PDA

View Full Version : The 10 best teams of the 2000's never to win a championship



JordansBulls
08-24-2009, 01:58 PM
Source: Yahoosports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-10-best-teams-of-the-decade-never-to-win-a-c;_ylt=Ai8j0I4kfnCFSrGgLh3xx7q8vLYF?urn=nba,184569 )




10. Miami Heat, 2004-05

9. Detroit Pistons, 2005-06

8. Phoenix Suns, 2004-05

7. Minnesota Timberwolves, 2003-04

6. Los Angeles Lakers, 2003-04

5. Dallas Mavericks, 2006-07

4. Portland Trail Blazers, 1999-00

3. San Antonio Spurs, 2003-04

2. Sacramento Kings, 2001-02

1. Cleveland Cavaliers, 2008-09

I sort of like this also-ran, because it speaks to how we've grown as a sport-regarding culture over the years. These Cleveland Cavaliers ran up 66-wins, an almost-Bulls-like 8.9-point differential (way better than any team listed above), and had the greatest player in the game (LeBron James(notes)) at their disposal. And yet, when the team lost to the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference finals last spring, people seemed ready to smartly admit that the Cavs, for all their horses, just didn't have the horses to run with the Magic.

Nobody was labeled a choker, nobody was fired, and though the team traded for one big (hopeful) problem-solver in the offseason in Shaquille O'Neal, nobody seemed to overreact and make deals for the sake of making deals. Knowing that the team will have the best player in the game, at only age 24, around for at least the next season helps too; but you have to love the lack of hand-wringing. Still, the meek ending doesn't hide the fact that this was an otherwise dominant team that won 74 of its first 90 games before falling to the Magic in six.

Lakers4ItAll
08-24-2009, 02:03 PM
08-09 Cavs were way overatted no way they are #1

lakers4sho
08-24-2009, 02:03 PM
Homer much? I'd pick the next two teams over that Cavs team.

Heck I'd pick the next 8 teams over the 09 Cavs.

rapswin98
08-24-2009, 02:07 PM
cavs # 1?

ombada
08-24-2009, 02:10 PM
no 2000 Pacers?

Chronz
08-24-2009, 02:10 PM
That Heat team is so underrated, they just got hurt at the wrong time, thats all the prevented them from winning, the rest of these squads have very little excuses.

Hellcrooner
08-24-2009, 02:14 PM
uh Payton, Kobe, K Malone and shaq.....4 hal of famers that low??????

Laker Hater writtne much?

yanks 4lif3
08-24-2009, 02:21 PM
We serious with that list? Where's the 2000 Portland Trail Blazers and 2000 Pacers? Why aren't the Kings number one?

Hawkeye15
08-24-2009, 02:23 PM
That Heat team is so underrated, they just got hurt at the wrong time, thats all the prevented them from winning, the rest of these squads have very little excuses.

Sam Cassel's hip.

Chronz
08-24-2009, 02:31 PM
We serious with that list? Where's the 2000 Portland Trail Blazers and 2000 Pacers? Why aren't the Kings number one?
Yup dems 2 of da best


Sam Cassel's hip.
Meh, healthy or not they still got to take down the Lakers, and then the best team in the league that year so its a probable 3rd place finish. The Heat lost Shaq and Wade, there is no bigger blow IMO, and they wouldve beaten the Pistons and gone on to face the Spurs, it wouldve been one of the best Finals of our time so atleast they represent a Finals birth.

But on a strictly head 2 head comparison, not taking into account the leagues they are playing in, Id take the Heat over that team. KG was the best player on both squads but his supporting cast was way old.

ctitus45
08-24-2009, 02:33 PM
I'm doin the homer thing and going with the 06-07 Mavs as a possible number one. They were definitely better than this years cavs team. I dunno about the Spurs or Kings though.

Mavs go 67-15 that year.

they go 37-4 at home

They have winning streaks of 12, 13, and 17 (which includes the whole month of Feb) becoming the only team in NBA history to record 3 seperate streaks of 12+ wins. They are tied in 8th place with (i believe) 4 other teams for the longest winning streak in NBA history with 17.

Dirk is MVP

3 of their 15 reg. season losses come by GSW.

Now, i know the GSW 8 seed v 1 seed arguement is going to be made. Some teams just have trouble with other teams. It's all about match-ups. The Mavs ran into a very very hot GSW squad who was quicker and bigger at the guard position than Dallas. GSW wasn't a great squad, they ended up losing in the second round. Match-up problems happen but it shouldn't be taken away from what was arguably one of the best teams in NBA regular season history. Remember, this is a thread for teams who didn't win a championship.

The Mavs end up having the 9th best Single Season winning percentage in NBA history at .817

Raps18-19 Champ
08-24-2009, 02:47 PM
Cavs shouldn't be #1 but I guess winning 66 games and having a Jordan-like season with a Bulls-like winning team can do that to you.

I think Lakers 03-04 should be a spot or 2 higher though.

harris2carter
08-24-2009, 02:49 PM
no nets? rember when they were rele nice and the best team in the east for a few years stright

Reyes6
08-24-2009, 02:51 PM
Little surprised on the lack of love for the 76ers (2001 I believe), Pacers, Blazers, and that SUPER-Lakers team.

vash9
08-24-2009, 02:52 PM
I'm going to be a big homer here, but what about the 2002 Nets?

FlakeyFool
08-24-2009, 02:58 PM
were da RaPTorS?

ctitus45
08-24-2009, 03:03 PM
were da RaPTorS?

busy not being very good.

Pierzynski4Prez
08-24-2009, 03:07 PM
03-04 Lakers would dominate all those teams. I have no idea how they got whooped in the finals, but they did.

MTar786
08-24-2009, 03:15 PM
1. 03-04 lakers
2. 01-02 kings
3. 06-07 mavs
4. 05-06 suns
5. 04-05 suns
6. 04-05 heat
7
8
9. 07-08 lakers
10

the others dont matter
08-09 cavs are either number 10 or dont even belong on this list

Lone Maverick
08-24-2009, 03:17 PM
Nets should have made the list and the Cavs are ridiculously too high.

JordansBulls
08-24-2009, 03:19 PM
Cavs are #1 because of their SRS rating and point differential and how they were blowing teams out in the playoffs the first 2 rounds. Became the only team in history to win it first 8 playoffs games by 10+ every game.

ctitus45
08-24-2009, 03:24 PM
Cavs are #1 because of their SRS rating and point differential and how they were blowing teams out in the playoffs the first 2 rounds. Became the only team in history to win it first 8 playoffs games by 10+ every game.

yeah but they played the:

Pistons: gave up, never really clicked with AI anyway. that was a team that had no desire to play...no desire to win.

Hawks: Solid team, but nowhere close to the top 3 teams in the East.

Also, these are two teams who, last year, could not even make the top 10 in the NBA. In summary, yea, they got their 8 wins of 10+ pts but they did it against poor competition.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
08-24-2009, 03:41 PM
Another Failed article...

LA_Raiders
08-24-2009, 03:43 PM
02 Nets???

LA_Raiders
08-24-2009, 03:50 PM
03-04 Lakers would dominate all those teams. I have no idea how they got whooped in the finals, but they did.

Injuries...

ctitus45
08-24-2009, 04:00 PM
Injuries...

and ego's

Pierzynski4Prez
08-24-2009, 04:03 PM
Injuries...

Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Gary Payton were all healthy. That should have been enough to still win.

LAKERRS24
08-24-2009, 04:24 PM
Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Gary Payton were all healthy. That should have been enough to still win.

You really didn't watch NBA that season did you? Just Payton played almost all season games....Shaq was injured fr a lot of games....Kobe had shoulder injury....Malone sprained his knee against Phoenix when we had 18-3 score and from then it went downhill....in Finals we got dominated at their Palace cause we had no centers to compete...it's simple as that... WHO WE REALLY HAD? Shaq, Medvedenko and Cook (!?). Malone was injured for game 4 and 5, Grant was injured during regular season and didn't play single game in playoffs. Pistons had Rasheed, Ben, Okur, Williamson, Campbell, Milicic. All those guys rotated on Shaq and they slowed him down step by step. Shaq (still force at that time) had no help it's just that simple.

Raps18-19 Champ
08-24-2009, 04:26 PM
yeah but they played the:

Pistons: gave up, never really clicked with AI anyway. that was a team that had no desire to play...no desire to win.

Hawks: Solid team, but nowhere close to the top 3 teams in the East.

Also, these are two teams who, last year, could not even make the top 10 in the NBA. In summary, yea, they got their 8 wins of 10+ pts but they did it against poor competition.

What do you expect when you are the first team in your conference?

You obviously get to face the weaker teams.

theuuord
08-24-2009, 04:26 PM
lol i have never seen a team get so much praise become so hated so quickly than the 08-09 Cavs.

they were the 2nd best team in basketball this year, so they shouldn't have won, but they were still one of the best teams ever. people here saying they should be eight spots lower, or not even in the top 10, seem to forget how unbelievable the team was until everyone but LeBron had a sudden shooting failure in their last five games.

DetroitRipCity
08-24-2009, 04:40 PM
2004-2005 Pistons


Was a great non title team an honerable mention to them (lost in NBA finals to the Spurs 3-4)

Pierzynski4Prez
08-24-2009, 04:42 PM
lol i have never seen a team get so much praise become so hated so quickly than the 08-09 Cavs.

they were the 2nd best team in basketball this year, so they shouldn't have won, but they were still one of the best teams ever. people here saying they should be eight spots lower, or not even in the top 10, seem to forget how unbelievable the team was until everyone but LeBron had a sudden shooting failure in their last five games.

Hard for me to classify a team as one of the best ever if they can't even reach the finals.

DetroitRipCity
08-24-2009, 04:43 PM
Hard for me to classify a team as one of the best ever if they can't even reach the finals.

x2 :clap::clap:

Pierzynski4Prez
08-24-2009, 04:44 PM
You really didn't watch NBA that season did you? Just Payton played almost all season games....Shaq was injured fr a lot of games....Kobe had shoulder injury....Malone sprained his knee against Phoenix when we had 18-3 score and from then it went downhill....in Finals we got dominated at their Palace cause we had no centers to compete...it's simple as that... WHO WE REALLY HAD? Shaq, Medvedenko and Cook (!?). Malone was injured for game 4 and 5, Grant was injured during regular season and didn't play single game in playoffs. Pistons had Rasheed, Ben, Okur, Williamson, Campbell, Milicic. All those guys rotated on Shaq and they slowed him down step by step. Shaq (still force at that time) had no help it's just that simple.

No, I watched, it's just that it was 6 years ago, and not my team. I remember all 4 were playing in the finals though, and I do remember Malone was banged up, not to mention pushing 40. Kobe was 100% healthy I know. I remember watching him hit that enormous 3 to send either game 1 or 2 into OT.

LAKERRS24
08-24-2009, 04:45 PM
Hard for me to classify a team as one of the best ever if they can't even reach the finals.

it can be i'll tell you why: perfect example is 2002 SEASON. The matchup between Lakers and Kings was Finals before the Finals. Got it? Kings were way better than Nets, but didn't reach the Finals. Still Cavs 08-09 shouldnt be considered for one of the best teams ever, but they should be on this list let's say 5 would be objective.

Pierzynski4Prez
08-24-2009, 04:51 PM
it can be i'll tell you why: perfect example is 2002 SEASON. The matchup between Lakers and Kings was Finals before the Finals. Got it? Kings were way better than Nets, but didn't reach the Finals. Still Cavs 08-09 shouldnt be considered for one of the best teams ever, but they should be on this list let's say 5 would be objective.

Making the finals or not, I wouldn't put the 2002 Kings into the category of best team ever. Their have been plenty of times where the loser of the conf. finals is better than the loser of the finals.

Only way I'd consider a team one of the best ever, is to win 64+ games, and stroll (not sweep, but not go to 7 games every series or a few series) through the playoffs and WIN the finals.

LAKERRS24
08-24-2009, 04:51 PM
No, I watched, it's just that it was 6 years ago, and not my team. I remember all 4 were playing in the finals though, and I do remember Malone was banged up, not to mention pushing 40. Kobe was 100% healthy I know. I remember watching him hit that enormous 3 to send either game 1 or 2 into OT.

Kobe was healthy and immature (it was easy to see that he wanted to do all by himself in game 4 and 5= he wanted to be Finals MVP for 1st time instead of Shaq) Shaq didn't get the ball late in game 4....He could easily have 50 point game..he had like 16-21 20 rebounds... didn't get enough touches...i hated Kobe back then...okay enough about memories..:)

Pierzynski4Prez
08-24-2009, 04:54 PM
Kobe was healthy and immature (it was easy to see that he wanted to do all by himself in game 4 and 5= he wanted to be Finals MVP for 1st time instead of Shaq) Shaq didn't get the ball late in game 4....He could easily have 50 point game..he had like 16-21 20 rebounds... didn't get enough touches...i hated Kobe back then...okay enough about memories..:)

Plus the lame hack-a-shaq was coming into play big time around then too

DetroitRipCity
08-24-2009, 04:54 PM
Kobe was healthy and immature (it was easy to see that he wanted to do all by himself in game 4 and 5= he wanted to be Finals MVP for 1st time instead of Shaq) Shaq didn't get the ball late in game 4....He could easily have 50 point game..he had like 16-21 20 rebounds... didn't get enough touches...i hated Kobe back then...okay enough about memories..:)

hey like those memories :D

theuuord
08-24-2009, 04:56 PM
Hard for me to classify a team as one of the best ever if they can't even reach the finals.

teams lose sometimes. they get unlucky, or run into very hot teams (which the Magic were).

They still had a historic season regardless of how piss poor the non-LeBron players played in the last five games.

AntiG
08-24-2009, 04:57 PM
this past year's Celtics. best team in the league until injuries took them down to third best team in the league.

DetroitRipCity
08-24-2009, 04:58 PM
Plus the lame hack-a-shaq was coming into play big time around then too

yea Detroit played hack-a-Shaq and LA was playing Hack-a-Ben lol

Chronz
08-24-2009, 05:00 PM
The Nets do not deserve any kind of consideration.



2004-2005 Pistons


Was a great non title team an honerable mention to them (lost in NBA finals to the Spurs 3-4)

Yea I noticed that too, they mentioned the the that those very same Pistons beat, but Im guessing they assume the Heat wouldve won if healthy, I agree with that notion.

MTar786
08-24-2009, 05:00 PM
lol i have never seen a team get so much praise become so hated so quickly than the 08-09 Cavs.

they were the 2nd best team in basketball this year, so they shouldn't have won, but they were still one of the best teams ever. people here saying they should be eight spots lower, or not even in the top 10, seem to forget how unbelievable the team was until everyone but LeBron had a sudden shooting failure in their last five games.

how can u be the second best team when u had a losing record against the elite of the nba? then the loss to orlando proved that all the cavs did last season was beat the bad teams. they beat the teams they should have been beating unlike the others who always got caught off guard. no one can be a shooting failure 5 games in a row just btw. its just called being out classed n being the lesser team

ctitus45
08-24-2009, 05:05 PM
Injuries...


What do you expect when you are the first team in your conference?

You obviously get to face the weaker teams.

Like the Raptors?

Competeing against the West is a much tougher task than competing against the east. The Cavs wouldn't have rolled through the bottom 8 of the West like they did the East this past postseason.

MTar786
08-24-2009, 05:05 PM
No, I watched, it's just that it was 6 years ago, and not my team. I remember all 4 were playing in the finals though, and I do remember Malone was banged up, not to mention pushing 40. Kobe was 100% healthy I know. I remember watching him hit that enormous 3 to send either game 1 or 2 into OT.

kobe wasnt 100% he had a shoulder injury. malone was injured too. tried playing the first two games but wasnt himself so he decided to drop out. payton started his TERRIBLE downhill mode during the playoffs. shaq was his dominant self. grant was out too. but i still think they lost cuz of the problems between kobe and shaq. cuz kobe played HORRIBLY

theuuord
08-24-2009, 05:11 PM
how can u be the second best team when u had a losing record against the elite of the nba?

who do you qualify as elite? Assuming it's the final 8, in the regular season they were 3-1 against Atlanta, 2-2 against Boston, 3-1 against Chicago, 2-0 against Dallas, 2-0 against Denver, 1-2 against Orlando, 0-2 against the Lakers (the best team in the NBA), 1-1 against Houston, which is 14-9.

Besides, using team-by-team records is stupid. Hell the Lakers lost both their games to the Bobcats this season. Does that make them worse?


then the loss to orlando proved that all the cavs did last season was beat the bad teams. they beat the teams they should have been beating unlike the others who always got caught off guard. no one can be a shooting failure 5 games in a row just btw. its just called being out classed n being the lesser team

Um, if you don't think no one can have a shooting failure for five games than I'm not sure what series you were watching - or if you know what basketball is. LeBron did everything humanly possible to try to bring the Cavs to victory. Everyone around him failed. Everyone. Conversely, the Magic shot red-hot over the course of the last few Boston games and the Cavs series. It happens. Sometimes the worse team catches fire and wins.

Pierzynski4Prez
08-24-2009, 05:13 PM
teams lose sometimes. they get unlucky, or run into very hot teams (which the Magic were).

They still had a historic season regardless of how piss poor the non-LeBron players played in the last five games.

Teams do lose, the teams that are considered the Greatest Teams Ever however are better than any team on a hot streak over a 7 game series.

It was a very good season, I admit that any day. They are a great team and are only going to improve as long as LBJ is there, however to put last season's team into a category of one of the best ever is plain stupid.

Sorry about taking this thread off-topic.

theuuord
08-24-2009, 05:22 PM
Teams do lose, the teams that are considered the Greatest Teams Ever however are better than any team on a hot streak over a 7 game series.

That's just not true. No team is perfect, and some teams end up losing series when they shouldn't. You know that.
The Nuggets weren't really a better team than the Sonics in 1998, but they won anyway because they were a decent team and got lucky. Randomness isn't limited to the lottery.


It was a very good season, I admit that any day. They are a great team and are only going to improve as long as LBJ is there, however to put last season's team into a category of one of the best ever is plain stupid.

Sorry about taking this thread off-topic.

You and I probably have a different definition of greatest teams ever. The Lakers and the Cavs last season were two of the greatest teams ever, imo.

Pierzynski4Prez
08-24-2009, 05:30 PM
That's just not true. No team is perfect, and some teams end up losing series when they shouldn't. You know that.
The Nuggets weren't really a better team than the Sonics in 1998, but they won anyway because they were a decent team and got lucky. Randomness isn't limited to the lottery.



You and I probably have a different definition of greatest teams ever. The Lakers and the Cavs last season were two of the greatest teams ever, imo.

We obviously do. I hope you're not trying to put the 98 Sonics anywhere near the Greatest teams ever now.

I'm talking about the late 90s Bulls, the Celtics of the late 60s, Early 70s. The Lakers/Celtics of the 80s, had they not had to play each other. Those teams were dominant, and did win multiple championships over a short stretch of time.

1 66 win season with a 2nd round exit is nowhere some of those teams worse playoff runs.

Also, Lakers were good last year, but again, I wouldn't put them into that category yet. As if KG was healthy, they might not have even won.

BRICKCITYPIMP12
08-24-2009, 05:33 PM
where the NETS at???

kidd...k-mart...rj...van horn...kittles

theuuord
08-24-2009, 05:36 PM
We obviously do. I hope you're not trying to put the 98 Sonics anywhere near the Greatest teams ever now.

I'm talking about the late 90s Bulls, the Celtics of the late 60s, Early 70s. The Lakers/Celtics of the 80s, had they not had to play each other. Those teams were dominant, and did win multiple championships over a short stretch of time.

I'm looking at it more from a "Hall of Fame" perspective (IE if single-season teams were eligible from the HoF, would they get in?), you're looking at the biggest legends to ever play (IE the top 5 teams ever).


1 66 win season with a 2nd round exit is nowhere some of those teams worse playoff runs.

Well yeah, they're not one of the top 5 teams ever. You'll get no argument from anyone on that. Doesn't mean they weren't a great, great team.


Also, Lakers were good last year, but again, I wouldn't put them into that category yet. As if KG was healthy, they might not have even won.

Again, that's a different category entirely. But I digress.

Catfish1314
08-24-2009, 05:38 PM
2002 Kings. Their match-up against the Lakers in the WCF might as well have been the Finals. Watching that team play offensively was beautiful basketball.

Mr.SmackYoMama
08-24-2009, 05:47 PM
I'm doin the homer thing and going with the 06-07 Mavs as a possible number one. They were definitely better than this years cavs team. I dunno about the Spurs or Kings though.

Mavs go 67-15 that year.

they go 37-4 at home

They have winning streaks of 12, 13, and 17 (which includes the whole month of Feb) becoming the only team in NBA history to record 3 seperate streaks of 12+ wins. They are tied in 8th place with (i believe) 4 other teams for the longest winning streak in NBA history with 17.

Dirk is MVP

3 of their 15 reg. season losses come by GSW.


Now, i know the GSW 8 seed v 1 seed arguement is going to be made. Some teams just have trouble with other teams. It's all about match-ups. The Mavs ran into a very very hot GSW squad who was quicker and bigger at the guard position than Dallas. GSW wasn't a great squad, they ended up losing in the second round. Match-up problems happen but it shouldn't be taken away from what was arguably one of the best teams in NBA regular season history. Remember, this is a thread for teams who didn't win a championship.

The Mavs end up having the 9th best Single Season winning percentage in NBA history at .817 OMG:violin:

My Warriors Ran dat A.SS off the court get over it they Sucked!!!

WITZ
08-24-2009, 05:47 PM
How are the cavs #1 that team wasn't that great roster wise compared to others.

JordansBulls
08-24-2009, 05:48 PM
where the NETS at???

kidd...k-mart...rj...van horn...kittles

2003 Nets were much better.

MoBASS
08-24-2009, 05:49 PM
02 Kings should be #1.. and that's coming from a Lakers fan.

DerekRE_3
08-24-2009, 05:53 PM
2002 Kings. Their match-up against the Lakers in the WCF might as well have been the Finals. Watching that team play offensively was beautiful basketball.

It really was. 7 guys averaged double figures, and 2 guys averaged well over 20 ppg.

Mr.SmackYoMama
08-24-2009, 06:03 PM
I live in the Bay watched the whole Kings-Lakers Series I dont even like the Kings but damn they were a good team!!!!!! They got robbed!

_KB24_
08-24-2009, 06:25 PM
Wow this whole Lebronomania is really pissing me off. I would like the Cavs to play any of the teams that they are above and see what would happen to them. This is a joke. The Suns should be in the top 5 and the Lakers should be now lower than 2.

ARMIN12NBA
08-24-2009, 06:28 PM
That Heat team is so underrated, they just got hurt at the wrong time, thats all the prevented them from winning, the rest of these squads have very little excuses.

Karl Malone's injury...

CB4MVP-raptors
08-24-2009, 06:43 PM
Toronto raptors are the best team in the history of the game

2009-2010 NBA champs BABY

Kings Faithful
08-24-2009, 06:46 PM
This article fails. 01-02 Kings would wipe their butts with the rest of those teams on that list. Forget top ten to not win a championship, more like top 10 team in the last decade period. And for anyone who disagrees, imagine if the Kings won the championship that year like they should've, then it wouldn't even be debatable.

Hawkeye15
08-24-2009, 06:51 PM
Yup dems 2 of da best


Meh, healthy or not they still got to take down the Lakers, and then the best team in the league that year so its a probable 3rd place finish. The Heat lost Shaq and Wade, there is no bigger blow IMO, and they wouldve beaten the Pistons and gone on to face the Spurs, it wouldve been one of the best Finals of our time so atleast they represent a Finals birth.

But on a strictly head 2 head comparison, not taking into account the leagues they are playing in, Id take the Heat over that team. KG was the best player on both squads but his supporting cast was way old.

for sure. I would take Minny over Miami, Minny was a great defensive team that year. I never live in what ifs, that is stupid, but Cassel being healthy would have helped, big time. KG was literally playing PG in game 6 against LA. Cassel also saved them in game 2 against Sac in the previous series, and was an all star that year. By no means would I compare it to Miami's blow however. Not only that, but they would have matched up against Detroit much better than the Lakers did. The Wolves that year were way up there in defense, and had the best player in the NBA, on top of captain clutch in Cassel. They beat Detroit both times they played them in the regular season. But, none of that really matters, so whatevs.

obrpunk
08-24-2009, 06:51 PM
i guess this may be the homer in me talking, but that kings team has to be the best team on your list to miss out on the title. and an absolute NON-homer pick, that lakers team with GP and Malone had a LOT of talent to come up short....

Kings Faithful
08-24-2009, 06:54 PM
Making the finals or not, I wouldn't put the 2002 Kings into the category of best team ever. Their have been plenty of times where the loser of the conf. finals is better than the loser of the finals.

Only way I'd consider a team one of the best ever, is to win 64+ games, and stroll (not sweep, but not go to 7 games every series or a few series) through the playoffs and WIN the finals.

Those are horrible qualifications. What if the west happens to be incredibly tough like it was? Teams that would normally win 64+ games might only win 55-60... that doesn't make them any less of a team.

Bruno
08-24-2009, 07:04 PM
Ridiculous.

rapswin98
08-24-2009, 07:22 PM
Toronto raptors are the best team in the history of the game

2009-2010 NBA champs BABY:facepalm:

NYtilIdie
08-24-2009, 07:27 PM
The lack of New Jersey Nets disturbs me

DetroitRipCity
08-24-2009, 07:30 PM
Toronto raptors are the best team in the history of the game

2009-2010 NBA champs BABY

This just keeps getting more FUBAR by the second

LakePackYank
08-24-2009, 07:33 PM
the 2000 blazers should be number 1, that team was stacked as hell!!!

JordansBulls
08-24-2009, 07:44 PM
Karl Malone's injury...

They were already down in the series.

Game 1 - http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200406060LAL.html

Game 2 - http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200406080LAL.html

Game 3 - http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200406100DET.html

Game 4 - http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200406130DET.html

Game 5 - http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200406150DET.html - This was the only one Malone didn't play in. He played in games 1 and 2 and game 1 is where LA lost HCA. Lakers were favorite in every game that series.

PLAYERS FAN
08-24-2009, 08:25 PM
What about 03-04 Pacers?

lorenz00
08-24-2009, 08:38 PM
kings should be number 1 Lol...

bibby / jackson
christe (iunno if i spelled that right) Gerald wallace
Peja...Turkoglu
Webber
Divac/ Miller

pretty ddeep..

Chronz
08-24-2009, 08:54 PM
Karl Malone's injury...
The Lakers may have been a better team when healthy, but I doubt it would have won them a title in their era. Malone played a key role defensively in every series, but mostly his impact came as a 1 on 1 post defender. Sheed took advantage here and there but he wasnt an offensive focus. His offense wouldve helped but I dont think it wouldve been enough to win them 3 more games, in what was essentially a 5 game sweep of a series. The Pistons were destined to win that year, you could sense it the moment they traded for Sheed.

Chronz
08-24-2009, 08:56 PM
They were already down in the series.


Were talking about the injury he sustained prior to the series effecting him in those games before finally realizing he had to shut it down. Its not like him limping around for a few games is the REAL Karl Malone.

shonk688
08-24-2009, 09:09 PM
What about 03-04 Pacers?

:nod: Thats what I was going to say.

nbaguy123
08-24-2009, 09:37 PM
the sacrometo kings of 2001, the 04-06 phoniex suns, the 03-04 pacers, 06-07 dallas mavericks

Raps18-19 Champ
08-24-2009, 10:07 PM
Like the Raptors?

Competeing against the West is a much tougher task than competing against the east. The Cavs wouldn't have rolled through the bottom 8 of the West like they did the East this past postseason.

I never said that it would have been the same if they were in the West so I don't know where you are going.

Chronz
08-24-2009, 11:11 PM
for sure. I would take Minny over Miami, Minny was a great defensive team that year. I never live in what ifs, that is stupid, but Cassel being healthy would have helped, big time. KG was literally playing PG in game 6 against LA. Cassel also saved them in game 2 against Sac in the previous series, and was an all star that year. By no means would I compare it to Miami's blow however. Not only that, but they would have matched up against Detroit much better than the Lakers did. The Wolves that year were way up there in defense, and had the best player in the NBA, on top of captain clutch in Cassel. They beat Detroit both times they played them in the regular season. But, none of that really matters, so whatevs.

Well if you dont deal with what if scenarios then I dont think this is the thread for you. That being said Cassel would have helped, pretty cut and dry that hes a huge upgrade on whichever d-leaguer you had for insurance. But you said so yourself it doesnt compare to Miami, Wades ribs and Shaqs quad injuries made a team that relied heavily on 2 stars to play with them at a low capacity. Its hard to say which is more dramatic but without those 2 the heat had to give up a game 6 to rest Wade and hope for the best in g.7. I understand Cassel couldnt even do that, but do you really think they wouldve gotten past a team that I consider superior than both of these squads? Would you wager that Sam I Am's addition gives his team 2 extra wins, or that Wade at full capacity after already leading the series 3-2 and having 2 cracks at bat would fail to advance to the Finals?

Still thats a side matter, if you prefer to deal with what ifs as little as possible then lets just analyze the teams themselves. You said the Twolves were up there defensively, well so were the Heat. During the regular season the caliber of basketball these 2 teams played on both ends was elite. Its amazing how close they rank in every statistical category; get this both ranked 6th defensively both ranked 5th offensively in their respective leagues. On D neither team forced many turnovers but they kept teams off the line and rebounded every miss, toth teams were efficient (the Heat moreso) from the field on both ends, both teams opted to get back in transition rather than crash the offensive boards, the only difference offensively is that the Heat were more drive and dish, post up/slashing oriented team so while they got to the line more, they also turned the ball over more. The Twolves settled for less efficient jumpers but never turned the ball over and rarely got to the line.

But we should make a pool and tourney this sucker.

theuuord
08-24-2009, 11:28 PM
Wow this whole Lebronomania is really pissing me off. I would like the Cavs to play any of the teams that they are above and see what would happen to them. This is a joke. The Suns should be in the top 5 and the Lakers should be now lower than 2.

you kidding? LeBronomania these days is all about hating on LeBron. pretty much every LeBron comment made here is anti-LeBron.

Matrix3132
08-25-2009, 10:24 PM
uh Payton, Kobe, K Malone and shaq.....4 hal of famers that low??????

Laker Hater writtne much?

While in theory that foursome sounded/sounds terrific, the plan didn't work out as planned as I remember Malone missing half the season and, along with Payton, not looking like the HOFers they were. Individually for most of their careers, amazing, as a team, not a top 10 team of 00's.

Raph12
08-26-2009, 01:38 AM
Kobe prime, Shaq primesque, Malone still good, Payton still good all future HOFers, should've taken the Pistons without breaking a sweat, should also be #1 on this list. Cavs team couldn't beat the 3 elite teams last year, even in the season, LA, Orlando and Boston (with KG) bested them, they were overrated.

Iodine
08-30-2009, 11:49 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-10-best-teams-of-the-decade-never-to-win-a-c?urn=nba,184569

Considering the kings were NOT #1 and the 03-04 pacers got ****ing no love while the suns team do makes me laugh while an animal dies every time this list gets viewed as sound

jimbobjarree
08-30-2009, 11:53 AM
thats awful

Afridi786
08-30-2009, 11:56 AM
Cav's team was not the best team not to win the title....that "team" is all Lebron.

HuRRiCaNeS324
08-30-2009, 12:04 PM
Wtf? Cleveland is not the best team to win a championship. It was all lebron james and a sprinkle of mo williams.. They deserve to be on the list, but not number one.

Tom81
08-30-2009, 12:09 PM
wow this was only one season when caws was a contender the others like suns,mavs,heat,kings,pistons thay was a contender like 2 or even more season.

DP&Youk1520
08-30-2009, 12:13 PM
ouch

Teeboy1487
08-30-2009, 12:15 PM
I see a lot of teams on that list that would wipe the floor with the 08-09 cavs. Bad number 1 but the rest of the list is ok.

MrFastBreak
08-30-2009, 12:34 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-10-best-teams-of-the-decade-never-to-win-a-c?urn=nba,184569

Considering the kings were NOT #1 and the 03-04 pacers got ****ing no love while the suns team do makes me laugh while an animal dies every time this list gets viewed as sound


:clap:

jj24
08-30-2009, 01:41 PM
The Kings shouldn't be on that list. A rigged and fixed NBA decisive game 6 shouldn't be counted as a LOSS for the kings. The Kings won that series and championship in terms of the title of that list. It said, "never to win a championship" well that should exclude games that were tampered with.

Hustla23
08-30-2009, 01:45 PM
LMAO The Cavs? What a joke.

I'd peg the Kings as the #1 team to not win a championship.

They were an all around solid team that just ran into some bad luck (or referee fixations)

floridian321
08-30-2009, 01:45 PM
Heres something to laugh at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGTFvp-8CuE&feature=related

mrblisterdundee
08-30-2009, 03:39 PM
1. Suns
2. Kings
3. Mavericks
4. Nets
5. Cavaliers
6. Magic
7. Blazers
8. Timberwolves
9. Houston
10. Toronto

Toenail Clipper
08-30-2009, 03:51 PM
Suns>LeBron.

zambo4president
08-30-2009, 03:56 PM
I hate LeBron.

asandhu23
08-30-2009, 03:57 PM
the 2002 Kings would whoop the Cavs

Super.
08-30-2009, 03:58 PM
Isnt that KG flashing the same sign that Pierce got fined for? What a joke...the NBA ether needs to fine everybody, or nobody

blazerman
08-30-2009, 04:10 PM
Cav's team was not the best team not to win the title....that "team" is all Lebron.

The Blazers or kings teams would have ended a series with the 2008/9 Cavs quicker than Orlando did this yr.

That Portland collapse against the Lakers was one of the biggest failures of alltime(Briasn Shaw's 3 pointer off the backboard was ********). The kings ran into the same dumb luck by LA the next 2 seasons with Big shot Bob.

Im not taking anything away from LA because they did get battle tested to the max by Portland and Sac and they prevailed(they deserved there titles)

How dumb are some writers though because the 2008/2009 Cavs lost to a team that didnt even win the title and they have them as the #1 team of the decade to not win a title.

I will say the laker team with Malone,Payton,Kobe and Shaq surprised me alot. If Kobe and Shaq didnt but heads then that team could have been something but there was so much of the blame game going on that Malone just said **** it and retired. Shaq is and always has been an attention hog and he wanted the Lakers to be known as his team first not Shaq and Kobe's team and I think it cost them a title or two. My opinion of course.

If calmer heads prevailed the Lakers should've had 5 or 6 titles just in this decade, maybe more

It's funny the Lakers have been the Blazers nemesis for decades(well everybody's) that I might not believe it if ther Blazers ever win a series against them and go on to win a title. haha

scully8743
08-30-2009, 04:29 PM
uh Payton, Kobe, K Malone and shaq.....4 hal of famers that low??????

Laker Hater writtne much?

Gonna have to agree Lakers should be number 1. The Cav's just didnt have that much competition playing most of their game against eastern conference teams, if they where in the Western Conference they'd probably be in the top5 last year but not 1 or 2.

stockchampion25
08-30-2009, 04:51 PM
Souldnt this be done after next year? I mean we arent even done with this decade yet. Try the 90's....

t-mac1nukka
08-30-2009, 07:20 PM
You really didn't watch NBA that season did you? Just Payton played almost all season games....Shaq was injured fr a lot of games....Kobe had shoulder injury....Malone sprained his knee against Phoenix when we had 18-3 score and from then it went downhill....in Finals we got dominated at their Palace cause we had no centers to compete...it's simple as that... WHO WE REALLY HAD? Shaq, Medvedenko and Cook (!?). Malone was injured for game 4 and 5, Grant was injured during regular season and didn't play single game in playoffs. Pistons had Rasheed, Ben, Okur, Williamson, Campbell, Milicic. All those guys rotated on Shaq and they slowed him down step by step. Shaq (still force at that time) had no help it's just that simple.

you dont really know how to use articles in your grammar do you?

ko8e24
08-30-2009, 07:37 PM
you dont really know how to use articles in your grammar do you?

i understood wut he said perfectly. stop trying to undermine his argument! :mad:

ko8e24
08-30-2009, 07:41 PM
Souldnt this be done after next year? I mean we arent even done with this decade yet. Try the 90's....

The decade is over buddy. decade = 10 yrs

2000-lakers
2001-lakers
2002-lakers
2003-spurs
2004-pistons
2005-spurs
2006-heat
2007-spurs
2008-celtics
2009-lakers



thats 10 yrs, 10 teams that won the title (5 different franchises won the title, and 6 different actual teams won, cuz 3peat lakers completely different from 09 lakers, with exception of young->vet kobe and young->vet d-fish. spurs 03 05 07 titles were the same cuz they had 4 main guys in duncan, parker, ginobili, and bowen for all 3 titles with same style of play.)


The lakers started and ended the 1st decade of the new millenium with titles, and now they'll start the 2nd decade of the new millenium with title(s) :)

heattiltheend94
08-30-2009, 07:56 PM
I think the MAvericks should be numero uno

blacknell
08-30-2009, 08:19 PM
03-04 lakers should be #1 they were loaded with talent.. karl malone, Payton, Kobe, Shaq

Fireworld
08-30-2009, 11:41 PM
03-04 Lakers!

SteveNash
08-31-2009, 07:14 AM
Fixed version:

10. Phoenix Suns, 2004-05

9. Minnesota Timberwolves, 2003-04

8. Sacramento Kings, 2001-02

7. Cleveland Cavaliers, 2008-09

6. Miami Heat, 2004-05

5. Dallas Mavericks, 2006-07

4. San Antonio Spurs, 2003-04

3. Portland Trail Blazers, 1999-00

2. Detroit Pistons, 2005-06

1. Los Angeles Lakers, 2003-04

JordansBulls
08-31-2009, 09:55 AM
Fixed version:

10. Phoenix Suns, 2004-05

9. Minnesota Timberwolves, 2003-04

8. Sacramento Kings, 2001-02

7. Cleveland Cavaliers, 2008-09

6. Miami Heat, 2004-05

5. Dallas Mavericks, 2006-07

4. San Antonio Spurs, 2003-04

3. Portland Trail Blazers, 1999-00

2. Detroit Pistons, 2005-06

1. Los Angeles Lakers, 2003-04

Pretty good list. Do you think the 2005 Suns were better than the 2007 Suns though?

awr0430
08-31-2009, 10:31 AM
I definitely agree the Kings should be number 1. Bibby, C-Web, Christie, Peja, Turk...they were the best team of the 2000s to not win a title. The talent was there they just didnt get it done.

Missing56&33
08-31-2009, 10:39 AM
10. Miami Heat, 2004-05

9. Detroit Pistons, 2005-06

8. Phoenix Suns, 2004-05

7. Minnesota Timberwolves, 2003-04

6. Los Angeles Lakers, 2003-04

5. Dallas Mavericks, 2006-07

4. Portland Trail Blazers, 1999-00

3. San Antonio Spurs, 2003-04

2. Sacramento Kings, 2001-02

1. Cleveland Cavaliers, 2008-09

I sort of like this also-ran, because it speaks to how we've grown as a sport-regarding culture over the years. These Cleveland Cavaliers ran up 66-wins, an almost-Bulls-like 8.9-point differential (way better than any team listed above), and had the greatest player in the game (LeBron James(notes)) at their disposal. And yet, when the team lost to the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference finals last spring, people seemed ready to smartly admit that the Cavs, for all their horses, just didn't have the horses to run with the Magic.

Nobody was labeled a choker, nobody was fired, and though the team traded for one big (hopeful) problem-solver in the offseason in Shaquille O'Neal, nobody seemed to overreact and make deals for the sake of making deals. Knowing that the team will have the best player in the game, at only age 24, around for at least the next season helps too; but you have to love the lack of hand-wringing. Still, the meek ending doesn't hide the fact that this was an otherwise dominant team that won 74 of its first 90 games before falling to the Magic in six.

I really liked the 01'02' Kings...they blew a golden opportunity to win a championship. This brings me to the point that some players are good and some are great...some players thrive under pressure some players choke. I think the addition of Shaq was a good move because Shaq has been there and hes won championships so I dont fault Ferry for aquiring him but Shaq is old and is skills aren't what they use to be. I think Cleveland need to do more to get a championship...Mo Williams, West, AV guys like that dont thrive under pressure, its just that simple.

The Kings team that loss to the Lakers in 02' proved the same thing...Predrag , Christie, Divac all were good players but they choked under pressure....Kobe, Shaq ,Fisher, Horry thrive under pressure.

SteveNash
08-31-2009, 03:50 PM
Pretty good list. Do you think the 2005 Suns were better than the 2007 Suns though?

I just reshuffled their top 10, didn't really think about it, but no I don't think the 2007 Suns were better. I thought the series was more competitive because the Spurs had gotten worse more than the Suns getting better although there experience didn't help them enough to tell them not to get off the bench.

I also think that's a cop out for Phoenix as they had their opportunity to win that series and didn't. That's the main reason why I rated the Mavs so low even though they were the 2nd closest to winning a championship behind the Pistons.