Pacers will be the Biggest Underdogs to win the NBA Finals if they win over the Thunder

[durden_tyler]

One sided NBA Finals, on paper and in Vegas. Currently, the Thunder are at around -700 to win the championship. This is the tallest odds since the Warriors (2018 vs the Cavs) which were favored by -1100. (The Warriors went on to win that series via sweep)

Other "mismatched" NBA Finals were the first three-peat Lakers;

2000 vs the Pacers, Lakers favored -800, won 4-2
2001 vs the Sixers, Lakers favored -2000, won 4-1
2002 vs the Nets, Lakers favored -740, won 4-0

For more Vegas context, here are the other sort of one-sided match-ups (but not as big as this year's Thunder) with the favored team eventually beating the underdogs in the NBA Finals;

2023 Nuggets (-430) vs the Heat, won 4-1
2021 Lakers (-350) vs the Heat, won 4-2

On the flipside, here are the underdogs (though not as big as this year's Pacers) that eventually pulled off the upsets in the NBA Finals;

2019 Raptors (+230) vs the Warriors, won 4-2

The Cavaliers (+180) and the Bucks (+160) against the Warriors and Suns won in 2016 and 2021, respectively, but not really that much of a big underdog. You'd have to go way back to the 2004 Pistons (vs Lakers) as +500 underdogs for that big NBA Finals upset-- which was the biggest one (via Vegas odds) the last 20 or even 30 years).

Badly want to bet on the Pacers and for them to pull off the upset. but this is just not going against the Thunder-- it's going against history and Vegas too!

[-Luke-]

Not sure betting odds were around at the time and I certainly wasn't around. So correct me if I'm wrong, NBA historians. Here are some more where I could see that the team that was seen as the underdog won:

1975 Warriors (48-34 record) vs. Washington Bullets (60 wins - Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld and Phil Chenier were all top 10 in MVP voting that season). Warriors swept the Bullets! At least the sweep must have been a massive upset.

1969 Celtics over Lakers? Hard to call the Celtics underdogs. But they were a pretty old team with Russell in his last season, guys like KC Jones were already retired. Meanwhile the Lakers had West, Wilt and Baylor.

Not sure about the 1977 Finals. Blazers were a pretty young team and the 76ers had Dr. J.

Both Mavs vs. Heat series were interesting. In 2006 the Mavs were considered favorites if I remember correctly. They beat the Spurs in 7 and the Suns. Miami had a lot of big names on the roster, but some were pretty much washed and Wade was great, but in his third season. In 2011 the Mavs were already seen as underdogs in the first two rounds of the playoffs. In the series against the Lakers the ESPN crew famously voted unanimously Lakers. After the Mavs had reached the finals, nobody made jokes about them anymore, but they were still seen as underdog against the Heat. So in a sense the Heat and Mavs both stole one as underdogs against the other team.

[Bloodbather]

Surprised not to see the 2007 Finals here among the biggest discrepancies. It's the first example that comes to my mind when it comes to lopsided Finals matchups.

[zimpy27]

I think the odds are too extreme because both teams are making their first finals run. Pacers arguably got deeper experience last season and have Siakam who is the only one to be a star player in a finals series. Carlisle is also the more experienced coach.

[Optms]

Pistons over the Lakers in 2004?

What did the odds say there?

[Statlanta]

Pacers are more banged up and their strategy doesn't look like it will work against one of the youngest teams in the league. It is absolutely deserved.

[GiannisAnte34]

I think Nesmith might be playing through injury now which is a big factor for the Pacers

[jkvonny]

One sided NBA Finals, on paper and in Vegas. Currently, the Thunder are at around -700 to win the championship. This is the tallest odds since the Warriors (2018 vs the Cavs) which were favored by -1100. (The Warriors went on to win that series via sweep)

Other "mismatched" NBA Finals were the first three-peat Lakers;

2000 vs the Pacers, Lakers favored -800, won 4-2
2001 vs the Sixers, Lakers favored -2000, won 4-1
2002 vs the Nets, Lakers favored -740, won 4-0

For more Vegas context, here are the other sort of one-sided match-ups (but not as big as this year's Thunder) with the favored team eventually beating the underdogs in the NBA Finals;

2023 Nuggets (-430) vs the Heat, won 4-1
2021 Lakers (-350) vs the Heat, won 4-2

On the flipside, here are the underdogs (though not as big as this year's Pacers) that eventually pulled off the upsets in the NBA Finals;

2019 Raptors (+230) vs the Warriors, won 4-2

The Cavaliers (+180) and the Bucks (+160) against the Warriors and Suns won in 2016 and 2021, respectively, but not really that much of a big underdog. You'd have to go way back to the 2004 Pistons (vs Lakers) as +500 underdogs for that big NBA Finals upset-- which was the biggest one (via Vegas odds) the last 20 or even 30 years).

Badly want to bet on the Pacers and for them to pull off the upset. but this is just not going against the Thunder-- it's going against history and Vegas too!

What were the odds in 2011, Mavs/Heat?

[jkvonny]

Not sure betting odds were around at the time and I certainly wasn't around. So correct me if I'm wrong, NBA historians. Here are some more where I could see that the team that was seen as the underdog won:

1975 Warriors (48-34 record) vs. Washington Bullets (60 wins - Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld and Phil Chenier were all top 10 in MVP voting that season). Warriors swept the Bullets! At least the sweep must have been a massive upset.

1969 Celtics over Lakers? Hard to call the Celtics underdogs. But they were a pretty old team with Russell in his last season, guys like KC Jones were already retired. Meanwhile the Lakers had West, Wilt and Baylor.

Not sure about the 1977 Finals. Blazers were a pretty young team and the 76ers had Dr. J.

Both Mavs vs. Heat series were interesting. In 2006 the Mavs were considered favorites if I remember correctly. They beat the Spurs in 7 and the Suns. Miami had a lot of big names on the roster, but some were pretty much washed and Wade was great, but in his third season. In 2011 the Mavs were already seen as underdogs in the first two rounds of the playoffs. In the series against the Lakers the ESPN crew famously voted unanimously Lakers. After the Mavs had reached the finals, nobody made jokes about them anymore, but they were still seen as underdog against the Heat. So in a sense the Heat and Mavs both stole one as underdogs against the other team.

This is a good one.

Ya, the 1977 TBlazers , young expansion team, young players upsetting the Sixers after being down 0-2 in the series was one of the hugest upsets ever.

[durden_tyler]

Pistons over the Lakers in 2004?

What did the odds say there?

Pistons (+500) so very similar to the Pacers (+480)

*Different from one book to another and difficult to find the movement of bets in DET-LAL then but within that range or simply, a $10 bet nets you $50.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Froob]

huh not as crazy as I expected, I thought we’d see -900-1100 for okc

[durden_tyler]

Not sure betting odds were around at the time and I certainly wasn't around. So correct me if I'm wrong, NBA historians. Here are some more where I could see that the team that was seen as the underdog won:

1975 Warriors (48-34 record) vs. Washington Bullets (60 wins - Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld and Phil Chenier were all top 10 in MVP voting that season). Warriors swept the Bullets! At least the sweep must have been a massive upset.

1969 Celtics over Lakers? Hard to call the Celtics underdogs. But they were a pretty old team with Russell in his last season, guys like KC Jones were already retired. Meanwhile the Lakers had West, Wilt and Baylor.

Not sure about the 1977 Finals. Blazers were a pretty young team and the 76ers had Dr. J.

Both Mavs vs. Heat series were interesting. In 2006 the Mavs were considered favorites if I remember correctly. They beat the Spurs in 7 and the Suns. Miami had a lot of big names on the roster, but some were pretty much washed and Wade was great, but in his third season. In 2011 the Mavs were already seen as underdogs in the first two rounds of the playoffs. In the series against the Lakers the ESPN crew famously voted unanimously Lakers. After the Mavs had reached the finals, nobody made jokes about them anymore, but they were still seen as underdog against the Heat. So in a sense the Heat and Mavs both stole one as underdogs against the other team.

Yes difficult to find some to cross check and some not even available.

1977 Blazers win over 76ers, Blazers were +140 underdogs or just basically a toss-up.

Heat in 2006 were +130 dogs vs the Mavs so again small dogs but nothing to write home about.

Mavs in 2011 were +155 dogs vs super team Heat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[durden_tyler]

huh not as crazy as I expected, I thought we’d see -900-1100 for okc

To be fair the odds are a day or two old— let’s see if the bets continue to pour for OKC and we might just see it reach -900 or even more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joao Saraiva]

I just don't see it happening. Hope I'm wrong at least to the degree it's a great series. In my mind OKC wins in 5 at most.

[cupcakesnake]

I think the odds are too extreme because both teams are making their first finals run. Pacers arguably got deeper experience last season and have Siakam who is the only one to be a star player in a finals series. Carlisle is also the more experienced coach.

Those are 2 small details in an ocean of evidence that OKC comes into this series as a massive favorite.
68-win team vs. a 50-win team. +12.7 SRS vs. +1.7 SRS. Playoff net ratings of +11 vs. +4. Statistically these teams are nowhere near each other.

Then there's the matchups and tactical advantages.
- OKC is basically larger at every position.
- Pacers struggle against o-boards, OKC has iHart.
- Pacers attack weak spots with multiple ball handlers, but OKC has no weak spots and has 3 billion elite defenders against ball handlers.
- Pacers like to win the possession battle with steals and transition buckets, but OKC is the best turnover generating team ever, and an elite transition defense.
- Siakam is a punishing mismatch attacker, but does OKC have a mismatch for him?

I'm in love with the Pacers. Carlisle, Siakam, and Nembhard are some of my faves! This seems like a pretty massive david vs. goliath though.

[dhsilv2]

So in other words...a pretty normal strong favorite historically speaking?

[dhsilv2]

I think the odds are too extreme because both teams are making their first finals run. Pacers arguably got deeper experience last season and have Siakam who is the only one to be a star player in a finals series. Carlisle is also the more experienced coach.

Those are 2 small details in an ocean of evidence that OKC comes into this series as a massive favorite.
68-win team vs. a 50-win team. +12.7 SRS vs. +1.7 SRS. Playoff net ratings of +11 vs. +4. Statistically these teams are nowhere near each other.

Then there's the matchups and tactical advantages.
- OKC is basically larger at every position.
- Pacers struggle against o-boards, OKC has iHart.
- Pacers attack weak spots with multiple ball handlers, but OKC has no weak spots and has 3 billion elite defenders against ball handlers.
- Pacers like to win the possession battle with steals and transition buckets, but OKC is the best turnover generating team ever, and an elite transition defense.
- Siakam is a punishing mismatch attacker, but does OKC have a mismatch for him?

I'm in love with the Pacers. Carlisle, Siakam, and Nembhard are some of my faves! This seems like a pretty massive david vs. goliath though.

I'd just add...this OKC team is by basically any metric a historically great team. For some reason this board just refuses to add that context to them for some reason. I get there's a group that rightfully so wants to avoid be a prisoner of the moment, but 12+ SRS teams are wild. 12.8 net rating is the best since the 1996 Bulls.

They're historically dominate and their playoff run was somewhat "messed up" due to the war they had against Jokic...but they've otherwise pretty much just run through their other two opponents.

[ImSlower]

Is the -2000 betting on the 2001 Finals right in your own post clear evidence that it is not indeed the Biggest?

[zimpy27]

I think the odds are too extreme because both teams are making their first finals run. Pacers arguably got deeper experience last season and have Siakam who is the only one to be a star player in a finals series. Carlisle is also the more experienced coach.

Those are 2 small details in an ocean of evidence that OKC comes into this series as a massive favorite.
68-win team vs. a 50-win team. +12.7 SRS vs. +1.7 SRS. Playoff net ratings of +11 vs. +4. Statistically these teams are nowhere near each other.

Then there's the matchups and tactical advantages.
- OKC is basically larger at every position.
- Pacers struggle against o-boards, OKC has iHart.
- Pacers attack weak spots with multiple ball handlers, but OKC has no weak spots and has 3 billion elite defenders against ball handlers.
- Pacers like to win the possession battle with steals and transition buckets, but OKC is the best turnover generating team ever, and an elite transition defense.
- Siakam is a punishing mismatch attacker, but does OKC have a mismatch for him?

I'm in love with the Pacers. Carlisle, Siakam, and Nembhard are some of my faves! This seems like a pretty massive david vs. goliath though.

I don't think they are 2 small details. Experience is a factor that can bridge a 50-to-68 win gap. Not saying it will but I give Pacers a 1 in 4 chance of winning and the odds have them at 1 in 7.

I think Pacers speed on offense will give them chances to get by OKC touch defense. Not letting them get set or organised.

I think Pacers will score 110 minimum every game. Both teams like to win the turnover battle.

[dhsilv2]

I think the odds are too extreme because both teams are making their first finals run. Pacers arguably got deeper experience last season and have Siakam who is the only one to be a star player in a finals series. Carlisle is also the more experienced coach.

Those are 2 small details in an ocean of evidence that OKC comes into this series as a massive favorite.
68-win team vs. a 50-win team. +12.7 SRS vs. +1.7 SRS. Playoff net ratings of +11 vs. +4. Statistically these teams are nowhere near each other.

Then there's the matchups and tactical advantages.
- OKC is basically larger at every position.
- Pacers struggle against o-boards, OKC has iHart.
- Pacers attack weak spots with multiple ball handlers, but OKC has no weak spots and has 3 billion elite defenders against ball handlers.
- Pacers like to win the possession battle with steals and transition buckets, but OKC is the best turnover generating team ever, and an elite transition defense.
- Siakam is a punishing mismatch attacker, but does OKC have a mismatch for him?

I'm in love with the Pacers. Carlisle, Siakam, and Nembhard are some of my faves! This seems like a pretty massive david vs. goliath though.

I don't think they are 2 small details. Experience is a factor that can bridge a 50-to-68 win gap. Not saying it will but I give Pacers a 1 in 4 chance of winning and the odds have them at 1 in 7.

I think Pacers speed on offense will give them chances to get by OKC touch defense. Not letting them get set or organised.

I think Pacers will score 110 minimum every game. Both teams like to win the turnover battle.

Are there examples of two teams in the finals meeting both without titles and a 12+ regular reason differential being upset? I'm honestly curious if we have many examples.