penbeast0 wrote:The idea that it's harder to win 6 titles out of 13 playoff appearances with a 3 series requirement v. 11 out of 13 with a 2 series requirement seems wrong on its face. There are many other factors involved but that isn't enough.
Just my opinion but I think it starts getting a bit abstract here ...
It depends on assumptions and you start creating things that don't make sense ...
In short its about who are the opponents in these extra rounds.
If it's 3 rounds early on then the opponents are going to be one of the league's weakest teams (or notionally, unless we're going to just acknowledge that the East was a lot better at times but we're getting far enough off track) ... in that sense an additional round against an at least somewhat weak team shouldn't add a lot of extra challenge so though upsets do sometimes happen this would represent more of a marginal change than might arithmetically appear the case just in terms of series added.
Or is it some notional league where the it's akin to today's league or whenever (assume Jordan's league in the Penbeast example above, though it's giving 3 not four series so maybe not) now the opponents in round one to a dominant team (most Celtic years) are - if 1 vs 8 - maybe circa league average. But what assumptions make up this league. I assume the Celtics are the same or the question means little (granting an expanded league would take players from such a team ... but then what are we talking about?). Are there a bunch of expansion teams. Have the IRL teams talent been spread across more teams. Or are we imagining a different talent base ... at that point, without specifics, we have no idea how difficult it will be.
In purely mathematical terms we can talk about expected titles with a league of a given size (and maybe try to estimate title probability for a team of a particular level of points margin within a particular league). And perhaps discuss "titles above average" relative to the former ... but talking of specific teams with specific rosters ... at an actual given talent pool ... I think I'd rather have that pool diluted across more teams than face only one or two teams and come across a rival with say 1964 Wilt, Robertson, West, Baylor, Pettit, Howell, Greer, Barnett, Bellamy (or Lucas, Dischinger, Wilkens, Attles ...) as the rotation.
It's hard, then, to meaningfully take a team out of it's context. And the difficulty of additional series isn't independent from the talent pool. I'd say it makes more sense to say that the Russell era Celtics' roster couldn't have been constructed in a 30 team, 4 round playoff league if one has to make a comment of that ilk. But now you're talking absolute terms quality and discussing the talent pool, things that are perhaps better discussed directly?
Fwiw, in terms of the Russell-era Celtics I would argue a lack of any semblance of free agency for most of that era (until the option of the ABA came up ... though it may require missing a year ... it's at least something is the point) is something that made dynasties more likely. If you can't go anywhere (and maybe if owners can reasonably plausibly say they can't pay huge money?) then if you have a very good team it's easier to keep it together. Those things are fading by the back end of the Celtics' dynasty.
