Regarding Powerhouses

The word "powerhouse" is hard to define. Is it simply one of the best teams in the league in any given year? Does a powerhouse have to be good for a certain number of years before it can be defined as such? Or is a powerhouse just a select group of teams, the Spurs, Mavs, Suns and Pistons, that seem to meet with success no matter what their record?

Personally, I think a powerhouse is confined within a single season. For instance, in the East, the powerhouses are Boston, Detroit and possibly Orlando: the three best teams in the conference. In the West, the usual teams could be considered powerhouses: the Spurs, Mavericks, Suns and...Hornets? If you call Dallas a powerhouse, I suppose you have to call New Orleans a powerhouse (the two have the same record). However, "the New Orleans Hornets powerhouse" doesn't sound right at all, does it?

I myself love the Hornets, I think they're one of the youngest and most exciting teams in the league. However, this image of "powerhouses" that all fans possess makes it nearly impossible for them to receive any sort of credit. Sure, Chris Paul and Co. get the occasional "have you seen how well these guys are playing?" piece written about them, but it's never "the Warriors have a difficult match-up against the New Orleans powerhouse this weekend". It's time for teams to be viewed as a team of the '07-'08 season, rather than a team whose performance will be judged based on the past few years.

The Hornets are just as good as, if not better than, the Dallas Mavericks.

The Orlando Magic are the third best team in the Eastern Conference.

The Miami Heat are the second-worst team in the NBA. Didn't see that coming, did you?