Reply With Quote
I think they're just as important for seeding purposes, but they're definitely not as good of an indication of a team's caliber. Also, like you said, the way a team is playing at the end of the season almost always carries into the postseason.
I know we all talk about games not meaning a whole lot until it gets later on in the season, but in reality do you think all games are just as important?
Take last year for example. The Mavs were pretty hot rolling into the playoffs if i remember correctly and then beat the Spurs in round 1.
The Nuggets/Blazers/Spurs were all tied record wise but the Nuggets had the tie breaker over both teams and the Spurs over the Blazers.
I know the Spurs kinda gave away a game to the Nuggets late in the season and thus the tiebreaker. In the end the Spurs didn't get the 2nd seed and lost in the first round, while the Nuggets played a pretty poor Hornets team.
Do we as fans underestimate games so early on in the season? Just curious. I know players and coaches talk about big matchups from game 1 of 82.
discuss.
I think they're just as important for seeding purposes, but they're definitely not as good of an indication of a team's caliber. Also, like you said, the way a team is playing at the end of the season almost always carries into the postseason.
Just as important: No.
But still very important.
Yeah, I agree that Pop shouldn't have given that game away. Manu did need the time to rest but Parker and Duncan were good to go. That 1 game off didn't rejuvenate him or anything.
But we weren't winning the ring last year no matter what happened. No Manu no Championship, that's it.
If you're Cleveland yes.
I think the Nuggets/Spurs/Blazers 3 way tie last year is the perfect example.
If the Spurs had won 1 more game or the other guys lost 1, then the Spurs would have not faced their arch-nemesis Mavs in the 1st round. And if they had avoided the Mavs, the Spurs would have had a great shot at the WCF.
I think the Nuggets/Spurs/Blazers 3 way tie last year is the perfect example.
If the Spurs had won 1 more game or the other guys lost 1, then the Spurs would have not faced their arch-nemesis Mavs in the 1st round. And if they had avoided the Mavs, the Spurs would have had a great shot at the WCF.
Early season games are even more important than later ones IMHO. Just like the mast for a ship, the early season games sense where the wind blows then tell the sailors how to adjust the rudder. The early season pretty much determins what a team whether the team should work for a playoff ticket or a higher-ranked lottery pick.
Yes. I would even say that early regular season games are more important than late season games. It is not about the win/loss column. It is about the coach adjusting. If the team somehow keeps winning and not realise their weaknesses, there is going to be a harsh reality setting in the playoffs.
all that matters is health.
I agree with most of what's been said here. Each game is important, especially the ones in your own conference.
However, the spurs early exist last year was the best thing to happen to them. It allowed the front office to wake up and make the roster changes needed for the small window they have left.
If they would've made it to the WCF last year only to get destroyed by LA , everybody would think that the only thing we need is a healthy Manu and keep the crap line up we had.
No. In the last decade four teams have won the le after coming out of the gates swinging: the 00 Lakers, 05 Spurs, 08 Celtics, and the 09 Lakers. The other 6 teams (01,02 Lakers, 03 Spurs, 04 Pistons, 06 Heat, and the 07 Spurs) all developed into far superior teams to end their seasons than what they were early.
In contrast, you see lots of early-season wonders falling off. For instance, the 00 Blazers, 01 Spurs, 05 Suns, 06 Pistons, 07 Mavs, 09 Cavs, etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
