Well I guess judging from your post history I shouldn't expect much more logic than you have put forward. You know damn well the best team doesn't always win and there are plenty of instances to point to in the past that prove exactly that, but that doesn't fit into your down with Morey and the Rockets tirade so you ignore it.
Oh yes. Having multiple game-changing calls go against the Rockets had absolutely nothing to do with it. The refs had a bigger impact in that series than in any I've seen in 30 years of watching NBA basketball.
False. Read up on these two teams and tell me that you really believe that Denver was better than Seattle. http://www.nba.com/history/94nuggets_moments.html The better team does not react like this after only winning the first round. The lesser team usually acts like this when they upset a contender.
Portland won because of McHale's inability to coach and Harden's inability to show up in the playoffs the past couple of years and they probably could have won despite Harden. That series just proved that Portland has a better coach. The best team doesn't "always" win. The 8th seed Denver Nuggets bet the #1 seed Seattle Super Sonics _ but you wouldn't necessarily say that Denver was the better team.
You guys are missing the entire point. He is simply saying by definition, if 2 teams play a 7 game series, whoever won the series is a better team. Everything else is irrelevant. Are you trying to say Houston has more talent? Maybe, but who cares if the team with less talent wins. Were the 93-95 Rockets the best team in the NBA those years? I'd say so, despite finishing the season without the best record or the most talent. It all sounds pretty silly to say if Team A beats Team B , Team A is the worse team. Right?
And we are trying to explain why that isn't necessarily true. The results from a limited number of games is not irrefutable evidence of a pecking order. Especially when so many factors go into these games outside of just how the players performed. Not to mention the games were all very close, so much so that we actually outscored the team while losing the series.
So were the spurs not the best team in the NBA last year? If not, by what metrics does it take for you define them as such? So if the winner of a series does not determine the better team, what does? Which advanced stats does the best team need to be the best at? Who decides this? At the end of the day, you can put an asterisk next to EVERY SINGLE playoff series win, what is the point again? Every single champion in NBA history is entitled to at least one asterisk. Quit making excuses, the Blazers were better than us, we need to improve.
Mchale's horrible coaching was a factor. But Harden's defense and inability to put together consecutive productive games was a bigger factor. If Harden played the same way he did during the regular season, we win EASILY. But he didn't. Aldridge & Lillard were more productive. They proved to be the better team. Anything else is hypothetical. You guys are refering to a playoff series 20 years ago
Yeah the Spurs were the best team. Best record in the regular season. For the most part breezed through all of their playoff series. Top 6 offense and a top 4 defense over the regular season and a top performer in both categories in the playoffs. And yes over a 6 game period the Blazers outplayed us, but anyone being objective about the makeup of our teams and who they would want to go into next season with would take The Rockets. Being outplayed doesn't make you inferior. Lots of factors went into that series including some questionable calls late that the league apologized for and not to mention Aldridge playing the best stretch of games of his life while Harden played his worst. Is it reasonable to expect that if some calls went the other way and that if Harden and Aldridge played to their average output that series would have been very different? I say yes.
Now this I can't argue with. At the time it happens I don't care if we aren't considered the better team I just want to win, but if I am looking forward I want the better team not the one who prevailed in one series. All I'm trying to point out is that just because they won that doesn't make them better. Meaning even after that series loss, I would wager that if we played another series right after that most would favor us to win for many of the reasons I listed above. And that if someone was ranking the teams after the season you would be hard pressed to find someone who ranks the Blazers ahead of us even though we lost.
Speaking of Harden _ as bad as he played it wasn't like the Rockets were getting blown out and many of those games were winnable despite Harden's lackluster performance. They didn't need Harden to be good to win (of course it would have helped) _ they needed McHale to be a better coach. I'm disappointed in how Harden played but a coach has no excuse for falling asleep at the wheel. I'll say the Rockets are the more "talented" team. And leave it at that. By the miracle of McHale having a head coaching job and Portland getting swiftly and easily removed from the playoffs in the 2nd round _ Portland did win but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the "better team." But because they did win, I can't argue with you if you think they are.
And speaking on pure emotion. But the FACT is our best player hasn't performed at a superstar level two consecutive years in the playoffs. Lillard & Aldridge are a better combo and proved it. Had Harden showed up we'd won in 6, with Mchale's terrible coaching. But unfortunately the better team prevailed. Morey has a LONG way to go filling out the roster. You guys seriously overrate Morey and the players on our team.
You would have a point if the game was 2 on 2 and or even if they got to guard each other. You sir are the one who is riding the emotional euphoria of the Portland wave by making a blanket statement like that when Lillard and LMR was matched up with Beverley and TJ for the most part so you think those guys are better... Lol... You go head and keep believing that _ I can't argue with you. And I'm not throwing a parade for Morey so you're wrong on that one too...
The Spurs won the title. Whether they were the best team is irrelevant. The Blazers beat the Rockets. Whether they were the best team is also irrelevant. What is relevant is who will be better in the future. Just because they beat us last season doesn't mean they'd do it again next year, even if the teams remained essentially the same.
The most admirable thing about Morey is that he makes cerebral decisions, even if they don't always work out. He is keenly intelligent and a clever, shrewd negotiator. His decisions are based entirely on what is best for his team. But he can also be dispassionate, without a heart, both in his dealings with players and trading partners. He refused to trade Asik when asked to do so; held out for equal value; and traded him only when it became necessary to acquire a third star. These are the attributes you want in a good GM, for sure, but if I were a Rocket, I would have my agent map out a clear Plan B and/or exit strategy, ready to go at any time, because with Morey at the helm, a trade is always a possibility. That's why I think Chandler Parsons, if offered max money, will accept it, regardless of a wink/wink deal with Morey, and regardless of whether a third star is on board, and force Morey to match. Such a move guarantees him max money. Selfish move by Chandler? Sure. In fact it's exactly what Morey would do.
