West vs East

[romain.star]

After a decade of West domination, it looks like the East Conference is filling the gap.
Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, Detroit, Miami are all competitive this season.

On the other hand, the wild wild west has lost its edge.
The Lakers are the only elite team in the West (elite team = 0.700 and more).

The Spurs are not (yet) as good as they were in 05, 06 or 07.
The Mavs and the Suns have definitively missed their chance.
Utah and Houston suffer both from injuries.
The Blazers are still a bit young this year and the Hornets's bench seems too short.
As for Denver, well, they're a pretty solid team but i don't see them going far into the post season.

Plus, many Franchise players of the Western Conference Elite are in their 30s
(Duncan, Bryant, Nowitski, Nash, Ming, Tmac).

So do you think the East is going to take over the NBA in the next years?

[mrspurs]

Cant argue that.

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

not a good time to bring this up

The Nuggets beat the Heat
The Blazers beat the Pistons
The Rockets beat the Celtics

[Brazil]

Difficult to say, I think we are going to have a better vision after the famous 2010 off season, but indeed right now I think the west lost its edge. The east has 3 very competitive team with Celts / Clev and the Magic even if the Magic is going to miss Pietrus and Atlanta / Detroit and Miami are better than decent.

[romain.star]

BTW

current West teams record: 0.482

current East teams record: 0.518

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Like so many things it depends heavily on what happens with that 2010 FA market. There's a lot of game changing talent coming up for auction and where they land could determine will the balance of power for some time to come.

[WayOutWest]

Not sure where I read it but head to head the West still beats out the East. There are 9 teams with winning records in the West vs 6 in the East so the East contendors have a somewhat inflated record.

[romain.star]

yeah wayoutwest. But still... Compared to the situation 2 years ago, we can safely say that things are moving

[sonic21]

worst record so far:

thunder
Wizards
kings
clippers
warriors
wolves
grizzlies

that's new, this season the lottery EC teams suck less than before

[jlpittsley]

I am seeing a flawed analysis on this thread. I must stress that you cannot use winning percentages of teams to compare the west vs. the east since they do no play each other an equal number of times. Thus, breaking a law of statistics that requires an even distribution of sampling.

Teams play other teams from inside their divisions 4 times and teams from the other conference twice. Thus, if you play in a good/deep division you will tend up have a worse record in reference to your performance level.

The best thing is to look at the head-to-head match-up records later in the season. This allows teams to play enough home and away games between the conferences to obtain a proper sample size.

Does anybody know where we can get these data? I know that the west has one the head-to-head match up nearly each of the last 10 seasons. But, I am not sure of this year.

[Admidave50]

you realize that there are much more shitty teams in the East Coast, so it's easier for Boston, Orlando and Cleveland to get a better record..

Even teams like the Jazz or the Mavs are fighting for the 8th spot while teams like Milwaukee and New Jersey are in!

[romain.star]

I am seeing a flawed analysis on this thread. I must stress that you cannot use winning percentages of teams to compare the west vs. the east since they do no play each other an equal number of times. Thus, breaking a law of statistics that requires an even distribution of sampling.

Teams play other teams from inside their divisions 4 times and teams from the other conference twice. Thus, if you play in a good/deep division you will tend up have a worse record in reference to your performance level.

The best thing is to look at the head-to-head match-up records later in the season. This allows teams to play enough home and away games between the conferences to obtain a proper sample size.

Does anybody know where we can get these data? I know that the west has one the head-to-head match up nearly each of the last 10 seasons. But, I am not sure of this year.


Using winning percentage of teams only aimed to give a global indication of this trend.

[Thunder Dan]

you realize that there are much more shitty teams in the East Coast, so it's easier for Boston, Orlando and Cleveland to get a better record..

Even teams like the Jazz or the Mavs are fighting for the 8th spot while teams like Milwaukee and New Jersey are in!

the Thunder, Kings, Grizzlies, Warriors, Clippers, and T-Wolves have a combined 52-162. I think the opposite is true: The West is full of solid teams that have inflated records because they get to play the worst teams in the league 3-4 times a year. Plus, it's harder for East coast teams to fly and play out west than it is visa versa

[romain.star]

The West is made of shitty and solid teams only. There's no in between.
--> the Jazz are 9th with a 0.583 record followed by the Grizzlies at 10th with a 0.306 record (sic)

The East is much more homogeneous.
--> there is just one team with a 0.300 record or less (Wizzards: 0.206)

All in all, it has to be fairly equal

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I am seeing a flawed analysis on this thread. I must stress that you cannot use winning percentages of teams to compare the west vs. the east since they do no play each other an equal number of times. Thus, breaking a law of statistics that requires an even distribution of sampling.



I see a flawed evaluation of your flawed analysis. I'd like you to explain to the audience how the East does not play the West an equal number of times. Is there a third conference I'm unaware of?







As for me, I see an Eastern conference with 5 competitive teams. Three weak teams will make the playoffs thereby potentially giving the top 3 seeds an easier first round, making them fresher for the later rounds.

The West will be a war, from seeds 1 through 8, as there are really nine solid playoff teams out West.

I'm not convinced yet that Boston, Cleveland and especially Orlando are significantly better than the West's 1 through 8, but as we saw last year with the Spurs, if you're battling through every round of the playoffs you can lose your steam the farther your progress.

If the East has an advantage, it's that there are fewer contenders for the top teams to deal with.

[romain.star]

I see a flawed evaluation of your flawed analysis. I'd like you to explain to the audience how the East does not play the West an equal number of times. Is there a third conference I'm unaware of?







As for me, I see an Eastern conference with 5 competitive teams. Three weak teams will make the playoffs thereby potentially giving the top 3 seeds an easier first round, making them fresher for the later rounds.

The West will be a war, from seeds 1 through 8, as there are really nine solid playoff teams out West.

I'm not convinced yet that Boston, Cleveland and especially Orlando are significantly better than the West's 1 through 8, but as we saw last year with the Spurs, if you're battling through every round of the playoffs you can lose your steam the farther your progress.

If the East has an advantage, it's that there are fewer contenders for the top teams to deal with.


+1

but IMO, this wild wild war we've seen in the West for the last 5 years or so is about to end

[Galileo]

Can the Beast from the East (Lebron) beat the Best from the West (Spurs)?

That's what it all comes down to.

[jlpittsley]

I see a flawed evaluation of your flawed analysis. I'd like you to explain to the audience how the East does not play the West an equal number of times. Is there a third conference I'm unaware of?



Maybe I wrote my statement wrong. Sorry. I'll try again. West teams play west teams more often than west teams play east teams. Also, teams play the teams in their division more than most of the teams outside their division. Thus, if you play in a really hard division your record will be worse than you are. You'll be stuck playing your better players more minutes.

The rules for the NBA schedule are rather interesting. I can't find a direct link to them. The NFL has somewhat similar rules.

My general feeling is that the West is still slightly better but it's much closer than recent years. I like where OKC and Memphis are heading more than I like where the Bobcats and the Wizards are heading. But, I would admit that the Clippers and Golden State seem dead in the water to me.

[xellos88330]

I think NBA fans are in for a ride over the next few years. Lots of great teams on both conferences. As far as the Eastern Conference taking over, I think that it will probably be a back and forth deal between years.

[Chieflion]

Likewise, the East teams have been mindfucking the weaker west teams.

[exstatic]

+1

but IMO, this wild wild war we've seen in the West for the last 5 years or so is about to end

How so? The #9 team in the WC would be #6 in the EC. The East has three really good teams, which is a switch, but after that, not too much has changed. It still looks like one or even two teams from the EC will make the playoffs below .500.

[Yorae]

Dalembert as the second best center according to votes? The east got serious problem there IMO.

[Lakers_55]

East can have the better records against the west in their matchups. It will help the better western teams get HCA in the west, as well as a chance for HCA overall.

[Rockhound]

Maybe if LA could actually win a Finals without Shaq.

So far only the Spurs are able to actually represent the West.

[raspsa]

I really don't care very much if the east or West dominates. I do care enough though if it means that deserving teams in either conference miss the playoffs because they don't rank in the top 8 in their conference while undeserving teams with lousy records get in in the other conference. I really hope that the League eventually seed teams into the playoffs regardless of their conference -- top 16 get in based on record alone.. this would raise the quality of the games and I think good competitive BB should be the primary objective.

[Lakers_55]

Maybe if LA could actually win a Finals without Shaq.

So far only the Spurs are able to actually represent the West.

Well, we won 6 titles in LA before Shaq, and 5 in Minneapolis as well. Don't take this personal because I see it everywhere, but I don't understand the mindset that Kobe can't win without Shaq. They couldn't win together in 2004 and Shaq was gone. 2005 meant the lottery and we drafted Bynum. 2006 Phil back and first round out. 2007 first round out. Last year, before the Gasol trade we were 15-13 against teams that made the playoffs that year, 13-3 after which includes two games Gasol was injured. (He went out in first quarter against the Hornets). No Gasol and we are gone in first or second round. The whole Laker history is one of always rebuilding, something only one other team has proven they can do consistently. That team is the Spurs....

Anyway, getting back to the finals in 4 years without a full team in uniform was an accomplishment. We weren't expected back that quickly but there we were. Kobe can and will win without Shaq, the only question is when. Jerry Buss has said he will pay the luxury tax to keep ths team together. If it means he has to invest a few million dollars on a big contract, he will do it. This man is committed to championships. He bought the Lakers in order to beat the Celtics, and we have twice. We want to play them again before they fade again into obscurity.

As long as the Kobe Bryant era lasts, we will be contending. After it's over, we'll be back again, it's in our history. We'll get more championships. You may say the exact same things about the Spurs when Tim hangs up his sneakers.

West > East

[daslicer]

As long as the Kobe Bryant era lasts, we will be contending. After it's over, we'll be back again, it's in our history. We'll get more championships. You may say the exact same things about the Spurs when Tim hangs up his sneakers.

West > East

One of the reasons I have never liked Lakerfans is they come with a sense of entitlement. Yeah your team has a history of being able to rebuild but its not that easy in this era and they are so many unpredictable variables that go into rebuilding. I think mainly the Lakers have been very very very lucky when it comes to rebuilding. Hell getting Gasol for free is the best example of luck. Go way back to summer of '96 where the Lakers stole Shaq from the Magic before without have to worry about restriction FA and then ending up with Kobe who orchestrated a deal to play with LA. Those were 2 extreme variable thats fell in place. The odds of getting 2 hall of famers at 2 positions at the same time are not that high. I think the lakers have been very lucky over the last 30 years that they have had the best case scenarios happen to them in trades,fa's, drafts. Rebuilding a title contender is not easy you have to have lots of luck. Nothing is guaranteed as evident by what has happened with celtics the last 20 years up until last season.

Don't get ahead of yourself just because LA is big market that its easy to rebuild a team into a title contender easily. Go look at NYC and Chi both have suffered from mediocrity during this decade.

[Lakers_55]

One of the reasons I have never liked Lakerfans is they come with a sense of entitlement. Yeah your team has a history of being able to rebuild but its not that easy in this era and they are so many unpredictable variables that go into rebuilding. I think mainly the Lakers have been very very very lucky when it comes to rebuilding. Hell getting Gasol for free is the best example of luck. Go way back to summer of '96 where the Lakers stole Shaq from the Magic before without have to worry about restriction FA and then ending up with Kobe who orchestrated a deal to play with LA. Those were 2 extreme variable thats fell in place. The odds of getting 2 hall of famers at 2 positions at the same time are not that high. I think the lakers have been very lucky over the last 30 years that they have had the best case scenarios happen to them in trades,fa's, drafts. Rebuilding a title contender is not easy you have to have lots of luck. Nothing is guaranteed as evident by what has happened with celtics the last 20 years up until last season.

Don't get ahead of yourself just because LA is big market that its easy to rebuild a team into a title contender easily. Go look at NYC and Chi both have suffered from mediocrity during this decade.

The biggest reason why I am active here and not on a Laker board is I prefer to hear opposing fan points of view and not listen to Laker fans drooling all over our team. I will disagree with you on the fact that Laker fans think it's an entitlement. We see it as something we just go ahead and do. Former and current owners Jack Kent Cooke and Jerry Buss were commited to getting the best to play here. Former GM Jerry West was commited to keeping the Lakers fine tuned through Showtime to the new millenium. Boston used to retool on a regular basis, they just lost their way for 22 years.

As far as getting Shaq and Kobe, Jerry West rolled the dice and won. First, preceding this, the Lakers had a young rising team, capable of contending for a title before Shaq wanted to leave Orlando, and before anyone had heard of Kobe Bryant. West already had gotten by the Kareem/Magic/Worthy/Scott/Cooper era. First step was to take a gamble on trading our only center, Divac to the Hornets so they would draft Kobe and trade him to us. I think we swapped first round picks as well, but that's irrevelant, it worked for the Hornets, so they agreed. There was no guarentee then that Kobe would turn into the player he is today. As a matter of fact, he didn't even become a starter until his 3rd year. Here's his career stats:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

Kobe took a lot of heat his first season, jacking up airballs in a close final game loss against Utah. Or was that his second season? No matter. West scouted Kobe himself and predicted greatness.

As far as getting Shaq, that was the second part of Jerry's gamble. Shaq wanted out of Orlando and they were ready to let him walk. Our first offer wasn't enough to sway him. I don't remember exactly what West did, but we dumped someone's contract to free enough space to up the offer to convince Shaq to come west. Also, Shaq wanted to come to LA. He had appeared in a couple of movies, Shazam, and Steel and was interested in more roles. Seems he never did....

I believe the Jerry West legacy as GM speaks for itself.

Mitch Kupchak replaced Jerry and has taken some heat. He did try the experiment with Malone and Payton, but he had to do something, the league had adjusted to the Shaq/Kobe show. He is off the hotseat for now, thanks to the Gasol. deal, which contrary to popular myth, Jerry West had no hand in arranging....

A bit about the Gasol deal...Here's the first thread made about the Gasol trade:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86162&highlight=gasol Not anything in there about a conspiracy involving Jerry West. That came later...either after the Lakers started winning, or Popovich questioned it publicly. What did he say, the NBA should investigate the deal's legitmacy?

Here's a thread about a rumor of a Gasol trade in December of 2007 to the Bulls. Note post #10.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82759&highlight=gasol

I remember seeing somewhere Phoenix was looking to trade for him a year ago as well, can't say who they would have given up. Let's just put the trade on the head of the Memphis GM, and see how the pieces he got fall into play as they rebuild. There have been far worse GM deals. Back in 1980, the Warriors traded Robert Parish and a #1 draft pick to the Celtics for a center named Joe Barry Carroll. Celtics used the draft selection to choose Kevin McHale. I think most of the discussion I have seen is targeted against the Lakers because they are the enemy to most people. That is to be expectd here at SpursTalk, and as I said, this is where I want to be involved.

Now, onto Kobe winning without Shaq. Kobe came into his own in 1998-9 and had a big role in getting us the title in 2000. We were having a hard time closing out series in the playoffs that season. Up 2-0 vs. the Kings, won it 3-2. Up 3-0 against the Suns, won it 4-1. Up 3-1 against Portland before winning 4-3. I know someone may want to prefer to call it a Portland choke, but fact is, we have far more playoff comebacks like this than losses. Also, I will counter, just reverse the first and the second half: Headline is, "Lakers surge to huge lead versus Blazers, hold off furious Blazer comeback in second half". Ok, on to the finals. Lakers had 2-1 series lead versus the Pacers. Game was in overtime and Shaq fouled out. The play was total BS, Shaq didn't come close to the guy he "fouled". Kobe then stepped up and shot the Lakers to victory and a 3-1 lead, all without Shaq. He also still had a sore ankle. He sprained it early in the series and missed a game. If Kobe doesn't perform, Pacers win and have game 5 at home. Game 6 was close until the end and there was either a questionable call that could have given the Pacers a shot to go ahead, or a major blunder by the Pacers that sealed their fate. I don't remember, I would have to plug in my DVD of the highlights to see. A game 4 Pacer win changes the way games 5 and 6 unfold, but the fact is, Kobe got us to 3-1.

Here's the videos of the overtime, have a look at Kobe winning without Shaq:

opi6fcIzX_U
AXj1kfZj8Fk

My preference is to add to this thread rather than start a new one. I don't need to see more threads full of Laker fan dick sucking. Maybe one day, I will make a thread out of this, I just don't know. At the least, I may link this post.

Thanks, and all replies are welcome.

[WayOutWest]

I think the lakers have been very lucky over the last 30 years that they have had the best case scenarios happen to them in trades,fa's, drafts.

There is no such thing as 30 YEARS of luck (good or bad). The Lakers just know how to take care of buisness. Luck was getting TD in the draft, skill has been surrounding TD with a championship caliber team for almost an entire decade. Big difference and the Lakers sucess is not based on luck.

The Lakers have rebuilt twice for title teams, the 80's team was built from scratch, no member of the previous title team was on that squad. Same with the Shaq/Kobe era, AC Green being the exception, they ran off three titles with no members of the 80's era team. The Magic to Shaq championship rebuild is the fastest in NBA history.

[papashango]

I don't think the East has caught up with the West. I still don't think the Cavs are for real yet. The West has the track record. In any given game give me the top 8 West teams over the Top 8 East teams.