UPSET RATING

[rugbyprop3]

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

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.

ok so for the past 10 years you have watched every hawks game that has been on tv?

[Atlantaholic]

I've been looking at a list of NBA playoff upsets and so far we would be third in terms of the difference in record between the "contender" and the "underdog". That means that of the hundreds of playoff series' played in the last 30-40 years only two teams have beaten a team in the playoffs when they were 19 games or more behind them in the standings. We would be team number 3.

I think to say this would be in no way one of the greatest upsets is ludicrous. It may not be greatest, it may not be top 3, but top 5???

Abso-freaking-loutely.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Atlantaholic

[rugbyprop3]

WTF would I want to have a beer with you? You are mine 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.

haha, wow someone that talks tough over the internet. i am sorry that basketball isnt my life, sorry I cant tell you everything that has happened over the past 10 years, for 4 of those 10 i was either in Iraq or Japan with the Marines and didnt follow any sports to closely as in japan you have to wake up at 5 am to watch a prime time game. What a loser if you take a professional sport that serious. but please if you want to throw a beer on me come find me i already told you my section and what ill be wearing

[dlpin]

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.

Game differential doesn't mean much when you are talking about small differences. So you think that a single series upset against a team that has won 19 more games is a bigger upset than a team beating a team that won 13 more games and had a 2-1 series lead, beating a team that won 12 more games and had a 3-1 series leads, won against a team that won 15 more games, having to beat them 3 times on the road, and then sweep a team that won 10 more games?

[exodus]

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

That isn't what you said first of all. What you said was that today the top 3-4 teams are "farther ahead of the curve" than the top 3-4 teams of the past.

That completely flies in the face of common sense. Last years champs got taken to 7 games by a 37 win team. The year before the top seed lost to the 8th seed.

The top teams now haven't accomplished anything of note. The top teams of the past had multiple rings and blew teams away in the early rounds.

You have it completely backwards.

[rugbyprop3]

That isn't what you said first of all. What you said was that today the top 3-4 teams are "farther ahead of the curve" than the top 3-4 teams of the past.

That completely flies in the face of common sense. Last years champs got taken to 7 games by a 37 win team. The year before the top seed lost to the 8th seed.

The top teams now haven't accomplished anything of note. The top teams of the past had multiple rings and blew teams away in the early rounds.

You have it completely backwards.

if you say so, we still have only had 7 different champions in the past 14 years, where we had 9 different from 67-80

[Atlantaholic]

I don't think you get the point dude. Bringing up the fact that the Rockets were down in those seires doesn't add much to the argument, since we are talking about the Hawks - Cleveland matchup hypothetically... I mean if the Hawks were down 3-1 against Cleveland and we came back, than yeah, it would be hands down a much greater upset than the rockets upsets', and if we went in next round and won after being down 2-1 than it would be a much, much more unlikely scenario than when the Rockets did it. Infact if we won the Championship this year, I don't think ANYONE on the planet would argue that we had the most unlikely championship run in the history of the NBA. Which is exactly my point. If the Hawks did what the Rockets did it 95, and they did it by beating Cleveland, Boston (or Orlando), Lakers it would absouletly be more of an upset than what the Rockets did. I mean, I don't see how you can disagree.

[rugbyprop3]

I don't think you get the point dude. Bringing up the fact that the Rockets were down in those seires doesn't add much to the argument, since we are talking about the Hawks - Cleveland matchup hypothetically... I mean if the Hawks were down 3-1 against Cleveland and we came back, than yeah, it would be hands down a much greater upset than the rockets upsets', and if we went in next round and won after being down 2-1 than it would be a much, much more unlikely scenario than when the Rockets did it. Infact if we won the Championship this year, I don't think ANYONE on the planet would argue that we had the most unlikely championship run in the history of the NBA. Which is exactly my point. If the Hawks did what the Rockets did it 95, and they did it by beating Cleveland, Boston (or Orlando), Lakers it would absouletly be more of an upset than what the Rockets did. I mean, I don't see how you can disagree.

Here is a good paragraph I found to help the rockets argument:

Indeed, no team had ever stopped four 50-win teams en route to the title, as Houston did in overcoming the Utah Jazz (60-22), Phoenix Suns (59-23), San Antonio Spurs (62-20) and Orlando (57-25). No team ever beat the clubs with the four best regular-season records in the league in order to win the championship. No team ever won as many as nine road games in one year's playoffs, and no team ever won seven road games in a row. Houston did it all.

[Dsinner]

ok so for the past 10 years you have watched every hawks game that has been on tv?

Absolutely not. But I've never stopped following them because they had a bad year or 13. Not sure how your statement is even relevant.

[Atlantaholic]

That isn't what you said first of all. What you said was that today the top 3-4 teams are "farther ahead of the curve" than the top 3-4 teams of the past.

That completely flies in the face of common sense. Last years champs got taken to 7 games by a 37 win team. The year before the top seed lost to the 8th seed.

The top teams now haven't accomplished anything of note. The top teams of the past had multiple rings and blew teams away in the early rounds.

You have it completely backwards.

The NBA hasn't changed much as far as parity... You can't analyse a thing like this though until you reach a point where you can do so in Hindsight. Cleveland will be the NBA's next dynasty. I mean, it is obvious. 20 years from now people will be looking at the 2000-2020 era of basketball as an era of the Laker, Spur and Cleveland dynasty... maybe two or three teams will steal a championship here and there but Cleveland will win 5 + championships in the next decade.

[rugbyprop3]

Absolutely not. But I've never stopped following them because they had a bad year or 13. Not sure how your statement is even relevant.

OK i might be a fair weather fan when it comes to the cavs, but not a bandwagon fan because its not like i followed another team when they where down. I just didnt follow the sport of basketball period. now I have something to be excited about I have been following it again for the past couple of years. and my college team is hardly ever good at basketball and im not one of those people that root for different college teams depending on the sport, so if you want to call me fairweather that fine but doesnt mean they havent been my team

[exodus]

if you say so, we still have only had 7 different champions in the past 14 years, where we had 9 different from 67-80

Again you show your ignorance of history. The Spurs and Lakers won a bunch of titles but they broke up the Lakers and the Spurs are out of the playoffs.

To win a title this year the Cavs don't have to beat the teams that won all those titles so trying to use them for comparison purposes is nonsense. The evidence says that the competition for a ring is much less now than in the past.

The only teams left now are teams who haven't been to the finals before or who have been there once in recent years.

[Dsinner]

haha, wow someone that talks tough over the internet. i am sorry that basketball isnt my life, sorry I cant tell you everything that has happened over the past 10 years, for 4 of those 10 i was either blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

You are still not comprehending what you said earlier. You admitted you stopped following your team (the team you're on this site defending to the bitter end mind you) because "they fail off". Not because you had to leave the country and not because you're not a big basketball fan (which if that is the case you probably shouldn't be arguing with these legit bball fans about bball). Then you state you started following the Indians because they were winning. Not because you were a baseball fan and not because you were all of a sudden in the country.

You clearly stated you stopped following a team because they were losing and started following a team because they were winning. I could care less about any of this other crap you're trying to divert this conversation into but the fact that you stated the above makes you the kind of person I would not meet at a game to have a beer with. Good day sir and I hope you become a Browns fan in the near future because...well because that would mean the Cavs are sucking.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Dsinner

[Atlantaholic]

Here is a good paragraph I found to help the rockets argument:

Indeed, no team had ever stopped four 50-win teams en route to the title, as Houston did in overcoming the Utah Jazz (60-22), Phoenix Suns (59-23), San Antonio Spurs (62-20) and Orlando (57-25). No team ever beat the clubs with the four best regular-season records in the league in order to win the championship. No team ever won as many as nine road games in one year's playoffs, and no team ever won seven road games in a row. Houston did it all.

My point is that if we beat Cleveland, (better than Jazz), Boston (better than Phoenix) and the Lakers (better than Sand Antonio) our achievement would be more unlikely than the Rockets... which is what the topic is referring too. Obviously if we are talking just about the Cleveland series than we have to compare another singular series... and non of them would be greater upsets IMO.

[rugbyprop3]

Absolutely not. But I've never stopped following them because they had a bad year or 13. Not sure how your statement is even relevant.

define "following them" i know after the 94 season we finished horribly every year, went through 3 coaches and won the lottery for lebron, there was nothing else to follow when your season is over after November, haha

[Atlantaholic]

Again you show your ignorance of history. The Spurs and Lakers won a bunch of titles but they broke up the Lakers and the Spurs are out of the playoffs.

To win a title this year the Cavs don't have to beat the teams that won all those titles so trying to use them for comparison purposes is nonsense. The evidence says that the competition for a ring is much less now than in the past.

The only teams left now are teams who haven't been to the finals before or who have been there once in recent years.

What Championship teams did the Bulls beat after the bad boys broke up?

[Dsinner]

Again you show your ignorance of history. The Spurs and Lakers won a bunch of titles but they broke up the Lakers and the Spurs are out of the playoffs.

To win a title this year the Cavs don't have to beat the teams that won all those titles so trying to use them for comparison purposes is nonsense. The evidence says that the competition for a ring is much less now than in the past.

The only teams left now are teams who haven't been to the finals before or who have been there once in recent years.

Give it up Ex. By his own admission he's not even a basketball fan so who gives a f*ck what he doesn't know? He's going to admit that and then try to argue with you about basketball. Too funny.

[rugbyprop3]

You are still not comprehending what you said earlier. You admitted you stopped following your team (the team you're on this site defending to the bitter end mind you) because "they fail off". Not because you had to leave the country and not because you're not a big basketball fan (which if that is the case you probably shouldn't be arguing with these legit bball fans about bball). Then you state you started following the Indians because they were winning. Not because you were a baseball fan and not because you were all of a sudden in the country.

You clearly stated you stopped following a team because they were losing and started following a team because they were winning. I could care less about any of this other crap you're trying to divert this conversation into but the fact that you stated the above makes you the kind of person I would not meet at a game to have a beer with. Good day sir and I hope you become a Browns fan in the near future because...well because that would mean the Cavs are sucking.

and I am a browns fan, and an indians fan, and a cavs fan, and a notre dame fan.

[Dsinner]

define "following them" i know after the 94 season we finished horribly every year, went through 3 coaches and won the lottery for lebron, there was nothing else to follow when your season is over after November, haha

Following would still be watching the games even though you know they are going to loose. You keep describing fair weather with every post man. Keep it up.

[rugbyprop3]

Following would still be watching the games even though you know they are going to loose. You keep describing fair weather with every post man. Keep it up.

Ok you said watching the games would be following, how many cavs games where on tv in Atlanta when the Cavs where bad tard boy, and you even said you didnt watch the hawks games when they where bad, so wouldnt that also make you a fair weather fan?