martin wrote:Yeah, I can see this
Precious would like a word.
Any update on Mitch, after playing 7 minutes?
ToddTT wrote:martin wrote:Yeah, I can see this
Precious would like a word.
Any update on Mitch, after playing 7 minutes?
He tweeted today that he was shutting off his socials and going into "playoff mode" so that was encouraging at least.
Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.
DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.
Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.
VDesai wrote:To me if we play Philly - the series rests on Buddy Hield - he scores well on us historically. Usually the way we play defense, teams need to beat us by hitting a high % from 3. Hield, like DDV is a volume shooter hitting 38-39% so if he gets on a hot run it will be very difficult. Chances are OG will be helping on Embiid so that could be mean open 3's for Harris as well.
It doesnt matter, first round exit GUuuuuuARANTEEEEED 
Panos wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.
Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.
Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.
DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.
Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.
Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.
oh yeah, I like that.
Incentive for teams at the cutoff to play games at end of season? Or disincentive to drop out of chase while missing out in the incentive to play for the 10 spot?
martin wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.
Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.
Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.
oh yeah, I like that.
Incentive for teams at the cutoff to play games at end of season? Or disincentive to drop out of chase while missing out in the incentive to play for the 10 spot?
keep it.. it's working. There's parity and 20 teams making the post season. There's gonna be some less than interesting teams at those bottoms, especially with the East being very bottom weak.
Point remains the play-in generates huge importance to regular season games (especially late ones) that didnt exist prior and for good reason. Bottom line is this format has significantly improved the quality of the product, because games are more meaningful and the match up watching is exciting.
Agree on a team like Atl but feels like a small price for the overall juice to these games
The way Phili grinded to get out of the play in spot for example. All these middle teams jockeying... its been fun.
Not having Randle hurts and knowing he's back next year adds juice to anything that happens... but the Nova trio and OG also never lose. Like ever. Gonna be a fun test
fishmike wrote:martin wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.
Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.
Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.
oh yeah, I like that.
Incentive for teams at the cutoff to play games at end of season? Or disincentive to drop out of chase while missing out in the incentive to play for the 10 spot?
keep it.. it's working. There's parity and 20 teams making the post season. There's gonna be some less than interesting teams at those bottoms, especially with the East being very bottom weak. Point remains the play-in generates huge importance to regular season games (especially late ones) that didnt exist prior and for good reason. Bottom line is this format has significantly improved the quality of the product, because games are more meaningful and the match up watching is exciting.
Agree on a team like Atl but feels like a small price for the overall juice to these games
The way Phili grinded to get out of the play in spot for example. All these middle teams jockeying... its been fun.
Not having Randle hurts and knowing he's back next year adds juice to anything that happens... but the Nova trio and OG also never lose. Like ever. Gonna be a fun test
I would keep it too. But I do think the play-in is at it's best when it's competitive teams in it. And once you get big drop-off it loses it's luster. Everyone is amped for the West play-in and the 7/8 in the East and nobody could care less about Bulls/Hawks. They don't belong in the same bracket as the other 6 play-in teams. Not worth changing but I get the point they are making. Why make Philly and Miami duke it out and put their season on the line to give ATL who is 10 games under .500 a chance?
martin wrote:oh shit
This to me was clear when they tanked as hard as possible out of the 2 spot. They are desperate to make a deep run and it was their best chance of survival until Giannis potentially gets back in there.
DLeethal wrote:fishmike wrote:martin wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.
Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.
Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.
oh yeah, I like that.
Incentive for teams at the cutoff to play games at end of season? Or disincentive to drop out of chase while missing out in the incentive to play for the 10 spot?
keep it.. it's working. There's parity and 20 teams making the post season. There's gonna be some less than interesting teams at those bottoms, especially with the East being very bottom weak. Point remains the play-in generates huge importance to regular season games (especially late ones) that didnt exist prior and for good reason. Bottom line is this format has significantly improved the quality of the product, because games are more meaningful and the match up watching is exciting.
Agree on a team like Atl but feels like a small price for the overall juice to these games
The way Phili grinded to get out of the play in spot for example. All these middle teams jockeying... its been fun.
Not having Randle hurts and knowing he's back next year adds juice to anything that happens... but the Nova trio and OG also never lose. Like ever. Gonna be a fun test
I would keep it too. But I do think the play-in is at it's best when it's competitive teams in it. And once you get big drop-off it loses it's luster. Everyone is amped for the West play-in and the 7/8 in the East and nobody could care less about Bulls/Hawks. They don't belong in the same bracket as the other 6 play-in teams. Not worth changing but I get the point they are making. Why make Philly and Miami duke it out and put their season on the line to give ATL who is 10 games under .500 a chance?
because the play in is something to be avoided. It heavily favors the 7-8 seeding but makes those scenarios wildly undesirable vs. being 6
As for 9-10... this year's West is perfect example of how this looks when it's working right. As for the East it generated a lot of late urgency with the 2-6 tier because of how close those play in teams were getting. I mean Phili almost did it 
fishmike wrote:DLeethal wrote:fishmike wrote:martin wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:DLeethal wrote:Panos wrote:Isn't it kind of bullshit that two teams under 500 make the play in, and one of them is guaranteed to make the playoffs? One of them is TEN games under 500?
I'd rather the 7 seed play-in the 10 seed and the 8 seed play-in the 9 seed to maximize the possibility that the better 2 teams make the playoffs.
Barring that, I would even give a bye for the round rather than having even the remotest possibility that a sub 500 regular season team go to the championship.
One of them is not guaranteed to make it. The 7/8 seeds each get two chances to win one game. The 9/10 seeds have to win two in a row and beat the loser of the 7/8 game. So loser of 7/8 probably makes it by beating winner of 9/10.
Right! Thanks for reminding me!
I still think a team 10 games under 500 has no business being in the play-in.
Eddie Johnson said the play-in should only extend to 10 as far as the teams are within 2-3 games of each other. Why extend it for a team 10 games under .500? If 3 teams make it then 7 gets in and 8-9 play themselves in etc. probably too complicated but speaks to your point.
oh yeah, I like that.
Incentive for teams at the cutoff to play games at end of season? Or disincentive to drop out of chase while missing out in the incentive to play for the 10 spot?
keep it.. it's working. There's parity and 20 teams making the post season. There's gonna be some less than interesting teams at those bottoms, especially with the East being very bottom weak. Point remains the play-in generates huge importance to regular season games (especially late ones) that didnt exist prior and for good reason. Bottom line is this format has significantly improved the quality of the product, because games are more meaningful and the match up watching is exciting.
Agree on a team like Atl but feels like a small price for the overall juice to these games
The way Phili grinded to get out of the play in spot for example. All these middle teams jockeying... its been fun.
Not having Randle hurts and knowing he's back next year adds juice to anything that happens... but the Nova trio and OG also never lose. Like ever. Gonna be a fun test
I would keep it too. But I do think the play-in is at it's best when it's competitive teams in it. And once you get big drop-off it loses it's luster. Everyone is amped for the West play-in and the 7/8 in the East and nobody could care less about Bulls/Hawks. They don't belong in the same bracket as the other 6 play-in teams. Not worth changing but I get the point they are making. Why make Philly and Miami duke it out and put their season on the line to give ATL who is 10 games under .500 a chance?
because the play in is something to be avoided. It heavily favors the 7-8 seeding but makes those scenarios wildly undesirable vs. being 6As for 9-10... this year's West is perfect example of how this looks when it's working right. As for the East it generated a lot of late urgency with the 2-6 tier because of how close those play in teams were getting. I mean Phili almost did it
Agree that overall, the play-in is a huge W for the league. Silver has the magic touch with these enhancements over the years. Just needs to get the All Star break right now.
DLeethal wrote:martin wrote:oh shit
This to me was clear when they tanked as hard as possible out of the 2 spot. They are desperate to make a deep run and it was their best chance of survival until Giannis potentially gets back in there.
how did they tank it? They have sucked for awhile, worse with Doc, now no Giannis, Middleton is banged up and Dame is now aging in dog years. They are not good. That's a nose dive. Tank implies intention. Disagree on that one
Went on the Phili sub on reddit and they are PISSED they are getting the Knicks. "Doc phucked us AGAIN" LOL!!!!
Now about this idea, a mishmash of mid season tourney and division based rivalries.
All star game is for shit, same and dunk contest, but you gotta replace it with SOMETHING. Loved the mid season tourney so lets do a second one, but it's just division based.
AND, those games count towards season record but NOT the draft. This eliminates the tanking aspect of maybe like a month's worth of games where teams only travel in their region.
Couple weeks of games against each other to set up division seedings, then playoffs games. Something.
Winners get something like a 5 slot boost in draft for their pick that year or something. It's make it so that teams hesitate to trade their pick or something wild.
fishmike wrote:DLeethal wrote:martin wrote:oh shit
This to me was clear when they tanked as hard as possible out of the 2 spot. They are desperate to make a deep run and it was their best chance of survival until Giannis potentially gets back in there.
how did they tank it? They have sucked for awhile, worse with Doc, now no Giannis, Middleton is banged up and Dame is now aging in dog years. They are not good. That's a nose dive. Tank implies intention. Disagree on that oneWent on the Phili sub on reddit and they are PISSED they are getting the Knicks. "Doc phucked us AGAIN" LOL!!!!
They lost to the 3 worst teams in the league who were full fledged tank - Wizards, Grizzlies, Raptors - in a row while clinging to 2 seed, finished the season 3-8, sat Dame against OKC, and then benched Dame in the 4th quarter of the final game of the season when it was still a competitive game.
martin wrote:Now about this idea, a mishmash of mid season tourney and division based rivalries.All star game is for shit, same and dunk contest, but you gotta replace it with SOMETHING. Loved the mid season tourney so lets do a second one, but it's just division based.
AND, those games count towards season record but NOT the draft. This eliminates the tanking aspect of maybe like a month's worth of games where teams only travel in their region.
Couple weeks of games against each other to set up division seedings, then playoffs games. Something.
Winners get something like a 5 slot boost in draft for their pick that year or something. It's make it so that teams hesitate to trade their pick or something wild.
I feel like they should let players opt out of ASG if they don't want to play. Eventually they will settle on rosters that want to be there and compete. I don't think incentives will work. And not sure USA vs "World" will work either since it never worked for the competitiveness of the rising stars game.
The gods didn't know it but Philly and Embiid gonna beat up on Miami in the #7-#8 match-up but the big guy gonna collapse after game.
Miami will continue on and join the adults in the main playoffs and take it to Boston for 7 games with Philly limping into NY and falling over that meniscus-free knee of Embiid.
Meanwhile, back in the first round, Milwaukee won't have enough without Giannis early on to get over the Hali crew but will bash Indiana in game 7 game as Antetokounmpo limps to the end and prevails.
But Bucks run out of gas and into a brick wall of a well-rested NY team.
So, NY blows through Giannis-free Bucks and get to play a strangely injured Boston team whose players all happened to be around Bam when injuries occurred, I wonder why.
It's still June and we are all watching Knicks games and frothing at the mouth about why Brunson keeps averaging 47 minutes a game even in blowouts. Robinson recalls how to catch a ball and returns the Noel hands to their rightful owner.
Chet is too skinny. iHart and Mitch flex the NY flex with Brunson going all-world crazy. SGA is nowhere to be found and we assume OG smothered and left him in a room to be by himself until 4 games are won.
It has been foretold.
DLeethal wrote:fishmike wrote:DLeethal wrote:martin wrote:oh shit
This to me was clear when they tanked as hard as possible out of the 2 spot. They are desperate to make a deep run and it was their best chance of survival until Giannis potentially gets back in there.
how did they tank it? They have sucked for awhile, worse with Doc, now no Giannis, Middleton is banged up and Dame is now aging in dog years. They are not good. That's a nose dive. Tank implies intention. Disagree on that oneWent on the Phili sub on reddit and they are PISSED they are getting the Knicks. "Doc phucked us AGAIN" LOL!!!!
They lost to the 3 worst teams in the league who were full fledged tank - Wizards, Grizzlies, Raptors - in a row while clinging to 2 seed, finished the season 3-8, sat Dame against OKC, and then benched Dame in the 4th quarter of the final game of the season when it was still a competitive game.
I think you underestimate Doc's coaching
