ooh ok blazers, yeah i remember that game 7 loss to the lakers, and i thought, hell, now i know how the blazers feel when the kings blew game 7 last year.... Some bad news, ESPN reports that bobby jackson has a broken left hand, he is going to be out for awhile, i am not even fazed, cause jimmy jackson and damon jones will back up bibby till bjackson comes back..

Congrats Sacramento fans. The bench was really the difference. Both teams had some cold shooting streaks but Bobby Jackson, Jim Jackson and Keon Clark came through for the Kings. I still don't understand why the Lakers don't just dump it into to Shaq and let him muscle his way to the basket. Sure, he picks up some offensive fouls but I think he only had one foul at the end of the game.

The Nets also are looking good and the playoffs are going to be intense.

Scarus

Neither the Blazers or Kings are even CLOSE to the most talented teams in NBA history. Today's league is too watered down.

Just to argue the point .... in 1982, there were 23 teams. Now there are 29 ... this means your "stars" are more spread out around the league, and you have 72 players filling out NBA rosters who would have been in the CBA in those days. That's 2 CBA scrubs PER TEAM (Or 10 in the '02 Lakers case).

I doubt any team from today could even compete with the Lakers/Celtics/Sixers of the early to mid 80's ... the Sixers '82-'83 roster included 2 of the NBA's top 50 players of all time. Next up were Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones, who should both be in the hall. The "other guy" was Andrew Toney, who only shot 50 percent from the field for his career as a guard. As a matter of fact, five of the '82 Sixers top six players shot better than 50 percent from the field that season (and 8 players overall). You don't see stats like that anymore. The Celts and Lakers were similarly (if not even more) loaded.

After yesterdays game which I missed
I just wrote off the Wakers for this season.
Do they nead Nue players around them?
I do want them to be in the playoffs this season but the way the look Memphis could be 10 point favorites against them

Sad very Sad No action Jackson

Milky

Calling the Kings or Blazers the “most talented” is over the top. The “watered down” league is one of the issues. The other is that those teams lost because all that individual “talent” did not translate into successful coordination as a team. And the underlying reason is that too many players on those teams did not have the maturity and/or the smarts to pull it together as an effective unit. That is the curse of the modern discussions of NBA “talent”: There is an emphasis on individual rather than integrative skills. But most of these dudes are too dense and self-absorbed to implement a sophisticated offensive scheme. But as long as the NBA continues to market the product successfully, nobody wants to notice the elephant sitting in the corner.

I think both teams (Sacramento and LA) sucked in last night’s game, but Sacramento will of course be formidable if they gel the way they did last year. Both teams frequently abandoned their offensive schemes in favor of all-out jungle ball.

Charley Rosen’s observations are almost always dead on target, as far as I’m concerned. (see the link provided by what’s his name). I have been a fan of the Triangle Offense for a long time, and what struck me about the Sacramento game (and the majority of the Lakers’ season, for that matter), is how frequently the Lakers’ “Sideline Triangle” collapsed. The most easy way to spot this was to watch the spacing of the players. Ideally, on half-court offense, the Lakers arrange themselves at the beginning of any play roughly like this, with all players 15 to 20 feet apart.

Also, in a functioning Triangle, there’s plenty of movement and passing. When the spacing collapses, defensive players can disrupt passing and player movement by crowding a particular area, especially that occupied by the ball handler. That seemed to happen repeatedly whenever Kobe got the ball. Rather than continue the typical passing and movement sequences, Kobe turned it into Kobe vs. the world. When he passed, it had more to do with him being blocked on his way to the basket than any typical, principled ball movement within the triangle.

If you are not paying attention to the Triangle, you come away with the impression that Kobe is the true star who showed up to play and that everyone else on the Lakers is a slacker. But if you are a Triangle purist like Rosen, you know that the Kobe show, however exciting, disrupts the rest of the team. Everyone else on the Lakers is capable of thriving within the Triangle system, as they have done in the past three seasons. But when Kobe improvises outside of the system, it forces the other players out of their rhythm and pre-determined roles.

Some of the Triangle’s advocates, like Rosen, view Kobe’s early season antics as a rebellion against Jackson, the Triangle, and his team. Witness the well-publicized recent arguments between Kobe and Tex Winter.

But Letting Kobe be Kobe, the individual superstar, has always been a part of Jackson’s scheme. I think that is one of the few things that Rosen doesn’t get. As I wrote last year on this thread, Jackson, the mindful coach, has historically given his star players a chance to hog the spotlight at times in exchange for their attention and cooperation at others. Rather than being a total control freak who demands perfection and compliance at all times, he lets players deviate from the triangle frequently. Sometimes the players deviate from the system in selfish, juvenile, costly ways, but sometimes they demonstrate to the coaches, their teammates and themselves something new that can be added to the team arsenal. This experimental, creative, inclusive, non-punishing approach allows a player like Kobe to play his sensational but immature, self-centered ball some of the time. The key is twofold: to have Kobe integrate his antics within the Triangle offense, and to strike an appropriate balance between pure Triangle time and pure Kobe time. In the three previous years, there was a time when Kobe finally acquiesced to Jackson’s larger scheme. And I think the key to this season, again, is for Kobe to back off somewhat, and return to the principles that guide the team’s offense.

The Lakers will start winning regularly again when – and if – Kobe returns to playing within the Lakers’ system most of the time. Up till now, I’ve felt confident that Kobe would end his me-first experiment in time for the team to succeed this year. And I’m still hopeful, based on past history. There's still time, but jeez...

The uglier possibility is that Kobe wants to up-end the cart. He may be unsatisfied with being second fiddle to Shaq, and he may well be sick of the Triangle, which is more sophisticated than he is. He may be sensing that Jackson is thinking about retirement, and so he may be trying to give Phil added incentive to leave at season's end. He may well want to replace the teammates who surround him, whom he has alienated repeatedly. If that is what Kobe is up to, he may win the battle but he will certainly lose the war.

Note that the best team in NBA history is/was clearly the 1970 NY Knicks. Geez, they even had a Senator on the team.

More all star appearances on Blazers 1999 team than any team in NBA history. I'm not equating talent with team success...82-83 Sixers had three great players and many OK players but nothing compared to 99 Blazers...like I said, Wells, Grant and O'Neal came off the bench....Wallace, Pippen, SMith, Stoudamire...how many more all stars should I name. They are a crappy mix of players who underachieve but talent-wise..not many teams rivals it.

Lakers are still only 5 games out of a playoff slot so it's going to be a nerve-wracking year for us Laker haters who fear the sorcery will kick in during the playoffs. Let's hope the bubble teams like Phoenix, Seattle, Houston and Utah will keep their acts together and the Clippers will get their act together...and deny the Lakers an opportunity to steal another ring from the righteously talented teams in the league.

Btw, many of you are too young to have really observed this team, but imo, the best TEAM (not the most talented) in the history of the NBA was the Trail Blazers team in the year FOLLOWING the championship year (1978?). That team went 50-10 before Walton got hurt...followed by virtually every important player on the team getting hurt before the playoffs began. They limped into the playoffs with subs and cripples and fizzled. That team (and the championship team from the preceding year) was a perfect example of team v. individual stars getting it done in the NBA. They had 2 stars (Walton and Maurice Lucas), and 10 role players who wanted to win within a system. Of course the championship team destroyed the 76ers hall of fame squad in the finals. They came out even better the following year...pure team artistry - before the mortal factors kicked in.

I saw Bill Walton play at the Sports arena for the Clippers. Event though he had foot problem, I could only tell myself, this guy must have been good as he was one damn good passer, very rare for big men. I feel ancient seeing all these postst talking about the nba in the 70's.
My best team of all time, try Ajax Amsterdam in 1971-1973 ah shit that's soccer. For NBA, I'd pick the Bulls in the year they won over 70 games. I forgot their final record but they had losses in single digit? MJ in his prime, Pippen in his prime, ok center, good shooting guards, good power forward Grant.

Superman
Great picture... "Four four four", sweeping the hated Lakers was the most fun time for me watching any NBA finals. Only thing Mo Cheeks should have passed the ball to Dr J for one final dunk in the closing seconds at the forum for game 4.

Walton was the greatest passing big man ever (including speed of light full court outlet passes to fast breakers off the defensive rebound). His teammates were attuned to his passing and superior basketball instincts and kept in constant motion without the ball to receive it for cutting layups and open jumpers. He was that most valuable of NBA commodities...he made his teammates better.

By contrast, Sabonis during his years laboring at center for a much more physically talented but stupider group of Blazers is also an excellent passer. Unfortunately, so many of his clever passes bounce off the heads and hands and asses of his baboso teammates because they are fooled as much as the defender.

1970 - 1973 NY Knicks

Guards:

Walt Frazier (all time Defense team)
Earl Monroe (scoring champ)

Center:

Willis Reed (need I say more?)

Forwards:

Dave DeBusschere, future ABA commissioner
Bill Bradley, future Senator

Scrubs:

Phil Jackson
Dave Barnett (great defense)

All starters got their uniforms retired by the Knicks.

The best Knicks team was their 1969 (pre-Earl Monroe) championship team (or was the championship acquired in 1970?). They had all those players you mentioned (except for Monroe) - I believe DICK Barnett was the other starting guard that year. They were 10 deep (including young Cazzie Russell). I agree that they were one of the most talented teams in NBA history, and since they played great intelligent team ball and great defense, they are also one of the greatest teams period.

By the time Monroe became a fixture in the early 70's, they were reeling from old age and injuries, and nowhere as good as their '69-70 predecessors. Somehow they managed to steal another championship in 1973 coming off a more or less mediocre regular season. They surprised everybody including me...and I am a Knicks fan.

Erip, by your standards, the best TEAM has to be the Celtics of the late 60s, winning their 10th and 11th championships. They had played together so long that they could practically read each others' minds. (And I hated the Celtics). (AND I hated the Knicks)

If you lined all the NBA teams ever up and had them play to the death for the eternal NBA championship, the teams from the 80's would dominate -- The Lakers, Celtics, Pistons and Sixers, in that order.

The '83 Sixers were undoubtedly a great team. For one brief, shining, flash-in-the-pan moment, they were awesome. Their cause in the finals was simplified considerably by injuries to Lakers' key players (James Worthy, Bob McAdoo, Norm Nixon). Unlike the other 3 great teams from the '80s, they did not have tremendous staying power, fizzling out the next season.

The Lakers in the '80s won half the championships, playing perennially in almost all of the championship series. They were clearly, objectively, the greatest of the greatest.

More Erip:
We had a similar discussion earlier this year about talented teams that choked (June 5, 6, NBA Archive 5!). At the time, I wrote:

"I might put the '77 76ers at the top of that all-time crash and burn list. They were incredibly deep with stars and talent, following the demise of the ABA: Julius Erving, George McGinnis, Doug Collins, Henry Bibby, Caldwell Jones, World B. Free, Darryl Dawkins, Steve Mix, Mike Dunleavy, Jellybean Bryant... They were terminated in the finals by an extremely good Blazers team that didn't have much memorable talent, besides Bill Walton and Maurice Lucas."

I'd love to see Sacramento crash and burn this year, but my guess is that they will be tough. The team that is more likely to fizzle is the Dallas Mav's, coached by Don Nelson and Dull Harris (which one is tweedle dee?)

Dogster, Sacramento's array of talent this year is overwhelming (hey, the Lakers couldn't use Jim Jackson?). There are potential problems though...Coach Adelman, too many go-to guys...witness that AMAZING 76ers team you detailed above (though that problem may be solved by having a very mature and wise Bibby running the show)...and I think perhaps their biggest potential achilles heel - Chris Webber. The guy can't keep his eye on the prize (witness his idiotic showtime behind the back pass that resulted in what could have been a critical turnover in the last couple of minutes of the Laker game last week). Going back to his Michigan days, he has rarely failed to disappoint when it mattered most. Hopefully he'll be drowned by the sea of talent he's swimming in.

I more or less agree with your assessment of the "great teams" to the degree that such an exercise is no more than great fodder for sports chat. Those '69 Knicks couldn't have competed physically with the great 80's teams (you guys ever watch the "classic" replays on cable?...how shockingly NONATHLETIC these sports icons of my childhood appear now).

However, I think they took the game to the next level with the incredible intelligence that they brought to it. A team that included Rhodes Scholar/future senator Bradley; the future ABA commissioner who was there for the merger (DeBusschere) - and do you remember that this guy was a player head coach for the Pistons just a few years into his NBA career before he came to the Knicks; Jackson (Zenmaster and head brujo for contemporary dynasties built on sorcery); Bibby (a head for coaching); Reed (GM of NJ Nets); Jerry Lucas (an addition for the '73 championship team and another cerebral jock)...and the rest who didn't build as impressive post playing career resumés, but still played with great intelligence.

I'm gratified that neither you nor anybody else has brought up the Chicago Jordanaires in this discussion...even though they had more success in the 90's than any team since the 50's/60's Celtics.

Erip, since the beginning of this thread, the Jordan/Bulls fanatics have been notoriously absent from "greatest ever" discussions here.

Much as I hated those Nicks teams, you make excellent points. I don't think the Nicks of that era had a monopoly on "incredible intelligence." Players from that era were on the whole much brainier than their modern day counterparts.

This is a cool discussion, which maybe we can continue, but I need to go get a snack in the Zona Norte...

Athos just mentioned the Bulls on 12-27-02 ... and they have popped up from time to time in this thread.

The 72-10 and 69-13 Bulls teams were undeniably great ... Jordan was in a class of his own, head and shoulders above the next best player in the league. Pippen was in his prime, scoring, passing, and most importantly, defending. Dennis Rodman was a great defender, and he was the most dominant rebounder in the league since Moses himself.

Many people brush the Bulls aside in greatest ever discussions, but Jordan's Bulls pushed the supposedly great 80's Pistons to 6 games in the '89 conference finals and 7 games in the '90 conference finals (before sweeping them in '91) ... the '96 & '97 version of the Bulls were far superior to the '89-'90 Bulls, so logic says the '96 & '97 Bulls were better than the late 80's Pistons teams. They definitely have to be considered in the top-10.

Putting the Pistons over the early 80's 76ers is just ignorance (but I see right through the attempted gibe) ... Detroit's "greatness" did not even come until the Celtics got old.

The '82-'83 Sixers were just at the tail end of their "staying power," as Moses was added as the final piece to the puzzle. They were ravaged with injuries the next year, and made the conference finals again in '85. "Staying power" was Dr. J's Sixers going to 7 conference finals in 9 years from 1977-1985.

Having former and future all-stars does not make a team great or even particularly "talented." The Blazers had a bunch of "names" who were past their prime, or had not yet reached it. Pippen, Sabonis, and Kemp were at one time great, but the Blazers version of those players were not. They might as well have been completely different guys.

If you took every player on the '99 Blazers, then took their best individual season, then combined them into one team, then yes, they would have been formidable. Unfortunately, many people confuse "names" with "talent." For the record, the '82 Sixers would have obliterated the 1999 Blazers in every way imaginable. That Sixer team has a legitimate argument for best ever ... the Blazers were and are just a bunch of misfits.

-Superman-

Charley Rosen, an ESPN analyst who knows his shit, sees Kobe's actions as sabotage of the Triangle offense and the team, as discussed previously. Whereas I believe that Kobe being Kobe has been somewhat disruptive, I also think that it is part of Jackson's plan, as I said on Dec 26 (6:30 pm). Kobe needs to and will integrate more into the Triangle as the season wears on.

I think the following, from ESPN's report on last night's victory, jibes well with my view, not Rosen's.

"Jackson said he's not talking to Bryant as much about the offense and letting Bryant do his thing. 'He's had a tremendous challenge. I'm making him do a lot more than maybe he's capable of doing inside the offense, which is to organize the offense, to get it efficiently to run, to break down pressure a lot of times,' he said. 'He's having a hard time accomplishing that every night.' Jackson said not even Michael Jordan had to run the offense for the Chicago Bulls. 'I can't fault Kobe for a lot of things. I've asked him to be more aggressive on the offensive end on top of it. He'll find his way back inside the offense as the season goes on. He knows what I want,' Jackson said.

I was glad to see this quote. Although it has been nice to see the Lakers start to fire up again, it is still evident that the team isn't really using the Triangle much. On most plays, they tended not to line up in the classic Triangle formation. Then, they took lots of well-defended, low-probability shots. Thus, the Lakers are playing contrary to the sophisticated triangle, which usually finds the open man when functioning properly.

During the last couple games against easy teams, many of the Lakers' shots went through the hoops, which was just fine. But I'm eager to see the team return to the system that has won 9 NBA titles recently. They need to win about 2/3 of their remaining games, I think.

The next couple games against Phoenix will be a good test. A normally functioning Lakers team would win both games.

The '82-'83 Sixers were reminiscent of the '71-'72 Lakers (one of my favorite teams ever). There are a few people out there who like to argue that one or the other was the best team ever, but it is easy to see why they were not. Both teams were the culmination of years of frustration, finding it difficult to get over the top against superior teams that won regularly and predictably (Celtics and Nicks; Lakers and Celtics). When the two teams in question finally won, it was more a relief for them than a celebration of greatness or dominance -- a fortuitous result of aging players finally getting the chemistry right. Although both teams remained somewhat competetive, neither had the fire to keep winning championships. One and out.

The Pistons from the late '80s were capable of taking out the Celts and Lakers (aging, on their way down) and the Bulls (young, on their way up), before themselves succumbing to age, trades, and the expansion draft. This incredibly deep team had enough juice to win 2 consecutive championships, not just one, at a time when they had to fend off great Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls teams. So I put them ahead of the Sixers for these and other reasons. Comparing the Sixers and Pistons isn't a huge issue for me - the Celtics of the '80s and of course my beloved Laker dynasty from the '80s were superior to these great but lesser teams.

The Bulls' accomplishment in the '90s was phenomenal. But it took place as the greats from the '80s inevitably faded (Magic, Bird, others), as the league expanded, as teams rosters changed radically from year to year, and as the overall quality of play took a hit. Players were becoming more physically fit, but were lacking in fundamentals relative to teams from previous years. In short, the bottom dropped out of the competition. Jordan was the only superstar left (except for perhaps Olajuwon), had a veteran team and got great coaching, and so the Bulls dominated. Would the Bulls in their prime have been competetive with the great teams of the '80s, in their primes? Possibly, as Jordan and Co. were beginning to knock at the door in the late '80s. But my educated guess is that any of the 4 great '80s teams, in their primes, would beat them.

Lets not forget to give lip service to the Celtics of the 50's and 60's. They are the greatest team ever, in the same way that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever. Neither the Celtics or Ruth would match up against modern day behemoths, most likely, but their accomplishments reign supreme.

The point is that of the few teams with a legitimate claim for best ever, that Sixers team is in there. I could present an air-tight argument, even though I don't personally think they were #1.

Again, I've rarely seen the Pistons teams in best ever discussions. I seem to remember they had a particular style of thuggery, aided by lax rule enforcement (since amended by the league). They were entertaining to watch (especially when they intimidated the Lakers out of a title), but I don't think they were particularly talented compared to the all-time teams.

Anyway, Philly had the unfortunate luck of having another all-time team in their same division, and once that was over with another one in the finals. You can probably thank Philly & Boston beating the crap out of each other for a couple of those Laker crowns, but that's how it goes.

-Superman-

brief subject change, have you guys seen that kid that plays for the Suns, Amare Stoudamire. The guy is an animal, he had 38 points and some 15 rebounds tonite against Minnesota. This guy has a chance to be a SUPERstar.

The thing about him is he's only 20, went pro straight outta high school. Most of his opportunities are coming from hustle and determination rather than the Suns running plays for him.

I think if he continues to get playing time, and doesnt wear out by the second half of the season I think he will beat out Ming for rookie of the year.

He plays the Lakers twice next week in home and home games. Hopefully he will not be intimidated by the Shaq-truck, and shows what he can do(not that they would be matched up against each other). Should be interesting

Back to your regularly scheduled Laker talk....

Here come the Blazers...winning at Sacramento and Detroit back to back is impressive...8 in a row...

They are looking good in those old-school red uniforms too. They should keep them.

-Superman-

The thing that made the ‘80s Pistons great was their depth. Daly’s genius was to get NINE highly talented players to play well together in a rotation at optimum efficiency. When the team was at its peak (’88 to ’90), the players included Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Vinnie "The Microwave" Johnson, Mark Aguirre, Bill Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman, Rick Mahorn, James Edwards, and John Salley. Because they had so many very good/great players with diverse skills, the team NEVER got tired, they NEVER had to worry about foul trouble, and they always matched up well with other teams. They could afford to be aggressive because they had so many tough dudes (Laimbeer, Mahorn, Edwards, Rodman), and they could afford to bench their best scorers when they got cold because they had so many alternate options. I’m not sure any other team in NBA history has been able to get NINE talented players to play so well together, but this fact is what made them uniquely great.

In the two seasons before they had their nine man rotation, they had an 8-man rotation featuring the incomparable Adrian Dantley, Thomas, Laimbeer, Dumars, Rodman, and various of the others. In 1986-87, this team lost to the great Boston team in the Eastern Conference finals, in an extremely close 7 game series. In 1987-1988, they beat the great Boston team in the playoffs, but lost to the great LA Lakers team, in a very close 7 game series. After they traded Dantley for Aguirre, and expanded to the nine man rotation, they dominated on offense, but even more so on defense. The “thuggery” claims were often warranted, but they took their cue from the Celtics who had a history of hacking their opponents. Subsequent rule changes had as much to do with the Celtics as the Pistons. The expansion draft, and salary problems, began to decimate the Pistons team even as they won their championships; it was impossible to keep so many excellent players together long, as all competitive NBA teams have since discovered. This was a team that could give the best Celtics and Lakers teams a run for their money, and they beat them as those teams began to decline. The Lakers needed Magic Johnson's ability to involve everyone else consistently in order to beat them, as well as a whole lotta oxygen. In their prime, the Pistons team could beat the full-force, soon-to-be great Bulls consistently in the playoffs (1989, 1990), but as they lost players, and age took its toll, they dominated most teams but could not defeat the ascending Bulls (1991). By ’92 they were done.

The aging ’83 Sixers could not have kept up with them.

i watched more baskets when those pistons were good. i'm not so sure that daly was a genius. i think he could be good, but why did that team hold the ball for 23 seconds and keep the score down and claim to be great defensively. it is almost stupid to argue(most say i qualify as stupid) his style of play when he is winning championships.

i think he held isiah thomas back. i saw this guy throw a fricking bounce pass alley oop from midcourt in an allstar game. isiah will be remebered as a great guard, but the lord only knows how we would remember him if he was allowed to "have fun". hell bob knight gave him more freedom than chuck daly.

now that team had great perimeter shooters dumars and vinnie johnson--lambier was a great shooting center. adrian dantley could play facing the basket or back in like barkley. mahorn was a bruising rebounder and defender and rodman was the great rebounder and very accurate when he did shoot. i can't help but thinking this team would have been fun to watch if they played a run and gun offense. they sure had the shooters and rebounders.

i truely think they played against their abilities. the fact that they won despite the way they were forced to play speaks volumes about their collective character and desire to compete. obviously they were not selfish, and understood the team concept.

Being from Detroit and owning season tickets to the Pistons in the early 80's (I relocated to SoCal in 1984) I feel qualified on the Piston great teams of the late 80's.
Firstly, let me congratulate the Piston predecessors who played a factor in their development. The Celtics of the early 80's (i.e. Bird, McHale, Parrish, Cedric Maxwell, Dennis Johnson et al) taught the league how to play basketball. Namely, play stingy defense (= no lay-ups) while trying to get a half dozen or more fast break lay-ups themselves. If you can do this, even if the other team is more talented in half-court offense, the lay-up conscious team will win.
Do the math! If a team takes 100 shots are none are lay-ups ... lets say they make 45/100 i.e. 45%. If the Celtics make 10 lay-ups (10/10 = 100%) ... and shoot 100 shots ... if the Celtics only make 40% of their half-sourt offense shots ... i.e. 36 of 90 (36/90) ... when you combine that with the layups you get 46/100 and win by two points even though the more talented team is much better in half-court offense its not enough to overcome the easy lay-up basket factor.
The Celtics would teach the Lakers how to play basketball and the Lakers and Celtics combined taught the Pistons how to play basketball. The Pistons taught the Jordan Chicago Bulls how to play team defense, take away the lay-ups, play pick & roll on offense, etc.
Coach Daly observed that during the regular season ... in the November part of the season 50% of the offense is run & gun fast break basketball. By February the number becomes 25% and by May those easy baskets only account for 10% of the offense. And by playoff time, the fast break run & gun stuff totally disappears.
So, philosophically speaking, why play fast break run & gun during the regular season if it won't be there at playoff time when teams tighten it up?
So Coach Daly decided playing playoff basketball during the entire regular season was the way to prepare for the playoffs. Smart!
So pick & roll, no lay-ups (foul hard and put them on the free throw line if you have to) and half court offense became the modus operandi. The game is still played that way today (although Commish David Stern probably detests it because its hard to market a game with a final score of 84-78).
Coach Daly realized that having 12 multi-millionaire players was like having 12 business CEO's. Blending gigantic egos into one playing unit was the challenge.
Isiah Thomas was practically a player coach. His ability to get bad guys like Adrian Dantley (and his successor Mark Aguirre), Rick Mahorn, James Edwards to give up the stats for the sake of the team was impressive.
Previous posters are 100% correct to point out that the Piston greatness was their bench. As Laker coach Pat Riley sadly learned, the best Piston group of five usually showed up during the second quarter when subs Dennis Rodman, John Salley and Vinnie Johnson came onto the court. The Piston starters job was to hold the other team "even" until the subs could appear, then the deepest bench ever in the NBA would dismantle either the tired starters of the other team (or, the poor quality substitutes of the other team).
My analysis is ... other teams had a better group of 5 starters but the Pisons were "9 deep" and posed unique problems that made the Pistons a most interesting team.
Agree?

You're probably the only person on the planet who thinks that ... or maybe you've just had a little too much Dead Man Ale to celebrate the New Year. The Sixers would have blown them out, just like they did everybody else that year. It's not even really worth arguing, cuz I don't even think you believe it ... if you wanna push the point and I get motivated, I might decide to decimate your argument. I'll never understand why you choose battles you can't hope to win ...

Back to the here and now ... I checked out the Sixers-Clippers at Staples tonight. Philly is playing like crap, but pulled out the win. Iverson must have a physical problem he's keeping quiet, cuz he has not been himself all year. Hell, maybe he does need practice. LOL. It was pretty fun ... the place was packed. I did not know the Clips drew that many fans ... maybe it wuz just Philly cuz there were a lot of #3 jerseys in the stands.

I think the Clipper girls might be hotter as a whole than the famous Laker girls. Damn, they have some hotties out there. Lakers have a few bow-wows on the team this year.

-Superman-

Oh yeah, never hype your team on this board, cuz they'll inevitibly hit the skids ... Bulls 102 Portland 87.

-Superman-

"My analysis is ... other teams had a better group of 5 starters but the Pisons were "9 deep" and posed unique problems that made the Pistons a most interesting team. Agree?"

Yeah, Rodney, I agree totally about that team posing unique problems, as you can see by my earlier post. (but I think you meant Pistons, not Piss-ons, LOL). Now, of course, we are the only TWO people on the planet who feel that way. What is clear is that the Pistons were within a hair of being able to beat the great Lakers and Celtics teams BEFORE they made the key trades/additions (e.g., Aguirre for Dantley). There are extraordinarily few teams that had an answer (Lakers, Celtics) for the Pistons, and the Pistons had to beat 3 of the other strongest/greatest teams (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls) to win their championships. I think the Lakers were able to solve the “unique” Pistons problem, at least initially, by the fact they had Magic Johnson, who could make his entire team look good and play well, and by adding key role players to their bench (e.g., Mychael Thompson). Also, Riley used his substitutions and time-outs primarily to keep Jabbar as well-rested as possible. The Celtics were initially able to solve the Pistons problem by adding aging greats to their bench (e.g., Bill Walton). Maybe I'm missing something, but I don’t see how the Sixers could have solved the problem. Although fairly deep and talented, the ’83 Sixers probably weren’t deep enough or young enough to keep up with the ’89 Pistons.

Arright, Superman. See if you can maybe laugh at this:

Some of you probably remember that lots of women used to wear “Foxy Lady” t-shirts. I think they were all butt-ugly and tacky, which seemed to be a pre-requisite for wearing those shirts. Superman, why do you CONSISTENTLY feel a need to publicly claim victory whenever you get into disagreements? Have you considered an “I win” t-shirt? Lets get real here. You were maybe 6 years old when the ’82-‘83 Sixers were doing their thing. When you weren’t watching Sesame Street and chowing down peanut butter and jelly sandwiches out of your “Superman” lunch box, you watched some Sixers games, provided they weren’t playing out west (past your bedtime). When Dad wasn’t spanking your pre-maturely hairy ass for insubordination, he was feeding you crap about Wilt being the best player ever and the ’67 Sixers being the best basketball team ever. Such nefarious propaganda permanently warped your ability to perceive reality (or sports) accurately, and made for hell with your class mates. All the kids in your class were Celtics fans (obnoxious and arrogant, but REALLY smart), and you couldn’t get them to stop snickering at you when you parroted dad’s brainwashing to them. Now please share your expert memories of the ’83 Sixers. It’s kinda like show and tell.

Dogsterwhocan’tquitego9deepeither

Superman, that's what happens when you play 4 games in five nights...3 of them on the road in three different states....they will still do well due to their depth.

Cute, but you're off base as usual. My dad is not a Sixer fan ... he is not much of a hoops fan at all. I don't think he's even touched a basketball since I whipped him when I was 10.

I'm not really publicly declaring victory ... I guess for some reason I think I can knock some sense into your alcoholic self ... I actually try and steer you away from stupid arguments. It must be pity. I generally don't argue unless I'm gonna win ... you like to argue just for the sake of the argument, whether you believe what you're saying or not. You are a predictable act at this point.

Yes, I was pretty young, but the problem you will have is that I was a virtual sports fanatic as a kid. For about 7 years or so, I digested the sports pages down to the very minutia ... the sport did not matter. When I wasn't reading, I was watching, and when not watching I was playing.

Yeah, I constantly battled Celtic fans ... that's all there were. Innumerable hours were spent in debate. If I can expertly argue that Sixers team against the 86-87 Celtics, wasting time on the late 80's Pistons makes no sense. Why not pick a team you'd have a decent chance of defending, like the 84-85 Lakers perhaps?

As far as my ability to perceive sports, I actually played, Dogboy ... baseball, basketball, and football through high school, and one of the three in college on a full ride scholarship at a perennial national power. This is where my "perspective" is superior to yours ... you were just the fat guy sitting and watching me, sucking down beer through a straw and trying to play big shot by spouting your "knowledge" to the other barfly’s.

Yeah, I know you Dogboy ... you have all the gear ... wearing that old #32 jersey to Laker games trying to convince yourself you have cred even though you were more chess club than quarterback club. Maybe you're even one of the guys who plays in the work softball league, showing up all decked out in full baseball gear, pants hiked to the knees, chewing tobacco in the cheek. Yeah, you look the part until someone rips a grounder your way and the ball goes straight through your legs. Even still, you're always telling yourself you could have been a player if it had all gone differently ... all the while praying the next grounder goes somehwere else.

Take heart Dogster, it's okay to be inferior ... someone has to be.

-Superman-

Blazers,

Everytime I've hyped Philly on this board they've hit the skids ... Byron would say a jinx exists if he were still around ... just a warning! I am still scarred from halftime of the Mavs-Laker game ...

-Superman-

Gotta feel good about the Lakers...

They've won 4 out of 5, and are gradually ramping up to championship form.

They are only 3 games behind the 8th place (playoff seed) team in their conference, and they are closing the gap. At the very worst, they have 45 games to catch up and grab that 8th seed.

But more importantly, they are adding to their arsenal individually and collectively.

Shaq is approaching playoff form, as his health and rhythm improve. He is playing within the triangle offense consistently, improvising at other times. Most noteworthy is the fact he has cranked up his game (getting in shape, banging away, much improved free throw shooting and hook shot). It gets remarkably sweet if he starts nailing that hook shot more regularly.

Kobe is approaching playoff form. He is playing within the triangle offense sometimes, using it to set up his shots, and creating on his own at others. He is cranking up his arsenal of offensive weapons (e.g., improved 3-point shooting; he arrived very early tonight, practicing 3's repeatedly prior to the game). Of his record-breaking 3-point shooting evening, some of his open shots were provided by flow within the Triangle, and others were balls-out individual efforts. Whatever he's up to, it is less disruptive to the team's offensive flow than some of his previous efforts. I'm not sure if Kobe's latest efforts reflect a synthesis, or if they represent Kobe pushing the limits to test and display his own skills. Imagine if you could take a player like Kobe and insert him, for instance, in a game against the '62 Knicks. He'd score well over 100 points.

The rest of the team is stepping up. They are playing well on defense, and improving their offensive production within the established system. New players (e.g., Kareem Rush) are integrating themselves within the system successfully (the book is out on T. Murray), and Jackson apparently feels comfortable enough to experiment with various player configurations. Although the team is on fire with 3's, watch for most players to experiment more with other options.

I need to go to a game... Maybe this month...

The Lakers need to give more minutes to Kareem Rush, this young player is so exiting to watch, he brings fresh blood into the team. Every time he's on the court, it seems like a diferent team is playing, the "other" players seem more motivated and you feel a higher energy level.
I am not implying that Kareen can carry this team into the play-offs, nor that he is the go-to guy, thats Kobe's and Shaq's duties. But he is a breath of fresh air to a breed of satisfied, non-motivated players (Derek, Fox, Horry, etc).

The masterater

Nice one.

Try Formatting 101, Einstein.

You sure you went to Berkeley?

-Superman-

The very fact that I inspire you to create graphs amuses me to no end. I pretty much own you at this point, don't I? Don't feel bad ... I'm an expert.

-Superman-

I watched The Lakers game last night and of course the Lakers dominated a very poor Miami team. But what was of interest to me was that the Lakers are playing better together on both offense and defense, while Shaq claims he still is only 75% of the real deal.

They have been playing some very poor teams, except for Phoenix during their latest 6-1 run, but they have a real opportunity to gain some respect if they beat New Orelean and Houston this week. It will be fun to watch Shaq against Yao Ming

Just read where LeBron James is driving around in a $50,000 Hummer H2 with three TVs and a computer. It was a gift from his mother for his 18th birthday. Her quote to the press was 'I've got nothing to say about that.' I suppose if I were a bank I'd do a loan but it would be funny if he was stripped of his amateur status and not be allowed to finish the season for his high school team.

Can you imagine all the pussy this kid gets ?
Probably more than me

Will Cleveland get him ? Are they losing to win if you know what i mean ?
I wonder

Milkman

Bahaha. Where is the gratitude? I made them REAL easy to understand, just for you. And since you like to memorize sports stats, I thought you might want to study some meaningful ones for a change.

For the rest of ya:
The extrapolated part of the graph is based on the Lakers winning nearly all of their remaining games, and the Sixers losing nearly all of their remaining games. So far, the extrapolation seems to be reasonable. Bahahaha. Suffer, SuperBitch.

Thanks Bitchster. I was worried for a second that you were sitting home in your mother's house thinking/obsessing about me all weekend. Ha ha.

-Superman-

Ha ha. You wish.

I've gotten some requests for a "cleaner" version of my masterpiece graph, minus the "yours in whoring" byline. So here's a version you can copy and disseminate (or in S's case, de-semenate) throughout the western world. Make suffering Sixers fans suffer more, and feel smug about it.

The only people requesting that thing are kindergarten teachers ... as in, "Kiddies, if your graph looks this bad, you flunk."

I bet you could do a nice one if you were sober.

-Superman-