I just think it's funny

[Sloanfeld]

2009: Despite the 8th seeding I believe this was the strongest Jazz team overall. Memo was crazy good until the injury, Sap had expanded his game, Korver was in sync, and AK was playing inspired. Memo's injury and Boozer at 70% made the Lakers too much to handle, but if everyone was healthy I might be able to loosely put a contender label on them.

Boozer actually had the best series of anybody on our team, of course you won't hear anyone on here talk about it. He singlehandedly won game three for us.

And I guess I'm the only one here who thinks we would have beaten the Mavs in the 2007 semifinals. Dork's teammates always let him down in the playoffs. We won two of three against Dallas in the regular season, one being in Dallas.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

any team that makes it to the 2nd round is good enough to beat any other team in a series if the games are called even.

You can prove that there are always four teams in each conference good enough to win the title? I don't believe that. Sometimes the separation between the best team and other teams that make it into the second round is still very large.

 

[northeast]

Not always , but most of the time there are 3 to 5 teams in a conference that could all beat each other in a given series if the refs called the games totally fair. The refs do not call the games fair though. Usually the top teams get a huge advantage.

Dallas was an interesting case study. They got the number one seed, but they still probably didn't get the ref respect that the Lakers or the Spurs get. So even though they were good enough to get the number one seed that year, they were beatable by not only the 4th seed, but by the eighth seed. An 8th seed has a better chance against a 1 seed, if the 1 seed is not one of the refs favorites, than a 4th seed has against a 1 seed , if the 1 seed IS one of the refs favorites. (In the West , that would be the Lakers and Spurs.)

No, I can not prove this, it is opinion, but I am pretty sure I'm right.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Not always , but most of the time there are 3 to 5 teams in a conference that could all beat each other in a given series if the refs called the games totally fair.
Golden State would have been a rare exception. The refs do not call the games fair though. Usually the top teams get a huge advantage.

I doubt you'll find many who disagree with what you said here. The odd thing is that this comment disagrees with your previous one. "Always" apparently doesn't mean "every time" in your dictionary.

 

[northeast]

Well, yea, I said "any time" not "every time". I meant any time in the sense of mostly any time.

 

[zman1527]

Golden state was an 8th seed. Winning to get to the 2nd round does not make you a contender. A contender is a team with a legitimate shot at a title. Since half the league makes the playoffs and a good portion get to the 2nd round that's is not enough to be a contender. You must either beat a team that is a contender or at least force a deciding game. The Jazz have not done either.

Agreed. They were never contenders. Being a contender means you have a really really good chance of winning it all, generally meaning you are one of the top 4 to 6 teams. The Jazz were never there.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Not always , but most of the time there are 3 to 5 teams in a conference that could all beat each other in a given series if the refs called the games totally fair. The refs do not call the games fair though. Usually the top teams get a huge advantage.

Dallas was an interesting case study. They got the number one seed, but they still probably didn't get the ref respect that the Lakers or the Spurs get. So even though they were good enough to get the number one seed that year, they were beatable by not only the 4th seed, but by the eighth seed. An 8th seed has a better chance against a 1 seed, if the 1 seed is not one of the refs favorites, than a 4th seed has against a 1 seed , if the 1 seed IS one of the refs favorites. (In the West , that would be the Lakers and Spurs.)

No, I can not prove this, it is opinion, but I am pretty sure I'm right.

Or its because the Lakers have Kobe Bryant and two 7' studs, while the Spurs have Timmy D and the best coach in the league......

 

[northeast]

By your definition that is true. I disagree with your definition of a contender.

 

[northeast]

No team has won out of the West in 30 years, other than the Lakers or the Spurs, except for Houston with Olijuwan, who the refs also loved. They were beatable teams, if the games were called fair, but they were not.

 

[northeast]

There were many other teams in the West during those 30 years that were good enough to win a championship if the games were called fair.

If a 3rd seed has a 30% chance of winning a fairly called conference finals against the number one seed, and a 15% chance of winning the final 2 series, but because the refs love the number one seeds, the 3rd seed realistically has more like an 8% chance of winning the conference finals and a 2% chance to win the final two series, I would still call that 2% chance enough for the team to be considered the team a contender, and you do not.

 

[LunaticWolf]

I disagree that you have to be a top 2-3 team to contend.

You can be a top 4-5 team in your conference and still contend for the championship.

Boston was 4th seeded last season.The heat were 5th seed when they won it all. That's just off the top of my head. Definitely loads more.

 

[vj_74]

I disagree that you have to be a top 2-3 team to contend.

You can be a top 4-5 team in your conference and still contend for the championship.

Boston was 4th seeded last season.The heat were 5th seed when they won it all. That's just off the top of my head. Definitely loads more.

But the Jazz didnt have homecourt in the first round FOUR years in a row. Quite different from the Celtics who might not have had homecourt a year or so out of 4 years. THat tells me that the Jazz were just not quite in the big league. The gap between them and those other top 2-3 teams was big.That also became quite evident in the playoffs if it was'nt obvious earlier. Lakers first eliminated us in 6 games, then 5 and then broomed us out in successive years. We never went beyond 6 games against either the Spurs or the Lakers and the easiness with which they won was clearly suggestive of the gap between the real contenders like them and a pretender like us. All this happened while the Millers and KOC were selling hot BS about competing for a title and "internal improvement" being the key as if we had all the pieces needed to win.