The Official NBA Regular Season 07-08 Thread

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
a highly lauded asst to Jeff Van Gollum

[/ QUOTE ] well played

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Kobe once again plays much more difficult playoff teams than those paper thin East teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

How convenient, you don't mention that Kobe played with the Most Dominant Ever.

[FlyWf]

First time caller, long time listener!!!!

[ QUOTE ]

6. Denver (finished the season 16-6 in their last 22)


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget they swept the season series!!

!!

I'm going to take a CRAZY guess and without even looking it up say that the Nuggets went 16-7 in their last 23 games.

Seriously, you're flailing around for a point and whiffing badly. The difference between playing the Spurs and Blazers is quantitative, not qualitative(you win more often playing the Blazers, but if you can derive the quality of the Spurs and Blazers from other data each game provides the same amount of information). That's assuming that you still aren't alleging Lebron has a skillset uniquely suited to beating bad teams.

Regardless, the Cavaliers played Western conference teams 28 times during the regular season, it seems pretty silly to say that they had their eyes opened to the West by a team they had already played twice simply because they got swept in the finals. It's certainly not a basis for concluding that Kobe has to try harder than LBJ because the West is so good, the Cavs did better against the West than they did against the East in the regular season.

[Fallen Hero]

[ QUOTE ]

First time caller, long time listener!!!!

[ QUOTE ]

6. Denver (finished the season 16-6 in their last 22)


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget they swept the season series!!

!!

I'm going to take a CRAZY guess and without even looking it up say that the Nuggets went 16-7 in their last 23 games.

Seriously, you're flailing around for a point and whiffing badly. The difference between playing the Spurs and Blazers is quantitative, not qualitative(you win more often playing the Blazers, but if you can derive the quality of the Spurs and Blazers from other data each game provides the same amount of information). That's assuming that you still aren't alleging Lebron has a skillset uniquely suited to beating bad teams.

Regardless, the Cavaliers played Western conference teams 28 times during the regular season, it seems pretty silly to say that they had their eyes opened to the West by a team they had already played twice simply because they got swept in the finals. It's certainly not a basis for concluding that Kobe has to try harder than LBJ because the West is so good, the Cavs did better against the West than they did against the East in the regular season.

[/ QUOTE ]

Denver looked much much better against the spurs than the Cavs. As a spurs fan I was very worried for a while.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to take a CRAZY guess and without even looking it up say that the Nuggets went 16-7 in their last 23 games.

[/ QUOTE ]
You got me dude, they went 16-7 the last 23, the 23rd game was a loss. I feel so exposed.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, the Cavaliers played Western conference teams 28 times during the regular season

[/ QUOTE ]
You keep writing this and the 19-9 thing and it's wrong. They played the WC THIRTY TIMES, 15 TEAMS X 2 GAMES EACH = 30!!! They were 19-11 against the Western Conference.

As for everything else, then whatever. It appears we weigh victories differently. I personally think wins against top-level opposition are more relevant than against crappy teams for a bunch of reasons. And bottom line, the Cavs just weren't that good against the best in the west. I really don't have a horse in the race other than attempting to dispel the delusion brought on by your homerism.

[Vyse]

Wins against top-level opposition are usually close games, and close games are much more prone to luck, while blowouts vs crappy teams is a much better indication of just how good a team is.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Wins against top-level opposition are usually close games, and close games are much more prone to luck, while blowouts vs crappy teams is a much better indication of just how good a team is.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is pretty standard bill of fare for you Mrs. Pink. Nice work.

[Fallen Hero]

[ QUOTE ]
Wins against top-level opposition are usually close games, and close games are much more prone to luck, while blowouts vs crappy teams is a much better indication of just how good a team is.

[/ QUOTE ]

that doesn't really work for nba regular season games. The spurs (just as an example) cruise for most of the regular season, you can't get to the playoffs and expect to draw conclusions from those numbers.
Also the skill-set needed to beat a top nba team is very different from the one needed to blow out bad teams.

[Vyse]

trying to draw conclusions by chopping the 82 game season into 30 games vs the WC, and then 2 or 4 games v an individual team is a joke in and of itself. I don't know why anyone is doing it.

Your second sentence is incorrect. There is no skill set needed... other than being really good.

The Spurs don't cruise for most of the regular season, they were the best team in the regular season last year...

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
The Spurs don't cruise for most of the regular season, they were the best team in the regular season last year...

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]