Author: Roger Brown
Date: 16:47:18 08/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2002 at 14:58:24, Dann Corbit wrote: Did you know that a champion (like the >Lakers in US Basketball or the Diamondbacks in US Baseball) is not proven better >than their opponent? They are only proven to be the current champion. Nothing >more, nothing less. Indeed, it is often that the winning team does not have the >best record in their sport. Hello Dann Corbit, I am of course a Lakers fan, let me declare my interest from the outset. I find these statements difficult to reconcile. It takes just over 80 regular season games for the final 8 teams for the East and West to emerge. Then it's a series of knockout games consisting of a best of five, then of seven until the Eastern Conference Champion meets the Western Conference champion. Then it's seven more games to get the overall NBA champion. That is something in the order of 100 games to choose a winner. I cannot see after all of that how the Lakers are not the best team bar none? Same for any team that wins the NBA. Give me a chessplayer that plays that many games (I suppose, proportionately speaking!) in a fairly compressed space of time, beats his opponents and wins overall and he has my vote as being the best on the planet. Machine or Mortal. I will agree that they did not have the best record - the Lakers - but to me that makes their winning the title an even a more commendable achievement as they had to square off against higher rated opponents easlier without homecourt advantage for the entire series. Picture a lower rated player squaring off against Kasparov in K's home town and winning. WON'T HAPPEN but man, he would be the best in my book. A perspective. Later sir.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.