After watching the first two finals games, both of which the Spurs won without too much trouble (despite Cleveland's run at the end of game 2), I remembered what I said to my friend earlier in the day; "San Antonio is playing their last game at home tonight because they'll wrap it up in Cleveland". Then I wondered: are the Cavs the most overmatched team in NBA Finals history? You have to look back at 60 years of history and be fair to the past, but was there a team with less individual talent than Cleveland? Perhaps not (beyond LeBron and Daniel Gibson, who's left?), but there have been instances where certain teams have been overmatched in the Finals. Such as:
2002 Nets: Honestly, did anyone expect the Nets to challenge the Lakers that year? Frankly, the fact they even made the Finals was a victory in itself. When Todd McCullogh, or whatever his name was, is guarding Shaq, you lose. Period.
1999 Knicks: Yes, they did struggle in a lockout year, and yes, they had Houston and Sprewell, but without Patrick Ewing, you knew they would lose (come on: Chris Dudley on Duncan?!?!). This was undoubtfuly one of the worst finals because both teams treated scoring like a contagious disease: they didn't want it. But New York had no chance to win.
1981 Rockets: You could make a case for both Houston finalists in the 80's, but at least the '86 Rockets had the Twin Towers. The '81 version had Moses Malone... and future coach and bench warmer Rudy Tomjanovich, who barely played. And that undermanned crew (the last losing record team to reach the Finals- they were 40-42) faced a Celtic team with Larry Bird, McHale, Parish, Cedric Maxwell, Nate Archibald, etc. The fact they took Boston to six was amazing.
1971 Bullets: Here's an obscure team; they were still in Baltimore at this time. They beat Philadlephia in round one, then stunned the defending champion Knicks in seven in the Eastern finals. In the process, however, they lost Earl Monroe and Gus Johnson to injuries, not to mention Wes Unseld was hurt. Combine that with facing a young Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and the Milwaukee Bucks, it's no wonder they were swept.
1959 Lakers: Here's an even more obscure team: they were still in Minneapolis here! Led by rookie Elgin Baylor, they finished 33-39, then beat Detroit and St. Louis to reach the finals. Alas, they were swep by Boston, beginning two runs: the first of eight straight titles for Boston, and the first of eight straight finals victories over the Lakers (which ended in 1985). Baylor would never win a title.
The Cavs probably won't get swept, but a five game series is more likely. They simply don't have the talent and savvy to stop a well-oiled Spurs machine. But are they the most overmatched? I'd say yes for one reason; LeBron hasn't played like he has to. Only if LeBron can go off in Cleveland (highly unlikely) can the Cavs win a game (I say the Spurs will win this series, no matter what happens). Do you agree? Or is there a team that was even more overmatched? You decide!
I've heard a lot of people saying that this is the worst finals team ever, and the team that immediately springs to my mind is one you didn't even list. The 2001 Sixers had one of the worst supporting casts ever assembled, and it's only because Larry Brown did an amazing coaching job and AI was an absolute force of nature that they made the playoffs, much less the finals. When Dikembe Mutumbo is your second-leading scorer, you know you have problems.The Nets at least had some offensive firepower with Kidd, Jefferson, Martin, Van Horn and Kittles, and they also had a rotation of guys who they could throw out at center for the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. Check out some of the guys who played major minutes for the Sixers. Aaron Mckie, Eric Snow, Tyrone Hill, George ####, Matt Geiger, Kevin Ollie. Nobody on that team shot over 50% from the field and no one outside of AI and Mutumbo had a PER over the league average of 15. Absolutely terrible team. Not only were they bad, but they ran into a Lakers buzzsaw that is one of the greatest playoff runs ever. It's a credit to AI that they even won one game.
Last edited by xphoenix87 on June 11th at 5:03 PM.
I disagree 100 percent with xPhoenix87's comments. That Sixers team featured the league MVP (Iverson), The Defensive Player of the Year (Mutombo), and the 6th Man of the Year (McKie). Guys like Tyrone Hill, George #### and Eric Snow all were veterans. They all understood their roles. They all played defense.
Were they immensely talented? No. Were they fun to watch? No. But just because a team lacks players with one-on-one skills doesn't mean the team sucks.
The Nets were Jason Kidd (one of the best players ever) and a bunch of guys who could finish in transition and play half-court defense. That was enough.
This Cavaliers team is definitely the worst Finals team I have ever seen.
1. Who are the veterans and how much do they contribute? Donyell Marshall, Damon Jones, Zydrunas Ilgauskas have done NOTHING practically all season long. This is a very different veteran group than Tyrone Hill, George ####, Matt Geiger, etc.
2. Who can defend/score in the post? Varejao is one of the worst defenders I have ever seen. Drew Gooden tries but he can't even jump off the floor.
3. Who can run the point? Who can shoot?
When your second best player is a rookie named Daniel Gibson, you're a weak team.
Good list of teams I agree with all of them. And I would, too, put that 2001 Philly team up there as well. Philly was lucky to be the 5th best team that year with the likes of Sacramento, San Antonio and the emerging Mavericks in the West. Iverson won the MVP award because of his weak supporting cast.
But I think Cleveland has to be the worst team in Finals history, or maybe the 99 Knicks.
The_Dan: Once again, man, you say something from out of left field that makes me look at you and say, "does this guy know anything about what he claims to know about?"
"Philly was lucky to be the 5th best team that year."
Actually, Philly fell two wins shy from tying for the BEST record in the league. They won 56 games! Luck?
"Iverson won his MVP award because of his weak supporting cast."
I think it's proven that players with weak supporting casts DON'T WIN MVPs. Teams THAT WIN produce MVPs. And teams that win don't have weak supporting casts.
I'll say it again. Dikembe Mutombo, a Hall of Famer, and one of the greatest defenders in NBA history, was on that team. He anchored their defensive-minded set. He won defensive player of the year that season. And right alongside him was Theo Ratliff, who led the league in blocks that year. And next to him was Aaron McKie, who won 6th Man of the Year.
This team was STACKED defensively. It was one of the best defensive teams ever assembled. Kukoc came off the bench. MacCulloch was an incredibly underrated big man. The bench was deep.
The Lakers just had two of the greatest players to ever walk the planet, a good coach, a rotation full of quality veterans. Etc.
That shouldn't take anything away from the Sixers.
That Sixers team would have crushed this Cavs team.
Dan said: "They won 56 games against a depleted East conference. Do they win 56 in the West that year? No way."
56 wins is 56 wins. Second best record in the league and a trip to the finals. You talk about the West? The Sixers went 16-12 against Western Conference teams that season. They even swept a four-game West Coast trip that included the Lakers and Suns. They beat the Spurs. They beat the Mavs. They beat the Kings in Sacramento. They beat Portland. All of these teams won 50 games.
The Sixers beat up people that year. It wasn't just the East. They hit a short losing streak near the end of the season, but otherwise they rolled. They started off 10-0. They were 48-16 before finishing their last 16 games 8-8. Through most of the season, this team was on pace to win at least 60 games.
The Dan said: "You mentioned this "supporting cast". Other than Mutombo, you have not mentioned a very good basketball player."
See... you look at the names and think, "these guys didn't amount to All-Stars over the course of their careers, therefore they weren't good." That's ridiculous.
Theo Ratliff was an absolute beast then, finishing as the team's second leading scorer and leading the league in blocks. RATLIFF WAS AN ALL-STAR THAT YEAR. Mutombo led the league in rebounds. In the playoffs, McKie averaged 15 points, 5 rebounds, 5 assists. He played great D. He won 6th Man of the Year. Tyrone Hill put up 10 and 10 every night and played great D. Eric Snow was top 7 in assists, and played great D.
More...
Last edited by TrainOntheBall on June 12th at 9:05 AM.
Just because these aren't household names doesn't mean these weren't good players. #### was a winner. Hill and Geiger were two of the toughest guys in the league. Jumaine Jones was on this team and he could light it up. Raja Bell was on this team. Toni Kukoc.
We're talking about cream of the crop role players. Lots of them. Superstars? No. But all very solid contributing players.
You say no supporting cast, though?
This team produced 3 All-Stars that year. The league leading scorer and MVP. The 6th Man of the Year. The Defensive Player of the Year. The league leading shot blocker. The league leading rebounder. They had three guys finish in the top 15 in rebounding.
Just because Snow and Ratliff are bums today doesn't mean they were always bums. They're finished now. Back then they were in their prime and they were good players. How do you think Ratliff ended up getting $12 million a year? He was good.
The Dan said: "Did AI win his MVP because his supporting cast was not that great? Absolutely without a doubt."
Ok. You tell me the last MVP that didn't have a supporting cast.
Maybe Dirk this year? (I think Howard and Terry suck; and Stackhouse is finished).
Nash? He won because of his supporting cast.
Duncan? Shaq?
KG had Cassell, Sprewell, Szczerbiak. But I'd give you this one for the bench didn't exist and Sprewell wasn't at his best and Wally missed most of the season.
Keep going... run down the list. MVPs ALWAYS HAVE SUPPORT.
Last edited by TrainOntheBall on June 12th at 9:32 AM.
Dirk and KG are the only two guys in the history of the damn NBA to have won an MVP with a weak supporting cast. And even then, their teams had the best records in their respective seasons. But even then, I'm sure someone will argue that Terry and Howard and Stackhouse are good. Cassell is one of the best players I've ever seen and KG had him that season, so I don't know if he alone disputes the argument that KG didn't have help.
But Iverson had two other All-Stars with him on that team. A 6th Man of the Year. A Defensive Player of the Year. Right there, that's FOUR GUYS who received recognition that year for being good.
I don't want to hold your age and country against you, but that's valid given some of the short-sighted things you say. If I were 24 and you were 30, and I tried to school you on the 1990 hockey season, you'd look at me and do the same. You'd say, "I was 18 then, you were 12... and I'm from Canada, you're a New York City kid... what the heck do you know about hockey?"
And I would say, "yeah, you probably know more given you've seen more and live in a culture that embraces that sport."
No offense. No grudges. But I'll let you know when you know what you're talking about.
That 1981 team was short on talent, but the talent it did have included 3 or 4 Hall of Famers. And Moses is one of the greatest players in NBA history.
But yeah, given that they just barely made the playoffs, they'd be a good choice.
I honestly think this Cavs team is the worst team to ever reach the Finals. It's the modern NBA where any team can win on any given night.
You go down the list of this roster, and damn, it's LeBron by himself. Ilgauskas used to be good but he's been a non-factor the past two seasons. Damon Jones might be the worst player in the NBA. Donyell doesn't contribute like he used to.
I mean... at least that 81 Rockets squad had some great players (all of them except Moses past their prime). At least that Sixers team had guys who won awards.
This Cavs team has nothing. Daniel Gibson is their second best player. He could end up being great... maybe I'm overlooking that. Maybe he's better than we think. He sure is playing well.
You do realize that the Sixers traded Ratliff and Kukoc in order to get Mutumbo that year, right? The actual finals team didn't include either of those guys. Mutumbo's game had started to decline by 01. He was still a good defensive player, but hardly dominant, averaging 12 rebounds and 2.5 blocks. He won the defensive player of the year mostly on reputation that year. That's not just my opinion, I remember reading several articles that year saying the same thing. McKie was a decent player, but certainly nothing to write home about. Eric Snow, however good he may be as a defender, has always been a terrible offensive player. Everybody else on that team was on the tail end of their career. AI absolutely carried that team. Look at their playoff record. They nearly lost to a bad Pacers team in round 1, then they nearly lost to another one-man team in round 2 (the VC Raptors). In the conference finals, they barely got past a Bucks team that had some of the worst team chemistry of the past 25 years. They stole a game from the Lakers because of the long layoff and because AI went nuts, but they ended up getting mauled for the rest of the series. I loved watching that Sixers team cause they were gritty and hard-nosed, to this day I root for them to return to glory because I loved watching that playoff run so much, but they were completely overmatched in that finals.
I know Ratliff went in a deal for Mutomb- I went off course and starting arguing that the Sixers were a good team that season after someone said they were lucky to have won 56 games. LOL.
The Sixers beat the Pacers 3-1 in that series. The Raptors series, I'll give you, gave them a challenge. But was that Raptors team THAT bad? I mean it was full of veterans like Mark Jackson, Charles Oakley, Antonio Davis, Dell Curry, Corliss Williamson. These guys weren't in their prime then, but they were still playing a competitive level (Jackson averaged 9.2 assists and only 2.2 turnovers; Oakley averaged a near double-double). This was a match-up issue. The Raptors were tough and gritty (except for Carter, who by the way had his best season then) so they gave the Sixers a series.
The Bucks I'm sure we'll both agree was a good team.
I think because on paper this team wasn't impressive, people are saying they sucked.
You said "over-matched" in the Finals. A lot of teams are over-matched in the finals, that doesn't make those teams bad. Hell, the Pistons beat the Lakers 4-1. Were the Lakers over-matched?
That 2003 Nets team wins if it plays anyone but the Spurs.
Compare this Cavs team to that Sixers team. If that Sixers team was bad, what the heck do you call this Cavs team? LOL.
I am David Downs, and I'm a sports nut who loves basketball and football and am open to good discussion about any sports subject. I am a Detroit sports fan, but I not a homer. Expect frequent vents on subjects that irritate me, and also expect the utmost respect for anybody's opinion, even if they disagree with me. Because, after all, that's what these blogs are all about, aren't they?
