which is absolutely re ed, screw the divisions.Every Division Winner gets a top 4 spot in the Playoffs no matter how bad they suck
- Mars
You're plain wrong on your whole reasoning.
Lakers are 9-4 against their division, they will finish 9-7 against their divison if they lost the remaining games.
Warriors are 8-5 against their division, they will finish 11-5 against their division if they win the remaining games.
Now, it's more complicate because if Warriors win all games, Nuggets will finish 52-30 at best. It will be then a three team ties.
Again, maybe Lakers have clinched but you're just plain wrong.
You are reading too much into this, it's not my reasoning, it's the NBA tiebreaker rules. You can read them yourself here:
http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html
it's as simple as the tiebreaker.
#1 Tiebreaker - Head to head which we know is tied so we have to go to #2 rule
#2 Tiebreaker - Against Division - THIS IS IT, this is the tiebreaker rule that clinches the Lakers.
Lakers are 7-2 against the division, not 9-4
Warriors are 6-3 against the division, not 8-5
So if the Lakers lost the rest of their division games, they are 7-5, 71%
If the Warriors won the rest of their games, they are 6-6, 50%
71% is better than 50% so the Lakers wins the "Against the Division" tiebreaker.
NBA.com has the Lakers as clinched in the PO's. http://www.nba.com/standings/team_re...w_Std_Div.html, there is a X next to their name.
Why are you talking about the Nuggets? The Nuggets have NOTHING to do with whether the Lakers are in the Playoffs or NOT in the Playoffs.
What they do or don't do doesn't matter to the Lakers clinching a Playoff spot.
There are 8 Playoff spots, the Nuggets can't make the Lakers have the #9 spot.
The worst that can happen (for the Lakers) is Nuggets #7, Lakers #8.
Last edited by Allanon; 04-05-2008 at 02:57 PM.
The rules, from '07 when they were changed:
http://www.nba.com/features/seedingprimer07.html
Playoff Seeding Primer
SECAUCUS, NJ, April 2, 2007 -- Confused by the new playoff seeding format? Were you confused by the old format?
Last season, much ado was made about the Spurs and Mavs, the teams with the two best records in the Western Conference, meeting in the Conference Semifinals because of the rule that gave the top three seeds to the division winners.
So, during the offseason, that rule was changed so that the two best teams in the conference would not face each other until the Conference Finals, even if they're in the same division.
As the regular season wraps up and some teams clinch playoff berths while others are eliminated, here's everything you need to know about how the playoff brackets are laid out.
The top four seeds will be the three division winners plus the team with the next best record. Those four will be ordered by record (and tiebreakers if needed), so it's possible that two teams in the same division could hold the top two spots, with the other two division winners at Nos. 3 and 4.
Seeds 5 through 8 are the next four teams according to record (and tiebreakers if needed).
First Round matchups are as follows:
1 vs. 8
4 vs. 5
2 vs. 7
3 vs. 6
Conference Semifinals matchups are as follows:
1-8 Winner vs. 4-5 Winner
2-7 Winner vs. 3-6 Winner
Homecourt advantage for any series is determined by record, not seed. So, it's possible that the 5 seed could have homecourt advantage over the 4, or that the 6 seed could have homecourt advantage over the 3.
Tiebreakers
(1) Head-to-head
(2) Division record (if the teams are in the same division)
(3) Conference record
(4) Record vs. Playoff teams, own conference
(5) Record vs. Playoff teams, other conference
(6) Net points, all games
Sorry for being harsh but you suck in math and/or logic.
You have also some reading troubles.
Go check nba.com standing and you will see Lakers at 9-4 against their division and Warriors at 8-5.
If Lakers lose their 3 last division conference, they will be 9-7.
If Warriors win their 3 last division conference, they will be 11-5.
NBA.com also says they have clinched a playoff spot.
Ah, I see the problem. You are including the 4 games against the Lakers and Warriors.
The rule is AGAINST the OTHER teams in the division, not against each other.. The #1 tiebreaker already counts the games with Lakers against GSW. You cannot count them twice. So you must subtract 2 wins and 2 losses from each team.
So Lakers have 9 division wins
- 2 wins against Warriors
=7 wins against rest of division
4 losses
-2 losses against Warriors
= 2 losses against rest of division
Warriors have 8-5 (minus 2 wins against Lakers) = 6 and 5 losses (minus 2 losses against Lakers) = 3. 6-3.
The Division Tiebreaker is against the OTHER teams in the Division, not against each other.
Last edited by Allanon; 04-05-2008 at 05:15 PM.
Yahoo is saying they have clinched a PO spot: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/standing...TDLcqxoCK8vLYF
Did I say, Lakers haven't clinched a playoff spot ?
How did they clinch that spot? What you are basically arguing over with Allanon is that if the Lakers lose all their games and Golden State, Denver win all their games, the Lakers will somehow have some complication, when they can't because they are already guranteed a Playoff spot regardless of what happens (they lose the remaining games and GS wins theirs). I don't get the argument. I think I agree with Allanons interpretation of the rule.
Last edited by E20; 04-05-2008 at 05:27 PM.
? What will be complicated about that for the Lakers. They have already clinched a spot.Now, it's more complicate because if Warriors win all games, Nuggets will finish 52-30 at best. It will be then a three team ties.
The only way Lakers are tied with the team with the 9th seed is Lakers, Warriors and Nuggets ending in a three team tie at 52-30.
In this case Lakers will finish 7th because they have the tie breaker in the three team tied.
However, it could be more complicate if a 4th or 5th team end up with a 52-30 record.
Did I say that Lakers have clinched a playoff spot ?
That's irrelevant for the Lakers as far as making the PO's because they have clinched a spot.
So what is your main point here?
x-New Orleans
San Antonio
x-LA Lakers
x - Clinched playoff berth.
ESL
So what is your main point here?
My point is that Allanon reasoning was wrong.
Let's give you an easier example.
Is Stallone a good actor ?
If someone say no because the sky is blue, it's wrong. Even if Stallone isn't a good actor.
The Sky is actually black. Water is blue.
My point is that Allanon reasoning was wrong.
Let's give you an easier example.
Is Stallone a good actor ?
If someone say no because the sky is blue, it's wrong. Even if Stallone isn't a good actor.
I thought the topic of the thread is teams clinching the PO's, not about what IF 15546 teams end up with a 52-30 record and as far as I see it the Lakers have clinched the PO's, we can forget about GS, Denver and everyother team because it doesn't matter for the Lakers as far as making the PO's or winning RS games, because they have made the PO's.
Stallone was nominated for 2 Golden Globes and could have won if he stuck to playing dramatic roles, he felt it was more to h is liking for making action movies. He has one less Golden Globe then Al Pacino.
My point is that Allanon reasoning was wrong.
Let's give you an easier example.
Is Stallone a good actor ?
If someone say no because the sky is blue, it's wrong. Even if Stallone isn't a good actor.
Do you realize that the subject is why Lakers have clinched or not a playoff spot.
Your answer to that is they have clinched a playoff spot because they have clinched a playoff spot.
Unreal.
Wow is that what we are arguing here? HOW have the Lakers clinched the PO spot? What waste of bandwith. LMAO
Here is the answer on how the Lakers have clinched a playoff spot: Because they won the neccssary games to do so.
/end of thread.
I was just telling to a poster that his reasoning was wrong.
Then you enter in the conversation. If you thought it was pointless, you should have stayed away of that. Genius.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote