It's not who is the best during the season, it's who's the best in the playoffs.

In response to Fierce34's comment:

2004 is wrong because the Heat and Suns were not top seeds.

2005 was the year the Spurs won a championship. So how could the Spurs lost that year?

2008 the Cavs were just the 4th seed.

2010 the Bulls were just the 8th seed.

2010 the Spurs were just the 7th seed.

So you only got 2011, 2009, and 2006 right. The rest is wrong.

Seems you want to question my point, I have to correct a a few small errors of transposing the proper year. Actually now there are even more losing teams.  While the years were not in the proper place the teams that lost all were correct.  So here you go again with the point being stressed that the number one seed doesn't always win the title.  Actually it happens nearly every year if you look at it.

2012  -  Spurs beaten

2012 – Bulls Beaten

2011  -  Spurs beaten

2011 – Bulls Beaten

2010 – Cavs Beaten

2009 – Cavs Beaten

2007 - Mavs Beaten

2007 - Pistons  Beaten

2006  -  Pistons Beaten

2006 – Spurs Beaten

2005 - Miami  Beaten

2005  Phoenix Beaten

2004 – Indiana Beaten

2004 - Minnesota Beaten

In response to OneOnOne's comment:

In response to Fierce34's comment:

2004 is wrong because the Heat and Suns were not top seeds.

2005 was the year the Spurs won a championship. So how could the Spurs lost that year?

2008 the Cavs were just the 4th seed.

2010 the Bulls were just the 8th seed.

2010 the Spurs were just the 7th seed.

So you only got 2011, 2009, and 2006 right. The rest is wrong.

Seems you want to question my point, I have to correct a a few small errors of transposing the proper year. Actually now there are even more losing teams.  While the years were not in the proper place the teams that lost all were correct.  So here you go again with the point being stressed that the number one seed doesn't always win the title.  Actually it happens nearly every year if you look at it.

2012  -  Spurs beaten

2012 – Bulls Beaten

2011  -  Spurs beaten

2011 – Bulls Beaten

2010 – Cavs Beaten

2009 – Cavs Beaten

2007 - Mavs Beaten

2007 - Pistons  Beaten

2006  -  Pistons Beaten

2006 – Spurs Beaten

2005 - Miami  Beaten

2005  Phoenix Beaten

2004 – Indiana Beaten

2004 - Minnesota Beaten

Seriously, the #1 seed getting beat by the #2 seed is not considered an upset.

The 2011 Spurs that got eliminated by the #8 Griz was an upset.

And we all know the 2012 Bulls got beat because their best player got hurt in Game 1. 

And as you can see,  for what ever reason you want to use,  the top seeds lose at a alarming rate.  That was my point and I proved it with facts.  Doesn't matter what seed beats what seed.

Not sure what your trying to point out other than what I just pointed out, that a top seed lost.  I could go thru all the "upsets" and probably come up with a reason why they lost as well.  Again the point was top seeds lose frequently.

Just for the record I think the Heat will win it all again but that doesn't mean I don't have confidence that we or someone else could knock them off.   Nearly everytime a top seed loses it generally a upset,  some bigger than other,  but a upset all the same.

What is the point you are making?

In response to OneOnOne's comment:

And as you can see,  for what ever reason you want to use,  the top seeds lose at a alarming rate.  That was my point and I proved it with facts.  Doesn't matter what seed beats what seed.

Not sure what your trying to point out other than what I just pointed out, that a top seed lost.  I could go thru all the "upsets" and probably come up with a reason why they lost as well.  Again the point was top seeds lose frequently.

Just for the record I think the Heat will win it all again but that doesn't mean I don't have confidence that we or someone else could knock them off.   Nearly everytime a top seed loses it generally a upset,  some bigger than other,  but a upset all the same.

What is the point you are making?

The point I'm trying to make is why be stubborn?

If the Celts can control their seeding then why go for 4th or 5th if they can get 6th or 7th.

That's all I'm saying.

In response to Fierce34's comment:

In response to OneOnOne's comment:

And as you can see,  for what ever reason you want to use,  the top seeds lose at a alarming rate.  That was my point and I proved it with facts.  Doesn't matter what seed beats what seed.

Not sure what your trying to point out other than what I just pointed out, that a top seed lost.  I could go thru all the "upsets" and probably come up with a reason why they lost as well.  Again the point was top seeds lose frequently.

Just for the record I think the Heat will win it all again but that doesn't mean I don't have confidence that we or someone else could knock them off.   Nearly everytime a top seed loses it generally a upset,  some bigger than other,  but a upset all the same.

What is the point you are making?

The point I'm trying to make is why be stubborn?

If the Celts can control their seeding then why go for 4th or 5th if they can get 6th or 7th.

That's all I'm saying.

I believe you are the one being stubborn.  My points are very valid and just because you don't agree with them doesn't make me stubborn.  I also have pointed out stats that back up what I am saying.  Again I have no control over where they end up.  

This thread was started to show that number one seeds lose frequently and somehow you bring to the discussion that we should manipulate our seeding, or tell me what seeds can beat what seeds.    Think you got off track there just a little bit?

Of course the higher seed normally wins.  There is a reason they have the higher because they had the better record, hence home court advantage.  I can also point out 2 #8 seeds have beaten 2 #1 seeds.  Doesn't have a thing to do with who won the ring.  I never mentioned who won a title,  just that plain and simple #1 seeds lose.

Seems to me you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  You seem to be floating all over the place trying to find something to disagree with me about.

Again this thread is to show #1 seeds lose frequently.

I am done with this back and forth because there is no telling what you will bring up next and I have no desire to continue along this path.