It has been proven Defense wins championships. Just look at the last 10 years... Do you see a team on this list allowing 100+ points a game winning a title?
2009 Lakers 99.3 Average Points allowed to their opponent during Regular season
2008 Celtics 90.3
2007 Spurs 90.1
2006 Heat 96.0
2005 Spurs 88.4
2004 Pistons 84.3
2003 Spurs 90.4
2002 Lakers 94.1
2001 Lakers 97.2
2000 Lakers 93.2
You originally said "hadn't made it to the NBA finals". I pointed out that the 2008 Lakers did give up 100 points a game and made it to the finals. You are now changing it to "haven't won the NBA finals".
The premise of this topic is ridiculous. Teams that give up 100 points tend to be bad teams. The problem isn't that they give up more than 100 points on average. The problem is that they tend to score less points than their opponents. The whole metric of only looking at one side of the equation is absurd.
You need to look at teams that give up a lot of points but also score a lot of points. Among teams that gave up 100 but also outscored their opponents by 5, 1 out of 4 has made the NBA finals.
Thats really not a bad average, given that only 1 out of 15 teams will on average reach the finals.
0
Quote Originally Posted by PAZ-MAN:
It has been proven Defense wins championships. Just look at the last 10 years... Do you see a team on this list allowing 100+ points a game winning a title?
2009 Lakers 99.3 Average Points allowed to their opponent during Regular season
2008 Celtics 90.3
2007 Spurs 90.1
2006 Heat 96.0
2005 Spurs 88.4
2004 Pistons 84.3
2003 Spurs 90.4
2002 Lakers 94.1
2001 Lakers 97.2
2000 Lakers 93.2
You originally said "hadn't made it to the NBA finals". I pointed out that the 2008 Lakers did give up 100 points a game and made it to the finals. You are now changing it to "haven't won the NBA finals".
The premise of this topic is ridiculous. Teams that give up 100 points tend to be bad teams. The problem isn't that they give up more than 100 points on average. The problem is that they tend to score less points than their opponents. The whole metric of only looking at one side of the equation is absurd.
You need to look at teams that give up a lot of points but also score a lot of points. Among teams that gave up 100 but also outscored their opponents by 5, 1 out of 4 has made the NBA finals.
Thats really not a bad average, given that only 1 out of 15 teams will on average reach the finals.
yea but 90 percent of the teams play a slow down type of game. its not like half the league plays run and gun and half the league plays half court. plus this is the first time since the Showtime Lakers that we have seen a run and gun team with the stars to support the system. yea the mavericks of a few years ago and i guess the trail blazers of the early 90's and the warriors of the past few years all made the playoffs and were gone. but they did not have a 2 time MVP. 3 other all starts in their lineup. Maybe 3 HOF players on the team. Nash, Stat and Grant Hill. I think Hill is borderline stat wise but is beloved by coaches and most of all the media. And on top of that they will have Brook Lopez coming back. I think you said they do not have an answer for Kobe. Well no one does, but Grant Hill will do a very good job. Assuming Nash, J Rich and Stat = out Kobe, Bynum and Gasol points wise. How could you not think that the supporting casts dont heavily favor the Suns. Odem and Artest are the same as Lopez and Grant Hill. Im not saying the Suns will win, but your risking a ton in a series that will go 7 more then likely... what happens if Kobe sprains his ankle in the beginning of Game 7, you lose. just saying.
0
yea but 90 percent of the teams play a slow down type of game. its not like half the league plays run and gun and half the league plays half court. plus this is the first time since the Showtime Lakers that we have seen a run and gun team with the stars to support the system. yea the mavericks of a few years ago and i guess the trail blazers of the early 90's and the warriors of the past few years all made the playoffs and were gone. but they did not have a 2 time MVP. 3 other all starts in their lineup. Maybe 3 HOF players on the team. Nash, Stat and Grant Hill. I think Hill is borderline stat wise but is beloved by coaches and most of all the media. And on top of that they will have Brook Lopez coming back. I think you said they do not have an answer for Kobe. Well no one does, but Grant Hill will do a very good job. Assuming Nash, J Rich and Stat = out Kobe, Bynum and Gasol points wise. How could you not think that the supporting casts dont heavily favor the Suns. Odem and Artest are the same as Lopez and Grant Hill. Im not saying the Suns will win, but your risking a ton in a series that will go 7 more then likely... what happens if Kobe sprains his ankle in the beginning of Game 7, you lose. just saying.
You originally said "hadn't made it to the NBA finals". I pointed out that the 2008 Lakers did give up 100 points a game and made it to the finals. You are now changing it to "haven't won the NBA finals".
The premise of this topic is ridiculous. Teams that give up 100 points tend to be bad teams. The problem isn't that they give up more than 100 points on average. The problem is that they tend to score less points than their opponents. The whole metric of only looking at one side of the equation is absurd.
You need to look at teams that give up a lot of points but also score a lot of points. Among teams that gave up 100 but also outscored their opponents by 5, 1 out of 4 has made the NBA finals.
Thats really not a bad average, given that only 1 out of 15 teams will on average reach the finals.
You are correct about the 08 Lakers team. Don't know how I missed that one. Must have looked at the wrong stat. Okay so 1 team in the past 10 years have made the finals. How about the past 20 years? I bet it's no more than 2. So let's say 2 in the past 20 years have made the Finals. That's still a 10% chance Phoenix makes the Finals based on past history. Not looking good for Phoenix! You say I have to look at the good teams who allow 100+ points have made the finals? Can you name those teams? Don't bring up those 80's teams where everybody played fast pace and your average game was like 120-117. I'm talking about the past 10-20 years!
0
Quote Originally Posted by tallguyindc:
You originally said "hadn't made it to the NBA finals". I pointed out that the 2008 Lakers did give up 100 points a game and made it to the finals. You are now changing it to "haven't won the NBA finals".
The premise of this topic is ridiculous. Teams that give up 100 points tend to be bad teams. The problem isn't that they give up more than 100 points on average. The problem is that they tend to score less points than their opponents. The whole metric of only looking at one side of the equation is absurd.
You need to look at teams that give up a lot of points but also score a lot of points. Among teams that gave up 100 but also outscored their opponents by 5, 1 out of 4 has made the NBA finals.
Thats really not a bad average, given that only 1 out of 15 teams will on average reach the finals.
You are correct about the 08 Lakers team. Don't know how I missed that one. Must have looked at the wrong stat. Okay so 1 team in the past 10 years have made the finals. How about the past 20 years? I bet it's no more than 2. So let's say 2 in the past 20 years have made the Finals. That's still a 10% chance Phoenix makes the Finals based on past history. Not looking good for Phoenix! You say I have to look at the good teams who allow 100+ points have made the finals? Can you name those teams? Don't bring up those 80's teams where everybody played fast pace and your average game was like 120-117. I'm talking about the past 10-20 years!
yea but 90 percent of the teams play a slow down type of game. its not like half the league plays run and gun and half the league plays half court. plus this is the first time since the Showtime Lakers that we have seen a run and gun team with the stars to support the system. yea the mavericks of a few years ago and i guess the trail blazers of the early 90's and the warriors of the past few years all made the playoffs and were gone. but they did not have a 2 time MVP. 3 other all starts in their lineup. Maybe 3 HOF players on the team. Nash, Stat and Grant Hill. I think Hill is borderline stat wise but is beloved by coaches and most of all the media. And on top of that they will have Brook Lopez coming back. I think you said they do not have an answer for Kobe. Well no one does, but Grant Hill will do a very good job. Assuming Nash, J Rich and Stat = out Kobe, Bynum and Gasol points wise. How could you not think that the supporting casts dont heavily favor the Suns. Odem and Artest are the same as Lopez and Grant Hill. Im not saying the Suns will win, but your risking a ton in a series that will go 7 more then likely... what happens if Kobe sprains his ankle in the beginning of Game 7, you lose. just saying.
Slow down game? 17 teams this year allowed 100+ points a game during the regular season while only 13 teams allowed 99 or less.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raging_Fetus:
yea but 90 percent of the teams play a slow down type of game. its not like half the league plays run and gun and half the league plays half court. plus this is the first time since the Showtime Lakers that we have seen a run and gun team with the stars to support the system. yea the mavericks of a few years ago and i guess the trail blazers of the early 90's and the warriors of the past few years all made the playoffs and were gone. but they did not have a 2 time MVP. 3 other all starts in their lineup. Maybe 3 HOF players on the team. Nash, Stat and Grant Hill. I think Hill is borderline stat wise but is beloved by coaches and most of all the media. And on top of that they will have Brook Lopez coming back. I think you said they do not have an answer for Kobe. Well no one does, but Grant Hill will do a very good job. Assuming Nash, J Rich and Stat = out Kobe, Bynum and Gasol points wise. How could you not think that the supporting casts dont heavily favor the Suns. Odem and Artest are the same as Lopez and Grant Hill. Im not saying the Suns will win, but your risking a ton in a series that will go 7 more then likely... what happens if Kobe sprains his ankle in the beginning of Game 7, you lose. just saying.
Slow down game? 17 teams this year allowed 100+ points a game during the regular season while only 13 teams allowed 99 or less.
Seeing that the Phoenix Suns are up 2-0 on San Antonio and Highly likely to move on at this point and the LA Lakers are up 2-0 and definitely moving on especially with Mehmet Okur being out and the Lakers are just too big up front for Utah. That will set up a LA Lakers/Phoenix Suns matchup. The way Phoenix is playing, the public and the media will give Phoenix a legit chance to upset the LA Lakers. If this matchup does occur, I say Phoenix has "Zero" Chance to beat the LA Lakers.
Go back the past 10 years and see how many teams who have allowed 100+ points per game during the regular season made it to the Finals. The answer: Zero teams!!! I only went back 10 years. This probably goes back 20 years!!! As They say... Defense wins Championships and Phoenix does not fit into this category. Neither did Denver who was the other team in the playoffs who allowed 100+ points per game during the regular season and they were bounced in the 1st round! To me this is the closest thing you are going to get to a "sure thing"! Easy Money! Money in the Bank!
Now, If San Antonio wins the next 4 out of 5 and comes back to beat Phoenix, then I will be biting my fingernails, because San Antonio does play defense and they matchup better with the Lakers than Phoenix does.
So here it goes, I'm laying my bet down now, hoping that Phoenix does move on because I know the price is going to go up once the Western Conference Finals is set. The price is -250 right now for the Lakers. If Phoenix moves on I think it will go up to -350 or -400? I recommend Taking advantage of this low price now. It's easy money in my opinion!
NBA WESTERN CONFERENCE LA LAKERS $2,500 TO WIN $1,000
You are right on bro! I can't see the Suns beating the Lakers. Their defense sucks!!! I wish I had taken this bet when you did.
0
Quote Originally Posted by PAZ-MAN:
Seeing that the Phoenix Suns are up 2-0 on San Antonio and Highly likely to move on at this point and the LA Lakers are up 2-0 and definitely moving on especially with Mehmet Okur being out and the Lakers are just too big up front for Utah. That will set up a LA Lakers/Phoenix Suns matchup. The way Phoenix is playing, the public and the media will give Phoenix a legit chance to upset the LA Lakers. If this matchup does occur, I say Phoenix has "Zero" Chance to beat the LA Lakers.
Go back the past 10 years and see how many teams who have allowed 100+ points per game during the regular season made it to the Finals. The answer: Zero teams!!! I only went back 10 years. This probably goes back 20 years!!! As They say... Defense wins Championships and Phoenix does not fit into this category. Neither did Denver who was the other team in the playoffs who allowed 100+ points per game during the regular season and they were bounced in the 1st round! To me this is the closest thing you are going to get to a "sure thing"! Easy Money! Money in the Bank!
Now, If San Antonio wins the next 4 out of 5 and comes back to beat Phoenix, then I will be biting my fingernails, because San Antonio does play defense and they matchup better with the Lakers than Phoenix does.
So here it goes, I'm laying my bet down now, hoping that Phoenix does move on because I know the price is going to go up once the Western Conference Finals is set. The price is -250 right now for the Lakers. If Phoenix moves on I think it will go up to -350 or -400? I recommend Taking advantage of this low price now. It's easy money in my opinion!
NBA WESTERN CONFERENCE LA LAKERS $2,500 TO WIN $1,000
You are right on bro! I can't see the Suns beating the Lakers. Their defense sucks!!! I wish I had taken this bet when you did.
You are correct about the 08 Lakers team. Don't know how I missed that one. Must have looked at the wrong stat. Okay so 1 team in the past 10 years have made the finals. How about the past 20 years? I bet it's no more than 2. So let's say 2 in the past 20 years have made the Finals. That's still a 10% chance Phoenix makes the Finals based on past history. Not looking good for Phoenix! You say I have to look at the good teams who allow 100+ points have made the finals? Can you name those teams? Don't bring up those 80's teams where everybody played fast pace and your average game was like 120-117. I'm talking about the past 10-20 years!
I probably shouldn't still be arguing this. You won your bet. Congratulations. Still, I think your logic is entirely flawed. If you keep betting with flawed logic, there is no way you will be profitable long term.
The good teams are the teams that scored more points than their opponents by a significant number. It really makes no difference whatsoever how many points you give up (nor how many you score). The only thing that matters is whether you score more than you give up.
Translated into the stock market, your argument would go something like this. Wal-Mart is a horrible investment. They spent $375 billion last year. Joe's corner store is a great investment. They only spent $100k last year. Of course, the fact that Wal-Mart had much greater revenues (and therefore much higher profits) isn't in any way relevant to your "analysis".
Teams that gave up over 100 and outscored their opponents by 5 are now 1 for 5 in reaching the finals. Teams that don't meet this criteria are batting far lower than 20% on making the finals.
0
Quote Originally Posted by PAZ-MAN:
You are correct about the 08 Lakers team. Don't know how I missed that one. Must have looked at the wrong stat. Okay so 1 team in the past 10 years have made the finals. How about the past 20 years? I bet it's no more than 2. So let's say 2 in the past 20 years have made the Finals. That's still a 10% chance Phoenix makes the Finals based on past history. Not looking good for Phoenix! You say I have to look at the good teams who allow 100+ points have made the finals? Can you name those teams? Don't bring up those 80's teams where everybody played fast pace and your average game was like 120-117. I'm talking about the past 10-20 years!
I probably shouldn't still be arguing this. You won your bet. Congratulations. Still, I think your logic is entirely flawed. If you keep betting with flawed logic, there is no way you will be profitable long term.
The good teams are the teams that scored more points than their opponents by a significant number. It really makes no difference whatsoever how many points you give up (nor how many you score). The only thing that matters is whether you score more than you give up.
Translated into the stock market, your argument would go something like this. Wal-Mart is a horrible investment. They spent $375 billion last year. Joe's corner store is a great investment. They only spent $100k last year. Of course, the fact that Wal-Mart had much greater revenues (and therefore much higher profits) isn't in any way relevant to your "analysis".
Teams that gave up over 100 and outscored their opponents by 5 are now 1 for 5 in reaching the finals. Teams that don't meet this criteria are batting far lower than 20% on making the finals.
when you win price does not matter what a lay...only when you lose........i have a friend who ahs won ove 100 tennis matches laying 15 to -1 and better in early rounds with the top 4 seeds......the bastartd never losses .....he says i rather make 200 betting 3000 dimes then lose 200 on something iffy......i know a number 3 player is not going to lose to some guy who is ranked over 100.......maybe he is right but i cant bet that way.....
0
when you win price does not matter what a lay...only when you lose........i have a friend who ahs won ove 100 tennis matches laying 15 to -1 and better in early rounds with the top 4 seeds......the bastartd never losses .....he says i rather make 200 betting 3000 dimes then lose 200 on something iffy......i know a number 3 player is not going to lose to some guy who is ranked over 100.......maybe he is right but i cant bet that way.....
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
It's -354 at WSEX.COM
, true indeed!
Hot Forum Topics
