New power ranking on ESPN have the Spurs at the top.

[Randy]

Okay, Rick, you want to focus on how a team has played during the last 10 games because they are on a winning streak.  You are wanting to consider the factors that make YOUR team look good.  That's not an effective way to look at the real status of teams around the league. 

Consider some of these things:  1) injuries -- where were other teams at during this 10 games stretch -- nagging injuries of players trying to play through it or players out altogether; 2) bad shooting streaks -- it happens at times; 3) some teams don't "get up" for games -- the Sixers are a GREAT example -- they come in with a lot of injury against teams like Orlando, Dallas and Phoenix -- do those same teams come out with the same emotion and intensity against the Sixers that they do against the Lakers, Spurs, Jazz or other top teams?  Nope. 

You can't just consider a 10 game stretch -- you have to factor in the whole season -- even if it doesn't make your team look good.  IF the Sixers are truly a "top 8 team" as you suggest (which they aren't) -- then the Sixers will be one of the top three teams in the west -- and the playoffs will bear that out.  I don't believe that the Sixers are better than Boston, Detroit, Orlando or Cleveland -- which means that there is no way that the Sixers are a top 8 team.  Especially, since I don't believe Cleveland is a top 10 team.  If you believe that the Sixers are a top 8 team, then you believe that the Sixers are better than the Lakers, Spurs, Celts, Jazz, Hornets, Rockets, Pistons, Magic, Mavs, Suns, Cavs and the Warriors -- I sure wouldn't agree with that assessment. 

The Sixers are playing up to their potential right now -- and a lot of that has to do with Dalembert playing at the level that got him his current contract -- I really doubt that we will see that longterm -- perhaps I'll be wrong but I definately have history on my side. 

The Sixers are scoring a lot of points in the open court -- games slow down in the playoffs -- that doesn't bode well for the Sixers.  The Eastern Conference is really bad this year -- I'd love to see the NBA restructure itself in the future (although I doubt it will happen) so that EC teams like the Celtics and Pistons don't have the ability to beef up their record by playing bottom dwellers twice as much as the top teams in the West do.  That helps the Sixers look good and it would get them into the playoffs -- but against any of the teams that you mentioned (Orlando, Dallas and Phoenix) they don't win a 5 or 7 game series.  They are lucky to pull out more than one game.

[rickortreat]

I picked 10 games because that was the largest sample I could use with the NBA's sortable team stats.  In another thread I also posted what the Sixers did over the last 20 games as well.  I have always used that stat to determine which teams are the best, and until recently the Sixers were never in that top 10 group and I didn't expect them to be.

Currently based on the way they've played in their last 10 games, they are the eighth best team.  Whether they finish that way at the end of the season is another story.

I'll also agree that teams don't get up for the Sixers the way they would for say, Detroit.  But with the playoff races so tight, especially in the West teams don't want to loose games to sub-.500 EC teams visiting either.  Those losses may come back to haunt Phoneix and Dallas later on, when they miss a higher spot by a single game.

Injuries are a factor- so also are the major trades that the WC teams made about 10 games ago!  Teams change and get better, or worse as the season goes on.  I want to know who's playing well now, like Houston and SA.

Here's what is a fact.  Prior to the last 20 games or so, the Sixers were a sub .500 team. They traded Korver and got worse, then bottomed and learned how to maximize what they do have. They started playing .500 ball and continued getting incrementally better until now, over the past 10 games they are playing .700 ball and 6 of those wins were against WC teams.

Of course other teams have done better or worse in that same stretch, but right now this is what has happened.  It might not be the ultimate predictor of how teams will be ranked at the end of the season, but I think it's a pretty good snapshot of what is currently happening.

In the same time span 7 teams have outperformed the Sixers and are clearly better.  Some of the teams they've outperformed in the last 10 may be in trouble, or they may be teams that have suffered injuries.  It's clear that San Antonio is playing better now that Tony Parker is back!

Because the Sixers started playing this way after the season's midpoint, it is highly unlikely they will rise in the standings to the 8th position league-wide, or even reach the 4 spot in the EC.  It is possible for them to rise up higher than 7th in the East. The next sign to watch for to show the team is on the right track is for the team to actually having a winning record!

Right now I project that they will finish 6th in the East, or possibly 5th, and if they really are the 8th best team they should be able to get to the second round, if they avoid Boston or Detroit in the first series.


Using the stats for the whole season, doesn't give you the chance to make any predictions based on mid season changes. Based on the full season the Sixers are a sub .500 team, about dead in the middle of the pack. Based on the last 10 games they are a team on the move.  Because they are a young, developing team it is expected that they will play differently as they gain more experience. 

Likewise, many teams have made recent changes and the impact of those trades is very uncertain. I think the next 10 games from now will tell us a lot more about the relative strength of teams than this last sequence.  Will Phoenix continue slide? Will Dallas actually win a game against a good team with Kidd? Will Houston fall off the map without Yao?  Will the Celtics continue to front run, or are they vulnerable now that teams know how they play?

Will other teams be able to adapt to shut down the Sixers running game, or will they find themselves unable to match up with their youth and athleticism?  As a young team they are vulnerable to set-backs, but they have demonstrated a certain resilience that is impressive. What kind of team is 11-1 in back to back games? One that is young and recovers quickly and doesn't allow past looses to affect their play.

[Randy]

I picked 10 games because that was the largest sample I could use with the NBA's sortable team stats.  In another thread I also posted what the Sixers did over the last 20 games as well.  I have always used that stat to determine which teams are the best, and until recently the Sixers were never in that top 10 group and I didn't expect them to be.

Currently based on the way they've played in their last 10 games, they are the eighth best team.  Whether they finish that way at the end of the season is another story.

I'll also agree that teams don't get up for the Sixers the way they would for say, Detroit.  But with the playoff races so tight, especially in the West teams don't want to loose games to sub-.500 EC teams visiting either.  Those losses may come back to haunt Phoneix and Dallas later on, when they miss a higher spot by a single game.

Injuries are a factor- so also are the major trades that the WC teams made about 10 games ago!  Teams change and get better, or worse as the season goes on.  I want to know who's playing well now, like Houston and SA.

Here's what is a fact.  Prior to the last 20 games or so, the Sixers were a sub .500 team. They traded Korver and got worse, then bottomed and learned how to maximize what they do have. They started playing .500 ball and continued getting incrementally better until now, over the past 10 games they are playing .700 ball and 6 of those wins were against WC teams.

Of course other teams have done better or worse in that same stretch, but right now this is what has happened.  It might not be the ultimate predictor of how teams will be ranked at the end of the season, but I think it's a pretty good snapshot of what is currently happening.

In the same time span 7 teams have outperformed the Sixers and are clearly better.  Some of the teams they've outperformed in the last 10 may be in trouble, or they may be teams that have suffered injuries.  It's clear that San Antonio is playing better now that Tony Parker is back!

Because the Sixers started playing this way after the season's midpoint, it is highly unlikely they will rise in the standings to the 8th position league-wide, or even reach the 4 spot in the EC.  It is possible for them to rise up higher than 7th in the East. The next sign to watch for to show the team is on the right track is for the team to actually having a winning record!

Right now I project that they will finish 6th in the East, or possibly 5th, and if they really are the 8th best team they should be able to get to the second round, if they avoid Boston or Detroit in the first series.


Using the stats for the whole season, doesn't give you the chance to make any predictions based on mid season changes. Based on the full season the Sixers are a sub .500 team, about dead in the middle of the pack. Based on the last 10 games they are a team on the move.  Because they are a young, developing team it is expected that they will play differently as they gain more experience. 

Likewise, many teams have made recent changes and the impact of those trades is very uncertain. I think the next 10 games from now will tell us a lot more about the relative strength of teams than this last sequence.  Will Phoenix continue slide? Will Dallas actually win a game against a good team with Kidd? Will Houston fall off the map without Yao?  Will the Celtics continue to front run, or are they vulnerable now that teams know how they play?

Will other teams be able to adapt to shut down the Sixers running game, or will they find themselves unable to match up with their youth and athleticism?  As a young team they are vulnerable to set-backs, but they have demonstrated a certain resilience that is impressive. What kind of team is 11-1 in back to back games? One that is young and recovers quickly and doesn't allow past looses to affect their play.

See, that's the problem Rick -- you want to use YOUR choice of 10 games rather than looking at what is going on in other teams.  You chose THREE teams to pull out to share how well your team is doing but fail to share the other facts about those teams:  Orlando -- your team beat them once in the 20 games -- they beat you twice --- Dallas -- you fail to mention that the Mavs were without Dampier, Stackhouse, Harris and were winning in the first half when Howard had to leave the game due to injury --- Phoenix -- this team is STILL trying to find itself after the trade.  You yourself mentioned that your team bottomed out after a trade -- Phoenix hasn't bottomed out but they aren't playing nearly as they were before the trade.

Basically, the Sixers beat a Mavs team without two of it's starters in the first half (and Dallas was still winning) and then lost Howard (so it's three starters) in the second half.  Then they beat Orlando once -- and lost to the Magic twice -- then they beat a Phoenix team after a trade that they haven't recovered from yet.  The rest of the wins came against teams that aren't playing better than .400 ball. 

Try and be a LITTLE objective Rick -- there is NO way that the Sixers are the 8th best team in the league right now.  Try and be a little objective here -- the Sixers have improved -- from the bottom of the league to about halfway in the league.  No better.  You are trying to make them look great based on 10 games on which they got lucky and beat one team, got lucky and caught a team mired in injuries, got lucky and beat another team struggling after a trade and then got to play a lot of bottom dwellers.  It's the WHOLE reason why you can just pick out 10 games.

Let me give you an example:  Portland went on a 13 game winning streak -- during that time they beat Utah twice, GS, NO and Denver -- does that mean that they are better than all of these teams?  Even Ziggy can be objective enough to realize that the Blazers aren't better than Utah and New Orleans -- he also wouldn't say they were a top 8 team either.  It's the WHOLE reason that you can't just choose a few games and try to make a conclusion -- you can make a hypothesis but you have to look at other factors -- and those are factors that you are ignoring just to try and make the Sixers into a top 10 team -- they don't belong there.

[WayOutWest]

The Sixers are 14th at BEST, more like 16th IMO.

San Antonio
Detroit
Lakers
Utah
Boston
Orlando
Dallas
Phoenix
Houston
New Orleans
Toronto
Cleveland
Denver
Portland
Golden State
Sixers

[Randy]

The Sixers are 14th at BEST, more like 16th IMO.

San Antonio
Detroit
Lakers
Utah
Boston
Orlando
Dallas
Phoenix
Houston
New Orleans
Toronto
Cleveland
Denver
Portland
Golden State
Sixers

I'd switch a couple of those teams -- Boston over Utah, Cleveland over Toronto, GS over Portland, but that's where I would put the Sixers.  If the Lakers had a healthy Bynum, they would be over Detroit.

[rickortreat]

If you put the Sixers at 14 you're just going with where they are in the standings.  I mean, they're at 15 by merit alone.

It is my proposition that the Sixers are not a team that plays at a constant level, but one that has improved over the course of the season.  I watch them often, and there is a marked difference in the way they play games. 

They can only play the teams that they draw, and I can only speculate on their quality of play based on who they actually played. The improvement in their record cannot be fully explained by the relative quality of their opponents.

Orlando is a team that has historically given Phila. fits.  They had already lost to them once and then had a three game stretch where they played the Magic then the Heat and then the Magic again.  In the first game the Magic wiped the floor with them.  The next night they played the Heat and won and then a few days later, played the Magic again.  This time, the Sixers were a completely different team, much more aggressive and able to score and penetrate at will.

Note that the game they won against them was the most recent one.  I think the Sixers have now reached the level where they are competitive with the Magic.  Maybe even good enough to beat them in a series.  Maybe good enough that they are the 8th best team in the league.

You can explain away some of their wins as being against weakened teams, and that may be all that it is.  But the way the Sixers are winning, putting teams away by a decent margin- that's something a .600+ team does. 

We'll find out soon enough, in the next couple of weeks they play everyone else at the top of the NBA.  Their next ten are:

Seattle (1-0)
Bucks   (2-0)
Boston  (2-1)
Detroit  (2-2)
Chicago (3-2)
Spurs    (3-3)
Denver  (3-4)
Orlando (4-4)
Nets     (5-4)
Boston  (5-5)

The record is what I think the Sixers will do, and that's optimistic since it includes wins over Orlando and New Jersey. If they get lucky maybe they'll steal one from one of the big 3. And if they really are the 8th best, they should beat Denver.

[WayOutWest]

If you put the Sixers at 14 you're just going with where they are in the standings.  I mean, they're at 15 by merit alone.

I rank the Sixers based on the plain and simple criteria of those other teams being better.  You put Philly up against any of those teams in a series and the Sixers lose.  The only team they could beat would be the Blazers but I doubt it.

Note that the game they won against them was the most recent one.  I think the Sixers have now reached the level where they are competitive with the Magic.  Maybe even good enough to beat them in a series.  Maybe good enough that they are the 8th best team in the league.

The Sixers are not even close to being able to hang with the Magic in a playoff series.  Philly would probably win one game, two at BEST.

[Randy]

If you put the Sixers at 14 you're just going with where they are in the standings.  I mean, they're at 15 by merit alone.

It is my proposition that the Sixers are not a team that plays at a constant level, but one that has improved over the course of the season.  I watch them often, and there is a marked difference in the way they play games. 

They can only play the teams that they draw, and I can only speculate on their quality of play based on who they actually played. The improvement in their record cannot be fully explained by the relative quality of their opponents.

Orlando is a team that has historically given Phila. fits.  They had already lost to them once and then had a three game stretch where they played the Magic then the Heat and then the Magic again.  In the first game the Magic wiped the floor with them.  The next night they played the Heat and won and then a few days later, played the Magic again.  This time, the Sixers were a completely different team, much more aggressive and able to score and penetrate at will.

Note that the game they won against them was the most recent one.  I think the Sixers have now reached the level where they are competitive with the Magic.  Maybe even good enough to beat them in a series.  Maybe good enough that they are the 8th best team in the league.

You can explain away some of their wins as being against weakened teams, and that may be all that it is.  But the way the Sixers are winning, putting teams away by a decent margin- that's something a .600+ team does. 

We'll find out soon enough, in the next couple of weeks they play everyone else at the top of the NBA.  Their next ten are:

Seattle (1-0)
Bucks   (2-0)
Boston  (2-1)
Detroit  (2-2)
Chicago (3-2)
Spurs    (3-3)
Denver  (3-4)
Orlando (4-4)
Nets     (5-4)
Boston  (5-5)

The record is what I think the Sixers will do, and that's optimistic since it includes wins over Orlando and New Jersey. If they get lucky maybe they'll steal one from one of the big 3. And if they really are the 8th best, they should beat Denver.

Rick, this doesn't even make any sense -- you are "hoping" that the Sixers will beat the Nets but then you say that if the Sixers are really the 8th best team, which they aren't, then the Sixers should beat Denver?  Denver is better than the Nets.  Props to the Sixers for beating the Suns -- they beat the Suns.  They beat the Mavs but they beat them because of injuries -- with a healthy squad, Philly isn't going to be the Mavs -- even you should admit to that.  The Sixers beat the Magic one game out of three in a 15 game stretch -- Orlando was playing the second of a back-to-back on the road -- I don't know where that gives you enough confidence to beating your chest about the Sixers being the 8th best team.  The Sixers are a middle of the pack team -- they are about at level, IMO, as the Nets.  The Sixers wouldn't make the playoffs in the Western Conference.

[rickortreat]

I'm saying they're the 8th best, since that's what they did over the past 10 games. Even when you go to 20 games they're playing better than .500 ball.  Since I first wrote this the Sixers have dropped to 10th, even though they won their last game.

Obviously, with the way they started the season and dropping 7 straight at one point, they're not a .500 ball club now. But they are playing better than that now, enough so that there's a reasonable expectation that they'll beat the teams they should and surprise a couple of the ones they shouldn't.

Even if the Mavs had their injured players, it wouldn't have stopped the Sixers from running them out of their own building. They contained Nowitsky, and that's all you have to do to beat Dallas.  I'd say that after Kidd and the rest of the team are together for a while, they'd be better than Phila., but not by as much as you think.

Orlando is a team I thought was a lot better than the Sixers, but they beat them by 12 and it wasn't even close. The Magic are a team with holes or flaws and the Sixers guards are a lot better than Orlando's.  They have three good players in Howard, Turkoglu and Lewis, but their talent level isn't any higher.  They blew them out by 20 pts. in the first half.  Dallas and Phoenix are 4-6 and 5-5 over their last 10 respectively.  Orlando is 8-2 and kicking everyone's butt they play, except for Phila. 

I don't think you respect that the way the Sixers plays puts a lot of pressure on the other team.  Competent teams that defend, protect the basketball, rebound well and execute will beat them.  But teams that don't watch for players running down the court, or fail to block out and rebound, or make sloppy plays and give up turnovers, are going to be faced with a team that gets easy baskets, and expends all their energy stopping them from scoring.

They're not a great team by any stretch, IMO. But they can play well enough to bother a lot of teams out there.  Most of them aren't as athletic or quick. Very few can outrebound the Sixers consistently. Many of them can't protect the basketball. They outwork most teams, outrunning them, beating them to loose balls, forcing bad shots and stealing balls.

There's nothing to stop them from continuing to play that way and getting better at it. They have a lot of flaws as a team, but they overcome them by attacking other teams weaknesses.  Somewhere around the 10th best, if they started the season playing as they are now, they might be in the WC playoffs.

[Laker Fan]

No Minnie Me, they WOULD NOT be in the WC playoffs, and even if they did make it, they would BE SWEPT by any team they faced in the first round, but then again IF they were in the WC, they wouldn't even be playing the .429 ball they are playing right now, they would be more in the Memphis or Seattle category. 9 teams over .600 out here and you make statement like you have on this thread? Are you serious?

7-3 over the last 10 in the EC hardly equates to playing well, in the west Philly would be more in the 3-7 realm over the last 10, period.

[Lurker]

Rick, explain the Sixers 4-11 January record.

Or how beating a Mavs team by 8 points with Juan Barea starting at PG is "running them out of their building"...especially since the game was played in Philadelphia.  Kidd wasn't playing for Dallas.  They were missing 3 starters and their top reserve...or in simple math 4 of their top 6 players.

Or why you keep crowing about beating Orlando once when, as Randy has pointed out repeatedly, they lost to them twice in the same "20 game span".

Of course Philly looks good...look at those last 15 games that you are so proud of:
Orlando - loss
@ Atlanta - loss
Washington - won
Miami - won
Clippers - won
Dallas - won
Memphis - won
@ Minnesota - loss
Knicks - won
@ Orlando - loss
@ Miami - won
Orlando - won
@ Warriors - loss
@ Phoenix - won
@ Clippers - won

That is the last 15 games and Philly was 10-5.  About what it should have been except with a win over Orlando and a loss to Atlanta that most would have predicted the other way.  Still that leaves you at 10-5.  The win over the Mavs should be highly discounted as discussed.  Philly should beat any team that is missing 4 of their top 6 players.  And it is hard to take the Suns win as a quality win considering that they have imploded since the Shaq trade.

So at most the Sixers have 3 quality wins in 15 games...and that is stretching it to include the wins over the Wizards and Suns as quality.  They beat Orlando once.  And then if you want to look at losses to quality teams they lost 4...twice to Orlando and once to Golden State.  They lost to Atlanta who is battling for the playoffs.  They lost to Minnesota who is one of the 3 worse teams in the league.  They needed OT to beat Miami.  They are not the 8th or 10th best team.  They are beating the bottom feeders and losing to the quality teams.

[msc]

But c'mon LakerFan, they beat Phoenix in one game!  

Who hasn't? Phoenix is now 3-5 with Shaq after getting thumped by the juggernaut that is the Denver Nuggets last night.  It really should be 2-6 had Boston been offensively impotent that night.  

I'm almost starting to feel bad for Stevie Kerr.    

[Randy]

Even if the Mavs had their injured players, it wouldn't have stopped the Sixers from running them out of their own building.

Hey, Rick, who was winning at halftime when Howard left the game?  Let me give you a hint -- the Mavs were stopping the Sixers from running them out of their own building.  And that was WITH two missing from injuries from their starting line-up (Harris and Dampier) as well as a major bench contributor in Stackhouse.  Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds when you make a statement like the one I just quoted -- Howard in the second half makes the game like the FIRST half and the Sixers LOSE! 

The Magic are a team with holes or flaws and the Sixers guards are a lot better than Orlando's.  They have three good players in Howard, Turkoglu and Lewis, but their talent level isn't any higher.

So this team with lots of flaws and with guards that aren't as good as the Sixers managed to BEAT your Sixers (who, according to you are a better team) 2 out of 3 games in the last 15 games.  HELLO, MCFLY!!!  They beat you 2 out of 3 games and you keep talking about how that makes the Sixers better than the Magic.  Winning 33% of the time against an opponent makes you inferior -- not superior!  And the Magic were playing on the second night of a back-to-back on the road while the Sixers had 3 days since their last game.  Something is flawed already -- it's your logic!

Let's look at this objectively from the perspective of the Western Conference playoffs:
   1. SA - nope, SA would blow them away 4 straight.
   2. LA - nope, LA would blow them away 4 straight.
   3. NO - nope, NO would blow them away 4 straight.
   4. Jazz - nope, the Jazz would beat them 4 straight.
   5. Houston - nope, Houston would win in 4 straight.
   6. Phoenix - I still think the Suns would beat the Sixers -- but let's give the Sixers 1 win here.
   7. Dallas - Nope, a healthy Mavs squad would blow them away in 4 straight.
   8. GS - Nope, GS already creamed the Sixers and would do it in 4 straight.
   9. Denver - Nope, the Nuggest would beat the Sixers in 4 straight.

I think Portland would beat the Sixers in 5 games.

So that makes the Sixers, at best, around 11th in the Western Conference -- but there IS some encouragement there -- in all of those series combined the Sixers might win a game or two! 

[rickortreat]

What is objective about this? :

"Let's look at this objectively from the perspective of the Western Conference playoffs:
   1. SA - nope, SA would blow them away 4 straight.
   2. LA - nope, LA would blow them away 4 straight.
   3. NO - nope, NO would blow them away 4 straight.
   4. Jazz - nope, the Jazz would beat them 4 straight.
   5. Houston - nope, Houston would win in 4 straight.
   6. Phoenix - I still think the Suns would beat the Sixers -- but let's give the Sixers 1 win here.
   7. Dallas - Nope, a healthy Mavs squad would blow them away in 4 straight.
   8. GS - Nope, GS already creamed the Sixers and would do it in 4 straight.
   9. Denver - Nope, the Nuggest would beat the Sixers in 4 straight.

I think Portland would beat the Sixers in 5 games.

So that makes the Sixers, at best, around 11th in the Western Conference -- but there IS some encouragement there -- in all of those series combined the Sixers might win a game or two! "

There are no objective statements in there whatsoever. It is entirely construed of opinion.  It means nothing!

Additionally, the whole premise of the reasoning that the Sixers are better now is that they have changed their style of play, rotations, etc.  Therefore, loosing to Orlando in the past, and beating them most recently, is the result of that change in play, and you can no longer look at the long ago past to determine how good they are.  So what you're saying is that Orlando lost because they were tired?  The Sixers win routinely on the back end of back to back games.  That's just an excuse.

And in the Dallas game, the Sixers were with them the entire way and the game went back and forth until Howard went out.  Even if he was in the game, it wouldn't have made a difference. Stackhouse might have helped, but then you would have seen an entirely different game.  The Sixers choked Dallas, and stopped them from scoring. Since they were in complete control, they only scored enough points to win. ooH, Dampier, yeah he'd really have helped! 

At any rate, it makes no sense to argue about it when we'll see soon enough.  The Sixers have a schedule that even a good team would have trouble with.  Well see how competitive they are with Boston and Detroit.  And, Boston just killed Detroit- no one should kid themselves about who's coming out of the East.

As for being in the WC instead,  In their last 7 games against Western teams they're 5-2.

[Lurker]

Additionally, the whole premise of the reasoning that the Sixers are better now is that they have changed their style of play, rotations, etc.  Therefore, loosing to Orlando in the past, and beating them most recently, is the result of that change in play, and you can no longer look at the long ago past to determine how good they are. 

Rick...the Sixers played Orlando Feb 1, Feb 22 and Feb 27.  They lost the first two of those games.

So the Sixers changed everything in less than a month.  In fact they changed everything in less than a week.  But teams that made major changes due to trades are struggling severl weeks later.  Good reasoning there.

And in the Dallas game, the Sixers were with them the entire way and the game went back and forth until Howard went out.  Even if he was in the game, it wouldn't have made a difference. Stackhouse might have helped, but then you would have seen an entirely different game.  The Sixers choked Dallas, and stopped them from scoring. Since they were in complete control, they only scored enough points to win. ooH, Dampier, yeah he'd really have helped! 

Yes the Sixers stayed with them the whole game.  But then Dallas was missing their starting PG, their starting SG and thier starting C.  Maybe if Dallas had started the game with their ENTIRE starting lineup then Philly wouldn't have hung in there.  But playing against Dallas' second unit they ran them off the court in Philly by 8 whole points. 

Who would have guarded Miller better - Barea or Harris?
How many teams wouldn't miss their second leading rebounder (Dampier)?

You were so close with this statement - "Stackhouse might have helped, but then you would have seen an entirely different game."  Just add in Harris and Dampier as well as Stackhouse and take out Barea (24 min) and Devean George (32 min)...and you are right, it would have been a whole different game.

At any rate, it makes no sense to argue about it when we'll see soon enough.  The Sixers have a schedule that even a good team would have trouble with.  Well see how competitive they are with Boston and Detroit.  And, Boston just killed Detroit- no one should kid themselves about who's coming out of the East.

As for being in the WC instead,  In their last 7 games against Western teams they're 5-2.

And they beat the Clippers twice (.339 winning %), Memphis (.246), Suns (6-7 since the Marion trade) and Mavs (which you seem to think is a quality win).

They lost to the Warriors (battling for the 8th seed) and Minnesota (.200).

That is not a record to use as a claim to be a top 8-10 team in the NBA.