Last 26 years West nearly doubles East in championships

[jbk1234]

Meh, kind of an arbitrary cutoff though. Before that, the Celtics and Bulls were winning most of the titles, and the East had the advantage. You had the Lakers winning as well, but so were the Knicks and Sixers.

In the last 10 years, it’s 6-4 West, which isn’t much of a difference at all, and 4 of those were with one team (Warriors). The other 2 were the Lakers and the Nuggets. For the East, the Cavs, Raptors, Bucks, and Celtics all won 1.

OKC likely winning it this year, but the narrative about the West is just so tired. Yeah the West is the stronger conference, been that way for a little while. I think there have been a couple years here and there when the East was actually stronger, maybe a couple other years when they were about the same, and honestly, the best in the East have been just as good as the best in the West, so outside of a tougher 1st round matchup in the West, the playoff competition has been about the same.

Before Tatum and Haliburton blew out their Achilles the top 4 in the East were all legitimate contenders going into next season.

[Effigy]

Probably in the 2030s lol.

As for the 90s. Similar to the '80s. Yes the West tend to be top heavy back then with more fluff at the bottom.

The East was competitive , strong from top to near bottom.

The 2000s was when the shift really happened in favor of the West and the separation became apparent.

Your top heavy comment was correct in the 80's but not the 90's. Comparing the records of the 7th and 8th seed teams and it's pretty even with the WC teams having slightly better records from 91-95 and the EC 7-8 seeds being slightly better from 96-98 (99 being the weird outlier lockout year) The two conferences over all seemed pretty even in the 90's and in the begining of the 2000's is when the WC domination happened.

I guess we agree to disagree on that.
'90s was the last time when the roles were reversed. When 8th seeds in the West would be under .500 at times while a few teams in the East left out of the playoffs despite a winning record, over .500.
East was slightly better, as you mentioned. So we agree on that.
And def agree about the '00s .
'80s too

There's no need to disagree, all you have to do is look it up.

1990-1991 season EC 8th seed: Knicks at 39-43, WC 8th seed: Sonics at 41-41
1992 season EC 8th seed: Heat 38-44 (The Nets and Pacers were the 6 and 7 seeds and were both 40-42) West Coast 8 seed was the Lakers 43-39
1993 season EC 8th seed: Pacers 41-41, WC 8th seed: Lakers 39-43
1994 both teams 8th seeds were 42-40
1995 EC 8th seed was the Celtics at 35-47! WC 8th seed was the Nuggets at 41-41.

So the exact situation you described but in reverse. A lot of sub.500 playoff teams in the East but not the West. This is balanced out in the 96-99 years though, so it's a wash to me.

[Tetlak]

Conferences are archaic

[jkvonny]

Your top heavy comment was correct in the 80's but not the 90's. Comparing the records of the 7th and 8th seed teams and it's pretty even with the WC teams having slightly better records from 91-95 and the EC 7-8 seeds being slightly better from 96-98 (99 being the weird outlier lockout year) The two conferences over all seemed pretty even in the 90's and in the begining of the 2000's is when the WC domination happened.

I guess we agree to disagree on that.
'90s was the last time when the roles were reversed. When 8th seeds in the West would be under .500 at times while a few teams in the East left out of the playoffs despite a winning record, over .500.
East was slightly better, as you mentioned. So we agree on that.
And def agree about the '00s .
'80s too

There's no need to disagree, all you have to do is look it up.

1990-1991 season EC 8th seed: Knicks at 39-43, WC 8th seed: Sonics at 41-41
1992 season EC 8th seed: Heat 38-44 (The Nets and Pacers were the 6 and 7 seeds and were both 40-42) West Coast 8 seed was the Lakers 43-39
1993 season EC 8th seed: Pacers 41-41, WC 8th seed: Lakers 39-43
1994 both teams 8th seeds were 42-40
1995 EC 8th seed was the Celtics at 35-47! WC 8th seed was the Nuggets at 41-41.

So the exact situation you described but in reverse. A lot of sub.500 playoff teams in the East but not the West. This is balanced out in the 96-99 years though, so it's a wash to me.

Cmon man, I'm at work. Too time consuming here.
We keep comparing midgets.

I know of this.
And still agree to disagree. It is what it is.
Look, I'm a Spurs fan (WC) and I'm able to admit things here about the West past. We are fellow fans (you TBlazers) of WC teams, I get it.

Just to touch up.
1990 EC 8th seed Pacers 42-40 9th seed Hawks missed playoffs 41-41
WC 8th seed Rockets 41-41
1991 Lots of fluff on the bottom of WC . Including 4 teams less than 30 wins (Twolves, Mavs, Kings, Nuggets)
1992. Lots of fluff on the bottom WC. Including 4 teams less than 30 wins (Kings, Nuggets, Mavs, Twolves) same teams.
1993. 8th WC team Lakers, sub .500 (39-43). Nuggets WC 9th seed 36-46 missed playoffs. . 8th seed EC Pacers 41-41. EC 9th seed Magic 41-41 and EC 10 seed Pistons 40-42 missed the playoffs. Lots of fluff on bottom of WC. Including 3 teams less than 25 wins (Kings, Twolves, Mavs....same teams)
1994 EC 8 seed Heat 42-40 EC 9th seed Hornets missed playoffs 41-41
WC 8th seed Nuggets 42-40. WC 9th seed Lakers 33-49 missed playoffs. Lot of fluff bottom of WC including 20 win Twolves, 13 win Mavs.
1995 Lot of fluff in bottom of both conferences. Including WC having a 21 win Twolves and 17 win Clippers.
1996 EC 6 and 7 seeds Hawks and Pistons at 46-36 each. EC 8th seed 42-40 Heat. EC 9th seed Hornets missed playoffs 41-41 EC 10th seed Bullets (Wizards) 39-43 missed playoffs.
WC 6 seed 44-38 Trailblazers. 7th seed Suns 41-41. WC 8th seed Kings 39-43. WC 9th seed GSW 36-46 missed playoffs. Lots of fluff on bottom on WC including a 15 win Grizzlies team.
1997. EC 8 seed Bullets (Wizards) 44-38. 9th seed Cavs 42-40 missed playoffs. EC 10 seed Pacers 39-43 missed playoffs. WC 6 seed Twolves 40-42, WC 7 seed Suns 40-42 WC 8 seed Clippers 36-46. WC 9 seed Kings missed playoffs 34-48. .... 3 WC teams sub .500 makes playoffs. EC Cavs left out at 9 seed 42-40. Lots of fluff bottom of WC including 4 teams less than 25 wins (Mavs, Nuggets, Spurs, Grizzlies).
1998. EC 7 and 8 seeds Knicks and Nets each at 43-39. EC 9 seed Wizards 42-40 and EC 10 seed Magic 41-41 both missed the playoffs. WC 8 seed Rockets 41-41. WC 9 seed missed playoffs was 27-55 Kings. Lots of fluff in bottom of WC. 6 WC teams finished with less than 30 wins: Kings, Mavs, Grizzlies, GSW, Clippers and a 11 win Nuggets team. Only 1 EC team had less than 30 wins, Raptors at 16 wins.
1999 strike shortened season. EC 8 seed Knicks 27-23. EC 9th seed Hornets 26-24 missed playoffs. WC 8 seed Twolves . WC 9 seed SuperSonics missed playoffs at 41-41. Lots fluff in bottom of WC including 2 teams with less than 10 wins..... Clippers and Grizzlies.

Then the 2000s hit and it was way different from the '80s and '90s. The West became the deeper, stronger conference. That's where the shift began. And the roles reversed.

[Nuntius]

26 years is a pretty arbitrary cut-off point. Why are we ignoring Chicago's dominance in the 90s? If the idea is that basketball has evolved and cannot really be compared with that era then why aren't we looking at the last 10 years which coincides with Golden State's first title (which was arguably the title that ushered in this change)? Is it because 6-4 (with the deciding title being just won on a game 7) sounds worse for your argument?

[dhsilv2]

26 years is a pretty arbitrary cut-off point. Why are we ignoring Chicago's dominance in the 90s? If the idea is that basketball has evolved and cannot really be compared with that era then why aren't we looking at the last 10 years which coincides with Golden State's first title (which was arguably the title that ushered in this change)? Is it because 6-4 (with the deciding title being just won on a game 7) sounds worse for your argument?

Not sure it's arbitrary as that's 2000. So that's a pretty common way people do things. Starting with a year with a 0.

If they wanted to skew things they'd go back to 1999 and say "post jordan" to be arbitrary or more so.

That said it's a fair point 90's was 7-3 for the east. And 80's were a perfect 5-5.

[Nuntius]

26 years is a pretty arbitrary cut-off point. Why are we ignoring Chicago's dominance in the 90s? If the idea is that basketball has evolved and cannot really be compared with that era then why aren't we looking at the last 10 years which coincides with Golden State's first title (which was arguably the title that ushered in this change)? Is it because 6-4 (with the deciding title being just won on a game 7) sounds worse for your argument?

Not sure it's arbitrary as that's 2000. So that's a pretty common way people do things. Starting with a year with a 0.

If they wanted to skew things they'd go back to 1999 and say "post jordan" to be arbitrary or more so.

Fair point. I guess that I'm just too used to "the last 25 years" or "the last 20/10 years" but starting from 2000 makes sense as well.

That said it's a fair point 90's was 7-3 for the east. And 80's were a perfect 5-5.

Yep. And the 20s just became 4-2 (but they could have also become 3-3 since it was a 7-game series).

The West absolutely dominated the 00s (7-3) but the NBA has changed a lot since then. Parity in the league has been pretty good lately so no reason for these narratives, imo.

[ImmortalD24]

26 years is a pretty arbitrary cut-off point. Why are we ignoring Chicago's dominance in the 90s? If the idea is that basketball has evolved and cannot really be compared with that era then why aren't we looking at the last 10 years which coincides with Golden State's first title (which was arguably the title that ushered in this change)? Is it because 6-4 (with the deciding title being just won on a game 7) sounds worse for your argument?

Not sure it's arbitrary as that's 2000. So that's a pretty common way people do things. Starting with a year with a 0.

If they wanted to skew things they'd go back to 1999 and say "post jordan" to be arbitrary or more so.

Fair point. I guess that I'm just too used to "the last 25 years" or "the last 20/10 years" but starting from 2000 makes sense as well.

That said it's a fair point 90's was 7-3 for the east. And 80's were a perfect 5-5.

Yep. And the 20s just became 4-2 (but they could have also become 3-3 since it was a 7-game series).

The West absolutely dominated the 00s (7-3) but the NBA has changed a lot since then. Parity in the league has been pretty good lately so no reason for these narratives, imo.

Nothing arbitrary with the OP. Cutoff is from the old and newer eras as we consider San Antonio moreso a 00s dynasty than say 90s. The lockout was also quite significant and a dividing line between the old and new going into the millennium with the new CBA. Very first game was on February 5, 1999 https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/?month=2&day=5&year=1999

Quite frankly I think the NBA should've never went on with the lockout season personally.. hence why many put an asterisk on that condensed season.

Also it's not just final head to head outcomes.. west was significantly more deeper and stronger year in and year out. You're only touching the surface with finals.

[Nuntius]

Not sure it's arbitrary as that's 2000. So that's a pretty common way people do things. Starting with a year with a 0.

If they wanted to skew things they'd go back to 1999 and say "post jordan" to be arbitrary or more so.

Fair point. I guess that I'm just too used to "the last 25 years" or "the last 20/10 years" but starting from 2000 makes sense as well.

That said it's a fair point 90's was 7-3 for the east. And 80's were a perfect 5-5.

Yep. And the 20s just became 4-2 (but they could have also become 3-3 since it was a 7-game series).

The West absolutely dominated the 00s (7-3) but the NBA has changed a lot since then. Parity in the league has been pretty good lately so no reason for these narratives, imo.

Nothing arbitrary with the OP. Cutoff is from the old and newer eras as we consider San Antonio moreso a 00s dynasty than say 90s. The lockout was also quite significant and a dividing line between the old and new going into the millennium with the new CBA. Very first game was on February 5, 1999 https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/?month=2&day=5&year=1999

Quite frankly I think the NBA should've never went on with the lockout season personally.. hence why many put an asterisk on that condensed season.

Also it's not just final head to head outcomes.. west was significantly more deeper and stronger year in and year out. You're only touching the surface with finals.

Right and the point of my initial post is that ever since the 00s there has been another significant change in the way that the NBA is played that started with GSW's first title exactly 10 years ago.

So, why are we talking about the 00s like they have any relevance to the way the game is being played right now?

[ImmortalD24]

Fair point. I guess that I'm just too used to "the last 25 years" or "the last 20/10 years" but starting from 2000 makes sense as well.



Yep. And the 20s just became 4-2 (but they could have also become 3-3 since it was a 7-game series).

The West absolutely dominated the 00s (7-3) but the NBA has changed a lot since then. Parity in the league has been pretty good lately so no reason for these narratives, imo.

Nothing arbitrary with the OP. Cutoff is from the old and newer eras as we consider San Antonio moreso a 00s dynasty than say 90s. The lockout was also quite significant and a dividing line between the old and new going into the millennium with the new CBA. Very first game was on February 5, 1999 https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/?month=2&day=5&year=1999

Quite frankly I think the NBA should've never went on with the lockout season personally.. hence why many put an asterisk on that condensed season.

Also it's not just final head to head outcomes.. west was significantly more deeper and stronger year in and year out. You're only touching the surface with finals.

Right and the point of my initial post is that ever since the 00s there has been another significant change in the way that the NBA is played that started with GSW's first title exactly 10 years ago.

So, why are we talking about the 00s like they have any relevance to the way the game is being played right now?

It still trending in the Western domination direction regardless of the slight changes in play style. It's still the zone era. Rules are pretty much the same more or less - albeit today they're more lenient with the travel calls ever since Manu's eurostep introduction. You can argue the mid 2000s Suns 7 seconds or less were pioneers of today's style of basketball.

Watch on YouTube

[Nuntius]

Nothing arbitrary with the OP. Cutoff is from the old and newer eras as we consider San Antonio moreso a 00s dynasty than say 90s. The lockout was also quite significant and a dividing line between the old and new going into the millennium with the new CBA. Very first game was on February 5, 1999 https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/?month=2&day=5&year=1999

Quite frankly I think the NBA should've never went on with the lockout season personally.. hence why many put an asterisk on that condensed season.

Also it's not just final head to head outcomes.. west was significantly more deeper and stronger year in and year out. You're only touching the surface with finals.

Right and the point of my initial post is that ever since the 00s there has been another significant change in the way that the NBA is played that started with GSW's first title exactly 10 years ago.

So, why are we talking about the 00s like they have any relevance to the way the game is being played right now?

It still trending in the Western domination direction regardless of the slight changes in play style. It's still the zone era. Rules are pretty much the same more or less - albeit today they're more lenient with the travel calls ever since Manu's eurostep introduction. You can argue the mid 2000s Suns 7 seconds or less were pioneers of today's style of basketball.

Watch on YouTube

Sure, the Suns do have some common elements with the way that basketball is played today but most teams from the 00s don't. The 00s (especially the early 00s) were still very iso-heavy and the NBA has been moving further and further away from iso offense and towards a lot more ball and player movement.

[dhsilv2]

26 years is a pretty arbitrary cut-off point. Why are we ignoring Chicago's dominance in the 90s? If the idea is that basketball has evolved and cannot really be compared with that era then why aren't we looking at the last 10 years which coincides with Golden State's first title (which was arguably the title that ushered in this change)? Is it because 6-4 (with the deciding title being just won on a game 7) sounds worse for your argument?

Not sure it's arbitrary as that's 2000. So that's a pretty common way people do things. Starting with a year with a 0.

If they wanted to skew things they'd go back to 1999 and say "post jordan" to be arbitrary or more so.

Fair point. I guess that I'm just too used to "the last 25 years" or "the last 20/10 years" but starting from 2000 makes sense as well.

That said it's a fair point 90's was 7-3 for the east. And 80's were a perfect 5-5.

Yep. And the 20s just became 4-2 (but they could have also become 3-3 since it was a 7-game series).

The West absolutely dominated the 00s (7-3) but the NBA has changed a lot since then. Parity in the league has been pretty good lately so no reason for these narratives, imo.

I kinda agree that parity has the league pretty balanced. But at the same time, I think we all see OKC as a possible team that could go on a run. Just like Boston last year (guess we missed there). So if this run happens, the gap widens...so i get the interest. Also Wemby is on the spurs.

[cgf]

If New York is mid, the West outside of OKC and maybe Denver is just as mid if not worse.

Never understood the Knicks hate on this board. For all the talk about Boston, they beat them basically healthy. They have a top 10 player, a legit second option, and fantastic 3 and D role players. I’d say their offensive game plan is a bit basic and they need another bench piece or two but they’re a good team. Knicks >> Minny/Lakers/Clippers/GS

We can play little bit with numbers.

Knicks had 56% win rate vs West, 65% win rate vs East.

Let's assume Knicks are on West.

52 games vs West on 56% win rate = 30-22
30 games vs East on 65% win rate = 19-11

That's fringe playoff- play in team on West.

Not a single team among : Bucks, Magic, Pistons, Heat would sniff near playoffs on West.

Just to paint picture, Blazers, 36 wins team on West, had 17-13 record vs East.

In their case, by changing conference and doing nothing else, assuming they would keep win percentage, they would go from 36-46 to exact same record as Knicks had


There are even more notorious examples, Grizzlies went 22-10 vs East. If they kept that W% and are on East, that's 38-14 vs East and 16-14 vs West = 54 wins & 3# spot in playoffs, playing first round vs Pistons. Instead they had play in and OKC.

East had more wins than West in 3 times in past 28 years. ( head to head match ups )

1990- 2025, East gave 16/36 champions, sounds close. But 9 out of 16 Eastern champions either had Lebron or Jordan. Jordan/Bulls alone having 40% of all Eastern conference titles in that time frame.


Knicks are solid team. But their "contending" status only exists because, like Cavs, they have so little competition to break through. Where on West you never know who can come out and there are so many good to great teams that can pass to finals.

But that math assumes that everything stays the same when conferences are switched. Maybe Thibs on purpose focused more on beating the bad teams and tried out a few new things against the better teams (which the West has more of at a mid level).

Boston was 4-0 against NYC in the regular season and lost to them in the playoffs fair and square (Tatum injury was already fairly late into that game). Considering that the Pacers pushed OKC to 7 (something only Denver did, Minny looked LOST in comparison) and that New York had a shot to beat them + beat Boston, I'm not so sure that they're nearly as weak as they're being made out to be.
'

A big chunk of it is just that Brunson went down at the start of a long west coast trip. Before that injury our record against both conferences was very close...IIRC we were 1-2 games better against the east than the west. But there's also a different intensity when you're playing teams you're fighting for positioning with and when you're playing a generic team that doesn't suck. Which is why we see such wild disparities in how teams do against the other conference...as some teams can afford to take those games easier, while others need those wins even more to make up for losses against their own conference costing them tiebreakers.

Anyways, Boston and Cleveland were basically equal against both conferences...one did a game better against one conference, the other did a game better against the other...while Indiana actually did a lot better against the west than they did the east; they would've ran away with the two seed if they were in the west and maintained the same conference win%. So even with our struggles without Brunson, the east's top 4 were better against the west than the east.

We were a different team this postseason than we were in teh regular season. Getting Robinson back changed our defense. Thibs started busting out a lot of thigns we didn't show in the regular season. And that Detroit series really toughened this group up before facing the Celtics. That's why our regular season #s don't really display the same kind of threat that we ultimately posed.