The NBA title is the hardest title in Major sports to win. (1 Viewer)

[SaintJ]

Same thing with hockey and I promise hockey games are more physical.

The big difference with hockey is that a hot goalie can make a difference waaaaay out of proportion to the percentage of the players on the ice (one out of six at a time, or one out of 19 total, if you are shifting three lines of defensemen and four lines of forwards). If you look at the number of times that lower-seeded teams (five or below, assuming eight teams from each conference) make the Cup finals, you'll see the effect a hot goalie can have.

On the other hand, while great players can and often do have a tremendous effect on the outcome (one thinks of Michael Jordan or "Shaq & Kobe"), these players are usually on teams that were also top-tier teams during the regular season, showing the same level of personal dominance in leading their teams in all phases of play, as opposed to a specialty position like goalie.

So yes, to me it is fairly clear that the NBA playoff system is the one most likely to produce a champion that is a deserving team based on its regular season play, and thus the hardest to win.

The NFL is a clear second, and baseball (hot pitchers) and hockey (hot goalie) are much, much more likely to make the regular season meaningless.

 

[keepoursaints]

The big difference with hockey is that a hot goalie can make a difference waaaaay out of proportion to the percentage of the players on the ice (one out of six at a time, or one out of 19 total, if you are shifting three lines of defensemen and four lines of forwards). If you look at the number of times that lower-seeded teams (five or below, assuming eight teams from each conference) make the Cup finals, you'll see the effect a hot goalie can have.

On the other hand, while great players can and often do have a tremendous effect on the outcome (one thinks of Michael Jordan or "Shaq & Kobe"), these players are usually on teams that were also top-tier teams during the regular season, showing the same level of personal dominance in leading their teams in all phases of play, as opposed to a specialty position like goalie.

So yes, to me it is fairly clear that the NBA playoff system is the one most likely to produce a champion that is a deserving team based on its regular season play, and thus the hardest to win.

The NFL is a clear second, and baseball (hot pitchers) and hockey (hot goalie) are much, much more likely to make the regular season meaningless.

I can see what you're saying in a way, but one of my main issues with the NBA playoffs are the records of the teams going to the playoffs

The 4 seed in the east has a whopping .560 winning percentage, followed by 3 teams with .507 and the 8th seed at .467... so to me is the NBA system truly designed to find a winner based on teams deserving in the regular season?

 

[MSUSousaphone]

No I didn't say that, but the OP of the thread said that NBA playoffs are the toughest because they must win 16 games over 2 months... which is exactly the same as hockey.

But whether you like hockey or not you have to admit hockey is a MUCH more physical sport, so hockey playoffs = MUCH tougher.

On that definition, yes, but I think the OP was using 'tougher' as in 'the probability is lower' and not as 'its physically tougher'....in which case, I still have to go with the Champions League. When the NHL or NBA has to play multiple leagues, three to five of which could be argued to have equal quality in talent, then it may be up for debate.

 

[SaintMeaux]

So yes, to me it is fairly clear that the NBA playoff system is the one most likely to produce a champion that is a deserving team based on its regular season play, and thus the hardest to win.

The NFL is a clear second, and baseball (hot pitchers) and hockey (hot goalie) are much, much more likely to make the regular season meaningless.

So, using this argument, why have playoffs at all if we're concerned about making sure that a team with quality regular season play can get a championship? The 2007 Giants and 2005 Steelers don't like that idea.

If a team is good enough to squeak in to the playoffs in any sport, they are worthy of the championship, IMO. There are too many factors to put into play, maybe they started out slow, and really came on in the last half or third of the season. If this team just barely gets in, are they not deserving?

I view the regular seasons in professional sports as sort of a round robin to gain position for the real season, the post season.

 

[St. Widge]

The big difference with hockey is that a hot goalie can make a difference waaaaay out of proportion to the percentage of the players on the ice (one out of six at a time, or one out of 19 total, if you are shifting three lines of defensemen and four lines of forwards). If you look at the number of times that lower-seeded teams (five or below, assuming eight teams from each conference) make the Cup finals, you'll see the effect a hot goalie can have.

On the other hand, while great players can and often do have a tremendous effect on the outcome (one thinks of Michael Jordan or "Shaq & Kobe"), these players are usually on teams that were also top-tier teams during the regular season, showing the same level of personal dominance in leading their teams in all phases of play, as opposed to a specialty position like goalie.

So yes, to me it is fairly clear that the NBA playoff system is the one most likely to produce a champion that is a deserving team based on its regular season play, and thus the hardest to win.

The NFL is a clear second, and baseball (hot pitchers) and hockey (hot goalie) are much, much more likely to make the regular season meaningless.

Wouldn't the fact that the regular season is meaningless in the NHL mean that it's harder to win the Stanley Cup? If playing hard all season does not necessarily lead to playoff success then it seems to me that it is harder to win. In the NBA the team that is dominant in the regular season is usually dominant in the playoffs which means it's not really that hard for them to blow through the playoffs. On the other hand, an NHL team that dominates in the regular season can run into a hot goalie or two making it much harder for them to win the Championship. That in my book makes it harder to win the Stanley Cup.

 

[gboudx]

Running takes more energy than skating. Having to use more energy>skating around slamming people.

I am not a fan of the NHL, but I don't hate hockey itself. I know its a tough sport and everything, I just don't think it is as tiresome as basketball. I played both when I was younger. Hockey by far was the easier of the two. Basketball is so much more of a strain on your legs and your mind IMO.

The only thing that could make this statement more wrong is if you labeled yourself an LSU fan.

When you played "hockey", did you have guys 220lbs+ slamming themselve into you, or slamming you against a wall? I didn't think so. Face it, hockey is a harder sport than basketball. It's really not even much of a debate.

 

[porculator]

So, using this argument, why have playoffs at all if we're concerned about making sure that a team with quality regular season play can get a championship? The 2007 Giants and 2005 Steelers don't like that idea.

If a team is good enough to squeak in to the playoffs in any sport, they are worthy of the championship, IMO. There are too many factors to put into play, maybe they started out slow, and really came on in the last half or third of the season. If this team just barely gets in, are they not deserving?

I view the regular seasons in professional sports as sort of a round robin to gain position for the real season, the post season.

Playoffs are really only around to keep people's interest at this point. Back in the day, baseball was two separate leagues that never ever played eachother except for the All Star Game and the World Series. The World Series was the ONLY way to determine who was the best of the best, and it only involved the two regular season champions. Now to keep interest they added the LCS series, the wild cards, and interleague play. Now the best team in the baseball can lose in three games in the wild card and their season to the 8th best team in baseball because their pitchers are hot/cold at the right/wrong time. Hell, the Royals have beaten the Tigers twice already, one more win and that would be a wild card sweep. But would you EVER try to claim that the Royals are the better team? Its kind of BS.

And as much as I hate the Patriots, cheating notwithstanding, could you really say they weren't the best team this year?

In an NBA type setting, the Pats would have won it, no question, IMO.

 

[antipop]

Hockey by far was the easier of the two. Basketball is so much more of a strain on your legs and your mind IMO.

i don't watch either sport, but even i can see how absurd this statement is

 

[porculator]

The only thing that could make this statement more wrong is if you labeled yourself an LSU fan.

When you played "hockey", did you have guys 220lbs+ slamming themselve into you, or slamming you against a wall? I didn't think so. Face it, hockey is a harder sport than basketball. It's really not even much of a debate.

Agreed. Ever heard the phrase "if it was easy everyone would do it?" Well basketball is the most popular sport to play in America, and thats because its easy.

 

[derick76]

i am happy for the hornets and their success....however, i continue to not participate in the observation of basketball

Dude, you know how we felt as Saints fans when the Saints make the playoffs, it feels like that! You should really consider going to a game, even if you don't care much for basketball you will be entertained and will want to go back, of course now you can only go to a game with a ticket and those are much harder to come by now that the team is winning.

 

[ibelieve]

i don't watch either sport, but even i can see how absurd this statement is

Explain please. I have played both when I was younger. Basketball was far more of a strain on my body than was hockey. Alot more movement to keep track of as well.

 

[gboudx]

Explain please. I have played both when I was younger. Basketball was far more of a strain on my body than was hockey. Alot more movement to keep track of as well.

So are you turning this thread from "which professional sport is the hardest" to "which sport was the toughest when you played as a pipsqueak in elementary school"?

 

[ibelieve]

The only thing that could make this statement more wrong is if you labeled yourself an LSU fan.

When you played "hockey", did you have guys 220lbs+ slamming themselve into you, or slamming you against a wall? I didn't think so. Face it, hockey is a harder sport than basketball. It's really not even much of a debate.

No, but I did have guys the same size as me slam into me. Which would be the same thing. I still don't believe it is harder. After playing both I think it is the easier of the two. Thats the only thing I have to base it off of.

 

[ibelieve]

So are you turning this thread from "which professional sport is the hardest" to "which sport was the toughest when you played as a pipsqueak in elementary school"?

I am saying basketball is a more difficult game to play than hockey. Mainly over the stretch of a strenuous playoff run. I found basketball to be much more tiresome and put more of a strain on my body. Having to win play an abundance of basketball games over a stretch of 2 months would be tougher than having to play a stretch of hockey matches.

 

[gboudx]

>>Thats the only thing I have to base it off of.

Interesting logic.(or lack of)

So using your logic, then when I was a kid I used to be able to hit a baseball pretty well. In fact, one season I had over a .600 average. What the hell is wrong with these professional baseball players today? They're lucky to hit half that average.