Reply With Quote
^ Was addressing to BR. He lost a bet in the Finals (i think to Mono or Harlem).
Nevermind, he welched when the Suns offered Gordan the max.
Those bums in SA know who daddy is.
^ Was addressing to BR. He lost a bet in the Finals (i think to Mono or Harlem).
Nevermind, he welched when the Suns offered Gordan the max.
1999 KnicksYeah, that 2001 Sixers team was sure an elite team.
2003 Nets
2007 Cvs
Am I missing something here?
tbh those three teams would beat that 2001 Sixers team. Except the 2010 Celtics and the 2000 Pacers team, Lakers faced pretty ty teams in the recent finals.1999 Knicks
2003 Nets
2007 C
Am I missing something here?
Mis-leading thread le tbh as they certainly haven't dominated us.
Irrelevant stat, considering the Lakers have been in the NBA nearly twice as long as the Spurs. 65 seasons for LA, 37 for Spurs. So an extra 28 chances to get in and only 16 up. Spurs have 32 total playoff appearances and 18 series wins, which means a 56.25% chance of one per playoff appearance. Which means mathamatically they will have 15.75 more series wins in with an additional 28 playoff appearances. Barely even have to round that and it's 16. Oh whoops, exact same as LA.
Can't really cite the Nets since the Lakers beat the Nets for the le the year before. So go ahead and chalk up another bad team LA beat out for the le if you're listing them. Or that broke ass Celtics team they faced last time that barely won 50 games. Or the broke ass Magic team they beat that literally hasn't done at any point besides cakewalk through an injured east that year. So we're looking at 4 terrible teams LA beat vs three SA beat. Whoops? Using that same measuring stick, LA only beat one good team in the Finals during their last 5 le runs.1999 Knicks
2003 Nets
2007 C
Am I missing something here?
lol loafing over spurs finals opponents when lakers 3peat also face against trash east finals opponents1999 Knicks
2003 Nets
2007 C
Am I missing something here?
Too funny. I beg to differ. It is a totally relevant stat. Those numbers are Head to Head matchups between the Lakers and Spurs in playoff games. They have played a total of 11 series which have included 52 games.
Games Won: Lakers 34 - Spurs 18
Series Won: Lakers 8 - Spurs 3
Oh by the way, if you would like to accurately state making the NBA playoffs and not just Lakers vs. Spurs head to head it’s the Lakers 59 out of 64 years for a .921 % and the Spurs 32 out of 36 years for .888 %.
Spin it any way you wish. It's relevant!
Nice try.
Last edited by cobbler; 08-29-2012 at 08:40 AM.
When Duncan retires, watch the numbers come back in line.
Only skimmed the thread (pretty ing boring, tbh), but STFU spurfan. The 2001 Lakers would sodomize any spurs team, slit your daughters' throats, and them in their new holes.
Not even God could take that team down in a series.
I don't think God could take down the Bobcats tbh
Why God, Jordan Bulls would've tapped that a$$. Pick any team from their two 3 peats and i don't see the Lakers beating them.
Jordans Bulls not doing against Magics Lakers or Isiah's Pistions until they aged and the league expansion aside.
Huh? Jordan disposed of Magic's Lakers in 5. Are you saying Magic was TOSB by age 31? When he was second in MVP voting and had a stacked supporting cast with James Worthy, Byron Scott, Vlade Divac, and Sam Perkins?
Those were the days when Phil Jackson actually coached and you seriously think someone will stop MJ?
MJ swept Shaq when he was 33 years old, what makes you think he won't do it when he is 28-30?
This can a debated for ever, but only Laker fans would not back MJ on this one. He's the GOAT for a reason.
LOL Isiah was too old at 30 despite destroying everyone else but Chicago (needed 7 to get through the GOAT) to win the le at age 29.
Divac? Really? You mean Sam 1-13 game for Perkins? Where were Wothy and Scott in the deciding game 5? Oh yeah, on the bench injured leaving the Lakers to rely on Elden "I can't spell my name" Cambell. Magig was on the down swing and was the best Laker. That years Laker team was lucky to even make the finals. Jordan was in his prime. When Magic, Bird, and Isiah were in their primes the bulls sniffed squat.
GOAT is an opinion. MJ is not the GOAT in mine. Not even top 3. There are all kinds of criteria that go into what forms ones opinion on who the GOAT is. It's all subjective.Those were the days when Phil Jackson actually coached and you seriously think someone will stop MJ?
MJ swept Shaq when he was 33 years old, what makes you think he won't do it when he is 28-30?
This can a debated for ever, but only Laker fans would not back MJ on this one. He's the GOAT for a reason.
downswing?
Magic was 31, 2nd in MVP voting, and had yet to seroconvert.
The 99' Spurs are one of the most underrated teams of all-time tbh. I know people knock them cause it was a shortened season but they won 31 of their last 36 regular season games and went 15-2 in the playoffs. Theyd give the 01' Lakers a run for their money imo.
Under 1999 rules I'd take the Spurs in that series. Under 2001 rules you'd have to choose LA.
Do the 2001 rules include more application of Joey Crawford, by any chance...?
Fair enough, but i don't see Shaq going through MJ to win a chip and i definitely don't see Kobe beating Michael in the post season. Whatever Kobe has, MJ was 30-40% more efficient and with much better defense.
The scary part about MJ is he accomplished that much with fairly average supporting cast.
Cob, you really think you can back the "Not even top 3" comment? I'd be hard-pressed to name even one player greater than MJ, much less three.
I think you can take the top 5-10 in any sport and make an argument for GOAT. And there are always the differences that come with the various positions in any sport. I really don't want to get in a debate about my choices because it has already been done hundreds of times over but I have Wilt, Oscar, and Kareem at 1,2, and 3. I have MJ and Magic tied at #4.
What's the criteria for GOAT? Championships? Stats? Dominance of eras? Making you teamates better? etc. One of my big considerations for who the best basketball player of all time is who would beat who in a one on one game. Yes I know its a team sport. All the considerations listed above aside, nobody would beat Wilt one on one. Nobody! Though many disagree, you can actually make an argument that he was the best of any player in any sport.
But again, you could argue the same form many others since there are so many variances in the criteria in what makes a GOAT and it's all just opinion in the end. It's why I put very little value on the trinket awards like MVP's, DPOY, ROY, all-star appearances etc.
I'm pretty sure bigmen from the 1970's to the present could give Wilt a compe ive game, and probably even win in a game of one on one.
You're argument is re ed and devoid of any account for the lack of talent in the era in consideration.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
