NBA: Best team to never win a championship together

[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.

[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.

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

wtf?

That team never even came close to sniffing the Finals

[Killakobe81]

I can't feel sorry for the got 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
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

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.

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.

[HarlemHeat37]

wtf?

That team never even came close to sniffing the Finals

ya I don't know where the 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 ed 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.

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

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. , 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, face...

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

Webber s all over _irk. Eat a ing .

[stretch]

Hey, face...

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

Webber s all over _irk. Eat a ing .

[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... 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.