RealGM

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.

Bigmagicfan82 wrote: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.

BRADSPACE wrote:-= 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.

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.

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.

This conversation is way too deep for me.

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

He was talking about the Western Conference when he said that