As we approach the trade deadline, the NBA is folding nicely into the haves and have nots. If you're an advocate of this (like Bill Simmons), this should make you happy. If you like more parity, well, watch another sport.
January was the month where the teams in the middle of the pack separated themselves from those beneath them. In the Eastern Conference, five and a half games separate the eighth-place team (Miami) from the 10th-place team (New York). Milwaukee kind of remains in the playoff picture, but everyone below them looks like they're out of the picture. In the West, there's a nice four-team battle for the final playoff spot, but after that, five games separate the 11th-place Rockets from the 12th-place Clippers.
In other words, January provided the clarity we needed this season. When we began this month, it was tough to place teams in the tiers I presented. Now, we have a pretty good idea where everyone stands. That tends to be what January does in the NBA, so this isn't too surprising, but it's nice that we have a good idea of the NBA's hierarchy as we get closer to the trade deadline.
Therefore, I've completely dumped the "mediocre clubs" category and instead put those teams into the "dregs of the league" tier. Here's hoping I won't need to reinsert a fifth tier into these rankings in the future.
(To see last week's rankings, click here).
30. New Jersey Nets: 4-42 overall, 1-2 last week
SBN Blog: Nets Daily
Last week: 30
All things considered, this was a pretty good week for the Nets. They got a win, beating the Clippers on Wednesday. They nearly got a second win on Friday, losing by two to the Wizards in what was probably the ugliest game of the entire season. Finally, they were actually able to bring someone before the players that's more troubled than them.
The last accomplishment is probably the most impressive to me. It's hard to find a motivational speaker who inadvertently makes his audience feel good about being 4-42. Even this guy probably would fail.
29. Minnesota Timberwolves: 11-38 overall, 2-2 last week
SBN Blog: Canis Hoopus
Last week: 29.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winning streak! It's just two games, against two very bad teams, but it's a winning streak! The winning streak also apparently means the Timberwolves love their team so much that their GM is saying they're going to stick with what they've got for a playoff push. Okay, I was kidding about the last part -- they're just not expected to make any big moves -- but there comes a time for every bad team to have a decent stretch to provide their fans hope. Minnesota had that stretch last week.
28. Golden State Warriors: 13-33 overall, 0-4 last week
SBN Blog: Golden State of Mind
Last week: 28.
I'm at the point where I'm ready to petition the NBA to stricken all Warrior games from the record books. Statistics from Warrior games officially mean nothing anymore. The Warriors are playing at a ridiculously fast pace (over 100 possessions per game, two possessions faster than last year's team), and they're the third-worst defensive team per-possession in the league. In other words, the Warriors not only give teams extra offensive possessions to pick up stats, they also defend those extra possessions extremely poorly.
This is a long way of saying that, as much as I enjoyed watching Kevin Durant drop 45 points on 21 shots against the Warriors the other day, I can't say the performance carries as much statistical weight as it would seem. Nothing against Durant, but that's what happens when you play the Warriors.
27. Detroit Pistons: 15-31 overall, 0-3 last week
SBN Blog: Detroit Bad Boys.
Last week: 26.
When I wrote that article back in December ranking the NBA teams in terms of entertainment value, I had the Pistons way down the list. A number of Pistons fans told me at the time that they enjoyed watching the scrappy, hard-working Pistons and felt the ranking was very undeserved. Well, Pistons fans, I submit last week's games as evidence for putting Detroit 26th. Frankly, with the way they've played recently, they should probably be 30th.
26. Sacramento Kings: 16-31 overall, 1-3 last week
SBN Blog: Sactown Royalty
Last week: 24.
The Kings keep playing hard, so what's to blame for their extended skid? Tyreke Evans' nagging injuries obviously hurt (ha ... ha), and you have to think the Kings beat the Nuggets last night if Evans is playing.
But otherwise? One of the consequences of having so many young guys is that it's hard to get everyone playing well at the same time. We've already seen that with Evans and Kevin Martin, but now, we're seeing it with the young frontcourt tandem of Jason Thompson and Spencer Hawes. As Hawes' play has picked up, Thompson's has fallen off. Paul Westphal obviously wants to reward Hawes for his improved play, but he also runs the risk of killing Thompson's confidence by playing him fewer minutes. It's dilemmas like these that convince me I'd be a terrible NBA coach.
25. Philadelphia 76ers: 16-31 overall, 1-2 last week.
SBN Blog: Liberty Ballers
Last week: 25.
In speaking with lots of Washington Wizards fans like myself, I'm often told that the Wizards made a big mistake firing Eddie Jordan. Such fans want EJ back because EJ brought far more success to the Wizards than anything they've experienced this year. Technically, that may be true, but take a two-hour trip up north to Philadelphia, and you'll find that 76ers fans are pretty fed up with Jordan themselves.
How fed up? Check out these new shirts from SB Nation's 76ers blog Liberty Ballers.
Do 76ers fans have case for wanting Eddie Jordan fired? I have a hard time believing a coach should be fired during his first year on the job. At the same time, the 76ers have talent. Elton Brand may have a huge contract, but he's starting to get his game back a bit. Andre Iguodala is an awkwardly-shaped peg that doesn't fit into too many holes, but he's also uniquely talented and does all sorts of unnoticed things to help teams win. Samuel Dalembert is having a career year, all while dealing with the devastation in his native Haiti. The young guys (Thaddeus Young, Jrue Holiday, Marreese Speights, Louis Williams) are all very talented players.
And yet, the 76ers are among the worst teams in the league. Unlike the Wizards, for example, they haven't had a ridiculous amount of off-court drama to deal with (Allen Iverson doesn't count). They just aren't as good as the sum of their parts. That falls on the coach. So, while I can support firing Jordan, I can support 76ers fans feeling frustrated with his performance as head coach. Wizards fans, you sure you want him back?
24. Indiana Pacers: 16-32 overall, 0-3 last week
SBN Blog: Indy Cornrows
Last week: 23.
Because I don't think about the Pacers nearly as much as I should, I'll just throw a theory out there that might partially explains their struggles.
SB Nation's Indy Cornrows argued that the Pacers strongly miss Jarrett Jack's leadership skills this season. They showed little interest in re-signing Jack last offseason, and Jack bolted to the Raptors for the full mid-level exception, where he's been credited as a leader in their clubhouse and a huge key to Toronto's turnaround. Meanwhile, T.J. Ford's whined his way through another season, and Dahntay Jones, who took some of the money the Pacers would have paid Jack, has struggled after a fast start. Maybe Jack's presence wouldn't have made Indiana a playoff team, but it probably would have helped.
23. Washington Wizards: 16-31 overall, 2-2 last week.
SBN Blog: Bullets Forever
Last week: 27.
As a Wizards fan that's attended pretty much every home game this year, one thing that's bugged me is the way 5'5'' Earl Boykins has morphed into a fan-favorite. Having dealt with many Wizards fans, I can honestly say that they (we?) are among the most sophisticated in sports. We understand the little things, give credit to our opponents and rarely get caught up in the hype. That's why it's so disconcerting to hear the crowd go ga-ga every time Boykins scores, just because he's such a small guy. I thought we were above that kind of fandom.
At the same time, it is kind of amazing that this guy can score at all, considering his size. You wonder how he even gets off game-winning shots like this one, much less make them.
22. Los Angeles Clippers: 20-27 overall, 0-3 last week
SBN Blog: Clips Nation.
Last week: 20.
It's hard to have a worse week than the Clippers just had. They lost to the Nets and Timberwolves in consecutive games, and followed it up by allowing the Cavaliers, hardly an offensive juggernaut, to score 46 points in one quarter. Cleveland's effective field goal percentage in that first quarter, which gives 1.5 times the amount of weight to three-pointers, was 102 percent. Nice defense, guys.
21. New York Knicks: 18-29 overall, 1-3 last week
SBN Blog: Posting and Toasting
Last week: 22.
The depressing Knicks season continues on. Normally, a bad team like the Knicks would focus on developing their young players and putting themselves in a good position to get a higher lottery pick, but of course the Knicks can't do that because they don't have a lottery pick this year. Instead, they have to try winning as many games as possible to make that lost lottery pick less attractive, all while dealing with nearly their entire team being a free agent after the season. It's times like these where guys like Wilson Chandler posterize their own teammate in a game.
20. Milwaukee Bucks: 21-25 overall, 3-1 this week
SBN Blog: Brew Hoop
Last week: 21
Milwaukee's not pretty, but they did win three of four this week to keep their fleeting playoff hopes alive. If you're a team below the Bucks in the standings, how do you not look at their roster and wonder how they're better than you? I guess that's a testament to Scott Skiles, who continues to have these guys ready to play. Either way, for the sake of good basketball, here's hoping they stay out of the playoffs.
19. New Orleans Hornets: 26-22 overall, 2-2 last week.
SBN Blog: At the Hive
Last week: 16.
This is really a preemptive ranking for the inevitable fall they'll take with Chris Paul injured, so don't flip out, Hornets fans. Then again, last time Paul got hurt, the Hornets discovered what they had in Darren Collison and Marcus Thornton and turned their season around, so maybe they'll be fine. Thornton in particular needs to shine now, and he's shown he's capable. He's certainly come a long way since this moment.
18. Miami Heat: 24-24 overall, 1-3 last week.
SBN Blog: Peninsula is Mightier
Last week: 13.
The Heat remain a simple team to analyze. When they're hitting their jump shots, they're really tough to beat. When they're not, they're capable of losing to anybody. This week, they weren't hitting their shots, so they lost twice to the Bucks. Sorry if you were expecting more analysis.
17. Charlotte Bobcats: 24-23 overall, 3-1 last week
SBN Blog: Rufus on Fire
Last week: 19.
Charlotte actually won three road games this week, which is exactly as many as they had won all season to this point. Very impressive, folks. Lest you think I'm being sarcastic, I am, but I'm not being too sarcastic. The Bobcats did get their first all-star this week, so it'd be wrong to be too mean to their fans.
16. Houston Rockets: 25-22 overall, 1-2 last week
SBN Blog: The Dream Shake
Last week: 15
Not a good January for the little team that could. Houston went just 5-9 this month, despite playing nine of 14 games at home. All their limitations are beginning to show. Trevor Ariza just isn't equipped to be a first option on offense. Chuck Hayes, bless his soul, might be too small. Aaron Brooks and Kyle Lowry are just too limited. It's unfortunate, because Houston had a great chance to get some separation this month and completely squandered it. Now, they're on the outside looking in on the playoffs, with two blossoming young teams (Memphis and Oklahoma City) ahead of them.
On the bright side, Yao Ming is now shooting free throws. He'll be back any day now, Rockets fans! Don't fret!
15. Chicago Bulls: 23-22 overall, 2-0 last week
SBN Blog: Blog A Bull
Last week: 17.
Speaking of teams getting their first all-star in a while, did you know Derrick Rose is the Bulls' first all-star since ... wait for it ... Michael Jordan? I guess it makes sense, considering the Bulls' last decade, but to actually put two and two together is pretty jarring.
And while I know some people have called Rose's selection into question because he's only gotten it done in the last few weeks, these have been some damn impressive weeks. The Bulls just completed a stretch where they won five straight road games against winning teams (!), and they're basically doing it exclusively because of Rose. The Bulls still have no offensive system, but as long as Rose plays this well, it doesn't matter. Nobody can guard him off the dribble. Not even Thabo Sefolosha, one of the league's best defensive players.
It's hard to appreciate Rose's entire season because he only emerged recently, but like Deron Williams last year, Rose is quietly having an insane year. Williams struggled early on last year with ankle injuries before really turning it on in the second half. Rose is now doing the same, and in the process, he's lifted a completely dysfunctional Bulls team into the playoffs.
14. Toronto Raptors: 26-22, 3-0 last week.
SBN Blog: Raptors HQ
Last week: 18.
The Raptors still don't play defense, and they need more quality road wins before I can take them seriously, but they've also won five in a row, so I have to move them up. Plus, we learned this week that one of their stars was born in the stone age, where full sentences were frowned upon.
13. Memphis Grizzlies: 26-21 overall, 2-2 last week.
SBN Blog: Straight Outta Vancouver
Last week: 11
Behind Oklahoma City again this week, which should invite yet another Twitter war with Grizzlies fans. (Bring it on, guys!). The Grizzlies won another game against a good team last night, beating the Lakers 95-93 in a possible playoff preview of a series I'd pay good money to see. They're shockingly among the most proficient half-court offensive teams in the league, and that, along with their size, gives good teams problems.
Still, I can't shake this stat out of my head. In their last nine close games (defined as games decided by five points or less), the Grizzlies are 7-2. The luck of the draw indicates this won't hold up. Having watched the 2006/07 Wizards closely, a surprising team that initially raced to the top of the East on the strength of their record in close games before crashing and burning, I'm wary of heavily endorsing teams that constantly win those coin-flip type games. Those start going the other way after a while, because you start believing your only job is to keep games close and steal them at the end. Inevitably, you fail and your record takes a tumble. I'm not saying there's a 100-percent chance this will eventually happens to Memphis, but it's a possibility, which is preventing me from ranking them any higher.
12. Oklahoma City Thunder: 26-21 overall, 1-2 last week.
SBN Blog: Welcome To Loud City
Last week: 10.
I mean, who needs a shoe? Honestly.
In all seriousness, Oklahoma City really needs another offensive threat to complement Kevin Durant. As good as Durant's been this year, in the playoffs, teams will be able to focus all their attention on him and shut off everyone else. I realize the Thunder are in the "let it breathe" stage of franchise-building, but they need to solve this problem at some point if they're going to eventually take the next step.
11. Phoenix Suns: 29-21 overall, 3-1 last week
SBN Blog: Bright Side of the Sun.
Last week: 14.
Just when you start to count the Suns out, they roar back with a couple nice wins over Dallas and Houston. Resiliency has been their thing ever since Seven Seconds Or Less started, which is ironic because you don't expect a team that focuses so much attention on the offensive end to be resilient like this. Maybe the trade rumors have inspired them. Who knows?
10. San Antonio Spurs: 27-19 overall, 2-1 last week
SBN Blog: Pounding the Rock.
Last week: 12.
I was all set to put them higher until Sunday's stinkfest home loss to a Nuggets team missing Carmelo Anthony. Now, it's Rodeo Trip time. The season hangs in the balance.
While we're here, kudos to Wayne Vore from SB Nation's Pounding the Rock for going straight to Spurs assistant coach Mike Budenholzer to talk about DeJuan Blair's ability to run the pick and roll. As a basketball fan, I learned a lot from that conversation. Kudos to Wayne for his work and Budenholzer for explaining things in great detail to him.
9. Portland Traiblazers: 29-21 overall, 2-2 last week
SBN Blog: Blazers Edge
Last week: 9.
With all their injuries, it's incredible they're still this competitive. Lots of coaches do great jobs, but Nate McMillan's probably done the best job of them all. No experience encapsulated this better than watching Andre Miller drop 52 points on the Mavericks on Saturday. Here's a guy who was feuding with McMillan over his role, and rather than plug a square peg into a round hole, McMillan compromised a bit and put his player in a position that made him more comfortable. Miller will never score 52 points again, but he's become a real difference maker for the Blazers. McMillan deserves a ton of credit for that.
Oh, and in case you missed Miller's 52 points, here they are again:
8. Dallas Mavericks: 30-18 overall, 1-3 last week.
SBN Blog: Mavs Moneyball
Last week: 6.
Dallas is out of the championship contenders category for the first time in a while after a 1-3 week. Why? Much like the Grizzlies, the Mavericks have been really, really good in close games this year. They usually relax until the fourth quarter, when they proceed to give Dirk Nowitzki the ball and get out of the way.
The problem is that Dirk hasn't come through recently. Against the Suns on Thursday, Dirk barely even touched the ball. Against the Blazers and Jazz, Dirk was just ineffective when it mattered most. This isn't a knock on Dirk, it's a knock on Dallas' inability to blow anyone out. You can't keep going to the same well and expect to win close games every time. Until the Mavericks play like a team that doesn't need to always pull out close games, they'll stay in this category.
7. Utah Jazz: 29-18 overall, 3-0 last week
SBN Blog: SLC Dunk
Last week: 8.
That's now six straight wins for the Jazz, and they've all happened because Andrei Kirilenko is once again AK-47. Allow me to quote SB Nation's SLC Dunk to explain this.
AK is a machine. Screw the fans. You're not the X factor, AK is the X factor. He's playing out of his mind and right now you could ask any Jazz fan, "Should we give AK another $15M a year after his deal is up?" and they would all say yes.
Maybe we should just call him "The Machine" now. Sasha Vujacic certainly isn't worth of that nickname anymore.
6. Boston Celtics: 30-16 overall, 1-3 last week.
SBN Blog: Celtics Blog.
Last week: 5
We said last week that this was a gut-check week for the Celtics. In that sense, they failed. Orlando: loss. Atlanta: loss. LA Lakers: loss. Three title contenders, three chances to make a statement that you're going to be a part of the title picture after all, three failures. Boston is now just 7-11 in its last 18 games, and they look, well, old. Just watch Kevin Garnett on this drive by Rashard Lewis to seal Orlando's win on Thursday.
You cannot say to me with a straight face that Kevin Garnett's knee is alright. You just can't. And if Garnett's not right, and Ray Allen and Paul Pierce continue to stay in their slump, then how can they win the title again? Honestly, the only things keeping these guys close in these games are Rajon Rondo's spectacular play and some unexpected help from Tony Allen. That's it. There's no quick fix to old age, and it's beginning to feel like the Celtics' Big 3 are just too old.
CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDERS
5. Atlanta Hawks: 30-16 overall, 1-2 last week.
SBN Blog: Peachtree Hoops.
Last week: 4.
The Hawks have a problem. While they match up extremely well with Boston, they've now lost three double-digit games to Orlando this season and have also been swept by Cleveland. They've been lights-out against bad teams, but are just 1-7 in their last eight games against teams 13 and up on this list not named Boston. SB Nation's Peachtree Hoops is not concerned about such matchup problems, but if I'm a Hawks fan, I am. Atlanta has few tradeable assets to improve their club (more on this tomorrow), and one of their best players, Joe Johnson, is a free agent after the season. As much as Hawks fans want to say they have time to keep getting better, in reality, the time is now, before Johnson potentially bolts.
Perhaps this is just the natural evolution of a franchise. Perhaps. The only problem is that rarely does a franchise evolve while their marquee player faces free agency.
4. Orlando Magic: 32-16 overall, 3-0 last week
SBN Blog: Orlando Pinstriped Post.
Last week: 6.
As badly as Vince Carter has fit in ... as poorly as Jameer Nelson has played ... as much as Rashard Lewis has disappeared ... as disappointing as Brandon Bass and Marcin Gortat have been ... the Magic have won 66 percent of their games. We hate admitting this, but they're a definite threat. They arguably have no tough matchups in the East right now. We know how they dominate the Hawks, but they've also won two of three this year from Boston, who in theory poses the most problems for them. Based on last year's playoffs, they still have an advantage on Cleveland (though Cleveland won their only meeting of the season). Out West, they have the frontline to hang with the Lakers and the size to outmuscle Denver. Sure, the pieces don't fit well, but it's possible Orlando is just so talented that it doesn't matter.
I'm just saying, don't count them out just because they're not what you want them to be.
3. Denver Nuggets: 33-15 overall, 3-1 last week
SBN Blog: Denver Stiffs.
Last week: 3.
I've said for weeks how Denver is a team LA doesn't want to play in the playoffs. Here's why.
LA's big advantage will be their big guys against Denver's smallish big guys, and that might be enough. The problem is that Bryant's kind of ignoring Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum right now. If he does that in the playoffs, he nullifies LA's advantage. Also, while the Nuggets don't have a ton of tradeable assets, they're fully capable of acquiring another big man to help deal with LA's size. Mark Warkentien, the Nuggets' GM, is on a two-year tear that isn't receiving nearly enough attention, so if anyone can figure out a way to make a worthwhile trade, it's him.
While you ponder that argument, enjoy J.R. Smith doing this.
2. Los Angeles Lakers: 37-12 overall, 4-1 last week
SBN Blog: Silver Screen and Roll
Last week: 2.
Kobe's still shooting a bit too much, but we can still appreciate him for what he is. This shot to win the game against the Celtics on Sunday was simply incredible.
1. Cleveland Cavaliers: 38-11 overall, 3-0 last week
SBN Blog: Fear the Sword
Last week: 1.
Still getting it done despite injuries in their backcourt. This begs the question: does Cleveland even need to make a trade to improve? On the one hand, they're clearly the league's best right now. On the other hand, that was their logic last year, and look how that turned out.
It's a tough call for Danny Ferry. As a Wizards fan, here's hoping he doesn't make the right one.
66 comments
66
Comments
Celtics
should still be considered contenders
no quarrels with the ranking though
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V
by Jeff Clark on Feb 2, 2010 1:47 PM EST reply actions
Amen Jeff
by SpecialistK on Feb 2, 2010 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not so sure right now
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/columns/story?columnist=forsberg_chris&id=4879929
by WaveOcean on Feb 2, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
why?
because you read an article by the media. congratulations. journalists don’t play basketball.
by malik377 on Feb 2, 2010 11:56 PM EST up reply actions
In pickup games, my teammates call me Scalabrine because I move the ball so well
So I get umbumtu, if I do say so myself.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Feb 3, 2010 12:36 AM EST up reply actions
example
media:Pierce foot broke, Celtics old, season is over.
Reality:Pierce day to day, no Celtics player is over 34 years old.
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 12:03 AM EST up reply actions
So what lame excuse will malik, basketbll, DasFx or whatever other screenname he chooses to use this week use to denigrate the Cavs.
In last week’s rankings he lambasted the Cavs for not enough wins by over 18 points. Well back to back blowouts of the Pacers and Clippers now puts them at 4. Happy? Probably not.
And what rationale did you use to pick 18 as your dividing line? Was it because the Cavs have one 18, two 17, two 16 and a 15 point victory in their totals (which would give them 8 blowout wins, which is comparable to the other teams you had listed)? Why is winning by 18 more impressive than say 10 or 12, since those could be blowout numbers as well.
Not that I have verified this, but how often does a team get up by 20+ and then put the end of the bench guys in, only to see the victory margin dwindle to under 18 in the fourth quarter? I’d have to say that is fairly common.
One of your comments was that the Cavs are not a dominant team because of the lack of winning margins of more than 18. Which led to your hypothesis that the Cavs “must be” squeaking by in their wins this season. However, in their 38 wins, only 7 have been by five points or less. Now I didn’t research all the other top teams, but I’d have to guess that is close to the NBA average because that doesn’t seem like too high of a percentage (18%). Winning by more than 5 points may not be “blowing out” the competition, but I don’t believe 7 wins of points or less is evidence that they are just squeaking by either.
by talonk on Feb 2, 2010 4:03 PM EST reply actions
WIN
by WaveOcean on Feb 2, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
Ergo tonite …. mid 4th, Cavs up by 20, go to end of bench, meaningless 3 at end of game, final victory is 16. But this wasn’t a dominating win, not at all. Memphis never led, didn’t get within 15 in the second half … but not a dominating win …
/sarc
by talonk on Feb 2, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
stats are not excuses
1.Stats are not excuses. OK. Hope you understand that.
2.Stats do not denigrate a team. Hope you understand that one too.
So the Cavs just played 3 of the 10 worst teams in the NBA, won 2 games by more than 18 points and they are the greatest team ever, according to you.
How did it start? LeBron kicks over a water bottle and should have gotten ejected. Then the calls get turned up a notch. 44-5 FT advantage the next game.
There is no rationale to pick 18 as a dividing line. 110, or 82. The numbers are the same for every team. So if the Cavs have two wins by 17, two by 16, all the other NBA teams throughout history will have those numbers too. Winning by 18 is not more impressive than winning by 10 or 12 automatically. It is just a stat.
My comments are simple. If your numbers don’t add up to 30 years of NBA history, and I haven’t even looked pre 1979 yet, it means something different is going on with that team, than other teams throughout history.
My question is this. Why don’t the numbers add up?
by malik377 on Feb 2, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
NBA history
Since 1979-80, only 1 NBA team that won a title or 60 games and had LESS than 30 games were(1.wins by 18 or more, 2.scored over 110. 3.held opponents to under 82).
OK? You got that stat?
Here are recent examples.
09 Lakers 48
08 Celtics 57
07 Spurs 43
06 Heat 35
05 Spurs 49
04 Pistons 41
03 Spurs 33
02 Lakers 38
01 Lakers 28(low in the past 30 years)
00 Lakers 40
98 Bulls 38
97 Bulls 74(all-time high)
96 Bulls 60
95 Rockets 31
94 Rockets 31.
2009-10 Cavs after 50 games:11. (On pace for 17 all time low since 1979 by a landslide) Cavs are on pace for 65 wins.
Now I want you to give me a logical explanition to explain that stat. A stat is the same for every team. So if you want to say the Cavs scored 109 points, or only gave up 83 points, or had a 20 pt lead into the 4th only to win by 16 instead of 20, the same goes for all the other NBA teams throughout history.
I already know why the numbers are like this. I want you to explain it to me.
by malik377 on Feb 2, 2010 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
Stats are great. I love stats. But stats can, and usually will, be twisted to make whatever point you are trying to make.
No, but the way you use them is to denigrate what the Cavs are doing so far this year.
Well, since the Cavs didn’t play those worst teams earlier in the season, they do get to play them in the later half. The Cavs schedule in the first half of the season was unusually top heavy and they played more road games than any other team. The combination of both of these factors will tend to keep blowouts down AND the other 2 factors that you now have thrown into the mix since the blowout one might not just end up the way you want it to.
Also, please peruse any of my posts, I have never said they are the greatest team ever. I just agree with Prada that they are the best team in the NBA right now, and probably over the course of this season so far.
Heck they may not even be the best team this year, but they have better stats than almost every team so far.
Comparing them to other high scoring teams in the past is kind of ridiculous as they tend to have one of the slowest paces in the NBA. As I am sure you are aware, they rarely put up a shot with over 10 seconds on the clock as LeBron does like to dribble it down fairly far.
I know I won’t convince you because of your blind hatred to LeBron and/or Cavs that they might be the best team in the league this year.
But I do urge you to use your passion for research. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to do this extensive research. I just think yoiu might want to direct that research in other more productive ways.
Oh, and just how many screennames do you own on SBN. I know of at least 3. I suspect at least one other.
As SBN is a very good blog system, I recommend you stick with one persona. Otherwise, people will start to ignore you as an ESPM message board poser who just likes to troll and create havoc.
by talonk on Feb 2, 2010 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
ok
nothing you wrote explained why they are so much lower in 3 important statistics than the last 65 NBA teams who won 60 games or a title.
They are on pace to be dead last in these 3 stats combined out of 65 NBA teams in the past 30 years, by a landslide. What is the explanation.
Possible explanation:“But stats can, and usually will, be twisted to make whatever point you are trying to make”. I don’t understand this one. If a team wins 60 games they must be a good team, if they win 20 games they must not be a good team. How can stats be twisted? Stats are facts.
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 12:02 AM EST up reply actions
You say they are important, but are they really? There are many other stats that can be used besides those.
Again, I never said they are the best team ever. They got off to a fairly slow start, but now are on a roll, even though they are not achieving your targets of >18 point wins, scoring over 110, or holding opponents under 82. Those are just reference points you chose to “fit” your hypothesis the Cavs are not good.
Do me a favor, repeat your research for >14 points wins, Offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency and then get back to me.
Lets see, here a few stats that “could” prove the Cavs are the best team this year. {note: these do not include the Memphis game tonite}
1. They have the most wins in the league (winning percentage as well).
2. They have accomplished this feat while playing the fewest home games.
3. They have the best SRS (Simple Rating System from Basketball Reference.com: which incorporates average point differential vs SOS) of 6.50, Lakers are second at 6.45, with Jazz a distant 3rd at 5.14
4. They are second in offensive effective FG% behind Phoenix.
5. They lead in defensive effective FG%
6. From Hollingers ratings, they have the best Average Scoring Margin of 7.04 (interesting since they don’t have many 18+ blowouts …hmmm).
7. They have the third best home winning percentage 19-3, while playing 3 or 4 games fewer than the Lakers and Nuggets
8. They have the best road record in the league at 19-8
9. They are percentage points behind the Lakers for record vs the Easternteams at 20-6, while the Lakers are 17-3
10. They have the best record against the West at 18-5
11. They have the best record in games decided by 10 or more points, 21-3, with the Magic right behind them at 20-4 and Nuggets at 19-4.
12. They had the 3rd best record in November at 10-3 behind the Lakers 12-2 and Suns at 12-3.
13. They had the best record in December at 14-3, Lakers #2 12-3
14. They tied the Nuggets for the best record in January at 12-3 with Bobcats right behind at 12-4 (notice they were only team top 3 in those 3 months
15. They lead the league in Point differential at 7.1, Lakers at 2 at 6.8, Nuggets and Celts at 3 at 5.4
16. They average 101 points a game, but have 7 games over 110 and only 6 games under 90 points. To me that means they are a very consistent offensive team while playing at the 6th slowest pace in the league.
These are just some “stats” that “could” prove the Cavs are the best team right now.
There are plenty of other stats that don’t as well.
You have focused on these three that are just numerical benchmarks.
Like I said, I like your dedication, please put it to good use instead of just focusing on the Cavs. You have passion, just use it more “efficiently”.
by talonk on Feb 3, 2010 1:55 AM EST up reply actions
Couple other notes that could explain your lack of high scoring, low scoring or blowouts.
Again. all stats do not include tonights Memphis game.
Out of the Cavs first 17 games, 14 games were back to back sets. One week of 3 games on Wed Fri Sun. Then over next 20 games, another 12 were back to back sets. So over the first 40 games, the Cavs played 13 of those on the tail end of back to backs.
Somehow I don’t think any other team had that long of a brutal stretch to start the year. And no, I am not going to check on that. Part of the reason for this is because the Cavs are a huge TV draw. TNT wants them on Thursday. ESPN wants them for Wed or Fri nites and ABC on Sunday. Heck, they have been the NBA league game of the week on Tue for 3 weeks running I think.
Also, out of those back to back sets, 26 games, 17 of them were on the road. 17!!!
In those 13 tail end back to back games, they are 9-4, with an average scoring margin of +3.23 …. that will drag your numbers down, a lot.
In those non back to back sets, a total of 23 games, the Cavs are 21-2, with the two losses being at Denver by 2 and at Utah by 1. The winning margin in those 21 wins is by an average of 10.6 points, with 13 of them being by 10 or more points.
In fact, they haven’t had a back to back since before the Utah loss. Counting the Utah game, with no back to backs, the Cavs are 8-1.
by talonk on Feb 3, 2010 2:27 AM EST up reply actions
stat
“18 point wins, scoring over 110, or holding opponents under 82. Those are just reference points you chose to "fit" your hypothesis the Cavs are not good.”
This I don’t agree with. Because if you change the number from 110 to 107, or 82 to 79, or 18 to 22, the numbers still work out about the same when comparing them to other teams of the past.
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 5:18 AM EST up reply actions
ok
good points. better than most.
I’m curious as to where you got your #2 from.
Celtics 21 home games, Cavs 23 home games.
So #2 is false.
I’m curious as to why that was in there.
The rest of the stats are fairly accurate and are good measurements of the team if you are looking for BCS standings, and pro basketball teams are not college rankings.
They look good when compared to other teams in the league this year.
They don’t look good when compared to the previous best 65 NBA teams in the past 30 years.
This right here I don’t get “please put it to good use instead of just focusing on the Cavs. You have passion, just use it more "efficiently"”
Because I’m not posting those kind of comments.
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 5:15 AM EST up reply actions
My apologies, since the Cavs have played 6 of their last 8 at home, you are correct that the Celtics have had the fewest home games now. Up until a week ago or so, it was the Cavs that had the fewest.
Are you going to respond to any of my other points? Or just continually harp on your 3 precious thresholds?
by talonk on Feb 3, 2010 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
yes
you other points are all correct. the stats are correct. It makes sense. the stats you give are for this year. they are accurate. they are BCS stats though, they don’t really mean anything when NBA playoffs start. When the playoffs start I’m not going to look at a team that lets say for example is 30-6 against +.500 teams vs a team that is 25-11 against +.500 teams and say that the 30-6 team is going to win 90% of the time. That is what the media does.
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 11:07 PM EST up reply actions
Stop with this BCS crud. These are stats for this season that mean something.
If a team went 41-41 and won all 41 games by 18+, does this mean they will sweep through the playoffs? Nope.
These targets you are using are just targets. They mean nothing.
No one here is saying the Cavs are better than the Jordan Bulls or the Lakers threepeat teams. They are just saying they are most likely the best team this year (so far). The playoffs are a different animal, we are all aware of that.
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
BCS
I’m sorry the stats this year don’t really mean anything.
Like I said you have 6 top teams, 3 teams in the mix.
They are all fairly even.
You saying they are most likely the best team this year(so far)isn’t true.
There is no likely best team this year, the top teams are fairly even, and if there is a best team it will have to do with their personnel as the playoffs start whether they are healthy or not.
That is why your stats are BCS. Because you are trying to compare teams that you really don’t have enough data to compare.
Example:Nuggets/Cavs, Magic/Spurs, Celtics/Cavs, Celtics/Nuggets etc.
The meetings for those teams and their schedule really isn’t that similiar so for you to say that one of those teams holds a distinct advantage over the other, its simple, they don’t.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
possible explantion?
“No, but the way you use them is to denigrate what the Cavs are doing so far this year.”
How does this make sense? What do you mean the way I use them? They are stats. Stats are facts. You can only use stats 1 way.
So you have a pace factor as a possible explanation. I would put this as better than the other ones. If they have a very low pace factor then why not hold a bunch of teams under 82?
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
what?
"No, but the way you use them is to denigrate what the Cavs are doing so far this year."
What?? Hello?? What are the Cavs doing this year? They are the ones putting up the numbers. These are stats from their basketball team and their games. What am I doing? I haven’t played in one game. The stats that I am showing for the Cavs are stats that they are doing themselves. Yet you want to make it look like I am the ones twisting the stats? I haven’t played in one game!!
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
do you really like having conversations with yourself?
by talonk on Feb 3, 2010 1:10 AM EST up reply actions
standings
I’m just going to make it real simple.
6 teams are very well matched, they are all fairly even teams:
Lakers, Magic, Nuggets, Cavs, Celtics, Hawks.
3 teams in the mix:
Mavs, Spurs, Jazz.
You can come up with all the numbers in the world. The reality is those teams are all neck and neck with each other. There is no clear champion, there is no clear advantage, there is no far superior team.
That is not what these rankings show. They show a dominant team every week, while the others shift in position. That is not what is going on in this league. That is what is going on with the rankings, because you think its BCS. Its not BCS. That is why the rankings are off. Each of the 9 teams above should all have been ranked #1 at least once, and no team should have been at the top for 3 weeks in a row. You can disagree by using stats like the BCS. However this is not the BCS. That is why the rankings are not consistent with the teams.
You can show every Cav stat in the world. The #2 #3 #4 etc teams are way to close for you to have them play a superior role. When you compare them to teams of the past, the numbers fall well short in important areas, while the #2 #3 #4 etc teams compare much more favorably. If the Cavs were always #1, like you say, you wouldn’t be able to have any meaningful stat that would show that. Yet the winning by 18, or 17 or 16, or 22 whatever you want it to be, scoring 110 or 107, or 115 whatever you want it to be, or holding opponents to 82, 77, 85 whatever you want it to be, shows a huge disadvantage.
And after all the stats in the world the Celtics are still #1 in defense in the league. And one of the rankings this week ranked them #10.
Think about that. #1 defense in the league with 5 possible hall of famers. #10 in the power rankings. There is no logic in the world that could possibly explain that.
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 5:33 AM EST up reply actions
All this so-called “fact” spinning from the same guy who went on and on @ PTH after the first Cavs-Hawks game about how “there is a conspiracy in the NBA to throw games to Cleveland”…based on a single play that had ZERO effect on the outcome of the game (a clear path foul)…and who has done the same on almost every SBN team blog in almost every close game the Cavs win…This guy has ABSOLUTELY NO credibility no matter what stats/“facts” he presents
by cavslandrocks on Feb 3, 2010 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
that's great
I don’t need to have credibility. The stats are accurate and the stats have credibility. And again I’ve been on like 5 team blogs and you post “on almost every SBN team blog in almost every close game”. That is not accurate. Its just another tool to use to spread false lies.
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
not fact spinning
its stats. You keep making it look like I’m the one doing something. I’m not doing anything. I’m giving you stats from basketball games that were played by basketball teams that I had nothing to do with it. I’m not making up numbers for the 2009 Lakers or 1998 Bulls or 1994 Rockets. The numbers are what they are.
And then you make it look like I was the one who stopped the Hawks shot clock or made the ruling and the call for that play. I had nothing to do with it!! If you want to blame me go ahead.
When the 1996-97 Bulls won by 18, scored 110 or more, or gave up 81 or less 74 times, it is a fact. That is what the 1996-97 Bulls did. 74 times. I had nothing to do with it. I didn’t contribute anything to that number of 74. Anybody can look it up, anybody can post that stat, they will come up with the same exact number. When you try to make it look like the stats don’t exist because you don’t agree with me on my opinion on a particular play or call, that is OK, it just doesn’t make any sense.
Here is another stat. The 1977-78 Milwaukee Bucks went 44-38. They had two guys score over 19 PPG game. Brian Winters 19.9 PPG, Marques Johnson 19.5 PPG. OK? Those are facts. The stats are not incorrect because you don’t like my screen name. Hopefully you can understand that.
by malik377 on Feb 3, 2010 11:55 PM EST up reply actions
Your screen name and the second Hawks-Cavs game were never mentioned in my post (call yourself Bozo the Clown for all I care), nor were you “made to look like” you had anything to do with any NBA game (thank god)..Your “stats” are irrelevant to this season in that no one here really cares how this season’s leaders compare to teams that played as much as 15 years ago-for a statistical confirmation of that please see how many here argued your stats with you-1 of 10 or 10%….From this point on you are replying to yourself…Even my crazy former spouse could argue a point (valid or not) without changing focus with every answer that disproved the argument , or proves the argument to be merely an opinion with a lot of unrelated “facts” to “support” it
by cavslandrocks on Feb 4, 2010 2:15 AM EST up reply actions
great post
you used 0 stats. and made 0 sense.
see:(call yourself Bozo the Clown for all I care)
What does that have to do with anything?
“no one here really cares how this season’s leaders compare to teams that played as much as 15 years ago-”——so when you lose in the playoffs now you will know why.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 4:31 AM EST up reply actions
squeaking by wins
that is not my hypothesis. I already know what my hypothesis is.
by malik377 on Feb 2, 2010 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
so
So far into the NBA season the Cavs have either 1.won by 18 or more. 2.scored over 110. 3.held opponents to under 82. 11 times.
Here are other title contending teams from this year
Lakers:26
Nuggets:26
Hawks:23
Magic:21
Celtics:20
Cavs:11.
I’m just asking, why don’t the numbers add up. If they are the greatest team ever, or #1 as you say, why are they dead last in this statistic, and how can you say that it is not an important statistic when you look at the other 65 NBA teams over the past 30 years who have been in similiar positions during the season? Just give a logical explantion that is all.
by malik377 on Feb 2, 2010 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
1996-97 Bulls
The 1996-97 Bulls did it 74 times, yes it is the record post 1979. So they basically did it almost once per game.
The 2009-10 Cavs are doing it once every 5 games.
Just explain the stat.
by malik377 on Feb 2, 2010 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
LOL@Celtic Contenders
Because you won a title in 08 does not mean we have to call you something you are not.
You knew this was coming.
You won a title in 08 Boston is back to being a Pats town again.
"Memphis then used a pick-and-roll to get Conley free and he drove past Shaquille O'Neal for the go-ahead layup."
by BS Patrol on Feb 2, 2010 6:39 PM EST reply actions
The Celtics will no longer be contenders if Paula Pierce's foot is really broken.
But then again maybe its not as he tends to fake injuries for some reason.
The RaiderLaker
by Raider9 on Feb 2, 2010 6:49 PM EST reply actions
It’s a tough call for Danny Ferry. As a Wizards fan, here’s hoping he doesn’t make the right one.
As a wizards fan…wondering what any of the top ten teams do shouldn’t concern you at all at this juncture…
"I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren
by johnnyphoenix on Feb 2, 2010 7:48 PM EST reply actions
I can hate who I want to hate
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Feb 2, 2010 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly. That’s why God created the Boston Celtics.
"I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren
by johnnyphoenix on Feb 2, 2010 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
Come on man
Are you seriously going to deny that a Cavaliers-Wizards feud ever existed? Don’t be so naive.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Feb 2, 2010 8:54 PM EST up reply actions
I wish you guys were still a playoff team
It was fun having annual postseason success at your expense…
by WaveOcean on Feb 2, 2010 9:31 PM EST up reply actions
IT has existed
since 1976 when the 6th year expansion Cavs bounced the then Bullets in the East semis….
by cavslandrocks on Feb 3, 2010 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
20, 22, 23, 23
Am I the only one that noticed the numbering problem? Probably because it cost the Clippers one whole spot in the rankings.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Feb 2, 2010 7:58 PM EST reply actions
Uch, fixed
Thanks.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Feb 2, 2010 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
malik
I am sure you watched the Heat/Celtics game last night.
So when you start to start your ref conspiracy rant again, don’t forget to add last night’s win as a Celtic/Ref win.
Midway through the 3rd period, Rondo goes around a pick by Garnett. Garnett blatantly holds Alston, and Rondo heads to the hoop. As Rondo elevates, O’Neal elevates straight up while Rondo pushes off with his left hand.
Ref doesn’t call a foul on Garnett and then proceeds to give O’Neal his 4th foul. O’Neal protests and gets T’d up. Then Alston also gets T’d up for not getting the call on Garnett’s blatant offensive foul.
So at this point, a 2 point lead by the Celtics becomes a 5 point lead as Allen sinks both Ts and Rondo only makes 1 of 2 on his “foul”. Not to mention, O’Neal goes to the bench for the remainder of the 3rd period with 4 fouls.
See, I can watch any game and give you instances of a ref conspiracy as well.
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 1:42 PM EST reply actions
Mia/Bos
I know what happened in the game last night. I’m not stupid. The Celtics got calls against the Heat in both games. Why they did, I don’t know. I don’t have to go over every play, I know what happened.
Those are really the only 2 games this year the Celtics got calls. Against Miami. They don’t get them against other teams. Take Atlanta, now look at how they got calls against Boston, night and day compared to how they get calls against Cleveland, now look at how Lakers got techincals against Cleveland. So I have no idea what is going on. All I can tell you is that if the Celtics got calls against Miami, that is it. So they got good calls in 2 games, and got bad calls in 10 games.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
Fun with stats
Ok, malik … here is some fun for you.
Let’s concentrate on one of your “glorious 3” benchmark stats.
Using your post from last week, you identified 60 teams since 1979-80 that were champions or had 60 or more wins (excluding the one strike year).
From that correlation you projected the Cavs to only have 3.7 wins of more than 18 (not 18+). I am going to trust your numbers are correct, because I am not going to repeat that since the number 18 you used is not readily used for easy research.
Although I do have one comment in that you left off the Magic from your current season rankings. Is that because they only had 5 wins of that nature and would make your justifications invalid?
Anyways, since that post, obviously the Cavs have doubled their number to 4 (and could have been up to 5 if not for a meaningless 3 the other night). Based on the number of games played, they now project to have 6.56 wins of over 18 points. For arguments sake, let’s round it down to 6.
Hey guess what, that 6 equals the lowest point on your list, the 2000-01 Lakers. And there are 4 more teams with 7, 8, or 9. Yeah, still on the low side, but would no longer be the lowest, just tied for the lowest..
So that potentially invalidates your first assumption that they could have the fewest ever (especially since they play the Nets twice more this season).
Out of all those 60 teams you listed, the average number of more than 18 point wins was 14.6. Only five of those 60 teams actually had over 20 of those type of wins, four of them being the Bulls, one of the most dominant regular season (and playoff) teams ever. So if those were factored out, looks like the average would be closer to 13.
Anyways, just for kicks, I decided to repeat the research for those 60 teams, but using the 10 or more number that is readily available on Basketball Ref.com.
For those 60 teams, the highest number of 10+ wins was 44, by the 91-92 Bulls, and the lowest was 24 by the 2000-01 Lakers. Averaging out all 60 teams, the value was 34.2 victories of 10+.
So based on those 6 elite teams you have referenced for this season, let’s see how they stack up:
Cavs – 22 (projected for 36.08)
Nuggets – 19 (projected for 31.80)
Lakers – 21 (projected for 34.44)
Hawks – 20 (projected for 34.17)
Magic – 21 (projected for 35.14)
Celtics – 14 (projected for 24.43)
Now which one of those does not look like the other?
Now this doesn’t mean the Celtics are doomed or anything, but compared to the historical data, they look like a fringe 60 win team at best.
See how one can twist the “facts” to fit an argument?
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 3:12 PM EST reply actions
good stats
those are good stats. It is just 1 of the three components though. You are only taking the win by 10 or 18 numbers. You aren’t factoring in how many games they score big, or hold opponents low.
The reason why my stats are different is because I am combining 3 stats. You are only taking 1 stat here and there. And yes the Celtics only have 14 10+ wins, and the Cavs best at 22, although the Cavs have played more games than the other teams with 50 and the Lakers, while the other top teams have played 47-49 games.
The thing is you’re not really twisting the facts. You are only using 1 component, how much they win by, that’s it. You aren’t factoring in when they score big, or play great defense. Plus I don’t like taking the +10 number, because a close 2 point game can turn into 10 points at the end, where as if you win by 18 you 99% had a big win.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
I know this. The reason I disregard your combination of the 3 is that you basically are trying to double or triple up the numbers with those benchmarks. So if a team won by 19 AND scored over 110, you are crediting them twice, or if they win by 19 AND allowed less than 82 you again are crediting them twice. Or if they hit all 3, winning 111-81, they get three credits in your system.
Last week you presented your case with the over 18 victories, and has not been shown to prove or disprove anything. So now, when someone challenged you, you added these other 2 targets in combination.
Those targets of more than 110 or less than 82 are totally arbitrary. The game has changed a lot since 1980. The only way to compare each team over that timespan is to drill it down to point/possesion, putting in a pace factor, or something along those lines and see how each of those teams compared to the league average that year. That is the only fair way to compare a team from today to one 5, 10, or even 20 years ago.
Just picking an arbitrary number means absolutely nothing.
Well ,why not use 12, 15, 17, 20, or 25 for that number? Any one of those are just as arbitrary as the 18 you chose.
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
great
“Just picking an arbitrary number means absolutely nothing.”
Just like the power rankings.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
More fun with stats
Ok, since this more than 18 is such a big deal, here are the win/losses by teams this season:
Lakers 9
Hawks 8
Suns 8
Heat 7
Spurs 7
Jazz 7
Celtics 6
Nuggets 6
Magic 5
Blazers 5
Bobcats 4
Cavs 4
Mavs 4
Knicks 4
Raptors 4
Warriors 3
Grizzlies 3
Bucks 3
Pistons 2
Rockets 2
Clippers 2
Thunder 2
Bulls 1
TWolves 1
Hornets 1
Kings 1
Wizards 1
Sixers 0
Pacers 0
Nets 0
So based on that number we should expect the Suns, Heat, Spurs, Jazz to be elite teams.
Ahhh, but I left out another important element, losses by more than 18 … let’s see what happens there:
Lakers 9-2
Hawks 8-3
Suns 8-6
Spurs 7-0
Jazz 7-2
Heat 7-4
Celtics 6-0
Nuggets 6-1
Blazers 5-0
Magic 5-1
Cavs 4-0
Mavs 4-2
Knicks 4-3
Bobcats 4-4
Raptors 4-8
Bucks 3-1
Grizzlies 3-4
Warriors 3-5
Thunder 2-0
Rockets 2-2
Pistons 2-5
Clippers 2-6
Hornets 1-2
Kings 1-3
Wizards 1-6
Bulls 1-7
TWolves 1-11
Sixers 0-3
Pacers 0-7
Nets 0-12
And to prove how silly this stat is, the Lakers have 9 of these such victories, but they against Suns twice, Warriors, Nets twice, Jazz, Mavericks, Clippers, and Pacers. Only two of those wins are of significance, Mavs and Jazz.
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 4:15 PM EST reply actions
The +18
isn’t that important of a stat. It is when you combine it with big scoring games(110+), or great defensive games (under 82). And it isn’t like it is the most important stat in the world. However when you factor in the 18+ stat the Cavs are very low right now. When you factor in the +10 stat the Celtics are very low right now. The thing is.
Nobody is ranking the Celtics #1 in any rankings.
That is the difference. You showed a stat that had the Celtics low in one area. So what. Nobody is ranking them #1. I showed a stat that had the Cavs low in 3 combined areas. And everyone basically has them ranked #1. That is the difference. If you are supposed to be #1, you don’t come in at the bottom in meaningful stats.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
BCS/NBA
Every stat that you can show for 2009-10 season isn’t really that important. Because of their schedules and when they play certain teams, matchups like Celtics/Nuggets Nuggets/Cavs, Celtics/Cavs, Spurs/Magic etc. don’t show a clear favorite. Even Lakers/Cavs doesn’t show a clear favorite. If it is the NCAA maybe it does, but it is the NBA so it doesn’t.
You can say you see a clear favorite because you use methods that they use in college football or basketball to rank teams.
All of those stats are worthless for the NBA. They don’t mean anything. That is what I am trying to post.
If you combine 3 important stats and use them to match up against the best 65 NBA teams of the last 30 years and you come in last, then are ranked #1, like its an automatic, that is where you mess up.
If you’re really #1, you don’t come in last in a combination of 3 stats. You show a stat that shows the Celtics last. So what. Nobody is ranking them #1. I show a stat, which is a combination of 3 stats, that has the Cavs last. And nearly every ranking has them #1. That is the difference. They wouldn’t be last in a combination of 3 stats if they were clearly a #1 regular season team.
That is what I am trying to post, there is no clear #1 team in the NBA right now. To think there is, is a joke. All those stats for 2009-10 are as close to meaningless as you can get. If you have 8-10 top teams that are all 1-8 games near each other, that is the only stat that will matter. Because it will show the teams are close competitively. All that SOS, EFF, whatever crap stat they show, for a team that finishes the season at 64-18 to a team that finishes in at 57-25 it means nothing.
If you are 64-18, and the team you have to play has a 57-25 record. Guess what? Both teams have a very tough series to play, and to use some rankings or ridiculous stat to give a clear favorite means nothing, especially in a 7 game playoff series.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 5:47 PM EST reply actions
this is a load of gibberish.
No one is saying the Cavs are head and shoulders above all the other elite teams. However, with the stats I provided up above, you can see why Prada and almost every other NBA writer would put the Cavs at #1 right now. They currently have the stats that are slightly better than all the other elite teams.
I am not sure why you are so adamant about this. Do you want to see a poll where the top 6-7 teams are all ranked number 1 together? That would be silly.
Only you have decided that these are important stats.
Guess what, the season is just slightly half over. Obviously they cant match the totals given above yet. But based on projections, they should match at least the 6 from the 2000-01 Lakers and probably end up around 8-10, which really isn’t that far off the mean of 13 for all those 60 teams. Hey, whose to say they don’t end up with 10 more over 18 wins? Is it likely? No, but it is possible.
Ahh, but you yourself have said they should be equal to the Cavs right now, because there is no clear delineation between the Top 6 teams … right?? Stop changing your story.
This is just you not accepting there are other stats that refute your position.
What I think is, you as a Boston fan feel slighted the Cavs most likely achieve the #1 seed this year. Your hopes were pretty high this season, Garnett coming back, the signing of Sheed, etc. Now that the season is not going to plan, you have to found something to make you feel better.
And since you love to type in volume, you expect noone to refute your claims. I have provided evidence to refute what you have stated.
As I don’t have as much free time to hunt down all your assertions, especially since you have multiple screennames, I will leave this discussion here.
Hopefully you take this to heart, that there are many many ways to present stats/facts and skew them toyour assertions.
So when the next rankings come out, please refrain from harping on the same old story.
Capice?
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
stats
its not gibberish, you type that because you want to do the same thing the media does.
print something and then make someone believe it.
You keep telling me what to do, yet I haven’t told you once what to do.
That is what Cavs fans do, and the media.
You don’t see Magic, Nuggets, Spurs, Mavs, fans etc. telling people what to do.
You said I feel slighted about not getting a #1 seed. I could care less!!! And so does Melo!!! and so does Tim Duncan!! and does all the other veterans. They could care less about rankings and getting 1 game better to get one higher seed.
“So when the next rankings come out, please refrain from harping on the same old story.
Capice?"
No, I don’t capice. Becuase you are trying to tell me what to do. Same thing with the media. They try and tell you what team is better. THAT is gibberish. You play any of the top 9 teams in a 7 game series it is like flipping a coin. 50/50. not 99/1 like the media tries to make it look.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
Nuggets/Cavs
To make it simple. I don’t think I’ve seen one ranking this year that had the Nuggets ranked higher than the Cavs anywhere on any blog.
That is 100% media influenced right there and you can tell.
There isn’t enough data in the world to say one way or another that the Cavs have a distinct advantage over the Nuggets or the other way around.
Yet every ranking places the Cavs higher than the Nuggets.
That is 100% media controlled, and it means nothing.
Those 2 teams are neck and neck, there is no clear favorite.That is the point.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 5:50 PM EST reply actions
#1
People make rankings, then say definetly for 100% certain that one team is clearly better than everybody else.
I’m telling you, this is the NBA.
That logic is just plain stupid for lack of a better word.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 5:54 PM EST reply actions
ha ha … you sound bitter.
While the Cavs may be ranked ahead of the Nuggets, the separation from 1 to 2 to 3 is most likely miniscule. If I would guess, it would look like this on a scale of 100:
Cavs 100
Lakers 99
Nuggets 98
Orlando 97
Atlanta 95
If there was certainty like in the Jordan Bull years, you would see it more like
Cavs 100
Lakers 92
Nuggets 92
Orlando 91
Atlanta 90
stop acting like a teenager.
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
haha
I don’t sound bitter.
Again all of the personal comments.
I haven’t made one personal comment yet, and received about 100.
If I would guess, it would look like this on a scale of 100:
Cavs 97
Lakers 99
Nuggets 98
Orlando 97
Atlanta 95
now talk about teenagers.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
#1
“you can see why Prada and almost every other NBA writer would put the Cavs at #1 right now.”
yes its called media journalism. Put the team that you want to win, or has the most endorsements, or media coverage #1, or what epsn or some other network keep claiming is #1. It has no basis in reality.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 6:16 PM EST reply actions
sounds exactly like what they did for your precious Celtics 2 years ago … or the Lakers 6 years ago … or the Bulls in the 90s.
Just stop. You obviously take these ranbkings WAYYYY too seriously.
A ranking is a ranking, it has no bearing on who will win the playoffs, which has been shown over the years.
If you spent less time worrying about the media and ref bias you claim to exist, I think you might be a much more happy person.
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 6:20 PM EST up reply actions
the rankings are nonsense
because they use the stats they want to use. When I use stats, you claim my stats are gibberish, then talk about acting like a teenager.
Has nothing to do with basketball.
And they didn’t do that for the Celtics in 2007-08. They were 6 games better than everybody in the league and they were ranked 6th in mid feburary in some silly power rankings.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
4/3/2009
4/3/2009-Orlando takes an 88-47 lead over the Cavs
5/20/2009-espn picks the Cavs to win 10-0 over the Magic, on the epsn shows this series was so in the bag with such a huge favorite it is a suprise that Orlando even showed up to play.
Everybody knows the media plays favorites.
A team that has a 41 point lead would NEVER NEVER NEVER in a million years be picked 0-10 to win a 7 game series against that same team just 47 days later.
100% media favoritism.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 6:21 PM EST reply actions
Best post ever
My team will take a 41 point lead on your team. Then 47 days later, the media will give my team a 1% chance to win a 7 game series against that same team.
Wow, if I was Dwight Howard at the start of Game 1, I would expect UFO’s to fly in from Roswell, have a couple people by the grassy knoll, Elvis to pop out of nowhere to sing Hound Dog, 2 Pac & Biggie to spit some bars, Rosie O’Donnell and Bldg 7 to magically disappear, & Nostradamus to hit the game winning shot at the buzzer.
Its funny, I don’t remember 1992 Angola taking a 41 point lead on the 1992 USA Dream Team, yet those were the odds the Orlando Magic got in a 7 game series against the same team they took a 41 point lead on just 47 days earlier.
2009 ECF has to be the stupidest combination of media and sports I have ever seen in the history of the world.
Talk about media conspiracies.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 7:06 PM EST reply actions
Please stop with this media conspiracy BS.
When the Cavs lost in 7 games to the Celtics two years ago, didn’t the media overwhelmingly say the Celts would win 4-1? We saw how that worked out.
Or better yet, what about the Patriots against the Giants in the Super Bowl. Noone gave the Giants a shot. Or the Red Sox and Yankees will always be the preseason favorites.
Your rant against the media is all well and good, but has no business being on this post.
This is Prada’s opinion that the Cavs are the top team in the league at the moment. You obviously disagree and provided your “stats” as to why. However, no justification was given as to why you chose those thresholds. When I disproved the over 18, you added two more. Shocked, not!
In your opinion, those thresholds are important. I don’t agree and provided additional “stats” that prove why the Cavs “could be” the #1 team right now.
I don’t see anyone else defending your point of view. So obviously you are shouting at deaf ears here.
When I have provided other evidence, you do not address them, just falling back onto “your opinion” as why your stats matter, even though they have been disproven.
by talonk on Feb 4, 2010 7:36 PM EST up reply actions
disprove nothing
you haven’t disproved anything.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 8:50 PM EST up reply actions
times
How many times are you going to post this?
“Please stop with this media conspiracy BS.”
Why? What is your stake in the claim? Am I telling you what to post? No. So why are you telling me.
“I don’t see anyone else defending your point of view”
Dude, there’s like 5 people on this blog.
by malik377 on Feb 4, 2010 8:50 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed