All this talk of choking, and the Celtics beating better teams, triggered my thinking and this question: "What makes a team better, or more talented, or favored?" I know, I know, the record, number of all-stars, margin of victory, quality wins, etc. But doesn't it assume the answer to say, "Well, the [fill in the blank] are the better team, but they lost to the Celtics because . . . ." If they lost, are they the better team? Isn't being better a relative matter, i.e. superior in some fashion to others. And, if you can't outclass the opposition in performing at something you are supposedly "better" at, for our purposes playing basketball to win, then are you better than them? Without being too metaphysical, I suggest the media rethink speaking about how "the better team lost," a contradiction in terms, and either talk about how more talented players were not able to out perform less talented, or simply recognize that the proof is in the pudding.