barring an unexpected breach of character, the Spurs will go down as the most well run franchise in sports HISTORY. period
Anyone who says that the lakers back to back was a fraud is Insane (are you that?) the lakers validated their greatness with the greatest run in the history of the NBA in the Playoffs. The best record ever in the playoff! That's how you validate a le! The Threepeat Lakers were much better than the Spurs.
Good Post!
Why do you keep saying that? You did not shoot down anything! You made a very good argument, but the fact remains that teams shoot for the NBA champions! They tend to play their best to gauge how far they've come in the league and to see if they can really compete with the best! This season teams will circle the date of your game but when you're not the champs, wgaf! Who do you think you are? The Lakers? They circle LA's game because they're coming to LA.
I don't get that one. How could they be the top team if the Lakers and Dallas won the WC?
2003
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html
Last edited by LakeShow; 10-01-2007 at 01:48 AM.
lakers 3 peat was impressive... but people forget that they should have lost both of those game 7 WCF games against portland in 00 and sac in 02. both games had some pretty questionable calls from what i remember.... 01 they just ed everyone in the ass and dominated without question though.
And apparently you like to argue even after you have lost the arguement. Who cares about the "quality" of a back-to-back Championship run. The words 'Back-to-back Championship' speaks for itself, If means that no team could beat you when it mattered most for two years running.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.
Can the Spurs say that? No they cannot. Because over the course of their run, someone stepped up to a level that the Spurs were not able to equal. They seem to be doing it with the same regularity as the Spurs themselves stepping up.
Obviously as you put it "More Championships are better" and sense you cannot to the really big "more" numbers without going back-to-back, that is what every team is shooting for. they are not shooting to win one every other year, they are shooting to win one every year. If that doesn't tell you that one is better then nothing will.
If you agree that a Back-to-back is better then one every other year, then you are agreeing with the fact that there is a different between the two. If you agree that that one of the two (back-to-back or every other year) is better, then there is a difference.
Only to you, because you have already admitted that a team would rather win in a back-to-back fashion, as you stated here ...The issue regarding Back to Back is QUALITATIVE not Quan ative.
That a team has not won in a back-to-back fashion doesn't lesson any of the Championships that they do win, but when looking back at the body of work that that team had accomplished .. It will dimish the final product because they were not Championship dominate during any streatch of time lasting more then one season.That is the "given" part of the issue that everyone else here has long since taken for granted
It is better to say 'We won a lot of Championships and nobody beat us when it mattered for two years in a row' then to say 'We won a lot Championships, but someone always stepped up to beat us everytime we were on top of the mountain'
Do you think that those two statements are equal? Because that is the crux of the arguement. One team has won Championships with a back-to-back the other hasn't. One can say the first statement, the other cannot ... Are the statements equal in your opinion, if they are explain why please.
Back to Back has been destroyed. Nobody has been able to refute my argument in a logical way. And poor Dalhoop can't even understand the question...Why do you keep saying that? You did not shoot down anything! You made a very good argument, but the fact remains that teams shoot for the NBA champions! They tend to play their best to gauge how far they've come in the league and to see if they can really compete with the best! This season teams will circle the date of your game but when you're not the champs, wgaf! Who do you think you are? The Lakers? They circle LA's game because they're coming to LA.
What??? Yoda, is that you? You can't write either I see...
I love this. Soundly defeated, now you invent the concept of "when it matters most". Not only that, YOU get to define it as the year after a championship. Just off-hand I would say that if such a concept did exist, and wasn't just a comical attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, most teams would say their First championship was when it mattered most.
"They seem to be doing it with the same regularity as the Spurs". They? Who is they? Pistons? Sorry, one win. Heat? One win. Your arguments confuse even yourself, although apparently that is not very difficult...
Oh God, the math lecture truism from you again...
Yes, we can all add. Yes, we all like championships. Yes, more championships are better than fewer championships. We not only get it, we agree. We not only agree, we have already assumed that Everyone agreed with this so long ago that there is no reason to mention it, much less try to argue over it. Stop already, it's annoying. "Hey, hey, guys listen, listen to this, hey guys..." Yes, Dalhoop?... "Hey, hey, guys listen, listen to this, hey guys...uh, breathing is good" Yes, Dalhoop, we know...
What supposedly makes "back to back" special is that it is harder to accomplish because everyone is "gunning" for you, NOT because it looks good on paper or makes a neat-o slogan. Everyone is Already gunning for the Spurs, so IT IS IRRELEVANT. Every years' compe ion is the same as a back to back for the Spurs BECAUSE they have been winners over a long period of time, and they are not some two-and-done, flash in the pan, back to back team you never hear from again.
I think it's also important to note the difference between winning 2 les in three years compares to a back-to-back, and how that is completely different from what the Spurs have accomplished.
2 les in 3 years is commendable. 3 les in 5 years is pretty good as well. However, with four les now, the Spurs have held a pattern of sustained dominance that is far different from a typical team who wins a couple before fading to obscurity. Consider the fact that the Spurs might end up winning 6 or 7 les over a period of 13-14 years. That is absolutely unheard of in the modern era of sports with the lone exception of Michael Jordan. To even have a chance at 5+ les is nearly without equal in the modern sports area.
The Spurs, if they have a little luck, and do everything right, could even win more than 7. Probably won't happen, and every Spurs fan would probably be more than happy with 2 more les, but even so... the bottom line is that you have to go a long, long way back in ANY sport to find a team who has been as dominant for as long as these Spurs have been. That is far greater than any repeat le, and the way our four championships have come, I'll take that over a 3 peat any day. Especially considering we have a chance at several more with Duncan in his prime or very close to it.
I don't believe there were any questionable calls against Portland, it was just a massive meltdown by the blazers. There definitely were not any questionable calls against Sac in game 7. I think you're thinking about game 6.
I agree with that. A win is a win period. The Kings still could have won that series. , if they would have covered Horry a little better, they might have.I don't believe there were any questionable calls against Portland, it was just a massive meltdown by the blazers. There definitely were not any questionable calls against Sac in game 7. I think you're thinking about game 6.
I don't see how? Dalhoop made an excellent point that les are won every year, not every 4, or other year.
As far as your logic, it's flawed. If teams are out for the Spurs every year, they should have no problem repeating by your logic. It seems to make sense that teams are only after the Spurs when they're champions. That's why they fail time and time again.
So if a team isn't a championship team from the previous year another team doesn't try as hard to win and advance playing against them in the playoffs? Makes sense to me.
Yeah, from what I've heard, teams are treating the Patriots like they're pushovers this year.So if a team isn't a championship team from the previous year another team doesn't try as hard to win and advance playing against them in the playoffs? Makes sense to me.
They try harder and look forward to playing teams when they're the Champs! Makes plenty of sense to me!So if a team isn't a championship team from the previous year another team doesn't try as hard to win and advance playing against them in the playoffs? Makes sense to me.
Uh, no.
It is just as difficult for the Spurs to win the championship every year, whether they have just won the championship or not.
Do you really think all the other teams are simply letting the Spurs win every other year because those teams just don't feel like trying as hard because the Spurs didn't win the championship the year before?
Of course not, but every team is not circling the date on their calenders. When you've lost, you're no different than the other 15 playoff teams that didn't win the le.
Last edited by LakeShow; 10-01-2007 at 02:34 PM.
I will grant you that normally this might make sense, but NOT in the Spurs case.
The Spurs have won three of the last five championships, and every year the vast majority of NBA GM's pick the Spurs to win it all yet again. These teams have spent literally years building their teams to beat the Spurs, and their biggest games of the year are always against the Spurs. If anything, these teams should play the Spurs harder after non-championship seasons, because that's when they have historically won yet another championship.
That's complete BS. See the post above for the reasons. If you honestly believe that the Mavs and Suns will play the Spurs the same way as the Griz in years when the Spurs haven't won the championship then I am done talking to you.
Last edited by zepn; 10-01-2007 at 02:45 PM.
Fans circle the date. Coaches undertand that each win counts toward playoff seedings equally. There are a group of legimate contenders each year and during the year they face each other focusing on game planning, probing, holding back some, showing some in prepration for the real saeson. In the real season, the playoffs, they bust their asses to win each round in as few a games as possible. The only thing the two finalists have going against them the following year is they've played a few more games than the other legitimate contenders the year before. Do you seriously think by March when things really heat up teams were all fired up to play the championship Heat more than the Mavs or Suns? You probably do.
You're WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...
You're WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG!!!
Actually, quite a lot of people outside of SA care. Most fans of dysfunctional franchises definitely care and even watch the Spurs primarily for this reason. I should know...
Great!
The playoffs are a different ball game where teams have time to plan to play their opponents. Teams do not have that luxury in the regular season. It's the regular season where teams whether they make the playoffs or not, take something from their season in defeating the World Champions.
Of course it makes no difference when you get into the playoffs. You want every series you can win no matter who you're playing.
That just doesn't fly. I'm of the opinion that these men are paid professionals and they're playing for their basketball lives. I'm assuming that they have all games circled. And they try as hard whether their playing Toronto or the Spurs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
