Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
jjgp111292 wrote:The Pacers have had a fire in their stomach for this series for a year now. They are built to dethrone Miami; big frontline, to exploit Miami's size weakness. Their entire identity is predicated on being the Heat-killers. They finally have homecourt advantage AND the passion and desire needed to dethrone Miami.
Miami in 5.
XxIronChainzxX wrote:jjgp111292 wrote:The Pacers have had a fire in their stomach for this series for a year now. They are built to dethrone Miami; big frontline, to exploit Miami's size weakness. Their entire identity is predicated on being the Heat-killers. They finally have homecourt advantage AND the passion and desire needed to dethrone Miami.
Miami in 5.
That was a great build up.
DragicTime85 wrote:[Ric Bucher] has a tiny wiener and I can prove it.
HeatFanSince87 wrote:Where's the people who were already wrapping up the Hawks and Raps series when the Pacers and Nets were down 2-3? Saying how easy Miami had it...
Miami still had to go through the Nets and now the Pacers without HCA, if they get back to the finals.
Miami had HCA against the Nets... huskerdu wrote:Miami will have had one of the easiest runs to the Finals in NBA history.
DragicTime85 wrote:[Ric Bucher] has a tiny wiener and I can prove it.
mopper8 wrote:huskerdu wrote:Miami will have had one of the easiest runs to the Finals in NBA history.
I don't think you're very familiar with NBA history.
mopper8 wrote:HEY DUDE. Long time no see. Sorry we didn't get your team in the second round, it was a good year for Toronto, would've been nice to see them win a series.
huskerdu wrote:mopper8 wrote:huskerdu wrote:Miami will have had one of the easiest runs to the Finals in NBA history.
I don't think you're very familiar with NBA history.
No, it's true. They don't choose who they play, but even the Blazers would have gotten to the Finals if they had Miami's path.
DragicTime85 wrote:[Ric Bucher] has a tiny wiener and I can prove it.
mopper8 wrote:huskerdu wrote:mopper8 wrote:
I don't think you're very familiar with NBA history.
No, it's true. They don't choose who they play, but even the Blazers would have gotten to the Finals if they had Miami's path.
No, it's not anywhere close to true. Where to start?
Before 1967, the NBA playoffs were only two rounds and the the division winners got a 1st round bye. That meant a team only had to win one series to make the Finals. So, for example, the 1963 Celtics had to beat the 42-38 Cincy Royals to get to the finals. That's it. 1 team barely over .500. Their Finals opponent that season, the Lakers, had to beat only one team as well, the moderately more challenging 48-win St. Louis Hawks. Both teams graded out at about ~1 point better than league average per game. Is Miami's road to the Finals easier than that? The suggestion is ludicrous. In fact, there is barely a team before 1967 who could claim a harder road to the Finals than what Miami has this season.
So, set aside the "NBA history" hyperbole for a moment. What about post-1st round byes? Well, from 67 until 75 the playoffs stayed at 2 rounds, so even without a 1st round bye, teams often had rather easy paths to the Finals. The 74 Celtics, for example, only had to beat the 42-40 Buffalo Braves and the 49-33 Knicks en route to the Finals, hardly tougher or even as tough as Miami's 3 teams this year, no matter what you think of how Indiana is playing right now. In 1970, the Lakers only had to beat the 39 win Suns and 48-win Hawks.
Ok ok, so maybe when you said "NBA history" you didn't mean "NBA history," you meant post-merger NBA history, right?
Post-merger, though, they reinstated the 1st round bye for top seeds, so even though there were 3 rounds, some teams only had to win 2 series, not always against top flight competition either. In 77, the Sixers had to beat the 44-win Celtics (-1.9 SRS) and the 49-win Rockets (1.44 SRS). That's an easier two teams than Nets/Pacers and you don't even have a first round to worry about.
Ok ok, so maybe when you said "NBA history," what you really meant was NBA history since every team had to play all 3 rounds.
But then, of course, you have the Lakers in the 80s. In 84, for example, LA had the 38-44 KC Kings (negative SRS), followed by the 43-win Mavs (0.15 SRS), and then the 41-41 Phoenix Suns (0.65 SRS). There is no possible way anyone could honestly consider this a harder road to the Finals then what Miami has now. In 87, LA had the 37-win Nuggets, then the 42-win Warriors, and then 39 win Supersonics. That's right, LA's competition was collectively below .500 prior to the Finals. Again, no way you could possibly think that's anywhere near as difficult as what Miami has to go through now.
Ok, ok, so maybe when you said "NBA history," what you really meant was modern NBA history, because they weren't even playing defense in the early/mid 80's, right?
Well, the 91 Bulls had the 39-win Knicks, 44-win Sixers, and the 50-win Pistons. That's roughly comparable to what Miami had to face this season, by team metrics (SRS, win%), maybe even easier. But there was some star power there, so let's just set that aside and go more modern.
In 2000, the Pacers had to beat the 42-win Bucks (0 SRS), the 49 win Sixers (1 SRS), and the 50 win Knicks (1.3 SRS). Easier road that Miami has now.
In 2001, the Sixers beat the 41-win Pacers, the 47-win Raptors, and the 52 win Bucks (3.13 SRS). Easier road than Miami, pretty clearly.
In 2002, the Nets beat the 42 win Pacers, the 44-win Hornets, and the 49-win Celtics. Not much different from Miami's path to the Finals, definitely easier if Indy shows up.
In 2003, the Nets beat the 42 win Bucks, the 44 win Celtics, and the 50 win Pistons (3 SRS). Equal to or easier than Miami's run this year.
So even modern NBA history is out. So I guess when you say "NBA history" I don't know what you're talking about. Or more accurately, you don't know what you're talking about.
PaulieWal wrote:[Even against the Wizards they haven't looked much better (a team that is supposed to be a good match-up for Hibbert and the Pacers). It doesn't matter. They went to game 7 with a 37 win Hawks team (no matter how bad of a match-up that was for them).
wm3 wrote:EArl wrote:I picked Miami to lose last year against the pacers and spurs, but this year I think they get through the pacers in 6 or 7 unless the pacers bring their regular season play into this.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
EArl wrote:wm3 wrote:EArl wrote:I picked Miami to lose last year against the pacers and spurs, but this year I think they get through the pacers in 6 or 7 unless the pacers bring their regular season play into this.
You're upset because I picked the Heat to win? Strange.
mopper8 wrote:huskerdu wrote:Miami will have had one of the easiest runs to the Finals in NBA history.
I don't think you're very familiar with NBA history.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
wm3 wrote:EArl wrote:wm3 wrote:
You're upset because I picked the Heat to win? Strange.
I know your'e trying to reverse jinx us
But I do agree that I see the Heat getting through Indiana in 6 or 7 games
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
