Historically, How big of an upset will it be if the Pistons finish off the Fakers???

Well you have to consider that this Lakers team was tremendously overrated. They have absolutely no depth, Gary Payton has been total nonfactor, and Satan Malone is wearing down at 40. Other than Shaq and Kobe, this team has very little in terms of a supporting cast. Hell, last night Luke Walton was playing PF.

In order to win a championship, your roster needs to go 8 or 9 players deep. There's guys on the Lakers' roster like Cook, Bryon Russell, et. al that absolutely stink.

 

Absolutely agreed. I'm a bit surprised it's the Pistons who are beating this team...but I honestly didn't think the Lakers were going to make it out of the 2nd round. I have been wholly unimpressed with this year's Lakers.

 

This Lakers team got just enough breaks to get past San Antonio, were a few bounces away from being down 3-1 to the Rockets. THey made it this far because they have arguably the two best players in the NBA on their team, and that puts them in every game, series, etc...but it's no guarantee.

So, not that big of an upset, despite the media coronation of the Lakers -- they just weren't that good to begin with.

 

I think it would be a huge upset. I understand where people are coming from regarding the talent of the Lakers -- they didn't look that great against the Rockets even. But, they did eliminate the Spurs and T-Wolves. But, that's not why it's such a huge upset. Here's why:

* Overturns the notion that the Eastern Conference is a jv league that cannot compete in the championships -- something that had been true since Jordan's retirement. The East regains some dignity.

* Damages the theory (further) that the league will send the championships to the major markets. And the theory that the league will give the nod to the superstars.

* Dispels the theory that you need to have one of -- or the -- best player to win a championship. "Superstars win championships" is done.

* Acquits the team-building approach that previously failed in Sacramento, Dallas and -- to an extent -- Portland. Shows that the philosophy isn't necessarily flawed, just that those teams fell short. Other teams will embrace or re-embrace a team-chemistry model.

* Leaves Malone and Payton ringless. Adds to the evidence that aging stars can't just buy a championship by running to the favored contender for peanuts. And the evidence that you can't steal a championship by adding some cheap and desperate aging stars.

* Further destroys Lakers' veil of invincibility. May even destroy the team. Other teams that may have considered revamping because of Lakers' success might now be doing a double-take.

So, imo, a Pistons victory will change the whole landscape in the league.

 

The biggest upset in league history. I am stunned.

 

we could've beaten them if malone was injured for our series. the same thing goes for the spurs. the wolves could've beaten them with sam (they were missing troy too). thats like the pistons not having billups...

the lakers were lucky to get as far as they did this year. now karla can move on to next years title favorite, payton said he would follow. kobe can move to the east there were rumors about the knicks being a target. phil, fox, grant, russell can retire. the lakers will be left with:

shaq
medvedenko-cook
george-walton
rush
fisher

they will have to start over by trading shaq, maybe to orlando for the #1, gooden, hunter, lue, hills contract, and whatever else u need to make it work.

then the lakers can be back in the lotto and i will be a happy happy fan.

 

4 ALL STARS vs a team with none. that's all you need to know. i dont want to see the history books making excuses like "not enough depth. "

personally, this series is so satisfying because the lakers are playing like they always do, ie acting as if they should be handed the title by the refs and that they can win on intimidation. most teams succumb to this, as if any win they get is only staving off the inevitable. but the pistons keep fighting and fighting and fighting. honestly this series makes me wonder how any of the previous 3 championship laker teams (who many consider among the all time greats) would do against any other championship team from the last 20 years.

the lakers seem to be paper champions.

 

This is Blazers over Sixers redux.

Only more impressive.

Evan

 

That's exactly where I was, too.

 

I have a BBS equation you might enjoy:

MadMax Juan Valdez
_______ = ____________
Smarty Jones Detroit Pistons

 

upset, what upset?

It is simply the better team winning, as I suggested many months ago (though I thought it would be the Pacers doing the honors).

But I agree with JuanValdez on the great significance of the Pistons victory in overturning the model of needing a top 5 player to win a title.

The Lakers were the most overrated and overhyped finalist in history, that's clear.

 

I don't know that it's 'done'. Maybe if this happened like 5 more times in a row, you could say it's done. As it is, you still have something like 22 out of the last 25 championships that still say it's the way to win. There are anomalies sometimes. What's weird is that it's Detroit AGAIN though.

 

let me think about that one. i certainly say they're high up on that list.

how hyped were the Knicks, nationally, in 94? i can't get very good perspective on that because I was too close to their opponent.

but i will say...there is no NBA champion i've been less impressed with than the Lakers of the last 5 or so seasons.

 

Concur...

The Pistons are younger, faster, longer and play with determination. The Lakers are old, slow, and seldom play with determination for long stretches. It was only a matter of time before they get fully exposed.

 

I don’t think it would be any more of an upset as if, say, the Kings had beaten the Lakers. Both teams are built similarly.

Clutch point guard: Billups/Bibby
Sharpshooter: Hamilton/Peja
Defensive stopper: Prince/Christie
All-star power forward: Rasheed/Webber
Top 5 center: Big Ben/Miller
Great chemistry

The only difference between them is one plays in the West and one plays in the East. One emphasizes offense, the other emphasizes defense. Yet, for some reason, those differences make basketball fans perceive the Kings as on the same level as the Lakers and the Pistons a level below.

 

It would be a huge upset, because it would crush my theory.

The Lakers are playing against two opponents.

The Pistons and themselves.

 

It's odd that in some respects the "great team, no superstar" model works very well in college basketball, though the past 2 years with Okafor and Anthony are exceptions.

There have been a number of NCAA champions with only borderline NBA talent. I was a college student at Indiana when a team with Steve Alford and scrubs beat UNLV with tons of NBA talent and Syracuse with Coleman, Seikaly, Sherman Douglas.

Perhaps the Larry Brown "system" of challenging every shot and denying every pass (a college approach?) along with the league allowing zone defense and thus negating isolation plays is making the superstar model obsolete.

 

Max, I don't think I want to be associated with your Smarty-love in any fashion. It seems... unhealthy.

Freak, I always read what you have to say, because you're almost always on the money. Except, not when you disagree with me. You're right that building around a superstar is a team-building model that won't be going away. And, you can even argue its a wise path to pursue. But, the "superstars win championships" I refer to is the argument that Team X will beat Team Y because Team X's best player is better than Team Y's best. Or, the dismissal of a particular team as a contender (like the Kings or Mavs) because they don't have that one clear alpha-male that you go to in the clutch. Every time someone makes that argument, the reply will be "what about the '04 Pistons?" (As for the '89/'90 Pistons (if you don't think Thomas is all that special), you really need to renew the example every few years -- probably with every CBA -- because the landscape is always changing.)

There's a related piece of "common knowledge" that says the team that receives the best player in a trade wins. Can that really be true, considering?

And finally, am I putting a big giant jinx on the Pistons by talking like they've already won? I'll remind the powers that be that I'm not even a Pistons fan and it won't really be punishing any hubris in me if the Pistons swoon in the biggest choke-job ever.