Does the best team win always win?

[RoseCity07]

Are we all in agreement the best team always wins in the Finals? One of the reasons I hate NCAA basketball is because a lesser team can get lucky and outplay a better team for one night. That can't happen in the playoffs. There is no luck.

You have to win 4 games to win a series. Even if it comes down to game 7, the other team can't say that game was a fluke because the other team proved themselves 3 times before.

I look at LA winning game 7 to Boston a few years ago. No one says LA got lucky because Artest went off for one game. Even though Ray Allen saved the season last year that one shot didn't actually cost SA the title. They had other chances.

Has the best team ever not won it all?

[dabigbaws]

spurs 2013

[RoseCity07]

spurs 2013

They blew two chances to slam the door on Miami. Game 6 and then game 7. Not to mention they had two other games where everyone played. Spurs were not better than Miami.

[LAZERUSS]

'68 Sixers
'84 Lakers

[Mrofir]

2002 Nets

[iamgine]

Are we all in agreement the best team always wins in the Finals? One of the reasons I hate NCAA basketball is because a lesser team can get lucky and outplay a better team for one night. That can't happen in the playoffs. There is no luck.

You have to win 4 games to win a series. Even if it comes down to game 7, the other team can't say that game was a fluke because the other team proved themselves 3 times before.

I look at LA winning game 7 to Boston a few years ago. No one says LA got lucky because Artest went off for one game. Even though Ray Allen saved the season last year that one shot didn't actually cost SA the title. They had other chances.

Has the best team ever not won it all?

Dallas 2011 was pretty safely not the best team. This means the best team didn't win it all, whoever it was.

[JT123]

They blew two chances to slam the door on Miami. Game 6 and then game 7. Not to mention they had two other games where everyone played. Spurs were not better than Miami.
This. If they were the better team they wouldn't have blown a double digit lead against Lebron and a bunch of bench players. If they were the better team they would have executed down the stretch of game 6 and not even given Allen's 3 a chance to mean anything.

[JT123]

Dallas 2011 was pretty safely not the best team. This means the best team didn't win it all, whoever it was.
Yes they were the best team. Miami had the better group of Stars, but that doesn't make them a better TEAM. The Finals wasn't a 3 on 3 contest, and the Mavs knew how to execute down the stretch much better than Miami did. In a 7 game series the better team will ALWAYS win.

[T_L_P]

This. If they were the better team they wouldn't have blown a double digit lead against Lebron and a bunch of bench players. If they were the better team they would have executed down the stretch of game 6 and not even given Allen's 3 a chance to mean anything.

:facepalm

[LONGTIME]

No they don't, lot of luck involved.

[JT123]

:facepalm
Have you forgotten what happened in game 6? Spurs started the 4th quarter with a 10 point lead, and with Wade and Bosh on the bench Bron, Ray, Birdman, and Miller came back within minutes and took the lead. Then as soon as Wade and Bosh came back in the Spurs briefly regained control. Glad I could refresh your memory. :cheers:

[kobebeangoat]

2002 Nets
:roll:

[JT123]

No they don't, lot of luck involved.
Luck goes both ways. A lot of people claim Miami was lucky to come back in game 6 last year, which they were, but no one ever mention how lucky the Spurs got with Danny Green's CRAZY hot 3 point shooting in the first 5 games.
I know he was open a lot, but even the best shooters miss wide open shots once in a while. Green was literally hitting EVERY ridiculous shot he attempted in games 1-5. :lol

[iamgine]

Yes they were the best team. Miami had the better group of Stars, but that doesn't make them a better TEAM. The Finals wasn't a 3 on 3 contest, and the Mavs knew how to execute down the stretch much better than Miami did. In a 7 game series the better team will ALWAYS win.
I didn't say Miami was the best team. :confusedshrug:

Dallas was pretty safely not the best team though.

[Milbuck]

The Bucks haven't won in 40+ years, so no.

[All Net]

Dallas 2011 was pretty safely not the best team. This means the best team didn't win it all, whoever it was.

They were the best TEAM

[The-Legend-24]

2006 & 2012

Refs put in that work.

[J Shuttlesworth]

2006 & 2012

Refs put in that work.
My first thought was 2002.

[iamgine]

They were the best TEAM
I don't think so

[Kargo]

I don't think so

:biggums:

They beat the Blazers,swept the Lakers,almost swept the Thunder and beat the Heat but some magical team they didn't play might have been better.

M'kay.

Easily the best team during the 11' playoffs...great team defense/offense/bench/coaching + incredibly clutch+Dirk in God mode+Jet Terry in Moses mode.

To the OP,when two incredibly well matched teams play,you might even play best of 15 and head into the final game 7-7.Sometimes two teams are basically a hair apart...Pistons-Spurs 2005,Heat-Spurs 2013.

But the team that ultimately wins,has that little something,luck,clutch,courage,will...to make it to the finish line.

You can't fluke your way to an NBA title...if you beat 4 good-to-great teams 4 times,you deserve the title,as simple as that.

[DMAVS41]

Of course not, but it's rare...

The Thunder were the best team last year and then WB got hurt.

The Spurs should have beaten the Heat as well...they played better and just got straight up unlucky.

The Mavs in 11 were not the best TEAM either...they just got absurdly hot at the right time.

You play that WCF and Finals over 1,000 times and the Mavs would be lucky to win both series like 40% of the time.

Pretty sure the Kings were better in 02 as well.

[iamgine]

:biggums:

They beat the Blazers,swept the Lakers,almost swept the Thunder and beat the Heat but some magical team they didn't play might have been better.

M'kay.

Easily the best team during the 11' playoffs...great team defense/offense/bench/coaching + incredibly clutch+Dirk in God mode+Jet Terry in Moses mode.

To the OP,when two incredibly well matched teams play,you might even play best of 15 and head into the final game 7-7.Sometimes two teams are basically a hair apart...Pistons-Spurs 2005,Heat-Spurs 2013.

But the team that ultimately wins,has that little something,luck,clutch,courage,will...to make it to the finish line.

You can't fluke your way to an NBA title...if you beat 4 good-to-great teams 4 times,you deserve the title,as simple as that.
Read what DMAVS said.

[Kargo]

Of course not, but it's rare...

The Thunder were the best team last year and then WB got hurt.

The Spurs should have beaten the Heat as well...they played better and just got straight up unlucky.

The Mavs in 11 were not the best TEAM either...they just got absurdly hot at the right time.

You play that WCF and Finals over 1,000 times and the Mavs would be lucky to win both series like 40% of the time.

Pretty sure the Kings were better in 02 as well.

This is pretty unintelligent and silly.

The best team wins on the floor not on paper.Silly statements like ''if they played a 1000 times'' are basically arguments made by kids in middle school.You can't place things in a vacuum to make a valid argument.If all of their careers had the same path and they played the Heat 1000 times they would win a 1000 times.If's and but's don't win titles,only reality.That's how life works.Determinism 1-0-1.

EVERY single team that has won the title has been absurdly hot when it mattered.If you can sustain that for a month,yes,you ARE a great team and you deserve the title.

This isn't the NFL,you can't get hot for 3 games which is not equivalent even to one series in the NBA and win the title.

The Mavs were a better coached,had a better half-court offense,and were more clutch than either the Heat and the Thunder.

That made them the best team in 2011.

They beat 3 teams with 2 all NBA players,an overall run of 16-5,biggest loss of the playoffs was 8 points,beat the previous champions,the next champions + the other west finalists of 2012 as well.

It's about as a complete run as there has been in the last 10 years.

[ImKobe]

Not always. Spurs were definitely the better team last season, but their coach really cost them the game with the poor game planning at the end of the 4th. He puts Duncan in & there's no way Bosh gets two offensive rebounds.

[LAZERUSS]

The '68 Sixers were well on their way to their second consecutive title when they were just decimated with injuries. With HALF of the core of the team either injured, or completely out, they lost a game seven to the Celtics by four points.

The '84 Lakers were one stupid pass, and one missed FT, from sweeping the Celtics, 4-0.

[iamgine]

This is pretty unintelligent and silly.

The best team wins on the floor not on paper.Silly statements like ''if they played a 1000 times'' are basically arguments made by kids in middle school.You can't place things in a vacuum to make a valid argument.If all of their careers had the same path and they played the Heat 1000 times they would win a 1000 times.If's and but's don't win titles,only reality.That's how life works.Determinism 1-0-1.

EVERY single team that has won the title has been absurdly hot when it mattered.If you can sustain that for a month,yes,you ARE a great team and you deserve the title.

This isn't the NFL,you can't get hot for 3 games which is not equivalent even to one series in the NBA and win the title.

The Mavs were a better coached,had a better half-court offense,and were more clutch than either the Heat and the Thunder.

That made them the best team in 2011.

They beat 3 teams with 2 all NBA players,an overall run of 16-5,biggest loss of the playoffs was 8 points,beat the previous champions,the next champions + the other west finalists of 2012 as well.

It's about as a complete run as there has been in the last 10 years.
No one said they didn't deserve the title.

In fact, them not being the best team (not even close) made that run even more incredible.

[DMAVS41]

This is pretty unintelligent and silly.

The best team wins on the floor not on paper.Silly statements like ''if they played a 1000 times'' are basically arguments made by kids in middle school.You can't place things in a vacuum to make a valid argument.If all of their careers had the same path and they played the Heat 1000 times they would win a 1000 times.If's and but's don't win titles,only reality.That's how life works.Determinism 1-0-1.

EVERY single team that has won the title has been absurdly hot when it mattered.If you can sustain that for a month,yes,you ARE a great team and you deserve the title.

This isn't the NFL,you can't get hot for 3 games which is not equivalent even to one series in the NBA and win the title.

The Mavs were a better coached,had a better half-court offense,and were more clutch than either the Heat and the Thunder.

That made them the best team in 2011.

They beat 3 teams with 2 all NBA players,an overall run of 16-5,biggest loss of the playoffs was 8 points,beat the previous champions,the next champions + the other west finalists of 2012 as well.

It's about as a complete run as there has been in the last 10 years.


What you are saying is obvious. That isn't what people mean though when they ask this question.

You are a determinist it sounds like, and so am I, but you have to get out of that mind set for questions like this.



When people ask this they mean exactly that...would this team normally win if you played it 10 times or something.

And the Mavs played well above their normal level as a team...they got hot.


What point is there in even answering this question if it's...yes, we live in a deterministic universe in which you can't rewind the tape and get a different outcome. I totally agree with that in reality...but I don't think that is what people mean when they ask.

If it is what they mean...then I totally agree with you.

[JohnMax]

Oklahoma City vs Miami vs San Antonio

These series are decided by matchup problems rather than who is the best

[Kargo]

No one said they didn't deserve the title.

In fact, them not being the best team (not even close) made that run even more incredible.

You can't be a worse team than someone and beat them 4 out of 5 or 4 out of 6.If you can beat them,that means there's something that makes you better than them.

Just because someone is deemed the favorite before hand,it doesn't mean they are the ''better'' team.

The Mavs beat the Heat 6 out of the 8 times they played in 2010/11.So yeah,by absolutely no means they were the better team,unless we talk about empty star power.They had no PG,no center,extremely streaky shooting,were completely outcoached,and completely outplayed in the 4-th quarter where the Mavs had a lot better defensive and offensive half-court schemes.

The Thunder struggles mightily to even come to the west finals,they barely beat Memphis 4-3.And then they lost 4-1 in the west finals.The Bulls were destroyed by the Heat.

So yeah,the team that beat the Lakers,Thunder and Heat with a combined score of 12-3 turned out to be the best team.What an incredible coincidence :eek:

[JT123]

Of course not, but it's rare...

The Thunder were the best team last year and then WB got hurt.

The Spurs should have beaten the Heat as well...they played better and just got straight up unlucky.

The Mavs in 11 were not the best TEAM either...they just got absurdly hot at the right time.

You play that WCF and Finals over 1,000 times and the Mavs would be lucky to win both series like 40% of the time.

Pretty sure the Kings were better in 02 as well.
Thunder were no where close to being the best team last year. :biggums:
Maybe the best team in the West, but not in the same league as the Heat when they were healthy.

[Kargo]

What you are saying is obvious. That isn't what people mean though when they ask this question.

You are a determinist it sounds like, and so am I, but you have to get out of that mind set for questions like this.



When people ask this they mean exactly that...would this team normally win if you played it 10 times or something.

And the Mavs played well above their normal level as a team...they got hot.


What point is there in even answering this question if it's...yes, we live in a deterministic universe in which you can't rewind the tape and get a different outcome. I totally agree with that in reality...but I don't think that is what people mean when they ask.

If it is what they mean...then I totally agree with you.

My main point is that the Mavs didn't just get hot,you can get hot for a quarter,a half,a game or even a series but not for 21 games.If you can sustain that level of play for such a long period of time against such an opposition,then you were a great team that deserved to win the title.

Take for example last year's Heat...they won 2 games 7's,played 3 elimination games,had huge losses,were completely destroyed in some games.

The Mavs biggest defeat was 8 points,the other losses were by 2,2,5 and 6.

They were in every game,meaning it's not that they only won the games in which they were red hot,but they also won games they had no business of winning,and when they lost they weren't out of the games either.

Outside of the 4-th quarter of game 1 with Miami,they were close in every single game for the entire playoffs...that's CRAZY.And not just an outcome of being hot at the right time but actually having a terrific team with a great bench and a great job done by Rick Carlisle.

[DMAVS41]

You can't be a worse team than someone and beat them 4 out of 5 or 4 out of 6.If you can beat them,that means there's something that makes you better than them.

Just because someone is deemed the favorite before hand,it doesn't mean they are the ''better'' team.

The Mavs beat the Heat 6 out of the 8 times they played in 2010/11.So yeah,by absolutely no means they were the better team,unless we talk about empty star power.They had no PG,no center,extremely streaky shooting,were completely outcoached,and completely outplayed in the 4-th quarter where the Mavs had a lot better defensive and offensive half-court schemes.

The Thunder struggles mightily to even come to the west finals,they barely beat Memphis 4-3.And then they lost 4-1 in the west finals.The Bulls were destroyed by the Heat.

So yeah,the team that beat the Lakers,Thunder and Heat with a combined score of 12-3 turned out to be the best team.What an incredible coincidence :eek:

Total BS...the Warriors were not a better "team" than the Mavs.

They had a great matchup and were lucky enough to have Avery lose his mind and Dirk's dad get sick and have to have major surgery in the middle of the series...and the Warriors get hot to go along with it.

That 6 games is not indicative of who the better "team" was...it was indicative that the Warriors matched up well against the Mavs...and had some lucky circumstances go their way.

[JT123]

Not always. Spurs were definitely the better team last season, but their coach really cost them the game with the poor game planning at the end of the 4th. He puts Duncan in & there's no way Bosh gets two offensive rebounds.
Spurs blew way too many chances to say they were the better team. First they blew a double digit lead in the 4th quarter. Then they failed to win the overtime session. Then they failed to win game 7 despite the fact that only 5 players for the Heat even scored. That is 3 things the Spurs FAILED to do. The better team would not fail to do all three of those things.

[Warfan]

Of course not, but it's rare...

The Thunder were the best team last year and then WB got hurt.

The Spurs should have beaten the Heat as well...they played better and just got straight up unlucky.

The Mavs in 11 were not the best TEAM either...they just got absurdly hot at the right time.

You play that WCF and Finals over 1,000 times and the Mavs would be lucky to win both series like 40% of the time.

Pretty sure the Kings were better in 02 as well.

How were they better than Miami?

[iamgine]

You can't be a worse team than someone and beat them 4 out of 5 or 4 out of 6.If you can beat them,that means there's something that makes you better than them.

Just because someone is deemed the favorite before hand,it doesn't mean they are the ''better'' team.

The Mavs beat the Heat 6 out of the 8 times they played in 2010/11.So yeah,by absolutely no means they were the better team,unless we talk about empty star power.They had no PG,no center,extremely streaky shooting,were completely outcoached,and completely outplayed in the 4-th quarter where the Mavs had a lot better defensive and offensive half-court schemes.

The Thunder struggles mightily to even come to the west finals,they barely beat Memphis 4-3.And then they lost 4-1 in the west finals.The Bulls were destroyed by the Heat.

So yeah,the team that beat the Lakers,Thunder and Heat with a combined score of 12-3 turned out to be the best team.What an incredible coincidence :eek:
Yes you can. Why not? Sometimes Westbrook outperform Durant for some games, that doesn't mean Westbrook is the better player isnt it? Same goes for teams.

[Kargo]

Total BS...the Warriors were not a better "team" than the Mavs.

They had a great matchup and were lucky enough to have Avery lose his mind and Dirk's dad get sick and have to have major surgery in the middle of the series...and the Warriors get hot to go along with it.

That 6 games is not indicative of who the better "team" was...it was indicative that the Warriors matched up well against the Mavs...and had some lucky circumstances go their way.

You're just putting yourself in a hole where you just can't win the argument.

The warriors matched great against the Mavs and guess what,they lost the next round.The couldn't sniff the west finals let alone the NBA title.They lost 4-1 to the Utah Jazz.

So,the incredibly fortunate Mavs,just happened to match great against the Blazzers,Lakers,Thunder and the Heat.

Luckiest team to ever play the game of basketball.:applause:

[DMAVS41]

My main point is that the Mavs didn't just get hot,you can get hot for a quarter,a half,a game or even a series but not for 21 games.If you can sustain that level of play for such a long period of time against such an opposition,then you were a great team that deserved to win the title.

Take for example last year's Heat...they won 2 games 7's,played 3 elimination games,had huge losses,were completely destroyed in some games.

The Mavs biggest defeat was 8 points,the other losses were by 2,2,5 and 6.

They were in every game,meaning it's not that they only won the games in which they were red hot,but they also won games they had no business of winning,and when they lost they weren't out of the games either.

Outside of the 4-th quarter of game 1 with Miami,they were close in every single game for the entire playoffs...that's CRAZY.And not just an outcome of being hot at the right time but actually having a terrific team with a great bench and a great job done by Rick Carlisle.


You act like people are saying they weren't good. Of course they were.

But they went from being a pretty good offensive team to being a great offensive team in the playoffs.

Dirk and Terry went nuts in the 4th qtrs....Dirk had the best 4th qtr/clutch playoff run since early 90's MJ.

I get what you are saying, but I really think that is not what people are getting at when they ask.

They are thinking...is it likely that the Mavs play that well or was it kind of lighting in a bottle. And as much as I'm a die hard Mavs and Dirk fan...getting a repeat performance out of Dirk and that team running that thing back would be unlikely.

Again, I get the determinism stuff and I agree...I just don't think that is what people are asking.

[DMAVS41]

You're just putting yourself in a hole where you just can't win the argument.

The warriors matched great against the Mavs and guess what,they lost the next round.The couldn't sniff the west finals let alone the NBA title.

So,the incredibly fortunate Mavs,just happened to match great against the Blazzers,Lakers,Thunder and the Heat.

Luckiest team to ever play the game of basketball.:applause:

That isn't putting me in a hole...I don't think the Mavs were the best team in the way you do.

I think they got hot and got lucky in some moments and did matchup well with every team they played.

That isn't a hole for me...it's honesty.

[All Net]

Thunder were no where close to being the best team last year. :biggums:
Maybe the best team in the West, but not in the same league as the Heat when they were healthy.
Not in the same league as the heat? That's a bit foolish.

[SCdac]

Generally speaking, the best team at the time always wins. More often than not, that team was also great (above average) in the regular season. Not a coincidence.

Barring a ref rigging, or something else tainting the series, yes the best team always wins. It's a 7 game series, not one and done.

The Spurs got blown out in the Finals last season just like like they lost close ones... Spurs have been regressing defensively for years (pretty much parallel to Duncan's and Bowen's athletic decline). They lost because they couldn't win.

You have to put yourself in the position to be lucky, not rely on getting lucky. Was Robert Horry's three pointer in the 2005 Finals, or Ray Allen's in the most recent Finals, "luck"? No, it was foresight, clean passing, clutch shooting, grasping the moment, and being a winner. For Manu and Kawhi, they have to make FT's and close games out... that's how basketball works.

[DMAVS41]

How were they better than Miami?

Because an injured Wade and slumping Bosh in the playoffs made them a much weaker team than the one of the streak.

I don't state that as a fact...it's just my opinion.

I think if WB stays healthy last year...the Thunder would have won the title. The Thunder here were really under-rated last year.

[Kargo]

That isn't putting me in a hole...I don't think the Mavs were the best team in the way you do.

I think they got hot and got lucky in some moments and did matchup well with every team they played.

That isn't a hole for me...it's honesty.

Whatever that supposed to mean :oldlol:

You're using bad arguments to somehow devalue how good that Mavs team was.

Comparing a one series team,that were demolished in the next round to an NBA champion,is really grasping for straws if i ever saw one.

[Kargo]

Generally speaking, the best team at the time always wins. More often than not, that team was also great (above average) in the regular season. Not a coincidence.

Barring a ref rigging, or something else tainting the series, yes the best team always wins. It's a 7 game series, not one and done.

The Spurs got blown out in the Finals last season just like like they lost close ones... Spurs have been regressing defensively for years (pretty much parallel to Duncan's and Bowen's athletic decline). They lost because they couldn't win.

You have to put yourself in the position to be lucky, not rely on getting lucky. Was Robert Horry's three pointer in the 2005 Finals, or Ray Allen's in the most recent Finals, "luck"? No, it was foresight, clean passing, clutch shooting, grasping the moment, and being a winner. For Manu and Kawhi, they have to make FT's and close games out... that's how basketball works.


A big :applause: for the best response in this thread.

[DMAVS41]

Whatever that supposed to mean :oldlol:

You're using bad arguments to somehow devalue how good that Mavs team was.

Comparing a one series team,that were demolished in the next round to an NBA champion,is really grasping for straws if i ever saw one.

I just used it as an example that the Warriors weren't a better team in that sense than the Mavs were.

I wasn't comparing a 1 round upset to a title run.

I'm also not devaluing how good the Mavs were...it makes it even more impressive to me the level that team reached given the starting points.

It's just honest to say that while they won the title...they weren't clearly the best team.

If that is the case...and we are talking about a deterministic universe in which you can't rewind the tape and get a different result...then we agree.

I don't know how to say it any more clear.

Like...I don't think the 09 Magic were better than the 09 Cavs. Again...a matchup issue and the Magic got hot. I think the Cavs perform better than the Magic would have against just about every other team in the league.

The Nets have beaten the Heat all 4 times this year...does that make them the better team?

[iamgine]

Other than 2011 Mavs, perhaps another team is 2004 Pistons who wasn't the best team but won title.

[SCdac]

My main point is that the Mavs didn't just get hot,you can get hot for a quarter,a half,a game or even a series but not for 21 games.If you can sustain that level of play for such a long period of time against such an opposition,then you were a great team that deserved to win the title.

Of course the Mavs were the best team in 2011. Not only was Dirk and the rest of the crew hungrier (Kidd and Dirk, dying to get a ring), Lebron was obviously much more fallible and perhaps not mentally ready. The next two seasons he killed it, and he's admitted to that defeat being his biggest inspiration, but for a number of reasons (being pieced together on the fly, old and bust Mike Bibby as starting PG, etc.) they were definitely not a better team than the Mavericks. Lebron getting punked by Marion and Stevenson is part of it, no doubt.

[SCdac]

Other than 2011 Mavs, perhaps another team is 2004 Pistons who wasn't the best team but won title.

They totally deserved to be called the best team that season. Defense was amazing! They even made it back to, and nearly won, the Finals the very next season....

[DMAVS41]

Of course the Mavs were the best team in 2011. Not only was Dirk and the rest of the crew hungrier (Kidd and Dirk, dying to get a ring), Lebron was obviously much more fallible and perhaps not mentally ready. The next two seasons he killed it, and he's admitted to that defeat being his biggest inspiration, but for a number of reasons (being pieced together on the fly, old and bust Mike Bibby as starting PG, etc.) they were definitely not a better team than the Mavericks. Lebron getting punked by Marion and Stevenson is part of it, no doubt.

Lebron was just as bad through the first 5.75 games against the Spurs in the 13 finals...in fact, he shot worse from the field.

If the Spurs were as good as the 11 Mavs they would have curb stomped them and closed out game 6 and would have the title right now.

This notion that Lebron grew so much as a player the last two years is a joke. The Spurs gave life to a dying team and got burned for it...had nothing to do with the Heat being different or better (they were clearly worse actually)...just had to do with the Spurs not finishing a game and choking.

11 Mavs don't choke away that game....

Lebron shot 48 percent and 54% TS against the Mavs
Lebron was shooting around 42 percent and sub 50% TS against the Spurs before they let him back in

It wasn't his mental weakness differences...it was a part of his game that still exists today...and the only difference is that the Spurs choked down the stretch while the Mavs were great down the stretch of games.

[Kargo]

They totally deserved to be called the best team that season. Defense was amazing! They even made it back to, and nearly won, the Finals the very next season....

You're wrong!

The Lakers had Shaq/Kobe/Gary Payton/Karl Malone!That's an imaginary value score of 98 versus the imaginary value score of 80 for the Pistons.They've destroyed the Pistons on paper even before the games have been played!

The Pistons got lucky even though they won 4-1 with losing the only close game.

All joking aside that Pistons team seriously underachieved considering the chemistry,depth and defense they had.I think with Larry Brown staying they would have won at least won more title.

[JT123]

Lebron was just as bad through the first 5.75 games against the Spurs in the 13 finals...in fact, he shot worse from the field.

If the Spurs were as good as the 11 Mavs they would have curb stomped them and closed out game 6 and would have the title right now.

This notion that Lebron grew so much as a player the last two years is a joke. The Spurs gave life to a dying team and got burned for it...had nothing to do with the Heat being different or better (they were clearly worse actually)...just had to do with the Spurs not finishing a game and choking.

11 Mavs don't choke away that game....
Lebron was great in game 4, along with Wade. Are you really saying Lebron made ZERO improvements to his game after that 2011 Finals series? :facepalm Dude had no post game whatsoever prior to 2012.

[DMAVS41]

Lebron was great in game 4, along with Wade. Are you really saying Lebron made ZERO improvements to his game after that 2011 Finals series? :facepalm Dude had no post game whatsoever prior to 2012.

I never said Lebron wasn't great in game 4. I simply said overall in the finals for the first 5.75 games Lebron was playing very similarly to how he played against the Mavs. In fact, he was shooting considerably worse from the field and overall.

Lebron had a very good game 1 against the Mavs in 11 as well...people often forget this.

Zero improvements...nah, I won't go that far. But not enough to warrant the kind of talk I hear constantly. Not enough to prevent a pretty bad series if the Spurs make a ft or grab a rebound.

Lebron said it right after the series was over and I loved the honesty. He and the Heat got lucky in game 6. Yes, they put themselves in position to get lucky and I totally understand that argument and agree, but they got lucky.

And they wouldn't have gotten lucky playing a better team...and a team like the 11 Mavs is not choking like the Spurs did...

My point is that Lebron did not make some mental breakthrough after 11. He was right back doing nearly the exactly same shit in the finals 2 years later against a worse team...

[JT123]

I never said Lebron wasn't great in game 4. I simply said overall in the finals for the first 5.75 games Lebron was playing very similarly to how he played against the Mavs. In fact, he was shooting considerably worse from the field and overall.

Lebron had a very good game 1 against the Mavs in 11 as well...people often forget this.

Zero improvements...nah, I won't go that far. But not enough to warrant the kind of talk I hear constantly. Not enough to prevent a pretty bad series if the Spurs make a ft or grab a rebound.

Lebron said it right after the series was over and I loved the honesty. He and the Heat got lucky in game 6. Yes, they put themselves in position to get lucky and I totally understand that argument and agree, but they got lucky.

And they wouldn't have gotten lucky playing a better team...and a team like the 11 Mavs is not choking like the Spurs did...

My point is that Lebron did not make some mental breakthrough after 11. He was right back doing nearly the exactly same shit in the finals 2 years later against a worse team...
The biggest reason people claim Lebron's 11 Finals was the worst for any star player is because he wasn't aggressive. You can't just say he was playing worse than 2011 because he was shooting worse from the field. Outside of game 3 Lebron was aggressive against the Spurs last year, he just wasn't making shots. While I agree the mental breakthrough talk is overstated at times, I have a hard time believing 2011 Lebron would have brought the Heat back from a double digit deficit in the 4th quarter of game 6.

[iamgine]

They totally deserved to be called the best team that season. Defense was amazing! They even made it back to, and nearly won, the Finals the very next season....
I'm inclined to agree. I like that team.

[SCdac]

You're wrong!

The Lakers had Shaq/Kobe/Gary Payton/Karl Malone!That's an imaginary value score of 98 versus the imaginary value score of 80 for the Pistons.They've destroyed the Pistons on paper even before the games have been played!

The Pistons got lucky even though they won 4-1 with losing the only close game.

All joking aside that Pistons team seriously underachieved considering the chemistry,depth and defense they had.I think with Larry Brown staying they would have won at least won more title.

:oldlol: Yeah, they should have won more, for all intents and purposes, they nearly won back to back Finals. One of my favorite teams. But for their own reasons (their starting five slowly breaking up, coaching changes, other teams getting better, injuries, etc) they couldn't win again.... But yeah, barring anything like rigging or something, it's just illogical to say that the team that won isn't the team that should be regarded as the best in the league. You fight your way to the top, or maybe stumble your way to the third step from the top....People need to understand that players and coaches being prone to costly errors... and actually committing those errors (lets say, "Pop not trusting rookies/sophomores in the playoffs, and it costing the Spurs some needed athleticism" or "Ginobili being a wild player and prone to committing unnecessary fouls")... that's very much a part of the team's fabric and composition , like it or not. Your team is what it is. No imaginary value score.

[iamgine]

:oldlol: Yeah, they should have won more, for all intents and purposes, they nearly won back to back Finals. One of my favorite teams. But for their own reasons (their starting five slowly breaking up, coaching changes, other teams getting better, injuries, etc) they couldn't win again.... But yeah, barring anything like rigging or something, it's just illogical to say that the team that won isn't the team that should be regarded as the best in the league. You fight your way to the top, or maybe stumble your way to the third step from the top....People need to understand that players and coaches being prone to costly errors... and actually committing those errors (lets say, "Pop not trusting rookies/sophomores in the playoffs, and it costing the Spurs some needed athleticism" or "Ginobili being a wild player and prone to committing unnecessary fouls")... that's very much a part of the team's fabric and composition , like it or not. Your team is what it is. No imaginary value score.
Why. It's not illogical at all that teams who wins might not be the best team.

[Rondo]

They blew two chances to slam the door on Miami. Game 6 and then game 7. Not to mention they had two other games where everyone played. Spurs were not better than Miami.

The fact they had so many opportunities to bury Miami suggests they were indeed the better team. Whether or not they took those opportunities is irrelevant as far as this particular discussion goes.

[SCdac]

Why. It's not illogical at all that teams who wins might not be the best team.

Why though? Just saying that doesn't explain it.

Assuming both teams healthy and officiating was fair, how is winning 4 games against the opponent not enough of an indicator on who the better team was?

Do you think an NBA series should be extended to best of 8 or best of 9 ? or should fans vote for the "true" best team in the league? I don't get it.

[iamgine]

Why though? Just saying that doesn't explain it.

Assuming both teams healthy and officiating was fair, how is winning 4 games against the opponent not enough of an indicator on who the better team was?

Do you think an NBA series should be extended to best of 8 or best of 9 ? or should fans vote for the "true" best team in the league? I don't get it.
That's all it is: indicator. It can be incorrect, as was the case with '11 Mavs.

[DMAVS41]

The biggest reason people claim Lebron's 11 Finals was the worst for any star player is because he wasn't aggressive. You can't just say he was playing worse than 2011 because he was shooting worse from the field. Outside of game 3 Lebron was aggressive against the Spurs last year, he just wasn't making shots. While I agree the mental breakthrough talk is overstated at times, I have a hard time believing 2011 Lebron would have brought the Heat back from a double digit deficit in the 4th quarter of game 6.

I think you are ignoring some stuff.

For starters, Lebron was aggressive in game 1 against the Mavs.

I disagree about how aggressive Lebron was against the Spurs though. It was an eerily similar series through the first 5.75 games and the only difference I saw was that the Spurs weren't as good as the Mavs...and Wade/Bosh were clearly worse in 13 than they were in 11...so Lebron was forced by the deficiencies of his team to take a few more shots per game.

But, I mean, Lebron was 3 of 11 iirc through the first 3 qtrs of game 6...and his team was down 10. He was beyond passive up to that point...

And while Lebron deserves credit for brining his team back, the Spurs deserve blame for not only letting it happen, but for choking at the end as well.

People often forget, but this is what the new and improved Lebron did in the last 4 minutes of that game;

Shot 1 of 4 from the field
Had 0 assists
Had 3 turnovers
Had 1 rebound

If Leonard or Manu make a ft...or the Spurs grab a rebound...etc. We are looking at a series right on par with the 11 Mavs.

Props to Lebron for coming through...don't get me wrong, but Spurs fans acting like this was some new and greatly improved Lebron with a better team is silly. I do think Lebron was a slightly improved player with more confidence, but nothing huge...and that is negated by the 13 Heat in the playoffs being nowhere near as good as they were in 11 with Wade being injured and Bosh looking like a bum.

[Darius]

I get your point but since the "best team" is pretty much defined by winning the championship it is hard to say well "X would have beat them but they only shot 43% for the series or something".

It'd be interesting if a stats guy went through a series and was able to look at every shot and solve for the "luck" factor and see if the best team won.

[livinglegend]

What do you mean by ''best team''?
The point of a NBA season is to determine the best team. The team that wins the championship is the best team. Unless there was some rigging ( 2002 Kings) , the best team is usually the one that wins the championship.

[BoutPractice]

Yes. Unless the refs get too much involved, the best team that can actually be put on the floor (so injuries should not enter into the debate) will win.

This is a meaningless truism, but there is no way around it - the alternative would be even more absurd.

The most operational definition of the "best team" is "the team that would win against any other team most of the time". By this definition, the best team cannot lose a 7 game series against any other team. Yet any team that did not win the championship either a) did not make the playoffs, which makes it extremely unlikely that they were the best team b) lost a 7 game series against another team. Therefore, the team that did win the championship has to be the best.

Of course, this assumes that you're measuring teams by their actual performance, not hypotheticals, but this seems like a fair assumption to me.

[mr.big35]

if the best always win we would have finals of the both number 1 seeds

[BoutPractice]

Why? Teams play the regular season strategically. They give their all every game of the playoffs.

[Number24]

if the best always win we would have finals of the both number 1 seeds
That's not responding to what was asked. And besides ending at the top spot in the eliminations doesn't necessarily mean being the best.

[tpols]

Why? Teams play the regular season strategically. They give their all every game of the playoffs.

There's this thing called luck.. things happen that are out of everyones control. If the rebound in last years game 6 comes off the rim and hits the top of the backboard you'd have to call the spurs the better team.

[DMAVS41]

There's this thing called luck.. things happen that are out of everyones control. If the rebound in last years game 6 comes off the rim and hits the top of the backboard you'd have to call the spurs the better team.

Bingo.

[Solefade]

how do you explain the 2002 Sacramento Kings?

[IncarceratedBob]

Mavs in 2011 were not the best TEAM

but, the 11 Mavs were the BEST team

[livinglegend]

There's this thing called luck.. things happen that are out of everyones control. If the rebound in last years game 6 comes off the rim and hits the top of the backboard you'd have to call the spurs the better team.

Being lucky is part of life and part of being the best team.
The best team is the one that wins the NBA championship. The goal of all teams is to win the championship and the one that does it is the best.
As far as luck is concerned, luck is everywhere in every part of life. Parker got lucky when he hit that 3 pointer of Lebron. Parker got lucky when he made the off balance shot at the end of game 1.

[Darius]

There's this thing called luck.. things happen that are out of everyones control. If the rebound in last years game 6 comes off the rim and hits the top of the backboard you'd have to call the spurs the better team.

If a 7 game series has 10,000 instances of probability (probably has way more... but even major ones like the probability a certain player will hit a certain shot from a certain place on the floor with a certain defender within a certain distance of them) then, over time, the best team will most likely come out on top.

For every Ray Allen 3, there was 1,000 other times that we weren't paying attention that something that usually went Miami's way probably went the Spur's way.

[livinglegend]

If a 7 game series has 10,000 instances of probability (probably has way more... but even major ones like the probability a certain player will hit a certain shot from a certain place on the floor with a certain defender within a certain distance of them) then, over time, the best team will most likely come out on top.

For every Ray Allen 3, there was 1,000 other times that we weren't paying attention that something that usually went Miami's way probably went the Spur's way.

:applause: :applause: :applause:
That ''luck'' factor can be used for each and every play.

[tpols]

If a 7 game series has 10,000 instances of probability (probably has way more... but even major ones like the probability a certain player will hit a certain shot from a certain place on the floor with a certain defender within a certain distance of them) then, over time, the best team will most likely come out on top.

For every Ray Allen 3, there was 1,000 other times that we weren't paying attention that something that usually went Miami's way probably went the Spur's way.

Most likely.. sure.

OP specifies does the best team always win. And the answer is no.

[kshutts1]

I just flipped a coin 10 times. 7 tails, 3 heads.

So... if 10 flips is not statistically significant, do you really think a lower number is?

[BoutPractice]

There's this thing called luck.. things happen that are out of everyones control. If the rebound in last years game 6 comes off the rim and hits the top of the backboard you'd have to call the spurs the better team.
I do not dispute the role of luck. I've talked about this particular example many times stressing how luck played a huge part in determining this championship. But you have to assume the better team won because assuming the opposite - or worse, that victory is unrelated to passing judgment on who the better team was - will lead you to an impasse.

Going back to 2013, we were clearly dealing with evenly matched opponents, which amplified the impact of random events, so if the Heat were better than the Spurs, it was clearly not by much. (That is the main counteargument people will use against the "better team" theory... that many playoff teams appear to be evenly matched if you look at the prevalence of game 7s. But we're not speaking about "essence", paper, or weapons at your disposal - which is what I mean by "evenly matched - we're speaking about events. It's not about who WAS the better team, "essentially", before the competition happened, but who PROVED themselves to be the better team, in the competitive moment. In other words, I'm interested in who "played the best", and for me that's the only reality of being the best, the rest is just hypothetical.)

Randomness played a part but it was not all random. The Spurs were in the perfect spot with 30 seconds to go. To lose the game, the Spurs needed to fail to close it out... they needed to give the Heat an opportunity to take it. And conversely the Heat needed to grab it. The Heat collectively deserve credit for not losing their fire and composure when it mattered and thus putting themselves in a position to upset the Spurs... while the Spurs deserve "blame" for letting what looked like a sure championship slip away from them. (Indeed in order to lose they needed to miss a free throw, commit a turnover, etc.... ) If you can't assign credit and blame like that, then you might as well decide the winner with a coin toss.

[SCdac]

I do not dispute the role of luck. I've talked about this particular example many times stressing how luck played a huge part in determining this championship. But you have to assume the better team won because assuming the opposite - or worse, that victory is unrelated to passing judgment on who the better team was - will lead you to an impasse.

Going back to 2013, we were clearly dealing with evenly matched opponents, which amplified the impact of random events, so if the Heat were better than the Spurs, it was clearly not by much. (That is the main counteargument people will use against the "better team" theory... that many playoff teams appear to be evenly matched if you look at the prevalence of game 7s. But we're not speaking about "essence", paper, or weapons at your disposal - which is what I mean by "evenly matched - we're speaking about events. It's not about who WAS the better team, "essentially", before the competition happened, but who PROVED themselves to be the better team, in the competitive moment. In other words, I'm interested in who "played the best", and for me that's the only reality of being the best, the rest is just hypothetical.)

Randomness played a part but it was not all random. The Spurs were in the perfect spot with 30 seconds to go. To lose the game, the Spurs needed to fail to close it out... they needed to give the Heat an opportunity to take it. And conversely the Heat needed to grab it. The Heat collectively deserve credit for not losing their fire and composure when it mattered and thus putting themselves in a position to upset the Spurs... while the Spurs deserve "blame" for letting what looked like a sure championship slip away from them. (Indeed in order to lose they needed to miss a free throw, commit a turnover, etc.... ) If you can't assign credit and blame like that, then you might as well decide the winner with a coin toss.

:applause: .. Well said on everything especially the bold.

[Rocketswin2013]

98' Jazz
02' Kings (?) :confusedshrug:
10' Celtics
07' Mavs
95' Suns (Biases aside)
05 Pistons

[SCdac]

if the best always win we would have finals of the both number 1 seeds

Yet, it's obvious to longtime observers in the game, the #1 seed is clearly not always the best team in the league, despite them achieving the best RS record.

Look at the 2005 Phoenix Suns for example, they won 62 games, better record than any other team in the league. Super fast pace and shot the ball what within 6 seconds on average. But they also gave up the most points in the league.

It was quite evident when facing the Spurs, the Suns were not in fact the best team in the league. Couldn't handle the Spurs' D, their fast pace wins didn't translate to WCF success, and couldn't stope Duncan, Manu, and Parker each of which scored 20+ ppg in the series.

They lost 4-1. Almost a sweep. The "best team in the league" doesn't get nearly swept in the playoffs.

[DMAVS41]

I do not dispute the role of luck. I've talked about this particular example many times stressing how luck played a huge part in determining this championship. But you have to assume the better team won because assuming the opposite - or worse, that victory is unrelated to passing judgment on who the better team was - will lead you to an impasse.

Going back to 2013, we were clearly dealing with evenly matched opponents, which amplified the impact of random events, so if the Heat were better than the Spurs, it was clearly not by much. (That is the main counteargument people will use against the "better team" theory... that many playoff teams appear to be evenly matched if you look at the prevalence of game 7s. But we're not speaking about "essence", paper, or weapons at your disposal - which is what I mean by "evenly matched - we're speaking about events. It's not about who WAS the better team, "essentially", before the competition happened, but who PROVED themselves to be the better team, in the competitive moment. In other words, I'm interested in who "played the best", and for me that's the only reality of being the best, the rest is just hypothetical.)

Randomness played a part but it was not all random. The Spurs were in the perfect spot with 30 seconds to go. To lose the game, the Spurs needed to fail to close it out... they needed to give the Heat an opportunity to take it. And conversely the Heat needed to grab it. The Heat collectively deserve credit for not losing their fire and composure when it mattered and thus putting themselves in a position to upset the Spurs... while the Spurs deserve "blame" for letting what looked like a sure championship slip away from them. (Indeed in order to lose they needed to miss a free throw, commit a turnover, etc.... ) If you can't assign credit and blame like that, then you might as well decide the winner with a coin toss.


I agree with most of this, but the question asked I think is a bit of a different one.

Were the 07 Warriors a better team than the 07 Mavs because they beat them 4 out of 6 times?

Is that the best way to decide the best team?

Certainly it's evidence that the Warriors were a better team than the Mavs when they played each other in that series.

Again though, I don't think that is the question people are asking.

This issue seems largely a one of semantics.

Take the 07 Mavs and 07 Warriors.

Put each of those teams in a 5 game series against every time in the league...and I'd bet my life the Mavs walk away from that with a better record in individual games and a better overall amount of won series.

Obviously we don't have access to that information, but you get the point.

How are we defining our terms? If "best team" just means the team that won the series. Then I don't even understand the question of the OP...it doesn't make sense.

[ILLsmak]

Are we all in agreement the best team always wins in the Finals? One of the reasons I hate NCAA basketball is because a lesser team can get lucky and outplay a better team for one night. That can't happen in the playoffs. There is no luck.

You have to win 4 games to win a series. Even if it comes down to game 7, the other team can't say that game was a fluke because the other team proved themselves 3 times before.

I look at LA winning game 7 to Boston a few years ago. No one says LA got lucky because Artest went off for one game. Even though Ray Allen saved the season last year that one shot didn't actually cost SA the title. They had other chances.

Has the best team ever not won it all?

No, being the best team and winning are two totally different things. Just the same as being the best at anything and being recognized as the best. Too many variables.

You think it means a team isn't the best if a role player shoots 25% opposed to 40% from 3? In some cases, that could be the series. Or in the case of someone like Danny Green... 70% instead of 45. Shit like that happens, yakno?

Edit: In fact, why are people so concerned about what is best? lol, it's kind of funny and childish. You eat a burger and you're like damn this burger is ****ing good... this might be the BEST BURGER IVE EVER HAD. And it's like why do you even need to go that far? Why can't we just say that team was an amazing team, I think they could compete against any team in NBA history or of their era. BEST EVER GOAT NAH SON.

-Smak

[Smoke117]

Are we all in agreement the best team always wins in the Finals? One of the reasons I hate NCAA basketball is because a lesser team can get lucky and outplay a better team for one night. That can't happen in the playoffs. There is no luck.

You have to win 4 games to win a series. Even if it comes down to game 7, the other team can't say that game was a fluke because the other team proved themselves 3 times before.

I look at LA winning game 7 to Boston a few years ago. No one says LA got lucky because Artest went off for one game. Even though Ray Allen saved the season last year that one shot didn't actually cost SA the title. They had other chances.

Has the best team ever not won it all?

For the most part yes as we are playing a game 7 game series. That year Cleveland went to the finals in 07 they had no business being there though. In the ECF vs the Piston's, Detroit managed to have the worst series possibly in the history of their franchise. They were definitely the better team, but just played about as bad as they could in every single game. I don't get on Lebron about that sweep vs the Spurs because the Cavs had no business beating the Pistons and ending up vs the Spurs in the first place.

[houston]

2002 Nets


:facepalm :oldlol:

[houston]

yes

[LAZERUSS]

1972 Gold Medal game...

I honestly believe that the "powers that be" would have continued that game until the Soviets scored that "winning" basket. Hell, they might still be playing...