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

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by Luke

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

not really... instead, they were unfortunate and had to run into Jordan's Bulls.

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by e-monk

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)

Pace my friend, pace. Had you quoted my original post instead of the summary that would have been pretty obvious. This borders on intellectual dishonesty.

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)

Again, did you read my post? By the time Eaton was playing along-side Jeff Malone we aren't talking about DPOY Mark Eaton... every year on that 7'4" frame took a toll. I saw both of these guys play, don't try to make a 34 year old Mark Eaton seem like a superhero by quoting his resume. By the time Jeff Malone got there Eaton was markedly slower and averaging 2.6 blocks per game in 32 minutes (not his outlandish totals of the 80's, and a lower clip per minute than Ostertag was blocking in a much slower paced game). Of course Ostertag was a big white stiff... but he was a big white stiff who was an adequate space filler, could protect the rim, was better in transition (which is like being the taller midget in this comparison) and a better offensive player. I don't want to shoot at a moving target... pick a year with these Jazz teams and stick with it.... we're not talking about a prime Mark Eaton.... if you want to stick with his DPOY year in 88-89 that's fine, but then you have to lose Jeff Malone and acknowledge that they had one of the 5 worst offenses in the league.

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

Hornacek was still playing at a high clip and by the time Jeff Malone got there (at 29/30) his best statistical efforts were behind him as well. Hornacek's versatility and Malone's lack of D give the edge to Hornacek in my opinion. Not sure why you're bringing up Darrell Griffith, by the time they were any good he was the role player version of Dr. Dunkenstein... his best years were spent toiling on bad-to-mediocre Jazz squads. Hornacek was 33/34 on those title teams... that's not that ancient by comparison.

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

Ah yes, the great Thurl Bailey. Again, Hornacek is in a different class than Bailey, who was only decently efficient as a scorer for his size (considering he had no range) and a terrible rebounder. Again, if we're going back to Bailey in his most productive years (as the target moves) we're looking at some 40-something win Jazz teams.

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

The league has always been expanding, you can use this argument to apply to nearly every era.

From 66-74 the league went from 9 teams to 18.
In '76 they added 4 more teams from the ABA to get to 22
In 1980-81 they added the expansion Dallas Mavericks to get to 23
In 1988/89 they added 4 more expansion teams to get to 27
In 1995 you get the Raptors and Grizzlies to get you to 29
In 2004 you get the Charlotte Bobcats to get you to 30.


It seems like there's some selective memory going on in terms of NBA expansion. I'd also argue that as the sport progressed, gained in popularity and AAU/High School/College/International programs and infrastructures improved you had an increased player pool to draw from.

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?

My point was more that they ran into their decade's version of Magic's Lakers in the Finals in MJ's Bulls, rather than in the western conference playoffs at some point.

[PauloCatarino]

Originally Posted by OneBadLT123

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

On paper, probably. But although the Payton/Shrempf/Kemp-led Sonics had great regular season sucess, they just couldn't make a big splash in the playoffs.

In the seasons prior to the trip to the Finals, the sonics (Payton/Gill/shrempf/Kemp/Cage/Pierce/Perkins) lost in the 1st round to the Nuggets in 1994 and in 1995 the sonics (Payton/Gill/shrempf/Kemp/Perkins/Johnson) lost again in the 1st round to the Nick/Jones/Ceballos/Campbell/Divac Lakers...

After the trip to the Finals, lost twice in the WCFSemis (once with Baker instead of Kemp) and never were contenders again...

A great collection of talent, yes. But a great team? Not quite (IMHO).

[OneBadLT123]

Originally Posted by PauloCatarino

On paper, probably. But although the Payton/Shrempf/Kemp-led Sonics had great regular season sucess, they just couldn't make a big splash in the playoffs.

In the seasons prior to the trip to the Finals, the sonics (Payton/Gill/shrempf/Kemp/Cage/Pierce/Perkins) lost in the 1st round to the Nuggets in 1994 and in 1995 the sonics (Payton/Gill/shrempf/Kemp/Perkins/Johnson) lost again in the 1st round to the Nick/Jones/Ceballos/Campbell/Divac Lakers...

After the trip to the Finals, lost twice in the WCFSemis (once with Baker instead of Kemp) and never were contenders again...

A great collection of talent, yes. But a great team? Not quite (IMHO).

Yeah I would say the previous years teams were prone to post season failure but that 96 team really did deserve and should have won the NBA finals that year had they not ran into the 72-10 Bulls. I never said they were a great team, just in 1996 they were one of the (if not the) best team in the last 25 years not to win the Finals. I cant think of another team since 1989 that deserved/should have won the Finals any more than them. Maybe late 90's Jazz, the 1990 Blazers or the 1988 Pistons. In 1996 though, they were clearly the no. 2 team to arguably one of the top 3 teams of all time.

[XxIrvingxX]

What about the 2010 Celtics? That team was stacked from the starting line up to the the bench team (especially the bench team). They may have had a horrible regular season but in the playoffs they were an incredible team. (not actually saying they're the greatest team to never win a title btw, but they deserve a mentioning and not to mention it can at least be argued.)

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

What about the 2010 Celtics? That team was stacked from the starting line up to the the bench team (especially the bench team). They may have had a horrible regular season but in the playoffs they were an incredible team. (not actually saying they're the greatest team to never win a title btw, but they deserve a mentioning and not to mention it can at least be argued.)

Perk exploded his knee, leading to LA having a big rebounding advantage in the second half of game seven as Wallace wore out. Not much more to say about that, they were a Perkins misstep away from a second ring.

[Knick Killer]

It's just crazy to think how many legends in the 90's never got a ring thanks to Mike and the Bulls.

[PauloCatarino]

Originally Posted by OneBadLT123

Yeah I would say the previous years teams were prone to post season failure but that 96 team really did deserve and should have won the NBA finals that year had they not ran into the 72-10 Bulls. I never said they were a great team, just in 1996 they were one of the (if not the) best team in the last 25 years not to win the Finals. I cant think of another team since 1989 that deserved/should have won the Finals any more than them. Maybe late 90's Jazz, the 1990 Blazers or the 1988 Pistons. In 1996 though, they were clearly the no. 2 team to arguably one of the top 3 teams of all time.

Considering teams in the 90's, i'm partial to the Suns.
They had guys that twice had played (and lost) the WCF (in KJ, Horny, Dan and Chambers), lost the year after to the Finalists Blazers (who were a good team) and then got to the Finals carried by first-year Sun Barkley. Unfortunately, Chambers was a shell of his former self, KJ didn't appear the same, they had to rely much on the rookie Dumas and hadn't much defense.
Still, it was a fun team to watch.