Of course its a very fluid situation pending some free-agent decisions.

After obviously GS, the next 4 best teams in the NBA are arguably:

Milwaukee
Toronto
Philly
Boston

The rest of the West? Houston was a better team last year, they obviously fell off. Denver is good but young. This is basically the same Portland team that got swept in the first round by the Pelicans last year. This is obviously a down period for the Spurs. OKC was actually a threat until PG got injured. Utah and the Clippers are whatever.

As far is next year Kawhi could definitely shift the balance of power but the Bucks, sixers and Celtics are expected to be just as good if not better next year. If Oladipo comes back 100% the pacers appear ready to push into that top 4.

Out west the Warriors will still be good but may be weakened. Houston is expected to decline. Denver will probably be back and better and may challenge for conference supremacy. The Blazers pretty much are who they are. I don't foresee much of a change with the Spurs and Utah. Who knows with OKC.

Poll question: Have we seen a shift in the balance of power in the NBA?

Poll result (6 votes) duh (2 votes) Vote nope (3 votes) Vote I'm Kevin Love (1 votes) Vote

Until GSW Lose...how can there be a shift of power?

Their treasure trove of assets turned into a 14th pick, 2 sophomores who regressed, Gordon fucking Hayward, and a likely leaving Kyrie Irving. Why are they there instead of the Nuggets?

Also both Boston and Toronto are kind of tenuous. Good chance that they lose significant players (Leoard, Irving) and some key guys for them are kind of old, too (Horford, Gasol).

Also the rest of the conference is better in the West than in the East. Teams like the Nets and Magic would not make the playoffs in the West.

The East is stronger now but we've seen other moments where it kind of surged (Boston, Cleveland, Orlando and Detroit being formidable in the late 00s) and it didn't last. Overall the West is still stronger and has more teams that are clearly on the way up (Denver) and potentially so (Dallas). The maybe-they-have-something teams are in both conferences, I guess, but that's usually the case.

I guess that main point is Portland is a weak ass Western Conference finalist.

It's basically the same Portland team that got swept in the first round last year by basically the same Pelican team that didn't even make the playoffs this year.

Did Portland really get that much better or is the conference worse?

And yeah despite a lot of hype Houston was nowhere near as good this year as they were last year.

Without the rise of Denver the conference is complete trash.

Portland shouldn’t be penalized for playing a weak OKC team and then Denver’s missed FYs. Are they THAT much better than last year? CJ has taken a leap in the playoffs and Kanter looks great so...yes?

You can’t denigrate the league because the Warriors are great. There’s more parity this year than any in recent memory - but nobody is beating the Ws. That’s ok.

Utah made the WCF years ago (maybe it was the year Dallas lost to Ws in the firs round) and were significantly weaker than these Blazers are. Things are fine.

Houston losing was no surprise.

The Sixers would wash this Portland team in 5

Oh well.

because Rondo gave him fits in the playoffs last year.

>Portland shouldn’t be penalized for playing a weak OKC team
>and then Denver’s missed FYs. Are they THAT much better than
>last year? CJ has taken a leap in the playoffs and Kanter
>looks great so...yes?
>
>You can’t denigrate the league because the Warriors are
>great. There’s more parity this year than any in recent
>memory - but nobody is beating the Ws. That’s ok.

I know the Warriors are great and their competition the west is weaker than ever before.


>Utah made the WCF years ago (maybe it was the year Dallas lost
>to Ws in the firs round) and were significantly weaker than
>these Blazers are. Things are fine.

The last time Utah made the WCF was when Deron and Boozer were there 12 years ago.

1. Bucks
2. Warriors
3. Raptors
4. Jazz
5. Rockets
6. Blazers
7. Nuggets
8. Celtics
9. Thunder
10. Pacers

An imperfect stat, obviously, but I think it helps reinforce that, despite how good the Celtics and Sixers are at their peak, they weren't nearly consistent enough during the season to justify saying they're better than any non-Warriors Western Conference team.

Maybe if they start playing up to their full potential consistently, this post could have more merit, but til then? Nah.

Again, any rating is imperfect... but even if you go by pure point differential on the season and remove SoS considerations:

Milwaukee: 8.8
GSW: 5.9
Toronto: 6.4
Utah: 5.2
Houston: 4.8
Portland: 4.2
Denver: 4
Celtics: 4.4
Pacers: 3.3
Thunder: 3.4
Sixers: 2.7

You can also see that strength of schedule still favors the east and deems the west harder to play in. Which makes sense, as the depth of the west is obviously superior, but the depth at the *top* of the west is also superior.

Again, this isn't considering "potential," it's considering actual performance. I'd agree that the Celtics and the Sixers, given one game, have at worst top 5 potential when playing their best. But since they didn't consistently play to that level, it's hard to say "they're better." The best teams win consistently.

You don't like Portland, we get it. They gave OKC that work though, and some dudes on here and some heads had them in the WCF.

There is no question they are a better team than last year.



But okay, you don't like them.

That doesn't mean you need to make shit up to further some odd agenda (anti-Blazers agendas are strange as hell to me)


Houston would mollywhop Boston.

Things are obviously more balanced, which I'm hyped about. But to say the west is suddenly trash or whatever is simply not true.


Also, aren't you a Laker fan? How did the Lake show not make the offs in such a 'weak' conference? All that young talent and Bron? I know, I know injuries. But if its such a weak conference, you think all that talent would help them at least sneak in at 8th.

Kyrie and Hayward. Yes they underachieved this year but that team is still loaded.

>You don't like Portland, we get it. They gave OKC that work
>though, and some dudes on here and some heads had them in the
>WCF.
>
>There is no question they are a better team than last year.
>
>
>
>But okay, you don't like them.
>
>That doesn't mean you need to make shit up to further some odd
>agenda (anti-Blazers agendas are strange as hell to me)
>
>
>Houston would mollywhop Boston.
>
>Things are obviously more balanced, which I'm hyped about.
>But to say the west is suddenly trash or whatever is simply
>not true.
>
>
>Also, aren't you a Laker fan? How did the Lake show not make
>the offs in such a 'weak' conference? All that young talent
>and Bron? I know, I know injuries. But if its such a weak
>conference, you think all that talent would help them at least
>sneak in at 8th.

The Lakers SUCKED, no PLEA COPS from me. Yes they had injuries, yes the AD drama fucked with the confidence of some of the young guys, yes some of those young guys have not fully lived up to the hype thus far.