Reply With Quote
u mean Noringski
Just wanted to remind our friends, of the most important statistic, the only one that matters:
It's still Duncan 3 Nowinski 0
u mean Noringski
Yours may be better. It cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Finding a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory like that is very difficult, against a Heat team that seemed to turn it over 20 times a game (Wade's biggest weakness).
This little factoid does get a bit played out.
The most recent Mavericks team beat the most recent Spurs team. Even though the most recent Spurs team had combined to win a le the year before, the fact is that they were eliminated by the Mavericks, who are (for the moment) ahead on the What Have You Done Lately scale. And, in the end, the WHYDL scale is the one that matters most -- at least until the 2007 playoffs.
You're right on. Mavs won the last battle and it's on the Spurs to regain the edge.
Mavs have not won it all lately or otherwise.
Basically 3-0 is always going to trump any mess that mavs fan is going to say. It should be used more and more as it is the one uncontestable number that matters.
So Laker fan coming in here and dropping 14-3 smack on the Spurs would be kosher then, too?
I'll clarify my point a bit. The only relevance that 3:0 could have in discussing Spurs v. Mavs is to suggest that the Spurs' championship pedigree gives them some advantage with regard to intangibles or big-game experience that would benefit them in a matchup with the Mavericks. What last year showed, though, is that whatever advantage one might draw from 3:0 is miniscule at best, since the Mavericks were able to overcome that advantage and eliminate the Spurs. You can make excuses and complain about any number of things associated with that series, but in the end, the Spurs experience and history weren't enough to get them over the hump to vanquish the Mavericks.
Throwing the number in the face of MavFan is one thing; claiming that 3:0 is somehow indicative of anything in this rivalry is ridiculous now.
It's 0-0.
I'm glad for the 3 les that the Spurs have and I'm optimistic that a 4th may await in 2007, but I'm certain that having 3 les is absolutely irrelevant to a matchup with the Mavericks.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 11-02-2006 at 01:54 PM.
Celtics 16 > Spurs 3.
Therefore, the Celtics are better than the Spurs and would be favored to beat them any time they matched up.
While the Mavs did win that series they gave up a 3-1 series lead AND a 20+ point lead in Game 7. Only to be bailed out by Manu
True. But I don't think that undermines my point. Despite the Spurs' advantages in actual championships won, the Mavericks were able to beat them. At the end of the day, that's the most relevant point of comparison -- at least until we see what happens in 2007.
Sorry, but Shaq and Kobe are not in LA anymore. Tim Duncan still plays for the Spurs.
Last edited by Mavs<Spurs; 11-02-2006 at 03:34 PM.
Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish, Bill Russell and company no longer play for the Celtics.
Tim Duncan still plays for the Spurs.
Notice that the detractors have no answer to this simple elementary fact: Tim Duncan still, currently plays for the Spurs and he was the Finals MVP for each of the 3 championships that the Spurs won. Therefore, the 3 championships still has relevance. Dirk has 0 championships. I find that relevant also.
There it is.
Last edited by Mavs<Spurs; 11-02-2006 at 03:34 PM.
Tim Duncan still plays for the Spurs and he has won 3 finals mvps which accompanied his 3 world championships.
Dirk has yet to win a world championship for any team. Dallas has yet to win a championship.
History will judge them accordingly.
We get it, dude. You're a Spurs fan.
But 3-0 does nothing for the pending season.
History will judge them accordingly, true.
But history doesn't play any role in which team wins the West in the 2007 playoffs. I'd think that 2006 proved that.
Can you at least see why I am not logically required to say that Celtics 16>3 over Spurs is relevant since the key player or players for those teams no longer play for the Celtics?
My point is that Tim still does play for the Spurs.
So, you can point to any team you want that has won more championships than Tim has won for the Spurs so long as the Finals MVP for that team still plays for that team.
I believe that no other team has a player who was a 3 time Finals MVP for them still playing for them.
So, it appears that the argument that I made does stand unrefuted by any counterexamples listed here.
Now, it is possible that some one might make a case which some reasonable people reasonably find compelling that there are more important factors to consider than having a 3 time Finals MVP playing for your team who has won 3 championships for your team. I would disagree, but I would admit that it is a reasonable argument. I hope that you can admit that while you disagree with the importance I place on this, that you can see why I would think this way.
I understand why you say that. It is a reasonable position.
I just think that the same reason why Tim has won 3 Finals MVPs and brought home 3 championships for the Spurs and won 2 MVPs gives me a good reason to think that the Spurs should be the favorites for the 2007 season.
While correlation and causation ought not to be confounded, no reasonable person thinks that cause and effect does not exist.
Yes, but let's not assume that a le is given just because he's won 3 already.
Sure, but that's entirely different than saying that 3-0 is in any regard relevant. By the same logic, Dirk ac ulated more MVP votes last year and was subjectively deemed the better player as between himself and Timmy. Short of overt homerism, isn't that fact equally compelling in the context of the argument you make?
This premise is difficult to assail, but it doesn't seem to have any relationship at all to the argument that 3:0 is in any regard relevant. The 3:0 argument isn't a causative one; it's a correlative argument. Clearly, it can't be causative, because if it were, 2006 would fundamentally undermine the conclusion. Even as a correlative argument, it's silly because there's no correlation between the number of les each franchise has and the likelihood that either will win another.
I hope the Spurs win in 2007 as much as anyone, but my reasons for holding that hope have very, very little to do with the fact that the Spurs have 3 les while the Mavericks have none. It's a nice number to look at, and I certainly enjoy looking at the big banners that are so prominent at the AT&T Center and the trophies displayed there; but, that's all in the past.
Sigh -- let's get this thing started.
The Boston Celtics and the Bulls >>> The Spurs then I guess...pretty smart rationale you spur homers
three les are nice...
being a conference champ is nice...
but they are in the past...when that ball went up a few minutes ago...both facts became irrelevant..its about right now. Right now both teams are 0-0 and will be starting a year long battle.
but I guess saying both teams are 0-0 makes me a Spurs homer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
