or (the argument) That Team Doesn't Have Enough Experience to Go Deep Into Playoffs I keep hearing these arguments, especially on NBA on NBC and NBA on TNT (and during the Olympic Men's Hockey), alot when analyst talk about the contenders for the championship. It's a very cliched phrase (and sometimes a weak argument) in sports to begin with, especially with professional teams and big time college programs. We all know the Lakers have the best basketball player on the planet (outside of arguably LeBron James), and a great front court (also that Russians or Canadians usually have the best hockey players). Though, I have to question, if they really should be a unanimous (unquestionable) favorite much beyond the 2nd and 3rd teams to win, everything. Yet, alot of losses, this year for the Lakers, have come against those teams or been the ones, they've struggled against the Cavs and Nuggets (who often play to competition) and yet to beat either team. Also, coming very close to being swept by the Celtics and even nearly dropping to the Rockets (earlier) in consecutive games and having troubles for the last few season with the Blazers. One could conclude that Lakers struggle against aggressive (offensive) teams who can play above average defense. I'd say the same thing about the "big-bad" Russians and Canadians (previous Gold medalists - 2006) being the favorite with great squads, but really look at the surface of things. Where those two really two best Olympic hockey squads performance or even talent wise for these particular games. The biggest thing is that when these type of teams lose down the stretch, in the playoffs, or in the championship...it is sometimes consider a big upset. When in reality, it really shouldn't be, as they weren't better than certain teams (USA) or struggled with certain opponents to begin with. Not saying that the champion (the Lakers or other) should not be the favorite to win everything, but it shouldn't come as a big shock or a disappointment, if they lose, especially if it is a bad matchups (like what they had against the Rockets last year or could've had). Sort of the like the last few seasons in the NBA, I wasn't shocked that Cavs blew against the Magic, they had no inside presence (vs. Howard, Gortat) and the one decent supporting player (Mo Williams) did not show up in that serious. Boston having a world of trouble with Atlanta and Chicago (regular season and playoffs), the Celtics can play outstanding defense against most teams, whether they are perimeter oriented, dominate from inside, or both. But, the Celtics seemingly have more trouble with squads who are filled with great, young athletes. Often, I hear the 2nd argument (not being able to go deep into playoffs) with the Thunder and Trailblazers, as in those teams should somehow be disqualified to do anything of significance, even though they have really good records and beaten some very quality teams. We've seen 2008 TB Devil Rays, 2009 NY Jets, 2008 Phillies, 91 Braves, and many other teams without recent pedigree in the playoffs come into scene and make alot of noise, and beat heavyweight teams. The main crux of both argument is shouldn't be the teams who are playing the best down the stretch or are suited well for different match ups.
Thank you. Winning four 7-game series in the NBA playoffs is something the Blazers had no chance of doing last year and the Thunder have no chance of doing this year.
