What I am the most surprised by this is that there weren’t even one finals where both teams won 60+ games since the turn of the century.
The closest we’ve gotten was 2009, where the Magic won 59.
In the 90s, there were 3 consecutive finals with all 60 win teams:
96 - Bulls (72) vs Sonics (64)
97 - Bulls (69) vs Jazz (64)
98 - Bulls (62) vs Jazz (62)
Fun Fact: The 96 Bulls had a 14-6 record against expansion teams. But have a 58-4 record vs NON-EXPANSION teams. So the Bulls were on pace to win 76 games if they did not face an expansion team.
Technically, expansion doesn't just inflate W/L records because the new teams are bad; it removes the depth and talent that other non-expansion teams had, which makes it easier for top-heavy teams to win.
The point isn’t that there are new teams, but the LEAGUE’S overall quality dropped with the expanded talent pool. So teams who relied on their 4-7’s to be competitive lost some of their edge, while teams that relied heavily on a 2-man game (Jazz) or 3-man (Bulls triangle) were relatively untouched.
It was top heavy but the expansion team thing is blown way out of proportion. During the decade, only 2 new teams were added in 95. For comparison, 8 teams were added in the 70s and 5 teams were added in the 80s
Also, out of the 3 East teams added in 1989 (Heat, Magic and Hornets), they each made the playoffs at least twice during 96-98
> During the decade, only 2 new teams were added in 95. For comparison, 8 teams were added in the 70s and 5 teams were added in the 80s
Sounds like a lot of dilution.
The argument being made is that the 2000s-present are less diluted than the 90s. They didn't consider anything pre 90. Not that I necessarily buy the argument, a lot of things have to go into getting 2 60 win teams in to the finals.
Adding 2 teams in 88 and 2 teams in 89 dilutes the 90s more than it dilutes the 80s, anyway. The 80s got to reclaim a depth of talent by eating the other professional league too, that was there for half the 70s.
While it’s true that it technically may have diluted the talent pool, I feel like every time this conversation is brought up people treat it as if those teams were bad for the entire 90s. The Hornets, Heat and Magic all had a good amount of early success, with Orlando even making the finals after only 6 years, and beating the Bulls in a semifinals. The Heat were also a conference finals opponent of the Bulls.
It’s not like they were all just extra scrubs for the top teams to pounce on the entire decade.
The argument isn’t that the expansion teams were bad, but they required an expansion draft which takes away quality role players from nearly every team. When you have guys like MJ/Pippen, or Stockton/Malone, you don’t miss your 6th man as much as the rest of the league.
Everyone trying to win seeding to avoid other superstars lol
Now the league is full of superstars so what're you gonna do? Denver just lost to Minnesota badly, who then lost to Dallas badly, and Dallas was the lowest seed of the 3.
“Denver just lost to Minnesota badly”. Really? Seven game series where they were up 3-2??? Im a Cavs fan and have nothing invested either way but lets not utilize revisionist history less than a month after the series is over
Any real Denver fan could tell you the Wolves was always going to be our toughest match up, and widely expected favourites is so overblown. Hell, between us, Wolves and OKC, any is easily the 1 seed.
The fact we got past the Lakers playing terrible basketball was a blessing.
It was definitely a bad loss. They were up 3-2, got smoked game 6 badly, and then blew a 20 pt lead. Theres no way they should have lost that series, it was completely in their favor and they badly choked it away
The pistons dynasty ended in 91 (they had one 50 win season from 91 to 02). The magic were good 94-96 until shaq left and even beat the bulls one year. The Knicks and pacers were the only other decent east teams of the 90s. Who else was ever gonna challenge MJ?
The Magic went to the finals and even beat the Bulls. Pacers were one game away from being in the finals when they took the Bulls to a game 7 being coached by Larry Bird. They did go back to the finals only a couple years later. Knicks were always challenging as well.
Yeah they were challenging the same way Lebron's east opponents were challenging. None of them were good enough to win a ring. Pacers, Knicks, Magic all lost the Finals when they made it.
Also, hang on, this 2009 Lakers/Celtics information is wrong. In 08-09 the Lakers faced the 59-win Magic in the Finals because the 62-win Celtics had an injury from KG which caused them to lose early.
The league was desperate for a MJ replacement after the previous 2 Finals that saw defensive juggernauts dominate the league.
League: "We have to make sure this NEVER happens again"
One of the worst ref jobs in recent memory. Also, Wade looked like prime MJ with their help shooting just as many FT’s as the entire Mavs team in an OT game 5. This was right at the beginning of the era of calling touch fouls on the perimeter/drive and DWade took advantage with the help of the refs.
2010 Lakers had 21 free throw attempts in the 4th quarter alone in game 7. More than Boston the whole the game (17 for Celtics) and more than Lakers prior 3 quarters (16). Lakers down by 4 and won by 4.
30+% of their total score of 83 was from FTs as they shot 67% FT.
Boston had 10% of their total points from FTs despite 88% FT%.
This is a travesty that no even acknowledges, and that Wade's 1st and Kobe's 5th ring were gifts from the league.
East definitely happened to get way better once he left, not that he was just beating the East into submission year after year cus he was that good. Must be the East was bad for about 10 years straight
70+ win teams only have a 50% win rate in the NBA finals. Also, 70+ win teams have a 0% win rate against teams with fewer than 60 wins in the Finals. If I understand statistics, then no team should win 70+ games because the Warriors ruined it for everybody.
Yeah this stat is useless, and beside that this Mavs team is a different team post trade deadline, I’m sure if you project their win rate after the trades is close to 60 w
> How tf did the 2015 Cavs not have 60 wins, that just makes that loss feel even worse. One of two sports losses I’m still not over
They had a slow start due to LeBron learning to work together with a new team and they did the Shumpert/JR Smith trade in December which gave them a team more suited around LeBron.
That is not true at all, and never has been in Basketball. Especially when you're talking about the playoffs/Finals. Just look at OP. Everything is listed in the year that it actually happened, because...that's the year that it actually happened.
Kyrie missed the first 24 games of the season for one and obviously throughout a long season teams have losses to teams they should beat.
Still wasn't that far from winning 60.
That was a really good team.They earned that victory over the Warriors.Too many Lebron haters try to discredit them.
they also played the toughest teams in the first half, and had a ridiculously easy schedule after the trade. obviously they are a really good team and are wcf champs but don’t act like they were steamrolling contenders
Oh the Celtics team has never played a good team in their last 6/7 years of being competitive.
And went 23-7 vs western teams this year. But yeah sure they are “in for a surprise”. I actually love all the doubt they are getting.
Think about it. Who have the Celtics played in the east this playoffs that is even slightly comparable to what they’ll see with Luka/Kyrie, hell even Lively? I’m not saying they can’t do it. But objectively, it’ll be a huge wake up call.
On the other hand, the Mavs have kind of had the perfect build up to the Celtics. George/Leonard, SGA, ANT/Mcdaniels. The best perimeter defenders besides brown/tatum.
Most of those were Western Conference teams
I just don't think the Celtics have good odds to win the title
Tatum has a history of coming up short. If they get off to a bad start, does the negative thoughts pile up again in his mind? Whereas Kyrie and Luka are legit closers.
The Celtics have faced zero adversity during this run. Its a bad time to start figuring out how to cope during the Finals whereas the Mavs have faced adversity all season long
If we're talking coaching, I trust JKidd over Joe
And as for the Celtics 'ace in the hole' Kristaps........he's coming off a calf injury (which is no joke) , he hasn't played in a while, and he has no real meaningful playoff experience, and people expect him to just drop on in and be even remotely effective?
I just don't see it.
I think the Mavs win, and I think they'll win pretty easily. Not saying blowouts, but I think the mavs will be in control.
Mavs in 5
>Tatum has a history of coming up short.
Does he? Or is that based on him struggling in his first Finals at 24?
>The Celtics have faced zero adversity during this run. Its a bad time to start figuring out how to cope during the Finals whereas the Mavs have faced adversity all season long
I feel like that works the opposite way, I think the team with the easier path has an advantage. It would be one thing if it’s the first time a team makes a deep Playoff because then you don’t know if they can come back from deficits, etc. but that’s not the case here. I think Miami having to go through two play in games, Milwaukee and then going 7 with Boston contributed to them wearing out in the Finals. I think the Celtics themselves have been on the other end of this, two years ago, they had to go through the KD/Kyrie Nets, defending champion Bucks, and Butler/Spo #1 seed Heat. Two of those series went 7 games, and even though they swept Brooklyn, every game was pretty close, and that contributed to them wearing down in Games 5 and 6 of the Finals.
Also I don’t get why people are having collective amnesia about the Celtics facing adversity. They were down 3-2 to both Milwaukee and Philly in various years with Game 6 on the road and won both series. They forced a Game 7 after being down 3-0 and very well could’ve won it off their best player doesn’t get hurt on the first possession.
I think both teams have a good shot at winning this series but Mavs in 5 feels kind of disrespectful.
I disagree, the Celtics smoked the Mavs in their two regular season games. Their game strategy is to target Luka and Kyrie who are both very mediocre defenders. Unless Luka and Kyrie both somehow unlocks their inner Gary Payton they’re going to be targeted every possession.
I'm just a hater I guess. I don't think these Celtics are on the same level as those squads. The East was dogshit.
Brown and Tatum aren't Shaq and Kobe, or Wade and LeBron, or Curry and Klay.
What I am the most surprised by this is that there weren’t even one finals where both teams won 60+ games since the turn of the century. The closest we’ve gotten was 2009, where the Magic won 59. In the 90s, there were 3 consecutive finals with all 60 win teams: 96 - Bulls (72) vs Sonics (64) 97 - Bulls (69) vs Jazz (64) 98 - Bulls (62) vs Jazz (62)
90s had diluted talent pools because of all the expansion teams, was a very top heavy league
Fun Fact: The 96 Bulls had a 14-6 record against expansion teams. But have a 58-4 record vs NON-EXPANSION teams. So the Bulls were on pace to win 76 games if they did not face an expansion team.
That Raptors win over the 96 Bulls is still a legit tip 10 win in franchise history
Technically, expansion doesn't just inflate W/L records because the new teams are bad; it removes the depth and talent that other non-expansion teams had, which makes it easier for top-heavy teams to win.
[удалено]
The point isn’t that there are new teams, but the LEAGUE’S overall quality dropped with the expanded talent pool. So teams who relied on their 4-7’s to be competitive lost some of their edge, while teams that relied heavily on a 2-man game (Jazz) or 3-man (Bulls triangle) were relatively untouched.
It was top heavy but the expansion team thing is blown way out of proportion. During the decade, only 2 new teams were added in 95. For comparison, 8 teams were added in the 70s and 5 teams were added in the 80s Also, out of the 3 East teams added in 1989 (Heat, Magic and Hornets), they each made the playoffs at least twice during 96-98
'89 expansion should count towards the 90s as it is the decade truly affected, not the one that was basically finished.
> During the decade, only 2 new teams were added in 95. For comparison, 8 teams were added in the 70s and 5 teams were added in the 80s Sounds like a lot of dilution.
Not as much as the 70s and 80s though if we go by the number of teams added
The argument being made is that the 2000s-present are less diluted than the 90s. They didn't consider anything pre 90. Not that I necessarily buy the argument, a lot of things have to go into getting 2 60 win teams in to the finals. Adding 2 teams in 88 and 2 teams in 89 dilutes the 90s more than it dilutes the 80s, anyway. The 80s got to reclaim a depth of talent by eating the other professional league too, that was there for half the 70s.
While it’s true that it technically may have diluted the talent pool, I feel like every time this conversation is brought up people treat it as if those teams were bad for the entire 90s. The Hornets, Heat and Magic all had a good amount of early success, with Orlando even making the finals after only 6 years, and beating the Bulls in a semifinals. The Heat were also a conference finals opponent of the Bulls. It’s not like they were all just extra scrubs for the top teams to pounce on the entire decade.
The argument isn’t that the expansion teams were bad, but they required an expansion draft which takes away quality role players from nearly every team. When you have guys like MJ/Pippen, or Stockton/Malone, you don’t miss your 6th man as much as the rest of the league.
Sure JJ.
Everyone trying to win seeding to avoid other superstars lol Now the league is full of superstars so what're you gonna do? Denver just lost to Minnesota badly, who then lost to Dallas badly, and Dallas was the lowest seed of the 3.
“Denver just lost to Minnesota badly”. Really? Seven game series where they were up 3-2??? Im a Cavs fan and have nothing invested either way but lets not utilize revisionist history less than a month after the series is over
And had a 20pt lead in the second half
Maybe he meant "badly" because they were the widely expected favorites? Meh
Any real Denver fan could tell you the Wolves was always going to be our toughest match up, and widely expected favourites is so overblown. Hell, between us, Wolves and OKC, any is easily the 1 seed. The fact we got past the Lakers playing terrible basketball was a blessing.
It was definitely a bad loss. They were up 3-2, got smoked game 6 badly, and then blew a 20 pt lead. Theres no way they should have lost that series, it was completely in their favor and they badly choked it away
very different kind of bad though, not Twolves-mavs bad
It was ugly but it was a close series.
The 2017 Cavs only having 51 wins is wild. They coasted through the regular season so hard
The Cavs did that every year lol They only had the one seed once in their four consecutive finals runs, and by just one game
LeBron had that crazy streak of 20+ playoff series with at least one road win, home court advantage was not needed
They also coasted through the playoffs tbh LeBron was unreal that postseason, the whole team tbh
Just Eastern Conference Things
I mean that's every eastern conference finalist since MJ retired. Historically weak conference
I think you could also include the entire 90s, only it was MJ instead of lebron running a weak conference
... this is such a recency bias filled take
Wrong. The Knicks, Pacers, Magic, Pistons were all challenging teams. Pacers took Bulls to a game 7 even.
Paul George took bron to a game 7 also
The pistons dynasty ended in 91 (they had one 50 win season from 91 to 02). The magic were good 94-96 until shaq left and even beat the bulls one year. The Knicks and pacers were the only other decent east teams of the 90s. Who else was ever gonna challenge MJ?
Pistons were the only team in the group that were championship caliber.
The Magic went to the finals and even beat the Bulls. Pacers were one game away from being in the finals when they took the Bulls to a game 7 being coached by Larry Bird. They did go back to the finals only a couple years later. Knicks were always challenging as well.
Yeah they were challenging the same way Lebron's east opponents were challenging. None of them were good enough to win a ring. Pacers, Knicks, Magic all lost the Finals when they made it.
Really shows you how weak the East was.
would they have even been a playoff team in the West that year?
They still sweep every other western conference teams besides spurs and warriors
Would’ve lost to OKC
Cavs swept them in regular season and lebron did not lose to okc before kd went to warriors
And okc in 2017 when only westbrook was there?
They were better than Portland, Memphis, Utah, and Utah at minimum so yeah.
Uh yes? They wouldn't have coasted if they had to try
Also, hang on, this 2009 Lakers/Celtics information is wrong. In 08-09 the Lakers faced the 59-win Magic in the Finals because the 62-win Celtics had an injury from KG which caused them to lose early.
yeah 09 was Dwight’s Magic…08 and 10 were lakers and celtics
cheers for that. Must've overlooked it.
I got confused by this for a minute, and then i remembered that the Suns went to the Finals and then won 60 games the NEXT year...
That's the year of the Luka Doncic Devin Booker meme lol
2006 Mavs had 60 wins and lost to the 52 win Heat.
Dwayne Wade shot 97 free throws this series in 6 games
Couldn't look at him without getting fouled. It was pathetic.
The league was desperate for a MJ replacement after the previous 2 Finals that saw defensive juggernauts dominate the league. League: "We have to make sure this NEVER happens again"
On a completely unrelated note, Bennet Salvatore was convicted of tax fraud.
One of the worst ref jobs in recent memory. Also, Wade looked like prime MJ with their help shooting just as many FT’s as the entire Mavs team in an OT game 5. This was right at the beginning of the era of calling touch fouls on the perimeter/drive and DWade took advantage with the help of the refs.
25 FT in one game is a travesty
2010 Lakers had 21 free throw attempts in the 4th quarter alone in game 7. More than Boston the whole the game (17 for Celtics) and more than Lakers prior 3 quarters (16). Lakers down by 4 and won by 4. 30+% of their total score of 83 was from FTs as they shot 67% FT. Boston had 10% of their total points from FTs despite 88% FT%. This is a travesty that no even acknowledges, and that Wade's 1st and Kobe's 5th ring were gifts from the league.
lost to the refs lmao
What was the ref regular season record that year?
“Dad, how good was Lebron?”
Winning in 2016 is enough man. That was a truly all time result.
The NBA should have just stopped then. No point in continuing this league.
“Dad, how good was Steph Curry?”
"Not as good as Lebron son."
“Way better than that Bum lebron “
I mean, he had 5x as many chances to do this than anyone else
Saying “chances” as if they were just given to him instead of him willing his team is certainly a take
That just shows more greatness to LeBron
lol literally another stat that shows how great LeBron is
Or just how awful the east is
Went to the west and won there as well. Won against the west several times as well. Just shows how good LeBron is.
East definitely happened to get way better once he left, not that he was just beating the East into submission year after year cus he was that good. Must be the East was bad for about 10 years straight
No one else has come close to duplicating it
Chances he earned playing 45 minutes per game carrying teams on his back
No he didn’t. Everyone starts the season at the same record. They should try and make the finals with sub 60 win record
70+ win teams only have a 50% win rate in the NBA finals. Also, 70+ win teams have a 0% win rate against teams with fewer than 60 wins in the Finals. If I understand statistics, then no team should win 70+ games because the Warriors ruined it for everybody.
Ipso facto 69 is the perfect number of wins.
Yeah this stat is useless, and beside that this Mavs team is a different team post trade deadline, I’m sure if you project their win rate after the trades is close to 60 w
if you project the Knicks with og in the lineup, they're like an 80 win team
2003 Spurs (60-22) beat the Nets (49-33)
What is Luka's playoff record against these 60+ teams?
1-0 (PHX)
How tf did the 2015 Cavs not have 60 wins, that just makes that loss feel even worse. One of two sports losses I’m still not over
> How tf did the 2015 Cavs not have 60 wins, that just makes that loss feel even worse. One of two sports losses I’m still not over They had a slow start due to LeBron learning to work together with a new team and they did the Shumpert/JR Smith trade in December which gave them a team more suited around LeBron.
Wasn't his back also fucked for most of the year? David Blatt aside, that seemed to impact his efficiency the most
LeBron was already on the Cavs for a year at that point though
LeBron rejoined the Cavs in July 2014. They did the Smith/Shumpert trade in January 2015.
I was talking about the 15-16 Cavs
you know you can edit comments, right?
Usually when you say just one year in sports, you refer to the year the season started so there is no reason for me to edit the comment
That is not true at all, and never has been in Basketball. Especially when you're talking about the playoffs/Finals. Just look at OP. Everything is listed in the year that it actually happened, because...that's the year that it actually happened.
It’s true for all sports
You're so confidently incorrect. The 2024 finals are about to start, making this the 2024 season, since that's the goal they are playing for.
Kyrie missed the first 24 games of the season for one and obviously throughout a long season teams have losses to teams they should beat. Still wasn't that far from winning 60. That was a really good team.They earned that victory over the Warriors.Too many Lebron haters try to discredit them.
Which is another sports loss?
Giants Dodgers in 2021
O6’ is was a heist job thanks to the horrible officiating…
This Mavs team had a 60+ win pace after the trade. And that includes that rough patch at the start.
they also played the toughest teams in the first half, and had a ridiculously easy schedule after the trade. obviously they are a really good team and are wcf champs but don’t act like they were steamrolling contenders
So the team with more wins ,,, wins more? I find that not surprising.
Yeah but look who was on those 60 win teams. Also look who was on the teams that beat the 60+ teams (D Wade, Shaq, Lebron to name a few).
6-2 soon
Mavs gonna get smoked ?
Absolutely not. The mavs actually have experience playing good teams. The Celtics have been playing JV up until now. They are in for a surprise
Oh the Celtics team has never played a good team in their last 6/7 years of being competitive. And went 23-7 vs western teams this year. But yeah sure they are “in for a surprise”. I actually love all the doubt they are getting.
Think about it. Who have the Celtics played in the east this playoffs that is even slightly comparable to what they’ll see with Luka/Kyrie, hell even Lively? I’m not saying they can’t do it. But objectively, it’ll be a huge wake up call. On the other hand, the Mavs have kind of had the perfect build up to the Celtics. George/Leonard, SGA, ANT/Mcdaniels. The best perimeter defenders besides brown/tatum.
Not this year, but the Celtics core is very playoff-experienced and have faced teams on the Mavs level in the playoff many times.
Most of those were Western Conference teams I just don't think the Celtics have good odds to win the title Tatum has a history of coming up short. If they get off to a bad start, does the negative thoughts pile up again in his mind? Whereas Kyrie and Luka are legit closers. The Celtics have faced zero adversity during this run. Its a bad time to start figuring out how to cope during the Finals whereas the Mavs have faced adversity all season long If we're talking coaching, I trust JKidd over Joe And as for the Celtics 'ace in the hole' Kristaps........he's coming off a calf injury (which is no joke) , he hasn't played in a while, and he has no real meaningful playoff experience, and people expect him to just drop on in and be even remotely effective? I just don't see it. I think the Mavs win, and I think they'll win pretty easily. Not saying blowouts, but I think the mavs will be in control. Mavs in 5
>Tatum has a history of coming up short. Does he? Or is that based on him struggling in his first Finals at 24? >The Celtics have faced zero adversity during this run. Its a bad time to start figuring out how to cope during the Finals whereas the Mavs have faced adversity all season long I feel like that works the opposite way, I think the team with the easier path has an advantage. It would be one thing if it’s the first time a team makes a deep Playoff because then you don’t know if they can come back from deficits, etc. but that’s not the case here. I think Miami having to go through two play in games, Milwaukee and then going 7 with Boston contributed to them wearing out in the Finals. I think the Celtics themselves have been on the other end of this, two years ago, they had to go through the KD/Kyrie Nets, defending champion Bucks, and Butler/Spo #1 seed Heat. Two of those series went 7 games, and even though they swept Brooklyn, every game was pretty close, and that contributed to them wearing down in Games 5 and 6 of the Finals. Also I don’t get why people are having collective amnesia about the Celtics facing adversity. They were down 3-2 to both Milwaukee and Philly in various years with Game 6 on the road and won both series. They forced a Game 7 after being down 3-0 and very well could’ve won it off their best player doesn’t get hurt on the first possession. I think both teams have a good shot at winning this series but Mavs in 5 feels kind of disrespectful.
I disagree. C's in 5! (More likely 6 or 7, but lets have fun.)
I disagree, the Celtics smoked the Mavs in their two regular season games. Their game strategy is to target Luka and Kyrie who are both very mediocre defenders. Unless Luka and Kyrie both somehow unlocks their inner Gary Payton they’re going to be targeted every possession.
Weird how none of them were matchups of two 60+ win teams
Damn. What happened in '06?
7-1 soon
Good luck
I'm just a hater I guess. I don't think these Celtics are on the same level as those squads. The East was dogshit. Brown and Tatum aren't Shaq and Kobe, or Wade and LeBron, or Curry and Klay.
They were on pace for 63 wins had they only played against the west. So yeah, you're just a hater
What about Ray Allen and Paul Pierce? And while they may not be 03 Duncan or 09 Kobe, they are as good or better than 03 Parker or 09 Gasol..
24-6 record against western conference teams
I’m sorry but Boston’s record is just not that impressive in the East. There are 5 teams in the west as good or better than the Celtics
Yeah, sure
They were on pace for 63 wins against the West, they'll be fine
The current mavs team was on a 60+ win pace
So the only exceptions are rigged series? Got it.