Suns' Hill Looking Good

[mavs>spurs2]

da_suns_fan__ is even worse than nash was, but at least he had the sense to calm down and drop the act

[Findog]

If Findog's homerism is a joke, at least it's funny. Yours is the kind that makes people with functioning brains want to kill themselves by bludgeoning themselves to death with a tire iron.

I admit I'm more passionate about defending the Mavericks than some other team, and I'm not letting them off the hook, they failed and came up short in a series they should've won. And da_suns_fan is right on one point, it will go down in history as a major upset. But all anybody looks at is the regular season W-L records. That's doesn't tell the whole story, and when you look at the talent level involved, it's not nearly so shocking what happened.

[Mister Sinister]

I admit I'm more passionate about defending the Mavericks than some other team, and I'm not letting them off the hook, they failed and came up short in a series they should've won. And da_suns_fan is right on one point, it will go down in history as a major upset. But all anybody looks at is the regular season W-L records. That's doesn't tell the whole story, and when you look at the talent level involved, it's not nearly so shocking what happened.

Eh. I wasn't calling you a homer, so much as I was calling da_stupid_ a hypocritical moron.

[da_suns_fan__]

According to Findog, the 07 Mavericks losing to the 07 Warriors qualifies as a minor upset, not a major upset.

Cool how youre refering to yourself in the third person. Why don't you tell yourself that no matter who the Warrior's coach is, when the team with the best record in the NBA gets eliminated in the first round by a team who didn't even make the playoffs until the final game of the year, its ALWAYS a major upset!!

According to findog, comparing the two series is akin to comparing apples to oranges.

Really? Lets look at the two series:

1) Same League
2) Same Conference
3) Same seeds
4) Same result

But comparing the two is comparing "apples to oranges"?

The only note-worthy difference is Dallas lost in seven instead of five.

FinDog, under what extraordinary cir stances would it be okay to compare a present day series to the 94 Seattle/Denver series? If the using Dallas/GSW is comparing apples to oranges, then what in God's name would qualify as "apples to apples"?

Getting lessons on bias and homerism from you is like getting lessons from Britney Spears on sobriety and motherhood. I just wish the Mavericks were saving basketball like the Phoenix Suns. We're not as exciting and our nielsen ratings aren't as good. That's all that matters.

Im not sure about neilsen ratings, but its true the Mavericks aren't as exciting as the Suns.

CAN the Suns save basketball? A Phoenix/Boston series would draw interest across the country and rejuvenate a dormant fan base.

Discuss.

[Findog]

Why don't you tell yourself that no matter who the Warrior's coach is, when the team with the best record in the NBA gets eliminated in the first round by a team who didn't even make the playoffs until the final game of the year, its ALWAYS a major upset!!

You can't seem to answer a simple question: Are the Warriors a much better team with Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Jason Richardson and Al Harrington than without? Their regular season record is just not very relevant.

2) Same Conference

This is relevant how? Hey, the Spurs and Grizzlies are both in the same conference. They're exactly the same then!

3) Same seeds

Irrelevant. The talent gap between Dallas and Golden State isn't worth 25 games in the standings. Can you answer a simple question or not? Do the Warriors improve vastly when you add the following four players to their roster: Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington and Jason Richardson? They went 16-3 with their playoff roster intact to make the playoffs. They were one of the best teams in basketball after late February when they finally had the roster Nellie wanted. Can you grasp that?

4) Same result

One is a major upset based on the talent gap between Seattle and Denver, and one is a minor upset given the Warriors made a major trade and their starting backcourt missed 50 games due to injury. I know as a Suns fan tv ratings and regular season W-L records is so important, but in this case, it's simply not very relevant.

But comparing the two is comparing "apples to oranges"?

If you subscribe to logic and reason, the only answer one comes up with is yes.

FinDog, under what extraordinary cir stances would it be okay to compare a present day series to the 94 Seattle/Denver series? If the using Dallas/GSW is comparing apples to oranges, then what in God's name would qualify as "apples to apples"?

The only thing the two series have in common is that a 1 seed lost to an 8 seed. The similarities end there. One is a major upset, the other is a minor upset. They will both be remembered by casual fans the same way we will remember Appalachian State-Michigan, USA-USSR hockey, Jets-Colts Super Bowl III, etc. If you want to argue that's how it will go down in history, I would agree. If you want to argue that David beat Goliath, nothing could be further from the truth. It's more like David's older brother beat Goliath's younger brother.

Im not sure about neilsen ratings, but its true the Mavericks aren't as exciting as the Suns.

Well nobody is. The Suns are like Jesus and the other 29 teams are the Pharisees. The Spurs can have their four les, the Suns get Slam covers, 4,000 word blow jobs from Bill Simmons and tv ratings. That's the only barometer of success that counts.

CAN the Suns save basketball? A Phoenix/Boston series would draw interest across the country and rejuvenate a dormant fan base.

I would say the Suns have already saved basketball with their awesome superpowers -- Nash's X-Ray vision, Amare's super-strength and Mike D'Antoni's omnipotence. Those guys are so good at what they do, they should retire from basketball and go to work trying to solve Iraq. Every night before I go to bed, I get down on my hands and knees and thank Jesus for sending his only begotten Sun Steve Nash for dying for the sins of the other 29 NBA teams. Forgive us Mike D'Antoni, we know not we what we do when it comes to defense and half-court execution.

[da_suns_fan__]

You can't seem to answer a simple question: Are the Warriors a much better team with Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Jason Richardson and Al Harrington than without? Their regular season record is just not very relevant.

Baron Davis. Stephen Jackson. Jason Richardson. Al Harrington.



Man...the Spurs got off easy going against Carmelo Anthony, Allen Iverson, Marcus Camby and Nene, huh?

And look at the Suns good fortune....they had to go up against the best player in the world, Lamar Odom and a coach who has nine more rings than Don Nelson.

And look at the Jazz! All they had to face was Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady and Shane Battier!

Strange that the "Dream Team" or "Fab Four" of Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Jason Richardson and Al Harrington had virtually no success after dispatching the Mavs. They must have lost their magic the second their series against Dallas ended.


Of course, maybe their victory had more to due with the Mav's collosal meltdown?

This is relevant how? Hey, the Spurs and Grizzlies are both in the same conference. They're exactly the same then!


Irrelevant. The talent gap between Dallas and Golden State isn't worth 25 games in the standings. Can you answer a simple question or not? Do the Warriors improve vastly when you add the following four players to their roster: Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington and Jason Richardson? They went 16-3 with their playoff roster intact to make the playoffs. They were one of the best teams in basketball after late February when they finally had the roster Nellie wanted. Can you grasp that?

I can grasp that Warriors were hot going into the playoffs, but all youre really pointing out is that the Warriors had virtually NO EXPERIENCE playing with each other and they were still able to defeat the Mavs in a seven game series.

The Jazz didn't have too much trouble. Seems to me the most logical explanation is the correct one.

One is a major upset based on the talent gap between Seattle and Denver, and one is a minor upset given the Warriors made a major trade and their starting backcourt missed 50 games due to injury. I know as a Suns fan tv ratings and regular season W-L records is so important, but in this case, it's simply not very relevant.

If you subscribe to logic and reason, the only answer one comes up with is yes.

The only thing the two series have in common is that a 1 seed lost to an 8 seed. The similarities end there. One is a major upset, the other is a minor upset. They will both be remembered by casual fans the same way we will remember Appalachian State-Michigan, USA-USSR hockey, Jets-Colts Super Bowl III, etc. If you want to argue that's how it will go down in history, I would agree. If you want to argue that David beat Goliath, nothing could be further from the truth. It's more like David's older brother beat Goliath's younger brother.

First of all, its a much greater shock when an underdog is able to defeat a favorite in a seven game series. Your hockey/football analogies were one game.

Anything can happen in one game. The fact that Warriors were able to do it FOUR times is what made this upset so shocking.

Secondly, You claim that the talent gap between Seattle in Denver back in 1994 was far and away larger than the gap between Dallas and GSW, but when you look at how each respective underdog performed in the next round, one of these teams was exposed as a fluke while the other vindicated themselves as a team who deserved respect.

1994 Denver Nuggets: Beat Seattle in the first round, lost to the Utah Jazz in seven games:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DEN/1994.html

The talent gap between Seattle and Denver was huge yet the talent-less Nuggets still managed to push the STOCKTON and MALONE Jazz to seven games in the next round?

2007 Warriors: Beat the Mavericks in the first round, lost to the Utah Jazz in five games.

The "DREAM TEAM" was so great they could only manage a single victory againnst a Utah team that stumbled badly into the playoffs and barely managed to make it out of the first round.

What a coincidence that both teams (Nuggets and Warriors) played the Utah Jazz in the second round! Are we STILL comparing "apples to oranges"?

Well nobody is. The Suns are like Jesus and the other 29 teams are the Pharisees. The Spurs can have their four les, the Suns get Slam covers, 4,000 word blow jobs from Bill Simmons and tv ratings. That's the only barometer of success that counts.


I would say the Suns have already saved basketball with their awesome superpowers -- Nash's X-Ray vision, Amare's super-strength and Mike D'Antoni's omnipotence. Those guys are so good at what they do, they should retire from basketball and go to work trying to solve Iraq. Every night before I go to bed, I get down on my hands and knees and thank Jesus for sending his only begotten Sun Steve Nash for dying for the sins of the other 29 NBA teams. Forgive us Mike D'Antoni, we know not we what we do when it comes to defense and half-court execution.

Good stuff.

Im done with this argument that I've easily won. I can't take too much credit because your attempt to "save face" is just embarrassing.

You notice how none of your Mavs buddies are backing you up? The only guy who's trying to defend your argument is SpursDynasty. Now whats the more logical answer to why this is:

1) SpursDynasty has given up on posting outrageous statements just to see who is dumb enough to respond and has decided to start making insightful comments.

OR

2) Your argument is so stupid the only one who is agreeing with you is SpursDynasty.

Why don't you mull on that for a while. And if you would be so kind, I'd like to see another one of your awkward statements where you attempt to agree with SpursDynasty but NOT TOO MUCH:


"Just a nitpick.....err....I wouldn't go that far....err....."

[Findog]

Baron Davis. Stephen Jackson. Jason Richardson. Al Harrington.



Man...the Spurs got off easy going against Carmelo Anthony, Allen Iverson, Marcus Camby and Nene, huh?

And look at the Suns good fortune....they had to go up against the best player in the world, Lamar Odom and a coach who has nine more rings than Don Nelson.

And look at the Jazz! All they had to face was Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady and Shane Battier!

Strange that the "Dream Team" or "Fab Four" of Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Jason Richardson and Al Harrington had virtually no success after dispatching the Mavs. They must have lost their magic the second their series against Dallas ended.

Once again you completely miss the point, but hey, that's nothing new. The entire premise of your argument is that the Warriors beating the Mavs qualifies as a huge upset solely because of the disparity in regular season records and the seedings. It doesn't address the talent gap between the two teams (which wasn't substantial), or the X's and O's matchups (which favored the Warriors in several areas). An "upset" is when an underdog beats a favorite and the result is a fluke. If Appalachian State plays Michigan 10 times, the Wolverines will win nine times. Ever since the Warriors traded for Baron Davis and paired him in the backcourt with Jason Richardson, they had beaten Dallas six out of seven times coming into that series. And there's no reason to think that the result would be any different if it had been a best of nine, best of 11 series, and so on. Given that the Warriors were better than the Lakers, and better than every Eastern playoff team save Detroit, they were a top ten team heading into the playoffs. Golden State beating Dallas is more akin to a second-round matchup than a classic first-round matchup. I know you're a Suns fan and you can't see past regular season results, but trust me on this, things change in the playoffs. Defense matters and half-court execution matters. I know these are alien concepts if you follow a Mike D'Antoni team.

Of course, maybe their victory had more to due with the Mav's collosal meltdown?

Not really.

Anything can happen in one game. The fact that Warriors were able to do it FOUR times is what made this upset so shocking.

You must not have watched the past seven games between the two teams when the Warriors beat Dallas six times.

Secondly, You claim that the talent gap between Seattle in Denver back in 1994 was far and away larger than the gap between Dallas and GSW, but when you look at how each respective underdog performed in the next round, one of these teams was exposed as a fluke while the other vindicated themselves as a team who deserved respect.

They both lost. Different teams, different talent levels, apples to oranges.

Im done with this argument that I've easily won.

Don't be so modest. You've not only "won" this argument, but you're saving Spurstalk. The other threads you don't post in are boring and the ones you participate in get more pageclicks.

You notice how none of your Mavs buddies are backing you up?

Nobody else cares. It's an old topic. Nobody is backing you either. I personally happen to like the give and take of back and forth and arguing. Nobody bothers to engage you and take you seriously because you're either a troll or you have no a en for basketball. You've reached the rock bottom where SpursDynasty resides, where everything you say is met with jokes and scorn. Those that have weighed in (ShagiaFrost, exstatic) have weighed in on my side. Not that the popularity of an argument has anything to do with its truth factor. But, hey, you're a Suns fan, popularity is the sole criterion for determining the worth of something.

[Reggie Miller]

I will say this for da_suns_fan. After 6-7 pages in this thread, he did make one valid point. The '94 Nuggets only had to win three games, with the '07 Warriors had to win four.

All that said, the Warriors received two of the best four players from a decent EC team (although the Pacers would have been a lottery team in the WC, even without the trade). One of these players was also a bit of a Mavs-killer when motivated (Jackson). Adding Jackson to a team that was already beating the Mavs on a regular basis does change the picture, considerably.

The Mavs' loss will be known as a major upset, but it shouldn't be. It may even be the second biggest NBA upset, but it's not nearly as dismal as Nuggets/Sonics.

[Findog]

I will say this for da_suns_fan. After 6-7 pages in this thread, he did make one valid point. The '94 Nuggets only had to win three games, with the '07 Warriors had to win four.

Doesn't the fourth win prove the validity that head-to-head Golden State was better than Dallas? If it's true, as dsf pointed out, that anything can happen in one game, such as Appalachian State-Michigan, Jets-Colts, etc, doesn't the fact that Golden State won a best of seven further illustrate their mastery of the Mavericks? In a best of five, the team that loses Game One is under the gun and in a desperate position tactically. The Sonics probably would've won that series if it had been a best-of-seven.

The whole idea is that given a large enough sample size, the better team will emerge. Against the rest of the league, Dallas was better, but Golden State had our number and was better head-to-head.

Not to mention Don Nelson had coached 80% of Dallas' roster and was uniquely aware of their tendencies and weaknesses. Our argument is simply over a matter of degree.

[JMarkJohns]

The Mavericks were better, but the Warriors were their worst matchup. You can be the better team but still be unable to defeat a lesser team because of matchup exploitations.

Nobody had the Nuggets over the Sonics. That Sonics team was stacked. It was a team that took an equally-stacked 92-93 Suns team to seven games just the year prior. Unlike the Nuggets over Sonics, there were plenty of fans/experts picking the Warriors over the Mavericks.

Is it really an upset if some expect and many more say it to happen?

Nuggets over Sonics is the biggest upset I can remember in the NBA. Warriors over Mavericks is an upset, but a much lesser one.

That said, it was an impressive display. The Warriors really did control that series. For an average defensive and average rebounding team to fully dominate a great rebounding and better defensive team did surprise me.

[Reggie Miller]

Doesn't the fourth win prove the validity that head-to-head Golden State was better than Dallas?

Yes. That in turn reinforces the "overall regular season records masked the truth" approach.

I wasn't saying da_suns_fan made a good point, but it was at least a fact cited as proof to a syllogism. That's progress, and I wanted to try a little positive reinforcement. Heaping scorn on the guy isn't making him go away, and I am willing to try reverse psychology at this point. (I guess I just gave it away, huh?)

[Reggie Miller]

Nobody had the Nuggets over the Sonics.

Piling on...

I haven't looked at the records/statistics, but these series were sort of a joke back then. It was typical for the #1 seed to win three in a row. People used to complain: why bother to even have a first round if it was purely a formality and a short series to boot?

In context, it was also a big deal for the Sonics and Karl. Karl had bounced around the globe twice by this point, and if the Sonics had fired him, I do not think he would have ever coached in the NBA again. No one has discussed blowing up the Mavericks and/or firing all of the on-court management as a real possibility. (At least no one who counts.)