I keep hearing about how unfair the balance between team quality and playoff contention is, in terms of East vs. West. Most of what I hear is how team A. is a playoff team in the East, but team B. is a far better team, but is out of the playoffs, because they are in the West. That all seems logical, and things seem to favour the Eastern teams right? Certainly teams that are more deserving of a playoff berth, especially this year, are out of contention, simply because they play in the West. Is this unfair? I think it's a bit unfair for the East.
Here's my thinking here. This is the year we (Raptors) are too good (without gutting the team to the core) to tank for quality picks in a supposedly deep and quality draft. In the East, to get a good draft pick, you have to be pretty bad. To be pretty bad, you generally have to lack quality players and/or anything resembling depth. In the West, you can be a "good" team, and have quality players, and still be in the lottery. Here's my logic here. A Western lottery bound team (Or even one with a solid pick) is going to be adding to quality, where an Eastern team is hoping to find it's quality through the draft. A team like the Pelicans can have top picks (Davis) and quality players, and still (If they hadn't traded their pick. This is just an example.) add a lottery pick. If they were in the East, they would be a playoff team (With no hope of a title) and not be adding near the quality of pick.
Am I correct at all in this thinking? Is some of the team quality imbalance, East vs. West, due to good teams adding good picks, year after year out West, while Eastern teams only add good picks by being truly terrible, thus still being weaker teams in the long run. Changing the playoff system might fix this.
Here's my question to the folks here who know hoops better than I do. What's more unfair? Is it the East being rewarded with playoff games despite losing records, or is it the West (where you don't have to shed quality players to make the lottery) being rewarded by getting high picks, despite being good?
Here's my thinking here. This is the year we (Raptors) are too good (without gutting the team to the core) to tank for quality picks in a supposedly deep and quality draft. In the East, to get a good draft pick, you have to be pretty bad. To be pretty bad, you generally have to lack quality players and/or anything resembling depth. In the West, you can be a "good" team, and have quality players, and still be in the lottery. Here's my logic here. A Western lottery bound team (Or even one with a solid pick) is going to be adding to quality, where an Eastern team is hoping to find it's quality through the draft. A team like the Pelicans can have top picks (Davis) and quality players, and still (If they hadn't traded their pick. This is just an example.) add a lottery pick. If they were in the East, they would be a playoff team (With no hope of a title) and not be adding near the quality of pick.
Am I correct at all in this thinking? Is some of the team quality imbalance, East vs. West, due to good teams adding good picks, year after year out West, while Eastern teams only add good picks by being truly terrible, thus still being weaker teams in the long run. Changing the playoff system might fix this.
Here's my question to the folks here who know hoops better than I do. What's more unfair? Is it the East being rewarded with playoff games despite losing records, or is it the West (where you don't have to shed quality players to make the lottery) being rewarded by getting high picks, despite being good?
Comment