Poll: Which conference is deeper

[gouki88]

I was gonna bump this.

Feels like the East is a bit better at the 8-12th ish spots. Wiz, Hornet's, Pacers. The Lakers would be in an even worse position in the East right? Just a hot take after some Wiz highlights, they look interesting with Porzingas.

Love more parity at any rate. Personally a fan of the east play in race.

This whole thing is weird. The West is more top heavy and the East is deeper. The 10th place team in the East is 2 games above .500. 10th in the West is 15 games below .500. Sure, the West has a couple of more wins than the East, but that's not what the question is asking.

How could the deeper conference not have the better record in the head to head though?

Your consistent banging of this drum is just obtuse at this stage. Top heavy =/= depth

But how do they have a better record if they are top heavy?  Wouldn't all of those crappy teams at the end of the conference lose to their counterparts more than the Phoenix and Memphis of the world beat theirs?

Or maybe just maybe it is the fact that Phoenix and Memphis are so good that it deflates the records of the rest of their conference and they are in fact the deeper and better conference.

Hahaha, man, this is one of the most dishonest lines of reasoning you've come up with yet. Disagreement about the meaning of the word "deep" is one thing - this disingenuous argument is another.

[Moranis]

I was gonna bump this.

Feels like the East is a bit better at the 8-12th ish spots. Wiz, Hornet's, Pacers. The Lakers would be in an even worse position in the East right? Just a hot take after some Wiz highlights, they look interesting with Porzingas.

Love more parity at any rate. Personally a fan of the east play in race.

This whole thing is weird. The West is more top heavy and the East is deeper. The 10th place team in the East is 2 games above .500. 10th in the West is 15 games below .500. Sure, the West has a couple of more wins than the East, but that's not what the question is asking.

How could the deeper conference not have the better record in the head to head though?

Your consistent banging of this drum is just obtuse at this stage. Top heavy =/= depth

But how do they have a better record if they are top heavy?  Wouldn't all of those crappy teams at the end of the conference lose to their counterparts more than the Phoenix and Memphis of the world beat theirs?

Or maybe just maybe it is the fact that Phoenix and Memphis are so good that it deflates the records of the rest of their conference and they are in fact the deeper and better conference.

Hahaha, man, this is one of the most dishonest lines of reasoning you've come up with yet. Disagreement about the meaning of the word "deep" is one thing - this disingenuous argument is another.

Since you've now ignored a direct question twice and have resorted to personal attacks, I guess that means you can't answer the question without acknowledging I'm correct.  So I guess we are done here.

[Celtics2021]

This thread is unbelievable.  The 9th and 10th place Pelicans and Spurs are 21-39 against the East and 46-49 against the West.  There is a huge difference of quality between those teams and the Eastern conference teams in the same positions.

Some people are constitutionally incapable of ever admitting of being wrong.

[gouki88]

I was gonna bump this.

Feels like the East is a bit better at the 8-12th ish spots. Wiz, Hornet's, Pacers. The Lakers would be in an even worse position in the East right? Just a hot take after some Wiz highlights, they look interesting with Porzingas.

Love more parity at any rate. Personally a fan of the east play in race.

This whole thing is weird. The West is more top heavy and the East is deeper. The 10th place team in the East is 2 games above .500. 10th in the West is 15 games below .500. Sure, the West has a couple of more wins than the East, but that's not what the question is asking.

How could the deeper conference not have the better record in the head to head though?

Your consistent banging of this drum is just obtuse at this stage. Top heavy =/= depth

But how do they have a better record if they are top heavy?  Wouldn't all of those crappy teams at the end of the conference lose to their counterparts more than the Phoenix and Memphis of the world beat theirs?

Or maybe just maybe it is the fact that Phoenix and Memphis are so good that it deflates the records of the rest of their conference and they are in fact the deeper and better conference.

Hahaha, man, this is one of the most dishonest lines of reasoning you've come up with yet. Disagreement about the meaning of the word "deep" is one thing - this disingenuous argument is another.

Since you've now ignored a direct question twice and have resorted to personal attacks, I guess that means you can't answer the question without acknowledging I'm correct.  So I guess we are done here.

There's nothing personal about my attack, your argument is a complete and utter fallacy.

[Kernewek]

Of course I do.  If you tiered the teams by realistic title chances, the West still has more of the better teams because the West has more of the better players, and better players lead far more often to playoff success.

So the question is: is this still true as we wrap up the season?

I actually agree with something that Moranis posted earlier in the thread: that parity doesn’t necessarily indicate depth. But I’m curious, does the West still have better teams and better players this season, as we wrap up?

[Donoghus]

Of course I do.  If you tiered the teams by realistic title chances, the West still has more of the better teams because the West has more of the better players, and better players lead far more often to playoff success.

So the question is: is this still true as we wrap up the season?

I actually agree with something that Moranis posted earlier in the thread: that parity doesn’t necessarily indicate depth. But I’m curious, does the West still have better teams and better players this season, as we wrap up?

Well, if you go by team futures, FWIW.  (+2000 & lower)

PHX +250
MIL +550
BKN +550
GSW +800
BOS +900
PHI +1000
MIA +1200
MEM +1800

And two of the top 3 of the KIA MVP ladder are in the east.

[Moranis]

I was gonna bump this.

Feels like the East is a bit better at the 8-12th ish spots. Wiz, Hornet's, Pacers. The Lakers would be in an even worse position in the East right? Just a hot take after some Wiz highlights, they look interesting with Porzingas.

Love more parity at any rate. Personally a fan of the east play in race.

This whole thing is weird. The West is more top heavy and the East is deeper. The 10th place team in the East is 2 games above .500. 10th in the West is 15 games below .500. Sure, the West has a couple of more wins than the East, but that's not what the question is asking.

How could the deeper conference not have the better record in the head to head though?

Your consistent banging of this drum is just obtuse at this stage. Top heavy =/= depth

But how do they have a better record if they are top heavy?  Wouldn't all of those crappy teams at the end of the conference lose to their counterparts more than the Phoenix and Memphis of the world beat theirs?

Or maybe just maybe it is the fact that Phoenix and Memphis are so good that it deflates the records of the rest of their conference and they are in fact the deeper and better conference.

Hahaha, man, this is one of the most dishonest lines of reasoning you've come up with yet. Disagreement about the meaning of the word "deep" is one thing - this disingenuous argument is another.

Since you've now ignored a direct question twice and have resorted to personal attacks, I guess that means you can't answer the question without acknowledging I'm correct.  So I guess we are done here.

There's nothing personal about my attack, your argument is a complete and utter fallacy.

There is nothing disingenuous about that argument.  I've consistently made it all season long i.e. that because Phoenix, Memphis (and early on Golden State) were so much better than everyone else that it creates the illusion of a conference that lacks depth because the records of everyone else are artificially deflated.  We saw something very similar to this in 2015-16, when the East had 10 teams at .500 or better, while the West only had 8, but that was the year of the 73 win Warriors and the 67 win Spurs, while the Cavs at 57 wins won the East.  The Sixers also had only 10 wins that year (creating more wins to the rest of the conference).  The West though was clearly the better and deeper conference that year, just as it is this year.

Parity is not the same thing as depth.  The East has more parity, but the West is and always has been the better and deeper conference.

[Moranis]

Of course I do.  If you tiered the teams by realistic title chances, the West still has more of the better teams because the West has more of the better players, and better players lead far more often to playoff success.

So the question is: is this still true as we wrap up the season?

I actually agree with something that Moranis posted earlier in the thread: that parity doesn’t necessarily indicate depth. But I’m curious, does the West still have better teams and better players this season, as we wrap up?

8 of the top 13 teams on 538 are in the West (both in current and full strength rating for the regular season).  Looking at their full strength ratings for the playoffs it is 7 of 12 or 9 of 15. 

Most projections have 8 or 9 players from the West on the All NBA teams (Jokic, Curry, Doncic, Towns, Booker, Paul, Morant, James and sometimes you see Gobert or Mitchell depending on how they do the positions)

[Celtics2021]

Of course I do.  If you tiered the teams by realistic title chances, the West still has more of the better teams because the West has more of the better players, and better players lead far more often to playoff success.

So the question is: is this still true as we wrap up the season?

I actually agree with something that Moranis posted earlier in the thread: that parity doesn’t necessarily indicate depth. But I’m curious, does the West still have better teams and better players this season, as we wrap up?

8 of the top 13 teams on 538 are in the West (both in current and full strength rating for the regular season).  Looking at their full strength ratings for the playoffs it is 7 of 12 or 9 of 15. 

Most projections have 8 or 9 players from the West on the All NBA teams (Jokic, Curry, Doncic, Towns, Booker, Paul, Morant, James and sometimes you see Gobert or Mitchell depending on how they do the positions)

This is simply wrong.

Top 13 in current ranking:

1696   BOS   
1681   PHX   
1642   MEM   
1639   PHI   
1616   UTA   
1605   MIN   
1603   MIL   
1589   DAL   
1585   TOR   
1581   DEN   
1580   MIA   
1578   ATL   
1562   BKN   

That's 7 East teams, 6 West teams. 

[Moranis]

Of course I do.  If you tiered the teams by realistic title chances, the West still has more of the better teams because the West has more of the better players, and better players lead far more often to playoff success.

So the question is: is this still true as we wrap up the season?

I actually agree with something that Moranis posted earlier in the thread: that parity doesn’t necessarily indicate depth. But I’m curious, does the West still have better teams and better players this season, as we wrap up?

8 of the top 13 teams on 538 are in the West (both in current and full strength rating for the regular season).  Looking at their full strength ratings for the playoffs it is 7 of 12 or 9 of 15. 

Most projections have 8 or 9 players from the West on the All NBA teams (Jokic, Curry, Doncic, Towns, Booker, Paul, Morant, James and sometimes you see Gobert or Mitchell depending on how they do the positions)

This is simply wrong.

Top 13 in current ranking:

1696   BOS   
1681   PHX   
1642   MEM   
1639   PHI   
1616   UTA   
1605   MIN   
1603   MIL   
1589   DAL   
1585   TOR   
1581   DEN   
1580   MIA   
1578   ATL   
1562   BKN   

That's 7 East teams, 6 West teams.

The Warriors were listed ahead of the Nets when I looked at it and I didn't look past them and I should have as they have the same current rating (so they both should be included), though the Warriors have the higher full strength rating (1617 to 1604).

[Celtics2021]

Of course I do.  If you tiered the teams by realistic title chances, the West still has more of the better teams because the West has more of the better players, and better players lead far more often to playoff success.

So the question is: is this still true as we wrap up the season?

I actually agree with something that Moranis posted earlier in the thread: that parity doesn’t necessarily indicate depth. But I’m curious, does the West still have better teams and better players this season, as we wrap up?

8 of the top 13 teams on 538 are in the West (both in current and full strength rating for the regular season).  Looking at their full strength ratings for the playoffs it is 7 of 12 or 9 of 15. 

Most projections have 8 or 9 players from the West on the All NBA teams (Jokic, Curry, Doncic, Towns, Booker, Paul, Morant, James and sometimes you see Gobert or Mitchell depending on how they do the positions)

This is simply wrong.

Top 13 in current ranking:

1696   BOS   
1681   PHX   
1642   MEM   
1639   PHI   
1616   UTA   
1605   MIN   
1603   MIL   
1589   DAL   
1585   TOR   
1581   DEN   
1580   MIA   
1578   ATL   
1562   BKN   

That's 7 East teams, 6 West teams.

The Warriors were listed ahead of the Nets when I looked at it and I didn't look past them and I should have as they have the same current rating (so they both should be included), though the Warriors have the higher full strength rating (1617 to 1604).

Even so, it doesn't get you to 8 West and 5 East.  You're still straight up wrong.

[18isGREATERthan72]

I was gonna bump this.

Feels like the East is a bit better at the 8-12th ish spots. Wiz, Hornet's, Pacers. The Lakers would be in an even worse position in the East right? Just a hot take after some Wiz highlights, they look interesting with Porzingas.

Love more parity at any rate. Personally a fan of the east play in race.

This whole thing is weird. The West is more top heavy and the East is deeper. The 10th place team in the East is 2 games above .500. 10th in the West is 15 games below .500. Sure, the West has a couple of more wins than the East, but that's not what the question is asking.

How could the deeper conference not have the better record in the head to head though?

Your consistent banging of this drum is just obtuse at this stage. Top heavy =/= depth

But how do they have a better record if they are top heavy?  Wouldn't all of those crappy teams at the end of the conference lose to their counterparts more than the Phoenix and Memphis of the world beat theirs?

Or maybe just maybe it is the fact that Phoenix and Memphis are so good that it deflates the records of the rest of their conference and they are in fact the deeper and better conference.

Hahaha, man, this is one of the most dishonest lines of reasoning you've come up with yet. Disagreement about the meaning of the word "deep" is one thing - this disingenuous argument is another.

Since you've now ignored a direct question twice and have resorted to personal attacks, I guess that means you can't answer the question without acknowledging I'm correct.  So I guess we are done here.

There's nothing personal about my attack, your argument is a complete and utter fallacy.

There is nothing disingenuous about that argument.  I've consistently made it all season long i.e. that because Phoenix, Memphis (and early on Golden State) were so much better than everyone else that it creates the illusion of a conference that lacks depth because the records of everyone else are artificially deflated.  We saw something very similar to this in 2015-16, when the East had 10 teams at .500 or better, while the West only had 8, but that was the year of the 73 win Warriors and the 67 win Spurs, while the Cavs at 57 wins won the East.  The Sixers also had only 10 wins that year (creating more wins to the rest of the conference).  The West though was clearly the better and deeper conference that year, just as it is this year.

Parity is not the same thing as depth.  The East has more parity, but the West is and always has been the better and deeper conference.

This is an argument you could make but weirdly enough was never made in the past 15 years when the East usually was called "top heavy" and had some of the best teams, but the West was more balanced.  It's not that you're wrong in the way you're defining deep, it's just not the same definition that most people / analysts have used for the past 15 years.

[jambr380]

I believe the 8/9/10 teams in the East would wipe the floor with the 8/9/10 teams in the West. That, to me, equals more depth and also takes into account teams like PHX (and MEM to an extent) being so much better than other teams.

Again, this is my opinion, and it is backed up by records, but that is how I would answer the question.

If you want to talk about full strength, then sure, Kawhi would probably help LAC and Murray/Porter would probably help DEN, but I thought we were just talking about this season. And it's not like the East has been totally injury free.

[Moranis]

Of course I do.  If you tiered the teams by realistic title chances, the West still has more of the better teams because the West has more of the better players, and better players lead far more often to playoff success.

So the question is: is this still true as we wrap up the season?

I actually agree with something that Moranis posted earlier in the thread: that parity doesn’t necessarily indicate depth. But I’m curious, does the West still have better teams and better players this season, as we wrap up?

8 of the top 13 teams on 538 are in the West (both in current and full strength rating for the regular season).  Looking at their full strength ratings for the playoffs it is 7 of 12 or 9 of 15. 

Most projections have 8 or 9 players from the West on the All NBA teams (Jokic, Curry, Doncic, Towns, Booker, Paul, Morant, James and sometimes you see Gobert or Mitchell depending on how they do the positions)

This is simply wrong.

Top 13 in current ranking:

1696   BOS   
1681   PHX   
1642   MEM   
1639   PHI   
1616   UTA   
1605   MIN   
1603   MIL   
1589   DAL   
1585   TOR   
1581   DEN   
1580   MIA   
1578   ATL   
1562   BKN   

That's 7 East teams, 6 West teams.

The Warriors were listed ahead of the Nets when I looked at it and I didn't look past them and I should have as they have the same current rating (so they both should be included), though the Warriors have the higher full strength rating (1617 to 1604).

Even so, it doesn't get you to 8 West and 5 East.  You're still straight up wrong.

Yes it does if you took out brooklyn and put in golden state, that is 8 west and 5 east teams.

[Moranis]

I was gonna bump this.

Feels like the East is a bit better at the 8-12th ish spots. Wiz, Hornet's, Pacers. The Lakers would be in an even worse position in the East right? Just a hot take after some Wiz highlights, they look interesting with Porzingas.

Love more parity at any rate. Personally a fan of the east play in race.

This whole thing is weird. The West is more top heavy and the East is deeper. The 10th place team in the East is 2 games above .500. 10th in the West is 15 games below .500. Sure, the West has a couple of more wins than the East, but that's not what the question is asking.

How could the deeper conference not have the better record in the head to head though?

Your consistent banging of this drum is just obtuse at this stage. Top heavy =/= depth

But how do they have a better record if they are top heavy?  Wouldn't all of those crappy teams at the end of the conference lose to their counterparts more than the Phoenix and Memphis of the world beat theirs?

Or maybe just maybe it is the fact that Phoenix and Memphis are so good that it deflates the records of the rest of their conference and they are in fact the deeper and better conference.

Hahaha, man, this is one of the most dishonest lines of reasoning you've come up with yet. Disagreement about the meaning of the word "deep" is one thing - this disingenuous argument is another.

Since you've now ignored a direct question twice and have resorted to personal attacks, I guess that means you can't answer the question without acknowledging I'm correct.  So I guess we are done here.

There's nothing personal about my attack, your argument is a complete and utter fallacy.

There is nothing disingenuous about that argument.  I've consistently made it all season long i.e. that because Phoenix, Memphis (and early on Golden State) were so much better than everyone else that it creates the illusion of a conference that lacks depth because the records of everyone else are artificially deflated.  We saw something very similar to this in 2015-16, when the East had 10 teams at .500 or better, while the West only had 8, but that was the year of the 73 win Warriors and the 67 win Spurs, while the Cavs at 57 wins won the East.  The Sixers also had only 10 wins that year (creating more wins to the rest of the conference).  The West though was clearly the better and deeper conference that year, just as it is this year.

Parity is not the same thing as depth.  The East has more parity, but the West is and always has been the better and deeper conference.

This is an argument you could make but weirdly enough was never made in the past 15 years when the East usually was called "top heavy" and had some of the best teams, but the West was more balanced.  It's not that you're wrong in the way you're defining deep, it's just not the same definition that most people / analysts have used for the past 15 years.

that has very rarely happened though.  Even in the years when the East had 1 really good team, the West's teams weren't that far behind and generally had the next few teams.  2010 the East had the 2 best records, but the West had 8 teams with at least 50 wins (the East only had 4).  So perhaps that is a somewhat similar time.

It just doesn't happen all that much where a conference has 2 teams that are just way better than anyone else.