Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

    At first I was going to do one massive poll, but I don't think that's going to do this justice. Instead, we're going to be eliminating by decade, and then the top two vote-getters out of each round will advance to the semifinal 12-team poll, and then there's going to be a 2-team final out of that.

    I am going to skip the 1940's and 1950's completely as there is almost no film from this era (know, I've looked for many years) and the league was basically Minneapolis and everyone else anyway. If you're too young to have seen any of these teams play, feel free to do some research and vote anyway. I'll add cliff notes on every team.

    I figure if I can get at least 3 people to vote on this one over the next week, we can move on to an era people care about....


    1960 Philadelphia Warriors:

    Record: 49-26
    PPG: 118.6 (3rd) Ortg: 88.7 (7th)
    Opp PPG: 116 (4th) Drtg: 86.8 (2nd)

    Top Players:

    Wilt Chamberlain (38/27, 1st team all-NBA, RoY, MVP)
    Paul Arizin (22/9, all-star)
    Tom Gola (14/10/5, all-star)

    The case for them: Wilt was still young and a bit precocious and his teammates hadn't grown to hate him yet, nor has the rest of the league really figured out how to deal with him. Arizin and Gola were both future HoFers, as well as holdovers from the 1956 Warriors team that won it all before Russell hijacked the league.

    Who beat them and why:

    As the history showed, Wilt dominating the ball typically backfired. Despite him winning the scoring and rebounding titles in 1960, his team was 2nd to last offensively. This manifested against Russell's Celtics, who boasted the only defense better than Philadelphia in 1960. Russell whittled Wilt's average down to 31ppg while averaging 21ppg himself, and while Arizin made it a battle the Celtics did away with the Warriors in 6 games.
    1962 LA Lakers:

    Record: 54-26
    PPG: 118.5 (6th) Ortg: 95.0 (3rd)
    Opp PPG: 116.2 (2nd) Drtg: 93.3 (4th)

    Top players:
    Elgin Baylor (38/19/5, 1st team all-NBA)
    Jerry West (31/8/5, 1st team All-NBA)

    The case for them: Arguably the best 1-2 offensive duo in NBA history. What the Lakers lacked in depth they made up for in two unstoppable perimeter players in their prime.

    Who beat them and why: The Celtics were easily the best team in 1962 at 60-20. Aside from Bill Russell they boasted six additional future HoFers. And yet they could not deal with Baylor, who averaged 41 and 18 against them in the finals, including a 61-point outburst in game 5 that still stands today as a finals record. Still, they lost because one of their role players (Frank Selvy) missed a wide open shot at the end of regulation in the final game that would have won them the title. Boston needed OT to beat LA by 3 points in game 7 at the Garden.
    1964 Cincinnati Royals

    Record: 55-25
    PPG: 114.7 (1st) Ortg: 98.9 (1st)
    Opp PPG: 109.7 (5th) Drtg: 94.5 (4th)

    Top Players:
    Oscar Robertson (31/11/10, 1st team all-NBA, MVP)
    Jerry Lucas (18/17, 2nd team all-NBA, RoY)
    Wayne Embry (17/12, all-star)
    Jack Twyman (16/5)

    The case for them: The Big O at the peak of his powers with the best supporting cast he had prior to his Milwaukee days. Oscar was not only a 1-man army capable of scoring at will himself, but he also directed the league's top offense with precision. He had the NBA's best offensive frontcourt duo in Embry and Lucas (the original stretch four), and an experienced future HoF gunner in twyman as the ideal 4th option.

    Who beat them and why: The Royals had the league's 2nd best record in 1964 next to....do I really need to say it at this point? Russel's Celtics were well into version 2.0 of their dynasty, with HoFers Cousey and Sharman gone, and in their place two more HoF guards in Sam and KC Jones. Simply put, Oscar and Twyman did their jobs, but Russell devoured both Embry and Lucas, holding them to a combined 12 points below their regular season numbers. The top defensive team (Boston) wiped out the top offensive team (Cincy) in the conference finals in just 5 games.
    1968 Philadelphia 76ers

    Record: 62-20
    PPG: 122.6 (1st) Ortg: 98.1 (4th)
    Opp PPG: 114 (4th) Drtg: 91.2 (1st)

    Top Players:
    Wilt Chamberlain (24/24/9, 1st team all-NBA, MVP)
    Hal Greer (24/5/5, 2nd team all-NBA)
    Chet Walker (18/7)
    Luke Jackson (14/12)

    The case for them: The follow-up edition to the group that won a record 68 games and smashed the celtics to end their 8-year reign of terror. Wilt's fascination with his own newfound ability to pass the ball led him to be the first (and only) center to lead the NBA in assists in 1968. With Greer as the outside shooter, Walker as the perimeter creator and Jackson as Wilt's sidekick PF inside, there was no reason to think this team couldn't repeat. Until....

    Who beat them and why: Oh, Wilt. The Sixers again met a re-tooled Boston team in the conference finals, and squeaked out 3 of the first 4 games, including games 3 and 4 in Boston garden. Then Sam Jones erupted for 37 points in a surprise blowout win in Philly...and despite Hal Greer's 40-point response in game 6, the celtics countered with hack-a-wilt (he shot 8/22) to win. In game 7, the wheels came off. With the Celtics leading game 7 at halftime 46-40 against a panicking sixers team facing elimination for the first time, Wilt went into passive-aggressive mode, attempting just two shots in the 2nd half and passing out of scoring opportunities to his ice-cold teammates. The Celtics got their revenge, 100-96. And so the Celtics dynasty was re-born.
    1969 Baltimore Bullets

    Record: 57-25
    PPG: 116.4 (2nd) Ortg: 95.2 (7th)
    Opp PPG: 112.1 (7th) Dtrg: 91.7 (2nd)

    Top Players:
    Wes Unseld (14/18, 1st team all-NBA, RoY, MVP)
    Earl Monroe (26/5, 1st team all-NBA)
    Gus Johnson (17/11, all-star)
    Kevin Loughery (23/5)

    The case for them: One of the more unique teams ever. Three top-shelf 1-on-1 talents in Monroe, Johnson and Loughery, and tying them together was rookie Wes Unseld, a one-of-a-kind center who dominated the glass and turned outlet passing into an art. In one of the NBA's most competitive seasons ever, the Bullets cruised to the best record.

    Who beat them and why: Tragedy hit the Bullets late in the season, when Gus Johnson tore up his knee and was lost for the year. Monroe tried to pick up the slack, but the Bullets were swept in the first round by a young up-and-coming Knicks team that would take the league by storm the following year. Baltimore's one defensive weakness was Unseld, and Willis Reed skewered him from the perimeter. Still, this is the great "what-if" pick from the decade (and I had to find at least one team that didn't lose to Boston).
    1969 LA Lakers

    Record: 55-27
    PPG: 112.2 (6th) Ortg: 98.5 (2nd)
    Opp PPG: 108.1 (4th) Drtg: 94.9 (8th)

    Top Players:
    Jerry West (26/7/4, 2nd team all-NBA, Finals MVP)
    Wilt Chamberlain (21/21/5, all-star)
    Elgin Baylor (25/11/5, all-star)

    The case for them: The original "big three." Believing they couldn't contend anymore with just West and Baylor, the Lakers dealt for disgruntled a wilt chamberlain in the summer of 1968, and the Lakers were suddenly the favorites to win it all, featuring the #1 (Wilt) #2 (Baylor) and #3 (West) playoff scorers ever at the time of the deal. They coasted through the season with little trouble and turned it on in the playoffs to get to the finals against...wait for it...

    Who beat them and why: The 1969 finals between the Lakers and Celtics was one of the greatest series ever played. John Havlicek, now Boston's top gun, dropped 37 and 43 points in games 1 and 2 in LA, and was still outdueled by West's 53 and 41 as LA went up 2-0. The series turned in game 3 when West pulled a hamstring in a Boston win, and though West would return in game 4 to drop 40 more the Lakers were gutted by one of the most miraculous game-winning shots of all time, Sam Jones's catch-and-shoot off the wrong foot from the right elbow to win game 4 at the buzzer, 89-88. LA would go back up 3-2 behind 39 more from West in the 5th game. The 6th game Boston won easily in Russell's home farewell, setting up game 7 in LA. Fittingly Wilt scored just 8 points.

    Jerry West stepped his game up even higher in game 7, scoring 42 points. Baylor scored 20. Wilt had 18 but once again could not handle the pressure of the moment. with Boston scoring at will inside and leading 91-76 heading into the 4th, Wilt picked up his 5th foul and was benched. With a smaller, quicker team LA made a comeback, and cut it to just 103-102 with 2 minutes remaining, but would get no closer. The Celtics won their 11th and final title of the Russell era, but Jerry West would walk away with the series MVP, averaging 38/7/5.

    Note: John Havlicek was Boston's top player in this series. 28/11/4 and he averaged 48 minutes. That's right, he never sat down for a single second of game action over seven grueling NBA Finals games.
    25
    1960 Philadelphia Warriors
    0.00%
    0
    1962 Los Angeles Lakers
    20.00%
    5
    1964 Cincinnati Royals
    24.00%
    6
    1968 Philadelphia 76ers
    16.00%
    4
    1969 Baltimore Bullets
    8.00%
    2
    1969 Los Angeles Lakers
    32.00%
    8

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by Kstat; 07-28-2015, 09:04 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

    Good question. Probably the 68 Sixers but my emotional choice would be the 64 Royals. Oscar should have won a championship at the peak of his game vs. late in his career with Alcindor. Similar factors could be argued for the 62 Lakers with Elgin Baylor & Jerry West.
    Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 07-28-2015, 07:09 AM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

      Here are some relevant videos:

      Wilt's athleticism as a rookie:



      The 1962 Finals:



      Oscar in his prime with the Royals:



      A tribute to Wilt's Sixers team:



      Wes Unseld:



      4th quarter of the 1969 NBA Finals:


      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

        Probably the '64 Royals. '69 Lakers should get some consideration as well. Need to think about this some more before I vote.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

          I chose the 62 Lakers because of prime Elgin.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

            They were all very good teams, but I selected the 1968 76er's. They were the defending champions plus won 62 games during the regular season. As I recall, they won 67 or 68 games the previous season. They should have been back-to-back champions...except for the awesome Celtics of that era.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

              Originally posted by sav View Post
              They were all very good teams, but I selected the 1968 76er's. They were the defending champions plus won 62 games during the regular season. As I recall, they won 67 or 68 games the previous season. They should have been back-to-back champions...except for the awesome Celtics of that era.
              IMO The case against the 76ers is this: They never won a clutch game. They ran the table in 1967, going largely untested. The Celtics were at their weakest point with Bill Russell in his first year as player/coach, and the Sixers just overwhelmed them with talent. I think that manifested itself in their historic meltdown against Boston the following year, where their season was crashing down around them and there was no true leader on the team to stop it. Wilt in their defining moment basically threw his teammates under the bus by refusing to take charge. The sixers dismantled that group after that game, dumped wilt for scraps and didn't win another playoff series for 10 years.

              The sixers are deepest team on this list and the only team with a championship pedigree, but they're also the team I'd trust the least in the 4th quarter of a game 7. The other five teams have guys you know would get the ball with the season on the line.
              Last edited by Kstat; 07-28-2015, 12:18 PM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

                I voted for the 1969 Lakers because they should have gotten the job done while the Celtics were reloading their backcourt from 2 of the finest ever. Emotionally, I wanted to vote for the Royals because of Oscar and Lucas who were 2 of my favorites ever.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

                  Really my only knowledge here is from Spike Lee's basketball book, where he talked about how good that Bullets team was before Johnson's injury.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

                    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                    Really my only knowledge here is from Spike Lee's basketball book, where he talked about how good that Bullets team was before Johnson's injury.
                    That Bullets team is my choice as well.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

                      last day to vote, everyone. Tomorrow we're doing 70's week.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

                        I'm enjoying reading this thread and watching the videos, but I can't vote tell you get a little farther along in time. I'm old, but not that old.
                        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

                          The big three and the Big O move on to the semis!

                          Poor prime Elgin can't even win in retrospect....

                          Interesting the team with the most wins (1968 sixers) came in 4th.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            Wilt picked up his 5th foul and was benched. With a smaller, quicker team LA made a comeback, and cut it to just 103-102 with 2 minutes r
                            Thanks for posting that 4th quarter of game 7. While I agree that Wilt didn't show up, he was benched because he hurt his knee. He played a solid 3 minutes with 5 fouls. Russell played a lot more though.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Who was the best team to not win the NBA title? Round 1: 1960's (AKA the Russell non-invitational)

                              Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                              Thanks for posting that 4th quarter of game 7. While I agree that Wilt didn't show up, he was benched because he hurt his knee. He played a solid 3 minutes with 5 fouls. Russell played a lot more though.
                              As the story goes, he tried to re-enter the game and Van Breda Koff told him to sit back down. He thought wilt was faking the injury to run away when the game was close to blowout territory.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment

                              Previous template Next
                              Working...
                              X