Reply With Quote
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?
mmmkay.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.
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?
spurs = 3 rings > suns+mavs history combined
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.
Sorry but SUN has not yet defeated Mavs.
Besides, the only logic that you can derive is Stern + Ref > every teams in the NBA
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 le 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 le.
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.
That's really quick thinking there short bus. By that logic this would be true: Celtics>>>>>Spurs.
Simple fact is that the refs ed 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 . It is what it is.
Good god, must every thread turn into the "refs screwed the Spurs?" You're in' pathetic. How about you stick to the topic of the thread, there are other threads specifically dedicated to whinning about the officials
Dip you leap at every thread that offers you a chance to bash the Spurs. That's your whole agenda wad. 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...
Really? Try looking at some other posts. Just happens that Dirk sucking and refs ing games three and four are two of the facts I've discussed.
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.
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...
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.If the Suns beat the Mavs, yes they are better than the Spurs. Anybody who says otherwise is just too proud to admit it.
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?
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.
If they don't then they are idiots, but not because of that logic, but because the Spurs won the West.
Suns in 6
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 %!
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.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 %!
No wonder the Suns are winning. Plus, their defense (at least against the Mavs) is improving...
Counting backwards from ten 10, 9, 8 ...
Didn't work. That's the best ing 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.
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 of a team with a season of playing together.
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 re ed little arguement you stupid , 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.
Last edited by BAkriD; 05-31-2006 at 03:31 PM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
