Those things didn't stop y'all from saying the Spurs weren't true champions. It goes both ways. I'm not going to give the Lakers any respect this year as long as the Spurs championship is still considered asterisked by some on the BBS. The record book is either legit or not legit. Unless you consider the record book legit for the Spurs championship, don't talk to me about why I should care about the book now. It's obvious a lot of you don't.
The record book is the record book. But even you would have to admit that the championship was won during a weird, never repeated kind of season...and that the current generation of Spurs are championshipless in regular 82 game seasons...
Umm... as a Lakers fan, I thought you would realize the substantial difference between the regular season and playoffs. After 50 games, if a NBA player can't be ready for a full-length playoffs, he shouldn't be playing. The generation of Spurs on that team was realistically a two season team. The season before 99, Duncan wasn't the best player in the game like he was in the championship season. The season after 99, Duncan was injured and didn't play in the playoffs. After that, the Spurs team was much different. And even you should have to admit that the Lakers won Game 6 in a weird, never repeated kind of quarter with 27 free throws... and that the Lakers don't win four games from the Kings without 27 free throws in that quarter. What happened in game 6 hasn't exactly been repeated either. IMO, you could make more of a case for a Lakers * than one for SA, since the difference in the Lakers season occurred in the playoffs as opposed to the regular season. Either they're both asterisks, or both are legit... hard to have it both ways.
No, No. <i>Remember, Kobe is a god. He's pointing to his powerful muscles</i> Don't place Kobe as a bad guy here. I know your trying to be funny at it, but still.
Its like some of you didn't even watch games 2-5. Game 6 was ****ty. But so was game 5, just in the opposite direction.
Game 5 was even or biased for the Lakers. Shaq and Kobe got in foul trouble that game thanks to their own shortcomings. Shaq left his feet repeatedly, even with the fouls, and Kobe constantly reached in when Bibby or another penetrator got past him. Game 4 was a complete joke in how many times the Lakers got to shove down Mike Bibby with no calls, and the late Walker three. If you think game 5 was biased towards Sac, I don't see how its not offset by the travesty that was game 4.
The rantings of a blinded, biased basketball fan. Theres gotta be treatment somewhere for that condition Cat...
Hello kettle, I'm pot. I think TheCat went bonkers years ago, but you and kidrock8 and other Laker fans are no different.
Thanks for setting me straight, gettinbranded... we all know you're Mr. Objectivity when it comes to Phil Jackson and the Lakers...
Interesting, but I don't see how the number of calls are relevant. I know Cat and others have been complaining about 27 fouls in the fourth quarter of game 6. That is a lot, but there is a possibility that the Kings actually fouled that often. The number of fouls called is irrelevant because it is, in part, a reflection of how physical each team is playing. What is relevant is the kind of calls the refs made. The refs targeted Pollard and Divac -- the only 2 guys the Kings had to throw at Shaq -- for phantom calls. This wasn't an issue of getting control on a rough game or letting the players play. There were several instances where Divac or Pollard simply stood their ground and were called for a foul. And they were both tossed as a result. Certainly, some of the calls were legit, but too many were not. (Besides that, Shaq was allowed to an unusual degree to run defenders over without being called for a charge -- but he always gets that favoritism to a degree, so I don't argue it.) Bad calls were made in the other games, in favor of the Lakers and the Kings. Calls are missed every game; that's the nature of the sport. But, Game 6 was an animal of a different stripe. It looked as if the refs decided (together or separately) that they were going to be quick to call fouls on Shaq's defenders. This isn't a conspiracy theory, just a feeling that the refs really crossed the line in their approach to managing the game. All this is irrelevant to the Lakers-Nets game. You can make all the arguments you want that the Lakers beat the Kings legitimately. But, I don't feel like they did and that has poisoned the Finals for me. You're almost right that I should just watch soccer: I haven't seen any of the Finals, nor even read an article or seen a boxscore for any of the games. I have zero interest in the rest of the season. I'm just following the Rockets offseason.
You don't believe it was fixed for ratings and marketing purposes? I catch where you're coming from...
Not really, though I do think he's not given enough credit as coach. I was cheering for them for several reasons. One, I have a strong dislike for Webber, and I really enjoying watching Shaq play (I'm telling you fellas...enjoy him while he's here) and I'm even enjoying the development of Kobe Bryant. I do want to see PJ go into the books as one of the greats. I think he deserves it. I love the game and I love my team. Let there be no doubt though if you cut me I bleed red and black. I'm a diehard Bulls fan... Oh...and I absolutely positively loath the Knicks.
(I'm telling you fellas...enjoy him while he's here) Enjoy him dislodging defenders while no repercussions at all are administered? Its not real basketball.
You might not even be on this BBS if not for me defending you about 50,000 times when everyone tried to get you banned for being a troll... and now you start taking personal shots at me just because I don't kiss the Lakers ass like you do? Man, you're one class act...
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! Stop It! Stop It! Stop It!!! In all seriousness much respect to gettinbranded and The Cat. I enjoyed the debate at the beginning with the Lakers and Kings thing but its going a bit too far. Respect to both but I just think you guys have made your points. Lets move on.
