The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
bminer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Which Team win the NBA Finals of 2011 ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,323 times Debate No: 16214
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

What this debate is about

Each side will choose a team that is still currently in the NBA playoffs (as of 30/4/2011) and present arguments that their choice is more likely to win the NBA Finals of 2011 than their opponents choice of team.

Burden Of Proof

Both sides have a burden of proof in this debate.

Pro will argue that its more likely their nominated team will win when compared to Cons nominated team.

Con will argue that its more likely their nominated team will win when compared to Pros nominated team.

Debate Rules

First Round is ONLY for nominating your NBA team. No arguments in the first round. No changing your nominated team in the debate.

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPECTATIONS

It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions

NBA = The National Basketball Association (NBA) is the pre-eminent men's professional basketball league in North America. It consists of thirty franchised member clubs, of which twenty-nine are located in the United States and one in Canada [1]

NBA Finals = The NBA Finals is the championship series of the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the conclusion of the sport's postseason each June. The series was named the NBA World Championship Series until 1986.

The series is played between the winners of Western Conference Finals and Eastern Conference Finals. At the conclusion of the championship round, the winner of the NBA Finals is presented the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. [2]

Team Selection.

I haven't been able to watch many NBA games so far, but with the NBA playoffs now here I am sure that will change.

I will be arguing that the Los Angels Lakers is more likely to win than Cons (yet to be chosen) team.

I remind Con that round 1 is only for selecting your team, arguments don't start till round 2.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
bminer

Con

The Cleveland Cavaliers!!!
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

The Cleveland Cavilers did not make the 2011 NBA playoffs as such they have no chance of winning the NBA Finals of 2011. [1]

The Lakers on the other hand have made and are still in the NBA playoffs, thus they have a chance of winning the NBA finals of 2011. [1]

The Lakers are more likely to win the NBA finals of 2011 than the Cleveland Cavilers.

Sources

[1] http://espn.go.com...
bminer

Con

I was actually just kidding. I'd like to argue for the Boston Celtics.

Boston has already made it to the Conference Semifinals after crushing the New York Knicks. Although they lost Game 1 against the Miami Heat, I believe they will beat Miami in a Game 7.

The LA Lakers have won a lot of championships recently. One must question whether or not they can continue their streak.

Also, I am a Cavs fan, and I hate the Boston Celtics. Therefore, Boston will win a championship.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Well Bminer, I thought you were being a troll, so I went a created this debate again. There was also a rule about not changing teams. But because I am a good sport, and already have some prepared arguments from the other debate, I will cut you some slack and let you argue that its more likely that the Boston Celtics will win the NBA championship of 2011 than the Lakers.

So first I will present reasons why the Lakers are more likely to win which include........

Size does matter

More specifically, skilled size matters. There is a reason that the NBA is full of tall men, and anyone playing in the NBA who is average height is a rarity. The NBA still is a big mans game.

Well the Lakers just so happen to have two skilled 7 footers in their starting line up in Andrew (I hope I don't get injured) Bynum and Pau (Hopefully my beard makes me look tough) Gasol. For all of Kobe Bryant’s brilliance, the Lakers’ back-to-back title runs were built on the defensive dominance and offensive mismatches created by their two 7-footers. Few teams can match the Lakers sheer size, and even fewer can overcome it in the paint.

NBA championships are won by teams with a Superstar

When I say superstar, I don't mean an All star, or some one who has a few all star selections under their belt. By Superstar we are talking about the all stars of the all stars the hall of famers, the players that go down in history as legends of the game.

Nearly all the past champion winners of the last 30 years have a "Superstar" on their team.

For instance the Lakers have Kobe and in 80's had Magic Johnson
The Spurs have Tim Duncan
The Bulls had Jordan
The Rockets had Hakeem

The only real exception here seems to be the 2003-2004 Champions the Detroit pistons.

Suffice to say, if you want to win an NBA championship your going to need an NBA superstar. And the Lakers have that SUPERSTAR in Kobe Byrant.

Good things come in 3's, espically NBA championships.

The Lakers are the Champions for the past 2 years, and winning the NBA finals of 2011 will make it a 3-peat. The NBA seems to be quite fond of 3-peats.

From 1979 to 2007-2008 NBA season there have been 6 Instances where a team has won 2 NBA championships in a row. Out of those 6 instances of winning 2 championships in a row, 3 times out of those 6 the the winner went on to win another championship the next year to make it a 3 peat. [1]

You will notice that I left out the last 2 years of the NBA in this data, cause even though the Lakers have won the past 2 years, we don't know for certain if they will win or not so its not part of my analysis here.

Only two teams have done a 3 peat in the past 20 years, the Chicago bulls and....................the LAKERS.

In order to win the NBA finals you first have to get to the NBA finals

Lakers who in the past 20 seasons have reached the NBA finals a mere SIXTEEN times. In the same time period the Celtics have been to the finals TWICE.

In the past 10 seasons the Lakers have been to the Finals 7 times, compared to the Celtics 2 times.

In the past 5 seasons the Lakers have been to the Finals 3 times, compared to the Celtics 2 times. [1]

Keeping the Core intact

The Lakers have kept their core of Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom and Coach Jackson in tact. Earlier this year the Celtics traded away Kendrick Perkins one of their core players. The inside defense of the Celtics has taken a hit because of Perkins departure.

Boston vs Miami

When Lebron James decided to "take his talents to south beach" to team up with Wade and Bosh, A super team was formed. Boston is less likely to win this series, than the Lakers winning over the Mavericks. But even if they do win over Miami who have arguably have 2 of the top 3-4 players in the NBA, Boston will come out of it very worn down.

The Boston Celtics Championship runs compared to the regular Season

The Celtics in the past 30 years, have never won an NBA championship where their regular season winning percentage was under 75%, and their last 2 championships only happened where their regular season winning percentage was over 80%.

In the 2010-2011 Regular season the Celtics winning percentage was 68.3% [2]

Summary and Conclusion

1) Size does matter and the Lakers have it
2) You need a Superstar to win an NBA championship, and the Lakers have one in Kobe Byrant
3) The NBA likes 3 peats, the Lakers winning the 2011 NBA championship will make it a 3peat
4) The Lakers core is still in tact, the Celtics is not
5) Boston has to get past the new super team of the Miami Heat
6) The Boston Celtics regular season winning percentage this year is 68.3%, The Celtics have not won an NBA championship in the last 30 years where this was below 75%

Because of the above reasons, it is more likely that the Lakers will win the NBA Championship of 2011 than the Boston Celtics.

I look forward to Cons reply.

Sources

[1] http://www.fanbay.net...
[2] http://www.nbauniverse.com...

bminer

Con

My opponent makes some good points. Honestly, I think the Lakers have a good shot at winning the championship, but I'm still pulling for the Celtics. Let me address my opponent's points first:

1.) Size definitely matters in basketball. No question there. The Lakers have size, but I think the Celtics can overcome this. For the most part, I'll concede with you on this point.
2.) The Celtics have superstars. Don't get me wrong -- Kobe is the real deal. But, you can't downplay Rajon Rondo et al. Rondo could make 2011 MVP this year.
3.) This argument is invalid. What has happened in the past has little to do with the present. Probabilities of 3-peats are independent probabilities, etc.
4.) Good point. This is probably the strongest point my opponent has. However, Boston still has some great players, and they all work well together.
5.) Another very good point, and another loss tonight does not support my cause. Miami vs. Boston will probably go to 7 games. We'll see how it pans out.
6.) The Celtics have a comparable record to the Lakers this year. Again, past NBA championships has very little to do with this year.

Let's not forget that the Lakers still trail the Spurs and Mavericks in their conference.
If Boston and the Lakers can make it to the NBA Finals, it will be a very close game. I think that it's safe to say that the Celtics want revenge against the Lakers.

Finally, I'd like to argue that the Lakers beat the Celtics last year because of home-court advantage. The Celtics can still win home-court advantage over the Lakers. If they can continue to win, gain home-court advantage against the Lakers, I believe that the Celtics will take the NBA Finals over the Lakers.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their reply.

General statements

Con makes some general statements like "Boston still has some great players, and they all work well together." & "But, you can't downplay Rajon Rondo et al. Rondo could make 2011 MVP this year."

Seeing we are past the first round of the playoffs doesn't that generalization of team work apply to everyone ? Is there a team in the playoffs that doesn't have good team work ? I didn't down play Rondo as part of my argument, but doesn't this again apply to anyone ? You can't downplay Kobe or Ray Allen or Joe Johnson or who ever............

CA = Counter Argument.

CA: 3.) This argument is invalid. What has happened in the past has little to do with the present. Probabilities of 3-peats are independent probabilities, etc.

Con is incorrect here. 3 peats in the NBA and winning NBA championships are not like flipping a coin. Coin toss results are random, winning 3 peats are NOT random. You don't win a NBA champion or 3 of them in a row cause of dumb luck. You win championships and 3 peats by being the better team which is not the result of blind chance.

Thus part of my argument based on 3 peats still stands.

The Boston Celtics Championship runs compared to the regular Season

6.) The Celtics have a comparable record to the Lakers this year. Again, past NBA championships has very little to do with this year.

In regards to Cons claim that "past NBA championships has very little to do with this year", I suggest Con and voters look at the list of NBA champions here http://www.nba.com...

I think even a casual glance will show that previous NBA champions has something to do with the following year champions.

In my previous argument I made the point that "The Celtics in the past 30 years, have never won an NBA championship where their regular season winning percentage was under 75%, and their last 2 championships only happened where their regular season winning percentage was over 80%. In the 2010-2011 Regular season the Celtics winning percentage was 68.3%"

Trouble is this argument doesn't work on the Lakers as well because the Lakers have a regular season winning percentage of 69.5%. This is the same winning percentage they had last year when they went on to win the NBA championship in 2010.

Summary and Conclusion

1) Size does matter and the Lakers have it
2) You need a Superstar to win an NBA championship, and the Lakers have one in Kobe Byrant
3) The NBA likes 3 peats, the Lakers winning the 2011 NBA championship will make it a 3peat
3b) 3 peats and winning NBA championships are not the result of blind chance like flipping a coin
4) The Lakers core is still in tact, the Celtics is not
5) Boston has to get past the new super team of the Miami Heat
6) The Boston Celtics regular season winning percentage this year is 68.3%, The Celtics have not won an NBA championship in the last 30 years where this was below 75%
6b) The Lakers won a championship last with a winning regular season percentage of 69.5%, the same as this year

Because of the above reasons, it is more likely that the Lakers will win the NBA Championship of 2011 than the Boston Celtics.

I ask your vote go to the Pro.

I thank Con for participating in this debate.

bminer

Con

Thank you, Pro for your reply. This is an interesting debate.

1.) I pretty much conceded to this point. The Lakers have size, but I think that the Celtics can overcome this.

2.) The Lakers have their superstar in Kobe; the Celtics have their superstar in Rondo. Both teams are composed of great players. I see no major advantage that the Lakers have over the Celtics in this category. That was my point before.

3.) I have to disagree with you here. Winning a NBA championship is certainly not dumb luck; however, arguing that the Lakers have a better chance of winning simply because they have won the last 2 is not a valid argument. While there might be a trend of 3-peats in the NBA, these statistics do not support your claim. These statistics merely describe a correlation that 3-peats tend to occur. That is not the same as saying, "The Lakers have won back-to-back championships, so they have a good chance of winning again." This is pretty close to the causation vs. correlation argument typically posed in statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

4.) I also believe that the Lakers have a slightly stronger core than the Celtics, so I concede to this point. I still believe that the Celtics have what it takes to beat the Lakers if they meet again.

5.) Again, the Celtics have to get to the championship to win it. They are definitely struggling against the Heat. Again, we'll just have to see how this pans out.

6.) This is a very similar argument to point 3, and it is not valid. The winner of a NBA championship is determined mostly by the overall skill and abilities of the team in that particular year... and arguably a bit of luck, as well. It actually has very little to do with their overall season record. I mean... they have to make it to the playoffs obviously, but other than that... whether or not you have the best NBA record does not really impact your chance to win the championship. Also, championships and statistics from previous years really have nothing to do with the present. If they do, prove it. I see absolutely no evidence supporting this claim. Correlation does not imply causation.

While my opponent has a convincing argument, I still do not believe there is enough evidence to support his claim. The Celtics is also a great team and who threatens the likelihood of a Lakers 3-peat. If the Celtics can squeeze past the Miami Heat, they will become a serious threat. Haha... that's a big if... (not to change teams, but I'd consider putting some money on the Heat, as well)

Thanks again to Pro for this argument. It has been enjoyable. I can't believe I'm saying this, but... "Go Celtics!"
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Hmm. I feel the need to post "I TOLD YAH SO".
But I won't, because those lakers fans must be ashamed already.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
I think Miami would if they had a good center. While Joel Anthony is decent and energetic, the heat need someone who can defend AND shoot jumpers to reach that level. As it is now, I think they can beat the Celtics but will lose eventually.

If the Mavs can get by LA I think they have the best shot. But it will be tough; even on LA's worst days, they still win or only lose by 9.
Posted by HEATwinITall 6 years ago
HEATwinITall
I personally believe that The Miami Heat will win the NBA Finals. LeBron James is playing his best Career Playoff Basketball ever. He and the Heat already beat the Celtics 99-90. D-Wade and Chris Bosh are both averaging 20+ Points a game.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
knucklepuk so what? The Lakers went to like 3 game 7 series last year and still won. The Lakers are the best team in the NBA right now. Their entire line up is extremely stacked. The fact of the matter is they beat the hornets on their monstrous size alone. No team in the NBA can go toe to toe with the Laker's big men.
Posted by knucklepuk 6 years ago
knucklepuk
they needed 6 games to beat the hornets without david west...
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
Who has most depth=lakers freaking Lamar odom
is on their BENCH
who has the most size inside= Lakers gasol and bynum are both skilled 7FOOTERS who completely beat the hornets just by being bigger
who has the best coach= lakers Phil Jackson is going for his like 13th ring
who has the most clutch player= lakers Kobe is old but ue still plays like he's 25
which team ruins the game of basketball? LAKERS
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
Bullhit can't argue againt the lakers we should both pick a team that are not the lakers for a truly interesting debate
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
like*
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Nope Your Cough Is more of a squeal.
Like what the lakers locker-room sounds life after they lose.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Insert your team here ?
*Cough*bullshite*Cough*"

So does that mean I win too ?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by knucklepuk 6 years ago
knucklepuk
IllegalcombatantbminerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just vaguely jumped all over the place with random assertions, Pro debated well.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
IllegalcombatantbminerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded a lot of points and was lacking quite a bit of warrants for his assumptions