PDA

View Full Version : Whens the last time someone won a Chip without the best support in the league?



Chronz
01-12-2011, 09:10 PM
Since everyone has been so adamant in their beliefs to what constitutes a championship caliber cast, I figured Id ask this question.

So whens the last time the underdog superstar won a title? This of course implies that another star squandered his chance at a title so it should be interesting who points the finger at who.

Lakersfan2483
01-12-2011, 09:18 PM
The 1994 Houston Rockets come to mind. Hakeem Olajuwon carried that team to a title. His supporting cast was good, but not nearly as good as some of the other teams that have won titles over the past 10 years or so.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:19 PM
Wade in 2006. He had a great supporting squad that gained steam at the perfect time, but during the regular season, they were simply a top 7-8 team with a great player.

Off the top of my head, that is the most recent (which honestly needs to be addressed on PSD) I can think of. Quite honestly, that is even a poor example.

Good question, I will have to look at it

210Don
01-12-2011, 09:20 PM
spurs in 2003
the 2nd best player disappeared half the time in tony parker

Hellcrooner
01-12-2011, 09:24 PM
twice in 40 years.

Barry and Hakeem ring 1.0

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:31 PM
spurs in 2003
the 2nd best player disappeared half the time in tony parker

are you serious? The Spurs were a top 3 team thru the regular season who used their elite defense, and role players who produce to win another chip.

Next...

210Don
01-12-2011, 09:33 PM
are you serious? The Spurs were a top 3 team thru the regular season who used their elite defense, and role players who produce to win another chip.

Next...

tony avg 15 ppg that year our second leading scorer...
next.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:33 PM
I am even looking at the 1979 Sonics, who had an expected win/loss of 48-34, but between Gus and Jack, who was their star?

JordansBulls
01-12-2011, 09:34 PM
Since everyone has been so adamant in their beliefs to what constitutes a championship caliber cast, I figured Id ask this question.

So whens the last time the underdog superstar won a title? This of course implies that another star squandered his chance at a title so it should be interesting who points the finger at who.

2006 (beat two 60+ win teams)

1998 come to mind (was considered the underdog by most to Utah in the finals after how Utah blizted thru the West) ---> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/events/1998/playoffs/burns/burnsfinal.html - Predicted Jazz in 6

1993 is another one (had to win 2 series without HCA in the ECF and NBA Finals against the only 60 win teams that year)

JordansBulls
01-12-2011, 09:35 PM
twice in 40 years.

Barry and Hakeem ring 1.0

The Rockets had HCA in every series in 1994. Unless you are referring to 1995.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:36 PM
tony avg 15 ppg that year our second leading scorer...
next.

you have absolutely no understanding of stats, so why should I bother with you? You got huge contributions on per minute basis from David, Kerr, and plenty of other role players on the offensive end, and used your defense to close the deal. That championship was not a surprise when you see they were a top 4 team statistically with a prior ring.
Keep going. At some point you will learn to post with some evidence instead of pure bias.

The Prodigy
01-12-2011, 09:37 PM
Wade in 2006. He had a great supporting squad that gained steam at the perfect time, but during the regular season, they were simply a top 7-8 team with a great player.

Off the top of my head, that is the most recent (which honestly needs to be addressed on PSD) I can think of. Quite honestly, that is even a poor example.

Good question, I will have to look at it

What needs to be adressed about it??

Bruno
01-12-2011, 09:37 PM
spurs in 2003
the 2nd best player disappeared half the time in tony parker

?? I'd agrue that was one of the best Spurs teams.
That team had Robinson, Parker, Ginobli, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Steve Kerr.

210Don
01-12-2011, 09:38 PM
you have absolutely no understanding of stats, so why should I bother with you? You got huge contributions on per minute basis from David, Kerr, and plenty of other role players on the offensive end, and used your defense to close the deal. That championship was not a surprise when you see they were a top 4 team statistically with a prior ring.
Keep going. At some point you will learn to post with some evidence instead of pure bias.

im done with you. you obviously have some sort of hate towards the spurs.

210Don
01-12-2011, 09:39 PM
?? I'd agrue that was one of the best Spurs teams.
That team had Robinson, Parker, Ginobli, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Steve Kerr.

that was a good defensive team. but compared to other teams that have won it they werent that good overall they had alot of guys that stepped up when they had too but no great 2nd player

ManRam
01-12-2011, 09:42 PM
im done with you. you obviously have some sort of hate towards the spurs.

Haha. The Spurs cast that year was solid. Had some great, great, great secondary players. What team had a better supporting cast if it wasn't them? It was certainly better than the team they beat...

And Hawkeye is saying that their cast was great...yet it's because he hates the Spurs? WTF are you talking about?

bctgg27
01-12-2011, 09:42 PM
im done with you. you obviously have some sort of hate towards the spurs.

How does he have some sort of hate towards the Spurs? Instead of saying they didn't have the best supporting cast, he said they were a top 4 team...

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:43 PM
im done with you. you obviously have some sort of hate towards the spurs.

thank god your done with me. You obviously haven't realized there are 29 other teams in the NBA, and need to stick to the Spurs forum with your bias until you learn to play with the big boys.

You start threads bashing your own superstars help, and then fight tooth and nail when someone beats them up elsewhere. Be consistent or this will be a frustrating place for you.

210Don
01-12-2011, 09:43 PM
why cant yall just respect my opinion everyones is different yall dont have to gang up on me and attack.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:44 PM
What needs to be adressed about it??

going out on a limb here, but if you bring up teams in the mid 90's, I would guess 65% or so on the NBA forums were in grade school. That is all I meant.

bctgg27
01-12-2011, 09:46 PM
why cant yall just respect my opinion everyones is different yall dont have to gang up on me and attack.

Nobody is ganging up on you. You just aren't making any sense.

NYtilIdie
01-12-2011, 09:46 PM
why cant yall just respect my opinion everyones is different yall dont have to gang up on me and attack.

Because you act as if you opinion is superior to others despite the fact you provide no evidence to back your claim.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:46 PM
why cant yall just respect my opinion everyones is different yall dont have to gang up on me and attack.

the be consistent and post without bias. Saying any of your Spurs championship teams belong in the thread, and being serious, won't garner much respect. They have been loaded since 1993 son. And SUPERLOADED since draft day 1997

210Don
01-12-2011, 09:46 PM
Nobody is ganging up on you. You just aren't making any sense.

i feel ya

210Don
01-12-2011, 09:50 PM
tbh this thread contradicts itself as well if you win a championship your a great team. period.

ldawg
01-12-2011, 09:50 PM
Lakers bench were not the greatest the past two years.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:53 PM
Lakers bench were not the greatest the past two years.

bench has minimal to do with it. Its pure supporting cast, and when you have Gasol, Odom, Fisher, you already have a monster head start on the rest of the crop.
For crying out loud, you have many here (not me) who say Gasol is just as, or more responsible for the Lakers success last season as Kobe...
If that isn't a strong supporting cast, I am not sure what is....

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 09:56 PM
tbh this thread contradicts itself as well if you win a championship your a great team. period.

great post finally. That is the point kinda. So many here slamming LeBron, when in reality, if you stack his roster up with all the championship team, you will be very hard pressed to find such a pathetic support system for a star winning a chip
Chronz is not stupid.

Swashcuff
01-12-2011, 09:56 PM
twice in 40 years.

Barry and hakeem ring 1.0

this

Swashcuff
01-12-2011, 09:57 PM
tbh this thread contradicts itself as well if you win a championship your a great team. period.

Aren't you too contradicting yourself as well? :confused:

Swashcuff
01-12-2011, 09:59 PM
Lakers bench were not the greatest the past two years.

Are you serious?

Kobe's supporting cast is arguably the best in the league what are you talking about?

Hellcrooner
01-12-2011, 10:00 PM
The Rockets had HCA in every series in 1994. Unless you are referring to 1995.

im meaning his suporting cast that year wasnt starry by NAMES.

but was one hell of a TEAM .

wich is compelely different.

ldawg
01-12-2011, 10:02 PM
I think the Miami team was not a great team. D wade was the Man.

_KB24_
01-12-2011, 10:03 PM
Do the Pistons count? :confused:

210Don
01-12-2011, 10:03 PM
Aren't you too contradicting yourself as well? :confused:

thats why i said as well.everyone is

Hellcrooner
01-12-2011, 10:03 PM
going out on a limb here, but if you bring up teams in the mid 90's, I would guess 65% or so on the NBA forums were in grade school. That is all I meant.

I think you are being too optimistic.

Sometimes it looks like 99% of posters were born in 1999 or something like that.

Hellcrooner
01-12-2011, 10:04 PM
Do the Pistons count? :confused:

The pistons are an X-File ( the 04 pistons that is)

a TEAM playing like a TEAM wiht no "go to guy" playing almost EURO MINDED basketball and winnign the ring?

Unheard of.

Bruno
01-12-2011, 10:05 PM
im done with you. you obviously have some sort of hate towards the spurs.

Wouldn't Hawkeye disagreeing with you mean that he's claiming the Spurs are better than you are claiming? How is claiming that a team is good equate to him hating the Spurs?


that was a good defensive team. but compared to other teams that have won it they werent that good overall they had alot of guys that stepped up when they had too but no great 2nd player

Just as a point of interest when did you start watching the Spurs?

blueplanet
01-12-2011, 10:06 PM
Dwyane Wade and Miami Heat in 2006. Honestly didn't have to think for more than 1 second.

210Don
01-12-2011, 10:08 PM
wouldn't hawkeye disagreeing with you mean that he's claiming the spurs are better than you are claiming? How is claiming that a team is good equate to him hating the spurs?



Just as a point of interest when did you start watching the spurs?

1997

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 10:08 PM
Do the Pistons count? :confused:

yes and no. Name me their star. However, they had 5 of their huge minute players way over the average PER rating, and that is for a team that didn't have players creating their own offense, which is amazing. The Pistons literally broke most rules when winning a ring. They were 18th in offensive rating that year, 2nd in defensive rating, won 54 games but had an expected wins of 59, and most their players got even better in the playoffs.
On top of that, they were a pure matchup nightmare for the Lakers that season. I think there were a couple of teams if healthy that could have gotten thru them (Wolves and Spurs), but the Lakers just ran into that once a year matchup issue.

ldawg
01-12-2011, 10:09 PM
Dwyane Wade and Miami Heat in 2006. Honestly didn't have to think for more than 1 second.yeah that Miami team was pretty bad. And the pistons had a team effort approach. Got to hand it to D Wade coming up big when needed.

xbrackattackx
01-12-2011, 10:10 PM
Detroit?

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 10:11 PM
1997

while I think anyone would agree all four (if not 90% of the Spurs teams since 1993 were awesome), which one do you think was the best? And why?

210Don
01-12-2011, 10:13 PM
while I think anyone would agree all four (if not 90% of the Spurs teams since 1993 were awesome), which one do you think was the best? And why?

03 team was fun to watch because they were so gritty 2005 was awesome to beat a mirror image of ourself 99 was the first so its great 2007 was awesome but last place by far

1.2005 because the whole season was awesome
2.1999 first was so much fun in sa
3.2003
4.2007

its tuff to choose though.

but best team was 2005

ldawg
01-12-2011, 10:15 PM
There were only a hand full of supper teams of last leg players. If you had two supper stars you had it made. some jerk from espn try to make Horace grant on the bull a big time star. he called Grant, Pippen and Jordan a threesome.

_KB24_
01-12-2011, 10:16 PM
And don't forget the god damn Blazers in 77. Still astonishes me what they did that season. Unreal.

Swashcuff
01-12-2011, 10:16 PM
Detroit?

Replace the Lakers support cast with Sheed, Taysaun, Ben and Chauncey ALL in their respective primes? Would that be considered a bad supporting cast?

The Heat's though not bad was no where on par. They'd have dynasty potential, after all they did beat the Lakers with won of the best supporting casts of the past decade. Certainly not the Pistons.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 10:16 PM
03 team was fun to watch because they were so gritty 2005 was awesome to beat a mirror image of ourself 99 was the first so its great 2007 was awesome but last place by far

1.2005 because the whole season was awesome
2.1999 first was so much fun in sa
3.2003
4.2007

its tuff to choose though.

but best team was 2005

hmm. Tell you what. I am about to watch some more Dexter, but if you are around tomorrow morning, I would love to dissect their 4 championships with you, see what you think. I have my own opinions, and I am sure you do as well

210Don
01-12-2011, 10:19 PM
hmm. Tell you what. I am about to watch some more Dexter, but if you are around tomorrow morning, I would love to dissect their 4 championships with you, see what you think. I have my own opinions, and I am sure you do as well

thats cool id like a in depth discussion with roster 4 roster comparison would be great.

_KB24_
01-12-2011, 10:21 PM
03 team was fun to watch because they were so gritty 2005 was awesome to beat a mirror image of ourself 99 was the first so its great 2007 was awesome but last place by far

1.2005 because the whole season was awesome
2.1999 first was so much fun in sa
3.2003
4.2007

its tuff to choose though.

but best team was 2005

2003 definitely has to be the pinnacle of their achievements. I view the 99 ring a little differently because of the lockout and the 2005 ring had a great Finals, but the 2003 title was huge for Duncan because they knocked off the Lakers and stopped their 4-peat. Plus, the Spurs team that year was easily the deepest and one with most weapons. Ginobli, Parker, Duncan, Robinson, and their role players like Jackson, Bowen, Horry, and Turk was amazing.

ldawg
01-12-2011, 10:23 PM
I am sorry Miami team was sucks overall. Marc Cuban is still upset with stern over that finals. Hes not sure how Miami won and i am sure he is not alone. But you got to hand it to Wade he was a beast.

blueplanet
01-12-2011, 10:25 PM
I am sorry Miami team was sucks overall. Marc Cuban is still upset with stern over that finals

Yes, because Wade put on the greatest show of all time.

PHX2daDEATH
01-12-2011, 10:30 PM
Dwayne Wade and Hakeem.. 94 and 95..

Chronz
01-12-2011, 10:33 PM
Guys theres no wrong answer so no back and forth bickering required, just state your case and respond to criticism.

In the case of the 03 Spurs, that does look like a team lacking in talent aside from their top players (which is the point of the thread). But a few problems arise when you examine their playoff run. 1 every other contender was injured, literally every team was without a key piece. But don if its them then what star failed to show up for his team?

In the Miami case its probably Dirk or Duncan right?

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 10:34 PM
Yes, because Wade put on the greatest show of all time.

seriously. That finals performance matches anything Jordan ever did in the finals. It was incredible.

Chronz
01-12-2011, 10:41 PM
twice in 40 years.

Barry and Hakeem ring 1.0

The Warriors are a hard team to peg, they went on a ridiculous regular season run the next year.

Hakeem might fit the bill, Im assuming you think Ewing was the choker. But are the Knicks without Ewing better than the Rockets without Dream?

Chronz
01-12-2011, 10:43 PM
And don't forget the god damn Blazers in 77. Still astonishes me what they did that season. Unreal.
Really how come?

Hellcrooner
01-12-2011, 10:54 PM
Really how come?

I guess people has forgotten how amazing Lucas Was and that "pukes" father happened to be one of the best bigs ever before injurys ended his career.
The other names arent flashy apparently.:eyebrow:

ldawg
01-12-2011, 11:35 PM
Shaq and Kobe if that count. remove the year they had rice and that team become very anemic. modovinc Who? Samaki Who? Mad dog who? Fox and Horry was pretty old then too.

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 11:38 PM
Shaq and Kobe if that count. remove the year they had rice and that team become very anemic.

really? Having 2 of the top 8 players in the NBA at any given time already kicks you out of this argument. Especially when you have active role players who make monster plays when needed (Fisher, Horry, Fox, Shaw, etc), and the best coach of all time.

you are slowly becoming another Laker fan who can't post anything not involving them. Cmon now.

Kashmir13579
01-12-2011, 11:39 PM
Wade in 2006. He had a great supporting squad that gained steam at the perfect time, but during the regular season, they were simply a top 7-8 team with a great player.


Good question, I will have to look at it

this is exactly what i was thinking.

Hellcrooner
01-12-2011, 11:42 PM
really? Having 2 of the top 8 players in the NBA at any given time already kicks you out of this argument. Especially when you have active role players who make monster plays when needed (Fisher, Horry, Fox, Shaw, etc), and the best coach of all time.

you are slowly becoming another Laker fan who can't post anything not involving them. Cmon now.

What have you eaten man, you are being agreesive lately :D

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 11:45 PM
What have you eaten man, you are being agreesive lately :D

The Wolves are wearing on my nerves man. I am having issues with shutting up if there is something I don't agree with.
That being said, 50% of the threads on the NBA forums could be meshed together, and I am simply replying quickly to the various threads that are open that are the same subject, since your thought process is already in it.

Hellcrooner
01-12-2011, 11:48 PM
The Wolves are wearing on my nerves man. I am having issues with shutting up if there is something I don't agree with.
That being said, 50% of the threads on the NBA forums could be meshed together, and I am simply replying quickly to the various threads that are open that are the same subject, since your thought process is already in it.

YOu need some zen lessons.

lesson 1 Pay 0 attention to anything coming form a poster with a name including 24 ---8 - kb --kob or any combination or any Snake pictures on it.

Lesson 2 Pay 0 attention to everyone else :D

Hawkeye15
01-12-2011, 11:53 PM
YOu need some zen lessons.

lesson 1 Pay 0 attention to anything coming form a poster with a name including 24 ---8 - kb --kob or any combination or any Snake pictures on it.

Lesson 2 Pay 0 attention to everyone else :D

dude, I am a tai chi master, literally. Just replying to the multiple threads with the same rhetoric one at a time :)

thekmp211
01-13-2011, 12:18 AM
takin the bait? i think this is a trick question.

i guess that mavericks team comes to mind, though it's hard to say if wade + shaq and filler was much worse than what dirk had to work with.

SteveNash
01-13-2011, 03:05 AM
Why are people listing the 06 Heat?

Probably Hakeem in 94 would be the best qualifier.