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

Obviously, since there's no tangible way to measure the size of an upset, this whole thread is conjecture, but since you asked...

I'd say this has to be considered one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, upset in NBA history (though Seattle-Denver 1994 gives it a run for the money). Almost every talking-head in the sports industry picked the Fakers, with many predicting a sweep. We all knew the Fakers had exploitable weaknesses, it's just that no one has been able to exploit them consistently.

Now, in the arena of sport in general, I think Jets-Colts in SuperBowl III or USA-Russia Olympic Hockey in 1980 should be tied as the biggest upsets in history.

 

Hey thanks for the kind words JV. I've always been amazed by your even-keeled, unflappable posting style. Even though a lot of the philosophies I espouse about NBA basketball will definitely take a hit, I'm definitely rooting hard for the Pistons.

As for the subject of the thread, I think it will be a HUGE upset, definitely the biggest one of the last 25 years or so (I don't know much about the NBA prior to that). The Lakers were able to basically coast to the top of the West this year, and they took the absolute toughest path they could have taken to get to the Finals. Detroit didn't even have the best record in the East (yes, I still think the East is weak). I still don't think Detroit is the best team in the league ... this was a team that was down 3-2 to the NETS. I really don't know what to make of all this. Instinctively, you'd have to say we're where we are b/c Larry Brown is great, but Carlisle took Detroit almost as far last year, WITHOUT Rasheed Wallace. I think it might be just a weird matchup situation that's killing LA. I think this is the first opponent they've taken lightly this entire playoff season. They probably still think they're better than Detroit.

 

Historically, if the media is agreeing on something unanimously, you can almost be certain that they are wrong So, I am not surprised at all, and it's not an upset for me.

 

The second game of Lakers-Pistons series was the biggest upset ever the history of the NBA.

 

Buster Douglas is the biggest one in my lifetime. They stopped taking bets because the odds got so out of whack up to fight time. I really haven't seen anything close to that since.

 

I think, among other things, this series means everyone needs to take another look at their evaluation of the Eastern Conference. I don't think you should consider them equal, since there are really maybe 4 real teams there (tops) and the rest are in a perpetual rebuilding state. But, if Detroit is really this good and had the trouble they did with the Nets and Pacers, maybe those elite EC teams can hang a little better than they've been given credit for. The Lakers are no slouches. They beat SA and Minn. I don't know if they are really the best the West has to offer, but they are a worthy enough representative, basketball-wise. I myself will give the Pacers and Pistons more credit next season -- but not the Nets, I hate those guys.

 

For those who say the Lakers are overrated therefore not a big upset: what is an upset?

To me, an upset happens when the team that most people think will win loses. It has nothing to do with whether they are really that good. (In fact, I'd say there is no objective measure other than the result on how good a team really is.) By this definition, I think this could be one of the biggest upsets in NBA history. Almost nobody thought Detroit had any chance.

 

Exactly.

How many people would have bet - even money -- that Detroit would win?

I think more would have bet on a laker sweep.

Remember...Detroit wasn't such a fast-paced, young, determined team when they were struggling against NJ.

 

Eh, it seemed unlikely, but it's not the Rulon Gardner beats Aleksandr Karelin kinda upset you seem to think it is.

 

Given that the Pistons blew them out, I don't think it will be considered that big. They played so well it seems like a no brainer right now. However, if the Lakers come back, it will be huge story and fairly dramatic.

 

Wow, I would slow down here. Not to pretend that I have foresight or anything. But when I talked to my colleagues, I said the Rockets couldn't beat the Lakers because of the experience, and they couldn't pass San Antonio because Spurs' defense. But once they got lucky and passed the Spurs, I didn't see that Minny or Kings could stop them. Then I said, if the Pistons came out, maybe this is the year the Eastern really have a good choice. The reason is simple, Lakers won past games because of some scrubs like Shawn, Fox, Geroage, Fisher, or Rush this year making those open shots, if they get covered, I don't see an old and slow team like the Lakers winning. The Pistons, as they show now, they are running everybody down, challenge every shot. Maybe because we see a lot Eastern conference balls, in fact, there are couple of people agreed with me. That's why it's not an upset in my book. Remember the golden rule, bandwagon jumper will not be rewarded, they will lose just because of Malone and Payton

 

For some reason, I'm not upset at all.

This is the biggest "upset" I've seen in a while, Derrike Cope winning the Daytona 500 is the biggest sports upset I've seen overall.

 

It will be the biggest upset of modern times in sports BUT I couch that with in the "media's mind".

The thing I never could understand was how getting Payton and Malone was supposed to make the Fakers invincible. No one is disputing that those 2 will be in the Hall of Fame, but they are a little past their prime now. Not only that, but both of them have huge egos - how would they fit in with a team that already has 3 of the biggest egos of all-time (Shaq, Kobe, and Phil Jackson)?

But that is all I heard from ESPN is how great this Faker team is and that when they lost, it was "What is wrong with the Fakers?" Granted, I never liked the Fakers in the first place but this just made my resolve to despise them grow each and every day.

But it is understandable because this whole thing reminds me of when my beloved Broncos were playing the Packers in the Super Bowl. The AFC had lost like 11 (or some ridiculous number like that) straight Super Bowls and for the most part, weren't even competitive (with my Broncos being guilty of 3 those stinkers). Why would anyone think anything differently when Denver took on Green Bay that season? It is the same thing with the Eastern Conference. After seeing how they have stunk it up in the past couple of years in the Finals, and combine that with the media's obsession of the Fakers (a lot of it comes from the fact that the Fakers are in a huge media market), hearing a sweep was not surprising.

HOWEVER, I am disappointed that more people here did not realize or even acknowledge that the Pistons had a chance of being competitive with the Fakers. Some teams match up very well against others. The fact that the Pistons have elected to single coverage Shaq has been the biggest difference in them being up, IMO, compared to others who have gone against the Fakers. Let the "Big Aristotle" or "Big Idiot" or whatever the hell he wants to be called get his 30 and let Kobe get his 30, but you have to hold the rest of those jabronis to under double figures and that is what Detroit has done.

 

I agree with this take. I think it is right on the money. I mean when was the last time going into the NBA finals the team we thought was going to win didn't? When was the last time the team without home court won the title? I dont know. Rockets in 95?

Going into this series just about everyone picked the Lakers to win. Most people felt that if the Lakers got past San Antonio that was it, that SA was their toughest opponent.

To me there are TWO headlines here......
1) if Detroit wins - "One of the Greatest Upsets in NBA Finals History"
2) if the Lakers win - "One of the Greatest Choke Jobs by the Pistons in NBA Finals History"
One or the other.

 

Sorry for the tangent, but this is the second thread I've seen when someone wrote that the last Pistons team to win a championship was the last superstarless team to win a championship.

Isiah Thomas was a superstar, a hall of famer, a fifty greatest. There is no one even remotely close to his level on this Pistons team.

Carry on.

 

see my last post in the thread about the Pistons not having any super-stars.

 

I forgot that was you. I didn't respond to that yesterday because we've already had this debate.

I was telling my brother this, I think two of the most underrated players in the NBA have been Isiah Thomas and Kevin Johnson, because I think people really can't fathom guys that little dominating NBA games. Isiah is in the mold of the typical superstar in my opinion because he imposes his will on games. That's all I look at. He carried his team to victory a number of times.

Isiah was a winner on the College level being the best player and a winner on the NBA level being the best player on the team. To me that says it all.