My bigger point, however, was that if Lebron was better than Durant, the difference was pretty small such that including that for the position you were taking is just strange. There wasn't some mega gap making it an upset. There is after all a reason the Warriors were in fact heavy favorites over the Cavs in both the Durant series.
They were heavy favorites because they had an (overwhelmingly) greater collection of talent.
If it had simply been Durant vs LeBron, I think most people would have seen the Warriors as underdogs, even if Durant was close to LeBron at that point in time (remember that LeBron spanked Durant's team in the Finals just a few years prior).
This was directly in response to the point the poster made about how the NBA is the only basketball league in which you see individual talents making a bigger difference than the collection of talent on a team.
I'm just pointing out that at least over the last decade, the team that wins the title has often not had the #1 player / talent in the championship series. Still, most of those title winners have had several All-NBA / All-Defense players, so it's not like they were scrappy underdogs or anything.
As I said ... it's not true that in the NBA that the team with the best player always wins. Often we see the team with the 2nd, 3rd, and perhaps 4th best player beat the team with the best player.
But it is almost always the case that the more talented team wins, and hardly anybody wins a title unless they've got several All-Star caliber players.
