MadDog73
04-20-2005, 03:37 PM
Mike Monroe makes a point often discussed here (sorry if this has already been posted, I didn't see it):
Mike Monroe: Playoff seedings sometimes defy common sense
Web Posted: 04/20/2005 12:00 AM CDT
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/mmonroe/stories/MYSA042005.8C.COL.BKNmonroe.1f4bcecaf.html
Back-to-back blowout losses have taken most of the sizzle out of the heretofore red-hot Denver Nuggets, but this fact remains: No team in the league has had a better record since the All-Star break.
Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy, in fact, thinks the Spurs got the "short end of the stick" — his words — in the West's first-round playoff matchups.
However, the real injustice in the West figures to jump up in the second round.
If the first round goes to form, with the top four seeds advancing, the Spurs would play Seattle, which will finish the regular season with 52 or 53 victories, depending on the outcome of its game tonight in Houston. The Suns, with the NBA's best record, either 62 or 63 victories, would face Dallas, which will finish with 57 or 58 victories.
This is supposed to be fair?
The problem is the realignment that followed expansion from 29 teams to 30. It seemed numerically logical to split the two conferences into three five-team divisions. Trouble is, the league then decided to reward division champions with the top three seeds in each conference in the playoffs.
It was one thing to reward division champions when there were two divisions per conference. Three per, and it gets a lot dicier. That is how the Northwest Division-champion SuperSonics got the No. 3 seed in the West, rather than Dallas. It also is how Atlantic-champ Boston got the No. 3 seed in the East when it remains possible for two other teams, Chicago and Washington, to finish with better records.
The problem is not as acute as it might have been had not the Celtics traded for Antoine Walker. Until their post-trade surge, it appeared the Atlantic winner might actually qualify with the East's No. 3 seed after recording the seventh-, eighth- or, heaven forbid, ninth-best record in the conference.
Too bad that didn't happen, because the league then would have been forced to rethink its position on automatically rewarding the division winners with one of the top three seeds. As it is, there's no problem for the decision makers in Olympic Tower.
"I think we're very comfortable with the way the seeding arrangement has worked out," deputy commissioner Russ Granik said Tuesday. "Earlier, when nobody could put together an over-.500 record in the Atlantic Division, if the team with the ninth-best record might have gotten in, it was a concern.
"I think we're pretty comfortable with the way it's worked out and we're not exploring any kind of changes right now"
Granik said there always have been "anomalies" in playoff seedings. He cited seasons in which the Lakers, for one reason or another, wound up with the fourth or fifth seed in the West, but had one of the most dangerous teams in the conference by the time the playoffs began.
The Mavericks-Sonics situation is no anomaly. Dallas has a better record and should be seeded higher.
What's so difficult about rewarding a team for season-long excellence?
Here's a concept: Do away with divisions altogether. If the Spurs, Mavericks and Rockets were to have the top three records in the West, why shouldn't they have the top three playoff seeds?
What the seeding arrangement, as it now stands, potentially set up was a team "tanking" a game in order to get the No. 6 seed (to face Seattle), rather than No. 5 (to face Dallas).
Houston, for example, might have preferred losing its season finale against the Sonics tonight had not the Kings and Nuggets rendered the outcome meaningless by losing at Utah and Phoenix, respectively, on Monday night.
It was an NBA head coach who suggested the above scenario, by the way.
Don't think NBA teams would "tank."
Why do you think we have a draft lottery?
Mike Monroe: Playoff seedings sometimes defy common sense
Web Posted: 04/20/2005 12:00 AM CDT
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/mmonroe/stories/MYSA042005.8C.COL.BKNmonroe.1f4bcecaf.html
Back-to-back blowout losses have taken most of the sizzle out of the heretofore red-hot Denver Nuggets, but this fact remains: No team in the league has had a better record since the All-Star break.
Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy, in fact, thinks the Spurs got the "short end of the stick" — his words — in the West's first-round playoff matchups.
However, the real injustice in the West figures to jump up in the second round.
If the first round goes to form, with the top four seeds advancing, the Spurs would play Seattle, which will finish the regular season with 52 or 53 victories, depending on the outcome of its game tonight in Houston. The Suns, with the NBA's best record, either 62 or 63 victories, would face Dallas, which will finish with 57 or 58 victories.
This is supposed to be fair?
The problem is the realignment that followed expansion from 29 teams to 30. It seemed numerically logical to split the two conferences into three five-team divisions. Trouble is, the league then decided to reward division champions with the top three seeds in each conference in the playoffs.
It was one thing to reward division champions when there were two divisions per conference. Three per, and it gets a lot dicier. That is how the Northwest Division-champion SuperSonics got the No. 3 seed in the West, rather than Dallas. It also is how Atlantic-champ Boston got the No. 3 seed in the East when it remains possible for two other teams, Chicago and Washington, to finish with better records.
The problem is not as acute as it might have been had not the Celtics traded for Antoine Walker. Until their post-trade surge, it appeared the Atlantic winner might actually qualify with the East's No. 3 seed after recording the seventh-, eighth- or, heaven forbid, ninth-best record in the conference.
Too bad that didn't happen, because the league then would have been forced to rethink its position on automatically rewarding the division winners with one of the top three seeds. As it is, there's no problem for the decision makers in Olympic Tower.
"I think we're very comfortable with the way the seeding arrangement has worked out," deputy commissioner Russ Granik said Tuesday. "Earlier, when nobody could put together an over-.500 record in the Atlantic Division, if the team with the ninth-best record might have gotten in, it was a concern.
"I think we're pretty comfortable with the way it's worked out and we're not exploring any kind of changes right now"
Granik said there always have been "anomalies" in playoff seedings. He cited seasons in which the Lakers, for one reason or another, wound up with the fourth or fifth seed in the West, but had one of the most dangerous teams in the conference by the time the playoffs began.
The Mavericks-Sonics situation is no anomaly. Dallas has a better record and should be seeded higher.
What's so difficult about rewarding a team for season-long excellence?
Here's a concept: Do away with divisions altogether. If the Spurs, Mavericks and Rockets were to have the top three records in the West, why shouldn't they have the top three playoff seeds?
What the seeding arrangement, as it now stands, potentially set up was a team "tanking" a game in order to get the No. 6 seed (to face Seattle), rather than No. 5 (to face Dallas).
Houston, for example, might have preferred losing its season finale against the Sonics tonight had not the Kings and Nuggets rendered the outcome meaningless by losing at Utah and Phoenix, respectively, on Monday night.
It was an NBA head coach who suggested the above scenario, by the way.
Don't think NBA teams would "tank."
Why do you think we have a draft lottery?