To summarize, the Rockets are tied with three other teams for 6th most back-to-back series with 17, and are one of seven teams with 3 sets of four-games-in-five-nights, most in the league.
A CF member, jsmee, put together a better spreadsheet about a month ago. I can't do a search to find it because the search feature isn't available right now. At that time, only 1 team had more b2bs and 4in5s than us. I believe it was the Hawks. I think you need to compare a team's own b2bs to its opponents' b2bs (same thing with 4in5s) to get an idea of how favorable/unfavorable scheduling has been. As long as your opponents have had nearly as many, as many or more b2bs and 4in5s than your own team, then scheduling shouldn't be too much of a factor. If Cuban's data is accurate, several teams have had a more unfavorable balance of b2bs and 4in5s. The Lakers, Pistons and Kings have had very unfavorable/unbalanced schedules. They have played more than twice as many b2bs as their opponents (except the Kings who have had 18 compared to 11 for their opponents). They have all had at least one 4in5 while their opponents have had none (3 to 0 for the Kings). The Jazz, Hornets, Blazers, Celtics and Knicks have had extremely favorable schedules compared to the rest of the league. All those teams had opponents who played more b2bs and 4in5s. The Rockets haven't really had a favorable or unfavorable schedule. Once again, you shouldn't just look at volume of b2bs and 4in5s. Rockets opponents have played more b2bs than the Rockets and we have only played one more 4in5 than our opponents.
So 7 times, a Lakers opponent faces them on the 2nd night of a back-to-back and 22 times, a Clippers opponent does the same. That's somewhat interesting. So it's like whenever a team goes to LA, they play the Lakers first, then the Clippers?
That could be the case. The Clippers have benefited from having 22 opponents playing the 2nd of a b2b. The Lakers have only had 7.
Lol and the Clippers still can't buy a win. I think they should change their name. Clippers is just too damned synonymous with losing AND its a horrible nickname. At the very least they need a new logo.
