Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
DayofMourning wrote:It would please me to no end if Miami was able to sweep the Pacers. That would cripple their already fragile mindset.
Phinsoverpats wrote:That still doesn't explain how they suppose to score
Nuntius wrote:Phinsoverpats wrote:That still doesn't explain how they suppose to score
The same way we did last year.
Nuntius wrote:DayofMourning wrote:It would please me to no end if Miami was able to sweep the Pacers. That would cripple their already fragile mindset.
It would please me to no end if Indiana was able to beat the Heat. That would teach some people that this is what you get when you underestimate your opponents
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.
Nuntius wrote:DayofMourning wrote:It would please me to no end if Miami was able to sweep the Pacers. That would cripple their already fragile mindset.
It would please me to no end if Indiana was able to beat the Heat. That would teach some people that this is what you get when you underestimate your opponents
Phinsoverpats wrote:Nuntius wrote:Phinsoverpats wrote:That still doesn't explain how they suppose to score
The same way we did last year.
LeBron-FTW wrote:Nuntius wrote:DayofMourning wrote:It would please me to no end if Miami was able to sweep the Pacers. That would cripple their already fragile mindset.
It would please me to no end if Indiana was able to beat the Heat. That would teach some people that this is what you get when you underestimate your opponents
Some people on RealGM won't play in ECF, and i am 100% sure that Heat players won't underestimate anybody at this point of the season.
Nuntius wrote:LeBron-FTW wrote:Nuntius wrote:
It would please me to no end if Indiana was able to beat the Heat. That would teach some people that this is what you get when you underestimate your opponents
Some people on RealGM won't play in ECF, and i am 100% sure that Heat players won't underestimate anybody at this point of the season.
I really don't care that the fans themselves are not going to play. Underestimating your opponent is something that I just will not tolerate no matter which team someone supports.
wm3 wrote:Nuntius wrote:DayofMourning wrote:It would please me to no end if Miami was able to sweep the Pacers. That would cripple their already fragile mindset.
It would please me to no end if Indiana was able to beat the Heat. That would teach some people that this is what you get when you underestimate your opponents
Better keep dreaming
But hello Nuntius, ready for Round 3?
Game 1: MIA 103 IND 102 | Game Info | Analysis
Game 2: IND 97 MIA 93 | Game Info | Analysis
Game 3: MIA 114 IND 96 | Game Info | Analysis
Game 4: IND 99 MIA 92 | Game Info | Analysis
Game 5: MIA 90 IND 79 | Game Info | Analysis
Game 6: IND 91 MIA 77 | Game Info | Analysis
Game 7: MIA 99 IND 76
Nuntius wrote:LeBron-FTW wrote:Nuntius wrote:
It would please me to no end if Indiana was able to beat the Heat. That would teach some people that this is what you get when you underestimate your opponents
Some people on RealGM won't play in ECF, and i am 100% sure that Heat players won't underestimate anybody at this point of the season.
I really don't care that the fans themselves are not going to play. Underestimating your opponent is something that I just will not tolerate no matter which team someone supports.
Nuntius wrote:Phinsoverpats wrote:Nuntius wrote:
The same way we did last year.
Cute. Do you have a serious answer now or will you stick to gifs?
JVL wrote:Heat in 5.
Bite me.
Phinsoverpats wrote:Nuntius wrote:Phinsoverpats wrote:
Cute. Do you have a serious answer now or will you stick to gifs?
How you expect me to give a serious answer if you didn't give a serious answer?
Nuntius wrote:wm3 wrote:Nuntius wrote:
It would please me to no end if Indiana was able to beat the Heat. That would teach some people that this is what you get when you underestimate your opponents
Better keep dreaming
But hello Nuntius, ready for Round 3?
Absolutely. I don't know if I'll manage to post as often in the game threads due to my modding duties but I'll be here for the post-game comments.
but I will try to be here when the H___ win in 7 
Usual Suspects wrote:mopper8 wrote:huskerdu wrote:
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.
Ok gotta say, major props for this. Very well done.
The 87 Lakers is the one that will always stand out to me. When talking about GOAT, they are always mentioned in the conversation mostly with the 86 Celtics, 67 Sixers, 96 Bulls.