Don't make this kind of stupid threads.
While any long streaks in the NBA are difficult, I haven't been that impressed with the Mavs streak and they way they've been playing. Other than closing out games fairly well, they really haven't been playing as well as they were in December & January IMO. I've only seen a couple of the Spur's games during their streak so I really can't comment on that.
Honestly, the Mavs are just playing "OK" right now...
Glad to see the Spurs playing better...the Mavs needed some compe ion...
I think this guys point is valid. The NBA is in a sorry ass state, there are so many embarrasing teams that would even lose to Euro teams at this point.
So I agree, mavs + Spurs have not done much to impress me. Imagine if these Mavs or Spurs were in the 90s NBA. They most definitely would not have anything close to these streaks. And they would get blown out by the Bulls.
51-5 since the 0-4 start is remarkable.
If you're winning 10 out of every 11 games you're going to have a few good streaks in there.
All I can say is that if the Mavs lose in the playoffs it will be the biggest letdown in NBA history. Every previous team that had reached the 51 win mark at this point in the season has gone on to win the le.
The Suns, Spurs et. al. just need to hope Dallas feels the pressure in the playoffs and tightens up, because they're obviously having an amazing year. If they're loose and relaxed and hitting on all cylinders they're going to be a tough mountain to climb.
Yep, the bar has been raised and if the Mavs don't win the le it will be much worse than blowing it to the Heat last season.
I don't see the Mavs feeling the pressure though. They all say they feel like they have something to prove this season and they still think nobody believes they will win (i.e. playing with chip on their collective shoulders). I think someone is just going to have to play better than them and that's certainly possible for San Antonio or Phoenix to do.
Having watched basketball extensively in the 1990's and this decade leads me to the conclusion that you are wrong.
1) The Spurs set a franchise record winning streak of 17 games in the 1995-96 season. That Spurs team wasn't nearly as championship capable as this one is.
2) Which Bulls team? The 72-10 team from 1995-96? You could be right about that. But if basketball was so much better in the 1990's, how the was one team able to win 72 games?
FINALLY someone else has read my mind.... just breezin thru... but I had an argument over this same thot and didnt wanna start one up again!!!
Maybe the Bulls were just that much better than everyone else? I'm not sure how them winning 72 games one year says that basketball wasn't better in the 90's?
I'm not saying it was, just pointing out that saying basketball wasn't better in a certain decade because one great team won 72 games in one of the 10 years doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
My personal problem with this whole issue is the fact that many Spurs fans have dismissed the Mavs record time and time again. I can't tell you how many times I have read "HAHA CONGRATZ ON UR REGULAR SEASON LE U SUCK!". That argument is no longer funny or clever (not that it ever really was). Now that the Spurs are on a streak, a few of those same Spurs fans are claiming dominance and that this is an indication that they will win the championship again.
Both streaks are impressive. I'm glad to see the Spurs playing better because it will make the playoffs all the more interesting and exciting. But it can't be both ways...if the Mavs run is insignificant, so is the Spurs. If the Spurs run is significant, so is the Mavs.
Two top 50 players of all time, one being maybe the best ever. Maybe the best inch for inch rebounder of all time. 3 all defensive team members, 6th man of the year, and a bunch of really good role players (Luc Longley 9 points a game, Ron Harper 8 points a game)with a great 3 point shooter (Steve Kerr, second in the league in %) as well
You can't make statements like that until you have three rings.
I'm not trying to underrate the 1996 Bulls - in fact, they are the greatest team in NBA history, so that wasn't the point.
But it seems to me that if a league is strong from top to bottom (and the other poster argued that basketball was much stronger in the 1990s), you wouldn't get extremes like 72 wins. Hypothetically speaking, in a balanced league, the weakest teams would win more often and the strongest teams would win less often than the real world. 1996 was an expansion year - the Raptors and Grizzlies played their first seasons in 1995-96. Despite establishing an NBA record 72-10, the Bulls only finished 8 games ahead of the second place Seattle Sonics, who went 64-18. (In the non-expansion year of 1992, the Bulls finished 10 games ahead of second place) Those two teams plus Orlando established franchise records for wins that year which haven't been broken.
I don't know how someone would make the argument that basketball was dramatically better just one decade ago. I have observed the same two decades and didn't see what that other poster saw. At the very least, there ought to be an argument to substantiate such a surprising claim.
The Bulls won 69 games the next year after they won 72, I think they were just better than everyone
Again, I'm not arguing that point. I just don't happen to think that basketball was significantly better in the 1990s than it is now. To be exact, I don't think it was better at all.
Some people point to things like points and FG% being lower now than it was then and think that's incontrovertible proof of the decline of basketball. Having seen the evolution of team defense that began with Chuck Daly's Pistons teams of the late 1980's, and having seen this active style of defense executed by superior athletes (not players - I'm talking strictly running, jumping, quickness, and the athletes today are better than 10 years ago IMO), I believe this defensive evolution accounts for the decline of offensive metrics, not some sudden degradation of the quality of play.
It's a really hard argument to substantiate. It's probably just a little bit of "old times" syndrome. The past usually seems better the farther you are from it. I'm speculating that the 90's are "old times" for a lot of posters on here. Whereas, I think basketball was better in the 80's with the great Laker, Celtics & Sixers teams. I don't think there's a good way to prove that though. Just because the 80's decade had 2-3 really good teams doesn't mean that basketball was played better back then.
Thank you very much. I agree with your assessment.
Look, I dont know which era had the best teams or which team was better than another, I just know that that Bulls team was probably the best team I have ever watched, and they would have had a good chance against whoever they played
Without a doubt.
Jordan was easily the best player I ever saw play but I'm really not certain what was the best basketball team I've ever seen. I'd narrow it down to the Bulls of the 90's (72 win team), the Sixers of early 80's that won le and the best teams of the Lakers & Celtics of the 80's. There's really no way of determining who was the best of those teams.
The old worn out debates about how this team or that team would've done aginst teams of the 80's or 90's is moot. There isn't any way to know what the outcome would be.
The only win streaks that will matter will be in April-June.
It makes you appreciate what we saw from that 90s Bulls team. I really doubt any team will even break the record of 73-9. I know the old chiche of records are made to be broken. I don't see that happening in the NBA in our lifetime. I know that's a bold prediction, but have to throw it out there anyway.
He'll start giving them less minutes when the division and number 1 seed is wrapped up. But I do agree with one person (don't know if I see it on here or not), but if that does happen, it could be a mistake similar to what Dungy did with the Colts a couple years ago. It can help you at the same time haunt you.for the bettermint (is that even a word?) for the team...i think it would be good if avery lost a few games..in the form of resting his allstars.
Actually, the prevailing at ude in the 1990s was that the Bulls record was inflated because of the weak compe ion in the NBA at that time, and that those Bulls wouldn't have stood a chance against the All-Star-laden Lakers, Celtics, or Sixers of the 1980s.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
While I think both streaks are mainly indicative of teams beating who they are supposed to beat, I think I can make a decent argument that the Spurs' streak was somewhat harder to accomplish, and here's why:
In Dallas's 16 game streak, they've played 12 games at home and 4 on the road.
Dallas has had two back to backs, neither of which was an away/away and which were a long time apart: @ home against Seattle on 1/30 and away at Memphis on 1/31--both weak teams--and @ home against Atlanta on 2/26 and away against the Wolves on 2/27. Dallas therefore went approximately a month with no back to backs (skewed because of the All-Star Break, of course).
In the Spurs' last ten games, they've had to play six on the road and four at home.
The Spurs have had four back to backs in their ten game winning streak, which includes the set before the ASB. Of the four back to backs, two were home/away and two away/away. The last set of back to backs came as four in five days.
Both teams played their most recent games on March 6. So Dallas has won 16 games in 39 days, including the ASB, dating back to January 27 and the Spurs have won 10 games in 21 days, dating back to February 13, again including the ASB.
I don't have a problem with the Mavs' win streak; they play who's on the schedule, and it takes a lot of focus to keep winning games. But their schedule does get more road-heavy from here on out, so that could get more interesting. Dallas is 21-6 on the road, so it's not like they're weak on the road, but that's a full six fewer road games so far than the Spurs (23-10). I'll be curious to see how it all plays out.
Nah, we'd settle for just one.
Question: were people who said the Chargers' 14-2 record meant nothing for the playoffs wrong for doing so?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
