PDA

View Full Version : Has the West been better because of better talent evaluators?



Scoots
06-24-2018, 07:31 PM
Was just thinking about why the West has been so good for so long and I decided to look at the 2nd round picks to see if I could see anything. This was no kind of in-depth analysis, but it does look to me like the West has done a better job getting quality players in the 2nd round over the last 20 years or so, though several of them ended up playing their best in the East.

Better than their pick 2nd round picks to western teams:
Rashard Lewis
Monte Ellis
DeAndre Jordan
Paul Millsap
Isaiah Thomas
Marc Gasol
Manu Ginobli
Gilbert Arenas
Draymond Green
Hassan Whiteside
Allen Crabbe
Nikola Jokic
Danny Green
Goran Dragic

If you look back at the 80s and early 90s it was a more balanced talent distribution with an edge to the east for better picks.

The last few years it looks like maybe more talent has been going east in the 2nd round.

IndyRealist
06-24-2018, 10:14 PM
A completely unscientific observation, but the trend toward high pace, two way basketball favors pacific time zones and high altitude arenas. Teams have played at a high pace before, but they were generally SSOL type offensive teams that rested on defense.

Scoots
06-24-2018, 10:26 PM
A completely unscientific observation, but the trend toward high pace, two way basketball favors pacific time zones and high altitude arenas. Teams have played at a high pace before, but they were generally SSOL type offensive teams that rested on defense.

Interesting point ... Are there more than 2 high altitude arenas? I know that back end of back to back games in Denver or Utah were almost automatic losses for a lot of teams for the last 30 years.

Sanjay
06-25-2018, 02:03 AM
A completely unscientific observation, but the trend toward high pace, two way basketball favors pacific time zones and high altitude arenas. Teams have played at a high pace before, but they were generally SSOL type offensive teams that rested on defense.


https://repository.brynmawr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=econ_pubs
There is research which shows visiting teams won more playing to the east of their time zone in day games between 1991 and 2002. There was no difference from 2002 to 2013. Interesting and not that long. From 2015 by Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania and published in the Journal of Sports Economics.

Two way basketball favoring high altitude arenas makes sense; the visiting team already suffers fatigue from the change in altitude which is compounded if the home team plays this way.

Sanjay
06-25-2018, 02:04 AM
Interesting point ... Are there more than 2 high altitude arenas? I know that back end of back to back games in Denver or Utah were almost automatic losses for a lot of teams for the last 30 years.

Only the Nuggets and Jazz are at altitudes that have an effect.

FlashBolt
06-26-2018, 12:32 AM
West was better and LeBron has kept the East even weaker by causing havoc and confusion with how teams are supposed to prepare against him. One thing leads to another and players simply don't want to sign in the East because teams make mistake after mistake. Since players don't want to go there, management in the East throw out terrible contracts and give up numerous picks to "compete" but LeBron ends up killing them anyways and puts them further down the hole. Some teams were very good and were top five NBA teams: Chicago, Boston, and Pacers. LeBron ruined them.

IndyRealist
06-26-2018, 10:31 AM
West was better and LeBron has kept the East even weaker by causing havoc and confusion with how teams are supposed to prepare against him. One thing leads to another and players simply don't want to sign in the East because teams make mistake after mistake. Since players don't want to go there, management in the East throw out terrible contracts and give up numerous picks to "compete" but LeBron ends up killing them anyways and puts them further down the hole. Some teams were very good and were top five NBA teams: Chicago, Boston, and Pacers. LeBron ruined them.

To be fair, that Pacers imploded. They were finished the moment Lance Stephenson didn't make the ASG.

Heediot
06-26-2018, 10:38 AM
The only team he ruined were the Bulls. Pacers were never legit contenders. Boston just got old. Bulls even if healthy would of never gotten past the heat. Rose injury doomed them for sure. Noah, Jimmy and others all went down due to Thibs over playing the rotation.

Since the Miami big 3. It's all about how teams manage their Max Contracts. Teams can have 2-3 Max players, so that's at least 60 max contracts, so if your a top 60 player your getting a max, probably top 75. There will always be guys undeserving of a max given how the cba is structured and how there is a cap floor.

Kobe was the only old guard who was greedy, all the other generation players before LeBron didn't eat up as much cap since 2010. When the 04 class hit their 2nd max contract time, they manipulated the cap and teamed up, which started a trend for front offices and gms. From LeBron's generation on players started teaming up because teams found a blueprint to form a super-team.

The west has been better managed and more competitive since late 90's. Guys want to go to teams that are better managed, have better cultures, and have buddys/stars of theirs (recruit tem and play with them). It just so happens the west teams had more of those conditions, so joining a west team gave you a better chance of winning along with getting the dough.

I'm not going to take away anything from LeBron because he was a factor, but so were other stacked teams and true contenders out west for the past 20 years. If your team is run well, the pieces will more likely come to fruition to be a legit contender versus geography or road to the finals. Just my take.

FlashBolt
06-26-2018, 01:55 PM
To be fair, that Pacers imploded. They were finished the moment Lance Stephenson didn't make the ASG.

I don't think that was the reason. Roy Hibbert slid off as a defensive center (he was top two at rim protection) and PG being injured really forced the team to build differently and it never worked out. They won 38 games with PG only playing 6 games the year he suffered that leg injury. With PG, they could easily have sniffed near 60 games or more. That was an elite Pacers team that also took the Heat to 7 games in which Heat won one of the games due to a game-winning layup by LeBron.

Hawkeye15
06-26-2018, 02:03 PM
David.....Kahn

IndyRealist
06-26-2018, 03:28 PM
I don't think that was the reason. Roy Hibbert slid off as a defensive center (he was top two at rim protection) and PG being injured really forced the team to build differently and it never worked out. They won 38 games with PG only playing 6 games the year he suffered that leg injury. With PG, they could easily have sniffed near 60 games or more. That was an elite Pacers team that also took the Heat to 7 games in which Heat won one of the games due to a game-winning layup by LeBron.

Lance caused a ton of infighting between Hibbert and PG. The locker room took sides. The team slid off because Lance decided he needed to "prove" he should have been an allstar. Instead of playing his triple double game, he tried to score every time he touched the ball, and would pout and complain when he would get benched for bad decision making. But Lance was Bird's guy and no one could rein him in. This was all before the PG injury. Charlotte outbidding us for Lance was the best thing to happen to the Pacers.

FlashBolt
06-26-2018, 03:40 PM
Lance caused a ton of infighting between Hibbert and PG. The locker room took sides. The team slid off because Lance decided he needed to "prove" he should have been an allstar. Instead of playing his triple double game, he tried to score every time he touched the ball, and would pout and complain when he would get benched for bad decision making. But Lance was Bird's guy and no one could rein him in. This was all before the PG injury. Charlotte outbidding us for Lance was the best thing to happen to the Pacers.

Even when Lance wasn't on the team, Pacers did pretty well without PG with a record of 38-44. If PG had played, you guys would have cracked near 60 wins. The problem wasn't just Lance. It was Hibbert falling off and you guys no longer having that same defensive intensity. Pacers offense was always below average but they had their defense that suffocated teams. After Hibbert stopped playing like an All-Star, you guys were never the same defensively. IMO, Roy Hibbert falling off was the biggest reason why Pacers no longer was an elite team.

IndyRealist
06-26-2018, 04:21 PM
Even when Lance wasn't on the team, Pacers did pretty well without PG with a record of 38-44. If PG had played, you guys would have cracked near 60 wins. The problem wasn't just Lance. It was Hibbert falling off and you guys no longer having that same defensive intensity. Pacers offense was always below average but they had their defense that suffocated teams. After Hibbert stopped playing like an All-Star, you guys were never the same defensively. IMO, Roy Hibbert falling off was the biggest reason why Pacers no longer was an elite team.

Hibbert was always slow. What happened was that teams figured out how to beat him. Hibbert stayed near the rim, so teams would employ jump shooting bigs at 18ft, and we would give up the midrange shot to stay on the 3pt shooters. Everything was desinged to funnel into Roy, so teams just stopped going to the rim and were wide open. Lebron developed a tear drop specifically for Roy.

This forced Roy to come out to defend and teams then ran pick and roll and Roy had to back up against quicker players, leaving the mid range open again. At the time David West was our PF, and he was too slow to defend PnR as well, so they couldn't switch and Roy was screwed.

Hibbert didn't simply fall off. It wasn't a question of intensity. The league adjusted to what he was doing. Up until we moved him, he was still a top rim protector. Teams simply didn't go to the rim.

PS- Paul George is not a 22 win player.

IndyRealist
06-26-2018, 04:47 PM
But I digress. Just because the team limped along with Monta Ellis and later Rodney Stuckey doesn't mean they were still contenders. They were done when Lance lost his sh**.

Oakmont_4
06-26-2018, 05:30 PM
I think the West is better because of their drafting prowess in round 1, not round 2.

Durant, Harden, Westbrook, Curry, Kawhi (technically drafted by IND but traded immediately to SAS), Davis, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk... The list goes on and on. But these are the best players in the game over the past 20 years outside LeBron. The West has also had less #1 picks and less top 3 picks by a wide margin compared to the East in this time frame but their hit rate is far greater in these coveted picks.

I see the East starting to turn the corner over the past 5 years but I think we're still at least 5 years away from a power shift (if it even happens).

I think location also plays a factor here though. The top 4 media markets in the West are more appealing to your NBA player than the east. Weather is a factor believe it or not. LAL (x2), DAL, HOU are more appealing than BOS, NY, CHI...and Miami being the 1 location to compete with the West.

Wrigheyes4MVP
06-26-2018, 06:24 PM
The West has been better since like 1999... since Jordan's second retirement.

Scoots
06-26-2018, 07:13 PM
I think the West is better because of their drafting prowess in round 1, not round 2.

Durant, Harden, Westbrook, Curry, Kawhi (technically drafted by IND but traded immediately to SAS), Davis, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk... The list goes on and on. But these are the best players in the game over the past 20 years outside LeBron. The West has also had less #1 picks and less top 3 picks by a wide margin compared to the East in this time frame but their hit rate is far greater in these coveted picks.

I see the East starting to turn the corner over the past 5 years but I think we're still at least 5 years away from a power shift (if it even happens).

I think location also plays a factor here though. The top 4 media markets in the West are more appealing to your NBA player than the east. Weather is a factor believe it or not. LAL (x2), DAL, HOU are more appealing than BOS, NY, CHI...and Miami being the 1 location to compete with the West.

My thought was that the 2nd round is more about talent evaluation and the first is more about where you are picking, so the 2nd round success showed more about the front office.

KG2TB
06-26-2018, 09:15 PM
The only team he ruined were the Bulls. Pacers were never legit contenders. Boston just got old. Bulls even if healthy would of never gotten past the heat. Rose injury doomed them for sure. Noah, Jimmy and others all went down due to Thibs over playing the rotation. .

I’m confused...did Bron ruin the Bulls or did a plethora of injuries to their best players do it?

Lakers + Giants
06-26-2018, 09:30 PM
David.....Kahn

You still got time to come to the dark side. I'll welcome you with open arms.

Oakmont_4
06-27-2018, 06:08 AM
My thought was that the 2nd round is more about talent evaluation and the first is more about where you are picking, so the 2nd round success showed more about the front office.

See that I disagree with. There are plenty of examples where the top pick was mis-evaluated and a 2-5 pick ended up much better. The repercussions of misevaluating a top 10 pick vs. a 2nd rounder are immense. You miss on that top pick...Especially top 3-5, that can set a franchise back 5 years.

hugepatsfan
06-27-2018, 06:37 AM
A combination of things including better talent evaluation. There are also more desirable markets and once you do a better job evaluating talent there’s a compounding effect in a culture where stars want to join up.

Oakmont_4
06-27-2018, 07:07 AM
Here’s the best records in the NBA over the past 10 years. 2007-2017

San Antonio – 564-223. They’ve won 50+ games in 19 of the last 20 seasons.
Tim Duncan and Kawhi Leonard – Both first round picks

Boston Celtics – 469-319.
Pierce, Allen, Garnett, Rondo being the main reasons here. All first round picks

Houston Rockets – 469-320.
Lead by Ming and Battier the first part of this 10 year stretch, then Harden. All first round picks.

Dallas Mavericks – 459-328
Led by Dirk. He’s had some help but the cast has been a revolving door.

Golden State Warriors – 452-336
Led by Curry, Klay for the most part in this stretch. Draymond is the best 2nd rounder of these top teams and have been one of the major reasons for GS success

OKC Thunder – 451-337.
Led by Durant, Westbrook and Harden all first round picks.

Atlanta Hawks – 448-340.
Led by Al Horford and Millsap. Horford was a first rounder

Miami Heat – 446-343.
Led by Wade, Bosh and LeBron. All first round picks

Chicago Bulls – 443-345
Led by D Rose and Butler. Butler was a first rounder barely. Rose was a bonafide stud until injury. That injury changed the entire course of a franchise.

Denver Nuggets – 432-356
Led by Carmelo Anthony at the beginning of this stretch.

You need top end players to be a top end team. All of these teams drafted their franchise guys in round 1. Mostly top 5-10 picks that were major hits. Lots of other first round picks around their selections were busts. So even though it’s the top end of the draft you still have to evaluate correctly.

A supporting cast helps but it starts and ends with the franchise guys. The most surprising team on this list is Denver, and to a lesser degree Atlanta. They have had the least star studded roster of any of these teams.
Also worth noting…All of these teams outside of BOS and CHI are considered good destination cities based on weather and attractions. All but I’d say OKC have good to great media markets. 4 teams featured a #1 pick. There are 10 top 5 picks featured on these teams. 2 “difference makers” that were major parts of these runs were taken in the second round.

The NBA has and always will be a league of Stars and 95+% of those stars are found in round 1. The supporting cast generally comes together due to location and the stars already on the roster.

Scoots
06-27-2018, 10:12 AM
See that I disagree with. There are plenty of examples where the top pick was mis-evaluated and a 2-5 pick ended up much better. The repercussions of misevaluating a top 10 pick vs. a 2nd rounder are immense. You miss on that top pick...Especially top 3-5, that can set a franchise back 5 years.

While I agree that is MUCH harder to evaluate in bulk. Giannis fell to the bottom of the lottery not because 14 teams blew it but because nobody could have known what he would become. Lottery picks are all over the place. The teams that may have the exact right answer for who the best players are in exactly the right order often can't act on it because they don't have any of those picks. I just figured looking at the 2nd round would be an interesting simple thing to look at.

42% of the players in the NBA were not 1st round picks and teams that are good stay good by finding cheap talent late in the draft and after the draft.

warfelg
06-27-2018, 11:13 AM
I've internally debated this for a little while now.

I think it's a 'perfect storm' just like in the situation that landed KD in GS.

You got the dynasty of the Bulls, followed by the disorder of the late 90's-early 2000's where the east was represented by a bunch of teams with 1 star and a bunch of ok players. The Sixers, Pistons, Nets, and a couple of other teams were just that. So you got a bunch of GM's in this era maxing out their cap with just guys to put around that star.

Meanwhile in the west you had GM's starting to build 2 star teams. Sonics, Jazz, Spurs, Lakers, Suns, Rockets.

Then LeBron hit the east. And by his 3rd-4th year you could tell it was going to take something magical to beat that. So you got the Celtics putting together a 'big 3' to combat that and expose the flaws in his team. I think that was step 1 in some teams trying to say...'whatever'. Then the Heattles happened.

The Heatles threw quite a few franchises into dissarray: Cavs and Raps were #1 because they were directly effected. Then you had the Wizards and Magic as indirectly effected. Wizards were building something at that point, and the Magic were near the end of Dwight's time there.

Then the injuries factor hit: Knicks, Bulls, Pacers (Granger) all got hit.

So what does that mean: Many EC teams knew they were playing for second place. They basically threw in the towel, and ownership pushed them to make money rather than to sit and build a good team. So ok players were pushed as stars. Supporting Stars were set up to be Superstars.

At the same time you had those west teams building these two star teams. Teams were smart with their tanking. Warriors, Sonics/Thunder, Timberwolves, Pelicans, Denver.....they all smartly tanked at the right times. And on top of that they didn't run out and sign a bunch of guys when they signed those players. The West didn't re-tread GM's, they promoted smart guys that could find good players. They took advantage of exceptions and bird rights in the way East GM's haven't. They've filled out bottom of the roster guys better and have been ok with them walking in the way east teams havent.

Oakmont_4
06-27-2018, 11:38 AM
I've internally debated this for a little while now.

I think it's a 'perfect storm' just like in the situation that landed KD in GS.

You got the dynasty of the Bulls, followed by the disorder of the late 90's-early 2000's where the east was represented by a bunch of teams with 1 star and a bunch of ok players. The Sixers, Pistons, Nets, and a couple of other teams were just that. So you got a bunch of GM's in this era maxing out their cap with just guys to put around that star.

Meanwhile in the west you had GM's starting to build 2 star teams. Sonics, Jazz, Spurs, Lakers, Suns, Rockets.

Then LeBron hit the east. And by his 3rd-4th year you could tell it was going to take something magical to beat that. So you got the Celtics putting together a 'big 3' to combat that and expose the flaws in his team. I think that was step 1 in some teams trying to say...'whatever'. Then the Heattles happened.

The Heatles threw quite a few franchises into dissarray: Cavs and Raps were #1 because they were directly effected. Then you had the Wizards and Magic as indirectly effected. Wizards were building something at that point, and the Magic were near the end of Dwight's time there.

Then the injuries factor hit: Knicks, Bulls, Pacers (Granger) all got hit.

So what does that mean: Many EC teams knew they were playing for second place. They basically threw in the towel, and ownership pushed them to make money rather than to sit and build a good team. So ok players were pushed as stars. Supporting Stars were set up to be Superstars.

At the same time you had those west teams building these two star teams. Teams were smart with their tanking. Warriors, Sonics/Thunder, Timberwolves, Pelicans, Denver.....they all smartly tanked at the right times. And on top of that they didn't run out and sign a bunch of guys when they signed those players. The West didn't re-tread GM's, they promoted smart guys that could find good players. They took advantage of exceptions and bird rights in the way East GM's haven't. They've filled out bottom of the roster guys better and have been ok with them walking in the way east teams havent.

This is a good analysis. I still think the disparity in hits on the top 3 picks is quite amazing. What the West has been able to come away with vs the East is just crazy. I don't think there's really an explanation either...I guess luck that they were at the top of the drafts with the best players in them and chose correctly. The disparity from year to year in NBA drafts talent wise has to be some of the greatest in professional sports.

warfelg
06-27-2018, 11:46 AM
This is a good analysis. I still think the disparity in hits on the top 3 picks is quite amazing. What the West has been able to come away with vs the East is just crazy. I don't think there's really an explanation either...I guess luck that they were at the top of the drafts with the best players in them and chose correctly. The disparity from year to year in NBA drafts talent wise has to be some of the greatest in professional sports.

And the thing to me is the “well they just draft better” is the easy answer. And part of that is the depth and quality of drafts and who lands where.

But the other part is how many of those guys in the West were from EC teams or picks originally owned by EC teams? I would wager a good number including (off the top of my head) Kawhi, George, Iggy and others.

That to me is the easy answer. The real answer is all that other stuff. Because if you ask me the drafting is the easy part. Properly building a team is the hard part.

IndyRealist
06-27-2018, 12:55 PM
Wrong thread.

Oakmont_4
06-27-2018, 01:30 PM
And the thing to me is the “well they just draft better” is the easy answer. And part of that is the depth and quality of drafts and who lands where.

But the other part is how many of those guys in the West were from EC teams or picks originally owned by EC teams? I would wager a good number including (off the top of my head) Kawhi, George, Iggy and others.

That to me is the easy answer. The real answer is all that other stuff. Because if you ask me the drafting is the easy part. Properly building a team is the hard part.

Kawhi I can't really count as an EC draft pick because he never played in IND.

George I think is an example of location. He didn't want to play long term in IND and wanted to go to a big market out west in the nice weather. The west has more of these locations.

Jamiecballer
06-27-2018, 01:31 PM
i don't think so, no. they have the spurs and houston, the 2 best run organizations in the game. but the other 28 teams can be thrown in a blender, they have highs, lows, but generally are all in the same ballpark. actually check that, at the other end of the spectrum are the two biggest loser organizations, the Clippers and Kings. the other 26 are roughly equivalent.

Oakmont_4
06-27-2018, 01:37 PM
i don't think so, no. they have the spurs and houston, the 2 best run organizations in the game. but the other 28 teams can be thrown in a blender, they have highs, lows, but generally are all in the same ballpark. actually check that, at the other end of the spectrum are the two biggest loser organizations, the Clippers and Kings. the other 26 are roughly equivalent.

How is Boston not in that mix of best run organizations? Most NBA titles in the league. The last 10 years they're top 3 in wins which includes a complete rebuild in that time. Boston is easily a top 2 run organization. Better than HOU. Though I agree Houston is well run. The 'other 28' teams are not all the same. You could group about 15-17 altogether though that are not run well as you describe.

Jamiecballer
06-27-2018, 01:41 PM
How is Boston not in that mix of best run organizations? Most NBA titles in the league. The last 10 years they're top 3 in wins which includes a complete rebuild in that time. Boston is easily a top 2 run organization. Better than HOU. Though I agree Houston is well run. The 'other 28' teams are not all the same. You could group about 15-17 altogether though that are not run well as you describe.

yeah, check that i agree that Boston should be in that category. i forgotten just how long Ainge had been in charge.

Ishkabibble
06-27-2018, 02:22 PM
The West has been better since like 1999... since Jordan's second retirement.

It has been quite a while since the East was the dominant conference.
But worth noting it turned out the West was waaay overrated last season.
Portland finished 3rd in that conference and got (embarrassingly) annihilated in round 1.
They weren't even close to a team that could compete w/ HOU and GSW.
Based on off season moves, we projected Minnesota, OKC and maybe New Orleans to be very good.
And we thought the Spurs would remain "the Spurs."
None of those teams were bad...it's just none were really good either.
The West was (undeniably) a two-team conference last season.
Still better than the East but Boston and Philly will close the gap plenty over the next couple seasons.

IndyRealist
06-27-2018, 02:58 PM
It has been quite a while since the East was the dominant conference.
But worth noting it turned out the West was waaay overrated last season.
Portland finished 3rd in that conference and got (embarrassingly) annihilated in round 1.
They weren't even close to a team that could compete w/ HOU and GSW.
Based on off season moves, we projected Minnesota, OKC and maybe New Orleans to be very good.
And we thought the Spurs would remain "the Spurs."
None of those teams were bad...it's just none were really good either.
The West was (undeniably) a two-team conference last season.
Still better than the East but Boston and Philly will close the gap plenty over the next couple seasons.

Yes, but to be fair if the Spurs had Kawhi all season they'd still be the Spurs.

Scoots
06-27-2018, 03:09 PM
And the thing to me is the “well they just draft better” is the easy answer. And part of that is the depth and quality of drafts and who lands where.

But the other part is how many of those guys in the West were from EC teams or picks originally owned by EC teams? I would wager a good number including (off the top of my head) Kawhi, George, Iggy and others.

That to me is the easy answer. The real answer is all that other stuff. Because if you ask me the drafting is the easy part. Properly building a team is the hard part.

That brings up an interesting thought ... the Eastern teams tended to have less forgiving and fanatical fan bases than the Western teams. So maybe the owners/gms/coaches in the West had more time to develop players while the Eastern ones were more likely to give up and look for a quick fix.

Scoots
06-27-2018, 03:12 PM
It has been quite a while since the East was the dominant conference.
But worth noting it turned out the West was waaay overrated last season.
Portland finished 3rd in that conference and got (embarrassingly) annihilated in round 1.
They weren't even close to a team that could compete w/ HOU and GSW.
Based on off season moves, we projected Minnesota, OKC and maybe New Orleans to be very good.
And we thought the Spurs would remain "the Spurs."
None of those teams were bad...it's just none were really good either.
The West was (undeniably) a two-team conference last season.
Still better than the East but Boston and Philly will close the gap plenty over the next couple seasons.

Once the playoffs start you can't tell the relative strength of the conferences because they are playing themselves. Last year the Cavs swept their way to the finals totally dominating everyone then got fairly spanked by the Warriors. I've seen analysts talk about where the western playoff teams would rank if the playoffs were top 16 rather than by conference and the western teams were definitely above many eastern teams. And the Jazz are a matchup nightmare for a lot of teams, so to some extent it was bad luck the way the seeds ended up.

warfelg
06-27-2018, 03:23 PM
That brings up an interesting thought ... the Eastern teams tended to have less forgiving and fanatical fan bases than the Western teams. So maybe the owners/gms/coaches in the West had more time to develop players while the Eastern ones were more likely to give up and look for a quick fix.

That’s part of it. I think too in the West you got Owners that bought the team and came to love them. In the East you typically hear that the people that bought the team were fans of that team long before.

I think fans in the east would be willing to buy into building something the right way; much more than teams will give them credit for.

Part of the blame always lies in media too. So much coverage for the east is “Who will be ready to rise up when LeBrons gone” and “When will LeBron decline.” Why, if you were a star, would you want to face that?

Meanwhile in the West it’s “Yes the Warriors are the best, but X, Y, and Z are serious competitors” and “Who wants to challenge the Warriors”.

So to me that plays into it. East teams want to wait for it to be easy and be the next thing, while west teams want to take on that challenge and be the one to dethrone.

Scoots
06-27-2018, 03:50 PM
That’s part of it. I think too in the West you got Owners that bought the team and came to love them. In the East you typically hear that the people that bought the team were fans of that team long before.

I think fans in the east would be willing to buy into building something the right way; much more than teams will give them credit for.

Part of the blame always lies in media too. So much coverage for the east is “Who will be ready to rise up when LeBrons gone” and “When will LeBron decline.” Why, if you were a star, would you want to face that?

Meanwhile in the West it’s “Yes the Warriors are the best, but X, Y, and Z are serious competitors” and “Who wants to challenge the Warriors”.

So to me that plays into it. East teams want to wait for it to be easy and be the next thing, while west teams want to take on that challenge and be the one to dethrone.

The issue pre-dates LeBron though ... it may be it started with MJ ... for the Bulls last 3 titles the West was getting stronger and stronger, they just couldn't beat MJ. So maybe part of it was "when will MJ decline" too.

warfelg
06-27-2018, 03:56 PM
The issue pre-dates LeBron though ... it may be it started with MJ ... for the Bulls last 3 titles the West was getting stronger and stronger, they just couldn't beat MJ. So maybe part of it was "when will MJ decline" too.

My OP addressed that.