On TNT they were saying it was the biggest upset of all time. Statistically, yeah it probably was. The Mavericks won 67 games and the Warriors won 42. But the Warriors weren't expected to go down easily in this series. They've always played Dallas well and most were expecting Dallas to handle business in 6 games. The Warriors flipped it though and took it in 6. Where do you guys see this series ranking in all time upsets? IMO, above it you have to have-The Pistons over the Lakers in 2004- The Lakers had just gotten through what most thought were the two best teams (other than themselves) in the league. They were expected to take care of business in 4 or 5. But injuries and implosion left them on the wrong side of a 5 game series. Since it determined a championship, and the next 5 or 6 years in the NBA (because the Shaq trade followed), I have to put this above the Warriors upset. Plus many saw the Lakers as somewhat unbeatable at that point and they had loads and loads of veterans with championship experience (so a collapse wasn't expected at all). Nuggets over the Sonics in 1994- This was the first time an 8th seed ever won a series in playoff history, so going in Denver didn't look like they had a chance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Seattle was a 60 win team that season, they were good defensively, and they were legitimite title contenders (which is more than what you can say about the Mavericks, who have now completely blown 2 series' in a row). They went up 2-0, and in a 5 game series, most thought it was over. But the Nuggets came storming back, and beat them 3-2. I know it wasn't a 7 game series, but just the fact that it was the first time an 8th seed had ever won and Seattle wasn't the type of team to choke in the playoffs puts it above the GS upset.Celtics over the Lakers in 1969- The Celtics had beaten the Lakers like 7 times already in the decade, but most saw the Lakers taking this series. This was the first year they had Wilt, and they also had homecourt advantage. They won 55 games while the Celtics won just 48. LA won the first 2 games and it was looking grim for Boston. But they rallied to win 4 of the next 5 and take the series. This too, determined the NBA champion so I have to put it above the Warriors series.I'd put the GS-Dallas series at 4.
I'll put it at #3, the Celtics-Lakers one was not a monumental upset. The Lakers were the favorite but it was not out of the question that the 10 time champs and defending champs would win it all. I can guaruntee it was not 9 to 1 vegas odds.
<span style="font-family:Arial">Keep in mind, this is the first time an 8 seed has defeated the number 1 seed since the NBA added the best of 7 format.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ May 3 2007, 11:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">Keep in mind, this is the first time an 8 seed has defeated the number 1 seed since the NBA added the best of 7 format.</span></div>and the biggest win disparity between the loser and the winner ever.
I think it's a top 3 upset definately, right up there with the Knicks and Nuggets in 99 and 94 respectively. Not only did Golden St win it in 6 over the best statistical team in the NBA in convincing fashion, they shut down an almost lock of an MVP candidate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WELCOMEtotheJUNGLE @ May 4 2007, 08:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it's a top 3 upset definately, right up there with the Knicks and Nuggets in 99 and 94 respectively. Not only did Golden St win it in 6 over the best statistical team in the NBA in convincing fashion, they shut down an almost lock of an MVP candidate.</div>The Knicks in '99 is not even close. The knicks had the best team in the east that year, and their record was only bad because Patrick Ewing had been injured and it was a short season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Knicks in '99 is not even close. The knicks had the best team in the east that year, and their record was only bad because Patrick Ewing had been injured and it was a short season.</div>It was the 50 game season and Ewing only missed 12 games. The Heat had an array of great scorers, Mourning had one of the best seasons of his career, and they also didn't have Jamal Mashburn for half the season. Also, the Heat swept the Knicks in the regular season series and Miami finished first in the Atlantic by a landslide. The Knicks were not the best team in the east that season, you clearly didn't look that one up to well. Just because your home team had a great upset don't fire at people who are making comparisons to how great of a win it actually was. The Knicks upset was a great upset in a very close 5 game series.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WELCOMEtotheJUNGLE @ May 4 2007, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It was the 50 game season and Ewing only missed 12 games. The Heat had an array of great scorers, Mourning had one of the best seasons of his career, and they also didn't have Jamal Mashburn for half the season. Also, the Heat swept the Knicks in the regular season series and Miami finished first in the Atlantic by a landslide. The Knicks were not the best team in the east that season, you clearly didn't look that one up to well. Just because your home team had a great upset don't fire at people who are making comparisons to how great of a win it actually was. The Knicks upset was a great upset in a very close 5 game series.</div>Ewing missed 12 games and the Knicks were only SIX games behind Miami for the season. And it was a 5 game series. In every way shape or form the Warriors upset was more impressive. Putting the knicks in this thread is like putting Bosh in a "Who is the best player in the NBA" thread. He's a really good player but doesn't warrant mentioning.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Putting the knicks in this thread is like putting Bosh in a "Who is the best player in the NBA" thread. He's a really good player but doesn't warrant mentioning.</div>First off, that makes no sense. Why the hell would you make statements comparing one player with an enitre team. You said the Knicks were the best team in the east when Miami was clearly the best team in the east and only lost to NY because of a last second shot. That alone, proves NY over Miami is a great upset. Why is putting the Knicks in this thread a joke? They were a #8 seed who upset a #1 seed, yeah it was in 5 games, but they still did it against a really good Miami team. You act like Miami was some fluke, they had a ton of great players along with an incredible point guard in Tim Hardaway. NY didn't have nearly the amount of great scorers that Miami did.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WELCOMEtotheJUNGLE @ May 4 2007, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First off, that makes no sense. Why the hell would you make statements comparing one player with an enitre team. You said the Knicks were the best team in the east when Miami was clearly the best team in the east and only lost to NY because of a last second shot. That alone, proves NY over Miami is a great upset. Why is putting the Knicks in this thread a joke? They were a #8 seed who upset a #1 seed, yeah it was in 5 games, but they still did it against a really good Miami team. You act like Miami was some fluke, they had a ton of great players along with an incredible point guard in Tim Hardaway. NY didn't have nearly the amount of great scorers that Miami did.</div>"miami was clearly the best team in the east"not true in the slightest. They were tied with two other teams for the #1 seed and it was widely speculated that the Knicks would have had the best record in the league had Larry Johnson and Ewing not each been injured for a fifth of the season. They were a team that was a 1 or 2 seed quality beating a team that was 1 or 2 seed quality, and it happened to happen in the first round. That's not a huge upset.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>it was widely speculated that the Knicks would have had the best record in the league</div>That's great but is that what happened? I can speculate that the Celtics would have been a playoff team this year but Pierce got injured but that's not what happened. An #8 seed over #1 seed is a great upset no matter how you slice it. You're getting all offended because your Warriors just won and you think it's the greatest upset in the history of professional sports.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WELCOMEtotheJUNGLE @ May 5 2007, 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's great but is that what happened? I can speculate that the Celtics would have been a playoff team this year but Pierce got injured but that's not what happened. An #8 seed over #1 seed is a great upset no matter how you slice it. You're getting all offended because your Warriors just won and you think it's the greatest upset in the history of professional sports.</div>no. It's just that the Knicks were one of the top three teams in the east. People knew that their record didn't reflect their talent because their two best players had been injured one fifth of the season each. Therefore it wasn't a gargantuan upset because they were considered a very good team. Once again they were only six games behind the Heat despite those injuries.
I think some of you are ranking this too low just because it wasn't as important as some of the other series' mentioned. In terms of a David vs. Goliath upset, this is #1.
I'm not aware of all the upsets, but I don't value this one.I'll be honest, I thought the Mavericks would sweep, but not because of their skill, but rather because I thought Golden State was overachieving and would play such bad defense Dallas would have nothing else to do but dominate.Throughout the year, I've made it know my immense feeling of Dallas being overrated. They are one of the softest teams in the NBA, one of the most overrated defensive teams, and play gutless. I didn't expect them to lose in the first round, but either way, they wouldn't go any further than the Conference Semis.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart? @ May 5 2007, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not aware of all the upsets, but I don't value this one.I'll be honest, I thought the Mavericks would sweep, but not because of their skill, but rather because I thought Golden State was overachieving and would play such bad defense Dallas would have nothing else to do but dominate.Throughout the year, I've made it know my immense feeling of Dallas being overrated. They are one of the softest teams in the NBA, one of the most overrated defensive teams, and play gutless. I didn't expect them to lose in the first round, but either way, they wouldn't go any further than the Conference Semis.</div>If you thought the Mavericks would sweep and they ended up almost losing in 5, how is that not a good upset?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ May 5 2007, 12:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you thought the Mavericks would sweep and they ended up almost losing in 5, how is that not a good upset?</div>Did you watch Dallas play?I'm surprised at just how bad that team is. Once that first game was over, you knew Dallas was going to lose. Golden State won, not because of some miracle execution of ambition, but rather because Dallas just proved how overrated they are in their mediocre effort and soft play.When I see a team play like that, I don't get surprised at them being upset.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart? @ May 5 2007, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Did you watch Dallas play?I'm surprised at just how bad that team is. Once that first game was over, you knew Dallas was going to lose. Golden State won, not because of some miracle execution of ambition, but rather because Dallas just proved how overrated they are in their mediocre effort and soft play.When I see a team play like that, I don't get surprised at them being upset.</div>I watched Dallas play and I saw a good team being beaten by a team that simply knew how to play them. Part of the reason Dallas looked bad was because, contrary to their rep, Golden State was playing some damned good defense.
Seeding wise yes it was a upset but the Warriors aren't the typical 8th seed. They would've been much higher if it wasn't for injuries as well as not getting Jackson and Harrington til late in the season. The warriors were blowing everyone at the end of the season. Houston, Utah, Phoenix, Dallas, and Detroit. The only team they had trouble with was San Antonio.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ May 5 2007, 12:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I watched Dallas play and I saw a good team being beaten by a team that simply knew how to play them. Part of the reason Dallas looked bad was because, contrary to their rep, Golden State was playing some damned good defense.</div>Dallas looked uninspired from the first game. Not sure how anyone misses that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart? @ May 5 2007, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dallas looked uninspired from the first game. Not sure how anyone misses that.</div>You are right, they did look a bit uninspired, but they also looked confused. Game 3 is a perfect example of this. They were taken out of their comfort zones, and Golden State totally exploited every single weakness they had. They played without all of the discipline and precision they played with the whole year, and you have to give the credit to the Warriors for that.
