PDA

View Full Version : What team benefits the most from a shortened 50 game season?



JordansBulls
06-28-2011, 03:51 PM
Eddie Sefko in the Dallas Morning News says that an extended lockout, such as in 99, would benefit the Mavs because they are an older team

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-mavericks/headlines/20110625-sefko-two-reasons-a-long-nba-lockout-benefits-mavs-their-fans.ece


Who do you think would benefit the most from less regular season games?

Sadds The Gr8
06-28-2011, 03:54 PM
Celtics.

Hawkeye15
06-28-2011, 03:54 PM
Many assume the shortened seasons help the old teams. But when they have a shortened season, they actually play more games per week on average, depending on how much actual time is missed. That ends up hurting the older guys.

The teams that would be helped the most are those that had important players have surgery, etc following the season. Milwaukee would be a good example. Bogut would have more time to rest and heal his elbow.

asandhu23
06-28-2011, 03:57 PM
Warriors. run and gun teams wear out by the end of the year.

daleja424
06-28-2011, 03:57 PM
It favors established teams who don't have to rely on young guys. The younger teams lose the ability to work with their guys for months in the off season and in training camp.

Basically... it makes very little or no difference to the contenders though.

Tony_Starks
06-28-2011, 03:58 PM
I still say the Lake show. The longer the lockout last the more rest and strengthening Kobe gets for his knee. If its only a 50 game season I can see Kobe putting up some ridiculous numbers......

NYKNYGNYY
06-28-2011, 04:00 PM
spurs,celts,lakers

210Don
06-28-2011, 04:02 PM
spurs. imagine if my spurs cut out the 30 games in the first part of the season we have a much better shot at staying healthy and doing something.

Hawkeye15
06-28-2011, 04:07 PM
spurs. imagine if my spurs cut out the 30 games in the first part of the season we have a much better shot at staying healthy and doing something.

you had a freakishly healthy roster until Manu got hurt at the exact wrong time.

As I mentioned, the lockout in 99' showed evidence that aging players actually are worse off in a shortened season. Because instead of playing 3 games a week, they play 5. It catches up to them quickly.

The teams that benefit are those who had one of their top players or two have a surgery that would still be healing going into next season

Hustlenomics
06-28-2011, 04:09 PM
you had a freakishly healthy roster until Manu got hurt at the exact wrong time.

As I mentioned, the lockout in 99' showed evidence that aging players actually are worse off in a shortened season. Because instead of playing 3 games a week, they play 5. It catches up to them quickly.

The teams that benefit are those who had one of their top players or two have a surgery that would still be healing going into next season

^ +1 that's why I don't think the Celtics will benefit from this

Sactown
06-28-2011, 04:24 PM
I think it's going to suck for the Kings,Cavs, T-wolves, and anyone else with big new additions

sjoerdje
06-28-2011, 04:28 PM
no teams benefits,

young teams need games to develop their games
old teams play too many games a week

give me full season!!

Storch
06-28-2011, 04:29 PM
If the season games went down to 50 but the same time span is still the same to play this amount of games as it was from 82 games then the older teams like the celtics would benefit the most.

If it is shortened season and more games per week then I don't see anyone benefiting from it as drastically as much as the other teams because it will make everyone exhausted.

tyfreaks brotha
06-28-2011, 04:31 PM
Lakers and Spurs

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-28-2011, 04:36 PM
From what I've heard in other places this should help the Celtics a lot and other teams like the Celtics(Lakers, Spurs, Mavs). It should really hurt young teams.

Hawkeye15
06-28-2011, 04:39 PM
If the season games went down to 50 but the same time span is still the same to play this amount of games as it was from 82 games then the older teams like the celtics would benefit the most.

If it is shortened season and more games per week then I don't see anyone benefiting from it as drastically as much as the other teams because it will make everyone exhausted.

They just won't do that though. They will attempt to cram as many games in as possible. No matter what.

Ladies Man
06-28-2011, 04:58 PM
A team that is older of course. Teams like the Celtics, Spurs, Mavs maybe Lakers idk. Maybe Portland because they are injury plagued. Bulls, Thunder, Heat, don't need it

KingPosey
06-28-2011, 05:01 PM
Older vet teams. Kobe would benefit, the Celts obviously, and the Spurs would benefit a ton too.

Evolution23
06-28-2011, 05:20 PM
spurs,celts,lakers

This

ThaBoomer
06-29-2011, 10:27 PM
In 1999 the Utah Jazz came in as the favorite to win the title, having lost twice in a row against the Bulls the previous seasons. The veteran Jazz, who had played together for years, and held their own practices and workouts without coaches during the strike, started the season well, but wore down with the back-to-back-to-back games. They tied for the best record in the league, lost the tie breaker to the Spurs, and ran out of gas in the second round to a less experienced, but arguably more athletic, and definitely more energetic Portland team.

A 50 game schedule crammed into a shorter period kills older teams that don't recover as quickly. It definitely will not help teams like the Celtics or Spurs, or teams with key players that are frequently injured, like the Lakers.

If it helps anyone, it would be a team like Memphis, or the Thunder. An athletic, younger team on the rise, with playoff experience, that would be able to catch older, more experienced teams with excessive fatigue in the finals and out execute and out run them.

NBA_Starter
06-29-2011, 10:30 PM
C's

BrizzleBear
06-29-2011, 11:02 PM
The Blazers would be ridiculous if they could be healthy for a 50 game season. And the extra time for Roy and Oden would be good for there rehab (even though they would most likely still get injured in the short season)

ChiSox219
06-29-2011, 11:21 PM
Playing 6 games in 7 nights would suck for the older teams.

I voted the Lakers, I think they could cut their starter's minutes and still cruise into the playoffs.

Kevj77
06-29-2011, 11:29 PM
Older teams, so the obvious answers are Lakers, Celtics or Mavs I guess.

believeinNYK
06-29-2011, 11:55 PM
I don't think it would help older teams, more games per week leads to them being more tired than during the regular season
I actually think it could help or at least not affect an athletic team like the heat or Okc for example

Cal827
06-30-2011, 12:06 AM
I think Miami would definitely benefit from the 50 game season. The big three have to really carry the load for the team (Mainly Lebron and Wade, as they haven't properly added Bosh to their offense). Since the team depends so much on them, having them play less would be a big plus (To me it seemed like they tired out against the Mavs).

Older teams like the Lakers and Celtics would benefit, but since they have more balanced systems, I don't really see the extra games affecting their systems that much.

This could hurt young teams trying to develop chemistry with each other though during a rebuild. Teams such as Washington, Toronto, Cleveland, Sacremento, and Detroit.

IMO, the strike benefits:

1. Heat
2. Celtics
3. Lakers

Lake_Show2416
06-30-2011, 12:16 AM
them old geezers in boston :D

topdog
06-30-2011, 12:28 AM
Newly assembled teams have less time to adjust, as well as teams that start slow. So, I would say it helps whichever teams eventually would be overcome by these teams in a longer season.

MrfadeawayJB
06-30-2011, 12:53 AM
spurs, celtics, lakers, mavs

JordansBulls
06-30-2011, 12:09 PM
The Blazers would be ridiculous if they could be healthy for a 50 game season. And the extra time for Roy and Oden would be good for there rehab (even though they would most likely still get injured in the short season)

Only way the Blazers are ridiculously good is if Roy is back to 2009 form.

wjmoffatt
06-30-2011, 12:28 PM
Has to be the HEAT. I see the logic of your thinking by picking the Lakers or Celtics because they're older, but both teams have quality depth. The Heat on the other hand doesn't, and going to be worse now with the reduced salary and James Jones opting out of his contract. They looked to be running out of gas this past season when it came to the 4th quarter, really the only team they out played in the 4th was the Celtics. Would have to be the Celtics and Lakers although if the Heat or other wise Wade and Lebron actually come into the season in shape this year, both weigh entirely to much to be NBA players at their heights.

m26555
06-30-2011, 12:30 PM
Many assume the shortened seasons help the old teams. But when they have a shortened season, they actually play more games per week on average, depending on how much actual time is missed. That ends up hurting the older guys.
That's a good point, but still, they'd be playing 32 less games. That is a crapload of games and mileage.

wjmoffatt
06-30-2011, 12:34 PM
Only way the Blazers are ridiculously good is if Roy is back to 2009 form.

What??? They had the best series vs the Mavs this post season. Watching that series you could feel and say they are a true title contender. If Roy comes back to form then all the better but either way they are there. Maybe if they can find a way to go out and grab a PG then they will make some noise and have a surprise run in them in the 2012 playoffs.

LakersIn5
06-30-2011, 12:36 PM
at first i thought about old teams such as lakers,spurs,celtics but after seeing hawkeyes comments i take it back. lol.

i actually dont know now.