The 'Stons Journey Back to the Postseason...
- Thread starter B.A.R.
- Start date
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
Also, on the Bills, they were bumping into NFC greats with a ton of ... you guessed it ... playoff experience. Giants, Skins, Cowboys twice. (Think that's right? Or were the Niners in there somewhere?). Just because one of the teams with playoff experience loses doesn't discount that the other one with playoff experience wins. Kind of cancels out, right?
I knew if Lar and I got in here on the Pistons playoff march that discussion would turn to '80's NFL.
I knew if Lar and I got in here on the Pistons playoff march that discussion would turn to '80's NFL.
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
Surprised this is even close
Making the 8 seed on the downturn of a cycle is one thing.
But on the upturn or the beginning like the Pistons are is a huge team builder and the young guys learn a lot of lessons
Just even a few years back that dubs/spurs series before steph was steph.
That's worth much more than the 2% or whatever shot st the lotto
Making the 8 seed on the downturn of a cycle is one thing.
But on the upturn or the beginning like the Pistons are is a huge team builder and the young guys learn a lot of lessons
Just even a few years back that dubs/spurs series before steph was steph.
That's worth much more than the 2% or whatever shot st the lotto
L
Lareux
Guest
How do I lose credibility for something you can't prove? Who says they won because they lost in the previous years?
And I like this discussion and I'm certainly not trying to be combative at all, that question may have seemed that way. It's a good topic to discuss. (and when you get some proof, any proof, I'll agree with you :tiphat
L
Lareux
Guest
So over a decade ago, and one example that may or may not even be an example? No one is arguing teams can't be built and gain chemistry, grow and get better together and win. That's how it's done sometimes for sure...that does NOT logically follow that they won because they lost a playoff series a year or two previously. Could it be they just became a better team and got better?
And speaking of 2004, that's the Pistons with Rasheed, Chauncey and the crew (Rip Hamilton, NBA defensive player of the year Ben Wallace)? That may be 2 hall of famers we're talking about, so let's not act like they won with scrubs and only did so because they lost in the playoffs prevously. It makes a great story, and it's cool to say, but that's about it. Didn't that series have a missed shot by Kobe or a comeback or something by Detroit to win the series? If Kobe's shot falls and the Pistons lose, what would the "playoff experience" been touted as?
Last edited by a moderator:
L
Lareux
Guest
Steph got better and better, they added Thompson and Green. Then they won. Funny how that worked...they got better players, their players got better, and they won.
Teams can be "built" and get just as many lessons during the regular season. Many of these teams that sneak in get swept...what lesson is learned in that? That they need to get better and play better the next year, or maybe get a better draw?
L
Lareux
Guest
Well that is kind of the point though...if playoff experience is so valuable and leads to winning, what do we say when the team with that "experience" loses? They just need more experience losing in the playoffs and will eventually win? By that time, the team won't even look the same and that "experience" has left the team.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
Lar is asking us to prove something that can't be proven. Like God. At least he's consistent.
Lar, in your every day life, are you more at ease in challenging situations if you are familiar with them? Don't you think the NBA game looks a little different in the playoffs?
I agree, talent prevails, and some athletes are just born with poise. But if you have a couple teams playing a team game for high stakes, and you rate them equally talented, and one has been there and one hasn't, and you have your choice at even money (talk about a ridiculous string of hypotheticals to milk a response), who gets your money and why? You must bet and win, or you will be shot dead, last hypothetical.
Lar, in your every day life, are you more at ease in challenging situations if you are familiar with them? Don't you think the NBA game looks a little different in the playoffs?
I agree, talent prevails, and some athletes are just born with poise. But if you have a couple teams playing a team game for high stakes, and you rate them equally talented, and one has been there and one hasn't, and you have your choice at even money (talk about a ridiculous string of hypotheticals to milk a response), who gets your money and why? You must bet and win, or you will be shot dead, last hypothetical.
L
Lareux
Guest
Good question. I wouldn't base my bet on their playoff experience, I can say that for certain. I'd probably go with the team with the fiercer mascot.
I know, crazy me asking for proof of things. What a crazy idea. Lol. If people want to tout something as a fact and are certain it "exists" it should be fairly easy to show some type of proof. If we're using the NBA, we are going to have to go back decades to find a team that won because of playoff experience it seems.
How do I lose credibility for something you can't prove? Who says they won because they lost in the previous years?
And I like this discussion and I'm certainly not trying to be combative at all, that question may have seemed that way. It's a good topic to discuss. (and when you get some proof, any proof, I'll agree with you :tiphat
1986 Bulls lost to Celtics 1st round(Jordan missed most of season)
1987 Bulls lost to Celtics again
1988 Bulls lost to Pistons in 2nd round 4-1
1989 Bulls lost to Pistons in Conference Finals 4-2
1990 Bulls lost to Pistons in Conference Finals 4-3
1991 Bulls beat Pistons 4-0 to advance to Finals for 1st time.
You say they won because Jordan was best player. That is completely untrue. They had a young nucleus with Grant and Pippen that had to grow-up, as did Jordan. He was selfish as can be and had to learn to use his teammates to win.
Like anybody that knows basketball understands this...
There are many teams that have went through these progressions...
Earlier in thread you said something about over 2 decades, hence why I said that.
Yes, there could be HOF players but there was no 'SUPERSTAR' on that team. That is a term that gets overused. A bunch of all-star players but not an ALL-NBA performer.
L
Lareux
Guest
Again, we've gone back to the 80s for an example. And unless we can go back in time and those teams don't make the playoffs at all, we have no way to say for certain they won only because they lost in the playoffs previously. It's a self fulfilling prophecy for you guys on this topic.
L
Lareux
Guest
Okay, I'll give it to you. So one example in the past 2 decades. The point still remains the same.
Mid 2000's Stons built there way up.
In a way the Mavs did as well.
Even the Heat in '06, they just added a key piece the year before in Shaq but they still had to lose to Detroit to beat them the next year.
L
Lareux
Guest
What? I didn't say that at all. I conceded the 2004 Pistons to you.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
Lar, a team of five young Steph Curries against a team of five mini-Ditkas. The Curries are having legendary seasons but have never won a playoff game. The mini-Ditkas have won at every thing they've ever tried, including last year's NBA title despite having never played basketball before, and being mini. Who's your champion?
L
Lareux
Guest
The point is they didn't HAVE to lose to win, they just happen to lose and then win. Self fulfilling prophecy bub.
L
Lareux
Guest
The Ditkas? Is that the answer you're looking for?
Its funny how you've switched from playoff experience doesn't matter to now it does though. Good grief with this place sometimes. Can't have a good discussion about much without people getting either butt hurt or just changing opinions like their boxers. (Here's where you crack wise and say you don't wear boxers, or something to that effect)
As far as this 2016 Detroit team, these posts pretty much end the discussion though.
L
Lareux
Guest
I realize this example was for dramatic effect, but situations like this don't happen in sports. How do we quantify how individual playoff experience counts for a team? If they have 3 guys with experience from another team, does that help, or do they need to gain their experience as a team for it to matter?
L
Lareux
Guest
Maybe they'll be the outlier and won't have any change in the roster for a few years. If they don't, and they lose let's say the next 3 years in the playoffs, then 2 or 3 key pieces leave...what happens then? Does that experience gained by their remaining players carry over and help, or is the fact they lost key pieces mean their experience is pretty much meaningless at that point?
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
Unlike the God thing, where we have to just say faith (unless you're red), SO, so many sports champions lose a time or two in the playoffs before winning a championship. It's self-fulfilling because it has so many examples. It seems to be just as linked as improving the personnel. One that doesn't need quantifiable evidence might surmise the two go hand in hand.
Gonna go back to your first post.
Show me a NBA team, from whenever, with a roster with a bunch of guys that have never been in the playoffs that has advanced to Finals or even Conference Finals.
No research from me yet, I'll let you do it since you think experience is not important.
I'll check back after we get home from dinner.
This place doesn't attract free agents, hence they build. I want Jackson and Drummond to get playoff experience. And whoever else is left in 2-3 years as well. Then you plug in pieces.
L
Lareux
Guest
I think it'll be hard enough to just find a team with no playoff experience on the roster at all. Half of the league makes the playoffs each year.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
You are Captain Literal to hotel.com's Captain Obvious. It was for comic effect, that's all.
L
Lareux
Guest
But if those pieces you're plugging in don't have playoff experience, does that set them back? And what if it's the pieces themselves and how they fit that helped them win?
Well, go with the core players or at least best 3 or so.
You said it doesn't matter to have experience, so show me.
L
Lareux
Guest
Wait, I admitted it was for effect, I wasn't being literal at all. And this comment after BAR just actually did go "literal" on me with the 2 decades comment? Good grief again.
We can talk about that later. First find an answer to my question above or otherwise you basically have no point in this thread
#ExperienceDoesntMatter
Show us, PROOF.
L
Lareux
Guest
I will certainly do my best, but again, half of the league makes the playoffs each year. It's pretty hard to play in the league for 5 years and not have made the playoffs.
You our guys are also asserting that experience matters, it's on you to provide the proof. You can't prove a negative, come on now, this is basic logic.
orangemonk
Creep - Dee oh double gee
I feel like the same people who are arguing for experience of getting swept in the first round are the same people who argue that momentum is a thing
L
Lareux
Guest
By the way, the 2004 Pistons had the 3rd least playoff experience of any champion in NBA history.
L
Lareux
Guest
Exactly the next point I was going to bring up.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
Now you're being ridiculous. How can anyone provide scientific proof about how playoff experience "matters".
Prove to me that World War II mattered.
L
Lareux
Guest
The 2008 Celtics had the 2nd least amount of playoff experience.
L
Lareux
Guest
And the #1 team with the least amount of playoff experience to win a title....the 2003 SA Spurs.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
orangemonk
Creep - Dee oh double gee
I get what tips saying, and its difficult to play the experience vs draft pick game, but many studies have been done on similar phenomena like "momentum" and "clutch", only to disprove them as not real. I think playoff experience is in the same boat, although I have no proof of it , that's how I feel.
Here you are twisting again.
First, give me sources there.
Second, I asked for a team, like Detroit this year, with there top 2-3 players with little to no experience(Rjax a bit with OKC) going to the finals.
That is what I asked. You twisted it.
orangemonk
Creep - Dee oh double gee
Im pretty sure this is a chicken or the egg scenario that is getting way too intense
Very curious about this since Robinson was in league since '89 and Duncan since '97 and they ALREADY won a championship together.
L
Lareux
Guest
How would anyone be able to prove it doesn't matter?
Besides pointing to to the examples of the teams with the least experience who have won titles, or point to the super trams thrown together, or point to the teams with the most talent that usually win that is.
Larry likes to argue, it is his mantra, we all know it. It is what it is. I just want to see facts.
I do disagree with you though, this 'Stons team would do well to get into a series with the Cavs and get that experience. Playoff basketball is so different.
orangemonk
Creep - Dee oh double gee
I think the solve here is taking a team with young guys like BAR described that did very well in the reg season that didn't live up to their playoff hype/expectations. I don't want to run that exercise but would be interested if someone else did.
orangemonk
Creep - Dee oh double gee
Hahaha
