Does Mr. Slim Citrus think that Golden State got lucky 4 times and that the Mavs handed the Warriors the wins? THE BETTER TEAM DIDN'T WIN? LOL! Truth is GS played their hearts out and beat the Mavs. The Mavs are soft and they have no real leader on that team. Even if they did get past the Warriors they would have never gotten to the finals. To take from one of the premier coaches in the NFL. "You play to win the game, DUH!"
[GSW/DAL] "We're going to go like hell."
- Thread starter Mr. S£im Citrus
- Start date
No he does not. Just because Golden State beat Dallas doesn't mean that they're the better team. If they were the better team, they wouldn't have been 42-40 and a number 8 seed. If they were the better team, they wouldn't have had to run the table down the stretch just to get into the playoffs.
There's not another team in the playoffs that Golden State could have beaten.
There's not another team in the playoffs that Golden State could have beaten.
I think if GSW had played Dallas 50 times this season they would have probably split about 25-25 assuming each had their healthy complete rosters. Again, again, once again, GSW is simply not a normal 8th seed (could have been a 6 or 7 seed) because Baron Davis and Jason Richardson were injured and did not play for the bulk of the season, plus they only had Stephen Jackson following a recent trade with Indiana. For me the bottom line is they completely dominated Dallas this year during regular season and during the playoffs up big 3-1 and finishing them off 4-2. Normally, when there's a huge upset in any sport the underdog just barely edges out the top rated opponent. In the case, the Warriors smacked the Mavs around all season long and then proved they were the best team when it really counted in the playoffs.
Look carefully at their season: Baron Davis and Jason Richardson injured for long stretches of the year; new coach and new system; mid-season trade that drastically changed the composition of the team...once everyone was healthy and they got used to the new players and coach, they closed the season on a tear. You just can't look at them as an 8 seed who barely squeaked into the playoffs...there was a lot more to their story.
And if there isn't another team in the playoffs that Golden State can beat, what does that say about the Mavericks? How can the "better team" have such exploitable weaknesses and still be considered the "better team?"
And if there isn't another team in the playoffs that Golden State can beat, what does that say about the Mavericks? How can the "better team" have such exploitable weaknesses and still be considered the "better team?"
It says that the matchups didn't favor the Mavericks. Golden State matches up against Dallas in a way that no other team can, and I don't see how that could be argued.
It's just like our series last year against the Spurs: we were uniquely equipped to match up with them because our strengths were where they were weakest. Only the blindest of homers would have said that we were as good as San Antonio...
It's just like our series last year against the Spurs: we were uniquely equipped to match up with them because our strengths were where they were weakest. Only the blindest of homers would have said that we were as good as San Antonio...
Isn't this a circular argument that's never going to be resolved?
From my point of view, it seems as though some of you are arguing apples and toy trucks.
What is the "better team"? And is the "better team" in the regular season somehow always going to be the "better team" once the playoffs begin?
I think the playoffs are a totally different animal. Sure, seedings are based on the regular season but once the first tipoff has occurred it's an entirely new ball-game.
We all know that more often than not, the team that did better in the regular season will hold onto that and do better in the post-season. But on occasion, as we just saw, a team that didn't fare as well in the regular season for whatever reason manages to prepare themselves adequately both mentally and physically to outdo their higher ranked opponents.
If and when they do, I would think they would by mere fact of survival become the better team - at least at that juncture.
From my point of view, it seems as though some of you are arguing apples and toy trucks.
What is the "better team"? And is the "better team" in the regular season somehow always going to be the "better team" once the playoffs begin?
I think the playoffs are a totally different animal. Sure, seedings are based on the regular season but once the first tipoff has occurred it's an entirely new ball-game.
We all know that more often than not, the team that did better in the regular season will hold onto that and do better in the post-season. But on occasion, as we just saw, a team that didn't fare as well in the regular season for whatever reason manages to prepare themselves adequately both mentally and physically to outdo their higher ranked opponents.
If and when they do, I would think they would by mere fact of survival become the better team - at least at that juncture.
You're too hung up on the word "better" and too hung up on "#8 seed" when even Avery Johnson said after the series with the Warriors was over that they'd just run into a "hot" team, had tough match-up problems, that his Mavs were badly rattled and Golden State had simply "kicked their butt." He didn't directly say he'd been out-coached, but that was obvious too.
I disagree strongly.
I don't think that the Lakers were the better team against us in 2002.
I don't think that the Timberwolves were the better team against us in 2004.
I don't think that the Wizards were the better team against the Bulls in 2004.
I don't think that the Mavericks were the better team against the Spurs last year.
And I don't think that the Warriors were the better team against the Mavericks this year.
I don't think that the Lakers were the better team against us in 2002.
I don't think that the Timberwolves were the better team against us in 2004.
I don't think that the Wizards were the better team against the Bulls in 2004.
I don't think that the Mavericks were the better team against the Spurs last year.
And I don't think that the Warriors were the better team against the Mavericks this year.
It all depends on your definition of "better team." I'm saying that arguably the "Better team" is the team that gets the job done when it matters.
We didn't get the job done. The Lakers and the Timberwolves did.
So, if their objective is to get past their opponents into the next round, they better completed their tasks.
That's why I've said several times it's the "better team" terminology I think is being overused and misunderstood.
But we can agree to disagree.
We didn't get the job done. The Lakers and the Timberwolves did.
So, if their objective is to get past their opponents into the next round, they better completed their tasks.
That's why I've said several times it's the "better team" terminology I think is being overused and misunderstood.
But we can agree to disagree.
Then if the Mavs were "better" why did the Warriors beat them 6 out of 7 in games heading into these playoffs and then rout them in the series? Again, don't be hung up on the word "better" or "lowly #8 seed" since obviously the Warriors were better than the 67 regular season wins #1 seed Mavs in head-to-head match-ups - decisively proving it in the playoffs.
You can stop putting words in my mouth, for starters; I've never said "lowly" anything... I didn't say that the Warriors got lucky, because they clearly outplayed the Mavericks. But, again, they got the one team that they could take advantage of.
And I'm not "hung up" on "#8 seed." Quit trying to act like these guys are the '95 Rockets, like they're a championship-level team, that just underachieved through the regular season. They played four great games, and earned the right to advance, but I think people need to stop trying to make it more than it is; they played above their level against a team that was not prepared for them. And the coaching disparity was not inconsiderable, either. But that doesn't make them better.
And I'm not "hung up" on "#8 seed." Quit trying to act like these guys are the '95 Rockets, like they're a championship-level team, that just underachieved through the regular season. They played four great games, and earned the right to advance, but I think people need to stop trying to make it more than it is; they played above their level against a team that was not prepared for them. And the coaching disparity was not inconsiderable, either. But that doesn't make them better.
Last edited:
All I'm saying is that, in MY opinion, head-to-head matchups are insufficient towards determining whether or not Team A is better than Team B, because Team A didn't play Team B eighty-two times. Sure, Golden State smacked Dallas around pretty much every time they played, but the only thing that proves is that Golden State matches up excellently against Dallas, just like Dallas matches up excellently against San Antonio.
To me, saying that Team A is better than Team B because of head-to-head is too narrow a criteria; I feel that a much more significant qualification is how Teams A and B play against Teams C, D, E, F and G. I mean, hell, Charlotte won the season series against Miami, and swept the Lakers (and have won the last three games); does anybody think that the Bobcats are better than either of those teams?
Personally, I think the fact that Dallas went 3-1 against San Antonio and 2-2 against Phoenix (whereas Golden State went 1-3 against both teams) is a far more accurate indicator of which team is "better." Not how well you match up against that one team, but how well you match up against everybody else.
To me, saying that Team A is better than Team B because of head-to-head is too narrow a criteria; I feel that a much more significant qualification is how Teams A and B play against Teams C, D, E, F and G. I mean, hell, Charlotte won the season series against Miami, and swept the Lakers (and have won the last three games); does anybody think that the Bobcats are better than either of those teams?
Personally, I think the fact that Dallas went 3-1 against San Antonio and 2-2 against Phoenix (whereas Golden State went 1-3 against both teams) is a far more accurate indicator of which team is "better." Not how well you match up against that one team, but how well you match up against everybody else.
Last edited:
The Warriors were clearly the better team, IN THAT SERIES. But that series is over. And right now, even sitting at home, the Mavs are the far better, more dangerous team vs. anybody else. If it was Mavs/Jazz, the question would be can the Jazz get 2 games. Mavs/Spurs, can the Spurs pull off the upset. Warriors got hot and had a good matchup, they beat the Mavs fair and square (with a healthy assist from the Mavericks amazingly being psyched out). But that doesn't make them in any larger sense a better team.
Well I guess there is "radio talk show and internet chatroom" better....
then there is "scoreboard", "trophy", "banner" and "paycheck" better.
I think "scoreboard" etc better is more compelling and relevant - what everyone is striving for all year, and don't really care about "better in a larger sense".
Although reducing it purely to a matter of persuasive internet blogger opinion instead of on the field results makes it possible for our Kings to be the "larger sense intangible spiritual champs of 2002"... hooray for that I guess.
then there is "scoreboard", "trophy", "banner" and "paycheck" better.
I think "scoreboard" etc better is more compelling and relevant - what everyone is striving for all year, and don't really care about "better in a larger sense".
Although reducing it purely to a matter of persuasive internet blogger opinion instead of on the field results makes it possible for our Kings to be the "larger sense intangible spiritual champs of 2002"... hooray for that I guess.
While fans can, and unfortunately will, continue to make whatever spurious arguments pop into their heads, the simple fact is that there is not a single team remaining in the playoffs that would ratehr Dallas had won that series so they could face them rather than G.S. Not one.
And that's for good reason. Golden State can, and did, beat the Mavs head up. But they are no more a better team than Dallas for having done so than Villanova was better than the Hoyas in '85, Buster Douglas was a better boxer than Mike Tyson circa 1990 (or whenever that was), or whoever beat Tiger last week is a better golfer. You cna win, and win fair and square, and still be nowhere near as formidable as the person/team you beat.
I have been wondering the same thing, although I have been enjoying it immensely. All the talk from the Maverick apologists in this thread - the "yeah, but the Mavericks are still are beater team," kind of talk has made me smile and laugh much more than all the gloating I could have ever done myself.
Thanks guys - it's been a lot of fun.
Thanks guys - it's been a lot of fun.
Last edited:
There is a big difference between a single game where an underdog can just get hot and beat the better team, where the formidable champ could have a bad day and get beat.
This was a 7 game series
Anyways the better team definitions are going all over the place and it is very subjective. I will maintain that the best team this season was the NY Knicks and will leave it there.
This was a 7 game series
Anyways the better team definitions are going all over the place and it is very subjective. I will maintain that the best team this season was the NY Knicks and will leave it there
.