Yeah, you just keep adding stuff to somehow show Raptors did worse than they did. Point differential argument is crap because it simply doesn't matter. Games won in a series matter because that is how you advance. You can lose 3 games by combined 150 points but win four by combined four points. Your point differential is -146 but who the hell cares, you won the damn series. Do that four times and you've got the championship and nobody will ever care about your point differential except some random basketball nerds.
And going back into history to include Pacers and Bulls just shows how weak the initial premise is. Why not go all the way back to Celtics, Pistons, Nets, Knicks and Vince days? How did Vince do against LeBron in LeBron's rookie year?
It is completely irrelevant argument in the end. Raptors got stopped at the same roadblock as the rest of the east. The aesthetics seem to be dependent on mood of the roadblock for the most part.
Most analytical guys will argue that point differential matters more than wins and losses.
Obviously, in the context of winning a series, wins are all that matters. But when predicting future performance, relying on point differential produces better results.
I agree that in this particular case, it's less relevant because both us and the cavs are so different.
But strictly looking at the past, I don't agree that we gave LeBron, or even the Cavs, the best fight in the east. And that's not even accounting for the fact that we have been the best east team in the regular season, since LeBron returned. Teams with far weaker records have been as competitive or better, at least looking through the prism of point differential.