The Willis Reed thing

And the inability (or unwillingness) to say "I don't know" is one of humankind's tragic failings.

 

I DON'T KNOW the point of this post.

 

Well put, and kind of the point I've been trying to make to shockey.

 

Right. Warner's resume when he started for the Giants: two time NFL MVP and Super Bowl MVP. Warner's resume when he started for the Rams: former grocery worker and Arena League Iowa Barnstormer. Yep, you sure punched a hole in Deskslave's logic with that one.

 

Regarding Reed and the mythology: Before Chuck Daly and Pat Riley ruined basketball, it was based much more on emotion and flow and energy and a lot of "intangibles" that people hate to talk about nowadays. The current game consists of hundreds of disconnected individual possessions, each one having little to do with the other, and an arena environment that depends on T-shirt shooters and Pink soundtracks way more than actual energy. So it's especially difficult to look at the thing 40 years on and compare it to, as was used as an example, Indianapolis in 1996.

 

So now you're playing by the oop/zag rules where we declare victory when someone seeks to disengage from a budding pissing match? Didn't think that was your style, dooley. I chose not to "counter" those points because there really was barely anything to counter and we were entering dog-chasing-tail territory. Not because I "couldn't."

But, since you brought it up, I will briefly address them. Sorry, regardless of era, the Mets going from a 40 win expansion team to champs doesn't amaze me all that terribly much considering that the two events occured SEVEN YEARS APART from each other. The Mets were not a 40 win team the year before "the miracle", they were a 73 win team with .451 winning percentage, and one that happened to have some extremely impressive young talent (check out all the future stars on that pitching staff--Seaver, Ryan, Koosman, McGraw, etc.--good lord). Going from .451 to world champs in one year IS mighty impressive, but it is no more "miraculous" than the seasons of quite a few other cindarella champs in pro sports history who've done it from equally bad or worse prior year circumstances. Despite what we've been indoctrinated to believe.

And I'm not sure what more there is to be said about Mays Catch. You didn't really make any notable points there. My whole life I've been hearing the national media establishment tell me this is the greatest catch in the entire history of the frickin world, but then I see it and think, "Mmm, can't say I agree". But if you voice that opinion, you get bombarded by hissy fitters inflamed that you'd dare question the Mays Greatest Catch doctrine.

One of the sillier arguments trotted out by Namath fans. Who else but Namath gets credit for what he "could have" done? So bad knees mean a pass for a career that was mostly crap? The HOF is supposed to be about what you actually did, not could've done. Injuries screwed up the resume? Too frickin bad.

And, let's be clear, it wasn't just "his final three years" that Namath has awful numbers, it was nearly ALL of his career except for about a three or four year period in the late 60s (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm). His all time passer rating ranks 183rd out of of the 230 qualifying QBs (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm) and those ranking above him include nearly all of his contemporary era starters. Thus, his overall numbers weren't just crap by today's standard, they were by his own era's as well.

And, aside from the one magical season, he wasn't much for winning either. Only two post season wins in his entire career and lost considerably more games than he won overall. And, frankly, he didn't even play all that great in the Super Bowl that's virtually been named after him (Matt Snell was the Jets' true MVP in that game). The Namath Legend is one of the great media-generated embellishments in sports history.

 

On this we agree 1,000 percent, stoney.

 

Puh-lease.

Listen, I will fully acknowledge that the false equivalency I used was a division series vs. the NBA Finals in my '96 Pacers comparison.

But the idea of a wounded athlete lifting a crowd and team remains. It doesn't matter if its NYC, Indianapolis, wherever. It was do-or-die.

There is very little difference, in that regard, between Willis Reed and Reggie Miller's games. One turned out for the team involved, one didn't.

The point is that these things have an undefinable affect on the game, but since history is written by winners, the myth has come about that Reed's appearance magically lifted the Knicks to the '70 title, when in fact, as mentioned by others, it had a heckuva lot more to do with Walt Frazier, Dave Stallworth and the unparalleled choking ability of the Lakers of that era.

As to your other point, the emotion in MSA that day had nothing to do with T-shirt shooters, etc. The place was loud because fans made it loud. Back then, about the only pumped in noise was the IndyCar screech they'd use to piss off foes.

As Bob Cook mentioned, those Pacers had grown to really dislike Larry Brown. Truthfully, that intangible more than cancelled out the Miller returns emotional one.