2016 Finals odds

I think that is a fair assessment.

 

WCF team without two starters. Hopefully a healthy Lawson.

Seems low.

 

Seems fair given our point differential. West is so competitive that any contender could lose in first round.

 

Meh seems fair to be honest,

 

Remember that the odds are a betting line - they don't reflect how likely those teams are to win. They are more a reflection of the odds that they think they need to set the line to in order to make money on the public's perceived competitiveness of a team vs. how likely that team is to perform to that perception. It's a formula designed to get more people to bet on the wrong teams and not reward betters for taking clear favorites.

 

So Clippers are a fair assessment? Lol team can't even get to WCF.

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

"How will our odds be after we get Durant?" - Morey

Seriously though the Cavs are scary.

 

Thanks - I'll readily admit to not knowing exactly how it all works but the point I want to get across is there - the odds are set in relation to factors that have nothing to do with how good a team is on the court(like how much money is being bet on a team). I think I even read that some betters will put a large amount of money on a team to try to get the line to move in favor of a bet they placed on a different team earlier. Everything I know about better I learned from Bob Voulgaris' appearances on the BS report and half the time I didn't even understand what he was saying.


http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2935/meet-the-worlds-top-nba-gambler

 

lol vegas continues to overrate the bulls and spurs.

 

Their roster is stacked this year, but I feel like their team and ours should be above OKC.

 

22-1 was the Rockets record to start the 1993-4 season...

 

I don't see OKC better, nor LAC after we got Lawson.

 

i think we can beat cleveland

 

Hey OP, where did you get these odds?

According to WCF odds, the Mavs will be scraping the bottom fighting the Pelicans for the 7th-8th spots

 

To get payoff, do we need to win the finals or just make the finals? If the latter, I'll totally put some $ down. I like those odds.

 

Honestly, that's the thing. The top of the Western Conference is so stacked.

IMO, you could rate any of OKC, SAS, LAC or us in any order and I think it would be pretty fair. They are all very, very good teams but have their own share of question marks.

OKC- should be good but we haven't seen them healthy in over a year. How will Durant play with Kanter? How will Westbrook feel about losing being the #1 option like he was all of last year? Why do they still have Waiters?

SAS- I know they are the popular choice again after signing LMA, but no one mentions how they lost some of their depth to get him. I'm not sold on their Center position at all. They have good but not great rebounders. Who is going to be their rim protector? 40 year old Duncan? LMA, who already said in Portland that wasn't a role he wanted?

LAC- Does Paul Pierce have anything left? Which Lance Stephenson are they going to get? Have they fixed their depth issue that they have had for years?

Houston- Can we stay healthy? Will Ty Lawson be able to avoid off court issues? How will Harden and Lawson, both ball dominant guards, be able to co-exist?

Obviously I think the Rockets are the best. I'm also very biased. But I think they are all so good and so close that I can see how people or the media or Vegas or however could rank one above the other one without being too upset about it.

 

I have a question regarding the SAS. Did Parker, Duncan or Ginobolli find a fountain of youth or something? If I'm not mistaken the Spurs biggest problem last year was declining play by their wing men.
Now they add a really good 4 (which I think they already had a really good 4) and everyone says they're sooo good all of a sudden. I really don't think LMA can give them much more than Duncan already gave them, and neither of them are centers to deal with other teams bigs. SO WHY SO MUCH SPURS LOVE?