Elias suggests it's not cyclical

[G35]

From ESPN's weekend dime

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... -080322-23

More evidence came this week from our friends at the Elias Sports Bureau that disputes the frequent claim of commissioner David Stern -- and some of our regular readers from the East's few unashamed fan bases -- that the Western Conference's dominance is merely "cyclical." Boston and Detroit entered Friday night's play with the two best records in the league. The Celtics are 55-13 for a winning percentage of .809, with the Pistons at 49-19 and .721.

However ...

It's the first time in 17 seasons that two Eastern Conference residents have had the two-highest winning percentages this deep in the schedule. For the last time that happened this late in the season, you have to rewind to March 21, 1991: Chicago was 50-15 (.769) and Boston was 50-18 (.735). And we still say that even if Boston continues its regular-season dominance and wins the championship -- even if the champ comes from anywhere in the East -- that doesn't make up for the fact that two-thirds of the conference is mediocre. Or worse.

PS -- On the flip side? The Elias Sports Bureau reports that nine times since the 1980-81 season, the top two records in the league on or after March 20 have been claimed by teams in the West. In seven of those cases, Elias says, West teams finished the season with the top two records: 1993-94, 1994-95, 1999, 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03 and last season.

I knew it wasn't cyclical. 9 times the WC have had the top 2 teams since 1980. First time in 17 years the EC has done it if they do it this year......

[GYBE]

Wait, what are you arguing? You're claiming that the East hasn't been good since they don't have a lot of instances of having the two best records. Except that it doesn't make any sense, since this year they likely will accomplish that and everyone knows the East is terrible. So the only conclusion to draw is that having the top two records has no correlation to the overall strength of the conference.

It doesn't matter if the West often had the top two records in the league during the 80's, the East was clearly better then. And it doesn't matter if the East has the top two this year since the West is clearly better. So what's the point of this stat?

[BigWil17]

Wait, what are you arguing? You're claiming that the East hasn't been good since they don't have a lot of instances of having the two best records. Except that it doesn't make any sense, since this year they likely will accomplish that and everyone knows the East is terrible. So the only conclusion to draw is that having the top two records has no correlation to the overall strength of the conference.

It doesn't matter if the West often had the top two records in the league during the 80's, the East was clearly better then. And it doesn't matter if the East has the top two this year since the West is clearly better. So what's the point of this stat?

Palabra!

[Parasight]

The problem here is that out West you have (for the most part) great GMs running their squads. Whereas in the East you have a ton of GMs that just don't know what they're doing for the most part.

So you can argue that the East teams have promising futures, but you could say the same for the West (Portland, GState, Seattle, Utah, New Orleans). The only two things that will keep the East relevant or interesting in the future is LeBron James and Dwight Howard, and I suppose Boston depending on the results of this post-season.

[TheSheriff]

The problem here is that out West you have (for the most part) great GMs running their squads. Whereas in the East you have a ton of GMs that just don't know what they're doing for the most part.

Unti it changes that the only qualification for being a GM is being a former superstar, there will be tons on terrible GMs. the NBA is 30 years behind the NFL and MLB in its hiring practices.

[Heat3]

who cares? Only thing that matters is the ring.

[Dirk_diggler_41]

who cares? Only thing that matters is the ring.

Clearly, it is easier to get to the finals if you play in a Conference with only a couple of great teams, as opposed to a Conference with eight very good teams. The only tough team the Celtics will face in the East is the pistons.

Do you think mediocre teams like the Cavs and Sixers would have made it to the Finals the last ten years if they played in the West?

[Dtown84]

This argument doesn't make much sense, for one it doesn't take into account the rest of the conference records. Hell you can explain the East's inability to have the top to teams in the 80s with one team, the Lakers. They were an excellent team, okay now name another dominant consistent team in the west that decade. You had Houston for about a season or two, then the Blazers at the very end of the decade, that's about it.

Also why are we only going with two best records? Why not best record? Or the best three? Or hell compare the records of the teams that made the playoffs? oh I forgot it kills the argument.

All that data proves is the West has been dominant this decade which *gasp* we already knew.

[richboy]

The East has been weak for a very long time. Even before this century. Go back to the Jordan days and the Knicks and Pacers seem to get much credit. IMO that was because there was so much attention on the Bulls. Thats really all the Bulls had to worry about. While out west you had Phoenix, Utah, Houston, San Antonio, Seattle all better than the Knicks and Pacers if you ask me.

Whats amazing is the gap seems to be growing. If not for the KG trade Boston wouldn't be elite. Portland will have another lottery pick and Oden. Phoenix might get a lottery pick with Denver. A healthy Brand next year for the Clippers.

[Dtown84]

The East has been weak for a very long time. Even before this century. Go back to the Jordan days and the Knicks and Pacers seem to get much credit. IMO that was because there was so much attention on the Bulls. Thats really all the Bulls had to worry about. While out west you had Phoenix, Utah, Houston, San Antonio, Seattle all better than the Knicks and Pacers if you ask me.

Whats amazing is the gap seems to be growing. If not for the KG trade Boston wouldn't be elite. Portland will have another lottery pick and Oden. Phoenix might get a lottery pick with Denver. A healthy Brand next year for the Clippers.

I'll take the Pacer team that that took the Bulls to seven, and the Knicks teams of the early 90s over the Sonics who only had the one great year where they maxed out sending the Bulls to six, and several other years of losing the big game. But that's just Opinion either way.

What's not opinion is The west also had several years were they were extremely top heavy. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings?season=1997

Still even discounting the other teams (which is silly), how would it be any different than the West in 80s?

While I agree with you on Phoenix and Portland, the Clippers need to prove they can avoid f*cking up before I laud them as an up and coming team again.

[Heat3]

-= original quote snipped =-



Clearly, it is easier to get to the finals if you play in a Conference with only a couple of great teams, as opposed to a Conference with eight very good teams. The only tough team the Celtics will face in the East is the pistons.

Do you think mediocre teams like the Cavs and Sixers would have made it to the Finals the last ten years if they played in the West?

As a fan of the mavs you should know having a top record means nothing in the playoffs.

[G35]

The point is this isn't cyclical. The East may in time even things up but as was said the ownership is so much better out West. It doesn't take 10-15 years for teams in the West to turn things around. Look how long the Knicks, Philly, Boston (until this year), Milwaukee, Atlanta, Washington have struggled. Look at the prospects for Indiana, New Jersey, Charlotte.

who cares? Only thing that matters is the ring.

How many teams in the East have a chance to win the ring.......

[Dtown84]

How many teams in the East have a chance to win the ring.......

Two, which is the usual amount of west teams that have a chance. Hell it's usually the amount conferences put in year in year out (save for the east for the early part of this decade). I suppose you can say three for the west this year, four if your an optimist.

[G35]

-= original quote snipped =-

Two, which is the usual amount of west teams that have a chance. Hell it's usually the amount conferences put in year in year out (save for the east for the early part of this decade). I suppose you can say three for the west this year, four if your an optimist.

2?

I would say all 8 playoff teams have a chance to go to the finals with the right matchups. In the finals anyone can win. Remember the 2 finals victories the East have had (2003-04 Pistons and 2005-06 Heat) both came as them being underdogs........

[Dtown84]

-= original quote snipped =-



2?

I would say all 8 playoff teams have a chance to go to the finals with the right matchups. In the finals anyone can win. Remember the 2 finals victories the East have had (2003-04 Pistons and 2005-06 Heat) both came as them being underdogs........

I should say 2 with a good chance. With the Pistons in 04, they had already been to the conference finals once, were 26-6 to end the season after they got Sheed and were playing historic level defense.

The Heat had already been to the conference finals, and had a certain big dominant center who had done it all before.

In other words, neither came out of the blue to win the title.

There's a big difference between a chance to get to the finals, and a chance to win it. The Nets (02,03) and the Cavs last year can attest to this.

So I'll stick with my answer of two in the east who have a good chance to win a ring.

[G35]

I should say 2 with a good chance. With the Pistons in 04, they had already been to the conference finals once, were 26-6 to end the season after they got Sheed and were playing historic level defense.

The Heat had already been to the conference finals, and had a certain big dominant center who had done it all before.

In other words, neither came out of the blue to win the title.

There's a big difference between a chance to get to the finals, and a chance to win it. The Nets (02,03) and the Cavs last year can attest to this.

So I'll stick with my answer of two in the east who have a good chance to win a ring.

So you need to specifically say who you think has a legitimate chance to win the title. Saying "2" is just an ambiguous number that could apply to any 2 random teams. You're saying that the Heat and Pistons didn't come out of nowhere.

That the Pistons/Heat had went to the conference finals before. Pistons were playing historic defense and the Heat had a C that had done it before.

Well that could apply to a number of teams in the West.

Utah made the conference finals the year before and have a better home record than Boston this year.

The Spurs are the defending champions.

The Mavericks went to the finals 2 years ago and added Jason Kidd who been to 2 NBA finals.

The Suns have been to the conference finals 2 of the last 3 years and added that big man you said has done it before.

The Lakers are the #1 team in the West and have Kobe who has won 3 titles, Phil Jax who has coached 9 finals winning teams and may have the most talented team when healthy


The only teams that are perceived as not having a legit shot without the right breaks are Houston (no Yao), Hornets and Golden State. All of whom could upset any of the other 5 teams who seem to have a better shot at the title.....

[Dtown84]

So you need to specifically say who you think has a legitimate chance to win the title. Saying "2" is just an ambiguous number that could apply to any 2 random teams. You're saying that the Heat and Pistons didn't come out of nowhere.

That the Pistons/Heat had went to the conference finals before. Pistons were playing historic defense and the Heat had a C that had done it before.

Well that could apply to a number of teams in the West.

Utah made the conference finals the year before and have a better home record than Boston this year.

The Spurs are the defending champions.

The Mavericks went to the finals 2 years ago and added Jason Kidd who been to 2 NBA finals.

The Suns have been to the conference finals 2 of the last 3 years and added that big man you said has done it before.

The Lakers are the #1 team in the West and have Kobe who has won 3 titles, Phil Jax who has coached 9 finals winning teams and may have the most talented team when healthy


The only teams that are perceived as not having a legit shot without the right breaks are Houston (no Yao), Hornets and Golden State. All of whom could upset any of the other 5 teams who seem to have a better shot at the title.....

I said two for the Eastern Conference, I mean that's the question you asked. Boston, Detroit. It doesn't mean they will win, but they certainly have what I feel is a good chance.

With the West I said it's normally two, this year if your generous you could maybe have four.

You already mentioned Golden State and Houston, I'll throw in Denver (no defense), Dallas (habitual choker, struggling with winning teams post Kidd trade), and I don't trust a below .500 team on the road, Utah, can get it done without homecourt advantage.

New Orleans leader is young, but oh so good, so being I suppose they have a chance too. Leaving San Antonio, NO, Phoenix and LA

EDIT: Dallas is below .500 on the road too, another reason why I would discount them.

[Heat3]

How many teams in the East have a chance to win the ring.......

Exactly the same amount that there in the West....ONE.

The conference that won the championship in the last 21 years.....


West 11 vs East 10

2006-07 West
2005-06 East
2004-05 West
2003-04 East
2002-03 West
2001-02 West
2000-01 West
1999-00 West
1998-99 West
1997-98 East
1996-97 East
1995-96 East
1994-95 West
1993-94 West
1992-93 East
1991-92 East
1990-91 East
1989-90 East
1988-89 East
1987-88 West
1986-87 West

[G35]

[quote="Heat3"][/quote]

That makes no sense to the question I asked. I said who has a chance.

You are already knocking out the other 28 teams now.

So if you feel only one team from each conference. Name them. Now.......

[G35]

The West has won the last 7 of 9. No reason to think that percentage is gonna change.......