>>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.