Kobe
Wade
Joe Johnson
Ray Allen
Monta Ellis

There are so many problems with this post, I don't know where to start. I don't want to write a 3 page explanation of all of the innacuracies and flaws in reasoning. The one part you were correct on was the Mavs had just swept the Lakers. I'll just touch on two things you are wrong about.

1st, Lebron won the MVP and Dwade did finish 5th in the MVP voting (should have been higher, but MVP voting is always flawed) in the 2009-2010 season.

2nd, you are delusional if you think you accurately remember the Heat not being the heavy favorites against the Mavs before the Finals started. Using a feeling you got from a fannation thread (regularly full of idiots with intelligent fans mixed in here or there) is not a reason to override the national consensus of sports writers and sports fans.

They still had 2 of the best 3 players in the league and a 3rd all-star. Let's not set the bar too low, lol.

200 people view it but not one person will leave a comment or an opinion? Am I doing something wrong? lol

I personally think the 2004 Lakers were a bigger disappointment. I think with the Heat, its easy to say LBJ and Dwade are probably 2 of the top 3 players in the league. I have no problem saying Kobe and Shaq were the top 2 best players in the league (sorry Tim Duncan).

I know Karl Malone was getting older, but I got the feeling that season that he willingly took a lesser role instead of his skills declining significantly. If you called Shaq and Kobe equal to LBJ and Dwade, I would take an old Malone over Bosh.

That didn't post the way I wanted it to, but I hope its clear I was trying to display the starters on the two squads. My bad. lol

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you are also wrong.

When you have 2 of the best 3 players in the league (consensus before the season started) and a 3rd all-star on the squad with reasonable, but not great role players, you expect to win a championship.

When you are one of the favorites in the playoffs and you beat the other two favorites to get to the Finals against a team that you are far, far better than on paper, that is a bust.

If you were judging from the beginning of the season, many people didn't predict the Heat to win this year, but once we got to the Finals almost everyone expected them to win.

When you lose because of choking instead of because of getting outplayed, that is a bust.

You have to keep in mind that this team isn't like a normal team that goes to the NBA Finals and loses. They are a team long on talent and short on character and winning intangibles. The only team in recent history that I think is comparable is the 2004 Lakers with Kobe, Shaq, Malone, and GP.

I'm a Lebron hater, but I'm still objective. Everything he said was true and he didn't bring the subject up, he was responding to a question asked to him during a pre-determined time for him to take questions from the media. This happens to be the same media that by this point is hoping and praying he will say anything remotely controversial so they can blow it up bigger than it really was. I thought he answered the question exceptionally well to tell the truth. It greatly surprises me that people found a way to take offense to it.

What was inappropriate about it? It was exactly accurate. I think any outrage or offense taken from his comment is manufactured and not genuine.

The reporter asked him a question with the sole intention of getting him to say something that will be taken negatively and probably out of context. I thought it was a bit of a stretch to suggest Lebron was trying to say he's better than regular people. The media is really stretching for something to criticize him about. What's dumb is there is already so many reasons to criticize him, there is no need to manufacture fake reasons.

I Dislike Lebron James more than any NBA player ever.

That one doesn't work either.

I'm a Lebron hater like many others, but I thought his answer to that question was great and completely appropriate.

Dirk is a very good offensive player. I think he's improved since he won the MVP and I think he will continue improving over the next few seasons. It's just that he hasn't been great for his whole career. He was very good for a large part of it, but I don't think he's had the same kind of longevity of being a great player yet.

He can be mentioned in the same sentence. It goes like this.

Dirk Nowitski is not as good as Larry Bird.

Durant is my favorite player, but he seems somewhat afraid of the clutch shot situation. That 3 last night that got blocked by Marion was terrible. What's worse was I expected him to jack up a bad 3 instead of getting a decent shot before the play even started. Russell Westbrook has been getting criticized a lot this post-season (much of it justified), but I think Durant secretly (maybe silently is a better word) wants Westbrook to take over in the clutch. Since neither of them could, they lose.

Calling someone a thug for committing a foul in a basketball game seems to lean towards unintended racial discrimination in my opinion. When's the last time a white guy was called a thug for committing an unnecessarily hard foul?

They're still playing basketball, not committing drive-bye shootings. Use some discrestion.

Odom's foul on Dirk should not have been a flagrant. That was a regular foul and it was physical interaction that happens in almost every single game from high school up through the pros. The refs called the foul because it happened to Dallas's star player and it happened towards the end of a game that was out of reach. I think they were trying to send a message so that fouls like Andrew Bynum's wouldn't happen. Whelp, it didn't work and Bynum did commit a flagrant foul that deserved to get him kicked out of the game and probably a small suspension.

Artest's foul I think was going to be an intentional foul that went wrong. I don't think he intended to hit Barea in the face. He didn't wind up or swing or do anything to add more power to the hit. He didn't respond as if he was satisfied with hitting Barea. It just seemed to me like he tried to do an intentional foul that would have been fine on a normal player, but Barea is extra small and he hit Barea in the face instead of the chest or shoulder like he wanted. Artest looked like he didn't mean to after he did it, but it wouldn't have mattered because of his past, so he just left the floor knowing he was in for suspension.

You're joking right? Jordan came in the league in 1984 not 1964. The game was athletic and high flying the entire time he played. He actually played against better players and much better defenses, not the opposite. Jordan took punishment on a regular basis that would get his opponents suspended if they played today. They also used to have more than 1 real center in the NBA at the same time. I think you might be confusing a lack of high flyers during the 80's and 90's with the league having players that can actually consistently make open mid range jump shots.

The talent level in the league is lower now than the late 80's when Jordan played. Players used to go to college and refine their skills so that they are ready to play when they get to the NBA. A few of the top players are currently ready, but usually most of the guys drafted are not. Since many players skip that step, they don't learn the fundamentals of the game nearly as well and try to overcompensate for a lack of skill and technique with athleticism. Now you have approximately 1-3 players on each team that are not ready for the NBA yet, but were drafted on potential. Combine that with more teams in the league (a trend that started towards the end of Jordan's career) and the overall affect is the watering down of talent league-wide. Also add the rule changes of the current game designed to improve offensive production. More so than the elimination of hard fouls, the elimination of the hand-check has made the game much, much easier offensively and allows smaller, faster players to be more effective than they ever could have been when Jordan played. Even though these guys are putting up stats now that they wouldn't have been capable of then, you can imagine the opposite of just how much more unstoppable Jordan would be if you couldn't hand-check him when he drove to the basket.

This is excellent!

I respect your difference of opinion, but I think the 2nd Bulls 3peat team is the best team ever. If you need to choose a specific team, then the 1995-1996 Bulls team that won 72 games is the best team ever in my opinion. They didn't just win, but they dominated most teams they played. There are still questions because the Bulls strengths were defense and guard play while many of the other teams had strong post presence, so its not clear cut. Michael Jordan is the best player and the best closer the game has ever seen. Scottie Pippen was the best wing defender I've ever seen. Ron Harper was a very effective 2nd guard to give them excellent defensive pressure and adequate offense. I can't imagine any team ever being able to beat this Bulls team 4 times in 7 games.

I highly doubt the reason you don't know basic sports trivia knowledge is because the teams in the Championship series weren't very good. It probably has more to do with a lack of basic sports trivia knowledge.

hahahahahah. This is either an intentional joke or a poorly misguided ignorant basketball fan. Michael Jordan wasn't clutch? Jordan's performance didn't translate to wins? If you didn't live through it or don't remember it, please read up some on basketball history.