Proudfeet

Members
  • Content count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Proudfeet

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,398 profile views
  1. I would think it was an instinctive move. He sees an opening, decides to go for it and realises what he actually did afterwards.
  2. You are really talking past each other. His point is, Murray being the fourth best player, is far removed from the Big Three. Stan doesn't come into consideration at all.
  3. You are missing the point. It doesn't matter East vs West. Its about the individual teams. You can also have a 50/50 conference split but have a conference that is top and bottom heavy in a 16 team seeding.
  4. Eh, not for the purpose of a reseeding. The Cav's victory over the 73 win 3-1 lead Warriors (and by proxy the Spurs) seems more of an upset. As in, they have a win total difference that would have been enough to create a gap similar to the first and second seeds against the seventh and eighth seeds. Basically unthinkable. The Thunder beat the Spurs and almost beat the Warriors that year too, so win totals isn't everything, but it is still a pretty good predictor regardless.
  5. Well, so I was wrong about that, but that wasn't my argument. I honestly didn't know as I wasn't paying attention to basketball then. My point on that was that it was a cherry picked example anyway (and not a very good one upon looking it up as they had a similar win total to the Lakers who they defeated so it wasn't like they were huge underdogs who crushed the favourites). I don't care about history that "balances out". You can always improve instead of settling for balancing out. I don't get the resistance to reseeding.
  6. Was that the same Pistons team that were beaten by the one-man Cleveland team who were swept by the Spurs in the finals the next year? Regardless, my point was that you have to look beyond the finals. If we are cherry picking, look at the standings for the 2013/14 season. 9th place in the West, 3rd/4th place in the East? And that's not even what they are proposing to address. They are still taking the top eight teams from each conference. Its about making the later rounds of the playoffs more competitive, both East and West.
  7. That's not the issue here though is it? It's the perception that the ninth and tenth team in the West are more deserving than the seventh and eighth team in the East. Or how the second to fourth seeds in the West are better than the second seed in the East. If you are going by history, how many of those titles were won by LeBron? How many were lost by him? He has contested every final since his move to Miami. And more often than not, swept his way there. That may be due to the strength of his teams, but is surely exacerbated by the lack of competitiveness in the East. I don't quite get the intention of the play-in tournament. I guess there is incentive to be the sixth seed to avoid missing out and the seventh and eighth seeds to get two tries, but the gap in wins get so much more pronounced when you reach the ninth, tenth and eleventh teams that they are basically assured of a play-in spot even if they don't make the eighth seed. ETA Actually historical strength shouldn't be an issue. So what if it balances out? Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Besides, if we really want to take in geographical/scheduling considerations, why not do playoffs by division and have wins be the tie breaker instead?
  8. Curry has two MVPs as opposed to Durant's one MVP. The point I was trying to make though was that if Curry's level of defense is acceptable to voters why shouldn't Harden's be as well? Besides, the MVP is a popularity contest. Flash is more important than substance. Generating highlights and stuffing the box score is the way to go. Defensive highlights and box scores are hard to come by, especially at his position.
  9. Like Curry?
  10. The US edition does. The UK edition doesn't.
  11. I considered buying it just for the illustrations, but the copy I was browsing at the bookstore didn't have any. It had a map but that was it.
  12. Interesting. EA could actually be changing. I probably still won't play their games, but I might give them at least a look now.
  13. Simple? No. Is it still substantially the same game? Seems like it. I don't buy EA games anymore. The last game I played was Battlefield 3.
  14. No season pass this time then? Anyway, I didn't think they would care about fracturing the player base seeing as this is what they did for their Battlefield games as well. They just reskin and release a new game to repopulate their the player base. Rinse and repeat.
  15. They will just make "expansions" instead. You can't complain if the expansion is required to play in the first place and they just need to maintain the playerbase until they release their next rehash.