Comments on: 1988 NBA Finals against Lakers ranks as the greatest playoff series involving the Detroit Pistons since NBA-ABA merger

By: tarsier

tarsier — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 02:44:20 +0000

Saying you can win w/o a superstar by playing “the right way” does not imply that winning with a superstar means it was done “the wrong way.” It was just a rewording of saying “Is there a way to win w/o a superstar?” And the Pistons showed that there is. Any way that ultimately works is “the right way.” But it was widely believed that there wasn’t a way that would work devoid of a superstar.
The only way anyone refers to as a “wrong way” was the formation of the Heat’s big three. And that is absurd. Any time three superstars are willing to sacrifice money, ego, and popularity to maximize their chances at winning–good for them. I want to see Dirk get a title. But I wouldn’t mind seeing the Heat be the first team since Russel’s Celtics to rattle off more than three championships in a row either. Unless of course Detroit can get back into contention.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:52:17 +0000

It was the beginning of the question, “Do you need a true star to win a championship or can you win a ring by ‘playing the right way’?”

So, if you win with a true star on your team it means you’re not “Playing the right way”? So winning with a superstar means “winning the wrong way”? GIVE ME A BREAK. I’m tired of this ridiculous rethoric fans of teams without a superstar use. Because I pretty much guarantee you that Pistons fans (and I’m one myself..only difference is I’m objective), if they had a true superstar on their team and won the title, wouldn’t be talking about their team winning the “wrong way”. FACT.
Besides, also those teams with a superstar on their roster won by playing as a team: 2007 Spurs, 2008 C’s, 2009 and ’10 Lakers (yes, everybody on their team contributed to their title since it wasn’t just Kobe or Pau).
I wonder if people even watch the games.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:45:19 +0000

There have been so many great series that it’s obvious several others didn’t make the cut. Otherwise you’d need a longer list than this one.
To those ones talking about the amazing defense played in the mid-2000′s, as if they don’t play it anymore, you must’ve not watched this year or last years Finals, or even this year’s eastern conference finals for that matter (or, heck, even previous rounds): you can’t say they aren’t playing amazing defense right now, even with the new rules….this whole “new rules” complaining is just sour grapes since it didn’t stop defense-minded teams from winning.

Speaking of the new rules. People act like those rules were put in place because of the Pistons..actually, the league came up with those rules in 2003 (they were suggested by a committee formed by former players like Jerry West and executives like Jerry Colangelo), which was before the Pistons even won the title in 2004, and were introduced only in 2005-06 because that was the first season under the new CBA (which was signed in June 2005)…so it’s not because the Pistons won as many fans mistakenly believe.

By: JoshB

JoshB — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:38:38 +0000

I may have overlooked something, but I find it funny that none of Jordan’s Bulls playoff defeats made the list. Even if you don’t have the 90 series matchup with the Pistons, I would have expected to see the matchup with the Celtis on there.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:27:45 +0000

Just look at the scores from series’ in the 2004-2006 range. It was amazing the defense that was being played in the NBA at the time. The alas the league had to change the rules to generate more fan interest. Maybe that was good for the NBA in the long run, but it was bad for the Pistons. Then again, when have the higher-ups in the league ever liked the way the Pistons (of multiple eras) play basketball?

By: tarsier

tarsier — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:10:10 +0000

It was epic, but for being such an unexpected upset, not for being such a great series. The Pistons crushed the Lakers. Great story, not great basketball…at least not from both sides.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:51:07 +0000

Perhaps now that it is in the dustbin of history, the Pistons 2004 Finals matchup against the Lakers doesn’t rate, but at the time I remember it being a cornerstone. And I’m not just saying that as a Pistons fan. It put an exclamation point on the incredible defense being played in the league at that time, even necessitating rules changes from the league office the following season.
It also was the definitive end of the Lakers dynasty — the last time Shaq and Kobe would suit up together after being begrudging co-leaders on previous championship teams. It was the last huh-rah of Gary Payton and Karl Malone in their quest for the ring and even featured a tiny mutiny as the old-guard champions of Lakers squads past lobbied for more playing time as they staved off elimination.
It was the beginning of the question, “Do you need a true star to win a championship or can you win a ring by ‘playing the right way’?”
Alas, that question has been answered emphatically since as we now have teams hording stars in packs of three as they hope to win a title. And the end of the Lakers was greatly exaggerated as a couple frustrating years for Kobe, which led to open trade demands, ended with him receiving a running mate in Pau Gasol that would net the team a couple more rings.