SA writer on 'worst' NBA Champs

Hmmm... to me, the magic of a Championship is not about who shows themselves to be the most dominant team..

It's about heart, it's about do-or-die, it's about magic, impossible miracles, and destiny..

While many ignorant people have demonstrated they have no understanding or appreciation of Houston's two NBA Championships, in MY mind, there has never been a greater playoff run than the Houston Rockets drive to the title for the 2nd time. I have never before or since seen such heart-pounding magic, so many from-the-brink-of-the-abyss miracles, so many come-from-behind-against-impossible-odds gut-checks, or ever seen so many complete strangers come together and cheer in pure joy .

Funny thing is now - even when the Rockets win their next championships, I don't see how anything the team ever does could ever top the feelings of that second title run. Not that we won't love it, but how on Earth can they top it?

Ah well.. it'll be fun to watch them try...


ciao

 

It certainly isn't about gaining the approval of some NY blowhard writer either.

Nothing against you xiki, but I've gotten over the whole "Rockets get no respect" perception a long time ago. It just doesn't bother me anymore. We won 2 championships and I don't care what some fishwrap hack from NY or anywhere else thinks about it.

 

You know, if you take a positive review by a New York sports writer, roll it up, and wrap it around your finger, it kind of looks like a ring.

 

Couldn't have said it any better, myself. A ring is a ring is a ring--especially when one comes AGAINST a "big market" team.

 

That's a good article. And it brings up some good points. Most notably, if all the championships were played by and won by NY and LA, they'd all be the "greatest" championships ever ... well, according to NY & LA anyway.

Personally, I thought that almost-quadriple-double by Tim Duncan was masterful. Not to mention his entire playoff run.

 

the thing is, it IS boring bball. those bulls scores they mentioned were a different type of bball. the NBA made all of these rule changes to up scoring and yet these 2 teams couldn't hit a shot for L O N G stretches. a 19-0 run is great, but no championship team should ever allow that to happen. i wont say that these spurs are the worst champs by any means, but the way they won it takes a little bit of luster off the trophy (IMHO). God, I just hope that JVG doesn't bring in slowdown bball a la Fratello's Cavs teams.

 

Most can't understand that. They only look at the total points, not how those points were scored (style of play; offensive philosophy)

Spurs problem? Lack of outside shooters. Nets? Need more scoring options.

Also, if your star scorer is a post player, then you'll play more a half-court game.

At least the Rockets have both (backcourt and frontcourt) this time around: Francis and Yao.

 

Do you actually believe that New York loves LA, just because they are LA?

NO. It's about Shaq and his overpowering dominance that gets good ratings. The people just want to see him.

Same with Yao (yet to write his name in history).

 

It's interesting we associate Fratello's Cav's with boring, low-scoring play. At their worst those Cavs averaged 88 points a game during the season as I remember. This year, the Nuggets average less than 84 a game. As times continue to change it seems we're heading to even slower paced "boring" games. It all goes back to the mid 1990s when players started coming out very early.

 

It was boring! I didn't even bother to watch it and only spurs and nets fans tuned in. I'm sure spurs fans didn't think it was boring since they won.

 

Oh, come on, it was boring as hell.

That's the first Finals that I've watched less than half the games since the 92. I watched the first, then didn't again until 6. If those two were representative, which they seem to have been, the quality of basketball was awful.

The Spurs, to me, are an almost identical replica of the 93-94 Rockets. The only difference: 1. I don't like the Spurs and 2. Tim Duncan isn't as graceful or as good of a shot blocker as Hakeem but can rebound a bit better.

The Spurs had 1 great player, two decent ones, and a few "useful" guys. The Nets had one almost-great player, two decent Eastern conference players, and fewer "useful" players. Neither was exactly The Lakers circa 2000. Or the Bulls circa 1996. Or The Celtics circa 1986. Or any # of teams.

It was a bad year. Maybe next year Webber won't get hurt. Maybe Dallas will learn to play defense.

I really wish that the SA papers would stop confusing "deserving title winners" with "great team that's fun to watch."

They're not the same damned thing.

 

We have the banners and the trophies. Nuff said.

 

Misery loves company.

Heh heh...

Admit it haven. You don't want to be the only one.

 

Well, at least that shows how far the NBA has suffered over the last few years. As younger and younger players come in, we'll see this type of play. No matter how good their natural athletic ability.

By the way, what skill do you think Rich Jefferson practiced most of his youth? I guess he didn't think that shooting was very important. He's a good example of what kids think is "cool" and "exciting."

In the end, it degrades the game.

 

If you take a positive review by a New York sports writer, wad it up, and throw it in the garbage, it looks like trash. Of course, the same thing can be said if you just leave it as is.

 

Good article.
It pointed out the stupidity or bias of NY writers ... but its conclusion reveals the sad fact: "Ratings don't lie, even if poor memories do. "

Right or wrong, the bottom line is that people just don't watch these players/ these teams. You need a combination of marquee players, big market teams or high scoring, exciting games.

I imagine the NBA and David Stern are waiting for the day the Rockets play in the finals. Yao Ming may not be a top 10 player but his draw is certainly top-notch.