PDA

View Full Version : Which NBA team has won the title with the least depth?



numba1CHANGsta
05-06-2014, 09:03 PM
After watching the Heat all these years, the reason why they win games is because of their stacked depth. But any team could win with a stacked team, but the real question is which team has won with the least? Some teams that come to mind are the Lakers of the early 00's where they only had like 5-6 good players or the Bulls in the early 90's. Thoughts?

beyourself
05-06-2014, 09:05 PM
The 2003 Spurs basically had 1 notable player. Everybody was basically a mediocre role player, old or a rookie.

bathroom_man
05-06-2014, 09:14 PM
The 2003 Spurs basically had 1 notable player. Everybody was basically a mediocre role player, old or a rookie.

Young bowen, parker & ginobli along with vets david rob, bruce willis, steve smith. Stephen jackson, steve kerr, malik rose, danny ferry. Pretty damn stack role players

DaLakerz Rulz
05-06-2014, 09:28 PM
After watching the Heat all these years, the reason why they win games is because of their stacked depth. But any team could win with a stacked team, but the real question is which team has won with the least? Some teams that come to mind are the Lakers of the early 00's where they only had like 5-6 good players or the Bulls in the early 90's. Thoughts?

Its probably not a good idea to post negative comments about the Heat (and indirectly LeBron) in the main forum...

Hellcrooner
05-06-2014, 09:42 PM
After watching the Heat all these years, the reason why they win games is because of their stacked depth. But any team could win with a stacked team, but the real question is which team has won with the least? Some teams that come to mind are the Lakers of the early 00's where they only had like 5-6 good players or the Bulls in the early 90's. Thoughts?
Bulls had a very deep roster of good role players.

Same for early 00s lakers.



Id say Warriors .

bathroom_man
05-06-2014, 09:43 PM
Its probably not a good idea to post negative comments about the Heat (and indirectly LeBron) in the main forum...

Hahaha. Good one

Kushed
05-06-2014, 09:44 PM
Probably these Heat to be honest. No depth

NBA_Starter
05-06-2014, 09:45 PM
2003 Spurs

Verbal Christ
05-06-2014, 09:46 PM
1993 Rockets. Hakeem and a bunch of scrubs.

Shlumpledink
05-06-2014, 09:57 PM
This is a good question, it is very hard to pin down. Leads you to believe that depth is vital to championship success.

Cal827
05-06-2014, 10:05 PM
2004 Pistons.

Starters:
Billups
Hamilton
Prince
Wallace
Wallace

off the Bench

Okur (Sophmore Okur, not the good player he became)
Williamson
Mike James



:D

numba1CHANGsta
05-06-2014, 10:14 PM
Bulls had a very deep roster of good role players.

Same for early 00s lakers.



Id say Warriors .

Not for the 02' team, other than their starting 5, they had no bench what so ever (an old Shaw, Walker? Madsen?Medvenko? lol) It was basically Shaq and Kobe with the help of 3 role players(Fox, Fisher, Horry)

DillyDill
05-06-2014, 10:17 PM
1993 Rockets. Hakeem and a bunch of scrubs.

This x1000 The Dream had no second star, idk how he pulled it off

Dade County
05-06-2014, 10:18 PM
WTF...

What bench players do the HEAT have that would actually start on an above average team (I'm talking about the past 3 season for Miami, not this season)?

OP, did you take the time to compare the HEAT bench to other playoff teams contending bench's? Also, are you factoring in that when one or two of the big 3 are sitting, there is still a play maker out there to draw the double team, so whichever bench player is open for a free shot?

Are you really trying to say that the HEAT not only are stacked when it comes to their star players, but also have a stack bench... That means you consider this HEAT team one of the greatest NBA teams ever.

Hellcrooner
05-06-2014, 10:19 PM
This x1000 The Dream had no second star, idk how he pulled it off

because he had a DEEP TEAM FULL of ABOVE AVERAGE ROLE PLAYERS some of them being just a Little step behind stars?

bathroom_man
05-06-2014, 10:24 PM
This x1000 The Dream had no second star, idk how he pulled it off

No jordan thats how

Hellcrooner
05-06-2014, 10:36 PM
No jordan thats how

They would have beat the Bulls , jordan or not, providing bulls would have been able to beat knicks of course.

bucketss
05-06-2014, 10:38 PM
00's lakers were stacked, they had shaq, kobe and most importantly refs.

b@llhog24
05-06-2014, 10:44 PM
Barry's Warriors. Hakeem's Rockets. Duncan's Spurs in 03. Miami is probably top 10 though.

JasonJohnHorn
05-06-2014, 10:49 PM
The 2011 Mavs weren't very deep.

The 2009/2010 Lakers weren't terribly deep.

Neither were the 2008 Celtics.

The 2002 Lakers weren't very deep. Rick Fox, Robert Horry and Derrick Fisher were their best players after Kobe ad Shaq.

The 98 Bulls has Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Harper and Kukoc, but after that... nothing.


If you have the right players, 2 or 3 players, they can turn bench warmers into championship role players.

Some of the deepest teams lose to shallow teams with better top tier talent.

bathroom_man
05-06-2014, 10:53 PM
They would have beat the Bulls , jordan or not, providing bulls would have been able to beat knicks of course.

Jordan got tired of beating the knicks. What makes u think they cant following a 3 peat. Jordan gave hakeem 2 rings cuz he felt sorry for his league dominance

JasonJohnHorn
05-06-2014, 10:54 PM
The 2003 Spurs basically had 1 notable player. Everybody was basically a mediocre role player, old or a rookie.


I dunno... they had Duncan, and DRob was a double-double C with great defense, even if he wasn't scoring like he used to.

They had Parker, Jackson and Manu who were all young and playing well, Parker especially, plus the had Bowen, a sharp shooter like Kerr and a great back-up C in Kevin Willis.
That was a pretty deep team.

Hawkeye15
05-06-2014, 11:24 PM
After watching the Heat all these years, the reason why they win games is because of their stacked depth. But any team could win with a stacked team, but the real question is which team has won with the least? Some teams that come to mind are the Lakers of the early 00's where they only had like 5-6 good players or the Bulls in the early 90's. Thoughts?

really? The Heat don't have the depth of countless chip teams. You are totally underrating how many incredible rosters have won a chip.

P&GRealist
05-06-2014, 11:44 PM
1993 Rockets. Hakeem and a bunch of scrubs.

U mean 1994?

Avenged
05-06-2014, 11:46 PM
I remember when being a Laker fan meant something here :sigh:

P&GRealist
05-06-2014, 11:46 PM
The 2011 Mavs weren't very deep.

The 2009/2010 Lakers weren't terribly deep.

Neither were the 2008 Celtics.

The 2002 Lakers weren't very deep. Rick Fox, Robert Horry and [/b]Derrick Fisher[b] were their best players after Kobe ad Shaq.

The 98 Bulls has Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Harper and Kukoc, but after that... nothing.


If you have the right players, 2 or 3 players, they can turn bench warmers into championship role players.

Some of the deepest teams lose to shallow teams with better top tier talent.

For the umpteenth time, it's DEREK.

Different from Derrick Rose.


C'mon dude. You're a student of the game and its history.


You're telling me you can't differentiate between the two?

P&GRealist
05-06-2014, 11:48 PM
I remember when being a Laker fan meant something here :sigh:

What is that?

Cal827
05-07-2014, 12:05 AM
I feel bad for Hibbert..... I guess there's a reason we haven't seen Bynum around.

Cal827
05-07-2014, 12:06 AM
Trade PG, no veteran is going to want to play with him on the team (as most of them are in serious relationships or have wives)

NJrockPD
05-07-2014, 12:07 AM
They would have beat the Bulls , jordan or not, providing bulls would have been able to beat knicks of course.

You really think that?

PowerHouse
05-07-2014, 12:11 AM
But any team could win with a stacked team, but the real question is which team has won with the least? Some teams that come to mind are the Lakers of the early 00's where they only had like 5-6 good players or the Bulls in the early 90's. Thoughts?

Personally I think the Lakers of '09 and '10 were less stacked than in the early 2000s. After Kobe, Gasol and Odom there was nothing left accept guys like Adam Morrison, Luke Walton, Josh Powell, Vujacic, Mbenga, Farmar and an Andrew Bynum who was held together with tape and bandages those days.

beyourself
05-07-2014, 12:15 AM
I dunno... they had Duncan, and DRob was a double-double C with great defense, even if he wasn't scoring like he used to.

They had Parker, Jackson and Manu who were all young and playing well, Parker especially, plus the had Bowen, a sharp shooter like Kerr and a great back-up C in Kevin Willis.
That was a pretty deep team.

Yet none of those guys except for maybe Bowen were actually any decent in 2003.

numba1CHANGsta
05-07-2014, 12:26 AM
Personally I think the Lakers of '09 and '10 were less stacked than in the early 2000s. After Kobe, Gasol and Odom there was nothing left accept guys like Adam Morrison, Luke Walton, Josh Powell, Vujacic, Mbenga, Farmar and an Andrew Bynum who was held together with tape and bandages those days.

You forgot Ariza and MWP, they were crucial

TmacBryant
05-07-2014, 12:31 AM
2004 Pistons.

Starters:
Billups
Hamilton
Prince
Wallace
Wallace

off the Bench

Okur (Sophmore Okur, not the good player he became)
Williamson
Mike James



:D

Ples sir don't troll me ༼ノຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

numba1CHANGsta
05-07-2014, 12:35 AM
really? The Heat don't have the depth of countless chip teams. You are totally underrating how many incredible rosters have won a chip.

LBJ/Wade/Bosh (so far thats already more superstars on one team than a championship team normally has)
Allen, Battier, Chalmers, Cole, Haslem, Mike Miller, Birdman, Lewis, J. Jones, and now Beasley(all of these guys played a crucial role for the team meaning they aren't a bunch of scrubs)

The Heat currently have about 7 guys who can come into the game and get big shots, passes, rebounds, blocks, steals. They don't need to score 10+ points, all they need to do is hit a couple of shots and play D. These guys are NOT scrubs so stop underrating the Heat's depth.

PowerHouse
05-07-2014, 12:40 AM
You forgot Ariza and MWP, they were crucial

True. As were G-Rice, Fox and Horry in the early 2000s.

PowerHouse
05-07-2014, 12:46 AM
Now that I actually sat down and thought about it, I think the 1979 Seattle Supersonics might have to take this one. I mean that team had only one HOFer on the whole roster which was Dennis Johnson. And whether Dennis Johnson actually deserved election to the hall is a whole other thread topic.

Hawkeye15
05-07-2014, 12:48 AM
LBJ/Wade/Bosh (so far thats already more superstars on one team than a championship team normally has)
Allen, Battier, Chalmers, Cole, Haslem, Mike Miller, Birdman, Lewis, J. Jones, and now Beasley(all of these guys played a crucial role for the team meaning they aren't a bunch of scrubs)

The Heat currently have about 7 guys who can come into the game and get big shots, passes, rebounds, blocks, steals. They don't need to score 10+ points, all they need to do is hit a couple of shots and play D. These guys are NOT scrubs so stop underrating the Heat's depth.

back that up with numbers.

numba1CHANGsta
05-07-2014, 12:49 AM
True. As were G-Rice, Fox and Horry in the early 2000s.

People tend to forget that Rice was only on the 00' team. As the years went by the Lakers lost a lot of role players, look at their 02' roster, it's basically the starting 5 and thats it.

beyourself
05-07-2014, 12:53 AM
back that up with numbers.

Well I'm going to agree with him and say that the Heat are a very strong and deep team. That's why they formed the superteam. I still remember the decision and what leaving Cleveland was all about. And the Heat's best player has a good plus minus with him on the bench.

i'myourdaddy
05-07-2014, 01:00 AM
Not for the 02' team, other than their starting 5, they had no bench what so ever (an old Shaw, Walker? Madsen?Medvenko? lol) It was basically Shaq and Kobe with the help of 3 role players(Fox, Fisher, Horry) & the NBA refs

Fix it for you.

numba1CHANGsta
05-07-2014, 01:04 AM
back that up with numbers.

Bench Points Per Game in the Playoffs:

2002 Lakers: 15.6 PPG

2013 Heat: 33.7 PPG

More than double, good enough? LOL

IversonIsKrazy
05-07-2014, 01:06 AM
2003 Spurs

numba1CHANGsta
05-07-2014, 01:08 AM
Fix it for you.

The refs cancel out each other, cuz don't tell me the Heat haven't been favored by them as well. But there's plenty of other teams who have won in the past with less depth and no favor by the refs.

numba1CHANGsta
05-07-2014, 01:11 AM
2003 Spurs

That team had a lot of depth: Duncan, Parker, Robinson, Ginobilli, Bowen, Jackson, S. Smith, Rose, Kerr

MTar786
05-07-2014, 03:33 AM
2002 lakers 'nuff said

naps
05-07-2014, 04:11 AM
Another pathetic effort by yet another Laker fan. Why are these laker fans so butt-hurt on the Heat? It's not like these two teams were rivals at any time history. I honestly feel bad for them. Lakers need to relevant again for these fans so they don't have to be so upset about the heat all the time.

jerellh528
05-07-2014, 04:20 AM
Another pathetic effort by yet another Laker fan. Why are these laker fans so butt-hurt on the Heat? It's not like these two teams were rivals at any time history. I honestly feel bad for them. Lakers need to relevant again for these fans so they don't have to be so upset about the heat all the time.

Oh shut up. I just looked at your last 10 posts. 6 of them have the word Kobe in them. And more than half of your last 25 are you *****ing about the lakers or durant. For as bad you claim kobephiles to be, you're even worse. You're an obsessed loser. Get a life.

PurpleLynch
05-07-2014, 05:05 AM
Pistons 2004

Heediot
05-07-2014, 06:03 AM
Nm.

BoSox47
05-07-2014, 09:00 AM
Bench Points Per Game in the Playoffs:

2002 Lakers: 15.6 PPG

2013 Heat: 33.7 PPG

More than double, good enough? LOL

Pretty sure that backs it up very well.

mjm07
05-07-2014, 09:51 AM
Oh shut up. I just looked at your last 10 posts. 6 of them have the word Kobe in them. And more than half of your last 25 are you *****ing about the lakers or durant. For as bad you claim kobephiles to be, you're even worse. You're an obsessed loser. Get a life.

You might be right about Naps...but you can't deny that he's wrong. And if you do you're delusional. Lakers will be a juggernaut very soon, they always are. Meantime, HEAT are trying 3peat. Enjoy.

ManRam
05-07-2014, 10:46 AM
Let's look at recent champs...

2013: In the playoffs, Allen, Cole, Battier, Anderson, Miller: 30.8 points a game (46% shooting)...4.6 3PT on 39% shooting. Good bench, for sure. The perimeter guys are all merely shooters, Anderson is the only plus defender.

2012: Tougher to really gauge the stats since they started so many different people (9 starters) and Bosh missed a lot of games. The bench was undoubtedly weaker though with Haslem and Battier forced to start often, Turiaf/Anthony/Pittman instead of Andersen and Norris Cole being a non-factor. On a per-game basis, they were getting about half as many points as 2013 from the bench. It was a BAD bench, there's no way around it. Jones, Miller, Cole, Howard, Pittman and Battier all shot 40% or worse from the field. Perhaps the worst bench since their 2006 team.

2011: The Mavs had a really great bench. Terry, Barea, Peja, Haywood, Mahinmi, Cardinal and Brewer. Terry alone scored more than the Heat bench averaged in the 2012 playoffs. Peja, Jet and Barea scored more than the 2013 Heat bench averaged in the playoffs. Their bench as a whole averged 41 points a game in the playoffs. Even if you call DeShawn the "bench player" since he got bench minutes, their production still outshines Miami's in both championship seasons, especially Miami's in 2011.

2010: Lakers had Odom, Brown, Farmar, Vujacic, Ammo and Walton. Those guys averaged 27.4 points a game on (43% shooting). It's safe to say the 2013 Heat had a better bench, but as a whole it was relatively potent. Certainly moreso than Boston's was that year.

2009: Lakers have essentially the same bench. Josh Powell is getting minutes, and Ammo is not (obviously). Production is about the same throughout the playoffs.

2008: Boston has Powe, Posey, Brown, Cassell, Davis, House, Tony Allen. They average 25.2 points a game on 45% shooting. Defensively it's probably the best bench unit we've seen thus far.

2007: Spurs: Manu, Horry, Barry, Vaughn, Bonner, Elson. 30.4 points. Strong veteran bench.

2006: Heat: Posey, Payton, Mourning, Doleac, Anderson, Anderson: Good names, meh bench.


I don't know. I don't feel like going on...but I don't see how the Heat benches stand out that much. This year they've been getting more out of their bench thus far in the playoffs than recent years. Partially because they're playing bad teams and the bench is getting more time.

Regular season:
Allen: 12.8 PER
Battier: 8.7 PER
Lewis: 10.7 PER
Haslem: 10.5 PER
Cole: 8.8 PER
Andersen: 18.5 PER

I mean, outside of Andersen, who's really producing hugely off the bench this year? OKC gets better production from Jackson, Collison, Fisher, Butler and Adams. Brooklyn's bench has been more productive both in the regular season and in the playoffs. Scola, Mahinmi, Watson, Turner and Copeland produced better. San Antonio has the best bench in the NBA regardless of what stat you go by (points, playing time, FG%, any efficiency stat).

The Heat bench ranks 17th in points per game, though 4th in FG% and 10th in 3PT%. They're 4th in offensive rating and 15th in defensive rating. It's the 5th worst rebounding bench.

TheMightyHumph
05-07-2014, 12:42 PM
Young bowen, parker & ginobli along with vets david rob, bruce willis, steve smith. Stephen jackson, steve kerr, malik rose, danny ferry. Pretty damn stack role players

You left out the guy that really won them the Finals.......Speedy Claxton.

rhino17
05-07-2014, 12:48 PM
1993 Rockets. Hakeem and a bunch of scrubs.

No 2nd star but a very deep bench

Mario Elie
Robert Horry
Sam Cassel
Carl Herrera
And Scottie Brooks was always good in crunch time

FlashBolt
05-07-2014, 01:10 PM
Heat were stacked yet they went through two game 7's last year. Righhhht.

Chronz
05-07-2014, 02:05 PM
Depending on your definition a team like Hakeems Rockets are either really deep or they are 1 man crew. So how are we defining this again?

Wrigheyes4MVP
05-07-2014, 02:18 PM
The Heat win because of their stacked depth?

I thought that they win because they have Lebron, Wade, and Bosh?

Wrigheyes4MVP
05-07-2014, 02:22 PM
Let's look at recent champs...

2013: In the playoffs, Allen, Cole, Battier, Anderson, Miller: 30.8 points a game (46% shooting)...4.6 3PT on 39% shooting. Good bench, for sure. The perimeter guys are all merely shooters, Anderson is the only plus defender.

2012: Tougher to really gauge the stats since they started so many different people (9 starters) and Bosh missed a lot of games. The bench was undoubtedly weaker though with Haslem and Battier forced to start often, Turiaf/Anthony/Pittman instead of Andersen and Norris Cole being a non-factor. On a per-game basis, they were getting about half as many points as 2013 from the bench. It was a BAD bench, there's no way around it. Jones, Miller, Cole, Howard, Pittman and Battier all shot 40% or worse from the field. Perhaps the worst bench since their 2006 team.

2011: The Mavs had a really great bench. Terry, Barea, Peja, Haywood, Mahinmi, Cardinal and Brewer. Terry alone scored more than the Heat bench averaged in the 2012 playoffs. Peja, Jet and Barea scored more than the 2013 Heat bench averaged in the playoffs. Their bench as a whole averged 41 points a game in the playoffs. Even if you call DeShawn the "bench player" since he got bench minutes, their production still outshines Miami's in both championship seasons, especially Miami's in 2011.

2010: Lakers had Odom, Brown, Farmar, Vujacic, Ammo and Walton. Those guys averaged 27.4 points a game on (43% shooting). It's safe to say the 2013 Heat had a better bench, but as a whole it was relatively potent. Certainly moreso than Boston's was that year.

2009: Lakers have essentially the same bench. Josh Powell is getting minutes, and Ammo is not (obviously). Production is about the same throughout the playoffs.

2008: Boston has Powe, Posey, Brown, Cassell, Davis, House, Tony Allen. They average 25.2 points a game on 45% shooting. Defensively it's probably the best bench unit we've seen thus far.

2007: Spurs: Manu, Horry, Barry, Vaughn, Bonner, Elson. 30.4 points. Strong veteran bench.

2006: Heat: Posey, Payton, Mourning, Doleac, Anderson, Anderson: Good names, meh bench.


I don't know. I don't feel like going on...but I don't see how the Heat benches stand out that much. This year they've been getting more out of their bench thus far in the playoffs than recent years. Partially because they're playing bad teams and the bench is getting more time.

Regular season:
Allen: 12.8 PER
Battier: 8.7 PER
Lewis: 10.7 PER
Haslem: 10.5 PER
Cole: 8.8 PER
Andersen: 18.5 PER

I mean, outside of Andersen, who's really producing hugely off the bench this year? OKC gets better production from Jackson, Collison, Fisher, Butler and Adams. Brooklyn's bench has been more productive both in the regular season and in the playoffs. Scola, Mahinmi, Watson, Turner and Copeland produced better. San Antonio has the best bench in the NBA regardless of what stat you go by (points, playing time, FG%, any efficiency stat).

The Heat bench ranks 17th in points per game, though 4th in FG% and 10th in 3PT%. They're 4th in offensive rating and 15th in defensive rating. It's the 5th worst rebounding bench.

That Mavs bench killed it in 2011. Huge reason why that team did so well.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 02:39 PM
Its probably not a good idea to post negative comments about the Heat (and indirectly LeBron) in the main forum...

Not unless your looking to piss off a bunch of Lebronite nuthuggers that is. I'm sure there will be an onslaught of lackies to defend him and claim that Bosh sucks and Wade is an old man who contributes nothing and Lebron has carried both on his back to titles. Then they will claim that the eastern conference is difficult because Lebron needed seven games to finish off the Celtics and the Pacers. Lol.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 02:42 PM
Oh shut up. I just looked at your last 10 posts. 6 of them have the word Kobe in them. And more than half of your last 25 are you *****ing about the lakers or durant. For as bad you claim kobephiles to be, you're even worse. You're an obsessed loser. Get a life.

Haha. Very true. You just owned his arse.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 02:44 PM
2002 lakers 'nuff said

Pretty much this.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 02:49 PM
Personally I think the Lakers of '09 and '10 were less stacked than in the early 2000s. After Kobe, Gasol and Odom there was nothing left accept guys like Adam Morrison, Luke Walton, Josh Powell, Vujacic, Mbenga, Farmar and an Andrew Bynum who was held together with tape and bandages those days.

Its a toss up for sure, bit I would still go with the 2002 Lakers because it was pretty much Kobe and Shaq doing most of the heavy lifting.

mngopher35
05-07-2014, 02:51 PM
Man Ram you brought up some good points. One thing to remember is that a bench isn't only about points either and they get points in different ways. For example how many of those bench points came off of assists (battier and miller especially just receive passes and shoot, ray kinda the same but he creates a little more). It is a great skill to have no doubt but their scoring is generated by the stars more-so than those lakers teams running the triangle I would imagine.

The 2002 Lakers scored a lot less points no doubt but how many of them were set up in the same way? Also the league has changed a bit in bench play over the years as well with bench players getting more minutes (this is off the eye test, anyone know how to look it up?). My guess is that the Lakers had their bench players playing less minutes than the heat did as well which helps explain the points difference. They were likely taking more shots as well for the reasons listed above (more ball movement, more time on court).

The fact you feel the need to mention rashard, beasley, james jones doesn't really help me think they are stacked. Another things is that there is more outside of ppg. Why does Hibbert always dominate them in the playoffs? Lack of big man depth. So yes they are deep in certain ways (like with have shooters to spread the floor), but it also leaves them vulnerable in other areas. Now with all of this being said the 2002 Lakers weren't extremely deep for a championship team so I would definitely say you are right there. I just don't think the Heat have some extremely deep bench that is rare for the NBA today or compared to championship teams in the past.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 02:52 PM
Another pathetic effort by yet another Laker fan. Why are these laker fans so butt-hurt on the Heat? It's not like these two teams were rivals at any time history. I honestly feel bad for them. Lakers need to relevant again for these fans so they don't have to be so upset about the heat all the time.

Perhaps its just you and your Heat comrades being overly sensitive because you know just how unfairly stacked your team is. Or should I say your fav players team. Truth hurts.

koreancabbage
05-07-2014, 02:54 PM
Not unless your looking to piss off a bunch of Lebronite nuthuggers that is. I'm sure there will be an onslaught of lackies to defend him and claim that Bosh sucks and Wade is an old man who contributes nothing and Lebron has carried both on his back to titles. Then they will claim that the eastern conference is difficult because Lebron needed seven games to finish off the Celtics and the Pacers. Lol.

The Heat are a good team. end of story.

koreancabbage
05-07-2014, 02:54 PM
Perhaps its just you and your Heat comrades being overly sensitive because you know just how unfairly stacked your team is. Or should I say your fav players team. Truth hurts.

the Heat are stacked. end of story.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 03:00 PM
Man Ram you brought up some good points. One thing to remember is that a bench isn't only about points either and they get points in different ways. For example how many of those bench points came off of assists (battier and miller especially just receive passes and shoot, ray kinda the same but he creates a little more). It is a great skill to have no doubt but their scoring is generated by the stars more-so than those lakers teams running the triangle I would imagine.

The 2002 Lakers scored a lot less points no doubt but how many of them were set up in the same way? Also the league has changed a bit in bench play over the years as well with bench players getting more minutes (this is off the eye test, anyone know how to look it up?). My guess is that the Lakers had their bench players playing less minutes than the heat did as well which helps explain the points difference. They were likely taking more shots as well for the reasons listed above (more ball movement, more time on court).

The fact you feel the need to mention rashard, beasley, james jones doesn't really help me think they are stacked. Another things is that there is more outside of ppg. Why does Hibbert always dominate them in the playoffs? Lack of big man depth. So yes they are deep in certain ways (like with have shooters to spread the floor), but it also leaves them vulnerable in other areas. Now with all of this being said the 2002 Lakers weren't extremely deep for a championship team so I would definitely say you are right there. I just don't think the Heat have some extremely deep bench that is rare for the NBA today or compared to championship teams in the past.

Some excellent points and a very fair argument. However, the Heat have two other advantages you did not touch on... One, their big three... Two, their easy path to regular season victory which leads to HCA in the finals, and easy path to the finals via the weak eastern conference.

I agree that there have been teams in years past with better bench depth such as the 2011 Mavs, but when it comes to overall depth, lack of competition, and cakewalks to titles, nothing compares to the monstrosity we call the Miami Heat.

koreancabbage
05-07-2014, 03:05 PM
Some excellent points and a very fair argument. However, the Heat have two other advantages you did not touch on... One, their big three... Two, their easy path to regular season victory which leads to HCA in the finals, and to the finals via the weak eastern conference.

I agree that there have been teams in years past with better bench depth such as the 2011 Mags, but when it comes to overall depth, lack of competition, and cakewalks to titles, nothing compares to the monstrosity we call the Miami Heat

okay. wouldn't it be more of a travesty if they DIDN'T win? I mean they got together to win rings. That was the whole point of them getting together. Their talents alone surfaced over their roster deficiencies like their lack of size. They won with an unconventional line up.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 03:08 PM
the Heat are stacked. end of story.

At least you can admit it. Unlike these other clowns who act like Lebron just slayed the Hydra and the Nemian Lion when he has had an easier path to his two titles than his all time great predecessors ever had.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 03:17 PM
okay. wouldn't it be more of a travesty if they DIDN'T win? I mean they got together to win rings. That was the whole point of them getting together. Their talents alone surfaced over their roster deficiencies like their lack of size. They won with an unconventional line up.

2011 was one of the biggest travesties in NBA history as far as I'm concerned. Lebron had the best team ever assembled and HCA and lost to a team that had no business even winning a single game in that series. On top of that his individual stats including his piss poor 4th quarter stats were representative of the greatest choke for a superstar caliber NBA player in the history of the game.

The Heat can get away with a small lineup due to the decline of the big man position and the utter lack of overall talent at the center possition. The competition in the NBA is the weakest it has ever been. All of Lebron's greatest western threats are either too young or too old to give him a run for his money. That and they have a more even keel of competition in their conference so they are more tired out when they do make it to the finals, while the Heat are in coast mode the whole way.

Chronz
05-07-2014, 03:43 PM
Dear god it begins, lets just make this clear, the Mavs beat every team that had more "talent", so you saying they dont deserve a single win vs a newly formed and overall flawed construct, is expected, but still pitifully biased.

mngopher35
05-07-2014, 03:50 PM
Some excellent points and a very fair argument. However, the Heat have two other advantages you did not touch on... One, their big three... Two, their easy path to regular season victory which leads to HCA in the finals, and easy path to the finals via the weak eastern conference.

I agree that there have been teams in years past with better bench depth such as the 2011 Mavs, but when it comes to overall depth, lack of competition, and cakewalks to titles, nothing compares to the monstrosity we call the Miami Heat.

This thread wasn't about any of that, I was merely focusing on the topic. I am glad you can see that that they aren't a team with ridiculous depth as claimed (the op should take note because if even you can admit/see this about the heat it should be obvious to everyone else).

As for your other points you will likely continue to disagree with most on this topic forever. The big 3 is very talented and put themselves in position to win titles, there is no denying that. You do always tend to over exaggerate many things when it comes to this team.

I will start with the big 3. You claim we have never seen anything like this in the history of basketball etc etc. Well those 2001 lakers won with Kobe Shaq and lets say fisher. The Heat's big 3 scored less ppg, less rpg and less apg than that trio in the playoffs (don't worry I used 2012 when bosh was injured pfor part of the time so the Heat's #'s would be inflated. Not to mention that fisher was a shooter, Kobe a slasher/wing scorer, and shaq a dominant post presence with arguably the best coach of all time. That Heat trio has two ball dominant stars with a big man who used to get plenty of touches himself on the high post. So their styles didn't mesh at all like those lakers teams.

Next up would be each team's easy path to the finals. That 2001 team lost 1 game the entire post season, none until they reached the finals. This Heat team lost bosh to injury against the pacers in 2012 and part of Boston series as well. Lebron and Wade stepped it up huge after a 1-2 defecit to beat the pacers. Then the next round they went down 2-3 against Boston with Bosh recovering and returning. IF you want adversity then this was the time when people were still hating them, ringless king jokes started back up etc. Lebron absolutely dominated game 6 and then finished the series off with a triple double. They then went on to play a Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka group that was projected to win the finals over them (so no lack of competition, not a cakewalk, and also another team with arguably more star power).

All of this ended with Larry Bird questioning whether or not the Lebron had just had the best playoff run of all time (once again this would go against everything you mentioned). In 2013 we all know wade wasn't the same and they went to game 7 vs. the Pacers and then had two more elimination games in an epic series vs. the spurs. This would be 5 elimination games in 2 years while the 3-peat lakers had 4 over a 3 year span (and one of them many people argue was the worst officiated, or rigged, playoff game ever).

So while we agree they don't have a ridiculous amount of bench depth we certainly disagree on most of your other points. The things I listed above show that it wasn't a cakewalk, we have seen teams that were as good, and the only reason it is a monstrosity is because you obviously have a very biased opinion of the team and specifically Lebron James. You think the nba is making other teams tired this year while ignoring the fact the heat have played more games than any team over the past few years lol. You got laughed out of your own thread because of your bias.

Edit: This is not a post to bash those Lakers teams in any way or claim that this Heat team is better in any way. It is just calling out an individual poster for his bias and ignorance of past teams in nba history. I give plenty of credit to those Lakers teams as they were fantastic, something that this poster refuses to do with another team.

mngopher35
05-07-2014, 03:59 PM
Dear god it begins, lets just make this clear, the Mavs beat every team that had more "talent", so you saying they dont deserve a single win vs a newly formed and overall flawed construct, is expected, but still pitifully biased.

It is funny he brings them up in a thread about depth. They had the most bench points per game of any team that year and great overall depth while the Heat were clearly top heavy with the issues you mentioned.

Chronz
05-07-2014, 04:43 PM
It is funny he brings them up in a thread about depth. They had the most bench points per game of any team that year and great overall depth while the Heat were clearly top heavy with the issues you mentioned.

They were one of the few teams to win with depth as a strength in my book.

They may have lacked star power but they did have a star in place, a DPOY caliber supporting frontcourt partner that COMPLETELY compliments that star, a brilliant coach and a HOF PG to lead them. Not to mention one of the best 6th Men and a still capable Shawn Marion. There are literally no holes in their roster they couldn't plug, Dirk was the centerpiece to it all but they had an answer for any adjustment. A complete swiss army knife thanks to the vast/diverse set of skills they all had.

First year Big-3 were disappointing but also telling of how important chemistry and diversity is (Mavs taught that lesson to all 3 of the immensely talented teams they defeated (OKC/LAL/MIA)). Heat won with less talent at the top (given their injuries) in the ensuing years because they became a more well rounded team. Its harder to win with gaps that can be exposed, the Heat got as far as their talent and relative individual brilliance allowed them back then. Its one thing to say they underachieved, but to call it the biggest choke of all-time is classic hyperbole. The Mavs should not be disrespected to such a degree, that their 4 consecutive "upsets" are deemed flukish. Its harder to win with their formula, but when it happens, its magical.

Bostonjorge
05-07-2014, 05:02 PM
2011 was one of the biggest travesties in NBA history as far as I'm concerned. Lebron had the best team ever assembled and HCA and lost to a team that had no business even winning a single game in that series. On top of that his individual stats including his piss poor 4th quarter stats were representative of the greatest choke for a superstar caliber NBA player in the history of the game.

The Heat can get away with a small lineup due to the decline of the big man position and the utter lack of overall talent at the center possition. The competition in the NBA is the weakest it has ever been. All of Lebron's greatest western threats are either too young or too old to give him a run for his money. That and they have a more even keel of competition in their conference so they are more tired out when they do make it to the finals, while the Heat are in coast mode the whole way.

This is a powerful post. Chose all his words carefully and nailed it.

The Dallas series was the heats best team when it came to the big 3. James and wade were both in the top 5 in scoring going into the playoffs and bosh had his best playoff run. No one was hurt also.

No where does this post say Miami is built better or has more stars then the magic or bird type teams from the past. But all the old stack teams second and third best players were not in the top 5 players in there entire conference so the gap of talent rivals the old Russell's teams.

valade16
05-07-2014, 05:03 PM
It’s funny how in a thread like this Heat fans be like “we had no depth until this season” but for the last 3 off-seasons the which team has the best bench thread had all the Heat fans in their claiming it was them.

numba1CHANGsta
05-07-2014, 05:29 PM
I didn't want this to turn into a Heat post LOL I was only using them as an example, I could have easily went with the Spurs who yet again have a lot of depth. This team seems to win because they build their team with great depth: Duncan, Parker, Manu, Green, Leonard, Diaw, Splitter, Mills, Belinelli

And you look back on their championship seasons they had a lot of depth too, so its kind of rare to see a team with little depth win the championship.

mngopher35
05-07-2014, 05:36 PM
They were one of the few teams to win with depth as a strength in my book.

They may have lacked star power but they did have a star in place, a DPOY caliber supporting frontcourt partner that COMPLETELY compliments that star, a brilliant coach and a HOF PG to lead them. Not to mention one of the best 6th Men and a still capable Shawn Marion. There are literally no holes in their roster they couldn't plug, Dirk was the centerpiece to it all but they had an answer for any adjustment. A complete swiss army knife thanks to the vast/diverse set of skills they all had.

First year Big-3 were disappointing but also telling of how important chemistry and diversity is (Mavs taught that lesson to all 3 of the immensely talented teams they defeated (OKC/LAL/MIA)). Heat won with less talent at the top (given their injuries) in the ensuing years because they became a more well rounded team. Its harder to win with gaps that can be exposed, the Heat got as far as their talent and relative individual brilliance allowed them back then. Its one thing to say they underachieved, but to call it the biggest choke of all-time is classic hyperbole. The Mavs should not be disrespected to such a degree, that their 4 consecutive "upsets" are deemed flukish. Its harder to win with their formula, but when it happens, its magical.

Great post.

mngopher35
05-07-2014, 06:07 PM
I didn't want this to turn into a Heat post LOL I was only using them as an example, I could have easily went with the Spurs who yet again have a lot of depth. This team seems to win because they build their team with great depth: Duncan, Parker, Manu, Green, Leonard, Diaw, Splitter, Mills, Belinelli

And you look back on their championship seasons they had a lot of depth too, so its kind of rare to see a team with little depth win the championship.

I think the biggest issue is what we are defining depth as. Are you asking who has the worst players 5-12 (some of which will have little impact on the game anyways) or who has the worst say 4-8 who will see a lot of playing time and be more crucial to a teams success? Or are you asking who relied the least on players outside of their stars?

Bostonjorge
05-07-2014, 06:24 PM
The heat do have the most depth this year and when compared to there conference then it starts to get ridiculous.

Teufelshunde4
05-07-2014, 06:24 PM
After watching the Heat all these years, the reason why they win games is because of their stacked depth. But any team could win with a stacked team, but the real question is which team has won with the least? Some teams that come to mind are the Lakers of the early 00's where they only had like 5-6 good players or the Bulls in the early 90's. Thoughts?


Your short changing the 90's Bulls bench.. While those teams never had starters sitting on the bench they had excellent role players. Scott Williams, Will Perdue, Craig Hodges, BJ Armstrong, Cliff Livingston, Bobby Hansen.

You dont need stars sitting on a bench to make it a good bench.. Just guys who accept their roles and maximize their talent..

Bostonjorge
05-07-2014, 06:57 PM
They were one of the few teams to win with depth as a strength in my book.

They may have lacked star power but they did have a star in place, a DPOY caliber supporting frontcourt partner that COMPLETELY compliments that star, a brilliant coach and a HOF PG to lead them. Not to mention one of the best 6th Men and a still capable Shawn Marion. There are literally no holes in their roster they couldn't plug, Dirk was the centerpiece to it all but they had an answer for any adjustment. A complete swiss army knife thanks to the vast/diverse set of skills they all had.

First year Big-3 were disappointing but also telling of how important chemistry and diversity is (Mavs taught that lesson to all 3 of the immensely talented teams they defeated (OKC/LAL/MIA)). Heat won with less talent at the top (given their injuries) in the ensuing years because they became a more well rounded team. Its harder to win with gaps that can be exposed, the Heat got as far as their talent and relative individual brilliance allowed them back then. Its one thing to say they underachieved, but to call it the biggest choke of all-time is classic hyperbole. The Mavs should not be disrespected to such a degree, that their 4 consecutive "upsets" are deemed flukish. Its harder to win with their formula, but when it happens, its magical.

The mavs were awesome especially dirk. They earned that championship.
But the heat had a much better cast and the matchup's favored Miami. Dallas didn't have no over powering post player and quick forwards and even guards were the best options to guard dirk every year up to that point. The heat had just took out a tougher team in Boston and James took out the fastest player in the nba MVP rose out that series. Yet roll players did them in that's what made it magical.

The big 3 had there best numbers that year as a group and lost. When the heat made there adjustments and wade and bosh numbers took a dip they started to win. Go figure. No one ever credits the adjustments just point to numbers and say wade and bosh fell off even thou this formula gives the heat championships.

numba1CHANGsta
05-07-2014, 07:38 PM
I think the biggest issue is what we are defining depth as. Are you asking who has the worst players 5-12 (some of which will have little impact on the game anyways) or who has the worst say 4-8 who will see a lot of playing time and be more crucial to a teams success? Or are you asking who relied the least on players outside of their stars?

Who has won a championship with a bad 6-12 which is basically the entire bench, but ill even take up another notch and say take out the team's top 2 players and rank the 3-12 players and see who had the least depth.

Chronz
05-07-2014, 07:50 PM
The mavs were awesome especially dirk. They earned that championship.
I honestly dont think Dirk was all that special. He obviously had his moments of impressive dominance but throughout that run he got alot of help from his supporting cast, help that gets undermined because they arent "stars".


But the heat had a much better cast and the matchup's favored Miami. Dallas didn't have no over powering post player and quick forwards and even guards were the best options to guard dirk every year up to that point. The heat had just took out a tougher team in Boston and James took out the fastest player in the nba MVP rose out that series. Yet roll players did them in that's what made it magical.
Thats certainly an interesting take on it. I found Dirk to be a devastating post player, I credit him with being on par with James if not superior this year given the circumstances. Lots of teams appeared better in terms of top heavy talent when compared with Dallas, they all lost. I dont find that coincidental, that TEAM was deep, it wasn't just Dirk despite him being the sole star.


The big 3 had there best numbers that year as a group and lost. When the heat made there adjustments and wade and bosh numbers took a dip they started to win. Go figure. No one ever credits the adjustments just point to numbers and say wade and bosh fell off even thou this formula gives the heat championships.
Maybe, but I would love to see some numbers here. My take was always that its abit of both, because you cannot deny that the performance of the Big-3 aside from Bron has varied depending on health/matchup more than it does for their MVP. Those guys were probably at their best in Y1 but they became a better team in Y2. It takes time, that Brons greatest failure is that he couldnt win his first year with legitimate title pieces is a testament to his greatness IMO. Imagine that, a Finals loss is his biggest failure.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 10:46 PM
The heat do have the most depth this year and when compared to there conference then it starts to get ridiculous.

I concur.

amos1er
05-07-2014, 10:48 PM
This is a powerful post. Chose all his words carefully and nailed it.

The Dallas series was the heats best team when it came to the big 3. James and wade were both in the top 5 in scoring going into the playoffs and bosh had his best playoff run. No one was hurt also.

No where does this post say Miami is built better or has more stars then the magic or bird type teams from the past. But all the old stack teams second and third best players were not in the top 5 players in there entire conference so the gap of talent rivals the old Russell's teams.

Why thank you. Glad to see there are people here that don't have a Leboner 24/7 and can look at things objectively.

mjm07
05-07-2014, 10:57 PM
Why thank you. Glad to see there are people here that don't have a Leboner 24/7 and can look at things objectively.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

koreancabbage
05-07-2014, 11:47 PM
Why thank you. Glad to see there are people here that don't have a Leboner 24/7 and can look at things objectively.

I don't think you know the word objectively. if you meant to come in here talk **** about the Heat and Lebron, you objectively did so. so of course you would agree with someone that supports your point in **** talking the hell of out of Lebron. lol. Thats why noone really takes you seriously because all you do it speak objectively in Lebron and the Heat's 'shortcomings' and nothing else.

naps
05-08-2014, 12:09 AM
Oh shut up. I just looked at your last 10 posts. 6 of them have the word Kobe in them. And more than half of your last 25 are you *****ing about the lakers or durant. For as bad you claim kobephiles to be, you're even worse. You're an obsessed loser. Get a life.

LOL I am glad that you stalk me like this. It's cute that you always quote me. I never have kobe on my posts, rather it's kobephiles who I call out on a regular basis whenever I see they suffering pathetic insecurity disease. You are one of them ofcourse. Don't get so hurt. Here is a simple trick question: What's common among yourself, amos1er, illusionist248, this OP and etc? You guys either posts or make nonsensical and stupid Heat/LeBron threads all day long. Why?

naps
05-08-2014, 12:27 AM
I don't think you know the word objectively. if you meant to come in here talk **** about the Heat and Lebron, you objectively did so. so of course you would agree with someone that supports your point in **** talking the hell of out of Lebron. lol. Thats why noone really takes you seriously because all you do it speak objectively in Lebron and the Heat's 'shortcomings' and nothing else.

He's like a 3 year old baby no matter what you say he will still make no sense. Funny only people agree with him are 3/4 of his peers and none else.

Bring The Heat
05-08-2014, 01:08 AM
This thread wasn't about any of that, I was merely focusing on the topic. I am glad you can see that that they aren't a team with ridiculous depth as claimed (the op should take note because if even you can admit/see this about the heat it should be obvious to everyone else).

As for your other points you will likely continue to disagree with most on this topic forever. The big 3 is very talented and put themselves in position to win titles, there is no denying that. You do always tend to over exaggerate many things when it comes to this team.

I will start with the big 3. You claim we have never seen anything like this in the history of basketball etc etc. Well those 2001 lakers won with Kobe Shaq and lets say fisher. The Heat's big 3 scored less ppg, less rpg and less apg than that trio in the playoffs (don't worry I used 2012 when bosh was injured pfor part of the time so the Heat's #'s would be inflated. Not to mention that fisher was a shooter, Kobe a slasher/wing scorer, and shaq a dominant post presence with arguably the best coach of all time. That Heat trio has two ball dominant stars with a big man who used to get plenty of touches himself on the high post. So their styles didn't mesh at all like those lakers teams.

Next up would be each team's easy path to the finals. That 2001 team lost 1 game the entire post season, none until they reached the finals. This Heat team lost bosh to injury against the pacers in 2012 and part of Boston series as well. Lebron and Wade stepped it up huge after a 1-2 defecit to beat the pacers. Then the next round they went down 2-3 against Boston with Bosh recovering and returning. IF you want adversity then this was the time when people were still hating them, ringless king jokes started back up etc. Lebron absolutely dominated game 6 and then finished the series off with a triple double. They then went on to play a Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka group that was projected to win the finals over them (so no lack of competition, not a cakewalk, and also another team with arguably more star power).

All of this ended with Larry Bird questioning whether or not the Lebron had just had the best playoff run of all time (once again this would go against everything you mentioned). In 2013 we all know wade wasn't the same and they went to game 7 vs. the Pacers and then had two more elimination games in an epic series vs. the spurs. This would be 5 elimination games in 2 years while the 3-peat lakers had 4 over a 3 year span (and one of them many people argue was the worst officiated, or rigged, playoff game ever).

So while we agree they don't have a ridiculous amount of bench depth we certainly disagree on most of your other points. The things I listed above show that it wasn't a cakewalk, we have seen teams that were as good, and the only reason it is a monstrosity is because you obviously have a very biased opinion of the team and specifically Lebron James. You think the nba is making other teams tired this year while ignoring the fact the heat have played more games than any team over the past few years lol. You got laughed out of your own thread because of your bias.

Edit: This is not a post to bash those Lakers teams in any way or claim that this Heat team is better in any way. It is just calling out an individual poster for his bias and ignorance of past teams in nba history. I give plenty of credit to those Lakers teams as they were fantastic, something that this poster refuses to do with another team.


Same points I made in a previous thread before to these haters... Great post... These idiots keep talking about "cakewalk" when they obviously don't know what the hell they are talking about lol... Acting like we have completely swept through the playoffs all these years blowing through every team in our path.... This team has overcome much adversity at times during the playoffs and it definitely hasn't been no "easy" path or cakewalk

Bring The Heat
05-08-2014, 01:10 AM
Serious question... Are Amos and Illusionist the same person posting on different accounts? It sounds like the same crap being said over and over

slashsnake
05-08-2014, 03:21 AM
I don't know about their depth. They don't have a lot of consistency especially last year outside of Lebron. They have great role players that fit their roles well, and if one goes cold they try out another.

Look at their leaders off the bench. Allen at 10 points a game. Birdman at just under 4 boards a game. Norris Cole at 2 assists per game.

Last year the heat had 2 guys scoring better than 12 a game in the post-season. 2 guys with at least 5 boards a game. 2 guys with better than three assists per game.

I will give the 02 lakers props, their bench did next to nothing. But Kobe was playing a LOT better than Wade as the #2. About 12 PPG more per game out there.

I gotta give Pat credit there in Miami. He doesn't have a Cassell, a Terry, an Odom off the bench who can do multiple things. He had 4-5 guys who played his D and did one single thing decent. And props to Spoelstra for fitting them in with each other.

shep33
05-08-2014, 03:34 AM
Our 2002 team's bench sucked big time. Like really bad.

Samaki Walker
Devean George
Lindsey Hunter
Brian Shaw

mngopher35
05-08-2014, 03:44 AM
Our 2002 team's bench sucked big time. Like really bad.

Samaki Walker
Devean George
Lindsey Hunter
Brian Shaw

Based on what the op just explained this is probably the right answer to the question. That team was extremely reliant on the starting 5 (especially top 2). The walker, hunter, shaw group played like 30 mpg between the 3 of them.

valade16
05-08-2014, 01:33 PM
Maybe, but I would love to see some numbers here. My take was always that its abit of both, because you cannot deny that the performance of the Big-3 aside from Bron has varied depending on health/matchup more than it does for their MVP. Those guys were probably at their best in Y1 but they became a better team in Y2. It takes time, that Brons greatest failure is that he couldnt win his first year with legitimate title pieces is a testament to his greatness IMO. Imagine that, a Finals loss is his biggest failure.

I believe history will remember his greatest failure as not being able to win one with the Cavs (fair or not).

jerellh528
05-09-2014, 05:04 AM
3peak lakers were pretty shallow, just top heavy.