The SPURS were better than any team MJ or Kobe beat

[TurnUpTheHeat]

I didn't ignore anything. I simply stated the logic of my position. You keep trying to add more arbitrary nonsense like percentage of effort put forth to win games, the Heat taking teams "best shots", the Heat playing awful and then playing like hell for 6-8 minutes to catch up or trying harder vs. some teams than others. It's all a bunch of nonsense to try and make the Heat look better than they are.

You even said that you aren't saying that the Heat wouldn't have more losses in the west. Guess what, if they have more losses, they have a worse record.

As for their record vs. the west, are you truly dumb enough to think that they are going to continue to win at the same clip if they have to play tougher competition 22 more times?

They finished with 54 wins. That same record would put them in the 4th-6th seed in the west depending on tiebreakers and that's with them playing 52 games vs. eastern teams. That is NOT indicative of being the 2nd best team in the league. It really is that simple.

Both Gordon and I pointed out the FACT to you the Heat had a better win % vs the mighty West than the lowly East.....yet you call me dumb?

Gotta feeling if we said to you, that it would have been countered with some type of threat.

Next, I never said it in this conversation...but the team that loses in the Finals in ANY sport is generally recognized as the 2nd best team that season. That's just how it goes.
To argue after the fact as to what whom might have done to whom is asinine.
2 teams made it...all the others didn't...Very simple %'s there.


Kentucky was the 2nd best team in CBB.
The Broncos were the 2nd best team in the NFL.
St. Louis was the 2 nd best team in MLB.
Auburn was the 2 nd best team in CFB.


Why don't you try to convince someone that the 49's were better than the Broncos who also got blown out in their championship?

Also it's laughable that you KNOW that the Heat would have struggled if the had to play more games against the teams in the West although you have no clue why they had a worse win % vs the shittier teams they played in the East 22 more times.

 

[Inimical]

How do you know the Heat wouldn't have had the #1 seed if they played in the West?

Oh you're just making dumb assumptions?

Facefuckingpalm at this thread lol

 

[UK Cowboy]

These aren't facts, just opinions.

This is nonsense. First start out with the "fact" that the NBA today is shell of it's form self. Secondly, it's all opinion.

In my opinion, the 91 Lakers, 93 Suns, & the 97 Jazz were all better teams than the 2014 Spurs. And I would argue that the 92 Trailblazers & the 96 Sonics were just as good as the 2014 Spurs.

Stop making excuses for a team that padded their record playing in an all-time historically bad eastern conference. The top 4 teams in the NBA all came out of the western conference.

The Spurs had a great run & leave it at that.

I don't know if those teams are better than the Spurs, but they were sure as Hell better than the Heat

 

[trojanfan12]

Both Gordon and I pointed out the FACT to you the Heat had a better win % vs the mighty West than the lowly East.....yet you call me dumb?

Gotta feeling if we said to you, that it would have been countered with some type of threat.

Next, I never said it in this conversation...but the team that loses in the Finals in ANY sport is generally recognized as the 2nd best team that season. That's just how it goes.
To argue after the fact as to what whom might have done to whom is asinine.
2 teams made it...all the others didn't...Very simple %'s there.


Kentucky was the 2nd best team in CBB.
The Broncos were the 2nd best team in the NFL.
St. Louis was the 2 nd best team in MLB.
Auburn was the 2 nd best team in CFB.


Why don't you try to convince someone that the 49's were better than the Broncos who also got blown out in their championship?

Also it's laughable that you KNOW that the Heat would have struggled if the had to play more games against the teams in the West although you have no clue why they had a worse win % vs the shittier teams they played in the East 22 more times.

Yeah, I did. The fact that you can't grasp the simple concept that playing 22 more games vs. tougher competition is likely to result in a worse winning percentage shows that you are either incapable of grasping the most basic logic or that you are so desperate to make the Heat look better than they did, that you simply what to ignore logic.

Your first response to all of this was that I was "twisting stats" even though what I posted was straight forward. Then you tried to add in "twisted stats" like "percentage of games that the Heat actually tried hard, playing awful and then making a 6-8 min. run", etc.

Here's the bottom line for you turnup, the Heat didn't just lose, they got their shit pushed in. They were dominated in a historic fashion. The Mavs and Thunder gave them more of a fight than the Heat and the Blazers gave them just as much of a fight. The Heat's 54 wins place them no better than 4th-6th in the West. All of this speaks to the Heat NOT being the 2nd best team in the NBA. It just means they managed to get through an extremely weak conference only to learn that they aren't nearly as good as they and their fans thought they were.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Yeah, I did. The fact that you can't grasp the simple concept that playing 22 more games vs. tougher competition is likely to result in a worse winning percentage shows that you are either incapable of grasping the most basic logic or that you are so desperate to make the Heat look better than they did, that you simply what to ignore logic.

Your first response to all of this was that I was "twisting stats" even though what I posted was straight forward. Then you tried to add in "twisted stats" like "percentage of games that the Heat actually tried hard, playing awful and then making a 6-8 min. run", etc.

Here's the bottom line for you turnup, the Heat didn't just lose, they got their shit pushed in. They were dominated in a historic fashion. The Mavs and Thunder gave them more of a fight than the Heat and the Blazers gave them just as much of a fight. The Heat's 54 wins place them no better than 4th-6th in the West. All of this speaks to the Heat NOT being the 2nd best team in the NBA. It just means they managed to get through an extremely weak conference only to learn that they aren't nearly as good as they and their fans thought they were.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion....but reality is that it is just YOUR end of season power rankings.
I don't need a recap of the playoffs. You either win and advance or lose and go fishing.

Historic fashion? There are blowouts in championship games ALL THE TIME.

Can you remind me what the final score of the Super Bowl was?
This is sports, shit happens.

If regular season record is the end all, the why have playoffs?



It's funny. You, more than anyone stated how the last 4 years might take its toll on the Heat, and it did, which was exposed by the ONE team most equipped to do it.

I'd be much more convinced of your opinion if you could actually answer the question I asked you though.


So again, how it is possible that the Heat had a better win % against the West than the East?

Please name the 2nd best teams last year in MLB, NHL, CFB, CBB, and the NFL.


If I said twisted stats, that would be incorrect, but what isn't incorrect is that you are handpicking the one stat that you want to use, when several others that figure into the equation.

 

[trojanfan12]

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion....but reality is that it is just YOUR end of season power rankings.
I don't need a recap of the playoffs. You either win and advance or lose and go fishing.

Historic fashion? There are blowouts in championship games ALL THE TIME.

Can you remind me what the final score of the Super Bowl was?
This is sports, shit happens.

If regular season record is the end all, the why have playoffs?



It's funny. You, more than anyone stated how the last 4 years might take its toll on the Heat, and it did, which was exposed by the ONE team most equipped to do it.

I'd be much more convinced of your opinion if you could actually answer the question I asked you though.


So again, how it is possible that the Heat had a better win % against the West than the East?

Please name the 2nd best teams last year in MLB, NHL, CFB, CBB, and the NFL.


If I said twisted stats, that would be incorrect, but what isn't incorrect is that you are handpicking the one stat that you want to use, when several others that figure into the equation.

It was the largest margin of victory in NBA history, so yes, they got beat in historic fashion.

Of course the regular season isn't the be all end all, but it is what determines playoff seeding and the path to the finals. Where the Heat would be seeded in the west speaks to them not making out of the west. Of course, we'll never know for sure because they don't play in the west, but someone looking at it logically can see that it would be less likely than making it out of the east.

There was more than ONE team equipped to beat Miami, especially given the toll that making 4 straight finals takes.

As for your question re: their winning percentage, I've answered that at least twice in this thread. I'm not going to repeat it again. I'd suggest you go back and re-read. If you still can't figure it out, I can't help you. I'm sorry.

What do you mean IF you said twisted stats? That's what you said. You then tried to add in nonsense and want to claim that I'm somehow "handpicking stats".

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

It took a special team of balanced offense, balanced defense, depth, lack of egos, and a coach at the top of his form to beat Miami.


And in my opinion the biggest key was San Antonio could play half-court offense in the low post.
That was lost in everything else they did. I thought Duncan could have won MVP for that reason.


There was not a team in the WEST who would have beat them.


The HEAT own the Thunder. OKC plasy the same game but Miami is much better at it.
Miami's singular ability to neutralize top players works best on a star driven team like OKC.


The CLIPPERS have a little better depth and some defense at times, but they don't play any half court offense. That hurt them versus OKC. It would be lethal versus a team like Miami.


Houston and Portland don't play any defense at all. The Spurs played smothering relentless defense. Miami would be able to score at will on the Rockets/Blazers whereas they had to labor hard through the Spurs defense.


Dallas and Golden State can be plucky and troublesome, but they simply are not good enough to beat Miami in a 7 game series without home court.


Memphis might give them the most fits, but the Grizzles don't have enough offense. The Heat don't need the extra scoring from their bench that was lost versus SA.




The SPURS were like a Frankenstein's monster of the perfect team to beat Miami.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

As for your question re: their winning percentage, I've answered that at least twice in this thread. I'm not going to repeat it again. I'd suggest you go back and re-read. If you still can't figure it out, I can't help you. I'm sorry.

I must be slow. I cant seem to find any explanation of why the Heat has a better win % vs West vs the East.
Instead of taking the time to tell me what you think you did tell me, can you please multi quote or copy /paste so it will be clear to me.
Maybe it will change my opinion.





[/QUOTE]What do you mean IF you said twisted stats? That's what you said. You then tried to add in nonsense and want to claim that I'm somehow "handpicking stats".[/QUOTE]

I agreed that it wasn't a twisted stat.
You did handpick it though and considered no others that I've mentioned.
I guess its much easier to ignore?


And, maybe there was a glitch in my computer somewhere...so Ill ask again.

Who IYO were the 2nd best teams from the previous season in the NFL, NHL, MLB, CFB and CBB?

 

[trojanfan12]

I must be slow. I cant seem to find any explanation of why the Heat has a better win % vs West vs the East.
Instead of taking the time to tell me what you think you did tell me, can you please multi quote or copy /paste so it will be clear to me.
Maybe it will change my opinion.

What do you mean IF you said twisted stats? That's what you said. You then tried to add in nonsense and want to claim that I'm somehow "handpicking stats".

I agreed that it wasn't a twisted stat.
You did handpick it though and considered no others that I've mentioned.
I guess its much easier to ignore?


And, maybe there was a glitch in my computer somewhere...so Ill ask again.

Who IYO were the 2nd best teams from the previous season in the NFL, NHL, MLB, CFB and CBB?

I did consider your other scenarios and already pointed out that they are arbitrary nonsense that would be twisting stats. There is nothing valid in including things like the Heat not trying hard in some games or only playing well for 6-8 minutes.

As for the Heats Eastern Conference record vs. their Western Conference record. The Heat played 30 games vs. the West and 52 vs. the East. The West is the tougher conference. If you switch that, the Heat now play 22 more games vs. teams from the tougher conference. It flies in the face of logic to assume that they would maintain that same winning percentage when having to play teams from the tougher conference 22 more times.

Here are the true "2nd best teams, imo" that you asked for (even though these are completely different sports:

NFL - The 49ers. The NFC was the tougher conference and the NFC West was the toughest conference in the NFL. The 49ers came much closer to beating the Seahawks than the Broncos did. Sure, some of that may have been the Seahawks just playing a perfect game at the right time (since it's a one and done in the NFL, rather than a series). But looking at how thoroughly the Seahawks beat the Bronocs and considering how much tougher both the conference and division the Seahawks came out of was, it speaks to the Bronco's not being the 2nd best team in the NFL.

NHL - 2nd best team, imo was the Blackhawks. They were the defending champs and it took the Kings 7 games to beat them. They took out the Rangers in 5. Also, the Kings were prohibitive favorites vs. the Rangers while they were either slight favorites or underdogs vs. the Blackhawks.

MLB - The 2 leagues are much closer than in the NBA and NFL, so I'll go with the Cardinals being the 2nd best team.

CFB and CBB are much harder to determine because of the way each system is set up. One can't even be certain that the National Champion is the best team.

Here's the thing turnup. As long as sports continue to divide teams into conferences, there will be times where the 2nd best team isn't necessarily the runner up from the championship game or series. Sometimes, the 2nd best team in the league doesn't make the finals because they already lost to the best team. That is why we have started hearing more calls to move to balanced schedules and get rid of conferences.

I was a die-hard Rams fan and I can remember a couple of seasons in the 80's where the Rams were the 2nd best team in the NFL, but unfortunately had to go through the 49ers dynasty to try and get to the Super Bowl. The one season that they didn't, was the season that the Bears decided to be one of the best teams of all-time.

 

[Inimical]

Lets start with the title shall we?

The SPURS were better than any team MJ or Kobe beat
Am i supposed to argue that a winning team was better then a losing team? Yeah, okay. Already a golden start.

Its fairly popular to bash Lebron for losing another finals, and then immediately point out the success of Jordan/Kobe.

Okay i know where this is going. So Lebron is 2-3 in the finals and 2 of those losses on his super team. Hmmm okay maybe i dont know where this is going?



But, in my opinion, Jordan or Kobe never faced a team like the 2014 Spurs.

Alright. So what your saying is that the reason Jordan/Kobe were "successful", and Lebron "unsuccessful" is because they never faced a team as good as Your Spurs. Okay, who is going to fall for this shit, really? So am i supposed to say that Lebron went to the finals 4 times with the Heat, won 2 titles, and beat these Spurs the year before? That this was an unsuccessful run? Am i really gonna say that? Does that even make sense? Do you understand why this thread is so hard to take seriously? No wait, im supposed to say that the Spurs are fucking awesome and would have beat Kobe/Jordan in the finals too? Well as far as Timmy and the Spurs go, not only have they lost to the Lakers in the playoffs, they did so with essentially the same core. So what are we talking about? So in essence you are lifting your team up, along with Lebron and putting down the accomplishments of Kobe/Jordan in the process. Bravo. 2 birds with one stone i always say.


There is no shame in losing to them.


Huh...alright? Anyone ashamed to lose to the Spurs? The Spurs have won 5 titles in 15 years. So have the Lakers to put it in perspective. And your team is essentially the same players with the exception of the first team, and the role players. The coach and core has stayed the same in that time. Lebron has lost to the Spurs twice in the finals. I dont understand forgive me. Is this like a personal insecurity....?



The 2014 Spurs were better than the 1991 Lakers, 1992 Blazers, 1993 Suns, 1996 Sonics, 1997/98 Jazz, 00 Pacers, 01 Sixers, 02 Nets, 09 Magic, or 10 Celtics (Only the 1993 Suns gave me pause.)

This thread is the definition of conjecture now. What a winning team was better then a losing team? The hell you say? Where to begin?Thats my first problem with this that the Spurs won, and those teams lost. So if i can get past that, and i can for the sake of whimsy, we go into no mans land known as the different "Era's" problem. Now if i say to you, Wilt Chamberlain was the best center in his time. Some would agree, others would not.If i said to you Wilt Chamberlain would be the best center of the last 10 years in today's Era......I mean really? Okay if i was that much of an ass, which depending on how drunk i am is possible, why on earth would you take me seriously? And thats all this sounds like to me, a silly little drunken argument. Okay the 2014 Spurs were better then the 2010 Celtics. Yeah, okay, *whimsy jazzhands* they won, you know who else won, the Lakers. I mean wtf are we talking about? What are we going to go on to stats? The line ups? Assume how they would play against eachother? Nah i dont really understand your argument, its just not good enough to even go there.


LEBRON haters need to acknowledge this a bit.

It was not about the HEAT or LBJ failing.
It was about a dominant great Spurs team.


Well this is where my reading comprehension fails me. Is this about the Spurs? Is this about Kobe/Jordan vs Lebrons accomplishments? Is this how good the Spurs were this year and how incapable Kobe/Jordan would have been to beat them? Is this about the Spurs being better then losing teams? I mean you finish with the Spurs being dominate, and Lebron and the Heat not "failing". With a dash of Kobe/Jordan would not have won against them. Which pretty much what this is all about right? How great the Spurs are? So i guess we can go there.

Okay so lets see, they dominated the Heat. The Spurs are a great team, im not taking shit away from them. The Spurs dominated Portland and the Heat, they went to 7 with Dallas, and 6 with OKC. As a whole no, not even close. The 2001 Lakers swept a good Portland team, a great Sacramento team, and swept your Spurs asses too, who had the best record in the league that year. Then lost one game in the finals. The Lakers Also swept the Nets the next year in the finals, but again what are we talking about?

Lebron is a great player im not taking anything away from how great he is other then the fact that he does not take over games in high pressure situations when the hammer would really fall on him if he at least attempted, which he doesn't. Which is something both Kobe and Jordan did, and wanted to do. They wanted to be the best ever. Do i think Lebron wants to be the best ever? No, he doesn't show me that he wants that moment. That he embraces that pressure. Lebron is much too wishy washy in this respect for my tastes. At this point in his career i think that's over with. No, i think Lebron is content with 25, 8 and 5 or whatever he averages nowadays. And thats great, as a lifelong Laker fan this brings a smile to my face, it really does. I also know Lebron is 2-3 in the finals, and since you seem to enjoy the occasional stat, what does that mean? Is this the part where you compare your Spurs to losing teams again?
Yeah Lebron probably wouldnt have won any titles if he would have faced these Spurs a?

 

[Inimical]

Just to wrap this thread up. I have seen nothing but love and praise for the Spurs since they won. Why in the world could you not just enjoy the moment?

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

It is not that hard to grasp....

If Lebron played the 2002 Nets all five times in the Finals, he would be 5-0.
He would be lauded as an all time great for having such success on the biggest stage.

If Lebron played the 2014 Spurs all five times in the Finals, he would be 0-5.
He would be blasted for choking on the biggest stage.

So, yes we need to look at the opponents in the Finals as well as the overall W-L record.

If you bring the Number of rings into the argument, you have to bring the opponent quality as well.
If you don't bring the rings into it, then my thread is meaningless.

But, we know darn well the entire world is trying to marginalize Lebron for being 2-3.
Everyone wants to kill Lebron for losing a finals, but sometimes the opponent matters.

 

[trojanfan12]

It is not that hard to grasp....

If Lebron played the 2002 Nets all five times in the Finals, he would be 5-0.
He would be lauded as an all time great for having such success on the biggest stage.

If Lebron played the 2014 Spurs all five times in the Finals, he would be 0-5.
He would be blasted for choking on the biggest stage.

So, yes we need to look at the opponents in the Finals as well as the overall W-L record.

If you bring the Number of rings into the argument, you have to bring the opponent quality as well.
If you don't bring the rings into it, then my thread is meaningless.

But, we know darn well the entire world is trying to marginalize Lebron for being 2-3.
Everyone wants to kill Lebron for losing a finals, but sometimes the opponent matters.

Okay, since you and some of the Heat fans here seem to need this validation so badly, here goes:

The 2014 Miami Heat are the 2nd best team in the history of the NBA. In fact, the 2014 Miami Heat are the 2nd best team all-time in any sport.

The problem for them was that they got stuck playing the Greatest Team in the History of Athletic Competition the 2014 San Antonio Spurs.

In fact, the only team in history that could possibly have beaten the 2014 Miami Heat was the 2014 San Antonio Spurs. Even at that, this Heat team was so awesome that the Greatest Team in the History of Athletic Competition still had to intentionally sabotage the AC in 1 game, make sure that Lebron got the screaming shits in another game and send in Tony Romo just to barely squeak by in 5 games by an average of 18ppg.

There. Everybody happy? Can we end this dumb thread now?

 

[Inimical]

Okay, since you and some of the Heat fans here seem to need this validation so badly, here goes:

The 2014 Miami Heat are the 2nd best team in the history of the NBA. In fact, the 2014 Miami Heat are the 2nd best team all-time in any sport.

The problem for them was that they got stuck playing the Greatest Team in the History of Athletic Competition the 2014 San Antonio Spurs.

In fact, the only team in history that could possibly have beaten the 2014 Miami Heat was the 2014 San Antonio Spurs. Even at that, this Heat team was so awesome that the Greatest Team in the History of Athletic Competition still had to intentionally sabotage the AC in 1 game, make sure that Lebron got the screaming shits in another game and send in Tony Romo just to barely squeak by in 5 games by an average of 18ppg.

There. Everybody happy? Can we end this dumb thread now?

I died. The Spurs are the greatest team ever. Im on this bandwagon

 

[trojanfan12]

I died. The Spurs are the greatest team ever. Im on this bandwagon

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Okay, since you and some of the Heat fans here seem to need this validation so badly, here goes:

The 2014 Miami Heat are the 2nd best team in the history of the NBA. In fact, the 2014 Miami Heat are the 2nd best team all-time in any sport.

The problem for them was that they got stuck playing the Greatest Team in the History of Athletic Competition the 2014 San Antonio Spurs.

In fact, the only team in history that could possibly have beaten the 2014 Miami Heat was the 2014 San Antonio Spurs. Even at that, this Heat team was so awesome that the Greatest Team in the History of Athletic Competition still had to intentionally sabotage the AC in 1 game, make sure that Lebron got the screaming shits in another game and send in Tony Romo just to barely squeak by in 5 games by an average of 18ppg.

There. Everybody happy? Can we end this dumb thread now?

I don't think any Heat fan is searching for that type of validation.

My original post on this thread, if you recall, was in response to Mike D saying that the Heat wouldn't have made the playoffs this year in they were in the WC.

Then, my debate with you turned into IMO, the loser in any championship , is generally thought of as #2 vs you trying to rank teams based on perception.

I think with years years Heat, there is one evaluation that most would agree on.

Assuming we all agree that James is the best player on the court, my best guess would be that if Wade is the 2 nd or even 3 rd best player on the court, that the Heat would probably be the favorite to win any series.

If we get the Wade we got in the Finals, they would have been vulnerable to lose to several teams.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

We will decide it again next year.


SPURS vs HEAT part 3.


It seems like its inevitable if both sides return everyone.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't think any Heat fan is searching for that type of validation.

My original post on this thread, if you recall, was in response to Mike D saying that the Heat wouldn't have made the playoffs this year in they were in the WC.

Then, my debate with you turned into IMO, the loser in any championship , is generally thought of as #2 vs you trying to rank teams based on perception.

I think with years years Heat, there is one evaluation that most would agree on.

Assuming we all agree that James is the best player on the court, my best guess would be that if Wade is the 2 nd or even 3 rd best player on the court, that the Heat would probably be the favorite to win any series.

If we get the Wade we got in the Finals, they would have been vulnerable to lose to several teams.

As long as Miami's role players show up and at least play solid, I absolutely agree. Remember, it wasn't just D-Wade that played bad vs. the Spurs. It was a complete meltdown by everyone not named Lebron and even Lebron seemed to lack the energy to take over when things started going sideways.

I don't think that he quit like some others have suggested, though. Charles Barkley picked the Heat to win the title at the start of the playoffs, but he added one caveat. He said that he was concerned about how much of the load Lebron had to carry for the Heat to win. I think that is what happened with Lebron. He tried to reach into his "reserve tank" to jumpstart his team only to find that it was empty.

Obviously, much of that credit has to go to the Spurs because they had the plan to take advantage of the Heat's deficiencies and they executed it perfectly.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

I did consider your other scenarios and already pointed out that they are arbitrary nonsense that would be twisting stats. There is nothing valid in including things like the Heat not trying hard in some games or only playing well for 6-8 minutes.

As for the Heats Eastern Conference record vs. their Western Conference record. The Heat played 30 games vs. the West and 52 vs. the East. The West is the tougher conference. If you switch that, the Heat now play 22 more games vs. teams from the tougher conference. It flies in the face of logic to assume that they would maintain that same winning percentage when having to play teams from the tougher conference 22 more times.



I understand that thought process, but it still in no way explains how/why the Heat would have a lower winning % against the weaker EC conference especially considering they played 22 more games against them.
To me, that flies in the face of all logic.

Your example only addresses your opinion that the Heats win % would fall in they played 22 more games against the West. Correct?

 

[trojanfan12]

I understand that thought process, but it still in no way explains how/why the Heat would have a lower winning % against the weaker EC conference especially considering they played 22 more games against them.
To me, that flies in the face of all logic.

Your example only addresses your opinion that the Heats win % would fall in they played 22 more games against the West. Correct?

If you understand sports it doesn't. The Heat played 52 games vs. Eastern Conference opponents and only 30 vs. Western Conference opponents. The difference in the number of games alone explains the higher winning % vs. the West.

Eastern teams are more familiar with the Heat and how they play. They also get more "bites at the apple" so to speak. Even though the Eastern Conference is weaker than the west, these are still NBA players. Give them enough chances and they are going to win a few here and there no matter how much better the team they are playing is.

If you change their schedule to where they are now playing against better teams 22 more times than weaker teams, they are likely to lose more games to those better teams who now have more chances.

In my post where I mentioned where the Heat's 54 wins would put have them seeded in the west, part of the reason that I left them at 54 wins is because under that scenario, their winning % could drop vs. the west, but improve vs. the east.