All the more reason to scrap the ridiculous play in or at the very least significantly alter it where teams need to be close together or .500 to qualify. There are very few seasons where I feel bad about the 9th team missing out and even less with the 10th seed. Just get rid of it
No argument from me on this one. They could set a limit of three games back or less for it to happen. The spurs playing in it this year was a joke. Although if Atlanta wins tonight this is the rare time I think one of those teams can give the one seed a challenge. But that is very unusual.
I feel like the play-ins have done everything they're supposed to do and more. Zero reason to get rid of them.
They've produced good, exciting basketball games (many of the play-in games have been excellent).
They've successfully kept teams in the back end of the lottery from tanking late in the regular season.
They've successfully kept teams in the back end of the playoffs from taking it easy at the end of the regular season.
They've kept teams in the top playoff spots from tanking for a certain opponent (well at least it kept Boston from tanking, maybe not the Bucks). I think the unpredictability they've provided to the playoff brackets has been great.
It provides more rest for the #1-#6 seeds, nice bonus.
Now it sucks for the Clippers if they miss the playoffs,, and I know this isn't the case, but hypothetically if Paul George was out for an extended period of time, and Zion was able to come back, then I'd definitely rather see New Orleans in the playoffs than the Clippers. I'd rather swap out a cold team for a hot team any day.
Regular season is better because of it. Extra playoff atmosphere, win-or-go-home games because of it. Playoffs not worse because of it. I see no down side.
Is a team making the playoffs over a team that won 12 more games than them because their best player a fluke case of testing positive for COVID the day of the game not a downside? I would also argue against your assertion that most of the playin games have been excellent. These games are very rarely excellent, and often just boring games between bad teams. The Minnesota game was ok against the Clippers (and those were teams that would normally both be playoff teams). The Cleveland Nets game was mediocre to bad. The Hornets Atlanta game was a boring blowout. The Spurs and Pelicans was frankly a joke of a game and neither team should have the chance to be in the playoffs. Last year there were also several really bad games like Pacers against Charlotte (again two teams that had no business being anywhere near the playoffs). The Celtics Wizards was boring. The wizards pacers was awful (these games are so forgettable I had to go look up who was involved in them just last year)
I would actually go so far as to say the only truly excellent memorable games both occurred last year between Warriors and Lakers and Warriors and Memphis. That was more of a fluke than anything else as both teams performed much worse than usual cause of injuries to their star players.
I do agree that there are some advantages of making teams try a bit harder in the regular season, but I don't know how many of these bottom teams even care about making the playin. A team like Sacramento might because they haven't had a meaningful game in over a decade, but a lot of franchises simply don't care if they can eek in with 35 wins for the outside chance of getting hammered by a one seed juggernaut. Portland this year could have very easily made the playin if they didn't do an egregious tank the last two months.
However, getting back to the original point is it is bad for the league if you get a fluky stretch and end up with a joke of a first round matchup with a 34 win team. Say the Spurs had just gotten super hot from 3 against New Orleans and then Paul George had still gotten COVID. It is both unfair and a much worse playoff series to have Spurs Memphis instead of Clippers Memphis. That is ultimately my biggest gripe. Setting a win requirement would solve this massive negative. I could also be talked into just having a 8 9 playin game. As the tenth teams are very often going to be sub .500 bad teams.
I will admit, if Paul George would have missed only 1 game, and the Clippers lose, and San Antonio beat the Pelicans and Clippers, that would be probably be the worst possible outcome of the play-in games.
Will you admit that if the Lakers made it in and got hot, or Zion came back 2 weeks ago, that would be a positive outcome?
If instead Paul George broke or tore something, and now is out much longer than 1 game. Is that still a travesty?
On the subjective quality of the play-in games, I guess we'll have to disagree. Nets/Cavs was good (high stakes, players on each team having a big night, Cavs kept it interesting, not a blowout). Clippers/Wolves was very good. I was very disappointed with Charlotte/Atlanta, was expecting much more. Spurs/Pelicans was meh (a late Spurs run makes it somewhat interesting though). And we still have 2 to go.
And there multiple games last year that were great (as you mentioned).
Either way, I think these games are better than games with a bunch of bench players playing a the end of the regular season. And also better than first round 4-0 or 4-1 blowouts that we probably get either way.
The play-in games absolutely serving their purpose in my mind. I've been entertained this week (and last year's play-in week too). And I think the last 2-3 weeks of the season has been better these last 2 years as well..
Topic: Paul George out with COVID (Read 1946 times)