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

[Mano]

[ QUOTE ]
it's interesting to see those jazz and sonics teams... who the bulls rolled

[/ QUOTE ]

In 97 the Bulls beat the Jazz 4-2 with winning margins of 2,12,2 and 4 points. Bulls beat the Jazz 4-2 in 98 playoffs with 3 of their wins coming by 5,4 and 1 point respectively. Not exactly "rolled".

[Taraz]

A major problem with trying to rank teams like this is that you can only measure each team relative to the competition they played against. If you play against really good competition you get penalized.

So it's not so much that he's ranking these teams against each other. It's basically just saying which teams were the most dominant over their competition. That seems different than actually figuring out which team is actually the best.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
List is busto. 1993 Suns are way too low. I want to jam a knife into Hollinger's side and short-wire his circuits, as he is clearly a robot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Jazz should be rated higher

[/ QUOTE ]

By his ranking system, teams that actually win the title get a bunch of bonus points. So it's not shocking that almost no runner-ups are ranked higher than any of the actual championship teams.

[Taraz]

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

11. 2001 Lakers
12. 1998 Bulls
13. 1990 Pistons
14. 2000 Lakers
15. 1993 Bulls
16. 2005 Spurs
17. 2002 Lakers
18. 1981 Celtics
19. 2003 Spurs
20. 1982 Lakers
21. 2004 Pistons
22. 1980 Lakers
23. 1984 Celtics
24. 1997 Jazz
25. 1988 Lakers
26. 1977 Blazers
27. 1994 Rockets
28. 1996 Sonics
29. 1989 Lakers
30. 1985 Celtics
31. 2006 Heat
32. 2006 Mavs
33. 1984 Lakers
34. 1998 Jazz
35. 1992 Blazers
36. 1988 Pistons
37. 1979 Sonics
38. 1991 Lakers
39. 1980 76ers
40. 2005 Pistons

[tuq]

Taraz,

Re: weighting, you're right. It's just busted and while lists are fun and all, this particular one leaves more questions than answers. I'm too lazy to see how many non-champs finished ahead of actual champs, but most sane people would agree that last year Mavericks were better than the Heat, yet ended up ranked below them (although the Heat took a bit of a brutal beat in their ranking, at least among winners).

Not saying I have a better idea, but Hollinger is a robot who must be stopped.

[Max Raker]

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].

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
List is busto. 1993 Suns are way too low. I want to jam a knife into Hollinger's side and short-wire his circuits, as he is clearly a robot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike you, the rest of the sports world recognizes that Game 1 and Game 2 in that series did actually occur.

[tuq]

Clark,

Meh, I mostly made that post cuz I knew you would delurk. I'm too busy to counter your comment, but look forward to the debate raging anew in coming months.

[lastchance]

[ 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.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ 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.