DLaren wrote:It hurts less when you realize they're right....
Our team is over-exposed in the media and no one on this team has earned that exposure -- that's why we get the hate that we get. Based on our accomplishments, we're akin to the Atlanta Hawks (and nobody talks about the Atlanta Hawks), yet we get covered in the media as if we've been in or won a few championships.
The media says we have the best PG in the league and the best PF in the league -- a combo that should be Finals-bound (i.e. Stockton/Malone, GP/Kemp)-- yet we barely escaped the 1ST round and collapsed in the 2ND. We may have the best PG & PF on paper, but they're not passing the eye-ball test; so people begin to look elsewhere and scoff when the Clippers are mentioned.
Every season that passes without a WCF appearance the hate will intensify. With the west being wide-open this year (Durant injury/Spurs fatigue), the Clippers would be wise to take this opportunity to get that monkey off of their backs.
First 15 seasons combined of Payton/Kemp and Stockton/Malone after each player was All-Star level gave 2 finals appearances, 4 WCF appearances and 9 seasons out in the first or second round.
Payton/Kemp: Early success getting to WCF in first 55+ win season. Total of five 55+ win seasons gave 1 finals and 1 WCF
Stockton/Malone: After both became All-Star level players took 5 seasons to get past the second round. It then took another 5 seasons after that to make their first NBA finals. So 10 seasons yielded 1 finals appearance in season 10 and 3 WCF.
Paul/Griffin: Total time together = 3 seasons, 2 second round, 1 first round. Stockton and Malone had gotten past the first round once in that same span as a combo.
People are comparing what other guys did in 5-6 seasons or 10 seasons with a good team to the success of this team in 3 seasons. A final product is being compared to something in its beginnings. It doesn't really make sense, though I acknowledge that the many, many fans and analysts tend to look at things in the most shallow, simplistic and reductionist way and not look at depth and context of what is happening.
The idea that you just get two top players at their positions and it is yearly WCF or better doesn't make sense. Houston has the best C and the best SG in the league right? Yao/McGrady were at worst the second best C and second best SG, and even in the years they were both healthy they didn't go anywhere. I'd rather have the 2nd best SF than any other best at ____ position player in the league. For a lot of the 90's I'd rather have the 2nd or 3rd best C than the best PF.
