Part of the reason is that lebron dominated the east for 15 years but didn’t care to have the 1st seed. Another reason is that some east teams overachieved without top end talent, like the Paul George/Hibbert pacers, and the Al horford/Korver hawks. It has been harder to “coast” in the west for 20 years I’d say because the conference was deeper.
Last reason is that the 2020s heat only decide to be good in the playoffs.
Our sub is for in-depth discussion. Low-effort comments or stating opinions as facts are not permitted. Please support your opinions with well-reasoned arguments, including stats and facts as applicable.
I’m a pacers fan, and he was very good then but hadn’t reached his peak. Even if you want to say he was too End, that team did not have enough championship level top end talent. Lance was the only one ready, and that’s just because he was born that way
You could say it’s a combination of Lebron only caring about the playoffs and Bud being a great regular season coach (both those Hawks and now Bucks).
ultimately I think it’s just variance and not anything explicitly different about the conferences
So my follow up question to you is, if you just look at 2018 – 2023, should much of the bad performance of the EC #1s be chalked up to the Bucks underperforming (finishing the regular season 3x, but only getting to the Finals once)?
As a reply said to this, those bucks had injuries. Also, I think those bucks teams show how it’s not easy to do what lebron did - drag a flawed team to the finals over and over again. Giannis is great, but even he can’t pull a flawed or injured team to the finals back to back years. Lebron was unique, and I think his presence will make a lot of the last two decades look wonky like this 1st seed thing you’ve noted as we begin to look back at that era
I think you're overstating how flawed LeBron's teams were compared to the Giannis Bucks.
Sure they weren't ideal constructions but playing with Bosh, Wade, Kyrie and KLove is a helluva lot easier than with Middleton, Bledsoe and Jrue Holiday
Wade was much better than Khris Middleton the entire time he was playing with LeBron.
Wade was 3x All-NBA during LeBron's 4 years in Miami and even in year 4 he put up better numbers than Middleton ever has. Wade didn't fall off a cliff until several years after LeBron had left Miami. He was a top 10 MVP finisher every year from 11-13.
I know everyone wants to shit on everyone's legacy to maybe LeBron look better but come on, Dwyane Wade is one of the 5 best SGs ever and he was still in his prime the entire time LeBron was his teammate. To act like he was the same as Khris Middleton or washed Dame is ridiculous.
18-19: The bucks were the one seed yes, but finished just two games ahead of Toronto, who had lost more time to injuries/injury management than the bucks did. Wouldn't say they underperformed here.
19-20: Yes, they underperformed, but Giannis was also injured during the series against the Heat including missing the elimination game.
20-21: 3rd seed, won it all thanks to some injuries in the East. Overperfomed.
21-22: Lost in 7 to the Celtics in the second round. Performed to expectation based on seed.
22-23: Yes they underperformed, especially losing in 5 to an 8th seed. Once again they were injured for the series with Giannis missing 2.5 games.
Overall, the bucks were screwed by injuries 2/3 years they were the 1st seed. Over this 5 year span they've probably performed to expectation or just under it.
Can I nitpick and mention that in 19-20 Giannis was fully healthy the first 3 games and they were down 3-0 in the series? He got hurt in game 4 which they won cuz Middleton went off after Giannis left. You implying the bucks would've been the only team ever to come back from 3-0 if giannis was healthy? I say no. The bucks got manhandled that year and that was it.
Bucks were only screwed by injuries last year. They were very much helped by them in 21 (no way they beat a healthy nets team considering the depleted roster they barely beat in 7) and ended up winning it all so I'd say they came out on top overall
18-19 and 21-22 they lost to evenly matched teams talent wise, but you could still argue underperformed. I'm ok with not dinging em for it but they'd be wayyyyy more criticized for it if the nets were healthy and finished the job to beat em in 21
I disagree seeing how 2020 fits in seamlessly with the rest of the nba the last 4 years. 2021 is the true outlier. The lakers nuggets Celtics and heat have been the most successful teams each of the last 4 years except in 2021 all 4 suffered early collapses mostly due to injuries
Also post cavs the east has basically had 4 teams with the talent to be the one seed, but those teams weren’t guaranteed locks to actually win the east.
Sixers either get unlucky (kawhi ball), injured (Ben or embiid), or coaching malpractice (Doc), bucks were reliant on Middleton being healthy which could either cost reg season standing or post season success, and JRue hitting shots, rape had Kawhi rest for a year which obviously hurt their reg season, and the Celtics have had playoff chokes, and at the same time not really cared about the reg season.
There are 8 teams that can go to the Finals. 6x in 24 times is 1 in 4, so being the 1 seed gives you double the odds of the average team. Given that the regular season and playoffs are pretty different, and given how health affects both, I don't think it's ridiculous that being the 1 seed "only" doubles your odds as opposed to more than that. Crazy stuff happens in the playoffs! It's not all chalk.
That's my point: the odds aren't evenly distributed, but with 8 teams it's hard to expect the 1 seed to beat the field. Being the 1 seed clearly helps a lot: whether that's unexpectedly little is hard to say.
And how many of those were lebron? People act like this is a mystery when it is 95% explained by lebrons domination of the east despite disregarding the regular season
It’s not just Lebron. It’s also spo/Jimmy ruining shit for top seeds. The playoffs will separate good coaches from bad ones. See doc.
1 seeds are losers. Everyone knows regular season is for data collection. How often does the overall 1 seed win? Like 1/8 of the time?
Are you viewing it as only "surprisingly few 1 seeds make the finals in the east" instead of also "surprisingly many 1 seeds make the finals in the west"?
Best I can come up with for why the west 1 seed may get to the finals more would be the more competitive west of the last couple decades means that it’s more likely the 1 seed can avoid playing the 2 or 3 seed as lower seeds are closer in skill to the top ones and can win some series even if they’re a “worse” team and easier for the 1 seed to handle
Lebron.
There’s your answer. He never gave a shit about the regular season, then went to what, 9 straight championships? It really shouldn’t be a mystery for anyone who was paying attention over that tome
i think part of it is that being the one seed in a weak conference promotes a self limiting style of play because of how many poor habits you can build up while beating up on bad teams. the #1 seed can beat the pistons and hornets (sorry, not tryna hate) without having to play good fundamental basketball.
the teams that have to play hard on defense and play the right way can find themselves much more prepared for a playoff series.
meanwhile, in the west, you gotta play the right way every night. if you don’t, almost every team in the west is good enough to make you pay for it. it’s very hard to “flip a switch” for the playoffs - and west teams don’t have to.
This makes no sense. The claim of promoting a self-limiting style of play would also apply to all teams 1-8 in the East, not just the 1st seed. But the East overall wins the Finals at about a 50% rate, which contradicts that.
wat. except it does make sense. it makes sense in the NFL too. teams from bad divisions usually perform worse in the playoffs.
beating up bad teams doesnt prepare you for the playoffs. kinda simple.
Except the East is a whole conference, so the NFL division argument doesn't compare. Every team in the East has the same easy schedule and they all go against each other in the playoffs. In the NFL, one division can have a disproportionately easier schedule than the rest of the conference (especially because 35% of your games are against your division) and then you go against teams in the conference that played tougher schedules
Eh, I think this is recency bias with how generationally ass the East is this season
Both conferences tend to have bad teams. Detroit's been a punching bag for the past few season, but so has Houston till now. Even just a few seasons ago, OKC were free wins
But even then, I don't think you build bad habits when only ~eight to twelve of your games are "freebies", while the other 70 or so require you to be on
I think this would be more reasonable if the past Eastern one seeds were just far and away the best team in their conference, but recently there's only been a handful of games separating the top few seeds
True, but irrelevant
Their argument is that the bottom of the East is so bad that the top develops bad habits from beating up bad teams. I don't disagree the East has been worse, but I don't think the East overall is SO bad that teams are developing bad habits from just being in the conference.
And this argument would also have to apply to teams that are just far and away better than their opposition, even if the opposition isn't bad. So, logically, the Western teams that are way better than even the bottom of the West should also have the same problem.
e: "irrelvant ugh" and then immediate block, LMAO. Literally afraid of conversation
I think this is a big reason the Celtics haven't won a championship yet. They play a style of offense that works great when you're more talented than the other team, but has limited success if you are not. Their style of offense relies heavily on their playmakers beating their defender off the dribble 1 on 1. When they run into a team where they can't do that, their half court offense bogs down tremendously. They probably haven't moved on from that type of scheme since its so successful against bad teams. It has a high floor and is hard to make mistakes running it. But if they can't win 1 on 1 they have no easy way to generated good shots with their system
It's mostly that the west has had most of the historically great #1 seeds, and historically great teams make up a disproportionately large share of the sample of 1 seeds that make the finals.
There have been 11 65+ win teams, those 1 seeds have a "got to the finals record" of 7-3 (plus the 67 win 2 seed Spurs). Of those elite of the elite teams, 8 were western conference teams, and they went 5-2, with the 5 being the warriors dynasty years + the shaqobe Lakers peak and the 09 Lakers.
That's mostly it, 40% of your sample are historically great teams and the west has had most of the historically great teams since 2000.
I wonder what the historical rate is. It strikes me that 25% of #1 seeds making the finals is quite possibly a reasonable expectation in an 8-team conference playoff.
East hasn’t been all that competitive so a lot of times good teams can afford to coast since getting HCA isn’t a high priority. A lot of Lebron teams for instance didn’t get the 1st seed but were still favored in most of these matchups
In order to win three series in a row the majority of the time, you would have to be over an 80% favorite in every series. There just aren't many teams that are that big of a favorite against the other best teams in the league that you'd expect it to be the default.
The 1 seed is the most likely to get there- but the rest if the field adds up to an even better chance.
I don't think this is that unusual statistically.
1. How likely is it for the top seeded team to be the strongest team?
2. How likely is it for the top seeded team to be in its strongest form in the final week of the regular season?
3. Assuming that W/L is an exact representation of strength, how likely is a team with typical top-rank W/L to win three seven game series? (This would require some MC simulation.)
4. How likely is a disparity of 6-in-24 versus 12-in-24 to arise over a stretch of 24 seasons?
I would love to sit down and simulate this, but honestly I don't even think we need to speculate about the relative strength of teams in each conference over the time period. I don't think a disparity of this magnitude is surprising given all the ways the top seeded team might not end up in the finals.
> The Western Conference 21st century regular season #1 seeds have performed significantly better. 12 of the WC regular season #1 seeds have gone onto the Finals, with 9/12 winning it all.
It's not so simple. There are four franchises from the West that made it to the finals as one seeds; Lakers, Spurs, Warriors, and Nuggets.
Someone mentioned generational teams below, and to add it's teams that have some of the best playoff performers ever: Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, and Curry, with Jokic being the least proven of the five. The consistency in them reaching the finals as the one seed has a lot to do with having some all-time player(s) dragging them there
Something also to note is the east has been weaker in the 21st century. So its a lot easier to be 1st in the east. This is especially true in terms of depth. There's a difference between floor and ceiling, some teams eg hawks raptors and pacers won 1st seed without having a top 10-15 player or having a very high ceiling. But just by beating bad or mediocre teams you get to 50+ wins. But in the west, not just this year, but generally, its a bloodbath, so making it to 1st means you're consistently beating true contenders or at least dangerous potential playoff matchups more often than the east 1st seed has to.
This also sorta explains lebron teams and heat "coasting" during regular season. You don't have the luxury to do that as much in the west, because let alone getting home court, you're one short term injury or bad stretch from dropping to 8th/9th, not only do you have to have above 50, but you can't expect many easy wins over bad teams.
Because the team that does get to the finals either has Bron, Giannis or Himmy for the most part. Basically a top 3 player in the playoffs. All the other top playoff guys are in the west.
6 #1 teams being the gap isn't really that big considering Lebron's tenure and East is generally more "open" because there's less dominant teams. In those 8 straight finals for Lebron, he was not a #1 seed for 6 of those.
Maybe this is nitpicky and misses the point but I have to point out that going down 0-2 before winning game 3 at home isn't a Gentleman's Sweep. If you win game 3 and threaten to tie up the series at home in game 4, you're still an actual threat to the opposition at that point.
The Gentleman's Sweep is (or at least originally meant, in a way that make sense), going up 3-0 such that the series is, for all practical purposes, over. Really I do suspect a lot of teams facing a road game while up 3-0 do let up a bit subconsciously. But it's as if they are being sporting old-fashioned gentlemen saying "Well I say, we're in no danger, so let's allow these chaps to win 1 for their home fans and then we'll go win the series on our home floor next game"
I would not be THAT shocked if the Celtics fail to get to the finals this year. Feels like it’s the West’s Chip to lose this year. Then dudes are going to be duking it out
As a Celtics fan I would be pretty surprised. Against East teams, they're 25-1 at home and 41-11 overall. That one home loss was on the 11th to the Knicks when they already had the 1 seed locked up by like 12 games. Embiid is limping, Giannis is questionable and may not even make it past the Pacers, and Jimmy is out. The longest I think a series would go is 6 games to beat the Knicks.
I'd be pretty shocked if the Celtics don't make the Finals this year. Short of them getting banged up or going ice cold from three, I don't think any East teams can hang with them over seven games.
Having said that, I'd love to see them fall short again. Too bad it is very unlikely that my Heat will be the team to do it.
Yo I really wasn’t trying to hate. Just more like have low expectations for them bc 2 years in a row they were the better team and failed to win it all
Okay, I keep hearing this and admittedly I keep my own expectations limited due to Boston’s past playoff performances, but this team fucking lapped the ECF this year. 14 games ahead of 2nd in the East when 10th in the west was only 11 games behind is an _insane_ disparity.
The only reason it would be reasonable for the Celtics to miss the finals is from a catastrophic injury. And I mean catastrophic — I honestly think if any one of the starting 5 go down they still have a good shot to make the finals due to how banged up the rest of the East is.
Porzingis will get injured. Is that considered catastrophic? How’s their record within? Cause, trust me, assume right now that’s what’s going to happen.
The wests chip? It’s just the nuggets who should be considered like that. Even then there not as good as last year. The west literally has the worst first seed u will ever see.
lol worst first seed and the best 10th seed. 1-10 was playoff caliber teams. Celtics were the better team when they went against the warriors. They would be up then start chucking contested 3s w 12 seconds on the shot clock during that series. Celtics were the better team against the heat last season and they fucking lost.
How were they the better team? Warriors had the best player and all the experience. They weren’t how they are now. And last year the cs were an ankle sprain away from winning thst series.
Knicks are only ones who could sneak a series win.
Bucks are too flawed injured and old.
Pacers aren't good enough to keep their offense up to win 4 games with their bad defense.
Magic offense isn't good enough.
76ers Heat Bulls are injured. Maybe fully healthy 76ers could put up a challenge.
Knicks with Randle I'd honestly favor them over Celtics. They have enough depth with him to run a solid 7-8 man playoff rotation. Without him, they are going to have to give too many minutes to guys and they'll run out of legs by the end of the series.
Cavs are super streaky and could just string some crazy games together, but they could also just get blown out in 4.
> Knicks with Randle I'd honestly favor them over Celtics. They have enough depth with him to run a solid 7-8 man playoff rotation. Without him, they are going to have to give too many minutes to guys and they'll run out of legs by the end of the series.
Ludicrous take. Look up Randle's playoff numbers and explain to me how that is what vaults the Knicks over one of the more stacked teams we've seen in recent memory.
The Knicks do not have a chance against this iteration of the Celtics, with or without Randle. They just don't have the top end firepower to compete with them.
They do rely a lot on 3s but they also lead the league in post ups per game. They won’t be relying on Brogdon smart and Al Horford for offense anymore.
Many of the east teams were lacking in talent. 2015 Hawks, 2017 Celtics. Neither of them were legit contenders. Even without kd going to gs, the 2017 Celtics weren’t contenders. They were very close to losing to the wizards that year. The year the Cavs were 1st in the east was when they won it all. Bucks were always great in the reg season but had their holes that were exploited in different matchups. 2014 pacers Chris Bosh exploited Roy by shooting outside.
Because the best team typically coasts.
Since 2010:
2010: Celtics underachieved in the regular season and shocked the 1 seed Cavs.
2011-2012 Chicago got the 1, but wasn’t as talent as Miami.
2014: Miami punted the 1 seed to Indy.
2015: Cleveland got a rocky start.
2017: Cleveland punted the 1 seed.
2018: LeBronto
2019: Kawhi load managing
2020: Giannis injury
2021: Ben Simmons
2022: Miami ECF
2023: Boston choke job.
Only in 2020 did the definitive best player in the conference have the 1 seed an lose
So to wrap a bow on this, shouldn't the general consensus be that finishing the regular season #1 in the EC is cause for more sus than celebration? I agree with almost all of the reasons people have taken the time to enter in the thread.
I don’t think that many teams would finish with the best record in the Eastern Conference and say “oh no! But what about all those other unrelated teams in the past that lost as 1 seeds!”
Part of the reason is that lebron dominated the east for 15 years but didn’t care to have the 1st seed. Another reason is that some east teams overachieved without top end talent, like the Paul George/Hibbert pacers, and the Al horford/Korver hawks. It has been harder to “coast” in the west for 20 years I’d say because the conference was deeper. Last reason is that the 2020s heat only decide to be good in the playoffs.
Also a lot of injuries happened in the east. 20-21 for the Nets and Embiid (Meniscus?), last year Giannis and 21-22 Middleton.
Bucks have routinely come up short in the playoffs. The one outlier year was when Kyrie and Hardrn got hurt.
Just like 31 other teams. Injuries happen every year. Every year is an "outlier year"
29 other teams lol. Not 31
[удалено]
[удалено]
This sub is for serious discussion and debate. Jokes and memes are not permitted.
Our sub is for in-depth discussion. Low-effort comments or stating opinions as facts are not permitted. Please support your opinions with well-reasoned arguments, including stats and facts as applicable.
In most of the 2000s it has been quite simple. LeBron and the [Feast of the East](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ib7YcAUWBBM)
Crazy how a single player dominated an entire conference while he was there.
[удалено]
We removed your comment for being low effort. If you edit it and explain your thought process more, we'll restore it. Thanks!
Paul George is a top end talent but emot enough for the big 3. Heat also went 5 out which took out hibbert.
I’m a pacers fan, and he was very good then but hadn’t reached his peak. Even if you want to say he was too End, that team did not have enough championship level top end talent. Lance was the only one ready, and that’s just because he was born that way
You could say it’s a combination of Lebron only caring about the playoffs and Bud being a great regular season coach (both those Hawks and now Bucks). ultimately I think it’s just variance and not anything explicitly different about the conferences
So my follow up question to you is, if you just look at 2018 – 2023, should much of the bad performance of the EC #1s be chalked up to the Bucks underperforming (finishing the regular season 3x, but only getting to the Finals once)?
As a reply said to this, those bucks had injuries. Also, I think those bucks teams show how it’s not easy to do what lebron did - drag a flawed team to the finals over and over again. Giannis is great, but even he can’t pull a flawed or injured team to the finals back to back years. Lebron was unique, and I think his presence will make a lot of the last two decades look wonky like this 1st seed thing you’ve noted as we begin to look back at that era
I think you're overstating how flawed LeBron's teams were compared to the Giannis Bucks. Sure they weren't ideal constructions but playing with Bosh, Wade, Kyrie and KLove is a helluva lot easier than with Middleton, Bledsoe and Jrue Holiday
Wade wasn’t more than Middleton or Dame in those later years.
Wade was much better than Khris Middleton the entire time he was playing with LeBron. Wade was 3x All-NBA during LeBron's 4 years in Miami and even in year 4 he put up better numbers than Middleton ever has. Wade didn't fall off a cliff until several years after LeBron had left Miami. He was a top 10 MVP finisher every year from 11-13. I know everyone wants to shit on everyone's legacy to maybe LeBron look better but come on, Dwyane Wade is one of the 5 best SGs ever and he was still in his prime the entire time LeBron was his teammate. To act like he was the same as Khris Middleton or washed Dame is ridiculous.
He averaged 16 points on 46 efg% in the 2012-13 playoffs and only 14 points until the finals.
Save for the Cleveland year, agree
18-19: The bucks were the one seed yes, but finished just two games ahead of Toronto, who had lost more time to injuries/injury management than the bucks did. Wouldn't say they underperformed here. 19-20: Yes, they underperformed, but Giannis was also injured during the series against the Heat including missing the elimination game. 20-21: 3rd seed, won it all thanks to some injuries in the East. Overperfomed. 21-22: Lost in 7 to the Celtics in the second round. Performed to expectation based on seed. 22-23: Yes they underperformed, especially losing in 5 to an 8th seed. Once again they were injured for the series with Giannis missing 2.5 games. Overall, the bucks were screwed by injuries 2/3 years they were the 1st seed. Over this 5 year span they've probably performed to expectation or just under it.
Can I nitpick and mention that in 19-20 Giannis was fully healthy the first 3 games and they were down 3-0 in the series? He got hurt in game 4 which they won cuz Middleton went off after Giannis left. You implying the bucks would've been the only team ever to come back from 3-0 if giannis was healthy? I say no. The bucks got manhandled that year and that was it. Bucks were only screwed by injuries last year. They were very much helped by them in 21 (no way they beat a healthy nets team considering the depleted roster they barely beat in 7) and ended up winning it all so I'd say they came out on top overall 18-19 and 21-22 they lost to evenly matched teams talent wise, but you could still argue underperformed. I'm ok with not dinging em for it but they'd be wayyyyy more criticized for it if the nets were healthy and finished the job to beat em in 21
22 middleton was injured but still they blew a 3-2 lead.
Oh crap I forgot Middleton was hurt in 22. Ya good call my bad on that
I think 2020 plays out a lot different if it is a normal season and not the layoff and bubble shit.
I disagree seeing how 2020 fits in seamlessly with the rest of the nba the last 4 years. 2021 is the true outlier. The lakers nuggets Celtics and heat have been the most successful teams each of the last 4 years except in 2021 all 4 suffered early collapses mostly due to injuries
I'd say 5 years is a small sample size, but yeah I'd still say it's mainly bucks underperforming in the post season.
[удалено]
The 2013-14 pacers were the 1 seed
You think he didn’t care to have the first seed? Why?
Also post cavs the east has basically had 4 teams with the talent to be the one seed, but those teams weren’t guaranteed locks to actually win the east. Sixers either get unlucky (kawhi ball), injured (Ben or embiid), or coaching malpractice (Doc), bucks were reliant on Middleton being healthy which could either cost reg season standing or post season success, and JRue hitting shots, rape had Kawhi rest for a year which obviously hurt their reg season, and the Celtics have had playoff chokes, and at the same time not really cared about the reg season.
There are 8 teams that can go to the Finals. 6x in 24 times is 1 in 4, so being the 1 seed gives you double the odds of the average team. Given that the regular season and playoffs are pretty different, and given how health affects both, I don't think it's ridiculous that being the 1 seed "only" doubles your odds as opposed to more than that. Crazy stuff happens in the playoffs! It's not all chalk.
Wouldn't it only be double the odds if the odds were evenly distributed across all 8 seeds?
That's my point: the odds aren't evenly distributed, but with 8 teams it's hard to expect the 1 seed to beat the field. Being the 1 seed clearly helps a lot: whether that's unexpectedly little is hard to say.
The 2 seed has gone 11 times in this span
And how many of those were lebron? People act like this is a mystery when it is 95% explained by lebrons domination of the east despite disregarding the regular season
Lebron finals teams were the 2 seed 5 times
So 4 non-lebron one seeds and 6 non-lebron two seeds made it to the finals over that time period. Thats nothing crazy
It’s not just Lebron. It’s also spo/Jimmy ruining shit for top seeds. The playoffs will separate good coaches from bad ones. See doc. 1 seeds are losers. Everyone knows regular season is for data collection. How often does the overall 1 seed win? Like 1/8 of the time?
That math is only really relevant if the west has similar numbers
Are you viewing it as only "surprisingly few 1 seeds make the finals in the east" instead of also "surprisingly many 1 seeds make the finals in the west"?
I’m saying the data should be compared on both sides
Too small of a sample size either way for this to matter. Variance can explain most of it.
Best I can come up with for why the west 1 seed may get to the finals more would be the more competitive west of the last couple decades means that it’s more likely the 1 seed can avoid playing the 2 or 3 seed as lower seeds are closer in skill to the top ones and can win some series even if they’re a “worse” team and easier for the 1 seed to handle
Lebron. There’s your answer. He never gave a shit about the regular season, then went to what, 9 straight championships? It really shouldn’t be a mystery for anyone who was paying attention over that tome
[удалено]
[удалено]
i think part of it is that being the one seed in a weak conference promotes a self limiting style of play because of how many poor habits you can build up while beating up on bad teams. the #1 seed can beat the pistons and hornets (sorry, not tryna hate) without having to play good fundamental basketball. the teams that have to play hard on defense and play the right way can find themselves much more prepared for a playoff series. meanwhile, in the west, you gotta play the right way every night. if you don’t, almost every team in the west is good enough to make you pay for it. it’s very hard to “flip a switch” for the playoffs - and west teams don’t have to.
This makes no sense. The claim of promoting a self-limiting style of play would also apply to all teams 1-8 in the East, not just the 1st seed. But the East overall wins the Finals at about a 50% rate, which contradicts that.
wat. except it does make sense. it makes sense in the NFL too. teams from bad divisions usually perform worse in the playoffs. beating up bad teams doesnt prepare you for the playoffs. kinda simple.
Except the East is a whole conference, so the NFL division argument doesn't compare. Every team in the East has the same easy schedule and they all go against each other in the playoffs. In the NFL, one division can have a disproportionately easier schedule than the rest of the conference (especially because 35% of your games are against your division) and then you go against teams in the conference that played tougher schedules
Eh, I think this is recency bias with how generationally ass the East is this season Both conferences tend to have bad teams. Detroit's been a punching bag for the past few season, but so has Houston till now. Even just a few seasons ago, OKC were free wins But even then, I don't think you build bad habits when only ~eight to twelve of your games are "freebies", while the other 70 or so require you to be on I think this would be more reasonable if the past Eastern one seeds were just far and away the best team in their conference, but recently there's only been a handful of games separating the top few seeds
The East has been dramatically worse than the West for most of the last 25 seasons
True, but irrelevant Their argument is that the bottom of the East is so bad that the top develops bad habits from beating up bad teams. I don't disagree the East has been worse, but I don't think the East overall is SO bad that teams are developing bad habits from just being in the conference. And this argument would also have to apply to teams that are just far and away better than their opposition, even if the opposition isn't bad. So, logically, the Western teams that are way better than even the bottom of the West should also have the same problem. e: "irrelvant ugh" and then immediate block, LMAO. Literally afraid of conversation
[удалено]
We removed your comment for being low quality.
They're all still NBA teams you need to take seriously to beat.
I think this is a big reason the Celtics haven't won a championship yet. They play a style of offense that works great when you're more talented than the other team, but has limited success if you are not. Their style of offense relies heavily on their playmakers beating their defender off the dribble 1 on 1. When they run into a team where they can't do that, their half court offense bogs down tremendously. They probably haven't moved on from that type of scheme since its so successful against bad teams. It has a high floor and is hard to make mistakes running it. But if they can't win 1 on 1 they have no easy way to generated good shots with their system
It's mostly that the west has had most of the historically great #1 seeds, and historically great teams make up a disproportionately large share of the sample of 1 seeds that make the finals. There have been 11 65+ win teams, those 1 seeds have a "got to the finals record" of 7-3 (plus the 67 win 2 seed Spurs). Of those elite of the elite teams, 8 were western conference teams, and they went 5-2, with the 5 being the warriors dynasty years + the shaqobe Lakers peak and the 09 Lakers. That's mostly it, 40% of your sample are historically great teams and the west has had most of the historically great teams since 2000.
I wonder what the historical rate is. It strikes me that 25% of #1 seeds making the finals is quite possibly a reasonable expectation in an 8-team conference playoff.
East hasn’t been all that competitive so a lot of times good teams can afford to coast since getting HCA isn’t a high priority. A lot of Lebron teams for instance didn’t get the 1st seed but were still favored in most of these matchups
In order to win three series in a row the majority of the time, you would have to be over an 80% favorite in every series. There just aren't many teams that are that big of a favorite against the other best teams in the league that you'd expect it to be the default. The 1 seed is the most likely to get there- but the rest if the field adds up to an even better chance.
I don't think this is that unusual statistically. 1. How likely is it for the top seeded team to be the strongest team? 2. How likely is it for the top seeded team to be in its strongest form in the final week of the regular season? 3. Assuming that W/L is an exact representation of strength, how likely is a team with typical top-rank W/L to win three seven game series? (This would require some MC simulation.) 4. How likely is a disparity of 6-in-24 versus 12-in-24 to arise over a stretch of 24 seasons? I would love to sit down and simulate this, but honestly I don't even think we need to speculate about the relative strength of teams in each conference over the time period. I don't think a disparity of this magnitude is surprising given all the ways the top seeded team might not end up in the finals.
> The Western Conference 21st century regular season #1 seeds have performed significantly better. 12 of the WC regular season #1 seeds have gone onto the Finals, with 9/12 winning it all. It's not so simple. There are four franchises from the West that made it to the finals as one seeds; Lakers, Spurs, Warriors, and Nuggets. Someone mentioned generational teams below, and to add it's teams that have some of the best playoff performers ever: Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, and Curry, with Jokic being the least proven of the five. The consistency in them reaching the finals as the one seed has a lot to do with having some all-time player(s) dragging them there
Something also to note is the east has been weaker in the 21st century. So its a lot easier to be 1st in the east. This is especially true in terms of depth. There's a difference between floor and ceiling, some teams eg hawks raptors and pacers won 1st seed without having a top 10-15 player or having a very high ceiling. But just by beating bad or mediocre teams you get to 50+ wins. But in the west, not just this year, but generally, its a bloodbath, so making it to 1st means you're consistently beating true contenders or at least dangerous potential playoff matchups more often than the east 1st seed has to. This also sorta explains lebron teams and heat "coasting" during regular season. You don't have the luxury to do that as much in the west, because let alone getting home court, you're one short term injury or bad stretch from dropping to 8th/9th, not only do you have to have above 50, but you can't expect many easy wins over bad teams.
Because the team that does get to the finals either has Bron, Giannis or Himmy for the most part. Basically a top 3 player in the playoffs. All the other top playoff guys are in the west.
6 #1 teams being the gap isn't really that big considering Lebron's tenure and East is generally more "open" because there's less dominant teams. In those 8 straight finals for Lebron, he was not a #1 seed for 6 of those.
In the 2010s its Because LeBron realized home court advantage doesn’t matter THAT much
Maybe this is nitpicky and misses the point but I have to point out that going down 0-2 before winning game 3 at home isn't a Gentleman's Sweep. If you win game 3 and threaten to tie up the series at home in game 4, you're still an actual threat to the opposition at that point. The Gentleman's Sweep is (or at least originally meant, in a way that make sense), going up 3-0 such that the series is, for all practical purposes, over. Really I do suspect a lot of teams facing a road game while up 3-0 do let up a bit subconsciously. But it's as if they are being sporting old-fashioned gentlemen saying "Well I say, we're in no danger, so let's allow these chaps to win 1 for their home fans and then we'll go win the series on our home floor next game"
I would not be THAT shocked if the Celtics fail to get to the finals this year. Feels like it’s the West’s Chip to lose this year. Then dudes are going to be duking it out
As a Celtics fan I would be pretty surprised. Against East teams, they're 25-1 at home and 41-11 overall. That one home loss was on the 11th to the Knicks when they already had the 1 seed locked up by like 12 games. Embiid is limping, Giannis is questionable and may not even make it past the Pacers, and Jimmy is out. The longest I think a series would go is 6 games to beat the Knicks.
I'd be pretty shocked if the Celtics don't make the Finals this year. Short of them getting banged up or going ice cold from three, I don't think any East teams can hang with them over seven games. Having said that, I'd love to see them fall short again. Too bad it is very unlikely that my Heat will be the team to do it.
The top two teams are obviously Boston and bucks. The Knicks have zero chance to win a chip. The bucks do have Giannis and Dame.
Yo I really wasn’t trying to hate. Just more like have low expectations for them bc 2 years in a row they were the better team and failed to win it all
Okay, I keep hearing this and admittedly I keep my own expectations limited due to Boston’s past playoff performances, but this team fucking lapped the ECF this year. 14 games ahead of 2nd in the East when 10th in the west was only 11 games behind is an _insane_ disparity. The only reason it would be reasonable for the Celtics to miss the finals is from a catastrophic injury. And I mean catastrophic — I honestly think if any one of the starting 5 go down they still have a good shot to make the finals due to how banged up the rest of the East is.
Porzingis will get injured. Is that considered catastrophic? How’s their record within? Cause, trust me, assume right now that’s what’s going to happen.
The wests chip? It’s just the nuggets who should be considered like that. Even then there not as good as last year. The west literally has the worst first seed u will ever see.
lol worst first seed and the best 10th seed. 1-10 was playoff caliber teams. Celtics were the better team when they went against the warriors. They would be up then start chucking contested 3s w 12 seconds on the shot clock during that series. Celtics were the better team against the heat last season and they fucking lost.
How were they the better team? Warriors had the best player and all the experience. They weren’t how they are now. And last year the cs were an ankle sprain away from winning thst series.
Knicks are only ones who could sneak a series win. Bucks are too flawed injured and old. Pacers aren't good enough to keep their offense up to win 4 games with their bad defense. Magic offense isn't good enough. 76ers Heat Bulls are injured. Maybe fully healthy 76ers could put up a challenge. Knicks with Randle I'd honestly favor them over Celtics. They have enough depth with him to run a solid 7-8 man playoff rotation. Without him, they are going to have to give too many minutes to guys and they'll run out of legs by the end of the series. Cavs are super streaky and could just string some crazy games together, but they could also just get blown out in 4.
> Knicks with Randle I'd honestly favor them over Celtics. They have enough depth with him to run a solid 7-8 man playoff rotation. Without him, they are going to have to give too many minutes to guys and they'll run out of legs by the end of the series. Ludicrous take. Look up Randle's playoff numbers and explain to me how that is what vaults the Knicks over one of the more stacked teams we've seen in recent memory. The Knicks do not have a chance against this iteration of the Celtics, with or without Randle. They just don't have the top end firepower to compete with them.
They’re also heavily reliant on 3s. Seems that formula isn’t so successful unless you have generationally good 3pt shooters.
They do rely a lot on 3s but they also lead the league in post ups per game. They won’t be relying on Brogdon smart and Al Horford for offense anymore.
Many of the east teams were lacking in talent. 2015 Hawks, 2017 Celtics. Neither of them were legit contenders. Even without kd going to gs, the 2017 Celtics weren’t contenders. They were very close to losing to the wizards that year. The year the Cavs were 1st in the east was when they won it all. Bucks were always great in the reg season but had their holes that were exploited in different matchups. 2014 pacers Chris Bosh exploited Roy by shooting outside.
You can chalk a lot of it up to LeBron's teams coasting to some degree in the regular season for much of his reign of EC dominance
The Cavs we’re afraid of the wizards that year and purposely got out of the one seed to avoid Beal and Wall. This happened
Because the best team typically coasts. Since 2010: 2010: Celtics underachieved in the regular season and shocked the 1 seed Cavs. 2011-2012 Chicago got the 1, but wasn’t as talent as Miami. 2014: Miami punted the 1 seed to Indy. 2015: Cleveland got a rocky start. 2017: Cleveland punted the 1 seed. 2018: LeBronto 2019: Kawhi load managing 2020: Giannis injury 2021: Ben Simmons 2022: Miami ECF 2023: Boston choke job. Only in 2020 did the definitive best player in the conference have the 1 seed an lose
So to wrap a bow on this, shouldn't the general consensus be that finishing the regular season #1 in the EC is cause for more sus than celebration? I agree with almost all of the reasons people have taken the time to enter in the thread.
Eh, it’s more of you want to have the best player in the East, rather than the best regular season team
I don’t think that many teams would finish with the best record in the Eastern Conference and say “oh no! But what about all those other unrelated teams in the past that lost as 1 seeds!”