ESPN's Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 15 point bonus to the winner (which, yeah, is lame).

And yes, the mavs were way better than the heat last year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wah wah wah. If they really were way better, they would have won. There's quite a bit to be said for actually getting [censored] done and not running 2nd all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. I'm not even a mavs fan. And upsets happen, jesus. It's not like the best team always wins. Even those 1996 Chicago Bulls lost a few games.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 15 point bonus to the winner (which, yeah, is lame).

And yes, the mavs were way better than the heat last year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wah wah wah. If they really were way better, they would have won. There's quite a bit to be said for actually getting [censored] done and not running 2nd all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. I'm not even a mavs fan. And upsets happen, jesus. It's not like the best team always wins. Even those 1996 Chicago Bulls lost a few games.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can't win a 7-game series, you're not way better. You may have been marginally better, but if you really are significantly better, you'll win the series. Getting it done is part of being better. No championship points for being a paper tiger.

[Jack of Arcades]

Both teams obviously sucked.

[lastchance]

Now we're just arguing semantics. Sagarin has the mavs 2+ points better.

I don't know if that's way better, but it's significant.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does he ever rank a team that won behind the team that it beat. Seems pretty crazy if the best team has won the finals every time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 15 point bonus to the winner (which, yeah, is lame).

And yes, the mavs were way better than the heat last year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wah wah wah. If they really were way better, they would have won. There's quite a bit to be said for actually getting [censored] done and not running 2nd all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. I'm not even a mavs fan. And upsets happen, jesus. It's not like the best team always wins. Even those 1996 Chicago Bulls lost a few games.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can't win a 7-game series, you're not way better. You may have been marginally better, but if you really are significantly better, you'll win the series. Getting it done is part of being better. No championship points for being a paper tiger.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we take two teams and make them play a 7 game series you will always pick the winner in a rematch? I think this is the question you are trying to answer by ranking them and I think his list gives to much weight to actually winning the series.

[Bill Murphy]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are the 11-40 rankings. That should cover about all of the winning teams.

24. 1997 Jazz
34. 1998 Jazz


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, the '98 Jazz were a much better team than the '97 team. They just got too rusty & tight with the ten day layoff and all the high expectations after nearly stealing it the year before & raping the Lakers in the conf finals.

The '97 team actually came much closer to beating the Bulls, tho Malone would've found a way to choke both series away under any possible scenario save MJ out w/an injury.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't win a 7-game series, you're not way better. You may have been marginally better, but if you really are significantly better, you'll win the series. Getting it done is part of being better. No championship points for being a paper tiger.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this year's Mavs were way better than the Warriors.

[lapoker17]

[ QUOTE ]
Scoring: Larry Bird, 25.8 ppg
Rebounds: Larry Bird, 9.8 rpg
Assists: Larry Bird, 6.8 apg


[/ QUOTE ]

[kioshk]

The Spurs have 3 of the top 19? That's interesting. (There's no way that the 1999 Spurs were better than the 2005 Spurs. And I doubt they were better than the 2003 Spurs.)

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
The Spurs have 3 of the top 19? That's interesting. (There's no way that the 1999 Spurs were better than the 2005 Spurs. And I doubt they were better than the 2003 Spurs.)

[/ QUOTE ]

In all of the spurs championships, have they ever beat a team that won it all?