East VS West record in the last 15 years

[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.

[T_L_P]

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

Western teams have won 10 of the last 15 titles.

[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? 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.