Is playing in the Eastern Conference worth 7 more wins?

[Bleeding Green]

Some enterprising fellow should calculate the winning percentage of the East vs. the West. If the East is 7 games worse over an 82 game schedule then you have your answer.

Actually, I'll do it. Keep in mind that there are some really bad teams in the West, too. Minny, LA, Memphis and Seattle are atrocious basketball teams. The Blazers haven't played well since they got off to that hot start.

OK, the East has a 42.7% winning percentage against the West. That's 35 wins over an 82 game schedule. 6 below .500. So I guess 6 games? I don't know if that makes any sense.

The Knicks suck against the West. 3-27? Jesus. Miami actually has more wins against the West than the East.

Here are the actual numbers if anyone cares.

Code: Select all

BOS 25-5
TOR 12-18
PHI 15-15
NJN 8-22
NYK 3-27
DET 21-8
CLE 17-13
IND 12-18
CHI 9-21
MIL 8-21
ORL 14-15
WAS 14-16
ATL 13-17
CHA 12-17
MIA 7-22

TOT 190-255

[Jammer]

Nice work Bleeding Green.

NO specific numbers, but some general ones.

The Celtics are 25-5 against the West, which prorates to 50-10; whereas all the Western Teams have lost more than 20 games while winning in the low fifties.

Detroit's record against the West is comparable to the top Western Teams, so one is left trying to explain the Celtics remarkable success against the West.

The Celtics lost 8 of their 15 losses when rotation players were injured or not available, where rotation is defined as 10 players, a starter and backup for each position.

So, the Celtics have rarely lost (7 times) when everyone was healthy and available.

Two of those losses (Washington) were when Rajon Rondo missed a game due to a hamstring injury, and limped around for 21 minutes in the other.

The Celtics got two wins against Sacramento before Mike Bibby was well, and one before Ron Artest was available.

The Celts also got a win against San Antonio when Tony Parker was out, but then beat San Antonio without Kevin Garnett.

Kobe was defended relentlessly by Ray and Tony Allen in the two Laker games, and Kobe was never able to get it going.

Bleeding Green's stats would indicate that the Western Conference is tougher. Except I disagree to some extent, with no data to back it up.

Cleveland started the year off without Varejao, and that didn't help their situation with Pavlovic's troubles also. So, they were undermanned at the start, LeBron injured his finger, and then Drew Gooden got all bent out of shape at Varejao's contract after Gooden took less than market when he re-signed, forcing them to trade Gooden. They've never been the same since the trade, they are slower without Larry Hughes, and seem less of a threat now than they were before the All-Star break, despite the strong inside play of Illgauskas, LeBron, and Joe Smith/Varejao off the bench.

Orlando is very dependent on their point guard play, the only real constants are Dwight Howard, Turkoglu, and Rashard Lewis. If they ever get consistent play from their bench forwards they will be a threat to make the ECF.

It seems that Orlando seems to try their hardest, and shoot well, against the Celtics. They are a matchup problem in some areas for the Celtics also.

I think that the teams that I fear the Celtics having to play, league wide, are:

Orlando (matchup problems, tough to defend when Orlando shoots well)

Philadelhia (Andre Miller, Iggy and Thaddeus Young are a formidable 1-2-3 combo with Dalembert in the middle, 7 foot smooth shooting Jason Smith at power forward (with the athletic Reggie Evans), and athletic guys like Rodney Carney, Willie Green and Louis Williams.

Utah

Phoenix (still dangerous when Shaq has gas in the tank)

San Antonio (they look old some nights, but if they get their act together, can play). The biggest difference is their supporting players.

And, if the referees continue to give New Orleans the breaks/Luv that they've been giving them all season, that team actually has a chance to make the finals until the Laker team returns healthy (probably next season, when Portland will become the next big thing).

[SuperDeluxe]

OK, the East has a 42.7% winning percentage against the West. That's 35 wins over an 82 game schedule. 6 below .500. So I guess 6 games? I don't know if that makes any sense.

If the East is 6 games below .500, then the West is 6 games above .500. That makes a difference of 12 games between the two conferences.

[tlee324]

-= original quote snipped =-



If the East is 6 games below .500, then the West is 6 games above .500. That makes a difference of 12 games between the two conferences.

Knowing this information--seeing that the West is superior, I would think that it would actually be impressive for Boston to have such a good record against the West and have this fact solidify that they HAVE been the best team this year, legitimizing their record.

[Gant]

I'm kinda getting tired of this great west excuse from so many people as to why the Celtics kicked their butts. The West is superior to the East? Ok.

Well here's the other news folks: The Celtics are superior to the West.

[Al n' Perk No Layups!]

Put the Celtics in the West and they have 21-22 losses instead of 15. The east is just weak and the Celtics are taking advantage of that right now.

The Celtics are 25-5 against the West. Extrapolated over an 82 game season that would give us a record of 68-14.

The West is much easier for us to play against because they don't play the same grind it out defensive style that gets played in the East which gives our #10 offense more trouble than the high scoring Western offenses that our #1 defence can shut down.

[MyInsatiableOne]

If the West is so much better than how come the top records in the league (this year nonwithstanding) always seem to come from out West? Shouldn't the lousy East have a lot of teams with great, inflated records because they beat up on inferior competition?

Yes this year the top two records are in the East and the C's have answered all challenges from the West, both at home and on the road...hmmm.....

[sam_I_am]

If the East is so weak, how come the no West coast team has a better record against the East than the Celtics have against the West?

The reason is that the weak teams in the West are so bad that they cupcake wins. Minnesota and Seattle are basically automatic wins for a good team. In the East, the worst playoff team may not be nearly as good as the #10 seed out West, but the worst teams in the East - like Indiana and New York - have some talent and can be dangerous.

And Detroit and Boston are better than any 2 West coast teams. The fact that Los Angeles and New Orleans - 2 very flawed teams - have the best record prove that the West is vastly overrated this year.

[MyInsatiableOne]

^^Well said.

While I think OVERALL the West is probably still better, it's outright dominance has been slipping

These things are cyclical anyway!

[SuigintouEV]

None of this will matter if we win the Championship...The alleged "Team of the 80's" Los Angeles Lakers strolled to the Finals almost every year--Because the West back then was Horrible....I would have liked to see The Lakers and Celtics switch Conferences back then---The C's would have won at least 6 titles.

The 30-52 '86 bulls made the playoffs in the "tough" east

[Gant]

-= original quote snipped =-



The 30-52 '86 bulls made the playoffs in the "tough" east :roll:

That's irrelevant. The east was a thicket of fury back then.

[GuyClinch]

It's really hard to say - one thing I have notice about these C's is that they can "kick it up" like no other team I have seen since the old '86 team. This is why you can't straight extrapolate winning percentages like that. The C's don't bring their A game every night.

In a big game - against a big time team they have that something extra that gets them W's. That's why their record against the West is so great - they had something to prove.

This C's team is actually good enough so that they essentially have the record they wanted to have. Had they been in the West they would have played well enough to win the best record in the NBA as well. Had they had better competition in the East I think they would have won more games.

this team is not only likable it's just really impressive. Again and again I was I thinking "uh-oh" this might slow em down. But they just took those challenges and destroyed other teams. They have real inner confidence.

Pete

[SashAlex]

Hmm... interesting ! Is it that important which conference is better ?
Nobody knows how the Celtics would've played had they been in the western conference. So with a couple of West teams. The Lakers have a weaker record against the East teams than with the West ones...because in a couple of games it was obvious that they weren't pushing hard. Playing against one of the top teams in the West is a different story than against the Charlotte ( what a shame ?! )...

So who knows ? Maybe the Lakers would have had a weaker record in the East if they played there ?