Why do some people deny the conference disparity?

[Solefade]

Only LeBeta stans try to make it seem like he hasn't had a cakewalk to the Finals for half a decade.

The rest, even some LeSPN commentators, acknowledge and lament how terrible The Least is.

that same writer that made that graphic also wrote an article about how lebron has done it with the least help after that



but who is really denying that the east is the crappier conference of the two? i think people definitely overrate the west though

[edrick]

Is it the East's fault that most of the best coaches and players just happen to be in the West?

They need to get rid of the stupid conference crap for the playoffs, and just put the 16 best teams in.

[Im Still Ballin]

It's irrelevant that the east is weaker if you're trying to demean the Cavaliers ability to win as a team. If anything, the evidence shows they would do better in the west. 16-1 vs the Western conference with a full team. If you say the west is "so much better because of team records", then it would be no more a stretch to say that "The Cavaliers would have an easier time playing in the western conference" because they went 16-1. See what the problem here is with making assumptions like this based on team records? Basketball has always been matchups.

[Cleverness]

5 of those losses for the Cavs came when Bron was out.

They lost to the likes of OKC, Dallas and Sacremento who they would all whip with Bron in the team.

yeah, and losses from GS/Hou came when Bogut/Dwight/etc weren't playing. point is the east is much weaker.

question still stands. Why do you deny the conference disparity?


and how are you going to deny 187-263 record

[kshutts1]

I think a 16 seed playoff system would make the 1st round even more difficult to watch

It would if the NBA continued to cling to the silly notion of a 7 game series. But let's be real... the first round now is basically 1/2 v 13-16. Not like much would change at the beginning. Major change is at the end, though.

[ISHGoat]

I think the problem with removing conferences is that it could be like a GSW vs SAS finals and every game would start like 10 pm ET and NBA would lose a huge amount of the east coast audience.

[kshutts1]

I think the problem with removing conferences is that it could be like a GSW vs SAS finals and every game would start like 10 pm ET and NBA would lose a huge amount of the east coast audience.

8:30. You're welcome.

[ISHGoat]

8:30. You're welcome.

A bit better, but then you have games starting 5:30 local time for the westeners and the local fans might not be able to make it from their 9-5 to their home, much less an arena in downtown (I assume). I know where I'm from, if youre working outside the city and trying to get inside the city during rushhour, its gonna be packed.

[Elosha]

I'm cautiously in favor of seeding the playoffs with the 16 best teams. I also believe the NBA should return to the best of 5 for the first round. The only reason they increased it to 7 was for more revenue. But there's no good reason for it, the first round should be done relatively quickly so the more meaningful rounds can commence.

I am opposed to shortening the season from 82 games. I don't think it will happen because the league would lose too much revenue. I do understand the players and coaches concern about wear and tear and injuries before the playoffs. But I'm sorry, they just need to man up. The NBA has been playing 82 games for over 40 years. You don't hear any of the old retired players complaining, and they had nowhere near as good medical staffs, trainers, luxurious travel accommodations, etc. Besides, coaches are starting to follow Popovich and rest their starters more during the season. Even superstars today seem to want more rest than their counterparts in previous decades.

Also, shortening the season would completely skew and lessen historically great player's resumes. For instance, Lebron may have a legitimate shot of reaching somewhere between 1 and 5 on the all time scoring list, due to his early start and consistently high scoring average. But if the season were to be reduced to 60 games, it would be virtually impossible for him to do that and it would screw up everyone's all time numbers. Anything less than 82 games just tampers with NBA history. Same thing with reducing the game to something less than 48 minutes, it would mess up everyone's career numbers.

[kshutts1]

I'm cautiously in favor of seeding the playoffs with the 16 best teams. I also believe the NBA should return to the best of 5 for the first round. The only reason they increased it to 7 was for more revenue. But there's no good reason for it, the first round should be done relatively quickly so the more meaningful rounds can commence.

I am opposed to shortening the season from 82 games. I don't think it will happen because the league would lose too much revenue. I do understand the players and coaches concern about wear and tear and injuries before the playoffs. But I'm sorry, they just need to man up. The NBA has been playing 82 games for over 40 years. You don't hear any of the old retired players complaining, and they had nowhere near as good medical staffs, trainers, luxurious travel accommodations, etc. Besides, coaches are starting to follow Popovich and rest their starters more during the season. Even superstars today seem to want more rest than their counterparts in previous decades.

Also, shortening the season would completely skew and lessen historically great player's resumes. For instance, Lebron may have a legitimate shot of reaching somewhere between 1 and 5 on the all time scoring list, due to his early start and consistently high scoring average. But if the season were to be reduced to 60 games, it would be virtually impossible for him to do that and it would screw up everyone's all time numbers. Anything less than 82 games just tampers with NBA history. Same thing with reducing the game to something less than 48 minutes, it would mess up everyone's career numbers.

Not that I disagree with your point, but tons of other factors, that affected career numbers, have changed... so why does this one get to you?

Other factors:
HS players can be chosen, then can't be
Longer playoffs
Different defensive rules
3 point line
Shot clock
Traveling
Hand checking

I'm sure the list goes on and on. My over-riding point is that just because a change may affect history, or goes against what "has always been", doesn't mean that said change shouldn't happen. Just like "change for the sake of change" is silly, so too is "staying the same just because that's how it's always been".

[No_Look604]

The Hawks and Cavs are both great teams, although I don't think the Hawks would have made it to the conference Finals if they were in the West.

So you think the f'n Cavs would make the Conf. Finals in the West?

Pass it to the left handside homie and step out of the circle.

[Elosha]

Not that I disagree with your point, but tons of other factors, that affected career numbers, have changed... so why does this one get to you?

Other factors:
HS players can be chosen, then can't be
Longer playoffs
Different defensive rules
3 point line
Shot clock
Traveling
Hand checking

I'm sure the list goes on and on. My over-riding point is that just because a change may affect history, or goes against what "has always been", doesn't mean that said change shouldn't happen. Just like "change for the sake of change" is silly, so too is "staying the same just because that's how it's always been".

That's a fair point and a good question.. I'm certainly not someone who believes rules should never be changed. I like the 3 point line, 24 second shot clock, and other changes. At the end of the day, I don't think most of the rule changes over the years would drastically affect most great players' career numbers or playing abilities. On the one hand, you might say a guy like Jerry West would have scored a lot more points with 3 pointers, but conversely, his overall field goal percentage might have taken a hit if he was shooting a lot of threes and he may not have developed such a strong mid range game. Traveling/palming rules may be called differently in the 60's but that doesn't mean that the great players then or now couldn't adjust to the differences.

I guess the difference for me is rules changes in the flow of the game have a relatively minor impact - imo - on a great player's overall career stats. And even though high school players recently got to go straight to the NBA and now they only need attend one year of college, they STILL have to play the game and still have to produce at an all time level. Does it give an all-time great like Lebron or Kobe an "unfair" advantage in career achievements? Yes. But they still had to produce their numbers on the court, it was still up to them to become as great as they could be. But if you arbitrarily shorten the season or the length of the game, you take it out of the player's hands. Now it doesn't matter how much a Kobe or Lebron does, if it's a 60 game season, they're done, no matter how much more they could have produced with an additional 22 games. It takes the control out of the player's hands.

I don't know if that's a satisfactory answer for you, but that's why I'm fundamentally opposed to shortening the season. Some traditions matter more than others.