2006-07 NBA season (1 Viewer)

[Chris]

Not sure I'd put an * by this win. Cleaveland played well through the season, earned their seeding and played themselves in. We can talk about Detroit's meltdown, but Cleaveland did come back from 2-0 deficit also.

The thing is, Cleaveland is a team that could be a great team.. if they had one other player. Right now, they are in the same kind of boat LA is in.. they've got one great player, and... also rans.

Think about it.

Bird had: McHale, Ainge, Parish, DJ
Magic had: Kareem, Worthy, Cooper
Jordan had: Pippen, Rodman

Shaq & Duncan had great supporting casts.

Cleaveland has Lebron and... (?)
LA has Kobe and.... (?)

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Sorry, Chris, but Cleveland's 2-0 comeback had a lot more to do with Detroit's failure as a team than Cleveland playing well to overcome the deficit. The Pistons failed on so many levels in that series. It was embarrassing to watch.

Without LeBron, the Cavs could very well be drafting either Oden or Durant next week. Other than the rookie Gibson, there is not another player on that team that should be starting for an NBA title contender. This was a worse surrounding cast than the 76ers Finals team with Iverson.

BTW, it's "Cleveland", not "Cleaveland".

 

[Shane Martin]

They signed Ron ARtest didn't they?

 

[Robert_Z]

What a bunch of bull. Keep kidding yourself about the Suns. They will never beat the Spurs as long as SA has Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. San Antonio is clearly a better team and has proven it in three playoff series in the past five years. (That includes a record of 7-2 in PHX, so put that asterick in your pipe and smoke it.)

"They played the worst team in NBA Finals history..." Really? During the Lakers mini-run in the early 2000s, they played an equally poor 76ers team that had AI and 11 stiffs. Sound familiar? And the Lakers didn't ever sweep.

In 2000, Duncan was out for the playoffs with a knee injury, so slap an asterick on the Lakers 2000 title. In 2001, the Spurs best slasher at the time, Derek Anderson (averaging 20+ points/game), was injured the series before playing the Lakers, so put an asterick on that year's champ. In the 1989 Finals, Magic injured his hamstring, and Detroit went on to sweep LA 4-0. Where is the asterick there?

Injuries, controversial calls, etc. happen every year. Why do you choose to only point this out when the Spurs win? A bit jealous I think. Well, get used to it.

The Spurs have 3 draft picks this year, and given their recent drafting and free agency performance, I expect them to turn those picks into players that will sustain the Spurs dynasty until the end of the decade.

In summary, right about now it sucks to be you Jan H.

 

[Chris]

Thanks for the spelling correction. Weird, I've got spell check on in firefox, and all of the time it corrects stuff and I never second guess it. I just tried it again, and I don't get the red underline with that misspelling, though it is. Strange. Proof I'm an idiot

 

[Walter C]

That 76ers team with AI and 11 stiffs ended up stealing Game 1 against the Lakers in LA, and as it turned out, it was only playoff loss that the Lakers had that season. Also showed why Larry Brown is a great coach (when his heart is in it)

I'm trying to remember, but was it Phil Jackson (who I think is a bit overrated) who said that the Spurs' first championship should have an asterick?

 

[Chris]

People put an * next to the first season because it was strike shortened. But reality check: that strike shortened season meant that the team had fewer nights it could take "off" or "coast".

Hell, ask Miami or LA about Shaq taking weeks off while he walked the court or stayed home.

The fact that San Antonio was so dominant that season doesn't put an * next to it for me, it makes it more of an accomplishment. They came ready to play out of the gate.. and others didn't.

 

[Walter C]

I remember that season, when teams had to play a compressed schedule, where they play 3 games in 3 nights, and 4 games in 3 nights.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Asterisks are pointless to me because all the teams still have to show up and play and that's what it all comes down to - you're either ready to play or you're not. Putting an * next to a team's championship is just sour grapes.

 

[Shane Martin]

It is but personal attacks like Robert laid out are uncalled for.

 

[Jan H]

No harm done. I'm used to that kind of treatment from Spurs fans. They're just as defensive as their team, just with far less class.

I'll be happy for the next few years with my team's 8 championships in 23 years and 13 Finals appearances in 25 years.

 

[Robert_Z]

*No kidding?

*Now why would that be?

*All you do is belittle their team's success.

*So what reason would Spurs fans have to dislike you?

*Robert_Z

 

[Rich Romero]

Spurs got lucky. The NBA beat the Suns, not the Spurs.

 

[Robert_Z]

It's great to be a fan of the best team in pro sports and read posts from haters who make nonsensical comments.

 

[Dheiner]

Robert? Since when are you a fan of the Sabres. http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sport...=all&year=2007

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I love that list. Three Detroit teams in the top 18 (Pistons #5, Tigers #12, Wings #18), and the Lions last at #122.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Like hell they didn't. There's a reason SA is has won 19 out of their last 25 games against Phoenix, and it's not because the NBA bailed them out. Short version is, the don't leave the bench rule is widely known. The way it is enforced is absolutely consistent. There is no debate, and you could see that in the aftermath of game 4. Stoudemire KNEW he would be suspended, and that's why he went in with that bogus "I was trying to check in" story. He knew that if he left the bench, he was suspended, and he was trying to come up with any possible other excuse. The NBA didn't bail the Spurs out. Two major Phoenix players lacked the self-control to keep their heads in an emotionally charged situation, and their team suffered for it. The Spurs kept their heads, and so they were fine. Plain and simple.

Besides, Phoenix nearly won game 5 WITHOUT Diaw and Stoudemire, and then got smoked off the court in game 6 once they had those players back. There's no guarantee at all that having those two players in game 5 would have made the difference. There certainly was nothing in the first four games of the series that said that Phoenix was clearly the better team on the court. In fact,watching the first four games, what I saw was a Spurs team that was looking like the unquestionably superior team on the court. They had a few lapses, and Pop threw in the towel on game 2 before halftime, but looking at the overall flow, they were the better team. And when push came to shove in games 5 and 6, the Spurs kicked it up another gear, and the Suns failed to respond.

And don't even get me started on Dallas. You honestly think that those Mavs would have beaten this year's Spurs? The same Mavs that were making adjustment's to Golden State before the series started? That basically said that the playing style that won 67 games in the regular season couldn't take on an 8 seed? They were so mentally fragile that the moment they hit something that didn't fall over for them, they crumbled without the least bit of resistance. They weren't even playing for pride.

Compare that to the Spurs, who took Denver's best shot in game 1 and then crushed them in the next 4 games. That suffered a potentially morale-breaking loss following a game 4 meltdown in San Antonio, then came back and won game 5 in Phoenix despite being a let-down being all to easy against a Suns team that had lost two players. That smoked Utah off the court. And who made the league's supposed heir apparent look like the 23-year-old he is, while falling behind for less than three total minutes in the second half of all 4 games combined. Not a chance. Nope, the Spurs absolutely deserved this championship, and anybody who says they merely got lucky is flat-out delusional. They were tougher, more disciplined, and they flat-out wanted it more, and they would not be denied.