Shockingly this is actually a really good point by KS. Oladipo is having a career year, and his numbers are up across the board. Sabonis was considered a bust in OKC, but suddenly away from Westbrick he's showing to be anything but a bust. Maybe these two just didn't fit well with Westbrick, but I find that hard to believe. Oladipo is taking 5+ threes a game and shooting nearly 44%. While Sabonis after being considered a bust. Is averaging nearly 13/9 with 2 assists on only 25mpg. And has raised his shooting % from under 40% to 55%
Wasn’t comparing the teams really. More that they had this Big 3 type situation and it took awhile for the chemistry to get going. I thought they were 8-9, but I guess I was WAY off and they were 9-8. OKC is dangerous and still feel they will get it together.
The Heattles got it going much sooner than the Blunder. As I mentioned in an earlier post, that MIA team started 0-1, but never had a losing record after that. OKC started 1-0 and hasn't had a winning record since. By 20 games in the Heat were 12-8 and rolling. After 20 games OKC is 8-12 and floundering. They are 0-9 in close games (typical of a team with Westbrook dominating the ball in the 4th quarter) and have lost by double digits to ORL and DAL in their last two game. At this point PHO and BRK have won as many games (8) as OKC. When exactly are they going to "get it together"? What exactly is going to change? Are they suddenly going to get a bench? Are they going to stop running an inefficient isolation based offense? Is Westbrook going to magically start getting his teammates involved in the 4th quarter after years of "hero" ball? I agree they have a lot of talent and will win more than 33 games (their current pace after 20 games), but I don't think they will ever be as good as you think they will be. Their talent just doesn't mesh and they have no bench. And Westbrook teams are historically bad in close games. They could be dangerous in a 7-game series, if two of their stars get really hot at the same time, but right now they don't look like the dominant team you think they will become. BNM
Great research, thanks. It would be interesting to see strength of schedule of the first 20 to really break it down, what do you think? Don’t know why, I just really think talent wins out. They are going top be fine....... just a feeling. Interesting that when talking about the 9 close game that they lost, it is used as a negative thing. But around here the 5 or 6 games we lost that were close are used as a postivive thing. As in we could have 18 wins right now. I know everybody has their opinions, I just strongly believe the more talented team will rise to the top. Especially in a playoff series. We’ll see. Man I remember the JinxSpeed just blasting me when I said the Heatles would dominate the league and they got off to a slow start.....wouldn’t shut up about how wrong I was. Then they won like 30 of 30 something and not a peep. Oh well. Thanks again for diggin up all those numbers, that’s why I love this place
I think the point of comparisons is to show that things are similar or different, not THE SAME or TOTALLY OPPOSITE. The comparison between MIA and OKC is apt - both were/are hugely disappointing based on how people thought they'd perform. The difference in W/L record doesn't negate that similarity. An 8/12 record is only 4 games behind a 12/8 record. Factor in that LBJ has been the best player in the league for ever, Wade was the best SG in the league, and many felt Bosh was a Top 5 PF. Nobody on OKC is the best player in the league, and only Westbrook could be argued to be the best at his position in the league. Melo isn't anywhere near Bosh's level as far as the 3rd wheels go. Additionally, OKC is in the West and MIA is in the East. Once all that's taken into consideration the 4 game difference between the two teams is virtually meaningless. Nobody is saying that OKC is as good, or will be as good, as that MIA team. Just that both teams started out as massive disappointments, and that we shouldn't be so quick to write off OKC due to their early struggles.
Hey man, anyway you can just post for me in the future? I'll give you a percentage of what Denny is sending my way to hang out in this dump. Let me know. This is a private message right?
In terms of Strength of Schedule (SOS), I assume you want to compare us to OKC so far this year. If that's the case, we have had the easiest schedule in the league so far (30th of 30, SOS = .463). But, OKC has had it pretty easy, too (23rd of 30, SOS = .484). The difference is, we are beating bad teams and OKC is losing to bad teams. In terms of close games, losing close games improves your point differential (compared to getting blown out), and in general, a better point differential is considered an indicator of future success. An average team should win half of their close games. So, in general, things will even out over the course if a season. But those are all generalities. The reality is when it comes to close games, OKC with Westbrook at the helm, loses a shockingly high percentage of their close games, especially relative be to their overall record. Remember those 15 blown 4th quarter leads during Durant's last year in OKC? Its absolutely astonishing that a team with a 4 time scoring champ, the reigning MVP and member of the exclusive 50/40/90 club could blow so many 4th quarter leads. Just like it's hard to imagine this year, that a team with three "superstars" could be 0-9 in close games. I call it the Westbrook Effect. So far this year, OKC has a point differential of +3.1, not too far behind our +4.3. Based on point differential, our expected record is 14-7 (we've lost one more game than we "should have"). Based on point differential, OKC should be 12skepticsthere they sit at 8-12. More Westbrook Effect. That 55-win OKC team that blew 15 4th quarter leads should have won 62 games based on their point differential. Again, the Westbrook Effect. Maybe, Westbrook, PG13 and Memo will gel, but even if they do, they still need to overcome the Westbrook Effect. Kevin Durant and James Harden couldn't do it. Thus my scepticism that George and Anthony will. BNM
I just don't like the comparison for OKC vs MIA. Melo will never be considered a two way player, and the recent interview shows he's not going to sacrifice for the betterment of the team. Being that no one would ever consider Melo anywhere close to a two way player. It would make perfect logic for Melo to come off the bench, and fill a James Harden esque role... However he's completely against it, at least in the recent interview were he laughed at the question. Where as Bosh sacrificed so much for those MIA teams to work. Yet was arguably their most important player. PG13 vs LBJ is a wash imo. LBJ might have an advantage but it's not a great advantage. Wade vs Westbrick isn't close though. Leadership alone Wade has Westbrick beat. TL;DR I don't like the comparison of MIA to OKC. I think it's closer to OKC vs 2015 Cavs. Plus this isn't the East. This is the West. There are no easy nights in the West. There are no easy playoff series in the West. I think it's a real question if the 2015 Cavs would've made the WCF even if they didn't face GSW in 1/2 If OKC was in the East, I wouldn't have a doubt that they'd get a top 4 seed with their start. But they're in the West....
Again, I think you're taking the comparison to be more than it was intended. My take was that the comparison is only intended to say "Don't write off a team just because they had a bad start". Maybe HCP was drawing a deeper comparison, I don't really know. If so, I don't agree with it - OKC should be a mid-pack team, not a contender.
A few other differences... On that MIA team, James, Wade and Bosh were all in their 7th season in the league, squarely in the primes of their careers. For OKC, George is in his 7th season, Westbrook is in his 9th season and Anthony is in his 14th season. MIA truly had three superstars in the primes of their careers. OKC has two superstars in their primes and one former superstar well past his. That's why I always put superstars in quotation marks when referring to OKC's Big 3. Also, MIA surrounded their Big 3 with veteran shooters and a ton of veteran big men that gave them a lot of rebounding. MIA's bench was old, but proven,and perfectly complimented their Big 3. As a result, MIA shot considerably better than their opponents from 2FG%, 3FG% and FT%. OKC, by contrast, is getting out shot by their opponents from everywhere on the court. When your opponents consistently shoot better than you, you tend to lose more games than you win. OKC desperately needs shooting. Let's hope nobody is dumb enough to give it to them (not that Westbrook would pass the ball to them in the 4th quarter anyway). BNM
Which is what I said before the season started. I got roasted for saying we would finish ahead of DEN and at least two of UTA, MIN and OKC. They have the talent to be a good team, but not a great one. BNM
Agree on DEN/UTH - I don't get why people thought they'd be good. I think we belong lumped in with MIN/OKC - it wouldn't surprise me if we're better or worse than both.
Well yeah in Indiana they actually get to play. They get a fair number of shits instead of passing it to westbrook or standing around while Westbrook hero balls it. He is the biggest fucking ball hog, just as bad as Harden...worse then Harden
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, in regards to KD, Harden, and Westbrook: "Three can share the ball, when two are gone."
What a fantastic trade for Indiana. Remember when members here said we had the better package ? Shows you why they get paid big bucks to make those decisions.
When you make a comment like this, you have to think of 'what could have Indiana had instead'. There are a number of players I think who will turn out better than Oladipo has which were available at Portland's picks. Even if Indiana traded up they could've selected a position of need and any number of guards were available at 10. Who will prolly turn out better than Oladipo is. Collins is still a 'wait and see' so we'll see if NO hit or not in a year or two.
