2005 NBA Power Rankings

[darko99 0]

I make the power rankings for this site every week. Let me know what you think. My "committee" is made up of people on a couple of boards willing to share their input. The weekly updates won't start until the season does.

http://www.nbabasketballnews.com/nba/powerrankings.htm

[dallas27 7]

Cav's are a little bit too high imo but that's just me. I'd probably put them around 10. Other than that they look fine, yours will probably be the only one with Detroit ahead of Miami though, but they are getting hyped up way too much. Fine with me though, let em all think Miami is just going to run away with it, thats better for Detroit. It will be interesting to see if any of the "experts" pick Detroit out of the East.

[darko99 0]

Preseason rankings are kind of hard. You don't really know what the trades will do until the ball tips off in November. I can see the Mavs making some noise if Dampier steps up his play this season. Josh Howard is going to have a break out year as well. It will be interesting to see if Stack or Daniels gets the nod at starting SG. I'd go with Daniels if it were my decision.

[timothy1997 0]

surprised the pistons are ranked higher than the heat and pacers. Most power rankings that I have seen, has us 3rd in the Eastern Conference.

[gowingsgo 3]

FYI: The Spurs have the best starting lineup in the NBA. The Spurs are very similar to the Bulls of the 90s in that they are the best team bar none. If Fischer doesnt hit a lucky ass three v the Lakers then the Spurs would have won in 04' and not the Pistons.

[Aussie_Wing 354]

Darko must get 15 minutes a game. No doubt about it, or else he will be gone next year, ending the biggest waste of a no.2 pick.

[BlueMonk 102]

FYI: The Spurs have the best starting lineup in the NBA. The Spurs are very similar to the Bulls of the 90s in that they are the best team bar none. If Fischer doesnt hit a lucky ass three v the Lakers then the Spurs would have won in 04' and not the Pistons.

There is no comparison whatsoever between this Spurs team and the Bulls of the 90s. That team won 6 titles in 8 years. This one hasn't even made it to the Finals two years in a row in the last 7 years. The future remains bright, and they may prove to be a dynasty yet, but this team so far is not a dominant champion. They barely beat an exhausted Detroit team last year.

[timothy1997 0]

FYI: The Spurs have the best starting lineup in the NBA. The Spurs are very similar to the Bulls of the 90s in that they are the best team bar none. If Fischer doesnt hit a lucky ass three v the Lakers then the Spurs would have won in 04' and not the Pistons.

the bulls of the 90s is a dynasty. The spurs are nowhere near a dynasty. To compare these two teams is like comparing the bulls with jordan to the bulls without jordan when he finally "retired". There is no comparison.

[dallas27 7]

FYI: The Spurs have the best starting lineup in the NBA. The Spurs are very similar to the Bulls of the 90s in that they are the best team bar none. If Fischer doesnt hit a lucky ass three v the Lakers then the Spurs would have won in 04' and not the Pistons.

Yea, and IF the Pistons didn't play like a bunch of jack asses in the last game the Spurs wouldn't have won last year and the Pistons win back to back championships. FYI: Nobody, not even the Spurs, would have stopped the Pistons two years ago. Stop riding your high horse and realize that the Pistons played FLAWLESS that championship....if that's possible....

[timothy1997 0]

FYI: The Spurs have the best starting lineup in the NBA. The Spurs are very similar to the Bulls of the 90s in that they are the best team bar none. If Fischer doesnt hit a lucky ass three v the Lakers then the Spurs would have won in 04' and not the Pistons.

there is just so much wrong with this post, i didnt see all of it at once. Comparing to the bulls team has been discussed and the "pistons were lucky in 2004" comment has been made. So i am making another comment.

How can you say the spurs have a better starting lineup then the pistons?

Spurs Lineup:

G Tony Parker

G Manu Ginobili

F Bruce Bowen

F Tim Duncan

C Nazr Mohammed

Pistons Lineup:

G Chauncey Billups

G Rip Hamilton

F Tayshaun Prince

F Rasheed Wallace

C Ben Wallace

Even if you say duncan and ginobili are better than wallace and hamilton, the rest of the pistons lineup is superior. The spurs have 2 weaker players in their starting 5 in bruce bowen and nazr mohammed. The pistons dont have any real weak link.

[dallas27 7]

"Also Sheed is 15 pounds lighter and really motivated."

Uh-ohhhhhhhssssssss. *edit* I didn't realize that the Heat signed Gary Payton as well...that team is full of sooooooooooo many headcases. I'd give them a few months before they start getting at each others throats.

Edited October 4, 2005 by dallas27

[BlueMonk 102]

Miami will be a major contender this year, obviously. I'm just confused by the overhaul. You've got Shaq saying he needed to add 20 pounds of muscle in the offseason because he spent too much time on cardio last year and wasn't strong enough (wasn't strong enough??). You've got two of the starters replaced with controversial choices. This was a really good team last year. I don't get the way they're blowing it up and starting over. They're only going to go as far as Shaq takes them anyway, so why not stick with a group who understood their roles on the team instead of adding guys who are notorious ball hogs? If Miami wins the title, they might point to these changes as the reason why, but I really believe it's all about Shaq and all the shuffling will only be incidental.

[gowingsgo 3]

there is just so much wrong with this post, i didnt see all of it at once. Comparing to the bulls team has been discussed and the "pistons were lucky in 2004" comment has been made. So i am making another comment.

How can you say the spurs have a better starting lineup then the pistons?

Spurs Lineup:

G Tony Parker

G Manu Ginobili

F Bruce Bowen

F Tim Duncan

C Nazr Mohammed

Pistons Lineup:

G Chauncey Billups

G Rip Hamilton

F Tayshaun Prince

F Rasheed Wallace

C Ben Wallace

Even if you say duncan and ginobili are better than wallace and hamilton, the rest of the pistons lineup is superior. The spurs have 2 weaker players in their starting 5 in bruce bowen and nazr mohammed. The pistons dont have any real weak link.

You had the same problem reading Matt's posts in the MSU-UM thread. Re-read what I typed and do NOT interpret. I didnt say the Pistons were lucky. I said FISCHER and the LAKERS were lucky. Otherwise the Pistons aren't facing a depleted Laker team in the Finals and they are facing a very healthy and defensive minded San Antonio team.

Bottom line: the Spurs are the most dominant team in the league and it all starts with the best player in the league, Tim Duncan.

They obviously need to win a few more titles this decade to be held in the same breath as the Bulls of the 90s. I stated that the Spurs ARE SIMILAR to the 90s Bulls in that they have a great starting lineup but to take that even further they have great coaching, great stars and great role players. Same formula every championship team has, not just the Bulls.

[dallas27 7]

But you are implying that the Pistons got lucky not playing the Spurs by stating that if Fischer never hits his lucky three the Pistons would have never won.

And the Lakers were depleted huh? Two can play that game, the Pistons were depleted last year.

[gowingsgo 3]

Again you all are putting words in my mouth. The Lakers were lucky not the Pistons. The Pistons handled business and won their title. There wasnt any luck associated with whipping the Lakers. Fischer hitting a fall away three at the buzzer in San Antonio was a$$hole lucky. Try that shot 10 times and see how many of them you hit.

The Lakers were depleted with Shaq hurt and without a doubt the best power forward in the game's history out with a knee injury (Mailman). Injuries are a part of the game and you have to be able to take advantage of an injured opponent.

[dallas27 7]

No, we aren't, it's how you word your sentences. You state that if Fischer never hits that lucky three the Spurs would have beaten the Pistons and the Pistons would have never won the Championship. That implies that the Pistons were lucky the never played the Spurs.

And this is your quote regarding the Spurs and the Bulls--"The Spurs are very similar to the Bulls of the 90s in that they are the best team bar none." There are NO COMMENTS on the line-up and all that crap you said.

See, we don't put words into your mouth

Sure you have to take advantage of injuries, just like you have to take advantage when a basketball team plays like a bunch of girls in the last game of the NBA Finals

*edit* And I only remember Malone being hurt, not Shaq, not Kobe, not the Glove, nobody except him.

Edited October 4, 2005 by dallas27

[gowingsgo 3]

You can sit here and imply s**t all day. Bottom line, IF the Spurs had finished off the Lake Show they wouldn't have gone down in 5 like the Lakers did. You would have had a series to watch. Who wins? We cant go back in time and change that. It is what it is and props to the Pistons for dismantling the Lakers.

I'll stand behind my statement with the Spurs of this decade. To date the Spurs of the new millenium are the best team. The Lakers have more titles to date but San Antonio is clearly the best team and they look like they will be better this year.

I'm done arguing hoops. Obviously some people just will never get it.

[dallas27 7]

You can sit here and imply s**t all day. Bottom line, IF the Spurs had finished off the Lake Show they wouldn't have gone down in 5 like the Lakers did. You would have had a series to watch. Who wins?

The Spurs do as you stated. The Pistons would have stood no chance to your Ultimate Spurs.

I'll stand behind my statement with the Spurs of this decade. To date the Spurs of the new millenium are the best team. The Lakers have more titles to date but San Antonio is clearly the best team and they look like they will be better this year.

That's fine that you think that, I agree with you. The Spurs have the championships to back it up and they still have the same team, something that the Lakers can't say.

I'm done arguing hoops. Obviously some people just will never get it.

Yea, and some people are obviously very arrogant. Don't sit there and say we put words in your mouth. You compared the Spurs to the 90 Bulls dynasty, not the coaches, not the line-ups, just the 90 Bulls dynasty, EVERYONE sees that BUT you.

[darko99 0]

If I remeber correctly, the Lakers beat the Spurs 4 games to 2. It wasn't a lucky D-fish shot that ended the series, the Lakers handled their business against the Spurs plain and simple. Either the Spurs couldn't beat the Lakers or they had a mental lapse, either way it's irrelavant. They lost the series, something the Bulls of the 90s never did during their 6 championship runs.

[LondonWing 0]

If the Lakers had played with passion and as a team they would have whipped the Pistons even with the injuries in 2004.

If the Lakers hadn't been hit by injuries in the 2003 playoffs they'd have now won five in a row and I highly doubt the team would have broken up like it did.

If only 'if' counted for anything

[darko99 0]

New rankings will be forthcoming next week, do you guys want me to post them when I do them for NBA BballNews?