PDA

View Full Version : The Official PD Preseason Power Rankings Thread



Shade
09-01-2004, 11:26 AM
Since it's now September, I thought it would be a goodtime to get this rolling. I know the complexion of things may yet change with impending trades, preseason injuries, etc., but I'm going to go ahead and do a Top 10 as if the season were about to begin. As always, feel free to post your own rankings. ;)

1) :timberwolves: - If not for the Lakers' last hurrah, the Wolves would likely have been in the Finals last year. With pretty much the entire cast returning this year, only the Spurs stand in the way of Minny taking the West.

2) :spurs: - If the Wolves fail to come out of the West, you can practically guarantee that San Antonio will be representing the conference for the third time in seven seasons. They, too, return a cast that was, also, stopped short by the now-disassembled Lakers.

3) :pistons: - The reigning champions managed to reinstall the old cliche of "defense wins championships," and also did so without the benefit of a bona-fide superstar. However, the completely revamped bench, relying on young rookies and aging veterans, may not be enough to allow Detroit to repeat. Of course, they've already beaten the odds once.

4) :pacers: - If Bender can step into Al Harrington's former role as sixth man, and Stephen Jackson turns out as good as advertised, it's very reasonable to expect the Pacers could finally get over the hump and send Reggie Miller into the sunset with a ring.

5) :heat: - With a slimmer Shaq now in the East, coupled with rising star Dwayne Wade, the only thing stopping the Heat are a better supporting cast and bench. That could be rectified before the start of the season, which could propel the Heat to favorites in the suddenly-rejuvenated East.

6) :grizzlies: - After tallying a 50-win season and playoff appearance last year, there's no reason to believe that Hubie's bunch won't at least match that performance in what will likely be Brown's final season.

7) :lakers: - Although Shaq has been replaced by Vlade Divac and Payton was shipped out for Chucky Atkins, the one-two punch of Odom and Kobe should be enough to keep the Lakers in the playoff race, though likely not strong enough to overcome the Wolves or Spurs.

8) :rockets: - Like the Heat and Lakers, the Rockets have a powerful one-two punch in Yao and TMac, though this one is more unporven, with even less surrounding it. In time and with the right acquisitions, however, Houston could once again move to the forefront of championship contenders.

9) :nuggets: - Carmelo didn't have the best Olympics, and his attiude definitely has fans in Denver worried about team chmistry going into the season. But if they can keep it together, the Nuggets should make a return appearance to the playoffs.

10) :jazz: - In just one season, Utah has gone from preseason last-place finishers to a solid playoff team. They added Okur and Boozer and lost...Ostertag. However, the big bucks spent on these unproven players could hamstring the Jazz for years to come when looking to build upon their foundation.

WORST) :bobcats: - With the exception of Okafor, who's a rookie, you'd be hard-pressed to find a team with fewer players least likely to make another NBA team's roster.

unstandable
09-01-2004, 12:44 PM
1. Detroit - The first championship team to keep their starting five intact in several years. Plus they added McDyess and will have Rasheed for the whole year. The team to beat.

2. San Antonio - The second best team last year in my book added Brent Barry, who will form a lethal backcourt with Parker and Ginobili. Their only weakness is at center.

3. Indiana - Reggie Miller should come off the bench.

4. Miami - Slimmed-down Shaq is scary.

5. Minnesota - Health at point guard (of both Cassell and Hudson) is key.

6. Utah - If Jerry Sloan could almost make the playoffs with the team he had last year, they should be great this year with the additions of Boozer and Okur. Okur will be overmatched defensively in the West, but he will excel on offense in the pick and pop. Harpring will also help a lot if he's healthy.

7-13 are all Western Conference teams. If I had to guess an order I'd say Houston, Dallas, Sacramento, LA Lakers, Memphis, Phoenix, Denver.

14. Cleveland - The fourth best team in the East (assuming Ford isn't healthy for Milwaukee). Snow will really help. The key will be Gooden.

15. New Orleans

16. Milwaukee

The five Atlantic Division teams are all about equally mediocre. They'll all be bunched together, and if I had to guess an order I'd say NY, NJ, Philly, Boston, Toronto.

The bottom of the barrel will be Orlando, Portland, Chicago, Washington, Golden State, LA Clippers, Seattle, Atlanta, and Charlotte.

Kstat
09-01-2004, 02:39 PM
I'm just going to skip this one, because any thread that begins with the reigning champs as #3 just smacks of:rolleyes:

Its still WAAAAY too early to do this.

Shade
09-01-2004, 03:27 PM
I'm just going to skip this one, because any thread that begins with the reigning champs as #3 just smacks of:rolleyes:

Its still WAAAAY too early to do this.


Yeah, 'cause you're not exactly biased or anything. :rolleyes:

Sollozzo
09-01-2004, 03:46 PM
What would be the point of having a power ranking poll if you had to pick the defending champions as the number 1 team? It's not about who won last year, it's about who you think will be the best team THIS year. Shade thinks the Wolves and Spurs will be better teams this year, which is a valid prediction.

If you had picked the defending champs the past 2 years, you would have been wrong anyway as the Lakers won in 02 but lost in 03...and the Spurs won in 03 and lost in 04.

Hicks
09-01-2004, 04:00 PM
:spurs:

:pistons:

:pacers:

:timberwolves:

:heat:

:kings:

:lakers:

:grizzlies:

naptown
09-01-2004, 04:13 PM
:spurs:

:pacers:

:timberwolves:

:pistons:

:kings:

:mavericks:

:rockets:

:lakers:

:grizzlies:

:heat:

Hicks
09-01-2004, 04:27 PM
Shoot, forgot about the Rockets. They could go almost anywhere in my top 8. Depends on how well a duo of Yao T-Mac works.

DisplacedKnick
09-01-2004, 06:14 PM
1. Pistons
2. Spurs
3. Pacers
4. Wolves
You could put these 4 in a hat and pick 'em. As always, if the defending champ is right in the mix, I put them number 1.
5. Sacto
6. Memphis
7. Dallas
8. Denver
9. Miami
10. Houston
11. Lakers
12. Knicks
13. Utah
14. New Orleans
15. Philly
16. Milwaukee
17. Phoenix
18. Cleveland
19. Portland
20. Seattle
21. New Jersey (They are gonna be SOOO weak without either Kidd or Martin to start the season)
22. Boston
23. Wizards
24. Golden State
25. Toronto
26. Clippers
27. Orlando
28. Bulls
29. Hawks
30. Bobcats

I'll come up with more thought and explanations when the season gets closer - may decide Toronto, Utah, etc., are a little better too - we'll see.

ChicagoJ
09-01-2004, 06:38 PM
Certain people really don't have the champs, with their core players and coach intact, at #1 to begin the season?

:lol:

Kstat
09-01-2004, 06:51 PM
Certain people really don't have the champs, with their core players and coach intact, at #1 to begin the season?

:lol:


Exactly. I chewed the same people out last year for not having the spurs #1. Its just stupid.

SoupIsGood
09-01-2004, 07:10 PM
The spurs also didn't win last year, so maybe in hindsight it was you that was stupid.

MSA2CF
09-01-2004, 07:45 PM
Opinions are never stupid, and that's a fact. ;)

It's too early for me; last year I made my power rankings before Walker got traded from the Celtics...Although I don't share the possibly extremist view of Jay and Mr. Simpson, I am on their side, at least for now.

NugzFan
09-01-2004, 09:09 PM
Since it's now September, I thought it would be a goodtime to get this rolling. I know the complexion of things may yet change with impending trades, preseason injuries, etc., but I'm going to go ahead and do a Top 10 as if the season were about to begin. As always, feel free to post your own rankings. ;)

1) :timberwolves: - If not for the Lakers' last hurrah, the Wolves would likely have been in the Finals last year. With pretty much the entire cast returning this year, only the Spurs stand in the way of Minny taking the West.

2) :spurs: - If the Wolves fail to come out of the West, you can practically guarantee that San Antonio will be representing the conference for the third time in seven seasons. They, too, return a cast that was, also, stopped short by the now-disassembled Lakers.

3) :pistons: - The reigning champions managed to reinstall the old cliche of "defense wins championships," and also did so without the benefit of a bona-fide superstar. However, the completely revamped bench, relying on young rookies and aging veterans, may not be enough to allow Detroit to repeat. Of course, they've already beaten the odds once.

4) :pacers: - If Bender can step into Al Harrington's former role as sixth man, and Stephen Jackson turns out as good as advertised, it's very reasonable to expect the Pacers could finally get over the hump and send Reggie Miller into the sunset with a ring.

5) :heat: - With a slimmer Shaq now in the East, coupled with rising star Dwayne Wade, the only thing stopping the Heat are a better supporting cast and bench. That could be rectified before the start of the season, which could propel the Heat to favorites in the suddenly-rejuvenated East.

6) :grizzlies: - After tallying a 50-win season and playoff appearance last year, there's no reason to believe that Hubie's bunch won't at least match that performance in what will likely be Brown's final season.

7) :lakers: - Although Shaq has been replaced by Vlade Divac and Payton was shipped out for Chucky Atkins, the one-two punch of Odom and Kobe should be enough to keep the Lakers in the playoff race, though likely not strong enough to overcome the Wolves or Spurs.

8) :rockets: - Like the Heat and Lakers, the Rockets have a powerful one-two punch in Yao and TMac, though this one is more unporven, with even less surrounding it. In time and with the right acquisitions, however, Houston could once again move to the forefront of championship contenders.

9) :nuggets: - Carmelo didn't have the best Olympics, and his attiude definitely has fans in Denver worried about team chmistry going into the season. But if they can keep it together, the Nuggets should make a return appearance to the playoffs.


nah...his attitude about the NUGGETS is great...his attitude in greece sucked.

ChicagoJ
09-01-2004, 09:58 PM
Power rankings aren't about "predicting the next champ". Nobody here is a prophet, as far as I know. Had Kstat (Mr. Simpson? :laugh: ) - at this time last summer - predicted the Pistons would trade a bag of chips for 'Sheed at the deadline and easily dismantle the Lakers in The Finals... well we all would have called him names. I guess we already call him names. Specifically, we would have called him "looney".

Power rankings are about ranking the teams, here and now.

Since the season ended, The Champs (title case) have either (a) not made any major changes, or (b) made minor changes that could make them even stronger next year. Other contenders, such as Minnesota, the Spurs and the Pacers have not done enough for most rational people to believe they've clearly surpassed The Champs. Thus, I'm dumbfounded that Shade, and others, ranked the Pistons errr The Champs lower than #1.

SoupIsGood
09-01-2004, 10:09 PM
People rate other teams higher than the champs because they think they will be better than the pistons next year. You guys act like since the pistons won that you have to think they will be best next year.

Kstat
09-01-2004, 10:11 PM
People rate other teams higher than the champs because they think they will be better than the pistons next year. You guys act like since the pistons won that you have to think they will be best next year.

I think his point is that nobody else has done anything to prove otherwise......

ChicagoJ
09-01-2004, 10:13 PM
Bingo. It's not like the Pacers traded Al Harrington for Shaq. Everyone else has pretty much just made lateral moves. Give The Champs some respect.

Until some other team gets hot, I've got to believe , right now, that Detroit is the team to beat.

BigMac
09-01-2004, 10:19 PM
I'm just going to skip this one, because any thread that begins with the reigning champs as #3 just smacks of:rolleyes:

Its still WAAAAY too early to do this.



Had the Lakers beat the Pistons in the Finals should they be given #1? How 'bout #2 because the finished 2nd in the NBA? Nope.

While I agree that Detroit #3 is a bit low, I don't see them as favorites to return to the top. They will be good but champs again? I don't think so but that, of course, is only speculation.

Is it too early to do this. Hell no. There's nothing else to do regarding the NBA right now. I hope that it wasn't too inconvenient for you, KStat, to read what I wrote as well as what Shade wrote. If it's so bad to read this stuff this early, stay on the Pistons site. I'm sure they'll care what you have to say.

I got your back Shade.

SoupIsGood
09-01-2004, 10:19 PM
Yes, but winning it all doesn't prove that you're the best team next year, it means you were the best last year. Them winning doesn't prove anything for next year, IMO.

I'd put it at
1. Spurs
2. Pistons
Indy-Minnie-lots of people potentially here

Kstat
09-01-2004, 10:22 PM
I'm just going to skip this one, because any thread that begins with the reigning champs as #3 just smacks of:rolleyes:

Its still WAAAAY too early to do this.



Had the Lakers beat the Pistons in the Finals should they be given #1? How 'bout #2 because the finished 2nd in the NBA? Nope.

While I agree that Detroit #3 is a bit low, I don't see them as favorites to return to the top. They will be good but champs again? I don't think so but that, of course, is only speculation.

Is it too early to do this. Hell no. There's nothing else to do regarding the NBA right now. I hope that it wasn't too inconvenient for you, KStat, to read what I wrote as well as what Shade wrote. If it's so bad to read this stuff this early, stay on the Pistons site. I'm sure they'll care what you have to say.

Thats TOTALLY different. The Pistons didn't lose any core players. Had the Lakers won it all, and retained their starting 5, you're damn right they would be #1 again.


I got your back Shade

Well, its good to know that SOMEONE still wants that job......






:p

Shade
09-01-2004, 10:35 PM
I can't believe this has blown up into what it has.

Here's why I have the Pistons #3:

1) Their bench has arguably downgraded, if the projects and vets don't come through.

2) The Pacers improved in the one area they struggled with against the Pistons -- perimeter shooting. As close as the series was, it's easy to speculate that the Pacers could have taken out the Pistons with SJax instead of Al, and/or no injuries to JO and/or Tins. Yet, I still have the Pistons ahead of the PAcers for now, so bite me. :p

3) It's arguable that, had the Lakers not gotten in the way, the Spurs and/or Wolves may have beaten the Pistons in a 7-game series. It's all about match-ups.

4) The Pistons won last year simply because they wanted it more. That's what it takes to play good team defense -- a desire to win. I believe that the Pistons, having won now, will be slightly less hungry. And that may be all it takes for them to be overthrown this year.

Hicks
09-01-2004, 10:38 PM
I got your back Shade

Well, its good to know that SOMEONE still wants that job......


:p


:unimpressed:

SoupIsGood
09-01-2004, 10:43 PM
4) The Pistons won last year simply because they wanted it more. That's what it takes to play good team defense -- a desire to win. I believe that the Pistons, having won now, will be slightly less hungry. And that may be all it takes for them to be overthrown this year.


Interesting point, Shade.

Shade
09-01-2004, 10:44 PM
I'm just going to skip this one, because any thread that begins with the reigning champs as #3 just smacks of:rolleyes:

Its still WAAAAY too early to do this.



Had the Lakers beat the Pistons in the Finals should they be given #1? How 'bout #2 because the finished 2nd in the NBA? Nope.

While I agree that Detroit #3 is a bit low, I don't see them as favorites to return to the top. They will be good but champs again? I don't think so but that, of course, is only speculation.

Is it too early to do this. Hell no. There's nothing else to do regarding the NBA right now. I hope that it wasn't too inconvenient for you, KStat, to read what I wrote as well as what Shade wrote. If it's so bad to read this stuff this early, stay on the Pistons site. I'm sure they'll care what you have to say.

Thats TOTALLY different. The Pistons didn't lose any core players. Had the Lakers won it all, and retained their starting 5, you're damn right they would be #1 again.


I got your back Shade

Well, its good to know that SOMEONE still wants that job......






:p


Well, your mom can't do it forever. :finger:

PistonsDynasty
09-01-2004, 10:46 PM
I don't post on this board that much anymore but how the hell the Defending Champs aren't number?

But I can just sit back and laugh :laugh: As the Pistons win another championship and prove you guys wrong again.

Start of a Dynasty - 7 championships in a row.

Shade
09-01-2004, 10:49 PM
I don't post on this board that much anymore but how the hell the Defending Champs aren't number?

But I can just sit back and laugh :laugh: As the Pistons win another championship and prove you guys wrong again.

Start of a Dynasty - 7 championships in a row.

Look a few posts up and you'll see why. :unimpressed:

Do Pistons fans just lurk until someone allegedly slights their team or something? :confused:

naptown
09-01-2004, 11:29 PM
The Pistons won the title and deserve credit...but we are not talking about LAST YEAR. We are talking THIS YEAR. I think a healthy Spurs, Wolves and Pacers team are all better than the Pistons as the rosters currently are for THIS YEAR.

You win the title one year so that just makes you automatically the best team the next???? It does not make sense if you are strictly basing your opinion on what a team did THE YEAR BEFORE.

I'm not sure the roster moves the Pistons made are good ones. I am not sure if the players will respond to Larry Brown the same way again this year. We (Pacers fans) know all too well how quickly players tire of Brown.

I think the Spurs made great moves in free agency to put the key players around the best big man in the game.

I think the T-Wolves would have won the West if not for Sam's injury. And would have beat the Pistons.

And I think adding SJ and getting rid of Harrington makes the Pacers a MUCH better team. Add a much needed SG and get rid of a ball hogging "ME" player.

Like I said, you can't base THIS YEAR strictly on who won the title LAST YEAR. They are really 2 different things.

Hicks
09-02-2004, 09:22 AM
Put me with the crowd that thinks "Just because they won last year, doesn't mean I have to say they will win it this year, when I don't neccessarily think that".

Sure, they easily could repeat. But just because they won last year doesn't mean I DONT think the Spurs are the team to beat. The 2004 Pistons are the last NBA Champs, not the 2005 Pistons. So I'll give all the credit in the world the the 2004 Pistons, but the 2005 Pistons have won as much as every other 2005 team: jack.

ChicagoJ
09-02-2004, 09:29 AM
I'd like to believe we could've beaten The Champs ...

IF JO was healthy;

IF Tinsley was healthy;

IF Ron could keep his composure when the pressure was on;

IF Austin played as well in Game #5 as he did in Game #4;

IF Reggie was consistent from the outside;

Etc.

That's a lot of 'IFs'. And we didn't even take the series to seven games. Heck, we lost twice at home. The Pistons were *much* better than everyone in the league last year, and their core team hasn't gotten any worse. They may or may not have weakened thier bench, but given Joe D.'s track record, I tend to believe it isn't any weaker.

I think its preposterous to say that, even though the Pistons easily dismantled the team that won the west, that they might have lost to the second and third best WC teams. Why do we, on a Pacers' board, have a WC bias? :tsk: Matchups? I thought the Pistons matched up better against the Wolves and Spurs, anyway. :twocents:

I could see a three-team tie for #2 in the pre-season power rankings (Pacers, Spurs, Wolves).

I'd hate to think that I've got Kstat's back ( :devil: ), so let's move on. :p

Hicks
09-02-2004, 09:32 AM
It's not a WC bias. The Spurs are a really good team that were one fluke Fisher shot away from being up 3-2 on LA. Matchups very much come into play. They would have matched up with Detroit better than LA did. But now, that same Spurs team has addressed their biggest weakness with Brent Barry, and I think that's going to cause them to go back to the Finals at least.

Fool
09-02-2004, 10:40 AM
Hi! I'm a Piston fan and I don't think I would rank the Pistons #1.

Power rankings are about what team looks to be the most powerful team at the moment (thats why the real ones come out every week). Its not a prediction of the future only a gage of the present.

The defending champ rule is fine if you prescribe to it but I don't. I say that you can't count the defending champ out (providing the team isn't blown up) but they aren't necessarily the front runner out of the gate. The Lakers have been the favorite at the start of every season for the last 5 or so whether they were the defending champs or not.

For my money, last year's Spurs plus Brent Barry are the best 05 team before anyone has played an 05 game.

BTW, the game is about match-ups and Kobe, Malone, and Shaq, were too much for Pop and the Spurs. I am fine with the idea that a different final match-up may have provided different results. There is no way the Pistons were a 5 game sweep better than the Spurs, though as a Piston fan I liked their chances versus any team in the league.

naptown
09-02-2004, 10:42 AM
I don't think a healthy Pacers team would have beat the Pistons...The Pacers just did not look mentally tough enough. The Pistons did. The Pacers had not been there before and it showed.

I think the T-Wolves, if Sam was healthy, would have have beaten the Pistons in 6 games....at most. The Pistons did not have the depth to deal with everything the Wolves could have thrown at them. They just did not match up well.

Kstat
09-02-2004, 10:59 AM
I don't think a healthy Pacers team would have beat the Pistons...The Pacers just did not look mentally tough enough. The Pistons did. The Pacers had not been there before and it showed.

I think the T-Wolves, if Sam was healthy, would have have beaten the Pistons in 6 games....at most. The Pistons did not have the depth to deal with everything the Wolves could have thrown at them. They just did not match up well.


I think the Pistons, with a healthy Rasheed Wallace, would have swept all 4 playoff rounds.

Fool
09-02-2004, 11:25 AM
I don't think a healthy Pacers team would have beat the Pistons...The Pacers just did not look mentally tough enough. The Pistons did. The Pacers had not been there before and it showed.

I think the T-Wolves, if Sam was healthy, would have have beaten the Pistons in 6 games....at most. The Pistons did not have the depth to deal with everything the Wolves could have thrown at them. They just did not match up well.


I think the Pistons, with a healthy Rasheed Wallace, would have swept all 4 playoff rounds.

I disagree with both views quoted above. The Pistons, only had Rasheed for half of the last meeting of the two teams and only lost to the Wolves by one point (and even then only on a questionable call). I wasn't scared of the jump shooting Wolves with Rasheed on KG, Tayshaun on Spree, and Lidsay on Cassell. Though I admit I don't have a lot of respect for jump shooting teams. I think a better agument can be made for the Spurs.

Also, it wasn't Rasheed's health that lost the game versus the Bucks or the game versus the Lakers so I don't see how a healthy Rasheed changes the playoffs much in those rounds. (Also, I don't think you can say that the two blow-out losses to the Nets are wins even if Rasheed doesn't have to drag that foot up and down the court)

Kstat
09-02-2004, 11:48 AM
I don't think a healthy Pacers team would have beat the Pistons...The Pacers just did not look mentally tough enough. The Pistons did. The Pacers had not been there before and it showed.

I think the T-Wolves, if Sam was healthy, would have have beaten the Pistons in 6 games....at most. The Pistons did not have the depth to deal with everything the Wolves could have thrown at them. They just did not match up well.


I think the Pistons, with a healthy Rasheed Wallace, would have swept all 4 playoff rounds.

I disagree with both views quoted above. The Pistons, with Rasheed for only a half only lost the Wolves by one point in the regular season (and even then only on a questionable call). I wasn't scared of the jump shooting Wolves with Rasheed on KG, Tayshaun on Spree, and Lidsay on Cassell. Though I admit I don't have a lot of respect for jump shooting teams. I think a better agument can be made for the Spurs.

Also, it wasn't Rasheed's health that lost the game versus the Bucks or the game versus the Lakers so I don't see how a healthy Rasheed changes the playoffs much in those rounds. (Also, I don't think you can say that the two blow-out losses to the Nets are wins even if Rasheed doesn't have to drag that foot up and down the court)


Just balancing things out, thats all.

Shade
09-02-2004, 12:30 PM
I don't think a healthy Pacers team would have beat the Pistons...The Pacers just did not look mentally tough enough. The Pistons did. The Pacers had not been there before and it showed.

I think the T-Wolves, if Sam was healthy, would have have beaten the Pistons in 6 games....at most. The Pistons did not have the depth to deal with everything the Wolves could have thrown at them. They just did not match up well.


I think the Pistons, with a healthy Rasheed Wallace, would have swept all 4 playoff rounds.

I disagree with both views quoted above. The Pistons, with Rasheed for only a half only lost the Wolves by one point in the regular season (and even then only on a questionable call). I wasn't scared of the jump shooting Wolves with Rasheed on KG, Tayshaun on Spree, and Lidsay on Cassell. Though I admit I don't have a lot of respect for jump shooting teams. I think a better agument can be made for the Spurs.

Also, it wasn't Rasheed's health that lost the game versus the Bucks or the game versus the Lakers so I don't see how a healthy Rasheed changes the playoffs much in those rounds. (Also, I don't think you can say that the two blow-out losses to the Nets are wins even if Rasheed doesn't have to drag that foot up and down the court)


Just balancing things out, thats all.

That's not "balancing things out." The previous statement is believable. Your following statement is just absurd.

unstandable
09-02-2004, 12:43 PM
Why do you say the Pistons would match up poorly with Minnesota? Both the regular season meetings were one-point games, and the Pistons didn't have Sheed at all the first time and only had him for the first half the second time. That doesn't suggest that Minnesota would beat the Pistons in six games at most.

DisplacedKnick
09-02-2004, 01:09 PM
I don't think a healthy Pacers team would have beat the Pistons...The Pacers just did not look mentally tough enough. The Pistons did. The Pacers had not been there before and it showed.

I think the T-Wolves, if Sam was healthy, would have have beaten the Pistons in 6 games....at most. The Pistons did not have the depth to deal with everything the Wolves could have thrown at them. They just did not match up well.

I agree with the first part. I don't agree with the second - I think Detroit would have taken the Wolves comfortably.

The Spurs are another story. I would've loved to see that series (didn't mind the Lakers getting stomped though). Detroit would have played them their tough,grind-it-out, in-your-face defense - and the Spurs would have in-your-faced right back.

I can't predict how that would have turned out but it sure would have been fun to watch.

Ultimate Frisbee
09-02-2004, 01:15 PM
I don't think a healthy Pacers team would have beat the Pistons...The Pacers just did not look mentally tough enough. The Pistons did. The Pacers had not been there before and it showed.

I think the T-Wolves, if Sam was healthy, would have have beaten the Pistons in 6 games....at most. The Pistons did not have the depth to deal with everything the Wolves could have thrown at them. They just did not match up well.

I agree with the first part. I don't agree with the second - I think Detroit would have taken the Wolves comfortably.

The Spurs are another story. I would've loved to see that series (didn't mind the Lakers getting stomped though). Detroit would have played them their tough,grind-it-out, in-your-face defense - and the Spurs would have in-your-faced right back.

I can't predict how that would have turned out but it sure would have been fun to watch.



I agree... The Spurs were the team that the Pistons should fear most... They could have handled the Defensive oriented game that the Pistons play..

SoupIsGood
09-02-2004, 07:17 PM
I don't think a healthy Pacers team would have beat the Pistons...The Pacers just did not look mentally tough enough. The Pistons did. The Pacers had not been there before and it showed.

I think the T-Wolves, if Sam was healthy, would have have beaten the Pistons in 6 games....at most. The Pistons did not have the depth to deal with everything the Wolves could have thrown at them. They just did not match up well.


I think the Pistons, with a healthy Rasheed Wallace, would have swept all 4 playoff rounds.

:o

naptown
09-02-2004, 07:54 PM
Why do you say the Pistons would match up poorly with Minnesota? Both the regular season meetings were one-point games, and the Pistons didn't have Sheed at all the first time and only had him for the first half the second time. That doesn't suggest that Minnesota would beat the Pistons in six games at most.

I think the Wolves had the depth in the front court to bother Detroit. They just had a nice mix of different types of players up front....Garnett, Candi, Johnson, Madsen, O Miller, Gary Trent.... you can play a lot of different ways with those players and with depth like that inside and shooters like Wally, Spree, Sam and Freddie outside.....like I said, I just think the Wolves had the proper depth, in the right places, to deal with the Pistons. Particularly up front where the Pistons were not very deep or very big.

DisplacedKnick
09-02-2004, 09:41 PM
Why do you say the Pistons would match up poorly with Minnesota? Both the regular season meetings were one-point games, and the Pistons didn't have Sheed at all the first time and only had him for the first half the second time. That doesn't suggest that Minnesota would beat the Pistons in six games at most.

I think the Wolves had the depth in the front court to bother Detroit. They just had a nice mix of different types of players up front....Garnett, Candi, Johnson, Madsen, O Miller, Gary Trent.... you can play a lot of different ways with those players and with depth like that inside and shooters like Wally, Spree, Sam and Freddie outside.....like I said, I just think the Wolves had the proper depth, in the right places, to deal with the Pistons. Particularly up front where the Pistons were not very deep or very big.


The Wolves are a lot like Sacto - they like to space thye floor, move the ball, and use their athleticism with a does of outside shooting to beat you. I don't think they would have been able to handle the tough, grinding games Detroit would have turned them into - they aren't built for that any more than Dallas is.

SoupIsGood
09-02-2004, 09:47 PM
Although they say the one way to beat 'troit is to run and shoot great from the outside. The t'wolves do both well.

It would have been intresting, and certainly more competetion they got from the Lakers.