Blah.

[sfg4gsw]

Now... if you want to talk about a mystery... The Spurs dropped 2 games to the Sonics. How did that happen?

Really does boggle the mind, dotcha think? Either a) the Spurs took it easy b) the Sonics are really underrated.

Back to topic ... I'm not a fan of the Pistons and I haven't given them the props this year or last year. Why don't I give them the credit they may deserve? Its the quality of opponents they've beaten in the playoffs. There's a big differnce between Sixers-Pacers-Heat versus Nuggets-Sonics-Suns. Call it a West Coast Bias, but the road through the Eest is still much tougher than the East. If the Pistons do win this year, I'll be very much wrong and I clearly underestimated them the last two years.

But I still think Spurs in 5.

[pathway23]

Good point Diesel, very good point. This sonics team didn't have nearly the defensive capabilities of Detroit, they were missing their one of their top 3 scorers and another top 3 scorer was banged up and missed a couple games, Ray Allen wasn't 100% either...why are the injuries of Seattle missed and SA had trouble with them...

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

Good point Diesel, very good point. This sonics team didn't have nearly the defensive capabilities of Detroit, they were missing their one of their top 3 scorers and another top 3 scorer was banged up and missed a couple games, Ray Allen wasn't 100% either...why are the injuries of Seattle missed and SA had trouble with them...

---

I watched that entire series and the reason the Sonics were able to compete w/o Lewis:

1. Great play from at least one of their guards.

2. They had a bazillion fouls to throw at Duncan and their big men fought for every loose ball.

3. Tony Parker STRUGGLED.

And the Spurs still won in 6 games. I think the finals will be similar.

[cyman3]

ill buy Spurs in 7... but in 5?

no way. im willing to BET that they wont win in 4 or 5. this series is going atleast 6 games, if not 7.

the winner?

i still dont know. too hard to call. one day im thinking Spurs, and the next day im thinking Pistons.

for day, im going w/ the pistons in 7.

[chillzatl]

Duncan was still somewhat hobbled by his ankle injury. He also tweaked it again in game three. I think saying that SA "had problems with seattle" is a vast overstatement. Sa was a last second shot away from going up 3-0 and being in a position to sweep seattle out. I don't call that struggling.

The biggest difference was the matchup. SA was still using the same lineup they used to beat Denver (barry starting over Manu) and that lineup just didn't have the same impact that it had against Denver. In game 5 they went back to that lineup and that was that. Seattle was never in control of the series or even close to it.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

I watched that entire series and the reason the Sonics were able to compete w/o Lewis:

1. Great play from at least one of their guards.

2. They had a bazillion fouls to throw at Duncan and their big men fought for every loose ball.

3. Tony Parker STRUGGLED.

And the Spurs still won in 6 games. I think the finals will be similar.

---

Detroit is a helluva lot better than Seattle at all positions. Seattle does shot better both don't have the bigs or the guards to compete with Detroit. I suspect Tony Parker will struggle in this series too. You have to be strong to standup to Detroit..

Billups/Halmilton are two deceptively physical guards who have the leighway to play strong defense because they are backed by the Wallace boys and Tayshun...

That means that Tony Parker won't have it easy like he had it against Nash/Frahm...

Just think about it... He will be hounded all game long because finally a defensive team with defensive bigs who won't need help on doubles will come to town.

[Plainview1981]

You talk about Detroit needing 7 to beat the Heat. First the Heat is a good team injured or not. They are filled with veterans and their young guys know how to play. 2ndly, Detroit won."

Really? When has Eddie Jones played well in big games?

If you don't leave Haslem open how is he going to beat

you on the offensive end? If you dont leave Damon Jones

open how is he going to beat you? Alot of the role players

Miami had are limited in what they can do.

A key matchup will be Robert Horry on Rasheed Wallace. I

suspect Nazr will see less action. You can put Horry on

Sheed and Duncan on Wallace and that way TD doesn't have

all that much to worry about on defense.

If Detroit does win, I'll give them credit for being

a really good team.. But not a great team. Really, if

a team with such lack of depth and no superstar player

it really points out to the lack of really good teams

in the league.

[vonrauss]

Quote:

---

If Detroit does win, I'll give them credit for being a really good team.. But not a great team. Really, if

a team with such lack of depth and no superstar player

it really points out to the lack of really good teams

in the league.

---

What a foolhardy statement! A superstar player does not define a great team. Would you say that last year's Lakers were great, while Pistons were merely "good". By that logic, Houston has a lot of team depth and AT LEAST one bonafide superstar. Are they great? No, because they don't know how to play together as a TEAM.

I think you're missing the operative word here: TEAM. The Pistons embody the word more than any other team in the NBA, and probably more than any team SINCE the late 80's Pistons. When you really think about it, Isiah and Joe D. were both underappreciated until AFTER their retirement. Isiah wasn't even named to the Dream Team. At the time, the superstars were Magic, Michael, and Larry (along with Chuckwagon and others). Would you say that the repeat Pistons who triumphed over MANY "great" teams by your definition were not a great team themselves?

The bottom line is, 10 years from now, after the Pistons have won 2 or 3 Championships, you'll look back on this team and you won't care that they didn't beat a fully healthy Pacers team or a that they beat up on a Lakers team that was allegedly in dismay. You will see a great team.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about a lack of quality in the NBA today, I would conversely argue that during the Bulls first title run (and to a lesser extent, their second run) a similar argument could be made. Look at the numbers. However, though the level of competition during that first 3-peat may have been comparable to today's NBA, because the Bulls had 2 bonafide superstars, they are, by definition, a GREAT team. Right?

Hogwash! Time is the great equalizer. Obviously you can't appreciate a good thing until its gone. So far as I'm concerned, a team that plays the right way, distributes the ball, and wouldn't hesitate to have any player on the floor at the end of the game take the final shot (okay, except for Ben), isn't bad for the NBA, nor does it indicate an inherent weakness in the league.

[Diesel]

My point was that Miami even injured was a deep vet team and Shaq was playing...

Deep in that they can reach onto the bench and pull off Alonzo Mourning.

Damon Jones and Rasaul Butler still there.

Christian Laettner, Mike Doleac Still there.

Steve Smith still there.

Even Kenyon Dooling and Shandon Anderson still there.

These guys have been in the big games.

Damon Jones... He led the league in threes this year and he hit 39 (43%) during the playoffs... So he had to be guarded.

Eddie Jones spent years in LAL and with Charlotte. He has played under playoff pressure before.

So for many of them, this was no reason to panic. They are a vet team...

[Wretch]

I'm gonna have to agree here.

First, there is a serious bias for these "underappreciated" Pistons. It's roots are set in a dislike for the stars of today's game, how they play, their lifestyles, attitudes, and how the game is catered to them. It is precipitated by the same people who will deny players like Iverson his due and would say that he does not make his team better and is not a star. The same narrowminded basketball "purists" who root for Team USA to fail - which they did, and had their opinions further substantiated.

These people dislike the attention given to the NBA's stars, downplay their importance to the game, and are elated to see a team like the Pistons reaching the championship game. And just as anybody with a slighted view on any team, they ignore anything that could possibly offer a valid contention to their opinions.

The Pistons are their team. The Pistons have proven themselves against the EC for two years in a row. However, that doesn't make them great. They are a great team, in the concept of the word...just as there are many teams that excel within the framework of the word "team" that doesn't make them "great" anymore than it does this year's Bulls.

Furthermore, it is laughable to sit here and say that there is no issue with the "quality" of the opponents that the Pistons have faced. Seriously, how can we sit here and say that, without some sort of bias, when there has been a seemingly universal opinion that the EC has been notoriously weak in recent years? We can say the EC has been weak, but we can't say the team that wins the EC has beaten weak teams? Sounds like some double-standard, biased, BS to me.

I love that the Pistons play within the framework of a team and I think it's awesome. I wish the NBA would cater it's rules less to the stars and more to the concept of "team." I wish every team and every player would take notes from the Pistons. I think this is going to be a VERY competitive series. But I do not for one second believe that these Pistons are great nor could they beat any of the great championship teams of the past. When they beat the Spurs, I will give them much more credit for being a very good team...but until they dominate and beat great teams the way great teams of the past have, I will not consider them great.

[sfg4gsw]

I second what Wretch said. We shouldn't just float the word "great" around and slap it on any team. The Pistons are really good and it is a real accomplishment to make it to the Finals 2 years in a row, regardless of conference. I wouldn't even slap "great" on the Spurs. If they win a couple more championships, maybe.

It usually takes two parties for greatness. Magic had Bird. And even Jordan had to go through Isiah and the Bad Boys. So who knows? Maybe the Pistons will turn the Spurs into their rivals the next couple of years and then down the road, maybe we'll see that in fact these Pistons are really great. Until then, I call it like I see it and they are just a really good team.

[Weez]

remember when the Nets made two straight finals? granted the East was much weaker then, and I believe that these Pistons are significantly better than those Nets (and indeed, they DID win it all last year)...but just another testament to such a point.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

remember when the Nets made two straight finals? granted the East was much weaker then, and I believe that these Pistons are significantly better than those Nets (and indeed, they DID win it all last year)...but just another testament to such a point.

---

And those teams didn't look like they belonged.. Detroit

was significantly better than those Nets teams? Didn't

the series with the Nets go to 7 games? You can't be

significantly better than a team that took you to 7

games. I don't think you can say this years Detroit

team is alot better than those Nets teams because this

years Detroit team isn't as good as last year. That

bench is simply too bad. It was exposed in game 1

just how bad that Detroit bench can really be. They

might prove me wrong the rest of the series, but

from what I've seen the DP bench is horrible.

As much as I just don't like the Detroit franchise,

I really don't think that is why I feel this way.

Even that Laker team wasn't great last year. Any

team that allows themselves to get outhustled so

badly in the finals is NOT a great team. I mean,

I haven't seen a team get as outhustled as the

Lakers did last year in the finals in a really

long time.

[Weez]

the current Nets team (taht went 7 games) is a VERY different team than the one that went to the finals (and lost).

Last year's laker team? true, they lost because of internal problems and allowed themselves to be outhustled...but you also cant deny the talent on that team, the fact that they beat the Spurs, or their past three championships...

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

A superstar player does not define a great team. Would you say that last year's Lakers were great,

---

No only does Detroit not have a superstar, they have

no depth either...

Quote:

---

I think you're missing the operative word here: TEAM.

---

Detroit doesn't have enough depth to call it a GREAT

TEAM. That's why just about all of the starters play

40MPG.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, if you want to talk about a lack of quality in the NBA today, I would conversely argue that during the Bulls first title run (and to a lesser extent, their second run) a similar argument could be made.

---

I don't believe the NBA is any weaker in the early

90's than it is now. The lack of good centers makes

a big difference.

Quote:

---

However, though the level of competition during that first 3-peat may have been comparable to today's NBA, because the Bulls had 2 bonafide superstars, they are, by definition, a GREAT team. Right?

---

Well, They had two HOF's in Horace Grant who was a 14/10

52% shooting type of player back then. BJ Armstrong was

a pretty decent player back then... Even if you try and

argue the Bulls as not a great TEAM they are the exception

to rules. Like Most teams don't win a title without a

really good center... Chicago was an exception to that

rule.

Once the Bulls got Rodman they had THREE HOF's that

can still be considered in their prime. Yes, Rodman

is a HOF in my opinion. Toni Kukoc was a really good

player back then, Kerr of course was a sharpshooter,

and even Longley was a 10/6 player back then.

Quote:

---

The bottom line is, 10 years from now, after the Pistons have won 2 or 3 Championships,

---

They don't have two or three titles yet and they haven't

proven they are a great team. They have proven they are

a pretty decent team in a league that doesn't have many

of them. People overrate Detroit because of the lack

of good teams in the league. They struggle with mediocre

teams like Philly and a broke down Indiana team when

a great team shouldn't struggle with these crappy teams

as badly as Detroit did.

Playing the right way? Yeah, scoring 69 points (after

you got off to a great start) yeah that's playing the right way.