Project Proposal: Greatest Team To Never Win a Ring

[pandrade83]

Spoiler:

Mods - Wanted to see if you had any opposition to me running this. Pen's thread & the '16 OKC thread got me thinking - who is the best team to not win a ring?

This Tournament will borrow from the best 32 teams of the shot-clock era by SRS who didn't win a ring. Most of the below is borrowed from Pen's thread.

Teams are removed from consideration if:

-They won a title within 3 years of the year in question (exception: They won the title within 3 years but one of the 2 WS leaders was not on the roster)
-They lost in the 1st round of the playoffs and/or got swept in round 2
-Only one iteration of each team will be used - squads pulled must be at least 4 years apart (there's an exception made because of Phoenix getting Barkley)
-They had to escape the 1st round in the prior or subsequent year
1 and only exception: '72 Bulls


Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era. This hopefully will eliminate a bit of the recency bias. Health is as it was at the close of the Regular Season; perhaps a team didn't win because of injury.

One last thing. VOTES WITHOUT ANALYSIS (or with what in my personal subject opinion is stupid analysis) WONT BE COUNTED. (Lots of capital letters!) I will list results here. Each thread will be open for a day, maybe 2 if it's close.

EDITED Based on feedback

Round 1 Results:

'86 Bucks over '79 Spurs - unanimous
'09 Cavs over '68 Lakers - split decision
'91 Blazers over '92 Cavs - unanimous
'18 Rockets over '92 Jazz - split decision
'97 Jazz over '06 Mavericks - unanimous
'03 Mavericks over '72 Bulls - tie with HCA being the tiebreaker for Dallas off very limited participation.
'81 Sixers over '96 Spurs - unanimous
'02 Kings over '98 Pacers - split decision
'93 Suns over '96 Sonics - split decision
'00 Blazers over '07 Suns - split decision
'12 Thunder over '14 Clippers - unanimous
'95 Magic over '87 Hawks - unanimous
'94 Knicks over '81 Bucks - split decision
'17 Spurs over '75 Nuggets - unanimous
''16 Thunder over '08 Jazz - unanimous
'10 Magic over '90 Suns - tie off very limited participation; Magic get tie-break with HCA.

Round 2 results:
'86 Bucks over '10 Magic - unanimous
'16 Thunder over '09 Cavs - unanimous
'17 Spurs over '91 Blazers - split decision
'18 Rockets over '94 Knicks - unanimous
'97 Jazz over '95 Magic
'03 Mavericks over '12 Thunder - tie - Dallas advances with HCA
'81 Sixers over '00 Blazers - It was just me voting
'93 Suns over '02 Kings

Round 3 Results:
'93 Suns over '86 Bucks - split decision
'81 Sixers over '16 Thunder - unanimous


1. '86 Mil
2. '09 Cle
3. '91 Portland
4. '18 Houston
5. '97 Utah
6. '03 Dallas
7. '81 Philly (no Moses)
8. '02 Sacramento
9. '96 Seattle
10. '07 Phoenix
11. '14 Clippers
12. '87 Atlanta
13. '81 Milwaukee
14. '17 Spurs
15. '16 Thunder
16. '10 Orlando
17. '90 Phoenix
18. '08 Utah
19. '75 Denver
20. '94 NY
21. '95 Orlando
22. '12 OKC
23. '00 Portland
24. '93 Phoenix
25. '98 Indiana
26. '96 SAS
27. '72 Bulls - penalized on seeding
28. '06 Dallas
29. '92 Utah
30. '92 Cleveland
31. '68 Lakers
32. '79 SAS

[penbeast0]

As long as YOU run it, I think that will be great. I can handle one at a time, but two and it starts feeling like work.

[pandrade83]

As long as YOU run it, I think that will be great. I can handle one at a time, but two and it starts feeling like work.

That's the intent - I was asking for permission, not for someone else to carry the water

[Heej]

Tbh 17 Cavs should be one of the top seeds in this. They had the GOAT offense. Just happened to run into the most talented team of all time.

[HeartBreakKid]

two tournaments that require people to put reasoning into their votes going on at the same time is asking a lot

[Joey Wheeler]

OKC and San Antonio should have their 2016 teams in this, not 2013 and 2017, which were definitely not as good. For the Cavs, 2017 makes more sense than 2009. Would also go 93 over 94 for the Knicks, they were on a crazy winning streak at the Garden until Jordan took game 5 there.

With the criteria you set to pick the teams, I think this tournament would benefit from a smaller draw. Some of the teams listed are just nowhere near championship standard, like for example Miami 1997. Literally never heard that team being mentioned as a possible contender.

[trex_8063]

OKC and San Antonio should have their 2016 teams in this, not 2013 and 2017, which were definitely not as good. For the Cavs, 2017 makes more sense than 2009. Would also go 93 over 94 for the Knicks, they were on a crazy winning streak at the Garden until Jordan took game 5 there.

With the criteria you set to pick the teams, I think this tournament would benefit from a smaller draw. Some of the teams listed are just nowhere near championship standard, like for example Miami 1997. Literally never heard that team being mentioned as a possible contender.

Totally agree on '16 OKC and '16 Spurs in particular. Both of those teams were ridiculously good; any list supposedly comprising "the greatest teams to never win a ring" that doesn't include them is glaringly incomplete.
EDIT: Nevermind wrt Spurs, upon closer read of OP. Not sure I agree with "not within 3 years" premise. Still absolutely gotta have the '16 Thunder.

[penbeast0]

Other teams that might deserve a mention might include the best of Wilt's Warriors team or Denver's Bobby Jones/David Thompson duo that were the best team in the ABA BEFORE adding Thompson and Marvin Webster.

[pandrade83]

Notes:

-I was looking for groups - that couldn't get it done - the '17 Cavs should clearly be near the top - but they just won the year prior
-In that spirit, I crossed off teams that didn't advance out of the 1st round in either of the prior year.
-I opened it up to ABA Teams.
-You can't have gotten swept in the 2nd round.

Adds: '75 Denver, '06 Dallas (not much overlap vs. '03 squad aside from Dirk), '68 Lakers (audibled - wanted to have at least 1 squad from each major decade , '75 Washington (enough non-overlap vs. '78)
Drops: '12 Chicago (didn't get out of 1st round), '97 Miami ('96 or '98 Miami didn't get out of round 1), '87 Dallas, '18 Raptors (got swept in rd 2)
Swaps: '16 Thunder for '13 Thunder - keeping '16 Thunder in their slot, '92 Cavs for '93 Cavs, '16 Spurs for '17 Spurs ('16 Spurs added LMA; not on '14 squad)

[sp6r=underrated]

I love the not within 3 years rule. It makes it more interesting. People will just pick the clubs that won the year before or after.

[SpreeS]

I dont know, how could everyone decide which team was the best, but I exactly know that the most deserving was SAC 02. They were robbed.

[Sark]

Greatest team to never win a ring, or greatest team that didn't win a ring? There's a difference. You can say the Cavs won their ring in 2016. I'd say the late 90s Jazz are probably the best team to NEVER win a ring. You can probably throw the late 80s/early 90s Blazers in there too.

[Owly]

Suggestion - Change the name.

Saying the team of the 16 Warriors "never" won a title ... the same core did a year prior. To use "never", IMO, means a slightly different project (one that allows the team multiple chances to win the title) whether choosing a specific year to represent a core or allowing spans (though the latter could be messier or arbitrary in terms of how long the span is, whether to allow different length spans and how to account for it etc). But, in that format, a title requires significant turnover and/or a time period to pass before the franchise becomes eligible. "Didn't" doesn't carry the same time baggage as "never", so a "that didn't" phrasing might be better.

"Single-season" in the title would make makes your project even more explicit in it's focus, but is less of an issue.


And probably best not to include them (because we don't know enough about them) but as HM I'd mention the '46-'47 Washington Capitols coached by Red Auerbach (8.99 SRS, 49-11).

[pandrade83]

Suggestion - Change the name.

Saying the team of the 16 Warriors "never" won a title ... the same core did a year prior. To use "never", IMO, means a slightly different project (one that allows the team multiple chances to win the title) whether choosing a specific year to represent a core or allowing spans (though the latter could be messier or arbitrary in terms of how long the span is, whether to allow different length spans and how to account for it etc). But, in that format, a title requires significant turnover and/or a time period to pass before the franchise becomes eligible. "Didn't" doesn't carry the same time baggage as "never", so a "that didn't" phrasing might be better.

"Single-season" in the title would make makes your project even more explicit in it's focus, but is less of an issue.


And probably best not to include them (because we don't know enough about them) but as HM I'd mention the '46-'47 Washington Capitols coached by Red Auerbach (8.99 SRS, 49-11).

What would you suggest to change the name too? Hopefully the teams that I chose makes it clear I was looking for cores that never quite got over the hump for whatever reason.

[Owly]

Suggestion - Change the name.

Saying the team of the 16 Warriors "never" won a title ... the same core did a year prior. To use "never", IMO, means a slightly different project (one that allows the team multiple chances to win the title) whether choosing a specific year to represent a core or allowing spans (though the latter could be messier or arbitrary in terms of how long the span is, whether to allow different length spans and how to account for it etc). But, in that format, a title requires significant turnover and/or a time period to pass before the franchise becomes eligible. "Didn't" doesn't carry the same time baggage as "never", so a "that didn't" phrasing might be better.

"Single-season" in the title would make makes your project even more explicit in it's focus, but is less of an issue.


And probably best not to include them (because we don't know enough about them) but as HM I'd mention the '46-'47 Washington Capitols coached by Red Auerbach (8.99 SRS, 49-11).

What would you suggest to change the name too? Hopefully the teams that I chose makes it clear I was looking for cores that never quite got over the hump for whatever reason.

I think I got confused by some teams that seemed like they shared cores with title teams. Reading closer now I see that this is an attempt at the "never" version of the question and doesn't need changing.

There are still some such teams by my reckoning ('16 Spurs share 7 of the top 8 minutes played players of the '14 Spurs [Marco Belinelli out Aldridge in]; 2008 Pistons share 4 starters with the ultimate 2004 Pistons lineup albeit the bench is very different; '83 76ers too are a little questionable vs '81 have the change of the bigs [Jones, Dawkins, Mix out - Malone and Iavaroni in] and loss of Hollins, but of the top 6 minutes getters of '83 [both for RS and playoffs] 5 are there in '81 - though I can see a case that the size of change in adding Malone is sufficient to call it a different core). Hard to come up with precise criteria to define these blurry distinctions but I'd take out those teams.

[pandrade83]

Suggestion - Change the name.

Saying the team of the 16 Warriors "never" won a title ... the same core did a year prior. To use "never", IMO, means a slightly different project (one that allows the team multiple chances to win the title) whether choosing a specific year to represent a core or allowing spans (though the latter could be messier or arbitrary in terms of how long the span is, whether to allow different length spans and how to account for it etc). But, in that format, a title requires significant turnover and/or a time period to pass before the franchise becomes eligible. "Didn't" doesn't carry the same time baggage as "never", so a "that didn't" phrasing might be better.

"Single-season" in the title would make makes your project even more explicit in it's focus, but is less of an issue.


And probably best not to include them (because we don't know enough about them) but as HM I'd mention the '46-'47 Washington Capitols coached by Red Auerbach (8.99 SRS, 49-11).

What would you suggest to change the name too? Hopefully the teams that I chose makes it clear I was looking for cores that never quite got over the hump for whatever reason.

I think I got confused by some teams that seemed like they shared cores with title teams. Reading closer now I see that this is an attempt at the "never" version of the question and doesn't need changing.

There are still some such teams by my reckoning ('16 Spurs share 7 of the top 8 minutes played players of the '14 Spurs [Marco Belinelli out Aldridge in]; 2008 Pistons share 4 starters with the ultimate 2004 Pistons lineup albeit the bench is very different; '83 76ers too are a little questionable vs '81 have the change of the bigs [Jones, Dawkins, Mix out - Malone and Iavaroni in] and loss of Hollins, but of the top 6 minutes getters of '83 [both for RS and playoffs] 5 are there in '81 - though I can see a case that the size of change in adding Malone is sufficient to call it a different core). Hard to come up with precise criteria to define these blurry distinctions but I'd take out those teams.

The one who I'm the most torn on leaving in is the '16 Spurs

'14 Spurs leaders in MP - VORP in ()

Duncan (2.8)
Bellenelli (1.9)
Parker (0.8)
Diaw (1.8)
Kawhi (3.8)
D. Green (2.2)
Manu (2.4)
Mills (2.0)
Splitter (1.3)

'16 Spurs in MP - VORP in ()

Kawhi (6.2)
LMA (2.2)
D. Green (2.5)
Parker (1.0)
Mills (1.6)
Duncan (2.4)
West (1.9)
Diaw (1.1)
K. Anderson (1.1)
Manu (1.2)

That's too much overlap - I agree

I'm OK with '08 Detroit & '81 Sixers; the composition of '08 Detroit is JUST different enough & enough time has elapsed where the profile of the squad is different. '81 Sixers don't have Moses & that's the thing that took them from contender to a team mentioned in the GOAT Discussion.

I'm going to replace the Spurs with the 17 version as I originally had it. I feel there's a bit of differentiation there - & not having Duncan as part of the core is a big deal imo.

[Narigo]

i nominate the 86 Rockets. They beat the Lakers and took the 86 Celtics to six games

[Yank3525]

2008 Lakers should be on there if the 2008 Pistons are on it IMO.

[Dr Positivity]

My pick would be West/Baylor Lakers, probably 62 since they had prime West/Baylor, came within a shot. 66 is an option as well. That core made enough Finals that you can say they probably didn't do anything wrong, they just played the most dominant dynasty repeatedly

[SweetTouch]

09 Cleveland

Their starting center and only reason for him being in the squad was to defend Dwight

He got injured, so they were stuck with a washed up tall SG defending him