|
So I'm looking at the standing and the 76ers are listed as the 4th seed in the East, despite leading their division. Do the division leaders not get the top 3 seeds automatically? If not, why isn't Indiana the 4th seed since they too have a better winning percentage than the 6ers right now?
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2012 06:07 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 17:44 |
|
|
Division leaders automatically get top 4 seed. Pacers are 2nd in their division.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2012 06:09 |
|
|
Tae posted:Division leaders automatically get top 4 seed. Pacers are 2nd in their division.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2012 06:14 |
|
|
Orgophlax posted:So I'm looking at the standing and the 76ers are listed as the 4th seed in the East, despite leading their division. Do the division leaders not get the top 3 seeds automatically? It's kind of a weird setup. The three division leaders are guaranteed spots in the top four (and home court advantage in the first round), but the three division leaders and the best second-place-in-their-division team (Orlando right now) are placed in the order of their record within the top four. A division leader can't drop below number four, though, even if other non-division-leading teams have a better record, which is why the Pacers are the 5th seed despite having a better record than the 76ers. If Atlanta has a better record than the Sixers Atlanta would still stay as the 6-seed.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2012 06:15 |
|
|
Got it, thanks.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2012 06:16 |
|
|
Actually, they changed the rules now so that you can be the top seed in name, but still not have homecourt advantage in the first round if your record is worse than your opponent. I guess that a team could theoretically get a better matchup if by their record they were meant to face the 1-3 seed teams (or maybe miss the playoffs all together), but so far I think the only time this has come into play was a 4 seed vs a 5 seed.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2012 07:34 |
|
|
Draft picks getting traded around has made me realize I don't understand how they work. I know there's a lottery which is skewed so the shittier the record, the more likely you are to get a high pick, but other than that I don't know much. So anyways, I'm trying to figure out what people are talking about with the fallout from the Warriors/Bucks trade. The Warriors owe a first round pick to Utah, but the gist I get from people posting is that if they tank their record enough for the rest of the season they get that pick back? What's going on with that?
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 06:31 |
|
|
Some picks come with protection for the first few years. The Warrior's pick is top 7 protected for example. If the Warriors are bad enough and their pick falls within the top 7, they get to keep it. If they are 8 or above, the Jazz get to use it, hence the talk of the Warriors needing to lose enough.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 06:33 |
|
|
That seems like bullshit. Isn't there another way to keep teams from tanking like this? It shouldn't be good for the NBA money-wise as well.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 06:55 |
|
|
UnfurledSails posted:That seems like bullshit. Isn't there another way to keep teams from tanking like this? It shouldn't be good for the NBA money-wise as well. Well, with the lottery system they have a chance to get a lower pick if they didn't tank, but its still a low chance.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 06:57 |
|
|
So Who has the top pick for next years draft? also what happen to shaq between Being on the magic and being on the lakers? Why did he gain so much weight and did it help him?
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 06:59 |
|
|
Raven9686 posted:So Who has the top pick for next years draft? Not determined yet. There'll be a lottery draft of all the teams that don't make the playoffs. The team with the worst record of those (probably the Bobcats) will have the best chance of getting the #1 out of all of them, but some member of the field will still be more likely of winning it. The team with the worst chance of getting it will be the team with best record that didn't make the playoffs.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 07:13 |
|
|
Raven9686 posted:also what happen to shaq between Being on the magic and being on the lakers? Why did he gain so much weight and did it help him? The lockout happened. Shaq's early years on the Lakers were fine. He was explosive around the basket and still moved as well as he ever had, although his injuries (which started in Orlando) became more frequent. Then the lockout came and he put on 40 pounds on top of his 300 pound frame. He was still strong, just less... propulsive. It actually arguably helped his post defense, because he was pretty much unable to be moved, and back to the basket he could plow through almost anyone. Someone on SAS described the early 2000's Lakers offense as posting and re-posting Shaq until the ball went in the hoop, and that's a good assessment. Shaq wasn't just good. He was the best, and it wasn't particularly close, either. In some ways the weight gain was good, because it helped him dominate in the post, but in most, it was bad, because it killed his conditioning, made his injuries worse, and limited his mobility on the court.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 07:28 |
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:The lockout happened. Shaq's early years on the Lakers were fine. He was explosive around the basket and still moved as well as he ever had, although his injuries (which started in Orlando) became more frequent. Then the lockout came and he put on 40 pounds on top of his 300 pound frame. He was still strong, just less... propulsive. It actually arguably helped his post defense, because he was pretty much unable to be moved, and back to the basket he could plow through almost anyone. Someone on SAS described the early 2000's Lakers offense as posting and re-posting Shaq until the ball went in the hoop, and that's a good assessment. Shaq wasn't just good. He was the best, and it wasn't particularly close, either. In some ways the weight gain was good, because it helped him dominate in the post, but in most, it was bad, because it killed his conditioning, made his injuries worse, and limited his mobility on the court. The weight gain would have been almost unambiguously good if it weren't for the fact that he was already the biggest and strongest guy in the league when he was playing around 310. He gave up speed and conditioning not to be become the strongest guy, but to become the strongest guy by a wider margin.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 13:47 |
|
|
He really didn't give up that much speed though, if he was remotely in shape, basically until Cleveland (he could barely move post-Miami title but whatever devil magic they used in Phoenix had him looking five years younger).
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 14:39 |
|
|
Rick posted:He really didn't give up that much speed though, if he was remotely in shape, basically until Cleveland (he could barely move post-Miami title but whatever devil magic they used in Phoenix had him looking five years younger). He wasn't ever really in shape, and even then, he was nowhere near the athlete he was in Orlando. He was probably a better player overall in LA, though.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 15:57 |
|
|
Such a big part of his game was passing from the post and that wasn't affected negatively by his weight gain. If anything, as others have noted, it made him better because he was immovable in the post. When he got to Miami, his weight and conditioning did affect his game. He was slow when moving to help in Miami's help defense. Often a heat defender would be left looking silly as he directed his man to an easy score where Shaq should have been. During the championship run, many fans felt he was less essential to the team than Alonzo Mourning who, while he could never compare to Shaq in offensive ability, worked hard on defense.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 16:33 |
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:Such a big part of his game was passing from the post and that wasn't affected negatively by his weight gain. If anything, as others have noted, it made him better because he was immovable in the post. He basically gave Deng that contract in that series where he refused to come out to close out on the midrange jumper at all.
|
| # ? Mar 14, 2012 18:10 |
|
|
The Raptors just got what is probably going to be a mid-late 2nd-round pick. How much are these picks worth? What should I expect the Raptors to achieve with it?
|
| # ? Mar 15, 2012 21:06 |
|
|
Hand Knit posted:The Raptors just got what is probably going to be a mid-late 2nd-round pick. How much are these picks worth? What should I expect the Raptors to achieve with it? They are pretty much worthless. This looks like it was just a deal to cut salary
|
| # ? Mar 15, 2012 21:10 |
|
|
crazylakerfan posted:They are pretty much worthless. This looks like it was just a deal to cut salary I'm not disagreeing with crazylakerfan, but you can always get lucky and find a decent role player type project. One of the nice things about 2nd round picks is you don't give them guaranteed contracts so you can cut them without losing any cash or cap space when they don't work out. This is why the first couple picks in the 2nd round are sometimes valued higher than the last few picks of the 1st round. Either way, you're probably not getting a player that will turn out to be good enough to play in the NBA, but with the 1st round pick you have to guarantee the contract. (If this has changed with the new CBA I trust someone will correct me.)
|
| # ? Mar 15, 2012 21:25 |
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:I'm not disagreeing with crazylakerfan, but you can always get lucky and find a decent role player type project. Yeah, because so many teams have basically been drafting players to cut in the second round, NBA capable players do manage to slip until pretty late in the second round.
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 03:02 |
|
|
Hand Knit posted:The Raptors just got what is probably going to be a mid-late 2nd-round pick. How much are these picks worth? What should I expect the Raptors to achieve with it? Most likely a fringe European prospect that will be stashed away overseas and you'll never see him
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 03:04 |
|
|
Sofoklis Schortsanitis was named All-Euroleague First Team this season. Pretty sweet.
|
| # ? Mar 16, 2012 04:21 |
|
|
Whats the differences between the WNBA and the Nba?
|
| # ? Mar 22, 2012 20:32 |
|
|
Raven9686 posted:Whats the differences between the WNBA and the Nba? The WNBA is a pure basketball league with no egos and sound fundamentals. They don't care about making superstar plays or highlight dunks, they play for the love of the game.
|
| # ? Mar 22, 2012 20:34 |
|
|
Raven9686 posted:Whats the differences between the WNBA and the Nba? The ball is smaller for the WNBA but I think that's about it. It's also 600x more boring
|
| # ? Mar 22, 2012 23:39 |
|
|
Spacebump posted:The WNBA is a pure basketball league with no egos and sound fundamentals. They don't care about making superstar plays or highlight dunks, they play for the love of the game. Unlike those thugs at the NCAA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ukmKbiTnGY . The 3pt line is shorter, too.
|
| # ? Mar 22, 2012 23:48 |
|
|
BIZORT posted:The ball is smaller for the WNBA but I think that's about it. It's also 600x more boring
|
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 00:16 |
|
|
Spacebump posted:The WNBA is a pure basketball league with no egos and sound fundamentals. They don't care about making superstar plays or highlight dunks, they play for the love of the game. Not to mention that the people who go to the game understand the importance of positivity, and have risen above the hate of a lot of sportsfans, as they do not jeer or sneer at the road teams, rather, they cheer on good play and appreciate good sportsmanship no matter which jersey is being worn. And they're rewarded with both in good measure.
|
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 03:06 |
|
|
Rick posted:Not to mention that the people who go to the game understand the importance of positivity, and have risen above the hate of a lot of sportsfans, as they do not jeer or sneer at the road teams, rather, they cheer on good play and appreciate good sportsmanship no matter which jersey is being worn. And they're rewarded with both in good measure. That sounds really uplifting. Why is this not more popular? WNBA players and fans must be chill as gently caress
|
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 04:03 |
|
|
Raven9686 posted:That sounds really uplifting. Why is this not more popular? WNBA players and fans must be chill as gently caress Becuase, in terms of basketball, it is far worse than the NBA and arguably on level with men's NCAA basketball.
|
| # ? Mar 23, 2012 04:12 |
|
|
There an IRC channel for the NBA goons or SAS? I'm in desperate need of people to talk ball with and people out here only follow MLS.
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 06:12 |
|
|
Who could the clippers get to replace Vinny Del Negro if they were to fire him? and what makes him so horrible compared to any other coach?
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 10:39 |
|
|
OASE posted:Who could the clippers get to replace Vinny Del Negro if they were to fire him? and what makes him so horrible compared to any other coach? Nate McMillan. There is seemingly no structure to the offence he runs, players don't know what their role is or don't seem to be putting a genuine effort on defence, there are lots of silly fouls and violations, the timeout calls and player substitutions seem to happen without rhyme or reason. There's plenty more as well, and of course there may be reasons why all of this happens, but from an outside view he doesn't seem to get what he should be getting out of the players he has.
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 11:17 |
|
|
Vinny uses the exact same play every possession. I guess after 20 games, even the best players running the set will get kinda predictable! (top of the key pick-and-roll)
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 11:28 |
|
|
Tae posted:Vinny uses the exact same play every possession. I guess after 20 games, even the best players running the set will get kinda predictable! (top of the key pick-and-roll) Utah did this for like 20 consecutive years so I'm not seeing the issue.
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 15:07 |
|
|
crazylakerfan posted:Becuase, in terms of basketball, it is far worse than the NBA and arguably on level with men's NCAA basketball. NCAA Men's basketball is better than WNBA. I don't think its as unwatchable as some people do, but just about any team in the tournament could beat any WNBA team 9 times out of 10.
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 15:38 |
|
|
spamman posted:Nate McMillan. Nate McMillan would be a pretty minor upgrade over VDN. He can't coach defense at all which is the Clippers biggest weakness, and offensively he's pretty good but not great. I don't think they started running all of those lob plays for Aldridge until Bernie Bickerstaff joined the staff, even though with a guy like that you would think it would be an obvious thing to try out. If I was LA, I would much rather get D'Antoni. Paul + Blake could replicate the SSOL Suns really well. edit: although CP3 does like a plodding pace, so maybe him and D'Antoni wouldn't hit it off so well. Papercut fucked around with this message at Mar 24, 2012 around 19:00 |
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 17:35 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 17:44 |
|
|
ButtView posted:Utah did this for like 20 consecutive years so I'm not seeing the issue.
|
| # ? Mar 24, 2012 18:28 |
|
