BBR Rankings: 2010-01-22
Posted by Neil Paine on January 22, 2010
Rising: Nuggets (W-UTA, W-@GSW, W-LAC), Thunder (L-@DAL, W-MIA, W-@ATL, W-@MIN)
Falling: Spurs (L-@CHA, L-@MEM, W-@NOH, L-UTA), Warriors (L-MIL, W-CHI, L-DEN)
(Want to know how the BBR Rankings are calculated? Read this first... "MLE" = Maximum Likelihood Estimate.)
| Rank | Prev | Team | W | L | WPct | SOSRk | Week | MLE | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | Cleveland Cavaliers | 33 | 11 | 0.750 | 23 | 3-0 | 1.37755 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | Los Angeles Lakers | 32 | 10 | 0.762 | 20 | 2-1 | 1.31541 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 | Dallas Mavericks | 28 | 14 | 0.667 | 5 | 3-1 | 1.00593 | 3 |
| 4 | 4 | Boston Celtics | 27 | 13 | 0.675 | 30 | 0-2 | 0.76575 | 5 |
| 5 | 6 | Atlanta Hawks | 27 | 14 | 0.659 | 21 | 2-1 | 0.79845 | 4 |
| 6 | 5 | Orlando Magic | 27 | 15 | 0.643 | 26 | 1-2 | 0.70888 | 6 |
| 7 | 9 | Denver Nuggets | 28 | 14 | 0.667 | 29 | 3-0 | 0.67104 | 7 |
| 8 | 8 | Houston Rockets | 23 | 18 | 0.561 | 2 | 1-1 | 0.57698 | 8 |
| 9 | 7 | Phoenix Suns | 25 | 18 | 0.581 | 14 | 1-3 | 0.54392 | 9 |
| 10 | 12 | Utah Jazz | 24 | 18 | 0.571 | 3 | 2-1 | 0.45719 | 11 |
| 11 | 13 | Oklahoma City Thunder | 24 | 18 | 0.571 | 9 | 3-1 | 0.45714 | 12 |
| 12 | 11 | Portland Trail Blazers | 26 | 17 | 0.605 | 22 | 2-1 | 0.49317 | 10 |
| 13 | 10 | San Antonio Spurs | 25 | 16 | 0.610 | 24 | 1-3 | 0.44378 | 13 |
| 14 | 16 | Memphis Grizzlies | 22 | 19 | 0.537 | 18 | 3-1 | 0.25064 | 14 |
| 15 | 15 | Miami Heat | 21 | 20 | 0.512 | 1 | 2-2 | 0.16340 | 17 |
| 16 | 17 | Toronto Raptors | 21 | 22 | 0.488 | 7 | 2-2 | 0.16659 | 16 |
| 17 | 14 | New Orleans Hornets | 22 | 19 | 0.537 | 25 | 2-2 | 0.18750 | 15 |
| 18 | 18 | Charlotte Bobcats | 21 | 19 | 0.525 | 13 | 4-0 | 0.04649 | 18 |
| 19 | 19 | Chicago Bulls | 18 | 22 | 0.450 | 10 | 1-2 | -0.26111 | 20 |
| 20 | 20 | Los Angeles Clippers | 19 | 23 | 0.452 | 15 | 2-3 | -0.19768 | 19 |
| 21 | 21 | Milwaukee Bucks | 17 | 23 | 0.425 | 17 | 2-2 | -0.33744 | 21 |
| 22 | 24 | Detroit Pistons | 15 | 26 | 0.366 | 4 | 3-1 | -0.51060 | 22 |
| 23 | 22 | New York Knicks | 17 | 24 | 0.415 | 28 | 1-2 | -0.54081 | 23 |
| 24 | 23 | Sacramento Kings | 15 | 26 | 0.366 | 12 | 0-4 | -0.59454 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | Washington Wizards | 14 | 27 | 0.341 | 19 | 2-2 | -0.77057 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | Philadelphia 76ers | 13 | 28 | 0.317 | 16 | 1-2 | -0.94666 | 28 |
| 27 | 28 | Indiana Pacers | 14 | 28 | 0.333 | 27 | 1-3 | -0.92143 | 26 |
| 28 | 25 | Golden State Warriors | 12 | 28 | 0.300 | 11 | 1-2 | -0.92234 | 27 |
| 29 | 29 | Minnesota Timberwolves | 9 | 34 | 0.209 | 8 | 1-2 | -1.56208 | 29 |
| 30 | 30 | New Jersey Nets | 3 | 38 | 0.073 | 6 | 0-3 | -2.86453 | 30 |
| Home-Court Advantage | 0.65378 |
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:27 am
If this were college football, it would have been a much huger deal that #1 played #2 last night... Getting a 1-vs-2 matchup in the NBA is far less rare and nowhere near as important in the championship picture, since Cleveland/L.A. will have another chance to battle it out if they eventually make the Finals. But when #1 and #2 play during the CFB regular season, there's a pretty good chance the loser is permanently eliminated from title contention. Can you imagine if that were the case in the NBA?
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Neil,
I'd rather not have to imagine that scenario. Your argument is why I like the current NBA playoff system (aside from maybe tweaking the first round from 7 back to 5 games, although that can open another can of worms).
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:14 am
Yeah, football's (pro and college) biggest asset is how few games are played. Each one becomes really important. Even more so with the BCS system. If there were only 16 games a season, I wonder how many people would show up for each NBA game? Average attendance this year is almost 17K per game. Would it bump up to 80K per game?