2022-2023 Regular Season Game 65: Portland Trail Blazers (29-34) Orlando Magic (27-37) - 6pm

[drsd]

it's kind a hilarious system where 3rd worst team out of 15 can make playoffs.

But it kind a stopped 10 teams at once to tank so i guess it works.

There might be some positives, but I think the play ins are terrible. There were some years were some 7th and 8th seeds had no business being in the playoffs (those Vuc Teams), but somebody had to fill those spots. But now to allow two more underachieving teams is just ridiculous.

Another issue I have is seeing a young and up and coming team like Cleveland last year who earned their spot in the playoffs just to loss a fluke game to a garbage Hornets team. Then to watch that same Hornets team get blown out in the first round when Cleveland could have been far more competitive.

100% agree. One game tournaments allow bad teams to have hot hand and it's awful for teams that fought to get 45+ wins.

it also supports mediocrity. It's just mindblowing that 13 out of 30 teams are 4 games over or under .500.
You will have lot of Wizards teams. Teams that not good enough to win playoff series but it's fine by them and ownership won't tank so they will stay in this limbo for ages.

I 100% disagree. The play-ins are for two reasons.

1) it delays teams from tanking: for example Portland tried to win this game but in the old system it would have already been in power tank mode.

2) it generates income for the league. Anything that brings in new money will be seen as positive to the CBA-based decisions made.

My views, any decisions made that make all teams try to win all games is a good idea. I do not think the play-ins is perfect here, but it is better than when it does not exist.

A better system still would be to have the top-7 teams in the playoffs, and the other 8 teams be in a single game elevation tourney to be the 8-seed. That would mean that no team would ever want to be the 15 seed, and thus, every game would ,after from game-1 to game-82.


..

[Skybox]

Play-in question: the three teams that DON'T make the playoffs...how are they seeded for lottery? Do they go back to their regular season record seeding - even if they win a play-in game?

[JoshuaPotter]

There might be some positives, but I think the play ins are terrible. There were some years were some 7th and 8th seeds had no business being in the playoffs (those Vuc Teams), but somebody had to fill those spots. But now to allow two more underachieving teams is just ridiculous.

Another issue I have is seeing a young and up and coming team like Cleveland last year who earned their spot in the playoffs just to loss a fluke game to a garbage Hornets team. Then to watch that same Hornets team get blown out in the first round when Cleveland could have been far more competitive.

100% agree. One game tournaments allow bad teams to have hot hand and it's awful for teams that fought to get 45+ wins.

it also supports mediocrity. It's just mindblowing that 13 out of 30 teams are 4 games over or under .500.
You will have lot of Wizards teams. Teams that not good enough to win playoff series but it's fine by them and ownership won't tank so they will stay in this limbo for ages.

I 100% disagree. The play-ins are for two reasons.

1) it delays teams from tanking: for example Portland tried to win this game but in the old system it would have already been in power tank mode.

2) it generates income for the league. Anything that brings in new money will be seen as positive to the CBA-based decisions made.

My views, any decisions made that make all teams try to win all games is a good idea. I do not think the play-ins is perfect here, but it is better than when it does not exist.

A better system still would be to have the top-7 teams in the playoffs, and the other 8 teams be in a single game elevation tourney to be the 8-seed. That would mean that no team would ever want to be the 15 seed, and thus, every game would ,after from game-1 to game-82.


..

It's a 1-2 bag. I am not a play-in fan even though I like the idea. Play-in tournament might take years before teams build around the idea or the concept.

The positive is that it does give teams something to do other then be stuck somewhere from 16-25.

The negative is that its too early to call it a failure regardless of my feelings. I can see the idea of a playin being tweaked.

However, the real thing that needs fixing is that disaster of an all-star game.

Edit : If a team beats someone in a "fluke game" so what? If we make the play-ins (doubt it) I would love to see what this team could do if we ended up in a Bo7 against Boston. Hence what I said behind the idea of tweaking a team to matchup better as part of a strategy.

[Bergmaniac]

And the one loss/one win streak continues even against the short-handed Blazers at home. This probably means we will beat the Bucks at home on Tuesday. We really missed Wendell, though of course the Blazers missed Nurkic too.

Mo Wagner sure likes to shoot the 3 an awful lot for a guy who is shooting 30% for the season and 31% for his career. I don't know why there are still defenders who bite on his 3s when he fakes it, I'd let him shoot all day. And him as a defender against Lillard's PR just doesn't cut it (or against pretty much anything, really).

Another great game by Franz wasted, a shame. But good for the tank. Paolo had a great first half, but started shooting too many jumpers in the second. Still, a good game by him overall.

Goga should have gotten more minutes, the Blazers were killing us inside and Mo is a horrible rim protector.

[eyriq]

Play-in question: the three teams that DON'T make the playoffs...how are they seeded for lottery? Do they go back to their regular season record seeding - even if they win a play-in game?

My understanding is that:

1. 7 plays 8 for the 7th seed
2. 9 plays 10 for the opportunity to play the loser of the 7 vs 8 game
3. 9 vs 10 winner plays 7 vs 8 loser for the 8th seed

The two teams that lose the play-in are in the lottery

[fendilim]

And the one loss/one win streak continues even against the short-handed Blazers at home. This probably means we will beat the Bucks at home on Tuesday. We really missed Wendell, though of course the Blazers missed Nurkic too.

Mo Wagner sure likes to shoot the 3 an awful lot for a guy who is shooting 30% for the season and 31% for his career. I don't know why there are still defenders who bite on his 3s when he fakes it, I'd let him shoot all day. And him as a defender against Lillard's PR just doesn't cut it (or against pretty much anything, really).

Another great game by Franz wasted, a shame. But good for the tank. Paolo had a great first half, but started shooting too many jumpers in the second. Still, a good game by him overall.

Goga should have gotten more minutes, the Blazers were killing us inside and Mo is a horrible rim protector.

Well, if it wasn’t for Franz, I don’t think he’ll be in the league anymore… he was already cut to begin with and jobless for a few weeks

[fendilim]

I hope indiana keeps winning the bulls dont hehe

[drsd]

Play-in question: the three teams that DON'T make the playoffs...how are they seeded for lottery? Do they go back to their regular season record seeding - even if they win a play-in game?

My understanding is that:

1. 7 plays 8 for the 7th seed
2. 9 plays 10 for the opportunity to play the loser of the 7 vs 8 game
3. 9 vs 10 winner plays 7 vs 8 loser for the 8th seed

The two teams that lose the play-in are in the lottery

... at their seed. So for example, if the 9 and 10 seed makes the playoffs, they would get a worse draft pick than the 7 and 8 seeds. (The 9 and 10th best teams are the 7 and 8 seeds, and get a draft pick as such). And in this scenario, the 7 and 8th worst teams are IN the lottery.




..

[drsd]

However, the real thing that needs fixing is that disaster of an all-star game.

Team LeBreon took 138 FG attempts, and ....... ZERO FT attempts. None.

Edit : If a team beats someone in a "fluke game" so what? If we make the play-ins (doubt it) I would love to see what this team could do if we ended up in a Bo7 against Boston. Hence what I said behind the idea of tweaking a team to matchup better as part of a strategy.

Indeed. Look, the 7th best team is not going to win the title. So if the 10th best "wants it more" and wins two game eliminating the 7th, that's actually good for the game. (and might be something we Magic fans get this year!)

..

[Blue_and_Whte]

And the one loss/one win streak continues even against the short-handed Blazers at home. This probably means we will beat the Bucks at home on Tuesday. We really missed Wendell, though of course the Blazers missed Nurkic too.

Mo Wagner sure likes to shoot the 3 an awful lot for a guy who is shooting 30% for the season and 31% for his career. I don't know why there are still defenders who bite on his 3s when he fakes it, I'd let him shoot all day. And him as a defender against Lillard's PR just doesn't cut it (or against pretty much anything, really).

Another great game by Franz wasted, a shame. But good for the tank. Paolo had a great first half, but started shooting too many jumpers in the second. Still, a good game by him overall.

Goga should have gotten more minutes, the Blazers were killing us inside and Mo is a horrible rim protector.

Well, if it wasn’t for Franz, I don’t think he’ll be in the league anymore… he was already cut to begin with and jobless for a few weeks

There are worse players in league (+10 MINS) than M. Wagner.

[Rainwater]

100% agree. One game tournaments allow bad teams to have hot hand and it's awful for teams that fought to get 45+ wins.

it also supports mediocrity. It's just mindblowing that 13 out of 30 teams are 4 games over or under .500.
You will have lot of Wizards teams. Teams that not good enough to win playoff series but it's fine by them and ownership won't tank so they will stay in this limbo for ages.

I 100% disagree. The play-ins are for two reasons.

1) it delays teams from tanking: for example Portland tried to win this game but in the old system it would have already been in power tank mode.

2) it generates income for the league. Anything that brings in new money will be seen as positive to the CBA-based decisions made.

My views, any decisions made that make all teams try to win all games is a good idea. I do not think the play-ins is perfect here, but it is better than when it does not exist.

A better system still would be to have the top-7 teams in the playoffs, and the other 8 teams be in a single game elevation tourney to be the 8-seed. That would mean that no team would ever want to be the 15 seed, and thus, every game would ,after from game-1 to game-82.


..

It's a 1-2 bag. I am not a play-in fan even though I like the idea. Play-in tournament might take years before teams build around the idea or the concept.

The positive is that it does give teams something to do other then be stuck somewhere from 16-25.

The negative is that its too early to call it a failure regardless of my feelings. I can see the idea of a playin being tweaked.

However, the real thing that needs fixing is that disaster of an all-star game.

Edit : If a team beats someone in a "fluke game" so what? If we make the play-ins (doubt it) I would love to see what this team could do if we ended up in a Bo7 against Boston. Hence what I said behind the idea of tweaking a team to matchup better as part of a strategy.

The example was the Cavs and the Hornets where the Cavs earned their spot and were the better team but lost to the Hornets in a fluke play in game. Where the Cavs would have been far more competitive but we ended up with a boring first round match up where the hornets got blown out.

I love Paolo and the magic are on the rise, additionally I would match rather see them there instead of Tor, Was, and Chicago because of those two reasons mentioned.

However, the magic are just not a playoff team and I have no interest in watching them get blown out in the first round. And despite the mediocrity of Tor, Bulls, and Washington they are still better teams than the magic at the moment and would be far more competitive if they some how got there. I just feel like the magic would be better off improving their lottery odds then fighting for a play in game. I feel like the play in game is such a short sighted goal with no real purpose.

I still remember when so many wanted those Vuc teams to go to the playoffs despite the fact they had no reason to be there and they should have started rebuilding. What purpose did that serve in the long run?

[JoshuaPotter]

I 100% disagree. The play-ins are for two reasons.

1) it delays teams from tanking: for example Portland tried to win this game but in the old system it would have already been in power tank mode.

2) it generates income for the league. Anything that brings in new money will be seen as positive to the CBA-based decisions made.

My views, any decisions made that make all teams try to win all games is a good idea. I do not think the play-ins is perfect here, but it is better than when it does not exist.

A better system still would be to have the top-7 teams in the playoffs, and the other 8 teams be in a single game elevation tourney to be the 8-seed. That would mean that no team would ever want to be the 15 seed, and thus, every game would ,after from game-1 to game-82.


..

It's a 1-2 bag. I am not a play-in fan even though I like the idea. Play-in tournament might take years before teams build around the idea or the concept.

The positive is that it does give teams something to do other then be stuck somewhere from 16-25.

The negative is that its too early to call it a failure regardless of my feelings. I can see the idea of a playin being tweaked.

However, the real thing that needs fixing is that disaster of an all-star game.

Edit : If a team beats someone in a "fluke game" so what? If we make the play-ins (doubt it) I would love to see what this team could do if we ended up in a Bo7 against Boston. Hence what I said behind the idea of tweaking a team to matchup better as part of a strategy.

The example was the Cavs and the Hornets where the Cavs earned their spot and were the better team but lost to the Hornets in a fluke play in game. Where the Cavs would have been far more competitive but we ended up with a boring first round match up where the hornets got blown out.

I love Paolo and the magic are on the rise, additionally I would match rather see them there instead of Tor, Was, and Chicago because of those two reasons mentioned.

However, the magic are just not a playoff team and I have no interest in watching them get blown out in the first round. And despite the mediocrity of Tor, Bulls, and Washington they are still better teams than the magic at the moment and would be far more competitive if they some how got there. I just feel like the magic would be better off improving their lottery odds then fighting for a play in game. I feel like the play in game is such a short sighted goal with no real purpose.

I still remember when so many wanted those Vuc teams to go to the playoffs despite the fact they had no reason to be there and they should have started rebuilding. What purpose did that serve in the long run?

Ok first off. You lead with some valid points and then went sideways.

So what if a team loses on a fluke play? Typically 7-8 seeded teams are sweeps in the first round yet they still play to get there. For better or worse, fluke play is just part of the game we have to accept.

This team isn't anything like the Vuc lead teams. Not even close. A playoff run this early would be cool even though I do not think we will make it, I don't mind them trying.

Where we are now seems to be Paolo + Franz + decent supporting cast = .500 team and playoffs. So making the play in wont hurt my feelings. Since everyone came back from injury we have been coasting right at .500. This on paper doesn't look anything like Vuc lead teams. Unless you want to use Fournier as an example of how our backcourt hasn't gotten much better since then.

[pepe1991]

It's a 1-2 bag. I am not a play-in fan even though I like the idea. Play-in tournament might take years before teams build around the idea or the concept.

The positive is that it does give teams something to do other then be stuck somewhere from 16-25.

The negative is that its too early to call it a failure regardless of my feelings. I can see the idea of a playin being tweaked.

However, the real thing that needs fixing is that disaster of an all-star game.

Edit : If a team beats someone in a "fluke game" so what? If we make the play-ins (doubt it) I would love to see what this team could do if we ended up in a Bo7 against Boston. Hence what I said behind the idea of tweaking a team to matchup better as part of a strategy.

The example was the Cavs and the Hornets where the Cavs earned their spot and were the better team but lost to the Hornets in a fluke play in game. Where the Cavs would have been far more competitive but we ended up with a boring first round match up where the hornets got blown out.

I love Paolo and the magic are on the rise, additionally I would match rather see them there instead of Tor, Was, and Chicago because of those two reasons mentioned.

However, the magic are just not a playoff team and I have no interest in watching them get blown out in the first round. And despite the mediocrity of Tor, Bulls, and Washington they are still better teams than the magic at the moment and would be far more competitive if they some how got there. I just feel like the magic would be better off improving their lottery odds then fighting for a play in game. I feel like the play in game is such a short sighted goal with no real purpose.

I still remember when so many wanted those Vuc teams to go to the playoffs despite the fact they had no reason to be there and they should have started rebuilding. What purpose did that serve in the long run?

Ok first off. You lead with some valid points and then went sideways.

So what if a team loses on a fluke play? Typically 7-8 seeded teams are sweeps in the first round yet they still play to get there. For better or worse, fluke play is just part of the game we have to accept.

This team isn't anything like the Vuc lead teams. Not even close. A playoff run this early would be cool even though I do not think we will make it, I don't mind them trying.

Where we are now seems to be Paolo + Franz + decent supporting cast = .500 team and playoffs. So making the play in wont hurt my feelings. Since everyone came back from injury we have been coasting right at .500. This on paper doesn't look anything like Vuc lead teams. Unless you want to use Fournier as an example of how our backcourt hasn't gotten much better since then.

Because it's a bull***.
Why would some dumb tournament win count more than 82 games ?

Clippers had 6 wins more than Pelicans and missed playoffs due one game fluke.
Sure people probably wanted to watch Pelicans more, but that still doesn't change fact it's complete and utter bul***it.

It's not about Magic per -se ,but teams being 8,9,10 or even 12 games below .500 have no business being in playoffs. It just devalues first round even further and eliminates any hope for upsets.


Vuc led team made playoffs with 42-40 record in year one. Current Orlando Magic team is 13 games below that win rate, to project that team to current win-loss records, Magic would be fighting for 6th seed

And even that second year playoff team was 7 games below .500.


At the end of a day you simply have to be able to see through BS. Playin is there to create more games. Silver wanted mid season tournament to create more games. Allstar game is only played to have more games. Preseason, summer league are all televized to have- more games. More games = bigger revenue. Bigger revenue = more money. Not to boost product but to boost pockets of owners & private league that lives off tv rights.

If there is actually any desire to improve quality of product several things would have to be changed:
1) cumulative XY years record for lottery picks
2) regular season champions being crowned & validates as champions
3) playoffs with as little teams as possible
4) no back to back games
5) less commercial breaks
6) tighter officiating and no superstar calls
7) limiting upper level of cap space that team can pay


But nba is not in business of improving basketball product but in business of making money for private interests.

[eyriq]

I love the play-in! And it is clearly working to increase competitiveness. Good teams are extra motivated to be 6th or better, bad teams are motivated to play out the season for a chance.

I have no clue what the mid-season tournament will do but I like the idea.

[JoshuaPotter]

Because it's a bull***.
Why would some dumb tournament win count more than 82 games ?

Clippers had 6 wins more than Pelicans and missed playoffs due one game fluke.
Sure people probably wanted to watch Pelicans more, but that still doesn't change fact it's complete and utter bul***it.

It's not about Magic per -se ,but teams being 8,9,10 or even 12 games below .500 have no business being in playoffs. It just devalues first round even further and eliminates any hope for upsets.


Vuc led team made playoffs with 42-40 record in year one. Current Orlando Magic team is 13 games below that win rate, to project that team to current win-loss records, Magic would be fighting for 6th seed

And even that second year playoff team was 7 games below .500.


At the end of a day you simply have to be able to see through BS. Playin is there to create more games. Silver wanted mid season tournament to create more games. Allstar game is only played to have more games. Preseason, summer league are all televized to have- more games. More games = bigger revenue. Bigger revenue = more money. Not to boost product but to boost pockets of owners & private league that lives off tv rights.

If there is actually any desire to improve quality of product several things would have to be changed:
1) cumulative XY years record for lottery picks
2) regular season champions being crowned & validates as champions
3) playoffs with as little teams as possible
4) no back to back games
5) less commercial breaks
6) tighter officiating and no superstar calls
7) limiting upper level of cap space that team can pay


But nba is not in business of improving basketball product but in business of making money for private interests.

First off, some well made points in there. Secondly, I think you attempted to make too many outside points to validate what you were saying when I think the simple answer is the correct one. The league wants more games, not necessarily a better product. I think that's the most agreeable point made.

That being said. I do not think the idea of a play-in is bad in of itself. If you look at teams records this year there appears to be teams with some parity as there is benefit for them. Whereas, there is no benefit in having picks 10-14 for the sheer sake of having them in the prior system.

The value of picks 11-14 is I imagine what's at stake here. Since 15th/16th are playoff teams. If you are "stuck in 11-14 tier win rate" I can see potential value in making moves to get incrementally better like oh so many advocate for here.

I am open to better ideas to create parity. Right now having 30 teams and rewarding the best 12 and giving the mid 11-18th pack something to fight over in thought doesn't sound bad if the top layer wasn't so undesirably stacked.

[Rainwater]

It's a 1-2 bag. I am not a play-in fan even though I like the idea. Play-in tournament might take years before teams build around the idea or the concept.

The positive is that it does give teams something to do other then be stuck somewhere from 16-25.

The negative is that its too early to call it a failure regardless of my feelings. I can see the idea of a playin being tweaked.

However, the real thing that needs fixing is that disaster of an all-star game.

Edit : If a team beats someone in a "fluke game" so what? If we make the play-ins (doubt it) I would love to see what this team could do if we ended up in a Bo7 against Boston. Hence what I said behind the idea of tweaking a team to matchup better as part of a strategy.

The example was the Cavs and the Hornets where the Cavs earned their spot and were the better team but lost to the Hornets in a fluke play in game. Where the Cavs would have been far more competitive but we ended up with a boring first round match up where the hornets got blown out.

I love Paolo and the magic are on the rise, additionally I would match rather see them there instead of Tor, Was, and Chicago because of those two reasons mentioned.

However, the magic are just not a playoff team and I have no interest in watching them get blown out in the first round. And despite the mediocrity of Tor, Bulls, and Washington they are still better teams than the magic at the moment and would be far more competitive if they some how got there. I just feel like the magic would be better off improving their lottery odds then fighting for a play in game. I feel like the play in game is such a short sighted goal with no real purpose.

I still remember when so many wanted those Vuc teams to go to the playoffs despite the fact they had no reason to be there and they should have started rebuilding. What purpose did that serve in the long run?

Ok first off. You lead with some valid points and then went sideways.

So what if a team loses on a fluke play? Typically 7-8 seeded teams are sweeps in the first round yet they still play to get there. For better or worse, fluke play is just part of the game we have to accept.

This team isn't anything like the Vuc lead teams. Not even close. A playoff run this early would be cool even though I do not think we will make it, I don't mind them trying.

Where we are now seems to be Paolo + Franz + decent supporting cast = .500 team and playoffs. So making the play in wont hurt my feelings. Since everyone came back from injury we have been coasting right at .500. This on paper doesn't look anything like Vuc lead teams. Unless you want to use Fournier as an example of how our backcourt hasn't gotten much better since then.

Pepe already covered many of my points better than how I could have, lol. But in regards to the poor start people seem to only attribute it to an injured team (which leads to an ill advised assumption) without looking at the other factors that could have played a role like a young team, continuity, and probably the biggest factor the difficult schedule they played to start. I implore you to look at the teams they faced during the horrid start, those loses were not sure fired wins even healthy. Out of all the teams they lost to during that span only two teams, char and Detroit, I believe the magic would have beat if healthy. The other teams were all superior teams or ended up beating the magic again even when guys like Fultz came back. A healthy team doesn't automatically mean they would be playing .500 at the beginning the season while it does improve their chances.

With all that being said you can still argue that the magic could have been a .500 just as I can argue they wouldn't because no one knows for sure what could have happen. But what we do know for a fact is that the magic are below .500 currently and I don't believe that is deserving of a play in spot.

And I wasn't comparing the Vuc teams with the Paolo team. That wasn't my point and both teams were in two completely different phases. The question was what point does it serve for the current team to reach the play in game similarly to how those Vuc reached the the playoffs.

[Skybox]

I like the play-in, even though I "identify" as a traditionalist. I hate the idea of re-seeding the playoffs regardless of conference and I don't like the ASG teams being picked. I like a conference champ and I like a healthy hatred of the Western teams (or just pride for your own)...I like the play-in because teams (like ours) are encouraged to f***ing compete! I don't care if a bad team beats a good team on a fluke playoff play-that's Cinderella stuff and makes it fun. Alternatively, I wish they'd go back to the 3 game first round series to bring a little more March Madness type excitement and maybe a few upsets. If you win 2 out of 3, it's not a scam - it's either a favorable matchup, a genius coaching adjustment, or just a heroic effort...all are great in my book. I don't favor the underdog necessarily but I have no problem with a team surprising another team and the play-in makes it just a little more interesting. Without the play-in, we'd be tanking

[VFX]

I don't care about the play-in. It's fine to keep things competitive for the fringe teams.

It's good for teams that end up making it that aren't completely rebuilding. The reality is that some teams are bad without "tanking". Those teams need more talent. Getting decimated by real teams isn't going to push them further. You don't get bonus points losing in the first round of the play-in as opposed to missing it one team removed.

This isn't the NCAA tournament. In the NBA having the most talent always wins.

Front offices building rosters is unfortunately as important, if not more, than the actual game at this point.

[drsd]

I don't care about the play-in. It's fine to keep things competitive for the fringe teams.

It's good for teams that end up making it that aren't completely rebuilding. The reality is that some teams are bad without "tanking". Those teams need more talent. Getting decimated by real teams isn't going to push them further. You don't get bonus points losing in the first round of the play-in as opposed to missing it one team removed.

This isn't the NCAA tournament. In the NBA having the most talent always wins.

Front offices building rosters is unfortunately as important, if not more, than the actual game at this point.

And-1

Let's say an 8-seed beats a 1-seed; that's cool. But said team still CANNOT win the NBA title.

I see only 6 teams that can win a title this year: Bucks, Celts, Sixers, Nuggets, Grizz, and Suns. Yes all six of those teams can loss in round-1. But a team like the Cavs or Kings, while capable of beating any of those six in one series, does not have sustained talent to win it all.


Back to the Magic: if Orlando was to make the play0ins, the team could fluke two wins to get in the playoffs. And it would be a tough series for the 1-seed, but no-one can be honest about Homeric views on Orlando progressing through the playoffs.

[penny_nz]

It's actually something I've never looked into and is very interesting, apart from 1 year all NBA championships have been won by the #4 seed or higher.

No. 1 (53), No. 2 (12), No. 3 (7), No. 4 (1)

The 1 exception was the 1995 Rockets who won from the #6 seed and of course who did they beat? Us ... in a sweep... what a record to be on the wrong end of