# East bests West?



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Link*



> Back in the early 1990s when the feisty Detroit Pistons were known as the “Bad Boys” and Michael Jordan was leading the Chicago Bulls’ dominance, the East was regarded as the NBA’s toughest conference. But even as Jordan continued to win titles in Chicago, the West regained its swagger – and eventually its superiority.
> 
> Since Jordan’s Bulls were dismantled after their final championship in 1998, the Western Conference has won all but three titles, including last season’s when the Los Angeles Lakers fought off the Orlando Magic in five games. While Kobe Bryant(notes) and the Lakers will enter this season as favorites to repeat, no longer should teams in the East be considered pushovers. Already, the East has split the past six titles with the West. And with the Magic again joining the Boston Celtics and Cleveland Cavaliers as three of the league’s top title contenders, the East could use this season to build a case for becoming the best conference.
> 
> “It didn’t deserve respect for a while,” Celtics coach Doc Rivers said. “It’s been down for a while. Listen, I don’t know that the Western Conference is better than the other conference. What I would always say is the East is not as bad as you think. Now it’s really good.”


Agreed its the best conference now.


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

The best of the East will beat the best of the West.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Does that include the Lakers?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I think that they're about even. Maybe a slight edge to the East because they have three elite teams (Boston/Orlando/Cleavland) to the West's two (Lakers/San Antonio)


----------



## shoop da whoop (Jul 6, 2006)

A couple of years ago, it was the West, now its the east's time to shine.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

I'll go with Phil Jackson's quote in the article:



> “There are three teams in the East that are really good,” Lakers coach Phil Jackson said. “But one through the group, I think you’ll find the West still stronger.”


Just like last year, the Western conference is more competitive especially when it comes to playoffs spots. The East still had teams under or barely averaging a .50 record getting in whereas playoffs teams in the West were within a few games of eachothers records which were above .50 IIRC. East does have 3/5 of the title contenders though.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

East is more top-heavy, West is still a lot deeper.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

The West is in ruinous condition this year. There are ****ty teams still dismantling (*cough*Sacremento*cough*), teams that are just plain ****ty (the Plunder, LA Crappers, Minnesota Slumberwolves, Phoenix Crumbs), teams wiped out by injury (Houston) and teams destined to implode midseason (Golden State, Utah after dealing Boozer). That division is five teams deep this year. If the Hawks were to move to the other conference they'd challenge for a division title outside the Pacific. In the east there's a realistic shot that they don't make it out of the first round of the playoffs. Of course, things might change with the free agent bonanza this summer, but for this year the east's better.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> The West is in ruinous condition this year. There are ****ty teams still dismantling (*cough*Sacremento*cough*), teams that are just plain ****ty (the Plunder, LA Crappers, Minnesota Slumberwolves, Phoenix Crumbs), teams wiped out by injury (Houston) and teams destined to implode midseason (Golden State, Utah after dealing Boozer). That division is five teams deep this year. If the Hawks were to move to the other conference they'd challenge for a division title outside the Pacific. In the east there's a realistic shot that they don't make it out of the first round of the playoffs. Of course, things might change with the free agent bonanza this summer, but for this year the east's better.


Do you watch the NBA outside of a few national games and your home team? The Suns missed the playoffs by winning 46 games. Outside of Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando, the East still sucks. If the Hawks were to move to the west, they'd be second to last in the SW division in front of Memphis, they'd by third in Pacific behind PHX, they'd be fourth in MW division behind Utah. About half of the West is weak while 3/4 of the East is weak.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> Do you watch the NBA outside of a few national games and your home team? The Suns missed the playoffs by winning 46 games.


Your best player is on the trading block and you already traded away your starting center from last year. I wouldn't be shocked if Jason Richardson also joins the general exodus. There's a huge dropoff after Dallas this year. It might change this summer, but not this year.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Jakain said:


> I'll go with Phil Jackson's quote in the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like last year, the Western conference is more competitive especially when it comes to playoffs spots. The East still had teams under or barely averaging a .50 record getting in whereas playoffs teams in the West were within a few games of eachothers records which were above .50 IIRC. East does have 3/5 of the title contenders though.


Really? I guess that's why the East won the head to head record versus the West?

The East was better than the West last year and it will be better again this year.

The West's lower playoff seeds had better win percentages because they had Sacramento, LA Clippers, Minnesota, OK City, Golden State, and Memphis all with less than 30 wins to kick around. The East only had one team with less than 30 wins to beat up on. And to repeat, the East won the head to head versus the west and that by itself tells you the East is the better conference.

The East also provided 8 different franchises to the NBA Finals during the just finished '00 decade. The West only provided 3. There are so many awful franchises in the West. On NBC during the football game last night, they showed that the Clippers haven't posted back to back winning seasons in like 40 years. And they might not even be the worst historically in the West (Golden State Warriors).

Even when Phoenix was winning all those regular season games they were never going to win a championship because of their defense. I also could care less what Phil Jackson thinks. Guy has proven he will sell out anyone at any time.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

The East is only 3 deep, and assuming fully healthy for all teams the only one of those teams that could hang with the West is Boston.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> Your best player is on the trading block and you already traded away your starting center from last year. I wouldn't be shocked if Jason Richardson also joins the general exodus. There's a huge dropoff after Dallas this year. It might change this summer, but not this year.


he ruined the court dynamics last year. He clogged up the lane, was probably the worst PnR defender in the league. He claimed he was in it to help Amare be the man then complained about touches. He pissed off Nash, which is a difficult thing to do, and our best player had a near career ending eye injury while demanding max money. On top of that the Warriors almost gave the Suns an offer they couldn't refuse for Stoudemire. 

There is no general exodus on that team. I don't know where you get that. The team is exactly the same as last year's except for Shaq. They are actually improved without Shaq. He slowed the offense and prevented Nash from getting into the lane because he was always 5 feet from the hoop. Channing Frye is a huge upgrade defensively over Shaq in that he can guard the PnR. He can also hit jumpshots, allowing Amare to roll to the rim.

Lakers, Nuggets, Spurs, Portland, Dallas, Phoenix, and Utah are all improved this year.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> The East is only 3 deep, and assuming fully healthy for all teams the only one of those teams that could hang with the West is Boston.


So the West is only 2 deep? Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando can all win it all.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

The bottom of the West is much worse then the bottom of the East. The West had 6 teams finish with under 30 wins, and you still wonder why Phoenix missed the playoffs with 46 wins?? If the bottom is so bad, the top of the conference is going to get a ton of easy wins to inflate their records. While the East only had one team with under 30 wins, so there is a lot more quality teams in the East then the West.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

Last season the east was top heavy with Orlando, Boston, and Cleveland at the top, then you had the 2nd tier teams like Miami, Atlanta, Philly then the rest Chicago and Detroit. This is how it is the east was better at the top than the west, but in terms of second tier teams the west was deeper. But this season I can see a change because right now there are teams on the come up in the east like Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Toronto, Philly, Detroit, so looking at all the teams I really think the east is the deeper conference going into the 2010 season.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

it all depends on what you mean when talking about which conference is better. 

at this point, the top of the conferences are pretty equal. i feel like this season the top 3 teams of each conference(lakers, spurs, blazers, celtics, magic, cavs) are going to win 60-65 games.

the middle part of the west is far better than the middle part of the east. after the top 3, the west has 5 teams i feel confident will win 45+ games. the east only has one such team(atlanta), but does have some others who should be around the 41-45 win mark.

at the bottom of the conference, the east is better than the west. the west has some terrible teams like the twovles and kings.

so which is more important, having better playoff teams or better lottery teams? i'd say the better playoff teams is more important which would mean the west is better. if you think having better lottery teams is important, then the east would be better but i don't understand your reasoning. and i do think overall the west will end up with more wins than the east this season.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

myst said:


> The bottom of the West is much worse then the bottom of the East. The West had 6 teams finish with under 30 wins, and you still wonder why Phoenix missed the playoffs with 46 wins?? If the bottom is so bad, the top of the conference is going to get a ton of easy wins to inflate their records. While the East only had one team with under 30 wins, so there is a lot more quality teams in the East then the West.


since when is 30 wins a quality team?

oh and last season the west had 8 teams with a better than .500 record against the east. the east only had 6 teams with a better than .500 against the west. that would seem to indicate that the west had more good teams than the east which would seem to be more important than which conferences bad teams were best.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

I think the middle of the east is capable of winning 45 games too. After the big 3 of Boston, Cleveland and Orlando there are 7 teams that can make legitimate claim to a playoff spot, you have Atlanta and Washington that could potentially win 50 games, if they remain healthy, then you have the rest like Miami, Philly, Chicago, and Toronto that could win about 41-45 games. I think the middle of the east is deeper than the middle of west. 

In the west you have 2 legit contenders in the Lakers and Spurs, then you have Denver, Dallas and Portland that will be fighting for 3 and 4th place spots. The big 3 in the east is better than Denver, Portland and Dallas, while its a toss up between them and the big 2 in the west. The middle of west you have New Orleans, Phoenix, and Utah. Thats its, So in my opinion I think the east is a lot deeper.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I think the west is the more top heavy conference. They have 4 teams that could win 60 games or close to it. The east has 3. Then the west has another 3 that will be around 50 wins (Hornets, Mavericks, Jazz). 

The west's top 8 is still clearly superior. The east is better 9-15 though. Overall factoring all 15 teams the conferences are probably about equal.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It's interesting that the west didn't have a team win in the 30's last year. It went from Phoenix 46 wins, to Golden State as the next best at 29 wins. That's crazy. 

Phoenix, Utah, New Orleans, Dallas, San Antonio, Portland, Denver, LA and Houston all won over 46 though. I suspect that Houston will fall into that 30 games range this coming season.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think the west is the more top heavy conference. They have 4 teams that could win 60 games or close to it. The east has 3. Then the west has another 3 that will be around 50 wins (Hornets, Mavericks, Jazz).
> 
> The west's top 8 is still clearly superior. The east is better 9-15 though. Overall factoring all 15 teams the conferences are probably about equal.


The West won't have four teams with more than 56 wins, and the Hornets aren't going to win 50 games. Neither will the Jazz when they finally trade Boozer off (to either Chicago or Miami). Great 1-5, huge dropoff after that.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The Wolves and Kings are really bad teams. No two ways to it. The East doesnt have terrible teams, the Nets and Knicks are both capable of win 30-40 games. It would be really amazing if the Wolves and Kings do that. I think the West overall has the slight edge, deeper and more experienced teams.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

eddymac said:


> I think the middle of the east is capable of winning 45 games too. After the big 3 of Boston, Cleveland and Orlando there are 7 teams that can make legitimate claim to a playoff spot, you have Atlanta and Washington that could potentially win 50 games, if they remain healthy, then you have the rest like Miami, Philly, Chicago, and Toronto that could win about 41-45 games. I think the middle of the east is deeper than the middle of west.


atlanta did it last year and added jamal crawford so i think they stand to improve. miami won 43 and i assume there will be improvement from chalmers and beasley but further decline from jermaine oneal. they could go either way but i'm not confident in them winning 45.

but other than those 2 teams, i'm not seeing it. the wizards have trouble staying healthy and having shown they can win 45 games with the core they have anyway. toronto still doesn't play defense and lacks depth. both teams will be better than they were last year and should be playoff teams in the east, but i'm not seeing the huge jump to being on the level of any of the western conference playoff teams.

philly is replacing andre miller with jrue holiday. chicago is replacing ben gordon with jannero pargo. despite that these teams are supposed to improve?

the reason so many teams in the east can contend for playoff spots is because the teams taking the middle and bottom playoff spots in the east aren't as good. that doesn't make the middle deeper, it makes the middle worse.

oh and yes, some teams in the middle of the east of capable of winning 45 games. and that's great. but i'm saying that all of the playoff teams in the west will win at least 45 games. in reality they will probably be winning more than 45 games and most of them will likely win 50+.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Philly is replacing Miller with Lou Williams, they probably dont have any expectations for Holliday this season and dont forget its an Eddie Jordan offense, they don't need a 'pure' point.

Atlanta also added Jeff Teague, that team is better than people are giving them credit for.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> The West won't have four teams with more than 56 wins, and the Hornets aren't going to win 50 games. Neither will the Jazz when they finally trade Boozer off (to either Chicago or Miami). Great 1-5, huge dropoff after that.


are you sure that dumping boozer will hurt the jazz?


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> since when is 30 wins a quality team?
> 
> oh and last season the west had 8 teams with a better than .500 record against the east. the east only had 6 teams with a better than .500 against the west. that would seem to indicate that the west had more good teams than the east which would seem to be more important than which conferences bad teams were best.


Where did I write that 30 wins is a quality team?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> The Wolves and Kings are really bad teams. No two ways to it. The East doesnt have terrible teams, the Nets and Knicks are both capable of win 30-40 games. It would be really amazing if the Wolves and Kings do that. I think the West overall has the slight edge, deeper and more experienced teams.


the nets this year are going to be a terrible team. the bucks could be in the terrible conversation as well with them giving away jefferson, villanueva, and sessions for nothing. it's hard to tell with them exactly what to expect but terrible is definitely a possibility(while playoffs doesn't seem like one).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> The West won't have four teams with more than 56 wins, and the Hornets aren't going to win 50 games. Neither will the Jazz when they finally trade Boozer off (to either Chicago or Miami). Great 1-5, huge dropoff after that.


Last year, the West's 9th seed was 11 games better than the East's 9th, while the East's 10th seed was 6 games better than the West's 6th. I'd say the West has a stronger top 8 this coming year, not just 5. The west hasn't really lost much outside of Houston losing Yao (they'll drop). Hornets got a little better, Jazz are pretty much the same, Portland got better, Spurs got better, Lakers got better, Denver stayed about the same, Dallas about the same. Phoenix will be a question mark but I think a healthy Amare with the guys they have will be good for a mid-40's win season. 

I think the Clippers this coming year could enter the mix. Baron "every other year" Davis along with a really nice frontcourt could do some damage.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

myst said:


> Where did I write that 30 wins is a quality team?


when you said "While the East only had one team with under 30 wins, so there is a lot more quality teams in the East then the West."?


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

The east has clearly improved tremendously.

East teams had a winning percentage of 51% against West teams last year. That's not a big advantage, but it's the first time in at least 10 years (probably more) that they've won the season series against the west. In some years over the last decade the east would be in the low 40% range in head-to-head.

The West's depth is a myth. They had 6 of the 7 worst teams in the league last year.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> atlanta did it last year and added jamal crawford so i think they stand to improve. miami won 43 and i assume there will be improvement from chalmers and beasley but further decline from jermaine oneal. they could go either way but i'm not confident in them winning 45.
> 
> but other than those 2 teams, i'm not seeing it. the wizards have trouble staying healthy and having shown they can win 45 games with the core they have anyway. toronto still doesn't play defense and lacks depth. both teams will be better than they were last year and should be playoff teams in the east, but i'm not seeing the huge jump to being on the level of any of the western conference playoff teams.
> 
> ...


With Chicago its addition by subtraction they lose Ben Gordon and replace him with John Salmons at SG. In Philly they lose Andre Miller, but although its pre season Lou Williams has shown that he can be steady at the PG spot, and they are getting Elton Brand back from injury. Toronto added a much needed scorer at the wings in Turk, and added toughness with Reggie Evans, they also have Delfino, and Jack coming off the bench, Toronto may not be the deepest team but their bench is solid. In Miami as long as Wade is around they will make the playoffs, Beasley will be improved, so will Chalmers and although he is not as good as he used to be JO provides a low post scorer and pressence which is valuable. Washington has always been an injury riddled team but people forget that in 06/07 they had the best record in the east at one point when everybody was healthy, so its safe to assume that if they stay healthy, they could have some success and not to mention they have more depth than that 07 team. Then you have Detroit who has a lot of talent and could challenge for a spot too. Thats 7 decent to good teams in the middle, and Washington, Atlanta, and Miami could potentially beat the middle of west teams like Utah, Phoenix, and New Orleans or vice versa.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> the nets this year are going to be a terrible team. the bucks could be in the terrible conversation as well with them giving away jefferson, villanueva, and sessions for nothing. it's hard to tell with them exactly what to expect but terrible is definitely a possibility(while playoffs doesn't seem like one).


The Nets are going to be fine. I have seen the team and the talent on the roster, it all depends on how quick of a start and Devin's health. Bucks also, good young talent. Ilyasova, Meeks and Jennings from the few games I have seen, have NBA talent. They might not be ready for the playoffs but they arent going to be terrible as you say.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> are you sure that dumping boozer will hurt the jazz?


Yes. I love Millsap but there's no way he's making up the lost offense, and they suck like Kate moss after six lines of blow at the 2/3. In this day and age your swingmen need to be able to combine to score more than LeBron on any given night. That team is in severe need of a makeover.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> Philly is replacing Miller with Lou Williams, they probably dont have any expectations for Holliday this season and dont forget its an Eddie Jordan offense, they don't need a 'pure' point.


philly is replacing andre miller with jrue holiday. lou williams was there last year.

and yes, lou williams will be picking up more minutes due to the loss of miller and the sixers won't expect jrue to take miller's place. but when they go from having miller/williams/ivey at pg to having williams/ivey/holiday, i'm supposed to expect them to improve?



> Atlanta also added Jeff Teague, that team is better than people are giving them credit for.


not sure how big of an impact teague will have getting minutes behind bibby, crawford, and joe johnson but he definitely helps with depth.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Last year, the West's 9th seed was 11 games better than the East's 9th, while the East's 10th seed was 6 games better than the West's 6th. I'd say the West has a stronger top 8 this coming year, not just 5. The west hasn't really lost much outside of Houston losing Yao (they'll drop). Hornets got a little better, Jazz are pretty much the same, Portland got better, Spurs got better, Lakers got better, Denver stayed about the same, Dallas about the same. Phoenix will be a question mark but I think a healthy Amare with the guys they have will be good for a mid-40's win season.
> 
> I think the Clippers this coming year could enter the mix. Baron "every other year" Davis along with a really nice frontcourt could do some damage.


The West's 9th seed, Phoenix, played in the same division as Sacramento, Golden State, and the LA Clippers. :laugh:


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

MLKG said:


> The east has clearly improved tremendously.
> 
> East teams had a winning percentage of 51% against West teams last year. That's not a big advantage, but it's the first time in at least 10 years (probably more) that they've won the season series against the west. In some years over the last decade the east would be in the low 40% range in head-to-head.
> 
> The West's depth is a myth. They had 6 of the 7 worst teams in the league last year.


when people say that the west is deep, they mean the west is deep with good teams. the west has far more good teams than the east. of course the west also has more bad teams than the east. the west is deeper with good teams and bad teams, while the east is deeper with mediocre teams.

generally people really only care much about the good teams so that is what they are referring to when they say the west is deep.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> The West's 9th seed, Phoenix, played in the same division as Sacramento, Golden State, and the LA Clippers. :laugh:


Not really relevant because you don't really play your division any more often than other teams in your conference. But yes, they played in a terrible division.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> when you said "While the East only had one team with under 30 wins, so there is a lot more quality teams in the East then the West."?


Yes, I said the East only had 1 team with under 30 wins, which leaves 14 teams with over 30 wins. If the East has 14 teams with over 30 wins, and the West has 9 with over 30 wins, which conference is going to have more quality teams? I would say you need 34-35 wins to be a quality team, and by quality I mean a team that isn't an embarrassment and will actually compete. The East had 12 teams with over 34 wins, and I would throw in Toronto also with 33 wins. So that is 13 quality teams that will compete every night. When you have 13 teams in one conference that can beat any team on a given night, the records for that conference are going to be lower, compared with a conference that has 6 teams that will be an almost guaranteed win.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Lol rocketeer you should ask Coatesvillain what he thinks of Miller? A lot of Philly fans will tell you by getting rid of him the team is in better shape.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I've always been an Elton Brand fan so I may be biased but I think he is going to have a great year (20/10ish). Injuries have messed him up but he seems healthy primed for another season like a couple years ago.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> when people say that the west is deep, they mean the west is deep with good teams. the west has far more good teams than the east. of course the west also has more bad teams than the east. the west is deeper with good teams and bad teams, while the east is deeper with mediocre teams.
> 
> generally people really only care much about the good teams so that is what they are referring to when they say the west is deep.


Far more? Is the measure of a good team just a .500 record in head to head against the other conference? If so then Charlotte is a "good team." They had a .500 record and even beat the world champions. Twice.

Utah is supposed to be a good team? They finished the season 3-10. They also haven't won against Miami in 6 years. If Atlanta or Miami played in the West either team could win 50+ games easily.

Also, Philly will be better with a healthy Brand.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> Lol rocketeer you should ask Coatesvillain what he thinks of Miller? A lot of Philly fans will tell you by getting rid of him the team is in better shape.


oh i'm not saying that miller is a good player, but he's definitely better than royal ivey or jrue holiday at this point. i can't see the sixers improving because they gave miller's minutes to williams and give williams' minutes to ivey/jrue.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Last year, the West's 9th seed was 11 games better than the East's 9th, while the East's 10th seed was 6 games better than the West's 6th. I'd say the West has a stronger top 8 this coming year, not just 5. The west hasn't really lost much outside of Houston losing Yao (they'll drop). Hornets got a little better, Jazz are pretty much the same, Portland got better, Spurs got better, Lakers got better, Denver stayed about the same, Dallas about the same. Phoenix will be a question mark but I think a healthy Amare with the guys they have will be good for a mid-40's win season.
> 
> I think the Clippers this coming year could enter the mix. Baron "every other year" Davis along with a really nice frontcourt could do some damage.


The problem is that the the top teams in the East got a lot better, while the teams outside the top five in the west are heading in the opposite direction. Things are so dire in New Orleans that a rookie 2nd round pick might be starting at the 2 because their wings are biblically bad. They're a Chris Paul injury from being a 15 win team. Houston lost Yao _and_ T-Mac. They're officially entrants in the John Wall Derby. Phoenix unloaded an 18/9 center, and they're so desperate that their fans are singing the praises of Channing Frye. Utah is openly shopping Boozer, and has a bunch of roleplayers at the 2/3. They're another team that will struggle to match last year's victory total. Outside of LA, San Antonio, Denver, Dallas, and Portland the West's vaunted might is overrated. They're bad enough that the Grizzlies are a legitimate playoff contender this year. For once the Grizzly fans won't be cursing their luck to be playing in the West, because they wouldn't get near the playoffs in the East.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HB said:


> Philly is replacing Miller with Lou Williams, they probably dont have any expectations for Holliday this season and dont forget its an Eddie Jordan offense, they don't need a 'pure' point.
> 
> Atlanta also added Jeff Teague, that team is better than people are giving them credit for.


Yeah Teague has been looking good so far in preseason. Granted it's just preseason, but the hopes are high for this kid. 

I feel like Atlanta will be a lot stronger team this year compared to last. Having Crawford as our sixth man instead of Flip Murray is substantial. Crawford can play both guard spots, and is a more dynamic scorer. Joe Smith is good for depth at the PF spot (which this team had none of last season) and veteran leadership come playoff time. Plus, I would expect there to be some growth with their younger players. I mean Marvin is only what, 23? Al Horford is the same age, and I believe Josh Smith is only a year older. As far as their core goes, there's still plenty of room for growth.

In my opinion, I thought the Hawks underachieved last season. Especially in the playoffs. I'm hoping to see them play up to their potential this season.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Not really relevant because you don't really play your division any more often than other teams in your conference. But yes, they played in a terrible division.


Well, not really. 

Each team have to play:
4 games against the other 4 division opponents, [16 games]

4 games against 6 (out-of-division) conference opponents, [24 games]
3 games against the remaining 4 conference teams, [12 games]

2 games against teams in the opposing conference. [30 games]


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Not really relevant because you don't really play your division any more often than other teams in your conference. But yes, they played in a terrible division.


You play your division opponents 4 times and play non divison, conference teams a mixture of three or four times. That means some teams only got to play the Clippers three times whereas Phoenix got the full four games. The Eastern conference teams only got 2 games against those garbage pits.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> The problem is that the the top teams in the East got a lot better, while the teams outside the top five in the west are heading in the opposite direction. Things are so dire in New Orleans that a rookie 2nd round pick might be starting at the 2 because their wings are biblically bad. They're a Chris Paul injury from being a 15 win team. Houston lost Yao _and_ T-Mac. They're officially entrants in the John Wall Derby. Phoenix unloaded an 18/9 center, and they're so desperate that their fans are singing the praises of Channing Frye. Utah is openly shopping Boozer, and has a bunch of roleplayers at the 2/3. They're another team that will struggle to match last year's victory total. Outside of LA, San Antonio, Denver, Dallas, and Portland the West's vaunted might is overrated. They're bad enough that the Grizzlies are a legitimate playoff contender this year. For once the Grizzly fans won't be cursing their luck to be playing in the West, because they wouldn't get near the playoffs in the East.


We'll see. I agree Houston is out of the mix. Phoenix could be too, I'm not sold on them. Utah though has only lost less than 40 games once in the past decade and many of those teams didn't have as much as talent as they have now. Sloan knows how to get the most out of teams. I also disagree about New Orleans, because they lacked talent last year too and still won almost 50. Paul is going to win them a bunch of games nearly single handedly and if Peja can give them more than the ghost he gave them last year, they may actually win more games.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> oh i'm not saying that miller is a good player, but he's definitely better than royal ivey or jrue holiday at this point. i can't see the sixers improving because they gave miller's minutes to williams and give williams' minutes to ivey/jrue.


Actually turning Miller's minutes over to a player that can actually hit a shot more than 10' from the basket is a huge boost to Philly's offense as it allows them to more fully exploit Andre Iguodala's game. Miller is one of those players that hurts as much as he helps. Portland's signing of Miller struck me as one of the most pointless moves of the offseason. Having Miller takes the ball out Brandon Roy's hands, and that doesn't help the Blazers.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> You play your division opponents 4 times and play non divison, conference teams a mixture of three or four times. That means some teams only got to play the Clippers three times whereas Phoenix got the full four games. The Eastern conference teams only got 2 games against those garbage pits.


This also means the Suns have to play the Lakers a full four times, while some teams only get to play them three. It's such a marginal difference. It's the difference between them winning 46 and maybe 44-45 games.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This also means the Suns have to play the Lakers a full four times, while some teams only get to play them three. It's such a marginal difference. It's the difference between them winning 46 and maybe 44-45 games.


It's a tremendous difference between out-of-conference teams. It's a pretty big difference between in-conference teams. Utah only played The Clippers 3 times. Phoenix played them 4 times. They were both neck and neck at the end of the year for that 8th playoff spot so it does make a pretty damn big difference. Having to play the Lakers doesn't balance it out because matchups and quality of organization makes either Denver or Portland just as tough to face.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> We'll see. I agree Houston is out of the mix. Phoenix could be too, I'm not sold on them. Utah though has only lost less than 40 games once in the past decade and many of those teams didn't have as much as talent as they have now. Sloan knows how to get the most out of teams. I also disagree about New Orleans, because they lacked talent last year too and still won almost 50. Paul is going to win them a bunch of games nearly single handedly and if Peja can give them more than the ghost he gave them last year, they may actually win more games.


Peja won't be getting better. If Utah manages to repeat 48 victories it will be because they managed to squeeze even more wins out of the dregs of the West, which is entirely possible as Houston's joining the dregs, Sacramento is committed to getting even worse, and Golden State could join them once they give up the Amare chase and trade away their vets (a terrifying thought for a sub-30 win squad). If Boston got to play teams like that they might win 75 next year.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> It's a tremendous difference between out-of-conference teams. It's a pretty big difference between in-conference teams. Utah only played The Clippers 3 times. Phoenix played them 4 times. They were both neck and neck at the end of the year for that 8th playoff spot so it does make a pretty damn big difference. Having to play the Lakers doesn't balance it out because matchups and quality of organization makes either Denver or Portland just as tough to face.


Again, it's a marginal difference. 1-2 games at the end of an 82 game season is a small difference. It can be a huge difference in seeding, but it's a really small difference in their record. The Suns aren't going to suddenly turn into a 35 win team last year if they played in another division.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Again, it's a marginal difference. 1-2 games at the end of an 82 game season is a small difference. It can be a huge difference in seeding, but it's a really small difference in their record. The Suns aren't going to suddenly turn into a 35 win team last year if they played in another division.


If they were in the Atlantic Division it would be the difference between going 10-2 vs. 5-1. The absolute dregs of the NBA are in the West, which inflate the win totals at the top.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Again, it's a marginal difference. 1-2 games at the end of an 82 game season is a small difference. It can be a huge difference in seeding, but it's a really small difference in their record. The Suns aren't going to suddenly turn into a 35 win team last year if they played in another division.


You're blending my argument between one of divisions and conferences so let me be clear.

If you're comparing East versus West then being able to play a crappy team, like the million that exist in the West, four times is going to benefit you more than being able to only play them twice if you are in the other conference.

That's the major difference. Utah versus Phoenix, in-conference impact, has a huge impact on the seeding. If we're talking about swapping a team like Atlanta or Miami to the West then they could win 50+ games and the conference impact is the major factor with the division impact being secondary. I didn't correct you about scheduling because I felt that divisions played a larger role. I was only trying to clarify the scheduling rules. My point about Phoenix was because they play those teams based on in-conference rules versus the out-of-conference rules.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> Actually turning Miller's minutes over to a player that can actually hit a shot more than 10' from the basket is a huge boost to Philly's offense as it allows them to more fully exploit Andre Iguodala's game. Miller is one of those players that hurts as much as he helps. Portland's signing of Miller struck me as one of the most pointless moves of the offseason. Having Miller takes the ball out Brandon Roy's hands, and that doesn't help the Blazers.


i agree except that as crazy as it is williams, ivey, and holiday aren't better shooters than andre miller.

nate mcmillan has said that miller is coming off the bench in portland, so i think the move makes sense that way. if he's playing in place of sergio rodriguez while also playing next to roy for 10-12 minutes a game to keep the load off of roy some, i can see that move working out.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I think the East has 3 out of the top 5 teams... but they also only have 3 out of the top 9.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Suns play 12 division games against bad teams, and 4 against the best team in the league. At worst, other teams in the west play those same bad teams 3 times (1 time less over the course of a season) and also that best team in the league 1 less time. So we're looking at 3 automatic wins and 1 automatic loss over the course of a season, at most (again, some teams play those bad teams just as many times). 

As far as the east not getting to beat up on those bad teams, they also didn't have to play the 9 teams that won over 46 games 4 times. The west having so many quality teams at the top cancels out the luxury of beating up on the bottom dwellers.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

The '93 Heat said:


> You're blending my argument between one of divisions and conferences so let me be clear.
> 
> If you're comparing East versus West then being able to play a crappy team, like the million that exist in the West, four times is going to benefit you more than being able to only play them twice if you are in the other conference.
> 
> That's the major difference. Utah versus Phoenix, in-conference impact, has a huge impact on the seeding. If we're talking about swapping a team like Atlanta or Miami to the West then they could win 50+ games and the conference impact is the major factor with the division impact being secondary. I didn't correct you about scheduling because I felt that divisions played a larger role. I was only trying to clarify the scheduling rules. My point about Phoenix was because they play those teams based on in-conference rules versus the out-of-conference rules.


Yeah, Phoenix got 23 games against the dregs of the West last year and went 19-4, meaning that they were 27-32 against everyone else. So, essentially, playing in the West made the Suns look better than they really were.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> You're blending my argument between one of divisions and conferences so let me be clear.
> 
> If you're comparing East versus West then being able to play a crappy team, like the million that exist in the West, four times is going to benefit you more than being able to only play them twice if you are in the other conference.
> 
> That's the major difference. Utah versus Phoenix, in-conference impact, has a huge impact on the seeding. If we're talking about swapping a team like Atlanta or Miami to the West then they could win 50+ games and the conference impact is the major factor with the division impact being secondary. I didn't correct you about scheduling because I felt that divisions played a larger role. I was only trying to clarify the scheduling rules. My point about Phoenix was because they play those teams based on in-conference rules versus the out-of-conference rules.


My argument for this then is outlined above. Beating on a few bad teams at the bottom doesn't outweigh having to play all the quality teams at the top. In the east, you could run of a bunch of wins playing solid/mediocre 30ish win teams every night, while in the west, you'll get some cupcakes on your schedule, but the majority of teams in the conference (9 last season) were between 46-65 wins. That's not exactly a schedule to lick your chops over.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Suns play 12 division games against bad teams, and 4 against the best team in the league. At worst, other teams in the west play those same bad teams 3 times (1 time less over the course of a season) and also that best team in the league 1 less time. So we're looking at 3 automatic wins and 1 automatic loss over the course of a season, at most (again, some teams play those bad teams just as many times).
> 
> As far as the east not getting to beat up on those bad teams, they also didn't have to play the 9 teams that won over 46 games 4 times. The west having so many quality teams at the top cancels out the luxury of beating up on the bottom dwellers.


First paragraph, ok, division comparison between teams in the *same* conference is not that big a deal. Except on seeding. However, this is a thread about East versus West so this is just confounding information. Lets get past this already.

Second paragraph, those 9 behemoths are faux faux phonies. They only won over 46 games because they played those 6 awful teams based on in conference rules. In your first paragraph you discussed division rules which apply to teams in the same conference. It's important to note that if were comparing East versus West it's a 4v2 argument and that's a huge deal.

No, playing the Lakers or New Orleans 2 more times is not significantly greater than playing Orlando or Boston or Cleveland and it certainly doesn't make up for getting to play the dregs 4 times.

I would gladly play the Lakers 4 times if it meant I could play Sacramento 4 times. And The Lakers are just one example. Utah hasn't even beat Miami in 6 years and I would gladly play them as well.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> As far as the east not getting to beat up on those bad teams, they also didn't have to play the 9 teams that won over 46 games 4 times. The west having so many quality teams at the top cancels out the luxury of beating up on the bottom dwellers.


This is actually not true. Having six sub-30 win squads actually inflates the victory totals of the non-****ty teams. As I pointed out above, Phoenix was a sub-.500 team when not playing the West's dregs (hell, throw in all sub-30 win teams and Phoenix went 21-4 against the dregs of the NBA and 25-32 against everyone else).


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> Second paragraph, those 9 behemoths are faux faux phonies. They only won over 46 games because they played those 6 awful teams based on in conference rules. In your first paragraph you discussed division rules which apply to teams in the same conference. It's important to note that if were comparing East versus West it's a 4v2 argument and that's a huge deal.


if every team in the west is a phony why does the west have more teams with a winning record against the east than the east has teams with winning records against the west?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> This is actually not true. Having six sub-30 win squads actually inflates the victory totals of the non-****ty teams. As I pointed out above, Phoenix was a sub-.500 team when not playing the West's dregs (hell, throw in all sub-30 win teams and Phoenix went 21-4 against the dregs of the NBA and 25-32 against everyone else).


phoenix was 16-14 against the east. there are only 4 teams in the east that had better winning percentages against the east.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Suns went 16-14 against the East and 30-22 against the West. That's 4% winning percentage. Which like I said, a couple wins. It's not a big difference.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> if every team in the west is a phony why does the west have more teams with a winning record against the east than the east has teams with winning records against the west?


That's very easy to answer.

First, I'd like to point out that you're just gerrymandering the stats. The East won more games head to head versus the West but you're going to the subcategory of individual teams' records.

To answer your question, it's a significant difference to play a non-conference opponent after playing a strong in-conference opponent and the East has far more legitimate in-conference opponents. There's no resting up or saving yourselves for later dates. Games against Minnesota and OKC are usually done in the first half and teams are fresh for non-conference games. In the East a back to back looks something like Orlando and New York. That's huge. Even the ****ty Knicks can run you out of the building. Basically, the East is a marathon with less vacation time so it's no wonder a couple teams drop a few games to a more rested opponent.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Basel Munro said:


> This is actually not true. Having six sub-30 win squads actually inflates the victory totals of the non-****ty teams. As I pointed out above, Phoenix was a sub-.500 team when not playing the West's dregs (hell, throw in all sub-30 win teams and Phoenix went 21-4 against the dregs of the NBA and 25-32 against everyone else).


Where do you draw the line though? The east had 10 teams who lost as many or more games than they won. The west had 6.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Suns went 16-14 against the East and 30-22 against the West. That's 4% winning percentage. Which like I said, a couple wins. It's not a big difference.


Look at Phoenix's record against The Dregs:

Sacramento: 3-1
Minnesota: 2-1
OKC: 4-0
Golden State: 3-1
Clippers: 4-0
Memphis: 3-1

Keep in mind this is the team that you boasted won 46 games as the 9th seed. I sure wish Miami could have played The Dregs 11 more times like Phoenix did.

I'd love to be able to play a game in OKC before going out East instead of playing D'Antoni's track meet before going out West.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> I'd love to be able to play a game in OKC before going out East instead of playing D'Antoni's track meet before going out West.


Maybe in November. The Thunder were better than the Knicks for almost 75% of the season, from early to mid December and after. And if the Knicks can run you out of the building, so can the Warriors. Which is really besides the point, but we're going in circles.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

The thing is, the East has 3 elite teams and the West has 2. However, after that if you throw out those 5 teams and you compare the rest of the teams from each conference you are going to find better Western Conference teams.

While the West has 3 teams we can all agree you can eliminate from playoff contention (Minnesota, Sacramento, Memphis) I feel they have better quality teams from 4-12.

I agree with rockets comment that the East has more mediocre teams than the West. If you lump Philly, New Jersey, Toronto, New York, Washington, Chicago, Detroit, Indiana, and Charlotte together and put them up against Utah, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Golden State, Clippers, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans. How many teams can you see winning 40 games from each group? 

Ill take more of the Western teams winning 40+ than the Eastern teams.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> That's very easy to answer.
> 
> First, I'd like to point out that you're just gerrymandering the stats. The East won more games head to head versus the West but you're going to the subcategory of individual teams' records.
> 
> To answer your question, it's a significant difference to play a non-conference opponent after playing a strong in-conference opponent and the East has far more legitimate in-conference opponents. There's no resting up or saving yourselves for later dates. Games against Minnesota and OKC are usually done in the first half and teams are fresh for non-conference games. In the East a back to back looks something like Orlando and New York. That's huge. Even the ****ty Knicks can run you out of the building. Basically, the East is a marathon with less vacation time so it's no wonder a couple teams drop a few games to a more rested opponent.


i'm not gerrymandering anything. i stated a fact.

yes, the east won more games head to head versus the west. that is also a fact. but the west has more good teams than the east and that is supported by the overall records and individual team records against each conference.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

MLKG said:


> East teams had a winning percentage of 51% against West teams last year.


This is a good stat to show the marginal difference. No team is going to switch conferences and win more than a couple games more/less.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

The '93 Heat said:


> So the West is only 2 deep? Cleveland, Boston, and Orlando can all win it all.


I mean San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Denver, LA, and Portland should take a 7 game series from any of those teams and the only one that would would be favored to win against some of those teams would be Boston(provided good health for all teams)


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> phoenix was 16-14 against the east. there are only 4 teams in the east that had better winning percentages against the east.


Phoenix vs. sub- .500 EC teams 12-4 .750 W%
Phoenix vs. sub- .500 WC teams 19-4 .826 W%
Phoenix vs. .500 & over EC teams 4-10 .286 W%
Phoenix vs. .500 & over wC teams 11-18 .379 W%

I don't know about you, but to me that looks like Phoenix benefited from playing in the "mighty west". The cream of the East beat them like a drum and they weren't able to beat the dregs of the east as surely as the the dregs of the west. So, um, yeah, the Suns fattened themselves on the ****ty western teams and their record is most certainly inflated by the dregs of the west. QED


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> I mean San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Denver, LA, and Portland should take a 7 game series from any of those teams and the only one that would would be favored to win against some of those teams would be Boston(provided good health for all teams)


Dude, Houston is going to suck this year. We might not win a seven game series against the Clippers much less the EC playoff teams. On the bright side we'll have a stud from the draft to build around, as well as a ton of cap space.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> Phoenix vs. sub- .500 EC teams 12-4 .750 W%
> Phoenix vs. sub- .500 WC teams 19-4 .826 W%
> Phoenix vs. .500 & over EC teams 4-10 .286 W%
> Phoenix vs. .500 & over wC teams 11-18 .379 W%
> ...


unless you want to do that for every team(or have a link), those numbers don't mean all that much. i would expect all but the very best teams in the league to have much better records against teams under .500 than over .500. every team in the league fattens up their records against bad teams.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> Dude, Houston is going to suck this year. We might not win a seven game series against the Clippers much less the EC playoff teams. On the bright side we'll have a stud from the draft to build around, as well as a ton of cap space.


unfortunately the rockets won't be good enough to make the playoffs(well in the west anyway, they might only be a few games out of the last spot in the east) but will be too good to get a top pick unless they get really lucky in the lottery.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> unless you want to do that for every team(or have a link), those numbers don't mean all that much.


They most certainly mean that Phoenix did better against the "superior WC teams" than the "inferior top of the east teams" and most certainly fattened their record on the surfeit of ****ty WC teams.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

BaselFloods said:


> East is more top-heavy, West is still a lot deeper.


Yeah, teams on the third tier of the West (Mavs, Hornets) would be in the second tier of the East.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> unfortunately the rockets won't be good enough to make the playoffs(well in the west anyway, they might only be a few games out of the last spot in the east) but will be too good to get a top pick unless they get really lucky in the lottery.


If by "last spot in the east" you mean "almost good enough to be the tenth best team in the east" then I won't argue. They wouldn't get close to the EC playoffs. Toronto and Washington were one year glitches, and neither are going to be anywhere near as bad as they were last year (unless they're savaged by injuries, always a possibility with Washington).


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> They most certainly mean that Phoenix did better against the "superior WC teams" than the "inferior top of the east teams" and most certainly fattened their record on the surfeit of ****ty WC teams.


the numbers still were exactly as should be expected. last season there were 4 elite teams. 3 of them were in the east. there also were less teams in the east at .500 or over. when 3 of the 7 teams at or above .500 were elite teams, of course their record would be worse against them.

last year the east had 3 of the top 4, but the east also only had 4 of the top 13(and maybe only 3 of the top 12).


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> If by "last spot in the east" you mean "almost good enough to be the tenth best team in the east" then I won't argue. They wouldn't get close to the EC playoffs. Toronto and Washington were one year glitches, and neither are going to be anywhere near as bad as they were last year (unless they're savaged by injuries, always a possibility with Washington).


i'm saying they'll be almost good enough to be the 8th seed in the east.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> the numbers still were exactly as should be expected. last season there were 4 elite teams. 3 of them were in the east. there also were less teams in the east at .500 or over. when 3 of the 7 teams at or above .500 were elite teams, of course their record would be worse against them.
> 
> last year the east had 3 of the top 4, but the east also only had 4 of the top 13(and maybe only 3 of the top 12).


There were seven EC teams at .500 and over, Phoenix went 4-10 against them. They had better luck against the .500 and over western conference teams. And better luck against the dregs of the west than the sub-.500 EC teams.



rocketeer said:


> i'm saying they'll be almost good enough to be the 8th seed in the east.


Then you're wrong. Toronto and Washington are going to finish with 41-48 wins (barring a rash of injuries). Houston wouldn't get close to the EC playoffs. Though they might give the Nets a run for tenth best in the East.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Basel Munro said:


> They most certainly mean that Phoenix did better against the "superior WC teams" than the "inferior top of the east teams" and most certainly fattened their record on the surfeit of ****ty WC teams.


Ironically...Memphis, Golden State, Minnesota, and the Clippers all have better records against the east than against the west. 

I looked through records and found that several teams in each conference have better records against the opposite conference and vice versa. Boston for example had a better record against the east. So did the Hawks. 

In a league where you play one set of 14 teams 3/4 times, and other set of 15 teams 2 times, and the difference between the two sets is 51/49, it's silly to think a team's record would change much in the other conference.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> There were seven EC teams at .500 and over, Phoenix went 4-10 against them. They had better luck against the .500 and over western conference teams. And better luck against the dregs of the west than the sub-.500 EC teams.


and they went 1-5 against the elite teams in the east. i'm saying that they should do better against the good teams of the west than the good teams of the east because 3 of the 7 good teams in the east were elite while only 1 of the 9 good teams in the west were elite.



> Then you're wrong. Toronto and Washington are going to finish with 41-48 wins (barring a rash of injuries). Houston wouldn't get close to the EC playoffs. Though they might give the Nets a run for tenth best in the East.


and? that doesn't make me wrong. i have toronto and washington in the top 7 of the east. the fight for the 8th seed is going to be a cluster**** of bad teams. the rockets just need 35 wins to be within a couple of the 8th seed. and the nets won't be near the 10th seed. they'll be closer to the 15th seed. their only two scoring options are devin harris and brook lopez and they aren't good defensively. how are they going to win more than 25 games?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

It's not silly, it's statistical fact. Phoenix benefited to the tune of 11 extra games against a set of teams they had a 83% win percentage against.

It's not a complicated concept. You stick 6 of the worst pro sports teams in one conference and ask teams to play them 4 or 3 times and then at the end of the season all the teams besides them have large win totals then nobody should be surprised.

Would you rather play New York 4 times or Sacramento 4 times? It's a big difference. Not only in each single game but the fact that you can rest and pace yourself for other games. The benefits are endless.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

See let's look at this realistically. Top to bottom the East is better than the West. The West will once again have 5 of the worst six teams in basketball in (Sacramento, Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Memphis and Houston w/o T-Mac & Yao). The only teams in the East worse than those teams IMO are New York, New Jersey and Milwaukee. The other 12 teams in the East have playoff aspirations and rightfully so.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

But when we talk about East vs. West is it even about the teams beyond say...10? What if two years ago during that crazy year of parity all the other teams past 10 were ass? 

And those bottom 4 only have "playoff aspirations" because it gets mediocre once you start talking Indiana, Chicago, Charlotte. Like come on.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> But when we talk about East vs. West is it even about the teams beyond say...10? What if two years ago during that crazy year of parity all the other teams past 10 were ass?
> 
> And those bottom 4 only have "playoff aspirations" because it gets mediocre once you start talking Indiana, Chicago, Charlotte. Like come on.


that's the thing. i don't see why it's relevant that teams 12-15 are better in the east than the west. having the better playoff teams seems like it would be more important in this argument than having the better lottery teams.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Dre™;6084951 said:


> But when we talk about East vs. West is it even about the teams beyond say...10? What if two years ago during that crazy year of parity all the other teams past 10 were ass?
> 
> And those bottom 4 only have "playoff aspirations" because it gets mediocre once you start talking Indiana, Chicago, Charlotte. Like come on.


5 of the 6 members of The Dregs of the West were tanking by November. Charlotte had a .500 record against the West and was taking on salaries and mortgaging their future to compete in the present. Those teams you mention were all competitive and have better coaching. The Dregs are failures and the statistics show it. We're talking teams that have gone decades without winning. Their managements are failed. Their players are temporary mercenaries. You go to Indiana on a back to back and Danny Granger will tear your heart out and Jeff Foster will beat your guys bloody in the post. All those teams fought for the playoffs for 82 games.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> and? that doesn't make me wrong. i have toronto and washington in the top 7 of the east. the fight for the 8th seed is going to be a cluster**** of bad teams. the rockets just need 35 wins to be within a couple of the 8th seed. and the nets won't be near the 10th seed. they'll be closer to the 15th seed. their only two scoring options are devin harris and brook lopez and they aren't good defensively. how are they going to win more than 25 games?


35 wins puts them in the running for tenth in the east. Not the playoffs. They'd be at least six games out. And, frankly, they might not reach tenth. They're not better than Atlanta, Miami, Toronto, Washington, Philadelphia, and probably not as good as Detroit or Indiana. Having to play the top eight in the east would make them look even worse, and they wouldn't have all those absolute **** teams in the west to inflate their record.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> It's not silly, it's statistical fact.


Okay, if you want to do it like that, then it's also statistical fact that Boston, Toronto, New Jersey, Detroit, Indiana, Atlanta and Miami benefit from playing in the east because all of them had a better winning percentage beating up on their own fiercely competitive conference than they did playing all these historically terrible teams in the west.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

None of those teams were even .500. 

I see "Suns" in here alot, probably because they missed the playoffs when in the other conference they would've been middle of the pack. I don't care about matchups, I'm looking 46 vs. 39 (Detroit's 8 seed win total).

The East might even out in terms of competition, but after that big 3 those other teams are scrapping to get into the bottom of the West playoff wise.

Like rocketeer said, we're talking about who ends up lower in the lottery vs. what we should be talking about, the actual good teams.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Okay, if you want to do it like that, then it's also statistical fact that Boston, Toronto, New Jersey, Detroit, Indiana, Atlanta and Miami benefit from playing in the east because all of them had a better winning percentage beating up on their own fiercely competitive conference than they did playing all these historically terrible teams in the west.


Not at an 83% clip. The teams in the East aren't bad enough to lose at such a high percentage.

Nobody is even answering the fatigue aspect. Would you rather fight your way out of a room with 15 people or a room with 9 people? Those West bums were tanking by November. Most of their games were over by the end of the third quarter and nobody had to get up early to play them. In an 82 game season, that's a big deal.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> Not at an 83% clip. The teams in the East aren't bad enough to lose at such a high percentage.


Huh? 

Suns won 57.6% against the west and 53.3% against the east.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Huh?
> 
> Suns won 57.6% against the west and 53.3% against the east.


What's so difficult to follow? They played an increased number of games against a "special" group and won 83% of the time.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> 35 wins puts them in the running for tenth in the east. Not the playoffs. They'd be at least six games out. And, frankly, they might not reach tenth. They're not better than Atlanta, Miami, Toronto, Washington, Philadelphia, and probably not as good as Detroit or Indiana. Having to play the top eight in the east would make them look even worse, and they wouldn't have all those absolute **** teams in the west to inflate their record.


the top 8 in the west is better than the top 8 in the east. having to play the playoff teams from the west but the lottery teams from the east would hurt them, but that isn't something that happens. and as has been the case the last several years, the 8th seed in the east will likely have a below .500 record. 35 wins would put them in the playoff race until the final two weeks of the season at worst. that's what i mean when i say houston would be in the conversation and finish a few games back.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> What's so difficult to follow? They played an increased number of games against a "special" group and won 83% of the time.


You seem to think that the western conference is made up of 7 teams. The Suns...then the "special" group. I agree that the worst 6 teams in the west are worse than the worst 6 teams in the east. That's the extent of your point I guess, since you're dismissing records against the entire conference.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> the top 8 in the west is better than the top 8 in the east.


Not anymore it's not.



rocketeer said:


> having to play the playoff teams from the west but the lottery teams from the east would hurt them, but that isn't something that happens.


I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. 



rocketeer said:


> as has been the case the last several years, the 8th seed in the east will likely have a below .500 record. 35 wins would put them in the playoff race until the final two weeks of the season at worst. that's what i mean when i say houston would be in the conversation and finish a few games back.


No. Last year exactly one EC playoff team had a sub-.500 record, and that was with Washington savaged by injuries and Toronto struggling with personnel issues and Jose Calderon struggling with injuries. The seven .500 and over teams aren't going to be collapsing, and there are two non-playoff teams that are going to be significantly better. Chicago could easily repeat their record of last year and still end up in the lottery.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Basel Munro said:


> No. Last year exactly one EC playoff team had a sub-.500 record, and that was with Washington savaged by injuries and Toronto struggling with personnel issues and Jose Calderon struggling with injuries. The seven .500 and over teams aren't going to be collapsing, and there are two non-playoff teams that are going to be significantly better. Chicago could easily repeat their record of last year and still end up in the lottery.


Three EC playoff teams were .500 and under. Semantics! :grinning:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Three EC playoff teams were .500 and under. Semantics! :grinning:


Except that when I calculated Phoenix's splits I used the .500 mark as the divide. One of those .500 teams is a lot better now than they were last April, and two of the non-playoff teams are headed back into the 45 win range.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I know one thing, the fact that we have credible people on either side of the argument makes me hope we never get back to the "who wants to lose to San Antonio or LA" days.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> Not anymore it's not.
> 
> I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.


it means the playoff teams in the west are better than the playoff teams in the east. the nonplayoff teams in the east are better than the nonplayoff teams in the west.



> No. Last year exactly one EC playoff team had a sub-.500 record, and that was with Washington savaged by injuries and Toronto struggling with personnel issues and Jose Calderon struggling with injuries. The seven .500 and over teams aren't going to be collapsing, and there are two non-playoff teams that are going to be significantly better. Chicago could easily repeat their record of last year and still end up in the lottery.


right. one playoff team had a sub .500 record. washington is presumably healthy. toronto added talent. of course washington has never won 45+ games with their arenas/caron/jamison core and has shown that they have problems staying healthy and toronto still doesn't have depth and doesn't play defense so it's not like we can just lock them in as good teams. i expect both to finish over .500, but it would be no shock if they failed to.

and when we look at the other .500 and over teams, they can't all be confidently expected to finish that way next year. the top 4 are safe. miami probably is as well but all it takes is for wade to miss a small amount of time for them to drop to a .500 or maybe worse team. chicago replaces ben gordon with jannero pargo. that's definitely not a good thing. philly replaces andre miller with jrue holiday, again definitely not a good thing. so it's not like any of these are guarantees.

in the west, the lakers, spurs, blazers, nuggets, hornets, mavs, jazz, and suns will all finish with above .500 records and all but the suns are a guarantee to win more than 45 games.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Basel Munro said:


> Except that when I calculated Phoenix's splits I used the .500 mark as the divide. One of those .500 teams is a lot better now than they were last April, and two of the non-playoff teams are headed back into the 45 win range.


Well we were just talking about last season. I think that conference and non-conference records are more dependant on things like back-to-backs, injuries and other circumstances that have little to do with the caliber of the conference. The collection of teams on both sides last year that had a better record against the other conference and vice versa is pretty random. Some good teams, some bad teams, some average, etc.

I doubt the west will have 6 teams under 30 wins next season though. Probably more like 3.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

16 teams posted a higher winning percentage versus the West than versus the East.

Notable teams:

LA Lakers
San Antonio
Orlando
Cleveland
Denver


4 of those are the conference finalists. Interesting how they did better against the West than versus the East.


An interesting outlier is Sacramento. They went 1-29 against the East, yet they were able to grab 16 wins against the West. Lets look at Sacramento's 16 wins:

Mempshi x2
Minnesota x3
Warriors x2
Clippers x3
OKC
New Orleans
LA Lakers
Dallas
Denver
NYK
Phoenix

So 10/16 wins were against the other 5 loser teams I've been discussing.

The best teams in the league had more success against the West and the worst team in the league, who should not win any game going into tipoff, couldn't beat anybody out East yet did well against the West.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Again, I just have to ask. Would you rather fight your way out of a room with 15 people or a room with 9 people? The benefits of winning games against The Dregs by halftime or the third quarter and resting your starters is a huge advantage over the other conference.

Look at the point differentials of The Dregs:

Clippers: -8.8
Sacramento: -8.8
OKC: -6.1
Memphis: -5.5
Minnesota: -4.9
Warriors: -3.7

There was only one point differential in the East lower than -3 and that was Washington.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> it means the playoff teams in the west are better than the playoff teams in the east. the nonplayoff teams in the east are better than the nonplayoff teams in the west.


Ahhh, well there you're wrong. Glad we cleared that up.




rocketeer said:


> right. one playoff team had a sub .500 record. washington is presumably healthy. toronto added talent. of course washington has never won 45+ games with their arenas/caron/jamison core and has shown that they have problems staying healthy and toronto still doesn't have depth and doesn't play defense so it's not like we can just lock them in as good teams. i expect both to finish over .500, but it would be no shock if they failed to.


Washington won 43 games two years ago without Arenas. Presumably with Arenas & Butler back and much better depth they should be able to at least win that many (if not more due to the better depth now than they had in 2008). Toronto won 47 games a couple of years ago, there's no reason they can't get back there with an actual wing and Bosh's improvement.



rocketeer said:


> and when we look at the other .500 and over teams, they can't all be confidently expected to finish that way next year. the top 4 are safe. miami probably is as well but all it takes is for wade to miss a small amount of time for them to drop to a .500 or maybe worse team. chicago replaces ben gordon with jannero pargo. that's definitely not a good thing. philly replaces andre miller with jrue holiday, again definitely not a good thing. so it's not like any of these are guarantees.


Chicago replaces Ben Gordon with John Salmons, an offensive downgrade to be sure, but with improvement from Rose they should be able to maintain their position. Philly replaces 'Dre Miller with Louis Williams, and there's this player that was out injured last year that will be returning. I'm fairly confident that they'll be able to improve. Miami has the third best player in the NBA, and an improving Beasley & Mario Chalmers. Plus a gigantic expiring contract to use in trade. They'll be fine.



rocketeer said:


> in the west, the lakers, spurs, blazers, nuggets, hornets, mavs, jazz, and suns will all finish with above .500 records and all but the suns are a guarantee to win more than 45 games.


The Jazz and Suns are in no way guaranteed to finish .500 given that Utah is looking to unload their second best player and have ****ty wing scoring. The Suns are worse than last, if they finish above .500 it will be because they manage to squeeze out a few more victories against the dregs of the west. Frankly Memphis has as realistic a shot at the WC playoffs as Utah. They wouldn't have a prayer in the east.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> Again, I just have to ask. Would you rather fight your way out of a room with 15 people or a room with 9 people?


Why 15? Washington had the 2nd worst record in the league. They are just as much of a "dreg" as the other 6. Second of all, what kind of people? I'd rather fight my way out of a room of 14/15 ordinary people than fight my way out of a room of 9 UFC fighters.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I doubt the west will have 6 teams under 30 wins next season though. Probably more like 3.


I'll be stunned if any of OKC, Minnesota, Sacramento, the Clippers or Golden State win 30 games next year.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Why 15? Washington had the 2nd worst record in the league. They are just as much of a "dreg" as the other 6. Second of all, what kind of people? I'd rather fight my way out of a room of 14/15 ordinary people than fight my way out of a room of 9 UFC fighters.


Considering I recognize them all as "people" and the dregs as non-persons then it should be given that the 24 are of the same variety. 23 actually because your point about Washington is correct. Call them all "UFC fighters" if you so wish.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Basel Munro said:


> I'll be stunned if any of OKC, Minnesota, Sacramento, the Clippers or Golden State win 30 games next year.


OKC will probably win mid-30's. They were a 30 win team last year for the last 4 months of the season. Clippers will win atleast 30.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> OKC will probably win mid-30's. They were a 30 win team last year for the last 4 months of the season. Clippers will win atleast 30.


The Clippers are still looking to unload Baron Davis, I'll still be shocked if they get to 30. Same goes for OKC, I don't care that they were a thirty win team on the second Tuesday of every month. They have a hideous 4/5 rotation. They're not getting better until the 2010 draft when they finally add a PF/C.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The '93 Heat said:


> Considering I recognize them all as "people" and the dregs as non-persons then it should be given that the 24 are of the same variety. 23 actually because your point about Washington is correct. Call them all "UFC fighters" if you so wish.


Problem is, the 23 are not of the same variety. The Knicks and Lakers are equal "persons" (33 game difference in wins) but the Knicks and Warriors (3 game difference in wins) are not? Basically, in a world where the Knicks and Lakers and all teams inbetween are of the same caliber, your point is valid. Otherwise the analogy is a miss.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

The Clippers will win at least 40 games this year if they don't trade Davis. He always has a mean bounceback year after a disapointment.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Basel Munro said:


> The Clippers are still looking to unload Baron Davis, I'll still be shocked if they get to 30. Same goes for OKC, I don't care that they were a thirty win team on the second Tuesday of every month. They have a hideous 4/5 rotation. They're not getting better until the 2010 draft when they finally add a PF/C.


Prepare to be shocked.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

I think we need a bet opcorn:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

:yes:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The Clippers will win 40 games? Not with Dunleavy coaching those boys.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm already putting money on the Clippers this coming season. SI has the over/under set at 34.5 wins for the Clippers and 33.5 for the Thunder, also 33.5 for the Warriors. I wouldn't bet on the Thunder/Warriors any more than that, but the Clippers are a different story.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm telling you Baron is fitting to have a big season, add that to Kaman, Gordon, Thornton and Griffin and that's a close to .500 team.

Noone wants a repeat of last year because then everybody over 25 will be gone, so Dunleavy and Davis will reach a healthy balance between running sets and letting Baron improvise.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> Chicago replaces Ben Gordon with John Salmons, an offensive downgrade to be sure, but with improvement from Rose they should be able to maintain their position. Philly replaces 'Dre Miller with Louis Williams, and there's this player that was out injured last year that will be returning. I'm fairly confident that they'll be able to improve. Miami has the third best player in the NBA, and an improving Beasley & Mario Chalmers. Plus a gigantic expiring contract to use in trade. They'll be fine.


Not a downgrade. Salmons is a more reliable offensive player, Gordon is the better shooter. Actually Salmons at the 2 is better than Gordon at the 2, because he's not a liability on the defensive end.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> Washington won 43 games two years ago without Arenas. Presumably with Arenas & Butler back and much better depth they should be able to at least win that many (if not more due to the better depth now than they had in 2008). Toronto won 47 games a couple of years ago, there's no reason they can't get back there with an actual wing and Bosh's improvement.


like i said, the wizards have never won 45 games with arenas/butler/jamison. that is a fact. this could be the year, but they haven't shown they can do that or stay healthy so far.

as for toronto, like i said previously, they still don't play defense and they don't have depth(at least not good depth). the best defender in their starting lineup is chris bosh. they are going to have to start belinelli or jack at sg.



> Chicago replaces Ben Gordon with John Salmons, an offensive downgrade to be sure, but with improvement from Rose they should be able to maintain their position. Philly replaces 'Dre Miller with Louis Williams, and there's this player that was out injured last year that will be returning. I'm fairly confident that they'll be able to improve. Miami has the third best player in the NBA, and an improving Beasley & Mario Chalmers. Plus a gigantic expiring contract to use in trade. They'll be fine.


salmons played 38 minutes per game last year for chicago.

lou williams already played a significant role last year. his role expands with andre miller gone, but someone still has to fill in minutes. that would be jrue holiday or royal ivey. and yes, they have elton brand. he's played what 35 games total the past two seasons? and he's looked pretty bad in those games shooting something like 45% from the field. if he reemerges as the player he was a few years ago, good for philly, but i don't see how that can be counted on as being likely.

yes miami has a huge expiring. of course they kinda need that guy to play even if he sucks. and he'll likely decline even more this year. they should be a little better than they were last year, but as i said previously, all it takes is to lose wade for 5-10 games and suddenly they struggle to reach .500.



> The Jazz and Suns are in no way guaranteed to finish .500 given that Utah is looking to unload their second best player and have ****ty wing scoring. The Suns are worse than last, if they finish above .500 it will be because they manage to squeeze out a few more victories against the dregs of the west. Frankly Memphis has as realistic a shot at the WC playoffs as Utah. They wouldn't have a prayer in the east.


Ahhh, well there you're wrong. Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

I hate Dunleavy, but the only way the Clippers dont win 35-40 games is if they are rattled by injuries like last year.

I still contend that if you take teams 4-12 in the east and the west, the west has more teams with 40+ wins. You can complain about teams in the west being terrible, but thats not that case anymore besides the bottom 3. Golden State, the Clippers, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Utah have much more talent than the Knicks, Raptors, Pacers, Nets, ect...


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

TucsonClip said:


> I hate Dunleavy, but the only way the Clippers dont win 35-40 games is if they are rattled by injuries like last year.
> 
> I still contend that if you take teams 4-12 in the east and the west, the west has more teams with 40+ wins. You can complain about teams in the west being terrible, but thats not that case anymore besides the bottom 3. Golden State, the Clippers, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Utah have much more talent than the Knicks, Raptors, Pacers, Nets, ect...


I was watching Jurassic Park today and they said that it was impossible for the dinosaurs to escape, they were wrong. The clippers are the same deal


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> I was watching Jurassic Park today and they said that it was impossible for the dinosaurs to escape, they were wrong. The clippers are the same deal


The Clippers were 1 quarter from the Western Conference Fianls in '06. After that the Clipper luck struck year after year. Dunleavy is the wrong coach for this team, but the talent is there. As long as Dunleavy lets the players run the system he promised and they stay healthy they win 35-40 games. I dont expect them to make the playoffs, but there is no reason to think they cant compete for the 8 seed.

This year's team is night and day from last years team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The Clippers could sign LeBron James and people would still predict them to win less than 35 games. The Clippers reputation as a loser is a juggernaut. I mean, for good reason really, but still. Each year is a new year.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Blake Griffin is a winner...that team will win 40 games.


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

Hyperion said:


> I was watching Jurassic Park today and they said that it was impossible for the dinosaurs to escape, they were wrong. The clippers are the same deal


Jurassic Park is my favourite movie.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> *it means the playoff teams in the west are better than the playoff teams in the east. the nonplayoff teams in the east are better than the nonplayoff teams in the west.*


Are you telling me Utah, New Orleans, Dallas, and Portland are that much better than Atlanta, Miami, Washington, Philly, Toronto? If any of these teams played each other it could go either way.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> as for toronto, like i said previously, they still don't play defense and they don't have depth(at least not good depth). the best defender in their starting lineup is chris bosh. they are going to have to start belinelli or jack at sg.


So, bad defense means that a team that won 47 a couple of years ago has zero chance of winning 45 games in the "inferior" east, but playing hideous defense in the "superior" west won't stop a bottom feeder like Phoenix from winning even more? Gotcha.




rocketeer said:


> salmons played 38 minutes per game last year for chicago.


At the SF spot as Deng was injured and ineffective. This year he swaps to the 2 to replace Ben Gordon.



rocketeer said:


> lou williams already played a significant role last year. his role expands with andre miller gone, but someone still has to fill in minutes.


Oh, yes, because having to play Eddie House as the backup PG was all that stood between the Celtics and the 2008 title...

It's the starters that matter. Backup PG isn't going to turn a 45 win team into a 35 win team. It really won't even be an issue until the playoffs when there are no more ****ty teams to run over.



rocketeer said:


> they have elton brand. he's played what 35 games total the past two seasons? and he's looked pretty bad in those games shooting something like 45% from the field. if he reemerges as the player he was a few years ago, good for philly, but i don't see how that can be counted on as being likely.


A few years ago Boston re-acquired Antoine Walker for a stretch run, and played near .700 ball with him in the starting lineup. Was it because he was some sort of all-star? No. He was simply an upgrade over Mark Blount and a third year Kendrick Perkins. That's all he had to be. Brand doesn't need to be an all-star to improve the Sixers. 



rocketeer said:


> Ahhh, well there you're wrong. Glad we cleared that up.


Repeating your silly claims won't make them right.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

eddymac said:


> Are you telling me Utah, New Orleans, Dallas, and Portland are that much better than Atlanta, Miami, Washington, Philly, Toronto? If any of these teams played each other it could go either way.


yes that's what i'm telling you.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> So, bad defense means that a team that won 47 a couple of years ago has zero chance of winning 45 games in the "inferior" east, but playing hideous defense in the "superior" west won't stop a bottom feeder like Phoenix from winning even more? Gotcha.


zero chance? that's not something i've ever said. i said "it's not like we can just lock them in as good teams. i expect both to finish over .500, but it would be no shock if they failed to."



> At the SF spot as Deng was injured and ineffective. This year he swaps to the 2 to replace Ben Gordon.


because deng is going to suddenly become effective again and stop regressing as a player?



> Oh, yes, because having to play Eddie House as the backup PG was all that stood between the Celtics and the 2008 title...
> 
> It's the starters that matter. Backup PG isn't going to turn a 45 win team into a 35 win team. It really won't even be an issue until the playoffs when there are no more ****ty teams to run over.


lou williams himself is already a downgrade from andre miller and they also have further downgrades at the backup minutes. so yeah, that could have a certainly effect the team's record. of course, i'm not talking about a 45 win team dropping to 35, more like a 41 win team dropping down to 35-38 wins.



> A few years ago Boston re-acquired Antoine Walker for a stretch run, and played near .700 ball with him in the starting lineup. Was it because he was some sort of all-star? No. He was simply an upgrade over Mark Blount and a third year Kendrick Perkins. That's all he had to be. Brand doesn't need to be an all-star to improve the Sixers.


if elton brand plays like he has the past couple of years, he isn't an upgrade over marreese speights.



> Repeating your silly claims won't make them right.


what wing scoring have the jazz had the past 3 years when they've averaged 51 wins per season? and the suns are a lock to finish over .500 unless nash or amare gets hurt. this year they probably don't have to roster to make up for losing amare like they have in the past.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I think the majority of the words written in this thread have been entirely misdirected. In the discussion of which conference is better RIGHT NOW, last season's records simply do not apply AT ALL. 

Who would've predicted Denver and Miami being as good as they were last year or Washington and Toronto being that bad if we were having this discussion last offseason? I don't care at all about last season's win totals or match-up records. What relevance does any of that have on this season's performance? NONE!


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> yes that's what i'm telling you.


If any combination of the previous mentioned teams faced each other in a 7 game series, it could go either way. Dallas, Portland, Utah and New Orleans aren't clear cut better than the Atlanta, Miami, Washington, Toronto etc.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> zero chance? that's not something i've ever said. i said "it's not like we can just lock them in as good teams. i expect both to finish over .500, but it would be no shock if they failed to."


But you've locked in WC bottom feeders as good teams. Mostly on the grounds that they play in the west. I could agree to the extent that there are so many bad teams in the west, that the bottom feeders will get lots of automatic wins. But not because the west is the better conference.




rocketeer said:


> because deng is going to suddenly become effective again and stop regressing as a player?


He'll at least be healthy. And this isn't really germane to the point.




rocketeer said:


> lou williams himself is already a downgrade from andre miller and they also have further downgrades at the backup minutes.


Not really. 'Dre is one of those guys that's entirely without an offensive impact unless the ball's in his hands. But to keep it in his hands the Sixers had to take it away from better players. By virtue of being able to play off the ball, Louis Williams has already improved the Sixers' offense. Portland fans will learn this the hard way.




rocketeer said:


> what wing scoring have the jazz had the past 3 years when they've averaged 51 wins per season?


They have had the scoring of a player currently on the market, Carlos Boozer. Once he's gone, the Jazz are going to be an offensively challenged franchise.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Basel Munro said:


> Not really. 'Dre is one of those guys that's entirely without an offensive impact unless the ball's in his hands. But to keep it in his hands the Sixers had to take it away from better players. By virtue of being able to play off the ball, Louis Williams has already improved the Sixers' offense. Portland fans will learn this the hard way.


williams was assisted on 36% of his field goals last season. andre miller was assisted on 30% of his.
williams had an efg% of 39.8 outside of 7 feet last season. andre miller's was 40.7%.

williams did have more of his attempts come from outside(65% to 59% for miller) and was assisted more of the time from outside 7 feet(40% to 30% for miller) but williams was also less effective from there so i have a hard time seeing how that helps.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

By virtue of Andre Iguodala taking over. That's why they're better.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Basel Munro said:


> teams destined to implode midseason (Golden State, Utah after dealing Boozer)


Wait, why is Utah going to implode? They don't already have a very viable option at PF waiting for Boozer to leave, and they won't get anything in return from a trade?

Or did you not think through much of this situation during your Western-Conference slander session?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

eddymac said:


> If any combination of the previous mentioned teams faced each other in a 7 game series, it could go either way. Dallas, Portland, Utah and New Orleans aren't clear cut better than the Atlanta, Miami, Washington, Toronto etc.


Yes they are.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Suns are not going to be good. They still can't defend but now almost every team in the NBA can score with them. They are starting Channing Frye, which should be a good indicator to anyone who has watched the NBA the last 4 years that they are probably headed for a losing record. 

I am guessing that a sub .500 record will get you into the Western Conference playoffs this year.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

unluckybaselteen said:


> Wait, why is Utah going to implode? They don't already have a very viable option at PF waiting for Boozer to leave, and they won't get anything in return from a trade?
> 
> Or did you not think through much of this situation during your Western-Conference slander session?


I like Millsap, but Boozer's a better scorer and the Jazz have offensively challenged wings. If and when they trade him they're going to struggle to score. And, yeah, once he's gone they're sinking down with the rest of the bottom feeders. (By which I mean those teams in the middle of the western pack that aren't really good but inflate their victory totals against the worst teams in the NBA.)


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

unluckybaselteen said:


> Wait, why is Utah going to implode? They don't already have a very viable option at PF waiting for Boozer to leave, and they won't get anything in return from a trade?
> 
> Or did you not think through much of this situation during your Western-Conference slander session?


Look, the West is done. Suns, Jazz, Nuggets, Mavericks, and Blazers should count themselves lucky if they win ONE game against the East. I would be surprised if they accrue 10 wins combined against the superior eastern conference.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

Basel said:


> Yes they are.



I dont see it but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Sleepepro (Oct 24, 2008)

Basileus Munro said:


> The problem is that the the top teams in the East got a lot better, while the teams outside the top five in the west are heading in the opposite direction. Things are so dire in New Orleans that a rookie 2nd round pick might be starting at the 2 because their wings are biblically bad. They're a Chris Paul injury from being a 15 win team. Houston lost Yao _and_ T-Mac. They're officially entrants in the John Wall Derby. Phoenix unloaded an 18/9 center, and they're so desperate that their fans are singing the praises of Channing Frye. Utah is openly shopping Boozer, and has a bunch of roleplayers at the 2/3. They're another team that will struggle to match last year's victory total. Outside of LA, San Antonio, Denver, Dallas, and Portland the West's vaunted might is overrated. They're bad enough that the Grizzlies are a legitimate playoff contender this year. For once the Grizzly fans won't be cursing their luck to be playing in the West, because they wouldn't get near the playoffs in the East.


NOH has never been a legit contender, that one year they went far was a fluke, PHX flamed out but they are still there for a playoff spot, Utah isn't shopping Boozer because he sucks, it's because they know he's gonna leave at the end of this year. Grizz does not have a chance at the playoff at best they'll be 10 or 11 in the west behind OKC

The west as it stands
West:
1st Tier For sure title contenders at the start of the season
LAL
SAS
----
2nd Tier Legit playoff team might push for title at the end of the season 
DAL
DEN
UTAH
----
3rd Tier Playoff teams but just getting by
POR (sleeper team last year so not expecting too much, most teams are just flukes and the next year they aren't as great)
NOH
PHX
----
4th Tier Might make some possible playoff noise and kick one playoff team out but usually only one team will have that chance
HOU
LAC
GSW
----
Bottom Of The West sucks to be them teams will destroy them
OKC
MEM
SAC
MIN

East as it stands today
East:
1st Tier
BOS
CLE
ORL
----
2nd Tier
ATL
CHI
PHI
----
3rd Tier
MIA (gonna be a bad season I have a gut feeling)
WAS
----
4th Tier
DET
IND
TOR
----
Bottom of the East (no shot at playoffs this year or even make noise in other words rebuilding stage)
NJN (Devin Harris is freaking injury prone)
CHA
MIL
NY


Final Say:
What really happens is that there is a bigger drop off in the East after each Tier. The bottom teams in the West look worse than they are because the teams at the top are tremendously good and they are consistently good throughout the season and are only 1 player away to jumping to the next tier. Losing one game in the West can get you kicked out of the playoffs while a 5 game losing streak in the East can still put you in the Playoffs


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

^ Repped, excellent post.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

Sleepepro said:


> NOH has never been a legit contender, that one year they went far was a fluke, PHX flamed out but they are still there for a playoff spot, Utah isn't shopping Boozer because he sucks, it's because they know he's gonna leave at the end of this year. Grizz does not have a chance at the playoff at best they'll be 10 or 11 in the west behind OKC
> 
> The west as it stands
> West:
> ...


This is a good post but I disagree with you about Utah. I think they are overrated, they will be a playoff team but they are not a team that can challenge for a title.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

eddymac said:


> This is a good post but I disagree with you about Utah. I think they are overrated, they will be a playoff team but they are not a team that can challenge for a title.


You're right about Utah, not in the "overrated" regard imo (who realistically thinks they'll amount to anything more than a 1st round exit - or 2nd at best), but that they are not a team that is a legit title contender and won't turn into one this season. A disgruntled PF, a jump shooting center, relatively poor wing defenders (yes Brewer is good, but he still isn't the guy you want to have try stopping the league's elite wings) who also happen to be offensively challenged in the majority. Only Williams and Millsap intrigue me, and Sap will have to show he can deal with heavy minutes, considering he "fell off" quite a bit after the ASW last season. I also wonder if Kirilenko plans to get his *** out of his head any time soon. Overall they seem like a talented bunch, but they just don't it for me... I don't think I was once legitimately scared about my team playing them in the past two seasons.

As for the conferences, I agree with the "the East is more top heavy, while the West is deeper in overall quality" side of the argument.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Basileus Munro said:


> I like Millsap, but Boozer's a better scorer and the Jazz have offensively challenged wings. If and when they trade him they're going to struggle to score. And, yeah, once he's gone they're sinking down with the rest of the bottom feeders. (By which I mean those teams in the middle of the western pack that aren't really good but inflate their victory totals against the worst teams in the NBA.)


I'm still not sure why you're saying if and when they trade him. My money says they let the contract expire becuase they're so far over the cap to begin with they'd rather do that than take on another contract.

Offensively challenged wings is another head-scratcher...

Brewer: 13.7 PPG, .508 FGs - Much improved jumper through the preseason (Shooting 60% from the floor)
Kirilenko: 11.6 PPG, .449 FGs - Average jumpshooter, still upper-tier defender.. probably the worst offensive player among this group, but gets to the FT line at one of the highest rates in the league
Korver: 9.0 PPG, .438 FGs, .386 3PT - One of the most threatening 3-point shooters in the game
CJ Miles: 9.1 PPG, .459 FGs, .352 3PT - Not bad percentages at all for a shooting guard

They're not the most elite team at the 2-3 but they're par. They're not a hinder to the team, offensively. Defensively, you may have a case because Korver and CJ Miles are pretty bad defenders.

I'm really not sure where you're getting any of your information from. Even if they did trade Boozer, are they getting nothing at all in return? Are they going to trade him for a bag of peanuts? The Jazz are one of the most trade-conservative franchises in the league. Just because Sam Smith, Peter Vescey or whatever windbag is talking about a make-believe trade doesn't mean anything is going to happen. Didn't this exact same situation come up like 2 years ago? All of those rumors about him getting traded to LA?

Calling Utah a bottom-feeder and inflating their record from beating bad teams is just wrong. They're one of the worst teams in the league when it comes to beating bad teams on the road. At home they'll win maybe 36 games in a season, but on the road it's random. They'll beat Boston and Orlando, then turn around and lose to the Bobcats and Timberwolves. The only reason they wound up with the 8 seed last year was becuase they lost to Minnesota and the Warriors with less than 5 games remaining in the season.

Utah's not a title contender by any stretch, but a bottom-feeder? Wow. You seem to be way overboard with calling one conference better than another, and don't seem to take the time to examine the teams in the West before parroting whatever bored NBA writer is coughing up during the offseason. The only number you need to know is that the playoff requirement in the West the last 4-5 years has been hovering right around 50 wins. Win 40 in the East and you have a really good shot at it.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

unluckyseventeen said:


> I'm still not sure why you're saying if and when they trade him. My money says they let the contract expire becuase they're so far over the cap to begin with they'd rather do that than take on another contract.
> 
> Offensively challenged wings is another head-scratcher...
> 
> ...


They aren't par. There are two defensive roleplayers and two offensive roleplayers in that group. What do they have in common? They're all roleplayers. 



unluckyseventeen said:


> I'm really not sure where you're getting any of your information from. Even if they did trade Boozer, are they getting nothing at all in return? Are they going to trade him for a bag of peanuts? The Jazz are one of the most trade-conservative franchises in the league. Just because Sam Smith, Peter Vescey or whatever windbag is talking about a make-believe trade doesn't mean anything is going to happen. Didn't this exact same situation come up like 2 years ago? All of those rumors about him getting traded to LA?


The plethora of trade rumours over the summer. Yes, I know, every single last one of them was invented and the Jazz never even contemplated trading the Booze.



unluckyseventeen said:


> Calling Utah a bottom-feeder and inflating their record from beating bad teams is just wrong. They're one of the worst teams in the league when it comes to beating bad teams on the road. At home they'll win maybe 36 games in a season, but on the road it's random. They'll beat Boston and Orlando, then turn around and lose to the Bobcats and Timberwolves. The only reason they wound up with the 8 seed last year was becuase they lost to Minnesota and the Warriors with less than 5 games remaining in the season.


And yet, oddly enough, they went 19-4 against the crap of the west, 29-30 against everyone else.



unluckyseventeen said:


> Utah's not a title contender by any stretch, but a bottom-feeder? Wow. You seem to be way overboard with calling one conference better than another, and don't seem to take the time to examine the teams in the West before parroting whatever bored NBA writer is coughing up during the offseason.


I've been saying this for months, when the first whispers of Yao's more serious problems crept up (back in June). That, combined with Phoenix's ongoing dismantling project, Utah's marketing of Boozer for more roleplayers in an attempt to shave payroll a little, the ongoing messes in Sacramento, Golden State, and Minnesota pointed to a far less competitive western conference for next year. You won't need 50 games to make the western playoffs next year, and Memphis has a real shot at playoff action this year.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

This is somewhat on topic for this thread, and I just finished it. Anyway, here's my Tier List in the league for this coming season.

*TIER 1*
Lakers
Cavs
Magic
Spurs
Celtics

*TIER 2*
Blazers
Nuggets
Hawks
Hornets
Mavericks

*TIER 3*
Bulls
Heat
Jazz
Suns

*TIER 4*
Wizards
76ers
Thunder
Raptors
Clippers
Nets 
Pistons
Rockets

*TIER 5*
Knicks
Bobcats
Pacers
Wolves
Warriors

*TIER 6*
Bucks
Grizzlies
Kings

I will say that the West will still be the slightly better conference this season with 6 of the top 10 and 8 of the top 14 teams in the league.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Naw, how does San Antonio jump in Tier 1 but no Denver?

And the Heat and Bulls are not better than the Sixers or Wizards. And all of Tier 5 beyond Minny is better than the Nets.

Let me try my hand at it:

Tier 1:
Lakers
Boston
Orlando
Cleveland

Tier 2:

Denver
San Antonio
Portland

Tier 3:

Dallas
Utah
Atlanta
Washington

Tier 4:

New Orleans
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Detroit
Miami

Tier 5: 

Toronto
Clippers
Indiana
Charlotte
Golden State
Chicago

Tier 6: 

Memphis
Houston
OKC
Milwaukee
New York
New Jersey

Tier *1,789*:

Minnesota 
Sacramento


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> Naw, how does San Antonio jump in Tier 1 but no Denver?


San Antonio added a former all-star at the position they have been lacking since Sean Elliot left. Also, they have their best crunchtime 5 they've ever had in the Duncan era. Denver did nothing in the offseason. Case closed on that one.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Case closed before we've played a game? Good to know.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> Case closed before we've played a game? Good to know.


The case for why the Spurs deserve to be top tier RIGHT NOW is closed, yes. Where they will finish by the end of the season (after the games are played) greatly depends on which teams get struck hard by the injury bug.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Blair and Jefferson addition puts SA back in the tier 1 convo


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Yeah I actually do think San Antonio should be in tier one on RWE's list, but they're not going to win a title. Those 4 teams I listed are the only 4 that I see holding the trophy come Spring. For real for real it's really only Boston and LA.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

San Antonio is better than Orlando and Cleveland. Orlando and Cleveland should be in the tier with Denver and Portland.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

dre, you missed a few teams.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Dre™;6087566 said:


> Naw, how does San Antonio jump in Tier 1 but no Denver?
> 
> And the Heat and Bulls are not better than the Sixers or Wizards. And all of Tier 5 beyond Minny is better than the Nets.
> 
> ...


What happened to NY NJ CHI and TOR


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Basileus Munro said:


> They aren't par. There are two defensive roleplayers and two offensive roleplayers in that group. What do they have in common? They're all roleplayers.


So, just because they don't have an all-star caliber 2 and 3, they're offensively challenged? Outside of Deron, Okur and Boozer, everyone is a role player on offense. You're expecting the Jazz to have premier players at 5 positions, or even 4 out of the 5? That's ridiculous.

And I still find it funny that people call Brewer offensively challenged... his career numbers are 50%+ from the field, and is a mid-teens scorer. How many guards have those numbers? He knows his role and he applies it very well. How can you call that any sort of problem to your team? 2 of the remaining 3 wings that will get minutes are far from offensively challenged. Defensively challenged, yes. But if you don't rely on those players to score to win games for you, why should it matter? 

They've won plenty of games where Brewer, AK, Korver and/or CJ had 0-2 points... they don't rely on one particular guy to carry the load. So long as at least a couple of the premier scoring guys on the team do their part, they'll get plenty of contributions from other players.

In fact, I don't see how this situation is different for any other team. 2-3 guys score the majority and the rest comes from whoever gets the opportunity. Why is it a downfall that 2 of 5 starters on the Jazz are role-players?




> The plethora of trade rumours over the summer. Yes, I know, every single last one of them was invented and the Jazz never even contemplated trading the Booze.


Like I said, the rumors surfaced a couple of years ago, too, and most of them were people knowing nothing about the situation making up trade situations. It's like if I wrote for a major newspaper, checked to see if a trade worked on a trade-checking application, then wrote a 200-word column about it.. there, I just started a rumor.

This offseason was different because Boozer tried to play the market. When he realized his value was in the dumps, he didn't have much of a choice but to take that option. Then he went running his mouth about how he thought he was going to get traded, etc. Sort of the same way how he was running his mouth about "getting a raise, regardless". That turned out well.

The Jazz aren't dumb.. they know Boozer is going to perform well for a new contract and he wouldn't cause problems to jeopardize that because he's all about the money. Everyone knows that. They will only trade him if they can get an equal contribution from another guy. Who's that other guy? Why would the Jazz take on another contract when they're already horrifically over the cap for the first time in franchise history, in a small market, especially if they have a suitable replacement chomping at the bit already?

If you apply common sense to the situation, Boozer getting traded really doesn't look very attractive for Utah.



> I've been saying this for months, when the first whispers of Yao's more serious problems crept up (back in June). That, combined with Phoenix's ongoing dismantling project, Utah's marketing of Boozer for more roleplayers in an attempt to shave payroll a little, the ongoing messes in Sacramento, Golden State, and Minnesota pointed to a far less competitive western conference for next year. You won't need 50 games to make the western playoffs next year, and Memphis has a real shot at playoff action this year.


All of the teams you mentioned aside from Utah and Houston didn't make the playoffs anyway, so why are they involved in a discussion about minimum wins required to make the playoffs? Utah is returning virtually the same squad of guys and lost a ton of games due to injuries in the starting lineup last season.

Saying Houston won't make the playoffs is ridiculous. They looked really good in years past without Yao and T-Mac anyway.. why are they going to all of a sudden drop off? They're a rag-tag squad without big name players but that doesn't mean they won't get the job done. They sure did in the playoffs without both of them, and always have without one or the other.

I don't doubt that teams like Sacramento, Minnesota, Golden State and whoever else are terrible teams.. but that still has nothing to do with the fact that the top 8 teams in the West are better than the top 8 teams in the East, and that the playoff win requirement will still be higher in the West than East.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

OK I added those missing teams.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> San Antonio is better than Orlando and Cleveland. Orlando and Cleveland should be in the tier with Denver and Portland.


Orlando is clearly in the first tier. Not many teams can keep up with their offense.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

unluckyseventeen said:


> So, just because they don't have an all-star caliber 2 and 3, they're offensively challenged?


Not only do they not have an all star at the 2/3, they don't have anyone that reaches "quality NBA starter". They're most certainly offensively challenged as none of the four even demands single coverage, much less a doubleteam.



unluckyseventeen said:


> And I still find it funny that people call Brewer offensively challenged... his career numbers are 50%+ from the field, and is a mid-teens scorer. How many guards have those numbers?


13 p/g isn't "mid-teens scoring" and lots of swingmen manage to do it. If we include all guards the numbers go even higher.mes due to injuries in the starting lineup last season.



unluckyseventeen said:


> Saying Houston won't make the playoffs is ridiculous. They looked really good in years past without Yao and T-Mac anyway.. why are they going to all of a sudden drop off? They're a rag-tag squad without big name players but that doesn't mean they won't get the job done. They sure did in the playoffs without both of them, and always have without one or the other.


Look, I'm a Rockets fan. Dating back to their days as the San Diego Rockets. They have played well in the recent past without Yao or T-Mac. But they're not without one of them now. They're both gone. Their primary offensive option is Aaron Brooks. They aren't going to make the playoffs. The NBA isn't very fair, trying hard won't get you many wins when you don't have the talent. Houston doesn't have it. We're just praying for a high lottery pick at this point. Or for someone to trade for T-Mac's insurance policy.



unluckyseventeen said:


> I don't doubt that teams like Sacramento, Minnesota, Golden State and whoever else are terrible teams.. but that still has nothing to do with the fact that the top 8 teams in the West are better than the top 8 teams in the East, and that the playoff win requirement will still be higher in the West than East.


No they're not and no it won't.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Dre™ said:


> Naw, how does San Antonio jump in Tier 1 but no Denver?
> 
> And the Heat and Bulls are not better than the Sixers or Wizards. And all of Tier 5 beyond Minny is better than the Nets.
> 
> ...


Besides San Antonio not being in the first tier this is pretty much how I see it.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Basileus Munro said:


> Not only do they not have an all star at the 2/3, they don't have anyone that reaches "quality NBA starter". They're most certainly offensively challenged as none of the four even demands single coverage, much less a doubleteam.


And exactly how many SGs and SFs require a double team, who also aren't all-stars? Are you even reading what you write to see how ridiculous it sounds?

All of the four demand single coverage.. what are you talking about? Every player in the league demands single coverage, else they would walk right to the rim and score at will (actually, Brewer already does that for a guard). Seriously, wow.. this is some of the most ridiculous basketball analysis I've ever read.



> 13 p/g isn't "mid-teens scoring" and lots of swingmen manage to do it. If we include all guards the numbers go even higher.mes due to injuries in the starting lineup last season.


OK, just to make you satisfied that Brewer and Kirilenko as role players in the starting lineup are terrible, let's examine every (normally) starting 2 and 3 on every team that IS NOT the 1st, 2nd or 3rd offensive option on the team (strictly a role player), shall we?

Trevor Ariza - 8.9 PPG, .460 FG% last season
Shane Battier - 7.3 PPG, .410 FG% last season
Larry Hughes - 11.2 PPG, .390 FG% last season
Morris Peterson - 4.4 PPG, .399 FG% last season
Julian Wright - 4.4 PPG, .466 FG% last season
Marco Belinelli - 8.9 PPG, .422 FG% last season
Michael Finley - 9.7, .437 FG% last season


...You know what, scanning all 30 is a waste of time because this data represents the rest of the league well. I've scanned 10 teams (SouthWest and Atlantic Division) and these were the players that fit the criteria. Based on the criteria, Brewer is at the top of his class in comparison of players that he SHOULD be compared with (not the top 3 offensive options on their respective teams, and start at the 2 or 3 position). By comparison, Kirilenko is still above average.

Asking to have 5 players in your starting 5 that could all be top-3 options on any given team is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know what else you expect out of a role player other than efficient offense and defense. You seem to be asking for Ray Allen and Paul Pierce to be the starting 2/3 for it to be of any sort of notable quality. If Brewer and AK were what you were asking for, the Jazz would waltz to a title and it wouldn't even be close.

And, also, I challenge you to find even 5 players you'd rather have on your team as a 4th and 5th offensive option, starting at the 2 or 3 position, while only considering their offensive capabilities. Just five. I'm really interested to see what kind of list you come up with considering how terrible Brewer and Kirilenko apparently are.

I find it funny that you're only focusing on the 2 and 3 positions anyway, nevermind that they have one of the best PGs in the game, one of the best offensive PFs in the game and a unique but highly effective Center. So, if the Jazz have any sort of offensive weakness, in your mind, they're a bottom-feeder. Got it.

Also, is that how they were the 2nd-best team in the West in 08? Because Brewer and Kirilenko sucked ass? Same squad, except now, all of a sudden, they're a bottom feeder... for some reason.



> No they're not and no it won't.


I seriously doubt that, based on what you've put on display so far.

This is basically what you've said to me thus far: "The Jazz are a bottom-feeding team because their starting 2 and 3 guards aren't the top 3 offensive options for their team, even though they are well above average considering their role and positions."


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*After one month of play:* 

East against West: 32-52
East against East: 85-85

West against East: 52-32
West against West: 87-87

The east has come a long way, but people are too eager to pull the trigger on them being the better conference. The east is at best equal, and overall, the west is probably still a little better.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I noticed this. The West does have better records as far as the top eight teams go, but let's get to January before making some conclusions.

Tonight the New York beat Phoenix, Miami is about to beat Portland. I still think the 5-13 in the East is better than the West.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

HKF said:


> See let's look at this realistically. Top to bottom the East is better than the West. The West will once again have 5 of the worst six teams in basketball in (Sacramento, Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Memphis and Houston w/o T-Mac & Yao). The only teams in the East worse than those teams IMO are New York, New Jersey and Milwaukee. The other 12 teams in the East have playoff aspirations and rightfully so.


Yikes, this is filled with all kinds of inaccuracies. The Kings, Thunder, Rockets and Memphis are all playing better than I expected and I didn't expect Brandon Jennings to be so good to start off. Needless to say, I was wrong about the West, especially Sacramento. I mean I expected them to be 3-13, not 8-8.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

HKF said:


> Tonight the New York beat Phoenix, Miami is about to beat Portland. I still think the 5-13 in the East is better than the West.


I don't know what that means, but one night does not a season make.


----------



## VCHighFly (May 7, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> I don't know what that means, but one night does not a season make.


He meant the 5th thru 13th best teams.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

VCHighFly said:


> He meant the 5th thru 13th best teams.


Oh, well then he's wrong.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HKF said:


> I noticed this. The West does have better records as far as the top eight teams go, but let's get to January before making some conclusions.


In January it will just be 2 months instead of 1 month. Either way, I'm not even saying the west is way better, and it'll probably even out by the end of the season. 

I'm just talking about the last several pages of this thread, where there were claims that the west pads it's wins against the terrible teams in the conference (Kings, Wolves, Thunder, Grizzlies, Clippers, Warriors). I think someone even called those 6 teams _the worst 6 teams in pro sports_. Now 5/6 of those teams are over, at or slightly under .500. Minnesota is the only "dreg" of the bunch. 9 of the 13 teams under .500 are in the east. 

People also thought the Rockets were going to become terrible this year, and they're actually very competitive. People thought the Suns were going to miss the playoffs, and they're the 3rd best record in the league. 

There was a lot of unwarranted disrespect to the west in this thread. I'm glad it's being put down as the season goes on.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

13 teams in the West have a record of .400 and up, 10 of them .500 and up.

8 teams in the East have a record of .400 and up, 6 of them .500 and up..... and that 8th place team is .409 Toronto.

Only in the East can multiple teams make the playoffs with a sub .500 record.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> The Clippers are still looking to unload Baron Davis, I'll still be shocked if they get to 30. *Same goes for OKC, I don't care that they were a thirty win team on the second Tuesday of every month.* They have a hideous 4/5 rotation. They're not getting better until the 2010 draft when they finally add a PF/C.


I had to bump this again. OKC gets their 30th win early in February before the All-Star break. 

Like I said, they were actually pretty decent last year under Brooks, and they've taken it to the next level this season. 

Clippers are going for #22 tonight. They're on pace for 30 but we'll see. That's without Griffin the whole year too.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

This is the best East ever of the century. There are a few players missed some games this year in the east.


----------

