Posting unfounded NBA records.

[indeedproceed]

None of this is from memory, its all from box scores of basketball games.

You don't get NBA records from box scores.

Go check out a site like www.databasebasketball.com, or www.basketball-reference.com

Those are sites with wealths of information.

[star18]

So if somebody knows what the exact records are post them.  
To my understanding they are records.  When you get called for a foul at a rate of 165 to 1, or 108 to 1, to other players in the same league, it sure looks like a record to me.

Either way to think at the 9:17 mark of the 4th, that the Celtics didn't have a chance to break the NBA record of highest point differential after the first 10 games in NBA history, I just don't understand how you think the record couldn't have been broken.

[star18]

Yes you go to those sites to get NBA records. 
But if you go to a recent box score and see that those stats in that box score, broke the old mark, then obviously they are records.

[Donoghus]

Yes you go to those sites to get NBA records. 
But if you go to a recent box score and see that those stats in that box score, broke the old mark, then obviously they are records.

What are the old marks?  Do you have those?  If so, where are you getting the info.

That's all we're asking.

[star18]

I understand how you are saying you don't know for sure if they are NBA records.  However this just happened 11/13/09, so if they are records, the records are only 2 days old.

[indeedproceed]

I understand how you are saying you don't know for sure if they are NBA records.  However this just happened 11/13/09, so if they are records, the records are only 2 days old.

I really feel like there is a big gap in communication here.

You might even be right. So be it. Find the old records first, then post them. Then post your numbers. Then say "These new numbers are bigger than the old numbers, they're a new record"

That's what we want. If you even happened to throw a link in there once and a while that's just hunky-dorey.

[Steve Weinman]

If they are NBA records and some people don't want that information for various undetermined reasons I totally understand.

I think you may be mistaking the issue of verity in posting for some sort of denial among our readership or mod staff.

There is no problem with providing information about NBA records, so long as it can be verified from a valid source.

There is, however, a problem with calling something an NBA record merely because you conjecture it to be so, then failing to cite a source for it upon request followed by intimating that other people should do the work to certify the accuracy of your claims.

Some sort of adherence to the concepts of common courtesy and at least a minimal truth standard is necessary here.

-sw

[Donoghus]

I understand how you are saying you don't know for sure if they are NBA records.  However this just happened 11/13/09, so if they are records, the records are only 2 days old.

If they are records, then I'm sure they're already posted. 2 days old or not.  This is the information age. 

If you're gonna make statistical references and call them records, do your research and make sure that they're records before making that proclamation. 

[star18]

I am unsure what the highest point differential is after 10 games.  However they recently posted a similiar stat about the Celtics and they were very close a few games ago to being at the top.  

This is the record for a season 1971-72 Lakers (+12.3 ppg)., so if the Celtics were +14.12 after 9 games, they had to have a chance to break the record after the first 10 games of the season.

I am also unsure of what the most ridiculous foul run ever is. This is a record
Most personal fouls, one quarter
19-Dallas at Denver, January 15, 1982

So with the Celtics getting 10 in 5:38, that works out to 21 for a full quarter, so obviously that is very close also.

[star18]

"If they are records, then I'm sure they're already posted. 2 days old or not.  This is the information age. "

That is the thing, if they are records, I belive they will be swept under the rug and not validated by the media for various undetermined reasons.  When I read the recap to the Hawks Celtics game, no mention whatsoever about 10 consecutive calls in 5:38, all they talked about was "giving the Hawks credit", whatever that means. 

[indeedproceed]

I am unsure what the highest point differential is after 10 games.  However they recently posted a similiar stat about the Celtics and they were very close a few games ago to being at the top.  

This is the record for a season 1971-72 Lakers (+12.3 ppg)., so if the Celtics were +14.12 after 9 games, they had to have a chance to break the record after the first 10 games of the season.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but what you're saying is kind like saying "The Celtics are 10-0. If they win the next 72 games they will be 82-0, and have the best regular season record of all time."

I mean that's true, but for it mean anything the sample size needs to be considerably larger to be taken seriously, right?

[star18]

I am unsure what the highest point differential is after 10 games.  However they recently posted a similiar stat about the Celtics and they were very close a few games ago to being at the top.  

This is the record for a season 1971-72 Lakers (+12.3 ppg)., so if the Celtics were +14.12 after 9 games, they had to have a chance to break the record after the first 10 games of the season.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but what you're saying is kind like saying "The Celtics are 10-0. If they win the next 72 games they will be 82-0, and have the best regular season record of all time."

I mean that's true, but for it mean anything the sample size needs to be considerably larger to be taken seriously, right?

Not at all. The sample size is the same.   The first 10 games in NBA history.  The Celtics played 9 games and 3+ quarters before I felt something "weird" happened.
10 Games to 9 3/4+ games.   Obviously very close.

The same thing with the foul rate.   One quarter is 12:00, my sample size is 5:38 so obviously it is close. 12:00 to 5:38 again obviously very close.

A 10 game sample size compared to an 82 game sample size is not close at all. 10 is very far from 82.

[Roy Hobbs]

The 1996-97 Bulls had a +19.8 point differential through 10 games, which destroys the "record" you posted.  The 2002-03 Dallas Mavericks had an average point differential of +14.2 through 10 games.  I'm sure there are others that beat this imaginary "record", as well.

Bulls:  Link

Mavs:  Link

[star18]

Post the source of the 2002-03 Mavericks.

[indeedproceed]

I am unsure what the highest point differential is after 10 games.  However they recently posted a similiar stat about the Celtics and they were very close a few games ago to being at the top.  

This is the record for a season 1971-72 Lakers (+12.3 ppg)., so if the Celtics were +14.12 after 9 games, they had to have a chance to break the record after the first 10 games of the season.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but what you're saying is kind like saying "The Celtics are 10-0. If they win the next 72 games they will be 82-0, and have the best regular season record of all time."

I mean that's true, but for it mean anything the sample size needs to be considerably larger to be taken seriously, right?

Not at all. The sample size is the same.   The first 10 games in NBA history.  The Celtics played 9 games and 3+ quarters before I felt something "weird" happened.
10 Games 9 3/4+ games.   Obviously very close.

The same thing with the foul rate.   One quarter is 12:00, my sample size is 5:38 so obviously it is close.

A 10 game sample size compared to an 82 game sample size is not close at all.

So you're telling me that you know for a fact that between all the teams, in all the league, for as long as it has been active, the best point differential over the first 10 games was the 72 Lakers.

And you found a website that can corroborate that.