Log in

View Full Version : ESPN ranks the greatest individual playoff runs



Pages : 1 [2]

guy
06-11-2013, 03:54 PM
12 Thunder in the finals weren't very good using yours standards then...as Harden choked completely and was way worse than Lebron was against the Mavs actually.

Mavs clearly faced tougher competition. They just happened to make every team they played look average to poor...

Heat happened to make the Celtics in 12, for example, look way better than they were.

Harden wasn't nearly as important to the 12 Thunder as Lebron was to the 11 Heat. Not a good comparison at all.

Rose'sACL
06-11-2013, 03:57 PM
dirk's was legendary in an all time scale.
lebron's was just great in that it saved his legacy.

so Dirk's was more impressive. History will remember it as the finals that Dirk destroyed the Heat's big 3. Dirk led the huge underdog Mavs to a 4-2 victory.
Lebron played under more pressure. Probably under most pressure any basketball player has ever played.
Also, according to everyone on this forum, mavs didn't win because of dirk but because lebron choked so decide on one. If the star player of the other team choked then dirk didn't win against a great team, did he?

DMAVS41
06-11-2013, 03:59 PM
Harden wasn't nearly as important to the 12 Thunder as Lebron was to the 11 Heat. Not a good comparison at all.

I never said he was, but that Thunder team just isn't all that good without Harden playing well. So I don't get the logic.

And even then...you have to give credit to the mavs for being the only team able to slow down Lebron.

The 11 Heat are so under-rated on here now because they lost. It's such revisionist history....all of the Lebron haters were claiming the team was so good it was unfair for the rest of the league going into the finals.

What happened? Why are people not making those claims anymore? Could it be that the 11 Heat might have been the best incarnation of the team since they all came together.

Same thing with the Thunder...they were definitley better in 12 than 11, but it's not like it was some team that came out of nowhere...they nearly took the Lakers to the brink in 10...and had two of the 8 best players in the league with the best 6th man....and depth..etc. Considering Durant and Westbrook would be the 2 best players...quite easily in a comparison between the Thunder and Celtics...yea...I'll take the Thunder. Pretty simple.

guy
06-11-2013, 04:05 PM
I never said he was, but that Thunder team just isn't all that good without Harden playing well. So I don't get the logic.

And even then...you have to give credit to the mavs for being the only team able to slow down Lebron.

The 11 Heat are so under-rated on here now because they lost. It's such revisionist history....all of the Lebron haters were claiming the team was so good it was unfair for the rest of the league going into the finals.

What happened? Why are people not making those claims anymore? Could it be that the 11 Heat might have been the best incarnation of the team since they all came together.

Same thing with the Thunder...they were definitley better in 12 than 11, but it's not like it was some team that came out of nowhere...they nearly took the Lakers to the brink in 10...and had two of the 8 best players in the league with the best 6th man....and depth..etc. Considering Durant and Westbrook would be the 2 best players...quite easily in a comparison between the Thunder and Celtics...yea...I'll take the Thunder. Pretty simple.

The Thunder didn't rely on Harden nearly as much as the Heat relied on Lebron, so Lebron choking the way he did clearly has more impact then Harden doing the same. Thats the logic. Its not that hard.

You would take the 2011 Thunder over the 2012 Celtics? Or the 2012 Thunder?

Heavincent
06-11-2013, 04:09 PM
WARP is calculated by the set of data from a series of information. So a guy that hits a game winning shot doesn't get any more credit for it than hitting a 1st qtr shot. Dirk shot 42% in the 11 Finals and was the team's 7th best 3 pt shooter. He did work down the stretch but it was his supporting cast hitting 47% from 3 that won the series (on paper anyhow). So yeah, Dirk's run isn't close to comparable to LeBron's run last year and diminished because he isn't given credit for his clutch play.

I trust this also means LeBron 09 is well above Kobe 09 too.

WARP is also affected by pace of play and game totals. So LeBron going for 45/5/5 in a game where the opposing team scores 79 points is far more impressive than scoring 63 in a game that ends 135-131.

And lets be honest, he had one helluva run. Place is overflowing with haters.

Seems like a dumb and completely pointless stat.

DMAVS41
06-11-2013, 04:14 PM
The Thunder didn't rely on Harden nearly as much as the Heat relied on Lebron, so Lebron choking the way he did clearly has more impact then Harden doing the same. Thats the logic. Its not that hard.

You would take the 2011 Thunder over the 2012 Celtics? Or the 2012 Thunder?

You aren't listening to me. You can't just say "Lebron choked" and give the Mavs no credit. Did Kobe choke also? I mean...at some point you have to give them credit for beating the Heat and slowing down Lebron more than any team since 06 really has.

I'll say it again. I never said Harden was as good as Lebron or as important. My point is that if you are going to say that about Lebron and the 11 Heat...you better mention the huge choke job from Harden in the 12 finals...and yes, Harden was very important to the Thunder.

I already said my ranking;

12 Thunder
11 Thunder
12 Celtics

You just don't take two pretty equal teams with by far the two best players on one team and not go with them. I don't care about experience...the team with the two best players on it just has too big of an advantage.

Heavincent
06-11-2013, 04:14 PM
Dirk's 2011 run at number 50? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Absolute joke of a list. Completely invalid.

guy
06-11-2013, 04:25 PM
You aren't listening to me. You can't just say "Lebron choked" and give the Mavs no credit. Did Kobe choke also? I mean...at some point you have to give them credit for beating the Heat and slowing down Lebron more than any team since 06 really has.

I never said Dallas doesn't deserve any credit, but I'm definitely not giving them all the credit for Lebron choking. I chalk that up much more to Lebron being fragile mentally then Dallas' defense. If that was all Dallas, we should seriously be talking about them as arguably the greatest defense ever, cause no superstar of that caliber completely healthy has ever been held down that much below his regular production.




I'll say it again. I never said Harden was as good as Lebron or as important. My point is that if you are going to say that about Lebron and the 11 Heat...you better mention the huge choke job from Harden in the 12 finals...and yes, Harden was very important to the Thunder.

I'll mention what I feel is relevant. Where did I say Harden wasn't important? He clearly was, just not nearly as much as Lebron. I stand by what I said. The 2012 Thunder even with Harden playing the way he did is beating the 2011 Heat with Lebron playing the way he did IMO. And by the way, I definitely don't think Harden's choke was as bad as Lebron's in relation to their expectations. He was still aggressive and playing his game while Lebron wasn't.



I already said my ranking;

12 Thunder
11 Thunder
12 Celtics

You just don't take two pretty equal teams with by far the two best players on one team and not go with them. I don't care about experience...the team with the two best players on it just has too big of an advantage.

Well I'm only talking about 11 Thunder and 12 Celtics. You don't care about experience? Well then I guess there's nothing to talk about cause that's pretty perplexing for anyone that's watched this league for a long time to say.

DMAVS41
06-11-2013, 04:31 PM
I never said Dallas doesn't deserve any credit, but I'm definitely not giving them all the credit for Lebron choking. I chalk that up much more to Lebron being fragile mentally then Dallas' defense. If that was all Dallas, we should seriously be talking about them as arguably the greatest defense ever, cause no superstar of that caliber completely healthy has ever been held down that much below his regular production.




I'll mention what I feel is relevant. Where did I say Harden wasn't important? He clearly was, just not nearly as much as Lebron. I stand by what I said. The 2012 Thunder even with Harden playing the way he did is beating the 2011 Heat with Lebron playing the way he did IMO. And by the way, I definitely don't think Harden's choke was as bad as Lebron's in relation to their expectations.



Well I'm only talking about 11 Thunder and 12 Celtics. You don't care about experience? Well then I guess there's nothing to talk about cause that's pretty perplexing for anyone that's watched this league for a long time to say.

I agree Harden's play was not as bad to expectations. I agree Dallas does not deserve all the credit. But so much of the NBA is about matchups that true team strength can get lost a bit when focusing solely on one series or just a sample of one series....

I care about experience. That came off wrong. What I mean to say was;

"I don't care about experience as much as having the clear cut two best players in a series on a team that actually did have playoff experience"

I'm probably going to become a Durant stan soon, because he's horribly under-rated here. He's amazing...and when you have a guy like that on your team...it's just a huge advantage if the other team doesn't. Simple.

But I don't really care all that much about this. The 11 Mavs clearly played tougher competition....and it was clear before you even handicap for team strength.

The 11 Blazers and 11 Lakers were much better than Miami's first 2 round competition. I think the 11 Thunder were better than the Celtics, but I don't think it matters. Call it a push.

Where you lose me is that the 12 Thunder are better than the 11 Heat. Even with Lebron playing like that...I'm really not sure...and that is assuming Lebron plays like that against every team he'd face in the finals...and I just don't see that. That is where you have to give at least 50% of the credit to the Mavs.

KG215
06-11-2013, 05:22 PM
I'm probably going to become a Durant stan soon, because he's horribly under-rated here. He's amazing...and when you have a guy like that on your team...it's just a huge advantage if the other team doesn't. Simple.
:cheers:

He could use some. I'm admittedly one but I'm a Thunder fan first. The becoming a Durant stan has just evolved and grown the last few years as he's gotten better. But the clear-cut second best player in the NBA should have more than one or two fanboys.

I wanted to start a "Was Durant as good/better than peak Kobe this year" thread after the playoffs were done, but OKC lost Westbrook and I knew the thread would just be bombarded with all of Kobe's stans saying Durant didn't get out of the second round. I mean they'd just bombard the thread anyway and overuse the laughing emoticons for just suggesting something so absurd.

Legends66NBA7
06-11-2013, 05:25 PM
The most terrifying one is 2006 Wade > 1980 Kareem. WTF?!?!?!

While I don't really agree with that one either, it's not the most terrifying. 96 Pippen is over the likes of 05 Duncan, 93 Barkley, 11 Nowitzki, 90 Jordan, 10 Bryant, 89 Jordan,... there are more but the worst of all... over 95 Olajuwon. The run that ISH voted last year as the # 1 playoff/finals mvp run is not superior to 96 Pippen.

WARP ladies and gentleman. :applause:

KG215
06-11-2013, 05:27 PM
While I don't really agree with that one either, it's not the most terrifying. 96 Pippen is over the likes of 05 Duncan, 93 Barkley, 11 Nowitzki, 90 Jordan, 10 Bryant, 89 Jordan,... there are more but the worst of all... over 95 Olajuwon. The run that ISH voted last year as the # 1 playoff/finals mvp run is not superior to 96 Pippen.

WARP ladies and gentleman. :applause:
Exactly. I couldn't care less that LeBron is ranked #2 on this list. That's far from my biggest gripe. As soon as I heard '96 Pippen was ranked ahead of '95 Olajuwon, and '10 Gasol was ranked ahead of '11 Dirk, I lost it. If WARP ever had any kind of merit, this list just completely obliterated it.

fpliii
06-11-2013, 05:28 PM
:cheers:

He could use some. I'm admittedly one but I'm a Thunder fan first. The becoming a Durant stan has just evolved and grown the last few years as he's gotten better. But the clear-cut second best player in the NBA should have more than one or two fanboys.

I wanted to start a "Was Durant as good/better than peak Kobe this year" thread after the playoffs were done, but OKC lost Westbrook and I knew the thread would just be bombarded with all of Kobe's stans saying Durant didn't get out of the second round. I mean they'd just bombard the thread anyway and overuse the laughing emoticons for just suggesting something so absurd.

If Wade's indeed done I might jump on board too. I'd like to see KD rebound more though (he has 30/10 potential...yes, basic box score stats are useless, but he's probably the only guy capable of pulling it off, which is really saying something).

Legends66NBA7
06-11-2013, 05:29 PM
I'm probably going to become a Durant stan soon, because he's horribly under-rated here.

He's a consensus #2 ranked player on here, though. He could possibly take over the #1 spot if James level of play slips and he continues to improve.

Glide2keva
06-11-2013, 05:29 PM
lebron number 2. :roll: :lol :oldlol:
I know right?

K Xerxes
06-11-2013, 05:31 PM
:cheers:

He could use some. I'm admittedly one but I'm a Thunder fan first. The becoming a Durant stan has just evolved and grown the last few years as he's gotten better. But the clear-cut second best player in the NBA should have more than one or two fanboys.

I wanted to start a "Was Durant as good/better than peak Kobe this year" thread after the playoffs were done, but OKC lost Westbrook and I knew the thread would just be bombarded with all of Kobe's stans saying Durant didn't get out of the second round. I mean they'd just bombard the thread anyway and overuse the laughing emoticons for just suggesting something so absurd.

Does he need them though? How many people don't think he's easily the second best player in the game right now?

millwad
06-11-2013, 05:34 PM
How can Olajuwon's run in '95 not be mentioned?

He crushed and dominated Robinson who was the MVP in the playoffs and he followed that up with outplaying Shaq..

Legends66NBA7
06-11-2013, 05:35 PM
Exactly. I couldn't care less that LeBron is ranked #2 on this list. That's far from my biggest gripe. As soon as I heard '96 Pippen was ranked ahead of '95 Olajuwon, and '10 Gasol was ranked ahead of '11 Dirk, I lost it. If WARP ever had any kind of merit, this list just completely obliterated it.

Yeah, I don't get the James hate either. I wouldn't have him #2 myself, would have to think about it... would say he's probably Top 6-15 range-ish for now. But the #2 options being ranked over obvious dominant #1 options is so silly.

My biggest grip (as I've mentioned before in this thread) is that all but one pre-modern NBA playoff run did not make the list. 67 Wilt, a host of Bill Russell's runs, 69 West, 62 Baylor... just to name a few, would and should be damn near high on these list, especially over freaking 78 Hayes and the #2 option runs, although no disrespect to what the Big-E accomplished that year.

Glide2keva
06-11-2013, 05:36 PM
How can Olajuwon's run in '95 not be mentioned?

He crushed and dominated Robinson who was the MVP in the playoffs and he followed that up with outplaying Shaq..ESPN and their lebron hype machine.

Legends66NBA7
06-11-2013, 05:37 PM
How can Olajuwon's run in '95 not be mentioned?

He crushed and dominated Robinson who was the MVP in the playoffs and he followed that up with outplaying Shaq..

Oh he is, man. Here's a short list I made earlier in the thread:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8687911&postcount=160

Have a good laugh. :oldlol:

fpliii
06-11-2013, 05:37 PM
Yeah, I don't get the James hate either. I wouldn't have him #2 myself, would have to think about it... would say he's probably Top 6-15 range-ish for now. But the #2 options being ranked over obvious dominant #1 options is so silly.

My biggest grip (as I've mentioned before in this thread) is that all but one pre-modern NBA playoff run did not make the list. 67 Wilt, a host of Bill Russell's runs, 69 West, 62 Baylor... just to name a few, would and should be damn near high on these list, especially over freaking 78 Hayes and the #2 option runs, although no disrespect to what the Big-E accomplished that year.

Individual turnovers weren't tracked prior to the 1977-78 season, so he restricts WARP calculations to 78-present.

EDIT: Not defending him BTW, the stat is hot garbage. Contrived holistic metrics from box scores (PER, WS, WARP, Wins Produced, etc.) are all useless (though those derived from play-by-plays, which are only available from 96-97 to the present, are legit IMO).

guy
06-11-2013, 05:37 PM
I agree Harden's play was not as bad to expectations. I agree Dallas does not deserve all the credit. But so much of the NBA is about matchups that true team strength can get lost a bit when focusing solely on one series or just a sample of one series....

I care about experience. That came off wrong. What I mean to say was;

"I don't care about experience as much as having the clear cut two best players in a series on a team that actually did have playoff experience"

Well, both obviously matter, and sometimes one outweighs the other. IMO the Celtics' experience in this case outweighs the Thunder's talent.

And by the way, I'm not even sure I'd agree that the 2011 Thunder have the two best players in this hypothetical matchup. Kevin Durant is clearly the best, but then after that I'd probably go with either 2012 Rondo, who is much more of a PG that can run a team and who I've always felt was underrated, or KG who was going through a mini-renaissance in those playoffs and became a double-double machine with a huge defensive impact. I would say different if this was the 2012 Thunder, but its not.



I'm probably going to become a Durant stan soon, because he's horribly under-rated here. He's amazing...and when you have a guy like that on your team...it's just a huge advantage if the other team doesn't. Simple.

Well I don't blame you for that. But I think he's been a better, more experience and mature player since 2011.



But I don't really care all that much about this. The 11 Mavs clearly played tougher competition....and it was clear before you even handicap for team strength.

The 11 Blazers and 11 Lakers were much better than Miami's first 2 round competition. I think the 11 Thunder were better than the Celtics, but I don't think it matters. Call it a push.

Round by round the only significant difference I see is the Lakers and Pacers. I don't think the 2012 Knicks were that much worse then the 2011 Blazers entering into the playoffs. Even if you just look at regular season record, the Knicks would've been on pace for a 45 win season if it wasn't a lockout season, which is only 3 games worse then the Blazers, and that was with it being mostly tumultous with alot of injuries, coaching changes, roster changes. Sure Knicks had injuries in the playoffs. Either way, both teams were first round fodder that high seeded teams like the Mavs and Heat were much better then and get to play as a result of being so much better.

Either way, what I think is misleading is how much weight is put on competition in these arguments. Just because one team might be better competition overall, that doesn't necessarily mean one player would have a harder time having a great performance against that team then someone else would over the weaker team because it doesn't necessarily indicate why one team is better competition. For example, compare the 2011 Lakers to the 2012 Pacers. Both teams are about equal defensively and rebounding wise, but the thing that separates them are that those Lakers are so much more superior offensively. A big reason why they lost to the Mavs was cause of how poor they were offensively, which had alot to do with the Mavs' defense, which did not have that much to do with Dirk (he wasn't a liability but he wasn't close to one of their most impactful defenders). I'm not trying to argue who had the better series here. But my point is if the reason the Lakers were better overall then the Pacers was because of their offense and Dirk didn't really have much to do with stopping the Lakers' offense, then why does it really matter that much that the Lakers were tougher competition when we're comparing the two superstars' performances in these series? Its just a shallow, blanket argument IMO.




Where you lose me is that the 12 Thunder are better than the 11 Heat. Even with Lebron playing like that...I'm really not sure...and that is assuming Lebron plays like that against every team he'd face in the finals...and I just don't see that. That is where you have to give at least 50% of the credit to the Mavs.

Wow, you're not sure that the 12 Thunder would've beaten the 11 Heat with Lebron playing like that? I just think Lebron was so horribly and uniquely bad in that series that basically any contender in history would've beaten the Heat with him playing like that. It goes beyond the stats. For too much of that series, it just seemed like a distraction that somewhat sucked the life out of that team. It was just such poor leadership that couldn't offer the type of inspiration and confidence a supporting cast needs sometimes, and took the team out of its usual rhythm. I honestly feel like they would've just been better off if Lebron just got injured after the 3rd quarter of game 2 just cause they would've known what to expect from their teammates, specifically their star players, at that point.

KG215
06-11-2013, 05:38 PM
If Wade's indeed done I might jump on board too. I'd like to see KD rebound more though (he has 30/10 potential...yes, basic box score stats are useless, but he's probably the only guy capable of pulling it off, which is really saying something).
The thing is, he has 5-10 game stretches (2-3 times a year) where he averages 10+ RPG. I know through the first 10 or so games of this season he was averaging 11 RPG. And scrolling through his game log, he had another 10 game stretch in February/March where he averaged 10.1 RPG. And actually, during that stretch in late February through late March where he was struggling scoring/efficiency wise, he averaged 9.4 RPG over a 20 game stretch. So, basically, he had a block of 30 games this year where he averaged right at 10 RPG.

He's never been a good offensive rebounder, but he would get more aggressive on the offensive glass, that alone could boost his RPG by 0.5 RPG or so. I think he just went through different phases/mindsets this year, though. Some of his best rebounding games came when he wasn't scoring as much/well. Which is encouraging because it tells you he picks-up the slack in other areas when his shot isn't falling, but he just has too many 3-5 rebound games (like LeBron and Carmelo) to probably ever average 10 RPG.

Legends66NBA7
06-11-2013, 05:42 PM
Individual turnovers weren't tracked prior to the 1977-78 season, so he restricts WARP calculations to 78-present.

Hmmm, I thought it was the turnovers myself, thanks for the confirmation. Even further I must disregard this stat and list.

I don't know why anyone needs the formulas when you can just watch the games (find footage), kee the numbers in context, and read all the recaps of each of these series. It's is all everyone ever needs to formulate a proper opinion on these topics.

Legends66NBA7
06-11-2013, 05:45 PM
EDIT: Not defending him BTW, the stat is hot garbage. Contrived holistic metrics from box scores (PER, WS, WARP, Wins Produced, etc.) are all useless (though those derived from play-by-plays, which are only available from 96-97 to the present, are legit IMO).

Completely agree with play by plays. While they aren't perfect (things like deflections, screens and such... won't be kept track of), it's much more accurate than the formulas and box score looking.

KG215
06-11-2013, 05:50 PM
Does he need them though? How many people don't think he's easily the second best player in the game right now?
I think I'm about the only true Durant stan/fanboy (not the the absurd trolling levels of the worst LeBron and Kobe fans, though). Joyner/28renroy doesn't count, because he's over the top with most of the stuff he posts about Durant.

It just bugged me this year that he was having such a great season, but all the LeBron, Kobe, and Carmelo fans were completely running the board and Durant wasn't getting even half the respect/love as those three. I'll try and keep this on topic, since it's about playoff runs, but he had a pretty good one himself last year. I don't know if it's top 50 all-time worthy, but it was pretty damn good for a 23 year old leading an equally young supporting cast to the NBA Finals. He averaged 28.5 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 1.2 BPG, on 52% FG and 63% TS as the best player on a Finals team.

And I think how great he was against the Spurs got a little overlooked; especially some of the games he had after OKC fell behind 0-2. 38-6-8 on 65% shooting in game 4; the game where he scored 16 straight OKC points in the 4th quarter in a very Dirk-esque fashion by catching the ball in the high and mid-post and killing the Spurs over, and over, and over. Then he had 34-14-5-2-1 on 53% shooting in the decisive game 6. Followed that up with 36-8-4 on 60% shooting in his first NBA Finals game.

And this year, he has a 28-8-5, 50/40/90 season on a 60-win 1st place team and it really flew under the radar on ISH. Really, though, I'm fine with his fanbase being pretty small here, though. As more fanboys/stans jump on a player's bandwagon, it just makes that player more and more hated.

Bigsmoke
06-11-2013, 05:53 PM
Oh he is, man. Here's a short list I made earlier in the thread:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8687911&postcount=160

Have a good laugh. :oldlol:

Hakeem's 95 run have to be top 10 somewhere. :confusedshrug:

look who had to go against without homecourt

Legends66NBA7
06-11-2013, 05:58 PM
Hakeem's 95 run have to be top 10 somewhere. :confusedshrug:

look who had to go against without homecourt

Not good enough to edge out 96 Pippen. :ohwell:

fpliii
06-11-2013, 06:02 PM
OT: We should really make an effort to rank playoff runs this summer. I think we'd have to place some restriction as to starting year. 77 (post merger), 78 (turnovers), or 80 (3pt era) seem to be logical starting points (Finals for all of those seasons are available online, and conference finals are for at least going back to 80). Stans are as always an obstacle, but I think it's worth the struggle.

DMAVS41
06-11-2013, 06:20 PM
Well, both obviously matter, and sometimes one outweighs the other. IMO the Celtics' experience in this case outweighs the Thunder's talent.

And by the way, I'm not even sure I'd agree that the 2011 Thunder have the two best players in this hypothetical matchup. Kevin Durant is clearly the best, but then after that I'd probably go with either 2012 Rondo, who is much more of a PG that can run a team and who I've always felt was underrated, or KG who was going through a mini-renaissance in those playoffs and became a double-double machine with a huge defensive impact. I would say different if this was the 2012 Thunder, but its not.



Well I don't blame you for that. But I think he's been a better, more experience and mature player since 2011.



Round by round the only significant difference I see is the Lakers and Pacers. I don't think the 2012 Knicks were that much worse then the 2011 Blazers entering into the playoffs. Even if you just look at regular season record, the Knicks would've been on pace for a 45 win season if it wasn't a lockout season, which is only 3 games worse then the Blazers, and that was with it being mostly tumultous with alot of injuries, coaching changes, roster changes. Sure Knicks had injuries in the playoffs. Either way, both teams were first round fodder that high seeded teams like the Mavs and Heat were much better then and get to play as a result of being so much better.

Either way, what I think is misleading is how much weight is put on competition in these arguments. Just because one team might be better competition overall, that doesn't necessarily mean one player would have a harder time having a great performance against that team then someone else would over the weaker team because it doesn't necessarily indicate why one team is better competition. For example, compare the 2011 Lakers to the 2012 Pacers. Both teams are about equal defensively and rebounding wise, but the thing that separates them are that those Lakers are so much more superior offensively. A big reason why they lost to the Mavs was cause of how poor they were offensively, which had alot to do with the Mavs' defense, which did not have that much to do with Dirk (he wasn't a liability but he wasn't close to one of their most impactful defenders). I'm not trying to argue who had the better series here. But my point is if the reason the Lakers were better overall then the Pacers was because of their offense and Dirk didn't really have much to do with stopping the Lakers' offense, then why does it really matter that much that the Lakers were tougher competition when we're comparing the two superstars' performances in these series? Its just a shallow, blanket argument IMO.




Wow, you're not sure that the 12 Thunder would've beaten the 11 Heat with Lebron playing like that? I just think Lebron was so horribly and uniquely bad in that series that basically any contender in history would've beaten the Heat with him playing like that. It goes beyond the stats. For too much of that series, it just seemed like a distraction that somewhat sucked the life out of that team. It was just such poor leadership that couldn't offer the type of inspiration and confidence a supporting cast needs sometimes, and took the team out of its usual rhythm. I honestly feel like they would've just been better off if Lebron just got injured after the 3rd quarter of game 2 just cause they would've known what to expect from their teammates, specifically their star players, at that point.

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not connecting this to anything. I'm just arguing that the Mavs faced tougher competition...totally agree that it might not matter. We simply don't know...like I said before...matchups dictate so many things.

And just agree to disagree about the 12 thunder vs 11 heat...

K Xerxes
06-11-2013, 06:24 PM
I think I'm about the only true Durant stan/fanboy (not the the absurd trolling levels of the worst LeBron and Kobe fans, though). Joyner/28renroy doesn't count, because he's over the top with most of the stuff he posts about Durant.

It just bugged me this year that he was having such a great season, but all the LeBron, Kobe, and Carmelo fans were completely running the board and Durant wasn't getting even half the respect/love as those three. I'll try and keep this on topic, since it's about playoff runs, but he had a pretty good one himself last year. I don't know if it's top 50 all-time worthy, but it was pretty damn good for a 23 year old leading an equally young supporting cast to the NBA Finals. He averaged 28.5 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 1.2 BPG, on 52% FG and 63% TS as the best player on a Finals team.

And I think how great he was against the Spurs got a little overlooked; especially some of the games he had after OKC fell behind 0-2. 38-6-8 on 65% shooting in game 4; the game where he scored 16 straight OKC points in the 4th quarter in a very Dirk-esque fashion by catching the ball in the high and mid-post and killing the Spurs over, and over, and over. Then he had 34-14-5-2-1 on 53% shooting in the decisive game 6. Followed that up with 36-8-4 on 60% shooting in his first NBA Finals game.

And this year, he has a 28-8-5, 50/40/90 season on a 60-win 1st place team and it really flew under the radar on ISH. Really, though, I'm fine with his fanbase being pretty small here, though. As more fanboys/stans jump on a player's bandwagon, it just makes that player more and more hated.

True, I suppose Durant has just been overshadowed all year. The beginning of the season is when he had his real spotlight, but Chris Paul and the Clippers went on that streak in December. Then LeBron had that ridiculous streak in February, followed by the 27 win streak. Then Melo had that ridiculous 35 point streak at the end of the season. Durant never really was the center of much attention.

In all honesty, his season has just been overshadowed by LeBron's historic one. 28-7-4 (or whatever it was) on 50-40-90 is just ridiculous, but no one really cares. Maybe it's his demeanour and how he attracts little attention. Maybe it's the fact that he's in OKC. Maybe it's the fact that he lost to LeBron in the finals. Maybe it's the fact that Westbrook is on his team.

Even in last year's finals, he had 30 on 55% shooting. There are some stats that are misleading, but that's not. LeBron outplayed him, but he didn't freeze like you-know-who the year prior. After a relatively poor game 4 (where he still scored like 25 points), he was the only one fighting in game 5... just too much to do...

In this playoffs, he was amazing in the first round and the first game of the conference finals. What was he averaging? Like 35-11 without Westbrook? And then people started slating him because Memphis played him 5 vs 1 and none of his team mates could step up (Ibaka even missed dunks).

To keep it in perspective, he is just 24. He is the best scorer in the league. Yes, he isn't LeBron and he may never be LeBron, but he is fantastic. And I agree that people lose sight of that. He's the second best player in the game and there's no shame in that.


OT: We should really make an effort to rank playoff runs this summer. I think we'd have to place some restriction as to starting year. 77 (post merger), 78 (turnovers), or 80 (3pt era) seem to be logical starting points (Finals for all of those seasons are available online, and conference finals are for at least going back to 80). Stans are as always an obstacle, but I think it's worth the struggle.

The thought process behind this is all wrong. You don't want to invoke a statistic-based approach to this. Anyone could just look at '67, find Wilts statistics and say WOWW. Don't get me wrong, maybe it was the best, but I'd say you actually have to watch it to truly get a grip of the performance.

I would say start at 1990, maybe 1980,but just because you're not going to find many people older than 30 here. Hakeem's 95 was the best I've ever seen. It's not the best statistically, nor may it be the best since the league began, but it's the best based on the eye test (considering context). And that's ultimately what makes or breaks it.

fpliii
06-11-2013, 06:36 PM
The thought process behind this is all wrong. You don't want to invoke a statistic-based approach to this. Anyone could just look at '67, find Wilts statistics and say WOWW. Don't get me wrong, maybe it was the best, but I'd say you actually have to watch it to truly get a grip of the performance.

I would say start at 1990, maybe 1980,but just because you're not going to find many people older than 30 here. Hakeem's 95 was the best I've ever seen. It's not the best statistically, nor may it be the best since the league began, but it's the best based on the eye test (considering context). And that's ultimately what makes or breaks it.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but when I said:


(Finals for all of those seasons are available online, and conference finals are for at least going back to 80)

I was referring to the complete games being available on YouTube/via torrents here. Nominating 77 and 80 as starting points has nothing to do with stats, but with how the game was played. The league was talent-deficient when there were split leagues, and the merger helped to replenish depth (and add stars, of course). I mentioned 78 purely because that's what the author of the article used (even if we were using stats as an additional reference though, I fail to see how that's a negative).

K Xerxes
06-11-2013, 06:43 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear, but when I said:



I was referring to the complete games being available on YouTube/via torrents here. Nominating 77 and 80 as starting points has nothing to do with stats, but with how the game was played. The league was talent-deficient when there were split leagues, and the merger helped to replenish depth (and add stars, of course). I mentioned 78 purely because that's what the author of the article used (even if we were using stats as an additional reference though, I fail to see how that's a negative).

My bad, misread your post. Although I still think there's nothing that can replace physically watching the whole playoffs (you get the feel for the entire tone and the context, instead of isolating individual performances), I see what you mean. Sorry. :cheers:

I'm planning to watch a lot of full playoff games in the early 80s (particularly the Lakers, Celtics and Philly) in the summer, so I should get a better idea of that time, and perhaps more of Magic's, Kareem's, Bird's, Moses' etc games.

fpliii
06-11-2013, 07:14 PM
My bad, misread your post. Although I still think there's nothing that can replace physically watching the whole playoffs (you get the feel for the entire tone and the context, instead of isolating individual performances), I see what you mean. Sorry. :cheers:

I'm planning to watch a lot of full playoff games in the early 80s (particularly the Lakers, Celtics and Philly) in the summer, so I should get a better idea of that time, and perhaps more of Magic's, Kareem's, Bird's, Moses' etc games.

Enjoy! :cheers: I did that a couple of summers ago, and it was definitely rewarding. Try to space them out somewhat though, or they might blend together a bit.

BlackVVaves
06-11-2013, 07:15 PM
Great list :applause: :applause:

Kobetards getting mad also :applause: :roll:

You were the first person in the thread up even give mention to Kobe.

Interesting observation.

KG215
06-11-2013, 07:54 PM
I'm planning to watch a lot of full playoff games in the early 80s (particularly the Lakers, Celtics and Philly) in the summer, so I should get a better idea of that time, and perhaps more of Magic's, Kareem's, Bird's, Moses' etc games.
What's the best site to get full playoff games? I'm really interested in some of the Conference Finals and Finals series from the 80's.

Dizzle-2k7
06-11-2013, 07:56 PM
how the fukk is lebrons run better than dirks?.. let alone shaq, duncan, magic, bird, etc

K Xerxes
06-11-2013, 08:43 PM
What's the best site to get full playoff games? I'm really interested in some of the Conference Finals and Finals series from the 80's.

In the last couple of years I started watching a lot of late 80s CF and finals. A lot of them I found on youtube, but the problem for me was that the full set of games wasn't uploaded a lot of the time. So I just ended up torrenting them... I had he whole 87 finals in sweet quality... ridiculously large file sizes, but was soo worth it.

Failing that, you could just trawl the internet for the games? Trust me though, whatever lengths you go to, its damn worth it.

KG215
06-11-2013, 08:58 PM
In the last couple of years I started watching a lot of late 80s CF and finals. A lot of them I found on youtube, but the problem for me was that the full set of games wasn't uploaded a lot of the time. So I just ended up torrenting them... I had he whole 87 finals in sweet quality... ridiculously large file sizes, but was soo worth it.

Failing that, you could just trawl the internet for the games? Trust me though, whatever lengths you go to, its damn worth it.
Yeah, I was able to find the '91 and '92, and '93 Finals on Youtube last summer, and sat down and watched those on my bigscreen via the Youtube app on my PS3. Was pretty sweet.

Is there a specific site you use to get the torrents for the 80's playoff games?

K Xerxes
06-11-2013, 09:36 PM
Yeah, I was able to find the '91 and '92, and '93 Finals on Youtube last summer, and sat down and watched those on my bigscreen via the Youtube app on my PS3. Was pretty sweet.

Is there a specific site you use to get the torrents for the 80's playoff games?

That's sweet, I hooked up my laptop on my big screen, opened a can of beer and sat back & enjoyed.

I used isohunt, although I haven't using torrent for like a year, so not sure if the torrents are that good now. :confusedshrug:

KG215
06-12-2013, 12:09 AM
That's sweet, I hooked up my laptop on my big screen, opened a can of beer and sat back & enjoyed.

I used isohunt, although I haven't using torrent for like a year, so not sure if the torrents are that good now. :confusedshrug:
I'll have to do some Googling tonight and tomorrow. It can be tricky finding the full games on Youtube. I know for one of the 1st 3-peat Jordan Finals Series, it was broken up into like 13 or 14 parts.

ShaqAttack3234
06-12-2013, 08:22 AM
[QUOTE=2010splash]So what? He had way more help than LeBron in 2001. Dude wasn

havoc33
06-12-2013, 11:18 AM
This list is the perfect example of stat guys distorting the real picture to support their own biases, coupled in with a few, to say the very least, odd exceptions. Like Pippen's 96 postseason being ranked as his best. That was not the case, neither if you watched the games nor look at the stats. His 91, 93, 97 and 98 were all superior. Kobe's 2001 run should be ranked way higher as well. And it's laughable how overrated Lebron's 2012 is.

One thing I will say about MJ's Finals performances though. Although everyone keeps pointing out that no one can hold a candle next to his Finals performances (which is true), it should also be pointed out that MJ never really faced a great defensive team in the Finals. He never had to face such stifling defense like Kobe did against the '08 Boston for example, which was one of the absolute best defensive teams ever. The only time MJ went up against a great defensive guard in the Finals he actually had a subpar series (vs Payton in '96). It is not a coincidence either that Jordan struggled in the '92 and '93 Playoffs vs the Knicks. They were physical and had several defenders that could stand up to him athletically (Starks, Wilkins), which was unusual at the time.

So yeah, although Jordan is the GOAT and totally dominated the 90's, he was somewhat lucky to be gifted with such physical skills that not many others possessed at the time. That physical advantage combined with a killer mentality proved to be deadly. A combination that Lebron is clearly lacking by the way.

branslowski
06-12-2013, 11:35 AM
:roll: Yeah, that really takes away from a 30/15 playoff run with the best record ever.

Nobody said he "easily" had the 2nd best playoff run ever, you're the one throwing around terms like easily. I'm not sure where I'd rank Shaq's '00 and '01 runs along with Hakeems back to back and Jordan's 1st 3peat, but they're all up there.

As far as Shaq having "way" more help, his team was also far more dominant, so what's your point? Besides, after Shaq and Kobe who in the '01 playoffs played better than any duo I know of in NBA history, imo, Derek Fisher was their 3rd best player.

Don't get me wrong, Horace Grant still did a good job defending opposing 4s even at 35, Fisher was on a hot streak and made his shots, while Fox was solid all around, but those players played off of Shaq and Kobe, and weren't some enormous luxury to have. At that point, none of their role players were remotely close to all-star level.



And as long as you're talking about stats and blowouts, by your logic, Shaq's 30/15 would have looked noticeably better had the Lakers not consistently blown out opponents.



According to your useless stat, Manu was better than Kobe in 2008, and Amare Stoudemire was the 3rd best player that year. :oldlol:



Pistons finished after getting Sheed and putting him in their starting lineup(20-6 including his first game when he played 12 minutes) either way, that easily surpasses a 60 win pace. And they beat the 2-time defending East champs as well as the 61 win Pacers who had the league's best record just to get to the finals. Besides, I'd bet they'd have finished better than the 18th best offensive team statistically after the Sheed trade. Either way, 2005 shows they were no fluke. Clearly better than the 2012 Thunder.

Besides, the '04 Pistons lack of offense has nothing to do with the 2000 Blazers, who were not only a top 5 defensive team, but a top 3 offensive team statistically.



The funny thing is, he didn't, even with Bosh out. For the entire postseason, Chalmers put up numbers at least as good as Glen Rice's, he averaged 11/4/4, 44% while even making more 3s and of course playing much better defense. Lebron's 4th guy had a better postseason than Shaq's 3rd guy. :oldlol:



Lebron never got double teamed on the catch with the league's best help defender just waiting for him to catch the ball. Besides, LA ended up winning the game, and a big reason was Shaq's excellent 4th quarter at both ends.



Just a stacked team. One of the few times where the word stacked actually applies to a team, despite how much it's thrown around.



Here's some that may convince you then, since you just continue to make pathetic excuses.

2000 Blazers were top 3 in offensive rating, top 5 in defensive rating and they outrebounded opponents by 4 rpg. They also dominated their 2 first round opponents. The 50 win Wolves and 55 win Jazz, while containing both KG and Karl Malone.



Lebron was dominant, even so, his competition was weaker. Shaq was dominant in virtually every game as well, you named 4 games out of 23, and none of them were terrible performances. The worst you named was game 6 vs Portland. he clearly wasn't carried in game 7. either. Kobe was the MVP of the game, but saying Shaq was carried shows you've never even seen the game. As far as game 5 vs Phoenix? He had 21 rebounds, iirc and sat out the 4th since LA completely dominated Phoenix.

Oh, and as long as you were talking about the '99 lockout, the ironic thing is that Lebron so far has won his only title in a lockout season.

But talking about Shaq's 2000 run and all of that makes me nostalgic. A time when you didn't hear about nonsense like PER, win shares ect.

You have to be one of the few posters who actually watched the Lakers back then:applause:

Also, You just completely owned da fuq out of that poster, that sh!t cray.

PickernRoller
06-12-2013, 11:38 AM
Shaq attack with the massive rebuttal. Just call him a clown and we understand. You, I couldn't see myself writing that much to say someone is dumb or stupid. Just say so - doesn't take that much. Nor are they worth that kind of time.

PickernRoller
06-12-2013, 11:39 AM
You have to be one of the few posters who actually watched the Lakers back then:applause:

Also, You just completely owned da fuq out of that poster, that sh!t cray.

He's a Shaq fan. Any Shaq fan watched the Lakers...

Odinn
06-12-2013, 11:44 AM
You have to be one of the few posters who actually watched the Lakers back then:applause:

Also, You just completely owned da fuq out of that poster, that sh!t cray.
Actually the early 2000s is not that far. I started to watch NBA in 1999.
The troll he is respoding to is already on my ignore list.

Just, ShaqAttack3234 is one hell of a great and patient poster.:applause:

KG215
06-12-2013, 01:46 PM
Just, ShaqAttack3242 is one hell of a great and patient poster.:applause:
I don't know how he does it with posters like that. I'd have enough patience in me to week through maybe half that guy's post before I started throwing out profanities and wondering why I even bother with this site anymore. But ShaqAattack actually has the patience to maturely explain to himself to someone like 2010splash, who pretty clearly has no clue what he's talking about.

dh144498
06-12-2013, 01:50 PM
holy crap, 2010splash getting owned. :oldlol: