Reply With Quote
I'm more concerned with Memphis/LA Clippers than Oklahoma City/LA Lakers tbh
Back in the summer and even early fall, many thought getting the 1 seed and thus avoiding one of the Thunder/Lakers (while simultaneously forcing them to engage in what figured to be a long, grueling series) was absolutely imperative if the Spurs were going to have a legit shot at getting back to the Finals.
But given that the Grizzlies are clearly improved, that the Clippers figure to be too (so long as ego doesn't get in the way once they're fully healthy) and that the Lakers, no matter how good they may eventually be, probably aren't going to quite be the juggernaut many predicted, does it really matter which two of the four the Spurs have to go through?
I'm more concerned with Memphis/LA Clippers than Oklahoma City/LA Lakers tbh
I'd rather have the home court no matter who the Spurs play. Best not to worry about how everyone else pans out in the seeding and just work on getting the best seed they can. Can't control what seeds other people get, so it'd be silly to not get the top seed if it's a possibility.
Well obviously. That goes without saying.
I'm asking whether you still think there's a big gap between the Thunder/Lakers and the Clippers/Grizzlies or not.
The West has so many good teams whoever gets to the Finals will deserve it. Hopefully the 1 seed at least gives us an easy first round match up.
Lets be honest though, will Howard and Jordan/Griffins free throw shooting so poor, coupled with Splitters excellent shooting, we shouldn't be worried by either front court.
These guys aren't Shaq, we should be able to hack ourselves past either team if required.
its worth enough to try and go for if its in reach...
There are no teams to avoid, but having home court for a potential game 7 is always nice. Good that the Spurs are finding ways to win close games right now. That could really pay off later.
I think the Grizz, Thunder, and Spurs are a pretty clear 1-3, and the LA teams are roughly equal at 4 and 5 (although it's more than safe to assume the Lakers will edge up as Nash comes back and they start to gel, so they should probably be lumped in with the top 4). So team-wise, #1 isn't a super big deal, but because of home court advantage, it's still a big deal.
It's hard to pass a judgement on the Lakers yet, but the Clippers are definitely better than last year, and the Grizzlies are who everyone thought they'd be now (which is a "good team").
The Thunder are worse than last year, and tbh, I hope we play them so we can knock them out. I'll take whoever we can get, and just hope the refs don't us again.
so far, clippers have obviously been our biggest struggle, much to my surprise. at this point, they would be the most feared opponent in the west
There's still a major advantage to getting the 1-seed (beyond just home-court). If there are five "contenders" in the West, and they get the top five slots, 4 and 5 have to play each other in the first round and 2 and 3 would get each other in the second round. 1 gets the fatigued winner of that 4/5 while 2 and 3 beat each other up. Then 1 gets the tired winner of that series. Not only do the other teams have harder initial opponents, but 1 gets to play the other contenders immediately after they finish grueling series. That sort of happened last year with the Spurs getting a depleted Clippers. Had the Lakers been more impressive and taken OKC to the wire, San Antonio may have gotten some good fortune against the Thunder, too.
I think it's more about confidence and finding better chemistry than home-court advantage. Say if playoffs just start without playing regular season games, being randomly "assigned" as a no.8 team with no home-court advantage is not that big a deal. But in reality, being a No.1/2 team means you have done a good job of building your team going into the playoffs.
Unlike NFL, NBA has 7-game series for each playoff round, and it's no coincidence that '95 Houston Rockets happens so rarely. MLB does produce lots of wild-card-seeded World-Series champions, but it's not really a "team" sport compared to football and basketball. When you have a couple red-hot starting pitchers, you win.
J Crawford makes that team scary. Just keep it close and bring his ass in at the end.
Regardless, you always go for home court advantage, it's huge
But we can get them out of their rhythm whenever we want by hacking Griffin and Jordan though. If they can't hit their free throws, Del Negro will have to sit them and give us a big advantage. We didn't hack either of them once in the games this year.
One question: How many FTs has DeAndre Jordan shot in the two games? Six. Do you really think Pop has forgotten how to have him removed from the game?
To me, Bledsoe is a bigger problem for us. In those two games, his speed and defense really give Tony and our other guards fits.
Yep..I pointed it out after the second game, it's evident that Pop is saving the hack-a for a potential playoff matchup vs. either LA team..Howard and Jordan are major liabilities at the line, Pop will be sure to expose them..
As for OP, I don't believe there is a substantial gap between any of the top 5 teams..the primary seeding priority should be avoiding 4th or 5th and a first round matchup with an elite team, as there is a major gap between the top 5 compared to the rest of the West..
I actually think the 1 seed matters more to us than pretty much any team in the West, maybe besides the Lakers, who are absolute on the road.
Good point. He's an excellent player, but he's historically been hot-tempered and stupid, and the Spurs took advantage of that in the playoffs. If he can learn to control that, he's very dangerous.
true, deandre jordan has looked a little like another jordan when we've played them, which is bound to not happen if we see them in the playoffs. hacking him should work quite nicely
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
