I said nothing about the 2009 and 2010 Cavs winning the titles - I said they were favored to do well which was because of a carry job. Anyone who thought the Cavs would beat the Celtics got jobbed by overrating the regular season, as people often do.Kiddlovesnets wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:I dont think the OP understands how odds are put together. The reason why the Cavs were favored to do well in 2009 and 2010 is because thats what most casual fans expected - media craze and push. Nothing special about those teams, citing that Jordan's first round elimination teams were better feats than carrying teams to 60 wins is silly.
Also, the quality of opponent LBJ is facing in the finals is pretty severe. I mean this year if the Lakers make the finals, which they should if they are healthy - they're facing a mega stacked Nets team. Jordan won titles during an era with no superteams, in the 80s his teams were gobbled up because y'know, it's a team game.
Actually Lebron's Cavs were not favored in 2009 so I dont know what you are talking about. The 2010 Cavs were not pre-season favorites either, though they added Shaq who was an all-star in 2009 averaging 18/9 before joining up with Lebron so it was a championship window year for Lebron(top 3-4 teams in the league). Of course Shaq didnt seem to fit well with Lebron, but the team did look good enough to compete, at least for a trip to the finals. For the 2010 Cavs team, the expectation wasnt to win NBA title, but losing in the 2nd round was definitely below expectation.
The quality of Lebron's finals opponents aint as severe as you think, at least when compared to Lebron's own team(remember Lebron had superteams from 2011 to 2017 himself). MJ kept beating his opponents in the finals and thus they looked weaker in your eyes, while Lebron lost more to his opponents than he won, creating an illusion as if Lebron's opponents were so tough and unbeatable. Also the Lakers were pre-season favorite this season, and remained as favorite after Harden trade. If Lebron wins this year, its nothing special since he was expected to win anyway. And if he loses, theres no excuse saying the Nets or other teams were so good since Lakers were the better team.
Again, I don't think you know how odds work. And the Nets have acquired a lot more players since the Harden trade lol.
Jordan getting eliminated in the 2nd round as "above expectation" in 1995. No one even know Jordan would be on the Bulls before the season had started. The Bulls were actually favored to beat the Magic (Jordan played incredibly well in round 1 and averaged 32.5 points which was normal for him), and they were upset.
I don't get why you can't admit that this methodology is stupid. I mean it literally lacks details, so why are you defending it? Do you think that basketball lacks that much nuance? In fact, how can wins and losses even determine anything - it's not even a one on one sport. You're not even analyzing the quality of the team, you're just citing what people were guessing would happen before the season would started. That to you is undeniable evidence that Jordan is better than James? Do you think this type of thesis would get anything other than an F if it was graded?
If Michael Jordan in 1990 which is arguably his peak did not win a title, but he won a title in 1998 when he was a bit past it - what would that tell you about your method?