Pacers Rebuild

[jman2585]

"Look at the standings now" is not a rebuttal to the post you made days ago, which was clearly wrong. Your refusal to engage with ideas like "maybe the conference disparity affects the win loss record" shows you are not interested in the correct answer, just an aswer you want to hear (That the Pacers are great). To call the conference imbalance "hypothetical" is extremely misinformed.

[Nuntius]

"Look at the standings now" is not a rebuttal to the post you made days ago, which was clearly wrong.

I said that the Pacers and the Knicks were tied at the #2 spot. Tied! The posts are there for all to see. I rest my case. It's not my fault that you refuse to read what I posted.

Your refusal to engage with ideas like "maybe the conference disparity affects the win loss record" shows you are not interested in the correct answer, just an aswer you want to hear (That the Pacers are great). To call the conference imbalance "hypothetical" is extremely misinformed.

Oh no. I'm not refusing to engage in the idea that the conference disparity affects the W - L record. It does. I'm fairly aware of it. I just don't believe that the disparity is as big as you believe.

And no the conference imbalance is not hypothetical. Your "formula" on the other hand? It's an extreme hypothesis. That's what I'm calling out. Your formula for projecting the record that a Western team would have if it played in the East.

[Nuntius]

And frankly I'm not looking for an answer that says "the Pacers are great" or anything. There have been much more knowledgeable and trustworthy posters and basketball personalities than you that claim that "yes, the Pacers are a great team". So, I'm not really looking for confirmation about my team from you. Sorry but your opinion doesn't hold much value. And I'm quite sure that my opinion does not hold any value to you either. That's completely fine and easily understandable.

I'm just lookimg for an answer for this:

What's your agenda? What's your goal? What's the reason for all this propaganda?

You signed in this site 10 days ago and the only thing that you have done is talk about the Pacers. Yes, you said that you felt strongly about the subject but a person simply cannot feel THAT strongly about a subject if there is not a personal gain.

So, please enlighten us. What's your personal gain?

[jman2585]

I said that the Pacers and the Knicks were tied at the #2 spot

Except they were clearly not tied when you said it, which is why you were linked to the standings. I'm still literally shaking my head that you are continuing with this "argument". It's like me insisting the sky is green, even when confronted with evidence it is not. You can't argue with someone who defies reality. Conference record makes you look bad? Just ignore it. No point debating with someone who just ignores reality when it is presented to him.

There's nothing "hypothetical" about the conference imbalance. It clearly exists. You approach has been to virtually ignore it, instead of looking at it and saying "gee, that really does create question marks about how good our team is", you're just saying "unless they actually play in the East, I refuse to believe their play would carry over". One side is using the evidence to draw a reasonable inference, the other side is flat out ignoring it. Sure, we've only got 50% of the evidence as to how Western teams would do (because they'd play twice as many games), but it's better to go off some evidence than no evidence. Your only response has (amusingly) been that after criticising a 50% sample as too small to draw an inference from, to claim that the best evidence to draw an inference off is a far, far smaller sample of 2 games. How you imagine this is a better sample size is beyond me, and I hope beyond other objective people here.

People don't need an agenda to post on this board, I do it for much the same reason other people post things on the internet.

[Nuntius]

Except they were clearly not tied when you said it, which is why you were linked to the standings.

Except that they were.

The standings on the day of the whole "Pacers are not tied with the Knicks argument":

Knicks: 35 - 20

Pacers: 37 - 22

Both 35 - 20 and 37 - 22 are 15 games above .500. Both teams were 6 and a half game behind the Knicks.

The sole reason that the Knicks were typically #2 is because of a better winning percentage. But Win % evens out as the teams play more games. And it just tonight, actually.

There's nothing "hypothetical" about the conference imbalance. It clearly exists. You approach has been to virtually ignore it

Yes, conference imbalance clearly exists. I NEVER disputed it.

On the other hand, your "formula" is purely hypothetical! That's what I have disputed and ignored. Why? Because it cannot be actually proved.

Want to have your opinion count? Then prove it! With actual hard facts. Not with hypetheses.

One side is using the evidence to draw a reasonable inference, the other side is flat out ignoring it.

Oh please..

1) Your "formula" is not evidence to anything. It's a simple hypothesis.

2) I have used way more actual facts and evidence than you in our arguments. TS%, Win Shares, various team defensive metrics (Defensive Efficiency, opponent TS% / 3p% / eFG% / FG%, opponent points in the paint, opponent fastbreak paints etc.), rebounding differential and point differential were all statistics that I used. I have provided ample links to sites that display the point I'm trying to make. The only actual facts that you have used is SRS, record vs. 500 teams (hinted, not actually used) and record vs . the West / record vs. the East.

That's it.

People don't need an agenda to post on this board, I do it for much the same reason other people post things on the internet.

People post things on the internet and participate in forums because they have fun doing so. To me it's obvious that you're not having fun at all. If you did then wouldn't be defensive most of the time.

So, no, I don't buy it. But I didn't really expect you to answer my question honestly.

Yes, there IS a reason that you have are THAT worked up about the Pacers and have spend your whole team as a RealGMer talking about them. What that reason is remains unknown.

[jman2585]

The sole reason that the Knicks were typically #2 is because of a better winning percentage

And your win % was lower when you posted it, which is why you were not "2nd" or "tied" as you claimed, you were 3rd. You're making yourself look ridiculous.

Oh please..

1) Your "formula" is not evidence to anything. It's a simple hypothesis.

So instead of my "formula" which is just taking the actual result of the games and correcting the imbalance (so halving the West results for say the Grizzlies, and doubling the Eastern ones) you want to use ... um, a 2 game sample size. How you think a 2 game sample is more telling than dozens of games is unclear to me. What the other stats have to do with measuring your teams performance is also unclear (TS%? That has nothing to do with the discussion of the Pacers play as a team). Your sole rebuttal at this point is to point to your two regular season games against Memphis and say "see, we played well against them, so I know we are really a contender"... except taken in isolation any regular season game can go any which way (and often do). The expansion Raptors were the only team to beat the 72 win Bulls, but we don't claim they were as good, because we have their overall record. It's that larger sample size and consistency and averages that gives the regular season record weight, not a few selectively chosen games (playoff teams are swept in the regular season all the time to teams, then kill them in the playoffs). The overall sample is pretty decisive. Memphis is much better than you, and are being held back by their conference (though they are still better than you even ignoring that). Their differential and SRS are hurt by playing tougher teams twice as much (though they have a higher SRS anyhow).

Memphis was averaging 64 wins against Eastern teams, in spite of having a slump right after trading Rudy Gay while they were adjusting to the new team, and if you correct their record it comes out to a 60+ win team if they were in the East. You guys currently projected out to 52 wins. Not close. Not complex either, except to you it seems.

Yes, there IS a reason that you have are THAT worked up about the Pacers and have spend your whole team as a RealGMer talking about them. What that reason is remains unknown.

You've got me. Ron Artest kidnapped my children and ate them years ago. Since then I have held a long standing grudge with the Pacers for helping keep him in the NBA, all of which culminated in my making these posts as a delicious form of revenge.

I'm not responding to this stuff because I don't need to defend my decision to post on a forum anymore than you or anyone else here does. Get over it.

[Nuntius]

And your win % was lower when you posted it, which is why you were not "2nd" or "tied" as you claimed, you were 3rd. You're making yourself look ridiculous.

What matters the most when determining a seed? Winning percentage or games over .500 and games behind the #1 seed?

It's pretty clear the latter. I don't even know how you can dispute that.

So instead of my "formula" which is just taking the actual result of the games and correcting the imbalance (so halving the West results for say the Grizzlies, and doubling the Eastern ones)

Feel free at any time to completely explain your formula and provide evidence that this is indeed a formula that would guarantee the following results.

Where do you base your formula? Does it produce guaranteed results? Is it foolproof? Did you invent it? Did a statistician or mathematician interested in the NBA invent it? Is it a supported by the various analytical statistics basketball sites?

Please, feel free to explain all those things.

Because until now you have not proved that your hypothetical formula is factual. Therefore, we have no reason to blindly follow it.

I'm not responding to this stuff because I don't need to defend my decision to post on a forum anymore than you or anyone else here does. Get over it.

Then I don't need to defend my decision to ignore your irrational and hypothetical reasoning either

[jman2585]

What matters the most when determining a seed? Winning percentage or games over .500 and games behind the #1 seed?

Not only is this an obvious straw man, but you're wrong- teams are ranked on win %. That's just empirically how it is done, which is why the Knicks were ahead of you when you were linked to the standings (not tied, not behind- ahead of you).

Feel free at any time to completely explain your formula and provide evidence that this is indeed a formula that would guarantee the following results.

I already explained what I was doing, it's hardly complex. I'm not going to explain it for the 5th time because you didn't read my earlier posts. Nothing in life is certain, but I'd rather go off a 50% sample than a much, much smaller sample ("how we did in 2 games against Memphis"). It's pretty obvious to anyone objective which sample size is a fairer and more reliable indictor.

[Gremz]

Mr jman,

I think it's safe to say you have little idea about how the Pacers franchise is run. It's never been about tanking here, never been about attracting free agents, never been about superstars.

Unfortunately, you've attached yourself to notions that may very work with other franchises, but it's simply not the philosophy here, at least with the current owners.

Free free to let us know about your ideal situations about how NBA franchises should manage themselves (even though you're not the one spending the $$$) but please realize we are not part of the norm, never have been and never will be.

We've known for quite a while what our franchise is about and how it goes about business, and for the majority we're pretty well cool with that. If you have some need to still tell us that our team will never amount to anything with our methods, then feel free. But I assure you, you simply don't understand the concept of Pacers basketball.

If we all wanted titles we would have jumped on bandwagon teams long ago, but we haven't. And right now we're really enjoying this resurgence, so how about just enjoying it with us?

[Scoot McGroot]

Mr jman,

I think it's safe to say you have little idea about how the Pacers franchise is run. It's never been about tanking here, never been about attracting free agents, never been about superstars.

Unfortunately, you've attached yourself to notions that may very work with other franchises, but it's simply not the philosophy here, at least with the current owners.

Free free to let us know about your ideal situations about how NBA franchises should manage themselves (even though you're not the one spending the $$$) but please realize we are not part of the norm, never have been and never will be.

We've known for quite a while what our franchise is about and how it goes about business, and for the majority we're pretty well cool with that. If you have some need to still tell us that our team will never amount to anything with our methods, then feel free. But I assure you, you simply don't understand the concept of Pacers basketball.

If we all wanted titles we would have jumped on bandwagon teams long ago, but we haven't. And right now we're really enjoying this resurgence, so how about just enjoying it with us?

Hear-hear!!

[Starkiller]

Epic, epic troll job.

Best part is every stat you prove him wrong with, he comes back with an argument about how that stat is skewed or wrong in some way.

Bottom line is, Pacers are a good team. They will make the playoffs, probably at the #2 seed. It is possible for them to go to the ECF. It is also common knowledge that the Heat are the favorite. The Pacers have a chance to beat the Heat in a 7 game series, as an underdog. If they can upset the Heat, they can upset anyone. No one is saying they are a favorite to win it all, but to flat out say it's impossible is wrong.

Other than the above statements, there's really no reason to dive any deeper into the discussion. Unless of course you just feel like hating, or responding to blatant, hate/troll posts.

[Scoot McGroot]

Epic, epic troll job.

Best part is every stat you prove him wrong with, he comes back with an argument about how that stat is skewed or wrong in some way.

Bottom line is, Pacers are a good team. They will make the playoffs, probably at the #2 seed. It is possible for them to go to the ECF. It is also common knowledge that the Heat are the favorite. The Pacers have a chance to beat the Heat in a 7 game series, as an underdog. If they can upset the Heat, they can upset anyone. No one is saying they are a favorite to win it all, but to flat out say it's impossible is wrong.

Other than the above statements, there's really no reason to dive any deeper into the discussion. Unless of course you just feel like hating, or responding to blatant, hate/troll posts.

Eh, I think everyone would agree that currently the Pacers are a top 4 team in the East. I think jman2585 (not to be confused with the mod of a VERY similar name) is simply just trying to state the concerns that I'm sure are deep in the minds of all of us.

Deep down, all Pacers fans are kind of a "show-me" variety. We've been burned with false players and teams. Ultimately, I think we all are afraid that this team could fail. However, I think we're only a little afraid because we also have been almost consistently shown that this is the kind of team that could upset a "sure-thing" and be consistent enough over a couple years to cover it's weaknesses.

[Wizop]

What matters the most when determining a seed? Winning percentage or games over .500 and games behind the #1 seed?

It's pretty clear the latter. I don't even know how you can dispute that.

can we argue about things that matter? the question you ask is meaningless because all three things will be exactly the same at the end of the season when all teams have played the same number of games.

I think two of your choices are identical all the time but it really doesn't matter because as far as I know there is no official rule for determining what would happen if the season ended early. before yesterday's games we were in a virtual tie with the Knicks but they were 2nd because they were percentage points ahead. we'd played four more games and split them lowering our percentage (playing extra games at 500 reduces your percentage when you are over 500 and increases it when you are below 500).

lets just move on and get back to the subject of the rebuild. here's an interesting quote WireTap led me too today. is Donnie Walsh, the architect of both the Pacers and Knicks, an exception? or maybe are the Simons the exception because they don't rush to fire GMs based on today's standings?

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban offered an interesting insight on the nature of running an NBA team: “The No. 1 job of a general manager is not to win championships . . . It’s to keep their job. They’ll take huge risks, because the downside is, if they don’t take the risk, they lose their job. It cost me tens of millions of dollars to learn that lesson.” Perhaps there’s an analytically minded Toronto fan who can estimate the current cost of suspected job-keeping in Raptorland.

[jman2585]

Epic, epic troll job.

Best part is every stat you prove him wrong with, he comes back with an argument about how that stat is skewed or wrong in some way.

Yes... lol, every stat... except, like, all the ones that supported me. SRS supported me, wins supported me, a more nuanaced look at wins taking into account Conference imbalance super supported me, and of course how you've actually done against contenders this year supported me... but no, I'm the one without stats on his side. Really now?

You know my opening mega post said it was fine to enjoy what you were doing, and the direction you went in even made some sense for your franchise, however what I didn't agree with, and was quite annoyed about, was the suggestion what you were doing was:
a) an optimal way to build a team,
b) that other teams should copy what you're doing, and
c) that you had somehow become a contender from this process (when you clearly rate about 8th in the NBA).

[Nuntius]

Not only is this an obvious straw man, but you're wrong- teams are ranked on win %. That's just empirically how it is done, which is why the Knicks were ahead of you when you were linked to the standings (not tied, not behind- ahead of you).

Sigh.

If the Knicks were ahead of the Pacers then the Pacers wouldn't be currently 1 game ahead of the Knicks following a Pacers win (.5 game up) and Knick loss (.5 game down).

The fact that the Pacers are currently 1 game up is proof that the two teams were tied back then.

Not even Knicks fans were trying to argue this point. They were saying that they were tied for #2 seed as well prior to yesterday's games.

I already explained what I was doing, it's hardly complex. I'm not going to explain it for the 5th time because you didn't read my earlier posts. Nothing in life is certain, but I'd rather go off a 50% sample than a much, much smaller sample ("how we did in 2 games against Memphis"). It's pretty obvious to anyone objective which sample size is a fairer and more reliable indictor.

You didn't provide any proof, though. Your hypothesis lacks mathematical substantiation.

Therefore, it cannot be taken seriously.

Yes, conference imbalance exists and should be taken into account. Yes, the Pacers wouldn't be the #2 seed in the West. But your formula, simply put, is flawed.

[Nuntius]

and of course how you've actually done against contenders this year supported me

Actually, this has certainly NOT supported you.

Indiana Pacers vs Contenders this season:

vs Miami Heat: 2 - 0

vs New York Knicks: 2 - 1

vs San Antonio Spurs: 0 - 2

vs Oklahoma City Thunder: 0 - 1

vs Los Angeles Clippers: 0 - 1 (in a game in which Roy Hibbert was not playing due to suspension)

vs Memphis Grizzlies: 2 - 0

Overall: 6 - 5

[Wizop]

however what I didn't agree with, and was quite annoyed about, was the suggestion what you were doing was:
a) an optimal way to build a team,

I don't think we did anything special in assembling our roster except manage to become winners without being horrible first.

b) that other teams should copy what you're doing, and

before we can argue about this, I think we first have to agree what it is that should be copied. I'd argue that having a team committed to playing defense and sharing the ball is to be copied and is an easier path to go down than the path of hoping to draft the next superstar who is so good that he can carry the team on his back. sure getting the next Jordon or James works but you can be at the bottom of the league for a very long time without managing that trick. at some point you have to accept that this is a business and the real objective is to sell tickets. you have to be in a very big market to be profitable over decades of failure (see the Clippers and the Cubs) hoping someday you will strike it rich. being good enough to fill the house without breaking the bank is the real object.

c) that you had somehow become a contender from this process (when you clearly rate about 8th in the NBA).

Vegas odds have us at 5th, but I'd call 8th a contender. realistically I'm not sure I'd even put our chances that high unless Granger's knee gets much better quickly but I see no point in arguing whether we're 5th, 8th, or 12th. we're well into the top half of the league and that is success by any measure other than winner take all.

[jman2585]

Sigh.

If the Knicks were ahead of the Pacers then the Pacers wouldn't be currently 1 game ahead of the Knicks following a Pacers win (.5 game up) and Knick loss (.5 game down).

The fact that the Pacers are currently 1 game up is proof that the two teams were tied back then.

Not even Knicks fans were trying to argue this point. They were saying that they were tied for #2 seed as well prior to yesterday's games.

I am agog at this epic display of trolling. Yes, you're ahead of the Knicks now... because the standings changed in the days since the post in question. You were clearly behind them at the time though. Seriously, why are Pacer fans not calling this guy on this nonsense? He claims that despite a lower winning % at the time, you were "higher" than the Knicks. This is just factually wrong, and frankly really makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.

You didn't provide any proof, though. Your hypothesis lacks mathematical substantiation.

Therefore, it cannot be taken seriously.

Yes, conference imbalance exists and should be taken into account. Yes, the Pacers wouldn't be the #2 seed in the West. But your formula, simply put, is flawed.

I explained the methodology I used multiple times. When you play out West, you play double the number of games against the West, and half as many against the East, and vice versa. All I did was double and halve teams current records as appropritate (though I charitably left you guys in the East at the projected 52 wins). That gives us a new win % to apply. The Grizzles were at the time winning games against Easter conference foes at a 64 winrate pro rated fo the whole season, adjusted that was a 60 win season (8 games more than you), not factoring in that their SRS and differential would be higher still if they played weaker opponents twice as much (though their SRS is already higher than you as it is, just like their win % is already higher. Not complex stuff. Instead of this appoach, which worked off a 50% sample, you wanted to go off an infinitely smaller sample of "look at these two games we played". It was evident to anyone objective which was the better indicator.

Your record against the West is 13-10 (565, the win% of a 46 win team)
Your record against the East on the other hand is 25-12 (675, the equivalent of a 56 win season)
Meanwhile Memphis has almost the reverse position, having looked like a 64 win team against the East, and are a 50 win team against the West. It's not difficult to see in reality they are a much stronger team than you, being hindered by conference imbalance (much like Denver looks stronger than you, and Houston looks about the same). But for some reason you effectively disregard it.

[Nuntius]

I am agog at this epic display of trolling. Yes, you're ahead of the Knicks now... because the standings changed in the days since the post in question. You were clearly behind them at the time though. Seriously, why are Pacer fans not calling this guy on this nonsense? He claims that despite a lower winning % at the time, you were "higher" than the Knicks. This is just factually wrong, and frankly really makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.

1) I didn't say that the Pacers were "higher" than the Knicks. I said tied. Tied!

2) At the day of the post in question the standings read the following:

Knicks 35 - 20

Pacers 37 - 22

Yes, the Knicks have the higher winning percentage due to less games played. But both teams are 15 games over .500 and both teams were 6 and a half games behind the #1 seed, the Heat.

That makes them tied. It's simple as that.

I explained the methodology I used multiple times. When you play out West, you play double the number of games against the West, and half as many against the East, and vice versa. All I did was double and halve teams current records as appropritate (though I charitably left you guys in the East at the projected 52 wins). That gives us a new win % to apply. The Grizzles were at the time winning games against Easter conference foes at a 64 winrate pro rated fo the whole season, adjusted that was a 60 win season (8 games more than you), not factoring in that their SRS and differential would be higher still if they played weaker opponents twice as much (though their SRS is already higher than you as it is, just like their win % is already higher. Not complex stuff. Instead of this appoach, which worked off a 50% sample, you wanted to go off an infinitely smaller sample of "look at these two games we played". It was evident to anyone objective which was the better indicator.

I didn't want to go off a smaller sample. I didn't posted the results of our games against Memphis as a qualifier. I posted the results to so that the two teams showed equal strength on the court. In the real game they were evenly matched.

That's what I wanted to indicate.

In any case, thanks for at last explaining your formula.

Your record against the West is 13-10 (565, the win% of a 46 win team)
Your record against the East on the other hand is 25-12 (675, the equivalent of a 56 win season)
Meanwhile Memphis has almost the reverse position, having looked like a 64 win team against the East, and are a 50 win team against the West. It's not difficult to see in reality they are a much stronger team than you, being hindered by conference imbalance (much like Denver looks stronger than you, and Houston looks about the same). But for some reason you effectively disregard it.

I see. Let me try to apply your formula to some Western teams:

'Aight, Denver is 13 - 11 vs the East, a 541 win %. On the other hand, they are 25 - 11 vs the West, a 694 win %.

Let's put Denver in the East and apply those values for a full season. As we all know, a team plays 30 games against the opposing conference and 52 against its own conference.

Denver:

69.4% of 30 = 20.82

Rounding up, it gives us a 21 - 9 record.

54.1% of 52 = 28.132

Since you cannot really round up a.132 percentage, it gives you a 28 - 24 record.

Add them up and you have a 49 - 33 overall record. That's the record that Denver would have as an Eastern Conference team, using your formula.

Let's see what happens with Houston and Oklahoma City if they switch to the EC.

Houston record vs the East: 19 - 8 (70.3%)

Houston record vs the West: 14 - 20 (41.1%)

Oklahoma City record vs the East: 13 - 7 (65%)

Oklahoma City record vs the West: 30 - 9 (76.9%)

Let's apply this formula now:

Houston:

70.3 of 52 = 36.556

That gives us a 36 - 16 record. If rounded up, it gives 37 - 15 record. It's right in the middle so I'll let you take your pick.

41.1 of 30 = 12.33

That gives us a 12 - 18 record.

Adding those records up, puts Houston at a 48 - 34 record. Or 49 - 33 if you round up the .556 bit.

Oklahoma City:

65% of 52 = 33.8

Rounded up, it gives us a 34 - 18 record.

76.9% of 30 = 23.07

It gives us a 23 - 7 record.

Adding them up, puts Oklahoma City at a 57 - 25 record.

Hey, I'm having fun with your model. So, allow me to calculate every playoff team in the West:

San Antonio:

Record vs the East = 21 - 4 (84%)

Record vs the West = 26 - 10 (72.2%)

84% of 52 = 43.68

Rounded up, it gives us a 44 - 8 record.

72.2% of 30 = 23.16

It gives us a 23 - 7 record.

Adding them up, puts the Spurs at a 65 - 15 record.

Los Angeles Clippers:

Record vs the East = 16 - 8 (66.6%)

Record vs the West = 27 - 11 (71%)

66.6% of 52 = 34.632

Rounded up, it gives us a 35 - 17 record.

71% of 30 = 21.299

It gives us a 21 - 9 record.

Adding them up, it results in a 56 - 26 record for LAC.

Memphis:

Record vs the East: 19 - 6 (75%)

Record vs the West: 20 - 13 (60.6%)

75% of 52 = 39

So, that gives us a 39 - 13 record.

60.6% of 30 = 18.18

So, that gives us a 18 - 12 record.

Adding them up, it results in a 57 - 25 record for Memphis.

Golden State:

Record vs the East = 15 - 9 (62.5%)

Record vs the West = 18 - 18 (50%)

62.5% of 52 = 32.5

That gives us a 32 - 20 record. 33 - 13 if you want to round up.

50% of 30 = 15

That gives us a 15 - 15 record.

Adding them up, it results in a 47 - 35 record. 48 - 34 if you want to round up (I don't round up at .5, I do at .6).

Utah:

Record vs the East: 14 - 9 (60.8%)

Record vs the West: 18 - 19 (48.6%)

60.8% of 52 = 31.616

That gives us a 32 - 20 record.

48.6% of 30 = 14.58

Ok, .58 is really close. You can easily round it up. So, that gives us either a 14 - 16 (not rounded up) or a 15 - 15 record.

Adding them up, it results in 46 - 36 or a 47 - 35 record.

Ok, I did all the Western teams. Let's do the Pacers as well now, shall we?

Indiana:

Record vs the East: 25 - 12 (67.5%)

Record vs the West: 13 - 10 (56.5%)

67.5% of 52 = 35.1

That gives us a 35 - 17 record.

56.5% of 30 = 16.95

Rounded up, that gives us a 17 - 13 record.

Adding them up, it results in a 52 - 30 record.

So, let's see where do this formula puts the Pacers in correlation to the Western teams in the hypothesis that every Western Conference playoff team played in the East:

1) San Antonio Spurs: 65 - 15

2) Memphis Grizzlies: 57 - 25

2) Oklahoma City Thunder: 57 - 25

4) Los Angeles Clippers: 56 - 26

5) Indiana Pacers: 52 - 30

6) Denver Nuggets: 49 - 33

7) Houston Rockets: 48 - 34

8) Golden State Warriors: 48 - 34 or 47 - 35.

9) Utah Jazz: 47 - 35 or 46 - 36.

So, your own formula would put the Pacers #5 among the Western Conference playoff teams if all of them were to play in the East. They would have a significantly better record than Utah, Houston, Golden State and a slightly better record than Denver according to your formula.

PS: The Denver Nuggets are currently in the process of beating the Atlanta Hawks in Denver. After the game, I will re-calculate Denver's adjusted record. My guess is that they will move to 50 - 32 or even 51 - 31. Indiana would still have a higher record than them.

[Nuntius]

By the way, I'm sorry for the lengthy post, everyone