When Was the Last Time Each Team Was A Contender?

[wayupnorth]

Think the definition of contention here could use a little tweaking. While the Knicks may have been a 2-seed in 2013, I don't think anyone thought they had any realistic chance of winning the title.

Yeah, that's fair.  I didn't want to spend too much time figuring out strict criteria.  You could argue with some of my selections pretty easily.

The Nuggets won 57 games a few years ago.  Were they a contender?


I'm focusing less on the "chance to win a title" aspect of being a contender and more on "having a plausible chance of making the Finals" aspect of it.

So you think the 2013 Knicks had a "plausible" chance to make it to the finals?

[wayupnorth]

Whoops/

[PhoSita]

So you think the 2013 Knicks had a "plausible" chance to make it to the finals?

Yeah, if Melo went on a post-season tear, JR Smith got hot at the right times, and Tyson held down the paint.  Not a crazy thing to suggest.  The 2013 Knicks were 7th in the league in SRS.

[max215]

Maybe most people, or possibly anyone, won't agree with me on this, but I think the Wizards were in contention last year. In my opinion they would have beat Atlanta if it were not for the Wall injury. Wall would have also given Cleveland tons of fits in the Finals serving as a nightmare matchup for a beatup Kyrie. Nene and Gortat could have been serviceable to keep Mosgov and Thompson off the glass. Porter and Pierce could have at least slightly annoyed Lebron for spots with Beal able to provide some decent secondary offense.

While the Cavs have everyone mentioning their injuries last year, I feel like people completely ignore the roll the other teams injuries played in their roll to the finals. Korver and Carrol's injuries really decimated the Hawks and took away the best starting 5 in the game. Wall is right up there with Irving and was battling injuries right up through the playoffs.

Related, I am really sad Pierce left Washington. I feel like with another year of growth from Porter and Beal they would have been a lot of fun to watch this season.

Yep, I definitely saw Washington as a contender last year, more so than Atlanta IMO.

[Big333223]

Hard to think of a team that only won 46 games in a weak conference a contender, though.

This got me looking at Washington's history. They've gone 36 seasons without a 50 win team. Incredible. Meanwhile, the Spurs have won at least 50 (or the equivalent in lockout seasons) 18 straight years and 21 of the last 22 years.

[PhoSita]

Hard to think of a team that only won 46 games in a weak conference a contender, though.

This got me looking at Washington's history. They've gone 36 seasons without a 50 win team. Incredible. Meanwhile, the Spurs have won at least 50 (or the equivalent in lockout seasons) 18 straight years and 21 of the last 22 years.

What the Spurs have accomplished is completely amazing.  Utterly ridiculous that they've been so good for so long.

With LMA and Kawhi on board, they could extend that streak for at least another 4 or 5 years after Duncan and Ginobili retire.

[max215]

Hard to think of a team that only won 46 games in a weak conference a contender, though.

This got me looking at Washington's history. They've gone 36 seasons without a 50 win team. Incredible. Meanwhile, the Spurs have won at least 50 (or the equivalent in lockout seasons) 18 straight years and 21 of the last 22 years.

What the Spurs have accomplished is completely amazing.  Utterly ridiculous that they've been so good for so long.

With LMA and Kawhi on board, they could extend that streak for at least another 4 or 5 years after Duncan and Ginobili retire.

Different sport, but the Pats, Ravens, and Steelers have been almost as impressive over the last 15 years. Just saying, one thing all these organizations share: unbelievable stablitiy in the front office/coaching staff.

[Big333223]

Hard to think of a team that only won 46 games in a weak conference a contender, though.

This got me looking at Washington's history. They've gone 36 seasons without a 50 win team. Incredible. Meanwhile, the Spurs have won at least 50 (or the equivalent in lockout seasons) 18 straight years and 21 of the last 22 years.

What the Spurs have accomplished is completely amazing.  Utterly ridiculous that they've been so good for so long.

With LMA and Kawhi on board, they could extend that streak for at least another 4 or 5 years after Duncan and Ginobili retire.

Different sport, but the Pats, Ravens, and Steelers have been almost as impressive over the last 15 years. Just saying, one thing all these organizations share: unbelievable stablitiy in the front office/coaching staff.

It's funny how much team ownership makes a difference. Just think about the Celtics before Grousbeck and his crew bought the team and how fast it was after they came in that the culture turned around.

[AngryAndIrritable]

Same story for the sixers,  Nets,  and bucks?  The wolves and Kings are pretty obviously a mess.

Sixers -- Iverson was difficult to rebuild around after that 2001 team fell apart. Team had a bunch of bad contracts due to bad management (Billy King) which hurt them further. They had a pretty good team after him built around Iggy. Took a chance on Elton Brand coming off a bad injury. If Elton Brand had of gotten back to his pre-injury form, that Sixers team would've been a title contender. Did not happen though. Brand's bad contract hurt them for a few years. Took another high risk option on A.Bynum which didn't work out and opted for a full rebuild. On good path to be a title contender in the future.

So I'd say Philly was bad management early on. Then bad luck.

Now have started to right the ship.

Nets -- they were a title contender until Kenyon Martin left. Struggled to replace his interior defense. Tried to retool on the run around Vince Carter. Failed to find that next piece to put them back amongst the elite. Blew up the team. Started to rebuild. Tried to fast-track the rebuild in free agency but missed most of their targets. Got Joe Johnson. Then sold off future draft picks but choose the wrong players. Players on decline (G.Wallace, P.Pierce, K.Garnett). On a road to nowhere. Same bad management with Billy King here again.

I forget why Kenyon Martin left NJ. Contract dispute? Did they not want to give him a max contract? Or were they were worried his body would fall apart? Unsure. Can't remember the reasons. If it was health, fair enough. Proven right. If it was about money, they shot themselves in the foot and lost a title contender. Nobody pushed that 2004 title-winning Pistons team than the NJ Nets and that was with J-Kidd playing through a knee injury (micro-fracture surgery).

After that, I thought they did a so-so job for several years. Did a good job getting Vince and Krstic but a bad job putting supporting casts around their stars and failed to make a move to fix their faulty interior defense. Numerous management mistakes in recent years. Clearly bad management (Billy King). 

Bucks -- had title contender opportunity in 2001 but George Karl went nuts and screwed that whole team up. So bad management yes. Yo-yo-ed around for a few years. Had another opportunity (early stages) to build a title contender around Bogut-Skiles-Jennings but blew all their cap space on middle of the road veterans (Gooden, Maggette, Salmons). Bad mangement again. Been falling around for a few years. Finally look to be on a decent path again but it is unclear whether it is a title contender path or not yet.

Bucks GM is the same GM that screwed up in Washington for several years. Ernie Grunfeld. Had those Washington teams with all-offense no-defense. Then those Washington teams with all those knuckleheads / immature guys. Screwed up a lot in Milwaukee until recently as well. Should have been kicked out of NBA long ago. Bad GM.

Don't forget the Sixers swung for the fences when they traded for Bynum in 2012. Had Bynum given a crap and played like the all star he was in Lakerland with Philly, there's no telling how good they could have been. Bynum was the go-to-guy they desperately needed, but unfortunately had the maturity of a 12-year-old. Kinda feel bad that he burned out on the Sixers.
io


This. For every action there was surely a really dumb previously existing action from which the whole debacle ensued. The Bynum disaster was just the catalyst.

Edit: Modified for my cell browser going crazy on me

[GC003332]

Ownership is very important as well. It starts at the top with your owner. Then down to your GM. To your head coach. To your players. Four levels of an organization. All layers have to be run at a high level to put a Championship team together.

Owner is the first step.

You need someone strong, with a vision and a commitment to winning a Championship. Not all owners are committed to winning a championship. They would be happy to win one but it is not their first priority and it is not what drives them. Those owners are driven by their profit and loss sheet. They want to win enough games to make the playoffs in order to keep the fans engaged (spending money) and get extra revenue. And then there is Donald Sterling who stood out by his lonesome happy to build 20-30 win teams on basement salaries and make his money that way.

You can have different types of owners. From a hands-off type like Bill Davidson to an active and engaged type like Mark Cuban and everything in between. High quality owners generally share some traits though.

Strong owners give their GMs the responsibility & authority to make decisions. If a GM is not the primary decision maker, that is a very bad sign (Mitch Kupchack in LAL since Jerry Buss died). If an owner makes decisions above the GMs head (Jim Dolan over Donnie Walsh in NYC), that is a bad sign. A GM should be the lead decision maker. Interference of any kind with the GM's authority / freedom to make decisions is a sign a bad owner.

Strong owners are willing to take big risks. Bad owners shy away from risky strategies and settle for low risk / low return plans. Strong owners take big risks to get big returns (whether it is in free agency or trades ... financial risks ... difficult personalities).

Strong owners hold their front office accountable. That means getting rid of someone who is ineffective at their job instead of letting him stay around for years longer than he should wrecking the team (Wolves owner bad at this, Magic owner bad at this).

Strong owners are willing to pay the luxury tax for a title contender.

Strong owners create stability. They do not overreact to everything around them. They put things in place and give key personnel the time and authority to be successful in their tasks. If they are not successful, they hold them accountable.

------------------------------

It's like a company.

(1) Your owner is your CEO. It's his job to decide the long term path (vision) of an organization.
(2) Your GM is your upper management. It is their job to make medium-to-long term plans to turn that vision into a reality. How to put together the coaching and playing staff.
(3) Your coach is like lower management. They do the short term / immediate plans. They take the resources they have (the players) and try to find the most effective way to utilize those resources.
(4) Players are the front line workers. They are the ones that do the deeds.

Four layers working in synchronization. All functioning at a high level.

That is a Championship caliber organization.

----------------------------------------------------

It is not just the GM. The GM has to have the support of a strong owner and the quality of a top coach & the performance of the talent he has put together.

Four separate layers to a top class winning organization.

----------------------------------------------------

The Boston Celtics already have a proven Championship winning ownership group and front office led by Danny Ainge. Their head coach is young & very promising and hopefully will continue to develop into one of best head coaches in the league.

The infrastructure the Celtics already have in place here is amongst the best in the league.

There is usually only 3-6 teams that are Championship caliber organizations (owner, FO, coach). Boston is one of those teams. Dallas. Miami. Golden State. Probably Houston. Boston's infrastructure puts them up there with the best run teams in the league.

TP
Thanks for maintaining a high quality of posts , amongst the attention seeking garbage and petty insults that various posters attempt ,it is these type of write ups that are enjoyable to read.
Thanks

[Celtics4ever]

Knicks have not been a contender since 1972.   All those Pat Riley teams were not contender in all reality.

[MJohnnyboy]

Knicks have not been a contender since 1972.   All those Pat Riley teams were not contender in all reality.

Being a game away from a championship in 94, giving MJs Bulls in 92 and 93 all they could handle, and making it to the finals in 99 doesn't count as a contender?

If that's the case then over half the teams here haven't been a contender since 1972.

[Celtics4ever]

Being a game away from a championship in 94, giving MJs Bulls in 92 and 93 all they could handle, and making it to the finals in 99 doesn't count as a contender?

All they could handle, I do not recall it that way.  Jordan owned the Knicks a lot.   People memories are often inaccurate.

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/knicks/post/_/id/35629/jordans-10-best-vs-knicks

here is stats on the Bulls Knicks rivalry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulls%E2%80%93Knicks_rivalry

in 92 the Bulls won the final game 

Bulls won 110-81 to advance.

  When you win by 29 points is sure sounded like they could handle them.  Anti-climatic game 7 eh?

93, the bulls made history, is winning four in a row having all they can handle?   I do not think so.

However, despite being down 2–0, the Bulls came back and won the next 4 (by doing so, they became the 1st team in NBA history to overcome a 2-0 series deficit in a best-of-7 series, the 2nd team that year, and 4th overall), including a 97-94 Game 5 victory in New York. The game was notable as Knicks forward Charles Smith was stopped 4 straight times by a series of blocks and strips in the final seconds while trying to score. The Bulls won Game 6 96-88 to advance to the 1993 NBA Finals, where they beat the Suns in 6 for their first three-peat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulls%E2%80%93Knicks_rivalry

Heck, Reggie Miller kicked the Knick's rear.

They never really were close in their finals.  94' The Rockets won that series, Ojulawon dominated that final game.  99' they were swept, 4-1.  Both times pretty much pretenders.  The only reason they made the finals in 94 was because Jordan was playing baseball.   Had he stayed that would have never happened.  So 94 was a fluke.

I think NYC is totally over rated as a basketball town.   It has put forth some prospects but the Knicks more often than not have been looking on as other teams play on, or faltering when they do get to the finals.

[Csfan1984]

Maybe set some ground rules to make it less opinionated like team;
Must have won at least 55 games that year,
Made it to the conference finals,
Must have two repeated All-Star players

That would help define the contenders. Maybe we could add some more stipulations like offense and defense rating?