So out of the 15 players who made the all nba teams, 4 were from the east. [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

NBAGOAT

05-27-2016, 02:08 AM

The east couldn't even field a starting line up with all of their players that made the all nba team :roll: :roll:

What a pathetic conference.

Imagine if the Warriors or OKC's biggest competition was some team led by Kyle Lowry.. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Meanwhile OKC has to beat the GOAT regular season team with the only unanimous MVP and the Warriors have to beat a team with a the second best point guard in the league and the second best small forward in the league who both finished top 5 in MVP voting.

good god, I've never seen the 4th best pg in the league get treated like such a punching bag.

TheMarkMadsen

05-27-2016, 02:17 AM

good god, I've never seen the 4th best pg in the league get treated like such a punching bag.

He puts up 18 ppg on 49% TS for the playoffs and made the conference finals while averaging 17ppg on 36% FG through the semis.

That's the type of production it apparently takes to lead your team to the conference finals out east.

And he's not even a top 4 point guard.

Curry, WB, Paul & Lillard all placed higher in the all nba teams and to be honest he's not even the best point guard in the series he's playing in right now.

eriX

05-27-2016, 02:24 AM

Then wouldn't it make sense for Lebron and co. to join up in the East to beat the supremely talented west? :confusedshrug:

Remix

05-27-2016, 02:38 AM

good god, I've never seen the 4th best pg in the league get treated like such a punching bag.
Id probably take Lillard, Wall, and Kyrie over him after watching these playoffs

GrapeApe

05-27-2016, 02:44 AM

Bear in mind Deandre Jordan made first team all-NBA.

NBAGOAT

05-27-2016, 03:03 AM

He puts up 18 ppg on 49% TS for the playoffs and made the conference finals while averaging 17ppg on 36% FG through the semis.

That's the type of production it apparently takes to lead your team to the conference finals out east.

And he's not even a top 4 point guard.

Curry, WB, Paul & Lillard all placed higher in the all nba teams and to be honest he's not even the best point guard in the series he's playing in right now.

Lillard wasn't better than Lowry during the season; wasn't better enough offensively to make up for being worse on defense. Kyrie was injured like Blake so he didn't matter in positional rankings so that point though true doesn't mean much.

Midnite89

05-27-2016, 05:01 AM

Pre-WCF, Warriors have only faced one player to make All NBA team the past 2 playoffs, Damian Lillard! Tough Conference! :lol

Cavaliers again only have only 1 player in the leagues Top 15 All NBA Team despite having the top seed and making a second consecutive Finals :cheers:

LeBron First Team for 10th time in 13 seasons, Kobe Bryant 11 times in 20 seasons :applause:

I'm pretty sure Curry beat out every one of his First-Team All-NBA last year en route to championship.

Anthony Davis (Pelicans), Marc Gasol (Grizzlies), James Harden (Houston), Lebron James (Cavs)

TheImmortal

05-27-2016, 05:09 AM

The East and West record wise were basically even this year. Shouldn't that mean more? Like seriously, at one point will people stop ignoring that and stop whining about this?
West still had more wins.. 232-218.. Hold this L, clown.

Uncle Drew

05-27-2016, 05:20 AM

DeAndre Jordan is 1st team. Weak era.

Gileraracer

05-27-2016, 06:38 AM

East saved Lebrons legacy. Imagine if he was in the west, he'd only have 2 finals appearances and probably would've lost both. 0/2 is even worse than 2/7 :lol

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 08:32 AM

The East and West record wise were basically even this year. Shouldn't that mean more? Like seriously, at one point will people stop ignoring that and stop whining about this?

When there is more than one legit contender in the conference...

Yea...the East was more competitive this year...thank god, but at the end of the day the;

Thunder/Spurs/Warriors/Clippers (when healthy)...would be massive favorites over an East team other than the Cavs.

So we'll stop bitching when we get to see playoffs over a long stretch in which the road to the finals is somewhat balanced.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 08:33 AM

East saved Lebrons legacy. Imagine if he was in the west, he'd only have 2 finals appearances and probably would've lost both. 0/2 is even worse than 2/7 :lol

It is amazing how much playing in the East has helped Lebron's legacy from that standpoint.

ImKobe

05-27-2016, 08:39 AM

The East is trash. Two of the top 3 players are on the Cavs and the talent difference between Cleveland and Toronto is huge man.

In the West you have the DPOY, the Unanimous MVP, the teams with the two best regular season records (Warriors 73 wins 1st all-time, Spurs top 10 record all-time) and a top 5 rebounding regular season team of all-time by rebounding differential.

What does the East have besides Lebron and Irving? A past-prime Wade? John Wall? Kyle Lowry? :kobe:

guy

05-27-2016, 09:24 AM

West still had more wins.. 232-218.. Hold this L, clown.

Yes that's basically even. Literally a swing of 7 single games. Learn to read.

guy

05-27-2016, 09:32 AM

When there is more than one legit contender in the conference...

Yea...the East was more competitive this year...thank god, but at the end of the day the;

Thunder/Spurs/Warriors/Clippers (when healthy)...would be massive favorites over an East team other than the Cavs.

So we'll stop bitching when we get to see playoffs over a long stretch in which the road to the finals is somewhat balanced.

So the top 4 teams in the west are better then the top 4 teams in the east. And most likely, the remaining 11 teams in the east are better then the remaining 11 teams in the west overall. That's not balanced? How specific does it need to be? Until each seed has the same record in each conference?

By the way, the first seed in the East actually had to face greater W-L opponents then the first seed in the West this year.

Young X

05-27-2016, 09:43 AM

When there is more than one legit contender in the conference...

Yea...the East was more competitive this year...thank god, but at the end of the day the;

Thunder/Spurs/Warriors/Clippers (when healthy)...would be massive favorites over an East team other than the Cavs.

So we'll stop bitching when we get to see playoffs over a long stretch in which the road to the finals is somewhat balanced.Clippers not better than the Raptors.

Normally I would agree that the west was much better than the east but that wasn't true this year. From seeds 4-8 the west was no better than the east. The Cavs and Raptors are both top 5 teams.

It is true that the vast majority of the best individual players play in the west though but team wise it's not as unbalanced as it was in the past.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 11:19 AM

So the top 4 teams in the west are better then the top 4 teams in the east. And most likely, the remaining 11 teams in the east are better then the remaining 11 teams in the west overall. That's not balanced? How specific does it need to be? Until each seed has the same record in each conference?

By the way, the first seed in the East actually had to face greater W-L opponents then the first seed in the West this year.

Read my post again.

1. I said over long stretches...not 1 year

2. If 4 of the 5 best teams in the league are in one conference...it's not remotely balanced for the playoffs

3. You think it's anything even approaching balance when a 67 win Spurs team has to play this Thunder team in round 2 when the cavs got to play the Hawks? Like...seriously? You are actually arguing that it makes sense for a team that won 10 more regular season games should face a far tougher road to the finals? Like...I don't think any of you believe the shit you say.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 11:21 AM

Clippers not better than the Raptors.

Normally I would agree that the west was much better than the east but that wasn't true this year. From seeds 4-8 the west was no better than the east. The Cavs and Raptors are both top 5 teams.

It is true that the vast majority of the best individual players play in the west though but team wise it's not as unbalanced as it was in the past.

Clippers would be clear favorites over Raptors in a playoff series...especially with how the Raptors have played in the playoffs so far. I'm sorry, but if you can get within 2 games of the NBA finals with your two best offensive players shooting sub 50% TS on near 30% usage rates...the conference sucks. End of story.

Again, read my post...I'm talking about long stretches...not a year here and there.

By and large over the last near 2 decades....the West has been clearly a better conference with better players and better teas.

As for this year...I don't see a ton of balance for what really matters. 3 of the 4 best teams are in the West...and if the Clippers had been healthy...it would have been 4 of the 5 best.

And the problem is best expressed with the Cavs and Spurs this year. Spurs have a great regular season...all time great and win 67 games. Cavs have a mediocre regular season...nothing special at all...win 10 games less.

Spurs play the Thunder in round 2 and Cavs play the Hawks? Are you actually arguing that is the system you want? Really?

Disaprine

05-27-2016, 11:26 AM

http://s13.postimg.org/tczz5dh5j/asdasd.jpg

longtime lurker

05-27-2016, 11:37 AM

East saved Lebrons legacy. Imagine if he was in the west, he'd only have 2 finals appearances and probably would've lost both. 0/2 is even worse than 2/7 :lol

This really needs to be taken into context when looking at Lebron's accomplishments. Not to mention for 5 years he teamed up with the best players in the conference as well. Silver needs to just have the top 16 teams get into the playoffs. The Eastern playoffs are a bore.

Young X

05-27-2016, 11:44 AM

Clippers would be clear favorites over Raptors in a playoff series...especially with how the Raptors have played in the playoffs so far. I'm sorry, but if you can get within 2 games of the NBA finals with your two best offensive players shooting sub 50% TS on near 30% usage rates...the conference sucks. End of story.

Again, read my post...I'm talking about long stretches...not a year here and there.

By and large over the last near 2 decades....the West has been clearly a better conference with better players and better teas.

As for this year...I don't see a ton of balance for what really matters. 3 of the 4 best teams are in the West...and if the Clippers had been healthy...it would have been 4 of the 5 best.

And the problem is best expressed with the Cavs and Spurs this year. Spurs have a great regular season...all time great and win 67 games. Cavs have a mediocre regular season...nothing special at all...win 10 games less.

Spurs play the Thunder in round 2 and Cavs play the Hawks? Are you actually arguing that is the system you want? Really?Clippers were never once healthy this year so it's irrelevent. Raptors are better than them.

The Raptors had the 4th best record in the league and have proven how good they are by going to the conference finals and taking 2 games from Cleveland.

And no, I definitely agree with you in general. It's just that this year in particular, the west wasn't that much stronger than the east is. Just more top heavy.

If you did a best 16 team format this year, I wonder how much of a difference it would really make. Does anybody have the list?

guy

05-27-2016, 11:51 AM

Read my post again.

1. I said over long stretches...not 1 year

2. If 4 of the 5 best teams in the league are in one conference...it's not remotely balanced for the playoffs

3. You think it's anything even approaching balance when a 67 win Spurs team has to play this Thunder team in round 2 when the cavs got to play the Hawks? Like...seriously? You are actually arguing that it makes sense for a team that won 10 more regular season games should face a far tougher road to the finals? Like...I don't think any of you believe the shit you say.

I like conferences because of the rivalries, less travel in between games meaning less time in between games, etc. I think we've been through this before so we don't really need to get into it again.

Do you really think that the champions of the last 15-20 years is drastically different if they adopted the no conference structure? Cause it wouldn't be. The "tougher road to the finals" is mostly bullshit. If you're the best in the league, you're most likely going to win it all regardless of the road you had to take. There's no evidence that suggests that teams win the championship are more likely to have an easier road to the finals then their finals opponent.

It is amazing how much playing in the East has helped Lebron's legacy from that standpoint.

Yes, and that's a different story altogether and mainly because people are f*cking idiots. He shouldn't get this notable "extra credit" for getting teams to the finals and losing. This never happened with any other player before him. The overrating of Lebron's accomplishments though is not enough for me to want to change the system.

Hey Yo

05-27-2016, 12:02 PM

Clippers would be clear favorites over Raptors in a playoff series...especially with how the Raptors have played in the playoffs so far. I'm sorry, but if you can get within 2 games of the NBA finals with your two best offensive players shooting sub 50% TS on near 30% usage rates...the conference sucks. End of story.

Again, read my post...I'm talking about long stretches...not a year here and there.

By and large over the last near 2 decades....the West has been clearly a better conference with better players and better teas.

As for this year...I don't see a ton of balance for what really matters. 3 of the 4 best teams are in the West...and if the Clippers had been healthy...it would have been 4 of the 5 best.

And the problem is best expressed with the Cavs and Spurs this year. Spurs have a great regular season...all time great and win 67 games. Cavs have a mediocre regular season...nothing special at all...win 10 games less.

Spurs play the Thunder in round 2 and Cavs play the Hawks? Are you actually arguing that is the system you want? Really?
So what's that say about the Cavs or Golden St for that matter last year? Cavs up 2-1 in the series and was 2 games from winning the title with mostly backups making up the starting 5?

Not sure why you're still crying over the makeup of the playoffs. The format will never change. There's always going to be an Eastern and Western conference.

ShawkFactory

05-27-2016, 12:05 PM

East saved Lebrons legacy. Imagine if he was in the west, he'd only have 2 finals appearances and probably would've lost both. 0/2 is even worse than 2/7 :lol
Why? Wouldn't he be playing a weak east team?

tpols

05-27-2016, 12:06 PM

If you're the best in the league, you're most likely going to win it all regardless of the road you had to take.

thats just not true at all ...

when the top 4 teams play each other (OKC, SAS, GSW, CLE) it's pretty much a toss up between whose gonna win.

So if one team, like the Spurs, have to go through all three in a row they are not "most likely going to win it regardless".. in fact their chances at winning are dramatically reduced from if they had to face just one of the the four.

you're completely ignoring all logic with statements like this.

Hey Yo

05-27-2016, 12:09 PM

Why? Wouldn't he be playing a weak east team?
That's what Kobe stans don't understand. If the East is shit, then what's that say about Kobe's 2 titles??

scuzzy

05-27-2016, 12:15 PM

Lebron has a career high better winning % against Western teams than Eastern :cheers:

guy

05-27-2016, 12:26 PM

thats just not true at all ...

when the top 4 teams play each other (OKC, SAS, GSW, CLE) it's pretty much a toss up between whose gonna win.

So if one team, like the Spurs, have to go through all three in a row they are not "most likely going to win it regardless".. in fact their chances at winning are dramatically reduced from if they had to face just one of the the four.

you're completely ignoring all logic with statements like this.

Completely disagree. A toss-up? I think you're just really overstating how close these teams are to each other. The Thunder were always a flawed team until these playoffs due to their emphasis on ISO. They seem like they've corrected themselves, but only now. Cavs suffered from the same thing to a lesser degree and now they've seem like they've corrected themselves. Spurs were never really a match for the Warriors, and they showed they weren't for the Thunder either.

Again, what championships change if it made such a difference? The West has been the better conference, and they've still won the majority of the titles post-Jordan. But in the seasons the East won, they all still seemed to be the best team in the league.

riseagainst

05-27-2016, 12:30 PM

Waiting till your 2nd post to work Lebron or Kobe into this? Okay, proceed.

no need. you did it for him.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 12:46 PM

So what's that say about the Cavs or Golden St for that matter last year? Cavs up 2-1 in the series and was 2 games from winning the title with mostly backups making up the starting 5?

Not sure why you're still crying over the makeup of the playoffs. The format will never change. There's always going to be an Eastern and Western conference.

It says a lot.

The Warriors faced and absurdly easy road to the title last year and were very fortunate the Cavs weren't at full strength.

Why can't we all just be honest and admit that?

It doesn't mean the Warriors are any less of champions or less deserving, but to pretend like they weren't a bit fortunate in the playoffs last year is just ignoring reality.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 12:49 PM

Clippers were never once healthy this year so it's irrelevent. Raptors are better than them.

The Raptors had the 4th best record in the league and have proven how good they are by going to the conference finals and taking 2 games from Cleveland.

And no, I definitely agree with you in general. It's just that this year in particular, the west wasn't that much stronger than the east is. Just more top heavy.

If you did a best 16 team format this year, I wonder how much of a difference it would really make. Does anybody have the list?

I meant healthy like they were before Paul's injury. I don't see how you wouldn't favor that team over this Raptors team in a 7 game series. Just Paul alone makes the Clippers favorites.

This year?

Definitely would have OKC, Spurs, Warriors, and Cavs as the final 4. Thunder would beat the Raptors in the 4/5 matchup in round 2.

But again, it's not just about that...it's about a system that somehow rewards a Cavs team that won 10 less games significantly more than a 67 win Spurs team.

Again, we all know that isn't remotely fair...so why have a system you know is flawed?

TheCorporation

05-27-2016, 12:51 PM

In before East wins Championship.

GOTTEM

tpols

05-27-2016, 12:54 PM

Completely disagree. A toss-up? I think you're just really overstating how close these teams are to each other. The Thunder were always a flawed team until these playoffs due to their emphasis on ISO. They seem like they've corrected themselves, but only now. Cavs suffered from the same thing to a lesser degree and now they've seem like they've corrected themselves. Spurs were never really a match for the Warriors, and they showed they weren't for the Thunder either.

How are those teams not close to each other?

like... what?

You're being very ignorant about the Spurs.. literally one possesion goes their way at the end of game two.. and based on the other results theyre up 3-0 including a massive shellacking in that first game. In series as close as that, it came down to one or two possesions at the end.. one or two balls going either way in a tough 6 game series can decide the outcome.. but the Spurs couldnt hang with the Thunder?

If you replayed that series 100 times the Spurs probably win it at least 45 times. After game one? Consensus would probably be 70 times. there's a lot of fortune in basketball and those top 4 teams are very much neck and neck.

How you're insinuating that theres some sizeable gap thats even worth mentioning between those teams is straight mind bottling.

ShawkFactory

05-27-2016, 12:57 PM

How are those teams not close to each other?

like... what?

You're being very ignorant about the Spurs.. literally one possesion goes their way at the end of game two.. and based on the other results theyre up 3-0 including a massive shellacking in that first game. In series as close as that, it came down to one or two possesions at the end.. one or two balls going either way in a tough 6 game series can decide the outcome.. but the Spurs couldnt hang with the Thunder?

If you replayed that series 100 times the Spurs probably win it at least 45 times. After game one? Consensus would probably be 70 times. there's a lot of fortune in basketball and those top 4 teams are very much neck and neck.

How you're insinuating that theres some sizeable gap thats even worth mentioning between those teams is straight mind bottling.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9a/53/ed/9a53eda6b71392d3c0840ed580ca2002.jpg

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 12:58 PM

I like conferences because of the rivalries, less travel in between games meaning less time in between games, etc. I think we've been through this before so we don't really need to get into it again.

Do you really think that the champions of the last 15-20 years is drastically different if they adopted the no conference structure? Cause it wouldn't be. The "tougher road to the finals" is mostly bullshit. If you're the best in the league, you're most likely going to win it all regardless of the road you had to take. There's no evidence that suggests that teams win the championship are more likely to have an easier road to the finals then their finals opponent.

Yes, and that's a different story altogether and mainly because people are f*cking idiots. He shouldn't get this notable "extra credit" for getting teams to the finals and losing. This never happened with any other player before him. The overrating of Lebron's accomplishments though is not enough for me to want to change the system.

Conference rivalries essentially do not exist anymore...I can't think of one compelling current "rivalry"

Time between games? The first two rounds have an absurd amount of time in between games already. You wouldn't have to change a damn thing on time between games.

The only thing that would legit change is the start times for a handful of games in rounds 1 and 2...which would be just not big deal at all.

I really disagree with your statement that the best team always wins. These matchups, especially with the elite teams, are not 90/10 odds one team wins.

Take the Thunder/Spurs series...that was probably a 55/45 type series...a few plays go differently and we could be watching Warriors/Spurs...with a very reasonable chance the Spurs win the title.

Even worse for your argument...if you switched the Cavs and Spurs...we know for sure the Spurs are making the finals and at best there is a 40% chance the Cavs knock off both the Thunder and Warriors.

Just think about it mathematically...Even if you said the Cavs were 60% to win against the Thunder and then 60% to beat the Warriors...which is obviously not even accurate, but lets pretend it is.

That would give the Cavs only a 36% chance to make the finals. If they then had to play Spurs in the finals...and we give them another 60% chance...which is again way too high...

You are looking at a 21.6% chance the Cavs get through the Thunder, Warriors, and then Spurs in the finals.

Conversely, the Cavs have a near 100% chance to win rounds 1 and 2 in the East...and then at least an 80% chance to beat the raptors.

So lets say the Cavs are 100% to beat the Hawks, 80% to beat the Raptors, and then 60% against the finals team they play.

That gives them a 48% chance to win the title.

Think about that...their odds more than double just because of the conference they play.

So...just no...the best team does not always win and the path to the title is anything but balanced.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 01:01 PM

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 01:07 PM

And yet Golden State had a cakewalk to the ECF, and now can't beat a team they won almost twenty more games than :lol

Western Conference full of no-defense playing regular season warriors tbh. There really wasn't much difference in quality between the two conferences this season. Golden State and San Antonio have shown they weren't nearly as good as people thought, and if Toronto and Miami had been healthy, they would've 3 teams almost on that level, and far more depth. lol @ getting to play the Rockets then the Blazers and then pretending your conference is oh-so-tough.

Quite even this year imo, if not for the injuries.

That is the Warriors path...the Thunder's has been much more difficult. And again, it's still much harder than the Cavs path. And the Spurs are out because they had a much harder path.

Like...why do you people want a system that rewards teams just for their location this much? My god...it's 2016.

So...your argument is that the Warriors and Spurs just aren't that good? And the Raptors and Heat are on the level?

Okay...move along please.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 01:07 PM

Conference rivalries essentially do not exist anymore...I can't think of one compelling current "rivalry"

Time between games? The first two rounds have an absurd amount of time in between games already. You wouldn't have to change a damn thing on time between games.

The only thing that would legit change is the start times for a handful of games in rounds 1 and 2...which would be just not big deal at all.

I really disagree with your statement that the best team always wins. These matchups, especially with the elite teams, are not 90/10 odds one team wins.

Take the Thunder/Spurs series...that was probably a 55/45 type series...a few plays go differently and we could be watching Warriors/Spurs...with a very reasonable chance the Spurs win the title.

Even worse for your argument...if you switched the Cavs and Spurs...we know for sure the Spurs are making the finals and at best there is a 40% chance the Cavs knock off both the Thunder and Warriors.

Just think about it mathematically...Even if you said the Cavs were 60% to win against the Thunder and then 60% to beat the Warriors...which is obviously not even accurate, but lets pretend it is.

That would give the Cavs only a 36% chance to make the finals. If they then had to play Spurs in the finals...and we give them another 60% chance...which is again way too high...

You are looking at a 21.6% chance the Cavs get through the Thunder, Warriors, and then Spurs in the finals.

Conversely, the Cavs have a near 100% chance to win rounds 1 and 2 in the East...and then at least an 80% chance to beat the raptors.

So lets say the Cavs are 100% to beat the Hawks, 80% to beat the Raptors, and then 60% against the finals team they play.

That gives them a 48% chance to win the title.

Think about that...their odds more than double just because of the conference they play.

So...just no...the best team does not always win and the path to the title is anything but balanced.
For some teams (Golden State), yes, but not for others. Miami played 12 or 13 consecutive games on alternate days these playoffs; and it wasn't just because their series went 7.

Western teams all effectively had first round byes this season. Golden State had two. Does that not make a difference?

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 01:11 PM

For some teams (Golden State), yes, but not for others. Miami played 12 or 13 consecutive games on alternate days these playoffs; and it wasn't just because their series went 7.

Western teams all effectively had first round byes this season. Golden State had two. Does that not make a difference?

The time between games simply would not change at all on the whole. That was my point. Of course there are going to be some series that have more time off than others to make the schedule work...which is what happens now.

Yes, it matters. It all matters.

However, they earned that by having the best record of all time.

The Cavs didn't earn shit....I'll ask again.

Why do you think it's fair for a team that won 10 more games in the regular season to have to play a much harder playoff schedule?

tpols

05-27-2016, 01:13 PM

And yet Golden State had a cakewalk to the ECF, and now can't beat a team they won almost twenty more games than :lol

Western Conference full of no-defense playing regular season warriors tbh. There really wasn't much difference in quality between the two conferences this season. Golden State and San Antonio have shown they weren't nearly as good as people thought, and if Toronto and Miami had been healthy, they would've 3 teams almost on that level, and far more depth. lol @ getting to play the Rockets then the Blazers and then pretending your conference is oh-so-tough.

Quite even this year imo, if not for the injuries.

no, it just shows that star power matters more in the playoffs. Kobe-Shaq Lakers used to win less games than the early 00s Spurs. No one was calling the Spurs out when they faced a team that good though, for obvious reasons. You kinda throw regular season record out in the playoffs and you just have your guys and whatever matchups in front of them.

I almost spit my drink out at a healthy toronto or miami being on GSW or SAS level though .. :lol

They WERE healthy in the first round and they both looked like straight ass. holy shit with that one.

guy

05-27-2016, 01:14 PM

How are those teams not close to each other?

like... what?

You're being very ignorant about the Spurs.. literally one possesion goes their way at the end of game two.. and based on the other results theyre up 3-0 including a massive shellacking in that first game. In series as close as that, it came down to one or two possesions at the end.. one or two balls going either way in a tough 6 game series can decide the outcome.. but the Spurs couldnt hang with the Thunder?

If you replayed that series 100 times the Spurs probably win it at least 45 times. After game one? Consensus would probably be 70 times. there's a lot of fortune in basketball and those top 4 teams are very much neck and neck.

How you're insinuating that theres some sizeable gap thats even worth mentioning between those teams is straight mind bottling.

I never said it wasn't close. But to say its a toss-up is overstating how close it is. After game 3 of the Spurs/Thunder series, the Thunder clearly looked like the better team.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 01:15 PM

That is the Warriors path...the Thunder's has been much more difficult.

So...your argument is that the Warriors and Spurs just aren't that good? And the Raptors and Heat are on the level?

Okay...move along please.
Well, the Thunder weren't all that good, all season; playoffs is a different game, and they are winning, despite having the most difficult path.

If we're going off the regular season, then Toronto won more games than OKC did; OKC are beating GS, and beat SAS, so why would they not be on a similar level/be able to compete. They took two games off the Cavs without their best playoff performer, and Miami took them to 7 missing 2 of their 3 best players.

Your argument amounts to little more than: "waaa, it's unfair, waaaa." The East has been shit in the past, but isn't really this season; they had 4 more than decent teams (Hornets and aforementioned 3). Hornets were one of the best teams in the league post all-star break; Heat, Raptors, Celtics were all ravaged by injury. Golden State were lucky enough to have such an easy path to the ECF that they could afford to rest their best player for most of the first 2 rounds . And now they can't even beat an OKC team that has done nothing to prove itself anything special. If your arguments were valid then we'd expect OKC to cruise to victory against the Cavs, in 4 or 5 games--because after all, the latter lost as many games to the Raptors as OKC did to the Spurs (and perhaps the Warriors too).

Young X

05-27-2016, 01:17 PM

I meant healthy like they were before Paul's injury. I don't see how you wouldn't favor that team over this Raptors team in a 7 game series. Just Paul alone makes the Clippers favorites.

This year?

Definitely would have OKC, Spurs, Warriors, and Cavs as the final 4. Thunder would beat the Raptors in the 4/5 matchup in round 2.

But again, it's not just about that...it's about a system that somehow rewards a Cavs team that won 10 less games significantly more than a 67 win Spurs team.

Again, we all know that isn't remotely fair...so why have a system you know is flawed?You're underrating the Raptors but you're right. The best teams should face the best teams. It's not fair that OKC and the Spurs had to battle eachother while the Cavs got to face the Hawks.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 01:19 PM

Well, the Thunder weren't all that good, all season; playoffs is a different game, and they are winning, despite having the most difficult path.

If we're going off the regular season, then Toronto won more games than OKC did; OKC are beating GS, and beat SAS, so why would they not be on a similar level/be able to compete. They took two games off the Cavs without their best playoff performer, and Miami took them to 7 missing 2 of their 3 best players.

Your argument amounts to little more than: "waaa, it's unfair, waaaa." The East has been shit in the past, but isn't really this season; they had 4 more than decent teams (Hornets and aforementioned 3). Hornets were one of the best teams in the league post all-star break; Heat, Raptors, Celtics were all ravaged by injury. Golden State were lucky enough to have such an easy path to the ECF that they could afford to rest their best player for most of the first 2 rounds . And now they can't even beat an OKC team that has done nothing to prove itself anything special. If your arguments were valid then we'd expect OKC to cruise to victory against the Cavs, in 4 or 5 games--because after all, the latter lost as many games to the Raptors as OKC did to the Spurs (and perhaps the Warriors too).

My argument is way more than that, but again...you are the one supporting an inherently flawed system that you know to produce unfair results.

Basketball doesn't work like the above....matchups dictate things and so does simple odds.

I'm not going to take the time to explain both to you...see one of my above posts for odds and math work.

If you don't think having to beat better teams on the path to the finals makes it more difficult to win the title...you simply don't live in reality.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 01:19 PM

no, it just shows that star power matters more in the playoffs. Kobe-Shaq Lakers used to win less games than the early 00s Spurs. No one was calling the Spurs out when they faced a team that good though, for obvious reasons. You kinda throw regular season record out in the playoffs and you just have your guys and whatever matchups in front of them.

I almost spit my drink out at a healthy toronto or miami being on GSW or SAS level though .. :lol

They WERE healthy in the first round and they both looked like straight ass. holy shit with that one.
Yeah, that's just scrappy Eastern Conference playoff basketball. And I think you'll find that Miami set scoring playoff records in their first two games. And Toronto made the Cavs look pretty shit in their two home games as well--I guess the Cavs must be shit as well then, eh?

So now your argument is that SAS and GSW don't have the star power for the playoffs? Well, in that case, they aren't that good then, are they?

Anyway, there's no point arguing with you, as you're a pathetic Kobe stan with a childish anti-Lebron agenda that prevents any kind of clear or logical thinking.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 01:21 PM

You're underrating the Raptors but you're right. The best teams should face the best teams. It's not fair that OKC and the Spurs had to battle eachother while the Cavs got to face the Hawks.

I don't see how I'm under-rating them...their two best players are shooting sub 50% TS in the playoffs on the whole and have looked terrible every other game it seems.

If they were playing better I'd rate them as such. If they were playing at an optimal level it would be a different story as they have a quality team that can be dangerous, but we can't just ignore how they are playing.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 01:23 PM

Yeah, that's just scrappy Eastern Conference playoff basketball. And I think you'll find that Miami set scoring playoff records in their first two games. And Toronto made the Cavs look pretty shit in their two home games as well--I guess the Cavs must be shit as well then, eh?

So now your argument is that SAS and GSW don't have the star power for the playoffs? Well, in that case, they aren't that good then, are they?

Anyway, there's no point arguing with you, as you're a pathetic Kobe stan with a childish anti-Lebron agenda that prevents any kind of clear or logical thinking.

You are the one not providing logic.

I'll ask again...why do you think a 67 win team should face a tougher road to the finals than a 57 win team?

Please answer....because this whole thing basically boils down to that.

If you think that isn't right..you agree with me. If you think that is right...you have a lot of explaining as to why.

We'll wait...

guy

05-27-2016, 01:23 PM

Conference rivalries essentially do not exist anymore...I can't think of one compelling current "rivalry"

Time between games? The first two rounds have an absurd amount of time in between games already. You wouldn't have to change a damn thing on time between games.

The only thing that would legit change is the start times for a handful of games in rounds 1 and 2...which would be just not big deal at all.

I really disagree with your statement that the best team always wins. These matchups, especially with the elite teams, are not 90/10 odds one team wins.

Take the Thunder/Spurs series...that was probably a 55/45 type series...a few plays go differently and we could be watching Warriors/Spurs...with a very reasonable chance the Spurs win the title.

Even worse for your argument...if you switched the Cavs and Spurs...we know for sure the Spurs are making the finals and at best there is a 40% chance the Cavs knock off both the Thunder and Warriors.

Just think about it mathematically...Even if you said the Cavs were 60% to win against the Thunder and then 60% to beat the Warriors...which is obviously not even accurate, but lets pretend it is.

That would give the Cavs only a 36% chance to make the finals. If they then had to play Spurs in the finals...and we give them another 60% chance...which is again way too high...

You are looking at a 21.6% chance the Cavs get through the Thunder, Warriors, and then Spurs in the finals.

Conversely, the Cavs have a near 100% chance to win rounds 1 and 2 in the East...and then at least an 80% chance to beat the raptors.

So lets say the Cavs are 100% to beat the Hawks, 80% to beat the Raptors, and then 60% against the finals team they play.

That gives them a 48% chance to win the title.

Think about that...their odds more than double just because of the conference they play.

So...just no...the best team does not always win and the path to the title is anything but balanced.

The majority of the playoffs, time between games has been 1 day. This whole week has basically been 1 game every other day in each series. If teams had to fly cross country when they travel, that's easily at least 2 days in between. On top of that, they have to plan for this beforehand not knowing who's playing who, so even if the teams were in close proximity to each other, they would still have it this way. And maybe they just wouldn't have to make this adjustment, but who knows what that cause i.e. maybe more injuries, worse quality basketball, etc. The playoffs could easily go into July if this is the case.

Again, who is the best team that did not win for something other than injury? You can't find many, if any, examples.

There's a reason Lebron is 2/6. Regardless of how easy his road was to the Finals, it didn't matter cause once they got there the opponent was better then he and his team.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 01:27 PM

The majority of time between games has been 2 days. This whole week has basically been 1 game every 2 days in each series. If teams had to fly cross country when they travel, that's easily 3 days in between. On top of that, they have to plan for this beforehand not knowing who's playing who, so even if the teams were in close proximity to each other, they would still have it this way. And maybe they just wouldn't have to make this adjustment, but who knows what that cause i.e. maybe more injuries, worse quality basketball, etc. The playoffs could easily go into July if this is the case.

Again, who is the best team that did not win for something other than injury? You can't find many examples.

There's a reason Lebron is 2/6. Regardless of how easy his road was to the Finals, it didn't matter cause once they got there the opponent was better then he and his team.

What? You don't have to take 3 days off just because of a long flight. Like...what? This just isn't true.

Again, the first 2 rounds are already absurdly spaced out to begin with. This simply isn't changing because a couple flights are 2 hours longer.

We don't know what teams would have won or could have won...so it's an unfair question.

What we do know, however, is that the odds of certain teams winning the title are greater or worse based on the path to the title.

So, like I keep pointing out...the Spurs would have had to beat the Thunder, Warriors, and then Cavs.

The Cavs have to beat the Hawks, Raptors, and then Warriors/Thunder/Spurs in this hypothetical.

On the path alone...it's at least a 25% difference in odds between the two teams if they are equals.

And that is a joke...sorry.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 01:28 PM

My argument is way more than that, but again...you are the one supporting an inherently flawed system that you know to produce unfair results.

Basketball doesn't work like the above....matchups dictate things and so does simple odds.

I'm not going to take the time to explain both to you...see one of my above posts for odds and math work.

If you don't think having to beat better teams on the path to the finals makes it more difficult to win the title...you simply don't live in reality.
I didn't say that, but nothing's perfect. OKC are showing that seedings and regular season wins don't necessarily determine playoff quality either. You could get a lower seed and an easier path to the finals, quite easily.

Yes, it's about matchups. That's why I think Miami, for example, if healthy, would've had a decent chance of beating OKC (who would really struggle to score), but would've been thrashed by SAS, even though the former beat the latter. Again, you say it's about matchups, but have no problem claiming the western teams to be unequivocally better, in all circumstances: that is a contradiction. Those Eastern teams would be competitive against OKC, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't manage to win two games, like SAS, and GSW.

Raptors won more games than OKC. They would still be a higher seed in your ideal system.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 01:31 PM

You are the one not providing logic.

I'll ask again...why do you think a 67 win team should face a tougher road to the finals than a 57 win team?

Please answer....because this whole thing basically boils down to that.

If you think that isn't right..you agree with me. If you think that is right...you have a lot of explaining as to why.

We'll wait...
Because you can't prevent it, that's why. Luck always plays a role in these things, whether fair or not.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 01:32 PM

I didn't say that, but nothing's perfect. OKC are showing that seedings and regular season wins don't necessarily determine playoff quality either. You could get a lower seed and an easier path to the finals, quite easily.

Yes, it's about matchups. That's why I think Miami, for example, if healthy, would've had a decent chance of beating OKC (who would really struggle to score), but would've been thrashed by SAS, even though the former beat the latter. Again, you say it's about matchups, but have no problem claiming the western teams to be unequivocally better, in all circumstances: that is a contradiction. Those Eastern teams would be competitive against OKC, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't manage to win two games, like SAS, and GSW.

Raptors won more games than OKC. They would still be a higher seed in your ideal system.

See...this is where the straw men come in.

Did I say my way is perfect? Nope, I said it's more fair...which you just conceded...thank you.

Of course the Raptors would deserve a higher seed...I'm not saying they shouldn't. So if the Raptors, as the 4 seed, beat the 5th seeded Thunder in round 2...nobody could say a damn thing.

But this way...it's obviously much different when you have Spurs losing in round 2 and the Raptors winning just because of team location.

That is the difference....the fair way...everything is earned and nobody has a reason to complain.

This way....you get 2 of the 4 best teams playing in round based on location...while Cavs and Raptors play far worse teams....even though the Spurs finished with a much better record.

I'm just not sure how or why you guys continue to want to defend a system that does that.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 01:33 PM

Because you can't prevent it, that's why. Luck always plays a role in these things, whether fair or not.

Yes you can.

How does seeding 1 through 16 not prevent that?

Please explain.

Again, it's never perfect as a great team could suffer injuries in the regular season...etc., but on the whole it's much more fair.

The burden is no "perfect"...you don't just keep a shit system because the new system isn't "perfect"...the question is whether it's more fair and better. Not whether or not it's perfect...LOL

guy

05-27-2016, 01:37 PM

What? You don't have to take 3 days off just because of a long flight. Like...what? This just isn't true.

Again, the first 2 rounds are already absurdly spaced out to begin with. This simply isn't changing because a couple flights are 2 hours longer.

We don't know what teams would have won or could have won...so it's an unfair question.

What we do know, however, is that the odds of certain teams winning the title are greater or worse based on the path to the title.

So, like I keep pointing out...the Spurs would have had to beat the Thunder, Warriors, and then Cavs.

The Cavs have to beat the Hawks, Raptors, and then Warriors/Thunder/Spurs in this hypothetical.

On the path alone...it's at least a 25% difference in odds between the two teams if they are equals.

And that is a joke...sorry.

I meant to say 2 days in between. I edited my post.

You have such a strong conviction about this, but its not fair for you to speculate if it would actually make a notable difference (i.e. different champion) in any scenario from the past?

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

05-27-2016, 01:38 PM

OKC facing the Spurs and Warriors versus the Cavs facing Atlanta and Toronto...

And posters legit think there's NO disparity between conferences? :oldlol:

Dresta

05-27-2016, 01:50 PM

Yes you can.

How does seeding 1 through 16 not prevent that?

Please explain.

Again, it's never perfect as a great team could suffer injuries in the regular season...etc., but on the whole it's much more fair.

The burden is no "perfect"...you don't just keep a shit system because the new system isn't "perfect"...the question is whether it's more fair and better. Not whether or not it's perfect...LOL
1-16 seeding would have had the Raptors above OKC. I thought you said OKC were a better team? Whoever was matched against Raptors would have an easier team to play than the team seeded below them. Not hard really, is it. There would be many such instances where getting a lower seed would get you more favourable match-ups.

You don't overhaul a long-established system because of its perceived unfairness when there would be plenty of unfairness in the new system also. Tinker and you will bring more changes, perhaps shortening the season, and then the record books become more or less invalid (or "unfair"), and then you might as well just make a new league and start again. The current system of having Conferences has lasted for 6 decades, so it evidently isn't that bad. If it's so easy in the East then eventually players will shift to the East and it will rebalance.

tpols

05-27-2016, 01:51 PM

Yeah, that's just scrappy Eastern Conference playoff basketball.

is that what they call it?

Playing like shit is scrappy lmao.

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/jTYrejoJ8jY/mqdefault.jpg

guy

05-27-2016, 01:57 PM

OKC facing the Spurs and Warriors versus the Cavs facing Atlanta and Toronto...

And posters legit think there's NO disparity between conferences? :oldlol:

There's a disparity between the top teams in each conference. No one can deny that. Overall though, the W-L evidence points to there not being much of a difference this year at least.

guy

05-27-2016, 02:00 PM

1-16 seeding would have had the Raptors above OKC. I thought you said OKC were a better team? Whoever was matched against Raptors would have an easier team to play than the team seeded below them. Not hard really, is it. There would be many such instances where getting a lower seed would get you more favourable match-ups.

You don't overhaul a long-established system because of its perceived unfairness when there would be plenty of unfairness in the new system also. Tinker and you will bring more changes, perhaps shortening the season, and then the record books become more or less invalid (or "unfair"), and then you might as well just make a new league and start again. The current system of having Conferences has lasted for 6 decades, so it evidently isn't that bad. If it's so easy in the East then eventually players will shift to the East and it will rebalance.

This. If anything should be done to address this, I'm sure they can think of a way to address this through the draft. I also wouldn't be against maybe just giving the stronger conference by W-L Finals team home court advantage (wouldn't like it but its much better then just overhauling the system completely.)

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 02:00 PM

1-16 seeding would have had the Raptors above OKC. I thought you said OKC were a better team? Whoever was matched against Raptors would have an easier team to play than the team seeded below them. Not hard really, is it. There would be many such instances where getting a lower seed would get you more favourable match-ups.

You don't overhaul a long-established system because of its perceived unfairness when there would be plenty of unfairness in the new system also. Tinker and you will bring more changes, perhaps shortening the season, and then the record books become more or less invalid (or "unfair"), and then you might as well just make a new league and start again. The current system of having Conferences has lasted for 6 decades, so it evidently isn't that bad. If it's so easy in the East then eventually players will shift to the East and it will rebalance.

Why is this hard to understand?

1. OKC is clearly a better team in terms of winning playoff series than the Raptors

2. The Raptors would deserve to be seeded ahead of the Thunder

3. This isn't about "perceived fairness"...it is objectively unfair. There is absolutely nothing about this that is perceived...it is real. No matter how much you pretend it isn't....that doesn't change reality.

ShawkFactory

05-27-2016, 02:01 PM

is that what they call it?

Playing like shit is scrappy lmao.

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/jTYrejoJ8jY/mqdefault.jpg
I think it's the opposite.

Scrappy is when you aren't actually that good but you play tough and you play well.

tpols

05-27-2016, 02:03 PM

Why is this hard to understand?

1. OKC is clearly a better team in terms of winning playoff series than the Raptors

2. The Raptors would deserve to be seeded ahead of the Thunder

3. This isn't about "perceived fairness"...it is objectively unfair. There is absolutely nothing about this that is perceived...it is real. No matter how much you pretend it isn't....that doesn't change reality.

you're arguing with a guy who thinks the Raptors, who were one blown quarter away from getting beat by an 8 seed, and the Heat who looked like shit against the Hornets and barely eeked it out, are on the level of a SAS or GSW.

There's nothing you can say to dissuade someone that is that far gone.

tpols

05-27-2016, 02:04 PM

I think it's the opposite.

Scrappy is when you aren't actually that good but you play tough and you play well.

the series out west have been just as physical.. its just, theyre much better at putting the ball in the basket.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 02:04 PM

I meant to say 2 days in between. I edited my post.

You have such a strong conviction about this, but its not fair for you to speculate if it would actually make a notable difference (i.e. different champion) in any scenario from the past?

This portrays that the only reason to change would be for the champion. Which I don't agree with actually.

Even if someone said the champion would never change...I would still want to watch the best teams play each other as deeply in the playoffs as possible if that is what the fair system dictated.

In reality...of course I have a strong conviction about this.

I understand logic and math. And simply put...you aren't getting the same champion each year...when if you switched two contending teams...there is at least a 25% disparity in chance to win the title...and that is just this year.

It may not matter this year, but math always wins out in the end. And over time...that edge matters...and my guess is that it matters more than you and other comprehend.

Like tpols was saying...the margins are often not that big...and the difference from having to win two series as basic coinflips just to make the finals vs being overwhelming favorites in two series to make the finals simply matters a lot.

I don't see how one can deny this.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 02:06 PM

is that what they call it?

Playing like shit is scrappy lmao.

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/jTYrejoJ8jY/mqdefault.jpg

Oh shut up moron. Go watch the 90s Eastern Conference Bulls/Knicks, Heat/Knicks, Bulls/Heat series: they were never pretty, and they were all very good teams. Playing scrappy and physical makes the game ugly. Look how ugly Curry's game has become as soon as a team has got in the way of GS free-flowing style of play (oh yeah, but he's "injured" :oldlol: ). Likewise All-NBA guys like Klay Thompson and Draymond Green suddenly look pretty garbage when they play in a series against a team that can slow shit down and take them out of their comfort zone. And honestly, OKC don't even play particularly good defense.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 02:08 PM

Why is this hard to understand?

1. OKC is clearly a better team in terms of winning playoff series than the Raptors

2. The Raptors would deserve to be seeded ahead of the Thunder

3. This isn't about "perceived fairness"...it is objectively unfair. There is absolutely nothing about this that is perceived...it is real. No matter how much you pretend it isn't....that doesn't change reality.
lol, there's no such thing as "objective" unfairness.

What you think is and isn't fair is a mere preference, and thus subjective.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 02:10 PM

Oh shut up moron. Go watch the 90s Eastern Conference Bulls/Knicks, Heat/Knicks, Bulls/Heat series: they were never pretty, and they were all very good teams. Playing scrappy and physical makes the game ugly. Look how ugly Curry's game has become as soon as a team has got in the way of GS free-flowing style of play (oh yeah, but he's "injured" :oldlol: ). Likewise All-NBA guys like Klay Thompson and Draymond Green suddenly look pretty garbage when they play in a series against a team that can slow shit down and take them out of their comfort zone. And honestly, OKC don't even play particularly good defense.

Yea...those teams were legit good and how often really good players.

There is just nothing of note about the East this year other than the Cavs...nothing.

And on the whole....it's been like that for nearly 2 decades. You keep saying it will balance out, but it hasn't...and it doesn't seem to....especially if Durant stays put.

The Lakers will be back soon enough...the Jazz are coming...the Pels have one of the best players...he Blazers have a promising future...the Warriors are all time good...the Spurs have two of the best players in the league and an all time coach...the Wolves are going to be far better moving forward.

The East? Meh...more of the same if the Celtics don't land something of note.

I hope it does balance out, but I'm still confused as to why we don't just balance it for the league.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 02:12 PM

lol, there's no such thing as "objective" unfairness.

What you think is and isn't fair is a mere preference, and thus subjective.

False.

It is objectively unfair that a 67 win team has to play a 55 win team in round 2..while a 57 win team gets to play a 48 win team.

And again, this didn't happen by a fluke or random happening...the system is designed this way.

If that isn't "unfair"....I don't know what language you are speaking.

miggyme1

05-27-2016, 02:13 PM

1-16 is prolly the best way to go...it will kill rivalries though but maybe it can spark new ones???:confusedshrug: :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 02:14 PM

And as for the rivalry points...

My idea would create far more of those.

Because my actual proposal would be that the seeds, in order, get to pick their opponent each round...

Talk about creating tension...especially in the 2nd/3rd round. That would make teams hate each other.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 02:15 PM

you're arguing with a guy who thinks the Raptors, who were one blown quarter away from getting beat by an 8 seed, and the Heat who looked like shit against the Hornets and barely eeked it out, are on the level of a SAS or GSW.

There's nothing you can say to dissuade someone that is that far gone.
1. I never even said that.

2. The 08 Celtics struggled against 38 win Atlanta, likewise the 14 Spurs against the shitty Mavs--were the 14 Mavs better than the 14 Heat in your mind too? That is where your faulty logic leads.

3. Miami set playoff records in their first two games, and then the series got ugly; stop pretending that competitive and close, low-scoring games make the teams playing them "shitty"--it's inane.

4. If OKC are so much better than a healthy Raptors and Heat team then they will comfortably beat the Cavs (who lost two games to an injured and weakened team), if your logic holds. Obviously you don't think this is the case, or you wouldn't be desperately plugging your anti-Lebron agenda like always.

tpols

05-27-2016, 02:18 PM

Oh shut up moron. Go watch the 90s Eastern Conference Bulls/Knicks, Heat/Knicks, Bulls/Heat series: they were never pretty, and they were all very good teams. Playing scrappy and physical makes the game ugly. Look how ugly Curry's game has become as soon as a team has got in the way of GS free-flowing style of play (oh yeah, but he's "injured" :oldlol: ). Likewise All-NBA guys like Klay Thompson and Draymond Green suddenly look pretty garbage when they play in a series against a team that can slow shit down and take them out of their comfort zone. And honestly, OKC don't even play particularly good defense.

The Thunder are playing that type of defense PLUS they have two bonafide offensive superstars. Thats the difference. All those 90s thug ball teams had maybe one great offensive option at best. Thunder are essentially those teams plus starpower.

As far as your team goes in relation to the warriors and spurs ... NO spacing, NO shooting, ugly, pound the rock contested hero ball from Dwayne Wade to barely slip through the cracks is what you guys relied on. Hassan Whiteside has the urgency of Andrew Bynum waiting on a bench for his next turn up to give bowling ball a toss.

The Heat as a team played some of the most hideous basketball I've ever seen. UGLY, son.

.. and it wasnt because they were "tough", it was for a complete lack of skill

tpols

05-27-2016, 02:26 PM

4. If OKC are so much better than a healthy Raptors and Heat team then they will comfortably beat the Cavs (who lost two games to an injured and weakened team), if your logic holds. Obviously you don't think this is the case, or you wouldn't be desperately plugging your anti-Lebron agenda like always.

If you put 100 dollars on Toronto to win the whole thing right now, you would win last I checked a few days ago, 35,000 dollars.

Let that sink in.

OKC and CLE are similar tier teams, I give slight advantage to the Thunder for sure, but thats going to be a battle. Raps never had snowballs chance in hell at winning this series, and you know that, I know that.. you're just playing dumb now.

imnew09

05-27-2016, 02:27 PM

Lol whats new tho. Fken LeWeakest

Raptors in conference Final lmfao

Dresta

05-27-2016, 02:35 PM

The Thunder are playing that type of defense PLUS they have two bonafide offensive superstars. Thats the difference. All those 90s thug ball teams had maybe one great offensive option at best. Thunder are essentially those teams plus starpower.

As far as your team goes in relation to the warriors and spurs ... NO spacing, NO shooting, ugly, pound the rock contested hero ball from Dwayne Wade to barely slip through the cracks is what you guys relied on. Hassan Whiteside has the urgency of Andrew Bynum waiting on a bench for his next turn up to give bowling ball a toss.

The Heat as a team played some of the most hideous basketball I've ever seen. UGLY, son.

.. and it wasnt because they were "tough", it was for a complete lack of skill
Again, watch the first two games of the Heat/Hornets series and say that again: it's completely delusional. Miami resorted to Wade dominating the ball because their free-flowing offense was taken away by good defensive adjustments, which is often what happens in playoff series. "pound the rock contested hero ball" :facepalm --what an idiot you are; you throw the ball to your best player to bail you out when the defense is breaking up your offensive flow (something that always happens in the playoffs, and why stars matter more in the playoffs). And what is OKC's offense then exactly? If you see, that's what the Cavs did to the Warriors in the last finals, and what OKC are doing against them now. What they need is a great shot-creator to bail them out, which Steph hasn't consistently been in this series.

lol @ you thinking this Thunder team is anything like those 90s teams in terms of defense: downright laughable. They're a decent defensive team, but not close to being great. That they are causing the Warriors so many problems (like the Cavs did also), shows that there offense wasn't really much tested in the regular season, and is why the playoffs is different to it.

guy

05-27-2016, 02:35 PM

This portrays that the only reason to change would be for the champion. Which I don't agree with actually.

Even if someone said the champion would never change...I would still want to watch the best teams play each other as deeply in the playoffs as possible if that is what the fair system dictated.

In reality...of course I have a strong conviction about this.

I understand logic and math. And simply put...you aren't getting the same champion each year...when if you switched two contending teams...there is at least a 25% disparity in chance to win the title...and that is just this year.

It may not matter this year, but math always wins out in the end. And over time...that edge matters...and my guess is that it matters more than you and other comprehend.

Like tpols was saying...the margins are often not that big...and the difference from having to win two series as basic coinflips just to make the finals vs being overwhelming favorites in two series to make the finals simply matters a lot.

I don't see how one can deny this.

I'll concede that maybe the margins between the top teams weren't that big this year. They are usually bigger in other years. The Clippers have always been pretenders. The Thunder were always pretenders until basically this year. So while there's always the "chance" they'll win an important series against a significant opponent, its usually not that high. And usually you don't have two top seeds with historic seasons like the Warriors and Spurs of this year and then on top of that, monumentally losing in the playoffs. If you look at most of the previous years, the disparity of the road to the Finals isn't this big, and if the Warriors somehow win this series, its not on their side at all W-L wise.

We just disagree. I don't see the point if its not really swinging championships. And I don't really think it changes much as far as more entertaining matchups go because usually at most all it does is drop one or two of the lower seeded teams from the playoffs for another one or two lower 40s win teams.

Honestly, I think alot of people are so hung up on this idea just because of Lebron getting to the Finals so much and getting so much credit for it. In fact, the East was probably even weaker from 2000-2006 then its been since, and there really wasn't much discussion about this idea during that time. I'm definitely annoyed with all the praise he gets just for losing in the Finals too, but that's obviously another discussion.

FLDFSU

05-27-2016, 02:41 PM

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 02:44 PM

I'll concede that maybe the margins between the top teams weren't that big this year. They are usually bigger in other years. The Clippers have always been pretenders. The Thunder were always pretenders until basically this year. So while there's always the "chance" they'll win an important series against a significant opponent, its usually not that high. And usually you don't have two top seeds with historic seasons like the Warriors and Spurs of this year and then on top of that, monumentally losing in the playoffs. If you look at most of the previous years, the disparity of the road to the Finals isn't this big, and if the Warriors somehow win this series, its not on their side at all W-L wise.

We just disagree. I don't see the point if its not really swinging championships. And I don't really think it changes much as far as more entertaining matchups go because usually at most all it does is drop one or two of the lower seeded teams from the playoffs for another one or two lower 40s win teams.

Honestly, I think alot of people are so hung up on this idea just because of Lebron getting to the Finals so much and getting so much credit for it. In fact, the East was probably even weaker from 2000-2006 then its been since, and there really wasn't much discussion about this idea during that time. I'm definitely annoyed with all the praise he gets just for losing in the Finals too, but that's obviously another discussion.

The point is that you don't know if it's swinging championships.

You say the Thunder were always pretenders? Like...what? Do you honestly expect to have a civil conversation if you are saying that?

That is my exact point...you are writing off legit championship level talent way too easily.

This has nothing to do with Lebron for me. I don't care about that aspect of this at all.

I simply want the most fair system possible and within reason for the playoffs.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 02:47 PM

In the NBA best of 7 format the best team wins period (not accounting for injury).

As I keepasking your friend DMAVS, name the one NBA champion the was not the best team that year? The 2011 Mavs? Jordan Bulls? Shaq Lakers? The Spurs?

Who is this mysterious team that gets shafted from being NBA champions?

Again...you are painting an incomplete picture. You are falsely claiming this is all about the champion...which it isn't for me at all.

And the answer is simple...we dont' and can't know.

We could play this game and you'll just disagree with everything just because.

But, this year, I'd argue. If the Spurs and Cavs switched places....the Spurs would have been the betting favorite to win the title.

And I'd favor the Spurs over both the Warriors and Cavs in a series this year actually.

There are just many plausible scenarios like this that could have played out in past years and we wouldn't even be aware of them because of how certain teams looked at certain times because of matchups and or variance....etc.

FLDFSU

05-27-2016, 02:52 PM

RRR3

05-27-2016, 02:54 PM

West has the majority of the superstars but the east was much better this year. 99% of the people complaining about conference disparity are doing so because of LeBron James. Something to consider.

TheMarkMadsen

05-27-2016, 02:57 PM

BTW, it is amazing how you and DMAVS are not mentioning that the East still has a Miami team that, based on your logic should pose a serious threat to any East Conference team. Whoever gets to the Finals in the East would have had to either beat the Heat or beat the team that beat the Heat. You know, the same Heat team that has Dwayne Wade. The same Wade that is playing better than he was at the time you guys called Miami "the stackiest stacked stack team of all time."

Yeah that same HEAT team that was starting a 6"7 rookie at center while their two all star bigs were injured.

God damn.

A healthy HEAT team would have been awesome to watch in the playoffs.

Too bad we haven't seen a healthy Bosh since 2014.

guy

05-27-2016, 03:03 PM

The point is that you don't know if it's swinging championships.

You say the Thunder were always pretenders? Like...what? Do you honestly expect to have a civil conversation if you are saying that?

That is my exact point...you are writing off legit championship level talent way too easily.

This has nothing to do with Lebron for me. I don't care about that aspect of this at all.

I simply want the most fair system possible and within reason for the playoffs.

Yes, they played ridiculously stupid basketball FOR YEARS. So much emphasis on isolation with no one getting held accountable for it. They got by COMPLETELY on talent, which is a testament to how talented they actually are since they were still pretty successful. But they were still pretenders that were going to get exposed regardless. It seems they finally figured it out starting this playoffs though.

Of course we have no idea what championships may have swung. We can speculate though just like you are actually speculating that this overhaul would make it a better product, which is fine. For example, one championship that may come to mind is 2013 which is as close as it gets. I can dig deeper and would say though that the Spurs' road to the finals wasn't much different the Heat's.

And by the way, as far as math, sure its math, you can't really argue against it. But its just not something I can put alot of weight on. The 90s Bulls on average probably had something like a 90%, 80%, 70%, 60% winning chance respectively in the first round, ECSF, ECF, and Finals in each of their title runs. That means they had a 30% chance overall to win it all. Its really hard for me to put a lot of weight in that and truly believe that the Bulls, specifically Michael Jordan, had actually a small chance of winning those years. On top of that, upsets just don't really happen that often in the NBA. Obviously thats a different story this year. Overally, you go by these probabilities, and the favorites to make the finals going into the playoffs, more times than not, would not make the finals, and that's really not been the case. The NBA would resemble the NFL much more as far unpredictability goes.

tpols

05-27-2016, 03:03 PM

Again, watch the first two games of the Heat/Hornets series and say that again: it's completely delusional.

I watched all the games.

The only difference between those two games and the rest was the shooting. You guys couldnt hit wide open 3's you were drilling in those first two games and your offense dissolved into an ugly logjam of wade, dragic, and joe johnson trying to iso their ways into the paint and take contested floaters / jumpers. Kicking it out to one another hot potato'ing the shit out the ball because none of them can catch and shoot on 3 pointers.

I'm getting some good entertainment out of you acting like the raps or hornets were playing some all time great defense for the reason why you suck. :oldlol:

That wasnt the reason. The reason was a pathetic lack of spacing and cramming together a bunch of iso guys who want to shoot from the same spots.

your excuses are rich though.. keep em coming.

Dresta

05-27-2016, 03:05 PM

Yeah that same HEAT team that was starting a 6"7 rookie at center while their two all star bigs were injured.

God damn.

A healthy HEAT team would have been awesome to watch in the playoffs.

Too bad we haven't seen a healthy Bosh since 2014.
That was the only point I was making. A healthy Miami and Toronto would've meant the East wasn't anything like as bad as people are portraying.

That's all, and tpols got his panties all in a bunch.

RRR3

05-27-2016, 03:05 PM

Joe Johnson can't shoot now LAWL

FLDFSU

05-27-2016, 03:08 PM

Conference rivalries essentially do not exist anymore...I can't think of one compelling current "rivalry"

Time between games? The first two rounds have an absurd amount of time in between games already. You wouldn't have to change a damn thing on time between games.

The only thing that would legit change is the start times for a handful of games in rounds 1 and 2...which would be just not big deal at all.

I really disagree with your statement that the best team always wins. These matchups, especially with the elite teams, are not 90/10 odds one team wins.

Take the Thunder/Spurs series...that was probably a 55/45 type series...a few plays go differently and we could be watching Warriors/Spurs...with a very reasonable chance the Spurs win the title.

Even worse for your argument...if you switched the Cavs and Spurs...we know for sure the Spurs are making the finals and at best there is a 40% chance the Cavs knock off both the Thunder and Warriors.

Just think about it mathematically...Even if you said the Cavs were 60% to win against the Thunder and then 60% to beat the Warriors...which is obviously not even accurate, but lets pretend it is.

That would give the Cavs only a 36% chance to make the finals. If they then had to play Spurs in the finals...and we give them another 60% chance...which is again way too high...

You are looking at a 21.6% chance the Cavs get through the Thunder, Warriors, and then Spurs in the finals.

Conversely, the Cavs have a near 100% chance to win rounds 1 and 2 in the East...and then at least an 80% chance to beat the raptors.

So lets say the Cavs are 100% to beat the Hawks, 80% to beat the Raptors, and then 60% against the finals team they play.

That gives them a 48% chance to win the title.

Think about that...their odds more than double just because of the conference they play.

So...just no...the best team does not always win and the path to the title is anything but balanced.

Since we are making up ratios regarding the chances that a particular team has, I say that there is a 10 percent chance the 2011 Mavs beat the Defending Champs Lakers, the TrailBlazers, the hot upstart Thunders, and the hottest team in the league (most stackiest stacked stack team of all time) Heat.

Thunder or Heat or Bulls or Spurs are the Champs, right?

Dresta

05-27-2016, 03:09 PM

I watched all the games.

The only difference between those two games and the rest was the shooting. You guys couldnt hit wide open 3's you were drilling in those first two games and your offense dissolved into an ugly logjam of wade, dragic, and joe johnson trying to iso their ways into the paint and take contested floaters / jumpers. Kicking it out to one another hot potato'ing the shit out the ball because none of them can catch and shoot on 3 pointers.

I'm getting some good entertainment out of you acting like the raps or hornets were playing some all time great defense for the reason why you suck. :oldlol:

That wasnt the reason. The reason was a pathetic lack of spacing and cramming together a bunch of iso guys who want to shoot from the same spots.

your excuses are rich though.. keep em coming.Again, more ignorance from you. It was not just about missing shots (though Joe Johnson missed plenty of open ones), but about what shots, shooting in rhythm, and so on. Good 3 point shooting teams often become bad ones in the playoffs, just look at the Hornets against Miami; and Miami was never a good 3 point shooting team to start with.

But you admit my point partially anyway, in saying it descended into iso-ball because guys shots weren't falling, which again, is something that often happens in the playoffs. Earlier you just said the offense was shit because of iso ball: you've already switched your argument, and contradicted yourself. Congrats :applause: .

tpols

05-27-2016, 03:15 PM

Good 3 point shooting teams often become bad ones in the playoffs, just look at the Hornets against Miami; and Miami was never a good 3 point shooting team to start with.
.

so.. you're admitting that those two first games of the playoffs you were pimping in your earlier posts, were a fluke and that you're shitty offense in the following games was the real barometer for good a team you are?

:coleman:

you're basically proving what I've been saying all along.

FLDFSU

05-27-2016, 03:29 PM

no, it just shows that star power matters more in the playoffs. Kobe-Shaq Lakers used to win less games than the early 00s Spurs. No one was calling the Spurs out when they faced a team that good though, for obvious reasons. You kinda throw regular season record out in the playoffs and you just have your guys and whatever matchups in front of them.

I almost spit my drink out at a healthy toronto or miami being on GSW or SAS level though .. :lol

They WERE healthy in the first round and they both looked like straight ass. holy shit with that one.

:lol Let me go find all those posts and threads where you were screaming about how the Heat are historically stacked. Now a Healthy Wade, Bosh, Dragic, and Whiteside cannot hold their own against the Spurs or Warriors?

You guys are filled with BS.

I bet you my entire salary if LeBron was playing on the Heat you would claim that Miami could beat Golden State and the Spurs without him. Now when it doesn't fit your agenda you are spitting out your drink at the thought of Wade, Bosh, surrounded by a better roster than any 2011-2014 Heat ever had beating the Spurs or warriors.

Funny how your tune changes so quickly. IIf LeBron playedo for the 76ers you would claim that roster with out LeBron would sweep both teams by an average of 20.

tpols

05-27-2016, 03:35 PM

:lol Let me go find all those posts and threads where you were screaming about how the Heat are historically stacked. Now a Healthy Wade, Bosh, Dragic, and Whiteside cannot hold their own against the Spurs or Warriors?

You guys are filled with BS.

I bet you my entire salary if LeBron was playing on the Heat you would claim that Miami could beat Golden State and the Spurs without him. Now when it doesn't fit your agenda you are spitting out your drink at the thought of Wade, Bosh, surrounded by a better roster than any 2011-2014 Heat ever had beating the Spurs or warriors.

Funny how your tune changes so quickly. IIf LeBron playedo for the 76ers you would claim that roster with out LeBron would sweep both teams by an average of 20.

I've mind****ed you into oblivion with the way you still latch to my nuts.. damn.

Those posts were about teams from years ago, and you bring them up in a current issue debate like they have any relevance? lol..

FLDFSU

05-27-2016, 03:55 PM

I've mind****ed you into oblivion with the way you still latch to my nuts.. damn.

Those posts were about teams from years ago, and you bring them up in a current issue debate like they have any relevance? lol..

No I am just tried of you and DMAVS pretending not to be full of BS.

If LeBron was still on the Heat payroll you would be spamming the board with your nonsense about the Heat being so talented that without James they would beat any current Western team.

I have just never figured out how one can be so pathetic as to follow around a man (from city to city and then back again) who cares more about what his son' dog had for dinner than some troll hating on him on a message board.

miggyme1

05-27-2016, 04:17 PM

best teams don't win series anymore??? lmao......its all down to luck now.

I think the nba should try it. A 1-16......if they did it this year it would of been

1.gs
2.spurs
3.cavs
4.toronto
5.okc
6.clipps
7.miami
8atl
9.boston
10.charlotte
11.indiana
12.portland
13.detroit
14.chicago
15. dallas
16. Houston

a lot of first round sweeps right there...second round we would be forced to watch gs play boston/atl.......:biggums:

spurs vs Miami/charlotte...........smh

Cleveland vs clipps/Indiana......if clipps... maybe an entertaining series

okc vs Toronto.........maybe???

Hey Yo

05-27-2016, 04:22 PM

Do fans really need to see the #1 seed play the 16th seed?

2nd play the 15th? an so on?

People already bbitch about the 1 playing the 8 and say it's a waste of time.

What happens when a star player gets hurt and is done for the season because his 2 seeded team was wasting their time and the fans time by playing the 15th seed??

What kind of ratings is the 1vs16.... 2vs15.....3vs14 going to draw??

Hey Yo

05-27-2016, 04:24 PM

Nice post, miggy.

I didn't see it before I posted.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 04:49 PM

Yes, they played ridiculously stupid basketball FOR YEARS. So much emphasis on isolation with no one getting held accountable for it. They got by COMPLETELY on talent, which is a testament to how talented they actually are since they were still pretty successful. But they were still pretenders that were going to get exposed regardless. It seems they finally figured it out starting this playoffs though.

Of course we have no idea what championships may have swung. We can speculate though just like you are actually speculating that this overhaul would make it a better product, which is fine. For example, one championship that may come to mind is 2013 which is as close as it gets. I can dig deeper and would say though that the Spurs' road to the finals wasn't much different the Heat's.

And by the way, as far as math, sure its math, you can't really argue against it. But its just not something I can put alot of weight on. The 90s Bulls on average probably had something like a 90%, 80%, 70%, 60% winning chance respectively in the first round, ECSF, ECF, and Finals in each of their title runs. That means they had a 30% chance overall to win it all. Its really hard for me to put a lot of weight in that and truly believe that the Bulls, specifically Michael Jordan, had actually a small chance of winning those years. On top of that, upsets just don't really happen that often in the NBA. Obviously thats a different story this year. Overally, you go by these probabilities, and the favorites to make the finals going into the playoffs, more times than not, would not make the finals, and that's really not been the case. The NBA would resemble the NFL much more as far unpredictability goes.

How were the 12 and 13 Thunder pretenders?

It is one thing to say they weren't playing at an optimal level given their talent, but it is another to call them pretenders.

I don't see any sound logic or reason to support teams like the 12 and 13 Thunder as pretenders as you claim.

I'd argue your math is probably off. I'd probably argue a team with prime MJ is a little more of a favorite than you are saying, but that makes my point for me.

If a team with prime MJ is only 50% or so to win the title...it really matters
the road these teams go down and those matchups turn out to be.

Last, I'm not speculating this would make a better product. Of course I think it would, but my point is about creating a more fair system...which I think leads into the better product.

But that isn't speculating...it's simply a fact that seeding 1-16 creates a more fair system over time.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 04:53 PM

Since we are making up ratios regarding the chances that a particular team has, I say that there is a 10 percent chance the 2011 Mavs beat the Defending Champs Lakers, the TrailBlazers, the hot upstart Thunders, and the hottest team in the league (most stackiest stacked stack team of all time) Heat.

Thunder or Heat or Bulls or Spurs are the Champs, right?

Maybe not even 10% going in honestly.

Again, you don't realize it, but you are making my point for me...

Which is...how stupid would it be that we miss the next 11 Mavs or some version of that because the seedings were all messed up and said team has to play a terrible matchup in round 1 that they shouldn't have?

This is why doing the most fair system, within reason, holds up so well. You don't have to worry about unfairly hurting a team just because of location.

The 11 Mavs is interesting for your side to bring up because it is a year that destroys the common..."pretenders" can't win. Which is what the Mavs were obviously known as back then.

So....unless you are now agreeing with me...I don't see the point in bringing up the Mavs. They are the exact reason why you want the most fair system possible. You want to give those fringe contender teams a fair shake as well in case they are capable of doing something special.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 04:55 PM

No I am just tried of you and DMAVS pretending not to be full of BS.

If LeBron was still on the Heat payroll you would be spamming the board with your nonsense about the Heat being so talented that without James they would beat any current Western team.

I have just never figured out how one can be so pathetic as to follow around a man (from city to city and then back again) who cares more about what his son' dog had for dinner than some troll hating on him on a message board.

Dude...we haven't brought up Lebron virtually at all in this thread. It's you that is obsessed.

And, get over it, the Heat were ****ing stacked relative to their competition in the East during their run.

How and why you can't just admit this by now should be very telling to you both in terms of your intelligence and ignorance on the subject.

But, those Pacers were just great teams....:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

guy

05-27-2016, 05:24 PM

How were the 12 and 13 Thunder pretenders?

It is one thing to say they weren't playing at an optimal level given their talent, but it is another to call them pretenders.

I don't see any sound logic or reason to support teams like the 12 and 13 Thunder as pretenders as you claim.

I'd argue your math is probably off. I'd probably argue a team with prime MJ is a little more of a favorite than you are saying, but that makes my point for me.

If a team with prime MJ is only 50% or so to win the title...it really matters
the road these teams go down and those matchups turn out to be.

Last, I'm not speculating this would make a better product. Of course I think it would, but my point is about creating a more fair system...which I think leads into the better product.

But that isn't speculating...it's simply a fact that seeding 1-16 creates a more fair system over time.

Teams like that that don't move the ball against other great teams don't win titles. That's why they were pretenders. Its one thing if there was just a huge talent disparity between them and every other team in the league, but there wasn't. Yes, they wouldn't be pretenders if the competition was that weak cause it is all relative, but that's an unrealistic expectation of a scenario.

Math isn't off. Do it yourself. 90%x80%x70%x60% = 30% probability of winning the title. Even if you wanted to say its 100%, 90%, 75%, 60%, that's still only a 41% probability of the winning the title, which still seems really low for Jordan's Bulls. Using the 41% probability as an average for all 6 title years, that would've meant that there was a less then 0.5 percent chance they would've won 6. Obviously what the Bulls did was incredibly impressive and difficult, but for a team with Jordan, its really hard to believe that. Like I said, I can't really argue against math, but its just really difficult to look at the game that way when that's the case. The NBA would not be as predictable if these held up.

Optimus Prime

05-27-2016, 05:28 PM

People are seriously putting the Raptors on the same level as the Warriors, Thunder and Spurs? :facepalm :rolleyes:

Clippers >>>>>>>>> Raptors, and I can't stand the Clippers. It's not even close. The Least is a dumpster fire, and unless there is all of a suddenly a massive migration of talent going east, it's going to remain a one-team trash heap for the foreseeable future.

Straight up comparing W/L records is ridiculous, because Least teams play each other...what is it...2/3rds of the time? So LeBron and his Superfriends get to beat up on the likes of the Raptors, Hawks and Celtics while the Warriors have to play the likes of the Thunder, Spurs and Clippers. Come on man. :durantunimpressed:

LeBron stans are super shook and insecure because they know it's all true.

:kobe:

kamil

05-27-2016, 05:44 PM

Lebronxrings

05-27-2016, 05:46 PM

and only 1 lives rent free in OP

Dresta

05-27-2016, 07:03 PM

so.. you're admitting that those two first games of the playoffs you were pimping in your earlier posts, were a fluke and that you're shitty offense in the following games was the real barometer for good a team you are?

:coleman:

you're basically proving what I've been saying all along.
Seriously, what the f*ck are you talking about? You're making no sense whatsoever :lol .

In no way was that post admitting anything. Miami had one of the league's best offenses post all-star break, and it wasn't predicated on being a team with a bunch of great 3 point shooters. In the playoffs, when you play the same team game after game, you make minute adjustments, you disrupt an opponent's offense as you get used to who you're defending, and you frustrate them, push them from the spots where they're comfortable, etc. That's what happens in the playoffs, and it's what happened to Miami (which is a young and inexperienced team, missing 2 of its 3 best players), which is why it ended up being just Wade. You've literally understood and comprehended nothing. Your understanding of the game of basketball is really really poor.

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 07:03 PM

Teams like that that don't move the ball against other great teams don't win titles. That's why they were pretenders. Its one thing if there was just a huge talent disparity between them and every other team in the league, but there wasn't. Yes, they wouldn't be pretenders if the competition was that weak cause it is all relative, but that's an unrealistic expectation of a scenario.

Math isn't off. Do it yourself. 90%x80%x70%x60% = 30% probability of winning the title. Even if you wanted to say its 100%, 90%, 75%, 60%, that's still only a 41% probability of the winning the title, which still seems really low for Jordan's Bulls. Using the 41% probability as an average for all 6 title years, that would've meant that there was a less then 0.5 percent chance they would've won 6. Obviously what the Bulls did was incredibly impressive and difficult, but for a team with Jordan, its really hard to believe that. Like I said, I can't really argue against math, but its just really difficult to look at the game that way when that's the case. The NBA would not be as predictable if these held up.

So the 12 Spurs were pretenders in your opinion? Like...okay...

I wasn't saying the calculation was off. I'm saying the odds you gave out er off. I don't think those Bulls were ever under 75% in any series personally.

But again...you are making my point for me. If even a team with prime MJ can conceivably lose...then there are more sleeping contenders than your side is admitting.

You understand that your sides almost entire argument is it doesn't matter because the champ is always going to be the same. So I don't follow.

The NBA isn't as predictable as you are claiming. It was in the past, but it has changed a lot over the last 15 or so years.

Just in recent memory:

04 Pistons huge upset
06 Mavs over Spurs
07 Warriors
08 Lakers favored in finals
Magic over Cavs in 09
Grizzlies over Spurs in 11
11 Mavs
12 Thunder upset Spurs
12 Thunder favored over Heat
Thunder over the Spurs this year
Potentially Thunder over Warriors this year

Clippers beating the Spurs last year and then losing to the Rockets...

Literally I can think of those in a 30 second response and I'm sure I've forgotten a few.

You are looking back and pretending it was predictable, but it wasn't....not even close.

ArbitraryWater

05-27-2016, 07:05 PM

'12 and '13 OKC were pretenders? :biggums:

DMAVS41

05-27-2016, 07:07 PM

'12 and '13 OKC were pretenders? :biggums:

I know...the ignorance

Hey Yo

05-27-2016, 07:41 PM

tpols

05-27-2016, 08:02 PM

Seriously, what the f*ck are you talking about? You're making no sense whatsoever :lol .

In no way was that post admitting anything. Miami had one of the league's best offenses post all-star break, and it wasn't predicated on being a team with a bunch of great 3 point shooters.

Actually it was (http://www.todaysfastbreak.com/miami-heat/miami-heat-13-thoughts-through13-games-post-star-break/).

8. JOE JOHNSON’S GRAVITY

Miami’s signing of Joe Johnson was arguably the best in-season transaction in the league this year. It’s also difficult to argue a team needing a specific talent from a transaction more than Miami needed Johnson for his shooting ability.

Since joining Miami, Johnson has gone 15-24 (62.5%) from three. What has been more interesting to watch is how often Johnson has been double teamed since joining Miami.

Additinally, Josh Richardson, who shot only 20% from three point land, is shooting 61% from there in their post all star streak.

Joe Johnson and Josh Richardson were HUGE during that post all star game run with their shooting and the resulting spacing made Miami look like a sharp, crisp team that could benefit their bread and butter dragic and wade's slashing games..

When that shooting went to shit after two games in the playoffs.. so did the Heats whole offense. Deng and JJ's inability to hit shots and spread the floor made your team awful, and clearly, even when healthy they were never on SAS or GSW level.

Thats what I've been trying to explain to you .. and you seem to agree with it from this statement below:

That's what happens in the playoffs, and it's what happened to Miami (which is a young and inexperienced team, missing 2 of its 3 best players), which is why it ended up being just Wade.

which is why I'm puzzled as to what it is your arguing.. you admit the team outside Wade sucked, yet you think Heat could be on the level of 70 win teams stacked with talent.

are you confused.. ?

oh wait, I just remembered you're an enormous Wade fanatic. It all makes sense now. :pimp: