namelesstavern.net

by **Lyion** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:57 pm

Round 2.. Incoming!

Hughes and Z looked really good, in addition to Lebron.

by **Zanchief** » Tue May 01, 2007 5:57 am

Congrats on the NBDL victory.

by **Lyion** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:00 am

Yeah, it's kind of a weak sweep. Without Arenas, it's like beating a team of the calibre of Golden State.

by **Snero** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:56 am

without arenas or caron butler, it's like beating on a wnba team

it's still great to win in the first round though

by **Lyion** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:11 am

Seems par for the course for the East. Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago all swept. Cleveland certainly had the easiest time, but I'll still take it

by **vonkaar** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:42 am

Please, any of the top 12 teams in the west would have swept Washington. Even GS would probably play Cleveland to 7. The fact that 3 of the 4 games were close is a black-eye to the Cavs.

That's what makes the Finals so interesting. The best team in the East has an easy time beating up on the scrub teams, while the superior teams in the West beat the fuck out of each other for 21 games. The rested East team plays the superior, but worn out, Western team... and... it turns out to be 'quite' even.

by **Tacks** » Tue May 01, 2007 10:08 am

oh please

by **vonkaar** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:51 pm

Huh?

Since the end of the Bulls era, the East is 2-7 against the West in the finals, having gone 17-25 IN those games (once swept, twice went 4-1).

To argue that the East is even REMOTELY the same calibre as the West 'these days' is stupid. It's the AFC vs NFC... but worse. This year was the lowest ever, for the first half of the season, you had THREE teams in the East over .500, while 9 in the West met that mark. Finishing out the season, the West won 52% of their games, the East won 48%... there were 13 teams over .500 - only 5 of them were from the East.

by **Zanchief** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:02 pm

You just said only three teams in the easy were above 500 then said there were 5.

I don't think the disparity is quite that catastrophic. We had a lot of our teams go down with serious injury. I think NJ would have easily been above 500 with a little more health, same with Indiana.

I'd put Detroit in the second tier of teams with Houston, Utah and Chicago.

Obviously Phoenix, Dallas and San Antonio are the best though.

by **Tacks** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:03 pm

I was more rolling my eyes at your epic crusade through the western bracket to the finals that you make it out to be. Mavs vs. Spurs series? Ok sure. Every other series? Give me a break. The best East teams are still as good as the best West teams. The west isn't walking to the finals through 3 feet of snow uphill both ways...

by **vonkaar** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:42 pm

Zanchief wrote:You just said only three teams in the easy were above 500 then said there were 5.

I said at the halfway mark there were 3... at the end of the season, there were 5...

by **vonkaar** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:43 pm

Tacks wrote: The west isn't walking to the finals through 3 feet of snow uphill both ways...

4 feet

by **Zanchief** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:52 pm

vonkaar wrote:
Zanchief wrote:You just said only three teams in the easy were above 500 then said there were 5.

I said at the halfway mark there were 3... at the end of the season, there were 5...

I see....at the two game benchmark how were Dallas and Phoenix doing?

by **vonkaar** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:53 pm

41 games tends to play a lot more into the outcome of the season than 2 games. You are just being silly. At the halfway point, only three teams were over .500. 41 games later, only TWO teams improved past that point.

Are you just being argumentative?

namelesstavern.net

Cavs Sweeeep

Cavs Sweeeep

Who is online