Hard to believe that last good team Cleveland played in the EC was..

[Shaqdaddy11]

No, it's you need to look in the mirror, we can all see what is really there.

Hahaha, it's like talking to Sloth from the Goonies (google it kid, you're probably too young to have seen it)

 

[Battlelyon]

Kid, like I said you don't shit about me, stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[jontaejones]

But man, getting to the Finals 4 out of 5 years(winning 3 straight), having to go through the prime Kings, Blazers, Spurs, and T-Wolves is hard to top

But that's my point.

LeBron had to go through some hard teams too. It doesn't matter if it's in the conference finals or the finals.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Kid, like I said you don't shit about me, stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm going to call you Sloth from now on. Because you're really that special!

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

But that's my point.

LeBron had to go through some hard teams too. It doesn't matter if it's in the conference finals or the finals.

Not saying he didn't, but for some reason people are saying how "amazing" it is how he's made so many finals in a row.

I mean, really?

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

Timmy Earned his.

He cut his teeth on the tail-end of the Utah Jazz title runs.
He had to knock heads with that amazing Shaq-Kobe era Lakers.
He had to beat the Run-N-Gun Suns.
He had to beat the Dominant Mavericks who were title worthy as well.
He had to deal with the Russ/KD/Harden era Thunder.
And he had to play Championship Level teams in the Pistons and Heat both #1 seeds trying to repeat titles.

All of those squads were elite contenders who expected to win it all.
Admittedly the 1999 Knick, 2003 Nets, and 2007 Cavs were not great...and the Spurs handled them.

But, Timmy was one of the few who beat Super-powers on both sides of the league.

 

[fishinabarrel]

LeBron never got swept in the playoffs unlike Jordan.

You mean the series where Larry Bird said "I think he's God disguised as Michael Jordan" after a game? The Bulls may have gotten swept but Jordan was unstoppable in that series. KC Jones has said he had trouble getting people to go in the game because no one wanted to guard Jordan

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

This is so overstated. In the time frame mentioned, since the last time the Cavs supposedly faced a "good team" in the East.... they've beaten five 50-win EC teams and a 60-win EC team. Just because those teams weren't ultimately able to seriously threaten the Cavs doesn't mean they are suddenly not good teams.

Also.... Laker fans might want to think about Magic & Kareem before they start complaining about opponent difficulty:

2nd Round - average playoff opponent
Jordan: 51.9 wins
LeBron: 51.18 wins
Magic: 43.12 wins
Kareem: 42.71 wins

Conf Finals - average playoff opponent
Jordan: 58.5 wins
LeBron: 55.44 wins
Magic: 51.1 wins
Kareem: 52 wins

Finals - average playoff opponent
Jordan: 61.17 wins
LeBron: 61.91 wins
Magic: 60.44 wins
Kareem: 58.1 wins

Overall
Jordan: 53.54 wins
LeBron: 51.02 wins
Magic: 48.6 wins
Kareem: 48.55 wins

Take that for data

But even you must admit, Lebron is not at Jordans level ... Had Jordan not gone to baseball he probably wins 8 straight titles in a row with Chicago... Plus Mike never let the Bulls lose in the finals, hell he never even had a team take them 7 ...

 

[jon2tanman]

This is so overstated. In the time frame mentioned, since the last time the Cavs supposedly faced a "good team" in the East.... they've beaten five 50-win EC teams and a 60-win EC team. Just because those teams weren't ultimately able to seriously threaten the Cavs doesn't mean they are suddenly not good teams.

Also.... Laker fans might want to think about Magic & Kareem before they start complaining about opponent difficulty:

2nd Round - average playoff opponent
Jordan: 51.9 wins
LeBron: 51.18 wins
Magic: 43.12 wins
Kareem: 42.71 wins

Conf Finals - average playoff opponent
Jordan: 58.5 wins
LeBron: 55.44 wins
Magic: 51.1 wins
Kareem: 52 wins

Finals - average playoff opponent
Jordan: 61.17 wins
LeBron: 61.91 wins
Magic: 60.44 wins
Kareem: 58.1 wins

Overall
Jordan: 53.54 wins
LeBron: 51.02 wins
Magic: 48.6 wins
Kareem: 48.55 wins

Take that for data

Expansion teams=easy wins.

 

[trojanfan12]

LeBron never got swept in the playoffs unlike Jordan.

He saved it for the finals.

 

[gordontrue]

But even you must admit, Lebron is not at Jordans level ... Had Jordan not gone to baseball he probably wins 8 straight titles in a row with Chicago... Plus Mike never let the Bulls lose in the finals, hell he never even had a team take them 7 ...

Yeah, Jordan is the GOAT. I've never argued otherwise. I do think LeBron has a chance to make it a legitmiate debate, depending on what happens in the remainder of his career. We'll see.

Jordan did play in Game 7s. Never in the Finals though which is probably what you meant.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Yeah, Jordan is the GOAT. I've never argued otherwise. I do think LeBron has a chance to make it a legitmiate debate, depending on what happens in the remainder of his career. We'll see.

Jordan did play in Game 7s. Never in the Finals though which is probably what you meant.

Yeah that's what I meant, no game 7's in the Finals...

 

[Vitamike]

Take that for data

Sorry, no can do.

Statistically speaking, your data is wonky at best. There were only 17 teams when KAJ won his first NBA title and only 23 when he won his next five, pretty similar for Magic too with only 23 teams in the league when these two retired, and Jordan saw the expansion going from 23 teams to 29 by the time he retired.

Now because of guys like KAJ, Magic, Bird and Jordan, the league was able expand to 30 teams. This was an expansion fueled by popularity, and not by an expansion of talent. This left the NBA with a pretty shallow talent pool creating multiple bottom feeders. Besides that, these 17-23 teams back in the day, still played 82 games, so they faced more games against one another. That sort of parity made it common to see half the playoff field with season record of ~.500.

These facts lower the figures in the data you collected for KAJ the most, in large for Magic, and in part for Jordan yet raises the figures in the data you collected for LeBron by comparison.

There is far less parity in today's NBA league wide, compared to the 70's/80's so comparing raw data like you have is pretty much worthless, since you did not use a data matrix which at least attempts to quantify these type of variables.

Even if you only did it on title winning years for the players you've listed, your list would likely look completely different, which really speaks to the intent of this thread.

Hey, nice try though.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Sorry, no can do.

Statistically speaking, your data is wonky at best. There were only 17 teams when KAJ won his first NBA title and only 23 when he won his next five, pretty similar for Magic too with only 23 teams in the league when these two retired, and Jordan saw the expansion going from 23 teams to 29 by the time he retired.

Now because of guys like KAJ, Magic, Bird and Jordan, the league was able expand to 30 teams. This was an expansion fueled by popularity, and not by an expansion of talent. This left the NBA with a pretty shallow talent pool creating multiple bottom feeders. Besides that, these 17-23 teams back in the day, still played 82 games, so they faced more games against one another. That sort of parity made it common to see half the playoff field with season record of ~.500.

These facts lower the figures in the data you collected for KAJ the most, in large for Magic, and in part for Jordan yet raises the figures in the data you collected for LeBron by comparison.

There is far less parity in today's NBA league wide, compared to the 70's/80's so comparing raw data like you have is pretty much worthless, since you did not use a data matrix which at least attempts to quantify these type of variables.

Even if you only did it on title winning years for the players you've listed, your list would likely look completely different, which really speaks to the intent of this thread.

Hey, nice try though.

yah you dont know what you are talking about.

there has never been more talent in the NBA than right now.

The influx of foreign players and the college infrastructure, scouting, and coaching bring more talent to the NBA than anytime in history and its not even close.

20 years ago how many foreign players were in the NBA? Today- how many players are there?

20-30 years ago the college game didnt have nearly as many good teams, nearly as many good coaches, nearly as much money in a variety of programs. Today- if you can play- they will find you, coach you up- and get you to the NBA. Even 2nd, 3rd, 4th tier college teams pay coaches hundreds of thousands if not million of dollars- have huge staffs, etc.

Its not even close--- there has never been as much talent in the NBA as right now.

 

[gordontrue]

Sorry, no can do.

Statistically speaking, your data is wonky at best. There were only 17 teams when KAJ won his first NBA title and only 23 when he won his next five, pretty similar for Magic too with only 23 teams in the league when these two retired, and Jordan saw the expansion going from 23 teams to 29 by the time he retired.

Now because of guys like KAJ, Magic, Bird and Jordan, the league was able expand to 30 teams. This was an expansion fueled by popularity, and not by an expansion of talent. This left the NBA with a pretty shallow talent pool creating multiple bottom feeders. Besides that, these 17-23 teams back in the day, still played 82 games, so they faced more games against one another. That sort of parity made it common to see half the playoff field with season record of ~.500.

These facts lower the figures in the data you collected for KAJ the most, in large for Magic, and in part for Jordan yet raises the figures in the data you collected for LeBron by comparison.

There is far less parity in today's NBA league wide, compared to the 70's/80's so comparing raw data like you have is pretty much worthless, since you did not use a data matrix which at least attempts to quantify these type of variables.

Even if you only did it on title winning years for the players you've listed, your list would likely look completely different, which really speaks to the intent of this thread.

Hey, nice try though.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're trying to get at? Is your contention that .500 teams were better teams in the past than .500 teams are now?

If that's the case, you might be interested in the seeing the same data with SRS and ELO included. These metrics evaluate a team strength regardless of their win record and competition.

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

I'll go with Orlando from 2009. It's been awhile.

 

[Vitamike]

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're trying to get at? Is your contention that .500 teams were better teams in the past than .500 teams are now?

If that's the case, you might be interested in the seeing the same data with SRS and ELO included. These metrics evaluate a team strength regardless of their win record and competition.

View attachment 160132

Nice work gordon, and it appears you do understand in part. I'm not really sure what exactly the SRS and ELO data is except what you've stated but that you've added data that uses a data matrix, is a move in the right direction, compared the raw data you posted before. The parity issue I brought up is a huge part and I guess what I'm getting at is it is almost impossible to compare players of different eras for a multitude of reasons.

The fact that KAJ played 82 games when there were only 17 teams in the league, nearly half of the number of teams today, points out the playoff bound teams faced each other at a greater number and faced less teams that didn't make the playoffs. Thus my point regarding parity.

Also where there is certainly a greater pool of talent available in the league today, it is still in it's early phases as a contributing factor especially considering we are talking about a timeline that began in the 2005 season when LBJ played his first NBA playoff game, yet the league included a total of 30 teams.

Further, the top tiered talent or Superstar talent IMO hasn't doubled since KAJ played in 1972 so there were more Superstars on a greater number of teams than there are today, and the CBA free agency changes also contribute to these data sets as well.

Virtually impossible to quantify objectively due to the eras they played in.

 

[DorianRo]

yah you dont know what you are talking about.

there has never been more talent in the NBA than right now.

The influx of foreign players and the college infrastructure, scouting, and coaching bring more talent to the NBA than anytime in history and its not even close.

20 years ago how many foreign players were in the NBA? Today- how many players are there?

20-30 years ago the college game didnt have nearly as many good teams, nearly as many good coaches, nearly as much money in a variety of programs. Today- if you can play- they will find you, coach you up- and get you to the NBA. Even 2nd, 3rd, 4th tier college teams pay coaches hundreds of thousands if not million of dollars- have huge staffs, etc.

Its not even close--- there has never been as much talent in the NBA as right now.

The 2017 NBA playoffs say hello. If there is "so much talent" why are 2 teams undefeated so far?


If theres so much talent than there SHOULD be resistance to the Cavs/Warriors and there hasn't been crapola

 

[WiggyRuss]

The 2017 NBA playoffs say hello. If there is "so much talent" why are 2 teams undefeated so far?

yah exactly.

 

[DorianRo]

There was talent in the 80s. Mostly concentrated in the east

There was talent in the 90s. Mostly in the east


There was a ton of talent in the 2000s. But mostly in the West.

There is LITTLE talent in the 2010's in either conference right now. The talent is so lacking that people quick watching the regular season. And if this continue, people WILL eventually stop watching all together. There isn't much talent coming out of the draft. And if there is, it takes them a half a dozen years to get on page.


There isn't much talent int he NBA compared to the 80s-00s