2008 West versus other historically great conferences

[Warspite]

1988-89 Eastern conferance

1. Pistons 6 former allstars, 3 HoF possibles 2 HoFers (Zeke/Dumars)
2. Cavs 3 Former allstars, 2 HoF possibles
3. Knicks 5 Former allstars, 2 HoF possibles 1 Hofer (Ewing)
4. Hawks 4 Former allstars 2 HoFers (Nique/Mosses)
5. Bucks 4 Former allstars 2HoF possibles 1 HoFer (Moncrief)
6. Bulls 4 Former allstars 1HoF possible 2 HoFers (MJ/Pippen)
7. 76ers 3 former allstars 1 HoF possible 1 HoFer (Charles)
8. Celtics 7 former allstars 1 HoF possible 3 HoFers (33/McHale/Parrish)
9. Pacers 3 Former allstars 2 HoF possibles 1future HoFer (Miller)


Im not sure this is the toughest but its one of the best I ever saw

MJ, Bird, Charles, Nique, Zeke, Ewing, Mchale, Price, Mosses, Miller, Pippen, Dumars, Moncrief, Cheeks, Parrish, DJ and Nance.

[Diaper Dandy]

Warspite, I could cry tears of joy. Thank you, thank you, thank you for understanding the thread and playing along. Although I still think the individual players have to take a backseat to the teams themselves. I'll look into those teams and see what I come up with.

And I re-read my last post and wanted to clarify something: I think Brandon Roy will be better than Damon Stoudamire. I think David West will be better than Vin Baker. But if you conside Roy and West possible future HOFers, you have to understand that in 96-97, it looked like Stoudamire and Baker would be possible future Hall of Famers, too. Not everyone is going to live up to their potential. Not everyone is going to progress as much as we might think. Some people are even going to regress. My point is here in 2008 it's easy to see who regressed (Baker and Stoudamire being excellent examples- Terrell Brandon being another) or who didn't meet their potential (Juwan Howard) in 1997. But it's impossible to see what young players from 2008 will regress or fail to meet their potential.

But you best believe some of them will.

[G35]

-= 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.

-= original quote snipped =-



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.

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

Man you need things broken down to you like a 3 year old. Look at the questions you ask. You realize that "best" is an individual interpretation. Or maybe you don't realize that. Just like best team of all time, the MVP voting it's not an exact science that has to satisfy your curiosity.


You can set a standard right here and you can accept it or not. 50 wins is considered a win total for a top level team. The most teams in a conference has been 7 in 2000-01. There are 8 or 9 teams that are on pace to win 50 games. If that happens that will set a historical precedent.

Figure it out. Or do you need it broken down even further......

Also from reading this you were the first one to bring up the cyclical point. I don't agree and most others don't agree that it's cyclical at all. You can go into candyland and think that somehow with the passing of time the Knicks, Sixers, Hawks, Milwaukee and Charlotte are going to somehow become dominant teams in the future.

If it were cyclical why is it that only 8 teams have won a championship in the last 28 years.

In the NFL your prized comparison their have been 11 different champions in the last 14 years.

The NBA has not been cyclical just because a single player can dominate a leauge, e.g. Michael Jordan, Shaq, Duncan


There hasn't been a player that has dominated the NFL the way these players have. It's not cyclical and you will disappointed if you think that the East is going to somehow turn it around and be as strong a conference as the West........

[Diaper Dandy]

You can set a standard right here and you can accept it or not. 50 wins is considered a win total for a top level team. The most teams in a conference has been 7 in 2000-01. There are 8 or 9 teams that are on pace to win 50 games. If that happens that will set a historical precedent.

And that means...?

The 95-96 Bulls won 72 games. The 96-97 Bulls won 69, as did the 71-72 Lakers. The 72-73 Celtics won 68 gmes. Do you think those are the top 4 teams in NBA history, in that order, with the 69 win Bulls and Lakers exactly tied? Or do you think those numbers need some context and background, and then decide?

No one is saying the West this year isn't on a record seting pace. I'm asking if it's the bes conference ever. I certainly disagree with toast's methodology- I'm not sure yet if I disagree with his conclusion, although I think I might- but at least he's stating an opinion instead of just repeatedly telling us about how many 50 win teams the West might have. I mean, do you think you're shedding some light fo anyone here? Do you think people reading this thread really don't know?

It's not cyclical and you will disappointed if you think that the East is going to somehow turn it around and be as strong a conference as the West........

Okay, so you think the West will always be better than the East from here on out. Okay, thumbs up buddy. History is most definetely not on your side- from the late 80s East Warpite mentioned, into the relative balance of the early and mid 90s (sometimes the East was better, sometimes the West, but generally it was even), into the late 90s Dtown84 talked about, into the West's dominance of the last decade. Now, suddenly it all just stops. The West will always be better. Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Now, do you have anything to add about, ya know, the actual topic of the thread? Going to talk about the season Dtown or Warspite fbrought up? Pick a very good one of your own and then show how this year is better than it?

Or are you gonna tell us again how many teams are on pace for 50 wins in the West right now?

[G35]

-= original quote snipped =-



Okay, so you think the West will always be better than the East from here on out. Okay, thumbs up buddy. History is most definetely not on your side- from the late 80s East Warpite mentioned, into the relative balance of the early and mid 90s (sometimes the East was better, sometimes the West, but generally it was even), into the late 90s Dtown84 talked about, into the West's dominance of the last decade. Now, suddenly it all just stops. The West will always be better. Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Now, do you have anything to add about, ya know, the actual topic of the thread? Going to talk about the season Dtown or Warspite fbrought up? Pick a very good one of your own and then show how this year is better than it?

Or are you gonna tell us again how many teams are on pace for 50 wins in the West right now?

Didn't you ask for other peoples opinions? Best=opinion. Not fact which is what you are looking for.

Just like you said you are playing a game.


Yes it was even since the 80's imo. But since the late 90's it has tilted towards the WC. You said cyclical, define cyclical. If you mean that the EC may even it up in 20 years, then yeah I agree it's cyclical. If you think that the East is going to somehow come up in the next 5-10 years no i don't agree. It's now been 10 years and the West is getting stronger. They have the younger teams with the brighter futures. Say I'm wrong. Prove it and not just talk the talk.

If it makes you feel better that the East might turn it around in 20 years go for it.

It seems like you are butt hurt because the EC is getting knocked because they are seem as junior varsity. Tuff break, it's true they are the JV league. Seems like you don't want to hear that........

[Warspite]

WC has adv that EC doesnt.

1. more warm weather cities
2. better owners
3. WC cities generaly have bad Baseball and football teams
4. WC cites have bad NCAA basketball teams
5. WC fans are much more laid back, fair weather, uneducated and ignorant/less critical of there team as compared with EC teams.

The Spurs, lakers, clippers, kings, blazers and jazz dont even have NFL teams to compete with and the Suns are borderline. Its not like the fans can follow other sports or teams while a EC fan might have as many as 5 NBA teams within a few hours drive.

Still the salary cap, draft and FA allow any team with a good front office and an owner willing to spend around 10mill in lux tax to compete. Winning a championship is another matter altogether. No matter how strong the WC is 1-8 its pretty irrelavant when the 2 best teams are in the EC. The lakers or any other team dont recieve extra points for every 50 win team in there conferance.

Its pretty meaningless IMHO this debate about strength of conferance. Its just a losers argument that there team would have gone further in the playoffs if they played in another conferance.

[Diaper Dandy]

Didn't you ask for other peoples opinions? Best=opinion. Not fact which is what you are looking for.

No, I'm asking for people to back those opinions up. Half of everything written on this board is opinion, but the threads get interesting when people make argument for and against them.

I posted a response to the rest of your quote, but then I deleted it. You're still talking about the West vs. East this year. No one else is. Go make another thread if you want to talk about that. Keep it out of this one.

[Dtown84]

WC has adv that EC doesnt.

1. more warm weather cities
2. better owners
3. WC cities generaly have bad Baseball and football teams
4. WC cites have bad NCAA basketball teams
5. WC fans are much more laid back, fair weather, uneducated and ignorant/less critical of there team as compared with EC teams.

1: True, though it also has smaller cities. (Portland, Utah, Sacramento, San Antonio) weather can be balanced by quality market. (Boston, Chicago, New York (if they were competent.

2: No argument here.

3: I'm not sure what this has anything to do with winning. I don't think any players say 'Well the Rangers suck I should play for the Mavericks'

4: Pac 10's not bad. I mean UCLA is historically good that hasn't stopped the Lakers. Like argument #3 I don't see how this helps or hurts.

5: This sounds more like a disadvantage. A rabid home court is definitely an advantage. More to the point I'm not sure I even agree, Golden State, Utah and Sacramento have been some of the loudest places in the league. This one doesn't seem all that regional.

[G35]

-= original quote snipped =-



No, I'm asking for people to back those opinions up. Half of everything written on this board is opinion, but the threads get interesting when people make argument for and against them.

I posted a response to the rest of your quote, but then I deleted it. You're still talking about the West vs. East this year. No one else is. Go make another thread if you want to talk about that. Keep it out of this one.

No you are asking for peoples opinions and criticizing them if they don't line up with your opinion.

Don't worry your I'll be too busy watching the West and ignoring the East anyway......

[Diaper Dandy]

Don't worry your I'll be too busy watching the West and ignoring the East anyway......

NO ONE CARES! THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EAST VERSUS WEST THIS YEAR

You really don't get that? Or you're just trolling?

[JordansBulls]

Well I remember in the 80's I used to think it was unfair that the Sixers had to fight it out against the Bucks and the Celtics just to get to the finals against the Lakers.

Whereas the Lakers back then really didn't have any competition. Do you know that the Lakers went to the finals 8 times in the 80's? Because they were the one dominant team in the West.

But the East had the Celtics/Sixers/Bucks/Pistons and were a much deeper conference. Sometimes it's just luck that a team plays in an era where they are the dominant team and are a level above their competition.

Thats what is so funny when people talk about how great it was back in the 80's but if you weren't a fan of the Lakers/Celtics/Sixers or Pistons your team didn't even have a chance. Second class for everyone else.

At least now there is a competitive balance. So I do agree that even if the WC is a stronger conference there is a good chance they don't bring home the title. Boston or Detroit has a really good chance. I think all the WC teams would love if they both got upset and were able to play the Cavs or Orlando in the finals........

This is what I have always said regarding that. A lot of Lakers fans nowadays tend to dismiss the eastern conference especially what Lebron and Wade have done in taking teams to the finals and even winning because they played in the so called "weaker conference".
Be that as it may, I never see any fans dismiss how much of a cakewalk it was for the Lakers in the 80's to come out of the west.
In all honesty no one had half the talent the Lakers had out west in the 80's. So why all of a sudden does it matter if a conference is weaker than the other when it favored the Lakers in the 80's?

[G35]

-= original quote snipped =-



NO ONE CARES! THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EAST VERSUS WEST THIS YEAR

You really don't get that? Or you're just trolling?

Excellent point. This is a topic about THIS YEARS WC and how it ranks historically. Not about football or whether it's cyclical.


Some people just bring up irrelevant tangents.........

-= original quote snipped =-



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.

[G35]

-= original quote snipped =-



This is what I have always said regarding that. A lot of Lakers fans nowadays tend to dismiss the eastern conference especially what Lebron and Wade have done in taking teams to the finals and even winning because they played in the so called "weaker conference".
Be that as it may, I never see any fans dismiss how much of a cakewalk it was for the Lakers in the 80's to come out of the west.
In all honesty no one had half the talent the Lakers had out west in the 80's. So why all of a sudden does it matter if a conference is weaker than the other when it favored the Lakers in the 80's?

I think people tend to look back and just see the Celtics-Lakers rivalry and gloss over the fact that the Lakers did have an easy road to the finals.

The difference between now and then however is that the Lakers won 5 times in the 80's whereas the WC now is more dominant and it has won 7 of the last 9 titles. If the EC had won 1 or 2 more titles in that span maybe there wouldn't be as much outrage.

The record for a team not making the playoff's is 45 wins in the 2001 season. Check out this article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/w ... index.html

When the NBA begins its postseason in less than eight weeks, a team with 48 victories could be sitting at home while a team with 36 victories gets rewarded with a trip to the playoffs, whatever prestige or r

[Diaper Dandy]

Excellent point. This is a topic about THIS YEARS WC and how it ranks historically. Not about football or whether it's cyclical.


Some people just bring up irrelevant tangents.........

Right, in response to you and your idiotic 2008 East vs. West posts. One time is an honest mistake. Twice is kinda boneheaded. Three, four times? Either trolling or downright stupidity. You tell me. Or, better yet, don't, I'm ignoring you for the remainder of ths thread.

JordansBulls, in the long term no one will remember the discrepency between conferences anyway, just like someone always needs to point out the Lakers easy road in the 80's- because it's rarely every thought of. You can say it's a bigger deal now, but I don't see how the West winning 7 of 9 championships is any different between the East winning 8 of 10 from '88 to '98.

Anyway, I think the late 80s year that Warspite brought up was probably the toughest conference, and the 96-97 East would probably be about as tough as the West this year. Great conference, no doubt.

[G35]

-= original quote snipped =-



Right, in response to you and your idiotic 2008 East vs. West posts. One time is an honest mistake. Twice is kinda boneheaded. Three, four times? Either trolling or downright stupidity. You tell me. Or, better yet, don't, I'm ignoring you for the remainder of ths thread.

Wrong again Diaper Dandy. You had already brought up the cyclical excuse to Dtown. Keep track of what you say. That was the whole reason I even responded to this was because of your cyclical statement which isn't even correct. It would be a cycle if you could show that the East is goign to turn it around in the next year or so. But it's been 10 years now and no hope in sight.

I hadn't even replied to this thread when you posted this. I'm not saying your on crack but your acting very crackish. I would ignore me too when you're being shown as a hypocrite......

-= 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.