Eastern Division W-L records

[Lurker]

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.

No you are wrong.  And here is an example.

Atlanta looks good with a 16-11 record against the west.  Until you break it down.  They lost their only game to the Lakers so far.  They are 7-8 against the next 8 teams in the west.  They can't play .500 ball against the playoff teams in the west.

We could look at your beloved Sixers the same way.  They are 15-14 against the west and split with the Lakers.  They are 6-10 against the 2-9 seeded teams in the west.  And 8-3 against the bottom 6 teams...and 6 of those wins were against the 3 worse teams in the west (sac, clips, memphis).

So the 4th and 6th seeds in the east cannot play .500 ball vs the top 9 teams in the west.  Should we continue to analyze how the playoff teams in the east fare against the west?  Once you get past the east's big 3 the other teams cannot hang with the west's playoff teams.

[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.

No you are wrong.  And here is an example.

Atlanta looks good with a 16-11 record against the west.  Until you break it down.  They lost their only game to the Lakers so far.  They are 7-8 against the next 8 teams in the west.  They can't play .500 ball against the playoff teams in the west.

We could look at your beloved Sixers the same way.  They are 15-14 against the west and split with the Lakers.  They are 6-10 against the 2-9 seeded teams in the west.  And 8-3 against the bottom 6 teams...and 6 of those wins were against the 3 worse teams in the west (sac, clips, memphis).

So the 4th and 6th seeds in the east cannot play .500 ball vs the top 9 teams in the west.  Should we continue to analyze how the playoff teams in the east fare against the west?  Once you get past the east's big 3 the other teams cannot hang with the west's playoff teams.

Even the conclusions from your example are wrong. Atlanta has been on a West Coast swing this month and has defeated the Hornets, the Jazz (Indiana), Portland, Sacramento, Dallas and Minnesota. They play the Spurs tonight and then Boston and the Lakers before playing Phila. (Tough schedule!)  Clearly they are competitive with WC playoff teams.

As far as I can remember the Sixers have a split with all the WC playoff teams with the exception of Dallas and maybe Utah. Besides, a young team that is improving through the season like the Hawks and Sixers are, are teams where you should look at the 2nd half of the season to see what their level of play is now, as it is significantly different from the begging of the season.

[Reality]

                   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.

Using Lurks updated head to head stats:

5-4 Boston
6-3 Philly
4-5 Jersey
4-5 Toronto
3-6 NY
22-23 Atlantic vs Pacific

8-1 LAL
5-5 Phx
6-4 G.S.
3-4 Clips
1-8 Kings
23-22 Pac vs Atl
Virtual tie head to head at this point.

[Lurker]

Even the conclusions from your example are wrong. Atlanta has been on a West Coast swing this month and has defeated the Hornets, the Jazz (Indiana), Portland, Sacramento, Dallas and Minnesota. They play the Spurs tonight and then Boston and the Lakers before playing Phila. (Tough schedule!)  Clearly they are competitive with WC playoff teams.

As far as I can remember the Sixers have a split with all the WC playoff teams with the exception of Dallas and maybe Utah. Besides, a young team that is improving through the season like the Hawks and Sixers are, are teams where you should look at the 2nd half of the season to see what their level of play is now, as it is significantly different from the begging of the season.

The Hawks struggle to play .500 ball against the western playoff teams.  In case you can't read the standings .500 ball does not make the playoffs in the west.  If the Hawks had to play Dallas, NO, Utah, Portland 4 times instead of NY, NJ, Chicago or Detroit then they would not have as good a record as they do.

The Sixers play under .400 against the western playoff teams.  How can you say they are competitive?

Even the Celtics record is deceiving.  They are 20-9 vs the west.  They are 0-2 vs the Lakers.  They are 7-5 vs the 2-7 seeds.  So against the top 7 teams in the west the Celtics play .500 ball.  The Celtics have built up their record by beating up on the WEAKER eastern conference.

[Reality]

Even the conclusions from your example are wrong. Atlanta has been on a West Coast swing this month and has defeated the Hornets, the Jazz (Indiana), Portland, Sacramento, Dallas and Minnesota. They play the Spurs tonight and then Boston and the Lakers before playing Phila. (Tough schedule!)  Clearly they are competitive with WC playoff teams.

As far as I can remember the Sixers have a split with all the WC playoff teams with the exception of Dallas and maybe Utah. Besides, a young team that is improving through the season like the Hawks and Sixers are, are teams where you should look at the 2nd half of the season to see what their level of play is now, as it is significantly different from the begging of the season.

The Hawks struggle to play .500 ball against the western playoff teams.  In case you can't read the standings .500 ball does not make the playoffs in the west.  If the Hawks had to play Dallas, NO, Utah, Portland 4 times instead of NY, NJ, Chicago or Detroit then they would not have as good a record as they do.

The Sixers play under .400 against the western playoff teams.  How can you say they are competitive?

Even the Celtics record is deceiving.  They are 20-9 vs the west.  They are 0-2 vs the Lakers.  They are 7-5 vs the 2-7 seeds.  So against the top 7 teams in the west the Celtics play .500 ball.  The Celtics have built up their record by beating up on the WEAKER eastern conference.

So what.  The East still has the overall better record so handpicking ATL or (Boston vs certain opponents, who oh btw just punked the PoppyFinSpurs and Houston on the road).  Lets see how the Pacific Patsies do vs the East playoff teams.



rt

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]

Even the conclusions from your example are wrong. Atlanta has been on a West Coast swing this month and has defeated the Hornets, the Jazz (Indiana), Portland, Sacramento, Dallas and Minnesota. They play the Spurs tonight and then Boston and the Lakers before playing Phila. (Tough schedule!)  Clearly they are competitive with WC playoff teams.

As far as I can remember the Sixers have a split with all the WC playoff teams with the exception of Dallas and maybe Utah. Besides, a young team that is improving through the season like the Hawks and Sixers are, are teams where you should look at the 2nd half of the season to see what their level of play is now, as it is significantly different from the begging of the season.

The Hawks struggle to play .500 ball against the western playoff teams.  In case you can't read the standings .500 ball does not make the playoffs in the west.  If the Hawks had to play Dallas, NO, Utah, Portland 4 times instead of NY, NJ, Chicago or Detroit then they would not have as good a record as they do.

The Sixers play under .400 against the western playoff teams.  How can you say they are competitive?

Even the Celtics record is deceiving.  They are 20-9 vs the west.  They are 0-2 vs the Lakers.  They are 7-5 vs the 2-7 seeds.  So against the top 7 teams in the west the Celtics play .500 ball.  The Celtics have built up their record by beating up on the WEAKER eastern conference.

So what.  The East still has the overall better record so handpicking ATL or (Boston vs certain opponents, who oh btw just punked the PoppyFinSpurs and Houston on the road).  Lets see how the Pacific Patsies do vs the East playoff teams.

So what?  It figures you wouldn't understand basic math.  Boston plays .500 ball against the top 7 teams in the west.  So that little 2 game run vs Spurs & Rockets pushes Boston all the up to .500 ball against the west top 7.  VERY IMPRESSIVE!   NOT!

That means that thier "great" record is from beating up on the patsies in their own conference.  If Boston had to play Houston or New Orleans type of schedule then they would not be as "elite" as everyone wants to make them.  They would be right in the middle of the western conference pack...right where SA, Houston, NO, Utah, Denver and Portland are.  Make them play each of those teams 4 times instead of Detroit, Philly, Miami, Chicago.

And then you want to focus on how 3 of the bottom teams in the west have done against eastern playoff teams.  I focused on eastern PLAYOFF teams and showed that they were not successful against the western PLAYOFF teams.  You know playoff teams vs playoff teams...apples to apples sort of thing.

[Reality]

Even the conclusions from your example are wrong. Atlanta has been on a West Coast swing this month and has defeated the Hornets, the Jazz (Indiana), Portland, Sacramento, Dallas and Minnesota. They play the Spurs tonight and then Boston and the Lakers before playing Phila. (Tough schedule!)  Clearly they are competitive with WC playoff teams.

As far as I can remember the Sixers have a split with all the WC playoff teams with the exception of Dallas and maybe Utah. Besides, a young team that is improving through the season like the Hawks and Sixers are, are teams where you should look at the 2nd half of the season to see what their level of play is now, as it is significantly different from the begging of the season.

The Hawks struggle to play .500 ball against the western playoff teams.  In case you can't read the standings .500 ball does not make the playoffs in the west.  If the Hawks had to play Dallas, NO, Utah, Portland 4 times instead of NY, NJ, Chicago or Detroit then they would not have as good a record as they do.

The Sixers play under .400 against the western playoff teams.  How can you say they are competitive?

Even the Celtics record is deceiving.  They are 20-9 vs the west.  They are 0-2 vs the Lakers.  They are 7-5 vs the 2-7 seeds.  So against the top 7 teams in the west the Celtics play .500 ball.  The Celtics have built up their record by beating up on the WEAKER eastern conference.

So what.  The East still has the overall better record so handpicking ATL or (Boston vs certain opponents, who oh btw just punked the PoppyFinSpurs and Houston on the road).  Lets see how the Pacific Patsies do vs the East playoff teams.

So what?  It figures you wouldn't understand basic math.  Boston plays .500 ball against the top 7 teams in the west.  So that little 2 game run vs Spurs & Rockets pushes Boston all the up to .500 ball against the west top 7.  VERY IMPRESSIVE!   NOT!

That means that thier "great" record is from beating up on the patsies in their own conference.  If Boston had to play Houston or New Orleans type of schedule then they would not be as "elite" as everyone wants to make them.  They would be right in the middle of the western conference pack...right where SA, Houston, NO, Utah, Denver and Portland are.  Make them play each of those teams 4 times instead of Detroit, Philly, Miami, Chicago.

And then you want to focus on how 3 of the bottom teams in the west have done against eastern playoff teams.  I focused on eastern PLAYOFF teams and showed that they were not successful against the western PLAYOFF teams.  You know playoff teams vs playoff teams...apples to apples sort of thing.

Run the math for all the playoff teams and show a head to head East vs West (be sure to include the Pacific Patsies vs Atlantic) and I'll believe you.  Looks like you're just handpicking now.
Cleveland, Boston (and LA for that matter) all just got thru punking the SouthWest.

[Lurker]

Run the math for all the playoff teams and show a head to head East vs West (be sure to include the Pacific Patsies vs Atlantic) and I'll believe you.  Looks like you're just handpicking now.
Cleveland, Boston (and LA for that matter) all just got thru punking the SouthWest.

Run your own frickkin' math problems.  Especially if you think my results are wrong or inconclusive.  I have shown that 3 of the 8 eastern playoff teams have .500 or lower records against the west playoff teams...not really sure how that is "handpicking".  I didn't pick Cleve or Orlando which I will concede have winning records against the western playoff teams.  Detroit has a losing record against the whole west. 

So 4 of the 8 eastern playoff teams struggle to play .500 ball against the west.  And I concede that 2 eastern teams have winning records.  Only Miami & Chicago to look at...do you really think either of those teams is over .500 vs the west playoff teams?  And these are the teams from the "better" conference?

BTW if the eastern playoff teams have a losing record against the west playoff teams then it follows that the west has playoff teams with winning records against the east.  Simple elementary school math.  Basic logic.  Sorry to hit you with two of your weakest areas at once.

[Reality]

rt was showing the East was the better conference, top to bottom then the West.

You didn't prove squat.

Are the playoff (top West combined records better then the top 8 East combined?  Of course.  You think you're so smart for *figuring that out*?

[rickortreat]

You don't need to look up anything. If the East playoff teams are only .500 against the top teams in the West, you know that Lurkers' vaunted teams are only .500 against the East playoff teams, meaning they are even.

Lurker is simply misinterpreting records and ignoring the obvious group of extremely weak teams with low win totals in the Western Conference.  He thinks because the Western playoff teams are better than their Eastern counterparts because they have better records.  I've tried to explain it to him, but it appears beyond his comprehension to acknowledge how having three teams with fewer than 20 wins would inflate the win totals of the other teams in the conference by 7 or 8 games in comparison with the other conference where only 1 team has fewer than 20 wins.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the East and Western conferences are fairly equal and the only difference is that there are more bad teams in the West which each team gets to play 4 times. The Eastern teams beat them too, which explains the East's slight advantage in interconference competition.

Atlanta is every but as good as the WC's 4th seed.  They'll probably beat the Spurs tonight.

Most if not all of the EC playoff teams would be in the same seed positions if they were in the Western conference. And if the Western playoff teams were in the East, they would have lower win totals, but be in the playoffs in similar seedings.

[Lurker]

You don't need to look up anything. If the East playoff teams are only .500 against the top teams in the West, you know that Lurkers' vaunted teams are only .500 against the East playoff teams, meaning they are even.

Lurker is simply misinterpreting records and ignoring the obvious group of extremely weak teams with low win totals in the Western Conference.  He thinks because the Western playoff teams are better than their Eastern counterparts because they have better records.  I've tried to explain it to him, but it appears beyond his comprehension to acknowledge how having three teams with fewer than 20 wins would inflate the win totals of the other teams in the conference by 7 or 8 games in comparison with the other conference where only 1 team has fewer than 20 wins.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the East and Western conferences are fairly equal and the only difference is that there are more bad teams in the West which each team gets to play 4 times. The Eastern teams beat them too, which explains the East's slight advantage in interconference competition.

Atlanta is every but as good as the WC's 4th seed.  They'll probably beat the Spurs tonight.

Most if not all of the EC playoff teams would be in the same seed positions if they were in the Western conference. And if the Western playoff teams were in the East, they would have lower win totals, but be in the playoffs in similar seedings.

Maybe the west's "bad" teams are that way because they have to play a better set of teams 1-9 in their conference 4 times each.  It is easy for NY, Tor, NJ etc to look better than Minn, GS and OKC because the eastern teams get 3 tough teams while the western teams have to play 9 tough teams.

This deep into the season the west has 8 teams with .600+ winning % and the east 3.  If the 4-9 seeds were so tough in the east then why are only two above .500?

Atlanta is every but as good as the WC's 4th seed.  They'll probably beat the Spurs tonight.

And how did that work out?  Atl at home, no Duncan and the Spurs win by 10.

[rickortreat]

Are you really that dense? I've explained the disparity in records and winning percentages by the West as a function of the weakness of a greater number of teams in the conference, yet you still insist on comparing their records as apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.

It is harder to win in the East since there are three excellent teams and only one lousy one. It is easier to win in the West since there is only 1 excellent team and three awful ones.  It's a simple as that and it's very basic analysis.

I don't understand why you can't see something that is so obvious.

Also it is important to point out that teams are usually more focused on their division and conference rivals.  It's only natural, how much time should the coaching staff prepare for games against team's you see twice in a season, vs. 4 times. 

Add into that the fact that you see other conference teams in a series of games where you've played one or two games with no rest in between.  On the road with all the traveling, when do you have time to practice, or prepare to play a specific team?  You can bet that the Sixers would play the Golden State Warriors a lot better if they had to face them 4 times in a season, then they would make time to prepare and consider all the matchups. 

Therefore, you can argue that all the interconference records are skewed or tainted to a certain degree- you aren't seeing the out of conference visiting team playing it's best basketball in many cases.

[Reality]

EC vs. WC:   219-203 .518
Yet Lurker still claims the West is better. 

[Lurker]

Are you really that dense? I've explained the disparity in records and winning percentages by the West as a function of the weakness of a greater number of teams in the conference, yet you still insist on comparing their records as apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.

I thought looking at common opponents a much more apple to apple than trying to use unbalanced schedules that includes "the weakness of a greater number of teams in the conference".  But if you insist on that path we can explore it.  Are those teams in the westr "worse" because they have to play 9 teams with .600 winning % 4 times each instead of playing only 3 teams with that level of winning?

Do you not understand that for 9 teams in the west to win 60+% of their games that they have to be beating up on weaker teams in the other conference also?  If the east were really stronger than the top 2-3 teams then wouldn't more of them have .600 records or better?  They should because then they should be beating the middle teams in the west and they are not.

It is harder to win in the East since there are three excellent teams and only one lousy one. It is easier to win in the West since there is only 1 excellent team and three awful ones.  It's a simple as that and it's very basic analysis.

I don't understand why you can't see something that is so obvious.

Is it really that simple rick?  You are only looking at the top and bottom of the standings.  So what about the other 11 teams in each conference?   

Is it easier for Boston to beat Chicago 3 of 4 games than it is for Houston to beat Dallas 3 of 4?  Is Charlotte or Phoenix the tougher game - which would you have the Sixers play 4 times and which one twice?

Also it is important to point out that teams are usually more focused on their division and conference rivals.  It's only natural, how much time should the coaching staff prepare for games against team's you see twice in a season, vs. 4 times. 

Right.  And which teams are harder to prepare for: 

East: Atlanta, Miami, Philly, Detroit, Chicago, Charlotte
West: Denver, NO, Utah, Portland, Dallas, Phoenix

So which group of 6 would you rather see 20 times vs 10?

Add into that the fact that you see other conference teams in a series of games where you've played one or two games with no rest in between.  On the road with all the traveling, when do you have time to practice, or prepare to play a specific team?  You can bet that the Sixers would play the Golden State Warriors a lot better if they had to face them 4 times in a season, then they would make time to prepare and consider all the matchups. 

Therefore, you can argue that all the interconference records are skewed or tainted to a certain degree- you aren't seeing the out of conference visiting team playing it's best basketball in many cases.

After 70 games this stuff is all BS to cloud the issue.  All teams have gone through this.  So I could now argue...based on your reasoning...that the reason the west has a worse conference record is because they have to focus more energy on playing tougher conference foes and don't put forth their best effort against the east.

Give me proof that the Sixers prepare more strongly for the Raptors or Knocks than they do for the Spurs or Lakers.  Or at least come up with soemthing better than this weak crap.




You have explained jack!

I could argue in your same non-provable manor that the reason their are more teams below .400 in the west is because they have to play tougher teams more times.  The lottery teams in the west have to play top 15 teams in the league more times in their 82 schedule than the eastern teams.

Just like it is your opinion that the Sixers would be much improved by playing GS twice more and saving 4 games against the top 4 teams.  My opinion is that the Sixers also would be worse for facing Houston, Utah, Denver & NO 4 times each instead of Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago & Miami.  And this is where you miss the point. 

Look at those teams again:  Is Bostons "great" record because they played .500 ball against the 4 western teams or because they played 9-3 against the eastern playoff teams.  The reason I say the west is stronger is because in terms of playoff teams - the west has stronger teams than the east.  And I have shown by using records against common opponents.

Your arguments have no support other than your say so.

[Reality]

We could look at your beloved Sixers the same way.  They are 15-14 against the west and split with the Lakers.  They are 6-10 against the 2-9 seeded teams in the west.  And 8-3 against the bottom 6 teams...and 6 of those wins were against the 3 worse teams in the west (sac, clips, memphis).

Very poor comparison.  DiLeo Sixers are much better then the Mo Cheeks Sixers.