SI.com's Burns: EC Playoff Race a Joke

[JamStone]

"You'd have a valid point if I was arguing that the East was better than the West but I was never arguing that. My point all along was that the East was mislabeled as "weak". If the top 12 teams in the East have an overall winning record against the West then I've made the point to my satisfaction."


Not true, first of all because the top 12 teams in the East do not have an overall winning record against the West (I'll get back to this point), and secondly because the the top 12 teams in the West have the better WINNING record against the East.

You can argue semantically that you were only debating over the mislabeling of the EC as "weak." But, it comes down to TWO conference. If one conference is "weak," by simple deduction, the other conference is strong. There are only TWO conferences. The whole debate centers around which conference is stronger. Now, you bring up a tangental and semantical argument over just the notion of calling the EC "weak." No, that is just arguing for the sake of arguing. There is an implicit contention that by calling the East weak, it is by comparison to the West, thus not just "weak," but actually "weaker." When there are only two things that can be compared, you cannot logically ignore that it is a comparative analysis between the two.

And, therefore, though you can argue your semantics over the East just being labeled "weak," it's not what you were getting at, especially when you BROUGHT up records against the West to be used as evidence. Automatically, that causes the comparison.



Back to your mistake ... you made a blunder by stating again: "If the top 12 teams in the East have an overall winning record against the West then I've made the point to my satisfaction."

Because when I did the math, I only used the top 11 teams. But, in fact, if you include the top 12 teams in the East, their overall record against the West is a losing record, 173-185, a winning percentage of .483. So, I guess you DID NOT make your point to your own satisfaction.

By comparison, as inevitably there has to be, the top 12 teams in the West have an overall record against the East of 212-146. A very decided winning record of .576.

You should have stuck with the top 11 teams that I mentioned in my post, and still the West teams would have had a better winning percentage against the East than the East does against the West.

[jochhejaam]

Again with the "MANIPULATION" of the stats. You include "holding their own against the East as in your breakdown?? Why? How does that prove the East is not weak if a WC team is "holding their own" against them? That doesn't make sense. Moreover, if a team has a losing record against the "weak" East, but has an even worse record against the West, how does that prove your point? You can't just identify a bad team and say "SEE, look they have a bad record against the "weak" East but ignore the fact they have an even worse record against the West. Makes no sense. And, does not support the notion that the East is not weak. It just means those WC teams are really, really bad.

How about I just bold the teams that have WORSE records against the East than they do against the West. It's a comparative analysis any way. In order to prove the Eastern Conference is weak, one would have to compare it to something. So, it's best to analyze by looking at ALL 30 NBA teams and see how the teams played against each conference ...


As of earlier today, before tonight's games, because I haven't referenced the game results of tonight's games, here is how the records of each team in each conference fared between each conference:


Western Conference / record against WC / record against EC

Spurs / 38-10 / 21-8 (better record against WC, but again, so few losses, come on)
Mavs / 36-12 / 23-7
Suns / 28-18 / 22-18 (better against the West, no doubt)
Grizz / 27-21 / 17-12
Clippers / 24-23 / 20-10
Nuggets / 25-23 / 19-11
Kings / 27-21 / 14-16 (your one good example)
Lakers / 23-25 / 18-12
Jazz / 23-24 / 15-15 (losing record against WC, even record against EC, not worse against EC ... why bold the Jazz?)
Hornets / 24-23 / 13-17 (another rare good example)
Sonics / 18-28 / 15-15 (again why bold because they are .500 against the EC when they really suck against the WC?)
Rockets / 18-30 / 15-15 (same as Hornets and Sonics, much better against EC teams)
Wolves / 19-29 / 13-16 (better winning percentage against EC teams)
Warriors / 15-31 / 15-15 (see a pattern? Why bold teams that do "ok" against the EC but are horrible against WC? How does that prove your point? It doesn't)
Blazers / 10-37 / 11-19 (same story)

You wrote: "I bolded 10 of the 16 Western Conference teams that have either a worse winning percentage against the East than against the West, are holding their own against the East or have a losing record against the "weak" East."

"Holding their own" against the East doesn't support your argument if they really suck against the Western Conference team.

Only FOUR Western Conference teams had worse records against the East than they did against the West.




Eastern Conference / record against EC / record against WC

Pistons / 37-10 / 25-5 (better record against WC, but so few losses, come on)
Heat / 33-14 / 17-13 (does not have better winning percentage against WC ... lie)
Nets / 31-15 / 16-14 (does not have better winning percentage against WC ... lie)
Cavs / 31-16 / 16-14 (does not have better winning percentage against WC ... lie)
Wizards / 26-21 / 13-17
Bucks / 22-21 / 11-19
Pacers / 21-27 / 16-13 (one of your few really good examples ... finally)
Sixers / 21-27 / 16-14 (another good example)
Bulls / 24-22 / 11-19
Magic / 22-26 / 11-18
Celtics / 18-29 / 14-16 (losing record against both, but better record against WC)
Raptors / 18-28 / 7-23
Hawks / 17-30 / 7-23
Bobcats / 14-34 / 8-21
Knicks / 14-33 / 8-22

You wrote: "I also bolded 7 of the 16 Eastern Conference teams (yes that's almost half) that have either a better overall record against the West or a higher winning percentage against the West."

Why did you bold the Heat, Nets, and Cavs? They didn't have a better overall record against the West or a higher winning percentage against the West. Do the math one more time.

So, FOUR Eastern Conference teams with better winning percentages against the West than against the East.



That makes EIGHT of the 30 NBA teams that played worse against the East than against the West. The other 22 NBA teams played better against the "weaker" Eastern Conference.

So, that is 26.7% of the entire NBA supports your argument that the East is not "weak". And, that is a full sample. 73.3% > 26.7%. And 73.3% of the NBA says it's easier to play against the East, and it's easier to WIN against the East.

73.3% of the NBA team records prove that the Eastern Conference is the weaker conference.


Not to mention, your honor, the defense told bold-faced lies in its arguments and alleged conlusions.

Dang JamStone, I'm almost ready to concede based on your tenacity.

(I took the day off yesterday to do my taxes and spent so much time in the forum that I didn't finish 'til 10:00. I knew that would happen)

[jochhejaam]

"


Back to your mistake ... you made a blunder by stating again: "If the top 12 teams in the East have an overall winning record against the West then I've made the point to my satisfaction."

Because when I did the math, I only used the top 11 teams. But, in fact, if you include the top 12 teams in the East, their overall record against the West is a losing record, 173-185, a winning percentage of .483. So, I guess you DID NOT make your point to your own satisfaction.

For the sake of arguement we'll say the top 12 teams in the East have played 450 games against the West. If the East has won 218 and lost 232 that makes them weak? That's way to close to label them as weak. The Pistons lost 4 of 7 to the Spurs in last years Finals, worse than the .483 win percentage that we're talking about does that make them weak? (The answer is No ) One being better doesn't automatically make the other weak.

And I'll be the final arbiter of whether or not I'm satisfied with my point, I am.

There are no more witnesses to be called your Honor. The jury may now deliberate.

[101A]

Holy Crap.

Nice Work Boys.

Now if I drop a line about supply side economics, how long you think y'all could make the thread?

[CubanMustGo]

I think someone should put a poll on this thread and award a battle blog W/L based on the results.

[JamStone]

For the sake of arguement we'll say the top 12 teams in the East have played 450 games against the West. If the East has won 218 and lost 232 that makes them weak? That's way to close to label them as weak. The Pistons lost 4 of 7 to the Spurs in last years Finals, worse than the .483 win percentage that we're talking about does that make them weak? (The answer is No ) One being better doesn't automatically make the other weak.

And I'll be the final arbiter of whether or not I'm satisfied with my point, I am.

There are no more witnesses to be called your Honor. The jury may now deliberate.

You wrote: "If the top 12 teams in the East have an overall winning record against the West then I've made the point to my satisfaction."

The point is that top 12 teams in the East DO NOT have an overall winning record against the West. Your satisfaction was predicated on them having a winning record against the West. Thus, by them having a losing record against the West, you HAVE NOT made your point to satisfaction and you should not be satisfied. Check.

I don't know why you keep wanting to try to change the stats to make them better appear to be supporting your arguments. .483 is not a winning percentage or a winning record. It doesn't matter if you hypothetically make it a percentage of 450 games, 600 games, 750 games, or 1,000 games. .483 is still a losing win percentage, and it will always be a losing percentage.

On the other hand, the top 12 West teams have a win record of 212-146 against the East. No matter how you try to manipulate the stats, .576 is better than .483. Check.

There are only two conferences. Go back to my point that when calling the East "weak," it has to be taken into context as a comparative analysis. There are only two conference, so calling the East "weak" has to be done so with the view that the West is "strong." .576 is stronger than .483. .483 is weaker than .576. Check.

You can't twist that no matter how you try.

And, yes, one being better makes the other "weak" in this case because there are ONLY TWO conferences. If there were 10 different conferences, and the East had the third best record, then it would be unfair to call it weak, because there would be seven other conferences that are weaker. But, that's not the case. There are TWO conferences. Calling one conference weak automatically implies that the other is strong and vice versa when there are only TWO things that can be compared and evaluated. Check.

.483 is weak even if you don't compare. .483 is a losing percentage.

Losing more times than winning demonstrates weakness. First claiming that you are satisfied if the top 12 East teams have an overall winning record against the West, but then after realizing they have a losing record, you still say you are satisfied is completely contradictory ... and WEAK. Mate.

[himat]

if pistons were not in the east it would be horrible.

[bdubya]

Holy Crap.

Nice Work Boys.

Now if I drop a line about supply side economics, how long you think y'all could make the thread?

Hey, the Pistons have had two full days off; we gotta fill the time with SOMETHING.....

[Darrin]

if pistons were not in the east it would be horrible.

I like this logic: if the Mavs and Spurs were in the East, the East's record against the West would be much better.

[jochhejaam]

.483 is weak even if you don't compare. ..

In round 1 of a fight boxer A lands 52 punches and boxer B lands 48 punches. Boxer B gets labeled weak?

I don't think so. Check

[JamStone]

Out of my entire post, that is the one comment you decided to respond to?


If boxer A threw 100 punches and landed 57 of them, and boxer B threw 100 punches and landed 48 of them, boxer B would be the weak boxer of the two.

[bdubya]

Maybe the race for the top seeds in the east is a joke, but the fight for the last two seeds is a damn BAR FIGHT tonight. Bucks up 2 on Wiz, Philly slapping the Nets around, Bulls and Pacers beating up on a couple of lottery squads.....chaos in the low seeds. Cool.

[Darrin]

Maybe the race for the top seeds in the east is a joke, but the fight for the last two seeds is a damn BAR FIGHT tonight. Bucks up 2 on Wiz, Philly slapping the Nets around, Bulls and Pacers beating up on a couple of lottery squads.....chaos in the low seeds. Cool.

Notable Pistons/Bulls history:

2006: Down by as many as 14 points in the first half, the Pistons blew open a tied game with a 22-6 run to open the third quarter. On one notable play, Rasheed Wallace, who was riding his hot hand in the post, could be heard on camera calling "Glass!" and did indeed use the window. As he back-pedeled down the floor, Wallace laughed uncontrolablly.

2005: Down six in overtime, the Pistons would run off 8 straight including Chauncey Billups' game-winner over Chris Duhon. It would give the Pistons their 50th win of the season and the third Central Division le in four years. However, just as the Pistons stole an in-bounds pass to score points 4, 5, and 6 of that 8 straight, Andreas Nocioni planted his elbow on Tayshaun Prince's forehead. The man from Compton, CA would return to the floor, only to have more blood drip and have to come out for the final possession.

2001: Jerry Stackhouse would break Michael Jordan's United Center record with a 57-point performance. He would break Kelly Tripuka's franchise mark for points in a game (56). Ironically, Tripuka would also score his record high against the Bulls. When Tripuka broke the mark, he scored two more points than Piston Hall-of-Famer Dave Bing. The opponent when Bing scored 54 points, breaking George Yardley's mark of 52? The Chicago Bulls.

1998: Despite the Pistons sub-.500 record, they would beat the Chicago Bulls in Michael Jordan's last game against the Pistons. More than that, Joe Dumars would win the last duo in their head-to-head matchup: 7-25 shooting for 19 points. It would drop back the Bulls a full game in the race with the Utah Jazz for the best record. Oh, and Dumars had the flu.

1997: It had been 23 straight games since the Pistons had beat the Chicago Bulls. Since their streak dated back to 1993, and the Pistons had hired former Bulls coach Doug Collins in 1995, it's fair to say that Collins had never beat the man who replaced him on the Chicago basketball sidelines, Phil Jackson. Add to that rumors that Collins was about to be fired because players were openly revolting against him, and you can understand why the Pistons 108-91 victory, their first overall in eleven days, would move him to tears. It just so happened the game was on NBC, and it came to symbolize his time in Detroit - manic-ly successful.

1997: Both teams entering the game at the Palace with 4-0 records, the Pistons would lose their first game of the season behind 5 Bulls in double-figures (Pippen, Jordan, Longley, Kukoc, and Kerr).

1996: After the United Center had opened with a slightly larger stadium than the Palace of Auburn Hills, making it the largest capacity arena in the league, the Palace would increase its capacity from 21,454 to 22,076 in order to reclaim its le.

1995: In his first gig in the NBA since being fired in 1989 after taking the Bulls to the Conference Finals as a sixth-seed in the East, Doug Collins was hired as coach of the Detroit Pistons with strong influence over roster decisions. Three months later, the Bulls would trade Will Perdue to the San Antonio Spurs for former Piston and Pippen nemesis Dennis Rodman.

1993: In one of the few inspired efforts of the first losing season in 10 years, the Pistons would defeat the Bulls 101-99 at the Palace behind 48 combined points by Dumars and Isiah Thomas. It would be another 4 seasons before the Pistons would beat the Bulls again.

1992: The Dream Team is announced. Former Pistons coach Chuck Daly would coach, but a notable name would be absent from the roster - Isiah Thomas. It's long been rumored that Michael Jordan indirectly had something to do with Thomas being left off the greatest collection of talent ever assembled.

1991: In one of the most infamous scenes of the rivalry, Isiah Thomas leads the starters off the floor with 7 seconds left in the game of a 115-94 torching at the Palace of Auburn Hills. It would be the end of the Pistons reign. The team would not win 50 games until 1996-97, win another playoff series until 2001-02, and not appear in the Conference Finals again until 2002-03. Meanwhile, the Bulls would compile a .747 winning percentage with six Championships in eight years.

1990: In yet another infamous scene, the Pistons blowout the Bulls 93-74 in Game 7 of the Conference Finals. This game would make headlines because Scottie Pippen would play very poorly suffering from a migraine headache that wouldn't be diagnosed until after the game.

1989: A sixth-seeded cinderella that upset 57-win Cleveland and the 52-win Knicks, the Bulls would give the Pistons the first ever postseason loss at the Palace of Auburn Hills in game one of the Conference Finals. In fact, the Pistons and Bulls would split the first four games of the series before Chicago's dance slipper would break, failing to win either of the final two games of the series.

1989: Isiah Thomas would break his hand punching the Bulls 7"1' Center Bill Cartwright.

1988: The Bulls winning their most games since the 1973-74 season led by Michael Jordan, the 1987-88 Most Valuable Player award and 1986-87 Defensive Player of the Year, they would be disposed of easily in a 4-1 second-round series.

1974: Both the Pistons and Bulls had franchise seasons in '74, winning 50 and 54 games respectively. The Midwest division foes would play a hard-fought seven-game series that would come down to a 94-96 loss by the Pistons in the decisive game.

I'd love to see them write another chapter...

[jochhejaam]

Out of my entire post, that is the one comment you decided to respond to?

You got it mate.

Accentuate and attack the weakest point(s) of the opposing view.

Debate 101

Originally posted by jochhejaam: I'll answer it anyway, the real reason for the inequity is the slugs at the bottom of the East that are a combined -59 wins against the West which would leave the top 12 teams, or 75% (large enought sample for you?) with a better W-L record against the West.

^^^^ The problem with my earlier post was that I did count the last 4 teams in the East to come up with the -59 against the West but for some reason I was thinking there were 16 teams in the East instead of 15. If I hadn't miscalculated the number of teams I would have used the top 11 in my points instead of the top 12.
Anyway it was my mistake so I thought I'd just go with the original miscalculated number of teams (12) just to see what I could do with it.
<shrugs>

Like bdubya said; 'just fillin' in time between Piston's games'.