Reply With Quote
I don't know if I've ever seen more missed open shots and stupid turnovers..the horrible officiating adds to it..
So is everybody going to talk about how boring it is?..
How did a team get this far when they can't make the most routine layups, wide open jumpers, or even freaking pass the ball to a wide open guy?
I don't know if I've ever seen more missed open shots and stupid turnovers..the horrible officiating adds to it..
So is everybody going to talk about how boring it is?..
Seriously, Boston should be up 20 right now if they had even grade school level fundamentals.
Naw, that would be 06
knicks-rockets series was pretty aweful. knicks-spurs in 99 too.
I love my Spurs, but I could see where the 2007 finals was difficult to watch if you lived elsewhere.
'03 was the hardest to watch, IMO
One game was like 33-30 at the HALF.
I said it in the game thread and I'll say it here. Game 3 of the '98 finals.
Utah scored 54 points...total.
I vividly remember that game. Unreal.
Sunday, June 7, 1998...
96 Bulls, 54 Jazz
That was some crazy ...
Because Pip was locking the Jazz up in that series
The 1999 Finals were pretty bad. Although obviously the Spurs were a great defensive team that year.
96 points by the Spurs was the highest scoring game and the only one where either of them got over 90
I love me my Spurs but it seemed like every Finals they played the discussion was about just how poor the offense was. Granted, they built their legacy on defense and that's where their bread was buttered, but they've won four les and every single one of them had people lamenting the offense if they weren't a fan of one of the participants.
Defense
I love me my Spurs but it seemed like every Finals they played the discussion was about just how poor the offense was. Granted, they built their legacy on defense and that's where their bread was buttered, but they've won four les and every single one of them had people lamenting the offense if they weren't a fan of one of the participants.
Wins
Championships
Apparently!
League officials decided to hold a best-of-three tiebreaker on neutral ground. Should Millville win, they would be second-half champions, and force another round of playoffs. But if Trenton won the tiebreaker, the Capital City would capture both halves of the season and win the championship outright.
The tiebreak series teemed with ugliness and controversy. In the first game, on April 29, 1900, at Bristol, Pa., Millville took a bruising 18-13 win. "It was rough house, and hold and kick, kick, kick," complained a Trenton True American sportswriter. "It was not a basketball game in any sense of the word."
The gloomy Trenton players were serenaded with a funeral march as they took the train back to Trenton. But they were to make a remarkable, if tainted, comeback.
In the second game, on May 5 in Camden, Trenton protested Millville's use of a player who had illegally jumped from another team. Millville refused to take the player off their roster, so a referee awarded Trenton the game by forfeit.
The third and deciding game in Camden on May 8 was finally played fair and square. Trenton won it, 22-19, on last-minute baskets by Endebrock and Stout, and Trenton's fans went wild.
Trenton continued to produce great players in the first decade of the 1900s, including scoring champ Harry Hough and "Dutch" Wohlfarth, who earned the nickname "The Blind Dribbler" for his then-remarkable ability to dribble the ball without looking at it.
http://www.capitalcentury.com/1900.html
A little simplistic, but pretty true nonetheless.
The Spurs were never a great offensive team but they were pretty efficient. They played at a much slower pace with fewer possessions, the emphasis being on defensive rebounding and transition D, but they could definitely get stops on demand. Most championship teams can to some extent; which is why that old adage holds a lot of truth.
I just found it funny to hear an offensive complaint about the Finals, at least when it was framed as worst ever, after hearing everything that was said about the Spurs' Finals.
That's pretty bad, but I bet that had a lot to do with Chicago's defense.
Tonight through the first 3 quarters, Boston was missing easy layups, wide open jumpers, and they had some of the most inept passing I've ever seen. I swear they had at least 7 easy fast break buckets that got screwed up because they couldn't make a simple pass in transition.
If a team is inept because of great defense, that's one thing. What I saw out of Boston tonight was stuff that a bunch of mistakes that 4th graders don't make. It's amazing they were still in the game, and then won it.
2003 Nets-Spurs was the worst from what I remember. Every game was pretty awful offensively.
fakers are boring
Hater, getting his projection on.
You losers thought Boston beating us would eradicate from your minds the Suns packin' yer caca high & tight.
No.
Culburn getting his deflection on.
I'm loving the finals. I don't get all the complaints that happen every time two good defensively strong teams play and the scores aren't over 100. The average soccer match usually ends with a 2-1 or 3-2 score. In baseball, a score of 8-6 is considered high-scoring. In football, 40-37 is high scoring, and hockey almost never reaches doubles figures in scoring... so why is a 90-85 basketball game suddenly viewed as some sort of horrible drudgery? I think basketball's the most exciting game in the world, and people are just so accustomed to the high level of excitement that they get spoiled. And there's a good reason why the finals aren't showcasing 135-128 games between the Warriors and Knicks: those teams don't play defense, and don't deserve to be there.
Z, getting his fart catching on.
Get your own spiel.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
