[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone does poorly against good teams and well against bad teams. Kobe, for example, gets to play a goodly portion of his schedule against the Clippers, Blazers, Sonics, and Grizzlies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Why is their record against crappy teams from the west any more relevant than their record against crappy teams from the east?

Here, I looked it up for you:

DAL: 0-2
PHX: 0-2
SAS: 2-0
HOU: 1-1
UTA: 1-1
DEN: 0-2

So their record was 4-8 against teams that had any realistic shot of representing the West in the Finals. What's more, the two Spurs wins came in the second game of the season and on January 2nd, both well before the Spurs' second half surge.

I get that teams aren't going to fare as well against good teams. Obviously. But how they do against good teams is far more relevant than how they do against crappy ones.

[ QUOTE ]
The stat is absolutely relevant and breaking it down further is sophistry trying to find a small sample that supports your point.

[/ QUOTE ]
IMMEDIATELY following this, you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
The Cavs swept the regular season series against the Spurs

[/ QUOTE ]
So it's OK for you to use a TWO GAME SAMPLE but it's not OK for me to cite the much larger sample size that is how they fared against WC contenders?

[ QUOTE ]
Both of the games in Cleveland were very close, I don't think we hear the same nonsense if the Cavs lose in 6, and if your evaluation of the relative strength of two players(much less two conferences) changes on a 6 point swing over 4 games you're probably a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have much of an opinion on the finals because I knew that 1) they were going to suck and be boring and 2) the Spurs were going to win. I didn't even remember those two games being that close, but they evidently were.