Spurs Get Win Number 20, on Pace For 71

[nba is the worst]

The Spurs continued their blistering pace with a win over the Blazers yesterday, upping their league-best record to 20-3.  

They also share the best record vs .500 and above teams (as of today's records) with the Celtics at 9-2.

And on a somewhat related note - here's the (short) list of teams with winning records vs .500 and over:
Spurs: 9-2
Celtics: 9-2
Mavericks: 9-3
Jazz: 9-6
Thunder: 8-5


This, combined with the number of winning teams by conference (W 7, E 6) and number of teams under .400 (E 7, W 5) indicates that with just under a third of the regular season completed,  the hype about the East being stronger than the West this year was unfounded...

(EDIT):
Conference Head-to head as of today, West leads East 73-58

West teams with winning records vs East:
Spurs
Mavs
Lakers
OKC
Jazz
Hornets

East teams with winning records over the West:
Celtics
Heat
Bulls
Knicks

[Fafnir]

The "hype" was based on the assumption that the Lakers didn't face as many threats as the Celtics on their return to the finals. I'm not sure that still isn't the case. There have been more poor teams in the East for several years now, but there have also been more elite teams than the West. (Namely Cavs/Magic/Celtics)

Why focus on records against .500 and above teams though? It is not a particularly useful measure in a vacuum.

[nba is the worst]

The "hype" was based on the assumption that the Lakers didn't face as many threats as the Celtics on their return to the finals. I'm not sure that still isn't the case. There have been more poor teams in the East for several years now, but there have also been more elite teams than the West. (Namely Cavs/Magic/Celtics)

Why focus on records against .500 and above teams though? It is not a particularly useful measure in a vacuum.

As I recall, the hype was based primarily upon West FAs signing with east teams.

What's your criteria for "elite" - having an advantage in W-L record due to more games vs all the sub-.400 teams?

And how is showing a 4-1 advantage in winning records based on weighted SOS - plus numerical superiority in teams with winning records and sub .400 teams - reasonably called "in a vacuum"?

Only thing I can think of that remains that I didn't include is conference head-to-head, I'll edit/add the West's advantages (73-58), (6-4) there as well.

[Witch-King]

The Spurs look like they are finally putting their updated roster to good use. Last year the concern was that their team was a ways over the NBA salary cap so it is nice to see a team that is composed of veteran players (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Jefferson, McDyess, etc.) is a serious threat to lead the West in wins during the regular season.

The West has been sort of unpredictable as soon as the playoffs arrive (well besides the fact that the Los Angeles Lakers more often than not are favored to come out of the West), however the Spurs are an NBA franchise which has won 4 titles in 4 Finals appearances so there is a greater chance that they can make it to the Big Show if they can secure home-court advantage. It's sort of a long-shot to expect that teams like the Hornets, Suns, Mavericks, Thunder, etc. could feasibly win the West if you look at last decade's trends...

[Fafnir]

*shrug* I guess you can pick whatever hype you want. My view was that like last year there just weren't any threats to the Lakers in the playoffs out west. That looks to be wrong, but its early. (and the Lakers could be a whole lot better if they had more than two quality bigs playing)

It not a weighted SoS, its truncated. It also "weights" a 1 point win over Portland the same as a beat down of the Bulls. It doesn't look at how easy the schedule has been (as far as back to backs) The majority of your post was focused on the above .500 record, which to me is a poor measure.

The east definitely has more bottom feeders and that reflects in the conference win/loss and number of winning teams. But I don't care that the East appears to have 4/5 awful teams compared to 3/4 in the West. My focus is on the contenders when I compare conferences.

In that respect even with the surprising start to the season it looks like 3 in the West, Spurs/Mavs/Lakers, and 4 in the east, Celtics/Magic/Heat/Bulls(Making an assumption about Boozer getting back to form).

You could argue that Utah/OKC can make the leap to contender status and that will flip. But currently OKC/Utah's records are deceptively good. I think they'll regress a bit like New Orleans has.

[pearljammer10]

I repeatedly say that there are only three teams that can win a title this season... The Spurs, the Lakers, and the Celtics. One of those three will win the title, I don't see any other team beating one of these teams in the finals.

[nba is the worst]

*shrug* I guess you can pick whatever hype you want. My view was that like last year there just weren't any threats to the Lakers in the playoffs out west. That looks to be wrong, but its early. (and the Lakers could be a whole lot better if they had more than two quality bigs playing)

It not a weighted SoS, its truncated. It also "weights" a 1 point win over Portland the same as a beat down of the Bulls. It doesn't look at how easy the schedule has been (as far as back to backs) The majority of your post was focused on the above .500 record, which to me is a poor measure.

The east definitely has more bottom feeders and that reflects in the conference win/loss and number of winning teams. But I don't care that the East appears to have 4/5 awful teams compared to 3/4 in the West. My focus is on the contenders when I compare conferences.

In that respect even with the surprising start to the season it looks like 3 in the West, Spurs/Mavs/Lakers, and 4 in the east, Celtics/Magic/Heat/Bulls(Making an assumption about Boozer getting back to form).

You could argue that Utah/OKC can make the leap to contender status and that will flip. But currently OKC/Utah's records are deceptively good. I think they'll regress a bit like New Orleans has.

To me there's a few unsupportable positions here:

"It not a weighted SoS, its truncated"
It's weighted by by wins vs .500 + teams, no more or less.

"But I don't care that the East appears to have 4/5 awful teams compared to 3/4 in the West."
If your definition of "awful" is sub- .400, East has 7, West 5. Sub- .350, East 6, West 4 (East +2 either definition, not +1).

"In that respect even with the surprising start to the season it looks like 3 in the West, Spurs/Mavs/Lakers, and 4 in the east, Celtics/Magic/Heat/Bulls(Making an assumption about Boozer getting back to form)."

My intent was to compare the strength of the conferences to date based on performance, without assumptions. Using that metric, there are 4 teams in each conference with 8 or fewer losses, Spurs/Mavs/Lakers/Jazz, and Celtics/Magic/Heat/Bulls. Given the East's advantage due to overall lower level of competition, putting the Jazz (17-8) at the same level as the Magic (16-8) and Bulls (14-8) is certainly reasonable.

But as far as predicting title contenders goes, right now I would say there are just 3:

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs

Health will determine which is the Champion in June...

[Fafnir]

"It not a weighted SoS, its truncated"
It's weighted by by wins vs .500 + teams, no more or less.

I think you’re confused on what the meaning of weighted is. Unless you’re being pedantic about giving .500+ wins a weight of “1” and everything else a weight of “0”. Which is what I mean about truncated, you’re just cutting away data of games against half the league. I think that gives you a poor view of the league, especially given the imbalanced schedule. (see the Lakers/Knicks schedules for a laugh, or even how favorable the timing of the Spurs has been)

"But I don't care that the East appears to have 4/5 awful teams compared to 3/4 in the West."
If your definition of "awful" is sub- .400, East has 7, West 5. Sub- .350, East 6, West 4 (East +2 either definition)

I didn’t supply a precise definition to awful because I’m using my subjective judgment on teams when I rate them.. You’re the one who supplied the .400 cut off. My list of awful teams:

Toronto, Washington, New Jersey, Detroit, Cleveland, and probably Philly

Minnesota, Golden State, Los Angeles Clippers, Sacramento,  and maybe Houston (though I think they’ll rebound once they get Brooks/Ming back) And I also think New Orleans is probably going to nearly fall out of the playoffs, they haven't looked good since they got off to their crazy start.

"In that respect even with the surprising start to the season it looks like 3 in the West, Spurs/Mavs/Lakers, and 4 in the east, Celtics/Magic/Heat/Bulls(Making an assumption about Boozer getting back to form)."

My intent was to compare the strength of the conferences to date based on performance, without assumptions. Using that metric, there are 4 teams in each conference with 8 or fewer losses, Spurs/Mavs/Lakers/Jazz, and Celtics/Magic/Heat/Bulls. Given the East's advantage due to overall lower level of competition, putting the Jazz (17-8) at the same level as the Magic (16-8) and Bulls (14-8) is more than reasonable.

But as far as predicting title contenders goes, right now I would say there are just 3:

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs

Health will determine which is the Champion in June...

I get that’s your opinion on things,

I don’t see how my view is unsupportable. I don’t think the Jazz will continue to win at the same rate as the Magic. Their point differential isn’t as good and they keep spotting big leads to teams. Eventually that will cost them a lot of otherwise winnable games.

[nba is the worst]

"It not a weighted SoS, its truncated"
It's weighted by by wins vs .500 + teams, no more or less.

I think you’re confused on what the meaning of weighted is. Unless you’re being pedantic about giving .500+ wins a weight of “1” and everything else a weight of “0”. Which is what I mean about truncated, you’re just cutting away data of games against half the league. I think that gives you a poor view of the league, especially given the imbalanced schedule. (see the Lakers/Knicks schedules for a laugh, or even how favorable the timing of the Spurs has been)

"But I don't care that the East appears to have 4/5 awful teams compared to 3/4 in the West."
If your definition of "awful" is sub- .400, East has 7, West 5. Sub- .350, East 6, West 4 (East +2 either definition)

I didn’t supply a precise definition to awful because I’m using my subjective judgment on teams when I rate them.. You’re the one who supplied the .400 cut off. My list of awful teams:

Toronto, Washington, New Jersey, Detroit, Cleveland, and probably Philly

Minnesota, Golden State, Los Angeles Clippers, Sacramento,  and maybe Houston (though I think they’ll rebound once they get Brooks/Ming back) And I also think New Orleans is probably going to nearly fall out of the playoffs, they haven't looked good since they got off to their crazy start.

"In that respect even with the surprising start to the season it looks like 3 in the West, Spurs/Mavs/Lakers, and 4 in the east, Celtics/Magic/Heat/Bulls(Making an assumption about Boozer getting back to form)."

My intent was to compare the strength of the conferences to date based on performance, without assumptions. Using that metric, there are 4 teams in each conference with 8 or fewer losses, Spurs/Mavs/Lakers/Jazz, and Celtics/Magic/Heat/Bulls. Given the East's advantage due to overall lower level of competition, putting the Jazz (17-8) at the same level as the Magic (16-8) and Bulls (14-8) is more than reasonable.

But as far as predicting title contenders goes, right now I would say there are just 3:

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs

Health will determine which is the Champion in June...

I get that’s your opinion on things,

I don’t see how my view is unsupportable. I don’t think the Jazz will continue to win at the same rate as the Magic. Their point differential isn’t as good and they keep spotting big leads to teams. Eventually that will cost them a lot of otherwise winnable games.

OK - so it's "pedantic" to define "weighted" as merely wins over .500 + - even though the league only has 5 teams (16.7%) in that category...
Feel free to weight SOS as you see fit, do you think it will change the results?

Your list of awful teams shows the east has 2 more, as I said, and clearly the East has less good teams.

That will help the Magic to a better record than the Jazz, perhaps - but the Magic are playing worse than last season, they're not "elite"...

[Fafnir]

You're not weighting the data, you're censoring it. Or if you prefer taking a small subset of it. I'm not sure what the results would be if you actually weighted wins on some sort of value scale. But calling it a weighted strength of schedule is inaccurate. (again unless you're talking in the trival case of 1 for .500+ teams and 0 for everyone else)

My original post I clearly stated that the East has more terrible teams. But like I said I don't really consider bottom feeders when I compare the conferences, I prefer to look at how many title threats there are out there.

[Brendan]

If I tiered the teams I'd say there are 5 teams that could win the title, another 4 that might make the argument, but I'm not convinced. Then you have the playoff teams, the borderline teams, and the complete scrubs. I think most people would move ORL down a group, but I'm not ready to do that... yet.

Tier 1 - Elite Contenders
1. BOS
2. LAL
3. SAS
4. MIA
5. ORL

Tier 2 - Contender Pretenders
6. CHI
7. DAL
8. OKC

Tier 3 - Playoff Locks
9. ATL
10. IND
11. UTA
12. NOH
13. DEN
14. NYK

Tier 4 - Playoff Bubble
15. MIL
16. POR
17. PHO
18. MEM
19. HOU
20. TOR
21. PHI

Tier 5 - Lottery Hopefuls
GSW
CHA
CLE
DET
MIN
WAS
SAC
NJN
LAC


I think its pretty even in terms of parity. I doubt SAS sustains this pace, seems like a long shot for their main three guys to stay healthy and Jefferson to keep playing this well.

[indeedproceed]

If I tiered the teams I'd say there are 5 teams that could win the title, another 4 that might make the argument, but I'm not convinced. Then you have the playoff teams, the borderline teams, and the complete scrubs. I think most people would move ORL down a group, but I'm not ready to do that... yet.

Tier 1 - Elite Contenders
1. BOS
2. LAL
3. SAS
4. MIA
5. ORL

Tier 2 - Contender Pretenders
6. CHI
7. DAL
8. OKC

Tier 3 - Playoff Locks
9. ATL
10. IND
11. UTA
12. NOH
13. DEN
14. NYK

Tier 4 - Playoff Bubble
15. MIL
16. POR
17. PHO
18. MEM
19. HOU
20. TOR
21. PHI

I also like lists.

Legitimate Contenders:
1) LA
2) Boston
3) San Antonio

Outside shot at a ring:
4) Dallas
5) Orlando

Not Ready For June:
6) Mia
7) Utah
OKC
9) Chicago

Playoff Locks:
10) NOR
11) ATL
12) NYK
13) MIL

Playoff Bubbles:
14) IND
15) POR
16) PHX
17) Charlotte

 

[nba is the worst]

If I tiered the teams I'd say there are 5 teams that could win the title, another 4 that might make the argument, but I'm not convinced. Then you have the playoff teams, the borderline teams, and the complete scrubs. I think most people would move ORL down a group, but I'm not ready to do that... yet.

Tier 1 - Elite Contenders
1. BOS
2. LAL
3. SAS
4. MIA
5. ORL

Tier 2 - Contender Pretenders
6. CHI
7. DAL
8. OKC

Tier 3 - Playoff Locks
9. ATL
10. IND
11. UTA
12. NOH
13. DEN
14. NYK

Tier 4 - Playoff Bubble
15. MIL
16. POR
17. PHO
18. MEM
19. HOU
20. TOR
21. PHI

I also like lists.

Legitimate Contenders:
1) LA
2) Boston
3) San Antonio

Outside shot at a ring:
4) Dallas
5) Orlando

Not Ready For June:
6) Mia
7) Utah
OKC
9) Chicago

Playoff Locks:
10) NOR
11) ATL
12) NYK
13) MIL

Playoff Bubbles:
14) IND
15) POR
16) PHX
17) Charlotte

 

Our lists are IDENTICAL!

TP, IP

[nba is the worst]

You're not weighting the data, you're censoring it. Or if you prefer taking a small subset of it. I'm not sure what the results would be if you actually weighted wins on some sort of value scale. But calling it a weighted strength of schedule is inaccurate. (again unless you're talking in the trival case of 1 for .500+ teams and 0 for everyone else)

My original post I clearly stated that the East has more terrible teams. But like I said I don't really consider bottom feeders when I compare the conferences, I prefer to look at how many title threats there are out there.

I agree that I'm defining "weighted SOS as "wins over teams with reords of .500 and above", which is the same as "1 for .500+ teams and 0 for everyone else".

I disagree that that is "inaccurate", it's certainly better than Hollinger's formula using raw W-L alone.

So far it's 3-2 on this thread for just 3 elite contenders, Spurs, Celtics, Lakers.

[footey]

As we know too well with this team, great starts don't often project out.  Especially given the age of the Spurs, the likelihood of injuries, etc., I would be surprised if the finish with more than 60 wins. Very surprised. Plus at some point T Parkers' divorce is going to get into his head. Look at Tiger Woods, and what it did to his golf game.