In the past 20 years only the 99 spurs and 94/95 rockets had a backcourt devoid of all-star caliber players.
]]>If you exclude the 2010 Magic, there are 95 teams that meet your criteria in NBA history. Of these teams, 30 won the NBA title, 16 more lost in the finals and 24 more were final four participants (regardless of what the round before the finals was called at the time). So roughly 74% of the teams did reasonably well.
If you look at the 18 teams that were the only team that fit your criteria for their year, 10 won the title, 2 were finalists and 5 more were in the final four. Leaving only the 2004 Spurs as underachievers. Truly dominant teams? or lack of competition in that year?
Lastly, of the 57 teams that failed to win the title and were NOT the only team in their year to meet the criteria, 36 of the 57 were eliminated by another team who met the criteria. So in total, 66 of the 95 teams (70%) went as far they possibly could given the playoff structure.
Conversely, The 94 Knicks (12.8%), 2010 Cavs (11.9%), 98 Lakers (11.5%), and 91 Suns (10.6%) were the biggest underachievers based on your algorithm and the fact that they didn't get beat by another one of the qualified 95 teams.
Love the #'s. Keep the posts coming.
]]>It also helps a bit to have reliable go-to guys outside your star and good coaching for your team in the playoffs -- two things that LeBron didn't have.
]]>