A thought on tie-breakers

by manzell on Apr 16, 2009 7:57 AM PDT

First off, let me state that, if the Blazers wanted to avoid these tiebreaker scenarios, perhaps they should have won just one more game over the course of the season. I'll also make the assumption that all divisions are roughly equal and that wins are the true measure of what team is best over the regular season.

But...

Why is "divison winner" the first tiebreaker for playoff seeding? San Antonio is the #3 and Portland is the #4 because San Antonio won their division, and therefore get a tiebreaker. Except that, the only reason that San Antonio wins the division is because their divisonal rival, the Rockets, are one game worse than our divisional rival, the Nuggets. That is, San Antonio is winning the tiebreaker because they have a worse team in their division than does Portland.

Think about this - it makes no sense. Portland hade a theoretically tougher schedule - playing additional games against Denver rather than Houston, still manages to post an equal record, and gets penalized by the rules.

A more sensical process would be, say, record against ther 3rd division in the conference, head-to-head, etc. But divison winner is so dependant on strength of divison that it's really unfair to use as the first tiebreaker.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

another one of Stern's dumb after-the-fact justifications

He keeps saying that he wants “the division to mean something.” So he forces arbitrary rules whenever possible simply to justify his arbitrary views. Don’t try to make sense of it.

by kickbrass on Apr 16, 2009 8:02 AM PDT reply actions

We'll like it if it ever works to our advantage.

But it’s hard to imagine another team going 82-0 like us. :p

Of all the things that can be expressed in the printed word – love, hate, fear, joy – true humor is the one that is the most difficult of all. Sarcasm, for example, is an art of delicate subtlety. Yet too many people wield it as a bulldozer – loud, smelly, ugly, and destructive – and think they are being funny.

by T Darkstar on Apr 16, 2009 8:04 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

We only had a theoretically tougher schedule

if you only look at games against Denver for us. We also got extra games against OKC, Minny, and Utah, which are all worse than Houston, NO, and Dallas.

The division record means something to normalize slightly for division strength. The Southwest, as a whole, was a slightly tougher division than the Northwest this year, so because we finished with the same record, SA gets the tiebreaker because they theoretically had a slightly tougher schedule.

by Royster on Apr 16, 2009 8:23 AM PDT reply actions

The playoffs should be seeded by margin of victory

by tominhawaii on Apr 16, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions

margin of victory would make perfect sense as a tiebreaker... indeed soccer uses it

the NBA should do the same.

by jksnake99 on Apr 16, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Somethign less

arbitrary than division winner at least. Maybe strength of schedule and margin of victory.

I hope I can get a bunch of championships, like 15. " - Greg Oden

by mxpx5678 on Apr 16, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions

meh. it is what it is

i think it’s kind of silly to add this tiebreaker in to trump the more sensical “head to head” one that has always worked fine before, but whatever.

Hey David – if you want to make divisions mean something, then devise a schedule that is more division-game heavy. As it is now, teams play 6 of the 10 non-divisional conference teams the same number of time they play divisional teams. Get it done with already – either drop some of those game and add more divisional games, or just get rid of divisions and have 2 15-team conferences in name. You already have it in practice.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Apr 16, 2009 9:33 AM PDT reply actions