See what happens when Cavs play competition

[Rondo_is_better]

And if I'm the only one giving stats and giving historical examples and nobody else is, then how can anyone disagree with me.

Because you're examples are either terrible, flawed or hypothetical.

Flawed: Comparing Cleveland's hypothetical record of 16-11 to Orlando's current record of 16-11 after assuming that the Cavs win the series against ORl 4-3.

That's flawed because it doesn't even include the losses ORL would incur if it lost the series 4-3. That would make ORL's record 19-15. It wouldn't stay at 16-11, so the Cavs and Magic would not have identical records. Flawed.
 
Hypothetical: The Celtics could have won all 7 game against LA if they had played all seven? What is that stat? First of all they DIDN'T win all of the SIX games they played, and second of all, in no circumstance would a series go to 7 games if a team accumulated four wins before a 7th game became necessary.

You're creating a hypothetical and IMPOSSIBLE scenario to exaggerate a point.

That's why people disagree with you.

[star18]

So I made a mistake on that one with the 4-3 record putting ORL at 19-15 it still doesn't mean that CLE is a vastly superior team which is the point of the discussion. And so what ORL would be 19-15 and CLE would be 16-11.  The point of the discussion is that ORL and CLE are evenly matched teams, yet the media makes it look 90/10 in favor of CLE. It should be a 50/50 series. There is nothing to disagree with on that and the stats back it up. The BOS LAL was just an example to say that if Boston had to play all 7 games against LA they could have won all 7 because they played much better than them in the Finals. You really think I thought that a team can win more than 4 games in a 7 game series.  You are bringing up insignificant points to distract from the fact that ORL and CLE are evenly matched teams, and they have evenly matched stats, thus just as many experts or whoever these people are should be picking ORL as much as they pick CLE.

[Rondo_is_better]

So I made a mistake on that one with the 4-3 record putting ORL at 19-15 it still doesn't mean that CLE is a vastly superior team which is the point of the discussion. And so what ORL would be 19-15 and CLE would be 16-11. 

1. The point of the discussion is that ORL and CLE are evenly matched teams, yet the media makes it look 90/10 in favor of CLE. It should be a 50/50 series.

2. There is nothing to disagree with on that and the stats back it up.

3. The BOS LAL was just an example to say that if Boston had to play all 7 games against LA they could have won all 7 because they played much better than them in the Finals. You really think I thought that a team can win more than 4 games in a 7 game series. 

4. You are bringing up insignificant points to distract from the fact that ORL and CLE are evenly matched teams, and they have evenly matched stats, thus just as many experts or whoever these people are should be picking ORL as much as they pick CLE.

I broke your post up into sections to make it clear what I'm referring to.

1. The point of the discussion is not that the media makes the series look weighed 90/10 in favor of the Cavs, and that you disagree and think its really 50/50.

That's called you're opinion.

The point of the discussion is WHETHER OR NOT the media ACTUALLY does do that. Do you understand? What you wrote is your OPINION of the issue, not the issue ITSELF.

2. Again, you say there is nothing to disagree with. That is not the case. IF what you had stated wsa FACT, and not your OPINION as we previously established, then there would be nothing to discuss, but since it IS your opinion, and since opinions are inherently subjective, there obviously is something to disagree with.

3. The Celtics did not play better than the lakers all throughout the finals. Remember when we were down 20+ at halftime? Remember the games we lost? You don't lose when you play better than someone--you win. Yours is an inherently flawed argument that relies on hypotheticals.

Do I really think you believe a team can win more than 4 games in a 7 game series? No. Did you USE A TEAM WINNING MORE THAN 4 GAMES IN A 7 GAME SERIES AS HYPERBOLE TO EXAGGERATE YOUR POINT? Yes. Do you honestly not see the flaw in your thinking there? "I'm going to use an example that couldn't happen to make my point sesm stronger than it really is".

4. Its interesting that you should say I brought up insignificant points, because guess what? The only things I discussed were points you brought up yourself in previous posts. This means that when you said "my" points were insignificant, you were really saying that YOUR OWN points were insignificant. What you said was that the stats and examples YOU brought up and I REBUTTED were INSIGNIFICANT.

Please realize: that completely unravels your case.

[star18]

Yes the media does do that, have you been seeing all the people on espn and sports channels salivating over Kobe & Lebron, have you seen every commercial talk about nobody but Kobe & Lebron. How many puppet commercials have you seen with only Kobe & Lebron.  No Dwight puppets, no Melo puppets. Have you checked the comments on the blogs before the series with people giving their predictions and almost everybody saying CLE will win and nobody saying ORL will sweep. Well if you did you will see that the media does actually do that.  Again Magic, Barry & Wilbon all said Lakers tonight, again they were all wrong. With the facts and stats I've shown there is nothing to disagree with to say that CLE is vastly superior to ORL, the stats don't show that. The stats show two evenly matched teams, and the media shows nothing but Kobe & Lebron. And if you don't think the Celtics played better than Lakers throughout last series I don't know what else you can say about anything.  They won big in Game 1, they had a huge Game 2 lead until a 5 minute run by LA which turned out not to be enough because we figured the game was over.  They barely lost Game 3, they outplayed them in Game 4 after the 1st Qtr, we barely lost Game 5, and Game 6 was the biggest washout in sports history between two legendary rivals.

[star18]

Its not golf its not Tiger vs. Phil, its not tennis its not Fedrer vs. Nadal. Its basketball.  5 on 5.  not 1 on 1.  I'll take Danny Granger all day over Lebron, because if I can get Granger I can get Brandon Roy too, if I take Lebron I'm not getting anybody like Roy because LeBron takes up too much of the spotlight. Lebron & Kobe are the best individual players in the NBA and that is just by an extra couple points per game, extra couple rebound, extra couple assits per game, extra couple of plays per game than Nowitzki, Granger, Roy, Pierce, Melo, and Howard considering he is a big man. You would think listening to these people on TV and radio they are scoring 20 more points per game than everyone in the league.  Its not Lebron 48 PPG, 26 RBS, 18 Assits per game, Kobe 47 PPG, 25 RBS, 19 Assists with everybody else in the NBA having thier normal numbers. They are not the best team players in the game because the more accolades they recieve the more their teammates disappear. And basketball is a team sport.  According to the media its a 1 on 1 game.

[Atzar]

Its not golf its not Tiger vs. Phil, its not tennis its not Fedrer vs. Nadal. Its basketball.  5 on 5.  not 1 on 1.  I'll take Danny Granger all day over Lebron, because if I can get Granger I can get Brandon Roy too, if I take Lebron I'm not getting anybody like Roy because LeBron takes up too much of the spotlight. Lebron & Kobe are the best individual players in the NBA and that is just by an extra couple points per game, extra couple rebound, extra couple assits per game, extra couple of plays per game than Nowitzki, Granger, Roy, Pierce, Melo, and Howard considering he is a big man. You would think listening to these people on TV and radio they are scoring 20 more points per game than everyone in the league.  Its not Lebron 48 PPG, 26 RBS, 18 Assits per game, Kobe 47 PPG, 25 RBS, 19 Assists with everybody else in the NBA having thier normal numbers. They are not the best team players in the game because the more accolades they recieve the more their teammates disappear. And basketball is a team sport.  According to the media its a 1 on 1 game.

****.  TP, my friend.  I broke up with my girlfriend  of three and a half years today, then my dog puked on my foot, and yet you still managed to make my day with this quote.  Keep getting more and more ridiculous with each argument you try to make, because it's making me happier and happier.

[star18]

Thank you, hope everything goes well in the future with your relationships and your dog wish you the best of luck 

[dlpin]

Holy crap, I dislike Lebron as much as the next guy, but "danny granger over lebron" is about as insane as it gets...

[nickagneta]

Its not golf its not Tiger vs. Phil, its not tennis its not Fedrer vs. Nadal. Its basketball.  5 on 5.  not 1 on 1.  I'll take Danny Granger all day over Lebron, because if I can get Granger I can get Brandon Roy too, if I take Lebron I'm not getting anybody like Roy because LeBron takes up too much of the spotlight. Lebron & Kobe are the best individual players in the NBA and that is just by an extra couple points per game, extra couple rebound, extra couple assits per game, extra couple of plays per game than Nowitzki, Granger, Roy, Pierce, Melo, and Howard considering he is a big man. You would think listening to these people on TV and radio they are scoring 20 more points per game than everyone in the league.  Its not Lebron 48 PPG, 26 RBS, 18 Assits per game, Kobe 47 PPG, 25 RBS, 19 Assists with everybody else in the NBA having thier normal numbers. They are not the best team players in the game because the more accolades they recieve the more their teammates disappear. And basketball is a team sport.  According to the media its a 1 on 1 game.

Except for the "I'll take Danny Granger all day over Lebron" quote I agree with everything you are saying and everything you are trying to get across in this post.

Excellent post. TP4U.

I think in today's individualistic marketing of the NBA people, especially younger fans, forget that basketball is still a team sport and that a great team will beat a team with a great individual player for the championship 99 times out of a hundred.

[star18]

I'm saying I'll go with Granger because he will allow me to get other high quality players, whereas if I go with Lebron I'm not going to get high quality players, only role players who are happy having one guy in complete control of the game. I would rather go with a BIG 3, BIG 4 or maybe even a BIG 5, and with Granger I can do that. With Lebron I'm only getting a BIG 1.

[Steve Weinman]

I'm saying I'll go with Granger because he will allow me to get other high quality players, whereas if I go with Lebron I'm not going to get high quality players, only role players who are happy having one guy in complete control of the game. I would rather go with a BIG 3, BIG 4 or maybe even a BIG 5, and with Granger I can do that. With Lebron I'm only getting a BIG 1.

Funny thing about this team game you mention.  The teams LeBron and Kobe happen to play for seem to have done all right so far this season.

Its not golf its not Tiger vs. Phil, its not tennis its not Fedrer vs. Nadal. Its basketball.  5 on 5.  not 1 on 1.  I'll take Danny Granger all day over Lebron, because if I can get Granger I can get Brandon Roy too, if I take Lebron I'm not getting anybody like Roy because LeBron takes up too much of the spotlight. Lebron & Kobe are the best individual players in the NBA and that is just by an extra couple points per game, extra couple rebound, extra couple assits per game, extra couple of plays per game than Nowitzki, Granger, Roy, Pierce, Melo, and Howard considering he is a big man. You would think listening to these people on TV and radio they are scoring 20 more points per game than everyone in the league.  Its not Lebron 48 PPG, 26 RBS, 18 Assits per game, Kobe 47 PPG, 25 RBS, 19 Assists with everybody else in the NBA having thier normal numbers. They are not the best team players in the game because the more accolades they recieve the more their teammates disappear. And basketball is a team sport.  According to the media its a 1 on 1 game.

****.  TP, my friend.  I broke up with my girlfriend  of three and a half years today, then my dog puked on my foot, and yet you still managed to make my day with this quote.  Keep getting more and more ridiculous with each argument you try to make, because it's making me happier and happier.

Hysterical, Atzar.     Sorry to hear about the relationship (and dog) though.

-sw

[Atzar]

I appreciate it, SW.  It's been coming for awhile, so it wasn't bad.  The girlfriend thing, I mean.  The dog vomit came out of nowhere...

Anyway, I don't really mean to be condescending or insulting in my posts, Star.  It's just that dealing with posts like the following is pretty frustrating:

And if I'm the only one giving stats and giving historical examples and nobody else is, then how can anyone disagree with me.

It's not that nobody's supplying evidence, it's that you ignore all of it.  The stat 66-16 has come up a couple of times, that's a pretty good one.  There was one back on page 2 which gave Cleveland's point differential against the top 10 teams in the league, they're second.  Your defense to that point was "This is CelticsBlog, not CavsBlog!"  39-2 on their home court before Wednesday night is another good statistic. 

Look, the record vs. teams with a winning percentage .600 or better is an interesting statistic, but it can't be used to the exclusion of everything else.  This isn't like college football, where Hawaii gets shafted (deservedly) in the rankings because they don't play any good teams.  That argument doesn't hold water in the NBA.  They all play in the same league against the same teams.  If Cleveland beats a team that's missing an important player, so what?  You can't fault them for winning a game they should win.  I guess we should give our championship back because LA didn't have Bynum, right?  I didn't think so.  It's not fair to subtract from a team's accomplishments based on something like that.  Yes, Detroit mailed it in and Atlanta was banged up.  Cleveland is still in the ECF, and they still deserve to be where they are because they won the games they should win.

[star18]

66-16 & 59-23 not much of a difference to me. 39-2 at home great, but those are the only 2 stats I ever see and CLE +8.62 point differential ORL +6.69, Those numbers aren't night and day. Yes CLE deserves to be in the ECF, but the Magic do not deserve to be picked by 10% of the people who predict a winner out of the Eastern conference. Plus now the Magic have homecourt and you know what I see more often than not Cavs in 5. Its going to be very tough for the Cavs to win this series in less than 7.  For some reason, people just don't get that.

[star18]

"It's not fair to subtract from a team's accomplishments based on something like that." That's the best quote I've read so far, because if it is anybody's accomplishments that are being subtracted from it is ORL & DEN, & the Danny Grangers and Brandon Roys of the league. When Lebron has 11 accolades, Kobe has 10, Granger 2 and Roy 1, it seems to me the media and many other so called experts would do anything to take that 2 and 1 away from Granger and Roy so Lebron could have 13 Kobe 11, Granger 0 & Roy 0. That is the point of this discussion.

[Atzar]

66-16 & 59-23 not much of a difference to me. 39-2 at home great, but those are the only 2 stats I ever see and CLE +8.62 point differential ORL +6.69, Those numbers aren't night and day. Yes CLE deserves to be in the ECF, but the Magic do not deserve to be picked by 10% of the people who predict a winner out of the Eastern conference. Plus now the Magic have homecourt and you know what I see more often than not Cavs in 5. Its going to be very tough for the Cavs to win this series in less than 7.  For some reason, people just don't get that.

That difference of seven games in the regular season would have knocked any playoff team in the West out of the playoffs, with the lone exception of the Lakers.  Similarly, an improvement of seven games would put any Eastern team except Washington at least in a tie for eighth.  Not much of a difference indeed.  Look, the stats are pretty clearly in Cleveland's favor.  That's why everybody thinks they'll win.  It's not that nobody thinks Orlando is good, it's that everybody thinks Cleveland is better.

"It's not fair to subtract from a team's accomplishments based on something like that." That's the best quote I've read so far, because if it is anybody's accomplishments that are being subtracted from it is ORL & DEN, & the Danny Grangers and Brandon Roys of the league. When Lebron has 11 accolades, Kobe has 10, Granger 2 and Roy 1, it seems to me the media and many other so called experts would do anything to take that 2 and 1 away from Granger and Roy so Lebron could have 13 Kobe 11, Granger 0 & Roy 0. That is the point of this discussion.

This post is so far away from reality that I don't even know how to respond to it.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what I just posted, except for some attempt to twist all of this into an insult to Orlando and Denver (ignoring entirely the fact that Denver is a pretty common pick to go to the Finals right now - only 62% of fans think LA will win).  I'm not saying Orlando and Denver are bad, I'm saying Cleveland is good.  I think Cleveland is better than Orlando - it's that simple.  It's not this insult or disrespect you seem to make it out to be, it's the fact that most statistics support the prediction that Cleveland will win the series.