Mark Cuban destroyed one of the greatest NBA teams in history

[unbreakable]

:cry:

Just got done watching the 2011 NBA Finals again... Im telling you, that Mavericks team was on par with the 86 Celtics. One of the deepest, most versatile, teams Ive ever witnessed, and Ive been watching ball since about 72.

How could Cuban let JJ and Tyson walk away? They were everything for this team and completely irreplacable (JJ's penetration/heart/hustle/clutch is one of the best ive ever seen). Now the Mavs will be lucky to get out of the 1st round, they are terrible.

:cry:

[Miserio]

:cry:

Just got done watching the 2011 NBA Finals again... Im telling you, that Mavericks team was on par with the 86 Celtics. One of the deepest, most versatile, teams Ive ever witnessed, and Ive been watching ball since about 72.

How could Cuban let JJ and Tyson walk away? They were everything for this team and completely irreplacable. Now the Mavs will be lucky to get out of the 1st round, they are terrible.

:cry:
One of the greatest teams in nba history? I think you're 9 years old and a little biatch

[Kurosawa0]

The 96 Bulls would've murdered them.

[unbreakable]

The 96 Bulls would've murdered them.


Dirk and Kidd/JJ would have a field day against the 96 Bulls. Imagine Ron Harper's old ass getting eaten up by JJ! :roll:

And who the hell would guard Dirk? Rodman? :roll:

Mavs in 6.

[Rhinox]

Dirk and Kidd/JJ would have a field day against the 96 Bulls. Imagine Ron Harper's old ass getting eaten up by JJ! :roll:

And who the hell would guard Dirk? Rodman? :roll:

Mavs in 6.


is this guy for real? lol

[Zenji]

Seriously? :facepalm

[VishaltotheG]

One of the greatest teams in nba history? I think you're 9 years old and a little biatch

:roll:

[Rose]

This is why we need negs.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

First off Cuban didn't destroy the team. The new salary cap and restraints destroyed the team. Plus age has hurt the team as well.

[DMAVS41]

What? It was one of the most improbable titles ever. LOL....

And Cuban didn't do anything. Blame the new rules and other franchises being morons enough to pay Chandler 60 million, Barea 20 million, and Butler 24 million.

You can blame Cuban for getting rid of Rudy and Brewer.....hate those two moves...don't hate not bringing back 3 guys that are probably only worth half of what they are getting paid now.

[chips93]

a guy trolling about how good his team was last year? only on insidehoops

[Miserio]

Dirk and Kidd/JJ would have a field day against the 96 Bulls. Imagine Ron Harper's old ass getting eaten up by JJ! :roll:

And who the hell would guard Dirk? Rodman? :roll:

Mavs in 6.
Ron Harper is a top 10 defensive perimeter player of all time in my opinion.

[ballup]

This is why we need negs.
This. It makes people rethink before posting terrible threads like this one.

[kidachi]

They were resilient and an unbelievable 3 pt shooting team. but "one of the greatest in history?" :oldlol: NO.

[Dwyane Rose]

This is why we need negs.

Repped. :applause:

[onhcetum]

I didn't think they were gonna beat the Lakers to be honest let alone 4-0 them. They also played a tough Thunder team as well. And Heat should have won the finals to be honest and they definitely gave it away. How a team that has two of the best players in the NBA (arguable both in their athletic and basketball primes) and manage to lose is beyond me. Lebron and Wade are both once in a lifetime players who are unguardable... The Nuggets that year weren't too bad either.

[coin24]

What a fu*king retard, seriously:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[305Baller]

86 Celtics?

Thats a reach.

[Pra]

:facepalm

[IBeeLeave9482]

This is why we need negs.

How could this dude think that the Mavs were better than the 96 Bulls or 86 Celtics?

[dirk94_]

Yeah we would have been screwed if we kept everybody later on down the road. So yeah we look bad now but you never know what we might get instead.

[icewill36]

well the mavs shot like 44% from 3 the entire playoffs, its very difficult to beat a team shooting it that well from deep. plus a guy like dirk who is pretty much unguardable id say they could challenge any great team, and this is coming from a mav hater.

[Shepseskaf]

Surprised that Dallas is looking so bad early. I expect that they'll get it together and be at least decent. No championship run, though. I didn't see a repeat even if JJ and Tyson were re-signed.

[RintjeRitsma]

And who the hell would guard Dirk? Rodman? :roll:

:facepalm

[Foster5k]

Championship Bulls >>>>>>>>>>>> 11 Mavs....

[Clutch]

Surprised that Dallas is looking so bad early. I expect that they'll get it together and be at least decent. No championship run, though. I didn't see a repeat even if JJ and Tyson were re-signed.
They are 1-4.
If they don't get out of the slump soon they might even miss the playoffs (yeah, I said it).
It's a shortened season and the West is deep as usual.
I expect them to bounce back and make the playoffs though.

[bagelred]

They weren't even they greatest team in the Finals last year.

[Fiasco]

Who took away the negs? I demand they return.

[coin24]

They weren't even they greatest team in the Finals last year.

This:applause:

[iggy>]

They weren't even the best team in 2011, they just took advantage of lebron choking.

[Balla_Status]

Dallas was the better team. Don't get it twisted. They played as a team. Miami did not.

[R.I.P.]

They weren't even they greatest team in the Finals last year.


http://johnwsmart.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/130200441846.jpg

Butthurt?

[Figlo]

LMFAO at ppl saying they weren't the best in 2011
if you'r serious of course

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Dragonyeuw]

:cry:

Just got done watching the 2011 NBA Finals again... Im telling you, that Mavericks team was on par with the 86 Celtics.
:cry:

:facepalm

[TheFan]

imho they weren't even the best team on the west... the perfect storm, Nowitzki having a comeback year, couple of key players playing for a contract, key veterans, got ape-batshit-crazy-insane-super hot at the right moment(POs), rival stars choking, etc.... When you are shooting over 40% from 3pt land as a team, you know theres something wrong.

[Chrono90]

Dirk and Kidd/JJ would have a field day against the 96 Bulls. Imagine Ron Harper's old ass getting eaten up by JJ! :roll:

And who the hell would guard Dirk? Rodman? :roll:

Mavs in 6.

Prove that people don't know what they're talking about

[ChandlerParsons]

:cry:

Just got done watching the 2011 NBA Finals again... Im telling you, that Mavericks team was on par with the 86 Celtics. One of the deepest, most versatile, teams Ive ever witnessed, and Ive been watching ball since about 72.

How could Cuban let JJ and Tyson walk away? They were everything for this team and completely irreplacable (JJ's penetration/heart/hustle/clutch is one of the best ive ever seen). Now the Mavs will be lucky to get out of the 1st round, they are terrible.

:cry:
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
No.

[Optimus Prime]

:cry:

Just got done watching the 2011 NBA Finals again... Im telling you, that Mavericks team was on par with the 86 Celtics. One of the deepest, most versatile, teams Ive ever witnessed, and Ive been watching ball since about 72.

How could Cuban let JJ and Tyson walk away? They were everything for this team and completely irreplacable (JJ's penetration/heart/hustle/clutch is one of the best ive ever seen). Now the Mavs will be lucky to get out of the 1st round, they are terrible.

:cry:

This is one of the worst posts I have seen on this site, and I've seen A LOT of horribad posts.

Last year's Mavs on par with the 85-86 Celtics?! Kids nowadays... :banghead: :wtf: :facepalm

[JohnnyWall]

Cuban is just a reformed nerd with a constant chip on his shoulder from all the bullying he endured throughout his youth. The guy's a total douchebag.

[kNIOKAS]

imho they weren't even the best team on the west... the perfect storm, Nowitzki having a comeback year, couple of key players playing for a contract, key veterans, got ape-batshit-crazy-insane-super hot at the right moment(POs), rival stars choking, etc.... When you are shooting over 40% from 3pt land as a team, you know theres something wrong.
my friend I have bad news for you, you're piece of asshole.

jeez how I hate people like you. you guys have they imaginary world and you judge the real world on how it does resemble your dream world. mavs outplayed other teams, they had great players playing great, they had three pointers falling, that's why they won, and that's why were better. now listening to you it seems like mavs did a crime and overachieved, just because you didn't think of them as champions while looking at the paper. god damn son. you seem clearly the same type of people that were barking at pierce in the contest, and when he won, you were still not convinced he won, and just disregarded the title. because it didn't suite your agenda. you ****er should stab yourself into eye

[Sarcastic]

During the lockout : It's not fair. Teams just win by outspending.

After the lockout : OMG why are they breaking my team up?

[schism206]

Dallas was the better team. Don't get it twisted. They played as a team. Miami did not.
Well said, Miami had a more talented team maybe, but Dallas was DEFINITELY the better TEAM. That was the reason they won, everyone contributed and did their job. When Dirk went 0-10 or whatever it was in the 1st half of the last game of the finals, his team kept him in it.

[bagelred]

Butthurt?

No. Just the opposite. i'm not a Heat fan, but I recognize they have more raw talent than the Mavs. Mavs went on an amazing run but greatest team of all time? Probably not in the Top 100.

[sipitri]

Dirk and Kidd/JJ would have a field day against the 96 Bulls. Imagine Ron Harper's old ass getting eaten up by JJ! :roll:

And who the hell would guard Dirk? Rodman? :roll:

Mavs in 6.

That last statement "Mavs in 6" made me lol so hard, don't know why.
Repped :roll:

[unbreakable]

.... When you are shooting over 40% from 3pt land as a team, you know theres something wrong.

something wrong? or something incredibly right? the mavs were unguardable last year. theyre uptempo, fearless basketball is one of the best ive ever seen. and ive been watching hoops since about 72.

[Balla_Status]

Cuban is just a reformed nerd with a constant chip on his shoulder from all the bullying he endured throughout his youth. The guy's a total douchebag.

Lessons learned: Nerds rule the world.

[Balla_Status]

something wrong? or something incredibly right? the mavs were unguardable last year. theyre uptempo, fearless basketball is one of the best ive ever seen. and ive been watching hoops since about 72.

We were left open a lot due to phenomenal ball movement. Poor post by that dude.

[monkeypox]

Wow! So not only did Cuban destroy his own championship team, he went back in time and destroyed one of the greatest teams in history!?

[Owl]

Congrats to the Mavs, they won the title,going through 3 very good teams and no one can take that away from them.
BUT ...
"one of the greatest NBA teams in history"
really?!?!
They were the 8th best (regular season) team last year by SRS (points differential, but adjusted for strength of schedule). Even if you don't believe in advanced stats there were 3 teams with better records and one with an equal one.
They are certainly not one of the strongest title winning teams, and are I suspect to many amongst the the weaker title winners alongside the winners of the late 1970's, or perhaps the next tier with the likes of the Pistons, Rockets and Heat.

I think Cuban is full of [nonesense] when he's saying this years team is a great one, Chandler provided exactly what that team needed so even if overall talent hasn't fallen off that much in talent they aren't as good as they were last year.
Despite this I think Cuban is to be commended for saying he wasn't going to overbid for a center who reaching the end of his peak years, and has been so frequently injured. Same with Barea and Butler. He is especially to be commended for essentially (implicitly) acknowledging that last years team wasn't a great truly one, and being bold enough to break up a title team.
Cuban knows the best value contracts are superstar ones and given the possibility of Howard, Williams or Paul he made a hugely bold move that I kind of hope pays off, but will have been correct even if it doesn't land a superstar this summer.

[Shade8780]

http://pinkie.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/132283517637.jpg

:lol at this kid

[AngelEyes]

Can people give the Mavericks more than a week or two before jumping off the cliff? Did they really want or expect Cuban to overpay for a soon to be 30 yr old offensively challenged center with more than ten years of service? Did they want him to pay Butler who's on the other side of 20, in decline and always a health risk. Once Odom come around and he will come around, they will be a very different looking team.

[Xyph]

Mavs are already going back to being irrelevant.

[Rhyen]

Congratz... I think 90% you guys just got TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL'D!

[DMAVS41]

Mavs are already going back to being irrelevant.

This will be our 12th straight year of being relevant....not matter what happens this year. The Mavs are relevant.

We just had one of the greatest 11 years for a franchise in NBA history.

[JohnnyWall]

This will be our 12th straight year of being relevant....not matter what happens this year. The Mavs are relevant.

We just had one of the greatest 11 years for a franchise in NBA history.

lol? According to what measurement? They're certainly not an irrelevant team, but I don't see how 1 championship and 2 conference titles makes it "one of the greatest 11 years" in NBA history. Especially when you consider the repeat years from the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers.

[Teanett]

lol? According to what measurement? They're certainly not an irrelevant team, but I don't see how 1 championship and 2 conference titles makes it "one of the greatest 11 years" in NBA history. Especially when you consider the repeat years from the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers.

it's true tho.
11 years is a very long time.

[AngelEyes]

lol? According to what measurement? They're certainly not an irrelevant team, but I don't see how 1 championship and 2 conference titles makes it "one of the greatest 11 years" in NBA history. Especially when you consider the repeat years from the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers.

They had a consistent run of regular season dominance but I don't think you can call it one of the best 11 year stretches in history with only one title. Considering the runs that the Bulls had in the 90's, the Lakers in the 80's and 2000's, the Spurs in the late 90's and 2000's and the Celtics in the 80's.

[Teanett]

They had a consistent run of regular season dominance but I don't think you can call it one of the best 11 year stretches in history with only one title. Considering the runs that the Bulls had in the 90's, the Lakers in the 80's and 2000's, the Spurs in the late 90's and 2000's and the Celtics in the 80's.

lakers 2000's was maybe 5 years of relevance. they were crap in between.

[triangleoffense]

Dirk and Kidd/JJ would have a field day against the 96 Bulls. Imagine Ron Harper's old ass getting eaten up by JJ! :roll:

And who the hell would guard Dirk? Rodman? :roll:

Mavs in 6.
Dirk wouldn't even exist with Rodman on him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdUT3GPlGwU

[Kobr]

lakers 2000's was maybe 5 years of relevance. they were crap in between.

What's better? A medium amount of great pizza.. or all-you-can-eat of pretty good pizza?

http://i.imgur.com/2dQxz.png

[DMAVS41]

lol? According to what measurement? They're certainly not an irrelevant team, but I don't see how 1 championship and 2 conference titles makes it "one of the greatest 11 years" in NBA history. Especially when you consider the repeat years from the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers.

We won over 50 11 straight seasons. 3 WCF trips. 2 finals. 1 title. Did it in the era of shaq, duncan, kobe, and kg in one of the strongest decades for a conference ever.

How many teams have ever won 50 games or more for 11 straight seasons? I think its been done like 4 or 5 times in NBA history. Mavs also have the 2nd highest win percentage over those 11 years. Only the Duncan led Spurs have a higher win percentage.

Not many runs in NBA history better than that given the circumstances.

[AngelEyes]

lakers 2000's was maybe 5 years of relevance. they were crap in between.

They were relevant in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010. In that stretch they won 5 titles and appeared in 7 finals.

[Kobr]

We won over 50 11 straight seasons. 3 WCF trips. 2 finals. 1 title. Did it in the era of shaq, duncan, kobe, and kg in one of the strongest decades for a conference ever.

How many teams have ever won 50 games or more for 11 straight seasons? I think its been done like 4 or 5 times in NBA history. Mavs also have the 2nd highest win percentage over those 11 years. Only the Duncan led Spurs have a higher win percentage.

Not many runs in NBA history better than that given the circumstances.

Well, the ultimate goal is to win championships. Personally, I think a team winning three consecutive NBA championships in a row is more impressive than a team that wins over 50 games each regular season but consistently fails to make it to the finals. Both regular season and post season performances can be impressive, but I think the post season holds more weight.

[AngelEyes]

Well, the ultimate goal is to win championships. Personally, I think a team winning three consecutive NBA championships in a row is more impressive than a team that wins over 50 games each regular season but consistently fails to make it to the finals. Both regular sesson and post season performances can be impressive, but I think the post season holds more weight.

I absolutely agree with this. It's the same thing that separated the New York Yankees of the 90's from the Atlanta Braves from the 90's. The Atlanta Braves were great the entire decade but only ended up winning one title, while the Yankees were phenomenal half the decade and one in 96', 98', 99', and 00'. The Yankees are remembered more from that era because they brought home the trophy.

[DMAVS41]

Well, the ultimate goal is to win championships. Personally, I think a team winning three consecutive NBA championships in a row is more impressive than a team that wins over 50 games each regular season but consistently fails to make it to the finals. Both regular season and post season performances can be impressive, but I think the post season holds more weight.

Sure, it depends on the circumstances though. I'd say the Mavs circumstances bumps them up a little. The Mavs are the only other team since 99 to make the finals other than the Spurs/Lakers.

The Mavs roster hasn't been close to the Lakers....and has been behind the Spurs as well. They did something the loaded Kings and Suns never did.

Just a great run for 11 years all things considered. I agree championships are more important, but you can't ignore winning 50 or more 11 straight times. That is a huge accomplishment for a franchise and its one of the most rare achievements a team can hit.

I think its only the duncan spurs, magic/kareem lakers, russell celtics and dirk mavs that have done it.

i might be missing some, but the point is that its the rare of the rare.

[JohnnyWall]

We won over 50 11 straight seasons. 3 WCF trips. 2 finals. 1 title. Did it in the era of shaq, duncan, kobe, and kg in one of the strongest decades for a conference ever.

How many teams have ever won 50 games or more for 11 straight seasons? I think its been done like 4 or 5 times in NBA history. Mavs also have the 2nd highest win percentage over those 11 years. Only the Duncan led Spurs have a higher win percentage.

Not many runs in NBA history better than that given the circumstances.

Like Kobr said, rings are what matters in the end. More than regular season records. The Spurs had the 2nd best regular season record last season in 61-21, and then they were knocked out in the first round by an 8th seed team. Would you consider that a more successful year than the one Dallas had?

Over the past 11 years, the Lakers have won 5 championships, 7 conference titles, 7 division titles, and made the finals 7 times. You can say that the Mavericks' past 11 year run has been one of the greatest regular season periods in NBA history, but I don't think you can say it was one of the greatest 11 years.

[Dictator]

One of the greatest teams in nba history? I think you're 9 years old and a little biatch

:lol :lol

[Dictator]

:cry:

Just got done watching the 2011 NBA Finals again... Im telling you, that Mavericks team was on par with the 86 Celtics. One of the deepest, most versatile, teams Ive ever witnessed, and Ive been watching ball since about 72.

How could Cuban let JJ and Tyson walk away? They were everything for this team and completely irreplacable (JJ's penetration/heart/hustle/clutch is one of the best ive ever seen). Now the Mavs will be lucky to get out of the 1st round, they are terrible.

:cry:

:roll: I bet you loss half your rep bar with this post.

[DMAVS41]

Like Kobr said, rings are what matters in the end. More than regular season records. The Spurs had the 2nd best regular season record last season in 61-21, and then they were knocked out in the first round by an 8th seed team. Would you consider that a more successful year than the one Dallas had?

Over the past 11 years, the Lakers have won 5 championships, 7 conference titles, 7 division titles, and made the finals 7 times. You can say that the Mavericks' past 11 year run has been one of the greatest regular season periods in NBA history, but I don't think you can say it was one of the greatest 11 years.

I never said rings weren't more important....I said its one of the best 11 year runs a franchise has had given the Mavs circumstances.

Of course the Russell Celtics, Bird Celtics, Mikan Lakers, Magic/Kareem Lakers, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Jordan Bulls, and Duncan Spurs have been better...I'm sure there are a few more as well.

What franchises have had better 11 year runs? List them please.

I mean....was the Pistons run better because they won 2 titles and made the finals 3 times? I think its debatable. I'm not a basketball historian, but I'd love to know what other teams have had better runs than the above.

Answer when you get a chance.

[MontaEllis24]

lol Rodman guarded malone/barkley tough pf go to guys of their teams and youd think he can guard dirk also 96 bulls have pippen and jordan not just harper whose gonna guard them.

[DMAVS41]

lol? According to what measurement? They're certainly not an irrelevant team, but I don't see how 1 championship and 2 conference titles makes it "one of the greatest 11 years" in NBA history. Especially when you consider the repeat years from the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers.

Still waiting for a list of teams that have had better decades. I listed 7 or 8....what other teams are there?

[AngelEyes]

Still waiting for a list of teams that have had better decades. I listed 7 or 8....what other teams are there?

70's Knicks and 70's Celtics with Havlicek and Cowens.

[DMAVS41]

70's Knicks and 70's Celtics with Havlicek and Cowens.

I kind of put them in the debatable category. the knicks missed the playoffs 2 times in those 11 years and won over 50 only 4 times. i have no issue with someone saying its better, but its certainly debatable...especially with the state of the nba during that time.

The 70s celtics did win 2 titles, but they also missed the playoffs 4 times. They won over 50 games 5 times. Another debatable in my opinion.

[AngelEyes]

I kind of put them in the debatable category. the knicks missed the playoffs 2 times in those 11 years and won over 50 only 4 times. i have no issue with someone saying its better, but its certainly debatable...especially with the state of the nba during that time.

The 70s celtics did win 2 titles, but they also missed the playoffs 4 times. They won over 50 games 5 times. Another debatable in my opinion.

To me two titles overrides winning one title and making the playoffs every year. It's so difficult and rare to win a championship and I can't overlook that.

[JohnnyWall]

Still waiting for a list of teams that have had better decades. I listed 7 or 8....what other teams are there?

Yeah, I'd say you just listed enough teams that had better runs than the Mavericks did over a decade span. So if you agree that the Mavs' run is at best 8th or 9th, I'm not sure how you can call that "one of the greatest." I actually think their 11 years ranks much lower than that because, like I already stated, performance in the playoffs and finals trumps regular season performance.

You also didn't answer my question either.


The Spurs had the 2nd best regular season record last season in 61-21, and then they were knocked out in the first round by an 8th seed team. Would you consider that a more successful year than the one Dallas had last year?

I mean, if you value regular season as much or more than the postseason...

[sirkeelma]

This is why we need negs.
Like this one? http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196832

[MavsPoke]

This board is easy to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3LdkorCCjM

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, I'd say you just listed enough teams that had better runs than the Mavericks did over a decade span. So if you agree that the Mavs' run is at best 8th or 9th, I'm not sure how you can call that "one of the greatest." I actually think their 11 years ranks much lower than that because, like I already stated, performance in the playoffs and finals trumps regular season performance.

You also didn't answer my question either.



I mean, if you value regular season as much or more than the postseason...

So the tenth best basketball player ever isn't "one of the greatest"....LOL

Of course the Mavs had a better year last year. Winning 5 more games in the regular season does not trump a title.

But 11 years in a row in the playoffs over 50 might trump winning 1 more title in that same time frame. Again, if it was so easy...more teams would have done it. In fact...far more teams have won titles than won 50 for 11 straight seasons.

The fact that you think calling Jerry West one of the greatest basketball players ever is an absurd statement just shows how silly you are being. :facepalm :facepalm

[DMAVS41]

To me two titles overrides winning one title and making the playoffs every year. It's so difficult and rare to win a championship and I can't overlook that.

But its even more rare to have 11 straight 50 win seasons. Technically its harder to do that than win a title.

Doesn't matter really....its one of the best 11 year stretches a franchise has ever had. Just like I said.

[AngelEyes]

But its even more rare to have 11 straight 50 win seasons. Technically its harder to do that than win a title.

Doesn't matter really....its one of the best 11 year stretches a franchise has ever had. Just like I said.

Titles are infinitely more valuable than 50 win seasons.

[DMAVS41]

Titles are infinitely more valuable than 50 win seasons.

I'm not sure I agree when judging how a franchise performs over an 11 year period. Especially when the topic is relevance.

Meh....come up with as many examples as you want:

Still one of the best runs. Title. 2 finals. 3 WCF. 11 straight 50 win seasons....and hopefully its not done yet.

[JohnnyWall]

So the tenth best basketball player ever isn't "one of the greatest"....LOL

Of course the Mavs had a better year last year. Winning 5 more games in the regular season does not trump a title.

But 11 years in a row in the playoffs over 50 might trump winning 1 more title in that same time frame. Again, if it was so easy...more teams would have done it. In fact...far more teams have won titles than won 50 for 11 straight seasons.

The fact that you think calling Jerry West one of the greatest basketball players ever is an absurd statement just shows how silly you are being. :facepalm :facepalm

Yeah, I never said that. Let's not put words in each others mouths. I said if you were to rank the Mavs' decade-long performance at 8th or 9th, which I believe is far too high for only winning 1 lonely title, it's misleading and inaccurate to call it one of the greatest performances in an NBA history. A player's ranking is quite different than a team's ranking because there have been a far greater number of players in the league than there have been teams. It's all relative.

Ranking a player in the top ten is very different than ranking a team in the top ten. If I were to rank the Sacramento Kings as the 18th best team in the current NBA, for instance, that would be a lot less impressive than ranking a player as the 18th best player in the league because there are only 30 teams in the league. Yet there are 450 total players in the league.

A player ranked 18th = top 4% of the league.
A team ranked 18th = only top 60%.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, I never said that. Let's not put words in each others mouths. I said if you were to rank the Mavs' decade-long performance at 8th or 9th, which I believe is far too high for only winning 1 lonely title, it's misleading and inaccurate to call it one of the greatest performances in an NBA history. A player's ranking is quite different than a team's ranking because there have been a far greater number of players in the league than there have been teams. It's all relative.

Ranking a player in the top ten is very different than ranking a team in the top ten. If I were to rank the Sacramento Kings as the 18th best team in the current NBA, for instance, that would be a lot less impressive than ranking a player as the 18th best player in the league because there are only 30 teams in the league. Yet there are 450 total players in the league.

A player ranked 18th = top 4% of the league.
A team ranked 18th = only top 60%.

Your exact words were:

Calling a team that maybe had the tenth best run ever is not good enough to call it one of the best ever. Which is just a semantics argument.

We have different criteria. Its clear you didn't really understand the historical nature of the Mavs run right now. Like I said....its far more rare than winning a title....

Its just funny as well. If you look at the Mavs roster and the era in which they played, it just becomes infinitely more impressive. LOL...we have to go back to the 50's and 60's for some runs that are better. In the modern era its even closer to the top.

[DFish]

Dmavs, you're so full of shit. If Dallas had three-peated and the Lakers could only boast 11 50-win regular seasons and 1 title, you would be singing a very different tune. You've been one of the most biased and hypocritical posters on the NBA forum as of late. It's painfully evident whenever you enter a Kobe debate and now whenever you enter a Dallas thread.

[JohnnyWall]

Your exact words were:

Calling a team that maybe had the tenth best run ever is not good enough to call it one of the best ever. Which is just a semantics argument.

We have different criteria. Its clear you didn't really understand the historical nature of the Mavs run right now. Like I said....its far more rare than winning a title....

Its just funny as well. If you look at the Mavs roster and the era in which they played, it just becomes infinitely more impressive. LOL...we have to go back to the 50's and 60's for some runs that are better. In the modern era its even closer to the top.

When you tell someone what their exact words were, you're supposed to give a quote. And way to completely fail to address anything in my post. Do you think a player's top 10 ranking is the same as a team's top 10 ranking?

Also, it might be rare to have that many consecutive regular season wins. I agree there. I just don't think that makes it more impressive than consecutive NBA championships or playoff runs.

[BGriffin's Dad]

If Dallas had three-peated and the Lakers could only boast 11 50-win regular seasons and 1 title, you would be singing a very different tune.
^ exactly.. hes obviously biased because its the mavs

i dont care what team we're talking about.. winning chips is what matters, not finishing the season with a good record and then not getting to the finals