If you could change one shot that affected your team in the last 15 years

[Lakers_55]

Exactly. I don't want to read your ty blog, I just want your justification for 1986.



So you completely contradicted your own sig. Gotcha



So you're no better than Celtics fans. Gotcha



How kinky.

But being a fan of the Lakers, you'd know a thing or two about being a sexual deviant.

Try reading once in awhile. My signature is smack. I said that. Ok, little boy you get your candy (by that I mean the public ass spanking you crave) taken away now. I am done with owning your worthless ass. I'll let this exchange of posts between us speak for itself.

[monosylab1k]

My signature is smack. I said that.

So you waste time trashing Celtics fans only to reveal that you're on the same level. Gotcha

[Def Rowe]

How kinky.

But being a fan of the Lakers, you'd know a thing or two about being a sexual deviant.

Classy.

[tlongII]

The Memorial Day Miracle. If Elliott misses we win that series and the championship and likely win the following year against the Lakers as well.

[cobbler]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/
They won 11 of 13 years from 1956-57 to 1968-69, including 8 in a row at one point, and the last two were back-to-back. They never repeated again, (Which is why Larry Bird's Celtics are not a dynasty with 3 les in 6 years) and they won't this year either.

The first NBA dyasty was the Minneapolis Lakers from 1948-49 to 1953-54, who won 5 les n 6 years. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/

The Lakers of the 1980's were the 3rd NBA dynasty and as I noted above, no one would give us dynasty status until we won a back-to-back in 1988. By 1987 we had 6 finals appearances in 8 seasons, with 4 les. Not enough for a legitimate dynasty claim. Proving we could win back-to-back clinched it. No one could do it for 20 years, and then every team repeated until recently. See this thread: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114193 The league considered and still does, getting a back to back to be critical to how a team is looked at over an era.

So, the back to back will clinch it. without one most people will disagree. 2 in a row in itself isn't enough, you need at least 3 les over no more than a 4 year period. Lakers did that with les in 1985/87/88. 1980/82 get included as they are relevant, especially since we were in the finals in 1983/84. The Lakers 80's era was all about Magic, Kareem, and the showtime role players: Worthy/Cooper/Rambis/Wilkes/Nixon/Kupchak/Scott/Thompson/Green/McAdoo etc.

I can only argue one point. No way can you consider Worthy a role player.

[cobbler]

I would just like to point out that your sig is freakin re ed, especially considering the Lakers pulled one of the most egregious tankjobs ever when they lost to the Rockets in 1986 to purposely avoid getting absolutely curbstomped by the Celtics in the Finals.

Oh yeah.... And the Lakers just willed Sampson's last second shot in the basket. Anybody who knows or has followed Magic knows he would not tank anything. What a totally absurd post.

[cobbler]

1969 finals game 7. Don Nelson's (celtics) last second shot that hits the heel of the rim, bounces above the backboard, and back through the hoop.

[baseline bum]

All the balls bounced the Rockets way that series.

Um what? Mitch Kupchack got Akeem kicked out of game 5 and you all still blew it.

[Lakers_55]

I can only argue one point. No way can you consider Worthy a role player.

The reason I listed Worthy as a role player was he wasn't part of the whole Laker dynasty. True, he was our third option and 1988 series MVP. He triggered the game 6 series clinching win over Boston with his dive for the loose ball in the third quarter in 1987. Kareem, Magic, and Cooper played each season, and Riley moved from broadcaster to asst. coach in 1979-80.

Worthy was not a role player, he just fit in the list of them better imo.

[baseline bum]

Actually, more than the MJ shot.

And I 100% believe Stern personally engineered it.

That Eisley three being waved off is easily the worst call in NBA history. I've got that game on DVD and I'm still blown away time I see Bavetta wave that one away and count Ron Harper's shot good.

[JoeTait75]

It's been more than 15 years, but obviously, the Shot. If Jordan doesn't hit that jumper, we don't trade Harper, we pass Chicago in the pecking order- maybe permanently, if Krause makes a panic move following the loss- and maybe we win a le or two in the '90s.

[jack sommerset]

Robert Horrys shot on Steve Nash. Take it back and Suns win. Amare and Diaw would not have stepped over the line and the Suns would have had enough gas in the tank to finish off the Spews.

[baseline bum]

It's been more than 15 years, but obviously, the Shot. If Jordan doesn't hit that jumper, we don't trade Harper, we pass Chicago in the pecking order- maybe permanently, if Krause makes a panic move following the loss- and maybe we win a le or two in the '90s.

Huh? Ron Harper was going to be enough to offset Scotty Pippen's rise?

[JoeTait75]

Huh? Ron Harper was going to be enough to offset Scotty Pippen's rise?

Okay, maybe not. But let's just say it would have been nice to find out for sure, one way or another. And at least Harper would have been a counter to the athletic wing players that murdered that team- not just Jordan, but Petrovic, Reggie Miller and Reggie Lewis, all of whom had their way with us.

[dirk4mvp]

I fail to see how some of you are claiming that if one shot would've went your team's way, it would've triggered off several les. Especially Spurfans spouting off that if not for .4 and the dirk and-1, they would've had a 5 peat. That's ridiculous.

[m33p0]

I fail to see how some of you are claiming that if one shot would've went your team's way, it would've triggered off several les. Especially Spurfans spouting off that if not for .4 and the dirk and-1, they would've had a 5 peat. That's ridiculous.

agree about the .4. in 06, you'd have to give the spurs the advantage over the heat.

[dirk4mvp]

Mavs got ed bad enough by the Heat. Maybe would've been worse for the Spurs since Stern was probably tired of the Spurs winning at that point.