More overrated? Kobe's 2006 RS, LeBron's 2007 PS, or Dirk's 2011 Finals?

[SamuraiSWISH]

Call it, and why. Go ...

:pimp:

[Le Shaqtus]

There is nothing overrated about Dirks play off run, dude was an absolute hero :rockon:

[SamuraiSWISH]

There is nothing overrated about Dirks play off run, dude was an absolute hero :rockon:
The Finals?

Jason Kidd
Tyson Chandler
and Jason Terry

Hell, even JJ Barrea.

Are you serious? People say MJ's '96 Finals was atrocious (and it was for his standards)

Dirk put up 26 ppg, comparable to MJ on 41% FG percentage. Not with all time elite, DPOY caliber guy defending him, ala Gary Payton. Instead?

Udonis Haslem recently back from injury in the 2011 playoffs, like 4 inches shorter had him on lock at times.

Game 7 he was carried by Jason Terry schooling LeBron until Dirk finally had his jumper kick in.

Dirk's Finals in 2011 is ridiculously overrated.

[Legends66NBA7]

LeBron James's 2007 PS.

Overall, it wasn't that special outside of that 4th quarter takeover in Game 5, despite what his overall numbers might suggest. Also, I've never gotten the pass he gets for his bad finals in 2007, when he gets praise for leading the Cavs to the Finals in the first place.

IMO, can't have it both ways. You have to accept both.

[HoopsFanNumero1]

2011 Dirk. It was a pretty average performance and what makes it extremely overrated is that it gets compared to Wade's. Wade was by far the best player in that series and it wasn't even close.

Lebron's 2007 PS run was also pretty overrated. I don't really recall him having any dominant performances other than that game 5 against the Pistons. Not to mention his terrible finals.

Kobe's 2006 RS is also extremely overrated. There were several players that year scoring far more than their career averages. But then again, Kobe's whole career has been overrated.

All in all, none of them were really spectacular.

[DMAVS41]

All 3 very over-rated.

I'd say Dirk's finals is actually the most over-rated because he was pretty average. Had the flu one game in which he didn't do much until the end...and had the horrific shooting first half in game 6. Dirk did make some big plays late in those games which salvaged the series, but it wasn't the dominant performance people claim it was. Really I think people mean to say Dirk in the playoffs in 11...not the Finals.

Probably then Kobe's 06 season. Lebron statistically was actually better in the regular season and playoffs. Combine that Kobe's inability to dominate the Suns, a blown 3-1 series lead, and a quit in game 7.

Lebron's performance against the Pistons was pretty crazy, but outside that you'd expect better in the finals from an all time great player...even one just in his 4th year with the kind of experience he had.

[Miller for 3]

Dirk's Finals are only overrated if you ignore all context and only look at boxscore stats. IF you actually watch the series, you will better understand. Dirk's finger injury in game 1 which did affect his shooting over the rest of the series, plus he had the flu in one game as well. Even with the injury to himself, his 4th best player being injured(Butler), his backup center got injured in game 4 or 5, and his "HOF GOAT" starting PG got benched for a midget Puerto Rican, he still absolutely dominated Wade and Lebron in the minutes that mattered most.

Lebron wasn't even the best player on the 07 Cavs, yet people act like he helped them. He was a liability all year. 07 Lebron's PS is the most overrated and meaningless playoffs by a player ever.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Lebron wasn't even the best player on the 07 Cavs
:oldlol:

[HoopsFanNumero1]

Dirk's Finals are only overrated if you ignore all context and only look at boxscore stats. IF you actually watch the series, you will better understand. Dirk's finger injury in game 1 which did affect his shooting over the rest of the series, plus he had the flu in one game as well. Even with the injury to himself, his 4th best player being injured(Butler), his backup center got injured in game 4 or 5, and his "HOF GOAT" starting PG got benched for a midget Puerto Rican, he still absolutely dominated Wade and Lebron in the minutes that mattered most.

Lebron wasn't even the best player on the 07 Cavs, yet people act like he helped them. He was a liability all year. 07 Lebron's PS is the most overrated and meaningless playoffs by a player ever.

Delete you account and never create a new one again.

[Replay32]

Individually, Lebron's overall 2007 season was a disappoint for me. Even though they made the finals. He wasn't as consistently good as he was in 2006 IMO.

[Spaulding]

The Finals?
Game 7 he was carried by Jason Terry schooling LeBron until Dirk finally had his jumper kick in.


What kind of numbers did Terry do in Game 7?

[DirkNowitzki41]

There is nothing overrated about Dirks play off run, dude was an absolute hero :rockon:

This. op is a big time hater

sick and injured. still gets 2 game winners, and unstoppable in the 4th. :banana: goat playoff run

[DirkNowitzki41]

Dirk's Finals are only overrated if you ignore all context and only look at boxscore stats. IF you actually watch the series, you will better understand. Dirk's finger injury in game 1 which did affect his shooting over the rest of the series, plus he had the flu in one game as well. Even with the injury to himself, his 4th best player being injured(Butler), his backup center got injured in game 4 or 5, and his "HOF GOAT" starting PG got benched for a midget Puerto Rican, he still absolutely dominated Wade and Lebron in the minutes that mattered most.

Lebron wasn't even the best player on the 07 Cavs, yet people act like he helped them. He was a liability all year. 07 Lebron's PS is the most overrated and meaningless playoffs by a player ever.

ouch. :applause:

[SamuraiSWISH]

What kind of numbers did Terry do in Game 7?
I meant game 6, too many whiskey and gingers, bro. Give me a break.

[Spaulding]

I meant game 6, too many whiskey and gingers, bro. Give me a break.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/36523111.jpg

[magnax1]

Lebron and Dirk were really not that outstanding at those points. Lebron was amazing during some stretches during the conference finals, but kind of mediocre for him otherwise. It was just an exceedingly weak year. Dirk shot pretty poorly in the finals. He was kind of up and down all playoffs, which he generally is most years, and he was injured so its not like I hold it against him at all.
Dont really think that Kobe's 06 year is over rated. Its his best season (I mean, 07 and 08 he wasnt much different, but if I had to choose itd be 06) and he's one of the fifteen best players ever, minimum. Probably top 10 at this point.

[Bandito]

The Finals?

Jason Kidd
Tyson Chandler
and Jason Terry

Hell, even JJ Barrea.

Are you serious? People say MJ's '96 Finals was atrocious (and it was for his standards)

Dirk put up 26 ppg, comparable to MJ on 41% FG percentage. Not with all time elite, DPOY caliber guy defending him, ala Gary Payton. Instead?

Udonis Haslem recently back from injury in the 2011 playoffs, like 4 inches shorter had him on lock at times.

Game 7 he was carried by Jason Terry schooling LeBron until Dirk finally had his jumper kick in.

Dirk's Finals in 2011 is ridiculously overrated.
what game 7? That finals series went to six.

[SamuraiSWISH]

what game 7? That finals series went to six.
Re-read the last three posts, boricua

[b1imtf]

I think people mostly talk about Dirk's run, not the Finals itself

[Young X]

Bron's 2007 playoff run easy.

Averaged 25/8/8 on 41% (nothing special)

Two 40 win teams in the first 2 rounds.

53 win Pistons team without Ben Wallace in the ECF.

Had the worst finals performance for a superstar ever vs. the Spurs.

Bron's 2013 run >>>>> this run
Bron's 2010 run >>>>> this run

[tpols]

I think people mostly talk about Dirk's run, not the Finals itself
Exactly.. Finals are overrated, but whole run wasnt. Ive literally never heard anyone call Kobes 06 season overrated.. and Lebrons 07 run is used as a black mark on his career never a positive so I dont see how it can be considered overrated.

[Doranku]

Exactly.. Finals are overrated, but whole run wasnt. Ive literally never heard anyone call Kobes 06 season overrated.. and Lebrons 07 run is used as a black mark on his career never a positive so I dont see how it can be considered overrated.

Not really. You hear "LeBron carried a team of scrubs to the finals in '07" a lot more than you hear "LeBron had the worst finals ever for a superstar in '07".

[Le Shaqtus]

I think people mostly talk about Dirk's run, not the Finals itself

The whole run was something out of a fairy tale, it's easy to say "Oh, well LeBron's 2012 play off run was way more impressive" or something like that, but if you look at the odds Dirk's team went up against it was an underdog story.

[b1imtf]

The whole run was something out of a fairy tale, it's easy to say "Oh, well LeBron's 2012 play off run was way more impressive" or something like that, but if you look at the odds Dirk's team went up against it was an underdog story.
I can't say that, that year was the only I remember a player making me lose my shit consistently.. And he's not even on the Celtics:oldlol:

[G-Funk]

Overrated??? U mean less impressive? Kobe is 1 of 3 players to average 35pts or more, the other two, Jordan and Wilt, how is that overrated? Dirk's numbers may not be impressive but the way he was taking over games during the playoffs was amazing. But Lebron on the other hand played in the Weakest conference in NBA history.

[BuGzBuNNy]

Most overrated I would probably say...
Lebron 2007 PS (Just because people only think about game 5 vs DET and think he played that way all PS)
Kobe 2006 RS (I don't consider this his best, most do)
Dirk 2011 Finals (I don't really hear too many people talking this up)

[SpurrDurr]

More overrated? I'd say Jordan 2nd 3peat is overrated.
Kobe, Lebron and Dirk would have won 3 titles as well with such a stacked team as the 96-98 Bulls.

Pippen (94' MVP), Rodman (best rebounder and one of the greatest defender of all time), Harper (he was a 20/5/5 player before going to CHI but for obvious reason he had to accept a small role) and Longley are at least twice as good as Dirk's supporting cast in 2011.
On top of that Bulls had by far the best bench.

[plowking]

Lebron 2007
Dirk 2011
Kobe 2006

Although, Dirk's is getting more and more overrated. People act as if he was as good as he was during the run prior to the finals. He dropped off a lot. He was great in the clutch though.

[HoopsFanNumero1]

More overrated? I'd say Jordan 2nd 3peat is overrated.
Kobe, Lebron and Dirk would have won 3 titles as well with such a stacked team as the 96-98 Bulls.

Pippen (94' MVP), Rodman (best rebounder and one of the greatest defender of all time), Harper (he was a 20/5/5 player before going to CHI but for obvious reason he had to accept a small role) and Longley are at least twice as good as Dirk's supporting cast in 2011.
On top of that Bulls had by far the best bench.

OP should've included this as well. Easily the most overrated compared to the other three.

[Kblaze8855]

Overrated??? U mean less impressive? Kobe is 1 of 3 players to average 35pts or more, the other two, Jordan and Wilt, how is that overrated?

You forgot at least 2 other people and maybe 3 depending on if Mcadoo actually hit it or just got there rounded off. I dont feel like checking but I know he was around it his MVP year. ANd I know Rick Barry put up 36 a game with I think 39 a game for 4 months of that season. And Baylor 38. Kareem was hanging around it. Dude put up like 36, 34, 39, and 34 points a game for 4 months straight. And he was pulling down 17 rebounds a night and getting 5 assists when an assist had to actually be an assist.

So few people knowing about it is probably the basis of it being overrated. Its just an arbitrary number that doesnt mean much of anything. Kobes 35 a game comes up all the time. Tiny Archibalds 34/11 leading the league in both never does. Something about nice round sets of 5...people reeeeeeeeeeeeally love the clean 35 or 20ppg instead of 19 or 25 and not 23.8. But its really not that different.

That seasons fame exceeds its place in history to me which I guess does make it overrated. But it could just as easily mean the other seasons like it are just underrated so...we can go with that.


Dirk's numbers may not be impressive but the way he was taking over games during the playoffs was amazing.

The way he was taking over games in the WCF was amazing. Among the best contested pressure shooting of all time.

But he didnt do anything to remember outside that.


But Lebron on the other hand played in the Weakest conference in NBA history.

80 West puts up a fight there. The Lakers did once make the finals without playing a team with more than 42 or so wins. I think they played a 39 win team in the WCF. I think it was 42, 36, and 39 win opponents their first 3 rounds. It took Sleepy Floyd dropping I think 29 in the 4th quarter of one game to keep them from sweeping the entire west that year. They won 65 games and pretty much played 3 8th seeds to make the finals.

Which they won over the Celtics so its not like it wasnt a great team. They just...had nobody to even slow them down till the finals.

[AirFederer]

All 3 very over-rated.

I'd say Dirk's finals is actually the most over-rated because he was pretty average. Had the flu one game in which he didn't do much until the end...and had the horrific shooting first half in game 6. Dirk did make some big plays late in those games which salvaged the series, but it wasn't the dominant performance people claim it was. Really I think people mean to say Dirk in the playoffs in 11...not the Finals.

Probably then Kobe's 06 season. Lebron statistically was actually better in the regular season and playoffs. Combine that Kobe's inability to dominate the Suns, a blown 3-1 series lead, and a quit in game 7.

Lebron's performance against the Pistons was pretty crazy, but outside that you'd expect better in the finals from an all time great player...even one just in his 4th year with the kind of experience he had.

This! :applause:

Let all the stans see how non homerism is done!

[Tking714]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zPf8Hjm8Bs

Dirk's game was poetry in motion during that finals run

[SamuraiSWISH]

OP should've included this as well. Easily the most overrated compared to the other three.
Nah, just trolling on SpurrDurr and your part. Probably mad I'm addressing elephants in the room about your favorite player's overrated runs.

MJ @ 33, and 34 leading a team to back to back 72 and then 69 wins plus back to back championships, winning them over 4 60+ win teams in the process is overrated?

While basically putting up Kobe's number from 2008 - 2010 or better during that stretch?

And then winning his last ring, another third straight, on will power at the age of 35 ... with an injured Scottie Pippen being nonexistent in the later stages of the Finals?

:oldlol:

Right. Overrated.

Then he goes on to say how Kobe, LeBron, and Dirk would've won with Pippen, Kukoc and Rodman. Easily. Even though the latter 2 weren't even all stars, and neither was Ron Harper. All were old as shit during that 2nd three peat too.

Meanwhile Kobe lost in 2004 w/ Shaq, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton. In 2011 lost in a sweep as defending champs w/ Gasol, Odom, and an emerging Andrew Bynum.

LeBron failed to win a championship as overwhelming favorites with peak Wade, and possibly peak Bosh in 2011. Why? Because he didn't even show up in the Finals. Guy got locked up by 84 year old Jason Kidd.

Dirk lost in 2006 with a stacked squad, and having Miami basically on the ropes. And then the same stacked squad that won 60+ games the next season got BOOTED in the 1st round by an 8th seed with Dirk in the lead.

:facepalm

I wasn't even going to reply given how stupid the comment was, an obvious attempt to troll but not I feel it need to be put to bed. The most overrated things in recent memory that get talked about on ISH.

1) Dirk's 2011 Finals
2) LeBron's 2007 Playoffs
3) Kobe's 2006 Regular Season

SpurrDurr is just bitter that I've called out numerous times how Duncan is possibly one of the most overrated guys in the top ten all-time. The guy who could never get his team to back to back championship series, let alone repeat and defend the crown. All with stacked squads, and great coaching. Even this year him and the Spurs failed to close it out when they had an opportunity in two games.

He bitter.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I actually think Kobe's 2008 season is pretty overrated. Especially when people think he was better that year than in 2007 and 2006. Dude just played w/ better players (hence the less shot attempts). That's it.

Lebron in 2007 = VERY overrated and Dirk in 2011 is only overrated by dumbass Werner homers.

[STATUTORY]

You forgot at least 2 other people and maybe 3 depending on if Mcadoo actually hit it or just got there rounded off. I dont feel like checking but I know he was around it his MVP year. ANd I know Rick Barry put up 36 a game with I think 39 a game for 4 months of that season. And Baylor 38. Kareem was hanging around it. Dude put up like 36, 34, 39, and 34 points a game for 4 months straight. And he was pulling down 17 rebounds a night and getting 5 assists when an assist had to actually be an assist.

So few people knowing about it is probably the basis of it being overrated. Its just an arbitrary number that doesnt mean much of anything. Kobes 35 a game comes up all the time. Tiny Archibalds 34/11 leading the league in both never does. Something about nice round sets of 5...people reeeeeeeeeeeeally love the clean 35 or 20ppg instead of 19 or 25 and not 23.8. But its really not that different.

That seasons fame exceeds its place in history to me which I guess does make it overrated. But it could just as easily mean the other seasons like it are just underrated so...we can go with that.



The way he was taking over games in the WCF was amazing. Among the best contested pressure shooting of all time.

But he didnt do anything to remember outside that.



80 West puts up a fight there. The Lakers did once make the finals without playing a team with more than 42 or so wins. I think they played a 39 win team in the WCF. I think it was 42, 36, and 39 win opponents their first 3 rounds. It took Sleepy Floyd dropping I think 29 in the 4th quarter of one game to keep them from sweeping the entire west that year. They won 65 games and pretty much played 3 8th seeds to make the finals.

Which they won over the Celtics so its not like it wasnt a great team. They just...had nobody to even slow them down till the finals.

wow someone levies a legit criticism against the overhyped Lebron's 2007 playoff run and Kblaze responds with deflection and complete non sequitor.

on topic, Lebron 2007 PS by far and not even close. It's completely asinine when that's invoked as evidence of Lebron's ability to carry the cavs because it disregards all contexts. Not all nba championship finals appearances are equal and the pre-Heat east was a joke which produced very few actual legitimate contenders.

[ispin69]

Talk about comparing oranges and apples.

One game scoring high to a playoffs run to a single finals? :rolleyes:

[riseagainst]

Lebron 07 playoffs is overrated when his stans always bring up how he took a team of scrubs to the finals, then make up other excuses when he plays poorly in the finals.

[Young X]

More overrated? I'd say Jordan 2nd 3peat is overrated.
Kobe, Lebron and Dirk would have won 3 titles as well with such a stacked team as the 96-98 Bulls.

Pippen (94' MVP), Rodman (best rebounder and one of the greatest defender of all time), Harper (he was a 20/5/5 player before going to CHI but for obvious reason he had to accept a small role) and Longley are at least twice as good as Dirk's supporting cast in 2011.
On top of that Bulls had by far the best bench.You shouldn't be talking. Your fav team has 3 different title runs where they faced three 50 win teams in the playoffs. Your team is full of chokers.

[Legends66NBA7]

You shouldn't be talking. Your fav team has 3 different title runs where they faced three 50 win teams in the playoffs. Your team is full of chokers.

You would trade their success for your own favourite team's success.

[SCdac]

The whole run was something out of a fairy tale, it's easy to say "Oh, well LeBron's 2012 play off run was way more impressive" or something like that, but if you look at the odds Dirk's team went up against it was an underdog story.

Eh, odds and underdog stories is all media bullshit and preconceived notions.

People just looked at the Mavs as a team with a decade full of disappointment, so nobody at the time could reasonably put stock in them.

In actuality, the Mavs from top to bottom were the strongest team that season, yet people still talk about them like they weren't even a top-5 team in 2011. They were deep and experienced and champions.

Calling it a "fairy tale" run is a bit much if we're basing it solely on the competition. By that logic, the rest of the roster deserves alot more credit than they get... the guys guarding Lebron, Kobe, Durant.

[Legends66NBA7]

By that logic, the rest of the roster deserves alot more credit than they get... the guys guarding Lebron, Kobe, Durant.

Those guys get a lot of credit on here.

[Fresh Kid]

Lebron's 2007 iz overrated, I would like to add tha spurs finals 1999 as well.

[SCdac]

Those guys get a lot of credit on here.

Nobody on the Mavs gets near the credit Dirk "Jesus" Nowitzki gets for that playoff run. After they won, Dirk, like 13 years into his career, suddenly had the "most unstoppable shot in NBA history", yet he kind of had done what he's been doing the last 5-6 years (with some improvement), and he had a deep team, teammates stepped up, starting lineup full of good defensive players, and good-great coach. Point is, when people refer to it as a "fairy tale" run and the tough odds it's almost never in the context of how great the Mavs were, but rather how great Dirk was.

[Legends66NBA7]

Nobody on the Mavs gets near the credit Dirk "Jesus" Nowitzki gets for that playoff run.

Off course they shouldn't. None of them were better or close to the impact overall to what Nowitzki brought to that team. He doesn't play the way he does, there's no title at all.

The rest is just some exaggeration that happens to a lot of all-time greats. Context ? That would favor Dirk more than the other way around. The rest of the basketball fans and in the future (casuals; don't know much about that Mavs) don't look into context, they'll just say that Dirk and the Mavs won a ring.

[Sharmer]

Mj>lbj>kb.

[Fresh Kid]

Nobody on the Mavs gets near the credit Dirk "Jesus" Nowitzki gets for that playoff run. After they won.
Well Lebron had to play with three other all stars and a stacked bench full of 3 point shooters to win a ring, but they still give this corn mvps and still calls him king and all:wtf: :facepalm Whats up with dat??:biggums: :coleman:

[SCdac]

Off course they shouldn't. None of them were better or close to the impact overall to what Nowitzki brought to that team. He doesn't play the way he does, there's no title at all.

The rest is just some exaggeration that happens to a lot of all-time greats. Context ? That would favor Dirk more than the other way around. The rest of the basketball fans and in the future (casuals; don't know much about that Mavs) don't look into context, they'll just say that Dirk and the Mavs won a ring.

Dirk is the best player, obviously, and in saying that I agree he deserves the most credit of their players. But I'd venture to say he gets disproportionate credit, largely because it's still fresh, fans love offense, and love cinderella stories. I've seen comparisons to Tim Duncan in 03 or Hakeem in the mid-90's and it's where I start to think Dirk's teammates are really underrated in that run and/or Dirk is overrated. For instance, Kidd (all time great) lead the team handedly in assists and steals, other players (Chandler, Marion) lead the team in rebounds and blocks. These are just stats but they are representative of key parts of the game. Just a very well rounded roster and Cuban deserves a large amount of credit himself. Impact is tough to quantify and how do you measure holding Lebron to astronomically low numbers? or holding Durant to .43% shooting. Dirk had the strongest impact on offense, no doubt, but do people even care to measure the rest of the Mavs?.... not really

[SCdac]

Well Lebron had to play with three other all stars and a stacked bench full of 3 point shooters to win a ring, but they still give this corn mvps and still calls him king and all:wtf: :facepalm Whats up with dat??:biggums: :coleman:

Eh, Lebron will probably go down as a better player than Dirk, if he's not already. I don't get your point. Lebron is a pretentious douche who gave up on the Cavs? ... old news, but still an amazing player.

[DMAVS41]

Eh, odds and underdog stories is all media bullshit and preconceived notions.

People just looked at the Mavs as a team with a decade full of disappointment, so nobody at the time could reasonably put stock in them.

In actuality, the Mavs from top to bottom were the strongest team that season, yet people still talk about them like they weren't even a top-5 team in 2011. They were deep and experienced and champions.

Calling it a "fairy tale" run is a bit much if we're basing it solely on the competition. By that logic, the rest of the roster deserves alot more credit than they get... the guys guarding Lebron, Kobe, Durant.

This is just not true.

The likes of Terry and Kidd played noticeably better in the playoffs than what you would expect.

They were huge underdogs to get out of the 2nd round. Then enormous underdogs heading into the finals.

16 of the Mavs 21 playoff games went into crunch time.

It took Dirk going nuts repeatedly with the game on the line and Terry playing by far the best ball of his career and coming through in the clutch as well.

And this team last Caron Butler as well.

One of the biggest underdog champion I can remember. Actually...I don't can't think of a team that won that had worse odds to win the title entering the playoffs than the 11 Mavs.

[Legends66NBA7]

I've seen comparisons to Tim Duncan in 03 or Hakeem in the mid-90's and it's where I start to think Dirk's teammates are really underrated in that run and/or Dirk is overrated.

Yeah, it's in comparison to the 4 teams that are looked at as the weakest championship winners.

1975 Warriors
1994 Rockets
2003 Spurs
2011 Mavericks

Usually, their regarded as "weak" because they had a lone star player for each run and a bunch of role players surronding them. Not necessarily comparing each performance of each star to one another, which is where I think there's a confusion.

Mavericks or Rockets were the strongest of the 4 and the Warriors were the weakest of the 4, IMO. Spurs you could make a case as the strongest too since they had a lot of experience.

[Legends66NBA7]

One of the biggest underdog champion I can remember. Actually...I don't can't think of a team that won that had worse odds to win the title entering the playoffs than the 11 Mavs.

True. Maybe the 95 Rockets ?

Better than the 94 team with the addition of Drexler, but faced worse odds overall. No HCA, down major holes in 2 of those series, etc..

[Nash]

I love how people have gone complete retard. The question was, which of these is the most overrated in this very small context. In a bigger context they are all very good.

[cos88]

Lebron wasn't even the best player on the 07 Cavs, yet people act like he helped them. He was a liability all year

you're wasting time with basketball. it's like a guy from Botswana watching a japanese movie without any subtitles. and, of course you also are an idiot from watching something you don't understand.

[Fresh Kid]

I love how people have gone complete retard. The question was, which of these is the most overrated in this very small context. In a bigger context they are all very good.
expect for lebron tho.

[SCdac]

This is just not true.

The likes of Terry and Kidd played noticeably better in the playoffs than what you would expect.

They were huge underdogs to get out of the 2nd round. Then enormous underdogs heading into the finals.

16 of the Mavs 21 playoff games went into crunch time.

It took Dirk going nuts repeatedly with the game on the line and Terry playing by far the best ball of his career and coming through in the clutch as well.

And this team last Caron Butler as well.

One of the biggest underdog champion I can remember. Actually...I don't can't think of a team that won that had worse odds to win the title entering the playoffs than the 11 Mavs.

Eh, odds and underdog stories is all media bullshit and preconceived notions. Merely being surprised by an outcome doesn't mean the outcome it's irrational, unexplainable, or an entire run by a team should be attributed to one player. Basketball is a team game, and Mavs were clearly the strongest team by the end of it all. It took the Mavs playing amazing ball to win a championship? You can say that about nearly every championship team.

[SCdac]

Usually, their regarded as "weak" because they had a lone star player for each run and a bunch of role players surronding them. Not necessarily comparing each performance of each star to one another, which is where I think there's a confusion.

Well, how much of a load the star player has to carry is a factor in rating runs of individuals during team accomplishments. And that's basically what we're doing here. I'd argue Duncan and Hakeem had to do much more (on both ends of the court) for the Spurs and Rockets to win than Dirk had to do for the Mavs to win, hence my opinion on disproportionate credit. Duncan for instance was like a quarterback and averaged 5+ assists in his run (lead the Spurs) and Hakeem did the same with his team (not to mention being the leading shotblocker and stealer). In the grand scheme, I think it's a disservice to gloss over the two-way impact of these legendary players and how much it was the basis for their teams... In other words, replace Duncan/Hakeem with Dirk and I don't think those Spurs and Rockets teams get it done, replace Dirk with Duncan/Hakeem and I think they still win in 2011. I'm not even sure 2011 was Dirk's offensive peak.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Meh. The '11 Mavs were stacked. In fact, I called them favorites just before the playoffs began.

[Sarcastic]

The only reason the Mavs were such large underdogs was due to Dirk's choking in years past. Everyone just figured he wouldn't get it done as he usually didn't.

The Mavs winning had more to do with LeBron choking than anything else. It's rare when an all time great plays as far below his averages as LeBron did.

[SCdac]

The Mavs winning had more to do with LeBron choking than anything else. It's rare when an all time great plays as far below his averages as LeBron did.

and credit to DeShawn Stevenson and Shawn Marion for royally punking him... How do you accurately quantify that?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.130813!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alg-stevenson-james-jpg.jpg
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2012/03/31/ba/6f/heat_1254758a.jpg

[DMAVS41]

Eh, odds and underdog stories is all media bullshit and preconceived notions. Merely being surprised by an outcome doesn't mean the outcome it's irrational, unexplainable, or an entire run by a team should be attributed to one player. Basketball is a team game, and Mavs were clearly the strongest team by the end of it all. It took the Mavs playing amazing ball to win a championship? You can say that about nearly every championship team.

Do you know what odds actually are? What causes one team to be the underdog?

You seem very ignorant. It's not the media...it's the odds makers. Vegas.

I'm speaking in factual terms. Factually the Mavs had the worst odds to start the playoffs out of any champion I can remember. Odds makers still had them at over 10 to 1 after winning the Blazers series. After...

Heading into the playoffs they were 18 to 1 to win the title....and that was the best I can remember...Saw them at 25 to 1 or more at a number of places.

The Lakers, for example, were 2 to 1 to win it all. Spurs were like 3 to 1. Heat 2.5 to 1. Bulls 3.5 to 1.

These are facts. It's not perception. You seem ignorant on what actual odds are and what constitutes an underdog and favorite.

The Mavs are factually the biggest underdog to win the title that I can remember. Even the 94 and 95 Rockets were probably less than 18 to 1 heading into the playoffs. Those are the only teams I can think of that would come close.

[Kblaze8855]

We really talking about betting odds?

Really?

Thats your basis for calling them the biggest underdogs?

You think the concept of a team being the favorite to win doesnt exist outside of or was created by odds makers for the purposes of betting?

People just mean....which team should win. The idea of thinking this team is better than that one is probably 12 thousand years old. Nobody is talking about some vegas odds when asked which team is best. Nobody I know at least. ISH posters sure as hell arent. We are talking about basketball.

The Mavs were a 57 win team that beat I think a 50-54 win Blazers team, a 55 or so win Thunder team, a Lakers team I think probably won about the same as them and the Heat who won like 56-58? Not sure of the number but it was several less than the Bulls who won 62.

The Mavs were a very good team that got hot at the right time. I didnt think they would win but I didnt think a lot of teams would win that ended up winning.

They were hardly some out of the blue cinderella story coming from the 6th or 7th seed.

You win 57 or so games in the tougher conference you probably have to come off the "Nobody thought we were any good!" list.

I didnt think they would beat the Heat. Rest of the series were just...whatever.

It wasnt anything like when I said on here that "If the Spurs couldnt beat them what are the ****ing Pistons gonna do?" in 2004 of the Lakers.

I wasnt just...blown away by the outcome.

[tmacattack33]

Eh, Lebron will probably go down as a better player than Dirk, if he's not already. I don't get your point. Lebron is a pretentious douche who gave up on the Cavs? ... old news, but still an amazing player.

:roll:

[b1imtf]

:roll:
:rolleyes:

[DMAVS41]

We really talking about betting odds?

Really?

Thats your basis for calling them the biggest underdogs?

You think the concept of a team being the favorite to win doesnt exist outside of or was created by odds makers for the purposes of betting?

People just mean....which team should win. The idea of thinking this team is better than that one is probably 12 thousand years old. Nobody is talking about some vegas odds when asked which team is best. Nobody I know at least. ISH posters sure as hell arent. We are talking about basketball.

The Mavs were a 57 win team that beat I think a 50-54 win Blazers team, a 55 or so win Thunder team, a Lakers team I think probably won about the same as them and the Heat who won like 56-58? Not sure of the number but it was several less than the Bulls who won 62.

The Mavs were a very good team that got hot at the right time. I didnt think they would win but I didnt think a lot of teams would win that ended up winning.

They were hardly some out of the blue cinderella story coming from the 6th or 7th seed.

You win 57 or so games in the tougher conference you probably have to come off the "Nobody thought we were any good!" list.

I didnt think they would beat the Heat. Rest of the series were just...whatever.

It wasnt anything like when I said on here that "If the Spurs couldnt beat them what are the ****ing Pistons gonna do?" in 2004 of the Lakers.

I wasnt just...blown away by the outcome.

Yes. Let's go on the kblaze opinion and not the factual odds created by people that do it for a living.

Are we really using regular season wins to determine the strength of a team? Really?

That's your basis for not calling them underdogs?

So just because you weren't surprised doesn't change the actual odds. And you are rewriting history on here if you think the consensus was just "ho hum" about the Mavs winning. Just not true. It was literally like 60/40 on if they would beat a Blazers team that everyone agreed was really good.

I wasn't as nearly as surprised about the 04 Pistons winning it all a the Mavs were. Who's right? Seems to me you are just saying because I say so...it makes it so.

Sorry. Reality doesn't work like that. The Pistons were like 12 to 1 to win the title entering the regular season in 04. By the time the playoffs hit...probably 8 to 1. Huge difference in 8 to 1 and 18 to 1.

You seem to be falling for the fallacy of judging a team on it's regular season record and not the parts that make up the team. The parts, mainly star players, matter more in the playoffs than the regular season. The Mavs won because they got near star level play from Jason Terry. The same Terry that had been awful the previous 4 years in the playoffs.

[Kblaze8855]

Yes. Let's go on the kblaze opinion and not the factual odds created by people that do it for a living.

No...lets go with basketball games.

Winning them.

Beating the teams in question. You know...at basketball.




Are we really using regular season wins to determine the strength of a team? Really?

That's your basis for not calling them underdogs?


Am I going to use winning basketball games as evidence a team is good as basketball? Yes. I feel that is how sports generally work.



So just because you weren't surprised doesn't change the actual odds. And you are rewriting history on here if you think the consensus was just "ho hum" about the Mavs winning. Just not true. It was literally like 60/40 on if they would beat a Blazers team that everyone agreed was really good.

I wasn't as nearly as surprised about the 04 Pistons winning it all a the Mavs were. Who's right? Seems to me you are just saying because I say so...it makes it so.

Sorry. Reality doesn't work like that. The Pistons were like 12 to 1 to win the title entering the regular season in 04. By the time the playoffs hit...probably 8 to 1. Huge difference in 8 to 1 and 18 to 1.


Reality doesnt work like that?

Reality is they won.

If the odds makers who have nothing to do with basketball decide how good a team is how exactly did that happen?

Seems your "reality" lost to....actual reality.

You know the one I mean.

The one we are currently in? That one.




You seem to be falling for the fallacy of judging a team on it's regular season record and not the parts that make up the team. The parts, mainly star players, matter more in the playoffs than the regular season. The Mavs won because they got near star level play from Jason Terry. The same Terry that had been awful the previous 4 years in the playoffs.


So judging regular season record and assuming they could contend is a fallacy even when they went into the playoffs and proved it?

The Mavs won damn near 60 games with a roster that wasnt even 100%.

Thus....they were contenders.

A contender won. Beating several teams that lost more than they did. One team with the exact same record. And one team that won one more game in a worse conference.

This aint exactly Buster Douglas shit here.........

[kNicKz]

Bruh not a single person in the world picked the Mavs you gotta relax with that shit with Butler hurt no one thought they were gonna do anything

[Kblaze8855]

Exactly 20 seconds of looking gives me this:


They're certainly flying under the radar and they haven't really been fully healthy for an extended period of time all year. If Tyson and Dirk are healthy come playoff time they can contend with anyone. If Butler comes back even marginally healthy in the playoffs, I think they are serious contenders to win it all.



I have a sneaky feeling when this team dials it up for the playoffs they will land in theWestern Conf . Finals.

If they are there and have to play the Spurs it will be a war.
If they are there against the Lakers , I really don't know the out come.

All I know is other than the Spurs , Boston are the top two teams in the league right now , and DALLAS is 3rd closing fast.
Running on all cylinders and not under durress (spl.) sounds about right to me.

thoughts ...




WCF @ Worst
Lose in the Finals @ Best




I have them in the Finals losing to Boston in 6.



Butler hurts too much. Him and Stevenson were a much better fit with Kidd, Dirk and Chandler than Roddy and Peja. That makes a huge difference defensively and even offensively. Peja and Beaubois cannot produce the same numbers as the former Wizards. Everything is possible from a first round exit to the finals, but the former is far more likely.




But nooooooooooooooooooooooobody give them a shot.

Exactly 2 topics clicked . One a "troll" topic that turned out to be right(Bladers predicting they beat the Heat in the finals) and this one from after Butler went out.

People were all over the map on them. But it was hardly some team nobody even talked about making noise.

[DMAVS41]

No...lets go with basketball games.

Winning them.

Beating the teams in question. You know...at basketball.




Am I going to use winning basketball games as evidence a team is good as basketball? Yes. I feel that is how sports generally work.



Reality doesnt work like that?

Reality is they won.

If the odds makers who have nothing to do with basketball decide how good a team is how exactly did that happen?

Seems your "reality" lost to....actual reality.

You know the one I mean.

The one we are currently in? That one.




So judging regular season record and assuming they could contend is a fallacy even when they went into the playoffs and proved it?

The Mavs won damn near 60 games with a roster that wasnt even 100%.

Thus....they were contenders.

A contender won. Beating several teams that lost more than they did. One team with the exact same record. And one team that won one more game in a worse conference.

This aint exactly Buster Douglas shit here.........

You miss the entire point. You don't set odds after the fact.

It's before. Sure, if people could see the future...the Mavs wouldn't have been underdogs in any series.

Winning basketball games in the regular season is a flawed way to determine playoff success that rigidly. Your brought up the 04 Lakers. They played the Wolves in the WCF. The Wolves won more games in the regular season. Had homecourt...and yet were still underdogs as they should have been.

If you can't understand why...you don't know basketball.

You think people that set the odds don't know basketball? They can't afford to be consistently wrong or people take them for money.

You just seem similar to the other poster. You seem ignorant as to what odds actually are...and you also seem hellbent on revising history as if it was "meh" that the Mavs won the title.

The mere fact that you think it was nothing of note that the Mavs beat the Lakers is hilarious. The back to back champions with home court and overall favorites to win the title...vs a team with Jason Terry as their 2nd best player (coming off 4 straight poor years in the playoffs)...LOL

Revisionist history at it's finest.

[tpols]

To be fair, the main reason the mavs were underdogs and expected to lose early is because of Dirk.

Before 2011 he..

choked humiliatingly bad in 06 run
followed it up with an even bigger 07 disaster(walk of shame MVP)
and then had a handful of early exits..
one of them being to the 7th seeded spurs:oldlol:


Dirk had a shit reputation before his 2011 cinderella run.. thats why it was so crazy.

Public perception of Dirk at the time, you know.. the thing that oddmakers have to toggle with was that he sucked and his team would never advance far again.

So odds is a disingeniuous argument.

[Kblaze8855]

Two teams with the same record in the same conference play...im not gonna act like its a big deal when one wins. Just wont. Off the top of my head its never once been anything id call a major upset.

The Mavs won the same number of games then worked them in the playoffs. Im to act like the Lakers should have wiped the floor with them?

Based on what?

The fact that they won the previous year?

I heard that shit before the 07 Bulls swept the Heat.

Dont talk to me about last year. Show me that the teams are on clearly different levels now. If you cant....what is the big deal when one loses?

I know you named yourself after Dirk but come on.

That is hardly gonna live on in history as some crazy upset. Especially considering how the Lakers have looked since.

[DMAVS41]

Two teams with the same record in the same conference play...im not gonna act like its a big deal when one wins. Just wont. Off the top of my head its never once been anything id call a major upset.

The Mavs won the same number of games then worked them in the playoffs. Im to act like the Lakers should have wiped the floor with them?

Based on what?

The fact that they won the previous year?

I heard that shit before the 07 Bulls swept the Heat.

Dont talk to me about last year. Show me that the teams are on clearly different levels now. If you cant....what is the big deal when one loses?

I know you named yourself after Dirk but come on.

That is hardly gonna live on in history as some crazy upset. Especially considering how the Lakers have looked since.


Apply that same logic of the bold to the Heat then. LOL

Guess the Mavs beating the Heat will be looked at as some crazy upset considering how the Heat have looked since then.

:confusedshrug:

You think your opinion trumps reality? The 04 Wolves were underdogs against the 04 Lakers despite having homecourt and a better record in the same conference. It's just a fact no matter what you think about it.

We are talking about whether or not they were actually underdogs. And they were. They were huge underdogs in the Lakers series and Heat series. Both series played on the road.

People were literally saying the Heat title won't mean much because they were so good it's unfair for the rest of the league.

[DMAVS41]

To be fair, the main reason the mavs were underdogs and expected to lose early is because of Dirk.

Before 2011 he..

choked humiliatingly bad in 06 run
followed it up with an even bigger 07 disaster(walk of shame MVP)
and then had a handful of early exits..
one of them being to the 7th seeded spurs:oldlol:


Dirk had a shit reputation before his 2011 cinderella run.. thats why it was so crazy.

Public perception of Dirk at the time, you know.. the thing that oddmakers have to toggle with was that he sucked and his team would never advance far again.

So odds is a disingeniuous argument.


Perception of course does play into it, but it would have more to do with the fact that the guy averaging 26/10/3 58.4% TS 24.7 PER for his career in the playoffs was surrounded by a bunch of cast off players that had produced poorly in the playoffs for years.

[tpols]

Perception of course does play into it,s.
Perception, for an odds maker, is everything.

The mass of people thought dirk was a choker and a career loser before 2011 and thus bet against his team more than they did for his team.

Oddsmakers recieve money.. from these people that think that way, and have to play off of what the majority of people put down for who they think would win or lose.


So Kblaze is right.. an experienced NBA fan would know how good dirk really was and that his team always had a shot. The majority of people that thought he sucked are the ones youre agreeing with when you make your point on only odds.

[SCdac]

To be fair, the main reason the mavs were underdogs and expected to lose early is because of Dirk.

I wouldn't even call it Dirk, I'd say it was the Maverick's reputation... which of course includes Dirk.... but it's a team game.

Leading up to 2011, Mavs were year after year a disappointment in the playoffs. We can go back 10-20 years to explain the ingrained doubt in the publics mind (however fair it is or not). The betting odds reflects that doubt, obviously.

Fortunately for the Mavs, or any team, their reputation didn't mean shit. Despite predictions and preconceived notions of them being failures, the Mavs were clearly the best overall team in 2011. And they did it with great offense, great defense, and pretty impressive coaching from Carlisle.

In 60+ years of NBA results, "surprises" really don't exist any more, and what's supposed to happen (#1 overall seed winning the championship) quite often doesn't happen. We've learned that by now. The Spurs at a collective age of 38225, or the outside-shooting Orlando Magic in 2009, getting to the Finals should show that the unexpected should be expected... even in the here and now.

Propping up betting odds, or a sensationalistic underdog story, to the Nth degree as some valuable evidence is only a disservice when assessing a team's final outcome, strength, and winning-ability. The Mavs were excellent, and deep, that year. Champions. The teams they beat were just not as good, for a number of reasons (ie. being inexperienced, lacking chemistry, lacking good players, weak coaching, etc). Sure they were lead by big names, but it's a team game.

[DMAVS41]

Perception, for an odds maker, is everything.

The mass of people thought dirk was a choker and a career loser before 2011 and thus bet against his team more than they did for his team.

Oddsmakers recieve money.. from these people that think that way, and have to play off of what the majority of people put down for who they think would win or lose.


So Kblaze is right.. an experienced NBA fan would know how good dirk really was and that his team always had a shot. The majority of people that thought he sucked are the ones youre agreeing with when you make your point on only odds.


No. An experienced NBA fan would know that it almost always takes two all nba type players to win a title. Knows how important HCA can be.

You seem to be implying that I'm saying the Mavs had no chance to win.

Hardly...there is always a chance of course.

So...I really don't think an experienced NBA fan is picking the Mavs to beat the back to back champion Lakers on the road. Hence, you'll find, that the majority of people in the know and not in the know picked the Lakers in that series.

Pretty sure every single person, including Stein, picked the Lakers on ESPN to win that series. That doesn't mean they thought the Mavs had no chance, but that it would be an upset.

And a big one at that given the strength of the Mavs and strength of the Lakers and without HCA.

And that is just one series.

When determining odds you have to think about the likelihood of a team doing everything.

When a team is the clear underdog in two rounds of the playoffs without homecourt...it becomes improbable that they will win. You act like 18 to 1 is impossible. It's not even remotely like that in terms of the odds.

And that is just those series. How favored should the Mavs have been over the Thunder? I don't know, but not as big of favorites as the Heat were over the Mavs...

It adds up to an improbable run.

[DMAVS41]

I wouldn't even call it Dirk, I'd say it was the Maverick's reputation... which of course includes Dirk.... but it's a team game.

Leading up to 2011, Mavs were year after year a disappointment in the playoffs. We can go back 10-20 years to explain the ingrained doubt in the publics mind (however fair it is or not). The betting odds reflects that doubt, obviously.

Fortunately for the Mavs, or any team, their reputation didn't mean shit. Despite predictions and preconceived notions of them being failures, the Mavs were clearly the best overall team in 2011. And they did it with great offense, great defense, and pretty impressive coaching from Carlisle.

In 60+ years of NBA results, "surprises" really don't exist any more, and what's supposed to happen (#1 overall seed winning the championship) quite often doesn't happen. We've learned that by now. The Spurs at a collective age of 38225, or the outside-shooting Orlando Magic in 2009, getting to the Finals should show that the unexpected should be expected... even in the here and now.

Propping up betting odds, or a sensationalistic underdog story, to the Nth degree as some valuable evidence is only a disservice when assessing a team's final outcome, strength, and winning-ability. The Mavs were excellent, and deep, that year. Champions. The teams they beat were just not as good, for a number of reasons (ie. being inexperienced, lacking chemistry, lacking good players, weak coaching, etc). Sure they were lead by big names, but it's a team game.

You are just arguing that upsets don't exist.

And if you want to go that route...that is fine, but the idea that the Mavs vs Lakers series outcome was not a surprising result is just not intellectually honest.

So, I"m assuming, that you don't think the 07 Warriors series was an upset or surprising.

[DMAVS41]

Also. To those people that think public perception is solely what dictates betting odds. You must educate yourselves on professionals.

There are people out there that bet for a living. The odds makers must worry about them as well. You really think Vegas could remain profitable if they just only catered to the misinformed public? The sharps would bleed them dry in a few years.

Vegas can't afford to give a team they think has a legit chance to win the title 18 to 1 odds or more. Then everyone in the know will hammer that...and over a large enough sample size...Vegas would be out of business.

[Doranku]

I wouldn't even call it Dirk, I'd say it was the Maverick's reputation... which of course includes Dirk.... but it's a team game.

Leading up to 2011, Mavs were year after year a disappointment in the playoffs. We can go back 10-20 years to explain the ingrained doubt in the publics mind (however fair it is or not). The betting odds reflects that doubt, obviously.

Fortunately for the Mavs, or any team, their reputation didn't mean shit. Despite predictions and preconceived notions of them being failures, the Mavs were clearly the best overall team in 2011. And they did it with great offense, great defense, and pretty impressive coaching from Carlisle.

In 60+ years of NBA results, "surprises" really don't exist any more, and what's supposed to happen (#1 overall seed winning the championship) quite often doesn't happen. We've learned that by now. The Spurs at a collective age of 38225, or the outside-shooting Orlando Magic in 2009, getting to the Finals should show that the unexpected should be expected... even in the here and now.

Propping up betting odds, or a sensationalistic underdog story, to the Nth degree as some valuable evidence is only a disservice when assessing a team's final outcome, strength, and winning-ability. The Mavs were excellent, and deep, that year. Champions. The teams they beat were just not as good, for a number of reasons (ie. being inexperienced, lacking chemistry, lacking good players, weak coaching, etc). Sure they were lead by big names, but it's a team game.

The Mavericks in 2011 were in no way, shape, or form a better team than the Miami Heat. They won because Dirk was sensational at the ends of games and LeBron James choked harder than any other superstar in NBA history.

[DMAVS41]

The Mavericks in 2011 were in no way, shape, or form a better team than the Miami Heat. They won because Dirk was sensational at the ends of games and LeBron James choked harder than any other superstar in NBA history.

Barea, Terry, Marion, and Kidd were excellent as well. And Terry was amazing in the clutch, not on Dirk's level, but he was crazy good at times in big moments.

And he doesn't get it when he says that the Mavs were clearly the best team of 2011. Well, no shit if you can see the future.

That would be like me saying. 07 Warriors isn't an upset...they were clearly better than the Mavs.

After the fact? Sure, but then upsets do not exist. And underdogs/favorites is a meaningless concept if we are looking at a result to tell you which team is better than another.

[Rysio]

07 lebrick by far, carried by boobie gibson.

[Gwin631]

Barea, Terry, Marion, and Kidd were excellent as well. And Terry was amazing in the clutch, not on Dirk's level, but he was crazy good at times in big moments.

And he doesn't get it when he says that the Mavs were clearly the best team of 2011. Well, no shit if you can see the future.

That would be like me saying. 07 Warriors isn't an upset...they were clearly better than the Mavs.

After the fact? Sure, but then upsets do not exist. And underdogs/favorites is a meaningless concept if we are looking at a result to tell you which team is better than another.

The matchup of GS that year they beat the Mavs, but even though GS has the matchup, but the Mavs should have won. Just like Miami should have beat Dallas in 2011. I still wonder how Miami lost, but they were the favs. The Heat should have won but they lost because LeBron was too passive, CB was overmatched and D-Wade wasn't DWade of 06, but Dallas also raised their game and together it lead Miami losing in 6

[Doranku]

The matchup of GS that year they beat the Mavs, but even though GS has the matchup, but the Mavs should have won. Just like Miami should have beat Dallas in 2011. I still wonder how Miami lost, but they were the favs. The Heat should have won but they lost because LeBron was too passive, CB was overmatched and D-Wade wasn't DWade of 06, but Dallas also raised their game and together it lead Miami losing in 6

Wade shouldn't have been expected to play at an '06 level with the team he had. He certainly played well enough to win a championship, something like 27ppg on 55% shooting. It was LeBron who cost that team a chance at a title, not Wade.

[SCdac]

The Mavericks in 2011 were in no way, shape, or form a better team than the Miami Heat.

Except for the fact they beat them in 6 games and like a fourth of the Heat's roster retired within a year... :oldlol:

[Doranku]

Except for the fact they beat them in 6 games and like a fourth of the Heat's roster retired within a year... :oldlol:

So the '07 Warriors were a better team than the '07 Mavericks?

[DMAVS41]

Except for the fact they beat them in 6 games and like a fourth of the Heat's roster retired within a year... :oldlol:

Are you really still on the...13 Heat in the playoffs better than the 11 Heat kick? Hilarious.

And please extend this logic to all series then. There are then no upsets or favorties/underdogs. Which is an absurdity.

[Bigsmoke]

LeBron's PS i guess. He only was crazy in game 5 against the Pistons.

Kobe and Dirk were just lights out in theirs.

[SamuraiSWISH]

LeBron's PS i guess. He only was crazy in game 5 against the Pistons.

Kobe and Dirk were just lights out in theirs.
Kobe was lights out in the regular season from a volume scoring perspective, his defense and playmaking suffered big time. Sometimes I felt he needlessly scored, when he could've balanced it out a tad by getting others involved as well.

He was pretty disappointing in the playoffs. Even if he was playing a decoy role for a bit. Lamar Odom was out performing him before Kobe's game 6 50 point out burst. The first half of game 7 he was balling, and then we saw him pout in the 2nd half. Not even trying to compete.

Dirk was very, very good in the 2011 playoffs. I'm not denying it. But he also had dude's stepping up left and right playing out of their minds. JJ Barrea in particular, playing well above his traditional abilities, and Jason Terry as always.

I think Dirk's 2011 playoffs weren't actually legendary, the way they've been so over hyped by stans on ISH since 2011. His Finals performance, while in spots timely and heroic, is insanely overrated. He scored 26 ppg on like 41 FG% while being guarded buy 6'9 Udonis Haslem. He should've feasted on him.

LeBron's 2007 is probably the most disappointing season of his career. Oddly he had his sophomore slump in his 4th season. His regular season numbers were down from the season prior. Partly due to the leveling out of the perimeter defensive rules. But he also was pretty disappointing in those playoffs outside of his 48 point special in Detroit. And let's not act like the Eastern Conference wasn't unabashedly terrible that year, much like this year's Eastern Conference playoffs.

[tpols]

You are just arguing that upsets don't exist.

And if you want to go that route...that is fine, but the idea that the Mavs vs Lakers series outcome was not a surprising result is just not intellectually honest.

So, I"m assuming, that you don't think the 07 Warriors series was an upset or surprising.
Its not that upsets dont exist..

Its a combo of stars playing at a low level and costing their team a L and role players stepping up.

Like in the mavs warriors series.. golden state even coming back at full strength wasnt better than the mavs IF dirk played up to his mvp standards. But he didnt.


As far as the heat mavs series the biggest upset of them all.. dirk didnt provide incredible impact there.. his numbers are worse than 10 kobes in the finals. But both teams won. Why? Because the production from pau+role players and terry+role players was about the same. Some dudes on dallas just played abovr their cieling.

[Indian guy]

2007 is a year every LeBron fan likes to pretend doesn't even exist. I'm pretty sure Kobe and Dirk fans don't do that with 2006 and 2011, respectively. Quite the opposite, actually. That should answer the OP's question.

[SamuraiSWISH]

2007 is a year every LeBron fan likes to pretend doesn't even exist.
Is that how you feel as a LeBron fan?

[Indian guy]

Is that how you feel as a LeBron fan?

Yes. His jumper was beyond broke that year and it seemed like he was still fatigued from a looong 2006 season, which effected his athleticism. He had a few great games in the playoffs, but overall it was mostly an exhibition of the limitations in his game, never more apparent than in that horrid Finals. The East was also horrendous that year. Probably the weakest the conference had been in decades. The '07 Cavaliers wouldn't even make it past the 2nd round in the East from 2008-2012.

[I Will Not Lose]

Kobe 2006, most superstars can put up these numbers when given green light

[DMAVS41]

Its not that upsets dont exist..

Its a combo of stars playing at a low level and costing their team a L and role players stepping up.

Like in the mavs warriors series.. golden state even coming back at full strength wasnt better than the mavs IF dirk played up to his mvp standards. But he didnt.


As far as the heat mavs series the biggest upset of them all.. dirk didnt provide incredible impact there.. his numbers are worse than 10 kobes in the finals. But both teams won. Why? Because the production from pau+role players and terry+role players was about the same. Some dudes on dallas just played abovr their cieling.

Your description of the 11 Finals is exactly what an upset is. LOL

Dirk's finals were nothing special numbers wise. It was his 4th qtr and crunch time play that made them better than the numbers.

But I don't care about Dirk in this sense. It's about the Mavs a team. They upset the Lakers and Heat. And they were quite large underdogs in both series. Just the facts.

[ispin69]

Any top 10 player in the league could abandon the team concept and go for 40+ points every night --- and lose because he's so hated by his team that they no longer care.

[tpols]

Your description of the 11 Finals is exactly what an upset is. LOL
I just wanted to clear things up with who should get credit though.. like youre always saying that golden state wasnt really an underdog because they werent healthy before the playoffs and then got healthy.. but the main reason Mavs lost wasnt because of that, it was because Dirk played like shit.

Dirk has beaten up on plenty of teams better than 07 GS.. so its not like he couldnt play better than he did.


Edit: as far as your comments on the lakers.. again Dirks teammates went OFF in that series and kidd/marion combo shut down kobe just like they shut down Bron.

On top of it being a 2 vs a 3 seed and lakers being burnt out after 3 straight deep playoff runs...


the LA series wasnt close to as big an upset as the Mia one. But again you have to assign credit where its due. Dirks impact in the biggest upset by far took a miracle combination of Bron stop playing and role players playing great.

[DMAVS41]

I just wanted to clear things up with who should get credit though.. like youre always saying that golden state wasnt really an underdog because they werent healthy before the playoffs and then got healthy.. but the main reason Mavs lost wasnt because of that, it was because Dirk played like shit.

Dirk has beaten up on plenty of teams better than 07 GS.. so its not like he couldnt play better than he did.

I've never argued that the 07 Warriors wasn't an upset. I argued that if there are no upsets...than that wasn't an upset.

I don't really care who you want to give credit to.

Mavs won the title. Dirk was clearly the best player on team. Mavs were huge underdogs to win title and huge underdogs to beat the Lakers and Heat as road dogs.

You disperse the credit however you like. I don't care.

[Gwin631]

Wade shouldn't have been expected to play at an '06 level with the team he had. He certainly played well enough to win a championship, something like 27ppg on 55% shooting. It was LeBron who cost that team a chance at a title, not Wade.
Maybe, but wade Came of two of his best years in 09 and 10 individually and he allowed JT to take off in the Finals as well, I also think LeBron wanted Wade to takeover, so he did. LeBron should have done more but DWade was not perfect either.

[Electric Slide]

Not sure how Kobe's 2006 RS is overrated at all.

Kobe's 2007 overall season is probably his most overrated season. People say it was his best season when it was just an inferior version of his 06 season. He didn't play well in the 2007 playoffs either.