Reply With Quote
True to a point but Lakeshow is defining the parameters set by the Celtics. The Lakers did not get that respect until it repeated.
Yeah he has his panties wadded up that we reject his premise which he says has to be accepted and defines the starting point of the argument.
True to a point but Lakeshow is defining the parameters set by the Celtics. The Lakers did not get that respect until it repeated.
That may have been relevant, or even special, when nobody had done it in twenty years. But it has been done several times since then. What would be relevant - and special - these days is not a team that just won for two or three years and then disappeared, but a team that is consistently vying for and/or winning the championship for a decade. Yep, that's what's special these days...
Maybe so, but any scenario I discuss about Champions would favor the Lakers. You can't get any better than 48% of all finals played. That is much better than a team that wins and is consistent for a decade.
I would put the Spurs in the first group if they repeat, if they don't, I wouldnt!
I was just playing with you to prove the point that you can prove almost Any point if you allow only the right set of cir stances. That being the case, the conditions you apply to your arguments says more about who you are / what your bias is, than it ever could to prove your argument. Of course, with a name like Lakeshow, you aren't really hiding that...
Well I always believe that a team that defends its le is one of the best. That's just my opinion though.
After winning their fourth le in nine years, you better believe that the Spurs have cemented themselves among the league's greatest franchises and definitely as the best team of the past decade. Regardless of what end of the spectrum one believes the Spurs rank in all time dynasties, they definitely are in that discussion. We are only one of four teams that have won four or more championships - the Spurs are in elite company along with the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers. Not repeating hasn't diminished what the Spurs have accomplished but it would certainly validate their position as one of professional sports greatest franchises.
In the 10 years since Duncan arrived they are pro sports winningest franchise, they are 2nd only behind the Lakers for the highest winning percentage in NBA history. They have the highest NBA finals winning percentage and as a club they've only missed the playoffs in four years. And since the NBA merger in 1977 the Spurs are tied with the Atlanta Braves for the most division les in pro sports with 15. More then the Lakers with 14. Not bad for a small market team.
It's good to be a Spurs fan.
Any teams that went back-to-back but ONLY won those championships, are below the Spurs. So they're already above the Pistons winning it in 1989 and 1990, as well as the Rockets winning it in 1994 and 1995. In 1969, the league had 14 teams, so the Celtics of that year and others before then, as well as the Minneapolis Lakers are below the Spurs in terms of difficulty of winning multiple championships. Bird's Celtics never went back to back and they only won three, so the Spurs with four are above them. The Lakers from 2000-2002 went back to back to back, but Shaq and Kobe didn't win anything else. 4 > 3 so that puts the Spurs above them.
So in conclusion:
1. Jordan's Bulls - 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998
2. Magic/Kareem's Lakers - 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988
3. Duncan's Spurs - 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007
There's how teams rank. You could rank franchises but then Boston and L.A. would have a bunch of meaningless championships from an era in which the NBA had only 13 teams.
I respect your opinion Lakeshow. But my opinion is that in the Spurs case, "defending the championship" is particularly irrelevant. The reason most commonly given for it to be more difficult to repeat is that "everyone is gunning for you". It would be irresponsible for any team in the NBA to change their teams to specifically "gun" for the Heat and Pistons for winning their individual les in the same time-frame that the Spurs have won three of the last five championships. Any GM worth his salt knows that, unless he is lucky, he will have to beat the Spurs on his way to a championship. In fact, several teams have practically looted the Spurs organization and openly admit to emulating them. And, of course, more GM's pick the Spurs to win the championship than any other team, year in and year out. Why would they "gun" for anyone else? They wouldn't, and they don't. The Spurs have been facing opponents who have literally been "gunning for them" For Years, so in effect the '05 and '07 championships were at least as difficult as any other teams' repeat, if not more so.
Last edited by zepn; 09-29-2007 at 10:38 PM.
As I do your!
I disagree with the back to back being irrelevent. I think it's very relevent! In my opinion, that is the only thing that would save face for the Spurs. If they don't win next year you might as welllol. Your le would be tarnished! Some will look at the fact that the official cheated for you. Some will say that is the only reason you won. The talk would be that the Suns were the best team last season. True or not, the talk has substance that can not be ignored. Win it again, no Donaghy, with Joey(I Some say Stern got rid of the only ref that would not be favorable to the Spurs) shuts everybody up! Otherwise you'll have people like me clowning your asses!
Last edited by LakeShow; 09-29-2007 at 11:50 PM.
The Spurs have been the top team in the NBA since October 2002. They dethroned the Lakers' three-year run. They have three out of the last five, and the teams that eliminated them in 2004 and 2006 were flukes. The Lakers didn't win it in 2004 against the favored Pistons and Dallas didn't in 2006 against the favored Heat.
The Suns can hardly be thought to have been the favorites for the championship when the 2nd round started.
The Spurs were 25-3 going into their game in which Crawford ejected Duncan. The two games after that were garbage games with the starters resting. They were 2-1 vs. Phoenix and had a better West record than Phoenix. Just because Phoenix can run and gun and go 25-5 vs. the East doesn't mean .
Phoenix had a 25-5 vs. the East record.
SA had a 20-10 vs. the East record.
Yet, SA had a 38-14 record vs. the West
While Phoenix had a 36-16 record vs. the West
But then again, Phoenix fans are incapable of using logic.
Unfortunately you abandoned logic for rhetoric, probably because that was all you had left.As I do your!
I disagree with the back to back being irrelevent. I think it's very relevent! In my opinion, that is the only thing that would save face for the Spurs. If they don't win next year you might as well
I systematically destroyed any pretense for the faulty logic behind the "Spurs must repeat" argument.
That argument is DEAD - unless you can give a logical, meaningful reason that you have so far failed to present.
I have no time for the "You Suck" type of rhetoric.
Last edited by zepn; 09-30-2007 at 08:37 AM.
I think this is close to being correct, though obviously Russells Celtics should be at the top, bumping the Spurs down to #4 team of all time. In my opinion, they (Spurs) would have to win this year to equal the Lakers, the back-to-back does matter. Having said that, I think that the Spurs will eventually pass the Lakers as their window still has 3-4 years and at their every-other-year pace, they have two more championships to win.1. Jordan's Bulls - 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998
2. Magic/Kareem's Lakers - 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988
3. Duncan's Spurs - 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007
Give your reasons, with proof, that back to back matters in regards to the Spurs over the last five years. Else it remains disproven and a dead argument.
And some say the Kings got ripped off and the Shaq/Kobe Lakers back to back is a fraud. Who give a what some say. I guess if the Spurs win there will be no dumb s (maybe you're one?) who will say the Spurs have an asterisk for the shortened season, or that the Suns got screwed or Dirk got injured or the Stern loves the Spurs. What counts is what the other teams players, coaches and FO think, the guys who actually know something, not a bunch of whiny fans of other teams. And the players, coaches and GMs of the othr teams for nearly ten years have been saying the Spurs are a great team, in fact the standard they would like to have their team emulate. Better than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Better than the Bad Boys, the out of nowhere and back to nowhere Rockets and a great but short lived Knicks team. Spurs are in a class only with the Showtime Lakers, Celtics and Bulls and every year of success moves them higher up the ranks. One or two more les and they'll be ahead of every team but the Russell Celtics, and it's still possible.As I do your!
I disagree with the back to back being irrelevent. I think it's very relevent! In my opinion, that is the only thing that would save face for the Spurs. If they don't win next year you might as well
Ho Hummm.. I knew this was started by someone other than a SPURS fan .. Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnn
Because of thisGive your reasons, with proof, that back to back matters in regards to the Spurs over the last five years. Else it remains disproven and a dead argument.
Lakers won one, then another, then another, then went back to back
Spurs won one, then another, then another, then ... One.
You see the difference is that I didn't type "Then went back to back" I only typed "then ... One". There is a diffenece between "Back to Back" and Then ... One"
You see, they would have to win another in order for me to be able to type "back to back" but sense that have only won one .... They are not to that level.
I hate to put it that simply but five with a back-to-back beats four without a back-to-back, by a wide margin if truth be told.
The talk about back-to-back is insane. Because if do look at it, it matters a great deal. A team, most of the time, can be championship good for a limited time ... Say ten years. If a team fails to go back-to-back, their maximum number of Championships become limited to five.
If you can only win five during your teams run, any team that wins more then five will be able to say "But we have six"
So when talking about "best teams", if your going to be on top, you had best win back to back, because if not, you will not pass the Bulls with Six rings. Let alone come close to the Celtics
You're right, it is insane - because it is meaningless. You can say the Lakers won one more championship. That is relevant. The fact that any of them were back to back and that somehow makes them better is irrelevant. See my previous post where I shot a giant hole in that argument. It is very possible that back to back championsips are NOT better, but in fact, worse. Let's call them "Cookie-Cutter championships", because these teams simply did the same thing they did the year before, they didn't have to overcome anything new, they just plugged in the same old formula - big deal. And absolute number of championships mathematically possible during your pre-selected time-span does not in any way infer validity upon the argumentative fallacy that is "back to back".
out of those, better than the rockets, that's it
How can the total number of Championships be meaningless in an arguement of "which is better"?You're right, it is insane - because it is meaningless.
Oh, I see, your looking at a single championship season and not the body of work ... Well, the topic is about body of work for one team, not one season. Over time, If a team is going to win alot of Championships, they are going to have to win Back-to-back.
You see to think that one is better then the other and in the long run, one is better. You want as a team to win as many Championship as you can before having to "reload". Now you can win every other year and get five in ten years, but by that time, your star players are starting to show their age ... Or you can win back-to-back once or twice and win even more championship over the same period of time.
You don't see the advantage of winning as many Championships as you can while your players are still at their peak? You don't see that back-to-backs, or triples would be far better then to win one and loose one as your stars age?
Using your logic the Bulls would have been see as the same team if they only won only four Championships over their seven year run. I disagree, they would not have been seen as dominate if they didn't have their two triples. That they so much so fast is why everyone hold them so high. The Spurs are winning Championship, but not at the same pace of other great teams. It is a testiment to their skill level and style of play, but in these years that they are not winning they are not adding the the thing that seperates them from those teams listed.
I'm not talking down about the Spurs Championship teams, only pointing out simple mathmatics that you don't seem to understand. If they are going to win alot of Championship, they need to win them in bunches to equal what the other teams that are seen as better have already done.
You don't read very well do you?
You said: The talk about back-to-back is insane.
I said: You're right, it is insane - because it is meaningless.
Yes, absolutely, winning more championships is better. Do you really think you are going to get an argument otherwise? Well maybe from Dirk...
Yes, everyone knows that a championship every other year = exactly half of the championships over a specific timeframe. That is the "given" part of the issue that everyone else here has long since taken for granted.
But you missed the point entirely, Professor Mathquiz...
The issue regarding Back to Back is QUALITATIVE not Quan ative.
There is NO intrinsic qualitative value in winning championships "back to back", especially for the Spurs - they don't face any stiffer compe ion because all of the other teams are already "gunning for them" anyway, whether it is a championship year, or an "off" year.
Back to back is better than just one.
But three in 5 is better than just one back to back.
The more les, the better.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions