2012 NBA Playoffs Thread

[fujishig]

Originally Posted by bootsy

I hate this whole East-West nonsense. You really need to ask this question about the West because up until last year the West series were hardly ever competitive. The East has always had far more compelling series as a whole than the West.

I think this is mainly because the East always seems top heavy in recent years, and the West seems deeper... at least there always seem to be teams that miss the playoffs in the West that would have easily made it into the playoffs in the East with their record.

This year, Indiana is the big surprise to be up there in the East, but that kinda gets nullified by the Magic falling apart without Howard. And the Hawks seem to be stuck in that 4/5 game every year.

[Quake1028]

San Antonio in 5
Oklahoma City in 6
L.A. Lakers in 6
Memphis in 7
___________________________________________________

Chicago in 5
Miami in 6
Indiana in 5
Boston in 5

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by fujishig

I think this is mainly because the East always seems top heavy in recent years, and the West seems deeper... at least there always seem to be teams that miss the playoffs in the West that would have easily made it into the playoffs in the East with their record.

This year, Indiana is the big surprise to be up there in the East, but that kinda gets nullified by the Magic falling apart without Howard. And the Hawks seem to be stuck in that 4/5 game every year.

I hear this every year about how deep the West is and then every year the series end in 4 or 5 games and the Lakers are in the Finals. Meanwhile the East has been represented by different teams in the Finals almost every year and their series seems to go much deeper and are more exciting. The West last year was pretty entertaining but more times than not it isn't.

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by bootsy

I hear this every year about how deep the West is and then every year the series end in 4 or 5 games and the Lakers are in the Finals. Meanwhile the East has been represented by different teams in the Finals almost every year and their series seems to go much deeper and are more exciting. The West last year was pretty entertaining but more times than not it isn't.

The outcome or length of series doesn't negate the fact that the Western Conference has had historically better teams in the playoffs.

I think the West has been plenty entertaining

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

The outcome or length of series doesn't negate the fact that the Western Conference has had historically better teams in the playoffs.

I think the West has been plenty entertaining

Yes the outcome of series does negate the talk of the Western Conference being a deep conference. If the teams are all so good and pretty much evenly matched then the series should also be competitive and go deep and not be one sided. I just get tired of hearing how deep the Western conference is and then I sit down and say 'let's see what all the hype is' and then I get some lopsided series then I have to form an opinion that the Western conference can't be all that deep if these series are such a snooze fest and they aren't competitive.

If you want to do a comparison historically or even over the last 5-10 years of the better series between the conferences, the East has been much better during that time span.

I don't know I'm probably a little biased but the crowds and the games in the West get so boring sometimes. I love the energy in the East. I've always been an Eastern conference fan.

[Arpeggi]

Eastern Conference is garbage. Sit down, bro

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Arpeggi

Eastern Conference is garbage. Sit down, bro

Bro? LOL what is this 1987. Wow what incredible insight. You showed me. . I guess I could say the Western Conference is garbage but that would make me too much like you which is what I definitely don't want to be. I could just picture you as you were typing this with a long hair mullet and sun glasses on typing this insightful post. Go sit down somewhere Howard Stern unless you have something of substance to post instead of trying to be a shock jock. Judging by some of your past posts you don't have a lot of intelligence going on upstairs.

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by bootsy

Yes the outcome of series does negate the talk of the Western Conference being a deep conference. If the teams are all so good and pretty much evenly matched then the series should also be competitive and go deep and not be one sided. I just get tired of hearing how deep the Western conference is and then I sit down and say 'let's see what all the hype is' and then I get some lopsided series then I have to form an opinion that the Western conference can't be all that deep if these series are such a snooze fest and they aren't competitive.

If you want to do a comparison historically or even over the last 5-10 years of the better series between the conferences, the East has been much better during that time span.

No, calling the West being deep doesn't necessarily mean they're all evenly matched at all, as in most years there's still 2 or 3 favorites per conference. What it means is that seeds #4 through #8, or even the teams that place #9 or #10, are all still pretty good and competitive. Like was said by someone else earlier, the Western Conference typically has teams that don't make the playoffs but would in the East based on record. If I recall correctly, the West also up until recently had the advantage in cross-conference matchups.

If you want to claim the East is more exciting to watch, go for it. That's an opinion thing. But the West has been a deeper conference in the regular season for the last decade; the standings back that up.



As for your historical comparison, I'd love to see you make one. Here's a quick one from me, although this isn't exact because its hard to define what makes a series "competitive." A team can win 4-1 but have close games every time; or is it just a matter of playing a 6 or 7 game series? Here's just by games played, since you were the one that complained that every series ends in 4 or 5 games in the West.

-2011, adding up total number of playoff games played per conference; 20 games in the first round of the East, 36 games total. 23 games in the first round, 39 games total for the West.

-2010, the East played 21 in the first round, 37 games total. The West teams played 24 in the first round and 38 total games.

-2009. 24 in the first round, 41 games for the East. 21 in the first round, 39 games for the West.

-2008. 24 in the first round of the East, 42 total. 20 in the first round, 38 in the West total.

-2007. 18 in the first round of the East, 36 games total. 23 in the first round, 39 games total in the West.


It probably averages out over time, but its definitely not that case that the Eastern Conference is more competitive if you're counting how long each series goes over the last 5 years. 3 out of the 5 years, the West had longer first rounds and longer playoff series as a whole.

*Again, just using some basic numbers. There's more to what makes a series "competitive" then just games played, but that was a figure that was mentioned. Hopefully my math was right and I didn't mis-calculate somewhere.

[Arpeggi]

Originally Posted by bootsy

Bro? LOL what is this 1987. Wow what incredible insight. You showed me. . I guess I could say the Western Conference is garbage but that would make me too much like you which is what I definitely don't want to be. I could just picture you as you were typing this with a long hair mullet and sun glasses on typing this insightful post. Go sit down somewhere Howard Stern unless you have something of substance to post instead of trying to be a shock jock. Judging by some of your past posts you don't have a lot of intelligence going on upstairs.

Classic bootsy post. Guns ablazin'. it's ok, bro. Just sit down.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

No, calling the West being deep doesn't necessarily mean they're all evenly matched at all, as in most years there's still 2 or 3 favorites per conference. What it means is that seeds #4 through #8, or even the teams that place #9 or #10, are all still pretty good and competitive. Like was said by someone else earlier, the Western Conference typically has teams that don't make the playoffs but would in the East based on record. If I recall correctly, the West also up until recently had the advantage in cross-conference matchups.

If you want to claim the East is more exciting to watch, go for it. That's an opinion thing. But the West has been a deeper conference in the regular season for the last decade; the standings back that up.



As for your historical comparison, I'd love to see you make one. Here's a quick one from me, although this isn't exact because its hard to define what makes a series "competitive." A team can win 4-1 but have close games every time; or is it just a matter of playing a 6 or 7 game series? Here's just by games played, since you were the one that complained that every series ends in 4 or 5 games in the West.

-2011, adding up total number of playoff games played per conference; 20 games in the first round of the East, 36 games total. 23 games in the first round, 39 games total for the West.

-2010, the East played 21 in the first round, 37 games total. The West teams played 24 in the first round and 38 total games.

-2009. 24 in the first round, 41 games for the East. 21 in the first round, 39 games for the West.

-2008. 24 in the first round of the East, 42 total. 20 in the first round, 38 in the West total.

-2007. 18 in the first round of the East, 36 games total. 23 in the first round, 39 games total in the West.


It probably averages out over time, but its definitely not that case that the Eastern Conference is more competitive if you're counting how long each series goes over the last 5 years. 3 out of the 5 years, the West had longer first rounds and longer playoff series as a whole.

*Again, just using some basic numbers. There's more to what makes a series "competitive" then just games played, but that was a figure that was mentioned. Hopefully my math was right and I didn't mis-calculate somewhere.

I've never disputed the Western conference is deeper IN THE REGULAR SEASON. The point I'm making is I DON'T SEE IT COME PLAYOFF TIME. Look at the champions in the West or the teams represented in the Finals. There are only 3 teams: Dallas, LA, and San Antonio since the 2000s. There isn't a lot of diversity to make the claim that the conference is deep. The teams like Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Utah that win 50 + games year in and year out but can't breakthrough and get over the hump in the playoffs. A lot of that has to do with the style of play those teams play in the regular season and come playoff time that style doesn't work. I would just like to see more representation from the conference in the Finals before going all goo goo gah gah for it. Like I said I get tired of hearing how deep the West is and then the Finals are here and it's the usual suspects: Spurs, Lakers, and occasionally the Mavs. Well I'm waiting for the Phoenix's, Denver's, Utah's, Portland's, etc to show me how deep it is.

[koops]

How bout those 76ers in the early 2000's! The best of the east!

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by bootsy

I've never disputed the Western conference is deeper IN THE REGULAR SEASON. The point I'm making is I DON'T SEE IT COME PLAYOFF TIME. Look at the champions in the West or the teams represented in the Finals. There are only 3 teams: Dallas, LA, and San Antonio since the 2000s. There isn't a lot of diversity to make the claim that the conference is deep. The teams like Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Utah that win 50 + games year in and year out but can't breakthrough and get over the hump in the playoffs. A lot of that has to do with the style of play those teams play in the regular season and come playoff time that style doesn't work. I would just like to see more representation from the conference in the Finals before going all goo goo gah gah for it. Like I said I get tired of hearing how deep the West is and then the Finals are here and it's the usual suspects: Spurs, Lakers, and occasionally the Mavs. Well I'm waiting for the Phoenix's, Denver's, Utah's, Portland's, etc to show me how deep it is.

So your only measure of a deep conference is a variety of Western Conference champions? Your logic is flawed. The West sends the same team every year because those teams have had the same players to make them better then the others; that shouldn't be a knock against all the other teams in the conference, but a testament to how good the Lakers and Spurs have been in the last 10 years in a consistent manner, and how good Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant have been in anchoring those teams.

The East has a lot of teams representing them because, quite frankly, none of them have been consistently good and there has been a lot more movement through draft or trade to make teams like the Heat, Celtics, Magic, or Bulls better. I don't see how that makes the East deep, it just means there has never been a consistently dominant team like the West. You look at the top tier and you see Miami (only good the last couple years after the Decision), Celtics (good for a few years since trading for Garnett and Allen), Bulls (good after drafting Rose), and Magic (good after drafting Dwight). That's a lot of movement in the last 5-10 years, allowing for a lot of teams to rise and fall.

Every year there's really only 3 or 4 real contenders. It just happened that in the West those teams stayed good, where in the East teams got bad (Pistons core leaving, then Shaq got traded away from Miami, then Lebron left Cleveland). Besides Paul Pierce (probably a notch below super star status) and Dwayne Wade, what star player in the Eastern conference has stayed on the same team the way Kobe, Duncan, and Dirk have? Or even Nash with Phoenix and Melo when he was with the Nuggets? Volatility != Deep.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

So your only measure of a deep conference is a variety of Western Conference champions? Your logic is flawed. The West sends the same team every year because those teams have had the same players to make them better then the others; that shouldn't be a knock against all the other teams in the conference, but a testament to how good the Lakers and Spurs have been in the last 10 years in a consistent manner, and how good Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant have been in anchoring those teams.

The East has a lot of teams representing them because, quite frankly, none of them have been consistently good and there has been a lot more movement through draft or trade to make teams like the Heat, Celtics, Magic, or Bulls better. I don't see how that makes the East deep, it just means there has never been a consistently dominant team like the West. You look at the top tier and you see Miami (only good the last couple years after the Decision), Celtics (good for a few years since trading for Garnett and Allen), Bulls (good after drafting Rose), and Magic (good after drafting Dwight). That's a lot of movement in the last 5-10 years, allowing for a lot of teams to rise and fall.

Every year there's really only 3 or 4 real contenders. It just happened that in the West those teams stayed good, where in the East teams got bad (Pistons core leaving, then Shaq got traded away from Miami, then Lebron left Cleveland). Besides Paul Pierce (probably a notch below super star status) and Dwayne Wade, what star player in the Eastern conference has stayed on the same team the way Kobe, Duncan, and Dirk have? Or even Nash with Phoenix and Melo when he was with the Nuggets? Volatility != Deep.

That's the only measure that counts. Your measure is all those West teams won 50+ games so the conference has great depth. Well whoopidy freaking doo. I don't care that you could beat Golden St., Sacramento, and a bunch of other crappy teams during the regular season to pad your record. Those same teams can't even get to the conference finals or in some cases can't even get out of the first round. Saying that the reason the West sends the same team every year is because 'the same players to make them better then the others'. What? That is weak sauce man. The reason why is because those teams outside of San Antonio, LA, and occasionally Dallas is because they aren't good enough to get to the Finals. Too many of those teams are one dimensional and most of them are very good on offense but can't play a lick of defense. The Lakers and Spurs and last years Mavs all played good defense or great defense. That is why the Phoenix's and Denver's of the world never get to the Finals. Using that excuse you used is about as flawed logic as it gets.

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by bootsy

That's the only measure that counts. Your measure is all those West teams won 50+ games so the conference has great depth. Well whoopidy freaking doo. I don't care that you could beat Golden St., Sacramento, and a bunch of other crappy teams during the regular season to pad your record. Those same teams can't even get to the conference finals or in some cases can't even get out of the first round. Saying that the reason the West sends the same team every year is because 'the same players to make them better then the others'. What? That is weak sauce man. The reason why is because those teams outside of San Antonio, LA, and occasionally Dallas is because they aren't good enough to get to the Finals. Too many of those teams are one dimensional and most of them are very good on offense but can't play a lick of defense. The Lakers and Spurs and last years Mavs all played good defense or great defense. That is why the Phoenix's and Denver's of the world never get to the Finals. Using that excuse you used is about as flawed logic as it gets.

It sounds like you're not arguing about how deep a conference is, just for parity. In that case, you shouldn't complain about people bringing up how deep the Western Conference is, because we're talking about something completely different then you are.

I already disproved your assertion that the Western playoffs aren't competitive and end in 4 or 5 games compared to the East.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

It sounds like you're not arguing about how deep a conference is, just for parity. In that case, you shouldn't complain about people bringing up how deep the Western Conference is, because we're talking about something completely different then you are.

I already disproved your assertion that the Western playoffs aren't competitive and end in 4 or 5 games compared to the East.

The same thing when you really look at it. Making a statement that the West is deep isn't represented in the playoffs. You can't admit that fact.

I already disproved you as well and at least I didn't make the lamest of all lamest statements: 'The West sends the same team every year because those teams have had the same players to make them better then the others;'

I can't get over how lame that sounds.

[Jam Master Jay]

damn that Derrick Rose injury looked pretty bad, non contact knee injury and had to be helped off the court.

[The Cow]

Bulls pretty much taking care of their business today. Hopefully Rose is okay - not so sure about that.

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by bootsy

The same thing when you really look at it. Making a statement that the West is deep isn't represented in the playoffs. You can't admit that fact.

I already disproved you as well and at least I didn't make the lamest of all lamest statements: 'The West sends the same team every year because those teams have had the same players to make them better then the others;'

I can't get over how lame that sounds.

And i'm not sure how worthwhile it is to argue with someone that uses the terms "lamest of the lame" and "weak sauce" to make their point either, but whatever.

It's not the same thing at all. When people reference how deep the conference is its generally in regards to records and making the playoffs. Like I said, you're upset about something else. I agree with you that it isn't necessarily reflected in the playoffs, but there's good reason for that.

I'm not sure what exactly you've disproved of mine. If you have your own statistics and numbers as far as the West being less competitive then the East, please share. I probably phrased that statement poorly, but what I mean is this: The Lakers and Spurs have won 9 of the last 13 NBA Finals. That's representative of how good those teams have been against the entire league, not just the Western Conference. It's hard to say how deep a conference is in the playoffs when you have two teams that more often then not have been head and shoulders above everyone and are expected to win out. It most certainly makes it more difficult for the Denver, Utah, and Phoenix teams to get past those teams in the playoffs.

For instance, I don't expect a 50 win #8 seed to beat a 60 win #1 seed (unless its Dallas) in the Western Conference, but I do expect them to be more competitive then a 35 win #8 seed in the East. If that hasn't been the case, I'd like to know.

[fumanstan]

Here's the Rose injury

[Quack]

17 PFs against the Knicks to 8 for the Heat.

[Goat3001]

Lebron flopping his way into a few fouls. Refs biting every time. What a god damn pussy.

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by Goat3001

Lebron flopping his way into a few fouls. Refs biting every time. What a god damn pussy.

Yeah, that Chandler foul was ridiculous.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

And i'm not sure how worthwhile it is to argue with someone that uses the terms "lamest of the lame" and "weak sauce" to make their point either, but whatever.

It's not the same thing at all. When people reference how deep the conference is its generally in regards to records and making the playoffs. Like I said, you're upset about something else. I agree with you that it isn't necessarily reflected in the playoffs, but there's good reason for that.

I'm not sure what exactly you've disproved of mine. If you have your own statistics and numbers as far as the West being less competitive then the East, please share. I probably phrased that statement poorly, but what I mean is this: The Lakers and Spurs have won 9 of the last 13 NBA Finals. That's representative of how good those teams have been against the entire league, not just the Western Conference. It's hard to say how deep a conference is in the playoffs when you have two teams that more often then not have been head and shoulders above everyone and are expected to win out. It most certainly makes it more difficult for the Denver, Utah, and Phoenix teams to get past those teams in the playoffs.

For instance, I don't expect a 50 win #8 seed to beat a 60 win #1 seed (unless its Dallas) in the Western Conference, but I do expect them to be more competitive then a 35 win #8 seed in the East. If that hasn't been the case, I'd like to know.

About as worthwhile as someone who posts this as an excuse: 'The West sends the same team every year because those teams have had the same players to make them better then the others'. I'm still trying to figure out how this makes any team outside of the Lakers or Spurs not get to the Finals.

I see people using lame and weak all the time. That is nothing new and what you provided has been exactly that.

[Arpeggi]

Originally Posted by bootsy

That's the only measure that counts. Your measure is all those West teams won 50+ games so the conference has great depth. Well whoopidy freaking doo. I don't care that you could beat Golden St., Sacramento, and a bunch of other crappy teams during the regular season to pad your record. Those same teams can't even get to the conference finals or in some cases can't even get out of the first round. Saying that the reason the West sends the same team every year is because 'the same players to make them better then the others'. What? That is weak sauce man. The reason why is because those teams outside of San Antonio, LA, and occasionally Dallas is because they aren't good enough to get to the Finals. Too many of those teams are one dimensional and most of them are very good on offense but can't play a lick of defense. The Lakers and Spurs and last years Mavs all played good defense or great defense. That is why the Phoenix's and Denver's of the world never get to the Finals. Using that excuse you used is about as flawed logic as it gets.

This post just exposed your general lack of knowledge about the Western Conference. Now sit down.

[Quack]

Also, 28 FTA's to 5.