- Thread starter
- #901
Demonjoe93
The Hawks make me emo
Here's the reason for the
You said the Hawks were 19-11 vs. the West, which is true. What you missed is that they were 1-5 vs. the top 3 teams in the West. Teams they would have to play 2-3 more times each.
That is true. However, we would have played one less game against our daddy (that's what I'm calling the Cavs until we win a game against them). In addition, we would have gotten to play the West's worst teams more than the East's worst teams, and the East's non-playoff teams were better than the West's.
Would the Hawks' record in the West be worse than the East? Maybe. It's not very easy to quantify that type of schedule change. Personally, I would not be surprised if we won an extra game in the West by playing slightly more bad teams; however, whether the record is better or worse, I don't think it would have been significant enough to make the Hawks' record go down by seven games (Houston's record) like purguy is suggesting it would.