***2021-2022 NBA Season Thread***

[Going Commando]

I agree with seeding teams from 1-8 based on records and not worrying about the division winners, but I've been hearing rumblings about 1-16 regardless of conference.  I'd be against that. If that is the way it ends up, just put them 1-30 in order, scrap the divisions and the conferences all together in the regular season.  Make it look like a soccer league. Is that how you want it to be?

 

But, how would you do the schedule?  How would like time rivals like the Celtics and Knicks play each other? I still like the conference set up and it's my prediction that the conferences will eventually balance themselves out or go back to the East. If you look at the NFL, the NFC dominated the 80s and first part of the 90s, but the AFC came back in the late 90s and most of the 00s. It will even back up. Give it time.

The playoffs should be 1-16, not 1-30.

Rivalries are formed in the playoffs and they're maintained only by the teams being relevant and playing each other in postseasons. That Knicks-Celtics rivalry is inessential to the league today. But if you give some of these great West teams with meaningful rivalries a chance to play each other late in a postseason? That's something the league could really showcase.

The NCAA Tourney doesn't care about conferences or rivalries. It does a pure seeding and the result is the best basketball tournament in existence. That kind of dynamic structure is what the NBA should shoot for IMO. It'd work whether the conferences are even or not. It'd make the first round more interesting by giving teams new opponents. And it'd give us the best chance of having the true #1 and #2 teams in the NBA play each other in a final.

I say all this as a fan of a mid-tier Eastern Conference team that would get waxed in an open postseason. It'd be good for the league. These Dallas, OKC, and San Antonio teams would win the East instead of getting brutal first round match ups but for geographic happenstance.

[Predicto]

I can probably believe that about Harden, but I just can't believe it about CP3. Kawhi Leonard? Tony Allen?? Paul George??? There is just no way he's as good an on ball defender as those guys. They practically specialize in it.

 

Read the study (or at least a synopsis).   You might be surprised. 

The fan base absolutely loathes Wittman. He's the worst coach in this postseason by far.

 

 

 

I dunno.  OKC might still make it in.  I got a look at the Scottie Brooks gameplan from earlier this season:

 

Want to chime in that I agree with everyone about how dumb the division winner rule is. Just seed teams by record with the tie breaks being 1.) Head to head & 2.) Opponent record.

W/L records should be what matters most. It's straightforward and sensible.

 

Of course I disagree.  I think divisions should matter, and you should play more games against your division too.   That makes the regular season more meaningful, and allows for better rivalries.   

I agree with seeding teams from 1-8 based on records and not worrying about the division winners, but I've been hearing rumblings about 1-16 regardless of conference.  I'd be against that. If that is the way it ends up, just put them 1-30 in order, scrap the divisions and the conferences all together in the regular season.  Make it look like a soccer league. Is that how you want it to be?

 

 

 

 

No, that is NOT how I want it to be.    Divisions should matter, conferences should matter, rivals should matter.  The NFL does it right.  College sports do it right.  The NBA should emulate them.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Predicto

[pjfootballer]

The playoffs should be 1-16, not 1-30.

Rivalries are formed in the playoffs and they're maintained only by the teams being relevant and playing each other in postseasons. That Knicks-Celtics rivalry is inessential to the league today. But if you give some of these great West teams with meaningful rivalries a chance to play each other late in a postseason? That's something the league could really showcase.

The NCAA Tourney doesn't care about conferences or rivalries. It does a pure seeding and the result is the best basketball tournament in existence. That kind of dynamic structure is what the NBA should shoot for IMO. It'd work whether the conferences are even or not. It'd make the first round more interesting by giving teams new opponents. And it'd give us the best chance of having the true #1 and #2 teams in the NBA play each other in a final.

I say all this as a fan of a mid-tier Eastern Conference team that would get waxed in an open postseason. It'd be good for the league. These Dallas, OKC, and San Antonio teams would win the East instead of getting brutal first round match ups but for geographic happenstance.

 

You misunderstood me or I wasn't clear enough.  I'm saying that during the regular season, teams would be ranked 1-30 like the English Premier League, but only 16 would make it, hence the 1-16 for the playoffs.  If you are trying to make it as exciting as the NCAA tourney, then you'd have to have a selection committee, but that's just going too far.  Why do we always want the #1 and #2 teams in the finals?  Isn't part of the lore of the NCAA tournament that "cinderella" teams make it far or even win it all (Villanova, NC State)? 

 

One of the biggest problems with the NBA is their lack of "spread the wealth" champions.  I've brought this up ad naseum over the years that the NBA has had 9, count them, nine teams win the whole thing since 1980.  35 years of the SAME nine teams. The league is flawed that way.  As much crap as baseball gets for their system not being fair, they've had over twice as many champions in that same time frame.  Why is it taking the other 21 teams 35+ years to build a champion?  You'd think with all the high draft picks that someone would get lucky one year. 

 

I'm not sure what the solution is, but in my opinion, if the NBA wants to keep their fanbase, something has to give with the other 21 teams. And also, Adam Silver, for the love of God, PLEASE make it priority 1 to look at the horrendous officiating.  Worst of the major 4 sports. I want two things from the officials. Call the game per the rule book (call travelling, carrying, etc. and don't let them get away with it) and be consistent on the foul calls. Calling things ticky-tacky down one end and then letting them play at the other end looks suspicious.

 

Of course I disagree.  I think divisions should matter, and you should play more games against your division too.   That makes the regular season more meaningful, and allows for better rivalries.   

No, that is NOT how I want it to be.    Divisions should matter, conferences should matter, rivals should matter.  The NFL does it right.  College sports do it right.  The NBA should emulate them.

 

I agree with you.  Divisions should matter and so should conferences.  I also agree with you that they should play more division games.  I mean FOUR games a year is all?  Really?  They should play 8 games (4= 32) against division foes and they play everyone else twice (25 = 50) for a total of 82.  Make it mean something.

Edited April 2, 2015 by pjfootballer

[Predicto]

 

 

One of the biggest problems with the NBA is their lack of "spread the wealth" champions.  I've brought this up ad naseum over the years that the NBA has had 9, count them, nine teams win the whole thing since 1980.  35 years of the SAME nine teams. The league is flawed that way.  As much crap as baseball gets for their system not being fair, they've had over twice as many champions in that same time frame.  Why is it taking the other 21 teams 35+ years to build a champion?  You'd think with all the high draft picks that someone would get lucky one year. 

 

 

I think that is the superstar problem.  In basketball there are only 5 people on the court, and if you have a guy with a Jordan, Lebron, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Wade type level of talent (and a good supporting cast), it is going to impact the final result in a 7 game series almost every time.   It's the nature of the game.

 

Remember, the 9 teams that have won are not all the giant media markets.  The New York Knicks have won nothing.  San Antonio has won 5.   You think David Stern wanted that?   

Edited April 2, 2015 by Predicto

[pjfootballer]

I think that is the superstar problem.  In basketball there are only 5 people on the court, and if you have a guy with a Jordan, Lebron, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Wade type level of talent (and a good supporting case), it is going to impact the final result in a 7 game series almost every time.   It's the nature of the game.

 

Remember, the 9 teams that have won are not all the giant media markets.  The New York Knicks have won nothing.  San Antonio has won 5.   You think David Stern wanted that?   

 

Yeah, he was a different cat anyways. He had a jones for the big cities. 

 

The nine: Chicago, LA, Boston, Philly would be considered big markets.  Houston and Dallas: Houston no at the time they won theirs and Dallas no either, but now you could realistically put them in there. Miami, maybe, maybe not.  Detroit at one time was considered a big city when they won their titles in the 80s, but their city has dwindled. SA would be the only "small" market team, but don't they now include Austin other surrounding areas almost part of their circle?

[Predicto]

Yeah, he was a different cat anyways. He had a jones for the big cities. 

 

The nine: Chicago, LA, Boston, Philly would be considered big markets.  Houston and Dallas: Houston no at the time they won theirs and Dallas no either, but now you could realistically put them in there. Miami, maybe, maybe not.  Detroit at one time was considered a big city when they won their titles in the 80s, but their city has dwindled. SA would be the only "small" market team, but don't they now include Austin other surrounding areas almost part of their circle?

 

 

Sure.  But most of that is coincidence.  If Portland hadn't had a complete brainfart and drafted Sam Bowie ahead of Michael Jordan, I suspect Portland would have most of the six titles that Jordan brought to Chicago.   Boston won their 3 in the 80s because Red Auerbach was a genius and snookered Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish away from Golden State to go with Larry Bird (who he drafted a year early because no one else ahead of him in the draft had the balls to take the chance he wouldn't sign in time).   LA got lucky when they lost Gail Goodrich to the Jazz and got the Jazz's first round pick three years later in exchange.  That turned out to be Magic Johnson.  And so on.  

 

LA with Shaq, Miami with Lebron, and Garnett with that one later Celtics title really are the only examples of the superstar coming to the bigger market and grabbing a title.  

 

It's all about getting a superstar, building a supporting cast, and peaking at the right time.  Houston did it.  Dallas did it.  OKC almost did it two years ago.   Golden State or Houston or Memphis or the Clippers or even Portland might be doing it right now.  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Sure.  But most of that is coincidence.  If Portland hadn't had a complete brainfart and drafted Sam Bowie ahead of Michael Jordan, I suspect Portland would have most of the six titles that Jordan brought to Chicago.   Boston won their 3 in the 80s because Red Auerbach was a genius and snookered Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish away from Golden State to go with Larry Bird (who he drafted a year early because no one else ahead of him in the draft had the balls to take the chance he wouldn't sign in time).   LA got lucky when they lost Gail Goodrich to the Jazz and got the Jazz's first round pick three years later in exchange.  That turned out to be Magic Johnson.  And so on.  

 

LA with Shaq, Miami with Lebron, and Garnett with that one later Celtics title really are the only examples of the superstar coming to the bigger market and grabbing a title.  

 

It's all about getting a superstar, building a supporting cast, and peaking at the right time.  Houston did it.  Dallas did it.  OKC almost did it two years ago.   Golden State or Houston or Memphis or the Clippers or even Portland might be doing it right now.  

 

The Celtics in their history have never signed an impact free agent. Never.

 

Is Pau Gasol the biggest free agent signing in the history of the Bulls? I think he is. And as far as I can remember, the biggest trade they ever made was for Rodman - who San Antonio had more or less placed at the end of their driveway with a "Free to a Good Home" sign.

 

The Lakers and the Heat have distinct advantages when it comes to player acquisition. I don't think you can argue that. New York probably has a slight advantage in this area....but it's been run by stupid people for 40 years.

 

I think everyone views this backwards. The issue in the NBA has never been the teams players WANT to go to. It's the teams that players DO NOT want to go to. And, frankly, Boston has been one of those teams. In Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, it had the three superstars in the league who actually were willing to play in Boston. Garnett and Allen were willing - in part - because they were in probably the two least desirable cities in the league before going there.

The other thing to consider is that basketball is the one sport where top players have always had a remarkable amount of power. Wilt Chamberlain was able to demand **** in an era where Mickey Mantle was on a year to year contract.

[Going Commando]

The best teams should win the championship. That makes winning them worth so much more. The NBA is great because the champions and MVPs aren't flukes, they almost always are the best in their time. That's why they should make playoff seeding independent of conference, so that you can get a true Finals in the Finals.

There isn't a playoff in any sport more compelling than the NCAA tournament. That open round robin tournament in a 5 to 7 game series format is the model for the NBA, not the awful model of the FBS or the flukey one the NFL uses. Honestly, if it weren't for all of the pageantry and hype of the Super Bowl, the NFL playoffs wouldn't be that great.

Divisions are already meaningless in the NBA. Wizards fans couldn't care less about playing Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, or Charlotte. We care about the Bulls and the Cavs. Rivalries are formed organically by events on the court, you can't force them by coming up with arbitrarily defined divisions and saying they mean something.

[MattFancy]

One of the biggest problems with the NBA is their lack of "spread the wealth" champions.  I've brought this up ad naseum over the years that the NBA has had 9, count them, nine teams win the whole thing since 1980.  35 years of the SAME nine teams. The league is flawed that way.  As much crap as baseball gets for their system not being fair, they've had over twice as many champions in that same time frame.  Why is it taking the other 21 teams 35+ years to build a champion?  You'd think with all the high draft picks that someone would get lucky one year. 

 

 

The 9 champions looks bad, but I think only have 18 (17 if you counts the Sonics/Thunder as one team) different teams make the Finals over that period. Compared to 27/30 for MLB and 25/32 for the NFL. So over the last 35 years, 12 NBA teams haven't even made the Finals. Sure teams like the Raptors, Grizzlies and Pelicans haven't been around long, but neither have the Rockies, Marlins, Diamondbacks and Rays, but those 4 have all made the WS and the Dbacks and Marlins have won it.

 

The NBA has a really top heavy league. It seems like it has always been that way tough. I mean the Lakers and Celtics have a combined 33 of the 68 NBA titles and have a combined 52 Finals appearences.

[Predicto]

There isn't a playoff in any sport more compelling than the NCAA tournament. That open round robin tournament in a 5 to 7 game series format is the model for the NBA, not the awful model of the FBS or the flukey one the NFL uses. 

 

The NCAA tournament is great, but so is the NCAA regular season in the ACC, Big Ten, Pac 12, and so on.   Because the players and the fans care about those games and those rivals as well.  

[pjfootballer]

How can you form rivalries with Atlanta, Miami, Orlando and Charlotte if you only play them 4 times a year?

Either play more often or do what the NHL did and go back to four divisions. I love having the Old Patrick Division back together against the Caps. I'd love for the Wizards to be in a division with the old Atlantic teams again.

[Going Commando]

The NCAA tournament is great, but so is the NCAA regular season in the ACC, Big Ten, Pac 12, and so on.   Because the players and the fans care about those games and those rivals as well.

Your not going to get that in the NBA because the league is too big and professional. And you aren't going to get it by forcing things like divisions and conferences. Rivalries spring up organically and they grow and diminish based on the competitiveness of the respective franchises. Seven years ago, Warriors--Clippers was completely irrelevant to the league and now it's a premier rivalry. Something that even the fans of different teams can appreciate and enjoy. Likewise Celtics--Lakers was the premier rivalry and now it's irrelevant. Rivalries will happen whether or not divisional structure is being shoehorned onto a league. We've had divisions for a long time and they're still meaningless.

How can you form rivalries with Atlanta, Miami, Orlando and Charlotte if you only play them 4 times a year?

Either play more often or do what the NHL did and go back to four divisions. I love having the Old Patrick Division back together against the Caps. I'd love for the Wizards to be in a division with the old Atlantic teams again.

How can we form rivalries with Cleveland and Chicago? By playing meaningful games against them in the postseason.

We could play Orlando 10 times a year and still never form a rivalry if one or neither of us is any good and there are no stakes to the outcome of the games.

[Destino]

Of course I disagree. I think divisions should matter, and you should play more games against your division too. That makes the regular season more meaningful, and allows for better rivalries.

No, that is NOT how I want it to be. Divisions should matter, conferences should matter, rivals should matter. The NFL does it right. College sports do it right. The NBA should emulate them.

I agree, they should emphasize division play to the point where teams are game planning for division games and singling them out as particularly important. The nba needs regular season games that matter, right now the closest thing they have to that is star v star matchups that happen to land on a national broadcast. That's not good enough.

[Predicto]

I agree, they should emphasize division play to the point where teams are game planning for division games and singling them out as particularly important. The nba needs regular season games that matter, right now the closest thing they have to that is star v star matchups that happen to land on a national broadcast. That's not good enough.

 

 

Yep.  And if the price you pay is that your division is stronger sometimes and you have a tougher path to the championship than some team in some other division, so be it.   Winning your division, conquering your rivals, that should matter a LOT.  That's the way it is in baseball, that's the way it is in football, and that's the way it should be in the NBA.

 

In other words, i completely disagree with Stevemcqueen1.  

How can we form rivalries with Cleveland and Chicago? By playing meaningful games against them in the postseason.

 

 

You should do it the way the Giants and Dodgers do it.  By playing meaningful games that matter in the regular season, and that might screw the other team out of getting to the post season at all.   Year after year.

 

I probably would go to two conferences, 8 divisions, 32 teams.  All division winners make the playoffs and get the top seeds.  4 wild cards in each conference, always lower seeds.   Yes, that Warriors-Clippers game regular season game matters now.  Screw those flopping punk-azz beotches.   

[Mr. Sinister]

I hate Cleveland

[Fergasun]

What do you all think of this idea for Draft Lottery reform and prevent tanking.

1) Teams gain points after they are eliminated from playoff contention. Points are gained by winning, but bad teams will have more oppurtunity to win.

2) At the end of the season teams ranked from 16 to 9 are set based on record.

3) The top 8 slots are determined by a single elimination tournament. Teams with the most points are the highest seeds.

4) Winner of the tournament gets the first pick, 2nd place gets pick 2, etc.

This prevents blatant tanking... for imstance some fans were upset that the Lakers were even playing Jordan Clarkaom this week.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Players association would laugh

Veterans don't give a **** about high draft picks...especially ones that can take their jobs. They aren't gonna extert extra energy for that

I see this idea a lot in basketball and hockey. It's 110% typical fan mindset

Can you imagine the Knicks' center giving his all so his team can draft Okafor?

Also I don't get why ppl get so mad over tanking

[MattFancy]

Wouldn't that then lead to tanking by the teams that are right around the bottom 8? Why wouldn't the team currently in 9th try to keep losing so they could become a bottom 8 team and then try to win the tournament for a better pick?

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Wouldn't that then lead to tanking by the teams that are right around the bottom 8? Why wouldn't the team currently in 9th try to keep losing so they could become a bottom 8 team and then try to win the tournament for a better pick?

That too

[RonArtest15]

What do you guys think about the seeding system in the NHL?

 

two conferences and 4 divisions.

 

top 3 from each division make the playoffs with two wild cards. 

 

Obviously there would need to be some realignment, but if it happened, divisional games would actually mean something during the regular season. 

[Destino]

Thoughts on tanking

 

1 - I think it's overblown.  In the NFL we call it rebuilding and everyone praises franchise for being patient.  No one accuses Jacksonville of tanking because we know that they are just incompetent.  There have been many teams that win 3 or less games in the NFL and that's comparable to tanking NBA teams. 

 

2 - The worst teams should get the best player.  I firmly believe that.  I think rewarding better teams with better players is an AWFUL idea because I want as many competitive teams as possible. 

 

3 - if you want to stop tanking then prevent the same team from getting a top 5 pick in consecutive seasons.  They are automatically 6th or worse.  If they make it into the top of the draft a third year, 11th or worse.  Remove the incentive to stay bad but don't stop teams from dumping salaries and looking to rebuild, especially in a league with guaranteed contracts. 

[Warhead36]

Tanking is an organizational philosophy. There is nothing you can do about it nor should you. If a team's FO feels its better in their long term to play a bunch of young guys to build for the future what can you really do? And its not like playersare losing on purpose, they don't give a rats behind about draft picks and no player wants to be associated with a bottom dwelling team.

 

The draft lotto is fine as is. Although I do like Destino's suggestion of making it so teams that get a high pick are excluded from certain pick ranges the next year. I'd make it top 3 though. So if you get a top 3 pick one year, the best you can possibly get is 4th the following year. Or something along those lines.

[Fergasun]

So there's no problem for the NBA the Knicks sit Melo after they are eliminated from playoff contention? I think its problematic...

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

So there's no problem for the NBA the Knicks sit Melo after they are eliminated from playoff contention? I think its problematic...

Well Melo's knee is legitimately messed up.

[Kosher Ham]

How can you form rivalries with Atlanta, Miami, Orlando and Charlotte if you only play them 4 times a year?

 

 

Same way the Lakers and Celtics rivalry began...they only play twice a year.

 

Thoughts on tanking

 

 

3 - if you want to stop tanking then prevent the same team from getting a top 5 pick in consecutive seasons.  They are automatically 6th or worse.  If they make it into the top of the draft a third year, 11th or worse.  Remove the incentive to stay bad but don't stop teams from dumping salaries and looking to rebuild, especially in a league with guaranteed contracts. 

 

That won't work mainly because of injuries. Lakers lost both of their best players this season. To penalize them because of that is unreasonable. The owners will never go for that.  The Spurs got Duncan because Robinson missed most of the previous season, I think they won only 20 games that year.