The decade's Top 10 Non-Championship Teams

...according to Kelly Dwyer.

1. 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers
2. 2002 Sacramento Kings
3. 2004 San Antonio Spurs
4. 2000 Portland Trailblazers
5. 2007 Dallas Mavericks
6. 2004 Los Angeles Lakers
7. 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves
8. 2005 Phoenix Suns
9. 2006 Detroit Pistons
10. 2005 Miami Heat

Pretty good list, though I'm not sure about the Cavs at once. I think they're benefitting from being the most recent team on that list, I'd probably rank the 2005 Suns and 2004 Lakers a bit higher.

No Houston Rockets? Bah!

Not this decade. If we were doing the 90s, the 1997 Rockets might be a candidate.

5. 2007 Dallas Mavericks

From a talent standpoint, I'd say the 2004 Lakers, chemistry and team orientation-wise, it's got to be the Kings.

The TWolves and the Suns should be higher. KIngs and Lakers should be 1 and 2 (interchangeable of course).

...according to Kelly Dwyer.

1. 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers
2. 2002 Sacramento Kings
3. 2004 San Antonio Spurs
4. 2000 Portland Trailblazers
5. 2007 Dallas Mavericks
6. 2004 Los Angeles Lakers
7. 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves
8. 2005 Phoenix Suns
9. 2006 Detroit Pistons
10. 2005 Miami Heat

Pretty good list, though I'm not sure about the Cavs at once. I think they're benefitting from being the most recent team on that list, I'd probably rank the 2005 Suns and 2004 Lakers a bit higher.

I think the top two are fine but, 2004 lakers, 2006 pistons should be higher. Sacramento was so good when they had chris webber and they came so close to competing for an nba title that year, i'll never forget when the kings played the lakers that year in the finals wasn't it the western conference finals? I think the team with the best chemistry is that cavalier team of 09, they had fun last season before and after games.

The Mavericks team of 2002-2003 which went to the Conference Finals was the better one imho. With Nash, Finley, Van Exel and Dirk and a Raef LaFrentz in his better days. They did not rely on Dirk so much in these days while in their 2007 Finals run Dirk really had to step up (especially against the Spurs and Suns).

What about the 2006 Mavs? They had won it all, then D-Flop came and got every single call and they managed to rig the next 4 games for Miami. Also, Kings 02 should be above Cleveland 09.

I guess I was talking about the 2006 Mavs. Kind of mixed it up with 2007.

The 2006 Mavericks are certainly a candidate. I'm guessing Dwyer went with the 2007 team based on their league leading 67-15 record that year.

It was smart giving a team only one time on the list, otherwise it would've just been a list of the Spurs, Mavericks and Kings teams this decade. I think the debate about which year for a team is more interesting than the ranking of them. The PER are the number of players with a PER in that range during the season. (During the playoffs.)

1. 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2009	66-16	65-17	112.4 (4th)	102.4 (3rd)	1 (1)	0 (0)	2 (0)	4 (4)	8.68 (1st)

The second best team of the decade, and the only team this decade with an SRS over 8 (along with 2008 Celtics, 2000 Lakers and 2007 Spurs) and no title. It failed to win the title because everyone but LeBron crapped out in the playoffs. LeBron went from the best player in the league, to the best playoff performance in history. 35.3/9.1/7.3 with 62% shooting, only 9% turnovers adding to a 37.4 PER. (He went for 32.0/11.3/7.5 against the Pistons, 33.8/8.3/6.0 against the Hawks, and 38.5/8.3/8.0 against the Magic.) He was the only one of the Cavs to play better in the playoffs than in the regular season. And only Joe Smith played anywhere near as good in the playoffs as during his regular season. The team also failed to ever figure out how to match up with Orlando. Although, ff two specific shots go the other way in the series, the Cavs win 4-2.

2. 2001 San Antonio Spurs

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2001	58-24	63-19	106.6 (6th)	98.0 (1st)	0 (2)	2 (0)	1 (0)	3 (1)	7.92 (1st)
2004	57-25	62-20	102.2 (15th)	94.1 (1st)	1 (0)	0 (2)	1 (2)	7 (2)	7.51 (1st)
2006	63-19	61-21	107.3 (10th)	99.6 (1st)	0 (1)	3 (1)	0 (1)	5 (4)	6.69 (1st)
2002	58-24	59-23	106.5 (9th)	99.7 (2nd)	1 (1)	1 (1)	0 (1)	5 (2)	6.27 (3rd)
2000	53-29	58-24	105.0 (11th)	98.6 (2nd)	2 (1)	0 (0)	0 (0)	4 (2)	5.93 (3rd)

I can see why you go with 2004, it's only the best defensive team since the 1960s Celtics. But I kinda like that 2001 team. You have Duncan and a still all-star level Robinson. Anderson, Daniels and Porter all play well off the bench. Except in the playoffs. Porter slips a little, while Daniels plays a tiny bit better, but Derek Anderson completely craps out with 38% shooting and 17.6% turnovers. Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott both also play terribly in the playoffs. Although their shooting is down, Duncan and Robinson put up good playoff numbers. Duncan gets 24.4/14.5/3.8 with two blocks and a steal per game and Robinson picks up 16.6/11.8 along with 1.3 steals and 2.4 blocks in less than 32mpg.

2004 winds up seing something similar as the team struggles to score all season long, Horry and Devin Brown get hot in the playoffs, but Bowen shoots 44% and Turkoglu shoots 43% with 15% turnovers and both play nearly 30 mpg. They only muster up 73 and 76 points in the last two games of that Lakers series. In 2006 Duncan and Ginobili dominate and Brent Barry shoots 72% in the playoffs. (Bowen chips in with 65%, Finley 61%, Nesterovic 63%.) But due to the bad playoff formatting with the three divisions, the Spurs have to face the Mavericks in the second round where they fall in an epic game seven as Dirk (37/15 on 68% shooting with zero turnovers) and Duncan (41/15/6 on 60% shooting with three blocks) have one of the great all-time superstar duels. Effectively putting the real NBA Finals in a second round matchup. (That year was the weird Bonzi Wells explosion in the first round when he averaged 23/12 on 66% shooting. Led the playoffs in rebounds per game oddly.)

3. 2003 Dallas Mavericks

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2003	60-22	62-20	110.7 (1st)	102.3 (9th)	1 (0)	1 (1)	2 (3)	3 (1)	7.91 (1st)
2007	67-15	61-21	111.3 (2nd)	103.2 (5th)	1 (0)	1 (2)	1 (1)	3 (1)	7.28 (2nd)
2006	60-22	58-24	111.8 (1st)	105.0 (11th)	1 (1)	0 (0)	3 (0)	4 (4)	5.96 (3rd)
2005	58-24	57-25	110.3 (4th)	104.1 (9th)	1 (0)	0 (1)	2 (2)	6 (4)	5.85 (3rd)

The Mavericks probably should have won the 2003 title, but luck basically taunted the team all year. They ripped off to an incredible 14-0 start, were 22-3 after 25 games and 31-5 after 36. The team was 51-16 when Michael Finley got injured and the team went 7-6 while he was out. The team went up 3-0 on the Blazers, before Maurice Cheeks realized they couldn't stop Zach Randolph, he would play 115 minutes over the next three games after playing just 53 minutes in the first three, averaging 22.7/11.3 on 67% shooting, the Blazers won all three and forced a game seven. (Van Exel would score 26 points on 78% shooting in said game seven.) They then had an epic shootout in the second round with Sacramento, including a 141-137 double overtime game. Chris Webber got injured, Adelman couldn't adjust to Dallas playing Walt Williams at center and the Mavericks won in seven. Dirk would get injured in the West Conf. Finals and miss the last three games, two of which were Maverick losses as Walt Williams failed to fill in for him. The team which had posted one of the greatest offenses in history during the regular season could only muster 78 points in their game six elimination.

The 2007 team wasn't the best team during the regular season, and although they collapsed in spectacular fashion turning their back on the system that won them 67 games out of fear, the 2003 team was probably more likely to win it all if Dirk didn't get injured.

4. 2002 Sacramento Kings

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2002	61-21	61-21	109.0 (3rd)	101.1 (6th)	0 (0)	1 (1)	3 (3)	5 (2)	7.61 (1st)
2003	59-23	59-23	105.9 (6th)	99.1 (2nd)	0 (0)	2 (4)	2 (0)	4 (4)	6.69 (2nd)
2001	55-27	57-25	105.6 (9th)	99.6 (7th)	1 (0)	0 (0)	2 (2)	3 (3)	6.07 (2nd)
2004	55-27	55-27	110.3 (2nd)	104.9 (21st)	0 (0)	1 (1)	4 (2)	3 (3)	5.41 (3rd)

Everyone knows the 2002 Kings. Pedja Stojakovic was hobbled completely throwing off his shot (49% in the playoffs after 59% regular season) while his replacement (Turkoglu) shot just 46% in the playoffs. Then of course game six, and the teams inability to hit free throws in game seven. For four years this team was one of the three best and every year something went wrong. In 2001, Webber's PER dropped from 24.7 to 14.6 in the playoffs as he shot 43%. In 2003, Webber got injured and it took an awesome performance from the rest of the team to push the series to seven. The 2004 team had the best offense in league history when Webber returned from injury and in the playoffs Pedja, Webber and Divac all shot 49% while Anthony Peeler shot 38% as the team lost nine points per 100 possessions off their regular season mark.

5. 2009 Boston Celtics

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2009	62-20	61-21	110.5 (5th)	102.3 (2nd)	0 (0)	1 (1)	4 (1)	3 (4)	7.44 (2nd)

Is it because they won a year earlier, and might have repeated if KG was healthy? Speaking of teams that we're dismissing because almost the same squad won a title...

6. 2008 Los Angeles Lakers

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2008	57-25	59-23	113.0 (3rd)	105.5 (5th)	0 (0)	2 (1)	2 (1)	4 (3)	7.34 (2nd)
2004	56-26	52-30	105.5 (6th)	101.3 (8th)	0 (1)	2 (1)	2 (0)	2 (3)	4.35 (7th)

Basically, the same squad came back the next year, was better and won a title. This team was still the second best team in 2008, Farmar and Vujacic actually shot well, Turiaf was blocking shots all over, Ariza didn't see time, even Fisher played well. The 2004 team was top heavy, it didn't have a bench, Malone and Payton both played almost 800 minutes in the playoffs while shooting 48% and 43%. Kobe shot only 51% and disappeared in the Finals. Medvedenko, Fisher, Walton, Rush all play significant playoff minutes, none shoot over 52%. It was basically Shaq, no longer the best player in the league, and a bunch of lousy shooters, half of whom don't play defense.

7. 2007 Phoenix Suns

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2007	61-21	59-23	113.9 (1st)	106.4 (13th)	0 (1)	3 (1)	1 (2)	2 (1)	7.27 (3rd)
2005	62-20	59-23	114.5 (1st)	107.1 (17th)	1 (1)	2 (1)	0 (2)	3 (1)	7.08 (2nd)
2006	54-28	55-27	111.5 (2nd)	105.8 (16th)	0 (0)	2 (2)	1 (1)	5 (2)	5.48 (4th)
2000	53-29	56-26	104.6 (16th)	107.1 (3rd)	0 (0)	0 (0)	5 (2)	3 (4)	5.24 (4th)
2008	55-27	54-28	113.3 (2nd)	108.1 (16th)	1 (0)	2 (0)	0 (3)	3 (2)	5.14 (6th)

Another instance where I don't know why you'd pick one team when there's another one you can take. The 2007 team is deeper and better, doesn't have Barbosa shooting 41% in the playoffs, and probably has a better excuse for why they didn't win. Losing Joe Johnson for a few games probably wasn't worse than Amare for one because Jim Jackson shot better, had the same turnover rate and was just as good defensively. On the other hand, losing a guy who's averaging 25/12 on 59% shooting with just 8% turnovers in the middle of a playoff series for a game you nearly won without him. Suns fans will always say, if we have Amare in game five, we're probably going back home up 3-2. In either case, the Suns peaked when there was a much better team in the Spurs waiting for them.

I like the 1999-2000 team because it's completely the opposite way to build. The 2005/07 teams have three players 20+ PER and three players at less than 20. The 1999-2000 team has zero 20+ PER players but five in the 17-20 range and still three more in the 13-17 range. It's also the polar opposite of the rest of the teams, with a below average offense, and high level defense. (The next season, Scott Skiles in his first full season as coach would take them to 1st in defense.)

8. 2008 Utah Jazz

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2008	54-28	59-23	113.8 (1st)	106.5 (12th)	0 (0)	2 (1)	2 (1)	5 (3)	6.87 (3rd)
2001	53-29	55-27	107.6 (3rd)	102.4 (12th)	1 (0)	2 (2)	0 (0)	3 (3)	5.00 (3rd)
2000	55-27	54-28	107.3 (4th)	102.3 (11th)	1 (1)	1 (0)	0 (1)	4 (3)	4.52 (5th)

See how good this team can be when Boozer's actually healthy? I like how similar they are to the Suns from the year prior. Not just same finishes but practically the same numbers for offense and defense. Nobody in that 25+ superstar PER range, but all-star caliber guys and a couple of near, with a good amount of depth. Also with two superior teams over them and running into one of them in the second round. Boozer vanished in the playoffs, shooting only 46%. Was particularly bad against the Lakers having only one game with a FG% above 43%, shooting below 40% in four of them and having seven turnovers in the other game. Did go for 27/20 is his one good game though.

9. 2008 Detroit Pistons

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2008	59-23	62-20	111.4 (6th)	102.9 (4th)	0 (0)	1 (2)	4 (0)	4 (5)	6.67 (4th)
2006	64-18	60-22	110.8 (4th)	103.1 (5th)	0 (0)	1 (0)	3 (3)	3 (3)	6.23 (2nd)

The 2006 team wins more regular season games, but the 2008 team is better and deeper. The 2006 team basically only plays six and a half players. They couldn't compete with the Heat in the Conf. Finals with Rip and Rasheed's poor shooting, and the Hunter/Delk platoon shooting 46%, especially since Billups slipped quite a bit from his incredible regular season. Sheed killed them in the 2008 conference finals, and Stuckey was a poor replacement for Billups and his couple good games resulted in him playing too many minutes.

10. 2009 Orlando Magic

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2009	59-23	59-23	109.2 (11th)	101.9 (1st)	1 (1)	1 (0)	2 (1)	2 (3)	6.49 (4th)

Here's some others to consider:
Portland Trail Blazers

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2000	59-23	59-23	107.9 (3rd)	100.8 (5th)	0 (0)	1 (0)	3 (4)	6 (2)	6.37 (2nd)
2009	54-28	56-26	113.9 (1st)	107.8 (13th)	0 (1)	1 (0)	2 (1)	5 (2)	5.00 (5th)

Minnesota Timberwolves

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2004	58-24	57-25	105.9 (5th)	99.7 (6th)	1 (1)	1 (1)	0 (1)	4 (2)	5.86 (2nd)

Miami Heat

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2005	59-23	59-23	110.2 (5th)	103.1 (6th)	1 (0)	1 (1)	0 (2)	4 (2)	5.76 (4th)

New Orleans Hornets

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2008	56-26	56-26	111.5 (5th)	105.7 (7th)	1 (1)	1 (1)	1 (0)	2 (4)	5.46 (5th)

Houston Rockets

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2007	52-30	55-27	106.0 (15th)	100.7 (3rd)	1 (0)	1 (2)	0 (0)	5 (1)	5.04 (4th)
2008	55-27	55-27	106.8 (17th)	101.6 (2nd)	0 (0)	2 (2)	1 (2)	6 (1)	4.84 (8th)

Indiana Pacers

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2004	61-21	58-24	103.8 (9th)	97.2 (3rd)	0 (0)	1 (0)	1 (2)	5 (6)	4.93 (5th)
2000	56-26	54-28	108.5 (1st)	103.6 (13th)	0 (0)	0 (1)	7 (4)	1 (2)	4.16 (6th)

New Jersey Nets

Yr.	W-L	Pythag	Off	Def	25+ PER	20-24 PER	17-20 PER	13-17 PER	SRS
2002	52-30	53-29	104.0 (17th)	99.5 (1st)	0 (0)	0 (1)	2 (0)	6 (5)	3.67 (5th)
2003	49-33	56-26	103.8 (18th)	98.1 (1st)	0 (0)	1 (0)	3 (2)	1 (4)	4.42 (4th)

Last edited by benji on Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think the 05 heat and the pistons, should be above the lakers, all the lakers had that i remember were bryant and oneal. And i think kobe is better now than he was then. Maybe in a way the kings should be above the cavs because chris webber at the time is better than zydrunas ilgauskas is now in my opinion, but i think because of team chemistry, coach of the year the mvp for cleveland, makes the 09 cavs better than the kings of that year. The only star i remember the kings having is webber, i don't know who elese they had.

all the teams there were really spot-on, those were some really great teams

Hell yea, Benji actually agrees on the 2002-2003 Mavs.

yes indeed. a team like that should not be ignored on a list like this

I must admit the 2008 Lakers and 2009 Celtics didn't come immediately to mind owing to the fact that they're the last two champions, though if we use that reasoning the 2004 Spurs shouldn't be on the list either being the defending champions at the time.

Excluding teams that can boast a championship squad at some point during the decade and taking a glance at Ben's research, I'd probably go with the 2009 Cavaliers, 2002 Kings, 2007 Suns, 2003 Mavericks, 2004 Timberwolves, 2004 Pacers, 2000 Blazers, 2009 Magic, 2008 Hornets and 2006 Mavericks in some order.

this is a good list. i think the 04 lakers should be higher than the 07 mavs.

Kings '02 the first for me.

Kings '02 the first for me.

me too... i'm a sacramento fan before hehe....

That 03 Mavs team was tragic. They fought through so much: they got past that Finley injury, nearly imploded against the Blazers in blowing a 3-0 lead and then falling behind in Game 7 at the AAC, squeezed out an incredible Game 3 OT victory against the Kings after losing homecourt advantage in Game 1 AND giving up what could've been a dagger by Bibby with a minute left, watched Dirk get hurt with the series in the balance at 1-1, then produced a comeback from 19 down in Game 5 in San Antonio, only to give up a 22-0 run in getting eliminated at home in Game 6. Only time I've ever cried after an NBA game, usually I rage and break stuff if the Mavs lose.

I think the 07 Mavs were probably third-best out of all the Mavs teams in the Dirk era who haven't won championships.