Eastern Division W-L records

[Reality]

W.O.W.spouts repeated that the East had no one over .500

Joe and I are unaccountable for our Phoenix spouting and Atlantic bashing, and my butt hurts.  Please come massage it westkoast.

W.O.W quotes:

Boston is in a division where they are the ONLY team above .500?  We have a winner!

What happened to the Faglantic division minus the Celtics?  You know the conference with ZERO teams over .500 when you take out the Celtics?  You know, the WEAKEST division in the NBA, the TRUE patsies of the NBA.

Still only ONE team over .500 in the Atlantic!

I better skirt off now or attempt to change the subject.

[Derek Bodner]

We're not a contender.

[Reality]

We're not a contender.

Nor is Phoenix.

But Philly is over .500 
btw what is Philly record with DiLeo?

[Derek Bodner]

You have access to nba schedules, go figure it out.

[Reality]

I think you have it at the top of your head.
But....I'll look it up.  Will you tell me when did DiLeo started?

btw i sure wish Philly would have beat Phoenix Thurs night to overtake them in record.
I think you know what would have resulted. 
And may still result. 

[Reality]

25-19 .568 Tony DiLeo Sixers
6-8 .429 Alvin Gentry
37-31 .544 Phoenix

In related news, the Pacific Patsy Division Sacramento Kings beat the Atlantics New York Knicks on Friday.
It was the Kings 1st win over an Eastern Conf team after 28 straight losses.

[WayOutWest]

W.O.W.spouts repeated that the East had no one over .500

Joe and I are unaccountable for our Phoenix spouting and Atlantic bashing, and my butt hurts.  Please come massage it westkoast.

W.O.W quotes:

Boston is in a division where they are the ONLY team above .500?  We have a winner!

What happened to the Faglantic division minus the Celtics?  You know the conference with ZERO teams over .500 when you take out the Celtics?  You know, the WEAKEST division in the NBA, the TRUE patsies of the NBA.

Still only ONE team over .500 in the Atlantic!

I better skirt off now or attempt to change the subject.

Division is NOT the same as the conference.  Wasn't the subject the Pacific vs Atlantic?  Or are you trying to skirt?  The argument has been who is in the weakest division, not conference.  I'm bored with you. 

[Reality]

My butt hurts and i want to bail.

[Reality]

If you believe the best indicator is how well these teams do HEAD TO HEAD, the standings break down as:

Los Angeles     12    1   .923       -
Boston             8     3   .727      3
New Jersey       7     5   .583      4.5
Phoenix            4     3   .571      5
Philadelphia       6     5   .545      5
New York          4     5   .444      6
Toronto            5     7   .417      6.5
Gold. St.           4     6   .400      6.5
Sac.                4     9    .308      8
LAC                 0    10    .000     10.5

Philadelphia - another team gaining benefit from cannibalizing.

We now get to the worst of the worst - Golden State and Sacramento.  If there's a break between Phoenix and New Jersey, there's also a break between the Clippers and Golden State.

So - AGAIN - you come back to three teams - Boston, LA Lakers, and Phoenix.  The "success" of the rest of the Atlantic/Pacific teams comes from cannibalizing the rest of the division.  NJ, NY, Phil, and Tor are better than GS, LAC, and Sac - and GS and Sac are in a lower class than the rest of the group.  So it gets back to the question - is two relevant teams, one irrelevant team, and two hopeless teams a better division than one relevant team, and four irrelevant teams?  And again, my answer is YES.

I have to give the nod to the Pacific as being the better division.

Can you give us the updated head to head and Pacific vs Atlantic?

[Lurker]

If you believe the best indicator is how well these teams do HEAD TO HEAD, the standings break down as:

Los Angeles     12    1   .923       -
Boston             8     3   .727      3
New Jersey       7     5   .583      4.5
Phoenix            4     3   .571      5
Philadelphia       6     5   .545      5
New York          4     5   .444      6
Toronto            5     7   .417      6.5
Gold. St.           4     6   .400      6.5
Sac.                4     9    .308      8
LAC                 0    10    .000     10.5

Philadelphia - another team gaining benefit from cannibalizing.

We now get to the worst of the worst - Golden State and Sacramento.  If there's a break between Phoenix and New Jersey, there's also a break between the Clippers and Golden State.

So - AGAIN - you come back to three teams - Boston, LA Lakers, and Phoenix.  The "success" of the rest of the Atlantic/Pacific teams comes from cannibalizing the rest of the division.  NJ, NY, Phil, and Tor are better than GS, LAC, and Sac - and GS and Sac are in a lower class than the rest of the group.  So it gets back to the question - is two relevant teams, one irrelevant team, and two hopeless teams a better division than one relevant team, and four irrelevant teams?  And again, my answer is YES.

I have to give the nod to the Pacific as being the better division.

Can you give us the updated head to head and Pacific vs Atlantic?

                     vs Atl      vs Pac     Total
Los Angeles      8-1          12-2       20-3
Boston            13-1           5-4      18-5
Phoenix            5-5           9-4       14-9
Philadelphia       6-7           6-3       12-10
New Jersey       7-6           4-5       11-11
Golden St         6-4           4-9       10-13
Toronto            4-9           4-5        8-14
New York          3-10         3-6        6-16
Sac.                1-8*          6-4       7-12
LAC                 3-4           1-13      4-17

* - Sacramento's ONLY eastern conf win.

[rickortreat]

Atlantic Div. vs. WC:  67-74 .475
Pacific Div. vs. EC:     54-90 .375


It's not even close. The Pacific is the most pathetic conference in the League this season.

In addition:

EC vs. WC:   219-203 .518

The Eastern Conference is better in head-to-head competition so far.  There are still some games to be played which may change this, and home-court advantage can make a difference.

The Sixers are 2nd in their division and are comparable to the Suns who are 2nd in the Pacific.  Neither is a contender this season, but Phila. has a better chance.  Phoenix will most likely miss the playoffs.

[Lurker]

Atlantic Div. vs. WC:  67-74 .475
Pacific Div. vs. EC:     54-90 .375


It's not even close. The Pacific is the most pathetic conference in the League this season.

In addition:

EC vs. WC:   219-203 .518

The Eastern Conference is better in head-to-head competition so far.  There are still some games to be played which may change this, and home-court advantage can make a difference.

The Sixers are 2nd in their division and are comparable to the Suns who are 2nd in the Pacific.  Neither is a contender this season, but Phila. has a better chance.  Phoenix will most likely miss the playoffs.

Rick what are the east vs west records if you remove Bost, Cleve & Orlando?  155-183 or a .458 record.  So without the top 3 the eastern is not better than the west despite the west having 5 sub-300 teams to the east's one.  After the top 3 the East is weaker than the west.  Atlanta would be struggling to get into the playoffs in the west and the east's 5-8 seeds would be in the lottery.

Of course Philly has a better chance than the Suns...BECAUSE THEY PLAY IN A WEAKER CONFERENCE!

[rickortreat]

How is the East weaker?  Cleveland, Boston and Orlando are in the East, and the East has a better conference record.

Your conclusions about the relative strength of the rest of the playoff teams is a complete fantasy, and is not borne out by the facts.

The West has a higher proportion of very bad teams, and that artificially inflates the records of the .500 or better clubs.  Conversely, because the East has 3 very good teams it artificially depresses the records of the rest of the EC teams.

If you look at the records of the EC playoff teams all except one have a winning record against the West.

Since the out of conference match-ups are 2 games, it's not a whole lot to go on.  Other factors, like whether the game was played on a back to back can skew what little information there is. 

Phila. won both their games against Portland including one in their building on a the 2nd game of a back to back. They got a split with LA.  They're clearly competitive with playoff teams out West.

The fact is that Houston and San Antonio aren't as good as Boston and Orlando and the East is the better conference.

[Lurker]

How is the East weaker?  Cleveland, Boston and Orlando are in the East, and the East has a better conference record.

Your conclusions about the relative strength of the rest of the playoff teams is a complete fantasy, and is not borne out by the facts.

The West has a higher proportion of very bad teams, and that artificially inflates the records of the .500 or better clubs.  Conversely, because the East has 3 very good teams it artificially depresses the records of the rest of the EC teams.

If you look at the records of the EC playoff teams all except one have a winning record against the West.

Since the out of conference match-ups are 2 games, it's not a whole lot to go on.  Other factors, like whether the game was played on a back to back can skew what little information there is. 

Phila. won both their games against Portland including one in their building on a the 2nd game of a back to back. They got a split with LA.  They're clearly competitive with playoff teams out West.

The fact is that Houston and San Antonio aren't as good as Boston and Orlando and the East is the better conference.

Do you really want to break it down?

You make the comment about back to backs and travel, etc.  Then don't take those into account when evaluating Philly's record.

Your argument is that the east is stronger based on interdivision play.  I showed that removing the east's "big 3" shows that the east has a losing record vs the west.  Now you are saying that it isn't proof of who is the superior conference.

And the fact that the 2nd & 3rd teams in the east are better than the 2nd & 3rd in the west doesn't suppoort your point of view.  Especially when teams 4-9 in the west are better than the 4-9 teams in the east.

Who is better (who would you rather play just twice vs 4 times)?

Atl or NO
Miami or Denver
Philly or Utah
Detroit or Portland
Chicago or Dallas
Charlotte or Phoenix

Another way of judging a team's strength is home/road +/-.  Compare a teams road wins less their home losses.  The top 9 teams in the west have positive results in this measurement.  The east has just 6 teams.  And only the "big 3" would rank above the 8th seed in the west.

You can look at just about any measurement rick...and except for the big 3 the east is weaker than the west.

[rickortreat]

But the point is, You can't take the top three teams out of the East and then make a comparison.  That is STUPID argument and means NOTHING!  If you took the top three teams out of the West the numbers would look the same = meaningless.

The difference between the records is explained by the specifics of each conference, so the Eastern teams are every bit as good as the Western ones, and are in fact better cumulatively.

The Sixers would likely have a better record if they were in the West, playing teams like Sacramento and Oklahoma 4 or 5 times, and would be about the 6th or 7th seed.  The same argument can be made for every EC playoff team with the exception of Detroit.

Even if you go beyond the schedule and look at things like point differential and pace and shooting percentage, EC teams are competitive with the West.

The East is the better conference, both record wise and statistically.  The top three teams of the East are the elite of the NBA along with one team from the West. It would be very surprising if any team other than those 4 wins the championship this season.