Reply With Quote
There were no Maverick fans in 1988.
I'm cool.
There were no Maverick fans in 1988.
Just a note:
Mavericks have kind of scheduling anomaly. Pretty much a cake walk through mid-March.
THEN:
14 of their last 22 on the road including:
@ SA, Detroit, Cleveland, Phoenix, Clips and Houston
The Spurs "cakewalk" pretty much coincides with Dallas's toughest stretch. The smack is gonna get pretty loud from up North before it settles down.
Sure there were; the Mavs were very good in the late 80's, taking the Lakers to Game 7 of the WCF in '88. But the vast majority of those people stopped being Mavericks fans by about 1992. The new breed of Mavericks fan largely could not tell you who played for "their" team in the mid-90's when the Mavericks were losing at nearly record-setting paces.
But, of course, there are Spurs fans in this forum who know nothing of a Spurs team that hadn't won a le and wasn't a le contender every year.
For now, the Dallas Mavericks are in first place and rightly so. They are on a spectacular roll. They are defending well and they continue to be able to score the ball when necessary. They are a formidable team that presents a number of significant issues for the Spurs to deal with. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I'd be interested to know just how it is (with a real breakdown of matchups and styles; more than "we've won in the past and they haven't" -- the lack of Finals experience and such things didn't deter the 1999 Spurs did it?) that the Spurs will just roll the Mavericks.
The March 2 matchup will be a very interesting one to watch. The Spurs can basically clinch the tiebreaker if they beat the Mavs that night and, barring something terrible happening between now and then, it should allow us to see for the first time what the Mavs and Spurs bring against each other when at full strength -- no back-to-backs and no missing starters.
p.s.-- as an aside, after years of listening to Mavericks fans complain about how "boring" the Spurs games are, it's funny that they don't make that complaint about their own team, which is {ahem} playing like the Spurs.
The mavs don't play a boring style like the spurs do. Their offense is very exciting with athletes like Josh Howard and Devin Harris. The spurs are better defensively but not by much.
My bad; saw "1988", thought "1998" - because that's what I think Detroit fan was referring to; ie: Prior to Spurs winning a championship.
That wasn't the reason Dallas was listed 1st. Dallas was actually assigned the (1) playoff seed in the standings and the Spurs (4) seed because Dallas had a better in-conference record. Tie-breakers are factored into the daily standings, as if the playoffs were to begin today.
Tony & Tim cannot be contained by their respective defenders, and the Mavericks rotations and "funneling" ability is not nearly as polished as the Spur's. Tony will wreak havoc, and keep the Mavs on their heals. Tim will STILL command at least a double team, leaving at least 1 bomber open for the kick out at all times.
Pop's experience in a series, specifically coaching defense, will prevail over Avery's, especially since the Spurs still have a considerable statistical advantage in the significant defensive categories (opp. fg%). EVERY Spur starter is a good, if not great, one-on-one defender; Avery has got his team playing a Spur-like system, but w/o the horses it won't ever be as good.
Further, I believe the Spurs are better than the Mavericks RIGHT NOW, despite what the records indicate.
The Spurs and Mavs are tied, but the Spurs have played a championship schedule - every night against a team that would love to hang that "we beat the champs" banner on the wall. The Mavericks are playing the schedule of a team that hasn't won so much as a division banner in 18 years! People are starting to take notice, it might get tougher for them.
Finally, we DO have a slight preview of these two squads - they have played twice, both in Dallas. The first game, Dallas simply played great, the Spurs sucked. The second game was pivotal. Spurs were leading the division, Manu was hurt, Dallas could follow up their statement with another one, and take an early division head-start, show they had arrived!!!! They lost.
Actually, I think Dallas was given the higher seed because they had more in-conference wins -- the Spurs have the better record against the West because they only have 4 losses against the West, while the Mavs have 7. But, at the end of the season, the number of wins in games against the West will ultimately break the tie, which is why (I think) the nba.com software breaks the tie as it did.
It doesn't matter today -- the Mavs are truly a half-game up for the moment.
Dallas Conference record: 24-7 (71% - very nice)
Spurs Conference record: 21-4 (81%)
Everyone knows Mavs are scared of physical contact. Even Dampier, their center is a big pussy. Spurs are better defensively, not by much?? that's a little understatement. Drinking and posting should be illegal
and yes, maybe the Mavs are more fun to watch..... to 5 year olds. maybe they can tour with the globetrotters someday.
Ooh, good point. Thanks for the correction ya'll.
So far this season there isn't anything too different from the last few years about what both the Spurs and Mavs have done up to this point. The Mavs fate might depend on whether Dirk blows a gasket again.
Afraid of physical contact? What have you been smoking? This is not 2002 and this team is willing to attack the basket. Examples of this are Devin Harris and Josh Howard. They make it a routine on attacking the basket. Yes there are a lot of jump shooters on Dallas but they are very good jump shooters. Some of the best in the league.
Everyone knows Mavs are scared of physical contact. Even Dampier, their center is a big pussy. Spurs are better defensively, not by much?? that's a little understatement. Drinking and posting should be illegal
and yes, maybe the Mavs are more fun to watch..... to 5 year olds. maybe they can tour with the globetrotters someday.
You've lost all of your remaining shred of credibility with those statements.
You're right -- watching Ginobili and Parker just launch jump shot after jump shot, never driving to the basket under any cir stances, is pretty boring.
Mavs are giving up 88 points a game in the last 12 games. I doubt the spurs are much better. You should actually look at the defensive stats of the mavs before opening your mouth.
Other than Ginobili and Parker the rest of the team is boring to watch. In particular Duncan.You're right -- watching Ginobili and Parker just launch jump shot after jump shot, never driving to the basket under any cir stances, is pretty boring.
So you hang your arguments on the Mav's recent 12-game streak? Let's try over a span of a season or even perhaps a season and the playoffs before you spout your "research" on us.
Spurs have proven it YEARS on end. Mavs have done it over 12 games. Nice work Sherlock.
For some reason I thought you were not a troll.
This post proves me wrong.
Last edited by smeagol; 02-08-2006 at 03:35 PM.
Well I've actually tried to watch spurs games but I lose interest quickly. Their style is not that interesting. Probably because they don't score a lot. Where do I prove to be a troll? That I have a lot of confidence in the mavs and they are exciting to watch?
It's a good number, no doubt. But, for the sake of reference, in their past 12 gams, the Spurs are giving up 82.5 ppg. The Mavs have given up more than 90 on five different occasions during their streak. The Spurs have given up more than 90 only twice in their last 12 (94 to Miami on the road and 92 to Milwaukee at home).
I'd say it's justifiable to think the Spurs are still playing better defense than the Mavericks. Dallas is in a tizzy over the Mavericks new record of 12 games without an opponent scoring 100. The Spurs have allowed only 1 opponent to exceed 100 points since November 29 (34 games) and none since December 20. Which streak (12 games or nearly 2 months), praytell, should I find more impressive?
and jump shooters are that entertaining? the spurs can be boring to watch, but dallas' new style isn't all that "pretty" either. the spurs are also better defensively at every position than the mavs (starters), so i don't know where you get that the spurs aren't that much better defensively. bowen>howard, duncan>dirk, parker>terry, gnob>whoever, rasho>diop.
Well the mavs are more up tempo than the spurs so I don't see in this pace that they could ever give up 82 ppg. The spurs are more of a half court team and use up the shot clock while the mavs look to score quickly like in first 10 seconds of the shot clock.
If good ball movement, an inside-out game with Duncan, and good defensive rotations classify as boring to you, you're lost just like most of the casual NBA fan base.
Because dumping the ball to Nowitzki to go one-on-one is sooooo much more exciting than feeding it to Tim in the low block.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions