espn power rankings: Suns 13

[JCSunsfan]

Ahead of the Hawks, Knicks, and Jazz.

Can't say they deserve that.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Ahead of the Hawks, Knicks, and Jazz.

Can't say they deserve that.

Not if you look at it closely but power rankings are supposed to reflect where a team is currently not necessarily what their record shows. If you just looked at box scores our last two wins are pretty impressive. Especially given the beating the Celts then gave to the Lakers. We aren't the 13th best team but I'll admit to being a little optimistic for the first time in quite a while.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

Not if you look at it closely but power rankings are supposed to reflect where a team is currently not necessarily what their record shows. If you just looked at box scores our last two wins are pretty impressive. Especially given the beating the Celts then gave to the Lakers. We aren't the 13th best team but I'll admit to being a little optimistic for the first time in quite a while.

Steve

That's the rub. We've had this discussion a lot of times before, and there really is no definitive answer, although I'm with you and believe it is definitely a "right now" type of thing. Up to 13 is a hell of a jump, but Stein has always had a soft spot for the Suns.

 

[chickenhead]

I was happy with the victory, but it was not the Celtics A-team that the Suns beat after Boston's travel. It doesn't matter in the sense that a win is a win in the standings, but the power rankings are theoretically supposed to account for this sort of thing, no?

 

[Chaplin]

I was happy with the victory, but it was not the Celtics A-team that the Suns beat after Boston's travel. It doesn't matter in the sense that a win is a win in the standings, but the power rankings are theoretically supposed to account for this sort of thing, no?

How much of a drop-off do you expect the best team in the league to have, even on a back-to-back? It's not like it's a completely different team, all their main guys were healthy, after all.

And as for the Hornets, outside of losing Okafor, they were pretty much healthy too when the game started.

 

[Gaddabout]

I think it's evident that something clicked a little bit for the team after that 2-hour closed door meeting last week. Gortat's getting playing time,too. Not expecting any kind of run like last year, but they're marginally better and look not-so-unrealistically capable of making a run for that 8th seed.

That's not what I want, really, but at least they might be watchable.

 

[jagu]

How much of a drop-off do you expect the best team in the league to have, even on a back-to-back? It's not like it's a completely different team, all their main guys were healthy, after all.

And as for the Hornets, outside of losing Okafor, they were pretty much healthy too when the game started.

The back-to-back stuff can rest, I'll take any victory over the Celtics as a step up from the basketball we played against the Sixers and the other bad teams.

 

[Errntknght]

I was happy with the victory, but it was not the Celtics A-team that the Suns beat after Boston's travel. It doesn't matter in the sense that a win is a win in the standings, but the power rankings are theoretically supposed to account for this sort of thing, no?

The power rankings are calculated via a formula - it is complex but I don't imagine it adjusts for teams that under estimate their opponents - which I believe Boston did against us. Portland probably gave them more trouble than they expected the night before, too, as it was a close game all the way through.

 

[BC867]

The power rankings are calculated via a formula - it is complex but I don't imagine it adjusts for teams that under estimate their opponents - which I believe Boston did against us. Portland probably gave them more trouble than they expected the night before, too, as it was a close game all the way through.

The Celtics, knowing that they had back-to-back games and would be arriving at Phoenix at 4 AM the day of the game, might be a variable that the power ranking don't take into account.

Do the stars pace themselves (even if subconsciously) in the first game, then still lose their edge in the second game? It is a real factor.

 

[chickenhead]

I don't know what the formula is, but if it's calculating the strength of opponent, then there's the potential for variance. We expect the Suns to be tired in certain travel scenarios as well. But again, you play who you play when the schedule dictates. I stayed up late here on the east coast and enjoyed every minute of it.

 

[Chaplin]

The Celtics, knowing that they had back-to-back games and would be arriving at Phoenix at 4 AM the day of the game, might be a variable that the power ranking don't take into account.

Do the stars pace themselves (even if subconsciously) in the first game, then still lose their edge in the second game? It is a real factor.

But again, this isn't the Cleveland Cavaliers we played on a back-to-back. This is arguably the best team in the NBA. How much of a letdown will there be on a back-to-back? Especially against mediocre competition like the Suns?

I'm tired of the same old excuses for when the Suns win--it's never the Suns, it's always a problem with the opponents. Too tired, too many players injured, etc...

 

[jibikao]

It's not like Suns never has back-to-back games and lost to a good team.

Boston didn't have A game but neither did Suns. I'll take any win against elite teams over losing to 2-3 losing teams that you won't face in the playoffs.

I do think Suns has "clicked" a bit. Looks like players are more familiar with each other and are more willingly to step up. Whether or not Suns is #13 is another story. It is only reflecting on how Suns plays recently.

 

[AzStevenCal]

But again, this isn't the Cleveland Cavaliers we played on a back-to-back. This is arguably the best team in the NBA. How much of a letdown will there be on a back-to-back? Especially against mediocre competition like the Suns?

I'm tired of the same old excuses for when the Suns win--it's never the Suns, it's always a problem with the opponents. Too tired, too many players injured, etc...

Chap, did you watch the game? I didn't think we got anywhere near the best they have to offer. I think they rolled in to town a little tired and thrilled they had an opponent they could take for granted. So they took us for granted and we took advantage of it. It happens quite a bit in this league although we're usually the one guilty of it. The team has nothing to apologize for in winning this kind of game, we all know we've lost more than our share that way.

I thought our win against New Orleans was much more impressive. They were a hot team (that probably overlooked the Kings the night before) and you can be sure they weren't taking us for granted after our win over the Celts. We outplayed them pretty much the whole way and I thought we did get their best effort (even though they lost Okafor in the 2nd qtr).

Steve

 

[desertdawg]

Every win is a good one. Ugly, pretty, against good or poor teams. No club wins all of their games against the below .500 teams so every win is awesome. Beat a +500 team and it is even more so.

 

[Chaplin]

Chap, did you watch the game? I didn't think we got anywhere near the best they have to offer. I think they rolled in to town a little tired and thrilled they had an opponent they could take for granted. So they took us for granted and we took advantage of it. It happens quite a bit in this league although we're usually the one guilty of it. The team has nothing to apologize for in winning this kind of game, we all know we've lost more than our share that way.

I thought our win against New Orleans was much more impressive. They were a hot team (that probably overlooked the Kings the night before) and you can be sure they weren't taking us for granted after our win over the Celts. We outplayed them pretty much the whole way and I thought we did get their best effort (even though they lost Okafor in the 2nd qtr).

Steve

We played like crap also. Our offense hasn't been good at all for a couple months now. But we still held the Celtics to season-low shooting. But if you want to simply credit that they were tired, more power to you. I tend to think the Suns might have had a little bit to do with it too.

 

[BC867]

The Celtics, knowing that they had back-to-back games and would be arriving at Phoenix at 4 AM the day of the game, might be a variable that the power ranking don't take into account.

Do the stars pace themselves (even if subconsciously) in the first game, then still lose their edge in the second game? It is a real factor.

I'm tired of the same old excuses for when the Suns win--it's never the Suns, it's always a problem with the opponents. Too tired, too many players injured, etc...

You overlooked the first sentence of my post, which referred to the criteria used in the power ranking.

As far as my second paragraph, I see some agreement among other posters about a team (even a first place team) pacing itself in the first of back-to-back games. 'Nothing wrong with discussing all posibilities.

 

[AzStevenCal]

We played like crap also. Our offense hasn't been good at all for a couple months now. But we still held the Celtics to season-low shooting. But if you want to simply credit that they were tired, more power to you. I tend to think the Suns might have had a little bit to do with it too.

It isn't one thing or the other. We played a decent game, good enough to take advantage of a team that was playing at less than it's best. Nobody is saying that the Celts forced us to win the game.

You've seen us come out on the trail end of a back to back and lose to an inferior foe because of the combination of tired legs and a little over-confidence. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the same thing might have just happened in our favor? If you watched Boston play 2 days later in LA and truly thought they played just as well against us, then fine, you saw something different than I did.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

It isn't one thing or the other. We played a decent game, good enough to take advantage of a team that was playing at less than it's best. Nobody is saying that the Celts forced us to win the game.

You've seen us come out on the trail end of a back to back and lose to an inferior foe because of the combination of tired legs and a little over-confidence. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the same thing might have just happened in our favor? If you watched Boston play 2 days later in LA and truly thought they played just as well against us, then fine, you saw something different than I did.

Steve

Don't fool yourself, there aren't many teams that are inferior to us. But there's a HUGE difference between the Suns and a championship-caliber team like the Celtics. Again, while the back-to-back is definitely a minor factor, it's not nearly as big as you think it is. Not with the Celtics, that is.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Don't fool yourself, there aren't many teams that are inferior to us. But there's a HUGE difference between the Suns and a championship-caliber team like the Celtics. Again, while the back-to-back is definitely a minor factor, it's not nearly as big as you think it is. Not with the Celtics, that is.

i think 9 of the Celtics losses have come on the second end of back to backs. that tells me that it might be as big as some think it is... or at least bigger than you give credit for. A very old team struggles on back to backs, no matter how good they are.

that being said, it's still a very good win for the Suns considering how much better the C's are.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Don't fool yourself, there aren't many teams that are inferior to us. But there's a HUGE difference between the Suns and a championship-caliber team like the Celtics. Again, while the back-to-back is definitely a minor factor, it's not nearly as big as you think it is. Not with the Celtics, that is.

We're still in disagreement. This team, right now, is one of the 15 best teams in the NBA and has a chance to be a top 10 team. A little tweaking and I really think we will make the playoffs and a be a dangerous first round opponent. This is not the same team that started the season, Gortat changes a lot for us. I'm not trying to say he's a superstar but he helps balance a roster that at one time was perhaps the most unbalanced roster I've ever seen.

Steve

 

[Superbone]

We're still in disagreement. This team, right now, is one of the 15 best teams in the NBA and has a chance to be a top 10 team. A little tweaking and I really think we will make the playoffs and a be a dangerous first round opponent. This is not the same team that started the season, Gortat changes a lot for us. I'm not trying to say he's a superstar but he helps balance a roster that at one time was perhaps the most unbalanced roster I've ever seen.

Steve

I'm glad to see you saying that, Steve. You're drinking the Suns kool-aid now.

 

[BC867]

Gortat changes a lot for us. I'm not trying to say he's a superstar but he helps balance a roster that at one time was perhaps the most unbalanced roster I've ever seen.

Our roster at the start of the year reminds me of the Suns Western finals in 1979 when we lost to the Sonics.

Our Center Alvan Adams went down with an injury and was replaced in the starting lineup by backup Small Forward Joel Kramer -- 6'7" - 203 lbs. -- rather than our other Center.

Kramer went up against Jack Sikma -- 6'11" - 230 lbs. -- and we lost the series. Seattle went on to play the Bullets. Whichever team made it out of the West, whether the Sonics or we, was favored to defeat the Bullets . . . and the Sonics did, for the NBA championship.

6'7" - 203 vs. Jack Sikma. It could have been us.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Our roster at the start of the year reminds me of the Suns Western finals in 1979 when we lost to the Sonics.

Our Center Alvan Adams went down with an injury and was replaced in the starting lineup by backup Small Forward Joel Kramer -- 6'7" - 203 lbs. -- rather than our other Center.

Kramer went up against Jack Sikma -- 6'11" - 230 lbs. -- and we lost the series. Seattle went on to play the Bullets. Whichever team made it out of the West, whether the Sonics or we, was favored to defeat the Bullets . . . and the Sonics did, for the NBA championship.

6'7" - 203 vs. Jack Sikma. It could have been us.

I think that's an outrageous comment. I remember that series quite well. Are you really suggesting that starting Bayard Forrest would have made the difference? We were screwed when Alvan Adams got injured, it was as simple as that. Sikma was a skilled and mobile center and Forrest would have been eaten alive. In fact, he was eaten alive when he got out there. So were Alvin Scott and Gar Heard when they matched up with him.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

I'm glad to see you saying that, Steve. You're drinking the Suns kool-aid now.

Believe it or not, I have always been a kool-aid drinker. I look for the positive every time I examine this team. Unfortunately, I saw so few positives when I looked at this team during the off season. I think the deal we worked with Orlando is nothing short of brilliant. We got rid of a guy that did not fit and was clearly damaging our chemistry and while it cost us Richardson, we got plenty in return.

Vince Carter is not as consistent as Jason Richardson but you can just see the respect the opposing defenses give him. They play him like a borderline superstar and that attention opens the court for Fyre's 3 pointers and the Nash/Gortat pick and roll. We're still a bit dysfunctional offensively on the night Carter mails it in. Even on his bad nights though he still helps us and on his good nights we are competitive with the best in the league.

Steve