[NBA] The Finals

[pdxKingsFan]

I liken the Nugs winning to if the Kings had won in 02 or 03 or the Mavs finally winning.

Teams I would call borderline fluke: Toronto in 19, Miami 06, Detroit 04. None of these teams had any real long sustained success.
You could probably also put the Big 3 Celtics in this category, I wouldn't, but they were pretty much garbage before KG and Ray arrived and that team was really only great for 2 years.

 

[hrdboild]

I liken the Nugs winning to if the Kings had won in 02 or 03 or the Mavs finally winning.

Teams I would call borderline fluke: Toronto in 19, Miami 06, Detroit 04. None of these teams had any real long sustained success.
You could probably also put the Big 3 Celtics in this category, I wouldn't, but they were pretty much garbage before KG and Ray arrived and that team was really only great for 2 years.

I don't think the 04 Pistons belong here. They had 7 straight seasons of 50+ wins, lost to the Spurs in the 2005 Finals in 7 games, and lost in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2003 (Nets), 2006 (Heat), 2007 (Cavs), and 2008 (Celtics). They only had one championship trophy to show for it, but making it at least as far as the Conference Finals in 6 straight seasons qualifies as sustained success. That 2006 playoff team which lost to the one-hit wonder Miami squad won 64 games (best in the league) coming off two years where they either won a championship (2004) or came one win away from winning a championship (2005). That's not quite a dynasty, but it's close.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I don't think the 04 Pistons belong here. They had 7 straight seasons of 50+ wins, lost to the Spurs in the 2005 Finals in 7 games, and lost in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2003 (Nets), 2006 (Heat), 2007 (Cavs), and 2008 (Celtics). They only had one championship trophy to show for it, but making it at least as far as the Conference Finals in 6 straight seasons qualifies as sustained success. That 2006 playoff team which lost to the one-hit wonder Miami squad won 64 games (best in the league) coming off two years where they either won a championship (2004) or came one win away from winning a championship (2005). That's not quite a dynasty, but it's close.

ok fair enough. I had zero respect for the East during this era but you've made the case.

 

[hrdboild]

ok fair enough. I had zero respect for the East during this era but you've made the case.

No, I get it. As a West coaster I didn't follow the Eastern Conference in that period very much either. But I did pay attention to those early 2000s Detroit and Indiana squads because even back then I was obsessed with defense.

 

[SacTownKid]

ok fair enough. I had zero respect for the East during this era but you've made the case.

There's a reason for that because for most of it everyone knew the rings were going West during that time haha. If Ewing didn't get injured in 99 maybe the Knicks take that one. Very possible. And you are spot on about the Pistons. I'm not sure if fluke is the word but by the numbers it's what it looks like when a team wins one and that's all. Every team that eventually wins one is on some sort of level of "good" to if not "elite" or at the very least "upper echelon". The Pistons of that era played in a way on defense that wasn't sustainable and happened to be the literal stop sign for the super team the Lakers built and since they had landed not a superstar but impact level, yes, close in Sheed the Pistons weren't just going to disappear the next year. Also, the inside feuding on the Lakers probably played a part as well.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Nuggets have been a consistent mid-playoff team for 5 or so years. I don't think that they need multiple championships to prove their organization has a sustainable strategy.

I reject the premise that "sustainable success" in the playoffs (for differing values of 'success') is the opposite of a fluke. The Bucks have been a perennial playoff team since drafting Antetokounmpo, and they've averaged 2 rounds in the playoffs per season, which includes the one season where everything fell together exactly right, and they won a championship. Unless they at least get back to the conference finals in the next couple of years, I'll have a hard time looking at that championship as anything other than a fluke.

Prior to this championship run, the Malone/Jokić Nuggets had averaged... 2 rounds in the playoffs per season.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Despite the fact that loads of haters have asterisked the LBJ/Davis championship, and with fair reasons, the media treats that team like perrennial contenders while having ignored Denver during this time...

What are the "fair" reasons?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

What are the "fair" reasons?

Most teams that win in strike seasons have their validity called into question and not only did they play a shortened season, they had several months of break, and the whole bubble tournament erased travel from the equation. They have since proven unable to remain healthy for a full regular season and playoff run. This season was closest and they load managed the entirety of the regular season to a 7 seed.

I think it is "fair" to question what would have happened in a full season and normal playoffs.

 

[hrdboild]

There's a reason for that because for most of it everyone knew the rings were going West during that time haha. If Ewing didn't get injured in 99 maybe the Knicks take that one. Very possible. And you are spot on about the Pistons. I'm not sure if fluke is the word but by the numbers it's what it looks like when a team wins one and that's all. Every team that eventually wins one is on some sort of level of "good" to if not "elite" or at the very least "upper echelon". The Pistons of that era played in a way on defense that wasn't sustainable and happened to be the literal stop sign for the super team the Lakers built and since they had landed not a superstar but impact level, yes, close in Sheed the Pistons weren't just going to disappear the next year. Also, the inside feuding on the Lakers probably played a part as well.

I think you're mis-remebering this. The first Lakers threepeat was 2000-2002. The Pistons beat the Kobe vs. Shaq infighting Lakers in 2004 in 5 games. It wasn't much of a series. Shaq got traded to Miami a month later and the Lakers were a non-factor for the rest of that Pistons run. It was the Spurs who dominated the Western conference between 2003 and 2008 -- winning championships in 2003, 2005, and 2007. During that time period, the Pistons were the only team in either conference to play in their Conference Finals all six years. Two of the teams they lost to (the 2006 Heat and 2008 Celtics) were the eventual champs.

If we're going to liken the Nuggets to the Kings breaking through in 2002 or 2003, the Pistons shouldn't be contrasted to that. It's not like they had a surprise Finals win and then vanished like the 2006 Heat (shout out to JWill!) or the 2019 Raptors. They were as much of a dominant force between 2004 and 2008 as any squad in the league. You probably just didn't notice or care because our team was crumbling at the time. Also, Ben Wallace with his 4 Defensive Player of the Year awards (still tied with Dekembe Motombo for the career lead) was a legit defensive superstar in the last era when the NBA allowed teams to play defense.

With age related decline and/or teams breaking up piece by piece as superstars get too expensive to re-sign, 7 years is about as long as any NBA team has been able to sustain excellence and the eventual decline of the Pistons had more to do with Joe Dumars' mismanagement (the Darko pick, letting Ben Wallace leave, signing Kwame Brown, trading for Iverson) than any external factors.

 

[hrdboild]

Are we sure? Like, "fluke" might be too inflammatory a word choice: clearly Denver was the best team in the league, all season long. But fifteen years from now, are we going to look back at this as the start of a run, or as one magical season where everything came together for the Nuggets?

The only comment I have about this is that a team who has the league MVP for two straight seasons (and he's the close runner-up in the third) isn't a fluke. They may not win another championship but if we can agree that the NBA is a superstar's league insofar as teams with MVPs are in contention most years and teams without MVPs are not, then Denver is already outside of the fluke conversation. If they don't win another one while they have Jokic they might be remembered as a disappointment but probably not a fluke. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Most teams that win in strike seasons have their validity called into question and not only did they play a shortened season, they had several months of break, and the whole bubble tournament erased travel from the equation. They have since proven unable to remain healthy for a full regular season and playoff run. This season was closest and they load managed the entirety of the regular season to a 7 seed.

I think it is "fair" to question what would have happened in a full season and normal playoffs.

Okay, but a lot of things happened during the Bubble season that had never happened before and haven't happened since. So why are the gd lakers the only team that played in the Bubble that gets hit with the 'fluke' tag?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The only comment I have about this is that a team who has the league MVP for two straight seasons (and he's the close runner-up in the third) isn't a fluke. They may not win another championship but if we can agree that the NBA is a superstar's league insofar as teams with MVPs are in contention most years and teams without MVPs are not, then Denver is already outside of the fluke conversation. If they don't win another one while they have Jokic they might be remembered as a disappointment but probably not a fluke. Just my 2 cents.

This feels like it's descending into a semantic argument, with people pushing back because they take umbrage at the usage of the word "fluke." I normally like a good argument over semantics, but I'm ejecting on this.

 

[SacTownKid]

I think you're mis-remebering this. The first Lakers threepeat was 2000-2002. The Pistons beat the Kobe vs. Shaq infighting Lakers in 2004 in 5 games. It wasn't much of a series. Shaq got traded to Miami a month later and the Lakers were a non-factor for the rest of that Pistons run. It was the Spurs who dominated the Western conference between 2003 and 2008 -- winning championships in 2003, 2005, and 2007. During that time period, the Pistons were the only team in either conference to play in their Conference Finals all six years. Two of the teams they lost to (the 2006 Heat and 2008 Celtics) were the eventual champs.

If we're going to liken the Nuggets to the Kings breaking through in 2002 or 2003, the Pistons shouldn't be contrasted to that. It's not like they had a surprise Finals win and then vanished like the 2006 Heat (shout out to JWill!) or the 2019 Raptors. They were as much of a dominant force between 2004 and 2008 as any squad in the league. You probably just didn't notice or care because our team was crumbling at the time. Also, Ben Wallace with his 4 Defensive Player of the Year awards (still tied with Dekembe Motombo for the career lead) was a legit defensive superstar in the last era when the NBA allowed teams to play defense.

With age related decline and/or teams breaking up piece by piece as superstars get too expensive to re-sign, 7 years is about as long as any NBA team has been able to sustain excellence and the eventual decline of the Pistons had more to do with Joe Dumars' mismanagement (the Darko pick, letting Ben Wallace leave, signing Kwame Brown, trading for Iverson) than any external factors.

What part was misremembered? I didn't say they didn't reload after the first 3 rings, you're totally right about that. I'm saying the Pistons were a team that because of that lack of true dominance was subject to matchups like most teams that aren't truly dominant. Even dominant teams are to a degree but much less. That superteam the Lakers built went up against their very own immovable object in the Pistons. The Pistons had the size up front in abundance and defense on the ball. The Karl Malone thing/injury might have also been a big part of it but I still think the Pistons would've won. That Pistons team that won was only together for a very, very short time in reality and had two legit shots, winning 1. If they run into someone else that first year maybe they have none. I mean 2 shots is 50/50.

And I'm talking specifically about teams that own a set of years, back to back to back. I don't know if the Nuggets are that type of team and it will depend on the competition IMO. When it came to the Lakers and Jordans Bulls it started to become a what's the point after awhile and Lakers during most of their time were known to coast during stretches. That's what I'm talking about. If KD had stayed with the Warriors and they maintained health maybe the same could be said about them but as of now, they are a team that stuck it out and peaked through those windows at the right time as well. As of yet, the Nuggets haven't put together a season of 60+ wins. which is a pretty good sign of things if there's actually competition at the top. Maybe they will now, but I do think there could be merit to the timing of it all. Just like that Pistons team. If the Celtics get out of the East this year it very well could have been a different series since unlike the Heat, they would have rammed a dual wing oriented pick and roll at Jokic. The Heat are kind of more of a shooting based team mainly because Bam isn't exactly a dominant offensive big himself. The Nuggets also may have caught some breaks in the sense that they ran into two teams in the middle of the playoffs that while have potential to change the West in time (hopefully not!), no way did they put it all together after major deadline shakeups. We now will see if the Nuggets will be dynasty, or dominant, etc. They very well could be but again, I can see reasons people wouldn't bet on it.

 

[PorchSurfin]

The only comment I have about this is that a team who has the league MVP for two straight seasons (and he's the close runner-up in the third) isn't a fluke. They may not win another championship but if we can agree that the NBA is a superstar's league insofar as teams with MVPs are in contention most years and teams without MVPs are not, then Denver is already outside of the fluke conversation. If they don't win another one while they have Jokic they might be remembered as a disappointment but probably not a fluke. Just my 2 cents.

Late to the party (congrats Mike Malone!) But I agree with this take. If Milwaukie never wins another ring but competes for another 5 years or so it doesn't mean their win was a fluke.

I enjoy parity in sports. I consider the early 90s Bills a psuedo dynasty, even tho they never won a ring, they dominated their division and conference for 4 straight years. It wasn't a fluke, they were just that good, however could never make it over the hump. But even then, I don't consider what the Bills did a fluke.

I dont think Denver's win, even if it is the only ring they get, a fluke. They had a run. Still have more.

Toronto was a fluke. The very definition of a fluke. Just like Tony Delk dropping 50 on the Kings was a fluke. A fluke is if there was no indication at the beginning of the year that it was even a probability of it happening and then it does. Denver was a contender going in, picked by many to come out of the west and even to win it all. That isn't a fluke.

 

[kingsboi]

Imo the NBA is about as elite competition as it gets where as tennis is not on that level but that's just my opinion, I would say Novak is more successful but not the best,

I respect and understand your view. It's too difficult to say who's better because one is a team sport and the other is individual.

 

[kingsboi]

https://twitter.com/statuses/1668661240971898898

Rod on Twitter: "The real success of Heat culture is that they don't give in to panic and reset moves just to win the narrative. Longevity is scarce in the NBA even when a coach didn't do anything "wrong." We will invent a reason that it is the coach's fault." / Twitter

Rod on Twitter: "And the narratives change on a whim. Plus coaching is the one job we act like no one can improve at. You just show up as a finished product and never learn anything ever? That's how we treat it." / Twitter

Rod on Twitter: "Pat isn't coming down out of that suite and that's the crux of the Heat Culture." / Twitter

and you can see it not just in Spo but keeping Udonis around for 20 years. Hiring Quinn, who was a former player, in the player development department. Lonzo Mourning another former player now has a role in the organization. Caron Butler, former player, another assistant. Andy Eisenburg, started with the team in 93 and worked his way up all the way into his current role, VP of Basketball operations. I would be surprised if Udonis doesn't have some type of role in the organization, should he want it, once he officially announces retirement. Overall, it's why I call them a model franchise.

 

[kingsboi]

Local Man Thought Monday Was His Last Day Of Work, Learns He Has Something To Do Thursday (uproxx.com)

https://twitter.com/statuses/1668652471261036545

Nikola Jokić is actively playing defense against the NBA's ability to promote him as a superstar, and I can't decide whether I hate it or whether I think it's the greatest thing in the history of sports?

all he wants to do is disappear to a small Serbian village and ride his horses

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

I reject the premise that "sustainable success" in the playoffs (for differing values of 'success') is the opposite of a fluke. The Bucks have been a perennial playoff team since drafting Antetokounmpo, and they've averaged 2 rounds in the playoffs per season, which includes the one season where everything fell together exactly right, and they won a championship. Unless they at least get back to the conference finals in the next couple of years, I'll have a hard time looking at that championship as anything other than a fluke.

Prior to this championship run, the Malone/Jokić Nuggets had averaged... 2 rounds in the playoffs per season.

All I mean, is that the Nuggets have been an excellent team for a while now. A championship is the ultimate culmination to their run. But it started a while ago. Perhaps it's random unluckiness (flukiness) that the Nuggets didn't win it earlier.

It is bizarre to me that dynasties are so common now that they're now considered the norm.

 

[hrdboild]

This feels like it's descending into a semantic argument, with people pushing back because they take umbrage at the usage of the word "fluke." I normally like a good argument over semantics, but I'm ejecting on this.

I think what you're saying is that a team can have sustained success in the playoffs but if their peak doesn't involve at least 3 or 4 years where they look like one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league and at least show that they can get to the Conference Finals consistently than that throws their credentials as a dominant team into question. I would agree with you on that point, whatever word we use to describe it. I think where we might diverge is that this is a standard applied to teams which have won multiple championships which does not or should not apply to 90% of the league. Even if this is the peak for Denver, this is their first championship. A multi-year playoff run peaking with a championship would be enough for most fanbases, including ours. To the NBA as a whole, yeah, it might read as a fluke but we don't all get to be the Lakers or Celtics. Most of us will take a chip however and whenever we can get it.

 

[kingsboi]

I think you're mis-remebering this. The first Lakers threepeat was 2000-2002. The Pistons beat the Kobe vs. Shaq infighting Lakers in 2004 in 5 games. It wasn't much of a series. Shaq got traded to Miami a month later and the Lakers were a non-factor for the rest of that Pistons run. It was the Spurs who dominated the Western conference between 2003 and 2008 -- winning championships in 2003, 2005, and 2007. During that time period, the Pistons were the only team in either conference to play in their Conference Finals all six years. Two of the teams they lost to (the 2006 Heat and 2008 Celtics) were the eventual champs.

If we're going to liken the Nuggets to the Kings breaking through in 2002 or 2003, the Pistons shouldn't be contrasted to that. It's not like they had a surprise Finals win and then vanished like the 2006 Heat (shout out to JWill!) or the 2019 Raptors. They were as much of a dominant force between 2004 and 2008 as any squad in the league. You probably just didn't notice or care because our team was crumbling at the time. Also, Ben Wallace with his 4 Defensive Player of the Year awards (still tied with Dekembe Motombo for the career lead) was a legit defensive superstar in the last era when the NBA allowed teams to play defense.

With age related decline and/or teams breaking up piece by piece as superstars get too expensive to re-sign, 7 years is about as long as any NBA team has been able to sustain excellence and the eventual decline of the Pistons had more to do with Joe Dumars' mismanagement (the Darko pick, letting Ben Wallace leave, signing Kwame Brown, trading for Iverson) than any external factors.

to this day, that Pistons team was one of my all time favorite squads. I loved watching them dominate the Eastern Conference with defense

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Okay, but a lot of things happened during the Bubble season that had never happened before and haven't happened since. So why are the gd lakers the only team that played in the Bubble that gets hit with the 'fluke' tag?

no I said their championship is asterisked, I didn't call them a fluke.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

All I mean, is that the Nuggets have been an excellent team for a while now. A championship is the ultimate culmination to their run. But it started a while ago. Perhaps it's random unluckiness (flukiness) that the Nuggets didn't win it earlier.

It is bizarre to me that dynasties are so common now that they're now considered the norm.

I thought Denver could have won each of the last two seasons, that's why I say it's no fluke (imho). It's funny that maybe them not winning helped thwart Jokic's chance at a third MVP only to have them win all their series in fairly convincing fashion. But I guess because they faced some lower seeds people are now holding that against them even though that's the whole reason you play for the 1 seed in the first place.

 

[Sac.Kings]

All I will say is I hope we win a ring and I couldn’t care less if it was defined as a fluke by some. A ring is a ring.
It wasn’t the Nuggets fault the top seeded teams didn’t make it to the later rounds and that Morant became a cowboy on social media. They beat KD and Booker, they beat Lebron, they beat Butler, it’s not like they didn’t face good competition. They have been deep in the playoffs before and will probably continue to be for the next few years. Not everyone can be a dynasty.

I would be ecstatic if we ever ended up emulating that kind of success and to get a ring (or more) out of that run. How anyone can call that a fluke boggles my mind.

 

[Vinny Basketballerino]

Not winning multiple championships does not equal fluke.

The NBA is a league. I said what I said!

 

[The_Jamal]

I mean, there's basically always some level of luck involved with winning a title. My take is there's like 6 or 7 teams with the talent to do it and a lot of who does end up winning comes down to who stays the healthiest and who runs into good injury variance with teams they face. I can't remember a playoffs where every team was just full strength vs full strength in every single series.

- Have a top 7 coach
-Have a top 7 player
-Have one or 2 supporting stars in the 30-40 range
-Have at a top 12ish defense
-Avoid injuries.

Whoever checks all or most of these boxes will have an excellent chance to go win a title.

 

[hrdboild]

What part was misremembered? I didn't say they didn't reload after the first 3 rings, you're totally right about that. I'm saying the Pistons were a team that because of that lack of true dominance was subject to matchups like most teams that aren't truly dominant. Even dominant teams are to a degree but much less. That superteam the Lakers built went up against their very own immovable object in the Pistons. The Pistons had the size up front in abundance and defense on the ball. The Karl Malone thing/injury might have also been a big part of it but I still think the Pistons would've won. That Pistons team that won was only together for a very, very short time in reality and had two legit shots, winning 1. If they run into someone else that first year maybe they have none. I mean 2 shots is 50/50.

And I'm talking specifically about teams that own a set of years, back to back to back. I don't know if the Nuggets are that type of team and it will depend on the competition IMO. When it came to the Lakers and Jordans Bulls it started to become a what's the point after awhile and Lakers during most of their time were known to coast during stretches. That's what I'm talking about. If KD had stayed with the Warriors and they maintained health maybe the same could be said about them but as of now, they are a team that stuck it out and peaked through those windows at the right time as well. As of yet, the Nuggets haven't put together a season of 60+ wins. which is a pretty good sign of things if there's actually competition at the top. Maybe they will now, but I do think there could be merit to the timing of it all. Just like that Pistons team. If the Celtics get out of the East this year it very well could have been a different series since unlike the Heat, they would have rammed a dual wing oriented pick and roll at Jokic. The Heat are kind of more of a shooting based team mainly because Bam isn't exactly a dominant offensive big himself. The Nuggets also may have caught some breaks in the sense that they ran into two teams in the middle of the playoffs that while have potential to change the West in time (hopefully not!), no way did they put it all together after major deadline shakeups. We now will see if the Nuggets will be dynasty, or dominant, etc. They very well could be but again, I can see reasons people wouldn't bet on it.

Because you made it sound like the East wasn't competitive between 2003 and 2008 when in fact the East won 3 championships in that period (2004, 2006, 2008). You also made it sound like the Pistons didn't beat the Lakers but rather the Lakers beat themselves when in fact the Kobe-Shaq Lakers were already basically done by 2004 (with one last push to the Finals where they only won a single game). The other three championships in that period all went to the Spurs who were the best team in the West at that time. The Lakers don't really even belong in the conversation aside from a footnote that they are the team Detroit beat in 2004. For almost all of that Detroit Pistons peak, the Tim Duncan led Spurs were their main rival.

Also, I don't see how you can say the Pistons weren't dominant when they went at least as far as the Conference Finals in six straight seasons. That's incredibly dominant. Even by your own definition -- they won a championship in 04, lost a 7 game Finals series to the Spurs in 05, and won 64 games and went into the 06 playoffs as the best team in the league before eventually losing a 6 game series to Miami in the Conference Finals. That is back to back to back dominance right up until they lost to Miami. The sub 70 points allowed level of defense might not have been sustainable but as long as they still had Ben Wallace they were a tough out for anyone. Chicago offered Ben a truckload of money and Joe Dumars thought "we've got Sheed and Darko so I'm good". Even so the Pistons still held on and competed for a few more years but they didn't make it back to the finals without Ben because he was the lynchpin of that team and wasn't replaceable.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Because you made it sound like the East wasn't competitive between 2003 and 2008 when in fact the East won 3 championships in that period (2004, 2006, 2008). You also made it sound like the Pistons didn't beat the Lakers but rather the Lakers beat themselves when in fact the Kobe-Shaq Lakers were already basically done by 2004 (with one last push to the Finals where they only won a single game). The other three championships in that period all went to the Spurs who were the best team in the West at that time. The Lakers don't really even belong in the conversation aside from a footnote that they are the team Detroit beat in 2004. For almost all of that Detroit Pistons peak, the Tim Duncan led Spurs were their main rival.

Also, I don't see how you can say the Pistons weren't dominant when they went at least as far as the Conference Finals in six straight seasons. That's incredibly dominant. Even by your own definition -- they won a championship in 04, lost a 7 game Finals series to the Spurs in 05, and won 64 games and went into the 06 playoffs as the best team in the league before eventually losing a 6 game series to Miami in the Conference Finals. That is back to back to back dominance right up until they lost to Miami. The sub 70 points allowed level of defense might not have been sustainable but as long as they still had Ben Wallace they were a tough out for anyone. Chicago offered Ben a truckload of money and Joe Dumars thought "we've got Sheed and Darko so I'm good". Even so the Pistons still held on and competed for a few more years but they didn't make it back to the finals without Ben because he was the lynchpin of that team and wasn't replaceable.

While it isn't the AFC between the Raiders and Broncos in the 80s/90s, it sure feels like the team that comes out of the West has been the prohibitive favorite every year since Jordan retired from the Bulls, with the exception of the 3 amigos in Miami.

I will admit perhaps I was unfair to write Detroit off so quickly, but with the exception of those Heat teams and the 08 Celtics, it certainly seemed like the Western team would win even when they didn't. The fact that the media, which is notoriously biased for EST based teams seems to concur is pretty unique as well. So it was almost like any time the East won, if they couldn't back it up, it was a fluke.

 

[SacTownKid]

Because you made it sound like the East wasn't competitive between 2003 and 2008 when in fact the East won 3 championships in that period (2004, 2006, 2008). You also made it sound like the Pistons didn't beat the Lakers but rather the Lakers beat themselves when in fact the Kobe-Shaq Lakers were already basically done by 2004 (with one last push to the Finals where they only won a single game). The other three championships in that period all went to the Spurs who were the best team in the West at that time. The Lakers don't really even belong in the conversation aside from a footnote that they are the team Detroit beat in 2004. For almost all of that Detroit Pistons peak, the Tim Duncan led Spurs were their main rival.

Also, I don't see how you can say the Pistons weren't dominant when they went at least as far as the Conference Finals in six straight seasons. That's incredibly dominant. Even by your own definition -- they won a championship in 04, lost a 7 game Finals series to the Spurs in 05, and won 64 games and went into the 06 playoffs as the best team in the league before eventually losing a 6 game series to Miami in the Conference Finals. That is back to back to back dominance right up until they lost to Miami. The sub 70 points allowed level of defense might not have been sustainable but as long as they still had Ben Wallace they were a tough out for anyone. Chicago offered Ben a truckload of money and Joe Dumars thought "we've got Sheed and Darko so I'm good". Even so the Pistons still held on and competed for a few more years but they didn't make it back to the finals without Ben because he was the lynchpin of that team and wasn't replaceable.

That wasn't the intent. I was talking during the Lakers/Bulls dynasty period and relating that type of dominance to the prospects of a team like Denver now. You're including aspects of your conversation @pdxKingsFan was discussing, when all I tagged was his bit about Detroit. And the Lakers from that period got all types of different teams that won the East. It wasn't the same team every year. From 99 to when Shaq went East, which was basically the reason for most of that turn around you speak of, the West was won. Winning one, losing one, winning one, isn't dominance in terms of title wins to the degree of the Bulls/Lakers IMO which is what we're discussing here. It's a back and forth. And if we're factoring in the regular season, look back at Denvers record this year and prior, is that dominance? I'm saying I can potentially see back and forth with a team like Denver but locking down 3 years in a row type of stuff? I'm not so sure about. Again, I think it depends on the other teams just like their run this year might have in part. Look at their run in hindsight. The Twolves? Disaster of a franchise scraping by. Suns? Two stars that had like 10 games together. Lakers? Another new team and a bad matchup since they don't really run a system that can target a Jokic. The Heat? Could have gone either way but in the end, looked like an 8th seed against a 1 seed talent wise. The talent gobbled them up. Not to discredit the Nuggets win at all, just saying it's worth discussing and might factor into next year. Next year we see if this is a dominant team or somewhere in the middle of where they've been. 47-55 win type stuff.

 

[hrdboild]

That wasn't the intent. I was talking during the Lakers/Bulls dynasty period and relating that type of dominance to the prospects of a team like Denver now. You're including aspects of your conversation @pdxKingsFan was discussing, when all I tagged was his bit about Detroit. And the Lakers from that period got all types of different teams that won the East. It wasn't the same team every year. From 99 to when Shaq went East, which was basically the reason for most of that turn around you speak of, the West was won. Winning one, losing one, winning one, isn't dominance in terms of title wins to the degree of the Bulls/Lakers IMO which is what we're discussing here. It's a back and forth. And if we're factoring in the regular season, look back at Denvers record this year and prior, is that dominance? I'm saying I can potentially see back and forth with a team like Denver but locking down 3 years in a row type of stuff? I'm not so sure about. Again, I think it depends on the other teams just like their run this year might have in part. Look at their run in hindsight. The Twolves? Disaster of a franchise scraping by. Suns? Two stars that had like 10 games together. Lakers? Another new team and a bad matchup since they don't really run a system that can target a Jokic. The Heat? Could have gone either way but in the end, looked like an 8th seed against a 1 seed talent wise. The talent gobbled them up. Not to discredit the Nuggets win at all, just saying it's worth discussing and might factor into next year. Next year we see if this is a dominant team or somewhere in the middle of where they've been. 47-55 win type stuff.

Well then I fall back on my response to Slim which is that I think that's a ridiculous standard. Who is claiming that Denver is the next Phil Jackson Bulls or Lakers? Surely there's a middle ground here between "they ain't the Bulls yet" and "all they did was beat up on weak teams". This year's Suns and Lakers were supposed to be championship contenders based on the strength of their stars. Miami had to beat the Bucks and the Celtics on their way to the Finals -- those were the two best teams in the league in the regular season. By the time they got to the Finals they were missing a bunch of players so Denver didn't face a full-strength team but we can say the same about Golden State on several of their title runs. I could understand a Lakers or Celtics fan looking down their nose at this Denver win but Sacramento Kings fans? Lets get to the Finals even once before we start diminishing the value of a single championship.

 

[SacTownKid]

Well then I fall back on my response to Slim which is that I think that's a ridiculous standard. Who is claiming that Denver is the next Phil Jackson Bulls or Lakers? Surely there's a middle ground here between "they ain't the Bulls yet" and "all they did was beat up on weak teams". This year's Suns and Lakers were supposed to be championship contenders based on the strength of their stars. Miami had to beat the Bucks and the Celtics on their way to the Finals -- those were the two best teams in the league in the regular season. By the time they got to the Finals they were missing a bunch of players so Denver didn't face a full-strength team but we can say the same about Golden State on several of their title runs. I could understand a Lakers or Celtics fan looking down their nose at this Denver win but Sacramento Kings fans? Lets get to the Finals even once before we start diminishing the value of a single championship.

Where did I say anyone did? I said there have been some people around thinking they could be the next dynasty and I'm simply saying I'd be suprised if they end up in that Lakers/Bulls level of dominance unless the league continues to lack a powerhouse super team level combo however, a Spurs type of thing where they take multiple shots and win some, lose some is possible. That's all.

And having an opinion isn't looking down a road of anything other than what may or may not happen.