Suns > Spurs?!?

[MadDog73]

OK, for those who have taken logic, please analyze this argument and tell me where it's flawed.

NOTE: Assume the premises are correct, I know the the Suns are not proven to be better than the Mavs, we're just playing "what if" here.

Premise 1: Suns > Mavs
Premise 2: Mavs > Spurs

Conclusion: Suns > Spurs

[Big Pimp_21]

This is stupid. Sports don't follow the rules of logic...too many variables.

[MadDog73]

This is stupid. Sports don't follow the rules of logic...too many variables.


True, but it's a pretty simple argument.

I guess I should have waited until after the Suns beat the Mavs, because right now, it's just not true...

[Big Pimp_21]

I don't think the Mavs have played at anywhere close to the level that they played against the Spurs. They are either fatigued, or just not as hyped as they were against us. I think we would be up 3-1 on the Suns right now, if we had beaten Dallas.

[Texas_Ranger]

Spurs > Suns

[Spurminator]

I think the only logical argument you could make is that the Suns play small ball better than the Spurs.

[leemajors]

I think the only logical argument you could make is that the Suns play small ball better than the Spurs.

they give the mavs the same problems the mavs gave the spurs.

[Shank]

Mavs/Spurs>Suns

Simple, really.

[strangeweather]

OK, for those who have taken logic, please analyze this argument and tell me where it's flawed.

NOTE: Assume the premises are correct, I know the the Suns are not proven to be better than the Mavs, we're just playing "what if" here.

Premise 1: Suns > Mavs
Premise 2: Mavs > Spurs

Conclusion: Suns > Spurs
Sorry, basketball is intransitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intransitivity).

[SpursWoman]

OK, for those who have taken logic, please analyze this argument and tell me where it's flawed.

NOTE: Assume the premises are correct, I know the the Suns are not proven to be better than the Mavs, we're just playing "what if" here.

Premise 1: Suns > Mavs
Premise 2: Mavs > Spurs

Conclusion: Suns > Spurs

In that same line of thinking, in relation to head-to-head, regular season records, do you believe this to be true:


Pistons > Spurs
Jazz > Pistons
Therefore, Jazz > Spurs

?

[polandprzem]

I don't think the Mavs have played at anywhere close to the level that they played against the Spurs. They are either fatigued, or just not as hyped as they were against us. I think we would be up 3-1 on the Suns right now, if we had beaten Dallas.

Suns played 14 games in 2 rounds. And mostly with 7 guys in rotation

[Hillcrest]

OK, for those who have taken logic, please analyze this argument and tell me where it's flawed.

NOTE: Assume the premises are correct, I know the the Suns are not proven to be better than the Mavs, we're just playing "what if" here.

Premise 1: Suns > Mavs
Premise 2: Mavs > Spurs

Conclusion: Suns > Spurs

Yes, assuming one could know those premises, this is logically valid argument. if a > b and b > c, then a > c. I believe it's called 'transitivity' or something like that.

Here's a logic overview from Stanford if you're interested: link (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-substructural/)

I must say that I think the top 5 teams this year were closer than everyone thought.

[strangeweather]

Yes, assuming one could know those premises, this is logically valid argument. if a > b and b > c, then a > c. I believe it's called 'transitivity' or something like that.

Here's a logic overview from Stanford if you're interested: link (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-substructural/)
Not all properties are transitive.

One of those properties is "A defeated B in a playoff series".

It is true that the Mavs defeated the Spurs in a playoff series.
It may become true that the Suns defeat the Mavs in a playoff series.
That will not imply that the Suns will have defeated the Spurs in a playoff series.

We don't play them, so it's still debatable.

[picnroll]

Mavs have no legitimate low post scorer. Suns have one player they can throw at Duncan, Kurt Thomas, When he's used up on fouls they are screwed. That is why the Suns have little to no chance if/when they get past the Mavs. Shaq will eat them alive.

[dknights411]

Basketball is illogical.

[DirkAB]

If the Suns beat the Mavs, hell yes they are better than the Spurs. Anybody who says otherwise is just too proud to admit it.

[RON ARTEST]

If the Suns beat the Mavs, hell yes they are better than the Spurs. Anybody who says otherwise is just too proud to admit it.
or too dumb.

[picnroll]

If the Suns beat the Mavs, hell yes they are better than the Spurs. Anybody who says otherwise is just too proud to admit it.
If the Suns get past the Mavs they're WC champions that's all that matters. Are you too stupid to realize that some teams don't match up as well with one team as another? My guess would be yes.

[SpursWoman]

If the Suns beat the Mavs, hell yes they are better than the Spurs. Anybody who says otherwise is just too proud to admit it.



*ahem*match ups*ahem*


Are you sure you're not a Maverick fan? :lol

[picnroll]

Are you sure you're not a Maverick fan? :lol
If he's not he should be. He makes RON ARTEST look like he belongs in the Mensa society.

[DirkAB]

If the Suns get past the Mavs they're WC champions that's all that matters. Are you too stupid to realize that some teams don't match up as well with one team as another? My guess would be yes.

Am I too stupid? How about you? If your Spurs couldn't play small ball against the Mavs, what makes you think that they could against the Suns? And don't give me that last years playoffs shit, because this is a completely different Suns team.

This would be like me saying that the Mavs were the best team between the Spurs and the Mavs last year. The Suns took out the Mavs, and the Spurs took out the Suns, so where is the logic in that? How is that ridiculous claim any different than any of you trying to claim that the Spurs are better than the Suns, even if the Suns beat the Mavs?

[SpursWoman]

Am I too stupid? How about you? If your Spurs couldn't play small ball against the Mavs, what makes you think that they could against the Suns? And don't give me that last years playoffs shit, because this is a completely different Suns team.

This would be like me saying that the Mavs were the best team between the Spurs and the Mavs last year. The Suns took out the Mavs, and the Spurs took out the Suns, so where is the logic in that? How is that ridiculous claim any different than any of you trying to claim that the Spurs are better than the Suns, even if the Suns beat the Mavs?


Then I guess the Jazz are better than the Pistons....and everyone else in the league, since the Pistons had the best record. :lol

[strangeweather]

This would be like me saying that the Mavs were the best team between the Spurs and the Mavs last year. The Suns took out the Mavs, and the Spurs took out the Suns, so where is the logic in that? How is that ridiculous claim any different than any of you trying to claim that the Spurs are better than the Suns, even if the Suns beat the Mavs?
I don't see much evidence that last year's Mavs were better than the Suns, but the Spurs didn't prove they were better by beating them in the playoffs.

Likewise, the Suns beating the Mavs who beat the Spurs is evidence that the Suns are better, but it isn't proof, because they never played.

That's not to say I'm raising the Spurs > Suns banner, just that I think the argument is relatively moot without games to settle it.

[DirkAB]

Then I guess the Jazz are better than the Pistons. :lol

You're comparing regular season to the playoffs? Get real, that holds no water. If the Suns win the WCF, there is no way that anyone can try to claim that the Spurs were a better team and not look like a giant homering moron.

[picnroll]

If Suns play the Heat watch what happens with Shaq and the Suns' version of small ball dildo.

You do realize that the Mavs have no low post scroer to punish the Suns with right? You do realize that a lot of the Spurs has been built to go up against teams that play big like the Pistons, Heat, Rockets. They played Dallas small ball with basically six players. DAllas brought in three guys to match up with Duncan. Spurs don't have the luxury of spending $90 million and having depth like Dallas. Even at that they were a couple of Javie and Bavetta fuck ups from taking the Mavs.

[SpursWoman]

You're comparing regular season to the playoffs? Get real, that holds no water. If the Suns win the WCF, there is no way that anyone can try to claim that the Spurs were a better team and not look like a giant homering moron.

mmmkay. :lol

[DirkAB]

I don't see much evidence that last year's Mavs were better than the Suns, but the Spurs didn't prove they were better by beating them in the playoffs.

Likewise, the Suns beating the Mavs who beat the Spurs is evidence that the Suns are better, but it isn't proof, because they never played.

That's not to say I'm raising the Spurs > Suns banner, just that I think the argument is relatively moot without games to settle it.

So the Spurs weren't proven to be the best team in the NBA last year becasue they didn't get to play every team?

[TDMVPDPOY]

spurs = 3 rings > suns+mavs history combined

[DirkAB]

If Suns play the Heat watch what happens with Shaq and the Suns' version of small ball dildo.

You do realize that the Mavs have no low post scroer to punish the Suns with right? You do realize that a lot of the Spurs has been built to go up against teams that play big like the Pistons, Heat, Rockets. They played Dallas small ball with basically six players. Spurs don't have the luxury of spending $90 million and having depth like Dallas. Even at that they were a couple of Javie and Bavetta fuck ups from taking the Mavs.

Unbelievable, if it isn't the matchups then it's the officiating! Christ, you'll never give credit to the Suns for beating the Mavs even if it does happen, because you honestly feel that they don't deserve to be there.

Sorry but the 2 teams that deserve to be there in the WCF are in the WCF. The teams that deserve to be at home on their couches watching it are at home on their couches watching it, and that includes my team.

BTW you have no idea what would happen between the Heat and Suns, nobody given the Suns a chance in this series and they are still right there in great position to go to the finals. They very well could run Shaq off the court and get him in foul trouble.

[intlspurshk]

Sorry but SUN has not yet defeated Mavs.

Besides, the only logic that you can derive is Stern + Ref > every teams in the NBA

[strangeweather]

So the Spurs weren't proven to be the best team in the NBA last year becasue they didn't get to play every team?
There are lots of possible metrics for comparing how good teams are.

For teams that don't make the playoffs, record is the normal one. On the other hand, if it turned out that Toronto beat Orlando 4 out of 4 times, but Orlando had a few more wins overall, would you say Orlando was definitely better?

Likewise, winning the NBA title is pretty much the only metric for best team in the NBA -- it's how it's decided.

But since the Spurs didn't play the Kings last year, then if you wanted to, you could make a case that the Kings could have beaten the Spurs head on. I don't see much evidence to support that case, but it's not automatically false simply because the Spurs won the title.

I'll happily grant that it's largely pointless sophistry to argue over who would have won, but that doesn't mean that the outcome of such a hypothetical series is somehow assured.

[DirkAB]

spurs = 3 rings > suns+mavs history combined

That's really quick thinking there short bus. By that logic this would be true: Celtics>>>>>Spurs.

[picnroll]

Simple fact is that the refs fucked up making critical mistakes at the ends of games three and four that made it near impossible for the Spurs to overcome, requiring nearly flawless execution. If you don't realize that it's because, unlike a whole lot of sports writers and anlaysts, you chose not to. But that was part of the formula for Dallas's success. You don't like that simple fact. Tough shit. It is what it is.

[DirkAB]

Simple fact is that the refs fucked up making critical mistakes at the ends of games three and four that made it near impossible for the Spurs to overcome, requiring nearly flawless execution. If you don't realize that it's because, unlike a whole lot of sports writers and anlaysts, you chose not to. But that was part of the formula for Dallas's success. You don't like that simple fact. Tough shit. It is what it is.

Good god, must every thread turn into the "refs screwed the Spurs?" You're fuckin' pathetic. How about you stick to the topic of the thread, there are other threads specifically dedicated to whinning about the officials

[picnroll]

Dipshit you leap at every thread that offers you a chance to bash the Spurs. That's your whole agenda fuckwad. Problem is you suck at even remotely making intelligent arguments.

[LEONARD]

Dipshit you leap at every thread that offers you a chance to bash the Spurs. That's your whole agenda fuckwad. Problem is you suck at even remotely making intelligent arguments.

and your agenda is 2-fold...

Blaming officiating for the Spurs loss to the Mavs
Ripping Dirk

Which are both incredibly lame...

[picnroll]

and your agenda is 2-fold...

Blaming officiating for the Spurs loss to the Mavs
Ripping Dirk

Which are both incredibly lame...
Really? Try looking at some other posts. Just happens that Dirk sucking and refs fucking games three and four are two of the facts I've discussed.

[DirkAB]

Dipshit you leap at every thread that offers you a chance to bash the Spurs. That's your whole agenda fuckwad. Problem is you suck at even remotely making intelligent arguments.

I have no agenda. How am I trying to bash the Spurs in any way? I'm not at all, I'm just not going to sit by and watch somebody try and take away from the Suns and the Mavs because their team lost fair and square. If somebody tried making the same ridiculous arguement last year that the Mavs were better than the Spurs, I guarantee you I would jump over them for the same reasons, mainly because it is a ridiculous arguement. I'm sorry I don't have yours or the Mav fans bias, personally I can't stand either team. So for anybody to sit here and try to rationalize how their team is better than a team that makes it to the finals (the premise of the arguement) is completely pathetic to me.

[LEONARD]

Really? Try looking at some other posts. Just happens that Dirk sucking and refs fucking games three and four are two of the facts I've discussed.

The fact that you say that it's a fact that Dirk sucks means you lose all credibility as a b-ball fan...sorry...

Get it over, Mavs beat the Spurs and Dirk carried the team... :fro

[picnroll]

I said Dirk suck at D. That's a fact.


And BAkriD

If the Suns beat the Mavs, hell yes they are better than the Spurs. Anybody who says otherwise is just too proud to admit it.
That's it that's all you bring. Issues are raised about matchups. Rather than counter with some argument about how the Suns would overcome these matchups you bring nothing. I realize that I shouldn't be annoyed by stupidity. I'll work on it.

[MadDog73]

Wow, I thought this thread would die pretty quickly.

Let's look at last year (2004-2005):

1. Spurs > Suns
2. Suns > Mavs

Therefore, Spurs > Mavs (in 2004-05)

I wonder how many Spurs/Mavs fans would agree with this?

[DirkAB]

I said Dirk suck at D. That's a fact.


And BAkriD

That's it that's all you bring. Issues are raised about matchups. Rather than counter with some argument about how the Suns would overcome these matchups you bring nothing. I realize that I shouldn't be annoyed by stupidity. I'll work on it.

Did you quit reading my posts after that one, because I brought pleanty of reasoning into this thread, if you chose to ignore it I have no idea. This really shouldn't be about who would win an imaginary matchup, it should be about giving respect to the team the actually wins the series and the West.

Since trying to argue whether the Spurs would beat the Suns in a series is a guaranteed pointless debate, maybe you should try respecting the system and giving respect to the winner of the actual games, and not imaginary ones.

BTW I halfway indulged your pointless arguement, but you must have chosen to ignore it, so here it is again. Read it this time.


If your Spurs couldn't play small ball against the Mavs, what makes you think that they could against the Suns? And don't give me that last years playoffs shit, because this is a completely different Suns team.

This would be like me saying that the Mavs were the best team between the Spurs and the Mavs last year.



BTW you have no idea what would happen between the Heat and Suns, nobody given the Suns a chance in this series and they are still right there in great position to go to the finals. They very well could run Shaq off the court and get him in foul trouble.

Is so much more insightful? I don't think so. Get over it, Spurs lost.

[DirkAB]

Wow, I thought this thread would die pretty quickly.

Let's look at last year (2004-2005):

1. Spurs > Suns
2. Suns > Mavs

Therefore, Spurs > Mavs (in 2004-05)

I wonder how many Spurs/Mavs fans would agree with this?

If they don't then they are idiots, but not because of that logic, but because the Spurs won the West.

[RonMexico]

Suns in 6

[MadDog73]

Speaking of the Suns, it's funny: I think Amare not playing is actually making this team better.

http://www.nba.com/suns/stats/

SIX players avg. double digit points... and check out those 3 point %! :spless:

No wonder the Suns are winning. Plus, their defense (at least against the Mavs) is improving...

[DirkAB]

Speaking of the Suns, it's funny: I think Amare not playing is actually making this team better.

http://www.nba.com/suns/stats/

SIX players avg. double digit points... and check out those 3 point %! :spless:

No wonder the Suns are winning. Plus, their defense (at least against the Mavs) is improving...

I don't believe that they are a better team w/o Amare for 1 second. They are better because of players like Diaw, Bell, and Thomas. Amare would make this team absolutely scary.

[picnroll]

Did you quit reading my posts after that one, because I brought pleanty of reasoning into this thread, if you chose to ignore it I have no idea. This really shouldn't be about who would win an imaginary matchup, it should be about giving respect to the team the actually wins the series and the West.

Since trying to argue whether the Spurs would beat the Suns in a series is a guaranteed pointless debate, maybe you should try respecting the system and giving respect to the winner of the actual games, and not imaginary ones.

BTW I halfway indulged your pointless arguement, but you must have chosen to ignore it, so here it is again. Read it this time.





Is so much more insightful? I don't think so. Get over it, Spurs lost.

Counting backwards from ten 10, 9, 8 ...

Didn't work. That's the best fucking answer you can give. How did any of that drivel answer the issue of the Suns dealing with a low post threat like Duncan? You say the Spurs couldn't beat the Mavs at small ball so how can they beat the Suns? Mavs had Diop, Dampier, even a few times M'Benga on the court trying to handle Duncan in "small ball". And the SUns? You answered nothing. The point was the Suns match up worse on Duncan who the Mavs barely squeaked by, regardless of refs, wit three guys they'd brought in trying to hold him down. Spare me the "indulgence". I'm not wasting my time.

[MadDog73]

I don't believe that they are a better team w/o Amare for 1 second. They are better because of players like Diaw, Bell, and Thomas. Amare would make this team absolutely scary.

There's only so many opportunities to score... Amare would take points away from somebody else.

You throw Amare in the mix right now, I'm really not convinced the Suns would get much better. They'd have to adjust to him, it could throw off their chemistry, he might shoot too much, etc.

That said, if Amare is healthy next year, and these guys all stay, the Suns will be a Hell of a team with a season of playing together.

[DirkAB]

Counting backwards from ten 10, 9, 8 ...

Didn't work. That's the best fucking answer you can give. How did any of that drivel answer the issue of the Suns dealing with a low post threat like Duncan? You say the Spurs couldn't beat the Mavs at small ball so how can they beat the Suns? Mavs had Diop, Dampier, even a few times M'Benga on the court trying to handle Duncan in "small ball". And the SUns? You answered nothing. The point was the Suns match up worse on Duncan who the Mavs barely squeaked by, regardless of refs, wit three guys they'd brought in trying to hold him down. Spare me the "indulgence". I'm not wasting my time.

You know, I've not contended once in this whole thread that the Suns would beat the Spurs IF (big if, because they got their asses beat) they would have made it to the WCF. To me that isn't the arguement, the debate is if the Suns make it past the Mavs are they the better team than the Spurs? And yes they are, because they would be the WC champs. But you don't get that point, so I'll indulge your retarded little arguement you stupid fuck, because it appears that is all you want to hear, so here it is.

The Spurs played against a modified version of small ball and it got Duncan in foul trouble and took Horry and Barry out of the game, so what would the real version of small ball do to the Spurs? Duncan having to guard somebody like Tim Thomas or Boris Diaw all the way out to the arch, that wouldn't be good for his game, he would be dog tired chasing those guys around the arch. As much as he would have and advantage on the offensive end he would be at a disadvantage on the defensive end. The Clippers had that same lowpost advantage that you're talking about and they couldn't get the job done against an injured Steve Nash, so what makes you think that your Spurs would be getting the job done against a recovered Steve Nash? Just a hunch? And if you want to talk about matchups, the Spurs settle for a lot of outside shots, and outside shot lead to fastbreaks for the Suns.

[picnroll]

Define "they got their asses beat".
Diop is playing, and solely for defensive purposes, against the Suns. You think Duncan can't but Diop can?

Kaman is no Duncan although he did manage to shoot .660 but only took 53 shots. That's probably about what Dunan would put up in two game. Who is going to guard Duncan, particualry after a very rusty Kurt Thomas fouls out?

The Spurs do what they need to do. With no interior defense Manu and Parker would be penetrating like crazy and Duncan would be eating up the low post. They wouldn't be shooting a lot of threes just like they didn't last year against the Suns.

Your analysis still sucks but you are trying.

[Jimcs50]

OK, for those who have taken logic, please analyze this argument and tell me where it's flawed.

NOTE: Assume the premises are correct, I know the the Suns are not proven to be better than the Mavs, we're just playing "what if" here.

Premise 1: Suns > Mavs
Premise 2: Mavs > Spurs

Conclusion: Suns > Spurs


Correction, Suns > small ball Spurs

Real Spurs > Suns (Spurs won 3 or 4 this year.)

[td4mvp21]

and your agenda is 2-fold...

Blaming officiating for the Spurs loss to the Mavs
Ripping Dirk

Which are both incredibly lame...

Funny thing is thats what the whole Mavs organization is about! Blaming the officiating!

[polandprzem]

That's frickin obvious that spurs are worse then the Suns. Suns are playing in the WCF Spurs are not.

[DuncanInYourFace]

That's frickin obvious that spurs are worse then the Suns. Suns are playing in the WCF Spurs are not.


Uhh, that has more to do with the fucked up seeding system than anything else, which Stern ADMITS was screwed up.

[resistanze]

Saying "Suns > Spurs" or "If the Spurs were playing...they would've beaten Suns" are really moot points. This happens in every sport -- it's all about matchups. A team that lost in a previous round could've beaten the team their opponents go on to face, even if the team that elimnatd them loses. It's even possible that a team that didn't even make the playofffs may have won their conference with the right match-up.

Look at the Edmonton Oilers (NHL), they were in a dogfight for the 8th seed until the very last regular season game. Imagine if they had lost their playoff spot!

[DirkAB]

Define "they got their asses beat".
Diop is playing, and solely for defensive purposes, against the Suns. You think Duncan can't but Diop can?

Kaman is no Duncan although he did manage to shoot .660 but only took 53 shots. That's probably about what Dunan would put up in two game. Who is going to guard Duncan, particualry after a very rusty Kurt Thomas fouls out?

The Spurs do what they need to do. With no interior defense Manu and Parker would be penetrating like crazy and Duncan would be eating up the low post. They wouldn't be shooting a lot of threes just like they didn't last year against the Suns.

Your analysis still sucks but you are trying.

My analysis sucks? My analysis of your imaginary series? Imagine that, Homer doesn't like my analysis. The only way you would like my analysis is if I said that the Spurs were the best team in the West, which in a round about way is the point that you are trying to make.

Well, I hate to disappiont you but the Spurs aren't the best in the West, or even the second best. They might however be the 3rd best, maybe not though, I'm not sure if they could beat the Clippers. Maybe that is what this thread should be about, whose the 3rd best team in the west? The Clippers or the Spurs?

Define "got their asses beat?" Seriously? I thought it was pretty self explanitory. They lost, or got beat, or their season is over, or their season ended with a loss, or some might say they underachieved, or others might say they choked. I don't know, there is a bunch of ways to say it.

BTW Kaman is no Duncan? Did I say he was? Brand might be just about as good as Duncan though, at least he was this season. The Clippers had a better all around post game with the combination or Brand and Kaman and they still couldn't beat the Suns, since that is the huge weakness that your Spurs would exploit.

[picnroll]

Brand didn't post up nearly as much as Kaman or ddn't you watch the series?
Clips would have given the Spurs a better run of it than the Suns?

Here's one for you dumbshit. If the Suns come out of the West they will lose to the Heat. If the Mavs come out of the West they have a decent shot of beating the Heat. But according to a simpleton's A>B and B>C therefore A>C analysis therefore if the Suns beat the Mavs there is no way the Mavs could beat the Heat.

Nice to see the mentally challenged can learn some rudimentary algebra.

[DirkAB]

Brand didn't post up nearly as much as Kaman or ddn't you watch the series?
Clips would have given the Spurs a better run of it than the Suns?

Here's one for you dumbshit. If the Suns come out of the West they will lose to the Heat. If the Mavs come out of the West they have a decent shot of beating the Heat. But according to a simpleton's A>B and B>C therefore A>C analysis therefore if the Suns beat the Mavs there is no way the Mavs could beat the Heat.

Nice to see the mentally challenged can learn some rudimentary algebra.

So since Brand didn't post up that much against the Suns, what was your point? He plays the same position as Duncan, right? His style of play is closest to Duncan's, right?

You're a moron if you think it is a forgone conclusion that the Suns would lose to the Heat. You probably thought that it was a forgone conclusion that the Spurs would beat the Mavs, and that the Pistons would beat the Heat, but that is why they actually play the games dipshit.

All I see coming out of you is a lot of bold assumptions, that may or may not be true, frankly there is no way of finding out. That was my point, this is a pointless arguement, it is imaginary, so the only thing you can do is give credit to the Suns for making the WCF and being one of the top two teams in the West. Now if you want to debate about who is better between the Clippers and the Spurs, knock yourself out, that makes more sense since they both got knocked out in the same round.

[picnroll]

Want to lay a little money on a Heat - Suns series chump?

[DirkAB]

Want to lay a little money on a Heat - Suns series chump?

Do you actually read what I post? Or do you have some fucked up retarded interpreter reading for you? Did I say that the Suns would beat the Heat? No, I just said I think you are an idiot for making the assumption that the Heat will beat them, no questions asked. I think that the Suns would have a great chance of making it an interesting series, since Shaq would be lost on defense and would struggle to make it up and down the court. I can't think of any team in the league that would cause bigger matchup problems for the Heat than the Suns.

[picnroll]

Okay, I'll give you odds chump. $4 gets you $5. Since you think the Mavs can't cause the Heat as much problems as the Sun I'll tak $4 gets me $5 for that matchup. $2000 do you?

[DirkAB]

Okay, I'll give you odds chump. $4 gets you $5. Since you think the Mavs can't cause the Heat as much problems as the Sun I'll tak $4 gets me $5 for that matchup. $2000 do you?

You got it tough guy.

BTW, I just owned your ass in this thread!!!!!!!!!! How does it feel? Seriously, there was nothing you could do about it after you chose to take that ridiculous side of the arguement. Did you just start watching basketball in the '03 playoffs or something?

[picnroll]

Owned my ass? Riggghtt. So how about cashier's checks? Kori can hold them. I figure Dallas - Heat is a toss up and Heat - Suns is a gimme so the bet is now as ling as the Heat are in regardless of who wins in the West. You in chump?

[DirkAB]

Owned my ass? Riggghtt. So how about cashier's checks? Kori can hold them. I figure Dallas - Heat is a toss up and Heat - Suns is a gimme so the bet is now as ling as the Heat are in regardless of who wins in the West. You in chump?

Yeah I'll take the Suns you dumb fuck, as long as you give me the Heat if the Mavs make the finals. How about that?

[picnroll]

You got it.

[DirkAB]

You got it.

Uh Oh! This sounds pretty official! You're made to look and idiot, so you resort to trying to negotiated some bullshit wager to save face!!!!!!! Classic!!! Now you look like a bigger idiot. How about you just don't pick such a stupid arguement next time.

[picnroll]

You backing out?

[DirkAB]

You backing out?

Backing out??? Were you really stupid enough to think I was ever in? Jesus, you're getting desperate.

[picnroll]

No, I thought you were in. Guess I should have known you're all bullshit though, right?

[DirkAB]

No, I thought you were in. Guess I should have known you're all bullshit though, right?

I'm all bullshit because I'm not a retard? 1) if I was a betting man I would lay my bet through an online book where I know 100% that I'm going to get paid, 2) I could get better odds through and online book 3) there are any number of injuries that could happen in the more than likely 3 games remaining between the Suns and Mavs 4) did you really think I was going to bet $2000 with you because I believe that the Suns have a chance to make it an interesting series? Seriously, do you always try and save face when you lose an arguement by trying to act like the other person is wrong if he doesn't bet you $2K on something he never even said? I never said the Suns would win, so why would I want to be $2K on it? To win a pissing match with you? Get a fuckin' life loser.

Hey I got an idea, let's bet $2K on who is better, the Suns or the Spurs!!!! I win, pay up bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!111111

[picnroll]

You're a waste of time. Adios mutha fucka.

[DirkAB]

You're a waste of time. Adios mutha fucka.
:owned

[DuncanInYourFace]

Bakrid, you are an imbecile, you can't conclude Suns > Spurs based on the WCF because the SEEDING SYSTEM WAS FUCKED UP

[DuncanInYourFace]

I'm all bullshit because I'm not a retard? 1) if I was a betting man I would lay my bet through an online book where I know 100% that I'm going to get paid, 2) I could get better odds through and online book 3) there are any number of injuries that could happen in the more than likely 3 games remaining between the Suns and Mavs 4) did you really think I was going to bet $2000 with you because I believe that the Suns have a chance to make it an interesting series? Seriously, do you always try and save face when you lose an arguement by trying to act like the other person is wrong if he doesn't bet you $2K on something he never even said? I never said the Suns would win, so why would I want to be $2K on it? To win a pissing match with you? Get a fuckin' life loser.

Hey I got an idea, let's bet $2K on who is better, the Suns or the Spurs!!!! I win, pay up bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!111111


AHAHAH YOU GOT OWNED FOOL
Can't put your money where your mouth is

[DirkAB]

AHAHAH YOU GOT OWNED FOOL
Can't put your money where your mouth is

You don't know how to read either, huh? You and picnroll can't be from the same village, if you are that is a waste of a fine village idiot.

[polandprzem]

Uhh, that has more to do with the fucked up seeding system than anything else, which Stern ADMITS was screwed up.

No matter the seedings. Fact is a fact.

[sabar]

Don't be silly, the whole game is about match-ups. Things like that let 7/8th seeds get past the first round and farther. It makes the number one team(s) drop out early. when they get matched up bad. And so forth.

Paper > Rock
Scissors > Paper

So Scissors > Rock?

[polandprzem]

Don't be silly, the whole game is about match-ups. Things like that let 7/8th seeds get past the first round and farther. It makes the number one team(s) drop out early. when they get matched up bad. And so forth.

Paper > Rock
Scissors > Paper

So Scissors > Rock?


When it's all about the matchups it's all about the matchup's. But when you are talking about history and how the history will be remebering the team you talking about the accompluishments. Spurs gone fishing after second round. Phoenix didn't as simpla as that. (From the history point of view - the real one, the remeber one).
Nobody will be thinking about How good spurs were just because they were chalenged by better matchup.
Get real. If Gino would not make that mistake the spurs probably won a championship. And even when you can say Spurs > Miami because of the matchups and the styles of play. Nobody will let you say that the spurs are the 2006 champions.

[strangeweather]

When it's all about the matchups it's all about the matchup's. But when you are talking about history and how the history will be remebering the team you talking about the accompluishments. Spurs gone fishing after second round. Phoenix didn't as simpla as that. (From the history point of view - the real one, the remeber one).
Nobody will be thinking about How good spurs were just because they were chalenged by better matchup.
And if we play Phoenix in next year's playoffs, will people be talking about how much better they were than the Spurs this year, or will they be talking about how the Spurs buried the Suns in 5 in '05 and the current Suns have never beaten us?

[DirkAB]

And if we play Phoenix in next year's playoffs, will people be talking about how much better they were than the Spurs this year, or will they be talking about how the Spurs buried the Suns in 5 in '05 and the current Suns have never beaten us?

Bold assumptions, don't get ahead of yourself. As of right now what is sticking out in people's minds is that the beat the Spurs in an amazing series and the Suns are defying the odds and making an amazing run. Nobody outside of San Antonio gives a shit about the seedings, what happened last year, or what might happen next year. People will remember what the Suns have accomplished these playoffs.

[strangeweather]

Bold assumptions, don't get ahead of yourself. As of right now what is sticking out in people's minds is that the beat the Spurs in an amazing series and the Suns are defying the odds and making an amazing run. Nobody outside of San Antonio gives a shit about the seedings, what happened last year, or what might happen next year. People will remember what the Suns have accomplished these playoffs.
Phoenix is a formidable team, and making two conference finals in a row is impressive as hell. I don't want to downplay that. And I don't give a crap about seedings either -- excuses are worthless.

I'm just saying that they haven't beaten us, and if we meet next year, they're 0-1 against us under D'Antoni, not 1-1 by proxy.

[DirkAB]

Phoenix is a formidable team, and making two conference finals in a row is impressive as hell. I don't want to downplay that. And I don't give a crap about seedings either -- excuses are worthless.

I'm just saying that they haven't beaten us, and if we meet next year, they're 0-1 against us under D'Antoni, not 1-1 by proxy.

I'm really failing to see your point, what does that have to do with the Suns being better this year? You can't go back a season or two just to somehow claim supremacy over a team, all that counts is the here and now.

[polandprzem]

And if we play Phoenix in next year's playoffs, will people be talking about how much better they were than the Spurs this year, or will they be talking about how the Spurs buried the Suns in 5 in '05 and the current Suns have never beaten us?


You still taking about "IF's" ?

[MadDog73]

So, will Spurs fans concede the Suns could be better than the Spurs?

Even if the Suns win the Championship?

[DuncanInYourFace]

So, will Spurs fans concede the Suns could be better than the Spurs?

Even if the Suns win the Championship?


Obviously if they win the championship they are the best in the league

This is what the idiots on this thread don't understand:

the playoffs only provides a few conclusive orderings, namely, if team A beats team B directly, clearly A > B, and champs > all others

The NBA is not about 2nd place, 3rd place, blah blah blah

There's the champs, and then there's everyone else. That's what the playoffs are about, determining ONE WINNER (unless your team beats another team directly)

Therefore, if Suns win it all => Suns are better than everyone

[MadDog73]

Therefore, if Suns win it all => Suns are better than everyone


I like that logic.

[DirkAB]

Obviously if they win the championship they are the best in the league

This is what the idiots on this thread don't understand:

the playoffs only provides a few conclusive orderings, namely, if team A beats team B directly, clearly A > B, and champs > all others

The NBA is not about 2nd place, 3rd place, blah blah blah

There's the champs, and then there's everyone else. That's what the playoffs are about, determining ONE WINNER (unless your team beats another team directly)

Therefore, if Suns win it all => Suns are better than everyone

Wrong, Suns are still very much alive and kicking, that automatically makes them more successful than the all the eliminated teams in the West.

Suns>>>> Kings, Griz, Nuggets, Lakers, Clippers, and Spurs

Just because it is possible that a team that the was eliminated in the previous round could theoretically beat a team that advanced, doesn't mean shit. The same could be said about a team that didn't make the playoffs, they could theoretically beat the champs. You're basing it on the unknown, you have to go with the known, the Suns are in the WCF playing tough against a team that beat the Spurs.

[Shank]

I still think UConn could take UCLA if they ever matched up.

[strangeweather]

You still taking about "IF's"?

No. You were the one who brought up how history would "remember" teams. My point is that history remembers teams subjectively. For example, the Spurs lost in 2000 in the first round with Duncan injured, and history remembers that year as a fluke because of the the years before and after.

If Duncan were often injured around playoff time, it would be remembered as just another year like that -- the same way that injuries to the Kings have often been remembered. If the Spurs spent the early 2000s getting sent home in the first round, it would be remembered like that. As it stands, except for 2000 the Spurs have never been sent home in the Tim Duncan era except by the western conference champion, so 2000 is basically a fluke year.

If you want to get into how history will remember this year, it's too soon to say.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

It's all semantics, really. Yes they're in the WCF and the Spurs aren't. Does that make them better than the Spurs? Maybe, that depends on what you mean by better. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, unless the Suns want to hang a "Better Than The Spurs" banner if they fail to win a championship again.

[DirkAB]

I still think UConn could take UCLA if they ever matched up.

That is a different animal, March Madness is one and done, a tournament seven game series prooves a lot more, the better team always wins. Especially when they overcome the other teams homecourt advantage.

[RonMexico]

The Hawks beat the Spurs this year. Does that mean they could win the Championship?

[DirkAB]

No. You were the one who brought up how history would "remember" teams. My point is that history remembers teams subjectively. For example, the Spurs lost in 2000 in the first round with Duncan injured, and history remembers that year as a fluke because of the the years before and after.

If Duncan were often injured around playoff time, it would be remembered as just another year like that -- the same way that injuries to the Kings have often been remembered. If the Spurs spent the early 2000s getting sent home in the first round, it would be remembered like that. As it stands, except for 2000 the Spurs have never been sent home in the Tim Duncan era except by the western conference champion, so 2000 is basically a fluke year.

If you want to get into how history will remember this year, it's too soon to say.


I didn't bring up how people would remember these teams, you did with this post:


And if we play Phoenix in next year's playoffs, will people be talking about how much better they were than the Spurs this year, or will they be talking about how the Spurs buried the Suns in 5 in '05 and the current Suns have never beaten us?

Just because you didn't specifically say remember, but it what you were talking about.

[strangeweather]

BAkriD,

The post I was responding to initially, was


When it's all about the matchups it's all about the matchup's. But when you are talking about history and how the history will be remebering the team you talking about the accompluishments. Spurs gone fishing after second round. Phoenix didn't as simpla as that. (From the history point of view - the real one, the remeber one).
Nobody will be thinking about How good spurs were just because they were chalenged by better matchup.
which was how I got on the subject of how history remembers teams.

But even if the Suns never win another game this year and their team completely collapses next season, they will be remembered as having a better year this year. I never meant to argue that particular point.

[DirkAB]

BAkriD,

The post I was responding to initially, was


which was how I got on the subject of how history remembers teams.

But even if the Suns never win another game this year and their team completely collapses next season, they will be remembered as having a better year this year. I never meant to argue that particular point.

Ahh, my mistake, I thought that you were responding my post, sorry about that.

[mavsfan1000]

Mavs=Spurs
Suns=Mavs
Spurs>>Suns. Matchups and luck mean everything.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Mavs=Spurs
Suns=Mavs
Spurs>>Suns. Matchups and luck mean everything.That is very true.

If the Kings had the 7th seed, we may well have seen them in the WCF right now. But you know what....................fuck what ifs. Right now the Mavs and Suns are playing, so in my mind, they are clearly the better teams.

[polandprzem]

No. You were the one who brought up how history would "remember" teams. My point is that history remembers teams subjectively. For example, the Spurs lost in 2000 in the first round with Duncan injured, and history remembers that year as a fluke because of the the years before and after.

If Duncan were often injured around playoff time, it would be remembered as just another year like that -- the same way that injuries to the Kings have often been remembered. If the Spurs spent the early 2000s getting sent home in the first round, it would be remembered like that. As it stands, except for 2000 the Spurs have never been sent home in the Tim Duncan era except by the western conference champion, so 2000 is basically a fluke year.

If you want to get into how history will remember this year, it's too soon to say.

Well we all know that Tim was not playing as we know that Bill Russell was not playing when Bob Pettit lead his team to a chapionship.
But all in all it doeasn't matter. St. Louis waon a chapionship and lakers won a champioship. Boston was in the Finals. Spurs did not make it through first round.
Team was not complete.
And do you realy think that they will be remebering the spurs of 2006? Sheez. The spurs lost again in the second round and couldn't hold the championship and this is how the history will remember them.
Just like 3 peats Bulls. Nobody is mentioning the Indiana Pacers 1998 where larry Bird mada a mistake and put mark jackson in while Travis Best was in his best ( :) ). Yeah, and who remebers the shots from the six games Finals that year where Howar Eisley hit a 3 pointer at the buzzer but referees said it was after the buzzer. And the Ron harper shot after the buzzer was counted. Do the math and ytou have 5 points. The history remembering that kind of stuff? No. Bulls made a 2 time 3 peat and nobody is trying to take it away from them. That's why we shouldn't be thinkinking "what if" and Spurs > anybody. Cause overall the spurs were eliminated in the second round.

[MadDog73]

Wrong, Suns are still very much alive and kicking, that automatically makes them more successful than the all the eliminated teams in the West.

Suns>>>> Kings, Griz, Nuggets, Lakers, Clippers, and Spurs

Just because it is possible that a team that the was eliminated in the previous round could theoretically beat a team that advanced, doesn't mean shit. The same could be said about a team that didn't make the playoffs, they could theoretically beat the champs. You're basing it on the unknown, you have to go with the known, the Suns are in the WCF playing tough against a team that beat the Spurs.


So, by that logic, the LA Clippers > Kings?

I don't buy it.