dlpin

How many clear fouls can you count?

The guy he was guarding was still standing in front of him. And it is obvious he was not running through a pick because there was no follow through... after knocking Scola down he went back to his man. Not to mention lifting his elbow, and his head hitting Scola's mouth. Now, Kobe's is another matter. As much as I hate him he shouldn't be suspended. It is nothing at all like the Howard elbow. Kobe, as vicious as it was, was making a play for the ball and elbowed the guy who was riding him, while Howard elbowed someone in the had far away from the play.

And I was looking at the list of suspended players and the only way to get to that number is to add hispanic players born in the US to the other Latin American players. Sergio Mitre and Jorge Piedra, for example, are born and raised in California. In any case, being caught is no indication of continued use. More Americans, even proportionally, have been caught doping in the Olympics than East Germans, but that doesn't mean Americans used more PED than East Germans, who had a state sponsored lab for PEDs.

Which says more about the MLB suspension procedure than about Latin American players. That list contains everyone who was named in the congressional probe, admitted it after the fact, or was implicated in some way, and when you look at the whole list, Latin Americans are less than 1/4. Are you going to tell me that Manny is worse than Pettite because he was suspended, even though Pettite admitted to the use? Giambi was never suspended, nor was McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, and several others. So if anything, it shows that Latin Americans are suspended more frequently than others even though they don't seem to use it more than others. Again, to make this into a racial/national origin issue is ridiculous.

Giambi, Gagne, Sheffield... http://baseball.about.com/od/majorleaguepl...drugplayers.htm less than 1/4 of the players listed there are Latin. To try to turn this into a national origin/racial thing is ridiculous.

My problem isn't that there are superstar calls. Every sport has them. My problem is that in the last 10 years it has gone beyond anything we ever had before. Before, a player would have to earn the preferential treatment. The Pistons would foul Jordan hard when he was young and get away with it. Bird was punched in the face by Doctor J while Moses Malone held him and neither were suspended, as Bird was still a young player and had not earned the superstar treatment. But then in the 90s the NBA realized that a superstar (Jordan) sold more tickets and merchandise than even the big market teams (lakers, boston, NY). Ratings for even Bulls Jazz were about double to any lakers-celtics final. So they decided they were gonna promote the hell out of anyone with promise to make them the next Jordan. So Kobe gets away with everything from the first season on because they think he is the next jordan, and then Lebron gets away with everything because they think he is the next jordan, and so on. All this from their very first season, and to a degree much greater than before. And not only that, but there is also the "official" superstar treatment, with all the ridiculous rule changes that make it impossible for big men to effectively defend the rim. Now if a perimeter player beats their man, the center/PF has to step away from the rim because of the ever growing no-charge area and the inevitable and 1 if they try to defend it.

Let me ask you this: if cleveland had beaten the celtics in last year's playoffs, would it have been the biggest upset ever? I don't think so, but if you just look at the numbers, it would have been. The numbers dont tell everything. And cleveland wasnt flat out dominant this year. They were 1 win ahead of a Lakers team that played half the season without its starting center, and 4 ahead of a team that gave up 10 more points a game without its best player. It would have split the series against the hawks if it wasnt for the bailout call. Again, Im not saying it wouldnt be a big deal. But it is not top 3 NBA. We agree on sonics denver being a bigger upset, and on dallas GSW. And I don't think there is any doubt that Kansas City-Phoenix (17 win different, Phoenix margin 5.5 points, KC winning margin 0, but KC was without its top scorer in this series) is a bigger upset, or that lakers hawks in 58 (hawks defending champs, +16 wins on a 72 schedule), or that houston comming back from 3-1 were all bigger upsets.

The question was as of right now would it be a top 3 upset, and no it wouldn't. there is nothing that says that you can only compare upsets this way or that way. In any case, if you need to add qualifiers to make the statement about it being a top upset, then it isnt.

And IF the cavs even win this year, they will have to go through 2 of 3 teams that have lost all-star caliber players for at least a third of the season. The cavs are good, if they lose it would be a major upset, but they are far from being unbeatable, and they are far from being head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. They finished 4 games ahead of a celtics team that lost its best player for most of the second half of the season.

It would be historic, no doubt. But the OP asked if it would be a top 3 upset of all times, and I said it wouldnt even be a top 3 NBA upset. 19 win differential is an important number, but an upset of a team with a 17 differential without it's leading scorer is a bigger upset to me. A team with a 12 win differential trailing 3-1 coming back to win it is a bigger upset to me. And this is all without going to the old ages, before it was an 82 game schedule. The lakers upset the hawks even though they were 16 games behind, but I think 16 games in a 72 game schedule is a bigger deal than a 19 game differential in a 82 game schedule. So Im not saying that it wouldnt be noteworthy. But it wouldnt be a top 3, not overall, not in the nba.

Series to series, the Rockets beating the Spurs was a bigger upset than the hawks beating cleveland would be. The game differential was "just" 15, but the rockets were an old team that had just played 2 series that had gone the maximum length, having just overcome a 3-1 deficit. And the only reason the Spurs did not win more games was because they had basically clinched the top spot with quite a few games in advance (while the Cavs were still playing all its starters until the next to last game because of the lakers). The jazz went on an 8 game winning streak and still finished two games behind the spurs. Still, there are others. Houston in the 81 finals. Kansas City Kings over Phoenix Suns in 81 (that was a 17 game differential, but the Kings lost their leading scorer to injury during the series and he did not play the last 2 and a half games).

Game differential doesn't mean much when you are talking about small differences. So you think that a single series upset against a team that has won 19 more games is a bigger upset than a team beating a team that won 13 more games and had a 2-1 series lead, beating a team that won 12 more games and had a 3-1 series leads, won against a team that won 15 more games, having to beat them 3 times on the road, and then sweep a team that won 10 more games?

No one thought the rockets would repeat. No one. First of all, being the defending champs doesn't mean much. There is a reason why it is so rare for teams to repeat. Second, that team was old. Hakeem was 32, Drexler was 32. Everyone thought they were done. In fact, they had to overcome 2-1 deficits agains the jazz, 3-1 deficit against the Suns. They are the lowest seed to win the finals for a reason. SI had a feature not too long ago on the "most surprising champions" and the 95 rockets were number 1. And if people want to argue that the hawks havent won anything, the cavs havent won anything either and Lebron, with the exception of the detroit series in 2007 and game 7 against boston last year, has usually sucked in the playoffs. Almost 10% lower FG% in the post season the past two years. In any case, discussing particular cases is meaningless. The fact remains that regardless of how one feels about certain particular series or teams, this would not be in any way an all time upset. In the NBA playoffs, the 8 seed has beaten the number 1 seed 3 times, the number 7 seed has beaten the number 2 seed 4 times, the 6 seed has beaten the 3rd seed 13 times. All this only including the years since the playoffs have gone to a 16 team format. A number 4 beating a number 1 is not an all time upset.

Im not saying it wouldn't be a huge upset. Im just saying that it wouldn't be one of the biggest upsets in history. not even a top 3 nba upset.

Some, but it is still a lot more than a 4 seed beating a number 1. Especially since the teams would have split the regular season series if it wasnt for that bail out call, and the Hawks already took last year's number 1 to 7...

The rockets finished "only" 15 games out because there was more parity at the top. Still, it wasn't just one series. They beat 60 win Utah, 59 win phoenix, 62 win Spurs, and 57 win Orlando without ever having home court. Beating a number 3 seed, a number 2, and two number 1s more than makes up for a 4 game win differential.

it wouldn't even be top 3 in the history of the NBA. Heck, the 1995 rockets won it all and had an identical record to this year's hawks (but they were the 6th seed). Denver-Seattle GS-Dallas Knicks in the finals as an 8th seed 1981 the 40-42 rockets made it all the way to the finals as the last seed, being the only team to play in the finals with a losing record. A number 1 seed losing to a number 4 is an upset, but not a huge one. In fact, before last year, the last time a number 1 seed even made it to the finals was the spurs in 2003.

Again, Barkley spent all his time in the paint, Lebron doesn't. And you are leaving out the other part of the equation: these players got fouled all the time, but also got called for fouls all the time. Lebron gets fouled all the time, but never fouls. So, again, trying to compare an undersized power forward who spent all the time in the paint playing against players who on average were 4 inches taller than him to Lebron, who only shoots in the paint about 35% of the time, only shows what we are talking about. And in any case, Lebron's numbers are still increasing. This post-season, he is trying 0.7 fts per FGA...

The difference is that: 1- centers are always in the paint, so they shoot more free throws anyway. According to 82games.com, in 02-03, 67% of all his shots were either dunks or in the paint. Meanwhile, in 05-06, only 35% of Lebron shots were in the paint or dunks. There are more fouls in the paint, so that right there shows the difference. In fact, it only corroborates the idea that Lebron gets all the calls. He shoots free throws on a rate that only centers do, even though he spends most of the time shoothing jump shots from outside. 2- Most teams intentionally foul Shaq because he is such a terrible FT shooter. So Lebron shoots FTs on a rate that is similar to someone who spends all his time in the paint and gets intentionally fouled all the time.

The part you are leaving out is that in 05-06 Lebron shot the ball 1823 times, and the 2 years Jordan shot more free throws than that he shot the ball 2279 and 1998 times. In other words, in 86-87, when Jordan shot 972 FTs, he shot 0.42 FT per FG attempt. Lebron shot 0.44 FTs per FGA. Now, the other part you are leaving out is that Jordan only shot more than 700 free throws 5 times in his 15 year career, while Lebron has shot more than 700 FTs 4 times in his 6 year career. On a per game basis, MJ only shot more than 9 FTs per game 4 times in his 15 year career, and Lebron has done that 4 times in his 6 year career. On a per shot basis, which is more important, Jordan's career was 0.36 FT per FGA, while Lebron's is 0.41 and increasing. Any way you cut it, Lebron gets more calls than Jordan.

What does that have to do with anything? I have no doubt that the cavs are a better team right now than the hawks. Doesn't change the facts that Lebron is getting more calls than anyone in history with the possible exception of Wade in the 2006 finals. Not even Jordan got away with so much. The stats are there to prove it.

Again, Im not a hawks fan, so don't start with this crap. And you are leaving out the part where Smith played 41 minutes and Lebron 34. And please, how can you explain Lebron taking 25% more free throws per shot than Jordan? How can you explain him being the only one on the top 10 least fouls per minute to be on the top 10 in steals, and top 5 in free throws attempts.

Who the hell is making excuses? By the way, I am not even a hawks fan, I just post here because I live in Atlanta and go to the Phillips arena all the time. But a person has to be a major homer not to see how Lebron gets all the calls. Yeah, stars generally get all the calls, but what happens to Lebron is unprecedented. Lebron is shooting about 25% more FTs per shot than Michael Jordan. And while other players might be also averaging under 2 fouls a game, I guarantee that no player that is leading his team in steals is averaging anything close to that. The fact is that the league has been trying to prop up new stars to be next jordan and giving them the benefit of every doubt. They did it with Wade in 2006, and now they are doing it without any shame to Lebron. Lebron shot more free throws than the entire Pistons team. This is not an excuse, an opinion, or anything like that. That is a fact. He is the only guy to be on the top 10 in steals AND on the top 10 in least fouls per 48 minutes. He is the only one on the top 5 in free throws attempts per game to be on the top 10 is least fouls per minute. That only happens if every single 50-50 call goes your way.

in the first round Lebron shot more free throws than the entire pistons team.

considering Lebron shot more free throws than the entire pistons team the first round...