UPSET RATING

[Dsinner]

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

Now that I think about it, I'll leave you alone. If the above is true you're probably clinically depressed and the only thing keeping you from putting a gun to your head is King James. Man you better hope he doesn't go to NY.

[rugbyprop3]

Now that I think about it, I'll leave you alone. If the above is true you're probably clinically depressed and the only thing keeping you from putting a gun to your head is King James. Man you better hope he doesn't go to NY.

coming from someone with only 1 championship in the cities whole history, haha

[exodus]

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.

Yeah he is approaching troll status with his nonsense. The only reason there have been very few different teams winning titles in the last 14 years is because of teams that aren't playing any more. So why bring that stat up? it makes no sense.

[rugbyprop3]

Yeah he is approaching troll status with his nonsense. The only reason there have been very few different teams winning titles in the last 14 years is because of teams that aren't playing any more. So why bring that stat up? it makes no sense.

BY TEAMS THAT ARENT PLAYING ANYMORE? IN 85 THERE WHERE 23 TEAMS, IN 90 THERE WHERE 27 TEAMS, AND IN 08 THERE ARE 30 TEAMS, SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY MORE TEAMS NOW SO HOW DO YOU GET THE TEAMS THAT ARENT PLAYING ANY MORE

[AHF]

Knock off the attacks here, guys. If you don't see anything of merit just move on and don't feed the dialogue.

[exodus]

BY TEAMS THAT ARENT PLAYING ANYMORE? IN 85 THERE WHERE 23 TEAMS, IN 90 THERE WHERE 27 TEAMS, AND IN 08 THERE ARE 30 TEAMS, SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY MORE TEAMS NOW SO HOW DO YOU GET THE TEAMS THAT ARENT PLAYING ANY MORE

Obviously you didn't read my previous post. I guess i should explain something to you.

Even though the Bulls still exist Jodans Bulls are history. Even though the Celtics exist Bird's Celtics are history.

That nonsense stat you are using about the last 14 years is due in large part to Shaq and Duncan who have gone fishing. Trying to use the dominance of those two teams to say that top teams now are more dominant than teams in the past makes no sense.

This year the Cavs won't be facing a team in the playoffs that has more than one Finals appearance in recent years so acting like the top 3-4 teams now are "farther ahead of the curve" than the title teams of the 80s-90s is flat out ridiculous.

Edited May 6, 2009 by exodus

[rugbyprop3]

Obviously you didn't read my previous post. I guess i should explain something to you.

Even though the Bulls still exist Jodans Bulls are history. Even though the Celtics exist Bird's Celtics are history.

That nonsense stat you are using about the last 14 years is due in large part to Shaq and Duncan who have gone fishing. Trying to use the dominance of those two teams to say that top teams now are more dominant than teams in the past makes no sense.

This year the Cavs won't be facing a team in the playoffs that has more than one Finals appearance so acting like the top 3-4 teams now are "farther ahead of the curve" than the title teams of the 80s-90s is flat out ridiculous.

I can see where you are coming from, good points

[Atlantaholic]

Obviously you didn't read my previous post. I guess i should explain something to you.

Even though the Bulls still exist Jodans Bulls are history. Even though the Celtics exist Bird's Celtics are history.

That nonsense stat you are using about the last 14 years is due in large part to Shaq and Duncan who have gone fishing. Trying to use the dominance of those two teams to say that top teams now are more dominant than teams in the past makes no sense.

This year the Cavs won't be facing a team in the playoffs that has more than one Finals appearance in recent years so acting like the top 3-4 teams now are "farther ahead of the curve" than the title teams of the 80s-90s is flat out ridiculous.

Well, technically, the Lakers would have two finals appearances in the last two years if they were to play the Cavs.

[dlpin]

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.

Series to series, the Rockets beating the Spurs was a bigger upset than the hawks beating cleveland would be.

The game differential was "just" 15, but the rockets were an old team that had just played 2 series that had gone the maximum length, having just overcome a 3-1 deficit. And the only reason the Spurs did not win more games was because they had basically clinched the top spot with quite a few games in advance (while the Cavs were still playing all its starters until the next to last game because of the lakers). The jazz went on an 8 game winning streak and still finished two games behind the spurs.

Still, there are others. Houston in the 81 finals. Kansas City Kings over Phoenix Suns in 81 (that was a 17 game differential, but the Kings lost their leading scorer to injury during the series and he did not play the last 2 and a half games).

[Atlantaholic]

Series to series, the Rockets beating the Spurs was a bigger upset than the hawks beating cleveland would be.

The game differential was "just" 15, but the rockets were an old team that had just played 2 series that had gone the maximum length, having just overcome a 3-1 deficit. And the only reason the Spurs did not win more games was because they had basically clinched the top spot with quite a few games in advance (while the Cavs were still playing all its starters until the next to last game because of the lakers). The jazz went on an 8 game winning streak and still finished two games behind the spurs.

Still, there are others. Houston in the 81 finals. Kansas City Kings over Phoenix Suns in 81 (that was a 17 game differential, but the Kings lost their leading scorer to injury during the series and he did not play the last 2 and a half games).

You can argue all day about this but to say that a 47 win (with TWO starters injured) team beating a 66 win team (with the worlds most dominating player and MVP of the league) in the playoffs wouldn't be one of the greatest upsets ever is absurd. For one it has only happened twice before in the history of the league that a team beats another team with a win differential over 19. That enough solidifies it as historic.

[exodus]

Well, technically, the Lakers would have two finals appearances in the last two years if they were to play the Cavs.

Like i said, the Cavs won't have to face anyone who has more than one finals appearance in recent years.

Edited May 6, 2009 by exodus

[Atlantaholic]

Like i said, the Cavs won't have to face anyone who has more than one finals appearance in recent years.

You might as well say the Hawks have been to the finals before if they make it this year.

Fair enough, but it really isn't all that much different than the teams that Bulls beat to win their championships in the early 90's. They played a Laker team sans Kareem and Micheal Cooper in 1991, a Portland team that had just one finals appearance in that time period and a Phoenix team that never made the finals again.

Infact the only team in that three year period that the Bulls played which had more than one finals appearance were the Pistons and Lakers (who were very much in their decline at that point)

Also, something curious to note: If Boston hadn't sold their souls for a championship last season this would probably be the third year in a row that Cleveland makes it to the NBA finals (if they make it).

Edited May 6, 2009 by Atlantaholic

[AHF]

Fair enough, but it really isn't all that much different than the teams that Bulls beat to win their championships in the early 90's. They played a Laker team sans Kareem and Micheal Cooper in 1991, a Portland team that had just one finals appearance in that time period and a Phoenix team that never made the finals again.

Also, something curious to not. If Boston hadn't sold their souls for a championship last season this would probably be the third year in a row that Cleveland makes it to the NBA finals (if they make it).

The 1990-91 Bulls beat the two-time defending NBA Champion Detroit Pistons and a Lakers team that made the Finals for the 4th time in the last 5 years so I don't know that they really compare to this year's Cavs.

[dlpin]

You can argue all day about this but to say that a 47 win (with TWO starters injured) team beating a 66 win team (with the worlds most dominating player and MVP of the league) in the playoffs wouldn't be one of the greatest upsets ever is absurd. For one it has only happened twice before in the history of the league that a team beats another team with a win differential over 19. That enough solidifies it as historic.

It would be historic, no doubt. But the OP asked if it would be a top 3 upset of all times, and I said it wouldnt even be a top 3 NBA upset. 19 win differential is an important number, but an upset of a team with a 17 differential without it's leading scorer is a bigger upset to me. A team with a 12 win differential trailing 3-1 coming back to win it is a bigger upset to me. And this is all without going to the old ages, before it was an 82 game schedule. The lakers upset the hawks even though they were 16 games behind, but I think 16 games in a 72 game schedule is a bigger deal than a 19 game differential in a 82 game schedule.

So Im not saying that it wouldnt be noteworthy. But it wouldnt be a top 3, not overall, not in the nba.

[Atlantaholic]

The 1990-91 Bulls beat the two-time defending NBA Champion Detroit Pistons and a Lakers team that made the Finals for the 4th time in the last 5 years so I don't know that they really compare to this year's Cavs.

That Detroit team won 50 games that year, and that Laker team wasn't the same laker team that had all those finals appearances, they were old, and didn't have Kareem, Michael Cooper and a lot of the other players from those teams.

Obviously the teams in that era were better... but contextually the Cavs are as dominant as those Bulls teams, or will be in the next few years at least.

[dlpin]

That Detroit team won 50 games that year, and that Laker team wasn't the same laker team that had all those finals appearances, they were old, and didn't have Kareem, Michael Cooper and a lot of the other players from those teams.

Obviously the teams in that era were better... but contextually the Cavs are as dominant as those Bulls teams, or will be in the next few years at least.

And IF the cavs even win this year, they will have to go through 2 of 3 teams that have lost all-star caliber players for at least a third of the season.

The cavs are good, if they lose it would be a major upset, but they are far from being unbeatable, and they are far from being head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. They finished 4 games ahead of a celtics team that lost its best player for most of the second half of the season.

[Atlantaholic]

It would be historic, no doubt. But the OP asked if it would be a top 3 upset of all times, and I said it wouldnt even be a top 3 NBA upset. 19 win differential is an important number, but an upset of a team with a 17 differential without it's leading scorer is a bigger upset to me. A team with a 12 win differential trailing 3-1 coming back to win it is a bigger upset to me. And this is all without going to the old ages, before it was an 82 game schedule. The lakers upset the hawks even though they were 16 games behind, but I think 16 games in a 72 game schedule is a bigger deal than a 19 game differential in a 82 game schedule.

So Im not saying that it wouldnt be noteworthy. But it wouldnt be a top 3, not overall, not in the nba.

When you bring up the fact they were down in the series you are not making an equal comparison between series. You are comparing a Hawks - Cleveland series at 1-0 with a different series at 3-1... You either compare the Hawks - Cleveland series at 3 -1 or you compare the other series before at 1-0. The reason is because you are shifting the odds by analyzing one at 1-0 and 3-1... Obviously almost any series that is 3-1 will be a greater upset than one you make your prediction at 1-0.

[Atlantaholic]

And IF the cavs even win this year, they will have to go through 2 of 3 teams that have lost all-star caliber players for at least a third of the season.

The cavs are good, if they lose it would be a major upset, but they are far from being unbeatable, and they are far from being head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. They finished 4 games ahead of a celtics team that lost its best player for most of the second half of the season.

That Celtics team won 62 games dude... How many teams finished in second place winning 62 games???

Cleveland won 66 games this year and is probably going to its second finals appearance in three years. They are flat out dominant, outscoring teams by more than 10... Conversely our differential (in that same weak *ss league the Cavs play in) is not even over 2.

I'm not prepared to do THAT research but I'm willing to bet that if we were to beat Cleveland that would be one of the biggest discrepancies in NBA history as well.

Maybe Cleveland doesn't stack up well historically against other teams, but it doesn't matter, because NO TEAM today stack up against those teams either. The league is week for everyone, and in that league Cleveland won 66 games by outscoring teams by 10 + points and we won 47 by outscoring them by less than 2 points... All this talk is pointless though, because we won't win more than two games this series, at best. Such is the dominance of Cleveland compared to us.

EDIT: Cleveland's Point differential is actually 8.9 ours is 1.6... Quickly looking back at the ESPN standings of the last 17 years the only bigger upsets in terms of Point differential were Dallas - GS and Denver - Seattle

Edited May 6, 2009 by Atlantaholic

[dlpin]

When you bring up the fact they were down in the series you are not making an equal comparison between series. You are comparing a Hawks - Cleveland series at 1-0 with a different series at 3-1... You either compare the Hawks - Cleveland series at 3 -1 or you compare the other series before at 1-0. The reason is because you are shifting the odds by analyzing one at 1-0 and 3-1... Obviously almost any series that is 3-1 will be a greater upset than one you make your prediction at 1-0.

The question was as of right now would it be a top 3 upset, and no it wouldn't. there is nothing that says that you can only compare upsets this way or that way. In any case, if you need to add qualifiers to make the statement about it being a top upset, then it isnt.

[dlpin]

That Celtics team won 62 games dude... How many teams finished in second place winning 62 games???

Cleveland won 66 games this year and is probably going to its second finals appearance in three years. They are flat out dominant, outscoring teams by more than 10... Conversely our differential (in that same weak *ss league the Cavs play in) is not even over 2.

I'm not prepared to do THAT research but I'm willing to bet that if we were to beat Cleveland that would be one of the biggest discrepancies in NBA history as well.

Maybe Cleveland doesn't stack up well historically against other teams, but it doesn't matter, because NO TEAM today stack up against those teams either. The league is week for everyone, and in that league Cleveland won 66 games by outscoring teams by 10 + points and we won 47 by outscoring them by less than 2 points... All this talk is pointless though, because we won't win more than two games this series, at best. Such is the dominance of Cleveland compared to us.

EDIT: Cleveland's Point differential is actually 8.9 ours is 1.6... Quickly looking back at the ESPN standings of the last 17 years the only bigger upsets in terms of Point differential were Dallas - GS and Denver - Seattle

Let me ask you this:

if cleveland had beaten the celtics in last year's playoffs, would it have been the biggest upset ever? I don't think so, but if you just look at the numbers, it would have been. The numbers dont tell everything. And cleveland wasnt flat out dominant this year. They were 1 win ahead of a Lakers team that played half the season without its starting center, and 4 ahead of a team that gave up 10 more points a game without its best player. It would have split the series against the hawks if it wasnt for the bailout call.

Again, Im not saying it wouldnt be a big deal. But it is not top 3 NBA. We agree on sonics denver being a bigger upset, and on dallas GSW. And I don't think there is any doubt that Kansas City-Phoenix (17 win different, Phoenix margin 5.5 points, KC winning margin 0, but KC was without its top scorer in this series) is a bigger upset, or that lakers hawks in 58 (hawks defending champs, +16 wins on a 72 schedule), or that houston comming back from 3-1 were all bigger upsets.