The Knicks Are Still Terrible

[Moranis]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

[Csfan1984]

I can see a little debate on if the East is deep.

In my view if you are talking contenders for the finals, no it isn't deep. If you are talking teams that can make the playoffs, yes it is deep.

So depending on your expectations I could see how the idea of deep changes.

[Hoopvortex]

Thibs teams have a tendency to overachieve during the regular season. These Knicks will probably do that too.

I don’t think that I know what ’overachieve’ means, though I’m sure that I don’t want to head down a rabbithole trying to get a definition. Just sayin.

If you mean that his teams sacrifice playoff readiness for regular season wins, I think that you’ve got a point.

Giving your starters plenty of rest leaves them fresher for the ‘real’ season, of course, but there’s a complementary benefit: more of the bench gets court time so they’ve got more to contribute later on, especially if younger players are getting developmental minutes.

And, this has to be better for team morale, resilience to deal with injuries to key guys, execution reps, and probably other things as well. Coach Udoka, take note!

[mobilija]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

[Moranis]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

I don't even think the West drops off in the dregs except for maybe Houston as the worst team in the sport, but it isn't like Detroit, Orlando, and Cleveland aren't super bad teams.  Certainly in the same class of crappiness as Houston and maybe Oklahoma City.  The Wolves and Kings though should be better than those 5 teams.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a team like Washington in the same general range as the Wolves and Kings though. 

The East is not deep just because 3-10 are of the same general quality (and I know that it won't play out like that as the 3rd seed will probably have around 50 wins and the 10th seed will have around 35).

[celticsclay]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

I don't even think the West drops off in the dregs except for maybe Houston as the worst team in the sport, but it isn't like Detroit, Orlando, and Cleveland aren't super bad teams.  Certainly in the same class of crappiness as Houston and maybe Oklahoma City.  The Wolves and Kings though should be better than those 5 teams.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a team like Washington in the same general range as the Wolves and Kings though. 

The East is not deep just because 3-10 are of the same general quality (and I know that it won't play out like that as the 3rd seed will probably have around 50 wins and the 10th seed will have around 35).

You neglected to mention the Spurs who could be the worst team I. The league. OKC and Houston are aggressively trying to lose. Rockets expected to get rid of wall and Gordon. Could have 3 20 wins in the west. Orlando is really hard to make sense of, they could definitely be terrible. But that is probably a max of 2 horrible teams (kind of surprised you are now thinking Cleveland will be at the level of spurs, rockets and OKC, they are in year 4 of their rebuild and have Sexton, garland, Allen etc. if they are still a 20 win team the rebuild had been an absolute disaster which you don’t seem to believe based on your previous comments. I mean you are on the wrong side of it, but nobody has ever accused of not digging into a bad a take further.

[mobilija]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

I don't even think the West drops off in the dregs except for maybe Houston as the worst team in the sport, but it isn't like Detroit, Orlando, and Cleveland aren't super bad teams.  Certainly in the same class of crappiness as Houston and maybe Oklahoma City.  The Wolves and Kings though should be better than those 5 teams.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a team like Washington in the same general range as the Wolves and Kings though. 

The East is not deep just because 3-10 are of the same general quality (and I know that it won't play out like that as the 3rd seed will probably have around 50 wins and the 10th seed will have around 35).

Bwahahaha, Dude you are toooo much!

Even when someone agrees with you, you have to disagree....madnesss.

[Moranis]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

I don't even think the West drops off in the dregs except for maybe Houston as the worst team in the sport, but it isn't like Detroit, Orlando, and Cleveland aren't super bad teams.  Certainly in the same class of crappiness as Houston and maybe Oklahoma City.  The Wolves and Kings though should be better than those 5 teams.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a team like Washington in the same general range as the Wolves and Kings though. 

The East is not deep just because 3-10 are of the same general quality (and I know that it won't play out like that as the 3rd seed will probably have around 50 wins and the 10th seed will have around 35).

You neglected to mention the Spurs who could be the worst team I. The league. OKC and Houston are aggressively trying to lose. Rockets expected to get rid of wall and Gordon. Could have 3 20 wins in the west. Orlando is really hard to make sense of, they could definitely be terrible. But that is probably a max of 2 horrible teams (kind of surprised you are now thinking Cleveland will be at the level of spurs, rockets and OKC, they are in year 4 of their rebuild and have Sexton, garland, Allen etc. if they are still a 20 win team the rebuild had been an absolute disaster which you don’t seem to believe based on your previous comments. I mean you are on the wrong side of it, but nobody has ever accused of not digging into a bad a take further.

Cleveland is a bad team unless Mobley is really really good right away.  I mean they were 22-50 last year (25 win pace).  Even moderate improvement they aren't going to be good. 

I don't think San Antonio is going to be any worse than they were last year.  I just don't think DeRozan moves the needle much and think Young, Dougy Fresh, and Aminu are more than capable of keeping them decent.  Plus, I expect Keldon Johnson to take a big leap up.  I expect them to be a mid-30's type win team again.

Houston is obviously trying to lose, I'm not so sure OKC is.  They have so many picks from other teams, they don't need to tank.  That doesn't mean they are going to be good, they aren't, I just don't think they are tanking (they could also be the worst team in the league just from a talent/roster standpoint).  I'd put them in the Detroit category.  Just a bad team with a young mostly bad roster.  And I know you love your over/under win totals, most sites I've seen have the Magic with the lowest total.  OKC is generally 2nd.   Followed by Detroit then Houston and Cleveland.  Obviously different sites have different odds, but that seems to be fairly consistent.  So 3 of the 5 worst teams are in the East.

You keep talking about objective standards, but then ignore things from gambling sites, national sports sites, etc.  The simple reality is, the West is a MUCH deeper conference with far more good to great teams and more mediocre teams in the middle.

[celticsclay]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

I don't even think the West drops off in the dregs except for maybe Houston as the worst team in the sport, but it isn't like Detroit, Orlando, and Cleveland aren't super bad teams.  Certainly in the same class of crappiness as Houston and maybe Oklahoma City.  The Wolves and Kings though should be better than those 5 teams.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a team like Washington in the same general range as the Wolves and Kings though. 

The East is not deep just because 3-10 are of the same general quality (and I know that it won't play out like that as the 3rd seed will probably have around 50 wins and the 10th seed will have around 35).

You neglected to mention the Spurs who could be the worst team I. The league. OKC and Houston are aggressively trying to lose. Rockets expected to get rid of wall and Gordon. Could have 3 20 wins in the west. Orlando is really hard to make sense of, they could definitely be terrible. But that is probably a max of 2 horrible teams (kind of surprised you are now thinking Cleveland will be at the level of spurs, rockets and OKC, they are in year 4 of their rebuild and have Sexton, garland, Allen etc. if they are still a 20 win team the rebuild had been an absolute disaster which you don’t seem to believe based on your previous comments. I mean you are on the wrong side of it, but nobody has ever accused of not digging into a bad a take further.

Cleveland is a bad team unless Mobley is really really good right away.  I mean they were 22-50 last year (25 win pace).  Even moderate improvement they aren't going to be good. 

I don't think San Antonio is going to be any worse than they were last year.  I just don't think DeRozan moves the needle much and think Young, Dougy Fresh, and Aminu are more than capable of keeping them decent.  Plus, I expect Keldon Johnson to take a big leap up.  I expect them to be a mid-30's type win team again.

Houston is obviously trying to lose, I'm not so sure OKC is.  They have so many picks from other teams, they don't need to tank.  That doesn't mean they are going to be good, they aren't, I just don't think they are tanking (they could also be the worst team in the league just from a talent/roster standpoint).  I'd put them in the Detroit category.  Just a bad team with a young mostly bad roster.  And I know you love your over/under win totals, most sites I've seen have the Magic with the lowest total.  OKC is generally 2nd.   Followed by Detroit then Houston and Cleveland.  Obviously different sites have different odds, but that seems to be fairly consistent.  So 3 of the 5 worst teams are in the East.

You keep talking about objective standards, but then ignore things from gambling sites, national sports sites, etc.  The simple reality is, the West is a MUCH deeper conference with far more good to great teams and more mediocre teams in the middle.

Mo as we have established over the last decade on this site repeatedly I’m actually a semi professional gambler for the last decade that has made a significant profit 9 of the last ten years. So, as has happened in the last you want to start talking out of your toosh about betting odds with me you are gonna embarrass yourself again. The whole reason for this conversation was based on the preseason win totals (which you flippantly bashed 5 days ago in another thread, you want me to pull the receipt on that?). By Vegas standards this the deepest the East has been. Even teams like Toronto and Washington are around 35 wins. If you have every team in your conference except three expected to get more than 34 wins that is pretty deep. OKC, San Antonio and Houston are all under 27 wins.

[celticsclay]

Ah yes, the good old over/under preseason futures.  Because those are always accurate.

Great job

[Moranis]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

I don't even think the West drops off in the dregs except for maybe Houston as the worst team in the sport, but it isn't like Detroit, Orlando, and Cleveland aren't super bad teams.  Certainly in the same class of crappiness as Houston and maybe Oklahoma City.  The Wolves and Kings though should be better than those 5 teams.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a team like Washington in the same general range as the Wolves and Kings though. 

The East is not deep just because 3-10 are of the same general quality (and I know that it won't play out like that as the 3rd seed will probably have around 50 wins and the 10th seed will have around 35).

You neglected to mention the Spurs who could be the worst team I. The league. OKC and Houston are aggressively trying to lose. Rockets expected to get rid of wall and Gordon. Could have 3 20 wins in the west. Orlando is really hard to make sense of, they could definitely be terrible. But that is probably a max of 2 horrible teams (kind of surprised you are now thinking Cleveland will be at the level of spurs, rockets and OKC, they are in year 4 of their rebuild and have Sexton, garland, Allen etc. if they are still a 20 win team the rebuild had been an absolute disaster which you don’t seem to believe based on your previous comments. I mean you are on the wrong side of it, but nobody has ever accused of not digging into a bad a take further.

Cleveland is a bad team unless Mobley is really really good right away.  I mean they were 22-50 last year (25 win pace).  Even moderate improvement they aren't going to be good. 

I don't think San Antonio is going to be any worse than they were last year.  I just don't think DeRozan moves the needle much and think Young, Dougy Fresh, and Aminu are more than capable of keeping them decent.  Plus, I expect Keldon Johnson to take a big leap up.  I expect them to be a mid-30's type win team again.

Houston is obviously trying to lose, I'm not so sure OKC is.  They have so many picks from other teams, they don't need to tank.  That doesn't mean they are going to be good, they aren't, I just don't think they are tanking (they could also be the worst team in the league just from a talent/roster standpoint).  I'd put them in the Detroit category.  Just a bad team with a young mostly bad roster.  And I know you love your over/under win totals, most sites I've seen have the Magic with the lowest total.  OKC is generally 2nd.   Followed by Detroit then Houston and Cleveland.  Obviously different sites have different odds, but that seems to be fairly consistent.  So 3 of the 5 worst teams are in the East.

You keep talking about objective standards, but then ignore things from gambling sites, national sports sites, etc.  The simple reality is, the West is a MUCH deeper conference with far more good to great teams and more mediocre teams in the middle.

Mo as we have established over the last decade on this site repeatedly I’m actually a semi professional gambler for the last decade that has made a significant profit 9 of the last ten years. So, as has happened in the last you want to start talking out of your toosh about betting odds with me you are gonna embarrass yourself again. The whole reason for this conversation was based on the preseason win totals (which you flippantly bashed 5 days ago in another thread, you want me to pull the receipt on that?). By Vegas standards this the deepest the East has been. Even teams like Toronto and Washington are around 35 wins. If you have every team in your conference except three expected to get more than 34 wins that is pretty deep. OKC, San Antonio and Houston are all under 27 wins.

Isn't the West projected to have all but 3 teams of at least 34 wins also?  And the West has more projected wins again, correct?  So I'm confused, how does that make the East deep, when the West is better and deeper? 

https://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-season-win-totals-betting-odds 

So taking that site, the top two teams in the sport are in the East, but 6 of the next 8 are in the West.  Then 2 East and 2 more West.  Two of the bottom 3 are in the East, with a tie for 4th worst between Cleveland and Houston.  If your argument is that the mediocre crap near the bottom of the East is better than the mediocre crap that is near the bottom of the West (so like Charlotte and Toronto are better than Minnesota and Sacramento), and therefore in your mind that makes the conference deep, have it, I just think that is a ridiculous argument.  The East isn't deep and the East isn't even wide open.  There will be some competition among mediocre teams for the play-in.  But mediocrity does not equal depth, it just equals mediocrity.  You need actual good teams to have a deep conference and in that the East is fairly void of that.  The West is still the better deeper conference even though the two best teams in the sport are in the East.

[celticsclay]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

I don't even think the West drops off in the dregs except for maybe Houston as the worst team in the sport, but it isn't like Detroit, Orlando, and Cleveland aren't super bad teams.  Certainly in the same class of crappiness as Houston and maybe Oklahoma City.  The Wolves and Kings though should be better than those 5 teams.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a team like Washington in the same general range as the Wolves and Kings though. 

The East is not deep just because 3-10 are of the same general quality (and I know that it won't play out like that as the 3rd seed will probably have around 50 wins and the 10th seed will have around 35).

You neglected to mention the Spurs who could be the worst team I. The league. OKC and Houston are aggressively trying to lose. Rockets expected to get rid of wall and Gordon. Could have 3 20 wins in the west. Orlando is really hard to make sense of, they could definitely be terrible. But that is probably a max of 2 horrible teams (kind of surprised you are now thinking Cleveland will be at the level of spurs, rockets and OKC, they are in year 4 of their rebuild and have Sexton, garland, Allen etc. if they are still a 20 win team the rebuild had been an absolute disaster which you don’t seem to believe based on your previous comments. I mean you are on the wrong side of it, but nobody has ever accused of not digging into a bad a take further.

Cleveland is a bad team unless Mobley is really really good right away.  I mean they were 22-50 last year (25 win pace).  Even moderate improvement they aren't going to be good. 

I don't think San Antonio is going to be any worse than they were last year.  I just don't think DeRozan moves the needle much and think Young, Dougy Fresh, and Aminu are more than capable of keeping them decent.  Plus, I expect Keldon Johnson to take a big leap up.  I expect them to be a mid-30's type win team again.

Houston is obviously trying to lose, I'm not so sure OKC is.  They have so many picks from other teams, they don't need to tank.  That doesn't mean they are going to be good, they aren't, I just don't think they are tanking (they could also be the worst team in the league just from a talent/roster standpoint).  I'd put them in the Detroit category.  Just a bad team with a young mostly bad roster.  And I know you love your over/under win totals, most sites I've seen have the Magic with the lowest total.  OKC is generally 2nd.   Followed by Detroit then Houston and Cleveland.  Obviously different sites have different odds, but that seems to be fairly consistent.  So 3 of the 5 worst teams are in the East.

You keep talking about objective standards, but then ignore things from gambling sites, national sports sites, etc.  The simple reality is, the West is a MUCH deeper conference with far more good to great teams and more mediocre teams in the middle.

Mo as we have established over the last decade on this site repeatedly I’m actually a semi professional gambler for the last decade that has made a significant profit 9 of the last ten years. So, as has happened in the last you want to start talking out of your toosh about betting odds with me you are gonna embarrass yourself again. The whole reason for this conversation was based on the preseason win totals (which you flippantly bashed 5 days ago in another thread, you want me to pull the receipt on that?). By Vegas standards this the deepest the East has been. Even teams like Toronto and Washington are around 35 wins. If you have every team in your conference except three expected to get more than 34 wins that is pretty deep. OKC, San Antonio and Houston are all under 27 wins.

Isn't the West projected to have all but 3 teams of at least 34 wins also?  And the West has more projected wins again, correct?  So I'm confused, how does that make the East deep, when the West is better and deeper? 

https://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-season-win-totals-betting-odds 

So taking that site, the top two teams in the sport are in the East, but 6 of the next 8 are in the West.  Then 2 East and 2 more West.  Two of the bottom 3 are in the East, with a tie for 4th worst between Cleveland and Houston.  If your argument is that the mediocre crap near the bottom of the East is better than the mediocre crap that is near the bottom of the West (so like Charlotte and Toronto are better than Minnesota and Sacramento), and therefore in your mind that makes the conference deep, have it, I just think that is a ridiculous argument.  The East isn't deep and the East isn't even wide open.  There will be some competition among mediocre teams for the play-in.  But mediocrity does not equal depth, it just equals mediocrity.  You need actual good teams to have a deep conference and in that the East is fairly void of that.  The West is still the better deeper conference even though the two best teams in the sport are in the East.

Are you honestly just glossing over the fact that you dismissed preseason win projections as stupid the other day but are now using them as the basis of your argument? Do you have mirrors in your house? How do you do your nonsense with a straight face? I really don’t get it man.

Also, as mentioned I actually gamble professionally, so you trying to win this argument with a static site like oddshark is humorous.

Look the mods are gonna lock this soon, noticed you are not one anymore, so let’s just revisit this at the end of the season and you can save your bluster for whatever your next big random arguing point is.

[celticsclay]

Ah yes, the good old over/under preseason futures.  Because those are always accurate.

Great job

[Kernewek]

not that this has anything to do with the Knicks, but as I don't gamble with any intent on winning money, I find the idea of doing it at a scale that makes it professional (semi- or otherwise) fascinating.

[Moranis]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Of course that is what depth means.  The West has better teams throughout its conference than the East does.  I don't think that is a question, at least outside of the top 2.  I'd be pretty surprised if 3 through 15 of each conference went head to head if the West didn't have the better team in like 10+ of those matchups.  The West is a deep conference, the East is not.  A bunch of mediocre teams does not equal depth, that is not what people mean when they say something is deep.  They mean it has good quality throughout.  The East is a top heavy conference with very few good teams in it.   

Hey, I think were speaking the same language now! And guess what? Generally, I agree, hahahaha. The West prolly wins most head to head matchups, esp for the playoff teams, then theres some toss up teams, and then the East prolly wins more matchups of the dregs. The West quality drops off a bit quicker but its quality is better, so it all depends in whether you value quality over quantity. In basketball, quality rules the day.

Prolly more accurate to label the East as competitive rather than deep. TP to Csfan1984 as I think he hit the nail on the head.

I don't even think the West drops off in the dregs except for maybe Houston as the worst team in the sport, but it isn't like Detroit, Orlando, and Cleveland aren't super bad teams.  Certainly in the same class of crappiness as Houston and maybe Oklahoma City.  The Wolves and Kings though should be better than those 5 teams.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a team like Washington in the same general range as the Wolves and Kings though. 

The East is not deep just because 3-10 are of the same general quality (and I know that it won't play out like that as the 3rd seed will probably have around 50 wins and the 10th seed will have around 35).

You neglected to mention the Spurs who could be the worst team I. The league. OKC and Houston are aggressively trying to lose. Rockets expected to get rid of wall and Gordon. Could have 3 20 wins in the west. Orlando is really hard to make sense of, they could definitely be terrible. But that is probably a max of 2 horrible teams (kind of surprised you are now thinking Cleveland will be at the level of spurs, rockets and OKC, they are in year 4 of their rebuild and have Sexton, garland, Allen etc. if they are still a 20 win team the rebuild had been an absolute disaster which you don’t seem to believe based on your previous comments. I mean you are on the wrong side of it, but nobody has ever accused of not digging into a bad a take further.

Cleveland is a bad team unless Mobley is really really good right away.  I mean they were 22-50 last year (25 win pace).  Even moderate improvement they aren't going to be good. 

I don't think San Antonio is going to be any worse than they were last year.  I just don't think DeRozan moves the needle much and think Young, Dougy Fresh, and Aminu are more than capable of keeping them decent.  Plus, I expect Keldon Johnson to take a big leap up.  I expect them to be a mid-30's type win team again.

Houston is obviously trying to lose, I'm not so sure OKC is.  They have so many picks from other teams, they don't need to tank.  That doesn't mean they are going to be good, they aren't, I just don't think they are tanking (they could also be the worst team in the league just from a talent/roster standpoint).  I'd put them in the Detroit category.  Just a bad team with a young mostly bad roster.  And I know you love your over/under win totals, most sites I've seen have the Magic with the lowest total.  OKC is generally 2nd.   Followed by Detroit then Houston and Cleveland.  Obviously different sites have different odds, but that seems to be fairly consistent.  So 3 of the 5 worst teams are in the East.

You keep talking about objective standards, but then ignore things from gambling sites, national sports sites, etc.  The simple reality is, the West is a MUCH deeper conference with far more good to great teams and more mediocre teams in the middle.

Mo as we have established over the last decade on this site repeatedly I’m actually a semi professional gambler for the last decade that has made a significant profit 9 of the last ten years. So, as has happened in the last you want to start talking out of your toosh about betting odds with me you are gonna embarrass yourself again. The whole reason for this conversation was based on the preseason win totals (which you flippantly bashed 5 days ago in another thread, you want me to pull the receipt on that?). By Vegas standards this the deepest the East has been. Even teams like Toronto and Washington are around 35 wins. If you have every team in your conference except three expected to get more than 34 wins that is pretty deep. OKC, San Antonio and Houston are all under 27 wins.

Isn't the West projected to have all but 3 teams of at least 34 wins also?  And the West has more projected wins again, correct?  So I'm confused, how does that make the East deep, when the West is better and deeper? 

https://www.oddsshark.com/nba/nba-season-win-totals-betting-odds 

So taking that site, the top two teams in the sport are in the East, but 6 of the next 8 are in the West.  Then 2 East and 2 more West.  Two of the bottom 3 are in the East, with a tie for 4th worst between Cleveland and Houston.  If your argument is that the mediocre crap near the bottom of the East is better than the mediocre crap that is near the bottom of the West (so like Charlotte and Toronto are better than Minnesota and Sacramento), and therefore in your mind that makes the conference deep, have it, I just think that is a ridiculous argument.  The East isn't deep and the East isn't even wide open.  There will be some competition among mediocre teams for the play-in.  But mediocrity does not equal depth, it just equals mediocrity.  You need actual good teams to have a deep conference and in that the East is fairly void of that.  The West is still the better deeper conference even though the two best teams in the sport are in the East.

Are you honestly just glossing over the fact that you dismissed preseason win projections as stupid the other day but are now using them as the basis of your argument? Do you have mirrors in your house? How do you do your nonsense with a straight face? I really don’t get it man.

Also, as mentioned I actually gamble professionally, so you trying to win this argument with a static site like oddshark is humorous.

Look the mods are gonna lock this soon, noticed you are not one anymore, so let’s just revisit this at the end of the season and you can save your bluster for whatever your next big random arguing point is.

I think preseason odds are nonsense for this type of discussion.  They are geared to drive wagers equally on both sides.  You, however, use them all the time, so I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your argument by using the odds which do not support your argument.  And it makes no difference which site you use, the odds all yield the same conclusion i.e. the West is the better and deeper conference and more of the dregs are in the East.  And I'm sure when the season is over you will readily admit I was right because you do that all the time.  Oh wait you don't, you just bring up the handful of times I was wrong five years ago because you have nothing else.  Got it.