Utah Jazz - Brooklyn Nets Game Thread.

[nuraman00]

I understand, but I look at the season short-term after short-term. Obviously teams gameplan and matchups are static, but it's not like baseball where they play a series of games until the playoffs. When I said trade, I guess I didn't really mean trade, I meant their current record is the same as predicted, as I would have predicted a loss to the Spurs (1-3 in the series for me) and a win against Phoenix (3-1 in the series). For some reason, I felt the first would be a loss.

OT: I read somewhere that we were playing the Lakers or some western conference team three times this year, but I thought it was 4 against conference and 2 against the Eastern Conference. If they were to contract the number of games (never going to happen), they could play twice against the Eastern Conference, four times against divisional teams, and three times against non-divisional western teams for a total of 76 games - not much difference but 6 games is like one playoff series. Or they could play the other conference once only and four times against the same conference - though that'd be an odd number - 71 games. They could do four against division, three against non-division western, and once against each team in the Eastern Conference - trading home and home each year for a total of 61 games. Not a fan of odd number games, but what would we do without adding more teams or realignment? (Realignment couldn't work for numbers in each conference because that's have to be even, right? Unless they were to add one team - but I think they come in pairs?)

I like how in the NBA, you face all other teams, and twice at least too.

I don't like the unbalanced schedule in MLB. It's getting better though with interleague play.

The NFL schedule is dumb. You don't even face 1/2 the teams in the league in a given season. If injuries weren't as much of a concern, they should expand it to a 34 week season, play all other teams once, and your division twice.

The college football schedule is dumb. Division I teams are allowed to play I-AA. Yes, that's how some of the I-AA teams make money, but their football programs never improve, so it's all a sham. The same applies with playing some of those lesser conferences in I-A.

Either everyone should play more of a balanced schedule, or they should make a schedule where everyone can play those lesser conferences in I-A.

 

[nuraman00]

FWIW, I think it's more of a sports fan or radio host excuse, not a player or team excuse. It's a factor because some coaches don't practice between back to back games, some teams get tired, and while some teams will be losses regardless, the likelihood of borderline games being losses go up if you're on a back to back and the other is not.

In other words, if the Jazz play Memphis after a triple overtime game the night before, they'd likely lose - but they were already the underdog. But if they played Washington the next night, it would harder than with a night off. I know I went to extremes, but I probably should have said Minnesota or Indiana, where they'd be a toss up on any night, but back-to-back breaks the tie. It'd be hard to get data on this stuff, because whether a team qualifies as a toss-up is a subjective matter and being on the road or at home matters. The Jazz are inconsistent enough that it's hard to predict regardless. Just saying it's a factor. Maybe the Memphis loss would be bigger after a back-to-back than if after one night's rest? You cited LA to show that's not an air-tight theory, but that's an anomaly, right? Did you look at whether the Clippers opponents were on back to backs or not? To go with your theory, back-to-back isn't as big of a factor as being on the road. Sleeping in your own bed and playing in front of your own fans may neutralize the back-to-back factor. (Since the other team has to adjust to being on the road.)

I don't remember the exact breakdown anymore but when the Clippers faced the 1st team on back-to-backs, the other team usually wasn't on one. On the 2nd night, it was a toss-up. I don't want to look all of this up again.

And how about the Jazz win in triple OT against the Grizzlies?

Also, only Portland, Denver, and Utah have had such historical home-road splits favoring home. Other teams are more balanced. Dallas usually is up there in road wins every year.

What if they play two straight OT games, lose the Memphis one, but win the 2nd one?

I don't know where to find all of this scheduling stuff, especially across multiple seasons.

 

[nuraman00]

Nice.

 

[MHSL82]

What did I tell you about back-to-backs? Utah Jazz vs. Indiana Pacers - Box Score - December 19, 2012 - ESPN

Just kidding.

 

[nuraman00]

What did I tell you about back-to-backs? Utah Jazz vs. Indiana Pacers - Box Score - December 19, 2012 - ESPN

Just kidding.

The Raptors won a back to back against Cleveland and Detoit.

 

[MHSL82]

The Raptors won a back to back against Cleveland and Detoit.

Anyone can beat those teams, but Indiana? 14 teams have lost (haven't checked if any teams have played them twice). Only 12 for Detroit and Cleveland combined.

 

[nuraman00]

Anyone can beat those teams, but Indiana? 14 teams have lost (haven't checked if any teams have played them twice). Only 12 for Detroit and Cleveland combined.

The point is that the Jazz, Nuggets, and Trail Blazers should stop being so skewed home-road, and start being more like the mighty Raptors.

The Raptors beat the Pacers on the road so that makes it another reason to be like them!

2012-13 Indiana Pacers Schedule and Results | Basketball-Reference.com

 

[MHSL82]

The point is that the Jazz, Nuggets, and Trail Blazers should stop being so skewed home-road, and start being more like the mighty Raptors.

The Raptors beat the Pacers on the road so that makes it another reason to be like them!

2012-13 Indiana Pacers Schedule and Results | Basketball-Reference.com

You don't understand. Back-to-backs only disadvantage Utah, no one else! (Unless they elect to be disadvantaged, too.) So when we have a back-to-back, it's a surprise when we win. I think it's some Utah law (though I haven't looked up the code). And I know the law.

 

[nuraman00]

The Jazz have the following road win streaks, many of which included back to backs.

That's 135 such streaks.

Lawyered!

Team Streak Finder | Basketball-Reference.com

The Pacers, meanwhile, only have 123 such road winning streaks. And their longest one was only 7 games, while the Jazz had a 15 game road winning streak.

So, in other words, don't elevate or compare oneself to the Pacers.

 

[MHSL82]

The Jazz have the following road win streaks, many of which included back to backs.

That's 135 such streaks.

Lawyered!

Team Streak Finder | Basketball-Reference.com

The Pacers, meanwhile, only have 123 such road winning streaks. And their longest one was only 7 games, while the Jazz had a 15 game road winning streak.

So, in other words, don't elevate or compare oneself to the Pacers.

You still don't understand. If the Jazz weren't the only team disadvantaged by back-to-backs, they'd have 242 such streaks and their wins would be greater. If the Pacers were disadvantaged, they'd have only 12 such road winning streaks.