Playoff Musings And Whatnot

Waldini:

So I'm sitting at home last night, decide to flip to the Jazz-Warriors game. I wanted to see what the fuss was about since folks were proclaiming after Game 1, this will be THE semifinal series to watch. The score is 75-63 and I'm thinking it's the 4th qtr. So i am saying what's go great about a low scoring game. I didnt realize until the final 20 secs that it was only the 3rd qtr and the score was 90-89 (which makes sense since there were players on the floor I've never heard of). I watched the entire 4th qtr and OT even though I was draggin a$$.

I tell ya what, I'm officially on this series bandwagon. If the games are anything like Game 2, it is fun to watch. Up and down, running and popping, 3s raining like no other, great PG matchup btw Baron and Deron, AK-47 rediscovering his game, Mehmet making the Pistons wonder how they let him go, Stephen Jackson throwing a fit every time someone touches him, J Rich proving he's more than a two time dunk champion, etc.....

Definitely a retro NBA throwback to the old days

Gangsta D:

Yeah, I caught the 4th qtr and stuck it out. GSW really have no conscious. It's ultimately gonna be they're downfall, but it's entertaining. They really are the real life version of NBA Live '95:) This series probably goes 7 games. The playoffs need it because the East is HORRIBLE! Maybe the Bulls will come to life and maybe the Nets and Cavs will play with some flair, but I doubt it. I still think the Spurs are going to handle the Suns in 5 or 6. So, everything falls on B-Diddy's shoulders:) i never though the Jazz would be involved in two of the more uptempo exciting games of the playoffs. What in the name Jeff Hornacek is going on here?

Da Realist:

yeah...after watching game 2 of the suns/spurs, i'm now leaning more toward "spurs in six" than "it'll go seven". nash is the only true gamer on the team.

so here's the question, because i believe it is probably a more than 50% chance tim gets another ring this year. how many his rings do each of you count? does he have two or three in your book? two and a half? if he gets another, he will officially have 4 (as many as shaq) and could probably win a couple more. would this longevity trump the lakers flashflood-like 3 titles in 3 years?

in other words, if san antonio wins another, wouldn't they have just as much claim (maybe even more) to the title "team of the decade" as your lakers do so far?

Gangsta D:

He has two and a half:) Part of me says they have just as much right to that claim, cause they've been more consistent. But, we did beat them 3 out of 4 series this decade. It would've been 4 out of 4 if Big Shot Rob had another bullet in the chamber:) When both teams were at their best, they couldn't beat us in the playoffs. But you can't discount their consistency. They're always in the discussion.

Da Realist:

i would go with that argument for the lakers, but if he wins this year it'll be 4 (or 3 and a half) rings. then it gets a little more difficult. especially when you consider that san antonio will be close to who they are 2 years from now...3 years from now...etc. you gotta believe they'll squeeze another title out of there somewhere.

they may be the T.O.T.D, but what the stats won't say is HOW they won their titles. the spurs are the beneficiaries of the absence of a truly dominant team. they won in 99 after the bulls imploded. they won in 2003 after the lakers imploded. there was no dominant team in 2005 so they just took it. this year, dallas imploded and phoenix is a little overrated.

remember the tortoise and the hare parable? the spurs are the tortoise.

Waldini:

Funny I was thinking about this over the wknd. If I had to compare both teams it would be the NHL equivalent of the NJ Red Devils and Colorado Avalanche in the 90s. The Spurs, like the Red Devils, never won consecutive titles but they did win one ever 2 or 3 yrs. The Lakers, like the Avalanche, had mini dynasty going on.

Ok to answer your question, technically they can if you are purely counting titles as the only criteria. However, if you stack up both championship team rosters in their prime, which team do you think would win? I still think the most dominant teams of this decade were the 2001 and 2002 Lakers (completely unbiased of course, lol).

Gangsta D:

In those years we beat them in 4 games then 5 games, respectively. The '01 series was supposed to be one of the greatest WCF in history, and we destroyed them. However, they've had a much longer period of eilte success. Maybe it balances out. Maybe they come out ahead. It's like a baseball hall of fame argument. Do you reward stat accumulators that play for 20 years, or do you reward a player that shone incredibly bright for a short period of time?

Da Realist:

stat accumulators? :-D i can tell what side of the argument you are on!

Gangsta D:

I'm trying to be reasonable and measured in my analysis. Don't want to be considered a Laker homer:)