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.