NBA Season 2021-22

[Moranis]

I have been feeling for a while that the top teams in the East are better than the top teams in the West.  Things can change with an injury and other factors but PHO now has a question with Booker hurt.  I wasn't that worried about them to start with.  They are good, well balanced but I don't see them as way better than the Celtics or anyone else.  I am more worried about MIL or even PHI and MIA.

As to GSW, yes, they have their guys back and they are playing well.  Poole is playing out of his mind, enough so that he is really changing the calculus, but it is against Denver.  Denver is depleted due to injury.  They have hung in through the regular season, good for them, but GSW beating them is not telling me anything about how good GSW may be.  I am not sure that GSW beats a healthy PHO but I will put them right there with PHO.

As to DAL, I believe in Doncic for sure but I am not sure about Brunson and Dinwiddie.  UTA is overrated (or was based on regular season record), not sure what is going on with Conley, but they just won a big game.  If Conley plays like he did in the regular season (41% 3pt vs 25% in playoffs so far), i think UTA can beat DAL.  I have DAL, UTA, MEM, and MIN all in the same range but a tier down from the top teams East or West.  Better than CHI or ATL but not MIL or PHI.

Oh absolutely, its become something of a running gag debating the conferences because the east was so much stronger. There are currently 4.5 teams being given a chance to win the title in the east and 2 in the west. As I said earlier in the thread Dallas is 35-1 to win the title for a reason.

You are also right that Utah is probably overrated. They really struggled the second half of the season and because of their defensive scheme and roster complexion they have struggled in the playoffs for years. Either team winning this series doesn't make them particularly scary.

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better. 

[celticsclay]

I have been feeling for a while that the top teams in the East are better than the top teams in the West.  Things can change with an injury and other factors but PHO now has a question with Booker hurt.  I wasn't that worried about them to start with.  They are good, well balanced but I don't see them as way better than the Celtics or anyone else.  I am more worried about MIL or even PHI and MIA.

As to GSW, yes, they have their guys back and they are playing well.  Poole is playing out of his mind, enough so that he is really changing the calculus, but it is against Denver.  Denver is depleted due to injury.  They have hung in through the regular season, good for them, but GSW beating them is not telling me anything about how good GSW may be.  I am not sure that GSW beats a healthy PHO but I will put them right there with PHO.

As to DAL, I believe in Doncic for sure but I am not sure about Brunson and Dinwiddie.  UTA is overrated (or was based on regular season record), not sure what is going on with Conley, but they just won a big game.  If Conley plays like he did in the regular season (41% 3pt vs 25% in playoffs so far), i think UTA can beat DAL.  I have DAL, UTA, MEM, and MIN all in the same range but a tier down from the top teams East or West.  Better than CHI or ATL but not MIL or PHI.

Oh absolutely, its become something of a running gag debating the conferences because the east was so much stronger. There are currently 4.5 teams being given a chance to win the title in the east and 2 in the west. As I said earlier in the thread Dallas is 35-1 to win the title for a reason.

You are also right that Utah is probably overrated. They really struggled the second half of the season and because of their defensive scheme and roster complexion they have struggled in the playoffs for years. Either team winning this series doesn't make them particularly scary.

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Hahaha come on. Booker is probably all nba first team. Middletown isn’t even in the conversation for making third team. You also literally talked about how great the suns were all season. Now you are flip flopping on that? You talked about that for literally 6 months.  I realized a long time ago you don’t actually believe the things you argue and just want to be disagreeable but this is egregious even by those standards.

[Vermont Green]

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Does this mean that the Pels are better than people think or that the Suns are not as good as people think?  You are choosing to interpret this in the manner that supports your perspective on this.

I think the only thing people are disagreeing on is the definition of "deeper" or "better".  The top 4 teams in the East may all be better than the top team in the West (who ever that is).  The "middle" 4 in the west, UTA, DEN, MIN. NOP, may all be better than CHI, TOR, and ATL but I am not so sure, but BKN is probably better than all of the west "middle" teams.  And even if they are, does that make the west deeper?

What these series are showing is that the top 4 in the east are farther ahead of the middle 4 in the east than the top 4 in the west are ahead of the middle 4 in the west.  So yes, the west series are more evenly matched.  But is this more about the good teams in the west not being as good as the good teams in the east or is it more about the middle teams in the west being better than some of the middle team in the east?

[Goldstar88]

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Does this mean that the Pels are better than people think or that the Suns are not as good as people think?  You are choosing to interpret this in the manner that supports your perspective on this.

I think the only thing people are disagreeing on is the definition of "deeper" or "better".  The top 4 teams in the East may all be better than the top team in the West (who ever that is).  The "middle" 4 in the west, UTA, DEN, MIN. NOP, may all be better than CHI, TOR, and ATL but I am not so sure, but BKN is probably better than all of the west "middle" teams.  And even if they are, does that make the west deeper?

What these series are showing is that the top 4 in the east are farther ahead of the middle 4 in the east than the top 4 in the west are ahead of the middle 4 in the west.  So yes, the west series are more evenly matched.  But is this more about the good teams in the west not being as good as the good teams in the east or is it more about the middle teams in the west being better than some of the middle team in the east?

The Pels are better than people think and the Suns are not as good as people think.

[celticsclay]

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Does this mean that the Pels are better than people think or that the Suns are not as good as people think?  You are choosing to interpret this in the manner that supports your perspective on this.

I think the only thing people are disagreeing on is the definition of "deeper" or "better".  The top 4 teams in the East may all be better than the top team in the West (who ever that is).  The "middle" 4 in the west, UTA, DEN, MIN. NOP, may all be better than CHI, TOR, and ATL but I am not so sure, but BKN is probably better than all of the west "middle" teams.  And even if they are, does that make the west deeper?

What these series are showing is that the top 4 in the east are farther ahead of the middle 4 in the east than the top 4 in the west are ahead of the middle 4 in the west.  So yes, the west series are more evenly matched.  But is this more about the good teams in the west not being as good as the good teams in the east or is it more about the middle teams in the west being better than some of the middle team in the east?

Very well said vg. Tp.

[celticsclay]

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Does this mean that the Pels are better than people think or that the Suns are not as good as people think?  You are choosing to interpret this in the manner that supports your perspective on this.

I think the only thing people are disagreeing on is the definition of "deeper" or "better".  The top 4 teams in the East may all be better than the top team in the West (who ever that is).  The "middle" 4 in the west, UTA, DEN, MIN. NOP, may all be better than CHI, TOR, and ATL but I am not so sure, but BKN is probably better than all of the west "middle" teams.  And even if they are, does that make the west deeper?

What these series are showing is that the top 4 in the east are farther ahead of the middle 4 in the east than the top 4 in the west are ahead of the middle 4 in the west.  So yes, the west series are more evenly matched.  But is this more about the good teams in the west not being as good as the good teams in the east or is it more about the middle teams in the west being better than some of the middle team in the east?

The Pels are better than people think and the Suns are not as good as people think.

The pelicans are ok. Even in their best stretch of the season after getting McCollum and the games Ingram played in they were about .500 with the overwelming majority of the wins coming against the absolutely brutal bottom of the west (kings, lakers, blazers, rockets). They would probably have a pretty competitive series with Atlanta if both teams were at full strength (not including Zion here cause he hasn’t played all season and is irrelevant). It’s also a bit silly to talk about these playoffs series being dog fights versus dominated when you are often talking about one play being the difference between 3-1 versus 2 and 2. If Toronto doesn’t brick two free throws at end of regulation in game 3 they go from being dominated to a dog fight? If Dallas doesn’t miss two free throws in the last minute of game 4 their series goes from domination to a dog fight? The only series that are really just domination the bucks bulls and nuggets warriors as they have featured 3 blowout wins. I would also understanding arguing we are dominating the nets because we are up 3-0 but if we are being honest the series should probably be 2-1 right now. (If we win tonight I will switch it to domination).

[Moranis]

I have been feeling for a while that the top teams in the East are better than the top teams in the West.  Things can change with an injury and other factors but PHO now has a question with Booker hurt.  I wasn't that worried about them to start with.  They are good, well balanced but I don't see them as way better than the Celtics or anyone else.  I am more worried about MIL or even PHI and MIA.

As to GSW, yes, they have their guys back and they are playing well.  Poole is playing out of his mind, enough so that he is really changing the calculus, but it is against Denver.  Denver is depleted due to injury.  They have hung in through the regular season, good for them, but GSW beating them is not telling me anything about how good GSW may be.  I am not sure that GSW beats a healthy PHO but I will put them right there with PHO.

As to DAL, I believe in Doncic for sure but I am not sure about Brunson and Dinwiddie.  UTA is overrated (or was based on regular season record), not sure what is going on with Conley, but they just won a big game.  If Conley plays like he did in the regular season (41% 3pt vs 25% in playoffs so far), i think UTA can beat DAL.  I have DAL, UTA, MEM, and MIN all in the same range but a tier down from the top teams East or West.  Better than CHI or ATL but not MIL or PHI.

Oh absolutely, its become something of a running gag debating the conferences because the east was so much stronger. There are currently 4.5 teams being given a chance to win the title in the east and 2 in the west. As I said earlier in the thread Dallas is 35-1 to win the title for a reason.

You are also right that Utah is probably overrated. They really struggled the second half of the season and because of their defensive scheme and roster complexion they have struggled in the playoffs for years. Either team winning this series doesn't make them particularly scary.

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Hahaha come on. Booker is probably all nba first team. Middletown isn’t even in the conversation for making third team. You also literally talked about how great the suns were all season. Now you are flip flopping on that? You talked about that for literally 6 months.  I realized a long time ago you don’t actually believe the things you argue and just want to be disagreeable but this is egregious even by those standards.

Great, as in, great record.  11 games better than the Heat.  I never thought the Suns were a super duper title contender though because they don't have a super duper player, and you by and large need one of those.  I've been pretty consistent on that all season long.  The Suns aren't quite the DeRozan Raptors as Paul and Booker are better than DeRozan and Lowry, but they are much closer to the DeRozan Raptors than they were the Kawhi Raptors.  Last year the Suns got very lucky with injuries to their opponents or there is a good chance they lose in the 1st round to the Lakers (they were after all down 2-1 in a close game 4 when Davis went out). 

Middleton this season averaged 20.1 p, 5.4 r, 5.4 a, playing + defense with a TS% of 57.7.  Booker has basically the same TS% (57.6), but as the #1 scoring option gets more shots thus the extra ppg at 26.8 p, 5.0 r, 4.8 a with below average defense.  I really don't think there is a whole lot of difference between Booker and Middleton as players, though do think Booker is a bit better.  Neither one is a guy good enough to be the best player on a title team without a great deal of luck or a super mega deep team.

[celticsclay]

I have been feeling for a while that the top teams in the East are better than the top teams in the West.  Things can change with an injury and other factors but PHO now has a question with Booker hurt.  I wasn't that worried about them to start with.  They are good, well balanced but I don't see them as way better than the Celtics or anyone else.  I am more worried about MIL or even PHI and MIA.

As to GSW, yes, they have their guys back and they are playing well.  Poole is playing out of his mind, enough so that he is really changing the calculus, but it is against Denver.  Denver is depleted due to injury.  They have hung in through the regular season, good for them, but GSW beating them is not telling me anything about how good GSW may be.  I am not sure that GSW beats a healthy PHO but I will put them right there with PHO.

As to DAL, I believe in Doncic for sure but I am not sure about Brunson and Dinwiddie.  UTA is overrated (or was based on regular season record), not sure what is going on with Conley, but they just won a big game.  If Conley plays like he did in the regular season (41% 3pt vs 25% in playoffs so far), i think UTA can beat DAL.  I have DAL, UTA, MEM, and MIN all in the same range but a tier down from the top teams East or West.  Better than CHI or ATL but not MIL or PHI.

Oh absolutely, its become something of a running gag debating the conferences because the east was so much stronger. There are currently 4.5 teams being given a chance to win the title in the east and 2 in the west. As I said earlier in the thread Dallas is 35-1 to win the title for a reason.

You are also right that Utah is probably overrated. They really struggled the second half of the season and because of their defensive scheme and roster complexion they have struggled in the playoffs for years. Either team winning this series doesn't make them particularly scary.

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Hahaha come on. Booker is probably all nba first team. Middletown isn’t even in the conversation for making third team. You also literally talked about how great the suns were all season. Now you are flip flopping on that? You talked about that for literally 6 months.  I realized a long time ago you don’t actually believe the things you argue and just want to be disagreeable but this is egregious even by those standards.

Great, as in, great record.  11 games better than the Heat.  I never thought the Suns were a super duper title contender though because they don't have a super duper player, and you by and large need one of those.  I've been pretty consistent on that all season long.  The Suns aren't quite the DeRozan Raptors as Paul and Booker are better than DeRozan and Lowry, but they are much closer to the DeRozan Raptors than they were the Kawhi Raptors.  Last year the Suns got very lucky with injuries to their opponents or there is a good chance they lose in the 1st round to the Lakers (they were after all down 2-1 in a close game 4 when Davis went out). 

Middleton this season averaged 20.1 p, 5.4 r, 5.4 a, playing + defense with a TS% of 57.7.  Booker has basically the same TS% (57.6), but as the #1 scoring option gets more shots thus the extra ppg at 26.8 p, 5.0 r, 4.8 a with below average defense.  I really don't think there is a whole lot of difference between Booker and Middleton as players, though do think Booker is a bit better.  Neither one is a guy good enough to be the best player on a title team without a great deal of luck or a super mega deep team.

Good grief. A bit better is first team all nba versus not even being In the discussion for being on the third team? You literally talk about how all nba teams are indicative of how great a player is (you used it to argue pierce was overrated just a few days ago). Stop constantly contradicting yourself and getting yourself in knots. Say what you actually believe and be consistent or it is not even worth responding to.

[Phantom255x]

I think I speak for most of this forum when I say...

Can we PLEASE have a Moranis vs. Celticsclay boxing match 

[Moranis]

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Does this mean that the Pels are better than people think or that the Suns are not as good as people think?  You are choosing to interpret this in the manner that supports your perspective on this.

I think the only thing people are disagreeing on is the definition of "deeper" or "better".  The top 4 teams in the East may all be better than the top team in the West (who ever that is).  The "middle" 4 in the west, UTA, DEN, MIN. NOP, may all be better than CHI, TOR, and ATL but I am not so sure, but BKN is probably better than all of the west "middle" teams.  And even if they are, does that make the west deeper?

What these series are showing is that the top 4 in the east are farther ahead of the middle 4 in the east than the top 4 in the west are ahead of the middle 4 in the west.  So yes, the west series are more evenly matched.  But is this more about the good teams in the west not being as good as the good teams in the east or is it more about the middle teams in the west being better than some of the middle team in the east?

I'm sure it is some of both on the Suns/Pelicans, but I've seen close hard fought series all playoffs in the West and blow-outs in the East.  And many of the blow-outs in the East involve teams with very similar records, which does in fact support the point I was making all year i.e. that because teams like Phoenix had such a great record, it deflated the record of the teams in the middle.  Despite this, each of the top 7 teams in the West had a better record than their Eastern counterparts.  That is a lot of wins that would have flowed down to teams like New Orleans (who is clearly different after the trade deadline), had the top evened out some (or conversely if Miami was 11 games better it would have taken a lot of wins from teams like the Hawks, Hornets, etc. to get there).

Milwaukee is the best team in the sport and has been all year.  Their record doesn't change that fact.  I believe the Boston/Milwaukee winner should and will be the heavy favorites to win the title because they look like the two best teams in the sport right now, but the next 4 or 5 best teams are in fact in the West as they've been all year.  The Sixers don't have enough depth, Miami is similar to Phoenix, but not as good (if Booker is healthy).  We see what the Nets look like when a team can load up on Durant and they have no one else reliable on the team.  The Warriors, Mavs, Grizzlies, etc. are all led by super duper players, something you need to really win and they all have solid players around them. 

[celticsclay]

I think I speak for most of this forum when I say...

Can we PLEASE have a Moranis vs. Celticsclay boxing match 

Lol yeah and then he can argue about how he technically won after being knocked out cause he had three more left jabs than me in the second round and historically left jabs are a strong predictor of outcome.

[Moranis]

I have been feeling for a while that the top teams in the East are better than the top teams in the West.  Things can change with an injury and other factors but PHO now has a question with Booker hurt.  I wasn't that worried about them to start with.  They are good, well balanced but I don't see them as way better than the Celtics or anyone else.  I am more worried about MIL or even PHI and MIA.

As to GSW, yes, they have their guys back and they are playing well.  Poole is playing out of his mind, enough so that he is really changing the calculus, but it is against Denver.  Denver is depleted due to injury.  They have hung in through the regular season, good for them, but GSW beating them is not telling me anything about how good GSW may be.  I am not sure that GSW beats a healthy PHO but I will put them right there with PHO.

As to DAL, I believe in Doncic for sure but I am not sure about Brunson and Dinwiddie.  UTA is overrated (or was based on regular season record), not sure what is going on with Conley, but they just won a big game.  If Conley plays like he did in the regular season (41% 3pt vs 25% in playoffs so far), i think UTA can beat DAL.  I have DAL, UTA, MEM, and MIN all in the same range but a tier down from the top teams East or West.  Better than CHI or ATL but not MIL or PHI.

Oh absolutely, its become something of a running gag debating the conferences because the east was so much stronger. There are currently 4.5 teams being given a chance to win the title in the east and 2 in the west. As I said earlier in the thread Dallas is 35-1 to win the title for a reason.

You are also right that Utah is probably overrated. They really struggled the second half of the season and because of their defensive scheme and roster complexion they have struggled in the playoffs for years. Either team winning this series doesn't make them particularly scary.

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Hahaha come on. Booker is probably all nba first team. Middletown isn’t even in the conversation for making third team. You also literally talked about how great the suns were all season. Now you are flip flopping on that? You talked about that for literally 6 months.  I realized a long time ago you don’t actually believe the things you argue and just want to be disagreeable but this is egregious even by those standards.

Great, as in, great record.  11 games better than the Heat.  I never thought the Suns were a super duper title contender though because they don't have a super duper player, and you by and large need one of those.  I've been pretty consistent on that all season long.  The Suns aren't quite the DeRozan Raptors as Paul and Booker are better than DeRozan and Lowry, but they are much closer to the DeRozan Raptors than they were the Kawhi Raptors.  Last year the Suns got very lucky with injuries to their opponents or there is a good chance they lose in the 1st round to the Lakers (they were after all down 2-1 in a close game 4 when Davis went out). 

Middleton this season averaged 20.1 p, 5.4 r, 5.4 a, playing + defense with a TS% of 57.7.  Booker has basically the same TS% (57.6), but as the #1 scoring option gets more shots thus the extra ppg at 26.8 p, 5.0 r, 4.8 a with below average defense.  I really don't think there is a whole lot of difference between Booker and Middleton as players, though do think Booker is a bit better.  Neither one is a guy good enough to be the best player on a title team without a great deal of luck or a super mega deep team.

Good grief. A bit better is first team all nba versus not even being In the discussion for being on the third team? You literally talk about how all nba teams are indicative of how great a player is (you used it to argue pierce was overrated just a few days ago). Stop constantly contradicting yourself and getting yourself in knots. Say what you actually believe and be consistent or it is not even worth responding to.

Booker is making his 1st All NBA Team this year.  Middleton has none.  They both have 3 all star appearances.  It isn't like this a comparison of Lebron to Love.  Before the year, ESPN had Booker at 15 and Middleton at 19.  Acting like there is a huge difference in their skill level seems a bit strange to me.  Booker had a better year, but he was the #1 option on the "best" team in the sport.  If my team had a true #1 option, I'd absolutely take Middleton as the 2nd piece over Booker, because Middleton is a much better defender, scores at a similar efficiency, doesn't need the ball in his hand as much, and thereby is a much better complimentary player.  We also saw what Middleton could do when Giannis went out in the ECF last year.  In the 2 games Giannis missed, Middleton went for 26/13/8 and 32/4/7 as the Bucks closed out the Hawks in 6.  So he not only can play the complimentary role, but also can be a lead scorer when required (he also outplayed Booker in the finals last year, though again they were close). 

Now if you want to argue that Booker is more important to Phoenix because he is the #1 scoring option, that is a fair argument.  As we've seen Chris Paul can't string together great games consecutively any more and guys like Ayton and Bridges aren't #1 scorers.  So it is absolutely fair to say the Suns need Booker more than the Bucks need Middleton just because of their roles, but their talent is absolutely at a similar level.

[Goldstar88]

I think I speak for most of this forum when I say...

Can we PLEASE have a Moranis vs. Celticsclay boxing match 

Hahaha. Seriously..

[celticsclay]

I have been feeling for a while that the top teams in the East are better than the top teams in the West.  Things can change with an injury and other factors but PHO now has a question with Booker hurt.  I wasn't that worried about them to start with.  They are good, well balanced but I don't see them as way better than the Celtics or anyone else.  I am more worried about MIL or even PHI and MIA.

As to GSW, yes, they have their guys back and they are playing well.  Poole is playing out of his mind, enough so that he is really changing the calculus, but it is against Denver.  Denver is depleted due to injury.  They have hung in through the regular season, good for them, but GSW beating them is not telling me anything about how good GSW may be.  I am not sure that GSW beats a healthy PHO but I will put them right there with PHO.

As to DAL, I believe in Doncic for sure but I am not sure about Brunson and Dinwiddie.  UTA is overrated (or was based on regular season record), not sure what is going on with Conley, but they just won a big game.  If Conley plays like he did in the regular season (41% 3pt vs 25% in playoffs so far), i think UTA can beat DAL.  I have DAL, UTA, MEM, and MIN all in the same range but a tier down from the top teams East or West.  Better than CHI or ATL but not MIL or PHI.

Oh absolutely, its become something of a running gag debating the conferences because the east was so much stronger. There are currently 4.5 teams being given a chance to win the title in the east and 2 in the west. As I said earlier in the thread Dallas is 35-1 to win the title for a reason.

You are also right that Utah is probably overrated. They really struggled the second half of the season and because of their defensive scheme and roster complexion they have struggled in the playoffs for years. Either team winning this series doesn't make them particularly scary.

And yet the East series are all being dominated by 1 team while 3 of the 4 series in the West are dog fights.  So maybe just maybe it really is as I said all season long i.e. the West has more good teams than the the East and thus is in fact the better deeper conference.  The allegedly awful Pelicans are all tied up with the Suns, and sure the Suns lost Booker, but if the Pelicans are really that bad, shouldn't that have still been a blowout for the Suns?  You know like the Bucks losing Middleton and still blowing the doors off the Bulls because the Bucks are just flat out better.

Hahaha come on. Booker is probably all nba first team. Middletown isn’t even in the conversation for making third team. You also literally talked about how great the suns were all season. Now you are flip flopping on that? You talked about that for literally 6 months.  I realized a long time ago you don’t actually believe the things you argue and just want to be disagreeable but this is egregious even by those standards.

Great, as in, great record.  11 games better than the Heat.  I never thought the Suns were a super duper title contender though because they don't have a super duper player, and you by and large need one of those.  I've been pretty consistent on that all season long.  The Suns aren't quite the DeRozan Raptors as Paul and Booker are better than DeRozan and Lowry, but they are much closer to the DeRozan Raptors than they were the Kawhi Raptors.  Last year the Suns got very lucky with injuries to their opponents or there is a good chance they lose in the 1st round to the Lakers (they were after all down 2-1 in a close game 4 when Davis went out). 

Middleton this season averaged 20.1 p, 5.4 r, 5.4 a, playing + defense with a TS% of 57.7.  Booker has basically the same TS% (57.6), but as the #1 scoring option gets more shots thus the extra ppg at 26.8 p, 5.0 r, 4.8 a with below average defense.  I really don't think there is a whole lot of difference between Booker and Middleton as players, though do think Booker is a bit better.  Neither one is a guy good enough to be the best player on a title team without a great deal of luck or a super mega deep team.

Good grief. A bit better is first team all nba versus not even being In the discussion for being on the third team? You literally talk about how all nba teams are indicative of how great a player is (you used it to argue pierce was overrated just a few days ago). Stop constantly contradicting yourself and getting yourself in knots. Say what you actually believe and be consistent or it is not even worth responding to.

Booker is making his 1st All NBA Team this year.  Middleton has none.  They both have 3 all star appearances.  It isn't like this a comparison of Lebron to Love.  Before the year, ESPN had Booker at 15 and Middleton at 19.  Acting like there is a huge difference in their skill level seems a bit strange to me.  Booker had a better year, but he was the #1 option on the "best" team in the sport.  If my team had a true #1 option, I'd absolutely take Middleton as the 2nd piece over Booker, because Middleton is a much better defender, scores at a similar efficiency, doesn't need the ball in his hand as much, and thereby is a much better complimentary player.  We also saw what Middleton could do when Giannis went out in the ECF last year.  In the 2 games Giannis missed, Middleton went for 26/13/8 and 32/4/7 as the Bucks closed out the Hawks in 6.  So he not only can play the complimentary role, but also can be a lead scorer when required (he also outplayed Booker in the finals last year, though again they were close). 

Now if you want to argue that Booker is more important to Phoenix because he is the #1 scoring option, that is a fair argument.  As we've seen Chris Paul can't string together great games consecutively any more and guys like Ayton and Bridges aren't #1 scorers.  So it is absolutely fair to say the Suns need Booker more than the Bucks need Middleton just because of their roles, but their talent is absolutely at a similar level.

This is so silly I’ll bite. Why in the world are you comparing the career accomplishments of a 30 year old in his 10th season to a 25 year old in his 7th? Barring injury the all star appearances are going to be 6-3 at the same seasons and all nba teams will be what 4-0? Are you being serious with this? Even funnier you bring in player rankings that have Chris Paul as the 13th best player in the nba. You really need to have a tiny bit of consistency in your arguments man.

[Kiorrik]

I quit watching the NBA for 5 years because of terrible reffing.

Today, this happened:

https://old.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/ubcxgk/the_mavericks_suns_and_grizzlies_all_had_a_chance/

Freethrows:
Jazz 42 - 23 Mavericks
Wolves 40 - 25 Grizzlies
Pelicans 42 - 15 Suns

Guess which teams had a chance to go up 3-1 in their series



Might hang it up again after this season. I hate biased reffing more than anything. Completely invalidates anything won.



.edit: lemme add in this for good measure. Look at where the referee is: https://twitter.com/protectedpick/status/1518428171334414336

What about the C’s game when they went up 3-0? Wouldn’t the league want to extend that series as much as possible since it’s by far the most intriguing matchup. Celtics were called for 19 fouls to the Nets 22.

So if I kill 3 out of the 4 people I hate, my defense will be "but he didn't kill the third?"

I mean come on.

Why are people always defending the league in this, and not more interested in these HUGE disparities, paired with the video footage of people getting slammed to the floor in front of refs with no fouls called.

There's both statistical evidence AND the eye test that prove it ...

Can't wait for that documentary to come out about the refs, on Netflix.