Wolverines in the NBA/PISTONS/NBA in general

[iam416]

That is an accurate play.

[*JD*]

The Pistons have a reputation they earned, cultivated and loved. And it's a shame, IMO, because they did play really nice offensive basketball. Laimbeer as a pick and pop big as WAY ahead of his time (along with Jack motherfucking Sikma!). Isiah was a fantabulous player. Joe Dumars is one of my favorite players of all-time. A fantastic 2-guard. I wore #4 in for every rec-league team I ever played on until my knees eventually died.

James Edwards was a great post specialist. Vinnie was a great 6th man. I mean, they were really good. They played physical, but they still scored. Look at their scores in the Finals and you'll see lots of 100 point games.

That said, they got their ass kicked in 1991. No rules were going stop that train. The Bulls were just better. And to that end, after the Pistons faded the Bulls had to beat an almost carbon-copy team in Pat Riley's Knicks. Except the Knicks were way less offensively gifted and even MORE physical and MORE defensive minded -- AND the rules permitted so much grabbing and clutching that games were almost unwatchable. Look at the scores in the Playoffs from, say, 1992 to 1998 -- it's just brutal. The game absolutely favored DEFENSIVE teams and the Bulls still won.

What's kind of funny about the Pistons' physical style is it was built in good part as a response to the Celtics' physical style. The Celts gooned it up as much as any team but they had Larry Legend as their (ugly, but much celebrated) cover boy. The Bulls had some of those guys too (Oakley, then Cartwright, Levingston, Ed Neely, Scott Williams, and finally Rodman) but they had Stern's #1 cash cow. Hell, pretty much every contending team had at least one enforcer or agitator in that era. The Pistons had three, and they were three of the best. Maybe you make it 3 1/4, as Isiah was a little physical at times and certainly had the mental approach.
Sidenote: I'm still pissed that the expansion rules/draft took away Mahorn. Losing him took away some serious depth and he was one of my favorites.

As for 1991, the rule changes played a strong role, as did Isiah's (shooting) wrist injury. He had bones fused together and never regained full mobility. If MJ and the Bulls get a free pass for losing in the 2nd round of the '95 playoffs, Isiah and the Pistons deserve one too. After all, Jordan wasn't even coming off an injury. He was just transitioning from being in shape for baseball to being in shape for basketball. Still, many proclaim the Bulls would've won a title if Jordan had been around for more than 2 or so months. I think the real reason the Bulls lost in '95 is that Horace Grant went to the Magic. He was the Bulls 3rd man and their best interior player. Orlando was just a better all-around team.

That's similar to Bulls vs Pistons in '91 but a lot of that was due to Isiah not being his elite self any more. The way the game was called was a factor too. The Bulls had 57 more FT's in the 4 games. If you flip one of those two factors, I think the Pistons at least make it a series. If you change both factors, I think the series goes 7 games.

Prior to Isiah's injury, the Pistons were 1-1 vs. the Bulls, winning at home by 21 and losing on Christmas on the road by 12.

The Pistons were 28-13 before Isiah went on the DL (28-12 if you take away the game he played with his wrist taped up before leaving the game and opting for surgery) and 4-5 after he returned. He missed 2 games in the previous round of the playoffs with an ankle injury and came off the bench for the final 2.

While Dumars was even worse (shooting an un-Joe D-like 37%) , it's pretty clear that Isiah wasn't right that series and he was always the key.

I know I'm rambling now, so I will move on. You get my point.

I do agree about the Knicks. They were the poor man's Bad Boys. What they lacked in offense vs. the Pistons teams, they also lacked in mental make-up. And their star player Ewing couldn't touch Isiah in terms of being able to lift a team.

[*JD*]

The Pistons started to fall off when they tried to sneak Rick Mahorn thru the expansion draft, and I believe it was Minnesota who picked him up. When you lost half of 'McMean & McNasty", you lost half of the team's soul.

If the NBA would not have changed the rules to the Bulls favor, no way does Jordan win 6 titles.

McMean & McNasty were the nicknames for Mahorn and Jeff Ruland, when they were on the Bullets. I believe Lambs and Mahorn did go by "Thump and Bump" for a while here.

Minny taking Mahorn (and then trading him to Philly) was rough, as I just mentioned in my other reply. The worst part was that Stern scheduled the expansion draft so close to after the Finals. Mahorn had just finished the victory parade and celebration at the Palace. He gets off the stage and gets the news. Such bullshit. David Stern did a ton for the game but he never did the Pistons any favors.

[*JD*]

Reilly's Knicks, IMO, showed how a team without a superstar could beat a team with a superstar (although they never quite did). But that Knicks team had no business playing the Bulls straight up for 6 or 7 games. Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley? Greg Anthony and John Starks? Ewing and Charles Smith? I mean, that's a nice group of players, but there's no way that team is better than Jordan, Pippen, Grant, etc. However, they would grind you to dust in the half court. You couldn't cut. You couldn't drive. Grabbing, clutching, elbows. Everthing. It was a morass. So it negated (mostly) the offensive skill advantage. And since most teams did not have superstars they were inclined to go this route.

When the Suns and Nash and Stoudamire and Dantoni came around it felt like a huge breath of fresh air -- and they only average 105-110 ppg. But compare that to the Pistons when the won it all in 2004 -- 90 ppg.

So, I think the NBA essentially decided that it wanted its superstars to be able to play 1v1. I also think the Golden State/analytics move to 3pt basketball then cracked whatever halfcourt defense was left.

The early-00 Sacramento Kings had a similar offense and were so much fun to watch. Great passing, good mix of inside and outside shots, and decent defense. Too bad they got screwed by some shady refs in 2002. They deserved at least one title. Nash, Dirk, and Michael Finley's Mavs were similar but a notch below.

[hack]

Oof. The Mahorn moment in the 30 for 30 was just heartbreaking. There he is standing on the court screaming about how ``they have to come take it from us", and in the next scene he's gone, and cut to the interview with him where it still draws tears. Hollywood can't do it better than that. It killed me to see that even more than it killed me to see Joe portrayed, in his prime, right at the time that he was finally being dismissed from the front office.

I think the 30 for 30 also proved very effectively that the Bad Boys, Mahorn or Laimbeer didn't invent physical basketball. They did a great job showing the Celtics thugging it up in the mid-80s.

Lastly, McFilthy and McNasty are another arrow pointing in the same direction. The bottom line is that the Pistons crashed the NBA's blueblood party, and people didn't like that and found reasons to devalue what they did. The Last Dance spent more time on the Pistons than any other of Jordan's rivals, and for good reason -- it's the rival he didn't definitively beat.

It's particularly pleasing to me that 04 was kind of a rerun -- that year's crashing of the blueblood party was by destroying the narrative of the pre-coronated Lakers. My god that was so much fucking fun. Beating up on Shaq, Kobe, Malone. Watching them all give up. I trashedtalked some really hot girl in a bar in Key West after Game 1, I was so fired up (not that I would have had a shot at her, mind you). They were in complete control of every game through rarely having more than a 6-8 point lead. I still remember, after Game 3, booking the day off for Game 5, and the day after, and my boss mocking me for it. I should have bet every penny I had, because after that Game 3 it was obvious. That team was just everything good and right and fair and just in the world of basketball. Such a shame how fast it went to their heads.

I don't know if that Pistons franchise is ever going to be the periodic party-crasher it once was, but it sure was great for a few decades. Thanks to Mr. D.

[iam416]

I do agree about the Knicks. They were the poor man's Bad Boys. What they lacked in offense vs. the Pistons teams, they also lacked in mental make-up. And their star player Ewing couldn't touch Isiah in terms of being able to lift a team.

Right. Again -- the Bad Boys could score. They had to be able to score. They were playing some of the best offensive teams in NBA history -- well, a little on the decline, but still. The 1986 Celtics -- man, what a team. Thuggish or not, they could score. And, of course, the Lakers. I have nothing but respect for the Bad Boys. I think they were flat better than the Lakers in 1988. That's the title that got away, not 1991. We definitely part ways on 1991. Bulls were better.

I'm still unclear what the rules changes were. No one has articulated those in any manner -- meaningful or otherwise.

The early-00 Sacramento Kings had a similar offense and were so much fun to watch. Great passing, good mix of inside and outside shots, and decent defense. Too bad they got screwed by some shady refs in 2002. They deserved at least one title. Nash, Dirk, and Michael Finley's Mavs were similar but a notch below.

The Kings teams that choked/lost/got screwed to the Lakers -- for sure. That team was just a balanced powerhouse scoring machine. Great scorers inside and outside. I also thought the Blazers team that gave away Game 7 against the Lakers was fantastic. Man, that's 2 titles Kobe won that were so close -- I mean, they needed a Game 4 miracle to beat the Kings and stay in the series and they needed a 4th quarter miracle to beat the Blazers. What's semi-interesting in retrospect is that those two teams were so deep and good, but neither had their guaranteed scorer who score when they desperately needed it. And maybe that's why they end up blowing games they should win -- and series they should win.

In any event, I loved the 1980s NBA. I rooted for the Sixers (and Cavs--lol), but you had to pick some good team to root for in the playoffs and you had 3 choices -- maybe 4 if you threw in the Bucks (yeah, you had occasional series that were fun -- Bernard-Isaiah!, but it was the big 3 for awhile). I will fight anyone who says the 1981 ECF wasn't the best NBA series every played. I will shoot dead anyone who besmirches Andrew Toney.

And I found the turn of the century NBA to be awful.

[lineygoblue]

The bottom line is that the Pistons crashed the NBA's blueblood party, and people didn't like that and found reasons to devalue what they did. The Last Dance spent more time on the Pistons than any other of Jordan's rivals, and for good reason -- it's the rival he didn't definitively beat.

Bingo. Jack McCloskey built that Piston team from the ground up, and his only major mistake was trying to sneak Mahorn thru the expansion draft. Minus that, McCloskey was as good as any GM that there's ever been in the NBA. One of the sweetest things about the Piston/Jordan feud was how well Joe Dumars defended him, and there was nothing Jordan could do about it. Dumars had his number, Jordan knew it, and it frustrated him to no end. Jordan spends a lot of time lashing out at Laimbeer, Mahorn and Isiah, but it was really Dumars that got his goat.

[iam416]

Dumars had his number, Jordan knew it, and it frustrated him to no end

LOL.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Was looking at Pat Riley's career and man, I totally didn't remember that he was only with the Knicks for 4 years. In my mind it feels like he coached them all through the 90's. Guess I've merged his time there and Van Gundy's together. And I don't remember Don Nelson coaching them AT ALL.

[lineygoblue]

Laugh all you want, but Jordan has admitted in the past that nobody ever defended him better than Joe Dumars.

[iam416]

That's probably true. And when the Bulls kicked the living fuck out of the Pistons, Dumars "held" Jordan to 53% shooting and 29 ppg. When the Pistons beat Jordan in 7, Dumars "held" Jordan to 47% shooting and 32 ppg. The idea that Dumars "had his number" is ridiculous -- NO ONE had Jordan's number. Dumars may have been the best defender against him, but 30 ppg at 50% sure as shit ain't having someone's number.

[hack]

IMO Riley is a different coach than Phil Jackson, but also a better one.

[*JD*]

Oof. The Mahorn moment in the 30 for 30 was just heartbreaking. There he is standing on the court screaming about how ``they have to come take it from us", and in the next scene he's gone, and cut to the interview with him where it still draws tears. Hollywood can't do it better than that. It killed me to see that even more than it killed me to see Joe portrayed, in his prime, right at the time that he was finally being dismissed from the front office.

I think the 30 for 30 also proved very effectively that the Bad Boys, Mahorn or Laimbeer didn't invent physical basketball. They did a great job showing the Celtics thugging it up in the mid-80s.

Lastly, McFilthy and McNasty are another arrow pointing in the same direction. The bottom line is that the Pistons crashed the NBA's blueblood party, and people didn't like that and found reasons to devalue what they did. The Last Dance spent more time on the Pistons than any other of Jordan's rivals, and for good reason -- it's the rival he didn't definitively beat.

It's particularly pleasing to me that 04 was kind of a rerun -- that year's crashing of the blueblood party was by destroying the narrative of the pre-coronated Lakers. My god that was so much fucking fun. Beating up on Shaq, Kobe, Malone. Watching them all give up. I trashedtalked some really hot girl in a bar in Key West after Game 1, I was so fired up (not that I would have had a shot at her, mind you). They were in complete control of every game through rarely having more than a 6-8 point lead. I still remember, after Game 3, booking the day off for Game 5, and the day after, and my boss mocking me for it. I should have bet every penny I had, because after that Game 3 it was obvious. That team was just everything good and right and fair and just in the world of basketball. Such a shame how fast it went to their heads.

I don't know if that Pistons franchise is ever going to be the periodic party-crasher it once was, but it sure was great for a few decades. Thanks to Mr. D.

While I think the Bad Boys teams were markedly better than the '04 team, that title was more enjoyable. '89 felt a bit anticlimactic, in part due to Byron Scott's injury prior to the series and Magic's in Game 2. There wasn't much drama there in my mind after Game 2. The '90 win was nicer because it (at least I thought at the time) cemented their legacy as one of the all-time teams. But the 2004 Championship came a little out of the blue. I thought they had a good chance once I saw how they were after the Sheed trade but I was living in LA at the time and everyone there (and most national pundits) thought the Lakers were going to sweep our asses. It was PURE JOY to see the Pistons dominate the Lakers and silence everyone!

[hack]

100%. My favorite title of any. Second favorite is the 1989 NCAA tourney, but for me the 04 run wasn't any sort of magic or intangibles, and that's what I loved about it. They played the right way and that's why they won. It was a 2+2=4 experience. They grew up before our eyes in the Nets series, and then did their last-mile growing up in Games 1 and 2 in the finals. And then it was fully weaponized and just pure joy.

[lineygoblue]

Loved Ben Wallace.