Question about playoff seeding

[coz]

If a Western Conference team and Eastern conference team both have the same record, what are the tiebreakers for home court? Thanks to anyone who can give me the facts.

[travis2]

From http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/7164305

Determining Ties for Playoff Position
In order to break a tie for playoff positions, if one exists at the end of the regular season, the following criteria will be utilized in the order set forth:

TWO-WAY TIES

a. Results of games against each other.

b. Better winning percentage within own conference.

c. Better winning percentage within own division (only if tied teams are in same division).

d. Better winning percentage against playoff opponents in own conference.

e. Better winning percentage against playoff opponents in opposite conference.

f. Better point differential between offense and defense.

MORE THAN TWO TEAMS TIED

a. If applicable, division champions must be determined first.

b. Best cumulative winning percentage in total games involving all teams tied.

c. Best winning percentage within own conference.

d. Best winning percentage within own division (only if tied teams are in same division).

e. Best winning percentage against playoff opponents in own conference.

f. Best point differential between offense and defense.

Note: If a multiple team tie is reduced to a two-team tie at any point using the above criteria, the two-team tie will be resolved in accordance with the existing two-team tie procedure.

[coz]

gracias travis

[coz]

So, let's say the Suns, Spurs and Heat all end up with the same record. We are 3-2 versus the heat and suns. The suns are 2-2 versus the heat and spurs. the heat are 1-2 versus the spurs and suns. So on March 25, the heat plays the suns in Miami.

Question:

Who do you want to see win?

If Miami wins, the Spurs clinch the second tiebreaker against both teams.

If the Suns win, they issue a loss to a Miami team with perhaps the softest schedule in the NBA.

Any thoughts?

[travis2]

So, let's say the Suns, Spurs and Heat all end up with the same record. We are 3-2 versus the heat and suns. The suns are 2-2 versus the heat and spurs. the heat are 1-2 versus the spurs and suns. So on March 25, the heat plays the suns in Miami.

Question:

Who do you want to see win?

If Miami wins, the Spurs clinch the second tiebreaker against both teams.

If the Suns win, they issue a loss to a Miami team with perhaps the softest schedule in the NBA.

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure that's the correct interpretation of tiebreaker 3b.

Another possible interpretation would be the % in all games involving common opponents (including themselves, of course). I don't know if that's the case, but that's a possible reading of that rule.

[Solid D]

g. Combined height in inches of 12 players on playoff roster.
h. Height in inches of head coach
i. Combined TV and marketing revenues
j. Number of tattoos on 12 players on playoff roster.
k. Number of tattoos on head coach

:fro

[travis2]

I'm not sure that's the correct interpretation of tiebreaker 3b.

Another possible interpretation would be the % in all games involving common opponents (including themselves, of course). I don't know if that's the case, but that's a possible reading of that rule.

After further review, I haven't come across a definitive source stating this, but I have come to the conclusion that my alternate reading is incorrect.

[travis2]

So, let's say the Suns, Spurs and Heat all end up with the same record. We are 3-2 versus the heat and suns. The suns are 2-2 versus the heat and spurs. the heat are 1-2 versus the spurs and suns. So on March 25, the heat plays the suns in Miami.

Question:

Who do you want to see win?

If Miami wins, the Spurs clinch the second tiebreaker against both teams.

If the Suns win, they issue a loss to a Miami team with perhaps the softest schedule in the NBA.

Any thoughts?

I'd say go with the Suns.

If the Suns win, they go 3-2 against the Heat/Spurs, the Heat go 1-3. This switches the tie to a two-way tie between the Spurs and Suns, and the two-way rules go into effect (see the note at the bottom of the rules post). We already have the two-way tiebreaker clinched.

[travis2]

In general, I think the best way to go is to root for the outcome that would lead to a two-way tie between the Spurs and Suns and defeat a three-way tie between the Spurs, Suns and Heat.

We control the former, but we can't do much about the latter.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd think that if the Spurs, Suns, and Heat end up with the same record, the tiebreaker procedure would follow the "more than 2 teams tied" procedure, only you would substitute breaking the tie in the conference for breaking the tie in the division. So, you'd get something like this:

1. break the tie in the conference. San Antonio would own the first tiebreaker over Phoenix. The only remaining tie is SA/MIA.

2. head-to-head tiebreakers:

a. games against each other -- SA 1, MIA 1

b. winning percentage within own conference: Heat are 34-6 against the East; Spurs are 27-11 against the West. That would give the tiebreaker to Miami.

Given that scenario, if you wanted to root for particular results, I think the Spurs would want as many Heat losses against the East as possible. But it seems implausible to me that that Miami will lose 5 more games against East teams than the Spurs will lose against West teams.

Basically, if the Spurs and Heat end up tied, the Heat will own the tiebreaker.

[travis2]

I'd think that if the Spurs, Suns, and Heat end up with the same record, the tiebreaker procedure would follow the "more than 2 teams tied" procedure, only you would substitute breaking the tie in the conference for breaking the tie in the division. So, you'd get something like this:

1. break the tie in the conference. San Antonio would own the first tiebreaker over Phoenix. The only remaining tie is SA/MIA.

2. head-to-head tiebreakers:

a. games against each other -- SA 1, MIA 1

b. winning percentage within own conference: Heat are 34-6 against the East; Spurs are 27-11 against the West. That would give the tiebreaker to Miami.

Given that scenario, if you wanted to root for particular results, I think the Spurs would want as many Heat losses against the East as possible. But it seems implausible to me that that Miami will lose 5 more games against East teams than the Spurs will lose against West teams.

Basically, if the Spurs and Heat end up tied, the Heat will own the tiebreaker.

See above. First tiebreaker would be three-way head-to-head.

[FromWayDowntown]

See above. First tiebreaker would be three-way head-to-head.

Actually, the first tiebreaker in any three-way tie is to determine the division champion first, if possible.

That, to me, expresses a preference to break any ties that can be broken without going to the round-robin effect. Inside a conference, you'd break the divisional tie first, if possible. Across the league, you'd necessarily have to have a conference tie to break, so I'd think that would be broken first.

I'd be curious if there is a definitive statement on how that tie would be broken.

[travis2]

Actually, the first tiebreaker in any three-way tie is to determine the division champion first, if possible.

That, to me, expresses a preference to break any ties that can be broken without going to the round-robin effect. Inside a conference, you'd break the divisional tie first, if possible. Across the league, you'd necessarily have to have a conference tie to break, so I'd think that would be broken first.

I'd be curious if there is a definitive statement on how that tie would be broken.

Interesting interpretation. Not the way I read it, but I can see your argument.

I agree, a reading from on high is in order.


In any case...both you and I would seem to be in agreement that it would be best for the Spurs to NOT be tied with the Heat at season's end.

[FromWayDowntown]

Interesting interpretation. Not the way I read it, but I can see your argument.

I agree, a reading from on high is in order.


In any case...both you and I would seem to be in agreement that it would be best for the Spurs to NOT be tied with the Heat at season's end.

In an effort to get some clarification, I e-mailed the NBA. I suspect that I'll get a rote statement of the tiebreaking procedures, but we'll see. To cover my bases, I've also e-mailed Johnny Ludden to see if he knows.

I couldn't agree with you more about the need to avoid this mess.

[TwoHandJam]

It won't matter if the Heat have the same record as the Spurs if the Pistons kick them uncerimoniously out of the playoffs. There's a good chance of that imo. :hat

[coz]

very interesting point from waydowntown. I wonder (too) if it is implied by stating determine division champ, that a Spurs/Suns tiebreaker would have to be enforced over a Spurs/Suns/Heat tiebreaker.

I'd love to have a definitive answer to this if possible.... any insiders?

[FromWayDowntown]

very interesting point from waydowntown. I wonder (too) if it is implied by stating determine division champ, that a Spurs/Suns tiebreaker would have to be enforced over a Spurs/Suns/Heat tiebreaker.

I'd love to have a definitive answer to this if possible.... any insiders?

I sent e-mails to the league and to Johnny Ludden, but haven't gotten a response from either.

It's so many steps down the road that it probably doesn't really warrant conversation, but it would be worth knowing, I guess. Just in case.

Best case scenario: Spurs win at least as many as the Suns, and lose no more than the Heat from here on out.

[FromWayDowntown]

Got a response from Johnny Ludden. Not a definitive statement, but for what it's worth, here it is, verbatim:


I'm pretty sure you break the tie between the two West teams first because an East-West tie won't matter until the NBA Finals. In this case, the Spurs would go in as the No. 1 seed because they already have the head-to-head tiebreaker over Phoenix. If both they and Miami advanced to the Finals, the team with the better record against the opposing conference would get homecourt advantage. (The teams split their season series 1-1.)

[CHAMPS AGAIN]

SPURS #1 seed end of discussion

[coz]

thanks fwd and travis. makes sense....

[LilMissSPURfect]

g. Combined height in inches of 12 players on playoff roster.
h. Height in inches of head coach
i. Combined TV and marketing revenues
j. Number of tattoos on 12 players on playoff roster.
k. Number of tattoos on head coach

:fro


:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

" :smokin :smokin :smokin :smokin

[travis2]

Got a response from Johnny Ludden. Not a definitive statement, but for what it's worth, here it is, verbatim:


I stand corrected. Or sit, rather...:lol

[bigbendbruisebrother]

g. Combined height in inches of 12 players on playoff roster.
h. Height in inches of head coach
i. Combined TV and marketing revenues
j. Number of tattoos on 12 players on playoff roster.
k. Number of tattoos on head coach

:fro

Don't forget to deduct points for number of players wearing headbands.