Trying to Rank the Best Playoff Teams in History

[Djoker]

Read on Twitter

What do you think of this list?

[eminence]

What's the start year?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable list of best extended playoff runs. Obviously there's always individual situations to discuss on specific teams, but I think this is a good starting point of clear/reasonable data.

[Djoker]

What's the start year?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable list of best extended playoff runs. Obviously there's always individual situations to discuss on specific teams, but I think this is a good starting point of clear/reasonable data.

Since the shot clock so 1955.

[LukaTheGOAT]

96-98 Bulls really look like an outlier.

Incredible what they were able to do.

[eminence]

The obvious improvement for a 'best' list would be to factor in series win%/titles to some degree. As a Jazz fan I can tell you nobody seriously thinks of the '96-'98 Jazz a contender for top 10 playoff team ever. And rightfully so, rNet is nice for predictive purposes, but the goal is still to win titles.

[Rishkar]

It feels weird that there aren't more stretches of the Celtics dynasty and that the one set of years is so low. Were they really just winning a title by barely being the best team in the league every year?; this data seems to dispell the notion that they were a superteam brimming with HoF talent.

[Dr Positivity]

It feels weird that there aren't more stretches of the Celtics dynasty and that the one set of years is so low. Were they really just winning a title by barely being the best team in the league every year?; this data seems to dispell the notion that they were a superteam brimming with HoF talent.

Only playing conference finals and finals most years

[One_and_Done]

The best team ever was the 2017 or 2018 Warriors. Thread.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

1. As a Bulls fan and MJ fan, I am happy to see the Bulls dynasty taking two of the top three spots.

2. I am surprised the 84-86 Celtics are all the way down at #18, and that the 80-82 Celtics are higher at #13. The former is Bird's peak and the 86 Celtics are so celebrated, so I would have thought 84-86 would be higher.

3. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am a bit surprised the 12-14 Spurs rank higher than the 03-05 Spurs; the former probably is a deeper team, but the latter represents peak Duncan.

4. As mentioned by others, surprised not to see more of the 60s Celtics here.

5. The 15-17 Cavs being that high is probably a real testament to LeBron because, honestly, I never, ever thought of that Cavs core as being an ATG team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Steph's Warriors, Showtime, Bird's Celtics, Russell's Celtics, the Bad Boys, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, etc. They never struck me as being on that level outside of LeBron. However, I have always thought the 2015 and 2016 Finals were the best LeBron ever played. I feel like all of those Cavs runs were LeBron carry jobs to varying degrees.

6. I'm glad the Heatles aren't in the Top 10.

7. An observation - Magic and Kareem are the only two star players to be on three different runs on the list - Magic on three Lakers runs, Kareem on two Lakers runs and the Bucks run.

[OhayoKD]

1. As a Bulls fan and MJ fan, I am happy to see the Bulls dynasty taking two of the top three spots.

2. I am surprised the 84-86 Celtics are all the way down at #18, and that the 80-82 Celtics are higher at #13. The former is Bird's peak and the 86 Celtics are so celebrated, so I would have thought 84-86 would be higher.

3. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am a bit surprised the 12-14 Spurs rank higher than the 03-05 Spurs; the former probably is a deeper team, but the latter represents peak Duncan.

4. As mentioned by others, surprised not to see more of the 60s Celtics here.

5. The 15-17 Cavs being that high is probably a real testament to LeBron because, honestly, I never, ever thought of that Cavs core as being an ATG team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Steph's Warriors, Showtime, Bird's Celtics, Russell's Celtics, the Bad Boys, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, etc. They never struck me as being on that level outside of LeBron. However, I have always thought the 2015 and 2016 Finals were the best LeBron ever played. I feel like all of those Cavs runs were LeBron carry jobs to varying degrees.

6. I'm glad the Heatles aren't in the Top 10.

7. An observation - Magic and Kareem are the only two star players to be on three different runs on the list - Magic on three Lakers runs, Kareem on two Lakers runs and the Bucks run.

A good reminder SRS marks are not created equal. Smaller league + concentrated talent pool -> lower srs. Rapid expansion -> higher srs. PSRS somewhat mitigates as it minimizes the effect unusually weak outliers have on the sample, but it's important to keep in mind when you are comparing different eras

[Owly]

First glance notes

Playoff comps are always tough in terms of uneven competition, different contexts across eras.

Bothers me less here than for overall comps, but this adjustment is unbalanced in treating opponents RS as (all of) how good they are and not at all for the team in question. Not saying there’s a perfect solution. This will also tilt it towards weaker RS teams in terms of them needing to outscore stronger teams merely to advance (which is a prerequisite) whilst teams not maximally stomping (on paper) weaker opposition are effectively punished. A raw points margin version (and including the strength of schedule adjustments with the original results) would give some context.

Arbitrary cutoffs to ensure sample (and not just piling up on easy first round team?) are an imperfect tool. Again, I don’t know if there’s better? I’d look at something like potential series won (i.e. if to get to title you need to win 4 series then title = 100%, beaten in finals = 80%, CF 60%, CSF 40%, 1st round 20%, didn’t qualify for playoffs 0%) and then require a certain cumulative percentage across the years*. That would allow for different yearly levels where the cumulative advancement was similar. People could tweak it higher for titles although …

The obvious improvement for a 'best' list would be to factor in series win%/titles to some degree. As a Jazz fan I can tell you nobody seriously thinks of the '96-'98 Jazz a contender for top 10 playoff team ever. And rightfully so, rNet is nice for predictive purposes, but the goal is still to win titles.

As you said though it is a good, pure(ish) jumping off point. I wouldn’t like to do list based on what people think. And as ever, for the Jazz in particular … I haven’t watched all the games for all the calls … ’98 finals G6 features two objectively wrong clock calls, that if holding all else constant, swung the game for Chicago. Still a G7 to play (in Utah. Pippen probably less than 100%) … if want wants this as part of the measure that’s fine … I see good reason not to. Back to the more general point as I say a points system like the one above should give champs some advantage. That said champions are available enough to us all (I think) mentally that I like the purity of something without a big title bonus. Finally, wrt “I can tell you nobody seriously thinks of the '96-'98 Jazz a contender for top 10 playoff team ever. And rightfully so” … (back to Jazz in particular, sort of) that’s kind of not what this list is … if you asked them to come up with the top 10 unique teams within the criteria specified and they realize some teams aren't eligible maybe it becomes somewhat more conceivable (though some would have more early Celtics teams – and as has been noted accounting for era isn’t necessarily straightforward - and looking at it present criteria doesn't seem to happen to take out many powerhouses) if still not that likely. And how much can you rely on the generic "everyone" to mentally aggregate 3 year runs (it’s great that ’83 76ers run is memorable but being outscored by ’81 Bucks is relevant but probably less available) … it feels like different things.


I’d kind of prefer to see the non-unique runs included too.

*= Playoffs without a specific, constant level of series required depending on seed mess with this slightly but one could work around this.

[homecourtloss]

The obvious improvement for a 'best' list would be to factor in series win%/titles to some degree. As a Jazz fan I can tell you nobody seriously thinks of the '96-'98 Jazz a contender for top 10 playoff team ever. And rightfully so, rNet is nice for predictive purposes, but the goal is still to win titles.

This is probably a good idea, especially if we’re trying to find the “goodness” of an entire 3-year period that isn’t carried by one or two of the years. The ‘96-‘98 Jazz were very good, but as you say, nobody thought of them as a top 10 type of something though in some other time period perhaps they win a title. Everyone else on this list won at least one title.

1996-1998 Bulls: 3 titles
2016-2018 Warriors: 2 titles, one finals (game 7, last minute)
1991-1993 Bulls: 3 titles
2015-2017 Cavs: 1 title, 2 Finals
2012-2014 Spurs: 1 title, 1 Finals, one WCF
2000-2002 Lakers: 3 titles
1985-1987 Lakers: 2 titles, 1 WCF
1970-1972 Bucks: 1 title, 2 CF
1987-1989 Pistons: 1 title, 1 Finals, 1 ECF
1996-1998 Jazz: 2 Finals, 1 WCF
2008-2010 Lakers: 2 titles, 1 Finals
2011-2013 Heat: 2 titles, 1 Finals
1980-1982 Celtics: 1 title, 2 ECF Finals
2003-2005 Spurs: 2 titles, 1 WCSF
2004-2006 Pistons: 1 title, 1 Finals, 1 ECSF
1993-1995 Rockets: 2 titles, 1 WCSF
1959-1961 Celtics: 3 titles
1984-1986 Celtics: 2 titles, 1 Finals
1980-1982 Lakers: 2 titles, 1 first round
1989-1991 Lakers: 2 Finals, 1 WCSF

[Owly]

The obvious improvement for a 'best' list would be to factor in series win%/titles to some degree. As a Jazz fan I can tell you nobody seriously thinks of the '96-'98 Jazz a contender for top 10 playoff team ever. And rightfully so, rNet is nice for predictive purposes, but the goal is still to win titles.

This is probably a good idea, especially if we’re trying to find the “goodness” of an entire 3-year period that isn’t carried by one or two of the years. The ‘96-‘98 Jazz were very good, but as you say, nobody thought of them as a top 10 type of something though in some other time period perhaps they win a title. Everyone else on this list won at least one title.

1996-1998 Bulls: 3 titles
2016-2018 Warriors: 2 titles, one finals (game 7, last minute)
1991-1993 Bulls: 3 titles
2015-2017 Cavs: 1 title, 2 Finals
2012-2014 Spurs: 1 title, 1 Finals, one WCF
2000-2002 Lakers: 3 titles
1985-1987 Lakers: 2 titles, 1 WCF
1970-1972 Bucks: 1 title, 2 CF
1987-1989 Pistons: 1 title, 1 Finals, 1 ECF
1996-1998 Jazz: 2 Finals, 1 WCF
2008-2010 Lakers: 2 titles, 1 Finals
2011-2013 Heat: 2 titles, 1 Finals
1980-1982 Celtics: 1 title, 2 ECF Finals
2003-2005 Spurs: 2 titles, 1 WCSF
2004-2006 Pistons: 1 title, 1 Finals, 1 ECSF
1993-1995 Rockets: 2 titles, 1 WCSF
1959-1961 Celtics: 3 titles
1984-1986 Celtics: 2 titles, 1 Finals
1980-1982 Lakers: 2 titles, 1 first round
1989-1991 Lakers: 2 Finals, 1 WCSF

Per above whilst I would agree that greater advancement (including titles) could be integrated either into qualifying criteria by doing it more granularly as above or into the overall ouput measure ... if all the others have a title and the Jazz manage to get there without it ... putting a hard title qualifier or a particularly strong title bonus in seems (a) unnecessary and (b) designed to reverse engineer a result in line with prior beliefs.

Also per above ... the '98 Jazz arguably - granting the caveats regarding checking all reffing decisions ... should given more accurate refereeing decisions been in a position where they would have been favorites for that years title.

That said I may be missing something, as you say " especially if we’re trying to find the “goodness” of an entire 3-year period that isn’t carried by one or two of the years ..." and that reads to me like the case for allowing multiple "very good" years without a "great" one, whereas a title qualifier or heavy bonus seems to me to go in the opposite direction.

[homecourtloss]

2. I am surprised the 84-86 Celtics are all the way down at #18, and that the 80-82 Celtics are higher at #13. The former is Bird's peak and the 86 Celtics are so celebrated, so I would have thought 84-86 would be higher.

3. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am a bit surprised the 12-14 Spurs rank higher than the 03-05 Spurs; the former probably is a deeper team, but the latter represents peak Duncan.

It’s a calculation using rNRtg, so a few series can change things. The ‘85 Celtics played a series in which they won a series vs. the Cavs 3-1, but didn’t outscore the Cavs. The 1986 Celtics didn’t destroy a relatively weak NRtg finalist in the Rockets.

As for the Spurs, no surprise there as the 2003 team didn’t have a really dominant blowout series win and that obviously affects NRtg. It doesn’t help that you had the 2005 Spurs get outscored by the Pistons in the Finals. Meanwhile the 2012 Spurs obliterated their first two round opponents and were only stopped by an all time talented albeit younger OKC team. The 2013 Spurs were basically a +8 SRS team in disguise. 2013 Spurs are underrated by most because they’re seen as the lesser team (rightfully) than the great 2014 team, but the 2013 SAS were really, really good in their own right.

Sansterre has a great writeup of the 2013 team ‪https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2042247‬, #21 on his top 100 list.

Consider that 2013 Spurs team was a +6.7 SRS team with these regular season minutes:

Duncan, 69 games, 30 mpg (a much stronger version of Duncan compared to 2014 at least in the regular season)
Parker, 66 games, 32 mpg
Manu, 60 games, 23 mpg
Kawhi, 58 games, 31 mpg

58 games won, +6.7 SRS with this many missing games and so few minutes played relative to other teams’ best players’ minutes.

4. As mentioned by others, surprised not to see more of the 60s Celtics here.

See OhayKD’s post. Sansterre’s list that has postseason SRS ameliorates a bit for this.

5. The 15-17 Cavs being that high is probably a real testament to LeBron because, honestly, I never, ever thought of that Cavs core as being an ATG team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Steph's Warriors, Showtime, Bird's Celtics, Russell's Celtics, the Bad Boys, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, etc. They never struck me as being on that level outside of LeBron. However, I have always thought the 2015 and 2016 Finals were the best LeBron ever played. I feel like all of those Cavs runs were LeBron carry jobs to varying degrees.

LeBron perhaps at the height of his powers in some ways. Including regular season and playoffs:

LeBron on court, Kyrie and Love off: Cavs +7.3
Kyrie and Love on court, LeBron off: Cavs -2.3

Playoffs only:

LeBron on court, Kyrie and Love off: Cavs +8.5
Kyrie and Love on court, LeBron off: Cavs -5.1

LeBron was unlucky that the 2015 team got injured and that the once in a lifetime Warriors formed out west. In 2015, after the Cavaliers made their trades to make a title run, LeBron/Love/Kyrie were 33-3 with a gargantuan SRS.

With Lebron, the 2015 Cavs went 50-19(59-win). Without they went 3-10 going at a 19-win pace. With all three of Love, Kyrie, and Lebron, the Cavs were 42-5(73-win) improving from 4-11 with just kyrie and love 21-win(note that's a 3-year sample, not just 2015).

—LeBron, after the trades was +15.5 on court +18.3 on-off.
—LeBron/Love/Kyrie were +18.0 on court in 32 games in the regular season.
—LeBron/TT/Shumpert were +21.9 (look at all that spacing!)
—LeBron/Shump/Delly were +23.7
—LeBron/Love/TT were +26.
—The Cavs at home rarely even trailed in any games after those trades, usually the mark of a dominant team. James was +21.3 on court, and James/Love/Kyrie were +24.1 on court (113.7 ORtg, 89.7 DRtg) and undefeated, 17-0, sans the final game, which they won, but sat out all their top players. The 2017 Warriors, for example, were 24-4 with KD/Curry/Dray, +25 on court.

2015 Cleveland post the trades and with a physically dimished James was an absolute monster team, headed for a titanic clash with the Golden State Warriors. I’d also like to point out that against a great Golden State Warriors team, the Cavaliers did not trail after any quarter through the first three games other than at the end of overtime in game one which involved a lot of iffy calls.

Only injuries derailed that team, which included a nice little 4-0 sweep of a 60 win Hawks team with no Love and little Kyrie (2 games played, 49 mp, 13 ppg).

[Djoker]

The obvious improvement for a 'best' list would be to factor in series win%/titles to some degree. As a Jazz fan I can tell you nobody seriously thinks of the '96-'98 Jazz a contender for top 10 playoff team ever. And rightfully so, rNet is nice for predictive purposes, but the goal is still to win titles.

I generally agree with your sentiment but the Jazz did run into the juggernaut Bulls twice though. Sansterre's list has the 1997 Bulls at #14 and 1998 Bulls at #19 and quite frankly I think his list underrates the 1997 Bulls at that. It weighs their gargantuan regular season too little and their 1st round non-obliteration of the Bullets a bit too much. The Jazz also lost to the Sonics in 1996 while outscoring them. Of course if they won that series they would have threepeated in Finals losses.

If the Jazz faced two Finals teams from surrounding years like 1994 Knicks, 1995 Magic, 1999 Knicks, 2000 Pacers they very likely win 1-2 rings.

[OhayoKD]

2. I am surprised the 84-86 Celtics are all the way down at #18, and that the 80-82 Celtics are higher at #13. The former is Bird's peak and the 86 Celtics are so celebrated, so I would have thought 84-86 would be higher.

3. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am a bit surprised the 12-14 Spurs rank higher than the 03-05 Spurs; the former probably is a deeper team, but the latter represents peak Duncan.

It’s a calculation using rNRtg, so a few series can change things. The ‘85 Celtics played a series in which they won a series vs. the Cavs 3-1, but didn’t outscore the Cavs. The 1986 Celtics didn’t destroy a relatively weak NRtg finalist in the Rockets.

As for the Spurs, no surprise there as the 2003 team didn’t have a really dominant blowout series win and that obviously affects NRtg. It doesn’t help that you had the 2005 Spurs get outscored by the Pistons in the Finals. Meanwhile the 2012 Spurs obliterated their first two round opponents and were only stopped by an all time talented albeit younger OKC team.

Just some notes on that, I think now even more, underrated 2012 OKC side:

-> Had managed multiple 50-win seasons taking the eventual champions to 6 the previous 2 years
-> Posted a higher PSRS than either the 97 or 98 Jazz featured in the above list
-> Posted a +9 SRS(almost unheard of in periods of non-expansion) the next year despite losing James Harden
-> Took one of the best playoff teams ever in the Spurs to 6 without Ibaka when Westbrook was next available
-> Obviously nearly knocked off two 67+win teams in 2016(though injury played a big factor in that second series tbf

A sneaky all-time non-champion even with westbrook and durant not really their best selves. Almost spurs/pistons esque(minus the ring )

They had the misfortune of running into the heatles the one series their big 3 was healthy post 2011 with Wade getting his knees filled after the conference finals(and this did hurt their playoff rating a bit), but they should probably be higher regarded

[AEnigma]

I would probably not favour the 1996-98 Jazz over the 1994 Knicks and almost certainly not the 2000 Pacers. 1999 Knicks are a lazy given; they are a total outlier as a Finals roster (granted, I would take the Jazz even if that Knicks team had Ewing available). And to whatever extent I would consider the Jazz over the 1995 Magic, it would be exclusively because Shaq’s inability to capably defend their pnrs made him a dream matchup.

If the Jazz had won either title, they would routinely be at the top of those “worst title team” competitions. Yeah, they handled the league well enough and especially their own conference, but that says dramatically more about the state of the league than it does about how absolutely good that team was. Is Bryon Russell really providing that much of an upgrade over the 1994/95 teams? Did they really fall off that hard in 1999/2000? Who watched and sincerely thought they were some legendary top ten all-time contender? Come on now.

Same principle for the 1980-82 Celtics. Strong team, sure, but they have no answer for the 1984-86 iteration.

[VanWest82]

5. The 15-17 Cavs being that high is probably a real testament to LeBron because, honestly, I never, ever thought of that Cavs core as being an ATG team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Steph's Warriors, Showtime, Bird's Celtics, Russell's Celtics, the Bad Boys, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, etc. They never struck me as being on that level outside of LeBron. However, I have always thought the 2015 and 2016 Finals were the best LeBron ever played. I feel like all of those Cavs runs were LeBron carry jobs to varying degrees.

Outside of 2015 with all the injuries, "carry job" is too strong imo. You go down the rosters and those Cavs teams had a ton of talent. What they didn't have were back up creators, and so they sucked anytime Lebron wasn't on the floor. Kyrie wasn't good enough at that point to be an offense onto himself like we've seen at times with Boston, Nets, and Mavs; he was more of secondary creator with Cavs. Even one more decent creator off the bench would've done wonders for that team, but they chose to go with pieces that fit around Lebron instead, and it's hard to quibble with the results given Bron played 40+ mins in the playoffs.

The other thing, and we could probably do this to some degree with all these teams, is 15-17 Cavs faced a LOT of paper tigers. Raptors and Hawks were two good regular season teams that played well together and had good benches, but no real stars and were system teams that could be manipulated in the playoffs. We certainly saw more than just Cavs do that to them. The #1 seed Avery Bradley Celtics weren't exactly the formidable opponent the regular season record would've suggested. I'd argue 2015 Bulls (+2 SRS) were actually the best team Cavs played from that period outside of the Finals. And maybe Warriors make up for all of that. The fact that Cavs even made this list despite only winning once is interesting. It's definitely a feather in Lebron's cap. He was incredible.

[OhayoKD]

5. The 15-17 Cavs being that high is probably a real testament to LeBron because, honestly, I never, ever thought of that Cavs core as being an ATG team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Steph's Warriors, Showtime, Bird's Celtics, Russell's Celtics, the Bad Boys, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, etc. They never struck me as being on that level outside of LeBron. However, I have always thought the 2015 and 2016 Finals were the best LeBron ever played. I feel like all of those Cavs runs were LeBron carry jobs to varying degrees.

Outside of 2015 with all the injuries, "carry job" is too strong imo. You go down the rosters and those Cavs teams had a ton of talent. What they didn't have were back up creators, and so they sucked anytime Lebron wasn't on the floor. Kyrie wasn't good enough at that point to be an offense onto himself like we've seen at times with Boston, Nets, and Mavs; he was more of secondary creator with Cavs. Even one more decent creator off the bench would've done wonders for that team, but they chose to go with pieces that fit around Lebron instead, and it's hard to quibble with the results.

You're forgetting the defensive side of the ball here. Frankly I don't buy into the WOWY side of things fully(i think average offense, bad defense makes more sense in my head at least), but kyrie and kevin love were bad defenders and the other "good" defenders here have little evidence of being good outside of when Lebron was orchestrating them.

[Djoker]

Ok I've broken down the Jazz run series by series.

1996 Jazz

1st Round vs. Blazers: +13.9 rNet (+9.9 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Spurs: +20.6 rNet (+10.6 rORtg, -10.0 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Sonics: +11.2 rNet (+2.8 rORtg, -8.4 rDRtg)

Postseason: +15.0 rNet (+6.7 rORtg, -8.3 rDRtg)

1997 Jazz

1st Round vs. Clippers: +12.2 rNet (+14.1 rORtg, +1.9 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Lakers: +8.7 rNet (+7.3 rORtg, -1.4 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Rockets: +7.5 rNet (+8.8 rORtg, +1.3 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Bulls: +11.2 rNet (+1.4 rORtg, -9.8 rDRtg)

Postseason: +9.6 rNet (+6.5 rORtg, -3.1 rDRtg)

1998 Jazz

1st Round vs. Rockets: +6.8 rNet (-4.9 rORtg, -11.7 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Spurs: +4.7 rNet (+2.4 rORtg, -2.3 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Lakers: +23.3 rNet (+12.4 rORtg, -10.9 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Bulls: -1.5 rNet (-3.7 rORtg, -2.2 rDRtg)

Postseason: +7.3 rNet (+0.1 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg)

And my take on it:

The 1996 Jazz had an absolutely absurd +15 rNet. They lost in 7 games to the Sonics in the WCF while outscoring them by 18 points. They were also extremely dominant through the entire playoffs and look very much like a championship capable team.

The 1997 Jazz went 41-6 to finish the regular season then had a +9.6 rNet in the playoffs which is really really good. In fact only 6 losing teams in the Finals had a better rNet in the postseason. They lost to the juggernaut 1997 Bulls in 6 games by only 4 points and had a very strong +11.2 rNet showing in the Finals. I think it was colts18 who posted in another thread that the 1997 Jazz had the best 5-man lineup since PBP started. I think the 1997 Jazz had they faced an easier opponent and won a title would be like a standard level title team. Not an insane juggernaut but not a weak champion.

The 1998 Jazz were much weaker with +7.3 rNet which is around average for a post-merger Finals losing team. In fact, they struggled in the playoffs outside of the WCF where they totally demolished the Lakers. If they had won the title, they would have been a weak champion.