PDA

View Full Version : East vs West this year, which is the more powerful conference?



JordansBulls
03-17-2009, 03:55 PM
http://www.boxscorebasketball.com/eastwest.htm

Currently these are the records head to head between the two.

East 195 victories, and a .516 w/l pct. and a RWmHL rating of + 12
West 183 victories, and a .484 w/l pct. and a RWmHL rating of - 12

Games Played = 378
Games Remaining = 72
Pct Complete = 84.0%
82-game schedule East would have 42 - 40 record

Vinny642
03-17-2009, 03:57 PM
West, they got 9 teams that are great to good and East got like 4 or 5.

DerekRE_3
03-17-2009, 04:01 PM
http://www.boxscorebasketball.com/eastwest.htm

Currently these are the records head to head between the two.

East 195 victories, and a .516 w/l pct. and a RWmHL rating of + 12
West 183 victories, and a .484 w/l pct. and a RWmHL rating of - 12

Games Played = 378
Games Remaining = 72
Pct Complete = 84.0%
82-game schedule East would have 42 - 40 record

That doesn't tell the whole story. There are teams like the Kings in the West that haven't beaten an Eastern Conference team this year, and teams like the Bobcats that are over .500 against the West, despite being under .500 overall.

superkegger
03-17-2009, 04:30 PM
I think the East is much closer than it has been in the last few years, but the West still has an edge.

The west could end up with 8 50+ win teams again. That's crazy. However after the top 9, there is a huge dropoff. So you probably have some easer wins in the West.

At the same time, the east has some better quality teams at the bottom. Their 10-13 teams still have s hot at the playoffs and are definitely better than the West's bottom. However they play less games against better competition. Your bottom teams in the west have to play more games against those top 8, which make wins harder to come by.

Would Golden state have more wins if they played in the east? Who knows, but maybe.

It's easier to get into the playoffs in the East, as the 4th seed in the East, were they in the west would be in a tie for the 8th spot.

However, once in the playoffs in the East, it looks to be quite tough to get very far, as Cleveland, Boston and Orlando are all there.

bleedprple&gold
03-17-2009, 04:34 PM
The East is more top-heavy with elite teams Boston, Orlando, and Cleveland followed by a few good teams, whereas the West has a lot more balance with one really elite team in the Lakers followed by 8 good teams. So depends on how you look at. I would still consider the West to be the better conference

LAKERS 24/7
03-17-2009, 04:43 PM
The west. People talk about Phoenix and how much they suck this year because they're not going to make the playoffs, but in the east they would make it and possibly have a chance at homecourt in the first round. Big difference. Playing in the east has its perks.

BullsNumber1Fan
03-17-2009, 04:47 PM
That doesn't tell the whole story. There are teams like the Kings in the West that haven't beaten an Eastern Conference team this year, and teams like the Bobcats that are over .500 against the West, despite being under .500 overall.

One could argue the only reason teams like the Suns are over .500 is because of the bottom feaders who can't win a game. Make those bottom teams in the West teams from the East fighting for the 8th spot, and it is a lot harder for these "superior" West teams. Get what I am saying?

BullsNumber1Fan
03-17-2009, 04:49 PM
The west. People talk about Phoenix and how much they suck this year because they're not going to make the playoffs, but in the east they would make it and possibly have a chance at homecourt in the first round. Big difference. Playing in the east has its perks.

So does playing in the West where you get to mark 20-25 games WINS before you even play the games because of the teams 10-15 in the West.

ULT WARRIOR408
03-17-2009, 04:52 PM
The east has gottin stronger but the west is still a much tougher conference.:box:

The Ooh Child
03-17-2009, 04:53 PM
http://www.boxscorebasketball.com/eastwest.htm

Currently these are the records head to head between the two.

East 195 victories, and a .516 w/l pct. and a RWmHL rating of + 12
West 183 victories, and a .484 w/l pct. and a RWmHL rating of - 12

Games Played = 378
Games Remaining = 72
Pct Complete = 84.0%
82-game schedule East would have 42 - 40 record

Those are some interesting figures, but the west is hands down the stronger conference. The two conferences are no longer as unbalanced as they once were, but the west still has a higher number of quality teams.

Kakaroach
03-17-2009, 04:54 PM
I believe they are equal this year. West has the MUCH better overall playoff teams, but the bottom tier is pathetic to say the least. The East only has 5 good playoff teams, but they rest of the conference is great and is looking for a playoff spot.

DrDEADalready
03-17-2009, 04:55 PM
West for the win. :cool: when you have 9 teams really good and only 8 will make it to the playoffs. Is all the proof you need.

superkegger
03-17-2009, 04:57 PM
One could argue the only reason teams like the Suns are over .500 is because of the bottom feaders who can't win a game. Make those bottom teams in the West teams from the East fighting for the 8th spot, and it is a lot harder for these "superior" West teams. Get what I am saying?


So does playing in the West where you get to mark 20-25 games WINS before you even play the games because of the teams 10-15 in the West.

The arguments works both ways. Those bottom teams in the West are so bad because they have to play those top 9 teams that are so much better than them.

I mean how much better are the Charlotte Bobcats than the Warriors. They're supposedly 6 games better. But what if they Warriors got to play less games against the likes of the top teams in the West, perhaps they would have 6 more wins.

JordansBulls
03-17-2009, 05:03 PM
Those are some interesting figures, but the west is hands down the stronger conference. The two conferences are no longer as unbalanced as they once were, but the west still has a higher number of quality teams.

How is it west hands down if the east has the better record against them?

RaiderLakersA's
03-17-2009, 05:06 PM
Jokingly, can I say that the West is better simply because the Eastern Conference teams get to sleep in their beds more often, yet have more teams under .500?

LTS
03-17-2009, 05:06 PM
The West It's just so hard to seperate the elite from the very good in the west
Right Now
Elite-Lakers (not a fan)
Very Good-Just About everyone
the Bad- The rest of CA teams

Korman12
03-17-2009, 05:08 PM
I'm still going to give the West a slight edge because of the nine teams, but I do feel the East is getting closer because of the elite three - Cleveland, Boston, Orlando.

The Ooh Child
03-17-2009, 06:14 PM
How is it west hands down if the east has the better record against them?

Oh no, a wopping 12 games :rolleyes:

KnicksorBust
03-17-2009, 06:25 PM
East has the defending champs.
East has the better record.
And imo, Celtics or Cavs take the title this year. I gotta go East.

JordansBulls
03-17-2009, 06:43 PM
Oh no, a wopping 12 games :rolleyes:

They still lead. So I was saying how is it the other conference hands down?

Hawkeye15
03-17-2009, 06:57 PM
from top to BOTTOM, the east.

isuk
03-17-2009, 07:31 PM
I believe they are equal this year. West has the MUCH better overall playoff teams, but the bottom tier is pathetic to say the least. The East only has 5 good playoff teams, but they rest of the conference is great and is looking for a playoff spot.

How can you say the rest of the conference is great when 9 of the teams are sub .500.

still1ballin
03-17-2009, 07:41 PM
west

RaiderLakersA's
03-17-2009, 08:16 PM
How can you say the rest of the conference is great when 9 of the teams are sub .500.

...And two of those teams in the East, Philly and Detroit, are a loss or two away from being sub .500.

It's too early to call, but I think when it's all said and done, the West will be viewed as the stronger conference.

shonk688
03-17-2009, 08:31 PM
The east!

I'm just saying that because my team plays in the east.:D

hawksd911
03-17-2009, 09:17 PM
Go Hawks

DenButsu
03-17-2009, 10:28 PM
How is it west hands down if the east has the better record against them?

There are two different questions at play here.

Which is the stronger conference overall when you take every single team into consideration? (This, I believe, is your thread topic question)

and

Which is the stronger conference when you zoom in only on the teams that are in (or have a shot at being in) the postseason picture? (This, I think, is what a lot of people answering "West" are saying would be the better question to ask).

Or, in other words:


East (top 9) West (top 9)
Rank W L W L
1 54 13 53 13
2 50 17 44 22
3 49 18 44 25
4 40 28 43 25
5 36 30 42 25
6 33 31 41 25
7 33 32 41 26
8 31 38 40 27
9 30 37 36 31

Totals 356 244 384 219

Win % .593 .637

Basically, the West has more bottom feeders, and there's a bigger gap between the winning and losing teams than in the East, where instead of having losing very badly concentrated amongst just a small handful of teams, you have mediocrity more evenly spread around.

But when you crop out the bottom and zoom in on the top of the standings (which, when it's all said and done, is the more important part since only 16 teams will remain standing at the end of the season), then the strength of the West emerges more clearly.

I have to say, though, I'm surprised by this. I thought for sure at the beginning of this season that at least some of the teams like Philly, Toronto, New Jersey and Chicago would see more success than they've had this season.

Kiss Ma Grits
03-17-2009, 10:31 PM
Outside of the Lakers, the rest of the west is subpar at best. You guys are looking at competition at the bottom and I'm looking at the top five teams in each conference.

Cleveland, Boston, Orlando, Atlanta, Miami

Los Angeles, San Antonio, Houston, Utah, Portland

I'll say it's a tie cause past that nothing else really matters. Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, and New Orleans are up and down. I don't expect those teams to do anything come playoff time.

DODGERS&LAKERS
03-17-2009, 10:35 PM
Outside of the Lakers, the rest of the west is subpar at best. You guys are looking at competition at the bottom and I'm looking at the top five teams in each conference.

Cleveland, Boston, Orlando, Atlanta, Miami

Los Angeles, San Antonio, Houston, Utah, Portland

I'll say it's a tie cause past that nothing else really matters. Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, and New Orleans are up and down. I don't expect those teams to do anything come playoff time.

Your going to crap on Dallas, Denver and Phoenix but put Atlanta and Miami in your top 5 argument.:rolleyes: I would take those 3 teams in the west in a 7 games series vs either the Hawks or Heat.

carter15
03-17-2009, 11:06 PM
The East is more top-heavy with elite teams Boston, Orlando, and Cleveland followed by a few good teams, whereas the West has a lot more balance with one really elite team in the Lakers followed by 8 good teams. So depends on how you look at. I would still consider the West to be the better conference


The west. People talk about Phoenix and how much they suck this year because they're not going to make the playoffs, but in the east they would make it and possibly have a chance at homecourt in the first round. Big difference. Playing in the east has its perks.


One could argue the only reason teams like the Suns are over .500 is because of the bottom feaders who can't win a game. Make those bottom teams in the West teams from the East fighting for the 8th spot, and it is a lot harder for these "superior" West teams. Get what I am saying?
there are legit arguments for either one...and i dont think anyone can really say they are right and the other person is wrong....its really almost impossible to tell this year.

JordansBulls
03-18-2009, 08:25 AM
Your going to crap on Dallas, Denver and Phoenix but put Atlanta and Miami in your top 5 argument.:rolleyes: I would take those 3 teams in the west in a 7 games series vs either the Hawks or Heat.

I can agree with that as well.

Verbal Christ
03-18-2009, 11:14 AM
when half of your playoff teams are UNDER .500 that says alot about your conference, you say the west has more bottom feeders? maybe because they play better competition night in and night out. apart from the big 3 in the east, the rest of the teams are mediocre at best with no shot to even beat the 8 seed in the west in a 7 game series (they might not even beat the #9 seed in 7 games).

philab
03-18-2009, 11:38 AM
There are two different questions at play here.

Which is the stronger conference overall when you take every single team into consideration? (This, I believe, is your thread topic question)

and

Which is the stronger conference when you zoom in only on the teams that are in (or have a shot at being in) the postseason picture? (This, I think, is what a lot of people answering "West" are saying would be the better question to ask).

Or, in other words:


East (top 9) West (top 9)
Rank W L W L
1 54 13 53 13
2 50 17 44 22
3 49 18 44 25
4 40 28 43 25
5 36 30 42 25
6 33 31 41 25
7 33 32 41 26
8 31 38 40 27
9 30 37 36 31

Totals 356 244 384 219

Win % .593 .637

Basically, the West has more bottom feeders, and there's a bigger gap between the winning and losing teams than in the East, where instead of having losing very badly concentrated amongst just a small handful of teams, you have mediocrity more evenly spread around.

But when you crop out the bottom and zoom in on the top of the standings (which, when it's all said and done, is the more important part since only 16 teams will remain standing at the end of the season), then the strength of the West emerges more clearly.

I have to say, though, I'm surprised by this. I thought for sure at the beginning of this season that at least some of the teams like Philly, Toronto, New Jersey and Chicago would see more success than they've had this season.


You can't compare records across conferences like that, though. The East has 3 teams pushing 60 wins whereas the West has 1. The East has 1 sub-.300 team whereas the West has 5. As a result, the rest of the East's teams are getting beat up by the top 3 with only 1 team to feast on. The rest of the West only gets beat up by the Lakers and has FIVE teams to feast on.

I posted this before, but I'll rehash it for you:

Teams A B C D E F. A B C in Conf. 1, D E F in Conf. 2.
A is an .800 team, F is a .200 team, B C D E are all exactly the same quality of team.
With a sample of 16 games, 10 in conference and 6 out, B and C go 7-9 whereas D and E go 9-7.
Over the course of 82 games, however, B and C win 36 games and D and E win 46.

That's a 10 game difference in record between IDENTICAL teams all as a result of competition.


The East is the better conference this year, IMO. They have the better head-to-head record, more elite teams, and less terrible ones. The East also has the defending champion.

With the decline of GS and Phoenix in the West and the rise of Atlanta, Orlando, and Miami (to a lesser degree) in the East, the balance of power has shifted.

Johann
03-18-2009, 11:38 AM
yes, but if you were to make a team of all-stars...no a league of all-stars; one from the east and one from the west. One time, maybe halfway through the basketball season, the two teams face off to see whicch is the beter half. so now kids, wouldnt that solve everything?? :D:D:D

anywho, the Eastern eventhough they lost, have the better players

#1LakersFan
03-18-2009, 11:43 AM
I tend to think the East is better (even though I'm a Lakers fan) because those teams play better defense.

6 of the top 10 defenses in the NBA are Eastern Conference teams. And 6 of the bottom 10 defenses in the NBA are Western Conference teams.

The Prodigy
03-18-2009, 12:01 PM
The west is stronger in the playoffs but the east is stronger in the season

DenButsu
03-18-2009, 12:20 PM
You can't compare records across conferences like that, though. The East has 3 teams pushing 60 wins whereas the West has 1. The East has 1 sub-.300 team whereas the West has 5. As a result, the rest of the East's teams are getting beat up by the top 3 with only 1 team to feast on. The rest of the West only gets beat up by the Lakers and has FIVE teams to feast on.

I posted this before, but I'll rehash it for you:

Teams A B C D E F. A B C in Conf. 1, D E F in Conf. 2.
A is an .800 team, F is a .200 team, B C D E are all exactly the same quality of team.
With a sample of 16 games, 10 in conference and 6 out, B and C go 7-9 whereas D and E go 9-7.
Over the course of 82 games, however, B and C win 36 games and D and E win 46.

That's a 10 game difference in record between IDENTICAL teams all as a result of competition.


The East is the better conference this year, IMO. They have the better head-to-head record, more elite teams, and less terrible ones. The East also has the defending champion.

With the decline of GS and Phoenix in the West and the rise of Atlanta, Orlando, and Miami (to a lesser degree) in the East, the balance of power has shifted.

Meh, all that ABC stuff looks like pretty dodgy rationalization to me, when the field at the top of the West is clearly much more solid all the way across the board than that of the East.

By the same reasoning of the arguments you're outlining, you could also say that Detroit, Philly, New Jersey and Toronto have all failed to live up to expectations, while Portland and Denver have exceeded them. And you could also say that while the East may have 3 .700+ teams to the West's one, the West has a full seven .600+ teams whereas the East immediately drops below .600 once you get beyond the big 3, meaning that teams in the West face significantly more difficult opposition on a much more frequent basis.

Anyhow, I still think it's two separate questions, one which looks at the overall conference as a whole, the other which looks at the top 8-9 teams - but the latter is much more relevant because a month from now, those 9-15 teams won't even be a part of the picture.

#1LakersFan
03-18-2009, 12:23 PM
all about defense

sciferguy
03-18-2009, 12:25 PM
As far as records are concerned the East has the edge as a whole conference. In the top 8 record wise, the West has the edge. Does anybody know the head to head records of the top 8 of each conference against the other conference? That actually would be the tell all for this thread.

sciferguy
03-18-2009, 12:26 PM
You mean defense as in Ariza not taking that foul last night haha...Phil was pissed

JabberJaw
03-18-2009, 12:41 PM
I believe they are equal this year. West has the MUCH better overall playoff teams, but the bottom tier is pathetic to say the least. The East only has 5 good playoff teams, but they rest of the conference is great and is looking for a playoff spot.

No way...There is going to be a team in the West that wont even make the playoffs, but would be like a 5/6 seed in the East. No contest. The West is better hands down. The rest of the conference is not great because they are looking for a playoff spot. They are just fortunate that the records are so poor that anyone has a shot at the playoffs at this time. When you are sub .500 and you are a playoff team, that is not great by any stretch of the word. West 8th seed will be well over .500, while the East will be below. End of story

JabberJaw
03-18-2009, 12:47 PM
Just imagine if for the playoffs, seeding went by record only and was not split into two conferences. You would have Lakers and Cavs fighting for that top spot, then Spurs fighting with Orlando and Celitics for 3-5 spots then the West would occupy the majority of all the rest of the spots for the playoffs. The only legit teams in the East that would make he playoffs in the West are the big 3 teams. The rest would struggle to make it.

nyybronxborn
03-18-2009, 12:49 PM
top 3 teams in the east is better so i will go will the east
boston
orlando
cleveland
i like all these teams better then the lakers to win it all

philab
03-18-2009, 12:53 PM
Meh, all that ABC stuff looks like pretty dodgy rationalization to me, when the field at the top of the West is clearly much more solid all the way across the board than that of the East.

By the same reasoning of the arguments you're outlining, you could also say that Detroit, Philly, New Jersey and Toronto have all failed to live up to expectations, while Portland and Denver have exceeded them. And you could also say that while the East may have 3 .700+ teams to the West's one, the West has a full seven .600+ teams whereas the East immediately drops below .600 once you get beyond the big 3, meaning that teams in the West face significantly more difficult opposition on a much more frequent basis.

Anyhow, I still think it's two separate questions, one which looks at the overall conference as a whole, the other which looks at the top 8-9 teams - but the latter is much more relevant because a month from now, those 9-15 teams won't even be a part of the picture.

I'll agree with the second part, as I made some of the same mistakes I accused you of.

As for the "ABC" stuff -- it's not dodgy rationalization. Comparing records across conferences is a virtual waste of time. There's no dodging there either; it's a completely rational, logical illustration of this point. I can dig up the post that goes through it all if you don't remember or are still skeptical . . .

If we're asking which conference has the better 4-8 or 4-9 teams, it's the West -- no argument. BUT, if we're asking which conference has the better 1-3, it's the East. And if we're asking about 10-15, it's clearly the East again.

Going off this, make your judgment however you'd like. For me, the better teams at the top and the better teams at the bottom outweigh the depth of the West's "good" teams. Couple that with the East's winning head-to-head record, and I have to pick the East.

You can pick the West and I won't even argue really, but don't base your opinions on overall records -- they're meaningless here.

mjt20mik
03-18-2009, 01:09 PM
Just imagine if for the playoffs, seeding went by record only and was not split into two conferences. You would have Lakers and Cavs fighting for that top spot, then Spurs fighting with Orlando and Celitics for 3-5 spots then the West would occupy the majority of all the rest of the spots for the playoffs. The only legit teams in the East that would make he playoffs in the West are the big 3 teams. The rest would struggle to make it.

Well if you consider that, you must also consider the Cavs, Magic, and Celtics having less losses, cause the majority of their losses have come from Eastern Conference teams. You can also bank on the low tier teams in the Eastern Conference also having more wins, cause they would have to play against the Bottom Feeders in the West.

Hawkeye15
03-18-2009, 03:20 PM
one of the oldest sayings in the world is, "You are only as strong as your weakest link". With 5 20 win and under teams, the west takes the prize. 1-15, the east is better

miller
03-18-2009, 04:18 PM
I think overall the west edges it.

JJ81
03-18-2009, 05:04 PM
The West.

Nirvanaskurdt
03-18-2009, 05:34 PM
WESTSIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEDE hahaha jk :laugh: :laugh: :laugh2: :laugh2: :smoking:

No But Seriously The West is by far better... :cool:

JordansBulls
03-18-2009, 06:50 PM
WESTSIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEDE hahaha jk :laugh: :laugh: :laugh2: :laugh2: :smoking:

No But Seriously The West is by far better... :cool:

They could be better, but the statement by far is totally incorrect.

DenButsu
03-18-2009, 08:52 PM
I'll agree with the second part, as I made some of the same mistakes I accused you of.

As for the "ABC" stuff -- it's not dodgy rationalization. Comparing records across conferences is a virtual waste of time. There's no dodging there either; it's a completely rational, logical illustration of this point. I can dig up the post that goes through it all if you don't remember or are still skeptical . . .

If we're asking which conference has the better 4-8 or 4-9 teams, it's the West -- no argument. BUT, if we're asking which conference has the better 1-3, it's the East. And if we're asking about 10-15, it's clearly the East again.

Going off this, make your judgment however you'd like. For me, the better teams at the top and the better teams at the bottom outweigh the depth of the West's "good" teams. Couple that with the East's winning head-to-head record, and I have to pick the East.

You can pick the West and I won't even argue really, but don't base your opinions on overall records -- they're meaningless here.

What I'm saying is, how much does 10-15 really matter? Not as much as 1-9. My judgment is weighted in favor of playoff teams, where the West clearly is stronger overall.

superkegger
03-18-2009, 09:04 PM
I'll agree with the second part, as I made some of the same mistakes I accused you of.

As for the "ABC" stuff -- it's not dodgy rationalization. Comparing records across conferences is a virtual waste of time. There's no dodging there either; it's a completely rational, logical illustration of this point. I can dig up the post that goes through it all if you don't remember or are still skeptical . . .

If we're asking which conference has the better 4-8 or 4-9 teams, it's the West -- no argument. BUT, if we're asking which conference has the better 1-3, it's the East. And if we're asking about 10-15, it's clearly the East again.
Going off this, make your judgment however you'd like. For me, the better teams at the top and the better teams at the bottom outweigh the depth of the West's "good" teams. Couple that with the East's winning head-to-head record, and I have to pick the East.

You can pick the West and I won't even argue really, but don't base your opinions on overall records -- they're meaningless here.

Who breaks down the conference like that?

You'd either take it as a whole, or take it by it's playoff teams. Not the bottom 4 playoff teams, or the 5 worst teams or any of that garbage, it makes no sense to make a comparison on which conference is better on such a small scale.

skinsfan4life80
03-18-2009, 09:58 PM
The West hands down. After the top 3 in the East its a joke. If the Pistons were doing this free fall in the west they would be out the playoffs so fast. But not in the East. You really have to go out of your way not to make the playoffs in the East.

IndyRealist
03-18-2009, 10:42 PM
What I'm saying is, how much does 10-15 really matter? Not as much as 1-9. My judgment is weighted in favor of playoff teams, where the West clearly is stronger overall.

10-15 matters because 1-9 gets more games against them to pad their records. You can argue that they have bad records because they play the Lakers, etc more, or you can argue the reverse.

But what you can't argue is head to head matchups. The East has a slight advantage, but it IS in favor of the East. Overall, the East is stronger, but slightly. It certainly isn't a slam dunk for the West.

VinceGully
03-18-2009, 10:53 PM
The EAST is winning it all this year so it really doesn't matter.

SteveNash
03-18-2009, 11:02 PM
East better overall just like last year.

East better playoff teams.

East much better chance at winning the title.

I'd take

Cleveland over Lakers
Boston over San Antonio
Orlando over Houston
Denver over Atlanta
Miami over Portland

4 of the top 5.

The choice is clear.

Vinny642
03-18-2009, 11:09 PM
5 teams out of a 15 team conference I thought you were better then that.

SteveNash
03-18-2009, 11:15 PM
5 teams out of a 16 team conference I thought you were better then that.

There's 15 teams in each conference...

VinceGully
03-18-2009, 11:16 PM
5 teams out of a 16 team conference I thought you were better then that.

its only in the middle where the west is better. East is better at the top 5 and bottom 5 teams in each conference. so that would mean that the majority of the East is better than the West.

Vinny642
03-18-2009, 11:21 PM
There's 15 teams in each conference...

Typed 16 by mistake lol nice catch...

Vinny642
03-18-2009, 11:29 PM
its only in the middle where the west is better. East is better at the top 5 and bottom 5 teams in each conference. so that would mean that the majority of the East is better than the West.

No the East aren't better of what you said.

You don't know if the Cavs are better then the Lakers
Celts over Spurs OK
After Magic the East isn't better then the West.
Aren't most teams in the playoffs for the West going to get 50 wins, at most East only has 4 maybe only 3 if the Hawks can't do it.
Not saying the bottom of the West is bad but they had tough injuries....
Wolves were on fire until Al Jeff got injured.
Kings' Martin was out a while and in out now.
GSW didn't have Ellis for like the whole year.

SteveNash
03-18-2009, 11:50 PM
No the East aren't better of what you said.

You don't know if the Cavs are better then the Lakers
Celts over Spurs OK
After Magic the East isn't better then the West.
Aren't most teams in the playoffs for the West going to get 50 wins, at most East only has 4 maybe only 3 if the Hawks can't do it.
Not saying the bottom of the West is bad but they had tough injuries....
Wolves were on fire until Al Jeff got injured.
Kings' Martin was out a while and in out now.
GSW didn't have Ellis for like the whole year.

Because injuries haven't happened in the East?

Cavs-Ben
Celtics-KG
Magic-Jameer
Atlanta-Josh Smith
Miami-Marion
Sixers-Brand
Pistons-AI
Chicago-Hinrich then Deng
Milwaukee-Bogut and Redd
Bobcats-Wallace
Pacers-Granger
Wizards-Arenas

Wolves were 17-33 just burning up with Jefferson.
Kings 10-35 with Martin.
Warriors with a 10-7 record with Martin.

East>West

SwaggaIke
03-18-2009, 11:53 PM
1-15 the East is clearly better.

DODGERS&LAKERS
03-18-2009, 11:54 PM
1-15 the East is clearly better.

But since when have teams 9 through 15 mattered?

philab
03-18-2009, 11:57 PM
What I'm saying is, how much does 10-15 really matter? Not as much as 1-9. My judgment is weighted in favor of playoff teams, where the West clearly is stronger overall.

That's ridiculous though. You're clearly making a comparison of each conference's top 9 teams because the West's top 9 teams all have good records.

If we're just going to start picking "arbitrary" numbers and comparing conferences, how about top 3? "My judgment is weighted in favor of top 3 teams, where the East clearly is stronger overall."

And like I said, the records are meaningless in this discussion.

How much does 10-15 really matter? Well, we're talking East vs. West: Most Powerful Conference -- not top 9. And teams 10-15 in each conference represent 40% of that conference. Refer to IndyRealist's post for more on this.

Who's doing "dodgy rationalization" now?

Now, if you can make an argument for the West that doesn't include a) overall records and b) biased criteria, then you might have something.

Vinny642
03-18-2009, 11:59 PM
Because injuries haven't happened in the East?

Cavs-Ben
Celtics-KG
Magic-Jameer
Atlanta-Josh Smith
Miami-Marion
Sixers-Brand
Pistons-AI
Chicago-Hinrich then Deng
Milwaukee-Bogut and Redd
Bobcats-Wallace
Pacers-Granger
Wizards-Arenas

Wolves were 17-33 just burning up with Jefferson.
Kings 10-35 with Martin.
Warriors with a 10-7 record with Martin.

East>West

I didn't name the East because I was too lazy, I was also just talking about the bottom teams in the West.... but ok

Lakers- Bynum
Spurs- Parker for a while, Ginobli
Rockets- TMac
Hornets- Peja and Tyson
Portland- I guess Oden
Nuggets- Carmelo
Mavericks- Terry and Howard
Suns- Amare.....
every team has injuries but im saying West is better because...
Its harder to make the playoffs in the West, Suns would be in the playoffs with their record right now in the East. Also before someone said Miami over Portland, seriously doubt that.

Vinny642
03-19-2009, 12:00 AM
But since when have teams 9 through 15 mattered?

Maybe ninth matter too but come on... 10-15 are unimportant East are better at getting the lottery.

philab
03-19-2009, 12:09 AM
Who breaks down the conference like that?

You'd either take it as a whole, or take it by it's playoff teams. Not the bottom 4 playoff teams, or the 5 worst teams or any of that garbage, it makes no sense to make a comparison on which conference is better on such a small scale.

Idiots break down conferences like that. That was my point.

The argument keeps being made that the West is so much stronger 1-9. Who the hell breaks down conferences like that? Yes, the West is better 4-9 (i.e., they have more depth in "good" teams). BUT, the East is better 1-3 and 10-15. All I'm doing is showing the flip side of this questionable argument.

We're talking conferences as a whole here. Overall records mean ****. So far, we've got the East supporters citing an overall advantage head-to-head. This certainly isn't conclusive, but I've yet to see a legitimate argument for the West being the better conference (and trust me, such arguments can be made).

All I see for the West is people trying to change the criteria -- criteria that "clearly" is biased towards the West. Funny that it keeps coming from fans of West teams. What these people do not realize (and the reason for the "clearly"), however, is that those overall records that are so impressive for the West's 1-9 are MEANINGLESS.

So, would anyone like to make a legitimate argument? It's not that hard.

SteveNash
03-19-2009, 12:09 AM
every team has injuries but im saying West is better because...
Its harder to make the playoffs in the West, Suns would be in the playoffs with their record right now in the East. Also before someone said Miami over Portland, seriously doubt that.

Suns against the East-14-14
Chicago against the West-17-12

Seems like the Bulls would have an easier time in the West than the Suns would have in the East.

philab
03-19-2009, 12:14 AM
But since when have teams 9 through 15 mattered?

Since when have teams 5-8 really mattered? No 5-8 seeds ever win the championship and they rarely make it past the second round.

Looks like we're down to teams 1-4 now. And 1-4 the East is the superior conference.



See how dumb that is?

Vinny642
03-19-2009, 12:15 AM
well right now suns are kinda screwed they lost barbosa, i think for the season. Bulls are very underrated... you dont make the playoffs if your record in your conference is good but your total record isn't

Vinny642
03-19-2009, 12:17 AM
Since when have teams 5-8 really mattered? No 5-8 seeds ever win the championship and they rarely make it past the second round.

Looks like we're down to teams 1-4 now. And 1-4 the East is the superior conference.



See how dumb that is?

I'd say the 5-8 in the West have a better chance to win it all then the 5-8 in the East.

philab
03-19-2009, 12:18 AM
I'd say the 5-8 in the West have a better chance to win it all then the 5-8 in the East.

So would I.


So? How is this relevant?

Vinny642
03-19-2009, 12:21 AM
It kinda shows the West are better.

charlsdq7
03-19-2009, 12:22 AM
East...just look at the East vs West record

JordansBulls
03-19-2009, 12:23 AM
Since when have teams 5-8 really mattered? No 5-8 seeds ever win the championship and they rarely make it past the second round.

Looks like we're down to teams 1-4 now. And 1-4 the East is the superior conference.



See how dumb that is?

Rockets in 1995 won it all as the 6th seed.

philab
03-19-2009, 12:27 AM
It kinda shows the West are better.

No it doesn't. It shows that the West has better 5-8 teams and nothing more.

The East's 10-15 teams have a better shot at winning a championship.
The East's 2-4 teams have a better shot at winning a championship.

So? That doesn't make the East the better conference, just like the West's superior 5-8 teams don't for the West.

philab
03-19-2009, 12:28 AM
Rockets in 1995 won it all as the 6th seed.

Well, I meant that in a general sense. It's fairly obvious that I was unaware of the 1995 Rockets' seed, though. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

Vinny642
03-19-2009, 12:29 AM
The Cavs and Celtics don't have a better chance to win over Lakers... its pretty equal until they face each other, we'll see after the finals

philab
03-19-2009, 12:30 AM
The Cavs and Celtics don't have a better chance to win over Lakers... its pretty equal until they face each other, we'll see after the finals

Is this a response to me? I don't really see how it could be -- I never mentioned anything about the Cavs or Lakers.

Vinny642
03-19-2009, 12:35 AM
I thought u said 1-4, but I pick Spurs over Magic, since Jameer is done, and Magic is my second favorite team

philab
03-19-2009, 12:36 AM
I thought u said 1-4, but I pick Spurs over Magic, since Jameer is done, and Magic is my second favorite team

So would I.

Again, this is all irrelevant.

Vinny642
03-19-2009, 12:38 AM
So would I.

Again, this is all irrelevant.

everything is until the Finals are over.

philab
03-19-2009, 12:43 AM
everything is until the Finals are over.

Haha, all right man.

I'm done with this now.

SteveNash
03-19-2009, 12:51 AM
well right now suns are kinda screwed they lost barbosa, i think for the season. Bulls are very underrated... you dont make the playoffs if your record in your conference is good but your total record isn't

No, but the Suns would be playing almost twice as many Eastern teams, and nearly half the Western teams.

So they're record more than likely wouldn't be as "good" as it is now, and the Bulls record wouldn't be as "bad" at least that's what the numbers say.

DenButsu
03-19-2009, 06:52 AM
In the NBA...

...16 teams have winning records against the opposing conference.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4453/opposingconferencestand.png
8 in the East, 8 in the West... but 7 of the top 9 (77%) are in the West.


...16 teams have winning records against their own conference.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4453/opposingconferencestand.png
7 in the East, 9 in the West... and 7 of the top 11 (64%) are in the West.


...15 teams have overall winning records.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3812/leaguestandings.png
Only 6 are in the East, and 9 are in the West... including 9 of the top 13 (69%).


Assuming having a winning record counts for something a little bit more significant than whether a team sucks as bad as .294 or only as bad as .406, I really think the argument for the East being stronger is flimsy at best, or, more accurately, nearly unsupportable. The above data pretty much dispels the notion that the strength at the top of the West is overinflated by there being more bottom feeders in that conference. The opposing conference and own conference distribution is not that significantly different. What appears solid all the way across the top of the West is, in fact, solid. The worst of the East might be better than the worst of the West, but when it comes to winning (in either conference), the winners in the West are stronger overall for sure.

philab
03-19-2009, 10:56 AM
In the NBA...

...16 teams have winning records against the opposing conference.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4453/opposingconferencestand.png
8 in the East, 8 in the West... but 7 of the top 9 (77%) are in the West.


Assuming having a winning record counts for something a little bit more significant than whether a team sucks as bad as .294 or only as bad as .406, I really think the argument for the East being stronger is flimsy at best, or, more accurately, nearly unsupportable. The above data pretty much dispels the notion that the strength at the top of the West is overinflated by there being more bottom feeders in that conference. The opposing conference and own conference distribution is not that significantly different. What appears solid all the way across the top of the West is, in fact, solid. The worst of the East might be better than the worst of the West, but when it comes to winning (in either conference), the winners in the West are stronger overall for sure.

A quick word on the two charts I deleted:

Again, the in-conference and overall records don't mean much. Do you not see the six West teams at the bottom of each chart? Six of the worst seven in-conference records are in the West. What does this mean? Well, who knows --

I can argue that it means the rest of the West is beating up on these cellar dwellers and padding their W-L records. On the other hand, you can argue that these six teams are at the bottom because eight of the top twelve (or whatever distribution) teams in the NBA are in their conference.

And we're left taking basically nothing out of those charts.


The first chart is good. First off, though, you misspoke. It's not 7 of the top 9; it's 7 of the top 11 (you missed one of the top 3 East teams and didn't include Chicago, who's tied with Houston).

I also would like to point out that you're clearly biasing your criteria again. I can say sixteen teams have winning records against the opposing conference -- eight in the East, eight in the West. This criteria, using something other than an "arbitrary" cut-off line (.500, not "top 9"), makes things look a little more balanced.

It's still a valid point to a degree -- 7 of the top 11 are in the West. On the other hand, the East has the best (by a substantial margin) and third-best records against opposing conferences.

All I'm doing is showing that your evidence isn't quite as conclusive as you may think (or like).



Overall, though, it's a good argument. The only real reason I'm responding is to attack that "flimsy at best" statement (i.e., "not quite as conclusive as you may think"). IMO at least, the conferences are fairly even overall and a good argument can be made for either being stronger. You've made that argument for the West; I (and others) have made it for the East. And that's about where it ends for me.

DenButsu
03-19-2009, 11:14 AM
The reason for all 3 charts is to show that the same pattern exists no matter how you slice it (vs. opposing conference or within the same conference or league wide), the much larger share of the roughly top third - if that's not too arbitrary for you - of the NBA's best teams are in the West.

Basically, the counter argument being made is that since the West's sucky teams are suckier and the East's sucky teams are less sucky, that invalidates the true winning strength of the West's teams. What I posted does refute that - and flimsify (to make up a word) the argument.

king4day
03-19-2009, 11:24 AM
I believe they are equal this year. West has the MUCH better overall playoff teams, but the bottom tier is pathetic to say the least. The East only has 5 good playoff teams, but they rest of the conference is great and is looking for a playoff spot.

The 6 and 7 seeds are currently under .500.

Someone earlier made the argument that the Wests best are only good because they are beating the bottom feeders like the Kings.
In the East, the 7-15 seeds ARE bottom feeders. So they are beating each other up and getting wins because of it. Just because they are in position to make the playoffs doesn't mean they are better.

da wood
03-19-2009, 11:29 AM
wow the east have an alright middle section but the west 2 through 10 can win 50 plus games. where as the middle of the east say 4 through 8 are in the 40s

theimortalone
03-19-2009, 12:05 PM
The 6 and 7 seeds are currently under .500.

Someone earlier made the argument that the Wests best are only good because they are beating the bottom feeders like the Kings.
In the East, the 7-15 seeds ARE bottom feeders. So they are beating each other up and getting wins because of it. Just because they are in position to make the playoffs doesn't mean they are better.

Well said King! :clap:

philab
03-19-2009, 02:52 PM
The reason for all 3 charts is to show that the same pattern exists no matter how you slice it (vs. opposing conference or within the same conference or league wide), the much larger share of the roughly top third - if that's not too arbitrary for you - of the NBA's best teams are in the West.

Basically, the counter argument being made is that since the West's sucky teams are suckier and the East's sucky teams are less sucky, that invalidates the true winning strength of the West's teams. What I posted does refute that - and flimsify (to make up a word) the argument.

The third chart is dependent upon the second and the third, though. The second one is useless (and it's formatted incorrectly); the W-L record of East teams vs. East teams is identical to the W-L record of West teams vs. West teams. Now, I understand you're trying to show that the teams atop the first chart are similar to the teams atop the second, but the two charts are exactly the same. I don't feel like reranking the teams for the second chart (to make it want you intended), but I can tell that they aren't the same.

The third chart is also virtually useless. It combines the first and the second. That's not isolating a factor; it's combining two factors. Plus, it weights the second considerably more (more in-conference games).

It's like this: A is 2-3 vs. C and 2-0 vs. D. B is 0-2 vs. C and 4-1 vs. D.
Which is the better team -- A or B? Well, judging from the separate records, A is clearly better. What you're doing, though, is combining the records -- 4-3 for each -- and arguing they're equal.

Toss out the second and third charts. The second could be useful to your argument if it were formatted correctly, but it's not.



As for the second paragraph, that's not my argument. That was merely an illustration of the point that overall W-L records are useless.

No, my argument is predicated on the East having a better head-to-head record, having more "great" teams (3-2), and having less "terrible" teams (2-6). The latter two points are MY assessments from watching the games, not scouring the standings (as the standings are virtually useless here). For me, this combination of things means the East is stronger. Certainly, arguments can be made for the West (more "good" teams, only slight difference in head-to-head, challenging my assessments, etc.), but those arguments aren't being made. The only arguments being made are ones that hold no water.

philab
03-19-2009, 02:53 PM
Someone earlier made the argument that the Wests best are only good because they are beating the bottom feeders like the Kings.
In the East, the 7-15 seeds ARE bottom feeders. So they are beating each other up and getting wins because of it. Just because they are in position to make the playoffs doesn't mean they are better.

That's the flip side of the argument. And it holds just as much water.

The moral? The records are meaningless to this discussion.

mrblisterdundee
03-19-2009, 06:00 PM
The East has more powerhouses. The West has one clear powerhouse, and three other teams on the brink.

chicagowhitesox
03-19-2009, 06:25 PM
i really think it's the east this year. although the lakers are probably the best team.

JordansBulls
03-19-2009, 08:28 PM
The 6 and 7 seeds are currently under .500.

Someone earlier made the argument that the Wests best are only good because they are beating the bottom feeders like the Kings.
In the East, the 7-15 seeds ARE bottom feeders. So they are beating each other up and getting wins because of it. Just because they are in position to make the playoffs doesn't mean they are better.

Bulls have a better record against the West than they do against the East.

Bulls are 17-12 against the west and 15-25 against the east.

unwantedplayer
03-19-2009, 08:50 PM
The West has a slight edge in talent, but the East have the better record.

I'm going to have to go with the West. Better talent means better teams.

philab
03-19-2009, 08:57 PM
The West has a slight edge in talent, but the East have the better record.

I'm going to have to go with the West. Better talent means better teams.

No it doesn't. At least not necessarily.

xHTOWN713x
03-19-2009, 09:44 PM
West. GO ROCKETS

DenButsu
03-19-2009, 10:35 PM
But better teams means better conference.

I just posted the wrong link for that 2nd chart (here's the right one (http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9149/ownconferencestandings.png)).

But it's ridiculous to say the 2nd and 3rd charts don't matter. Of course they do. Because whether it's in your own conference or against the other one, in the NBA all wins matter.

And the purpose of showing all 3 charts was to demonstrate (from the bottom up now), that the pattern everyone is familiar with in the league standings - that the large majority of the teams at the top 3rd of the league are in the West - remains consistent even when you isolate own-conference and, yes, opposing-conference standings.

Why does this matter?

Because the case that's really being made for the East here is that its even-keeled mediocrity trumps the fact that nearly 2/3 of the WC teams are winning teams. Which is completely ridiculous. Because those winning teams are winning in both conferences, and those scrub teams are losing in both as well.

But philab, you want to talk about really watching the games instead of analyzing the standings? Well how about this? What if Philly, and Detroit, and Toronto, and Washington (and we could probably name more teams in the East on this list) hadn't ended up having disappointing seasons that fell far short of fans' and experts' expectations? If Philly had 44 rather than 34 wins right now? If Detroit had 43 rather than 33? If Toronto was a solidly winning team instead of a consistently losing team? Think maybe, just maybe, some of their extra combined 30 (or many more) wins might have taken a toll on the records of the teams at the bottom of the East? Think there wouldn't be a greater dichotomy between winning and losing teams that more closely resembled what's happening in the West? Think the East wouldn't have a larger share of the NBA's "bottom feeders"?

The real thing that needs to be pointed out about the even distribution of mediocrity in the East is that the failure of teams that promised success last summer to deliver has opened the door for other sub-par teams to gain ground on them.

If you think that makes the East the overall better conference, well don't stop believing - hold on to that feeling.

But I'll take the conference where so many teams are winners that one of them won't even make the postseason cut.

Ollie Tabooger
03-19-2009, 11:05 PM
west. not even close.

philab
03-19-2009, 11:12 PM
But better teams means better conference.

I just posted the wrong link for that 2nd chart (here's the right one (http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9149/ownconferencestandings.png)).

But it's ridiculous to say the 2nd and 3rd charts don't matter. Of course they do. Because whether it's in your own conference or against the other one, in the NBA all wins matter.

And the purpose of showing all 3 charts was to demonstrate (from the bottom up now), that the pattern everyone is familiar with in the league standings - that the large majority of the teams at the top 3rd of the league are in the West - remains consistent even when you isolate own-conference and, yes, opposing-conference standings.

Why does this matter?

Because the case that's really being made for the East here is that its even-keeled mediocrity trumps the fact that nearly 2/3 of the WC teams are winning teams. Which is completely ridiculous. Because those winning teams are winning in both conferences, and those scrub teams are losing in both as well.

But philab, you want to talk about really watching the games instead of analyzing the standings? Well how about this? What if Philly, and Detroit, and Toronto, and Washington (and we could probably name more teams in the East on this list) hadn't ended up having disappointing seasons that fell far short of fans' and experts' expectations? If Philly had 44 rather than 34 wins right now? If Detroit had 43 rather than 33? If Toronto was a solidly winning team instead of a consistently losing team? Think maybe, just maybe, some of their extra combined 30 (or many more) wins might have taken a toll on the records of the teams at the bottom of the East? Think there wouldn't be a greater dichotomy between winning and losing teams that more closely resembled what's happening in the West? Think the East wouldn't have a larger share of the NBA's "bottom feeders"?

The real thing that needs to be pointed out about the even distribution of mediocrity in the East is that the failure of teams that promised success last summer to deliver has opened the door for other sub-par teams to gain ground on them.

If you think that makes the East the overall better conference, well don't stop believing - hold on to that feeling.

But I'll take the conference where so many teams are winners that one of them won't even make the postseason cut.

I know the wrong 2nd chart was just a mistake -- didn't mean to sound accusatory. :)

I understand the point you're trying to make -- that if the charts are similar then the overall records must have some truth (or something close to that). What you fail to realize, though, is that the best case scenario -- identical charts for in- and out-of-conference records -- means that the leagues are identical (assuming an entire season, i.e., same # of games in each conference). Think about it. If Cleveland is atop the OUT chart at .846 and the Lakers are 2nd at .778, then identical charts -- Cleveland at .846 and LA at .778 -- would mean that each team has an identical WP% in each conference. If every team has an identical WP% in each conference, it's pretty hard to argue that one is better than the other.

I'm not quite sure why this is so hard to grasp. The in-conference records are meaningless here. This isn't damning to your argument or anything -- far from it. It's just the truth. As a whole, the West vs. the West is going to have a .500 record. Same with the East. The wins may be clustered at the top with or may be spread somewhat evenly, but that's all just indicative of differences in quality within the conference -- not differences in quality across conferences.

The 3rd chart is taking an indicative chart -- the 1st -- and muddling it up with the unindicative 2nd. So it's similarly useless. And it gives more weight to the 2nd to boot.

As for analzying games and not standings -- I don't mean to sound like Joe Morgan here. Analyzing the standings is all well and good, but it can only tell so much. The East has a better head-to-head record, but it's very close. Couple that with the fact that the overall records are meaningless and you have to get more information somehow to make a determination. The obvious place to turn is personal judgments of teams. The way I judge them leads me to believe the East is superior overall, but that's just me. I fully understand if you feel the West is better -- just don't base it on overall W-L records.

As for the bolded part, that's just the flip side of the argument I originally made to you (intending to show the fallacy of comparing overall records).

I can say the depth of .500+ West teams is a result of the terrible teams at the bottom of the West.
OTOH, you can say the terrible, sub-.300 teams at the bottom of the West are a result of having to play so many good teams.

I can say the lack of depth in .500+ East teams is a result of three .700+ (or whatever the number is) teams beating up on everybody and only one sub-.300 team to beat up on.
OTOH, you can say the three .700+ teams and just one sub-.300 are a result of the plethora of mediocre teams in the East.

And all these arguments hold equal water. You see the point? Comparing in-conference records across conferences is an exercise in futility. And, as overall records include these records (and significantly to boot), they are simiarly useless.


Ridding of overall records certainly doesn't damn your argument. I'm just pointing out that the usual fall-back argument -- "look at all the great records in the West" -- isn't going to fly here because it's bogus.

Bring something else to the plate. It's not that hard.

And please don't ever quote Journey to me again -- I hate Journey. :D

DODGERS&LAKERS
03-20-2009, 01:11 AM
Bulls have a better record against the West than they do against the East.

Bulls are 17-12 against the west and 15-25 against the east.

But thats just one example. Some teams have better luck against the opposite conference. Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Philly, Detroit, New Jersey, Toronto, and Indiana have worst records against the West.

And everyone says the top 9 teams in the west, get so many wins against the crappy 6 teams at the bottom of the West. But 5 of those 6 crappy teams have a better winning percentage against the East. The only team that plays better against the West than the East would be Sacramento. They are 0-28 vs the East:speechless:. That is the difference right there.

SteveNash
03-20-2009, 01:31 AM
Assuming having a winning record counts for something a little bit more significant than whether a team sucks as bad as .294 or only as bad as .406, I really think the argument for the East being stronger is flimsy at best, or, more accurately, nearly unsupportable. The above data pretty much dispels the notion that the strength at the top of the West is overinflated by there being more bottom feeders in that conference. The opposing conference and own conference distribution is not that significantly different. What appears solid all the way across the top of the West is, in fact, solid. The worst of the East might be better than the worst of the West, but when it comes to winning (in either conference), the winners in the West are stronger overall for sure.

Of the playoff teams I'd say the West is better.

But who really cares about a team like Chicago that isn't going to come close to winning a title this year.

Of the title contenders. The East is the clear winner. So if you're talking about the cream of the the conferences the East wins.

Overall the East wins.

It's only when you talk about 1-8 that the West looks better.

rabueed
03-20-2009, 04:15 AM
West Playoff Teams vs. Eastern Conference = 139-80
East Playoff Teams vs. Western Conference = 132-85

since the above teams are the only ones that matter, IMO, which means the West is better.

This, obviously, excludes Pheonix and assumes Chicago is gonna get that final playoff spot in the East. And all the games between them haven't all played out yet.

If you want to compare Elite West vs. Elite West:

Lakers 4-2 against Bos, Cle, Orl
spurs against 1-3 Bos, Cle, Orl
Cavaliers 1-2 against sas, LAL (still got a sas game left in cleveland)
Celtics 0-3 against sas, LAL (still got a sas game left in san antonio)
Magic against 4-0 sas, LAL

pretty fair, I think. the record between the two are 5-5.

GoatMilk
03-20-2009, 04:41 AM
Dallas and Atlanta have the same record
ATL is in 4th place in the East
Dallas is in 8th place in the West

/thread

philab
03-20-2009, 11:12 AM
West Playoff Teams vs. Eastern Conference = 139-80
East Playoff Teams vs. Western Conference = 132-85

since the above teams are the only ones that matter, IMO, which means the West is better.

This, obviously, excludes Pheonix and assumes Chicago is gonna get that final playoff spot in the East. And all the games between them haven't all played out yet.

If you want to compare Elite West vs. Elite West:

Lakers 4-2 against Bos, Cle, Orl
spurs against 1-3 Bos, Cle, Orl
Cavaliers 1-2 against sas, LAL (still got a sas game left in cleveland)
Celtics 0-3 against sas, LAL (still got a sas game left in san antonio)
Magic against 4-0 sas, LAL

pretty fair, I think. the record between the two are 5-5.

I don't see why the playoff teams are the only ones that matter, but okay.

We know that the 8th team in the West is better than the 8th team in the East. I don't think anyone is arguing that.


Anyway, the records you posted sort of show what I've been saying all along: the two conferences are fairly even. There's not much of a difference there, especially in the "elite" teams. Using those records, the slight edge goes to the West. Using overall head-to-head, the slight edge goes to the East. I'm not quite sure why the West side of the argument keeps changing the criteria to playoff teams in a thread called "Most Powerful Conference" (well, actually, I do know why), but whatever. Either way, it looks pretty even, with some points to be made on both sides.

rabueed
03-20-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't see why the playoff teams are the only ones that matter, but okay.

We know that the 8th team in the West is better than the 8th team in the East. I don't think anyone is arguing that.


Anyway, the records you posted sort of show what I've been saying all along: the two conferences are fairly even. There's not much of a difference there, especially in the "elite" teams. Using those records, the slight edge goes to the West. Using overall head-to-head, the slight edge goes to the East. I'm not quite sure why the West side of the argument keeps changing the criteria to playoff teams in a thread called "Most Powerful Conference" (well, actually, I do know why), but whatever. Either way, it looks pretty even, with some points to be made on both sides.

the reason I only mention the playoff teams is because if it weren't for the playoff teams being as good as they are, then seeds 9-15 wouldn't be as bad as they are. seeds 9-15 reflect on how good seeds 1-8 are. And, IMO, the West is better. Not by a whole lot, mind you, it is very close, but that edge goes to the West. The Western "bottom feeders" wouldn't have the records indicated had the Western playoff teams been worse.

It really depends on what your view of a better conference is. On the East, you have a balanced conference. On the West, you have a gap between the good and bad teams. IMO, I choose the West and for this reason:

In chess, I would take 9 Queens over 15 knights and bishops any day of the week. :eyebrow:
(a very vague breakdown, no need to be specific, you get the point.)

hotdogbun
03-20-2009, 03:52 PM
How is it west hands down if the east has the better record against them?
use this example

bobcats = east
lakers = west

the bobcats has a better record against the lakers but lakers is still hands down better.

EX-TREME
03-21-2009, 04:26 PM
east

abe_froman
03-21-2009, 04:30 PM
Dallas and Atlanta have the same record
ATL is in 4th place in the East
Dallas is in 8th place in the West

/thread

this..or something similar,west have more above .500 teams and no sub .500 in playoff picture,hell if suns were in the east they'd be in.the west is lowering but their still on top for now

Brooke
03-21-2009, 04:42 PM
the 8th seed in the West will be over .500 and might win 50 games while the 8th seed in the East will be under .500. Except for the Lakers the rest of the seeds change on a daily basis

JordansBulls
03-21-2009, 08:22 PM
use this example

bobcats = east
lakers = west

the bobcats has a better record against the lakers but lakers is still hands down better.

That's a horrible way to look at it.

Orlando is 2-0 against the Lakers as well.

Bulls are 2-0 against the Suns

Hawkeye15
03-21-2009, 08:25 PM
The top 3 teams in the east are just as good as the best team in the west. The east has the best team. The bottom 5 in the east would kill the bottom 5 in the west. You have to look from top to bottom, not just 1-8. The Lakers get to beat up on 5 sub 20 win teams. The Cavs, with a better record, get 1 of those to beat up on. I still think you are only as strong as youre weakest link, and the west has 5 terrible links.

BigDaddyKaine
03-21-2009, 08:55 PM
Well if you're looking at top heavy you have to say the east but if you're looking for overall depth of a conference then it would be the west

DODGERS&LAKERS
03-21-2009, 09:25 PM
The top 3 teams in the east are just as good as the best team in the west. The east has the best team. The bottom 5 in the east would kill the bottom 5 in the west. You have to look from top to bottom, not just 1-8. The Lakers get to beat up on 5 sub 20 win teams. The Cavs, with a better record, get 1 of those to beat up on. I still think you are only as strong as youre weakest link, and the west has 5 terrible links.

What are you talking about? I would say any team under 500 is a team the better teams can beat up on. The east has 9 of them.

And by the way, you saying the bottom 5 teams in the west are easy wins right? Then why doesn't the supposedly more dominant east beat up on them like the west does. Look at all their records. The Warriors, Wolves, Thunder, Grizzlies and Clippers all have a better winning percentage against the east than they do when they face their west counter parts. The only team out of the bottom 5 that does better against the west is the Kings.

So the Cavs get to beat up on 9 teams. And the Lakers get to beat up on 5.

jrodmesche
03-21-2009, 10:08 PM
East side

Fans in Asia
03-22-2009, 06:00 AM
Still need to pick West.

Probably Suns (or Mavs) will miss the playoff, but either team has every capability to take down East 4th to 8th Seed in a playoff series.

ntat
03-22-2009, 06:44 AM
i hate when people ask this question, look at all the ****** records in the east with the exception of 3 teams, not too mention they get to play eachother a ton during the year, meaning lesser competition. The west has better records, and beats itself up in conference and division play. with the exception of the top, the east is far weaker.