Anybody else feel this post-GSW era is just weak? Like 02 Kings dominate this year?

[goozeman]

Look at these career three-point percentages in one starting line up (note: these are careers, not peaks! All these guys had seasons where they shot over 40 percent from three).

2002 Kings
---------------
Peja Stojakovic........40%
Mike Bibby...............37%
Doug Christie...........35%
Hedo Turkoglu..........38%

These guys were all sharpshooters in an era when guys still weren't given the green light. Peja, for instance, only shot about 4 threes a game in '02. Imagine this entire team building their offense around 40 threes per game, and getting comfortable with just launching every other time down the court and running the floor with Bibby controlling the offense.

I feel like with Webber would be the perfect big for this era also. A solid enough guy from the outside that could stretch the floor but totally dominant superstar finisher around the basket and capable of running the floor with a small-ball lineup. Hypothetical matchup of this team vs 20 Lakers, I feel like Lakers get run off the court, honestly. Just don't see an old Lebron or Davis being able to keep up with overall shooting of that Kings team and athletic versatility of prime Chris Webber. Yea, Lebron and Davis would still eat, but overall scoring would be too much similar to GSW vs Lebron in Cleveland. Lakers would be too big and too slow.

[kawhileonard2]

Not many wanted to play in the bubble. It is like playing high school bball and noone wanted that.

[Micku]

I don't feel like it's weak. I thought there is more parity, and it should get crazier next year too. That is, assuming if KD, Curry and Klay can come back healthy. And hopefully Doc Rivers can fix the 76ers and Stan Van Gundy can maximize the talent on the Pelicans.

I also feel like the Suns have talent too, but they need to try harder on defense.

While there's no team like the GSW today, I feel like it could be extremely competitive. I thought the Clips would give the Lakers some competition, but they choked. Denver despite losing in 5, I think will be a team to watch out in the future. The Bucks had a bad mismatch with the Heat, but the Heat was a pleasant surprise.

And the Kings 02 was simply a great team. They could give most teams in history trouble for sure. One of the best teams not to win a chip.

[Axe]

If they were legitimate title contenders during that year, why do you think they wouldn't dominate that much?

[And1AllDay]

butler outscored all 6 of mikes finals opponents and he is top 15 guy in this league

let in sink in

league is more talented then ever

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

They would dominate this era, for sure.

And yeah probably a bad matchup for LA because of all the shooters they'd have to close out on. Don't see why that makes this era or the Warriors 'weak'. SAC vs GSW would be a GOAT matchup.

[SATAN]

While there's no team like the GSW today, I feel like it could be extremely competitive. I thought the Clips would give the Lakers some competition, but they choked.

I heard Leonard only scored 2 points in the second half against Jonah Hill. That sounds pretty bad. Is it true??

[Kiddlovesnets]

Nah the 02 Kings wouldnt have won against 20 Lakers. In fact, if the Kings beat the 02 Lakers and made the finals, the Nets would win the series 4-2.

[HylianNightmare]

Davis would be fine against webber

[NBAGOAT]

when you shoot more attempts percentages go down. I could see sac beating ad and lebron but at the same time i could see this denver core being comparable to sac. Their defense will never be as good but if porter fulfills his potential he makes the denver big 3 of jokic/murray/porter comparable to webber/peja/bibby(yes i could definitely take jokic/murray over webber/bibby)

[pandiani17]

Nah the 02 Kings wouldnt have won against 20 Lakers. In fact, if the Kings beat the 02 Lakers and made the finals, the Nets would win the series 4-2.

Are you joking or did you start watching NBA five minutes ago? The 2002 Kings were in fact better than the 2002 Lakers, but due to circumstances (Robert Horry's three point shot or questionable refereeing) were denied of the chance of going to the finals, where they would have trashed the Nets. The Kings were also arguably the best team in 2003, but Webber's injury in the play-offs stopped their run. By the way, those Kings had the best regular season record both seasons.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Are you joking or did you start watching NBA five minutes ago? The 2002 Kings were in fact better than the 2002 Lakers, but due to circumstances (Robert Horry's three point shot or questionable refereeing) were denied of the chance of going to the finals, where they would have trashed the Nets. The Kings were also arguably the best team in 2003, but Webber's injury in the play-offs stopped their run. By the way, those Kings had the best regular season record both seasons.

I've been watching NBA since 1997 and yes I assure you, the Nets would win the Finals if we didnt play the Lakers. We just couldnt defend Shaq properly, and triple-teaming him would make Kobe wide open. The Kings had a lot of weapons but none deserved even double-teaming.

[sdot_thadon]

OP uses one of the greatest teams to never win a ring possibly dominating as an excuse to call this era weak? Sorry to break it to ya OP but the 02 Kings would be great in any era.

[pandiani17]

I've been watching NBA since 1997 and yes I assure you, the Nets would win the Finals if we didnt play the Lakers. We just couldnt defend Shaq properly, and triple-teaming him would make Kobe wide open. The Kings had a lot of weapons but none deserved even double-teaming.

You are writing the gems of the day. That Nets team needed a double-overtime in the crunch game 5 to knock out the Pacers. Actually, they were a Reggie Miller shot away from being upset. That Nets team was very, very poor, they just took advantage of the fact that Iverson was injured with the Sixers, Carter was being Carter in Toronto and the Bucks inexpicably had one of the worst streaks after the all-star game that put them out of the post-season. Heck, the ECF team you played against was also a poor Celtics team. Chris Webber would put on a show in the post, Divac would abuse McCulloch, Stojakovic would drain 3 after 3 and Doug Christie would defend the hell out of Kittles. And let's not compare the benches: 6th man of the year Bobby Jackson, Turkoglu, Gerald Wallace versus rookie Richard Jefferson, Lucious Harris, Anthony Johnson, etc.

[dankok8]

2002 Kings would have probably swept the Nets in the Finals much like the Lakers did.

[Kiddlovesnets]

You are writing the gems of the day. That Nets team needed a double-overtime in the crunch game 5 to knock out the Pacers. Actually, they were a Reggie Miller shot away from being upset. That Nets team was very, very poor, they just took advantage of the fact that Iverson was injured with the Sixers, Carter was being Carter in Toronto and the Bucks inexpicably had one of the worst streaks after the all-star game that put them out of the post-season. Heck, the ECF team you played against was also a poor Celtics team. Chris Webber would put on a show in the post, Divac would abuse McCulloch, Stojakovic would drain 3 after 3 and Doug Christie would defend the hell out of Kittles. And let's not compare the benches: 6th man of the year Bobby Jackson, Turkoglu, Gerald Wallace versus rookie Richard Jefferson, Lucious Harris, Anthony Johnson, etc.

So we made it to the finals again in 2003 after sweeping the Celtics and Pistons. Also in 2004 the Nets were the only team to push the champion pistons to the brink of elimination(the series went to 7 games), with injured Jason Kidd. If 2002 was a fluke, the next two years surely showed that they were a quality team and could have beaten anyone without legendary big men/front court). The Lakers had it, Spurs had it, the Kings didn’t.

[Dagoods]

Bring back the 90s!!!

[pandiani17]

So we made it to the finals again in 2003 after sweeping the Celtics and Pistons. Also in 2004 the Nets were the only team to push the champion pistons to the brink of elimination(the series went to 7 games), with injured Jason Kidd. If 2002 was a fluke, the next two years surely showed that they were a quality team and could have beaten anyone without legendary big men/front court). The Lakers had it, Spurs had it, the Kings didn’t.

Ever heard of Chris Webber? And by the way, those Kings used to score tons of points. Your Nets would have to match them with Kerry Kittles and Keith Van Horn as their offensive go-to-guys.

[Dbrog]

100% those Kings would dominate this year but they were an excellent team. As others have mentioned here, they really should have beaten the Lakers that Donaghy year and would be even more great under these rules. I think any really great team would have won this year even if they didn't win it all in their times (see: Nash/Amare Suns, 2005 Pistons, 1993 Suns, etc).

[light]

lol no, because LeBron is still there and you need multiple hall of famers in order to beat him. If you don't have that you aren't going to accomplish anything.

The 2002 Kings would not stand a chance.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Ever heard of Chris Webber? And by the way, those Kings used to score tons of points. Your Nets would have to match them with Kerry Kittles and Keith Van Horn as their offensive go-to-guys.

Yeah I heard Chris Webber, and he was soft and not a dominant player. He was destroyed by Dirk Nowitzki in 2003, Kevin Garnett in 2004 and then even Rasheed Wallace in 2005. Theres no reason to think that we couldnt just use Kenyon Martin on him, hes not Tim Duncan.

[And1AllDay]

https://i.postimg.cc/wMJB1NnJ/Are-You-Okay.jpg

[Mr. Woke]

Bring back the 90s!!!

The 90s had less parity lol.