The Eastern Conference is making a great case for ditching East/West Playoffs

[redsox4evur]

I am personally fine with it the way it is. It happens all the time where one conference is more dominant than another. I mean in the 50-60s, the Celtics dominated the league. They won something like 9 straight championships. And in the 80's and the 90's the East dominated the league. You had the Bulls winning 6 championships. And those Celtics teams won a couple of championships.

[cima]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Like I said, you've crowned yourself as the expert on where NBA teams SHOULD be ranked, regardless of what the regular season has told us. We should just take your word for it and change the layout of the playoffs because the current system doesn't match your superior knowledge. Personally, I'm fine with the set up as it is. But I've heard some arguments for restructuring... some are at least worth discussing. The idea that some teams aren't as good as their record and other teams are far superior (despite their record) is not one of them.

Lol. Just because I've expressed my views doesn't mean I've crowned myself an expert. I didn't say my views were the end all nor did I say take my word over anyone else's. I did however present facts and numbers in attempt to justify my argument. I also use the eye test and not everyone sees things the same way. I don't view the Hawks as a viable contender and I'm not alone in that view. As a team they don't have a ton of playoff experience and they have no superstar to takeover if/when needed.

At the end of the day, regular season records don't mean a whole lot come playoff time, otherwise the #1 seed would always win it all. Just like 8 years ago when the Mavs won 67 games...that did what for them exactly in the playoffs? They had a bad matchup and ultimately weren't as good as their record said they were.

[Fresh Tendrils]

So, if you don't use regular season records to seed the playoffs - how are you going to seed the playoffs? What determines if a team is vastly superior and if a team is unworthy?

Outside of OKC what other team would you have preferred to see in the playoffs this year that didn't make it?

[cima]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fresh Tendrils

So, if you don't use regular season records to seed the playoffs - how are you going to seed the playoffs? What determines if a team is vastly superior and if a team is unworthy? Outside of OKC what other team would you have preferred to see in the playoffs this year that didn't make it?

Obviously you use regular season records, I never argued against that. You just take the best 16 teams regardless of conference. Look at the bracket in my original post, that's the 16 best teams based on record. I think that bracket shows much more diverse and exciting potential matchups throughout the entire playoffs.

I only wanted to see OKC this year in over Brooklyn because they had a better record and played in a tougher conference. I don't think they should be punished for being in the conference they're in. The WC being superior only supports the argument to have them in it. Their record was good enough for the 6th seed in the East and 14th overall. The only reason they're not in is because of the system's structure, which I find flawed and think I've made some valid points to support that.

EDIT: Also OKC was 20-10 against the East. BK was 14-16 against the West.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by cima

Lol. Just because I've expressed my views doesn't mean I've crowned myself an expert. I didn't say my views were the end all nor did I say take my word over anyone else's. I did however present facts and numbers in attempt to justify my argument. I also use the eye test and not everyone sees things the same way. I don't view the Hawks as a viable contender and I'm not alone in that view. As a team they don't have a ton of playoff experience and they have no superstar to takeover if/when needed. At the end of the day, regular season records don't mean a whole lot come playoff time, otherwise the #1 seed would always win it all. Just like 8 years ago when the Mavs won 67 games...that did what for them exactly in the playoffs? They had a bad matchup and ultimately weren't as good as their record said they were.

I don't think you realize it but you actually are saying that. And you may be correct, which is great for betting or picking games on a forum but I definitely don't want playoff seeding determined by some bastardized human BCS system. If the complaint is that the regular season isn't worth what it should be, the answer isn't taking even more relevance from it bc we believe one team is better than another. There are no facts or numbers to justify something like the Spurs being better than the Hawks this year. And your proposal is based on being unhappy that the Spurs are out of the playoffs while teams like the Wizards and Hawks are still in it. Sorry, it's not logical.

FT's question summed up my sarcastic post on your theory.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by cima

Obviously you use regular season records, I never argued against that. You just take the best 16 teams regardless of conference. Look at the bracket in my original post, that's the 16 best teams based on record. I think that bracket shows much more diverse and exciting potential matchups throughout the entire playoffs. I only wanted to see OKC this year in over Brooklyn because they had a better record and played in a tougher conference. I don't think they should be punished for being in the conference they're in. The WC being superior only supports the argument to have them in it. Their record was good enough for the 6th seed in the East and 14th overall. The only reason they're not in is because of the system's structure, which I find flawed and think I've made some valid points to support that. EDIT: Also OKC was 20-10 against the East. BK was 14-16 against the West.

The conferences would need to go away then and the schedules would need to be balanced across the board. It's not unreasonable to assume that THIS YEAR OKC would've still been better, using their record vs the East as proof, but it's still an unknown.

The bigger problem I have with this is your reasoning for blowing up the current system in the first place. There was a time when the Lakers and Celtics swept everybody on their way to the finals. Everything doesn't need to be blown up because of a few bad 1st round match ups over a small group of years.

[cima]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I don't think you realize it but you actually are saying that. And you may be correct, which is great for betting or picking games on a forum but I definitely don't want playoff seeding determined by some bastardized human BCS system. If the complaint is that the regular season isn't worth what it should be, the answer isn't taking even more relevance from it bc we believe one team is better than another. There are no facts or numbers to justify something like the Spurs being better than the Hawks this year. And your proposal is based on being unhappy that the Spurs are out of the playoffs while teams like the Wizards and Hawks are still in it. Sorry, it's not logical. FT's question summed up my sarcastic post on your theory.

On a side note I'd like to say that this has been a lot of fun for me; I started working from home last year and I don't get to interact with people very much anymore, so thanks for participating in this debate. As always, I mean no disrespect towards anyone involved.

As far as the bolded part, this just simply isn't true.

All Western Conference teams have a higher strength of schedule because they are involved in 52 games against each other vs. 30 against EC teams.

The Hawks had a winning % of .730 against EC teams in 52 games. The Spurs had a winning % of .766 against EC teams in 30 games. Obviously it's a smaller sample but it's not a stretch by any means to say they're at least even. Then you factor in the Spurs won the season series 2-0 (which doesn't mean anything to me but if we're talking numbers it has to be mentioned), have TONS of veteran/playoff experience, NBA championships, and guys that can take over games, I'm going to pick the Spurs in a 7 game series for sure. So based off a harder SOS and better winning % against EC opponents, I feel my reasoning is justified.

Based on winning percentages, the Rockets, Grizzlies, Clippers, and Spurs all theoretically would have been the #2 seed in the East. So if you were to insert those teams into the EC based on winning %, you can argue that any one of those teams could have made a run at the #1 seed in the EC.

My proposal wasn't based off being unhappy; that's just the unfortunate reality of the flawed system. All I've been trying to argue for is better basketball by having the 16 best teams in the playoffs at the end of the year. As anyone who enjoys basketball, I don't see why people would be opposed to that? The system in place may be fine for many but I'm arguing that it's flawed and that we could have a better system in place.

[cima]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

The conferences would need to go away then and the schedules would need to be balanced across the board. It's not unreasonable to assume that THIS YEAR OKC would've still been better, using their record vs the East as proof, but it's still an unknown. The bigger problem I have with this is your reasoning for blowing up the current system in the first place. There was a time when the Lakers and Celtics swept everybody on their way to the finals. Everything doesn't need to be blown up because of a few bad 1st round match ups over a small group of years.

I'm all for conferences going away and better balance, I stated that earlier in a different post when I proposed 5 divisions with 6 teams.

It's not just OKC. Other WC teams that didn't make the playoffs had a high W% against the EC.

OKC Thunder: 20-10 against the East .666
Phoenix Suns: 18-12 against the East .600
Utah Jazz: 15-15 against the East .500

On the flip side, look at these EC playoff teams and their records against the WC:

Chicago Bulls: 17-13 against the West .566
Toronto Raptors: 17-13 against the West .566
Washington Wizards: 16-14 against the West .533
Milwaukee Bucks: 16-14 against the West .533
Boston Celtics: 12-18 against the West .400
Brooklyn Nets: 14-16 against the West .466

Data shows that EC teams benefit from playing each other more when it comes to overall records so if anything, their records are inflated due to a weaker SOS.

EDIT: Had to fix some %s for the EC teams, I read them completely wrong.