Lebron is 1/2, Kobe is 0/2 and Jordan is 0/0

[livinglegend]

Lebron won 1 finals as underdog (2012) and lost 1 finals as favorite (2011).
Kobe lost 2 finals as favorite ( 2004 and 2008).
Jordan never won any finals as underdogs and never lost as favorite.

[Collie]

Were the Lakers really the favorites in 08? Boston had by far the better record... was this based on the betting lines?

2012 was probably even. Maybe slightly favoring the Heat due to experience.

[SpaceJam]

dmg ctrl

[livinglegend]

Were the Lakers really the favorites in 08? Boston had by far the better record... was this based on the betting lines?

Also Bron was definitely not the underdog in 2012.

Celtics went to 7 games in first round and 2nd round.

[knicksman]

:roll: just admit it bran stans. You were dumb for believing in bran

[imnew09]

Celtics went to 7 games in first round and 2nd round.


the same celtics that made Lebron quit?
:lebroncry:
/
And how the fk was Lebron underdog in 2012? the fken Thunders had a worse record....
And Lebron and his super TRIO lost in 2011 so they were fully motivated.

[GrapeApe]

The Bulls didn't have HCA in 1993 and 1998. I don't know about the betting lines, but I do seem to remember the Jazz being favored in 1998.

[sportjames23]

Bron stans see the writing on the wall--their boy is about to fall to 1*/7. :oldlol:

[livinglegend]

the same celtics that made Lebron quit?
:lebroncry:
/
And how the fk was Lebron underdog in 2012? the fken Thunders with a worse record?

betting lines had okc as the favorite.
Most experts and fans also had okc as the favorite.
You forgot the famous ''WCF are the real finals'' thread?

[livinglegend]

:roll: just admit it bran stans. You were dumb for believing in bran

I m not any1's stan and I had warriors winning the series.

[Done_And_Done]

You're reaching brah lololol

Seriously... It's come to this?

[JebronLames]

Were the Lakers really the favorites in 08? Boston had by far the better record... was this based on the betting lines?

2012 was probably even. Maybe slightly favoring the Heat due to experience.
http://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-finals-historical-series-odds-list

[livinglegend]

http://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-finals-historical-series-odds-list

Thanks for this.
I was right in my calculations.
Kobe is 0/2 and Lebron is 1/2. And Kobe's 2004 lost was the biggest upset of all of them.

[GrapeApe]

betting lines had okc as the favorite.
Most experts and fans also had okc as the favorite.
You forgot the famous ''WCF are the real finals'' thread?

2012 was interesting because the Thunder had HCA and the Heat struggled to beat an old Celtics team. However, I felt extremely confident they'd win, much moreso than in 2013 when they were betting favorites. I didn't see any way they were losing in back to back finals, especially not to an inexperienced team like OKC. Personally I wouldn't classify that series as an upset.

[3ball]

misinformation itt

[3ball]

Jordan never won any finals as underdogs and never lost as favorite.



The Bulls were big underdogs in 1991 Finals, per nba.com's history page:



"the Bulls were considered big underdogs to the Lakers in the Finals and the vast majority of media "experts" predicted an easy Lakers' victory."

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/top-20-moments-1990-91-season.html



The Bulls were also underdogs in 1998 Finals

[Jameerthefear]

OP is 100% correct

[Soundwave]

I don't think the Bulls were the favorite especially not in '98, they were coming off a tough 7 game series to the rested Utah Jazz who had home court advantage.

Even '91, they weren't the outright favorites, especially not after losing game 1. After game 1 everyone and their grandma was pushing the "see, Jordan and the Bulls don't know how to win like Magic and Bird do, you can't dunk your way to a championship" ... and they promptly were shut up by game 2.

'93 as well you could say would be a wash, a lot of people felt it was Phoenix's year.

They were favorites in 92, 96, and 97 for sure I would say, but as someone who actually grew up in the 90s and watched these series live it wasn't like Chicago was the favorite all the time.

A lot of people felt they would lose in '93 to either the Knicks or Suns.

Even in '92 I remember a lot of people saying Drexler was as good as Jordan (lol) and that would be shown in the Finals (those people shut up real quick after game 1).

And after losing to Orlando in 1995, it actually was fairly popular opinion that the Bulls/Jordan were finished and Orlando was the new dynasty in the making.

In their 1996 NBA preview guide I remember Sports Illustrated picked the Bulls to finish 3rd ... in the Central Division (laugh my ass off).

[kamil]

Lebron won 1 finals as underdog (2012) and lost 1 finals as favorite (2011).
Kobe lost 2 finals as favorite ( 2004 and 2008).
Jordan never won any finals as underdogs and never lost as favorite.

Bulls were underdogs in 98. Everybody knows this except you.

[jrong]

Lebron won 1 finals as underdog (2012) and lost 1 finals as favorite (2011).
Kobe lost 2 finals as favorite ( 2004 and 2008).
Jordan never won any finals as underdogs and never lost as favorite.

Lakers were definitely the favorite in '91. Assuming that oddsmakers weighted homecourt advantage as heavily then as they do now, the Suns in '93 and the Jazz in '98 were arguably the favorites also. So that makes MJ 3/3.

[sportjames23]

I don't think the Bulls were the favorite especially not in '98, they were coming off a tough 7 game series to the rested Utah Jazz who had home court advantage.

Even '91, they weren't the outright favorites, especially not after losing game 1. After game 1 everyone and their grandma was pushing the "see, Jordan and the Bulls don't know how to win like Magic and Bird do, you can't dunk your way to a championship" ... and they promptly were shut up by game 2.

'93 as well you could say would be a wash, a lot of people felt it was Phoenix's year.

They were favorites in 92, 96, and 97 for sure I would say, but as someone who actually grew up in the 90s and watched these series live it wasn't like Chicago was the favorite all the time.

A lot of people felt they would lose in '93 to either the Knicks or Suns.

Even in '92 I remember a lot of people saying Drexler was as good as Jordan (lol) and that would be shown in the Finals (those people shut up real quick after game 1).

And after losing to Orlando in 1995, it actually was fairly popular opinion that the Bulls/Jordan were finished and Orlando was the new dynasty in the making.

In their 1996 NBA preview guide I remember Sports Illustrated picked the Bulls to finish 3rd ... in the Central Division (laugh my ass off).


As usual, Soundwave is spot on. :cheers:

[SexSymbol]

08 Boston were the favorites.
Judging from the predictions of fan forums Cavs are the favorites this year.
Bron also lost in 09 as overwhelming favorites.

[Asukal]

Bran has 2 * rings, one from a shortened lockout season and another gifted by rayray. :oldlol: :lol :roll:

[knicksman]

I m not any1's stan and I had warriors winning the series.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qE8XB0J4nr53oRO/giphy.gif

[livinglegend]

08 Boston were the favorites.
Judging from the predictions of fan forums Cavs are the favorites this year.
Bron also lost in 09 as overwhelming favorites.
Nope lakers were the favorites in 08:
http://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-finals-historical-series-odds-list

[Sarcastic]

Only reason that OKC was favorite was that Vegas thought Bran would choke again like he did against Dallas.

[Gileraracer]

Here we go with the excuses again

[livinglegend]

Only reason that OKC was favorite was that Vegas thought Bran would choke again like he did against Dallas.

that's not true. It was because they just beat a spurs teams that was looking unbeatable.

[DoctorP]

OP really reaching to idolize. GTFO

[choppermagic]

LOL this premise is ridiculous.

So, if you are an amazing player to the point that your team is favored to win a series, it counts AGAINST you? ha ha

I'd rather be a player that is so dam good that every team is the underdog against mine.

[guy]

Completely misleading. The main reason the Heat were not favored in 2012 was because Lebron choked the previous 2 years and disappointed as the favorite 3 years in a row at that point. There's no way HCA made that much of a difference that the Thunder should've been favored. Both the Heat and Thunder were basically equal talent, had similar records, yet the Heat were clearly much more experienced. The Thunder were one of the youngest, most inexperienced Finals teams ever.

I don't remember the betting lines, but the Bulls arguably weren't considered favorites in 1991, 1993, or 1998. 1991 cause it was their first Finals and were going up against a more experienced, multiple former championship opponent. 1993 cause no team had won 3 in a row since the 60s. 1998 cause they were old and the idea of 2 3-peats at that point was unfathomable.

Lebron's underdog status was cause his past play lowered the expectations for him. Jordan's underdog status was cause of inexperience or because it was hard to imagine him and his team could actually be that dominant and they had to lose at some point.

[guy]

I don't think the Bulls were the favorite especially not in '98, they were coming off a tough 7 game series to the rested Utah Jazz who had home court advantage.

Even '91, they weren't the outright favorites, especially not after losing game 1. After game 1 everyone and their grandma was pushing the "see, Jordan and the Bulls don't know how to win like Magic and Bird do, you can't dunk your way to a championship" ... and they promptly were shut up by game 2.

'93 as well you could say would be a wash, a lot of people felt it was Phoenix's year.

They were favorites in 92, 96, and 97 for sure I would say, but as someone who actually grew up in the 90s and watched these series live it wasn't like Chicago was the favorite all the time.

A lot of people felt they would lose in '93 to either the Knicks or Suns.

Even in '92 I remember a lot of people saying Drexler was as good as Jordan (lol) and that would be shown in the Finals (those people shut up real quick after game 1).

And after losing to Orlando in 1995, it actually was fairly popular opinion that the Bulls/Jordan were finished and Orlando was the new dynasty in the making.

In their 1996 NBA preview guide I remember Sports Illustrated picked the Bulls to finish 3rd ... in the Central Division (laugh my ass off).

The 98 Jazz beat the Hakeem/Drexler/Barkley Rockets, Duncan/Robinson Spurs, then Shaq/Kobe/NVE/Jones Lakers. There was alot of question marks going into those Finals.

Historically, the talent and how "stacked" the Bulls were has gotten incredibly overstated just because of how successful they were. That wasn't the case when they were actually playing. There were the same complaints that the supporting cast wasn't doing enough, but people forget now cause in the end they still won, largely off of Jordan's brilliance. With Lebron from 2011-today, its the opposite now and unfortunately will continue to be years from now because he wasn't nearly as successful, but instead of Lebron just not being as great, its going to be his teams weren't as talented, despite the fact that going into each season, his teams were considered one of, if not the most talented in the league.

[nathanjizzle]

now thats called reaching.

[ImKobe]

Were the Lakers really the favorites in 08? Boston had by far the better record... was this based on the betting lines?

2012 was probably even. Maybe slightly favoring the Heat due to experience.

Lakers weren't favored in 2004 and 2008.

That's just ridiculous

Boston had the best record in the league and a stacked roster

Lakers made a trade for Pau mid-season after Bynum went down with a season-ending injury, their rotation in the Playoffs was 8 guys, Ariza broke his leg in January and only got garbage time minutes in the Playoffs when he finally got cleared.

2004 the Lakers were a 3 seed in the West and barely got past the Spurs and Timberwolves while the Pistons were dominating in the Playoffs. Malone also got injured in the Playoffs, so did Kobe.


Only reason Pistons didn't have HCA was because Sheed was traded there post-ASB and only played 21 games for them, they went 16 - 5 with him in the regular season

Lakers were a Kobe miss away from losing their division and being a 5 seed in the Playoffs.

OP doesn't know shit

[livinglegend]

Completely misleading. The main reason the Heat were not favored in 2012 was because Lebron choked the previous 2 years and disappointed as the favorite 3 years in a row at that point. There's no way HCA made that much of a difference that the Thunder should've been favored. Both the Heat and Thunder were basically equal talent, had similar records, yet the Heat were clearly much more experienced. The Thunder were one of the youngest, most inexperienced Finals teams ever.

I don't remember the betting lines, but the Bulls arguably weren't considered favorites in 1991, 1993, or 1998. 1991 cause it was their first Finals and were going up against a more experienced, multiple former championship opponent. 1993 cause no team had won 3 in a row since the 60s. 1998 cause they were old and the idea of 2 3-peats at that point was unfathomable.

Lebron's underdog status was cause his past play lowered the expectations for him. Jordan's underdog status was cause of inexperience or because it was hard to imagine him and his team could actually be that dominant and they had to lose at some point.

Prove the part in bold, if not, it's a lie.

[livinglegend]

Lakers weren't favored in 2004 and 2008.

That's just ridiculous

Boston had the best record in the league and a stacked roster

Lakers made a trade for Pau mid-season after Bynum went down with a season-ending injury

2004 the Lakers were a 3 seed in the West and barely got past the Spurs and Timberwolves while the Pistons were dominating in the Playoffs. Malone also got injured in the Playoffs, so did Kobe.


Only reason Pistons didn't have HCA was because Sheed was traded there post-ASB and only played 21 games for them, they went 16 - 5 with him in the regular season

Lakers were a Kobe miss away from losing their division and being a 5 seed in the Playoffs.

OP doesn't know shit

Here are the betting odds:
http://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-finals-historical-series-odds-list

LAKERS were favored both years. And they were huge favorites in 2004.

[guy]

Lakers weren't favored in 2004 and 2008.

That's just ridiculous

Boston had the best record in the league and a stacked roster

Lakers made a trade for Pau mid-season after Bynum went down with a season-ending injury

2004 the Lakers were a 3 seed in the West and barely got past the Spurs and Timberwolves while the Pistons were dominating in the Playoffs. Malone also got injured in the Playoffs, so did Kobe.


Only reason Pistons didn't have HCA was because Sheed was traded there post-ASB and only played 21 games for them, they went 16 - 5 with him in the regular season

Lakers were a Kobe miss away from losing their division and being a 5 seed in the Playoffs.

OP doesn't know shit

http://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-finals-historical-series-odds-list

Wrong. At least according to Vegas, they were favored in both of those series. In fact, they were heavy favorites in 04. And just off memory, barely anyone in the media was picking Detroit.

In 08, the media was heavily favoring the Lakers.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/series?series=boslal

But I think that has more to do with Boston underachieving in the previous 3 rounds by struggling with weak opponents then how good the Lakers actually were.

[3ball]

.
League-Wide DRtg in REGULAR SEASON:


1996: 107.6
1997: 106.7
1998: 105.0

2008: 107.5
2009: 108.3
2010: 107.6

Source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html



League-Wide DRtg in PLAYOFFS (each year is link to source):

1996 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1996.html#all_misc_stats): 107.4
1997 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1997.html#all_misc_stats): 106.8
1998 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1998.html#all_misc_stats): 105.6

2008 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2008.html#all_misc_stats): 107.4
2009 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2009.html#all_misc_stats): 107.7
2010 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2010.html#all_misc_stats): 108.6
.

[ImKobe]

Here are the betting odds:
http://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-finals-historical-series-odds-list

LAKERS were favored both years. And they were huge favorites in 2004.

betting odds :oldlol:

Lakers faced better teams both years and dealt with injuries to their key players while the opposing teams were stacked.

[livinglegend]

betting odds :oldlol:

Lakers faced better teams both years and dealt with injuries to their key players while the opposing teams were stacked.

Well that's how people usually know who is the favorite team is.
Favorites and underdogs are usually made from the majority s perception, not YOUR perception.
The majority ( odds, experts, fans) had the lakers winning in both series.

[dazzer87]

Lakers weren't favored in 2004
Are you serious? :facepalm THis is the biggest upset in NBA Finals History.......

[dazzer87]

Lakers weren't favored in 2004
Are you serious? :facepalm THis is the biggest upset in NBA Finals History.......

[guy]

Prove the part in bold, if not, it's a lie.

That's all you have? You have no actual rebuttal? I can't prove why they weren't favored since Vegas doesn't really offer an explanation. Can you prove what the reason was? If not, then STFU. I at least have an argument that makes logical sense, cause most people wouldn't want to bet on someone that lost as a favorite three years in a row and had established a reputation for massive choking at that time. What's your argument?

[livinglegend]

Are you serious? :facepalm THis is the biggest upset in NBA Finals History.......
he is drunk

[ImKobe]

http://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-finals-historical-series-odds-list

Wrong. At least according to Vegas, they were favored in both of those series. In fact, they were heavy favorites in 04. And just off memory, barely anyone in the media was picking Detroit.

In 08, the media was heavily favoring the Lakers.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/series?series=boslal

But I think that has more to do with Boston underachieving in the previous 3 rounds by struggling with weak opponents then how good the Lakers actually were.

I don't care about media picks, if you look back at it you wouldn't say that the Lakers should have won in those years.

2004 - Kobe injured, Malone injured, fat Shaq, blown out by the Pistons in the regular season and a comeback win at home, and that was in November so no Sheed

2008 - Bynum injured, Ariza injured, blown out both games in the regular season by Boston

Obviously both years the media would go with the Lakers because Kobe and Shaq had great Playoff runs in the past but those teams weren't healthy nor were they stacked.

[livinglegend]

That's all you have? You have no actual rebuttal? I can't prove why they weren't favored since Vegas doesn't really offer an explanation. Can you prove what the reason was? If not, then STFU. I at least have an argument that makes logical sense, cause most people wouldn't want to bet on someone that lost as a favorite three years in a row. What's your argument?

OKC just beat 4 times in a row a Spurs team that looked unbeatable ( they were on a 20 wins streak). Heat struggled against a Celtics team when nobody expected them to struggle that much. They also struggled against Pacers. Lebron choking wasn't a narrative anymore after his performance in game 6 and game 7 against celtics, especially after his HUGE game 6.

[3ball]

.
Per NBA.com's history page:



"the Bulls were considered big underdogs to the Lakers in the Finals and the vast majority of media "experts" predicted an easy Lakers' victory".


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/top-20-moments-1990-91-season.html




The Bulls were also underdogs in 1998 Finals
.

[Levity]

2008 - Bynum injured, Ariza injured, blown out both games in the regular season by Boston, Radmonovic starting


game. set. match

[livinglegend]

I don't care about media picks, if you look back at it you wouldn't say that the Lakers should have won in those years.

2004 - Kobe injured, Malone injured, fat Shaq, blown out by the Pistons in the regular season and a comeback win at home, and that was in November so no Sheed

2008 - Bynum injured, Ariza injured, blown out both games in the regular season by Boston

Obviously both years the media would go with the Lakers because Kobe and Shaq had great Playoff runs in the past but those teams weren't healthy nor were they stacked.

Favorites and underdogs are made based on the majority s perception.
It's easy to rationalise the lakers s loss after the actual events happened.
That s not how it works.

[ImKobe]

Well that's how people usually know who is the favorite team is.
Favorites and underdogs are usually made from the majority s perception, not YOUR perception.
The majority ( odds, experts, fans) had the lakers winning in both series.

The Lakers were injured going into both series. Are you telling me that the Pistons/Celtics had worse teams?

Obviously the Lakers were 3/3 in the Finals with Shaq/Kobe so they got favored but that team had no business going up against Detroit.

2008 Lakers were missing their two key players against a team that dominated the regular season and had Pierce, KG and Allen still in their primes + Rondo, Tony Allen and other great role players.

[livinglegend]

The Lakers were injured going into both series. Are you telling me that the Pistons/Celtics had worse teams?

Obviously the Lakers were 3/3 in the Finals with Shaq/Kobe so they got favored but that team had no business going up against Detroit.

2008 Lakers were missing their two key players against a team that dominated the regular season and had Pierce, KG and Allen still in their primes + Rondo, Tony Allen and other great role players.

Pistons and celtics obviously had the better teams since they won.
That's not the point. Lakers were perceived as the better team by the majority going into both finals. Perception makes favorites and underdogs.

[ImKobe]

Favorites and underdogs are made based on the majority s perception.
It's easy to rationalise the lakers s loss after the actual events happened.
That s not how it works.

So you're telling me the 2008 Lakers that had season-ending injuries to two of their starters were supposed to beat a healthy Boston squad that blew them out twice in the regular season?

[livinglegend]

So you're telling me the 2008 Lakers that had season-ending injuries to two of their starters were supposed to beat a healthy Boston squad that blew them out twice in the regular season?

You just refuse to get it :facepalm
I don't make people s perception.
The majority had lakers winning before the finals, you can't change that now. That s a fact.

[ImKobe]

Pistons and celtics obviously had the better teams since they won.
That's not the point. Lakers were perceived as the better team by the majority going into both finals. Perception makes favorites and underdogs.

Who is the majority?

They were favored only because of Shaq and Kobe and the fact that they had the biggest fan base in the NBA. The teams they faced were healthier and had more depth.

Spurs and Celtics were favored to make the Finals prior to the Playoffs in 08, that was the most likely scenario by the oddsmakers.

http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-01557.html

[ImKobe]

You just refuse to get it :facepalm
I don't make people s perception.
The majority had lakers winning before the finals, you can't change that now. That s a fact.

Who is the majority? The Lakers bandwagon? :oldlol:

[NBAGOAT]

no question pistons were underdogs but pretty sure celtics were favored. It's easy to see now Pistons should've been given way more credit but I think people were just thinking shaq/kobe were the 2 best players in the series and the Pistons had trouble in the playoffs actually.

[livinglegend]

Who is the majority? The Lakers bandwagon? :oldlol:

the fans, the experts and the oddmakers

[livinglegend]

Who is the majority?

They were favored only because of Shaq and Kobe and the fact that they had the biggest fan base in the NBA. The teams they faced were healthier and had more depth.

Spurs and Celtics were favored to make the Finals prior to the Playoffs in 08, that was the most likely scenario by the oddsmakers.

http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-01557.html

Just before the finals started, the lakers were favorites.

[livinglegend]

no question pistons were underdogs but pretty sure celtics were favored. It's easy to see now Pistons should've been given way more credit but I think people were just thinking shaq/kobe were the 2 best players in the series and the Pistons had trouble in the playoffs actually.

Nope.

http://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-finals-historical-series-odds-list
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/series?series=boslal

[guy]

OKC just beat 4 times in a row a Spurs team that looked unbeatable ( they were on a 20 wins streak). Heat struggled against a Celtics team when nobody expected them to struggle that much. They also struggled against Pacers. Lebron choking wasn't a narrative anymore after his performance in game 6 and game 7 against celtics, especially after his HUGE game 6.

That calmed down the narrative but it was definitely part of the narrative. There was more pressure on him to win a title at that point then maybe anyone in history and he had the biggest chokejob in finals history just the previous year. You really think there wasn't a significant number of people that thought there was a good chance he'd choke again? He dominated in the ECF in 2011 too, which didn't matter in the finals.

I'm not saying what OKC did to the Spurs didnt contribute to them being the favorites. But Lebron not meeting expectations for the previous years clearly had a significant impact as well. Vegas odds are based on expectations and past performance has a huge part in forming expectations. That's just basic human nature. Put it like this, if the Heat won the title the previous year like they were favored to, with Lebron playing great, you really think they wouldn't have been favorites against a young, immature Thunder team? Of course they would have. And you're delusional if you don't see that.

[guy]

I don't care about media picks, if you look back at it you wouldn't say that the Lakers should have won in those years.

2004 - Kobe injured, Malone injured, fat Shaq, blown out by the Pistons in the regular season and a comeback win at home, and that was in November so no Sheed

2008 - Bynum injured, Ariza injured, blown out both games in the regular season by Boston

Obviously both years the media would go with the Lakers because Kobe and Shaq had great Playoff runs in the past but those teams weren't healthy nor were they stacked.

So you don't care about who Vegas or the media picked as favorites? Then who else is determining if they were favorites or not? :oldlol: that's all we have to go by.

[GrapeApe]

Isn't it kinda dumb to base something off a perception that was wrong? A team being favored doesn't mean much if the subsequent series proves that they were clearly inferior. Experts, analysts, fans, etc.... are wrong all the time.

If a team is an underdog and goes on to win 4-0 or 4-1, it's hard to call it an upset. In all likelihood the matchup was inaccurately assessed, be it one team was overestimated or the other was underestimated. In either case, the pereception before the series was wrong.

In contrast, there have been instances where the loser of a playoff series would be favored if they were to hypothetically play the series again. Ironically the first 2 finals that come to mind are 2006 and 2011. I think the loser of both those series would be favored in a rematch. I would classify those as true upsets.

[Hey Yo]

Isn't it kinda dumb to base something off a perception that was wrong? A team being favored doesn't mean much if the subsequent series proves that they were clearly inferior. Experts, analysts, fans, etc.... are wrong all the time.

If a team is an underdog and goes on to win 4-0 or 4-1, it's hard to call it an upset. In all likelihood the matchup was inaccurately assessed, be it one team was overestimated or the other was underestimated. In either case, the pereception before the series was wrong.

In contrast, there have been instances where the loser of a playoff series would be favored if they were to hypothetically play the series again. Ironically the first 2 finals that come to mind are 2006 and 2011. I think the loser of both those series would be favored in a rematch. I would classify those as true upsets.
In 2011, Heat beat the Bulls in the ECF 4 games to 1 w/o home court. The Bulls were 4-0 against Miami in the regular season and w/o looking it up, they prob. had the best success than any other team against Miami. Plus Chicago had no notable injuries that I can remember going into or during the series.

I would call that an upset. Especially when starters Joel Anthony avg. 1 and 4 playing 28mins per game and Bibby avg. 4-2-1 in 24.5mins per game