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 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.
My reading comprehension is fine. You said 'beating a 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.
Where is your proof in this? You just coming up with out of thin air? Grant Hill was a very promising small forward, yet injuries destroyed his career. He must have had a ty work ethic then. Because injuries are always in the players control.
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...
Anyway, its all a moot point. You can't change history. CWebb = choker label, Dirk = champion. That is all she wrote.
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.
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 le.
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.
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 le (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 le, Kobe 3, Duncan 6. Wow. That's the way basketball go.
Oh, and I don't know if they were the best of the rest, but the most deserving teams to win a le that didn't were the 2002 Kings and the 2006 Mavs, because officiating seemed to dictate their downfall.
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.
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).
1999 Spurs
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 le. 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 le (Other than the 04' team). They had prime Duncan AND prime Manu....damn it...
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 ing gay ;-)
Agree. Jazz and its not even close. Many of the other teams mentioned were not as viable of contenders for so long.
2012 Heat.
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.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.
This is rich for so many reasons.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
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
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.
I meant they were playing the best. I also had the Heat as having a better chance.
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.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.
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.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
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.
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.
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...
peja gets a lot of hate, but if he was hitting on all cylinders when he was on, all you can do is pray.
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 ty Nets team in 2002. The Stockton-Malone Jazz would have skull ed 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 during early 00 where the easts was pathetic, any of the western playoff team wouldve made a feast on them....
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote