during Game 6 of the Finals, Jeff Van Gundy summed up the current state of league by saying the Western Conference is deeper and better and the level of parity has never been this close, but the two best teams in he West are from the East- Boston and Detroit. what do you guys think?
IDK about Detroit, when they want to be they can be the best team but that team doesn't bring it every night.
I disagree, it is all about match ups. The cavs pretty much played them even this season and most of the playoffs, a few bounces go the cavs way and they are in finals and probably get slaughtered by a western team.
Two conferences collide, rival nations It's a primitive clash, venting years of frustrations Bravely we hope against all hope, there is so much at stake Seems our style of play is up against the ropes Does the crowd understand????? i think the rockets have the toughness on defense and the finesse on offense to take those teams out. all we need is
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought all contributing members (which you are one) can edit their posts?
Detroit isn't even top 5 in the NBA. I'd say the Lakers, Spurs, Suns, Hornets, Celts, Cavs, Jazz, Mavs, and a healthy Rockets team are all better than the Pistons.
The cavs are a top team? You kidding me? They were a bad match up for Boston thats all.. Basketball is all about match ups dude. Thats how the 8th seed beat a 67 win team last year. The cavs got swept in the finals with minimal effort last year..don't forget
They did it last year, but I doubt it would have happened twice. IMHO JVG nailed it. But, yes, match-ups always factor in.
that's what I thought, too... it's not worth a new thread, but I can't edit, search, or view members posts... I've e-mailed the admins four times now.
I'll say this...after watching the West this season...and the incredible race to get in the playoffs...and how ridiculously competitive it was...I was really disappointed when it was ultimately this Lakers team that represented it in the Finals.
if Kobe couldn't beat Detroit with Shaq, Malone, and Payton; what makes you think they could have won with Odom and Gasol?
Idk...but Detroit would've given the Lakers a series, too. In fact, Detroit probably gave the Celtics harder time than LA did. Detroit matches up with LA, just well as Boston does and Detroit had great record against the West, too. It would've been a tough series, too. Much tougher than Spurs series. Wallace > Gasol McDyess < Odom, barely (puts up better numbers, but McDyess is way more consistent on both ends of the floor) Prince > Radmonvic Hamilton < Bryant Billups > Fisher Maxiell, Stuckey, Ratliff, Hunter vs. Turiaf, Vujacic, Walton, Farmar Kobe would still have fits on offense being guarded by Prince and Hamilton. Fisher couldn't stop Billups five years ago, what makes you think he could stop him now. The Lakers bench was overrated.... Ratliff, McDyess, Maxiell, and Wallace would have their way with Lakers soft front line. Detroit would've had home field and I think they would've beat the Lakers in same amount of games 6 or 7. Closer games, but Detroit would be the better team.
Agreed. It is not clear whether the Lakers were the best team in the West. But there were several teams that could have gone to the Finals. And any of those teams could have beaten either Boston or Detroit, or at least made it interesting. It's just a match up thing.
They may not win 70 games in a season, but you have to admit, they have a very good defense, and when you have that, you are in the running for almost any series (unless it's the Spurs ). So in that sense, yeah, they're up there. I'd say more than the anemic Suns (I love the players on the Suns, but seriously, find some D). And I agree, it's aaall about matchups. I mean, I guess you can use records to say, which teams win more games and thus have a better-performing team, but when it's 57 vs 56 and you're preparing for the playoffs, there's no difference. So it comes down to matchups in the playoffs and whether you're better at making any matchup turn your way. Defense will give you a great shot every time.
Do you know the Cavs lost the final 2 games by 4 points? The Spurs broke the 85PPG barrier one time. Overall the Cavs combined points in losses was 25, or about 6PPG. Meanwhile, the Lakers losses were by 10, 6 (when Boston was up 20 in the 4th), 6 & 34, a total 56 points. Yes the Lakers didn't get swept, but in other ways Cleveland was more competitive in their final loss. The Cavs were really lacksaidaisical the regular season this year, but they have been a very tough out in the playoffs the last 3 years. I have little doubt for instance they would chew up Utah, Dallas, Denver, and certainly us w/o Yao (they would dessimate our offense, and we would give their offense trouble too, but in the end Lebron would generate enough points). Phx, LA, NO and SA hard to say. The SA that the Lakers got to play (basically with Manu broken by then), Cleveland would probably beat, a full healthy SA, Cleveland couldn't handle (not sure any team would either). Remember, for all the talk of the brutal West, GS has been in round 2 the year before last, and Utah has been in the finals as well as round 2 in consecutive years. Those are very flawed teams.
