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

[wwharton]

Not quoting just bc the post is so long and my response... exactly like I said. Teams play different in different games making it difficult to just say "they had 40 wins so shouldn't be in the playoffs" or whatever. The digging helps in many areas but they can't justify a change based on records when teams approach games different in different situations. You can say it's a reach but it's the truth.

Your next post, the article, is pretty interesting.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Not quoting just bc the post is so long and my response... exactly like I said. Teams play different in different games making it difficult to just say "they had 40 wins so shouldn't be in the playoffs" or whatever. The digging helps in many areas but they can't justify a change based on records when teams approach games different in different situations. You can say it's a reach but it's the truth. Your next post, the article, is pretty interesting.

Exactly..

Look at Memphis as an example. Always one of the better teams in the West but they play a slow paced, defensive minded game that nearly every decent team out East plays. Yet we always say "those teams out East don't stand a chance against the West" while a team that shares that same play style consistently kicks *** in the West.

All those teams like Golden State, LAC, Houston, OKC, even to an extent San Antonio struggle if you have the ability to slow the pace. It's premature to think that some of these Eastern conference teams couldn't find ways to do just that, especially if those games actually meant something and were game planned more serious against.

Obviously there is still more depth out West, but it's not quite the gap that just glancing at an overall record would show.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cima]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Not quoting just bc the post is so long and my response... exactly like I said. Teams play different in different games making it difficult to just say "they had 40 wins so shouldn't be in the playoffs" or whatever. The digging helps in many areas but they can't justify a change based on records when teams approach games different in different situations. You can say it's a reach but it's the truth.

To dismiss someone like the Suns who won 10 more games than the lowest seeded EC team (Hawks) while playing a tougher schedule by saying "teams play different in different games" isn't a strong argument. Obviously I care more than anyone else in the topic to analyze it deeply because I started it, but I've given some pretty good depth to my analysis to justify my reasoning. But I'm not just saying things, I'm going in-depth and using numbers to back it up. It's not perfect as obviously winning percentages wouldn't be identical if there was a conference flip or whatever but you nor anyone can use data available from past seasons and skew it in anyway to disprove that the EC is the inferior conference and the top EC teams benefit from playing in that weaker conference.

[Mjphillips]

Quote: Originally Posted by King_B_Mack

Just because they're in "luxury" doesn't change the affects of flying on the human body and adjusting to different time zones, etc.

When have you watched a game and said "Oh that traveling is really costing my team this victory." This is their job and yes "luxury" matters. They aren't on commercial flights anymore. So just because they have to fly more, the best 16 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs?

[Mjphillips]

Quote: Originally Posted by cima

To dismiss someone like the Suns who won 10 more games than the lowest seeded EC team (Hawks) while playing a tougher schedule by saying "teams play different in different games" isn't a strong argument. Obviously I care more than anyone else in the topic to analyze it deeply because I started it, but I've given some pretty good depth to my analysis to justify my reasoning. But I'm not just saying things, I'm going in-depth and using numbers to back it up. It's not perfect as obviously winning percentages wouldn't be identical if there was a conference flip or whatever but you nor anyone can use data available from past seasons and skew it in anyway to disprove that the EC is the inferior conference and the top EC teams benefit from playing in that weaker conference.

Hey man, none of their arguments hold water. They have no "hand picked" stats like you've generously provided to support their position. This is not a debate or discussion without that. I'm with you though. As a fan, we should get the best 16 teams in the playoffs by their records period. It's simple. Who cares how teams play in certain situations. You win, you get in........... These other guys would rather see Brooklyn in the playoffs over OKC.

[Amoo316]

Just going to throw this out there, but I feel part of the reason the NBA doesn't really have the regional rivalries like in football is because they don't play a series, it's one game and you're gone. Off to the next city, next game, it's like a traveling circus.

You want fans to care about regional rivalries more and still get the best 16 teams in the playoffs? I'm not sure it's possible. The way I see it you get one or the other. Here's what I would do.

Teams stay in town for 2 straight games.

Get rid of divisions, they're dumb. It's a solution to not having a balanced number of teams in the league and it really kills the scheduling opportunity and balance of power because of the concessions needed to make it work. The NFL has had arguments many times over the last few years about sub .500 teams getting into the playoffs because they win their division. This system was modeled after that. It kinda works for a 16 game schedule. It does not work for a 82 game schedule.

Split into 4 regions NE, MW, S, W. 30 teams so expand or contract to 28/32. If no expansion or contraction make due with 7&8 in 2 of 2 where the teams with 7 have an extra game thrown in against their region until the problem can be fixed.

So 1, 2 game home and home series against division opponents. That's 32 games. 1, 2 game home and home series against a different division (Changes every year). That's 32 more games, 32 + 32 = 64. 1, 2 game series alternating home court 2 in consecutive years (Same division 2 years in a row, can't be the same division as one already on your schedule.. That's 16 more games, 16 + 64 = 80.

Example Division A
Year 1 - 4 games against division A, 4 games against division B, 2 games against division C
Year 2 - 4 games against division A, 4 games against division D, 2 games against division C
Year 3 - 4 games against division A, 4 games against division C, 2 games against division D

Playoff Seeding - Top 2 teams from each region, ranked by record all get 1st round byes. Next 4 teams from each region, seeded by record play the first round which is a 2-2-1 5 games series. Second round, rank all teams by record 1v16, 2v15...etc 2-2-1 5 game series. Third round and beyond all 7 game series.

Note I made room for my extra round of playoffs by shortening the first round AND shortening the regular season by 2 games. I would think this would limit travel as you travel to a region for a few series then come home for a few series. I think it doesn't allow power to sit in one place for too long as worst case scenario, every year you get 2 bad teams from a weak division into the second round. So now instead of talking about strongest conference, fans start talking about strongest division, strongest division leads to division rivalries...I now care about Miami playing New Orleans. I might also as a coach consider caring a little bit more about my out of division games as tie-breakers are going to get down to record vs common opponents and beyond in a system where you skip playing a division.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mjphillips

When have you watched a game and said "Oh that traveling is really costing my team this victory." This is their job and yes "luxury" matters. They aren't on commercial flights anymore. So just because they have to fly more, the best 16 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs?

Are you saying there's no advantage for the homes teams against road teams coming into town on a 4 game, 6 or 7 day stretch?

[cima]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fresh Tendrils

Are you saying there's no advantage for the homes teams against road teams coming into town on a 4 game, 6 or 7 day stretch?

To be fair, that's the whole point of "home court advantage".