Reply With Quote
Nope, the Celtics won 17 champions, not an 8-peat + another bunch.
The 90s Rockets are not a better than the 70s Knicks per se, because they won b2b.
And I was never a racist, where did you come up with that?
would be higher if enrique wasnt on team or never given reigns to chuck like a
would rather watch duncan get all his touches at any age, nothing beats watching a well oiled offensive game from duncan then seeing some turd chuck up bs bricks
ps. popa subbing enrique in 03 and again in 2013...if he subbed that pos more frequently, the spurs would have move rings and wins, but i dont get why it took popa 10years to sub the clown...
Nope, the Celtics won 17 champions, not an 8-peat + another bunch.
The 90s Rockets are not a better than the 70s Knicks per se, because they won b2b.
And I was never a racist, where did you come up with that?
Nicely done.I'm proud to say that I root for a world class organization and not one that the league has to cheat just get them a freaking 8 seed
Additionally, no one recognizes 2002s *Championship other then Laker . So there was no threepeat.
tee, hee.
I'll just bet there wasn't.
Spurs actually have the best winning percentage of all time in the league. They passed the Lakers last year or the year before.
Though, Ass, you gave an NBA le back after it was in the case.
Any doubt that the Spurs and Lakers have dominated the NBA during the Duncan/Kobe reign? The Spurs or Lakers lead the NBA in wins -- as in, are 1st and 2nd -- in each of the playoff rounds during that time:
First Round Wins
SAS - 59
LAL - 47
MIA - 39
IND - 37
DAL - 36
Conference Semifinals
SAS - 43
LAL - 35
MIA - 29
IND - 28
DET - 25
Conference Finals
LAL - 28
SAS - 27
MIA - 23
IND - 16
DET - 14
Finals
SAS - 23
LAL - 23
MIA - 15
BOS - 7
DET - 7
You comparing a black man to a guerrilla of course. Also, like I said, if the Spurs could repeat you'd sing a different tune. You'll deny it knowing that it'll never happen, though.
It was Kobe, Kobe does not represent an entire race of people.
And it`s spelt gorilla, guerrillas engage in warfare.
And no, I won`t. I am not putting the late 80s Pistons on higher ground than the 70s Celtics because they won b2b.
So sorry to offend you with the spelling, Chang, I'll take it up with swiftkey. You've been pointed out by a few for your comparison being racist, which wouldn't be a big deal in this forum if you didn't deny it so much.
At any rate, you can rank other teams however you want to qualify your own team, but fact of the matter is that repeating is the pinnacle of winning in the NBA and not some metric %.
Absolutely. This is precisely why everyone who knows anything about NBA history puts the Isiah Pistons and the Hakeem Rockets well ahead of the Bird Celtics.
Keep it upstairs, kiddo.
I am not, and I am not going to admit it no matter which and where. And I didn't make any comparisons on the gorilla vs. Kobe, it was with the peculiar tastes of the people who find Kobe attractive.
The total lack of logic or running to a conclusion is really astounding.
What fact? How was that a fact? it is an opinion, and your opinion at that.
Do they give special awards for b2bs?
Sure. Often it's better when reality stays separated from the fictions one desires to create.
And that's why you were called a racist outright.
Repeat champions are a rarity, they had proven they didn't win at the whim of fate's dice roll like the Warriors being healthy while nobody else seemed to be. It means more than a win %, since the ultimate goal is to win the last game - not the most games.
Originally Posted by Mitch
but fact of the matter is that repeating is the pinnacle of winning in the NBA and not some metric %.
Would you like another cup of STFU, Mitch?
What? I am called something I am not precisely because I refuse to admit I am something I am not? What kind of logic is this? So if I admit to something I am not I will not be labelled the precise thing I admitted to being? Is this Opposite Day? Witch hunt?
And winning 5 les over 16 years, including 3 over 5 years is winning on a whim?
And obviously winning les is more significant than winning %. The matter is when the le counts are the same, winning % comes as a tie breaker because it signifies a consistent pattern of excellence.
There's plenty of racists out here, Chang, but only a few try to logically defend their racism. That's when it gets called out since telling the choir to sing is redundant.
Also, winning in repe ion means you were simply the best without room to dispute that fact. It means you weren't one of the best, but rather simply the best because lightning shouldn't strike twice, let alone trice. Winning % is just an empty statistic since it doesn't mean anything at the end of the day. You don't call a team with a high winning % anything special, but you repeat people feel that team did something special. That's why you hear of the Jordan and Shaq 3peats so much, but only in niche audiences you hear of winning % like it's a huge accomplishment.
so your argument about me being racist is because I am. And despite proof after proof showing me not being one, you applied you flawed and twisted logic is good enough.
And winning 5 les is not enough evidence for you? You have a very poor understanding of statistics. Your basic assumption is that les involve good luck (it does) and if and only if winning les consecutively removes all doubt of the luck element, despite the fact that it is entirely possible for luck to happen consecutively, no mater how many times in a row.
The Spurs won five times in the Duncan era, and your argument is that they just won by chance five separate times?
What I do know is that teams do not shoot 20FTAs in the 4th quarter of elimination games by chance though, lakers did it 3 separate times (non consecutive), each time in a le year. Raises questions doesn't it?
And a high winning percentage is something special. Even 90s sonics blazers and 00 Suns are held in high regard despite them never winning a le. Now the Spurs not only have a high winning %, they won five consecutive les.
Spurs: 83%
Lakers: 51%
You gave 15 back. That's 31 rings you should have. Thirty ing One.You made Bill Russell into a household name.
Fat hands working the logic better than Chang, never thought I'd see the day.
Evenin', s.
It was your logic. I just showed you the results of it.
Not my logic, simply the logic.
The same logic that says you should cut back on the carbs, porky.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
