PDA

View Full Version : What Makes A Team Better Than Another?



krisxsong
11-03-2013, 04:44 PM
I always wondered this.

If team A beats team B in head to head match-ups, but team A loses to teams that team B beats, who is the better team?

For example. 2004 Eastern Conference Finals. The New Jersey Nets took the Detroit Pistons to 7 games, and it went down to the finals seconds with Rip Hamilton making a J over Jason Kidd's contested hand.

That being said, the Pistons went on to fairly easily beat the LA Lakers in the NBA Finals. I'm 99.9% the Nets would have been dominated again by the LA Lakers, but they took the Pistons who easily beat the Lakers down to the wire.

I personally think the Pistons were better, but you get my example right?

So which is a better way to judge who the better team is?

Clippersfan86
11-03-2013, 04:51 PM
It's really tricky because in sports.. matchups matter so much. I don't think anybody can give a definitive answer to this really. I think in each conference you can definitely say whoever advances the furthest is the best team in that conference normally.. but west vs east that can't be argued and also.. again matchups/luck of draw could factor in.

Almighty Push
11-03-2013, 04:57 PM
I believe that whoever comes out on top (at least in the NBA), is, for the most part, the best team in the league that year. But of course there might be 1 or 2 teams that might especially present problems for each specific team. The 2009/2010 Lakers always struggled against the Bobcats, but that didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It's a system, you play to beat the system.

Goose17
11-03-2013, 05:02 PM
Match ups, chemistry, coaching, fatigue, psychology/mindset, home court advantage, pure luck and so on and so forth.

There's too many variables. There's a reason Miami can win back to back championships but lose to a Philadelphia team that has no business being 3-0. Sometimes, **** happens.

What happens on one night doesn't really matter the next.

Last season the Warriors managed to defeat the Clippers(x3), Miami, Oklahoma, Spurs(x2), New York, Boston, Indiana(x2) ...and lost three games to Sacramento, two games to Orlando and two games to Utah.

Sometimes, **** happens.

krisxsong
11-03-2013, 05:35 PM
Match ups, chemistry, coaching, fatigue, psychology/mindset, home court advantage, pure luck and so on and so forth.

There's too many variables. There's a reason Miami can win back to back championships but lose to a Philadelphia team that has no business being 3-0. Sometimes, **** happens.

What happens on one night doesn't really matter the next.

Last season the Warriors managed to defeat the Clippers(x3), Miami, Oklahoma, Spurs(x2), New York, Boston, Indiana(x2) ...and lost three games to Sacramento, two games to Orlando and two games to Utah.

Sometimes, **** happens.

Did you post in the right thread?

I was asking which method is a more accurate depiction of a better team, head to head or my association...and in my example I used a 7 game series.

Clippersfan86
11-03-2013, 05:43 PM
H2H>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Another team beating the one you lost to if you're comparing two teams IMO. The team that destroyed H2H earns the right to say they were better unless either A. the other team makes a way deeper playoff run or finishes the season with a significantly better record.

todu82
11-03-2013, 05:44 PM
Talent, Chemistry and Coaching are all big factors.

Clippersfan86
11-03-2013, 05:45 PM
OP sorry but you asked a very confusing question that can't be answered, don't blame people for not understanding.. because it's definitely a WTF worthy question IMO.

Minimal
11-03-2013, 06:44 PM
Ima tell you more.. Thats a ****ing stupid question you asked here.

RiceOnTheRun
11-03-2013, 07:12 PM
It's all about consistency.

As we all have seen with the 76ers, projected to be the worst team in the league this year, any team can beat another on any given day. It's whether or not they can produce consistent results that makes a team better.

Someone like Ray Allen for example, he isn't great because they can make tough three point shots, but because you know that if he has the ball wide open, he's most likely going to make that shot.

Goose17
11-03-2013, 07:24 PM
OP sorry but you asked a very confusing question that can't be answered, don't blame people for not understanding.. because it's definitely a WTF worthy question IMO.

What he said^

Your question is nonsense.

P&GRealist
11-03-2013, 08:33 PM
Simple answer: LeBron James

Delrayhc
11-03-2013, 09:05 PM
The scoreboard

lol, please
11-03-2013, 09:15 PM
I always wondered this.

If team A beats team B in head to head match-ups, but team A loses to teams that team B beats, who is the better team?

For example. 2004 Eastern Conference Finals. The New Jersey Nets took the Detroit Pistons to 7 games, and it went down to the finals seconds with Rip Hamilton making a J over Jason Kidd's contested hand.

That being said, the Pistons went on to fairly easily beat the LA Lakers in the NBA Finals. I'm 99.9% the Nets would have been dominated again by the LA Lakers, but they took the Pistons who easily beat the Lakers down to the wire.

I personally think the Pistons were better, but you get my example right?

So which is a better way to judge who the better team is?

If all else is considered equal, consistency at a high level from the players and as a unit, obviously.

Guppyfighter
11-03-2013, 09:21 PM
A team scores more points than they give up.



Let me make this less confusing. Differential. The average amount your score and give up is the best indication of how good you are.

Almighty Push
11-03-2013, 10:16 PM
A team scores more points than they give up.



Let me make this less confusing. Differential. The average amount your score and give up is the best indication of how good you are.

That depends on pace.

Guppyfighter
11-03-2013, 10:18 PM
That depends on pace.

If you are trying to evaluate their offense and defense it does. It doesn't really matter when you are just looking at differential.

amos1er
11-03-2013, 10:58 PM
The Pistons shot 60 more FT attempts than the Lakers did in the 2004 NBA finals... A NBA record for FTA disparity between two teams in the finals... Thats why they won.

Also factor in that the Lakers had prime Shaq and Kobe who led the league in FT attempts that year who got less attempts than players like Hamilton, Billups, and Ben Wallace in the finals... Players who were at the bottom half of the league in FTA that year. Pistons as a team were in the bottom half in FTA that year as well, while the Lakers were top in the league. It was the complete reversal of that in the finals however for some strange reason with the Pistons setting a new league record for FTA disparity over the Lakers.

amos1er
11-03-2013, 11:08 PM
To answer the OP's question however... Much like in boxing, individual match-ups are what makes one team better than another despite the fact that one team may have the worse overall individual record. Nadal and Federer would be a good example of that. Also why guys like Ricardo Mayorga were able to get the best of guys like Vernon Forrest despite Forrest being the far more decorated and successful fighter overall.

TheMightyHumph
11-03-2013, 11:11 PM
I always wondered this.

If team A beats team B in head to head match-ups, but team A loses to teams that team B beats, who is the better team?

For example. 2004 Eastern Conference Finals. The New Jersey Nets took the Detroit Pistons to 7 games, and it went down to the finals seconds with Rip Hamilton making a J over Jason Kidd's contested hand.

That being said, the Pistons went on to fairly easily beat the LA Lakers in the NBA Finals. I'm 99.9% the Nets would have been dominated again by the LA Lakers, but they took the Pistons who easily beat the Lakers down to the wire.

I personally think the Pistons were better, but you get my example right?

So which is a better way to judge who the better team is?

The final score

Chronz
11-04-2013, 03:34 PM
Regular season H2H records dont decide which team has a better chance at succeeding in a playoff series, certainly not any more than looking at wins-losses or efficiency differentials.

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 03:51 PM
Regular season H2H records dont decide which team has a better chance at succeeding in a playoff series, certainly not any more than looking at wins-losses or efficiency differentials.

Final score determines who was the best team in that game.

The NBA is a game-t0-game league.

Tony_Starks
11-04-2013, 04:34 PM
I put a big impact on coaching. The best coach at the time (finals) usually wins. Typically you have enough talent to get there, so at that point a lot is coaching. I'll be the first to admit my Lakers coach got outcoached by Larry Brown and Doc Rivers in two Finals. Hell Larry Brown got a game out of us with Iverson, the only game Lakers lost in the entire playoffs that year.

This year was kindof a anomaly because the lesser coach won. But technically if not for Ray the best coach would've still won.....

Chronz
11-04-2013, 04:40 PM
Final score determines who was the best team in that game.

The NBA is a game-t0-game league.

Im talking about gauging whos more likely to win the incoming series and/or ranking teams in general

kobe4thewinbang
11-04-2013, 06:36 PM
I always wondered this.

If team A beats team B in head to head match-ups, but team A loses to teams that team B beats, who is the better team?

For example. 2004 Eastern Conference Finals. The New Jersey Nets took the Detroit Pistons to 7 games, and it went down to the finals seconds with Rip Hamilton making a J over Jason Kidd's contested hand.

That being said, the Pistons went on to fairly easily beat the LA Lakers in the NBA Finals. I'm 99.9% the Nets would have been dominated again by the LA Lakers, but they took the Pistons who easily beat the Lakers down to the wire.

I personally think the Pistons were better, but you get my example right?

So which is a better way to judge who the better team is?Well, obviously that's a bad example. The Lakers were having injury problems, and Detroit's tough defense made it hard for Kobe and Shaq to flourish. At the end of the day, match-ups are crucial, defense vs offense, and team efficiency.

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 08:28 PM
Im talking about gauging whos more likely to win the incoming series and/or ranking teams in general

So you are worried about ranking? Is that a joke?

The game is played, the team that outscores the other team is the better team that night.

The team that outscores the other team in the last game of the playoffs is the best team.

Basketball happens on the court, not in peoples' meaningless opinions that result in ratings.

nandovelez
11-04-2013, 08:36 PM
That nets and pistons series was truly a great one that was a fun series one of the best I ever saw :-)

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 09:08 PM
That nets and pistons series was truly a great one that was a fun series one of the best I ever saw :-)

Too bad Kidd and Kenyon were injured during the latter part of the season. Would have been a much better series with (IMO) a different outcome.

All-In
11-04-2013, 09:10 PM
In 2004 the Pistons beat the Nets 4-3 in the eastern conference SEMI-finals…not finals!!!...the Pistons beat the Pacers 4-2 in the eastern conference finals….lame thread!

Chronz
11-04-2013, 09:27 PM
So you are worried about ranking? Is that a joke?

The game is played, the team that outscores the other team is the better team that night.

The team that outscores the other team in the last game of the playoffs is the best team.

Basketball happens on the court, not in peoples' meaningless opinions that result in ratings.

Thats just the best team tho, what about the other 29 teams?

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 10:05 PM
Thats just the best team tho, what about the other 29 teams?

What about them?

Chronz
11-04-2013, 11:13 PM
What about them?

How do you rank them

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 11:54 PM
How do you rank them

Why rank them?

Chronz
11-05-2013, 12:03 AM
Why rank them?
Because thats the point of the post you quoted and the basic theme of the thread. Ranking teams.

kingsdelez24
11-05-2013, 12:24 AM
Cavs and Pistons in 07... The Pistons lost because they couldn't contain LeBron until the lest game where boobies Gibson came out of nowhere for 31, yet they got swept by the Spurs. I always thought that the Pistons of 07 could have possibly beaten the Spurs that year. It was a really close comparison

C-Webb Oberto
Sheed Duncan
Prince Bowen
Rip Manu/Finley
Chauncey Tp

TheMightyHumph
11-05-2013, 12:49 AM
Because thats the point of the post you quoted and the basic theme of the thread. Ranking teams.

Ranking of teams is in one's individual opinion.

Rank them however you want. Doesn't mean a thing to all those that rank them differently than you do.

And of course, in reality, all those rankings mean nothing.

Chronz
11-05-2013, 01:38 AM
Ranking of teams is in one's individual opinion.

Rank them however you want. Doesn't mean a thing to all those that rank them differently than you do.

And of course, in reality, all those rankings mean nothing.

Who ever said it was anything more than an opinion?

I would gladly debate the conflicting opinions, Im curious to know of the barometers they would use, it should go without saying the best team is the one that won the championship, but some of us care to delve deeper into a seasons worth of games. The Bobcats aren't on par with last years Spurs.

LOL at the third line, lots of things we do in life mean nothing, you having this conversation with me means nothing, you still do it.

TheMightyHumph
11-05-2013, 02:27 PM
Who ever said it was anything more than an opinion?

I would gladly debate the conflicting opinions, Im curious to know of the barometers they would use, it should go without saying the best team is the one that won the championship, but some of us care to delve deeper into a seasons worth of games. The Bobcats aren't on par with last years Spurs.

LOL at the third line, lots of things we do in life mean nothing, you having this conversation with me means nothing, you still do it.

So there is the answer to the "What makes a team better than another?"

An opinion

Chronz
11-05-2013, 03:52 PM
Some of us value opinions, certainly better than providing nothing but the ranking of a single team.

TheMightyHumph
11-05-2013, 03:58 PM
Some of us value opinions, certainly better than providing nothing but the ranking of a single team.

Why would you value opinions?