PDA

View Full Version : Bigger Upset? '04 Pistons or '11 Mavericks



JWO35
10-25-2011, 08:39 PM
2004 NBA Championship
The Pistons defeated a Team stocked piled with Hall of Famers such as Shaq, Kobe, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton. Seems like the Pistons took advantage of a Lakers Team that was oozing with talent, but lacked Trust within its own Locker Room. The Pistons were known for having a Strong Core with no 1-Superstar, but rather a group of guys that plays off each other excellently

Game Date Home Team Result Road Team
Game 1 Sunday, June 6 Los Angeles Lakers 75-87 (0-1) Detroit Pistons
Game 2 Tuesday, June 8 Los Angeles Lakers 99-91 OT (1-1) Detroit Pistons
Game 3 Thursday, June 10 Detroit Pistons 88-68 (2-1) Los Angeles Lakers
Game 4 Sunday, June 13 Detroit Pistons 88-80 (3-1) Los Angeles Lakers
Game 5 Tuesday, June 15 Detroit Pistons 100-87 (4-1) Los Angeles Lakers
MVP: Chauncey Billups

2011 NBA Match up
The Worst has come true, The Miami Heat is in the NBA Finals and is firing on all cylinders. After defeating the Bulls and Celtics it appears all but inevitably that the "Big 3" will receive their ring. But, Dirk and the Mavs had other plans. A hard fought battle throughout and as the dust settled the Mavs got the job done when it counted.

Game Date Home team Result Road team
Game 1 Tuesday, May 31 Miami Heat 9284 (10) Dallas Mavericks
Game 2 Thursday, June 2 Miami Heat 9395 (11) Dallas Mavericks
Game 3 Sunday, June 5 Dallas Mavericks 8688 (12) Miami Heat
Game 4 Tuesday, June 7 Dallas Mavericks 8683 (22) Miami Heat
Game 5 Thursday, June 9 Dallas Mavericks 112103 (32) Miami Heat
Game 6 Sunday, June 12 Miami Heat 95105 (24) Dallas Mavericks

MVP: Dirk Nowitzki

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 08:42 PM
the pistons, caus the lakers had rings when they faced them, the heat had, not one, not two, not three not...

naps
10-25-2011, 08:47 PM
Of-course 2004 Pistons. Anyone who says Mavs were underdog I have serious doubt in their Basketball knowledge and overall reasoning of the game.

juno10
10-25-2011, 08:48 PM
the pistons, caus the lakers had rings when they faced them, the heat had, not one, not two, not three not...

the heat do have one championship.

itsripcity32
10-25-2011, 08:56 PM
not four, not five, not six

PhillyFaninLA
10-25-2011, 08:57 PM
The Pistons....I think this Heat will win 2 or 3 championships but the big 3 hadn't gelled yet and they don't have a bench. I'm not sure I would consider the Mavs winning an upset.

PhillyFaninLA
10-25-2011, 08:58 PM
not four, not five, not six

not original, not witty, not funny

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 08:59 PM
the heat do have one championship.

with the roster they have now or no? caus the lakers have 16 if u wanna talk :eyebrow:

Cal827
10-25-2011, 09:00 PM
2004 finals Easy. That team had 4 hall of famers ( I know that two were decling), Shaq and a prime Kobe.

Miami-Dallas was a lot more evenly matched than people thought... It was all the hype of having the big three make it to the finals after signing just 10 months before. They beat the young sixers, the older celtics and the 1 man Bulls.

Chronz
10-25-2011, 09:00 PM
Of-course 2004 Pistons. Anyone who says Mavs were underdog I have serious doubt in their Basketball knowledge and overall reasoning of the game.
Thats how I feel about anyone who thinks the 04 Pistons were underdogs.

Check out the Pistons Defensive Efficiency marks as soon as they got Sheed. HISTORIC, you take a historically great defensive team and pit it against an imploding team that lost its glue (Malone) for the series and its pretty easy to see coming. I know I did and I cashed out that year. This year I was actually caught off guard by Brons performance

Bruno
10-25-2011, 09:07 PM
Thats how I feel about anyone who thinks the 04 Pistons were underdogs.

Check out the Pistons Defensive Efficiency marks as soon as they got Sheed. HISTORIC, you take a historically great defensive team and pit it against an imploding team that lost its glue (Malone) for the series and its pretty easy to see coming. I know I did and I cashed out that year. This year I was actually caught off guard by Brons performance

x2. They were one of the greatest defensive teams in NBA history. LA had two disgruntled stars, one dealing with injuries, the other with personal issues, along with two aging stars who had minimal impact, and a pathetic bench.

itsripcity32
10-25-2011, 09:09 PM
not original, not witty, not funny

was trying to draw some attention. mission accomplished :rolleyes:

naps
10-25-2011, 09:14 PM
with the roster they have now or no? caus the lakers have 16 if u wanna talk :eyebrow:

How could this roster have any championships when this was their first year? Juno10 just pointed out what you said was not funny and it actually is not. You are trying to stir up another pointless brawl.

sixer04fan
10-25-2011, 09:15 PM
The Pistons over that Lakers team is the bigger upset by far. And it's not even close.

Still can't comprehend how that happened haha.

naps
10-25-2011, 09:18 PM
Thats how I feel about anyone who thinks the 04 Pistons were underdogs.

Check out the Pistons Defensive Efficiency marks as soon as they got Sheed. HISTORIC, you take a historically great defensive team and pit it against an imploding team that lost its glue (Malone) for the series and its pretty easy to see coming. I know I did and I cashed out that year. This year I was actually caught off guard by Brons performance

I never said Pistons were underdogs. All I said Mavs were by no means underdogs. They were the best team in the league both in regular season (count on those 8 Dirk-less games) and playoffs, unlike the Pistons in 2004.

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 09:19 PM
How could this roster have any championships when this was their first year? Juno10 just pointed out what you said was not funny and it actually is not. You are trying to stir up another pointless brawl.

the lakers roster, as constructed at that time had won 3 rings together

the Heat roster as constructed at this time has 0 rings together

the pistons beat a team that had rings together

the mavs did not beat a team that had rings together, they beat a player that had a ring, and a sixth man that had a ring

hence, the pistons had a bigger upset

and im the one trying to stir a pointless brawl, when u cant even read what was posted?:cool:

oh ok then

Chronz
10-25-2011, 09:19 PM
x2. They were one of the greatest defensive teams in NBA history. LA had two disgruntled stars, one dealing with injuries, the other with personal issues, along with two aging stars who had minimal impact, and a pathetic bench.

I find it odd how a core unit that wound up winning damn near 70 games at one point, making back 2 back Finals and endless ECF appearances and had 4 members in the All-Star game is seen as this underdog.

Chronz
10-25-2011, 09:26 PM
I never said Pistons were underdogs. All I said Mavs were by no means underdogs. They were the best team in the league both in regular season (count on those 8 Dirk-less games) and playoffs, unlike the Pistons in 2004.
To be fair you didnt really say anything about the Pistons other than they were "of course" the right answer, so then your making the case that they were more underdogs than the Mavs based on their overall record with Dirk. Well do you have the data available because if you really want to make that case you would need to account for a few variables. For 1, the Pistons didnt have Sheed a full year. With Sheed the Pistons posted the most dominant defensive efficiency marks in the modern era and went back to the Finals and won 65 games or something right. It is yet to be seen what these Mavs do but if you were to pit the 2 squads against eachother I have no doubt the Pistons would prevail. They were built to decimate squads that relied heavily on any 1 player.

Bruno
10-25-2011, 09:29 PM
I find it odd how a core unit that wound up winning damn near 70 games at one point, making back 2 back Finals and endless ECF appearances and had 4 members in the All-Star game is seen as this underdog.

I think it's because most vastly over-rated the additions of GP and Malone (they still do). The addition of two aged stars was some-how supposed to make up for that team having zero depth, an injured/unmotivated Shaq, and a young, immature Kobe who was dealing with personal drama all year. Not to mention that Malone missed the bulk of the final series.

To date, people still don't recognize Detroit as the defensive juggernaut they were. The only thing that's strange to me is how LA got past SA in those playoffs (SA had a slightly higher defensive rating than Detroit).

naps
10-25-2011, 09:30 PM
the lakers roster, as constructed at that time had won 3 rings together

the Heat roster as constructed at this time has 0 rings together

the pistons beat a team that had rings together

the mavs did not beat a team that had rings together, they beat a player that had a ring, and a sixth man that had a ring

hence, the pistons had a bigger upset

and im the one trying to stir a pointless brawl, when u cant even read what was posted?:cool:

oh ok then

I already voted 2004 was more of an upset for this thread question but that's not because Lakers won 3 championships before. Past doesn't help in current performance. So no need to come up with championship BS here.

And no the Lakers didn't have any championship with Malone and Payton in their roster. Juno10 pointed out you were trying to be funny by saying not one, not two, not three. He said Miami has one championship. And if you take this new roster, then they didn't have any chance to win one, two, or three. Mavs never won any before this as well. So point blank. No need to make fun with everything LeBron says.

jrice9
10-25-2011, 09:34 PM
It should be unaminous i hit the wrong one by accident

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 09:36 PM
I already voted 2004 was more of an upset for this thread question but that's not because Lakers won 3 championships before. Past doesn't help in current performance. So no need to come up with championship BS here.

And no the Lakers didn't have any championship with Malone and Payton in their roster. Juno10 pointed out you were trying to be funny by saying not one, not two, not three. He said Miami has one championship. And if you take this new roster, then they didn't have any chance to win one, two, or three. Mavs never won any before this as well. So point blank. No need to make fun with everything LeBron says.

they had rings with fisher, kobe, shaq, medvedenko,the coach was the same

where as the heat have a new coach from when they won the title, and they only had 2 remaining players from that group, and only one of them has been an allstar

oh ok, so if a team beat one of the 90's bulls in the finals, it wouldnt be an upset, because the past doesnt matter? i apologize

you are correct, i am wrong:facepalm:

shep33
10-25-2011, 09:37 PM
As a Laker fan I can tell you that the LA team that faced Detroit was the most frustrating team to watch, and had no chemistry whatsoever. They just kind of willed their way to the finals.

I wasn't too surprised that LA lost to Detroit, the Lakers had issues galore. Payton not fitting nor liking the Triangle, Malone getting injured, Shaq injured and overweight, Kobe flying back and forth between his trial, Shaq and Kobe feud, no bench... it was an absolute disaster that had no business making it to the Finals in all truth. Let's be real now too, Malone and Payton were done as players, so in no way is this comparable to Miami's big 3, which is a completely different situation. Malone and Payton were out of their primes, Shaq was in the 2nd year of his decline, and was never the dominant force he was before, and Kobe was on the cusp of his prime (the year before he was) until the trial. Honestly, just a huge cluster**** of a team.

Dallas shouldn't have been an underdog, or atleast by a large margin. They swept the Heat during the regular season, they have the best players (1-12) in the league, I mean Dallas' bench probably has 3-4 starters on other teams.

Dade County
10-25-2011, 09:39 PM
It was not an upset...

One word ... illuminati

Avenged
10-25-2011, 09:44 PM
None of them were upsets imo especially not the Mavs.

evadatam5150
10-25-2011, 09:44 PM
the pistons, caus the lakers had rings when they faced them, the heat had, not one, not two, not three not...

Nice... :clap::clap:

I fail to see how the Mavericks (in a stronger Western Conference) Upset a Heat team with no current Championships or a proven history of winning.. Just an odd question really..

naps
10-25-2011, 09:44 PM
To be fair you didnt really say anything about the Pistons other than they were "of course" the right answer, so then your making the case that they were more underdogs than the Mavs based on their overall record with Dirk.

For this thread, I stand by my statement (not that I think Pistons were underdogs).


Well do you have the data available because if you really want to make that case you would need to account for a few variables. For 1, the Pistons didnt have Sheed a full year. With Sheed the Pistons posted the most dominant defensive efficiency marks in the modern era and went back to the Finals and won 65 games or something right.

I agree Pistons were a great defensive team. The addition of Rasheed wouldn't guarantee them a better regular season record though. Pistons won same 54 games in 2005 (as the previous year) with Sheed in their roster for the entire year. And they won 64 the next season. Rasheed obviously improved the Pistons defense but to assume Pistons would surely have better record if they had Sheed in 2004 for the full season doesn't make much sense as it was proved by the following season.



It is yet to be seen what these Mavs do but if you were to pit the 2 squads against each other I have no doubt the Pistons would prevail. They were built to decimate squads that relied heavily on any 1 player.

I don't get why you would compare these two team against each other. Pistons could be better than Mavs and still that wouldn't make the Mavs underdog vs Heat. They were up against two other different teams.

naps
10-25-2011, 09:51 PM
they had rings with fisher, kobe, shaq, medvedenko,the coach was the same

where as the heat have a new coach from when they won the title, and they only had 2 remaining players from that group, and only one of them has been an allstar

oh ok, so if a team beat one of the 90's bulls in the finals, it wouldnt be an upset, because the past doesnt matter? i apologize

you are correct, i am wrong:facepalm:

No, the past doesn't matter when you have significant changes on your starting 5. Why are you bragging with this pointless thing anyway. I already said and kept commenting that 2004 was more of an upset than 2011.
You on the other hand picked the same part in this thread EXCEPT you were trying to stir up and derail this thread by saying LeBron's not one, not two, not three. We have had enough of these. Let's have a good discussion without making fun of LeBron for once. Jesus!!

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 09:54 PM
No, the past doesn't matter when you have significant changes on your starting 5. Why are you bragging with pointless thing anyway. I already said and kept commenting that 2004 was more of an upset than 2011.
You on the other hand picked the same part in this thread EXCEPT you were trying to stir up and derail this thread by saying LeBron's not one, not two, not three. We have had enough of these. Let's have good discussion without making fun of LeBron for once. Jesus!!

oh ok, i guess because they still had 2 superstars and one of the clutchest pgs in the game in their starting 5, and had won 3 rings together in the past, that doesnt matter

ur absolutely right:clap:

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 09:56 PM
No, the past doesn't matter when you have significant changes on your starting 5. Why are you bragging with this pointless thing anyway. I already said and kept commenting that 2004 was more of an upset than 2011.
You on the other hand picked the same part in this thread EXCEPT you were trying to stir up and derail this thread by saying LeBron's not one, not two, not three. We have had enough of these. Let's have a good discussion without making fun of LeBron for once. Jesus!!

i wasnt derailing lebron, i was derailing miami,freedom of speech, u dont like it,COME AT ME BRO! :cool:

i didnt ask him to say that during their little party, dont get mad at me caus u came at me and cant even back up what u say with facts, be a MAN and kno when ur fighting a losing battle :horse:

everyone in here sees it :k:

nickdymez
10-25-2011, 09:57 PM
Thats how I feel about anyone who thinks the 04 Pistons were underdogs.

Check out the Pistons Defensive Efficiency marks as soon as they got Sheed. HISTORIC, you take a historically great defensive team and pit it against an imploding team that lost its glue (Malone) for the series and its pretty easy to see coming. I know I did and I cashed out that year. This year I was actually caught off guard by Brons performance

Exactly. Those pistons were one of the best defensive teams of all time. And they did it all year.

naps
10-25-2011, 09:58 PM
oh ok, i guess because they still had 2 superstars and one of the clutchest pgs in the game in their starting 5, and had won 3 rings together in the past, that doesnt matter

ur absolutely right:clap:


You are kidding yourself. When you have two completely new member in your starting 5 it does changes your chemistry significantly especially when we are talking about a Triangle offense with two new starters.

And why don't look at rest of my post which was actually why I made my post?


No, the past doesn't matter when you have significant changes on your starting 5. Why are you bragging with this pointless thing anyway. I already said and kept commenting that 2004 was more of an upset than 2011.
You on the other hand picked the same part in this thread EXCEPT you were trying to stir up and derail this thread by saying LeBron's not one, not two, not three. We have had enough of these. Let's have a good discussion without making fun of LeBron for once. Jesus!!

Read that bolded part. But obviously you would have to poke at LeBron since you are a Bulls fan.

naps
10-25-2011, 10:01 PM
The pistons were not underdogs as many think, but as for this thread the poll absolutely nailed the answer.

PhillyFaninLA
10-25-2011, 10:08 PM
was trying to draw some attention. mission accomplished :rolleyes:

way to admit you are a no good troll and just want to waste people's time, MODS is that a TOS violation

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 10:09 PM
You are kidding yourself. When you have two completely new member in your starting 5 it does changes your chemistry significantly especially when we are talking about a Triangle offense with two new starters.

And why don't look at rest of my post which was actually why I made my post?



Read that bolded part. But obviously you would have to poke at LeBron since you are a Bulls fan.

THEY LOST RICK FOX AND ROBERT HORRY! This is SHAQ and KOBE

this is the equavivalent of u telling me the bulls wouldnt be the same without luc longley and ron harper

MOVE ON! they arent superstars! not even close, teams lose players every year! u have 2 superstars, a clutch pg, and the greatest coach of all time.

What ON COURT chemistry change???

you have 0 argument

naps
10-25-2011, 10:13 PM
THEY LOST RICK FOX AND ROBERT HORRY! This is SHAQ and KOBE

this is the equavivalent of u telling me the bulls wouldnt be the same without luc longley and ron harper

MOVE ON! they arent superstars! not even close, teams lose players every year! u have 2 superstars, a clutch pg, and the greatest coach of all time.

What ON COURT chemistry change???

you have 0 argument

Anytime you insert two new starters that changes you chemistry and in triangle offense that's even more. But sure you wouldn't understand that since you are going with memorized stuff.

And good to see you kept ignoring your failed attempt on derailing this thread by mocking LeBron.

JJ_JKidd
10-25-2011, 10:21 PM
Last time I checked, Lakers were defending Champions when Detroit beat them, and 3-peat Champions at that! How about Miami? Lol. They havent even won anything YET with that group led by LeFool so what upset are we talking about here?

So answer is '04 Pistons.

naps
10-25-2011, 10:24 PM
Last time I checked, Lakers were defending Champions when Detroit beat them, and 3-peat Champions at that! How about Miami? Lol. They havent even won anything YET with that group led by LeFool so what upset are we talking about here?

Spurs were the champions in 2003. So no way the Lakers were defending champions. LeBron hate takes over people's memory :rolleyes:


So answer is '04 Pistons.

Agreed.

MTar786
10-25-2011, 10:30 PM
people were expecting the superstar gary payton all year because the season before that he was still a superstar. But what really happened was GP just went downhill really really fast after the first quarter of the season. In the playoffs he was TERRIBLE. He played like his old self in 1 game in the playoffs! *this was proven the season after in boston.. GP was just garbage. so garbage that phil considered outting fish back in the starting lineup.. and possibly did
GP percentage- 40% of what we thought we would get
-BAD chemistry
-lost in the triangle
-not used to playing off ball
-one of the fastest declines in nba history
-left his defense in seattle

kobe, coming off an AMAZING 03 season.. you would expect kobbe to have taken over as the main man on the team.. but no, instead he became NBA public enemy number 1. This was when the nba stopped giving kobe those superstar calls that people actually think kobe still gets. All due to his rape case. Kobe was also extremely distracted and his issues with shaq AND the team didnt help. The locker room trust issues were crazy. I remember hearing radio interviews during games where kobe would state that he would read something in the paper and would confront his team mates during practice to find out if what they said were true.
kobe percentage: 65% of what we could have gotten from kobe
-rape case
-locker room issues
-nba hate

shaq. My favorite player at the time was still so dominant, people think he was on this big decline which IMO is just not true.. people are decieved by his numbers thats season.. but they dont realize kobes numbers went own from 30ppg to 24, thats what happens when you add in another 2 'all stars to the team'.. with that said shaq may have been on the decline but still very very close to what would have been a prime shaq... It didnt help that he came into the season all FAT and overweight. He could have been more productive than he already was. Not to mention he hardly got the ball at the rate he was used to getting it at. especially in the finals. Kobe blew it for us too.
shaq percentage: 80% of what he could have been that season
-Hardly got the ball when he should have
-Kobe problems
-FAT and overweight
-No motivation

Malone, Karl imo was very consistent and the most unselfish of the 4 when it came to winning the ring he so very badly wanted. He would make such great passes to cutters out of the post, his midrange was money and he could still bully in the post. He was even passive when he was clearly frustrated at times he felt he wasnt getting the ball enough. Karl was motivated to win a ring and you could see it. It was just sad his body couldnt hold up enough for him to get there. Karl was destined not to win a ring and you could see it in the 04 season that the basketball gods just wanted it that way. karl was great on offense for the lakers.. His defense on duncan was great too. but karl just could make it past the WCSF's his defense became terrible and he couldnt even run properly in games. Karls age got the best of him and his body betrayed him on his way to the finals.
malone percentage- 85% of what you could expect out of a 41 year old (0% in the finals)
-injuries
-injuries
-bad luck

add all of this with a team who had no chemistry, that was old and injury plagued, that expected to win the ring even if jack nicholson was the starting SF

notable injuries
shaq- out for a lot of the seasos but was there when needed for the playoffs
kobe- injured shoulder, rape case trials
rick fox-pretty much out for last part of season and basically missed the playoffs
horace grant- Out for playoffs
malone- Out for finals
bryon russel- injured through most of playoffs

with all of this said.. you can see that everyone expected more from this lakers team than you could possibly get.. and even though all of this happened. detroit winning in 04 was still a bigger upset that miami losing to dallas

beasted86
10-25-2011, 10:32 PM
I'm alone in saying they are the same.

Both were expected to win, both lost. End of story.

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 10:37 PM
Anytime you insert two new starters that changes you chemistry and in triangle offense that's even more. But sure you wouldn't understand that since you are going with memorized stuff.

And good to see you kept ignoring your failed attempt on derailing this thread by mocking LeBron.

if your telling me that a roster with 2 superstars, and one of the clutchest pgs in the history of the game would be derailed by losing 2 starters

yet the celtics can get 4new starters(rondo started 25 games the previous year) and manage to win the championship that year, then something is wrong with you

im done arguing with you, u dont have anything to back up ur points, ur just looking for a convo


and is it just me or does lebron play for the heat?

i guess hes still on the cavs in ur book then

naps
10-25-2011, 10:43 PM
if your telling me that a roster with 2 superstars, and one of the clutchest pgs in the history of the game would be derailed by losing 2 starters

yet the celtics can get 4new starters(rondo started 25 games the previous year) and manage to win the championship that year, then something is wrong with you

im done arguing with you, u dont have anything to back up ur points, ur just looking for a convo


You clearly have no idea about chemistry and triangle offense.


and is it just me or does lebron play for the heat?

i guess hes still on the cavs in ur book then

What do you mean by this? You clearly wanted to take this thread off-topic by mocking LeBron. Good thing your attempt was failed unlike the usual trend here. Why can't we have a thread where someone doesn't come up with an intention of bashing LeBron? This was what I quoted you for. But you seemed to ignore the point since you got caught up and the attempt was failed, fortunately. Here's your original post that was pointed to LeBron:


the pistons, caus the lakers had rings when they faced them, the heat had, not one, not two, not three not...

MrfadeawayJB
10-25-2011, 10:44 PM
2011 mavs. The heat were expected to run over everybody last year

Chronz
10-25-2011, 11:02 PM
I think it's because most vastly over-rated the additions of GP and Malone (they still do). The addition of two aged stars was some-how supposed to make up for that team having zero depth, an injured/unmotivated Shaq, and a young, immature Kobe who was dealing with personal drama all year. Not to mention that Malone missed the bulk of the final series.

To date, people still don't recognize Detroit as the defensive juggernaut they were. The only thing that's strange to me is how LA got past SA in those playoffs (SA had a slightly higher defensive rating than Detroit).
Not higher than Sheed+Ben Pistons.

3mikee_
10-25-2011, 11:05 PM
04' pistons... that Lakers team was actually good at basketball.

Chronz
10-25-2011, 11:29 PM
I agree Pistons were a great defensive team. The addition of Rasheed wouldn't guarantee them a better regular season record though.
There are no guarantees in either of our scenarios, what we must focus on are the odds and the likelihood of our hypothetical. I dont have the #'s on me but I recall arguing this point back then, that their efficiency differentials with Sheed in the lineup that year gave them an imposing rating. I dont know how it stacks vs Dallas with Dirk though.


Pistons won same 54 in 2005 (as the previous year) with Sheed in their roster for the entire year. And they won 64 the next season. Rasheed obviously improved the Pistons defense but to assume Pistons would surely have better record if they had Sheed in 2004 for the full season doesn't make much sense as it was proved by the following season.
Before we get to the statistical aspects of your claims lets acknowledge what a tumultuous season that was for Detroit given the "Malice" event, Coach Brown had several ailments and his assistant was unable to run the show (8-9 without Brown), Brown was flirting with other teams (Cavs), Rip played through alot of minor injuries, on top of ALL that defending champions rarely go full bore for their title defense. They tend to pace themselves for the long post season to come, its not a rule, just my take.
If those teams lose the title they may approach the following regular season with the initial mindset that got them the title as the Pistons displayed the year they did win 64 before ultimately failing. Which brings me to my next point, that 64 mark represents a total that the current Mavs could not replicate even with a healthy Dirk. The point Im trying to make is that the Pistons were a superior team and when given the chance they displayed it better than the Mavs did. They didnt repeat but I doubt the Mavs will and I really doubt they sustain the same level of success the Pistons did.

Now for the year to year difference with the Pistons, they lost key components to their bench, guys like Okur, Big Nasty, and even the immortal Mike James, who paired with Lindsey Hunter to form a ridiculous full court press 2nd unit. Those are some quality players who could have made the difference in a repeat. Particular Okur who was producing very impressive #'s and went on to make the All-Star team.


I don't get why you would compare these two team against each other. Pistons could be better than Mavs and still that wouldn't make the Mavs underdog vs Heat. They were up against two other different teams.

Im comparing them because its important to know their level of play, your point about the difference in competition is the next important comparison. I assume you feel the Heat > 04 Lakers but the Heat were also not the caliber of the Pistons. So logically, if the Pistons were the best team and the Lakers were the worst team then its impossible for the Pistons to be the greater upset, they were the best team taking on the weakest team.


I understand this sounds like hindsight but the clues were there from the start, that we have the benefit of hindsight is why this should be a vote for the Mavs.

Im sure at the time the thought of Kobe and Shaq losing in the Finals was unheard of. But looking back alot less shocking than this series IMO.

Catfish1314
10-25-2011, 11:43 PM
The '04 Pistons pretty easily. They took down a dynasty. The Heat were good but had proved nothing.

Bruno
10-25-2011, 11:50 PM
Not higher than Sheed+Ben Pistons.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

2004 Spurs- 94.1 defensive rating (1st/29).
2004 Pistons- 95.4 defensive rating (2nd/29).

I was surprised too.

Still don't get how LA got past SA in the wc playoffs. I think that was the only series they played with true motivation (since they got knocked out by them the year before).

numba1CHANGsta
10-25-2011, 11:51 PM
Wow i am very surprised by these results. The argument is 3 NBA all-stars in their prime vs 2 NBA all-stars in their prime (Malone and Payton were not in their prime, Malone was hurt and Payton was a non factor) And that Detroit team would kill this past years Mavs team defensively.

Bruno
10-25-2011, 11:54 PM
Am I the only person who doesn't think either was a huge upset? Dallas dismantling Los Angeles should have been a sign that they were for real, and that the finals wasn't some anomaly.

Catfish1314
10-26-2011, 12:03 AM
Am I the only person who doesn't think either was a huge upset? Dallas dismantling Los Angeles should have been a sign that they were for real, and that the finals wasn't some anomaly.

I don't think either was a huge upset. The Mavs and the Pistons were both much better than most people gave them credit for and the teams they were playing were hardly unbeatable.

The difference for me (regardless of whether the Lakers dynasty was on a visible decline or not) is that Detroit took down a team that had been there and done that. That Lakers core had three championships to its name.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 12:04 AM
The '04 Pistons pretty easily. They took down a dynasty. The Heat were good but had proved nothing.

So the Heat were only a good team, but beating them is a greater upset?

Catfish1314
10-26-2011, 12:07 AM
So the Heat were only a good team, but beating them is a greater upset?

Wait what? I'm saying the '04 Pistons win over the Lakers was a bigger upset. I don't even consider the Mavs beating the Heat an upset. I thought the Mavs would win before the series started.

naps
10-26-2011, 12:08 AM
Am I the only person who doesn't think either was a huge upset? Dallas dismantling Los Angeles should have been a sign that they were for real, and that the finals wasn't some anomaly.

Nope, you are not the only one here. I personally don't think either of those was upset but if I had to pick one here I would pick the 2004 pistons. Pistons were a great defensive team and all but I remember that was like tsunami for the world that they took down the Lakers dynasty. Basically that was the end of Lakers run, which coincided with Shaq's departure.

As for Dallas I can't see how they were the underdogs. They were the best team throughout the regular season and playoffs. They had the best 1-12 players in the league. No other roster was as deep. They swept Heat in the season and swept the defending champions Lakers in the 1st round. Heat was over-hyped by the media but you dissect their roster and it was nothing after the big three. You can still win against other playoffs teams with a big three but to beat a team that is as deep as the Mavs, you need effective role players to step up, which the Heat didn't have. Mavs winning title was no shock (or at least not as much as ESPN makes it out to be). On the contrary, no matter how awesome Pistons were as a team, it was heck of a shock for most people that they took down the Lakers even though the Lakers team went through so much.

Hangtime
10-26-2011, 12:17 AM
I think people had gotten so used to seeing Dallas choke in the playoffs year after year that once the finals arrived and Miami started playing well also that it was going to be an all familiar ending for the Mavs especially after game 1. That's the only reason i say Dallas was a bigger upset. LA was imploding at the wrong time and ran up against a defense that exploited it.

Pierzynski4Prez
10-26-2011, 12:27 AM
I find it odd how a core unit that wound up winning damn near 70 games at one point, making back 2 back Finals and endless ECF appearances and had 4 members in the All-Star game is seen as this underdog.

They won 64 games in 2006.

Their 2nd trip to the finals was 05, a year AFTER the finals being discussed in the thread.

4 members in the all star game in again, 06

What does anything Post-2004 have to do with the Pistons being underdogs going into the 2004 NBA finals?

Young2Kinsler
10-26-2011, 12:41 AM
Man it's great when we have threads talking about the Mavs championship. It still feels great LeBron thanks

Chronz
10-26-2011, 12:42 AM
Wait what? I'm saying the '04 Pistons win over the Lakers was a bigger upset. I don't even consider the Mavs beating the Heat an upset. I thought the Mavs would win before the series started.

Yea nvm I confused myself there

Pierzynski4Prez
10-26-2011, 12:42 AM
Don't forget that the Pistons also were taken to 7 games in the 2nd round of the playoffs that year as well.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 01:29 AM
What does anything Post-2004 have to do with the Pistons being underdogs going into the 2004 NBA finals?

It has to do with measuring the core unit involved, to what stage they were at in their careers (Primes) and their sustained brilliance makes their run more impressive and validates their title in ways that I dont think Dallas can replicate. You see Im the kind of person who thinks how a team defends its title matters. If your 1 and done next year it kind of deflates some of that, which is why 3peets and back2back titles are emphatic stamps of greatness though by no means the only marks.

That they had 4 members in the All-Star game was to provide insight to the talent of the key members. Unless you think those players magically transformed into all-stars that 1 year your better off questioning the merits of those selections. Which would be hard to accomplish because everyone knows that Billups is one of the most underrated players of his time before the world realized his greatness in the Finals.

Seriously just look up and down the roster and you cannot come to any other conclusion than Detroit has more talent, even arguing cohesion is tough because these guys meshed in ways few teams ever have. They clicked instantly and dominated defensively.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 01:32 AM
Don't forget that the Pistons also were taken to 7 games in the 2nd round of the playoffs that year as well.

True, that was the series JKidd suffered that knee injury. An almost loss to a proudfull but depleted Nets team is black eye on their resume.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 01:34 AM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

2004 Spurs- 94.1 defensive rating (1st/29).
2004 Pistons- 95.4 defensive rating (2nd/29).

I was surprised too.

Still don't get how LA got past SA in the wc playoffs. I think that was the only series they played with true motivation (since they got knocked out by them the year before).

No your not getting me, Im talking about their marks once they added Sheed. They added him at the deadline, those scores are not indicative of the Finals version that awaited the Lakers.

Look up their ratings with Sheed, they are RIDICULOUS
Via 82Games.com (http://82games.com/03DET11D.HTM)
Detroit Defense: 99.1PPP
With Sheed: 87.7PPP

Obviously they dont keep up this torrid start but this was a team that was already strong defensively and came together at the last moment and put up these results, they were so dominant defensively that they ushered in a new era of No Handchecking which gave birth to all of todays young PG's. Imagine if they had been together a full year under those same circumstances (pre-title, preHC). I cant imagine any team would be better defensively

Bruno
10-26-2011, 01:50 AM
No your not getting me, Im talking about their marks once they added Sheed. They added him at the deadline, those scores are not indicative of the Finals version that awaited the Lakers.

Look up their ratings with Sheed, they are RIDICULOUS
Via 82Games.com (http://82games.com/03DET11D.HTM)
Detroit Defense: 99.1PPP
With Sheed: 87.7PPP

Obviously they dont keep up this torrid start but this was a team that was already strong defensively and came together at the last moment and put up these results, they were so dominant defensively that they ushered in a new era of No Handchecking which gave birth to all of todays young PG's. Imagine if they had been together a full year under those same circumstances (pre-title, preHC). I cant imagine any team would be better defensively

Oh damn! Had totally forgotten that they got Sheed mid season.

Your comment on PGs is really interesting. What specifically about their fantastic defense in the no-hand check era would lead to a league dominated by young quick PG's? The importance of being able to attack the lane?

Chronz
10-26-2011, 01:57 AM
Oh damn! Had totally forgotten that they got Sheed mid season.

Your comment on PGs is really interesting. What specifically about their fantastic defense in the no-hand check era would lead to a league dominated by young quick PG's? The importance of being able to attack the lane?

I just mean that Detroit was a prime example of the type of team Stern did not want to see ruling the league so he changed the rules abit. You know as well as I do how defensive oriented the league was becoming from 98-05, the rule changes that opened up the game for quicker players is because of teams like Detroit.

As for Detroit, they went like 21-4 or something with him. Including the playoffs they had a 30-10 record with a +10 margin of victory with most of their games on the road and against high comp. Thats dominance, the only reason people didnt want to believe it was because they won playing UGLY. Their series vs NJ cast doubt but that was partially due to Sheed having an injury of some kind on his foot.

JordansBulls
10-26-2011, 10:37 AM
Both were upsets, but the Pistons over LA was bigger since there best player was a guy who couldn't even score.

JordansBulls
10-26-2011, 10:40 AM
Nope, you are not the only one here. I personally don't think either of those was upset but if I had to pick one here I would pick the 2004 pistons. Pistons were a great defensive team and all but I remember that was like tsunami for the world that they took down the Lakers dynasty. Basically that was the end of Lakers run, which coincided with Shaq's departure.

As for Dallas I can't see how they were the underdogs. They were the best team throughout the regular season and playoffs. They had the best 1-12 players in the league. No other roster was as deep. They swept Heat in the season and swept the defending champions Lakers in the 1st round. Heat was over-hyped by the media but you dissect their roster and it was nothing after the big three. You can still win against other playoffs teams with a big three but to beat a team that is as deep as the Mavs, you need effective role players to step up, which the Heat didn't have. Mavs winning title was no shock (or at least not as much as ESPN makes it out to be). On the contrary, no matter how awesome Pistons were as a team, it was heck of a shock for most people that they took down the Lakers even though the Lakers team went through so much.

An upset is when the team that is favored to win a series loses the series. Now if you want momumental upset that is a different story.



Dallas
57-25,
PTS/G: 100.2 (11th of 30) ? Opp PTS/G: 96.0 (10th of 30)
SRS: 4.41 (8th of 30) ? Pace: 91.3 (18th of 30)
Off Rtg: 109.7 (8th of 30) ? Def Rtg: 105.0 (8th of 30)
Expected W-L: 53-29 (8th of 30)



Miami
58-24
PTS/G: 102.1 (8th of 30) ? Opp PTS/G: 94.6 (6th of 30)
SRS: 6.76 (1st of 30) ? Pace: 90.9 (20th of 30)
Off Rtg: 111.7 (3rd of 30) ? Def Rtg: 103.5 (5th of 30)
Expected W-L: 61-21 (2nd of 30)


Miami had a higher SRS rating, Allowed Fewer PPG, Averaged more PPG, had a higher Expected W-L, had a higher Offensive and Defensive Rating and the Mavs were missing 3 players in Caron Butler, Rodrigue Beaubois and Brendan Haywood in the Finals.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2011/matchup/_/teams/mavericks-heat

naps
10-26-2011, 10:57 AM
No. Every match-up is different. Those statistics don't matter in a specific match-up. If those were the stats between these two teams I would love to consider that. But the truth is Dallas was the hands down best team in the league. Dallas was easily the best team in the regular season (Dirk missed 8 games due to injury) including the playoffs. They swept the Heat in regular season and swept the defending champion Lakers in the 1st round. That's what matters most than those worthless SRS and PPG BS. Dallas won as they deserved or supposed to. No shock here. But I don't want your copy-paste of ESPN predictions. I don't give a **** on what the media or other people think on this because I have my own brain.

mavwar53
10-26-2011, 10:59 AM
Of-course 2004 Pistons. Anyone who says Mavs were underdog I have serious doubt in their Basketball knowledge and overall reasoning of the game.

This

Pierzynski4Prez
10-26-2011, 11:10 AM
It has to do with measuring the core unit involved, to what stage they were at in their careers (Primes) and their sustained brilliance makes their run more impressive and validates their title in ways that I dont think Dallas can replicate. You see Im the kind of person who thinks how a team defends its title matters. If your 1 and done next year it kind of deflates some of that, which is why 3peets and back2back titles are emphatic stamps of greatness though by no means the only marks.

That they had 4 members in the All-Star game was to provide insight to the talent of the key members. Unless you think those players magically transformed into all-stars that 1 year your better off questioning the merits of those selections. Which would be hard to accomplish because everyone knows that Billups is one of the most underrated players of his time before the world realized his greatness in the Finals.

Seriously just look up and down the roster and you cannot come to any other conclusion than Detroit has more talent, even arguing cohesion is tough because these guys meshed in ways few teams ever have. They clicked instantly and dominated defensively.

I understand all of this. But again, we're talking about what the Pistons were GOING INTO the 2004 finals. Nobody knew that they would return to the finals the next year, win 64 in 06, send 4 all stars, etc.

I know they all became all-stars in 06, but in the title year, how old was Prince? 2nd year? Rip was still quite young too. Only Ben Wallace was an All-star in 05.

The fact of the matter is, all this team was going into that finals was a team that made it to the conf. finals the year before, and added Sheed at the deadline. They had just been taken to 7 games in the 2nd round, and were facing a team that had one of the best combo's in history that had just beaten 2 pretty damn good teams to get to the finals, prime duncan and prime KG.

naps
10-26-2011, 11:42 AM
I understand all of this. But again, we're talking about what the Pistons were GOING INTO the 2004 finals. Nobody knew that they would return to the finals the next year, win 64 in 06, send 4 all stars, etc.

I know they all became all-stars in 06, but in the title year, how old was Prince? 2nd year? Rip was still quite young too. Only Ben Wallace was an All-star in 05.

The fact of the matter is, all this team was going into that finals was a team that made it to the conf. finals the year before, and added Sheed at the deadline. They had just been taken to 7 games in the 2nd round, and were facing a team that had one of the best combo's in history that had just beaten 2 pretty damn good teams to get to the finals, prime duncan and prime KG.

That bolded part alone gives the answer for this thread.

That pistons team was great defensively but a lot of people say they had 4 allsrars but they don't realize they had 4 all-stars 2 years after they won that championship.

RevisIsland
10-26-2011, 01:06 PM
Definitely the '04 Pistons. That '04 Lakers team was pretty much perfect on paper, even at their best the Heat were flawed.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 01:20 PM
I understand all of this. But again, we're talking about what the Pistons were GOING INTO the 2004 finals. Nobody knew that they would return to the finals the next year, win 64 in 06, send 4 all stars, etc.
I do not see the purpose in limiting our information of those core members. The facts is we do KNOW how good that core was, that alot of people were blind to their dominance doesnt change the fact that they were indeed dominant. Hindsight is an advantage I have, I will not ignore it. Even without hindsight the evidence was there for those who cared to listen.


I know they all became all-stars in 06, but in the title year, how old was Prince? 2nd year? Rip was still quite young too. Only Ben Wallace was an All-star in 05.
They didnt become All-Stars, they were the same guys, they just didnt get the recognition together until it was painfully obvious how good they were. The team wasnt improving from its initial title defense, that was Detroit at its apex. If Detroits players were blossoming into All-Stars left and right then it would imply that the later versions of the Pistons were more talented/effective, thats not the case tho. The level of play in that core from 04 to 06 had diminished, the only difference is that these guys were given the respect reserved for champs.

If your basing a players All-Star ability on name recognition alone then you have no argument, because by this standard Deron Williams wasnt an All-Star even though he was putting up All-Star #'s and making All-NBA Teams back before he finally made it. This is the trick JB uses to prop up MJ. By saying MJ won a title without an All-Star he is technically correct, what the poor sap that believes him may not realize is that Pippen was an All-Star (not in name but ability), he made the All-Star team the year prior and he was only getting better in 91. So who would you rather have supporting you, the Pippen that made the All-Star team in 1990, or the Pippen that got better the following year but failed to make the All-Star team?

Basically my point is you should expand your definition of an All-Star to include more than just the coaches/fan tally, I was citing 4-All-Stars as a testament to their talent but perhaps focusing on their statistics would have been better.


The fact of the matter is, all this team was going into that finals was a team that made it to the conf. finals the year before, and added Sheed at the deadline. They had just been taken to 7 games in the 2nd round, and were facing a team that had one of the best combo's in history that had just beaten 2 pretty damn good teams to get to the finals, prime duncan and prime KG.

Yes but your misleading people with your contextual additions. Firstly, they were facing a depleted team, without Karl Malone they werent the same Lakers who just beat Duncan/KG because they needed Malone badly against them. Also the T'Wolves were without their 2nd best player and Sheed had a hurt foot in the series vs the Nets.

If you look at what the Pistons did with Sheed that year, including playoffs. They have the best efficiency differentials, so what they proved with the little time they had to gel and play together was that they could perform at the highest level and post historic defensive marks. That along with LA's problems was why they should have been favored. We knew about these events before the Finals, that hindsight has proven it emphatically only helps my argument.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 01:22 PM
Definitely the '04 Pistons. That '04 Lakers team was pretty much perfect on paper, even at their best the Heat were flawed.

lol your paper must lack a scouting report because an injured team is far from perfect. Atleast the Heat were finally healthy. The Lakers lost Karl Malone for the Finals and they lost his backup prior to the playoffs. So they were forced to play Slava and GP was declining before our eyes.

But yes, if we ignore age and production when looking at paper, your right.

todu82
10-26-2011, 01:28 PM
The 2004 Pistons. Ironically that series was what made me a Pistons fan.

Sactown
10-26-2011, 01:29 PM
the lakers roster, as constructed at that time had won 3 rings together

the Heat roster as constructed at this time has 0 rings together

the pistons beat a team that had rings together

the mavs did not beat a team that had rings together, they beat a player that had a ring, and a sixth man that had a ring

hence, the pistons had a bigger upset

and im the one trying to stir a pointless brawl, when u cant even read what was posted?:cool:

oh ok then

Oh.. I don't recall Malone ever getting a ring.. same with the Glove..

Chronz
10-26-2011, 01:29 PM
That bolded part alone gives the answer for this thread.

That pistons team was great defensively but a lot of people say they had 4 allsrars but they don't realize they had 4 all-stars 2 years after they won that championship.
Im pretty sure everybody realizes that, if their conversations with you are anything like ours then its probably that your not understanding the point they are attempting to make. When examining a core unit its important to understand the place in their careers. The core unit was peaking in the Finals and their prolonged success proves their talent advantage. Sheed didnt become an All-Star 2000, 2001 then lose his All-Star ability in his prime, only to regain that level of play after hitting 31 and winding up in Detroit. No Sheed was always Sheed, he just got more recognition after the title.

So when you focus on actual ability and not name brand, its easy to see why the Pistons were so stacked. Saying they were great defensively undersells them, they were THE BEST defensive team of the modern era.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 01:34 PM
Oh.. I don't recall Malone ever getting a ring.. same with the Glove..

Yea I dont recall Shaq playing at 320 then either, the way he was moving looked more like 350lb version. That Shaq was still pretty dominant but no longer the same force defensively.

Sactown
10-26-2011, 01:36 PM
Yea I dont recall Shaq playing at 320 then either, the way he was moving looked more like 350lb version. That Shaq was still pretty dominant but no longer the same force defensively.

Yeah they didn't look like the 3 time champs they once were.... I don't think either was that great of an upset...
Dallas had a better overall team with less holes.. and the Pistons were playing former greats with personal issues and weren't gelled very well together

Pierzynski4Prez
10-26-2011, 01:50 PM
I do not see the purpose in limiting our information of those core members. The facts is we do KNOW how good that core was, that alot of people were blind to their dominance doesnt change the fact that they were indeed dominant. Hindsight is an advantage I have, I will not ignore it. Even without hindsight the evidence was there for those who cared to listen.

They were dominant. We know now, yes. Prior to the 2004 finals, most didn't know. They had never been to a finals prior and had only had Sheed on the team for a few months before the finals. While you may have had this crystle ball showing that they would be outstanding the years after, the rest of the world didn't.



They didnt become All-Stars, they were the same guys, they just didnt get the recognition together until it was painfully obvious how good they were. The team wasnt improving from its initial title defense, that was Detroit at its apex. If Detroits players were blossoming into All-Stars left and right then it would imply that the later versions of the Pistons were more talented/effective, thats not the case tho. The level of play in that core from 04 to 06 had diminished, the only difference is that these guys were given the respect reserved for champs.

So Tayshaun Prince was the same player in his 2nd season as his 4th or 5th? Rip didn't improve either over the next few years?


If your basing a players All-Star ability on name recognition alone then you have no argument, because by this standard Deron Williams wasnt an All-Star even though he was putting up All-Star #'s and making All-NBA Teams back before he finally made it. This is the trick JB uses to prop up MJ. By saying MJ won a title without an All-Star he is technically correct, what the poor sap that believes him may not realize is that Pippen was an All-Star (not in name but ability), he made the All-Star team the year prior and he was only getting better in 91. So who would you rather have supporting you, the Pippen that made the All-Star team in 1990, or the Pippen that got better the following year but failed to make the All-Star team?

Basically my point is you should expand your definition of an All-Star to include more than just the coaches/fan tally, I was citing 4-All-Stars as a testament to their talent but perhaps focusing on their statistics would have been better.

You are the one who brought up that they had 4 all-stars in 06, not me. It appeared you were using it as a point to say how good they turned out to be, but now you are saying being an All-Star is not an argument?


Yes but your misleading people with your contextual additions. Firstly, they were facing a depleted team, without Karl Malone they werent the same Lakers who just beat Duncan/KG because they needed Malone badly against them. Also the T'Wolves were without their 2nd best player and Sheed had a hurt foot in the series vs the Nets.

If you look at what the Pistons did with Sheed that year, including playoffs. They have the best efficiency differentials, so what they proved with the little time they had to gel and play together was that they could perform at the highest level and post historic defensive marks. That along with LA's problems was why they should have been favored. We knew about these events before the Finals, that hindsight has proven it emphatically only helps my argument.

You talk about Sheed's foot injury, yet earlier you discuss Kidd's injury in that series, yet it still went 7 games. Goes both ways. The fact is the Lakers had beaten much better talent than the Pistons on the way to the finals, and never went to 7 games with anyone, let alone the 2nd round. LA had Shaq and Kobe, both in primes. One of the best duos in history. This alone is what made them the favorites. This is a star driven league. Is it not? The Pistons were not a team of stars. That is why LA was the favorites, which is what this whole thread is about, not how good the Pistons ended up being.

GhostfaceDrilla
10-26-2011, 02:17 PM
How in the HELL were the Mavs the underdog at all. We were better than Miami. They had 3 players (one of which can't play in the 4th quarter) and we had 10 or 11 players.

naps
10-26-2011, 03:11 PM
Im pretty sure everybody realizes that, if their conversations with you are anything like ours then its probably that your not understanding the point they are attempting to make. When examining a core unit its important to understand the place in their careers. The core unit was peaking in the Finals and their prolonged success proves their talent advantage. Sheed didnt become an All-Star 2000, 2001 then lose his All-Star ability in his prime, only to regain that level of play after hitting 31 and winding up in Detroit. No Sheed was always Sheed, he just got more recognition after the title.

So when you focus on actual ability and not name brand, its easy to see why the Pistons were so stacked. Saying they were great defensively undersells them, they were THE BEST defensive team of the modern era.

I am pretty I understand what they are trying to say. You are looking at the hindsight (in terms of allstars) and stacked Pistons team. My point here is that the Pistons beating the Lakers was a bigger shock than Mavs beating the Heat (if it was considered a shock at all). Pistons were the best defensive team but remember the Lakers beat two tremendous teams in previous two rounds (Prime Duncan's Spurs, and Prime KG's wolves) even though they went through so many distractions that year. Not to mention Lakers were a dynasty and had a core that won 3 championships in a row.

Hawkeye15
10-26-2011, 04:00 PM
I still find it funny so many find the Pistons championship an upset. Their defense was amazing, and the Lakers were in a war internally. They were lucky Sam Cassell screwed his hip up, or it would have been Minnestoa-Detroit.

The 04' Pistons were an amazing TEAM. This year was not a bigger upset, the Heat were together just one season, the Mavs battle tested for years in the playoffs. It was surprising to see LeBron suck so badly in the finals, but it wasn't surprising at all that the Mavs won after watching them plow thru the west.

JordansBulls
10-26-2011, 04:24 PM
I still find it funny so many find the Pistons championship an upset. Their defense was amazing, and the Lakers were in a war internally. They were lucky Sam Cassell screwed his hip up, or it would have been Minnestoa-Detroit.

The 04' Pistons were an amazing TEAM. This year was not a bigger upset, the Heat were together just one season, the Mavs battle tested for years in the playoffs. It was surprising to see LeBron suck so badly in the finals, but it wasn't surprising at all that the Mavs won after watching them plow thru the west.

The Pistons beating the Lakers was clearly an upset, in fact they were down 3-2 to the freaking Nets that year.




2010-2011 Season


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=SummerForecast10-NBAChamps

1. LA Lakers - 52 votes
2. Miami Heat - 34 votes
3. Orlando Magic - 5 votes
4. Boston Celtics - 1 vote
5. Oklahoma City - 1 vote




http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=SummerForecast10-EastChamps


1. Miami - 66 votes
2. Orlando - 16 votes
3. Boston - 10 votes
4. Chicago - 1 vote




http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=SummerForecast10-EastStandings

CONF TEAM W L PCT 10 W 10 L 10 PCT
1
Miami Heat 61 21 .744 47 35 .573
Meet the Miami Globetrotters -- with the rest of the East playing the part of the Washington Generals. Our panel says the Super Friends should run circles around the rest of the conference, except perhaps for Orlando. Then again, Boston eliminated both D-Wade and King James a year ago, so that's why they play the postseason …

2
Orlando Magic 56 26 .683 59 23 .720
The Magic stumbled vs. the Celtics in the East finals, but this is much the same team that won five series the past two postseasons. Orlando might have some magical maneuvers left, perhaps shipping out Vince Carter and/or finding a way to get Chris Paul. Until then, given Miami's summer, Orlando reverts to dangerous sleeper status.

3
Boston Celtics 51 31 .622 50 32 .610
The C's showed the regular season means nothing to them, beating the Cavs and Magic despite starting on the road, and almost doing the same to the Lakers. So it matters little that Boston is projected to win "only" 51 games, as long as it can get KG, Perk and the other Men in Green healthy for April, May and June.

4
Chicago Bulls 50 32 .610 41 41 .500
The East's second tier welcomes a new member: Chicago. The Bulls swung and missed on LeBron, D-Wade and CB4, but they did get Carlos Boozer, a deeper bench and a new coach, Tom Thibodeau. That and the sharp ascent of Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah mean that Chicago's sellout crowds finally have something to see.

5
Atlanta Hawks 48 34 .585 53 29 .646
Amazingly, Atlanta has improved for five straight seasons, but our panel says the streak ends here. The Hawks are a solid team that seems stuck in no man's land, having failed to make the conference finals for 40 years -- since the Lakers swept them in the 1970 Western Division finals -- and that probably won't change in 2011.

6
Milwaukee Bucks 46 36 .561 46 36 .561
The East seems to have six sure playoff teams, and for the first time in years, Milwaukee is a member of that echelon. Our panel remains in a prove-it-to-me posture regarding whether the Bucks can crack the East's upper crust, but if Brandon Jennings progresses and Andrew Bogut's arm is OK, the pieces are in place.

7
Charlotte Bobcats 39 43 .476 44 38 .537
Have they peaked? Fresh off of its best season in franchise history, Charlotte's roster looks weaker, its division looks stronger, and Larry Brown -- naturally -- looks like he's itching to leave. Still, with two spots up for grabs, they'll likely earn back-to-back playoff appearances and, in this scenario, a first-round rematch with the Magic.

8
New York Knicks 37 45 .451 29 53 .354
Knicks in the playoffs! But NY fans had more than an eight-game improvement in mind when the team entered the offseason with the ability to sign two superstars. The Amare addition should help, and Mike D'Antoni finally gets some horses to run his system, but the future remains murky. Still, Spike Lee has something to cheer about.




http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=SummerForecast10-WestStandings


Forecast: 2010-11 Western Conference Standings
CONF TEAM W L PCT 10 W 10 L 10 PCT
1
Los Angeles Lakers 58 24 .707 57 25 .695
The heavyweight champs have given us a True Hollywood Story of classic characters: the loner hero, the European intellectual, the wise old cap'n, the Queensbridge kid, the loopy lefty, the young star on the make, the eccentric owner and his family, and the Zen Master. Oh yeah, they're pretty good at basketball, too.

2
*Oklahoma City Thunder 52 30 .634 50 32 .610
Is this the same team that stood 1-16 just 20 months ago? Yes, and it's the same team that put a serious scare in the champs in Round 1. In what could be a wild Western scramble for second, our panel gives the Thunder 0.21 wins more than the Mavs, meaning a potential West finals bid for the Durant-Westbrook-Green team.

3
*Dallas Mavericks 52 30 .634 55 27 .671
We foresee an amazing 11th-straight 50-win season for the Mavericks, again on the shoulders of Dirk, J-Kidd and crew. And with the arrival of Tyson Chandler and the emergence of Roddy Beaubois (once he returns from a broken foot), Dallas will have some fresh blood. The Mavs may not have a ring, but they do have our respect.

4
*Denver Nuggets 49 33 .598 53 29 .646
The Nuggets hope coach George Karl can return after another bout with cancer, and Karl hopes the Nuggets can return to top contender status in the West. To do so, Carmelo & Co. need to curb their worst tendencies (namely: selfish play, emotional outbursts) and get back to the kind of teamwork preached by Karl.

5
*Portland Trail Blazers 49 33 .598 50 32 .610
Portland appears to be a postseason perennial despite front-office turmoil and myriad injuries. And now, with the West in transition (below the Lakers), this season looks like an open invitation for Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge and Greg Oden to take the Blazers past the first round of the playoffs for the first time in 11 years.

6
San Antonio Spurs 48 34 .585 50 32 .610
Tim Duncan was in college the last time the Spurs finished under .600, but that's what our panel forecasts for this fading power. What could reverse the subtle slide from 63 to 58 to 56 to 54 to 50 wins? A healthy season from Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, plus a splash by Tiago Splitter, the Brazilian banger imported from Europe.

7
Utah Jazz 47 35 .573 53 29 .646
Utah took some steps back with the departures of Carlos Boozer, Wes Matthews and Kyle Korver, and a step forward with the acquisition of Al Jefferson. How Jerry Sloan fits it all together -- and how the Jazz use the expiring contract of Andrei Kirilenko -- will tell us whether Deron Williams' crew is more contender or pretender.

8
Houston Rockets 45 37 .549 42 40 .512
How is Yao? That's the first question for Houston, which has built a strong supporting cast without knowing whether its 7-foot-6 superstar can return from foot surgery to carry the team. But if the big fella can go, the Rockets have the pieces in place, with the experienced Rick Adelman and savvy Daryl Morey for guidance.

9
Phoenix Suns 44 38 .537 54 28 .649
Phoenix rose spectacularly from the lottery to the West finals, and now it's back to the lottery for Steve Nash and the Suns, according to our panel. That's despite a 44-win forecast and despite our prediction that Suns expatriate Amare Stoudemire and his Knicks (with just 37 wins) will make the playoffs in the East. No, life ain't fair.

10
New Orleans Hornets 38 44 .463 37 45 .451
Chris Paul might renew his trade wishes after seeing our stinging Summer Forecast for the Hornets, which has them stuck at 38 wins, far from the playoffs. Of course, what CP3 and New Orleans need is a healthy CP3, after a knee injury cost him almost half of last season. In any case, his future is a looming issue.



These shows the Heat and Lakers were the clear cut favorites while the Mavs didn't get a single vote.

Hawkeye15
10-26-2011, 04:35 PM
The Mavs didn't get a vote because they have forever choked eventually, despite having the same teams more or less.

I never use what media/public perception was in an argument JB. Because I just don't care what they think. Nor should you.

The Pistons defense was amazing that year. They were full of very good players at every position, in their prime. They played a Lakers team that was at war with each other. It was not the upset so many made it. The only reason many looked at is as a huge upset is that on paper, it was a 3 time Laker Championship team. But that was not the same team. There were so many chemistry issues, by the time the Pistons went up on them, it was as if Shaq and Kobe were playing, "I hope we lose so I can pin it on him" mode.

Was it an upset this season? Probably. But I don't think so honestly. The Heat were in year 1 of chemistry building, trying to get rotation players back in the groove, while the Mavs were a battle tested playoff team from years past that wiped thru the defending champs like they were wet paper towels. Didn't surprise me that they won it. Not one bit.

JordansBulls
10-26-2011, 04:42 PM
The Mavs didn't get a vote because they have forever choked eventually, despite having the same teams more or less.

I never use what media/public perception was in an argument JB. Because I just don't care what they think. Nor should you.

The Pistons defense was amazing that year. They were full of very good players at every position, in their prime. They played a Lakers team that was at war with each other. It was not the upset so many made it. The only reason many looked at is as a huge upset is that on paper, it was a 3 time Laker Championship team. But that was not the same team. There were so many chemistry issues, by the time the Pistons went up on them, it was as if Shaq and Kobe were playing, "I hope we lose so I can pin it on him" mode.

Was it an upset this season? Probably. But I don't think so honestly. The Heat were in year 1 of chemistry building, trying to get rotation players back in the groove, while the Mavs were a battle tested playoff team from years past that wiped thru the defending champs like they were wet paper towels. Didn't surprise me that they won it. Not one bit.


http://www.nba.com/games/20040601/INDDET/recap.html



the Pistons eliminated the Pacers in six games and will face the heavily favored Los Angeles Lakers for the championship beginning Sunday.




http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/games/2004-06-06-finals-game1_x.htm



It was the first home playoff game the heavily favored Lakers have lost after winning nine in a row, and it cost them home-court advantage.





http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/series?series=laldet

Link - Game 1 2004 Finals (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=240606013)

Link - Game 5 2004 Finals (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=240615008)



"Nobody gave us a chance, but we felt we had a great chance," said Billups, the finals MVP with 21 points and 5.2 assists per game. "They had Shaq and Kobe, but we just felt we were a better team."






Source: Yahoosports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-10-best-teams-of-the-decade-never-to-win-a-c;_ylt=Ai8j0I4kfnCFSrGgLh3xx7q8vLYF?urn=nba,184569 )

6. Los Angeles Lakers, 2003-04


This could have been an all-time team, one of the greats, had everything come together. Nothing came together, though. Nothing came close. Everything fell apart, badly, but not before the Lakers made it all the way to the NBA Finals, as favorites, before losing to the Detroit Pistons. Los Angeles signed Gary Payton and Karl Malone to cheap-o contracts before the season started, hoping to fill positions that had been skunked by Tim Duncan and Tony Parker the season before, but those esteemed transactions were more than mitigated by the news of Kobe Bryant's legal troubles in Colorado during the summer of 2003. Bryant's troubles marred the season, as he grew increasingly insular, and, to his coaching staff and teammates, erratic and selfish on the court. Payton never learned the offense, Shaquille O'Neal was never in shape, and Karl Malone (the lone good soldier on this squad) had to deal with two devastating freak knee injuries in December (with the Lakers rolling along at 20 and 5) and in June (with Los Angeles about to make the Finals).

Chronz
10-26-2011, 04:43 PM
I still find it funny so many find the Pistons championship an upset. Their defense was amazing, and the Lakers were in a war internally. They were lucky Sam Cassell screwed his hip up, or it would have been Minnestoa-Detroit.

The 04' Pistons were an amazing TEAM. This year was not a bigger upset, the Heat were together just one season, the Mavs battle tested for years in the playoffs. It was surprising to see LeBron suck so badly in the finals, but it wasn't surprising at all that the Mavs won after watching them plow thru the west.

I just cant see Minny winning even with a healthy Cassell but maybe with a healthy Cassell/Hudson. Overall though Malone was still good to go for most of the series vs Minny so I would still favor them.

Had Malone been healthy for the Finals I would still have the Pistons over them but it wouldnt have been so embarrassing.


Which brings me to my next point, how can Detroit be the bigger upset if they were the team to most emphatically prove their superiority over the Finalist????

Chronz
10-26-2011, 04:47 PM
I am pretty I understand what they are trying to say. You are looking at the hindsight (in terms of allstars) and stacked Pistons team. My point here is that the Pistons beating the Lakers was a bigger shock than Mavs beating the Heat (if it was considered a shock at all). Pistons were the best defensive team but remember the Lakers beat two tremendous teams in previous two rounds (Prime Duncan's Spurs, and Prime KG's wolves) even though they went through so many distractions that year. Not to mention Lakers were a dynasty and had a core that won 3 championships in a row.
But like Ive been saying from the start, your not applying full context here, the team that beat the Spurs and a weakened T'Wolves team wasnt the same team that showed up in the Finals, without Malone, their glue, they had no shot against Detroit and with him they likely still lose. You dont even need hindsight for that, that is a statistical probability that was evident from the minute Sheed started at PF.

That we have the advantage of hindsight is why Detroit cant be the answer, Im sure at the time the majority of the world was shocked, but the majority of the world felt Kobe+Shaq = Unbeatable. In other words they didnt really analyze the game, when you looked at the 2 series on paper, Detroit is easily the best team of the 4 compared.

Hawkeye15
10-26-2011, 04:49 PM
http://www.nba.com/games/20040601/INDDET/recap.html





http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/games/2004-06-06-finals-game1_x.htm






http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/series?series=laldet

Link - Game 1 2004 Finals (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=240606013)

Link - Game 5 2004 Finals (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=240615008)







Source: Yahoosports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-10-best-teams-of-the-decade-never-to-win-a-c;_ylt=Ai8j0I4kfnCFSrGgLh3xx7q8vLYF?urn=nba,184569 )

6. Los Angeles Lakers, 2003-04

dude, I don't care what the media perception was. This is my opinion. I am not debating what public opinion was, I am aware of that. They follow one year behind instead of looking at today.

JordansBulls
10-26-2011, 05:21 PM
Which brings me to my next point, how can Detroit be the bigger upset if they were the team to most emphatically prove their superiority over the Finalist????

They went 7 games against the Nets who wouldn't beat anyone out west any year from 1980-2011.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 05:23 PM
They were dominant. We know now, yes. Prior to the 2004 finals, most didn't know. They had never been to a finals prior and had only had Sheed on the team for a few months before the finals. While you may have had this crystle ball showing that they would be outstanding the years after, the rest of the world didn't.
Crystal ball? You mean Efficiency Scores? I get the the majority of the world wasnt aware of their superiority but it was evident for those who cared to study the game. It wasnt by accident that they posted historical marks BEFORE the title. But yes I get that before the title the majority of the world felt the simplistic equation of Kobe+Shaq = Win would carry the Lakers past the Pistons but we dont have to stay in that mindset, we do have the advantage of hindsight so we NOW KNOW better. Knowing all we know, the Pistons werent the bigger upset, they were a bigger shock but the is because the majority of the population was unaware to the truth of that core units ability. This doesnt mean they didnt have it, just that it wasnt as clearly evident.




So Tayshaun Prince was the same player in his 2nd season as his 4th or 5th? Rip didn't improve either over the next few years?

Not the same exact player, but they didnt make this radical jump into All-Star form is what Im saying, but yes Rip and Tay did improve the most of that bunch, as you would expect from a pair of 24-26 year olds. Still however good you think the unit was in their title year, that unit was if anything weaker when they started getting recognition.

So basically the Pistons that won the title was a better team than the Pistons that sent 4 players to the All-Star game, this tells me they were stacked, to be honest though most of that had to do with the rule changes, the biggest dropoff came defensively. Tay wasnt the same lockdown guy after that but they all benefited offensively.


You are the one who brought up that they had 4 all-stars in 06, not me. It appeared you were using it as a point to say how good they turned out to be, but now you are saying being an All-Star is not an argument?

Not how good they turned out, but how good they always were. Like Sheed didnt BECOME an All-Star in 2006, in all honesty he was actually a lesser player by then but this was the same crew that sent 4 players to the All-Star game. I tried to clarify that I should have focused on their stats but its easier to get the point across if you say they had 4 all-star caliber players (arguably more).

The argument you were making was that we should DQ anything accomplished outside of 2004 but Im arguing it should be considered given that the club was in its prime at that juncture and that anything else accomplished adds to the cores legacy.

For example, when the Heat won the chip in 06 and were swept the following year, it spoke to the fact that the unit was in its decline and unable to sustain its level of play. These Pistons won the title and then proceeded to have a very impressive run thereafter. This tells me the unit was closer to its prime which could mean nothing to you, but still something I think is relevant.


You talk about Sheed's foot injury, yet earlier you discuss Kidd's injury in that series, yet it still went 7 . Goes both ways. The fact is the Lakers had beaten much better talent than the Pistons on the way to the finals, and never went to 7 games with anyone, let alone the 2nd round. LA had Shaq and Kobe, both in primes. One of the best duos in history. This alone is what made them the favorites. This is a star driven league. Is it not? The Pistons were not a team of stars. That is why LA was the favorites, which is what this whole thread is about, not how good the Pistons ended up being.

Your right about the Nets series, and the Spurs were the biggest threat aside from the Finalist but Im comfortable with the evidence that suggested the Pistons were the best team and should have been favored. Even given that series with the Nets, if you look at ALL the games they played with Sheed in the starting lineup, you come away with a stellar record, stellar efficiency scores despite high competition and playing a ton of road games.

Shaq and Kobe were stars and Ive already agreed thats usually all the thinking that gos into determining a winner, but given what we know about Malones injury, the diminished play of Shaq+Kobe that year, and Detroits unparalleled defensive dominance, how could they not be favored? It sounds easy to say in hindsight but that is the main thing Im arguing, that we should apply this advantage.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 05:28 PM
They went 7 against the Nets who wouldn't beat anyone out west any year from 1980-2011.
Yep too bad we are talking about a single series. A team that destroys its competition is less of a fluke. The Mavs got alot of breaks and they won with clutch execution, the Pistons DESTROYED the Lakers. And if you focus on the totality of their run together you would find that no other team in history has posted some of the marks that the Pistons did.

Rank the 4 teams
For me it gos:
Detroit
Dallas
Heat
LAL (given the injuries)

If LA was healthy they shoot up to #2.

JordansBulls
10-26-2011, 05:31 PM
Yep too bad we are talking about a single series. A team that destroys its competition is less of a fluke. The Mavs got alot of breaks and they won with clutch execution, the Pistons DESTROYED the Lakers. And if you focus on the totality of their run together you would find that no other team in history has posted some of the marks that the Pistons did.

Rank the 4 teams
For me it gos:
Detroit
Dallas
Heat
LAL (given the injuries)

If LA was healthy they shoot up to #2.

Not to me. Detroit is 4th as they were nearly eliminated down 3-2 and down in the 4th against a mediocore team in game 6.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 05:37 PM
Not to me. Detroit is 4th as they were nearly eliminated down 3-2 and down in the 4th against a mediocore team in game 6.
So how do you rank them?

Why would them being down carry more weight than winning the title in demonstrative fashion? How is a team they defeated emphatically superior to them? Remember we are discussing upsets, knowing what we know about Malones injury and his importance to that team and Detroits unparalleled Defense.

The Mavs needed 6 games to win the Finals, the Pistons basically had a 5 game sweep on route to a chip. The Pistons faced the depleted team the Heat were starting to round into shape (tho Udonis and Miller were far from healthy). How exactly were they the greater upset given all we know?

Bruno
10-26-2011, 06:03 PM
The Pistons beating the Lakers was clearly an upset, in fact they were down 3-2 to the freaking Nets that year..
The team that went to the NBA finals two years in a row the previous two seasons? The Nets weren't scrubs, although not as good as they were in '02 or '03 either.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 06:18 PM
Also some teams just run into those situations, the Nets and Pistons had been bitter rivals for awhile and they werent to go down without a fight. Extrapolating that 1 series to define an entire teams ability in this comparison is unfair, it would be like me saying the 08 Celtics arent even as good as the current Heat because they were pushed to 7 by the Hawks.

PinnacleFlash
10-26-2011, 06:19 PM
People predicted the 11 Mavericks to win out of hope more than anything. I know that is what I did. I predicted the Mavericks to win more so because I wanted them to win than because I actually thought they would. I really doubt most people actually deep down believed that the Mavericks would actually come out on top.

Mavericks were not the favorites to win this series, that is just a revisionist work at its finest.

I vote equal. But one thing that both of these teams have in common is that their coach completely outcoached their opponents.

Carlise completely outcoached Spolestra and Brown completely outcoached Zen Master.

Bruno
10-26-2011, 06:23 PM
Also some teams just run into those situations, the Nets and Pistons had been bitter rivals for awhile and they werent to go down without a fight. Extrapolating that 1 series to define an entire teams ability in this comparison is unfair, it would be like me saying the 08 Celtics arent even as good as the current Heat because they were pushed to 7 by the Hawks.

Still can't believe the Hawks pushed those Celtics seven games.

Chronz
10-26-2011, 06:34 PM
Still can't believe the Hawks pushed those Celtics seven games.

Agreed, I guess it was a sign of their rise to middle of the crop but at the same time it was the most lopsided 7 game series I can remember, every home game was a blow out win for the C's.

Bruno
10-26-2011, 06:36 PM
Agreed, I guess it was a sign of their rise to middle of the crop but at the same time it was the most lopsided 7 game series I can remember, every home game was a blow out win for the C's.

haha, right.

JordansBulls
10-31-2011, 12:25 PM
The team that went to the NBA finals two years in a row the previous two seasons? The Nets weren't scrubs, although not as good as they were in '02 or '03 either.

I'm not saying they were scrubs, but the Nets were better in 2002 and 2003 than they were in 2004. Now imagine the 2002 or 2003 Nets playing the 2004 Pistons, they would have probably defeated them.

Chronz
10-31-2011, 03:49 PM
I'm not saying they were scrubs, but the Nets were better in 2002 and 2003 than they were in 2004. Now imagine the 2002 or 2003 Nets playing the 2004 Pistons, they would have probably defeated them.

Just like the Hawks would defeat the Celtics?

Hawkeye15
10-31-2011, 03:59 PM
Still can't believe the Hawks pushed those Celtics seven games.

the reason, imo, is because the Hawks were a terrible matchup for them. The Celtics, as a team, were amazing defensively. But individually, they had some slow feet on many of their rotation players. Atlanta had athletes everywhere. They were able to use their athleticism to stay in the series against a championship caliber team that in its first playoff series together as a unit.

JordansBulls
10-31-2011, 04:19 PM
Just like the Hawks would defeat the Celtics?

If they played in 2010 they would have.

Chronz
10-31-2011, 05:14 PM
If they played in 2010 they would have.
No your suggesting the 2008 Champion Celtics would lose to the 2009 Hawks. Which is hilarious.


Even in your comparison I wouldnt believe you, those Hawks wouldve lost to the Celtics without KG. Hell they couldnt even get a win against the Cavs.

Anilyzer
10-31-2011, 06:33 PM
Pistons overLakers 04 by FAR

Although, technically, the refs totaly controlled the o4 seires, (as well as Lakers Mavs 2011), so outcome was never in doubt... thus no real "upset."

Still, detroit lakers 04... jeebus mice dude. That Laker team would pretty much crush almost evry team in history, and that Detroit team was weak, and incedibly weak on offense