Thanks for confirming that you are louis.
I know you're still just here to be a ing menace but how can anyone realistically talk about the Spurs?
One of the best franchises in the league's history. One can't be so ridiculous as you. No respect or character but they isn't that why you're here?
Mother er
That is Nice. A very nice accomplishment by that franchise.WTF?
Seriously. That's just disgusting. Four? It wasn't long ago I would have given up a limb just to see one.
Four?
Five?
But.....
Could you imagine what it is like to have this many Championships?
Now That's INSANE! REGAL!
Just imagine if you hadn't lost the Finals 14 times. , you might have more than Boston....That is Nice. A very nice accomplishment by that franchise.
But.....
Could you imagine what it is like to have this many Championships?
Now That's INSANE! REGAL!
"but that was when the league was half as big as it is now. 11 championships....in a league twice as small."
spurious bull .
Enlarging from 8 to 30 diluted talent, even with all the ballas pouring in.
Most of those 30 teams have not even one All-Star, nor have one starter who could crack the rotation of the top 5 teams.
Even the 16 teams that make the playoff are full of dreck, because it's a business, and not about the basketball.
NBA has huge problem withrampant mediocrity
I'd say the eras are a wash. Yes there were fewer teams, but that means better talent on each team. The talent is offset by the shorter playoff format, though. They only had 3 rounds; best of 5, best of 7, best of 7.
True, True,..but can you even fathom a team going to almost half of all finals played in NBA history? Like the lotto, you have no chance if you don't play to win! 28 times the lakers had a chance to be Champs. The closest to them is probably 4 by the Spurs in the Western Conference. Now that's just plain miraculous! Royalty worthy!
2nd place isn't royalty worthy.
48 percent of ALL Finals Played, should be!
It's not because they lost too many of them.
Who's to say they lost too many? No one else has even been close to total appearances. Seems like the standard is set at 50% by the lakers. It will take another team to go to the finals 28 times to determine if that is too many losses.
Who's to say they are royalty worthy?Who's to say they lost too many?The standard for Finals series win percentage is 100%.Seems like the standard is set at 50% by the lakers.
You have to have at least 28 appearances to set a standard. 58 Finals and 4 appearances doesn't make the cut!
No, you just have to play in the finals.You have to have at least 28 appearances to set a standard.
You're right though, I'm being petty. Congratulations on the Lakers for losing the most Finals series in NBA history. It will be decades before any team matches that mark.
28 finals appearances will never be matched.
Sure it will.
SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
ChumpDumper's posts infuriate me and I'm on his side.
Well, since you mentioned it . . .
Since only one team can win a championship in any given year, it reallly isn't fair to use ulative seasons.
I knew I could count on you.Well, since you mentioned it . . .
Since only one team can win a championship in any given year, it reallly isn't fair to use ulative seasons.
I'm just shocked it took until post #122.
*Note to self: Self, if you ever need to spark a multi-page thread to eat up time between Spurs games, make a post with a debatable yet obvious factual error and you'll have posters tripping over themselves trying to get first in line to show up the timvp*
Training camp can't start soon enough
, the news regarding who the Spurs are inviting to training camp can't start soon enough
At least you got the four right.
Four championships in the Spurs' 31 years of existence.At least you got the four right.
Not bad.
[/bait]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
