Kenny Smith just said...

[Bigmagicfan82]

In reference to the western conference:

"To me if your just two games better then someone, then your not really better then them. Your not clearly better, you can't say you clearly have an advantage. When your 10-15 games more in the win column, then your clearly better then a team. When your 6 games better then someone I don't think your better."


So based on that logic he must not the Pistons are better then the Magic.



Don't mind me just want to start something.

[BRADSPACE]

In reference to the western conference:

"To me if your just two games better then someone, then your not really better then them. Your not clearly better, you can't say you clearly have an advantage. When your 10-15 games more in the win column, then your clearly better then a team. When your 6 games better then someone I don't think your better."


So based on that logic he must not the Pistons are better then the Magic.



Don't mind me just want to start something.

I disagree. There are just far too many variables to judge teams based solely on their records.

[Devin 1L]

-= original quote snipped =-



I disagree. There are just far too many variables to judge teams based solely on their records.

I don't think Kenny would disagree with you.

I didn't hear him, but I assume his statement was a sort of all-else-equal type statement.

Basically two teams within a few games of each other are about the same, when their 10-15 games apart, there is a solid gap in quality. Now, there are circumstances when that 10-15 games isn't necessarily a good indicator. For example, if one team was missing it's best player for a good chunk of time, and the other has been fully health, etc.

I think the general point is it's kind of silly when someone uses a 1-3 game lead as evidence that team X is clearly better than team Y, it's just too close to mean much. Now, when it's 10-15 games, that's usually a pretty good indicator, again, all else equal.

Nevertheless, I agree, there are many factors aside from simply comparing records.

I don't think the small separation argument could possibly be more evident than in the Western Conference right now.

[richboy]

I think he referring to the glut of teams in the West with close to the same record. Only 5 games seperate the 1-7 seeds. You can make a case of some lower seeds being the favorites against the higher seeds in the West.

[drsd]

If a team is 4'ish games better, then look at how those games were won. If the team's ace hit a couple of late-winners, then the teams are close to equal. That did not really happen with Detroit.

When a team consistently outscores the opponent and has a dominant home record (over the compared team), then there is a difference. This did happen. Detroit is 2+ over the Magic in winning differential. This means that Detroit has won/lost its games with 160 more points than the Magic. That's not a small number. Plus, the difference between Detroit and Orlando is that early season, the Magic were soft at home, Detroit was dominant all season.

[macdalejax]

This conversation is way too deep for me.

[SevereMagic]

Win/Loss records don't mean squat.... when the Post season begins... Best out of seven is the only record that's truly meaningful!!

[TNMagicFan]

He was talking about the Western Conference when he said that