Who sane thought the Heat would win more than say 60-65 games? Especially after Miller went down. Is it really fun to be knocking down straw men and the mentally ill all the time?
It should also be noted that the record is misleading, their pythag, point diff and SRS are all second in the league. Those are much better indicators of future success than wins and losses if it maintains.
They've lost by 8, 3, 2 and 5. And won by 10, 26, 23, 32, and 12. And they more than convincingly dismantled Orlando's outside game, which I thought should be held as the "scary potential" game so far. Newly assembled low depth team loses to deep veteran team that's been together for three years by slim margins. Not really shocking or reasons to proclaim anything.
Of course the best comment is:
Jackal wrote:The season is, like me, young and awkward
The sample size is remarkably small. Oddly nobody seems concerned about the team half of them picked to win 55+ games and finish second in the West is looking terrible despite having the MVP and another guy who appears to have made the leap into stardom.
Also fair to note:
The 1998 Bulls didn't just start 5-4, but 8-7, before going 54-13 the rest of the way and winning the title. The 1991 Bulls started 0-3, were also 5-4, and cratered at 5-6, before they too went 56-15 the rest of the way and coasted to a title. And both of those were teams significantly better than the Defeat who run about four and a half deep when healthy.
I mean, let's not even get into multiple Spurs title teams, the 2003 Spurs were 5-4 and and 19-13 at the end of the calender year before going 41-9 to hit 60 and later winning the title. The first Spurs title was famously 6-8 before finishing on a 43-7 tear including the playoffs.