Playoff seedings defy common sense

[MadDog73]

Mike Monroe makes a point often discussed here (sorry if this has already been posted, I didn't see it):

Mike Monroe: Playoff seedings sometimes defy common sense

Web Posted: 04/20/2005 12:00 AM CDT


http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/c...1f4bcecaf.html

Back-to-back blowout losses have taken most of the sizzle out of the heretofore red-hot Denver Nuggets, but this fact remains: No team in the league has had a better record since the All-Star break.

Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy, in fact, thinks the Spurs got the "short end of the stick" — his words — in the West's first-round playoff matchups.

However, the real injustice in the West figures to jump up in the second round.

If the first round goes to form, with the top four seeds advancing, the Spurs would play Seattle, which will finish the regular season with 52 or 53 victories, depending on the outcome of its game tonight in Houston. The Suns, with the NBA's best record, either 62 or 63 victories, would face Dallas, which will finish with 57 or 58 victories.

This is supposed to be fair?

The problem is the realignment that followed expansion from 29 teams to 30. It seemed numerically logical to split the two conferences into three five-team divisions. Trouble is, the league then decided to reward division champions with the top three seeds in each conference in the playoffs.

It was one thing to reward division champions when there were two divisions per conference. Three per, and it gets a lot dicier. That is how the Northwest Division-champion SuperSonics got the No. 3 seed in the West, rather than Dallas. It also is how Atlantic-champ Boston got the No. 3 seed in the East when it remains possible for two other teams, Chicago and Washington, to finish with better records.

The problem is not as acute as it might have been had not the Celtics traded for Antoine Walker. Until their post-trade surge, it appeared the Atlantic winner might actually qualify with the East's No. 3 seed after recording the seventh-, eighth- or, heaven forbid, ninth-best record in the conference.

Too bad that didn't happen, because the league then would have been forced to rethink its position on automatically rewarding the division winners with one of the top three seeds. As it is, there's no problem for the decision makers in Olympic Tower.

"I think we're very comfortable with the way the seeding arrangement has worked out," deputy commissioner Russ Granik said Tuesday. "Earlier, when nobody could put together an over-.500 record in the Atlantic Division, if the team with the ninth-best record might have gotten in, it was a concern.

"I think we're pretty comfortable with the way it's worked out and we're not exploring any kind of changes right now"

Granik said there always have been "anomalies" in playoff seedings. He cited seasons in which the Lakers, for one reason or another, wound up with the fourth or fifth seed in the West, but had one of the most dangerous teams in the conference by the time the playoffs began.

The Mavericks-Sonics situation is no anomaly. Dallas has a better record and should be seeded higher.

What's so difficult about rewarding a team for season-long excellence?

Here's a concept: Do away with divisions altogether. If the Spurs, Mavericks and Rockets were to have the top three records in the West, why shouldn't they have the top three playoff seeds?

What the seeding arrangement, as it now stands, potentially set up was a team "tanking" a game in order to get the No. 6 seed (to face Seattle), rather than No. 5 (to face Dallas).

Houston, for example, might have preferred losing its season finale against the Sonics tonight had not the Kings and Nuggets rendered the outcome meaningless by losing at Utah and Phoenix, respectively, on Monday night.

It was an NBA head coach who suggested the above scenario, by the way.

Don't think NBA teams would "tank."

Why do you think we have a draft lottery?

[whottt]

It didn't just get stupid due to 3 divisions, but yeah that compounded it...It's really a bad format, one I can't believe the NBA actually uses considering how progressive it is in most areas compared to the other prosports...

I just found out recently how archaic and illfitting the NBA format really is, it was stunning, the fact that the better record gets HCA always kind of hid what the NBA format really is from me...and the format really does nothing to ensure many high quality matchups or reward regular season excellence.


This is a good article though and maybe the NBA will take heed...I looked up the format of the NHL and even that is more modern than the format used by the NBA...when you are behind the NHL in something you have got a problem in that area.

[MadDog73]

Sort of worked to the Spurs advantage this year, though, right?

I think it will take a fiasco like a would-be Lottery team making the 3rd seed before the NBA makes a change. But with the crazy way teams change pace, I can see that happening next year...

[bigbendbruisebrother]

Just out of curiousity, why does the NBA want divisions within conferences at all?

[whottt]

It shouldn't have worked to the Spurs advantage though...that's the problem with it...

And he missed out on one major issue...being the "3rd seed" means nothing...winning a division means nothing...the only thing that really means anything is having the best record, and that's only because you HCA...you don't get a favorable matchup, you don't punish the teams that didn't excell as much in the regular season, or didn't lay it all on the line trying to win their division.

You think the Mavs care they didn't win the division? You think the Suns feel rewarded looking at the draw they got?

In 1994 I watched the Cowboys and Giants play the final game of the regular season, like their freaking lives depended on it...

Emmitt Smith got a separated shoulder and stayed in the game because winning the division meant so much to the teams Superbowl hopes, they would have still made the playoffs, but there were worlds of difference between being the division winner and being the wild card...It meant extra rest, it meant the easier path playoffs(largely), it meant every thing...

In fact, even though both teams were guranteed to be in the playoffs...that game meant winning the Superbowl, it in effect was playoff game, even after the teams had long since made the playoffs, that game had ultimate meaning to at least one team.

If the NFL used the NBA format that game would not have meant as much to either team...I know the NBA can't totally duplicate the NFL format with the bye weeks...but they certainly could reseed after every round...ot at least if you are going to have seeds have them mean something beyond the first round...

In the NBA the seeds don't mean anything, the division les don't mean anything...it's just stupid.

The whole regular season is just to set up the first round of the playoffs...

The only NBA teams that care about winning the division anymore are teams that have never won it before...it means absolutely nothing because it really gives you nothing...not even guranteed HCA.

[MadDog73]

Just out of curiousity, why does the NBA want divisions within conferences at all?

Just a hunch, but probably to give more teams (and fans) something to strive for.

If everything was based purely on record, then loser teams wouldn't have a chance to be a third seed.... for whatever that is worth!

The only NBA teams that care about winning the division anymore are teams that have never won it before...it means absolutely nothing because it really gives you nothing...not even HCA.

eh, good point. If the seeding is screwed up anyway, and you don't get HCA, what is the point?

Dang it, that Southwest Division Banner means nothing!

[whottt]

It gives them less to strive for...all they really have to worry about, if they can't get the absolute best record, is making the playoffs, because there's really not much of an advantage in winning a division and even having a great record doesn't gurantee you a favorable matchup after the first round...it's totally assbackwards...

It's true though, they might as well not have division les...

[whottt]

Dang it, that Southwest Division Banner means nothing!

What banner? The Spurs haven't used individual banners in years...

If anything underlines the way the current format undermines the meaningfullness of the divisions, that's it ...all it is is a footnote.

[MadDog73]

One thing for sure, the Mavs got screwed. Maybe Mark Cuban will start a campaign against the Divisions!

[MadDog73]

top teams from each conference make the playoffs, however they are seeded by most wins, regardless of divisions. (only reason to keep the two divisons is for scheduling purposes)

Well, there are three divisions now, but I'm not sure what you mean for scheduling purposes? If the divisions don't mean anything, there's no reason for any particular team to play another just because they happen to be together! (unless it saves gas, travel time cause they're closer. I could see that, I guess)

[whottt]

I don't really see how they got screwed, well other than the fact that they may not get the matchup their record deserves after the first round....

Look at it this way...suppose winning a division le meant HCA against any team that didn't win a division le. Say Seattle and Denver had a closer record and winning that division meant HCA against the Mavs, or there could be several non division winners with a better record...don't you think there would be a of a lot more incentive to try and win that division? Suppose it came down to the last day?

Suppose a division le locked you into one of the top three seeds and HCA against any lower seed for the entire playoffs, it doesn't sound like much...

Until you think about the prospects of a 50 win division winner having HCA against a 58 or 59 win team that didn't win it's division...that 50 game winner has a of a lot of a lot more incentive to win it's division...and so does the 59 win team...and if it doesn't happen...

That's gonna make for a better series...because the better(that didn't win it's division) team will have to go on the road.


...and suppose teams were reseeded after every round with the division winners getting the top seeds and HCA acording to record..

You'd have a much more meaninful regular season, the division les would have more meaning, the games would be much more intense, there's wouldn't be all this looking behind you and being able to ascertain that you can rest guys or be less commited to winning games than you should be...you'd feel the effect of not trying your absolute hardest to win every game, to a much greater degree...and the fans would get more contests between evenly matched teams when dealing with the middle seeds...and the division winners in weak divisions would have be able to have a more compe ive series against a runner up in an elite division. And to the team that gets the best record...goes all the spoils...you always get the team with the worst record in every round.

It'd just be a lot better system if you ask me...and the NBA would have a lot more interest in it's season ending games of it's best teams...and it'd make more money on those games because of it.

[Obstructed_View]

One thing for sure, the Mavs got screwed. Maybe Mark Cuban will start a campaign against the Divisions!

The Mavs drew the Suns in the second round instead of the Spurs. That should soften the blow. If the Mavs can't beat the Rockettes it's a moot point. Mark Cuban might start a campaign regardless; he's never been a slave to logic.

[MadDog73]

Great points, whottt. You're absolutely right on. Better for the fans, better for Stern, better for the NBA.

My only point about the Mavs is that they should have played the Kings instead of the Rockets. That may not seem like much, but since at this point it looks like even the Sonics could beat the Kings!

Basically, the Mavs are playing a Round 2 opponent in the first round. Not a really big deal, but...

[MadDog73]

The Mavs drew the Suns in the second round instead of the Spurs. That should soften the blow. If the Mavs can't beat the Rockettes it's a moot point. Mark Cuban might start a campaign regardless; he's never been a slave to logic.

I guess that kind of goes what with whottt is saying - there wasn't really any incentive for the Spurs to go for the Number 1 seed! They already had Homecourt throughout (except against the Suns).

[whottt]

At the least, if the NBA is going to have HCA decided by record then why not have the seeding decided by it as well with reseeding done after every round? That way teams can't see their draw weeks in adavance of the playoffs..And I say that because knowing their draw could concievably give certain teams reasons to tank...

I mean looking at it hypothetically...let's say the Spurs wanted to avoid the Mavs the most, and pit them against the toughest teams(like the Suns), I mean they know they can win in Phoenix...and the dang Mavs pushed them to 6 games in the playoffs a few years ago, with Nowitzki getting injured, and before they even played D.......

Well the Spurs been able to see for the past month which bracket the Mavs will be in, they've been totally locked into that 4th seed for a month...it's not too hard for them to figure out how to set the Suns and the Mavs up for a potential meeting...

If the Spurs most feared the Mavs(and remember this is hypothetical) there isn't any incentive for them to get the 1 seed....and if they wanted to avoid them, it'd be very easy for them to put the Mavs and Suns in the same bracket just by dropping a game here and there...just by resting a few select starters...in fact it's possible they could have the division locked up with a week to go and still manipulate the Suns and Mavs into a matchup.

That's all hypothetical, I know it's similar to what just happened but we really had no way of regaining the 1 seed in the past month without the Suns help. But if the Spurs were that type of team, and were in that position to drop to a different bracket, they wouldn't have incentive to get the best record in the NBA, under the current format.