The Sixers are the 8 seed right now

[tpols]

:biggums:

Wouldn't that be a bitch...

You hustle all year long to get the 1 seed and have to face Embiid and Maxey and Harris Sixers in the first round. I remember when the 8 seed was brandon Jennings and Monta Ellis bucks. Or Andre Drummond Pistons.

And it's just as bad in the West having to face the Lakers or the Warriors or the Suns.

[ArbitraryWater]

Hell yea

[Kblaze8855]

The way it’s shaping up right now we might not get a garbage first round playoff series to throw on NBA TV and disregard while we all get our errands done before the real game start later on tnt or espn. That garbage series is ann important part of my early playoff experience.

What series are you running on nba tv while better ones are on abc right now?

If the Bulls win in the play in we would have that truly garbage series to ignore. But that’s our only option isn’t it?

[fsvr54]

They will get 7th seed anyways and Hawks will get 8th. Indiana will be eliminated

[tpols]

Yup.

It used to be that the first round for a 1v8 seed was a warm up series. And if you lost you got clowned into oblivion.

Out of 80 first round matchups in modern NBA history since the 80s, the 8 seed has won only 7 times. That's like 40 years worth of games.

So 8 seeds historically have a loss rate of 90+%.

1. Mutumbo Nuggets upset the Supersonics in 1994.

2. Knicks upset the Heat in 1999.

3. Warriors upset the Dirk led Mavericks in 2007.

4. Grizz upset the Spurs in 2011 (remember the epic sin jackal meltdown).

5. Iggy and Jrue Sixers upset the 2012 bulls (with rose hurt...).

6. and 7. Giannis Bucks getting beat twice by 8 seed Butler Heat.

It's a fairly rare occurrence but seems probable this year.

[FultzNationRISE]

They will get 7th seed anyways and Hawks will get 8th. Indiana will be eliminated

Not a given. Yes theyll be favored in the first play in if healthy, but anything can happen in a single game. If they find themselves in the 7-8 play-in theres still like a 35-40% chance they finish 8th.

It would actually be crazy if we got Boston-Philly in round one.

Id actually pity Joel having to take Daddy Al’s belt that quickly in the postseason.

Altho maybe it’s easier when you just get it over with and dont have time to drive yourself crazy anticipating it :lol

[Kblaze8855]

Yup.

It used to be that the first round for a 1v8 seed was a warm up series. And if you lost you got clowned into oblivion.

Out of 80 first round matchups in modern NBA history since the 80s, the 8 seed has won only 7 times. That's like 40 years worth of games.

So 8 seeds historically have a loss rate of 90+%.

1. Mutumbo Nuggets upset the Supersonics in 1994.

2. Knicks upset the Heat in 1999.

3. Warriors upset the Dirk led Mavericks in 2007.

4. Grizz upset the Spurs in 2011 (remember the epic sin jackal meltdown).

5. Iggy and Jrue Sixers upset the 2012 bulls (with rose hurt...).

6. and 7. Giannis Bucks getting beat twice by 8 seed Butler Heat.

It's a fairly rare occurrence but seems probable this year.

The Heat were 7th, 6th, and 5th in the East the 3 times they played the bucks. Last year was a play in reshuffle. That said…it’s become more common. It was a whole ordeal when the Nuggets beat Seattle. It was VHS specials and breaking news.

[elementally morale]

The Heat were 7th, 6th, and 5th in the East the 3 times they played the bucks. Last year was a play in reshuffle. That said…it’s become more common. It was a whole ordeal when the Nuggets beat Seattle. It was VHS specials and breaking news.

If the Nuggets are #1 and lose to the 8th seed that will definitely be news. Boston losing in the 1st round would too, especially if it's to the 76ers. The former is more likely to happen though.

[Kblaze8855]

News yes But we’re talking about what would normally be anticipated matchups that we just get early due to injuries. That takes some of the sting out. Boston would get clowned of course but not as much as if they lose to a “real” 8 like the Hawks or Bulls.

The Nuggets losing to the Suns, Lakers, or Warrior would be…unexpected. But I don’t think Jokic has his “legacy” harmed much.

[tpols]

Aside from the play in thing which is dramatically increasing the variance on lower seeded teams by sorting them around based on one games outcome it hasn't happened since 2012.

8 seeds didn't exist until 1984 and it went a whole decade until one of them beat a 1 seed in 1994.

So I can see why they were excited.

[tpols]

If the Nuggets are #1 and lose to the 8th seed that will definitely be news. Boston losing in the 1st round would too, especially if it's to the 76ers. The former is more likely to happen though.

In last years WCFs the Lakers had double digit leads in multiple games. It was much closer than it appeared. And Jamal Murray can't possibly go as nuts as he did in those stretches. He was Jordan level in the middle of that series. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lakers made it competitive again even as an 8 seed. Ditto if the Warriors or suns catch fire on offense for a short series spurt.

[Kblaze8855]

These teams are lucky the NBA stopped the five and even more dangerous three game first round series. Imagine the top seed loses game one and it’s a close game in game two. You lose a 65 win season on a single game two jumper because it’s a three game series. It would be chaos. Hilarious. But chaos.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Only one team in the East has even clinched a playoff berth so who knows who the Celtics face in the first round? It could be Philly, Indy, Miami or even New York. The team that has given the Celtics the most reason to be afraid this season is actually Atlanta.

[ArbitraryWater]

Yup.

It used to be that the first round for a 1v8 seed was a warm up series. And if you lost you got clowned into oblivion.

Out of 80 first round matchups in modern NBA history since the 80s, the 8 seed has won only 7 times. That's like 40 years worth of games.

So 8 seeds historically have a loss rate of 90+%.

1. Mutumbo Nuggets upset the Supersonics in 1994.

2. Knicks upset the Heat in 1999.

3. Warriors upset the Dirk led Mavericks in 2007.

4. Grizz upset the Spurs in 2011 (remember the epic sin jackal meltdown).

5. Iggy and Jrue Sixers upset the 2012 bulls (with rose hurt...).

6. and 7. Giannis Bucks getting beat twice by 8 seed Butler Heat.

It's a fairly rare occurrence but seems probable this year.


wtf are you talking about :lol

[SouBeachTalents]

Tpols thought Giannis lost in the first round as the 1st seed twice. C’mon bruh :lol

[tpols]

Yall got me.

Giannis lost once as 8 seed to the Heat. The bubble season was so mixed up and Miami did win as big underdog I thought they were an 8.

Either way that reinforces the point. 6/80 is the 1v8 seed win rate for the underdog.

That's a 92.5% rate of failure.

Big Trash!

[Duffy Pratt]

In last years WCFs the Lakers had double digit leads in multiple games. It was much closer than it appeared. And Jamal Murray can't possibly go as nuts as he did in those stretches. He was Jordan level in the middle of that series. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lakers made it competitive again even as an 8 seed. Ditto if the Warriors or suns catch fire on offense for a short series spurt.

Lakers perimeter defense has been worse than it was last year. Other than injury, what do the Lakers have that will stop Murray? On top of that, if he ups his play in the post-season for a third time this year, people will probably be best advised to stop saying that he can’t do it again.

[tpols]

Lakers perimeter defense has been worse than it was last year. Other than injury, what do the Lakers have that will stop Murray? On top of that, if he ups his play in the post-season for a third time this year, people will probably be best advised to stop saying that he can’t do it again.

Him not going on hot streaks shooting like 90% from the floor on all long jumpers in the clutch.


https://youtu.be/8sLCYjicVSI?si=IAOgBskAmhaoQOux

If we watch the defense... it's not even remotely bad. Dude just couldn't miss. He was just insane in the middle of that series banging contested jumpers over and over.

Those aren't always going to string together like that. Even GOAT shooters can't keep that up.

[ArbitraryWater]

Yall got me.

Giannis lost once as 8 seed to the Heat. The bubble season was so mixed up and Miami did win as big underdog I thought they were an 8.

Either way that reinforces the point. 6/80 is the 1v8 seed win rate for the underdog.

That's a 92.5% rate of failure.

Big Trash!


Miami wasnt even the 8th seed last year.

They were 3 games ahead of the Hawks.

They were by far the 7th seed.

They were much closer to 6th than to 8th.

If you become the 8th seed through the play-in format, that needs a major asterisk.


Cause this:


https://i.gyazo.com/010750fa909fc79c6f422ae38b976720.png




doesnt look right.

[tpols]

Yes... they were an 8 seed. The Miami Heat were the 8 seed last year and they beat the 1 seed. It's already been established that the play in tournament has increased variance of low seeded teams.

Kblaze just posted a year where a 48 win team missed the playoffs and a 37 win team made the playoffs and that was back in 2008.

Life can be unfair.

[elementally morale]

In last years WCFs the Lakers had double digit leads in multiple games. It was much closer than it appeared. And Jamal Murray can't possibly go as nuts as he did in those stretches. He was Jordan level in the middle of that series. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lakers made it competitive again even as an 8 seed. Ditto if the Warriors or suns catch fire on offense for a short series spurt.

Yes, I agree. The Nuggets are the favorites against the Lakers or the Suns but it's not 90-10. I see it more like 65-35. Boston losing would be a bigger upset to me.

[ArbitraryWater]

Yes... they were an 8 seed. The Miami Heat were the 8 seed last year and they beat the 1 seed. It's already been established that the play in tournament has increased variance of low seeded teams.

Kblaze just posted a year where a 48 win team missed the playoffs and a 37 win team made the playoffs and that was back in 2008.

Life can be unfair.


They were the 8th seed yet in every other year through history since 2 years before that, they would have been the 7th seed.

They were not a true 8th seed.

The Hawks won 3 less games than them and were clearly the weaker seed.

[beasted]

They were the 8th seed yet in every other year through history since 2 years before that, they would have been the 7th seed.

They were not a true 8th seed.

The Hawks won 3 less games than them and were clearly the weaker seed.

You're splitting hairs. They were 8th by the current rules. Period.

Someone else can come up with some contrived reason that some team advanced back in the day when Division winners were guaranteed a top 4 seed, and that's the "real reason" why X team won/lost, but that would be similarly useless.

Trying to re-rank Miami as 7th is bad logic. They lost with home court advantage to the Hawks. They were 8th.

[Axe]

Yall got me.

Giannis lost once as 8 seed to the Heat. The bubble season was so mixed up and Miami did win as big underdog I thought they were an 8.

Either way that reinforces the point. 6/80 is the 1v8 seed win rate for the underdog.

That's a 92.5% rate of failure.

Big Trash!
They're the only team to lose in the finals twice since five years ago. :roll:

[Kblaze8855]

All anyone means when they say such and such seed is where they are in standings. They had the 7th best record. Back when division leaders automatically got the first few seeds the 44 win nuggets of young Melo were the three seed with the same record as the eight seed. They played the 47 win 6 seeded clippers in the first round and lost. The 60 win mavs were 4th seed because the spurs won that division with 63 wins. Third best record in the league. Fourth seed in their own conference. You can call them the 4 seed when you describe them to make their finals run out to be more unlikely but it doesn’t really describe the situation to anyone who doesn’t remember the weird rules.

if you say Carmelo led his team to the third seed of a stacked west in 06, you’re being intentionally misleading, even though it’s factual.


so yes. The heat were the eighth seed. The heat Did not have the eighth best record. It feels like those two things mean the same but they don’t anymore. There will be years when it won’t even be close.

[ArbitraryWater]

You're splitting hairs. They were 8th by the current rules. Period.

Someone else can come up with some contrived reason that some team advanced back in the day when Division winners were guaranteed a top 4 seed, and that's the "real reason" why X team won/lost, but that would be similarly useless.

Trying to re-rank Miami as 7th is bad logic. They lost with home court advantage to the Hawks. They were 8th.


Im not splitting hairs.

The point of the 1st vs 8th upset, what makes it so historic, is that the team with the 8th best record beats the one with the 1st.


The Heat had the 7th best record, by some distance.

[Mask the Embiid]

Horford is getting older and older and slower with every season that goes by..he gets easier and easier to score on for Joel.good luck in round 1….youre going to need it Boston……

[ArbitraryWater]

Horford is getting older and older and slower with every season that goes by..he gets easier and easier to score on for Joel.good luck in round 1….youre going to need it Boston……

:lol

[Axe]

Embiid's presence is so invaluable to his team. Having that said, still no chance getting to the ecf.

[nayte]

I agree but this thread is all kinds of silly

[beasted]

All anyone means when they say such and such seed is where they are in standings. They had the 7th best record. Back when division leaders automatically got the first few seeds the 44 win nuggets of young Melo were the three seed with the same record as the eight seed. They played the 47 win 6 seeded clippers in the first round and lost. The 60 win mavs were 4th seed because the spurs won that division with 63 wins. Third best record in the league. Fourth seed in their own conference. You can call them the 4 seed when you describe them to make their finals run out to be more unlikely but it doesn’t really describe the situation to anyone who doesn’t remember the weird rules.

if you say Carmelo led his team to the third seed of a stacked west in 06, you’re being intentionally misleading, even though it’s factual.


so yes. The heat were the eighth seed. The heat Did not have the eighth best record. It feels like those two things mean the same but they don’t anymore. There will be years when it won’t even be close.

The need to recollect the rules is exactly why none of it matters. Basketball is a game of match ups anyhow which is the exact reason for these upsets.

If the 2007 Mavs faced any other team, they are likely champs. The Bucks being heavily favored and losing is all that most will recall, not that Miami was technically 3 games ahead of the Hawks in the win column. It clearly bought no extra time for Bud. I'm sure he said to the GM "ThEy wErEn'T tHe 8tH!"

[ArbitraryWater]

The need to recollect the rules is exactly why none of it matters. Basketball is a game of match ups anyhow which is the exact reason for these upsets.

If the 2007 Mavs faced any other team, they are likely champs. The Bucks being heavily favored and losing is all that most will recall, not that Miami was technically 3 games ahead of the Hawks in the win column. It clearly bought no extra time for Bud. I'm sure he said to the GM "ThEy wErEn'T tHe 8tH!"

They dont give a **** about that to begin with. But Im sure if they were bothered with "so you lost to the EIGHT SEED" youd get someone to say, well, not really though..


But its funny you say Miami was "technically" 3 games ahead.

Not just technically.

Saying Miami was the 8th seed is disingenous at best.

The play-in makes them "technical" 8th seed, but they werent the true 8th seed.

Even you know that, right?

[beasted]

They dont give a **** about that to begin with. But Im sure if they were bothered with "so you lost to the EIGHT SEED" youd get someone to say, well, not really though..


But its funny you say Miami was "technically" 3 games ahead.

Not just technically.

Saying Miami was the 8th seed is disingenous at best.

The play-in makes them "technical" 8th seed, but they werent the true 8th seed.

Even you know that, right?

They were the true 8th seed. What they didn't have was the 8th best record in their conference.

No matter what argument you're trying to make, all history will continue to log Miami as the 8th. A 7th seed cannot pay against the 1st seed in the playoffs.

[tpols]

The need to recollect the rules is exactly why none of it matters. Basketball is a game of match ups anyhow which is the exact reason for these upsets.

If the 2007 Mavs faced any other team, they are likely champs. The Bucks being heavily favored and losing is all that most will recall, not that Miami was technically 3 games ahead of the Hawks in the win column. It clearly bought no extra time for Bud. I'm sure he said to the GM "ThEy wErEn'T tHe 8tH!"

:oldlol:

I didn't even realize they lost to the very team Arby is claiming they were way better than on their own homecourt by double digits. The Hawks spanked them in Miami.

That makes Lil Arby's argument look even that much worse on top of the Bucks literally factually being the 1 seed and losing in the 1st round to the 8 seed.

[ArbitraryWater]

:oldlol:

I didn't even realize they lost to the very team Arby is claiming they were way better than on their own homecourt by double digits. The Hawks spanked them in Miami.

That makes Lil Arby's argument look even that much worse on top of the Bucks literally factually being the 1 seed and losing in the 1st round to the 8 seed.

Does it?

You think the Hawks were a better team than the Heat?

[ArbitraryWater]

They were the true 8th seed. What they didn't have was the 8th best record in their conference.

No matter what argument you're trying to make, all history will continue to log Miami as the 8th. A 7th seed cannot pay against the 1st seed in the playoffs.

In that case, the 8th seed beating the 1st loses all meaning.

A team could be 10 games better than the 8th seed but lose 1 play-in game.

Would they be the "true 8th seed" ?


Try answering that, and remember, its a matter of principle.

[tpols]

Current polls fellas.

https://i.postimg.cc/k4fKbFYw/Screenshot-20240405-141609-You-Tube.jpg

[beasted]

In that case, the 8th seed beating the 1st loses all meaning.

A team could be 10 games better than the 8th seed but lose 1 play-in game.

Would they be the "true 8th seed" ?


Try answering that, and remember, its a matter of principle.

It doesn't lose all meaning. Whatever the circumstance, all that will be remembered is the results that the history books will keep. Whether it's a unique order because of division winner rules, whether it's because of a play-in reorder, or whether there is a shortened series due to a 5-game series. Nobody is going to place large significance on those details.

[ArbitraryWater]

It doesn't lose all meaning. Whatever the circumstance, all that will be remembered is the results that the history books will keep. Whether it's a unique order because of division winner rules, whether it's because of a play-in reorder, or whether there is a shortened series due to a 5-game series. Nobody is going to place large significance on those details.

I dont care about people placing significance on it, of course most wont bother looking it up, but they arent the true 8th seed.

Theyre the opposite of the true 8th seed.

Thats wgy, again, try answering if a team could be 10 games better than the 8th seed but lose 1 play-in game.

Would they be the "true 8th seed" ?


You know its complete rubbish to think that way.

[beasted]

I dont care about people placing significance on it, of course most wont bother looking it up, but they arent the true 8th seed.

Theyre the opposite of the true 8th seed.

Thats wgy, again, try answering if a team could be 10 games better than the 8th seed but lose 1 play-in game.

Would they be the "true 8th seed" ?


You know its complete rubbish to think that way.

Even if they were 10 games ahead, fault is on them for losing with HCA to an inferior team and putting their whole season at risk and possibly getting eliminated altogether by a 9th-10th seed.

[ArbitraryWater]

Even if they were 10 games ahead, fault is on them for losing with HCA to an inferior team and putting their whole season at risk and possibly getting eliminated altogether by a 9th-10th seed.

How tf does that make any sense?

It still wouldnt make them the true 8th seed. Are you playing stupid?


Its not their fault someone wanted to throw off a seasons worth of volume for entertainment purposes.

It doesnt change anything except its 1 lost game that arbitrarily was given more purpose than an entire seasons worth of games. Thats exacty why we play 82 games and not 16.

The bigger volume makes it bulletproof.

The play-in is purely entertainment (although it in fact makes the season finish far less entertaining)


I mean...


What exactly are we doing here? :oldlol:


Why are you people so easily swayed by some man-made interruption of a mathmetical fact?

Next thing the NBA is gonna implement a game between the 8th and the 5th seed, winner gets 5th loser gets 8th.


You two would be here "they were the true 5th seed, nothing else will be remembered, they even lost that game big haha!" :facepalm

Thats the same principle as the play-in.

[tpols]

The way it’s shaping up right now we might not get a garbage first round playoff series to throw on NBA TV and disregard while we all get our errands done before the real game start later on tnt or espn. That garbage series is ann important part of my early playoff experience.

What series are you running on nba tv while better ones are on abc right now?

If the Bulls win in the play in we would have that truly garbage series to ignore. But that’s our only option isn’t it?

Well... you got your wish for the 1st playoff game of the year... Cleveland vs Orlando.


https://youtu.be/oZzgAjjuqZM?si=f-sOCBhE-Nt-2qzz

I'm going to pick up my taxes tomorrow during that one.