Deetroit or El-aa?

[Maeve_Mari]

Who's your pick for the series?
In seven or less?

[Maeve_Mari]

Three down Detroit 2 games to 1

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Being from massachusetts, I am not a fan of the Lakers. But I just really like this Detroit team, because that is exactly what they are, a team. They play fundamentally sound offense, and spectacular defense, and use almost all of their players in one role or another. I pullin for Detroit in 6, still pissed about the game 2 loss though.

[Schiavona]

Is this.........hockey? Sorry, I only do fencing

[darius]

I can't stand watching basketball to save my life, but the Lakers are sorta like the Yankees. You wouldn't be a responsible sports fan if you didn't hate on them!

darius

[Moonitic]

Basketball bores me to tears (what, no cross checking??), but as a Detroiter born & bred...I have to root for the home team (even though they don't actually play in Detroit, but in Auburn Hills).

Last night's game was pretty good...20 point beating, you know!

[MHS Fencer]

What was impressive about last game wasn't that Detroit won by 20 points, but that they kept LA to only 68 - a post-season low for the Lakers' franchise since the inception of the shot clock. The key to this series is whether Detroit's defence can shut down the Lakers' offence, like they did last night. Detroit has (arguably) deserved to win all 3 games so far, but they dropped number two because of poor free-throw shooting and a spot of bad luck. I wouldn't count out the lakers just yet - if Kobe can not suck and Shaq can put up some big numbers they can breathe life into the Lakers (that's a lot of what happened in Game 2 - both Shaq and Kobe put up a lot of points). Having been a Bulls' fan (i don't follow basketball really anymore) I have every faith in Phil Jackson as a coach, although at the end of the day the players have to come through, and LA hasn't been doing that. Despite having been the underdogs (and my being the lone vote for LA) after last night it looks like Detroit might have to lose the series, instead of LA's winning it.

[Army Fencer]

I've got to root for my Lakers. I've been impressed at how well Detroit has done, but I think that LA will take it.

[a517dogg]

I'm not really a Pistons fan, but I hate the Lakers, "Big Aristotle" and all. But I especially hate them this year, because if they win, it'll basically be showing that you don't have to earn a Championship ring, you can just join a good team and have Shaq and Kobe win it for you (aka GP and Malone). It'll cheapen the Championship.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by MHS Fencer

What was impressive about last game wasn't that Detroit won by 20 points, but that they kept LA to only 68 - a post-season low for the Lakers' franchise since the inception of the shot clock. The key to this series is whether Detroit's defence can shut down the Lakers' offence, like they did last night. Detroit has (arguably) deserved to win all 3 games so far, but they dropped number two because of poor free-throw shooting and a spot of bad luck. I wouldn't count out the lakers just yet - if Kobe can not suck and Shaq can put up some big numbers they can breathe life into the Lakers (that's a lot of what happened in Game 2 - both Shaq and Kobe put up a lot of points). Having been a Bulls' fan (i don't follow basketball really anymore) I have every faith in Phil Jackson as a coach, although at the end of the day the players have to come through, and LA hasn't been doing that. Despite having been the underdogs (and my being the lone vote for LA) after last night it looks like Detroit might have to lose the series, instead of LA's winning it.

I disagree. Detroit is going to play good defense regardless, the key to the game is how well LA plays defense. If they play like they did last night then Detroit has the series won. Detroit had too many fast break points and second chances (offensive rebounds). The key is LA's defnse, not Detoit's.

[Musketeer]

We need a fourth choice for the poll - Who cares?

[Soldier]

Seconded.

(Exactly one character short.)

[CutLass]

There are a lot of good things about basketball that don't warrant being brushed off with a "who cares." Basketball is a universal, limitless, fun activity and sport for children and adults alike around the world. It doesn't discriminate for talent, speed, equipment, time, or ability. Basketball teaches agility, hand-eye coordination, emphasizes balance, and arm strength. It requires nothing but a ball and a hoop. And can be played by one, two or any number of players in nearly any location or venue. It can be formal, picked up, teamed, solo, and it's an easy ice breaker while also being an easy stress reliever too.

It's universally accepted and exciting. It doesn't even refuse geeks from play.

[Inquartata]

No, it only discriminates on the basis of height.

Anyway, de gustibus non disputandum est, but I also do not care. Have we a quorum?

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No, it only discriminates on the basis of height.

Anyway, de gustibus non disputandum est, but I also do not care. Have we a quorum?

Tyrone “Muggsy” Bogues 5'3"
Early Boykins 5'5"
Spud Webb 5'5"

and millions of boys and girls on teams around the world

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by CutLass

There are a lot of good things about basketball that don't warrant being brushed off with a "who cares." Basketball is a universal, limitless, fun activity and sport for children and adults alike around the world. It doesn't discriminate for talent, speed, equipment, time, or ability. Basketball teaches agility, hand-eye coordination, emphasizes balance, and arm strength. It requires nothing but a ball and a hoop. And can be played by one, two or any number of players in nearly any location or venue. It can be formal, picked up, teamed, solo, and it's an easy ice breaker while also being an easy stress reliever too.

It's universally accepted and exciting. It doesn't even refuse geeks from play.

Basketball itself, sure. I'm talking about this specific matchup in question.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Musketeer

We need a fourth choice for the poll - Who cares?

It got me my 300th post. I was glad to do it too!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by CutLass

Tyrone “Muggsy” Bogues 5'3"
Early Boykins 5'5"
Spud Webb 5'5"

A handful of exceptions do not invalidate the rule. That's why they're called exceptions.

As for the kids, I well imagine that within each group success varies by height as well.

Be real, CutLass! You are not really arguing that "size doesn't matter", are you?

[Masterurethane]

If you're going to respond with "who cares?," then when even bother responding at all?

I don't happen to care, but I voted for detroit because it's more rockin' :-p

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

A handful of exceptions do not invalidate the rule. That's why they're called exceptions.

As for the kids, I well imagine that within each group success varies by height as well.

Be real, CutLass! You are not really arguing that "size doesn't matter", are you?

Pro basketball, like all elite level sports, requires phenomenal talent. The shorter someone is the more talented they need to be. Height however is not the end all be all. Look at people Shawn Bradley, 7'5" and practically not there.

I used to think I was too short at 6'1" to play basketball past high school. I was proven very wrong when I noticed how many players in college and the NBA are 6'1" or smaller. I just didn't have the talent.

At the lower levels of b-ball (like any sport), physical talent is less important and skill is far more useful. I see this at the pick up games I play, where the 5'6" 60 year old is a far more valuable commodity than my youthful, physical fit self. Why? Because he rarely misses a shot, whereas I am below 30%.