieFanKurt]

I don't blame the 02 kings for playing like shit in game 7, they got raped so badly by the refs in game 6 they were still in recovery mode and probably fearing part 2

[Lincoln]

02-03 mavs tbh

Athletic nig dirk, a little past his prime Finley, pre prime Nash, that nigga nve

[Thebesteva]

Dont forget to add this years Spurs to the list

[Jacob1983]

Malone-Stockton Jazz, 2001-2002 Kings, and 2005-2006 Mavs.

The Jazz were going up against Jordan in his prime.

Both the Kings and Mavs were victims of shitty refs but at the same time they did their fair share of choking. Just put it into perspective for a minute. The Kings and Mavs both played horrible at times, got screwed by the refs, and still narrowly lost their series to the Lakers and Heat. If the Kings had made a 2 or 3 more shots or free throws in that 2002 WCF, they would have beaten the Lakers. If the Mavs had made a couple more shots or free throws, they would have beaten D-Whistle and the Heat. The thing that sucks for those Kings and Mavs teams is that they choked really bad, got screwed by the refs, and still narrowly lost.

[baseline bum]

02-03 mavs tbh

Athletic nig dirk, a little past his prime Finley, pre prime Nash, that nigga nve

I don't see it. That team was awful defensively (LOL Don Nelson).

[irishock]

1. The '02 Kings: played 5 on 8 pushed the thing to 7 games. And one of the refs confirmed it was rigged.
2. The '00 Blazers: once again suspect 5 on 8 trough game 7
3. The '07 Suns: Amare and Diaw lost control after Horry hip checked Nash, otherwise they would have won it all.
The other teams weren't really that close.

Still think a Pop-coached team would have beaten a D'Antoni coached team in a game 7 if Amar'e wasnt suspended

[dunkman]

Still think a Pop-coached team would have beaten a D'Antoni coached team in a game 7 if Amar'e wasnt suspended

Would have been difficult @ Phoenix. That year the Suns were good, with all and D'Antoni.

[bus driver]

what about the mavs team of the 90s

mashburn
kidd
jackson

[ambchang]

Disagree about the Kings shouldn't be one of the teams. Fact that they obviously choked in the series, but requiring some huge help from the refs to lose to the eventual champs tells you how good that team is.

The Kings matched up with the Lakers very well (have enough of a passing offense to destroy a defense with Shaq in the middle, has a good PG to shred the horrible Lakers defense of points, very well balanced offensively, decent defensively), they were like the Rasheed Blazers on roids (which is another team that was royally screwed by the refs for the Lakers 3-peat). In a fairly called series, the Kings would have won at least 70 out of 100 times vs. the Lakers.

As for the Malone Jazz, vastly overrated team. Again, for reasons unknown, Malone always gets protected by refs, especially in the playoffs, perhaps the refs have underaged daughters and they are afraid of the pedophile, but there is always something going on. But Malone was probably one of the most overrated offensive player of all time when it was Stockton who creates a majority of the Jazz offense. In a playoff series, Malone can be contained with a dedicated defense, and the Jazz do not have other notable finishers on that team. On defense, if nut-kicks and elbows to the temple weren't allowed, the Jazz would have been a very average team.

The Drexler Blazers were the real deal.

To rank them

Drexler Blazers
Webber Kings
Kemp/Payton Sonics
Sheed Blazers
Harper/Blackman Mavs
Malone Jazz
Ewing Knicks

[Ashy Larry]

^The Kings were a team-oriented squad tbh. The fact noone jumps out individually doesnt change the fact that they were a great team. Besides Webber was elite at the time, pretty sure he finished in Top 3 (or maybe Top 5) in MVP voting that season.

EDIT: Webber finished 7th in 02'

he probably would have won the MVP that year instead of Duncan if he has played more than 54 games. Can't give the award to someone who plays that few games; and they were actually winning without him as well.

[Brazil]

I don't blame the 02 kings for playing like shit in game 7, they got raped so badly by the refs in game 6 they were still in recovery mode and probably fearing part 2

Exactly my point but if the team was a bit more mentally tough they should have overcome that.

I also disagree with timvp on that one, kings 2002>lakers 2002 IMHO. Shaq and Kobe were the two best players but the rest was a clear advantage to the kings. On top of that it is not like shaq was >>>>>> Divac, divac was still very good same for webber who had a great serie !

[Ashy Larry]

I see many of the teams were recently. The 1984 Lakers gave the C's a title. Winning Game 1. Worthy, who had a great game, with the pass to Henderson and lost in OT in Game 2. (Shoulda left the Garden with a 2-0 lead) Game 3 was a turd stomping victory. Game 4 with McHale on Rambis action. They were also up 5 with .59 seconds and the ball and lost the lead. Magic missed two late free throws in OT and the C's stole that game. Should have been a sweep. Lost Game 5 and Game 7.


1989 Lakers were also a great squad. They went through the Western Conference undefeated. Played the Pistons without Magic and Byron Scott because of their brutal injuries. And got swept.

[stretch]

^The Kings were a team-oriented squad tbh. The fact noone jumps out individually doesnt change the fact that they were a great team. Besides Webber was elite at the time, pretty sure he finished in Top 3 (or maybe Top 5) in MVP voting that season.

This.

The Kings didn't have a ton of superstar talent, but they had solid talent, and players who knew their roles and played their roles almost flawlessly.

They were like an offensive-minded version of the Pistons that won it all in 03-04. Actually pretty similar to the Mavs in 2011 as well, in terms of them being an extremely balanced, well rounded team of decently talented players who knew their roles.

[stretch]

Are we talking single years or a group of players? There is a difference.

If we are talking a group of players that had multiple chances but could never get to the finals, then no, they don't belong.

Kidd/K-Mart/Jefferson made the finals 2 straight years with the Nets, but would they have any shot against the 87-88 Mavs or 01-02 Kings in a playoff series?

[stretch]

what about the mavs team of the 90s

mashburn
kidd
jackson

Dirk/Nash/Finley Mavs were better, yet still don't belong in this discussion

[Venti Quattro]

2000 Blazers were close to completing a comeback from a 3-1 deficit, until they missed 15 straight shots in the 4th quarter of Game 7. And yet Blazers fans continue to complain that they got screwed by the refs. :lmao :lmao :lmao

[baseline bum]

2000 Blazers were close to completing a comeback from a 3-1 deficit, until they missed 15 straight shots in the 4th quarter of Game 7. And yet Blazers fans continue to complain that they got screwed by the refs. :lmao :lmao :lmao

LOL that choke. Right in line with how Phil Jackson mindfucked them in that game in Portland in February or March when the Blazers and Lakers had the same record. LOL LA going on to win 67 while Portland ended up wtih 58 or something thanks to the nose-dive after that loss.

[Ice009]

Not neccesarily. There are squads like the late 80s Mavericks and early 2000's Kings who were better than a lot of teams that have made the finals over the years, arguably even better than some teams who won it, like most any eastern conference team that made it from 2000-2007 (except maybe the Pistons), and the 03 Spurs and 06 Heat for teams that won it.

Kings weren't better than the '03 Spurs. Unless you mean the '02 Kings?

[rayjayjohnson]

Jazz

HOF big-2nd in career points, 2x MVP
HOF PG- 1st in career assists and steals
18 years together- extremely durable, both are in top 7 in career games and minutes
15 of those years with a HOF coach
11 50+ win seasons
3 60+ win seasons
2 trips to the Finals

This

[irishock]

edit: wrong thread

[timvp]

I apologize for sticking up for the Lakers (but, eh, their fans aren't here anyways due to the Nash Reunion Choke) but there's just no way someone can convince me that the 2002 Kings > 2002 Lakers. Considering that the East was crap that year, the 2002 WCF was basically the NBA Finals. So to say the Kings > Lakers, you have to say the Kings were championship material. Based on NBA history, they just weren't. Plain and simple. No matter how much we want to romanticize the 2002 Kings because they were unceremoniously bent over by the refs, it's just not factual to say that was a championship caliber team based on what history tells us about championship caliber teams.

In the NBA, for the last 30+ years, the NBA champion has either a legendary defense or a clutch MVP type player at or near his prime. Go down the line and it holds true:

2012 - LeBron
2011 - Dirk
2010 - Gasol/Kobe
2009 - Gasol/Kobe
2008 - Defense
2007 - TD
2006 - Wade
2005 - TD
2004 - Defense
2003 - TD
2002 - Shaq/Kobe
2001 - Shaq/Kobe
2000 - Shaq/Kobe
1999 - TD
1998 - MJ
1997 - MJ
1996 - MJ
1995 - Drexler/Hakeem
1994 - Defense/Hakeem
1993 - MJ
1992 - MJ
1991 - MJ
1990 - Defense
1989 - Defense
1988 - Magic/etc
1987 - Magic/etc
1986 - Bird/etc
1985 - Magic/etc
1984 - Bird/etc
1983 - Malone/etc
1982 - Magic/etc
1981 - Bird/etc
1980 - Kareem/etc
1979 - Defense

The 2002 Kings were pretty good on defense but nowhere near as good defensively as the teams who won a championship based on their defense. Those in the above list are really some of the best defensive teams ever. 2004 Pistons, Bad Boy Pistons, 2008 Celtics, 1979 Sonics, etc.

The 2002 Lakers fit right into that mix. Shaq (or TD, no homer) was the best player in the league. Kobe, too, was top ten. Factor in that he could play unlimited minutes back then and he might have been top 5. Those Lakers also led the league in field goal percentage defense, so they were pretty damn good on defense as well. Toss in Phil Jackson at his prime (if coaches have prime, that was his) and you have all the makings of a championship team. Role players, depth, number of weapons, team play, blah blah ... none of that really matters if you look at the last 33 champions.

So, yeah, the Kings don't fit as the defensive juggernaut. And their best player was ... who ... Chris Webber? Mister 43% shooting in the fourth quarter during that playoff run? Dude was pretty damn good ... until the fourth quarter hit and all he had in his arsenal was that ugly hook shot. Good player -- great at times -- but no way in hell he was at the same level as any of the players above.

In the playoffs, the Kings had two players with PERs above 17 -- Webber at 22 and Bibby at 18.2. That would be extremely weak for a championship team. I'd bet that would have been historically weak, tbh.

Looking closer at those Kings, they beat a decrepit Jazz team featuring Malone and Stockton at damn near 40 years old by a grand total of eight points in the first round. Eight points for the whole series. That was Stockton's last year and Malone's second to last year. So it's not like the Kings came rolling into the Lakers series ... they narrowly made it out of the first round against probably the oldest team in NBA history.

Play that series 100 times and the Kings maybe win a handful of times, to be completely honest. Maybe just once. Hey, give the Kings credit, it almost happened. It probably should have happened. But in an NBA playoff series, give me the team with the two best players on the court, the team with the best player on the court in his prime, the team with the best coach of all-time in his prime and I don't really DGAF about the role players. You can have the team that was above average on defense (but probably not better than Team A) that had "good depth", "played as a team", "knew their roles" and whatever other intangibles you want to mix in.

I apologize in advance. Going to go take a shower. BRB.

[mabrignani]

finley nash dirk and bradley

[2centsworth]

One team that I thought, if not for one mistake, would have made the finals and given the Bulls a real run for their money was the '89-'90 Spurs. Super Young and Talented and had that Great Blazer Team beat. '89 Spurs team was a super good defense team led by DRob who had at least 5 triple double that included +10Blocks. Drob was a freak.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i doubt there was any force in that push off by jordan, it take more than one hand to push off a marshmellow

[Xylus]

The Barkley/KJ/Majerle wound will never heal.

[Latarian Milton]

suns were never built to win a title imho. Utah were very close and they could've done it twice had jordan extended his baseball career a bit longer tbh. webber's kings were stacked but that team looked more like the mavs of mid 00s, deep and stacked but lacking in defensive quality.

[baseline bum]

The Barkley/KJ/Majerle wound will never heal.

Only Finals I ever rooted against Jordan; was a way bigger Barkley fan, and liked KJ and Dumas too.

[baseline bum]

I think LJ's underrating the Kings. They ran one of the most beautiful offenses I have ever seen with Divac and Webber passing out of the high post. It wasn't this gimmick run down the floor and chuck some crap; they could play in the halfcourt and thus win in the playoffs. If you ask me if they'd beat the 2000 or the 2001 Lakers, I'd say no chance in hell. But the 02 Lakers didn't look hungry at all and as crazy as this sounds to say about a 4-1 series, LA barely escaped with wins in 3 of those games against the Spurs (who just choked due to having Steve Smith instead of Manu Ginobili, Terry Porter on his last legs, and Tony Parker back when he looked like he weighed about 150).

[TD 21]

timvp, what the hell does it matter if the '02 Kings weren't the conventional championship team? Last time I checked, neither were the '04 Pistons or the '11 Mavericks. Did they choke? Absolutely, but that doesn't absolve the refs (league) of screwing them, either. They were absolutely better than the Lakers that year and deserved to win that series.

Best to never win it, is between them and the '97 and '98 Jazz, though you're underrating the Kings depth of talent and overrating the Jazz'. The Jazz didn't have a single shot creator on the wings and their only perimeter shot creator in general was an old, pass first PG. They also had a gaping hole in the middle. Malone was a top three player at the time, but they were as good as they were in large part for the same reason the Spurs are: because they had a bunch of veterans who simply knew how to play and they were well coached.

[Venti Quattro]

The 84-85 Celtics were crazy good, as evidenced by the Memorial Day Massacre, but the Lakers weren't gonna be denied.

[Venti Quattro]

Did they choke? Absolutely, ... They were absolutely better than the Lakers that year and deserved to win that series.

:lmao :lmao walking contradiction

You're not better than your opponent when you (in your words) absolutely choked, PERIOD.

Hey, the 2004 Lakers were the better team than the Pistons, but they choked! :rollin :rollin :rollin

[timvp]

I think LJ's underrating the Kings. They ran one of the most beautiful offenses I have ever seen with Divac and Webber passing out of the high post. It wasn't this gimmick run down the floor and chuck some crap; they could play in the halfcourt and thus win in the playoffs.

Aesthetically-pleasing, yes. Effective? Yeah, pretty much ... but nothing historic. The coasting Lakers had better offensive numbers during that regular season. So if the Lakers > Kings in Sac's best area, I still fail to see how Kings > Lakers.

As for halfcourt, those Kings played at the fastest pace in the league. They were at their best running. I don't think their halfcourt offense was anything too special. It looked great -- especially compared to most NBA offenses at that time -- but did it score at a spectacular rate? Nah, it just didn't.

[timvp]

timvp, what the hell does it matter if the '02 Kings weren't the conventional championship team? Last time I checked, neither were the '04 Pistons or the '11 Mavericks.Re-read my post. Both of those teams you mentioned fit into the conventional championship mold. The Kings didn't. Were they special enough to be a candidate to break the mold? I don't see how. Two decidedly above average players in the playoffs with good but not elite offense and defense? There were 20+ teams in the last 30 years that had a better case of fitting the championship mold than that Kings team.

[scanry]

:lmao :lmao walking contradiction

You're not better than your opponent when you (in your words) absolutely choked, PERIOD.

Hey, the 2004 Lakers were the better team than the Pistons, but they choked! :rollin :rollin :rollin

You really think so? That was a legitimate 5 game sweep.

Crowning the Kings wouldn't felt right to the NBA (David Stern) and he had his way.

[TrainOfThought5]

i know this opinion isnt popular but that suns team was GREAT to watch. highest octane high flying+prime nash.

LOL horry hipcheck.

[Brazil]

I was checking some stat and during 2001-2002, Webber was arguably better than Kobe both during RS and POs. Dude was shooting .50 averaging 24 pts, 10 reb, 5 assists, 1.5 blks his PER POs was at 22 while kobe was "coasting at .47 FG in RS, .43 in POs with 6 reb, 5 assists and 26 pts, POs PER 20.5. So the Lakers didn't had the two best players, Shaq was the best player of the serie then I'd consider Webber.

On top of that, unless I don't know how to read numbers (which is highly possible), kings was a better offensive team than the lakers (second in the league in total points and second in FG%, lakers being 3rd and 6 in the league in FG% despite >.50 Shaq). Interestingly enough kings were also the best rebounding team during the season.

[ambchang]

Can't agree on timvp here. Those players wee branded great because of the championship. If the kings won in 02, webber would be on the Sam conversation as dirk and gasol.

Duncan want overly clutch in 05 and 07, neither was Kobe in 09/10, certainly not heads and shoulders above 02 webber.

[spursncowboys]

Who would you say is the best team to not win a championship over the past 3 decades (80s 90s 00s)?

Now when I say this, I don't mean a team like the 03-04 Lakers who had Malone and Payton, because their main team was still Kobe and Shaq, who had won 3 championships already.

Stockton/Malone Jazz?
Payton/Kemp Sonics?
Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings?
Nash/Amare/Marion Suns?
Sabonis/Wallace/Stoudemire Blazers?
Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Robinson Blazers?
Shaq/Penny/Grant Magic?
Miller/Jackson/Rose Pacers?
Ewing/Starks Knicks?
Robinson/Elliott/Avery Spurs?
Aguirre/Blackmon/Harper/Tarpley Mavericks?
Moncrief/Cummings Bucks?
Hardaway/Mourning/Mashburn Heat?
Barkley/Hawkins 76ers?
Barkley/Majerle/KJ Suns?
Other?
Since they were robbed of theirs, I would put these guys on top.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm pretty sure the Jazz didn't deal with both. Just the MJ era. Nice try though.

That Howard Eisley three getting waived off was one of the worst calls I've ever seen. It wasn't even close.

[spursncowboys]

Had the Kings won, it would have gave legitimacy to the D'Antoni Offense. Sure there were alot of fans (GS, Indy, Pho, Dal) and people who thought they could build off of that style, but with one of the teams winning a ring, I think the owners would have had more patience and more thinking to change over. Especially with so much 'start from scratch' teams in the 'Spurs/Lakers/Pistons' era.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

In the playoffs there's an inevitable amount of random stuff completely out of a team's control that happens, and teams like the 2002 Kings/2007 Suns always use that random stuff as an excuse rather than doing what they can to capitalize on what's in their control. Because of this, people think it's mere coincidence and bad luck that teams built like the 2002 Kings/2007 Suns experience misfortune so you hear hypotheticals like, "If not for blah blah blah they would have won!" but no one ever talks about the stuff those teams could have done but didn't. Both the 2002 Kings and 2007 Suns lost two games on their own court in their series against the Lakers and Spurs respectively, which is something championship teams simply don't do. In both instances, each team started with HCA and turned each series into an uphill battle by losing game 1. The refs always give the team at home some calls. Game 6 of the 2002 WCF was a lot worse than usual ref wise, as was game 3 of the 2007 WCSF to a lesser extent, but both the Suns and Kings fucked up by putting themselves in a position where they needed to win 2 road games against a seasoned team that'd won multiple championships recently.

[AaronY]

The 96 Sonics team is the best non championship team in NBA history imo

[timvp]

I was checking some stat and during 2001-2002, Webber was arguably better than Kobe both during RS and POs. Dude was shooting .50 averaging 24 pts, 10 reb, 5 assists, 1.5 blks his PER POs was at 22 while kobe was "coasting at .47 FG in RS, .43 in POs with 6 reb, 5 assists and 26 pts, POs PER 20.5. So the Lakers didn't had the two best players, Shaq was the best player of the serie then I'd consider Webber.Kobe being able to play unlimited minutes and Webber being a noted choker at the time made Kobe the better player, IMO. Webber was 43% in fourth quarters that playoffs. The previous season, he put up a ~14 PER in the playoffs ... which was half accumulated as the Lakers were sweeping the Kings.

As for Kobe, that might have been his clutchest season. ~50% in fourth quarters in the playoffs and actually showed up in the Finals :wow


On top of that, unless I don't know how to read numbers (which is highly possible), kings was a better offensive team than the lakers (second in the league in total points and second in FG%, lakers being 3rd and 6 in the league in FG% despite >.50 Shaq). Interestingly enough kings were also the best rebounding team during the season.
Check the per possession numbers. The Kings played at by far the fastest pace in the league, so their totals will be skewed in their favor. Per possession, the Lakers had the better scoring rate, were the better offensive rebounding team and the better defensive rebounding team.

[timvp]

Can't agree on timvp here. Those players wee branded great because of the championship. If the kings won in 02, webber would be on the Sam conversation as dirk and gasol. Dirk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Webber

That's not even a discussion. Webber had three seasons with a PER above 22 and zero seasons with a PER above 25. Dirk has four seasons with a PER above 25 and 11 seasons with a PER above 22. I'd probably also take Gasol and his six seasons with a PER over 22.

Webber was erratic early in his career. Traded twice (well, thrice if you count draft night). He eventually figured things out and put together three prime seasons in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Then he signed a gigantic contract, his play fell off, his knee exploded in the playoffs and his career was basically over. Hell, if he didn't get romanticized because of that ref fiasco (and for being part of maybe the most popular college basketball team ever -- and his timeout, tbh), he'd be remembered as a Zach Randolph-ish type player.

[UZER]

Still can't believe the Suns shot 64 free throws to 36 for the Sonic in game 7 WCF. Wow!

That Sonic team was a tough team.

[JMarkJohns]

The 96 Sonics team is the best non championship team in NBA history imo

This is my pick. Followed by the 93 Suns. Basically an MVP, two other All-Stars (KJ year prior/after), a hoard of veterans like Ainge, Tom Chambers, etc. and two of the greatest instant offense scorers in the game at that time in Dumas and Ceballos. That team had the best record in the League despite KJ missing 30 games. They were deep at every position but C, and really didn't need depth there vs. Bulls. Ceballos went down vs. Seattle and KJ tweaked his surgically repaird knee. At their peak, they were the most talented Suns team. They just played boneheaded too often and vs. the Bulls, you just can't do that. With Ceballos, I still think that's a tougher series. Having a guaranteed 30 points off the bench twixt he and Dumas was a huge advantage that was lost before the Finals even started.

[JMarkJohns]

Still can't believe the Suns shot 64 free throws to 36 for the Sonic in game 7 WCF. Wow!

That Sonic team was a tough team.

Ricky Pierce killed Phoenix that series.

Suns were great at getting to the FT line. Barkley, Kj, Ceballos, Dumas were always around the rim on offense. Found them taking close to 6-to-12 FTs each most games.

[JamStone]

I might say the Kings because I thought they were a great "team." They were so well balanced offensively. And as many pointed out, since they probably win a championship if not for officiating in the Lakers series, they are probably up there near or at the top of the list.

I do think the 1995-96 Orlando Magic could also be in the argument. I know they got swept and blown out by the Bulls in the playoffs. But that Magic team had the makings of a championship caliber squad. After adding Horace Grant, their starting unit was really nice. Shaq, Penny, D-Scott, Grant, and Nick Anderson make a really nice starting 5. They probably needed another year or two to gel. So if Shaq stayed and Penny could have remained relatively healthy, they may have been on their way to a title or two. But of course those are ifs and could'ves.

[baseline bum]

I might say the Kings because I thought they were a great "team." They were so well balanced offensively. And as many pointed out, since they probably win a championship if not for officiating in the Lakers series, they are probably up there near or at the top of the list.

I do think the 1995-96 Orlando Magic could also be in the argument. I know they got swept and blown out by the Bulls in the playoffs. But that Magic team had the makings of a championship caliber squad. After adding Horace Grant, their starting unit was really nice. Shaq, Penny, D-Scott, Grant, and Nick Anderson make a really nice starting 5. They probably needed another year or two to gel. So if Shaq stayed and Penny could have remained relatively healthy, they may have been on their way to a title or two. But of course those are ifs and could'ves.

I don't think I'd cite Anderson as a plus though; seemed like he never recovered from blowing those four free throws, and one of which would have iced game 1 vs Houston. Plus I loved the way Shaq played in that 94-95 season when we went to that hook a lot more. Seemed like his footwork wasn't as good after that season until Phil Jackson got to LA and made everyone play solid fundamental classball. Think I'd take the 95 Magic over the 96 team in a second.

[JamStone]

Fair enough. But it's not like Nick was a horrible player. He'd be the 4th or 5th best player in the starting unit. I was talking about the starting unit as a whole was very good. The 95 team didn't have Horace Grant, I believe. I think he could have been a key complimentary piece to Shaq in a championship run. But it was over after that year.

[roycrikside]

I get what you're saying about Webber not being good enough to be the best player on a championship club LJ, but at the same time for whatever reason those Kimgs matched up really well with the Lakers and outplayed them in five of the first six games of that series.

It took a miracle Horry three to win one game for the Lakers and ridiculous officiating to win another. Heck, IIRC the Kings even got to OT in G7 despite shooting something like 20-for-40 at the line.

There are exceptions once in a while to that stud player theory. The '04 Pistons were a machine and their best player, Billups was not as good as Webber, IMO, but they had a lot of good "B" or "B+" players in Sheed, Prince, Hamilton, even Okur. Nobody was beating them that year, not even the Spurs.

[Brazil]

Kobe being able to play unlimited minutes and Webber being a noted choker at the time made Kobe the better player, IMO. Webber was 43% in fourth quarters that playoffs. The previous season, he put up a ~14 PER in the playoffs ... which was half accumulated as the Lakers were sweeping the Kings.

As for Kobe, that might have been his clutchest season. ~50% in fourth quarters in the playoffs and actually showed up in the Finals :wow

Webber is not the one who choked in game 7 neither in game 6 IIRC. I do believe performance in the fourth quarters is really an interesting stat but at the end of the day, it appears that Kobe has been awful the first 3 quarters because he ended up with 43% during the POs. Probably if it was not for his chucking in the three first quarters he wouldn't need to be clutch in the fourths. Regarding Webber a 24 pts 10 reb 5 assists 1.5 blks average pg while shooting 50% is damn amazing during the course of 16 games even with a poor shooting performance in the fourths, his FT% was awful though. During 2001 - 2002 RS and POs I don't see Kobe being better than Webber.


Check the per possession numbers. The Kings played at by far the fastest pace in the league, so their totals will be skewed in their favor. Per possession, the Lakers had the better scoring rate, were the better offensive rebounding team and the better defensive rebounding team.

Point taken here.

Still if game 6 was just half decently officiated, serie is over and kings would have destroyed the nets in finals. It's one thing during a serie to be screwed by one play (argh manu) or one bad call, it's another to be stolen of a title during a decisive game by the most awful officiating ever.

I understand the arguments saying kings blew their chances and could have killed the serie before but come on this was against Kobe and Shaq in their prime, it's already a monster serie to play (I hope nobody was expecting kings to sweep or win in 5) therefore for a young team like that, overcome the most biased officiating game ever and finish the serie in a game 7 is too much to ask. IMHO fwiw

[JamStone]

Chris Webber gets a lot of heat, some deserved, some less so. He was a notorious choker, and not winning it all at least once surely doesn't help his cause. It would have been the same for Dirk had he not won the title a couple years ago. If Webber didn't try to stretch his career after he was clearly done, he likely ends up averaging 20/10 for his career and that would have put him in elite company career wise. Still one of the more versatile bigs the league has ever seen. One of Webber's biggest problems is that he played in an era with two of the best PFs of all time in Duncan and KG, and to a lesser extent around the time of Dirk and Karl Malone. And as such, his career will always be compared to theirs. He's clearly below those players. But perhaps not as significantly below as some may suggest. An immense talent who didn't quite realize his full potential and a blatant choke artist. And that's how he'll be remembered. Career wise, and I know some will disagree, his career production puts him in the HOF.

[mindcrime]

Chris Webber gets a lot of heat, some deserved, some less so. He was a notorious choker, and not winning it all at least once surely doesn't help his cause. It would have been the same for Dirk had he not won the title a couple years ago. If Webber didn't try to stretch his career after he was clearly done, he likely ends up averaging 20/10 for his career and that would have put him in elite company career wise. Still one of the more versatile bigs the league has ever seen. One of Webber's biggest problems is that he played in an era with two of the best PFs of all time in Duncan and KG, and to a lesser extent around the time of Dirk and Karl Malone. And as such, his career will always be compared to theirs. He's clearly below those players. But perhaps not as significantly below as some may suggest. An immense talent who didn't quite realize his full potential and a blatant choke artist. And that's how he'll be remembered. Career wise, and I know some will disagree, his career production puts him in the HOF.

Kings don't get robbed in game 6 and nobody is talking about CWebb as a choker. You mentioned this when speaking about Dirk. All it takes is one win and everything is forgotten. See Lebron James

[mindcrime]

Webber is not the one who choked in game 7 neither in game 6 IIRC. I do believe performance in the fourth quarters is really an interesting stat but at the end of the day, it appears that Kobe has been awful the first 3 quarters because he ended up with 43% during the POs. Probably if it was not for his chucking in the three first quarters he wouldn't need to be clutch in the fourths. Regarding Webber a 24 pts 10 reb 5 assists 1.5 blks average pg while shooting 50% is damn amazing during the course of 16 games even with a poor shooting performance in the fourths, his FT% was awful though. During 2001 - 2002 RS and POs I don't see Kobe being better than Webber.



Point taken here.

Still if game 6 was just half decently officiated, serie is over and kings would have destroyed the nets in finals. It's one thing during a serie to be screwed by one play (argh manu) or one bad call, it's another to be stolen of a title during a decisive game by the most awful officiating ever.

I understand the arguments saying kings blew their chances and could have killed the serie before but come on this was against Kobe and Shaq in their prime, it's already a monster serie to play (I hope nobody was expecting kings to sweep or win in 5) therefore for a young team like that, overcome the most biased officiating game ever and finish the serie in a game 7 is too much to ask. IMHO fwiw

This. The game 6 travesty was too much for a young team to overcome mentally.

[stretch]

Kings don't get robbed in game 6 and nobody is talking about CWebb as a choker.

Not necessarily. Dude was known for imploding in the playoffs consistently, and beating a shit Nets team in the finals wouldn't have rid him of that label. He had a lot more making up to do to shed himself of a fully deserving choker title.

[mindcrime]

Last note: Game 6 officiating is legit then Kings win ship in 2002. Knee doesn't explode in 2003 and Kings have a very good shot at repeating. Spurs were great but so were the Kings. That series goes 7. Possible back to back ships and nobody is talking about Webber as a choker.

[JamStone]

Kings don't get robbed in game 6 and nobody is talking about CWebb as a choker. You mentioned this when speaking about Dirk. All it takes is one win and everything is forgotten. See Lebron James

It's not like C-Webb's teams got robbed every single season he played. He had other chances to win a title. Dirk and the Mavs arguably got robbed in 2006. But they found a way to do it in 2011. Pistons felt like they got robbed in 1988. They came back and won back-to-back titles. It just takes one title to dismiss the stain of being a choker, but you still got to do it. He didn't. He keeps that reputation forever.

[Riddler]

Best team to never win a championship together? Just about every time Kobe's team lost.

[mindcrime]

Not necessarily. Dude was known for imploding in the playoffs consistently, and beating a shit Nets team in the finals wouldn't have rid him of that label. He had a lot more making up to do to shed himself of a fully deserving choker title.

You must not have watched basketball back in 2002. Everybody knew that the Western Conference Finals was the championship. Whoever came out of the West was skullfucking the winner of the east.


Also, winning in 2002 would have meant the Kings denied the mighty Lakers the chance to three-peat. This in itself was huge.

[mindcrime]

It's not like C-Webb's teams got robbed every single season he played. He had other chances to win a title. Dirk and the Mavs arguably got robbed in 2006. But they found a way to do it in 2011. Pistons felt like they got robbed in 1988. They came back and won back-to-back titles. It just takes one title to dismiss the stain of being a choker, but you still got to do it. He didn't. He keeps that reputation forever.

Dirk's knee didn't explode the year following the 2006 finals. Had he sustained the same injury as Webber he would not have been around in 2011 to win.

[JamStone]

Unfortunate for C-Webb, now isn't it. But he still has to live with the label of a choker. Tough shit.

[mindcrime]

Unfortunate for C-Webb, now isn't it. But he still has to live with the label of a choker. Tough shit.

And you have to live with the label of shitty poster. Now go fuck yourself.

[Brazil]

:lol

[JamStone]

:lol

[stretch]

You must not have watched basketball back in 2002. Everybody knew that the Western Conference Finals was the championship. Whoever came out of the West was skullfucking the winner of the east.


Also, winning in 2002 would have meant the Kings denied the mighty Lakers the chance to three-peat. This in itself was huge.
You must have shit reading comprehension, because I said that the Nets were a shit team, which pretty much means I acknowledged that the Kings win easily.

[stretch]

Dirk's knee didn't explode the year following the 2006 finals. Had he sustained the same injury as Webber he would not have been around in 2011 to win.

Webber was known for consistently having injuries, while Dirk was not.

Maybe that was the result of Dirk being a harder worker and giving more of a shit about winning. Perhaps if Webber had the same work ethic as Dirk, he would have had a better career, and not gotten injured in the 2003 series.

[mindcrime]

You must have shit reading comprehension, because I said that the Nets were a shit team, which pretty much means I acknowledged that the Kings win easily.

My reading comprehension is fine. You said 'beating a shit Nets team in the finals wouldn't have rid him of that label' implying that the achievement was too insignificant to rid him of the label. The real achievement would have been dethroning the Lakers.

[stretch]

My reading comprehension is fine. You said 'beating a shit Nets team in the finals wouldn't have rid him of that label' implying that the achievement was too insignificant to rid him of the label. The real achievement would have been dethroning the Lakers.

Buuuuuuuuuuuut, they didn't. They got cheated in one game, and still had a shot to come back and do it again and finish the Lakers off, but didn't. Not to mention allowing the Horry 3 earlier in the series. They had opportunities, and screwed themselves over plenty.

[mindcrime]

Webber was known for consistently having injuries, while Dirk was not.

Maybe that was the result of Dirk being a harder worker and giving more of a shit about winning. Perhaps if Webber had the same work ethic as Dirk, he would have had a better career, and not gotten injured in the 2003 series.

Where is your proof in this? You just coming up with shit out of thin air? Grant Hill was a very promising small forward, yet injuries destroyed his career. He must have had a shitty work ethic then. Because injuries are always in the players control.

[mindcrime]

Buuuuuuuuuuuut, they didn't. They got cheated in one game, and still had a shot to come back and do it again and finish the Lakers off, but didn't. Not to mention allowing the Horry 3 earlier in the series. They had opportunities, and screwed themselves over plenty.

The point was whether or not he would have shed the choker label had the Kings won. The fact they didn't win has nothing to do with it. The conversation was hypothetical to begin with. HAD THEY WON...

[mindcrime]

Anyway, its all a moot point. You can't change history. CWebb = choker label, Dirk = champion. That is all she wrote.

[stretch]

Where is your proof in this? You just coming up with shit out of thin air? Grant Hill was a very promising small forward, yet injuries destroyed his career. He must have had a shitty work ethic then. Because injuries are always in the players control.

I didn't say it was an absolute answer. Just a possibility. Plus Webber was never known as a particularly hard worker, as opposed to someone who just lived off their talent, similar to Tracy McGrady.


The point was whether or not he would have shed the choker label had the Kings won. The fact they didn't win has nothing to do with it. The conversation was hypothetical to begin with. HAD THEY WON...

I'm not sure if he would have. Maybe he wouldn't be considered a choker, hard to say. He most certainly would not be looked as a clutch player in any way. And if you are a star level player, and you are not clutch, then you are probably going to be labeled as a choker. I have yet to see any superstar player that is labeled as anything other than clutch or choker.

He never in his career showed he was clutch, so I'm thinking that he probably still would be remembered as a bit of a choker, who was fortunate enough to win a title.

[TD 21]

Re-read my post. Both of those teams you mentioned fit into the conventional championship mold. The Kings didn't. Were they special enough to be a candidate to break the mold? I don't see how. Two decidedly above average players in the playoffs with good but not elite offense and defense? There were 20+ teams in the last 30 years that had a better case of fitting the championship mold than that Kings team.

I was in a rush last night . . . I see what you mean now. Still, you're underrating them and I feel like you're basing your thoughts largely off of how they looked on paper, rather than how they performed on the court. Take last year's Spurs, for example. That was not a championship team on paper, but by the time the playoffs arrived, the were hands down the best team in the league. The '02 Kings were too (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2002.html), but, despite what the cliche says, sometimes the best team doesn't win a 7 game series.

And you're being hypocritical with the give me the team with the two best players, etc. talk. You're the same guy who picked Spurs over Thunder in five last year, despite the fact that the Thunder had statistically the two best players in the series (per minute, Ginobili was in the regular season, but he played so few minutes and had dropped off so significantly in the playoffs that it couldn't be said that he was the second best player in the series).

Career wise, no question, Nowitzki's got Webber beat, but in '02, Webber was still a slightly better player. Without going back and looking at the numbers, subjectively I had him sixth back then, behind Duncan, O'Neal, Garnett, McGrady and Bryant.

[jsandiego]

If the ball bounces a different way here and there, and the whistles are swallowed a bit more, we conceivably could've seen the Shaq Lakers win only 1 title (2001), while losing in 2000 & 2002. By that same token, we could've seen the Spurs win 5 straight years (2003-2007) - 0.4 and a Game 7 Manu foul on Dirk away.

The NBA history book was so close to being completely different. Shaq 1 title, Kobe 3, Duncan 6. Wow. That's the way basketball go.

[jsandiego]

Oh, and I don't know if they were the best of the rest, but the most deserving teams to win a title that didn't were the 2002 Kings and the 2006 Mavs, because officiating seemed to dictate their downfall.

[Blake]

Kidd/K-Mart/Jefferson made the finals 2 straight years with the Nets, but would they have any shot against the 87-88 Mavs or 01-02 Kings in a playoff series?

I'm not saying you can't find scenarios like that.

I'm sayng when you finally get down to the legitimate teams that can be considered best ever, I think it would be ridiculous to say that the best ever never even made it to the Finals.

Tell you what, find a team with a large number of conference finals losses to a dynasty and I might listen.

[stretch]

I'm not saying you can't find scenarios like that.

I'm sayng when you finally get down to the legitimate teams that can be considered best ever, I think it would be ridiculous to say that the best ever never even made it to the Finals.

Tell you what, find a team with a large number of conference finals losses to a dynasty and I might listen.

I think that is unfair for teams like the Kings, as they are considerably superior to other teams that have made the Finals, such as the Nets. The Kings had the misfortune of running into a dynasty team, much like the 80s Mavs did.

In general, I agree with you, but there are a couple cases where an exception should be made.

[KaiRMD1]

For me, it will forever be the Kings in 02 because after that year, that was it (Webber got injured and that was a wrap).

[DMC]

1999 Spurs

[crc21209]

Just like the majority of everyone else here, I have to go with the 2002 Kings also. I remember that series like it was yesterday. I HATED the Lakers, still do...but those were the prime hate the Laker days. I still think the Kings were royally screwed in Game 6, but like others have said here....they still had Game 7 on their home floor and didn't get it done. That's on them. But I think they were one, if not the best team to never win a title. Bibby was a clutch mo'fo that year, Webber was Webber, Divac, Peja, Christie. They were one of the most fun teams of the past 10-15 years that I actually enjoyed watching.

Obviously after the Kings I'd have to go with any of the Jazz teams with Stockton and Malone in their prime. They were always great regular season teams but they unfortunately ran into MJ in back to back years, too bad for them. I don't feel sorry for Malone (I hated his ass because of what he did to D-Rob and the Spurs year after year).

Some honorable mentions I would have to include would be the 96' Sonics with Payton and Kemp, and the 95' Magic with Penny and Shaq. I still say the Spurs could have repeated in 06' also if not for Manu's damn foul. That was probably the best Spurs team to never win a title (Other than the 04' team). They had prime Duncan AND prime Manu....damn it...

[Koolaid_Man]

Have to disagree. I think the '02 Lakers are the worst championship team of the first half of the 00s. They got by on grit, experience, and timely chokes from both the Kings and our Spurs (who couldn't fuckin' close out a 4th quarter in that series).

On a side note: Don't know what it is about Phil Jackson led teams, but they just never fuckin' choke and are exceptional at mind-fuckin' their opponents into chokejobs.

Let's review:

'98 Jazz: Choked in the 4th in game 6 at home.

'00 Trailblazers: Choked a 4th quarter 15 point lead to lose game 7.

'02 Spurs and Kings: Numerous 4th quarter chokes from the Spurs. Kings choke at the line in game 7 (also choked away a 20 point lead in game 4 of that series).

'04 Spurs: Choked away a commanding 2-0 lead after Jackson decided to give the Spurs open shots.

'10 Celtics: Choked away a 13 point 3rd quarter lead.

The only instance I can remember of a Jackson coached team coughing one up is when the Lakers blew a 24 point lead in the '08 Finals. I don't really count the 3-1 '06 series against the Suns a choke since the Lakers probably should have never been up 3-1 in the first place.

And I believe his undefeated record after winning game 1 of a playoff series is still intact.

I knew I was right about your obsession with the Lakers....if you had the same passion for pussy as you do Laker history perhaps you wouldn't be so fucking gay ;-)

[CGD]

Jazz stand out because of their longetiviy, they've had 15+ seasons to put it together and couldn't.

Agree. Jazz and its not even close. Many of the other teams mentioned were not as viable of contenders for so long.

[CGD]

1999 Spurs

2012 Heat.

[timvp]

I was in a rush last night . . . I see what you mean now. Still, you're underrating them and I feel like you're basing your thoughts largely off of how they looked on paper, rather than how they performed on the court. Take last year's Spurs, for example. That was not a championship team on paper, but by the time the playoffs arrived, the were hands down the best team in the league.Best according to whom? I had the Heat and Thunder as having better chances at a championship at the start of the playoffs. And the reason why I never had the Spurs as championship favorites at any point (and took a lot of heat for being "pessimistic" along the way) was precisely because these Spurs aren't built like a conventional NBA championship team.



The '02 Kings were too (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2002.html), but, despite what the cliche says, sometimes the best team doesn't win a 7 game series.
Where in that link am I supposed to be impressed? The Kings were 2-10 against the Lakers that season and the prior season. They barely squeaked by a geriatric Jazz team in the first round. Hardly dominant on paper, on the court or anywhere other than NBA fans' minds who want to give them a charity bump for getting screwed by the refs.



And you're being hypocritical with the give me the team with the two best players, etc. talk. You're the same guy who picked Spurs over Thunder in five last year, despite the fact that the Thunder had statistically the two best players in the seriesThis is rich for so many reasons.

1) You're the one who said Kevin Durant was not a top five player in the league prior to the start of that series :lol
2) You went off on me when I wrote out why the Spurs could very well lose against the Thunder. You discounted just about every potential pitfall ... many of which that came to fruition.
3) My take was the Spurs would/could win in five games but they were in trouble if the series got extended. (You thought it was an easy series no matter what.)
4) Part of my premise for picking the Spurs to win was because Parker > Westbrook and Ginobili > Harden. Unfortunately, Harden outplayed Ginobili, Parker didn't peak at the right time and the "not a top five player" guy went nucking futs.
5) I thought it was possible for the Spurs to have three of the top four players in the series. That obviously didn't happen.

[TD 21]

Best according to whom? I had the Heat and Thunder as having better chances at a championship at the start of the playoffs. And the reason why I never had the Spurs as championship favorites at any point (and took a lot of heat for being "pessimistic" along the way) was precisely because these Spurs aren't built like a conventional NBA championship team.

I meant they were playing the best. I also had the Heat as having a better chance.


Where in that link am I supposed to be impressed? The Kings were 2-10 against the Lakers that season and the prior season. They barely squeaked by a geriatric Jazz team in the first round. Hardly dominant on paper, on the court or anywhere other than NBA fans' minds who want to give them a charity bump for getting screwed by the refs.

You said not elite offense, despite the fact that they were 3rd in efficiency. You also said that about their defense, which was 6th in efficiency. You can question whether the latter is elite or not, but at worst, it's on the precipice. If you watched that series, you'd know that, at the time the series was played, they were better. And this was with Stojakovic, statistically their 2nd best player, missing the first 3-4 games and clearly not being right upon his return.



This is rich for so many reasons.

1) You're the one who said Kevin Durant was not a top five player in the league prior to the start of that series :lol
2) You went off on me when I wrote out why the Spurs could very well lose against the Thunder. You discounted just about every potential pitfall ... many of which that came to fruition.
3) My take was the Spurs would/could win in five games but they were in trouble if the series got extended. (You thought it was an easy series no matter what.)
4) Part of my premise for picking the Spurs to win was because Parker > Westbrook and Ginobili > Harden. Unfortunately, Harden outplayed Ginobili, Parker didn't peak at the right time and the "not a top five player" guy went nucking futs.
5) I thought it was possible for the Spurs to have three of the top four players in the series. That obviously didn't happen.

1) He was clearly playing at a top 5 level, but like I told you with your top ten PG list a few weeks back, I like to give all time greats the benefit of the doubt, so what's what I did with Wade.
2) I went off on you for fence sitting and seeming lack of confidence (before your final prediction).
3) I never said it was an easy series, I just said I was confident the Spurs would win.
4) I said, statistically speaking, they didn't have a top two player. Who cares about your premise? It's funny how you're all about the stats when they support your opinion, but when they don't, then it's all about your opinion. :lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

that peja led kings when he played like an mvp, i thought those guys would make a deep run....until webber came back and fckd up whatever chemistry players built playin without webber...

yet i dunno why they traded peja if they play that good with him and without webber...

[oh crap]

peja gets a lot of hate, but if he was hitting on all cylinders when he was on, all you can do is pray.

[Jacob1983]

The Stockton-Malone Jazz would have won the NBA Finals if they hadn't been playing Jordan's Bulls and that's a fact. They would have beaten the Pacers, the Heat, and the Knicks in the Finals.

What about the 1992-1993 Suns? Pretty good damn team only to come up short against Jordan and the Bulls.


I think we can all agree that the Kings in 2002 choked and got robbed by the refs which has resulted in the move of the franchise to Seattle. If Horry hadn't made that 3 pointer in game 4 or if the Kings had more 1 more free throw in game 7 in regulation, they would have been NBA champions and the history of the NBA would have changed dramatically in the NBA. Yes, the Kings would have beaten that shitty Nets team in 2002. The Stockton-Malone Jazz would have skull fucked that Nets team too.

[TDMVPDPOY]

The Stockton-Malone Jazz would have won the NBA Finals if they hadn't been playing Jordan's Bulls and that's a fact. They would have beaten the Pacers, the Heat, and the Knicks in the Finals.

What about the 1992-1993 Suns? Pretty good damn team only to come up short against Jordan and the Bulls.


I think we can all agree that the Kings in 2002 choked and got robbed by the refs which has resulted in the move of the franchise to Seattle. If Horry hadn't made that 3 pointer in game 4 or if the Kings had more 1 more free throw in game 7 in regulation, they would have been NBA champions and the history of the NBA would have changed dramatically in the NBA. Yes, the Kings would have beaten that shitty Nets team in 2002. The Stockton-Malone Jazz would have skull fucked that Nets team too.

i dont think u can bring up that sort of excuse for choke artists, cause any team out west that made out it wouldve beated on the easts rep team.....even the shit during early 00 where the easts was pathetic, any of the western playoff team wouldve made a feast on them....

[Grit and Grind]

Not going to lie I think Joe Johnson / Al Horford / Josh Smith talent wise should have had one ring just imagine that team is they picked CP3 or D-Will in 05

[Jacob1983]

I don't think Peja cares anymore. He actually got a ring and redemption.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Not going to lie I think Joe Johnson / Al Horford / Josh Smith talent wise should have had one ring just imagine that team is they picked CP3 or D-Will in 05

2 overrated hacks on the same team, i dunno how the celtics keep on gettin there ass pushed into 7-6 game series with the hawks when the celtics big3 assembled...

[LkrFan]

This year's Clippers. :lol

[Pelicans78]

Pargo/Peja/West/Chandler Hornets a few years back.

[Venti Quattro]

Pargo/Peja/West/Chandler Hornets a few years back.

Not a championship team by any means.

[Brazil]

Pargo/Peja/West/Chandler Hornets a few years back.

:lol wut?

[Grit and Grind]

Pargo/Peja/West/Chandler Hornets a few years back.
Great team but lol

[LkrFan]

peja gets a lot of hate, but if he was hitting on all cylinders when he was on, all you can do is pray.

Peja got his revenge with them blasted Mavs in 2011. SMH

[Axe Murderer]

Not going to lie I think Joe Johnson / Al Horford / Josh Smith talent wise should have had one ring just imagine that team is they picked CP3 or D-Will in 05

:lol wtf?

That team never even came close to sniffing the Finals

[Killakobe81]

I can't feel sorry for the faggot Kings, even despite the screw job. They lost all my sympathy when they proceeded to miss 14 FTs and shoot 2-20 from 3, at home, in game 7. That series was not defined by game 6 alone. Kings fans/supporters complaining they lost the series because of that one game is like Suns fans saying "if not for the Amare suspension..." Point is, the Kings had plenty of chances to put that series on ice. They lost game 1 at home. If Vlade knew how to grab a rebound, Horry never hits that buzzer beater, the Kings go up 3-1 and probably close it out in 5. And as mentioned before, if they could make FTs and hit a damn 3, they win in 7. Not to mention all the big leads they blew over the course of that series.

The Kings didn't get ripped off. They choked.

This. plus Kings had more talent but were not the better "team". We had the better coach and although lesstalented our role players led by Horry and Fish were cutch. Kings had Webber Pejaand Vlade known choke artists

[Killakobe81]

Best according to whom? I had the Heat and Thunder as having better chances at a championship at the start of the playoffs. And the reason why I never had the Spurs as championship favorites at any point (and took a lot of heat for being "pessimistic" along the way) was precisely because these Spurs aren't built like a conventional NBA championship team.

Where in that link am I supposed to be impressed? The Kings were 2-10 against the Lakers that season and the prior season. They barely squeaked by a geriatric Jazz team in the first round. Hardly dominant on paper, on the court or anywhere other than NBA fans' minds who want to give them a charity bump for getting screwed by the refs.


This is rich for so many reasons.

1) You're the one who said Kevin Durant was not a top five player in the league prior to the start of that series :lol
2) You went off on me when I wrote out why the Spurs could very well lose against the Thunder. You discounted just about every potential pitfall ... many of which that came to fruition.
3) My take was the Spurs would/could win in five games but they were in trouble if the series got extended. (You thought it was an easy series no matter what.)
4) Part of my premise for picking the Spurs to win was because Parker > Westbrook and Ginobili > Harden. Unfortunately, Harden outplayed Ginobili, Parker didn't peak at the right time and the "not a top five player" guy went nucking futs.
5) I thought it was possible for the Spurs to have three of the top four players in the series. That obviously didn't happen.

agree with Timvp Sacto was good but Drexler's Blazers teams were better. I also thin Finals Sonics team was better as well ...

[Sean Cagney]

agree with most of the Lakers/Kings talk ......... still feel Sac was the better squad. They farted away chances left and right and really should have gone back to Sac up 3-1

Yes but you don't blow a damn huge lead in a game 4 to go up 3-1 like they did, game 6 horrible yes but come on they should have won that game eaisly! They blew the huge lead, that left open the Horry three and the Refs in game 6! This should have been over in 5 as they were the better team. The Lakers then only repeat and Shaq has two rings there, different landscape if they win that series!

[Sean Cagney]

Pargo/Peja/West/Chandler Hornets a few years back.

LOL at forgetting PAUL in there but lol at most said.

BTW to OP Avery, Elliott and David in 99 got it on the same team! Tim Duncan was added though that part with them three as the players is true.

[timvp]

You said not elite offense, despite the fact that they were 3rd in efficiency.I meant historically elite. And even if you want to talk about elite in terms of that season, the Lakers were 2nd in efficiency. So, again, where Sac was good, LA was even better.


You also said that about their defense, which was 6th in efficiency. You can question whether the latter is elite or not, but at worst, it's on the precipice.I've never heard someone categorize 6th out of 30 as elite. But again, the NBA championship teams who won with defense did so with historically elite defenses.


If you watched that series, you'd know that, at the time the series was played, they were better. And this was with Stojakovic, statistically their 2nd best player, missing the first 3-4 games and clearly not being right upon his return.If that series is played 100 times, IMO the Lakers win 95-99 times. Those a great odds but not perfect odds. Sac almost won the lottery ... but couldn't quite pull it out.



1) He was clearly playing at a top 5 level, but like I told you with your top ten PG list a few weeks back, I like to give all time greats the benefit of the doubt, so what's what I did with Wade.Saying Durant wasn't a top five player in the NBA last year going into the WCF is bad no matter how you frame it, tbh.


2) I went off on you for fence sitting and seeming lack of confidence (before your final prediction).My lack of confidence was unfortunately warranted :td


4) I said, statistically speaking, they didn't have a top two player. Who cares about your premise? It's funny how you're all about the stats when they support your opinion, but when they don't, then it's all about your opinion. :lolUh, read closer. Statistically Webber was the second best player in that series. But factoring Webber's history of choking and Kobe's ability to play unlimited minutes back then, I moved Kobe ahead of Webber.

[HarlemHeat37]

:lol wtf?

That team never even came close to sniffing the Finals


:lol ya I don't know where the fuck that came from..

[spursmartyr]

I've said it many times. The Lakers weren't the best team that year. You don't go down 20 points at home in back-to-back games. Lakers better be lucky that replay wasn't allowed back then because the Samaki Walker shot would have been taken off the board. Kings were clearly the better team in that series but they dropped the ball in Game 7. With that said, if weren;t for the refs, there wouldn't have been a game 7 to worry about.

They played well enough to win in game 7, but not as well as they had in some of their earlier games. IIRC (and I was 8 years old at the time) the Kings lost game 7 because they uncharacteristically missed like 20 free throws. They dominated games 2-3, got anal fucked by the refs in games 4 and 6 after being ahead most of both games (including game 4 by 25+), so yeah, I'd say they should have won the 2002 NBA championship.

[TD 21]

I meant historically elite. And even if you want to talk about elite in terms of that season, the Lakers were 2nd in efficiency. So, again, where Sac was good, LA was even better.

Fair enough.


I've never heard someone categorize 6th out of 30 as elite. But again, the NBA championship teams who won with defense did so with historically elite defenses.

I realize you have to draw the line on elite somewhere, but be honest: if it were one spot higher, would you be saying the same thing? And even if you would, it's indisputably on the precipice, perilously close, etc.


If that series is played 100 times, IMO the Lakers win 95-99 times. Those a great odds but not perfect odds. Sac almost won the lottery ... but couldn't quite pull it out.

:lol Both a ridiculous and irrelevant statement. The reality is, it was played once and the one time it was, the Kings were the better team (without their 2nd best player for 4 games and even when he came back, he wasn't right) and should have won.


Saying Durant wasn't a top five player in the NBA last year going into the WCF is bad no matter how you frame it, tbh.

No, it's justifiable given what I said. Bad is calling Nowitzki a "great rebounder", saying a player who's not one of the three best bigs on his team should start and thinking Jackson is still a "starting SF".


My lack of confidence was unfortunately warranted :td

So what? At the time, there was every reason to feel confident . . . it just didn't come to fruition.


Uh, read closer. Statistically Webber was the second best player in that series. But factoring Webber's history of choking and Kobe's ability to play unlimited minutes back then, I moved Kobe ahead of Webber.

Fine, but you didn't have him as that, neither did I and I'd imagine damn near no one else did, either. You can argue semantics all you want, the bottom line is you saying what you said is hypocritical.

[ambchang]

Dirk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Webber

That's not even a discussion. Webber had three seasons with a PER above 22 and zero seasons with a PER above 25. Dirk has four seasons with a PER above 25 and 11 seasons with a PER above 22. I'd probably also take Gasol and his six seasons with a PER over 22.

Webber was erratic early in his career. Traded twice (well, thrice if you count draft night). He eventually figured things out and put together three prime seasons in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Then he signed a gigantic contract, his play fell off, his knee exploded in the playoffs and his career was basically over. Hell, if he didn't get romanticized because of that ref fiasco (and for being part of maybe the most popular college basketball team ever -- and his timeout, tbh), he'd be remembered as a Zach Randolph-ish type player.

Not saying that Webber = Dirk , and I agree Dirk > Webber, but if Webber rang in 2002, he would be in the same conversation as Dirk, like how Dirk's ring put him above Garnett in 2011 despite that year not being his best stat year ever, or even close to it.

That said, do I agree a championship makes a player better or worse? No, I think championships are team accomplishments, but I live in reality and know that a championship will be first and foremost when any player is being ranked in a historical context.

As for Gasol > Webber, can't agree here. Gasol played in a historically weak big man era. He was one of the top big man in the league for a few years in a row, but if he played in the early 00's with Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Shaq, Webber, even Sheed, he will not be as dominant as he was in the late 00s, and only a very good big, like Daugherty in the early/mid 90s.

[stretch]

Not saying that Webber = Dirk , and I agree Dirk > Webber, but if Webber rang in 2002, he would be in the same conversation as Dirk, like how Dirk's ring put him above Garnett in 2011 despite that year not being his best stat year ever, or even close to it.

lol, no. not remotely. Webber could have won a ring that year, and Dirk could have flamed out in the 1st round in 2011, and average consensus would still probably say Dirk > Webber.

[Les_Grossman]

lol, no. not remotely. Webber could have won a ring that year, and Dirk could have flamed out in the 1st round in 2011, and average consensus would still probably say Dirk > Webber.

Hey, fuckface...

Why don't you take a step back a literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!!!!!!

Webber shits all over _irk. Eat a fucking dick.

[stretch]

Hey, fuckface...

Why don't you take a step back a literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!!!!!!

Webber shits all over _irk. Eat a fucking dick.

:lol

[Fergie The Florists]

2012-13 OKC Thunder

[Arcadian]

As for the Dirk vs. Webber discussion...

I think it's actually pretty close when you consider just peak performances. Obviously Dirk was better for longer...yeah yeah...fuck that. I maintain that peak performance is more important than longevity if the question is who was better.

Webber in the early 2000s was a complete player...one of the best PFs of all time. I would have to lean slightly towards Dirk overall, but someone else made the very good point that Webber was in his prime during the "year of the power forward." (I made a topic about this a while ago...don't feel like looking it up.) In the early 2000s, the forward positions (especially PF) were better than at any other time. But he was arguably second best after Duncan in 2000-02.

[Budkin]

I always thought it was the 90s Knicks. Hard Nosed defense, Ewing and Starks and great role players. They should have won the 94 Finals against the Rockets. Unfortunately for them, Olajuwon was at his peak.

[baseline bum]

I always thought it was the 90s Knicks. Hard Nosed defense, Ewing and Starks and great role players. They should have won the 94 Finals against the Rockets. Unfortunately for them, Olajuwon was at his peak.

Man I hated Starks; easily one of the most overrated players at the time since he played in NY. I really wanted to see Oakley ring that year though.