PDA

View Full Version : Will this be the most stacked/lopsided season ever?



Chronz
10-05-2009, 11:45 AM
Article claiming that the top 5 this year will be better than any top 5 in NBA history.

http://thedawggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/challenging-5-nba-superpowers-of-2009.html


The theory: I believe that the 2009-2010 NBA season has the greatest collection of FIVE teams competing in the same season
I have alluded to it in the comments and some of the articles since the NBA off-season has ended... that the Lakers, Magic, Cavs, Celtics, and Spurs ("The 5 NBA Superpowers of 2009-2010") are the greatest collection of five teams in any one season. While I have made this subjective proclamation, it is a very difficult to prove or even evaluate the past seasons. How in the world does one evaluate how many "bona fide" contenders an NBA season has or how "good" the top 5 teams are in any season? Who do we identify as the top 5 teams?



A different look on the season from a historical standpoint, thoughts?

JordansBulls
10-05-2009, 11:49 AM
Article claiming that the top 5 this year will be better than any top 5 in NBA history.

http://thedawggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/challenging-5-nba-superpowers-of-2009.html



A different look on the season from a historical standpoint, thoughts?

Other years were stacked as well.

1983 and 1984 had the Sixers, Lakers, Celtics, Bucks.

1992 had the Bulls, Blazers, Knicks, Cavs, Jazz
1993 had the Bulls, Knicks, Suns, Cavs and Sonics

1997 had the Bulls, Rockets, Jazz, Sonics, Heat and Knicks
1998 had the Bulls, Pacers, Knicks (weren't healthy though), Heat, Lakers, Jazz, Sonics and Spurs

ko8e24
10-05-2009, 11:56 AM
sure, can we get the season starting now? im kinda sick of this anticipatory crap of who's gonna do what and who's gonna do well and who's gonna do like crap. let's just start bouncing some damn basketballs!

faridk89
10-05-2009, 12:03 PM
stalked teams arnt always "good" teams

Raph12
10-05-2009, 12:17 PM
Potential-wise, yes this season's top 5 teams (Lakers, Spurs, Magic, Celtics and Cavaliers) look to be the most stacked ever, but how it will all play out is still a mystery. We can come back to this at the end of the season and see where they rank among the other lopsided seasons in NBA history.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
10-05-2009, 12:26 PM
sure, can we get the season starting now? Im kinda sick of this anticipatory crap of who's gonna do what and who's gonna do well and who's gonna do like crap. Let's just start bouncing some damn basketballs!

yes, sir!

Ace33Bone
10-05-2009, 12:46 PM
IMO Dallas is pretty stacked too... I just do not know how they are going to mesh togther

GoatMilk
10-05-2009, 12:49 PM
stalked teams arnt always "good" teams

the ones mentioned, Lakers/Magic/Cavs/Celtics/Spurs, are

Chronz
10-05-2009, 01:06 PM
stalked teams arnt always "good" teams

Like when?

Chronz
10-05-2009, 01:15 PM
Other years were stacked as well.

1983 and 1984 had the Sixers, Lakers, Celtics, Bucks.

1992 had the Bulls, Blazers, Knicks, Cavs, Jazz
1993 had the Bulls, Knicks, Suns, Cavs and Sonics

1997 had the Bulls, Rockets, Jazz, Sonics, Heat and Knicks
1998 had the Bulls, Pacers, Knicks (weren't healthy though), Heat, Lakers, Jazz, Sonics and Spurs

07-08 was stacked by these measures as well.

Still is it really a more stacked league if there are only 5 teams that can legitimately win, or is it a harder league if everyone around you is ranked similarly and nobody wins 65+ games? This is the only problem with this train of thought. Id like to see the standard deviation between every team in the league those years. There are so many ways to analyze SRS but from the basis concerning only the top 5 teams I guess its a fair way to rank them.

Super.
10-05-2009, 01:31 PM
Like when?

What about that year the Lakers had Payton and Malone i think it was?

RaiderLakersA's
10-05-2009, 01:33 PM
What about that year the Lakers had Payton and Malone i think it was?

i don't consider the Lakers stacked that year. On paper, yes, but in reality, no? GP and Mailman were not in their prime. GP never learned the triangle, nor did he care to. That's why he bumped heads so much with PJ.

RaiderLakersA's
10-05-2009, 01:34 PM
Article claiming that the top 5 this year will be better than any top 5 in NBA history.

http://thedawggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/challenging-5-nba-superpowers-of-2009.html



A different look on the season from a historical standpoint, thoughts?


Ask me that after injuries decimate 2 of the top teams. It's gonna happen.

Chronz
10-05-2009, 01:44 PM
What about that year the Lakers had Payton and Malone i think it was?

So a team that made the Finals and lost in part because Malone was hurt, classifies as a team that wasnt good?

Chronz
10-05-2009, 01:45 PM
i don't consider the Lakers stacked that year. On paper, yes, but in reality, no? GP and Mailman were not in their prime. GP never learned the triangle, nor did he care to. That's why he bumped heads so much with PJ.
Dude they were stacked, they just werent healthy. If they were in their primes it would be beyond stacked, it would be an unfair advantage that has never happened in the NBA. So you cant base the definition of stacked on something that has never happened.

MTar786
10-05-2009, 01:57 PM
03-04

kings were stacked and they added brad miller to their already STACKED team
spurs were stacked.. cant remember who they added tho.. i think rob horry and hedo turk?
twolves were Stacked with KG spree cassel wally hudson etc.. they even added olowakandi for the hell of it lol.
lakers were stacked with karl malone, GP, shaq, kobe, dfish, fox, grant etc...
detroit with the addition of sheed

the 5 top teams from 03-04 were all better than i think the magic, spurs and cleveland can be. maybe not better than the celts and lakers.. but the 03-04 lakers were prob a better team than the lakers or celts of this year.. too bad they had injuries (kobe injured shoulder in playoffs and malone was half broken by the finals.. n only played one or two HORRIBLE games), rape cases and couldnt keep their cool a few games longer and won the nba championship

Chronz
10-05-2009, 01:59 PM
03-04

kings were stacked and they added brad miller to their already STACKED team
spurs were stacked.. cant remember who they added tho.. i think rob horry and hedo turk?
twolves were Stacked with KG spree cassel wally hudson etc.. they even added olowakandi for the hell of it lol.
lakers were stacked with karl malone, GP, shaq, kobe, dfish, fox, grant etc...
detroit with the addition of sheed

the 5 top teams from 03-04 were all better than i think the magic, spurs and cleveland can be. maybe not better than the celts and lakers.. but the 03-04 lakers were prob a better team than the lakers or celts of this year.. too bad they had injuries (kobe injured shoulder in playoffs and malone was half broken by the finals.. n only played one or two HORRIBLE games), rape cases and couldnt keep their cool a few games longer and won the nba championship

Yea that seems to be a year that pops up alot whenever this question is asked. Didnt the Mavs stack up that year as well, adding Antoine and Antawn? Though those addition made them worse actually.

MTar786
10-05-2009, 02:04 PM
Dude they were stacked, they just werent healthy. If they were in their primes it would be beyond stacked, it would be an unfair advantage that has never happened in the NBA. So you cant base the definition of stacked on something that has never happened.

LoL i actually agree with u..

lakers 03-04 were so stacked it wasnt even fair.
i remember the offseason the lakers got gp and malone.. i read an article saying actor Jack N. can be their starting sf and theyd still win the nba championship.
then to add more power they signed back their 01 starting pf horace grant and kept ALL their good players besides horry.
they were prob the most stacked team in nba history
they didnt win cuz of the injuries and that kobe was facing rape charges. when kobe shaq AND malone miss over 20 games in a season and u still have a 56-26 record AND keep it all together to make it to the finals then u know u are STACKED. especially when u beat an amazing spurs team and stacked twolves team to get there

ps. GP didnt learn the triangle cuz he Like everyone else thought they just got a championship handed to them

MTar786
10-05-2009, 02:08 PM
Yea that seems to be a year that pops up alot whenever this question is asked. Didnt the Mavs stack up that year as well, adding Antoine and Antawn? Though those addition made them worse actually.

OH YA how could i forget.. i remember thinking dallas was going to be tough as nails that year. cuz walker was still a good offensive player back then.. and i always loved jamisons game. OK 03-04 is officially the most paper stacked year in nba history. n possibly the most straight up stacked year in history

Chronz
10-05-2009, 03:19 PM
Antoine Walker has never been a good offensive player

MTar786
10-05-2009, 04:37 PM
Antoine Walker has never been a good offensive player

if u wanna call a season with 23.5ppg on 43%fg and 37%3pfg BAD OFFENSE then ur on a lonely boat buddy.

im not saying he was a 'great' offensive player.. his D was ALWAYS terrible.. but he did have good offensive seasons.. average fg% (nt that good) but his 3pfg was good and he put up good numbers.. and wasnt a bad passer either (a few seasons with 5+ assists) and ok rebounder

17.5ppg career average is good offense. 49 points in a game as a career high is good offense.. i dont care how u got those points... as long as u did.

btw.. i wonder what made him an all star a couple times? cuz i dont think it was cuz of his D

Chronz
10-05-2009, 04:52 PM
It was his reputation as a scorer that got him in the All-star game, but he wasnt a good offensive player.

Look my definition of a good offensive player is a guy that you can add onto any team and he will help their offense, Walker has never been that guy. Hes like Iverson in that he could only help a team that was so bad it could benefit from having him use up all of its possessions at middling efficiency. But when placed on a championship caliber squad, he will make it harder to have a cohesive offensive unit, which is why Dallas didnt benefit from his Celtic averages. Hes not a good enough player to adapt.

A good offensive player will have great impact on a championship caliber team and carry his team if need be.

Walker as a 3rd option in Miami was still below league average efficiency. All things being equal among good offensive players, you would never win with Walker as a primary offensive option. Hes too inefficient.

He was a decent enough player, but definitely not as good as his bloated averages and alleged all-star caliber seasons lead you to believe. Anyways I wont comment on that anymore, feel free to PM me if you want to really discuss the matter, for now can we focus on the topic at hand please?

king4day
10-05-2009, 05:32 PM
Article claiming that the top 5 this year will be better than any top 5 in NBA history.

http://thedawggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/challenging-5-nba-superpowers-of-2009.html



A different look on the season from a historical standpoint, thoughts?

I disagree with this being the best 5.

A few years ago we had Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Pistons, Heat, and everybody else.

MTar786
10-05-2009, 05:39 PM
It was his reputation as a scorer that got him in the All-star game, but he wasnt a good offensive player.

Look my definition of a good offensive player is a guy that you can add onto any team and he will help their offense, Walker has never been that guy. Hes like Iverson in that he could only help a team that was so bad it could benefit from having him use up all of its possessions at middling efficiency. But when placed on a championship caliber squad, he will make it harder to have a cohesive offensive unit, which is why Dallas didnt benefit from his Celtic averages. Hes not a good enough player to adapt.

A good offensive player will have great impact on a championship caliber team and carry his team if need be.

Walker as a 3rd option in Miami was still below league average efficiency. All things being equal among good offensive players, you would never win with Walker as a primary offensive option. Hes too inefficient.

He was a decent enough player, but definitely not as good as his bloated averages and alleged all-star caliber seasons lead you to believe. Anyways I wont comment on that anymore, feel free to PM me if you want to really discuss the matter, for now can we focus on the topic at hand please?

i do agree with u on a lot. like he was a cancer. his scoring was less helpful than any other scorer could privide. much like AI. but just because ur opinion is that he's not good offensivley doesnt mean he wasnt good on offense. the league has more knowledge than u do. and he was considered a good offensive player at that point in his career.
in miami he was passed his prime. he did still score a little. but he didnt really provide the push that made them champions. so in a nut shell.. i agree with u. he wasnt a helpful team player. BUT he was a good offensive player. i cant change ur opinion and im not trying to. but u cant change the fact that he was considered a good offensive player. u just said it ur self. he was an all star based on his rep. what was his rep? being a scorer. which he could do.
his terribly baaaad D out weighed his good offense

ChiSox219
10-05-2009, 08:54 PM
The Blazers should be the 5th team over the Spurs.

And this is the most top heavy the NBA has been since I've been watching.

topdog
10-05-2009, 09:21 PM
I think the Lakers, Orlando, and the Cavs might have screwed it up going into this year and the West has a number of surprisingly good teams because of roles and chemistry (see Portland and Denver).

That GP and Malone thing was messed up - at the time I thought KG, McGrady, AI, and Nash should have just taken the minimum on their next contract so they could all sign on the same team and win a championship.

Speaking of Walker and offense, remember when Boston had Walker, Ricky D, Pierce and the Glove? Talk about guys who like to shoot.

ManRam
10-05-2009, 09:28 PM
Didn't read the article, or any posts....

But with the economy like it is, the upcoming off-season, and many other factors...few teams really have any incentive to spend money, unless you have a legit shot to win. The vast majority of the league is looking into the future, not this season. I think the top of the league could be as competitive as ever...and that things will even out after this year.

ChiSox219
10-05-2009, 09:48 PM
Didn't read the article, or any posts....

But with the economy like it is, the upcoming off-season, and many other factors...few teams really have any incentive to spend money, unless you have a legit shot to win. The vast majority of the league is looking into the future, not this season. I think the top of the league could be as competitive as ever...and that things will even out after this year.

Good point, the other thing to consider is, come trade deadline most teams are going to be sellers and the Magic have a rather attractive trade chip with Gortat

Chronz
10-05-2009, 09:48 PM
The Blazers should be the 5th team over the Spurs.

And this is the most top heavy the NBA has been since I've been watching.
Dear god I forgot about the Blazers. They have the most room for improvement depending on Odens growth and Millers adjustment off the bench.

Lakersfan2483
10-05-2009, 10:19 PM
Article claiming that the top 5 this year will be better than any top 5 in NBA history.

http://thedawggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/challenging-5-nba-superpowers-of-2009.html



A different look on the season from a historical standpoint, thoughts?

It's been quite sometime since I have seen the NBA have 5 extremely talented/stacked teams that can potentially win it all. All of that said, it doesn't even factor in the other very talented teams like Denver, Dallas and Portland. This upcoming season definitely has the chance to be historic considering the talent on all 5 of the top teams in the NBA.

Just look at the following list of talent that is on the top 8 teams in the NBA.

Lakers squad: Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom, Bynum, Fisher, Farmar, Walton, S. Brown

Celtics squad: Garnett, Pierce, R. Allen, R. Rondo, K. Perkins, R. Wallace, G. Davis

Magic squad: Carter, D. Howard, R. Lewis, J. Nelson, M. Pietrus, M. Gortat, B. Bass, M. Barnes

Cavs squad: Lebron, Shaq, Z. Illgauskas, M. Williams, D. West, A. Varejao, A. Parker, D. Gibson, J. Moon

Spurs squad: T. Duncan, M. Ginobli, T. Parker, R. Jefferson, R. Mason, Mcdyess, M. Finley, K. Thomas

Nuggets squad: C. Billups, C. Anthony, K. Martin, C. Anderson, Jr. Smith, A. Carter, Nene

Blazers squad: B. Roy, G. Oden, A. Miller, T. Outlaw, R. Fernandez, N. Batum, J. Bayless, L. Aldridge, J. Pryzbilla, S. Blake

Mavs squad: D. Nowitzki, S. Marion, J. Terry, Josh Howard, Eric Dampier, J. Kidd, D. Gooden

Gutsy Goldberg
10-05-2009, 10:43 PM
I just wanted to thank everyone for all the interesting comments. Here are my comments in response:
1) Standard deviation is another way to analyze the data. The only issue is, the 1993 season, for example, has the smallest standard deviation (0.0797) but a below-average score. Meanwhile, the "best" year of 1996 has the highest standard deviation (6.678) mainly because the Bulls team was completely off the chart. Thus, analyzing the best 5-team-set should also look at the variance between the teams, because it means that the season is truly unpredictable (whereas in 1996, we all knew the Bulls were winning it all).
2) The Lakers w/ Payton and Malone scored a surprisingly low 4.24 SRS in 2004. They weren't even in the top 5, according to the SRS. They had many games missed due to injury from Shaq, Kobe, and Malone. Plus, Malone and GP were not nearly as good as they were in past years. Hell, GP got dominated in the Finals by Chauncey Billups.
3) The SRS can't measure the games missed due to injury by the Lakers, or the fact that the Pistons didn't get Rasheed until halfway through the season. So.. The numbers are actually rather low that season for the top-5, with an average of only 5.75, which is below the average for the other post-expansion seasons.
4) Other years that were mentioned (i.e. 2004, 2005) all have great players, but I was trying to stick to the SRS average as the basis for what would be the best.
5) Portland, or even Denver or Dallas, could just as easily be the 5th best team. I chose the Spurs though because if they somehow stay healthy, it looks amazing on paper (McDyess, Jefferson, Duncan, Ginobili, Parker).
6) It is true that the main reason for this season being so stacked is that many teams are refusing to spend money until next season, so it's created an amazing opportunity for those at the top to just stack their rosters from other teams (Nets, Bucks, etc)
7) I'm almost tempted to run the numbers on an 8-team set (if you include Portland, Denver, and Dallas) just to see if it also does end up being the greatest 8-teams ever as well. Good suggestion. I will post an updated 2nd-post.

Hellcrooner
10-05-2009, 11:21 PM
dont think so.

1988

Pistons: Thomas, Dumars, Dantly, Aguirre, Rodman, Lambieer, Mahorn

Celts: Ainge, Maxwell, Bird, Mhale, Parish, Reggie Lewis

Bulls: Paxon, Hodges, Jordan, Pippen, Cartwright, Horace Grant

Knicks: Stricklando, Jackson, Vandewhege, Oakley, Ewing

Lakers: Cooper, Magic, Scott, Wirhty, Ac Green, Thompson, Kareem , Woolridge

SOnics: ellis, Mcmilan, Mcdaniles, Mckey

Jazz: Stockton, griffithm, Malone, Bailey, Eatn

Suns: K Johnson, Hornacek, Corbin, Chambers, Majerle..

Mavs, Harper, Blackman, Tarpley Perkins, donaldson.

Hellcrooner
10-05-2009, 11:24 PM
any team on that year could spank current lakers championship team

Lakersfan2483
10-06-2009, 01:38 AM
any team on that year could spank current lakers championship team

The only teams that would beat and or give the current champion lakers a serious run would be the 88 Lakers, 88 Celts, and 88 Pistons, those other teams you mentioned would not beat the current lakers team. The current Lakers team is not some chump team, they won 65 games last year in a very competitive western conference and have gotten better with the addition of a defensive stopper in Ron Artest.

DenButsu
10-06-2009, 02:09 AM
I think the Nuggets are pretty "stacked". :shrug:

Chronz
10-06-2009, 02:16 AM
I just wanted to thank everyone for all the interesting comments. Here are my comments in response:
1) Standard deviation is another way to analyze the data. The only issue is, the 1993 season, for example, has the smallest standard deviation (0.0797) but a below-average score. Meanwhile, the "best" year of 1996 has the highest standard deviation (6.678) mainly because the Bulls team was completely off the chart. Thus, analyzing the best 5-team-set should also look at the variance between the teams, because it means that the season is truly unpredictable (whereas in 1996, we all knew the Bulls were winning it all).
2) The Lakers w/ Payton and Malone scored a surprisingly low 4.24 SRS in 2004. They weren't even in the top 5, according to the SRS. They had many games missed due to injury from Shaq, Kobe, and Malone. Plus, Malone and GP were not nearly as good as they were in past years. Hell, GP got dominated in the Finals by Chauncey Billups.
3) The SRS can't measure the games missed due to injury by the Lakers, or the fact that the Pistons didn't get Rasheed until halfway through the season. So.. The numbers are actually rather low that season for the top-5, with an average of only 5.75, which is below the average for the other post-expansion seasons.
4) Other years that were mentioned (i.e. 2004, 2005) all have great players, but I was trying to stick to the SRS average as the basis for what would be the best.
5) Portland, or even Denver or Dallas, could just as easily be the 5th best team. I chose the Spurs though because if they somehow stay healthy, it looks amazing on paper (McDyess, Jefferson, Duncan, Ginobili, Parker).
6) It is true that the main reason for this season being so stacked is that many teams are refusing to spend money until next season, so it's created an amazing opportunity for those at the top to just stack their rosters from other teams (Nets, Bucks, etc)
7) I'm almost tempted to run the numbers on an 8-team set (if you include Portland, Denver, and Dallas) just to see if it also does end up being the greatest 8-teams ever as well. Good suggestion. I will post an updated 2nd-post.

Im assuming your the author here, in which case its good to have you on board to guide us through this. Agree on all parts, its always important to put team ratings into proper context. There may be alot of teams that if they wouldve been even somewhat more fortunate with regards to injuries, couldve posted considerably higher SRS ratings, or teams like the Pistons where the finished product at full capacity greatly exceeded its original form.

The Spurs of the not too distant past come to mind, they pretty much led the league in SRS every year this decade, and they accomplished this with their 2nd best player, playing about 28MPG, not a single starter above 34MPG. If they had wanted to go full bore, could they have challenged historical marks, or would it have had a detrimental effect running them ragged? Who knows, there are certainly alot of questions to be raised with this type of analysis, but one things for sure, the team that enters the playoffs with the ability to stretch more time from its starters has greater room for improvement upon its initial SRS, and as such should be valued in higher regard.

An interesting retrospective look on this (bolded) matter would be to analyze actual off-seasons that played out in similar fashion. I know teams loading up like this is rare, especially given the rules in place not being exactly player movement friendly, but Im sure there have been similarly hyped seasons, perhaps even a few that you listed. How did the expectations play out, the way I see it, one of these teams is bound to disappoint.

Chronz
10-06-2009, 02:26 AM
I think the Nuggets are pretty "stacked". :shrug:
Yea but the list of ELITES is getting pretty crowded isnt it, really somethings gotta give, not every contender from last year could have gotten better, from a wins distribution standpoint, teams that stood still could see them take a step back. No matter how much your players improve from within, the chances of them improving more than RJ/Manu/Dice, Emeka(?), Andre Miller, Shaq, Vince improving upon the guys who were getting the minutes before them is pretty remote.

Like no matter how bad a fit Andre or Shaq may be, hes going to be an upgrade on Sergio/Ben. JR Smith would have to become an All-Star to make up for that kind of leap.

But still the Nuggets have probably been the most overlooked team this year, but it may be for a reason.

DerekRE_3
10-06-2009, 02:30 AM
I think the Nuggets are pretty "stacked". :shrug:

Everyone is sleeping on the Nuggets, but don't worry Den, I'm not. I guess it's because they didn't make any deals like the Magic, Spurs, Lakers, and Cavs did. But sometimes just keeping the same team together can be just as good if not better than adding another piece.

I can only think that having Chauncey Billups with the team during training camp will help them. People forget that Billups was traded in season, and it can be tough to adjust since teams generally don't get a lot of practice time during the season.

Yes, you guys lost Klieza and Jones, but I think Renaldo Balkman and Aaron Afflalo can step in and give you guys some good minutes. Plus you drafted an NBA ready guy in Ty Lawson who I know you think very highly of.

abe_froman
10-06-2009, 04:25 AM
The only teams that would beat and or give the current champion lakers a serious run would be the 88 Lakers, 88 Celts, and 88 Pistons, those other teams you mentioned would not beat the current lakers team. The current Lakers team is not some chump team, they won 65 games last year in a very competitive western conference and have gotten better with the addition of a defensive stopper in Ron Artest.

seriously??

got a nice pick up in ron but i wouldnt take your current team over the 88 bulls,let alone lakers,c's or pistons

PHX2daDEATH
10-06-2009, 07:27 AM
Hey wait 20 or 30 games before calling any of these teams stacked..
-Cleveland could easily implode if Shaq and LeBron's egos clash
-San Antonio hasnt been healthy since they won the title..and how much can R-Jeff and Dice really help them?
-KG is coming off a knee injury..if he gets hurt again Boston moves to the bottom 5 of the East.
-Pau Gasol was playing over-seas and might be a little fatigued..in my mind he is the KEY to the Lakers and why they've been so successful the last two years.. Kobe is the best player in the game but Gasol is what makes that team go..Plus you never know how Ron-Ron is going to turn out
-Orlando.. we don't fully know how the team is going to play with Vince instead of Hedo. Hedo at times ran that offense, I havent watched Vince play on a regular basis in awhile but I know he can put up some numbers but how is he going to mesh?
-Dallas wont be better. Shawn Marion has proved that either (a) is age catching up to him or (B) he's really not that good without Steve Nash

Why isnt anybody mentioning Atlanta? Big Al, Smith, Johnson, Crawford, Bibby, plus Williams off the bench is just as stacked as any of the top 3 teams in the east.. They will turn heads this season..

Gutsy Goldberg
10-06-2009, 11:21 PM
I posted a 2nd article analyzing 6, 7, and even 8 teams. You can check out the article if you like:
http://thedawggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/analysis-of-6-7-or-8-superpowers.html

Not sure how this year's teams will measure up, but we will soon find out! I think that much we can all agree on.