Best Finals loser/team that didn't win the ring

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Dre

Steve Nash can remind you

And this is a team discussion not a Malone/Stockton discussion

Yeah because 30-32 is mid thirties. And Steve is an anomoly because he was always that talented he just played in a sytstem that didn't feature him enough. He wasn't magically a better player, just in a better enviornment. Sloan was the Jazz coach for how many years?

And at this point in the offseason I'm going to go ahead and take any activity as a plus.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Dornado

Alright, one at a time:

Malone/Stockton physical prime v. Stockton/Malone in their 30's

You remember Karl Malone, right? You can't just write him off like he's any other 30 something athlete. He was in freakish shape as a 33/34 year old. He came out of college as a 22 year old, not an 18 year old. For what he'd lost as a run and jump athlete he'd gained in strength (and he was already strong). He was just as efficient offensively, his skills had improved, if anything, and his knowledge of the game was superior. Those skills were perfectly suited to the grind-it-out defensive minded-league he was dealing with. Much like Jordan arguably peaked as an all-round ball player in his early 30's, so did Malone. Stockton is a similar case... Stockton became a more efficient offensive weapon over time. You can obviously point to Stockton's numbers in the 80's and claim they were better, but take pace into account. The Jazz that scored 106 ppg in 89-90 ranked 15th in the league in ppg. The Jazz that scored 103 ppg in 96-97 were the 2nd highest scoring offense in the league.

Mark Eaton 2 time DPOY vs Greg Ostertag

In Mark Eaton's case, the years had caught up to him by the late 80's. I don't want to shoot at a moving target in terms of which late 80's Jazz teams we're talking about, but the best Jazz teams of the late 80's/Early 90's record-wise featured an old-ass Mark Eaton that wasn't discernibly better than Greg Ostertag (Ostertag is the better player by far per 36 - amazing that the block numbers are almost identical despite Ostertag playing in a much slower paced league). Ostertag was the more efficient and more effective offensive threat as well (though that isn't saying much). I don't think you're likely arguing for one of the years that Eaton won DPOY, but if you are, keep in mind that the Jazz were among the worst offensive teams in the NBA in 88-89.

physical prime Jeff Malone vs 33 year old Jeff Hornacek

If you're taking a "prime Jeff Malone" (I'd argue he peaked before that) then you have to take an older Mark Eaton (34+), because Malone didn't show up until '90-'91. Anyway, I'll take Hornacek with little hesitation, who was on another level as a shooter and a playmaker than Jeff Malone, and was the better defender to boot.

Thurl Bailey v Byron Russell

These guys are both role players and neither one really worthy of singling out - the question should more appropriately be focused on the entirety of the supporting cast, depth, and and how well that depth fits together. Big T and Bryon Russell are too different to compare anyway.

13 paragraphs later and you've essentially come to the conclusion that they were relatively equal squads with no real disernible difference. Cool. I'll conceed it. But then why didn't they make it out of the second round of the playoffs (in the weaker conference) until the 90's? I

[Dre]

Originally Posted by Luke

Yeah because 30-32 is mid thirties. And Steve is an anomoly because he was always that talented he just played in a sytstem that didn't feature him enough. He wasn't magically a better player, just in a better enviornment. Sloan was the Jazz coach for how many years?

And at this point in the offseason I'm going to go ahead and take any activity as a plus.

Who peaks at 30 period?

And Karl Malone got an MVP at what 33...what was the case there

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Dre

Who peaks at 30 period?

And Karl Malone got an MVP at what 33...what was the case there

A players prime is generally between when they are 26-31 years old, with the peak coming from like 28-30. Obviously that's a rough estimate, but that's the impression that I have.

Malone winning it at 33 is just helping my point: the league wasn't as good in '97 as it was a decade prior. And it's not like he deserved it anyways. I'd take a '97 Jordan or Shaq eight days a week.

[OneBadLT123]

That 96 Sonics team was probably the best team I saw not win the Finals.

[Dre]

Originally Posted by Luke

A players prime is generally between when they are 26-31 years old, with the peak coming from like 28-30. Obviously that's a rough estimate, but that's the impression that I have.

I'd agree with that

My point is let's not act like the perception wasn't that Nash was good but got injured a lot and was about to wind down in Phoenix, instead he turned way up. There's no way I can accept or agree that Nash's career path was natural or normal. You just said yourself he was an anomaly which implies it wasn't.

Malone winning it at 33 is just helping my point: the league wasn't as good in '97 as it was a decade prior. And it's not like he deserved it anyways. I'd take a '97 Jordan or Shaq eight days a week.

That doesn't help serve your point if you were arguing with e-monk that the old Jazz were better.

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by Luke

13 paragraphs later and you've essentially come to the conclusion that they were relatively equal squads with no real disernible difference. Cool. I'll conceed it. But then why didn't they make it out of the second round of the playoffs (in the weaker conference) until the 90's? I

- 4 paragraphs
- I just said that Stockton and Malone were better than they were in the late 80's, that Eaton/Ostertag was a push and that Hornacek was better than Jeff Malone... you deduced that I was saying they were equal from that? And we didn't even address the rest of the roster/rotation. They won later in the 90's because they were better later in the 90's... are they fortunate to not have to run into Magic's Lakers in the West at that point, sure... but I don't think anyone is saying the late 90's Jazz were a dynasty... just that they are one of the greatest teams never to win a title. (and then, by way of e-monk's counterargument, that they were better than the Jazz of the late 80's).

[Luke]

"Are they fortunate enough not to run into Magic's Lakers" finishes this conversations.

[Dre]

Who did the Lakers beat that never won a title in the 80s

[Bogg]

Obviously they won a title so I'm going off-topic bringing them up, but watching every Celtics season since 07-08 get derailed by injuries has been incredibly frustrating. They could have easily had another one or two rings had they stayed healthy.

[e-monk]

but they're old so you've got to factor in increased likelihood that grand pas like Ray Allen and KG are going to miss time - that's the risk they took and it's not out of the blue

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Dre

Who did the Lakers beat that never won a title in the 80s

they beat the 76ers who eventually won, they beat the Celtics who got a couple, they beat the pistons who got a couple

maybe that Blazers team they beat to get to Chicago (porter, clyde, kersey, buck williams, robinson, duckworth) that was the same team that lost to the Pistons and then got back to the finals to see Mike win #2 (so finals-conference finals-finals in a 3 year period) - at the time the Lakers over the blazers was kind of an upset as they were on the downhill side and Kareem had retired

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by e-monk

but they're old so you've got to factor in increased likelihood that grand pas like Ray Allen and KG are going to miss time - that's the risk they took and it's not out of the blue

I'm not saying it's incredibly unlikely that Boston would have injuries, but things like Perkins exploding his knee, Rondo having plantar fasciitis, Avery Bradley's arm falling off, and Jeff Green's heart being faulty aren't your typical nicks and bruises. Neither was KG's torn up knee, either (we know, Munro, we know - that one was Wyc's fault). I mean, it's been four straight seasons where at one point or another Boston looked like a legitimate threat to win the Finals but had one or more injuries you could point to that wound up killing those chances.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Dornado

- 4 paragraphs
- I just said that Stockton and Malone were better than they were in the late 80's,

Stockton - 17.2 ppg 14.5 apg in 38 mpg is worse than 14ppg 10 apg in 35mpg?
Malone - 29ppg 12rpg in 40 mpg is worse than 25ppg 10 rpg in 38 mpg?

less minutes, less production (and btw against inferior competition)

that Eaton/Ostertag was a push

one player was a two time DPoY who lead the league in blocks 3 times and was named to the all NBA first and second teams 5 times and the other was a big white stiff - I cant overstate how much this undermines your argument and makes you look foolish - you said in the late 80s he was over the hill FYI: he was named to his second DPoY in 88-89 (and 1st team All NBA D)

and that Hornacek was better than Jeff Malone...

maybe at best a push - Hornacek was definitely better than Malone (or Griffith) at some point but comparing one in his 30s to the others in their prime? come on man

you deduced that I was saying they were equal from that? And we didn't even address the rest of the roster/rotation.

I bet you didnt - Thurl Bailey was better than anyone not named Stockton/Malone on either team

They won later in the 90's because they were better later in the 90's...

no they won later in the 90s because they faced less competition because of rapid expansion, CBA restructuring and bad drafts - these are things that happened, you may not like how they shed light on certain facts of your favorite era of the game or whatever but they remain facts

are they fortunate to not have to run into Magic's Lakers in the West at that point, sure... but I don't think anyone is saying the late 90's Jazz were a dynasty... just that they are one of the greatest teams never to win a title.

yes you are right, they faced less competition on their runs to the finals - you do realize that what you are saying is the basic underpinning of this entire argument right? more competition in the late 80s? all that?

(and then, by way of e-monk's counterargument, that they were better than the Jazz of the late 80's).

which pretty is QED dead in the water

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Dornado

Those Bucks teams were actually better defensively than they were offensively... this was before Don Nelson flipped his lid and started playing small ball and running and gunning all the time with the Warriors and others. The 80's Bucks best season record-wise (84-85) they were 19th in pace out of 23 teams, for example, and 1st in the league in fewest points allowed per game.

yeah, Pressey and Moncrief were pretty elite on the perimeter and Terry Cummings was stout