Expected Championships Won and Titles Over Expected

There is a lot of discussion on online forums, barber shops etc. talk about how certain athletes exceed expectations while others underachieve but there has never been a way to quantify this. I have recently realized that Preseason Odds on Basketball-Reference can be used to estimate championship odds for teams of certain players. Here is the methodology.

Say player X had a five year career and his teams had Preseason Odds of +800, +250, +300, +1200, and +10000 to win titles in those years. Those betting lines can be converted to implied odds which is probability of winning using an application like this.

[url]https://www.aceodds.com/bet-calculator/odds-converter.html[/url]

This is the data that we get for player X:

Year 1: 11.1% —> 0.111 expected titles
Year 2: 28.6% —> 0.286 expected titles
Year 3: 25.0% —> 0.250 expected titles
Year 4: 7.7% —> 0.077 expected titles
Year 5: 1.0% —> 0.010 expected titles

Total: 0.734 expected titles

Dividing the percentages by 100 gives us expected titles won for that particular year. So for instance in year 3, the player has 0.250 expected titles. If we add up all five years we get 0.734 expected titles meaning that this player should reasonably be expected to win 0.734 titles in that 5-year span. This methodology also makes intuitive sense. For example, if a team has 50% chance of winning a title two years in a row then they are expected to win one championship. If the same team has a 50% chance of winning for four years then they are expected to win two championships.

Preseason title odds are available for the NBA since the 1984-85 season. Comparing expected titles with the number of championships the player actually won we can get an idea if said player’s teams overachieved or underachieved. Here are some of the biggest legends ranked in order of titles above expected. A high positive score is obviously the best while a negative score is bad and indicates underachieving.

[B]Titles Above Expected of Some Legends: 1984-85 to 2020-21[/B]

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/ncTRJ7LN/Expected-Championships.png[/IMG]

See the attached link to download the PDF for year-by-year numbers of each player.

[URL="https://file.io/lPxc8SCh7Zpa"]https://file.io/lPxc8SCh7Zpa[/URL]

Larry Bird 1 title??

[QUOTE=Akeem34TheDream;14502728]Larry Bird 1 title??[/QUOTE]

Since 1984-85 only...

[QUOTE=dankok8;14502731]Since 1984-85 only...[/QUOTE]

Oh my bad

[QUOTE=dankok8;14502712]There is a lot of discussion on online forums, barber shops etc. talk about how certain athletes exceed expectations while others underachieve but there has never been a way to quantify this. I have recently realized that Preseason Odds on Basketball-Reference can be used to estimate championship odds for teams of certain players. Here is the methodology.

Say player X had a five year career and his teams had Preseason Odds of +800, +250, +300, +1200, and +10000 to win titles in those years. Those betting lines can be converted to implied odds which is probability of winning using an application like this.

[url]https://www.aceodds.com/bet-calculator/odds-converter.html[/url]

This is the data that we get for player X:

Year 1: 11.1% —> 0.111 expected titles
Year 2: 28.6% —> 0.286 expected titles
Year 3: 25.0% —> 0.250 expected titles
Year 4: 7.7% —> 0.077 expected titles
Year 5: 1.0% —> 0.010 expected titles

Total: 0.734 expected titles

Dividing the percentages by 100 gives us expected titles won for that particular year. So for instance in year 3, the player has 0.250 expected titles. If we add up all five years we get 0.734 expected titles meaning that this player should reasonably be expected to win 0.734 titles in that 5-year span. This methodology also makes intuitive sense. For example, if a team has 50% chance of winning a title two years in a row then they are expected to win one championship. If the same team has a 50% chance of winning for four years then they are expected to win two championships.

Preseason title odds are available for the NBA since the 1984-85 season. Comparing expected titles with the number of championships the player actually won we can get an idea if said player’s teams overachieved or underachieved. Here are some of the biggest legends ranked in order of titles above expected. A high positive score is obviously the best while a negative score is bad and indicates underachieving.

[B]Titles Above Expected of Some Legends: 1984-85 to 2020-21[/B]

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/ncTRJ7LN/Expected-Championships.png[/IMG]

See the attached link to download the PDF for year-by-year numbers of each player.

[URL="https://file.io/lPxc8SCh7Zpa"]https://file.io/lPxc8SCh7Zpa[/URL][/QUOTE]


^^^^ that's an excellent way to do it - very logical and rational - more hardcore proof


Here's 538's, which is inferior by including 2nd and 3rd options on their list and havingn a more convoluted way of doing it that includes gamescore:



[IMG]https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-27-2021/YqlZaI.gif[/IMG]

No matter how you slice and dice it, and considering MJ played before any advanced stats or any new method was used, MJ just comes out on top of Lebron and in some cases, like this one, it's not even close.

Preseason odds = Retarded :lol

Why would you use more incomplete information by looking at preseason odds versus looking at title odds at the start of the Finals :lol

There are a lot of myths about Wilt, both good and bad.

One persistent myth is: "Wilt and his teams played great in the regular season but then choked and underperformed in the playoffs."

This comment will examine this myth.


This comment

Takes Wilt's teams' regular season SRS.

Compares this SRS to the regular season SRS of each PO opponent.

Uses SRS difference between teams and Pythagorean theory to calculate Wilt's teams' EXPECTED WINS in each playoff series.

Compares EXPECTED WINS vs. ACTUAL WINS.


For example, Wilt's first PO series was in 1960 vs Syracuse). Warriors & Syracuse were evenly matched in SRS (2.77 each).

With an SRS difference of 0.00, the Warriors were expected to win 1.5 games in a 3-game series. In fact, the Warriors won 3-0.

Thus, 1.5 wins ABOVE expected wins.



In 160 PO games, Wilt's teams won 6.7 MORE games than expected.

Overall, Wilt's teams did NOT underperform!

In Wilt's 29 PO series:

12x Wilt's teams were >0.5 wins BETTER than expected.

11x at expected wins (between -0.5 and +0.5).

6x had FEWER (< -0.5) wins than expected


Therefore in 23 of 29 series, Wilt's teams won more or as many games as expected based on RS SRS.

That's 79%!

Only 21% of the time did Wilt's teams "underperform."

(Note: This is a team stat. There were series that Wilt's teams/TEAMMATES underperformed while Wilt played well.)



Wilt's teams had fewer than expected wins in 6 series:

1961 vs. Syracuse: 3-game series:
Expected wins: 1.4; actually won 0 (-1.4)

1964 vs. Celtics: 5 gms
Exp: 2.1; won 1 (-1.1)

1966 vs. Celtics: 5 gms
Exp. 2.5; won 1 (-1.5)

1968 vs. Celtics: 7 gms
Exp 4.4, won 3 (-1.4)




1973 vs. Bulls: 7 games
Exp. 4.5 wins; actually won 4.
(At -0.5 wins below expectation, this is a close call. You could say that the Lakers matched expectation. But they probably should have won in 6.)

1973 vs. Knicks: 5 gms
Exp. 2.8; won 1 (-1.8)


Rest of Wilt's PO series vs. Russell's Celtics:

1960: 6 gms
Exp: 2.1; won 3 (-0.1: as expected)

1962: 7 gms
Exp: 2.3; won 3 (+0.7: OVERPERFORMED)

1965: 7 gms
Exp: 1.9; won 3 (+1.1: OVER)

1967: 5 gms
Exp: 2.7; won 4 (+2.3: OVER)

1969: 7 gms
Exp: 3.2; won 3 (-0.2: as expected)



In 8 series vs Russell's Celtics:

Wilt's teams:

3x overperformed

2x won as many games as expected

3x underperformed

In 49 PO games vs. Celtics, Wilt's teams won -1.3 games fewer than expected.



Part of the myth is that "Wilt was on a superteam with Baylor and West on the Lakers. So Wilt should have won the championship all 5 years."

First, Baylor played in only 2 POs with Wilt. For the other 3 PO, he was injured.
West also was injured 1 PO.
And Wilt injured in 1 RS.


Second, if we actually look at expected wins, we find that Lakers consistently overperformed or performed as expected for 4 straight PO runs.

In 11 PO series, 1969-72:

7x overperformed by +0.5 or more wins

4x performed as expected (between -0.5 and +0.5)

zero times underperformed


Only in 1973 did Wilt's Lakers ever underperform in a PO series:

Vs. Bulls: 7 games
Exp. 4.5 wins; won 4 (-0.5, on the borderline between underperformed and performed as expected).

Vs. Warriors: 5 gms
Exp: 2.6; won 4 (+1.4: over)

Vs. Knicks: 5 gms
Exp: 2.8; won 1 (-1.8)


Overall, Wilt's teams did NOT underperform in POs.

In 160 PO games, Wilt's teams won 6.7 MORE games than expected.

29 PO series:

12x Wilt's teams were >0.5 wins MORE than expected.

11x at expected wins (between -0.5 and +0.5).

6x (21%) had FEWER (< -0.5) wins than expected


The 62, '65, 69 and '70 playoffs are even more impressive for Wilt and his teams considering:


'62: Tom Gola is injured vs Celtics

'65: Larry Costello, arguably their 2nd best player that year, was injured during the playoffs.

69 Baylor was basically worthless in the playoffs along with Vbk.


'70: Happy Hairston was injured the entire playoffs and struggled heavily and Wilt miraculously came back from a ruptured knee but wasn't quite the same player anymore.


With Larry Costello basically out of the series in 1965 the talent, the disparity between the two teams was overwhelming and it's crazy to think Wilt even got them that far in the first place.

Fully healthy I think they almost certainly win that series and take home the ring that year against a Baylor less Lakers team.

^ I wish we had betting odds data prior to 1984-85 so I could extend this analysis further back to include Russell, Wilt, Kareem etc.

[QUOTE=TheCorporation;14502871]Preseason odds = Retarded :lol

Why would you use more incomplete information by looking at preseason odds versus looking at title odds at the start of the Finals :lol[/QUOTE]

Of course you don't like it.
It exposes Lebron teams underachievements.

Makes no sense.

LeBron with more expected titles?

Are you telling me if LeBron was in Jordan's situation, he'd have won less?

And Jordan more in LeBron's situation?

Pre-season odds are far far far away from reason.

preseason odds lol.

[QUOTE=TheCorporation;14502871]Preseason odds = Retarded :lol
[/QUOTE]

Comedy gold. :roll:

Why are Kobe & Wade getting full credit when they were sidekicks for most of their titles? Ditto Robinson who was a legit role player for one of his.

nobody expected magic johnson to win just 2 titles. wtf

[QUOTE=TheCorporation;14502871]Preseason odds = Retarded :lol

Why would you use more incomplete information by looking at preseason odds versus looking at title odds at the start of the Finals :lol[/QUOTE]

Preseason odds indicate the level of talent on the team. Its up to the players and coaches to make it fit. Its like giving two companies differing amounts of capital to start off with. If one of the companies turns a higher profit and makes more with less that... counts. Perfectly logically sound way of setting expectations. Can look at context to see if there was anybody out with injury in some cases and that's about it.

I like this idea on seeing who overachieved vs underperformed i really do, however using preseason odds usually isn't as accurate as right before the finals or going into the playoffs at least.
ALOT happens during the regular season such as trades (could make a team much better or worse)
Injury (also could completely change a teams title hopes)
Or even a player that's assumed to play a certain way falls off or just switches their play style altogether.
Also a team that in the preseason might not be looked at as a contender come playoff time could be a contender (15 curry or 2011 Dirk/Rose)

All of these teams for example would look great in preseason but by the playoffs/finals they were completely different teams.

Warriors 2019
Celtics 2019
Spurs 2017
Cavs 2015
Chicago (Pick a D Rose injury year)
Lakers 2013
Celtics 09

Even if you do this exercise before the playoffs instead of preseason, Jordan's at ~3.5 and Lebron's at ~3.7 expected titles, which means Jordan still overachieved much more.

And if you do it before the finals, Jordan's at ~4.4 and Lebron's at ~4.3. So while Jordan should have more, he still overachieved here while Lebron is actually underachieving.

So the excuses about the preseason don't really help. Basically every stage where you can assess expectations doesn't help Lebron in this argument.

[QUOTE=guy;14503301]Even if you do this exercise before the playoffs instead of preseason, Jordan's at ~3.5 and Lebron's at ~3.7 expected titles, which means Jordan still overachieved much more.

And if you do it before the finals, Jordan's at ~4.4 and Lebron's at ~4.3. So while Jordan should have more, he still overachieved here while Lebron is actually underachieving.

So the excuses about the preseason don't really help. Basically every stage where you can assess expectations doesn't help Lebron in this argument.[/QUOTE]

:lebronamazed:

[QUOTE=TheCorporation;14502871]Preseason odds = Retarded :lol

Why would you use more incomplete information by looking at preseason odds versus looking at title odds at the start of the Finals :lol[/QUOTE]

Exactly

Doesn't take into consideration injuries, trades, or any amount of important context

Preseason odds are completely irrelevant. Lebron is a victim of his own greatness as well because people expect him to win no matter what.. lebron bias.. hence preseason fave status

The grasping at straws is alarming

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14503177]Why are Kobe & Wade getting full credit when they were sidekicks for most of their titles? Ditto Robinson who was a legit role player for one of his.[/QUOTE]

I simply posted career metrics but yes you make a good point that sidekick rings carry much less weight. Only 1st option years:

Kobe 2005-2016: 1.583 Expected Titles, 2 Actual Titles, +0.417 Titles Over Expected
Wade 2004-2010: 0.553 Expected Titles, 1 Actual Titles, +0.447 Titles Over Expected
Robinson 1990-1997: 0.729 Expected Titles, 0 Actual Titles, -0.729 Titles Over Expected

Maybe only prime years could be looked at as well. I don't think rookie Wade and Kobe post 2013 were capable of leading a team to a title as a 1st option. Then again if we start atomizing the data it gets more and more subjective because we are including certain years, excluding others etc. I think the data in the OP gives us a good idea of things. Of course context matters.

[QUOTE=tpols;14503196]Preseason odds indicate the level of talent on the team. Its up to the players and coaches to make it fit. Its like giving two companies differing amounts of capital to start off with. If one of the companies turns a higher profit and makes more with less that... counts. Perfectly logically sound way of setting expectations. Can look at context to see if there was anybody out with injury in some cases and that's about it.[/QUOTE]

What were the preseason odds for the '11 Lakers or the '13 Lakers and why did they underachieve?

[QUOTE=DJmicah;14503290]I like this idea on seeing who overachieved vs underperformed i really do, however using preseason odds usually isn't as accurate as right before the finals or going into the playoffs at least.
ALOT happens during the regular season such as trades (could make a team much better or worse)
Injury (also could completely change a teams title hopes)
Or even a player that's assumed to play a certain way falls off or just switches their play style altogether.
Also a team that in the preseason might not be looked at as a contender come playoff time could be a contender (15 curry or 2011 Dirk/Rose)

All of these teams for example would look great in preseason but by the playoffs/finals they were completely different teams.

Warriors 2019
Celtics 2019
Spurs 2017
Cavs 2015
Chicago (Pick a D Rose injury year)
Lakers 2013
Celtics 09[/QUOTE]

Of course context like injuries, trades, form etc. matter. However over a player's career these factors typically cancel out some benefiting the player's team and some the opponent's team.

There are also teams of those same players that looked a lot better by the time the playoffs/finals rolled around compared to preseason.

Warriors 2015 (+2800, 8th)
Spurs 2014 (+1200, 6th)
Lakers 2008 (+3000, 16th)
Celtics 2008 (+1000, 5th)
Cavaliers 2009 (+1000, 6th)

I don't think using series odds is better. For example using finals odds completely diminishes the achievement of reaching the finals in the first place. It can tell us who overachieved or underachieved in those finals but it doesn't tell the whole story. Maybe one of those players faced the gauntlet just to get there (ex. 2007 Lebron). Sometimes the hardest series come before the finals as well. The series odds are dependent on the matchup whereas preseason odds grade the team relative to the entire league. Matchups play a way bigger role than people realize. Many teams in NBA history might have won or not won championships if they simply made the finals in different seasons. For instance the 1998 Jazz almost certainly win an easy title against the 1999 Knicks. The 1995 Rockets almost certainly lose the finals against the 1996 Bulls. Those are just examples but team quality should be judged relative to the entire league not a specific matchup IMO. That gives us better data then looks at odds and results of single series.

EDIT: I also think title odds going into the playoffs are worse because what about teams that miss the playoffs? A lot of players in the OP have been parts of teams that missed the playoffs... It's certainly better than series odds though.

[QUOTE=tpols;14503196]Preseason odds indicate the level of talent on the team. Its up to the players and coaches to make it fit. Its like giving two companies differing amounts of capital to start off with. If one of the companies turns a higher profit and makes more with less that... counts. Perfectly logically sound way of setting expectations. Can look at context to see if there was anybody out with injury in some cases and that's about it.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying you have MORE data and MORE analysis at your disposal by comparing title odds at the start of the actual Finals but instead you think using the pre seaaon odds, which contains tons of incomplete infomation, is the more accurate measure of the two?

Why not use 2-year forecasts? :lol
Or 3-year forecast odds? No? Because it's less accurate and would be dumb to ignore the more recent data starting point? Exactly.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14503177]Why are Kobe & Wade getting full credit when they were sidekicks for most of their titles? Ditto Robinson who was a legit role player for one of his.[/QUOTE]
Because “sidekick titles” are a faux category. It's not even a real category, yet for some reason people throw it out as if it's a true, statistical category. Nobody outside of this and similar websites comprised of a tiny fraction of elitist fans put a qualifier on titles. Championships are championships. Walk into a local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings any all-time great player has: Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. 6, 6, 4, 11, 5, 3, 5, 4, 2 and 5. It's hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Ne 1;14503384]Because “sidekick titles” are a faux category. It's not even a real category, yet for some reason people throw it out as if it's a true, statistical category. Nobody outside of this and similar websites comprised of a tiny fraction of elitist fans put a qualifier on titles. Championships are championships. Walk into a local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings any all-time great player has: Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. 6, 6, 4, 11, 5, 3, 5, 2 and 5. It's hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

You mean people who pay closer attention to sports and understand that some rings are more impressive than others based on roles are somehow not to be taken seriously, but its those people who don't pay attention and might only know ring totals in a vacuum who are to be guided by. Especially when discussing the greatness of certain players.


You make a great point

[QUOTE=tpols;14503196]Preseason odds indicate the level of talent on the team. Its up to the players and coaches to make it fit. Its like giving two companies differing amounts of capital to start off with. If one of the companies turns a higher profit and makes more with less that... counts. Perfectly logically sound way of setting expectations. Can look at context to see if there was anybody out with injury in some cases and that's about it.[/QUOTE]

lol clueless.

[QUOTE=guy;14503301]Even if you do this exercise before the playoffs instead of preseason, Jordan's at ~3.5 and Lebron's at ~3.7 expected titles, which means Jordan still overachieved much more.

And if you do it before the finals, Jordan's at ~4.4 and Lebron's at ~4.3. So while Jordan should have more, he still overachieved here while Lebron is actually underachieving.

So the excuses about the preseason don't really help. Basically every stage where you can assess expectations doesn't help Lebron in this argument.[/QUOTE]

Damn

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;14503326]Exactly

Doesn't take into consideration injuries, trades, or any amount of important context

Preseason odds are completely irrelevant. Lebron is a victim of his own greatness as well because people expect him to win no matter what.. lebron bias.. hence preseason fave status

The grasping at straws is alarming[/QUOTE]

We gottem on skates

:dancin

[QUOTE=Ne 1;14503384]Because “sidekick titles” are a faux category. It's not even a real category, yet for some reason people throw it out as if it's a true, statistical category. Nobody outside of this and similar websites comprised of a tiny fraction of elitist fans put a qualifier on titles. Championships are championships. Walk into a local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings any all-time great player has: Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. 6, 6, 4, 11, 5, 3, 5, 4, 2 and 5. It's hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
It’s crazy to me anyone can think this way. There are absolutely different levels to winning championships, otherwise I could argue Robinson’s 2 titles were as equally impressive as Hakeem’s.

lebron teams were the betting favorite before the finals in 11, 13, and 20.
jordan teams were the betting favorite before the finals in 91-98.

[QUOTE=guy;14503301]Even if you do this exercise before the playoffs instead of preseason, Jordan's at ~3.5 and Lebron's at ~3.7 expected titles, which means Jordan still overachieved much more.

And if you do it before the finals, Jordan's at ~4.4 and Lebron's at ~4.3. So while Jordan should have more, he still overachieved here while Lebron is actually underachieving.

So the excuses about the preseason don't really help. Basically every stage where you can assess expectations doesn't help Lebron in this argument.[/QUOTE]

Interesting

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;14503387]You mean people who pay closer attention to sports and understand that some rings are more impressive than others based on roles are somehow not to be taken seriously, but its those people who don't pay attention and might only know ring totals in a vacuum who are to be guided by. Especially when discussing the greatness of certain players.


You make a great point[/QUOTE]

The issue is that people are hypocritical about this and there's often a double standard for counting rings by elitist fans who do this. Wilt is considered to be a 2x champion, even though West was better for 1. Look at Bird vs. Magic. Magic is often ranked ahead of Bird largely because he has 5 rings and Bird has 3. However, Magic was only clearly the best player on his team for 2 of his championships. Yet all 5 "count" when comparing him to Bird? How about Dr. J and Oscar? Same thing. 1 ring each respectively, not the best player? No problemo!

I know this is when the elitist fans will inevitably cry “Well what about Robert Horry!?” or "What about Derek Fisher!?” Are we seriously comparing Horry's or Fisher's role to elite players who were vital to their teams success? I look at it differently, as I call call it the “indispensable player standard.” At times, all time greats weren’t always the best players on their teams, but without them, they could not have won. Fishers 9 ppg in the playoffs on the 3-peat Lakers or Horry's 8 ppg and 6 ppg on the Lakers/Spurs championship teams were replaceable by journeyman players.

As I’ve said, it’s a subjective, faux category and not always clear. Why should it even matter? If one player was 40% responsible, another 30% responsible, and the other 10 players 30% responsible does that 10% really matter? I look at whether a player was indispensable. If you replaced a player with an above average role player at his position would his team still win? If so, I give him less credit.

lebron should have 3 championships. mj should have 6.

[url]https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-champs/[/url]

[QUOTE=aj1987;14503347]What were the preseason odds for the '11 Lakers or the '13 Lakers and why did they underachieve?[/QUOTE]

The Lakers underachieved in those years. Especially in 2013. Not sure what your point is.

[QUOTE=Ne 1;14503432]The issue is that people are hypocritical about this and there's often a double standard for counting rings by elitist fans who do this. Wilt is considered to be a 2x champion, even though West was better for 1. Look at Bird vs. Magic. Magic is often ranked ahead of Bird largely because he has 5 rings and Bird has 3. However, Magic was only clearly the best player on his team for 2 of his championships. Yet all 5 "count" when comparing him to Bird? How about Dr. J and Oscar? Same thing. 1 ring each respectively, not the best player? No problemo!

I know this is when the elitist fans will inevitably cry “Well what about Robert Horry!?” or "What about Derek Fisher!?” Are we seriously comparing Horry's or Fisher's role to elite players who were vital to their teams success? I look at it differently, as I call call it the “indispensable player standard.” At times, all time greats weren’t always the best players on their teams, but without them, they could not have won. Fishers 9 ppg in the playoffs on the 3-peat Lakers or Horry's 8 ppg and 6 ppg on the Lakers/Spurs championship teams were replaceable by journeyman players.

As I’ve said, it’s a subjective, faux category and not always clear. Why should it even matter? If one player was 40% responsible, another 30% responsible, and the other 10 players 30% responsible does that 10% really matter? I look at whether a player was indispensable. If you replaced a player with an above average role player at his position would his team still win? If so, I give him less credit.[/QUOTE]

I skimmed your post so sorry if I missed something

But what I saw was imaginary conversations about inconsistencies in "eliestist fans" (imaginary group of people) logic when it comes to discussing all-time greats

I'm not saying these conversations don't happen, I'm just confused with the point

Ultimately, the idea is to take everything into consideration when discussing all time greats. People are right to bring up championships and the roles that were played, and the circumstances that led up to a player winning a championship.

I think its right to do, but also agree that it's true that people are often inconsistent when discussing championships

[QUOTE=Johnny32;14503439]lebron should have 3 championships. mj should have 6.

[url]https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-champs/[/url][/QUOTE]

Bang!

Some people clearly don’t understand the logic of odds :oldlol:

And just using finals odds and ignoring the preseason and playoffs odds where the pool of teams is significantly larger is really stupid. It’s basically the equivalent of if we pretended it was just a 2-team league since every other team just doesn’t exist in that scenario.

And either way, like I said with finals odds, Jordan should have 4.4 championships while Lebron should have 4.3. Basically the same at 4-5 championships. Which means Jordan clearly overachieved even based on finals odds while Lebron at best met expectations if not underachieved.

[QUOTE=guy;14503525]Some people clearly don’t understand the logic of odds :oldlol:

And just using finals odds and ignoring the preseason and playoffs odds where the pool of teams is significantly larger is really stupid. It’s basically the equivalent of if we pretended it was just a 2-team league since every other team just doesn’t exist in that scenario.

And either way, like I said with finals odds, Jordan should have 4.4 championships while Lebron should have 4.3. Basically the same at 4-5 championships. Which means Jordan clearly overachieved even based on finals odds while Lebron at best met expectations if not underachieved.[/QUOTE]

the desperation is hilarious.

[QUOTE=Johnny32;14503547]the desperation is hilarious.[/QUOTE]

There’s no such thing as desperation from the winning side :oldlol: