Talk:NBA Finals

I think much of the 2005 content should be moved to a new page. Any thoughts? Muhgcee 10:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dynasties

I changed the dynasties section to be more open-ended as there is no clear definition of what a dynasty is. While I don't agree that all the teams listed are a dynasty, they are the teams that could be considered dynasties based solely on winning a number of championships in a compact amount of time. Personally I would not consider the Laker and Celtics of the '80s or the spurs to be dynasties. -andreasjb

I agree that the Spurs are not a dynasty, however, the lakers and celtics of the 80's def are, 4 straight appearances by the celtics and winning a total of 3 championships in the 80s and then the lakers who were in 8/10 and winning 5, that is a dynasty no matter how you want to look at it.

the spurs never were even in back to back finals, let alone winning back to backs.

The reason I am not certain of the Lakers and Celts of the '80s is that usually when you think of a dynasty you say that the team was the dominant team during that period (i.e. the Bulls were clearly the dominant team during their dynasty). If you look at the '80s, it is difficult to determine which team was dominant as both were great teams. But then again it is always open to debate. -andreasjb

1994-1995

Why are the only two years missing in the Finals listings the 1994 and 1995 championships by the Houston Rockets?

I realize that the heading is the "Chicago Bulls dynasty" but under the other "dynasty" eras the lists of champions are comprehensive. * I've edited the section to reflect this gap.

Lakers/Celtics rivalry

i have twice deleted the portland-detroit game at the end of the column. a game between those two teams doesn't belong in the la/boston rivalry section, and its not like its sandwiched between other la/boston games....why is it still being added? Strawberryfire 12:17, 25 May 2006

Da Bulls

I would like to include the following fact: no Bulls player on the first three championship teams other than Jordan and Pippen were members of the last 3 championship teams and vice versa. But this fact needs to be double checked before its posted to make sure its true. This is an interesting face and one could make a number of inferences: its really two teams,...Jordan and Pippen were so good,...Phil Jackson was such a good coach,...the management made good trade moves, et cetra. -Jon in California (Laker Fan)

Format Gripe

sorry to whoever made this but it hard to follow when the western confernce teams are listed on the "winner side" of table and the eastern team is on the loser side of table. The table in my opinion should be winner 4-3 loser not western 2-4 Eastern Smith03 03:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Goldstein brothers????

200x

What about that one moment where robert horry got the ball with half a second left and shot the three to win the game? that was 2003 i think... that should be included as one of the major moments... shaq misses the tip after someone shot it and vloody devac? hit the ball out straight to horry

Suggestion: separate the list

...and put them under List of NBA champions. What do you guys think? --Howard the Duck 10:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really planning to remove the lists and place it there in a few days if no one objects... --Howard the Duck 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent

I think this article did an excellent job of breaking the finals into recognizable eras and accounting for the rise and fall of us. Nice work!

World Championship?

Why is suggesting the NBA championship as the World Championship so controversial? After all the NBA has many players that aren't from the US. Both Ginobili and Nocioni who led Argentina to Gold medal in 04 plays in the NBA. There is also Gasol, Parker, Yao, Nash, Stojavkvic, Llgauskas, etc who are mostly the best players from their repective countries. The list is fairly long.

Although many of the world's best players choose to play in the NBA, teams with zero NBA players have won against USA teams full with NBA regulars.

I do not believe that an NBA champion is necessarily a "world champion", because players from that league do not automatically dominate players from other leagues. It may be difficult to believe because of all the marketing hype around them, but we have seen how teams with no NBA players like Italy and Greece can shove off these so-called dream teams in international competition. Different court and rules? BS! The court and rules of FIBA were never an problem for NBA "superstars" in the 20th Century, when they were really capable of dominating.

To be a world champion you have to actually beat teams from the other leagues. Merely being the champion of the best league is not enough, as the champion of the second best league might actually be better. I doesn't take a genius to understand that. 86.198.202.5 09:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this article to have some evidence cited that this has been controversial. Anyone have any besides blogs and their personal opinions? XINOPH | TALK 11:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that section should be removed as there is no similar controversy section for the World Series and Super Bowl pages, both of which sometimes refer to those teams as World Champions (despite the fact that MLB has only one and the NFL zero teams outside the lower 48 United States).76.177.160.69 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

World Champions? American chauvinism I think. Especially when American players keep getting humped at the Olympics, and the American champions do not play teams from other countries. 8"Jobby (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's not chauvinism. The NBA is by far the most competitive basketball league in the world, and I say that not because I'm trying to bias the page toward the US but because it's patently ridiculous to say otherwise. It's the reason why the top players from other countries fall all over themselves to come play here. Now, that being said, I do agree that it's a bit silly for people to call the NBA championship the "World" championship since there aren't teams outside the US in the league (except the Raptors, and briefly the Grizzlies). The way the page reads now is a little confusing. First it points out that the championship isn't really a world championship, then it seems to imply that there are teams outside the US which could be competitive with NBA teams, which isn't true (sorry, just because a hyped up Greek team might have taken a game or two from a tired out, unpracticed, un-unified group of NBA players isn't particularly meaningful), and then seems to double back on itself explaining why foreign stars want to play in the US. I think the section ought to be re-written or possibly reduced in size. 8"HowardW June 22, 2008

Spur Dynasty?

They couldn't even win a back to back title and the first one has * all over it. If two non-consecutive titles equals a dynasty, what about the Knicks in the early 70s? I am changing the name of that chapter. Centralk 04:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the ability of the Spurs to maintain as long of a stretch of excellence as they have constitutes as a kind of psudo-dynasty, and they were arguable a few calls here and therefrom pulling off a stretch of 4 in a row. With that said however, to label this whole section as the "Spurs" era is not acurate at all. Too many other things have been going on (the rise and fall of the Lakers for instance). It's gonna be a long while before we can come up with a proper name for this period of NBA history. Dknights411 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

the Spurs are not a dynasty. they only won the title in 2003 after the laker's had already won three in a row, and then lost the next year to the lakers in the playoffs. the 2005 title was impressive, but the Pistons were trying to go back to back, a feat that is rare. and i agree the 1999 title is an *. the spurs are one of the better teams of this era, but this isn't the Spurs era by a long shot.Jbbrewer 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just call this a post-MJ consolidation? --Howard the Duck 04:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in another thread, if Spurs are discounted as a dynasty because they failed to repeat, we must discount the '80s Celtics because they never repeated. In addition, numerous outlets and an informal (unscientific) survey of the nation from ESPN, revealed that the majority of the country count the Spurs as a dynasty. The only state to not elect the Spurs in the survey (it was broken down to reveal votes by states) was Arizona (obviously Suns fans). There are a few voices in the media who discount the Spurs as a dynasty because they never repeated, but they do not include the '80s Celtics as a dynasty either. In fact, from the articles I was able to accumulate, those who discount the Spurs as a dynasty believe that only two dynasties exist in the NBA, the '60s Celtics and the '90s Bulls. Even Derek Fisher of the '00s Lakers claims that Spurs have surpassed them in terms of legacy. Read the linked articles.

FYI, we don't call the 80s Celts a dynasty, at least in this page; they're under "Lakers-Celtics rivalry." --Howard the Duck 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm.... the '80s Celtics were listed on the previously present 'Dynasty' section on this page. Please don't add a statement like this AFTER the section was deleted, especially considering that my statement was added when that aforementioned section was still on this page. Thanks.

I don't remember this article having a "dynasty" section per se; with that said, I do not visit this article that frequently. The 80s section was previously named as "Lakers dynasty", I changed it (as an anon) to "Lakers-Celtics rivalry) --Howard the Duck 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Finals

I removed the passage about the '06 Finals in the "Noteworthy Series" portion of the article. I don't really feel that they were that memorable, or that noteable as a whole to be mentioned in this passage. What does everyone else thik? Dknights411 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

2005 and 2006 should use some trimming. Especially 2006 since the Mavs lost that one. --Howard the Duck 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed all dates but 1970s

Many of the dates overlapped into other decade sections, and I think it's better to group everything by certain periods in the NBAs history, not just by decades.Cnota 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking the same thing. Chris 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 Finals

I don't the 2007 finals deserve to be in the "noteworthy" finals section as it was a sweep and nothing spectacular happened except possibly the Spurs winning their fourth title in nine years, which is also included in the "Dynasties" and "Lakers/Spurs Dominance" Sections Ben1283 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. I put in there in the first place because Spurs won their fourth title. But you are right, it was a sweep and nothing spectacular happened. Chris 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A list?

Is it just me, or is there no simple listing of champions similar to List of Super Bowl champions ? The current layout is nice, but for those just looking to see a simple rundown of champions, this page is kinda clunky. Tarc 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be implementing this shortly. See #Suggestion: separate the list above, too. --Howard the Duck 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be a list of champions. That's more important than the current list of participants and their records. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Suns

The Suns have been in the Finals twice as stated in the table of teams in the Finals. But, it states that the Suns have not made a Finals apperance in the Headline containing active teams with no Finals apperances. March 3, 2008 (UTC)

     Just take out the Suns in the section with active NBA franchises with no NBA Finals apperance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.137.107 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 

Rewrite

I made some changes and rewrite some parts of the introduction paragraph. I also plan to remove the highlight section in the history section because it is redundant to the rest of the article. If people want to read about each final series, then they can go directly to those article. Any thoughts? —Chris! _ct 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)