VCfor3 wrote: My understanding is that Memphis would get the better pick in that scenario assuming the Spurs win that next play-in game to get the 8th seed. If the Spurs beat us but lose the next play-in game then they'd have the better pick since neither team made the playoffs.
Basically once the playoffs are set I think that all the non-playoff teams are ranked by their record and that is the order. So if say the Lakers lose twice then they'd get pick #14 instead of what they'd otherwise get. I have no idea how the picks for the teams in the playoffs work though. That may be by record as well but I haven't seen anything on it.
Both 7 & 8 seeds in the East, Boston & Washington have a better record than the Spurs/Charlotte but worse record than Memphis in the weaker division. It guarantees the West gets the worst pick in the play in scenario despite who with a losing record might benefit
Both 10th seeds are 33-39.
So in a hypothetical where both 10th seeds make it in, logic dictates that the worse record gets the better pick but in the stronger West if the more experienced Spurs beat Memphis to knock them out of the play in & Charlotte in the Weaker division manage to knock out their weaker 7th seed with a worse record than the 9th seed in the West.. A team 5 games under Memphis get playoffs, while the West/Memphis gets rewarded with the worst pick of all teams involved in the play in after enduring such a season, punished for putting up a winning record...
Memphis now having to beat the better experienced teams in the West get slapped for putting together a good season by a team that record wise, shouldn't be in the mix & end up with the weakest pick as a result of it.
All the teams in the East except the 7th seed have losing records & get rewarded both ways for it, while a team that put together a better season than their 7th seed get slapped both ways for it, if the young inexperience Memphis squad can't beat these stronger vet teams in the West in a one off.
My solution is, the better records in the West, shouldn't be separate of the weaker teams in the East for playoffs & draft position. The teams that had losing season's shouldn't get rewarded for it with either playoffs or better pick type scenario's.
7th in the West should play 10th in the East
8th in the West should play 9th in the East
9th in the West who have a better record than the Easts 7th seed, play 8th in the East
10th in the West should play 7th in the East
Which would justify their current W/L records. The teams that earned that 7th seed, shouldn't have to play the 8th seed for it.. That's just stupid. They lose to the 10th seed in a one off, they then need to play for the 8th seed against another weaker team than they are otherwise currently set to face. So now if they lose both times to teams with worse records, it justifies losing their playoff spot, apposed to losing to a team that is sitting a playoff spot just under them. While a team 6 games under 500 reap the benefit of 2 good games or end up with the best draft pick of the scenario. That's just punishing the team that earned the 7th seed.
If the better teams in the West win out over the 8th & or the 7th seed in the East because it's a stronger division, they make the playoffs in the weaker Eastern division so that teams with losing records don't get the best of both worlds of opportunity without out right earning it.