Author Topic: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change  (Read 3207 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2018, 08:00:29 PM »

Offline slightly biased bias fan

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1154
  • Tommy Points: 294
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.

The NBA isn't like most leagues in the world.

Most leagues play each team evenly so home and away, the NBA doesn't. Having the so call best 16 teams wouldn't be fair at all because some divisions are much weaker than others and having 30 teams can't translate into 82 game a season home and away and having one group of 30 where teams play each other evenly would make playoffs redundant as the team who is the top seed should be crowned NBA champion automatically. My idea was that the NBA should revert to an MLB system where division winner go directly into the playoffs and teams with the highest winning percentage go into the Wild Card playoffs, thus giving every team a fair shake.

I am starting to get worried about the NBA as they almost have too much control, they seem to become the experiment league to the point where all tradition and rational thought is being thrown out the window. They have already had sleeve jerseys in official NBA games, Sponsors on NBA jersey's now, removed the East vs West all star game, serious talks about a 4 point line and having a team in the UK...eventually what is left of any type of tradition or history?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 09:29:13 PM by slightly biased bias fan »

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2018, 08:40:36 PM »

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 383
  • Tommy Points: 51
They'd never reduce playoff games, but I'd give best record in each conference a bye, and have 1 more lotto team in each conference. Reward top records while making it harder to make playoffs.

They'd never reduce playoff games, because of the money. But best-of-7 series have a lot of irrelevant games by nature in comparison to a best-of-5 series. I have taken all the playoffs since 2010 (that's 120 series and 667 games in total) and here are some statistics from that.

In the playoffs 61% of the series, the team that as first team wins 3 games will have a 3-0 or 3-1 (coming from 2-1, no double counts) score. Remarkably from the 73 times this happened, only 3 times! the losing team was able to come back from that and win the series (no team came back from 0-3). That's an incredibly low chance of 4,1% that a best-of-7 series delivers a different winner than a best-of-5.

So 39% of the series go to a 2-2 tie after 4 games. You'd think that here a best-of-7 makes a big difference. However, of the 47 times a team lost game 5 it was able to win the series 9 times. That's only 19% of the cases. 

Together there is only an exact 10% chance for a comeback when a team falls behind to 3 losses. This means that in 90% a best-of-5 series resulted in the same winner as a best-of-7 series.

Had they played a best-of-5 in those 8 years, they hadn't played 667 games but only 489 (reduction of 27% of playoff games). The 178 games difference consists of a lot of irrelevant games, where games were just played to finish the series while the losing team had no chance or only a small chance for a comeback.

An average playoff series in a best-of-7 consists of 5.6 games. In a best-of-5 this is 4.1 games. That's 1.5 game less per series. This allows for a lot more rest for players and therefore reduce injuries and increase the level of play.

The playoffs at max take 65 days. Now teams get scheduled with a lot of games with only a 1 day rest, sometimes that's a travel day. With a best-of-5 series you can guarantee every team 2 days rest for every game and every series 1 day rest extra (I've checked this). Also when doing this I took in account a television-friendly-balanced schedule.

As an example the 2017 NBA Playoffs would have at least 2 games every night for the first 15 days (with exception for one night that has 1 game, because of the Cleveland-Indiana series, 3-0). For the next 16 days every night has at least 1 game (with exception for one night due to Cleveland and Golden State both winning with 3-0).

Of course when the Conference finals have begun there are nights when there's no game and the NBA Finals basically have the same schedule as now.

I know it won't happen, but I'm strongly advocating for a best-of-5 series. In 90% of the cases you have the same winner and teams rarely come back (only 4,1%) from a 3-0 or 3-1 deficit. You get rid of a lot of basically irrelevant games. Teams get at least 2 days rest for every game, which lowers chance of injuries and prevents teams to get exhausted. It makes the playoffs more exciting.

Teams don't get punished anymore for having played a tough opponent. You don't want situations like last year where Cleveland had 9 days of rest when the Conference finals started and Boston only 1! That's just dishonest competition.


 
Idiot.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2018, 09:00:23 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33419
  • Tommy Points: 5505
They'd never reduce playoff games, but I'd give best record in each conference a bye, and have 1 more lotto team in each conference. Reward top records while making it harder to make playoffs.

They'd never reduce playoff games, because of the money. But best-of-7 series have a lot of irrelevant games by nature in comparison to a best-of-5 series. I have taken all the playoffs since 2010 (that's 120 series and 667 games in total) and here are some statistics from that.

In the playoffs 61% of the series, the team that as first team wins 3 games will have a 3-0 or 3-1 (coming from 2-1, no double counts) score. Remarkably from the 73 times this happened, only 3 times! the losing team was able to come back from that and win the series (no team came back from 0-3). That's an incredibly low chance of 4,1% that a best-of-7 series delivers a different winner than a best-of-5.

So 39% of the series go to a 2-2 tie after 4 games. You'd think that here a best-of-7 makes a big difference. However, of the 47 times a team lost game 5 it was able to win the series 9 times. That's only 19% of the cases. 

Together there is only an exact 10% chance for a comeback when a team falls behind to 3 losses. This means that in 90% a best-of-5 series resulted in the same winner as a best-of-7 series.

Had they played a best-of-5 in those 8 years, they hadn't played 667 games but only 489 (reduction of 27% of playoff games). The 178 games difference consists of a lot of irrelevant games, where games were just played to finish the series while the losing team had no chance or only a small chance for a comeback.

An average playoff series in a best-of-7 consists of 5.6 games. In a best-of-5 this is 4.1 games. That's 1.5 game less per series. This allows for a lot more rest for players and therefore reduce injuries and increase the level of play.

The playoffs at max take 65 days. Now teams get scheduled with a lot of games with only a 1 day rest, sometimes that's a travel day. With a best-of-5 series you can guarantee every team 2 days rest for every game and every series 1 day rest extra (I've checked this). Also when doing this I took in account a television-friendly-balanced schedule.

As an example the 2017 NBA Playoffs would have at least 2 games every night for the first 15 days (with exception for one night that has 1 game, because of the Cleveland-Indiana series, 3-0). For the next 16 days every night has at least 1 game (with exception for one night due to Cleveland and Golden State both winning with 3-0).

Of course when the Conference finals have begun there are nights when there's no game and the NBA Finals basically have the same schedule as now.

I know it won't happen, but I'm strongly advocating for a best-of-5 series. In 90% of the cases you have the same winner and teams rarely come back (only 4,1%) from a 3-0 or 3-1 deficit. You get rid of a lot of basically irrelevant games. Teams get at least 2 days rest for every game, which lowers chance of injuries and prevents teams to get exhausted. It makes the playoffs more exciting.

Teams don't get punished anymore for having played a tough opponent. You don't want situations like last year where Cleveland had 9 days of rest when the Conference finals started and Boston only 1! That's just dishonest competition.


 
Lots of thought and research but ultimately, your first line is what counts.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2018, 09:43:35 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17714
  • Tommy Points: 522
They'd never reduce playoff games, but I'd give best record in each conference a bye, and have 1 more lotto team in each conference. Reward top records while making it harder to make playoffs.

They'd never reduce playoff games, because of the money. But best-of-7 series have a lot of irrelevant games by nature in comparison to a best-of-5 series. I have taken all the playoffs since 2010 (that's 120 series and 667 games in total) and here are some statistics from that.

In the playoffs 61% of the series, the team that as first team wins 3 games will have a 3-0 or 3-1 (coming from 2-1, no double counts) score. Remarkably from the 73 times this happened, only 3 times! the losing team was able to come back from that and win the series (no team came back from 0-3). That's an incredibly low chance of 4,1% that a best-of-7 series delivers a different winner than a best-of-5.

So 39% of the series go to a 2-2 tie after 4 games. You'd think that here a best-of-7 makes a big difference. However, of the 47 times a team lost game 5 it was able to win the series 9 times. That's only 19% of the cases. 

Together there is only an exact 10% chance for a comeback when a team falls behind to 3 losses. This means that in 90% a best-of-5 series resulted in the same winner as a best-of-7 series.

Had they played a best-of-5 in those 8 years, they hadn't played 667 games but only 489 (reduction of 27% of playoff games). The 178 games difference consists of a lot of irrelevant games, where games were just played to finish the series while the losing team had no chance or only a small chance for a comeback.

An average playoff series in a best-of-7 consists of 5.6 games. In a best-of-5 this is 4.1 games. That's 1.5 game less per series. This allows for a lot more rest for players and therefore reduce injuries and increase the level of play.

The playoffs at max take 65 days. Now teams get scheduled with a lot of games with only a 1 day rest, sometimes that's a travel day. With a best-of-5 series you can guarantee every team 2 days rest for every game and every series 1 day rest extra (I've checked this). Also when doing this I took in account a television-friendly-balanced schedule.

As an example the 2017 NBA Playoffs would have at least 2 games every night for the first 15 days (with exception for one night that has 1 game, because of the Cleveland-Indiana series, 3-0). For the next 16 days every night has at least 1 game (with exception for one night due to Cleveland and Golden State both winning with 3-0).

Of course when the Conference finals have begun there are nights when there's no game and the NBA Finals basically have the same schedule as now.

I know it won't happen, but I'm strongly advocating for a best-of-5 series. In 90% of the cases you have the same winner and teams rarely come back (only 4,1%) from a 3-0 or 3-1 deficit. You get rid of a lot of basically irrelevant games. Teams get at least 2 days rest for every game, which lowers chance of injuries and prevents teams to get exhausted. It makes the playoffs more exciting.

Teams don't get punished anymore for having played a tough opponent. You don't want situations like last year where Cleveland had 9 days of rest when the Conference finals started and Boston only 1! That's just dishonest competition.


 
Lots of thought and research but ultimately, your first line is what counts.


Unfortunately, yes. If anything, we'll get even more playoff games in the future to increase profits.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2018, 03:51:43 AM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7560
  • Tommy Points: 528



Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2018, 04:11:36 AM »

Offline bopna

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1193
  • Tommy Points: 70
I know the Cs dont hang conference banners but some of the small market teams do...it gives em pride that hanging out in the ECF for example and winning it gives the team something rather than nothing..

In the so called new format what then do you distiguish the top 2 teams that come out...we present you the 8th seed Portland trail blazers, vs the 14th seed Thunder invthe NBA finals.....yuck. No distinction of being atleast a Conference champion....now dont say it couldn't happen because one tweek of lebron's ankle and the cavs are done...an upset of Houston or GS in round one or two and its kapooff...
The league will then review the [dang] thing the following yr because it was a disaster...tbh just leave things the way they are...Jordan and the Bulls dominated the West in the 90s and not an ounce of outcry happened...the league is just fine right now.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2018, 04:35:57 AM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9471
  • Tommy Points: 1033
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2018, 08:17:29 AM »

Offline PAOBoston

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2846
  • Tommy Points: 158
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.

The NBA isn't like most leagues in the world.

Most leagues play each team evenly so home and away, the NBA doesn't. Having the so call best 16 teams wouldn't be fair at all because some divisions are much weaker than others and having 30 teams can't translate into 82 game a season home and away and having one group of 30 where teams play each other evenly would make playoffs redundant as the team who is the top seed should be crowned NBA champion automatically. My idea was that the NBA should revert to an MLB system where division winner go directly into the playoffs and teams with the highest winning percentage go into the Wild Card playoffs, thus giving every team a fair shake.

I am starting to get worried about the NBA as they almost have too much control, they seem to become the experiment league to the point where all tradition and rational thought is being thrown out the window. They have already had sleeve jerseys in official NBA games, Sponsors on NBA jersey's now, removed the East vs West all star game, serious talks about a 4 point line and having a team in the UK...eventually what is left of any type of tradition or history?
Your argument of it wouldn't be fair because some divisions are weaker is hogwash. That's the entire point. It would allow for the best teams to be in the playoffs. Divisions are pointless. I can rationalize having just 2 conferences and no divisions.

As for the schedule, they would have to find a way to rebalance it.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2018, 08:47:29 AM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1767
  • Tommy Points: 156
Did they NBA care in the 80’s when the Lakers only really had the Rockets to get past and the East was top heavy? Teams in the east had to kill themselves to get to the Finals and the West was a cake walk in comparison.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2018, 10:13:09 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4705
  • Tommy Points: 525
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.

The NBA isn't like most leagues in the world.

Most leagues play each team evenly so home and away, the NBA doesn't. Having the so call best 16 teams wouldn't be fair at all because some divisions are much weaker than others and having 30 teams can't translate into 82 game a season home and away and having one group of 30 where teams play each other evenly would make playoffs redundant as the team who is the top seed should be crowned NBA champion automatically. My idea was that the NBA should revert to an MLB system where division winner go directly into the playoffs and teams with the highest winning percentage go into the Wild Card playoffs, thus giving every team a fair shake.

I am starting to get worried about the NBA as they almost have too much control, they seem to become the experiment league to the point where all tradition and rational thought is being thrown out the window. They have already had sleeve jerseys in official NBA games, Sponsors on NBA jersey's now, removed the East vs West all star game, serious talks about a 4 point line and having a team in the UK...eventually what is left of any type of tradition or history?
Your argument of it wouldn't be fair because some divisions are weaker is hogwash. That's the entire point. It would allow for the best teams to be in the playoffs. Divisions are pointless. I can rationalize having just 2 conferences and no divisions.

As for the schedule, they would have to find a way to rebalance it.

I think what he's saying is that, because some divisions are weaker than others, the record is not necessarily reflective of how good the team is because they've played weaker or stronger competition to get to that record.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2019

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2018, 11:08:51 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33419
  • Tommy Points: 5505
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.

The NBA isn't like most leagues in the world.

Most leagues play each team evenly so home and away, the NBA doesn't. Having the so call best 16 teams wouldn't be fair at all because some divisions are much weaker than others and having 30 teams can't translate into 82 game a season home and away and having one group of 30 where teams play each other evenly would make playoffs redundant as the team who is the top seed should be crowned NBA champion automatically. My idea was that the NBA should revert to an MLB system where division winner go directly into the playoffs and teams with the highest winning percentage go into the Wild Card playoffs, thus giving every team a fair shake.

I am starting to get worried about the NBA as they almost have too much control, they seem to become the experiment league to the point where all tradition and rational thought is being thrown out the window. They have already had sleeve jerseys in official NBA games, Sponsors on NBA jersey's now, removed the East vs West all star game, serious talks about a 4 point line and having a team in the UK...eventually what is left of any type of tradition or history?
Your argument of it wouldn't be fair because some divisions are weaker is hogwash. That's the entire point. It would allow for the best teams to be in the playoffs. Divisions are pointless. I can rationalize having just 2 conferences and no divisions.

As for the schedule, they would have to find a way to rebalance it.

I think what he's saying is that, because some divisions are weaker than others, the record is not necessarily reflective of how good the team is because they've played weaker or stronger competition to get to that record.
Yeah but with 82 games and 30 teams, you are never going to have balanced scheduling so someone is always going to have easier schedules and someone is always going to have harder schedules.

And with the league always thinking about future expansion, that imbalance will never change. And the league certainly isn't going to have just a 60 game regular season or increase the season by 3 weeks to add on another 8 games. The pkayers union would never go for it.

So you're always going to have divisions and conferences.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2018, 11:38:15 AM »

Offline hodgy03038

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2549
  • Tommy Points: 44
  • Marcus Smart #1 Fan
Divisions are totally irrelevant now. They mean nothing unless you want to claim division winner for a banner. The playoffs are determined by top 8 in the conference with no consideration about division for anything. They should do away with divisions.


Hey Jaylen. I lost 519 Tommy Points betting on you guys and lost

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2018, 12:32:56 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10645
  • Tommy Points: 1247
The NBA doesn't need change anything. There's nothing wrong with the playoff format as is.

If you want to be champion, you have to beat all the team's you face, simple as that.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2018, 03:59:56 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19524
  • Tommy Points: 925
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2018, 04:03:20 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19524
  • Tommy Points: 925
Did they NBA care in the 80’s when the Lakers only really had the Rockets to get past and the East was top heavy? Teams in the east had to kill themselves to get to the Finals and the West was a cake walk in comparison.
the East had 2 real contenders in the 80's. It wasn't that top heavy.