Should the league just give up now? No one can beat the Heat.

"nobody can beat them"? that's what people thought about this team...

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Hkd23vhqe74/TfWDP87EfQI/AAAAAAAAAr8/hODFzpHRN-Q/s1600/mavs.jpg[/img]

Look, I'm a part of the "Heat have by far the best chance to win" club too

:FeelsGoodMan:

Anything but a title is a huge disappointment. They have by far the best team. It really isn't close.

Spurs can beat us. Outside of that, don't see it.

Might as well.

2013 is an odd year. The Spurs will probably win it.

99, 03, 05, 07, 13

Spurs aren't beating Miami. I could see them losing to the Lakers if they get the 8th seed.

[QUOTE=SCdac]"nobody can beat them"? that's what people thought about this team...

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Hkd23vhqe74/TfWDP87EfQI/AAAAAAAAAr8/hODFzpHRN-Q/s1600/mavs.jpg[/img]

Look, I'm a part of the "Heat have by far the best chance to win" club too

[QUOTE=HEAT111]The only way they can lose, if a team beats them now after they have already won one.[/QUOTE]

Huh?

You're saying SCdac is being ignorant for saying anything can happen and it's not a guarantee that Miami wins?

The Spurs are just better. Miami could win but it's not likely.

The 2011 Heat and 2013 Heat are totally different. The 2013 has an actual bench, improved LeBron, and an actual offensive system. The 2011 Heat was just Lebron and Wade taking turns going off. And they had no bench at all. Not to mention Mike Bibby starting at PG. There isn't a team in the league that can beat them 4x times in a 7 game series. Sorry if im not totally sold on the Spurs. But they need to shed the regular season team label they have had the last few seasons.

[QUOTE=lilgodfather1]2 FMVP + 4 MVP >>>>>>> 2 FMVP[/QUOTE]

5 rings by an MVP winner > 1 ring by an MVP winner.

Kobe was deserving of MVP in 2006 when he didn't win it and was well deserving of it in 2008 as well despite what you say.

Besides number of MVPs isn't really all that significant since it's a media driven award. I think of MVP winners of more like a club... if you're truly great, you'll more than likely get at least 1 MVP but it's not really about how many you win. Not to mention the media tends to boycott those whom they don't like very much after that first MVP, or absolutely wait until the last second to give them one...and they will hand it out multiple times to people they just like personally i.e. Steve Nash or will award it to whoever the best "story of the year" is i.e. Allen Iverson. Shaq, Kobe and Hakeem all only have 1 MVP but have multiple rings which is part of why they're considered to be top 10 players in NBA history, while Moses Malone isn't despite having 3 MVPs he only has 1 ring. Being an MVP winner + number of rings is what get's you recognition.

So while being an MVP is important, number of rings by MVP winners is the standard of which most are judged, not the other way around. Otherwise Moses's 3 MVPs, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq and on par with Magic and Bird. But he's not. In all number of MVPs is just pretty much a popularity vote. If the media doesn't like you, good luck winning more than 1. But there is nothing the media can do to stop an MVP winner from winning multiple championships.

[QUOTE=Nero Tulip]The Spurs are just better. Miami could win but it's not likely.[/QUOTE]

Its very likely that Miami would win. The Spurs window closed when Duncan left his prime.

[QUOTE=Ne 1]5 rings by an MVP winner > 1 ring by an MVP winner.

[B]Kobe was deserving of MVP in 2006[/B] when he didn't win it and was well deserving of it in 2008 as well despite what you say.

Besides number of MVPs isn't really all that significant since it's a media driven award. I think of MVP winners of more like a club... if you're truly great, you'll more than likely get at least 1 MVP but it's not really about how many you win. Not to mention the media tends to boycott those whom they don't like very much after that first MVP, or absolutely wait until the last second to give them one...and they will hand it out multiple times to people they just like personally i.e. Steve Nash or will award it to whoever the best "story of the year" is i.e. Allen Iverson. Shaq, Kobe and Hakeem all only have 1 MVP but have multiple rings which is part of why they're considered to be top 10 players in NBA history, while Moses Malone isn't despite having 3 MVPs he only has 1 ring. Being an MVP winner + number of rings is what get's you recognition.

So while being an MVP is important, number of rings by MVP winners is the standard of which most are judged, not the other way around. Otherwise Moses's 3 MVPs, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq and on par with Magic and Bird. But he's not. In all number of MVPs is just pretty much a popularity vote. If the media doesn't like you, good luck winning more than 1. But there is nothing the media can do to stop an MVP winner from winning multiple championships.[/QUOTE]


7th seed. They give Kobe the MVP in 2006, than they have to change the whole criteria for handing out the award.

"Super Teams" ruin the league.

I like parity.