Hypothetical 1998 finals Jazz vs Pacers

[Phoenix]

Who you taking in this matchup? That Pacers squad played the Bulls the toughest out of any team during the 2nd 3peat. Game 7 down to the wire, and the Bulls emerged looking like they survived a war. Utah took the Bulls to the wire in game 6 and fell ultimately to MJs last minute heroics.

I think this series could have gone seven with the winner being whoever had home court.

[Whoah10115]

The Jazz, for sure. Karl Malone wouldn't have been denied against anyone else.

[red1]

jazz in 5 or 6

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Utah in 7 probably.

Unlike Indiana those Jazz teams could win on the road. Offensively, I also trust a lineup with Stockton/Malone and that p&R more than I do Reggie Miller. The tandem was older but still played at @ an MVP-ish level imo.

Their Western gauntlet was no joker either. Just to get to the finals, they beat Houston/SA/LAL(60+ wins). All laden with HOF talent.

[ArbitraryWater]

Utah in 7 probably.

Unlike Indiana those Jazz teams could win on the road. Offensively, I also trust a lineup with Stockton/Malone and that p&R more than I do Reggie Miller. The tandem was older but still played at @ an MVP-ish level imo.

Their Western gauntlet was no joker either. Just to get to the finals, they beat Houston/SA/LAL(60+ wins). All laden with HOF talent.

That's a softer run, actually.

None of those teams would have had any business in the finals.

Houston way past it, SA/LAL way too early.

I'm a little confused as to how the Rockets only won 41 games, though. Chuck and Hakeem with huge declines.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That's a softer run, actually.

None of those teams would have had any business in the finals.

Houston way past it, SA/LAL way too early.

Soft is who Indiana played before Chicago.

By the way. San Antonio made the finals a year later. Why wouldn't they have "any business" a year prior?

[ArbitraryWater]

Soft is who Indiana played before Chicago.

By the way. San Antonio made the finals a year later. Why wouldn't they have "any business" a year prior?

Because Duncan was a rookie, lol.

Even '99 was ahead of their time.

The crazy lockout year shifted things up. Knicks in the finals? Hah, bailout.

I don't see them winning any normal years.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Because Duncan was a rookie, lol.

Even '99 was ahead of their time.

The crazy lockout year shifted things up. Knicks in the finals? Hah, bailout.

I don't see them winning any normal years.

Yeah... A 22 year-old rookie who went to the finals a year later. And became one of the 10 greatest players. Ever.

You're talking about teams who are "ahead of their time" etc. Tim Duncan probably was too. Ever think about that?

Plus you got D-Rob there. You can claim they weren't "ready" or whatever, but they were still better than both of Indy's opponents. Easily.

[ArbitraryWater]

Yeah... A 22 year-old rookie who went to the finals a year later. And became one of the 10 greatest players. Ever.

You're talking about teams who are "ahead of their time" etc. Tim Duncan probably was too. Ever think about that?

Plus you got D-Rob there. You can claim they weren't "ready" or whatever, but they were still better than both of Indy's opponents. Easily.

Of course they were. Thats not what I said. Its probably an average run to the finals all in all. Great talent on those teams, but not really any coming together as a whole, in their primes.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Of course they were. Thats not what I said. Its probably an average run to the finals all in all. Great talent on those teams, but not really any coming together as a whole, in their primes.

Yeah, but just a few minutes ago you called it a "softer" run. Nothing was "soft" about the talent Utah faced. Period.

[Whoah10115]

Robinson was much greater a season earlier. Also, he didn't go out of his way to defer.

I wonder if he would have done that if there was no lockout. He didn't drop a bit in the 2nd half of Duncan's rookie season, at least statistically.

[Phoenix]

Hmmm, thought I may have seen a few Pacer nods. I saw this as a pick em, but I may have to think about it a bit more.

[ArbitraryWater]

Yeah, but just a few minutes ago you called it a "softer" run. Nothing was "soft" about the talent Utah faced. Period.

I mean, I was trying to meet you somewhere in the middle, I still think its a softer than norm run..

Not sure why you so badly compared it to Indy's run through 2 rounds.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I mean, I was trying to meet you somewhere in the middle, I still think its a softer than norm run..

Not sure why you so badly compared it to Indy's run through 2 rounds.

So they went from soft. To having "great talent". Then right back to soft again.

Any time you wanna makeup your mind just let me know. Labeling them soft would be like saying you watched those games though. Lets be honest.

[Reggie43]

The depth of the Pacers would be too much for a team like the Jazz who relies to heavily on one player. Pacers take this in 6 or 7.

[Axe]

Since the jazz hold the homecourt advantage throughout the 1998 postseason, of course it helps in favoring them over their opponents in the finals.

[Reggie43]

2 3 2 nba finals format was actually said to favor the lower seeded team so they changed it. Steal one of the first 2 games then you have the advantage of playing 3 straight in your arena.

[ArbitraryWater]

So they went from soft. To having "great talent". Then right back to soft again.

Any time you wanna makeup your mind just let me know. Labeling them soft would be like saying you watched those games though. Lets be honest.

Are you retarded?

The teams weren't soft, the run was.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive (talent and being a below average opponent).

I should not have to explain these things to you considering this is your native language, but maybe its just the IQ you are lacking.

FOH dumbass :oldlol:

[DoctorP]

Are you retarded?

The teams weren't soft, the run was.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive (talent and being a below average opponent).

I should not have to explain these things to you considering this is your native language, but maybe its just the IQ you are lacking.

FOH dumbass :oldlol:

the answer is yes. next question

[Smoke117]

Yeah... A 22 year-old rookie who went to the finals a year later. And became one of the 10 greatest players. Ever.

You're talking about teams who are "ahead of their time" etc. Tim Duncan probably was too. Ever think about that?

Plus you got D-Rob there. You can claim they weren't "ready" or whatever, but they were still better than both of Indy's opponents. Easily.

That you just add "Plus you got Drob there" is a perfect example of how underrated he was. He was the the best defensive player throughout the 99 season. He should have been DPOY and not Mourning. He put a complete defensive clinic throughout the shortened regular season and the playoffs. Tim Duncan had it easy being able to concentrate on the offensive end with David Robinson as his Center. Very Few players or Robinson's ability would ever step aside for the new blood, but he did that while completely carrying the defense. For all this talk about Tim Duncan's defense Robinson was still the best defensive player on the team through 2001. It wasn't till 2002 when his back was completely ****ed that Duncan overtook him defensively.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Are you retarded?

The teams weren't soft, the run was.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive (talent and being a below average opponent).

I should not have to explain these things to you considering this is your native language, but maybe its just the IQ you are lacking.

FOH dumbass

This clown doesn't understand 'they' are opponents. Who Utah faced. Lol at you desperately trying to save face. Buhh I'm talkin about their "run" man!!

You literally have no clue what you're talking about, dipshit :oldlol:


That you just add "Plus you got Drob there" is a perfect example of how underrated he was. He was the the best defensive player throughout the 99 season. He should have been DPOY and not Mourning. He put a complete defensive clinic throughout the shortened regular season and the playoffs. Tim Duncan had it easy being able to concentrate on the offensive end with David Robinson as his Center. Very Few players or Robinson's ability would ever step aside for the new blood, but he did that while completely carrying the defense. For all this talk about Tim Duncan's defense Robinson was still the best defensive player on the team through 2001. It wasn't till 2002 when his back was completely ****ed that Duncan overtook him defensively.

Yup. D-Rob was a beast. That series against Utah should have went farther imo.

[warriorfan]

This clown doesn't understand 'they' are opponents. Who Utah faced. Lol at you desperately trying to save face.

Youu literally have no clue what you're talking about, dipshit :oldlol:

That’s why he is known as AutisticWater :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That’s why he is known as AutisticWater :lol

The Rockets, Spurs and Lakers with HOF talent were soft. LOADED with talent but just SOFT yo. Take his word for it. Can't beat that insight :oldlol:

[Overdrive]

The teams weren't soft, the run was.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive.


Can you expand on that? I think the logic behind that might explain alot.

[ArbitraryWater]

the answer is yes. next question

guess so

:oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

This clown doesn't understand 'they' are opponents. Who Utah faced. Lol at you desperately trying to save face. Buhh I'm talkin about their "run" man!!

You literally have no clue what you're talking about, dipshit :oldlol:



Yup. D-Rob was a beast. That series against Utah should have went farther imo.

Calling the opponent itself soft takes away from calling a run soft which is a relative statement. I am so much ahead of you in basic intelligence its not even funny.


Can you expand on that? I think the logic behind that might explain alot.

Whats to expand on? Having young talented teams doesnt make a team great, its pretty simple.

You need any more expanding?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Calling the opponent itself soft takes away from calling a run soft which is a relative statement. I am so much ahead of you in basic intelligence its not even funny.

You're doing a lot of typing, but not saying anything. Maybe your brain is cramping up?

I'll ask again. What makes that run soft if not...for their opponent?

[Overdrive]

Calling the opponent itself soft takes away from calling a run soft which is a relative statement. I am so much ahead of you in basic intelligence its not even funny.



Whats to expand on? Having young talented teams doesnt make a team great, its pretty simple.

You need any more expanding?

So 2012 was an easy win?

[warriorfan]

So 2012 was an easy win?

:roll:

[ArbitraryWater]

So 2012 was an easy win?

I hope for your sake you're just trolling in trying to equate those teams?

Either way, serious or trolling, you take an L.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'll ask again. What makes that run soft if not...for their opponent?

:confusedshrug:

Don't avoid the question. Instead of throwing cliches around, explain yourself.

I'm listening.

[Axe]

2 3 2 nba finals format was actually said to favor the lower seeded team so they changed it. Steal one of the first 2 games then you have the advantage of playing 3 straight in your arena.
Yet, the reverting of the format for the first time in 30 years didn't help the 2016 warriors at all, despite having the most wins in regular season history at 73 and during the last 5 years, they're the first top-seeded team to fall in the finals under this format. So sans 2016, needless to say, every team entering the finals with the homecourt advantage has won the title since 2014.

[DoctorP]

for sure it could have went 7 games. they were evenly matched.

[GimmeThat]

:confusedshrug:

Don't avoid the question. Instead of throwing cliches around, explain yourself.

I'm listening.

would you consider facing an opponent after you just swept yours while they went 4-3, a soft run, or they faced soft opponents.
sure, if they weren't soft, they wouldn't had gone 4-3, but by that very definition this thread of Hypothetical regarding a finalist versus a conference finalist wouldn't exist

yet your argument that the Jazz would beat the Pacers is because the Jazz wins on the road.

and by that very logic, we can also conclude we may as well crown the NBA champions based on regular season record.


Keep Listening

[GimmeThat]

UTA 91.4
HOU 84.6

3-2

UTA 85
SAS 84.8

4-1

UTA 104
LAL 90.5

4-0

CHI 88
UTA 80.2

4-2

IND 88.8
CLE 80.8
3-1

IND 94.2
NYK 87.6

4-1

CHI 95.9
IND 91.7

4-3



ask the NCAA tournament committee and Pacers are probably favored
or, otherwise known as, Adam Silver rigged a conference finalist over finalist

[Overdrive]

I hope for your sake you're just trolling in trying to equate those teams?

Either way, serious or trolling, you take an L.

Why not?

What's so different about the Thunder? Are you calling others run soft, because they swept the WCF? Well then the '12 Finals were soft aswell.
The Lakers had prime Shaq. Durant just hit the start of his. OKC shared 3 future MVPs between them. The Lakers 2, but I doubt anyone would take Durant's career so far over Shaq.
The Spurs had an MVP and 2 future trophies aswell. Duncan was 1 year younger than the OKC core and also by far a greater player than anyone on that OKC team.

So if you apply any of the possible criterias the 2012 chip was soft. You couldn't even refute it.

[Lebron23]

Pacers for the win.

[Whoah10115]

That you just add "Plus you got Drob there" is a perfect example of how underrated he was. He was the the best defensive player throughout the 99 season. He should have been DPOY and not Mourning. He put a complete defensive clinic throughout the shortened regular season and the playoffs. Tim Duncan had it easy being able to concentrate on the offensive end with David Robinson as his Center. Very Few players or Robinson's ability would ever step aside for the new blood, but he did that while completely carrying the defense. For all this talk about Tim Duncan's defense Robinson was still the best defensive player on the team through 2001. It wasn't till 2002 when his back was completely ****ed that Duncan overtook him defensively.

Not sure I agree with Mourning not getting it in 1999. Agree with everything else.