Quote:
Originally Posted by fidstar-poker
Alright you take Griffin and I'll take MVP Malone.
Why do you keep talking about regular season MVPs, when I'm the one arguing that the Jazz are a regular season team and you're trying to argue that they are not?
Quote:
I don't remember the Lakers not winning a championship being a one legged Malone's fault. But okay.
They've won without him and Malone didn't win anything anywhere either. Again, the argument seems simplistic but either rings matter or they don't. MJ fans seem to have created this weird narrative where rings and playoff success are reflective of something intrinsic about the players but they don't use this standard when judging other players.
Quote:
Still doesn't change that MVP Malone was better than an older Duncan.
Then why couldn't he win? Or put up even decent stats in the playoffs?
Quote:
I've taken 5 years prior history and 2 years after. A 9 year window. That's a decent sized window of looking how a team is traveling.
And the fact that they are behind in this artificial window you've created speaks volumes. You're ignoring the competition here which I already mentioned aside from their prior success - playoff success within a given conference is a zero-sum game and the Spurs having to play against other super teams like the Thunder with Durant, the Warriors and the Lakers with Kobe/Gasol/Odom/Bynum/etc means they are not able to have as much success. The Jazz, just like the Bulls, thrived in an expansion era with mostly diluted teams and just one super team in the form of Jordan-led Bulls.
Quote:
Say LeBron doesn't cramp and Miami win both Game 1 and 2 on the road. They probably win the series. It make LeBron better, but then ruins the argument that he didn't take on better teams than MJ. Being that both Utah and SA have almost identical 9 year runs.
This doesn't take away their previous championships.
When people talk about regular-season teams, what phenomenon do you think this actually describes? Why would some teams underperform in the playoffs and others overperform? It doesn't seem to me that you have a coherent theory here. Also, as a Supersonics fan, I remember those teams (Jazz/Supersonics and other pretenders) weren't that great - it's not just about not winning championships - they just weren't great. It's not just about the record - the Spurs in 2012-2014 were better than the Spurs 2002-2007 who had their greatest stretch of success in that time period because of the Lakers falling apart. It's easy for even the best to go a few years without success (see the Patriots) but the Jazz won absolutely nothing in a weak era despite having a core that played at the same level for a long period together without any health issues. To give Jordan a lot of credit for beating this great team that never won anything is absurd. It would be like saying the Raptors are a potential dynasty if not for Lebron James - well they've done pretty well against everyone else. Hawks/Bulls/Pacers may have had a similar run as the Jazz if not for Lebron.