All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Anybody watching Spurs/Heat game...thoughts?
6/21/2013 1:47 PM (edited)
Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 1:28:00 PM (view original):
A series has to end somewhere. Teams can be tied at 150-150 in a 301 game series.....the team that wins 301 is the better team. Not really sure how else you can measure it.
A few things...

  1. Yes, obviously a series has to end somewhere.  That's how you get to "winner" but not necessarily "better".
  2. If the series is 151-150, 1501-1500, or 15001-15000, I don't think it becomes any clearer which team is better.  Those are some evenly matched teams right there.  The larger sample size increases confidence in the result if there's more of a spread, not less.
  3. Earlier, you added more information to show that the Heat were the better team.  "Toss in the NBA's best record, the second longest winning streak in NBA history, the NBA title, and a two game sweep of the Spurs in the regular season and yes I'm comfortable saying the better team won. Do you have any facts to refute the information I'm using to base my claim?"  So if the Spurs had won game seven, all that is moot?
  4. See #3, your quoted statements.  THAT'S how you begin to build a case for one team being BETTER than the other.  Good job.
In a series, you get a WINNER.  By studying performances in a variety of ways, in as large a sample as you can get, you find out who's BETTER.  That's my point.  You and I can both name a bunch of examples of a clearly inferior team winning four out of seven games.

*Minor edits to reduce dickishness.  I don't have a problem with you.


6/21/2013 1:46 PM
I think if there's a reasonably significant disparity a 7-game series is likely to do a pretty good job in basketball.  Assuming everyone is reasonably healthy at the time of the series, at least.  In this case the disparity seemed small enough that it's hard to say the better team won.  In baseball even with a significant disparity in team talent 7 games really isn't enough, but there's a much larger variance in results in that sport...
6/21/2013 1:48 PM
You're right, dahs, and baseball is more in my wheelhouse.
6/21/2013 1:51 PM
Who would you rather see leave this thread (IE agree not to make any further posts):

dahsdebater

dahsdebater
kucewicz
dcy0827
spintronic
reddyred

bistiza

AlCheez
The Taint
akira_hokuto
stinenavy
gopokes24
emy1013
ryrun
llamanunts
osgonlz
ike1024
tkimble
darnoc29099

I'm losing.  Vote for me!

6/21/2013 1:57 PM
Posted by llamanunts on 6/21/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 1:28:00 PM (view original):
A series has to end somewhere. Teams can be tied at 150-150 in a 301 game series.....the team that wins 301 is the better team. Not really sure how else you can measure it.
A few things...

  1. Yes, obviously a series has to end somewhere.  That's how you get to "winner" but not necessarily "better".
  2. If the series is 151-150, 1501-1500, or 15001-15000, I don't think it becomes any clearer which team is better.  Those are some evenly matched teams right there.  The larger sample size increases confidence in the result if there's more of a spread, not less.
  3. Earlier, you added more information to show that the Heat were the better team.  "Toss in the NBA's best record, the second longest winning streak in NBA history, the NBA title, and a two game sweep of the Spurs in the regular season and yes I'm comfortable saying the better team won. Do you have any facts to refute the information I'm using to base my claim?"  So if the Spurs had won game seven, all that is moot?
  4. See #3, your quoted statements.  THAT'S how you begin to build a case for one team being BETTER than the other.  Good job.
In a series, you get a WINNER.  By studying performances in a variety of ways, in as large a sample as you can get, you find out who's BETTER.  That's my point.  You and I can both name a bunch of examples of a clearly inferior team winning four out of seven games.

*Minor edits to reduce dickishness.  I don't have a problem with you.


I see what you're saying, and do agree with a lot of it. Not in this case though. The better team won.

In sports there's usually a seven game series to decide the better team, I'm not really sure how else to measure. Why have a post season?


No dickishness perceived.
6/21/2013 1:58 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
I think if there's a reasonably significant disparity a 7-game series is likely to do a pretty good job in basketball.  Assuming everyone is reasonably healthy at the time of the series, at least.  In this case the disparity seemed small enough that it's hard to say the better team won.  In baseball even with a significant disparity in team talent 7 games really isn't enough, but there's a much larger variance in results in that sport...
Without a doubt, but I'm fairly certain the Heat were the best team in basketball this season. Still haven't seen an iota of evidence to the contrary.
6/21/2013 2:07 PM
The NBA has most impactful HCA in any major sport and in this series the Heat had an advantage there with one more game. Wouldn't that make it harder to determine what team was better?
6/21/2013 2:08 PM
They earned that by winning the most games....
6/21/2013 2:08 PM
By the way bistiza, I don't think you understood Ike's question a few pages back.  Or maybe I didn't understand it and read too much into it.  Either way, here's what I perceived that he was asking, and I'd like you to answer it:

You have made two seemingly competing statements.  The first is that you don't think he's karmically cursed because of the fact that he left, but rather the way that he left.  Ok, most people agree he could have handled that better.  The other is that you aren't just discussing the results from a sports perspective, it's not just about people who are wrapped up in sports a little too much.  It's about the economic impact.  Also seems to make it a stronger argument.  But here's the thing.  Unless I'm missing something major, the economic impact on the city of Cleveland of LeBron leaving isn't caused by the way he left.  It's caused by the simple fact he's not there anymore and won't draw extra "tourist" traffic into town to watch him play his home games, stay in hotels, eat at restaurants, and buy third-party merchandise branded with his name or image.

Can you explain how the statements that LeBron is a "**** person" because A) he left in a very public way and B) there were economic impacts to his leaving which made it worse - are not opposing arguments?  It seems to me that if you are using B as the reasoning to make it significant beyond the fact that people everywhere seem to put a little too much importance on sports much of the time you really aren't just saying the way he left was a problem.  It's the fact that he left that was a problem.  And I don't think it's fair at all to say that top-tier athletes can never change teams.  If it's the economic impact that makes LeBron leaving so bad, so karmically damning, so indicative of being a "**** person," then it really isn't about the way he left, so are you saying he really never had the right to leave?
6/21/2013 2:08 PM
Not to mention, with those bailing fans, I'm not so sure.
6/21/2013 2:10 PM
Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
I think if there's a reasonably significant disparity a 7-game series is likely to do a pretty good job in basketball.  Assuming everyone is reasonably healthy at the time of the series, at least.  In this case the disparity seemed small enough that it's hard to say the better team won.  In baseball even with a significant disparity in team talent 7 games really isn't enough, but there's a much larger variance in results in that sport...
Without a doubt, but I'm fairly certain the Heat were the best team in basketball this season. Still haven't seen an iota of evidence to the contrary.
The Heat were the best team this season, but I would struggle to confidently proclaim them the best team in this series.  So I'm not 100% confident the series accurately demonstrated the best team RIGHT NOW, which is really what postseasons are built to do, since it's the best they can achieve.  But yes, in this case it certainly seems to have worked out right based on the entire season's worth of evidence.  But that's really not what llama or I are trying to discuss with you.  Nobody is arguing the point that the Heat were the better team, we're arguing the statement that 7-game series accurately determine the better team.
6/21/2013 2:12 PM
Why? No one can dare to have someone challenge their majority viewpoint. "More people agree with me than you, so therefore I have to argue with you until the bitter end even if you do have logical reasoning on your side" - that is how so many of you are.
Except you never have logical reasoning on your side, your "logic" is never actually logical.  This is what you continue to miss, are pathologically incapable of understanding apparently.
6/21/2013 2:15 PM
What proof do you have that the Spurs were better than the Heat this season?
6/21/2013 2:17 PM
Probably that the Heat won more games and had a better scoring margin?
6/21/2013 2:17 PM
Oh wait...
of 28
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Anybody watching Spurs/Heat game...thoughts?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.