Yeah this discussion is going nowhere, but wasn't the big deal last season that the Mavs won as a team? Dirk obviously crushed, but they were definitely heralded as a team.

Also, that SimMatchup site is awesome.

You're a moron if you think there's no argument. If you can't recognize how tough of a series it would be, you don't know basketball.

And the reason I bring up Dirk because he would single handledly win at least two games against the spurs.

quote:

---

I challenge you to find non-mav fans that think last years team is better than this spurs team.

---

Challenge accepted

I think everyone remembers last year when ESPN described beating the Mavs as 'mission impossible' for the entire NBA.

The Mavs did lose 5 games in the playoffs last year. It isn't like they had a historic playoff run like the 01 Lakers, who tied the NBA record with just 2 playoff losses.

The 72-win Bulls had 3 playoff losses.

spurs in 4 easy. mavs were a fluke last year.

p.s. I'm not a spurs fan.

These people saying Spurs in 4, sweep, mavs were a fluke, etc are ridiculous.

This thread is dumb.

At least wait till this season is over before you start this crap.

Can't believe I'm posting here again, but why not... it's pointless fun!

1. Dirk was amazing last year. I loved watching him make 1 unbelievable shot after another... all the while Miami's super stars only wanted to pass to the other guy when it was time to make a shot or go home.

2. Nobody would have stopped Dirk from scoring and scoring a lot last year. You can't stop guys when they are that hot... so no, the Spurs could not stop him.

3. I'm not sure if point 1 or 2 even matter because the Spurs are facing a 3 headed monster right now and are up 2-0 against this team. They played solid D and still couldn't keep OKC's big 3 from putting up 88 points combined in game 2. It didn't matter though because as a TEAM the Spurs still outscored the other TEAM.


My point... if the 2 teams could play each other it wouldn't matter how many points Dirk scores because, as a team, the Spurs are still far superior 2 games into the WCF. Dallas was not unstopable considering their multiple losses by this time last year. The Spurs have literally been unbeatable so far. They faced a scoring monster in OKC in game 2, so they simply put up 120 and won the game.

At this point last year, the Mavericks and Thunder series was tied at 1 game apiece. Safe to argue the Thunder are a fair bit better this year than last year... Spurs are 2-0 in the series.

This seems like arguing over 2 college football teams from different conferences with completely different schedules.

Which unfortunately, keith, we have to do every year.

quote:

---

This seems like arguing...

---

I don't see it as arguing at all. I think most of us have agreed that it's pointless... but it's something to discuss because we are at the climax of the season and it's fun to talk BB. Shoot, 90% of what is discussed on ESPN, Fox Sports, NFL Network, etc, are all pointless debates that cannot be proven. Who cares, it's still entertaining.

I shouldn't have used the term "arguing", I did not mean to imply that this was a heated topic.

Here's a fun idea to consider though. Did the shortened season favor the Spurs, who tend to come down with injury-itis at some point usually?

I.e. if we were going to run full-season 2012 Spurs against full-season 2011 Mavs, wouldn't you have to assume that someone on the Spurs would break their legs?

Not a fan of either team, but right now I would take the Spurs in 5. Maybe Dirk could sneak out 2 wins, but that would be the max.

quote:

---

Here's a fun idea to consider though. Did the shortened season favor the Spurs, who tend to come down with injury-itis at some point usually?

---

Not necessarily. Actually, the popular talking point for dismissing the Spurs before this season started was that the jam-packed 66 game schedule would hurt them more than it would help (i.e., not enough time to rest, multiple back-to-back-to-backs, etc.)

The jam packed season with ridiculous clusters of games probably hurt them more. And they still dealt with injuries. They just sat their starters and dealt with it.

Who cares? Spurs haven't won anything yet.

Can't really count those two losses to Portland as losses.

Something happened with Dallas after that 2nd loss to Portland.

[This message has been edited by TheMasterplan (edited 5/31/2012 10:06a).]

Yeah, anyone who thinks the Spurs weren't hit hard by injuries this year has only been paying attention the last 20 games.

Manu easily missed over 20 games in the middle of the season and took 20 games or so for him to find any semblance of the old Manu.

TJ Ford was playing great for the Spurs at backup PG and then had to retire midseason due to injury.

Danny Green, Tiago Splitter, and Matt Bonner took turns with injuries and were ineffective for a few other games they played in because of those injuries.

The only constants on this team all year were Dejuan Blair (who is an unsung hero of the regular season), Tim Duncan, and Tony Parker. You could maybe throw in Kawhi, but he didn't play a whole lot the first half of the season.

The Spurs have now played 76 total games this year, and they look pretty damn healthy (knock on wood). I don't think it's fair to say an 82 game season would have killed them on injuries, especially as conservative as Pop was with minutes this year.

[This message has been edited by aggie_2001_2005 (edited 5/31/2012 10:08a).]

quote:

---

Who cares? Spurs haven't won anything yet.

---

They haven't lost anything yet, either.

quote:

---

Can't really count those two losses to Portland as losses.

---

We have such short memories. Why does everyone say the 2011 Mavs were not a great team? Yes, Dirk had an amazing run, but don't forget the contributions from the others:

- Kidd's huge game against POR.
- Brewer sparking the comeback against LAL in G1.
- Chandler's huge putbacks against LAL in G2.
- Terry and Peja raining 3's against LAL in G4.
- Barea carving up everyone with his penetration
- Marion locking down his man despite a broken nose
- Stevenson's D and 3 point shooting
- Cardinal taking charges (including 1 that injured Wade's hip in the finals)

To a man that TEAM was fantastic.

Also,
POR (6 seed) > UTA (8 seed)
LAL (2 seed) > LAC (5 seed)

conversely,
OKC (2012) > OKC (2011)

TBD:
MIA (2011) vs MIA (2012)
more time together, but possibly an injured Bosh.

Basically, it would be a great series, but there is no way either team sweeps, IMO.

quote:

---

Also,
POR (6 seed) > UTA (8 seed)
LAL (2 seed) > LAC (5 seed)

---

So what you are saying is the Spurs should get credit for dominating all season and securing home cout advantage and having the best record in the NBA. Got it.

BFD. They had the #1 seed last year too. Wasn't it always Spurs fans telling Mavs fans that regular season doesn't matter?

I was just comparing their playoff runs.

quote:

---

Wasn't it always Spurs fans telling Mavs fans that regular season doesn't matter?

---

Only titles matter. But when comparing the best teams of all time, you invariably look at the regular season production.

Were the 99 Spurs better than the 96 Bulls? 99 Spurs went 15-2 in the playoffs and set the NBA record for longest playoff winning streak at 12 games. The 96 Bulls had a 9 game winning streak and went 15-3.

Well, history is probably gonna look at the 72 wins and say "GTFOH with that 99 Spurs BS."

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 5/31/2012 11:01a).]

quote:

---

Only titles matter. But when comparing the best teams of all time, you invariably look at the regular season production.

Were the 99 Spurs better than the 96 Bulls? 99 Spurs went 15-2 in the playoffs and set the NBA record for longest playoff winning streak at 12 games. The 96 Bulls had a 9 game winning streak and went 15-3.

Well, history is probably gonna look at the 72 wins and say "GTFOH with that 99 Spurs BS."

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 5/31/2012 11:01a).]

---

Ill just leave this here..... the 2001 Lakers acheived a better postseason record than any spurs team by going 15-1, and they are not in the conversation for the best team of all time

[This message has been edited by simplebay (edited 5/31/2012 11:17a).]

quote:

---

Why does everyone say the 2011 Mavs were not a great team?

---

They won the title - they were great. Were they an all-time great? I don't think so. I don't think anyone is going to look at the 11 Mavs and say "That was a team for the ages." They were more of an outlier in terms of Championships. The underdog gets hot a the right time and slays the dragon (Kobe then Bron.) Most people preordained the Finals to be Bron vs Kobe. Mavs played brilliant team basketball and destroyed all that on the back of Dirk coming through time and time again. But I think that they will mostly be thought of as the team with 1 star, a bunch of role players that got hot at the right time (just like Wade in 06.) The Mavs' dismantling the team this year and not attempting to repeat didn't do much for their all-time legacy.

quote:

---

- Kidd's huge game against POR.

---

And a bunch of meh games. Playoffs numbers 9 points, 7 assists on .398 shooting. He did have a 0 points, 3 assist, 3 rebound game against Miami. Parker's 30+ points, 8+ assists 75% shooting game has only been accomplished in the playoffs 5 times in NBA history.

quote:

---

- Brewer sparking the comeback against LAL in G1.

---

Lol at Brewer. He scored 9 points in the playoffs last year. Probably not worth bringing when discussing which team is better.

quote:

---

- Chandler's huge putbacks against LAL in G2.

---

Talking about the greatness of the Mavs team, and you focus on a single play? Chandler was great for the Mavs and most of the stuff he did won't show up on the stat sheet. But his putback doesn't make my list of why he was great for Dallas.

quote:

---

- Terry and Peja raining 3's against LAL in G4.

---

That was incredible. What can you do when a guy is 9/10 from 3? I hate saying this with Terry having 11 games at .400 shooting or worse, but Terry's playoff run last year was the most consistent I have seen him.

Peja added a few shots here and there, but he really only had like 3 good games.

quote:

---

- Barea carving up everyone with his penetration

---

He came up really huge, and was a great pace changer to Kidd.

quote:

---

- Cardinal taking charges

---

Really? That's why the Mavs were great?

I think the interesting thing about the Mavs is that Dirk was really steady in playing great, but they had 5 other guys - and each one came up big at one moment or another. You can't count on Marion, Terry or Kidd like the Spurs count on Parker and Ginobili, but one of those three was going off along with Dirk in just about every game. And that is what was crucial to the Mavs run. Because one player playing out of his mind usually just runs into the ground. (See LeBron in 07.)

Mavs caught lightning in a bottle with Dirk's sustained great play, Chandler doing all the dirty work and bringing a swaggar on D that the Mavs never had and a presence on D that the Mavs never had, Marion playing better D than he has in several years on the perimeter and Kidd, Terry, JJ and Marion all alternatively coming up big. Mavs got everything going at once and it was beautiful to watch.

So what you're saying is that Dirk should be highly elevated on the list of all time greats because he carried a bunch of unreliable scraps to a championship while "slaying the dragons" of two of the best players of our generation.

Seems contradictory to everything you've ever said before now.

Sorta going off what somebody said earlier... the 2011 Mavericks right now are just a flash in the pan team when looking at "all time greats". Dirk and crew will need to win another or else it's more of a one hit wonder (and absolutely nothing wrong with that!). The Duncan era Spurs obviously have multiple titles and this "team" is already compared to the all time greats, especially considering how many years they have been at the top.

This years team in particular has so far been unbeatable in the post season and has, at times, just steamrolled people. If they sweep OKC and then go on to win the Championship in a convincing fashion then I think there is no doubt that many people will be asking if they are one of the best 2 or 3 teams ever. If they win the title and don't lose a single game then that's just incredible and there is very little room to debate at that point.

But seriously, I don't see them even sweeping OKC. And ultimately I don't think too many people will care if the Spurs are better than the '11 Mavs, or if this is the best Spurs team ever... if they can win it all it will just be another championship for the Duncan era Spurs team and they will be among the Elite dynasties of all time (they sorta already are anyway).



[This message has been edited by jr15aggie (edited 5/31/2012 12:54p).]

That's exactly how I view it Judge.

Dirk was solid every game. Rotate solid games through Kidd, Jet, Barea, Peja, Marion and Chandler (or a combo) every game and you got yourself a championship.

Kidd and JET played way above their level.

Lets review: Dallas beat the Thunder in five and swept the "all-mighty" Lakers. Spurs beat the Jazz and Clippers and are struggling with the Thunder. The Spurs would get there Meat chewed off by Dirk and the crew. Mavs > Spurs

quote:

---

and are struggling with the Thunder

---

That's rich.

quote:

---

The Spurs would get there Meat chewed off by Dirk and the crew.

---

Mavs players enjoy chewing on meat? I always wondered if that were the case...