No matter the seedings. Fact is a fact.
Don't be silly, the whole game is about match-ups. Things like that let 7/8th seeds get past the first round and farther. It makes the number one team(s) drop out early. when they get matched up bad. And so forth.
Paper > Rock
Scissors > Paper
So Scissors > Rock?
When it's all about the matchups it's all about the matchup's. But when you are talking about history and how the history will be remebering the team you talking about the accompluishments. Spurs gone fishing after second round. Phoenix didn't as simpla as that. (From the history point of view - the real one, the remeber one).
Nobody will be thinking about How good spurs were just because they were chalenged by better matchup.
Get real. If Gino would not make that mistake the spurs probably won a championship. And even when you can say Spurs > Miami because of the matchups and the styles of play. Nobody will let you say that the spurs are the 2006 champions.
And if we play Phoenix in next year's playoffs, will people be talking about how much better they were than the Spurs this year, or will they be talking about how the Spurs buried the Suns in 5 in '05 and the current Suns have never beaten us?
Bold assumptions, don't get ahead of yourself. As of right now what is sticking out in people's minds is that the beat the Spurs in an amazing series and the Suns are defying the odds and making an amazing run. Nobody outside of San Antonio gives a about the seedings, what happened last year, or what might happen next year. People will remember what the Suns have accomplished these playoffs.
Phoenix is a formidable team, and making two conference finals in a row is impressive as . I don't want to downplay that. And I don't give a crap about seedings either -- excuses are worthless.
I'm just saying that they haven't beaten us, and if we meet next year, they're 0-1 against us under D'Antoni, not 1-1 by proxy.
I'm really failing to see your point, what does that have to do with the Suns being better this year? You can't go back a season or two just to somehow claim supremacy over a team, all that counts is the here and now.
You still taking about "IF's" ?
So, will Spurs fans concede the Suns could be better than the Spurs?
Even if the Suns win the Championship?
Obviously if they win the championship they are the best in the league
This is what the idiots on this thread don't understand:
the playoffs only provides a few conclusive orderings, namely, if team A beats team B directly, clearly A > B, and champs > all others
The NBA is not about 2nd place, 3rd place, blah blah blah
There's the champs, and then there's everyone else. That's what the playoffs are about, determining ONE WINNER (unless your team beats another team directly)
Therefore, if Suns win it all => Suns are better than everyone
I like that logic.
Wrong, Suns are still very much alive and kicking, that automatically makes them more successful than the all the eliminated teams in the West.
Suns>>>> Kings, Griz, Nuggets, Lakers, Clippers, and Spurs
Just because it is possible that a team that the was eliminated in the previous round could theoretically beat a team that advanced, doesn't mean . The same could be said about a team that didn't make the playoffs, they could theoretically beat the champs. You're basing it on the unknown, you have to go with the known, the Suns are in the WCF playing tough against a team that beat the Spurs.
I still think UConn could take UCLA if they ever matched up.
No. You were the one who brought up how history would "remember" teams. My point is that history remembers teams subjectively. For example, the Spurs lost in 2000 in the first round with Duncan injured, and history remembers that year as a fluke because of the the years before and after.
If Duncan were often injured around playoff time, it would be remembered as just another year like that -- the same way that injuries to the Kings have often been remembered. If the Spurs spent the early 2000s getting sent home in the first round, it would be remembered like that. As it stands, except for 2000 the Spurs have never been sent home in the Tim Duncan era except by the western conference champion, so 2000 is basically a fluke year.
If you want to get into how history will remember this year, it's too soon to say.
It's all semantics, really. Yes they're in the WCF and the Spurs aren't. Does that make them better than the Spurs? Maybe, that depends on what you mean by better. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, unless the Suns want to hang a "Better Than The Spurs" banner if they fail to win a championship again.
That is a different animal, March Madness is one and done, a tournament seven game series prooves a lot more, the better team always wins. Especially when they overcome the other teams homecourt advantage.
The Hawks beat the Spurs this year. Does that mean they could win the Championship?
I didn't bring up how people would remember these teams, you did with this post:
Just because you didn't specifically say remember, but it what you were talking about.
BAkriD,
The post I was responding to initially, was
which was how I got on the subject of how history remembers teams.
But even if the Suns never win another game this year and their team completely collapses next season, they will be remembered as having a better year this year. I never meant to argue that particular point.
Ahh, my mistake, I thought that you were responding my post, sorry about that.
Last edited by BAkriD; 06-01-2006 at 05:30 PM.
Mavs=Spurs
Suns=Mavs
Spurs>>Suns. Matchups and luck mean everything.
That is very true.
If the Kings had the 7th seed, we may well have seen them in the WCF right now. But you know what.................... what ifs. Right now the Mavs and Suns are playing, so in my mind, they are clearly the better teams.
Well we all know that Tim was not playing as we know that Bill Russell was not playing when Bob Pet lead his team to a chapionship.
But all in all it doeasn't matter. St. Louis waon a chapionship and lakers won a champioship. Boston was in the Finals. Spurs did not make it through first round.
Team was not complete.
And do you realy think that they will be remebering the spurs of 2006? Sheez. The spurs lost again in the second round and couldn't hold the championship and this is how the history will remember them.
Just like 3 peats Bulls. Nobody is mentioning the Indiana Pacers 1998 where larry Bird mada a mistake and put mark jackson in while Travis Best was in his best (). Yeah, and who remebers the shots from the six games Finals that year where Howar Eisley hit a 3 pointer at the buzzer but referees said it was after the buzzer. And the Ron harper shot after the buzzer was counted. Do the math and ytou have 5 points. The history remembering that kind of stuff? No. Bulls made a 2 time 3 peat and nobody is trying to take it away from them. That's why we shouldn't be thinkinking "what if" and Spurs > anybody. Cause overall the spurs were eliminated in the second round.
So, by that logic, the LA Clippers > Kings?
I don't buy it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote