UPSET RATING

[rugbyprop3]

It would be an enormous upset for several reasons. Firstly the Hawks are no where near playing their best basketball, in fact, they haven't played their best basketball in months, right now we are playing to the level of an eight or seventh seed. Conversely Cleveland has been playing great basketball all season, and right now they are arguably playing their best ball. Secondly it is because of Lebron James, and all the hype surrounding him (rightly earned). He is the "next" Michael Jordan and he is playing on a team with a great offense and the best defense in the league. Since February virtually every analyst has predicted Cleveland to make it to the finals. Thridly NO ONE is giving us a chance I mean literally no one. Not even our teams own fans think we can win the series. And last but not least, we are hurting, while Cleveland is as healthy as they have ever been. Joe Johnson doesn't seem like he is 100% Marvin is virtually out, and Horford's ankle makes him a total non factor... The only players on our team playing well consistently are Bibby and Josh Smith.

Only way we win this series is if Cleveland comes out overconfident in the next home game and we play our A+ basketball and somehow manage to steal the game... Then we need to do what we did with Boston and sweep at home. Chances of this happening are insanely slim.

Us upsetting Boston last year would have been the biggest upset in playoff history, us upsetting Cleveland this year with our injuries and often uninspired play would be very close to that. Top 3-5 for sure.

People arguing that the Rockets of 95 had bigger upsets don't really understand the concept of an upset. When a team is good enough to have won a championship the year before, people know that they have potential to beat anyone. It is much more unlikely for a team like the Hawks, with little playoff experience, a retarded head Coach, young players, not a single championship winner on the roster to beat Cleveland (Who made the finals once already) than it was for the Rockets to beat any of the teams they beat... Hands down. Obviously the achievement of winning those series dwarfs what we would achieve by beating Cleveland, but it doesn't make it a bigger upset.

Thank you

[Atlantaholic]

ALso The Knick team should not be considered an all time upset. They were an eighth seed that finished a whopping 6 games back from first place...They made it to the finals during the lockout season (worst season in basketball) when all the East teams were mediocre at best. No Michael Jordan, not a single dominant star on any East team, and not even close to a single dominant team (No team was nearly as good as either Cleveland, Orlando or Boston (healthy Boston)... It was surprising how easily they made the finals, but it wasn't that shocking considering how bad their competition was.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Atlantaholic

[rugbyprop3]

So you're a fair-weather fan? You probably won't identify with a lot of the fans on this site as we are true fans (the Hawks have never been contenders). Don't worry, Lebron will leave soon and you can go back to being an Indian or Browns fan. Both of them will be better than the Cavs when the King is gone.

fairweather no, if you ask they will always be my team, Basketball is just not my #1 sport so therefore if the cavs are in it then I will be heavily interested if they are out then Ill just check the score. Plus living in Atlanta its hard to get a game on TV if they are bad so its harder to follow. and if the Hawks have such a huge fan base how come you can't sell out a game 7 playoff game. and last time I checked the home games coming up arent sell outs either

[Atlantaholic]

fairweather no, if you ask they will always be my team, Basketball is just not my #1 sport so therefore if the cavs are in it then I will be heavily interested if they are out then Ill just check the score. Plus living in Atlanta its hard to get a game on TV if they are bad so its harder to follow. and if the Hawks have such a huge fan base how come you can't sell out a game 7 playoff game. and last time I checked the home games coming up arent sell outs either

Our fanbase is pretty terrible. They are 80% fairweather bandwaggoners. Everyone on this site though, is a true fan.

[rugbyprop3]

Our fanbase is pretty terrible. They are 80% fairweather bandwaggoners. Everyone on this site though, is a true fan.

good and to you I say good luck this series I still think the Hawks are 1-2 years out, but will be serious contenders soon

[exodus]

wow do I disagree, from 94/95-07/08 (14 years) there have only been 7 different champions, from 80/81-93/94 (14 years) there where only 6 different champions only a difference of one. but go before that from 66/67-79/80 (14 years) there where 9 different champions

HAHAHAHA

There is only one team that could currently claim to be a dynasty and that is San Antonio. They aren't playing any more. LA isn't a dynasty and hasn't been since Shaq left. The Cavs haven't done squat in relation to the dynasties of the past but you are trying to put them in the same catagory as Bird's Celtics, Magics Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. GTFO

The top teams in the playoffs currently would all be underdogs against those championship teams of the 80s/90s.

[Atlantaholic]

HAHAHAHA

There is only one team that could currently claim to be a dynasty and that is San Antonio. They aren't playing any more. LA isn't a dynasty and hasn't been since Shaq left. The Cavs haven't done squat in relation to the dynasties of the past but you are trying to put them in the same catagory as Bird's Celtics, Magics Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. GTFO

The top teams in the playoffs currently would all be underdogs against those championship teams of the 80s/90s.

Definitely. But we wouldn't even be sniffing the playoffs with this years team during that time.

Also, Cleveland is probably a dynasty in the Making. (I hate Cleveland, I hate Lebron, but it is the cold hard truth)

Lebron can still improve, and god knows their supporting cast can improve (Delonte West??) They add a couple of decent players, and they will own the east for the next decade... Just like Jordan's Bulls

Edited May 6, 2009 by Atlantaholic

[rugbyprop3]

HAHAHAHA

There is only one team that could currently claim to be a dynasty and that is San Antonio. They aren't playing any more. LA isn't a dynasty and hasn't been since Shaq left. The Cavs haven't done squat in relation to the dynasties of the past but you are trying to put them in the same catagory as Bird's Celtics, Magics Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. GTFO

The top teams in the playoffs currently would all be underdogs against those championship teams of the 80s/90s.

who mentioned anything about dynasty?

Definitely. But we wouldn't even be sniffing the playoffs with this years team during that time.

Also, Cleveland is probably a dynasty in the Making. (I hate Cleveland, I hate Lebron, but it is the cold hard truth)

Lebron can still improve, and god knows their supporting cast can improve (Delonte West??) They add a couple of decent players, and they will own the east for the next decade... Just like Jordan's Bulls

and you hate Lebron? I know its hard to except a superstars sports figure that doesnt get arrested.

[exodus]

who mentioned anything about dynasty?

You are the one trying to say todays teams are more dominant than the top teams of the past and that is nonsense. The Cavs are considered the favorites right now and they have never won a ring.

Back in the 80s you knew the Celtics were the team to beat in the East and the Lakers were the team to beat in the West. It was a rare for them to lose to anyone then they routinely cruised through the early rounds. In the 90s the Bulls were the favorites against everyone every year.

Last years champs got taken to 7 games by the Hawks in the first round. it was just a couple of years ago that the team with the best record in the league lost to the 8th seed.

Edited May 6, 2009 by exodus

[dlpin]

No one thought the rockets would repeat. No one. First of all, being the defending champs doesn't mean much. There is a reason why it is so rare for teams to repeat. Second, that team was old. Hakeem was 32, Drexler was 32. Everyone thought they were done.

In fact, they had to overcome 2-1 deficits agains the jazz, 3-1 deficit against the Suns.

They are the lowest seed to win the finals for a reason. SI had a feature not too long ago on the "most surprising champions" and the 95 rockets were number 1.

And if people want to argue that the hawks havent won anything, the cavs havent won anything either and Lebron, with the exception of the detroit series in 2007 and game 7 against boston last year, has usually sucked in the playoffs. Almost 10% lower FG% in the post season the past two years.

In any case, discussing particular cases is meaningless. The fact remains that regardless of how one feels about certain particular series or teams, this would not be in any way an all time upset.

In the NBA playoffs, the 8 seed has beaten the number 1 seed 3 times, the number 7 seed has beaten the number 2 seed 4 times, the 6 seed has beaten the 3rd seed 13 times. All this only including the years since the playoffs have gone to a 16 team format. A number 4 beating a number 1 is not an all time upset.

[Dsinner]

fairweather no, if you ask they will always be my team, Basketball is just not my #1 sport so therefore if the cavs are in it then I will be heavily interested if they are out then Ill just check the score. Plus living in Atlanta its hard to get a game on TV if they are bad so its harder to follow. and if the Hawks have such a huge fan base how come you can't sell out a game 7 playoff game. and last time I checked the home games coming up arent sell outs either

You made it pretty clear you only follow "your teams" when they are winning. That is the definition of "fair weather".

[rugbyprop3]

You are the one trying to say todays teams are more dominant than the top teams of the past and that is nonsense. The Cavs are considered the favorites right now and they have never won a ring.

Back in the 80s you knew the Celtics were the team to beat in the East and the Lakers were the team to beat in the West. It was a rare for them to lose to anyone then they routinely cruised through the early rounds. In the 90s the Bulls were the favorites against everyone every year.

Last years champs got taken to 7 games by the Hawks in the first round. it was just a couple of years ago that the team with the best record in the league lost to the 8th seed.

Did not say they where more dominant the the other teams, because we all know thats not true because back then they played something called defense. my point was back then the middle range teams where better then what they are now. if you take an 8 seed from the 80's they would beat an 8 seed of today thats what I was trying to point out

[rugbyprop3]

You made it pretty clear you only follow "your teams" when they are winning. That is the definition of "fair weather".

no I follow my team regardless but when would a cavs game be televised in atlanta if they where not good? its easier to follow when they are good and basketball is not my favorite sport

[rugbyprop3]

You made it pretty clear you only follow "your teams" when they are winning. That is the definition of "fair weather".

and since you are such a great hawks fan you will be at the game saturday right? as will I we should have a beer together ill be in section 113 behind the cavs bench wearing the St Vincent-St Mary's Lebron jersey

[Atlantaholic]

No one thought the rockets would repeat. No one. First of all, being the defending champs doesn't mean much. There is a reason why it is so rare for teams to repeat. Second, that team was old. Hakeem was 32, Drexler was 32. Everyone thought they were done.

In fact, they had to overcome 2-1 deficits agains the jazz, 3-1 deficit against the Suns.

They are the lowest seed to win the finals for a reason. SI had a feature not too long ago on the "most surprising champions" and the 95 rockets were number 1.

And if people want to argue that the hawks havent won anything, the cavs havent won anything either and Lebron, with the exception of the detroit series in 2007 and game 7 against boston last year, has usually sucked in the playoffs. Almost 10% lower FG% in the post season the past two years.

In any case, discussing particular cases is meaningless. The fact remains that regardless of how one feels about certain particular series or teams, this would not be in any way an all time upset.

In the NBA playoffs, the 8 seed has beaten the number 1 seed 3 times, the number 7 seed has beaten the number 2 seed 4 times, the 6 seed has beaten the 3rd seed 13 times. All this only including the years since the playoffs have gone to a 16 team format. A number 4 beating a number 1 is not an all time upset.

I'm sorry but I disagree completely with the way you are analyzing the upsets. To me you gotta look at the discrepancy between the games won by the two teams in question. Denver - Seattle, the consensus choice for biggest upset in NBA history had Denver being 21 games back from Seattle in the Standings (we were 19 games back from Cleveland this year). Dallas - GS had Golden State 25 games back (the consensus for second biggest playoff upset).

The Rockets that year played no teams that had a better record than Cleveland this year, That means that they played no team that dominated the league as much as Cleveland did this year. Of course most of those teams are better than Cleveland is this year, but the Rockets are way, way, way better than we are this year. Comparing teams form different eras with each other is pointless anyway, you gotta look at each year independently. This year, us beating Cleveland a team that finished 19 games ahead of us in the standings would be an Epic upset. Bigger than the New York upsets (by a landslide) bigger than the Rocket upsets... probably bigger to every other upset except the aformentioned Dallas - Gs / Seattle - Denver series.

This isn't even considering that all the other teams that upset did it with healthy teams playing their BEST basketball going into the playoffs, while we are sputtering and injured.

[exodus]

Did not say they where more dominant the the other teams, because we all know thats not true because back then they played something called defense. my point was back then the middle range teams where better then what they are now. if you take an 8 seed from the 80's they would beat an 8 seed of today thats what I was trying to point out

First of all what you said was that the gap between the top 3-4 teams and the rest of the teams is bigger now than it was in the past.

where as now the top 3-4 teams are a lot farther ahead of the curve, just my opinion

And again i say nonsense. The top teams of the past cruised consistently to the finals. They rarely lost lower seeds.

If you look at the teams favored to win it this year they are all ringless. And the 8th seed did take out the top seed just two years ago.

Do you think the Cavs are "farther ahead of the curve" than the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers used to be?

:lol6:

Edited May 6, 2009 by exodus

[rugbyprop3]

First of all what you said was that the gap between the top 3-4 teams and the rest of the teams is bigger now than it was in the past.

And again i say nonsense. The top teams of the past cruised consistently to the finals. They rarely lost lower seeds.

If you look at the teams favored to win it this year they are all ringless. And the 8th seed did take out the top seed just two years ago.

from 81-94 6 different teams won a title, from 95-08 7 different teams 1 a title thats only a difference of 1 team. Now from 67-80 9 different teams won a title

[Dsinner]

no I follow my team regardless but when would a cavs game be televised in atlanta if they where not good? its easier to follow when they are good and basketball is not my favorite sport

Since you seem incapable of remembering your own posts...

Not a teenager but I admit that I am not a huge basketball fan, followed the cavs through the late 80's early 90's then they fell of and so did my interest in basketball since thats about the time frame that the Indians became contenders

So you followed the cavs till they started loosing and as luck would have it the Indians started winning about that same time so you jumped on that wagon. I'm not sure how else you would describe "fair weather". You are the epitome of one based on your own words I might add.

[rugbyprop3]

Do you think the Cavs are "farther ahead of the curve" than the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers used to be?

:lol6:

no I am not comparing the cavs to any of the celtics teams, I am comparing the league as a whole now to back then, and I say the league as a whole was better in the 80's early 90's then it is now

[Dsinner]

and since you are such a great hawks fan you will be at the game saturday right? as will I we should have a beer together ill be in section 113 behind the cavs bench wearing the St Vincent-St Mary's Lebron jersey

WTF would I want to have a beer with you? You are my enemy. You are a Cavs fan. Not only that, you are a fair weathered Cavs fan. That's the worst kind. You will now be lucky if a beer doesn't end up in your lap.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Dsinner