ESPN Power Rankings (meh....) [Archive]

Agloco

01-31-2011, 03:34 PM

#1 . Spurs

If you're a Spurs fan who believes in omens, ponder this while waiting for the next home game on Feb. 23: Six of the previous seven teams to win 40 games as fast as San Antonio just did went on to win the whole thing.
:D

Great trivia question: The only team that didn't is?

toki9

01-31-2011, 03:34 PM

We have been jinxed :pctoss

Yep. I now expect our first losing RRT.

awktalk

01-31-2011, 03:35 PM

Great trivia question: The only team that didn't is?

Gotta be the 06 Mav worst choke-job in NBA history.

erm, I mean 07.

lefty

01-31-2011, 03:37 PM

gotta be the 06 mav worst choke-job in nba history.
07?

Rick Von Braun

01-31-2011, 03:37 PM

Great trivia question: The only team that didn't is?

It has to be the Dallas Mavericks, but I have not looked it up.

Sausage

01-31-2011, 03:41 PM

I'm almost 99% sure that it was the Mavericks.

lol mavs

Dex

01-31-2011, 03:44 PM

07?

I'd have a hard time choosing between being the first 1-seed to lose to an 8-seed (in a 7-game series) and being up 2.5 games in the Finals before choking on the backdoor sweep.

It's like trying to pick which eye to gouge out with a rusty spoon.

Agloco

01-31-2011, 03:44 PM

Gotta be the 06 Mav worst choke-job in NBA history.

erm, I mean 07.

It has to be the Dallas Mavericks, but I have not looked it up.

I'm almost 99% sure that it was the Mavericks.

lol mavs

:lol

awktalk

01-31-2011, 03:45 PM

The 2006-2007 Mavericks secured their place in history with the franchise's best record ever, earning the first seed in the NBA Playoffs. Dallas faced eighth-seeded Golden State in the first round of the playoffs and were upset 4-2 in the series but their regular season accomplishments make them one of the best teams in NBA history. Their .817 winning percentage ranked sixth all-time among NBA teams. They were also the sixth fastest team in league history to reach the 50-win mark doing it in just 59 games.

http://www.mavswiki.com/index.php?title=2006-2007

So they had to be in the top 7 to get to 40.

Dex

01-31-2011, 03:46 PM

The 2007 Mavs didn't get their 40th win until Feb 9th (40-9). They won the next twelve games (and 21 of their next 23).

That team started 0-4 which set back their pace a bit.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2007_games.html

lefty

01-31-2011, 03:49 PM

The 2007 Mavs didn't get their 40th win until Feb 9th (40-9). They won the next twelve games.

That team started 0-4 which set back their pace a bit.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2007_games.html
Thanks

Michi_Germany

01-31-2011, 03:56 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171370

We had this question yesterday. The 1972-73 Celtics didn't win it all!

lefty

01-31-2011, 03:58 PM

Ahah!!!

It was the 1973 Celts !!!!

Agloco

01-31-2011, 03:58 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171370

We had this question yesterday. The 1972-73 Celtics didn't win it all!

Ding Ding........

Why does everyone think Mavs right away?

lefty

01-31-2011, 04:00 PM

Ding Ding........

Why does everyone think Mavs right away?
Because 2007 was legendary

awktalk

01-31-2011, 04:00 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171370

We had this question yesterday. The 1972-73 Celtics didn't win it all!

Aha! Great trivia question, forgot about the Mavs 0-4 start.

Agloco

01-31-2011, 04:05 PM

Because 2007 was legendary

Indeed it was.

Darkwaters

01-31-2011, 04:08 PM

Because 2007 was legendary

http://alittlenudge.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/barney-stinson.jpg

Michi_Germany

01-31-2011, 04:09 PM

Indeed it was.

Especially for a Spursfan from germany - when most of the ppl around you keep their fingers crossed for the Mavs :lol

lefty

01-31-2011, 04:15 PM

Especially for a Spursfan from germany - when most of the ppl around you keep their fingers crossed for the Mavs :lol
:lol

Tp9gospursgo

01-31-2011, 04:23 PM

If we play as well as we've played all year, We should win all of these. Key word: SHOULD. Go SPURS GO! Drive for 5!!

Spursmania

01-31-2011, 04:24 PM

Especially for a Spursfan from germany - when most of the ppl around you keep their fingers crossed for the Mavs :lol:smokin

:tu

Brutalis

01-31-2011, 05:04 PM

I hate stats like this. When it favors one side so much it's bound to be the other.

jestersmash

01-31-2011, 05:05 PM

I hate stats like this. When it favors one side so much it's bound to be the other.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Brutalis

01-31-2011, 05:10 PM

Not hard to comprehend.

Stats like those are just mind candy. They mean nothing. And as soon as everyone jumps on that stat like we're going to win it all we will be bound for a huge disappointment.

Cessation

01-31-2011, 05:12 PM

Not hard to comprehend.

Stats like those are just mind candy. They mean nothing. And as soon as everyone jumps on that stat like we're going to win it all we will be bound for a huge disappointment.

That makes no sense either.

Maddog

01-31-2011, 05:15 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171370

We had this question yesterday. The 1972-73 Celtics didn't win it all!

If memory serves me correctly injuries slowed them in the playoffs-I think Hondo was hurt....
So good omen however the Mavs are the cautionary tale here despite not being the other team.

Brutalis

01-31-2011, 05:16 PM

It makes sense. If you don't agree that's your opinion.

This is not the early 90s Bulls. Or any other ancient stat from some ancient team. This is a new era of basketball. Referencing stats like that means nothing. For example look at Dallas.

Agloco

01-31-2011, 05:23 PM

It makes sense. If you don't agree that's your opinion.

I agree.

It doesn't make sense.

ALVAREZ6

01-31-2011, 05:24 PM

That makes no sense either.

In makes complete sense, bruh.

It's the same reason why a rational person can look at Wilt Chamberlain's stats, and anticipate that he would not be able to sustain the same numbers in this current NBA. All of his numbers would likely drop by something absurd like 50%.

ALVAREZ6

01-31-2011, 05:26 PM

I agree.

It doesn't make sense.

I agree

that you believe this logic does not make sense

because your mind is inactive

Agloco

01-31-2011, 05:27 PM

It's the same reason why a rational person can look at Wilt Chamberlain's stats, and anticipate that he would not be able to sustain the same numbers in this current NBA. All of his numbers would likely drop by something absurd like 50%.

That makes no sense.

Agloco

01-31-2011, 05:28 PM

I agree

that you believe this logic does not make sense

because your mind is inactive

I believe.

That you do not understand the American way.

jestersmash

01-31-2011, 05:29 PM

m33p0

01-31-2011, 05:29 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171370

We had this question yesterday. The 1972-73 Celtics didn't win it all!

well, mavs was still a good guess. anytime there's a question about a team that should have but didn't, saying dallas mavericks is an automatic. :lol

ALVAREZ6

01-31-2011, 05:33 PM

It's one thing to not place any stock in a statistic like that.

I'm in that boat. I don't place any stock in that statistic.

Brutalis isn't doing that. He's actively suggesting that because we're on the favored side of history, it's "bound to be the other." That's just as ridiculous as suggesting that we're bound to win the championship because the historically 6 of 7 teams with similar regular season success have done so.
Well I think he has a good point but did not word it in the best possible way in the initial post...you might be reading it too literally.

What I mainly agree with is that these types of stats in sports when different eras are compared....are stupid.

ALVAREZ6

01-31-2011, 05:35 PM

That makes no sense.
Can you tell me why it makes no sense?

Do you believe the state of professional basketball has gone largely unchanged over the past 50 years?

Brutalis

01-31-2011, 05:38 PM

It's one thing to not place any stock in a statistic like that.

I'm in that boat. I don't place any stock in that statistic.

Brutalis isn't doing that. He's actively suggesting that because we're on the favored side of history, it's "bound to be the other." That's just as ridiculous as suggesting that we're bound to win the championship because the historically 6 of 7 teams with similar regular season success have done so.

I think I either worded my sentence wrong or, you just took it wrong.

Never the less alvarez didn't seem to have a problem picking up what I was saying.

jestersmash

01-31-2011, 05:38 PM

Well I think he has a good point but did not word it in the best possible way in the initial post...you might be reading it too literally.

What I mainly agree with is that these types of stats in sports when different eras are compared....are stupid.

Yeah, I completely agree with you. I think the statistic is utterly worthless.

The only meaningful statistic for predicting championship success in this day and age is scoring margin, and it reflects basically what everybody sees subjectively -

Top 4 championship contenders = LA/Boston/SA/Miami
Next two "2nd tier" championship contenders = Orlando/Chicago

Top 4 scoring margins = LA/Boston/SA/Miami = +7.xx
Orlando/Chicago scoring margin = +5.xx

Nobody else in the league comes even close.

Agloco

01-31-2011, 05:41 PM

Can you tell me why it makes no sense?

Do you believe the state of professional basketball has gone largely unchanged over the past 50 years?

No, but I need clarification on this statement in red. If you're saying what I think you are, your argument makes no sense:

In makes complete sense, bruh.

It's the same reason why a rational person can look at Wilt Chamberlain's stats, and anticipate that he would not be able to sustain the same numbers in this current NBA. All of his numbers would likely drop by something absurd like 50%.

By this, I think that you're extending the argument to the respective records of the other 6 teams....ie that those records would be proportionally worse in todays league as well?

Did I misunderstand you?

Brutalis

01-31-2011, 05:45 PM

Yeah, I completely agree with you. I think the statistic is utterly worthless.

The only meaningful statistic for predicting championship success in this day and age is scoring margin, and it reflects basically what everybody sees subjectively -

Top 4 championship contenders = LA/Boston/SA/Miami
Next two "2nd tier" championship contenders = Orlando/Chicago

Top 4 scoring margins = LA/Boston/SA/Miami = +7.xx
Orlando/Chicago scoring margin = +5.xx

Nobody else in the league comes even close.

Good point.

I also consider the margin of loss as well.

The Spurs have 2 losses this season of 20 or more points. @ Orlando in December, and @ New Orleans last week. The other 5 losses came by less than 10 points.

What that tells me is...

a) The Spurs have a terrible game, Pop puts in bench players somewhere late in the 3rd, early 4th either giving up or trying to make a point to his starters I'm not sure which and we end up getting blown out.

b) The Spurs lose a close game over fouling at the end of a game and free throws inflating the score making it look like it was not a close loss even though the 5 losses were by less than 10

Brutalis

01-31-2011, 05:47 PM

To add to my post- To me that is very very impressive, other than the two 20 point losses. It tells me this team is very strong and stronger than perhaps our championship teams of the past.

jestersmash

01-31-2011, 05:48 PM

Good point.

I also consider the margin of loss as well.

The Spurs have 2 losses this season of 20 or more points. @ Orlando in December, and @ New Orleans last week. The other 5 losses came by less than 10 points.

What that tells me is...

a) The Spurs have a terrible game, Pop puts in bench players somewhere late in the 3rd, early 4th either giving up or trying to make a point to his starters I'm not sure which and we end up getting blown out.

b) The Spurs lose a close game over fouling at the end of a game and free throws inflating the score making it look like it was not a close loss even though the 5 losses were by less than 10

I agree, even scoring margin is imperfect for that reason alone.

Doc Rivers kept his starters in the game till the very end against the Lakers.

Pop pulls his starters during blowout victories or obvious losses. It's not uncommon to see us up 30 and Pop pulls the starters early in the 4th, allowing the opposing team to come back and "only" lose by 12-15 points.

ALVAREZ6

01-31-2011, 05:50 PM

No, but I need clarification on this statement in red. If you're saying what I think you are, your argument makes no sense:

By this, I think that you're extending the argument to the respective records of the other 6 teams....ie that those records would be proportionally worse in todays league as well?

Did I misunderstand you?

I suppose you did misunderstand, because as stated earlier, I was focusing on the fact that apples are not oranges. So, Wilt's NBA is not Dwight Howard's NBA. I am not stating that those records would be proportionally worse in todays league.

awktalk

01-31-2011, 05:52 PM

Brutalis

01-31-2011, 05:55 PM

I agree, even scoring margin is imperfect for that reason alone.

Doc Rivers kept his starters in the game till the very end against the Lakers.

Pop pulls his starters during blowout victories or obvious losses. It's not uncommon to see us up 30 and Pop pulls the starters early in the 4th, allowing the opposing team to come back and "only" lose by 12-15 points.

That's why I believe Pop is such a masterful coach. Of course he makes mistakes but still. He takes out his best guys in an obvious loss when most teams would not. He looks at it like, why injure my best in a meaningless regular season game?

Our margin of victory ranks in the top 4 correct?

SO, imply the thought of what if Pop left the starters in an obvious win, inflated our score to win by even more and we might be leading the league in margin of victory.

I am curious to know where we stand league wise in average margin of loss.

I suppose you did misunderstand, because as stated earlier, I was focusing on the fact that apples are not oranges. So, Wilt's NBA is not Dwight Howard's NBA. I am not stating that those records would be proportionally worse in todays league.
:toast

jestersmash

01-31-2011, 05:55 PM

If you consider the mid-90s "this day and age" then you can't ignore the 95 Rockets 2.1 pt differential vs the teams they beat: Utah +8, Phoenix +3.8, and the Spurs +6.6.

Well bear in mind, no one statistic is 100% accurate.

Scoring margin is simply a better predictor of championship success than win-loss record. Neither is 100% accurate, but scoring margin is more accurate than win-loss record.

Agloco

01-31-2011, 05:59 PM

I suppose you did misunderstand, because as stated earlier, I was focusing on the fact that apples are not oranges. So, Wilt's NBA is not Dwight Howard's NBA. I am not stating that those records would be proportionally worse in todays league.

Mebbe I'm not being clear. Tends to happen when you're writing grants for long periods of time......What I'm trying to drag out of you is this:

Is what the Spurs are doing more impressive or less impressive than yesteryear based on history?

I don't care about the "championship prediction" angle. In the end, there isn't a stat that predicts the winner.

jestersmash

01-31-2011, 06:00 PM

That's why I believe Pop is such a masterful coach. Of course he makes mistakes but still. He takes out his best guys in an obvious loss when most teams would not. He looks at it like, why injure my best in a meaningless regular season game?

Our margin of victory ranks in the top 4 correct?

SO, imply the thought of what if Pop left the starters in an obvious win, inflated our score to win by even more and we might be leading the league in margin of victory.

I am curious to know where we stand league wise in average margin of loss.

:toast

Scoring margin isn't just for victories, it's for all games.

Say you play two games - you win the first by 5 points (+5) and you lose the second game by 5 points (-5), your scoring margin is 0.

The +7.xx scoring margin of the spurs, which takes into account both victories and losses, is top 4 in the NBA.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings/_/sort/vmarg

It's actually 1st in the NBA, as you can see, but Boston/Miami/LA are all pretty close.

Interestingly, LA has dropped to +6.xx since I last checked, and Chicago has moved up to 6.xx (over 5.xx).

The most impressive part about our scoring margin is we've been doing it against tougher opponents, overall. L.A. has had a cakewalk schedule. Our SOS is tops among all championship contenders.

Brutalis

01-31-2011, 06:11 PM

Scoring margin isn't just for victories, it's for all games.

Say you play two games - you win the first by 5 points (+5) and you lose the second game by 5 points (-5), your scoring margin is 0.

The +7.xx scoring margin of the spurs, which takes into account both victories and losses, is top 4 in the NBA.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings/_/sort/vmarg

It's actually 1st in the NBA, as you can see, but Boston/Miami/LA are all pretty close.

Interestingly, LA has dropped to +6.xx since I last checked, and Chicago has moved up to 6.xx (over 5.xx).

The most impressive part about our scoring margin is we've been doing it against tougher opponents, overall. L.A. has had a cakewalk schedule. Our SOS is tops among all championship contenders.

:tu

spurs1990

01-31-2011, 06:46 PM

Ok so who are the other 7 teams then?

Y'all say '73 Boston.
Gotta have the '92, '95, & '96 Bulls.

Wonder who the other 3 are?

lefty

01-31-2011, 06:51 PM

Ok so who are the other 7 teams then?

Y'all say '73 Boston.
Gotta have the '92, '95, & '96 Bulls.

Wonder who the other 3 are?

No
73 Celtics didnt win the title

duncan228

01-31-2011, 07:07 PM

NBA Power Rankings: How would you feel about a Spurs/Celtics NBA finals? (http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/31/nba-power-rankings-how-would-you-feel-about-a-spursceltics-nba-finals/)
Kurt Helin
ProBasketballTalk

Our weekly NBA Power Rankings, where we’re thinking that the finals could be Spurs and Celtics because no teams are executing anywhere near their level right now in crunch time.

1. Spurs (40-7). They are now 7.5 games ahead of the second place Lakers in the Western Conference (and 4 ahead of Boston for the best record overall). They will be the West’s top seed. Here is the real question: Can they beat the Lakers in a seven-game series? They certainly can beat the Lakers team that played Sunday.

*********************

2. Celtics (36-11)
3. Heat (33-14)
4. Bulls (33-14)
5. Magic (31-17)
6. Lakers (33-15)
7. Mavericks (31-15)
8. Hornets (31-18)
9. Thunder (30-17)
10. Hawks (30-18)

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/31/nba-power-rankings-how-would-you-feel-about-a-spursceltics-nba-finals/

Agloco

01-31-2011, 07:14 PM

Ok so who are the other 7 teams then?

Y'all say '73 Boston.
Gotta have the '92, '95, & '96 Bulls.

Wonder who the other 3 are?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171370

There are 6 others. The Spurs are the seventh:

64-65 Celts 40-7
66-67 Sixers 43-4
71-72 Lakers 41-6
82-83 Sixers 40-7
95-96 Bulls 42-5
96-97 Bulls 42-5

spurs1990

01-31-2011, 07:36 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171370

There are 6 others. The Spurs are the seventh:

64-65 Celts 40-7
66-67 Sixers 43-4
71-72 Lakers 41-6
82-83 Sixers 40-7
95-96 Bulls 42-5
96-97 Bulls 42-5

So outside of those Prime Jordan Bulls, the NBA has not seen the likes of 40-7 since 1982.

Absolutely unreal:wow

ALVAREZ6

01-31-2011, 09:22 PM

Mebbe I'm not being clear. Tends to happen when you're writing grants for long periods of time......What I'm trying to drag out of you is this:

Is what the Spurs are doing more impressive or less impressive than yesteryear based on history?

I don't care about the "championship prediction" angle. In the end, there isn't a stat that predicts the winner.
I wouldn't pretend to know the answer because I never witnessed those leagues of the 6 other teams firsthand.

SenorSpur

01-31-2011, 10:21 PM

Indeed it was.

Especially when you live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex, as do I, and you hear how city officials and sports talk shows, were already planning and discussing championship parade routes, after the team went up 2-0 on the Heat, in the '07 Finals. Oh, such a sweet meltdown.

As usual with the Mavs, from players, ownership, and fans, they all have a way of prematurely crowning themselves victors before the race is over.

It's such a joy to walk into the AAC and see that the only team banners hanging from their rafters are the Western Conference Championship and assorted Division Championship banners.

Typical Mavs. Always frontin' and posin', but rarely closin'.

buttsR4rebounding

01-31-2011, 11:08 PM

Ding Ding........

Why does everyone think Mavs right away?

Because when you think of not winning it all you automatically think of the Mavs.

Sean Cagney

01-31-2011, 11:29 PM

I would have guess the team that did not win it all next would have been the Pistons in 06 after we beat them and they went on a damn tear and looked invincible all year long! Then they lost in the damn playoffs to the Heat! Pistons looked sick that year, but lost in the end after that tear.
Especially when you live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex, as do I, and you hear how city officials and sports talk shows, were already planning and discussing championship parade routes, after the team went up 2-0 on the Heat, in the '07 Finals. Oh, such a sweet meltdown.

As usual with the Mavs, from players, ownership, and fans, they all have a way of prematurely crowning themselves victors before the race is over.

It's such a joy to walk into the AAC and see that the only team banners hanging from their rafters are the Western Conference Championship and assorted Division Championship banners.

Typical Mavs. Always frontin' and posin', but rarely closin'.That series brought the biggest smile to my face sides a Spurs title! I forever will love Wade for it :rollin:rollin

I will rmember I gave up on that series man! I went to the movies to see The Omen and come home to see the Heat won a game!!!!!!!! I think then I said oh well it's one game, they then went on to win the next three.