From: centeno@pasadena-dc.bofa.com (R. CENTENO)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Lakers? AARRGGHH!!
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:51:02 PDT
Organization: Bank America Systems Engineering, Pasadena, CA

>X-News: spacm1 rec.sport.basketball.pro:4667
>From: kompella@cs.ucsd.edu (Vachaspathi Kompella)
>Subject:Lakers?  AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!
>Date: 17 Dec 92 21:30:54 GMT
>Message-ID:<42680@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>



>Pitiful!!  They LOST to the Dallas Mavericks.  I heard the Laker color
>man, Stu Lantz, say that no matter how bad the Mavericks were, there
>was always a finite probability that they would win, and that the odds
>of their winning were increasing because they had lost so many games.

You have to admit that the Lakers definately have the talent to beat the 
great teams in the NBA.  I think that they lost to Dallas for 2 reasons...
#1 they took Dallas too lighly and did not prepare themselves properly.  The
coaching staff tried to prepare the team, but the players themselves took
the game too lightly after their recent winning streak. #2 Dallas played
far far above their average.  Shooting 20/24 in the first quarter.  What was
that player's name who came off of the bench, Rooks???  He scored 24 points
in 21 minutes of play, all in the second half.  I realize that you can say
that Dallas's success was caused by the Lakers Poor defence, but that goes
back to my #1 reason.

>I thought, "What an incisive mind!  What absolute balderdash!"  But,
>just to show you that Probability is a real science, and to confirm
>every idiot's interpretation of the Law of Averages, the Lakers had to
>lose.  It was in the cards.  Bah!

>So much for their triumphs.  I am most displeased.  A cakewalk, a piece of
>cake, any way you slice it, the damn scoreboard says it all.  Brrrraaaackkk!
>(My imitation of a razzberry).

First of all, you don't seem to understand this team very well now do you??
Let me illustrate something to you that i'm sure has been said before...


		1) No Magic (Played all pre-season with him.)
		2) New Coach
		3) New System
		4) New Players (Peeler, Cooper, Edwards)
		5) Injuries (Scott, Smith) (Worthy not 100% IMHO)


Now...How many teams do you know would have the 4th best record in the NBA
under the above circumstances???  You also must be one of those people who
think that going 5/6 is not good enough.  Granted they lost to Dallas, but
BFD.  to quote Jack Palance, "The Lakers will crap bigger than them most any
team in the NBA", Especially Dallas!!!  Are you a Laker fan???


>No more arrogant predictions here.  The Lakers will have to prove to me that
>they are ashamed of themselves.  Who says it's just one game?  Why can't
>they show that they are the Lakers to the Kings, the Mavericks, the nobodies
>of the league?  Why pick on Chicago and Portland?  Can they stick it to them?
>Oh yes.  Can they pound the stuffing out of the Mavericks?  Sorry, sir,
>no can do.  The good thing is that there aren't too many bad teams to lose
>to: the Kings, the Mavericks, the T-wolves, the 76ers, the Heat, the Nuggets,
>the Bullets.  Let's see that's about 18 games they are going to lose, straight
>off!

I agree that they need to perform much better agaist the so called mediocre
teams (but I think the Kings are a good team this year), but by defeating 
the champions and the runner ups, they show that they are to be reckoned with,
and regardless of how long the Lakers have not won a championship, all teams
want to beat the lakers, and take the lakers very seriously.  The point i'm
making is that the mediocre teams get up for the Lakers, and play better.  I
can guarantee that those 18 games will be at least 80% in the Lakers favor.
Oh, wait a minute the last time a guarantee was issued on behalf of the lakers
what happened???  

>-Vach

-Rob



>Nevertheless, the Lakers to the playoffs!!  
 Don't you mean the Championships??