PDA

View Full Version : Still no Parity between East and West



TFATLizard
04-02-2009, 02:35 PM
I was just looking at the standings. While there are now three really good teams in the East(Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando), The rest of the East is terrible. Phoenix is going to miss the playoffs and they would be a number 5 seed in the East! Hell, there are going to be 3 sub .500 teams in the playoffs in the East!!!

Two Epiphanies to take from this:
1. should change way playoffs are seeded making it just 16 best teams in the league. Giving preference to team with better record gets to stay in their division.

2. Despite having the leagues best record, Cleveland is not leagues best team because they play sub par talented teams with greater regularity.

leftymo
04-02-2009, 02:42 PM
I was just looking at the standings. While there are now three really good teams in the East(Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando), The rest of the East is terrible. Phoenix is going to miss the playoffs and they would be a number 5 seed in the East! Hell, there are going to be 3 sub .500 teams in the playoffs in the East!!!

Two Epiphanies to take from this:
1. should change way playoffs are seeded making it just 16 best teams in the league. Giving preference to team with better record gets to stay in their division.

2. Despite having the leagues best record, Cleveland is not leagues best team because they play sub par talented teams with greater regularity.


The schedule is also unbalanced, where teams in the midwest and east really don't play as many back to backs as teams in the west do. back to backs are strenuous/taxing on teams.

For comparison. Lakers/Suns play 19-20 back to backs, Bost/Cleveland play around 14-15 back to backs.

Lakers have 6 and 7 game road trips. Cleveland's longest? 4 games.

madiaz3
04-02-2009, 03:18 PM
I was just looking at the standings. While there are now three really good teams in the East(Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando), The rest of the East is terrible. Phoenix is going to miss the playoffs and they would be a number 5 seed in the East! Hell, there are going to be 3 sub .500 teams in the playoffs in the East!!!

Two Epiphanies to take from this:
1. should change way playoffs are seeded making it just 16 best teams in the league. Giving preference to team with better record gets to stay in their division.

2. Despite having the leagues best record, Cleveland is not leagues best team because they play sub par talented teams with greater regularity.

First off, there are only two potential EC playoff teams that are below .500 (.474 and .480 respectively)

You can't just "put the Suns in the east" and give them the 5th seed. The West is stacked with "good" teams with one elite in the Lakers. They are also stacked with bottom tier teams, 5 of them 21 wins or less. (6 total 25 wins or less) That's six teams to be played by the good teams up to four times. For playoff teams, that's about 15-20 "gimmes" for the good teams.

The east however only has one team in the teens, and the rest are either 30+ or flirting with it at the moment. They also have the three elites with winning percentages of 75%+. The "30ish win club" which consists of about 7 teams have to play the elites up to 4 times each while in the west, only the Lakers can be considered an elite in the regular season (the record disparity alone proves it.)

The Suns would have to play so many more teams on their level and would only play 3-4 games against a bottom dwelling team (Washington) as opposed to the potential 15-20 they would in the West. (3x & 4x Kings, Wolves, Memphis, Clippers, Ok, GS)

Reyn84
04-02-2009, 03:26 PM
The West also has 6 of the 7 worst teams in the NBA....it all balances out eventually. Changing the playoff format would be a short term fix. Besides, the best team in the NBA will end up winning the championship and that is all that really matters.

superkegger
04-02-2009, 03:47 PM
I'm not going to get into the East vs. West thing.

But the playoff format does not need to be changed. Not in a way that the 16 best teams get it, disregarding conference. That would essentially eliminate conferences. Which means you have to revamp the regular season schedule. Meaning you'd have to somehow figure out how each team could play each other team the same amount. Which means to keep the number of games down, you play each team 3 times. (Which then brings up the problem of either playing a team twice on the road or twice at home.)

But that aside, you'd have more games, (87) more cross country travel, and then the playoffs could be a nightmare. Because of how the regular season would be decided, tie breakers would be unfair, because if say orlando and san antonio are tied, but orlando lost to SA twice, but both games losses came in SA and they beat SA in Orlando. Doesn't really seem like a fair tie breaker.

Basically, what I'm trying to illustrate here, is that changing the playoff format to allow for the top 16 teams would be a headache and a half.

Besides that, the conference system works. You usually, not always, but usually you see the two best teams from each conference meet in the Finals. If they were good enough to get to the Finals, they would have beaten the team that got to the finals from their conference. The setup for the playoffs is just fine.

Tony_Starks
04-02-2009, 03:59 PM
First off, there are only two potential EC playoff teams that are below .500 (.474 and .480 respectively)

You can't just "put the Suns in the east" and give them the 5th seed. The West is stacked with "good" teams with one elite in the Lakers. They are also stacked with bottom tier teams, 5 of them 21 wins or less. (6 total 25 wins or less) That's six teams to be played by the good teams up to four times. For playoff teams, that's about 15-20 "gimmes" for the good teams.

The east however only has one team in the teens, and the rest are either 30+ or flirting with it at the moment. They also have the three elites with winning percentages of 75%+. The "30ish win club" which consists of about 7 teams have to play the elites up to 4 times each while in the west, only the Lakers can be considered an elite in the regular season (the record disparity alone proves it.)

The Suns would have to play so many more teams on their level and would only play 3-4 games against a bottom dwelling team (Washington) as opposed to the potential 15-20 they would in the West. (3x & 4x Kings, Wolves, Memphis, Clippers, Ok, GS)
--------------


One could argue that the reason those bottom teams in W are so bad is having to play the Lakers, Spurs, Jazz, Denver, and even Houston's of the world 4 times a year. In the East after you get past the top 3 teams you don't have to worry about anybody so the teams from 4 down basically just take turns beating each other.

The East is really a joke. Out West you could make a legit argument for about 5 different teams that possibly win it all (Lakers, Spurs, NO, Utah, Denver). In the East lets face it either Boston or Cleveland is coming out with Orlando as a inexperienced dark horse. Not to mention they won't see a quality 50+ win team until probably the eastern conf finals where out West you'll have to go through 3 50+ teams to make it.

king4day
04-02-2009, 04:03 PM
I'm not going to get into the East vs. West thing.

But the playoff format does not need to be changed. Not in a way that the 16 best teams get it, disregarding conference. That would essentially eliminate conferences. Which means you have to revamp the regular season schedule. Meaning you'd have to somehow figure out how each team could play each other team the same amount. Which means to keep the number of games down, you play each team 3 times. (Which then brings up the problem of either playing a team twice on the road or twice at home.)

But that aside, you'd have more games, (87) more cross country travel, and then the playoffs could be a nightmare. Because of how the regular season would be decided, tie breakers would be unfair, because if say orlando and san antonio are tied, but orlando lost to SA twice, but both games losses came in SA and they beat SA in Orlando. Doesn't really seem like a fair tie breaker.

Basically, what I'm trying to illustrate here, is that changing the playoff format to allow for the top 16 teams would be a headache and a half.

Besides that, the conference system works. You usually, not always, but usually you see the two best teams from each conference meet in the Finals. If they were good enough to get to the Finals, they would have beaten the team that got to the finals from their conference. The setup for the playoffs is just fine.

Great post. Very thorough :clap:

Korman12
04-02-2009, 04:41 PM
Discussion happened here before. East has better head to head match up with the West, with more elites teams, while West has more good teams and more terrible teams.

We got no where.

Frank Costanza
04-02-2009, 04:52 PM
they used to have this problem in the past when the celtics, knicks pistons and sixers were sooo much better then the west in the late 80;s early 90's you cant just change the playoff system, some eras have some teams better get over it

BullsNumber1Fan
04-02-2009, 05:15 PM
I was just looking at the standings. While there are now three really good teams in the East(Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando), The rest of the East is terrible. Phoenix is going to miss the playoffs and they would be a number 5 seed in the East! Hell, there are going to be 3 sub .500 teams in the playoffs in the East!!!

Two Epiphanies to take from this:
1. should change way playoffs are seeded making it just 16 best teams in the league. Giving preference to team with better record gets to stay in their division.

2. Despite having the leagues best record, Cleveland is not leagues best team because they play sub par talented teams with greater regularity.

Wrong, only 2 teams(CHI, DET) and they both have a very good chance to get at .500! Chicago has 5 home games left in which they will win all 5 and put them at 41 wins. If you don't believe me, they have won 9 out of the last 10 home games and have only lost to the Lakers in which they had a 14 point lead at half time. They beat the Hornets, Celtics, Maigc, Rockets during that stretch also.

Know you facts before you make a thread.

macc
04-02-2009, 05:17 PM
they used to have this problem in the past when the celtics, knicks pistons and sixers were sooo much better then the west in the late 80;s early 90's you cant just change the playoff system, some eras have some teams better get over it


Exactly. Each conference has their different eras, you can't just change things up because one is stronger than the other. Come 2010 free agency you'll see alot of change and shifting of the powers, just how it is as it always will be.

Frank Costanza
04-02-2009, 05:27 PM
Exactly. Each conference has their different eras, you can't just change things up because one is stronger than the other. Come 2010 free agency you'll see alot of change and shifting of the powers, just how it is as it always will be.

thank you macc, i see these threads soo often and ppl werent prolly born in the days the east was the beast of the nba and in the west .500 would get you 8th, not too far back, late 80's early 90's east dominance was nuts, i havent even checked 70's or 60's

Lebron23
04-02-2009, 06:19 PM
7 of the Worst Teams in the NBA are playing in the Western Conference.

superkegger
04-02-2009, 06:49 PM
7 of the Worst Teams in the NBA are playing in the Western Conference.

and 8 of the 11 best teams also play in the west. Whats your point?

theuuord
04-02-2009, 07:00 PM
the East has the better best teams and better worst teams. The West has the better middle.

Brooke
04-02-2009, 07:04 PM
and yet there will be a team in the West that wont make the playoffs and they would be a 5 or 6 seed in the East. In the East the 8th seed will probably be under .500

Kenny
04-02-2009, 07:22 PM
LOL and whats the cavs record against the west?? and whats the lakers record againsgt the east.. Then tell me who has the "easier" schedule

SteveNash
04-02-2009, 07:31 PM
and 8 of the 11 best teams also play in the west. Whats your point?

2 of the 2 best teams play in the East what's your point?

I really don't know why people are crying about Phoenix, maybe if they were actually good I'd see what people are complaining about. The Suns have blown chance after chance to get back into the race, they're not playoff ready.

If anything this year shows that the 8 seed doesn't belong in the playoffs, 7 teams in a conference should make it with the number 1 seed getting a bye.

Lebron23
04-02-2009, 07:44 PM
LOL and whats the cavs record against the west?? and whats the lakers record againsgt the east.. Then tell me who has the "easier" schedule

The Cleveland Cavaliers are 25-4 against the Western Conference Teams while the LA LAKERS are 21-9 against the Eastern Conference Teams.

madiaz3
04-02-2009, 07:51 PM
It's also not a given that all of the playoff teams in the West are better than non Celtics/Cavs. Atlanta is just as good if not better than Dallas, NO, and Portland, and this isn't including Orlando.

Lebron23
04-02-2009, 07:51 PM
they used to have this problem in the past when the celtics, knicks pistons and sixers were sooo much better then the west in the late 80;s early 90's you cant just change the playoff system, some eras have some teams better get over it


I agree with this posts. No Disrespect to the Showtime Lakers, but they had the easiest route in the NBA Finals in the 1980's.

But i still acknowledge them as the best team in the 1980's because they won 5 NBA Championships.

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-02-2009, 11:45 PM
It always evens out. The west used to suck back in the 80's. It was pretty even in the 90's with the exception of one dominant team. And the east has sucked for pretty much the entire decade. They have been getting the top draft picks for a decade now so they will have more talent from 2010 to 2020 probably. Its all evens out over time

Korman12
04-04-2009, 07:42 PM
The Cleveland Cavaliers are 25-4 against the Western Conference Teams while the LA LAKERS are 21-9 against the Eastern Conference Teams.

Ha, good point.

JJ81
04-04-2009, 07:56 PM
This is very true but I dont think they should change the seeding.

How about HCA in the finals being determined by how many losses each team has in the playoffs, going into the finals.

cmstophe
04-04-2009, 08:25 PM
There is no "leagues best team". The NBA and the game of basketball is all about match ups. Every team has match up issues and teams they have trouble beating. If a certain team has the league's best record, they've earned it.

TopsyTurvy
04-04-2009, 09:49 PM
I don't care how much better the Wests' #5 is when compared to the Easts' #5-#8. Ultimately the only thing that matters is which team makes it through their conference to the finals.

Records are inherently deceitful as they are more representative of the talent of teams you played against. I would argue that the Eastern Conference has more top to bottom parity than the West right now.

chitownbulls
04-04-2009, 11:58 PM
I was just looking at the standings. While there are now three really good teams in the East(Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando), The rest of the East is terrible. Phoenix is going to miss the playoffs and they would be a number 5 seed in the East! Hell, there are going to be 3 sub .500 teams in the playoffs in the East!!!

Two Epiphanies to take from this:
1. should change way playoffs are seeded making it just 16 best teams in the league. Giving preference to team with better record gets to stay in their division.

2. Despite having the leagues best record, Cleveland is not leagues best team because they play sub par talented teams with greater regularity.

The East is not bad, it only looks that way. If Phoenix was playing in the East they would be 7th seed at best, because They would be playing in a league, with a team with 60 wins, and 2 teams that can easily get 60 wins. So obviously the east will not have the best records, because they have 3 teams with 60 wins, I don't see anymore than 1 team in the west capable of getting 60. And after Phoenix in the west, you should look at the records after them and compare those to the records of the east after the Bobcats.