The Cavs by far are the best team in the league

• pkebker

  The ability to win the nba championship this season rests almost completely on our guard play (Assuming we have no catastrophic injuries). When our guards play well, we are nearly unbeatable. I honestly believe we will win the NBA championship this year. I have a much stronger feeling than last year.
• Footwedge

  ytownfootball wrote: ...and bringing in Jamison for a #30 draft pick that has yet to play in the league...crazy talk indeed. Basing your argument on 1.5 difference in winning margin is also deluded. Only a slightly better FT shooting could have erased this margin and left your pie-in-the-sky argument completely toothless.

  My argument is spelled out very clearly. Stat wise, we were better last year. We had as good, if not better chance last year versus this year.
  
  As for Jamison, he adds no value at all to this team. It's a net zero or worse. given the fact that AV and Hickson are better players.
• Footwedge

  pkebker wrote: The ability to win the nba championship this season rests almost completely on our guard play (Assuming we have no catastrophic injuries). When our guards play well, we are nearly unbeatable. I honestly believe we will win the NBA championship this year. I have a much stronger feeling than last year.

  
  
  I agree regardong your comments on guard play. Last year. our guards played poorly against the Magic offensively. It had absolutely nothing to do with match ups.
  
  Just like 3 years ago, when Chauncey Billupss had the worst playoff series in his life, and because of that, the Cavs, the weaker team, advanced.
• mtrulz

  Cavs rul!
• ytownfootball

  

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  
  
  I agree regardong your comments on guard play. Last year. our guards played poorly against the Magic offensively. It had absolutely nothing to do with match ups.
  
  Lust like 3 years ago, when Chauncey Phillipos gad the worst playoff series in his life, and because of that, the Cavs, the weaker team, adfvanced.

  Freudian slip much?
  
  Using stats to compare this years team to last years team would be fine if all things remained equal, but players move all around the league, not just in Cleveland, it just doesn't hold water in my book, so please stop portraying your opinions as indeed facts, they're not.
• Footwedge

  BR1986FB wrote: So....Shaq, Moon, and Parker aren't greater than Ben Wallace, Sasha Pavlovic & Wally, which are essentially the guys we brought in to replace them? I'm sorry but that's crazy talk.

  Why is it crazy talk? their record was better last year. Last year's roster, and the way they performed, was slightly better than this year's roster.
  
  I'm sorry if my pragmatic and analytical views are backed up by statistics and how showing these stats somehow digs into the fragile psyches of Cleveland fans that desparately crave a title.
  
  Put another way and very bluntly...last year's roster collectively yet slightly had outplayed this year's team to date.
  
  Not being honest in the assessment is one's perogative. and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if that allusion is stoked through illusions and overdoses of the opiatiated and brainwaashings from the mass media and their "matchup" bullcrap.
  
  As I stated many times, this team has an excellent chance of winning it all. Like any championship, the team has to be very good and capitalize on some breaks and get a little lucky. Last year. the Magic played way above their station and the Cavs played way below their station. and let's not fprget that the Magic won 2 out of the 3 games that were "nail biters'".
• Trueblue23

  

  No offense Cavs fans, but didn't we hear this stuff last year too?
• ytownfootball

  

  Trueblue23 wrote: No offense Cavs fans, but didn't we hear this stuff last year too?

  No offense taken...look at who started this garbage.
• Footwedge

  ytownfootball wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  
  
  I agree regardong your comments on guard play. Last year. our guards played poorly against the Magic offensively. It had absolutely nothing to do with match ups.
  
  Lust like 3 years ago, when Chauncey Phillipos gad the worst playoff series in his life, and because of that, the Cavs, the weaker team, adfvanced.

  Freudian slip much?

  I was late for Church when I rattled that off. I apologize for the typos. As you can see, I've repaired the poor spelling.
  

  Using stats to compare this years team to last years team would be fine if all things remained equal, but players move all around the league, not just in Cleveland, it just doesn't hold water in my book, so please stop portraying your opinions as indeed facts, they're not.

  Statistics are factual information. It is not an opinion that Joe Maurer won the batting title last year...or that Pujols hit the most home runs. Next you will argue that these players faced inferior pitching..or some other nonsense.

• I drain 3's

  Footwedge, if you believe all that "matchup" stuff is bullcrap, then i'm sorry, but you have the basketball intelligence of a 6 year old. The entire game is based on matchups. Every coach uses them. I mean seriously how many times do you hear great college and NBA coaches talk about matchups? Seems to happen pretty damn often.
  
  Seriously, how the hell can you honestly believe the Sasha effing Pavlovic is better than Moon or Parker. Pavlovic can barely play for the fucking Timberwolves, and you think he's better than Parker (a starter on the team with the best record in the NBA) and Moon (who is statistically better in almost every single category)?
  
  Why isn't this years record as good as last year? It's simple, we were integrating new pieces into our team and the league has just gotten better, it's as simple as that.
• Footwedge

  sportswizuhrd wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  LTrain23 wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: I think last year's team was better. The stat line pretty much proves that (record and average points per win)....comparing the numbers this year to last year's numbers. Doesn't mean that we won't win it all this year.
  
  To suggest that this team is better...is akin to saying the 96 Indians were better than the 95 Indians.

  No, this years team is better than last years team because we significantly upgraded our roster.

  
  
  Not really. This year's team is loaded, and the best team on paper. Last year's team was equally talented if not moreso. The fundamental difference in your view and my view has to do with Orlando jast year. You think they were better than the Cavs, I think they weren't.
  

  Last year we had weaknesses that were exposed by bigger teams (Orlando, Boston, LA) this year, those mismatches were neutralized and in most cases, swung into our favor.

  Your opinion is opiated by what the media has force fed you. You somehow equate the addition of Shaq, Moon, and Parker to being superior all aound players than what we had last year. Well, if that were true, then the average margin of victory would be greater this year. Last year, we had an average spread of 9 plus points, and were 74 and 16 before the Magic Series. This year, we again have the best team on paper...but I would not claim them to be better than last year's runaway train. Our "spread is only 7.5 per game...which still leads the league.
  

  This year has seen an improved league as a whole. Teams that stunk it up last year are now playoff contenders.. Such as OKC, Memphis, Milwaukee, Charlotte, etc.. This is the reason for the deflated stats. Whether it be record (45-14 we must really suck) or average margin of victory..

  Your stats don't measure up at all. Poor argument. In fact, really poor.
  
  The Eastern conference plays each other 4 times per team (with a couple of exceptions) and the East plays the West teams only twice. The Cavaliers have benefitted this year in playing a conference with teams that are colectively 45 to 50 games under 500. Last year, the East was above 500.
  
  And before you site the Laker thingy and the Magic head to head thingy, let me remind you that last year's team blew out Denver twice...whereas this year, the Nuggets swept us.
  

  Take a look at some of the other teams, like LA and Orlando.. They aren't nearly as good statistically this year as they were last year.. In LA's case, does that mean their a worse team? No..

  Once again, your memory is failing you. LA and Orlando have almost identical records to where they were a year ago. Look it up. Statistically, they are pretty much the same as last year at this point. But I agree that they are both very strong teams, and are both capable of repeating.
  

  You were slobbing all over this years team until they traded Z, now you seem hell bent on nitpicking every minor detail.. Whatever helps you cope, I guess.

  I still slobber over this team. I love this team...just as much as I loved last year's team. I don't nitpick much of anything. Just because I think that Jamison is our 4th best power forward, doesn't shove me into the "nitpicker" column.
  
  I don't base trades on what the media says...I do a little research on my own and come to better conclusions.
  
  You want nitpickers? Then send Devil a PM...or the old Shawn1515. Those are the primary nitpickers.
  
  Orrrr....just go back to the last in game thread...the OT win in Toronto. talk about nitpickers. We beat a team that willl likely win the East and be the number 4 seed on the road...on a back to back game. But the usual crybabies were over there bitching it up...having a good ole time talking about how bad we played and how ugly the win was.

  09-10 Outside of Cleveland.... East has 6 teams over 500 and 8 that are under. 442-369 record(83 games under)....Outside of the Lakers, the west has 11 at or over 500..and 4 that are under. 417-405 combined.(12 over)
  
  08-09 Outside of Cleveland...East had 6 teams over 500 and 8 that were under. 555-593 record. (38 under) Outside of the Lakers, West had 9 teams over and 5 teams under 500. 544-604 combined(60 under)
  
  4 teams in the West have exceeded their win total from last year. OKC(34 this year and 23 last), Memphis(30 and 24), LAC(24 and 19) and Sacramento (19 and 17). Portland(1), Houston(even-29) and the Lakers(2) are the only teams that are within 2 losses of matching last years totals.
  
  1 team in the East has exceeded their win total from last year. The Wizards(!) had 19 wins last year and have 20 this year. 3 teams are on within 2 losses or have exceeded their loss total from last year-Cleveland 2 away, Boston +1 and New Jersey +4.

  Thanks for posting wizzared....maybe after the groupies read and decipher the facts you posted, they will finally come to terms with the lunacy that somehow this year's team is superior to last year's team. Your data clearly shows otherwise.

• ytownfootball

  

  I was just having a little fun at your expense.
  
  You wanna keep thinking we were better last season based on 1.5 point margin of victory, go right ahead. I prefer to wait and see how things pan out as the season progresses.
  
  Weren't you the one who tried to point out to me that "stats aren't everything" earlier this season? I thought so.
• Footwedge

  I drain 3's wrote: Footwedge, if you believe all that "matchup" stuff is bullcrap, then i'm sorry, but you have the basketball intelligence of a 6 year old. The entire game is based on matchups. Every coach uses them. I mean seriously how many times do you hear great college and NBA coaches talk about matchups? Seems to happen pretty damn often.
  
  Seriously, how the hell can you honestly believe the Sasha effing Pavlovic is better than Moon or Parker. Pavlovic can barely play for the fucking Timberwolves, and you think he's better than Parker (a starter on the team with the best record in the NBA) and Moon (who is statistically better in almost every single category)?
  
  Why isn't this years record as good as last year? It's simple, we were integrating new pieces into our team and the league has just gotten better, it's as simple as that.

  During the course of a game, teams rotate in 6. 9. or 10 players. Maychups change as substitutes play different minutes.
  
  Are you suggesting that we don't match up well with Denver this year? We blew them out last year in both games. This year we are 0-2 against the Nuggets. Or maybe the NJ Nets are suddenly better than the Celtics after yesterday's loss.?
  
  What you people need to understand...the best team does not alwats win.
  
  The 64 Browns were 10-4 in beat the 13-1 Baltmore Colts 27-0. The game was playedin cleveland (I wa there) and the Browns were 7 point underdogs.
  
  Nobody in Baltimore bitched about matchups. The best team simplt lost that day..and got beat pretty badly. Has those 2 teams played tyhe follwing Sunday in Baltimore, the Colts would have been heavy, heay favorites.
  
  About 10 years ago, the wretched Tampa Bay Rays (100 plus losses that year] beat the Yankees (114 wins) 12 out of 18 games.
  
  Were the Rays the better team?
• Footwedge

  ytownfootball wrote: I was just having a little fun at your expense.

  Knock yourself out and join the bandwagon. Most everyone thinks I'm wrong...so be it. Sorry if I've reigned on the parade of the Cleveland die hard fans (I'm one of them too you know) that somehow think this year's team is better. Well, they are really damn good..but they aren't as good as last year's record setting runaway train.
  

  You wanna keep thinking we were better last season based on 1.5 point margin of victory, go right ahead. I prefer to wait and see how things pan out as the season progresses.

  Now that's a fair statement. All we have so far in comparing and contrasting the 2 teams is the data that's been accumulated to date. Based on what is known, last year's team outperformed this year's team...but just slightly.
  

  Weren't you the one who tried to point out to me that "stats aren't everything" earlier this season? I thought so.

  I have no idea what you're referring to here....but let me venture a guess. I've stated that statistically speaking, the best team doesn't always equate to championshops. However, having the best team on paper, gives that team the best chance of winning it all.
  
  Hopefully, you can understand the difference.
• I drain 3's

  Footwedge wrote:

  I drain 3's wrote: Footwedge, if you believe all that "matchup" stuff is bullcrap, then i'm sorry, but you have the basketball intelligence of a 6 year old. The entire game is based on matchups. Every coach uses them. I mean seriously how many times do you hear great college and NBA coaches talk about matchups? Seems to happen pretty damn often.
  
  Seriously, how the hell can you honestly believe the Sasha effing Pavlovic is better than Moon or Parker. Pavlovic can barely play for the fucking Timberwolves, and you think he's better than Parker (a starter on the team with the best record in the NBA) and Moon (who is statistically better in almost every single category)?
  
  Why isn't this years record as good as last year? It's simple, we were integrating new pieces into our team and the league has just gotten better, it's as simple as that.

  During the course of a game, teams rotate in 6. 9. or 10 players. Maychups change as substitutes play different minutes.
  
  Are you suggesting that we don't match up well with Denver this year? We blew them out last year in both games. This year we are 0-2 against the Nuggets. Or maybe the NJ Nets are suddenly better than the Celtics after yesterday's loss.?
  
  What you people need to understand...the best team does not alwats win.
  
  The 64 Browns were 10-4 in beat the 13-1 Baltmore Colts 27-0. The game was playedin cleveland (I wa there) and the Browns were 7 point underdogs.
  
  Nobody in Baltimore bitched about matchups. The best team simplt lost that day..and got beat pretty badly. Has those 2 teams played tyhe follwing Sunday in Baltimore, the Colts would have been heavy, heay favorites.
  
  About 10 years ago, the wretched Tampa Bay Rays (100 plus losses that year] beat the Yankees (114 wins) 12 out of 18 games.
  
  Were the Rays the better team?

  
  Did I say matchups were everything? No I don't believe I did. Teams get hot at certain times and play better, it happens, but to discredit matchups completely is just fucking stupid. I love your examples of football and baseball to talk about matchups, because those two sports don't use matchups nearly as much as basketball does. It's really not that hard to understand. Why the hell do you think Shaq has been such a dominant force in his career? Because nobody else match's up with him. Nobody else in the league possesses his blend of size and skill in one package. That's exactly why Dwight Howard is becoming a force. Nobody can match his size, speed, and athleticism that go along with his skill set. They don't match up!
  
  I really find it hard to believe that you can seriously be this stupid.
• Trueblue23

  

  Who cares, really.
  
  I could care less if my team is the best in the league in February, it's June that matters.
• Footwedge

  I drain 3's wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  I drain 3's wrote: Footwedge, if you believe all that "matchup" stuff is bullcrap, then i'm sorry, but you have the basketball intelligence of a 6 year old. The entire game is based on matchups. Every coach uses them. I mean seriously how many times do you hear great college and NBA coaches talk about matchups? Seems to happen pretty damn often.
  
  Seriously, how the hell can you honestly believe the Sasha effing Pavlovic is better than Moon or Parker. Pavlovic can barely play for the fucking Timberwolves, and you think he's better than Parker (a starter on the team with the best record in the NBA) and Moon (who is statistically better in almost every single category)?
  
  Why isn't this years record as good as last year? It's simple, we were integrating new pieces into our team and the league has just gotten better, it's as simple as that.

  During the course of a game, teams rotate in 6. 9. or 10 players. Maychups change as substitutes play different minutes.
  
  Are you suggesting that we don't match up well with Denver this year? We blew them out last year in both games. This year we are 0-2 against the Nuggets. Or maybe the NJ Nets are suddenly better than the Celtics after yesterday's loss.?
  
  What you people need to understand...the best team does not alwats win.
  
  The 64 Browns were 10-4 in beat the 13-1 Baltmore Colts 27-0. The game was playedin cleveland (I wa there) and the Browns were 7 point underdogs.
  
  Nobody in Baltimore bitched about matchups. The best team simplt lost that day..and got beat pretty badly. Has those 2 teams played tyhe follwing Sunday in Baltimore, the Colts would have been heavy, heay favorites.
  
  About 10 years ago, the wretched Tampa Bay Rays (100 plus losses that year] beat the Yankees (114 wins) 12 out of 18 games.
  
  Were the Rays the better team?

  
  Did I say matchups were everything? No I don't believe I did. Teams get hot at certain times and play better, it happens, but to discredit matchups completely is just fucking stupid. I love your examples of football and baseball to talk about matchups, because those two sports don't use matchups nearly as much as basketball does. It's really not that hard to understand. Why the hell do you think Shaq has been such a dominant force in his career? Because nobody else match's up with him. Nobody else in the league possesses his blend of size and skill in one package. That's exactly why Dwight Howard is becoming a force. Nobody can match his size, speed, and athleticism that go along with his skill set. They don't match up!
  
  I really find it hard to believe that you can seriously be this stupid.

  I've presented all the evidence proving my point, and then you call me stupid?
  
  Oh the irony.
• gibby08

  

  If Shaq's thumb injury is as serious as some believe it could be (possibly a torn ligament) how would that affect the Cavs?
• Lovejoy1984

  

  Would depend on how long he is out.
  
  In the short term wouldn't bother them much, if he was back before the playoffs I wouldn't see this as a big deal at all. However if he misses the playoffs than it can be a very bad thing.
• ytownfootball

  

  HighRoller74 wrote: Would depend on how long he is out.
  
  In the short term wouldn't bother them much, if he was back before the playoffs I wouldn't see this as a big deal at all. However if he misses the playoffs than it can be a very bad thing.

  Agreed. Shaq wasn't acquired to win games during the regular season, but rather to counter play-off teams advantage at the 5.
• Trueblue23

  

  ytownfootball wrote:

  HighRoller74 wrote: Would depend on how long he is out.
  
  In the short term wouldn't bother them much, if he was back before the playoffs I wouldn't see this as a big deal at all. However if he misses the playoffs than it can be a very bad thing.

  Agreed. Shaq wasn't acquired to win games during the regular season, but rather to counter play-off teams advantage at the 1.

  The 1?
• ytownfootball

  

  LOL...backwards go I...5
• I drain 3's

  Footwedge wrote:

  I drain 3's wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  I drain 3's wrote: Footwedge, if you believe all that "matchup" stuff is bullcrap, then i'm sorry, but you have the basketball intelligence of a 6 year old. The entire game is based on matchups. Every coach uses them. I mean seriously how many times do you hear great college and NBA coaches talk about matchups? Seems to happen pretty damn often.
  
  Seriously, how the hell can you honestly believe the Sasha effing Pavlovic is better than Moon or Parker. Pavlovic can barely play for the fucking Timberwolves, and you think he's better than Parker (a starter on the team with the best record in the NBA) and Moon (who is statistically better in almost every single category)?
  
  Why isn't this years record as good as last year? It's simple, we were integrating new pieces into our team and the league has just gotten better, it's as simple as that.

  During the course of a game, teams rotate in 6. 9. or 10 players. Maychups change as substitutes play different minutes.
  
  Are you suggesting that we don't match up well with Denver this year? We blew them out last year in both games. This year we are 0-2 against the Nuggets. Or maybe the NJ Nets are suddenly better than the Celtics after yesterday's loss.?
  
  What you people need to understand...the best team does not alwats win.
  
  The 64 Browns were 10-4 in beat the 13-1 Baltmore Colts 27-0. The game was playedin cleveland (I wa there) and the Browns were 7 point underdogs.
  
  Nobody in Baltimore bitched about matchups. The best team simplt lost that day..and got beat pretty badly. Has those 2 teams played tyhe follwing Sunday in Baltimore, the Colts would have been heavy, heay favorites.
  
  About 10 years ago, the wretched Tampa Bay Rays (100 plus losses that year] beat the Yankees (114 wins) 12 out of 18 games.
  
  Were the Rays the better team?

  
  Did I say matchups were everything? No I don't believe I did. Teams get hot at certain times and play better, it happens, but to discredit matchups completely is just fucking stupid. I love your examples of football and baseball to talk about matchups, because those two sports don't use matchups nearly as much as basketball does. It's really not that hard to understand. Why the hell do you think Shaq has been such a dominant force in his career? Because nobody else match's up with him. Nobody else in the league possesses his blend of size and skill in one package. That's exactly why Dwight Howard is becoming a force. Nobody can match his size, speed, and athleticism that go along with his skill set. They don't match up!
  
  I really find it hard to believe that you can seriously be this stupid.

  I've presented all the evidence proving my point, and then you call me stupid?
  
  Oh the irony.

  
  I really don't give a damn about all your statistics and junk. Stats are nice and all, but to think they tell the whole story is ridiculous. The best evidence is watching a game with your eyes. The thought that you think last year's team was better is a joke. The evidence is on the floor. Just because last year's team had a better record doesn't mean jack shit. They had the best record in the league, and what did that get them? Nothing. This year's team could lose as many damn games as they'd like in the regular season for all I care, just as long as they step up in the playoffs and win a damn championship. The new players we've implemented this year are leaps and bounds better than the ones we got rid of. I guarantee you, if you presented your "stats" to actual coaches and players who have been around the game their entire lives about how guys like Sasha, Wally, and Ben were better than the ones we have now, they would literally laugh in your face.
• Footwedge

  I really don't give a damn about all your statistics and junk. Stats are nice and all, but to think they tell the whole story is ridiculous. The best evidence is watching a game with your eyes. The thought that you think last year's team was better is a joke. The evidence is on the floor. Just because last year's team had a better record doesn't mean jack shit. They had the best record in the league, and what did that get them? Nothing. This year's team could lose as many damn games as they'd like in the regular season for all I care, just as long as they step up in the playoffs and win a damn championship. The new players we've implemented this year are leaps and bounds better than the ones we got rid of. I guarantee you, if you presented your "stats" to actual coaches and players who have been around the game their entire lives about how guys like Sasha, Wally, and Ben were better than the ones we have now, they would literally laugh in your face.

  
  ZZZZzzzz...
• I drain 3's

  What an intelligent response.