Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

golf club grace before meals, golf graces before meals, seymore butts ass hunt tylene buck, katharine mcphee ugly vagina, dinner grace at golf club, grace for golf club dinner, stephen a smith intro song, tylene buck interview, Tina fey anal, hqpron

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-11 22:38:18 by MB

Marcus Kwan wrote:

&gt; On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:25:23 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; There is winning. Being one of thirty teams at the start of a
&gt;&gt;season and beating out all of them to be the last one standing at
&gt;&gt;season's end.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Then there is winning as the favorite, when you're defending what
&gt;&gt;you've just won and all eyes are focusing a target on your back.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; This makes the Spurs accomplishment even better. In a time period
&gt; where they were repeatedly targeted every night as the measuring
&gt; stick, they still maintained the highest winning percentage in all of
&gt; sports.

That's a consolation prize. That's not the New Car.


&gt; I'm not trying to say that three in a row is bad, or even
&gt; that it is worse than what the Spurs did. What dumbfounds me is the
&gt; concept that anyone, anyone, could label what the Spurs did as
&gt; ordinary and inferior.

NOT ordinary. Slightly inferior, by a hair.


&gt;&gt; Then there's repeating that feat to make it three in a row.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; So, your theory, if I understand it, is that the Spurs, for each of
&gt; their championships, slipped under the radar and people did not get up
&gt; to play them in the playoffs. That they were darkhorses. (Slight
&gt; strawman exageration for effect).

Thanks for acknowledging it. It makes a difference, 'cause they
didn't have to be darkhorses, and they didn't have to slip completely
under the radar.


&gt; Even when they weren't the
&gt; defending champs, the Spurs were known as a dangerous team and were
&gt; taken seriously, especially in th eplayoffs.

But there was always a team drawing some of the heat away from them.

Report this message

#2: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-12 01:20:31 by John

&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message news:f%Tsg.846$<a href="mailto:cv.565&#64;fe05.lga..." target="_blank">cv.565&#64;fe05.lga...</a>
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; NOT ordinary. Slightly inferior, by a hair.

Just your opinion, and not a good opinion at that.
&gt;
&gt;

Report this message

#3: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-12 17:33:03 by Marcus Kwan

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:38:18 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;Marcus Kwan wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:25:23 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; There is winning. Being one of thirty teams at the start of a
&gt;&gt;&gt;season and beating out all of them to be the last one standing at
&gt;&gt;&gt;season's end.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Then there is winning as the favorite, when you're defending what
&gt;&gt;&gt;you've just won and all eyes are focusing a target on your back.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; This makes the Spurs accomplishment even better. In a time period
&gt;&gt; where they were repeatedly targeted every night as the measuring
&gt;&gt; stick, they still maintained the highest winning percentage in all of
&gt;&gt; sports.
&gt;
&gt; That's a consolation prize. That's not the New Car.

If it was just regular season winning poercentage, I would agree.
Just a consoloation prize. But highest winning percentage in sports+3
championships...that's no one's consolation prize. That's the new car
plus the Alaskan Cruise vacation.

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; I'm not trying to say that three in a row is bad, or even
&gt;&gt; that it is worse than what the Spurs did. What dumbfounds me is the
&gt;&gt; concept that anyone, anyone, could label what the Spurs did as
&gt;&gt; ordinary and inferior.
&gt;
&gt; NOT ordinary. Slightly inferior, by a hair.
&gt;

I can accept that you, as a Laker fan would say that. Just as I, as a
Spurs fan, would say that 3 in 7 with a consistently good team is
better. The reality is that it is not an apples to apples comparison,
there is no real basis or standard for meaningful comparison.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Then there's repeating that feat to make it three in a row.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; So, your theory, if I understand it, is that the Spurs, for each of
&gt;&gt; their championships, slipped under the radar and people did not get up
&gt;&gt; to play them in the playoffs. That they were darkhorses. (Slight
&gt;&gt; strawman exageration for effect).
&gt;
&gt; Thanks for acknowledging it. It makes a difference, 'cause they
&gt;didn't have to be darkhorses, and they didn't have to slip completely
&gt;under the radar.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Even when they weren't the
&gt;&gt; defending champs, the Spurs were known as a dangerous team and were
&gt;&gt; taken seriously, especially in th eplayoffs.
&gt;
&gt; But there was always a team drawing some of the heat away from them.

BS. In the playoffs, no team ever, ever looked past the Spurs. The
phenomenon we are talking about (teams getting up to play other teams)
is mostly a regular season artifact, and it has already been shown
that the Spurs had the better regular season results during the time
period of winning championships.

Report this message

#4: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-12 21:14:10 by Gary Collard

Marcus Kwan wrote:
&gt;
&gt; On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:38:18 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; Even when they weren't the
&gt; &gt;&gt; defending champs, the Spurs were known as a dangerous team and were
&gt; &gt;&gt; taken seriously, especially in th eplayoffs.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; But there was always a team drawing some of the heat away from them.
&gt;
&gt; BS. In the playoffs, no team ever, ever looked past the Spurs.

*cough* Lakers in 2002 *cough*

The Spurs were a glorified practice session to prepare for the Kings that
year, if you think otherwise you were living in some kind of dream world
that year. The Spurs were in no way, shape or form a title contender that
year, and nobody who played them treated them as if they were.

--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
<a href="mailto:gmcollard&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">gmcollard&#64;yahoo.com</a>
<a href="http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/</a>

&quot;I think the Republican Party has few allies more effective than
the Daily Kos.&quot; -- Newt Gingrich

Report this message

#5: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-15 20:04:34 by MB

John wrote:

&gt; &quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message news:f%Tsg.846$<a href="mailto:cv.565&#64;fe05.lga..." target="_blank">cv.565&#64;fe05.lga...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;NOT ordinary. Slightly inferior, by a hair.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Just your opinion, and not a good opinion at that.

Only an opinion with with sound reason behind it, as opposed to its
counterpart.

Report this message

#6: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-15 20:08:51 by MB

Marcus Kwan wrote:

&gt; On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:38:18 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Marcus Kwan wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:25:23 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; There is winning. Being one of thirty teams at the start of a
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;season and beating out all of them to be the last one standing at
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;season's end.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Then there is winning as the favorite, when you're defending what
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;you've just won and all eyes are focusing a target on your back.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;This makes the Spurs accomplishment even better. In a time period
&gt;&gt;&gt;where they were repeatedly targeted every night as the measuring
&gt;&gt;&gt;stick, they still maintained the highest winning percentage in all of
&gt;&gt;&gt;sports.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; That's a consolation prize. That's not the New Car.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; If it was just regular season winning poercentage, I would agree.
&gt; Just a consoloation prize. But highest winning percentage in sports+3
&gt; championships...that's no one's consolation prize. That's the new car
&gt; plus the Alaskan Cruise vacation.

So are you arguing that dynasties can be based on regular-season
success?


&gt;&gt;&gt; Even when they weren't the
&gt;&gt;&gt;defending champs, the Spurs were known as a dangerous team and were
&gt;&gt;&gt;taken seriously, especially in th eplayoffs.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; But there was always a team drawing some of the heat away from them.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; BS. In the playoffs, no team ever, ever looked past the Spurs.

Not unless they faced the defending champions in the following round.

Report this message

#7: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-15 22:16:06 by John

&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:x7aug.605$<a href="mailto:AP3.270&#64;fe06.lga..." target="_blank">AP3.270&#64;fe06.lga...</a>
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Just your opinion, and not a good opinion at that.
&gt;
&gt; Only an opinion with with sound reason behind it, as opposed to its
&gt; counterpart.

An opinion with opinioned reasoning. Not much to go on.
&gt;

Report this message

#8: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-17 15:58:45 by Marcus Kwan

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:08:51 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;Marcus Kwan wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:38:18 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Marcus Kwan wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:25:23 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; There is winning. Being one of thirty teams at the start of a
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;season and beating out all of them to be the last one standing at
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;season's end.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Then there is winning as the favorite, when you're defending what
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;you've just won and all eyes are focusing a target on your back.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This makes the Spurs accomplishment even better. In a time period
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;where they were repeatedly targeted every night as the measuring
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;stick, they still maintained the highest winning percentage in all of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;sports.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; That's a consolation prize. That's not the New Car.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; If it was just regular season winning poercentage, I would agree.
&gt;&gt; Just a consoloation prize. But highest winning percentage in sports+3
&gt;&gt; championships...that's no one's consolation prize. That's the new car
&gt;&gt; plus the Alaskan Cruise vacation.
&gt;
&gt; So are you arguing that dynasties can be based on regular-season
&gt;success?
&gt;

And three championships.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Even when they weren't the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;defending champs, the Spurs were known as a dangerous team and were
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;taken seriously, especially in th eplayoffs.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; But there was always a team drawing some of the heat away from them.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; BS. In the playoffs, no team ever, ever looked past the Spurs.
&gt;
&gt; Not unless they faced the defending champions in the following round.

Report this message

#9: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-18 03:08:36 by George Shouse

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:58:45 GMT, Marcus Kwan
&lt;<a href="mailto:mnospamkwan1&#64;gte.net" target="_blank">mnospamkwan1&#64;gte.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:08:51 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Marcus Kwan wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:38:18 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Marcus Kwan wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:25:23 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; There is winning. Being one of thirty teams at the start of a
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;season and beating out all of them to be the last one standing at
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;season's end.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Then there is winning as the favorite, when you're defending what
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;you've just won and all eyes are focusing a target on your back.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This makes the Spurs accomplishment even better. In a time period
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;where they were repeatedly targeted every night as the measuring
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;stick, they still maintained the highest winning percentage in all of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;sports.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; That's a consolation prize. That's not the New Car.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; If it was just regular season winning poercentage, I would agree.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Just a consoloation prize. But highest winning percentage in sports+3
&gt;&gt;&gt; championships...that's no one's consolation prize. That's the new car
&gt;&gt;&gt; plus the Alaskan Cruise vacation.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; So are you arguing that dynasties can be based on regular-season
&gt;&gt;success?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;And three championships.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Even when they weren't the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;defending champs, the Spurs were known as a dangerous team and were
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;taken seriously, especially in th eplayoffs.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; But there was always a team drawing some of the heat away from them.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; BS. In the playoffs, no team ever, ever looked past the Spurs.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Not unless they faced the defending champions in the following round.


<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA

Report this message

#10: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-18 03:37:55 by John

&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:u3dob2tklrsbc988uc9jqnoepr92d56q97&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">u3dob2tklrsbc988uc9jqnoepr92d56q97&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:58:45 GMT, Marcus Kwan
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:mnospamkwan1&#64;gte.net" target="_blank">mnospamkwan1&#64;gte.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; BS. In the playoffs, no team ever, ever looked past the Spurs.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; Not unless they faced the defending champions in the following round.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA

Interesting that they put a team with sustained greatness over time in that
list.

a.. New York Yankees from 1921 to 1964 (20 championships and 28 AL pennants
in 44 years)

Report this message

#11: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-18 04:24:45 by MB

George Shouse wrote:

&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty</a>

A dynasty is a succession of rulers [champions] who belong to the
same family [franchise] for generations.

For the sake of the sports analogy, we can dispense with the &quot;for
generations&quot; part.

All in all, by definition, I don't see how you can have a dynasty -
even a sports one - without winning successive championships at some
point.

Report this message

#12: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-18 05:01:53 by John

&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:ZEXug.869$<a href="mailto:Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga..." target="_blank">Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga...</a>
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; George Shouse wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA
&gt;
&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty</a>
&gt;
&gt; A dynasty is a succession of rulers [champions] who belong to the
&gt; same family [franchise] for generations.
&gt;
&gt; For the sake of the sports analogy, we can dispense with the &quot;for
&gt; generations&quot; part.
&gt;
&gt; All in all, by definition, I don't see how you can have a dynasty -
&gt; even a sports one - without winning successive championships at some
&gt; point.

Which would have more validity if you didn't have a conclusion in mind
before you developed the argument.

Also, real dynasties last more than three years. Circa Bulls 1990's.
&gt;

Report this message

#13: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-18 15:17:30 by John

&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message news:4P_ug.78$<a href="mailto:Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga..." target="_blank">Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga...</a>
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; John wrote:
&gt; &gt; &quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; &gt; news:ZEXug.869$<a href="mailto:Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga..." target="_blank">Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga...</a>
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;George Shouse wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty</a>
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;A dynasty is a succession of rulers [champions] who belong to the
&gt; &gt;&gt;same family [franchise] for generations.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;For the sake of the sports analogy, we can dispense with the &quot;for
&gt; &gt;&gt;generations&quot; part.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;All in all, by definition, I don't see how you can have a dynasty -
&gt; &gt;&gt;even a sports one - without winning successive championships at some
&gt; &gt;&gt;point.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Which would have more validity if you didn't have a conclusion in mind
&gt; &gt; before you developed the argument.
&gt;
&gt; The argument was there long before you or I were. I didn't write
&gt; that definition.

No, but your searching for a quasi acceptable definition for that same year
calls into question motives.
&gt;

Report this message

#14: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-18 17:24:18 by MB

John wrote:
&gt; &quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message news:4P_ug.78$<a href="mailto:Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga..." target="_blank">Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;John wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;news:ZEXug.869$<a href="mailto:Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga..." target="_blank">Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;George Shouse wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;A dynasty is a succession of rulers [champions] who belong to the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;same family [franchise] for generations.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;For the sake of the sports analogy, we can dispense with the &quot;for
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;generations&quot; part.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;All in all, by definition, I don't see how you can have a dynasty -
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;even a sports one - without winning successive championships at some
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;point.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Which would have more validity if you didn't have a conclusion in mind
&gt;&gt;&gt;before you developed the argument.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;The argument was there long before you or I were. I didn't write
&gt;&gt;that definition.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; No, but your searching for a quasi acceptable definition for that same year
&gt; calls into question motives.

No such search.

Report this message

#15: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-19 04:20:13 by George Shouse

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:17:30 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;
&gt;&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message news:4P_ug.78$<a href="mailto:Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga..." target="_blank">Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; John wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; &gt; news:ZEXug.869$<a href="mailto:Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga..." target="_blank">Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;George Shouse wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;A dynasty is a succession of rulers [champions] who belong to the
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;same family [franchise] for generations.
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;For the sake of the sports analogy, we can dispense with the &quot;for
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;generations&quot; part.
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;All in all, by definition, I don't see how you can have a dynasty -
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;even a sports one - without winning successive championships at some
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;point.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; Which would have more validity if you didn't have a conclusion in mind
&gt;&gt; &gt; before you developed the argument.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; The argument was there long before you or I were. I didn't write
&gt;&gt; that definition.
&gt;
&gt;No, but your searching for a quasi acceptable definition for that same year
&gt;calls into question motives.

Actually, I did the search and yes, I posted the cite in part
because I agree with it. Also, the only cites I could find
talking about Spurs and dynasty were from Texas sports writers.

I like this list:

NBA
Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
and 1954)
Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
1998)
Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)

Report this message

#16: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-19 06:40:40 by John

&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:pj5rb2derjlhns7k6ihfr7inm3rdupn689&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">pj5rb2derjlhns7k6ihfr7inm3rdupn689&#64;4ax.com...</a>

&gt;
&gt; I like this list:
&gt;
&gt; NBA
&gt; Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
&gt; and 1954)
&gt; Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
&gt; 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
&gt; Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
&gt; division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
&gt; Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
&gt; 1998)
&gt; Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
&gt; titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)

It's a great list if the question is &quot;which of the following doesn't
belong.&quot; It looks like 4 dynasties and a wannabe.

Report this message

#17: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-19 16:27:38 by Marcus Kwan

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:13 -0500, George Shouse &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:17:30 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
&gt;wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message news:4P_ug.78$<a href="mailto:Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga..." target="_blank">Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; John wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; news:ZEXug.869$<a href="mailto:Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga..." target="_blank">Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;George Shouse wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;A dynasty is a succession of rulers [champions] who belong to the
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;same family [franchise] for generations.
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;For the sake of the sports analogy, we can dispense with the &quot;for
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;generations&quot; part.
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;All in all, by definition, I don't see how you can have a dynasty -
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;even a sports one - without winning successive championships at some
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;point.
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Which would have more validity if you didn't have a conclusion in mind
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; before you developed the argument.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; The argument was there long before you or I were. I didn't write
&gt;&gt;&gt; that definition.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;No, but your searching for a quasi acceptable definition for that same year
&gt;&gt;calls into question motives.
&gt;
&gt;Actually, I did the search and yes, I posted the cite in part
&gt;because I agree with it. Also, the only cites I could find
&gt;talking about Spurs and dynasty were from Texas sports writers.
&gt;
&gt;I like this list:
&gt;
&gt;NBA
&gt;Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
&gt;and 1954)
&gt;Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
&gt;26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
&gt;Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
&gt;division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
&gt;Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
&gt;1998)
&gt;Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
&gt;titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)

Well, this original argument was not really about the definition of a
dynasty. By wikipedia's definition, the Spurs would qualify. But
their defintiion is subjective. It doesn''t say anything about back
to back championships, but refers to dominance over a period of time.
I would argue that the Spurs, by virture of their championships plus
their winning record over a longer span of time is more of a dynasty
than the Lakers. If you want to argue the opposite, there really
isn't any way to refute your argument. It's like arguing who should
be the MVP, or what is better, red or yellow. Without a clearly
define criteria, all arguments are subjective.

Likewise, I think it is a greater accomplishment that the Spurs a) won
3 three champiopnsips, b) maintained an excellent winning percentage,
c) while retooling most of their roster, and d) remain likely in
contention for at least 3 more years. The fact that they can remain a
number 1 contender for a span of 10 years, and win multiple
championships during that run, while rebuilding their roster is, to
me, more impressive than the Lakers recent run. Not by a mile, mind
you, and I don't quibble with the guy who says 'slightly inferior'. I
quibble with the guy who basically defined the Spurs as average
champions because they did not win back to back. I don't buy that as
the only standard of excellence.

Report this message

#18: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-19 17:24:07 by Peter Kelly

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:13 -0500, George Shouse &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;I like this list:
&gt;
&gt;NBA
&gt;Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
&gt;and 1954)
&gt;Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
&gt;26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
&gt;Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
&gt;division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
&gt;Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
&gt;1998)
&gt;Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
&gt;titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)
What about

San Antonio Spurs 1999-2005 (3 NBA Championships, 5 division titles, 3
NBA Finals appearances)

Personally, I think the Spurs need to win another before they can be
considered a dynasty. Others think they need to win 2 more (in a
row). But if you are going to use the given criteria to call the
lakers of '99-'04 a dynasty, you can't exclude the Spurs.

Peter
--
&quot;There are two good teams in Texas. We have the third.&quot;
- Charlie Palillo discussing the NBA
- Houston Sports Talk radio host 790AM

Report this message

#19: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-19 19:09:30 by Nate Smith

Peter Kelly wrote:
&gt; On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:13 -0500, George Shouse &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;I like this list:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;NBA
&gt;&gt;Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
&gt;&gt;and 1954)
&gt;&gt;Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
&gt;&gt;26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
&gt;&gt;Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
&gt;&gt;division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
&gt;&gt;Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
&gt;&gt;1998)
&gt;&gt;Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
&gt;&gt;titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)
&gt;
&gt; What about
&gt;
&gt; San Antonio Spurs 1999-2005 (3 NBA Championships, 5 division titles, 3
&gt; NBA Finals appearances)
&gt;
&gt; Personally, I think the Spurs need to win another before they can be
&gt; considered a dynasty. Others think they need to win 2 more (in a
&gt; row). But if you are going to use the given criteria to call the
&gt; lakers of '99-'04 a dynasty, you can't exclude the Spurs.
&gt;
&gt; Peter
&gt; --
&gt; &quot;There are two good teams in Texas. We have the third.&quot;
&gt; - Charlie Palillo discussing the NBA
&gt; - Houston Sports Talk radio host 790AM


the last laker run is not a dynasty. neither are the spurs.
3 titles is not enough. i dont even think 4 is enough. a
dynasty should be very rare.

one might argue that you have to completely change the personnel.
in that case we might even rule out the celtics. you had mikan
on all 5 of that 1st candidate, russell on all 13 of the most
commonly held idea of a sports dynasty, magic/kareem on all 5
and jordon/pippen on all 6. if you widen the celtic scope to
include the cowens/hondo pair and the 3 bird titles, noting that
auerbach was involved in all 16 and noting that players from
former dynasty years were then coaches for later dynasty years,
then you can formulate something of a sport dynasty concept -
which even then the celtics may not quite make it under.

if there has been a dynasty in the NBA then certainly you have
to include the celtics.

you have to have a notion of handing the control down thru
generations, keeping it in the family, like the ming dynasty.


- nate

Report this message

#20: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-19 19:23:59 by MB

Marcus Kwan wrote:

&gt; On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:13 -0500, George Shouse &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:17:30 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message news:4P_ug.78$<a href="mailto:Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga..." target="_blank">Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;John wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;news:ZEXug.869$<a href="mailto:Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga..." target="_blank">Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;George Shouse wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;A dynasty is a succession of rulers [champions] who belong to the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;same family [franchise] for generations.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;For the sake of the sports analogy, we can dispense with the &quot;for
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;generations&quot; part.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;All in all, by definition, I don't see how you can have a dynasty -
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;even a sports one - without winning successive championships at some
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;point.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Which would have more validity if you didn't have a conclusion in mind
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;before you developed the argument.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The argument was there long before you or I were. I didn't write
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;that definition.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;No, but your searching for a quasi acceptable definition for that same year
&gt;&gt;&gt;calls into question motives.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Actually, I did the search and yes, I posted the cite in part
&gt;&gt;because I agree with it. Also, the only cites I could find
&gt;&gt;talking about Spurs and dynasty were from Texas sports writers.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;I like this list:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;NBA
&gt;&gt;Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
&gt;&gt;and 1954)
&gt;&gt;Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
&gt;&gt;26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
&gt;&gt;Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
&gt;&gt;division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
&gt;&gt;Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
&gt;&gt;1998)
&gt;&gt;Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
&gt;&gt;titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Well, this original argument was not really about the definition of a
&gt; dynasty. By wikipedia's definition, the Spurs would qualify. But
&gt; their defintiion is subjective. It doesn''t say anything about back
&gt; to back championships, but refers to dominance over a period of time.
&gt; I would argue that the Spurs, by virture of their championships plus
&gt; their winning record over a longer span of time is more of a dynasty
&gt; than the Lakers. If you want to argue the opposite, there really
&gt; isn't any way to refute your argument. It's like arguing who should
&gt; be the MVP, or what is better, red or yellow. Without a clearly
&gt; define criteria, all arguments are subjective.
&gt;
&gt; Likewise, I think it is a greater accomplishment that the Spurs a) won
&gt; 3 three champiopnsips, b) maintained an excellent winning percentage,
&gt; c) while retooling most of their roster, and d) remain likely in
&gt; contention for at least 3 more years. The fact that they can remain a
&gt; number 1 contender for a span of 10 years, and win multiple
&gt; championships during that run, while rebuilding their roster is, to
&gt; me, more impressive than the Lakers recent run. Not by a mile, mind
&gt; you, and I don't quibble with the guy who says 'slightly inferior'. I
&gt; quibble with the guy who basically defined the Spurs as average
&gt; champions because they did not win back to back. I don't buy that as
&gt; the only standard of excellence.

Not average, either. In the class of the 70s Knicks, and possibly
even the back-to-back Pistons.

So then, since you weigh regular season success rather strongly, do
you consider the Atlanta Braves a dynasty?

Report this message

#21: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-19 20:39:04 by Marcus Kwan

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:23:59 -0700, MB &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;Marcus Kwan wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:13 -0500, George Shouse &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:17:30 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message news:4P_ug.78$<a href="mailto:Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga..." target="_blank">Vl5.56&#64;fe03.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;John wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;MB&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com" target="_blank">PoetUNoet&#64;iwon.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;news:ZEXug.869$<a href="mailto:Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga..." target="_blank">Py5.360&#64;fe04.lga...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;George Shouse wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_</a>(sports)#NBA
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;A dynasty is a succession of rulers [champions] who belong to the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;same family [franchise] for generations.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;For the sake of the sports analogy, we can dispense with the &quot;for
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;generations&quot; part.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;All in all, by definition, I don't see how you can have a dynasty -
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;even a sports one - without winning successive championships at some
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;point.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Which would have more validity if you didn't have a conclusion in mind
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;before you developed the argument.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The argument was there long before you or I were. I didn't write
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;that definition.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;No, but your searching for a quasi acceptable definition for that same year
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;calls into question motives.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Actually, I did the search and yes, I posted the cite in part
&gt;&gt;&gt;because I agree with it. Also, the only cites I could find
&gt;&gt;&gt;talking about Spurs and dynasty were from Texas sports writers.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;I like this list:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;NBA
&gt;&gt;&gt;Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
&gt;&gt;&gt;and 1954)
&gt;&gt;&gt;Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
&gt;&gt;&gt;26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
&gt;&gt;&gt;Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
&gt;&gt;&gt;division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
&gt;&gt;&gt;Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
&gt;&gt;&gt;1998)
&gt;&gt;&gt;Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
&gt;&gt;&gt;titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Well, this original argument was not really about the definition of a
&gt;&gt; dynasty. By wikipedia's definition, the Spurs would qualify. But
&gt;&gt; their defintiion is subjective. It doesn''t say anything about back
&gt;&gt; to back championships, but refers to dominance over a period of time.
&gt;&gt; I would argue that the Spurs, by virture of their championships plus
&gt;&gt; their winning record over a longer span of time is more of a dynasty
&gt;&gt; than the Lakers. If you want to argue the opposite, there really
&gt;&gt; isn't any way to refute your argument. It's like arguing who should
&gt;&gt; be the MVP, or what is better, red or yellow. Without a clearly
&gt;&gt; define criteria, all arguments are subjective.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Likewise, I think it is a greater accomplishment that the Spurs a) won
&gt;&gt; 3 three champiopnsips, b) maintained an excellent winning percentage,
&gt;&gt; c) while retooling most of their roster, and d) remain likely in
&gt;&gt; contention for at least 3 more years. The fact that they can remain a
&gt;&gt; number 1 contender for a span of 10 years, and win multiple
&gt;&gt; championships during that run, while rebuilding their roster is, to
&gt;&gt; me, more impressive than the Lakers recent run. Not by a mile, mind
&gt;&gt; you, and I don't quibble with the guy who says 'slightly inferior'. I
&gt;&gt; quibble with the guy who basically defined the Spurs as average
&gt;&gt; champions because they did not win back to back. I don't buy that as
&gt;&gt; the only standard of excellence.
&gt;
&gt; Not average, either. In the class of the 70s Knicks, and possibly
&gt;even the back-to-back Pistons.
&gt;
&gt; So then, since you weigh regular season success rather strongly, do
&gt;you consider the Atlanta Braves a dynasty?

In all honesty, I have no idea, as I pay very little attention to MLB.

Report this message

#22: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-23 02:08:11 by George Shouse

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:40:40 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;
&gt;&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;news:<a href="mailto:pj5rb2derjlhns7k6ihfr7inm3rdupn689&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">pj5rb2derjlhns7k6ihfr7inm3rdupn689&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I like this list:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; NBA
&gt;&gt; Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
&gt;&gt; and 1954)
&gt;&gt; Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
&gt;&gt; 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
&gt;&gt; Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
&gt;&gt; division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
&gt;&gt; Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
&gt;&gt; 1998)
&gt;&gt; Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
&gt;&gt; titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)
&gt;
&gt;It's a great list if the question is &quot;which of the following doesn't
&gt;belong.&quot; It looks like 4 dynasties and a wannabe.
&gt;

lol

Try making a list of all teams in the history of the NBA that
have 3 championships in-a-row.

Report this message

#23: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-23 02:09:44 by John

&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; &gt;It's a great list if the question is &quot;which of the following doesn't
&gt; &gt;belong.&quot; It looks like 4 dynasties and a wannabe.
&gt; &gt;
&gt;
&gt; lol
&gt;
&gt; Try making a list of all teams in the history of the NBA that
&gt; have 3 championships in-a-row.

How many Celtics teams would that include then?

Report this message

#24: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-23 02:16:20 by George Shouse

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:24:07 GMT, Peter Kelly
&lt;<a href="mailto:no-spam&#64;satx.rr.com" target="_blank">no-spam&#64;satx.rr.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:13 -0500, George Shouse &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt;
&gt;wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;I like this list:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;NBA
&gt;&gt;Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949
&gt;&gt;and 1954)
&gt;&gt;Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall.
&gt;&gt;26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles )
&gt;&gt;Los Angeles Lakers of the 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships,10
&gt;&gt;division titles,9 conference championships,12 winning seasons )
&gt;&gt;Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships between 1991 and
&gt;&gt;1998)
&gt;&gt;Los Angeles Lakers 1999-2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division
&gt;&gt;titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances)
&gt;What about
&gt;
&gt;San Antonio Spurs 1999-2005 (3 NBA Championships, 5 division titles, 3
&gt;NBA Finals appearances)
&gt;
&gt;Personally, I think the Spurs need to win another before they can be
&gt;considered a dynasty. Others think they need to win 2 more (in a
&gt;row). But if you are going to use the given criteria to call the
&gt;lakers of '99-'04 a dynasty, you can't exclude the Spurs.

The biggest difference is that the Lakers championships are
in-a-row - very dynastic. And in case you don't know my opinion
of the 1999 *season, well, it really isn't worth discussing.

In every interview I have seen with players or coaches that have
won or tried to win back-to-back they talk about how
exceptionally hard it is. I don't think the 80s Lakers would
be considered dynastic without the back-to-back. It could be
considered a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Report this message

#25: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-23 02:53:35 by John

&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:qgf5c21cmnirn3tsrgo6cv4ambp0kgidku&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">qgf5c21cmnirn3tsrgo6cv4ambp0kgidku&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt; The biggest difference is that the Lakers championships are
&gt; in-a-row - very dynastic. And in case you don't know my opinion
&gt; of the 1999 *season, well, it really isn't worth discussing.

Interesting. Most Celtic and Yankee fans consider 4 in a row to be the
magic number. Back-to-back is for the wannabe dynasties.


&gt;
&gt; In every interview I have seen with players or coaches that have
&gt; won or tried to win back-to-back they talk about how
&gt; exceptionally hard it is. I don't think the 80s Lakers would
&gt; be considered dynastic without the back-to-back. It could be
&gt; considered a necessary but not sufficient condition.
&gt;

Report this message

#26: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-23 03:37:22 by George Shouse

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:09:44 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;
&gt;&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; &gt;It's a great list if the question is &quot;which of the following doesn't
&gt;&gt; &gt;belong.&quot; It looks like 4 dynasties and a wannabe.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; lol
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Try making a list of all teams in the history of the NBA that
&gt;&gt; have 3 championships in-a-row.
&gt;
&gt;How many Celtics teams would that include then?


I certainly love this answer - 0

Report this message

#27: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-23 03:39:03 by John

&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:llk5c259c5v4mkd2g6cdqvtillqgnq28fv&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">llk5c259c5v4mkd2g6cdqvtillqgnq28fv&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:09:44 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; Try making a list of all teams in the history of the NBA that
&gt; &gt;&gt; have 3 championships in-a-row.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;How many Celtics teams would that include then?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I certainly love this answer - 0

Math isn't a strong suit huh. How many 3 in a rows are there in 8?

Report this message

#28: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-23 22:11:22 by George Shouse

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:39:03 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;
&gt;&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;news:<a href="mailto:llk5c259c5v4mkd2g6cdqvtillqgnq28fv&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">llk5c259c5v4mkd2g6cdqvtillqgnq28fv&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt; On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:09:44 -0600, &quot;John&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;earthlink.com" target="_blank">John&#64;earthlink.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Try making a list of all teams in the history of the NBA that
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; have 3 championships in-a-row.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;How many Celtics teams would that include then?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I certainly love this answer - 0
&gt;
&gt;Math isn't a strong suit huh. How many 3 in a rows are there in 8?

d'OH

I wish I knew what I was thinking when I posted that... I hate
the Celtics well enough to know their dominance 4 decades ago...

Anyway,

50s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
60s Celtics - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
80s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
90s Bulls - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
00s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute

Report this message

#29: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-23 22:20:14 by John

&quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:9ll7c2tvmogr8fkm5aaa5aa6vi1bit6g6p&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">9ll7c2tvmogr8fkm5aaa5aa6vi1bit6g6p&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;Math isn't a strong suit huh. How many 3 in a rows are there in 8?
&gt;
&gt; d'OH
&gt;
&gt; I wish I knew what I was thinking when I posted that... I hate
&gt; the Celtics well enough to know their dominance 4 decades ago...
&gt;
&gt; Anyway,
&gt;
&gt; 50s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt; 60s Celtics - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt; 80s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt; 90s Bulls - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt; 00s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute

Now we are getting somewhere. Again, which of the following doesn't belong?
Five years of winning isn't a dynasty unless it is five straight
championships.

Report this message

#30: Re: Horry says Dull Harris and Cuban are whiners

Posted on 2006-07-24 02:08:53 by Nate Smith

John wrote:
&gt; &quot;George Shouse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;shouses.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;shouses.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:9ll7c2tvmogr8fkm5aaa5aa6vi1bit6g6p&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">9ll7c2tvmogr8fkm5aaa5aa6vi1bit6g6p&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Math isn't a strong suit huh. How many 3 in a rows are there in 8?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;d'OH
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;I wish I knew what I was thinking when I posted that... I hate
&gt;&gt;the Celtics well enough to know their dominance 4 decades ago...
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Anyway,
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;50s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt;&gt;60s Celtics - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt;&gt;80s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt;&gt;90s Bulls - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt;&gt;00s Lakers - obvious dynasty - in-a-row an essential attribute
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Now we are getting somewhere. Again, which of the following doesn't belong?
&gt; Five years of winning isn't a dynasty unless it is five straight
&gt; championships.
&gt;
&gt;

5 straight? so that leaves just 2 then.
see, i'm thinking 0.8.
0.8 is because Russell (20% of the starters) was on all 8.
and you have to pass the torch to the next players. so, if
you need in a rows, then the answer is really ZERO.


- nate

Report this message