RealGM

Which of these teams should have ended up accomplishing way more than they did?

Well okay, all of them should have but which team's shortcomings were the most egregious?

I'd say the late '90s Jazz really should have gotten the deal done; 6 of their 8 Finals losses were by 5 points or less even despite the fact that Malone was being badly outplayed by MJ, who averaged over 15 more PPG in these games. Basically if Malone plays just a little better in any of these games (especially in the '97 series) and Utah is a two-time champion.

^ If anything I think that signals the Jazz support cast overachieved in 1997.

The Jazz were the league’s second best team over that period and made two finals. They never had the stroke of luck allowing them to truly break through, but that is not outright underachieving. They usually played reasonably well to their seed. People see the close Finals losses and make them out to be more than what they were, which is a pretty well constructed team with thin depth, an effective but poorly adaptive coach, and only one true star, playing in a league where all but one of their top competitors had become watered down with time and expansion.

Sonics on the other hand had giant SRSs and exceptional depth yet did little with it. Back-to-back losses with a 7 SRS advantage is still unprecedented. Zero legitimate excuse. I have a lot of respect for Mutombo and Vlade as players, but there is a massive scale drop-off between losing to Hakeem and Jordan and losing to those two.

Pick And Roll wrote:Which of these teams should have ended up accomplishing way more than they did?

Well okay, all of them should have but which team's shortcomings were the most egregious?

I'd say the late '90s Jazz really should have gotten the deal done; 6 of their 8 Finals losses were by 5 points or less even despite the fact that Malone was being badly outplayed by MJ, who averaged over 15 more PPG in these games. Basically if Malone plays just a little better in any of these games (especially in the '97 series) and Utah is a two-time champion.

Depends very much what "should" means and where you are getting that baseline.

One angle would be that the Jazz should have played a G7 versus the Bulls but for two botched shot clock calls both going wrongly against the Jazz.

But I guess underachiever means this is more about notional "talent"?

Those Phoenix teams were loaded and came close to beating the three champions three years in a row. Paxson hit the three but that could have easily gone to game seven in Phoenix. They lost in 94 and 95 in seven to the Rockets.

Sonics definitely underperformed in the play-offs. Especially when they were the #1 SRS team with Jordan gone in 94 and 95 but lost in the first round both times. 96 was a strong season but looking at their regular season form 93-98 they really should've gotten to the finals or at least the wcf more often.

Somewhat easily the Sonics imo. The Jazz mowed through the western conf twice and really weren't that talented. To me the Sonics were the more talented team. The Jazz were just supremely disciplined.

What, no Orlando?

Pick And Roll wrote:Which of these teams should have ended up accomplishing way more than they did?

Well okay, all of them should have but which team's shortcomings were the most egregious?

I'd say the late '90s Jazz really should have gotten the deal done; 6 of their 8 Finals losses were by 5 points or less even despite the fact that Malone was being badly outplayed by MJ, who averaged over 15 more PPG in these games. Basically if Malone plays just a little better in any of these games (especially in the '97 series) and Utah is a two-time champion.

So, I struggle with phrases like "underachieve" in this context.

The Jazz - say - operating in a rigid system that over-relied upon the absurdity of illegal defense rules to an extreme, and struggling when they went up against a dynamic enough defense, is not something that I'd classify as "achieving less than they should have" the way I would when talking about someone failing due to work ethic, attitude, hubris, etc.

One could argue that the Jazz underachieved with their talent because of Sloan's system, but this isn't something that's obvious based on RS vs PS performance - because because the PS performance may still have been as good as could have been expected based on all common strategies of the era.

Injuries or no injuries.....All the teams Chris Webber played on right from his rookie season.

So, I struggle with phrases like "underachieve" in this context.

The Jazz - say - operating in a rigid system that over-relied upon the absurdity of illegal defense rules to an extreme, and struggling when they went up against a dynamic enough defense, is not something that I'd classify as "achieving less than they should have" the way I would when talking about someone failing due to work ethic, attitude, hubris, etc.

One could argue that the Jazz underachieved with their talent because of Sloan's system, but this isn't something that's obvious based on RS vs PS performance - because because the PS performance may still have been as good as could have been expected based on all common strategies of the era.

In the narrow losses, Jordan outscored Malone by 8, 19, 18, 21, 13 and 14 points respectively; the Bulls won these games by 2, 2, 4, 5, 4 and 1 point(s). This would indicate that Malone's support was outperforming Jordan's, thus the difference between winning and losing ultimately came down to Malone getting significant shrinkage under the bright lights. All he had to do was play just a little better in all these losses and those losses turn into wins.

To me, that's underachieving.

migya wrote:Those Phoenix teams were loaded and came close to beating the three champions three years in a row. Paxson hit the three but that could have easily gone to game seven in Phoenix. They lost in 94 and 95 in seven to the Rockets.

Indeed if you were a Suns fan, the mid 90s has to be infuriating. '94 and '95 were golden opportunities and they blew 2-0 and 3-1 leads respectively. But as bad as those choke jobs were, they were in the 2nd round

I ultimately chose Utah because they were in the Finals twice and had a bunch of narrow losses that could have easily gone their way but for their star player's poor clutch performances. They came close yet so far.

henshao wrote:What, no Orlando?

Missed the playoffs
Lose to Indiana
Lose to Houston
Lose to Chicago
Lose to Miami

I think as a recent expansion franchise they did OK losing to older more experienced All-Stars, unless you expected them to be the team of the future like the NBA on NBC promos said post-1995 ECF.

Statlanta wrote:

henshao wrote:What, no Orlando?

Missed the playoffs
Lose to Indiana
Lose to Houston
Lose to Chicago
Lose to Miami

I think as a recent expansion franchise they did OK losing to older more experienced All-Stars, unless you expected them to be the team of the future like the NBA on NBC promos said post-1995 ECF.

For as much flak as the Magic get for being swept in the NBA Finals, I can't picture them winning the title even if Nick Anderson doesn't choke on those free throws. The Rockets in '95 were the textbook definition of resilient.

That's why I didn't put the Magic on the list.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Somewhat easily the Sonics imo. The Jazz mowed through the western conf twice and really weren't that talented. To me the Sonics were the more talented team. The Jazz were just supremely disciplined.

The Utah Jazz overachieved. From 92 to 98 they went to the wcf three times and finals twice. Better than every team except the Bulls. They lost in the 1st round in 93 in the elimination game to Searle that lost in seven to Phoenix in the wcf, who lost to Chicago in six on a game winner, that lost in 95 in the 1st round in the elimination game to the champion Rockets who swept in the finals. That's a great performance.

Pick And Roll wrote:

migya wrote:Those Phoenix teams were loaded and came close to beating the three champions three years in a row. Paxson hit the three but that could have easily gone to game seven in Phoenix. They lost in 94 and 95 in seven to the Rockets.

Indeed if you were a Suns fan, the mid 90s has to be infuriating. '94 and '95 were golden opportunities and they blew 2-0 and 3-1 leads respectively. But as bad as those choke jobs were, they were in the 2nd round

I ultimately chose Utah because they were in the Finals twice and had a bunch of narrow losses that could have easily gone their way but for their star player's poor clutch performances. They came close yet so far.

Those Utah teams were low in talent. Stockton was great but didn't help with scoring at under 15pts in the three years 96-98 and averaged less in the PO. Hornacek was not much better either. Malone carried the scoring load more than Jordan did and was the easy focal point for defenses. Being defended by Rodman is about as difficult as it gets and he performed near his usual in 98. Jordan is the best in the playoffs, being outplayed by him is nothing unusual.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Pick And Roll wrote:Which of these teams should have ended up accomplishing way more than they did?

Well okay, all of them should have but which team's shortcomings were the most egregious?

I'd say the late '90s Jazz really should have gotten the deal done; 6 of their 8 Finals losses were by 5 points or less even despite the fact that Malone was being badly outplayed by MJ, who averaged over 15 more PPG in these games. Basically if Malone plays just a little better in any of these games (especially in the '97 series) and Utah is a two-time champion.

So, I struggle with phrases like "underachieve" in this context.

The Jazz - say - operating in a rigid system that over-relied upon the absurdity of illegal defense rules to an extreme, and struggling when they went up against a dynamic enough defense, is not something that I'd classify as "achieving less than they should have" the way I would when talking about someone failing due to work ethic, attitude, hubris, etc.

One could argue that the Jazz underachieved with their talent because of Sloan's system, but this isn't something that's obvious based on RS vs PS performance - because because the PS performance may still have been as good as could have been expected based on all common strategies of the era.

Is over-reliance on a rigid system not an example of hubris here?

migya wrote:

Pick And Roll wrote:

migya wrote:Those Phoenix teams were loaded and came close to beating the three champions three years in a row. Paxson hit the three but that could have easily gone to game seven in Phoenix. They lost in 94 and 95 in seven to the Rockets.

Indeed if you were a Suns fan, the mid 90s has to be infuriating. '94 and '95 were golden opportunities and they blew 2-0 and 3-1 leads respectively. But as bad as those choke jobs were, they were in the 2nd round

I ultimately chose Utah because they were in the Finals twice and had a bunch of narrow losses that could have easily gone their way but for their star player's poor clutch performances. They came close yet so far.

Those Utah teams were low in talent. Stockton was great but didn't help with scoring at under 15pts in the three years 96-98 and averaged less in the PO. Hornacek was not much better either. Malone carried the scoring load more than Jordan did and was the easy focal point for defenses. Being defended by Rodman is about as difficult as it gets and he performed near his usual in 98. Jordan is the best in the playoffs, being outplayed by him is nothing unusual.

That doesn't sound low in talent.

I don't get why people never take into account teams opposition within the same season when talking about talent. How many teams in the NBA had a third player as good as Jeff Hornacek in 1998?

You're talking like they had to beat the Showtime Lakers to get to the NBA finals.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

migya wrote:

Pick And Roll wrote:
Indeed if you were a Suns fan, the mid 90s has to be infuriating. '94 and '95 were golden opportunities and they blew 2-0 and 3-1 leads respectively. But as bad as those choke jobs were, they were in the 2nd round

I ultimately chose Utah because they were in the Finals twice and had a bunch of narrow losses that could have easily gone their way but for their star player's poor clutch performances. They came close yet so far.

Those Utah teams were low in talent. Stockton was great but didn't help with scoring at under 15pts in the three years 96-98 and averaged less in the PO. Hornacek was not much better either. Malone carried the scoring load more than Jordan did and was the easy focal point for defenses. Being defended by Rodman is about as difficult as it gets and he performed near his usual in 98. Jordan is the best in the playoffs, being outplayed by him is nothing unusual.

That doesn't sound low in talent.

I don't get why people never take into account teams opposition within the same season when talking about talent. How many teams in the NBA had a third player as good as Jeff Hornacek in 1998?

You're talking like they had to beat the Showtime Lakers to get to the NBA finals.

Lakers were stacked, Shaq, Jones, Kobe, Van Exel, Horry, Campbell, Fox, got swept by Utah.
Rockets had Olajuwon, Barkley, Drexler with good role players, got beaten by Utah.
Portland was loaded, Seattle was loaded, Spurs had twin towers, Chicago was more talented.

Utah was literally the least talented of all the playoff teams those years and most years.

migya wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:

migya wrote:
Those Utah teams were low in talent. Stockton was great but didn't help with scoring at under 15pts in the three years 96-98 and averaged less in the PO. Hornacek was not much better either. Malone carried the scoring load more than Jordan did and was the easy focal point for defenses. Being defended by Rodman is about as difficult as it gets and he performed near his usual in 98. Jordan is the best in the playoffs, being outplayed by him is nothing unusual.

That doesn't sound low in talent.

I don't get why people never take into account teams opposition within the same season when talking about talent. How many teams in the NBA had a third player as good as Jeff Hornacek in 1998?

You're talking like they had to beat the Showtime Lakers to get to the NBA finals.

Lakers were stacked, Shaq, Jones, Kobe, Van Exel, Horry, Campbell, Fox, got swept by Utah.
Rockets had Olajuwon, Barkley, Drexler with good role players, got beaten by Utah.
Portland was loaded, Seattle was loaded, Spurs had twin towers, Chicago was more talented.

Utah was literally the least talented of all the playoff teams those years and most years.

"Those years" in the context of the quotes above and the two finals means at least 97-98, but probably 96-98.

And Utah was "the least talented of all the playoff teams those years".

Utah's opponents in round 1 of the 1997 playoffs were ...

the 36 win, -2.66 SRS LA Clippers (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAC/1997.html) ...

OhayoKD wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Pick And Roll wrote:Which of these teams should have ended up accomplishing way more than they did?

Well okay, all of them should have but which team's shortcomings were the most egregious?

I'd say the late '90s Jazz really should have gotten the deal done; 6 of their 8 Finals losses were by 5 points or less even despite the fact that Malone was being badly outplayed by MJ, who averaged over 15 more PPG in these games. Basically if Malone plays just a little better in any of these games (especially in the '97 series) and Utah is a two-time champion.

So, I struggle with phrases like "underachieve" in this context.

The Jazz - say - operating in a rigid system that over-relied upon the absurdity of illegal defense rules to an extreme, and struggling when they went up against a dynamic enough defense, is not something that I'd classify as "achieving less than they should have" the way I would when talking about someone failing due to work ethic, attitude, hubris, etc.

One could argue that the Jazz underachieved with their talent because of Sloan's system, but this isn't something that's obvious based on RS vs PS performance - because because the PS performance may still have been as good as could have been expected based on all common strategies of the era.

Is over-reliance on a rigid system not an example of hubris here?

I don't think so, else I'd say my dog was full of hubris for his Pavlovian limitations.
To me hubris is personified by Kyrie with his "I don't think we need a coach" attitude (also related to his rejection of physicists, epidemiologists, and actual historians).

So to try to make a rule: Hubris involves outright rejecting an established paradigm rather than follow norms to the best nuance you can understand.

Now, I'll acknowledge that the line is not so clear cut. I think it makes sense to say something like "basketball coaches refused to accept an obvious paradigm shift for many decades because they thought they knew 2>3 no matter what their elementary school teachers told them", but I don't think it makes sense to single out Sloan from the rest on this.

Beyond all this there's the matter that there's no particular reason to assume that "if you played in equally smart systems, the Malone led team should beat the Jordan led team". Regular season supremacy leading to finals appearances might be just about the ceiling you should expect from a Malone led team.