Ball Don't Lie: 2008-09 Cavs Are the Best Team of the Last Decade to Not Win Championship

Rarely does a list debating which team is the best loser spark much debate and controversy, but our friends at "Ball Don't Lie" have definitely done the trick.A recent article written by BDL's Kelly Dwyer ranked the top teams from the past 10 years to have not won a championship. In other words, take all the teams from 1999 to today that have not won a championship, put 'em in a bag, shake, remix, and pour, and who comes out on top?In Dwyer's opinion, it's the 2008-09 Cleveland Cavaliers.Dwyer's opinion is one that I always respect; he clearly knows basketball, and I have rarely read any of his work in which I didn't agree. But this is something that I question.The '08-09 Cavs were put above teams like the 1999-00 Trail Blazers, the 2001-02 Kings, the 2005-06 and 2006-07 Mavericks, and the 2003-04 Lakers.Peep list for yourself, including what KD had to say about last year's Cavs:I sort of like this also-ran, because it speaks to how we've grown as a sport-regarding culture over the years. These Cleveland Cavaliers ran up 66 wins, an almost Bulls-like 8.9-point differential (way better than any team listed above), and had the greatest player in the game (LeBron James) at their disposal. And yet, when the team lost to the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference finals last spring, people seemed ready to smartly admit that the Cavs, for all their horses, just didn't have the horses to run with the Magic.Nobody was labeled a choker, nobody was fired, and though the team traded for one big (hopeful) problem-solver in the offseason in Shaquille O'Neal, nobody seemed to overreact and make deals for the sake of making deals. Knowing that the team will have the best player in the game, at only age 24, around for at least the next season helps too; but you have to love the lack of hand-wringing. Still, the meek ending doesn't hide the fact that this was an otherwise dominant team that won 74 of its first 90 games before falling to the Magic in six. The fact that Dwyer singles out point differential as one of the most important criteria in this list speaks highly of the list's credibility. But one thing that he may have neglected is that those point differentials really talk about how a team compared to its competition for that particular year.If Dwyer's list only takes into account how good the team was that particular season as a basis for how it compares with other teams, then he has a valid point. But take the top eight teams in the list and create a tournament. Seed the Cavs #1 if you have to. Have them play best-of-seven-game series'. Do the Cavs really win that tournament? I don't think they do.First off, they'd be pitted against eighth-seeded Phoenix of '04-05, probably the best Mike D'Antoni Suns team of the decade. You're talking about a 62-20 team that was a juggernaut and ran teams out of the building. They lasted five games against the eventual champion Spurs that year. Do you really think that this current Cavs' team, a team that couldn't last more than six against the '09 Magic, would do better against that '05 Spurs team?Say that the Cavs win that round. In Round 2, they get the winner of the fourth-seeded 1999-00 Portland Trail Blazers vs. the fifth-seeded 2006-07 Dallas Mavericks. That series in and of itself would be intense, and do you really think that the winner of that series would lose to these Cavs?In Dallas' case, they -- like the Cavs -- ran into a bad matchup and lost in six. That Mavs team was 67-15 and were just as dominant in the regular season as the '08-09 Cavs. They also had the MVP that year in Dirk Nowitzki. If you ignore that one series against the Warriors -- and also ignore the Cavs' one series against Orlando -- I'd say that these teams are pretty close.Of course, I think that the 1999-00 Blazers would beat that Mavericks team and effectively beat the Cavs in the next round. That Portland team was loaded with talent at all positions and was supposed to win it all. They endured their own "The Shot" moment in Game 7 of the WCF's that year when Kobe lobbed it to Shaq for the alley-oop to put the Lakers ahead for good, and the rest was history.The '08-09 Cavs wouldn't even go seven against these last year's Lakers, let alone that '99-00 juggernaut that won 67 games and featured Shaq at the absolute peak of his powers.But the real "best team to not have won a championship this past decade" isn't even on this list. It's the 2005-06 San Antonio Spurs.That Spurs team, despite its subpar final result, may have been the best Spurs team under Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich. They were a franchise-best 63-19, and an utterly fluke play by Nowitzki in Game 7 against Dallas ended their season. They -- not the Miami Heat -- were the best team from that season, and it's why that Heat team may go down as the weakest NBA champion of all time. Dwyer does not list a franchise more than once on this list, and in his opinion, the 2003-04 Spurs were better than the '05-06 version. But I beg to differ. If San Antonio gets past Dallas and that fluke Nowitzki play, they then would have steamrolled the Suns and Heat to the pavement en route to their second straight championship and their third title in four years.You really can't say the same about that '04 squad's chances had they gotten past the Lakers, as they had to go through Kevin Garnett's MVP year Timberwolves (#7 on Dwyer's list) and the eventual champion Pistons, who killed the Lakers in five games.It's flattering yet depressing to see the Cavs at the top of a list that features so many great yet fatally-flawed teams, but they're not in the same league as some of these squads. Beating up on weaker competition definitely helped their numbers, but I wouldn't in my wildest dreams take them over the '00 Blazers, the '02 Kings, and especially the '06 Spurs. Maybe not even the '04 Spurs, either. Not a chance.