Shoogar Bear

[Jimcs50]

Still want Detroit to lose to Dallas?

Spurs still a lock for HCA in West?

As I said last night, a 1 game lead with 15 or so to play is not a lock. Spurs need a little help, afterall, yes?

[boutons_]

iow, anybody think the Spurs can repeat without HCA vs both Mavs and Pistons?

Anybody worried about a healthy Spurs going 2-3 or 1-4 on a road trip in the last week of March?

[1Parker1]

Jim,
I believe Shoogarbear's argument was that Spurs can win without HCA advantage against the Mavs, they've proven they can win @ Dallas...but it may be a little harder to do against the Pistons without HCA (that is if the Spurs make it that far, **knocks wood*)

[Jimcs50]

Jim,
I believe Shoogarbear's argument was that Spurs can win without HCA advantage against the Mavs, they've proven they can win @ Dallas...but it may be a little harder to do against the Pistons without HCA (that is if the Spurs make it that far, **knocks wood*)

No, he said that the Spurs were a lock to win the West because we were ahead of them and that we were trying to catch Detroit from behind.

My argument was that we need to win the West first, then worry about the Finals, if we get there at all.

[ShoogarBear]

No, he said that the Spurs were a lock to win the West because we were ahead of them and that we were trying to catch Detroit from behind.

My argument was that we need to win the West first, then worry about the Finals, if we get there at all.
No. Here we go again.

I said:

1. WE DON'T NEED HELP to win the West. We can win the West without any other team helping us.

2. WE DO NEED HELP to win HCA against the Pistons. No matter what we do, we can't catch them unless somebody else beats them.

Those are just simple mathematical facts.

Secondarily, just like last year, it is less important for the Spurs to have HCA in the West than it is for the Finals. They should beat Dallas and Phoenix regardless of the HCA. It will probably be crucial against the Pistons, however.

So having the Pistons lose ALWAYS helps the Spurs much more than having the Mavs lose.

[MannyIsGod]

I still want Dallas to win against Detroit but all the wanting in the world isn't going to make it happen. The Spurs are going to win HCA against the Mavericks because of the April 7th game and a vastly easier schedule down the road. This game isn't make or break for that.

HCA in the finals really is overrated, though. That 3 game block in the middle is a killer.

[Vinnie_Johnson]

I still want Dallas to win against Detroit but all the wanting in the world isn't going to make it happen. The Spurs are going to win HCA against the Mavericks because of the April 7th game and a vastly easier schedule down the road. This game isn't make or break for that.

HCA in the finals really is overrated, though. That 3 game block in the middle is a killer.

It didn't help The Lakers did it I think HCA really matters in a game 7.

[boutons_]

"3 game block in the middle is a killer."

But going into middle 3 games with 1-1 record I think is the Spurs' only hope to repeat. Split @Auburn Hills, go up 3-2 @ATT, then go back to Auburn Hills needing only 1 of 2.

Going back to Auburn Hills down 2-3 and needing to win both Games6 & 7 would be a killer, as it was for the Pistons last June.

[Vinnie_Johnson]

"3 game block in the middle is a killer."

But going into middle 3 games with 1-1 record I think is the Spurs' only hope to repeat. Split @Auburn Hills, go up 3-2 @ATT, then go back to Auburn Hills needing only 1 of 2.

Going back to Auburn Hills down 2-3 and needing to win both Games6 & 7 would be a killer, as it was for the Pistons last June.

Well said. :spin

[Jimcs50]

No. Here we go again.

I said:

1. WE DON'T NEED HELP to win the West. We can win the West without any other team helping us.

2. WE DO NEED HELP to win HCA against the Pistons. No matter what we do, we can't catch them unless somebody else beats them.

Those are just simple mathematical facts.

Secondarily, just like last year, it is less important for the Spurs to have HCA in the West than it is for the Finals. They should beat Dallas and Phoenix regardless of the HCA. It will probably be crucial against the Pistons, however.

So having the Pistons lose ALWAYS helps the Spurs much more than having the Mavs lose.


We are tied with Dallas right now.

Another slip up like last night and, and Dallas holds their destiny in their own hands.

Go Detroit!!!

[1Parker1]

No. Here we go again.

I said:

1. WE DON'T NEED HELP to win the West. We can win the West without any other team helping us.

2. WE DO NEED HELP to win HCA against the Pistons. No matter what we do, we can't catch them unless somebody else beats them.

Those are just simple mathematical facts.

Secondarily, just like last year, it is less important for the Spurs to have HCA in the West than it is for the Finals. They should beat Dallas and Phoenix regardless of the HCA. It will probably be crucial against the Pistons, however.

So having the Pistons lose ALWAYS helps the Spurs much more than having the Mavs lose.

Right...that's what I told Jim you said! :spin

[Jimcs50]

Right...that's what I told Jim you said! :spin

You always take Shoogar's side.

:depressed

[ShoogarBear]

You always take Shoogar's side.

:depressed

Damn, Jim, you can't have EVERYONE in your harem.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

iow, anybody think the Spurs can repeat without HCA vs both Mavs and Pistons?

Anybody worried about a healthy Spurs going 2-3 or 1-4 on a road trip in the last week of March?

now there's someone who gets it



also HCA is crucial in the finals if the series goes to a game 6 &7

i cant see SA winning in auburn hills a game 7 as we saw how tough it was for them to win there last (a robert horry shot away from being 0-3 on the road in the finals)

[101A]

No, he said that the Spurs were a lock to win the West because we were ahead of them and that we were trying to catch Detroit from behind.

My argument was that we need to win the West first, then worry about the Finals, if we get there at all.

The game ultimately won't matter.

Spurs are not catching Detroit (Pistons don't have much of a schedule left - would need to lose 3, with the Spurs going undefeated; Pop WILL NOT push his team to go on a tear like that 'ala 2004).

Dallas WILL NOT catch the Spurs - Mavs still have away games at Detroit, Cleveland (b2b), SA, Clips, AND Phoenix - and are still hobbled - Spurs have all but got the West locked up.

[cheguevara]

I agree Spurs have almost no chance of catching Detroit, especially if you look at their effort, it's not there. The good thing is Mavs have very little chance of catching the Spurs. So its gonna be Pistons, Spurs, Mavs. Finals are gonna be TOUGH

[MoSpur]

There is always a chance. The Pistons have a tough schedule. The Spurs? Not so tough unless Parker is seriously hurt.

[Jimcs50]

If Spurs losr to hot Clippers(5 straight home wins) tonight and Dallas beats Detroit as Shoogar wants, SA will be looking up at Dallas in the stamdings.

Is that what we want, hmmm?

[travis2]

Hey, I just want Adrienne to change her avatar...Go Mavs! :eyebrows :lol

[ShoogarBear]

If Spurs losr to hot Clippers(5 straight home wins) tonight and Dallas beats Detroit as Shoogar wants, SA will be looking up at Dallas in the stamdings.

Is that what we want, hmmm?
Notice that you always have to suppose SOMETHING ELSE first like the Spurs losing before you can attack my position.

Why don't you have more confidence in the Spurs? Are you really a true Spurs fan? Are you really a true patriotic American?

[1Parker1]

You always take Shoogar's side.

:depressed


:lol

[Jimcs50]

Notice that you always have to suppose SOMETHING ELSE first like the Spurs losing before you can attack my position.

Why don't you have more confidence in the Spurs? Are you really a true Spurs fan? Are you really a true patriotic American?

Go Patriots!!!

I love George Mason, why do you question that???

[Jimcs50]

:lol


:depressed

[Jimcs50]

Shoog, all I am saying is, give peace a chance...no no no, all I am saying is...Dallas and their MVP Dirk need to be knocked down a notch or two, and then I will feel more confident. As far as confidence, do you remember the last time we played the Clippers? The Spurs got hammered.

[ShoogarBear]

Why are you worried about the Mavs?

Who is their coach? And do the words "CIA Pop" register?

[Athenea]

When did u have this argument? In the game blog?

[Jimcs50]

When did u have this argument? In the game blog?


Because we are males.

[Athenea]

Awww I miss u guys!!!

[ShoogarBear]

Hey, AAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHEEEEENNNNNNEEEEEEEEEAA AAAA!!!!!!!!!!

[Jimcs50]

Awww I miss u guys!!!

Where have you been?

I miss you too.

[tlongII]

Jim should be worried. The Spurs will definitely NOT win the championship this year.

[Jimcs50]

Jim should be worried. The Spurs will definitely NOT win the championship this year.

At least the Spurs are going to be playing in the post season.

How about your Blazers, how are they doing?

:)

[ShoogarBear]

Jim should be worried. The Spurs will definitely NOT win the championship this year.

EHJ's SPAM post? check
MB retires? check
Jim's "I can't do math" post? check
Now this.

Things are shaping up. :smokin

[kris]

We are tied with Dallas right now.

Another slip up like last night and, and Dallas holds their destiny in their own hands.

Go Detroit!!!

Translation: I was wrong again.

[Jimcs50]

Translation: I was wrong again.

Who is wrong????

[T-Pain]

el oso de azucar esta aqui!!!

[Old School Chic]

el oso de azucar esta aqui!!!


T-Pain,

I didn't know you spoke Spanish :lol

[ShoogarBear]

Me gusta. But, would it really be "El Oso de Azúcar" or just "El Oso Azúcar" since I'm not literally made of sugar?

[T-Pain]

Me gusta. But, would it really be "El Oso de Azúcar" or just "El Oso Azúcar" since I'm not literally made of sugar?


well thats something you have to tell me, so is the bear made of sugar or does the bear like sugar?

[Old School Chic]

Me gusta. But, would it really be "El Oso de Azúcar" or just "El Oso Azúcar" since I'm not literally made of sugar?


Your not made of sugar? :depressed

[Jimcs50]

Your not made of sugar? :depressed

on the contrary...he is made od snakes, snails and puppy dog tails.

You, Oldschool chic, are made of sugar, silly girl.

:)

[Athenea]

Hey, AAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHEEEEENNNNNNEEEEEEEEEAA AAAA!!!!!!!!!!
SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGIE :spin

[Old School Chic]

SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGIE :spin


Shoogie???


:lol

[Jimcs50]

Shoogar, SA is not out of the woods yet, with Dallas' loss last night. Here are the two team's schedules and the games that are key games.

If SA wins at LA on Thursday, then I think they have a great chance to hold Dallas off, but they must beat them on April 7th.

SA's schedule:

Possible losses in Bold



MARCH OPPONENT TIME (ET) TV NAT TV RESOURCES
Thu 30 at LA Lakers 10:30 PM TNT Find Tickets | Travel
APRIL OPPONENT TIME (ET) TV NAT TV RESOURCES
Sat 1 Washington 8:30 PM KRRT 35 Find Tickets | Travel
Tue 4 at Utah 9:00 PM KRRT 35 Find Tickets | Travel
Wed 5 Sacramento 8:00 PM ESPN Find Tickets | Travel
Fri 7 Dallas 8:00 PM ESPN Find Tickets | Travel
Sun 9 Memphis 7:00 PM KRRT 35 NBA TV Find Tickets | Travel
Tue 11 Seattle 8:30 PM FOX SW NBA TV Find Tickets | Travel
Thu 13 Orlando 8:30 PM FOX SW Find Tickets | Travel
Sun 16 at Minnesota 6:00 PM Find Tickets | Travel
Mon 17 Utah 8:30 PM FOX SW Find Tickets | Travel
Wed 19 at Houston 8:00 PM ESPN Find Tickets | Travel

5 possible losses


Dallas' schedule:

MARCH OPPONENT TIME (ET) TV NAT TV RESOURCES
Wed 29 at Cleveland 7:00 PM FOX SW Find Tickets | Travel
Fri 31 at Orlando 7:00 PM FOX SW Find Tickets | Travel
APRIL OPPONENT TIME (ET) TV NAT TV RESOURCES
Sun 2 Denver 3:30 PM ABC Find Tickets | Travel
Tue 4 Sacramento 8:30 PM KTXA 21 Find Tickets | Travel
Fri 7 at San Antonio 8:00 PM ESPN Find Tickets | Travel
Sat 8 NO/Oklahoma City 8:30 PM FOX SW Find Tickets | Travel
Mon 10 at LA Clippers 10:30 PM FOX SW Find Tickets | Travel
Wed 12 at Golden State 10:30 PM ESPN Find Tickets | Travel
Thu 13 at Phoenix 10:30 PM TNT Find Tickets | Travel
Sun 16 Utah 8:30 PM KTXA 21 Find Tickets | Travel
Wed 19 LA Clippers 8:30 PM KTXA 21 Find Tickets | Travel

4 possible losses

[nkdlunch]

add Utah, Clippers and Denver to possible losses for Mavs.

Spurs would never lose in Minnesota

[leemajors]

denver, sacramento, utah all also possible losses for mavs. that flowchart is rather relative and subject to opinion...

[kalikot_boy_kr]

:elephant GO DEADROIT!

[Jimcs50]

Spurs would never lose in Minnesota

Atlanta, Washington, Philly, Milw, Chicago, NO, and Seattle


nuff said

[nkdlunch]

Atlanta, Washington, Philly, Utah, Chicago, NO, and Seattle


nuff said


thanks, they ain't no minnesota!

[Jimcs50]

thanks, they ain't no minnesota!

Minn is 21-14 at home.

nuff said

[Jimcs50]

denver, sacramento, utah all also possible losses for mavs. that flowchart is rather relative and subject to opinion...

I have Denver on there. Sacto is fading lately(lost 3 of last 4, incl to Minn, who have no chance to beat SA, according to some people) and Utah is playing out the season...they are dead.

[nkdlunch]

Minn is 21-14 at home.

nuff said


then why don't u bold every Spur game since it's possible we'll lose to any :lol

[Jimcs50]

then why don't u bold every Spur game since it's possible we'll lose to any :lol

I would bet money that they do not lose to any of the ones not in bold.

[nkdlunch]

I would bet money that they do not lose to any of the ones not in bold.

exactly, I would bet money we don't lose to Wolves.

[Jimcs50]

exactly, I would bet money we don't lose to Wolves.

I would have bet my house that we would not have lost to Atlanta....one never knows....

[Jimcs50]

You are missing my point.

These are possible losses, I am not saying that they will lose.

Worst case is the Spurs lose 5 games.

For Dallas, 4 games.

But if SA beats Dallas in that game, then SA wraps up the HCA.

[nkdlunch]

I partly agree. But I would say Dallas has more chance of losing more ground than gaining on Spurs. especially cause of their injuries.

[1Parker1]

I would have bet my house that we would not have lost to Atlanta....one never knows....



I would bet money that they do not lose to any of the ones not in bold.

Careful Jim, you're contradicting yourself.

[Jimcs50]

Careful Jim, you're contradicting yourself.

like that is something out of the ordinary????


:)

[1Parker1]

like that is something out of the ordinary????


:)


:lol Well, as long as you admit your faults...:angel

[T Park]

Utah is playing out the season...they are dead.

WTF are you talking about, they are like 1 or 2 games out of the playoffs.

Utah can still make it, and I wouldn't put it past them to make a run and pass Sacramento.

[Darrin]

"3 game block in the middle is a killer."

But going into middle 3 games with 1-1 record I think is the Spurs' only hope to repeat. Split @Auburn Hills, go up 3-2 @ATT, then go back to Auburn Hills needing only 1 of 2.

Going back to Auburn Hills down 2-3 and needing to win both Games6 & 7 would be a killer, as it was for the Pistons last June.

That's exactly what I said last season. It's pretty universal - you win the road game early to establish the first elimination game is at home. No team has ever swept games 6 and 7 on the road in the Finals. That's why this Pistons fan was more depressed over the loss in game five than in game seven last season.

I'd like to point out something. Homecourt or not, the Pistons are 12-2 in the middle three games of a 2-3-2 format. They were the first team in NBA history to sweep the middle three games when they won in Portland in 1990, and were the first team to sweep the middle three games at home when they won the title in 2004.

The only other teams to sweep games 3-5 in the Finals are Chicago in 1991, and the 2001 Lakers.

The only losses were against the Lakers in 1988 - and here's the hope for Spurs fans - off of Robert Horry's overtime game-winner in 2005.

The only two losses for the Pistons ever at the Palace in the Finals came in game two vs. the Blazers in 1990, and game five vs. the Spurs in 2005. Both losses came in overtime.

BUT...

The Pistons have to get thier first.

[Jimcs50]

WTF are you talking about, they are like 1 or 2 games out of the playoffs.

Utah can still make it, and I wouldn't put it past them to make a run and pass Sacramento.

I will bet you a bottle of wine that Utah is dead meat, and has no shot at the playoffs.

Deal??

[T Park]

Deal.

I'll take that bet.

[T Park]

Ill even throw in a dozen Pro VIs too. :)

[Jimcs50]

Deal.

I'll take that bet.

Deal.

I say no Utah in playoffs, you say yes they make it. 1 bottle of wine.

I will wager Mesina Hof bottle, since it is from here, and you can wager Texas Hills or Llano or some winery around SA, ok?

No Pro V1s though, those balls are $50/dozen.
:)

[Thurmasaurus]

Brian and Tyson are up for a three some so we need 1 more

[Jimcs50]

Brian and Tyson are up for a three some so we need 1 more


Calling Mr.Shoogar, calling Mr Shoogar.





:)

[T Park]

wtf :lol



No Pro V1s though, those balls are $50/dozen

pussy

[ShoogarBear]

Calling Mr.Shoogar, calling Mr Shoogar.

:)

What the hell was that? :lol

[Jimcs50]

wtf :lol




pussy

Yes I am....I only buy those balls when I have credit in my pro shop from tourney wins.

[leemajors]

fall creek winery is better than llano imo.

[Jimcs50]

fall creek winery is better than llano imo.


:tu


Yes, I agree.

[leemajors]

my only problem with them is that i have had a few corked bottles of their granite reserve - i returned them to the store for another with no problem, but nothing is nastier than corked wine =[

[MI21]

If Dallas had of beaten Detroit yesterday, the Spurs would have been in a better position now because Dallas just lost to Cleveland.

Shoogar, per usual, was on the money.

[Jimcs50]

If Dallas had of beaten Detroit yesterday, the Spurs would have been in a better position now because Dallas just lost to Cleveland.

Shoogar, per usual, was on the money.



Dallas lost tonight BECAUSE they lost last night. They their incentive was gone.

[T Park]

incentive for what? :lol

[T Park]

bump for Utah beating Denver. :smokin

[ShoogarBear]

Dallas lost tonight BECAUSE they lost last night. They their incentive was gone.
Ha, I expected you'd say that.

Of course, there's no way to prove that one way or another.

But Dallas is banged up. They're going to lose more games.

If the Spurs end up with the same record as Detroit, I will forever place the blame squarely on your shoulders.

[polandprzem]

Shoog did you get PM just befor 5am?
cause I may scewed something :cuss

[Jimcs50]

bump for Utah beating Denver. :smokin

Can I call the bet?

:)

Jazz top Nuggets, keep pace in West
· Complete Schedule: Utah | Denver
DENVER (AP) -- The Utah Jazz thought they had to beat the Denver Nuggets, and they made doing so seem almost effortless.

Mehmet Okur scored 24 points and the Jazz used easy layups to shoot 58.5 percent from the field in their 115-104 win over the Nuggets on Wednesday night. It was the highest shooting percentage the Northwest Division-leading Nuggets have allowed an opponent this season.

Andrei Kirilenko added 21 points and seven blocked shots for the Jazz, who have won three of their last five games. With Sacramento's win over Portland, Utah remained 1½ games behind the Kings for the eighth and final playoff spot in the West.

"This was very important for us," Kirilenko said. "We're still alive. We are keeping our heads in the game and in the race."

Carmelo Anthony scored 31 points and Andre Miller added 19 points and 12 assists for the Nuggets, whose magic number to clinch the division remained at six. Their lead over the Jazz dropped to 5½ games.

Nuggets coach George Karl said Utah's desperation gave the Jazz a psychological advantage. Before the game, he said his team -- which had won nine of its previous 12 games -- was perhaps too confident and loose.

"We were a happy team, but not a serious team," Karl said. "They were a playoff-serious team who knew they had to win this game."

The Jazz won by getting easy baskets, especially in the first half, when they shot 63 percent from the field and scored 28 points in the paint. Utah led 56-45 at halftime.

"We played some zone in the second quarter and we caught Denver off guard," Kirilenko said. "We were deliberate and kept executing."

Utah extended its lead to as many as 16 in the third quarter, but the Nuggets came back to make it a game.

Anthony hit a 3-pointer with 7:58 remaining in the game to pull to 95-89, but Carlos Boozer made a layup to extend the lead to eight. He finished with 15 points.

It was a common theme all night, with the Nuggets scoring, but failing to stop Utah on the other end.

"Seventy-five percent of our attack was easy layups," Kirilenko said. "We had good rotation and sharing the ball."

The Jazz essentially sealed the game when Anthony was called for a technical foul for yelling at the referee with 4:44 remaining. Okur made the free throw to give Utah a 10-point lead. Kirilenko's block of Anthony's layup with less than 2 minutes was the final insult.

The Nuggets played without center Marcus Camby, who sat out with a back strain. Eduardo Najera returned after missing four games with a sore right knee, but finished with two points and three fouls in 3 minutes.

Without Camby, the Nuggets grabbed a season-low 17 defensive rebounds.

"If we had (Camby) tonight, we probably could have had more rebounds, but you can't use that as an excuse," Nuggets forward Ruben Patterson said. "It was just horrible out there."

Game notes
Utah's 56 first-half points were a season high. They had scored 55 points twice, the last time against the Hornets on Monday . ... Anthony has scored at least 25 points in nine straight games. ... The Nuggets and Jazz finish their season series April 12 in Utah. ... The Nuggets said X-rays Wednesday showed G Earl Boykins' broken left hand was healing. He has missed five games. Another X-ray is planned in one week.

[Jimcs50]

Ha, I expected you'd say that.

Of course, there's no way to prove that one way or another.

But Dallas is banged up. They're going to lose more games.

If the Spurs end up with the same record as Detroit, I will forever place the blame squarely on your shoulders.

And if we beat Detroit in the Finals, despite not having HCA, you will be forever my bitch.

:)

[Jimcs50]

And if Detroit does not even get to Finals because my pick New Jersy kicks their asses in the playoffs, you be also be my bitch forever and ever.

[ShoogarBear]

And if we beat Detroit in the Finals, despite not having HCA, you will be forever my bitch.

:)

If we beat Det in the Finals without HCA, I will change my title to "Forever Jim's Bitch" . . . until the start of next year.

[Jimcs50]

If we beat Det in the Finals without HCA, I will change my title to "Forever Jim's Bitch" . . . until the start of next year.

And if we lose to Detroit in Game 7 because it is in Detroit, I will change my title to: " I love Brad"

:)

[ShoogarBear]

Okay, that's one bet. We still got the bet on whether Detroit is getting out of the East.

[Jimcs50]

Okay, that's one bet. We still got the bet on whether Detroit is getting out of the East.

We never bet that bet.

You would not give me the 3.5-1 odds.

[ShoogarBear]

We never bet that bet.

You would not give me the 3.5-1 odds.

That were first 1-3, then 3-1?

Anyway, I said I wouldn't bet money. I'm trying to think of any possible way to further humilate you, but it's tough with your track record.

[Jimcs50]

That were first 1-3, then 3-1?

Anyway, I said I wouldn't bet money. I'm trying to think of any possible way to further humilate you, but it's tough with your track record.

In the first place, those are the Vegas odds. Detroit is a 7-2 favorite to win the East. Let me explain betting to you ONCE again. That means that you have to bet $70 to win $20 if you bet on Detroit to win the East. Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth!!!!????

What kind of idiot would bet you straight up, if they can get 3.5-1 odds elsewhere???

And by the by, you have not humiliated me because you have never been right against me....I do not get your logic sometimes.

[ShoogarBear]

In the first place, those are the Vegas odds. Detroit is a 7-2 favorite to win the East. Let me explain betting to you ONCE again. That means that you have to bet $70 to win $20 if you bet on Detroit to win the East. Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth!!!!????

Okay, maybe I don't know jack shit about betting Mr. Sinatra, but isn't what you described above 2-7 odds, not 7-2?

If Detroit is a 7-2 favorite, that implies that Miami is something like 8-1 or 10-1, right? As your odds go UP, the ratio of the first number to the second number goes UP. Using your explanation, if a team is 500-1, you have to bet $500 to win $1. I KNOW that's gotta be wrong.

Jim, I suspect you'd be a hell of a lot better gambler if you could just master that tricky ratio concept.


I do not get your logic sometimes.
Possibly because my logic is mathematically based.

[Jimcs50]

I said that they are a 7-2 favorite, that means that you have to bet $70 to win $20.

The odds ratio is listed as this, the first number is the amt you win, the 2nd number is the amt to wager to win that amt.

Odds to win East:

Detroit Pistons 2-7

Miami Heat 3-2 Bet $20 to win $30

New Jersey Nets 17-1 Bet $10 to win $170

Do you understand now??????

[1Parker1]

Hey! No fair, I wanna get in on the bets!

[ShoogarBear]

A 7-2 favorite is not the same as a 2-7 favorite. And you can be a favorite and still have 7-2 odds if no other team is has better odds.

I'm amazed you still have both of your kneecaps. Or do you?

[ShoogarBear]

Hey! No fair, I wanna get in on the bets!

I can think of some good avatar bets . . .

[Jimcs50]

A 7-2 favorite is not the same as a 2-7 favorite. And you can be a favorite and still have 7-2 odds if no other team is has better odds.

I'm amazed you still have both of your kneecaps. Or do you?


There is no such a thing as a 2-7 favorite, or they would not be a favorite.

Every bet has a team that is a favorite. That is how Vegas makes money. they want money to be bet on the favorite, because that evens out the money on the other bets...


Why are you so dense???

I said that Detroit is a 7-2 favorite...that means that you have to bet $70 to win $20.

That was my whole point from the beginning...you wanted an even money bet and I said no way...because I can get over 3-1 odds on my bet in Vegas.

What is so hard to understand???

[Jimcs50]

Hey! No fair, I wanna get in on the bets!


Here is a bet for you:

I bet that I can make you have an orgasm before I have one.

:smokin




:)

[ShoogarBear]

Okay, I'll make this so simple even you can't screw it up.

Question 1. Which team is the favorite?
Team A, 7-2 odds
Team B, 8-1 odds

Question 2. Which team is the favorite?
Team A, 2-7 odds
Team B, 7-2 odds
Team C, 8-1 odds

[CubanMustGo]

Here is a bet for you:

I bet that I can make you have an orgasm before I have one.


OK, that's way too much information. Do you two want to go get a room? :lol

[ShoogarBear]

I bet that I can make you have an orgasm before I have one.


That would be significantly more impressive if you weren't a eunuch.

[Jimcs50]

Okay, I'll make this so simple even you can't screw it up.

Question 1. Which team is the favorite?
Team A, 7-2 odds
Team B, 8-1 odds

Question 2. Which team is the favorite?
Team A, 2-7 odds
Team B, 7-2 odds
Team C, 8-1 odds

It is impossible to have two teams with 7-2 and 8-1 odds.

Vegas would lose their ass in that situation. You have to have one team with at least even money odds.

Get with the program, and admit that you owe me 7-2 odds if I bet against Detroit.

I will bet $20 against $70 with you, ok?

[Spurminator]

That would be significantly more impressive if you weren't a eunuch.


:lmao

Oh SNAP!! (Or should I say "SNIP")

[Jimcs50]

Here is a perfect example of the 2-7, 7-2 scenario:

Odds to win Western Conference as of 3-30-06

Dallas Mavericks 7-2


Denver Nuggets 20-1


San Antonio Spurs 5-8

Dallas is 7-2, Detroit is 2-7....Detroit is favorite, Dallas is not the favorite, as SA is favorite at 5-8.(nedd to bet $80 on SA to win $50)

Now do you see????

[Jimcs50]

That would be significantly more impressive if you weren't a eunuch.


I know was commonplace in the ancient times to keep the young studly man in the crowd, from having his way with all the young hotties in the Queen's service by castrating the stud. This was done because they knew that the hotties would be more than willing to give themselves willingly to the stud. It follows that it is natural that you think that is still in practice, with studs like myself in this Forum, but Kori (Princess)did not snip off my balls....I assure you.

[ShoogarBear]

It is impossible to have two teams with 7-2 and 8-1 odds.

Vegas would lose their ass in that situation. You have to have one team with at least even money odds.

Really? Then explain the current odds to win the 2007 Super Bowl (http://www.vegas.com/gaming/futures/superbowl.html):

Indianapolis Colts 3/1
Seattle Seahawks 6/1
New England Patriots 7/1
Carolina Panthers 8/1
Pittsburgh Steelers 9/1
Dallas Cowboys 10/1
San Diego Chargers 12/1
Denver Broncos 10/1
New York Giants 15/1
Chicago Bears 10/1
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 17/1
Cincinnati Bengals 20/1
Washington Redskins 20/1
Jacksonville Jaguars 30/1
Kansas City Chiefs 25/1
Atlanta Falcons 25/1
Philadelphia Eagles 18/1
Miami Dolphins 25/1
Minnesota Vikings 25/1
Green Bay Packers 35/1
Baltimore Ravens 40/1
Cleveland Browns 50/1
St. Louis Rams 50/1
Buffalo Bills 60/1
Oakland Raiders 45/1
Arizona Cardinals 70/1
Detroit Lionss 60/1
Houston Texans 80/1
New Orleans Saints 80/1
San Francisco 49ers 100/1
Tennessee Titans 125/1
New York Jets 100/1

Not an single even money team.

I readily admit that you're supposed to know this stuff a lot more than me, but you're not making any sense. Even less than usual.

[Jimcs50]

Really? Then explain the current odds to win the 2007 Super Bowl (http://www.vegas.com/gaming/futures/superbowl.html):


Not an single even money team.

I readily admit that you're supposed to know this stuff a lot more than me, but you're not making any sense. Even less than usual.

Read my lips:

I said It is impossible for two teams to have those odds.

If you have a huge sampling like the whole NFL, then naturally you will not have some team at even money, unless you look at the early 90's when Dallas was a 2-3 fav at the start of their season after their first SB.

[Old School Chic]

Shoogarbear & Jim,

Please shake hands and say your sorry.

No more fighting about what team is what...

[Jimcs50]

Really? Then explain the current odds to win the 2007 Super Bowl (http://www.vegas.com/gaming/futures/superbowl.html):


Not an single even money team.

I readily admit that you're supposed to know this stuff a lot more than me, but you're not making any sense. Even less than usual.

And what exactly are you arguing about??????

Are you saying that Detroit is not a 7-2 favorite????

Look it up.

[Jimcs50]

Shoogarbear & Jim,

Please shake hands and say your sorry.

No more fighting about what team is what...


He is the one that keeps pressing the issue.

As I just asked, I do not know what he is arguing about anyway.

[ShoogarBear]

Oh, geez. :rolleyes

Okay, I know you think you're being cute not answering my original question by changing the point of the discussion. So that we don't sidetrack again, I will grant you everything you just said in the above post, even though it has NOTHING to do with my original qustion. I will now restate my question, and this time, answer it, bitch.

Question 1. Which team is the favorite?
Team A, 7-2 odds
Team B, 8-1 odds
Teams C through Z, all with odds that are 8-1 or greater and are realistic and acceptable so that Vegas won't lose money

Question 2. Which team is the favorite?
Team A, 2-7 odds
Team B, 7-2 odds
Team C, 8-1 odds
Teams D through Z, all with odds that are 8-1 or greater and are realistic and acceptable so that Vegas won't lose money

[ShoogarBear]

He is the one that keeps pressing the issue.

As I just asked, I do not know what he is arguing about anyway.

Yes you do, although you're trying to play dumb.

You originally said that Detroit was a 3.5-1 favorite. You then tried to say that 3.5-1 is betting $3.5 to win $1. If that's true, then what are the odds when you bet $1 to win $3.5?

What you did is screw up and write the odds backwards, but you don't want to admit it.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

It's A in both examples...

[ShoogarBear]

double post

[Jimcs50]

Oh, geez. :rolleyes

Okay, I know you think you're being cute not answering my original question by changing the point of the discussion. So that we don't sidetrack again, I will grant you everything you just said in the above post, even though it has NOTHING to do with my original qustion. I will now restate my question, and this time, answer it, bitch.

Question 1. Which team is the favorite?
Team A, 7-2 odds
Team B, 8-1 odds
Teams C through Z, all with odds that are 8-1 or greater and are realistic and acceptable so that Vegas won't lose money

Question 2. Which team is the favorite?
Team A, 2-7 odds
Team B, 7-2 odds
Team C, 8-1 odds
Teams D through Z, all with odds that are 8-1 or greater and are realistic and acceptable so that Vegas won't lose money


What is your point????

As I said, Detroit is favored to win the East with 2-7 odds...they are therefore a 7-2 favorite. Dallas is a 7-2 underdog, and their odds are 7-2.

Do you not understand?

My answers are in bold

[ShoogarBear]

It's A in both examples...

Correct, it's A in both examples. Thank you.

Now, however, would you agree that the payoff for a 7-2 favorite is NOT the same as the payoff for a 2-7 favorite?

Yes, I know this is painfully simple, but bear with me for Jim's sake.

[ShoogarBear]

Shoogarbear & Jim,

Please shake hands and say your sorry.

No more fighting about what team is what...

We have to do this once every couple of months or so when Jim gets too frisky.

[ShoogarBear]

What is your point????

As I said, Detroit is favored to win the East with 2-7 odds...they are therefore a 7-2 favorite. Dallas is a 7-2 underdog, and their odds are 7-2.

Do you not understand?

My answers are in bold

Finally.

My point is you cannot say they are a "7-2 favorite" when they are actually a "2-7 favorite". Those terms are NOT interchangeable.

[Jimcs50]

Yes you do, although you're trying to play dumb.

You originally said that Detroit was a 3.5-1 favorite. You then tried to say that 3.5-1 is betting $3.5 to win $1. If that's true, then what are the odds when you bet $1 to win $3.5?

What you did is screw up and write the odds backwards, but you don't want to admit it.


Read my last post.

Betting Odds are listed differently than saying what the favorite is.

Detroit is a 7-2 favorite, but the betting odds are 2-7.

That is just the way it is.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Correct, it's A in both examples. Thank you.

Now, however, would you agree that the payoff for a 7-2 favorite is NOT the same as the payoff for a 2-7 favorite?

Yes, I know this is painfully simple, but bear with me for Jim's sake.

You're missing his point. A 2-7 bet is an odds on bet. A 7-2 bet is an odds against bet...

You're arguing semantics...

[Jimcs50]

Finally.

My point is you cannot say they are a "7-2 favorite" when they are actually a "2-7 favorite". Those terms are NOT interchangeable.

Yes you can.

Detroit is a 7-2 favorite.

That means that their chance of success is 3.5-1

[Jimcs50]

You're missing his point. A 2-7 bet is an odds on bet. A 7-2 bet is an odds against bet...

You're arguing semantics...


Thankyou.

:elephant

[ShoogarBear]

You're missing his point. A 2-7 bet is an odds on bet. A 7-2 bet is an odds against bet...

You're arguing semantics...

One last question. In the list of Super Bowl odds given above, would it be correct for someone to say that the Colts are "3-1 favorites" or not?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

One last question. In the list of Super Bowl odds given above, would it be correct for someone to say that the Colts are "3-1 favorites" or not?

Not really. Favorites is used very loosely in the betting world...

[ShoogarBear]

Not really. Favorites is used very loosely in the betting world...

So you would say there is no favorite to win the Super Bowl?

[leemajors]

i think you would just say the colts have 3-1 odds to win the super bowl - they would be favored, but those odds are subject to change. nice avatar lions fan... are you glad harrington is gone?

[Jimcs50]

One last question. In the list of Super Bowl odds given above, would it be correct for someone to say that the Colts are "3-1 favorites" or not?

The favorite in betting in a list of teams, is the team with the lowest odds.

[ShoogarBear]

Not really. Favorites is used very loosely in the betting world...

And also, you realize you just contradicted your answers to my questions. In Question 1 you said Team A was the favorite.

[Jimcs50]

So you would say there is no favorite to win the Super Bowl?

The Colts are the favorites at this time, because 3-1 are the lowest odds on the board.

In other words you win less money betting on them than any team in the field with a $100 bet.

[Jimcs50]

And also, you realize you just contradicted your answers to my questions. In Question 1 you said Team A was the favorite.


Team A is the favorite

[ShoogarBear]

I'm not arguing the phrase "odds-on". My problem is the use of the word "favorite", especially when combined with a switch of the better odss, because that then becomes incredibly ambiguous.


The favorite in betting in a list of teams, is the team with the lowest odds.

The way you use the terms, for both Question 1 and Question 2 your answer would be "Team A is a 7-2 favorite", right?

[ShoogarBear]

The Colts are the favorites at this time, because 3-1 are the lowest odds on the board.

In other words you win less money betting on them than any team in the field with a $100 bet.

So, Jim, the statement "the Colts are 3-1 favorites" is a correct one?

[Old School Chic]

Should I get Kori to lock this thread so that you two can stop fighting?


I love you both :cry

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

So you would say there is no favorite to win the Super Bowl?

Yeah, and it's the Detroit Lions...

[Old School Chic]

Yeah, and it's the Detroit Lions...


Stop encouraging this thread Disgruntledlionfan

I don't want Shoog & Jim to be fighting

[ShoogarBear]

Yeah, and it's the Detroit Lions...

This sounds suspiciously like something Jim would say . . .

[ShoogarBear]

OSC, this isn't fighting.

I'm a lover, not a fighter :p

[SequSpur]

Shoogar Bear topics waste internet bandwidth.

[Old School Chic]

OSC, this isn't fighting.

I'm a lover, not a fighter :p

That's my bear :spin

[Old School Chic]

Shoogar Bear topics waste internet bandwidth.


And you are a waste of time on earth...
Don't be picking on my Bear

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Shoog, I was wrong. The Colts would be an 3-1 odds against favorite. Detroit is a 2-7 odds on favorite.

[SequSpur]

And you are a waste of time on earth...
Don't be picking on my Bear

Well you're a waste of my oxygen.

[ShoogarBear]

Shoogar Bear topics waste internet bandwidth.

http://www.paulnoll.com/Oregon/Canning/canning-pie-choices-pic.jpg

[ShoogarBear]

Shoog, I was wrong. The Colts would be an 3-1 odds against favorite. Detroit is a 2-7 odds on favorite.

Good. No room for ambiguity in either one of those statements.

When Jim says, "Detroit is a 7-2 favorite", there is no way to fathom precisely what's going on in his addled mind. However, we all still have great hopes for him someday.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

But to my knowledge, the terms "odds against" and "odds on" only apply when get more than double what you wager, or conversely less than half of what you wager...

[Jimcs50]

Good. No room for ambiguity in either one of those statements.

When Jim says, "Detroit is a 7-2 favorite", there is no way to fathom precisely what's going on in his addled mind. However, we all still have great hopes for him someday.


They are a 7-2 favorite....that means that they are a 3.5-1 favorite, in other words, they have a 3.5-1 chance of winning it all compared to the field.

But the betting line is 2-7.

That is purely a betting line, it is listed as that specifically to tell the bettor how much he needs to bet to win $100.

[Jimcs50]

So, Jim, the statement "the Colts are 3-1 favorites" is a correct one?


Yes, that is correct.

If there was another team at 2-1, then the Colts would be a 3-1 underdog.

Only the team with the lowest odds is the favorite.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

They are a 7-2 favorite....that means that they are a 3.5-1 favorite, in other words, they have a 3.5-1 chance of winning it all compared to the field.

But the betting line is 2-7.

That is purely a betting line, it is listed as that specifically to tell the bettor how much he needs to bet to win $100.

Where are you getting the 7-2?

EDIT: I see what you're saying now. My brain is not working well today...

[ShoogarBear]

They are a 7-2 favorite....that means that they are a 3.5-1 favorite, in other words, they have a 3.5-1 chance of winning it all compared to the field.

But the betting line is 2-7.

That is purely a betting line, it is listed as that specifically to tell the bettor how much he needs to bet to win $100.

Do you think this statement is accurate: "The Colts are 3-1 favorites. They have a 3-1 chance of winning it all compared to the field. But the betting line is 1-3".

My guess is that most people would say that's an incorrect statement. But it's exactly the same as yours, plugging in the relevant numbers.

[Jimcs50]

Stop encouraging this thread Disgruntledlionfan

I don't want Shoog & Jim to be fighting

Don't worry Old School Chic, we Southern males can not ignore challenges, it may be juvenile and atavistic, but this gets our pulses going....it is nothing personal...just having fun here.


:spin

[Old School Chic]

Don't worry Old School Chic, we Southern males can not ignore challenges, it may be juvenile and atravistic, but this gets our pulses going....it is nothing personal...just having fun here.


:spin

Ok Jimbo... I trust you :spin

[ShoogarBear]

Ok Jimbo... I trust you :spin

Well, that's at least one person then. :)

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Do you think this statement is accurate: "The Colts are 3-1 favorites. They have a 3-1 chance of winning it all compared to the field. But the betting line is 1-3".

My guess is that most people would say that's an incorrect statement. But it's exactly the same as yours, plugging in the relevant numbers.

The Colts have a 25% chance of winning the SB, 1-3. Therefore, the odds against them are 75%, 3-1.

DET has a 78% chance of winning the EC, 7-2. Therefore, the odds against them are 22%, 2-7.

[Jimcs50]

Dallas is folding like a cheap lawn chair...perhaps you were right about them beating Detroit being the best case scenario. Had I known that Dallas would lose 2straight games after the Detrot game, I would have rooted for them in the Pistons' game.

:spin

[ShoogarBear]

Jimcs50 you ignorant slut.

If the Spurs end up tied with the Pistons, Ima come to you house, Ima piss on your gardenias.

:makemyday
:pctoss

[ShoogarBear]

The Colts have a 25% chance of winning the SB, 1-3. Therefore, the odds against them are 75%, 3-1.

DET has a 78% chance of winning the EC, 7-2. Therefore, the odds against them are 22%, 2-7.
As far as the "chances of them winning" the SB, that can only be true if the odds for all the teams combined add up to 100%. Do sports books actually do that, ie.., make sure that the summed odds eqal 100%?

[T-Pain]

bear of sugar is in da house

[Jimcs50]

Jimcs50 you ignorant slut.

If the Spurs end up tied with the Pistons, Ima come to you house, Ima piss on your gardenias.

:makemyday
:pctoss


No, not the gardenias.

[Old School Chic]

Well, that's at least one person then. :)

Shoogarbear, I missed you! :depressed

[T-Pain]

Shoogarbear, I missed you! :depressed

i missed you more, havent seen you in awhile!

[Old School Chic]

i missed you more, havent seen you in awhile!

Hi T-Pain :spin

I had problems with my PC :depressed

It was down since yesterday morning and just got it back running a little while ago

[ShoogarBear]

Shoogarbear, I missed you! :depressed
I missed your bravatar! :depressed

[Old School Chic]

I missed your bravatar! :depressed

:oops

I can't put it up right now because I'm running some programs for a virus that tried to swarm it's way in :cuss

Is that the reason why our Sigs are off?

[T-Pain]

Hi T-Pain :spin

I had problems with my PC :depressed

It was down since yesterday morning and just got it back running a little while ago

awesome

[ShoogarBear]

:oops

I can't put it up right now because I'm running some programs for a virus that tried to swarm it's way in :cuss

Is that the reason why our Sigs are off?
Sigs are always turned off during a game, otherwise the game blog slows the whole site down. Usually they're back on the next day.

[Old School Chic]

Sigs are always turned off during a game, otherwise the game blog slows the whole site down. Usually they're back on the next day.

Well, I am hoping to put up my avatar up tomorrow.

Just for you :spin

[polandprzem]

Thank you Shoog :D

[Old School Chic]

Thank you Shoog :D

Silly Poland

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

As far as the "chances of them winning" the SB, that can only be true if the odds for all the teams combined add up to 100%. Do sports books actually do that, ie.., make sure that the summed odds eqal 100%?

Since when is betting fair?

Are you forgetting that betting lines and odds on futures grossly favor the house?

The only statistical model or rationale Vegas uses is their own...

[T-Pain]

did anyone mention this thread should be a classic?

[Mucha Lucha]

el oso de azucar esta aqui!!!

:lol

oso de azucar??? dass funny!!

[Old School Chic]

did anyone mention this thread should be a classic?


Yes, Indeed

[ShoogarBear]

Since when is betting fair?

Are you forgetting that betting lines and odds on futures grossly favor the house?

The only statistical model or rationale Vegas uses is their own...
That's the point I was trying to make. Both you and Jim said that odds have to do with the chance of a team winning.

So the ultimate conclusion is the "odds" have nothing to do with "chance of a team winning", it's just an artificial construct by Vegas. So saying a team with 3-to-1 odds against has a "25% chance of winning" is just not true. And so there's no "conservation of odds" when Vegas goes about setting the line for the various teams, i.e., the odds of one team has nothing to do with the cumulative odds of the other teams.

[Rick Von Braun]

That's the point I was trying to make. Both you and Jim said that odds have to do with the chance of a team winning.

So the ultimate conclusion is the "odds" have nothing to do with "chance of a team winning", it's just an artificial construct by Vegas. So saying a team with 3-to-1 odds against has a "25% chance of winning" is just not true. And so there's no "conservation of odds" when Vegas goes about setting the line for the various teams, i.e., the odds of one team has nothing to do with the cumulative odds of the other teams.

Shoogar is correct here... they are called odds, but they are not really probabilities.

[Jimcs50]

That's the point I was trying to make. Both you and Jim said that odds have to do with the chance of a team winning.

So the ultimate conclusion is the "odds" have nothing to do with "chance of a team winning", it's just an artificial construct by Vegas. So saying a team with 3-to-1 odds against has a "25% chance of winning" is just not true. And so there's no "conservation of odds" when Vegas goes about setting the line for the various teams, i.e., the odds of one team has nothing to do with the cumulative odds of the other teams.


I never saidthat the odds were their chance of winning, it is not like a roll of the die or the toss of the coin, it is just the odds that you get when you bet on that particular team to win.

Dtroit and SA are the favorites, but that does not mean that they actully hae a 75% chance of winnng.

Now if you look at a historical act of hw many times the #1 seeded teams made the Finals, then you can surmise that the fav made the Finals, X amt of times in history. But that does not really determine anything at all, because it is not a mathematical fact.

[Jimcs50]

Shoogarbear, I missed you! :depressed


:depressed

[Jimcs50]

Shoog, do you want Phoenix to beat Detroit today or Detroit to win?

I think I want Phoenix because we wat Phoenix to lose more ground to SA in the race for HCA.





:)

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

That's the point I was trying to make. Both you and Jim said that odds have to do with the chance of a team winning.

So the ultimate conclusion is the "odds" have nothing to do with "chance of a team winning", it's just an artificial construct by Vegas. So saying a team with 3-to-1 odds against has a "25% chance of winning" is just not true. And so there's no "conservation of odds" when Vegas goes about setting the line for the various teams, i.e., the odds of one team has nothing to do with the cumulative odds of the other teams.

Yeah I guess I am used to poker and let that influence my earlier post.

Vegas odds are calculated to evenly spread the money bet on teams...

[Old School Chic]

:depressed


And how can I forget my Jimcs50 :p

[ShoogarBear]

I never saidthat the odds were their chance of winning, it is not like a roll of the die or the toss of the coin, it is just the odds that you get when you bet on that particular team to win.
Ahem. From
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=835535&postcount=144


They are a 7-2 favorite....that means that they are a 3.5-1 favorite, in other words, they have a 3.5-1 chance of winning it all compared to the field.



Dtroit and SA are the favorites, but that does not mean that they actully hae a 75% chance of winnng.

Now if you look at a historical act of hw many times the #1 seeded teams made the Finals, then you can surmise that the fav made the Finals, X amt of times in history. But that does not really determine anything at all, because it is not a mathematical fact.I agree with everything you say.

I know that you actually know what you're talking about. What I'm doing is picking on imprecisions in what you are saying, not to be an asshole (that is just a fringe benefit) but point out how your original statement that Detroit was a 7-2 favorite was ambiguous.

[Jimcs50]

Shoogar, good thing that Detroit beat Dallas now. Otherwise, Friday's game could have decided the West. I like having that cushion, personally.

:)

[Jimcs50]

Western Conference
W L PCT GB HM RD CONF DIV PF PA DIFF STRK L10
x-San Antonio 59 18 .766 - 32-6 27-12 38-10 12-3 95.4 88.7 +6.7 Won 1 6-4
x-Dallas 59 19 .756 ½ 33-6 26-13 36-12 13-3 99.3 92.6 +6.7 Won 5 6-4
x-Phoenix 50 26 .658 8 ½ 29-10 21-16 28-18 9-4 108.3 102.9 +5.4 Lost 1 5-5
x-Memphis 44 33 .571 15 28-11 16-22 27-21 5-10 91.9 88.6 +3.3 Lost 1 6-4
x-LA Clippers 44 33 .571 15 26-13 18-20 24-23 7-9 97.3 95.6 +1.7 Lost 3 5-5
Denver 44 34 .564 15 ½ 26-13 18-21 25-23 10-4 101.0 100.1 +0.9 Won 3 6-4
Sacramento 41 37 .526 18 ½ 25-13 16-24 27-21 10-5 98.6 97.3 +1.3 Won 3 7-3
LA Lakers 41 37 .526 18 ½ 23-14 18-23 23-25 7-7 98.8 97.0 +1.8 Won 1 7-3


Shoogar, had Dallas beaten Detroit, SA would have no cushion at all. Dallas is playing great ball now that they are healthy again(Beat Clippers in LA last night). I would hate for SA to have to sweep their remaining opponents in order to keep the #1 seed, since Dallas looks pretty good right now to win out, as far as their schedule. Phoenix can not beat Dallas IMO.

Are you going to admit that I was right yet? :spin

[ShoogarBear]

No, because once again my point is that the Spurs don't need HCA to beat the Mavs. I don't care about HCA against Dallas. The only HCA that matters is agains Detroit, and the only chance they had of getting that was for the Pistons to start losing.

[Old School Chic]

You guys (Oso & Jim) are so silly

I can't believe this thread is still going :lol

[Jimcs50]

No, because once again my point is that the Spurs don't need HCA to beat the Mavs. I don't care about HCA against Dallas. The only HCA that matters is agains Detroit, and the only chance they had of getting that was for the Pistons to start losing.

Had Detroit lost to Dallas, they still would have been too far in front of SA anyway...so your point is moot.

It is better to have HCA in West locked up, because the Spurs are not going to beat Dallas and Detroit w/o HCA.