Stacked Teams That Didn't Do Much

[JMT]

1993-94 Seattle SuperSonics

Won 63 games. First top seed since revamped playoff format ten years earlier to lose to a #8 seed (a 42-40 Denver team built around Abdul-Rauf, Laphonso Ellis and Mutombo).

Shawn Kemp
Detlef Schrempf
Gary Payton
Ricky Pierce
Kendall Gill
Sam Perkins

Rock solid bench play from Michael Cage, Vincent Askew, Nate McMillian.

5th in the league in offense, 6th in defense. Best players in their mid-20's, great veteran leadership in Schrempf, Pierce, Perkins.

[RedBlackAttack]

There are some funny ones out there that wouldn't immediately come to mind, like...

1998 Washington

PG - Rod Strickland
SG - Calbert Chaney
SF - Terry Davis
PF - Chris Webber
C - Juwon Howard

Bench:
Ben Wallace
Tracy Murray
Chris Whitney
Lorenzo Williams
Lawrence Moten (lol)
God Shammgod (lol)
Darvin Ham (lol)

I loved this team on NBA Live '98 back in the day. It was like the early-90s college all-star team. Also, this is where Ben Wallace really began to pick up steam, getting his career into gear. Actually, I think the next season was really his breakout year, but just the fact that a future perennial DPOY was on their bench makes this team even more interesting in retrospect.

[madmax]

2012 Miami Heat.

LMAO...
Knickerbockers stans are on fire

[Kblaze8855]

But the players in question didn't perform at the level you claim.

Every single one of them performed at an all star level. Not having great numbers is just what happens when you have 5 all stars all of them highly regarded due to their ability to score. They will all have off seasons numbers wise. Dirk put up like...what? 21 a game? 22? Probably 8 or 9 rebounds. Doesnt mean he got worse than he was in 03 and didnt regain his ability to 05. It means a grip of scorers sharing the ball makes all of them less productive. Exact same thing happened in LA. Kobe putsu p 24 a game, Shaq has the worst season of his career despite being in vastly improved shape compared to his previous season, and Karl and Gary went from roughly all star level to really really good role players. Doesnt mean they were not stacked.

In fact, Nash was just that....hurt. Granted he's a tough son of a bitch and played through it, but he was hurt. Just a fact. He played very poorly in the playoffs. Shooting 39% from the field....nearly 9% off his career average in the playoffs.

Please dont give me 5 game series numbers as if it shows how good a guy was for 6-7 months. He had bad stretches and great stretches as is often the case in many seasons of even hall of fame players careers. You dont pretend a bad 5 games means he had a bad season I wont pretend that the 25 game stretch during which he put up 16/10/4 on 52% with games of 20/19(31/10 the night before) and 29/11 on the champs on 80% shooting means he had an outstanding one.

And of course I could go on.

You could. There were ups and downs. Walker went from Mavs fans saying he was more important to them than Dirk(believe it or not...I had that argument on here in 04 after Walkers hot start) to him being "garbage". Jamison went from quietly pouting to doing al lstar numbers despite being off the bench. Finley ranged from washed up to dropping 40 and shooting lights out from 3 for like 3 months.

Its just...an NBA season. Always something you can say about why it didnt end it victory. But they were like 2 shots from homecourt in a great west with the Lakers, Spurs, Twolves, and Kings all having periods of flat out rampage. That same team would win 60 games some seasons or 48 in others. Lets both avoid the extremes. They were...very very good....with very very very good talent. Hows that?

We have different definitions of "stacked" clearly. That Mavericks team was offensively stacked....even though everyone but Dirk played like ass...they were still offensively stacked.

The 5 game thing again?

Does that make them a stacked team overall? To me...absolutely not. Because they just weren't. They played literally no defense...4th worst in the league...and didn't have a center.

That just is not a stacked team. It just...isn't. But you might have a different definition.

I have the one we both know people mean when they use the word.

No team has been known as stacked for being well balanced with slightly above average players who just have great chemistry.

If there is one I can remember...its one of the recent Spurs teams. Maybe the Nuggets right after the Melo trade?

Lot of good players.

Usually...stacked means a gang of stars.

And no, no coach is going to make that work. Improve the results? Maybe...although again...it was a performance issue. Nash just couldn't perform well enough really for that team to do anything in the playoffs due to injuries. At best, if healthy, it's a team that does what some of the Suns teams did. Make the 2nd round or WCF and lose.

Stacked to me is a team like the 11 Heat. A team with 2 top 5 players and another top 20 or so player all healthy. That is stacked. Or the 08 Celtics. That is stacked.

So there have been what...6-7 stacked teams ever(at least if we throw out some of the 60s teams when there were less teams so everyone had 8 good players)?

98 Lakers...stacked? 4 legit all star talents but only one superstar. didnt function well as a team. That means they were not stacked correct?

04 Mavs? You have to create a distinction between offensively stacked and stacked overall in my opinion.

If we are trying to take it somewhere needlessly complicated maybe. Im nto sure why. Team has 5 players who can be reasonaby be called all star level. There has never been a situation where a team with similar offensive talent wouldnt be called stacked.

I cant even imagine it. I guess I could work on it and pick and choose shitty borderline stars or something but....cmon. Lets be real here. Like...real life talking about basketball real.

Thats what basketball fans consider stacked. If you choose to redefine it for...whatever reason....nothing to talk about. Once we decide what terms mean in opposition of generally accepted use there is no point arguing.

Im gonna go get some hot wings or something and watch the draft. I dont feel like a whole night of this. Might get a shitty beer like a Bud Light Lime A Rita...

[BlackVVaves]

2007 Suns
61-21

C: Amar'e Stoudemire / Pat Burke
PF: Boris Diaw / Kurt Thomas
SF: Shawn Marion / James Jones / Eric Piatkowski
SG: Raja Bell / Leandro Barbosa / Jalen Rose
PG: Steve Nash / Marcus Banks

Should've beaten the old Spurs team in the 2nd round but didn't. Maybe if Amar'e and Diaw hadn't been suspended for Game 5, they would've won.

2007 Mavericks
67-15

C: Erick Dampier / DeSagana Diop / D.J. Mbenga
PF: Dirk Nowitzki / Pops Mensah-Bonsu / Kevin Willis
SF: Josh Howard / Devean George / Austin Croshere
SG: Jason Terry / Jerry Stackhouse / Maurice Ager
PG: Devin Harris / Greg Buckner / J.J. Barea

Went 67-15 in the regular season and got knocked out in the first round by the 42-40 Warriors. That is one of the biggest upsets in NBA history. This team steamrolled through the regular season with league MVP, Dirk Nowitzki. Better and smarter than their 2006 Finals team counterpart but couldn't perform in the postseason. If the team had beaten the Warriors, they would have easily got to the finals and would've likely, sweeped the Cavs.

Anyone that still thinks that whole Horry stunt wasn't intentional, or planned, is a POS.

[DMAVS41]

Every single one of them performed at an all star level. Not having great numbers is just what happens when you have 5 all stars all of them highly regarded due to their ability to score. They will all have off seasons numbers wise. Dirk put up like...what? 21 a game? 22? Probably 8 or 9 rebounds. Doesnt mean he got worse than he was in 03 and didnt regain his ability to 05. It means a grip of scorers sharing the ball makes all of them less productive. Exact same thing happened in LA. Kobe putsu p 24 a game, Shaq has the worst season of his career despite being in vastly improved shape compared to his previous season, and Karl and Gary went from roughly all star level to really really good role players. Doesnt mean they were not stacked.




Please dont give me 5 game series numbers as if it shows how good a guy was for 6-7 months. He had bad stretches and great stretches as is often the case in many seasons of even hall of fame players careers. You dont pretend a bad 5 games means he had a bad season I wont pretend that the 25 game stretch during which he put up 16/10/4 on 52% with games of 20/19(31/10 the night before) and 29/11 on the champs on 80% shooting means he had an outstanding one.



You could. There were ups and downs. Walker went from Mavs fans saying he was more important to them than Dirk(believe it or not...I had that argument on here in 04 after Walkers hot start) to him being "garbage". Jamison went from quietly pouting to doing al lstar numbers despite being off the bench. Finley ranged from washed up to dropping 40 and shooting lights out from 3 for like 3 months.

Its just...an NBA season. Always something you can say about why it didnt end it victory. But they were like 2 shots from homecourt in a great west with the Lakers, Spurs, Twolves, and Kings all having periods of flat out rampage. That same team would win 60 games some seasons or 48 in others. Lets both avoid the extremes. They were...very very good....with very very very good talent. Hows that?



The 5 game thing again?



I have the one we both know people mean when they use the word.

No team has been known as stacked for being well balanced with slightly above average players who just have great chemistry.

If there is one I can remember...its one of the recent Spurs teams. Maybe the Nuggets right after the Melo trade?

Lot of good players.

Usually...stacked means a gang of stars.



So there have been what...6-7 stacked teams ever(at least if we throw out some of the 60s teams when there were less teams so everyone had 8 good players)?

98 Lakers...stacked? 4 legit all star talents but only one superstar. didnt function well as a team. That means they were not stacked correct?




If we are trying to take it somewhere needlessly complicated maybe. Im nto sure why. Team has 5 players who can be reasonaby be called all star level. There has never been a situation where a team with similar offensive talent wouldnt be called stacked.

I cant even imagine it. I guess I could work on it and pick and choose shitty borderline stars or something but....cmon. Lets be real here. Like...real life talking about basketball real.

Thats what basketball fans consider stacked. If you choose to redefine it for...whatever reason....nothing to talk about. Once we decide what terms mean in opposition of generally accepted use there is no point arguing.

Im gonna go get some hot wings or something and watch the draft. I dont feel like a whole night of this. Might get a shitty beer like a Bud Light Lime A Rita...

Again you just simply ignore the premise of the thread. It's "stacked teams that didn't do much"

Why should we ignore the Nash injury when it's at the root cause of why the team didn't perform.

Now, if you are going to say something like...."if healthy"...like I already did then I would agree that the team was "offensively stacked"...hell, I called them offensively stacked even with the Nash injury.

Its not confusing anything for me because I have a very simple definition of a stacked team. I gave you examples.

If you have a different definition...then great....they are stacked for you, but that does not change my definition.

And you started this "argument" so to speak. Even in my first posted I said the team was offensively stacked. If that is your definition of "stacked"...then we are in complete agreement.

Like I said at the time, and in my response to you, stacked means more than just offense to me and I clearly think of it differently than you or "the average fan"...if they think like you. I wouldn't know.

But I made the distinction very clearly and you still came on here with your post. It's on you....enjoy the beer.

[Kblaze8855]

I think i will but i dont like supporting what bud is doing with their endless gimmick beers. Oh well

[DMAVS41]

I think i will but i dont like supporting what bud is doing with their endless gimmick beers. Oh well

Ever had Budvar?



If you like Bud....it's the best.

[Whoah10115]

Again you just simply ignore the premise of the thread. It's "stacked teams that didn't do much"

I don't understand your argument at all. The Mavericks were stacked. It doesn't matter if they didn't fit, if they were hurt. It's not even a question of them underperforming.



If I put 5 all-star caliber players together, it doesn't matter if they all suck ass. They're all-star caliber players, so I'm stacking my team and my team is now stacked.



That's all it is.

[albas89]

The current Clippers team is pretty stacked too:

Chris Paul
Chauncey Billups
Mo Williams
Randy Foye
Nick Young
Caron Butler
Blake Griffin
Kenyon Martin
DeAndre Jordan

Let's see what they can do, although I don't expect much...

[ImmortalNemesis]

Yao still the 2nd best center yes but there was a huge gap between the elite and the rest at that point.
Despite more minutes he:
Scored Less (more than 5 points less per 36 minutes)
Shot less accurately
Got to the line less

I really like McGrady but in '03 he might have been the MVP, but by that year he shot 42% from the field 29% from 3 and 69% from the free throw line (for a .487 TS%) and injuries meant even if he was giving full effort on D he wasn't as athletic or agile as he had been. The only way he could be considered an all-star was if you were Chinese.

Mutombo was a good defensive center to have off the bench.

Hayes primary impact was defensive. But that year and the next he was too timid on offense which in part was because they had a lot of options, but if you shoot as rarely as he did, then teams don't feel obliged to guard you. It would be fine if he was taking better shots but his shooting percentages (fg,ft,efg and ts) all collapsed too. So it was probably "one of his best seasons as Rocket" only in the sense that it was one of his top 5 seasons as a Rocket (he had 6 years there).

Yao was not playing at his prime level (maybe he would have been if he hadn't been injured but he was).
Battier wasn't at his numerical peak but a lot of that is a reduced role from Memphis so I'll go along with that.
Brooks broke out the next year (and was only ever particularly good for that 1 year).
Landry was remarkable in his limited role.

There's a reason they weren't favourites or even close. It was stacked as I said in the sense of having a lot of rotation worthy pieces (even guys who could be starters elsewhere - especially Landry) but nobody playing at an exceptional level.

(edited to correct typo)

Good post. Even though I don't agree with some of your points (Yao declining dramatically, Hayes not having a good season, etc) I agree with the overall premise of you post. Houston did not have a 2nd player who stood out or that played at an exceptionally high level. McGrady could have been that guy but "T-Mac" was gone after the 08 season.

[MavAlbert]

Ever had Budvar?



If you like Bud....it's the best.

this is not made by the Anheuser-Busch company... completely different... in fact budweiser stole this name

[Nash]

Butler, Jamison and Arenas

[ShaqAttack3234]

This is a cool thread, I'll think of some more after I discuss some teams already mentioned.

Yao fell off substantially that year

I don't really agree, he had lost some mobility making fronting Yao more effective, and he didn't look like he did in '07, but Yao didn't really have a chance to have a prime.

In '09, he was still a 20/10 guy who shot 55% from the field and 87% from the line, a good passer, a solid shot blocker and presence in the paint who blocked 2 shots per game. And just having a guy who was the best post scorer at the time makes a huge impact, which is why he received so much defensive attention, and he was a good passer.

T-Mac was never the same as he was in Orlando.

Yeah, T-Mac was never the same after '05. So what would a healthy T-Mac be in '09? He was only 29, but how much had he lost regardless of health? He did look generally worse physically than he has in Atlanta and Detroit, though.

But if a healthy T-Mac means '08 level? Then I'd still take him on that team, T-Mac wasn't even healthy in '08 and despite the shooting percentages, was still a damn good player.

But if its depth you want without a title and mostly healthy.
03 Pistons

Hard to believe T-Mac almost beat that team by himself, shows how good McGrady was at his peak. His '03 team was perhaps the worst team I've seen a star drag to the playoffs. His cast was Drew Gooden and Gordan Giricek in their rookie years, 310 pound Shawn Kemp, 34 year old Darrell Armstrong, Jacque Vaughn, Andrew DecLercq, Chris Witney and Pat Garrity.

Detroit got swept by a less talented Net team, but the Nets did have finals experience, they were competitive vs the Spurs, Kidd was at his absolute peak, and they did starft out 26-9 despite finishing 49-33.

Late 90's early 2000s Trail-Blazers
Early 2000s Sacramento

Portland may have been the most loaded team of the first half of the 00's. Phil Jackson thought they underachieved despite them winning 59 games, prior to that key match up in late February vs the Lakers, both teams were 45-11, though Portland lost that game and finished just 14-12. Despite that finish, they were still a top 3 offensive team and top 5 defensive team in the regular season. And one thing that really impressed me about their defense is how well they contained stars. Shaq, KG, Malone and Kobe were all limited significantly below their normal production in the postseason when they played Portland. The '99 Blazers were already a 35-15 WCF team, and they added Pippen, Smith and Schrempf, essentially added Bonzi, and Rasheed improved a lot.

Rasheed Wallace was at his peak. That was when he was very athletic, focused on his post game and still hit mid-range jumpers rather than shooting 3s. He was also one of the most versatile defensive big men and a top 5 PF. Pippen was still a top 3 SF, still an elite perimeter defender, a very good passer and rebounder, and still a capable scorer and shooter.

Arvydas Sabonis was an inside threat, could stretch the defense with range out to the 3 point line, you could run the offense through him and he could rebound. Damon Stoudamire had been a 19-20 ppg/8-9 apg player on a bad team from '96-'98, and Steve Smith was a very good shooter and scorer. He was coming off 3 straight seasons of 19-20 ppg. He was also very efficient, and raised his game to 17 ppg on shooting percentages of 49/55/89 and 64 TS% in the playoffs. They also had Bonzi Wells as a very good bench scorer and one of the better post up guards, Detlef Schrempf on their bench coming off a 15/7/4 season, Brian Grant on the bench, who would average 15/9 the next year as a starter, and a good defensive back up PG in Greg Anthony who also hit 3s.

That meant they could literally go to anyone in their starting lineup and several players off the bench. Most of their players also had size and could post up, that made them similar to Dunleavy's '91 Lakers in that they liked to find the mismatch and post them up, and they also had good ball movement.

Here are some quotes about them.

"This probably is far more talented than any team that's been assembled in the league. As far back as I can remember, I've never been on a team, other than the Dream Team or an All-Star team, where so many players draw attention. It's pretty scary when you think of the lineups we can play with."

Adding Scottie Pippen to an already talented squad has made the Blazers the clear favorites to conquer the West.

- 10/31/99 St. Petersburg Times

As Alonzo Mourning put it Monday: ``Across the board, they're probably the most talented team in the league.''

- 11/18/99 Palm Beach Post

San Antonio Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich calls the Trail Blazers "the most talented team in the league," and Cleveland's Shawn Kemp added, "That team should be illegal.

2/18/2000 Washington Post

imo, Portland had the favorable match ups and talent advantage over LA and should've won. Sabonis could force Shaq to start out farther, forcing him to put the ball on the floor, and Pippen was assigned to Harper, who wasn't an offensive threat, so he was always there to double on the catch when Sabonis was in the game, and Sheed could also help out since he was often guarding AC Green. Kobe also often guarded PG back then, and guarded Stoudamire that series leaving Steve Smith with a very favorable match up vs Rice.

I'm glad LA won because Shaq is my favorite player, but I also kind of feel bad for Pippen, it would've been cool to see him win one without Jordan.

Portland's '00 collapse was the start of all of their problems with them becoming perhaps the biggest underachievers in the league after that. They were a bit older in '01, but expected to be one of the top contenders again, They did start off 30-11 in that incredibly tough West, but finished just 20-21.

But, the one team who may have been more loaded than the 2000 Blazers during that era was the Kings in '02 and '03.

Sacramento was an entertaining team and got a lot of hype for their entertainment similar to Phoenix in the mid 00's right away as soon as they got Jason Williams, C-Webb, Vlade and Rick Adelman. Sacramento kept adding pieces that took them from pretender to contender. They won 55 games in one of the toughest Western Conferences in '01, and the one thing making them a pretender rather than true contender to me was Williams.

'02 was the year when it seemed like everything fell into place. They traded Williams for Bibby giving them a much more dependable and efficient point guard, and ultimately, their best clutch player. Bobby Jackson and Hedo improved a ton, Webber was still in his prime and a borderline top 5 player, Vlade was still a big asset at a position without many skilled players, and Bibby was the breakout star of the '02 playoffs. The Kings didn't have even have Webber for the first 20 games, and they still started out 15-5. Peja averaged 24 ppg on 50 FG%/61 TS% in those first 20 games.

With Webber as one of the most skilled and talented big men who could score and pass with the best of them, rebound pretty well and defend decently, and Peja as one of the most dangerous shooters and efficient scorers, they had a legitimate superstar and a legitimate all-star sidekick. Bibby also proved to be the perfect fit with much of their offense running through the big men, and Bibby being very capable playing without the ball and shooting, but he had true point guard skills as well. He was a surprise 20+ ppg scorer during the playoffs.

How many teams in that era had two 20+ ppg scorers and still had 7 players averaging double figures, and they not only had a transition offense that few could match back then, but one of the best half court offenses, and they didn't have selfish players. Everyone could pass and the ball movement was excellent, it was also big that they had shooters.

Turkoglu already showed his versatility being able to handle the ball and create at his size, as well as the ability to shoot. He averaged 17/7/3 in the 10 games he started. Bobby Jackson also averaged 11 ppg in less than 22 mpg off the bench.

Unfortunately, Peja was injured in the WCSF and not 100% when he did play in the WCF, plus he missed some games. If not for that, they're probably the '02 champions, but like Portland, they also choked under pressure with missed free throws and the infamous air balls. Though their chokejob wasn't as bad.

Despite that, '03 seemed like it could also be their year. The '03 Kings won 59 games despite a lot more injuries. Bibby missed 27 games, Jackson missed 23, Webber missed 15 and Peja missed 10.

Bobby Jackson actually averaged 20/5/4 on 50% shooting in 26 games as a starter and won the 6th man of the year award. They also added another shooting/scoring threat in Jim Jackson.

They rarely had their entire team. Bibby missed the first 27 games, and Peja missed 10 games during those first 27, Bobby Jackson then was out for a 21 game stretch just 4 games after Bibby returned, and Webber then missed 9 games while Jackson was out and didn't return until 4 games after Jackson's return.

With the Kings finally healthy, they finished the season 21-5, but as luck would have it, Webber goes down 2 games into the Dallas series, and they still take an extremely talented Mavs team to 7. And had Webber stayed healthy, I believe they would've won that series, and they wouldn't have faced LA in the WCF again.

[Xiao Yao You]

Not in the finals. Karl Malone, while old and not what he was, was the Lakers glue guy. He defended well, was a great passer, and played within the team. When he went down, the Lakers had Slava Medvedenko replace him and that left them with Kobe, Shaq and a old Payton. I think there is this misconception about how stacked that team was, and people really forget Malone's impact on the team and the fact he was out in the finals.

And none of that matters if Kobe gets the ball to Shaq instead of throwing up brick after brick.