schneider@2littl.DEC (10/04/85)
> Hasn't LA been to the finals at least four times in a row? If memory > serves: > 1980 Philadelphia LA Lakers > 1981 Boston Houston > 1982 Philadelphia LA Lakers > 1983 Philadelphia LA Lakers > 1984 Boston LA Lakers > 1985 Boston LA Lakers It is dominance such as this which lends creedence to the notion that if there is a dynasty in basketball today, it resides in LA. Don't let all the Boston press fool you, they are not the team to beat. Kareem, Magic & Co. are the defenders of the crown, not the pretenders to it. Daniel Schneider {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-monty!dec-2littl!schneider P.S. Lucky for me I managed to tape games 5 and 6 of last years championship. Its just a pleasure to watch the Lakers beat the Celtics in every phase of the game. Again and again.
plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (10/08/85)
> >> 1980 Philadelphia LA Lakers >> 1981 Boston Houston >> 1982 Philadelphia LA Lakers >> 1983 Philadelphia LA Lakers >> 1984 Boston LA Lakers >> 1985 Boston LA Lakers > >It is dominance such as this which lends creedence to the notion that >if there is a dynasty in basketball today, it resides in LA. Don't Actually, not true. There is a tri-team dominance in the NBA. If Boston and LA were in the same Division, Philly would be the "Dynasty". Similarly, if Philly and LA were in the same Division, Boston would be. In Basketball, you should probably win 11 out of 13 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS before you talk about Dynasty. I seem to recall some team back in the sixties did something like that. Don't seem to remember which one ... -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2
das@orstcs.UUCP (das) (10/09/85)
/***** orstcs:net.sport.hoop / decwrl!schneider / 1:34 pm Oct 4, 1985*/ >P.S. Lucky for me I managed to tape games 5 and 6 of last years > championship. Its just a pleasure to watch the Lakers beat > the Celtics in every phase of the game. Again and again. >/* ---------- */ > gosh! what a guy!
schneider@2littl.DEC (10/09/85)
[Summary: the evidence of the Lakers dominance of the NBA in the 1980s is 5 Western Conference championships and 3 world titles in the last 6 years.] > That only proves that thus far in the decade of the 80's, there have only been > three teams capable of competing for the championship. It only appears that > LA was dominant, when in reality they have little competition out west. However you want to cut, if only three teams are capable of competing for the championship, but one of them wins it HALF the time, said dominance is more than apparent. Granted its difficult to judge the competition in the west because of the Lakers dominance, but one has no way of knowing for sure just as one has no way of knowing if the Lakers would just as much dominate the east. Given the limited data we have, its fair to conclude that Boston and Philadelphia would be second rate if the Lakers were in the Eastern Conference. > The > fact of the matter is, Boston IS the team to beat to be champion (that's why > the Lakers are defending champs). Quite the Pyrrhic victory. Its yours if you want it; just make that IS a WAS and wait and see. > LA certainly can't be considered a champion > by defeating the likes of Denver or Houston. Its getting difficult to follow your reasoning Roger. Its the likes of Philadelphia and Boston which the Lakers have been beating to earn their championships. >> P.S. Lucky for me I managed to tape games 5 and 6 of last years >> championship. Its just a pleasure to watch the Lakers beat >> the Celtics in every phase of the game. Again and again. > I almost wish I had taped those two games, because they are certain to become > a collectors item, since it was a once in a lifetime experience. > -- Roger Pannell I assume you are predicting that the 76ers will take the Eastern Conference again. Daniel Schneider {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-2littl!schneider
jwg@panda.UUCP (Jim Galbiati) (10/10/85)
In article <700@decwrl.UUCP> schneider@2littl.DEC writes: > >P.S. Lucky for me I managed to tape games 5 and 6 of last years championship. Its just a pleasure to watch the Lakers ... Yeah, I get the same feeling every time I see Henderson steal the ball.
kosower@harvard.ARPA (David A. Kosower) (10/16/85)
[Go Celtics!]
The claim was made in the referenced article that their winning three out of
the last six championships proves that the Lakers are dominant, since
(by "blind statistics") they were only expected to win two.
RUBBISH!! That is as bad an abuse of statistics as seen anwhere in
th popular press; it rests on the incorrect assumption that all three
major teams have an equal shot at the title. They do NOT, since only
one of Boston and Philly can appear in the final, while the Lakers have a
virtual bye. Thus, in any given year, the Lakers have a 50%, not
33% chance of winning the title IF the championship series were to
be decided, say, by a coin toss... one would therefore EXPECT the
Lakers to have won 3 titles, and Boston and Philly 1.5 each -- which
is in fact pretty much what has happened.
David A. Kosowerplw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (10/16/85)
> >However you want to cut, if only three teams are capable of competing >for the championship, but one of them wins it HALF the time, said >dominance is more than apparent. Granted its difficult to judge the >competition in the west because of the Lakers dominance, but one has >no way of knowing for sure just as one has no way of knowing if the >Lakers would just as much dominate the east. Given the limited data we >have, its fair to conclude that Boston and Philadelphia would be second >rate if the Lakers were in the Eastern Conference. > I disagree. Stamina has a lot to do with winning it all. An important point is that both Boston and Philly have to survive a war with two of the three good teams to get the flag. L.A. need only survive against one. Neither Boston nor Philly can be considered "second rate" in this decade. If L.A. were also in the Eastern Division, (God Forbid), given the limited data, it's fair to conclude that they'd get to the finals exactly one third of the time. All I see suggests that there are three quality teams in the NBA and then there's everyone else. The differences between these three this decade are very slight. Now I'll really go out on a limb: I predict that the 1986 flag will fly in either Boston, Philly, or LA. -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2
charlie@nbires.UUCP (Charles Carrington) (10/19/85)
The following was written by David A. Kosower: > >...incorrect assumption that all three >major teams have an equal shot at the title. Obviously, the rest of the teams in the league are "minor" teams and have no business sweating in the same gym with the any one of the Holy Trinity. >...only >one of Boston and Philly can appear in the final, while the Lakers have a >virtual bye. It must get terribly boring and tiresome for those poor Lakers to have to play 82 games each year against "minor" teams to achieve their "virtual bye". >Thus, in any given year, the Lakers have a 50%, not >33% chance of winning the title IF the championship series were to >be decided, say, by a coin toss... one would therefore EXPECT the >Lakers to have won 3 titles, and Boston and Philly 1.5 each -- which >is in fact pretty much what has happened. Well, there you have it. Why haven't we thought of this before? There is no reason at all to go through the charade of playing a full season of regular season games. After all, no team outside the Holy Trinity is worthy of competing for the title, anyway. It is sad and uselessly cruel to raise the hopes of all those other teams every year. Instead, we should just re-form the league into three teams. Give the Lakers an automatic bye in the West, and have a 7 game Boston-Philly series in the East to determine the finalist. The statistical distribution of championships among the teams in the league would remain unchanged, but we could get the whole season taken care of in, say, three or four weeks!
plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (10/21/85)
>Instead, we should just re-form the league into three teams. Give the Lakers >an automatic bye in the West, and have a 7 game Boston-Philly series in the >East to determine the finalist. The statistical distribution of championships >among the teams in the league would remain unchanged, but we could get the >whole season taken care of in, say, three or four weeks! Actually, other than the ticket prices, this is a damn good idea. But eliminate the bye and set up a series of round robins. Have the "season" consist of 15 best of seven series, each of the "big three" playing in 10. The team with the worst record does not compete in the seven game playoffs. The three teams, of course, play in the major cities so that all the fans get the privilege of seeing quality basketball for a change. That would also eliminate the geographic advantage that LA presently enjoys. -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/26/85)
In article <1023@panda.UUCP> plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: > >Actually, other than the ticket prices, this is a damn good idea. But >eliminate the bye and set up a series of round robins. Have the "season" >consist of 15 best of seven series, each of the "big three" playing in 10. >The team with the worst record does not compete in the seven game playoffs. >The three teams, of course, play in the major cities so that all the fans get >the privilege of seeing quality basketball for a change. > >That would also eliminate the geographic advantage that LA presently enjoys. > You know what you Celts can do? Buy out the 76ers and the Warriors, and swap the franchises (people in Philly may like another Philadelphia Warriors.) Now you can have the advantage the Lakers are currently enjoying. But then the Bucks may become a power in the east, and maybe the Knicks with Ewing .... -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
jwm00@duts.UUCP (John McKenna) (10/29/85)
> In article <1023@panda.UUCP> plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: > > > >Actually, other than the ticket prices, this is a damn good idea. But > >eliminate the bye and set up a series of round robins. Have the "season" > >consist of 15 best of seven series, each of the "big three" playing in 10. > >The team with the worst record does not compete in the seven game playoffs. > >The three teams, of course, play in the major cities so that all the fans get > >the privilege of seeing quality basketball for a change. > > > >That would also eliminate the geographic advantage that LA presently enjoys. > > > > You know what you Celts can do? Buy out the 76ers and > the Warriors, and swap the franchises (people in Philly may like > another Philadelphia Warriors.) Now you can have the advantage > the Lakers are currently enjoying. But then the Bucks may > become a power in the east, and maybe the Knicks with Ewing .... > > > > -- > Eddy Lor > ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor > lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU > Computer Science Department, UCLA Don't kid yourself into believing that Jabbar could take more than two regular season meetings with Moses. Maybe he can rest up enough during a cake-walk Western Conference playoff schedule to face him but not several times over the course of the regular season.