Miami Heat loads up

[nututhugame]

Since when did we have to start justifying what we say on this board, as long as it doesn't violate the rules of the board.

We make statements all the time and have no justification for it, hell there was even a thread about PGA players were don't like for "no reason."

True, true.

 

[anonymous golfaholic]

If you had contained yourself, that would be a totally legitimate response whether I agree or not.

It was hard to contain myself after reading your condescending questions. If you want a "legitimate response" you might want to start with legitimate inquirys. I like you SUX and I enjoy reading your posts, so I didn't answer your question because I knew that the conversation wasn't headed in a good direction and I didn't want to offend you or anyone else.

 

[LeftyHoges]

Purely my opinion here, but I don't know why you guys rag on the NBA so much. Its the highest skilled league in the world, and has some damn good players right now that would easily qualify in the best 15 or so of all time. Yes there may be A LOT of overpaid, whinging, arrogant craptards in amongst them but name a major pro sport that doesn't have them these days.

The good ol' days of guys playing these sort of sports to earn a mildly better than average wage and lifestyle are well and truly gone, and with these chunks of money being splashed around of course players are going to think they are bigger than the game. But that off court crap shouldn't overshadow the beauty of the game.

I'll put it this way, ever heard of the NBL (Australia's pro league)??? No, didn't think so. I'll do you guys a swap for the NBA and see how long you last...

This has been my $0.02 cents....

 

[Youngun5]

Shorten the NBA Season to 40 games and then make the playoffs single elimination and we'd see some rediculous basketball.

Having said that, Lebron can go where he wants, and he did. I don't think he went about it very well at all, but the proceeds went to charity at least I guess.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Shorten the NBA Season to 40 games and then make the playoffs single elimination and we'd see some rediculous basketball.

Having said that, Lebron can go where he wants, and he did. I don't think he went about it very well at all, but the proceeds went to charity at least I guess.

I think Lebron honestly wanted to make a cut-and-dry decision so that whoever would have tried to guilt him, or manipulate him into making the decision THEY wanted couldn't. Look at what the owner of the Cavs did-- would you want to "reason" with a moron like that? TOTALLY unacceptable. I think he single handedly killed the Cavs for 10 years. No player is going to want to play for that moron. He COULD have said,

"I am very disappointed by the way Lebron handled this situation, but it is his life and these are his decisions. We wish him well."

Instead, we got some ridiculous tantrum letter in comic-sans. How do these guys get wealthy???

There's always talk of shortening seasons to this and that. I don't buy it. There ARE exciting games in the NBA, but I feel that the NBA is more about the best teams rising to the top, not a team getting lucky. Having so many games in a season, you're going to see what teams can consistently bring it based on their win records. It's like an experiment with a very large sample size. It's actually a much better measure of a team's prowess than the NFL, where a team only has to get lucky a handful of times to make the playoffs.

The playoffs themselves are perfect, in my opinion-- and here's why . Teams almost never win by getting lucky. In a best of SEVEN series, an inferior team is going to have to play their asses off and win FOUR games. One buzzer beater isn't worth a thing. If you win a seven game series, you're not lucky. You're either VERY smart and just picked apart a team with technique, or you are just plain better. The Suns/Lakers series was GREAT this year. I expected the Lakers to do 4-0, but the Suns actually had a chance to win the series because they started to legitimately OUTPLAY the lakers.

Now, if a series goes 3-0, that 4th game is not usually anything special. but the magic won 2 after being down 3-0 this year, and were ALMOST the first team to EVER, EVER come back from a 3-0 defecit.

The Superbowl is that much more EXCITING because it's a one-shot-deal, but I don't like that luck can play such a factor. A receiver dropping one pass can lose the Superbowl. A player missing a pair of free throws never costs a team a championship on his own.

I like it the way it is, because I'm all about doing whatever it takes to facilitate the best team winning. I do understand the "lack of excitement," but I think that it's a necessary cost. Not many PGA tournaments are single-round tournaments either. Sorry, Paul Goydos.

 

[xamilo]

The playoffs themselves are perfect, in my opinion-- and here's why . Teams almost never win by getting lucky. In a best of SEVEN series, an inferior team is going to have to play their asses off and win FOUR games. One buzzer beater isn't worth a thing. If you win a seven game series, you're not lucky. You're either VERY smart and just picked apart a team with technique, or you are just plain better. The Suns/Lakers series was GREAT this year. I expected the Lakers to do 4-0, but the Suns actually had a chance to win the series because they started to legitimately OUTPLAY the lakers.

I agree with you about the "lucky fator", but at the same time that is a hope which is taken out of the equation which makes things much more interesting. Just like soccer or the NFL. If the "perfect" NE PAtriots would have played seven games egainst the Giants, they would have wn with a 99% confidence factor. Since the SB is just ONE GAME, there is room for surprise and we were able to see one of the most awesome Superbowls ever with the "underdog" winning it all. That's how sport should be. Luck should lay a big part in it

Anyway, if you ant to keep the "best team always winning", why not shorten it up to best of 3 for example? Why seven games. The most annoying thing bout the World SEries for example is to have to watch the whole 7 games to have a champ, and half of those have an unknown pitcher rooster becaue they ae the big guys for the big games. Is just WAY TOO MUCH

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Getting lucky twice is uncommon, getting lucky four times is incredibly, almost impossibly rare. Stamina and pace of the game become serious issues when you're playing 7 games in a week and a half. Three games would be better than one, but inferior to seven.

This comes down to a value-judgement, and there's no right answer. If you want luck to be a major part of the game, then you'll side with something like the Superbowl, which I agree is great fun to watch. Everyone remember when Favre threw that horrible interception in the last play of the NFC (right?) Championship? In 4/6 other games he probably wouldn't have done that. Then again, Favre... maybe Favre would have, but a normal human QB would not!

If you want the better team to win, you'll prefer a setup like the NBA or MLB, where consistent skill is rewarded more than a sudden burst of energy or luck.

I feel that all entities should get what they deserve, and that extends to the best, most talented teams winning in sports. That's why I HATE the World Cup for not allowing replay; the team that deserves to win doesn't sometimes because of poor officiating. Justice is not served.

What I want from sports is not as exciting as something like March Madness, and it's not wrong to prefer a system that allows more for luck or underdogs. It's just different.

 

[xamilo]

Three games would be better than one, but inferior to seven.

Then why not play 9? Or 11? Or maybe best of 23? You'll eliminate luck completey on a 23 game dispute...

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Then why not play 9? Or 11? Or maybe best of 23? You'll eliminate luck completey on a 23 game dispute...

Let's do it. As many as the players are willing to play. I imagine they ran some data or maybe a unique formula to compute the odds of a genuinely inferior team winning a 3-series, a 5-series, a 7-series, etc., and found that 7 was not excessive but indeed enough to ensure that the better team wins by a substantial majority. If they encountered a situation where it was clear that a team won by luck, they might change things.

I believe jumping to 23 would be quite excessive given the success of the current system. 9 wouldn't be a massive jump, but I imagine it increases the odds of the better team winning by only a tiny fractional amount, as 7 is already a powerful advantage.

Anything else?

 

[spartyon8]

Wouldn't a 23 game series put luck back into it? Law of averages? Playing on a better team that can be worn down?

Football works because they play 1 game a week...therefore a 1 game decision. Baseball, NBA, NHL all play loads of games during the season. 7 ain't gonna hurt.

As far as this "Miami Thrice" thing is concerned, when did we have the power to tell others what job to take. If your boss was willing to give you a larger office with a great staff to be around would you turn it down? Or would you go back to your same old situation where everyone praises you until you screw up one time and then they jump on you like flies on shit?

 

[xamilo]

Wouldn't a 23 game series put luck back into it? Law of averages? Playing on a better team that can be worn down?

Football works because they play 1 game a week...therefore a 1 game decision. Baseball, NBA, NHL all play loads of games during the season. 7 ain't gonna hurt.

As far as this "Miami Thrice" thing is concerned, when did we have the power to tell others what job to take. If your boss was willing to give you a larger office with a great staff to be around would you turn it down? Or would you go back to your same old situation where everyone praises you until you screw up one time and then they jump on you like flies on shit?

I support Lebron in his decision. If he wants to be great he has to have a Championship Ring, and it seems the Cavs where never going to help him get one. In the other hand, The Heat's proposal included a team which could easily win a couple of those instantly. Not a lot to think about there...

 

[Youngun5]

I don't know how many people are really doubting his decision from an actual 'potential success' point of view....I'd rather play on a Ryder Cup team with Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson than the guys that were on my HS golf team..... I just don't think he handled it well at all. He easily could have made a simple declaration that stated... "Hey...I love Cleveland...and the generous offer, but at this point in my career, Miami offers me a better chance at a long-term legacy in the NBA..." Done, over with.

I thought Lebron was pretty damn special...not like I watched him religiously and had a poster or anything....but this quote told me all I need to know about him from this point on.

"I wanted to do what was best for LeBron James and what LeBron is going to do to make him happy" -Lebron.