People hated the fact that Adam Silver pushed to add a play-in tournament

[ReasonablySober]

It's **** stupid.

[LivingLegend]

I like it. We don’t use treadmill team anymore and it discourages tanking while creating greater emphasis on the regular season.

Your discouraging tanking at the expense at costing 2 deserving teams a rightful spot in the playoffs.

The 7-8 seed shouldnt have to earn anything--they already did and took care of their business in the RS.

Its simply giving a second chance to 2 undeserving teams because the league wants to pound their chest about tanking for draft spots when they already solved that by altering the lottery odds per slot.

Right now the Clippers are the 8th seed. They have a losing record and a negative point differential. That's not taking care of business. The Utah Jazz have taken care of business during the regular season and they won't have to play in the play-in tournament.

Compared to the rest of the trash West yeah the Clippers didnt take care of business but they finished where they finished

[azcatz11]

They're trying to mimic march madness but no one cares about a play-in tournament with meaningless games for NBA teams. I'm still going to watch b/c it's NBA playoffs but I'm not going to enjoy watching

[MotownMadness]

I whole heartedly agree with the sentiment behind it. I’ve been watching the NBA my entire life and I’ve gotten more and more disenchanted with the regular season as I’ve gotten older. It’s too long and meaningless, and many games become scheduled losses due to fatigue and injuries. The play-in adds a bit more spice to the end of the season.

All Star weekend should be the next thing to go. Haven’t watched it in at least 15 years. A mid season tournament that is competitive would be much better.

Agree with the first part of your post

Re: the second part, part of all-star weekend is also giving players the week and a half break from basketball.

If they do a midseason tournament, and do away with all star weekend, I think they should still give those ~10 days off so players have some sort of longer break. Either that or give teams a "bye week" similar to NFL.

I thought the new Rising Stars tournament was a good addition. That was actually cool to see and then adding the G-League draft prospects in ot was cool as well.

[Roger Murdock]

Its far too punishing for the 7 seed and way too rewarding for the 10 seed. Same for 8 and 9 to a smaller degree.

Cavs are 3 games up on the 9/10 seeds
Wolves are 10! games up on the 9/10 seeds

The fact that one game can swing playoffs is absurd. Wolves deserve playoffs more even if they dont win another game all season.

My solutions...

Option 1: Have the team up in the standings start the game shooting 2 free throws for each game up they are in the standings. So the Wolves would start against the Clippers +5 games in the standings so KAT gets 10 foul shots. If so some stupid reason the Wolves have to defend their spot vs the Spurs they'd get to shoot 20 free throws at the start of the game. Cavs vs Brooklyn would start with Garland getting 4 foul shots since they are +2 in the standings. Is it fair? No, its still way too punishing to the team that earned the better seed but at least there's some benefit to being better in the regular season.

Option 2: Just start playoffs win 10 teams. Give the #1 and #2 seeds a first round bye. Do a 3 game first round series. Re-seed after this.
3 seed vs 10 seed
4 seed vs 9 seed
5 seed vs 8 seed
4 seed vs 7 seed

This punishes the better team too but at least is interesting.

[BigDan245]

Only reason people are upset is because the NBA has been 1-8 for most of their lifetime.

Guess what, if you are 7 or 8, you no longer clinch a playoff spot. So the idea that it is unfair is ridiculous. If you do not gain a top 6 seed, you must play your way in. It gives teams more incentive to win more games to avoid being in that situation.

[DaPessimist]

Is it really more interesting? Do we really care about who makes the play-in games and competes for the right to get swept in the 1st round?

It still seems like gimmicky entertainment to me. I don't think it affects the integrity of the game, so it doesn't really bother me. It does diminish the value of regular season wins, but only for fringe playoff teams. The fact that a 31-44 team might make the playoffs is a little embarrassing.

[Roger Murdock]

Only reason people are upset is because the NBA has been 1-8 for most of their lifetime.

Guess what, if you are 7 or 8, you no longer clinch a playoff spot. So the idea that it is unfair is ridiculous. If you do not gain a top 6 seed, you must play your way in. It gives teams more incentive to win more games to avoid being in that situation.

The Wolves are 10 games ahead of the Spurs, the notion the Spurs could make the playoffs over the T-Wolves because of one game is ridiculous.

It devalues the regular season more than anything.

[Sofia]

The Lakers will likely have a record around 34-48 and may make the playoffs.

Great for earning money for the league, but rewards a garbage season that even most Laker fans want to just get it over and done with.

The Play In takes away from the importance of the regular season, which was supposedly one of the challenges Silver faced when he took over the role. It’s just is a money grab that moves the needle in the opposite direction.

[BigDan245]

Only reason people are upset is because the NBA has been 1-8 for most of their lifetime.

Guess what, if you are 7 or 8, you no longer clinch a playoff spot. So the idea that it is unfair is ridiculous. If you do not gain a top 6 seed, you must play your way in. It gives teams more incentive to win more games to avoid being in that situation.

The Wolves are 10 games ahead of the Spurs, the notion the Spurs could make the playoffs over the T-Wolves because of one game is ridiculous.

It devalues the regular season more than anything.

It's irrelevant that they are 10 games ahead...Also the Wolves get 2 home games to make the playoffs and only need 1 to win...Spurs would need to win 2 games on the road.

The Suns are 9 games ahead of Memphis...Guess what they get as a reward? Maybe an extra home game if the series goes 7. Like I said, being the 7 seed means you get a chance to win your way into the playoffs. We need to stop acting like being a 7 seed is some kind of accomplishment. You are record wise the 7th best team in a 15 team conference. Cry me a river if you don't get an automatic berth.

[Roger Murdock]

Only reason people are upset is because the NBA has been 1-8 for most of their lifetime.

Guess what, if you are 7 or 8, you no longer clinch a playoff spot. So the idea that it is unfair is ridiculous. If you do not gain a top 6 seed, you must play your way in. It gives teams more incentive to win more games to avoid being in that situation.

The Wolves are 10 games ahead of the Spurs, the notion the Spurs could make the playoffs over the T-Wolves because of one game is ridiculous.

It devalues the regular season more than anything.

It's irrelevant that they are 10 games ahead...Also the Wolves get 2 home games to make the playoffs and only need 1 to win...Spurs would need to win 2 games on the road.

The Suns are 9 games ahead of Memphis...Guess what they get as a reward? Maybe an extra home game if the series goes 7. Like I said, being the 7 seed means you get a chance to win your way into the playoffs. We need to stop acting like being a 7 seed is some kind of accomplishment. You are record wise the 7th best team in a 15 team conference. Cry me a river if you don't get an automatic berth.

Irrelevant my ass. Why dont the wolves deserve a shot to get a 2-seed? They are only 10 games behind. Or would that be unfair to a team like the Grizzlies who earned it? Why does it start at the end?

I'm not saying the 7-seeds some grand accomplishment. I'm saying that you should get what you earn. You shouldnt have to win your way in when you already won your way in.

The Spurs, Lakers, and Pelicans do not deserve a playoff spot and shouldnt have an opportunity to win one. No 9-seeds should.

[sp6r=underrated]

Only reason people are upset is because the NBA has been 1-8 for most of their lifetime.

Yup, this is pure status quo bias. The NBA expanded to 8 teams per conference in 1984. There have been 152 1-8/2-7 series during that time.

The lower seed has won 6.5% of the time.

Given that performance it is quite sensible for the NBA to experiment with the format to provide some entertainment with these cannon fodder clubs

[falcolombardi]

Only reason people are upset is because the NBA has been 1-8 for most of their lifetime.

Yup, this is pure status quo bias. The NBA expanded to 8 teams per conference in 1984. There have been 152 1-8/2-7 series during that time.

The lower seed has won 6.5% of the time.

Given that performance it is quite sensible for the NBA to experiment with the format to provide some entertainment with these cannon fodder clubs

dont forget that for a time, the first round were best of 3, essentially the same situation as a play-in where you lose 2 games and are out

except it was the first seed that had that risk (it was how lakers lost to rockets in 81)

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm saying that you should get what you earn.

The teams with the 7 and 8 best record are getting what they've earned, the right to participate in the play-in tournament. That is what every NBA team agreed to before the season.

Only the top 6 teams are guaranteed a 7 game series. If you want a guaranteed 7 game series, get a top 6 record. That is what it takes to earn a 7 game series without a play-in.

[sp6r=underrated]

Only reason people are upset is because the NBA has been 1-8 for most of their lifetime.

Yup, this is pure status quo bias. The NBA expanded to 8 teams per conference in 1984. There have been 152 1-8/2-7 series during that time.

The lower seed has won 6.5% of the time.

Given that performance it is quite sensible for the NBA to experiment with the format to provide some entertainment with these cannon fodder clubs

dont forget that for a time, the first round were best of 3, essentially the same situation as a play-in where you lose 2 games and are out

except it was the first seed that had that risk (it was how lakers lost to rockets in 81)

Yup, I stand by what I said here. The people appalled at the play-in on fairness grounds are trapped in status quo bias. If the NBA wanted to really have a tournament to decide who the best team was it'd look like what I propose below.

The reason they don't is because entertainment plays a big role in how the post-season is structured.

This is for all the people who hate the play-in because it is "unfair" to teams with better records.

The entire post-season is unfair to teams with better records. A 7 game series is not a good method of determining who the best team is. If the NBA really wanted a post-season tournament to determine the best team this is how it would be structured preserving the same number of total post-season games. The NBA Playoffs have 15 series. Last year 85 games were played with the average series having 5.67 games (81% of possible games) so I'm going to use that as the baseline.

1. Teams with the top 7 records, regardless of conference make the playoffs.
2. 7 Teams makes the playoffs.
3. Top seed gets a bye.
4. Each Series has a maximum number of 17 games.
5. 3 First Round Series
6. 2 Semi-Finals
7. Finals

Code: Select all

#   Series             Maximum Possible Games   GP %   Series Length
1   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
2   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
3   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
4   Semi-Finals             17                   81%     13.76
5   Semi-Finals             17                   81%     13.76
6   Finals                  17                   81%     13.76
7   Total                   102                          82.57

This proposal really would do a lot better job of determining the best team. The 7 game series has a huge sample size problem: Fluke injuries, randomly bad officiated games, fluke shooting etc. The much longer series would even those things out much more. Most NBA champions have a top 7 record under the current system (you have to go back to 1995 to find one that didn't) so no real potential champions will be excluded under this system.

Strictly on the merits there is not question the format I described above would do a better job of picking a champion. That it seems absurd to most of you reading this is simply status quo bias. If the NBA post-season currently had this as the format and someone proposed switching to 16 teams, 7 games series, everyone would know it does a worst job of deciding who the best team is.

It would also be an entertainment disaster. Most teams would know by January the season is over. We would have post-season series that are 7-1 were fans are just waiting for the damn thing to be over. It would be boring.

Thus the NBA has the 7 game series format. The play-in tournament was created for the same reason as the current post-season tournament: maximize entertainment.

The big takeaway is the post-season really doesn't effectively decide who the best team, we should use rings less in ranking teams/players and enjoy it for what it is high level basketball. An NBA championship is still the goal but NBA champion =/= best teams. Most years there isn't a best team.

[falcolombardi]

Yup, this is pure status quo bias. The NBA expanded to 8 teams per conference in 1984. There have been 152 1-8/2-7 series during that time.

The lower seed has won 6.5% of the time.

Given that performance it is quite sensible for the NBA to experiment with the format to provide some entertainment with these cannon fodder clubs

dont forget that for a time, the first round were best of 3, essentially the same situation as a play-in where you lose 2 games and are out

except it was the first seed that had that risk (it was how lakers lost to rockets in 81)

Yup, I stand by what I said here. The people appalled at the play-in on fairness grounds are trapped in status quo bias. If the NBA wanted to really have a tournament to decide who the best team was it'd look like what I propose below.

The reason they don't is because entertainment plays a big role in how the post-season is structured.

This is for all the people who hate the play-in because it is "unfair" to teams with better records.

The entire post-season is unfair to teams with better records. A 7 game series is not a good method of determining who the best team is. If the NBA really wanted a post-season tournament to determine the best team this is how it would be structured preserving the same number of total post-season games. The NBA Playoffs have 15 series. Last year 85 games were played with the average series having 5.67 games (81% of possible games) so I'm going to use that as the baseline.

1. Teams with the top 7 records, regardless of conference make the playoffs.
2. 7 Teams makes the playoffs.
3. Top seed gets a bye.
4. Each Series has a maximum number of 17 games.
5. 3 First Round Series
6. 2 Semi-Finals
7. Finals

Code: Select all

#   Series             Maximum Possible Games   GP %   Series Length
1   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
2   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
3   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
4   Semi-Finals             17                   81%     13.76
5   Semi-Finals             17                   81%     13.76
6   Finals                  17                   81%     13.76
7   Total                   102                          82.57

This proposal really would do a lot better job of determining the best team. The 7 game series has a huge sample size problem: Fluke injuries, randomly bad officiated games, fluke shooting etc. The much longer series would even those things out much more. Most NBA champions have a top 7 record under the current system (you have to go back to 1995 to find one that didn't) so no real potential champions will be excluded under this system.

Strictly on the merits there is not question the format I described above would do a better job of picking a champion. That it seems absurd to most of you reading this is simply status quo bias. If the NBA post-season currently had this as the format and someone proposed switching to 16 teams, 7 games series, everyone would know it does a worst job of deciding who the best team is.

It would also be an entertainment disaster. Most teams would know by January the season is over. We would have post-season series that are 7-1 were fans are just waiting for the damn thing to be over. It would be boring.

Thus the NBA has the 7 game series format. The play-in tournament was created for the same reason as the current post-season tournament: maximize entertainment.

The big takeaway is the post-season really doesn't effectively decide who the best team, we should use rings less in ranking teams/players and enjoy it for what it is high level basketball. An NBA championship is still the goal but NBA champion =/= best teams. Most years there isn't a best team.

i mean, if you REALLY care only about fairness you probably would not even play the playoffs and give the title to the tean with the best record like they do in soccer/European basketball leagues

[sp6r=underrated]

dont forget that for a time, the first round were best of 3, essentially the same situation as a play-in where you lose 2 games and are out

except it was the first seed that had that risk (it was how lakers lost to rockets in 81)

Yup, I stand by what I said here. The people appalled at the play-in on fairness grounds are trapped in status quo bias. If the NBA wanted to really have a tournament to decide who the best team was it'd look like what I propose below.

The reason they don't is because entertainment plays a big role in how the post-season is structured.

This is for all the people who hate the play-in because it is "unfair" to teams with better records.

The entire post-season is unfair to teams with better records. A 7 game series is not a good method of determining who the best team is. If the NBA really wanted a post-season tournament to determine the best team this is how it would be structured preserving the same number of total post-season games. The NBA Playoffs have 15 series. Last year 85 games were played with the average series having 5.67 games (81% of possible games) so I'm going to use that as the baseline.

1. Teams with the top 7 records, regardless of conference make the playoffs.
2. 7 Teams makes the playoffs.
3. Top seed gets a bye.
4. Each Series has a maximum number of 17 games.
5. 3 First Round Series
6. 2 Semi-Finals
7. Finals

Code: Select all

#   Series             Maximum Possible Games   GP %   Series Length
1   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
2   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
3   First Round             17                   81%     13.76
4   Semi-Finals             17                   81%     13.76
5   Semi-Finals             17                   81%     13.76
6   Finals                  17                   81%     13.76
7   Total                   102                          82.57

This proposal really would do a lot better job of determining the best team. The 7 game series has a huge sample size problem: Fluke injuries, randomly bad officiated games, fluke shooting etc. The much longer series would even those things out much more. Most NBA champions have a top 7 record under the current system (you have to go back to 1995 to find one that didn't) so no real potential champions will be excluded under this system.

Strictly on the merits there is not question the format I described above would do a better job of picking a champion. That it seems absurd to most of you reading this is simply status quo bias. If the NBA post-season currently had this as the format and someone proposed switching to 16 teams, 7 games series, everyone would know it does a worst job of deciding who the best team is.

It would also be an entertainment disaster. Most teams would know by January the season is over. We would have post-season series that are 7-1 were fans are just waiting for the damn thing to be over. It would be boring.

Thus the NBA has the 7 game series format. The play-in tournament was created for the same reason as the current post-season tournament: maximize entertainment.

The big takeaway is the post-season really doesn't effectively decide who the best team, we should use rings less in ranking teams/players and enjoy it for what it is high level basketball. An NBA championship is still the goal but NBA champion =/= best teams. Most years there isn't a best team.

i mean, if you REALLY care only about fairness you probably would not even play the playoffs and give the title to the tean with the best record like they do in soccer/European basketball leagues

Complete agreement.

[RB34]

I still think that if your 10 games or so games below the 8th seed you shouldn’t qualify.

[moderndarwin]

I really like it.

And here’s why - 8 teams is way too many for each conference anyways when there’s only 16 teams. I like that now there are 6 real playoff teams and 2 wildcard spots. If anything it intensifies the competition of those lower seeds to try and get that 6th seed

If anything I’d expand this tournament and say let teams 7-16 duke it out in a tourney for fun for those final two seeds. Might even add some draft impact to it.

[Jakay]

There's at least one team in the East that should have made the West play-in if the conferences were equal.

jk - the bottom wrung of mediocrity all had a fair swing.