If you look at some of the teams the last major dynasties had to face to win it all -- Chicago was built to beat a physical, defensive-oriented team with great perimeter scoring and rebounding (the 1990 pistons), but over the course of their reign they had to beat center dominant defensive teams like New York and Miami, super versatile scoring machines like the Blazers, Suns, and Lakers, well balanced squads like the Cavs and Pacers, star tandems surrounded by shooters and defenders like Shaq & Penny, Payton & Kemp, and Stockton & Malone,... And they had the versatility to handle them all. Up tempo, pressure d, lockdown, switching man to man d, high post action, drive and kick offense - they were able to change their approach when necessary. They played against opponents' weaknesses and won and won and won.

On the other hand you look at the Lakers 3peat w/ Shaquille, and they beat a lot of very different teams in just one way. Play tight perimeter d. Clog the paint with a big center. Get the ball into the low post. Cut to occupy help defenders. Make open jumpers. Win and win and win.

For the most part I believe (though I don't really recall now) that the SPM predictive scores for those past champs were good indicators - except one year in LA where I think they had some injuries during the season that cleared up in the playoffs (also Shaq had a habit of starting slowly because he'd show up to camp out of shape and get better as the season progressed).

Cleveland was the class of the league this season, but do they have the tools for either of those approaches? Maybe not. LeBron's really the only player you can ask to radically change his style of play and expect him to perform at a high level, so you wouldn't call them especially versatile. They're also not really overpowering at one particular thing unless LeBron personally has it going at warp-factor vitamin water. So while they might have the same dominant type of SPM ranking as great teams, they may just not be built to live up to those numbers, whereas other great regular season teams could do so.

It's reasonable to think that how a team performed against high level competition is a more relevant predictor of future success vs high level competition than simply looking at how they performed vs good, average and bad teams.

Another thing to look at is how Lebron's offensive efficiency precipitously declines against elite defenses (which is something you already did). Looking at the Cav's Stat +/- it was all Lebron. Everyone else was either average or below average. If suddenly you take Lebron from about +12 to something more like +7 then maybe the math looks different. Maybe.

I don't. Not when Orlando has now won 12 of the last 17 games against Cleveland. That's not an unlikely outcome. That's a trend. It would seem like sound reasoning to question the consistency of the three-point shot, but there's a huge difference between a contested three and an open one. Orlando wasn't shooting well for no reason. They were shooting well because they were getting good looks. Why? Because Cleveland simply could not guard Howard one-on-one and because Orlando had plenty of guys who could dribble penetrate and break down Cleveland's defense. As for Mo Williams, he has struggled against the Magic all season, so maybe his shooting 50% will only ever be the exception against them.

The numbers once again go against Orlando, but I bet they went against the Houston Rockets in 1995 as well. Just last season everyone picked the Lakers to beat the Celtics, so I'm not surprised that everyone has the Lakers winning this time as well. If the Lakers win, I believe it'll be because of home court, although Orlando already defied history by stomping Boston in Game 7 at the garden. Orlando should give L.A. a harder time than everyone thinks. For one thing, L.A. has done a poor job of defending the three all season, so the 40+ percent mark that some writers have already brought up (which is how well Orlando shot the three against L.A. this season) may not be an aberration, but a result of the Lakers's questionable three-point defense. Let us not forget that Houston went up 30 on the Lakers by hitting open threes in game four. Also, Orlando is a better defensive team than any L.A. has faced thus far, which should at least keep Kobe from averaging 36 ppg like he did against Denver. Anyways, I think that Bynum will be something of an X-factor (he hasn't had much of an impact so far this postseason) and it'll be interesting to see who gets the better of the Lewis/Odom matchup. Those things could swing the series one way or the other.

The only way this series goes to the Lakers as easily as the numbers would suggest is if Howard finds himself in foul trouble more often than not. Here's hoping the refs swallow the whistle and let the players play. (and if not, they need to at least be consistent on both ends)

Oh, and Orlando did beat L.A. both times they met this season (something SPM doesn't take into account), even if they were closely contested games. Also, I believe Orlando went up BIG in the game in Orlando before giving up their lead, so I'm sure Orlando has a few matchups to exploit against L.A., even if Nelson doesn't play.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly plausible that we just saw an unlikely outcome not that the numbers were wrong in the first place.