PDA

View Full Version : The Worst Championship Team of All-Time


Evilmav2
06-17-2003, 01:34 AM
http://www.nba.com/spurs/images2/coyote_trophy.jpg
Best of (their) times, worst of (all) times

By Charley Rosen
Page 2 columnist

Now that the 2003 NBA Finals are history, the question arises: Where do the San Antonio Spurs rank in the all-time hierarchy of NBA champions?

It says here that they belong in the basement.

In reconsidering the champs of seasons past, one characteristic becomes obvious: Virtually every titlist team showcased a brace of superstars.

Lakers (2000-2002): Shaq and Kobe.

Spurs (1999): Tim Duncan, along with David Robinson still in his prime.

Bulls (1991-1993,1996-1998): MJ and Scottie Pippen

Rockets (1995) Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler

Rockets (1994): Olajuwon and a cast of marginalia (Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell and Kenny Smith), the solitary exception that proves the rule

Pistons (1989-90): Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars (yes, Joe D played in six All-Star games)

Lakers (1980, 1982, 1985, 1987-88): Magic and Kareem

Sixers (1983): Moses and Dr. J.

Celtics (1981, 1984, 1986): Bird and McHale. (Parish was clueless in the clutch and mostly just along for the ride.)

SuperSonics (1979): Gus Williams and Dennis Johnson

Bullets (1978): Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld

Trail Blazers (1977): Bill Walton and Maurice Lucas

How far back does this pattern go? To the beginning:

Havlicek/Cowens; Barry/Wilkes; Frazier/Monroe/DeBusschere/Reed; Chamberlain/West; Kareem/Oscar; Russell/Hondo/the Joneses/Cousy; Pettit/Hagan; Arizin/Johnston; Schayes/Seymour; Mikan/Martin/Pollard; Risen/Davies. Even all the way back to Joe Fulks/Howie Dalmar, and Kleggie Hermsen/Buddy Jeannette.

Now let's look at the latest champs.

For sure, TD is a legitimate superstar. But Tony Parker is young and therefore scatterbrained; his lack of focus and intensity leads to numerous bad decisions.


Magic Johnson's Lakers had great players throughout the lineup.
Stephen Jackson is a defensively challenged, streaky spot-shooter who's likewise mistake-prone (there's good reason why he was cut by Phoenix, Vancouver and New Jersey; and also averaged 3.8 ppg in a pair of brief stints in the CBA). Robinson sails off into the golden sunset, resplendent and glorious, yet for the past several seasons he has been slowly sinking under the relentless onslaught of Father Time.

Bruce Bowen couldn't dribble a basketball even if it was on a string. Malik Rose is a part-time warrior with unlimited heart and finite skills. Manu Ginobili is still trying to figure out how to say, "Hit the open man" in English. Speedy Claxton can scoot and shoot, but is essentially a No. 2 in a No. 1's body. Steve Kerr is the designated closer whose physical (and gravitational) limitations would become more evident with more playing time.

The problem with the Spurs is (and has been) that, because of the severe limitations of his supporting cast, Duncan has to do too much -- score, rebound, block shots, pass and be the one and only dependable motor of the team's offense.

Why then did the Spurs win the championship so handily?

Because an injury numbed Stephon Marbury's shooting arm, Amare Stoudamire was too young to go steady, and Shawn Marion couldn't hit a clutch jumper to get into heaven.

Because the Lakers were too fat, too selfish, too arrogant and too used up.

Because the Mavericks were about as substantial (at least, on D) as the latest Rucker League champs and were missing Dirk Nowitzki late in the series.

And the Nets? They lost not only because their own solitary superstar can't shoot his way out of a paper bag, but because Kenyon Martin, their erstwhile superstar-in-training, is a bogus big man. (Real players don't let anything short of a broken limb wipe them out in the Finals. Martin should have dug deep into himself and kept on digging until he found the courage to keep on trucking. Was Martin any sicker than Jordan was against Utah in the fifth game of the 1998 Finals? With all of his chest-beating and self-aggrandizing antics, K-Mart went 3-for-23 in the biggest game of his life.)


MJ's Bulls would have easily swept aside the '03 Spurs.
Let's face it -- the level of play in the NBA is sinking as fast as Iraq's GNP.

So which post-24-second champs could the current Spurs defeat? The 1955 Syracuse Nationals. The 1956 Philadelphia Warriors. And the 1958 St. Louis Hawks.

Who would sweep them in four straight? Jordan's Bulls. Magic's Lakers. The Dipper's Warriors and Lakers. The Russellian Celtics.

Jabbar's Bucks, the Doctor's playmates and Bird's flock would beat the Spurs in five. Winners in a six-game series would be The Bad Boy Pistons, Walton and the Blazers, the Cowens-Hondo editions of the Celtics and The Old Knicks.

The only series up for grabs would be against the '78 Bullets, '79 Sonics and '94 Rockets. The 1999 asterisked-Spurs would beat the current Spurs in seven overtimes in a seventh game.

Two last thoughts on the 2003 championship series:

He who chokes last, chokes worst.

And, somebody had to win, so all hail the champs

Mandyahl
06-17-2003, 01:39 AM
spurs still getting no respect. what does a team have to do??

aexchange
06-17-2003, 01:39 AM
rosen is a bloody idiot. i'll go on at a later time, but i need sleep.

one long blue sock
06-17-2003, 01:41 AM
Well with Webber and Dirk getting injured i think that made it easy for San Antonio

Evilmav2
06-17-2003, 02:10 AM
Was this year the Asterisk Championship Part II for the Spurs? No Webber, no Dirk, and a shoddy and finished Laker's squad does make for an easy road to the promised land; particularly when the pot at the end of the rainbow is being contested by a second rate Eastern conference team...

I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Rosen on this one. This was a Spurs championship won by luck and by default...

spur133
06-17-2003, 02:10 AM
No, Dallas got lucky that Webber got hurt. The Spurs owned the Kings this year, just like the rest of the big teams in the West. Nowitzki, I don't think it would have mattered either way. The Mavs needed Defense to stop the Spurs not more offense.

spur133
06-17-2003, 02:22 AM
Of course you will agree, because your team did not win it. Fact is Spurs beat the best out there. If the Lakers, Kings or even the Mavs would have gotten to the Finals, It would have been a MUCH MUCH higher scoring series, and no one would have mentioned anything about the NBA being boring and ratings being down. But the Spurs dictated the pace of this series because they play tough Defense. And boring as it might be, it worked for them in '99 and '03. Like it or not, they are the Champs.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-17-2003, 05:09 AM
hehe,exactly what i said on the "congrats" thread.
good post Evil

MavKikiNYC
06-17-2003, 07:43 AM
Rosen both understates and overstates his case.

For one thing, some of these teams actually had THREE (or more) stars/superstars.
Lakers with Magic, Kareem, and to a lesser extent Norm Nixon, and Jamaal Wilkes (although see below). Celtics with Bird, McHale, Parrish. 1978 Bullets--Elvin Hayes, Bobby Dandridge, Wes Unseld (although Big Wes's super star was about as faded as DRob's)

Some had only one. 1975 Warriors-Rick Barry. Jamaal (then Keith) Wilkes was but a rookie, and although he was named ROY for 1975, he wasn't then, nor was he ever a superstar.

Some had none--1979 Sonics. If they had a star it damned sure wasn't Gus Williams. DJ was a solid defensive player, and had a great series the previous year against the Bullets, but a superstar he was not. Perhaps Rosen secretly believes that Jack Sikma was a superstar? Right. Sonics had a very balanced team that won with....surprise, DEFENSE. The Sonics v. Bullets series were bleedin' brutal. And when the Sonics swept the Bullets in the 1979 Finals, did that negate the Bullets' 'championship calibre' from the year before? Because it was such a decisive win, did it mitigate the Sonics' own 'championship calibre'?

Some of the losing teams had multiple stars/superstars:
1977 Sixers-Dr. J, George McGinnis, Doug Collins, Lloyd Free, Joe ("Kobe's Dad" aka "JellyBean") Bryant, Darryl Dawkins, Caldwell Jones

1979 Bullets--Hayes, Dandridge, Unseld

1985 Rockets--Hakeem Olajuwon, Ralph Sampson (okay everybody though Ralphie was a superstar at the time...admit it...so did you.)

Sixers teams of the 1980s that lost to LA--Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, Andrew Toney, Bobby Jones, Darryl Dawkins


Basically, Rosen has no point. I'd like to see someone examine the 2000 Lakers championship against the Pacers. That one rings really hollow. The Pacers were really weak, and the Lakers actually lost two games to them. The Lakers should've absolutely dominated them. And then the next year the Lakers actually lost a game to that pathetic Sixers team, led by Iverson and the same pathetic Dikembe Mutombo who was misused against the Spurs. And then last year's Laker's "championship" is clearly suspect because of the weakness of their Finals opponents.

In fact, the more you look at it, the whole Lakers "dynasty" from the past three years looks like a paper tiger. No wonder the NBA is in trouble.

Drbio
06-17-2003, 08:19 AM
First of all....Rosen is a frigging idiot. But, the Spurs were the best this year. I don't agree that they were lucky or whatever else. The bottom line is that they did what it took to win. Everyone else, including my beloved Mavs unfortunately, did not.


I'm not going to bash SA for winning. I'm glad they won the title. It will make beating them next season much more exciting and rewarding.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-17-2003, 08:23 AM
i dont get what your saying,the other teams had more superstars so it easnt a fair comparison??
its their team!nobody is trying to compare TD to magic or anything,but if you compare teams and say its not fair,they have more superstars,its like saying,its not fair,they're a better team,and thats the entire point of the thread.


Basically, Rosen has no point. I'd like to see someone examine the 2000 Lakers championship against the Pacers. That one rings really hollow. The Pacers were really weak, and the Lakers actually lost two games to them. The Lakers should've absolutely dominated them. And then the next year the Lakers actually lost a game to that pathetic Sixers team, led by Iverson and the same pathetic Dikembe Mutombo who was misused against the Spurs. And then last year's Laker's "championship" is clearly suspect because of the weakness of their Finals opponents.

hua??you have to watch the games to understand how the lakers dominated those series,its not all statistic.
first,the Sixers got game 1,which kinda surprised the lakers,maybe they were free swinging,i dont know,but i do know the lakers won 4 straight after that.kinda hard to be more dominant than that.
its not about the Spurs not sweaping the Nets,its about how the games were played.
it could have easily dwindeld to the other side,and the Nets might have even gotten a championship.
the lakers might have lost twice to the pacers,but they never were in a real dangoure of losing the title.

Usually Lurkin
06-17-2003, 08:24 AM
Aren't there always injuries? Isn't part of becoming champion playing great and staying healthy? Is every recent championship suspect because Grant Hill and Alonzo Mourning have been hurt and sick? Is every post-Jordan championship weakened by the fact that Jordan is fat and slow and old? Ewing's playoff injuries? D.Anderson last year? Magic in 88-89? Staying healthy, staying young, and staying motivated are all part of dominating in the NBA.

What the article says to me is that Duncan did this year what it normally takes two superstars to do.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-17-2003, 08:28 AM
I'm not going to bash SA for winning. I'm glad they won the title. It will make beating them next season much more exciting and rewarding.

i dont think anybody is bashing SA,they clearly were the best team in the offseason,and won the championship,but there are still things to be discussed.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-17-2003, 08:31 AM
What the article says to me is that Duncan did this year what it normally takes two superstars to do.

exactly!and in that line i see that the NBA is in trouble.

MavKikiNYC
06-17-2003, 08:50 AM
hua??you have to watch the games to understand how the lakers dominated those series,its not all statistic.
first,the Sixers got game 1,which kinda surprised the lakers,maybe they were free swinging,i dont know,but i do know the lakers won 4 straight after that.kinda hard to be more dominant than that.
its not about the Spurs not sweaping the Nets,its about how the games were played.
it could have easily dwindeld to the other side,and the Nets might have even gotten a championship.
the lakers might have lost twice to the pacers,but they never were in a real dangoure of losing the title.

First of all, NP, activate your irony detector.

But second, I'm saying that if you want to start dissecting each and every championship, each and every game, and start devaluing what a given team accomplished because they either: 1) didn't dominate every opponent absolutely; or 2) dominated so absolutely that it calls the credibility of their opponent into question, and thus the legitimacy of their championship calibre, you pretty much end up with ......nothing....no real champions.

Or you can give both the Lakers and the Spurs, as well as the Pacers, Sixers and Nets their due.

MavKikiNYC
06-17-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by: nowitzki_prophecy

What the article says to me is that Duncan did this year what it normally takes two superstars to do.

exactly!and in that line i see that the NBA is in trouble.

Or it means that more teams, including smaller market teams, have a chance to contend for a title. Dynasties make for nice spectacle, but parity ('diversification' of potential champions) may be more profitable.

Usually Lurkin
06-17-2003, 08:53 AM
If Tim Duncan had shoe commercials, maybe an arrest record, and at least one public blowup with his teammates demanding that he be the center of attention, I doubt this conversation would exist.

And Kenyon Martin a bogus big man? Does anyone doubt that if the Mavs had Kenyon Martin instead of Raef, they would've beat the spurs?

MavKikiNYC
06-17-2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
If Tim Duncan had shoe commercials, maybe an arrest record, and at least one public blowup with his teammates demanding that he be the center of attention, I doubt this conversation would exist.[/i]

True, so true. Duncan isn't a media diva on the order of Shaq/Kobe, Reggie Miller/NYKs, Iverson/Brown, Sprewell/Everyone, or K-Mart/KVH.


And Kenyon Martin a bogus big man? Does anyone doubt that if the Mavs had Kenyon Martin instead of Raef, they would've beat the spurs?

Martin showed some big-time skills this year, but if he played for Dallas against the Spurs, like he played for New Jersey the last two games against the Spurs, I suspect the result would've been about the same.

Usually Lurkin
06-17-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Martin showed some big-time skills this year, but if he played for Dallas against the Spurs, like he played for New Jersey the last two games against the Spurs, I suspect the result would've been about the same.
ahem. If he gave us 2 or three games like he gave in the first 4 games for the Nets, we would've won.

More to the point, if KMart is a bogus big man, what does that make Raef, Walt, Najera, Popeye, etc.?

nowitzki_prophecy
06-17-2003, 10:57 AM
But second, I'm saying that if you want to start dissecting each and every championship, each and every game, and start devaluing what a given team accomplished because they either: 1) didn't dominate every opponent absolutely; or 2) dominated so absolutely that it calls the credibility of their opponent into question, and thus the legitimacy of their championship calibre, you pretty much end up with ......nothing....no real champions.

you dont always have to show your asolute dominance,i didnt expected the Bulls to sweap the Jazz a couple of years back,but when the difference is that Big,you not only should show dominance,you have to.
if,like the Bulls,or Lakers-Celtics series,you happen to lose a couple of games,BUT you still manage to come on top,i cant think of any better way to detect champions.
but if you lose to a team like New Jersey in the finals,and actualy make that series tight,and you didnt proved yourself once in the playoffs,beside losing big leads and sucking at the money time,than you can say that this team has yet to prove themselfs.




Or it means that more teams, including smaller market teams, have a chance to contend for a title. Dynasties make for nice spectacle, but parity ('diversification' of potential champions) may be more profitable.

so in order to make the league more open,your willing to lower the level of playing?for profit?

OutletPass
06-17-2003, 11:29 AM
it may have been one of the ugliest finals on record...but I don't buy into SA being the worst championship team in history.

Give em props...they did exactly what they needed to...and that was to win, win, win and win.

But as our brothers in SA agree...the real finals was the Mavs-Spurs.

one long blue sock
06-17-2003, 11:37 AM
It would have been better if the Mavs didnt always fall beind in the first half, but o well.

MavKikiNYC
06-17-2003, 12:46 PM
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or it means that more teams, including smaller market teams, have a chance to contend for a title. Dynasties make for nice spectacle, but parity ('diversification' of potential champions) may be more profitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



so in order to make the league more open,your willing to lower the level of playing?for profit?


I'm not really a decision-maker at this level, but from a business perspective, I'd say, "Yes. Hell yes!", and it would appear that this is what David Stern et al have done with their expansion model. And for the NBA to go truly global, one has to assume that expansion isn't done yet.

Even from a fan's perspective, I'd say maybe.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-17-2003, 05:50 PM
who cares about the business prespective and what that idiot stern wants,you have to want the best basketball you can ask for.
but thats another thing thers no arguement,its very subjective.

mavsfanforever
06-17-2003, 07:50 PM
The spurs were the only team in the west I thought were healthy and I give props to their medical staff for that.

Spurs medical staff beat all the other teams medical staffs.

I have not even a single way to see that they were in anyway a championship material. They would have been out of the first round if Marbury was not hurt because he was giving them headaches. It was just bound to be their year and thats about it.

But my personal feeling is they are no way as talented or as good as Kings or mavs this year.

Once again congrats to the medical staff for teaching their players to be healthy throughout the playoffs.

MFFL
06-17-2003, 08:17 PM
The Spurs were the best team in the NBA this year. But comparatively speaking, they were a very poor champion. Which is an indication of how bad things are in the NBA, not with the Spurs.

Fidel
06-17-2003, 08:21 PM
Well all that is hypothetical. Itīs not like the Spurs didnīt beat the Mavs with Dirk in the lineup. Would the Mavs have had a better chance to take 4 games from the Spurs with Dirk in the lineup? No doubt about that. But itīs still very possible that we would have lost the series with Dirk anyways. Just look at the first three games and see how games went until the point where Dirk got hurt. Even if Dirk doesnīt get hurt itīs very likely we are down 2-1 after three games (when Dirk went out of the game we were down 14 allready). That adds up to 4-2 after six. All of that is just speculation but I think the Spurs this year had a pretty good chance to beat anyone, injurys or not. They won 60 games in the regular season (just like the Mavs) but they also had a decent record against the other western top teams.

mavsfanforever
06-17-2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by: Fidel
Well all that is hypothetical. Itīs not like the Spurs didnīt beat the Mavs with Dirk in the lineup. Would the Mavs have had a better chance to take 4 games from the Spurs with Dirk in the lineup? No doubt about that. But itīs still very possible that we would have lost the series with Dirk anyways. Just look at the first three games and see how games went until the point where Dirk got hurt. Even if Dirk doesnīt get hurt itīs very likely we are down 2-1 after three games. That adds up to 4-2 after six. All of that is just speculation but I think the Spurs this year had a pretty good chance to beat anyone, injurys or not. They won 60 games in the regular season (just like the Mavs) but they also had a decent record against the other western top teams.

Not to mention the great game 2 Ref Joe Crawford who gave 3 quick fouls on dirk. I am sure Mavs would have beat the living hell out of spurs if Dirk was there and I have no proof to see why that wouldn't have happened.

Fidel
06-17-2003, 08:40 PM
Not to mention the great game 2 Ref Joe Crawford who gave 3 quick fouls on dirk. I am sure Mavs would have beat the living hell out of spurs if Dirk was there and I have no proof to see why that wouldn't have happened.
Well Dirk was there for allmost three games. We lost two of those (we were clearly allready losing game 3 when Dirk went down). Thatīs not exactly "beating the living hell" out of the Spurs. We would have had a chance to take the series with Dirk in the lineup, but itīs also very possible we would have lost.

Donīt make the mistake Rosen and others are doing. Just because the finals looked like crap doesnīt mean the teams were crappy. Both the Nets and the Spurs are very good at what they are doing. They are exceptionaly good on defense. On a good day Kidd can take over a game and dictate itīs flow, the Spurs can do that as a team and Duncan can do it on the defensive end and on the boards (and he can also be a dominant offensive force). Heīs the best player in the NBA right now which surely doesnīt hurt if you want to win a championship.

TVI
06-17-2003, 10:13 PM
Not to mention the great game 2 Ref Joe Crawford who gave 3 quick fouls on dirk. I am sure Mavs would have beat the living hell out of spurs if Dirk was there and I have no proof to see why that wouldn't have happened.

How do you figure that? The Spurs were 2-1 against the Mavs with Dirk, and 2-1 against the Mavs without him. In fact, without Dirk, the Mavs got into a style of play which was more difficult for the Spurs to defend against. And it's not like the Mavs were hurting for offense without Dirk. They've got lots of people capable of taking up the scoring slack.

I'm not saying the Mavs are better without Dirk, but it's a real stretch to say they would have "beat the hell" out of the Spurs had he not gotten hurt. It's all speculation, but you have no evidence to back up such a claim. And one could say that the Mavs would never have gotten to play the Spurs if C-Webb doesn't go down, but again, that's pure speculation.

mavsfanforever
06-18-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by: TVI

Not to mention the great game 2 Ref Joe Crawford who gave 3 quick fouls on dirk. I am sure Mavs would have beat the living hell out of spurs if Dirk was there and I have no proof to see why that wouldn't have happened.

How do you figure that? The Spurs were 2-1 against the Mavs with Dirk, and 2-1 against the Mavs without him. In fact, without Dirk, the Mavs got into a style of play which was more difficult for the Spurs to defend against. And it's not like the Mavs were hurting for offense without Dirk. They've got lots of people capable of taking up the scoring slack.

I'm not saying the Mavs are better without Dirk, but it's a real stretch to say they would have "beat the hell" out of the Spurs had he not gotten hurt. It's all speculation, but you have no evidence to back up such a claim. And one could say that the Mavs would never have gotten to play the Spurs if C-Webb doesn't go down, but again, that's pure speculation.

Dirk is the only guy on the team that gets some respect from the Ref's and he shoots fair amount of free throws and can get SA's big men into foul trouble. Without Dirk being there there was no respect from Ref's and our Guards had to play their hearts out and it resulted in fatigue in Game 6.

Mavs were 1-1 without Dirk. Game 3 score was 15 and thats nothing for Mavs as you know they beat the hell out of spurs with 19 point lead.

Did not Mavs give the Spurs the worst losses of the post season in games 1 and 5. I have every proof and feeling that mavs were a much better team than Spurs if they are healthy. But once again good job by your medical staff.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-18-2003, 10:13 AM
The Spurs were the best team in the NBA this year. But comparatively speaking, they were a very poor champion. Which is an indication of how bad things are in the NBA, not with the Spurs.

exactly!!im trying to say that for days but everybody are so inclined to giving complimants that they attack any criticizem.
thx MFFL for a much needed post.

Usually Lurkin
06-18-2003, 10:34 AM
this is what I hear a couple of you saying:
1) the Spurs became champions only by virtue of other teams injuries.
2) the fact of the Spurs championship reveals some horrible flaw with today's NBA.

the natural conclusion is:
The horrible flaw in today's NBA is injuries to non-Spurs players.

Which is a pretty silly thing to be able to conclude.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-18-2003, 11:15 AM
well,you misconclude.
the horrible flaw in todays NBA is that there isnt a team good enough to secure the title without advantages like injuries of other teams,or biased referies.
im not saying WIN,secure isnt winning,the spurs might have won the title despite all,but they just MIGHT,those injuries were too importent and probably sealed the deal.

Usually Lurkin
06-18-2003, 02:09 PM
the horrible flaw in todays NBA is that there isnt a team good enough to secure the title without advantages like injuries of other teams,or biased referies.

Sorry, N_P, no dice. THis is about the craziest argument I've ever seen anyone make.

1) "Good enough" is relative, and you don't know if there was a team this year that could secure the title without injuries to other teams because, well, there were injuries.
2) If we could all sit back before or during the playoffs and say "such and such a team can secure the title without advantages like injuries" then it would be boring. There would be no competition.
I prefer competition so close that something as major as a season ending injury to a teams top player will make a difference in the outcome of a series.

If you want to say the Spurs deserve an asterisk because they were fortunate enough to play 3 series against teams that lost their top player, then fine. But to say that that reveals a flaw in the NBA is silly. Because injuries have always been a part of winning and losing in the NBA. The Spurs lucked into a big coincidence with so many injuries to opposing teams, but that's coincidence not systemic flaw!

for example:
In 2000 Hill broke his foot. So does that make the '99 championship suspect and the 2000 NBA flawed?
In '99 Ewing was too hurt to play. So does that make the '99 championship suspect and the '99 NBA flawed?
In '89 Magic was injured. So does that make the '89 championship suspect and the '89 NBA flawed?
In '83 Nixon, Worthy, and McAdoo were injured. So does that make the '83 championship suspect and the '83 NBA flawed?
In '71 Monroe, Unseld, and Johnson. Is the '71 championship suspect and the '71 NBA flawed?

nowitzki_prophecy
06-18-2003, 02:18 PM
i didnt say its a systemetic flaw,i said the NBA is not like it used to be.
the level of playing has dwindeld.this is connected to the arguement i made about the spurs being the worse team to win a championship.

maybe you find it more entertaining,thats subjective,all im saying is that it isnt how it used to be,some may like it,some won't.

Usually Lurkin
06-18-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by: nowitzki_prophecy
i didnt say its a systemetic flaw,i said the NBA is not like it used to be.

You are saying that SA is so bad that they could only win through injuries to other teams. Then you are saying that the other teams (the NBA in general) must be bad because SA won a championship over them. Don't you see that that's not a good argument?

the NBA is a system. To say that there is something wrong with the NBA (talent level, play level, whatever) is to say there is something wrong with the system, and notably, in your argument, that this something is a recent development.

In contrast, I would agree with the notion that the Spurs (and the Nets) play some ugly basketball, and the Finals series was ugly.

But the spurs ugliness may be a result of their opponents, and the lack of necessity for them to keep their game up the whole time. Duncan put up an incredible triple double/20 20 game to close it out. He averaged 5 blocks. That's good. That's not bad. SA closed out their last two series with incredible 3-pt barrages. That's good. That's not bad.

As far as the NBA as a whole, the western conference playoffs were great basketball games, played by great teams. Some teams were hurt by injury, and that may have lowered the quality of play and entertainment value (but would Dallas have rallied against the Spurs without the "Win one for the Dirkster" attitude?). But injuries don't have anything to do with 'the NBA today' that they didn't have to do with the NBA yesterday. It's not indicative of the NBA as a whole.

So you might say SA is a bad champion (I don't agree. I'd say 'ugly champion'). But because of injuries to various teams, you can only conclude that that reveals an overall lowered quality of basketball for the time span of the injuries (the playoffs). It does not reveal anything about the quality of basketball across the entire NBA or for the season.

TVI
06-19-2003, 12:28 AM
Dirk is the only guy on the team that gets some respect from the Ref's and he shoots fair amount of free throws and can get SA's big men into foul trouble. Without Dirk being there there was no respect from Ref's and our Guards had to play their hearts out and it resulted in fatigue in Game 6. Ahh, there's the rub. You're really blaming the refs. It's all too clear now.

Mavs were 1-1 without Dirk. Game 3 score was 15 and thats nothing for Mavs as you know they beat the hell out of spurs with 19 point lead. Well, no, not really. They shot real well at the foul line, and overcame a 19 point deficit to win by three. I think they had the lead for 15 seconds in that game. You spin it any way you want, but those are the facts.

Did not Mavs give the Spurs the worst losses of the post season in games 1 and 5. No, the Lakers did that in game 3 of the WC semis.

I have every proof and feeling that mavs were a much better team than Spurs if they are healthy.You have absolutely no proof. You have some wild-ass unsubstantiated speculation, based more on homerism than reality.

But once again good job by your medical staff.Ahh, but Dallas was perfectly healthy until 8 minutes remained in game three, and had yet to show that they were a better team than the Spurs. The only win they had up to that point was mainly a result of the Spurs' ineptitude at the free throw line, and Dallas' incredible mastery of shooting free throws in that game. Certainly doesn't hold up as "proof" that they were a better team.

The Mavs won game one by 3 points, and game five by 12 points. Not exactly "beating the hell" out of someone. The Spurs won by 13, 13, 7, and 12. And Dirk played 40 minutes, and took 20 shots in game three, before going down. You're trying to spin it like his departure was the reason they lost. You're dreaming. That game was already over. The Spurs had already done their damage, and Dallas was in a tailspin. All the momentum was with the Spurs. It was the complete opposite of game 1, where the momentum was with Dallas in the fourth quarter, and they overcame a deficit. There's certainly no evidence that was going to happen this time.

The Spurs did have a tendency to let up on their opponents this year (game 4 against Phoenix, game 5 against Dallas, Game 4 against Jersey). Geez, I'm sorry, they're not ruthless enough for you. But, they also showed that they could always battle back after a loss, and get a big win (even on the road). They closed out every WC series on their opponent's floor. What more do you want from them? Do they have to go 16-0 in the playoffs for you to consider them "championship caliber?"

And you're left-handed "compliment" to the medical staff is really immature. No medical staff could prevent what happened to Dirk or C-Webb, just like they couldn't prevent Duncan's torn meniscus in 2000. Injuries are part of the game. I'm the first to admit that winning the championship takes some good fortune, like staying injury-free. But you're trying to diminish a hell of an accomplishment by the Spurs by reducing it to a case of "their medical staff is the best in the league." You know that's crap, and so do I. They played better in the playoffs than their opposition did, with and without injuries.

Ya know, I gave Dallas mad props for winning those first two series, in exciting game 7 fashion, and for playing their hearts out in game 5 without their best player. It's too bad you can't respect the Spurs the same way.

MFFL
06-19-2003, 12:41 AM
It's too bad you can't respect the Spurs the same way.

I respect the Spurs for winning the championship. I think they have a hell of a team (by present day NBA standards anyway).

But I don't FEAR the Spurs - I think the Mavs have a good chance of winning any series against the Spurs. I FEAR the Lakers - I don't think the Mavs can beat them. The Spurs are an interesting champion because everyone thinks they have a legimate shot of dethroning them.

Mandyahl
06-19-2003, 12:43 AM
i think the mavs could've beaten the lakers this year.