Is blowing a 3-1 lead the worst thing a team could do?

[StrongLurk]

I mean, to me obviously get swept is worse. But should we reconsider blown 3-1 leads?

For instance, if a team blows a 3-1 lead, the team still made it seven games.

What about teams who lose in 5 or 6 games? It's kind of like people who make fun of Lebron's finals record, which implies that it would be BETTER for Lebron to lose BEFORE the finals instead of in the finals...but we know it's better to make the finals than lose before as a team.

So...are losing 3-1 leads kind of overrated? At least that team won 3 games right?

In a losing series, would you rather be swept, win 1 game, win 2 games, or win 3 games?

[GrayGoat]

The difference between a sweep and a 3-1 loss is a sweep never had a chance

[Turbo Slayer]

The difference between a sweep and a 3-1 loss is a sweep never had a chance I do agree. Being up 3-1 means that your team was equal to the opposing team talent wise (if not better). Blowing a 3-1 lead sucks.

[StrongLurk]

The difference between a sweep and a 3-1 loss is a sweep never had a chance

That's not true at all, there have been close series where a team was swept.

The 17 Cavs swept the 17 Pacers but the TOTAL scoring difference across the series was only 16 points.

On a different point, it kind seems like you are agreeing with me. The team that got swept performed WORSE than the team that had a 3-1 lead. So getting swept is worse than losing a 3-1 lead.

[GrayGoat]

That's not true at all, there have been close series where a team was swept.

The 17 Cavs swept the 17 Pacers but the TOTAL scoring difference across the series was only 16 points.

On a different point, it kind seems like you are agreeing with me. The team that got swept performed WORSE than the team that had a 3-1 lead. So getting swept is worse than losing a 3-1 lead.

No. Getting swept means you can’t close games and are at a talent deficit. Losing a 3-1 lead is far worse because you had a comparable team to the comp at worst

[MaxPlayer]

Wouldn't blowing a 3-0 lead be worse?

[J Shuttlesworth]

Depends on the context. Getting a 3-1 lead as an 8th seed and losing to the 1st seed isn't that bad.

Winning 73 games in the regular season and then blowing a 3-1 lead in the finals is BAD.

Now imagine sacrificing your future for 2 stars to compete for a championship. Your team spends all year load managing and getting all the hype as the favorites while your players are also talking shit about other teams and are even called "tough dogs". Your team even runs a marketing campaign with slogans like "Hustle over hype" "Streetlights over spotlights" and your star player has a commercial with a crown saying "THIS IS MY CITY". Then, your team ends up blowing a 3-1 lead despite having double digit leads for 3 games in a row, with your star players combining for 5 pts in the 4th quarter of game 7. That is THE WORST CHOKE IN NBA HISTORY

[FireDavidKahn]

Losing while up 3-1 is soooo much worse then getting swept. If you get swept then your team simply wasn't as good as the other team.

When you're up 3-1 and lose... Well it proves you are the better team but choked

[StrongLurk]

Losing while up 3-1 is soooo much worse then getting swept. If you get swept then your team simply wasn't as good as the other team.

When you're up 3-1 and lose... Well it proves you are the better team but choked

But how does LOSING a series prove you are a better team? The playoffs go SEVEN games for a reason. If a team wins FOUR games, in any order, aren't they better?

[FireDavidKahn]

But how does LOSING a series prove you are a better team? The playoffs go SEVEN games for a reason. If a team wins FOUR games, in any order, aren't they better?

Losing 3 closeout games in a row is a lot worse.

[And1AllDay]

Wouldn't blowing a 3-0 lead be worse?

yes but its never happened yet

[72-10]

yes but its never happened yet

I think he meant among historic events in the NBA. IIRC I think blowing the 3-1 lead has only happened like 5 times in the playoffs - i.e. IIRC the Spurs blew a 3-1 lead against Lakers back in 1983, and then I don't think it happened against until 2001 with the Kings losing their ground, once again vs. the Lakers in the West Finals.

[StrongLurk]

Losing 3 closeout games in a row is a lot worse.

Worse than being SWEPT? You think a team would rather be absolutely dominated 4-0? I don't think any NBA player would tell you that.

[And1AllDay]

Worse than being SWEPT? You think a team would rather be absolutely dominated 4-0? I don't think any NBA player would tell you that.

theres a part of the context you are missing

if a team gets swept its usually becos they had no chance and were 'supposed' to be swept. destined almost

but being up 3-1 shows that you are the better team and should have won but then you choke away.

either scenario you lose the series but being up 3-1 shows that you were not outmatched, just lacked the heart and skill to seal the deal

[StrongLurk]

theres a part of the context you are missing

if a team gets swept its usually becos they had no chance and were 'supposed' to be swept. destined almost

but being up 3-1 shows that you are the better team and should have won but then you choke away.

either scenario you lose the series but being up 3-1 shows that you were not outmatched, just lacked the heart and skill to seal the deal

How can you prove that?

I guess the question I'm posing is akin to the philosophical statement of "it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all".

Seems like most posters on ISH would rather have ZERO chance at getting a girl than actually getting a girl, but letting her get away.

[FireDavidKahn]

Worse than being SWEPT? You think a team would rather be absolutely dominated 4-0? I don't think any NBA player would tell you that.

Yes because your team had NO chance in the series.

[FireDavidKahn]

How can you prove that?

I guess the question I'm posing is akin to the philosophical statement of "it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all".

Seems like most posters on ISH would rather have ZERO chance at getting a girl than actually getting a girl, but letting her get away.

Except in this scenario it would be like competing with George Clooney for a chick. You aint winning shit.

[And1AllDay]

How can you prove that?

I guess the question I'm posing is akin to the philosophical statement of "it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all".

Seems like most posters on ISH would rather have ZERO chance at getting a girl than actually getting a girl, but letting her get away.

brotha you dont get it

sweep = unmatched
lose 3-1 = you were better but lost because you got that ass waxed and choked

[StrongLurk]

brotha you dont get it

sweep = unmatched
lose 3-1 = you were better but lost because you got that ass waxed and choked

That just feels like a loser mentality, saying that you'd rather be swept.

To me, that is the same logic of preferring to lose in the first round of the playoffs instead of losing in the finals.

[And1AllDay]

But that's isn't always true, teams have been swept but every game was close.

So if YOU were an NBA player, you'd rather get swept and never have a chance at winning? Idk that just feels like such a loser mentality. I'd rather get up 3-1 then go down fighting.

list all the sweeps in nba history which is 176 total and then list the times it was not unmatched

[StrongLurk]

First one I can think of is the 17 Cavs vs 17 Pacers.

Pacers got swept but lost by an average of 4 points per game.

AND1, tell me: would you rather lose in the first round of the playoffs and never have a chance at winning or make it to the finals, but lose?

[And1AllDay]

First one I can think of is the 17 Cavs vs 17 Pacers.

Pacers got swept but lost by an average of 4 points per game.

AND1, tell me: would you rather lose in the first round of the playoffs and never have a chance at winning or make it to the finals, but lose?

So 17 Pacers were not unmatched?

Also, that is 1 out of 176 sweeps :oldlol:

Of course the finals is the better its more series winning and advances bruh

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Only if its in the finals or maybe west finals. If its before that, your team just wasn't good enough anyway. No such thing as choking in 2nd round, your team just wasn't good enough.

[GimmeThat]

well celebrating before you've won anything is the worst thing a team could do, since that's practically giving the game the middle finger

[StrongLurk]

So 17 Pacers were not unmatched?

Also, that is 1 out of 176 sweeps :oldlol:

Of course the finals is the better its more series winning and advances bruh

Losing in the first round = being outmatched, no chance to win a chip
Getting swept in a series = being outmatched, no chance to win a chip

Losing 3-1 = being good enough to win but choked,
Making the finals but losing = being good enough to win but choked

Do you see where your logic doesn't add up? You said you'd rather lose a series where you had no chance of winning. That means you'd also prefer to lose in the first round of the playoffs instead of the finals, because if you lose in the first round then you have no chance at winning a chip.

[And1AllDay]

Losing in the first round = being outmatched, no chance to win a chip
Getting swept in a series = being outmatched, no chance to win a chip

Losing 3-1 = being good enough to win but choked,
Making the finals = being good enough to win but choked

Do you see where your logic doesn't add up? You said you'd rather lose a series where you had no chance of winning. That means you'd also prefer to lose in the first round of the playoffs instead of the finals, because if you lose in the first round then you have no chance at winning a chip.

Huh?

Sweep = unmatched
3 -1 loss = choke

Questions?

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Losing in the first round = being outmatched, no chance to win a chip
Getting swept in a series = being outmatched, no chance to win a chip

Losing 3-1 = being good enough to win but choked,
Making the finals = being good enough to win but choked

Do you see where your logic doesn't add up?

Why does it have to choked? You could have just overachied the first 4 games and the better coach/team made adjustments. No evidence that it's choking.

[StrongLurk]

Why does it have to choked? You could have just overachied the first 4 games and the better coach/team made adjustments. No evidence that it's choking.

I'm using And1's logic.

I have stated earlier in this thread that LOSING a series when you had a 3-1 lead does NOT mean you were the best team. I think the best team is the team that wins (barring injuries or crazy situations). But most people in this thread seem to disagree.

Tell me, which time did TEAM A do better?

Team A First year: Swept in first round
Team A Second year: Blew a 3-1 lead in the first round

[HBK_Kliq_2]

I'm using And1's logic.

I have stated earlier in this thread that LOSING a series when you had a 3-1 lead does NOT mean you were the best team. I think the best team is the team that wins (barring injuries or crazy situations). But most people in this thread seem to disagree.

Tell me, which time did TEAM A do better?

Team A First year: Swept in first round
Team A Second year: Blew a 3-1 lead in the first round

I agree. Its first to 4 wins, not 3.

Losing is losing.

Spurs losing in 7 to mavs in 2006 playoffs is the same thing as Clippers losing to Nuggets in 2020 playoffs. Regardless of the 3-1 lead.

I would say blowing series leads most likely just means your coach is a moron and not making the proper playoff adjustments.

[Stanley Kobrick]

it seems everyone agrees, blowing 3-1 leads is the worst

[iamgine]

I mean, to me obviously get swept is worse. But should we reconsider blown 3-1 leads?

For instance, if a team blows a 3-1 lead, the team still made it seven games.

What about teams who lose in 5 or 6 games? It's kind of like people who make fun of Lebron's finals record, which implies that it would be BETTER for Lebron to lose BEFORE the finals instead of in the finals...but we know it's better to make the finals than lose before as a team.

So...are losing 3-1 leads kind of overrated? At least that team won 3 games right?

In a losing series, would you rather be swept, win 1 game, win 2 games, or win 3 games?

Losing 3-1 lead usually means you lost when you should've won.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

There have been far more sweeps than blown 3-1 leads for a reason. Sure a sweep is nice, but nobody is that surprised when Boston sweeps Philly without Simmons or some other series where a team is heavily favored. If you are up 3-1, to lose the series you have to lose 3 straight times to a team you have already been much better than through 4 games. Often it is like the Clilppers/Nuggets where the Clippers were the supposed much better team anyway.

It is like getting winning by 20 compared to blowing a 20 point lead. Sure a 20 point win is nice, but there is going to be much more pub about a team blowing a 20 point lead since you just shouldn't do that. If you were good enough to get up by 20, you should be good enough to hold a 20 point lead.

[GimmeThat]

Losing 3-1 lead usually means you lost when you should've won.

it'd be like asking "was it the accountant who said it is the best to win in 4, or the financer" the economist would say, it just depends on who was smarter

[Basketball r Us]

3-1, with double digit leads, supposedly the best payer....can't get any worse.

[Axe]

The difference between a sweep and a 3-1 loss is a sweep never had a chance
2018 cavs in the finals had a chance to avoid a sweep by winning game 1 if only jr wasn't such a douche back then.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

2018 cavs in the finals had a chance to avoid a sweep by winning game 1 if only jr wasn't such a douche back then.

Yep and they could have won game 3. They were overmatched, but they could have done better than a sweep. It doesn't get the credit, but that game 3 was Durant's best moment in a Warrior's uniform. His team was awful. Curry was 3-16, Klay only had 10 points on 4 of 11. No player on the Warriors had more than 11 points other than Durant who dropped 43 on 15-23 and hit the dagger to seal the game.

[Axe]

Yep and they could have won game 3. They were overmatched, but they could have done better than a sweep. It doesn't get the credit, but that game 3 was Durant's best moment in a Warrior's uniform. His team was awful. Curry was 3-16, Klay only had 10 points on 4 of 11. No player on the Warriors had more than 11 points other than Durant who dropped 43 on 15-23 and hit the dagger to seal the game.
That and lue was also a total scrub as a head coach. The result was already obvious. Warriors went for a two-peat and kd became b2b fmvp.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

That and lue was also a total scrub as a head coach. The result was already obvious. Warriors went for a two-peat and kd became b2b fmvp.

Pretty much.

[Koresh]

Blowing a 3-1 lead is worse than being swept in my opinion. You had the series lead. All you needed to do was win one game. Look at the history of all sports. 3-1 has been overcome less than 30 times across all sports because it's mathematically impossible to come back because you have to win so many games to win the series, which is why we will never see a blown 3-0.

Being up 3-1 means you are the better team, but somehow choked or the other team figured you out. No team should ever blow a 3-1 lead. You need one win, the opposing team needs to win more games. It's embarrassing and should kill your psyche. How can you allow the other team to win three times in a row? The last two 3-1 leads that are infamous, the majority of the losses were blowouts.

Doesn't matter what Kawhi, PG or the Clippers accomplish in the future, this will always be brought up no matter what they do. This is why I said the Draymond Green suspension in 2016 NBA Finals is the biggest myth in NBA history. You had to win one game and they didn't get it done. Cavs had to win 3 games in a row. That's incredibly hard to do.

[TheCorporation]

Blowing a 3-1 lead is worse than being swept in my opinion. You had the series lead. All you needed to do was win one game. Look at the history of all sports. 3-1 has been overcome less than 30 times across all sports because it's mathematically impossible to come back because you have to win so many games to win the series, which is why we will never see a blown 3-0.

Being up 3-1 means you are the better team, but somehow choked or the other team figured you out. No team should ever blow a 3-1 lead. You need one win, the opposing team needs to win more games. It's embarrassing and should kill your psyche. How can you allow the other team to win three times in a row? The last two 3-1 leads that are infamous, the majority of the losses were blowouts.

Doesn't matter what Kawhi, PG or the Clippers accomplish in the future, this will always be brought up no matter what they do. This is why I said the Draymond Green suspension in 2016 NBA Finals is the biggest myth in NBA history. You had to win one game and they didn't get it done. Cavs had to win 3 games in a row. That's incredibly hard to do.

Not to mention the highest single Finals Game Score of ALL TIME was LeBron's 2016 Game 6 when Draymond played :lol

[iamgine]

It all really depends. If you blew 3-1 lead as the clearly superior team, like 2020 Clippers, then it's really bad. If you're about equal or worse, like the 2020 Jazz, then it's not so bad.

Getting swept is the same. If you got swept as underdogs, like 2020 Nets, it's not so bad. If you're about equal or better, like maybe '95 Magic, then it's really bad.

[Axe]

It all really depends. If you blew 3-1 lead as the clearly superior team, like 2020 Clippers, then it's really bad. If you're about equal or worse, like the 2020 Jazz, then it's not so bad.

Getting swept is the same. If you got swept as underdogs, like 2020 Nets, it's not so bad. If you're about equal or better, like maybe '95 Magic, then it's really bad.
Which only makes the 2016 warriors a lot embarrassing of all-time. But until now, it still leaves me to wonder why the clippers had to blow all their chances, despite the wcf being almost in their reach.

[TheGoatest]

The way Clippers lost their 3-1 lead? Yeah, just about. It's worse than blowing a 3-0 lead if all the games are close.
They don't have a shadow of an excuse. It's not like an injured Jokic was missing in games 1-4, and then suddenly came back in game 5 and started dominating. Nor did Kawhi get injured in game 5 and they suddenly had to face a new reality without him.
They blew a 3-1 lead and multiple double digit game leads against the exact same team they were good enough to build a 3-1 lead on and had a 80-67 lead with 13½ minutes remaining left in game 5.

[Axe]

It's called the clippers' curse

[Overdrive]

How can you prove that?

I guess the question I'm posing is akin to the philosophical statement of "it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all".

Seems like most posters on ISH would rather have ZERO chance at getting a girl than actually getting a girl, but letting her get away.

That anology is BS. You don't love in either case. Love is the goal. A sweep is like asking a girl out way out of your league, never having the chance. Rejection doesn't hurt that much and usually no regrets involved. Losing up 3-1 means you made out already, but right before get your dick wet she's gone.

2nd is way harder to cope with.