Reply With Quote
thats why the Spurs cannot afford to lose against Brooklyn or Utah ... it will hurt them in the standings
Last year, only SAS and OKC have >.700 winning percentage. So far this year, 1/4 into the season, 3 Eastern Conference teams and 7 Western Conference teams are better than .700. And OKC might be the 8th one if not for the injury. It's interesting to see how long this trend can last.
thats why the Spurs cannot afford to lose against Brooklyn or Utah ... it will hurt them in the standings
It has been this way since forever.
A lot of good teams this year, but a clear lack of great teams, tbh..
lots of teams with ty rosters too, tbh... or teams ( o Knicks) look like they never played basketball before even though they have 5-10 years vets in them...
Black rookie coach
obviously it is not ...
Any loss will hurt them in the standings (and any win will help them).
Dude...it's December.
It is interesting. Along with Magic stressing the importance of a Laker tank job, it's a good subject.
It almost makes one wish that some sort of penalties come along with place of finish. There are clearly downsides of trying to create parity through the lottery.
Yeah in December.
Teams tanking before the votes pass one day
Nobody blatantly tanked in the past so nobody really did it.
But now there are teams that blatantly do it, other mid level teams would follow too
On any given NBA game night, say 8 games, only 1 will be worth watching, because that 1 game will have teams are somewhat matched, good, outcome could go either way, playoff bound.
29 x 82 = about 2400 games/season, with way less that 400 being watchable, meaningful. not enough player and coach talent for 29 teams. NBA is diluted, a pretty ty product. tiest possible product for the highest possible price.
True, but the good thing is everybody in the West has to play each other, so I'm not too worried. The roster will hopefully be at full strength soon with the return of Marco, now Tiago and Patty (in Jan). Pop is the best at "pacing" the Spurs and getting ready for the post season. I'm really impressed with the record the Spurs do have with the injuries. Just like in years past, Pop is finding guys (Baynes/Joseph) to eat regular season minutes while still winning. The experience/exposure Baynes and Joseph are getting will pay dividends down the road, not only if someone gets hurt, but if the Spurs need to use either of them in a trade.
The top 8 teams in the west are all very good. Replace phoenix with OKC and it is the best top 8 I can remember in a while. Top 5 in East also very good, not as much talent but more compe ive than past years for sure.
I think the biggest difference is not talent, but coaching/system/execution. You look at the GS/Houston game last night, they are playing with far better discipline than last year, much more ball movement, much better team defense.
I really feel Spurs success last year woke up a lot of coaches, realizing they can get way more out of their roster (Hawks, Raptors, Wizard, even Rockets and Warriors just to name a few) if they played better team ball.
We’re at an era of basketball now where everybody has to be in sync, because it’s so hard to both score and stop people — how fast the game is now. - Chris Bosh
Last edited by hitmantb; 12-11-2014 at 10:05 AM.
Winning percentages converge to .500 as more games are played. That's why the NFL routinely has teams finish the season at 0.9375 (15-1) and 0.875 (14-2), while 0.878 (72-10) is the best the NBA has ever seen.
Meanwhile, 0.716 (116-46) is the best that MLB has had in the last 60 years. That's equivalent to 59 wins in the NBA, done by at least one team nearly every year. The closest NFL equivalent would be 12-4, done by multiple teams every year.
In other words, there is no way this many teams will be over 0.700 by the end of the season. It's only a function of small sample size.
NFL plays once a week. If NBA teams plays once/twice a week and 40 games at all, I think we might see 0.900 for best team.
I wish there were still mods on this site.
Afroamerican rookie coach ?
Agreed. Each game would have a greater impact.
Also cut teams that make the playoffs in half.
Exactly my point. The more games that are played, the less likely it is to see winning percentages at the extremes.
Bemoaning a lack of parity by using winning percentages after ~21 games doesn't work. Right now NBA teams have played barely more games than NFL teams, so the spread of winning percentages should be similar.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
