Series Thread: 2nd Round: Cleveland Cavs vs Toronto Raptors

[TJL]

Where did you get these stats? I'd be curious to know the 3 teams that had 60+ wins in the last three years that were beat by the Cavs.

Last years Warriors, the 14/15 Hawks, and I believe that's it.

 

[LAD]

It isn't "beat", its "faced". Though they did beat 2 of the 3.

'15 Hawks, '15 Warriors, '16 Warriors

LOL oh ok. Well that certainly changes the meaning of those stats. Why would we care how times they faced them instead of how many they've beaten?

 

[LAD]

Last years Warriors, the 14/15 Hawks, and I believe that's it.

Well you've left one off since the stat showed it was 3 teams.

 

[TJL]

Well you've left one off since the stat showed it was 3 teams.

That's why I said "And I believe that's it"

I'm not the one that posted the original stat

and Gordon already said it's 3 teams faced, not beaten.

So Warriors have played 0 teams with 60+ and Cavs played 3, 14/15 Haws, 14/15 Warriors, 15/16 warriors.

 

[Heatles84]

Except the Raps and Jazz are actually close in terms of talent, and the Cavs/Bulls are not.

Apples and Oranges.

I always like to judge teams based on their offensive and defensive rankings during the season. Sure, there are outlier stats as it relates to the Cavs. For the most part, they're fairly accurate.

 

[Heatles84]

Meh it's different when comparing teams that are closer in record. Taking the 8 seed and comparing them to the "first seed" isnt a fair comparison. Utah and Toronto, well either way no team is much greater than the other. I think it would go 6-7 games, Toronto probably wins but we will never know lol

I think the Jazz would win because they're a more balanced, better coached team. Again, as I've mentioned in this thread. The collection of the teams that the Dubs and Cavs have faced are nearly similar and there's no clear disparity.

 

[TJL]

I always like to judge teams based on their offensive and defensive rankings during the season. Sure, there are outlier stats as it relates to the Cavs. For the most part, they're fairly accurate.

I think how they fared heads up, when they had the same exact record over 82 games, is pretty fair.

 

[gordontrue]

LOL oh ok. Well that certainly changes the meaning of those stats. Why would we care how times they faced them instead of how many they've beaten?

I mean, we can leave off the Finals match-ups and just stick to the Finals path... and its still the same result.

Warriors have faced and beaten 4 50-win teams in the western conference the last 3 playoffs.

Cavs have faced and beaten 4 50-win teams (and 1 60-win team) in the eastern conference the last 3 playoffs.

 

[TJL]

I think the Jazz would win because they're a more balanced, better coached team. Again, as I've mentioned in this thread. The collection of the teams that the Dubs and Cavs have faced are nearly similar and there's no clear disparity.

I agree

 

[Heatles84]

It isn't "beat", its "faced". Though they did beat 2 of the 3.

'15 Hawks, '15 Warriors, '16 Warriors

Everyone talks about the Cavs' path to the Finals being a cake walk. Not the Finals itself. Also, I put any Hawks team in the same category as the Raps - good regular season team, but fraud playoff team.

 

[gordontrue]

Everyone talks about the Cavs' path to the Finals being a cake walk. Not the Finals itself. Also, I put any Hawks team in the same category as the Raps - good regular season team, but fraud playoff team.

See my comment above. Leave out the Finals and the numbers still point to pretty even paths, with a slight edge to the Cavs path actually being harder.

Thats just numbers, your eyes may tell you something different... but my overall point isn't that the Cavs have had a more difficult path - just that the general perception of the Warriors path to the Finals being much more difficult is largely overstated.

 

[LAD]

Over the last 3 years...

Combined regular season wins by playoff opponents in the first 3 rounds:
- Cavs 391
- Dubs 388

Series against teams with 50+ wins
- Cavs 6
- Dubs 6

Series against teams with 60+ wins
- Cavs 3
- Dubs 0

Tell me more about the Warriors path being so much more difficult.

I think using the last stat as part of your debate on which team had the more difficult path can be seen as a bit . Here's why. Only 1 of those 3 teams was a team in their conference & the other two were the Warriors.

That's why I said "And I believe that's it"

I'm not the one that posted the original stat

and Gordon already said it's 3 teams faced, not beaten.

So Warriors have played 0 teams with 60+ and Cavs played 3, 14/15 Haws, 14/15 Warriors, 15/16 warriors.

LOL but why would you believe that's it if the stat showed there were 3 teams?

 

[TJL]

I think using the last stat as part of your debate on which team had the more difficult path can be seen as a bit . Here's why. Only 1 of those 3 teams was a team in their conference & the other two were the Warriors.

LOL but why would you believe that's it if the stat showed there were 3 teams?

"I believe that's it"

as in, I believe the 14/15 Hawks and 15/16 Warriors are it and there's only 2.


But then I realized he was talking about teams faced after the fact.

 

[gordontrue]

I think using the last stat as part of your debate on which team had the more difficult path can be seen as a bit . Here's why. Only 1 of those 3 teams was a team in their conference & the other two were the Warriors.

Again, take out the Finals, and its essentially the same thing. Slight edge to the Cavs path being more difficult.

The first stat (391 vs 388) already only includes conference opponents.

 

[Heatles84]

See my comment above. Leave out the Finals and the numbers still point to pretty even paths, with a slight edge to the Cavs path actually being harder.

Thats just numbers, your eyes may tell you something different... but my overall point isn't that the Cavs have had a more difficult path - just that the general perception of the Warriors path to the Finals being much more difficult is largely overstated.

Again, I don't take records at face value. And I don't think the Cavs have had a harder path to the Finals then the Warriors in previous years (you could make an argument about year 1). For one, OKC was a better team that the Dubs have faced in the playoffs over the last 2 years (not counting these playoffs yet or the Cavs in the Finals) then anything the Cavs have faced prior to the Finals.

The point being, and is the general consensus with anyone really is that the West is indeed the better conference. This has been this way for years now and was a constant theme even when Lebron was in Miami. Don't understand why this is such a sore subject for Cavs fans to accept that their path may be easier to get in the Finals. Lebron doesn't control the geography of his team and the decisions that teams in the East make.

 

[Heatles84]

And as @LAD mentioned. Your argument is lost when 2 of the 60+ win teams faced are the Warriors - we're taking conference-specific.

 

[LAD]

I mean, we can leave off the Finals match-ups and just stick to the Finals path... and its still the same result.

Warriors have faced and beaten 4 50-win teams in the western conference the last 3 playoffs.

Cavs have faced and beaten 4 50-win teams (and 1 60-win team) in the eastern conference the last 3 playoffs.

IMO that stat is deceiving because it gives the appearance that the two teams are equal. Teams play more games against teams in their same division & conference. IMO I think that effects the overall record for every team. If you play in a weaker conference then it can make your path easier but if you play in a tougher conference it can make the path tougher.

I think to get a better picture we need to look at the records when they play against the opposing conference. I say this because the debate is often about which conference is tougher.

 

[Heatles84]

Again, take out the Finals, and its essentially the same thing. Slight edge to the Cavs path being more difficult.

The first stat (391 vs 388) already only includes conference opponents.

The West is more rounded. Think about teams that have a chance in the West (previous two years):

West: Spurs, Thunder, Clippers
East: Raptors, maybe Hawks

There's more competition in the West then there is in the East. There are more cream puffs in the East, which is why taking records alone at face value is foolish.

 

[LAD]

Again, take out the Finals, and its essentially the same thing. Slight edge to the Cavs path being more difficult.

The first stat (391 vs 388) already only includes conference opponents.

Ok, but if the Eastern conf is the lesser of the two then how does them winning more games against those teams make their path tougher?

 

[gordontrue]

IMO that stat is deceiving because it gives the appearance that the two teams are equal. Teams play more games against teams in their same division & conference. IMO I think that effects the overall record for every team. If you play in a weaker conference then it can make your path easier but if you play in a tougher conference it can make the path tougher.

I think to get a better picture we need to look at the records when they play against the opposing conference. I say this because the debate is often about which conference is tougher.

The West is more rounded. Think about teams that have a chance in the West (previous two years):

West: Spurs, Thunder, Clippers
East: Raptors, maybe Hawks

There's more competition in the West then there is in the East. There are more cream puffs in the East, which is why taking records alone at face value is foolish.

Ok, but if the Eastern conf is the lesser of the two then how does them winning more games against those teams make their path tougher?

The East and West conference had identical strength of schedules last year.

Its perfectly acceptable to compare season records across conferences when that is the case. West has been stronger at the top, thinner in the middle, and weaker at the bottom. Overall... statistics say a record in 1 conference would be the same as in the other.