MJ: "I would never have called up Larry, Magic & say lets get together."

I'm quite wrong on the years. My point is without Pippen (ie help) he never got past round 1. I'm assuming no one thinks MJ had a worse cast any year Pippen and Grant were on the team.

 

completely disagree. the question is whether the team, as it was constituted, had enough to be a contender. i don't give a rip what happens afterwards or what assumptions you make once that team isn't together any more. superstars are way too important, all by their lonesome, in the NBA, historically, for your hypothesis to persuade me.

 

Your point is that you can't advance without help? Maybe your next argument can prove that the earth is round.

No one is arguing that Jordan didn't have help. There's a big difference between developing your existing teammates into stars (as Jordan did) and building a team, not being able to win with that team, and leaving that team to join another team with established stars in their primes (as Lebron did).

Jordan played the hand he was dealt. Lebron left to find an easier game.

 

By the way...before this last season began, only the Lakers and Celtics were given better odds by Vegas of winning the 2009/2010 title.

But they really weren't contenders, right?


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/28/sports/sp-odom-lakers-28

At MGM/Mirage, the Lakers are an 8-5 favorite to win the NBA title, followed by the Boston Celtics, and recent addition Rasheed Wallace, at 3-1, and the Cleveland Cavaliers, with Shaquille O'Neal joining LeBron James, at nearly 4-1. The Orlando Magic are 13-2 and the San Antonio Spurs are 7-1.

 

yet there's not much you can say to counter it than, "they won during the regular season and made it to the finals once".....because there's isnt anything legit to say. They fluked into the finals and rode that high for the next few years, which will get you regular season wins, but won't be enough when it gets tough....it's pretty evident. Nothing wrong with revisionist history if there's something back there to look at. Maybe it sounds like hindsight to those who drank the cavs' kool-aid, but personally i never took them seriously and i don't believe i was the only one, as other analysts and former players didnt take them seriously either. However, as they continue to rack up wins, i feel like those analysts gave in to the hoopla, since it's tough to argue against 60 wins in a new season, and they wanted to believe, "well maybe it'll work this time", but it didnt.

After every postseason loss the team would excuse it as bad matchups or just needing experience...eventually lebron realized they werent legit contenders...think about it...if they were, why would he leave? Everyone keeps wondering why he'd leave a contender who won 60+ games...well its because it was a misleading stat...what's even worse is they had homecourt a lot and still didnt pull it off.

 

Vegas, really? I'm willing to bet regular season records play a HUGE role in their calculations....again you're not really countering this with anything but their regular season stats.

 

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=163565771760

NSAwins.com has posted the odds to win the 2009-2010 Eastern Conference this NBA season and vegas oddsmakers have made the Cleveland Cavaliers the 1.5/1(+140) favorite. Lebron James will welcome 5-time NBA Champion Shaquille O’Neal to the Cavs this season as he hopes to get back to the NBA Finals and win his first NBA Championship this season. The 17-time NBA Champion Boston Celtics have been given 2/1(+200) odds to get back to the NBA Finals for the 2nd time in 3 years by vegas oddsmakers. The Celtics bolstered their bench this offseason nicely with the additions of F Rasheed Wallace and G/F Marquise Daniels. Dwight Howard and the Orlando Magic have been given 3/1(+300) odds to repeat as NBA Eastern Conference Champions this season and will have F Vince Carter on board to help them try and win the NBA Championship this season.

 

really? you don't think they analyze with a bit of a vested interest? you think they just took a look at the standings and say, "eh..that sounds about right?"

 

Not to get into the weeds here (I think the Cavs were legit contenders), but Vegas doesn't really set odds based on who's most likely to win. They set odds (and adjust odds) based on who people are betting on to win. If people are betting a lot on one team, odds go down, and vice-versa. So Vegas odds simply reflect the public's opinion rather than any particular analysis of a team.

 

Depending on the importance of the player to the offensive/defensive schemes, it can happen.

1996 Spurs had 59 wins and lost Robinson the following year due to injury. The 1997 Spurs had 20 wins.

 

How about NBA GM's? Do their opinions count?

http://www.nba.com/news/features/gmsurvey.predictions/index.html

2009-10 GM Survey Results: Predictions

Which team will win NBA Finals 2010?
1. Los Angeles Lakers 60.7%
2. Boston Celtics 17.9%
2. Cleveland Cavaliers 17.9%
4. San Antonio Spurs 3.6%
- Last year: Los Angeles Lakers 46.2%


Which team will win the Eastern Conference?
1. Boston Celtics 50.0%
2. Cleveland Cavaliers 42.9%
3. Orlando Magic 7.1%
- Last year: Boston Celtics 74.1%

 

i'm aware of that...but you don't think that has something to do with ACTUALLY being legit contenders in practicality?

 

here's one...back at the start of the season, ESPN had 20 experts pick who they thought would win the championship in 2009/10...

only 5 different teams were mentioned....

can you guess which NBA team from Ohio was among the 5???

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=Predictions0910-NBAchamp

 

Sean elliot played 77 games one year and 39 the next...del negro and Avery also played about 10 less games each....Smith also played a lot less and i think Person was injured too.

 

My question to LeBron bashers is this.


Is Mike Brown a Championship Caliber Coach?

Do you think Kobe or Jordan could win with him as the coach with that supporting cast?


I don't think that LeBron or his supporting cast was the biggest problem I think it was Mike Brown.

 

I think the point is, if you can win 60+ games two years in a row, you are NOT a crappy team no matter how you slice it. People are saying that Lebron has to leave a crappy team to win. That's revisionist. That Cleveland team was NOT a crappy team, even though they could not win a title.

 

not just the standings, but it has to play a significant part...just like it does with the fans...fans see the record or predict it and that's who they see as the frontrunner..then proceed to place their bets

One is for the regular season...again.

the other is what, FIVE general managers? Out of 30? I think it's clear a couple don't know what the hell they're doing, so 5 doesnt exactly give it a lot of credibility...

 

crappy team? I sure didnt say that. I said there werent true contenders...that's a big difference there, not the same at all. you can be good without being a real contender...hell, if anyone should know that its rockets' fans.

 

but i'm supposed to ascribe credibility to your lone opinion that they weren't even a contender stated AFTER the playoffs are over?? :grin:

come on...this is silly...they were among the best teams in the East...get to the Finals, and you got a shot. it's extremely easy to sit here today and say, "i knew they weren't contenders at all..that they had no shot" well after they get beat. i could go back and tell you how the Sonics of the mid-90's weren't really contenders...or the Jazz of the mid to late 90's...or the Spurs in 1995...because ultimately, those teams got beat. but it's silly to pretend they weren't title threats. when you have the league MVP in the NBA, you're generally a contender...i'd have to think of a year where that wasn't true.

 

No team had back to back 60 wins and didn't win a champion. There were only like 3 teams that won 65 or more in regular season and didn't win it all.

There's no such thing as regular season only team. If you get 60 wins, you are supposed to be in finals.