The Mavs are one a nine game winning streak, the Spurs are first in the west, the Jazz have a better record than the Lakers, the Knicks are in the play offs, the Rockets have more losses than the Wizards, and the Warriors have a better record than the Blazers. Some things are more surprising than others. I don't think anyone saw the Lakers being 4th in the conference 20 games into the season. Is it too early, or do we have an idea of where teams will finish?
Things will even out, honestly I believe the NBA needs a new algorithm for picking their schedules. Some teams have highly unbalanced and favorable schedules while other teams get crap thrown at them at the start. In the end the schedules balance out bc everyone plays each other as many times as they should...its just how those games are divvied up is the issue.
It's too early to tell where most teams will finish, but you can get a good picture by early December. There are surprises after 20 games every season. However as always, one or two teams that started off good will tail off and fall into oblivion. The Lakers nearly always blow out to a great start because their early season schedule is usually easy. Then they hit the skids after going on the road. This year, their major obstacle during the regular season will be injuries and boredom. The Mavs good start doesn't surprise me at all. I'm amazed at the Spurs. Did anyone here expect Richard Jefferson to start out so well? The Spurs have great chemistry going for them, but this will be less of an advantage as the season wears on. We all know the Blazers problems are directly related to the diminished Brandon Roy. Sad state of affairs for a team I like. It doesn't matter how many games the Knicks win because they will end up first round fodder. Because of a lack of toughness and defense, they are exactly the kind of team that will implode easily against the Celts, Magic, Heat or Bulls.
As long as Knicks end up with more wins than Rox, the pick exchange right is gonna be useless if I get it right.
And that to me is the biggest factor in determining what kind of season you have. If you get crap teams at the beginning then your going to beat them and built momentum to beat the better teams later on. Where as if you get the tougher end, the chemistry breaks and momentum crumbles = a bad season.
Or You get an easy opening, but start losing again once you begin facing the tougher teams and that could hurt your confidence even more than just losing right off the bat People react to these stuff differently.
so what happened to new orleans, they started with momentum, and now they have lost a lot against better teams.
Schedules factor in arena booked dates for rodeos and concerts and circuses. They also have a regional factor. You're not going to play at Golden State one night and then in NY the next night.
i disagree with your assessment of the knicks. amare and felton are both headstrong and they are the leaders of the knicks. i have been watching them a lot through internet streams, they are fun to watch sometimes. i am not saying they would win a series against them, but they will put up a good fight i am sure.... plus there is still the outside chance they get melo before the season is over.
Right. Its usually always regional trips, little to do with strength of schedule. At the start of the season SOMEONE has to go through the dreaded Texas Triangle, you can't break it up. You can't say give me Dallas, then Detroit, then Houston, then Minnesota, then San Antonio, then Sacramento. I'm sure teams would prefer to not have back-to-back games than to have balanced scheduling.
Everybody may play each other the same amount of times, but I think the biggest difference is the back to backs. Some teams have more than others and I guess that balances out over the course of a few years. But sometimes looking at the strength of opponents on these back to backs. Like OKC-Dallas then the Lakers to cap off 3 games in 4 days? That's crazy
It's way too early, we all thought the Hornets are for real and look at them now, they lost 4 straight and 6 out of 7, wait after December and then we can tell who is going to win it all.
I don't see what's so crazy about any of those things. Obviously some teams are going to perform better/worse than expected, and teams like the Knicks and Warriors have the firepower to beat a lot of teams. The Mavs, Jazz, Spurs, were all expected to be good. The Rockets may be surprising, but they've had to deal with injuries and a lack of star talent. The Heat's poor start is the biggest surprise, but they seem to be turning it around.
another thing i noticed is that players are getting dumber by the game.... <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5bkrGuAm8PA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5bkrGuAm8PA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Their algorithm does exactly what it's intended to do: maximize ratings. It has nothing to do with making schedules balanced.
In the ideal world yes. But some teams share the court with other teams/events, so you got to take that into account. It would explain why the Lakers seem to get a bunch of home games at the start of every season since it's because Staples gets used a lot later on.
