# No NBA finals thread?



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2005)

I'm surprised to not find an NBA finals thread, at least on the first two pages of off-topic.  Spurs just moved forward into the finals, and the Pistons kept it alive, tying up the series 2-2.  If it does end up being the Spurs vs. the Pistons, as I think likely, I'll be in a somewhat uncomfortable position.  I live currently in Detroit, but I'm from Texas.  And although the Spurs aren't quite "my" team the way the Rockets are, I'm still rooting for the Spurs, and always will (against anyone but the Rockets. )


----------



## diaglo (Jun 2, 2005)

haven't been to an NBA final since Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld played for the Bullets.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 2, 2005)

I haven't watched the NBA for a while now.  A combination of all fast-breaks and little defense and many of the players acting like complete morons.  I miss the days of Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul-Jabar and Magic Johnson (before he came out of retirement).  Nowadays, I just focus on college ball.

Kane


----------



## drothgery (Jun 2, 2005)

I had tried to keep an NBA thread alive (and was pulling for Phoenix once the Kings went down).

I still suspect Miami wins the east, which is better than the worst possible finals going into the playoffs (Detroit v. San Antonio, or A Fan's Guide to Ugly Basketball), but not by much.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 2, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> haven't been to an NBA final since Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld played for the Bullets.



which means iirc... Muhammed Ali was Heavy Weight Champion of the World.


----------



## freebfrost (Jun 2, 2005)

I was disappointed in the Spurs ease of victory.  I was really kind of pulling for the Suns, but they never really seemed to get into a groove in this last round.

Just hoping Miami puts on a strong show and gets the East.  That would make it a more interesting finals in my mind.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 3, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I haven't watched the NBA for a while now.  A combination of all fast-breaks and little defense and many of the players acting like complete morons.  I miss the days of Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul-Jabar and Magic Johnson (before he came out of retirement).



Damn. Has it been so long ago? Glad I'm an 80's child.  

Let's face it. Miami is going to win. They have Shaq.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 3, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Let's face it. Miami is going to win. They have Shaq.




They're going to get to the finals (assuming Wade's not more seriously injured than Miami's saying). But I don't see how they beat San Antonio.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 3, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Damn. Has it been so long ago? Glad I'm an 80's child.
> 
> Let's face it. Miami is going to win. They have Shaq.



 Child of the late 70's here.  I'd watch ABC's World of Sports on Saturday afternoons to see basketball the way it ought to be played (IMO, of course).  I miss it, but at least college hoops still has a bit more strategy than run at the goal and dunk.  

Kane


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I still suspect Miami wins the east, which is better than the worst possible finals going into the playoffs (Detroit v. San Antonio, or A Fan's Guide to Ugly Basketball), but not by much.



I don't care about seeing good basketball, I care about seeing teams that I have some attachment to.  For me, San Antonio and Detroit is the best possible playoffs.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't care about seeing good basketball, I care about seeing teams that I have some attachment to.  For me, San Antonio and Detroit is the best possible playoffs.





haven't cared for Detroit since Isiah stopped playing.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Jun 3, 2005)

Lockout!!!


----------



## drothgery (Jun 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't care about seeing good basketball, I care about seeing teams that I have some attachment to.  For me, San Antonio and Detroit is the best possible playoffs.




The teams I have some attachment to (Denver -- because Carmelo's an SU guy, Cleveland -- I'm originally from there, and Sacremento -- because I had to start following someone in CA when I moved west, and it wasn't going to be the Lakers or Clippers) either failed to make the playoffs or went down early. So I'm hoping for good, fun to watch basketball, which the Heat and Spurs do sometimes, and the Suns did often, but the Pistons never do.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 3, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I haven't watched the NBA for a while now.  A combination of all fast-breaks and little defense and many of the players acting like complete morons.




Maybe you should give it a try again, at least the Finals.  I love college b-ball too, but I can certainly appreciate the NBA.  The reason it'll be the Spurs vs. Pistons is because they're the two best defensive teams left (yes, Detroit will come back whether Wade plays or not).  Tim Duncan is a class act, as are most of his teammates.  I'm not one for harkening back to the "good 'ol days".  Larry Brown has coached the Pistons into a good TEAM.  They're devoid of the prima donna type players you despise.  The quality of ball is the best it's ever been.....and I've been watching it regularly since Elvin Hayes/Wes Unseld days too.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 3, 2005)

I was never a big basketball fan, but my father is - or was. He stopped watching because he was getting fed up with the players' antics on and off the court. 

But I think it's because the NY Knicks haven't been any good for a very long time.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 4, 2005)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> But I think it's because the NY Knicks haven't been any good for a very long time.



Patrick Ewing retired already, right? I never liked their little bald-headed coach, nor their cheerleader Spike Lee.



Then again, I never liked the LA Lakers (with Jabbar and Johnson), especially when they go up against Larry Bird's Celtics.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 4, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> Maybe you should give it a try again, at least the Finals.  I love college b-ball too, but I can certainly appreciate the NBA.  The reason it'll be the Spurs vs. Pistons is because they're the two best defensive teams left (yes, Detroit will come back whether Wade plays or not).




... but Detroit's far worse offensively than Miami (assuming Shaq and Wade are playing well), and only slightly better defensively, which is why Miami will close out Detroit if Wade's healthy tomorrow, and if not, they'll finish things off at home in game 7.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 5, 2005)

We finally got a chance to see the Pistons firing on all cylinders tonight. They played the type of cohesive well-oiled team defense that delivered the Larry O'Brian trophy into their hands. They also successively held onto a lead and closed out the game in a spectacular fashion. I was nervous before game 6, but now I'm sure whoever prevails, game 7 will be  a sight to behold.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 6, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> ... but Detroit's far worse offensively than Miami (assuming Shaq and Wade are playing well), and only slightly better defensively, which is why Miami will close out Detroit if Wade's healthy tomorrow, and if not, they'll finish things off at home in game 7.




OK, no Wade ain't fair, but 66 points?!  C'mon.  If you take any one player off of Detroit they don't fare nearly so badly.  They are a TEAM.  Wade ain't healthy.  Detroit not only wins but they blow out Miami at home tonight.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 6, 2005)

After the Celts made fools of themselves in the series against the Pacers, I haven't watched any of the NBA playoffs at all.  I would have probably watched the game tonight but alas, I'm going to see the Killers.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 6, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> OK, no Wade ain't fair, but 66 points?!  C'mon.  If you take any one player off of Detroit they don't fare nearly so badly.  They are a TEAM.  Wade ain't healthy.  Detroit not only wins but they blow out Miami at home tonight.



I agree.  The heat can do fine without Shaq but without Wade they are hopeless.  Shaq can only play a quarter and a a half, maybe two and then he's practically exhausted.  Wade has a bad rib injury and that doesn't effect just your movement but it effects your breathing.  I had one when I played football in H.S. and I was on bedrest for a week before I was allowed to move around again.  

I say the pistons win big, then go on to beat San Antonio in Six.  Go Pistons


----------



## drothgery (Jun 6, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> OK, no Wade ain't fair, but 66 points?!  C'mon.  If you take any one player off of Detroit they don't fare nearly so badly.  They are a TEAM.  Wade ain't healthy.  Detroit not only wins but they blow out Miami at home tonight.




That's because Detroit has no great players. They've got a lot of pretty good players. And if you run into a healthy combo of great players and role players, you're going to go down. Wade's injuries may keep Miami from being the team that does it.

Detroit was very fortunate to run up against the Lakers last year (mostly because the entire western conference had psychological issues with the Shaq & Kobe Lakers); any of the other top teams from the West would have given a better series (and likely won it).


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 6, 2005)

drothgery; am I understanding this correctly; you _prefer_ prima donna basketball players?  I mean, I liked watching MJ in the 80s as much as the next guy, but I think my appreciation for the sport has become a bit more cerebral rather than visceral since then.  I _like_ watching teams that play well, not stars.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 6, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I agree.  The heat can do fine without Shaq but without Wade they are hopeless.  Shaq can only play a quarter and a a half, maybe two and then he's practically exhausted.  Wade has a bad rib injury and that doesn't effect just your movement but it effects your breathing.  I had one when I played football in H.S. and I was on bedrest for a week before I was allowed to move around again.
> 
> I say the pistons win big, then go on to beat San Antonio in Six.  Go Pistons





I disagree with your end result.  San Antonio will beat whoever comes out of the East in 5.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 6, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> I disagree with your end result.  San Antonio will beat whoever comes out of the East in 5.



Ah now this is a sports thread

With who?  Duncan's already shown that his inside game is teetering and there's no way with that injury he has the strength to handle both Wallace's which means he'll have to result to the jumper.  

both teams played in march at full strength and Detroit handed it to them.  Heck even when they played in San Antionion and the pistons had a Wallace out along with Brown, they still only beat them by 3 points.  

The lanes will not be as sparce as they were with Phoenix so Ginobli's not going to get the easy passes and layup's he's used to.  Prince will do a good job of shutting down his jump shot.  So that leaves you with the hit or miss parker vs the speedy Hamilton and the powerful Billups.  

Pistons in 6


----------



## loki44 (Jun 6, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Ah now this is a sports thread
> With who?  Duncan's already shown that his inside game is teetering and there's no way with that injury he has the strength to handle both Wallace's which means he'll have to result to the jumper.
> both teams played in march at full strength and Detroit handed it to them.  Heck even when they played in San Antionion and the pistons had a Wallace out along with Brown, they still only beat them by 3 points.
> The lanes will not be as sparce as they were with Phoenix so Ginobli's not going to get the easy passes and layup's he's used to.  Prince will do a good job of shutting down his jump shot.  So that leaves you with the hit or miss parker vs the speedy Hamilton and the powerful Billups.
> Pistons in 6




I beg to differ.  Duncan's game is far from teetering.  Gimpy ankles and all, he averaged about 15 boards a game vs. the Suns and close to 30 pts. a game apart from the one game they lost.  The playoffs ain't the regular season and the Spurs are just as experienced, if not more so, than the Pistons.  Yeah, Prince will bother Manu, but he's expanded his game beyond jump-shooting.  Nobody on the Suns could stop him.  Parker has been iffy, but not so in the playoffs.  He's picked up his game.  Hamilton & Billups will get their shots, but Bowen will help defensively and Barry and Horry are both guys I'd like to have on my team in clutch situations.  It'll be a tough series.  The Pistons are already complaining about the refs in the Miami series.  The S.A. series will be brutal in comparison.  Having said that, I personally don't care about either team (I'm a Bulls fan and, since I live here now, dare I say a Hawks fan).....in fact, I'd rather see the Pistons win.  I just wouldn't put any money on it.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 6, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> I beg to differ.  Duncan's game is far from teetering.  Gimpy ankles and all, he averaged about 15 boards a game vs. the Suns and close to 30 pts. a game apart from the one game they lost.  The playoffs ain't the regular season and the Spurs are just as experienced, if not more so, than the Pistons.  Yeah, Prince will bother Manu, but he's expanded his game beyond jump-shooting.  Nobody on the Suns could stop him.  Parker has been iffy, but not so in the playoffs.  He's picked up his game.  Hamilton & Billups will get their shots, but Bowen will help defensively and Barry and Horry are both guys I'd like to have on my team in clutch situations.  It'll be a tough series.  The Pistons are already complaining about the refs in the Miami series.  The S.A. series will be brutal in comparison.  Having said that, I personally don't care about either team (I'm a Bulls fan and, since I live here now, dare I say a Hawks fan).....in fact, I'd rather see the Pistons win.  I just wouldn't put any money on it.



Come on now, Duncan averaged 15 boards against the Phoenix Suns, a team that does not believe in offensive rebounds as it controdicts their fast court game. Heck the suns barely know what defense is.  Thats why Manu had a field day agaisnt them.  He got every shot he wanted.  But we'll see how well he reacts when he is forced into shots.  He's going to have to master that fade away jumper like Wade has if he is going to have a chance to shoot over Prince.  

He's not going to be able to bang that gimpy ankle against powerhouses like Rasheed and Ben, and then let's not talk about the huge elden campbell coming off the bench for support.

True the pistons have been complaining about the refs alot, and they have good reason.  They have gotten some really bad calls some of which were just plain awful (game 5 wade clearly filed someone and they called the file on Wade, then did a 360 and decided to call it on a piston and lets not talk about shaq's linbacker mentality in the paint -- heck he doesnt even dribble most of the time its a shoulder block push then skyhook or dunk).  Honestly the gig is up with the NBA.  The refs lean toward teams that draw more money.  I have a friend who coaches college and the reason is because pro refs judge based entertainment value.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 6, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> He's not going to be able to bang that gimpy ankle against powerhouses like Rasheed and Ben, and then let's not talk about the huge elden campbell coming off the bench for support.True the pistons have been complaining about the refs alot, and they have good reason.  They have gotten some really bad calls some of which were just plain awful (game 5 wade clearly filed someone and they called the file on Wade, then did a 360 and decided to call it on a piston and lets not talk about shaq's linbacker mentality in the paint -- heck he doesnt even dribble most of the time its a shoulder block push then skyhook or dunk).  Honestly the gig is up with the NBA.  The refs lean toward teams that draw more money.  I have a friend who coaches college and the reason is because pro refs judge based entertainment value.





Big Ben hasn't exactly been tearing it up vs. Shaq and I'll take Duncan over Sheed any day.  They won't double-team Duncan with those two guys and if they do Duncan will make them pay.  Manu is wily.  He won't have to rely on fade away jumpers.  If they double team Duncan he'll be the one to make them pay.  I don't want to make any allegations vs. refs here but I haven't seen any imbalanced games in terms of calls.  Bad calls go both ways.  I think they've even taken Shaq out of his old game by not letting him get away with as much as he did with the Lakers.  I'll give you Campbell though.....better backup than Nazr.  McDyess was also a nice piece that Detroit picked up.  I had forgotten how good he can be.  I'm still gonna put my money on S.A.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 6, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> drothgery; am I understanding this correctly; you _prefer_ prima donna basketball players?  I mean, I liked watching MJ in the 80s as much as the next guy, but I think my appreciation for the sport has become a bit more cerebral rather than visceral since then.  I _like_ watching teams that play well, not stars.




No, but they do tend to win more often. Superstar-led teams usually do better than balanced teams in the NBA. I was annoyed by this in the late 80s/early 90s, as my balanced Cavs couldn't get past the one and half-man band in Chicago.

I prefer to watch teams than run a lot, pass a lot, and shoot threes like there's no tomorrow; the superstar vs. balanced team thing isn't all that important.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 6, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No, but they do tend to win more often. Superstar-led teams usually do better than balanced teams in the NBA. I was annoyed by this in the late 80s/early 90s, as my balanced Cavs couldn't get past the one and half-man band in Chicago.
> 
> I prefer to watch teams than run a lot, pass a lot, and shoot threes like there's no tomorrow; the superstar vs. balanced team thing isn't all that important.



I'da say balanced teams and superstar teams are pretty much equal with the balances teams leading a bit more.  San Antonio has always been pretty much a balanced team.  Duncan was hyped heavily but was great only because of his guards and David Robinson were there whom were all only slightly less caliber than him.  This San Antionio team is as balanced as they come, they justh ave break out stars.  

To go back further look at the la lakers of the 90s.  Yeah you had magic, a phenomenal player, but if you look at his games and stats you see that Worthy, Kareem and Byron Scott were more than just role players.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 7, 2005)

OK, I admit I was wrong.  Wade played an admirable game and the Pistons didn't blow 'em out.  I wasn't betting on the spread though.  I still say S.A. in 5.  Any takers?


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 7, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> OK, I admit I was wrong.  Wade played an admirable game and the Pistons didn't blow 'em out.  I wasn't betting on the spread though.  I still say S.A. in 5.  Any takers?



Hehehehe you do something few ever do on the boards admit you were wrong to me .  

I got Detroit in 5.  Trust me there's no answer as Detroit has better Team offense.  

Hey did anybody notice how good Wade got coming out of locker at halftime.  Who wants to bet me he didn't get a serious injection of pain killers which he coudln't get before the game.


----------



## dagger (Jun 7, 2005)

Ugly basketball? You mean team first basketball...the Spurs are explosive on offense and play hard nosed defense...





			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> I had tried to keep an NBA thread alive (and was pulling for Phoenix once the Kings went down).
> 
> I still suspect Miami wins the east, which is better than the worst possible finals going into the playoffs (Detroit v. San Antonio, or A Fan's Guide to Ugly Basketball), but not by much.


----------



## dagger (Jun 7, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Come on now, Duncan averaged 15 boards against the Phoenix Suns, a team that does not believe in offensive rebounds as it controdicts their fast court game. Heck the suns barely know what defense is.  Thats why Manu had a field day agaisnt them.  He got every shot he wanted.  But we'll see how well he reacts when he is forced into shots.  He's going to have to master that fade away jumper like Wade has if he is going to have a chance to shoot over Prince.
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> You mean like what was done during the Sonics and Nuggets series already? They didnt let him have what ever he wanted, and they knocked him to the ground everytime.


----------



## dagger (Jun 7, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I prefer to watch teams than run a lot, pass a lot, and shoot threes like there's no tomorrow; the superstar vs. balanced team thing isn't all that important.





Like what the Spurs did to Pheonix you mean, its just that they also happen to play defense and care about things like rebounding.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 7, 2005)

dagger said:
			
		

> You mean like what was done during the Sonics and Nuggets series already? They didnt let him have what ever he wanted, and they knocked him to the ground everytime.



Sonics is a team built like Phoenix (finesse) and Denver was far too inexperienced.  NO one has had a tougher schedule in the playoffs that the Pistons.  San Antonio hasn't experienced ANY  defense so far in the playoff, look at what they're averaging piont wise and you can tell.   They havn't had any physical teams.  Rasheed has owned Duncan since they're college days, in portland and even the last two years in Detroit.  Plus now that Duncan is playing gimpy Sheed should dominate him easily.  The pistons have went through their biggest threat already, now its just cleanup time.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 7, 2005)

dagger said:
			
		

> Ugly basketball? You mean team first basketball...the Spurs are explosive on offense and play hard nosed defense...




Don't tell me that Phoenix and Sacremento play something other than team-first basketball. What they don't do is play physical defense, and that's a good thing. It leads to injuries, and slows the game down.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 7, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Don't tell me that Phoenix and Sacremento play something other than team-first basketball. What they don't do is play physical defense, and that's a good thing. It leads to injuries, and slows the game down.



That's a misconception.  True Detroit and San Antonio don't venture above 120 but their offenses can be explosive in transition and fast break opportunities.  What does "slow the game" down mean.  IF I want fast paced I'll watch hockey (yeah i know just let me have this one).  But for anyone who is a true fan of the game of basketball this shoudl be an exciting series.  YOu have two of the best chess masters in basketball going against one another with the most balanced teams in the league.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 7, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Don't tell me that Phoenix and Sacremento play something other than team-first basketball. What they don't do is play physical defense, and that's a good thing. It leads to injuries, and slows the game down.




Phoenix and Sacramento do play good team offense, but I'm not sure I understand the correlation between defense and injuries, and the actual game is the same length of time whether the score is 78-74 or 121-118 (discounting overtime of course).  One of my all-time favorite teams was the Knicks of the early 90's with Ewing, Anthony Mason, Charles Oakley, John Starks, etc...  Brutal but entertaining.  It doesn't matter HOW you win as long as you do so within the rules.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 7, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> Phoenix and Sacramento do play good team offense, but I'm not sure I understand the correlation between defense and injuries, and the actual game is the same length of time whether the score is 78-74 or 121-118 (discounting overtime of course).  One of my all-time favorite teams was the Knicks of the early 90's with Ewing, Anthony Mason, Charles Oakley, John Starks, etc...  Brutal but entertaining.  It doesn't matter HOW you win as long as you do so within the rules.



I liked those Knicks too.  Before all these "rules" basketball was more of a physical sport than it is now (even though it still is quite a physical sport).  Indiana had a beefy front line about then two with the two Davis's and the floppy Reggie Miller.  Of course now the game is changing more and more to gear teams to play less defense and more offense.  I won't be surprised if they restrict the zoning in the lead and place more emphasis on touch files.


----------



## Mista Collins (Jun 9, 2005)

I am so glad the Pistons dropped the Heat. And I think they will do the same to the Spurs. But this time in only 6 games.

Detroit is too strong defensively for the Spurs (even though the Spur's have some great offensive variety) and I don't think the Spurs are strong enough defensively to handle Detroit's starting 5 (and some of their bench). The only thing that might be a problem is the home court advantage, but Detroit can overcome that as proven by the Eastern Conference Finals.

Detroit wins series 4-2.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 9, 2005)

Detroit has a way of winning on the road in the playoffs.  Detroit's games ride on Chauncy.  IF he leads right and watches his shots they will win.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 9, 2005)

Celtics vs. Lakers, Isiah...we are a bunch of grognards...

*Kangrunder*, *Loki* is right, both the Spurs and the Pistons are focused on the fundamentals...so you should watch...not so sure how much of the rest of America will


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 9, 2005)

It's a pure basketball fans dream.  I know the ratings are going to be low but its going to be one of the best series in a bit.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jun 9, 2005)

I'll have to give it a look.

My main problem with the NBA is pretty much the same problem I have with baseball.  There is no accountability for the players.  Spewell can choke his coach and isn't kicked out of the league and has charges brought up on him?  Barry Bonds can be the focus of a big steriod investigation and he's not the first guy tested?  It makes me sick.  The only reason why I even still watch baseball is that it's been my favorite sport as long as I can remember.  Even then, I go to more independent league games than MLB games nowadays.  

Kane


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 9, 2005)

This will be a great series, I'm really looking forward to it. Detroit was lucky to get past the Heat (thank God they did!), and barring injury I don't think they'll get lucky twice. Still, they are a damn good team.

Spurs 4-3, in the best finals series in a decade.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 9, 2005)

Just to go on record once again before the series starts.  Spurs in 5.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 9, 2005)

It's no surprise that I'm saying Spurs in 4 or 5, in a string of 95-85 wins that make you wonder if this is the same team that was scoring 120 points against Phoenix a few weeks ago.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 9, 2005)

::cough cough:: Detroit in six ::cough cough


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 10, 2005)

Looks like Dr. J picked the Spurs, and Clyde the Glide wouldn't commit.  Funny!


----------



## drothgery (Jun 10, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> It's no surprise that I'm saying Spurs in 4 or 5, in a string of 95-85 wins that make you wonder if this is the same team that was scoring 120 points against Phoenix a few weeks ago.




Err, make that 85-70 wins. And that was ugly basketball, except for the little stretch where San Antonio pulled away in the fourth quarter. I guess that "anything you can do, we can do better" thing works for the Spurs, but it's not fun to watch.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 10, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> ::cough cough:: Detroit in six ::cough cough




I'm waiting for excuses....

Duncan did what he needed to do vs. Sheed.  Prince didn't shut down Manu.  Detroit has no offense.  etc...


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 10, 2005)

Billups was the only one really working, it seemed.  Sheed was left out in the cold a bit without the opportunity that the Pistons usually give him to shine.  

Detroit is good about getting their heads back on straight, working like crazy, and making up lost ground, though.  Game 2 is going to be a very different game, I think.  I still think it could go either way.

I will predict, and I've always believed so, that it will go the full seven games, though.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 10, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for excuses....
> 
> Duncan did what he needed to do vs. Sheed.  Prince didn't shut down Manu.  Detroit has no offense.  etc...



Cough Cough Detroit ... still in six.  No one said it was going to be an easy series and you'll get no excuses on my part.  It was a tale of two halfs.  They did a great job the first half and sucked up the second half.  Detroit will pull game 2, then wen 2 in Detroit and another in san antonio before its all over in game six.  Detroit will finally get some needed rest until Sunday's game.  Winning that game 7 took alot out of them.  Heck, Hamilton burned Bowen all night his shot just wasn't hitting.  Sheed did a pretty good job on Duncan.  Mano just got off in the second half.  Man,  most of that stuff he did you can't even block "though he did charge a couple of times but no complaints on me".  It'll be a differernt game Sunday.  

Detroit 85, San Antonio 77


----------



## drothgery (Jun 10, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Cough Cough Detroit ... still in six.  No one said it was going to be an easy series and you'll get no excuses on my part.  It was a tale of two halfs.  They did a great job the first half and sucked up the second half.




You did watch the game, right? Detroit did great for about five minutes at the start of the first quarter, the Spurs had a little spurt get it close at the end of the first, then it was pretty much an even game with San Antonio slowly pulling ahead in the second and third quarters, and then the Spurs took control of the game in the fourth.

If Detroit got ahead early because San Antonio was rusty after not playing for a week, it's going to be a very short series, and last night's game will turn out to be the closest one. If Detroit got tired late due to jet lag, their thinner bench means they're likely to do that throughout the series.

San Antonio. Still in four or five.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 10, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> You did watch the game, right? Detroit did great for about five minutes at the start of the first quarter, the Spurs had a little spurt get it close the game at the end of the first, then it was pretty much an even game with San Antonio slowly pulling ahead in the second and third quarters, and then the Spurs took control of the game in the fourth.
> 
> If Detroit got ahead early because San Antonio was rusty after not playing for a week, it's going to be a very short series, and last night's game will turn out to be the closest one. If Detroit got tired late due to jet lag, their thinner bench means they're likely to do that throughout the series.
> 
> San Antonio. Still in four or five.



5 minutes... Detroit led at half time??? I think we were watching two different games.  Mino was flailing and losing the ball and Parker was once again lost somewhere.  Thsi was an analysys game for Detroit, now larry brown has the right plan drawn up and we're going to see a complete game from the Pistons.  I guaransheed it.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 10, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> You did watch the game, right? Detroit did great for about five minutes at the start of the first quarter, the Spurs had a little spurt get it close at the end of the first, then it was pretty much an even game with San Antonio slowly pulling ahead in the second and third quarters, and then the Spurs took control of the game in the fourth.



Now it's my turn to ask if you did watch the game.  Detroit commanded the first quarter easily, and San Antonio had to claw to even it up at the half.  It was still a toss-up who would win through the third quarter IMO, and it wasn't until the fourth quarter that Detroit seemed to suddenly give up, or get tired, or something.

Like I said, Detroit has a long history of coming back from this type of situation, though, and really focusing and working like hardly any other team in the league.  If you think this will be a short series and this will be the closest game, you haven't watched much of Detroit over the last two years.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 10, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Now it's my turn to ask if you did watch the game.  Detroit commanded the first quarter easily, and San Antonio had to claw to even it up at the half.  It was still a toss-up who would win through the third quarter IMO, and it wasn't until the fourth quarter that Detroit seemed to suddenly give up, or get tired, or something.




It seemed like Detroit had command of the first quarter, but if you looked at the scoreboard, it was 20-17 at the end of one; after Detroit got that 17-4 lead, it was two and a half quarters of San Antonio creeping back into the game (and then to a small lead), then one of the Spurs dominating.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 10, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> It seemed like Detroit had command of the first quarter, but if you looked at the scoreboard, it was 20-17 at the end of one; after Detroit got that 17-4 lead, it was two and a half quarters of San Antonio creeping back into the game (and then to a small lead), then one of the Spurs dominating.



but Detroit still pretty much dominated the first half according to their game.  Hamlitons shot was off this game ad Sheed got into smoe stupid file trouble early in the third.  If sheed stays out of foul trouble and off the bench they win.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 10, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> but Detroit still pretty much dominated the first half according to their game.  Hamlitons shot was off this game ad Sheed got into smoe stupid file trouble early in the third.  If sheed stays out of foul trouble and off the bench they win.




Thinking you're "playing your game" against San Antonio when the game's getting closer and closer is a foolish conceit. Ask the Suns about this one.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 10, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> but Detroit still pretty much dominated the first half according to their game.  Hamlitons shot was off this game ad Sheed got into smoe stupid file trouble early in the third.  If sheed stays out of foul trouble and off the bench they win.




Hamilton's shot was off because Bowen made it so.  Sheed is often in foul trouble including the T-kind.  Like it or not, Duncan will get the benefit of the doubt from the refs when either Wallace guards him.  And where was Big Ben?  When Larry Brown started forcing the ball into him late it threw off their whole offense (what little they had).


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 10, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> Hamilton's shot was off because Bowen made it so.  Sheed is often in foul trouble including the T-kind.  Like it or not, Duncan will get the benefit of the doubt from the refs when either Wallace guards him.  And where was Big Ben?  When Larry Brown started forcing the ball into him late it threw off their whole offense (what little they had).



I'm positive we watched a different game.  Bowen was always two steps behind .  I do think Hamilton had to work harder than the last series, but not as hard as the Indiana series.  Bowen kept bobblnig into screens, missing his assignment and getting late back on defense.  Hamilton missed a bunch of open looks and layups


----------



## drothgery (Jun 13, 2005)

No more equivicating here. 

After another game the Spurs completely dominated except for one five-minute stretch at the start of a quarter (the 4th tonight), I'm getting rid of the borderline prediction.

Spurs in 4.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 13, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No more equivicating here.
> 
> After another game the Spurs completely dominated except for one five-minute stretch at the start of a quarter (the 4th tonight), I'm getting rid of the borderline prediction.
> 
> Spurs in 4.



yeah yeah yeah.  I didn't even see the game because i was in chicago, in any case.  Detroit still in six


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 13, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No more equivicating here.
> 
> After another game the Spurs completely dominated except for one five-minute stretch at the start of a quarter (the 4th tonight), I'm getting rid of the borderline prediction.
> 
> Spurs in 4.



Yeah, the Pistons have been surprisingly flat-footed and unfocused this series.  I wasn't completely surprised by it the first game, but I'm surprised they've made such a poor showing again.  I dunno.  It's hard to pick them to win anymore, unfortunately.  I still think they'll get a game or two in, but I'm not even sure they'll make it to seven games anymore after this.

I do think they've got a better chance to win the next two, though.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 13, 2005)

NO excuses from what i read they creamed them. I still think the pistons cna rebound but they are going to have to forget about the miami series and focus.  Its like the hunger is drained.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 14, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> NO excuses




I respect a guy with no excuses.....but Detroit is not excused for the way they have played.  Like I said from the beginning, S.A. in 5, but tonight's game should be really interesting regardless of what else happens.  If the Pistons don't come out gangbusters they're doomed (well, they're doomed anyway).  We'll see what the Spurs are made of tonight.  If I had to bet against 'em one game it'd be this one.  

On a side note, any thoughts on Phil Jackson rejoining the Lakers?  I'm kinda disappointed cuz I want to respect Jackson but I simply can't stand Kobe (and I hate the Lakers, and LA for that matter).  There's gotta be something more to this.  Granted, if you want to run a triangle offense, Kobe's the guy to build around.  LA doesn't have the big guy anymore which is OK for the triangle.  There's just something that doesn't feel right about this.  Can't put my finger on it.  I'm thinking the Lakers will unload everybody (Odom, Butler, etc...) to get a guy like Kevin Garnett (an uber Scottie Pippin so to speak).  Mihm is a decent piece in the triangle.  Anyway, Michael Jackson trial ends, Phil-Kobe show starts.....what's new?


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 15, 2005)

Well, that's the Pistons I was kinda expecting in game 2.  I don't know what they were waiting for.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> I respect a guy with no excuses.....but Detroit is not excused for the way they have played.  Like I said from the beginning, S.A. in 5, but tonight's game should be really interesting regardless of what else happens.  If the Pistons don't come out gangbusters they're doomed (well, they're doomed anyway).  We'll see what the Spurs are made of tonight.  If I had to bet against 'em one game it'd be this one.
> 
> On a side note, any thoughts on Phil Jackson rejoining the Lakers?  I'm kinda disappointed cuz I want to respect Jackson but I simply can't stand Kobe (and I hate the Lakers, and LA for that matter).  There's gotta be something more to this.  Granted, if you want to run a triangle offense, Kobe's the guy to build around.  LA doesn't have the big guy anymore which is OK for the triangle.  There's just something that doesn't feel right about this.  Can't put my finger on it.  I'm thinking the Lakers will unload everybody (Odom, Butler, etc...) to get a guy like Kevin Garnett (an uber Scottie Pippin so to speak).  Mihm is a decent piece in the triangle.  Anyway, Michael Jackson trial ends, Phil-Kobe show starts.....what's new?



Cough cough --- Detroit Still in six. 

It was a good game and it showed that when detroit plays with energy they can beat san antonio on any single day.  They are more phsyical and can play harder defense.  (Though san antonion is a tad more stratigic).  I hope we show that energy thursday and tie this series up so i can feel more comfortable coming on these boards .


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, that's the Pistons I was kinda expecting in game 2.  I don't know what they were waiting for.



Apparently they were waiting for Ben Wallace's wife to threaten to starve him


----------



## drothgery (Jun 16, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Cough cough --- Detroit Still in six.
> 
> It was a good game and it showed that when detroit plays with energy they can beat san antonio on any single day.  They are more phsyical and can play harder defense.  (Though san antonion is a tad more stratigic).  I hope we show that energy thursday and tie this series up so i can feel more comfortable coming on these boards .




Yes, if you knock Manu out of the game for a quarter, that will help (What was that about physical defense not leading to more injuries again? Wade last round, Manu this round ...).

There's no way the Pistons win 4 straight, and it's unlikely they'll win another game.
San Antonio in 5.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Yes, if you knock Manu out of the game for a quarter, that will help (What was that about physical defense not leading to more injuries again? Wade last round, Manu this round ...).
> 
> There's no way the Pistons win 4 straight, and it's unlikely they'll win another game.
> San Antonio in 5.



I thought you had gone missing I was about to call for an amber alert .   Let's remember that Manu was kept practically scoreless the first game.  Also both Manu's and Wade's injuries happened away from the ball with no one near him (wade) and incidental contact (manu).  Detroit's energy and physical defense wears on San Antonio and they just arn't conditioned to take that kind of wear and tear.  Its not hte game its their conditioning.  Wade was Scrawny and they don't play physical in Argentina.  

Detroit, still in six.  San Antonio choked last year by losing 4 straight and I expect them to lose all three in Detroit and Detroit to steal the sixth game in San Antonio.  Teh Fro is loose.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 16, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I thought you had gone missing I was about to call for an amber alert .




I play D&D on Tuesday nights, so I didn't see game 3. Hence, less commentary from this quarter.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Detroit, still in six.  San Antonio choked last year by losing 4 straight ....




... to the Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers, who got in the heads of every other team in the West. Sacremento, Dallas, Minnesota, and San Antonio were better than the Lakers (and the Pistons) last year; they just got Zen-mastered in the playoffs. Detroit's just not that intimidating.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Teh Fro is loose.




The next time Ben Wallace has two consecutive good offensive games in the playoffs will be the first.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I play D&D on Tuesday nights, so I didn't see game 3. Hence, less commentary from this quarter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I missed ya  

Let's remember that last year those same Shaq/ Kobe/ Phil lakers lost to Detroit.  choking isn't about intimidation as much as its about stepping up.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 16, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I missed ya
> 
> Let's remember that last year those same Shaq/ Kobe/ Phil lakers lost to Detroit.  choking isn't about intimidation as much as its about stepping up.




The thing was everyone out west had a long history of losing to the Lakers in the playoffs. It's hard to get over something like that. As soon as the Lakers ran into someone who wasn't overawed by history, they got stomped. But if it weren't for that history, the Lakers would have gone down earlier (and the West champ would have beat the Pistons).


----------



## drothgery (Jun 17, 2005)

Ick. If the refs acted the same on Tuesday as they did tonight, it's no wonder the Pistons won handily. But that's not basketball.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 17, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Ick. If the refs acted the same on Tuesday as they did tonight, it's no wonder the Pistons won handily. But that's not basketball.



Now whose complaining about the refs.  If you look at the fouls the pistons shot 24 ft and the spurs 23 ... so i dont think we can use the refs as an escuse this time.  The Spurs again looked intimidated and out of energy.   When I play basketball at the gym, if the game is uptempo and physical i got to switch my game to physical.  Finals basketball is fast paced and the refs are finall ycalling it like it should, fewer fouls so that the game is more uptempo.  

IN any case you might as well cut and paste what you wrote after the last loss  .  Detroit still in 6 .. no more coughing Im over my cold.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 17, 2005)

The Pistons were in top form. Gorgeous defensive rotations. Amazing offensive execution. Lindsey Hunter's shot was on spot tonight, and Ben Wallace was a monster on the boards.  The Pistons set a record  for least turnovers in Finals game. 

Drothgery, could you please explain why you think the way the Pistons play is bad for the game? To be honest, it bothers me when people throw around 'That's ugly basketball' without actually explaining what it is that makes strong physical defense so ugly. Teams like Detroit, Indiana, San Antonio, Miami and Chicago are a joy to watch IMO if you pay attention to movement away from the ball. The amount of effort these teams put out on both sides of the court is very commendable, and I'm actually entertained by these teams. While all of these teams play outstanding defense, they also acheive greatness through solid offensive execution. Frankly, for the first time in a long time I'm excited to watch professional basketball.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 17, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Ick. If the refs acted the same on Tuesday as they did tonight, it's no wonder the Pistons won handily. But that's not basketball.



Huh?  What the heck do you consider to be basketball?  To me, _that_ is good basketball -- the star player driven style of teams like the Lakers -- to me, that's not basketball.

To be honest, it seems like you're making excuses for why your disparaging predictions about the Pistons aren't coming true.  I never understood why you were so quick to discount them in the first place, or why after they start winning games again, you are so quick to discount it as vagaries of the ref's, or some other external factor.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 17, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Detroit still in 6 .. no more coughing Im over my cold.




I think you gave it to me....cough...Spurs still win it all...cough

I predicted it in 5.  Ain't gonna happen.  Detroit in 6?  Still possible but unlikely.  I just wish the games were closer.  Enough already with these blowouts.

I'm not one to complain about refs.  Thought the game was called pretty evenly.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 17, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> I think you gave it to me....cough...Spurs still win it all...cough
> 
> I predicted it in 5.  Ain't gonna happen.  Detroit in 6?  Still possible but unlikely.  I just wish the games were closer.  Enough already with these blowouts.
> 
> I'm not one to complain about refs.  Thought the game was called pretty evenly.



I think someone said it best earlier when they described this series as a game of chess.  The blow outs down't surprise me.  In Chess you go back and forth testing wits until your opponent makes a mistake.  ONce taht mistake is made it becomes you dominating him until you win.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 17, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> I predicted it in 5.  Ain't gonna happen.  Detroit in 6?  Still possible but unlikely.  I just wish the games were closer.  Enough already with these blowouts.



Yeah, but you never know which team will have the blow-out!

I'm still hopeful that San Antonio will collectively get their heads back on, and we can have some individual games that are closer though.


----------



## Krug (Jun 17, 2005)

Well at least the TV stations should be happy that it looks like it's going to go to 6-7 games, to make up for the poor ratings.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Huh?  What the heck do you consider to be basketball?  To me, _that_ is good basketball -- the star player driven style of teams like the Lakers -- to me, that's not basketball.
> 
> To be honest, it seems like you're making excuses for why your disparaging predictions about the Pistons aren't coming true.  I never understood why you were so quick to discount them in the first place, or why after they start winning games again, you are so quick to discount it as vagaries of the ref's, or some other external factor.




I like up-tempo basketball, and don't think it's supposed to be a contact sport.

The two games that were tightly called, San Antonio won handily (especially game 2). I didn't see game 3, but if it was called like game 4, where there seemed to be a "no blood, no foul" rule in effect, it's really hard for anyone else to get down to the Pistons' level.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 17, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I like up-tempo basketball, and don't think it's supposed to be a contact sport.
> 
> The two games that were tightly called, San Antonio won handily (especially game 2). I didn't see game 3, but if it was called like game 4, where there seemed to be a "no blood, no foul" rule in effect, it's really hard for anyone else to get down to the Pistons' level.



Basketball is at times more of a contact sport than football.  Have you ever played real basketball before?  I played in H.S.  and you come home brused and broken a lot.  I play at the gym and even pick up games has its scratches and nicks.  There have been the same amount of fouls called in all four games.   I believe now though the refs are not calling that pitty patty stuff they were before.  Those ghost fouls and touch fouls.  That's how basketball is suppose to be.  This isn't croquet or golf.  This is 10 grown men mixing it up to put a basket in the hoop.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 17, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I like up-tempo basketball, and don't think it's supposed to be a contact sport.



Well, yeah, that's why fouls are called.  If you get up-tempo basketball, the incidence of fouls goes up too.


			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> The two games that were tightly called, San Antonio won handily (especially game 2). I didn't see game 3, but if it was called like game 4, where there seemed to be a "no blood, no foul" rule in effect, it's really hard for anyone else to get down to the Pistons' level.



See, that's where you lose me.  That sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me.  "Detroit was cheating -- that's why they won!"


----------



## loki44 (Jun 20, 2005)

Finally a close game.  You had to figure Horry was going to have one of those finishes this series.  Great stuff.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 20, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> Finally a close game.  You had to figure Horry was going to have one of those finishes this series.  Great stuff.



Yeah congrats on this game to san antonion.  I was a little miffed that Detroit left HOrry wide open in the final seconds, then hamilton tried to win the game on his own instead of dishing it to an open Tayshun.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 20, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> This is 10 grown men mixing it up to put a basket in the hoop.




I thought they were trying to put the ball in the rock?


----------



## drothgery (Jun 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> See, that's where you lose me.  That sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me.  "Detroit was cheating -- that's why they won!"




It's not really "Detroit was cheating" so much as different teams of NBA officials have wildly different standards on what is or is not a foul (despite this, the NBA is a model of consistency compared to the international game) and they've almost all internalized the crazy notion that more contact should be allowed in the playoffs and/or late in games.

In this series, if a lot of contact is allowed (and the game's called the same way on both ends, which almost always happens -- NBA refs may make mistakes, but they don't tend to favor one team or another) it favors Detroit; if very little contact is allowed, it favors San Antonio. In my opinion, the refs allowed way too much contact in game 4.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 20, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Yeah congrats on this game to san antonion.  I was a little miffed that Detroit left HOrry wide open in the final seconds, then hamilton tried to win the game on his own instead of dishing it to an open Tayshun.




Of course, if Duncan had hit more than one free throw in the fourth quarter, it wouldn't've mattered.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 20, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Of course, if Duncan had hit more than one free throw in the fourth quarter, it wouldn't've mattered.



If a lot of things had happened differently for both teams it wouldn't have mattered.  Still, Duncan's free throw record in that game was almost embarrassing.  I wonder what happened to him?


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 21, 2005)

I've kind of followed the "back and forth" on the officiating in this thread.  I'll pick my spots to add commentary.

BACKGROUND: I played high school basketball (I dropped off our varsity team my senior year to take college math & physics courses, and that was the year our varsity team lost the California state championship game - I only mention this to note that I played against some high-level high school players - while I was a scrub, a couple of my teammates were all-state selections and they were the guys I went against in practice every day).  I coached high school basketball part-time while in college.  I've refereed for years.  I still play rec league ball.  So I like to think I know a *little* about the game.   Here goes...


> DONTADOW
> Basketball is at times more of a contact sport than football. Have you ever played real basketball before? I played in H.S. and you come home brused and broken a lot. I play at the gym and even pick up games has its scratches and nicks.



This is true... and it shouldn't be.  Basketball, when played by the rules, is a *non-contact sport*.  The problem is that officiating in basketball at all levels is horrific, because referees watch (and emulate) NBA referees, where contact is not only allowed, but in many ways encouraged.

The single elementary rule of officiating a basketball game is simple to understand: if there is contact at any point other than on the ball itself, the person initiating contact has committed a foul.  If you understand that single, fundamental rule, nearly every foul call in the game naturally "falls out of it."

The block/charge call?  Whichever moved to a point where the other player was physically unable to avoid the contact "initiated" the contact, and is therefore guilty of the foul.  If I move into position after you leave your feet and contact occurs, you were physically unable to avoid the contact, and thus I am guilty of blocking.  If I move into a position before you leave your feet (i.e., you can step in another direction) and contact occurs, you are guilty of a charge.  If we are running and I am moving parallel to you and you suddenly jump into me, that's a foul on you because my original motion was legal (I was not creating contact) and I had no opportunity to avoid the contact (although you never see it called this way).  And so on, and so on.

Watching these finals is painful to me because I see this fundamental rule of officiating ignored so often.  

Watch Chauncey Billups as he dribbles the ball over the timeline.  Tony Parker waits for him at the top of the three point arc, standing still.  Billups gallops up with his dribble, plants his shoulder into Parker, and bumps him back two feet.  That is an offensive foul on Billups.  

Watch Richard Hamilton race around screens.  See Bruce Bowen bump him when he changes directions.  Watch them grab at each other and slap hands away.  That's a foul on Bowen.

Watch Tayshawn Prince chest-bump Manu Ginobili as he dribbles along the perimeter to keep him from "turning the corner."  That's a foul on Prince.

Watch Tim Duncan take an entry pass into the post, and do a couple of power dribbles, putting his butt and/or shoulder into one of the Wallaces.  That's an offensve foul on Duncan.

Now of course, I'll be the first to tell you that it's not just these two teams... it's basically every team in the NBA on every possession of every single game.  And why do these players do this?  *Because the officials allow them to.*  One of the most assinine statements I keep hearing is that "players need to adjust to the way the officials are calling the game."  Why?  Shouldn't the officials be more or less impartial and every official call every game nearly the exact same way (I understand that angles have a little something to do with this, and not every official has exactly the same angle on every play, but you get the idea)?

If the officials called all contact (which is, incidentally, how the rules are written), instead of only calling contact when they THINK it gives a player an advantage (the way the rules are currently enforced), you would get rid of the inconsistency in refereeing (because different referees have different perspectives on what gives a player an advantage).

I can just hear the screams now... "but you're taking away the ability to play defense!"  No, I'm not.  If the rules are enforced correctly, a lot of the contact offensive players now rely on to "get space" would be correctly labelled "offensive fouls" and offensive players wouldn't have as much of an advantage as you might think at first blush.  Again, the question is not "was the defender moving" but rather, "given his motion one step ago, was it physically impossible for the defender to avoid the contact from the offensive player?"  If the offensive player dribbles into you, that's an offensive foul.

What kind of defense can you play in such situations?  Today we tend to call it "position defense" - that is, you anticipate where the offensive player wants to go and you make sure you get there first.  If he moves you off that spot, it's a foul on him.  In theory, you would give Earl Boykins a chance to hold off Shaq in the low post - because if Boykins gets to a spot first, Shaq has to go AROUND (not through) or it's a foul.  This sort of officiating rewards defenders who move their feet and anticipate where the offensive player is going.

But most importantly, if you force the referees to call a foul *every* time there is contact, you get consistent officiating.  You'll see a lot less of offensive players "trying to draw contact" because they'll be afraid of being tagged as the initiator of the contact.  You'll see a lot less bumping and clutching and grabbing because you'll get called for everything.

Over the long haul, it means your body will be subject to a lot less stress, and you'll be able to play a lot longer.  If it's consistent, the players will adapt.

I hear a lot about "Detroit/San Antonio playing the right way" - maybe they do have the team concept down, but to me, "playing the right way" means getting through a game with zero personal fouls that you didn't TRY to commit (e.g., stop the clock, prevent a layup, etc.).  It doesn't JUST mean playing "unselfish" basketball, it means playing basketball utterly and completely by the rules - which means *no* fouls except "strategic" fouls (in the situations mentioned above).

As a "big guy" I can bang in the post when I play with just about anybody.  But in my 15 or so years of playing basketball, I have only been called for three fouls that I didn't deliberately choose to commit in order to save a layup or stop the clock (and I remember all three).  Yes, I actually play that clean (and in high school, before my knee and ankle got blown out, was a defensive stopper against anyone from guards to centers).  I've played an entire game without fouling out after picking up four personal fouls by the end of the first quarter - without changing the way I play.  I am not nearly as talented as these NBA players... if I can do it, surely they can do it.

*sighs* Sorry, rant over.  This isn't an attack on Detroit and San Antonio, BTW - *they play exactly as they should given the current state of officiating*.  I just happen to think the officiating is so piss-poor due to a lack of fundamental understanding of the game of basketball on the part of the referees that it bugs me (referees will brag that 95%+ of the fouls they call are correct on video review - that's great, but how many times, on video review, did they mistakenly "non-call" what should have been a foul?  Well, they don't like to even look at that, so they don't have an answer - but when I watch game tape, it usually comes out to at least three obvious non-calls for every whistle, which means their officiating is not 95%+ correct but rather about 25% correct).

All that said, and to get this back on topic, I think San Antonio will win tonight.  I picked the Spurs in six before the series started (ask my wife) and I'll be honest, I was sweating bullets after Games 3 and 4 that I'd be wrong.  And all through Game 5, I was nervous.

One final question - what is up with Rip Hamilton on the final play of Game 5?  Grab the inbound pass, throw a shoulder into Parker, throw an elbow in his face, travel (two-footed jump followed by another two-footed jump) while throwing yet ANOTHER elbow into Parker's face, then looking at the referees incredulously for not calling a foul on Parker.  I mean, what is he going to say, "didn't you see him viciously hit my elbow with his face - twice?" 

--The Sigil


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 22, 2005)

The Sigil, you're giving Edena_of_Neith a run for his money on lengthy posts.  

I do disagree with you on one point -- that the refs are letting fouls slip because they don't understand the rules.  Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think they understand they perfectly well, but they also understand what the audience in general wants to see, and a lot of foul-calling is not it.

Anyway, I agree -- I don't know what the deal with Hamilton was at the end of game 5 -- that was a honeheaded play, and it certainly cost Detroit the chance to pull a win out of the game.

And now my prediction has come true -- we move into game 7 on Thursday.  Because I didn't make a prediction about who would win, I should probably shut my mouth and count myself lucky to have been right so far, but I'm gonna go ahead and pick Detroit to win on Thursday.  I think for the last four games they've played better than San Antonio, and SA was lucky to pull out a win on game 5.  You can't count on luck to strike again right when you need it, and I think game 6 was the proof of that.  Although a closer game (until the end) than the earlier blow-outs, I still think Detroit pretty much had the edge the entire game.

As Dan Wetzel -- sports writer for Yahoo! said, "Here is the Detroit Pistons' record over the last three seasons when facing playoff elimination: 8-1. Here is their record in the last 10 games in which they could eliminate a playoff opponent: 10-0.  That's stone cold savage."


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The Sigil, you're giving Edena_of_Neith a run for his money on lengthy posts.
> 
> I do disagree with you on one point -- that the refs are letting fouls slip because they don't understand the rules.  Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think they understand they perfectly well, but they also understand what the audience in general wants to see, and a lot of foul-calling is not it.
> 
> ...





I don't think it has anything to do with them not understanding the rules, the NBA is in the business of making money not techincally sound basketball games.  Like you said, if they called it like it was suppose to be we'd have whistles blown every minute and guys would play off each other like nfl players after 5 yards.  That would slow the game down and may present drodgy games with less excitiment which will turn off the casual basketball fan and thus loose valuable advertising revenue.  

By the way I've enjoyed your batman debate on the other thread Sigil. 

The game's going one longer than  i expected but i expect the pistons to wrap this up.  This is a one game superbowl played on the opposing home court.  The pistons are 10 -0 in closeout games and have experience with hadling the pressure of big game 7s.  Detroit needs to run off of this conifence and continue to feed the ball quicker to hamilton off the curl.  They also need to keep Lindsey on Manu.  

 Parker, as I said earlier, disappears under pressure and did so last night, game 5, and game 4.  For SA to win they will need HOrry to step up big as no one else off the bench I see as taking on that mantle.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 22, 2005)

My 7-game prediction came true, we're manly men for that.  The home team domination didn't happen, but ah well, it was close. 

I predict San Antonio wins tomorrow. Detroit pulled this one out great, but San Antonio played about as bad as they could on their home turf. They're experienced, and more importantly, they're much more consistent than Detroit. Detroit is volatile, and I'm not sure they can maintain their composure tomorrow if some calls go against them early (hell, they'll *imagine* calls not going against them if they have to).

San Antonio 84, Detroit 79.

Spurs are the NBA Champions, baby!


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 22, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> My 7-game prediction came true, we're manly men for that.  The home team domination didn't happen, but ah well, it was close.
> 
> I predict San Antonio wins tomorrow. Detroit pulled this one out great, but San Antonio played about as bad as they could on their home turf. They're experienced, and more importantly, they're much more consistent than Detroit. Detroit is volatile, and I'm not sure they can maintain their composure tomorrow if some calls go against them early (hell, they'll *imagine* calls not going against them if they have to).
> 
> ...



Their not experienced at game 7s or pressure.  I think it was very common, what you saw was a clear breakdown of pressure annihlating San Antonio.  Even in game 5 the only one who came through was HOrry whom had the game 7 pressure experience.  Everyone else choked pretty much.  

I keep hearing, "SA can't play any worse".  I've been hearing that for the last 4 games.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 22, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Their not experienced at game 7s or pressure.  I think it was very common, what you saw was a clear breakdown of pressure annihlating San Antonio.  Even in game 5 the only one who came through was HOrry whom had the game 7 pressure experience.  Everyone else choked pretty much.
> 
> I keep hearing, "SA can't play any worse".  I've been hearing that for the last 4 games.



I 100% agree.  I think San Antonio got lucky on game 5, actually, not that they really outplayed Detroit.  Which suprised me somewhat.  San Antonio is a team I have a lot of respect for, and I thought they would make a better showing in this series than they have.  Even in game 5, I think Detroit largely outplayed them in most respects, despite the score at the end of overtime.

Detroit, on the other hand, has been marginalized unnecessarily for years.  Last year, it was largely considered a fluke that they won by many fans and commentators, who blame the soap opera at L.A. for paving the way for their victory.  I think this year has really proven the lie to that perception, but it's still dying hard anyway.  I think Detroit has the doggedness to pull off a game seven win still -- if anything, I think that's what Detroit is best at.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 22, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> The single elementary rule of officiating a basketball game is simple to understand: if there is contact at any point other than on the ball itself, the person initiating contact has committed a foul.  If you understand that single, fundamental rule, nearly every foul call in the game naturally "falls out of it."
> --The Sigil




Since we're throwing out our balling credentials, I too played basketball throughout high school.  I started for 4 years at a Chicago city public school.  It's a very competitive league to say the least.  I ran track in college so I never took basketball farther (not that I could've   )  I've helped coach a youth team in the Atlanta Police Athletic League for about 7 years now.  I NEVER complain about officiating.  It totally sends kids the wrong message.

Sigil, this has to be the most lawful post I've ever read!   (refreshing actually)   Where do you ref, Shangri-la?  (Oh yeah, you're from Cali)  Requiring absolutely no contact is just not realistic IMHO.  The NBA court is a relatively small, finite space in which ten freakishly built men perform at amazing levels of speed, agility and overall athleticism.  I can't even imagine a game with no physical contact.  Refs are human, not robots, so they will interpret rules in different ways.  Players SHOULD have to adjust their game based on how it's being called.  I have no problem with that at all.  It makes the game more interesting.  I don't even think the debate over how fouls are called, or not, in the NBA is the biggest problem with rules interpretation.  A foul, in essence, is a judgement call.  Sometimes I even wish the NBA had a "play on" rule like soccer.  How about enforcing things like 3-seconds, travelling, palming, etc...?  

Okay, having said that, my beef with people complaining about refs has nothing to do with how they interpret/enforce the rules as written, or not.  As far as I'm concerned the actual rules are open to debate and interpretation by individual refs despite the fact that they appear to be clearly written and defined.  My beef with people complaining about refs is when the claim is made that they favored one team over another because of $, or some sort of unspoken mandate from the NBA head offices (okay, since I've moved to Atlanta and become a fan of Georgia Tech I've been known to complain about the refs favoring Duke in one way or another, but the NCAA is another debate).  That's just crap IMHO.  

The other thing that bugs me is when people put forth that the NBA is somehow debased in it's current state because games are being called, or not, in a way that allows for "ugliness" on defense.  Gimme a break!  When George Mikan passed away recently all the anecdotal interviews I saw/heard from old-timers who knew him and his game glorified his "physical game" (translate: brutality).  Physicality in the NBA is nothing new.  What I can't stand are guys who hearken back to some "glory day" in the annals of basketball who assert that today's game is less fundamentally sound or just isn't the same game.  B.S.  Today's game is better.  The athletes are better.  The coaches are better.  The teams are better.  And it all gets better every year.

Apart from all that, didn't think it'd go this far, but the Spurs will win tomorrow.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 22, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> Since we're throwing out our balling credentials, I too played basketball throughout high school.  I started for 4 years at a Chicago city public school.  It's a very competitive league to say the least.  I ran track in college so I never took basketball farther (not that I could've   )  I've helped coach a youth team in the Atlanta Police Athletic League for about 7 years now.  I NEVER complain about officiating.  It totally sends kids the wrong message.
> 
> Sigil, this has to be the most lawful post I've ever read!   (refreshing actually)   Where do you ref, Shangri-la?  (Oh yeah, you're from Cali)  Requiring absolutely no contact is just not realistic IMHO.  The NBA court is a relatively small, finite space in which ten freakishly built men perform at amazing levels of speed, agility and overall athleticism.  I can't even imagine a game with no physical contact.  Refs are human, not robots, so they will interpret rules in different ways.  Players SHOULD have to adjust their game based on how it's being called.  I have no problem with that at all.  It makes the game more interesting.  I don't even think the debate over how fouls are called, or not, in the NBA is the biggest problem with rules interpretation.  A foul, in essence, is a judgement call.  Sometimes I even wish the NBA had a "play on" rule like soccer.  How about enforcing things like 3-seconds, travelling, palming, etc...?
> 
> ...




Just like all of the U.S. sports the game has gotten softer in the last decade or two.  People complain about the physical defense of Detroit, which is NOTHING compared to the bad boys era.  The same thing has happened with football.  Now that sports players make more money rules have been passed to keep them playing longer.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 22, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Just like all of the U.S. sports the game has gotten softer in the last decade or two.  People complain about the physical defense of Detroit, which is NOTHING compared to the bad boys era.  The same thing has happened with football.  Now that sports players make more money rules have been passed to keep them playing longer.




I agree that the Pistons of today are probably even a bit cleaner than the "Bad Boyz" of yore.  Like I said, I don't think the game has changed that much over time, apart from the fact that the players are bigger, better, and stronger.  As far as rules being created to prevent injury goes, I only see that in the NFL, not the NBA.  A guy like Jack Tatum or George Atkinson would be absolutely vilified in today's NFL.  They played within the rules of their time.  I love the NFL as much as I do the NBA but the way QB's and WR's are protected nowadays simply goes way counter to the way that I grew up with the game. I'm not complaining though.  It's a different time with diffrent realities.  Change is not necessarily bad, just different.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2005)

Just giving this a little bump in anticipation of tonight's game...


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 23, 2005)

This is the big one ... the superbowl of basketball.  I've seen so much red and blue walking around downtown today its crazy.


----------



## Elric (Jun 23, 2005)

loki44 said:
			
		

> My beef with people complaining about refs is when the claim is made that they favored one team over another because of $, or some sort of unspoken mandate from the NBA head offices (okay, since I've moved to Atlanta and become a fan of Georgia Tech I've been known to complain about the refs favoring Duke in one way or another, but the NCAA is another debate).




So the NBA is off limits but Duke is fair game?  We earn everything, especially our #1 seedings     With next year coming up, good thing you're not a Carolina fan.     I'm really excited for game 7 tonight and just hope it is a good game.  This is the first really close NBA finals in a long time.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2005)

First game 7 in --what? --eleven years?


----------



## Mr. T (Jun 24, 2005)

I pity the fool that goes for the Spurs when they know full well that the Pistons are going to win it all. This is (I think) the first time that a team has won two back to back games on an opposing team's court, when Detroit wins. 

It all comes to this.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 24, 2005)

All you Spurs hatas better rethink it.  Did you see Ginobli drive through the defense near the end there (not the very end, but a couple minutes to go)? Detroit looked like they had fenders tied to their shoes. Clutch defense that smothered the Pistons from the end of the 3rd all the way to the end. The Spurs didn't look that great most of the last 5 games, but they came through and played with the heart of champions when it really mattered most. Sometimes that's all it takes.

To the Pistons, hats off. They are a great team and *definitely* deserve their success. I was a huge fan last year and rooted for them this year too, until this series obviously. So, I was a happy basketball fan this year (except the Mavericks meltdown again  ).

Go Spurs!!!


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 24, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> All you Spurs hatas better rethink it.  Did you see Ginobli drive through the defense near the end there (not the very end, but a couple minutes to go)? Detroit looked like they had fenders tied to their shoes. Clutch defense that smothered the Pistons from the end of the 3rd all the way to the end. The Spurs didn't look that great most of the last 5 games, but they came through and played with the heart of champions when it really mattered most. Sometimes that's all it takes.
> 
> To the Pistons, hats off. They are a great team and *definitely* deserve their success. I was a huge fan last year and rooted for them this year too, until this series obviously. So, I was a happy basketball fan this year (except the Mavericks meltdown again  ).
> 
> Go Spurs!!!



Congrats.  it was a good series and the game went down to the wire.  I thought the pistons went to rasheed too late and billups turned the game around on a dumb long pass among four spurs in the early fourth quarter.  We had a chance to sit on a good lead and we blew it.  Hats off to the spurs.  

 dangit i won't get my parade.  I guess its back to work monday.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 24, 2005)

Let's hope we never see anything like this game again. This is pro basketball, with 48 minute games; both teams barely combining for 150 points is just wrong.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 24, 2005)

It really sucks when your team looses.  My phone/email address has not stopped blowing up with spurs fans.  

HEHEHE goooo Lions... man has it come to that


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 24, 2005)

I liked both teams, but I wanted the Pistons to take it... it was a pretty good series anyway.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 24, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Let's hope we never see anything like this game again. This is pro basketball, with 48 minute games; both teams barely combining for 150 points is just wrong.




I loved it, but then I love defense in all sports.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 24, 2005)

It was a painful loss, but you couldn't ask for a better opponent to lose to. Here's hoping for a rematch next year.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 24, 2005)

Campbell said:
			
		

> It was a painful loss, but you couldn't ask for a better opponent to lose to. Here's hoping for a rematch next year.



 Hear hear!


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 24, 2005)

Campbell said:
			
		

> It was a painful loss, but you couldn't ask for a better opponent to lose to. Here's hoping for a rematch next year.




Agreed! One reason I'm such a SA fan is that they're a classy team, no thugs whatsoever. I can't root for teams with thugs.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 24, 2005)

This is the nicest, most polite, and most civil sports discussion I've ever seen.    I'm used to various athletes being called names and fingers pointing at missed calls on both sides...


----------



## dagger (Jun 24, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Let's hope we never see anything like this game again. This is pro basketball, with 48 minute games; both teams barely combining for 150 points is just wrong.




Okay.. .. 



Here is to quality basketball and a quality team like the Pistons!


----------



## Campbell (Jun 24, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> This is the nicest, most polite, and most civil sports discussion I've ever seen.    I'm used to various athletes being called names and fingers pointing at missed calls on both sides...




As far as I'm concerned it's almost impossible to bicker about either team. I respect everyone involved in this series. There isn't a single Spur I have any problems with. I'll also have to tip my hat to Horry, who was awesome for San Antonio in the clutch.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 24, 2005)

Campbell said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned it's almost impossible to bicker about either team. I respect everyone involved in this series. There isn't a single Spur I have any problems with. I'll also have to tip my hat to Horry, who was awesome for San Antonio in the clutch.



 Coming from Houston, the city with which Horry won his first two titles, and the city for which Horry was very useful in the clutch, I also tip my hat to Horry.  

I did want the Pistons to win, though, because while I respect both teams, I think Detroit and the Eastern Conference still doesn't get the respect it deserves in the NBA.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 24, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Coming from Houston, the city with which Horry won his first two titles, and the city for which Horry was very useful in the clutch, I also tip my hat to Horry.
> 
> I did want the Pistons to win, though, because while I respect both teams, I think Detroit and the Eastern Conference still doesn't get the respect it deserves in the NBA.




Speaking as a Michigan resident, you wouldn't guess that the pistons are underappreciated if you've been anywhere in the state for the last month or so. It really is phenomenal how popular the Pistons are within the boundries of the state. I tried to get into the Palace to watch tonight's game, but I came a little too late. It's amazing when a team manages to seat capacity when they aren't even playing in the building.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 24, 2005)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Speaking as a Michigan resident, you wouldn't guess that the pistons are underappreciated if you've been anywhere in the state for the last month or so. It really is phenomenal how popular the Pistons are within the boundries of the state. I tried to get into the Palace to watch tonight's game, but I came a little too late. It's amazing when a team manages to seat capacity when they aren't even playing in the building.



 Yikes.  It's not surprising that a team gets more respect in its home state, though.  How many people would've considered Detroit to go all the way at the beginning of the season?  How many people outside of Michigan, that is.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Agreed! One reason I'm such a SA fan is that they're a classy team, no thugs whatsoever. I can't root for teams with thugs.



See, in Detroit, we like our thugs.  Although moreso in hockey than in basketball...


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Yikes.  It's not surprising that a team gets more respect in its home state, though.  How many people would've considered Detroit to go all the way at the beginning of the season?  How many people outside of Michigan, that is.



And that was the big problem -- Detroit was underestimated by _everyone_ until after game 6 of the finals series, when suddenly a lot of sports writers and commentators started finally picking them to win after all.  You'd think that after winning last year with the same line-up that people would think they were capable, but they made excuses for it and blew it off as a fluke.  When Detroit came back this year, they _still_ got no respect until the very end.

I like San Antonio a lot -- before I came to Detroit, I lived in Texas (although the Rockets are my team 4ever!) and my wife would love for me to find a job in San Antone and take us back (before winter hits, preferably ) but I wanted Detroit to win to shut up all the naysayers that ignored the evidence right in front of their eyes and didn't think they even had a chance to win.

Folks like drothgery who picked San Antonio to win 4-0, and then complained about it the whole time anyway, for instance.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 24, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Folks like drothgery who picked San Antonio to win 4-0, and then complained about it the whole time anyway, for instance.




The thing is, Detroit's title last year _was_ a fluke. They should never have made it past Indiana, and were very fortunate to be facing the Lakers, which matched up poorly with them. Maybe they would have done the same thing to San Antonio or Minnesota or Sacremento. But I don't think so.

And it's always going to annoy me when a team with a lot of talent, quite capable of playing a fun, up-tempo game, decides to let its opponent dictate the pace of a series. This isn't the first time I've said that I know the "anything you can do, we can do better" thing works for San Antonio, but I don't have to like it.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The thing is, Detroit's title last year _was_ a fluke.



If it was a fluke they shouldn't have come so close to winning again this year.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 24, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The thing is, Detroit's title last year _was_ a fluke. They should never have made it past Indiana, and were very fortunate to be facing the Lakers, which matched up poorly with them. Maybe they would have done the same thing to San Antonio or Minnesota or Sacremento. But I don't think so.
> 
> And it's always going to annoy me when a team with a lot of talent, quite capable of playing a fun, up-tempo game, decides to let its opponent dictate the pace of a series. This isn't the first time I've said that I know the "anything you can do, we can do better" thing works for San Antonio, but I don't have to like it.



That is the wierdest statement I hear. IT shows you the power of marketing.  This "FLuke" thing is what the L.A. Lakers marketing machine came up with to explain their playoff collapose and some media bought into it. 

  First, lets forget about this year, lets talk about last year.  they went through 3 high calibar teams including a speedy MIlwaukee, a Indiana and a star studded New jeresey team.  And beat them.  Then they went and beat L.A.  NOw, if L.A. was soooooo destructive, why didn't they lose any of their previous three series.  L.A.'s mere presence in the finals last years counters there "they couldn't win together argument".   Billups shut down the glove.  Tayshun contained Kobe and Shaq was pretty much left trying to score all by himself.  

Now, this year,  Again they went through A. philiedelphia whom has argueably the best player in the league, Indiana whom had a hot Reggie Miller and a tenacious Jermaine O'neal then to top it off Miami whom has one of the best twosomes in the league.  And don't give me the injured argument because everyone is banged up in the playoffs.  

Then after that, they play San anotonion and take them to seven games and the series isn't decided until the last two minutes.  Admit it droth, you let out a sigh of relief.  That hardly seems like the reaction of someone whom's team was playing an inferior team.  

I guess I need to see the defination of a fluke.  A fluke is, having every major player on every team they played suffer a flue and not play for the playooffs.   Detroti proved their at least the second best team in the league.  And next year, with a deeper bench, they will be back.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 24, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> If it was a fluke they shouldn't have come so close to winning again this year.




The Patriots' first Super Bowl win was a fluke. That they deservingly won two more after that (after a year where they missed the playoffs) doesn't keep their first win from being a fluke.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 24, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The Patriots' first Super Bowl win was a fluke. That they deservingly won two more after that (after a year where they missed the playoffs) doesn't keep their first win from being a fluke.



Again what's a fluke?  I mean what's your defininition. 

Webster =  A chance occurrence; an accident.

Hey look I tripped and accidently won the superbowl.  Hey look I stumbled and accidently won the NBA championship.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The Patriots' first Super Bowl win was a fluke. That they deservingly won two more after that (after a year where they missed the playoffs) doesn't keep their first win from being a fluke.



That's beside the point.  Detroit really didn't do anything differently the two years, nor did they have any significant staff or player changes.  Going to the finals two years in a row without those types of changes, winning once, and coming darn close the second time, pretty much means that it cannot be a fluke.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 24, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Hey look I stumbled and accidently won the NBA championship.




I thought I was the only one?  :\


----------



## drothgery (Jun 24, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Again what's a fluke?  I mean what's your defininition.
> 
> Webster =  A chance occurrence; an accident.
> 
> Hey look I tripped and accidently won the superbowl.  Hey look I stumbled and accidently won the NBA championship.




In sports, I think a fluke is winning a championship when by any reasonable analysis the person/team who won shouldn't have a prayer of gettng to the championship match/game/series, let alone winning (the Pats first Super Bowl-winning team was one of those, outclassed by the Rams on paper in every respect). 

Alternatively, a long string of beneficial coincidinces (each one extremely improbable) happens along the way to winning a title, I'd call it a fluke. Note that it is possible (though not likely) to be lucky two years in a row.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 24, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's beside the point.  Detroit really didn't do anything differently the two years, nor did they have any significant staff or player changes.  Going to the finals two years in a row without those types of changes, winning once, and coming darn close the second time, pretty much means that it cannot be a fluke.




Sure it can. In 2004, one string of unlikely events helped Detroit win a championship. In 2005, another string of unlikely events (starting with a brawl at midseason which killed their primary rival in their division) helped Detroit come very close to winning another one.


----------



## loki44 (Jun 24, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Again what's a fluke?  I mean what's your defininition.





A fluke is me closing my eyes and making a hole-in-one on a par 3.  Finishing 1st or 2nd overall after 105 or so games is not a fluke in any way, shape or form.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 24, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> In sports, I think a fluke is winning a championship when by any reasonable analysis the person/team who won shouldn't have a prayer of gettng to the championship match/game/series, let alone winning (the Pats first Super Bowl-winning team was one of those, outclassed by the Rams on paper in every respect).
> 
> Alternatively, a long string of beneficial coincidinces (each one extremely improbable) happens along the way to winning a title, I'd call it a fluke. Note that it is possible (though not likely) to be lucky two years in a row.



YOu got two definitions there. The first one.. Well techincally you're saying if someone beats the odds its a fluke.  If Las Vegas oddsmakers don't say it should happen then it shouldn't.

By the second definitions.  you're saying that the pats and pistons somehow won over 70 percent of their games.  That's a lot of look.


----------

