Worst single-season team to ever win an NBA championship?

This should make for some lively debating.

Who do you consider the worst single-season team to ever win an NBA title?

98-99 Lockout season spurs?

it wasnt technically their fault but a shortened season gives a lot of teams a big advantage so i dont see why they should be blamed for the one taking advantage.

Miami Heat 05-06

the second houston rockets championship team that was the 6th seed :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=hotsizzle]Miami Heat 05-06[/QUOTE]

Co-sgin. Dallas vs Heat was one of the worst series along with Spurs vs Cavs.

Spurs vs Cavs was bigger worst than Dallas vs Heat cause we all knew it whos going to won anyway.

I think the answer here is the '79 Sonics. Gus Williams, DJ & Sikma? Not a good few years for basketball.

If any Spurs team should be nominated, it's the 2003 version. It was Parker's 1st good season but he sucked in the playoffs, S-Jax was mediocre then, Manu was nothing. They beat a Lakers team that was bare bones after Shaq & Kobe and the Mavericks sans Dirk the last few games.


[QUOTE=iggy>]the second houston rockets championship team that was the 6th seed :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

I hope you're referring to their record, because they're not even close to being the worst title team.

The '04 Pistons are in the discussion along the same lines as the '79 Sonics, though I don't think they rate that low. Really good team, but it took facing a team in total dysfunction relying heavily on two former greats who were basically corpses at that point to win it.

If you can't consider a team truly great, then I think they're in the discussion automatically. And no one in their right mind can honestly call the '04 Pistons a great team. And yes, I know how good their record was after trading for Rasheed.

They weren't any better or worse than any of their other teams in their current run. A lot of really good teams, a model franchise that keeps churning along, one of the best organizations in sports and an example that an ensemble cast without a megastar can compete at the highest level, but [I]great[/I]? No.

In terms of regular season efficiency differentials the '78 Bullets (0.8), '79 Sonics (2.6), and '95 Rockets (2.3) are the bottom of the barrel. Obviously the '95 Houston differential is a little misleading due to their acquisition of Drexler during the trade. But I wonder why they were so much worse from 1994's mark of 4.5 to begin with. Were they suffering from injuries or something?

The '81 Rockets are the worst team to ever make it to the Finals that I've seen so far with a miserable 0.3 differential.

'03 Spurs = 5.9, which is a mark expected for most championship teams.

'04 Pistons = 6.6. It would have been a minor upset if the Lakers won with their 4.2 differential, although they did have home court advantage which is very important.

'06 Heat = 4.2 which is respectable, although it was an upset when they beat a very good Dallas team (6.8) which had home court. Is it possible that Wade's 64 FTAs had something to do with it considering three games had Miami winning by margins of two, one, and three points? Nah...

'07 Cavs = 4.2 as well. The Spurs were just that much better (a staggering 9.3) plus they had home court.

You may have to throw-in the '75 Warriors (48-34 in the regular season) with an aging Rick Barry, a young Jamaal Wilkes (who won that season's Rookie of the Year), and a bunch of role players that beat a heavily favored Washington Bullets team (60-22) with Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld (both in their prime), Phil Chenier, and a solid bench. In fact, Golden State swept Washington in that Finals. The Bullets, in both Baltimore and Washington, were a dominant team in the 70s.

The Warriors failed to defend their title the next year, when they lost to the upstart Suns in the Western Finals in 7.

03 Spurs. The nets SUCKED and basically rode momentum to the finals and that series was competitive.

96 Bulls.

Miami 05 06!:wtf:
spurs its not a single season champs>.<
they made the playofs since always!
and they got 4 rings

[QUOTE=niko]03 Spurs. The nets SUCKED and basically rode momentum to the finals and that series was competitive.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about the worst, but that wasn't a great team, probably the weakest of the Spurs 4 title teams. I think Dallas would've beaten them if Dirk didn't drop. Much like I think Sac would've won it all if WEbb didn't drop.

I wouldn't say the Heat were the worst either. I wouldn't put the 04 Pistons there either.

Maybe some of the 70s teams.

[QUOTE=ChrisKreager]This should make for some lively debating.

Who do you consider the worst single-season team to ever win an NBA title?[/QUOTE]The 1948 Champions, the Baltimore Bullets. Back when the NBA was called the BAA (Basketball Association of America). This team had a 28-20 regular-season record, with a .583 winning percentage. They had to win a tiebreaker game to even make the Playoffs. They had a roster that made the '79 Sonics and '04 Pistons look as though they were loaded with stars. They were led by aging player-coach Buddy Jeannette (the last player selected to the All-NBA 2nd Team that season). Their leading scorer averaged 12 PPG. The team was only in the league because a few teams from the BAA's first season had folded, and so the league adopted Baltimore from the minor leagues. Everyone assumed the defending-champions Philadelphia Warriors, led by the league's best player, Joe Fulks, would win it. Somehow, they didn't.

03 Spurs beat the 3-peat lakers. worst title team? no way

Anyone saying 03 Spurs adverted something very reprehensible. You have to be out of your mind to denominate them as the worst single-season team to win a championship. They won more games that year than any of the other San Antonio Spurs championship teams. They eliminted the 3 time champions Los Angeles Lakers. Tim Duncan was at his peak during that year winning his 2nd MVP in a row. Parker, Bowen, and Steven Jackson were also present and were great role players. Lastly, it was David Robinson's last year in the NBA. He was still a solid player and the Spurs haven't had a Center as good next to Duncan since he has left.

I'd would agree with D-Fence who mentioned a 1940s team. That seems the most reasonable.

[QUOTE=TheGame414]The '04 Pistons are in the discussion along the same lines as the '79 Sonics, though I don't think they rate that low. Really good team, but it took facing a team in total dysfunction relying heavily on two former greats who were basically corpses at that point to win it.

If you can't consider a team truly great, then I think they're in the discussion automatically. And no one in their right mind can honestly call the '04 Pistons a great team. And yes, I know how good their record was after trading for Rasheed.

They weren't any better or worse than any of their other teams in their current run. A lot of really good teams, a model franchise that keeps churning along, one of the best organizations in sports and an example that an ensemble cast without a megastar can compete at the highest level, but [I]great[/I]? No.[/QUOTE]

That's ridiculous. That team was absolutely brillant post-Sheed trade. They had a minor misstep during the Nets series but rolled over everyone the rest of the way (and even in the games they lost, looked like the better team). I think you're probably letting Detroit's reputation for not trying hard in recent years cloud your thoughts here. The '04 Pistons were one of the better teams of this decade. '05 Spurs and '01 Lakers are the only 2 I would say are definitely better.

This is an especially bad comment when you consider that the '06 Heat won a 'chip this decade. Talk about a mediocre championship team. They never played better than above-average ball until the second round of the playoffs. Sure, they were really good for the last 2 series (especially Wade), but that doesn't change the fact that they are one of the worst championship teams of all time.

[QUOTE=D-Fence]The 1948 Champions, the Baltimore Bullets. Back when the NBA was called the BAA (Basketball Association of America). This team had a 28-20 regular-season record, with a .583 winning percentage. They had to win a tiebreaker game to even make the Playoffs. They had a roster that made the '79 Sonics and '04 Pistons look as though they were loaded with stars. They were led by aging player-coach Buddy Jeannette (the last player selected to the All-NBA 2nd Team that season). Their leading scorer averaged 12 PPG. The team was only in the league because a few teams from the BAA's first season had folded, and so the league adopted Baltimore from the minor leagues. Everyone assumed the defending-champions Philadelphia Warriors, led by the league's best player, Joe Fulks, would win it. Somehow, they didn't.[/QUOTE]

Nice, I like the old-school insight.

[QUOTE=hotsizzle]Miami Heat 05-06[/QUOTE]

Co-sign

[QUOTE=Gundress]Co-sgin. Dallas vs Heat was one of the worst series along with Spurs vs Cavs.
[/QUOTE]
Dallas/miami was a bad series? I mist have missed that memo, cuz that series was VERY entertaining, I'm thinking about the games miami won.

[QUOTE=Gundress]Co-sgin. Dallas vs Heat was one of the worst series along with Spurs vs Cavs.

Spurs vs Cavs was bigger worst than Dallas vs Heat cause we all knew it whos going to won anyway.[/QUOTE]


are you serious? heat mavs was a great series and im not trying to be bias. and it had great ratings

By single-season, I'm assuming record wise. The Miami Heat from '05-'06 don't even come close to that, so LOL at you clowns saying they were. I haven't been watching the league long enough to know the worst team record wise, but it's definitely not Miami.