Thunder: Trounced a 67 win team and took a 73 win team to 7....

[midnightpulp]

No they didnt.

Did you go to the monos school of making up your own facts?

I stand corrected on that point, but they were still a damn good team and should've been the champ that year. Also, it makes no sense to put that series loss on Duncan when that was one of the best series of his career.

And you cherry picking that inconsequential point and ignoring everything else, since it was proven the Spurs win more as the higher seeded team than your ty ass Suns.

[midnightpulp]

Who cares?

Why are the Spurs the kings of losing to lower seeds? No one else (Suns included) even comes close to their rate of failing against inferior opponents.

When you lose half the time to lower seeds, can it still be called an "upset"?

I missed this post.

To put the final-final nail in the coffin of your latest Spurs preoccupation, the record-as-higher-seed stands at:

Suns: 17-9, a 64 win pct.

Spurs: 37-15, a 71 win pct.

Looks like your historical joke of a franchise is the "King" here, until proven otherwise.

[da_suns_fan]

I missed this post.

To put the final-final nail in the coffin of your latest Spurs preoccupation, the record-as-higher-seed stands at:

Suns: 17-9, a 64 win pct.

Spurs: 37-15, a 71 win pct.

Looks like your historical joke of a franchise is the "King" here, until proven otherwise.

17-9 isnt correct either. Where are you getting this stuff? I didnt even bother fact checking your Spurs claim since your last two posts had completely false information. Congratulations, you are the new monos.

Likewise, why are you combining franchise records? Im talking about the Duncan/Pop teams rolling over. They lost 8 playoffs series in 16 years to lower seeded teams.

That means that Pop/Duncan have just as many losses in 16 years that the Suns have as a franchise in 50.

Try again, Pulp.

[da_suns_fan]

I stand corrected on that point.

Glad I could correct you. Both times.

So basically Duncan and Spurs dont have any excuse for 7 of said 8 losses to lower seeded teams.

And these arent "best of three" losses like youre pulling from the Suns history (yes...the NBA used to have a best of 3 series). Theres even a couple best of five the Suns lost.

But the Spurs have seven best of seven losses to lower seeded teams during Duncan/Pop era. I can pretty much guarantee thats got to be the record.

[midnightpulp]

17-9 isnt correct either. Where are you getting this stuff? I didnt even bother fact checking your Spurs claim since your last two posts had completely false information. Congratulations, you are the new monos.

Likewise, why are you combining franchise records? Im talking about the Duncan/Pop teams rolling over. They lost 8 playoffs series in 16 years to lower seeded teams.

That means that Pop/Duncan have just as many losses in 16 years that the Suns have as a franchise in 50.

Try again, Pulp.

Yes it is.

"Where am I getting this stuff?"

Do you think BBREF is some secret fountain of knowledge or something?

It's real easy to tally up the record that even someone like you can do it. Here's how:

1. Go to http://www.basketball-reference.com/

2. Click on teams, and then click on the team in question.

3. Click Franchise encyclopedia.

4. Click on the team name for a given season (in this case, 1977).

5. You should see the team's playoff results for that year.

6. Click on them and find out who was the higher seed.

7. Add up all the playoff series victories and losses the team had as the higher seed.

Example:

In 2005, the Spurs had a 3-0 record in the playoffs as the higher seed.

Again, final records for both franchises:

17-9 vs. 37-15.

I hope this helps, King (of losing to lower seeds) DSF

[da_suns_fan]

Yes it is.

"Where am I getting this stuff?"

Do you think BBREF is some secret fountain of knowledge or something?

It's real easy to tally up the record that even someone like you can do it. Here's how:

1. Go to http://www.basketball-reference.com/

2. Click on teams, and then click on the team in question.

3. Click Franchise encyclopedia.

4. Click on the team name for a given season (in this case, 1977).

5. You should see the team's playoff results for that year.

6. Click on them and find out who was the higher seed.

7. Add up all the playoff series victories and losses the team had as the higher seed.

Example:

In 2005, the Spurs had a 3-0 record in the playoffs as the higher seed.

Again, final records for both franchises:

17-9 vs. 37-15.

I hope this helps, King (of losing to lower seeds) DSF

I seriously, seriously hope you didnt do all that work just to be proved that youre wrong. Theres a MUCH SIMPLER way:

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/tea...layoff-History

As I said, I didnt even fact check the Spurs record since you were wrong twice in a row. Glad you wasted so much time though.

[da_suns_fan]

I hereby dub Midnightpulp "Monos-Pulp" for making up his own facts.

[midnightpulp]

Okay, and let's just focus on the Duncan-era:

The Spurs have a 28-7 series record as the higher seed when Duncan plays.

Since '98, the Suns are 7-3 (all 3 losses as the higher seed to the Spurs )

Relative winning percentages:

Duncan: .800

Suns: .700

It's cute how you selectively focused on only losses to make Duncan's winning percentage as the higher seed look worse than it actually is. You employed further "cuteness" when you framed it as "they lost 8 playoff series in 16 years as the number 1 seed," making it seem like their record is 50 percent. Yeah, you forgot to count up the wins. But I know why you didn't since .800 is a phenomenal winning percentage in every respect.

Let's take a look at Shaq's higher seed record.

24-5, an .828 winning percentage.

So Duncan is in the same relative range as another top 10 all-time great.

Want to keep spinning and digging? Or will you finally admit defeat and admit how re ed selective and intellectually dishonest your cherry picking was?

[midnightpulp]

I hereby dub Midnightpulp "Monos-Pulp" for making up his own facts.

Yeah, deflect with one-liners because you got in' "trounced" in this debate.

Feel free to verify. It's takes 5 in' minutes.

[midnightpulp]

I seriously, seriously hope you didnt do all that work just to be proved that youre wrong. Theres a MUCH SIMPLER way:

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/tea...layoff-History

As I said, I didnt even fact check the Spurs record since you were wrong twice in a row. Glad you wasted so much time though.

I agree that is a better way, so now you have no excuse for being so wrong.

[da_suns_fan]

1979 BLAZERS KINGS
1980 KINGS
1989 NUGGETS GOLDEN STATE
1992 SPURS
1993 LAKERS SPURS SONICS
1994 WARRIORS
1995 BLAZERS
2005 GIZZLIES MAVERICKS
2006 LAKERS CLIPPERS
2007 LAKERS
2010 BLAZERS SPURS

Theres 18. I didnt bother counting the losses cuz I just assumed you were wrong there as well. And you can go season by season thru the Spurs if you want...i think i proved my point monos-pulp.

[140]

This is da's finest hour

[da_suns_fan]

How many facts can monos-pulp get wrong on one page of a single thread?

[midnightpulp]

Theres 18. I didnt bother counting the losses cuz I just assumed you were wrong there as well. And you can go season by season thru the Spurs if you want...i think i proved my point monos-pulp.

Yeah, you didn't count up losses because you would've counted up 9

Bringing your win pct up to .667!

Still behind the Spurs

BRB, recounting your losses.

[da_suns_fan]

Yeah, you didn't count up losses because you would've counted up 9

Bringing your win pct up to .667!

Still behind the Spurs

BRB, recounting your losses.

You just dont learn, do you monospulp?

I think you owe me an apology.

Or maybe a thank you! You went through every season on bball-ref for both Spurs and Suns and you got it ing wrong!

[midnightpulp]

1978: Lost to the Bucks.

1981: Lost to the Kings.

1983: Lost to the Nuggets

1991: Lost to the Jazz

1993: Lost to the Bulls

1995: Lost to the Rockets

I count 6 there.

Plus your 3 losses to us as the lower seed makes 9.

.667. Still the king, baby

[midnightpulp]

You just dont learn, do you monospulp?

I think you owe me an apology.

Or maybe a thank you! You went through every season on bball-ref for both Spurs and Suns and you got it ing wrong!

Learn what?

Count it till the end of time. It's always gonna come up 9.

It's funny how you're overstating insignificant oversights (if the oversight doesn't wind up helping your argument, then it's not even worth mentioning) on my part so you can give yourself some type of moral victory, which is of course per par for Suns fans, since your whole history is celebrating meaningless moral victories (throwing a parade for 2nd place ).

[da_suns_fan]

1978: Lost to the Bucks.

1981: Lost to the Kings.

1983: Lost to the Nuggets

1991: Lost to the Jazz

1993: Lost to the Bulls

1995: Lost to the Rockets

I count 6 there.

Plus your 3 losses to us as the lower seed makes 9.

.667. Still the king, baby

Ok, that looks right (finally).

So the Suns lost 9 times in 29 playoff seasons to lower seeds yet Duncan/Pop lost 8 out of 16 from 2000-2106. Thats not a typo.

And lets not forget ALL of these are best of seven (and even includes a loss to an eight seed).

Hence why these Spurs are the kings of rolling over. And monos-pulp is the king of embarrassing himself by getting his facts wrong.

You need to slow down bro. Youre starting to meltdown now cuz you ed up.

[midnightpulp]

End of the day:

.667

.712

And...

Duncan's winning pct as the higher seed: .800

The Phoenix Suns': .667

[midnightpulp]

Ok, that looks right (finally).

So the Suns lost 9 times in 29 playoff seasons to lower seeds yet Duncan/Pop lost 8 out of 16 from 2000-2106. Thats not a typo.

And lets not forget ALL of these are best of seven (and even includes a loss to an eight seed).

Hence why these Spurs are the kings of rolling over. And monos-pulp is the king of embarrassing himself by getting his facts wrong.

You need to slow down bro. Youre starting to meltdown now cuz you ed up.

Still spinning.

It's more like Duncan and Pop won 28 playoff series as the higher seed in 19 seasons, while the Suns won 18 playoffs series as the higher seed over their entire futile history

[da_suns_fan]

Still spinning.

It's more like Duncan and Pop won 28 playoff series as the higher seed in 19 seasons, while the Suns won 18 playoffs series as the higher seed over their entire futile history

Im not spinning anything...youre comparing Duncan/Pop's string of losses to the Suns' respective losses from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s combined (and you even did that wrong). Who gives a ?

As I said, the Lakers had comparable number of playoff years etc this century and they lost to a lower seed twice.

Theres no getting around it. Pop/Duncan lost to inferior teams half the time and no one else even comes close.

So the question is, why do the Spurs roll over?

[midnightpulp]

Im not spinning anything...youre comparing Duncan/Pop's string of losses to the Suns' respective losses from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s combined (and you even did that wrong). Who gives a ?

As I said, the Lakers had comparable number of playoff years etc this century and they lost to a lower seed twice.

Theres no getting around it. Pop/Duncan lost to inferior teams half the time and no one else even comes close.

So the question is, why do the Spurs roll over?

Are you really this stupid? Do you think only one series is played every time the Spurs get a high seed?

You are still only citing series losses and purposely neglecting all the series the Spurs won as the higher seed. The record in the Duncan/Pop era is 28-8. That isn't losing "half the time."

The Suns record over that time is 7-3

So why is it that you roll over?

Also, I have to go back to the dark ages in order to come up with a decent sample size for your team, since you rarely get a high seed. The Suns are basically eternal 5th seeders.

And the one time you have the highest overall seed, you lose in the Finals

[da_suns_fan]

Are you really this stupid? Do you think only one series is played every time the Spurs get a high seed?

You are still only citing series losses and purposely neglecting all the series the Spurs won as the higher seed. The record in the Duncan/Pop era is 28-8. That isn't losing "half the time."

The Suns record over that time is 7-3

So why is it that you roll over?

Also, I have to back to the dark ages in order to come up with a decent sample size for your team, since you rarely get a high seed. The Suns are basically eternal 5th seeders.

And the one time who have the highest overall seed, you lose in the Finals

Thats not correct either. So to sum up:

A) Thats three times on one page you ed up (your meltdown is complete).

B) I dont care if the Suns have a futile record and have never won a championship. I dont play for the Suns. It doesnt bother me.

C) You still havent explained why the Spurs lost every other year to lower seeds for 16 seasons and no one else did. In fact, no one else comes close.

At least monos-pulp shows more grit than the Spurs. But I cant give him any credit for making up his own facts (or maybe just ing up....cant tell at this point).

[da_suns_fan]

monospulp..i want you to try again tomorrow.

And this time I want you to take a DEEP BREATH before you post.

Slow down.

You keep screwing up because youre so defensive. Its okay to admit that the Spurs fold when their backs are against the wall. It is what it is.

[midnightpulp]

Duncan/Pop

.778

Barkley/KJ

.727

Framing it in the re ed DSF way, I have to ask:

"Why did Barkley and KJ lose 3 times as the higher seed over 5 playoff seasons (1990-91-94-95)? Why were they kings of rolling over?"