Clippers Announcers: "Blazers Have No Chance At Making the Playoffs"

Hyped+Current feelings towards the Clippers lol

 

Beating them would be the real karma... so I'm reserving it for if we do that.

 

As others have pointed out, total wins is a net constant. This is simply a case of the rich getting richer. The top two teams in the league combined for 140 wins, that's by far, a record and the both happened to be in the Western Conference. And, that means fewer wins for everybody else. This is actually a continuation of a recent trend (the rich getting richer in the Western Conference). Here's a look at the total combined wins for the top 2 teams in the Western Conference over the past few seasons (not including the lockout shortened 2011-12 season):

2009-10:
1st Seed - LAL = 57 Wins
2nd Seed - DAL = 55 Wins
Combined Wins = 112 Wins

2011-10:
1st Seed - SAS = 61 Wins
2nd Seed - LAL = 57 Wins
Combined Wins = 118 Wins

2012-13:
1st Seed - OKC = 60 Wins
2nd Seed - SAS = 58 Wins
Combined Wins = 118 Wins

2013-14:
1st Seed - OKC = 62 Wins
2nd Seed - SAS = 59 Wins
Combined Wins = 121 Wins

2014-15:
1st Seed - GSW = 67 Wins
2nd Seed - HOU = 56 Wins
Combined Wins = 123 Wins

2015-16:
1st Seed - GSW = 73 Wins
2nd Seed - SAS = 67 Wins
Combined Wins = 140 Wins

The West hasn't gotten weaker, just more top heavy. The top two teams in the West were ridiculously good this year. So, of course, that means fewer wins to go around for everyone else. In other words, the Western Conference has been moving away from parity for the last several seasons. Back in 2009-10, 8th seed OKC won 50 games, compared to 8th seed HOU's 41 wins this year. Again more wins for the top teams means fewer wins for everyone else.

To add further historical perspective, several teams who have won an NBA championship have won fewer than 50 regular season games. In 1994-95, the Houston Rockets won 47 games, were the 6th seed in the West and went on to win the NBA championship. In 1977, the NBA champion Washington Bullets won only 44 regular season games. Their championship still counts and they have the rings and the banner to prove it. Our own 1976-77 Blazers only won 49 regular season games. Talk about parity, that year we upset the top team in the West, the 53-win Lakers, and the top team in the East, the 50-win 76ers.

And, of course, regular season records don't guarantee anything. In 2006-07, the 67-win Dallas Mavericks lost in the first round to the 42-win Golden State Warriors and in 1993-94, the 42-win Denver Nuggets upset the 63-win Seattle Super Sonics.

In the playoffs, it's all about match ups, who's hot and who isn't and who's healthy and who isn't. Yeah, the two examples above are the two biggest upsets in NBA playoff history, but there are other examples of teams with 40-something wins, upsetting teams with 60-something wins. It happens. There are no guarantees, but there are lots of examples of the 5th seeded team upsetting the 4th seeded team. It's actually fairly common. It happened in both conferences last season and we were on the losing end that time around, s we also were in 2008-09. This year, I'm hoping it's our turn to pull off the 5th seed over 4th seed upset. I think we're due.

BNM

 

My hype song.. The lyrics could define our season

 

Why do I always picture BNM droppin' the mic every time he posts?

 

Mike's verse ESPCIALLY!

 

Hey Bud....as mentioned, it was referring not only to this year but previous years as well. In fact, since 2000, 44 wins would have put the Blazers in the #8-10 spot in every single season but one....this year. So without dropping F-bombs, that was my point. 44 wins is a historically low number for the Playoffs let alone the #5 seed....

 

But it's this year, so who cares? Why should that be a blemish? You play this year, you dont play for 5 years ago. It's a silly argument at the base.

 

Wrong. In 2005-06, the Nuggets were the 3rd seed with 44 wins.

And again, the counterpoint is 73 wins is an all-time historic high for the #1 seed and 67 wins is an all-time historic high for a #2 seed. Prior to last season, there had only been 2 Western Conference teams win 67 games in the previous 42 years. Now, we've had three 67-win teams in two years. Again total wins is a net constant. When your top two team combine for an unprecedented 140 wins, there are far fewer wins for everyone else.

BNM

 

I agree with your point but that's slightly disingenuous; Denver won the NW division, but had the 7th best record in the West that year (kind of like the Blazers last year...*cough*). That said, your following point about the upper class of the west basically eliminating the middle class of the west is totally valid.

 

It's not about your record or how many wins you get. It's how you place. We placed 5th period. GS doesn't get a better seed than last year for winning more games this year. It's just about position. Previous years do not matter

 

How is it disingenuous? They earned the 3rd seed based on the rules in place. If you go back a little further than 2000, you will find plenty off other examples of teams with 44 wins finishing higher than the 8th seed. What you won't find, even if you go all the way back to the inception of the league is the 1st seed with 73 wins and/or the 2nd seed with 67 wins. Yes, and without corresponding 73 and 67 loss teams in the Western Conference, the teams in the middle of the pack have far fewer wins to go around.

BNM

 

His wife on the other hand......

 

I agree with you but I think you chose a weak example because it plays into TBPup's narrative that 44 wins is pretty low for a western conference team.

 

All I did was find the most recent example that contradicts his point. There are many others, if you go back further. When he claims something is historically low, setting a random cutoff at the 2000 season is NOT historically low. The recorded history of the NBA goes back much further than that. The only thing historic about this season was the Warriors winning 73 and the Spurs winning 67. You can go back to year one and never find the 1st and second seeds in the same conference combining for 140 wins, not even close.

BNM

 

This. There are only a finite amount of wins.

 

Okay okay. I'm sorry I had a nuanced take.

 

Great breakdown!!!

 

Your nuance is appreciated. The Nuggets example actually helped make my point., Might have been the #3 seed but was the 7th best record and certainly a rare example. Some people seem to think I'm calling this a blemish (which I didn't) or that Portland somehow doesn't deserve to be in the Playoffs which again is not the case. It was more of a historical observation simple based on facts. If someone can show me where 44 wins got the #5 seed on anything more than a rare occurrence, then great. I'm sure it happened some back in the day when there weren't as many teams so the talent in the league wasn't so diluted on the bottom end. Just didn't bother going back before 2000. 16 years seemed enough to reference.

Happy they made the Playoffs and hope they upset the whiny Clippers. And if the Blazers had been the ones with 70+ wins, that would have been rare as well.