Compared to the other 3 major American sports is lack of playoff upsets. Hardly ever happens. Not sure why considering how close a lot of the games are. Am I wrong about that? There may be the slight series upset every once in a while but the Conf finals teams are never a shock really are they? Would be cool if a #5 or like #6 seed got hot every once in a while and got to the finals.... But it just doesn't happen.
The reason, IMO is that football does not play series, and baseball has different pitchers, who are now the primary force in playoff baseball
Sure, good points. And on the other end of the spectrum hockey has tons of upsets. Usually a goaie gets hot. The west might actually blow this to bits this season. Could see some nice upsets this year. Anyway, it's still too bad it doesn't happen in the NBA more.
Upsets happen but they don't happen at the scale you mention because of a couple of reasons. Remember when the 1st round was 5 games instead of 7? More often than not, the correct team is going to win a 7 game series. In the NFL you are 1 and done. Back when they were 5 game series it was much more dangerous. Now if you consider that an NBA team from the low end of the bracket has to survive 3, 7 game series to make the finals, then you see the problem.
I always feel a little cheated at major upsets. I mean, doesn't it kind of suck that one team, which is clearly superior to another, has trained much harder, has better players, has a smarter coach and a better-run organization, but might lose just because of a couple of random bounces of a ball? I prefer seeing the cream rise to the top with the element of chance reduced but not completely eradicated. So the NBA playoffs definitely works for me.
As far as upsets go, I'm not really sure what one would look like in the Western Conference. Other than the Lakers losing to the Thunder, I don't see how any other series in any of the rounds would really surprise me much. Even if the Lakers lose in the second round, I don't see that as a huge upset, the way they are playing.
Bill Simmons said that the 5-game first round was far too exciting for the No Balls Association to stick with it.
Baseball is also more luck-driven. A superstar hitting going 0-4 in a game is not at all unusual. In fact, a superstar hitter having a terrible series is not at all unusual. Hitting is such a streaky endavour that small sample sizes are often unrepresentative. That streakiness washes out over 162 games, but not over 7 games. A pitcher, even an ace, can easily have a couple of bad games and end up no factor or even a negative factor in a series. Basketball has a lot less variance. It would be shocking if a superstar player made no contribution at all in a game (like Kobe going 0-20 or something). And it would be beyond belief for a superstar player to go an entire series without much contribution at all. That leads to the more talented team being far, far more likely to win a series.
One of the absolute greatest upsets of all times was when Denver beat Seattle in round one. A 5 game series made sure it happened.
That's true. On the other hand, it makes upsets feel a little more epic, IMO. When the Warriors knocked off the Mavericks in the first round a few years ago, that made my playoffs. Even though it was first round, it felt like a very big deal.
The point of the championship is to determine the best team, right? Not the best team on average over the course of several months, but also not the best team within a two or three week span. I think that the NBA playoffs does a great job of allowing the best team to win... Ed O.
that's true and one reason baseball has more "upsets". another would be that half as many teams make the playoffs in baseball. it seems like a huge deal to have the wildcard make the world series but many times the wildcard is really the 2nd best team in their league
