LogFAQs > #879301903

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	NBA Playoffs topic 3: nerf the Warriors
MZero11 05/17/17 8:12:19 PM #396:	ShatteredElysium posted... The Bulls didn't get wrecked. The Bulls got unlucky and had a key player injured. So the incentive is they make the playoffs where they at least have a chance of progressing, albeit a slim one (in the case of the Trail Blazers). But realistically you could apply that to anyone who isn't Golden State or the Cavs, none of them really stood any chance of winning. You can flip it the other way too. The Raptors were 51-31 and had the joint 5th best record in the country. Are they more likely than the Lakers to win a championship? Sure. How much more likely though? Absolutely minuscule. Yet the Lakers get a chance to nab a superstar that could change that because they sucked whilst the Raptors have zero chance of doing so because they actually tried to produce a competitive team Fair, the Bulls did well. Just replace with the Pacers then who were 1 win better. It's not fair to award Miami so much more over those teams because now you're just rewarding the worst of the fringe playoffs teams, so it's still rewarded for being bad. The difference with teams like the Raptors and such is that they can lure free agents and have assets already they can trade to make moves. If you have bad players and bad draft picks, you have no assets to trade and you can't get a top prospect. On top of that, with no future success on the horizon free agents won't want to join either --- MZero, to the extreme "The problem is the racism against cute Pokemon." - LusterSoldier <cite>MZero11 posted [p:879301903] in NBA Playof... [t:75319688]...</cite> <quote><cite>ShatteredElysium posted...</cite> <quote>The Bulls didn't get wrecked. The Bulls got unlucky and had a key player injured. So the incentive is they make the playoffs where they at least have a chance of progressing, albeit a slim one (in the case of the Trail Blazers). But realistically you could apply that to anyone who isn't Golden State or the Cavs, none of them really stood any chance of winning. You can flip it the other way too. The Raptors were 51-31 and had the joint 5th best record in the country. Are they more likely than the Lakers to win a championship? Sure. How much more likely though? Absolutely minuscule. Yet the Lakers get a chance to nab a superstar that could change that because they sucked whilst the Raptors have zero chance of doing so because they actually tried to produce a competitive team</quote> Fair, the Bulls did well. Just replace with the Pacers then who were 1 win better. It's not fair to award Miami so much more over those teams because now you're just rewarding the worst of the fringe playoffs teams, so it's still rewarded for being bad. The difference with teams like the Raptors and such is that they can lure free agents and have assets already they can trade to make moves. If you have bad players and bad draft picks, you have no assets to trade and you can't get a top prospect. On top of that, with no future success on the horizon free agents won't want to join either --- MZero, to the extreme "The problem is the racism against cute Pokemon." - LusterSoldier</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1