Spurs Get Win Number 20, on Pace For 71

[Birdbrain]

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

Nice post.  I'm on their bandwagon for as much as I can be on another teams bandwagon.  They have a nice mix of age and youth similar to the C's and a great coach.  I especially like their record against +.500 teams since they will be the teams you face in the playoffs.  I never understood the concept of getting credit for blowing out a sub .500 team.  Makes very little sense to me but, too each his own.

[PosImpos]

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.

Comparing the level of media attention surrounding the two divorces, I'd say Woods' situation was considerably different, and probably weighed on him quite a bit more.  The fact that Tony plays in a team sport where there's less direct scrutiny upon him (whereas Tiger Woods IS golf) has to help, as well.

[KobeShesNotConsenting!]

spurs get 71 wins. celts get 70 and win a couple more rings

[Who]

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.

I am expecting low 60s.

San Antonio look more of a regular season powerhouse than a squad built for the playoffs at the minute. Too much reliance on their offense. Also, I'm still not convinced they can matchup with LA's big men in a seven game series.

Anyway, what I am trying to say, I don't think their regular season win count is going to be going to be a good indicator of their chances come playoff time.

[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.

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.

How is it more accurate? Can you back up that statement? You're basically cutting out over half the games that have been played, that's a big reduction in sample size. Its something to look at but I wouldn't focus on it too much.

Also I'm not sure why you bring up Hollinger, he does compute SoS just from raw wins/losses. But you're not computing strength of schedule here you're just posting records versus .500+ teams. Stength of schedule would be some sort of rating system that shows which team's have had an easier slate so far.

If you really wanted to improve SoS you can adjust for layoffs. There are some interested write ups floating around how different amounts of rest effect efficiency on both sides of the ball. (No rest is bad for a team, but too much rest is worse)

You are using the terms "strength of schedule" and "weighted" in uncoventional ways that distract from an otherwise well expressed opinion write up.

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

Are we having an election? We're all just sharing opinions here.

[Who]

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.

Cool post ... my listings would be

Tier One -- legit contenders -- Boston, Miami and LA

Tier Two -- outside contenders -- Dallas, Orlando and San Antonio

Tier Three -- capable of making a playoff run -- Chicago and Oklahoma

Tier Four -- solid playoff teams -- Atlanta, Utah, Milwaukee

Tier Five -- borderline playoff teams -- Charlotte, Indiana and New York in the East + Denver (Melo trade?), New Orleans, Phoenix, Portland (Brandon Roy?), Memphis and Houston (Yao?) in the West.

Tier Six -- lottery squads -- Cleveland, Detroit, Golden State, LA Clippers, New Jersey, Phily, Sacramento, Toronto, Washington

[mgent]

Didn't we do better than that all 3 of the past years?  Or at least 2 with the 3rd being very close.

[Mike-Dub]

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.

Cool post ... my listings would be

Tier One -- legit contenders -- Boston, Miami and LA

Tier Two -- outside contenders -- Dallas, Orlando and San Antonio

Tier Three -- capable of making a playoff run -- Chicago and Oklahoma

Tier Four -- solid playoff teams -- Atlanta, Utah, Milwaukee

Tier Five -- borderline playoff teams -- Charlotte, Indiana and New York in the East + Denver (Melo trade?), New Orleans, Phoenix, Portland (Brandon Roy?), Memphis and Houston (Yao?) in the West.

Tier Six -- lottery squads -- Cleveland, Detroit, Golden State, LA Clippers, New Jersey, Phily, Sacramento, Toronto, Washington

Who you pretty much hit it spot on with your list IMO.  TP.

[nba is the worst]

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.

I am expecting low 60s.

San Antonio look more of a regular season powerhouse than a squad built for the playoffs at the minute. Too much reliance on their offense. Also, I'm still not convinced they can matchup with LA's big men in a seven game series.

Anyway, what I am trying to say, I don't think their regular season win count is going to be going to be a good indicator of their chances come playoff time.

I agree, it's highly unlikely the Spurs will continue at this pace.

And despite the Spurs' success in the playoffs, they haven't done a lot since their last title.

It will be interesting in the playoffs in the West, at least compared to last year IMO.

[Neurotic Guy]

The interesting thing that the title of the thread points out to me is just how difficult it is to achieve 70 wins. 

I've heard 70-win prediction thrown out there in recent years about Celtics, Lakers and Heat.  It's just ridiculous.  The C's, at 19-4 are not on pace for 70 wins.  In fact, the C's would need to add 4 more wins to their current streak to get on pace to 70. It's an amazing feat given the inevitable ups and downs of an 82 game season.

[nba is the worst]

Didn't we do better than that all 3 of the past years?  Or at least 2 with the 3rd being very close.

I assume you are referring to the Celtics' record after 23 games, and you're right. Here's the details:

2007 Celtics, 20-3, peak was 29-3, peak pace was 74-8, finished 66-16
2008 Celtics, 21-2, peak was 27-2, peak pace was 76-6, finished 62-20
2009 Celtics, 19-4, '09 peak was 20-4, peak pace was 68-14, finished 52-30
2010 Celtics, 19-4, pace is 68-14

[mgent]

Didn't we do better than that all 3 of the past years?  Or at least 2 with the 3rd being very close.

I assume you are referring to the Celtics' record after 23 games, and you're right. Here's the details:

2007 Celtics, 20-3, peak was 29-3, peak pace was 74-8, finished 66-16
2008 Celtics, 21-2, peak was 27-2, peak pace was 76-6, finished 62-20
2009 Celtics, 19-4, '09 peak was 20-4, peak pace was 68-14, finished 52-30
2010 Celtics, 19-4, pace is 68-14

Thank you.