now that i think about it again, i rather the spurs face dallas in the first round than face the lakers in the second. i want either houston or portland to play the lakers in the second round. so.. spurs win and dallas win ought to do it? unless there interference from portland beating the nuggets.
Correct.
1. Spurs win, Rockets loss= 3 seed Spurs vs. 6 seed Dallas (regardless of what happens with Portland)
2. Spurs win, Rockets win, Blazers win= 4 seed Blazers vs. 5 seed Spurs
3. Spurs win, Rockets win, Blazers loss= 4 seed Spurs vs. 5 seed Blazers
4. Spurs loss= 5th seed.
i'm willing to take the risk of playing dallas for sure, i want houston or portland playing LA in round 2 and maybe a miracle can go down having either portland or houston beating them. Then spurs would have HCA vs either 4 or 5. my hopes.
it. i didn't like the spurs playing dallas at first but if the spurs can't beat the mavs, they won't be beating any other team in the playoffs. spurs at #3 seed against mavs at #6 is my view as the best option. this lets the blazers or rockets challenge the lakers and also gives the spurs an even matchup against the nuggets.
Please, no apologies necessary. This thing is mind-boggling. I went to sleep after my last post with a headache.I agree with you about both of these scenarios.
Excellent !
My apologies for my mistake about a 2 way when you were right that it would be a 3 way. Thanks for pointing that out and catching it.
One neat tidbit about the #3 seed scenario is that we would actually could have been the #2 seed if we didn't tank that game against Denver. But then we would need to play NO instead of Dallas, so I'm not sure it's really a plus.
There was much discussion in the wee hours over whether a new tiebreaker rule reported by McDonald actually existed or not. Under the rule he reported, if the Spurs and Portland finished tied at 54-28, with Houston at 53-29. The Spurs would get the 3 seed while Portland would the 4 seed despite Portland having won the season series 3-1.
Among others, I concluded that McDonald was wrong. I could not find any mention of this new tiebreaker on NBA.com or any source more reliable than the man who reported that TP was only the 26th guard in NBA history to reach 10000 points, as well as numerous other factual inaccuracies.
But, this morning I found this on NBA.com
TIEBREAKER BASIS:
(-) Tie breaker not needed (better overall winning percentage)
(1) Division leader wins tie from team not leading a division
(2) Head-to-head won-lost percentage
(3) Division won-lost percentage
(4) Conference won-lost percentage
(5) W-L Percentage vs. Playoff teams, own conference
(6) W-L Percentage vs. Playoff teams, other conference
(7) Net Points, all games
So there it is, McDonald was right
If the Spurs and Blazers win while the Rockets lose:
1 Lakers
2 Nuggets
3 Spurs
4 Blazers
5 Rockets
6 Mavs
7 Hornets (if lakers beat Jazz)
8 Jazz
7 Jazz (if Jazz beat Lakers)
8 Hornets
http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html
Well thought out. Forget all of those other scenarios. This neatly sums up who we should be rooting for.
You're also right about this. The Spurs by having won the division would get the higher seed. But interestingly enough, if the Blazers and Spurs were to meet in the playoffs under those seedings, the Blazers would have HCA due to the original tiebreaker win. A higher seeding DOES NOT imply HCA.
That's funny. That was the page I was reading last night, and the bolded part you included was only in the case of a multi-team tie. Not anymore I guess. It's not really important anyways because we already determined that there would be a 3 team tie in the scenario where the Spurs would get the #3 seed, so that rule was applying already.
And the plot thickens.
In the battle to avoid the the Lakers, Utah owns the tiebreakers over both Dallas and NO. So while we may root for the Jazz to win tonight to provide motivation for the Mavs to beat the Rockets Wednesday and avoid the Lakers, that same additional motivation would apply to the Hornets.
However, this is from your source. It shows that McDonald is wrong about division leader being a tiebreaker for 2 way ties. So, McDonald is wrong.
http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html
a. Two Teams Tied
(1) Better winning percentage in games against each other.
(2) Better winning percentage against teams in own division (only if tied teams are in same division).
(3) Better winning percentage against teams in own conference.
(4) Better winning percentage against teams eligible for playoffs in own conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).
(5) Better winning percentage against teams eligible for playoffs in opposite conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).
(6) Better net result of total points scored less total points allowed against all opponents (“point differential”).
b. More Than Two Teams Tied
(1) Better winning percentage in all games among the tied teams.
(2) Better winning percentage against teams in own division (only if all tied teams are in the same division).
(3) Better winning percentage against teams in own conference.
(4) Better winning percentage against teams eligible for playoffs in own conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).
(5) Better net result of total points scored less total points allowed against all opponents (“point differential”).
Since this is from that source, is current, then it appears that the 2 way tiebreaker is not broken through one team being a division leader.
That's my understanding, and that's what the Portland reporter wrote in his article. A 3 team tie involving Denver and San Antonio automatically makes Portland the #4 seed.Since this is from that source, is current, then it appears that the 2 way tiebreaker is not broken through one team being a division leader.
The part I bolded is separate and above the part you reference. I now believe that is the correct interpretation. I really want to believe that McD is wrong, but I think he got this one right. Who knows.However, this is from your source. It shows that McDonald is wrong about division leader being a tiebreaker for 2 way ties. So, McDonald is wrong.
http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html
a. Two Teams Tied
(1) Better winning percentage in games against each other.
(2) Better winning percentage against teams in own division (only if tied teams are in same division).
(3) Better winning percentage against teams in own conference.
(4) Better winning percentage against teams eligible for playoffs in own conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).
(5) Better winning percentage against teams eligible for playoffs in opposite conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).
(6) Better net result of total points scored less total points allowed against all opponents (“point differential”).
b. More Than Two Teams Tied
(1) Better winning percentage in all games among the tied teams.
(2) Better winning percentage against teams in own division (only if all tied teams are in the same division).
(3) Better winning percentage against teams in own conference.
(4) Better winning percentage against teams eligible for playoffs in own conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).
(5) Better net result of total points scored less total points allowed against all opponents (“point differential”).
Since this is from that source, is current, then it appears that the 2 way tiebreaker is not broken through one team being a division leader.
I have also concluded that there only one surefire method to get to the truth:
1. Watch the Spurs play the Hornets (go to the game and cheer if possible)
2. After the Spurs game, switch to ESPN and watch the Portland-Denver game
3. Stay tuned for the postgame on ESPN
4. They will tell us what the matchups will be
5. Jon Barry will provide a detailed case proving the Spurs will lose in the first round no matter what the matchup.
Go Spurs GO
Can we get actual clarification on this?
If the Spurs and Mavs win on Wednesday what happens? Does it matter what Portland/Denver do?
Regardless of seeding, that means the Spurs will play either the Blazers or Dallas. No way to get another team? Because that's 2 matchups I don't like...
No it doesn't, if the Spurs and Mavs win on Wednesday, then Spurs will be #3 and Mavs #6. Then 1st round : Spurs vs Mavs.
If the Spurs and Mavs win on Wednesday then
Spurs 54-28
Rockets 53-29
The Spurs win the SW division
Case 1 : Blazers beat Nuggets
Spurs, Blazers & Nuggets are tied at 54-28
2 Nuggets 54-28 (division leader)
3 Spurs 54-28 (division leader)
4 Blazers 54-28
5 Rockets 53-29
6 Mavs 50-32
Case 2 : Nuggets beat Blazers
2 Nuggets 55-27
3 Spurs 54-28
4 Rockets 53-29
5 Blazers 53-29
6 Mavs 50-32
Well now I do not know what to root for. Do I take HC and avoid the Lakers until the WCF, but have to face the worst possible opponent in round 1 in the Mavs.
Or do I hope we lose, play Blazers in the first round, then if we win, play the Lakers in the second.
I'm lost.
Previously on Lost...
I need to root for what ?? To sum up mainly Spurs win and Rockets loss ? Maybe I'll simplify the thing Go Spurs and after well nevermind.
man you lost me again... so the spurs need to loose :
Anyway I cannot root for my team loosing so Go Spurs and the rest.
Basically I do not want the Spurs to play the Mavs in the first round, but I also do not want the Spurs to have to play the Lakers until the WCF if possible.man you lost me again... so the spurs need to loose :
Anyway I cannot root for my team loosing so Go Spurs and the rest.
If the Spurs and Dallas win on Wednesday, the Spurs will be the 3rd seed and the Mavs the 6th. If that happens, Spurs play the Mavs in the first round, but would avoid the Lakers until the WCF.
If the Spurs lose, then they would be the 5th seed and avoid the Mavs in the first round, but would have to play the Lakers in the 2nd round (if the Spurs/Lakers get there).
I guess I am going for the Spurs to win and Dallas to win. Might as well take the HC advantage and lessen the travel and let the chips fall where they may.
This is the picture I'm painting as most favorable too. I think ideally we would like to play Dallas, and if we advance, Houston (don't know if this is possible as far as current standings and seeding goes), while the Lakers have to travel and play against Utah/Portland/NO, etc.
I'm hoping for a Utah win tonight and a Spurs, blazers, and mavs win tomorrow. If that happens the match-ups would look like this:
1.Lakers
2.Nugges
3.Spurs
4.Blazers
5.Rockets
6.Mavs
7.Jazz
8.Hornets
If this happens the Spurs would get to play Dallas with HCA (and shorter travel) and we get to avoid the Lakers until the WCF. Also I wouldn't be surprised if Utah knocked off Denver which would mean a second round match with Utah with HCA and the Jazz haven't won in SA in like a million years so you would have to believe we would take care of the Jazz. So potentially the Spurs could play the Mavs and the Jazz with HCA in both series while the Lakers would have to play New Orleans and Portland in the first two rounds which are probably the two teams that give LA the most trouble.
No, if the Spurs were to be the 3rd seed, then in the 2nd round they would play the winner of the NO/Nuggets.
The winner of the Portland/Houston series would play the winner of the Lakers/Utah.
Ok deal done Spurs and Dallas Win !
Ok. So today at work I have been trying to wrap my head around all the different scenarios for the 2-8 seeds in the west. Where the spurs end up doesnt really bother me, 3-4-5 is all fine. I'm actually coming to like the potential semi-finals match up with the lakers.
What I've become very interested in is the 6-8 spots. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the Jazz win tonight against LA, the Mavs win against Houtston on Wednesday and we beat the Hornets on Wednesday that would put the Hornets in the 8th seed correct?
If so then OMFG Go Mavs/Jazz go!!! We need the Lakers to go through the hardest schedule possible, and it doesent get much harder then NO in the first round.
*edit* just read some of the latest posts to confirm the Hornets being the 8th seed is correct in this scenario.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
