Everything Derozan

[Other Scott]

There is a reason why tremendous players who never won a ring have an asterisk next to their career.

This is dumb. Too much relies on the players and situation you have around you, especially in today's NBA. Individuals don't win rings, teams do.

[mcHAPPY]

This is dumb. Too much relies on the players and situation you have around you, especially in today's NBA. Individuals don't win rings, teams do.

I don't make the rules - it is reality.

Exactly on the bold - and it is the best teams that win.

[mcHAPPY]

1999 Knicks made the Finals.

1995 Rockets were the last non-top 3 seed to win the championship as a 6 seed. The Celtics came close in 2010 to winning as a 4 seed.

Let's put it this way. Let's say you switched to a best-of-9 series. How often do you think you would get a different team winning? Probably about 10-15% of the time, right? Is a 9 game series less reliable than a seven game series for determining the best team? No, it's more reliable. So about 10-15% of the time you get a different team winning. So in those cases, either the better team didn't win in your seven game series, making the statement that the better team always wins false, or the better team didn't win in a 9 game series, meaning a more reliable measure than a seven game series didn't produce the better team.

That's not even getting into how teams match up and how that can affect the result.

Lets stick with best of 7 series.

You have 1 example in the history of the NBA for each and that is what you cling your argument on?

[Scraptor]

The playoffs are a far, far, far better indicator of team quality than the regular season. I can't even believe this is being argued.

Look at the standings from 2013-14. Half the regular season games for teams are vs sub-.500 teams (as one would expect).

And there is far more pressure in the playoffs. It is an entirely different beast. This is why you see mathematically significant differences in performance depending on players' experience levels.

The Nets were 4-0 vs the Heat in the regular season, then lost 1-4 against them in the playoffs.

Gregg Popovich said, "the regular season doesn't exist. There's nothing to be gained from the regular season." This is in the context of previous meetings between the Spurs and Lakers, but it says everything that needs to be said.

[Other Scott]

Lets stick with best of 7 series.

You have 1 example in the history of the NBA for each and that is what you cling your argument on?

I don't think you understood my argument. Basically, it's that results would be occasionally different for a 7 game series than a 9 game series. So in those cases, how can you be sure the better team won the seven game series?

I'm not clinging my argument on how lower seeds did in the playoffs at all. That has nothing to do with my argument. A seven game series is obviously enough to prove a 1 seed is usually greater than an 8 seed. Duh. Is it enough to prove the difference between a 2 and 3 seed? Or a 1 and 2 seed?

[Other Scott]

The Nets were 4-0 vs the Heat in the regular season, then lost 1-4 against them in the playoffs.

Gregg Popovich said, "the regular season doesn't exist. There's nothing to be gained from the regular season." This is in the context of previous meetings between the Spurs and Lakers, but it says everything that needs to be said.

In both the Nets/Heat example and the Pop context, you are using a 4 game sample. That's a bad sample. An 82 game sample on the other hand is not bad. How much better were the Heat than the Nets over those 82 games? Like 10.

And I'm not arguing the playoffs aren't more important generally, just that they're a worse indicator of team quality. So yeah, in terms of larger picture importance, the regular season might as well not exist. For GMs evaluating their team, pretty important.

[mcHAPPY]

In both the Nets/Heat example and the Pop context, you are using a 4 game sample. That's a bad sample. An 82 game sample on the other hand is not bad. How much better were the Heat than the Nets over those 82 games? Like 10.

And I'm not arguing the playoffs aren't more important generally, just that they're a worse indicator of team quality. So yeah, in terms of larger picture importance, the regular season might as well not exist. For GMs evaluating their team, pretty important.

A number of nba players have said they don't or didn't give it their all during an 82 game season.

Very few are physically and mentally capable to do that. When you consider an NBA season can be the equivalent of running 8 marathons, you can't blame them.

The playoffs are the epitome of determining the quality of a team. You don't have back to backs, lots of planning and preparation, time for adjustments, tighter rotations, more intense basketball, easier travel, no nights off for stars to get rest.

Bringing the conversation down to "the regular season might as well not exist" is equally absurd. It acts as a filter to get the best teams competing for the postseason/championship.

[raptors999]

A number of nba players have said they don't or didn't give it their all during an 82 game season.

Very few are physically and mentally capable to do that. When you consider an NBA season can be the equivalent of running 8 marathons, you can't blame them.

The playoffs are the epitome of determining the quality of a team. You don't have back to backs, lots of planning and preparation, time for adjustments, tighter rotations, more intense basketball, easier travel, no nights off for stars to get rest.

Bringing the conversation down to "the regular season might as well not exist" is equally absurd. It acts as a filter to get the best teams competing for the postseason/championship.

Not disagreeing but in other sports it a filter but Playoff teams are usually known 20 games in. There might be a fight for eighth but that about it. In the West seeding doesn't even matter. The gap between good and bad in basketball is big and upsets are really rare when games matter.

[mcHAPPY]

Not disagreeing but in other sports it a filter but Playoff teams are usually known 20 games in. There might be a fight for eighth but that about it. In the West seeding doesn't even matter. The gap between good and bad in basketball is big and upsets are really rare when games matter.

The west use to be like the east in the early 90s.

You're right most teams are know early - I would say more like 30-35 games though.

The regular season also sets up seedlings. Top 3 is very much desired. 4 versus 5 always a good match up.

West continues to be ridiculous. The pendulum will eventually swing back - eventually - lol

[Nilanka]

Because that would be boring.

Do you think March Madness determines the best team? No, but we love it because it is exciting. The NBA playoffs are a more fair version of that, and do a better job rewarding the best team than any of the other 4 major sports.

I would be very hard pressed to claim that any team (other than the eventual champs) is the best in the league. Even in NCAA basketball.

This is approaching Leaf level of bizzaro reasoning. "We haven't won shit, but we're cup contenders!"

[Nilanka]

And I'm not arguing the playoffs aren't more important generally, just that they're a worse indicator of team quality. So yeah, in terms of larger picture importance, the regular season might as well not exist. For GMs evaluating their team, pretty important.

But aren't we trying to define what a "contender" is in regards to tanking? A lot of people would say that the Raptors, despite their gaudy regular season record, are not a contender. As such, tanking has not been proven wrong.

[Axel]

This is approaching Leaf level of bizzaro reasoning. "We haven't won shit, but we're cup contenders!"

I think approaching was many posts ago. We're here already.

[Other Scott]

But aren't we trying to define what a "contender" is in regards to tanking? A lot of people would say that the Raptors, despite their gaudy regular season record, are not a contender. As such, tanking has not been proven wrong.

I say they are a contender for the East. What is it about them that prevents them from Contender status?

I can't think of any qualification you can use about the Raptors (lack of playoff success, etc.) that prevents them from contender status that you can't use about any other team. You can't just have no contenders for the East title.

[Nilanka]

I say they are a contender for the East. What is it about them that prevents them from Contender status?

I can't think of any qualification you can use about the Raptors (lack of playoff success, etc.) that prevents them from contender status that you can't use about any other team. You can't just have no contenders for the East title.

Lack of playoff success is the qualification. Which is why I haven't labelled the Hawks a contender yet either.

But if we manage to make it to the 3rd round, all that changes. The Raptors will be a contender, IMO.

[Superjudge]

Perhaps you guys should define contender, and then make a short list of attributes a team must have first.

Are the strong contenders, and weak contenders?

Has this been done past "they have a chance to win the trophy"? IMO if you make the playoffs you're a contender. But there will be strong and weak contenders.... record is a good indication, but experience, and whether or not a team is peaking at the right time are also factors.

and luck. ask anyone who's won, they almost alway say they got a few great bounces along the way.