#1 seeds and Championships the last 10* years

It's true that 1# seeds don't tend to win it all, but anyone who is seriously suggesting that we should tank to the 2# seed in order to avoid such a fate is being ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Since the 1976 merger, there have been 35 NBA Finals contested.

By original playoff seeds, the Eastern Conference representative in the Finals has been:

#1 in 20/35 Finals (12 champions)
#2 in 8/35 (2 champions)
#3 in 4/35 (1 champion -- 04 DET)
#4 in 2/35 (1 champion -- 78 WAS)
#5 in 0/35
#6 in 0/35
#7 in 0/35
#8 in 1/35

By original playoff seeds, the Western Conference representative in the Finals has been:

#1 in 20/35 Finals (9 champions)
#2 in 5/35 (3 champions -- 05 SA, 01 LAL, 94 HOU)
#3 in 6/35 (3 champions -- 07 SA, 02 LAL)
#4 in 2/35
#5 in 0/35
#6 in 2/35 (1 champion -- 95 HOU)
#7 in 0/35
#8 in 0/35

If the question is how the teams with universal HCA has fared, the following #1 overall seeds have reached the Finals (champions in bold):

1979 WAS
1981 BOS
1983 PHI
1984 BOS
1985 BOS
1986 BOS
1987 LAL
1988 LAL
1989 DET
1992 CHI
1993 PNX
1996 CHI
1997 CHI
1998 UTH
1999 SA
2000 LAL
2003 SA
2008 BOS

The teams that had overall HCA but failed to reach the Finals were:

2011 CHI (lost ECF)
2010 CLE (lost ECSF)
2009 CLE (lost ECF)
2007 DAL (lost WCFR)
2006 DET (lost ECF)
2005 PNX (lost WCF)
2004 IND (lost ECF)
2002 SAC (lost WCF)
2001 SA (lost WCF)
1995 SA (lost WCF)
1994 SEA (lost WCFR)
1991 PRT (lost WCF)
1990 LAL (lost WCSF)
1982 BOS (lost ECF)
1980 BOS (lost ECF)
1978 PRT (lost WCSF)
1977 LAL (lost WCF)

---

This data shows that the out of 35 years, the number one seed won 21 times, which is around 60%. Number 2 seed won 5 times, about 15%. Number 3 seed won 4 times, round to about 15%. Other seeds were about 1/35.

Overwhelming number of one seeds won prior to the last 10 years. In the last 10 years, it seems things have changed, where you see the 2 and 3 seeds win sometimes too.

On a side note, I think it is relevant to look at when the number 2 and 3 seeds won in the finals, if they had HCA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Tie between #1 and #3
West Conf Finish reg season season seed# who won Champ.
#1 seed 3X (Spurs 03 WWELakers 09 10)
#2 seed 1X (05 Spurs)
#3 seed 3X (11 Mavs 07 Spurs 02*Lakers)
#4 seed 1X (Mavs 06)

3 Champs each.

The only two years the West did not win the Champ
#2 Lakers 2004
#1 Lakers 2008

---

I'm pretty sure the Mavs lost in '06.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Assman

I'm pretty sure the Mavs lost in '06.

---

Don't point out his mistakes. He'll post a bad picture, and call you Corky and stuff. It's very hurtful.

:rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Yep. Its established overextending for #1 is not worth it.

---

Where is that established exactly?

The 04 Wolves isn't a WTF candidate, they were a really great team. I guess it considering how 05 went for them, they could be a giant WTF factor but they were pretty damn good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

okay i got it started up top.
2 of 3 Spurs Championships we were NOT the #1 seed reg season.
2005
2007

(2003 we finished tied for 1st. Not sure who won tiebreaker i think we did)

---

Obviously the Spurs won the tiebreaker since they had HC in the WCF that year, or did you forget?

Last year, the Spurs were not a true #1 seed by the time the playoffs started.
they only won 4 games in their last 12 games and at one point lost 5 straight games. Add injuries to that and they were ripe for a quick exit from playoffs.

This years team is peaking instead of sliding. That is a huge difference.

Yeah...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

Don't point out his mistakes. He'll post a bad picture, and call you Corky and stuff. It's very hurtful.

:rolleyes

---

I'm sorry. I'll send you some flowers and a Midol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Assman

I'm pretty sure the Mavs lost in '06.

---

But you're not sure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Cagney

Obviously the Spurs won the tiebreaker since they had HC in the WCF that year, or did you forget?

---

I've tried forgetting about Michael Finley at the PF guarding Dirk. :pop:
And Manus brain fart negating the win over the Mavs and Pop. :depressed

Bump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

1. See up top.
2. And you're wrong. Dallas was the #4 seed in 2006.

1 San Antonio
2 Phoenix
3 Denver
4 Dallas

---

Dallas had the second best record but didn't win their division so they were place in the 4th spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TampaDude

Last year doesn't really count. The 2011 Spurs were badly dinged up and ran into a buzzsaw. This year's Spurs are MUCH deeper than last year's Spurs. We'd bounce the Grizz in 5 games, max.

---

Too bad "depth" didn't pay off in the WCF, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris16

Too bad "depth" didn't pay off in the WCF, right?

---

It wasn't depth last year, it was defense, or rather the utter lack of it. Add in Ibaka going 11 for 11, stir with the shitty officiating spoon, and it's just one of those things. Spurs would likely have lost to Miami in the Finals anyway.

The Spurs' D is much better this year, and OKC is weaker this year without Harden, so the Spurs should be able to beat them.

All of the above is just conversation, though, because barring LeBron going down, Miami is going to repeat. Anyone who seriously thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

If only we could sign Robert Horry for his hip checking intangibles for the playoffs.