What if there would be no East and West Playoff bracket?

[naico]

Side note: West>>>>>>>>East.


Create:

1 (MIA)
16 (MIL) 1 (MIA)
----------- vs ------------- 1 (MIA) VS 4 (NUG) -------------- 1 (MIA) VS 2 (SA): 1 wins (MIA) (Supposedly)
8 (IND) 8 (IND)
9 (BKN)

4 (NUG)
13 (CHI) 4 (NUG)
----------- vs ----------- 4 (NUG)
6 (MEM) 6 (MEM)
11 (HOU)
VS
3 (OKC)
14 (BOS) 3 (OKC)
----------- vs ----------- 3 (OKC)
5 (LAC) 5 (LAC)
12 (ATL)
vs
7 (NY)
10 (GS) 7 (NY)
------------ vs ----------- 2 (SA) VS 3 (OKC) --------------- 2 (SA)
2 (SA) 2 (SA)
15 (LAL)

[Chris16]

:downspin:

[Kidd K]

The east only has a single championship contender while the west has 5. I definitely won't be watching any eastern conference playoff series until the ECF.

East has been terrible for years.

[Latarian Milton]

if the western and eastern playoffs got mixed up all together then the 2nd round would probably feature 7 western teams and miami heat tbh.

[HarlemHeat37]

The east only has a single championship contender while the west has 5. I definitely won't be watching any eastern conference playoff series until the ECF.

East has been terrible for years.

The East was better than, or at least as good as the West from 2008 until 2010, tbh..

And the East has 1 contender this year, while the West has 0, tbh..

[naico]

http://www.denverpost.com/nuggets/ci_22858396/conference-call-why-not-just-seed-nos-1?source=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dp-sports-nuggets+%28Denver+Post%3A+Sports%3A+Nuggets%29

George Karl been lurking?

[hater]

because of this format, Heat have triple chance to repeat. and before anyone says, but East teams take Heat to 6-7. it's because Heat are playing down to competition, nothing more.

if it was a level field, all vs. all then Heat would still be favorite, but not by these enourmous margins. I mean, Heat having to go through Denver, Memphis and Spurs? yeah changes the landscape a bit

[resistanze]

The east only has a single championship contender while the west has 5. I definitely won't be watching any eastern conference playoff series until the ECF.

East has been terrible for years.
5 championship contenders in the West? In what sport?

[Kidd K]

5 championship contenders in the West? In what sport?

Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Grizzlies, Nuggets.

All 5 of those teams are better than every team in the east besides the Heat.

The top 6 teams each year are considered contenders. It isn't just who the top 2-3 teams are.

[resistanze]

Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Grizzlies, Nuggets.

All 5 of those teams are better than every team in the east besides the Heat.

The top 6 teams each year are considered contenders. It isn't just who the top 2-3 teams are.
Being better than teams in the East doesn't make you a championship contender.

The Clippers, Grizzlies and Nuggets are not championship contenders. That's ridiculous.

That leaves the Heat, Spurs, and Thunder. And the Heat are the favorite among those 3.

[irishock]

The West has only 2 title contenders actually.

[Josepatches_]

None tbh

Heat or Heat

[Kidd K]

Being better than teams in the East doesn't make you a championship contender.

The Clippers, Grizzlies and Nuggets are not championship contenders. That's ridiculous.

That leaves the Heat, Spurs, and Thunder. And the Heat are the favorite among those 3.

Again, the best 6 teams are contenders. It isn't just the top 2-3 teams each year.

There are different levels of contenders. The ones you listed, the obvious 3 everyone lists, are the "top contenders", not the "only contenders". The Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets are longshot contenders. Not likely, but reasonably possible since they're capable of beating any of the contenders in a series without having to be extremely lucky as a team like the Nets or Bulls without Rose would have to be.

[resistanze]

Again, the best 6 teams are contenders. It isn't just the top 2-3 teams each year.

There are different levels of contenders. The ones you listed, the obvious 3 everyone lists, are the "top contenders", not the "only contenders". The Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets are longshot contenders. Not likely, but reasonably possible since they're capable of beating any of the contenders in a series without having to be extremely lucky as a team like the Nets or Bulls without Rose would have to be.
What's so special about the number 6? If there's one team that's twice as good as the other 29 teams, the next 5 best teams aren't contenders simply because.

We were talking about championship contenders, so I can't see why 'levels' of contenders comes into play. There's only one level of championship contenders - that one that have a good shot at winning the title.

Can you see the Nuggets, Clipper and Grizzles beating the Heat in a 7 game series? Beating the Spurs? Thunder? Because I can't. They're no more contenders than the Knicks or Pacers out in the East, regardless of what you want to make of the supposed strength of the Western Conference.

[Clipper Nation]

Can you see the Nuggets, Clipper and Grizzles beating the Heat in a 7 game series?

No, but the Spurs and Thunderefs aren't beating the Heat this year either....

[hater]

Again, the best 6 teams are contenders. It isn't just the top 2-3 teams each year.

There are different levels of contenders. The ones you listed, the obvious 3 everyone lists, are the "top contenders", not the "only contenders". The Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets are longshot contenders. Not likely, but reasonably possible since they're capable of beating any of the contenders in a series without having to be extremely lucky as a team like the Nets or Bulls without Rose would have to be.

this is flawed. the only true contender is Miami, thus the only team to have a "reasonable" possibility of beating them is the West finalist. and the West Finalist contenders are only 2 OKC and Spurs.

so even by your logic there are at most 3 contenders.

[Venti Quattro]

The Heat are still gonna be the champions, that's what would happen.

[resistanze]

No, but the Spurs and Thunderefs aren't beating the Heat this year either....

Yeah I said above the Heat are the favorites. But the Spurs/Thunder are the favorites out of the West so naturally, they'd have a better chance than the other West teams just by virtue of being in the finals.

[BUMP]

Again, the best 6 teams are contenders. It isn't just the top 2-3 teams each year.


Who the fuck made that rule? Contender is what the word suggests: Contender. As in a team that has a legit chance at contending for a title. Unless half the NBA died of AIDS, there's no way the Grizzlies or Nuggets have a chance at winning a title.

[DMC]

Doesn't matter. There can be only one. It will be the same one regardless.

[Kidd K]

this is flawed. the only true contender is Miami, thus the only team to have a "reasonable" possibility of beating them is the West finalist. and the West Finalist contenders are only 2 OKC and Spurs.

so even by your logic there are at most 3 contenders.

Actually that's by your logic, because by mine (as was pointed out), more than the obvious choices can win the title, since that occaisionally does happen. You guys are too wrapped up in ESPN logic, only picking the teams from last year's Finals and one extra team who's above them in the power rankings. That isn't always how it plays out.

Just like two years ago I was one of the only people saying the Mavs were legit contenders to win. Everyone was saying no, it's Heat, Celtics, Lakers, and the Spurs and Bulls solely on merit of their records. I picked the Mavs the moment it was revealed that Manu's elbow injury was severe and would miss games because of it, and look what happened? They were the 6th strongest team who nobody was picking, and they won. It happens that way sometimes.

You're confusing yourself because you're assuming the definition of "reasonable" is synonymous with "extremely likely". Which it isn't.


Who the fuck made that rule? Contender is what the word suggests: Contender. As in a team that has a legit chance at contending for a title. Unless half the NBA died of AIDS, there's no way the Grizzlies or Nuggets have a chance at winning a title.

Top contender are teams with very high chances.

You can still contend even if you aren't in the top 3. Or do you really think a top 2-3 team always wins the title every year? Hint: They don't. Hence, there are more contenders than just the obvious choices. These are called longshots.



What's so special about the number 6? If there's one team that's twice as good as the other 29 teams, the next 5 best teams aren't contenders simply because.

We were talking about championship contenders, so I can't see why 'levels' of contenders comes into play. There's only one level of championship contenders - that one that have a good shot at winning the title.

Can you see the Nuggets, Clipper and Grizzles beating the Heat in a 7 game series? Beating the Spurs? Thunder? Because I can't. They're no more contenders than the Knicks or Pacers out in the East, regardless of what you want to make of the supposed strength of the Western Conference.

Yes I can see the Nuggets, Grizzlies, or Clippers beating the Heat, Spurs, or Thunder in a series. If you can't, then maybe you should watch more basketball and grasp the concept that no team is unbeatable. Especially by a solid team.

They are much better than the Knicks and Pacers too, stop it. I can see now though why you're saying what you are. You're upset over the fact I called the east weak and devoid of any contending teams besides the Heat, and said 5 of the best 6 teams in the league were in the west. Got it.

[resistanze]

Yes I can see the Nuggets, Grizzlies, or Clippers beating the Heat, Spurs, or Thunder in a series. If you can't, then maybe you should watch more basketball and grasp the concept that no team is unbeatable. Especially by a solid team.
Yeah, well there's a reason why everyone in this thread are laughing at this take.


They are much better than the Knicks and Pacers too, stop it. I can see now though why you're saying what you are. You're upset over the fact I called the east weak and devoid of any contending teams besides the Heat, and said 5 of the best 6 teams in the league were in the west. Got it.
Dumb logic is dumb logic. Needing to resort to a strawman to deflect your terrible takes is predictable.

[Venti Quattro]

Kidd K's arguments are lengthy but shitty, like the solid thing that I throw down everytime I sit in the toilet.

[mrjap2x]

Problem is that Eastern teams face Eastern teams 3-4 times while only facing Western teams1-2 time(s).

[HarlemHeat37]

In the modern era, the 1994 Rockets, 2011 Mavs and maybe the 2004 Pistons were the only title teams that weren't top 3 favorites in the preseason, IIRC..

[Kidd K]

Yeah, well there's a reason why everyone in this thread are laughing at this take.


Dumb logic is dumb logic. Needing to resort to a strawman to deflect your terrible takes is predictable.

If anyone's laughing, it's because they're dumb basketball fans who think the only teams who will contend are either #1 seeds or were in the Finals last year. Bandwagoning, fairweather fan logic used by ignorant basketball fans. Or those that don't have the balls to say something that isn't obvious in fear of the response by nitwits.

It also isn't a strawman since I didn't say you said it; it's an assumption of your reasoning based on observable behavior. You revealed your stance when you cried about the "supposed strength of the western conference", while lauding the greateness of the Knicks and Pacers in comparison to the Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets. . .whom I just said were contenders. You downplayed their ability while saying the east is just as good.


Kidd K's arguments are lengthy but shitty, like the solid thing that I throw down everytime I sit in the toilet.

You're a cross dressing faggot with an irrelevant opinion.

[resistanze]

If anyone's laughing, it's because they're dumb basketball fans who think the only teams who will contend are either #1 seeds or were in the Finals last year. Bandwagoning, fairweather fan logic used by ignorant basketball fans. Or those that don't have the balls to say something that isn't obvious in fear of the response by nitwits.

As HH already highlighted, the favorites in the NBA historically do win the majority of the time. And no knowledgeable basketball fan would argue those other teams you mentioned are championship contenders with "anything can happen in sports!' logic. Those other teams have clear weaknesses that keep them out of championship discussion.


It also isn't a strawman since I didn't say you said it; it's an assumption of your reasoning based on observable behavior. You revealed your stance when you cried about the "supposed strength of the western conference", while lauding the greateness of the Knicks and Pacers in comparison to the Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets. . .whom I just said were contenders. You downplayed their ability while saying the east is just as good.
Well, you obviously don't know what a strawman is, since you just admitted you constructed one. I simply said the Nuggets and Grizzles aren't any more championship contenders than the Pacers or Knicks - which is to say, they're not at all. You somehow twisted this to mean "the east is just as good" and "I'm upset about the East" which isn't supported by anything I said. Of course I would mention "the supposed strength of the WC", considering I'm arguing there's only 2 championship contenders from the WC period. And stop all of this 'top contenders' or intermediate contenders BS. You said there were 5 championship contenders in the West. This is laughable.

[Kidd K]

As HH already highlighted, the favorites in the NBA historically do win the majority of the time. And no knowledgeable basketball fan would argue those other teams you mentioned are championship contenders with "anything can happen in sports!' logic. Those other teams have clear weaknesses that keep them out of championship discussion.


Well, you obviously don't know what a strawman is, since you just admitted you constructed one. I simply said the Nuggets and Grizzles aren't any more championship contenders than the Pacers or Knicks - which is to say, they're not at all. You somehow twisted this to mean "the east is just as good" and "I'm upset about the East" which isn't supported by anything I said. Of course I would mention "the supposed strength of the WC", considering I'm arguing there's only 2 championship contenders from the WC period. And stop all of this 'top contenders' or intermediate contenders BS. You said there were 5 championship contenders in the West. This is laughable.

I didn't say the top teams didn't win the majority of the time, so there's no point in you even saying that as if I did. The top teams don't always win, which is why there's a second tier of contenders called longshots. Can you not grasp this concept? Mavs 2011 (whom I picked to win the title right before the postseason started btw), Rockets 1994, and Pistons 2004 as Harlemheat pointed out are three examples of this. That's three in 18 years btw, or 16.7% of the time.

I considered the Mavs to be a contender and they won. They were a longshot, but they were a contender to me. Everyone talked shit about it then too, until I was proven right. And no, a strawman argument is when you put words in someone's mouth, or create a fictitious argument ("people say") to argue against instead of what was actually said. I didn't do that. I argued against everything you said, then stated my observation of what your agenda seemed to be at the end of it, which is not a strawman argument. Nice try though.

[spurraider21]

Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Grizzlies, Nuggets.

All 5 of those teams are better than every team in the east besides the Heat.

The top 6 teams each year are considered contenders. It isn't just who the top 2-3 teams are.
Did you pull that out of your asshole or your boyfriends?

[Clipper Nation]

You're a cross dressing faggot with an irrelevant opinion.

It appears I did waste my time, since you're a worthless poster with no intentions of talking about basketball on a basketball forum. Instead, you, like many others here, will just call people "faggots" who make better posts than you 100% of the time since you never have a legit point to make about anything. Might's well just call people faggots since you can't post anything relevant, amiright?

Go back to your minimum wage job of greeting people at Wal Mart, imbecile.

[resistanze]

I didn't say the top teams didn't win the majority of the time, so there's no point in you even saying that as if I did. The top teams don't always win, which is why there's a second tier of contenders called longshots. Can you not grasp this concept? Mavs 2011 (whom I picked to win the title right before the postseason started btw), Rockets 1994, and Pistons 2004 as Harlemheat pointed out are three examples of this. That's three in 18 years btw, or 16.7% of the time.

:lol Why are you changing your argument? Where above did you mentioned anything about 'longshots'? You claimed there were 5 CHAMPIONSHIP contenders in the West, not that there are 'top contenders' and 'longshots'. You only changed your argument to this when called out on how stupid this take was.

And why cut off at 18 years? Can you name other 'longshots' before then that won? You really wanna go back to the early 90 Bulls/Pistons, 80s Celtics/Lakers/Sixers and check if they weren't the favorites? We can easy make this 3 teams in 30 years rather than 18 years.


I considered the Mavs to be a contender and they won. They were a longshot, but they were a contender to me. Everyone talked shit about it then too, until I was proven right. And no, a strawman argument is when you put words in someone's mouth, or create a fictitious argument ("people say") to argue against instead of what was actually said. I didn't do that. I argued against everything you said, then stated my observation of what your agenda seemed to be at the end of it, which is not a strawman argument. Nice try though.
:lol No, you changed your argument as said above, then you argued against my supposed agenda you pulled out of thin air because you didn't want to address the actual argument. You also said I 'lauded the greatness of the Knicks/Pacers' and said the east was just as good, which is an obvious lie. You're retarded, and I'm not going back and forth with you about what a strawman is.

[Kidd K]

Clipper Nation, you're still a fag and I still have you on ignore since nothing you say is ever worth reading.


:lol Why are you changing your argument? Where above did you mentioned anything about 'longshots'? You claimed there were 5 CHAMPIONSHIP contenders in the West, not that there are 'top contenders' and 'longshots'. You only changed your argument to this when called out on how stupid this take was.

And why cut off at 18 years? Can you name other 'longshots' before then that won? You really wanna go back to the early 90 Bulls/Pistons, 80s Celtics/Lakers/Sixers and check if they weren't the favorites? We can easy make this 3 teams in 30 years rather than 18 years.


:lol No, you changed your argument as said above, then you argued against my supposed agenda you pulled out of thin air because you didn't want to address the actual argument. You also said I 'lauded the greatness of the Knicks/Pacers' and said the east was just as good, which is an obvious lie. You're retarded, and I'm not going back and forth with you about what a strawman is.

I didn't change my argument. This is the post I made no less than 4 replies ago, and it was directly to you, which you replied to:


Again, the best 6 teams are contenders. It isn't just the top 2-3 teams each year.

There are different levels of contenders. The ones you listed, the obvious 3 everyone lists, are the "top contenders", not the "only contenders". The Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets are longshot contenders. Not likely, but reasonably possible since they're capable of beating any of the contenders in a series without having to be extremely lucky as a team like the Nets or Bulls without Rose would have to be.

Now, three replies ago:


Actually that's by your logic, because by mine (as was pointed out), more than the obvious choices can win the title, since that occaisionally does happen. You guys are too wrapped up in ESPN logic, only picking the teams from last year's Finals and one extra team who's above them in the power rankings. That isn't always how it plays out.

Just like two years ago I was one of the only people saying the Mavs were legit contenders to win. Everyone was saying no, it's Heat, Celtics, Lakers, and the Spurs and Bulls solely on merit of their records. I picked the Mavs the moment it was revealed that Manu's elbow injury was severe and would miss games because of it, and look what happened? They were the 6th strongest team who nobody was picking, and they won. It happens that way sometimes.

You're confusing yourself because you're assuming the definition of "reasonable" is synonymous with "extremely likely". Which it isn't.



Top contender are teams with very high chances.

You can still contend even if you aren't in the top 3. Or do you really think a top 2-3 team always wins the title every year? Hint: They don't. Hence, there are more contenders than just the obvious choices. These are called longshots.




Yes I can see the Nuggets, Grizzlies, or Clippers beating the Heat, Spurs, or Thunder in a series. If you can't, then maybe you should watch more basketball and grasp the concept that no team is unbeatable. Especially by a solid team.

They are much better than the Knicks and Pacers too, stop it. I can see now though why you're saying what you are. You're upset over the fact I called the east weak and devoid of any contending teams besides the Heat, and said 5 of the best 6 teams in the league were in the west. Got it.

And my last reply:


I didn't say the top teams didn't win the majority of the time, so there's no point in you even saying that as if I did. The top teams don't always win, which is why there's a second tier of contenders called longshots. Can you not grasp this concept? Mavs 2011 (whom I picked to win the title right before the postseason started btw), Rockets 1994, and Pistons 2004 as Harlemheat pointed out are three examples of this. That's three in 18 years btw, or 16.7% of the time.

I considered the Mavs to be a contender and they won. They were a longshot, but they were a contender to me. Everyone talked shit about it then too, until I was proven right. And no, a strawman argument is when you put words in someone's mouth, or create a fictitious argument ("people say") to argue against instead of what was actually said. I didn't do that. I argued against everything you said, then stated my observation of what your agenda seemed to be at the end of it, which is not a strawman argument. Nice try though.

So I've repeatedly been saying it the entire time. I didn't change my argument just now. You're really grasping for straws at this point dude. Good thing you prefaced your stupid first paragraph with a laugh emote, that saves me the trouble of posting one myself for the huge failure that was the entire paragraph that followed it.

To reply to the only part of your post that even remotely resembled an argument with merit: Why not cut off at 18 years? I would've cut it off at a decade if not for the fact Harlem posted the Rockets too (I referenced his post when I mentioned it, so I included it). Recent history is more relevant than distant history.

I'm glad you aren't going back and forth on what a strawman is, because you clearly don't know. Strawman would be what you tried to do at the start of your post by claiming I'm just now changing my argument just now (lying about what I said then arguing against it) when that's actually been my argument all along. Thanks for providing yourself a nice example of what strawmanning actually is.

I also already addressed all your arguments, some repeatedly. Stop saying stupid shit like "hurr definition of strawman", when you're getting it wrong, and, "durr you never said longshot", when I have several times, if you want me reply to the things you're saying. If you wanna talk basketball, I will. If you want to talk bullshit, try one of the dumb faggots on here who don't come here to talk about basketball since they never have anything useful to say about it.

Case in point, this guy:


Did you pull that out of your asshole or your boyfriends?

Look, another faggot with another irrelevant post. Get your nose out of other people's asses and go post in those shitty threads about which posters you have a man crush on, and which ones you oh so hate like the rest of the dumb faggots on here do who are more concerned about gossiping than talking about basketball.

[resistanze]

The east only has a single championship contender while the west has 5.
Your first post of the thread. You didn't qualify shit by saying there are 'top contenders' and 'longshots'. This came after being called out on it.


Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Grizzlies, Nuggets.

All 5 of those teams are better than every team in the east besides the Heat.

The top 6 teams each year are considered contenders. It isn't just who the top 2-3 teams are..
Your second post. Again, no mention of this top contender BS nor did you differentiate between any of your top 5. You also made some retarded argment about 'top 6' being contenders you never addressed again after being repeatedly called out on it.

You know you can't just ignore posts you make in a thread, right?

Let's not complicate the issue: no one here (except you) thinks there are 5 championship contenders in the West, that's the bottom line. Either you have some great insight we're all missing, or you don't now jackshit about basketball.


It also isn't a strawman since I didn't say you said it; it's an assumption of your reasoning based on observable behavior. You revealed your stance when you cried about the "supposed strength of the western conference", while lauding the greateness of the Knicks and Pacers in comparison to the Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets. . .whom I just said were contenders. You downplayed their ability while saying the east is just as good.
Now find me where I said this, since you claim you're not strawmanning. No dodging.

[spurraider21]

Case in point, this guy:



Look, another faggot with another irrelevant post. Get your nose out of other people's asses and go post in those shitty threads about which posters you have a man crush on, and which ones you oh so hate like the rest of the dumb faggots on here do who are more concerned about gossiping than talking about basketball.
You pull this "the TOP 6 teams every year are called contenders" thing out of your ass and when you get called on it you dodge the question with some stupid post like this.

[hotsauce0987]

did yall forget that the spurs bench almost beat the stupid heat with all there stars in that game?

until we play them full strength and they beat us then you can say that the heat are better than the spurs!!!!!!!

[Phillip]

The east only has a single championship contender while the west has 5. I definitely won't be watching any eastern conference playoff series until the ECF.

East has been terrible for years.
What 5 teams in the west are serious contenders?

I see 2 at best.

[DMC]

There's one champ and one contender. Everyone else is a Palooka.

[Mal]

There wouldnt be 8 east, 8 west. Dallas, Portland, Utah are way better than 6,7,8 on the east.

[DMC]

did yall forget that the spurs bench almost beat the stupid heat with all there stars in that game?

until we play them full strength and they beat us then you can say that the heat are better than the spurs!!!!!!!

Somewhere there's a refried bean going cold.

[Kidd K]

Your first post of the thread. You didn't qualify shit by saying there are 'top contenders' and 'longshots'. This came after being called out on it.


Your second post. Again, no mention of this top contender BS nor did you differentiate between any of your top 5. You also made some retarded argment about 'top 6' being contenders you never addressed again after being repeatedly called out on it.

You know you can't just ignore posts you make in a thread, right?

Let's not complicate the issue: no one here (except you) thinks there are 5 championship contenders in the West, that's the bottom line. Either you have some great insight we're all missing, or you don't now jackshit about basketball.


Now find me where I said this, since you claim you're not strawmanning. No dodging.

So now you're trying to pretend you meant I didn't clarify that in my first post, which only consisted of a few sentences. :lmao First of all, you just said this:


:lol Why are you changing your argument? Where above did you mentioned anything about 'longshots'?

You asked "where above did I mention anything about longshots", aka, prior to the last post I made that you replied to. I just posted four examples of it for you. Now you're changing YOUR argument to pretend you meant my first post. . when you clearly just said "where above did you say it" before just then.

Lastly, no one provide entire clarity of thought in a few sentences. Once asked about it, I explained it to you. . . four times. Now you come out telling me I'm changing my argument when I've had the same argument all along, using the exact same wording. Again, you're grasping at straws because you have nothing else to say at this point. You've failed at all your debate tactics. Called strawman, wasn't strawman. Claimed I changed my argument, posts are still there and prove I didn't.

Try actually debating the points if you really want to argue about the topic, rather than this bullshit which you've whiffed on every time thus far.


What 5 teams in the west are serious contenders?

I see 2 at best.

I already answered that. Scroll back and read the posts if you really want to know.


You pull this "the TOP 6 teams every year are called contenders" thing out of your ass and when you get called on it you dodge the question with some stupid post like this.

No I didn't. But I'm not surprised a dimwit like you can't grasp an elaborate concept, so you think anything that isn't pointing out the obvious is a shitty take. You should just change your name to "Typical redundant Spurstalk poster #438", because that's all you are. No elaborate thoughts, no talking basketball, just faggotry.

[spurraider21]

No I didn't. But I'm not surprised a dimwit like you can't grasp an elaborate concept, so you think anything that isn't pointing out the obvious is a shitty take. You should just change your name to "Typical redundant Spurstalk poster #438", because that's all you are. No elaborate thoughts, no talking basketball, just faggotry.

:frying:

Really not sure how else I could phrase this tbh. I'll try once more in plain English so you can understand (hopefully, even though it hasn't worked yet). In an earlier post you made a claim that said "every year, the top 6 teams in the league are considered "contenders." I called bullcrap. Where did this magic "6" number come from? Don't you think it varies season to season? Maybe some years there are more true contenders, some years less. It hasn't been established that exactly 6 teams per season are championship caliber. It isn't some imaginary quota the NBA happens to magically hit every single season.

So apparently, just by bringing that up, it makes me a "typical redundant spurstalk poster" because apparently none of my 2300 posts contain elaborate thoughts or talking basketball. :lol
get a grip

[resistanze]

So now you're trying to pretend you meant I didn't clarify that in my first post, which only consisted of a few sentences. :lmao First of all, you just said this:



You asked "where above did I mention anything about longshots", aka, prior to the last post I made that you replied to. I just posted four examples of it for you. Now you're changing YOUR argument to pretend you meant my first post. . when you clearly just said "where above did you say it" before just then.

Lastly, no one provide entire clarity of thought in a few sentences. Once asked about it, I explained it to you. . . four times. Now you come out telling me I'm changing my argument when I've had the same argument all along, using the exact same wording. Again, you're grasping at straws because you have nothing else to say at this point. You've failed at all your debate tactics. Called strawman, wasn't strawman. Claimed I changed my argument, posts are still there and prove I didn't.

Try actually debating the points if you really want to argue about the topic, rather than this bullshit which you've whiffed on every time thus far.

I guess your tactic is 'if I keep saying idiotic shit, he'll give up'. And you're absolutely right, I'm pretty tired mentally.

So let me get this straight, when you said "there's 1 contender in the East and 5 in the West' you actually didn't mean this, but rather meant there are several 'longshots' as opposed to the top contenders (which are less than 5). Are you serious? How does your 'clarification' even make sense? It's not a clarification, that's why. It's backpedaling.

Why the fuck would anyone care that the Grizzlies, Nuggets and Clippers are 'longshots'? Are the Knicks not longshots either? How does any person with a brain define longshots as 'championship contenders'? We were simply we talking about championship contenders in the NBA, and you had to modify your argument because it was retarded. End of story.

Again, no mention of the 'top 6' rule. Again, you avoided my question when I asked where I said the 'East was as good as the West'. But it doesn't matter, because you'll come in here again, with the same idiotic takes, sidestepping all the questions and say 'you lose!'. There's no debate tactics here, just sheer stupidity.

[HarlemHeat37]

There wouldnt be 8 east, 8 west. Dallas, Portland, Utah are way better than 6,7,8 on the east.

:lol No, they aren't..

Dallas is better, but Atlanta/Boston/Milwaukee are easily better than Utah and Portland..

[BUMP]

Mavs 2011 (whom I picked to win the title right before the postseason started btw)




I considered the Mavs to be a contender and they won. They were a longshot, but they were a contender to me. Everyone talked shit about it then too, until I was proven right.

Kidd K

Join Date: 5-03-2012

[resistanze]

:lmao

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao Kidd K getting destroyed

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Kidd K

Join Date: 5-03-2012

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K540OL6Yy14/UK19ViEUzUI/AAAAAAAACH8/EtRaTi869sg/s1600/laker+fans.gif

[Thread]

^SWEET CHEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kidd K]

I guess your tactic is 'if I keep saying idiotic shit, he'll give up'. And you're absolutely right, I'm pretty tired mentally.

So let me get this straight, when you said "there's 1 contender in the East and 5 in the West' you actually didn't mean this, but rather meant there are several 'longshots' as opposed to the top contenders (which are less than 5). Are you serious? How does your 'clarification' even make sense? It's not a clarification, that's why. It's backpedaling.

Why the fuck would anyone care that the Grizzlies, Nuggets and Clippers are 'longshots'? Are the Knicks not longshots either? How does any person with a brain define longshots as 'championship contenders'? We were simply we talking about championship contenders in the NBA, and you had to modify your argument because it was retarded. End of story.

Again, no mention of the 'top 6' rule. Again, you avoided my question when I asked where I said the 'East was as good as the West'. But it doesn't matter, because you'll come in here again, with the same idiotic takes, sidestepping all the questions and say 'you lose!'. There's no debate tactics here, just sheer stupidity.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. You keep saying dumb shit and failing.

Your first point for example, where you begin to strawman yet again. I didn't mean longshots were contenders? Really? When did I say I didn't mean that? Do I need to copy and paste me saying "longshot contender" four times again?



There are different levels of contenders. The ones you listed, the obvious 3 everyone lists, are the "top contenders", not the "only contenders". The Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets are longshot contenders


You can still contend even if you aren't in the top 3. Or do you really think a top 2-3 team always wins the title every year? Hint: They don't. Hence, there are more contenders than just the obvious choices. These are called longshots



The top teams don't always win, which is why there's a second tier of contenders called longshots. Can you not grasp this concept?


I considered the Mavs to be a contender and they won. They were a longshot, but they were a contender to me

So once again, the facts show that I specified that a longshot was a contender four different times. I also quoted all of that shit and bolded it for you when you stupidly claimed I didn't say that. Now you're claiming I'm saying longshots weren't contenders. . .when again, I clearly said it four times, and have now pasted each instances for you eight times, for a total of twelve times. . .and literally every time I said the word longshot, I specified that they were longshot contenders.

Those are unedited quotes by me, besides the bolding and size changes which apparently you need as learning tools since you can't read. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance regarding what I've said already. If you're going to attack my comments, try reading them first before shooting yourself in the foot again for a third time.

As for why I normally choose 6, it's because it's the top 20% of the league. There's no "magic" to the number six. I didn't say it was a fuckin "rule" either. The teams with the highest chances to win a title are the top contenders. I doubt you dispute that. I simply expand the concept to include reasonable longshots who occaisionally win. You're literally shitting your pants over half a dozen posts over me saying, "the top 6 teams are considered contenders". Get over it. You're fabricating everything else surrounding that single sentence in your head to have something to be outraged over.

As for the Knicks (just so you can stop claiming I'm not responding to your "questions"), if the Knicks were (imo, happy?) capable of beating the Heat, I'd include them instead of one of the other three. Without a key guy on the Heat getting hurt, I don't see it happening. If they were capable, I'd list them (in my opinion~ oh look, I said it so you don't nerd rage over it) of who the top contenders are. In case you can't grasp this concept of my logic yet, I think these teams have to be reasonably capable of beating the best team in their conference to be considered a contender. The Knicks aren't, but the Nuggets, Clippers, and Grizzlies are (again, I'm stating that this is my opinion so you don't cry about it).

If you need even more clarification than this, too bad. I've explained it as clear as possible. I'm tired of your lame ass crusade against my opinions. You've proven you can barely comprehend English and can't grasp a concept that isn't extremely simple. I'll also pre-empt your extremely predictable reply to my answering those inane questions:

You asked me to clarify, so don't try to spin some bullshit about "you didn't say that before, lmao backpeddal, lmao sidestep". You asked for clarification, I answered. Just like the first time. Just like the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth times. I continue to steadfastly have and speak the same stance without changing it. Zero backpeddaling or sidetsepping whatsoever. What I said the first time is what I'm saying now. My stance won't change unless stuff changes in reality.



Kidd K

Join Date: 5-03-2012

:lmao I never said I said all that on this forum. As if this is the only basketball forum or place on the planet where people talk basketball.

:lmao Desperate to find something to talk shit about since you have no counterpoints.

Next time you want to reinforce your internet buddy, try getting something legitimate first. :lol