clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

What’s consistency worth?

New, comments

Lindsey Hunter admits that the Pistons aren't merely trying to win a title but also cement their place in history:

"But we aren't satisfied just to be here. We want the chance to win another NBA title. That's the only reason we are here. This matchup is good for the league and it's a historical battle and all of that. But we're trying to make our own legacy. We are trying to get another title so we will be considered a dynasty."

The Pistons have made six straight appearances in the Conference Finals -- that's an amazing streak that hasn't been accomplished since the Showtime Lakers ... but without another title, will anyone even remember? I'm sure Pistons fans wouldn't forget (not for a while, at least) but I don't think anyone can deny that this team needs at least one more title to really ensure history keeps their long streak of dominance in perspective.

As a fan, what would you rather take: a guaranteed title this year followed by six years of losing in the second round, or a loss to the Celtics this year followed by six more conference finals appearances that may or may not ever result in another title?

It's a convoluted "bird in the hand, two in the bush" question. One scenario would cement a dynasty but cause its downfall; the other would prolong a Atlanta Braves/Buffalo Bills-type existence but with no guarantee of another payoff. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I don't want to influence anyone's opinion, so I'll weigh in at the end of the day.