East VS West record in the last 15 years

[Hizack]

┌──────────────────────────────────────────── ───┐
│ Regular Season head-to-head record │
│ (All East vs All West) │
└──────────────────────────────────────────── ───┘
Season East West Total East % West %
---------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------
2016–17 0 0 0 00.0% 00.0% (updated Apr 15, 2016)
2015–16 218 232 450 48.4% 51.6%
2014–15 187 263 450 41.6% 58.4%
2013–14 166 284 450 36.9% 63.1%
2012–13 188 262 450 41.8% 58.2%
2011–12 114 156 270 42.2% 57.8%
2010–11 189 261 450 42.0% 58.0%
2009–10 204 246 450 45.3% 54.7%
2008–09 231 219 450 51.3% 48.7%
2007–08 192 258 450 42.7% 57.3%
2006–07 193 257 450 42.9% 57.1%
2005–06 198 252 450 44.0% 56.0%
2004–05 194 256 450 43.1% 56.9%
2003–04 154 266 420 36.7% 63.3%
2002–03 170 250 420 40.5% 59.5%
2001–02 188 232 420 44.8% 55.2%
2000–01 161 259 420 38.3% 61.7%
1999–2000 193 227 420 46.0% 54.0%
---------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------
1999–2016 3140 4180 7320 42.9% 57.1%
┌──────────────────────────────────────────── ────┐
│ Regular Season head-to-head record │
│ (East top 8 vs West top 8) │
└──────────────────────────────────────────── ────┘
Season East West Total East % West %
---------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------
2015–16 61 67 128 47.7% 52.3%
2014–15 54 74 128 42.2% 57.8%
2013–14 52 76 128 40.6% 59.4%
2012–13 50 78 128 39.1% 60.9%
2011–12 30 49 79 38.0% 62.0%
2010–11 56 72 128 43.8% 56.3%
2009–10 58 70 128 45.3% 54.7%
2008–09 60 68 128 46.9% 53.1%
2007–08 51 77 128 39.8% 60.2%
2006–07 46 82 128 35.9% 64.1%
2005–06 57 71 128 44.5% 55.5%
2004–05 44 84 128 34.4% 65.6%
2003–04 46 82 128 35.9% 64.1%
2002–03 46 82 128 35.9% 64.1%
2001–02 43 85 128 33.6% 66.4%
2000–01 49 79 128 38.3% 61.7%
1999–2000 54 74 128 42.2% 57.8%
---------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------
1999–2016 857 1270 2127 40.3% 59.7%
The Finals The Finals All-Star Game
(by games) (by series) (by games)

Season East West East West East West
---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2015–16 0 0 0 0 0 1
2014–15 2 4 0 1 0 1
2013–14 1 4 0 1 1 0
2012–13 4 3 1 0 0 1
2011–12 4 1 1 0 0 1
2010–11 2 4 0 1 0 1
2009–10 3 4 0 1 1 0
2008–09 1 4 0 1 0 1
2007–08 4 2 1 0 1 0
2006–07 0 4 0 1 0 1
2005–06 4 2 1 0 1 0
2004–05 3 4 0 1 1 0
2003–04 4 1 1 0 0 1
2002–03 2 4 0 1 0 1
2001–02 0 4 0 1 0 1
2000–01 1 4 0 1 1 0
1999–2000 2 4 0 1 0 1
---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1999–2016 37 53 5 11 6 11
41.1% 58.9% 31.3% 68.7% 35.3% 64.7%
8th seed's regular 9th place's regular
season wins season wins

Season East West East West
----------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
2015–16 44 41 42 40
2014–15 38 45 38 45
2013–14 38 49 37 48
2012–13 38 45 34 43
2011–12 (actual) 35 36 31 34
(projected) 43 45 39 42
2010–11 37 46 35 43
2009–10 41 50 40 42
2008–09 39 48 36 46
2007–08 37 50 36 48
2006–07 40 42 35 40
2005–06 40 44 38 41
2004–05 42 45 42 44
2003–04 36 43 35 42
2002–03 42 44 37 43
2001–02 42 44 41 39
2000–01 41 47 36 45
1999–2000 42 44 41 40
----------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
1999–2016 (on average) 40 45 38 43

All-NBA Team All-Defensive U.S. National
Selections Team Selections Team Selections

Season East West East West East West
---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2014–15 3 12 2 8
2013–14 4 11 5 5 5 7 (Gold)
2012–13 4 11 5 6
2011–12 6 9 6 4 5 7 (Gold)
2010–11 6 9 6 4
2009–10 5 10 7 3 3 9 (Gold)
2008–09 4 11 5 5
2007–08 4 11 3 7 6 6 (Gold)
2006–07 6 9 4 6
2005–06 7 8 5 6 7 5 (Bronze)
2004–05 6 9 6 5
2003–04 7 8 3 7 8 4 (Bronze)
2002–03 7 8 4 6
2001–02 7 8 4 6 7 5 (6th)
2000–01 5 10 3 7
1999–2000 6 9 2 8 5 7 (Gold)
---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1999–2016 87 153 70 93 46 50
36.3% 63.7% 42.9% 57.1% 47.9% 52.1%

[DMAVS41]

Jesus

[Nikola_]

2014

[Done_And_Done]

That's quite the long term disparity. What the hell happened in 08-09 again...

[Done_And_Done]

[QUOTE=Nikola_]2014

[SouBeachTalents]

That's quite the long term disparity. What the hell happened in 08-09 again...

The Cavs, Celtics, and Magic all won 59+ games, while only the Lakers won over 55 in the west

[Quickening]

who cares

[MMM]

That's quite the long term disparity. What the hell happened in 08-09 again...

Celtics, Cavs and Magic were all around 60 wins

The Hawks had a solid team and the 1st round exits teams were decent

The Bulls were on the upcoming, Bosh led Raps, Wade has a terrific season iirc

[SouBeachTalents]

Celtics, Cavs and Magic were all around 60 wins

The Hawks had a solid team and the 1st round exits teams were decent

The Bulls were on the upcoming, Bosh led Raps, Wade has a terrific season iirc

That went 33-49 :roll:

[Uncle Drew]

That went 33-49 :roll:
Which is really good for a 13 seed.

[Lebronxrings]

lol at the wEAKest conference aka no defense. Alot of those stats are inflated cuz of the 76ers, bucks, magic and other teams that tanked.

[DMAVS41]

lol at the wEAKest conference aka no defense. Alot of those stats are inflated cuz of the 76ers, bucks, magic and other teams that tanked.

The West win percentage top 8 vs top 8 is actually higher....:no:

[MMM]

That went 33-49 :roll:

Confused the 09 team with the 08 team

Didn't Bosh get hurt in 09 though.

[SamuraiSWISH]

We get it. The west has had the lion's share of power since the on set of the 2000s when they got Shaq, Duncan, KG, and Kobe nearly all at once.

You're not explaining anything new to us. It's an obvious thing that has been beaten to death. Move on. The 80s West was horrific too.

[guy]

Well, this year and last year are pretty bad. But in general, those numbers overall show the disparity over the last 15 years isn't nearly as wide as people make it out to be.

Do the math. First off, the average team is going to be 26-26 vs. their own conference. You apply those %s for the average team vs the other conference, and rounded correctly, the East is 13-17 vs the West and the West is 17-13 vs the East. So on average, an EC team is 39-43 and a WC team is 43-39. That's not very far from 41-41, which would be the case for both conferences if they were equal.

Now, what people obviously love to ask is how teams would perform if they were in the other conference. Just apply the %s again, and they'd be 15-15 against the other conference (the conference they are really in currently), and EC teams would be 22-30 on average vs WC teams if they were in the West meaning 37-45 overall, and the WC teams would 30-22 on average vs EC teams if they were in the East meaning 45-37 overall.

So in general, what this means is that this HUGE supposed advantage that EC teams have gotten over this timeframe by getting to play in the East is a mere 2 game increase in wins (39 vs 37) while the WC teams are down by 2 games in wins (45 vs 43).

So with that being the case, this idea that significant changes need to be made based on the last 15 years is ridiculous.

[DMAVS41]

Well, this year and last year are pretty bad. But in general, those numbers overall show the disparity over the last 15 years isn't nearly as wide as people make it out to be.

Do the math. First off, the average team is going to be 26-26 vs. their own conference. You apply those %s for the average team vs the other conference, and rounded correctly, the East is 13-17 vs the West and the West is 17-13 vs the East. So on average, an EC team is 39-43 and a WC team is 43-39. That's not very far from 41-41, which would be the case for both conferences if they were equal.

Now, what people obviously love to ask is how teams would perform if they were in the other conference. Just apply the %s again, and they'd be 15-15 against the other conference (the conference they are really in currently), and EC teams would be 22-30 on average vs WC teams if they were in the West meaning 37-45 overall, and the WC teams would 30-22 on average vs EC teams if they were in the East meaning 45-37 overall.

So in general, what this means is that this HUGE supposed advantage that EC teams have gotten over this timeframe by getting to play in the East is a mere 2 game increase in wins (39 vs 37) while the WC teams are down by 2 games in wins (45 vs 43).

So with that being the case, this idea that significant changes need to be made based on the last 15 years is ridiculous.

But so much else goes into this...specifically the playoffs. But I think you discount how much easier it is to go through a regular season in the East when wins are simply easier to come by.

And then for the top teams in the East...their road to the conference finals is much easier as well.

A 57% win percentage overall and 60% top 8 vs top 8 is actually pretty significant.

It's not just about the numbers...it's about what they imply and the easier night in night out play, never a worry about making the playoffs for good teams, and then easy roads in the playoffs.

I totally agree that drastic realignment is stupid, but changing the playoff format would be far better.

It's already a big enough advantage that the East teams play an easier schedule...there is no need to reward them further. The top 16 teams in the league by record should make the playoffs each year.

The playoffs would be so much more fun to watch...and nobody would complain. That is what everyone is missing. Nobody wants to watch some shitty Hawks team of last year over the Suns in a playoff series.

Even with a big disparity like there is now...you'd still get like 6 East teams in the playoffs each year. And it's just really stupid to have the best team in the league or one of them...end up playing like the 7th or 8th best team in round 1. That is the real damage...last year the Spurs had to play like the 8th best team in the league in round 1...stupid.

Take last year....the Pacers, Wizards, and Nets were just not 3 of the top 8 teams. And the Pacers certainly weren't one of the 4 best teams. That is not right...best 16 team seeded properly would yield a few more exciting playoffs.

[Akhenaten]

Well, this year and last year are pretty bad. But in general, those numbers overall show the disparity over the last 15 years isn't nearly as wide as people make it out to be.

Do the math. First off, the average team is going to be 26-26 vs. their own conference. You apply those %s for the average team vs the other conference, and rounded correctly, the East is 13-17 vs the West and the West is 17-13 vs the East. So on average, an EC team is 39-43 and a WC team is 43-39. That's not very far from 41-41, which would be the case for both conferences if they were equal.

Now, what people obviously love to ask is how teams would perform if they were in the other conference. Just apply the %s again, and they'd be 15-15 against the other conference (the conference they are really in currently), and EC teams would be 22-30 on average vs WC teams if they were in the West meaning 37-45 overall, and the WC teams would 30-22 on average vs EC teams if they were in the East meaning 45-37 overall.

So in general, what this means is that this HUGE supposed advantage that EC teams have gotten over this timeframe by getting to play in the East is a mere 2 game increase in wins (39 vs 37) while the WC teams are down by 2 games in wins (45 vs 43).

So with that being the case, this idea that significant changes need to be made based on the last 15 years is ridiculous.

good stuff
even the top 8 vs top 8 is a 60/40 split, the West is CLEARLY superior but not to the catastrophic level that folks make it out to be.

[guy]

OP, any chance you could do this for the 80s and 90s?

[DMAVS41]

good stuff
even the top 8 vs top 8 is a 60/40 split, the West is CLEARLY superior but not to the catastrophic level that folks make it out to be.

this seems like semantics. 60/40 over that sample is actually pretty ****ing huge.

[JT123]

I can't take these records seriously because Eastern teams coast during the regular season, while the West teams give it their all every night. The East always has the much better defensive teams, and if those teams gave it their all every night the records would basically be even.

[Lebronxrings]

I can't take these records seriously because Eastern teams coast during the regular season, while the West teams give it their all every night. The East always has the much better defensive teams, and if those teams gave it their all every night the records would basically be even.
this. Hence why eastern conference is more competitive and wins almost every year. :applause:

[T_L_P]

this. Hence why eastern conference is more competitive and wins almost every year. :applause:

Western teams have won 10 of the last 15 titles. :facepalm

[guy]

But so much else goes into this...specifically the playoffs. But I think you discount how much easier it is to go through a regular season in the East when wins are simply easier to come by.

And then for the top teams in the East...their road to the conference finals is much easier as well.

A 57% win percentage overall and 60% top 8 vs top 8 is actually pretty significant.

It's not just about the numbers...it's about what they imply and the easier night in night out play, never a worry about making the playoffs for good teams, and then easy roads in the playoffs.

I totally agree that drastic realignment is stupid, but changing the playoff format would be far better.

It's already a big enough advantage that the East teams play an easier schedule...there is no need to reward them further. The top 16 teams in the league by record should make the playoffs each year.

The playoffs would be so much more fun to watch...and nobody would complain. That is what everyone is missing. Nobody wants to watch some shitty Hawks team of last year over the Suns in a playoff series.

Even with a big disparity like there is now...you'd still get like 6 East teams in the playoffs each year. And it's just really stupid to have the best team in the league or one of them...end up playing like the 7th or 8th best team in round 1. That is the real damage...last year the Spurs had to play like the 8th best team in the league in round 1...stupid.

Take last year....the Pacers, Wizards, and Nets were just not 3 of the top 8 teams. And the Pacers certainly weren't one of the 4 best teams. That is not right...best 16 team seeded properly would yield a few more exciting playoffs.

You can't really go by anything else but the numbers in this case. How do you measure "never a worry about......"? And you can't just condense to the top 8 teams. How much micromanaging can you do? And what that also shows is that the bottom teams in the West are worst then the bottom teams in the East.

Changing the playoff format is a terrible idea for many reasons. It significantly reduces the likelihood of rivalries with teams getting to play each other 2-3 years in a row (which has already happened over the years with expansion), no one wants to see a Finals rematch in the first or second round of the playoffs, and it would probably result in an increase of days between playoffs games (which can already be ridiculous). All for an apparent huge discrepancy between conferences that the numbers don't really support? And by the way, I literally can't think of one Finals where a WC team may have won if it wasn't for "the road to the Finals." I think that had very little to do with the Spurs/Heat going 7 games in the 2013 Finals for example (Heat actually played more PO games beforehand).

Drastic realignment is a bad idea. Realignment in general isn't a bad idea though. Much better idea then changing the playoff format. If you switched Memphis with Milwaukee for example, you probably would make up that 2 game historical discrepancy (obviously that doesn't apply to this year, but just trying to show the difference).

And by the way, I'm not really just referring to this year and last year. They've been really bad, but overall the past 15 years shows that the numbers aren't that bad. And 2 years isn't enough to make huge changes.

[Akhenaten]

OP, any chance you could do this for the 80s and 90s?

Yeah, I'm highly interested in seeing this info also.

[GimmeThat]

and if you did a count on olympic gold medals by players from the east compared to those from the west?

[DMAVS41]

You can't really go by anything else but the numbers in this case. How do you measure "never a worry about......"? And you can't just condense to the top 8 teams. How much micromanaging can you do? And what that also shows is that the bottom teams in the West are worst then the bottom teams in the East.

Changing the playoff format is a terrible idea for many reasons. It significantly reduces the likelihood of rivalries with teams getting to play each other 2-3 years in a row (which has already happened over the years with expansion), no one wants to see a Finals rematch in the first or second round of the playoffs, and it would probably result in an increase of days between playoffs games (which can already be ridiculous). All for an apparent huge discrepancy between conferences that the numbers don't really support? And by the way, I literally can't think of one Finals where a WC team may have won if it wasn't for "the road to the Finals." I think that had very little to do with the Spurs/Heat going 7 games in the 2013 Finals for example (Heat actually played more PO games beforehand).

Drastic realignment is a bad idea. Realignment in general isn't a bad idea though. Much better idea then changing the playoff format. If you switched Memphis with Milwaukee for example, you probably would make up that 2 game historical discrepancy (obviously that doesn't apply to this year, but just trying to show the difference).

And by the way, I'm not really just referring to this year and last year. They've been really bad, but overall the past 15 years shows that the numbers aren't that bad. And 2 years isn't enough to make huge changes.

You absolutely can't just equate this down to the numbers in the regular season. When the only reason anyone cares about this is the playoffs.

How we quantify the night in night stress is up for debate...but ignoring it all together is straight up silly.

It is simply harder, as the numbers show, to win x amount of games in the West vs the East. You can't ignore the energy expenditure necessary to win the required amount of games in the conference that is roughly 7% top to bottom and 10% better concerning playoff teams only.

The regular season is really not the big concern though...it's the playoffs. It is simply considerably harder to navigate through the West playoffs than the East.

The Pacers of last year wouldn't even have been one of the 8 best teams in the West by the time the playoffs started.

For you to act like this whole disparity essentially only equates to 2 games a year in the regular season is some of the most absurd shit I've heard on here in some time.

Last year, for example, the Mavericks would likely have made the ECF...with a decent shot at the finals...if they played in the East.

And once again this year....of the top 8 teams in the league...maybe 1 or 2 will be from the East. It's not balanced...and it really ****s up the playoffs from a fairness and competitive standpoint.

The Spurs shouldn't have to play the 7th or 8th best team in the league in round 1....and the Heat shouldn't be playing the 10th best team in the league in the conference finals.

Ignoring that...as you seem to...is really silly


Also, I'm not for realignment as this stuff cycles...however, it is abundantly clear the most fair method would be to simply take the top 16 teams in the playoffs and seed accordingly. That way we don't get scrub teams in the conference finals unless they've earned it. We don't get scrub 2nd round matchups in the East where neither team would have a prayer at the conference finals in the West.

That is what I'm talking about.

[Akhenaten]

this seems like semantics. 60/40 over that sample is actually pretty ****ing huge.

it's EXACTLY a 193 game difference over 15 years or 13 games a year between 50/50 and 60/40.

Sizable, significant, clearly superior, yes...HUGE? ehhh I don't know.

[Smook A.]

The NBA really needs a realignment.

I like Mark Cuban's idea. Lets switch Mavericks, Rockets, Spurs, and Pelicans for Bulls, Bucks, Pistons, and Pacers. That would work for both sides.

[DMAVS41]

it's EXACTLY a 193 game difference over 15 years or 13 games a year between 50/50 and 60/40.

Sizable, significant, clearly superior, yes...HUGE? ehhh I don't know.

Why I said this is semantics.

I don't really care what word we use. There is a real and significant gap here just off those win totals.

But I think that skews this stuff....especially recently. To me, it's more about having 8 of the 10 best teams in the league in one conference....and then having to watch those 8 teams play each other in the playoffs while scrub east teams advance to round 2 and the conference finals.

That is what I care about...I don't care much about the regular season shit. That is why I say keep the conferences and just take the 16 best teams to the playoffs. It's already a big enough advantage playing in the East....and I would say all things considered it's about 3 to 5 games easier a year to play in the East. Because the night in night out tough games in the West really wear teams down over the course of a year. You just don't wake up and get to play so man cupcakes an extra 1 to 2 games a year.

[guy]

You absolutely can't just equate this down to the numbers in the regular season. When the only reason anyone cares about this is the playoffs.

How we quantify the night in night stress is up for debate...but ignoring it all together is straight up silly.

It is simply harder, as the numbers show, to win x amount of games in the West vs the East. You can't ignore the energy expenditure necessary to win the required amount of games in the conference that is roughly 7% top to bottom and 10% better concerning playoff teams only.

The regular season is really not the big concern though...it's the playoffs. It is simply considerably harder to navigate through the West playoffs than the East.

The Pacers of last year wouldn't even have been one of the 8 best teams in the West by the time the playoffs started.

For you to act like this whole disparity essentially only equates to 2 games a year in the regular season is some of the most absurd shit I've heard on here in some time.

Last year, for example, the Mavericks would likely have made the ECF...with a decent shot at the finals...if they played in the East.

And once again this year....of the top 8 teams in the league...maybe 1 or 2 will be from the East. It's not balanced...and it really ****s up the playoffs from a fairness and competitive standpoint.

The Spurs shouldn't have to play the 7th or 8th best team in the league in round 1....and the Heat shouldn't be playing the 10th best team in the league in the conference finals.

Ignoring that...as you seem to...is really silly


Also, I'm not for realignment as this stuff cycles...however, it is abundantly clear the most fair method would be to simply take the top 16 teams in the playoffs and seed accordingly. That way we don't get scrub teams in the conference finals unless they've earned it. We don't get scrub 2nd round matchups in the East where neither team would have a prayer at the conference finals in the West.

That is what I'm talking about.

Well you have to ignore it if you can't quantify it or just try to make up some controversial metrics that are completely up for debate .

How is it absurd to say its a 2 game difference, when that's exactly what the stats say???????? Phoenix was a 49 win team last year. Sounds about right they would've been a 51 win team in the East last year. What exactly do you think they would've been? 57 to 60 wins and the no. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference??????? That is way more absurd.

Using the Pacers of last year is a terrible example to use cause its clearly an outlier. There complete meltdown last year was unprecedented.

And like I said, last year was really bad. The last 15 years in general are not that bad. You'd have a great point if last year was what has happened over the last 15 years, but its not the case. And one year isn't enough to make drastic changes. (We shouldn't even put much stock into this year since its only been a month.)

You're not up for realignment cause this stuff cycles, but you're up for changing the playoff format? :wtf: I already mentioned changing the playoff format is a bad idea. And by the way, I forgot to mention how that would affect viewership negatively cause of the timezones and most of the bigger markets are in the East, making it harder for those teams to make the playoffs. I know obviously from a fairness point of view, it doesn't matter, but just saying its pretty much NEVER going to happen because of those reasons.

[DMAVS41]

Well you have to ignore it if you can't quantify it or just try to make up some controversial metrics that are completely up for debate .

How is it absurd to say its a 2 game difference, when that's exactly what the stats say???????? Phoenix was a 49 win team last year. Sounds about right they would've been a 51 win team in the East last year. What exactly do you think they would've been? 57 to 60 wins and the no. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference??????? That is way more absurd.

Using the Pacers of last year is a terrible example to use cause its clearly an outlier. There complete meltdown last year was unprecedented.

And like I said, last year was really bad. The last 15 years in general are not that bad. You'd have a great point if last year was what has happened over the last 15 years, but its not the case. And one year isn't enough to make drastic changes. (We shouldn't even put much stock into this year since its only been a month.)

You're not up for realignment cause this stuff cycles, but you're up for changing the playoff format? :wtf: I already mentioned changing the playoff format is a bad idea. And by the way, I forgot to mention how that would affect viewership negatively cause of the timezones and most of the bigger markets are in the East, making it harder for those teams to make the playoffs. I know obviously from a fairness point of view, it doesn't matter, but just saying its pretty much NEVER going to happen because of those reasons.


Dude...you can't chalk it only up to the regular season. You've made no mention of the playoffs. That is what we really care about...we don't want to watch 2nd round scrub matches in the East with some of the best teams in the league already at home because of the disparity.

I'm arguing that you are missing a huge piece of this. You are stopping at 2 games a year like that encapsulates the real difference. It doesn't.

And yes...the playoffs would be so much better with taking the top 16 teams and seeding accordingly. LOL

[Hizack]

OP, any chance you could do this for the 80s and 90s?
Why not :pimp:



http://i.minus.com/i9SviwvMcdS9l.png

[Akhenaten]

You absolutely can't just equate this down to the numbers in the regular season. When the only reason anyone cares about this is the playoffs.[/B]

You say this but the absolution with which you assert the Mavs making the 14 ECF is based PURELY on numbers in the regular season.



Last year, for example, the Mavericks would likely have made the ECF...with a decent shot at the finals...if they played in the East.

You're applying the transitive property to basketball, yall got smashed by a 42 win team in 07. The Celtics got pushed to 7 games by a 40 something wins Hawk team yet demolished a Laker team with a far superior record.

Regular season basketball suits the WC, their is more attrition (especially on star players) in the East because of the style of play and philosophies. Also WC teams are clearly superior offensively which is much more favourable in one off reg season matchups.

What would be REALLY interesting to see is not 1-16 both conferences but cross conference matchups all down the board, meaning 1 seed West vs 8 seed, 1 seed East vs 8 seed West so and so forth.

I think you and a lot of people would be surprised at the outcome/s.


How we quantify the night in night stress is up for debate...but ignoring it all together is straight up silly.

You're equating night to night stress PURELY on reg season NUMBERS, you're making a qualitative judgment (night to night stress/attrition) based purely on a qualitative observation.





The regular season is really not the big concern though...it's the playoffs. It is simply considerably harder to navigate through the West playoffs than the East.

Any numbers on this? for eg. How many times has a 1 lost to an 8 in the East as opposed to a 1 losing to a 8 in the West in the last 15 years. Or number of games it took for an ECF winner to reach the Finals vs how many it took the West champ over the last 15.

There are so many variables, these numbers mean a lot but IMO yall are taking it too far.



The Pacers of last year wouldn't even have been one of the 8 best teams in the West by the time the playoffs started.

For you to act like this whole disparity essentially only equates to 2 games a year in the regular season is some of the most absurd shit I've heard on here in some time.

But that is in FACT what it is.



And once again this year....of the top 8 teams in the league...maybe 1 or 2 will be from the East. It's not balanced...and it really ****s up the playoffs from a fairness and competitive standpoint.

The Spurs shouldn't have to play the 7th or 8th best team in the league in round 1....and the Heat shouldn't be playing the 10th best team in the league in the conference finals.

Ignoring that...as you seem to...is really silly

All based on reg season numbers which I believe favours the West's style of play. If the NBA were like the MLB where teams played series' during the year I believe a lot outcomes would be different.

[guy]

Dude...you can't chalk it only up to the regular season. You've made no mention of the playoffs. That is what we really care about...we don't want to watch 2nd round scrub matches in the East with some of the best teams in the league already at home because of the disparity.

I'm arguing that you are missing a huge piece of this. You are stopping at 2 games a year like that encapsulates the real difference. It doesn't.

And yes...the playoffs would be so much better with taking the top 16 teams and seeding accordingly. LOL

I don't have the numbers but I'm fairly confident that the number of games the EC and WC Finalist played up until the Finals doesn't vary significantly year-by-year over this timeframe, and I'm fairly confident you can do the same exercise for each round and it wouldn't vary significantly.

Not saying its that simple. What I am saying is it indicates that the difference isn't nearly as big as people like you seem to think.

I disagree with the playoffs being better, for all the reasons I stated. You want to address those reasons and try to convince me otherwise? Last year, only the Suns make the playoffs under your scenario and the Hawks don't. You probably get one or two more competitive series for that change, all in exchange for EVERYTHING I mentioned. Sorry, I'll pass on that. By the way, there's a reason why basically no other major team sports league does this. Not sure why this is only talked about with the NBA, when its probably much worse with the NFL.

Probably won't be able to address your response today, hopefully tomorrow.

[DMAVS41]

I don't have the numbers but I'm fairly confident that the number of games the EC and WC Finalist played up until the Finals doesn't vary significantly year-by-year over this timeframe, and I'm fairly confident you can do the same exercise for each round and it wouldn't vary significantly.

Not saying its that simple. What I am saying is it indicates that the difference isn't nearly as big as people like you seem to think.

I disagree with the playoffs being better, for all the reasons I stated. You want to address those reasons and try to convince me otherwise? Last year, only the Suns make the playoffs under your scenario and the Hawks don't. You probably get one or two more competitive series for that change, all in exchange for EVERYTHING I mentioned. Sorry, I'll pass on that. By the way, there's a reason why basically no other major team sports league does this. Not sure why this is only talked about with the NBA, when its probably much worse with the NFL.

Probably won't be able to address your response today, hopefully tomorrow.

You really aren't following this. Let me be more clear.

1. When I say the playoffs matter...I'm not only talking about the number of games played. I'm talking about the fact that certain teams are clearly worse. You mention that under my way...only the Suns would have made it. But that misses so much of my point.

Under my way....the Spurs don't play the Mavs. The Spurs would have played the worst team...which would have been the Hornets...you would see 1 through 16. It's not about getting a ton more west teams in...I already said under most scenarios you'd get only 1 or 2 more teams in the West in...if that, each year. But the seeding is where you see my main point:

So you don't get scrub teams in the 2nd round. Under my way...you don't get the poor teams that don't deserve it in the 2nd round (top 8)....care to tell my why you would want a system in which one of the 10 best teams in the league could miss the playoffs...and we get 2 to 3 of the final 8 teams being absolutely nowhere near one of the top 8 teams in the league?

Again...playing in the weaker conference...whichever it is...is enough of an advantage. If a team is playing in the current East and can't finish with one of the top 16 records in the league...they simply don't deserve to make the playoffs and the NBA playoffs would be more interesting if they didn't.

Tell me why you want teams not in the top 16 making the playoffs....and then tell me why you want some of the best teams forced to play each other in round 1...while some of the worse teams advancing in the playoffs by default.

I'll be waiting....

2. Bringing up the NFL is a total red herring. What does it matter if another sports league does it poorly as well? Again I'll ask why one would want to watch the shit Atlanta Falcons in the playoffs this year instead of the Cowboys or Niners...you really want that? I don't see the arguments for it if we are after the highest quality of play and the most deserving teams in the post season. Now, if you have a different agenda....great, but that needs to be said.

You have to explain why you want the Hawks making it over a clearly better Suns team...and then explain why you want to watch the Pacers / Wizards and Heat / Nets in the 2nd round rather than matches with better teams like perhaps Miami / Dallas and Memphis / Warriors or something.

[tpols]

But that is in FACT what it is.


Saying 'it's only two games a year' is silly..

It's like when comparing Kobe and Jordan everyone makes a big deal out of the difference in their efficiency.. And the argument is 'but it's only one extra missed shot per game!'

The difference between a 40% shooter and a 50% shooter taking 20 shots a game is only 2 shots. But it pretty clearly makes a huge difference over the course of a season for determining how effective the player was and how his impact led to wins

[DMAVS41]

You say this but the absolution with which you assert the Mavs making the 14 ECF is based PURELY on numbers in the regular season.




You're applying the transitive property to basketball, yall got smashed by a 42 win team in 07. The Celtics got pushed to 7 games by a 40 something wins Hawk team yet demolished a Laker team with a far superior record.

Regular season basketball suits the WC, their is more attrition (especially on star players) in the East because of the style of play and philosophies. Also WC teams are clearly superior offensively which is much more favourable in one off reg season matchups.

What would be REALLY interesting to see is not 1-16 both conferences but cross conference matchups all down the board, meaning 1 seed West vs 8 seed, 1 seed East vs 8 seed West so and so forth.

I think you and a lot of people would be surprised at the outcome/s.



You're equating night to night stress PURELY on reg season NUMBERS, you're making a qualitative judgment (night to night stress/attrition) based purely on a qualitative observation.




Any numbers on this? for eg. How many times has a 1 lost to an 8 in the East as opposed to a 1 losing to a 8 in the West in the last 15 years. Or number of games it took for an ECF winner to reach the Finals vs how many it took the West champ over the last 15.

There are so many variables, these numbers mean a lot but IMO yall are taking it too far.



But that is in FACT what it is.



All based on reg season numbers which I believe favours the West's style of play. If the NBA were like the MLB where teams played series' during the year I believe a lot outcomes would be different.


I really don't follow any of this. It's all based on your numbers actually....let's hold to the 2 game difference....

Last year...that means that 9 of the 11 best teams played in the West.

Are you actually trying to argue that the East playoffs was as difficult when on your own metric 9 of the 11 best teams played in the West?

You need further support of that...really? We can't just admit that the East playoffs last year were far easier for a team like the Pacers than the West was for a team like the Thunder? We have to play dumb.

We've already determined the West is harder. Then we look at record and see of the 11 best records....9 come from the West based on the 2 games harder scale. How much more evidence does one need that the playoffs are then inherently harder because of this?

All the rest is just noise. Even the 2 games per year harder thing is...it's just noise distracting that somewhere around 8 or 9 of the 10 or 11 best teams are in the West.

Meaning that the regular season and playoffs are harder. Considering how fragile and slim these margins can be...playing a harder schedule all year and then playing a harder playoffs....is simply an unfair disadvantage for West teams compared to East teams.

This is not a matter of opinion...it's a fact.


And again....please make the argument why you think the Suns don't deserve it, but the Hawks do....and then make the argument why we should see the Pacers, Wizards, and Nets make the 2nd round with clearly superior teams sitting at home...

You really want to see that? You really want to watch Heat vs. Nets when it could have been Heat vs Grizzlies or Heat vs Warriors or something?

Come on....we all know it's flawed. We all know the East has been shit for 15 years now. This things are obvious...

[oarabbus]

We get it. The west has had the lion's share of power since the on set of the 2000s when they got Shaq, Duncan, KG, and Kobe nearly all at once.

You're not explaining anything new to us. It's an obvious thing that has been beaten to death. Move on. The 80s West was horrific too.



Why not :pimp:



http://i.minus.com/i9SviwvMcdS9l.png

:lol even in the 80s and 90s the East was HARDLY better than the West. And since then it's been pure domination.

[Akhenaten]

:lol even in the 80s and 90s the East was HARDLY better than the West. And since then it's been pure domination.


top 8 vs 8 was 60% in the East's favour from 80-81 to 89-90, and only reason the West had 5 rings was because of ONE team which made the Finals 9 of 10 years in the West.

The West was some trash in the 80's bro.

[russwest0]

who cares

....

basketball fans?

[Artillery]

The Cavs, Celtics, and Magic all won 59+ games, while only the Lakers won over 55 in the west

I've been saying for a while now that the Lakers 2009 run was overrated. They dominated the worst Western Conference in the past 15 years(as evidenced by this data). Every team they faced was crippled by injuries. You know it was a joke run when the George Karl Nuggets were their toughest opposition the faced(the same Nuggets team that failed to make it out of the first round every other year Karl was in charge). Every good team was injured(Celtics, Magic) or in rebuilding mode(Spurs, Mavs, Suns). Joke of a run but props to Kirby for dominating the insanely weak competition.

[Artillery]

Why not :pimp:



http://i.minus.com/i9SviwvMcdS9l.png

Magic Johnson dominating the weakest conference in NBA history confirmed right here. Celtics and Pistons had to go through a juggernaut just to make the Finals while the Showtime Lakers could sleepwalk to the Finals every year with those joke opponents in the 80s Western Conference.

[Magic 32]

Name me a eastern conference star who went to the West and became more dominant....

........crickets

Now name me a western conference star who went to the east and became more dominant....

I think Al Jefferson is just the latest in that tradition :oldlol:

Just shows you who the real legends of the era were (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe).

[tpols]

I've been saying for a while now that the Lakers 2009 run was overrated. They dominated the worst Western Conference in the past 15 years(as evidenced by this data). Every team they faced was crippled by injuries. You know it was a joke run when the George Karl Nuggets were their toughest opposition the faced(the same Nuggets team that failed to make it out of the first round every other year Karl was in charge). Every good team was injured(Celtics, Magic) or in rebuilding mode(Spurs, Mavs, Suns). Joke of a run but props to Kirby for dominating the insanely weak competition.

The 99 spurs faced a Ewing-less eigth seeded Knicks in the finals.

Easiest title run of all time? :oldlol:

[MastaKilla]

Kobe and Duncan have won 10 of the last 15 titles.

fixed that

[nathanjizzle]

Dmavs is the biggest retard on this forum.

[DMAVS41]

Dmavs is the biggest retard on this forum.

You mad?

Why are you all so sensitive about this? The East sucks...it has for about 15 years now. Playing in the East is a real advantage both in the regular season and playoffs.

Both are easier in a tangible way.

Clearly the most fair system would be to take the top 16 teams in the playoffs and seed accordingly.

Your crappy East teams would still get the benefit of playing an easier schedule all regular season....they just wouldn't also get an unearned easy playoffs.

Not hard, but I'm sure nathanjizzle will come up with something to bitch about and complain like his hero.

#bitchmade

[nathanjizzle]

You mad?

yeah, at the complete bullshit you make up and argue on this forum. "wins are harder to come by in the west" "the west is so much harder than the east, every game is much more grueling"
common, the top 7 teams in the west have a better win percentange than even the 2nd seed in the east. but wins are harder to come by in the west :roll: :roll: :roll:
http://i59.tinypic.com/2hgfq1f.png

[DMAVS41]

yeah, at the complete bullshit you make up and argue on this forum. "wins are harder to come by in the west" "the west is so much harder than the east, every game is much more grueling"
common, the top 7 teams in the west have a better win percentange than even the 2nd seed in the east. but wins are harder to come by in the west :roll: :roll: :roll:
http://i59.tinypic.com/2hgfq1f.png

Because they are better!

They are the better teams....the West has a 70% win percentage against the East this year.

Is that what you aren't getting? Your best team so far, the Raptors, are about as good as the 7th best team in the West...LOL

Jesus Christ people...it's not that difficult...and the disparity will only get worse now that WB and Durant are ready to go. If you have 8 of the 10 best teams in one conference...and it's better at the bottom....the other conference is shit in comparison.

It's not just about the wins...take a look at the actual teams. It's not even comparable.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Holy shit

The way i see it lebron has no rings

[Hotlantadude81]

Name me a eastern conference star who went to the West and became more dominant....

........crickets

Now name me a western conference star who went to the east and became more dominant....

I think Al Jefferson is just the latest in that tradition :oldlol:

Just shows you who the real legends of the era were (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe).

Al Jefferson is not dominating this year.

[Hotlantadude81]

Because they are better!

They are the better teams....the West has a 70% win percentage against the East this year.

Is that what you aren't getting? Your best team so far, the Raptors, are about as good as the 7th best team in the West...LOL

Jesus Christ people...it's not that difficult...and the disparity will only get worse now that WB and Durant are ready to go. If you have 8 of the 10 best teams in one conference...and it's better at the bottom....the other conference is shit in comparison.

Dirk, Duncan and Kobe will be retiring soon. Perhaps that will even things up a tad more.:confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Dirk, Duncan and Kobe will be retiring soon. Perhaps that will even things up a tad more.:confusedshrug:

Kobe...:lol

But...it's not like I'm some East hater. I'd be saying the exact same shit if this was in reverse.

The best and most fair way to do this is to take the top 16 and seed accordingly...you know, actually reward teams for their regular seasons.

In no world is it fair that the Thunder have to play the Clippers while the Pacers play the Wizards in the 2nd round last year.

I can't believe people are even debating this shit..just shocking

[Bigsmoke]

Shaq singlehandedly brought that east winning percentage up by 6% in 2005

[Bigsmoke]

You mad?

Why are you all so sensitive about this? The East sucks...it has for about 15 years now. Playing in the East is a real advantage both in the regular season and playoffs.

Both are easier in a tangible way.

Clearly the most fair system would be to take the top 16 teams in the playoffs and seed accordingly.

Your crappy East teams would still get the benefit of playing an easier schedule all regular season....they just wouldn't also get an unearned easy playoffs.

Not hard, but I'm sure nathanjizzle will come up with something to bitch about and complain like his hero.

#bitchmade


But u gotta love how the 2008 Celtics and 2013 were raping those Western Conference teams throughout those regular seasons :cheers:


-Both were 6-0 against TX teams
-beat the **** out of the west team that finished 1st "Celtics 2-0 vs Lakers and Heat were 2-0 vs Thunder"

Great basketball

[Bigsmoke]

Dirk, Duncan and Kobe will be retiring soon. Perhaps that will even things up a tad more.:confusedshrug:

Curry, Davis, and maybe Wiggins will take their places.

[DMAVS41]

But u gotta love how the 2008 Celtics and 2013 were raping those Western Conference teams throughout those regular seasons :cheers:


-Both were 6-0 against TX teams
-beat the **** out of the west team that finished 1st "Celtics 2-0 vs Lakers and Heat were 2-0 vs Thunder"

Great basketball

Yea...nobody is denying that sometimes the best team is in the East. This is a broad conversation about overall strength and specifically the playoff teams top to bottom strength.

Obviously the 08 Celtics were the best team...same thing for the 12 Heat.

I'm actually skeptical if the 13 Heat could have won the title going through the West playoffs. With the injuries and straight up slumping of the entire team outside of Lebron during the playoffs...certainly would have been harder.

[Bigsmoke]

Yea...nobody is denying that sometimes the best team is in the East. This is a broad conversation about overall strength and specifically the playoff teams top to bottom strength.

Obviously the 08 Celtics were the best team...same thing for the 12 Heat.

I'm actually skeptical if the 13 Heat could have won the title going through the West playoffs. With the injuries and straight up slumping of the entire team outside of Lebron during the playoffs...certainly would have been harder.

For the record, the Pacers weren't some normal 49 win team. They had trouble playing without Granger and they started be beasting once PG stepped up out of no where. If they knew what they had from the beginning of the year, they would have won 55 games easy

[DMAVS41]

For the record, the Pacers weren't some normal 49 win team. They had trouble playing without Granger and they started be beasting once PG stepped up out of no where. If they knew what they had from the beginning of the year, they would have won 55 games easy

Yea...the Pacers weren't terrible or something, but a team like the Grizzlies was just better imo...and matched up as well or better than the Pacers did against the Heat also.

It's just a whole different animal having to play Lakers, Warriors, and Grizzlies like the Spurs did. I'm not sure they get through that with Wade being as hurt as he was those first two rounds.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Free tickets! Step right up and get free tickets to the NBA Finals!

[Akhenaten]

DMAVS for all the unfairness, and "physical expenditure", and supposed advantage TWO TEAMS are responsible for 13 of the Western Conference's 15 berth's within the timespan and 9 of it's 10 titles

When it boils to steam, every year since the leagues inception there's only been 4 teams at most EVERY season that have legit chance of WINNING a ring.

So where's the huge disadvantage?
What's the contention, that if it were top 16 a few of those Finals matchups would be two WC teams?

ok so

00 Pacers-56 wins
01 Sixers- 56 wins (only team to win a game vs the champs who RAMPAGED through the superior West.

02 Nets- 52 wins (you may have an argument this season)

03 Nets- 49 wins (played a 42, 44, and 50 win team while Spurs played a 44, 50, and 60 win team. So the Spurs beat the Mavs in the Finals instead of the WCF:confusedshrug: )

04 Pistons- 54 wins and beat a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 61 win team :eek: (that regular season record doe, but maybe they would have lost to a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 57 win Spurs if it were top 16 because those 3 wins are HUGE. So the REAL Finals should have been Pacers-Spurs:facepalm

05 Pistons 54 wins-Spurs with 59 wins but should have played the CLEARLY SUPERIOR 62 win Suns in the Finals. Even though they rolled the CLEARLY SUPERIOR Suns in only 5 games and struggled with the CLEARLY INFERIOR 54 win Pistons and won by sheer luck. In a top 16 playoff the CLEARLY SUPERIOR Suns would have beaten the lowly Pistons because 62 is 8 more than 54 and 8 wins is COLLOSAL, HUGE, GIGANTIC :rolleyes:

06 Heat- OMG how did they not only beat the clearly superior 64 win :wtf: Pistons but beat them convincingly, that's 12 whole wins, not 1, not 2, TWELVE! Then they beat a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 60 win team in the Finals They probably would have lost in the earlier rounds to a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 63 win Spurs team though:hammerhead:



I think you get my point, IMO you put WAAAAAAAY too much emphasis on regular season win/loss records. I'm not opposed to a top 16 playoff, but you acting like it's some sort of travesty that there isn't because Western Conf teams with gaudy win/loss reg season records are suffering so much is hyperbole.

[Bigsmoke]

DMAVS for all the unfairness, and "physical expenditure", and supposed advantage TWO TEAMS are responsible for 13 of the Western Conference's 15 berth's within the timespan and 9 of it's 10 titles

When it boils to steam, every year since the leagues inception there's only been 4 teams at most EVERY season that have legit chance of WINNING a ring.

So where's the huge disadvantage?
What's the contention, that if it were top 16 a few of those Finals matchups would be two WC teams?

ok so

00 Pacers-56 wins
01 Sixers- 56 wins (only team to win a game vs the champs who RAMPAGED through the superior West.

02 Nets- 52 wins (you may have an argument this season)

03 Nets- 49 wins (played a 42, 44, and 50 win team while Spurs played a 44, 50, and 60 win team. So the Spurs beat the Mavs in the Finals instead of the WCF:confusedshrug: )

04 Pistons- 54 wins and beat a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 61 win team :eek: (that regular season record doe, but maybe they would have lost to a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 57 win Spurs if it were top 16 because those 3 wins are HUGE. So the REAL Finals should have been Pacers-Spurs:facepalm

05 Pistons 54 wins-Spurs with 59 wins but should have played the CLEARLY SUPERIOR 62 win Suns in the Finals. Even though they rolled the CLEARLY SUPERIOR Suns in only 5 games and struggled with the CLEARLY INFERIOR 54 win Pistons and won by sheer luck. In a top 16 playoff the CLEARLY SUPERIOR Suns would have beaten the lowly Pistons because 62 is 8 more than 54 and 8 wins is COLLOSAL, HUGE, GIGANTIC :rolleyes:

06 Heat- OMG how did they not only beat the clearly superior 64 win :wtf: Pistons but beat them convincingly, that's 12 whole wins, not 1, not 2, TWELVE! Then they beat a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 60 win team in the Finals They probably would have lost in the earlier rounds to a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 63 win Spurs team though:hammerhead:



I think you get my point, IMO you put WAAAAAAAY too much emphasis on regular season win/loss records. I'm not opposed to a top 16 playoff, but you acting like it's some sort of travesty that there isn't because Western Conf teams with gaudy win/loss reg season records are suffering so much is hyperbole.


Lol @ about that 2005 suns team.

The Pistons and a healthy Heat team would have beaten the dogshit out of that Suns team.

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS for all the unfairness, and "physical expenditure", and supposed advantage TWO TEAMS are responsible for 13 of the Western Conference's 15 berth's within the timespan and 9 of it's 10 titles

When it boils to steam, every year since the leagues inception there's only been 4 teams at most EVERY season that have legit chance of WINNING a ring.

So where's the huge disadvantage?
What's the contention, that if it were top 16 a few of those Finals matchups would be two WC teams?

ok so

00 Pacers-56 wins
01 Sixers- 56 wins (only team to win a game vs the champs who RAMPAGED through the superior West.

02 Nets- 52 wins (you may have an argument this season)

03 Nets- 49 wins (played a 42, 44, and 50 win team while Spurs played a 44, 50, and 60 win team. So the Spurs beat the Mavs in the Finals instead of the WCF:confusedshrug: )

04 Pistons- 54 wins and beat a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 61 win team :eek: (that regular season record doe, but maybe they would have lost to a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 57 win Spurs if it were top 16 because those 3 wins are HUGE. So the REAL Finals should have been Pacers-Spurs:facepalm

05 Pistons 54 wins-Spurs with 59 wins but should have played the CLEARLY SUPERIOR 62 win Suns in the Finals. Even though they rolled the CLEARLY SUPERIOR Suns in only 5 games and struggled with the CLEARLY INFERIOR 54 win Pistons and won by sheer luck. In a top 16 playoff the CLEARLY SUPERIOR Suns would have beaten the lowly Pistons because 62 is 8 more than 54 and 8 wins is COLLOSAL, HUGE, GIGANTIC :rolleyes:

06 Heat- OMG how did they not only beat the clearly superior 64 win :wtf: Pistons but beat them convincingly, that's 12 whole wins, not 1, not 2, TWELVE! Then they beat a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 60 win team in the Finals They probably would have lost in the earlier rounds to a CLEARLY SUPERIOR 63 win Spurs team though:hammerhead:



I think you get my point, IMO you put WAAAAAAAY too much emphasis on regular season win/loss records. I'm not opposed to a top 16 playoff, but you acting like it's some sort of travesty that there isn't because Western Conf teams with gaudy win/loss reg season records are suffering so much is hyperbole.


Actually I don't think regular season wins are at all a good way to judge whether or not a team will win the title...especially without knowing injuries and circumstances...etc...and just talking broadly.

You seem to be arguing with a ghost or just not really trying to understand my view. If you think my view is that team x is only better than team y because they won 3 more games....LOL...not my view at all.

I'm talking about actual teams and how good they were....too many things can impact regular season records to read a ton into a few games.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. I'm not talking about the Pistons beating the Lakers...I'm talking about when teams that wouldn't even sniff the playoffs in the West end up making the 2nd round in the East. The reason wins come into play is because at some point it just becomes a fact. The Wizards and Nets simply would not have made the playoffs in the West...it's a mathematical fact. That is all the good the wins really are for here....illustrating that the conference these teams play in very much dictates the difference between missing the playoffs and a 2nd round birth for a team.

I find that frustrating as a fan and just in principle...I don't like any system that promotes that with certainty. Take this year....most likely there will be a team in the 2nd round of the Eastern playoffs that wouldn't have even made it in the West. If you like that....go for it...I just don't. I don't like a system that puts the best team (Spurs) against like the 8th best team (Mavs)...and puts the maybe 6th best team (Pacers) against the worst team (Hawks) in the first round of the playoffs. That doesn't make sense to me.

And as a fan...what would you rather watch? Pacers vs. Wizards or Mavs vs Heat....or Warriors vs Thunder....it seems obvious that we should all want the best and most deserving teams advancing in the playoffs.

And yes...I do think there is something to be said for having an easier regular season and then easier road to the finals...doesn't matter what conference it happens in...those are real and tangible benefits.

[Akhenaten]

Name me a eastern conference star who went to the West and became more dominant....

........crickets



old ass AI avg 26/7 on the highest shooting percentage of his career (46%) in 2008 on the Nuggets.

perimetre players thrive in the West from a scoring/assisting standpoint
Wade/Lebron scoring and efficiency is better vs west teams through their careers, same with Kobe.

Kobe's Finals stats are a CLEAR testament to how much harder it is to score on high volume and efficiency vs the East.

The East's problem has always been OFFENSE, the progressive offensive minds are all in the West, East Conf is about that muddy/grind out stuff this is why attrition and injury plagues the East moreso than the West.

The West is a more fre, more finesse based game that's better for regular season basketball and extending guy's careers. East coast ball grinds guy's down, lot of stubborn coaches/gm's/scouts with outmoded philosophies when it comes to offense and approaching the regular season.

playing in the West is much more fun, imagine Wade on a George Karl, dantoni or Carlisle team. He'd having better scoring and efficiency numbers and wouldn't be all beat up.

[Artillery]

The 99 spurs faced a Ewing-less eigth seeded Knicks in the finals.

Easiest title run of all time? :oldlol:

Nah, '09 Lakers still hold the title there. Injured Jazz team in the first round, Yao-less Rockets in the 2nd round, perennial first round fodder team in the Nuggets in the WCF. Injured Magic team in the Finals who's best offensive player was Hedo Turkoglu :oldlol:

1988 Lakers are a close runner up playing a 37 win team in the first round, a 42 win team in the 2nd round, and a 39 win team win team in the WCF.

[Just2McFly]

We get it. The west has had the lion's share of power since the on set of the 2000s when they got Shaq, Duncan, KG, and Kobe nearly all at once.

You're not explaining anything new to us. It's an obvious thing that has been beaten to death. Move on. The 80s West was horrific too.
Real shit

[Heavincent]

We get it. The west has had the lion's share of power since the on set of the 2000s when they got Shaq, Duncan, KG, and Kobe nearly all at once.

You're not explaining anything new to us. It's an obvious thing that has been beaten to death. Move on. The 80s West was horrific too.

People bring it up because there are still people who try to downplay the conference disparity.

The East and West are seriously like different leagues right now.

[bdreason]

You guys don't take into account how much more difficult it is for players to travel West for road games, compared to players who get to travel East for road games.

[Droid101]

You guys don't take into account how much more difficult it is for players to travel West for road games, compared to players who get to travel East for road games.
:roll:

Portland has to play the following teams 3-4 times: New Orleans, Memphis, Dallas, Houston, Minnesota, etc.

East teams bounce around within bus range (check the Atlantic division).

Give me a break.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Why not :pimp:



http://i.minus.com/i9SviwvMcdS9l.png

Interesting numbers.

This is got to be the biggest discrepancy the two conference have had, at least since the major expansions.

[ballinhun8]

The NBA is the east and west.


To change the playoff format you'd have to get rid of the geographical context of the league.

[Pushxx]

Well, this year and last year are pretty bad. But in general, those numbers overall show the disparity over the last 15 years isn't nearly as wide as people make it out to be.

Do the math. First off, the average team is going to be 26-26 vs. their own conference. You apply those %s for the average team vs the other conference, and rounded correctly, the East is 13-17 vs the West and the West is 17-13 vs the East. So on average, an EC team is 39-43 and a WC team is 43-39. That's not very far from 41-41, which would be the case for both conferences if they were equal.

Now, what people obviously love to ask is how teams would perform if they were in the other conference. Just apply the %s again, and they'd be 15-15 against the other conference (the conference they are really in currently), and EC teams would be 22-30 on average vs WC teams if they were in the West meaning 37-45 overall, and the WC teams would 30-22 on average vs EC teams if they were in the East meaning 45-37 overall.

So in general, what this means is that this HUGE supposed advantage that EC teams have gotten over this timeframe by getting to play in the East is a mere 2 game increase in wins (39 vs 37) while the WC teams are down by 2 games in wins (45 vs 43).

So with that being the case, this idea that significant changes need to be made based on the last 15 years is ridiculous.

Nice breakdown. :cheers:

[bdreason]

:roll:

Portland has to play the following teams 3-4 times: New Orleans, Memphis, Dallas, Houston, Minnesota, etc.

East teams bounce around within bus range (check the Atlantic division).

Give me a break.


I should have put white text, I was just fukcing around.

[BigBoss]

LeBron James*


*Played in historically weak Eastern Conference and lost in NBA finals 3 times

[tamaraw08]

No wonder why Mark Cuban want' to re align and put his Mavs to the East

[Droid101]

I should have put white text, I was just fukcing around.
I hate you. :cheers:

[Droid101]

Nice breakdown. :cheers:
No, it's actually a horrible breakdown, because it's not a 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 seed breakdown across the board.

[ArbitraryWater]

We just need to cut this conference crap.. 1 league

[guy]

You really aren't following this. Let me be more clear.

1. When I say the playoffs matter...I'm not only talking about the number of games played. I'm talking about the fact that certain teams are clearly worse. You mention that under my way...only the Suns would have made it. But that misses so much of my point.

I bring up number of games played to dispel this notion that the Western Conference Finalists have such a tougher time getting to the Finals, which number of games would indicate, then the Eastern Conference Finalist and thus are at such a disadvantage. In fact, I went through the 15 years, and on average, the Western Conference Finalist has actually played 1 game LESS then the Eastern Conference Finalist going into the Finals. Only in 2003 and 2014 did the WC finalist play more games in the first 3 rounds then the EC finalist.



Under my way....the Spurs don't play the Mavs. The Spurs would have played the worst team...which would have been the Hornets...you would see 1 through 16. It's not about getting a ton more west teams in...I already said under most scenarios you'd get only 1 or 2 more teams in the West in...if that, each year. But the seeding is where you see my main point:

So you don't get scrub teams in the 2nd round. Under my way...you don't get the poor teams that don't deserve it in the 2nd round (top 8)....care to tell my why you would want a system in which one of the 10 best teams in the league could miss the playoffs...and we get 2 to 3 of the final 8 teams being absolutely nowhere near one of the top 8 teams in the league?

Again...playing in the weaker conference...whichever it is...is enough of an advantage. If a team is playing in the current East and can't finish with one of the top 16 records in the league...they simply don't deserve to make the playoffs and the NBA playoffs would be more interesting if they didn't.

You keep bringing up last year even though I've acknowledged countless times that that was a bad year. But like I said, overall the past 15 years haven't been nearly as bad, and one year isn't enough to make drastic changes.

The 1st vs 8th seed in the West hasn't always been that competitive. That's not the norm at all.



Tell me why you want teams not in the top 16 making the playoffs....and then tell me why you want some of the best teams forced to play each other in round 1...while some of the worse teams advancing in the playoffs by default.

I'll be waiting....

A number of reasons, many of which I've already mentioned and you haven't addressed, but I will again.

1. Less rivalries, less likelihood of rematches.
2. Don't want to see possible Finals rematches in earlier rounds.
3. Will likely result in way more instances where there is 3-4 days (maybe even more) in between playoff games.
4. Pretty much makes Conferences completely pointless and eliminates the storylines that come with it.
5. Most of all, I don't think it really changes much of the problems you're referring to and/or do I think those problems really matter. Maybe you see 1 or 2 more competitive series under your way, all in exchange for all of the above. Maybe 1 or 2 teams that had very little chance of winning a title gets to the playoffs over 1 or 2 teams that didn't deserve it as much, all in exchange for all of the above. Maybe a team that deserved to get to the 2nd round loses in the 2nd round instead of the 1st round, and a team that didn't deserve to get to the 2nd round loses in the 1st round instead of the 2nd round. Ultimately, I don't think its that big of a deal. Championship-level teams are going to either win it all or lose to another championship-level team in the Finals or before regardless of the playoff format and who they had to face before that IMO.



2. Bringing up the NFL is a total red herring. What does it matter if another sports league does it poorly as well? Again I'll ask why one would want to watch the shit Atlanta Falcons in the playoffs this year instead of the Cowboys or Niners...you really want that? I don't see the arguments for it if we are after the highest quality of play and the most deserving teams in the post season. Now, if you have a different agenda....great, but that needs to be said.


Ummm, much of what makes the NFL so exciting is the divisional rivalry and its implications on the playoffs. The NFL would laugh at the idea of dropping it. Anyway, I wasn't trying to make this about the NFL. I was just saying I don't understand why this is only something constantly brought up for the NBA and no other leagues.

[Lebronxrings]

lol at people arguing lebron would have 0 rings if he played in the west. You're fcking retarded, ur mom probably dropped u when u were a ball sucking toddler. Anyways, the east and west are about equal right now.

Top 10 teams in the league:
Bulls
Spurs
Raptors
warriors
clippers
Wizards
Grizzlies
Cavs
Rockets
Heat

[DMAVS41]

Guy....I'm after the most fair and balanced system.

Again...I'm not changing anything in the regular season.

If you'd rather see Cavs vs Wizards "rivalry"...I get that, but that just doesn't mean anything to me. Give me Cavs vs Warriors or two teams that deserve to be there. To me watching the best teams play against each other clearly trumps "rivalries"

I'd much rather watch the 8 best teams play in the 2nd round rather than the 5 best and 2 or 3 that don't belong.



As for the other stuff....it doesn't matter how many games it takes....beating better teams is simply harder. Some of this stuff is skewed because the Western teams are routinely better. Just because the Spurs swept the Blazers last year doesn't mean the Blazers aren't tougher to beat than the Wizards or Nets....

[guy]

Saying 'it's only two games a year' is silly..

It's like when comparing Kobe and Jordan everyone makes a big deal out of the difference in their efficiency.. And the argument is 'but it's only one extra missed shot per game!'

The difference between a 40% shooter and a 50% shooter taking 20 shots a game is only 2 shots. But it pretty clearly makes a huge difference over the course of a season for determining how effective the player was and how his impact led to wins

Just like I think Jordan is clearly better then Kobe, I think the West has been clearly better then the East the past 15 years. But I wouldn't say there is a HUGE discrepancy in either case, especially when it comes to Kobe and Jordan purely as scorers. People like to joke that the West is the varsity league while the East is JV. I would never think the difference between Jordan and Kobe, especially as scorers, is varsity and JV.

[Lebronxrings]

Guy....I'm after the most fair and balanced system.

Again...I'm not changing anything in the regular season.

If you'd rather see Cavs vs Wizards "rivalry"...I get that, but that just doesn't mean anything to me. Give me Cavs vs Warriors or two teams that deserve to be there. To me watching the best teams play against each other clearly trumps "rivalries"

I'd much rather watch the 8 best teams play in the 2nd round rather than the 5 best and 2 or 3 that don't belong.



As for the other stuff....it doesn't matter how many games it takes....beating better teams is simply harder. Some of this stuff is skewed because the Western teams are routinely better. Just because the Spurs swept the Blazers last year doesn't mean the Blazers aren't tougher to beat than the Wizards or Nets....
no you don't care about fairness at all. You're just bitching cuz ur soft ass mavs have to play the spurs and stackedkc so you would rather have them take advantage of the newly established east contenders.

[guy]

Guy....I'm after the most fair and balanced system.

Again...I'm not changing anything in the regular season.

If you'd rather see Cavs vs Wizards "rivalry"...I get that, but that just doesn't mean anything to me. Give me Cavs vs Warriors or two teams that deserve to be there. To me watching the best teams play against each other clearly trumps "rivalries"

I'd much rather watch the 8 best teams play in the 2nd round rather than the 5 best and 2 or 3 that don't belong.


As for the other stuff....it doesn't matter how many games it takes....beating better teams is simply harder. Some of this stuff is skewed because the Western teams are routinely better. Just because the Spurs swept the Blazers last year doesn't mean the Blazers aren't tougher to beat than the Wizards or Nets....

Okay. Well sure, that's the most fair approach. That's not exactly groundbreaking to come to that conclusion. That would've been the case 50 years ago as well. I'm more concerned with the product and think it would be a worse product if this happened, and I'm guessing the NBA feels the same way, which is why it hasn't happened. It would be one thing if the current system was grossly unfair, but I don't think it is for many of the reasons I've already stated.

Rivalries might not mean much to you, but I'm thinking most fans don't feel the same way. I don't really care if the 7th or 8th best team isn't in the 2nd round, while the 10th or 11th best team is, because neither of those teams are going to win a championship anyway.

Number of games does matter because it shows that by the time the Finals starts, both teams are somewhat on equal footing and one isn't at a huge disadvantage cause they got way more "beat up" by their previous competition. I understand that its skewed for certain reasons (mainly that the top East team probably just isn't as good as the top West team), but as long as the teams aren't more effected by the past, then I think its fine.

[DMAVS41]

Okay. Well sure, that's the most fair approach. That's not exactly groundbreaking to come to that conclusion. That would've been the case 50 years ago as well. I'm more concerned with the product and think it would be a worse product if this happened, and I'm guessing the NBA feels the same way, which is why it hasn't happened. It would be one thing if the current system was grossly unfair, but I don't think it is for many of the reasons I've already stated.

Rivalries might not mean much to you, but I'm thinking most fans don't feel the same way. I don't really care if the 7th or 8th best team isn't in the 2nd round, while the 10th or 11th best team is, because neither of those teams are going to win a championship anyway.

Number of games does matter because it shows that by the time the Finals starts, both teams are somewhat on equal footing and one isn't at a huge disadvantage cause they got way more "beat up" by their previous competition. I understand that its skewed for certain reasons (mainly that the top East team probably just isn't as good as the top West team), but as long as the teams aren't more effected by the past, then I think its fine.

You act like there would be no chance for same conference teams to play...this wouldn't be the case at all and it might make it more special when it happens in the playoffs.

Again, you are discounting the entire regular season for playing harder teams for x number of games as well.

And I've said that from the beginning...never said it was ground breaking:

I think the West, over the time frame we are discussing, has clearly been harder to navigate in both the regular season and playoffs. That's a real thing...it matters.

I also think there have been times when teams truly playoff deserving haven't made it solely because they've played in the West.

And I think certain teams have failed to advance or advanced because of the conference they are in.

To me, and it's just to me, I'd rather give up some of these "rivalry" playoff series for better teams and better basketball in the playoffs.

Again...there aren't 100 teams...teams within conferences will likely be playing a lot. In most cases it would be only 9 or 10 teams at most coming from one of the conferences.

Also, what do you consider a rivalry? What are the rivalries in the NBA today?

[guy]

You act like there would be no chance for same conference teams to play...this wouldn't be the case at all and it might make it more special when it happens in the playoffs.

Again, you are discounting the entire regular season for playing harder teams for x number of games as well.

And I've said that from the beginning...never said it was ground breaking:

I think the West, over the time frame we are discussing, has clearly been harder to navigate in both the regular season and playoffs. That's a real thing...it matters.

I also think there have been times when teams truly playoff deserving haven't made it solely because they've played in the West.

And I think certain teams have failed to advance or advanced because of the conference they are in.

To me, and it's just to me, I'd rather give up some of these "rivalry" playoff series for better teams and better basketball in the playoffs.

Again...there aren't 100 teams...teams within conferences will likely be playing a lot. In most cases it would be only 9 or 10 teams at most coming from one of the conferences.

Also, what do you consider a rivalry? What are the rivalries in the NBA today?

No I haven't. I never said there would be no rivalries. I said there would be less likelihood of them, which is a mathematical fact. I don't know how it would make it more special for teams not to face each other as much. Now with the Finals, it does make the Finals less compelling knowing that elite teams from each conference can face each other in other rounds as well. There's no clear definition on a rivalry, but for the most part its when teams with the same core get to face each other in multiple playoffs during a certain time frame IMO. Rivalries have already become less likely since the 80s/90s with expansion and more player movement. I would say today's rivalries are the Spurs/Thunder, Spurs/Mavs, Clippers/Grizzlies, Grizzlies/Thunder, and arguably Pacers/Heat (arguable with Lebron gone, his departure may have ended this rivalry as well as Spurs/Heat).

I didn't discount it. I clearly showed in the beginning what the numbers say, which is teams record on average would improve or suffer by 2 games if they were in the other conference. I never said there wasn't a difference. Just not significant.



I also think there have been times when teams truly playoff deserving haven't made it solely because they've played in the West.

And I think certain teams have failed to advance or advanced because of the conference they are in.


I agree. Teams that deserved to make the playoffs and not won a championship anyway.

You understand that teams don't get anything for losing in the 2nd round as opposed to the 1st round right? Shit, teams don't get anything for losing in the Finals as opposed to the 1st round.

When you say teams that failed to advance, you don't think teams that would've won a championship otherwise do you? In the last 15 years, do you think a team would've won it all in the other conference? You think the 04 Pistons, 06 Heat, 08 Celtics, 12 Heat, and 13 Heat don't win it all if they had spent the first 3 rounds in the West, while their Finals opposition was in the East?

[Magic 32]

old ass AI avg 26/7 on the highest shooting percentage of his career (46%) in 2008 on the Nuggets.


http://cdn1-www.hoopsvibe.com/assets/uploads/2007/01/file_49221_0_arton38831.jpg

http://lakers.topbuzz.com/gallery/d/293817-1/Laker+teammates+Kobe+Bryant+and+Pau+Gasol+have+a+l augh.JPG

[DMAVS41]

No I haven't. I never said there would be no rivalries. I said there would be less likelihood of them, which is a mathematical fact. I don't know how it would make it more special for teams not to face each other as much. Now with the Finals, it does make the Finals less compelling knowing that elite teams from each conference can face each other in other rounds as well. There's no clear definition on a rivalry, but for the most part its when teams with the same core get to face each other in multiple playoffs during a certain time frame IMO. Rivalries have already become less likely since the 80s/90s with expansion and more player movement. I would say today's rivalries are the Spurs/Thunder, Spurs/Mavs, Clippers/Grizzlies, Grizzlies/Thunder, and arguably Pacers/Heat (arguable with Lebron gone, his departure may have ended this rivalry as well as Spurs/Heat).

I didn't discount it. I clearly showed in the beginning what the numbers say, which is teams record on average would improve or suffer by 2 games if they were in the other conference. I never said there wasn't a difference. Just not significant.



I agree. Teams that deserved to make the playoffs and not won a championship anyway.

You understand that teams don't get anything for losing in the 2nd round as opposed to the 1st round right? Shit, teams don't get anything for losing in the Finals as opposed to the 1st round.

When you say teams that failed to advance, you don't think teams that would've won a championship otherwise do you? In the last 15 years, do you think a team would've won it all in the other conference? You think the 04 Pistons, 06 Heat, 08 Celtics, 12 Heat, and 13 Heat don't win it all if they had spent the first 3 rounds in the West, while their Finals opposition was in the East?


Why would the finals be less compelling? This doesn't follow at all.

Seems more and more like semantics. You say not significant...depends on how you use that word. A 57% win percentage, 60% among playoff teams....with a clear imbalance of the top 12 teams in the league....broadly for the last 15 years...I call that a significant difference....with it trending the wrong direction these last few years.

And again, to me, the 2 game regular season difference does not encapsulate the true difference. Take the Mavericks last year for example, they had to work their asses off just to make it...while being playoff ready helped early in the series...a lot of our guys had no legs in that series. If the Mavs were in the East...not only would they have been fresher for the playoffs, they wouldn't have played a team as good as the Spurs in the first round.

To me, just the chance that that happens every year is enough to making changes to a system that is clearly not fair.

You keep focusing only on the championship. I think the other rounds matter and want to watch good and interesting basketball as much as possible.

I get your points...you value the conference rivalries a lot...as that is really the only sensible argument. I just think you'd still have rivalries (not like these teams meet each year in the playoffs anyway) and have the added bonus of watching the best and most deserving teams deep into the playoffs.

[ballinhun8]

There wasn't any change in the 80s when the East routinely demolished the West so I doubt we see it now.


Unless we get realignment. Say you guys move Memphis East and the Bucks go West.

[guy]

Why would the finals be less compelling? This doesn't follow at all.

Seems more and more like semantics. You say not significant...depends on how you use that word. A 57% win percentage, 60% among playoff teams....with a clear imbalance of the top 12 teams in the league....broadly for the last 15 years...I call that a significant difference....with it trending the wrong direction these last few years.

And again, to me, the 2 game regular season difference does not encapsulate the true difference. Take the Mavericks last year for example, they had to work their asses off just to make it...while being playoff ready helped early in the series...a lot of our guys had no legs in that series. If the Mavs were in the East...not only would they have been fresher for the playoffs, they wouldn't have played a team as good as the Spurs in the first round.

To me, just the chance that that happens every year is enough to making changes to a system that is clearly not fair.

You keep focusing only on the championship. I think the other rounds matter and want to watch good and interesting basketball as much as possible.

I get your points...you value the conference rivalries a lot...as that is really the only sensible argument. I just think you'd still have rivalries (not like these teams meet each year in the playoffs anyway) and have the added bonus of watching the best and most deserving teams deep into the playoffs.

If the Celtics/Lakers weren't just facing each other in the Finals, and instead were also facing each other in the 1st and 2nd rounds, it would clearly cheapen the rivalry. Still probably a great rivalry, but not the same. Same thing goes to a lesser degree to Pistons/Lakers, Bulls/Jazz, Spurs/Heat.

Lets take the top 4 teams in the league, and maybe you won't see as much of a difference. What's the cutoff? There's always going to be SOME difference and imbalance, but I definitely don't see it as enough to completely overhaul the system.

The Mavs weren't going to win a title last year. Do you honestly think they were? Sorry, don't want to completely overhaul the system just for instances like that, which haven't even been the norm for the past 15 years.

You're not really changing much is my point. Like one or two teams would make the playoffs that didn't. You might get one or two more higher-quality series. You're still going to get blowout series that aren't interesting. Shit, the difference between the best team in the league and the 8th best team in the league can still be pretty wide. The Spurs DESTROYED the Blazers last year. And ultimately, it has little if any effect on who ends up winning the championship.

Its not just about rivalries. They might as well just completely eliminate conferences since they're pointless. And on top of that, scheduling becomes a HUGE bitch. Way more 3-4 days in between playoff games and possibly more late night games. It wouldn't surprise me if they extended the season into July if they used this format. Like I said, there's a reason the NBA hasn't done this, and most likely never will.

[DMAVS41]

If the Celtics/Lakers weren't just facing each other in the Finals, and instead were also facing each other in the 1st and 2nd rounds, it would clearly cheapen the rivalry. Still probably a great rivalry, but not the same. Same thing goes to a lesser degree to Pistons/Lakers, Bulls/Jazz, Spurs/Heat.

Lets take the top 4 teams in the league, and maybe you won't see as much of a difference. What's the cutoff? There's always going to be SOME difference and imbalance, but I definitely don't see it as enough to completely overhaul the system.

The Mavs weren't going to win a title last year. Do you honestly think they were? Sorry, don't want to completely overhaul the system just for instances like that, which haven't even been the norm for the past 15 years.

You're not really changing much is my point. Like one or two teams would make the playoffs that didn't. You might get one or two more higher-quality series. You're still going to get blowout series that aren't interesting. Shit, the difference between the best team in the league and the 8th best team in the league can still be pretty wide. The Spurs DESTROYED the Blazers last year. And ultimately, it has little if any effect on who ends up winning the championship.

Its not just about rivalries. They might as well just completely eliminate conferences since they're pointless. And on top of that, scheduling becomes a HUGE bitch. Way more 3-4 days in between playoff games and possibly more late night games. It wouldn't surprise me if they extended the season into July if they used this format. Like I said, there's a reason the NBA hasn't done this, and most likely never will.

What? It's not just about winning the title...I don't know how many times I have to say this.

Get rid of conferences...why? All we are doing is taking the best 16 teams into the playoffs (by far the most fair as certain teams will already have an advantage because of the weaker conference) and then seeding accordingly.

Getting rid of conferences and divisions doesn't make any sense. You said it yourself...I'm not changing a ton. You are still going to get at least 6 teams per conference and you are still going to get rivalry series at times.

Better teams, better basketball, more interesting 2nd round...more deserving finals appearances....

All of that trumps the Cavs vs. Wizards rivalry that nobody gives a shit about.

[Marchesk]

So with that being the case, this idea that significant changes need to be made based on the last 15 years is ridiculous.

Well, when you have a 48 win team not make it in one conference and a 38 win team make it in the other, and a chance that a serious contender could miss out on a similar number of wins because their star players were injured at the start of this season, and this has been going on for 15 years, something needs to be done.

How about this. No team that's under 500 deserves to be in the playoffs. So last year, Phoenix should have been awarded the East's 8th seed. If there are no extra teams from the stronger conference over 500, then the number one seed gets a bye.

Phoenix as an 8 seed in the East would have been a lot more interesting than Atlanta.

[nathanjizzle]

How about this. No team that's under 500 deserves to be in the playoffs. .

how would that technically make sense. there are 8 playoff spots out of 15 in each conference, so technically a team with less than .500 should make a playoff spot.

i myself would like to see eastern teams play western teams in the early rounds, for sheer entertainment, not about "unfairness" like most of you are

[kurple]

how would that technically make sense. there are 8 playoff spots out of 15 in each conference, so technically a team with less than .500 should make a playoff spot.
:biggums:

[nathanjizzle]

:biggums:

math. i know your black.

[Akhenaten]

math. i know your black.

watch your mouth, we invented mathematics

Ahmes/Rhind Papyri, look it up boa

[nathanjizzle]

watch your mouth, we invented mathematics

Ahmes/Rhind Papyri, look it up boa

http://www.sneakerheadvc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/my+bad.jpg

[Hizack]

and if you did a count on olympic gold medals by players from the east compared to those from the west?
Thanks for your suggestion!
I have added a section for U.S. National team selections to do the comparison. So based on the results, 16 Olympic gold medals were won by players from the East, and 22 Olympic gold medals were won by players from the West (including that won by Gin

[Magic 32]

http://s9.postimg.org/tppz7rfcf/4563.png

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2283864-eastern-conference-cushion-giving-cavs-other-contenders-time-to-come-together

"Consider that, in each of the past 15 seasons, the eighth seed in the West has won more games than the eighth seed in the East and, generally, not by a small number. Even with just a one-game difference in the lockout-shortened season of 2011-12, the average difference is 5.8 games per season; at least one East playoff team has been at or under .500 in 10 of the past 15 seasons, while that hasn't happened in the West once during that time. No eighth seed in the past 15 seasons has won more than 42 games in the East, while the Phoenix Suns missed the playoffs with 48 victories last season."

"Hey, man, I love the East," Bosh said, laughing.

Nice to see Bosh admitting it. Now we need Lebron to do the same.

[ImKobe]

Lakers 3 - 0 against the East

1 - 13 against the West

[Hey Yo]

Anyone bring up the discrepancy of time zones when it comes to a 1-16 foramt in the playoffs and TV ratings?

If Toronto is playing Golden St. in a second round 7 game series, does the NBA just cross their fingers and hope that those in Toronto are going to stay up until 10:30pm EST tipoff @ GS and watch the whole game that's not going to end at 1:30a.m?

Will Portland fans be happy that the first 2 games in Cleveland will be starting at 4:00 or 4:30pm for them?

No chance the NBA will go for a 1-16 playoff format. The current format is set up to get the best TV ratings.

[Droid101]

Will Portland fans be happy that the first 2 games against Cleveland will be starting at 4:00 or 4:30pm EST?


No chance the NBA will go for a 1-16 playoff format. The current format is set up to get the best TV ratings.

I know right? That's why the NBA Finals, where an east and west team meet, always have the lowest ratings.

[Hey Yo]

I know right? That's why the NBA Finals, where an east and west team meet, always have the lowest ratings.
:biggums:

DMAVS and others are saying it should be the teams with the 16 best records be allowed in the playoffs.

That why I said in my previous post "2ND ROUND" when using my hypothetical example

[Droid101]

:biggums:

DMAVS and others are saying it should be the teams with the 16 best records be allowed in the playoffs.

It should be.

And, as the Finals show, they'll figure out the scheduling to get people to watch the games people will want to watch.

[Hey Yo]

It should be.

And, as the Finals show, they'll figure out the scheduling to get people to watch the games people will want to watch.
The Finals never has tipoff before 8:00pm EST or after 9:00pm EST.

What happens if the second round has 6 WCF teams representing and 2 ECF teams. You think the NBA wants the possibility of 4 WCF teams playing each other? Showing a WCF double header where both games would be on at the same time? Or expect one of the home WCF teams to start their game at 4:00-4:30 for the sake of not having 2 WCF games being shown at once so they can have a double header?

[Hizack]

Updated. The West is still holding on to the strong position against the East.

[Hizack]

All-star break update.

[Hizack]

Updated for the conclusion of 2014/15 regular season.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Actually better for the East than i thought.

[DMAVS41]

Actually better for the East than i thought.

The win percentage isn't even the whole story though. It's about more games to coast (which allows more rest to get ready for tougher games in and out of the conference).

There are some hidden things here that aren't directly captured just by win percentage...especially for the good teams in the East...they are the ones that benefit the most and have it the easiest.

It's also about the playoff push. Did you notice how the Cavs and Hawks basically had no pressure late in the season? That they could rest their guys and get 100% because there was nothing to play for?

They play in the West and they are fighting for those playoff spots. The Cavs this year, in my opinion, would have won around 49 games in the West and would likely be the 7th or 8th seed if they switched places with the Mavs or Thunder...

Take the Mavs vs. Cavs seasons, for example...

If you just swapped those teams...the Cavs would be at best the 7 seed in the West and while they are clearly a better team than the Mavs at this point...nobody would be really talking about them having a chance to go on the road in every series and win the title. But because they play in a joke conference...they are actually the ****ing title favorite! It's absurd.

The Mavs, conversely, would be the 2nd seed in the East...and would be roughly 50/50 to make the Finals. Maybe Atlanta would be a slight favorite over the Mavs in a series, but it wouldn't be much.

Now, I obviously don't think this Mavs team is even a top 7 team in the league, but the point is that which conference you play in should not be this big of a part of who really has a chance to win the title.

It has to change very soon. Next year, unless the Spurs all retire..and even then they probably would get LMA and another player...and Leonard/Parker/LMA is definitely 55 wins or so if healthy...

The West will have an absurd amount of playoff teams on paper. You have your usual suspects like:

Mavs
Spurs
Blazers
Rockets
Warriors
Grizzlies
Clippers
Thunder

And then the Pelicans are coming, the Suns will likely be pretty good next year, the Jazz are definitely going to be really good next year. The Kings with Cousins could make moves to do something as well.

You just can't have it this way. It's beyond stupid...nobody will even turn on the TV to watch any of the first round Eastern matchups outside Cavs vs Boston. It's honestly some of the most boring basketball matchups I've ever seen. Hawks vs Nets? Holy shit...just thinking about it puts me to sleep. Same thing for Wizards vs Raptors. These teams aren't good...some wouldn't sniff the playoffs in the West.

It has to be fixed...

[Showtime80']

LOL! People on this site must be dense or on some powerful stuff!

Western Conference winning% versus East during Magic's 12 years= 47%
Eastern Conference winning% versus West during Lebron's 13 years= 42%

NEXT! Not to mention the fact that a perennial decade power, Milwaukee Bucks was realigned to the central division from the Midwest and the West absorbed an expansion team in the Mavs in 1981.

[UK2K]

Well, this year and last year are pretty bad. But in general, those numbers overall show the disparity over the last 15 years isn't nearly as wide as people make it out to be.

Do the math. First off, the average team is going to be 26-26 vs. their own conference. You apply those %s for the average team vs the other conference, and rounded correctly, the East is 13-17 vs the West and the West is 17-13 vs the East. So on average, an EC team is 39-43 and a WC team is 43-39. That's not very far from 41-41, which would be the case for both conferences if they were equal.

Now, what people obviously love to ask is how teams would perform if they were in the other conference. Just apply the %s again, and they'd be 15-15 against the other conference (the conference they are really in currently), and EC teams would be 22-30 on average vs WC teams if they were in the West meaning 37-45 overall, and the WC teams would 30-22 on average vs EC teams if they were in the East meaning 45-37 overall.

So in general, what this means is that this HUGE supposed advantage that EC teams have gotten over this timeframe by getting to play in the East is a mere 2 game increase in wins (39 vs 37) while the WC teams are down by 2 games in wins (45 vs 43).

So with that being the case, this idea that significant changes need to be made based on the last 15 years is ridiculous.
Bet OKC would like that mere 2 game increase.

[emaugust]

If it is so great to be in the East, how come more players aren't choosing to be there?

Because they would rather live on the west coast?

Fine. But these players need to deal with the market distortion they have created. I am not sad that a bunch of dudes who chose to stratify the current day NBA on the west coast need to deal with the increased competition and lack of access to playoff ball that resulted.

Swapping east and west teams so players can have the joy of living on the west coast with the ease of being in the eastern conference is some baby shit.

[OmniStrife]

People who are against a top-16 system are either retarded or are scared east fans.

[francesco totti]

Wins for East:
Utah @Detroit 87 - 92
Cleveland @Memphis 106 - 76
Houston @Miami 89 - 109
Orlando @NewOrleans 103 - 94
Toronto @Dallas 102 - 91
SanAntonio @Washington 99 - 102
Toronto @OKC 103 - 98
OKC @ Chicago 98 - 104
Miami @ Minesota 96 - 84
Charlotte @Dallas 108-94
Atlanta @ New Orleans 121 - 115
Detroit @Phoenix 100 - 92
Lakers @New York 95 - 99
Detroit @Portland 120 - 103

Wins for West:
Memphis @Indiana 112 - 103
OKlahoma City @Orlando 139 - 136
Utah @Philadelphia 99 - 71
Brooklyn @SanAntonio 75 - 102
Utah @Indiana 97 - 76
Brookyln @Memphis 91 - 101
SanAntonio @Boston 95 - 87
SanAntonio @NewYork 94 - 84
Orlando @Houston 114 - 119
Lakers @Brooklyn 104 - 98
Minesotta @Chicago 102 - 93
Charlotte @San Antonio 114 - 94



14 wins for east ( 9 on road, 5 home )
12 wins for west ( 8 on road, 4 home)

[Hizack]

Bumped for the conclusion of the 2015-16 regular season.

The East is 218-232 against the West overall this season.

The East's top 8 teams are 61-67 against the West's top 8 teams this season.

[tpols]

Bumped for the conclusion of the 2015-16 regular season.

The East is 218-232 against the West overall this season.

The East's top 8 teams are 61-67 against the West's top 8 teams this season.

Another L for the east

[CP3PO]

Congrats to the East for finally having a better 8th seed :applause:

Shame that the teams at the top are still far leaning towards the West.

[ninephive]

This makes Duncan's 19-year playoff streak even more impressive.

Also, the fact that the #1 seed in the West finished 16 games ahead of the #1 seed in the East is just silly.

[Legends66NBA7]

People who are against a top-16 system are either retarded or are scared east fans.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=404004

^Anyone else feel free to chime in there.

[JohnnySic]

Historically the east was the stronger conference until about 2000.

In the 80's in particular the west was a complete shiitshow aside from one great team (Lakers). The east was never that bad.

[TomCat]

Its a good thing the Cavs are in the East.