RealGM

SDChargers#1 wrote:it looks like the Lakers will finish the season with the #1 seed in the TOUGHEST CONFERENCE EVER.

KB20 wrote:The West this year is arguable the toughest, most competitive conference in the league history and one of the toughest in the history of all of sports.

Do you agree? I also read someone say this year's West is much tougher than the Westaround the turn of the century. What about early 90s East? Early 80s East? Harder to guage, but what about conferences from the 60s or 70s?

This thread isn't about the West being better than the East, it's how it compares historically. Thoughs?

Off hand 1998 out west was tough. Utah, LA and Seattle all won 60 games, then you had San Antonio with the twin towers and you had Houston as the 8th seed with Hakeem, Barkley and Drexler.

West has been the toughest conference pretty much this whole decade. I wouldn't call it the toughest conference year ever, especially when no West team is on pace for 60+ wins.

FlightNo.23 wrote:West has been the toughest conference pretty much this whole decade. I wouldn't call it the toughest conference year ever, especially when no West team is on pace for 60+ wins.

Wrong, thats actually whats making it arguably the most toughest conference year ever... The "parity". The parity out West this year is whats making it so fun, you honestly cannot afford to go on any kind of losing streak whatsoever or you afford to be knocked out of the top 8 altogether. In short, every games means something now..even in February.

Deuce33 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Wrong, thats actually whats making it arguably the most toughest conference year ever... The "parity". The parity out West this year is whats making it so fun, you honestly cannot afford to go on any kind of losing streak whatsoever or you afford to be knocked out of the top 8 altogether. In short, every games means something now..even in February.

So when people say "tough" they mean parity-wise, not like "best"? Or do I not understand, because usually people don't equate parity with quality.

Deuce33 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Wrong, thats actually whats making it arguably the most toughest conference year ever... The "parity". The parity out West this year is whats making it so fun, you honestly cannot afford to go on any kind of losing streak whatsoever or you afford to be knocked out of the top 8 altogether. In short, every games means something now..even in February.

It's probably the most competitive but not the best by any means.

96-97 East
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings ... =standings

West is stronger 7-8, but that East looks stronger 1-6.

The west is more competitive, but I wouldn't say it's toughest or strongest by any stretch.

Diaper Dandy wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



So when people say "tough" they mean parity-wise, not like "best"? Or do I not understand, because usually people don't equate parity with quality.

In this case, its a case of both seeing as how 9 times are on pace to win 50 games. I also wouldn't go as far as saying the "best" either, but it may damn well be the most competitive.

Dtown84 wrote:96-97 East
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings ... =standings

West is stronger 7-8, but that East looks stronger 1-6.

It's funny to look at that and juxtapose it to people (usually younger fans who are newish to the game) who cry for changing the conferences and things for something that changes every few years anyway. I mean, looking at the 96-97 standings, the 6-8 spots in the West wouldn't make it at all in the East, and the 9th spot in the East would be the 6th in the west. Even the 10th in the East would be the 8th in the West. Just goes to show it's all cyclical. But I digress.

Deuce33 wrote:In this case, its a case of both seeing as how 9 times are on pace to win 50 games. I also wouldn't go as far as saying the "best" either, but it may damn well be the most competitive.

Okay, that I can agree with. I'll have to check up- of course, after the season for best results- to see how many games behind the 8th seed is from the 1st and compare it to other years. On the other hand, that kinda invalidates the implication that SDChargers#1 had in the first quote of this thread. When he said "TOUGHEST CONFERENCE EVER" [sic] I don't quite think he meant the most competitive.

some teams will fall off of the 50 win pace before the season is over. They can't all keep winning as they start playing each other more. Just a couple weeks ago it was 10 teams on 50 win pace, but Portland has fallen well off.

The one thing going for trying to keep teams on a 50 win pace is how bad the bottom of the conference is with 3 teams at sub .300. Like the top, that may change as the season winds down as the teams at the bottom can't all keep loosing so much as they play each other more.

I believe in 2001 there were 7, 50 win teams in the West and this year there is, on pace to be, 9


2001:

Spurs 58-24
Lakers 56-26
Kings 55-27
Mavs 53-29
Jazz 53-29
Suns 51-31
Blazers 50-32
TWolves 47-35
9. Rockets 45-37

per ESPN: Houston's 45-37 record in 2000-01 accounts for the highest winning percentage (.549) for a team that failed to make the playoffs. In 1971-72, when the league had only 17 teams and sent just eight to the playoffs, Phoenix missed out with a mark of 49-33, good for a .598 winning percentage.

I think every team is scary in the west.

LA - kobe gasol alone is already the biggest threat and you add Bynum to that.

NOH - CP best pg in the west, David west, peja abd Chandler.

Spurs - Manu beastin it up, TP and Duncan.

Hou - Yao and Tmac looking like himself in Orlando days lately.

Utah - Deron very good pg after steve nash. Kirlinko the hustler, big shot Booz.

Denver - AI. and Melo with Camby if you have mismatch they will beat you.

Phx - not yet established well after the trade but Stevie nash perhaps the best shooter and maestro. Amare complete beast. Barbosa the forgotten one that actually kills teams. Shaq the one that cannot be left alone.

GS - The team that is feared by the elites. The most unstable exploding bomb that no one wants to go near.

Its not over yet folks

Dallas - Dirk the choke ster now lookin like a even better star next to Mr. triple double jason kidd. Jason Terry lightin it up from the ereimter and oh yes don't forget Josh Howard.

In the east the favorites the Boston Celtics and Lookin like the old Pistons are waiting for any westerners.

I mean the west is not only good but every team is stacked with players from the past that are in their prime.

Well okay, but what about historically? "TOUGHEST CONFERENCE EVER"?

Well if you believe in development of players and teams than you have to agree that things will not get weaker. Add the freakout trades to go win now and sacrifice future to the formula then yes i can say it will make things tougher.

Diaper Dandy wrote:-= original quote snipped =-It's funny to look at that and juxtapose it to people (usually younger fans who are newish to the game) who cry for changing the conferences and things for something that changes every few years anyway. I mean, looking at the 96-97 standings, the 6-8 spots in the West wouldn't make it at all in the East, and the 9th spot in the East would be the 6th in the west. Even the 10th in the East would be the 8th in the West. Just goes to show it's all cyclical. But I digress.



Okay, that I can agree with. I'll have to check up- of course, after the season for best results- to see how many games behind the 8th seed is from the 1st and compare it to other years. On the other hand, that kinda invalidates the implication that SDChargers#1 had in the first quote of this thread. When he said "TOUGHEST CONFERENCE EVER" [sic] I don't quite think he meant the most competitive.

It would cyclical if the West was ever as bad as the East but the West has always been competitive even when the East wins the title.

When is the last time an EC champion been favored to win the title.


Also if you look at the 01-02 season when the West had Sac win 61 games, Lakers and Spurs won 58 games, and the Mav's won 57 games but the West only won 213 games vs the East.


Right now I think this year the West can matchup their top 8 teams vs other years top 8 teams and compare favorably

Lakers Kobe, Gasol, Odom
Spurs Duncan, Manu, Parker
Mavericks Nowitzki, Kidd, Howard
Houston McGrady, Yao, Battier
NO Paul, West, Chandler, Peja
GS Baron, Monta, SJax,
Utah Deron, Boozer, AK
Denver AI, Melo, Camby
Phoenix Nash, Shaq, Amare, Barbosa


I mean last year the All NBA 1st team was all from the WC. It would happen again if not for Lebrons efforts.

PG Nash, Paul, Baron, Deron, Kidd
SG Kobe, Manu, AI
PF Duncan, Nowitzki, Boozer, West, Gasol, Amare
C Yao, Shaq, Camby, Chandler, Bynum


There is such a concentration of talent in the West it's sick. It's just lopsided and it's just going to continue next year.

It's almost mathematically impossible to have 9 or 10 teams win 50 games but that doesn't mean that these teams aren't very talented it's just that they are going to beat each other up and someone has to lose.


Just look at Boston where they had that 16-0 record vs the West and then come out and lose 3 straight vs WC playoff teams. They only have to play WC twice a year but the West have to beat up on each other. That's how a team like the Cav's were able to go on a run and reach the finals. That isn't going to happen in the West. No team is going to get lucky in three straight rounds; teams are just too good out there........

Okay well let's take this year's West and compare it to Dtown84's 96-97 East (just because it was the first- only?- specific season mentioned. As I type this, I have no opinion but that'll probably change as I do the quick blurb for each of the top 9 teams as you did. Not gonna mention this year's West as you already did and people should be familiar with them anyway.

Bulls- 69-13. Led by Jordan and Pippen, with folks like Rodman, Kukoc, and Kerr filling in important roles (rebounder/enforcer, third option, 3 point specialist) basically as well as you could possibly ask. Guys like Longley and Harper also filling in important roles extremely capably. A GOAT caliber coach. One of the very best teams ever. Enough said.

Heat- 61-21. Prime Tim Hardaway and Zo (20/9 assists, 20/10 boards respectively) with Riley coaching and very deep. Aside from those two, six!!! other players averaged 10+ ppg (rounded up): Jamal Mashburn, Voshon Lenard, Sasha Danilovic, Dan Merjele, Isaac Austin and PJ Brown. Brown grabbed 8 boards and helped Zo intimidate along with a young Kurt Thomas. Very physical team, great defense.

Knicks- 57-25. Ewing at the end of his prime (22/11) with Allan Houston, John Starks, Larry Johnson, Charles Oakley, Chris Childs, and Charlie Ward. With the exception of LJ, they were all prime, with stifling defense.

Hawks- 56-26. Prime Steve Smith (20/4/3) Laettner (18/9), and Mutombo (13/12 with over 3 blocks), with a past prime but still very productive Mookie Blaylock (17/6/5). Weak after those four, but they were legit.

Hornets- 54-28. Prime Rice (27 ppg) Anthony Mason (16/11/6) and Divac (13/9/4) with a past prime Dell Curry (15ppg) and ancient Ricky Pierce (12ppg). Good role players in Matt Geiger, Mugsy, Tony Delk, Scott Burrell, etc.

Pistons- 54-28. Prime Grant Hill (21/9/7) Lindsey Hunter, Dumars, and Otis Thorpe. Great role players all about including those above and Grant Long, Theo Ratliff, an injured Stacey Augmon and Aaron McKie, and old ass Kenny Smith. They were the prototypical "one player away" team, in my mind, because they had the star, they had the role players, they just didn't have that #2 that coulda made them...well, compete with the Heat to see who would be the East runner-up.

Magic- 45-37. A Magic team that was virtually identical to the 60+ win team that lost to the 72 win Bulls the year before and made it to the Finals the year before that- without Shaq. Prime Penny, probably playing his best individual season until his injury- an injury bug that made him from a surefire HOFer and first team NBA guy into a dude getting cut by the 9 win Heat. 20/6/5 while hurt with Rony Seikaly, Horace Grant, Dennis Scott, and Nick Anderson in their primes.

Bullets- 44-38. Coulda been a great team. Led by Fab Fivers Webber (20/10/5/2/2) and Howard (19/8/4) with Hot Rod Strickland at the point (17/9), they were too young to make alot of noise and were cursed with **** role players.

Cavs- 42-40. Terrell Brandon (20/6/4) and Tyrone Hill (13/10) led this very mediocre team. Nothing to say here. They didn't make the playoffs though, so no biggie.

Very clearly, this year's West is deeper. But better? I'm not convinced, but I guess I could still be. It's important to keep in mind that in the present, we think of alot of teams as "contenders", but when looking at the past it's harder to do. The Hawks are just a team that never won, when we look back on it, but now the Lakers, Spurs, Suns, Mavs, Hornets, etc are all "contenders". In ten years time, however, teams like the Lakers or Suns or Hornets are just gonna be good teams and didn't win (if they don't win).

Hard to say. I'm sure there's better conferences than the 96-97 East, though. Oh yeah, only three teams that year in the East won less than 30 games, for whatever that's worth.

Diaper Dandy wrote:A Magic team that was virtually identical to the 60+ win team that lost to the 72 win Bulls the year before and made it to the Finals the year before that- without Shaq.

Im sorry but this made me lol

G35 wrote:It would cyclical if the West was ever as bad as the East but the West has always been competitive even when the East wins the title.

The NFC beat the AFC 16 straight years. Since then, there's been 10 Super Bowls and the AFC has won 8. It's cyclical.

There is such a concentration of talent in the West it's sick. It's just lopsided and it's just going to continue next year.

It's almost mathematically impossible to have 9 or 10 teams win 50 games but that doesn't mean that these teams aren't very talented it's just that they are going to beat each other up and someone has to lose.


Just look at Boston where they had that 16-0 record vs the West and then come out and lose 3 straight vs WC playoff teams. They only have to play WC twice a year but the West have to beat up on each other. That's how a team like the Cav's were able to go on a run and reach the finals. That isn't going to happen in the West. No team is going to get lucky in three straight rounds; teams are just too good out there........

This isn't about the 2007-2008 West compared to the 2007-2008 East though. There's plenty of threads about that if you want to talk about it.

Hmm.

This team might have a shot against a Western All-Star team:

1984-85 Eastern Conference

Moses Malone (25 ppg, 13 rpg) - Robert Parish (18-11)
Kevin McHale (20-9) - Buck Williams (18-12)
Larry Bird (29-10-7) - Julius Erving (20-5-3)
Micheal Jordan (28-6-6) - Micheal Ray Richardson (20-8-5)
Isiah Thomas (21 - 14 - 5) - Dennis Johnson (16-7-4)

Or the 1996-97 Western Conference

Shaquille O'Neal - David Robinson
Karl Malone - Hakeem Olajuwon - Shawn Kemp
Charles Barkley / Kevin Garnett
Mitch Richmond / Gary Payton / Jason Kidd
John Stockton / Kenny Anderson

I think either of those teams would have a shot against this year's group...

Would LOVE to see a crunch time lineup that the 97 West could throw out..
Hakeem / Malone / Richmond / Payton / Kidd

Just filthy

netsforever wrote:Hmm.

This team might have a shot against a Western All-Star team:

1984-85 Eastern Conference

Moses Malone (25 ppg, 13 rpg) - Robert Parish (18-11)
Kevin McHale (20-9) - Buck Williams (18-12)
Larry Bird (29-10-7) - Julius Erving (20-5-3)
Micheal Jordan (28-6-6) - Micheal Ray Richardson (20-8-5)
Isiah Thomas (21 - 14 - 5) - Dennis Johnson (16-7-4)

Or the 1996-97 Western Conference

Shaquille O'Neal - David Robinson
Karl Malone - Hakeem Olajuwon - Shawn Kemp
Charles Barkley / Kevin Garnett
Mitch Richmond / Gary Payton / Jason Kidd
John Stockton / Kenny Anderson

I think either of those teams would have a shot against this year's group...

Would LOVE to see a crunch time lineup that the 97 West could throw out..
Hakeem / Malone / Richmond / Payton / Kidd

Just filthy

I'm talking about teams top to bottom, though, not All-Star teams.