Quote from: bdm860 on Yesterday at 03:16:14 PM

Quote from: Moranis on Yesterday at 02:51:44 PM

Quote from: Vermont Green on Yesterday at 11:06:26 AM

Quote from: Moranis on Yesterday at 10:48:36 AM

Quote from: Donoghus on Yesterday at 10:36:44 AM

Quote from: Moranis on Yesterday at 10:26:50 AM

Quote from: johnnygreen on Yesterday at 10:00:55 AM

Quote from: Moranis on April 17, 2024, 11:13:57 PM

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams.

I think the bad teams part is way over blown.  Besides a few detractors, and some yet-to-materialize what-if scenarios, I think the play-in is considered a resounding success by the league, media, and the vast majority of teams and fans.

The play-in works because the threat of missing the playoffs has improved the regular season by keeping teams from mailing it in during the final weeks/months.  If Chicago/Atlanta were disqualified due to the gap in wins, the entire threat of missing the playoffs is eliminated, which is the only thing that makes it work.

In it's brief history, the play-in so far has accomplished the following:
Keeps the regular season competitive for longer for more teams.
Keeps the regular season interesting longer for more fans.
Makes it much harder to manipulate the standings for a favorable playoff match up.
Rewards teams 1-6 with a week off.
Has consistently pulled in high ratings every year.
The worst play-in team to ever make the playoffs (36-46 Pelicans in '22) were still able to take a 64-win team to a 6 game series.

It seems like the play-in has improved the entire product in multiple ways (more engagement, more revenue).

Where is the downside?  A hypothetical terrible first round match up?  Seems like an acceptable trade off.

When did I say they should get rid of the play-in? I said it should be modified to not allow bad teams.  If you are 7 games out of the 8th spot and well below .500, you shouldn't have a chance to make the playoffs.  That doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

2023 - no change, all 4 teams in
2022 - east no change, west pelicans 6 back of Clippers in, but Spurs 8 back are out (so 7th seeded Wolves not in play-in)

In that 2022 scenario, I'd make the Pelicans have to beat the Clippers twice in LA, while the Clippers only need 1 win

2021 - 4 teams in (Spurs just barely at 6 games back)
2020 - no play-in in east, 2 teams in out west
2019 - no play-in in west, 2 teams in east
2018 - 1 team in east, 2 teams in west
2017 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east
2016 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east

It is similar all the way through and most of the teams that were out, were close enough that they could have made it in had the result of the last game been different.  You still get interest, you still get more teams to care, but you ultimately end up with a better product in the actual playoffs.  That should be the goal.

Again, it's the threat to miss the playoffs that makes the whole thing work.  Modifying the play-in would eliminate that threat in several years/instances/scenarios.  This year in the East being a perfect example, even though seeding was up in the air till the end, I believe it was the threat to miss the playoffs that really motivated everyone to play hard till the end.  The benefit seems to far out weighs the hypothetical worst case scenarios.

The NBA's goal should be the entirety of their product (which this has helped).  Not protecting against a hypothetical playoff series that has yet to even happen.

Quote from: keevsnick on Yesterday at 02:24:16 PM

Quote from: Who on Yesterday at 01:40:14 PM

Miami Heat

With Jimmy = 33 wins 27 losses (45 win pace)
Without Jimmy = 13 wins 9 losses (48-49 win pace)

They have played well without Jimmy this year. We shouldn't write them off against Chicago.

Miami could of course beat Chicago, even without Jimmy I think you could argue they SHOULD beat Chicago. Becasue Chicago is also pretty banged up, and not very good.

The bigger deal is the C's will either face an injured Miami team or and injured Chicago team in the first round. What once looked like it could be a tough bracket has broken Boston's way.

Boston had the #1 rated offense in the ECF during the regular seaosn. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th ranked offenses in the East are now all on the other side of the bracket and #5 Atlanta is eliminated.

Boston's side of the bracket is far more defensively oriented. But I don't think a team stands a chance against Boston if they don't have a high powered offense.

You would hope so, but the eighth seed Heat team that we lost to last season was ranked 25th in terms of offensive rating, and they beat us three games in a row.

They already sold their soul once, they're not getting demonic help from 3 a second year in a row.

Quote from: Roy H. on Yesterday at 08:00:30 AM

Quote from: celticsclay on Yesterday at 12:18:23 AM

Quote from: ozgod on April 17, 2024, 11:13:37 PM

Quote from: Roy H. on April 17, 2024, 03:44:27 PM

Quote from: cons on April 17, 2024, 03:39:29 PM

yeah. good thing their billions are safe. i was really worried there for a second.

To me it's more about the integrity of the game.  If a player is going to take himself out of games to help gamblers win prop bets, then he's potentially affecting the outcome.  Sure, a two-way player usually won't see much run so the affect is probably small, but you need a rule to discourage anybody from crossing this line.  Fake injuries, point shaving, intentionally missing shots, throwing games...  they're all in the same realm.

I'm curious how the NBA will handle the inevitable case of NBA players betting on their own team (or worse, against their own team).

This was my thought too. The NBA will accept wife beaters, drink drivers and other players of social ill repute but it won't abide anything that calls the integrity of the games into question, like what Porter did here:

Quote

It alleged that he "disclosed confidential information" about his own health status to an individual he knew to be an NBA bettor" before a March 20 game.

Porter claimed to suffer from an illness during the game and played only three minutes, the league said.

An $80,000 online bet that he would underperform was placed ahead of the March 20 game, which would have paid out $1.1 million. The conspicuously large amount led to the wager's being "frozen" and "not paid out," the NBA said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jontay-porter-banned-nba-gambling-games-giving-info-bettors-limiting-p-rcna148227

Once people get the idea that gambling syndicates can get to players and get them to influence games, throw games, that's the end of the league's credibility as a competitive sport. And yes that counts for refs as well.

People are gonna think I’m crazy but the guy that places the bet should be able to sue and win. Draft kings and fan duel set lines based off injury information all the time before the average person has access to it. If you follow this stuff you can be like “oh man they only think Embid will score 27 tonight instead of 30 let’s bet that!.” Then an hour later it comes out he is on a minutes restriction or has a stomach bug. They gladly take all that money. This guy has the same advantage and they don’t pay him. Don’t get how that is legal.

If the only allegation was that Porter was sick and a bettor found out about it, I'd agree with you.  But, the implication at least is that Porter took himself out of the games intentionally to ensure the bets paid off.

It is a little different, but I think the sports books do have way to much leeway, plus they charge 10 to 15% on every bet to protect themselves against stuff. I view it kind of like how counting cards isn’t illegal and they can’t take your money away. Also, a more similar example is they have stuff like running back props and draft kings or fan duel have connected guys (shams works for fan duel). They tell draft kings that Ezekiel Elliot has been promoted to starter before anyone else and screw everyone on Stephenson rushing props (the running back that got promoted). Interestingly there is starting to be pushback in some places on the sports betting completely regulating themselves. In Massachusetts I believe they are demanding meetings with them for more information on how they limit winning players. It rubs people the wrong way they let people lose a million dollars and never bat an eye but if a guy wins 40k they only let him bet ten dollars at a time.

Sports betting has always been for chumps. The house always wins even if it's eventually. It also casts a shadow of corruption over the games.

Another thread hijacking.  SMH.

Quote from: Moranis on Yesterday at 02:51:44 PM

Quote from: Vermont Green on Yesterday at 11:06:26 AM

Quote from: Moranis on Yesterday at 10:48:36 AM

Quote from: Donoghus on Yesterday at 10:36:44 AM

Quote from: Moranis on Yesterday at 10:26:50 AM

Quote from: johnnygreen on Yesterday at 10:00:55 AM

Quote from: Moranis on April 17, 2024, 11:13:57 PM

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams.

I think the bad teams part is way over blown.  Besides a few detractors, and some yet-to-materialize what-if scenarios, I think the play-in is considered a resounding success by the league, media, and the vast majority of teams and fans.

The play-in works because the threat of missing the playoffs has improved the regular season by keeping teams from mailing it in during the final weeks/months.  If Chicago/Atlanta were disqualified due to the gap in wins, the entire threat of missing the playoffs is eliminated, which is the only thing that makes it work.

In it's brief history, the play-in so far has accomplished the following:
Keeps the regular season competitive for longer for more teams.
Keeps the regular season interesting longer for more fans.
Makes it much harder to manipulate the standings for a favorable playoff match up.
Rewards teams 1-6 with a week off.
Has consistently pulled in high ratings every year.
The worst play-in team to ever make the playoffs (36-46 Pelicans in '22) were still able to take a 64-win team to a 6 game series.

It seems like the play-in has improved the entire product in multiple ways (more engagement, more revenue).

Where is the downside?  A hypothetical terrible first round match up?  Seems like an acceptable trade off.

When did I say they should get rid of the play-in? I said it should be modified to not allow bad teams.  If you are 7 games out of the 8th spot and well below .500, you shouldn't have a chance to make the playoffs.  That doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

2023 - no change, all 4 teams in
2022 - east no change, west pelicans 6 back of Clippers in, but Spurs 8 back are out (so 7th seeded Wolves not in play-in)

In that 2022 scenario, I'd make the Pelicans have to beat the Clippers twice in LA, while the Clippers only need 1 win

2021 - 4 teams in (Spurs just barely at 6 games back)
2020 - no play-in in east, 2 teams in out west
2019 - no play-in in west, 2 teams in east
2018 - 1 team in east, 2 teams in west
2017 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east
2016 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east

It is similar all the way through and most of the teams that were out, were close enough that they could have made it in had the result of the last game been different.  You still get interest, you still get more teams to care, but you ultimately end up with a better product in the actual playoffs.  That should be the goal.