Best NBA team to NOT win a title in the last 25 years

[SBR]

Voted for the 93 suns. And...

[ QUOTE ]

The 1995 Utah Jazz didn't even have the best record that year. They won 60 games which was second to the Spurs' 62, however their PD was +8.0 to the Spurs' +6.0 and their bench was ridiculously deep, featuring nine regulars averaging more than six points per game. However, they fell in a short series to Hakeem Olajuwon, who then went on to destroy every centre in the leauge and put to rest the debate on who the best centre of the last 25 years is on his way to the title.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[TheNoodleMan]

97-98 Pacers are a glaring omission.
They went 58-24 and lost to the Bulls in 7 games in the ECF. Better team than the '04 Pacers and they would have matched up better with the 98 Jazz than the '04 team would have against the Lakers.

[johnnylovescandy]

[ QUOTE ]
97-98 Pacers are a glaring omission.
They went 58-24 and lost to the Bulls in 7 games in the ECF. Better team than the '04 Pacers and they would have matched up better with the 98 Jazz than the '04 team would have against the Lakers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you're forgetting their PD, EW, etc. surely indicates they sucked that year, lolol...

[tuq]

SBR, that's correct. And despite his ridiculously chiseled physique I always thought David Robinson was a huge squeezably soft pussy who couldn't close a ham sandwich in the playoffs much less an entire series, and that's why he went ringless until Tim Duncan showed up. Despite the ridiculousness of the two titles the Rockets won (I mean particularly the second one, WTF) I am happy to see Hakeem come away with a ring as he is easily the best pivot this league has seen since Kareem and Moses Malone in their primes.

NoodleMan, doesn't qualify: had fewer wins, expected wins, and a lower PD than the Bulls. I just don't think they were better anyway, and if any team from that year belongs on there it's probably the Jazz.

[ClarkNasty]

I think a big flaw with this is that it seems you're using reg season PD as the primary indicator. I think there are plenty of examples (2nd Rockets team, Lakers that lost to Pistons recently, some of the Bulls teams, some of the Spurs teams), that simply didn't care to go all out in the regular season and it can be argued they "cranked it up" for the playoffs.

I certainly think the recent Lakers team that lost to the Pistons should be on here. Malone's late injury was brutal to their chances. They are almost a textbook example as I think that was the year the T-Wolves had the #1 seed but everyone knew the Lakers were really "the" team.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a big flaw with this is that it seems you're using reg season PD as the primary indicator. I think there are plenty of examples (2nd Rockets team, Lakers that lost to Pistons recently, some of the Bulls teams, some of the Spurs teams), that simply didn't care to go all out in the regular season and it can be argued they "cranked it up" for the playoffs.

I certainly think the recent Lakers team that lost to the Pistons should be on here. Malone's late injury was brutal to their chances. They are almost a textbook example as I think that was the year the T-Wolves had the #1 seed but everyone knew the Lakers were really "the" team.

[/ QUOTE ]
Generally your points are very solid, but I think using the 1995 Rockets as an example of anything OTHER than a really, really lucky team is a bad idea. They were right place, right time, by the seat of their pants more than any title winner in NBA history. For example, the 1996 Sonics would absolutely destroy them eight times out of ten (well, I do sort of fear any team with Hakeem on it though) and they were only a year apart so generational stuff doesn't apply.

Having thought about it, your mention of that Lakers team meriting consideration is a very good one. It's like when I was a kid, playing Statis-Pro Basketball, can I use the players who had season cards but who were injured in the playoffs? Tough one. Perhaps the Lakers WERE the best team that season.

I do admit to loving the PD stat though, and should rely on common sense or RPI or other stats more than I do. I guess I just prefer to have things cut and dried.

[ClarkNasty]

I think you have to give credit to a team that won every series on the road. That's hard to do and call it flukey. One, sure. But winning 4 NBA playoff series without home court is brutally difficult to truly luckbox through. Give a little love to the "throw to Hakeem who either scores or passes to someone at the 3-line who passes to another guy at the 3-line for an open look" offense.

[doubLe a tom]

Why no love for the 92-93 knicks? That bulls/knicks series was [censored] awesome.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Why no love for the 92-93 knicks? That bulls/knicks series was [censored] awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the Suns were better than them. Also, I was at the infamous "fight" game that year in Phoenix where Greg Anthony and Doc Rivers acted like little bitches and Pat Riley got his Armani suit torn. Half of the players were tossed at halftime but that was fine cuz the Suns already had it in hand by then. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

That said, the Knicks probably would have/should have/could have beaten the Bulls if Charles Smith remembered that he was like 6'10" and should dunk the ball when standing right next to the hoop, rather than attempt weak layups.

[damaniac]

Speaking of that Pistons-Pacers series on 2004, check out the box score of Game 6. I'm sure I watched it but thankfully don't remember it. This must have been a monstrosity to watch.