I think you're exaggerating the effect of 20 extra games against the West. "Seeing better players" is unlikely to change the wear and tear in those games by a huge amount, such that they'd post a significantly worse record than simply projecting their existing records against each conference.
Its impossible to really know, but I think it makes a really big difference. 20 extra games is a lot of games its like 1/4th of a season. Weve seen budenholzer do this before with atlanta, albeit Giannis is better than any Atl had, the east has like 2-3 good teams a year.
It's maybe a few extra minutes played per game over 20 more games. So maybe an extra 40 minutes played for the season. So maybe like an extra game's worth of wear and tear over what they did play. Not nothing, but unlikely to really change much, IMO. But I agree, no way to know for sure. I'm not saying the Bucks are the best team in the league. I think the Warriors still are. I just don't think their record would be much different.
Would the Bucks have the best record in the league if before the season they switched divisions with Minnesota?
Hmm. How about Harden in the Rockets’ loss to the Jazz: 28 min, 15 pts., 2 asst, 6 reb., 0 steals, 0 blocks, 7 TO. Or what about Giannis’s sterling performance in the Bucks’ Feb. 28 loss to the Pistons: 30 min., 11 pts., 3 reb., 2 assists, 0 blocks, 0 steals, 4 T.O. Yeah, Dame is the only star who has an off night.
Well in terms of extra time on the court yes it wouldnt neccesarily mean a huge uptick there. I think what Im saying is there would be a greater physical / mental challenge playing 20 more games against the west then playing many of those eastern conferences teMs.
I don't think playing better players affects wear and tear much. The "damage" is done playing basketball hard for so many games--and you have to play hard against pretty much every team if you want a good chance of winning. Look at the Warriors' relatively meh record--they lost a lot of games, despite way more talent, due to not playing all that hard. The main effect from playing better teams, IMO, is that you won't have as many comfortable wins and so your better players may have to play a bit more on average, which is what I was trying to factor in.
I think they still might, considering how far ahead they are. They could lose a few extra games and still have the best record. If you specifically pick the toughest division and sub them in for the worst team in it, it does become more arguable...but that seems somewhat contrived. If the Blazers and Bucks switched places, or the Spurs and the Bucks switched places, or the Clippers and the Bucks switched places, I think they still end up with the best record. In none of these scenarios did I pick the best team in any of the Western divisions or a Western powerhouse for them to "dodge."
I wasn't switching them with Minnesota based on records or contriving a narrative. I simply switched them because that was the closest West team I could think of and if Minnesota is in the NW division it didn't seem crazy to have the Bucks in there instead.
Ah, that's fair. It's just an amusing coincidence that the Timberwolves happen to be the worst team in the strongest division (every other team in the division is a playoff team and the worst--the Thunder--is inconsistently very good). So that would just happen to be the worst case scenario for any other team.
Heading into the season though no one expected Milwaukee to be this good and no one really thought Minnesota would be this bad (minus the whole Butler stuff).
