Detroit produces the top teams in both the NBA and NHL

Shame about those Tigers though...

I'm not dismissive about it at all. YOU were crowing about a 7 point win with Dirk going 9 of 23 in the field. My only point is that if that was going to be the Pistons strategy in a finals matchup against Dallas, they would lose, and it wouldn't be close.

As far as what has Dirk done, in case you haven't noticed, Dallas is a different team run by a different coach, has a different attitude with personnel that seem to fit better than they have before in Dallas or better than they have for other teams. You ripped Stackhouse and Van Horn, but they fit into what the Mavs want them to do nicely. If Stack hadn't started so much this year due to injury, he'd be a legit 6th man of the year award candidate. Besides, prior to two years ago, what had the current Pistons team ever done?

My point is that it starts somewhere. If you want to assert that because the Mavs haven't won a championship, they won't win one this year, please: by all means, be my guest. Otherwise, deal with the matchup issues.

Look, it's as simple as this. The Pistons have proven themselves. The Mavs haven't.

You can talk all you want about having a different player here and there or a different attitude, but the bottom line is that your team is still dependent on Dirk. He's not a guy who is going to lead you anywhere. He's just too damn soft.

Re matchups, defensively you won't handle either Hamilton or Billups and there's no way Nowitzki is shutting down Mcdyess or Rasheed Wallace. Ben Wallace will eat Diop and Dampier alive on the boards and you don't have a small forward on your roster who's nearly as complete a player as Tayshaun Prince.

I don't see you with an edge anywhere one on one (in the playoffs I'll take a proven winner like Rasheed Wallace over a choker like Dirk)but that's not important. What's important is that the Pistons have displayed a fundamental grasp of the precepts of team basketball. They are the most cohesive team I've seen since our last set of champions in the early 90's. The Mavs haven't shown that and I see no reason to believe they will now.

No it is you that are touting a 40 point win against a team that won it's first 8 games of which I believe 6 were on the road and played a game in Houston the night before. Can you say let down. The Pistons lost 6 games total from November thru the first week of February clearly this team has it going on, they may not win the NBA title, but if they lose it certainly will not be to the Mav's.

>>The Pistons have proven themselves. The Mavs haven't.<<

I guess this means that the Pistons didn't really win the championship in 1989, because at that time, they hadn't "proven themselves" and the Lakers sure as hell had, right?

Past results are only one indicator of future results, and not the only one.

>>but the bottom line is that your team is still dependent on Dirk.<<

Not any more than the Pistons depend on Hamilton. The 2-4 leading scorers (PPG) on the Mavs average 17, 15.6, and 13 PPG respectively, while 2-4 on Detroit average 18.5, 15, and 14. Just because Dirk averages more than Hamilton doesn't mean the Mavs are any more dependant upon him than the Pistons are upon any player they have. The average spread (PPG) between the Mavs/Opponents and Pistons/Opponents is virtually the same -- 6 points.

>>no way Nowitzki is shutting down Mcdyess or Rasheed Wallace.<<

I would tend to agree with that. Dirk isn't himself a shut-down guy. But I'll take Dirk in an offensive matchup over those guys ANY day. Wallace on the three point line matching up against Dirk is going to look like a fool, unless he shoves his forearm into Dirk's face. I doubt he has the clout to get away with that.

>>don't have a small forward on your roster who's nearly as complete a player as Tayshaun Prince.<<

Howard has better offensive numbers and Stack and Terry match up fine, though they admittedly don't shoot 3s as well. But if the Pistons get into a 3 point shooting contest, Dallas walks away with that.

>>I don't see you with an edge anywhere one on one<<

We play 5 on 5. Show me where the '89 Pistons had a one on one edge on the Celtics, much less the Lakers of that era. Isahia over DJohnson perhaps, and maybe one more, but I can't think of too many.

>>a choker like Dirk<<

This is stupid. When has Dirk ever choked? The Pistons are the ones that choked last year in game 5. 4 point lead with under 2 minutes left and several missed shots. Don't you DARE use the choke word without looking in the mirror.

>>No it is you that are touting a 40 point win <<

Please provide the quote of mine where I am "touting" the win.

Excuses are for losers.

As stated before, if the Mavs can play well enough to get by the Spurs and don't get beat up or injured too much (one problem they've had this year that is a concern) in the first three rounds, the Pistons will likely prevent fewer obstacles for this team than other opponents. Assuming the Pistons make it.

Just like they did in November, huh? (~40 point Mav win).

No excuses, this Pistons team has already won a Championship, the only team that has a chance to beat them is the other Championship team in the playoffs. If the Mavs get by the Spurs (which they won't) and get to the finals they will be crushed by the Pistons. A 40 point win in November is meaningless at this point in the season. Bottom lne the Pistons are a much better team than the Mavs.

Just like they did in November, huh? (~40 point Mav win).

No excuses, this Pistons team has already won a Championship, the only team that has a chance to beat them is the other Championship team in the playoffs. If the Mavs get by the Spurs (which they won't) and get to the finals they will be crushed by the Pistons. A 40 point win in November is meaningless at this point in the season. Bottom lne the Pistons are a much better team than the Mavs.

By the way your comment as follows is also way off

I guess this means that the Pistons didn't really win the championship in 1989, because at that time, they hadn't "proven themselves" and the Lakers sure as hell had, right?

That Pistons squad was the ultimate example of "proving themselves", if you knew your NBA History, they lost to the Lakers in a very close 7th game of the 1988 finals with Isiah playing on a badly sprained ankle. And lost in 7 to the Celtics in 1987 Eastern Conference Final. This team also lost in the ECF in 2003 to NJ, before winning it all in 2004, this Mavs team has never even sniffed an NBA Final. BTW more good news Wings 3 Oilers 2 in (2OT), way to go Wings.

Are yoyu always this obtuse? I'm not saying that the Mavs can't win because they haven't, I'm saying that they haven't proven themselves capable of winning so I don't think they will. That's a subtle, but significant difference. The 1989 Pistons had been through the ringer the previous two seasons. In 1987, they made the Eastern conference finals and lost in 7, (damn that Larry Bird and his game 5 steal) in 1988 they made the NBA finals and took the lakers to 7 games (The Pistons should have won it in six, but the refs called a silly touch foul on Billy Laimbeer in the final seconds against Kareem.) Dallas has been all over the map, confernce finals one year, semis the next, second round the next.... this is not a team that is demonstrating that it is learning how to win.

The Pistons don't depend on Hamilton. Billups, Rahseed and Hamilton are the firs three options. Prince and Ben are secondary. We tend to be most sucdessful when we involve Ben early.

So far as the Mavs go...during the two or three times I've seen them play this year, it looked like most of the offense flowed throug Dirk. Stack was also a big factor, but your dead if you're counting on him in April and May.
Stats themselves are pretty meaningless...I rely on what my eyes tell me (I've been watching the NBA for over 35 years) rather than the stat sheet. That's why I'd take Prince over Howard any day of the week and twice on a SUnday. Prince can score, rebound, defend (ask Reggie Miller about that) and he elevates his game in the playoffs. That's something Dirk has yet to do (at least so far as I've seen).

So far as the 5-5 comment goes....there isn't a team in the NBA with a more deeply ingrained sense of team basketball than the Pistons. They rank right up there with the Bill Walton lead Trailblazers under Jack Ramsey in that department.

The Pistons didn't choke in the finals...they lost a couple of two possession games and they won couple of two posseesion games. You don't reach the finals and take a team like the Spurs to 7 games and choke. Frankly, I can't believe a fan of team that so chronically underachieves when it counts would be so foolish as to call another team out for "choking".

Dirk is soft. Stack is soft. As long as you are pinning your hopes on these guys in the playoffs, you are going to be deeply disappointed

>> the only team that has a chance to beat them is the other Championship team in the playoffs.<<

That's just not true. Both Cleveland and Miami out of the east have an excellent chance to beat them. I think the Piston's worse matchup is with Dallas.

>>get to the finals they will be crushed by the Pistons<<

Laughable.

>>Pistons are a much better team than the Mavs.<<

Only a Detroit homer would think that. Its debatable who's actually better, but saying the Pistons are "much" better is stupid. The Mavs would have had at least as good or perhaps even better record had they played the east teams the Pistons played. Detroit didn't play Dallas and San Antonio twice in Texas.

>>Are yoyu always this obtuse?<<

Oh, please. You're just upset I'm not agreeing with you and that you are having this much of a hard time making headway. Leave the personal remarks out of this. They aren't relevent.

>>I'm not saying that the Mavs can't win because they haven't, I'm saying that they haven't proven themselves capable of winning so I don't think they will.<<

No team that hasn't won a championship has proven themselves capable of winning.

>>The 1989 Pistons had been through the ringer the previous two seasons.<<

The Mavs have averaged 56 wins for the last 6 years -- more than the Pistons -- and now have a different coach who has focused of a big part of why the Mavs only got to the second round or conference finals. Prior to the year the Pistons won in 2004, their playoff record the previous 5 years was:

-- lost in conference finals
-- lost in conference semis
-- dnq
-- lost in first round
-- lost in first round

The Mavs have a MUCH better playoff record the last 5 years than the Pistons had the 5 years before they won. The Mavs made the playoff each year and only had one first round outage. So whatever you have to say about the Mavs chances this year, you would have had to admit the Piston's chances 2 years ago were actually worse (even though, I'll conceed coming out of the east is MUCH easier than the West and has been for quite a while). No matter how you want to phrase your point, it fails.

>>during the two or three times I've seen them play this year<<

That's your problem right there.

>>I've been watching the NBA for over 35 years<<

So have I. This isn't relevent.

>>They rank right up there with the Bill Walton lead Trailblazers under Jack Ramsey in that department. <<

If you are going to depend upon the luck that team had to win, more power to you.

>>Frankly, I can't believe a fan of team that so chronically underachieves when it counts would be so foolish as to call another team out for "choking".<<

Man, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. YOU'RE the one who called Dirk out for choking, yet when challenged, you can't give ONE example of when he choked. I gave you a specific example of when the Pistons choked, and recently. When caught, you try to shift the focus of the argument.

>>Dirk is soft. Stack is soft. As long as you are pinning your hopes on these guys in the playoffs, you are going to be deeply disappointed<<

Fine, but Dallas has no pressure. If the Pistons don't win it this year, their team and fans will view this year as a failure.

Incidentally, how come you say Dallas "underachieves" and then question whether they can win a championship?

You really don't understand what playoff basketball is about. Of course the Mavs are under pressure. Every team in the playoffs is under pressure. Unless of course you don't expect to win.

Citing the Piston's record in the playoffs the five season's prior to 2004 kind of proves my point. Won the title in 2004,made the conference finals in 2003, semis in 2002...that's a team that demonstrated it was learning how to win. The Mavs have been up and down, there's no progression that demonstrates that they'rte learning to win when it counts. I'll say it again becuase I don't htink you get it yet...they haven't shown that they are learning how to win in the playoffs. Detroit has been there and done that. When Dallas shows signs of doing that, I'll take thenm seriously as a title threat.

So far as underachieving goes, you're actually the one making that argument, not me. You're the one lauding their regular season achievements and their great talents like Nowinski (sic) They've accomplished all that regular season glory and they haven't done crap in the playoffs. That is the purest definition of underachievement.

When Dirk puts the Mavs on his back and takes them someplace other than home in the first week of May, I'll stop thinking of him as soft. Until then, he's just another soft, over hyped Western conference wuss.

What this discussion really comes down to is this. Piston fans can point to a trip to the conference finals in 2003, an NBA title in 2004 and another trip to the finals in 2005, where they lost in seven games to an excellent Spurs team that had homecourt advantadge.

What can you Mavs fans point to?

The NBA is ridiculously boring. The NHL playoffs are where it's at. My team isn't even in the playoffs and I'm watching every game I can. I'll watch the NBA if I need some sleep.

>>You really don't understand what playoff basketball is about. <<

Another adhominem. At least your consistent.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match over this nonsense. If I told you my background in basketball, a truly objective person would feel really silly making that remark.

>>that's a team that demonstrated it was learning how to win.<<

Are you really listening to what you are saying? The Mavs have not only a better, but MUCH better and more consistent 5 years previous history the last 5 years than the Pistons had the 5 years prior to them winning the title. I don't know why you keep saying they are "up and down" and have had "no progression" while asserting the Pistons were solid and building to a climax. In those 5 years, the Pistons played in only 2 second round series (vs. 4 for the Mavs), only one conference final (same for Mavs), and lost in the first round or didn't qualify for the playoffs 3 times (vs. 1 1st round loss for the Mavs). Your argument here is beyond silly.

I'm not saying this proves anything. What I'm saying is that if history is any indication of success, the Mavs have better history on their side than the Pistons did prior to 2 years ago. This is fact, and arguing it is ridiculous.

>>they haven't shown that they are learning how to win in the playoffs. Detroit has been there and done that.<<

Show me exactly how Detroit learned how to win in those 5 previous years and exactly why the Mavs didn't? By your standard, Dallas will never learn how to win in the playoffs.

>>They've accomplished all that regular season glory and they haven't done crap in the playoffs.<<

Aside from the fact that, other than win the championship, they have done "crap" in the playoffs, there's a lot of reasons for this. Number one reason is Don Nelson. He's gone (thank goodness). Great regular season win coach and little in the playoffs. Some of the guys Dallas was stuck with (Shawn Bradley, Michael Finley) didn't fit into a system that is going to emphasize a player like Dirk the way he plays. There's no question Dirk is the key, but to assume Dallas can't win a championship now because they haven't done it before or because they haven't lived up to their regular season billing is ludicrous.

Over the last 5 years, had Dallas played in the Eastern conference, they would likely have been in at least one and probably 2 finals. I doubt they would have won either with Nellie, but they were at least as good or better than the East team.

>>What can you Mavs fans point to?<<

For the umpteenth time: what could the Pistons point to prior to 2004? 1988? What could the Spurs point to prior to 1999? The Rockets prior to 1994? The answer is NOTHING. The Spurs were a joke of a franchise prior to a decade ago.

Other than the Bulls with Jordan, the Lakers with Showtime and later with Shaq, and the Celtics with Bird, there's been no champion that could really point to anything until they actually won a championship. Unless you can come up with a Red Sox/White Sox style curse (oops; that won't work either), you are going to have to come up with an explanation of why historical results are the only measure of a team's ability to compete for a championship.

You can't. So please stop repeating yourself. I've refuted all your arguments.

If you don't like Dallas, that's fine. If you don't think they are going to win, fine. But its absurd to suggest that since they haven't done it before, they can't do it now. That's the only thing you are saying, contrary to your assertions that it isn't what you are saying. It is. All your quotes boil down to the same thing.

Why are you having such a difficult time understanding this simple concept. The Pistons went to the conference semis in 2002, the conference finals in 2003 and then they won the championship in 2004. That is an upward linear progression that demonstrates that they were improving their postseason efforts each year on their way to a title.
The Pistons showed s similar upward progression in the late 80's, the bulls showed a similar upward progression in the 80's and 90's. That upward progression is what the Pistons could point to before winning our first title in 1989 and their most recent title in 2004.

The Mavs have shown no improvement from year to year. Some years they make the semis, some years they make the second round. There's no progression...they exit the playoffs and varying points each season.

In short, you cannot point to a linear, upward progression that shows they are learning to win in the postseason. Their playoff history is not suggestive of a team that is building towards a title. The commposition of the team suggests that they will not win this year as it includes Stack and Dirk Nowinski.

>>Why are you having such a difficult time understanding this simple concept. The Pistons went to the conference semis in 2002, the conference finals in 2003 and then they won the championship in 2004. That is an upward linear progression that demonstrates that they were improving their postseason efforts each year on their way to a title. <<

I'm not having a hard time understanding anything. You are having a hard time dealing with what you've written.

The Piston's progression is fine, but it wasn't necessary nor is it universal. The Spurs lost in the second round the year before they won each of their last two titles. Prior to 1999, when they won their first, in reverse chronological order, they lost in the second round, DNQ, lost in the second round, lost in the conference finals, and lost in the first round. That sounds a little like Dallas' recent 5 year stretch, except the Mavs as stated made the playoffs each year and have one more second round appearance (and didn't have a year during that time with only 21 wins). The Lakers had a similar progression prior to their first of the recent 3 titles at the beginning of the decade.

This doesn't even speak to the so-called winning progressions teams like the Kings made that for one reason or another fizzled prior to a championship.

Don't be so simple minded to think that a team's progression to a title takes one particular road just because the Pistons followed that road to a title. You haven't disproved (because you can't) my statement that the Mav's previous 5 years are much better than the Pistons' previous 5 years prior to their recent title. They were better than the Spurs before their first title, and likely as good as the Rockets and maybe even the Bulls.

>>In short, you cannot point to a linear, upward progression that shows they are learning to win in the postseason.<<

Neither could the Spurs, Lakers, or Rockets. I guess they really didn't win their titles in the '90s or earlier this decade.

>>The commposition of the team suggests that they will not win this year as it includes Stack and Dirk Nowinski.<<

This is absurd. The Pistons would trade for Dirk in a heartbeat. Stack wants to start but is excellent in his role as a 6th man. Everyone in the league wants to play for Dallas and if they can work the cap economics out, Avery and Cuban can create a dynasty here.

No, they haven't proven they can win a title, and I don't know if they can win one this year. But no team in the league has proven they can win a title until they actually win one. That includes Detroit, San Antonio, LA, Chicago, Houston, and everyone else.

Right...teams prove they can win a title by winning one....Detroit has, Dallas hasn't.

I wouldn't trade Rasheed Wallace for Nowinski and neither would Detroit. He's old and he's a T machine, but 'Sheed's a winner. Dirk's a soft chunk o' Eurotrash. We booted Milicic once this year, why would we want him back?

Progressions like Detroit's aren't universal, but I bet they're more prevalent than teams that win seemingly out of nowhere. I'm too lazy to look, but you can check it if you'd like.

BTW, the Rockets didn't win their titles, they were gifted to them by Michael Jordan and the Chicago White Sox ;)

So far as the Pistons five years vs the Mavs five years...I've forgotten what five years we're talking about. The five years before 1989, the five years before 2004 or the five years before now. I guess I'll take Detroit's five years in all cases because they led to titles in two cases and probably will this year too....

I don't like Nowinski and I don't like Stack. But I always did like Avery Johnson as a player. I'll be interested in seeing how he progresses as a coach.

>>Right...teams prove they can win a title by winning one....Detroit has, Dallas hasn't. <<

Prior to their first, Detroit hadn't proved it. Neither had SA. Your reasoning here is flawed.

>>Dirk's a soft chunk o' Eurotrash.<<

This is just stupid. You don't know a damn thing about Dirk. You've already called him a choker in spite of the fact that his playoff stats are much better than his regular season stats -- stats that have gotten him on the all-NBA teams for the last few years -- basically since he was a second year player.

>>Progressions like Detroit's aren't universal, but I bet they're more prevalent than teams that win seemingly out of nowhere. <<

Are you really this ignorant, have such a reading comprehension problem, or are you so pissed now that you are just making things up? Dallas winning this year wouldn't come out of "nowhere." As stated, Dallas' last five years from now were better than Detroits last five from their recent championship; San Antonio's recent five from their first championship; and a hell of a lot better than the Lakers' previous 5 from their first of three recent championships.

>>I'm too lazy to look<<

I'm not going to prove your argument and if you think I'm going to conceed anything that's wrong, you are way out of your league. Not only in this discussion, but on FR in general. Prove it yourself. I've already given you teams going back into the '90s that prove my point.

>>the Rockets didn't win their titles, they were gifted to them by Michael Jordan and the Chicago White Sox<<

Whether that's true or not, someone had to win. Jordon could have blown out a knee or something one of those years, so even if the Bulls would have won with Jordon, the same might have been said about Walton in the late '70s (though I doubt it).

You play your schedule.

>>I've forgotten what five years we're talking about.<<

All you had to do was read or reread my posts. I said the Mav's previous five years from NOW compared to the Pistons' previous five years from the year they won their recent title. It isn't that difficult a concept here.

>>I don't like Nowinski and I don't like Stack.<<

That's fine. But you're letting that hatred (irrational, at least in Dirk's case) make you think what you are saying.

By making a conference finals, Detroit proved themselves ready to make the next step. The Mavs aren't ready. We can argue about it until doomsday, but you're just going to have to watch the Spurs bounce them to believe it.

BTW, Dallas' last five years are NOT better than Detroit's prior to winning in 2004. Detroit improved their showing each year and won a fricking title. Dallas made a conference finals and exited at varying points thereafter. They never made it back to the confernece finals after getting there once. How in the heck do you figure that going backwards towards your goal is better than going forwards toward your goal?

Dallas winning this year would indeed be from out of nowhere because they haven't shown an ability to beat the Western conference's only complete team, the San Antonio Spurs when it counts...in May.

So far as Dirk goes...I'm mostly yanking your chain and it's getting old. He's a nice player. I don't think he likes playing in traffic too much, but he's got a very nice offensive game and he rebounds decently for a European. I'd actually like to see him go up against Rasheed (although I suspect he'd match up with Ben Wallace defensively to avoid foul trouble)because they both have some perimeter skills.

Stack REALLY does suck in the playoffs though...