I think both the Suns and the Mavs are better then the Pistons.

There's not a reputable basketball analyst in existence that would agree with you.

The Suns are fun to watch, but they can't handle a tough defensive team. But, I guess we'll find out who is better... let's just see if SA beats Detroit in 4 games - 1 game better than they did Phoenix.

As for last night's Miami-Detroit game, that was a terrific game to watch. The Pistons keep motoring along, and are simply amazing when their back is against the wall. I never seen a more scrappy team that time and time again manages to win when they need it. They've won 7 playoff series in a row now, and 10 elimination games in a row. That's why they're the champs and teams like Phoenix and Dallas are sitting at home playing with themselves.

My pick for the finals:
Pistons over San Antonio in 6 games.

The only problem I see for the Pistons, is after this win they can no longer claim to be the under-rated underdog that gets no respect.

Shaq's promise to the people of Miami almost came true.

DAMN U THUGS & BITCHES!
:wink:
GO SPURS! :razz:

I bet Kobe was a huge Piston fan during that series.

Shaq ended up in the exact same place as he did last year when he was with Kobe - on the short end of Detroit's big stick.

At least the Pistons have no greasy Italians named Manu on their team!

lol at least he can play.

SPURS IN 5 \:D/

Only one team is the current world champions. Strangely, I don't see any championship belt being worn by the Spurs. Ahhh... that's right, the Pistons have the belt! Clearly, they can play! \:D/

The Spurs have had it easy so far in the playoffs. Detroit has been in the trenches getting down and dirty. The Spurs are in for a rude awakening, and once again the collective sports minds will be left scratching their heads trying to make excuses for how the Pistons "stole" the victory (because they couldn't have done it on their own merits).

It may take 2 (or 3) championships in a row, but eventually the Pistons will get respect! As one columnist said, "If anybody out there questions their legitimacy, do the world a favor and wire their jaw shut." http://www.freep.com/sports/pistons/ros ... 050607.htm

After this series the Pistons, will do that for us. \:D/

blah,blah,blah [-X SHUT YO MOUTH U THUG! :razz:

pray u get more then one win cause in 5 it's OVER! \:D/

it'll be the last time Pistons are in the Finals for awhile.

Those last pictures are Duncan being carried off the floor (and out for 12 games) the last time he tangeled with Detroit.

go Pistons! Only to lose their championship glory to the Cavs next year when we take Larry Brown. MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

NO U DIDN'T! [-X now u can forget about that game piss..tons were gonna win SWEEP BABY! :bud:

I'm not sure who is going to win the series, but my money is on the series going seven games. Right now, I like the Pistons to win, but it will be close.

Ah, an appeal to authority.



Never mind that the Suns did put up many points against the Spurs. Perhaps the Spurs simply won because they are a great team. :wink:



Come on. The number of games in which SA wins against each does not prove which is better. First off there is chance. As much as I am a Spurs fan I doubt that if they played this series over 10 times they would win a majority by 4 or 5. Although I think they would win about 90% of the time, 6 games, would probably be a more common result.

Furthermore, say SA wins in 6, when you are talking about a lower number (1-2 wins in a series), the likelyhood of chance being a major factor are increased. So, again you can't determine whether the Pistons or the Suns are better any more then you can say that a coin is more likely to land on heads with two flips (that both land on that side). Now, if you flip it a thousand times, and even 60% are heads you can say with a great deal of certainty that something is wrong with the coin. Anyway, my point is you can't say which team is better based on how many games they win against the Spurs. If they played each other the likelyhood of the better team winning would be greater (7 games vs. 1-2 or even if it were 3).



I didn't feel like arguing this point as well, but I think a healthy Miami team is better then the Pistons. As a Spurs fan I'm glad to face them as I didn't want the team to face the Heat. :wink: Even if the Heat decided not to look bad by using that excuse (which they would have) that does not mean it isn't true.



Most against weak teams in the east. :wink:



Ok, I don't mean to be rude, but that does not make any sense. Yet, it is the reason many basketball analysts think the Pistons are better then they are.

Flawed belief #1 - The two best teams make the finals. I don't know why people believe this, probably because they want to believe the championship feature the two best teams, or maybe because it makes them feel all is right in the world. I mean does anybody want to believe teams can be "lucky" because of their conference, or other factors? No, people want to think that something is really proven with a championship. Why make such a big deal about the thing in the first place if it doesn't have the two best teams, and it isn't won by the best team? Never mind the issue of whether there is evidence to show that to be true.

Now, my arguement against it: Assuming the best team in each conferance makes it to the finals, there is only about a 50% chance that you have the two best teams. We should assume that every team has an equal chance of becoming good regardless of conference, division etc. Now, there is a best team in some conference. Of the other 29 teams, 14 are in the same conference. So, there is a 48.3% chance that the second team is in the same conference as the first. In most of the 80s, and probably much of the 90s I would say that the two best were in seperate conferences (52% chance). In recent years I think they have both been in the west. In fact, I think there have been years when the top 3, maybe the top 4 were all in the west. It does happen. There is a 22.4% chance of the top 3 being in the same conference, and a 10.0% chance of the top 4. On average once a decade the top 4 teams will all be in the same conference.

Flawed belief #2 - The best team wins. To the question of why people believe this, I woud say the same as the first. Chance however, certainly does play a role. Now, it depends on the sport, I think basketball is actually the one in which the best team most often wins. It goes a long way to explaining why dynasties are more dominant in basketball then any of the other major team sports. It also explains why it is the most predictable sport. In any case, it goes back to the argument I made earlier: the more complex the interactions in shaping the factors that determine the outcome, the more likely some quality or consistent factor (such as the quality of two teams) is to determine the result. The effect of chance is minimized when this happens. I mean this for anything, not just sports. It's why sample size matters in a poll. It's why the more times you flip a coin the more likely the result will be close to 50%. To put it simply, it's why one thing can be a fluke, but a thousand things are almost certainly not.

Now, in basketball there are more scores then any other game, so there is a very complex set of interactions between the two teams determining the score. However, percentagewise there tends not to be much of a gap in the scores, so that increases the likelyhood of a few scores determining the outcome, which could clearly be the result of chance. However, when you consider that 7 games are played, the likelyhood of chance determining a series is far greater. Therefore, I think that even when the two teams are pretty close to being equal, the quality of each will usually determine who wins. Probably over 90% of basketball series are won by the better team. Although, that does include the first round where the gap in quality is more often greater. Even in the later rounds though I still think it's above 80%.

So, I would conclude that basketball usually has a winner that is better at the game. However, that is only at the time in during which the series is played. On team might be of higher quality when healthy, but if they are a dysfunctional team (last year's Lakers) or they have a key player that's extremely inconsistent (Kerry Collins) or if key players are injured, they could easily be a much weaker team at certain times. I might note that an injury is one of those things that is a simple interaction, and is likely to be caused by chance. It's usually just takes one spit second or one wrong move. Although if you look at a player's career as a whole, that is less likely to be a fluke. If player that is injured throughout their career or almost never injured, it is probably not a fluke. However, who exactly is injured at any specific time is likely to be a result of chance.



My pick: Spurs in 5 or 6. Winning two on the road won't be easy.



I main problem I see is that they are facing the Spurs. :wink:

Oh, and they are overrated. :razz: :wink:

Seriously I would rank the Spurs, Heat, Suns, and Mavs ahead of them. The way the Nuggets wer playing most of the year, it's likely they could stand up to the Pistons as well. I'm not sure about the Sonics or Rockets. They might stand a chance against the Pistons. :wink:

Clearly the best team always wins.



The Pistons have been fighting it out with a bunch of mediocre eastern conference teams most of the year. Their only real challenge was the Heat. There they went to 7 games despite the two best players on the Heat being injured. The Spurs meanwhile had to face 3 teams with far better records then their eastern counterparts that the Pistons had to play. They did so in fewer games as well. But, I guess they had it easy. Maybe, they made it look easy. :razz: :wink:




If they keep winning championships that would prove something, but somehow I don't think it's likely.



Usually calls to wire someone's mouths shut, burn them at the stake, and the like are prompted when someone sees an opinion which conflicts with their worldview. The best team does not always win and the two best do not always make the finals.





:razz:

Pistons in 6

God, after reading two books on DP07 trying to justify why the Pistons are overrated and the Spurs are the best team since sliced bread, I don't even know where to start.

The fact is I've been reading this stuff for 2 straight years now. Take for example, last years Lakers, who everybody predicted to beat the Pistons in 4 or 5 games last year. You attempt to try to explain how the Pistons won that last year by saying it was the Lakers being "dysfunctional". Which is utter bullshit. The Lakers beat everybody in the West, including the Spurs. They showed no signs of being dysfunctional, until they ran across a better team than anything they faced before (the Pistons). The Pistons exploited their dysfunctions, which no other team could do. The Lakers entered the contest 100%, and left a team that was completely ripped apart. That was the Pistons doing. Give credit where credit was due.

Another example of people disrespecting the Pistons is this Miami series, which everybody likes to bend the truth. Shaq sat out no games, Wade only sat out one. And, Wade did not look that hurt in game 7. As Charles Barkley pointed out, clearly somebody was "lying" about the injury. I saw Wade cutting, getting any shot he wanted. He just made bonehead plays at the end, which cost them the game. Point is that Wade and Shaq played for 6 of the 7 games, had homecourt advantage, and still lost the series. If they were so superior to the Pistons, they should have easily closed it out in the 6 games that both played.

Do you seriously think it is a coincidence that every team that faces the Pistons leaves battered, bruised, torn apart, suspended, etc...? Think about it... The Heat were bloodied and "hurt" by the end (or at least they used that excuse), the Lakers destroyed, Indiana has never been the same since tangeling with them, Duncan was hurt for 12 games after he played the Pistons. Yet the Pistons starting 5 has been incredibly consistant over the past two years. As USAToday points out... "All five of their regular starters played at least 2,600 minutes during the regular season. In the last 30 years, only two other teams had five 2,600-minute players: the 1983-84 Washington Bullets and the 1993-94 Denver Nuggets... The Pistons' regular starting lineup (Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace) played 1,397 minutes together this season, more than any other five-man combination on any NBA team. ". That's durability, something lacking in too many teams these days.

And, lastly, and most importantly, I'd like to say while I'm picking the Pistons, I will never make excuses or try to take away anything the Spurs do - should they win. To do that (what you are doing, DP07) is "bush league" shit. A Pistons starter or two could get hurt, or whatever... it doesn't matter, and would never take away anything from the Spurs. In that case the Spurs would have fielded the tougher, less injury prone team, and deserved to win. This is shit the Pistons had to put up with for 2 years. They're tough, they're durable, and they frequently leave teams in dissaray. They're not pretty, but they know how to win, and no matter how hard you try to explain their victories away, you can't.

WOOT! \:D/
Put away the belts until next year, kids. The Spurs win in five.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3671836?GT1=6555

-------------------------------------------------------------------

BOOOOOOOOOOO! :down:
Why the Pistons will repeat as champs
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3671850?GT1=6555

Wow... Dime magazine is covering all their bases with those two stories. "The Spurs will win!", "The Pistons will win!". Way to take a stand!

Actually, I largely went off on rants, unrelated or only somewhat related, to the Spurs and Pistons. :wink:



No signs? What about all the stuff about what was happening on that team internally. Between Shaq, Kobe, and Jackson more then anything.



What do you mean to say? That the Lakers were a happy family going into the series?

I think any team like the Lakers that is internally dysfunctional, and there is no doubt that they were, is prone to inconsistent play.



Playing injured still greatly affects quality of play. The team's season is on the line, they might play because of that, but it does not mean that they are nearly 100%.



I guess you can see what you want.



I don't know what this means. I guess Charles thinks it makes sense to make up an injury so that you can sit a top player for an extremely important playoff game.



I never said they were "so superior." Just a bit better. I'm not even sure they are that much better, and as I have said, I think the the only three teams that are clearly better are the Spurs, Suns, and the Mavs.



Actually they didn't. I said that, but I have not read anything from the Heat to that effect.



So you mean to say they are good because they play dirty? :???: Don't tell me you are making the case that part of what makes them good was on display in that fight.

In any case, I've already made the point that the timing of any particular injury is caused by chance. It takes just one moment....etc.



Which could likely be caused by chance. I'd need to see data on other teams in the past related to how the health of the team over one season correlates with other seasons to determine how much the something like this is the result of "durability" or chance. After all, if one Piston had by chance had one wrong step this season, they could easily have only 4 with 2,600 minutes.

I might add that even if it is all the result of durability, the Pistons still had a weaker record this season then teams that suffered injuries (such as the Spurs).



Excuses? Hehe, I guess it's "bush league shit," whatever the hell that means, to look beyond who simply won or lost. As I said, I think the better team wins the championship most of the time in basketball (unlike football). So, if the Pistons win it would probably because they are the better team. If Duncan suffers some major injury, it probably wouldn't be though. I'd say the same if the Pistons win 4 close games, and the Spurs win the other 3 by 30 each (BTW, I would say the opposite if the opposite happened and the Spurs won in 7).

You may call it "bush league shit" or whatever you wish, but it's only rational to say that not all results are reflective of team quality.



See, there you go again saying that one or two occurrences are reflective of something such as whether they are less injury prone. As I've said, it's no different then flipping a coin, having it land the same way twice (a 50% chance BTW) and then concluding that the coin is more likely to land on that side. If the Pistons lost a starter or two, it would be important, and it most certainly would not be reflective of the Spurs being less injury prone.



Right...

Do you believe the best team always wins?

Do you believe that the Pistons being in the finals is relevant in any way as to whether they are better then the Mavs or Suns? (as you indicated). If so, why? I made that whole argument that you didn't respond to about the two best teams being in the same conference 48% of the time. Maybe you response was simply to call it bush league shit though.

I can flip this around. As the Spurs are in the finals, does that mean they are better then eastern conference playoff teams that did not make it? I would argue they clearly are better then most of them based on the regular season among other things. Miami I'm not certain of, but I think the Spurs are more likely then not better. However, the fact remains that no team in the east has yet played a team in the west up to this point in the playoffs. What happened within each conference in the playoffs is entirely irrelevant in comparing teams from different conferences.

Do you believe both conferences are always even? I ask this because I think all the evidence clearly points to reveal that the West is far stronger at the top. Therefore it would follow that it's easier to get to the finals from the East.

I hope your response isn't "that's bush league shit."

The Playoffs are a WHOLE different story than the regular season. You can't compare the 2.

You have to play different during the playoffs. Its more about endurance. Pistons have more endurance than the Spurs. Thus, Pistons win in 6

Theres no way Pistons are winning in the finals with all those easy shots they miss numerous times, it's pathetic. They're so lucky they beat the Heat, it seems they always get lucky with a big name on the other team getting injured. Spurs will take this one 4-2

The Lakers won the Western conference title last year. They beat a lot of very good teams, and were very good themselves. They showed no outward signs of being dysfunctional prior to the Pistons series - which is why every basketball analyst with a pen and paper predicted the Lakers to win. Are you saying the Western conference was so bad last year that nobody could beat a highly dysfunctional Lakers team who was "prone to inconsistent play", and only the Pistons could do that? Or is this a random coin flip thing?




Shaq did not exhibit anything to me that suggested he was injured. He looked out of shape for the first few games, and if you look at his 1st half stats vs. his 2nd half stats, it would support that. Shaq dominated Detroit and backed down Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace at will. Wade was not injured at all for the first 4 games, and his injury late in the 5th game was not a factor. In the 6th game, Detroit won by 25 points, and looked so dominate, an argument could be made that Wade wouldn't have made a difference. In the last game Wade shot 7-20 and 6-7 free throws... similar to the first game in the series. He was aggrresive, played 43 minutes, Shaq looked healthier and stronger than ever in that game 7. The Heat only won one game by double digits, and every one of their wins was very close down the stretch. It's simply not fair to take the win away from Detroit - they earned it. Had they barely beat Miami without Wade, I might agree. [/quote]



Barkley was suggesting that he wasn't near as hurt as suggested and that Miami conceded game 6 to give him a little rest for a game 7 at home where Miami had only lost 7 games all season. I think they forgot that 4 losses came at the Pistons' hand.



Hard to argue with an opinion that is plucked out of thin air. The Pistons current position - as current champions and in the finals - would not support your theory. Other basketball analysts agree with me. I'll turn to David DuPree a basketball genius who picked the Spurs vs. Pistons at the beginning of the year. Here's a quote from his transcript today...

Do you think that Miami was a bit overated by most people who just look at the Heat roster, see Shaq's name and say "NBA Champions!"?

David DuPree: I don't think they were overrated. They got to the Final 4 and I think they were the third best team in it after San Antonio and Detroit, and ahead of Phoenix.
http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/t ... .aspx?c=40

I realize you don't want to look at professional analysts as they don't agree with you, but it's worth noting, and holds more weight than pulling something out of your butt.

Regardless of what coin theory you have, the San Antonio vs. Detroit series will be an excellent gauge of how the conferences stack up to each other for comparison sake. Should SA sweep Detroit, you will have an excellent point. If SA struggles with Detroit, or loses, your Phoenix is better theory will be crap.




You are correct. Only a few rogue people in the media and the occasional anti-Piston fan did this.

The Miami Heat - especially coach Van Gundy - gave complete credit where credit was due. They repeatedly said they flat out got beat by Detroit, and the injuries had nothing to do with it. I have a new found respect for the organization. The one thing I absolutely hated from the Pistons was the game where they tried to blame the loss on the officials, instead of giving the Heat credit. That was low class, and uncharacteristic of them.



I never said they play dirty - they don't. They play extremely tough, and are very physical. San Antonio is one of the only team that the Pistons have faced in the past 2 years that genuinely give me some worry (Indiana last year was the other). Because they can take the physical tough play, and deal it out too. Both teams make you earn every point. Most people bitch about this kind of basketball, but I love it. It's basketball at it's truest form, and I think it'll be a great series. As for the injuries, fights, etc... those happen because of the physical nature of the play. San Antonio has not run into this type of play yet in the playoffs. They are great at adapting, so I guess we'll see how it plays out. I don't think they'll adapt this time.



Everything is chance with you? So, I guess if the Spurs win I can say it was luck and just chance? Somehow, I think you'll no longer mention your chance theory after that.

As for the Pistons record, they had a horrible, horrible start to the season that was marred by the brawl. But, if memory serves me correctly they have the 2nd best record since Jan 1st (when it really counts).



While you think "most of the time" the correct winner is crowned, I can not think of a champion who fought through four 7 game series that I would call underserving of the crown. I do believe that any team that can emerge the champion fully deserves that title, and would never take that away from them, or disrespect them. As one analyst said, he has never seen an asterick beside any championship banner in existence. By not showing a championship team respect, yet demanding it when your team wins it, is not only low class, it tarnishes the entire process. (bush league essentially refers to a low class move in sports).



Injuries are not always random chance. Age and conditioning is a major factor. Shaq is not as healthy as he was, and that could be a liability when you play 100 games, and increase your chances for an injury. A physical style of play also adds to the equation. While you want to say this all comes down to a coin flip, you are wrong. There is a lot of factors involved that can suggest a team doesn't have what it takes to make it 100 games to the championship. A durable, young, well conditioned team is less prone than an older, unconditioned team. That is not random chance.




Yes. Name me some basketball champions that you feel should have their banner ripped down. I feel that all earned it, and should be proud of their accomplishment.



I said their performance against the Spurs will be an excellent gauge. I do think that playing three 7 game series, ensures the conferences best team will be in the finals. I agree that this does not automatically make them better than the 3rd place team in the other conference. However, with this being the Pistons second trip, and being they are the current champion - the Phoenix Suns and Dallas Mavericks have done ABSOLUTELY nothing to convince me they are better than the Pistons at this point.

Regardless of who wins, I think we're in for a great finals. I believe we truly have the 2 best teams in the league... the last two teams to win championships, the last two finals MVP's facing off (Billups and Duncan), and two teams that play tremendously physical basketball!

What are you talking about? Last year they beat the full strength Pacers (the best record in the East) and the full strength Lakers (the best team in the West). This year the only starter to miss a game, was Wade's single game that he sat out. That's it. Are you trying to rewrite history now?

Basketball is basketball is basketball, regular season or playoffs. It's not some coincidence that the teams with the best records tend to win in the playoffs. :wink: Both the east and the west featured finals with the two teams with the two best records in their respective conferences.

BTW, I take the Spurs 6, although I'm somewhat tempted to go with 5.