Boston has better odds than SA to win it all

[Cry Havoc]

Interesting stats





http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

Hey, when your team is on the way out, stats are all you have.

[m33p0]

hollinger must be the same guy who advises dolan on the isiah situation.

[NBA Junkie]

Again, that's about as good as could have been said for the 1999 Spurs' best 3 players and that team steamrolled the league in the playoffs.

Playoff experience is important, but it's not the end-all-be-all in defining a team's chances to reach the Finals or win a le. When KG, Allen, and Pierce reached the conference finals by themselves, each played relatively well in that setting.

In 2004, KG went for 23.4 ppg (on 46.3% FG), 13.5 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.0 bpg

In 2002, Pierce went for 23.7 ppg (on 36.4% FG), 8.5 rpg, 3.8 apg, 1.3 bpg, and 1.8 spg

In 2001, Allen went for 27.1 ppg (on 46.8% FG and 50.9% 3Pt), 3.3 rpg, and 5.4 apg.

It's not as if those guys played poorly -- and it's not as if they had each other in those cir stances.

I'm not saying that Boston is a lock to win the le this year, but I think it's unreasonable to count them out just because none of those guys have ever reached the Finals before. Duncan had a great first Finals; so did Wade; so did Jordan.

The 1999 Spurs also had the good fortune of playing a Knicks team that had no previous finals experience in regards to their core players, save for Patrick Ewing, but he was on the downside of his career and wasn't even the Knicks best player then.

Boston has looked good so far, but we all know that the NBA regular season is a marathon and not a sprint. , the 2005-06 Pistons also looked seemingly unstoppable and we all know how that turned out.

[FromWayDowntown]

The 1999 Spurs also had the good fortune of playing a Knicks team that had no previous finals experience in regards to their core players, save for Patrick Ewing, but he was on the downside of his career and wasn't even the Knicks best player then.

Boston has looked good so far, but we all know that the NBA regular season is a marathon and not a sprint. , the 2005-06 Pistons also looked seemingly unstoppable and we all know how that turned out.

Oh, I agree that it's not a lock that Boston will be there in the end; that team has some depth problems to overcome, I think, and Doc is playing his big 3 some pretty significant minutes in the early going, despite their relatively easy schedule. Again, I'm not saying they're going to win -- I just don't think that you can discount their chances by saying that KG, Allen, and Pierce haven't played in the playoffs together.

[NBA Junkie]

Again, I'm not saying they're going to win -- I just don't think that you can discount their chances by saying that KG, Allen, and Pierce haven't played in the playoffs together.

No doubt about it.

I guess it just gets under my skin when all these so called experts are already giving the Eastern Conference to the Celtics when the Pistons and Cavaliers may have something to say about it.

If they do reach the Finals, I may like their chances against the Suns , but not a Finals experienced team like the Spurs. Especially when you have a more savvy coach like Pop going against a mediocre coach in Doc Rivers.

[dubsball]

This is a complete travesty. Another New England conspiracy. Why don't you let me 8 year old cousins play NY and NJ 8 times a year, they'll have those odds too...sheesh.

[Obstructed_View]

There's something ed up about those numbers that has nothing to do with how early it is. The East teams are given more weight for some reason. That formula is probably designed to work if every team played every other team an equal amount of times, but you instead have the good teams in the east feasting on the bad ones. The head to head odds favoring the eastern teams suggests that's the problem.

Realistically, it is way too early. , the Spurs have had a boatload of home games. You can't even tell what they're going to do until after the roadeo trip.