So you still dislike the Play-In, eh?

[kazyv]

I was onboard with the idea, but I should have known better. If there's a big team involved, it's gonna be a travesty. Celtics yesterday and Lakers today, NBA really sent their best. I'm not interested in the games in the conclusion if forgone, so how about we just skip the games. **** Silver and **** his playins

[NetsJets]

This doesn’t change my opinion about it. Great game between the Warriors and Lakers. But still scrap it.

[Mephariel]

Absolutely keep the play in. Some of the best basketball I seen this year.

[NPZ]

...

Come on now - THAT was fun!

Only if your team isn't in it against GS and all the obnoxious Curry kidz and ref blamers and all that boosha. Ugh. Glad it's over with. Now they can study a team over 7 gms.

[RRR3]

It honestly boggles my mind people defend Silver at this point. It should be obvious to everyone that every move he makes is solely focused on squeezing more money out of the fans. Stern did not operate in that way (he obviously wanted to make money for the league but it was not like this) as much as I had issues with him. Silver has been objectively awful for the actual product he cannot and will not stop meddling and it’s infuriating.

It is literally impossible to argue the play-in tournament is fair. If something is unfair in a competitive setting it shouldn’t exist.

[zimpy27]

Don't like it

[Homer38]

Don't like it too...Matchup between player like LBJ and Curry in the play-in will not happen again soon....The NBA have been so lucky in that...And no matter what teams with losing record who are in the 9 or 10 seed(like the spurs,pacers and hornets) don't deserve another chance.

[NPZ]

It honestly boggles my mind people defend Silver at this point. It should be obvious to everyone that every move he makes is solely focused on squeezing more money out of the fans. Stern did not operate in that way (he obviously wanted to make money for the league but it was not like this) as much as I had issues with him. Silver has been objectively awful for the actual product he cannot and will not stop meddling and it’s infuriating.

It is literally impossible to argue the play-in tournament is fair. If something is unfair in a competitive setting it shouldn’t exist.

It's unfairer than sh to only those 4 teams that would've gotten 7 and 8 under normal circumstances. Four out of 30. Then you have the other play-in teams who could benefit greatly regardless if they won enough games to make it in on their own merit. Then you have all the other playoff teams whose RS gms are all treated equally. And then you have all the lottery teams that don't have to engage in a minitournament to retain the pick they should've already rightfully had. It's only 4 teams that this thing can truly screw hard. That's why it's absurd and arbitrary as hell. Plus, as I've said before, the Lakers won 9 more games than SA and could have been bounced by SA (theoretically). It took them their final 18 gms to win those 9 (18/72 = .25). The NBA for no real reason just made an entire 25% of their season equal to TWO play-in games. So what was the point of them trying to go 42-30 when they could've just done 33-39 (SA's record) and then win the two play-in games? Why would the league risk the 39 loss Spurs making it in there? I know there are a ton of Laker haters, but let's say they got bounced by SA and the Jazz or whomever win a title. They're gonna have to hear for years how they didn't really face the best team (like HOU's 94 title, or like Joe Frazier winning the belt while Ali was banished from boxing).

That all doesn't take into account that the 7th West seed had one fewer loss than the 4th East seed. There's an inherent imbalance in the worth of a win from East to West. I'm not saying the East sux or anything like that, I'm just basing that on the strength of the conferences. And they've been more or less uneven since 1997/98 AT LEAST. You probably have a similar number of true title contenders in either conference many years, but I'm just talking bout the difference from 1-8 in W/L records. Nothing can be done about that, but the NBA shouldn't actively look for ways to make things even LESS balanced than they are. Only 4 teams stand to get screwed on any given year, but the 2 West teams stand to get screwed even worse than the 2 East teams do because it's harder to go 42-30 in the West than it was in the East.

I'm pissed even more because they almost got bumped down to 8th as it was. Do ya think Silver would've had reservations if the Lakers missed the playoffs in lieu of the 33-39 Spurs because of this ****? What they basically did was to reinstate the Best-of-3 miniseries that they did away with after the champion Lakers got bounced in 1981 by HOU in a Best-of-3 1st round series. After that, they pushed the 1st round to 5 games. They unwittingly just kinda brought that silly miniseries back and then only decided to throw the last 2 seeds into it.

[John Murdoch]

144-117
118-100
Well that was really exciting!!!!!!
Those games meant so much!!!!

The play-in is absolute trash

It's not must see TV. It's musty TV.

[NPZ]

144-117
118-100
Well that was really exciting!!!!!!
Those games meant so much!!!!

The play-in is absolute trash

It's not must see TV. It's musty TV.

I borrrowed that from Conan O'Brien.

[RRR3]

It honestly boggles my mind people defend Silver at this point. It should be obvious to everyone that every move he makes is solely focused on squeezing more money out of the fans. Stern did not operate in that way (he obviously wanted to make money for the league but it was not like this) as much as I had issues with him. Silver has been objectively awful for the actual product he cannot and will not stop meddling and it’s infuriating.

It is literally impossible to argue the play-in tournament is fair. If something is unfair in a competitive setting it shouldn’t exist.

It's unfairer than sh to only those 4 teams that would've gotten 7 and 8 under normal circumstances. Four out of 30. Then you have the other play-in teams who could benefit greatly regardless if they won enough games to make it in on their own merit. Then you have all the other playoff teams whose RS gms are all treated equally. And then you have all the lottery teams that don't have to engage in a minitournament to retain the pick they should've already rightfully had. It's only 4 teams that this thing can truly screw hard. That's why it's absurd and arbitrary as hell. Plus, as I've said before, the Lakers won 9 more games than SA and could have been bounced by SA (theoretically). It took them their final 18 gms to win those 9 (18/72 = .25). The NBA for no real reason just made an entire 25% of their season equate to TWO play-in games. So what was the point of them trying to go 42-30 when they could've just done 33-39 (SA's record) and then win the two play-in games? Why would the league risk the 39 loss Spurs making it in there? I know there are a ton of Laker haters, but let's say they got bounced by SA and the Jazz or whomever win a title. They're gonna have to hear for years how they didn't really face the best team (like HOU's 94 title, or like Joe Frazier winning the belt while Ali was banished from boxing).

That all doesn't take into account that the 7th West seed had one fewer loss than the 4th East seed. There's an inherent imbalance in the worth of a win from East to West. I'm not saying the East sux, or anything like that, I'm just basing that on the strength of the conferences. And they've been more or less uneven since 1997/98 AT LEAST, and probably even earlier than that. You probably have a similar number of true title contenders in either conference many years, but I'm just talking the difference from 1-8 in W/L records. Nothing can be done about that, but the NBA should actively look for ways to make things even LESS balanced than they are. Only 4 teams stand to get screwed on any given year, but the 2 West teams stand to get screwed even worse than the 2 East teams do because it's harder to go 42-30 in the West than it was in the East.

I'm pissed even more because they almost got bumped down to 8th as it was. Do ya think Silver would've had reservations if the Lakers missed the playoffs in lieu of the 33-39 Spurs because of this ****? What they basically did was to reinstate the Best-of-3 miniseries that they did away with after the champion Lakers got bounced in 1981 by HOU in a Best-of-3 1st round series. After that, they pushed the 1st round to 5 games. They unwittingly just kinda brought that silly miniseries back and then only decided to throw the last 2 seeds into it.

I haven’t heard a single person in favor of the playin (and I’ve seen many of them) make a logical argument from a competitive standpoint as to why it exists. It’s always “it’s fun, it’s exciting” etc. If you can only make emotional arguments for something, it doesn’t bode well for whatever you’re arguing for.

By the way, if the play-in tournament existed in 2019, either or both of the 39-43 Kings or 37-45 Lakers could have made the playoffs over the Clippers and/or Spurs, each of whom were 48-34. I realize the Lakers missed the playoffs in large part due to LeBron missing 27 games but that’s just what happened and you shouldn’t get an extra shot just because someone got injured. It sucks but it’s just what happens. And the thought of a 39 win Kings team (unlike the Lakers that win total was indicative of their talent level) making it over a team that almost won 50 games is disgusting.

[RRR3]

I would really like to see Curry in the playoffs because not only did he earn it by getting his team the 8th seed, he is a legendary player and it’s more fun with him in the playoffs. However I can’t help but think the Grizzlies winning could cause the playin to go away so it’s hard not to cheer for them. Then again if the Warriors and Wizards win (likely IMO) the playin will have been completely pointless because the seeds will be the exact same thing. I think that would also be reason to scrap it. Honestly there is no argument for the playin being good unless you’re a capitalist and I realize most of you are (I’m not), so ugh.

[Homer38]

It honestly boggles my mind people defend Silver at this point. It should be obvious to everyone that every move he makes is solely focused on squeezing more money out of the fans. Stern did not operate in that way (he obviously wanted to make money for the league but it was not like this) as much as I had issues with him. Silver has been objectively awful for the actual product he cannot and will not stop meddling and it’s infuriating.

It is literally impossible to argue the play-in tournament is fair. If something is unfair in a competitive setting it shouldn’t exist.

It's unfairer than sh to only those 4 teams that would've gotten 7 and 8 under normal circumstances. Four out of 30. Then you have the other play-in teams who could benefit greatly regardless if they won enough games to make it in on their own merit. Then you have all the other playoff teams whose RS gms are all treated equally. And then you have all the lottery teams that don't have to engage in a minitournament to retain the pick they should've already rightfully had. It's only 4 teams that this thing can truly screw hard. That's why it's absurd and arbitrary as hell. Plus, as I've said before, the Lakers won 9 more games than SA and could have been bounced by SA (theoretically). It took them their final 18 gms to win those 9 (18/72 = .25). The NBA for no real reason just made an entire 25% of their season equate to TWO play-in games. So what was the point of them trying to go 42-30 when they could've just done 33-39 (SA's record) and then win the two play-in games? Why would the league risk the 39 loss Spurs making it in there? I know there are a ton of Laker haters, but let's say they got bounced by SA and the Jazz or whomever win a title. They're gonna have to hear for years how they didn't really face the best team (like HOU's 94 title, or like Joe Frazier winning the belt while Ali was banished from boxing).

That all doesn't take into account that the 7th West seed had one fewer loss than the 4th East seed. There's an inherent imbalance in the worth of a win from East to West. I'm not saying the East sux, or anything like that, I'm just basing that on the strength of the conferences. And they've been more or less uneven since 1997/98 AT LEAST, and probably even earlier than that. You probably have a similar number of true title contenders in either conference many years, but I'm just talking the difference from 1-8 in W/L records. Nothing can be done about that, but the NBA should actively look for ways to make things even LESS balanced than they are. Only 4 teams stand to get screwed on any given year, but the 2 West teams stand to get screwed even worse than the 2 East teams do because it's harder to go 42-30 in the West than it was in the East.

I'm pissed even more because they almost got bumped down to 8th as it was. Do ya think Silver would've had reservations if the Lakers missed the playoffs in lieu of the 33-39 Spurs because of this ****? What they basically did was to reinstate the Best-of-3 miniseries that they did away with after the champion Lakers got bounced in 1981 by HOU in a Best-of-3 1st round series. After that, they pushed the 1st round to 5 games. They unwittingly just kinda brought that silly miniseries back and then only decided to throw the last 2 seeds into it.

I haven’t heard a single person in favor of the playin (and I’ve seen many of them) make a logical argument from a competitive standpoint as to why it exists. It’s always “it’s fun, it’s exciting” etc. If you can only make emotional arguments for something, it doesn’t bode well for whatever you’re arguing for.

By the way, if the play-in tournament existed in 2019, either or both of the 39-43 Kings or 37-45 Lakers could have made the playoffs over the Clippers and/or Spurs, each of whom were 48-34. I realize the Lakers missed the playoffs in large part due to LeBron missing 27 games but that’s just what happened and you shouldn’t get an extra shot just because someone got injured. It sucks but it’s just what happens. And the thought of a 39 win Kings team (unlike the Lakers that win total was indicative of their talent level) making it over a team that almost won 50 games is disgusting.

And to be honest,never I would have wanted the lakers to make the playoffs in 2019 because of the play-in ... They didn't deserve another chance.It would have been very ridiculous

[Spanish_Laker]

Yes, I do. One off night, one hot night for the other team and your season is over. No thanks, I'd rather have the classic format.

[NPZ]

I haven’t heard a single person in favor of the playin (and I’ve seen many of them) make a logical argument from a competitive standpoint as to why it exists. It’s always “it’s fun, it’s exciting” etc. If you can only make emotional arguments for something, it doesn’t bode well for whatever you’re arguing for.

By the way, if the play-in tournament existed in 2019, either or both of the 39-43 Kings or 37-45 Lakers could have made the playoffs over the Clippers and/or Spurs, each of whom were 48-34. I realize the Lakers missed the playoffs in large part due to LeBron missing 27 games but that’s just what happened and you shouldn’t get an extra shot just because someone got injured. It sucks but it’s just what happens. And the thought of a 39 win Kings team (unlike the Lakers that win total was indicative of their talent level) making it over a team that almost won 50 games is disgusting.

Something else I realized. Let's say the Spurs won both play-in games and LAL lost both. That would mean that it took LESS than half of what it would've taken for the Spurs to do that in a playoff series and in that scenario, SA wouldn't even have to play LAL to do so.

In a 7 gm series, SA has to play LA up to 7x and win 4, and travel back and forth.

In the play-ins, SA only plays MEM and then GS (assuming LA loses 2).

Not bad, eh? The Spurs theoretically could've eliminated the Lakers from playoff contention by winning 2 games against OTHER teams instead of actually beating the Lakers themselves in a 4 of 7 series. People would argue that the Spurs wouldn't look at it that way, but the effect is still the same.

Another thing that didn't hit me til now. This is a shortened season. They couldn't have at least started this in a regular season where the teams woulda had 10 more games to jostle for their final positions?

Good point re 2019. I didn't even consider that, but it also bolsters my point that I'm not simply complaining because it's my team that almost just got pushed down to 8th. Sooner or later, this thing would impact many of us. In 2019, 7-10 was SA, LAC, SAC, LAL in that order. Lakers would've played SAC and then the winner of SA/LAC. They could've done that. Very much within the realm of possibilities since Brawn was back by then. And in 2019, both the Spurs and Clipps had won 11 more games than the Lakes. Therefore, a team that won 11 more games than the Lakers could've been eliminated by the Lakers who would only have to beat them once instead of 4/7.

[Homer38]

I haven’t heard a single person in favor of the playin (and I’ve seen many of them) make a logical argument from a competitive standpoint as to why it exists. It’s always “it’s fun, it’s exciting” etc. If you can only make emotional arguments for something, it doesn’t bode well for whatever you’re arguing for.

By the way, if the play-in tournament existed in 2019, either or both of the 39-43 Kings or 37-45 Lakers could have made the playoffs over the Clippers and/or Spurs, each of whom were 48-34. I realize the Lakers missed the playoffs in large part due to LeBron missing 27 games but that’s just what happened and you shouldn’t get an extra shot just because someone got injured. It sucks but it’s just what happens. And the thought of a 39 win Kings team (unlike the Lakers that win total was indicative of their talent level) making it over a team that almost won 50 games is disgusting.

Something else I realized. Let's say the Spurs won both play-in games and LAL lost both. That would mean that it took LESS than half of what it would've taken for the Spurs to do that in a playoff series and in that scenario, SA wouldn't even have to play LAL to do so.

In a 7 gm series, SA has to play LA up to 7x and win 4, and travel back and forth.

In the play-ins, SA only plays MEM and then GS (assuming LA loses 2).

Not bad, eh? The Spurs theoretically could've eliminated the Lakers from playoff contention by winning 2 games against OTHER teams instead of actually beating the Lakers themselves in a 4 of 7 series. People would argue that the Spurs wouldn't look at it that way, but the effect is still the same.

Another thing that didn't hit me til now. This is a shortened season. They couldn't have at least started this in a regular season where the teams woulda had 10 more games to jostle for their final positions?

Good point re 2019. I didn't even consider that, but it also bolsters my point that I'm not simply complaining because it's my team that almost just got pushed down to 8th. Sooner or later, this thing would impact many of us. In 2019, 7-10 was SA, LAC, SAC, LAL in that order. Lakers would've played SAC and then the winner of SA/LAC. They could've done that. Very much within the realm of possibilities since Brawn was back by then. And in 2019, both the Spurs and Clipps had won 11 more games than the Lakes. Therefore, a team that won 11 more games than the Lakers could've been eliminated by the Lakers who would only have to beat them once instead of 4/7.

Good post but just a small mistake on your part in bold ..... This is the loser of the game between the 7 and 8 seed who plays against the winner of the 9 and 10 seed!

[NPZ]

...

[jefe]

It honestly boggles my mind people defend Silver at this point. It should be obvious to everyone that every move he makes is solely focused on squeezing more money out of the fans. Stern did not operate in that way (he obviously wanted to make money for the league but it was not like this) as much as I had issues with him. Silver has been objectively awful for the actual product he cannot and will not stop meddling and it’s infuriating.

It is literally impossible to argue the play-in tournament is fair. If something is unfair in a competitive setting it shouldn’t exist.

It's unfairer than sh to only those 4 teams that would've gotten 7 and 8 under normal circumstances. Four out of 30. Then you have the other play-in teams who could benefit greatly regardless if they won enough games to make it in on their own merit. Then you have all the other playoff teams whose RS gms are all treated equally. And then you have all the lottery teams that don't have to engage in a minitournament to retain the pick they should've already rightfully had. It's only 4 teams that this thing can truly screw hard. That's why it's absurd and arbitrary as hell. Plus, as I've said before, the Lakers won 9 more games than SA and could have been bounced by SA (theoretically). It took them their final 18 gms to win those 9 (18/72 = .25). The NBA for no real reason just made an entire 25% of their season equate to TWO play-in games. So what was the point of them trying to go 42-30 when they could've just done 33-39 (SA's record) and then win the two play-in games? Why would the league risk the 39 loss Spurs making it in there? I know there are a ton of Laker haters, but let's say they got bounced by SA and the Jazz or whomever win a title. They're gonna have to hear for years how they didn't really face the best team (like HOU's 94 title, or like Joe Frazier winning the belt while Ali was banished from boxing).

That all doesn't take into account that the 7th West seed had one fewer loss than the 4th East seed. There's an inherent imbalance in the worth of a win from East to West. I'm not saying the East sux, or anything like that, I'm just basing that on the strength of the conferences. And they've been more or less uneven since 1997/98 AT LEAST, and probably even earlier than that. You probably have a similar number of true title contenders in either conference many years, but I'm just talking the difference from 1-8 in W/L records. Nothing can be done about that, but the NBA should actively look for ways to make things even LESS balanced than they are. Only 4 teams stand to get screwed on any given year, but the 2 West teams stand to get screwed even worse than the 2 East teams do because it's harder to go 42-30 in the West than it was in the East.

I'm pissed even more because they almost got bumped down to 8th as it was. Do ya think Silver would've had reservations if the Lakers missed the playoffs in lieu of the 33-39 Spurs because of this ****? What they basically did was to reinstate the Best-of-3 miniseries that they did away with after the champion Lakers got bounced in 1981 by HOU in a Best-of-3 1st round series. After that, they pushed the 1st round to 5 games. They unwittingly just kinda brought that silly miniseries back and then only decided to throw the last 2 seeds into it.

I haven’t heard a single person in favor of the playin (and I’ve seen many of them) make a logical argument from a competitive standpoint as to why it exists. It’s always “it’s fun, it’s exciting” etc. If you can only make emotional arguments for something, it doesn’t bode well for whatever you’re arguing for.

By the way, if the play-in tournament existed in 2019, either or both of the 39-43 Kings or 37-45 Lakers could have made the playoffs over the Clippers and/or Spurs, each of whom were 48-34. I realize the Lakers missed the playoffs in large part due to LeBron missing 27 games but that’s just what happened and you shouldn’t get an extra shot just because someone got injured. It sucks but it’s just what happens. And the thought of a 39 win Kings team (unlike the Lakers that win total was indicative of their talent level) making it over a team that almost won 50 games is disgusting.

Really? It remains to be seen whether it sticks around in the future, but the reason it is being used this year is because the regular season is ten games short. In theory, the play-in tournament takes the place of the "missing" ten games by giving teams that would have been jockeying for a playoff spot (in a normal 82 game season) the opportunity to make the playoffs in a condensed timeframe. It's not rocket surgery.

[NPZ]

Really? It remains to be seen whether it sticks around in the future, but the reason it is being used this year is because the regular season is ten games short. In theory, the play-in tournament takes the place of the "missing" ten games by giving teams that would have been jockeying for a playoff spot (in a normal 82 game season) the opportunity to make the playoffs in a condensed timeframe. It's not rocket surgery.

I didn't realize that was an issue being that we had a 50 gm season in 1999, a 66 gm season in 2012, and a 70ish gm season last year. Suddenly it's an imperative to "fix" the issue? It all worked out fine those prior 3 yrs.

[jefe]

Really? It remains to be seen whether it sticks around in the future, but the reason it is being used this year is because the regular season is ten games short. In theory, the play-in tournament takes the place of the "missing" ten games by giving teams that would have been jockeying for a playoff spot (in a normal 82 game season) the opportunity to make the playoffs in a condensed timeframe. It's not rocket surgery.

I didn't realize that was an issue being that we had a 50 gm season in 1999, a 66 gm season in 2012, and a 70ish gm season last year. Suddenly it's an imperative to "fix" the issue? It all worked out fine those prior 3 yrs.

Well, there was also a play-in last year for the exact same reason, and "we've always done it this way" (even if true), isn't a great reason to dislike something in and of itself IMO.