Posting unfounded NBA records.

[star18]

No. The 1971-72 Lakers set that record for the entire season.  +12.3

[Steve Weinman]

Post the source of the 2002-03 Mavericks.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2003_games.html

It's that simple.

-sw

[indeedproceed]

No. The 1971-72 Lakers set that record for the entire season.  +12.3

So why compare a season long record to 10 games?

[star18]

So if the 02-03 Mavs were +14.2 after 10 games, and the 09-10 Celtics were +14.12 after 9 games, obviously it was still possible at the 9:17 mark of the 4th 11/13 against the Hawks to have a better +, then the 02-03 Mavs.  They were down 78-72, so they would have to have won by 15 to have a higher + after 10 games then the 02-03 Mavs.  They needed to outscore the Hawks by 21 in the final 9:17.   Not probably, but definitely not impossible.

[star18]

No. The 1971-72 Lakers set that record for the entire season.  +12.3

So why compare a season long record to 10 games?

Because at first you have to have a higher + then the best team over 82 games to be considered a record after 10 games.   Once you see that +14.12 is higher than +12.3, there is a chance to have the record.

[Roy Hobbs]

So if the 02-03 Mavs were +14.2 after 10 games, and the 09-10 Celtics were +14.12 after 9 games, obviously it was still possible at the 9:17 mark of the 4th 11/13 against the Hawks to have a better +, then the 02-03 Mavs.  They were down 78-72, so they would have to have won by 15 to have a higher + after 10 games then the 02-03 Mavs.  They needed to outscore the Hawks by 21 in the final 9:17.   Not probably, but definitely not impossible.

See above.  The '96 Bulls were +19.8.  I have no idea if that's the NBA record, but it's a heck of a lot better than the imaginary record you were posting.

[star18]

Wow that 02-03 Mavs team was pretty good, they started 14-0, so I don't see how the record is that much higher than +14.2 after 10 games.

[indeedproceed]

No. The 1971-72 Lakers set that record for the entire season.  +12.3

So why compare a season long record to 10 games?

Because at first you have to have a higher + then the best team over 82 games to be considered a record after 10 games.   Once you see that +14.12 is higher than +12.3, there is a chance to have the record.

See Post below. It is exactly what you are doing.

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?

[Roy Hobbs]

1997-98 Lakers:  +15.7.  Still not as good as the Bulls, but better than the imaginary record the Celtics were chasing.

Link

Feel free to check my math on these, but it's pretty clear that a lot of teams have beaten the so-called record.

[star18]

Yes the 1996-97 Bulls were +19.8 after 10 games, that is correct.

See that helps me out becuase I didn't know that. I'm sure the Celtics still could have been in the Top 10 or 5, not that that matters and I see where you are coming from.

Now the 10 fouls in a row in 5:38, that is another matter.

[star18]

I agree, I'm not questioning that,  I was wrong on that and I admit that I was.  But I needed help from others to realize that.  I couldn't find that answer out myself which is why I posted.

Now if you could show me a worse string of foul calls than 10 consecutive in 5:38 I will be wrong on just about everything I posted.     But the foul rate of 108 to 1, and 165 to 1, is correct because I checked those numbers myself.

[Fan from VT]

I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone

[star18]

Ok so now before the Cavs 69th game of the 2008-09 season they were 31-1 at home, with a realistic chance at going 40-1.  I took LeBron's next 10 games, although 3 of them were on the road, and he got called for 6 fouls in 10 games.  

So with the Celtics on the verge of going 9-1, they got called for 10 fouls in 5:38 on 19 total game possesions

With the Cavs having a possiblity of going 40-1 at home, LeBron got called for 6 fouls in 360:00 in about 1,786 total game possesions when he was in the ball game( I will admit I esimated this number by taking the first number of 178 total game posessions in the first game and multiplying by 10, but I don't see how the 1,786 is that far off from the exact number)

It is a rate of 108 to 1 if you go by time or 165 to 1 if you go by posessions.

[star18]

I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone

Yes Rod Serling welcomes you(Just kidding Twilight Zone shows are creepy)

[star18]

Roy & Co, don't run away now because you proved me wrong on 1 of the 2 records, and then think I don't know what I'm talking about on anything.

I am still looking for a verification on the 10 fouls in 5:38 being a record.