Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade?

[Goran Dragic]

They do, and they wouldn't play the crappy East teams all the time like the Pistons, Cavs, among others that are there.

They went 29-19 (win % of .604) against the Eastern Conference teams they played and 13-5 (win % of .722) against the Western Conference teams they played, so that argument doesn't make much logical sense.

Begs the question again, do they teach math in methlahoma

[KD4MVP]

Just seemed like you were trying to come off like that my bad.

I think OKC will win rings...I think after this year it is going to be a battle between Miami/OKC for the most part. Lakers are done, Spurs are getting older(will be interesting to see after the big three start departing), Boston is done.

I think Durant and James will end up getting the same amount of rings when their careers are done. I'm with you though...Durant is only 23...he could end up getting MVP's and all kinds of I'm just going with James for now cause he is just so dominant.

Good luck against the Spurs also...I'm rooting for either team I like OKC they have class too. I think Spurs in six but if it goes seven OKC will win so keep that in mind.

No worries, i'll take KD in the clutch over LeBron who for whatever reason doesn't take the last shot with the game on the line. He's the best player in the world, but for someone who is, he doesn't take the last shot with the game on the line? His defense has gotten better, he held Kobe to 2-10 or 2-12 when he guarded him, his length bothers a lot of players.

I agree on that, but everyone thought the Spurs were done last year, and here they are again. And yeah, i think there could be a lot of OKC/Miami Finals in the near future until a team in the East gets another star, Chicago, depending on how Rose recovers could.

I think it basically depends on the first 2 games, if they don't win one of those games, they won't win the series, if they do, all bets are off. But i think it's the Spurs year, they just make the game look so easy, and Pop is such a great coach.

If OKC somehow got past them, i think they win it all, b/c even if Bosh does come back, he may aggrevate it again, and they won't win 2 on 5 against either of those teams especially without home-court. That's a tough injury to come back from, usually takes at least 4-6 weeks.

Should be a of a series though.

[mavs>spurs]

Gotta agree with the meth addict here tbh. there are more variables to take into account than to just look at it that way. how many of their 2nd night of a back to back's would they have won if they faced a top western team the night before instead of some ty eastern team? would a limited 18 game sample size hold up if they had to play more games against those western teams? which western teams did they play? when faced with a top western conference team, was that WC team ever on the 2nd night of a tough back to back? You know better than that brah.

[Goran Dragic]

Gotta agree with the meth addict here tbh. there are more variables to take into account than to just look at it that way. how many of their 2nd night of a back to back's would they have won if they faced a top western team the night before instead of some ty eastern team? would a limited 18 game sample size hold up if they had to play more games against those western teams? which western teams did they play? when faced with a top western conference team, was that WC team ever on the 2nd night of a tough back to back? You know better than that brah.

The only variable he mentioned was having more games against the West as oppose to the East. He didn't mention anything you just mentioned, however all the scenarios you mentioned could apply to basically every team. There's an inevitable amount of luck/unfairness that goes into schedules. Neither you nor the meth head have provided any actual proof of Indiana benefiting from said unfairness.

[KD4MVP]

They went 29-19 (win % of .604) against the Eastern Conference teams they played and 13-5 (win % of .722) against the Western Conference teams they played, so that argument doesn't make much logical sense.

Begs the question again, do they teach math in methlahoma

So instead of playing the likes of the Bucks, Pistons, Cavs, Bulls who were all in the lottery aside from Chicago.

Say they replace NO, and play the Spurs, Mavs, Rockets, and Grizzlies instead, sure, they'd do just fine playing them instead of the teams they currently play, right?

Nice sample size.

Pacers have a nice team, but they would not finish 3rd in the West, they would finish around 6th-8th. The West is by far a better conference, quite frankly, it's not even close.

[mavs>spurs]

The only variable he mentioned was having more games against the West as oppose to the East. He didn't mention anything you just mentioned, however all the scenarios you mentioned could apply to basically every team. There's an inevitable amount of luck/unfairness that goes into schedules. Neither you nor the meth head have provided any actual proof of Indiana benefiting from said unfairness.

so you don't think teams in the east have an easier schedule?

ok

and no, having tougher b2b's and more games against western conference teams is exclusive to western conference teams, it doesn't apply to "every team." you can't take an 18 game sample size and say that they'd maintain that same winning % over the course of 40 games. also, getting to take more frequent breaks against ty EC teams allows them to "get up" for the big games against the tougher WC teams.

[Goran Dragic]

So instead of playing the likes of the Bucks, Pistons, Cavs, Bulls who were all in the lottery aside from Chicago.

Say they replace NO, and play the Spurs, Mavs, Rockets, and Grizzlies instead, sure, they'd do just fine playing them instead of the teams they currently play, right?

Nice sample size.

Pacers have a nice team, but they would not finish 3rd in the West, they would finish around 6th-8th. The West is by far a better conference, quite frankly, it's not even close.

"Lets say they played the 1st, 4th, 7th, and 9th best team in the West rather than the 1st, 9th, 10th, and 13th best teams in the East, their record would be worse!"

No . If the Spurs had to play the Heat, Celtics, Bulls, and Magic during the regular season instead of the Hornets, Suns, Kings, and Warriors, their record would be worse. That doesn't make the East > the West.

What proof do you have their record would suffer if they had to play more Western Conference teams other than "The West is better and it's not even close!" Based off the available sample size, their record would improve if they got to play more West teams.

[Goran Dragic]

so you don't think teams in the east have an easier schedule?

ok

and no, having tougher b2b's and more games against western conference teams is exclusive to western conference teams, it doesn't apply to "every team." you can't take an 18 game sample size and say that they'd maintain that same winning % over the course of 40 games. also, getting to take more frequent breaks against ty EC teams allows them to "get up" for the big games against the tougher WC teams.

My 18 game sample size is more evidence than anything you have presented. I'm still waiting for proof that their schedule would suffer instead of opinion and conjecture.

[mavs>spurs]

if someone is up to it, compile a tally of the total record of the teams the pacers had to go against vs say the total record of teams faced by the thunder or mavs. make sure to weight it accordingly, for instance if the thunder played the spurs 4 times, you would weight the spurs more heavily by counting their record 4 times in the tally. GUARANTEE the combined record is much better for the combined Thunder's opponents compared to the pacers.

edit: actually, i don't think that would work. statistically it would even out, there would be more variance in the EC teams records while the WC teams would be more evenly matched in their W/L columns.

[mavs>spurs]

My 18 game sample size is more evidence than anything you have presented. I'm still waiting for proof that their schedule would suffer instead of opinion and conjecture.

18 game sample size

since there isn't a study done in a parallel universe where the pacers are a western conference team to compare to, all we can use is common sense and logic. common sense would tell you that the pacers would NOT have the same record in the west as they did in the east, for the reasons i already mentioned.

[KD4MVP]

"Lets say they played the 1st, 4th, 7th, and 9th best team in the West rather than the 1st, 9th, 10th, and 13th best teams in the East, their record would be worse!"

No . If the Spurs had to play the Heat, Celtics, Bulls, and Magic during the regular season instead of the Hornets, Suns, Kings, and Warriors, their record would be worse. That doesn't make the East > the West.

What proof do you have their record would suffer if they had to play more Western Conference teams other than "The West is better and it's not even close!" Based off the available sample size, their record would improve if they got to play more West teams.

Actually you'd replace the Hornets, Suns, Kings, Warriors with the Nets, Raptors, Cavs, Pistons, not the 2nd, 5th, 1st, and 6th best teams in the East.

Try again.

[mavs>spurs]

it's especially stupid whenever there are totally obvious reasons why that 18 game sample size could be skewed. the pacers would be more well rested, on average, when going up against those western teams because instead of playing in an ultra compe ive conference they would be getting to take games off vs the pistons, bobcats, wizards, cavs, etc.

[Goran Dragic]

if someone is up to it, compile a tally of the total record of the teams the pacers had to go against vs say the total record of teams faced by the thunder or mavs. make sure to weight it accordingly, for instance if the thunder played the spurs 4 times, you would weight the spurs more heavily by counting their record 4 times in the tally. GUARANTEE the combined record is much better for the combined Thunder's opponents compared to the pacers.

They had a 5-2 record (.714) against the Western playoff teams they played and an 8-3 (.727) record against the Western lottery teams the played. I'll save you the trouble, their SOS wasn't good, but they weren't like the D'antoni Suns that inflated their record with a near perfect record against ty teams. They did decent against good teams and blew their share of games against bad teams.

[mavs>spurs]

I'll save you the trouble, their SOS wasn't good

oh

[KD4MVP]

Simple question, you really think they finish in the Top 3 if they had to play the tough West teams every night for the most part.

Instead of having cakewalk games all the times against the likes of the Bobcats, Wiz, Pistons, Cavs, etc.

[Goran Dragic]

Simple question, you really think they finish in the Top 3 if they had to play the tough West teams every night for the most part.

I think they finish top 5. I think they're a better team than Utah, Dallas, and Denver. The West wasn't WAY better than the East this year like it normally is every year.

The West offers cake walk games against New Orleans, Sacramento, Minnesota and Golden State.

[Spurs da champs]

Sacramento usually puts up a good fight.

[Budkin]

Kobe is ruthless, Wade is not. Kobe.

[Ace]

Regular season records don't really mean much when you take a look at match ups. Not sure why people put so much weight into the regular season when the playoffs are so much different. A great team could run into a bad match up and be out the playoffs much sooner than they would had avoided that match up nightmare.

[Kidd K]

Wade even though he might be even more uncoachable than Kobe. At least he tries on defense most of the time.

[mavs>spurs]

wade is actually a damn good defender, more so in past years than right now at the moment though. i think he's hobbled.

[m>s]

also western teams have to travel longer distances to play games on road. LA is like half the continent away from texas but we still have to play them 3-4 times every season

[JRHernandez88]

Kobe

[tesseractive]

Kobe is ruthless, Wade is not. Kobe.

Are you sure we're talking about the same Dwayne Wade?