Aren't you all forgetting the fact that since you play teams in your conference more often during the regular season (3-4 times), have stronger rivalries, and then play them more in the playoffs, you have better gauges of those teams, their style of play, and their players pros/cons. For example if Yao Ming is in your division, you play him 4 times and have a much better sense of his tendencies and how to defend him and such. I'm just saying you have to take that into consideration when considering the conferences. I'm also not sure how you would even calculate it.
Thought no one posts in this thread any more. I have no idea how you did your math. I wouldn't go play the game where you guess how many games someone "would have won" if ... As of today 3/26, nba.com has: GS: 25-47, Conf 14-28 (33%), vs East 11-19 (37%): Better vs East teams OKC: 20-51, Conf 13-33 (22%), vs East 7-18 (28%): Better vs East Minn: 20-52, Conf 10-34 (23%), vs 10-18 (36%): Better vs East LAC: 18-54, Conf 9-33 (21%), vs East 9-21 (30%): Better vs East Mem: 17-53, Conf 10-34 (23%), vs East 7-19 (27%): Better vs East Sac: 15-55, Conf 14-26 (35%), vs East 1-29 (3%): Worse vs East Is my math correct?
One correction: OKC: 20-51, Conf 13-33 (28%), vs East 7-18 (28%): Same vs East I am having a headache.
rafer didn't hack as someone else said lol- Clutch did that small change while switching servers and needed some temporary space and changed it to Rafer as a joke after he got traded... go look at the "Clutchfans.net feedback" area, there was a thread about it a while back.
I'd like to see the institution of a sort of wild card spot to remedy this. In the event that a team with a winning record misses the playoffs when a team from the opposite conference with a losing record makes it in, the former would be given an opportunity to take the latter's place by playing an elimination game at that team's arena. If they really deserve to be in, they should have no problem dispatching the weaker team on the road. There are obviously some flaws to this (is it really fair to the team with the losing record? is it fair to the number one seed??? how silly would an "Eastern Conference Champions" banner look in Phoenix?), but I think it could add an interesting subplot to all the playoff drama. If nothing else, it would probably shut up some of the whining.
Simple. I multiplied the team's winning percentage against Eastern teams by their total number of games played at the point when I made the post. The way you list the data makes it look like the East must be much weaker because five of the six teams are better against the East than against the West. My method showed how much of a difference that winning percentage would make, which came out to be essentially none. The two exceptions are MIN, who is playing better against Eastern teams, and SAC, who is playing horribly against Eastern teams.
Simple? Why would you do that? You made it more complicated. I don't manufacture any data. It is what it is. x = games vs East. w = games won vs East The winning percentage is w/x. How much simpler can it get? You add: y = games vs West And you compute: w/x * (x+y) Did I understand you correctly? What the heck is that number?
As I tried to explain in the previous post (but didn't do well enough), I just wanted to add an extra bit of info so you could see how insignificant the difference in winning percentage is. You can say, "well five of the worst six teams are better against the East than against the West." But if that difference is only about 3% in winning percentage, it's insignificant. For example, GS is a 33% winning team against the West, but 37% against the East. That might sound like a big difference without the additional piece of information that a 33% winning team would win 27 games during the entire season, and a 37% winning team would win 30. So the difference is not that important. The only two cases where the difference matters is with MIN and SAC, and even MIN would still be a crappy lottery team playing all their games against the East.
I see what you did. OK, I'll take that. So the difference is small. No one on this side is saying the West is blowing the East away. We said the West is still stronger but the East has closed the gap. It's the guys on your side who said the East is stronger. Some used bad data to come their conclusion. Some have conceded the point. Others simply vanished when proven wrong. What about you?
The assertion that the cavs would lose at least six more games in the west in laughable. They lost to the lakers twice, once to us, and once to New Orleans. Other than that they have flatout dominated the western playoff contenders. And they've taken care of business against the numerous bottom feeders in our conference. Only the lakers and rockets match up well with them in the west, so I'm curious as to who all these extra losses would be to. If you think the cavs would have a worse record in the west, then explain why they, the lakers, the magic, the spurs, and our rockets all have a better winning percentage against the west than the east.
I think the league has reached the point where there is no longer a reason to talk about which conference is stronger. For a long time, the West was indisputably better than the East. That time has passed. Now which conference you think is better is really determined by how you frame the question. The best teams in the league are in the East (except for the Lakers). The West has a deeper pool of playoff-worthy teams. The East doesn't have the weakness at the bottom that the West does.
Exactly. People need to forget the past and come to the present. The West seems to still be slightly stronger, but the vast gap of the last few seasons is gone.
That gap is still there. Cleveland, Orlando and Boston are really good, but there is a steep dropoff after that. If the suns were in the east, they would be in the playoffs... at least as a 7th seed. In a 7 game series, the last 5 seeds in the west will beat the last 5 seeds in the east handily.
You have no room to talk , a couple of days ago you were boasting about how strong the East was, as if you alone just made a discovery no one else knew about.
Since when did you get to decide if there is a reason to talk which conference is stronger? You don't have to frame the question differently so you can give answers to your liking either. The core issue is this, and this alone: 1) The West has a team , right now 8 games above .500, which will miss the playoffs. 2) The East likely will have 2 teams under .500 which will make the playoffs. That is all.
Say what? I said the East had a better record against the West, it had more top-shelf teams and fewer pure garbage teams for the others to feed on. Compared to the West, the East is A LOT stronger than it's been in years. I never said the East was a lot better than the West. If you read through both threads, my point was the stereotype that everything in the West is better than the East is nonsense. I didn't say the East was some kind of unstoppable juggernaut. What I've changed from is saying the East was slightly better. Now, I think the West is slightly better. It's so close you could argue either way. Regarding me "alone", a few weeks ago I started a thread about parity and nearly everyone lampooned the idea the East was equal or near equal. Since then, more people have come to that conclusion.
