Mavs<Spurs
05-31-2007, 12:41 PM
Would the Spurs have beaten the Mavs in a 7 game series in 2007 with the Mavericks having home court?
Would we have won game 5 in Phoenix had Amare and Diaw not had brain cramps?
Would we have beaten the Jazz in San Antonio with a healthy Deron Williams?
Were we really the best team in the West?
In another thread, Spurs fans are mentioning good serendipities this year.
I presume that the first two questions were factors under consideration.
My answers:
First, champions find a way to get it done, no matter what. Those that can, do. If they didn't, then they are not the better team. We are. So, it is self-evidently true that the Spurs (Question 4) were the best team in the West.
The hypothetical is unknown and not as important as the reality.
Second, part of being the better team involves not removing your best players of your own volition. We can all agree that the rule states that if you leave the bench during an altercation, you will automatically be suspended. The rule was not brand new and was well known. This is nature selecting out (or better yet Phoenix selecting themselves out) the Suns due to lack of basketball iq. If your players aren't smart enough to stay on the bench, then you are relying upon players with a low basketball iq. Moreover, nobody forced Stoudamire and Diaw to leave the bench; they left of their own volition. This makes them a worse team. Thus, the Spurs are the better team. This is not to mention the fact that the Spurs beat the Suns 3 of the other 5 playoff games with their entire squad, 5 of the last 8 games with their entire squad and 9 of 13 with their entire squad. Therefore, undoubtedly, the Spurs were the better team in this series.
The asterisk thing is stupid. Either you win or you don't. Those who didn't win, lost and are losers, by definition. Most championship teams probably had some fortune come their way in some way or other. And chance favors the prepared. Opportunity favors those prepared to take advantage of it.
If Jordan had been injured during his playoff runs, say with two sprained ankles, would they have won ?
The best teams are the ones that won their first round matchups. The best second round teams won their second round matchup. The best Western Conference team won their matchup. So, the Spurs were truly the best Western Conference team in 2007.
Which leaves would the Spurs have beaten the Mavs in a series.
Answer 1: It doesn't matter. The Mavs weren't as good as the Warriors. Thus, they lost. Reality is that the Spurs are the best as the WCF Champs.
Answer 2: If the Mavs couldn't beat the Warriors, how could they have beaten the Spurs? Upon what is the contention that the Mavs were better than the Spurs based? Primarily upon the assumption that the better regular season team is the better postseason team. This assumption is false as a number of posters, including me, pointed out elsewhere.
Did the Heat have the best regular season record last year? Answer no.
Did the team with the best regular season record last year win? Answer no.
Did the Spurs have the best regular season record in 05? Answer no.
Did the team with the best regular season record last year win it all? Answer no.
Did the Pistons have the best regular season record in 04? Answer no.
I forgot who had the best regular season record because they didn't win it all and thus they are not important enough to look up. They are the asterisk.
If the Mavs had been a great team, they would have found a way to beat the Warriors in a 7 game series with home court advantage. The last game was not even close. It was brutal.
So, I guess the Mavs were not quite as good as the regular season record indicated and as good as some thought. The best team wins 7 game series.
The Spurs are better than the Mavs. The Spurs would have beaten the Mavs in a 7 game series.
The Spurs are the best team in the Western Conference.
Would we have won game 5 in Phoenix had Amare and Diaw not had brain cramps?
Would we have beaten the Jazz in San Antonio with a healthy Deron Williams?
Were we really the best team in the West?
In another thread, Spurs fans are mentioning good serendipities this year.
I presume that the first two questions were factors under consideration.
My answers:
First, champions find a way to get it done, no matter what. Those that can, do. If they didn't, then they are not the better team. We are. So, it is self-evidently true that the Spurs (Question 4) were the best team in the West.
The hypothetical is unknown and not as important as the reality.
Second, part of being the better team involves not removing your best players of your own volition. We can all agree that the rule states that if you leave the bench during an altercation, you will automatically be suspended. The rule was not brand new and was well known. This is nature selecting out (or better yet Phoenix selecting themselves out) the Suns due to lack of basketball iq. If your players aren't smart enough to stay on the bench, then you are relying upon players with a low basketball iq. Moreover, nobody forced Stoudamire and Diaw to leave the bench; they left of their own volition. This makes them a worse team. Thus, the Spurs are the better team. This is not to mention the fact that the Spurs beat the Suns 3 of the other 5 playoff games with their entire squad, 5 of the last 8 games with their entire squad and 9 of 13 with their entire squad. Therefore, undoubtedly, the Spurs were the better team in this series.
The asterisk thing is stupid. Either you win or you don't. Those who didn't win, lost and are losers, by definition. Most championship teams probably had some fortune come their way in some way or other. And chance favors the prepared. Opportunity favors those prepared to take advantage of it.
If Jordan had been injured during his playoff runs, say with two sprained ankles, would they have won ?
The best teams are the ones that won their first round matchups. The best second round teams won their second round matchup. The best Western Conference team won their matchup. So, the Spurs were truly the best Western Conference team in 2007.
Which leaves would the Spurs have beaten the Mavs in a series.
Answer 1: It doesn't matter. The Mavs weren't as good as the Warriors. Thus, they lost. Reality is that the Spurs are the best as the WCF Champs.
Answer 2: If the Mavs couldn't beat the Warriors, how could they have beaten the Spurs? Upon what is the contention that the Mavs were better than the Spurs based? Primarily upon the assumption that the better regular season team is the better postseason team. This assumption is false as a number of posters, including me, pointed out elsewhere.
Did the Heat have the best regular season record last year? Answer no.
Did the team with the best regular season record last year win? Answer no.
Did the Spurs have the best regular season record in 05? Answer no.
Did the team with the best regular season record last year win it all? Answer no.
Did the Pistons have the best regular season record in 04? Answer no.
I forgot who had the best regular season record because they didn't win it all and thus they are not important enough to look up. They are the asterisk.
If the Mavs had been a great team, they would have found a way to beat the Warriors in a 7 game series with home court advantage. The last game was not even close. It was brutal.
So, I guess the Mavs were not quite as good as the regular season record indicated and as good as some thought. The best team wins 7 game series.
The Spurs are better than the Mavs. The Spurs would have beaten the Mavs in a 7 game series.
The Spurs are the best team in the Western Conference.