View Full Version : Most Talented to Lose and Least Talented to Win
Johndoe804
10-19-2010, 09:36 AM
Like the title of the thread suggests, I'm wondering what teams you all think are the most talented teams that didn't win a title, and the least talented teams that did. I'm a fairly young man, so my NBA knowledge doesn't really extend too far back.
wekko368
10-19-2010, 09:43 AM
If we're talking about the modern era, the most talented to lose is probably the 04 Lakers, and the least talented to win is either the 03 Spurs or the 94 Rockets.
trugoy
10-19-2010, 09:46 AM
most talented to lose
68-69 lakers
elgin baylor
Jerry west
Wilt Chamberlain
three hall of famers, two in their primes, lost to celtics in finals
finalsbound
10-19-2010, 09:52 AM
2004 is a good example in the modern era. The Lakers were much more talented than the Pistons. Detroit kicked their asses too. They didn't have a super-duper-star, the only All Star they had was Ben Wallace, but they put it together when they had to. I wouldn't put the "least talented" label on that Detroit team, because they were stacked with quality players, but when you reflect on it, they weren't one of the more talented *collection of players* to win in the past decade.
DaDakota
10-19-2010, 09:53 AM
Individual talent is less important than team talent...and quality fit.
DD
trugoy
10-19-2010, 09:55 AM
least talented 78-79 supersonics.
No hall of fame players, no 20 point scorers
DaDakota
10-19-2010, 09:56 AM
least talented 78-79 supersonics.
No hall of fame players, no 20 point scorers
I keep forgetting them in the no team can win without a superstar argument....dang it.
DD
s land balla
10-19-2010, 10:01 AM
If we're talking about the modern era, the most talented to lose is probably the 04 Lakers, and the least talented to win is either the 03 Spurs or the 94 Rockets.
Ban him.
trugoy
10-19-2010, 10:03 AM
I keep forgetting them in the no team can win without a superstar argument....dang it.
DD
as usual with these type of squads, they won with defense, they were ranked 14th out of 22 in offense. So bottom third of the league on offense, but ranked 1st in defense.
Steve_Francis_rules
10-19-2010, 10:04 AM
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the 2002 Sacramento Kings yet as one of the most talented teams not to win a championship. As I think everyone recalls, they were robbed.
DaDakota
10-19-2010, 10:05 AM
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the 2002 Sacramento Kings yet as one of the most talented teams not to win a championship. As I think everyone recalls, they were robbed.
And that Dick ....Bavetta is still refereeing...
DD
trugoy
10-19-2010, 10:11 AM
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the 2002 Sacramento Kings yet as one of the most talented teams not to win a championship. As I think everyone recalls, they were robbed.
They had a deep team, but they have no one who will get in the hall of fame. So can't really call them a talented team.
rhino17
10-19-2010, 10:21 AM
Just in recent memory
A few of those Kings teams
2004 Lakers
-Kobe, Shaq, Malone, Payon
1997 Houston Rockets
-Hakeem, Clyde, Charles
They had a deep team, but they have no one who will get in the hall of fame. So can't really call them a talented team.
Chri Webber was among the most dominant players in basketball at the time
bjshot
10-19-2010, 10:21 AM
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the 2002 Sacramento Kings yet as one of the most talented teams not to win a championship. As I think everyone recalls, they were robbed.
Yes, They were robbed by their consistently underarchieved COACH.
kjayp
10-19-2010, 10:25 AM
I'm not gonna climb into particular years....but Pheonix had some talented squads.... Barkley, KJ, Marhjle (or however its spelled), Ainge..... and Malone/Stockton Jazz teams shoulda been good for at least one title...
Least talented to win....thinkin Pistons...
DaDakota
10-19-2010, 10:26 AM
I should not open my mouth and prove to the world my lack of basketball understanding
True, true.
DD
If we're talking about the modern era, the most talented to lose is probably the 04 Lakers, and the least talented to win is either the 03 Spurs or the 94 Rockets.
The misconception of the supposed lack of talent on the 94 Rockets team really comes from the media more than anything else. That team ran off with a 15-0 record. They won 58 games, was the #2 seed, and more than the Lakers last season. They were on par in terms of talent with the Jazz, Knicks, and the Suns. They might not have the sexiness in terms of name recognition with other winners, but they ranked comparably with every other team that year(minus the Sonics since like any good Rockets fan, I blame our lack of success against them to illegal defense and not talent. ;) ).
Personally, I'd go with the Lakers and the Pistons... from that same year. People forget that the Pistons had a very tough time getting to the finals, which meant that while they stacked up very well vs the Lakers, they weren't particularly dominating the rest of the league. The Lakers, OTOH, just disgusting.
kjayp
10-19-2010, 10:29 AM
Ban him.
idk.... i can kinda see it... Outside of Hakeem, you had a couple rookies that developed into really good players.... but otherwise, it was pretty much rank n file role players. They just played their roles to perfection! :)
trugoy
10-19-2010, 10:33 AM
Chri Webber was among the most dominant players in basketball at the time
I think we overate that team, in hindsight, webber was really the only legit player on that team. Peja, Vlade and bibby will never be remembered as anything more than solid players.
trugoy
10-19-2010, 10:40 AM
idk.... i can kinda see it... Outside of Hakeem, you had a couple rookies that developed into really good players.... but otherwise, it was pretty much rank n file role players. They just played their roles to perfection! :)
Actually the NBA has had teams with just one superstar and role players that won before. I'd say each of these teams are just as "untalented" as the rockets.
blazers with walton
warriors with barry
bucks with Kareem
fba34
10-19-2010, 10:52 AM
i think the supersonics team of the 90s were stacked with talent. superstar duo with payton n kemp, n pretty much all solid players at the other positions. the ones i remember off the top of my head, detlef schrempf, hersey hawkins, that center with the same name as magic, sam perkins, nate mcmillon. they were good at least till kemp had his trouble with alcoholism. and they signed jim something that made more money than kemp.
least talent, that lockout season (99?) knicks team van gundy coached into the finals against the spurs. i remember sprewell, and maybe an old larry johnson. maybe allan houston n charlie ward too.
rhino17
10-19-2010, 11:02 AM
I think we overate that team, in hindsight, webber was really the only legit player on that team. Peja, Vlade and bibby will never be remembered as anything more than solid players.
Peja has finished top 5 in MVP voting, he was also amazing in his prime.
No one could hit big time shots like Bibby
They had one of the greatest defenders of his generation in Doug Christie
A perennial 6th man candidate and winner Bobby Jackson
A group of incredibly talented young players including Hedo Turkoglu and Gerald Wallace
Vlade was one of the all-time greatest passing big men and Brad Miller cam on towards the end of their runs as well.
That team was incredibly talented and deep, but they were always ****ed over by the refs
javal_lon
10-19-2010, 11:11 AM
That NJ Nets teams with Kidd,Kittles,Martin, and Mutombo were pretty good......Also those Pacers teams with Miller, Jackson, McKey, Smits, and the Davis Boyz were talented too..........
CaptainRox
10-19-2010, 11:17 AM
Kings about 5 years ago:
Bibby (in his prime)
Artest (in his prime)
A young hedo and non broken peja
Brad miller
And two good youngsters in Gerald Wallace and Martin, my most talented to not win
wekko368
10-19-2010, 11:29 AM
Actually the NBA has had teams with just one superstar and role players that won before. I'd say each of these teams are just as "untalented" as the rockets.
blazers with walton
warriors with barry
bucks with Kareem
That's why in my original post, I specified "modern era" which (correct me if I'm wrong) I thought was generally understood to start from 1980.
Codman
10-19-2010, 11:29 AM
Peja has finished top 5 in MVP voting, he was also amazing in his prime.
No one could hit big time shots like Bibby
They had one of the greatest defenders of his generation in Doug Christie
A perennial 6th man candidate and winner Bobby Jackson
A group of incredibly talented young players including Hedo Turkoglu and Gerald Wallace
Vlade was one of the all-time greatest passing big men and Brad Miller cam on towards the end of their runs as well.
That team was incredibly talented and deep, but they were always ****ed over by the refs
Don't forget a seasoned Brent Price on that squad! ;)
StupidMoniker
10-19-2010, 11:31 AM
Actually the NBA has had teams with just one superstar and role players that won before. I'd say each of these teams are just as "untalented" as the rockets.
bucks with Kareem
Unless you count the Big O as a superstar, what with averaging a triple double for a season and all.
The Barkley/KJ Suns were pretty talented. But the ROCKETS beat them. You guys forget Drexler's Portland team. Oh, and the Rockets in the mid '80s. Injury to Ralph and cocaine with the guards ruined that potential dynasty.
goodbug
10-19-2010, 01:44 PM
They won largely due to Malone's injury. Without Malone, that Lakers lost to Spurs the previous season too.
2004 is a good example in the modern era. The Lakers were much more talented than the Pistons. Detroit kicked their asses too. They didn't have a super-duper-star, the only All Star they had was Ben Wallace, but they put it together when they had to. I wouldn't put the "least talented" label on that Detroit team, because they were stacked with quality players, but when you reflect on it, they weren't one of the more talented *collection of players* to win in the past decade.
Steve_Francis_rules
10-19-2010, 01:49 PM
That NJ Nets teams with Kidd,Kittles,Martin, and Mutombo were pretty good......
That Nets team was arguably the worst team to ever make it to the NBA Finals. That was back in the days when the East was dreadful and the real NBA Finals was played in the West.
trustme
10-19-2010, 02:16 PM
Hmm no one mentioned the Mavericks of a few years ago. Best record in the league (60+ wins) and lost to the 8th place Warriors in I believe 6 games. That was a pretty talented Dallas team. I was so happy when they got knocked out that year because if they got past the Warriors they were definitely going to get to the Finals.
nolimitnp
10-19-2010, 02:21 PM
I know we're talking team here, but Allen Iverson comes to mind. So damned talented, yet so damned bone-headed. I know he did a little bit of winning, but instead of watching the greatest player to ever play the game at his height fade into the sunset as a 6th man on a winning team, we're, well, not watching him.
Obviously T-Mac too. Regardless of what happens the rest of his career, he will be known as a loser. 50 years from now people will be thumbing through statistics and see him as a two time scoring champion and be like WHO? Quite a shame. I hope he doesn't fade away like Iverson though.
clippy
10-19-2010, 02:29 PM
They won largely due to Malone's injury. Without Malone, that Lakers lost to Spurs the previous season too.
Did Malone's injury make Kobe jack up tons of shots at 35%?
goodbug
10-19-2010, 03:49 PM
They double teamed Kobe. And Kobe didn't shoot well. Still better than the so call "king" in his only presence though.
Did Malone's injury make Kobe jack up tons of shots at 35%?
JoeBarelyCares
10-19-2010, 11:02 PM
1981 Rockets' NBA Finals team.
heypartner
10-19-2010, 11:27 PM
The best team that lost was the defending champion '86 Lakers, who Akeem in his 2nd year simply destroyed 4-1 with something approaching 35 ppg in the 4 wins.
Magic
Kareem
Worthy
Scott
Cooper
and Mitch Kupchak (that bastid)
Steve_Francis_rules
10-20-2010, 07:48 AM
They double teamed Kobe. And Kobe didn't shoot well. Still better than the so call "king" in his only presence though.
Notice how nobody's mentioning "the king's" team as one of the most talented teams to ever choke away a championship though?
Also, was there some reason Kobe had to keep shooting against double teams, especially when he had two other healthy Hall of Famers on the floor?
DaDakota
10-20-2010, 08:02 AM
The Kings did not choke it away, it was stolen by Stern and Dick Bavetta.
DD
least talented 78-79 supersonics.
No hall of fame players, no 20 point scorers
They were one of the weakest champs, but did have one hall of famer- recently, posthumously inducted: Dennis Johnson.
They double teamed Kobe. And Kobe didn't shoot well. Still better than the so call "king" in his only presence though.
Regardless of Kobe's performance, the absence of Malone severely dropped the talent level of that team. Payton is being remembered as if it were the 96 version. After Kobe and Shaq, it was a deep drop, as it usually was w/ those teams. Unless you're position is that the most deep team in recent memory that didn't win a title had to resort to inserting Stanislav Medvedenko into the starting 5 to replace Malone. Yeah...team for the ages.
CheezeyBoy22
10-20-2010, 08:20 AM
They had a deep team, but they have no one who will get in the hall of fame. So can't really call them a talented team.
I don't know about that. Webber was a beast during that year and the team was very tough.
Some of the deepest teams that didn't win a title in the last 20 yrs were the:
2000 Blazers (probably the tops)
2002 Kings (close second)
Adelman Blazers
1998 Lakers (too young, but more overall talent than 04)
Don't get that twisted w/ what it ACTUALLY takes to win one, which obviously goes beyond talent alone. More often than not, it seems that a 1-2 superstar & role player model does the trick (think 94, 95).
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.