NBA Finals: Detroit vs. LA

[Azazello1313]

Down Goes Frazia:

 

Azazello1313:

didn't shaq get schooled in the finals by hakeem twice??

No the year before it was the Knicks. oh that's right, he got to school ewing, too.

 

i gotta tell ya...i think hakeem doesn't get the credit he deserves as one of the all-time greats. better defensively than kareem or wilt, better offensively than russell. dominated ewing and shaq head-to-head (and shaq was no kid...think it was like his third year in the league). guy was an absolute monster on both ends, and he was always classy.

[Down Goes Frazia]

Azazello1313:

oh that's right, he got to school ewing, too.

yep.... and Starks shot something like 3 fer 20 in game 7 ..... 0 fer 11 3-pointers. lol Single handedly shot the Knicks out of it.

[Outshined]

I will jump on the Pistons bandwagon (if there is room) I am sure everybody will be rooting for them. Hope they win. thumbs_u

[Ursa Majoris]

I'll root for the Pistons over the Lakers. Then again, I'd root for a team of Martians over the Lakers even if the fate of the planet depended on it.

 

The Pistons main advantages are lack of injuries and their coach. Larry Brown will be like having a sixth man on the court, and the players will stick to his plan. Amazing how he's got Rasheed eating out of his hand since Wallace arrived in Detroit.

 

All that said, Lakers in 6, unfortunately. Unless they get frustrated on the offensive end, but then they can always pitch it out to Rush to sink a few threes like he did the other day.

 

ton_of_b

[Swiss Cheezhead]

LegFuJohnson:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE someone argue with me about home court advantage!!! Does anyone still (after another year of evidence) believe that home court advantage matters?

Dude, give it a rest. It's a silly argument. I know you think you're sounding a little controversial and everything, but you're really sounding ignorant -- in a kind of condescending way.

 

The simple question your argument needs to answer is: How do you account for ALL the teams throughout the years who've had so-so road records and GREAT home records? Why does almost EVERY team (NHL aside, since I don't pay attention) have a better home record than road record?

 

I know the answers to this questions, but I'd like you to take a stab at them.

 

Or, at least bring some statistical evidence to support your contention.

[LegFuJohnson]

Am I to be intimidated because you can play with the quote function to make it appear as though I wrote something I didn't? You are cool.

 

Anyway, this discussion was about basketball, and we can debate football later if you wish. The NBA season goes for 6 months, plays 82 games, and those in power would have you believe that the games matter, because of home court advantage. Teams know that isn't the case. They try harder at home, they aren't on long road trips, when they are at home, they aren't as tired, so they have better records. In the playoffs, teams are on the same travel schedule, and the games matter, so those things go away.

 

My point is simply that the better team wins. There isn't a lot of stats for that, because being better is based on judgment. It's not a difficult concept to understand. In many cases, the better team happens to be the team with home court advantage, so they win, but that isn't the reason that they win. That's all I'm trying to say. The Bulls won 6 titles, sometimes they had the advantage, sometimes they didn't. The Rockets won twice, one time they didn't have the advantage in any round. The Lakers and Pistons just showed, yet again, that the advantage is overrated, as they were victorious even without it. Anyone think the Pistons would beat the Lakers if they had one extra game at home? Me neither. There are plenty of stats the NBA likes to throw out there to defend home court. I think the home team wins 5 of 6 Game 7's... yet if the "road" team was the better team, then they win the series in 6 (see Pistons, Lakers)

 

That's the point. If no one wants to discuss it, I'd be happy to let it go. I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise, it would give the regular season more meaning for me, but I just haven't seen it.

 

For the other sports, that can wait if you want, just take a quick look at how many recent SuperBowl teams didn't have the advantage, it's quite a bit.

[Azazello1313]

LegFuJohnson:

Am I to be intimidated because you can play with the quote function to make it appear as though I wrote something I didn't?  You are cool.

 

Anyway, this discussion was about basketball, and we can debate football later if you wish.  The NBA season goes for 6 months, plays 82 games, and those in power would have you believe that the games matter, because of home court advantage.  Teams know that isn't the case.  They try harder at home, they aren't on long road trips, when they are at home, they aren't as tired, so they have better records.  In the playoffs, teams are on the same travel schedule, and the games matter, so those things go away.

 

My point is simply that the better team wins.  There isn't a lot of stats for that, because being better is based on judgment.  It's not a difficult concept to understand.  In many cases, the better team happens to be the team with home court advantage, so they win, but that isn't the reason that they win.  That's all I'm trying to say.  The Bulls won 6 titles, sometimes they had the advantage, sometimes they didn't.  The Rockets won twice, one time they didn't have the advantage in any round.  The Lakers and Pistons just showed, yet again, that the advantage is overrated, as they were victorious even without it.  Anyone think the Pistons would beat the Lakers if they had one extra game at home?  Me neither.  There are plenty of stats the NBA likes to throw out there to defend home court.  I think the home team wins 5 of 6 Game 7's... yet if the "road" team was the better team, then they win the series in 6 (see Pistons, Lakers)

 

That's the point.  If no one wants to discuss it, I'd be happy to let it go.  I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise, it would give the regular season more meaning for me, but I just haven't seen it.

 

For the other sports, that can wait if you want, just take a quick look at how many recent SuperBowl teams didn't have the advantage, it's quite a bit.

you seem to be taking the fact that road teams sometimes DO win, trying to turn that into "there's no home court advantage". that's illogical. let's say the home team wins 60% of the time (i'll bet it's at LEAST that high in the NBA playoffs). so the road team is still going to win 40% of the time, but if you think that means there's no home-court advantage you're nuts. if a team is significantly better than the other team (i.e., lakers wolves), you can expect the home-court advantage will be overcome. that doesn't mean it's not still a significant advantage any team would want to have.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think all other things being equal, there is a home advantage. Teams can't help but be inspired by 20,000 people screaming for them, so they play a degree better. That's part of athletics.

 

However, a better team will usually overcome that advantage and a much better team will overcome it much quicker. So far, so obvious. Home court is only for one game, so a split on the first two games switches the other team to home court and if that team is already better, it makes their task easier - T-Wolves vs Sacramento the Wolves were able to grab home court back again and it paid off. Vs. the Lakers (a better team) once the home court was lost, they couldn't get it back.

 

Summary - there is a home court advantage, IMO, and most teams are very interested in making sure they work for that in the regular season.

[LegFuJohnson]

Azazello1313:

 

 

let's say the home team wins 60% of the time (i'll bet it's at LEAST that high in the NBA playoffs). so the road team is still going to win 40% of the time, but if you think that means there's no home-court advantage you're nuts. if a team is significantly better than the other team (i.e., lakers wolves), you can expect the home-court advantage will be overcome. that doesn't mean it's not still a significant advantage any team would want to have.

I think the team wins home games more often then that percentage. My point is, the teams are better, so they win. How "significant" can an advantage be, if it doesn't allow you to overcome being the lesser team?

 

Ursa said, "All things being equal"... I might agree, its just that all things are never equal, especially in basketball. You can be inspired when 20,000 are cheering for you, just as I've heard MJ and Kobe say that they like nothing more than to go into an arena and quiet the crowd.

 

It seems, that on the few cases where the team without the home court is the better team, they win anyway (Bulls over Jazz, Suns, Blazers, for example). If that's the case, then where's the advantage? Anyone remember the Knicks in the lockout shortened season? With the new people, getting adjusted, they got into the playoffs as the 8th seed, but they weren't the 8th best team in the East... so they won, against Miami, Atlanta, Indiana, before they lost to the better team.

 

I am not at all denying that home teams win a lot of playoffs games, it's just that there are plenty of factors determining the outcomes of the games, and the only time location is a factor, is when a team doesn't get motivated (when usually happens on the road)

[Swiss Cheezhead]

Regarding the reference to other sports, I was responding to your posts in other threads on the subject. For example:

 

 

LegFuJohnson:

First of all, home ice/court/field really doesn't matter in any sport, but in hockey they just don't make a big deal about pretending.

It's probably a waste of time to try to respond to the rest of your "arguments", but I will anyway.

 

Basically, your assertion is that "the better team always wins". You seem to "prove" that assertion by reminding us of past series, saying "See Team A beat Team B without home court advantage -- they must be the better team".

 

First of all, there isn't always a "better" team. There have been many games/series in the history of sports where both teams are pretty damm equal. In those cases, you're silly to think home court/field didn't matter.

 

Also, depending on how you define "better", the better team does NOT always win. Sometimes they lose WITH home advantage and sometimes they lose withOUT it. When the better team LOSES, in any scenario, it's almost always because the WORSE team played with a higher level of motivation.

 

 

Hmm...motivation...what gives players and teams motivation? Desire to be the best, desire to send a hated rival back home, and sometimes...thousands of fans cheering for them. I remember being motivated by the crowd in junior high, when there were only a hundred people cheering. How can you deny that a hometown crowd "doesn't matter"?

 

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons why home court/field advantage matters, most of them relating to certain differences between one venue and another. The comfort and familiarity of the floor/field on which you spend most of your season comes into play as well.

 

There are a billion factors that determines who wins and who loses in any sport, at any level, at any point of the season. I just don't understand why you'd go on this little forum crusade to convince people that home court is NOT one of those factors. It's friggin' retarded.

[LegFuJohnson]

You may exit the discussion at any time (if you feel its retarded), no one will miss you.

 

The "better team always wins" was for basketball. In many other sports, the better team doesn't always win, that's what makes them good.

 

And I believe I acknowledged that road teams are often less motivated, that's what there aren't as many sweeps in the NBA as there could be.

 

If you want me to admit that home court is one of a billion factors that determine the outcome, fine, it's one of a billion. But that's all it is, it shouldn't be treated as anything significant. There are at least a dozen (of that billion) factors a lot more important than the location of the game. And yet home court is still used as a reason to justify charging whatever it is they charge to watch a Nets/Hawks game in the middle of February.

[Azazello1313]

LegFuJohnson:

I think the team wins home games more often then that percentage.  My point is, the teams are better, so they win.

but home court advantage holds during the regular season, too, when the good teams and the crummy teams have the same number of home games.

 

bottom line...home court is pretty big in basketball. the statistics may or may not bear this out, but i'd rank the 4 major sports

1) basketball

2) football

3) hockey

4) baseball

in terms of the importance of home court/field/ice/whatever advantage.

[Ted the Bellhop]

My heart says Pistons in 6, but my head says Lakers in the same. Afro versus Baldo is going to be great to watch. Is it just me or does the 'satche make Shaq look like he belongs clad in leather riding a Harley rather than on a basketball court?

 

As for the home court thing, I'm staying out of it other than to say I think it's bigger in football than basketball only because football is played outdoors (mostly). Going down to Florida early in the season or up to New England later is tough. There's also the indoor-versus-outdoor thing (Favre can't play indoors, the Rams slow down outdoors, etc.). Just some thoughts.

[Meat Face]

Lakers in 4.

 

This is not homerism, because I'm not originally from CA nor have I ever rooted for the Lakers. Just calling it how I see it. I don't think Detroit can beat the Lakers at all.

[Outshined]

Meat Face:

Lakers in 4.

 

This is not homerism, because I'm not originally from CA nor have I ever rooted for the Lakers.  Just calling it how I see it.  I don't think Detroit can beat the Lakers at all.

Its not too late to change it to 5 smash

 

Edit: I am sure the Phil Jackson will have an answer for game 2. I glad to see the Pistons pull one out in LA thumbs_u

[Ursa Majoris]

Outshined:

I glad to see the Pistons pull one out in LA thumbs_u 

Me too. thumbs_u

[policyvote]

Let's review:

 

* In the Staples Center

 

* Shaq and Kobe combined for about 60

 

* Rip Hamilton was putrid

 

* 'Sheed was barely a factor

 

* The Pistons won by 12

 

If Hamilton had played like he had against New Jersey, or the Pistons hadn't turned it over so many times, or Wallace hadn't been in foul trouble . . . this would have been a ROUT. Now, I know the Lakers mail it in from time to time, and I fully expect them to turn it around for the next one--but then the series is 1-1 and they go to Detroit for three straight games.

 

What a great lesson about playing as a team.

 

Peace

policy

[Egret]

Detroit looked good, and LA looked frustrated. Three more games like this, and everyone is happy.

[Pope Flick]

Azazello1313:

i gotta tell ya...i think hakeem doesn't get the credit he deserves as one of the all-time greats.  better defensively than kareem or wilt, better offensively than russell.  dominated ewing and shaq head-to-head (and shaq was no kid...think it was like his third year in the league).  guy was an absolute monster on both ends, and he was always classy.

The best thing about him was his humble quality. I lived in Houston his first few years and he got TORCHED by Kareem, but always walked away a better player. He always attributed Kareem's schooling to his benefit - he evn took the sky hook on occasion.

 

His best shot was that sick fadeaway that was unblockable. And I'll never forget the Houston Summit going ape **** when they beat the Knicks, and Hakeem went and sat on the scorers table and just watched.

 

I get none of that from Shaq, and he always seemed peeved by Hakeem's schooling of him but I always felt he was as miniammly good as a 7'3" 300 lb dude who had no competition. He only slides to the occasion.

 

My favorite Shaq stat: when his team got beat in the playoffs they were always swept until Jackson started coaching him. (actually one of his teams went 1-4 before Jackson arrived) That shows how small his heart is.

[Ralph Furley]

I can't tell you how happy I am to see the Lakers lose. It made my day.

[Azazello1313]

hey, a couple detroit homers have stopped in to say hello! (not saying that's predictable or anything wink ) welcome to the party!

 

the pistons looked good last night. definitely good enough to make me waver in my prediction of a laker series win. thumbs_u

[Furd]

<whereinthehellisthatwagon, band?>

 

How 'bout them 'stones. thumbs_u applause head_ban

[I Like Soup]

I guess the Pistons' win demonstrates LegFu's rant and ramble on home court advantage....or lack thereof. loco

 

Hopefully this series will be competitive and not end up like Lakers/Philly when Philly took game 1 and went to sleep the rest of the series.

[LegFuJohnson]

I Like Soup:

I guess the Pistons' win demonstrates LegFu's rant and ramble on home court advantage....or lack thereof.

Much appreciated, but no, it's only one game. If the NBA played one-game series, I might even agree that it would make a noticeable difference. But best of 7? Don't see it.

 

And since you brought up the Lakers/Philly year, both teams had 56 wins. Philly lost their last game of the year, at home, to the Bulls, of all teams. Larry Brown (apparently a pretty good coach), knowing a win would get home court all the way through... sits Iverson and Mutumbo (maybe others), puts out a B team and loses. Do you really think he thought home court was that important?

[LegFuJohnson]

But otherwise, good job by the Pistons last night.