Bran's Playoff stats vs 50-win teams [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Roundball_Rock

05-15-2014, 12:47 AM

dudes played 4 50 win teams in the last 4 years smh

*

Which is misleading since there were only two 50 win teams in the abbreviated 2012 season...the Heat beat the Pacers, Celtics, and Thunder in the playoffs. The Thunder were 47-19 (58 wins over 82 games), the Pacers 42-24 (52 win pace) and the Celtics were at a 49 win pace.

Another note on the 2012 season, the Eastern standings mirror the Western standings until you get to the very bottom where the worst East team won only 7 games to the West's worst team winning 21. Everywhere else it was pretty much the same, give or take 2-3 games.

MMM

05-15-2014, 12:51 AM

interesting how most these teams are real contenders and not perennial playoff losers like 50 win + Jazz, Nuggets, Rockets, and Suns.

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 12:56 AM

interesting how most these teams are real contenders and not perennial playoff losers like 50 win + Jazz, Nuggets, Rockets, and Suns.

Not really.

07 Pistons = Saunders+Webber+McDyess (NOT the 04-06 Pistons).
09 Magic = Lakers should have swept them. Only made it because of KG injury.
11 Celtics = Over the hill already.
11 Bulls = Green and overrated

MMM

05-15-2014, 12:59 AM

Not really.

07 Pistons = Saunders+Webber+McDyess (NOT the 04-06 Pistons).
09 Magic = Lakers should have swept them. Only made it because of KG injury.
11 Celtics = Over the hill already.
11 Bulls = Green and overrated

still much better quality than more than the paper tiger contenders that the Lakers beat up on from 08-10.

tpols

05-15-2014, 01:00 AM

interesting how most these teams are real contenders and not perennial playoff losers like 50 win + Jazz, Nuggets, Rockets, and Suns.

What? The Celtics hadnt won anything for three years before bran saw them in the playoffs on the Heat.. and were completely washed up by 2011/2012. The Bulls and Pacers would qualify as perrenial playoff losers by your definition since they never even came close to ever winning anything.. the 11 mavs werent even considered contenders going into the playoffs and had been known as pretenders/chokers for years before that..

I guess spurs are the only one that could be considered a 'real contender' and even they were getting upset by 8 seeds and backdoor swept out the playoffs with no title for 7 years and were never truely taken seriously until they went off on Miami in last years finals.

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:05 AM

still much better quality than more than the paper tiger contenders that the Lakers beat up on from 08-10.

not really.

SilkkTheShocker

05-15-2014, 01:05 AM

How mad are Kobe stans that Lebron will go down as better player than their hero ever was? :oldlol:

jlip

05-15-2014, 01:07 AM

PPG: 26.4
RPG: 8.4
APG: 6.9
TOV: 3.6
FG%: .438
3P%: .306
FT%: .743
TS%: .547

Teams:

07 Spurs (0-4)

11 Mavericks (2-4)

Pretty decent numbers considering how horrible he was in these two series.

Roundball_Rock

05-15-2014, 01:08 AM

The Pistons made it to 6 straight conference finals. The 2007 team was not as good as some of their earlier versions but it was still a very good team. Even the following year they went 59-23 and reached the ECF, losing to the Boston "Big 3."

MMM

05-15-2014, 01:09 AM

What? The Celtics hadnt won anything for three years before bran saw them in the playoffs on the Heat.. and were completely washed up by 2011/2012. The Bulls and Pacers would qualify as perrenial playoff losers by your definition since they never even came close to ever winning anything.. the 11 mavs werent even considered contenders going into the playoffs and had been known as pretenders/chokers for years before that..

I guess spurs are the only one that could be considered a 'real contender' and even they were getting upset by 8 seeds and backdoor swept out the playoffs with no title for 7 years and were never truely taken seriously until they went off on Miami in last years finals.

not much to overly disagree about but those teams were still a notch better than Jazz, Rockets, Nuggets and Suns.

The Celtics and Pistons might have been on the downside when they were beat but still had championship DNA which made it difficult to overcome.

The Magic, Bulls, and Pacers get more credit from me just because they were able to replicate being a top 5 team for more than one season. Jazz, Nuggets and Rockets never have done that.

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:10 AM

Pretty decent numbers considering how horrible he was in these two series.

You can add this one

http://s29.postimg.org/mn1iuv2vr/image.png

Worst 4 game streak by any superstar...ever.

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:11 AM

not much to overly disagree about but those teams were still a notch better than Jazz, Rockets, Nuggets and Suns.

The Celtics and Pistons might have been on the downside when they were beat but still had championship DNA which made it difficult to overcome.

The Magic, Bulls, and Pacers get more credit from me just because they were able to replicate being a top 5 team for more than one season. Jazz, Nuggets and Rockets never have done that.

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/392220/resized_conspiracy-keanu-meme-generator-what-if-my-glass-half-empty-is-actually-half-full-0cdffe.jpg

DMAVS41

05-15-2014, 01:13 AM

What? The Celtics hadnt won anything for three years before bran saw them in the playoffs on the Heat.. and were completely washed up by 2011/2012. The Bulls and Pacers would qualify as perrenial playoff losers by your definition since they never even came close to ever winning anything.. the 11 mavs werent even considered contenders going into the playoffs and had been known as pretenders/chokers for years before that..

I guess spurs are the only one that could be considered a 'real contender' and even they were getting upset by 8 seeds and backdoor swept out the playoffs with no title for 7 years and were never truely taken seriously until they went off on Miami in last years finals.

The 11 Celtics were absolutely not washed up, but I agree that the level of competition for the Heat was been very weak.

But as a Lakers/Kobe fan...hard to say anything as the 09 and 10 competition outside of the 10 Celtics was very weak as well.

J Shuttlesworth

05-15-2014, 01:14 AM

His rebound/assist numbers are the same as his career playoff averages. His points are down by 2, and his FG% is down like 1.5%. Just goes to show the difference between 50 win teams and the competition is maybe 1 more missed shot. GOAT

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:15 AM

But as a Lakers/Kobe fan...hard to say anything as the 09 and 10 competition outside of the 10 Celtics was very weak as well.

I still think the 2009 nuggets are underrated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2bYXQj3hU4

jlip

05-15-2014, 01:17 AM

Is there necessarily any appreciable difference between a 48 win team and a 51 win team?

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:17 AM

and his FG% is down like 1.5%.

FG%: .438

Is Lebron's career at 45%?

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:18 AM

Is there necessarily any appreciable difference between a 48 win team and a 51 win team?

If the 48 win team plays in the east, then yes.

DMAVS41

05-15-2014, 01:19 AM

I still think the 2009 nuggets are underrated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2bYXQj3hU4

Yea...and they posed about as much of a challenge to the Lakers (actually probably less due to the matchup issues) than the Pacers did last year.

I'm all for talking about the cakewalk the Heat have had to the Finals since joining up outside of 11, but lets not act like the two paths to the title in the West the previous years in 09 and 10 were much different.

In fact, the Heat in 11 had a tougher road to the finals than either of the 09 or 10 Lakers did...and then played a Mavs team on par with the 10 Celtics and clearly better than the 09 Magic in the finals. Granted they lost, but it's worth noting that 11 was not any easy road.

Which is important, because it shows how having to actually play quality teams, even if the series is short, can wear you down. Those Bulls/Celtics games the Heat played were easily twice as hard as the games they have played so far in the playoffs to date. Just a different level of play compared to the joke teams they will face this year.

MMM

05-15-2014, 01:20 AM

If the 48 win team plays in the east, then yes.

47 win Atl or 50 win Dal????

Remember the top of the East was much better in 09 nearly 3 60 win teams

J Shuttlesworth

05-15-2014, 01:21 AM

FG%: .438

Is Lebron's career at 45%?
Ok fine... it's down 1.2% :roll:

jlip

05-15-2014, 01:22 AM

If the 48 win team plays in the east, then yes.

Is there automatically a difference between two EC teams whereas one won 48 games and the other won 51 games?

tpols

05-15-2014, 01:22 AM

The 11 Celtics were absolutely not washed up, but I agree that the level of competition for the Heat was been very weak.

But as a Lakers/Kobe fan...hard to say anything as the 09 and 10 competition outside of the 10 Celtics was very weak as well.

Laker's competition 08-10 was tougher than Heat's the past few years. They had to play legit teams.. like young WB/Durant in the first round instead of the monta led bucks or jrue holiday led sixers. Their conference title battles were easier as well.. The Bulls, Pacers, and old Celtics were just so anemic offensively.. the talent gap between the Heat and those teams was enormous.

Finals opponents are about equal.. if I had to rank them it'd be

2008 Celtics
2013 Spurs
2010 Celtics
2012 Thunder
2011 Mavs
2009 Magic

The main difference between their two runs is LA was getting scares in first round series and the West was basically how it was now back then.. and Lebron and the Heat have been able to basically cruise through half the playoffs before a legit team pops up.

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:23 AM

Yea...and they posed about as much of a challenge to the Lakers (actually probably less due to the matchup issues) than the Pacers did last year.

I'm all for talking about the cakewalk the Heat have had to the Finals since joining up outside of 11, but lets not act like the two paths to the title in the West the previous years in 09 and 10 were much different.

In fact, the Heat in 11 had a tougher road to the finals than either of the 09 or 10 Lakers did...and then played a Mavs team on par with the 10 Celtics and clearly better than the 09 Magic in the finals. Granted they lost, but it's worth noting that 11 was not any easy road.

Which is important, because it shows how having to actually play quality teams, even if the series is short, can wear you down. Those Bulls/Celtics games the Heat played were easily twice as hard as the games they have played so far in the playoffs to date. Just a different level of play compared to the joke teams they will face this year.

We can split hairs about this, but when the Heat had it easy, they had it reeeaally easy (Bucks 2013).

Heavincent

05-15-2014, 01:25 AM

The 11 Celtics were absolutely not washed up, but I agree that the level of competition for the Heat was been very weak.

But as a Lakers/Kobe fan...hard to say anything as the 09 and 10 competition outside of the 10 Celtics was very weak as well.

Wrong. Kobe faced 11 50+ win teams between 08 and 10. Much, much better than the competition Lebron faced from 11 to 13. It's not even close. Add up the winning percentages and you'll see. No bye rounds for Kobe, such as the Bucks, Bobcats, or JV Bulls.

I've gotta say, 2010 Suns are seriously underrated. They were ****ing stacked. Prime Nash and Stoudemire with 40+% 3 pt shooters all over the court. They should have beaten the Lakers, but Kobe had a legendary series. Anything less and they would have lost. Same kind of thing happened in 09. Nuggets were a very good team, and again, Kobe significantly increased his production from the regular season. I don't know why you're acting like those were just some slap dick teams.

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:28 AM

Ok fine... it's down 1.2% :roll:

He is a 50% player right? No

Is that not a 6% decrease?

DMAVS41

05-15-2014, 01:30 AM

Laker's competition 08-10 was tougher than Heat's the past few years. They had to play legit teams.. like young WB/Durant in the first round instead of the monta led bucks or jrue holiday led sixers. Their conference title battles were easier as well.. The Bulls, Pacers, and old Celtics were just so anemic offensively.. the talent gap between the Heat and those teams was enormous.

Finals opponents are about equal.. if I had to rank them it'd be

2008 Celtics
2013 Spurs
2010 Celtics
2012 Thunder
2011 Mavs
2009 Magic

The main difference between their two runs is LA was getting scares in first round series and the West was basically how it was now back then.. and Lebron and the Heat have been able to basically cruise through half the playoffs before a legit team pops up.

Yea...I'm all for piling on the Heat cakewalk train, but I just think we can't over-rate the competition of the West back then...

Meh...the 10 Thunder series is kind of misleading. Kobe was hurt for half the series and they still won in 6. Definitely a tougher first round matchup, but no real chance of losing.

I think the 09 and 13 roads to the title between the Lakers and Heat is very similar. Nuggets were similar to the Pacers and the Spurs were just better than the Magic. I'd actually give the Heat all things considered the edge on the tougher road there...especially as they lucked out with the Yao injury as well.

The 12 road is comparable to the 10 road as well...especially when factoring in Bosh's injury. I think too many people ignore this. They had to beat a good Boston team without Bosh. And then beat an under-rated Thunder team in the finals.

I think the 10 Lakers had it a little harder in a vacuum, but losing Bosh made the road tougher.

Then I actually think the 11 Heat had it harder than the 08 Lakers to get to the finals...and then the Lakers did have a tougher finals opponent.

The real joke is last year and this year. 11 was a legit tough road and 12 became one with the Bosh injury.

J Shuttlesworth

05-15-2014, 01:32 AM

He is a 50% player right? No

Is that not a 6% decrease?
Career is 50%, but playoffs career is 47.7%. So it's actually a 3.9% dropoff... which coincidentally is still about 1 shot a game.

DMAVS41

05-15-2014, 01:33 AM

Wrong. Kobe faced 11 50+ win teams between 08 and 10. Much, much better than the competition Lebron faced from 11 to 13. It's not even close. Add up the winning percentages and you'll see. No bye rounds for Kobe, such as the Bucks, Bobcats, or JV Bulls.

I've gotta say, 2010 Suns are seriously underrated. They were ****ing stacked. Prime Nash and Stoudemire with 40+% 3 pt shooters all over the court. They should have beaten the Lakers, but Kobe had a legendary series. Anything less and they would have lost. Same kind of thing happened in 09. Nuggets were a very good team, and again, Kobe significantly increased his production from the regular season. I don't know why you're acting like those were just some slap dick teams.

Just a total meh to the 09 stuff. They lucked out with Yao getting hurt in the 2nd round and then beat a good but not great Nuggets team in the conference finals and then faced an alright Magic team.

That is not any more difficult than the 13 Heat's road to the finals. The Pacers presented just as much or more issue to the Heat and the Spurs were just easily better than the Magic.

I think the 10 Lakers faced tougher competition than the 12 Heat in a vacuum, but the Bosh injury makes it closer than you are leading on.

11 vs 08? Very similar as well....especially with the Manu injury in the conference finals.

Sorry...it's just not a huge disparity.

pauk

05-15-2014, 01:44 AM

Cool.

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 01:46 AM

Career is 50%, but playoffs career is 47.7%. So it's actually a 3.9% dropoff... which coincidentally is still about 1 shot a game.

Or the difference between Kobe's and Lebron's career FG%.

J Shuttlesworth

05-15-2014, 01:55 AM

Or the difference between Kobe's and Lebron's career FG%.
You're right :bowdown: So Kobe's career numbers:

25/5/4 on 45% shooting

vs. Bran against 50 win teams:
25/8.4/7 on 44% shooting.

Damn LeBron is better than Kobe's career numbers... WHEN PLAYING AGAINST 50 WIN TEAMS. :bowdown: That shows just how much better LeBron is than Kobe. Thanks for making that point, Magic 32

IllegalD

05-15-2014, 02:06 AM

Everyone knows that LeBron has had one of the easiest road to his two championships for any GOAT candidate in NBA history. The following are undeniable facts: 1) Playing in the historically sh*tty Eastern Conference; 2) Multiple All-Stars injured on opposing teams (Rose, Rondo, Westbrook, Kobe, Al Jefferson); 3) Facing teams in the finals who have been put through the Western conference gauntlet and are too tired to hang; 4) Rule changes which allow a player like LeBron who's entire game is predicated on just bowling over defenders in the lane to have the advantage (aka playing in the softest defensive era in NBA history)

And even with all that he was still one Ray Allen miracle, legacy-saving shot away from having a Wilt/Peyton Manning-esque reputation for big-game choker and having a 1-3 record in the Finals.

The 2000 Spurs with Duncan in his prime are more legendary than any team LeBron has ever faced/beaten in his career and Kobe has herbed them out multiple times, with and without Shaq. The Big 3 Celtics are more legendary than any opponent LeBron has ever beaten in the Finals (the 2013 Spurs might have been more historically legendary than those Celtics, but lets face it, they haven't won jacksh*t since 2007, while the Celts were only 1 season removed from having won the chip.

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 02:16 AM

You're right :bowdown: So Kobe's career numbers:

25/5/4 on 45% shooting

vs. Bran against 50 win teams:
25/8.4/7 on 44% shooting.

Damn LeBron is better than Kobe's career numbers... WHEN PLAYING AGAINST 50 WIN TEAMS. :bowdown: That shows just how much better LeBron is than Kobe. Thanks for making that point, Magic 32

Sorry to disappoint you, but Kobe's FG% is better against 50+ win teams.

J Shuttlesworth

05-15-2014, 02:18 AM

Sorry to disappoint you, but Kobe's FG% is better against 50+ win teams.
Sorry to disappoint you, but LeBron's #s are far better than Kobe's career numbers... when LeBron is playing against 50 win teams. Acting like FG% is the only relevant stat... we're talking about less than 1% difference and LeBron has much better rebound/assist numbers

Curious though, what are career Kobe's stats against 50 win teams?

Magic 32

05-15-2014, 02:20 AM

Sorry to disappoint you, but LeBron's #s are far better than Kobe's career numbers... when LeBron is playing against 50 win teams. Acting like FG% is the only relevant stat... we're talking about less than 1% difference and LeBron has much better rebound/assist numbers

Curious though, what are career Kobe's stats against 50 win teams?

I'm sure you would love to include Kobe's 10 min. per game against Utah in 1997.

Deuce Bigalow

05-15-2014, 02:39 AM

Since Kobe's name is brought up, here's Kobe's stats vs 50-win teams in the playoffs:

26.2/5.2/4.8/3.0 tov on .451/.308/.814 in 172 games

Playoff career minus 97 Blazers, 99 Playoffs, 00 Kings, 02 Blazers, 04 Rockets, 09 Jazz, 11 Hornets, 12 Playoffs (All are less than 50 win teams)

172 of Kobe's 220 games are vs 50-win teams (78.2%)

59 of Bran's 147 games are vs 50-win teams (40.1%)

Kobe's playoff stats vs 50-win teams as a starter: 27.8/5.5/5.2/3.1 tov on .453/.312/.817 in 156 games

As a starter 156/200 of his playoff games were against a 50-win team (78%)

J Shuttlesworth

05-15-2014, 02:45 AM

I'm sure you would love to include Kobe's 10 min. per game against Utah in 1997.

Actually, Deuce just posted Kobe's numbers against 50 win teams. LeBron's are clearly better

25/8/7 on 44% vs

26/5/5 on 45% shooting

Still solid numbers, but LeBron hast his one quite easily

Deuce Bigalow

05-15-2014, 03:06 AM

Actually, Deuce just posted Kobe's numbers against 50 win teams. LeBron's are clearly better

25/8/7 on 44% vs

26/5/5 on 45% shooting

Still solid numbers, but LeBron hast his one quite easily
Bean averaged 8.8/1.8/1.6/1.3 tov on .377/.212/.746 coming off the bench in his first 16 games vs 50-win teams in the playoffs

So I would say it's not fair to give Kobe credit for his first 50-win victory. 23 50-win victories are legit tbh vs 4 for Bran.

I'll take starter Kobe with 28/6/5 on 45/31/82 with a 23-6 series record vs. 50-win teams over Bran's 26/8/7 on 44/31/74 with a 4-6 series record tbh.

Deuce Bigalow

05-15-2014, 03:14 AM

CeilingFan#1

05-15-2014, 03:41 AM

He has only won 4 of 10 series against 50 win teams yet he has been in the Finals 4 times? East :facepalm

The-Legend-24

05-15-2014, 03:58 AM

He has only won 4 of 10 series against 50 win teams yet he has been in the Finals 4 times? East :facepalm
:oldlol: :oldlol:

It's crazy doe, these nikkas are on cruise control for the majority of the playoffs, meanwhile a team like OKC might have to go thru three, 7 game series' just to make it to the finals. :oldlol:

Black Mamba's B

05-15-2014, 04:07 AM

still much better quality than more than the paper tiger contenders that the Lakers beat up on from 08-10.
:biggums:

2010splash

05-15-2014, 07:42 AM

LeBron has the HIGHEST ppg average in playoff elimination games ever, while Kobe's stats in similar situations are downright horrendous. Kobe has wet the bed on countless occasions when it really matters while LeBron has delivered some of the most epic performances ever.

knicksman

05-15-2014, 07:51 AM

and people compare him to kobe much more jordan. :lol

knicksman

05-15-2014, 07:55 AM

Just a total meh to the 09 stuff. They lucked out with Yao getting hurt in the 2nd round and then beat a good but not great Nuggets team in the conference finals and then faced an alright Magic team.

That is not any more difficult than the 13 Heat's road to the finals. The Pacers presented just as much or more issue to the Heat and the Spurs were just easily better than the Magic.

I think the 10 Lakers faced tougher competition than the 12 Heat in a vacuum, but the Bosh injury makes it closer than you are leading on.

11 vs 08? Very similar as well....especially with the Manu injury in the conference finals.

Sorry...it's just not a huge disparity.

youre just showing your bias. Spurs were done since 2008. They lost many first rounds since then. Its just that the league has been watered down that they made it to the finals again.

jlip

05-15-2014, 08:21 AM

knicksman

05-15-2014, 08:34 AM

this just shows how empty lebrons stats are. But thats what betas do. They go for stats coz theyre not confident in winning rings. Just ask oscar

K Xerxes

05-15-2014, 08:41 AM

Their series records are...

Kobe as a starter: 23-6

Bran: 4-6

To check my math..
24 total wins for Kobe - http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=332740
1 came in '98 coming off the bench so take one away = 23 wins
99 nobody had 50-wins
12 nobody had 50-wins
no playoffs in 05
Lost to a 50-win team in 03,04,06,07,08,11 = 6 losses

23-6 as a starter

Those are team records, not individual records. Not much to say here when Kobe has had better teams for a lot longer. Shaq/Gasol, Jackson... vs Mo Williams, Big Z and Mike Brown...

edrick

05-15-2014, 08:44 AM

This is what it has come to for Lebron haters. Complaining about shit he has no control over. :applause:

Knoe Itawl

05-15-2014, 09:31 AM

You Bryant stans can make these threads just like you can make threads with your extended essays about how Jordan played inferior competition, and played in a weak era and blah blah blah, but you'll never change that Lebron and Jordan will go down as better players than Kobe Bryant.

Sorry.

Ne 1

05-15-2014, 09:42 AM

I still think the 2009 nuggets are underrated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2bYXQj3hU4

The 2008 Spurs, 2009 Nuggets and 2010 Suns are all underrated. The '08 Spurs just a year before embarrassed LeBron and were a top 3 defense that season, '09 Nuggets shut down Chris Paul that year and were a top 10 defense and the '10 Suns after the all-star break were a top 5 defense.

SilkkTheShocker

05-15-2014, 09:47 AM

LeBron >>>> Kobe all-time

riseagainst

05-15-2014, 10:47 AM

he's only won 4 series against 50 win teams. and 3 of those came after joining up with Wade and Bosh. What a great player he is.

DMAVS41

05-15-2014, 12:21 PM

The 2008 Spurs, 2009 Nuggets and 2010 Suns are all underrated. The '08 Spurs just a year before embarrassed LeBron and were a top 3 defense that season, '09 Nuggets shut down Chris Paul that year and were a top 10 defense and the '10 Suns after the all-star break were a top 5 defense.

Well, you can't ignore that Manu was hurt in the 08 WCF. That doesn't mean they were garbage without him, but that was a key thing.

I don't think the 09 Nuggets posed the Lakers any more of a threat than the 13 Pacers posed the Heat.

And the 11 Celtics/Bulls were as good or better than the 10 Suns. And beating the 12 Celtics without Bosh was similar to a healthy Lakers squad beating the 10 Suns.

The big difference, like tpols said, is that in round 1 the Lakers faced tougher teams. But meh...that just isn't a huge difference there.

Again, the Heat, especially last year and this year are playing a joke road.

But that doesn't change the past. 08 vs 11 for the Lakers/Heat are very similar paths. I don't think the 08 Lakers beat the 11 Mavs...and clearly the 11 Heat aren't beating the 08 Celtics with Lebron doing that. Almost too close to call in terms of which road was tougher 08 vs 11. Maybe a slight edge to the Lakers because the Celtics were probably better than the Mavs...but it's so close either way there is no reason to differentiate.

Then it's comparing the next 2 years.

If you want to go in order. Then it's 09 vs 12. Again it's similar. Heat beat Carmelo led Knicks team, a tough Pacers team that posed matchup issues, beat the Celtics without Bosh essentially, and then beat a Thunder team with 2 superstars and a quality depth. Man...honestly that is probably just a harder road than 09 for the Lakers. The Lakers road wasn't cupcakes, but the Thunder were better than the Magic and then I think beating Knicks, Pacers, Celtics (without Bosh) is better than what the Lakers did.

Then we go to 10 vs 13. This is where the Lakers played a tougher road if you go in order here.

So it's a toss up in 08 vs 11, Heat had a tougher road in 12 vs 09, Lakers had a tougher road in 10 vs 13.

I'd say the Lakers played better competition over those 3 years, but it actually is pretty slight...especially when you factor in circumstances like the Yao and Manu injury....and the Bosh injury.

This year is obviously irrelevant as the Lakers would have had to face much better teams.

So I'd say that it was 13 and this year that were pretty easy for the Heat. 11 and 12 were absolutely on par with other past runs.

These last 2 years though...just super easy.