I have always been confused by this so maybe someone could explain!! How does a guy with so much general negativity towards the Rockets have so much rep? Are there that many haters on this board keeping Carl Hater-ra relevant? I would block the guy but every once in a while he makes a relevant post where you think he might be a Rockets Fan but those are getting to be fewer and farther between.
No way man, it would be because GSW is just soooo much better than the Rockets... the narrative would be the exact opposite of the Clippers loss. Zach Lowe lost me when he called out the Rockets for their 'Harden for MVP' promotional swag, but didn't call out any of the other teams who did the exact same thing for their players... as if Houston is the only team who has ever lobbied for one of their players to win an award, smh
Divisions are arbitrary. Probably should be abolished. But there's other threads for that. This one is about whether the Rockets were the better team. Everyone knew about division winners long before the season started. Unfortunately for the Clippers, they aren't playing an N-game series. They play a 7-game series. You have to do whatever you can do to optimize for 7 games. If you can't, that says something about how good you are as a team.
The reason why it was brought up was about Lowe's making an argument about "fake division champion." I don't know why he used the word "fake" but it was a legit argument though not very strong. Many people say that the Rockets won a 7-game series and such a series, unlike a one-game elimination tournament, is supposed to be won by the better team. The problem is that single-game elimination tournaments are usually played in neutral sites. And this series went to Game 7 which was like a single-game elimination. But it was played on Houston's home court. So it came down to one game and it wasn't exactly a leveled playing field. The Rockets got HCA over the Clippers because of one thing: division champion. That's why it is part of this debate about whether the Clippers were the better team.
Sorry, it's not part of any well thought out debate whatsoever. The fact is that the during the regular season, the Rockets had to play 4 teams 4x each that all made the playoffs. In their division, the Clippers only had to play one team 4x, GS, that made the playoffs. Because of divisions, the Clippers got to play 4x a piece lowly Lakers and Sacramento, as well as Phoenix who missed the playoffs. If anything, "fake" divisions gave the Clippers an advantage to get an even better spot in the playoffs. They just did not seize it. Regardless, the Rockets and Clippers had the same record. They drew even head to head. Since Lowe and the cronies think that we only had home court because of "fake" divisions, what do they propose should be the deciding factor for who has home court? Because the only difference then is conference record, for which the Clippers are better than the Rockets. But then the same stupid argument could be made about "fake" conferences. This is why that reasoning is just straight up unintelligent on the part of any "analyst" who is trying to push it. The Rockets blew out the Clippers in all three of the last games of the series. At the end of the day, that to me is the better team winning.
Yeah, and I'm saying it means the Rockets are better because they got the division championship. The rules were set long ago and could have punished the Rockets as easily as it could have helped them. The division structure is determined by the owners. The Clippers were complicit in setting this field this way. They got a disadvantage in 2015 by deciding to have divisions. I don't know that Sterling had supported the division structure, but he certainly didn't defeat the division structure. So either by a lack of foresight or strength, they allowed to stand a division structure that would work against them in 2015 and they lost. It's still on them for losing. I don't accept any excuses when they have access to influence every facet of the competition universe. Maybe the real MVP of this series was Les Alexander for endorsing a favorable division structure years ago. But, he's a Rocket too. Now, I can entertain the complementary argument -- that going forward we should abolish the division structure as uneven, and use the Rockets-Clippers matchup as Exhibit A because the Clippers would have had the tie-breaker otherwise. I don't think its a strong argument, but it's a valid one. But on who is better, no. Winning means you are better.
The Clippers are more talented argument to me is hilarious. I had to chime in on this. Both teams had two stars. Paul/Griffin and Harden/Howard. Jordan might eventually get paid like a star, but his flaws are plentiful. One dimensional player that can often hurt you at the offensive end. After that it came down to role players, in which Doc Rivers put together an awful roster. Barnes, Reddick, Big Baby, Rivers, Crawford were their role players. Vs. Houston, Ariza, Terry, Brewer, Smith, Jones, Capela. Where are the Clippers more talented? I'm so confused. From 1-8 Houston has way more depth and versatility. If you want to say Paul/Griffin is better than Harden/Howard, I'm fine with that, but after that the more talented argument is laughable at best. The Rockets played poorly in games 1, 3 and 4, but that's why they play 7. And having depth is part of having a more talented bench. Game 7 should of been a competitive game. Both teams had 3 wins. Instead it proved Houston had a much better roster 1-8 or 9.
