Poll: Which conference is deeper

[celticsclay]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season).  Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

You can do all sorts of nonsense like this Mo. But just about everyone that even tangentially covers the NBA has commented on the depth of the east, and how week the bottom 4 in are in the west. It is absolutely incredible that the Spurs are going to make the play in with their roster. Silly cherry picking aside (are you suggesting Derrick White was a cancer or that Josh Richardson came in changed the culture?). 5 of their last 6 wins (and the silly above .500 fact) comes from them beating an extremely aggressively tanking Portland, OKC and Houston teams. You can go back another month and it is more of the same with additional wins over Houston, New Orleans, the lakers and OKC. In fact they have beat a mind boggling one team that was over .500 at the time since January 28th. You sure you want to trot out that ridiculous stat that actually just shows how many truly horrible teams there are at the bottom of the west? Obviously someone has to win those games, and the spurs have not been trying to lose like Houston, OKC and Portland have.

I really don't know how you can keep this going with a straight face at this point. Like Nick said there are 7 solid teams in the West and 10 in the east. It really is that simple. Being a contrarian is fine and adds some spice to the board, but when you get to something as black and white as this (a clearly objectively deeper conference) you are basically getting to the point of arguing cars run on cotton candy instead of gasoline. 

[mobilija]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season).  Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

You've resorted to your IF and BUT lines of argument. You can make specific arguments for one team being better than another during any given snapshot of time but that's not how reality works. This should be an evaluation on the totality of the season.

Parity may not mean deeper but it doesn't exclude it either. Besides does just the East have parity or is there league wide parity?

The basis of all your arguments seem to hinge on the fact that Phoenix is just so good. Which again only suits your perverted definition of "depth". Strength at the top does not imply depth.

[celticsclay]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season).  Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

You've resorted to your IF and BUT lines of argument. You can make specific arguments for one team being better than another during any given snapshot of time but that's not how reality works. This should be an evaluation on the totality of the season.

Parity may not mean deeper but it doesn't exclude it either. Besides does just the East have parity or is there league wide parity?

The basis of all your arguments seem to hinge on the fact that Phoenix is just so good. Which again only suits your perverted definition of "depth". Strength at the top does not imply depth.

This line made me laugh. TP.

[sgrogan]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season). Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

If we want to cherry pick the Spurs.
They are 33-45 (42%)
They are 0-8 against the juggernauts of the west. So 33-37 (47%) without them. So maybe the dominant west is deflating their win totals?
They are 10-20 against the east (33%), Maybe the also rans in the west don't have deflated win totals due to the Suns/Grizz, maybe the Suns/Griz have inflated totals due to the lack of depth in the west.

[Moranis]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season).  Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

You've resorted to your IF and BUT lines of argument. You can make specific arguments for one team being better than another during any given snapshot of time but that's not how reality works. This should be an evaluation on the totality of the season.

Parity may not mean deeper but it doesn't exclude it either. Besides does just the East have parity or is there league wide parity?

The basis of all your arguments seem to hinge on the fact that Phoenix is just so good. Which again only suits your perverted definition of "depth". Strength at the top does not imply depth.

The West has more players likely to be All NBA.  The West leads the East in the head to head matchup.  The West has more teams with better odds to win the championship.  Across the board for the top 7 of the conferences the West's team has a better record than their Eastern counterpart, while the bottom has basically the same record.

Mediocrity is not depth.  Depth in sports has always implied a level of quality or you know actually being good.  The East definitely has slightly better mediocrity in the middle to bottom of the conference, but mediocrity is not depth. 

The trade deadline altered pretty significantly certain teams, it is absolutely relevant to capture how the teams currently look when evaluating their quality.  Which is why Paul George being healthy matters (or inversely the Cavs being far less healthy matters).  Why looking at how teams have played since major roster changes matters (i.e. the teams making moves).  That is also why Boston going on such an amazing run has altered the outlook of Boston as well.  The trade deadline and roster consolidation has made Boston a different team (out west Dallas has looked a lot different of late as well - though like Boston some of the turnaround was prior to the trade deadline).

[celticsclay]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season).  Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

You've resorted to your IF and BUT lines of argument. You can make specific arguments for one team being better than another during any given snapshot of time but that's not how reality works. This should be an evaluation on the totality of the season.

Parity may not mean deeper but it doesn't exclude it either. Besides does just the East have parity or is there league wide parity?

The basis of all your arguments seem to hinge on the fact that Phoenix is just so good. Which again only suits your perverted definition of "depth". Strength at the top does not imply depth.

The West has more players likely to be All NBA.  The West leads the East in the head to head matchup.  The West has more teams with better odds to win the championship.  Across the board for the top 7 of the conferences the West's team has a better record than their Eastern counterpart, while the bottom has basically the same record.

Mediocrity is not depth.  Depth in sports has always implied a level of quality or you know actually being good.  The East definitely has slightly better mediocrity in the middle to bottom of the conference, but mediocrity is not depth. 

The trade deadline altered pretty significantly certain teams, it is absolutely relevant to capture how the teams currently look when evaluating their quality.  Which is why Paul George being healthy matters (or inversely the Cavs being far less healthy matters).  Why looking at how teams have played since major roster changes matters (i.e. the teams making moves).  That is also why Boston going on such an amazing run has altered the outlook of Boston as well.  The trade deadline and roster consolidation has made Boston a different team (out west Dallas has looked a lot different of late as well - though like Boston some of the turnaround was prior to the trade deadline).

I honestly think you are one of the only people in America that would attempt this argument at this point. The West is having a very down year. I think only once in the past 5 years has the West had a sub .500 team in the 8th spot. Conversely, I don't even know the last time the east had 10 teams over .500 and teams with the talent of Brooklyn and Atlanta in playin spots.

You have tried like 18 ways to make this losing argument and it doesn't seem like anyone is buying that the West is a deeper conference. If you wanted to have a separate argument about "which conference will be more likely to have more all-nba players" or "what conference has the top 2 teams" those are completely different topics and maybe you could make a compelling case. The topic at hand, the east is clearly a significantly deeper conference and it is not even particularly close.

[celticsclay]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season). Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

If we want to cherry pick the Spurs.
They are 33-45 (42%)
They are 0-8 against the juggernauts of the west. So 33-37 (47%) without them. So maybe the dominant west is deflating their win totals?
They are 10-20 against the east (33%), Maybe the also rans in the west don't have deflated win totals due to the Suns/Grizz, maybe the Suns/Griz have inflated totals due to the lack of depth in the west.

Yeah if you look at who the Spurs have beaten to get into 10th place, it is entirely off the backs of the aggressively tanking teams out West. Here are there wins in February since when Mo thinks getting rid of the cancer of Derrick White magically propelled them to being an above .500 team.

Houston
Atlanta
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
Washington
Lakers
Utah
Oklahoma City
Golden State
Portland
New Orleans
Houston
Portland
Portland

That is two teams above .500 in two months (and a solid win against hawks) alongside a mind boggling 11 victories against teams currently 10 games or more under .500. They were literally one of the teams trying to lose the least as teams like Houston, OKC and Portland tanked very hard and have backed into the playin. They are an absolutely lousy team. It speaks to how many absolute horrible teams there are in the West that they were able to go over .500 for a stretch.

[sgrogan]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season).  Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

You've resorted to your IF and BUT lines of argument. You can make specific arguments for one team being better than another during any given snapshot of time but that's not how reality works. This should be an evaluation on the totality of the season.

Parity may not mean deeper but it doesn't exclude it either. Besides does just the East have parity or is there league wide parity?

The basis of all your arguments seem to hinge on the fact that Phoenix is just so good. Which again only suits your perverted definition of "depth". Strength at the top does not imply depth.

The West has more players likely to be All NBA.  The West leads the East in the head to head matchup.  The West has more teams with better odds to win the championship. 
, while the bottom has basically the same record.

Mediocrity is not depth.  Depth in sports has always implied a level of quality or you know actually being good.  The East definitely has slightly better mediocrity in the middle to bottom of the conference, but mediocrity is not depth. 

The trade deadline altered pretty significantly certain teams, it is absolutely relevant to capture how the teams currently look when evaluating their quality.  Which is why Paul George being healthy matters (or inversely the Cavs being far less healthy matters).  Why looking at how teams have played since major roster changes matters (i.e. the teams making moves).  That is also why Boston going on such an amazing run has altered the outlook of Boston as well.  The trade deadline and roster consolidation has made Boston a different team (out west Dallas has looked a lot different of late as well - though like Boston some of the turnaround was prior to the trade deadline).

The West has more players likely to be All NBA.
If you use MVP as a proxy The west has 7-12, 4-9
2021-22 NBA MVP ODDS

    Nikola Jokic (Denver) -300
    Joel Embiid (Philadelphia) +230
    Giannis Antetokounmpo (Milwaukee) +550
    Devin Booker (Phoenix) +7500
    Luka Doncic (Dallas) +8000
    Ja Morant (Memphis) +20000
    Kevin Durant (Brooklyn) +25000
    DeMar DeRozan (Chicago) +25000
    Jayson Tatum (Boston) +25000
    Steph Curry (Golden State) +30000
    Chris Paul (Phoenix) +30000
    LeBron James (L.A. Lakers) +50000

Odds Provided by DraftKings - Subject to Change - Updated: Mon., April 4, 2022- 2:54 p.m. ET

The West leads the East in the head to head matchup. 223 -220 with 7 to play.

The West has more teams with better odds to win the championship.
By what measure. You brought up 538, and that refutes your position.

Across the board for the top 7 of the conferences the West's team has a better record than their Eastern counterpart
True, the top 7 teams in the west are 129-77 (62%)  against the east
The top 7 eastern teams are only 121-85 (59%) against the west.
 
I'd be interested in the head to head amongst the top 7's.

[Moranis]

The defense of the West's depth is taking on Larbrd33 proportions of doggedness in the face of a lost argument.

East has 10 good teams. West has 7. East is deeper. It really is that simple.

The Pelicans are a .500 team since acquiring McCollum.  The Clippers are a well above .500 team with Paul George, who is now back and playing (they also are barely under .500 on the season).  Even the Spurs since trading White are 3 games over .500.  The Nets are under .500 since trading Harden (and were 7 games over .500 when Harden last played for them - so they've gone 11-16 since Harden last played for them).   The Hawks since trading Reddish have gone 9 games over .500 (so really good).  The Cavs have been a disaster the last month or so going just 7-12 (injuries have killed them but they aren't getting those injured players back either).   It isn't quite as easy as you are making it out to be.

And that still doesn't account for just how much better Phoenix has been (and Memphis to a lesser extent) nor that the top 7 all have a better record than their counterpart in the east.  That is a lot of victories to disperse to the other teams.  There is after all a reason the West has won more games in the head to head with the East i.e. they are better.

You've resorted to your IF and BUT lines of argument. You can make specific arguments for one team being better than another during any given snapshot of time but that's not how reality works. This should be an evaluation on the totality of the season.

Parity may not mean deeper but it doesn't exclude it either. Besides does just the East have parity or is there league wide parity?

The basis of all your arguments seem to hinge on the fact that Phoenix is just so good. Which again only suits your perverted definition of "depth". Strength at the top does not imply depth.

The West has more players likely to be All NBA.  The West leads the East in the head to head matchup.  The West has more teams with better odds to win the championship.  Across the board for the top 7 of the conferences the West's team has a better record than their Eastern counterpart, while the bottom has basically the same record.

Mediocrity is not depth.  Depth in sports has always implied a level of quality or you know actually being good.  The East definitely has slightly better mediocrity in the middle to bottom of the conference, but mediocrity is not depth. 

The trade deadline altered pretty significantly certain teams, it is absolutely relevant to capture how the teams currently look when evaluating their quality.  Which is why Paul George being healthy matters (or inversely the Cavs being far less healthy matters).  Why looking at how teams have played since major roster changes matters (i.e. the teams making moves).  That is also why Boston going on such an amazing run has altered the outlook of Boston as well.  The trade deadline and roster consolidation has made Boston a different team (out west Dallas has looked a lot different of late as well - though like Boston some of the turnaround was prior to the trade deadline).

I honestly think you are one of the only people in America that would attempt this argument at this point. The West is having a very down year. I think only once in the past 5 years has the West had a sub .500 team in the 8th spot. Conversely, I don't even know the last time the east had 10 teams over .500 and teams with the talent of Brooklyn and Atlanta in playin spots.

You have tried like 18 ways to make this losing argument and it doesn't seem like anyone is buying that the West is a deeper conference. If you wanted to have a separate argument about "which conference will be more likely to have more all-nba players" or "what conference has the top 2 teams" those are completely different topics and maybe you could make a compelling case. The topic at hand, the east is clearly a significantly deeper conference and it is not even particularly close.

In 15-16 the East had 10 teams at .500 or better, while the West only had 8 (and the 10th seed was 33-49), but as I've pointed out in this thread that was the season the Warriors won 73 and Spurs won 67, while Cleveland won the East with 57 wins.  The Sixers were also in prime tank winning only 10 games that year (7 wins shy of the 17 win Lakers).  In other words, pretty darn similar to this year where the best teams at the top of the West deflated the win totals of the rest of the conference.  No one said the East was a deeper conference that year, because they recognized the deflation that occurred because of the Warriors and Spurs (and the West won the head to head by 14 games). 

The next season the East had 9 teams at .500 or better and the West still only had 8, but the 3 best records were in the West at 67, 61, 55 wins while our C's won the East with 53 wins (the East had better records from 9, 10, and 11 that year).  Again no one claimed the East was the deeper conference that year either.  Of course, the West dominated the head to head that year (42 more wins).

[celticsclay]

East with two blowout wins tonight. If they end up winning a few of the garbage games at the end of the season they will take the series. Where do we go from there to come up with a way the west is deeper. Monty Williams winning coach of the year? Lol

[celticsclay]

I guess last post of this for the season and this spirited debate. I can't tell the correct record on this because I think stat muse has some issue. I believe the East may have ended up with one more win.
More importantly, the east ended up with a mind boggling 10 teams that were 4 games over .500. The west had 7 teams over .500. The east's 12 team (Wizards) had more wins the final west playin team (spurs). When I made this thread in the beginning of the year I honestly didn't think it would be this one sided. The linesmakers have also recognized the discrepancy with 5 of the top 7 title contenders coming from the east. They do have the Suns with the best odds, but they are not prohibitive favorites at +275. I personally think the champion will come out of the east as I think the Bucks, Nets and Celtics have a very reasonable chance, and perhaps Philly if Harden sets back the clock. I can only see Golden State with health luck, or suns in the finals. TP/s for everyone that kept this fun debate going.

[Moranis]

Clippers are over .500 so that is 8 out west.  With the sweep on the last day, the East ended up ahead by 2 games or the difference between Houston and Orlando.  The top 7 in the West are 24 games better than the top 7 in the East, which as I've argued all season matters a lot when you are looking at this sort of thing (it is a lot more than the difference between 8, 9, and 10 as an example).  That is a lot of wins that aren't being dispersed in the middle. 

The odds are interesting, though I do think some of that is because Phoenix is such a heavy favorite out West.  At +2500 I'd say Dallas is the "best" bet.  Path isn't terrible for them and Luka will almost certainly be the best player on the floor in every series they are in until they are staring at Giannis in the Finals.

I still expect more of the All NBA Team members to be from the West as they have more of the better players in the sport.

[celticsclay]

Clippers are over .500 so that is 8 out west.  With the sweep on the last day, the East ended up ahead by 2 games or the difference between Houston and Orlando.  The top 7 in the West are 24 games better than the top 7 in the East, which as I've argued all season matters a lot when you are looking at this sort of thing (it is a lot more than the difference between 8, 9, and 10 as an example).  That is a lot of wins that aren't being dispersed in the middle. 

The odds are interesting, though I do think some of that is because Phoenix is such a heavy favorite out West.  At +2500 I'd say Dallas is the "best" bet.  Path isn't terrible for them and Luka will almost certainly be the best player on the floor in every series they are in until they are staring at Giannis in the Finals.

I still expect more of the All NBA Team members to be from the West as they have more of the better players in the sport.

It’s a bit numerous to me you paraded the head to head record all season and then got pretty minimal about it when east ended up winning. The east does have more title contenders and I’m not sure the west will even have more all nba players (but this has nothing to do with the conversation even you keep trying to jack knife it in after your other arguments fell apart. Anyways I’ll give you a tp for keeping the thread going and refusing to give up.

[Moranis]

Clippers are over .500 so that is 8 out west.  With the sweep on the last day, the East ended up ahead by 2 games or the difference between Houston and Orlando.  The top 7 in the West are 24 games better than the top 7 in the East, which as I've argued all season matters a lot when you are looking at this sort of thing (it is a lot more than the difference between 8, 9, and 10 as an example).  That is a lot of wins that aren't being dispersed in the middle. 

The odds are interesting, though I do think some of that is because Phoenix is such a heavy favorite out West.  At +2500 I'd say Dallas is the "best" bet.  Path isn't terrible for them and Luka will almost certainly be the best player on the floor in every series they are in until they are staring at Giannis in the Finals.

I still expect more of the All NBA Team members to be from the West as they have more of the better players in the sport.

It’s a bit numerous to me you paraded the head to head record all season and then got pretty minimal about it when east ended up winning. The east does have more title contenders and I’m not sure the west will even have more all nba players (but this has nothing to do with the conversation even you keep trying to jack knife it in after your other arguments fell apart. Anyways I’ll give you a tp for keeping the thread going and refusing to give up.

I used head to head because you (and many others) were all about it claiming it was the only factor that really mattered.  You can go back and look at any my posts early in the year where I said head to head doesn't really matter (unless one conference dominates).  It has always been a subjective thing with me and based on which conference has more of the better teams and more of the better players.  Quality over quantity.  A bunch of mediocre crap, even if it is slightly better, is still just mediocre crap.  The East's crap is a bit better than the West's crap (at least in the middle of the conference), but it is still crap and crap is not an indication of depth.  To be deep in sports implies a level of quality or "goodness".  And some teams are very good that aren't deep (2007 Cavs) and some teams are deep that aren't very good (2020 Blazers).  The East has a better middle, but teams like the Hawks, Hornets, Knicks, and Wizards aren't good teams.  Sure they are better than the Pelicans, Spurs, Lakers, and Kings, but crap is still crap even if it doesn't smell quite as bad.

[celticsclay]

Clippers are over .500 so that is 8 out west.  With the sweep on the last day, the East ended up ahead by 2 games or the difference between Houston and Orlando.  The top 7 in the West are 24 games better than the top 7 in the East, which as I've argued all season matters a lot when you are looking at this sort of thing (it is a lot more than the difference between 8, 9, and 10 as an example).  That is a lot of wins that aren't being dispersed in the middle. 

The odds are interesting, though I do think some of that is because Phoenix is such a heavy favorite out West.  At +2500 I'd say Dallas is the "best" bet.  Path isn't terrible for them and Luka will almost certainly be the best player on the floor in every series they are in until they are staring at Giannis in the Finals.

I still expect more of the All NBA Team members to be from the West as they have more of the better players in the sport.

It’s a bit numerous to me you paraded the head to head record all season and then got pretty minimal about it when east ended up winning. The east does have more title contenders and I’m not sure the west will even have more all nba players (but this has nothing to do with the conversation even you keep trying to jack knife it in after your other arguments fell apart. Anyways I’ll give you a tp for keeping the thread going and refusing to give up.

I used head to head because you (and many others) were all about it claiming it was the only factor that really mattered.  You can go back and look at any my posts early in the year where I said head to head doesn't really matter (unless one conference dominates).  It has always been a subjective thing with me and based on which conference has more of the better teams and more of the better players.  Quality over quantity.  A bunch of mediocre crap, even if it is slightly better, is still just mediocre crap.  The East's crap is a bit better than the West's crap (at least in the middle of the conference), but it is still crap and crap is not an indication of depth.  To be deep in sports implies a level of quality or "goodness".  And some teams are very good that aren't deep (2007 Cavs) and some teams are deep that aren't very good (2020 Blazers).  The East has a better middle, but teams like the Hawks, Hornets, Knicks, and Wizards aren't good teams.  Sure they are better than the Pelicans, Spurs, Lakers, and Kings, but crap is still crap even if it doesn't smell quite as bad.

But people think east has more title contenders also? This just doesn’t pass the sniff test. Valiant effort to redefine the word and move the goalposts repeatedly but sorry *shrugs*