Poll: Which conference is deeper

[Moranis]

As it sits today, the West now has 3 more wins than the East in the head to head.  So why does it look like the East has more better teams, I would hypothesize it is because the top 3 teams in the West are 10 wins better than the top 3 teams in the East.  If you were to redistribute those wins in the middle or bottom of the conference, the standings would look a lot different.

It can also be looked at that the reason the top three teams in the West have such better records is that they are playing inferior teams than those that are in the East. So, the East is actually deeper.

Maybe that argument would have worked early in the year when the East had a big lead in the head to head, but the West now has the head to head advantage 25% of the way through the season.  I mean does head to head only work when the East is leading or is not still the biggest indicator of conference strength?  So if head to head is still the most important thing and the West is winning the head to head, the West must be the better conference.  And thus because the West is the better conference, the fact that their 3 top teams are so much better than the 3 top teams in the East has to be accounted for, especially when the two worst teams (by 5.5 wins) are in the East.

you are really just bordering on straight up trolling at this point. The East is an overturned buzzer beater last night and and the Celtics hitting an extra shot away from the East still winning. I also noticed you didn’t say anything when the Spurs beat the Knicks and the nets beat the mavs the night before. I have tried to give you reasonable debates on this and you don’t respond to the points or say what your opinion is. I get you are upset 90% or forum disagreed with you, but lets try and have a reasonable dialogue and not go the larbrd path here.

The conferences have played about the same on the season, but the East had a huge lead and the West has been winning week after week for well over a month.  Last night there were 4 interconference match-ups and the West won all 4 of them.  A 4-0 day is a pretty big swing, which makes it different from the day before there were 3 with the East going 2-1.  Today there is 1, Utah at Philly and despite being on the road the Jazz are favored by 3. 

If the West has the slight edge in the head to head, AND has the teams with the 3 best records, AND the teams with the 2 worst records are in the East, I don't see how anyone can't reach the conclusion that the West is currently the better conference.  They've won the head to head after all and have their records deflated by playing more games against the 3 best teams in the sport and don't get their records inflated by playing more games against the 2 worst teams in the sport.

[celticsclay]

As it sits today, the West now has 3 more wins than the East in the head to head.  So why does it look like the East has more better teams, I would hypothesize it is because the top 3 teams in the West are 10 wins better than the top 3 teams in the East.  If you were to redistribute those wins in the middle or bottom of the conference, the standings would look a lot different.

It can also be looked at that the reason the top three teams in the West have such better records is that they are playing inferior teams than those that are in the East. So, the East is actually deeper.

Maybe that argument would have worked early in the year when the East had a big lead in the head to head, but the West now has the head to head advantage 25% of the way through the season.  I mean does head to head only work when the East is leading or is not still the biggest indicator of conference strength?  So if head to head is still the most important thing and the West is winning the head to head, the West must be the better conference.  And thus because the West is the better conference, the fact that their 3 top teams are so much better than the 3 top teams in the East has to be accounted for, especially when the two worst teams (by 5.5 wins) are in the East.

you are really just bordering on straight up trolling at this point. The East is an overturned buzzer beater last night and and the Celtics hitting an extra shot away from the East still winning. I also noticed you didn’t say anything when the Spurs beat the Knicks and the nets beat the mavs the night before. I have tried to give you reasonable debates on this and you don’t respond to the points or say what your opinion is. I get you are upset 90% or forum disagreed with you, but lets try and have a reasonable dialogue and not go the larbrd path here.

The conferences have played about the same on the season, but the East had a huge lead and the West has been winning week after week for well over a month.  Last night there were 4 interconference match-ups and the West won all 4 of them.  A 4-0 day is a pretty big swing, which makes it different from the day before there were 3 with the East going 2-1.  Today there is 1, Utah at Philly and despite being on the road the Jazz are favored by 3. 

If the West has the slight edge in the head to head, AND has the teams with the 3 best records, AND the teams with the 2 worst records are in the East, I don't see how anyone can't reach the conclusion that the West is currently the better conference.  They've won the head to head after all and have their records deflated by playing more games against the 3 best teams in the sport and don't get their records inflated by playing more games against the 2 worst teams in the sport.

Have you literally come up with so many different arguments you forgot what we are actually discussing. It’s right in the poll. Which conference is the deepest. I think you fundamentally don’t understand this term based on the points you keep making (it is not which conference has best or worst team).

I’ll add, to be clear, I do think head to head is a reasonable metric to use for depth and I will continue to view it as such throughout the regular season. I suspect there will be several more swings before the season ends. Also please just drop the nonsense over who the worst teams are in the league. The magic, OKC, pelicans pistons and rockets are all flat out terrible the spurs may a tiny step up but severely lack talent. They will jockey in the tank race the rest of the season. Rockets will probably be dumping Gordon and theiss before trade deadline. Pistons could move off jerami grant. Last year the Thunder asked horford to stay home and didn’t play sga when they should have. They are bad tanking teams.

[Moranis]

As it sits today, the West now has 3 more wins than the East in the head to head.  So why does it look like the East has more better teams, I would hypothesize it is because the top 3 teams in the West are 10 wins better than the top 3 teams in the East.  If you were to redistribute those wins in the middle or bottom of the conference, the standings would look a lot different.

It can also be looked at that the reason the top three teams in the West have such better records is that they are playing inferior teams than those that are in the East. So, the East is actually deeper.

Maybe that argument would have worked early in the year when the East had a big lead in the head to head, but the West now has the head to head advantage 25% of the way through the season.  I mean does head to head only work when the East is leading or is not still the biggest indicator of conference strength?  So if head to head is still the most important thing and the West is winning the head to head, the West must be the better conference.  And thus because the West is the better conference, the fact that their 3 top teams are so much better than the 3 top teams in the East has to be accounted for, especially when the two worst teams (by 5.5 wins) are in the East.

you are really just bordering on straight up trolling at this point. The East is an overturned buzzer beater last night and and the Celtics hitting an extra shot away from the East still winning. I also noticed you didn’t say anything when the Spurs beat the Knicks and the nets beat the mavs the night before. I have tried to give you reasonable debates on this and you don’t respond to the points or say what your opinion is. I get you are upset 90% or forum disagreed with you, but lets try and have a reasonable dialogue and not go the larbrd path here.

The conferences have played about the same on the season, but the East had a huge lead and the West has been winning week after week for well over a month.  Last night there were 4 interconference match-ups and the West won all 4 of them.  A 4-0 day is a pretty big swing, which makes it different from the day before there were 3 with the East going 2-1.  Today there is 1, Utah at Philly and despite being on the road the Jazz are favored by 3. 

If the West has the slight edge in the head to head, AND has the teams with the 3 best records, AND the teams with the 2 worst records are in the East, I don't see how anyone can't reach the conclusion that the West is currently the better conference.  They've won the head to head after all and have their records deflated by playing more games against the 3 best teams in the sport and don't get their records inflated by playing more games against the 2 worst teams in the sport.

Have you literally come up with so many different arguments you forgot what we are actually discussing. It’s right in the poll. Which conference is the deepest. I think you fundamentally don’t understand this term based on the points you keep making (it is not which conference has best or worst team).

The deepest conference is the better conference.  The one that if you normalized the top and bottom of each conference would end up with teams with better records further down the list.  10 wins from the top 3 and 5.5 wins from the bottom 2, is a lot of wins to disperse among the other 11 teams in the west (and I recognize some would go east, but the vast majority would stay west).  The top and the bottom absolutely matter to the perceived depth of the conference, because the top and the bottom affect the records of the middle. 

The west has won more games in the head to head.  The west has more of the better players in the sport.  The west has the best teams while the east has the worst teams.  That all matters when you analyze the depth of the conference. 

There are a lot of very mediocre teams right now.  Even the Nets are only 7-7 against teams .500 and above and are 10-1 against teams below .500.  There are only 4 teams in the sport more than 2 games better against the .500 or better teams (GS, PHO, Utah, and Chicago). 

[celticsclay]

As it sits today, the West now has 3 more wins than the East in the head to head.  So why does it look like the East has more better teams, I would hypothesize it is because the top 3 teams in the West are 10 wins better than the top 3 teams in the East.  If you were to redistribute those wins in the middle or bottom of the conference, the standings would look a lot different.

It can also be looked at that the reason the top three teams in the West have such better records is that they are playing inferior teams than those that are in the East. So, the East is actually deeper.

Maybe that argument would have worked early in the year when the East had a big lead in the head to head, but the West now has the head to head advantage 25% of the way through the season.  I mean does head to head only work when the East is leading or is not still the biggest indicator of conference strength?  So if head to head is still the most important thing and the West is winning the head to head, the West must be the better conference.  And thus because the West is the better conference, the fact that their 3 top teams are so much better than the 3 top teams in the East has to be accounted for, especially when the two worst teams (by 5.5 wins) are in the East.

you are really just bordering on straight up trolling at this point. The East is an overturned buzzer beater last night and and the Celtics hitting an extra shot away from the East still winning. I also noticed you didn’t say anything when the Spurs beat the Knicks and the nets beat the mavs the night before. I have tried to give you reasonable debates on this and you don’t respond to the points or say what your opinion is. I get you are upset 90% or forum disagreed with you, but lets try and have a reasonable dialogue and not go the larbrd path here.

The conferences have played about the same on the season, but the East had a huge lead and the West has been winning week after week for well over a month.  Last night there were 4 interconference match-ups and the West won all 4 of them.  A 4-0 day is a pretty big swing, which makes it different from the day before there were 3 with the East going 2-1.  Today there is 1, Utah at Philly and despite being on the road the Jazz are favored by 3. 

If the West has the slight edge in the head to head, AND has the teams with the 3 best records, AND the teams with the 2 worst records are in the East, I don't see how anyone can't reach the conclusion that the West is currently the better conference.  They've won the head to head after all and have their records deflated by playing more games against the 3 best teams in the sport and don't get their records inflated by playing more games against the 2 worst teams in the sport.

Have you literally come up with so many different arguments you forgot what we are actually discussing. It’s right in the poll. Which conference is the deepest. I think you fundamentally don’t understand this term based on the points you keep making (it is not which conference has best or worst team).

The deepest conference is the better conference.  The one that if you normalized the top and bottom of each conference would end up with teams with better records further down the list.  10 wins from the top 3 and 5.5 wins from the bottom 2, is a lot of wins to disperse among the other 11 teams in the west (and I recognize some would go east, but the vast majority would stay west).  The top and the bottom absolutely matter to the perceived depth of the conference, because the top and the bottom affect the records of the middle. 

The west has won more games in the head to head.  The west has more of the better players in the sport.  The west has the best teams while the east has the worst teams.  That all matters when you analyze the depth of the conference. 

There are a lot of very mediocre teams right now.  Even the Nets are only 7-7 against teams .500 and above and are 10-1 against teams below .500.  There are only 4 teams in the sport more than 2 games better against the .500 or better teams (GS, PHO, Utah, and Chicago).

No Moranis. Deeper does not equal better. It can be deeper and better but they are different words with different meanings. If you are just going to start changing the meanings of words to suit your argument we are done here. Deep is derived from depth. This is basic English definitional stuff.

Even though I suspect there is a lot of willful ignorance and petulance going on here, I’ll give you one final example. When the early cavs teams had Lebron james and the second and third best players were players like mo Williams and ilguaskas nobody would say they had a deep roster. There were a lot of mediocre and bad players in their rotation. However they were still often the best or second best team in the conference. Do you understand how the rest of the world is using this term now?

[The Oracle]

The Western Conference has played 29 more home games than has the Eastern Conference.

The 6 teams with a winning record in the West have played a combined 29 more home games than road.

The 9 teams with a winning record in the East have played a combined 20 fewer home games than on the road.  In addition the Celtics at .500 have played 6 extra road games.

The fact that the Eastern Conference is around .500 against the West given the drastic disparity in home vs. road games suggests that the East so far this season has faired extremely well.

[celticsclay]

The Western Conference has played 29 more home games than has the Eastern Conference.

The 6 teams with a winning record in the West have played a combined 29 more home games than road.

The 9 teams with a winning record in the East have played a combined 20 fewer home games than on the road.  In addition the Celtics at .500 have played 6 extra road games.

The fact that the Eastern Conference is around .500 against the West given the drastic disparity in home vs. road games suggests that the East so far this season has faired extremely well.

Good data here oracle. Thanks. Tp

[Moranis]

As it sits today, the West now has 3 more wins than the East in the head to head.  So why does it look like the East has more better teams, I would hypothesize it is because the top 3 teams in the West are 10 wins better than the top 3 teams in the East.  If you were to redistribute those wins in the middle or bottom of the conference, the standings would look a lot different.

It can also be looked at that the reason the top three teams in the West have such better records is that they are playing inferior teams than those that are in the East. So, the East is actually deeper.

Maybe that argument would have worked early in the year when the East had a big lead in the head to head, but the West now has the head to head advantage 25% of the way through the season.  I mean does head to head only work when the East is leading or is not still the biggest indicator of conference strength?  So if head to head is still the most important thing and the West is winning the head to head, the West must be the better conference.  And thus because the West is the better conference, the fact that their 3 top teams are so much better than the 3 top teams in the East has to be accounted for, especially when the two worst teams (by 5.5 wins) are in the East.

you are really just bordering on straight up trolling at this point. The East is an overturned buzzer beater last night and and the Celtics hitting an extra shot away from the East still winning. I also noticed you didn’t say anything when the Spurs beat the Knicks and the nets beat the mavs the night before. I have tried to give you reasonable debates on this and you don’t respond to the points or say what your opinion is. I get you are upset 90% or forum disagreed with you, but lets try and have a reasonable dialogue and not go the larbrd path here.

The conferences have played about the same on the season, but the East had a huge lead and the West has been winning week after week for well over a month.  Last night there were 4 interconference match-ups and the West won all 4 of them.  A 4-0 day is a pretty big swing, which makes it different from the day before there were 3 with the East going 2-1.  Today there is 1, Utah at Philly and despite being on the road the Jazz are favored by 3. 

If the West has the slight edge in the head to head, AND has the teams with the 3 best records, AND the teams with the 2 worst records are in the East, I don't see how anyone can't reach the conclusion that the West is currently the better conference.  They've won the head to head after all and have their records deflated by playing more games against the 3 best teams in the sport and don't get their records inflated by playing more games against the 2 worst teams in the sport.

Have you literally come up with so many different arguments you forgot what we are actually discussing. It’s right in the poll. Which conference is the deepest. I think you fundamentally don’t understand this term based on the points you keep making (it is not which conference has best or worst team).

The deepest conference is the better conference.  The one that if you normalized the top and bottom of each conference would end up with teams with better records further down the list.  10 wins from the top 3 and 5.5 wins from the bottom 2, is a lot of wins to disperse among the other 11 teams in the west (and I recognize some would go east, but the vast majority would stay west).  The top and the bottom absolutely matter to the perceived depth of the conference, because the top and the bottom affect the records of the middle. 

The west has won more games in the head to head.  The west has more of the better players in the sport.  The west has the best teams while the east has the worst teams.  That all matters when you analyze the depth of the conference. 

There are a lot of very mediocre teams right now.  Even the Nets are only 7-7 against teams .500 and above and are 10-1 against teams below .500.  There are only 4 teams in the sport more than 2 games better against the .500 or better teams (GS, PHO, Utah, and Chicago).

No Moranis. Deeper does not equal better. It can be deeper and better but they are different words with different meanings. If you are just going to start changing the meanings of words to suit your argument we are done here. Deep is derived from depth. This is basic English definitional stuff.

Even though I suspect there is a lot of willful ignorance and petulance going on here, I’ll give you one final example. When the early cavs teams had Lebron james and the second and third best players were players like mo Williams and ilguaskas nobody would say they had a deep roster. There were a lot of mediocre and bad players in their rotation. However they were still often the best or second best team in the conference. Do you understand how the rest of the world is using this term now?

Deep in the world of sports implies good though.  A bunch of mediocrity does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams makes a conference deep.  You're right the Cavs roster Lebron's 1st stint was never deep and no one would claim it was, but Lebron was the best player in the world (or at least arguably at that time), which made the Cavs a good, borderline great, team. 

The East has a lot of mediocrity, that isn't depth, unless you want to call it depth of mediocrity. 

[Moranis]

The Western Conference has played 29 more home games than has the Eastern Conference.

The 6 teams with a winning record in the West have played a combined 29 more home games than road.

The 9 teams with a winning record in the East have played a combined 20 fewer home games than on the road.  In addition the Celtics at .500 have played 6 extra road games.

The fact that the Eastern Conference is around .500 against the West given the drastic disparity in home vs. road games suggests that the East so far this season has faired extremely well.

Now that is relevant to the discussion.  The home disparity definitely could skew those numbers, though surprisingly the East has quite a few teams playing better on the road than at home (Nets, Sixers, Cavs, Knicks, Raptors - Pistons have an identical record) only the Jazz, Kings, and Pelicans out West have been better on the road (and the Jazz and Pelicans are very slightly better).  Be interesting to see how that looks as the year goes on.

[celticsclay]

Interesting stats based read: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/264966/No-Longer-The-Leastern-Conference

[Moranis]

Interesting stats based read: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/264966/No-Longer-The-Leastern-Conference

Very hyperbolic.  I mean in 15-16, the East had a 42-40 team miss the playoffs while that same record was the 6th and 7th seeded teams in the West.  The 10th place team that year in the East was 41-41, which was the same record as the 8th place team in the West.  Of course that was the 73 win Warriors season and the Spurs weren't far behind at 67 wins.  And the 10 win Sixers were in the East, so perhaps something similar to this year where the really good teams at the top deflated some of the middle and the really bad team in the other conference inflated the wins some in the middle as well.

[celticsclay]

Interesting stats based read: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/264966/No-Longer-The-Leastern-Conference

Very hyperbolic.  I mean in 15-16, the East had a 42-40 team miss the playoffs while that same record was the 6th and 7th seeded teams in the West.  The 10th place team that year in the East was 41-41, which was the same record as the 8th place team in the West.  Of course that was the 73 win Warriors season and the Spurs weren't far behind at 67 wins.  And the 10 win Sixers were in the East, so perhaps something similar to this year where the really good teams at the top deflated some of the middle and the really bad team in the other conference inflated the wins some in the middle as well.

So you didn’t really answer this before. You think all these National
NBA analysts, 90% of the forum, Steve nash and most
Advanced statistics are all wrong? You are the one person that “gets it.” I’m realizing some of your stuff is parody, so I got to give you credit for that.

[Moranis]

Interesting stats based read: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/264966/No-Longer-The-Leastern-Conference

Very hyperbolic.  I mean in 15-16, the East had a 42-40 team miss the playoffs while that same record was the 6th and 7th seeded teams in the West.  The 10th place team that year in the East was 41-41, which was the same record as the 8th place team in the West.  Of course that was the 73 win Warriors season and the Spurs weren't far behind at 67 wins.  And the 10 win Sixers were in the East, so perhaps something similar to this year where the really good teams at the top deflated some of the middle and the really bad team in the other conference inflated the wins some in the middle as well.

So you didn’t really answer this before. You think all these National
NBA analysts, 90% of the forum, Steve nash and most
Advanced statistics are all wrong? You are the one person that “gets it.” I’m realizing some of your stuff is parody, so I got to give you credit for that.

The West has won more head to head, how is that possible if the East is the deeper conference?

I mean this was you a month ago

Also while it is early 26 games is actually a significant portion of the East versus west matchups for the year. It would seem
Unlikely the west will finish above .500 against the East this year and that is really the only objective standard we can use.

and this

It’s such a “weird” position to think the conference with a significant winning record is better. Lol. You crack me up man.

So taking your own argument because the West has a better record right now.  The West is therefore better right now.  And if you are better it is hard to see how you aren't deeper.

[celticsclay]

Interesting stats based read: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/264966/No-Longer-The-Leastern-Conference

Very hyperbolic.  I mean in 15-16, the East had a 42-40 team miss the playoffs while that same record was the 6th and 7th seeded teams in the West.  The 10th place team that year in the East was 41-41, which was the same record as the 8th place team in the West.  Of course that was the 73 win Warriors season and the Spurs weren't far behind at 67 wins.  And the 10 win Sixers were in the East, so perhaps something similar to this year where the really good teams at the top deflated some of the middle and the really bad team in the other conference inflated the wins some in the middle as well.

So you didn’t really answer this before. You think all these National
NBA analysts, 90% of the forum, Steve nash and most
Advanced statistics are all wrong? You are the one person that “gets it.” I’m realizing some of your stuff is parody, so I got to give you credit for that.

The West has won more head to head, how is that possible if the East is the deeper conference?

I mean this was you a month ago

Also while it is early 26 games is actually a significant portion of the East versus west matchups for the year. It would seem
Unlikely the west will finish above .500 against the East this year and that is really the only objective standard we can use.

and this

It’s such a “weird” position to think the conference with a significant winning record is better. Lol. You crack me up man.

So taking your own argument because the West has a better record right now.  The West is therefore better right now.  And if you are better it is hard to see how you aren't deeper.

Yes I still think it was funny you called my position weird. It’s a position held by just about every one that covers the sport. I do still think head to head is a good metric and I do still think the East will be ahead in this by the end of season as they have less tanking teams (and as oracle noted have had a very substantial less amount of home games). Unlike you I will hold myself accountable in that if I am wrong. Unlike you I try to be consistent in my discussion. You have waffled from your arbitrary interconference matchups where you picked the winner (thankful you never brought that up again after you got laughed off the thread), to the two worst teams being in the east, to the top team teams in the west lowering the other teams records. I have answered your question so please answer mine in good faith. Why do you think all of these nba analysts, nba coaches, 90% of the forum and advanced statistics favor the East being deeper. Is it a conspiracy? Voter fraud? We are all idiots?

And please man, just respond to that question without any other nonsense because I have given you sincere responses and I think it is fair to ask someone to explain why they are in a 10% viewpoint on a forum. (This is a very unusual ratio on this forum).

[Kernewek]

Interesting stats based read: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/264966/No-Longer-The-Leastern-Conference

I'm not seeing a lot of stats here, but the author gets points for " their rankings are in a mess, with many of their long-contending franchises gnarly purgatorial crossroads with no visible escape."

[Moranis]

Interesting stats based read: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/264966/No-Longer-The-Leastern-Conference

Very hyperbolic.  I mean in 15-16, the East had a 42-40 team miss the playoffs while that same record was the 6th and 7th seeded teams in the West.  The 10th place team that year in the East was 41-41, which was the same record as the 8th place team in the West.  Of course that was the 73 win Warriors season and the Spurs weren't far behind at 67 wins.  And the 10 win Sixers were in the East, so perhaps something similar to this year where the really good teams at the top deflated some of the middle and the really bad team in the other conference inflated the wins some in the middle as well.

So you didn’t really answer this before. You think all these National
NBA analysts, 90% of the forum, Steve nash and most
Advanced statistics are all wrong? You are the one person that “gets it.” I’m realizing some of your stuff is parody, so I got to give you credit for that.

The West has won more head to head, how is that possible if the East is the deeper conference?

I mean this was you a month ago

Also while it is early 26 games is actually a significant portion of the East versus west matchups for the year. It would seem
Unlikely the west will finish above .500 against the East this year and that is really the only objective standard we can use.

and this

It’s such a “weird” position to think the conference with a significant winning record is better. Lol. You crack me up man.

So taking your own argument because the West has a better record right now.  The West is therefore better right now.  And if you are better it is hard to see how you aren't deeper.

Yes I still think it was funny you called my position weird. It’s a position held by just about every one that covers the sport. I do still think head to head is a good metric and I do still think the East will be ahead in this by the end of season as they have less tanking teams (and as oracle noted have had a very substantial less amount of home games). Unlike you I will hold myself accountable in that if I am wrong. Unlike you I try to be consistent in my discussion. You have waffled from your arbitrary interconference matchups where you picked the winner (thankful you never brought that up again after you got laughed off the thread), to the two worst teams being in the east, to the top team teams in the west lowering the other teams records. I have answered your question so please answer mine in good faith. Why do you think all of these nba analysts, nba coaches, 90% of the forum and advanced statistics favor the East being deeper. Is it a conspiracy? Voter fraud? We are all idiots?

And please man, just respond to that question without any other nonsense because I have given you sincere responses and I think it is fair to ask someone to explain why they are in a 10% viewpoint on a forum. (This is a very unusual ratio on this forum).

I've been absolutely consistent.  The West has more good teams and is therefore the better and deeper conference.  That has been my argument the entire team.  I have never waffled on that or been inconsistent in any manner.   The West has more teams reasonably capable of winning at least 1 playoff series.  The West has more teams reasonably capable of reaching and winning the finals.  The West has more of the better players in the sport (according to ESPN 9 of the top 15 players are in the west and they didn't have Kawhi ranked at all so he isn't one of them - which correlates to 9 of the 15 reigning all league players being in the west - though that does include Kawhi but also Irving). 

Just because the East is better than it has been and has more mediocrity, does not make it deep.  Mediocrity is not depth.  Maybe the crap doesn't smell quite as bad as their counterparts in the west, but crap is still crap, and crap does not make a conference deep.

Reporters have their biases and want to sell stories and narratives.  It is an easy story to tell, look at the records, the East is deep this year, but if you actually look behind the numbers they are just hollow.  The West is still the better and deeper conference, because the West has more good teams and good teams, not mediocre ones, is what makes a conference deep.  I mean 9 of the 14 ACC football teams were at least .500 in the conference, while only 7 of the Big 10's 14 or 8 of the SEC's 14 were .500 or better in conference.  The ACC is not a deeper conference than the Big 10 or SEC though because the ACC is filled with garbage while the SEC and Big 10 were not.