Note: This was on a slightly different (and less accurate) setup of the program I run, so the Power Rankings are a little off. Multiplying by about 1.5 is roughly accurate, as Boston's number one overall team had a Power Rankings of about 4.45. To compare, Orlando, this year's top team, had a PR here of 2.15 (The worst best team of the past 10 years!).
| 1 | Boston | 2007-08 | 66 | 16 | 3.01978476 |
| 2 | Cleveland | 2008-09 | 66 | 16 | 2.794060792 |
| 3 | San Antonio | 2006-07 | 58 | 24 | 2.702128779 |
| 4 | San Antonio | 2000-01 | 58 | 24 | 2.636983741 |
| 5 | San Antonio | 2003-04 | 57 | 25 | 2.627247807 |
| 6 | San Antonio | 2004-05 | 59 | 23 | 2.622031398 |
| 7 | LA Lakers | 1999-00 | 67 | 15 | 2.540923327 |
| 8 | Dallas | 2002-03 | 60 | 22 | 2.481384874 |
| 9 | Sacramento | 2001-02 | 61 | 21 | 2.424603144 |
| 10 | Dallas | 2006-07 | 67 | 15 | 2.322137833 |
| 11 | LA Lakers | 2001-02 | 58 | 24 | 2.290126862 |
| 12 | Boston | 2008-09 | 62 | 20 | 2.250968994 |
| 13 | Sacramento | 2002-03 | 59 | 23 | 2.246999335 |
| 14 | San Antonio | 2005-06 | 63 | 19 | 2.200287205 |
Interesting to note is the continuation of dynasties that shows up here, but doesn't necessarily show up in championship wins (hence, the appearances of the 2000 Kings and Dirk's Mavs). Is my algorithm a better way to determine champions than the actual playoffs? Do I just think because the Kobe Lakers don't appear hear? How will Tyler Dawson prove me wrong? These are important questions to ask. Hopefully, one other question has been answered here.
No comments:
Post a Comment