who does'nt think the lakers will win it?

T'aint over till it's over, dude. What would happen to your beloved lakers if Smaq blew out a knee or tore an ab muscle in the first round...eh?

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

 

#1 Phil Jackson
#2 They are NBC's love child
#3 See #1
#4 The player formerly known as MJ2
#5 See #3
#6 Shaq
#7 See ... (I think you got the picture.)

 

I don't believe the Lakers can win with the egos they have on the team. Shaq will pump in big numbers, but the only winners that team has would be Horry, AC Green, and Phil Jackson.

Shaq is not a winner, nor a good leader. If he was, he would have spent time in the gym shooting free throws years ago. He is all about money and fame.

------------------
HOOP-T

Hey Shaq, Acme called, and they want their bricks back!

 

i realize why some of us may dislike the lakers. i don't like phil because of his arrogance (and the undue admiration of his coaching abilities). i don't like shaq because of his arrogance (and his inability to recognize that he is stupid). i am not sure i like kobe because he is sometimes arrogance.. although he is working hard to become a worthwhile defender in addition to his offensive abilities. actually, kobe would be a good representative for the nba (multilingual, classier than most players, etc.) but the reason that the lakers should be hated because nbc loves them is flawed, i think. would you follow the same argument to the rockets too--when in the near future nbc will lather attention on franchise and our backcourt? so dislike the lakers because of their attitude, not their talent or the attention that they're receiving. having the winningest record in the nba will ususally garner the media's attention.

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

 

"i dont understand why some of you hate the lakers. they have a former rocket in horry and shaq's favorite player, that he looks up to is olajuwon."

I don't understand why some of you hate the Jazz. They have a former Rocket in Chilcutt, and Karl Malone always says nice things about Hakeem.

Juan -- Awesome!

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

 

Insideout, I thought about that in crafting my post, but decided not to go into it at that time. I don't think my aversion to NBC is greater than my affinity for the Rockets, so I don't think NBC could make me hate the Rockets. I was, after all, still a fan after we traded for Pippen, whom I have long hated, so what can NBC do to compare? However, I think I would (will) greatly resent all the brown-nosing and feel sullied by it.

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

 

I am in with Oakdog and Brahma Rocket with this one. I strongly dislike Utah, Portland and Seattle. I am pretty equivocal about the Lakers, Spurs, Twolves, etc. I can't say I am immune from reacting to the media over-hype and the like in which some here say the Lakers are the worst case of, but that to me more described the Knicks than anyone. The Lakers are just playing darn good team basketball on both ends (deserve much of their attention), and I can appreciate all the offensive and defensive ways Shaq and Kobe impact the flow of a game. Would they be on my short list for people I want to have dinner with?? Nah, but Barkley or Mario Elie might (if I could keep them apart).

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

 

My take is that Shaq finally is learning what it means to be a leader and that you must perform on all levels and on both ends of the court to be a true champion. If it took Jackson to make him realize this, then so be it.

I hate Jackson for his arrogance and the fact that he won't coach a team unless it has a 95% chance of winning a title, but I admire his coaching abilities. If he can make Shaq, Kobe, and Glenn Rice co-exist and live up to their fullest potential, I surely cannot fault him for that.

I also cannot blame NBC for kissing their asses. The Lakers are the best there is this season hands down. That, and they're in LaLaLand. NBC is just doing business.

As for the Spurs, I like them too. I was raised to cheer on Texas before all others, but they won't beat the Lakers.

------------------
I need a new signature.
302

 

Brahma Rocket, the main point of my post was that I was equivocal about the Lakers, not suggesting you strongly disliking (or hating) other rivals. For various reasons the Jazz, Sonics and Blazers are the teams I will most rout to lose this year. As far as the best power forward in history--the Mailman is in the latter slots of the top5, somewhere behind the Big E, Barkley & Petit (sorry BF*, Mr. McHale is in the next 5). If you consider Duncan a 4, he is probably better than Malone too. They are all in the great company.


[This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited April 17, 2000).]

 

Sir, Malone is the best '4' ever, most people agree I think. What is he, 2nd all-time in points now? What he's doing at this age is simply amazing. Those who refuse to think objectively and let their hatred for the guy cloud their judgement will surely disagree though. He is good enough by the numbers that his failure to step up his play in the Finals doesn't keep him out of the top spot. You won't find another power forward that has been consistently great for as long a time.

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

 

The credentials you present that are supposed to make us like the Lakers are few and tenuous. I still like Horry for having once been a Rocket pivotal to two championships. But he can't redeem a whole team, especially from the bench. And that Shaq has paid some lip-service to Olajuwon does less than nothing for me. Should I like Shaq because of that?

Here are the many reasons I hate the Lakers:

1) I harbor resentment towards the city of Los Angeles. They are second only to New York City in civic pomposity.

2) I hate overdogs. Given the Lakers' gaudy record, they are certainly an overdog.

3) I am deeply suspicious of propaganda and its mind-altering influences. As such, I will automatically hate any team NBC tells me to love.

4) I hate Shaq. He has no finesse. He puts up big numbers, and I'm not saying he's bad, but I can't bear that an MVP would have such an ugly-looking game. He also says the stupidest things I've ever heard.

5) I hate Kobe Bryant. Perhaps I'm mostly just jealous. He has a zillion dollars and still has only earned a fraction of what he will before he's through. When he's suspended for a game, he loses more money than I have yet to earn in my life-time. Given his money, his looks (not bad, despite being too tall), his background in Italy, his multilingualism (while I am only bilingual) and his ridiculous fame, his ability to attract women must be about 900,000 times greater than mine. And, he's younger than me!

6) Phil Jackson. He's a good coach, but even more pompous than Shaq, Kobe and LA. Every time he's quoted, you can feel the air of superiority wafting from him.

7) Everybody else likes the Lakers so why should I? The kernel, the essence of my Self, is contrariness. My primary motivation is spite. So, with LA being the bandwagoneer's Mecca, that will be the last place I will go to find a team to root for.

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

 

BR, my miss-read, I thought you were referring to something else.

TheFreak, I am plenty objective toward the Mailman--and I don't have a problem with people saying he is the best PF-- but I just don't quite share that opinion. Malone has been a great, great player, and one of the best 5 best PF's. But when I define greatest players--longevity of high levels of performance is not my #1 criteria. If it were, Kareem would be the greatest basketball player ever. Yet in my opinion Kareem is probably the 3rd greatest center, behind Wilt & Hakeem. I think comparing Hakeem and Kareem is very similar to comparing Barkley and Malone. The latter lasted longer in terms truly outstanding performance, but at their peak Hakeem and Barkley could simply more dominate the basketball court by themselves. I would further add among these 4 players, Hakeem and Kareem were both "greater" players than Barkley or Malone in my book.

I will admit the comparison to Malone and Barkley in their peak is very, very close statistically. Below is a comparison of arguably Barkley's (89) and Malone's (90) best years: FG%=B57%,M55%; FT=B75,M76; Blk=B1.3,M.6; Stl=B1.3,M1.5; TO=B3.1,M3.7; Rb=B11.9,M11.1; Ast=B3.2,M2.8; PPG=B28,M31. Barkley has slight edges in FG%, Blks, Rbs, TO & Ass while Malone has similarly small edges in FT%, Stl & PPG. Further, Barkley in his peak years reached such season plateaus where he average of 28PPG, 15RPG, 5APG, 2SPG & 1.6BBG and shot 60% from the field. Malone has only matched Barkley in one of these categories, PPG (where Malone had a higher plateau at 31PPG).

Not that you should only look at statistics in judging greatness, but they do give a reminder just how different the Rocket Barkley was from the Phily-early Phoenix Barkley. Most people forget just how dominant Barkley was about 8-11 years ago when he had almost no support in Phily. Same thing is happening with Hakeem, as he is such a shadow of what he was.

Other points to consider great PF's, neither Barkley or Malone will have won a ring-definitely a mark against, while the Big E (who I put at my #1 PF) and Petit did. However I am pretty sure you would find Barkley's NBA finals performance to be much stronger than Malone's was.


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

 

**** just read it in the chronicle last night, Delete thread please.....

 

Must be a slow news day if Chron is writing about the 2000 Faker championship.

 

Does this bump count as the longest between posts? 11 yrs, 85 days (4-19-2000 > 7-13-2011)

 

nice bump