 |
|
|
|
 |
shaw
RIP

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Intergalactic Mimosa Station
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Yeah and you were like 5 years old when that happened? Oh and we are still not done. Timmy has a few left in him and the Bulls have long since turned to shit.
The dynasty talk stays and don't tell me you're not jealous because you most definitely are. Like I said. I understand. |
I went to a lot of those games, & remember them all vividly (including Jordan's first home game back after retiring (v.1)...and no, I wasn't 5, grandpa.
I don't know if you noticed, but the Bulls haven't had a losing season since '03, and have the best young lineup in the NBA.
Even if the Spurs win the next 2, back-to-back...that'll be, what, 6 in 12 years, with only one 3-peat. Again, 6 in 8 years, two 3-peats. Also to note, the Spurs have had Duncan for that entire time, unlike the Bulls who didn't have Jordan for 2 seasons...coincidentally, the only two in which they didn't win the championship.
4 championships in 9 years is a very good decade, since it's well above the normal odds, based on the number of teams. However, let's look at a few numbers:
Bulls:
5/8 seasons with 60+ wins
Spurs:
2/9 seasons with 60+ wins (including the prorated total from 99)
Bulls:
.798 winning percentage
Spurs:
.712 winning percentage
Bulls:
72 wins (69, 67 in other seasons)
Spurs:
63 wins (60, 59 in next best)
Bulls:
.775 playoff winning %
Spurs:
.657 playoff winning %
Bulls:
two separate 3-peats
Spurs:
never won 2 in a row
We can keep going, but this is like Tyson/Savarese.
|
|
Sep-17-2007 17:37
|
|
|
 |
 |
shaw
RIP

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Intergalactic Mimosa Station
|
|
|
no, the media market has nothing to do with it. I know you don't frequent the sports forum, but it's full of my rants about the BS from ESPN and others about just covering the teams they care about.
I'm not jealous of anybody, because the Bulls are winning now & it's exciting to watch. I was merely referring to:
1. The Spurs are NOT a dynasty. 'Dynasty' implies domination & a clear, indisputable difference between something or someone and all others. When you never even win twice in a row, you can not be considered a 'dynasty.' No exceptions.
2. They're boring to watch. I'm all for fundamentals, but the fact is that it's just not exciting at all when there's no flare, no ups or downs, & no emotion. It's like watching a really tall WNBA team, with a designated flopper & another dirty player thrown in for good measure.
...and again, you're not paying attention if you think I'm mad that my team is losing. Look at the standings, & watch a couple games. Ironically, there is potential for a dynasty on that roster, as it's comprised of a bunch of very young, very good players who have nothing but upside, and are already winning consistently.
|
|
Sep-17-2007 18:08
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:30.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|