Around the League: Week 21 (3/7 to 3/13)

[Indy]

Westbrook has been a disaster…Melo has been ok for them though.

They needed shooters.

Melo is shooting 39% on 6 attempts a game.

What they really needed was to have a guy that can play the 5. It is so crazy that their best player this year, by far, is a 37 year old.

[Indy]

He’s shooting 39% from 3…they need shooters that play defense. Their defense is atrocious. They can score sometimes, but they don’t stop anybody.

I admittedly haven't watched Laker games this year, but when I look at their stats... what am I missing?

Of their top 8 in minutes played:
James, AD, Melo and Reaves are all several points per 100 possessions better comparing ORTG vs DRTG. So they score several more points than they give up.

Westbrook and THT and Monk are pretty negative though (-12, -11 and -11 respectively). Bradley is basically neutral.

Are they really just getting killed by those 3 guys?

[Split T]

I don’t watch them either, but looking at the overall numbers, maybe that’s not entirely accurate. Their offense is worse than their defense. Though neither is good. It’s probably one of those things where the offense can look good at times(when they make shots) but the defense is always the same, which is below average.

I’m probably basing it off the times when AD isn’t playing…he probably boosts their defense quite a bit and makes the overall numbers look more ok.

I feel like with Monk, LeBron, AD, they should be able to score. No one besides LeBron and AD though is much of a defender.

[TOO]

That team is old, slow, and can't shoot. The eye test exceeds the metrics in this case, said it before the season that they were very poorly constructed, however, I didn't think they'd be THIS bad.

[Indy]

That team is old, slow, and can't shoot. The eye test exceeds the metrics in this case, said it before the season that they were very poorly constructed, however, I didn't think they'd be THIS bad.

Yeah I think most non Laker fans expected they wouldn't be in the top 4, but I think most people didn't expect them to be fighting for a play-in spot.

[Split T]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2022/3/9/ ... -22-season

Two suns make the list and a 3rd gets a mention.

[Mori Chu]

The funny thing about the Lakers is that they actually had a lot of nice rotation players, but they threw them all away to get an overpaid Westbrook. I liked their roster last year; they had guys like Caruso, KCP, Morris, Schroder, etc. who could be pesky, play some D, hit a few 3s, and a lot of them had an attitude and toughness about them. They were not fun to play in the 1st round last year; they were pretty scary until AD suffered his annual injury.

By contrast this year's team has almost no talent outside of their top 3-4 guys. It's a really pathetic roster. They have ended up hoping for guys like Reaves and THT to make big contributions that they aren't ready or able to make.

[Indy]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2022/3/9/ ... -22-season

Two suns make the list and a 3rd gets a mention.

I don't have too much of a problem there, but Curry is too high when you look at his entire season.

And I am not sure AD should be there considering how much time he has missed.

[bajanguy008]

[bajanguy008]

[Split T]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2022/3/9/ ... -22-season

Two suns make the list and a 3rd gets a mention.

I don't have too much of a problem there, but Curry is too high when you look at his entire season.

And I am not sure AD should be there considering how much time he has missed.

Ya I’d move Curry to 8th I think:

1. Jokic
2. Giannis
3. Embiid
4. LeBron
5. KD
6. Ja
7. Luka
8. Curry
9. Derozan
10. CP3

Think that top 10 is reasonable. If CP3 didn’t get hurt I’d have him a spot or 2 higher.

[Indy]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2022/3/9/ ... -22-season

Two suns make the list and a 3rd gets a mention.

I don't have too much of a problem there, but Curry is too high when you look at his entire season.

And I am not sure AD should be there considering how much time he has missed.

Ya I’d move Curry to 8th I think:

1. Jokic
2. Giannis
3. Embiid
4. LeBron
5. KD
6. Ja
7. Luka
8. Curry
9. Derozan
10. CP3

Think that top 10 is reasonable. If CP3 didn’t get hurt I’d have him a spot or 2 higher.

I would drop KD too, since he has missed like 30 games already.

[Split T]

Ya, I dropped him below LeBron, but probably needs to drop below Ja too, maybe Luka.

[Indy]

Yeah I was thinking he is in the Curry, CP3 bucket. Like CP3, Curry and KD finish out the top 10.

[Split T]

Here’s a thought I just had, tell me if I’m being stupid, haha.

So looking at the standings, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that LAL or NO could potentially steal a playoff spot from Minny. I think it’s highly unlikely to happen, but LAL and NO are 9 and 12 games under .500, Minny is 9 games above .500. There’s a 10 game difference that can be made up in just 2 games…that seems completely unfair.

I think the easy solution is to say you’ve got to be X number of games within 7/8 to qualify for the play-in, but I’m sure the NBA is committed to the play-in and doesn’t want to risk losing it. Still, there should be some sort of punishment for being that far behind.

At first I thought, make a team that’s more than 4 games behind win twice…so say LAL and Minny face off for the 8 seed, LAL would have to beat Minny twice, both in Minny, while Minny would get 2 chances to win once. That starts to add too many games though as they generally have a tight window before the playoffs start.

So here’s my idea: what if you keep the same rules, 7v8 and 9v10 and then 7v8 loser plays the 9v10 winner, but you add a wrinkle: the team ahead in the standings gets spotted 2 points for every game ahead in the standings. So if you’re 10 games ahead, you start the game with a 20 point lead.

Too gimmicky?

[Indy]

Here’s a thought I just had, tell me if I’m being stupid, haha.

So looking at the standings, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that LAL or NO could potentially steal a playoff spot from Minny. I think it’s highly unlikely to happen, but LAL and NO are 9 and 12 games under .500, Minny is 9 games above .500. There’s a 10 game difference that can be made up in just 2 games…that seems completely unfair.

I think the easy solution is to say you’ve got to be X number of games within 7/8 to qualify for the play-in, but I’m sure the NBA is committed to the play-in and doesn’t want to risk losing it. Still, there should be some sort of punishment for being that far behind.

At first I thought, make a team that’s more than 4 games behind win twice…so say LAL and Minny face off for the 8 seed, LAL would have to beat Minny twice, both in Minny, while Minny would get 2 chances to win once. That starts to add too many games though as they generally have a tight window before the playoffs start.

So here’s my idea: what if you keep the same rules, 7v8 and 9v10 and then 7v8 loser plays the 9v10 winner, but you add a wrinkle: the team ahead in the standings gets spotted 2 points for every game ahead in the standings. So if you’re 10 games ahead, you start the game with a 20 point lead.

Too gimmicky?

Yes.


But I still kind of like it. Like they should do an Elam style where they play the first 3 quarters, then the 4th quarter gets a target score of the all-star standard of 24 points above the leading team's score, shut off the clock, and then give the higher team in the standings 2 points for every game ahead they are.

[Shabazz]

Here’s a thought I just had, tell me if I’m being stupid, haha.

So looking at the standings, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that LAL or NO could potentially steal a playoff spot from Minny. I think it’s highly unlikely to happen, but LAL and NO are 9 and 12 games under .500, Minny is 9 games above .500. There’s a 10 game difference that can be made up in just 2 games…that seems completely unfair.

I think the easy solution is to say you’ve got to be X number of games within 7/8 to qualify for the play-in, but I’m sure the NBA is committed to the play-in and doesn’t want to risk losing it. Still, there should be some sort of punishment for being that far behind.

At first I thought, make a team that’s more than 4 games behind win twice…so say LAL and Minny face off for the 8 seed, LAL would have to beat Minny twice, both in Minny, while Minny would get 2 chances to win once. That starts to add too many games though as they generally have a tight window before the playoffs start.

So here’s my idea: what if you keep the same rules, 7v8 and 9v10 and then 7v8 loser plays the 9v10 winner, but you add a wrinkle: the team ahead in the standings gets spotted 2 points for every game ahead in the standings. So if you’re 10 games ahead, you start the game with a 20 point lead.

Too gimmicky?

Yes. Too gimmicky.

And I agree that there’s an issue, but I think the positives of having those bad teams giving effort at this point in the season instead of tanking outweighs the negatives of them having a chance at an upset.

[Split T]

Are you guys ok with a team 10 games behind having to only when 2 games to take their spot? I just think that’s too much. And this year we aren’t even getting the added benefit of those bad teams trying more. There’s zero threat from the 11-15 seeds. If they had to be within a certain number of games to qualify, it would be more fair. If the 7 seed is 5 games up on the 8 seed, they shouldn’t have to play them in a 1 game play-in. Likewise, if the 9/10 seed is 5 games behind the 8 seed, they should be eliminated without playing.

[Indy]

No I am not OK with it, but I think it is better than having a hard cut off at 8, especially if it gets down to tie breakers.

If it were up to be, I would have a 4 game, single elimination tourney where 9 plays 12, 10 plays 11, then the winner of each plays 7 and 8 respectively. It is only a total of 4 games, you could do it in 3 days with all teams getting a day off before the final.

I care less about how many games a team is behind. I mean, it isn't like if we finish 10 games up on the Grizz that we get a bonus.

[Mori Chu]

I do think the play-in has the potential to produce some outcomes that feel unfair. One strong example is the one Split mentions, where a 10 seed that is -way- behind the 7 seed advances in their place. I'm not super upset about this outcome, partly because in many sports you can get leapfrogged by a team beating you in the postseason even if they are way behind your team's record. Think of a 6 seed losing to a 11 seed in the NCAAs or something like that.

Another outcome I worry about is that the 1st and 2nd seeds now theoretically have to face tougher opponents. Before, they would face whatever team happened to be 7th or 8th in the standings. Now they face the best two of teams 7,8,9,10. The difference might not seem like much, but it implies that if there is a really nasty team that happens to be down at #9 or #10, now the #1 or #2 seed is stuck having to face them. So that makes it less rewarding to be a 1 or 2 seed in some cases.

Another offshoot of the above is that if you're a 1 or 2 seed, you don't really know who you're playing until the last minute. So it's hard to prepare for them and watch a ton of film on them because you have to wait. In some ways it all kind of makes you want a 3 or 4 seed because it's more safe and predictable.

I still think the play-in is good, though, and I love the fact that it makes almost every team in the league keep trying until deep into the season. Almost everybody is just a few games out of the 10 seed, so the total amount of teams that are tanking feels as low as it's been in decades. And the play-in games themselves have real stakes and are fun to watch. And they're real simulations of playoff atmosphere and pressure which can be really good for young teams that are not quite ready to make a playoff run (e.g. Grizz last year).