Reply With Quote
Or you just changed your mind later, as evidenced by the "edit" in the post.
It's all good, I was just adding to the discussion... Not really arguing your take.
I read somewhere that the NBA changed the second tiebreaker from conference record to division record, but can't find confirmation of that. If the second tiebreaker is division record, it makes the Spurs win in Memphis a huge one in retrospect, since the Spurs and Mavericks are tied in the loss column in that category.
Or you just changed your mind later, as evidenced by the "edit" in the post.
It's all good, I was just adding to the discussion... Not really arguing your take.
That has not changed. It was always division first, when both teams were tied in the same division.
Or you just changed your mind later, as evidenced by the "edit" in the post.
It's all good, I was just adding to the discussion... Not really arguing your take.
I edited to put it in bold
That's not true. The Spurs won the division in 2002-03 by virtue of a tiebreaker with Dallas. The teams split the regular season and the Mavericks had a better division record than the Spurs did. The Spurs won the tiebreaker based on a better record in the Western Conference, so the 2nd tiebreaker wasn't division record, it was conference record.
I just wish I could remember where those tiebreakers are published. Neither ESPN nor nba.com has put up their annual "Race for the Playoffs" page, which is usually where that info is readily available.
From NBA.COM
TIEBREAKER BASIS:
(-) Tie breaker not needed (better overall winning percentage)
(1) Head-to-head
(2) Conference
(3) Division
(4) vs. Playoff teams, own conference
(5) vs. Playoff teams, other conference
(6) Net Points, all games
I'm assuming that's from a previous year. If that's something that is attached to THIS year's standings, I'd be interested in the link.
Right. So that's from last year. I recall reading that the NBA changed the tiebreakers after last season -- arguably to reflect a greater importance on division games -- by flipping the 2nd and 3rd tiebreakers. If that's true, the Spurs will need to do more than just beat Dallas once to secure the tiebreaker.
Yep, I didn't look closley enough at it; thought it was this year's standings...haven't found confirmation either way for this season, however.
And I might be wrong, but I'd like to know. What got to me was when the Spurs and Mavericks were in a dead heat a couple of weeks ago, the Spurs seemingly held the tiebreaker under last year's rules because of a superior conference record, but the TNT announcers (well, Kevin Harlan mostly) were adamant that the Mavericks were leading the West. The nba.com software had them listed atop the division, too; that made sense if you believed that the software basically looked to conference wins at early stages of the season to determine which team held that second tiebreaker, though it assumes that the nba uses some fairly non-sophisticated software. But, at the time, the Mavericks had more division wins, too. So, the combination of all of those things makes me think I'm not just imagining that change.
And if it's true, that change is rather significant.
Or academic, if you, like I, believe that the Spurs will ultimately hold a 2-3 game edge in the W/L because of remaining schedules - also, when the Spurs beat the Mavs twice, it's two "L's" for the division race.
I've found several corroborations for the conference record - before division record tiebreaker scheme; none for the flip.
I'm not doubting you FWD, but I can't find it anywhere.
Oh, I'd be happy to know that I was wrong, to be honest about it.
I've probably found the same corroborations, but nothing that relates specifically to the current NBA rule or to the current NBA season.
And, you're right -- it is academic if the Spurs take care of their business.
Harris and Howard aren't right. Harris has an injured Quadricep and Howard a sprained ankle. The 2 players that killed the spurs their first meeting aren't healthy. We'll see what happens though.
'little early for excuses, ain't it '000?
Are you preparing for a loss already.
The Spurs Last 10 games are nothing to be happy and confident about.
Needed overtime to beat the Raptors
Lost to the Sixers.
Blown out by the Cavs.
Blow a big lead and barely escaped the B2B-tired Grizz (allowing 31 pts in 4th qtr
didn't the mavericks have to come back from a 19 point and then a 24 point deficit. yeah, they came back and won, but they should not have gotten to that point either.
I think you make excuses after the game. I guess Mavs fans do things differently.
Spurs will defeat the Mavs on thursday, and it will be a close game.......
Hey I would be more confident if Dallas was healthy but that is not the case. Harris's injury is lingering and Howard just sprained his ankle.
why is it that everyone thinks AJ has the Spurs playbook? Where does this nonsense come from. The Spurs offense looks nothing like it did when slow ass AJ ran it, now we have a good motion offense. Back when AJ was running the team it was all half court and very little motion.
and even if this was remotely true, so the what, its still Spurs players having to run their offense against dallas' so called defense. If dallas' defense is so ing good how do you explain them getting into huge holes over mediocre teams.
I think that if anything Pop knows what AJ is going to do and how to counter it more than AJ know how to counter what Pop is going to do. The Spurs have more experienced and battle tested players (expect NVE and Fin) and most importantly, the Spurs have the mental toughness it will take to beat the mavs
I thought you said the Mavericks were the deepest team in the NBA.
Harris had a great game the first time, thats fine, but the dude will not deliver games like that consistantly enough to beat the Spurs himself....Dirk will be on lockdown, JTerry will have a great game, Josh Howard's sprained ankle might not even allow him to play, who's gonna step up??? With Nazr and Rasho actually grabbing boards now i doubt there will be any chance for Dallas to win this game, even with a healthy Harris and Howard......
Yep, this is a big game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions