Conference 7.286::sports_91

 Typical Dean Smith performance in yesterday's Game 1 ...
 
 First he swishes the go-ahead trey and then he gags on the potential
 game-winner from 18 feet.
 
 So many expectations, so few results ...   It's a sad story.
 
 Bob Hunt

    Don't know if this has been discussed in the NBA topic since I did a
    lot of NEXT UNSEENing today (vacations make you do that).
    
    Pat Riley lost the halftime shootout to Bob Costas and as a result,
    must wear his hair in Costas style Wednesday night.
    
    	--dan'l

    Yeah, thats Jordan all over, Mr. Choke...
    
    It *ain't* even over with, Shycago playing slightly flat after the big
    rest and where the heck did Sam get off trying to hit a trey, and then
    get one?!?!?  Isn't he shooting like 22% from three point land?
    
    Anyway, if I would have had a cat, I would have kicked it...
    
    Go_Bulls,
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

    
    > Pat Riley lost the halftime shootout to Bob Costas and as a result,
    > must wear his hair in Costas style Wednesday night.
    
    Glad to hear NBC got their half-a-million-dollars worth!
    
    glenn
    

�    Yeah, thats Jordan all over, Mr. Choke...
 
 No, no, Chip, you missed the point.  Dean Smith took that 18 footer
 yesterday that clanged in and out and gave the Lakers the win.
 
 Dean Smith is responsible for everything that ever happens to a
 person who attends and plays basketball at the University of North
 Carolina.   It's rock solid, take-it-to-the-bank fact ... or so the
 Dean-sketeers would like us to believe it so.
 
 Glad I could help clear this up for you ...
 
 Bob Hunt

    Does that mean Dean Smith took the three-pointer for the Lakers right
    before he missed that shot.
    
                                                 Dan

I  don't give a wheelbarrow full of hooey who wins, I'll just be glad
when basketball is finally over!!!!

8^)
'Saw

 �   Does that mean Dean Smith took the three-pointer for the Lakers right
 �   before he missed that shot.
 
 Yes, it does.  Go back and re-read 160.1 and you'll see that we do
 indeed give the Snuffmeister credit for the Lakers' game-winning
 trey.   
 
 However, it must be pointed out that it was purely a "talent trey".
 
 His missed 18 footer that blew the game was due to poor coaching.
 
 Bob Hunt

 >�   Does that mean Dean Smith took the three-pointer for the Lakers right
 >�   before he missed that shot.
 
 > Yes, it does.  Go back and re-read 160.1 and you'll see that we do
 > indeed give the Snuffmeister credit for the Lakers' game-winning
 > trey.   
    
    Get real, Bob.  Dean would never have permitted such a low-percentage
    shot in the clutch.  As ACChris himself said, it's a bad shot even
    though it went in...
    
    glenn
    

    
    
    Game 1 :  NBA finals  Lakers 93 - Chicago 91.
    
    Great game Lakers up most of the time, good run by Chicago to get back
    into the game.  Clutch 3 pointer by Sam Perkins with 14 seconds left
    to put Lakers up by 1.  Jordan had the shot to win the game but the
    shot rimmed out.
    
    Go Lakers!!!!!! from Pistons fan.
    
    \pjb

      Great game yesterday.   I don't think the Bulls will come out flat in
    game 2 as they did in game 1.
    
      I thought Jordan carried the Bulls as he did in years past.  I guess
    the week off and lack of "finals" experience got to the rest of the
    Bulls.
    
      I feel they just need to play like they did all year, and thus more
    pressure put on the Lakers, who by no means, will be any push over.
    
      The MAN deserves a ring......
    
    	Tim

    
    So Pat Riley lost the shootout to Costas.  Now I know why game 2 is
    being played on Wednesday night instead of Tuesday.  Pat needs the
    extra day to get rid of the oil from his hair.
    
    \pjb

    And people thought the Exxon Valdez cleanup was a Herculian effort!
    
    Mark.

    >>I thought Jordan carried the Bulls as he did in years past.  I guess
    >>the week off and lack of "finals" experience got to the rest of the
    >>Bulls.
   
    Looks like lack of finals experience got to Jordan as well. I mean really, 
    he choked when the "finals" clutch time came. 

    
    What is all this talk of the Bulls coming out flat..  didn't they shoot 
    61% in the first half (might have been the 1st quarter).   I can't
    imagine them doing much better..   
    
    Lakers are just too hot right now..   How can you beat a team that
    doesn't even look for a shot till the 24 second clock is down to 7-8 
    seconds and still makes 50% of them..  Makes it awful hard to keep the 
    defensive intesity up.  
    
    /Jeff   

RE: -.2

Jordan didn't 'choke' -- he just had a shot go in with too much English
on it, so it spun out again; he was dead-on with the accuracy...

Also, his 'one-man teaming' was due to the rest of the club coming out
slow, and him trying too hard to pick up the slack, thus leaving the rest
of 'em standing and watching -- THAT won't happen tonite!

RE: -.1

In all fairness the opening-quarter 61% shooting was almost ALL Jordan,
since nobody else stepped in until much later...

Just clearing the _Air_  8^>

- Steve

re -1:

Just to satisfy my curiosity-

What is your definition of a "choke"?

I define it as something that you could do 9 times out of 10, but when the 
pressure is on, you can't do it.  That's what happened to Jordan, IMO.  He could
nail that jumper 9/10 (maybe 7/10, but you get the meaning). But, game on the
line, his stroke on the jumper is'nt what it should be (however slightly), shot
misses, team loses game.  Nearly every great athlete has it happen to them
at some point in their careers.  It is not meant to detract from Jordan's 
accomplishments.  Rather, he will learn from the experience and probably swish
the next big shot he has to hit.

Sameer

>>I define it as something that you could do 9 times out of 10, but when the 
>>pressure is on, you can't do it.  That's what happened to Jordan, IMO.  He
>>could nail that jumper 9/10 (maybe 7/10, but you get the meaning). But, game on
>>the line, his stroke on the jumper is'nt what it should be (however slightly),
>>shot misses, team loses game.  Nearly every great athlete has it happen to them
>>at some point in their careers.  It is not meant to detract from Jordan's 
>>accomplishments.  Rather, he will learn from the experience and probably swish
>>the next big shot he has to hit.

Pity you haven't had a chance to see Jordan play, Sameer.  He's a pretty good
ball player.  You really ought to try and catch a Bulls game some time.  With
the game on the line, Michael Jordan is almost automatic.  Celtics fans will
remember a stellar game where Jordan hit an out of control three pointer with
no time remaining on the clock which would have given Chicago a win. 
Unfortunately, it was a split second late (although I suppose you'll consider
that a choke too).  Bulls fans will remember many games where Jordan has pulled
the game out with a last second shot. 

It's a poor practice to watch one game and make vast, incorrect generalizations
based on what you see.  That people would want to take anything away from
Jordan amazes me.

j.

re .20:

>Pity you haven't had a chance to see Jordan play, Sameer.  He's a pretty good
>ball player.  You really ought to try and catch a Bulls game some time.  With
>the game on the line, Michael Jordan is almost automatic.  Celtics fans will
>remember a stellar game where Jordan hit an out of control three pointer with
>no time remaining on the clock which would have given Chicago a win. 
>Unfortunately, it was a split second late (although I suppose you'll consider
>that a choke too).  Bulls fans will remember many games where Jordan has pulled
>the game out with a last second shot. 

>It's a poor practice to watch one game and make vast, incorrect generalizations
>based on what you see.  That people would want to take anything away from
>Jordan amazes me.

Jeff- you obviously are not reading what I am writing.  I specifically said 
that missing the shot does not detract from what Jordan has done in the past,
present and (I'm quite sure will do in the) future.  I don't know if you play
competitive sport or not, but I have been playing competitive tennis for the
past 15 years (junior high, high, varsity, grad school and now), and I know
what it means to choke.  I have done it on numerous occasions, and on numerous
occasions I have also made the big shot.  Does that make me a "choker"?  
Definitely not!  By not being a choker, does that mean that I have never 
choked?  Again, definitely not.

That's what I am trying to say.  Now, I am not trying to compare myself to 
Jordan in any way, but I do understand the emotions that result in high
pressure situations and also the actions that are the outcome of those
emotions.  After you play in these high pressure situations for a while, you 
learn how to deal with them somewhat.  That does'nt mean that you will never
choke, but it does mean that you give yourself a better chance of coming out
on top.  Jordan has not played in an NBA final before, forget all those other
games, they are'nt the same.  He will learn how to better deal with the 
situation.  Case in point- the pass that he dished off at the end.  I bet he
won't make that mistake again.  Given the same situation the next time around,
he'll probably take the shot instead of passing.

Sameer

 McFly ???  Hello, McFly, anybody in there ???  {knock, knock}
 
 It's really kinda funny to see you guys get wrapped so tight on this
 "Jordan Choke" thing.
 
 Michael Jordan did *NOT* choke on that last shot he took in Game 1
 against the Lakers.   I've seen Jordan play enough to know that the
 man is currently the greatest basketball player on the entire planet
 today.    Not only does he have immense talent but he's got liquid
 nitrogen in his veins at crunch time.
 
 There can be only reason why Jordan's shot clanged.   After all,
 there's only one possible reason why Jordan is as good as he is
 today, right ???
 
                             DEAN SMITH
 
 Dean choked, that was it.   Dean won it with a clutch trey and then
 he gagged it with a missed 18 footer.  Simple.
 
 Bob Hunt

    Bob,
    
    Jordan is the second greatest.  The greatest is wearing #32 for the
    Lakers.  Yeah, he doesn't have the hang time - but I tell you this - if
    I have a choice for one guy on my team with time running down - I'll
    take Magic everytime.  He'll find a way to win.  He'll made the great
    pass, he'll somehow get the rebound, he'll drain the 3-pointer, he'll
    hit the baby sky-hook, he'll drive the lane.  I feel that Magic is the
    man in the NBA right now, and for the last few years.  In his prime,
    Larry Bird was the man.  You *knew* he was going to hit the big shot -
    it was automatic.  It's automatic with Magic now.  His consecutive
    3-pointers at the end of the 3rd period were the ball game.  
    
    JD

I don't want to start the rathole BUT!!!!

I've seen a few replies stating that Bird at his PRIME was the best.
I feel this is a bit of a cop out and an attempt to solidify Bird's
greatness (not that he needs it).  Bird was the best player in the NBA
his first few years. However, he never really improved his game that
much as the years went by.  Obviously, some aspects got better (rebounding),
but there wasn't a major difference.  Magic came in as a great player (but
NOT Bird's equal) and has continuely improved his game.  Magic's biggest
weakness when he came in was his outside shot.  Now he hits 90% from the
foul line and is a major 3 point threat.  Magic has also become a good
post up player and added the baby hook.  Bird's PRIME was early in his
career (<1986).  Magic just kept on getting better and past Bird many
years ago.  IMO Magic best was sustained longer and was better than Bird.

To add to the fray...

Didn't Mr. Jordan stroke a 18 ft. jumper to win the NCAA champeenship with
relatively little (like 20some seconds) left back in 198<mumble>?

Granted it's not the pros, but is an awfully pressure packed situation.

Bruce

Sorry to spoil the fun!

Actually, I wan't really thinking of JD with my reply.  I've seen a few
notes with the "BIRD's best was better" type statements and JD note reminded
me of it.




                                                            Alan

    
> Didn't Mr. Jordan stroke a 18 ft. jumper to win the NCAA champeenship with
> relatively little (like 20some seconds) left back in 198<mumble>?
    
    That was *before* he had spent significant time in the "Dean System"
    and knew what he was doing.  As with Perkins' three-pointer Sunday, we
    should forgive Jordan for making this horrible mistake.
    
    glenn
    

    Alan -
    
    Actually, I agree with you.  Magic has improved his game with time.
    I think Bird did improve his game, but it has slipped over the last 3
    years.  How much the injuries have led to that, we can only guess.  His
    body seems to be wearing out.
    
    Right now, I'd take Magic first if I needed to pull a team together for
    the big game.  Of that there is no doubt.  Bird would be down on the
    list these days (not TOO far down mind you).
    
    Re  hawk:
    
    Remember, I usually railed against the Bird Jihad, not against Bird
    himself...
    
    JD

    If one examines Bird, Johnson, Jordan, West, Archibald, Chamberlain et
    al at the very apex of their careers, I think cases could be made for
    each and every one. Make a highlight film of Elgin Baylor. Ditto for
    Nate Thurmond or Oscar Robertson. How about Walt Frazier or Alex
    English or Dominique Wilkins or Dave Cowens or Willis Reed. Then there
    was the unconcious play of a guy named Nick Weatherspoon one year.
    
    One can parade stats, title rings, team standings all they wish.
    However, it is still a subjective thing. A die hard Knikerbocker fan
    will swear up and down that Willis Reed's gutty playoff performance was
    the greatest basketball ever played. While another may look at Bill
    Walton's short and glorious career and proclaim him as the greatest to
    ever lace on sneakers.
    
    You'll find Celtic fans proclaiming Larry the greatest. Laker fans will
    lean towards Magic. While, in between, Chicago faithful will claim
    nobody ever did what Michael does.
    
    Then you'll get the purists who appreciate what Michael Cooper or KC
    Jones did and proclaim them the best.
    
    How about Pete Maravich at his prime?
    
    Sounds like the old Chamberlain-Russell rathole coming on....
    
    Rich
     

 �   Remember, I usually railed against the Bird Jihad, not against Bird
 �   himself...
 
 And if JD hadn't made this point, I would have tried to.   Away back
 in the 1986-87 time frame before Doc Midnight came along, I was one
 of the top anti-Celtics flagbearers in this conference on whatever
 node it was on back then.  I've still got "tm"'s on phrases such as
 "Larry Bird Jihad" and "Holy Green Sweat Socks" that date back from
 then.
 
 The point is that I got endless hours of fun tweaking the Jihad
 *about* Larry Bird.   I never once dumped on Bird himself.   Anybody
 who denies his basketball greatness is a fool.   No, I use to love to
 rag on the Jihad members who fell down and blessed themselves anytime
 Bird so much as broke wind.   Way too funny.   Still is.
 
 Anybody remember "The Celtanic Verses" ???   God, I had fun with
 that.
 
 Bob Hunt

    >In his prime,                                                    
    >Larry Bird was the man.  You *knew* he was going to hit the big shot -
    >it was automatic.  It's automatic with Magic now.  His consecutive
    >3-pointers at the end of the 3rd period were the ball game.  
    
    For the last 4 years, Magic's been a better player than Larry ever was.
    
    Dan

Hey Rich! Youse forgots to mentions Dr. J!!!!

Bob, I never once thought any of your stoopid Jihad/holy green crud
was in the least bit entertaining. I thought it a clever way to 
hide your jealousy of Bird fans by degrating them. 8^))



Steve

    re    Note 160.35 by VAXWRK::SCHNEIDER 
    
    >> For the last 4 years, Magic's been a better player than Larry ever was.
    
    I rest my case as to bias controlling a person's ability to judge
    a player's ability.
    
    Rich
    

    When I was at the hospital yesterday, the waiting room had the recent 
    SI issue requesting "one last dance" between Magic and Bird in the
    finals.  As a pure NBA fan, it made me appreciate BOTH a lot more and
    this past decade that has spoiled us.
    
    If you haven't read it, you should.  I may never hate Magic again ;-)
    
    Mike

�I define it as something that you could do 9 times out of 10, but when the 
�pressure is on, you can't do it.  That's what happened to Jordan, IMO.  
    
    Jordan shot 90% from the field this year!?!  Isn't that a new NBA
    record?

Magic and Bird are both great basketball players.  Their prowess has
been enhanced by their "rivalry" and the aura that surrounds it.

I *always* liked and respected Dr J, even though I was NEVER a Philly fan.
The Doctor was ethereal.


I think true fans of any sport will recognize and respect, and ADMIT to
greatness in players of teams they dislike, in the same way World War I
aviators would have respect of their enemy, and did things like breaking
off combat if the other's guns would jam.

JMHO,
'Saw

    Bias has nothing to do with it, Rich.  If you haven't noticed Magic's
    game continuing to rise, you haven't been following much basketball.
    
    Let's look at it objectively:
    
    Magic and Larry meet in NCAA finals with Magic certainly winning the
    competition.
    
    Magic and Larry enter the NBA.  Larry wins RoY.  Magic plays one of the
    greatest games ever in game 6 for Lakers to win championship and Magic
    wins playoff MVP (Kareem deserved it).
    
    Celtics assemble a great team and win '81 championship behind Bird in
    the year that Magic hurts knee and misses 45 games.
    
    Lakers win '82 championship over 6ers.
    
    Lakers lose '83 championship to Moses-led 6ers, although it needs to be
    pointed out that starting forward Worthy, starting guard Nixon and key
    reserve McAdoo all missed finals due to injury.
    
    Celtics finally make it back to finals and win in great fashion in '84. 
    Bird wins first MVP.  Magic is anointed greater player by Sports
    Illustrated.  Lakers could have easily swept this one in 4, but we
    won't go into that.  Magic sets all kinds of finals assists records
    that will stand for a long time.
    
    Bird wins second MVP in '85, although Magic was superior player and
    showed it in the finals.  Lakers in 6 after getting absolutely thumped
    in game 1.  Boston had home court ad, and Red whined about it.
    
    '86 was Bird's greatest season and they won finals convincingly over
    Rockets who beat lazy laker squad.  Bird MVP again at peak of his
    career.  Obviously better than Magic, but not by much.  SI proclaims
    Bird as legend.  Bob Ryan wets himself 472 times during season.  Doug
    Ross not far behind.
    
    Lakers romp over Celtics with Magic doing everything for first time in
    his career, as offensive focus changes from Kareem in '87.  Magic gets
    overdue first MVP.
    
    Magic continues to improve game as Bird suffers first noticable
    decline.  Lakers beat Pistons in 7.
    
    '89.  Another Magic MVP as his offense is now becoming unstoppable. 
    Lakers sweep through playoffs without a loss until first Scott, then
    Magic pull hamstrings and Lakers lose to tenacious Pistons.  Seen as
    end of Laker dynasty.  Bird DNP.  Perhaps Magic's best year.
    
    '90.  Despite dire predictions, Lakers take NBA's best record in NBA's
    toughest division/conference, mostly on Magic's back.  Fluke loss to
    Suns in playoff as Worthy never got going.  Magic was unstoppable, but
    one man not enough.  Another Magic MVP.  Bird shows only flashes of old
    self.  perhaps Magic's best year ever.
    
    '91.  Worse predictions still for Lakers and look where they are and
    why.  Again, perhaps Magic's best year.  The greatness of Bird is a
    distant memory to be sustained with crocks like "at his best, Bird was
    better than Magic".
    
    With my best objectivity, Bird's best year, '83-'86, it was nip and
    tuck with Magic, with Bird perhaps having a slight edge in a few years,
    noticable '86, and Magic having a similar edge in a few.  But even if
    Bird had been able to sustain that exact level of '86 greatness accross
    the last 5 years, he would have fallen further and further behind
    Earvin, as Earvin has increased his talent.  He's added the killer post
    up game and ability to make the defender foul him, the foul shooting,
    the three point shooting, and perhaps most of all, the coach on the
    floor.  If you could take the 1991 Earvin Johnson and give it to Larry
    Bird, it would represent Bird's greatest season by a comfortable
    distance over 1986.  The same could be said of any of the last few
    Magic years.
    
    Dan

    Dan, your response is laced with a string of biased views:
    
    >>Larry wins RoY.  Magic plays one of the greatest games ever in game 6 
    >>for Lakers to win championship and Magic wins playoff MVP
    
    Insinuation that Magic is already in the elite. Only mentions Bird RoY
    - No details.
    
    >>Celtics assemble a great team and win '81 championship behind Bird in
    >>the year that Magic hurts knee and misses 45 games.
    
    You could have just typed the first part but you "had" to slip in the
    Magic injury piece. Bias??
    
    >>Lakers lose '83 championship to Moses-led 6ers, although it needs to be
    >>pointed out that starting forward Worthy, starting guard Nixon and key
    >>reserve McAdoo all missed finals due to injury.
    
    Interesting that you again insist on bemoaning injuries to the Lakers
    yet no mention is made of Celtic injuries when they get beat.
    
    >>Celtics finally make it back to finals and win in great fashion in '84. 
    >>Bird wins first MVP.  Magic is anointed greater player by Sports
    >>Illustrated.  Lakers could have easily swept this one in 4, but we
    >>won't go into that.  Magic sets all kinds of finals assists records
    >>that will stand for a long time.
    
    Great, you have gone to lengths to insert what Magic did...what did
    Bird do? Why did he win MVP?
    
    >>Bird wins second MVP in '85, although Magic was superior player and
    >>showed it in the finals.  Lakers in 6 after getting absolutely thumped
    >>in game 1.  Boston had home court ad, and Red whined about it.
    
    You claimed Red whined. Anything the man says is heresay to you anyway,
    right? Why was Magic superior? What were Bird's stats? 
    
    >>Bird MVP again at peak of his career.  Obviously better than Magic, but 
    >>not by much.  SI proclaims Bird as legend.  Bob Ryan wets himself 472 
    >>times during season.  Doug Ross not far behind.                
    
    Thanks for admitting, for the first time in my memory, that Bird had a
    better season than Magic. And, although I think Ryan can be verbose at
    times, ytour decision to insert his name in this discussion only
    diminishes from your claim of being unbiased.
    
    >>The greatness of Bird is a distant memory to be sustained with crocks 
    >>like "at his best, Bird was better than Magic".                      
    
    Your use of the word, "crock" is the final nail in your bias coffin.
    Although I agree with you that Magic's game has steadily improved while
    Bird's has not escalated as far or fast - and - that Bird's talent is
    eroding quickly, I think you have clearly demonstrated that you simply
    cannot discuss anything relating to the Celtics without a bitter bias
    showing through.
    
    Rich
    

        I hear all this bickering of who is better.  Personnaly,  I think
    Jordan is gods gift to basketball during his time.
    
       Magic is great to, but you don't see him covering Jordan.  Why?  If
    he is the best,  then let him go for it instead of Scott.
    
      This is starting to sound like the crock of the #1 title that
    Colorado won over the yeller jackets.
    
    
      As to choking,  36 points, 8 rebounds, 12 assists (i think),and 3
    steals is choking?   come on now.  Who got player of the game?  It
    twernt Magic.  Magic played a heck of a 2nd half.
    
      I beleive the choke is the Bulls free throw game!!  Practice
    practice...
    
    
      This should be another great game tonight.  Luckily, the wife is
    going to Bingo (of all things), so we won't fight over what to watch,
    even though I have the remote control in my hand!
    
      I don't think any of these games, no matter who takes the title, 
    will be won by more than 10 points.
    
    
    
       Bulls by 8...........
    
    
    		Tim

>Lakers lose '83 championship to Moses-led 6ers, although it needs to be
>pointed out that starting forward Worthy, starting guard Nixon and key
>reserve McAdoo all missed finals due to injury.
    

As a Sixer's fan back in those days (Dr J, Cheeks, Bobby Jones) I have
to correct you on the above misinformation.  Worthy did indeed miss
the entire playoffs (broken leg?) and that was a factor.  I believe McAdoo
was also out but I don't think that meant much (he was on the way out).
Nixon got hurt at the end of game three and missed game four.  The
Lakers were already down 3-0 with Nixon playing.  Magic played all 48 minutes
in game 4 but to no avail.   That WAS the Sixers year and it shouldn't
be tarnished with claims of injury.

                                                        Alan


P.S. - Lakers should have sweep in 84?  There was a chance is everything
       went just right (Henderson steal, the famous game 4 McHale/RamButt
       play) but it didn't so its irrevelant.

    Re: last few
    
    Dano hasn't changed a bit.  Reply .41 is so full of wuss excuses and
    bias that it is hilarious!  I commend Rich for trying to cure him of
    Laker Glaucoma(tm), but I think its a lost cause.  Dan has a lot in
    common with Ram in this respect.  Right or wrong, they can only see and
    understand their point of view, while everyone else sounds foolish to
    them.
    
    That crack about the Suns mopping up LA being a fluke was just
    priceless!
    
    Mike

    re Mike:
    
    Until the Suns can prove they can play wif the big boys in the
    playoffs, then I'll go along with last year being a fluke.  sorry, but
    one year with one big playoff series win does not a powerhouse make.
    I lump the Suns in with a bunch of teams like the Jazz and Sixers...
    
    RE Tim J.
    
    The only reason Jordan guards Magic is because the Bulls have 2
    liabilities defensively when playing the Lakers - #1 is Bill
    Cartwright, who is not quick of foot, and has to play Divac and no one
    else.  No slow-footed Laimbeer'\s and Edwards' to play, #2 is Paxson -
    who is simply two short and slow to cover Magic, and has to cover
    Scott.
    
    Pippen can cover Magic - but that means Jordan is on Worthy.  Magic can
    guard just about anyone on the Bulls, becuase Worthy can guard Pippen
    or Jordan, Perkins can guard Pippen, Cartwright or Grant, Scott can
    cover either Jordan or Paxson, and Divac can go agaisnt Mr. Bill or
    Grant.  Lakers have quicker overall team speed - something very
    important in defense, plus the parts are almost interchangeable. 
    And I'll still take Magic over Jordan anyday.  Remember, a 360 slamajam
    is only worth as much as a baby hook or a 19 footer or a layup.  
    
    re: Dan's list
    
    RE:  1983 Sixers.  Dan - no way would the Lakers have beaten the Sixers
    - healthy or not.  They rolled through the playoffs.  They rolled
    through the regular season.  Moses ate Kareem alive - he did it when he
    was withthe Rockets, and destroyed Kareem in 83.  He was MVP, although
    a damn good arguement could have been made for Bobby Jones, who simply
    took over the games whenever he entered.  Your injury excuse doesn't
    wash.
    
    Dan, early on, Bird was head and shoulders above Magic.  Magic had some
    suspect parts to his game - outside shooting and foul shooting are the
    most obvious.  Bird was the best player in hoops. Then, to his credit,
    Magic kept improving - and amazingly, he keeps improving.  Both the
    Lakers and the Celtics built great teams around the two star.  Both
    made the players around them better.  Magic surpassed Larry,and became
    the best.  Others had more flash, but Magic the best all-around game.
    
    Magic seems to keep getting better and better.    But give Larry his
    due.
    
    JD

I'm with Tim Jackson on this one.  I've watched Bird throughout his career and
have been lucky to see alot of vintage Magic on CBS and TBS.  I've been amazed
by their court savvy and the way the underlings play when they're on the floor
versus when they're on their own.  It's skillful basketball and always
interesting.  But for my money, there is nothing more exciting than watching
Michael Jordan play the game.  

Over the years, if I had a choice between a Celtics game and a Bulls game, I'd
put on the Bulls and only change the channels between quarters and during some
ads.  I doubt it's bias because I'm a Celtics fan by birth and a Sixers fan in
my spare time.  But I honestly don't think I've ever seen a basketball player
in Michael Jordan's realm.  He does everything and he does it well.  He's in a
class above Bird and Magic and way above everyone else.

j.

re: .41

I'm usually an RON, and I think that "who is/was better" discussions in team 
sports are pretty stupid, but . . .

>    Magic and Larry meet in NCAA finals with Magic certainly winning the
>    competition.

Wrong.  Michigan State and Indiana State meet in the NCAA finals, with 
Michigan State certainly winning the game.  Michigan State was, and is, a high 
powered program in a high powered conference who had been in the NCAA 
tournament before and has been since.  Not so for Indiana State, a one man 
team who had never been in the tournament before and hasn't been since.  
    
>    Magic and Larry enter the NBA.  Larry wins RoY.  Magic plays one of the
>    greatest games ever in game 6 for Lakers to win championship and Magic
>    wins playoff MVP (Kareem deserved it).

Magic comes to an already good team, with an in his prime Kareem.  Bird comes 
to a team that had the worst regular season record in the NBA.  Celtics 
regular season performance improves from worst regular season record to best 
regular season record, the only time it has ever happened.

>    Lakers lose '83 championship to Moses-led 6ers, although it needs to be
>    pointed out that starting forward Worthy, starting guard Nixon and key
>    reserve McAdoo all missed finals due to injury.
    
Very interesting that when Magic's team wins, it's "Magic certainly winning 
the competition" and "Magic plays one to the greatest games ever . . . for 
Lakers to win", but when they lose, we start bringing in what the teammates 
did.

Clay

Oh how I love this!! Keep it going! 8^)
This is too funny!


Steve

A few (many) thoughts about last nights game.

First I owe JD an apology for ribbing him about the BULLS preferrential 
treatment.  I saw some of what your talking about last night.  It 
wasn't Jordan as much as Pippen.  I was really surprised the refs let
Pippen body Magic the length of the court like that.  Would Scott be able to
cover Jordan that way?  However, the flagrant call on Scott was the winner.
That was an embarrassment.  Talk about an anticipated call.  The ref must have
had a flashback to the last series and saw Laimbeer.

Enough griping and on to real matters!

A few more games like last night and maybe JD will start his team with
Jordan. 

Last night Chicago played the best basketball I've seen anyone play all season.
That was like the Villinova championship game against Gtown.  I
didn't see the last 9 minutes because I decided to sleep instead of 
watch garbage time.  The Lakers didn't play poorly either (except for
the 4th) and Chicago simply blew them away.  Chicago was simply unbeatable
last night and I bet the analyists who had LA in 4 or 5 are changing
their tune.  Chicago got contributions from everyone and nobody except
Pippen missed.  At the start of the 4th, Chicago was hitting 75% of their
shots and they showed the starters.  It looked something like

JOrdan 12-14
Paxson 6-6
Grant 8-8
Cartright 5-7
Pippen 4-11 (the only one having some trouble)


Jordan was simply unstoppable hitting 12 straight shots and weaving his
way through double teams to get open.  The man simply can not be covered
by anone on LA and usually not by two people on LA.  Congrats to the Bulls
for such an incredible performance.  This already is and will continue to
be a very interesting series.




                                                                ALan

    
    The Bulls were awesome last night.  Great game from everyone.
    Very agressive defense.  Lots of hand checking (aka Pistons).
    Anyone drives the lane the shot is contested (aka Pistons).  No
    easy basket, example Livingston cold cocking Magic on the head
    during a drive to the basket (aka Pistons).  I have to admit
    the Bulls have learned the game very well.
    
    Pippen has learned to use his body very well on defense (aka Rodman).
    
    \pjb

RE:  previous several

(I thot we'd NEVER get off the Magic/Larry stuff (great 'Title', Mr. D.!))

As I've noted elsewhere in this conf:

Best part was seeing Magic NOT get a call after a 'patented superstar
lean-in' (dive, lie prone in the air, and land on the nearest bystander),
AND THEN actually GET called for charging into a stationary (and I don't
mean 'paper-thin') Bulls defender (Williams?)... The icing on the cake
was seeing the frustrated guy fumble a pass OOB with nobody near him --
GAD, he's human, too (even the refs thot so!)

Bulls in SEVEN ...

- Steve ;o}

                                     
    I'll take Jordan's defense over Magic's anyday.  And the Lakers have 
    no one the likes of Pippen in that department.  We can cry all day
    about what preferential treatment and how much contact these guys get
    away with, but the fact of the matter is that Magic and Worthy couldn't
    play that kind of in-your-face defense if they wanted to (which is the
    basic underlying reason their backers will rail against the tough
    defense).  I think it's the only thing that keeps the NBA from becoming 
    nothing but a scoring exhibition, considering the fantastic offensive
    talent involved, and therefore I like it...
    
    glenn
      

    Glenn,
    
    Question.  So, do you think Detroit plays good defense?  I like defense
    too.  And Chicago played Detroit defense last night. Bump and Grind. 
    Hand checks.  More Bumping and grinding.  The kind of defense that
    Scottie Pippin cried about whenever the Pistons did it to him.  Amazing
    how the refs can change their minds on how to call a game - just by
    reputation.  ANother proof that the refs are horrible.  I like defense,
    and like the bump and grind defense, but I want it called the same for
    everyone.
    
    No real surprise last night.  The Bulls *had* to win.  Just like the
    Blazers beating the Lakers in Game 2 last series.  The Bulls know if
    they lose, it is OVER.  The Bulls were incredibly hot.  Amazingly hot. 
    Obviously, if they keep that up, they'll win the next 3.  However, I
    can't see them doin it.  Mr. Bill will disappear, as he has his whole
    career.  ANd Paxson?  Who knows?  Jordan will keep scoring.
    
    Game 3 will be interesting.  Again, the game will hinge on the refs. 
    IF the forum intimidates them to call fouls early against Pippen (like
    they did last night vs. Perkins), then Chicago is in for a long game.
    
    The flagrant foul was horrendous.  It was simply a hard foul - no
    different than Cliff Levingstons foreharm to Magic's haid earlier.  But
    Scottie got that little pout of his on and got the foul.
    
    Horace Grant was the difference in this game.  
    
    Lakers should try to get Scott open more.  Especially with Paxson
    guarding him.  Have a high post and make Scott drive.  
    
    
    Interesting note:  Jordan was taunting the Lakers bench.  Imagine that,
    taunting.  Oh my.  Sounds like a Detriot (TM) thing to do.  Of course,
    in slow motion, if you read his lips, he's simply saying "I ate my
    wheaties this morning..."
    
    JD

                                                              
    > Question.  So, do you think Detroit plays good defense?  I like defense
    > too.  And Chicago played Detroit defense last night. Bump and Grind. 
    > Hand checks.  More Bumping and grinding.  The kind of defense that
    > Scottie Pippin cried about whenever the Pistons did it to him.
    
    I've never had any problem with Detroit's style of play.  I had a
    problem with their sportsmanship in the Bulls series, including the
    unnecessary shove by Rodman, walking out before the final game was over,
    woofing to the press, etc.  I wasn't necessarily rooting for the Bulls,
    either, just as I'm not now in the Lakers series.  Hey, I'm along for
    the ride...
    
    glenn
    

    Someone mention that there was a hoop game last night?
    
    Mark.

    I see, Rich.  You are the self-appointed judge of bias.  Well, I'm
    afraid I'll always be guilty of the charge in your eyes.  Let's look at
    things in this (biased) way.
    
    Both Bird and Magic know that the real important thing is to win
    championships.  Now we know that Magic has exceeded Bird in that
    category over time, testifying to the greater longevity of his
    dominance, but let's look at their early career, in the time it was
    alleged that Bird's peak was greater.
    
    1980:  Laker title		Magic 1, Bird 0
    1981:  Celtic title		Magic 1, Bird 1  (btw, is it bias to list
    1982:  Laker title		Magic 2, Bird 1	  Magic first?  Is it bias
    1983:  6er title                              to list these in chrono-
    1984:  Celtic title		Magic 2, Bird 2   logical order, which
    1985:  Laker title		Magic 3, Bird 2   apparantly favors Magic?)
    1986:  Celtic title		Magic 3, Bird 3
    1987:  Laker title		Magic 4, Bird 3
    
    Objectively, it's pretty close, with Magic continually paving the way
    and Bird faithfully following behind.  These are the years that cover
    Bird's greatness.  I wonder where the objective evidence is that Bird's
    peak exceeded Magic's?
    
    Dan

    While a win last night would have been very nice, and a closer game
    should have resulted, I'll take the winning of the home court advantage
    by the Lakers in splitting the first two games.  I don't think they'll
    win three in a row, but Chicago had all the incentive last night and
    played like it.
    
    Amazing what Jordan was getting away with guarding Divac, wasn't it?
    
    Dan

      Maybe this note should be called Magic vs Bird pissing contest?
    
    
      So I was already wrong about the 8 point spread for games.  O'well,
    as long as the Bulls take it all, which means they have to win at least
    1 game in LA.  Now that the 1st games 'flies are gone, we will see,
    'cause we know that the Bulls play well on the road.
    
      I do see the Lakers wanting to redeem their embarrasment (sp?).  So
    keep your minds down to earth Bulls.
    
          Out on a limb..game 3 = Bulls by 3
    
    		Tim

Whine, whine, whine, you Laker fans are all alike.




Steve

    What cracked me up was the concern in Albert and Fratello's voices when
    Jordan got foul #4 early in the 3rd.  Best thing that can happen to
    Jordan.  Not one ref in the NBA would have teh guts to call #6, and 
    Michael knows it - so he could play anyway he wanted.  Granted, Bird
    and Magic could also do this in the finals.
    
    Like moses and Wilt - no one ever had the guts to call #6....
    
    Bested thing about the blowout was that it was a beautiful night out,
    the sun still up there in the western sky, and I got to enjoy it and
    get away from the tube...
    
    JD

Random thoughts on last night's game:

Chicago played great defense last night, and the Lakers played
horrible defense.  In particular, Divac was taken to the cleaners
by Grant.  Vlade repeatedly allowed Grant to get in position
for passes one foot away from the basket.  Divac did have a good
game at the offensive end,though.

Last night was another example of how the Lakers are suffering
from Dunleavy's decision to play Larry Drew over Tony Smith as
Magic's backup at point in the playoffs.  Smith won the job over
the incumbent Drew in December, and played better and better as
the season went on.  Then, a week before the playoffs, Dunleavy
decides to give Drew the job for the playoffs, apparently because
he wanted the veteran experience.  Well, in the few minutes that
Drew has played in the playoffs, he has shown why he was pine-
bound during the season.  He's a stiff.  So now, Dunleavy plays
Magic the whole game.  Actually, the pattern has been to play
Drew for one minute in the middle of the second quarter, then
bring Magic back in and play him the whole second half.  

The result is that Magic gets tired and sloppy.  Some games, like
last night, Magic tries to do too much on offense.  The result is
disastrous.  He tries to drive on every play, throwing up wild
shots, and looking for the calls.  In previous years, Riley would
recognize when Magic was out of control, and he would sit him down
for a while.  Usually, when Magic went back in, he would be much
more in control.  Under the Dunleavy strategy (play Magic til he
drops), Magic doesn't get a chance to cool down, his play gets
more sloppy, and he gets more frustrated.  In the process, the
rest of the players stand around and watch on offense.  

Dunleavy may deserve credit for getting the Lakers back to the
finals, but his in-game coaching is severely lacking.

Jordan was immense.  

Laker_Ken

�   Both Bird and Magic know that the real important thing is to win
�   championships.  Now we know that Magic has exceeded Bird in that
�   category over time, testifying to the greater longevity of his
�   dominance, but let's look at their early career, in the time it was
�   alleged that Bird's peak was greater.
�    
�   1980:  Laker title		Magic 1, Bird 0
�   1981:  Celtic title		Magic 1, Bird 1  (btw, is it bias to list
�   1982:  Laker title		Magic 2, Bird 1	  Magic first?  Is it bias
�   1983:  6er title                              to list these in chrono-
�   1984:  Celtic title		Magic 2, Bird 2   logical order, which
�   1985:  Laker title		Magic 3, Bird 2   apparantly favors Magic?)
�   1986:  Celtic title		Magic 3, Bird 3
�   1987:  Laker title		Magic 4, Bird 3
 
 Oh, no, Dan, you're not really going to leave yourself this
 incredibly wide open for the inevitable but devastating comeback, are
 you ???   Say it ain't so, Dan.
 
 I mean, you make perfect sense here.  Both Bird and Magic *do* have
 an unquenchable thirst for the titles.   And they've both
 demonstrated their individual greatness in winning them several
 times.    It *IS* the titles that have made them greater than great.
 
 Here it comes, Dan.   Oooh, I can't bear to watch.   This ought to be
 against the law.    Sorry, SPORTS fans, he had it coming to him ...
 
 
 
             O N E   F O R   T H I R T Y - O N E  ! ! ! !
 
 
 
 Go ahead, Dan, give us the same tired old phrases ...  700-plus wins,
 11 straight Sweet Sixteens, umpteen ACC titles, great lifetime %age,
 and so on ...   But we'll know better nexted time because you said it
 so all by your lonesome.   It's the *TITLE* that counts.
 
 Bob Hunt

    re. 48
    
>Magic comes to an already good team, with an in his prime Kareem.  Bird comes 
>to a team that had the worst regular season record in the NBA.  Celtics 
>regular season performance improves from worst regular season record to best 
>regular season record, the only time it has ever happened.

    Bird comes to a Celtic team that picked up McHale and Parrish in the
    most one-sided trade in NBA history. He also is greeted by HoF point
    guard Nate Archibald.
    
    Acoording to you, Bird transforms bunch of stiffs. Get real. BOTH men
    had strong supporting casts, but the Jihad and it's sympathizers would
    have the world believe that McHale, Parrish, et al were just along for
    the ride ...
    
    re Dan
    
>    Lakers lose '83 championship to Moses-led 6ers, although it needs to be
>    pointed out that starting forward Worthy, starting guard Nixon and key
>    reserve McAdoo all missed finals due to injury.
    
    Dan, the Sixers went 65-17, or something outrageous like that. They
    seriously threatened the all-time record of the 72 Lakers, and was one of
    the strongest teams of all time. The Lakers themselves made no excuses
    about the sweep. 
    
    Like JD said, Moses *demolished* Kareem in the Finals (Moses usually
    did that to Kareem in the late-70's and early 80's, which is why Philly
    traded to get him), and I doubt seriously if a healthy Lakers team
    would have beaten Philly, seeing that the first two series between them
    were 6-game wars ...
    
    Doc

 Doc, Bird's first year there was no Parish no Mchale but there was a 
 turnaround of 32 games I believe? Tiny was on his way out a pine warmer
 till Larry showed up and the Celtics went to a fastbreak offense. Tiny 
 always had the tools but his forst few years in Boston he did squat
 cause he didn't have the people to play his style of game.

    
    
One man's response to .41 :

>    Let's look at it objectively:
>    Magic and Larry meet in NCAA finals with Magic certainly winning the
>    competition.
Other's have already pointed out the dramatic differences between the talent
on these two teams and the programs in general. I think Indiana State has 
had one winning season since Bird left. They were 33-1 his last year. If 
Indiana State had anyone even remotely close in talent to Greg Kellser,
IU probably wins. People never seem to remember what an outstanding college
player Kelser was, and that he might have had a little bit to do with
Michigan State's success. Excluding Johnson and Bird, who do you think had
the better team?

>    Magic and Larry enter the NBA.  Larry wins RoY.  Magic plays one of the
>    greatest games ever in game 6 for Lakers to win championship and Magic
>    wins playoff MVP (Kareem deserved it).
Laker's started Jabbar, Jamal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, I forget the fourth.
Celtic's started a burnt-out Cowens, Cedric Maxwell, an aging - but still
pretty awsome - Tiny Archibald, and a thirty-something-year-old Chris Ford.
What many forget is McHale and Parrish were not on this team. Now, which
rookie do you think stepped into a better team? (as mentioned by others,
Celtics in '79 won 32 games. In '80 they won 61). Jabbar should have got
MVP, as mentioned. Johnson's game was one of the great performances ever,
but contrary to most people's recollection, he played only a portion of
that game at center. And the Philly center was not yet Moses. Excluding 
Johnson and Bird, who do you think had the better team?

>    Celtics assemble a great team and win '81 championship behind Bird in
>    the year that Magic hurts knee and misses 45 games.
It was not yet a great team. Still started Ford. McHale was just a rookie
coming off the bench and averaged 10.7 ppg. Archibald a year older. Parrish
very good, but only in his fifth year. Jabbar in his prime in his 12th. 
Cowens was gone. Laker team was the same. I seem to recall Johnson holding
the ball too long and heaving up an airball in final game loss to Houston,
instead of, maybe, trying to get it to Jabbar? Excluding Bird and Johnson, 
which team do you think was better?


>    Lakers win '82 championship over 6ers.
Same Laker team. Must have had Cooper by now, not sure. Seems Jabbar still
scoring a heck of a lot of points. Tiny Archibald goes down with a shoulder 
injury and does not play seventh game against Philly in East final. If he 
does not get hurt, who knows? Laker team was the same. Excluding Bird and 
Johnson, which team do you think was better?

>    Lakers lose '83 championship to Moses-led 6ers, although it needs to be
>    pointed out that starting forward Worthy, starting guard Nixon and key
>    reserve McAdoo all missed finals due to injury.
As mentioned in an earlier response, Laker's were already down 3-0 when Nixon
got hurt. Moses and Philly were the best this year. Laker's added Worthy
this year. Cooper on team, McAdoo. Archibald was gone. Celtic's guards were 
Gerald Henderson and Ford. The Holy Trinity was approaching their prime.
There is no excuse for Celtics going down 4-0 to Milwaukee (they played
with no heart). Excluding Johnson and Bird, who do you think had a 
better team?

>    Celtics finally make it back to finals and win in great fashion in '84. 
>    Bird wins first MVP.  Magic is anointed greater player by Sports
>    Illustrated.  Lakers could have easily swept this one in 4, but we
>    won't go into that.  Magic sets all kinds of finals assists records
>    that will stand for a long time.
Finally, with the addition of Dennis Johnson and the emergence of Ainge as
a contributor, and with the Big Three now in their prime (although McHale 
was really probably still another year away) I think you could say the
Celtic's assembled a great team. Not in '81, as the author of .41 suggests.
Both Lakers and Celtics were great and equal teams, in my opinion.

>    Bird wins second MVP in '85, although Magic was superior player and
>    showed it in the finals.  Lakers in 6 after getting absolutely thumped
>    in game 1.  Boston had home court ad, and Red whined about it.
I was at the Memorial Day Massacre. All the credit in the world to Jabbar,
the way he rose up after that game and led the Lakers to the title. LA desrved
it. Jabbar was the key, not Johnson. McHale becomes fulltime starter for
first time and emerges as a super star (note this is '85, not '81 or '82).
Lakers now have Michael Thompson. Both Lakers and Celtics were great and 
equal teams, in my opinion.

>    '86 was Bird's greatest season and they won finals convincingly over
>    Rockets who beat lazy laker squad.  Bird MVP again at peak of his
>    career.  Obviously better than Magic, but not by much.  SI proclaims
>    Bird as legend.  
With Walton, Wedmon, and Schisting (sp?) off the bench, Big Three at absolute 
peak of their games, Ainge, while not a star, still a heckuva player, and
DJ at his best, I think even the most ardent Celtic haters have to admit
this was one of the great teams of all time. From start to finish they
dismantled everyone. Both Celtics and Lakers great teams, in my opinion. But,
excluding Johnson and Bird, for the first time I give the edge to Boston. The
day Boston drafted Len Bias, it shook the whole basketball world. Even after
his death, the Lakers almost traded Worthy away. He barely got a rebound
against the Rockets, and the Lakers thought they needed rebounding to
compete with Boston. After Bias' death, they held on to him. If Bias lived,
Worthy was long gone.

>    Lakers romp over Celtics with Magic doing everything for first time in
>    his career, as offensive focus changes from Kareem in '87.  Magic gets
>    overdue first MVP.
Walton was gone. Wedman injured much of the year. McHale plays three months,
including playoffs, with broken foot. Byron Scott is here by now (don't know
for sure when he came). AC Green too. Both teams have slipped, but both still 
great. DJ starting to show a little age. If Magic does not hit that baby-hook, 
who knows? It was not that big of a romp. What if Bias lived (I know, I know.
This is assuming he was not a coke-head)? Do the Lakers win if Jabbar or Worthy
plays 3 months with a broken foot? Do they even play with a broken foot?
Excluding Johnson and Bird, I think the Lakers are a little better team,
especially because of McHales injury.

>    Magic continues to improve game as Bird suffers first noticable
>    decline.  Lakers beat Pistons in 7.
This is '89. DJ old. No bench at all. Big 5 play practically every minute of 
every game. Lakers have Johnson, Worthy, Jabbar, Rambis, Cooper, Scott, Green, 
Thompson. What if Bias lived? Who knows? Boston still played Detroit tough,
despite Bird's miserable shooting. Excluding Bird and Johnson, who do you 
think had the better team?

>    '89.  Another Magic MVP as his offense is now becoming unstoppable. 
>    Lakers sweep through playoffs without a loss until first Scott, then
>    Magic pull hamstrings and Lakers lose to tenacious Pistons.  Seen as
>    end of Laker dynasty.  Bird DNP.  Perhaps Magic's best year.
Bird misses whole year. Ainge traded. Same Laker team. Jabbar old and near end.
I think if Johnson and Scott don't get hurt, Lakers win. (I'm big enough to
admit even the Lakers can get snake-bitten). Excluding Bird and Johnson, who 
do you think had the better team?

>    '90.  Despite dire predictions, Lakers take NBA's best record in NBA's
>    toughest division/conference, mostly on Magic's back.  Fluke loss to
>    Suns in playoff as Worthy never got going.  Magic was unstoppable, but
>    one man not enough.  Another Magic MVP.  Bird shows only flashes of old
>    self.  perhaps Magic's best year ever.
Why was is it a fluke? Can't anyone ever beat the Lakers? Big Three aging, but
major problem is no supporting cast. DJ over the hill. Excluding Bird and 
Johnson, who do you think had the better team?

>    '91.  Worse predictions still for Lakers and look where they are and
>    why.  Again, perhaps Magic's best year.  The greatness of Bird is a
>    distant memory to be sustained with crocks like "at his best, Bird was
>    better than Magic".
No great teams anymore. Neither Lakers or Chicago are the equal of mi-eighties
Lakers and Celtics or '89-'90 Pistons. Bird has disc problem that keeps
most office-wprkers home on disability. McHale plays several months with
torn ankle ligaments. Second-year and rookie point guards. Lakers add Perkins.
In my opinion, though, without Bird or Johnson I think the teams are equal.
Boston better than LA in some areas, LA better in others. Before Bird went
down Boston was 29-5. If he and McHale stayed healthy, who knows? If Bias
was around, who knows? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion:
1) I think it is obvious that Johnson played with better players than Bird did
   in college and in the early and latter parts of the last 12 years. In
   particular, one Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Mid-eighties: equal talent, maybe 
   slight edge to Boston (starting 5 only). I think people have misconceptions 
   about how "great" the Celtic teams of the early eighties were.
2) It is ovious Boston has sustained more debilitating injuries over the
   years than LA.
3) The true effect of the loss of Len Bias will never be known, but I think
   it is obvious he would have been a tremendous talent and would have made
   a major impact on the Celtics. I think the more-accurate way to look at 
   this is not the effect the loss of Bias had on the team, but rather the
   effect of losing the second player chosen in the draft, whoever that 
   player may have been. There is no player from that second pick.
4) This is so obvious it does not even need mentioning, but Bird has
   sustained many more injuries than Johnson. And certainly more
   serious injuries.

I think these four reasons above are why Johnson's teams have won more
championships than Bird's have, and why the Lakers are still challenging. 
Not because one player is better than the other. They are both great, and
both were better than Jordan is now.

    	Dan, have the Lakers ever lost a game/series where the officiating
    wasn't horrible?  And Doc&Dan (Ebony and Ivory?) if you think the
    5-3 advantage in titles makes Magic the better player then take
    a look at this comparison...
    
    Russ 11
    Wilt  2

 >Go ahead, Dan, give us the same tired old phrases 
    
    Hey, Bob, sad as it is, no one's turned tail on their intellectually
    honesty and objectivity more than you with regards to your role in the
    Dean Smith argument.  Jealousy does that to a man.
    
    Why this argument doesn't extend to the Dean Smith one?  Simple.  The
    object of professional sports is to win titles.    And FYI, I revel in
    the fact that the Lakers continually do well, even in the years they
    don't win titles.  If they don't win it all this year, they've still
    done a damned good job.  I won't dishonestly claim that losing the
    title means the Bulls get a 1, and every other team gets a 0.
    
    But this being a professional sport, we can start a valid
    objective comparison between the two superstars by looking at how many
    titles they reeled in.
    
    Dan

    >Like JD said, Moses *demolished* Kareem in the Finals (Moses usually
    >did that to Kareem in the late-70's and early 80's, which is why Philly
    >traded to get him), and I doubt seriously if a healthy Lakers team
    >would have beaten Philly, seeing that the first two series between them
    >were 6-game wars ...
    
    Everyone's making too much of this.  I was just pointing out some
    serious extentuating circumstances as an aside.  Nowhere did I claim
    the Lakers would have definitely won the thing with Worthy, Nixon and
    McAdoo.  Moses was definitely dominating, but let's remember that the
    6ers made it to the finals in 1980, 1982 and 1983, fine
    representation and definitely the cream of the East as opposed to
    Boston (while Magic had elevated the Lakers to the cream of the West
    immediately), and were dismantled in '80 and '82 by the Lakers.  Losing
    the starting forward to a broken leg, the starting shooting guard (I
    think it was his achilles, as Alan said, he played through it for a
    while, but was a shadow if his usual self), and their key reserve is
    worthy of a footnote.
    
    Dan

    >How can you stab Michael so, so repeatedly in the back now? 
    >Where is your loyalty?
    
    Hawk, go look up my sporting resume.  I defend Dean Smith because his
    severe critics check in their intellectual honesty at the door before
    entering notes.  I have no more loyalty to Dean Smith's basketball
    program than I have to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
    
    And I haven't been critical of Jordan.  The man is wonderous.  But he
    has taken over the "Most Protected" mantle from the Bird man.
    
    Dan

    >	Dan, have the Lakers ever lost a game/series where the officiating
    >wasn't horrible?
    
    /Don, officiating is Celtics' fans' official excuses; not Laker fans. 
    The only series where officiating could have made a difference was
    1984, but in all honesty, the Lakers learned an invaluable lesson from
    the abuse they took in '84.
    
    Dan

>Excluding Johnson and Bird, who do you think had the better team?          
    
    Sort of a theme here, isn't it?  Poor Larry, operating with his sad
    sack teammates did so much, and Lucky Magic with his gang of All Stars
    could have sleep-walked to his titles, eh?  Now let's look at it even
    more objectively:
    
    The Celtics certainly sucked pre-Bird.  But they were making many
    changes to improve the team, and Bird came on at the right moment to
    benefit from all of the personnel changes.  It wasn't the "Larry and a
    bunch of guys named Joe" Show that you suggest.
    
    The pre-Magic Lakers basically sucked as well.  They had Kareem and
    they were boring and they were lifeless, and even though Kareem was
    winning MVPs and dominating the NBA whenever he wanted they struggled
    to make the playoffs, and sometimes didn't.
    
    Much as Larry was the difference, Larry was the difference.  Remember,
    the greatness of these two players is not summed up by their
    statistics.  The official phrase is "They make their teammates better". 
    There's probably only one season in each player's resum� that you could
    honestly say that it was a talent win:  For the Celtics and Bird, 1986,
    and for the Lakers and Magic, 1987.  Other than that it was a matter of
    will, spirit, hustle and a thousand other intangibles.  
    
    I don't accept your premise that the championships of the Lakers were
    solely a product of superior teammates for Magic and more injuries for
    the Celtics.
    
    [ While I find much of your note interesting reading, I find it fraught
    with innacuracies concerning the Lakers, which all seem to have the
    point of devaluing Magic's import.  It is beyond me how any serious NBA
    fan could do that.]
    
    Dan

    re: .74
    
    I'm not trying to make excuses for Bird by blaming it on injuries
    and better teamates for Johnson. I just think a little too much is
    made of this 5-3 thing, and I don't think it is 5-3 because Johnson
    is better than Bird. I think it is 5-3 because Johnson had a much
    better team in the early eighties than Bird did. 
    
    Think about this: If Bird played for the Lakers in 1980 and Johnson
    played for Boston in 1980, I think it is more probable that LA would
    have won a championship than Boston. I don't think their was enough
    talent on Boston to win a title in 1980 with the addition of any 
    rookie.
    
    Getting back to this 5-3 thing. I think it does a little injustice to
    both Boston and LA. If Boston won in '85 or '87, which was conceivable,
    then it is 4-4. Both teams were head and shoulders above all the others
    in the mid eighties. 5-3 makes it sound like LA has been so clearly
    dominant. Then again, if LA does not have injuries in '89 maybe it is
    6-3. So you never know. Most people who pick Johnson over Bird like to
    do so because of this 5-3 figure. It is very close to being 4-4. If it
    was, then how would the best be chosen? My opinion is that Bird and
    Johnson were the best, and the reason it is 5-3 insted of 4-4 or 3-5
    is based more on subtle differences in the other players on the teams,
    rather than differences in the two starts.
    
    I was not presenting reasons Boston did not win. I was presenting some
    facts to think about which had they not occured - or in some case
    occured - may have lead to a different score than 5-3. If Jabbar plays
    a final with a broken foot, do the Lakers win? If McHale plays without
    a broken foot, does Boston win? If Len Bias lives, is Boston a
    contender in '87 and '88? If James Worthy dies in '83, do the Lakers
    make the final in '84 and win in '85? There are no answers. 

    I hate Magic's whimpering guts, but pu-leeze gents!, let's be honest
    here: 
    
    		Magic is "The Best Player A All Time"
    
    Hate to say it, but how cain this apparent fack be denied?  His
    supporting cast has changed so much over the past 10 years but not 
    the results.  How cain this be so?  Only possible answer is that Magic,
    with is utter versatility in real-time, makes whomever he's playing 
    with significantly better.
    
    Remember, when Magic came in it was predicted that there would be a 
    new regime of dominant 6-9 point guards.  A decade later, we're steal 
    waiting for a 6-9 point guard who cain do half a what Magic doesn.
     
    This means that Magic is a great athlete IN ADDITION to a great player.
    
    Upon review of both general data and pacific anecdotal data, this
    objective analyst is forced to conclude that Magic is the most valuable
    player there is, i.e., he enhances the play a his teammates more than
    Michael does (ever notice how much post-game energy Micahel spends
    laying blame on his teammates?)... and in light of his decade long run
    Magic is The Best A All Time.
    
    No denyin' it. 
    
    MrT

    Hawk, aren't you glad you broke out of the NBA note so that discussion
    of the finals wouldn't be cluttered with all of those ratholes ;^)

 �   Why this argument doesn't extend to the Dean Smith one?  Simple.  The
 �   object of professional sports is to win titles.    
 
 So then what is the all-encompassing singular object of big-time
 college sports, Dan ???  Basketball, in particular.    T's made this
 point countless times before.  If the title _ain't_ the reason, then
 why the hell does this entire country go ga-ga over it during the
 month of March ???   Why do all the cheerleaders muss their mascara
 as their teams go down in flames ???   Why did CBS shell out a
 billion dollars for the rights to televise it ???   Why did your main
 man, Tark, cut a deal with the NCAA to let his seniors play in it
 just one mo' time ???
 
 � I won't dishonestly claim that losing the title means the Bulls get a
 � 1, and every other team gets a 0.
 
 No, but you're more than willing to say "Magic 5, Bird 3" and have us
 believe that's all that matters, aren't you ????
 
 This is one of the things I adore most about the Tar Heel supporters. 
 No matter what measure you come up with for any other point of
 comparison on any issue whatsoever, it never ever ever applies to the
 False Idol in Chapel Hill.   *** NEVER ***.   Amazing.
 
 Dan counts titles when it suits his Magic over Larry argument but he
 dismisses them when it's time to measure The Snuffer up against any
 other college coach who's got one or more rings, e.g., Knight.
    
�    But this being a professional sport, we can start a valid
�    objective comparison between the two superstars by looking at how many
�    titles they reeled in.
 
 So, titles count in the pros but they don't in the schools.   And you
 think that *I* jumped off the H.M.S Intellectual Honesty, Dan ??? 
 Methinks you need a mirror to gaze upon, my friend.  Mirrors never
 lie.
 
 Bob Hunt

 >So then what is the all-encompassing singular object of big-time
 >college sports, Dan ???  Basketball, in particular.
    
    In no particular order:
    
    - winning games
    - competition
    - teaching
    - developing talents
    - teamwork
    - male bonding
    - graduating
    - maturing
    
    There is no singular objective.
    
 >No, but you're more than willing to say "Magic 5, Bird 3" and have us
 >believe that's all that matters, aren't you ????
    
    More intellectual dishonesty from you, Bob.  I am clearly on record as
    listing far more than Magic 5, Bird 3; it's just that certain Celtic
    fans don't want to hear the rest of it.  I am clearly on record as
    saying it is NOT all that matters, and yet you claim that is what I
    would have you believe?  Obviously, if you're gonna jump to such wrash,
    wrong and intellectually dishonest conclusions, and attempt to
    propogate them as if I uttered them, we have no basis for a discussion.
    
 >Dan counts titles when it suits his Magic over Larry argument but he
 >dismisses them when it's time to measure The Snuffer up against any
 >other college coach who's got one or more rings, e.g., Knight.
    
    Again, I don't like people making things like this up and attributing
    them to me as if they are my actions and/or my opinions.
    
 >And you
 >think that *I* jumped off the H.M.S Intellectual Honesty, Dan ??? 
    
    I don't think it.  I've detailed it.
    
    Dan

    >I don't think it.  I've detailed it.
    
    Air-Snide's endless accusations of dishonety are void, and necessarily
    reflect the fack that he's not an especially bright sports analyst.
    
    He's detailed nothing but his own argument's udder (pun fully intended)
    absurdity by implying that winning Titles is less of a_objective in
    college hoops than pros.  Where has the Snuffer sacrificed his chances
    at any Title on behalf of other considerations?  With is power house
    recruiting (at this point he's the best recruiter of all time, even
    outperforming that old cheat John Wooden) he's had more opportunity to
    win Titles than anybody, but has ended up with an embarrassment of one
    where Wooden (10x the coach poor Snuffy is) has won 10.  Whoa.  That
    one worked out linearly!
    
    Anyway, the only conceivable "trade-off" I cain imagine poor Reverend
    UnderAchievement having made, and I don't know this to be true but it
    certainly seems to be the case, is promising PT to potential recruits,
    especially as seniors.
    
    Snuffer's abject, pitable, underachievement has been amply documented
    statistically and anecdotally.  It's a solved issue - especially after
    his stupid, geeky loss against a much less talented Kansas team this 
    year.
    
    re: Larry-Bird vs. Snuffer-Bob
    
    Stupid basis for argument.  A coach's efficacy cain be much better 
    measured cuz he has no fait accompli situations vis a vis usage of 
    player talent; where a player is at the mercy of what the coach does.
    A coach (if you cain call him that) such as Snuffy cain be measured
    over a significant 33 year sample, you're left with only a decade or
    so with a player.
    
    At his peak Bird was the better player of the two.  But Magic has had
    a longer run of productive years and has posted consistent performance
    that I can't view as having been matched.
    
    MrT

    NBA "basketball" is a fraud.
    
    
    They don't call travelling.  They don't call palming.  They don't
    call 3 seconds.  They constrain defense.  They force the game into
    an unnaturally small space of 24 seconds.  The players are so big,
    fast, strong and skilled that the idea of shooting after a 10 foot
    high basket on a too-small court make the notion of these "amazing"
    feats (that happen every minute or so) reek of the WWF.
    
    It's a players' league cuz coaching has been reduced to nothing but
    managing practices and substitutions.
    
    It's a queer thing that in a sport where player capability outstrips 
    the real level of difficulty that they've perverted officiating in 
    such a way to make it easier still.  Len Elmore's right: This TV
    inspired laissez-faire officiating has robbed the game of its integrity.
    
    Cain't watch the NBA myself.  Love the game a basketball too much.
    
    MrT

    Sometimes I wish the states of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
    (especially), South Carolina and Georgia (I don't count Florida because
    Florida State hasn't been in long enough) would evaporate or something
    so we wouldn't have to have every basketball discussion turn into a
    defense or attack of the Atlantic Coast Conference.  For those of us
    who don't live there and don't particularly give a shit, it's extremely
    tiresome.
    
    Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.
    
    John

    
    More fuel for the fire.  Jordans dad had a comment about
    Scottie Rodmans defense of Magic during game two.  The Bulls
    still have the Pistons on their minds.
    
    Also,  everything isn't peachy between Michael and Magic.  It was
    implied that Michael is still ticked over his first all-star game
    where he didn't get the ball from Isiah.  He still thinks that Magic
    and Isiah had an agreement not to give the rookie the ball.
    
    \pjb

    You guys sure can take all the fun outta a championship game...
    
    (Without any banale_sport'sfare_insider_cryptic_junk_noetery)
    
    Like the way the Bulls dominated after those first game jitters,
    I'll take'em by 10 tonight.
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

    Peter Vescey in USA Today was bemoaning that the teams are too friendly
    in these finals.  He says the series is in need of some incendiary
    devices, infammatory talk, manhood checks, petty grudges, old-fashioned
    animosity, internal frictions, insults added to a clothesline or two. 
    He says he'd like to call McHale and axe him to come to LA for a
    reenactment of the Kurt Rambis play, or bring Maurice Lucas out of
    retirement to reenact his 1977 Finals fight with Darry Dawkins.  Of
    course, this is the same Peter Vescey that less than a week ago wrote a
    scathing column against the Pistons, and reveled in the fact that this
    finals would have none of the stuff he's yearning for now.  Unreal.
    
    Earl Strom, retired NBA ref, has a column claiming that there is NO
    preferential treatment for superstars in the NBA.  He does say:  "A
    foul is a foul, unless its in the fifth, sixth, or seventh game of a
    playoff"   Geez Earl, I thought you said the refs call it fair?  Its a
    real fluff piece.
    
    Pre-game 3 news:  Michael claims he wasn't taunting, just 'being
    emotional'.  Byron Scott has taken only 6 shots in the first 2 games. 
    He needs to get hot - and do what the Bulls did with Paxson in Game 2 -
    get Byron open, and let him pop.  If he hits, it will open up the
    inside game.  Bulls have to have another big game from Horace Grant.
    He's the key to this series.
    
    JD

RE: .81 (I think -- somewhere back among the Dean/Larry/Magic/et al BS...

They don't call palming?  Or traveling?  Or...

Gee, coulda sworn just the other night, in a 5 minute stretch, I saw
Pippin get nailed for palming, and Teagle called for traveling, and some
Bull hit for 3-seconds, and...

Oh, you mean they don't call it on the SUPERSTARS??  Well, of course not;
else why'd all those kids pay $100 a shoe for their footwear??

GO BULLSIES!!

Steve, who's_glad_SOMEBODY_noticed_the_title_of_this_Note-finally

 �   Sometimes I wish the states of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
 �   (especially), South Carolina and Georgia (I don't count Florida because
 �   Florida State hasn't been in long enough) would evaporate or something
 �   so we wouldn't have to have every basketball discussion turn into a
 �   defense or attack of the Atlantic Coast Conference.  For those of us
 �   who don't live there and don't particularly give a shit, it's extremely
 �   tiresome.
  
 Although I can certainly understand and acknowledge your frustrations
 with the constant Snuffy ratholing, it really should be pointed out
 that these issues have very little to do with the actual ACC itself. 
 ACC issues and their debate are usually properly confined to the
 dedicated ACC notes.
 
 The constant and, yes, out-of-place Snuff Worship and Snuff Bashing
 all revolve around Dean Smith.   And I would also like to point out
 that the insertion of a Dean Smith thread into this year's NBA Finals
 topics basically started when one of the faithful (I forget who) saw
 fit to pat Snuff on the back for having three of his former Tar Heel
 players represented on the final two teams, the Bulls and the Lakers.  
 Sorry, but that was a crime ... Illegal Snuff Worship In A Free Trade
 Zone.
 
 So it's not just the Snuff Bashers who instigate things.   Yes, I've
 certainly jumped in and pushed this particular rathole even deeper
 than it should have been.   I'm sorry but it's in the Snuff Bashers
 Charter.   Snuff Worship never ceases and therefore Snuff Bashers the
 world over have to maintain an eternal vigilance.   It's like the
 First Amendment.  Speech is either free or it isn't.  You either bash
 The Rev or you don't.  "Middle ground" ain't exactly in abundance in
 these here particular areas as I'm sure you've all noticed.
 
 Besides, you didn't really think we could let it just slide on by
 when Dan proposed that counting their titles is a legitimate measure
 between Bird and Magic while simultaneously insisting that it doesn't
 count for Snuff, did you ???   To let *that* one go by unchallenged
 would have been like telling Elle MacPherson that you aren't sure if
 jumping into the hot tub with her is such a great idea.
 
 Splash !!!
 
 Bob Hunt

    I doubt they ever would have called the palming if it was less than an
    8-point lead.
    
    	--dan'l

    >The hard foul by Jordan that sent
    >Magic on his keester where he insisted on sitting for a long time and
    >staring/frowning at the refs was really poor and low by Magic. 
    
    Your tired because you're playing virtually the whole game.  As you
    drive for the layup one more time, you get whacked in the head and
    knocked to the floor.  Instead of springing to your feet, as you might
    do in the first quarter, you sit there a moment to collect your
    thoughts and grab an extra second of rest.
    
    That's poor and low???
    
    Dan

    
    Yeah, sure they let some things go but you guys act as if it's not
    even the same sport or something.  I'm not a big basketball fan to
    begin with, but somehow when I plunk myself down in front of the tube
    to watch the NBA Finals, featuring two of the game's best, I'm not 
    filled with all this moral outrage.  If these technicalities are giving 
    you ulcers, why do you keep coming back for more?
    
    glenn
    

 >And I would also like to point out
 >that the insertion of a Dean Smith thread into this year's NBA Finals
 >topics basically started when one of the faithful (I forget who) saw
 >fit to pat Snuff on the back for having three of his former Tar Heel
 >players represented on the final two teams, the Bulls and the Lakers.  
 >Sorry, but that was a crime ... Illegal Snuff Worship In A Free Trade
 >Zone.                            
    
    If you were watching, NBC has done the same thing.  So maybe Smith does
    deserve some credit for such unprecedented alumni achievements, and
    maybe you're overreacting just a wee bit.  
    
 >when Dan proposed that counting their titles is a legitimate measure
 >between Bird and Magic while simultaneously insisting that it doesn't
 >count for Snuff, did you ???  
    
    Again, Bob.  Unlike MrT, I expect you to approach some level of even
    handed behavior and not use these twisted misrepresentations.
    
    Dan

 Speaking of thee ole Suffmiester did anyone else catch his interview with
 Fratello the other night? After the general big pat on the back kissy kissy
 stuff Fratello stuck him with the 

 "your the only man alive to keep Michael under 20 a game" comment...

 Smith's imediate reply "well so didn't Bobby Knight, during the olympics"...

 classless as always giving all the more credence to Feinstien's columun early
 this year which spoke of his classless taste for victory....

 Here's hopping to see Cartwright catch Arsinieeeeeeeoooo with an elbow...

 and of course another blowout....

 mike

 Hawk, he's been making that same pose for 12 years now...they/WE don't
 call him "WHINNY" for nothing...

 ;^)
 
 Jordan to dominate again Bulls up a game....

 mike

    	Agree with JD on Horace Grant.  Chicago needs him to score 
    in order to be effective.  LA's bench needs to keep the team in the
    game.  Dunleavy should play Eldon Campbell for defensive/rebounding
    purposes & run some plays for Byron.        
    
    	Michael will gets his points, as he always does.  Will the other 
    Bulls keep their poise when the Lakers get a big lead?  Will they
    be 'blinded by the Forum lights'? 
    
    	It was do or die for Chicago in game 2 and they responded well.
    One thing about LA, they always respond after a blowout loss.  Expect
    no less from this game.  Lakers by 10+.
    
    
 						 glen j.
                                                        

    re-1 
    
      Well it looks like the Bulls kept their poise when down by alot of
    points.  I actually fell asleep on the couch after the 13 point spread
    came about in the 3 qtr.  Then when someone banging on my door when
    woke me up, it was in the last minute of the 3rd, and low and behold,
    the bulls were coming back (down by 6 I think).
    
      Anyway,  It was a nail biter so to speak, and I'm glad the Bulls had
    that 8-0 run at the end of OT to win it.  It was simply great!!
    
      I was suprised to see the lakers let them back in.  Don't expect
    Sunday to be any different.  Unofortunately, I think LA might get their
    act together.
    
      Jordan bruised in big toe on right foot?  Hopefully that won't be a
    factor.
    
    
          Tim 

    Cross-posted from the LAKERS conference .....
    
    Game 3 summary (no purplish tint ((:^))
    
    
    
    $#!*?!@%!  Lakers lose Game 3 in OT, 104-96. The Bulls scored 8
    unanswered points in the extra period (4 for Jordan, 4 for Grant)
    to take the first game in The Forum, and regain home-court advantage.
    
    Chicago led by 2 at the half, 48-46. This favored L.A. Both teams came 
    out kinda flat to start the 3rd. Then by playing strong D, causing some
    turnovers, and getting some quick transition hoops, the Lakers went on
    an 18-2 tear. They showed no signs of relenting until Divac hammered
    Pippen on a drive, and picked up his 4th foul. Magic was livid with
    Vlade for being so dumb, as he had scored 10 points in this surge and
    now had to sit down, in fear of picking up his 5th .....
    
    The Lakers surge abruptly ended right then, and 'Da Bullls roared
    back with a 24-6 run of their own (now in the 4th quarter). It was nip
    and tuck until the end, with Divac recovering from a near steal to
    throw in a 2 and was fouled by Pippen (his 6th !). He hit the FT to
    give L.A. a 2-point lead with 10.5 seconds to go. After several TO's,
    the Bulls (with 0 TO's left) take the ball out from the Laker end,
    get the ball to Jordan who backs up Byron neatly to about 12 feet
    and cans the jumper, to tie it up at 96 with 3.4 seconds left. L.A.
    inbounds at half-court to Divac, who fumbles the pass away, the ball
    goes to Byron who throws up a desperation 20+ footer - no good, and
    the rest is history.
    
    Man, Byron is completely off his game. He hit 0 FG's (0 for 10 ?) but
    seemed to play adequate D on Jordan. Magic should have helped out on
    Jordan during the last shot (Paxson was not in 3-point range) and
    Byron ended up all alone.
    
    The other downers were AC's shooting (none), easy missed layups, and
    being totally out-rebounded (50 to 20-something ?). The Lakers did
    have people other than Magic bringing the ball up, but Pippen still
    gives Magic some trouble. The Bulls trap was effective at times too.
    
    Game 4 Sunday, at 7:00 PM EDT. The announcers mentioned that since
    the 2-3-2 format was begun, the visitor's have always won Game 3,
    and 5 times out of 6 have also taken Game 4 , so here's hoping that
    this precedent will be broken on Sunday. This win did nothing for
    the Laker's confidence, and definitely helped the Bulls a lot.
    
    - The Combat Proctologist, M.D.
    

    
    	Not a pretty sight if you're one of LAKER Jihad.  Chicago was 
    in control from the start of game 4, winning 97-82 and taking a 
    commanding 3-1 series lead.  For those keeping up on the Magic/Michael
    hypeline, Jordan had 27 points, 13 assists and 5 rebounds while Magic
    had 22 points, 11 assists, and 5 rebounds.  Divac played well again,
    but Perkins only showed up to rebound and that was it.  The more I 
    watch Michael during this series, its all the more convincing to me that 
    he truly is one of a kind and is to be appreciated, no matter what team 
    one is a fan of.  All I can say, in a word is, awesome. 
    
    	Simply stated, Chicago is simply younger, quicker, and more
    aggressive than LA is, and that's why they're winning the series.
    Not to mention that their bench is consistently outplaying LAs bench,
    proving to be a *big* difference.  For LA, it's no offense from Byron
    Scott, no output from the bench, and visible fatigue during the later 
    stages of games 3 & 4.
    
    	I had thought that Chicago wouldn't be able to keep up their
    intensity once the games moved to LA.  Oh well.  :-(
    
    	How often will we hear, 'we've got to take it one game at a time'?
                                                   
    glen j._wishing_that_Michael_will_let_LA_win_1_more_game_b4_it's_over :-)
                                     

    Sam Perkins 1-15?!?!?!?!?!?!?  I mean really, Dr. M could probably
    shoot 1-15!  ;-)
    
    Laker bench:  3-14 shooting
    Bulls bench:  7-13 shooting
    
    Also, think about this for a minute:  if Hersey Hawkins misses that
    right corner 3-pointer, and Michael makes the 18 footer at the end of
    Game 1, the Bulls would have swept through the playoffs undefeated.
    
    NAZZ

Playoffs 

Byron Scott + Sam Perkins = Kevin Gamble + Brian Shaw

I know Perkins had a good game, but so did Shaw.

=Bob=

    Hawk, Mr. Bird has more "non-rings" than Magic.  You gotsta get to the
    finals to get a ring.
    
    HTH,
    
    Mark.

    Magic is in his 12th NBA season.  In that time, the Lakers have done
    the following:
    
    1980	Beat Philly to win championship
    1981	Lost to Houston in (first?) round
    1982	Beat Philly to win championship
    1983	Lost to Philly in finals
    1984	Lost to Boston in finals
    1985	Beat Boston to win championship
    1986	Lost to Houston in Western Conference (finals?)
    1987	Beat Boston to win championship
    1988	Beat Detroit to win championship
    1989	Lost to Detroit in finals
    1990	Lost to someone in Western Conference playoffs
    1991	In Finals vs Bulls
    
    This is Magic's 9th appearance in the finals in 12 years.  They've won
    5, lost 3 and are playing now.  Hawk, does this answer the question?
    
    John
    
    PS - The Celtics, with Bird, made the finals in 1981, 1984, 1985, 1986
    and 1987, winning 3 and losing 2.  They lost the Eastern Conference
    finals in 1980, 1982 and 1988.

    Game 4:  Bulls by seven
    
    I wish they's win it in Chicago, but they won't.
    
    Bulls forever, Marv Albert's toupee NEVER!!!!
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

    RE: .-1   Make that game #5!!!
    
    (Damn these fat fingers)

    Well, this finals has given me a glimpse of what I'll do if major
    events go pay-per-view.  Simply put, I won't watch or pay.  Friday
    night I watched a little of the beginning, then took the wife out
    for dinner (6:00 pm start out here in the west), and yesterday, it
    was simply a beautiful day out - coupled with the fact I'm out of my
    cast-type thing, and no way was I going to sit in front of the tube
    to watch two teams I don't really care about.  
    
    I did see Horace Grant had a great game in #3, and a decent one
    yesterday.  As I said, he is the key to the Bulls.  When he's scoring
    and rebounding, it  means everything is working. When he's not, it
    means Jordan and Pippen are carrying too much of the load.  It was the
    same way in the series vs. the Pistons.
    
    The Lakers bench is really woeful.  
    
    Will Chicago re-sign Bill Cartwright?  (Unrestricted free agent at end
    of season.)  Will a central division rival sign him to a big offer
    sheet?? 
    
    Rumour out here is a deal between bulls and sonics - Rickey Pierce for
    Stacy King...
    
    JD

    Lakers lose, Scott and Perkins sip, Worthy out, bench useless, and
    Dunleavy scared (to use bench).
    
    Oh yeah ..Paxton caint miss.....
    
    Lakers ain't dead, but I saw a priest speaking some choice Latin
    phrases over them ... :_)

    I'e got to agree with JD on one thing; the Pistons play a good brand of
    defense. And, give the Bulls credit, they learned from it over the
    years and are employing it on their road to the champeenship.
    
    If handchecking is illegal, then come out and enforce it. In my mind,
    it is SOP in the NBA. 
    
    The Bulls are younger and quicker than the Lakers. 
    
    Actually, a thought came to me last night as I watched Jordan blow by a
    flat-footed Perkins for a jam in the 2nd quarter. For a second, I saw
    james Worthy blowing past a flat footed Larry Bird. As I see LA
    continually taking 10+ 3 pointers a game, I see the futility of Danny
    Ainge with his bombers hat on. I see the masterful offensive work of
    Vlade Divac in the low post and all of a sudden I see Kevin McHale
    shining in a cast iof tired, exhausted green-clad players.
    
    This Laker team has aged. To Magic's credit, he has carried them on his
    back through the season and to this point in the playoffs. A testament
    to his greatness. Yet, just as the Celtics of the mid-late 80's looked
    confised when Bird left the game, the Lakers turn into ordinary
    basketball players when magic takes a blow.
    
    Just as Bird paraded to the line ad nausea in the past if a guy
    breathed on him, Magic and Michael take up the slack - unless, of
    course, the foul is so obvious that my Aunt Winnie sees it. Then, the
    ref turns his haid.
    
    The LA Grayhounds look more like basset hounds now. The beauty that was
    once James Worthy flying down the lane is now James Worthy clanging 3
    point attempts. 
    
    Rich
    

    Rich - 
    
    I'll say one thang - Vlade Divac has impressed.  He's learned a lot in
    his NBA stay.  
    
    Hawk -
    
    One thing I fergot to mention - I did listen to more of the games on
    radio.  Refreshing change from the TV over hype.  Frank Layden, ex UTAH
    coach, was doing some of the work - whatta riot he is.  
    
    I think if they went to pay  per view, I'd listen to the game on the
    radio.  You can do so much more.  
    And I know Jordan cain do more than slammajamma - I just wish the
    Offical NBA Hype officials would downplay the slammajamma.  The dunk
    contest is the worst thing that ever happened to the NBA.  The real
    game of hoops is defense, passing, cutting, team play - that's what the
    NBA should be marketing - better message to the kids, I think.  Not
    individual in yo face stuff - but folks working together.  I guess it
    don't sell
    
    Overall, the hachet job that the press gave to the Pistons throughout
    the last series really soured me on the NBA.  I still find it odious
    and cheap - like the taste of a warm, flat, stale Red, White and Blue
    beer on a hot afternoon.  
    
    Football (and track and field) are the only sports that can make me
    totally change my day around to watch a game.  Hoops used to be like
    that.  
    
    The little I've watched of the finals reminds of the Pistons/Lakers
    series of 2 years' ago.  The Bulls are playing in yo face, physical
    defense, and beating the Lakers off the boards in the hustle
    department.  the Lakers bench is non-existant, and Byron Scott has done
    his disappearing act.  
    
    Losing the big lead at home in Game 3 was the series.  It reminded me
    of Game 1 of the Blazers/Lakers series - the Blazers never recovered.
    
    The Lakers won't from that either.  
    
    JD

      Got to love it!!
    
      Who was POTG for #4?   Jordan maybe?
    
      The only good point for the Lakers has been Divac.  Did you like that
    ridiculous look/body motion he did at the end of regulation in game 3? 
    
    
       I would like to see the Bulls win at home, but hey, if they do it on
    the road, I'm sure know one will mind.
    
      	Tim

	Rich, your analysis is all wrong.  Dan told me the Lakers would 
never get old like the Celtics did, and he's *never* wrong!  But I would 
never pay money to see a game like last night's and more than just a few of 
us feel that way.  My opinion is that as the money involved increases the 
pressure to deliver what the viewer wants (i.e. a close game, excitement) will 
make all the pro sports leagues like the WWF, with Murray the scriptwriter 
coming up with the perfect ending every time.  This will especially be true 
when PPV becomes the only way to watch sports.

	JD, if the Bulls can get Pierce for King they should do it in a 
minute.

				/Don

    Game 3 was the heartbreaker.  Game 4 was more of Game 2 all over again,
    where the Lakers just couldn't cope with the vast difference in team
    speed and quickness.  In Game 3, they let it get to them in short
    stints, but remembered and worked to regain control.  To me, the
    outcome of Game 4 was obvious at the half.
    
    Oh well.  How bad was it?  Midway through the third quarter, I left the
    house and drove around to listen to the game, as the Lakers made a
    small comeback.  Had they won Game 3, and this series was knotted up at
    2-2, I could see collars starting to form around the necks of the Bull
    outside shooters (other than Jordan), but with the 2-1 lead in games,
    and everything going in in last night's contest, they have confidence
    in everything they do, and it shows.  From the scramble type of offense
    to the old Laker-style half-court trapping D, Chicago is executing the
    way Jackson probably draws it up on the chalkboard.
    
    Being down 3-1 is nearly hopeless.  Worthy looks to be 50% at best, and
    Scott looked quite damaged as well by the end of Game 4.  If they gave
    the ball to Magic in the post all game, he could get 50, but they'd
    still lose.  They need some inspiration off the bench right now.  I'm
    not worried about Perkins, since that's the first off day he's had in
    quite some time, but in Worthy's stead, I'd go with a 3 guard lineup
    with Tony Smith getting big PT and also give Eldin Campbell time. 
    Let's contest those loose balls, which the Bulls are getting 90% of
    right now.
    
    Dan

    I think the thing killing the Lakers most is that the outside shooting
    is pitiful. If it were better it'd force Chicago out of their zone.

    FWIW, Jealous Celtic fans have been predicting the demise of the Lakers
    since about 1982.  Boy it used to be "the Lakers are two years behind
    the Celtics", now they're 5 years.  Next year, I'll bet that Portland
    or San Antonio or someother Western team other than the Lakers is
    everyone's favorites to make the Finals, and also that none of us will
    be surprised if the Lakers sneak in there again.
    
    Dan

    I don't think Jim Paxson ever got a ring with the Celtics and I don't
    know about any other brother combinations.  The most prominent brother
    combinations I can think of have been Al and Dick McGuire, Tom and Dick
    Van Arsdale and Albert and Bernard King.  Not many rings in that group.
    
    John

Dan's right about game 3 being the killer.  After losing that one
the way they did, I just knew that yesterday was going to be bad.
The Lakers should have won Friday night's game in regulation, but
they choked big time.  How else can you explain one of the best
free throw shooting teams in the league hitting only 64 percent
from the line.  

As for Byron Scott and Terry Teagle, there aren't enough expletives
to adequately describe their pitiful performances.  I will be
extremely disappointed if Jerry West does not get rid of Scott
in the offseason.  

The Bulls are playing great defense, and at the offensive end they're
versatile enough to succeed in either the halfcourt game or
the transition game.  

Oh, and another thing, Phil Jackson has completely outcoached Mike
Dunleavy in this series.  

Laker_Ken

    Jim Paxson never got a ring with Boston - joined the team in 1988.
    
    But the guy who was traded for him got a ring in 1986.  Who was it,
    you ask.  First, a formfeed to let you guess.
    
    
    Jerry Sichting!!!
    
    NAZZ

    Well, fellow Celtic fans. I think we should all belly up to the bar and
    give our resident Laker fans a rousing standing ovation. Not once have
    I read any replies concerning the weekend games referring to
    officiating. To a person, they admit to the things we all see. A touch
    of class....my hat is off to you.
    
    Dan, I gotta tell you I see the beginning of the end for the Lakers. In
    the early 80's, the only player I saw who was headed downwards was
    Kareem. But I knew Worthy and Magic would be around for awhile. When
    the Celtics got guys like Schisting and Kleine, the Lakers get Divac
    and Thompson. No contest. Jan Volk could carry Jerry West's colostomy
    bag.
    
    But, the ship is starting to list to starboard. I've never seen the
    Lakers look so tired and confused. I've seen it in the eyes of the
    Celtics but not the Lakers. They have missed a beat in obtaining top
    round draft choices or raping other teams with outrageous trades. The
    same establishment that now has a conference call before any trade is
    made with the Celtics assembles to discuss Laker trades.
    
    This is not to say the demise will be abrupt. The calss of their
    organization and players will still carry them to successful seasons.
    My bet is that there is one more finger on Magic's hand that will get a
    champeenship ring. 
    
    Sit back and enjoy, Dan. It is a painful experience.
    
    Rich
    

>    Dan, I gotta tell you I see the beginning of the end for the Lakers. In
>    the early 80's, the only player I saw who was headed downwards was
>    Kareem. But I knew Worthy and Magic would be around for awhile. When
>    the Celtics got guys like Schisting and Kleine, the Lakers get Divac
>    and Thompson. No contest. Jan Volk could carry Jerry West's colostomy
>    bag.
>    
>    But, the ship is starting to list to starboard. I've never seen the
>    Lakers look so tired and confused. 
    
    I'm far from being a Laker fan, but if all the above is true, why are
    they in the finals?  They must have done something right.  Give them
    credit where credit is due.
    
    	--dan'l
    

RE: .126

>>  My bet is that there is one more finger on Magic's hand that will get a
>>  champeenship ring. 
  

Gee, lessee, acc. to previous notes he's got FIVE so far...

No WONDER he's such a GREAT ballhandler....

    re .127
    
    dan'l,
    
    Sure they are doing something right. They know how to win. Heck, the
    Celtics made it to the finals when they were not the most gifted team
    in the east. The Celtics excelled as a team. Just as the Lakers do. 
    I give them a great deal of credit for knocking off Portland and Golden
    State. I'm just saying the decay has started and it reminds me of the
    Celtics.
    
    Rich
    

�    I'm just saying the decay has started and it reminds me of the

	Just goes to show that is pays to floss regularly.

    
    	I not a fan of either team (my heart still belongs to Pittsburgh
    teams, forever!) but I am a fan of basketball.  
    
    	About a week ago, I stuck my neck out and put a huge foot in my
    mouth when I stated after game 1 that the Lakers would put the Bulls 
    away.  Now that a week has passed, I'll take my lumps.  All I can say
    is that I completely mis-judged the Bulls and the Lakers.  
    
    	I thought that the inexperience of the Bulls against the experience
    of the Lakers would deliver another ring to LA.  But as time has went
    on, it has become obvious that the Bulls are the better team.  The 
    Lakers had a great run in getting to the finals, but it's also obvious
    that 2 guys (Divac and Magic) cannot win a championship by themselves.
    
    	Jordan has really risen to the occasion as well as the whole Bull's
    team.  They deserve a lot of credit to have taken 2 in LA when most 
    thought that they would be lucky to come away with 1 win.
    
    	The Lakers are indeed showing their age.  Magic has been great,
    but his supporting cast have played like "supportors".  Divac to his
    credit has played very well for a second year player, but the Laker
    bench is dismal.
    
    	So, it looks like the second major sport will crown a new and never
    before champion in 1991 unless the Bulls choke bigtime.
    
    								bill..g.
    

    I'm really not trying to argue with you, Rich, but I just don't see how
    a team in the finals can be decaying.  My opinion of the Lakers at the
    start of the playoffs was that they were on their way out.  Now they
    are in the finals and I'm shaking my head saying, "how do they keep on
    doing it?"
    
    If this is a decaying team, then the West must really be weak, but I
    don't think that's the case.
    
    	--dan'l

re .131

>>  So, it looks like the second major sport will crown a new and never
>>  before champion in 1991 unless the Bulls choke bigtime.

Gee, does that mean it's Mariners in the World Series... or is it time
for the Angels ...??

Steve, who's_just_joking_cause_he_knows_this_is_the_year_of_the_Red_Sox

	

    >I give them a great deal of credit for knocking off Portland and Golden
    >State. I'm just saying the decay has started and it reminds me of the
    >Celtics.
    
    Maybe you weren't saying it, Rich, but you have to admit, there's a
    boat load of C's fans who have been making similar statements for years
    and years.
    
    Am I as optimistic for the Lakers over the next decade as I was for the
    last one?  No.  But do I see the same symptoms of decay and neglect
    that I saw in the Celtics those years ago when C's fans first started
    to look for company in their misery?  No, again.
    
    Magic still has highly productive years left and the Lakers have been
    busy supplementing the roster with players who can be productive around
    him.  At least while Magic is around, the Lakers will not follow the
    Celtics down the slippery slope.  Beyond that, it remains to be seen
    what Jerry West and probably Earvin himself can pull off.
    
    Dan

I think the Celts and Lakers are at equal places right now -- two aging
teams on the way down, and scrapping to get as far as they did...

IMO, after watching the various prelim rounds, the East was MUCH tougher
this year -- with the exception of Golden State, nobody really gave the
Lakers (Notice I spelled it right this time, RAM?) a tough time -- including
the would-be pretenders to the throne from Oregon -- and on THEIR side of
the rotation, only Seattle played competitively...

Meanwhile, Chicago was overwhelming, while everyone else was approx. even --
and any of them could have given the Bulls about the same level of challenge: 
Indiana, Boston, Philly, Milwaukeee, ... even Atlanta (who almost knocked 
off the Pistons as it was).  

BOTH the Celts and the Lakers played above their heads, given their injury/
age/speed problems.  The difference was, the Celts had to suck it up against
a young/eager/wait-till-next-year Pacer club and a not-gone-quite-yet 
Detroit one (and with a couple of bounces, could have ... fallen to the
Bulls instead), whereas LA got to fend off an overrated Phoenix, the up-
and-coming Warriors and a not-yet-there Blazer-bunch....

Like I said, equal places ...  The only variance right now is: Dee Brown and
Reggie Lewis (vs. Terry Teagle and Divac?)...

Let's see what... oh, say '94 will bring ...!

- Steve, who's_looking_forward_to_the_reconstructions_in _both_places

    
     re.96
    
    You have to admit that Fratello made a cheap comment, but Costas (who
    has disappointed me) and he have a knack for that lately ....
    
    Nah, you'd never admit it ...
    
    re Series,
    
    
    Dunleavy doesn't have the guts to play his bench the way Jackson has.
    Kudos to Jackson. I'd start Tony Smith (who played a damned good game
    against the Bulls when Magic had the concussion), bring Scott off the
    bench, and give Campbell some minutes.
    
    The Lakers are getting waxed in the intensity department.
    
    It was stunning to see the dependance on Magic. A couple of times, the
    Lakers had a break opportunity, but the first thing the player with the
    ball did was look for Magic, and throw it *back behind to Magic*,
    killing the break.
    
    The Lakers need another guard, and they miss a vintage Micheal Cooper -
    bigtime ....
    
    Doc

>I think the Celts and Lakers are at equal places right now -- two aging
>teams on the way down, and scrapping to get as far as they did...
    
    Yeah, sure.  The Lakers have been to the finals 4 times in the last 5
    years.  The Celtics were last their in 1987.  Like two peas in a pod.
    
>    IMO, after watching the various prelim rounds, the East was MUCH tougher
>this year -
    
    Opinions are nice, but if we look at the teams who made the playoffs
    objectively or East vs. West conference records, etc, you'll see that
    the second tier of West teams would blow the East's away.  Teams like
    the Rockets, Suns, Jazz etc. showed that the Western conference had
    depth that the East just plain didn't.  Milwaukee, Philadelphia,
    Indiana among others would have been long shots just to make the
    Western playoffs.
    
>BOTH the Celts and the Lakers played above their heads, given their injury/
>age/speed problems.  The difference was, the Celts had to suck it up against
>a young/eager/wait-till-next-year Pacer club and a not-gone-quite-yet 
>Detroit one (and with a couple of bounces, could have ... fallen to the
>Bulls instead), whereas LA got to fend off an overrated Phoenix, the up-
>and-coming Warriors and a not-yet-there Blazer-bunch....
    
    Oh, please.  You're giving Rich a bad name...  If the Lakers and
    Celtics had met in the playoffs, it would have been Lakers in 4.  If
    the Celtics had the Lakers road to the playoffs it likely would have
    stopped in Houston for them, and there's no way in a million years they
    would have gotten by Portland.
    
    Dan

    re .126
    
    Rich, you pointed out something there ... the Lakers can't clean out
    teams, because there are fewer stupid GM's (like the one's tat used to
    reside in Cleveland and G.S.) around. Even the Clipper's mgnt. won't
    bite ... I'm sure the Lakers would love to ship Scott to Cleveland or
    LA, to somewhere (the Knicks ?) cheap, but they won't get equal value. 
    
    Not after the Game 3 and 4 debacles ... if the Lakers are going to get
    an impact player, they will either have to get real lucky, or real bad.
    
    And I can take it. It happened after Wilt left ...
    
    Doc

    From a Celtics fan -
    
    The Lakers aren't quite as bad off as the Celtics and I attribute that
    to Jerry West.  They have done a better job of swapping new talent in
    than the Celtics have done.  The Celtics, as much as they've slipped
    over the past 5 years (and they could have perhaps won in both 1987 and
    1988 had KC Jones done a better job of developing backup players) have
    a big slippage to go through when Bird, McHale and Parish all retire. 
    In other words, fellow Celtics fans, if you think they've slipped now,
    you ain't seen nothin yet.
    
    The Lakers lag the Celtics by a couple of years.  The key is going to
    be how they handle their aging because they, like the Celtics, are
    getting old.  They have a couple of more years to deal with it, that's
    all.  Unlike the Celtics, they are slightly younger and do have more
    depth which will enable them to stay competitive for a few more years
    yet.  Again, wait 5 years and we'll see 1.  How badly the Celtics
    decline and 2.  How badly the Lakers decline.
    
    Again, I predict the Lakers won't decline as badly as the Celtics will
    since they have a couple of more years to get ready for it and because
    they won't hit the retirements all at once.
    
    John

    re .137
    
    Nice job Dan.
    
    (I'm shocked. :-)
    
    re East/West
    
    I'm not sure the Bulls are THAT good. I give them all the credit in the
    world, and do not mean to take away from them in any way.
    
    But their biggest strength is that they stayed incredibly healthy for
    82 games and the playoffs. The Celtics got hurt, the Sixers got hurt,
    and the Pistons were limping. Now the Lakers have a Worthy who has been
    at 50% for the entire series - at best. 
    
    Like I said, I will not make excuses for the Lakers - the Bulls deserve
    all the good thing happening to them, because they worked hard. But
    there are more stromg teams in the West, and I don't think the Bulls
    are the class of the East. They kinda remind me of the '74 Warriors,
    and I can't see them (*as is*) making it back to the Finals next year.
    
    JMO.

    re .122 (Hawk)
    
    I ain't whining, I'm stating fact, the Lakers need to shoot better from
    the outside and make Chicago come to them, this helps keep guards from
    helping out on double teams. I wasn't refering to the fact that zones
    are illegal cuz everyone does it. I just meant to say that if L.A
    doesn't inprove the outside shooting they ain't going back to Chicago.
    If the outside shooting comes around, Lakers in 7.
    
    
    re .133
    
    This will be the Angels' year in the A.L. but the Dodgers will beat
    them in 7.   8^)
    
    

 Wow, you'd think from reading this note that the series is over, the Bulls
 are the champs, and that the parade in Chicago is all set to go.
 
 If the Lakers come back and make this thang interesting or perhaps even
 win it all, you guys are going to have a *lot* of crow to swallow.   The
 Fat Lady ain't a_singin' just yet.   Yeah, she's warming up her pipes but
 she ain't belted out a single note yet.
 
 If anyone can bring a team back from down 3-1 in the Finals, it's Magic
 Johnson.  And maybe no one else.
 
 Bob Hunt
 
 P.S.  Then again, with Snuffy's miserable 7-for-31 shooting performance
 yesterday, maybe it really is over.    Did Rick Fox sneak into a Laker
 uniform yesterday ???

    
    	Turn out the lights...
    
    B.A.

    Re: East vs. West
    
    The West is truly better.  As Dan said, teams like Phoenix, Utah, Houston 
    are far better than seeds 3-5 in the East.  The West had many more 50+
    game winners.
    
    I still say Utah's upset in round 1 was more Phoenix's doing than 
    Utah's.  Should be an interesting summer.
    
    Re: Lakers & Celtics rebuilding effort
    
    I hate to bring it up again (really I do), but a living Lenny Bias
    might have skewed the Lakers advantage here.  A little better drafting
    would have too.  For example, taking Tim Hardaway instead of Michael
    Smith.  The thought of Hardaway and Shaw/Brown in your backcourt is
    enough to give you a green woodie ;-)
    
    LA has drafted and traded better over the last few years.
    
    Mike

Sunday night's game was probably the last time we'll see James Worthy in
a Lakers' uniform.    Following up his worst regular season as a pro with
his worst playoff as a pro will most likely make him serious tradebait to the 
Hornets.   Mike Dunleavy's offensive scheme severely limits the effectiveness
of Worthy's specialized skills.   

                                                              
    > Oh, please.  You're giving Rich a bad name...  If the Lakers and
    > Celtics had met in the playoffs, it would have been Lakers in 4.  If
    
    I agree that the Lakers are in slightly better shape than the Celtics, 
    but let's not get carried away.  The Lakers and Celts split two games 
    this year, each team winning rather handily in the other's buildiing.  
    I heard Chick Hearn saying the other night that halfway through the 
    season he thought the Celtics were the best team in the league, and
    that's not an outrageous opinion voiced for the first time. 
    
    The bottom line is that in the years to come LA is only going to go as
    far as Magic takes them.  After that, what do they have?  At least the
    Celts appear to have two bonafide players in Brown and Lewis, and maybe
    a third in Shaw, to perhaps Divac for the Lakers.  After that, there 
    are large holes to fill on both teams...
    
    glenn
    

Doug, have the Hornets expressed any interest in Worthy?

    In no way did I mean to assert that the Lakers are following the exact
    same road the Celtics have. There is NO excuse for allowing the
    frontcourt to age the way it has. Bring up Len Bias all you want - fact
    is he very well could have been a Stacey King for all we know, or a
    Baskerville Holmes or a Chris Washburn. 
    
    The Lakers go after Vlade and the Celtics hook Dino. West is clearly a
    much better GM than Volk. And, if it is, indeed, Red pulling the Celtic
    strings, he has slipped to the point of senility. There have been some
    good moves and the rebuilding is ongoing but the Lakers have maintained
    a peak while the Celtics have gone the peak/valley route.
    
    To me, the key to the 5 year future of the Celtics is Brian Shaw. Do
    the Celtics keep him or do they trade him for quality? Can they trade
    up to get a Horace Grant type or will they continue that ridiculous
    route to BYU looking for a tall white guy.
    
    Dan, you are cortrect in saying the Lakers are not decaying like the
    Celtics. But, my point remains valid. They have changed from the run
    and gun grayhounds to a Celtic-like low post game. Watch the rotations
    that occur when the Bulls have the ball and then watch the Lakers when
    they have it.
    
    I recall the Celtics being so boring. DJ bringing it up, looks around,
    dumps it into McHale who twists and turns and scores. Contrast that to
    the Lakers now. Magic brings it up, dumps it into Divac who twists and
    turns and scores. Sure you have Worthy for an occasional great play
    just like Bird would occasionaly shake a defender. And you have Scott
    getting hot from the outside like Ainge did. And Perkins will have a
    big game now and then just like Parish did. Bench? What bench.
    Dunleavey and KC treat their benches the same. 
    
    The key to this whole argument is how the Lakers react. West has proven
    to be astute enough to recognize these trends and pull of a brilliant
    move or two. 
    
    Rich
    

RE: .148

>> Bench? What bench. Dunleavey and KC treat their benches the same. 
				    ^^   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't CHRIS FORD coaching these days...?

Otherwise, good analysis -- altho I still think the Celts have more
of a nucleus for the future (Brown, Lewis, Shaw, Gamble) than LA (Divac,
Teagle, ???)

- Steve

The poor moves in aquiring new players is painful to Celtic fans.  The whole
Tim Hardaway/M. Smith thing is disgraceful.  My hope is that Dave Gavitt will
bring back some sensibility to the organization.

It is a testimony for raw talent when in the playoffs, when everything slows
down, and the game is more deliberate, the teams with more talent still seem 
to win.  Talented players seem to be able to adjust offensively and defensively.

=Bob=

  Now was that an enjoyable weekend or what? You know I loved it. The thing
  that's most delicious is watching this carving exhibition the Bulls are on
  take place right in the fabulous Forum--home of the worst crowd in the
  league. Riley said it all when he said they have to be entertained first
  before they get off their hands.

  Rich you give the Lakers' fan much too much credit. They can't blame the
  refs cause the refs have done everything in their power to try and keep the
  Lakers in. In the real game (ie college) Divac gets called foul not Pippen.
  Lakers have gone to line about double what the Bulls have. How many of those
  have been charges by Whinny and the gang that got whistle the wrong way?
  Also every single one of them has mentioned Worthy's injury and now Byron's
  fake injury. I've seen my kids hit the deck harder than that and get back up.
  What a wussy....

  Dan hahahahahaaaaaa no way in heil the Lakers sweep the C's. But I do enjoy
  watching you lashout like a washup punch drunk fighter.

  JD's new stance on BBall = NEWLYWED Syndrome wait a few years JD you'll 
  be glued to the boob tube again...  ;^)

  Also the call against Michael in game three for warding off with the off
  hand was extremely weak given the straightarms that Whinny has been using 
  the entire series as well as Divac and the rest of the purple at teal gang
  when they do showup for a few minutes a game....

  Lakers biggest problem is they're wussy in the lanes on defense. When the
  last time they actually contested a layup??

  best exchange of the weekend was between Marv and Mike at the end of game
  three after Fratello gets all done explaining why (if he was chicago) he'd
  go for the three and the win. Marv shoots right back at him challenging him
  as to why not the two. Mike says:

 "Dam now if I went the other way you'd have pro-three"

  Marv: "Absolutely"...

  hahahaa all I could think of was this place ( particularly my buddy Dan)
  voice an opinion someone will challenge it if for no other reason that
  to tweak or yank one's chain....


 mike
    

    The Hornets have made such a strong showing in the league that they
    even have Mike confused. 8-)
    
>  the entire series as well as Divac and the rest of the purple at teal gang
>  when they do showup for a few minutes a game....              ^^^^^^^ 
    
    	--dan'l

    
    My favorite play came in what I believe was the 3rd quarter of Sunday's
    game.  Michael has a break away, with only Earvin standing between him
    and the basket.  Rather than get embarassed and show his poor defesive
    positioning, Earvin wraps his arms around Michael, conceding defeat. 
    Why the Bulls only got to take the ball out on the side, is for the
    refs to tell.
    
    Bruce

Mike,

    I'm glad your enjoying the series so much but your reply was so weak
I had to reply.


>  Rich you give the Lakers' fan much too much credit. They can't blame the
>  refs cause the refs have done everything in their power to try and keep the
>  Lakers in. In the real game (ie college) Divac gets called foul not Pippen.
>  Lakers have gone to line about double what the Bulls have. How many of those
>  have been charges by Whinny and the gang that got whistle the wrong way?
    
    What games have you been watching. 

No one has brought up the officials for 2 reasons.

1) They haven't been a big factor 

2) When calls have gone against LA - it certainly hasn't effectived the
   outcome.  The BUlls are playing excellent ball and are simply beating the
   Lakers.
  


   If anything, tHe refs have allowed the games to be very physical and that
has favored the BULLS.  Jordan and Pippen have been able to beat on Magic
without fear of a whistle.  Divac gets called for everything (as does Scott
Williams).  Magic really isn't getting his costumary calls while Jordan is.
The Bulls have recieved some bad calls but so have the Lakers (Scott's
flagrant foul, Magic so called charge into Grant).  

>  Also the call against Michael in game three for warding off with the off
>  hand was extremely weak given the straightarms that Whinny has been using 
>  the entire series as well as Divac and the rest of the purple at teal gang
>  when they do showup for a few minutes a game....


    I do remember that call and I thought it was a bad call.  However,
    I don't have too much simpathy for Michael as he usually gets the 
    breaks.  I remember the end of the game when he was trying to foul
    Magic (with 50 seconds left so the subs could come in) and the
    refs still didn't call it (Paxson had to foul).


    I assume your note is a feable attempt to try to get Laker fans 
    to bring up the officials so you can say they are whining about
    the officials.  I hope the Lakers fans disappoint you and
    continue to discuss the game and not dwell on the refs.  


    I haven't noted for very long so maybe I don't know the games 
    that you or others play but your note was offending a I felt it
    deserved a strong responce.

�   If anything, tHe refs have allowed the games to be very physical and that
� has favored the BULLS.  Jordan and Pippen have been able to beat on Magic
� without fear of a whistle.  Divac gets called for everything (as does Scott
� Williams).  Magic really isn't getting his costumary calls while Jordan is.

	Maybe it's just me but this sure *seems* like it's putting the 
blame on the guys with the striped shirts.

Do you really think I'm blaming the refs in my note?  I was responding 
to the accusation that the Lakers were getting the break from the refs.
I do think the allowance of physical play has helped the Bulls more than
the Lakers (Do you dispute this?).  I also don't think it has made any
difference in the results and I thought that was made clear.


                                                        Alan

    >but let's not get carried away.  The Lakers and Celts split two games 
    >this year, each team winning rather handily in the other's buildiing.  
    
    Is overemphasizing one meaningless game in the regular season a symptom
    of getting carried away?  I agree, let's not do it.  Before that game I
    couldn't even get any of the Celtic fans I know to place a bet with me,
    even our own prestigious better, /Don.  I make my statement about the
    Lakers over the Celtics based on styles, talents and experience, not on
    the regular season game.
    
    >large holes to fill on both teams...
    
    The Lakers have proven to have a knack for filling large holes very
    ably.
    
    Dan

>I still think the Celts have more
>of a nucleus for the future (Brown, Lewis, Shaw, Gamble) than LA (Divac,
>Teagle, ???)                      
    
    If it were my team's future, I wouldn't look to Shaw and Gamble so
    fondly.  And where as the Celtics hopes still ride with Bird (35),
    Parish (37) and McHale (34), the Lakers are riding on Magic (31),
    Worthy (30) and Perkins (29) along with the likes of Divac, Eldin
    Campbell and Tony Smith, and whomever else West sees fit to bring into
    the fold.
    
    Rich, you are correct in the style of play line of reasoning.  Of
    course, the Celtics didn't suddenly fall into the post-up game with
    age, they were predominantly playing it to succeed as far back as '84. 
    Yes, the Lakers under Dunleavy brought it on this year, and I agree
    with the tactic being the one that would advance the Lakers the
    furthest from what they had to chose from.  If the Lakers want Magic
    leading the fast break again, he probably shouldn't be asked to do it
    more than 30 minutes a night.  If they develop a point guard who can
    handle the other 18 minutes (Coop, where are you?), maybe they'll go
    back to it, but I doubt it.
    
    Dan

 Why Alan, I'm watching the same game you are, I'm just not wearing purple
 at teal glasses....

 As far as what game we're playing it's called calling them as I see it...
 The Lakers went to foul line this year 500 more times than their opponents.
 They've always gotten the gifts and Magic not Larry has always been the
 most protected player in the game....

 The only reason the Laker/s fan/s in here are not bemoaning the refs is 
 cause to do that would be tantamount to Russian Roulette....

 ;^) and here's a smiley for cause after all it's still only a game and
 chopsbusting is what's it all about from a fan's standpoint....

 mike

    I don't think Michael has been getting all the calls.  Hell, he was in
    foul trouble the first 3 games.  And as has been mentioned his 4th
    foul on the offensive end in game 3 was a pitiful call.  That call
    Vlade got in game 3 to put the Lakers up by 2 after the free throw in
    the last few seconds of regulation should've been a charge, or at least
    a non-call.
    
    Joe 

    The Lakers have teal as one of their colors?
    
    Mark.

    Whats all the fuss...No Ref is prefect so there will alwasy be bad
    call, missed calls and make up calls.  Series so far, sure theres been
    bad calls (both ways), missed calls (both ways) and makeup calls both
    ways...Im not absolutly positive but if the team getting the most trips
    to the free throw line was winning than maybe there would be at least
    some fuel for the fire.  In this series I believe that the lakers have
    gone to the line more often (and deservingly so) but this has not had
    an outcome on the series.  Jordan and Pippen have been in foul trouble
    early and often thru the series, so you prefermentaly treatment for
    stars doesnt seem to be in affect (pippen fould out in game-3 OT game)
    This series was won by the players, game 3 could have went either way,
    if jordan missed that last shoot you have a repeat of game 1, if sam
    perkins was hot in game 4 instead of being ice it could be lakers 3
    bulls 1.  This has been a great series and is not over, the standings
    are based on the great playing of the bulls bench and players other
    than pippen and jordan...The only 2 man game was game 1 which the bulls
    lost.  The entire team has been playing incredible, 62% shooting and
    that was with the last 5 players on the bench shooting 3-17 !!!! that
    means the rest of the players shoot there hearts out...Dont attempt to
    take or give anything away from this series its the best in the last
    5 years (I kind of wish it was 2-2 so it could go the full 7 games :-)
    
    							M_Air_Brooks

SU fan is LA fan?

    Actually I'm more of a UConn fan.  I do like and root for LA in the West
(I liked their old fast break and passing style) and Philly and Chicago in the
East.  I also root for SU (that is extremely painful) although I really root
for all Big East teams (including Gtown).


    There is no doubt that Magic has been "protected".  However, he
also takes a lot of punishment for such a protected player (Rodman in the
finals against Detriot, Pippen and sometime Jordan this year).  Magic
has gotten fluke calls when he would drive the lane.  Since the Lakers
almost never run anymore those fluke calls are becoming less frequent.
Obviously he shouldn't get any fluke calls but I think his days of being 
the most protected player are over.

> They've always gotten the gifts and Magic not Larry has always been the
> most protected player in the game....


  How did Larry get into this?  Larry hasn't been "protected" in years.


> ;^) and here's a smiley for cause after all it's still only a game and
> chopsbusting is what's it all about from a fan's standpoint....

    I'll take it less seriously next time.



    I'm going to drop this reffing stuff since I said my peace (right or 
wrong).


                                                                Alan

    


 

    

	Alan, just remember that Mike C is the undisputed head of the 
    ABTL(anybody but the LAKERS) club.  That's all you need to know. :-)
        
 >                                                    They can't blame the
 >refs cause the refs have done everything in their power to try and keep the
 >Lakers in. In the real game (ie college) Divac gets called foul not Pippen.
 >Lakers have gone to line about double what the Bulls have. How many of those
 >have been charges by Whinny and the gang that got whistle the wrong way?
    
    	LAKERS have received the benefit of the doubt from the zebras, but
    it doesn't do much good when you can't take advantage.  Credit the 
    Chicago D.  
    
 >Also every single one of them has mentioned Worthy's injury and now Byron's
 >fake injury. 

    	Wrong, wrong, wrong.  I haven't seen one LAKER fan in here use
    Worthy or Byron's injuries as an excuse, certainly not in the 'if it
    weren't for Worthy being hurt, we might have won game x' vein.  He
    did score 22(?) points in game 1.  And I'll be the first to admit that 
    Byron's pride was/is hurt more than anything else.  Keep reaching Mike.

 >Lakers biggest problem is   
  
    	No bench output, lack of adjustment to Chicago's D, no production
    from Byron, and 'cepting Magic & Divac, no desire.
    
    	LA is gonna win game 5 for pride's sake, and then back to Chicago,
    where the Bulls should wrap it up.  If they're gonna win the brass
    ring, let it come in Chitown.  
    
                 			     glen j.

                
    Way to address the meat of my comments with your little jokes, Dan.  Way 
    to address Chick Hearn's opinion, one that I respect and I assume would
    carry a little weight with you, too.  Way to address how the Lakers
    intend on dealing with their under-30 talent drop-off without Magic
    around to pull the strings (the Lakers haven't yet had to see the
    future without him as the Celts have with Bird).
    
    And since when did the Lakers-Celtics regular-season games become so
    meaningless?  Those were well-played games, and with only two a year
    they're games that players on both teams live for as much as any 
    other games.  (A couple of Celtics' fans refusal to bet on them 
    really registers in the relevance department, too...)        
    
    Face it, the bottom line is that the way the Lakers are going right now
    the only team they would be sweeping in the finals would be the 
    Milwaukee Bucks or someone.  Speculation on the Lakers' convincing 
    dominance over an equally battered, aging Celtics team isn't going to 
    change that reality...
    
    glenn
    

M_Air_Brooks

    There isn't/shouldn't be any fuss about the refs.  I'm guilty for 
started this round of ref discussion (it wasn't the intention) and I don't
think the refs have anything to do with the results.  Acutally, that
is pretty much the consensus in this notes file.  The Bulls are playing
excellent ball and everyone is contributing.  When it comes down to crunch
time, the BUlls can go to the best option in basketball (Jordan).  What
was particularly amazing was the ease which he scored the game tying 
basket in game 3.  That was a huge play and he made it look so easy. 

    As has been stated many times, the quickness advantage of the Bulls 
is enormous and is not only seen in the open court but in the half court
offense.  In the half court set the Bulls (Pippen and Jordan primarily)
bring the ball way out (facing the basket) and just go around the 
defender.  This allows the Bulls player to see the entire court and
double teams and thus find the open player.  The Lakers simply post
up with their backs to the basket andwhen the Bull's double down its much
harder for them find the open player.  The double teaming of the post
up player (coming from underneath) has been very effective.

  

>	Alan, just remember that Mike C is the undisputed head of the 
>   ABTL(anybody but the LAKERS) club.  That's all you need to know. :-)
 
 and dam proud of it too...  ;^)
    
 >Also every single one of them has mentioned Worthy's injury and now Byron's
 >fake injury. 

>    	Wrong, wrong, wrong.  I haven't seen one LAKER fan in here use
>    Worthy or Byron's injuries as an excuse, certainly not in the 'if it
>    weren't for Worthy being hurt, we might have won game x' vein.  He
>    did score 22(?) points in game 1.  And I'll be the first to admit that 
>    Byron's pride was/is hurt more than anything else.  Keep reaching Mike.

	While no one has outright blamed the injury, Dan-o was quick to put
 in his views ( I mean facks(tm) ) that James was 50% and which I strangely
 saw pop up again a few later. Someone also pointed out how hurt Byron looked.
 Like you said Glenn it's his pride more than anything else. What can I say
 I read into these subliminal messages whatever I like as long as it detracts
 from the Lakers the head whinners of the NBA. 
    
>    	LA is gonna win game 5 for pride's sake, and then back to Chicago,
>    where the Bulls should wrap it up.  
                 			 
	Pride be dam they already have the built-in excuses for the fall
    that's going to happen wednesday. 

 mike
	

>            -< hey gold looks like teal through GREEN Glasses ;^) >-
    
    Do they also make the Hornets look like the Lakers?  If so, where can I
    get a pair of these glasses?!?
    
    	--dan'l

�    even our own prestigious better, /Don.  I make my statement about the

	Dan, I am flattered, but I don't feel I am better than you, but 
thaks for saying so.  

	Alan, remember to never take anythng seriously in here.  Unless 
it's Dan Schneider saying I am better than him.  8^)

				/Don

    .167 Hawk           
    
    	Coop is playing in Italy.  He was a free agent after last season
    and he and LA were miles apart on the salary figure.  
    
    	I can't help but think that Coop and Woolridge would have made
    a big difference in this series.  Coop for the D and backup point
    duties, and Woolridge as a 7th or 8th man off the bench, providing
    rebounding, defense, and low post scoring.  Not an excuse mind you,
    just wondering.    
    
    .170 Mike C
    	
    	At least you're consistent. ;-)
    
    						 glen j.

    >Way to address the meat of my comments with your little jokes, Dan.  Way 
    >to address Chick Hearn's opinion, one that I respect and I assume would
    >carry a little weight with you, too
    
    What was to address?  A relatively meaningless regular season game and
    a stray comment made halfway through the year?  I ask you to consider
    the impact of the one game, and the fact that the Celtics predictably
    were worse for wear as the year went on.
    
    Are you saying that based on these two towering observations of yours
    that hypothetically the Celtics would have given the Lakers a series in
    the finals?  If so, I vehemently disagree.  There are much more
    important factors to consider.
    
    >Face it, the bottom line is that the way the Lakers are going right now
    >the only team they would be sweeping in the finals would be the 
    >Milwaukee Bucks or someone.
    
    You bravely make such as statement now.  Where were you a week ago? 
    Again, I vehemently disagree.
    
    Dan
    

    > Are you saying that based on these two towering observations of yours
    > that hypothetically the Celtics would have given the Lakers a series in
    > the finals?  If so, I vehemently disagree.  There are much more
    > important factors to consider.
    
    Absolutely not.  Only that this foregone conclusion of a quick, easy,
    four-game sweep that you delivered so condescendingly in response to a
    reasonable analysis of the Lakers' current and future outlook is no
    less "towering" an observation...
    
    > You bravely make such as statement now.  Where were you a week ago? 
    
    Does it matter where I was a week ago?  With players like Worthy and
    Scott dropping by the wayside and Magic becoming increasingly 
    frustrated by the Bulls' superior defense and the uninspired play of 
    his own teammates, is what I or any of the experts may have said 
    in error a week ago about the Lakers' edge in the poise department 
    relevant to the reality of what happened?  The results speak for
    themselves.  I'm not looking to tell anyone "I told you so" (I have 
    no problem with the Lakers pulling it out, to tell you the truth), 
    but I do think that the observation that the Lakers may be on their 
    last championship-caliber legs is not an outrageous one...
    
    One of the other things that Hearn said that I found interesting was
    that he laughs when someone tells him what a great matchup this whole
    Magic-Michael, Lakers-Bulls series is.  He claims that the quality of
    the teams and the basketball is nowhere close to what it was in the 
    Lakers-Celtics series of the mid-1980's.  He acknowledges that neither 
    the Lakers nor the Bulls are anywhere near the level of those teams 
    right now, and considering the Lakers' performance to date in the 
    series baselined against that past standard I think the comments are  
    rather telling... 
    
    glenn
      

    >Does it matter where I was a week ago?
    
    Yes.  When you claim that the Bucks are the only team the Lakers would
    dismantle, clearly you are heavily influenced by the team's performance
    of the last week.  A week ago you would not make such a brazen (and
    wrong-headed) prediction.
    
    >...you delivered so condescendingly in response to a
    >reasonable analysis of the Lakers' current and future outlook is no
    >less "towering" an observation...
    
    That was no reasonable analysis I responded too.  That "analysis"
    likened the Lakers and Celtics right now as two peas in a pod, and gave
    credit to the Laker success to them playing in the "weaker" Western
    Conference.  It was pure bunk.
    
    It is a matter of making reasonable observations concerning the
    directions of the teams and their steady (not one-game) performance
    against playoff-calibre opponents which leads to the reasonable
    conclusion that the Celtics would be no match for the Lakers in a
    hypothetical 1991 Finals.  It goes much deeper than an announcer's
    remark from 4 months ago, no matter how accurate and honest it was *at
    the time*.  The Celtics escaped the Indiana series by the skin of their
    teeth.  The worst team the Lakers played, Houston, is much better than
    Indiana, and the Laker's swept 'em.  The next team the Celtics faced
    was a battered Piston team, who struggled all regular season and barely
    got by the pathetic Hawks in the playoffs.  The C's did nicely to
    stretch it to 6, but that they played this particular Piston team to 6
    is not a testimonial.  That accomplishment pales in comparison to the
    Lakers beating GS in 5 and Portland in 6.  When we talk about the
    playoff performances of the 1991 Celtics and Lakers, we aren't talking
    about two peas in a pod.
    
    Dan

    Glenn,
    
    Thanks for bringing up Woolridge's name and reminding me what happened
    to Cooper. Woolridge is ANOTHER example of how the Lakers beat the
    Celtics to the punch in strengthening their bench. Mychal Thompson and
    Orlando Woolridge as subs. Who'd we get in Boston, Otis Birdsong?
    
    But, that past Laker strength is now gone and it's showing. Wheras the
    Bulls getting Cliff Levingston and Craig Hodges along with the nice
    play of Williams (and the willingness of Jackson to play him!) and BJ
    is wearing out the Lakers. 
    
    NBA champions have benches that are 3-4 deep. Witness Detroit with
    Rodman, Mahorn, Salley and Vinnie coming off the bench. Witness the
    great Laker teams or the great Celtic teams. Depth, a dominate 6th man,
    etc.
    
    BTW - When are the Jazz and Lakers gonna change their names to
    something that fits their environs?
    
    Rich
    

    Orlando Woolridge wouldn't help the Lakers in the least.  (I might
    amend that if Worthy can't go tomorrow.)  The two years he spent on the
    team, he earned a key role off the bench over time, but when it came
    down to the crunch of playoff action, Orlando was nearly useless. 
    He'll miss the short J when it counts, and in this series, with Magic
    driving the lane and not getting the calls, I could just see the refs
    giggling if Orlando tried it...  I'll give Woolridge credit for effort,
    but he was not the answer for the Lakers when they lost to the Pistons
    in the '89 Finals, and during that fluke loss to the Suns last year.
    
    Dan

    Re: Coop
    
    Our LA Times connection in CELTICS notes posted an interview with him
    that appeared in that periodical.  There is a possibility that he may
    be back in the NBA next year as an assistant coach.
    
    Mike

    .180�       -< Would Divak be considered this good going up against Parish? >-
    
    	I would say better...Parish is too slow.
    
    .02
    
    B.A.

    With the defensive style the Bulls are playing, and the places Magic is
    putting the passes, he would look this good against anyone.
    
    Dan

      The Lakers worked hard to get where they are at today,  but just
    can't match the Bulls.  I don't see the Lakers fading away over the
    next cpl of years.
    
      I still see Portland topping the west, especially if they can
    Duckworth.  Robinson can fill his shoes well.
    
      The Bulls might be a east leader again, 'cause I only see these guys
    getting better.
    
      Doesn't this other Celt/Lake dribble go in the NBA topic?
     
    
         Tim
    
      Oh BTW,  Look for the Nuggets to go to the conference finals next
    year;^

    
    	Dan, with the type of pound-it-inside offense that LA runs 
    nowdays, Woolridge would fit perfectly.  His role would basically
    be the same now as it was then, except that he would be asked to 
    supply some offense down in the box, not driving down the lane.
    The reason that he 'wasn't the answer' is that they weren't looking
    for him as an option.  IMO, if they had, I think he would have had 
    an impact.  Afterall, he was one of the league's most consistent
    scorers on a pathetic Nugget team this past season, eye injury and
    all.
    
    .177 Rich B.
    
  	Levingston is probably the *one* player that is giving LA more
    problems than anyone else.  Blocking shots, getting rebounds and 
    loose balls, and hitting everything he throws up.  And it would be
    a crime to even mention this version of LAs bench(if it could be 
    called that) with previous editions.  
    
    	The LA Jazz??  Hmmm, whaddya think Jesse? :-)
    
    						 glen j.
        

      Do you ever have a feeling that the Bulls will win by alot of points
    tonight?
    
      With Worthy out, Scott still useless, and now Magic talking possible
    retirement, well I don't know how the Lakers can be "pumped" up for
    this game, and with the Bulls wanting to conquer (sp?) the best team
    over the past decade, sheesh, I see a 12-15 blow out....
    
    	Watcha thin' bobba lou?
    
    		Tim

 Yeah I heard that. Whinny's already pouting and it ain't even over. All
 ABTL memebers are most definately saddened over Worthy's condition but
 not Byron's as we'd much rather see him out there taking up space and
 doing his Brick Fox(TM) imitation....

 Look for Magic to have a 20+ point first half and a small Lakers lead of
 maybe 5. Watch Bulls crush Dianna & Dan's hearts in the fourth...

 mike
    

    re .188
    
    Slasher The G(r)eek ! :-)
    
    re Rich B.
    
    The Jazz might change - the Lakers never. Too much time has passed, and
    besides, it's allitertive (sp), rolls off the tounge nicely.
    
    Woolridge : Would have been nice to have, especially with Worthy
    limping, but I'd rather have Tony Campbell right now (pity the Lakers
    let him get away, but he wanted to start somewhere) - his shot and
    willingness to drive would have been huge.
    
    I hope that Dunleavy will get Smith some meaningful minutes, and/or run
    some plays for Scott early and often. If he's knocking the shots down,
    fine. If not, bench him or use him to wear Jordan out.
    
    Here's hoping for a Laker's win - they could really use a blowout (like
    the Bulls got in Game 2) which is teh only way I see them winning this
    series.
    
    Doc

    Scott wear Jordan out?  Your simply joking, right?

    noD\, 
    
    you sure put the KOD on the Lakers!!!111   Way to go!
    
    Guess that just proves you're the "better" guy, alright.  Just don't
    bet MY money.   :*) :*)
    
    
    Lee
    

    
    Congratulations to the Bulls for an impressive playoff run.  They
    tied the Pistons 15 - 2 mark in the playoffs.  Good to see another
    mid-west blue collar town win the championship.  
    
    Now to stir things up.  How many Lakers congratulated the Bulls
    at the end of the game?  All I saw was all of the Lakers running
    to the lockerroom area.  I did see Magic congratulate the Bulls
    coaching staff.  Mucho smilies.
    
    \pjb

 5 straight homecourt losses in the FINALS!!!! you got to love that
 stuff....

 Good effort defensively by the Lakers with the exception of Whinny.
 No uncontested layups for the Bulls unless Whinny was back there.
 Atleast Larry plays some defense which should qualify him as a 
 better all around player than Magic. Michael is simply the BEST!
 
 Eastern Conference again proves it SUPERIORITY!!!!!!!!!

 Thanks Bulls for making my day....

 mike

 

    This series proved that the TV networks do NOT control the outcome or
    the duration of the series.
    
    Mark.

    Well the BUlls tied the Pistons 15-2 record....too bad hershey hawkins
    and sam perkins made those game winning 3 pointers or they could have
    swept from start to finish...Who is this camble or smith guy ??? They
    were on fire last night.  There was alot of congrats giving all over
    the court and magic was in the bulls locker room giving congrats after
    the game.  The Eastern Central Division has now won 3 in a row, next
    year will be number 4 for the division and #2 for the BULLS :-)..Its
    easy to talk big after you team has just won :-)
    
    Looking forward to all the offseason moves in the NBA, the bulls should
    sign paxson to a 2yr deal and dump stacey king !!!!!!!  I dont think
    they can get a good bigman (center) in this draft so maybe a power F..
    have to wait and see.....Congrats to the BUlls....
    							M_Air_Brooks

      ALL RIGHT!!!!
    
      It was a great game to the end, especially since the outcome was with
    the Bulls being the new champs.
    
      Jordan named MVP!
    
      Paxson came through in the clutch.
    
      At least the Lakers made a game of it.  Maybe they should have gone
    to the bench (started) in earlier games.  Cambell played well.
    
          Next year?   Nuggets vs Bulls in Finals...;^;^;^
    
    		Tim

Congrats to the Bulls and their fans.

An impressive playoff run.

daryll

    From a somewhat neutral observer:
    
    - I thought last night's game was sloppy and boring
    - I thought Jordan was holding Johnson several times and not getting
      the call
    - Diane Cannon is a pure ditz, but I would have given most anything to
      be Marv Albert during halftime
    - Where did all those Chicago fans come from at the end of the game?
      Shows you how fickle LA fans are.  Hundreds ran onto the court after
      jeering the Bulls and took advantage to celebrate with them.  Jerks.
    - The above is why you didn't see the Lakers congratulating the Bulls.
      It was mayhem on the court...the opposing court.  Give me a break.
      Just another reason to hate LA and the people who live there.
    - Jack Nicholson did congratulate Jackson at the end.
    - Bob Costas called Jordan's wife his mother, but other than that I
      thought he did an excellent postgame lockerroom show.  NBC proves
      much superior to CBS.
    - I will forever remember the image of Jordan hugging and kissing that 
      trophey.
    
    	--dan'l

The Bulls were simply awesome the entire series and are more than a 
desiring champion.  Paxson was on fire and Pippen was everywhere.
Jordan is the best hands down.  He shreaded the double team and still
was able to get open (or make an unbelievable play).  The double pump
over Cambell (a very good shot blocker) was amazing.  He slide into the 
lane and when he saw Cambell in his face, he just waited (hung in the air)
and made the short jumper.  This is an excellent and fairly young Bulls team
that will be around for a while.  They play outstanding D, are very good in
the half court, very good on the break and have the best goto guy around.

Glad to see the Lakers play hard a make it a great game (very sloppy but
fun to watch).  Magic must have had over 5 touchdown passes.

Congrats to the Bulls!


                                                    Alan

    Glad to see Michael win a championship.  So many great players never
    win a title in their career, and some have never even gotten the chance
    to play for one. 
    
    Last night's game had to set an NBA record for traveling calls. 
    
    After seeing that ND football commercial last night, it's quite
    apparent that NBC is going to have the Irish sitting on the highest of
    pedestals.  Of course, we shouldn't have expected anything less when
    talking about the media darlings from South Bend and NBC.  When I first
    saw that commercial, I thought I had on SCA for a minute until I
    remembered that money-grubbing contract the good fathers of ND signed
    with NBC.  Nevertheless, can't wait for the college football season!
    
    Joe :^)
    

 Win or lose, I don't care, I *like* Magic Johnson.   His combination of
 play *and* personality is tops in the league, perhaps in all of sports.
 
 John Paxson, John Paxson, John Paxson ... scorching hot, fiery hot,
 Chernobyl hot.   He could not miss.   Wouldn't you just once love to have
 a groove like that ???
 
 Did anyone see the play late in the game when Jordan was fouled before he
 could get off about a 15 footer and he just instinctively heaved the ball
 back over his head and it kissed the glass and went in ???   It didn't
 count but it was still unreal.    Didn't mean a damn thing as far as the
 game's outcome was concerned but you had to believe it was his night if he
 could do that.
 
 I still think Doug Collins could have taken them this far, too.   A lot of
 people make a big deal about Phil Jackson's calm intellectual approach to
 the game but Collins must have been responsible for some of the fire in
 their eyes that brought them all this way.
 
 Scottie Pippen is a stud.  Great flying breakaway one-handed jam in the
 first half.
 
 The refs were calling traveling *very* tight last night.   Surprising to
 see, actually.   I had no beef with some of the noters who earlier
 remarked that the NBA doesn't call traveling or palming a whole lot.   But
 they sure did last night.    Some of the traveling calls were really
 miniscule ... just a quick flash of feet and tweet ... the other way.
 
 I actually thought the Lakers played a good game last night.  Elden
 Campbell, Tony Smith, and Terry Teagle more than made up for the loss of
 Worthy and Scott.    I'd say that both Worthy and Scott's trade bait
 barometers went up a few notches.
 
 Jordan is God.
 
 Bob Hunt
         

    
 > The refs were calling traveling *very* tight last night.   Surprising to
 > see, actually.   I had no beef with some of the noters who earlier
 > remarked that the NBA doesn't call traveling or palming a whole lot.   But
 > they sure did last night.    Some of the traveling calls were really
 > miniscule ... just a quick flash of feet and tweet ... the other way.
    
    I'm not sure they just didn't invent a couple of those traveling calls,
    especially towards the end.  Magic's at midcourt was obvious, but it's
    funny that they blatantly allow extra steps when a player goes to the
    hoop but call the ticky-tack stuff out away from the basket.  I'll 
    admit I don't have a referee's eye for basketball, but, say like on that 
    last call on the Bulls in the final two minutes I didn't see a damn 
    thing...
    
    I agree that a revision in the Johnson-versus-Jordan debate may well be
    in order, not yet for career achievement but for best player in the NBA
    *right now*.  Jordan put aside a lot of the common criticisms of him,
    and outplayed Magic overall on both ends of the court, I thought...
    
    glenn
    

    
    re: -1
    
> John Paxson, John Paxson, John Paxson ... scorching hot, fiery hot,
> Chernobyl hot.   He could not miss.   Wouldn't you just once love to have
> a groove like that ???
    
    Well, I did have a run like that once upon a time in High School.  In
    two consecutive games, I shot a combined 27-30 from the floor without
    taking a foul shot.  I was 14-15 in the first game, and 13-15 in the
    second.  
    
    Wnen I saw Paxson hit two in a row, I knew he knew he was on.  I said
    over in the Celtic conference that Paxson is a great stationary shooter
    (he shot something like 55% from the field this year) and the key to
    stoping him was to make him put it to the floor.
    
    Overall, great game, and I'm glad the Bull's won.  But LA has nothing
    to be ashamed of.  Magic was very gratious in defeat and could even
    muster a smile or two.  
    
    Now the real test comes for Chicago as they are king of the hill and
    can they stay on top, which is a true sign of a real champion.
    
    
    								bill..g.
    

    Congrats to the Bulls and their fans.  Impressive showing.  Paxson sure
    played well.  Will they repeat? 
    
    Too bad Dunleavy didn't play Campbell earlier in the series....
    
    JD

    
    The following Bull's players are currently unsigned for next year:
    
    Paxson, Cartwright and Pippen.  Is Pippen a free agent?  I remember
    during the season Pippen was unhappy at the lack of contract talks
    with the Bulls management.  The Bulls were to interested in signing
    the guy from Europe.  Once that deal fell through Scottie felt he
    would get the money he deserves.
    
    FYI:  Chuck Daly will be coaching the Pistons next year.  I guess it is
    hard to give up $1 million dollar salary plus all of the endorsements.
    
    \pjb

    Congrats to the Bulls, they had it when it counted. Even though I was
    pretty bummed, I still got a lump in my throat watching Jordan cry over 
    winning the title. I also thought Magic handled the loss with class. 
    
    
    
    On a more positive note, Smith and Campbell proved they could
    contribute to the team. If these guys pan out and Worthy and/or Scott
    are traded for younger talent, the Lakers won't age as fast as some in
    here would like. 
    
    Oh well, good job Bulls.
    

    I have a message somewhere from the UPI wire that siad Pippens contract
    was all set, they were going to give Kukoc a 5yr 15 mil contract that
    would have put them too high in the $$$ to make the cap, therefore not
    giving pippen what he deserves.  Pippen will get his contract and will
    be back next year (He should also get some good endorsments this summer
    if he stays a BULL).  Paxson will proberbly get some offers, if nothing
    is too ridiculous the bulls will match and keep him (2yr deal I hope).
    Levingston will stick around, as well as grant.  They may let
    cartwright and king go and hope that Scott Williams can fill the roll,
    with purdue as his backup (I know williams is a rookie, but he showed
    alot more potential then king).
    
    Next years starting lineup
    	Jordan, Pippen, Paxson, Williams and Grant
    Bench
    	Levingston, Armstrong, Hodges, purdue
    
    I think if nobody makes any kind of offer on cartwright they will keep
    him and he will start with williams as his backup...But $$$ will be
    tight next year for the bulls and they may have trouble staying under
    the cap.  Maybe after jordan makes that extra $5-7Million this year
    from endorsments he'll give up another 500,000K or so.:-) :-) :-) ..
    
    Bulls In '92' (Repeat)
    							M_Air_Brooks

A tip of the hat to whomever it was in these Notes who said the Lakers 
should be going to their bench more -- Campbell and Smith parrticularly
showed some real playoff-poise; we can only wonder what might have been
if Dunleavy had gone to them sooner in the series...

This was one of the most exciting 'one-sided-blowout' playoffs I've ever
seen; I did feel that the Bulls would hang on last night, as they did --
but LA gave 'em a lot to handle...!

Congrats to Michael and Scottie and Funky-Phil, and all the rest of the
Chitowners...

And hats-off to Magic, too -- a classy performance, and a humble and gracious
press conference afterwards, too...!

Thanks, guys, for a truly entertaining series!

- Steve, who_now_gets_to_go_back_to_the_Flip-Flops

    
    Regarding the salary cap.  I thought I remember hearing that if
    team A has a free agent, said free agent signs a contract with
    team B.  Team A can match the offer by team B and it doesn't affect
    the salary cap.
    
    Am I correct?
    
    \pjb

 Sort of pjb..you can over the salary cap to retain your own players but
 once over that cap you can't sign any free agents unless their salary
 will not increase however many bucks you are over the salary......

 I like Magic too but you have to admit he'd make the all-baby cry team with
 Mchale, Ainge, Lamby and a few others....

 send Worthy to Atlanta for Nique....

 mike
 

Ahemm...
    
    Love those Bulls, lets 'go Cubbies.
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach
    
           <<< CAM::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPORTS_91.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< CAM::SPORTS -- Digital's Daily Sports Tabloid >-
================================================================================
Note 160.108            1991 NBA Finals- Bulls vs. Lakers             108 of 212
CSOA1::BACH "Does counter-culture involve formica?"   7 lines  10-JUN-1991 09:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Game 4:  Bulls by seven
    
    I wish they's win it in Chicago, but they won't.
    
    Bulls forever, Marv Albert's toupee NEVER!!!!
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           <<< CAM::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPORTS_91.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< CAM::SPORTS -- Digital's Daily Sports Tabloid >-
================================================================================
Note 160.109            1991 NBA Finals- Bulls vs. Lakers             109 of 212
CSOA1::BACH "Does counter-culture involve formica?"   3 lines  10-JUN-1991 09:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: .-1   Make that game #5!!!
    
    (Damn these fat fingers)

I have to disagree about Magic on the cry-baby team.  In previous years
and in the second game of this championship "yes" for the rest of this
series "definitely no".  Magic got bumped around pretty good without 
getting the calls.  He might have starred down the ref a few times
but there wasn't much whining.

As much as I'd like to think a healthy Worthy, or using the bench earier
would have made a difference, I don't think the Bulls were going to be 
denied.  They are such a complete team (Defense, shot blocking, stealing the
ball, rebounding, quickness, half court offense, open court offense, shooting).
I think the Lakers could/should have played them tougher but it was the
Bulls year regardless.

The Bulls must keep Pippen and Paxson.  Cartwright could go but he does
have his moments and I wouldn't want to count on Williams.  Cartwright
is there best low post (back to the basket) option.

I think the Bulls have all the tools to repeat and I wouldn't mind
seeing a Portland - Chicago final.  That would be fun to watch.


                                                        Alan

      Talking about taking his lumps,  did anyone notice what a pounding
    Grant was taking?  He hit the floor hard 2x with about 1 minute in the
    2nd period.  They also showed where he got popped in the glasses.
    
      IMO, it seemed like Divac was trying to take him outta the game
    anyway he could.
    
      Where is Dan?

    OK, here's a question for ya'll.  When the Hornets drafted two years
    ago, they took JR over Stacey King.  The Bulls picked up King with
    their pick.
    
    Had the situation been reversed, do any of you think JR would have seen
    any action last night?  For some strange reason, I think he would have
    played a couple of minutes.  Don't really know why I think that.
    
    	--dan'l

Nobody else has mentioned it, but...

I was impressed with the fact that the Bulls stopped before popping the
champagne-bottles to hold a team-prayer in the locker-room, and that Jordan
himself was down on the floor giving thanks for all that had come to him...

This sort of HONEST humility, instead of the pseudo-sort that some athletes
seem to show, was a refreshing change of pace... and one which the NBC 
cameras/commentators did their best to overlook...

RE:	"Jordan is God..."

I guess Michael woudl disagree...

- Steve

Good show by the Bulls.  I was proud of the way the Lakers played
last night.  They could have packed it in, but instead chose to
give Chicago all they could handle.  In the end, though, the Bulls'
defense clamped down, and at the other end, the Lakers made the
mistake of leaving Paxson open for the J, and he put the final
nails in their coffin.

With the play of Tony Smith last night, I hope some of you pro-
Dunleavy noters will now understand why some of us Laker fans were
furious with his decision to play Larry Drew instead of Smith in
the playoffs.  The kid may be a rookie, and he'll make mistakes,
but he's still a much better bet than Drew.  He and Campbell made
us Laker fans smile last night, for even though we knew the series
was over, it's exciting to think about what impact the young guys, 
including Vlade, will have on the team next year.

Time for Jerry West to go to work on retooling this team.  Certain
to be gone are Mychal Thompson and Larry Drew.  I would love to see
them deal Byron Scott for a late first round pick, and move Tony
Smith into Scott's starting role.  If they can deal Worthy, possibly
in a package, for one of the top three picks, I would like to see
them do that, but I suspect James will stay in L.A.

Laker_Ken 

 >I like Magic too but you have to admit he'd make the all-baby cry team with
 >Mchale, Ainge, Lamby and a few others....
    
    Don't have to admit nuthin', Mike.  This is just your fantasy.  Magic
    is the ambassador of the NBA and always carries himself well, on and
    off the court.
    
 >send Worthy to Atlanta for Nique....
    
    Never!  Are you trying to sabotage the Lakers?
    
    Congrats to the Bulls.  A well-earned victory against a game Laker
    team.  It's a shame the Laker's couldn't extend the series since the
    hoops was very enjoyable.  This was the first series without thuggery
    since the Celtics started their goonball tactics in 1984.
    
    Dan

    >Had the situation been reversed, do any of you think JR would have seen
    >any action last night?  For some strange reason, I think he would have
    >played a couple of minutes.  Don't really know why I think that.
    
    Definitely.  I think playing with someone with the drive and confidence
    of Jordan would help his game immensely.  There's a lot to be said for
    motivation and what it means to professional athletes, and the
    situation in Chicago is probably a much better atmosphere for that than
    the one in Charlotte.
    
    Dan

    
    As usual, Dan enters into the fray! Way to go Dan!
    
    Bulls were just that much better than the Lakers, even with a 
    healthy Worthy an Scott. I stated earlier that the Bulls needed
    to get thier outside game going with Paxson an Hodges and they
    did just that and it proved to be a big difference. I thought
    that both teams played very good defense anfd the scores reflected
    that, although the Lakers were letting the clock run down before
    shooting. The Bulls stymied Magic for the most part, ecspecially
    when he was bringing the ball up the floor. Jordan was immense.
    Congrats to the Bulls and thier fandome!
    
    
    
    Steve 
    
    

    
    	Congrats to the Bulls on a winning their first champeenship.
    They were clearly the better team during the series and I have to
    say that I'm glad to see Michael win a ring, just like I was glad
    when Dr. J. finally got his.  
    
    	The game was close until about the last 3 minutes, when Paxson
    simply killed them something like 10 straight points from the outside.  
    
    	As for LA, they played about like I expected them to, with pride,
    intensity, and heart.  Campbell and Smith made a real good showing
    and will definetely have an impact next year.  Too bad it took 
    injuries to James and Byron(hmmm) for Dunleavy to see that they could
    contribute.  Magic's talk about 'retirement' was more of a rally the
    troops type of talk than anything.  He'll be back.  I would suspect
    that Drew, Thompson, Scott, and maybe Worthy or AC(depending on what 
    they can get for one or the other) might be gone next year.  It's time 
    to start thinking about the future.
    
    .199 Dan'l
    
    	Many Angelenos are from other parts of the country Dan'l, and there
    are lots of Chicago transplants.  I met more ex-New Yorkers in LA 
    than anywhere else in the country.  Stands to reason that many of the
    fans celebrating on court with the Bulls were either from Chicago, or
    maybe just wanting to congraulate the Bulls inperson.  Who knows.
    
        Well, I now owe an ex-manager of mine a sushi lunch since we bet
    Chicago deep dish pizza(LA victory) vs. lunch at Colo. Spgs. finest
    sushi bar(Chicago victory). :-(  Such is payback for the Giants victory
    over the Bears in last season's NFL playoffs.
    
    	Once again, congrats Chicago!
    
    				     		 glen j.

    Sushi ? Some payoff ... you got off real easy Glen ! :-)

    
    	Actually, it's the reverse Doc.  Guess I've gotten so used to winning 
    these bets that my brain still thinks it's time to receive instead of 
    give. :-)
    						 glen j.
    

    	Comparing deep dish pizza to sushi is like comparing Kim Bassinger
    to Phyllis Diller.

 Dan why then is my fantasy so visable? Why do I have so many remeberences
 of Whinny complaing to the refs about calls? I realize it's his competitiveness
 showing through and I respect that.  Still doesn't erase the fact that he's
 a whiner....

 Of course I'm not out to do the Lakers any favors with my trade idea. Also
 another distinguished noter in here has always contended that if Nique played
 for LA it would be the same as having Worthy, I'd like to see if he's right
 cause I agree with him.....

 No more BBall, I'm already having withdrawl symptons....

 ;^)

Mike,

>    why then is my fantasy so visable? 

Because its your fantasy and you probaby dream about it night and day.
You probaby see Magic whine when the Lakers aren't even playing.

Enjoy your fantasy because thats what it is.



I feel Magic did himself proud in the series.  Not becasue he played
great but because he was outplayed by Jordan and had to pass on the
torch as the NBA's best.  I'm sure it wasn't easy for him but he did 
it with a lot of class.  A lot more class than certain noters has shown.




                                                            Alan

 Cmon Alan you can't be that blind. Can you honestly state to me that you
 have never ever seen Magic question a call from a ref? I agree that he did
 himself proud always has but the fact still remains he's a crybaby. Why
 you Lakers fan can't admit some faults in your players is beyond me. I've
 note several times now how Mchale would join him on that team. I've railed
 Larry for dumb shots yet in the eyes of the Laker faithful they can absolutely
 do no wrong. It's always somebody else fault...

 why why why?????????????

 mike

    Mike,
    
    Why ask why?

 I guess you're right Bruce maybe all Lakers fans should be equated with Evan...
 
 ;^)

Mike,
    
    I'm not the big Laker's fan you make me out to be.  I like a few teams
as much as the Lakers.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm more of a
bandwagon Lakers fan.

    I just don't understand your timing in bringing up the MAGIC whining
issue.  During the early/middle stages of his career, I would agree with you.
However, I thought the exact opposite during the championship series.  Why do
you bring up whining when he showed great restraint despite his frustration?
Obviously, he complained/whined about a few calls (especially in game 2)
but for the remainder of the series he whined very little if at all.

    I also don't buy the Lakers can't do anything wrong theory.  The Lakers
fans are very hard on their own players and this includes Magic.
The Lakers conference is full of replies about, Divac's poor defense",  
Scott's ability to disappear, Worthy's lack of rebounding, and even 
Magic's tendancy to try and take over too much.  

 Alan I can only go by what I read in here I don't read the Lakers conference.
 If you read my note before the finals start I flat out stated that I wouldn't
 sing one word of praise about the Lakers during the finals after praising their
 performance against Portland. Magic is the focal point of all that is the Lakers
 so he's the best target to get under the Lakers' fan skin who have abused my
 C's unmercifully at times. It's all in good fun or atleast I hope it. 

 mike

    Laker fans criticize James Worthy???  Doug Ross and I don't believe it
    ;^)

    Alan, why do you expect so much from Celtic fans ? you ought to know
    better.
    
    Especially when it concerns a charter Jihad member like Mike Childs ...
    
    False modesty aside, I deserve a Nobel Prize for making a few of them
    see what little reality that they do now ... don't think that it was
    easy ..... :-)

    	Hey Doc_2_outta_5/3_outta_6_peat the only prize you deserve
    is a Booby Prize.  And a well earned prize it would be!
    
    				/Don

 Don shouldn't that be Doc 2 outta of 10? as in 8 BIG LoSS to the C's????

 charter member? I thought I was the pres?

 ;^)

  > Laker fans criticize James Worthy???
    
    	Criticism of Worthy ain't nothing compared to the treatment
    Byr0n Scott gets.
    
    					  	 glen j.

    Hawk, et al...the Jihad would be tickled pink to be 5-4 in Championship
    games during the Magic era.
    
    Hope this hurts,
    
    Mark.

    Just trying to keep the rabid Jihad in check.  And I duly noted that
    you didn't disagree.
    
    Mark.

    I'd take 5-4 in a heartbeat.  Cain't win it all if you don't get there
    in the first place.  Even considering the 4 losses, you'd at least have
    a shot at the ring.
    
    Much better than golfing, which is what the C's were doing this year.
    
    Not even close.
    
    Mark.

And of course, 5-4 is much preferable to 3-2, which is what the
Celts are in the Bird era. 

Laker_Ken

 While 3-2 is respectalbe I'd rather be 5-4 can't argue that. I also agree
 with Mark (first time today I think ;^)) I'd rather be 5-4 than 4-0....

 besides we should really but 5-0 but you know we had injuries and the refs
 jobbed us and of course the clasical We ran into hot teams that wouldn't
 be denied


hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa

    :^)
    
    Mark.

    I dont know what your all squaking about the bulls have NEVER lost
    in the Finals :-) ....  Being that, Id say that both 5-4 as well as
    3-2 are great records.  Of course if you ask any B-Ball player they
    would prefer the 5 rings over 3.  Of course again this means nothing
    in terms of who is better Celtics or Lakers, Magic or larry becuase
    if it did then Bill Russell (11 rings) is the best of all time and the
    celtics are the best team of all time :-) ....
    
    The lakers should be 5-3 still, they didnt deserve to be there in the
    1st place :-) ...Bulls deserved some competition in there first trip to
    the finals and Portland goes and chokes sending the lakers to the meat
    grinder.  Now that I think about it maybe portland delibratly lost
    knowing that the bulls would blow away any opponent :-)
    							M_Air_Brooks

Being a VIKINGS fan, I completely agree with Lufay....

    You too Doda ?
    
    At least the Vikes never took the pipe the way the Donks did, but when
    teh Raiders creamed them in SB IX, I had do deal with dad's gloating,
    and it was worse than liver .... (it didn't help that the game was on
    his birthday) ....

    
    Chrisssst, now Doc's a Vikes fan too.  I think there are like 6 teams
    he isn't a fan of, five who are in the WLAF.
    
    Re 5-4 vs 4-0:
    
    The answer to that question is the same as the answer to would you
    rather be 1-4 in the finals or 0-0?
    
    However, all those Laker fans who think Celtics fans are jealous of
    the LAkers' recent 5-4 record in the finals have really hit upon the
    crux of the difference between Celtics fans and LAkers fans.  Lakers
    fans point to the 5-4 record as the highlight of Laker history, and even
    have the gall to call that point in history as a dominating or even a 
    dynasty.  Had the Celtics been 5-4, Celtics fans would look at that
    point in history as not particularly successful, and certainly not
    something you'd call a dynasty.
    
    Bruce  
    

 � Had the Celtics been 5-4, Celtics fans would look at that point in
 � history as not particularly successful, and certainly not something
 � you'd call a dynasty.
 
 Perhaps not but the fans would still have flooded the parquet after
 each title-clinching win, Red would still have lit up a stogie, NBC
 would still have gone into their locker room for some champagne
 spraying, the players would still have gotten rings, you still would
 have a parade in downtown Beantown, and you still would have hoisted
 yet another banner at the beginning of the nexted year.
 
 Please don't try and convince me that Boston would have just yawned
 at a Lakeresque 5-4 record in the NBA Finals.    You guys would have
 enjoyed every moment of it as hard as you could have.
 
 Not to mention all the anticipation and enjoyment you would have
 consumed on your way through the Eastern Conference on your way to
 the four losses in the Finals.
 
 A little reality here, please ...
 
 Bob Hunt

    
    I didn't say that we wouldn't enjoy the wins.  I merely said we
    wouldn't be self-pronouncing ourselves another dynasty, we wouldn't
    have coined terms such as three-peat, and certainly, no Celtic fan
    would call themself "Dr. Three-out-of-five-peat."
    
    Bruce

    	Bruce, the correct name is... 
    "Dr. Three-out-of-increment-by-one-annually-peat".  HTH
    
    				/Don

    A more pertanent question than 5-4 vs. mythical_record might be say 0-1
    vs. 2-3.  The point being that sometimes you have to take your lumps
    to get the some wins.
    
    If you win a few championships now and then, it can be very enjoyable
    being in the hunt year after year.
    
    Commander Scott

    Do you think that Ernie Banks would have wanted to taste the excitement
    of one World Series appearence, even if he went home a loser?
    
    Winning half the championships of an entire decade during as
    competitive an era as the modern NBA is, is certainly dynastic.  Bruce
    is wallowing in sour grapes.
    
    Dan

    
    5-4 is pretty damm good.  I'm sure Celtics fans would have been very
    pleased to come out of the eighties with that record.  I think the
    better question would be: Which is better 1-0 or 1-4?  The best NBA 
    case is the 76'ers.  Aren't they 1-3 or something since 1970? Which 
    is better?  (I'm discounting the 67 sixers on purpose for this point)

    Here's one Celts fan who would be happier with a 5-4.  But, that
    doesn't mean I'm unhappy with their record.  
    
    Hawk, do you mean that you'd rather lose in an earlier round, or not
    even qualify for the post-season, than to lose in the final?  Not me.
    Get me to the big game.  Fewer "what-if's" to go thru.
    
    Of course, getting to the big games, and never winning the title like
    the Vikes is something else.  If given a choice, would you rather be a
    Vikes fan or a Pats fan?  Pats are 0-1, so is that any better?  They
    only lost one SB in their history.  Not too bad a record, depending on
    how you word it.  On the other hand, you can say they lost every SB
    game they played.  Same record, different twist.  At least the Vikes
    won their Conference more than once.
    
    Lakers still sip, tho.  :*)
    
    Lee

    RE sour grapes:
    
    I can speak for myself, thank you Dan.  I don't see how you can
    determine my psyche from three thousand miles away, and only having met
    twice (and I don't even recall basketball being discussed), but you
    seem to have a habit of presuming many things.
    
    I was basing my statements on how I, and other Celtic fans felt after 
    the Celts won the title in '86.  There was a fan or two who said that
    this team was the best Celtic team ever.  However, the vast majority of
    Celtic fans and I seemed to agree that until that team came close to
    matching the Russell years (a true dynasty, not a puffed up self-
    proclaimed one), there was no real comparison.
    
    Your Scneid remark about "more competitive" teams really presents a
    dilemma.  Because the Celtics so thoroughly dominated the '60's, it
    appears that they had less competition.  This is a case of their own
    success bouncing back against them.  The '80's Laker team, playing in
    a league with more teams and thus a more diluted player pool, barely
    won more  than half what the 60's Celtics team did.  If you want to
    call that a dynasty, go ahead.  Maybe we Celtic fans just have higher
    standards for our dynasties, but that's not surprising.
    
    Bruce   
     
    

    Advantage, Bruce May.
    
    Dan?
    
    Mark.

    Bruce, the '86 CELibaTIC(tm) team woulda beat any of them Russell
    Champeenchip teams. The 86 team faced tougher teams then the Russel
    teams had to deal with. Hell, even the 87 team that the Lakers stomped 
    woulda beat any of the Russell teams. Any of the Laker championchip
    teams woulda stomped Russ the the 60's green. 

>                              (a true dynasty, not a puffed up self-
>   proclaimed one)
    
    
>                                        The '80's Laker team, 
    
    	In the span of 10 years, they only managed to win 9 divisional 
    titles, 8 conference championships, and 5 world championships.  No 
    team has won like that, year in and year out, since you know who.
    'Nuff said.   :-)
    
    
    						 glen j.

 Hey Jesse-ica go back over to rasslin' where's you atleast have some idea
 of what's going on will ya...

 Russell's teams would have smoked the Lakers in the Eighties just like they
 did in the Sixties. They had shooters, point guards, forwards who could score
 and play defense and the bestest "team"/cometitive player that ever lived man-
 ing the middle....

 mike

    Mike -
    
    Unfortunately, the Celts, besides Russell, would be so much slower and
    less athletic they'd get killed.  That doesn't demean their ancient
    victories - but the game was different.
    
    Do you really believe a guy like Tommy Heinsonn could guard anybody
    who plays in the NBA now, except for guys like Dave Corzine??  Who'd
    guard Magic?  Worthy?  
    
    I think Russell would still get bounds and play good defense, but the
    Celts would get smoked.
    
    Just like George Mikan's Lakers of the 50's would have got smoked by
    the Celts in the 60's.  The game changes.  I'd be surprised if any of
    the Celts Russells teams could even win one game vs. the Champeenship
    Laker, Celts and the 83 Philly team (and for that matter, the 89
    Pistons team - which they might have the best shot against).
    
    The Celts team of Parrish, Mchale, DJ, Bird, Ainge, Walton, etc would
    clean the clock of the old Celtic memory teams.  get real willya.
    
    JD

    Mike C. ah them boyhood heroes we worshiped. I can see why you'd cling
    to them, especially since they won 8 in a row. I can also see you
    seeing thru your green-glasses but you have to be real. JD is right,
    the modern champions would beat the champions of old. That goes for any
    sport. Atheletes today are bigger, faster, etc, than those of old, and
    the atheletes of tomorrow will be bigger, faster, etc. than those of
    today.  

 Sorry but in a team game I feel you guys are overrating speed. Brawn over
 brains etc. What you guys fail to realize is that today athlete as great
 as they are pamper spoiled brats who can't play with injuries for the
 most part. Do really think Bill Russell would sit out a championship
 series with a 'hammy'? Get real. The Sixties Celtics team invented the
 fast break. When you went into the lane in the Sixites you got your clock
 cleaned not the matador defense of a Magic or Perkins. The only advantage
 I see today's athlete's having is more quality big guys. But on Brains 
 and desire the MEN of the Sixties put them to shame.

 Yes I believe Tommy could hold his own defensively but then again that
 was Satch's job anyways....

 mike

    
    Teams must be evaluated within the context they played in.  Otherwise
    there's no point in arguing whether or not the Lakers are a dynasty
    because we all know that in a few years we'll be saying the last-place 
    L.A. Clippers of the year 2020 could have taken 'em easy, so they were
    really a bunch of chumps.
    
    Winning a championship in the 1980's *is* more difficult than winning
    one in the 1960's, simply for the logical reason that there are more
    teams to overcome.  Look around you.  This holds true for all sports, 
    doesn't it (there are other factors, of course)?  I'd still say the
    Celtics' accomplishment of winning 11 of 13 was the greater, but that 
    both eras constitute "dynasties".
    
    glenn
    
    

    And yes, there were fewer teams in the 60s, but the talent wasn't as
    spread out.  Cain you imagine what the teams would like today if there
    were only 10 of them?
    
    Each era has to be compared in and of itself which is why the computer
    simulations from era to era are ultimately useless.
    
    It is probably best left to the fans of the individual teams to say
    which is better - 11 titles in 13 years (Boston from 1957-1969), 8 in a
    row (Boston from 1959-1966), 5 titles in 6 years (Lakers from
    1949-1954) or 5 titles in 9 years (Lakers from 1980-1988).
    
    John

    Personally, I think John Forsythe and Joan Collins were a dynasty.
    
    Mark.

    >I don't see how you can
    >determine my psyche from three thousand miles away
    
    The sour grapes were plain to see, nor were they the first ever spotted
    from your keyboard.  I really don't care whether you want to admit it
    or not, but what you're seeking to do is de-value the Lakers
    accomplishments of the 1980s.  And knowing that you're a Celtic fan and
    reading your trains of thought for 5 years or so, I'm 98+% certain as
    to why.
    
    >The '80's Laker team, playing in
    >a league with more teams and thus a more diluted player pool, barely
    >won more  than half what the 60's Celtics team did.
    
    A "more diluted player pool"?  This discussion has been rehashed many a
    time.  The talent of the 1980s blows the talent of the 1960s away.  The
    talent of the average NBA player is far and away better; the talent of
    the marginal player is far and away better.  The basketball curriculum,
    training, exercise, etc is far and away better.
    
    What's more the league has changed nearly 180 degrees in this time,
    bringing parity in nearly every aspect to running a team.  As sports
    have become bigger businesses, the running of each detail of these
    businesses is open to examination and comparison within their sector.
    
    The conditions and context has changed, and likewise the numbers have
    changed.  Whether you want to realize the excellence of the Lakers of
    the 80s or not is your choice.  If I assume you're intelligent enough to
    reach a reasonable conclusion, and I do, then I must justly recognize
    your stubborn insistence on belittling the Lakers' accomplishments as
    Sour Grapes which will likely be stewing for a long, long time.
    
    Dan

    
>    A "more diluted player pool"?  This discussion has been rehashed many a
>    time.  The talent of the 1980s blows the talent of the 1960s away.  The
>    talent of the average NBA player is far and away better; the talent of
>    the marginal player is far and away better.  The basketball curriculum,
>    training, exercise, etc is far and away better.
 
	rehashed many times but I still do not see any valid claim that
    the talent is better. But let's for arguments' sake say it is. Then
    as a whole the issue of talent is a total washout because amoungst
    themselves each generation played against the best that generation had
    to offer. The argument that they are more teams is a washed by the
    the fact that less jobs back then meant fewer could play so the talent
    should have been more concentrated...
   
>    What's more the league has changed nearly 180 degrees in this time,
>    bringing parity in nearly every aspect to running a team.  As sports
>    have become bigger businesses, the running of each detail of these
>    businesses is open to examination and comparison within their sector.
 

	What the hell does this add to the rathole? Only says to me that
    teams have wised up and Red can't hoodwink anybody anymore. 
   
>    The conditions and context has changed, and likewise the numbers have
>    changed.  Whether you want to realize the excellence of the Lakers of
>    the 80s or not is your choice.  If I assume you're intelligent enough to
>    reach a reasonable conclusion, and I do, then I must justly recognize
>    your stubborn insistence on belittling the Lakers' accomplishments as
>    Sour Grapes which will likely be stewing for a long, long time.
    
 	Again this adds nothing other than to prove you can wax on poetically.
    The Lakers of the Eighties were an excellence team but they lacked any
    real competition in the west. They had a cakewalk to the finals just
    about every year. The Celtics of the Eighties had to battle through the
    Sixers in the earlier eighties and then the Pistons in the late Eighties.
  
	The Celtics of the Sixties had top beat the crap out of the Sixers,
   Warriors, and Lakers every year it seemed as the playoff format was 
   different back then....

	The Lakers had a Western Division Dynasty period. The Celtics had
   a league DYNASTY!

 mike

 Mike,
 
 You guys can argue about the 1960's Celtics versus the 1980's Lakers
 all day long and never settle a thing.
 
 The only statement you've made in this whole debate that I found
 worth refuting was your claim that you wouldn't think 5 titles in 9
 trips to the Finals in 12 seasons was "particularly successful".
 
 You're reaching on *that* one, dude.
 
 Bob Hunt

    Mike -
    
    Believe in anything you want.  I for one would pay huge amounts of
    money to see the 60's Celts play the 86 Celts, or the 83 Sixers, or the 
    87 Lakers.  I'd be howling.
    
    I can just see ol Satch playing Dr. J, Worthy or McHale.  Now I like
    Satch Sanders, even met him a few times, but hardy har har.  Or see
    Tommy Heinsohn guard Bird, or Bobby Jones.   Even Russ on Moses or
    Parrish or Walton.  And the guards...KC Jones guarding who?  
    
    In your mind, you probably think Satch Sanders could shut down Michael
    Jordan.
    
    It's like comparing the old football teams to today's teams.  I think
    the 60's Packers would get whomped by the 80's Niners, or the 86
    Giants, 85 Bears, etc... even thought the Pack had a super team.
    
    They have brains - but so do the other guys.  You make it sound like
    the hoop teams of the 80's have neither Brains nor Brawns.  Sadly
    mistaken.
    
    Like Yankee fans, you are grasping at ancient glories.  It's like
    Italians recounting Caeser.  It was big.  But it was a long time ago.
    
    I like RUss, but I even question his effectiveness - especially
    offensive.
    
    the old style was to funnel everything defensively to the center -
    which is why the old centers had such huge rebounding totals.  Guards
    rarely crashed the boards (with exceptions such as Oscar R.). The Clets
    of the 60's vs. the 80 champeenship teams couldnt' rely on Russ to get
    30 boards.  It wouldn't happen. 
    
    They'd get kilt.
    
    JD

    Funny how a lot of C's fans jump on the dynasty bandwagon YEARS after
    the fack. After all, the Celtics seldom sold out during their title
    runs.
    
    John, granted, there was less dilution of talent in the 60's, but there
    was less talent to go around too. Think about (for example) the number
    of great black players from Grambling, TSU, and other small schools.
    The only NBA players of note to come out of such schools in the last
    decade have been Oakley, Purvis Short, and Larry Smith. Why ? More good
    talent is playing on the major college level where the exposure is
    greater. Moreover, the NBA is starting to get *global* talent.
    
    Another factor about the Celtics. They beat the Lakers in the finals
    what, 5 times ? And the Lakers had Baylor, West, and no center to match
    Russell until Wilt got there in 69 (and then the Big Three played a
    combined 15 games togther).
    
    What would have happened if the Lakers had gotten a Wilt, or Thurmond
    sooner ? The "awesome" Celtic teams could barely get past them as it
    was.
    
    Or suppose the Royals could have paired The Big O with a premire big
    man ?
    
    Dynasties are tenous things, they are as much luck and good breaks
    (granted they are a residue of design) as they are talent. The Celtics
    had their share of that haven't they ? (Now let's see if any Celtic
    fans will conceed that point ....)
    
    All other things being equal, do you really think that the C's of the
    60's would have won 8 titles in a row today ?
    
    doc

    Love that note JD.
    
    Another thing about today's teams. Everybody shoots better. Remember
    that the sainted Bob Cousy was a career 38% shooter (or close to that),
    and KC Jones was around the same neighboorhood.
    
    Now consider the fact that many of the Lakers' teams of the 80's shot
    over 50% AS A TEAM.
    
    No contest ....
    
    Doc
    
    p.s. And Pat Riley would coach rings around Red too !
    
    Smoke THAT one ....

                  
    Dilution of the talent pool doesn't mean a thing when evaluating a team
    *in the context of the time and league it played in*.  It would mean
    something when trying to compare Team A in one era to Team B in another 
    era head-to-head.  I wasn't doing that.  I only made the statement that 
    it's more difficult to win a championship now than 30 years ago.  By 
    definition, only one of 28 teams can win one per year now, versus one
    in 12 (or whatever) before.  It's obviously more difficult to compete
    for talent and then go out and better 27 other teams than it is to do
    so against 11, regardless of whether the talent is at the NBA, college, 
    or high school level...  
    
    glenn
    

    
    I never said one thing about the 60's Celtics being able or unable to
    beat the 80's Lakers.  That is something that no one will ever prove.  
    While I do agree with Dan that the Lakers _were_ an excellent team, I
    don't consider them a dynasty.  But I've already talked about that
    standards thing.
    
    What I can't understand, though, is how the same people who said one
    Finals victory in four losses is better than going 0-1 are also the ones
    that say 5/9 is equal to 9/11.  
    
    And Doc, tell me what NBA team sold out in the 60's?  Certainly wasn't
    your Lakers, or your Sixers, or your ...
    
    
    Bruce

    6ers couldn't even sell out a 7th game vs the Bucks a few years ago.
                                Denny

>>    Funny how a lot of C's fans jump on the dynasty bandwagon YEARS after
>>    the fack. After all, the Celtics seldom sold out during their title
>>    runs.

Gee, Doc, you're right.  And to think I've been misled all this time.  Oh wait,
now that I think about it, no team sold out in the 1960s.  It was long before
the heyday of basketball.  Maybe you should pick up a copy of "The Breaks of
the Game".  You might not like it because it doesn't tend to be bible-thumping
anti-Celtic but perhaps you'll learn something about basketball.  Of course,
that might impact your noting.

j.

re: Doc

I can handle your anti-Celtic attitude.  I even respect your perspective on the 
60's Cs vs the 80's Lakers (don't see the relevance though), but Pat Riley out 
coach Red Auerbach!   Give me a break, Pat Riley, the most OVERRATED coach in 
the history of the NBA.

=Bob=

 You guys ain't going to change my mind, I'm not going to change yours.
 I'm not going to sit here and argue till I'm blue in the face and besides
 I'm sure I've got to elsewhere around here and take a beating over the picking
 of Brick Fox(tm) great player next Jordan....

 Truce on my part...

 Doc you're the one that's smokin....Riley was gift wrapped a team. Red built
 it motivate and designed an offense that the 80 Lakers flourished with...

 In parting remeber the movies Hooisers....I think you know who plays the
 part of winning team/loosing team...

mike

�    Dynasties are tenous things, they are as much luck and good breaks
�    (granted they are a residue of design) as they are talent. The Celtics
�    had their share of that haven't they ? (Now let's see if any Celtic
�    fans will conceed that point ....)

	If you'll conceed that the Lakers also had some breaks and good 
luck.  But I cain't wait for hell to freeze over.  I believe the Army of 
the Continental Congress would whip the Desert Storm troops real bad.


				/Don

    I conceed that the Lakers had their share of breaks and good luck. 
    
    
    
    They just needed much less than the Celtics did in the 60's ...

�    They just needed much less than the Celtics did in the 60's ...

	This makes perfect sense Doc since they only won half as many 
titles as the 60's Celtics team did, thereby requiring half as much luck and 
half as many breaks.

				/Don

    Still won't conceed willya Slash ?
    
    The Lakers were the team of the 80's, and that their dyansty was at the
    very least the equal, and highly probable superior of the C's of the 60's.
    
    Come on, you can say it .... be a man !

    	5 out of 10 is better than 9 out of 10?  And you wonder why
    the IRS audits you every year...
    
    				/Don

People forget that the better TEAM will win a series over the physically
talented.   Ask Portland.   The Lakers have had talented teams for years,
but they never really started winning until the same group of players played
together to 10 years!! and started playing as a TEAM.  TEAM play, that's why 
the Knicks beat the Lakers, the Trailblazers beat the 76'ers, the Pistons
beat the Trailblazers etc.   The Celtics of the 60's were a superb TEAM,
much more than the sum of it's parts.  To say they would loose to the
teams of the eighty's is one thing, to say they would be smoked is another.
I think they would be great series.

We're not talking the 69 "old" Celtics, but those in their prime.  Plus how 
would teams have covered Heinson or Sanders?  Or the Celtics fast break? 
Oh that's right, Cousy was a real "stiff".  How would the Lakers have played
Russell running Jabbar into the ground?   OR outrebounding the hell out of the 
7-2 man.     
  
PLUS, talking about lack of competition, people forget that for most of the
eighties, the western conference was a big JOKE.

I would have loved to see those matchups.  Of course, I also would have
loved the 86 Celtics to play the 86 Lakers too, but ...

		Bob Cohen
 

    Lets see if 5-4 is better then 3-2, then 9-10 is better than 5-4...
    Not true if your comparing the Lakers to the Celtics.  If comparing
    La to Boston 5-4 is the greatest decade accomplishment in sports
    history......The lakers were 1 of the best teams of the 80's, and if
    you want to if it to death, if the lakers had to replay the 80's as
    part of the east Magic would have 2 or 3 rings at best....What you
    dont agree but what if, what if, what if, what if.  Make all the
    excuses you want, yes the celtics won 8 in a row (9 of 10) when there
    was a 1-12 chance of winning the title.  This would mean that detroit
    winning 2 in a row after the 4 expansion teams were added blows away
    LA's record...Therefore I guess detroits 2 in a row is the best ever
    in NBA.
    
    I could go on all day blowing garbage out my mouth, duplicating a great
    % of the last X replies.  But bottom line, no NBA team will ever dup
    what the celtics of the 60's did.  And by no means did the lakers of
    the 80's dominate the celtics the way the celtics of the 60's dominated
    the lakers.  I could be wrong, maybe the bulls will win 8 in a row
     :-) ...Big :-)
    							M_Air_Brooks