If I can rephrase on your behalf, you're saying that a team good enough to have ~4% equity in this year's west is at the level of teams typically considered contenders in a more balanced season/league, right?

what is the ****ing point of this post seth? do you think PER underrates rush? do i have a history of sorting? are you trying to actually add value or just being a crusty old man?

The non Heat/Pacers East are 22-75 against the West

If they have "much worse" (even granting the incorrect 55/45 for the first few rounds) than the point can't be that solid. If you do 55/45/30/20 you're like 1.5%. That's not a contender. Again, that's assuming they are 55/45 which isn't even accurate, GSW are going to be open round dogs.

Anyways, this is a silly tangent. If you wanna call like 2% equity a contender that's cool, semantics and I disagree, but that's cool. No real reason to argue about the definition of the word contender.

No, I'm saying they are contenders, period. This is an inaccurate rephrasing.

Again, even if you shift the percentages around, you get the same conclusion. If you want to say "GSW has <1% title equity, they aren't a contender": sure, whatever, though I'm sure you'll get people offering to bet them at 100-1. You said something different, which is that "I wouldn't consider a team with low single digit title equity to be a contender". I disagree with that statement, especially in a tremendously deep West, where every round projects to be a dogfight, and showed my work as to why.

Also, don't think my hypothetical team is a "borderline" contender. Think they absolutely should be 100% considered a contender. I mean, they're "contending" every single round! But, as you said, it is semantics.

i think that's a contender

and i think GSW has > 2% equity

Nah I'm actually trying to make back all the Nugs under bets I made earlier in the year

He's implying that you sortbyPER a lot and you often get irrationally MAD

You're responding to a post saying he can be a valuable 3 point shooting wing with good size by quoting his per. 3&D guys aren't exactly PER magnets because of how little they have the ball on offense. If he's being talked about as a star, sure that's relevant, but it's a fairly lazy dismissal. If you want to say he has no value because he's hurt, not great on D and not particularly good at anything but chucking trey and is therefore not worth giving anything up for (which I 1000% agree with btw), that's fine. But PER is not good shorthand for that.

2% equity is certainly a contender, it's unusual since the format of the NBA and it's Playoffs lead most teams to be >10% or 0%

lol at warrriors having a 2% chance to win it all

You're right on the format. So you're basically saying anyone with non-zero equity is a "contender"? I don't agree, but at least it makes sense when people say "contender" in regards to GSW. I thought they meant they are actually a really good team.

I'd be amazed if we simmed it 50 times and GSW ever won a title, but its pretty absurd to try to debate 2% and < 1% so if people thinking "non-zero" = "contender" I'll just drop it.

It's not absurd to debate that. There is a huge difference between winning 1 out of 50 and 1 out of 10,000

I just meant I dunno how to debate the difference between 2 and .5%. I basically think GSW never ever wins anything, I've offered bets of them not even winning one series. I agree its a significant difference, though. It might be non-zero, but its basically zero to me.

My crude evaluation of Championship Equity:

Heat 45%
Pacers 20%
Spurs 10%
Thunder 10%
Rockets 4%
Mavericks 3%
Clippers 3%
Warriors 3%
Pelicans+Grizzlies+Nets+Blazers = Remaining 2%

Dallas in 2011 had 2% equity too. 8th in pythag.

this is pretty good. thayer

Re:GSW - The big issue I have is that they are being rated based on last year's performance in the playoffs plus adding Iguodala, but they had major contributors to that team that are no longer there. As it stands they have a decent record with a third of their wins coming against Utah/SAC and are a combined 2-6 vs. teams over .500. I know they are exciting and everything, but how about we wait until they actually play well before crowning them as contenders.

It's like the loss of their two best bench players + Festus means absolutely nothing because they got better at a position they were already decent at. And they gave up a much cheaper player coming off an injury + 2 firsts for Iggy and signed a center who's been healthy ~30% of the last 3 seasons to a monster contract. I hope the 2% (or whatever it is) is worth it.

Pelicans too high. Blazers too low.

Thayer I'll bet must-win title bets with you. I'll take Nets+Blazers+Grizzlies you can have Warriors. Up to $250.

Then I'll risk my $500 to your $450 I get Clippers and you get Warriors.

Victor Cruz, are you willing to post your thoughts on Championship odds in less than 20 seconds and let me make bets with you?

If so we can discuss. GO

Blazers probably too low, I just see them as a regular season team that will struggle against Elite basketball. I may be underrating their analytical approach though, the IPads on the bench is very cool


Pelicans have Elite Playoff Basketball potential IMO

Funny I kinda think it's the opposite, at least defensively. I don't see how an elite defensive team like SAS can stop Portland from getting the shots they want... IND too.

Sure, Warriors are drawing dead. GO.

In all seriousness, I'll take all three of Blazers, Nets, and Grizzlies individually ahead of Warriors in3 separate must-win bets.

All 4 proly drawing dead tho