(5) 2006 Detroit Pistons 93, (10) 1994 Houston Rockets 91
The first game of the Elite Eight introduced us to one tightly knit game. Heading into the fourth quarter, the teams were tied at 67 a piece. With 5:16 remaining, Mario Ellie scored to give Houston an 82-77 lead, the biggest lead of the quarter. However, the Pistons slowly grinded their way back, and with 0:50 left in the game, Tayshaun Prince made a jumper as Detroit to a 90-88 lead. Houston took back the lead after Vernon Maxwell made all his free-throws after being fouled on a three-point attempt, but with 9 seconds remaining, Chauncey Billups, aka Mr. Big Shot, made a three to take back the lead. Hakeem Olauwon, who was easily the game's best player with 28 points, 20 rebounds, and 5 blocks, missed a jumper at the buzzer which would have sent the game to overtime. The key to this game? Taking care of the ball. The two teams were similar across the boards, but Houston committed 18 turnovers compared to just 12 of Detroit.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810792&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(1) 1972 LA Lakers 121, (10) 2005 San Antonio Spurs 100
Unlike the game previous, no game winning shot was needed here. The only No. 1 seed remaining brought the 2005 San Antonio Spur's cinderella story to a screeching halt. Gail Goodrich led the LA Lakers in scoring with 30 points and Wilt Chamberlain, Jim McMillan, and Jerry West each recorded a double-double.The team shot at least 50% from both the field and long-range, though both teams shot in the 50s from the stripe. San Antonio got dominated on the boards, 59-47, and no Spur mustered 20 points. I have to say, I was hoping the 2005 Spurs would go far in this tournament, because the Seattle Supersonics were one Ray Allen three-pointer from taking them to a seventh game in 2005. If the Spurs were this good, so must've the Sonics! Then again, this isn't real...
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810855&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(5) 1993 Phoenix Suns 125, (15) 2002 Sacramento Kings 121
This is probably one of my favorite match-ups because here we have two teams that one could argue were the best of their year, but didn't win it all, and are led by two tremendous power forwards who have never won a championship. Add in the fact that both teams had high powered offenses (Phoenix ranked 1st, Sacramento 3rd) and what you get is a beauty of a game! Heading into the last quarter, Phoenix held a good 82-75 lead, which they would eventually extend into double-digits. However, Sacramento held Phoenix scoreless for nearly 5 1/2 minutes, as they went on a 13-0 run to take the lead with 3:37 to go. The teams would go back and forth over the next few minutes, but after a pair of made free throws, Sacramento took a 101-98 lead. After calling a time-out, Phoenix inbounded the ball from half-court, and Dan Majerle made a tournament-saving three to send the game to extra time.Over time became something one could only see in a simulation like this, as the two teams scored a combine 44 points in five minutes of play. Down 109-121 with just 57 seconds to go, the Kings shot threes in desperation and nearly pulled off a miracle. Peja Stojakovic converted on four three-pointers in the last minute of the game, but that wasn't enough as the Suns downed the Kings 125-121. Stojakovic produced a gem of a game, scoring 30 points and making six threes. Chris Webber managed 32 points and 19 rebounds, though he struggled from the field going 10 of 28. Doug Christie chipped in 20 points, but no one else aside those three scored double figures. In contrast,
Phoenix had six different players in double figures, with five scoring at between 16 and 22 points. Cedric Ceballos led the way with 22 points for Phoenix, but the real star of the game was Charles Barkley, who put 20 points, 13 rebounds, and 11 assists, as his team moved one step towards his first "championship."
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810880&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(2) 1986 Boston Celtics 118, (5) 1981 Boston Celtics
The 1981 Larry Bird outplayed the 1986 Bird, and the 1981 Celtics recorded both more assists and more rebounds than the the 1986 Celtics. So how did they lose? Free throws. Though both teams made it to the line about the same amount of times, the 1981 Celtics shot 65% from the charity stripe (22 of 34), compared to 94% (30 of 32) by the 1986 version. The 1986 Celtics made eight more free throws, and what do you know, they won by eight points. Though the 1981 Boston led by 2 to begin the fourth, the 1986 Boston went on a 9-2 run early in the quarter and never looked back. The 1981 Larry Bird put up a terrific 29 points and 16 rebounds, while his five years old version nearly got a triple double, with 23 points, 8 rebounds, and 12 assists.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810955&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
Thoughts
Finally, we have our Final Four! The match-ups will be the (5) 2006 Detroit Pistons vs. (2) 1986 Boston Celtics, and the (5) 1993 Phoenix Suns vs. (1) 1972 LA Lakers. I was kind of glad that Sacramento lost, because between them and Detroit, I would have had two "accidental" teams in the Final Four. Even though I probably would never consider the 2006 Pistons and the 1993 Suns some of the greatest NBA teams ever, I thought I'd briefly explain why each of the remaining teams has the makings of an all-time great team.
1972 LA Lakers (69-13) This team was an absolute offensive monster.They had two Hall-of-Famers in Gail Goodrich and Jerry West, each around their prime producing 25 points a game. Add in Jim McMillan, who was throwing close to 20 points a game, and teams really had to pick their poison. I think also key was the play down low the Lakers had. Wilt Chamberlain was past his prime, but he was still averaging a double-double a game and a monster 19 rebounds. He was also joined in by Happy Hairston, who grabbed 13 boards a game. This was an efficient, well-rounded, experienced, and well-coached (Bill Sharman won Coach of the Year and is a HOF coach), and that all together made them hard to beat.
1986 Boston Celtics (67-15) Any time with Larry Bird is going to be pretty good. Any team with Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish is going to be great. The Big 3 of the Celtics each averaged at least 16 points per game, while all shooting at least 49% from the field. Add in two other double-figure scorers, and what you had was a team that was the 3rd best offensive team in the league. As good as the team was offensively though, they were actually better defensive, ranking 1st in the league in 1986. McHale and Dennis Johnson both made All-Defense teams that year, and Bird made it in previous years, and as a result, you had a team that was dominant on both sides of the ball.
1993 Phoenix Suns (62-20) Four words: Round Mound of Rebound. Charles Barkley a beast of nature, getting his only MVP that year, while also leading the team 25.6 points and 12.2 rebounds a game. Add in six other players who averaged double figures, and this team could not be stopped. Charles Barkley was a bulldozer down low, Danny Ainge and Dan Majerle were their three point specialists, and Kevin Johnson did a great job running the point. I think what's also impressive was the efficiency at which they scored. Four out of their five top scorers shot at least 49.9% from the field. They were a good, but not elite, defensive team, but their offense was able to carry them for a long time.
2006 Detroit Pistons (64-18) This Pistons team was probably the epitome of teamwork. They had their fair share of good players, but no super stars. Only one player scored over 20 points a game, and that was just barely at 20.1. While most people think of the Pistons as a great defensive team (and they were, ranking 5th), they were actually a better offensive team in 2006, ranking 4th in the league.Looking on paper, it's kind of difficult to see why they were a great team, but here's what I notice. Everyone played their roles, they played great defense, they hardly turned the ball over, and they made their threes. Overall, the 2006 Detroit Pistons don't scream greatest team of all time, but they have made it this far...
Friday, March 30, 2012
Best NBA Team Sweet Sixteen
After a long delay, I've finally found time to move on to the Sweet Sixteen of our simulated tournament!
(5) 2006 Detroit Pistons 90, (8) 1996 Orlando Magic 85
In our first game of the Sweet Sixteen, we have two teams that came a round short of the NBA Finals in their respective years. With the Detroit Pistons, we have a team that thrives on defense (they ranked 5th in league) going up against an Orlando Magic team that was 3rd in the league on offense. The phrase goes defense wins championships, and the Detroit Pistons came one step closer to it after this game. Shaquille O'Neal was held to 25 points on 26 shots, and Orlando as a whole shot below 40% from the field. Detroit was ever worse from the field, but made twice as many free throws.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810227&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(10) 1994 Houston Rockets 100, (6) 1998 Chicago Bulls 91
Two of the greatest teams in NBA history were the 1996 and 1997 Chicago Bulls. Somehow, it was the 1998 Bulls that kept advancing...but not anymore. Michael Jordan really struggled, scoring only 22 points on 7-23 shooting. Chicago managed a measly 36.1% field goal percentage against the great Hakeem Olajuwon-anchored defense. Olajuwon proved he had the heart of a champion, putting of monster numbers 29 points, 12 rebounds, 5 assists, and 6 blocks. Though Chicago at half, Houston used a 31-12 third quarter to take the lead and seal the deal.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810457&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(1) 1972 LA Lakers 102, (12) 1993 Chicago Bulls 95
Michael Jordan did everything possible to keep his championship dreams alive. Being the only Chicago team left, MJ put up 43 points to go along with 8 rebounds, 6 assists, and 6 steals. Nevertheless, he got minimal production from the rest of the team (except for Horace Grant's 16 pts/16 rebs) and Chicago fell to the No. 1 seed LA Lakers. Los Angeles showcased a more balanced effort as Jerry West and Gail Goodrich led the team with 22 points a piece and Wilt Chamberlain contributed 10 points and 19 rebounds. Michael Jordan may be the best player in NBA history, but it's Los Angeles trying to prove they're the best team in history.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810486&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(10) 2005 San Antonio Spurs 101, (11) 2002 LA Lakers 84
And it wasn't even close. This match-up was the only one where neither teams won 60 games, though both won the championship in their respective year. This match-up also was the closest two teams in the Sweet Sixteen were seeded with one another.San Antonio is known as a rather boring team, but they took the simple path to winning a game. They shot better from the field, they turned the ball over less, and they made their free-throws. Shaquille O'Neal was dominant with 28 points in the game, but it was the balanced effort of the San Antonio Spurs that ending up prevailing. They got off to an 8-point lead to end the first and they never looked back.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810570&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(5) 1993 Phoenix Suns 119, (9) 1963 Boston Celtics 100
Even though it was the Chicago Bulls who won the championship in 1993, it was the Phoenix Suns who had the best record, and here they're out to prove they were the best team from that year. Charles Barkley and the Suns didn't just beat, but blew-out, one of the greatest winners and a team that was part of one of the greatest dynasties of all time. Led by Charles Barkley (who put up 26 points, 13 rebounds, 6 assists, and 4 steals), the Phoenix Suns, who were the number one offensive team in 1993, put up 119 points on over 50% shooting and 31 free throws made. Bill Russel put up some impressive numbers with 21 rebounds, 5 blocks, and 8 assists, but that wasn't enough to prevent his dynasty from being overthrow by Sir Charles.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810621&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(15) 2002 Sacramento Kings 110, (11) 2007 San Antonio Spurs 108
The stars really came out in the most exciting game of the Sweet Sixteen so far. I had issues deciding who would get home court for this game, since even though the Spurs had a better seed, they had the worse record due to my mistake with the Sacramento franchise. However, that would end up not mattering. The Big 3 of San Antonio played phenomenal, as Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili combined for 64 points, 26 rebounds, and 13 assists. However, it wasn't enough to overcome an absolute monster game by Peja Stojakovic, who scored 37 points on 14/24 shooting. Chris Webber nearly got a triple-double, recording 18-13-8. The Spurs led by 8 at the half, but the Kings slowly worked their way back into the game. Webber made a fade-away with 19 seconds to take a 110-108, but Duncan missed a jumper at the buzzer to tie.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810664&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(5) 1981 Boston Celtics 109, (1) 1967 Philadelphia 76ers 105
And then there was one. With the defeat of the 1967 Philadelphia team, only one No. 1 seed remains as we head off to the Elite Eight. Boston got off to a hot start, leading by 9 at the end of one, but Philadelphia charged back to not only reach, but take the lead heading into the half. The two teams played back and forth ball for the remainder of the game, but Boston took the lead with 6 minutes remaining and never looked back. Larry Bird and Robert Parish played magnificent ball, and the two combined for 57 points, 30 rebounds, 8 assists, and 7 blocks, with both players shooting over 50% from the floor. For the 76ers, Wilt Chamberlain played about as good as one could, scoring 35 points on 17-23 shooting, while also accumulating 22 rebounds and 7 assists. Unfortunately, only one other of his teammates even made half his shots, letting Wilt's fine effort go to waste.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810701&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(2) 1986 Boston Celtics 104, (6) 1984 Boston Celtics 88
Despite the team being just the same team but just two years apart, the game wasn't even close. Aside from the game being tied after one, the 1986 Celtics won every quarter. DJ, Robert Parish, and Kevin McHale for both teams put up similar stats, but the key difference was Larry Bird. The 1984 Bird scored just 14 points, while the 1986 counterpart broke out for 35! The biggest edge for the 1985 Celtics was their dominance on the boards, outrebounding their version of two years earlier, 56-47. Look how much different a couple of years make!
Thoughts
I think it safe to say that our simulated tournament has been rather unpredictable, or, dare I say it, madness. There are no more teams left from either the Boston Celtics dynasty of the 1960s or the Chicago Bulls dynasty of the 1990s. The GOAT Michael Jordan and the greatest coach of all Phil Jackson are both absent in the Elite Eight, as well as three No. 1 seeds. Here's what I find most interesting though. Three of the teams left did not win the championship, with two of those teams not even making the NBA Finals. Considering all the championship teams are going against each other in the next round, that means that potentially two of the teams in the Final Four for our Best Team in NBA History tournament weren't even the best team in their year!
*After looking through my info, I'm not sure how the 2006 Detroit Pistons are even in the tournament. They weren't the best team in franchise history, nor did they ever win a championship. Realizing this so late in the simulation, I thought it best just to leave them in.
(5) 2006 Detroit Pistons 90, (8) 1996 Orlando Magic 85
In our first game of the Sweet Sixteen, we have two teams that came a round short of the NBA Finals in their respective years. With the Detroit Pistons, we have a team that thrives on defense (they ranked 5th in league) going up against an Orlando Magic team that was 3rd in the league on offense. The phrase goes defense wins championships, and the Detroit Pistons came one step closer to it after this game. Shaquille O'Neal was held to 25 points on 26 shots, and Orlando as a whole shot below 40% from the field. Detroit was ever worse from the field, but made twice as many free throws.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810227&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(10) 1994 Houston Rockets 100, (6) 1998 Chicago Bulls 91
Two of the greatest teams in NBA history were the 1996 and 1997 Chicago Bulls. Somehow, it was the 1998 Bulls that kept advancing...but not anymore. Michael Jordan really struggled, scoring only 22 points on 7-23 shooting. Chicago managed a measly 36.1% field goal percentage against the great Hakeem Olajuwon-anchored defense. Olajuwon proved he had the heart of a champion, putting of monster numbers 29 points, 12 rebounds, 5 assists, and 6 blocks. Though Chicago at half, Houston used a 31-12 third quarter to take the lead and seal the deal.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810457&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(1) 1972 LA Lakers 102, (12) 1993 Chicago Bulls 95
Michael Jordan did everything possible to keep his championship dreams alive. Being the only Chicago team left, MJ put up 43 points to go along with 8 rebounds, 6 assists, and 6 steals. Nevertheless, he got minimal production from the rest of the team (except for Horace Grant's 16 pts/16 rebs) and Chicago fell to the No. 1 seed LA Lakers. Los Angeles showcased a more balanced effort as Jerry West and Gail Goodrich led the team with 22 points a piece and Wilt Chamberlain contributed 10 points and 19 rebounds. Michael Jordan may be the best player in NBA history, but it's Los Angeles trying to prove they're the best team in history.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810486&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(10) 2005 San Antonio Spurs 101, (11) 2002 LA Lakers 84
And it wasn't even close. This match-up was the only one where neither teams won 60 games, though both won the championship in their respective year. This match-up also was the closest two teams in the Sweet Sixteen were seeded with one another.San Antonio is known as a rather boring team, but they took the simple path to winning a game. They shot better from the field, they turned the ball over less, and they made their free-throws. Shaquille O'Neal was dominant with 28 points in the game, but it was the balanced effort of the San Antonio Spurs that ending up prevailing. They got off to an 8-point lead to end the first and they never looked back.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810570&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(5) 1993 Phoenix Suns 119, (9) 1963 Boston Celtics 100
Even though it was the Chicago Bulls who won the championship in 1993, it was the Phoenix Suns who had the best record, and here they're out to prove they were the best team from that year. Charles Barkley and the Suns didn't just beat, but blew-out, one of the greatest winners and a team that was part of one of the greatest dynasties of all time. Led by Charles Barkley (who put up 26 points, 13 rebounds, 6 assists, and 4 steals), the Phoenix Suns, who were the number one offensive team in 1993, put up 119 points on over 50% shooting and 31 free throws made. Bill Russel put up some impressive numbers with 21 rebounds, 5 blocks, and 8 assists, but that wasn't enough to prevent his dynasty from being overthrow by Sir Charles.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810621&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(15) 2002 Sacramento Kings 110, (11) 2007 San Antonio Spurs 108
The stars really came out in the most exciting game of the Sweet Sixteen so far. I had issues deciding who would get home court for this game, since even though the Spurs had a better seed, they had the worse record due to my mistake with the Sacramento franchise. However, that would end up not mattering. The Big 3 of San Antonio played phenomenal, as Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili combined for 64 points, 26 rebounds, and 13 assists. However, it wasn't enough to overcome an absolute monster game by Peja Stojakovic, who scored 37 points on 14/24 shooting. Chris Webber nearly got a triple-double, recording 18-13-8. The Spurs led by 8 at the half, but the Kings slowly worked their way back into the game. Webber made a fade-away with 19 seconds to take a 110-108, but Duncan missed a jumper at the buzzer to tie.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810664&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(5) 1981 Boston Celtics 109, (1) 1967 Philadelphia 76ers 105
And then there was one. With the defeat of the 1967 Philadelphia team, only one No. 1 seed remains as we head off to the Elite Eight. Boston got off to a hot start, leading by 9 at the end of one, but Philadelphia charged back to not only reach, but take the lead heading into the half. The two teams played back and forth ball for the remainder of the game, but Boston took the lead with 6 minutes remaining and never looked back. Larry Bird and Robert Parish played magnificent ball, and the two combined for 57 points, 30 rebounds, 8 assists, and 7 blocks, with both players shooting over 50% from the floor. For the 76ers, Wilt Chamberlain played about as good as one could, scoring 35 points on 17-23 shooting, while also accumulating 22 rebounds and 7 assists. Unfortunately, only one other of his teammates even made half his shots, letting Wilt's fine effort go to waste.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5810701&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
(2) 1986 Boston Celtics 104, (6) 1984 Boston Celtics 88
Despite the team being just the same team but just two years apart, the game wasn't even close. Aside from the game being tied after one, the 1986 Celtics won every quarter. DJ, Robert Parish, and Kevin McHale for both teams put up similar stats, but the key difference was Larry Bird. The 1984 Bird scored just 14 points, while the 1986 counterpart broke out for 35! The biggest edge for the 1985 Celtics was their dominance on the boards, outrebounding their version of two years earlier, 56-47. Look how much different a couple of years make!
Thoughts
I think it safe to say that our simulated tournament has been rather unpredictable, or, dare I say it, madness. There are no more teams left from either the Boston Celtics dynasty of the 1960s or the Chicago Bulls dynasty of the 1990s. The GOAT Michael Jordan and the greatest coach of all Phil Jackson are both absent in the Elite Eight, as well as three No. 1 seeds. Here's what I find most interesting though. Three of the teams left did not win the championship, with two of those teams not even making the NBA Finals. Considering all the championship teams are going against each other in the next round, that means that potentially two of the teams in the Final Four for our Best Team in NBA History tournament weren't even the best team in their year!
*After looking through my info, I'm not sure how the 2006 Detroit Pistons are even in the tournament. They weren't the best team in franchise history, nor did they ever win a championship. Realizing this so late in the simulation, I thought it best just to leave them in.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Best NBA Team Round of 32
Tomorrow, the Sweet Sixteen starts, so I thought I'd narrow the Best Team in NBA History Tournament down to 16 teams too. Just in case anyway was wondering, I'm currently 8th out of 12 in my competition with my friends. Just got to love March Madness...
Group 1
8. 1996 Orlando Magic def. 1. 1996 Chicago Bulls, 109-106
5. 2006 Detroit Pistons def. 4. 1965 Boston Celtics, 106-92
6. 1998 Chicago Bulls def. 14. 2006 Miami Heat, 102-101
10. 1994 Houston Rockets def. 15. 1956 Philadelphia Warriors, 124-115
This simulation has just been full of upsets, hasn't it? I personally consider the 1996 Chicago Bulls as the greatest team in NBA History (partly to make myself feel better about how good the 1996 Seattle Sonics were), but in this tournament, they lose to the Orlando Magic of that same year. This was a huge upset considering Chicago beat Orlando three out of four times in the regular season and swept them in the playoffs. In 2006, the Miami Heat had to beat the Detroit Pistons to make it to the NBA Finals, but here, the Pistons make it to the Sweet Sixteen while Miami fizzles.
Group 2
1. 1972 LA Lakers def. 8. 1970 New York Knicks, 127-121
12. 1993 Chicago Bulls def. 4. 1997 Utah Jazz, 107-97
11. 2002 LA Lakers def. 3. 2008 Boston Celtics, 105-93
10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs def. 2. 2000 LA Lakers, 94-86
Being a double-digit seed helped in this group, as the 10, 11, and 12 seed make it to the next round. Regardless of the year, it seems that the Stockton and Malone-led Jazz just cannot get past Michael Jordan's Bulls. In what I'll dub the rivalry match-up, the 2002 LA Lakers beat the 2008 Boston Celtics.
Group 3
9. 1963 Boston Celtics def. 16. 2001 Toronto Raptors, 112-110
5. 1993 Phoenix Suns def. 13. 1974 Boston Celtics, 98-97
11. 2007 San Antonio Spurs def. 3. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers, 107-96
15. 2002 Sacramento Kings def. 7. 2004 Indiana Pacers, 102-91
I was really interested to see how the 2001 Toronto Raptors were going to do, and they must have been better than I thought, because they were just edged out by the 1963 Boston Celtics. Nevertheless, their run is over. The 2002 Sacramento Kings, the substitute team, are making their way to the Sweet Sixteen. Were they, and not Los Angeles, the best team in the 2001-02 season?
Group 4
1. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers def. 9. 1959 Boston Celtics, 124-112
5. 1981 Boston Celtics def. 13. 2001 LA Lakers, 117-108
6. 1984 Boston Celtics def. 3. 1987 LA Lakers, 121-120
2. 1986 Boston Celtics def. 10. 1961 Boston Celtics, 113-90
I think what I called the Boston-Los Angeles Group has now become just the Boston group. It was a good night for the Celtics in this group, as they won both their match-ups against the Lakers. However, they couldn't get the sweep as the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers won their match-up. I think the one thing I like about this group is that the teams that we thought should have won, won.
Thoughts
When it comes to the NCAA Tournament, I usually feel the Sweet Sixteen is the round where teams can say they are really one of the best sixteen teams in the league. Just making it into the NCAA Tournament doesn't make a team top 68, as multiple teams who won their conferences probably aren't one of the 68 best teams in college basketball. In the round of 32, there were probably some flukes, so I don't call all the teams in that round the best 32 teams in basketball. However, I think once we get to the Sweet Sixteen, we really get to the point where we can say, Wow, these guys are good!
Looking at the teams that we have here, I can't say that any one team didn't deserve to be in the Round of 32. They're all great teams, but some, like the 1996 Orlando Magic and 2006 Detroit Pistons, aren't exactly teams we considers the greatest of all-time. Just to note, we only have two Los Angeles teams left, compared to four Boston ones. We still got two number one seeds remaining, and the worst team record-wise left in the tournament are the 1993 Chicago Bulls (57-25), though they did win the championship, and are led my Michael Jordan nonetheless.
Group 1
8. 1996 Orlando Magic def. 1. 1996 Chicago Bulls, 109-106
5. 2006 Detroit Pistons def. 4. 1965 Boston Celtics, 106-92
6. 1998 Chicago Bulls def. 14. 2006 Miami Heat, 102-101
10. 1994 Houston Rockets def. 15. 1956 Philadelphia Warriors, 124-115
This simulation has just been full of upsets, hasn't it? I personally consider the 1996 Chicago Bulls as the greatest team in NBA History (partly to make myself feel better about how good the 1996 Seattle Sonics were), but in this tournament, they lose to the Orlando Magic of that same year. This was a huge upset considering Chicago beat Orlando three out of four times in the regular season and swept them in the playoffs. In 2006, the Miami Heat had to beat the Detroit Pistons to make it to the NBA Finals, but here, the Pistons make it to the Sweet Sixteen while Miami fizzles.
Group 2
1. 1972 LA Lakers def. 8. 1970 New York Knicks, 127-121
12. 1993 Chicago Bulls def. 4. 1997 Utah Jazz, 107-97
11. 2002 LA Lakers def. 3. 2008 Boston Celtics, 105-93
10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs def. 2. 2000 LA Lakers, 94-86
Being a double-digit seed helped in this group, as the 10, 11, and 12 seed make it to the next round. Regardless of the year, it seems that the Stockton and Malone-led Jazz just cannot get past Michael Jordan's Bulls. In what I'll dub the rivalry match-up, the 2002 LA Lakers beat the 2008 Boston Celtics.
Group 3
9. 1963 Boston Celtics def. 16. 2001 Toronto Raptors, 112-110
5. 1993 Phoenix Suns def. 13. 1974 Boston Celtics, 98-97
11. 2007 San Antonio Spurs def. 3. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers, 107-96
15. 2002 Sacramento Kings def. 7. 2004 Indiana Pacers, 102-91
I was really interested to see how the 2001 Toronto Raptors were going to do, and they must have been better than I thought, because they were just edged out by the 1963 Boston Celtics. Nevertheless, their run is over. The 2002 Sacramento Kings, the substitute team, are making their way to the Sweet Sixteen. Were they, and not Los Angeles, the best team in the 2001-02 season?
Group 4
1. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers def. 9. 1959 Boston Celtics, 124-112
5. 1981 Boston Celtics def. 13. 2001 LA Lakers, 117-108
6. 1984 Boston Celtics def. 3. 1987 LA Lakers, 121-120
2. 1986 Boston Celtics def. 10. 1961 Boston Celtics, 113-90
I think what I called the Boston-Los Angeles Group has now become just the Boston group. It was a good night for the Celtics in this group, as they won both their match-ups against the Lakers. However, they couldn't get the sweep as the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers won their match-up. I think the one thing I like about this group is that the teams that we thought should have won, won.
Thoughts
When it comes to the NCAA Tournament, I usually feel the Sweet Sixteen is the round where teams can say they are really one of the best sixteen teams in the league. Just making it into the NCAA Tournament doesn't make a team top 68, as multiple teams who won their conferences probably aren't one of the 68 best teams in college basketball. In the round of 32, there were probably some flukes, so I don't call all the teams in that round the best 32 teams in basketball. However, I think once we get to the Sweet Sixteen, we really get to the point where we can say, Wow, these guys are good!
Looking at the teams that we have here, I can't say that any one team didn't deserve to be in the Round of 32. They're all great teams, but some, like the 1996 Orlando Magic and 2006 Detroit Pistons, aren't exactly teams we considers the greatest of all-time. Just to note, we only have two Los Angeles teams left, compared to four Boston ones. We still got two number one seeds remaining, and the worst team record-wise left in the tournament are the 1993 Chicago Bulls (57-25), though they did win the championship, and are led my Michael Jordan nonetheless.
Best NBA Team Round of 64
Here are the results for the Round of 64 according to the WhatIfSports simulator. For the first two rounds, I'm not going to provide commentary for each individual. One, because it's just a round of 64 game, and two, because it sounds kind of silly to provide observations for fictitious games.
Group 1
Play-in game: 1978 Washington Bullets def. 2010 Charlotte Bobcats, 91-88
1. 1996 Chicago Bulls def. 1978 Washington Bullets, 118-90
8. 1996 Orlando Magic def. 9. 1980 LA Lakers, 134-93
4. 1965 Boston Celtics def. 13. 1953 Minneapolis Lakers, 111-96
5. 2006 Detroit Pistons def. 12. 2010 LA Lakers, 105-95
14. 2006 Miami Heat def. 3. 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers, 101-92
6. 1998 Chicago Bulls def. 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves, 90-78
15. 1956 Philadelphia Warriors def. 2. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks, 127-126
10. 1994 Houston Rockets def. 7. 1954 Minneapolis Lakers, 116-84
The biggest surprise from Group 1 definitely has to be the 1956 Philadelphia Warriors edging out the 1971 Milwaukee Bucks. That Milwaukee team has always been in talks for best team ever, but they won't get to show that in this tournament. Under LeBron James, Cleveland always seemed to come up short, and they do so again, being upset by the O'Neal, Wade, and the 2006 Miami Heat. Speaking of upset, the 1994 Houston Rockets demolished the 1954 Lakers, 116-84. In another blow-out, the 1996 Orlando Magic beat the 1980 LA Lakers in what's usually regarded in a coin-flip 8/9 match-up.
Group 2
1. 1972 LA Lakers def. 16. 1958 St. Louis Hawks, 120-99
8. 1970 New York Knicks def. 9. 2003 San Antonio Spurs, 133-96
4. 1997 Utah Jazz def. 13. 2008 New Orleans Hornet, 110-102
12. 1993 Chicago Bulls def. 5. 1989 Detroit Pistons, 101-95
3. 2008 Boston Celtics def. 14. 2002 New Jersey Nets, 99-86
11. 2002 LA Lakers def. 6. 1988 LA Lakers, 107-91
2. 2000 LA Lakers def. 15. 2004 Memphis Grizzlies, 110-71
10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs def. 7. 1962 Boston Celtics, 100-92
This may be saying the obvious, but in this round, it was good to be coached by Phil Jackson as all his teams, the '93 Bulls and the '00 and '02 LA Lakers won. On the other hand, like in the first group, it wasn't so good to be a no. 9 seed as we saw another blow-out with the 2003 San Antonio Spurs losing by 37 to the 1970 New York Knicks. By the 1990s, Michael Jordan got tired of losing to the Detroit Pistons, and we saw that here, despite the 1993 Chicago Bulls being the worse seed.
Group 3
16. 2001 Toronto Raptors def. 1. 1997 Chicago Bulls, 95-90
9. 1963 Boston Celtics def. 8. 1964 Boston Celtics, 125-116
13. 1974 Boston Celtics def. 4. 1960 Boston Celtics, 123-119
5. 1993 Phoenix Suns def. 12. 1982 LA Lakers, 135-111
3. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers def. 14. 1979 Seattle SuperSonics, 122-107
11. 2007 San Antonio Spurs def. 6. 1985 LA Lakers, 105-94
15. 2002 Sacramento Kings * def. 2. 1992 Chicago Bulls, 114-87
7. 2004 Indiana Pacers def. 10. 1990 Detroit Pistons. 96-89
*WhatIfSports didn't give a 1951 Rochester Royals as an option, so I decided to replace them with the next best team for that franchise, which was the 2002 Sacramento Kings. If I had known this beforehand, I would have changed the seedings, and based on the results of the simulations, could very well have changed a lot.
So the biggest upset of this round, of this tournament so far, and most likely the tournament forever, will be the 2001 Toronto Raptors knocking off the 69-win Chicago Bulls. Looking at the box score, a young Vince Carter outplayed Michael Jordan (who would've imagined) and led his team to victory. Just because this was so surprising, I just thought I'd provide the box score.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5776021&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
Unlike Group 2, Group 3 was not a good group to be coached by Phil Jackson, as both his 1992 Bulls and 1997 Bulls were upset. Actually, it wasn't a good round to be a high seed at all, as low seeds won 5 of 8 match-ups. There are no more Seattle teams in this tournament, as our only representative was, as expected, defeated. Here's the box score for that.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5776032&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
Group 4
1. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers def. 16. 1977 Portland Trail Blazers, 113-91
9. 1959 Boston Celtics def. 8. 1999 San Antonio Spurs, 114-110
13. 2001 LA Lakers def. 4. 2009 LA Lakers, 95-94
5. 1981 Boston Celtics def. 12. 1973 New York Knicks, 103-82
3. 1987 LA Lakers def. 14. 2009 Denver Nuggets, 107-98
6. 1984 Boston Celtics def. 11. 2011 Dallas Mavericks, 103-90
2. 1986 Boston Celtics def. 15. 1975 Buffalo Braves, 116-98
10. 1961 Boston Celtics def. 7. 1991 Chicago Bulls, 122-120
I think Group 4 should just be called the Boston-Los Angeles Group, because only one team wasn't from one of those two franchises. This group went a lot more as expected than the group before it did. I think the most interesting match-up had to be the 2001 LA Lakers versus its 2009 counterpart. With the 2001 version, you had a team that was dominant in the playoffs, whereas the 2009 was dominant in the regular season. I guess it's only appropriate the dominant postseason one won.
Group 1
Play-in game: 1978 Washington Bullets def. 2010 Charlotte Bobcats, 91-88
1. 1996 Chicago Bulls def. 1978 Washington Bullets, 118-90
8. 1996 Orlando Magic def. 9. 1980 LA Lakers, 134-93
4. 1965 Boston Celtics def. 13. 1953 Minneapolis Lakers, 111-96
5. 2006 Detroit Pistons def. 12. 2010 LA Lakers, 105-95
14. 2006 Miami Heat def. 3. 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers, 101-92
6. 1998 Chicago Bulls def. 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves, 90-78
15. 1956 Philadelphia Warriors def. 2. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks, 127-126
10. 1994 Houston Rockets def. 7. 1954 Minneapolis Lakers, 116-84
The biggest surprise from Group 1 definitely has to be the 1956 Philadelphia Warriors edging out the 1971 Milwaukee Bucks. That Milwaukee team has always been in talks for best team ever, but they won't get to show that in this tournament. Under LeBron James, Cleveland always seemed to come up short, and they do so again, being upset by the O'Neal, Wade, and the 2006 Miami Heat. Speaking of upset, the 1994 Houston Rockets demolished the 1954 Lakers, 116-84. In another blow-out, the 1996 Orlando Magic beat the 1980 LA Lakers in what's usually regarded in a coin-flip 8/9 match-up.
Group 2
1. 1972 LA Lakers def. 16. 1958 St. Louis Hawks, 120-99
8. 1970 New York Knicks def. 9. 2003 San Antonio Spurs, 133-96
4. 1997 Utah Jazz def. 13. 2008 New Orleans Hornet, 110-102
12. 1993 Chicago Bulls def. 5. 1989 Detroit Pistons, 101-95
3. 2008 Boston Celtics def. 14. 2002 New Jersey Nets, 99-86
11. 2002 LA Lakers def. 6. 1988 LA Lakers, 107-91
2. 2000 LA Lakers def. 15. 2004 Memphis Grizzlies, 110-71
10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs def. 7. 1962 Boston Celtics, 100-92
This may be saying the obvious, but in this round, it was good to be coached by Phil Jackson as all his teams, the '93 Bulls and the '00 and '02 LA Lakers won. On the other hand, like in the first group, it wasn't so good to be a no. 9 seed as we saw another blow-out with the 2003 San Antonio Spurs losing by 37 to the 1970 New York Knicks. By the 1990s, Michael Jordan got tired of losing to the Detroit Pistons, and we saw that here, despite the 1993 Chicago Bulls being the worse seed.
Group 3
16. 2001 Toronto Raptors def. 1. 1997 Chicago Bulls, 95-90
9. 1963 Boston Celtics def. 8. 1964 Boston Celtics, 125-116
13. 1974 Boston Celtics def. 4. 1960 Boston Celtics, 123-119
5. 1993 Phoenix Suns def. 12. 1982 LA Lakers, 135-111
3. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers def. 14. 1979 Seattle SuperSonics, 122-107
11. 2007 San Antonio Spurs def. 6. 1985 LA Lakers, 105-94
15. 2002 Sacramento Kings * def. 2. 1992 Chicago Bulls, 114-87
7. 2004 Indiana Pacers def. 10. 1990 Detroit Pistons. 96-89
*WhatIfSports didn't give a 1951 Rochester Royals as an option, so I decided to replace them with the next best team for that franchise, which was the 2002 Sacramento Kings. If I had known this beforehand, I would have changed the seedings, and based on the results of the simulations, could very well have changed a lot.
So the biggest upset of this round, of this tournament so far, and most likely the tournament forever, will be the 2001 Toronto Raptors knocking off the 69-win Chicago Bulls. Looking at the box score, a young Vince Carter outplayed Michael Jordan (who would've imagined) and led his team to victory. Just because this was so surprising, I just thought I'd provide the box score.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5776021&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
Unlike Group 2, Group 3 was not a good group to be coached by Phil Jackson, as both his 1992 Bulls and 1997 Bulls were upset. Actually, it wasn't a good round to be a high seed at all, as low seeds won 5 of 8 match-ups. There are no more Seattle teams in this tournament, as our only representative was, as expected, defeated. Here's the box score for that.
http://whatifsports.com/NBA/boxscore.asp?GameID=5776032&nomenu=1&teamfee=-1
Group 4
1. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers def. 16. 1977 Portland Trail Blazers, 113-91
9. 1959 Boston Celtics def. 8. 1999 San Antonio Spurs, 114-110
13. 2001 LA Lakers def. 4. 2009 LA Lakers, 95-94
5. 1981 Boston Celtics def. 12. 1973 New York Knicks, 103-82
3. 1987 LA Lakers def. 14. 2009 Denver Nuggets, 107-98
6. 1984 Boston Celtics def. 11. 2011 Dallas Mavericks, 103-90
2. 1986 Boston Celtics def. 15. 1975 Buffalo Braves, 116-98
10. 1961 Boston Celtics def. 7. 1991 Chicago Bulls, 122-120
I think Group 4 should just be called the Boston-Los Angeles Group, because only one team wasn't from one of those two franchises. This group went a lot more as expected than the group before it did. I think the most interesting match-up had to be the 2001 LA Lakers versus its 2009 counterpart. With the 2001 version, you had a team that was dominant in the playoffs, whereas the 2009 was dominant in the regular season. I guess it's only appropriate the dominant postseason one won.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Best NBA Team Tournament Bracket!
It's around this time of year, when March Madness is happening, that people become obsessed with brackets. I have to admit, I'm one of those people. As a result, I thought it would be fun to have a simulated tournament to come up with the best team in NBA history!
In coming up with the teams for this bracket, I wanted to make it close (though it ended up being not really that close) to how teams are selected for the NCAA tournament. First, I had to come up with the automatic bids. For this, I debated with myself between either having all the teams that have won a championship being in the tournament, or the best team in each team's history. In the end, I decided to go with the latter, just because I thought it would be fun to have every single team currently in the league represented. Kind of like the MLB All-Star game. Also, the number of automatic bids via this method was closer to the number in the actual NCAA tournament. 30 NBA teams meant 30 automatic bids. For each team, the best team was determined by the one that won a championship. If multiple teams won the championship in a franchise's history, the one with the most wins that season was picked. If a franchise never won a championship, I picked the team that had the most wins.
For the at-large bids, I just decided to go with the teams that did win the championship. Not included the ones that already got the automatic bid, that left me with 46 automatic bid teams. Based on winning percentage, I cut that down to 35 teams, leaving 65 teams for the tournament. I know, there's 68 teams, but to be honest, I just don't feel it necessary to add in an extra 3 teams.
With the 65 teams selected, I ordered them by winning percentage, seeded them, and put them into four different regions, or in this case, groups, like they would be if they were teams playing in the NCAA tournament.
Some fun facts? The team that's most represented in this tournament are the Lakers, with 13 different teams, followed by the Celtics with 12. I think the most represented year are 2004 (Indiana, Memphis, and Minnesota) and 2009 (Cleveland, the Lakers, and Denver). Of course, this being a Sonics blog, I feel it good to note that under this format, the 1979 Championship team is the team's only representative, and they're a 14th seed at that.
So the question is, how do I pick the winner? I'm going to use the game simulator by whatifsports.com. Like the NCAA Tournament, only one game will be played, so the best team may not always win.
Without further ado, here are the match-ups:
Group 1
1. 1996 Chicago Bulls vs. 16. 1978 Washington Bullets/2010 Charlotte Bobcats
8. 1996 Orlando Magic vs. 9. 1980 LA Lakers
4. 1965 Boston Celtics vs. 13. 1953 Minneapolis Lakers
5. 2006 Detroit Pistons vs. 12. 2010 LA Lakers
3. 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers vs. 14. 2006 Miami Heat
6. 1998 Chicago Bulls vs. 11. 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves
2. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks vs. 15. 1956 Philadelphia Warriors
7. 1950 Minneapolis Lakers vs. 10. 1994 Houston Rockets
Group 2
1. 1972 LA Lakers vs. 16. 1958 St. Louis Hawks
8. 1970 New York Knicks vs. 9. 2003 San Antonio Spurs
4. 1997 Utah Jazz vs. 2008 New Orleans Hornets
5. 1989 Detroit Pistons vs. 12. 1993 Chicago Bulls
3. 2008 Boston Celtics vs. 14. 2002 New Jersey Nets
6. 1988 LA Lakers vs. 11. 2002 LA Lakers
2. 2000 LA Lakers vs. 15. 2004 Memphis Grizzlies
7. 1962 Boston vs. 10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs
Group 3
1. 1997 Chicago Bulls vs. 16. 2001 Toronto Raptors
8. 1964 Boston Celtics vs. 9. 1963 Boston Celtics
4. 1960 Boston Celtics vs. 13. 1974 Boston Celtics
5. 1993 Phoenix Suns vs. 12. 1982 LA Lakers
3. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers vs. 14. 1979 Seattle SuperSonics
6. 1985 LA Lakers vs. 11. 2007 San Antonio Spurs
2. 1992 Chicago Bulls vs. 15. 1951 Rochester Royals
7. 2004 Indiana Pacers vs. 10. 1990 Detroit Pistons
Group 4
1. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers vs. 16. 1977 Portland Trail Blazers
8. 1999 San Antonio Spurs vs. 9. 1959 Boston Celtics
4. 2009 LA Lakers vs. 13. 2001 LA Lakers
5. 1981 Boston Celtics vs. 12. 1973 New York Knicks
3. 1987 LA Lakers vs. 14. 2009 Denver Nuggets
6. 1984 Boston Celtics vs. 11. 2011 Dallas Mavericks
2. 1986 Boston Celtics vs. 15. 1975 Buffalo Braves
7. 1991 Chicago Bulls vs. 10. 1961 Boston Celtics
In coming up with the teams for this bracket, I wanted to make it close (though it ended up being not really that close) to how teams are selected for the NCAA tournament. First, I had to come up with the automatic bids. For this, I debated with myself between either having all the teams that have won a championship being in the tournament, or the best team in each team's history. In the end, I decided to go with the latter, just because I thought it would be fun to have every single team currently in the league represented. Kind of like the MLB All-Star game. Also, the number of automatic bids via this method was closer to the number in the actual NCAA tournament. 30 NBA teams meant 30 automatic bids. For each team, the best team was determined by the one that won a championship. If multiple teams won the championship in a franchise's history, the one with the most wins that season was picked. If a franchise never won a championship, I picked the team that had the most wins.
For the at-large bids, I just decided to go with the teams that did win the championship. Not included the ones that already got the automatic bid, that left me with 46 automatic bid teams. Based on winning percentage, I cut that down to 35 teams, leaving 65 teams for the tournament. I know, there's 68 teams, but to be honest, I just don't feel it necessary to add in an extra 3 teams.
With the 65 teams selected, I ordered them by winning percentage, seeded them, and put them into four different regions, or in this case, groups, like they would be if they were teams playing in the NCAA tournament.
Some fun facts? The team that's most represented in this tournament are the Lakers, with 13 different teams, followed by the Celtics with 12. I think the most represented year are 2004 (Indiana, Memphis, and Minnesota) and 2009 (Cleveland, the Lakers, and Denver). Of course, this being a Sonics blog, I feel it good to note that under this format, the 1979 Championship team is the team's only representative, and they're a 14th seed at that.
So the question is, how do I pick the winner? I'm going to use the game simulator by whatifsports.com. Like the NCAA Tournament, only one game will be played, so the best team may not always win.
Without further ado, here are the match-ups:
Group 1
1. 1996 Chicago Bulls vs. 16. 1978 Washington Bullets/2010 Charlotte Bobcats
8. 1996 Orlando Magic vs. 9. 1980 LA Lakers
4. 1965 Boston Celtics vs. 13. 1953 Minneapolis Lakers
5. 2006 Detroit Pistons vs. 12. 2010 LA Lakers
3. 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers vs. 14. 2006 Miami Heat
6. 1998 Chicago Bulls vs. 11. 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves
2. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks vs. 15. 1956 Philadelphia Warriors
7. 1950 Minneapolis Lakers vs. 10. 1994 Houston Rockets
Group 2
1. 1972 LA Lakers vs. 16. 1958 St. Louis Hawks
8. 1970 New York Knicks vs. 9. 2003 San Antonio Spurs
4. 1997 Utah Jazz vs. 2008 New Orleans Hornets
5. 1989 Detroit Pistons vs. 12. 1993 Chicago Bulls
3. 2008 Boston Celtics vs. 14. 2002 New Jersey Nets
6. 1988 LA Lakers vs. 11. 2002 LA Lakers
2. 2000 LA Lakers vs. 15. 2004 Memphis Grizzlies
7. 1962 Boston vs. 10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs
Group 3
1. 1997 Chicago Bulls vs. 16. 2001 Toronto Raptors
8. 1964 Boston Celtics vs. 9. 1963 Boston Celtics
4. 1960 Boston Celtics vs. 13. 1974 Boston Celtics
5. 1993 Phoenix Suns vs. 12. 1982 LA Lakers
3. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers vs. 14. 1979 Seattle SuperSonics
6. 1985 LA Lakers vs. 11. 2007 San Antonio Spurs
2. 1992 Chicago Bulls vs. 15. 1951 Rochester Royals
7. 2004 Indiana Pacers vs. 10. 1990 Detroit Pistons
Group 4
1. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers vs. 16. 1977 Portland Trail Blazers
8. 1999 San Antonio Spurs vs. 9. 1959 Boston Celtics
4. 2009 LA Lakers vs. 13. 2001 LA Lakers
5. 1981 Boston Celtics vs. 12. 1973 New York Knicks
3. 1987 LA Lakers vs. 14. 2009 Denver Nuggets
6. 1984 Boston Celtics vs. 11. 2011 Dallas Mavericks
2. 1986 Boston Celtics vs. 15. 1975 Buffalo Braves
7. 1991 Chicago Bulls vs. 10. 1961 Boston Celtics
Friday, March 16, 2012
Video: 1997 NBA WCSF, Houston @ Seattle Game 6
A big part of remembering the Sonics is being able to watch some of the great games they've played. Thanks to YouTube, we all can do that! Every once in a while, I'll probably a game that I find on YouTube that I think will be interesting. Here are some things I think is important to note about this:
- You have the battle of the Big 3s. The Houston Rockets had a trio of Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, and Clyde Drexler, all whom are NBA legends who were past their prime but still excellent nevertheless. Seattle has a less historically successful three in Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, and Detlef Schrempf, but all whom are about in their prime.
- I think this video, especially in the beginning, shows how dominant and effective the George Karl-led Seattle Sonic teams were with their trap defense. Seattle were a phenomenal defensive team throughout the 1990s, and led the league in steals multiple times.
- Regardless of what the score was, this game from start to finish was very intense and exciting. I guess that's what you get when you have personalities like Payton, Kemp, and Barkley.
- Also notice how instrumental Gary Payton was the Seattle offense, especially towards the end of the game. Payton gets a lot of points and assists, but the offense doesn't flow as well when the ball is out of Payton's hands.
Coach Nate McMillan
As any NBA fan, and perhaps any sports fan, knows, the Portland Trail Blazers decided to fire Head Coach Nate McMillan yesterday. For those looking for more information on it, Oregon Live provides a good read on it.
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2012/03/nate_mcmillan_fired_after_the_trail_blazers_once_p.html
McMillan's dismissal hits harder in the Pacific Northwest, obviously in Portland where he was the coach since 2005, and especially in Seattle, where he played for 12 years, coached for 4 1/2, and was affectionately known as Mr. Sonic. Throughout his career, McMillan has made a name for himself as both a player and a coach. With his firing as the head coach of Portland, I thought it would be good to look back at his coaching career. First when he was with Seattle, then Portland, and then what his future may hold.
Seattle SuperSonics
Immediately after retiring from basketball, McMillan went from sitting on the Seattle bench in sweats to sitting on the bench in a suit. From the time he was named as an assistant in 1998, he quickly worked his way up the ranks. When Coach Paul Westphal was fired in 2001, McMillan was chosen over both veteran assistants Dwane Casey and Bob Weiss to take his place. The team improved under McMillan's helm, and he was kept on for the next four years before leaving for Portland. In his time in Seattle, his record was as follows:
2000-01 38-29
2001-02 45-37
2002-03 40-42
2003-04 37-45
2004-05 52-30
When thinking about McMillan's legacy as a coach, there are notable things to factor, both good and bad.
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2012/03/nate_mcmillan_fired_after_the_trail_blazers_once_p.html
McMillan's dismissal hits harder in the Pacific Northwest, obviously in Portland where he was the coach since 2005, and especially in Seattle, where he played for 12 years, coached for 4 1/2, and was affectionately known as Mr. Sonic. Throughout his career, McMillan has made a name for himself as both a player and a coach. With his firing as the head coach of Portland, I thought it would be good to look back at his coaching career. First when he was with Seattle, then Portland, and then what his future may hold.
Seattle SuperSonics
Immediately after retiring from basketball, McMillan went from sitting on the Seattle bench in sweats to sitting on the bench in a suit. From the time he was named as an assistant in 1998, he quickly worked his way up the ranks. When Coach Paul Westphal was fired in 2001, McMillan was chosen over both veteran assistants Dwane Casey and Bob Weiss to take his place. The team improved under McMillan's helm, and he was kept on for the next four years before leaving for Portland. In his time in Seattle, his record was as follows:
2000-01 38-29
2001-02 45-37
2002-03 40-42
2003-04 37-45
2004-05 52-30
When thinking about McMillan's legacy as a coach, there are notable things to factor, both good and bad.
- In the 2000-01 season, as a rookie coach he took a team that started 6-9 (.400) and got them to play 38-29 (.567) the rest of the way.
- The Sonics had not had a losing season in 15 years before the back-to-back losing teams led by McMillan in 2003 and 2004.
- In McMillan's last year with the team, John Hollinger had the Sonics 29th in his preseason power ranking (only ahead of the expansion Charlotte Bobcats), but the team instead won the Northwest Division.
- Seattle's Northwest Division crown led to McMillan being third in the 2005 Coach of the Year voting.
- McMillan wasn't exactly the most loved coach. He had some issues with Danny Fortson (but then again, I guess most coaches did), and when McMillan left, he didn't receive as much praise from Ray Allen as Bob Hill did.
- For a coach that preached defense, the Sonics finished in the top half in defense ZERO times in five years.
In my opinion, McMillan wasn't a phenomenal coach with Seattle, nor was he a bad one. In his first stint coaching, he did a solid job leading what were usually pretty young teams. He usually got the best out of all his teams, and one could see how much his presence was missed when the team flopped in the 2005-06 season. Still, I think his coaching career in Seattle does tend to be overrated.
From the Seattle fans, I think people tend to remember him too affectionately as a player, that they get themselves to believe that he was a great coach. It was just in the 2003-04 season, that I remember hearing rumors of Seattle possibly sacking McMillan. I also think the downfall of the team in 2005-06 is too much credited to McMillan's departure, and while that's partly true, there was also losing Antonio Daniels, Coach Bob Weiss' struggles at disciplining the team, and the deterioration of Danny Fortson's career, which had already begun when McMillan was at the helm. Also one thing I think is important is that he just couldn't get his teams to play defense.
Now, I do want to stress that I don't think he was bad coach with Seattle at all. He did lead them to a 212-183 (.537), which is really solid. He got his team to play as good, or even better, than they should have, and that makes him a good coach. I just don't think he did enough to be considered a great coach. There haven't been too many great coaches in team history, so McMillan probably ranks near the top. He's definitely not at the George Karl and Lenny Wilkens level, but way above the ranks of Weiss and PJ Carlesimo.
Portland Trail Blazers
Coming off a great season with Seattle, McMillan was taken by Portland and signed to a multi-year contract. He was viewed as a great pick-up and a step towards moving the team in a new direction. McMillan brought the team back to respectability, but so many injuries makes it a bit difficult to judge his career there.
2005-06 21-61
2006-07 32-50
2007-08 41-41
2008-09 54-28
2009-10 50-32
2010-11 48-34
2011-12 20-23
I'm not a big Trail Blazers fan, so I can't say too much about them, but here's what I see.
- In his first season, the team finished 21-61, which was the worst in the entire NBA, and tied for second worst in team history. Even if the team didn't have a lot of talent, I think an elite coach would have managed to avoid 30th out of 30. They had a good Zach Randolph, and a similar team to the year before, where they won 6 more games.
- His record in Portland is like a roller-coaster. His winning percentage increased every single year until 2009, and then decreased every single year until the present day.
- Between injuries to Oden and Roy, McMillan's teams always managed to be solid, making the playoffs in three straight year.
- McMillan changed the culture of Portland, from a team that was known as the "Jail Breakers" to one that was one the rise.
- Like Seattle, Portland was never an elite defensive team. Interesting enough, this year McMillan fielded his best defensive team, ranked 13th.
I think that the most important part of what McMillan did for Portland was change its reputation. The Trail Blazers were absolutely floundering. At least when they were best known as the "Jail Breakers" in the early 2000s, they were somewhat good, but when McMillan came, they weren't. I think that's the signal of a solid coach right there.
McMillan's part in the Portland revival is where I think the limit of his success is though. A lot of people will look at his record and say that considering all the injuries they had, they were pretty good. I remember in 2007, Portland and Seattle had the top two picks, and both were seen as teams looking to rebuild and were going to be teams on the rise. I remember as a Sonic fan being curious as to how it seemed Portland was so much further ahead in their development than Seattle, and then OKC, were. Well, now I'm not saying that. While Portland has been plagued by injuries for years, they've always had great talent, and usually a lot of depth. Portland was always the team that people every year would say if they were healthy, they could be a contender. Event his year, I thought Portland would be a dark horse and surprise everyone. If Portland is a team that was supposed to be one of the best each year without injuries, then with injuries, they weren't too far off than what they really were. I think a big part of this is that McMillan has never taken a Portland team to the second round of the playoffs. If you take a contender and plague them with injuries, then simply a playoff team is what I would expect, and that's what's happened with McMillan and the Blazers.
Overall, at least in my opinion, McMillan's teams didn't overachieve that much. They played just about how I felt they should have. Portland was never the great defensive team that McMillan wanted, he kept losing in the first round, and in the end, he lost his locker room.
Future
At just the age of 47, McMillan will still have a long career a head of him. Being young and bright, there will definitely be many suitors for him in the future. For the most part, his teams don't overachieve greatly, but they don't underachieve, and I think many teams will be attracted by his defensive mindset. McMillan also has been known as a good disciplinarian, and has a winning record for his career.
With the recent firing of Mike D'Antonio, I think McMillan would be a good fit in New York. Between Stoudemire, Anthony, and Lin, the team has the talent of a contender, and I think McMillan would bring that out of them. I also feel McMillan has the personality to deal with the Knicks locker room and personalities like Anthony in a way that D'Antonio couldn't. Also, New York has usually struggled defensively, but that's their strength this year, and I feel McMillan would be able to maintain that defensive mindset while also getting their offense together. I'm not saying I think McMillan should be the next Knicks coach, but I think he wouldn't be a bad fit at all. Then again, if they can get Phil Jackson...
Introduction
Welcome to Saving SuperSonics History!
For 41 years, the SuperSonics were a big of Seattle culture and life. The Sonics were the first major pro team in Seattle, and the only one of the Big 4 sports to ever have won a championships. At the peak of their success, fans would come in huge numbers to watch and loudly cheer for our team. There were, and there still is, few places in the nation that have as great of basketball fans as the city of Seattle.
With the team's departure, or as some would say theft, in 2008, basketball began to disappear from the city. While there have been attempts to bring a team to Seattle, Seattle has slowly lost its basketball identity. Simply, you can't be a basketball city without having an NBA team. Some people have boycotted watching any professional basketball ever since the Sonics departed, while others just have lost interest. Without an NBA team, it's too hard for people to be connected with the pros. While that's understandable, it's definitely not ideal. Seattle is too much of a basketball city to not have talks of games and playoffs and stars going around. And the Seattle SuperSonics have had too great of a history to be forgotten because people have stopped caring or thinking about NBA basketball.
The purpose of this blog is to help keep the presence of the Sonics in Seattle. This will be a blog about basketball, but more aimed towards fans of the SuperSonics. I'll talk about things going on in the NBA, but try to add a Sonic twist to it. I think a lot of those who read this will learn a bit about Sonic history too. All in all, I hope to keep thoughts and discussions about the NBA strong in Seattle- as if we actually did have an NBA team.
I hope you all enjoy reading!
For 41 years, the SuperSonics were a big of Seattle culture and life. The Sonics were the first major pro team in Seattle, and the only one of the Big 4 sports to ever have won a championships. At the peak of their success, fans would come in huge numbers to watch and loudly cheer for our team. There were, and there still is, few places in the nation that have as great of basketball fans as the city of Seattle.
With the team's departure, or as some would say theft, in 2008, basketball began to disappear from the city. While there have been attempts to bring a team to Seattle, Seattle has slowly lost its basketball identity. Simply, you can't be a basketball city without having an NBA team. Some people have boycotted watching any professional basketball ever since the Sonics departed, while others just have lost interest. Without an NBA team, it's too hard for people to be connected with the pros. While that's understandable, it's definitely not ideal. Seattle is too much of a basketball city to not have talks of games and playoffs and stars going around. And the Seattle SuperSonics have had too great of a history to be forgotten because people have stopped caring or thinking about NBA basketball.
The purpose of this blog is to help keep the presence of the Sonics in Seattle. This will be a blog about basketball, but more aimed towards fans of the SuperSonics. I'll talk about things going on in the NBA, but try to add a Sonic twist to it. I think a lot of those who read this will learn a bit about Sonic history too. All in all, I hope to keep thoughts and discussions about the NBA strong in Seattle- as if we actually did have an NBA team.
I hope you all enjoy reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)