PDA

View Full Version : May 1st Playoff Rankings



Shade
05-01-2004, 03:02 PM
#1 :pacers: (4-0) [1]
#2 :spurs: (4-0) [3]
#3 :nets: (4-0) [9]
#4 :timberwolves: (4-1) [2]
#5 :lakers: (4-1) [4]
#6 :kings: (4-1) [5]
#7 :pistons: (4-1) [6]
#8 :heat: (3-2) [12]
#9 :hornets: (2-3) [13]
#10 :mavericks: (1-4) [7]
#11 :rockets: (1-4) [10]
#12 :nuggets: (1-4) [11]
#13 :bucks: (1-4) [14]
#14 :grizzlies: (0-4) [8]
#15 :knicks: (0-4) [15]
#16 :celtics: (0-4) [16]

Kstat
05-01-2004, 03:07 PM
Since we're going to be homeristic.....

#1 :pistons:
#2 :spurs:
#3 :nets:
#4 :lakers:
#5 :timberwolves:
#6 :kings:
#7 :pacers:
#8 :heat:
#9 :hornets:
#10 :mavericks:
#11 :grizzlies:
#12 :rockets:
#13 :nuggets:
#14 :bucks:
#15 :knicks:
#16 :celtics:

Shade
05-01-2004, 03:08 PM
Since we're going to be homeristic.....

#1 :pistons:
#2 :spurs:
#3 :nets:
#4 :lakers:
#5 :timberwolves:
#6 :kings:
#7 :pacers:
#8 :heat:
#9 :hornets:
#10 :mavericks:
#11 :grizzlies:
#12 :rockets:
#13 :nuggets:
#14 :bucks:
#15 :knicks:
#16 :celtics:

Mine aren't personal preference -- they're compiled statistically.

Anthem
05-01-2004, 03:09 PM
I don't get it.

I'd put the Spurs in first, because they beat the highest-ranked of the three swept teams.

How is this calculated?

Kstat
05-01-2004, 03:11 PM
I don't get it.

I'd put the Spurs in first, because they beat the highest-ranked of the three swept teams.

How is this calculated?

Exactly.

Anyone with a brain can see that the Spurs had by FAR the most impressive first round. I feel embarrassed I put the Pistons above them, and that was as a JOKE.

Let me guess-quality of opponent doesn't come into play...... :rolleyes:

Roaming Gnome
05-01-2004, 03:13 PM
I don't get it.

I'd put the Spurs in first, because they beat the highest-ranked of the three swept teams.

How is this calculated?

I was about to compile my list until I seen your post and that is about the main thing that I agreed with. I know that Indiana had the most convincing of series, but Boston was horrible and not well representitive of how good Indiana is. The Spurs did dominate a team that was play-off deserving and pretty good.

Kstat
05-01-2004, 03:15 PM
I don't get it.

I'd put the Spurs in first, because they beat the highest-ranked of the three swept teams.

How is this calculated?

I was about to compile my list until I seen your post and that is about the main thing that I agreed with. I know that Indiana had the most convincing of series, but Boston was horrible and not well representitive of how good Indiana is. The Spurs did dominate a team that was play-off deserving and pretty good.

Look, I don't blame Indiana. Its not their fault Boston sucks ***. Just don't tell me that sweeping Boston is somehow more impressive than sweeping Memphis, or even Denver. I could even make a case for Milwaukee or Houston in 5 games being close to as impressive.

MSA2CF
05-01-2004, 03:16 PM
Since we're going to be stupid.....

#1 :grizzlies:
#2 :celtics:
#3 :knicks:
#4 :bucks:
#5 :rockets:
#6 :mavericks:
#7 :hornets:
#8 :heat:
#9 :nuggets:
#10 :spurs:
#11 :pacers:
#12 :timberwolves:
#13 :kings:
#14 :pistons:
#15 :nets:
#16 :lakers:

Shade
05-01-2004, 03:24 PM
I don't get it.

I'd put the Spurs in first, because they beat the highest-ranked of the three swept teams.

How is this calculated?

It's completely subjective. Using your criteria, we would have:

#1 :spurs: (4-0) [3]
#2 :nets: (4-0) [9]
#3 :pacers: (4-0) [1]
#4 :kings: (4-1) [5]
#5 :lakers: (4-1) [4]
#6 :timberwolves: (4-1) [2]
#7 :pistons: (4-1) [6]
#8 :heat: (3-2) [12]
#9 :hornets: (2-3) [13]
#10 :nuggets: (1-4) [11]
#11 :rockets: (1-4) [10]
#12 :mavericks: (1-4) [7]
#13 :bucks: (1-4) [14]
#14 :grizzlies: (0-4) [8]
#15 :celtics: (0-4) [16]
#16 :knicks: (0-4) [15]

Shade
05-01-2004, 03:27 PM
I don't get it.

I'd put the Spurs in first, because they beat the highest-ranked of the three swept teams.

How is this calculated?

I was about to compile my list until I seen your post and that is about the main thing that I agreed with. I know that Indiana had the most convincing of series, but Boston was horrible and not well representitive of how good Indiana is. The Spurs did dominate a team that was play-off deserving and pretty good.

Look, I don't blame Indiana. Its not their fault Boston sucks ***. Just don't tell me that sweeping Boston is somehow more impressive than sweeping Memphis, or even Denver. I could even make a case for Milwaukee or Houston in 5 games being close to as impressive.

Stop hyperventilating. Even taking quality of opponent into account, the Pistons are still #7. :laugh:

Kstat
05-01-2004, 03:30 PM
I don't get it.

I'd put the Spurs in first, because they beat the highest-ranked of the three swept teams.

How is this calculated?

I was about to compile my list until I seen your post and that is about the main thing that I agreed with. I know that Indiana had the most convincing of series, but Boston was horrible and not well representitive of how good Indiana is. The Spurs did dominate a team that was play-off deserving and pretty good.

Look, I don't blame Indiana. Its not their fault Boston sucks ***. Just don't tell me that sweeping Boston is somehow more impressive than sweeping Memphis, or even Denver. I could even make a case for Milwaukee or Houston in 5 games being close to as impressive.

Stop hyperventilating. Even taking quality of opponent into account, the Pistons are still #7. :laugh:

Didn't have a problem with the Pistons at #7. I had a problem with the Pacers at #1 over SA.

My issue is in the second round somehow beating Miami in 4 games is going to be more impressive than SA beating LA in 5 or Detroit beating NJ in 6.

Shade
05-01-2004, 03:49 PM
I don't get it.

I'd put the Spurs in first, because they beat the highest-ranked of the three swept teams.

How is this calculated?

I was about to compile my list until I seen your post and that is about the main thing that I agreed with. I know that Indiana had the most convincing of series, but Boston was horrible and not well representitive of how good Indiana is. The Spurs did dominate a team that was play-off deserving and pretty good.

Look, I don't blame Indiana. Its not their fault Boston sucks ***. Just don't tell me that sweeping Boston is somehow more impressive than sweeping Memphis, or even Denver. I could even make a case for Milwaukee or Houston in 5 games being close to as impressive.

Stop hyperventilating. Even taking quality of opponent into account, the Pistons are still #7. :laugh:

Didn't have a problem with the Pistons at #7. I had a problem with the Pacers at #1 over SA.

My issue is in the second round somehow beating Miami in 4 games is going to be more impressive than SA beating LA in 5 or Detroit beating NJ in 6.

The Pacers entered the postseason #1, and went on to sweep. So, it becomes fairly obvious that they remain #1, despite quality of opponent.

I never said it was perfect, and it's not based on personal opinion. The stats just are what they are.