Best record = title?

[Reality]

What % of the time does the best regular season record holder end up being the NBA champ?

1.  Modern day era, that being 1980 onward.  Also ancient pre 1979, just to see.

2.  2-3-2 has only been in existence since 1985.  Stern started it after his beloved Lakers had not had home court or the best record for 10 straight years.  (Boston and Philly)

So in 1985 Stern deprived the Celts NBA best 63-19 record from having the customary 2-2-1-1-1 home court true advantage.  Stung from the '84 Championship, where Stern had visions of sugarplumbs, ferries, and the Lakers winning, he instead was shown who the NBAs best center was, and who the best guard last named Johnson was.

Sure enough, in 1985 when Danny Ainge put down a couple 3s to tie the series at 2-2, walking down the tunnel aisle to the locker rooms he then signaled to an irate Laker *real fan* what he could do with his insults.  Problem was Danny forgot that Game 5 would be right where he was in Krishnaville, not back in Boston where it deserved to be.

In 1987 the Lakers did have the best reg season record.  It almost backfired on Stern when the seriously injured Celtics took game 3 and had Game 4 won until The Chief Bob Parish and Kevin McHale fought each other over a rebound either one could have easily had.  Ball went out of bounds, the greasy Lakers getting the gift inbounds.  Magic pushed off on McHale and got the game winning running sky hook.  Props to Magic, he did practice that shot a lot.
Game 5 was in Boston and they romped, but by that time the steam was out of the Celts and they dropped the series.

1985 was the farce year that started it.  Best record should resulted in 2-2-1-1-1 as it always had been.

Anywho, in 1987 had the Celts won its 2-2.  Now the team with best record, in 1987s case the Lakers, should host game 5 IMO.  Big time.  Absolutely.  Really the only *advantage* the Lakers gain is if the Champ series goes 7 games.  All the team with the lesser record (Celts) has to do is split the first two games.  Bingo, they now have *taken* home court advantage and 3 straight at home.  It's bullstink IMO.

Now granted a lot of years the team with the best record wins the finals anyways.
so the 2-3-2 ripoff does not come into play.  Still....what about years it does?

Sterns phony public rehearsed excuse for installing the 2-3-2 was that it sped up the finals, that by June people were wanting the season to just end.  Then why not shorten it in earlier regular season games.  What a farce!
 2-2-1-1-1 was and is fair.
Finals team with best record should get true home court.

[WayOutWest]

It almost backfired on him when the seriously injured Celtics took game 3 and had Game 4 won until The Chief Bob Parish and Kevin McHale fought each other over a rebound either one could have easily had.  Ball went out of bounds, the greasy Lakers getting the gift inbounds.  Magic pushed off on McHale and got the game winning running sky hook.  Props to Magic, he did practice that shot a lot.

Seriouisly injured?  You mean McHales stress fracture?  He was the only hobbled Celtic and he played like it didn't bother him.

That was one of the greatest games ever.  Lakers down six with less then 2 minutes to go, back then a six point lead was big.  Lakers had given up the fast break game in Boston because of Celtics pressure on the rebounder and outlet pass.  But on one of the last possesions the Lakers get a rebound and halfcourt outlet pass to Magic who goes 3 on 1 with Cooper and Scott on the wings.  Magic gets to the top of the key and passes back out to Cooper behind the 3 pt line, back then it was 23 feet back, a real 3 pointer.  Bang!  Lakers within 3.  Next possesion Celtics get an open look for Bird but 41 year old Kareem hauls arse from inside the paint to contest Birds shot from just inside the 3 point line.  Bird is forced to adjust and misses.  Lakers just played an awesome 90 seconds of defense and perfectly executed offense.

Anyhow, 2nd to last Laker possesion and Kareem almost gets an and one.  Makes the first freethow then misses the 2nd but McHale BLOWS the rebound.  That sets up the greatest shot by a Laker in all of Laker history.  Right off the inbounds pass the Lakers FORCE a switch of Worthy and Magics man, McHale and Johnson.  Magic gets McHale, a excellent defender, out of positions with a stutter step dribble then takes him to the middle of the key and shoots a baby sky hook over McHale, Parish and Bird for the game winner.  Magic was fouled by McHale but they didn't call it.  Next possesion Larry Bird gets a WIDE open look and misses.  

That was an awesome display of the Lakers just TAKING the game away from the Celtics with a superior game plan and execution.  Awesome PUNK job, Celtics had it in the bag and the Lakers just RIPPED it from them and destroyed their hopes for a title.  The Lakers just basically mailed in game 5 and let the series go back to L.A. for a vintage Laker route.

Praise Allah I love the last 3 minutes of that game, Celtics fans getting hyped as the Celtics looked to be pulling away only to have the Purple and Gold dynasty smack them down!  Woooooooooohoooooooo....thanks for the memories.

[Reality]

Praise Allah I love the last 3 minutes of that game,

Is that the sum total of your comments on 2-3-2 and best reg season record?

what is this, Fanhome.....

[WayOutWest]

Praise Allah I love the last 3 minutes of that game,

Is that the sum total of your comments on 2-3-2 and best reg season record?

what is this, Fanhome.....

Try figuring out why the format was REALLY changed to 2-3-2 before you even attempt to understand my pearls of wisdom.

[Reality]

Praise Allah I love the last 3 minutes of that game,

Is that the sum total of your comments on 2-3-2 and best reg season record?

what is this, Fanhome.....

Try figuring out why the format was REALLY changed to 2-3-2 before you even attempt to understand my pearls of wisdom.

are you seriously gonna swallow Sterns swill?

Oh no, what else?  To save fuel on airlflights because the politicians wanted to lower dependence on foreign oil?  :rofl:

Public service announcement:
Lakers need to be careful how they celebrate.
I trust this was not you in 1985 or 2002.
Here is a young lad wanting to display his Laker colors.  Hopefully he is okay.
http://www.cheezyvideos.com/woops.htm  go to 5th one down "flamer1.mpeg" [/size] *

*please do not view any of the other videos on this page.  They look bad.

[rickortreat]

2-3-2 is a joke and should never have been adopted.  In a 7-game series game 5 is the critical game, and should be played on the court of the team with the best record.  2-3-2 gives the advantage to the lesser team.  In a close series, this is completly unfair and leads to the lesser team getting a greater chance for the upset.

Oh yes, that Lakers team was so wonderfull two years earlier, they got swept 4-0 by the  Sixers. How were you and Allah getting along that day?  

[Joe Vancil]

2-3-2 is among the worst ideas in basketball.  (3 divisions per conference is up there with it, too.)

There's no reason to have a 2-3-2 format.  HOWEVER, up until last year, no team had ever taken games 3, 4, and 5 on their home court in a 2-3-2 format.

If they're serious about "saving time" and travel, then why not go to a 3-3-1 format.  Oh - *THAT* would be unfair to the lower seed.  But 2-3-2 isn't unfair to the upper seed.  Given the choice of "wronging" the upper seed or the lower seed, I'm always going to go in favor of "wronging" the lower seed.  If there's no advantage to winning, WHY WIN?  Give your best players weeks off.  Wanna produce that album, Ron Artest?  Go ahead;  we just need you for the playoffs.  After all - that's all that's important.

This "flip-the-switch" mentality is what's hurting pro basketball.  After all - why go see an "unimportant" game, where the team really doesn't care if it wins or loses?

 

[WayOutWest]

They are overrated simply becasue they won last year against a weak Lakers squad.  They weren't even the best team in the conference last year, Indiana was, but the injuries killed their chances.

Oh yes, that Lakers team was so wonderfull two years earlier, they got swept 4-0 by the  Sixers. How were you and Allah getting along that day?

Oh yea, I remember that year.  That's when Worthy AND McAdoo AND Nixon were out with injuries.  What were you saying about overrated and injuries?

Please don't compare an above average franchise like the Sixers to the dynasty of dynasties that are the Lakers.  Stick to comparrisson with NY, Detriot and SA and leave the dynasty talk to fans of the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls.  :nod:

[westkoast]

If anything 2-3-2 benefits the higher seeded team....dont see how it hurts them.  They start the series off at home with their crowd.  Then two possible elimination games in a close series has them at home with plenty of rest.  Id much rather have 1,2,6 and 7 than 3,4,5.  

Besides, can anyone name a team who took 3,4,5 at home?

[rickortreat]

If you don't see that it puts the better team at a disadvantage compared with the 2-2-1-1-1, then there's something seriously wrong with the way you think.

The home team's advantage comes from having the critical games at home.  The visiting team typically needs to get a split to have a chance to take the series, and if they do win one of the first two, they then gain the advantage.

Going home with a chance to close out the team with the better record is a serious disadvantage.  They go in, even at 1-1 and have to play three games in a row on the weaker teams floor.  WHERE is the homecourt advantage? Even if they win one, they go home down 3-2, needing to win two in a row to win the series.

IF the series went 2-2-1-1-1, then the team with the better record would still have the opportunity to win the pivotal game 5 at home.  Under the 2-3-2, game 5 is at the weaker teams site.

In a series, the first game and every odd game means more.  The winners of game 1 and game 3 usually win a 5 game series.  In a 7 game series, often times the teams split the first two games, and game 5 is the critical one. Since they turn out to be the pivotal games, they should be played on the better teams home floor.

Dynasty of Dynasties?  What are you smoking out there?  The Lakers don't even belong in the same league as the Celtics for a dynasty.  And the Bulls run trumps anything the Lakers ever did.  If the Lakers ever won 4 championships in a row, then they'd be in the same league.  

Besides the Sixers record in the finals against the Lakers is a split, and half the time the Sixers got beat by Boston before getting to the finals.  That gave LA a huge advantage walzing through the West while the Celts and the Sixers went after each other hammer and tong just to get there.  With that advantage, even the Lakers faithfull should realize their team should have a better record in the finals.  

[westkoast]

The better team SHOULD get one win in 3 tries on the road.  They are the better team right?  Teams hardly ever take games 3, 4, and 5 so it doesnt matter.  Teams dont benefit from playing at home for a long stretch of time, almost like teams lose their focus.

The better team also has the added bonus of being able to close big teams out at home.  Fans tend to sorta like that thing and they cheer 5x as hard as a regular season game.  Hometown fans get a good show and they help pump the players to push runs.

For example, a healthy Kings team up against the Sonics would be a tough matchup for the Sonics in the first round.  The Kings have more expierence and surely would stretch the series out to 6 or 7 games.  The Sonics still are the better squad and really history says that teams dont win 3,4, and 5 often.  The Sonics have 2 chances at home to close a longer series out.  

All this pans out to is longer playoff series with players having a little bit more energy.  You are right about the game 5 and that is what is pushing series longer.  That small advantage the weaker team gains is to stay alive.

[WayOutWest]

The Lakers don't even belong in the same league as the Celtics for a dynasty.  And the Bulls run trumps anything the Lakers ever did.  If the Lakers ever won 4 championships in a row, then they'd be in the same league.

Titles in 4 different decades, not even the Celtics can boast that accomplishment.  The Lakers were the FIRST dynasty of the NBA.  

The Lakers have 14 titles, the Bulls can start dreaming Laker-like when the win half that many.  The Celtics not doubt had the greatest run in the NBA back in the 60's when they were the Yankees of basketball, buying up all the HOF talent on the market to battle Wilt but they are only 2 titles ahead of the Lakers and the Lakers have proven to be bigger than any one or group of players and have won titles in the 40's, 70's 80's and 00's, they will win again.

Besides the Sixers record in the finals against the Lakers is a split, and half the time the Sixers got beat by Boston before getting to the finals.  That gave LA a huge advantage walzing through the West while the Celts and the Sixers went after each other hammer and tong just to get there.  With that advantage, even the Lakers faithfull should realize their team should have a better record in the finals.

Is that what Philly fans tell themselves when they look up into the rafters?  Laker fans just say 1, 2, 3, .... 12, 13 & 14 when we look up into the rafters.

Get a clue, you're dellusional about the merits of your team.

[rickortreat]

Really, who's delusional?  The Lakers won titles in the 60's thanks to a huge player from Philadelphia- Wilt Chamberlain.  Oh, sure you had West, Goodrich, and a bunch of others, but without Wilt you wouldn't have gotten any.  Was Philly stupid for tradeing him, very.

And, then once Wilt finally had enough, what did the Lakers do? Outbid everyone else for Kareem Abdual Jabbar.  Along with some good drafting and agressive moves by Jerry West, that got you a bunch more titles.

The last group also came from a trade where you brought in Shaquille O'Neal and worked out a great trade for another kid from Philadelphia- Kobe Bryant.

In short the Lakers have tried to be the Yankees of Basketball, so I have the same feeling I do about Yankee's fans: You don't play fair, and you outspend everyone else.  You suck.

Competition is about beating other teams that work within the same limits.  But noooo, that doesn't give you enough of an advantage, so you use your size and your leverage to get you extra benefits.  

Sixer's fans look up at the rafters and see more banners than they can count, Division Champs, Conference Champs, NBA title Champs.  They see the history of a team that stuggled valiantly, worked hard and built themselves up to becoem a good team, instead of just buying one.  There's a certain virtue in that, that Lakers fans will never understand.    

[westkoast]

Dont play fair and outspend everyone else? LOL.  I believe the Trailblazers had a higher payroll.  I also believe that the Timberwolves in that ultra super hot bed of money they call Minnesota paid more money for KG's huge contract than what the Lakers gave Shaq.  I find it funny in previous threads Buss has been called cheap but at the same time the Lakers are the Yankees of basketball?  Maybe in sheer number of titles for the sport they play in.

Funny that NY is as big of a market as LA (if not bigger) is yet they dont seem to attract the same players.......ever wonder why?  How silly for me to think it could be for reasons like history of the franchise, a GM like Jerry West at one time, players like Magic, Rambis, Worthy still helping out the franchise......when its really all about money.  I guess the Knicks cannot afford to pay big bucks, oh wait!  They paid 120 million on Allan Houston.  My bad!  You know I was thinking Philly wouldnt be able to pay for big name players because they are not quite as large as LA......oh wait you have Iverson and the 120 million dollar man.  My bad again!

[rickortreat]

There's a big difference between what you spend and what you get.  Evaluation of talent is a big factor.  The Knicks have a huge payroll, but the players they have aren't worth it.  They suck at evaluating talent, which is why they continue to fail.  Note that all the scribes continually pick NY to win the Atlantic, based on their inability to evaluate talent and chemistry.

This is one of the big reasons why teams like the Yankees don't win every year.  Spending all the extra money gives them a big advantage, but it isn't always enough.

The salary cap has made the NBA more competitive, and it also causes teams problems.  One of the reasons, that the Lakers AREN'T a dynasty, in my book, is that their teams don't win year after year like the Bulls and the Celtics did.  Your latest version, the Shaq and Kobe show was cut short, mroe than anything else by the lack of character of the players.  The immature me first attitude of Shaq and Kobe led to the Lakers not getting a dyasty.  They also paid too much for those two, killing their chances of attracting enough players to support Batman and Robin.


These days in the NBA, two stars and a bunch of decent role players is all it takes to win  a championship.  There isn't as much good talent as there are teams in the league.  In the old days, it was much, much harder to assemble a good team, when you needed four or five top quality players and had to keep them together for years to achieve success.  What the Celtics accomplished back then means so much more, because it was so much harder to do.  

These days since it only takes two really good players, teams can often buy themselves a ring or two.  That's not a dynasty, that's just mortageing your future.  The Lakers got their rings, but now they only have one start, and they're not in the playoffs.  Is it better than what the Sixers did, building a team only to fall short, and then struggle to start over, having thrown too much money at marginal players?  I'd say so, but it sucks to be a Lakers fan these days- not much to look forward to.

Is Iverson worth what they pay him?  Probably not- but he does play hard every night and would be a serious MVP candidate if the Sixers were a better team.  I'd say for all he's given to the team, he's worth the money much more so than an Alan Houston, but not so much as a Shaq or Duncan.