The Eastern Playoff Race

[Andrew]

Much uglier and a lot less compelling than the race out West, but there's still a few questions that have yet to be answered.

At this point, it looks as though the top three seeds will be Boston, Detroit and Orlando, all of whom can finish with 50+ wins (the Celtics already being there). Meanwhile, a 12-3 finish would allow the Cavaliers to post their third straight 50 win season.

The eighth spot still appears to be up for grabs with New Jersey and Chicago on the outside looking in. At this point, I'm picking Chicago to falter and come up short; disappointing for me, but that's the story of the season when it comes to the Bulls. A few games back they were in ninth place and just half a game out of the eighth spot which would have been the opportune time to string together a few wins, but, well, we saw how that went.

The first round is probably going to be a bit lacklustre to put it kindly but assuming the top four seeds advance, the rest of the Playoffs in the East should have its moments. The West may be far more interesting from first to eighth but with a potential matchup of Boston/Detroit being historically significant and noteworthy players such as LeBron, KG amd Dwight Howard to name a few, there are some points of interest.

[Skills]

My thoughts are Chicago will be the turnaround team and get that 8th seed
New Jersey hasn't been clicking since Kidd left.
And Chicago has much improved since getting rid of Skiles and Big Ben's fat contract.

[Donatello]

The East is so bad this year, they shouldn't even have playoffs.

Seriously though, the NBA really needs to rethink it's playoff process when there are teams in the west who miss the playoffs who could be a 3-4 seed in the East. (I haven't done the exact math on this, just a guesstimation, but I bet I'm not far off).

[JT_55]

^If the season ended today, the ninth team in the West, Denver, will be fourth in the East. Vice versa, Lebron and Co. would be 10th in the West.

[Indy]

Go Milwaukee and Charlotte! We may not be able to get down to the Knicks area, but I'm confident we can outtank the Bucks and Charlotte.

Unless we keep beating up on teams like the Knicks and Sonics. Those guys are just more experienced tankers.

[Drex]

Even if the East is bad, I still think it'll be a lot of fun.

[Lamrock]

The only interesting things to me about the East playoff race are the Hawks looking to end their 9 year drought and the 76ers, who are awesome for some reason as of late.

[Drex]

What? Sixers were always awesome.

They're kinda underrated, if you ask me. With all this Rockets streak (that some people still underrate, IMO), they've been under radar untill a couple games ago.

[Lamrock]

They are underrated. I should know, I bandwagoned them a whole week ago, back when they were in 9th, inching their way up the bracket.

I don't understand their success though. They have a good PG, a decent Center, and of course, their star Iguodala. But Iguodala is more of a second-fiddle type star though. Aside of the relatively large 3, who else is there?

[Andrew]

Seriously though, the NBA really needs to rethink it's playoff process when there are teams in the west who miss the playoffs who could be a 3-4 seed in the East. (I haven't done the exact math on this, just a guesstimation, but I bet I'm not far off).

I still don't think it's a huge problem. The playoff structure has worked fine for over sixty years now. It really only appears to be flawed this year because the West is more competitive than usual and there's a few teams in the East who were expected to do much better have greatly underachieved for one reason or another, leading to a larger disparity. Sometimes, that's just the way it is.

It's like the change in the way the top four seeds are decided. Ultimately, that change probably is for the better but after the Spurs and Mavericks met "too early" - as if the Conference Finals must be the best series in each conference's bracket - so many people were bemoaning the system that had worked fine up until that point and claimed it was terribly flawed and change was needed as it was ruining everything.

So the change was made and then the matchup it was supposed to protect never came to be because the Mavericks were upset in the first round, which of course led to further questions about the playoff structure because something unexpected happened. I'm all for fixing what's broken and implementing the best possible system but sport is unpredictable at times and there's nothing wrong with that. That's why we have "Do you believe in miracles?" instead of "Everything went as expected. Splendid."

[benji]

so many people were bemoaning the system that had worked fine up until that point and claimed it was terribly flawed and change was needed as it was ruining everything

It had only been in place for one season, and it would've happened that year if the Spurs didn't coast during the season as they were the clear top team in the West.

It was terribly flawed. If the Spurs won 81 games, and the Mavericks won 80 games, they still would've met in the second round. Even if the top Pacific and Northwest teams had only topped out at 40 wins. It was a stupid oversight trying to reward "division" winners as if that actually means anything. It's still not really fixed. If the Nets and Knicks were flipped with the Wizards and Magic, we'd have a top four seeded playoff team not good enough to win 35 games.

Giving an automatic top seed to a division winner didn't matter as much back when there were enough teams in a division to guarantee they were at least one of the better teams in the conference. There's no reason to continue the worthless divisions, you'd only compete against your division "rivals" if there was no clear frontrunner, and you wouldn't make the playoffs anyway. Otherwise you compete against the rest of the conference for your record.

Seed them 1-8 in their conference, ditch the divisions. (Obama?)

Aside of the relatively large 3, who else is there?

Thaddeus Young. Louis Williams.

[Lamrock]

While the top 4 rule was a step in the right direction, I agree with Benji. In that 2006 season, not only did the Mavs and Spurs meet in the second round, but the Clippers intentionally had to tank for the 6th seed, as it was either the #3 Nuggets (43-39) or the #4 Dallas Mavericks (60-22).

The divisions themselves are still pointless though. The Jazz, who should be in 7th right now, are sitting comfortably in 4th. Why they need to keep these archaic divisions is beyond me. Then again, the electoral college still exists...

BTW, Thanks for reminding me about Young, benji. I honestly forgot.

[benji]

Then again, the electoral college still exists...

Unlike the division setup, the electoral college makes sense if people realize the United States is made up of...states. The electoral college requires candidates to appeal to a diverse geographic base instead of racking up large majorities in one section. The founders were afraid of the tyranny of a majority as much as any sort of Kings.

BTW, Thanks for reminding me about Young, benji. I honestly forgot.

Don't forget Williams, he's been pretty good too, Iverson-lite off the bench. Andre Miller is also having a bit of a revival. I think they're getting a perfect storm, they've found a rotation/lineup that's working, as teams around them start to break a bit under the length of the season they can make a run to move up, and this does give you a bit of a boost, kinda like the Rockets are getting.

[Lamrock]

Yes, Williams is doing well also. I've been a fan of Miller for a while also, so its good to see him doing well. (Who I see as an elusive "true" PG, by the media's suggested definition)

As for the electoral college, I disagree with you about it, but meh, no use in arguing.

[benji]

But arguing is fun, ignore this paragraph if you so desire, fun stuff is below it. People only think the electoral college is stupid because they do not understand how it works and how the country was actually constructed. We are not one nation, we are a nation of fifty individual states. What is ideal in NYC is not ideal in Podunk, North Dakota. The electoral college and Congressional makeup (along with the Constitution) is designed to moderate this influence of the powerful states. The concerns of the Midwest and South matter because they are competitive and control the balance of the electoral college, without which, candidates would ignore them and focus on the coasts. Today places like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Washington, and Florida can be kingmakers, under another more popular vote based system, the kingmakers would be California and Texas.

I suppose Miller is a "true PG" in that he's relatively pass-first, while still being able to score a good amount. My favorite thing about "true PG" and everyone saying teams need a "pass-first" PG, is that, historically, they just don't win championships.

[Lamrock]

Alright, I'll bite. My problem with the electoral college is that a candidate can get a considerably larger amount of votes than the other, but not win.

Going by the popular vote system actually seems like it would actually get candidates to visit more states. Because of the electoral college, the campaign becomes even more of a game. The new strategy is: "Lets to go a handful of select swing states (Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, New Mexico, etc.) and avoid places like Texas, Utah, New York and Illinois because its pretty clear that those places won't swing.

Is it really that much better that Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc. are being visited instead of California and Texas? In the end, they go to the same 5-10 states anyway.

[benji]

Hehe. I only argued because I hear it so much. So few "educated" people realize we're a collection of individual states.

I will address you however, despite your betrayal of the Andre Miller discussion. (I am not completely serious on that, I only say this because I've found out forumers take me way too serious.)

I personally think it is better to appeal to those who are "open minded" instead of those who won't swing to ensure we aren't dominated by the tyranny of the majority. It is not like dominance cannot occur in electoral college (see Reagan: 1984). A big one is considering Clinton in 1992, should he have won? He only got 43% of the popular vote. Should deadlock have occurred because 57% voted against him in 1992 and 51% in 1996?

The electoral college, due to other electoral changes, has evolved from an elitist control of the presidency to a check-and-balance on tyranny of the majority.

How about that Andre Miller?[/peoplewhoarentamericanandontunderstandamericanpoliticsandjustrepeattalkingpoints]

[Andrew]

It was terribly flawed. If the Spurs won 81 games, and the Mavericks won 80 games, they still would've met in the second round. Even if the top Pacific and Northwest teams had only topped out at 40 wins. It was a stupid oversight trying to reward "division" winners as if that actually means anything. It's still not really fixed. If the Nets and Knicks were flipped with the Wizards and Magic, we'd have a top four seeded playoff team not good enough to win 35 games.

I do get that, I will admit that the change is for the better and agree that the divisions are problematic now that there's six of them. They needn't have gone to six divisions in the first place if they wanted to keep that system but as long as divisions are taken into account, rewarding the division winner in some way seems appropriate. Perhaps a guaranteed playoff spot, rather than a top four seed? Or maybe it could just serve as some sort of tiebreaker when necessary.

What I disagree with is scrapping the East vs West concept altogether. Seeding the teams 1-8 according to their record in each conference is a fine idea, no worries there. But I don't think you need to throw out the idea of an East bracket and a West bracket just because there's more than a slight imbalance (to put it mildly) every now and again.

[Matt]

the funny thing about the East is that it was set a long time ago.....everyone had reasonable assurance to believe that it would be Bos, Det, Orl, Cle, Tor with a few irrelevant teams fighting for the last spots.

Bos v Cle could be a great (but ugly) series......wouldnt be surprised if Cavs win!!!

[Mayerhendrix]

If you take out East versus West, you've also got the remember that there's gotta be a nationwide balance of basketball. It just doesn't sell to have all the major playoff games in the West, you're removing half of the nation's market from the equation...

The NBA's a business first. Showcase of talent, second.

[benji]

rewarding the division winner in some way seems appropriate. Perhaps a guaranteed playoff spot, rather than a top four seed? Or maybe it could just serve as some sort of tiebreaker when necessary.

But why? Why should you get any reward for finishing first in your division? What does it even mean? You were better than four teams geographically close to you...so what?

Of course, logically and rationally I can't justify the existance of the conferences either. But I do like them as they do setup rivalries when teams meet again and again in the playoffs. Of course, we'd get new rivalries if we removed them. With further consideration they still make travel sense, it's easier to play 52 closer games and 30 further games.

It just doesn't sell to have all the major playoff games in the West, you're removing half of the nation's market from the equation

What? They're going to be all in the West anyway, aside from Detroit-Boston-Cleveland, because the conference is stacked. "Half the nations market" is removed anyway because New York/New Jersey, Chicago and Miami are unlikely to be participating.

If anything, removing the conferences from the playoff equation benefits the few good Eastern teams as they've beat up on more lousy teams.

Without divisions playoffs look like this:
1. Rockets, 2. Lakers, 3. Hornets, 4. Suns, 5. Mavericks, 6. Spurs, 7. Jazz, 8. Warriors
1. Celtics, 2. Pistons, 3. Magic, 4. Cavaliers, 5. Raptors, 6. Wizards, 7. Sixers, 8. Hawks

Without conferences playoffs look like this:
1. Celtics, 2. Pistons, 3. Rockets, 4. Lakers, 5. Hornets, 6. Suns, 7. Mavericks, 8. Spurs, 9. Jazz, 10. Magic, 11. Warriors, 12. Nuggets, 13. Cavaliers, 14. Blazers, 15. Raptors, 16. Wizards

Who really wants to see the Sixers and Hawks in a postseason over the Nuggets and Blazers? Plus that LeBron vs. Kobe first round.

[Donatello]

Without conferences playoffs look like this:
1. Celtics, 2. Pistons, 3. Rockets, 4. Lakers, 5. Hornets, 6. Suns, 7. Mavericks, 8. Spurs, 9. Jazz, 10. Magic, 11. Warriors, 12. Nuggets, 13. Cavaliers, 14. Blazers, 15. Raptors, 16. Wizards

Who really wants to see the Sixers and Hawks in a postseason over the Nuggets and Blazers?

That made me squeal with joy. God, I'm such a dork.

[Lamrock]

Thanks to the current system, AI must watch his former team make the playoffs, while his gets the 14th pick, and barely misses the playoffs.

If the Without Conferences breakdown doesn't give you a boner, you aren't a basketball fan.

[SpaceFlare]

The match-ups without conferences are incredible. Suns-Warriors, Jazz-Spurs, Lakers-Cavs would make for exciting first round match-ups.

[Andrew]

But why? Why should you get any reward for finishing first in your division? What does it even mean? You were better than four teams geographically close to you...so what?

I guess it's just one of those things that's done in sport, having representatives from different regions competing against one another to determine an overall winner, with some regions not producing the same talent as others. It doesn't always work out, it may not always be fair, but it comes down to that concept of different areas or groups of competitors - in this case, teams assigned according to their geographical location - being represented in a higher level of tournament play.

Without divisions playoffs look like this:
1. Rockets, 2. Lakers, 3. Hornets, 4. Suns, 5. Mavericks, 6. Spurs, 7. Jazz, 8. Warriors
1. Celtics, 2. Pistons, 3. Magic, 4. Cavaliers, 5. Raptors, 6. Wizards, 7. Sixers, 8. Hawks

Without conferences playoffs look like this:
1. Celtics, 2. Pistons, 3. Rockets, 4. Lakers, 5. Hornets, 6. Suns, 7. Mavericks, 8. Spurs, 9. Jazz, 10. Magic, 11. Warriors, 12. Nuggets, 13. Cavaliers, 14. Blazers, 15. Raptors, 16. Wizards

But wait, why is Kobe vs LeBron in the first round a great idea? That seems like the kind of matchup people would want to see in the NBA Finals or at least in one of the later rounds. After all, that's why the old top four seeding system was criticised, it led to a matchup that seemed more appropriate as the Conference Finals series. I wouldn't think anyone would want to see Kobe or LeBron bounced in the first round more than them clashing in a more high profile series later in the Playoffs.

I won't deny that eliminating the conferences and seeding teams 1-16 by their record doesn't have any merit and wouldn't be entertaining. However, I think it's easy to look at examples where the current structure hasn't worked out and call for change while overlooking all the times it hasn't been a problem. Last year, there was only one team in the West with a record that could have qualified for the Playoffs in the East and as it happened they were only a few games out of qualifying in the West anyway.

Magbe it's just an aversion to change, but I do like the East/West structure with the way it challenges 15 teams in each conference to try and qualify for eight playoff spots rather than opening up all sixteen playoff berths to the entire league.