PDA

View Full Version : Playoff Competition: Last 30 years


tpols
04-21-2016, 07:14 PM
http://i64.tinypic.com/28rdr2c.jpg

saw this info today .. couple of things to note.

Hakeem and Dirks runs all near the top of hardest runs.
Bulls, Spurs, and 00s Lakers runs all in top half of hardest runs.
GSW had an easy run last year.
80s Lakers and 10s Heat near bottom, for easiest runs.


any disagreements ?
Smoke117
04-21-2016, 07:18 PM
2001 was one of the hardest playoff runs...right. :lol The league was weak as shit then and the Lakers didn't even beat ONE VERY GOOD TEAM on that entire run.
Young X
04-21-2016, 07:21 PM
The Lakers' 2002 run is lowkey one of the most impressive playoff runs in NBA history.
Blue&Orange
04-21-2016, 07:26 PM
top15, west teams and 90's bulls. Nobody is suprised.
tpols
04-21-2016, 07:29 PM
2001 was one of the hardest playoff runs...right. :lol The league was weak as shit then and the Lakers didn't even beat ONE VERY GOOD TEAM on that entire run.

the WEST was no joke back then ...
Smoke117
04-21-2016, 07:34 PM
the WEST was no joke back then ...

In 2001? It absolutely was. You had the Blazers who were having a major implosion after the 2000 failure, You had the Kings who were good, but still on the rise (and still had that knucklehead Jwill and not Bibby yet), and you had the Spurs that had Tim Duncan and David Robinson...1-3 they are garbage. I would not put even one of these teams in the "very good" category. The Spurs are the highest ranked with a 7.5/10. Yes it was impressive that the Lakers only lost 1 game...but the competition was not good enough to merit all this praise that team gets.
DMAVS41
04-21-2016, 07:41 PM
In 2001? It absolutely was. You had the Blazers who were having a major implosion after the 2000 failure, You had the Kings who were good, but still on the rise, and you had the Spurs that had Tim Duncan and David Robinson...1-3 they are garbage. I would not put even one of these teams in the "very good" category. The Spurs are the highest ranked with a 7.5/10. Yes it was impressive that the Lakers only lost 1 game...but the competition was not good enough to merit all this praise that team gets.

The Kings and Spurs were a little better than you are giving the credit for. Anderson was out for the Spurs / Lakers series and that was actually huge for that series.

Definitely don't think it was the 2nd hardest run though.
SouBeachTalents
04-21-2016, 07:44 PM
2011 Mavs had the most impressive title run of the 2000's imo. Beat 7 All-NBA players (LeBron, Kobe, Durant, Wade, Westbrook, Gasol, Aldridge)
Chizdog
04-21-2016, 07:53 PM
2012-2013 Miami heat should have an * to their championships for having the most easiest path to the Finals.
Lebron23
04-21-2016, 07:55 PM
2012-2013 Miami heat should have an * to their championships for having the most easiest path to the Finals.


Just like your face.
tpols
04-21-2016, 07:56 PM
The Kings and Spurs were a little better than you are giving the credit for. Anderson was out for the Spurs / Lakers series and that was actually huge for that series.

Definitely don't think it was the 2nd hardest run though.

i dont think the list is fool proof, its like any stat, just showing a trend.
DMAVS41
04-21-2016, 07:58 PM
i dont think the list is fool proof, its like any stat, just showing a trend.

Oh of course...I like SRS...just surprised the Kings graded out so well in it in 01. Never really thought they were a great team.

The Spurs were, but without Anderson they weren't.
G-train
04-21-2016, 08:00 PM
http://i64.tinypic.com/28rdr2c.jpg

saw this info today .. couple of things to note.


Probably should credit someone for it
tpols
04-21-2016, 08:01 PM
In 2001? It absolutely was. You had the Blazers who were having a major implosion after the 2000 failure, You had the Kings who were good, but still on the rise, and you had the Spurs that had Tim Duncan and David Robinson...1-3 they are garbage. I would not put even one of these teams in the "very good" category. The Spurs are the highest ranked with a 7.5/10. Yes it was impressive that the Lakers only lost 1 game...but the competition was not good enough to merit all this praise that team gets.

dude it wasnt a joke .. i can show you teams from some of the runs that are at the bottom of the list, below .500 teams, at least every team that year was 50+. Kings were one year behind their peak, and spurs still had peak timmy D and david robinson as one of the best defenders and rim protectors in the league, and extremely high impact player overall .. you talk about the spurs 'only' having those two, yet the two lakers getting the most minutes after kobe shaq were rick fox and derek fisher. :rolleyes:
tpols
04-21-2016, 08:03 PM
Probably should credit someone for it

i already said it wasnt my own .. what are you, my fking english teacher?
BigNBAfan
04-21-2016, 11:10 PM
i already said it wasnt my own .. what are you, my fking english teacher?

you're a ****ing idiot, get smashed in by a tranny ****ot

If you actually spent time making quality posts instead of 14k of garbage, you too would want credit if someone straight up screenshots your shit.
riseagainst
04-21-2016, 11:14 PM
In 2001? It absolutely was. You had the Blazers who were having a major implosion after the 2000 failure, You had the Kings who were good, but still on the rise, and you had the Spurs that had Tim Duncan and David Robinson...1-3 they are garbage. I would not put even one of these teams in the "very good" category. The Spurs are the highest ranked with a 7.5/10. Yes it was impressive that the Lakers only lost 1 game...but the competition was not good enough to merit all this praise that team gets.


You are one dumb ass motherfcker. You know nothing about basketball.

But please gently remove yourself from the gene pool.

:roll:
:roll: