Breaking -- The human race has waived Josh Smith: 2014-15 regular season thread part 2

instead well get the entire easter conference, cool

The baron davis BS report is worth a watch fyi.

― Steph def def (Spottie), Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:22 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This was great

cavs-heat is a more compelling first round match up than any of those i named, and i think at this point i'd rather see the celtics in the playoffs than this wheezing suns team

there's literally no way to make every playoff matchup good unless you reduce the number of teams in the playoffs

a. ur tripping. b. focusing on whatever the current matchups are is kinda missing the point c. if u r gonna focus on the current matchups at least consider that one of either durant/westbrook of anthony davis is missing the playoff

xp

if you continue to draw that bracket out you get

warriors vs cavs/spurs
rockets/thunder vs blazers

hawks vs mavs
grizzlies vs clippers

warriors vs ... somebody
hawks vs grizzlies

ziller is making a fairness argument which... whatever, i don't get why sports need to be as fair as possible

from an entertainment standpoint i don't think it makes the playoffs any better at least this year

at least this year... on this date... bizarrely overrating shitty eastern conf first round series lol

its not just fairness, putting the better teams in the playoffs will actually lead to better basketball this is not hard to understand

such scintillating first round match ups as warriors-bucks, blazers-wizards, hawks-suns, mavericks-raptors and grizzlies-pelicans

three out of five of those would be fine imo! not the first one, as the bucks have in many ways failed my hopes of their underdog success, and def not hawks vs. the current flailing suns

current system is why it2 and marcus will most likely be in the 1st round of playoffs so i cant really be mad this time around, otoh it allows one out of two defibrillating teams (heat and pacers) to make it as well - unless the bucks continue struggling and fall out completely, which is totally possible rn, allowing celtics heat AND pacers to make it

its not just fairness, putting the better teams in the playoffs will actually lead to better basketball this is not hard to understand

― lag∞n, Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:26 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

no the question is whether it's worth shifting every match up just to switch out teams 15 and 16 and i don't necessarily think it is!

i think there's a good chance that in more years than not it actually ends up with worse basketball

ur literally off ur rocker

the solution to this problem is figuring out how to get the eastern conference up to par, rearranging the chairs so people sit in different places doesn't actually accomplish anything

worse teams = better basketball, ok

i like anthony davis as much anyone but squeezing his team into the playoffs so they can get destroyed in four games by the best team isn't worth throwing the entire playoffs into upheaval

if the three best teams are in one conference it is a super good idea to have the fourth best team make the finals this is a good system that anyone wld totally invent if they wanted the best possible system

its not just like an outdated legacy system based on travel logistics or anything

isn't worth throwing the entire playoffs into upheaval

― J0rdan S., Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:33 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is basically the definition of status quo bias

all were talking about is putting the best teams into the playoffs there is no upheaval really it wld be utterly painless, if the conference system never existed there wld be no way in hell you or anyone wld be trying to invent it right now because its nonsensical

the conference system inadvertently builds connections between teams over time which often makes the playoffs more interesting

if the goal is to make the sides of the bracket as even as possible then why even leave it up to randomness? form a committee that evenly distributes teams on either side and manipulates the matchups so that we get the "best" basketball

eliminating conference seeding doesn't actually solve anything, in random years it will give us better playoffs and in other years it will give us worse playoffs

xxp it can (and does help to) create rivalries is about it, but many of those rivalries would prob develop regardless (clippers vs. warriors, the slight mavs-spurs rivalry, etc.)

it does solve something it replaces the worst teams with better teams making the playoffs... better

also solves the problem of shitty teams from a weak conference sneaking into the finals just to be demolished

rivalries are cool but not really worth it imo to have horrible depressing sub 500 teams in the playoffs, also the greatest rivalry of ALL TIME is between teams from diff conferences

it does solve something it replaces the worst teams with better teams making the playoffs... better

also solves the problem of shitty teams from a weak conference sneaking into the finals just to be demolished

― lag∞n, Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:48 AM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark

these are two separate problems. nobody should really care that much about the playoff's final two teams. in almost every year they lose in the first round regardless. this is the single worst argument for changing the playoff system imo.

a shitty team from a weak conference sneaking into the finals is a real problem but the ones we think about -- the nets "dynasty", the sixers that one year -- are outliers historically. i think the question is whether it's worth manipulating the entire playoffs -- months and months of games -- so that we get one good series at the end

well it depends on what yr definition of shitty is, just based on randomness tho the best two teams are going to be in the same conference 50% of the time

also "nobody should really care that much about the playoff's final two teams" yeah no one does this is the problem people dont care so much that they dont even bother watching lol

whether it's worth manipulating the entire playoffs -- months and months of games -- so that we get one good series at the end

― J0rdan S., Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:53 AM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"manipulating" only makes sense here if you think conferences are like some sort of natural state of being, which clearly you do

like, in 2002 the finals was a total anticlimax. the lakers destroyed a boring and bad nets team. the system could have been manipulated to give us a better finals, but it might have meant that we never get that kings-lakers matchup, which itself was a culmination of having played each other in playoffs in both of the two seasons previous.

also "so that we get one good series at the end" U MEAN THE NAB FINALS

of course maybe that year we get kings-lakers in the finals. but maybe they never play.

what if u went back in time and killed hitlers mother

"manipulating" only makes sense here if you think conferences are like some sort of natural state of being, which clearly you do

― lag∞n, Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:56 AM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark

no i don't mind messing with the conferences or rethinking them altogether. ziller's old idea for regrouping the NBA strictly by region actually made a lot of sense and would prob be a net plus for the nba.

i just think shuffling the teams at the beginning of the playoffs every single year is an overrated idea

its not shuffling it wld just be the system

i mean what if were shuffling... now

lagoon otm

its not just like an outdated legacy system based on travel logistics or anything

But of course they can't even hold to that-- Minnesota should absolutely be in Eastern conference and play Milwaukee 4 times a year.

J0rdan S. wrote this on thread the lakers have just pooped their big-boy pants: 2012-2013 NBA regular season thread (part 2) on board I Love Hoops on Dec 23, 2012

it's completely absurd that draymond green didn't get picked in the first round

It was entirely reasonable, he was a tweener who couldn't shoot.

Not that it means much but this year Draymond has a lower PER than Carlos Boozer does! Haha

xp a fair amount of people get drafted in the first round who can't shoot. rudy gobert still can't shoot.

It was entirely reasonable, he was a tweener who couldn't shoot.

― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:45 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

wrong

he was and is a skilled big man

he was and is a skilled big man

Right but he was a tweener who couldn't shoot.

Not that it means much but this year Draymond has a lower PER than Carlos Boozer does! Haha

Ahhhh good old PER

Oh wait you're not entirely right, he's not a "big man." He's a 6'6 swing forward.

Another guy with a higher PER: David Lee

What are some good stats for 2015

what's the story with David Lee, I seem to have missed why he's out of the picture

defense