The OAO NBA Playoffs/Finals Thread

[The Electrifyer 0]

Everyone underestimated Detroit when they went up against LA. I'm not gonna do it again against the past champions.

[KingPK 0]

Still, he has a point. If the Pistons tear through the East and make it to the Finals again, then you can talk about them as great. If they don't make the playoffs or exit in the first round, then you could say that they just caught a shaky Lakers team at the right time.

 

It's like the Patriots of 2001; they beat a supposed juggernaut in the Rams, but they didn't even make the playoffs in '02, so I see that '01 team as one that figured out how to beat the Rams, but just couldn't keep it going to qualify as a "great team."

[AlwaysPissedOff 0]

A: Pretty low. They couldn't win their division. They barely escaped two playoff series. They lucked out by facing the Lakers instead of the Spurs.

HUH? The friggin' Spurs couldn't win *their* division, either, yet they're BETTER? I'm not a Detroit fan by any stretch of the imagination, but this year's Spurs team was soft as hell when it came to teams getting phsyical with them(case in point, Tony Parker after Game 2 of the LA series). I mean, really now, what dumbass would take SA's starting 5 over Detroit's? Anybody? Granted, Duncan is a better player than all of Detroit's frontcourt, but he can't do it himself and the rest of his team is too damned spotty to help him out when he needs it the most.

 

Someone tell Bill to put the crackpipe down before he starts writing next time.

[Damaramu 0]

All championship teams barely escape playoff series', and i'm pretty sure there are more than a handfull who didn't win their division (too lazy to search right now). I don't believe this is one of the weakest teams basically because they are probably the best defensive team in the history of the game. And i'm not exaggerating. To break as many defensive records as they did, how can you not rank up there? They have the record for holding the most teams under 70 points, and the record of the numer of games in a row that was achieved. They also had some record of holding teams under 100 points, and held playoff teams this year to around 80. I'll check other records they broke some other day, but i'm pretty sure of those. To say that a top 3, if not best defensive team in basketball history is a weak champion, is like saying defense isn't important. Please.

Don't forget they held the Lakers to an all time playoff low and then turned around 2 games later and broke that record.

[Guest Vitamin X]

It's like the Patriots of 2001; they beat a supposed juggernaut in the Rams, but they didn't even make the playoffs in '02, so I see that '01 team as one that figured out how to beat the Rams, but just couldn't keep it going to qualify as a "great team."

Yeah but the Pats steamrolling through everyone in `03 with virtually much of the same cast from `01 game solidified their win. The question is if they'll turn it into a dynasty. On top of it all, I remember in 2002 New England's season came down to a final game and lost in Week 17, though didn't finish with a losing record if I remember correctly. In this day and age, just because you don't make the playoffs in the NFL doesn't mean you don't have a good team. Hell look at the Dolphins last year. They finished 10-6, any other year and they would have been a lock for the playoffs and possibly even their division, but parity's hit the NFL so hard that really only the BEST of the best make it and those 6 losses came against teams that didn't matter. Which is why I love football more than any other sport

 

Either way, Detroit should prove they can hang with the big boys, and even Zenmaster Jackson told them at the beginning of the season that they would meet in the Finals, so it's not like they didn't have a good team even before Rasheed.

 

As for San Antonio's starting 5 versus Detroit's... I think SA has the better individual game.. But Detroit is the better team, hands down. Very deep team.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

It's like the Patriots of 2001; they beat a supposed juggernaut in the Rams, but they didn't even make the playoffs in '02, so I see that '01 team as one that figured out how to beat the Rams, but just couldn't keep it going to qualify as a "great team."

Difference between Basketball and Football however is that the more wins an NFL team gets the more difficult their schedule becomes so the parity is greater. Doesn't matter what you do in the NBA as you'll still face the same teams in the same amount of games.

 

2001 Pats came off a 5-11 season to go 11-5 and win the SuperBowl

2002 Pats went 9-7 with a much more difficult schedule than the previous year's and didn't make the playoffs. Still, they faired better than the Rams that year not to mention faring better in their defending year than both Oakland and Tampa Bay of 2003. So they weren't a weak team...we just couldn't stop the run that year.

[alfdogg 0]

You guys DO realize there is such a thing as being a sore winner, right?

1. Let the city of Detroit celebrate their championship. Not only did they earn it, but they've got nothing else in their pathetic city to celebrate for. I'll look forward to Green Bay sweeping the Lions this year, especially now.

...and with that, click here for NBA Finals highlights.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Difference between Basketball and Football however is that the more wins an NFL team gets the more difficult their schedule becomes so the parity is greater. Doesn't matter what you do in the NBA as you'll still face the same teams in the same amount of games.

 

So parity is a sham. Interesting. Kind of casts some light on the MLB vs. NFL argument.

[The Electrifyer 0]

Those highlights were beautiful.

[godthedog 0]

A: Pretty low. They couldn't win their division. They barely escaped two playoff series. They lucked out by facing the Lakers instead of the Spurs. They didn't have a dominant player, someone who could create his own shot after everything else broke down. In the Finals, they were never favored by more than three points in any game. Along with the '99 Spurs, '94 Rockets, '78 Bullets and '75 Warriors, on paper, they were one of the weakest champions of the past 30 years.

this is asinine.

 

They couldn't win their division.

neither could the "better" spurs. the fucking LAKERS won more regular season games than the spurs.

 

They barely escaped two playoff series.

you don't *barely* escape a six-game series. if you can win four before they can even win *three*, that proves something: namely, that you've been the better team. i don't remember artest being much of a factor in the indiana series anyway. and didn't detroit ANNIHILATE new jersey in that last game, holding jason kidd scoreless for the first time ever? how can you dominate a team so much in a final game and still *barely escape* the wrath of the nets? i guess they *barely escaped* on all those finals wins against the lakers too, beating them by double digits?

 

They didn't have a dominant player, someone who could create his own shot after everything else broke down.

um...so? when a great PLAYER is on a lesser TEAM, then the player has to create his own shot when everything else breaks down. the great TEAM doesn't have this problem, because it does not break down. the TEAM finds ways to break down the opposition's defense, and expose their weaknesses, so they don't fall apart in the first place. this is the same argument every stupid little los angeles kid made after the finals: "detroit WON? but...but they don't have any stars on their team, they can't do that!" who gives a shit if you don't have a dominant player? it's a fucking TEAM game, not "kobe bryant v. rip hamilton."

 

speaking of which...in game 1, when kobe's defense shut rip hamilton down (who had been far and away their *dominant* scorer, and was easily their MVP up until that point), detroit was not fazed at all because other guys STEPPED UP on the offense when he wasn't getting open looks. yet this article claims that the better team has one player who covers for the rest of the team, while the rest of detroit's team covered for one player. we ARE talking about teams here, right?

In the Finals, they were never favored by more than three points in any game.

and this proves...?

 

if they never WON by more than three, there would be a point here, but bad predictions do not somehow magically make a team worse.

Along with the '99 Spurs, '94 Rockets, '78 Bullets and '75 Warriors, on paper, they were one of the weakest champions of the past 30 years.

what does this "on paper" thing mean exactly? is he talking statistics? lack of star players? does it matter?

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

They couldn't win their division.

neither could the "better" spurs. the fucking LAKERS won more regular season games than the spurs.

The Spurs had fifty-seven wins in the regular season. The Lakers had fifty-six. The Lakers were seeded higher because the Division Champion is automatically seeded no lower than second, not necessarily because they had more wins.

 

Take the Eastern Conference, for example: the Pistons had fifty-four wins, and the Nets had forty-seven, but the Nets were seated higher because they won their division.

[godthedog 0]

They couldn't win their division.

neither could the "better" spurs. the fucking LAKERS won more regular season games than the spurs.

The Spurs had fifty-seven wins in the regular season. The Lakers had fifty-six. The Lakers were seeded higher because the Division Champion is automatically seeded no lower than second, not necessarily because they had more wins.

 

Take the Eastern Conference, for example: the Pistons had fifty-four wins, and the Nets had forty-seven, but the Nets were seated higher because they won their division.

oops. my bad. i need to do my research before i rail on a guy for not doing this research.

[Guest Vitamin X]

You guys DO realize there is such a thing as being a sore winner, right?

1. Let the city of Detroit celebrate their championship. Not only did they earn it, but they've got nothing else in their pathetic city to celebrate for. I'll look forward to Green Bay sweeping the Lions this year, especially now.

...and with that, click here for NBA Finals highlights.

What? What I said was true, I wasn't being a sore loser...

 

Fact: Detroit < Los Angeles

 

Also...

neither could the "better" spurs. the fucking LAKERS won more regular season games than the spurs.

 

Really? Then why did the Spurs have homecourt advantage against the Lakers?

[Brett Favre 0]

1. Let the city of Detroit celebrate their championship. Not only did they earn it, but they've got nothing else in their pathetic city to celebrate for. I'll look forward to Green Bay sweeping the Lions this year, especially now.

 

Fact: Detroit < Los Angeles

Actually that's an opinion. And, athough Detroit has nothing to celebrate for other than this trophy, neither does L.A, so that was an odd statement.

[Damaramu 0]

1. Let the city of Detroit celebrate their championship. Not only did they earn it, but they've got nothing else in their pathetic city to celebrate for. I'll look forward to Green Bay sweeping the Lions this year, especially now.

 

Fact: Detroit < Los Angeles

Actually that's an opinion. And, athough Detroit has nothing to celebrate for other than this trophy, neither does L.A, so that was an odd statement.

Is that Detroit < Los Angeles thing referring to the cities as a whole or the basketball teams? Because if it's referring to the basketball teams then I think we've already realized that Detroit is better. If it's referring to the city as a whole well then.......ah there both pretty big hell holes, I wouldn't want to live in either one.

[Brett Favre 0]

Well, I was referring to it as how successful their Sports teams have been recently. Tigers/Pistons/Red Wings/Lions > Dodgers/Lakers/Kings/No One.