Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kaneywest t1_jbu25rw wrote

Watching the Bucks just move left to right along the top all by themselves for a bit was enjoyable

210

VinhBlade t1_jbvcqsk wrote

I wonder how much of these stats genuinely reflects their matches performance though.

Assuming that as long that a team's rating is consistently moving upward/rightward over time, that would also mean that they're "winning" more matches / having a strong, explosive performance over time?

(vs. just staying in one spot, which means stagnant performance)

19

oliverlifts t1_jbvig2f wrote

As a Bucks fan, the hardest stretch of the season was late November into almost all of December; long road trip against mostly great teams. Never lost a game in February and had the franchise’s 4th longest win streak at 16 games.

10

Wind_14 t1_jbvigax wrote

Because NBA season is 82 games, the net rating is better correlated with their performance than say NFL which is only 17(mostly 16 in prev season), so in NFL it's entirely possible for a team to win 60%/10 games and still have negative net rating but once you pass like halfpoint/42 games in NBA team that win 60%/26 games out of 42 will have positive net rating (not always though, the better benchmark is somewhere around 60 games, this is when team starts blatantly tanking as they can get clear picture of their position in the draft)

4

RiffsThatKill t1_jbvzbo2 wrote

Really depends on the opponents and team schedule I think. If you have a tougher schedule, might not translate to as many wins

1

NerdLord1837 t1_jbvtv3w wrote

I was focused on the Spurs/Pistons chillin near the bottom left about to hit the corner like the DVD logo

6

Bischrob OP t1_jbvvpsl wrote

The Vikings were a good example of the lack of correlation in the NFL. They were literally average on offense and defense but had a great record.

1