Official NBA Playoff thread 2004

[cheapchinese]

besides the Laker Official thread.. all the rest can be placed here.

Man i love Piston's defense, Larry brown really coached them well. Double wallaces are great, defense and offense.

Min vs denver; at some point i thought history would repeat itself, but with 3 go to guys in the team, they are not gonna be dropped out of round one. Sam was GREAT!!! career playoff record of 40. Even though sprewell had a slow night, still a great game. Denver did its best to cut it to 5 i believe.

didn't see the rest of the games... please do share

[gear02]

go rockets....damn lakers...

[bachviet]

KG and Sam Cassell were awesome yesterday. If they continue to play like that and Sprewell plays better, nobody could beat them.

[ray]

I'm surprised there wasn't a single upset in the first 2 days of gameplay. I'm still waiting for Denver to take a few games from the TWolves. 'Melo for ROY!! (yes, I know leeeeeeebron is getting it, but Melo deserves it as well).

[whitak24]

i was so pumped about the pistons game!! it was just a blast to watch because a.) they didn't play down to the level of their opponents and b.) they were having SO MUCH FUN! that's the element that's so often missing from the NBA -- seeing guys just pumped up and having a good time playing as a team.

i watched bits and pieces of the other games -- the thing that surprised me was that there were so many incredible blowouts. it looks like ind/bos, det/mil, nj/ny, and san/mem could be over in 4 games if the teams keep playing like they did in game 1.

[RoniMan]

nba.com had a poll about which team will be the first to lose homecourt advantage.

how does home court advantage work? and how do you "lose" it?

[kei2]

Home court advantage: out of the 7-game series, the team ranked higher gets 4 at home, and the team ranked lower gets the other 3. Having that fourth home game is the home court advantage. It's a matter of being in your own town, with your own fans, on your own court... it's definitely good. The team with home court advantage LOSES it when they lose a home game.

Example: Lakers have home court advantage over the Rockets because they're ranked higher (2 vs 7). So they get 4 home games in the 7-game series (including game 1, already played). Let's say they lose game 2 at home. Now it's 1-1, and out of the 5 remaining games Houston has more at home (3 games). L.A. just lost home court advantage.

The idea is, it's much harder to win one on the road, so if neither team is able to steal one on the road it'll go to the seventh and deciding game, where the higher ranked team will appropriately have the advantage. The team with the best record in the league would have home court advantage throughout the playoffs (provided it gets through each round) because it'll always be ranked higher than its opponent.

[DaFunkyUnit]

Originally Posted by RoniMan

nba.com had a poll about which team will be the first to lose homecourt advantage.

how does home court advantage work? and how do you "lose" it?

In a playoff series, they play best out of seven games, so first to win 4 wins the series. They alternate courts like so: home, home, away, away, home, away, home. So, to lose homecourt advantage is to lose a game at home.

[gear02]

Originally Posted by RoniMan

nba.com had a poll about which team will be the first to lose homecourt advantage.

how does home court advantage work? and how do you "lose" it?

In a 7 game series, the higher seed gets home court for 4 games, and away for 3. Assuming each team wins on their home court, the higher seed will win the series 4-3, hence home court advantage.

If the #3 Lakers lose home court advantage (and they WILL ) that means they would have lost at home. So then if the home teams wins, the #6 Rockets will win the series 4-2.

When you lose home court advantage, you can regain it by winning one on the road.

Damn too slow...DFU beat me to the punch...and Kei too...doh...

[whitak24]

i love the three consecutive explainations of homecourt advantage, all posted within 3 minutes. good job, guys!

just to add to what DFU said: rounds 1, 2, and 3 are in the 2-2-1-1-1 format (2 games at home for the higher seed, two on the road, then one at home, etc). however, in the finals, it's a 2-3-2 format. this makes it REALLY difficult for a lower-seeded team to win the championship (because to protect their home floor they need to win three straight, plus steal a game on the road.)

[bachviet]

Originally Posted by whitak24

i love the three consecutive explainations of homecourt advantage, all posted within 3 minutes. good job, guys!

just to add to what DFU said: rounds 1, 2, and 3 are in the 2-2-1-1-1 format (2 games at home for the higher seed, two on the road, then one at home, etc). however, in the finals, it's a 2-3-2 format. this makes it REALLY difficult for a lower-seeded team to win the championship (because to protect their home floor they need to win three straight, plus steal a game on the road.)

That might be true but if lower seeded teams win 3 home games, they are one game away from winning it instead of two.

[whitak24]

Originally Posted by bachviet

That might be true but if lower seeded teams win 3 home games, they are one game away from winning it instead of two.

right, but think about it this way:

- typically, the home team is going to come out pumped and will win game 1.
- so now the lower-seeded team is down 0-1. let's say they steal game 2, so they go home tied 1-1. but in order for them to capitalize on this, they have to win the next three games as well. so they would have to do the equivalent of a sweep to keep their home-court advantage. not likely unless the lower-seeded team is drastically better, which is unlikely.
- the best chance for a lower-seeded team to win is probably to split the first two games, win 2 of 3 at home, and then hope to win a decisive game 7 (or possibly a game 6, although as i said above, that is fairly unlikely).

basically, the lower-seeded team practically never wins the finals. statistics from http://www.nba.com/finals2001/2-3-2b...av=ArticleList

1.) the lower seeded team as NEVER swept the three middle games.
2.) the lower seeded team has never gone back on the road down 3-2 and won the final two games to clinch a title.
3.) in the 19 years since the NBA switched to the 2-3-2 format, only 3 lower seeds have won (the 85 lakers over boston 4-2, the 95 rockets over orlando 4-0 and the 98 bulls over utah 4-2).

so either the higher seeds are typically vastly better, or else the 2-3-2 system gives a huge edge to the higher seed. you be the judge. only TWO series have gone the distance (imagine that -- of 19 finals, only 2 have gone to a decisive game 7).

in years when the lower seed won, the average margin of victory was 4-1.33. in years when the higher seed won, the average was 4-1.5. so it could be argued that in years when a low seed wins, it is because they are a drastically better team but just happen to have a worse record, while when the higher seed wins, the match-up is closer but the favorable homecourt structure helps them.

or you could argue that the difference is minor and that the low-seed average is skewed downward by Houston's sweep of Orlando, the one clear case for a year when the low seed was a clearly better team.

just so everyone else can argue about this too, here are the series results from the past 19 years:
85 - LAL (low) beats BOS 4-2
86 - BOS (high) beats HOU 4-2
87 - LAL (high) beats BOS 4-2
88 - LAL (high) beats DET 4-3
89 - DET (high) beats LAL 4-0
90 - DET (high) beats POR 4-1
91 - CHI (high) beats LAL 4-1
92 - CHI (high) beats POR 4-2
93 - CHI (high) beats PHX 4-2
94 - HOU (high) beats NY 4-3
95 - HOU (low) beats ORL 4-0
96 - CHI (high) beats SEA 4-2
97 - CHI (high) beats UTH 4-2
98 - CHI (low) beats UTH 4-2
99 - SA (high) beats NY 4-1
00 - LA (high) beats IND 4-2
01 - LA (high) beats PHI 4-1
02 - LA (high) beats NJ 4-0
03 - SA (high) beats NJ 4-2

[TofuNinja]

For the love of Zeus... why are the playoffs on Cable....gee....guess I'm listening to the game....

[Freelance Superhero]

Originally Posted by TofuNinja

For the love of Zeus... why are the playoffs on Cable....

i know man!! i'm dyin here!!!!

[kei2]

I actually tend to think the 2-3-2 format would favor the lower seed more than the 2-2-1-1-1 format does. If each team is able to hold at home through the first five, the lower seed has a 3-2 advantage, and the pressure is on the home team to win both the last two games (while the lower seed needs to steal just one of two on the road). It seems that historically, this hasn't really been the case (perhaps because one team is much stronger than the other, or because being at home doesn't guarantee a win), but that's just my $0.02. On an unrelated note, I like that the first round was expanded from best-of-5 to best-of-7. The short round was just strange. Now it's like the NHL.

[gear02]

Someone remind me why the NBA goes to a 2-3-2 format in the finals? I love the 2-2-1-1-1 format. It's the most balanced of any 7 game system...

And I think the NHL finals is still 2-2-1-1-1

Originally Posted by Freelance Superhero

i know man!! i'm dyin here!!!!

Why are the playoffs mostly on cable? Because the networks have given up on putting sports on prime time. They've given up on hoping that the casual fan will hop on the bandwagon. The casual TV viewer likes reality tv shows and crime dramas, and that's what the network gives them (CSI, CSI:Miami, NCSI, Law and Order, LaO:SVU, LaO:CI, JAG, etc.)

The sports fan tend to have ESPN, and along that line TNT. So they put the sports games on cable, where the fans will watch, and leave the network free to put on their shows.

The irregularity in this is Fox, which doesn't have a widely viewed cable channel (Fox Sports Net is so << than ESPN and even TNT). They tend to show more baseball games in primetime, especially closer to the playoffs. ABC rarely shows more than Kings/Mavs/Lakers/Nets games on the network, and only during weekends. Also, NBC shows Arena football, but just to fill their saturday and sunday slots, the same reason why NBC and CBS show golf.

If you want to see sport games, you must have cable now. That's how it works now. In the future, I'm betting more games will go OFF cable, and into DTV season passes and league owned channels (NBA TV, NFL TV).

[kei2]

Someone remind me why the NBA goes to a 2-3-2 format in the finals? I love the 2-2-1-1-1 format.

It's the most balanced of any 7 game system...

And I think the NHL finals is still 2-2-1-1-1

I think you're right. (I hope you are, anyway, because 2-2-1-1-1 is the best system.

[TofuNinja]

Gear02, I feel you, man, but its the playoffs.... most people only watch basketball during the playoffs... it is like having all the playoff games of football on cable.....

oh well.... will have to suffer....

[yippiekiyeh]

I think it has to do with the distance involved for the finals. East coast teams and West coast teams need to travel back and forth on a 2-2-1-1-1 setup and it is very rough on a team to be flying cross country to get ready for a game the next day. In a 2-3-2 setup, you know that you'll have a few games out in each town so the pressures of flying and such is lessened.

[kei2]

That is true, the potential air milage does decrease sharply. There is more time between games when they're in different cities though. Typically 2-3 days off instead of back-to-back games or a single day in between. Thus resting up isn't really an issue, just the traveling (potentially across time zones). I think that's the case... maybe I'm wrong and there's only 1 travel/rest day in some cases. Not sure. Edit: Oh wait, I'm wrong. Sometimes it is just 1 day off. I see your point.

I just don't like how the road (lower-seeded) team can have the lead (3-2) and momentum (winning 3 in a row) after 5 games just by holding it down at home. 2-2-1-1-1 makes it so the road team can at best have the series tied 2-2 or 3-3 unless they snag one on the road.

Changing topics a bit... I really really don't understand why the Kings start Webber and not Miller. They were 43-15 without Webber, and they're like .500 since his return. He's obviously not 100%. Shoot, he's even said he wouldn't mind coming off the bench. I think I'd take a healthy Webber over a healthy Miller, but I don't think the Kings have a healthy Webber. Webber may or may not be their franchise player, but it's been a tale of two seasons--before and after his return. The lineup he puts on the floor might have the firepower to beat Dallas in a shootout series, but (assuming they do) if Adelman wants to beat the hungry Minnesota team I think he needs to tweak that starting lineup.

[cheapchinese]

what happened at the pacers game???

why is artest made to sit out on the next game??

[HmpDeeHmp]

Apparently he broke the league rules by leaving the bench and going onto the floor when Jermaine O'Neal got into it with Brandon Hunter, even though he returned to the bench after only walking a few steps.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ory?id=1785567

[gear02]

btw what I don't like about the nba playoffs is the insane amount of time between games. The rockets lakers don't play until friday or something. That's why the series takes like a month. It's way too long. Why not go the traditional route of every other day??

Stupid TV contracts.

[bachviet]

Originally Posted by kei2

...

Changing topics a bit... I really really don't understand why the Kings start Webber and not Miller. They were 43-15 without Webber, and they're like .500 since his return. He's obviously not 100%. Shoot, he's even said he wouldn't mind coming off the bench. I think I'd take a healthy Webber over a healthy Miller, but I don't think the Kings have a healthy Webber. Webber may or may not be their franchise player, but it's been a tale of two seasons--before and after his return. The lineup he puts on the floor might have the firepower to beat Dallas in a shootout series, but (assuming they do) if Adelman wants to beat the hungry Minnesota team I think he needs to tweak that starting lineup.

He needs to start Webber to get him in better shape so he'll be ready for KG but I don't think he could handle KG.

[whitak24]

Originally Posted by gear02

btw what I don't like about the nba playoffs is the insane amount of time between games. The rockets lakers don't play until friday or something. That's why the series takes like a month. It's way too long. Why not go the traditional route of every other day??

Stupid TV contracts.

i thought the whole point of expanding the first round to 7 games (besides favoring the higher-seeded teams, who are less prone to an upset over a longer series) was to reduce the time between games. two days off is ok, but 3 is just crazy. of course, i guess back when it was 5 games, the layoffs would be even longer.

[cheapie]

Originally Posted by cheapchinese

what happened at the pacers game???

why is artest made to sit out on the next game??

after o'neill got knocked to the floor he started to go and pull jermaine back. he stopped after a couple of steps. it's so stupid that he's being suspended. i'll bet the pacers still win tho'.

defensive player of the year. woot! woot!

[cheapchinese]

well...
I believe a rule is a rule, so with him being suspended, it'll avoid people bringing up the issue of "interpretation"

[gear02]

Originally Posted by whitak24

i thought the whole point of expanding the first round to 7 games (besides favoring the higher-seeded teams, who are less prone to an upset over a longer series) was to reduce the time between games. two days off is ok, but 3 is just crazy. of course, i guess back when it was 5 games, the layoffs would be even longer.

exactly...except that instead of making the time between games shorter, they left it the same, so the series is tons longer...

[civicdidex]

suspending artest is bs. he is a major factor for indiana winning in the east. say they lose the game but win the next 3; sure they still win the series, but that one extra game will effect them in the next round and the next. the league should have suspended him for a regular season game starting next season instead of taking him out during the playoffs. esp when he really didnt do anything. he shoulda just said he dropped his rubberband and was going out to get it. lol

[ray]

Originally Posted by civicdidex

suspending artest is bs. he is a major factor for indiana winning in the east. say they lose the game but win the next 3; sure they still win the series, but that one extra game will effect them in the next round and the next. the league should have suspended him for a regular season game starting next season instead of taking him out during the playoffs. esp when he really didnt do anything. he shoulda just said he dropped his rubberband and was going out to get it. lol

As nice as that would sound, a rule is a rule. The rules clearly state that if a player leaves the bench and walks onto the court then that player is suspended for a game, even if they didn't do anything. Artest realized his mistake and should accept it.