Mark Cuban destroyed one of the greatest NBA teams in history

[sirkeelma]

This is why we need negs.

Like this one? http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=196832

[MavsPoke]

This board is easy to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3LdkorCCjM

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, I'd say you just listed enough teams that had better runs than the Mavericks did over a decade span. So if you agree that the Mavs' run is at best 8th or 9th, I'm not sure how you can call that "one of the greatest." I actually think their 11 years ranks much lower than that because, like I already stated, performance in the playoffs and finals trumps regular season performance.

You also didn't answer my question either.



I mean, if you value regular season as much or more than the postseason...

So the tenth best basketball player ever isn't "one of the greatest"....LOL

Of course the Mavs had a better year last year. Winning 5 more games in the regular season does not trump a title.

But 11 years in a row in the playoffs over 50 might trump winning 1 more title in that same time frame. Again, if it was so easy...more teams would have done it. In fact...far more teams have won titles than won 50 for 11 straight seasons.

The fact that you think calling Jerry West one of the greatest basketball players ever is an absurd statement just shows how silly you are being.

[DMAVS41]

To me two titles overrides winning one title and making the playoffs every year. It's so difficult and rare to win a championship and I can't overlook that.

But its even more rare to have 11 straight 50 win seasons. Technically its harder to do that than win a title.

Doesn't matter really....its one of the best 11 year stretches a franchise has ever had. Just like I said.

[AngelEyes]

But its even more rare to have 11 straight 50 win seasons. Technically its harder to do that than win a title.

Doesn't matter really....its one of the best 11 year stretches a franchise has ever had. Just like I said.

Titles are infinitely more valuable than 50 win seasons.

[DMAVS41]

Titles are infinitely more valuable than 50 win seasons.

I'm not sure I agree when judging how a franchise performs over an 11 year period. Especially when the topic is relevance.

Meh....come up with as many examples as you want:

Still one of the best runs. Title. 2 finals. 3 WCF. 11 straight 50 win seasons....and hopefully its not done yet.

[JohnnyWall]

So the tenth best basketball player ever isn't "one of the greatest"....LOL

Of course the Mavs had a better year last year. Winning 5 more games in the regular season does not trump a title.

But 11 years in a row in the playoffs over 50 might trump winning 1 more title in that same time frame. Again, if it was so easy...more teams would have done it. In fact...far more teams have won titles than won 50 for 11 straight seasons.

The fact that you think calling Jerry West one of the greatest basketball players ever is an absurd statement just shows how silly you are being.

Yeah, I never said that. Let's not put words in each others mouths. I said if you were to rank the Mavs' decade-long performance at 8th or 9th, which I believe is far too high for only winning 1 lonely title, it's misleading and inaccurate to call it one of the greatest performances in an NBA history. A player's ranking is quite different than a team's ranking because there have been a far greater number of players in the league than there have been teams. It's all relative.

Ranking a player in the top ten is very different than ranking a team in the top ten. If I were to rank the Sacramento Kings as the 18th best team in the current NBA, for instance, that would be a lot less impressive than ranking a player as the 18th best player in the league because there are only 30 teams in the league. Yet there are 450 total players in the league.

A player ranked 18th = top 4% of the league.
A team ranked 18th = only top 60%.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, I never said that. Let's not put words in each others mouths. I said if you were to rank the Mavs' decade-long performance at 8th or 9th, which I believe is far too high for only winning 1 lonely title, it's misleading and inaccurate to call it one of the greatest performances in an NBA history. A player's ranking is quite different than a team's ranking because there have been a far greater number of players in the league than there have been teams. It's all relative.

Ranking a player in the top ten is very different than ranking a team in the top ten. If I were to rank the Sacramento Kings as the 18th best team in the current NBA, for instance, that would be a lot less impressive than ranking a player as the 18th best player in the league because there are only 30 teams in the league. Yet there are 450 total players in the league.

A player ranked 18th = top 4% of the league.
A team ranked 18th = only top 60%.

Your exact words were:

Calling a team that maybe had the tenth best run ever is not good enough to call it one of the best ever. Which is just a semantics argument.

We have different criteria. Its clear you didn't really understand the historical nature of the Mavs run right now. Like I said....its far more rare than winning a title....

Its just funny as well. If you look at the Mavs roster and the era in which they played, it just becomes infinitely more impressive. LOL...we have to go back to the 50's and 60's for some runs that are better. In the modern era its even closer to the top.

[DFish]

Dmavs, you're so full of shit. If Dallas had three-peated and the Lakers could only boast 11 50-win regular seasons and 1 title, you would be singing a very different tune. You've been one of the most biased and hypocritical posters on the NBA forum as of late. It's painfully evident whenever you enter a Kobe debate and now whenever you enter a Dallas thread.

[JohnnyWall]

Your exact words were:

Calling a team that maybe had the tenth best run ever is not good enough to call it one of the best ever. Which is just a semantics argument.

We have different criteria. Its clear you didn't really understand the historical nature of the Mavs run right now. Like I said....its far more rare than winning a title....

Its just funny as well. If you look at the Mavs roster and the era in which they played, it just becomes infinitely more impressive. LOL...we have to go back to the 50's and 60's for some runs that are better. In the modern era its even closer to the top.

When you tell someone what their exact words were, you're supposed to give a quote. And way to completely fail to address anything in my post. Do you think a player's top 10 ranking is the same as a team's top 10 ranking?

Also, it might be rare to have that many consecutive regular season wins. I agree there. I just don't think that makes it more impressive than consecutive NBA championships or playoff runs.

[BGriffin's Dad]

If Dallas had three-peated and the Lakers could only boast 11 50-win regular seasons and 1 title, you would be singing a very different tune.

^ exactly.. hes obviously biased because its the mavs

i dont care what team we're talking about.. winning chips is what matters, not finishing the season with a good record and then not getting to the finals