May 29, 2017

Worthless stat.

1. When did 50 wins become the benchmark for a great team or a "giant".

2. MJ played during an expansion so the top teams got to pad their wins.

3. The Hawks won 60 games in a season once and no one considered them to be a contender. W-L means nothing w/o context.

 

May 29, 2017

That's why I love to come up with the fact that LeBron is the only one on that list to have beaten a 70+ wins team. Yeah yeah, people gonna say that there aren't many teams to have held that record. Well guess f---ing what, there were 2 teams in history with a 70+ record and LeBron came back from 3-1 in the finals to beat one of them. If that doesn't k--- that argument, I don't know what does.

 

May 29, 2017

Not even on some MJ vs Lebron bs I just hate the stat because it's stupid and we as fans know it is.

All that stat says is so and so team has won so and so series vs 50 win teams. But espn or whoever made that chart took it upon themselves to represent 50 win teams as giant when we know it's not true.

Atl won 60 games. Nobody thought they were contenders. We just watch a 50 win team and a 60 win team get manhandled in the conference finals by real contenders.

 

May 29, 2017

Lol...I'm not posting that stat to devalue LeBron, I'm posting it just cuz it's surprising and devalues the whole league really and lack of competition.

Also I don't really see how Bron beating 1 70 win team takes away that whole stat, one's over the course of an entire career so has a very large sample size, and the other is just one example.

24 to 9 or 20 to 9 is a pretty massive difference at this point, take whatever meaning you'd like to with it but that's still pretty big. Bron's passed these guys in playoff points already so it's not like that stat is so far apart cuz he hasn't played as many playoff games.

 

May 29, 2017

Yea that stat is pretty bogus

In other/better news, Screamin A Smith just picked the warriors in 7 I guess, so Cavs fan can rejoice.

 

May 29, 2017

Didn't Seething A just pick the Cavs last week? must be covering all his bases so he can't technically be wrong.

 

May 29, 2017

In what way?

 

May 29, 2017

Because teams like the Hawks in 2015 could have 50-60+ wins in a season and never even be true contenders. 50 is also an arbitrary number and teams with 45-49 wins aren't included even though they could potentially be better. Some 50-win caliber teams start off slow like the KG and Pierce Nets who I believe only won 44 games that year but were clearly a 50 win caliber team. Or the year of the Boston Bombings when the Pacers went 49-32 because the game against Boston was cancelled. LeBron beat both of those teams in the playoffs. The conferences are also really different in terms of wins. I think it was in 2010, when the 8th seed in the West even won 50 games. If you wanna look at 50 win teams, why not 60 win teams? (LeBron: 3-4; Kobe: 2-6) And if you wanna do 70 win teams... LeBron is the only player to ever beat a 70+ win team. It's when I looked at all of that and realized that the "wins vs. 50+ wins teams" was good for a very rudimentary argument, but not much else. It's not some definitive stat or anything.

 

May 29, 2017

No ones saying 50+ wins means you're a contender, it's just the number they chose for this stat to show how many good to great teams those players have knocked off over the years.

For taking a huge sample size like they did you can't just dismiss it and say 'oh the hawks were never legit!' Lol, of course some of those teams won't be too great but some will.

Bron's consistently had an easier path to the finals due to lack of competition in the NBA as a whole and mainly in the east, that's what that stat shows.

 

May 29, 2017

I'm okay with saying that LeBron has had "an easier path" to the finals, that's just a horrible stat to back it up with. Look at things such as wins versus top 3 defenses (Bron actually has more than Kobe in the playoffs) or different team stats other than wins because like I said, the wins against 50 win teams argument is not some definitive stat, it's actually not much else than simply that. I understand that they have to pick a number for these stats, but it still doesn't fix the fact that teams like the Nets or Pacers were removed because they barely missed the cutoff number. You also kind of debunked it yourself by saying of course some of those teams won't be great but some will. The two things I look at when it comes to stats are the validity and reliability of the stat, and I can't check either of those off with this one.

 

May 29, 2017

Apparently he even addressed his curse when he said it, and mentioned he was pulling for LeBron. Personally, I would say him addressing it while picking Golden State will end the curse.

 

May 29, 2017

Why do ppl think Westbrook is better than Curry

 

May 30, 2017

I really want to see KD's heart broken.

I hope he has the most embarrassing Finals performance in NBA history.

 

May 30, 2017

He'll probably win finals MVP tbh..

 

May 30, 2017

#notmymvp

 

May 30, 2017

 

May 30, 2017

Disagree.

We had HOU/OKC, MEM/SA, BOS/CHI for a little bit, BOS/WAS, HOU/SA. Other series were entertaining as well, but knowing we would eventually get GS/CLE III just took the rest of the excitement away.

 

May 30, 2017

i think if you look just at those series alone they were really good, but knowing that GS/CLE was gonna be the finals anyways just took the fun out of it

 

May 30, 2017

Can it be Thursday already?

 

May 30, 2017

I agree that the playoffs were a little underwhelming but what could potentially be the greatest finals ever will hopefully make up for it.