[nj.com]The Most Undeserving Championship Team In NBA History

Well, he has more rings than the last three guys. He's also a mobile 7 footer, a great passer and gets double digit rebounds. I mean, Christ, he shot 60% in the playoffs.

 

I'm not a Lakers fan. I did not want them to win it all. I despise Kobe's smugness.

But the author of this article is BITTER. The Lakers may not be one of the better championship teams in history. So what? They were the best team this year. There are a lot of talks of "Oh if Yao and Tmac were here" or "if Garnett were healthy" or "had Lebron made it". Yeah, but they are all "what ifs". Every good team this season had injuries that significantly impacted their rotations, and the Lakers were lucky that they had their roster intact at the end of the season. Well, they are lucky, and to be a champion there has to be some kind of luck involved.

I'm not bitter. They won it all, and I say kudos to them. Hakeem's 94 team was one of the best teams in Rockets history, and I'm not going to let some dumb writer from NEW JERSEY to change my opinion.

 

I think the most undeserving is the 1/2 one the Spurs got.

 

eh...the other 3 they won kind of legitimize it though.

 

I agree but with the caveat that there was something incredibly underwhelming about the Lakers' run this year. This years victory was almost like the Empire's win at the end of the Empire Strikes Back. Someone is going to Skywalker the sh_t out of them next year.

 

totally agreed. this lakers is definitely the weakest champion since Magic entered the league in 1979.

 

This is idiotic. I hate the Lakers as much as anyone, and yes their team this year was very underwhelming when compared to past champions, but they are not "undeserving." The simple fact is, they beat every team they faced. That alone makes them "deserving."

 

I am one of the biggest Lakers haters here. But the idea of "undeserving champion" is just dumb. I wouldn't even call the '99 Spurs underserving for the lockout season. They beat everybody they played. They won it fair and square.

You may say a team is lucky when many of its opponents have injuries. But luck is as much a part of winning as talent. You have to be both good and lucky to be able to win it all.

The only time when a team is "undeserving" is if the officiating fixes the outcome of the game. In that sense, I think this year's Lakers were more deserving than the 01 Lakers who got past the Kings because of that horrible Game 6 reffing.

 

There is no "undeserving championship team". There may be an undeserving championship year, but no such thing as an undeserving championship team.

I say the Kings vs Lakers series back in 2002 is the only undeserving year for any team, but other than that nothing else.

 

somehow its not surprising when kobe wins a championship without shaq all these bitter articles come out. its really sad this "writer" has nothing else to write about except that garbage. so was the celtics undeserving because bynum and ariza wasnt healthy last year? injuries are part of the game its not the lakers fault garnett and yao got hurt they beat what was in front of them. plus the heat is the most undeserving champions this decade.

and heres a message from kobe to all the bitter haters:

 

There is no doubt that what Hakeem Olajuwon did in 1994 was simply spectacular.

Hakeem was THE MAN for the Rockets. Sure he had very good role players.

Thorpe was rebounding machine and could finish with a dunk (due to his enormous hands), but he couldn't create offense. He did save Dream a lot of wear and tear from rebounding though.

Robert Horry was more athletic in 94, but he was nowhere near the 3 point shooter he was in 95. He was a good defender, and at 6'10 a good rebounder for a power forward. However, he was very similar to Shawn Marion; He relied on a great player to set up his offense, or he got tip dunks and put backs. He wasn't a guy who could create.

Vernon Maxwell was a good player. HOWEVER, one night he could go off for 30 points, but the next he'll go 1-12 with 4 points. He was also a good penetrator, but he was out of control at times, and would be turnover prone at times. He also took wild shots and wasn't always a smart offensive player. He was one guy that could create offense, but he wasn't an all star level at that. His defense was tenacious though and he did hit some clutch shots. Probably the closest thing Dream had to a star in 94.

Kenny Smith was a decent point guard. He still had his athleticism in 94, but he was a limited ball handler, and wasn't great at penetrating a defense. He was more than anything a 3 point shooter, which he was great at. The problem is, with a great big man like Dream, the Rockets could've benefited more if they had a traditional point guard. But his 3 point shooting was still very helpful. However, if you want to see Kenny Smith's weaknesses, just watch how Derek Harper abused him in the Finals.

Sam Cassell was simply a rookie spark off the bench, a better ball handler, but a worse athlete than Smith. Not as good of a 3 pt shooter either, but was very streaky. He was also better at creating offense...but as a rookie, not even close to being a star.

Mario Elie still wasn't getting that much playing time in 94. He was used to guard bigger, stronger guards, or to give Max a break on defense. He was a good finisher at the rim and 3 pt shooter. However, he really couldn't create offense all that well.

Carl Herrera, Scott Brooks, Matt Bullard, Chris Jent and Earl Cuereton were ALL specific role players. Either there to shoot or rebound.


Compare that team to a team with Pau Gasol, who is a 7 footer, who plays like he's 7'3 (loooonnng arms), with the shooting touch of a guard and great foot work and decent athleticism. Easily a top 10 Power forward. A guy who can create his own shot and could pass well for a big man. He is also a good a rebounder.

Lamar Odom, as inconsistent as he is, if he plays well, the Lakers DO NOT LOSE. He is a very versatile player who can score, bring the ball up, post up, and knock down the open 3. Also a good rebounder. He's also 6'10.

Trevor Ariza is a good defender, but he can also hit 3's, and is a superb athlete. He's 6'8 and can guard either wing position. Not a creator on offense, but he can shoot 3's and finish at the rim.

Derek Fisher is old, but he isn't much different from Kenny Smith. Both hit clutch 3 pt shots, but both got burned by opposing point guards quite often.

Andrew Bynum is inconsistent, but he's 7'2 with a little bit of athleticism. He is also a good rebounder at times, and can block shots. He can aslo create his own shot in the post.

The bench of Odom, Vujacic, Farmar, Shannon Brown, and Mbenga were more versatile to me than the Rockets bench. Our best bench player was a rookie. Theirs is a guy who has all star talent.

In the starting line up alone, you have 3 OTHER GUYS who can create their own shot vs. the Rockets who had maybe 2 that were consistent at it.


Dream had to face the pressure every night. He had to hope that his 3pt shooters were hitting, or that Mad Max could create something, or Thorpe and Horry has to get put backs. Otherwise, Dreams scored through double teams.

Kobe had the luxury of having a GREAT and versatile team compared to Hakeem in 94.

I just don't the 94 Rockets winning a title with Kobe being the man.

 

^^ lol somehow you tend to bring up all the negative qualities of rockets players and all the positve ones of laker players. youd think the lakers were all all-stars or borderline all-stars based on your description and the rockets players were all barely adaquate.

 

I don't like the thread title or this "undeserving champions" crap but anybody that hates or belittles Kobe all the while respecting Hakeem is cool in my book.

 

By having to justify to his readers that hakeem is better than kobe and not doing the same with duncan, is this another person who thinks duncan is superior to the dream?

It's not even remotely close how much better hakeem olajuwon is then timothy duncan. it's r****ded.

 

Which makes him the supreme anti-Kobe

 

What I'm saying is for a center to not have that "great playmaker" and still be as successful as the Rockets were that year is an amazing accomplishment.

Sure Otis Thorpe was an All-Star in 1992, no 94, and he was quite limited offensively outside of dunking the ball.

But wouldn't you say Pau Gasol or Lamar Odom would take much more pressure off of Dream to score. Gasol was much more consistent at scoring than Maxwell or Cassell.

If one of those 2 guys didn't step up, Dream would've had to have a monster game for us to have a chance.

Its one thing if a guard doesn't have a playmaker, he can always have the ball in his hands, but Dream wasn't a guard...he was a center, and despite having a mediocre team offensively, he still led them to a title.

Oh yaa, for those talking about how great our defense was...who do you think was the MAIN REASON for that??? Hakeem Olajuwon, the 94 DPOY.

I know Maxwell was terrific, Horry could play the passing lanes and block shots, and Thorpe would play solid against any power forward. The one glaring weakness on our defense was our point guards. They were lit up quite often in both playoff runs. Luckily, Dream was there to erase most of our mistakes. He did have 92 blocks in the 94 playoffs in 22 games.

 

I hate the Lakers as much as anyone but I can't stand crap like this, that they are not deserving, they can only beat who they have to beat! Is it their fault other teams had injuries? no. Sure they got lucky with the other teams not being at their best but all championships contain some luck, even the flawless teams like the Bulls when they were winning titles were lucky that Jordan never was out with an injury etc.

You cannot subject a championship team to what ifs imo, just because they didn't face everyone at their best doesn't mean they would of lost to them if they did, we don't know that they would of so I don't think you can bring it up! The only way I can say a team is undeserving is if its by the other team getting ass raped by the officials and there is no way the officials decided any of the Lakers series this year... sure they got the better calls in most games but they won all the series that easy(besides the Rockets but they won their games by large margins) that officials cannot be the sole blame. You can call them 'the luckiest championship team' but they are not undeserving.

To tinman I get your point about the Rockets supporting cast of 94 getting dogged in the article but hell it's a piece not written in Houston that actually gives props to a Rockets player which is pretty rare, so we can at least be happy with that!

 

I agree with you about the Lakers being deserving champions. They can only play their competition.

If you say the Lakers are undeserving, look at some of the Spurs Final's opponents...99 Knicks (8th seed) 2003 Nets (very weak East), 2007 Cavs (A 1-man show in a 21 yr old Lebron).

Same with the 02 Lakers who beat the Nets. Same with the 06 Heat who beat the mavs.

Even the Bulls had some luck along the way

Worth and Byron Scott being injured in 91, Ceballos being injured in 93, and Nate McMillan being injured in 96.

The Pistons won their first with the Lakers having a ton of injuries.

The 86 Celtics beat a young and inexperienced Rockets team rather than the Lakers led by Kareem and Magic.

THe 81 Celtics also beat an 40-42 Rockets team that probably had no business reaching the finals.

You can't call a team undeserving of a title. They still had to win 16 games in the playoffs to reach the top.

All of the teams that I mentioned didn't pick their opponents or their injuries. It just happens. Not much anybody can do about it. They can only beat who is front of them.

Now I think a better comparison would be to compare this championship to others. I do think this Team is one of the weaker championship teams in NBA history. But they still deserved to win this year.

I'm not lakers fan by any means, but they did what they had to do.