I have thought about this before this years playoffs, but seeing what the Lakers and Orlando are going through (and what Boston went through last year) has brought this to the forefront.
Do we as fans, in general, expect too much of a dominate performance from a 'championship caliber' team throughout the playoffs?
The Lakers closed out Denver last night in a clinical performance. And we hear it over and over from fans on the message board, and from analysts on ESPN and other channels, in that we wonder why the Lakers can't bring this type of performance every single game in the playoffs.
Why don't these 'caliber' teams show up every night?
I'm not sure where this expectation originally came from. A good team is going to lose games in the playoffs. Opposing teams are just too good to be dominated all of the time, especially at home.
And its human nature to not be able to bring that type of collective intensity every single game required to sweep every team.
Look at Cleveland, as an example. Before the ECF, Cleveland was destroying both Atlanta and Detroit, and the 'experts' were wondering outloud why the Lakers and Orlando weren't doing the same thing. But look at where things are now, with Cleveland potentially about to be eliminated by Orlando from the playoffs tonight.
Going back to the 1980s, I don't remember Boston or LA, or Detroit sweeping every team aside in the conference playoffs (except when LA went undefeated before getting to the finals in 1989) LA even had to go through three 7 game series before repeating in 1988.
So when did this expectation start?
Discuss.
Good topic. I think in the 80s and 90s we were used to seeing super-teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, and Pistons of old. They had bumps along the road, but they always seemed to make it to their showdown. The league is watered down now, and with this age of free agency, a team going back to back would be monumental, let alone 3 peats.
I agree..but the wording says it perfectly, actually..they're championship caliber teams. Which means they have the pieces to win. But those pieces have to work together..and properly, to fulfill that goal. Just being good enough doesn't mean you're going to win it all.
Yes. It's hard to win championships in any professional sport. Once a team is really close or actually does win one, I think the fans of that team expect it to be easy the next time or to have that long, consistent, sustaining success. But, it's just not that easy. And, in this generation of sports with the salary cap and CBA free agent restrictions, it's not as easy (though not impossible) to stockpile talent and build superteams. It's not like the NFL, but there is more parity in today's NBA than there was even 15-20 years ago. At the end of each season, there can only be one champion. And it's not easy. Yes, sometimes fan bases expect too much from championship caliber teams.
LWO!!!!!
Even when the Bulls were winning les in the 1990s, they stumbled a little along the way in many series. Sure, they cruised to the le in 1991 (their first le), but I distinctly remember being pushed to the limit by the Knicks in 1993, and the Pacers in 1998, along with poor losses against teams like Atlanta and tough series against Cleveland.
When the Lakers won it all in 2000, many of the analysts were grilling them on their 'killer instinct', since they were pushed to five against Sacramento, and stumbled in games against the Suns and in the finals against Pacers (on the road, no less).
But I really thing the over-expectation came to a fore when the Lakers won it again in 2001, where they only lost one game in the entire playoffs. It almost seems like since then, the expectation is that if you are a true championship team, then you would dominate in such a manner.
Which I think is silly. That Laker team was playing at a unheard level that playoffs, to the point that they would have stomped any team in NBA history.
I think Mike Wilbon said it best on ESPN. The current Lakers team doesn't have to play awesome every single game to win it all (like they did in game 6 against Denver). They just have to put together a few more performances like that to clinch the le.
There can only be 1 champion every year, so 29 teams will always be disappointed.
We don't expect too much from "championship caliber teams" because 50% of the time the teams we are labeling as championship caliber aren't championship caliber. Being in a big market or having the household name player doesn't make a team championship caliber, it just makes them the most marketable. The Spurs, Pistons, Celtics, and Heat aren't the most marketable teams, but they were the favorites to win the championships in the years they won. They were the championship caliber teams.
Right now, the Lakers aren't a championship caliber team but as I've said before, everybody keeps tying them in to this franchise's rich history and automatically labels them as the favorites. Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom have nothing to do with Magic, Kareem, Shaq, etc. This Lakers team isn't going to win it all. It's not that we are expecting too much from a championship caliber team, they aren't championship caliber to begin with. They were being pushed to 7 games by Houston and to 6 games by Denver because they simply aren't championship caliber. They would have lost to Houston in 6 if Yao didn't go down. They would be at least tied 3-3 with Denver if not for the most horrendously officiated game since Kings-Lakers Game 6...again, no one is expecting this Laker team to win anything. The Orlando Magic are the favorites for the championship right now and they've been easily handling Cleveland in the ECF's. It's all about going out there and doing what you're supposed to do. No media BS.
This sthick is declining fast IMO
makes you appreciate just how good those '99 spurs and '01 lakers were, blowing through the entire playoffs only losing TWO fcking games...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
