1. NBA Finals teams from 1960-present will be the only ones that can qualify for this list. The NBA prior to the 1960s was at an especially primitive stage and is not at all comparable to subsequent eras of the NBA. For example, every 1957 West team had a losing record, and the Celtics defeated a team with a losing record in the NBA Finals to win each of their first two championships. The absence of the shot-clock prior to the 1954/55 season makes it even less possible to compare the pre-1960s NBA to subsequent eras.
2. The level of competition that each of these teams faced will not affect their rank as the worst supporting casts on NBA Finals teams. Whether a player leads his supporting cast against four elite teams or four poor teams, the supporting cast's quality does not change. Of course, weaker competition does make it much easier to lead a poor supporting cast further in the playoffs, which will be a common theme on this Top 10 list.
If we were to rank the individual performance of each player that led mediocre supporting casts to the NBA Finals, only then would competition play a factor in the ranking. I may still glance over the quality of some of these teams' competition to further put these NBA Finals runs in perspective, but this will only serve a descriptive purpose, not as a factor in ranking the least bad to worst supporting casts.
Now, let us take a look at the 10 worst supporting casts to make the NBA Finals.
10. 2001 Sixers
Playoff Statistics
33-5-6 on 39% FG - 77% FT - Allen Iverson
15-5-5 on 42% FG - 79% FT - Aaron McKie
14-14-1 on 49% FG - 78% FT - Dikembe Mutombo
9-4-5 on 41% FG - 73% FT - Eric Snow
7-7-0 on 41% FG - 68% FT - Tyrone Hill
33-5-6 on 39% FG - 77% FT - Allen Iverson
15-5-5 on 42% FG - 79% FT - Aaron McKie
14-14-1 on 49% FG - 78% FT - Dikembe Mutombo
9-4-5 on 41% FG - 73% FT - Eric Snow
7-7-0 on 41% FG - 68% FT - Tyrone Hill
Competition
41-41 Pacers (Won 3-1)
47-35 Raptors (Won 4-3)
52-30 Bucks (Won 4-3)
56-26 Lakers (Lost 4-1)
Allen Iverson carried the largest offensive load of any team to reach the NBA Finals in the shot-clock era. Excluding Iverson, the 2001 Sixers averaged 60.3 PPG in the 22 Playoff games that Iverson played. No other team to reach the NBA Finals has had less PPG outside of their leading scorer.
Iverson did not play in Game 3 against the Bucks in the ECF, so this is not included when calculating the 2001 Sixers' Team PPG - Leading Scorer PPG. The Sixers lost to the Bucks without Iverson as one might expect, emphasizing their dependence on him regardless of his poor shooting percentage. Even with Iverson's notorious inefficiency, the Sixers were much better off when Iverson took more shots rather than less in the Playoffs.
Prior to facing the then-undefeated Lakers in the Finals, the Sixers in the Playoffs were
41-41 Pacers (Won 3-1)
47-35 Raptors (Won 4-3)
52-30 Bucks (Won 4-3)
56-26 Lakers (Lost 4-1)
Allen Iverson carried the largest offensive load of any team to reach the NBA Finals in the shot-clock era. Excluding Iverson, the 2001 Sixers averaged 60.3 PPG in the 22 Playoff games that Iverson played. No other team to reach the NBA Finals has had less PPG outside of their leading scorer.
Iverson did not play in Game 3 against the Bucks in the ECF, so this is not included when calculating the 2001 Sixers' Team PPG - Leading Scorer PPG. The Sixers lost to the Bucks without Iverson as one might expect, emphasizing their dependence on him regardless of his poor shooting percentage. Even with Iverson's notorious inefficiency, the Sixers were much better off when Iverson took more shots rather than less in the Playoffs.
Prior to facing the then-undefeated Lakers in the Finals, the Sixers in the Playoffs were
- 7-2 when Iverson took 30+ shots
- 4-5 when Iverson took less than 30 shots
- 4-5 when Iverson took less than 30 shots
In the 2001 Finals
- Iverson took 41 shots in the lone game that the Sixers won
- The Sixers went 0-4 in the final 4 games when he took 29 to 32 shots.
Some may have expected the 2001 Sixers to rank much higher amongst the worst NBA Finals supporting casts of all-time, but there are two main reasons that the 2001 Sixers are not as bad of a supporting cast as some think.
Although the Sixers were a poor offensive team outside of Iverson, they did have a top 5 defense that helped offset their offensive struggles. Dikembe Mutombo was the 2001 DPOY and rebounding champion, and his rim protection was a key factor in the Sixers' success.
Another major reason for the 2001 Sixers' success was Hall of Fame coach Larry Brown. Usually, the best coaches in history have benefited from coaching some of the best individual players of all-time. For this reason, coaching may not be as big of a factor in a team's success relative to the individual players. With Larry Brown, however, that is not the case.
Larry Brown is the only coach to win both an NCAA and NBA Title and coached a record 8 different NBA franchises to the Playoffs, as well as 2 ABA franchises. Brown did this in spite of the fact that all but one team (Pistons) that he coached was 0.500 or worse the year prior to his arrival. The only franchise that failed to make the Playoffs under Larry Brown were the Knicks, with whom Brown only spent one season in 2005/06.
Larry Brown's major role in the Sixers' success is evident in the fact that Allen Iverson never won a playoff series without having Brown as his coach. Iverson's Sixers also missed the playoffs in 3 of the 4 years after Brown's departure, further emphasizing the huge impact of his coaching.
9. 2000 Pacers
Playoff Statistics
24-2-3 on 45% FG - 94% FT - Reggie Miller
21-4-3 on 44% FG - 81% FT - Jalen Rose
11-4-1 on 50% FG - 88% FT - Rik Smits
8-11-1 on 52% FG - 54% FT - Dale Davis
8-4-8 on 39% FG - 90% FT - Mark Jackson
24-2-3 on 45% FG - 94% FT - Reggie Miller
21-4-3 on 44% FG - 81% FT - Jalen Rose
11-4-1 on 50% FG - 88% FT - Rik Smits
8-11-1 on 52% FG - 54% FT - Dale Davis
8-4-8 on 39% FG - 90% FT - Mark Jackson
Competition
42-40 Bucks (Won 3-2)
49-33 Sixers (Won 4-2)
50-32 Knicks (Won 4-2)
67-15 Lakers (Lost 4-2)
The 2000 Pacers are often cited as one of the worst teams to make the NBA Finals, as is usually the case with each of the 1999-2003 Eastern Conference Champions. However, the degree to which Reggie Miller carried his team is still often overlooked. Outside of Miller and Jalen Rose, the Pacers offered little offensive support and were no longer the elite defensive team that they were in the mid-to-late 1990s.
Still, with Jalen Rose putting up 21-4-3 on good efficiency of 44/43/81 for the Playoffs, one may question whether or not Miller actually had to carry much of a load on the 2000 Pacers, even with the lack of offensive depth outside of their two best players. After all, the 2000 Pacers are the only team on this list to have two 20+ PPG Playoff scorers.
If one takes a look at Games 4 and 5 of the 2000 Pacers' ECSF series with the Sixers, it will be very clear why Jalen Rose's numbers alone aren't enough to claim that Miller had a good supporting cast around him. Reggie Miller was ejected in Game 4 and suspended for Game 5 against the Sixers. The Pacers had already built a 3-0 lead with Miller playing full minutes in each of the first 3 games, so it was unlikely that this would have much of an impact on the series.
Instead, the Sixers won both Games 4 and 5 in Miller's absence and forced a Game 6 after trailing 3-0, even blowing Indiana out by 21 points in Game 5. Upon Miller's return, the Pacers easily won Game 6 in a 16-point blowout to advance to the ECF. The Pacers were 4-0 against the Sixers when Miller played a full game (8-0 including the 1999 ECSF from the previous year), but 0-2 without him.
The Pacers' offensive suffered mightily in Miller's absence. In Miller's 4 full games, Indiana averaged 103.5 PPG compared to 88.0 PPG in Games 4 and 5. Surprisingly, the Pacers even did a much better job on defense in Miller's 4 full games (91.8 PPG allowed) compared to Games 4 and 5 (99.5 PPG allowed). Jalen Rose especially struggled in Miller's absence, putting up a poor 15-6-4 on 27% FG in those 2 games compared to a great 26-5-3 on 51% in the 4 full games that Reggie played.
Even if Reggie wasn't directly assisting or setting up Rose or the other Pacers' points, it is clear that his presence greatly contributed to the other Pacers' offensive success. Perhaps the defensive attention he drew on and off the ball opened up more opportunities for the other Pacers. Whatever the reason was, the Pacers' poor performance in Miller's absence is more than enough for us to see that they were one of the top 10 least impressive supporting casts to reach the NBA Finals.
The 2000 Pacers are often cited as one of the worst teams to make the NBA Finals, as is usually the case with each of the 1999-2003 Eastern Conference Champions. However, the degree to which Reggie Miller carried his team is still often overlooked. Outside of Miller and Jalen Rose, the Pacers offered little offensive support and were no longer the elite defensive team that they were in the mid-to-late 1990s.
Still, with Jalen Rose putting up 21-4-3 on good efficiency of 44/43/81 for the Playoffs, one may question whether or not Miller actually had to carry much of a load on the 2000 Pacers, even with the lack of offensive depth outside of their two best players. After all, the 2000 Pacers are the only team on this list to have two 20+ PPG Playoff scorers.
If one takes a look at Games 4 and 5 of the 2000 Pacers' ECSF series with the Sixers, it will be very clear why Jalen Rose's numbers alone aren't enough to claim that Miller had a good supporting cast around him. Reggie Miller was ejected in Game 4 and suspended for Game 5 against the Sixers. The Pacers had already built a 3-0 lead with Miller playing full minutes in each of the first 3 games, so it was unlikely that this would have much of an impact on the series.
Instead, the Sixers won both Games 4 and 5 in Miller's absence and forced a Game 6 after trailing 3-0, even blowing Indiana out by 21 points in Game 5. Upon Miller's return, the Pacers easily won Game 6 in a 16-point blowout to advance to the ECF. The Pacers were 4-0 against the Sixers when Miller played a full game (8-0 including the 1999 ECSF from the previous year), but 0-2 without him.
The Pacers' offensive suffered mightily in Miller's absence. In Miller's 4 full games, Indiana averaged 103.5 PPG compared to 88.0 PPG in Games 4 and 5. Surprisingly, the Pacers even did a much better job on defense in Miller's 4 full games (91.8 PPG allowed) compared to Games 4 and 5 (99.5 PPG allowed). Jalen Rose especially struggled in Miller's absence, putting up a poor 15-6-4 on 27% FG in those 2 games compared to a great 26-5-3 on 51% in the 4 full games that Reggie played.
Even if Reggie wasn't directly assisting or setting up Rose or the other Pacers' points, it is clear that his presence greatly contributed to the other Pacers' offensive success. Perhaps the defensive attention he drew on and off the ball opened up more opportunities for the other Pacers. Whatever the reason was, the Pacers' poor performance in Miller's absence is more than enough for us to see that they were one of the top 10 least impressive supporting casts to reach the NBA Finals.
8. 2007 Cavaliers
Playoff Statistics
25-8-8 on 42% FG - 76% FT - LeBron James
13-10-1 on 49% FG - 84% FT - Zydrunas Ilgauskas
11-8-1 on 49% FG - 77% FT - Drew Gooden
11-4-2 on 35% FG - 75% FT - Larry Hughes
6-6-1 on 51% FG - 56% FT - Anderson Varejao
Competition
41-41 Wizards (Won 4-0)
41-41 Nets (Won 4-2)
53-29 Pistons (Won 4-2)
58-24 Spurs (Lost 4-0)
The 2007 East was one of the weakest conferences in the history of the 4-round format, so a mediocre team had to make the NBA Finals by default. After the departure of 4x DPOY Ben Wallace, the 2007 Pistons tied for the 3rd-worst record for a 1-seed in the 4-round format at 53-29 along with the 2017 Celtics. The Cavaliers had the easiest road to the Finals since the 1987 Lakers, being the only team since then to beat two 0.500 or worse teams to reach the NBA Finals.
Nevertheless, the supporting cast outside of LeBron James was very mediocre offensively, with all of his teammates averaging under 13 PPG for the playoffs. Game 5 of the 2007 ECF against the Pistons is when LeBron completely put the Cavaliers on his back, scoring 29 of the last 30 points along with the game-winner to take a 3-2 lead and swing the series in Cleveland's favor. LeBron would struggle shooting-wise (27% FG) in Game 6 but his 14 rebounds and 8 assists along with Daniel Gibson's 31-6-2 on 78% were enough to clinch Cleveland's first NBA Finals appearance.
Most LeBron fans would think that the 2007 Cavaliers supporting cast should be ranked within the top 5 worst NBA Finals supporting casts, but while they were poor offensively they were good enough defensively to keep them from being ranked any lower. The 2007 Finals is a good example of this. While LeBron struggled to guard Tony Parker, the Cavaliers front court held Tim Duncan under 45% FG for the Finals. Of Duncan's 6 NBA Finals appearances, the 2005 Finals against Larry Brown's Pistons is the only one in which he shot a lower FG% at 41.9%. Duncan had 23-11-3 on 54% through 3 rounds compared to 18-12-4 on under 45% in the Finals.
In fact, the 2007 Cavaliers allowed the least PPG of any team in the Playoffs, the only team on this list to do so, in large part due to the rebounding and defense of their frontcourt. In spite of LeBron performing so poorly in the 2007 Finals, being the only player to simultaneously shoot under 40% FG (35.6%) along with averaging 5+ turnovers (5.8 TOpg) in a Finals series, the 4 games were only decided by an average margin of 6 PPG. The Cavaliers defense held the Spurs to 85 or less in 3 of 4 games, a major factor in keeping the games close in spite of LeBron's poor 2-way play along with their containment of Tim Duncan.
6 and 7. 2002 and 2003 Nets
Playoff Statistics (2002)
20-8-9 on 42% FG - 81% FT - Jason Kidd
17-6-3 on 42% FG - 69% FT - Kenyon Martin
13-7-2 on 40% FG - 71% FT - Keith Van Horn
12-3-2 on 44% FG - 78% FT - Kerry Kittles
9-3-1 on 49% FG - 83% FT - Lucious Harris
The 2007 East was one of the weakest conferences in the history of the 4-round format, so a mediocre team had to make the NBA Finals by default. After the departure of 4x DPOY Ben Wallace, the 2007 Pistons tied for the 3rd-worst record for a 1-seed in the 4-round format at 53-29 along with the 2017 Celtics. The Cavaliers had the easiest road to the Finals since the 1987 Lakers, being the only team since then to beat two 0.500 or worse teams to reach the NBA Finals.
Nevertheless, the supporting cast outside of LeBron James was very mediocre offensively, with all of his teammates averaging under 13 PPG for the playoffs. Game 5 of the 2007 ECF against the Pistons is when LeBron completely put the Cavaliers on his back, scoring 29 of the last 30 points along with the game-winner to take a 3-2 lead and swing the series in Cleveland's favor. LeBron would struggle shooting-wise (27% FG) in Game 6 but his 14 rebounds and 8 assists along with Daniel Gibson's 31-6-2 on 78% were enough to clinch Cleveland's first NBA Finals appearance.
Most LeBron fans would think that the 2007 Cavaliers supporting cast should be ranked within the top 5 worst NBA Finals supporting casts, but while they were poor offensively they were good enough defensively to keep them from being ranked any lower. The 2007 Finals is a good example of this. While LeBron struggled to guard Tony Parker, the Cavaliers front court held Tim Duncan under 45% FG for the Finals. Of Duncan's 6 NBA Finals appearances, the 2005 Finals against Larry Brown's Pistons is the only one in which he shot a lower FG% at 41.9%. Duncan had 23-11-3 on 54% through 3 rounds compared to 18-12-4 on under 45% in the Finals.
In fact, the 2007 Cavaliers allowed the least PPG of any team in the Playoffs, the only team on this list to do so, in large part due to the rebounding and defense of their frontcourt. In spite of LeBron performing so poorly in the 2007 Finals, being the only player to simultaneously shoot under 40% FG (35.6%) along with averaging 5+ turnovers (5.8 TOpg) in a Finals series, the 4 games were only decided by an average margin of 6 PPG. The Cavaliers defense held the Spurs to 85 or less in 3 of 4 games, a major factor in keeping the games close in spite of LeBron's poor 2-way play along with their containment of Tim Duncan.
6 and 7. 2002 and 2003 Nets
Playoff Statistics (2002)
20-8-9 on 42% FG - 81% FT - Jason Kidd
17-6-3 on 42% FG - 69% FT - Kenyon Martin
13-7-2 on 40% FG - 71% FT - Keith Van Horn
12-3-2 on 44% FG - 78% FT - Kerry Kittles
9-3-1 on 49% FG - 83% FT - Lucious Harris
Playoff Statistics (2003)
20-8-8 on 40% FG - 83% FT - Jason Kidd
19-9-3 on 45% FG - 69% FT - Kenyon Martin
14-6-2 on 48% FG - 72% FT - Richard Jefferson
11-4-2 on 40% FG - 76% FT - Kerry Kittles
8-3-2 on 39% FG - 78% FT - Lucious Harris
20-8-8 on 40% FG - 83% FT - Jason Kidd
19-9-3 on 45% FG - 69% FT - Kenyon Martin
14-6-2 on 48% FG - 72% FT - Richard Jefferson
11-4-2 on 40% FG - 76% FT - Kerry Kittles
8-3-2 on 39% FG - 78% FT - Lucious Harris
Competition (2002)
42-40 Pacers (Won 3-2)
44-38 Hornets (Won 4-1)
49-33 Celtics (Won 4-2)
58-24 Lakers (Lost 4-0)
Competition (2003)
42-40 Bucks (Won 4-2)
44-38 Celtics (Won 4-0)
50-32 Pistons (Won 4-0)
60-22 Spurs (Lost 4-2)
The 2002 and 2003 Nets benefited from playing in the two weakest Conferences in the 4-round format, with the 1-seed having 52 and 50 wins in 2002 and 2003, respectively. These are the two worst records for any 1-seed in the 4-round format. Nevertheless, the fact that the 2001 Nets were 26-56 prior to Kidd's arrival despite playing in a weak East further emphasizes how poor of a team the Nets were outside of Jason Kidd.
Looking at Kenyon Martin's numbers in the 2002 and 2003 Playoffs and Richard Jefferson's in 2003, one may wonder why Kidd's Nets are ranked among the worst NBA Finals supporting casts. They may not have put up great numbers, but they still look somewhat decent on the box score. The truth is that Kidd's teammates only put up decent numbers because of his own playmaking. Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson never averaged 13 PPG or 10 PPG in a Playoff series without playing next to Jason Kidd, yet both have multiple 20+ PPG playoff series when playing with Kidd.
Defensively, the Nets were also dependent on Jason Kidd. The 2001 Nets were a bottom 10 defense prior to Kidd's arrival, yet had the best DRTG in 2002 and 2003 along with a top 5 and top 2 defense in PPG allowed. Jason Kidd even led the 2002 Nets in rebounding for the Playoffs, the only PG to do so on an NBA Finals team other than Magic Johnson in 1982 and 1983. Because of the Nets' complete dependence on Kidd to set up their offense as well as anchor their defense, they deserve to be ranked as one of the worst supporting casts for NBA Finals teams.
The 2002 and 2003 Nets benefited from playing in the two weakest Conferences in the 4-round format, with the 1-seed having 52 and 50 wins in 2002 and 2003, respectively. These are the two worst records for any 1-seed in the 4-round format. Nevertheless, the fact that the 2001 Nets were 26-56 prior to Kidd's arrival despite playing in a weak East further emphasizes how poor of a team the Nets were outside of Jason Kidd.
Looking at Kenyon Martin's numbers in the 2002 and 2003 Playoffs and Richard Jefferson's in 2003, one may wonder why Kidd's Nets are ranked among the worst NBA Finals supporting casts. They may not have put up great numbers, but they still look somewhat decent on the box score. The truth is that Kidd's teammates only put up decent numbers because of his own playmaking. Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson never averaged 13 PPG or 10 PPG in a Playoff series without playing next to Jason Kidd, yet both have multiple 20+ PPG playoff series when playing with Kidd.
Defensively, the Nets were also dependent on Jason Kidd. The 2001 Nets were a bottom 10 defense prior to Kidd's arrival, yet had the best DRTG in 2002 and 2003 along with a top 5 and top 2 defense in PPG allowed. Jason Kidd even led the 2002 Nets in rebounding for the Playoffs, the only PG to do so on an NBA Finals team other than Magic Johnson in 1982 and 1983. Because of the Nets' complete dependence on Kidd to set up their offense as well as anchor their defense, they deserve to be ranked as one of the worst supporting casts for NBA Finals teams.
5. 2003 Spurs
Playoff Statistics
25-15-5 on 53% FG - 68% FT - Tim Duncan
15-3-4 on 40% FG - 71% FT - Tony Parker
13-4-3 on 41% FG - 80% FT - Stephen Jackson
9-4-3 on 39% FG - 76% FT - Manu Ginobili
8-7-1 on 54% FG - 67% FT - David Robinson
25-15-5 on 53% FG - 68% FT - Tim Duncan
15-3-4 on 40% FG - 71% FT - Tony Parker
13-4-3 on 41% FG - 80% FT - Stephen Jackson
9-4-3 on 39% FG - 76% FT - Manu Ginobili
8-7-1 on 54% FG - 67% FT - David Robinson
Competition
44-38 Suns (Won 4-2)
50-32 Lakers (Won 4-2)
60-22 Mavericks (Won 4-2)
49-33 Nets (Won 4-2)
Similar to the 1997 Bulls, one may question how the 2003 Spurs had a mediocre supporting cast with the likes of Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and David Robinson on the team. Once again, it's important to avoid basing the bulk of our assessment on name value alone.
To start off, the Spurs are 1-4 in the Playoffs when Duncan did not play. The 2000 Spurs missed Duncan due to injury in the 1st Round and the 2002 Spurs missed Duncan for Game 4 of the 1st Round due to his father's funeral. In spite of the Spurs having home-court advantage in both series and facing two injured teams (Suns without Kidd, Sonics without Rashard Lewis) the Spurs still only obtained a 0.200 Playoff record in his absence.
With regards to 2003 in particular, Tony Parker was only in his 2nd season and put up a mediocre 15-3-4 on 40% for the Playoffs. Manu Ginobili was a rookie who also put up unimpressive stats of 9-4-3 on 39% FG. David Robinson was playing the last games of his career at age 37 with the production of a role player a 8-7-1 on 54%. Robinson and Bowen provided good defensive help, but Duncan was clearly the best defender on the team and the only productive offensive player.
Duncan's defensive dominance was on full display in the 2003 Finals, averaging a Finals record 5.3 BPG along with 17 RPG, the highest in a Finals series since Moses Malone's 18 RPG in 1983. Duncan also completely shut down Kenyon Martin in the Finals.
Kenyon Martin 2003 Rounds 1-3
20.7 PPG - 9.1 RPG - 3.1 APG on 50% FG and 2.6 TOpg
Kenyon Martin 2003 Finals vs Duncan
14.7 PPG - 10.0 RPG - 2.2 APG on 34% FG and 3.7 TOpg
Duncan even had to lead the Spurs in assists for the Playoffs in addition to his expected role as the top scorer, rebounder, and shot-blocker. This makes Duncan the only PF to lead a Finals/Title team in 4/5 categories.
Some may feel that Jason Kidd's Nets still had a lesser supporting cast, but I believe the 2003 Finals proved the opposite. Duncan had a far better individual performance than Kidd in the 2003 Finals, putting up 24-17-5-1-5 on 50% to Kidd's 20-6-8-1-0 on 36%. As mentioned before, Duncan's 5.3 BPG is a Finals record, and his 17.0 RPG is the highest since Moses Malone's 18 RPG in the 1983 Finals. Duncan was by far the best defender in the series, evidenced by his complete shutdown of Kenyon Martin, as well as the best offensive player by a clear margin.
Similar to the 1997 Bulls, one may question how the 2003 Spurs had a mediocre supporting cast with the likes of Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and David Robinson on the team. Once again, it's important to avoid basing the bulk of our assessment on name value alone.
To start off, the Spurs are 1-4 in the Playoffs when Duncan did not play. The 2000 Spurs missed Duncan due to injury in the 1st Round and the 2002 Spurs missed Duncan for Game 4 of the 1st Round due to his father's funeral. In spite of the Spurs having home-court advantage in both series and facing two injured teams (Suns without Kidd, Sonics without Rashard Lewis) the Spurs still only obtained a 0.200 Playoff record in his absence.
With regards to 2003 in particular, Tony Parker was only in his 2nd season and put up a mediocre 15-3-4 on 40% for the Playoffs. Manu Ginobili was a rookie who also put up unimpressive stats of 9-4-3 on 39% FG. David Robinson was playing the last games of his career at age 37 with the production of a role player a 8-7-1 on 54%. Robinson and Bowen provided good defensive help, but Duncan was clearly the best defender on the team and the only productive offensive player.
Duncan's defensive dominance was on full display in the 2003 Finals, averaging a Finals record 5.3 BPG along with 17 RPG, the highest in a Finals series since Moses Malone's 18 RPG in 1983. Duncan also completely shut down Kenyon Martin in the Finals.
Kenyon Martin 2003 Rounds 1-3
20.7 PPG - 9.1 RPG - 3.1 APG on 50% FG and 2.6 TOpg
Kenyon Martin 2003 Finals vs Duncan
14.7 PPG - 10.0 RPG - 2.2 APG on 34% FG and 3.7 TOpg
Duncan even had to lead the Spurs in assists for the Playoffs in addition to his expected role as the top scorer, rebounder, and shot-blocker. This makes Duncan the only PF to lead a Finals/Title team in 4/5 categories.
Some may feel that Jason Kidd's Nets still had a lesser supporting cast, but I believe the 2003 Finals proved the opposite. Duncan had a far better individual performance than Kidd in the 2003 Finals, putting up 24-17-5-1-5 on 50% to Kidd's 20-6-8-1-0 on 36%. As mentioned before, Duncan's 5.3 BPG is a Finals record, and his 17.0 RPG is the highest since Moses Malone's 18 RPG in the 1983 Finals. Duncan was by far the best defender in the series, evidenced by his complete shutdown of Kenyon Martin, as well as the best offensive player by a clear margin.
In spite of Duncan greatly outperforming Kidd in nearly every aspect outside of passing, the Nets still took the Spurs to 6 games with a 6.8 PPG average margin of victory. In Game 6, it took a near-quadruple double from Duncan along with an incredible 4th quarter performance to prevent a Game 7. The Spurs were down 10 with 10:30 left in the 4th quarter, from which point on Duncan scored/assisted on 11 points to go with 6 rebounds and 3 blocks in the 4th quarter alone.
Due to the competitive nature of the 2003 Finals in spite of Duncan's vastly superior individual play compared to Kidd, I believe the 2003 Spurs had a lesser supporting cast than Kidd's 2002 or 2003 Nets. This is not to diminish the heavy load that Kidd did carry on the Nets, it's just that Duncan's load was even greater by comparison.
For more detail on Duncan's 2003 Title run, see Section 24.
4. 1975 Warriors
Playoff Statistics
28-6-6 on 44% FG - 92% FT - Rick Barry
15-7-2 on 45% FG - 70% FT - Jamaal Wilkes
13-4-2 on 42% FG - 75% FT - Charles Johnson
9-4-3 on 41% FG - 64% FT - Butch Beard
6-10-2 on 52% FG - 60% FT - Clifford Ray
Playoff Statistics
28-6-6 on 44% FG - 92% FT - Rick Barry
15-7-2 on 45% FG - 70% FT - Jamaal Wilkes
13-4-2 on 42% FG - 75% FT - Charles Johnson
9-4-3 on 41% FG - 64% FT - Butch Beard
6-10-2 on 52% FG - 60% FT - Clifford Ray
Competition
43-39 Sonics (Won 4-2)
47-35 Bulls (Won 4-3)
60-22 Bullets (Won 4-0)
The 1975 Warriors are only team on this list that played 3 rounds instead of 4. These favorable circumstances obviously made it easier for Rick Barry to lead a mediocre supporting cast to the Finals, but the 1975 Warriors were still a mediocre team outside of Barry nonetheless.
Charles Johnson and rookie Jamaal Wilkes were the only productive offensive teammates that Barry had, and both had mediocre efficiency. Johnson averaged more FGA than points, and Wilkes had nearly equal averages in FGA and PPG. Outside of that, Barry had decent rebounding from Clifford Ray at 9.8 RPG, and not much else.
The Warriors beat two sub-50 win teams before facing the heavily favored Bullets, tied for the league's best record at 60-22. The Warriors pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Finals history, sweeping the Unseld/Hayes Bullets 4-0. In spite of the fact that the Warriors easily won, no Warrior performed well in this series outside of Rick Barry.
Jamaal Wilkes was the 1975 Warriors' 2nd-leading Finals scorer at a poor 12-10-1 on 32% FG. Next was Phil Smith at 11-3-3 on 41% FG - 61% FT. It's hard to grasp how the Warriors were able to sweep the heavily favored Bullets by just looking at the box scores and without much video footage, but somehow they were able to pull it off. Barry put up 30-4-5 along with an NBA Finals record 3.5 SPG to carry one of the weakest supporting casts of all-time to an NBA title, albeit under a more favorable 3-round format.
3. 2018 Cavaliers
Playoff Statistics
34-9-9 on 54% FG - 75% FT - LeBron James
15-10-2 on 39% FG - 92% FT - Kevin Love
9-2-2 on 45% FG - 77% FT - George Hill
9-3-1 on 35% FG - 77% FT - J.R. Smith
8-2-2 on 42% FG - 86% FT - Kyle Korver
LeBron James carried a huge load in the 2018 Playoffs. He only had one teammate averaging double digits in scoring - Kevin Love at 15-10 on supbar 39/34/92 shooting. Unlike the 2007 Cavaliers, LeBron's 2018 team wasn't much good defensively, either. Aside from his statistical dominance, LeBron also had to come through in the clutch with buzzer beaters against the Pacers and Raptors in consecutive rounds.
LeBron also dealt with the absence of Kevin Love in Game 7 against the Celtics, albeit with the Celtics missing Kyrie and Hayward for the entirety of the Playoffs. Upon reaching the Finals, the Cavaliers were clearly outmatched by the Warriors; even LeBron's career-high 51 points wasn't enough to take a game away from Golden State.
The 1975 Warriors are only team on this list that played 3 rounds instead of 4. These favorable circumstances obviously made it easier for Rick Barry to lead a mediocre supporting cast to the Finals, but the 1975 Warriors were still a mediocre team outside of Barry nonetheless.
Charles Johnson and rookie Jamaal Wilkes were the only productive offensive teammates that Barry had, and both had mediocre efficiency. Johnson averaged more FGA than points, and Wilkes had nearly equal averages in FGA and PPG. Outside of that, Barry had decent rebounding from Clifford Ray at 9.8 RPG, and not much else.
The Warriors beat two sub-50 win teams before facing the heavily favored Bullets, tied for the league's best record at 60-22. The Warriors pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Finals history, sweeping the Unseld/Hayes Bullets 4-0. In spite of the fact that the Warriors easily won, no Warrior performed well in this series outside of Rick Barry.
Jamaal Wilkes was the 1975 Warriors' 2nd-leading Finals scorer at a poor 12-10-1 on 32% FG. Next was Phil Smith at 11-3-3 on 41% FG - 61% FT. It's hard to grasp how the Warriors were able to sweep the heavily favored Bullets by just looking at the box scores and without much video footage, but somehow they were able to pull it off. Barry put up 30-4-5 along with an NBA Finals record 3.5 SPG to carry one of the weakest supporting casts of all-time to an NBA title, albeit under a more favorable 3-round format.
3. 2018 Cavaliers
Playoff Statistics
34-9-9 on 54% FG - 75% FT - LeBron James
15-10-2 on 39% FG - 92% FT - Kevin Love
9-2-2 on 45% FG - 77% FT - George Hill
9-3-1 on 35% FG - 77% FT - J.R. Smith
8-2-2 on 42% FG - 86% FT - Kyle Korver
Competition
48-34 Pacers (Won 4-3)
59-23 Raptors (Won 4-0)
55-27 Celtics (Won 4-3)
58-24 Warriors (Lost 4-0)LeBron James carried a huge load in the 2018 Playoffs. He only had one teammate averaging double digits in scoring - Kevin Love at 15-10 on supbar 39/34/92 shooting. Unlike the 2007 Cavaliers, LeBron's 2018 team wasn't much good defensively, either. Aside from his statistical dominance, LeBron also had to come through in the clutch with buzzer beaters against the Pacers and Raptors in consecutive rounds.
LeBron also dealt with the absence of Kevin Love in Game 7 against the Celtics, albeit with the Celtics missing Kyrie and Hayward for the entirety of the Playoffs. Upon reaching the Finals, the Cavaliers were clearly outmatched by the Warriors; even LeBron's career-high 51 points wasn't enough to take a game away from Golden State.
2. 1994 Rockets
Playoff Statistics
29-11-4 on 52% FG - 80% FT - Hakeem Olajuwon
14-4-4 on 38% FG - 69% FT - Vernon Maxwell
12-6-4 on 43% FG - 77% FT - Robert Horry
11-10-2 on 57% FG - 57% FT - Otis Thorpe
11-2-4 on 46% FG - 81% FT - Kenny Smith
29-11-4 on 52% FG - 80% FT - Hakeem Olajuwon
14-4-4 on 38% FG - 69% FT - Vernon Maxwell
12-6-4 on 43% FG - 77% FT - Robert Horry
11-10-2 on 57% FG - 57% FT - Otis Thorpe
11-2-4 on 46% FG - 81% FT - Kenny Smith
Competition
47-35 Blazers (Won 3-1)
56-26 Suns (Won 4-3)
53-29 Jazz (Won 4-1)
57-25 Knicks (Won 4-3)
In Section 24 the case was made for Hakeem's 1994 Playoff run as the greatest individual playoff run of all-time when factoring both individual performance and level of competition. For starters, the 1994 Rockets have one of the top 10 lesser scoring Playoff supporting casts and one of the top 5 lowest scoring Finals supporting casts for Title teams.
10. 1994 Rockets - 68.3 PPG
The 1994 Finals further emphasizes the poor supporting cast that Hakeem was surrounded with. Hakeem had extremely limited offensive help as his top 3 scorers all shot under 43%.
In Section 24 the case was made for Hakeem's 1994 Playoff run as the greatest individual playoff run of all-time when factoring both individual performance and level of competition. For starters, the 1994 Rockets have one of the top 10 lesser scoring Playoff supporting casts and one of the top 5 lowest scoring Finals supporting casts for Title teams.
Title teams with lowest scoring supporting casts for the overall playoffs
Post-1954 (Shot Clock Era)
Post-1954 (Shot Clock Era)
10. 1994 Rockets - 68.3 PPG
9. 2006 Heat - 67.8 PPG
8. 1993 Bulls - 67.3 PPG
7. 2012 Heat - 67.0 PPG
6. 1996 Bulls - 66.7 PPG
5. 1992 Bulls - 65.9 PPG
4. 2004 Pistons - 65.6 PPG
3. 1999 Spurs - 65.2 PPG
2. 1997 Bulls - 61.5 PPG
1. 1998 Bulls - 60.8 PPG
Top 15 Highest Collective Win Percentage of Playoff Opponents - Title Teams who Played 4 Rounds
(0.726) - 1995 Rockets (238-90)
(0.686) - 1997 Bulls (225-103)
(0.674) - 2016 Cavaliers (221-107)
(0.671) - 2002 Lakers (220-108)
(0.668) - 1993 Bulls (219-109)
(0.668) - 2001 Lakers (219-109)
(0.665) - 2011 Mavericks (218-110)
(0.662) - 2005 Spurs (217-111)
(0.659) - 2014 Spurs (216-112)
(0.652) - 1998 Bulls (214-114)
(0.652) - 2006 Heat (214-114)
(0.652) - 2009 Lakers (214-114)
(0.649) - 1994 Rockets (213-115)
(0.649) - 1996 Bulls (213-115)
(0.646) - 2000 Lakers (212-116)
Hakeem Olajuwon became the first player, and only player along with LeBron James in 2016, to lead a Finals/Title team in 5/5 categories for the entire Playoffs. However, LeBron had far more offensive help, as Kyrie Irving averaged 25 PPG for 4 rounds collectively. Hakeem's top scorer Vernon Maxwell had a poor 14-4-4 on 38% FG while his best player Otis Thorpe had 11-10 on 57% FG - 57% FT. Essentially, Hakeem was the best scorer, rebounder, passer, stealer, shot-blocker, and best overall defender on his team - and perhaps all-time - during the 1994 Playoffs on the way to the championship. In my view, this is the largest individual load that anyone has carried in a Title run.
The other remarkable thing about this title run is that Hakeem became the only player to win the title without another Hall of Famer and without another player who made the all-star team. Otis Thorpe was an all star in 1992, but in the 12 games Hakeem missed that year, Thorpe "led" the Rockets to a 2-10 record, causing them to miss the playoffs. Sam Cassel was a rookie in 1994 and didn't become an all-star until 2004 while playing with Garnett. Rudy Tomjanovich also is not a Hall of Fame coach, and never coached a team without Hakeem to the playoffs.
No player has had a 5-by-5 in the Playoffs, but Hakeem Olajuwon had 3 games in the 1994 Playoffs in which he put up a 5-by-4 (at least 4 points, rebounds, blocks, assists, and steals). Ben Wallace is the only player besides Hakeem with multiple playoff 5-by-4s for a career. However, Wallace only did it 2 times (Hakeem did it 8 times, 3 times in 1994 alone).
8. 1993 Bulls - 67.3 PPG
7. 2012 Heat - 67.0 PPG
6. 1996 Bulls - 66.7 PPG
5. 1992 Bulls - 65.9 PPG
4. 2004 Pistons - 65.6 PPG
3. 1999 Spurs - 65.2 PPG
2. 1997 Bulls - 61.5 PPG
1. 1998 Bulls - 60.8 PPG
Sub-60 ppg supporting casts in the NBA Finals for Championship Teams
Post-1954 (Shot-Clock Era)
5. 1994 Rockets - 59.3 ppg
4. 2006 Heat - 58.2 ppg
3. 1999 Spurs - 57.4 ppg
2. 1997 Bulls - 55.5 ppg
1. 1998 Bulls - 54.5 ppg
4. 2006 Heat - 58.2 ppg
3. 1999 Spurs - 57.4 ppg
2. 1997 Bulls - 55.5 ppg
1. 1998 Bulls - 54.5 ppg
What makes this run even more impressive for Hakeem is the fact that the 1994 Rockets have one of the top 15 hardest strengths of schedule for Title teams that played 4 rounds. Again, I must emphasize that this is only to further put Hakeem's run in perspective, it does not affect how good or bad his supporting cast was.
Top 15 Highest Collective Win Percentage of Playoff Opponents - Title Teams who Played 4 Rounds
(0.726) - 1995 Rockets (238-90)
(0.686) - 1997 Bulls (225-103)
(0.674) - 2016 Cavaliers (221-107)
(0.671) - 2002 Lakers (220-108)
(0.668) - 1993 Bulls (219-109)
(0.668) - 2001 Lakers (219-109)
(0.665) - 2011 Mavericks (218-110)
(0.662) - 2005 Spurs (217-111)
(0.659) - 2014 Spurs (216-112)
(0.652) - 1998 Bulls (214-114)
(0.652) - 2006 Heat (214-114)
(0.652) - 2009 Lakers (214-114)
(0.649) - 1994 Rockets (213-115)
(0.649) - 1996 Bulls (213-115)
(0.646) - 2000 Lakers (212-116)
The other remarkable thing about this title run is that Hakeem became the only player to win the title without another Hall of Famer and without another player who made the all-star team. Otis Thorpe was an all star in 1992, but in the 12 games Hakeem missed that year, Thorpe "led" the Rockets to a 2-10 record, causing them to miss the playoffs. Sam Cassel was a rookie in 1994 and didn't become an all-star until 2004 while playing with Garnett. Rudy Tomjanovich also is not a Hall of Fame coach, and never coached a team without Hakeem to the playoffs.
No player has had a 5-by-5 in the Playoffs, but Hakeem Olajuwon had 3 games in the 1994 Playoffs in which he put up a 5-by-4 (at least 4 points, rebounds, blocks, assists, and steals). Ben Wallace is the only player besides Hakeem with multiple playoff 5-by-4s for a career. However, Wallace only did it 2 times (Hakeem did it 8 times, 3 times in 1994 alone).
Hakeem had perhaps the best defensive playoff run of all-time, averaging 4 BPG for 4 rounds. No other player has has had 4+ BPG for more than 2 rounds. Hakeem had incredible man-to-man defense against Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Patrick Ewing for 3 consecutive rounds as well. Although accolades are not the end-all be-all in evaluating defense, it is worth noting that none of Hakeem's 1994 teammates ever made an All-Defense Team.
The 1994 Finals further emphasizes the poor supporting cast that Hakeem was surrounded with. Hakeem had extremely limited offensive help as his top 3 scorers all shot under 43%.
1994 Finals
- Maxwell 13 ppg on 37%
- Horry 10 ppg on 32%
- Cassel 10 ppg on 42%
The 1994 Rockets are the only team since the 1961 Celtics to win the championship in spite of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th leading scorers all shooting under 43% in the NBA Finals. In comparing Hakeem's Rockets to the 2007 Cavs, Hakeem had less help in the Finals compared to Lebron on both ends but still got the win
2007 Finals
- Gooden 13 ppg on 50%
- Gibson 11 ppg on 44%
- Pavlovic 10 ppg on 36%
- Gooden 13 ppg on 50%
- Gibson 11 ppg on 44%
- Pavlovic 10 ppg on 36%
Patrick Ewing was shut down to a horrendous 36% FG by Hakeem for the 1994 Finals, and only had one good offensive performance in Game 5. In spite of the fact that Hakeem completely shut down Ewing in all but one game, the Knicks still pushed the Rockets to 7 games with all 7 games decided by single digits - an average 6 PPG margin of victory. Had Ewing shot even 40%, the Knicks would have likely won the championship in spite of Hakeem's play.
If carrying the entire team on offense and defense wasn't enough, Hakeem also made plenty of clutch plays in the Finals as well
1. The go-ahead assist to Cassell with 33 seconds left in Game 3.
2. A clutch steal on Starks with 40 seconds left in Game 6. Hakeem was fouled and pushed the lead to 4
3. The series-saving block in Game 6 on John Starks.
1. 1981 Rockets
Playoff Statistics
27-15-2 on 48% FG - 71% FT - Moses Malone
18-1-3 on 50% FG - 97% FT - Calvin Murphy
16-7-5 on 46% FG - 66% FT - Robert Reid
12-7-2 on 45% FG - 67% FT - Billy Paultz
9-3-1 on 45% FG - 87% FT - Mike Dunleavy
Playoff Statistics
27-15-2 on 48% FG - 71% FT - Moses Malone
18-1-3 on 50% FG - 97% FT - Calvin Murphy
16-7-5 on 46% FG - 66% FT - Robert Reid
12-7-2 on 45% FG - 67% FT - Billy Paultz
9-3-1 on 45% FG - 87% FT - Mike Dunleavy
Competition
54-28 Lakers (Won 2-1)
52-30 Spurs (Won 4-3)
40-42 Kings (Won 4-1)
62-20 Celtics (Lost 4-2)
From 1960-present, the 1981 Rockets are the only team to make the NBA Finals with a losing record at 40-42. This is the main reason I consider the 1981 Rockets to be the worst supporting cast to make the NBA Finals in that timespan. In spite of Moses Malone's 28-15 on 52% for the regular season, the Rockets still produced a losing record and only just qualified for the Playoffs as the 6-seed, the lowest seed possible for a Playoff team at the time.
The Rockets actually faced solid overall competition, beating two 50+ win teams including the defending champion Lakers and losing to the 62-20 Celtics in the Finals. The only easy team the Rockets faced were the 40-42 Kings in the 1981 WCF. Interestingly, this is the only time since 1957 (when all West teams had losing records) that both teams in the Conference Finals were below 0.500.
In the Playoffs, Calvin Murphy (18 PPG on 50%) provided solid scoring, but Moses' other teammates had mediocre efficiency when factoring in FT% or simply scored at a low volume. One can make the case that Malone's rebounding was largely responsible for giving his teammates these scoring opportunities, since he averaged more than twice as many rebounds in the Playoffs as any of his teammates.
Moses would find himself with even less help in the 1981 Finals. Calvin Murphy was injured and missed 2 of 6 games against Boston. Incredibly, all of Moses' teammates that averaged 5+ PPG in the Finals shot below 42%, and 5 of those 7 teammates shot under 40%. His only two double-digit scorers were Reid (15-8-3 on 38%) and Paultz (11-6-1 on 40%). In spite of Murphy's injury and poor production from his teammates, Moses still carried his 40-42 Rockets to 6 games against the eventual champions.
The 1981 Rockets were outside the top 10 in scoring offense and defense for the regular season, and may be the only Finals team that did not finish in the top 10 for either category. Ultimately, the Rockets' poor offensive and defensive help outside of Moses Malone along with the distinction of being the only losing NBA Finals team from 1960-present cements them as the worst supporting cast of any team to reach the NBA Finals.
More
SECTION 3 - Jordan's "Weak" Defensive Competition Compared to Lebron/Kobe's "Advanced" Competition
- Proving the vast superiority of individual defenders of Jordan's era compared to the 2000s
SECTION 21 - Hakeem Olajuwon: The Greatest Center of All-Time
- Hakeem Olajuwon is the best center of all-time, and there is strong evidence to prove it
SECTION 30 - The 20 Greatest Conference Finals Runs of All-Time
- Ranking the 20 greatest playoff runs in which a player played 3 rounds before losing prior to the NBA Finals
SECTION 32 - The 10 Worst Supporting Casts on NBA Finals Teams (1960-Present)
- Examining the worst supporting casts on teams that reached the NBA Finals
SECTION 33 - The 10 Greatest Rookie Playoff Runs of All-Time
- The most impressive playoff runs in which rookies led their team to at least one series win
From 1960-present, the 1981 Rockets are the only team to make the NBA Finals with a losing record at 40-42. This is the main reason I consider the 1981 Rockets to be the worst supporting cast to make the NBA Finals in that timespan. In spite of Moses Malone's 28-15 on 52% for the regular season, the Rockets still produced a losing record and only just qualified for the Playoffs as the 6-seed, the lowest seed possible for a Playoff team at the time.
The Rockets actually faced solid overall competition, beating two 50+ win teams including the defending champion Lakers and losing to the 62-20 Celtics in the Finals. The only easy team the Rockets faced were the 40-42 Kings in the 1981 WCF. Interestingly, this is the only time since 1957 (when all West teams had losing records) that both teams in the Conference Finals were below 0.500.
In the Playoffs, Calvin Murphy (18 PPG on 50%) provided solid scoring, but Moses' other teammates had mediocre efficiency when factoring in FT% or simply scored at a low volume. One can make the case that Malone's rebounding was largely responsible for giving his teammates these scoring opportunities, since he averaged more than twice as many rebounds in the Playoffs as any of his teammates.
Moses would find himself with even less help in the 1981 Finals. Calvin Murphy was injured and missed 2 of 6 games against Boston. Incredibly, all of Moses' teammates that averaged 5+ PPG in the Finals shot below 42%, and 5 of those 7 teammates shot under 40%. His only two double-digit scorers were Reid (15-8-3 on 38%) and Paultz (11-6-1 on 40%). In spite of Murphy's injury and poor production from his teammates, Moses still carried his 40-42 Rockets to 6 games against the eventual champions.
The 1981 Rockets were outside the top 10 in scoring offense and defense for the regular season, and may be the only Finals team that did not finish in the top 10 for either category. Ultimately, the Rockets' poor offensive and defensive help outside of Moses Malone along with the distinction of being the only losing NBA Finals team from 1960-present cements them as the worst supporting cast of any team to reach the NBA Finals.
More
- Looking at how the Jordan Era players had an easier time in the modern era
- Looking at how a 38-40 year old Jordan himself schooled the 2000s defenders
SECTION 3 - Jordan's "Weak" Defensive Competition Compared to Lebron/Kobe's "Advanced" Competition
- Proving the vast superiority of individual defenders of Jordan's era compared to the 2000s
- Destroying the myth that Jordan never played zone defense
- Proof that 80s/90s players would still have success guarding 2000s players without the 80s/90s rules
- Looking at how Jordan did against the 80s teams and why expansion did not make it easier to win championships
- Proof that Jordan's Competition was 80s-quality and far better than the 2000s era
- Looking at the truth of how the Bulls did without Jordan, and how other great teams did without their stars.
- Did Jordan really get any more special treatment than other superstars? Nope.
- Exposing the myths behind the great, but misunderstood, Wilt Chamberlain
- Looking at how Lebron got locked down by defenders of the 2000s era and comparing them to the vastly superior 80s/90s
- Destroying one of the media's biggest misconceptions regarding Lebron's solid but vastly overrated defense
- Lebron fans think no player in history could succeed if their teammates don't step up, and that Lebron is the only one who has carried a team on his back. Is that really the case?
- The real Jordan vs Lebron comparison
- The real Jordan vs Kobe comparison
- Kareem is great, but he is not even the greatest center of all-time, let alone the greatest of all-time.
- The full context behind Jordan's struggles without Pippen
- A look at how Jordan turned the Wizards around before his knee injury caught up to him
- Looking at Jordan's defensive impact in detail, both as a team player and 1 on 1 defender
- Looking at the strong evidence supporting that Jordan would have achieved more than what LeBron has in Cleveland and Miami
SECTION 21 - Hakeem Olajuwon: The Greatest Center of All-Time
- Hakeem Olajuwon is the best center of all-time, and there is strong evidence to prove it
- Chris Paul is an extremely overrated playoff performer and defender, and isn't even a top 5 PG of his own era, let alone all-time
- Kevin Johnson is an extremely underrated and under-appreciated point guard, who should have been a first-ballot Hall of Famer and considered a top-10 point guard of all-time
- Analyzing the three greatest individual playoff runs in NBA history
- Analyzing the worst performances in NBA Finals history
- Comparing the two players who won the most championships as the best player on their team
- Taking a look at the greatest coaches in NBA history
- Taking a look at the players who least deserved to win their Finals MVPs
- Refuting certain myths about Jordan, as well as abridging of some of the main points in earlier sections for easier reference.
SECTION 30 - The 20 Greatest Conference Finals Runs of All-Time
- Ranking the 20 greatest playoff runs in which a player played 3 rounds before losing prior to the NBA Finals
- Why the 1970s was the weakest decade of any era from 1960-present
SECTION 32 - The 10 Worst Supporting Casts on NBA Finals Teams (1960-Present)
- Examining the worst supporting casts on teams that reached the NBA Finals
SECTION 33 - The 10 Greatest Rookie Playoff Runs of All-Time
- The most impressive playoff runs in which rookies led their team to at least one series win
Question about the 1996 finals people say that Gary Payton didn’t start guarding Mj till game 4 is there any truth to this? And is it true that Mj had a bad game against the Knicks in game 2 of 1989 ECSF?
ReplyDeleteHe only defended him in spots prior to Game 4. In the first three games, they mostly mixed it up with Hawkins, Schrempf, and Wingate.
DeleteHe already made some vids about this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYFFSqgCosc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlaUtPZGk8
As for your later question, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugpmxr-ATpg
Moses Malone and Hakeem, both very underrated. Great article.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Dirk's 2011 playoff cast?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNBA Playoffs has a great fan following, people use to wear their supporting team jerseys to represent them on event day. The Cleveland Cavaliers and Golden State Warriors are huge favorites to win the NBA Championship title this year. Don’t miss the chance to watch NBA Playoff live stream on 14th April.
ReplyDeleteThe 2002 Lakers should be in this. After Shaq and Kobe the best player was Robert Sorry (yes he has the big shot history but was average as a player). Stats don't mean anything as those guys probably inflated stats in garbage time.
ReplyDelete1st 3 peat. Lakers had Magic with aids and, no Kareem. Drexler by himself. Then Barkley, and Kevin Johnson. 1995 Eatsern Conference Finals MJ choked on a key play in Game 6 and lost to Shaq and Penny. Oh MJ was rusty right? He dropped two 50 point games prior to that series. They desperately needed Rodman's help.
ReplyDeleteRodman's offensive rebounding won the following 1996 series, most long time Bulls fans agree.
Jordan not only shot terribly from the field, he was absolute shit in the fourth quarters too (shot 33.3% in them, and only 15.4% in the fourth quarters of the three close games). In the two close wins of the series, Rodman averaged 11 offensive rebounds/game. He was setting records, and when MJ was shooting the team out of the game with bricks (rest of the team struggled shooting wise too), it was Rodman getting all those rebounds to give Bulls the extra possessions. Bulls as a team shot much lower than Sonics in that series...why do you think they still won? They got 34 more possessions from offensive rebounds (Rodman alone had 41!). MJ's scoring could have been replaced in that series, but Rodman's historic offensive rebounding? Not so much.
Rodman should have been the MVP of that Finals. The Bulls shot much worse from the field than the Sonics in the Finals but still won. How did that happen? Simple. The Bulls got more shot opportunities from offensive rebounds basically negating many of their misses. Rodman, by himself, secured and additional 41 possessions for the Bulls with his offensive rebounding including 2 games where he tied an NBA Finals record. That's like playing H-O-R-S-E and someone giving you multiple "do overs" after you've missed.
Jordan didn't have to contend with a generation behind him - go look at the drafts from '86-'95; there was very little top-end talent entering the league and a good number of 'em were on the Bulls.
Payton was injured in the NBA Finals in 1996. Horace Grant was also very underappreciated as a Bull, a key in the Magic beating the Bulls in '95, and injured in Game 1 in '96. Also, while people give Jordan credit for the titles he didn't win because he quit on his team (twice), they also don't factor in the extra wear and tear those years would've put on him in the later years, probably costing him a couple titles on the back end.
He also didn't have to exist in a social media world - he was prickly with the media and always felt maligned, even by the mostly flattering "The Jordan Rules" - imagine him exposed to the comments and 24-hour sports news cycle of today. He's a notoriously terrible talent evaluator - imagine if the Bulls had felt compelled to pick the players he wanted. We all know he didn't want Scottie Pippen; imagine if he had to play GM and coach and SG. Or if the Bulls weren't able to lock Scottie Pippen into a now-impossible ridiculously low contract. Jordan has a grand total of 1 playoff GAME win without Pippen. Jordan also played in a watered-down league as the NBA expanded from 23 teams to 30, and the West was the deeper conference back then.
So basically when Jordan was winding down his prime, all his competition was ALSO winding down theirs, and most were even older than he was. LeBron, meanwhile, has had to play his last two Finals against TWO league MVPs in their prime that partnered up while his "superstar" teammates are both guys who have won a total of zero playoff games without him.
LBJ's a pass first player. 10k+ assists 10k+ boards 30k+ points will NEVER be done again. LBJ GOAT no question. Bigger, stronger, faster. Rings are a team achievement, not an individual accomplishment. Facts.
Lechoke blames is the most overrated and over hype player in nba history
DeleteGo read the other articles about Jordan and LeBron on this site. He backs up what he says with facts not opinions like yours Jordan is the greatest....not lebum james
DeleteSytadel alright that lakers team did not have kareem which is the weakest title team that mj faced in 91 in 92 he faced the blazers with drexler and terry porter and also had the best defense even had two of the best defenders buck William's and cliff robinson in 1993 suns had barkley and kevin johnson and also dan and chambers ainge and 96 rodman in the finals could not guard kemp because he was extremely unguardable player during his prime years the Utah jazz were coached by sloan and had malone and Stockton and also beat the lakers with shaq and beat the spurs with robinson and also beat the big 3 rockets his title teams he faced all went through good compettion
DeleteSytadel alright that lakers team did not have kareem which is the weakest title team that mj faced in 91 in 92 he faced the blazers with drexler and terry porter and also had the best defense even had two of the best defenders buck William's and cliff robinson in 1993 suns had barkley and kevin johnson and also dan and chambers ainge and 96 rodman in the finals could not guard kemp because he was extremely unguardable player during his prime years the Utah jazz were coached by sloan and had malone and Stockton and also beat the lakers with shaq and beat the spurs with robinson and also beat the big 3 rockets his title teams he faced all went through good compettion
DeleteI have 76.7 ppg for miami 2012 instead of the 67 you have listed in the top 10 worst supporting casts in playoffs. I got 66.4 for the Cavs in 2007 maybe thats the team you are referring to however theres still some discrepancy. I'm wondering how you got these numbers.
ReplyDeleteFact check: Lebron actually didn't lead his team in the 5 stat categories throughout the playoffs like this article claims and like Hakeem did.
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to purchase NBA 2KMT legitimately, you initially need to pick a legal website. https://nba2k21mt.com is a safe and reputable site. I have made lots of deals below and also finished my order within 10 minutes each time, and their costs are really low-cost. Currently my friends and also I choose NBA2K21MT to acquire NBA 2K MT, If you intend to acquire NBA 2KMT legally after that I suggest you to try NBA2K21MT.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNBA 2K22 has in fact been released current-generation systems and an updated version will hit the PS5 in addition to Xbox Collection X at some point before conclusion of the year.
ReplyDeleteThe gamers thinking of if they should buy the current-generation variation or await the next-generation version on the PlayStation 5 or Xbox Collection X.
If you understand you're mosting likely to be buying along with playing NBA MT 2K22 on a next-generation maker, it makes even more feeling to get the Mamba Forever Edition on PS4 or Xbox One.