Renz
An Army of One
That sound you hear is a violin playing.
Lakers = Yankees
- Thread starter KloD
- Start date
That sound you hear is a violin playing.
schutd
ASFN Addict
Man I hate the Lakers.
fordronken
Registered User
Come on. You keep mentioning this, and it is a valid point, but now it's coming across as if you think the Lakers wouldn't have been able to win any of their previous championships without the help of the officials and that not having it last season was the only reason they lost.
KloD
ASFN Icon
I see it like this:
There is no problem with any player choosing any team no matter the pay. The problem I have with this situation is that in July, 4 months before the season is to even begin Laker fans and the media have already given them the trophy. In sports there are no sure things, so much can change a season. The confidence that so many are displaying is nothing short of pathetic. I just don't see the Lakers as much improved over last season. Both of these guys are 35+ and injuries creep up on you. Teams that have been winners seem to have a pattern to them. A leader or two and a supporting cast that compliment their game. Given the amount of ego these guys display, do you really think Malone and Payton are going to sit there and be yes men to Kobe and Shaq?The term, too many cooks in the kitchen comes to mind. I hope they sign Pippen and hey...how about bringing back Chuck and Patrick? Put it this way, if they do win..so what, it's expected and anything short will be considered major failure. I look forward to that!
There is no problem with any player choosing any team no matter the pay. The problem I have with this situation is that in July, 4 months before the season is to even begin Laker fans and the media have already given them the trophy. In sports there are no sure things, so much can change a season. The confidence that so many are displaying is nothing short of pathetic. I just don't see the Lakers as much improved over last season. Both of these guys are 35+ and injuries creep up on you. Teams that have been winners seem to have a pattern to them. A leader or two and a supporting cast that compliment their game. Given the amount of ego these guys display, do you really think Malone and Payton are going to sit there and be yes men to Kobe and Shaq?The term, too many cooks in the kitchen comes to mind. I hope they sign Pippen and hey...how about bringing back Chuck and Patrick? Put it this way, if they do win..so what, it's expected and anything short will be considered major failure. I look forward to that!
Hmmm....
Phil's teams never won more than 3 in a row in Chi-town either...
elindholm
edited for content
but now it's coming across as if you think the Lakers wouldn't have been able to win any of their previous championships without the help of the officials and that not having it last season was the only reason they lost.
Well...
In 2000, terrible, unjustifiable calls against Sabonis in the fourth quarter allowed O'Neal to run everyone over in the Game 7 comeback.
2001 was legitimate.
In 2002, several terrible, unjustifiable calls down the stretch of Game 6 against the Kings put the Lakers in a position to be bailed out by Horry's miracle.
And in 2003, every pundit was predicting another Lakers victory by the time the playoffs started. But the officials permitted O'Neal to be contained by the likes of Malik Rose and Kevin Willis, so the Spurs prevailed.
So, yes, the officiating has played a big part in two of the Lakers' three titles; and the lack of an officiating bias is what permitted someone else to win in 2003.
Well...
In 2000, terrible, unjustifiable calls against Sabonis in the fourth quarter allowed O'Neal to run everyone over in the Game 7 comeback.
2001 was legitimate.
In 2002, several terrible, unjustifiable calls down the stretch of Game 6 against the Kings put the Lakers in a position to be bailed out by Horry's miracle.
And in 2003, every pundit was predicting another Lakers victory by the time the playoffs started. But the officials permitted O'Neal to be contained by the likes of Malik Rose and Kevin Willis, so the Spurs prevailed.
So, yes, the officiating has played a big part in two of the Lakers' three titles; and the lack of an officiating bias is what permitted someone else to win in 2003.
Wow, I'm a Lakers fan and I've been reading the sports pages and listening to sports radio. I am not saying the trophy is already the Lakers, and I don't remember any headlines declaring them the champs yet... Seems to me that the only people giving them the title already are the non-Lakers fans upset at the improvement of the team in general. :roll:
(And to Chap - those idiots calling into LA sports shows are just bandwagon fans, of course their gonna declare the trophy as already won. That's why the diehard fans can't stand the bandwagon effect.)
fordronken
Registered User
You will concede, though, that there is at least something to their winning the titles that comes from the team itself, right? It's not like Anthony Peeler and Elden Campbell were ever getting easy calls and steamrolling to championships.
KloD
ASFN Icon
OOOooh! I thought the term "bandwagon fan" was a special
name created for all Laker fans.
elindholm
edited for content
You will concede, though, that there is at least something to their winning the titles that comes from the team itself, right? It's not like Anthony Peeler and Elden Campbell were ever getting easy calls and steamrolling to championships.
Of course. The Lakers were a credible championship-caliber team, of which there are several each year. In their additional favor, they have two highly marketable superstars, which are good for TV ratings; and of course they are in a huge media market.
Ask yourself this: How come basketball is the only major sport that never has a "Cinderella" champion? Because it is the sport where the outcomes are closest to being predetermined by officiating bias. Note that I said "closest to"; the games do still have to be played.
But in any case where the talent is about equal, the subjective assessment of the officials will determine the outcome most of the time, and that assessment will almost always favor the team whose victory will most help the league's image. In baseball, football, or hockey, the referees can't have as much influence, and that's the main reason that they don't.
Of course. The Lakers were a credible championship-caliber team, of which there are several each year. In their additional favor, they have two highly marketable superstars, which are good for TV ratings; and of course they are in a huge media market.
Ask yourself this: How come basketball is the only major sport that never has a "Cinderella" champion? Because it is the sport where the outcomes are closest to being predetermined by officiating bias. Note that I said "closest to"; the games do still have to be played.
But in any case where the talent is about equal, the subjective assessment of the officials will determine the outcome most of the time, and that assessment will almost always favor the team whose victory will most help the league's image. In baseball, football, or hockey, the referees can't have as much influence, and that's the main reason that they don't.
No, but like I said they were favored to win it all
Agreed. But that was then, this is now. Phil brought them together, helped them mature and showed them how to win. And then they won it everytime since except last year. (Of course it may have just been their time to get it together and Phil didn't matter but I'm leaning towards Phil being the final piece)
That's the way it has always been. My point is that Kobe and Shaq are about as solid a core as you can hope for. Surround them with role players and they're good to go.
Pippen and Jordan DID win it every year after they matured and got over the inital hump (except for the partial year when Jordan came back from baseball) .
I hope you still don't feel it was a blanket statement
That's exactly what I was saying. No matter who you surround them with they will be favored to win it all. And as long as the players around them are at least average players there is a good chance they will take the prize.
Last edited:
Chaplin
Better off silent
Chaplin
Better off silent
Besides, was Kobe Bryant the same player before Phil came and the titles were won? No. And it's not because Phil came along, it was because Kobe matured into the player he is now. He couldn't do it before then, he was just too young at the time.
Remember how Shaq made the Blazers miss 13 consecutive 4th quarter shots too? :roll:
(And Shaq drew 2 fouls on Sabonis in the 3rd period, not the 4th. Maybe those are the calls you were referring to?)
BTW: Shaq and Kobe each had 9 of the Lakers 31 4th quarter points. The comeback was more about huge 3-pointers (Shaw and Horry) and clutch free-throws (Harper and Kobe) than Shaq taking over the game as you insinuated. It happened on my b-day, and I have it on tape. Sabonis fouled out with 2:44 left...
thegrahamcrackr
Registered User
I think it was that, and the increased competition they faced year round and into the playoffs. Over the past 3 years every other team in teh west started paying a lot of people and bringing in more players so they could beat the lakers.
Sacramento got Bibby and Clark, Minny overpaid Wally and got Hudson (and reobtained joe smith), Portland brought back Sabonis. SA got Manu, Parker, Jackson to step up.
The beating that the main two stars on LA took grew every year. Had LA not gotton Malone and GP there is no way with their depth that they could have won. Especially when you consider that Malone would have most likely joined the Mavs or Spurs instead.
They lost last year because they were content with staying pat after winning titles, and never improving and getting older. Every other team was doing everything it could to trump the Lakers and it was bound to happen soon. Like I said earlier, as long as the Lakers had Kobe and shaq they would have been contenders, but nothing more.
You cannot say championship team and favored to win it all in the same breath. They are two different things entirely. One means they're going to win it and the other means they have the best chance to... I agree with the "favored to win" part but I never crown anyone the champ until the season is over.
Chaplin
Better off silent
Um, but that WAS a championship team. For 3 years.
elindholm
edited for content
Remember how Shaq made the Blazers miss 13 consecutive 4th quarter shots too?
It wouldn't have mattered if the Blazers had been permitted to defend. That's the advantage of earning a big lead -- you can afford to go cold for a while.
(And Shaq drew 2 fouls on Sabonis in the 3rd period, not the 4th. Maybe those are the calls you were referring to?)
Sabonis fouled out with 2:44 left...
Check your tape and tell me when Sabonis picked up his 5th. It was a terrible call, and I as I recall, it happened in the first two minutes of the fourth quarter. The Blazers were forced to pull him, and it was all downhill from there.
It wouldn't have mattered if the Blazers had been permitted to defend. That's the advantage of earning a big lead -- you can afford to go cold for a while.
(And Shaq drew 2 fouls on Sabonis in the 3rd period, not the 4th. Maybe those are the calls you were referring to?)
Sabonis fouled out with 2:44 left...
Check your tape and tell me when Sabonis picked up his 5th. It was a terrible call, and I as I recall, it happened in the first two minutes of the fourth quarter. The Blazers were forced to pull him, and it was all downhill from there.
fordronken
Registered User
I generally have agreed with your points on the subject, I was just afraid it was getting a little one-sided.
Similar threads
Staff online
-
ShaneComin for you! -
Brian in MesaAdvocatus Diaboli -
Chris_SandersNot Always The Best Moderator