RealGM

1bigfan13 wrote:I'm still not a fan of the play in games. I saw some in the media talking about how great the play-in is after the Lakers-Warriors game. But here's the thing. That matchup was a complete anomaly brought about due to injuries.

If you can promise me that going forward the play-in games will feature 3 top 10 players and high profile superstars......sure, sign me up. But we all know that likely won't happen.

If they keep this format going forward prepare to sit through a bunch of boring Cavs vs. Hornets / T-Wolves vs Kings type games. [sarcasm] Yeah, super exciting. [/sarcasm]

worldjbfree wrote:I never hated the concept, but if these games so far have proven anything, it’s that last year’s version made more sense. Leave the 7 seeds be, and let 8 & 9 battle for the last spot.

Homer38 wrote:

danvato wrote:

matt6715 wrote:
Listening to JJ Reddick's podcast, he pointed to that as an advantage and a huge benefit of the play-in. Rarely do teams get 5-6 full days of rest during the season. I think overall the players in the playoffs probably love this so they can heal up any nagging bumps and bruises

Which is another benefit of the play-in that in theory adds to the competitiveness of the play-offs.

Taking the prime time GS vs LAL away, are people really sitting here complaining that the Grizz vs Spurs game was boring? Cause seriously, if you are, you DO NOT actually like to watch basketball. Why are you even here?

Yes, the 2 east games were blow-outs. Sometimes there are blow-outs in the play-offs. We still got an incredible 50 point game out of Tatum. Charlotte just didn't show, it happens.

The problem is not because it's not exciting it's because it's not really fair ... I mean, would the 2019 Lakers deserve to have a chance to make the playoffs even if they were 11 games behind of the 8 seed and the clippers?

Rapcity_11 wrote:

Homer38 wrote:Don't like it too...Matchup between player like LBJ and Curry in the play-in will not happen again soon....The NBA have been so lucky in that...And no matter what teams with losing record who are in the 9 or 10 seed(like the spurs,pacers and hornets) don't deserve another chance.

It would have been Dame vs Luka last year. Two 48 win teams in 2019. Two 47 win teams in 2018. Grit'n'Grind vs. Dame in 2017. Grit'n'Grind vs. Harden in 2016.

There's great matchups all the time, even if not on the level of Curry/LeBron.

Michael Bradley wrote:

Rapcity_11 wrote:

Homer38 wrote:Don't like it too...Matchup between player like LBJ and Curry in the play-in will not happen again soon....The NBA have been so lucky in that...And no matter what teams with losing record who are in the 9 or 10 seed(like the spurs,pacers and hornets) don't deserve another chance.

It would have been Dame vs Luka last year. Two 48 win teams in 2019. Two 47 win teams in 2018. Grit'n'Grind vs. Dame in 2017. Grit'n'Grind vs. Harden in 2016.

There's great matchups all the time, even if not on the level of Curry/LeBron.

If the play-in happened in 2018-19, the games would have been Magic/Pistons, Hornets/Heat (pre-Butler), Spurs/Clippers (pre-Kawhi/PG), and Kings/Lakers (pre-AD). So it would have had LBJ in it, but he would have been playing for the right to see who gets to face the Durant/Curry/Klay Warriors.

If the play-in happened in 2017-18, we'd see Bucks/Wizards, Pistons/Hornets, Spurs/Wolves, and Nuggets/Clippers. A pre-MVP Giannis, but that's about it.

In other words, last night was an anomaly. If there are injuries to top teams every year which result in them falling in the standings, then the play-in might be as exciting as what we saw last night, but the reality is it's not going to feature LBJ/Curry again in all likelihood, or anything close to it.

I'm sure Lakers/Warriors did great ratings so maybe that's enough to justify keeping it going forward, but the league will be in for a rude awakening if they expect games like last night to happen every year.

It would have been Dame vs Luka last year. Two 48 win teams in 2019. Two 47 win teams in 2018. Grit'n'Grind vs. Dame in 2017. Grit'n'Grind vs. Harden in 2016.

There's great matchups all the time, even if not on the level of Curry/LeBron.

Michael Bradley wrote: If the play-in happened in 2018-19, the games would have been Magic/Pistons, Hornets/Heat (pre-Butler), Spurs/Clippers (pre-Kawhi/PG), and Kings/Lakers (pre-AD). So it would have had LBJ in it, but he would have been playing for the right to see who gets to face the Durant/Curry/Klay Warriors. If the play-in happened in 2017-18, we'd see Bucks/Wizards, Pistons/Hornets, Spurs/Wolves, and Nuggets/Clippers. A pre-MVP Giannis, but that's about it.
In other words, last night was an anomaly. If there are injuries to top teams every year which result in them falling in the standings, then the play-in might be as exciting as what we saw last night, but the reality is it's not going to feature LBJ/Curry again in all likelihood, or anything close to it. I'm sure Lakers/Warriors did great ratings so maybe that's enough to justify keeping it going forward, but the league will be in for a rude awakening if they expect games like last night to happen every year.

1bigfan13 wrote:I'm still not a fan of the play in games. I saw some in the media talking about how great the play-in is after the Lakers-Warriors game. But here's the thing. That matchup was a complete anomaly brought about due to injuries. If you can promise me that going forward the play-in games will feature 3 top 10 players and high profile superstars......sure, sign me up. But we all know that likely won't happen. If they keep this format going forward prepare to sit through a bunch of boring Cavs vs. Hornets / T-Wolves vs Kings type games. [sarcasm] Yeah, super exciting. [/sarcasm]

RRR3 wrote:

NPZ wrote:

RRR3 wrote:It honestly boggles my mind people defend Silver at this point. It should be obvious to everyone that every move he makes is solely focused on squeezing more money out of the fans. Stern did not operate in that way (he obviously wanted to make money for the league but it was not like this) as much as I had issues with him. Silver has been objectively awful for the actual product he cannot and will not stop meddling and it’s infuriating.

It is literally impossible to argue the play-in tournament is fair. If something is unfair in a competitive setting it shouldn’t exist.

It's unfairer than sh to only those 4 teams that would've gotten 7 and 8 under normal circumstances. Four out of 30. Then you have the other play-in teams who could benefit greatly regardless if they won enough games to make it in on their own merit. Then you have all the other playoff teams whose RS gms are all treated equally. And then you have all the lottery teams that don't have to engage in a minitournament to retain the pick they should've already rightfully had. It's only 4 teams that this thing can truly screw hard. That's why it's absurd and arbitrary as hell. Plus, as I've said before, the Lakers won 9 more games than SA and could have been bounced by SA (theoretically). It took them their final 18 gms to win those 9 (18/72 = .25). The NBA for no real reason just made an entire 25% of their season equate to TWO play-in games. So what was the point of them trying to go 42-30 when they could've just done 33-39 (SA's record) and then win the two play-in games? Why would the league risk the 39 loss Spurs making it in there? I know there are a ton of Laker haters, but let's say they got bounced by SA and the Jazz or whomever win a title. They're gonna have to hear for years how they didn't really face the best team (like HOU's 94 title, or like Joe Frazier winning the belt while Ali was banished from boxing).

That all doesn't take into account that the 7th West seed had one fewer loss than the 4th East seed. There's an inherent imbalance in the worth of a win from East to West. I'm not saying the East sux, or anything like that, I'm just basing that on the strength of the conferences. And they've been more or less uneven since 1997/98 AT LEAST, and probably even earlier than that. You probably have a similar number of true title contenders in either conference many years, but I'm just talking the difference from 1-8 in W/L records. Nothing can be done about that, but the NBA should actively look for ways to make things even LESS balanced than they are. Only 4 teams stand to get screwed on any given year, but the 2 West teams stand to get screwed even worse than the 2 East teams do because it's harder to go 42-30 in the West than it was in the East.

I'm pissed even more because they almost got bumped down to 8th as it was. Do ya think Silver would've had reservations if the Lakers missed the playoffs in lieu of the 33-39 Spurs because of this ****? What they basically did was to reinstate the Best-of-3 miniseries that they did away with after the champion Lakers got bounced in 1981 by HOU in a Best-of-3 1st round series. After that, they pushed the 1st round to 5 games. They unwittingly just kinda brought that silly miniseries back and then only decided to throw the last 2 seeds into it.

I haven’t heard a single person in favor of the playin (and I’ve seen many of them) make a logical argument from a competitive standpoint as to why it exists. It’s always “it’s fun, it’s exciting” etc. If you can only make emotional arguments for something, it doesn’t bode well for whatever you’re arguing for.

By the way, if the play-in tournament existed in 2019, either or both of the 39-43 Kings or 37-45 Lakers could have made the playoffs over the Clippers and/or Spurs, each of whom were 48-34. I realize the Lakers missed the playoffs in large part due to LeBron missing 27 games but that’s just what happened and you shouldn’t get an extra shot just because someone got injured. It sucks but it’s just what happens. And the thought of a 39 win Kings team (unlike the Lakers that win total was indicative of their talent level) making it over a team that almost won 50 games is disgusting.

HotelVitale wrote:

Michael Bradley wrote: If the play-in happened in 2018-19, the games would have been Magic/Pistons, Hornets/Heat (pre-Butler), Spurs/Clippers (pre-Kawhi/PG), and Kings/Lakers (pre-AD). So it would have had LBJ in it, but he would have been playing for the right to see who gets to face the Durant/Curry/Klay Warriors. If the play-in happened in 2017-18, we'd see Bucks/Wizards, Pistons/Hornets, Spurs/Wolves, and Nuggets/Clippers. A pre-MVP Giannis, but that's about it.
In other words, last night was an anomaly. If there are injuries to top teams every year which result in them falling in the standings, then the play-in might be as exciting as what we saw last night, but the reality is it's not going to feature LBJ/Curry again in all likelihood, or anything close to it. I'm sure Lakers/Warriors did great ratings so maybe that's enough to justify keeping it going forward, but the league will be in for a rude awakening if they expect games like last night to happen every year.

1bigfan13 wrote:I'm still not a fan of the play in games. I saw some in the media talking about how great the play-in is after the Lakers-Warriors game. But here's the thing. That matchup was a complete anomaly brought about due to injuries. If you can promise me that going forward the play-in games will feature 3 top 10 players and high profile superstars......sure, sign me up. But we all know that likely won't happen. If they keep this format going forward prepare to sit through a bunch of boring Cavs vs. Hornets / T-Wolves vs Kings type games. [sarcasm] Yeah, super exciting. [/sarcasm]

You all seem to be setting a ridiculously high standard for this--who ever said that every play-in game was going to be an all-time great game, and that it has to be judged based on that? Sure, Lakers-Warriors isn't going to happen every series but we don't question if the NBA Finals should exist just because a lot of years it's pretty boring in comparison with the handful of super awesome series we can remember.

Here's how I'm judging it: the Grizz and Spurs are two of the 8 or so teams I care about least in the league, and the game they played was dope. I haven't been able to get into many games this pandemic that aren't for my team, and I was really into every play and every back and forth the coaches were making, etc. Dudes were competing hard, defenses were taking away everything easy, it was just really good ball. Celtics-Wiz turned into a blowout by the end but that was the same thing--NBA guys giving their all and having to really earn their points, and having hyped af fans cheering everything on. I really haven't enjoyed NBA ball that much this whole year and those games were both a ton fun, and again those were teams I really really don't care about.

Rapcity_11 wrote:I dunno about you, but I enjoy basketball.

danvato wrote:

RxOne wrote:

RRR3 wrote:I haven’t heard a single person in favor of the playin (and I’ve seen many of them) make a logical argument from a competitive standpoint as to why it exists. It’s always “it’s fun, it’s exciting” etc. If you can only make emotional arguments for something, it doesn’t bode well for whatever you’re arguing for.

By the way, if the play-in tournament existed in 2019, either or both of the 39-43 Kings or 37-45 Lakers could have made the playoffs over the Clippers and/or Spurs, each of whom were 48-34. I realize the Lakers missed the playoffs in large part due to LeBron missing 27 games but that’s just what happened and you shouldn’t get an extra shot just because someone got injured. It sucks but it’s just what happens. And the thought of a 39 win Kings team (unlike the Lakers that win total was indicative of their talent level) making it over a team that almost won 50 games is disgusting.

In each of the past 5 years, in at least one conference, the difference between the 7th seed and the 10th seed was 7-11 games.

To me, that seems like too much of a gap to allow an inferior team to erase with just 2 games.

If you can make the playoffs by finishing 10 games out of the playoffs, whats the point of the regular season?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

You're comment makes no sense.

The difference between 7th and 10th is 7-11 games is not the same thing as making the play-offs by finishing 10 games out. The 10 game out is against the 8th seed not the 7th. You're either exaggerating on purpose or just lost track of what you're trying to argue.

Further, those that keep harping about unfair or why its 7th vs 8th. Do you not understand that its to GUARANTEED one of 7th/8th teams makes the play-offs? The only change here is that ONE of 9th or 10th teams gets a chance to make it. And if that team happens to win 2 games against, potentially both on the road, against "better" teams, yeaah, i think it's completely fair that they make the play-offs.

Homer38 wrote:Just looking at the number of posts in this forum for each game in the play-in ... 510 post for the wizards-celtics, 310 post for the spurs-memphis game .... Warriors vs lakers? ... over 2200 post!!!

The play-in would have been a failure if LBJ and the lakers would not have been there.And the fact that it was against Curry and the warriors,it was the cherry on the cake for Adam Silver .... Never Silver would have dreamed better than that for the true first year of this tournament

Ballerhogger wrote:There’s been one good game so far .. so did it work ? Not yet 2 games left

oldshoolballer wrote:

Ballerhogger wrote:There’s been one good game so far .. so did it work ? Not yet 2 games left

After 4 stinkers we got a great game. The jury is still out on the play in.