Why do some people deny the conference disparity?

[Heavincent]

Not an agenda thread...I honestly don't understand.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Their team plays in the Least. Bias.

[plowking]

A mid 50 win team and a 60 win team are in the conference finals in both. The cream rises to the top. What is the problem?

[Heavincent]

A mid 50 win team and a 60 win team are in the conference finals in both. The cream rises to the top. What is the problem?

The Hawks and Cavs are both great teams, although I don't think the Hawks would have made it to the conference Finals if they were in the West.

I see a lot of arguments about the conference disparity, which is weird to me because I don't see much room for debate. I was reading that site that shall remain nameless and I saw somebody say the Celtics and Bulls play better defense than anyone from the West. Stuff like that is just really weird to me.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

A mid 50 win team and a 60 win team are in the conference finals in both. The cream rises to the top. What is the problem?

The problem is if we were in the East we would be in the conference finals right now. Same for a lot of the West teams like the Clips, Grizz, etc. You don't see any issue with that?

[plowking]

The problem is if we were in the East we would be in the conference finals right now. Same for a lot of the West teams like the Clips, Grizz, etc. You don't see any issue with that?

How do you know that?

Clipps couldn't beat the Rockets, and people said they were garbage and a horrible playoff team led by chokers. And they're in the WCF's...

What if the Spurs played Rockets in first round? Do you think you'd be in the WCF right now?

[fsvr54]

The problem is if we were in the East we would be in the conference finals right now. Same for a lot of the West teams like the Clips, Grizz, etc. You don't see any issue with that?

They would? That's just assumptions.

[UK2K]

A mid 50 win team and a 60 win team are in the conference finals in both. The cream rises to the top. What is the problem?
Their win totals are based off conference opponents.

[atljonesbro]

The Hawks pretty much owned the West. "Da playoffs different doe". Yeah, yall already tried that one and the Hawks are 1 round from the finals.

[Mr. Jabbar]

could be a hipster thing

[J Shuttlesworth]

I don't think people really deny that the Western Conference is tougher but sometimes circumstance can pave the way for an easy path even in the West.

The Pelicans, injured Grizzlies, and now the Rockets missing two starters will be the path for the Warriors. It's just that sometimes people overlook this kind of stuff when talking about how easy it is in the East. It doesn't make the East equal or anything like that, but circumstances can make the disparity much less.

Although at this point, I see it more like 1 great team and 3 good teams remaining. I think the Hawks/Cavs/Rockets are all on the same level and the Warriors are just far above all of them.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

West is better. No one disputes that.

[plowking]

I see a lot of arguments about the conference disparity, which is weird to me because I don't see much room for debate. I was reading that site that shall remain nameless and I saw somebody say the Celtics and Bulls play better defense than anyone from the West. Stuff like that is just really weird to me.

I don't agree with the Celtics bit, but as far as locking up your superstar in the playoffs, the Bulls do the best job in the league at that, and that is the player you want stepping up to make big plays for your team. So yes, the Bulls do have the stingiest defense in the league in that case.

They made Wade look terrible in the playoffs. Bron look average these playoffs. John Wall the year before. Igoudala the year before that.
These players nearly all shot 10% less than their regular season FG% against the Bulls.

[J Shuttlesworth]

Just for the record, the Hawks are 22-8 against the West this year which is a .733 win%, which is about dead even with their overall record.

Cavs were .600 against the West, which is a bit lower than their .646 win %, but they also went on a stretch where they were 15-1 against the West with LeBron healthy.

Not saying this makes the east equal or anything, but people saying their team would be guaranteed to be in the ECF need to stop pulling stuff out of their ass.

[PsychoBe]

I don't agree with the Celtics bit, but as far as locking up your superstar in the playoffs, the Bulls do the best job in the league at that, and that is the player you want stepping up to make big plays for your team. So yes, the Bulls do have the stingiest defense in the league in that case.

They made Wade look terrible in the playoffs. Bron look average these playoffs. John Wall the year before. Igoudala the year before that.
These players nearly all shot 10% less than their regular season FG% against the Bulls.

but on the offensive end they go on two separate 7 and a half-minute scoring droughts :oldlol:

[plowking]

I don't think people really deny that the Western Conference is tougher but sometimes circumstance can pave the way for an easy path even in the West.

The Pelicans, injured Grizzlies, and now the Rockets missing two starters will be the path for the Warriors. It's just that sometimes people overlook this kind of stuff when talking about how easy it is in the East. It doesn't make the East equal or anything like that, but circumstances can make the disparity much less.

Although at this point, I see it more like 1 great team and 3 good teams remaining. I think the Hawks/Cavs/Rockets are all on the same level and the Warriors are just far above all of them.

Exactly. I didn't see anyone cutting any slack for the Magic in 09 who had to beat two 60 win teams to get to the finals, and then face another 60 win team in the Lakers when they got there.

So much more than the strength of a team that dictates who gets to the finals in each conference.

[Heavincent]

The Pelicans, injured Grizzlies, and now the Rockets missing two starters will be the path for the Warriors. It's just that sometimes people overlook this kind of stuff when talking about how easy it is in the East. It doesn't make the East equal or anything like that, but circumstances can make the disparity much less.

Even with all of that, it's much more difficult path than what the Hawks faced, although the Rockets are only a little better than the Cavs imo (since they don't have Love). Imagine if the Warriors played the Nets and Wizards. Yikes.

And they won 67 games...they SHOULD get the easiest path (but they still didn't). It would have been bullshit if they had to play OKC in the first round. Entertaining, but not fair at all. Just like how it wasn't fair that the Clippers and Spurs had to play each other in the first round.

[FreezingTsmoove]

Well maybe if Stern didnt rig shit for the WEST with all the #1 picks, and give Cleveland 3 1st overalls we wouldnt be talking about this

[DMAVS41]

A mid 50 win team and a 60 win team are in the conference finals in both. The cream rises to the top. What is the problem?

Too simple.

How difficult a road is to the finals plays a role.

The Hawks could easily have lost in the first round in the West.

You really don't think having to play the Spurs in round 1 took a toll on the Clippers?

This shit is all connected...

Huge disparity in conference strength matters. What it doesn't mean is that the Cavs and Hawks aren't really good or great. They are....they just play in a joke conference and it makes life much easier on them.

That's all.

[ILLsmak]

I don't think people really deny that the Western Conference is tougher but sometimes circumstance can pave the way for an easy path even in the West.

The Pelicans, injured Grizzlies, and now the Rockets missing two starters will be the path for the Warriors. It's just that sometimes people overlook this kind of stuff when talking about how easy it is in the East. It doesn't make the East equal or anything like that, but circumstances can make the disparity much less.

Although at this point, I see it more like 1 great team and 3 good teams remaining. I think the Hawks/Cavs/Rockets are all on the same level and the Warriors are just far above all of them.

The Cavs are still sleeping giants even though logic says they shouldn't be. They still have enough to win, sooner or later everyone is gonna become superwet and Bron is gonna start playing for real. At least, that's what everyone thinks... I wouldn't bet against them until the Finals.

To me it's

GSW


Cavs

Hou/ATL.

There is a huge difference in potential. Now, again, as a disclaimer I say that Cavs and GSW could lose... shit happens, but in terms of consistency and potential, that's how I see it. Hou seems to have the most momentum because they practically reverse swept a good team. Everyone else played ass/injured opponents and barely scraped it out.

-Smak

[1987_Lakers]

The East is ****ing garbage this year. At least in previous years you had a dominant team like Miami and a competitive Indiana team.

This season from top to bottom it is an awful conference. Multiple teams with non winning records making the playoffs, Chicago couldn't even beat a Cavs team that didn't have K. Love, Atlanta (the #1 seed) just got taken to 6 games by a Wizards team that didn't have John Wall for like half the series.

Just awful.

[plowking]

Even with all of that, it's much more difficult path than what the Hawks faced, although the Rockets are only a little better than the Cavs imo (since they don't have Love). Imagine if the Warriors played the Nets and Wizards. Yikes.

And they won 67 games...they SHOULD get the easiest path (but they still didn't). It would have been bullshit if they had to play OKC in the first round. Entertaining, but not fair at all. Just like how it wasn't fair that the Clippers and Spurs had to play each other in the first round.

How was it fair that the 09 Magic had to play the 62 win Celtics and 66 win Cavs, while Kobe got to play the Jazz with no Okur and an injured Boozer, and the Rockets without Yao or T-Mac?

[Heavincent]

How was it fair that the 09 Magic had to play the 62 win Celtics and 66 win Cavs, while Kobe got to play the Jazz with no Okur and an injured Boozer, and the Rockets without Yao or T-Mac?

You know Garnett was injured that year, right?

[plowking]

Too simple.

How difficult a road is to the finals plays a role.

The Hawks could easily have lost in the first round in the West.

You really don't think having to play the Spurs in round 1 took a toll on the Clippers?

This shit is all connected...

Huge disparity in conference strength matters. What it doesn't mean is that the Cavs and Hawks aren't really good or great. They are....they just play in a joke conference and it makes life much easier on them.

That's all.

If the conferences were merged and best 16 teams went through, it would have been 7 from the East. Yet this is a huge differences in conferences?

[navy]

Too simple.

How difficult a road is to the finals plays a role.

The Hawks could easily have lost in the first round in the West.

You really don't think having to play the Spurs in round 1 took a toll on the Clippers?

This shit is all connected...

Huge disparity in conference strength matters. What it doesn't mean is that the Cavs and Hawks aren't really good or great. They are....they just play in a joke conference and it makes life much easier on them.

That's all.
This is what I dont agree with. The toll that a round takes is much more dependent on luck than anything else. Chris Paul pulled a hamstring vs the Spurs? Yeah. Kevin Love got an arm ripped out and Kyrie got his legs messed up vs the Celtics the second worse team in the playoffs.

[PsychoBe]

You know Garnett was injured that year, right?

he just started watching basketball in 2010 give him some slack :oldlol:

[J Shuttlesworth]

Even with all of that, it's much more difficult path than what the Hawks faced, although the Rockets are only a little better than the Cavs imo (since they don't have Love). Imagine if the Warriors played the Nets and Wizards. Yikes.

And they won 67 games...they SHOULD get the easiest path (but they still didn't). It would have been bullshit if they had to play OKC in the first round. Entertaining, but not fair at all. Just like how it wasn't fair that the Clippers and Spurs had to play each other in the first round.
Well to be fair, the Hawks should have an easy path too seeing as they are the only other 60 win team in the league, so I don't see the problem with them playing the Nets/Wizards (although it did suck that Wall got injured). I don't think the road the Cavs had was necessarily easier than the Warriors got this year, especially when you consider the injuries the Cavs got and the injuries the Warriors opponents got.

I just get tired of the narrative that every team in the west has to go through a full on bloodbath to make the WCF, and every east team gets a cakewalk. Circumstances/injuries always play a role. The conference disparity is the reason people thought the Thunder would win in 2012... They steamrolled through the West, and then lost to the Heat in 5 games, even though the Celtics were able to take the Heat to 7 games. At the end of the day, it always comes down to two great teams from each conference. I don't think there's any disparity between the top 4 teams right now aside from Golden State, and everyone else.

[plowking]

You know Garnett was injured that year, right?

I know, but why doesn't the easier run by the West team get brought up then?

I believe the Lakers were playing a "56 win" Rockets team where Scola was the best offensive option.

[J Shuttlesworth]

The Cavs are still sleeping giants even though logic says they shouldn't be. They still have enough to win, sooner or later everyone is gonna become superwet and Bron is gonna start playing for real. At least, that's what everyone thinks... I wouldn't bet against them until the Finals.

To me it's

GSW


Cavs

Hou/ATL.

There is a huge difference in potential. Now, again, as a disclaimer I say that Cavs and GSW could lose... shit happens, but in terms of consistency and potential, that's how I see it. Hou seems to have the most momentum because they practically reverse swept a good team. Everyone else played ass/injured opponents and barely scraped it out.

-Smak
Maybe, great post. If Kyrie was 100%, I would probably agree (mostly because of how ATL has been playing in the playoffs) but Kyrie is always a slight tweak away from not being able to close out a game with his current tendinitis issues. It would take him a few weeks to get 100%, and obviously he's unable to take that kind of rest.

[Heavincent]

I know, but why doesn't the easier run by the West team get brought up then?

I believe the Lakers were playing a "56 win" Rockets team where Scola was the best offensive option.

09 was admittedly a down year for the West.

[plowking]

09 was admittedly a down year for the West.

How about 11-12?

Conferences were literally dead even.

[DMAVS41]

This is what I dont agree with. The toll that a round takes is much more dependent on luck than anything else. Chris Paul pulled a hamstring vs the Spurs? Yeah. Kevin Love got an arm ripped out and Kyrie got his legs messed up vs the Celtics the second worse team in the playoffs.

Luck definitely plays a role, but all things equal...having to go through harder teams en route to the finals will take more of a toll than facing easier teams.

That is just a fact.

[DMAVS41]

If the conferences were merged and best 16 teams went through, it would have been 7 from the East. Yet this is a huge differences in conferences?

God yes. You aren't realizing that like 8 of the 10 best teams in the league play in the West.

[navy]

Luck definitely plays a role, but all things equal...having to go through harder teams en route to the finals will take more of a toll than facing easier teams.

That is just a fact.
Based on what? Injuries occur regardless of strength. The physicality of your opponent isnt dependent on how good they are or where they play.

[plowking]

God yes. You aren't realizing that like 8 of the 10 best teams in the league play in the West.

It happens. You'll get over it. Each conference has its turn of being the best.

People act like this is something new.

Look at the team Magic was beating to win titles with the Lakers... High 30 win teams multiple rounds...
Look at Kobe's 09 run to see who he beat for a title.
Look at MJ's first title run... 30s and 40s win teams.
Bron in his last title run...


Most stars have had a cupcake schedule a lot of the times they won.

[sd3035]

Lebaldo stans are an insecure bunch of foreigners who have little understanding of the game

[Fire Colangelo]

And I honestly don't understand why people think this is some kind of crisis that we've never had in the league before, that they have to talk about it all the time.

Chill out, it really isn't that big of a deal at all.

There are a lot of young and coming teams out East, and a lot of declining teams out West. If you simply look at next year:

- Bucks are going to keep improving with Parker coming back
- Celtics are young as ****, and can only get better from here on
- Pacers will improve as PG returns
- Maybe the Heat will be healthy next year (huge maybe but possible)

Then you have a couple teams that can get to 50+ wins with Hawks, Cavs, Bulls and Wizards.

While out West:

- Spurs are gonna fall off if Duncan/Ginobili retires
- Mavs are falling off
- Grizzlies are getting injury riddled and older

Then you got question marks in where LMA is going to go in FA, whether KD can come back the same.

[longtime lurker]

Because Lebron

[BigBoss]

A mid 50 win team and a 60 win team are in the conference finals in both. The cream rises to the top. What is the problem?

2 50 win teams played in the first round in the West. Spurs would have come out the East. Cavs would not make the conference finals in the West and would have been the 7th seed. You're in denial

[Cleverness]

Some people will argue that Warriors had it easy when they faced Pelicans, well uhhh.. Pelicans were fresh off beating the defending champs and have a top 5 player in the league in Anthony Davis. And with all that, you know what? Warriors had #1 seed. They're SUPPOSED to have it easier than the rest.

LA Clippers had to face the defending champs in round 1 despite having the 3rd seed.. west is still much better than east.. before the playoffs began, look at Vegas odds for winning the chip - Cavs were the only legit contender in the east :eek:

East playoff team records
60-22
53-29
50-32
49-33
46-36
41-41
40-42
38-44

377 wins

West playoff team records
67-15
56-26
56-26
51-31
55-27
55-27
50-32
45-37

435 wins

[Hotlantadude81]

The Hawks pretty much owned the West. "Da playoffs different doe". Yeah, yall already tried that one and the Hawks are 1 round from the finals.

First half of the season only. The Hawks got whipped by the Spurs, Warriors, Thunder and the Nuggets in the 2nd half of the season.

[Cleverness]

The Hawks pretty much owned the West. "Da playoffs different doe". Yeah, yall already tried that one and the Hawks are 1 round from the finals.


First half of the season only. The Hawks got whipped by the Spurs, Warriors, Thunder and the Nuggets in the 2nd half of the season.

yeah

Warriors vs east: 25-5
Houston vs east: 23-7

Hawks vs west: 22-8
Cleveland vs west: 18-12


East vs West: 187-263

[ApexPredator]

Their team plays in the Least. Bias.

100% this.

[JebronLames]

Facing tough teams can actually help prepare you for the finals. So the WCF champions have that helping them.

[iamgine]

Not an agenda thread...I honestly don't understand.
Some people believe the holocaust never happened.

There will always be some people who disagree on things.

[plowking]

yeah

Warriors vs east: 25-5
Houston vs east: 23-7

Hawks vs west: 22-8
Cleveland vs west: 18-12


East vs West: 187-263

5 of those losses for the Cavs came when Bron was out.

They lost to the likes of OKC, Dallas and Sacremento who they would all whip with Bron in the team.

[Sportal]

Can I ask which people "deny the conference disparity"?

The difference is quite substantial, however, the differences between the numbers for "approaching prime and under" has a gulf too. Which conference does that favour?

I think it favours the East tbh. So, we'll see. Assuming East gets more higher picks in this draft coming... Won't be long.

On top of that, don't the West have the more attractive cities to the FAs?

[DMAVS41]

Based on what? Injuries occur regardless of strength. The physicality of your opponent isnt dependent on how good they are or where they play.

Why are you only talking about injuries?

[R.I.P.]

Not an agenda thread...I honestly don't understand.

Cause their favourite player or team are in the East.

Did Bron as the best player on a depleted team, shoot 40/10/80 with 4.5 TOs and his team won 4-2. Give me a break. The Clippers lose Jordan for the whole series, Blake is playing at 50% physically, Paul shoots 40/10/80 the whole series and Crawford gets suspended for two games. Think they beat any play-off team in the West that is playing at near full strength, let alone by a fairly comfortable 4-2 in the end. :facepalm

The Bulls are so overrated. Once they lost their only proven WC play-off performer, they were done.

[Quickening]

Why does it matter that much... whoever wins the east has to beat the best team from the west.

You could argue the west teams who gets through has an advantage because they're battle hardened from playing better quality opponents.

If Rockets were in the east, and got to the conference finals people would be saying its just because they play in that conference, they have a fake superstar in Harden and a cripple in Dwight....

[Legends66NBA7]

These threads pop every other day or week to remind "some people". The ones who deny it can't be bothered with.

Yes, my favorite team is in the East but I'll welcome a change if it means more quality basketball in the playoffs. I've said that plenty of times now.

[Kingwillball]

Nothing to deny west is better/ deeper but the Cavs for example have owned the west and are better than the #2 seed in the west when fully healthy. People need to stop acting like Cavs would be a 7 seed in the west that is all. They lost 1 game post trade to the west to rockers in OT in game Lebron blew.

[Kingwillball]

yeah

Warriors vs east: 25-5
Houston vs east: 23-7

Hawks vs west: 22-8
Cleveland vs west: 18-12


East vs West: 187-263

Cavs 15-1 vs west since they had there real team in place nice try though thanks for playing ..

[DMAVS41]

Nothing to deny west is better/ deeper but the Cavs for example have owned the west and are better than the #2 seed in the west when fully healthy. People need to stop acting like Cavs would be a 7 seed in the west that is all. They lost 1 game post trade to the west to rockers in OT in game Lebron blew.

But they would have been the 7 seed...

LOL

[Bandito]

5 of those losses for the Cavs came when Bron was out.

They lost to the likes of OKC, Dallas and Sacremento who they would all whip with Bron in the team.
There come the excuses.:lol


Where are the Heat though? Buying fish poles?

[sd3035]

I don't think anyone is denying the disparity. If they are, they are clearly retarded

[Joyner82reload]

The East is a piece of shit and anyone defending it is clearly biased because their team or favorite player plays in the conference, particularly LeBron James as his 5 Finals appearances have been a by-product of the terrible conference. The funniest part is that arguably the best team in the NBA when healthy didn't even make the playoffs in the West.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The lack of competition out east is exactly why I don't put much stock into LeBron's 4, and possibly 5 finals appearances. The "best" teams in that conference are either missing superstars, or just one side of the basketball altogether (mainly offense).

I mean, the Cavs are STILL favored against the Hawks despite having a lower seed and no HCA. :facepalm Then again, the Cavs are loaded.

[Ne 1]

And I honestly don't understand why people think this is some kind of crisis that we've never had in the league before, that they have to talk about it all the time.

Chill out, it really isn't that big of a deal at all.

There are a lot of young and coming teams out East, and a lot of declining teams out West. If you simply look at next year:

- Bucks are going to keep improving with Parker coming back
- Celtics are young as ****, and can only get better from here on
- Pacers will improve as PG returns
- Maybe the Heat will be healthy next year (huge maybe but possible)

Then you have a couple teams that can get to 50+ wins with Hawks, Cavs, Bulls and Wizards.

While out West:

- Spurs are gonna fall off if Duncan/Ginobili retires
- Mavs are falling off
- Grizzlies are getting injury riddled and older

Then you got question marks in where LMA is going to go in FA, whether KD can come back the same.


What kind of mentality is this? Why wait until it "balances out" instead of making changes to be sure this type of disparity never happens again in the future? Will it be better if the East becomes a powerhouse and the West sucks? It's been about 15 years.

[Orlando Magic]

The East is full of bottom dwellers and the West is full of mediocrity disguised as contenders.

In the end... the conference tends to typically not matter. This year would be the exception because the Spurs, who had a strong chance to beat Golden State, got eliminated in the first round on a fluke.

Other than that the playoffs almost always go down exactly as they should and you have a larger number of East winners in the Finals than one might think because of the "conference disparity".

TLDR; It doesn't matter... the best team almost always wins regardless.

Besides... in less than 5 years the East is going to be "stacked" and the West is going to be "trash".

[kshutts1]

There is no need for Conferences, much less divisions, any more. Fans and players literally do not care about a "conference" or "division" championship. Maybe teams try to sell that off as an accomplishment, and put up hilarious banners... but they are meaningless.

In fact, I'm 99% sure that divisions and conferences were created solely because of travel issues back in the day. We no longer have those issues. Get rid of the outdated formats. Update the league.

It's only logical to match up the best teams later in the playoffs. A 16 seed playoff format is the clear best way to go.

As for the meaningless all-star game... have the fans vote in the 24 participants (the game is for the fans, after all), and then the two coaches with the best records in the league take turns selecting players from that pool.

And the possible scheduling issues? I would like to see the NBA season either shortened or lengthened. Doesn't have to be, though. Every team should play 2 games against every other team. That's 58 games. If we keep the same length of season, then the remaining 24 games can be decided upon by trying to decide what matchups fans and players most want. AKA "let's try to breed this rivalry" sort of thing.

Edit: Or just find a way to make division and conference winners actually benefit.

[Orlando Magic]

There is no need for Conferences, much less divisions, any more. Fans and players literally do not care about a "conference" or "division" championship. Maybe teams try to sell that off as an accomplishment, and put up hilarious banners... but they are meaningless.

In fact, I'm 99% sure that divisions and conferences were created solely because of travel issues back in the day. We no longer have those issues. Get rid of the outdated formats. Update the league.

It's only logical to match up the best teams later in the playoffs. A 16 seed playoff format is the clear best way to go.

As for the meaningless all-star game... have the fans vote in the 24 participants (the game is for the fans, after all), and then the two coaches with the best records in the league take turns selecting players from that pool.

And the possible scheduling issues? I would like to see the NBA season either shortened or lengthened. Doesn't have to be, though. Every team should play 2 games against every other team. That's 58 games. If we keep the same length of season, then the remaining 24 games can be decided upon by trying to decide what matchups fans and players most want. AKA "let's try to breed this rivalry" sort of thing.

Edit: Or just find a way to make division and conference winners actually benefit.

I agree with you about the travel being ONE of the reasons the conferences / divisions were created... and you're crazy if you think it wouldn't be an issue and if you don't think it would have a detrimental impact on the performances of players having to fly across the country one day and then back the next.

It also drums up fan interest and can hype certain games to "mean" more than they actually do.

The bottom line is that the current format is fine and that people are overreacting. If you give it 5 years the conferences WILL balance and in fact they might strongly favor the East.

The West has been winning for so long now that most of the young talent is going to be coming up in the East. The reason the West was so strong for so long is because the East used to be so much better than the West. It comes and goes people... it comes and goes.

[kshutts1]

The West has been winning for so long now that most of the young talent is going to be coming up in the East. The reason the West was so strong for so long is because the East used to be so much better than the West. It comes and goes people... it comes and goes.
Why use a system that "comes and goes" rather than one that is more fair and provides better playoff matchups every year?

[Blue&Orange]

top talent is top talent, upsets are upsets, the problem is in the east you can have bad games and still move on, in the west not a chance.

Does anyone thinks cavs would have made past second round playing like they were against he bulls? bitch please.

In the east now they can go on a play flawlessly and fight for the championship.


How hard is to understand this.

It's like the east historically have the top defenses :oldlol: , no they just have teams that profit from east lack of talent in putting the ball in the basket.



I'm all for the 16 teams format. Yes it would bad for rivalries, but they don't exist now so why bother with them.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

top talent is top talent, upsets are upsets, the problem is in the east you can have bad games and still move on, in the west not a chance.



That's not true. Golden State and Houston both had bad games against their opponents in the second round but still won the series. If anything, Houston coming back from a 3-1 deficit shows that having a bad game or games doesn't matter so long as you can recover.

[rmt]

Just for the record, the Hawks are 22-8 against the West this year which is a .733 win%, which is about dead even with their overall record.

Cavs were .600 against the West, which is a bit lower than their .646 win %, but they also went on a stretch where they were 15-1 against the West with LeBron healthy.

Not saying this makes the east equal or anything, but people saying their team would be guaranteed to be in the ECF need to stop pulling stuff out of their ass.

Playing the majority of one's games in the West makes a difference. Playing in the SouthWest division vs 4 other playoff teams makes a difference. Anyone saying different is glossing over how hard it is to play the majority of your competition vs good/great teams. Look at SAS's losing vs Pelicans in the last game - the difference between a #2 seed (with HCA in 2 rounds) vs the MAVS and #6 seed vs LAC (with no HCA) - HUGE difference. We'd be getting ready to see GSW vs SAS right now.

[Orlando Magic]

top talent is top talent, upsets are upsets, the problem is in the east you can have bad games and still move on, in the west not a chance.

Does anyone thinks cavs would have made past second round playing like they were against he bulls? bitch please.

In the east now they can go on a play flawlessly and fight for the championship.


How hard is to understand this.

It's like the east historically have the top defenses :oldlol: , no they just have teams that profit from east lack of talent in putting the ball in the basket.



I'm all for the 16 teams format. Yes it would bad for rivalries, but they don't exist now so why bother with them.

Golden state had bad games. Houston had bad games. The Clippers had bad games. etc... stfu.

The reason that most rivalries don't exist now is because how often players change teams through free agency and trading and so... what's there to really rival? The city? Lol.

And are the Cavs not injured out the ass? You think they wouldn't have swept the Bulls had they been 100% healthy? Bitch please.

[BlazerRed]

Only Lebron stans do.

[Blue&Orange]

That's not true. Golden State and Houston both had bad games against their opponents in the second round but still won the series. If anything, Houston coming back from a 3-1 deficit shows that having a bad game or games doesn't matter so long as you can recover.
Maybe the other teams had more bad games? What happened to the Spurs? Do you think they wouldn't made the ECF?

I'm stupid
:applause: That self awareness.


Are people really trying to argue that the margin of error and the level of the competition is the same? lol omg

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Maybe the other teams had more bad games? What happened to the Spurs? Do you think they wouldn't made the ECF?



That's not what you said though. You said that in the WC you can't have bad games and move on, that statement is untrue. If you meant something else you should have specified.

[ralph_i_el]

Once you have a bit of a disparity, the lottery exacerbates it.

Every season 1-2 losing teams in the East don't get a lottery pick, and 1-2 winning teams in the West DO get lottery picks.....MORE TALENT FLOWS INTO THE WEST EACH SEASON.

[guy]

Over the last 15 years, the East finals team has actually played more games on average going into the Finals then the West finals team.

And yes, the West finals team plays tougher competition but yet they've still won the majority of the championships during this time.

There's absolutely zero evidence that the "road to the Finals" plays a factor on who actually ends up winning the title. There's no evidence that playing easier teams and getting to rest more (which hasn't been the case anyway) is more advantageous then toughening up through adversity and having to play harder competition or vice versa.

One thing the conferences does cause is that better teams might eliminated earlier then others. The team that makes the finals and loses is many times not the 2nd best team in the league. But they don't award anything for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. place. Maybe giving players like Lebron for example credit for making the Finals and losing shouldn't be done. That's understandable.

Either way, no evidence suggests that the champion wouldn't end up being the champion under either format. There's no evidence of some "accumulation" factor.

The East won 577 games this year and the West won 653 games this year and I'm pretty sure the disparity hasn't been more wider then this year or last. The difference is basically one great team in the West and one terrible team in the East. Put the Grizzlies in the East and the Knicks in the West, and 577 to 653 goes to dead even at 615. That is not enough to make significant changes to the playoff format. Not to mention all the issues that might bring i.e. much longer playoff timeframe, with way more 3-4 days in between games situations, different timezones, travel times, etc. Could you imagine the complaining that will occur in a scenario when two Texas teams are playing each other and one LA team and one NY team play each other and the winners face each other in the next round? So much excuse making will be made.

[Optimus Prime]

Only LeBeta stans try to make it seem like he hasn't had a cakewalk to the Finals for half a decade.

The rest, even some LeSPN commentators, acknowledge and lament how terrible The Least is.

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DTd63EvRSYxgtfhBTnEyTNJPV1A=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3630642/Finals-Paths.0.png

:facepalm

[Kvnzhangyay]

Only LeBeta stans try to make it seem like he hasn't had a cakewalk to the Finals for half a decade.

The rest, even some LeSPN commentators, acknowledge and lament how terrible The Least is.

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DTd63EvRSYxgtfhBTnEyTNJPV1A=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3630642/Finals-Paths.0.png

:facepalm

Its not his fault the east is weak:confusedshrug:

Also the disparity is there, but not to the extent people think it is. Remember in 2012 when everyone thought the WCF was the NBA finals, and OKC ends up practically getting swept?

[brandonman]

There is no need for Conferences, much less divisions, any more. Fans and players literally do not care about a "conference" or "division" championship. Maybe teams try to sell that off as an accomplishment, and put up hilarious banners... but they are meaningless.

In fact, I'm 99% sure that divisions and conferences were created solely because of travel issues back in the day. We no longer have those issues. Get rid of the outdated formats. Update the league.

It's only logical to match up the best teams later in the playoffs. A 16 seed playoff format is the clear best way to go.

As for the meaningless all-star game... have the fans vote in the 24 participants (the game is for the fans, after all), and then the two coaches with the best records in the league take turns selecting players from that pool.

And the possible scheduling issues? I would like to see the NBA season either shortened or lengthened. Doesn't have to be, though. Every team should play 2 games against every other team. That's 58 games. If we keep the same length of season, then the remaining 24 games can be decided upon by trying to decide what matchups fans and players most want. AKA "let's try to breed this rivalry" sort of thing.

Edit: Or just find a way to make division and conference winners actually benefit.

I think a 16 seed playoff system would make the 1st round even more difficult to watch

[Solefade]

Only LeBeta stans try to make it seem like he hasn't had a cakewalk to the Finals for half a decade.

The rest, even some LeSPN commentators, acknowledge and lament how terrible The Least is.

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DTd63EvRSYxgtfhBTnEyTNJPV1A=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3630642/Finals-Paths.0.png

:facepalm


that same writer that made that graphic also wrote an article about how lebron has done it with the least help after that :confusedshrug:



but who is really denying that the east is the crappier conference of the two? i think people definitely overrate the west though

[edrick]

Is it the East's fault that most of the best coaches and players just happen to be in the West?

They need to get rid of the stupid conference crap for the playoffs, and just put the 16 best teams in.

[Im Still Ballin]

It's irrelevant that the east is weaker if you're trying to demean the Cavaliers ability to win as a team. If anything, the evidence shows they would do better in the west. 16-1 vs the Western conference with a full team. If you say the west is "so much better because of team records", then it would be no more a stretch to say that "The Cavaliers would have an easier time playing in the western conference" because they went 16-1. See what the problem here is with making assumptions like this based on team records? Basketball has always been matchups.

[Cleverness]

5 of those losses for the Cavs came when Bron was out.

They lost to the likes of OKC, Dallas and Sacremento who they would all whip with Bron in the team.

yeah, and losses from GS/Hou came when Bogut/Dwight/etc weren't playing. point is the east is much weaker.

question still stands. Why do you deny the conference disparity?:hammerhead:


and how are you going to deny 187-263 record:wtf: :wtf:

[kshutts1]

I think a 16 seed playoff system would make the 1st round even more difficult to watch
It would if the NBA continued to cling to the silly notion of a 7 game series. But let's be real... the first round now is basically 1/2 v 13-16. Not like much would change at the beginning. Major change is at the end, though.

[ISHGoat]

I think the problem with removing conferences is that it could be like a GSW vs SAS finals and every game would start like 10 pm ET and NBA would lose a huge amount of the east coast audience.

[kshutts1]

I think the problem with removing conferences is that it could be like a GSW vs SAS finals and every game would start like 10 pm ET and NBA would lose a huge amount of the east coast audience.
8:30. You're welcome.

[ISHGoat]

8:30. You're welcome.

A bit better, but then you have games starting 5:30 local time for the westeners and the local fans might not be able to make it from their 9-5 to their home, much less an arena in downtown (I assume). I know where I'm from, if youre working outside the city and trying to get inside the city during rushhour, its gonna be packed.

[Elosha]

I'm cautiously in favor of seeding the playoffs with the 16 best teams. I also believe the NBA should return to the best of 5 for the first round. The only reason they increased it to 7 was for more revenue. But there's no good reason for it, the first round should be done relatively quickly so the more meaningful rounds can commence.

I am opposed to shortening the season from 82 games. I don't think it will happen because the league would lose too much revenue. I do understand the players and coaches concern about wear and tear and injuries before the playoffs. But I'm sorry, they just need to man up. The NBA has been playing 82 games for over 40 years. You don't hear any of the old retired players complaining, and they had nowhere near as good medical staffs, trainers, luxurious travel accommodations, etc. Besides, coaches are starting to follow Popovich and rest their starters more during the season. Even superstars today seem to want more rest than their counterparts in previous decades.

Also, shortening the season would completely skew and lessen historically great player's resumes. For instance, Lebron may have a legitimate shot of reaching somewhere between 1 and 5 on the all time scoring list, due to his early start and consistently high scoring average. But if the season were to be reduced to 60 games, it would be virtually impossible for him to do that and it would screw up everyone's all time numbers. Anything less than 82 games just tampers with NBA history. Same thing with reducing the game to something less than 48 minutes, it would mess up everyone's career numbers.

[kshutts1]

I'm cautiously in favor of seeding the playoffs with the 16 best teams. I also believe the NBA should return to the best of 5 for the first round. The only reason they increased it to 7 was for more revenue. But there's no good reason for it, the first round should be done relatively quickly so the more meaningful rounds can commence.

I am opposed to shortening the season from 82 games. I don't think it will happen because the league would lose too much revenue. I do understand the players and coaches concern about wear and tear and injuries before the playoffs. But I'm sorry, they just need to man up. The NBA has been playing 82 games for over 40 years. You don't hear any of the old retired players complaining, and they had nowhere near as good medical staffs, trainers, luxurious travel accommodations, etc. Besides, coaches are starting to follow Popovich and rest their starters more during the season. Even superstars today seem to want more rest than their counterparts in previous decades.

Also, shortening the season would completely skew and lessen historically great player's resumes. For instance, Lebron may have a legitimate shot of reaching somewhere between 1 and 5 on the all time scoring list, due to his early start and consistently high scoring average. But if the season were to be reduced to 60 games, it would be virtually impossible for him to do that and it would screw up everyone's all time numbers. Anything less than 82 games just tampers with NBA history. Same thing with reducing the game to something less than 48 minutes, it would mess up everyone's career numbers.
Not that I disagree with your point, but tons of other factors, that affected career numbers, have changed... so why does this one get to you?

Other factors:
HS players can be chosen, then can't be
Longer playoffs
Different defensive rules
3 point line
Shot clock
Traveling
Hand checking

I'm sure the list goes on and on. My over-riding point is that just because a change may affect history, or goes against what "has always been", doesn't mean that said change shouldn't happen. Just like "change for the sake of change" is silly, so too is "staying the same just because that's how it's always been".

[No_Look604]

The Hawks and Cavs are both great teams, although I don't think the Hawks would have made it to the conference Finals if they were in the West.


So you think the f'n Cavs would make the Conf. Finals in the West? :oldlol:

Pass it to the left handside homie and step out of the circle.

[Elosha]

Not that I disagree with your point, but tons of other factors, that affected career numbers, have changed... so why does this one get to you?

Other factors:
HS players can be chosen, then can't be
Longer playoffs
Different defensive rules
3 point line
Shot clock
Traveling
Hand checking

I'm sure the list goes on and on. My over-riding point is that just because a change may affect history, or goes against what "has always been", doesn't mean that said change shouldn't happen. Just like "change for the sake of change" is silly, so too is "staying the same just because that's how it's always been".

That's a fair point and a good question.. I'm certainly not someone who believes rules should never be changed. I like the 3 point line, 24 second shot clock, and other changes. At the end of the day, I don't think most of the rule changes over the years would drastically affect most great players' career numbers or playing abilities. On the one hand, you might say a guy like Jerry West would have scored a lot more points with 3 pointers, but conversely, his overall field goal percentage might have taken a hit if he was shooting a lot of threes and he may not have developed such a strong mid range game. Traveling/palming rules may be called differently in the 60's but that doesn't mean that the great players then or now couldn't adjust to the differences.

I guess the difference for me is rules changes in the flow of the game have a relatively minor impact - imo - on a great player's overall career stats. And even though high school players recently got to go straight to the NBA and now they only need attend one year of college, they STILL have to play the game and still have to produce at an all time level. Does it give an all-time great like Lebron or Kobe an "unfair" advantage in career achievements? Yes. But they still had to produce their numbers on the court, it was still up to them to become as great as they could be. But if you arbitrarily shorten the season or the length of the game, you take it out of the player's hands. Now it doesn't matter how much a Kobe or Lebron does, if it's a 60 game season, they're done, no matter how much more they could have produced with an additional 22 games. It takes the control out of the player's hands.

I don't know if that's a satisfactory answer for you, but that's why I'm fundamentally opposed to shortening the season. Some traditions matter more than others.