136 replies to this topic

[bnickle]

People were overrating the Spurs and underrating the Thunder pretty much throughout the playoffs. I mean I understand why considering SA won 20 in a row and the Thunder have always had to prove that they weren't too young. Point is, like I said the other night, OKC was the more talented team.

They have a more talented top 3, and probably a more talented overall team despite the depth advantage of the Spurs, but the Spurs play better as a team, and that's why they could have easily won this series. But some of that teamwork dissipated as the series went along and Parker's play fell off as did the play of some of the role players.

Well I edited my post above to address the overrating of depth when things get critical in bigtime playoff games. That depth was really the crutch of the argument for SA being better.

[mweb08]

We'll see if they win it all, but could this be the start of a Western Conference dynasty? The Spurs big 3 is aging, same with the Lakers and Mavs squads, so that leaves the Clippers and Grizzlies as teams that are at least somewhat likely to improve over the next 2-3 years. Maybe Denver too. But OKC should be at the top of the class for quite some time. Their best 4 players are 23 or younger!

[mweb08]

Well I edited my post above to address the overrating of depth when things get critical in bigtime playoff games. That depth was really the crutch of the argument for SA being better.

The Heat would love a better 4-8 on their roster right now. Stephen Jackson was obviously good depth tonight. But some of their depth disappointed this series, that doesn't mean it's not helpful. But yes, rotations do become tighter in the playoffs.

I think the way they play as a team was the main point for them being the better team in the regular season and in the Playoffs up until these past 4 games. The best team doesn't always win either.

[bnickle]

The Heat would love a better 4-8 on their roster right now. Stephen Jackson was obviously good depth tonight. But some of their depth disappointed this series, that doesn't mean it's not helpful. But yes, rotations do become tighter in the playoffs.

I think the way they play as a team was the main point for them being the better team in the regular season and in the Playoffs up until these past 4 games. The best team doesn't always win either.

They will 4/5 times in a 7 game series. And if they do it in 6 games winning 4 in a row I have no issue calling OKC the better team.

[mweb08]

The Heat would love a better 4-8 on their roster right now. Stephen Jackson was obviously good depth tonight. But some of their depth disappointed this series, that doesn't mean it's not helpful. But yes, rotations do become tighter in the playoffs.

I think the way they play as a team was the main point for them being the better team in the regular season and in the Playoffs up until these past 4 games. The best team doesn't always win either.

They will 4/5 times in a 7 game series. And if they do it in 6 games winning 4 in a row I have no issue calling OKC the better team.

That's fine, but when teams are so close to even, I don't think it's necessarily a better team wins situation, it's just the team that played better for that series and/or got some breaks. If a team is better by a decent margin, then yeah, they will win 4/5 times. OKC doesn't win 4/5 series against the Spurs imo.

[mweb08]

For example, if the refs called the game differently, maybe the Spurs win, and then they likely win game 7.

[You Play to Win the Game]

For example, if the refs called the game differently, maybe the Spurs win, and then they likely win game 7.

But the Spurs are one year older next year. While the OKCT are one year more mature.

[Chris B]

Good call. I'm a huge Durant fan.

Such a good dude. He's the antithesis of a lot of other star players. I'll certainly be rooting for them against either the Celtics or the Heat.

You can say that again. I'm still debating whether I want the Heat to make the Finals, only to lose there but get so close to a championship, or just lose to Boston tomorrow.

Either way, go Thunder!

[mweb08]

For example, if the refs called the game differently, maybe the Spurs win, and then they likely win game 7.

But the Spurs are one year older next year. While the OKCT are one year more mature.

Huh? I'm talking about this year.

I said earlier that they look to be embarking on a run of dominance in the Western Conference.

[bnickle]

They will 4/5 times in a 7 game series. And if they do it in 6 games winning 4 in a row I have no issue calling OKC the better team.

That's fine, but when teams are so close to even, I don't think it's necessarily a better team wins situation, it's just the team that played better for that series and/or got some breaks. If a team is better by a decent margin, then yeah, they will win 4/5 times. OKC doesn't win 4/5 series against the Spurs imo.

They are relatively evenly matched and I said that earlier in the thread but you play best of 7 games to minimize as much variance as possible. This is a series that would go relatively deep when they hypothetically play a series. That said, OKC proved they are a little better, not just better but more talented. I would bet on OKC winning a 7 game series 70-75 % of the time.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Huh? I'm talking about this year.

I said earlier that they look to be embarking on a run of dominance in the Western Conference.

Sorry dude. I'm hammered, and I thought you were saying the league is so close so it was unlikely that the OKCT would go on a run of dominance with that post I quoted. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[bnickle]

That's fine, but when teams are so close to even, I don't think it's necessarily a better team wins situation, it's just the team that played better for that series and/or got some breaks. If a team is better by a decent margin, then yeah, they will win 4/5 times. OKC doesn't win 4/5 series against the Spurs imo.

They are relatively evenly matched and I said that earlier in the thread but you play best of 7 games to minimize as much variance as possible. This is a series that would go relatively deep when they hypothetically play a series. That said, OKC proved they are a little better, not just better but more talented. I would bet on OKC winning a 7 game series 70-75 % of the time.

Actually, I'll back off 70-75%. That seems like too much which I'm sure MWeb is attacking right now as I type. I'll lower that to 60-65% of the time they play a series. I do think OKC proved they are a little better but not 3/4 times better.

[mweb08]

I disagree with the word prove and I think you'd lose money with your bet.

Using the word prove discounts the streaky nature of sports both on a team and individual level, discounts the variance in big shots during the series (Harden doesn't hit that 3 to ice game that often), and discounts the effects refs have on a series, among other things. Yes, it being 7 games reduces the overall variance, but it doesn't come close to removing it. If a couple of plays change in one game the Spurs lost go a different way and then the Spurs could easily win the series.

[mweb08]

Huh? I'm talking about this year.

I said earlier that they look to be embarking on a run of dominance in the Western Conference.

Sorry dude. I'm hammered, and I thought you were saying the league is so close so it was unlikely that the OKCT would go on a run of dominance with that post I quoted. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Haha, no worries. I hope you've had a good night of drinking! What's been the drink of choice?

[bnickle]

I disagree with the word prove and I think you'd lose money with your bet.

Using the word prove discounts the streaky nature of sports both on a team and individual level, discounts the variance in big shots during the series (Harden doesn't hit that 3 to ice game that often), and discounts the effects refs have on a series, among other things. Yes, it being 7 games reduces the overall variance, but it doesn't come close to removing it. If a couple of plays change in one game the Spurs lost go a different way and then the Spurs could easily win the series.

And this is the time we stop arguing because we end up going in circles and there is no way we are each giving in. Again, I have no problem calling the Thunder a little better. Neither did Barkley, SHaq, or I'm sure many other experts doing post series analysis. And I know you like your experts. You've pointed out many times before how you trust and believe them more than me.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Haha, no worries. I hope you've had a good night of drinking! What's been the drink of choice?

It's been a good night!

Dogfish Head - 90 Minute Imperial IPA. Simply the best.

[mweb08]

Haha, no worries. I hope you've had a good night of drinking! What's been the drink of choice?

It's been a good night!

Dogfish Head - 90 Minute Imperial IPA. Simply the best.

Great choice! Had some at the brewpub the other day including one that went through the Randall.

Not quite the best imo, though.

[mweb08]

I disagree with the word prove and I think you'd lose money with your bet.

Using the word prove discounts the streaky nature of sports both on a team and individual level, discounts the variance in big shots during the series (Harden doesn't hit that 3 to ice game that often), and discounts the effects refs have on a series, among other things. Yes, it being 7 games reduces the overall variance, but it doesn't come close to removing it. If a couple of plays change in one game the Spurs lost go a different way and then the Spurs could easily win the series.

And this is the time we stop arguing because we end up going in circles and there is no way we are each giving in. Again, I have no problem calling the Thunder a little better. Neither did Barkley, SHaq, or I'm sure many other experts doing post series analysis. And I know you like your experts. You've pointed out many times before how you trust and believe them more than me.

Well I wouldn't put any credence on what Shaq says. It's natural to say the team that won is just better, but that doesn't always make it right. Regardless, the word prove is the wrong word to use if logic is going to prevail. It's compelling evidence, I'll give you that.

[mweb08]

Just to prove why prove is the wrong word choice, the argument is the Thunder proved they are better by winning the series, yet the Spurs would have won 35-40% of series according to Branden, thus they would have proved they were better according to that argument 35-40%. It can't work that way.

[mweb08]

Back to flopping.

This was awful: http://youtu.be/8QU7mlNKgFg

For this, if it had been established that flopping can be punished after the fact, I would suspend Harden for a game. That's how you stop such nonsense.