Originally Posted by Wally450
Idk why people are claiming the East is trash when Golden State has won the West the last 3 years and swept the West last year 12-0.
Just because the Warriors steamrolled over the conference doesn't mean that their competition is inferior to the Eastern Conference; it's more attributable to the fact that the Warriors top-heavily outclass the rest of the teams—and to an even greater extent against the Eastern Conference.
You can analogize it to transposing the Olympics team into the Western Conference: they would trounce over all times including the Warriors (the hypothetically second-best team int he league), but it wouldn't mean that the Warriors are a cakewalk; it'd simply mean that the hypothetical Olympics team would be head-and-shoulders above the competition—as the Warriors have been for the past-few years. It speaks more magnitudinously about the Warriors than it does about their competition in the end.
It's speciously results-oriented logic to use, and it's not the enthymeme that objective Eastern Conference-detractors are using to claim the east is weak, themselves; it's more so the fact that there's only been one veritable title-contender in the conference for at least several years, which the west has consistently housed more of.
Moreover, some of the Warriors' supposedly vapid competition can be chalked up to their seeding more than anything else, as that is one of the biggest advantages of the number-one seed: it roadmaps top-bottom match-ups early on so that you face your conference's playoffs fodder before title-contenders. Warriors still have consistently had a title-contender awaiting them in the conference finals, and they had to jockey for their finals appearance, accordingly—last season being the only anomaly, simply because the injury-ravaged Spurs were down two starters (including their MVP candidate).