RealGM

These two teams are widely regarded as possibly the two best teams to never win an NBA championship. Both of their losses to the LA Lakers in 7 games in the Western Conference finals are considered by many to be controversial. For both teams, this was their most recent realistic shot at a championship. Which team was better?

1999-2000 Portland Trailblazers:
PG- Damon Stoudamire, Greg Anthony, Gary Grant
SG- Steve Smith, Bonzi Wells
SF- Scottie Pippen, Detlef Schrempf, Stacey Augmon
PF- Rasheed Wallace, Brian Grant, Jermaine O'Neal
C- Arvydas Sabonis, Joe Kleine, Antonio Harvey


2001-2002 Sacramento Kings:
PG- Mike Bibby, Bobby Jackson, Mateen Cleaves, Brent Price
SG- Doug Christie
SF- Peja Stojakovic, Hedo Turkoglu, Gerald Wallace
PF- Chris Webber, Lawrence Funderburke, Chucky Brown
C- Vlade Divac, Scot Pollard, Jabari Smith

Kings by a moderate margin. Better big-3 and deeper.

The Blazers were great for that specific window of NBA basketball but they were playing some washed dudes come playoff time albeit still nearly knocking off the Lakers. Young Jermaine O’Neal not playing for those teams is still an unsolved mystery.

I would say Kings. People forget but Peja was injured in the 2002 playoffs and DNP in a few games against the Lakers. I think healthy Kings are better. Blazers are better on defense but Kings had amazing ball movement and much better shooting. Not to mention the officiating which was legit bad in the 2002 WCF.

The Kings always win this comparison with most folks. The styles are so different that it's hard to compare without seeing them face off. It's overly simplistic, but I think the chasm in point guard play between the two squads makes a big difference. Yes, Pippen covered for the Blazers' weakness here somewhat, but Stoudamire was terrible and Anthony does not compare to Bobby Jackson as a reserve spark.

The Blazers' vaunted depth did not really provide an advantage in the playoffs, either. Schrempf, Anthony, and Grant all regressed, Bonzi has moments but was visibly just a kid, while Augmon and O'Neal were nonexistent. That they almost won a title shows their top-end talent in Sheed, Pippen, Sabonis, and Smith was slightly underrated, IMO, and it was also a weak year.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:Stoudamire was terrible

This is definitely true by basically every measure, but you've got to admit Stoudamire was such a cool player just by being 5'10'' and getting significant minutes.

Kings by a fairly big margin.

B-Mitch 30 wrote:

Tim Lehrbach wrote:Stoudamire was terrible

This is definitely true by basically every measure, but you've got to admit Stoudamire was such a cool player just by being 5'10'' and getting significant minutes.

I never liked him, except that time he had the audacity to launch 21 three point attempts in a game in 2005. That was hilarious.

Stoudemire was a big defensive liability but he wasn't a bad offensive PG. He actually could distribute fairly well too.

Djoker wrote:Stoudemire was a big defensive liability but he wasn't a bad offensive PG. He actually could distribute fairly well too.

He wasn't a good offensive PG, either. The distribution was elementary and the turnover economy middling. Average deep shooter. Hopeless at the rim. Unreliable in the playoffs.