Blazer playoff picture for Wednesday night
The Blazer playoff seeding scenarios have been reduced considerably tonight, as the Blazers and Houston both won, and San Antonio is way ahead of the Golden State Whatevers. Denver also won.
On Wednesday night, Portland hosts Denver, Houston visits Dallas, and San Antonio hosts the Hornets. My calculations produce the following projections:
If Houston, Portland and San Antonio all win: Blazers are 4 seed, play Spurs.
If Houston and Portland win, San Antonio loses: Blazers are 4 seed, play Spurs.
If Houston and San Antonio win, Portland loses: Blazers are 5 seed, play Spurs.
If Houston wins, Portland and San Antonio lose: Blazers are 4 seed, play Spurs.
If Houston, Portland and San Antonio all lose: Blazers are 4 seed, play Spurs.
If Houston and Portland lose, San Antonio wins: Blazers are 5 seed, play Rockets.
If Houston and San Antonio lose, Portland wins: Blazers are 3 seed, play Hornets.
If Houston loses, Portland and San Antonio win: Blazers are 3 seed, play Mavericks A perfect mess -- see the updates below.
If the Blazers win on Wednesday, they sew up home court advantage in the first round of the playoffs. If they lose, the Blazers will need New Orleans to beat the Spurs in order for Portland to have that advantage.
To my eye, the worst scenario for the Blazers is Portland losing to Denver, Houston losing to Dallas, and San Antonio beating New Orleans. That puts the Blazers up against Houston, with the Rockets having the home court. Yuck.
UPDATE, 4/14, 1:08 p..m.: A knowledgable reader says that if Houston loses, but Portland and the Spurs win, then Portland is the 4 seed, and plays Houston in the first round. This is based on some multiple-team tiebreaker rules that, to be honest, I have never seen. If anyone has a link to the official version of those rules, I would love to have it.
UPDATE, 4/14, 3:15 p.m.: I have found the official criteria, and they are here. The way I am reading them, both I and the reader may have it wrong. If Houston loses and Portland and the Spurs win, three teams are tied at 54-28: Portland, Denver and the Spurs. The "Playoff Tie-Break Procedures" state:
(1) (a) Since the three division winners are guaranteed a spot in the top four, ties to determine the division winners must be broken before any other ties.The only tie to determine a division winner in this scenario would be Denver-Portland. Denver would win that one based on division record. That gives Denver the division winner spot.(b) When a tie must be broken to determine a division winner, the results of the tie-break shall be used to determine only the division winner and its playoff position, not any other playoff position(s).
What happens next is where things get a little crazy. Is there still a three-way tie to be broken? I think there is, with Portland, the Spurs and Denver still all with the same record. San Antonio and Denver are the division winners, but so what? Portland can still get the 2 seed, can't it? "Teams 1 to 4 in each conference are the three division winners and the team with the next best regular-season record, with the seeding of these four teams determined by regular-season record."
They all have the same record, and so there's a three-way tie. The first criterion listed under "More Than Two Teams Tied" is "Better winning percentage in all games among the tied teams." In that case, Portland wins! The Blazers would be 3-1 against San Antonio and 2-2 against Denver, for a 5-3 record. Denver would be 2-2 against Portland, and Denver is 2-1 over the Spurs, for 4-3. The Spurs would be 2-5. Thus, Portland would get the 2 seed and play the Hornets in the first round. Yikes!
The only qualm I have about this outcome is that a separate section of the "Playoff Picture" page, entitled "Tiebreaker Basis," states that the first criterion for breaking a tie is "Division leader wins tie from team not leading a division." Is that true for multiple-team ties as well as two-team ties? It may be that a non-division-winner can get ahead of a division winner only if the non-division-winner has a better record than the division winner -- not just tied. That would definitely place Portland as the 4 seed in this scenario. But that's not what it says under "Playoff Tie-Break Procedures."
UPDATE, 4/14, 8:07 p.m.: The official NBA page on the playoff scenarios now says that if Houston loses and Portland and San Antonio both win, the Blazers will be the 4 seed. They need a better description of their rules, but hey, it's their league.
| Posted at 9:27 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (25)
My head spins. Anyone thought the Blazers would be playing for the 3 seed on the last day of the regular season? In the west?
Posted by TKrueg | April 13, 2009 9:36 PM
If it weren't for Joe Dumars dumping Billups's contract, Portland would be playing for the 2.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 13, 2009 9:42 PM
Thanks Jack, you made it a somewhat simple to understand.
Posted by Lee | April 13, 2009 10:01 PM
I'm excited that the Blazers are unlikely to be a five seed with Houston being a four seed. That game against the Rockets about ten days ago was tough.
Posted by John | April 13, 2009 11:07 PM
I don't know if I'd call it unlikely. If I had to predict Wednesday night, I'd say Houston will lose to Dallas and San Antonio will win over the Hornets. If that's the case, a Blazer loss would mean a 5 seed against the Rockets. And Denver is a tough opponent for Portland.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 13, 2009 11:12 PM
I think what it boils down to is that the Blazers get the home court advantage with a Blazer win or a Spurs loss.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 13, 2009 11:33 PM
With the Nuggos locked into the #2 seed I can not imagine more than token resistance on Wednesday. Billups, Anthony and Kmart may be at El Gaucho before the end of third quarter.
Posted by Gannicott | April 13, 2009 11:39 PM
Now for the next odds: The chance of sunshine for the Thursday rally at Pioneer Square.
Posted by Bill McDonald | April 13, 2009 11:55 PM
I cannot imagine more than token resistance on Wednesday.
You may be on to something there. In the first round, Denver would probably rather play Dallas (whom they swept) than New Orleans (with whom they split) or Utah (with whom they also split). By the start of the Blazer-Nuggets game, however, we'll know all those other teams' final records, and since Denver is locked at 2, there will be nothing they can do about the identity of their first-round opponent. The game will mean a heck of a lot more to the Blazers than it will to the Nuggets.
Perhaps Denver would look ahead to the second round of the playoffs. If they beat the Blazers Wednesday, Denver sets itself up for a second round matchup with Houston or San Antonio. Houston beat them 3-1 in the regular season, including the last three. Denver took 2 out of 3 from the Spurs. Depending on the outcome of the Spurs and Rockets games, Denver might have an incentive to take the night off.
If they lose to the Blazers Wednesday, there's a chance the Nuggets might get Portland in the second round. The two teams will have a regular season split up to that point. Denver would probably rather play Portland than Houston, even if they lost the season finale to the Blazers.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 14, 2009 1:08 AM
More boiling down:
Most likely first-round opponent: Spurs
Most likely second-round opponent: Lakers
Most likely seed: 4
Posted by Jack Bog | April 14, 2009 2:10 AM
Obviously playing a first round against the weakened Spurs is our best chance to advance. But that also means a 2nd round against the Lakers, which we'll lose. I think in a 7-game series the Blazers can beat any team except the Lakers, so I'm rooting for a Houston loss and Blazers win for a 3 seed, which has the potential to get us to the conference finals. That would be great experience off of which to build for the next few years.
Posted by Big fan | April 14, 2009 8:36 AM
Wow, a truly great post. Very helpful breakdown. Thanks!
I am so excited right now. The team has been a blast to follow this season. I'm probably going to make the mid-day commute from the job in Wilsonville to the rally Thursday.
Go Blazers!
Posted by paniscus | April 14, 2009 9:10 AM
No outcome is a foregone conclusion. I *hate* that the NBA and NBC/TNT/ESPN focus on the Cavs and Lakers as if everyone else is an also-ran. This last week, the only drama they've focused on is the Lakers quest to catch the Cavs for home court advantage in the finals. Excuse me, but neither team has played a playoff game yet. So presumptuous. What, the three-way (nearly four-way tie) for spots 3 through 5 isn't dramatic enough?
It's a shame because we're in a new golden age for the NBA... There hasn't been this much parity and depth in talent since the 80's.
Memo to David Stern: Drama is good. Hope is good. Dreaming big is good... From teams 1 through 8. As the saying goes, "this is why they play the games".
Posted by TKrueg | April 14, 2009 9:24 AM
I *hate* that the NBA and NBC/TNT/ESPN focus on the Cavs and Lakers as if everyone else is an also-ran.
Add ESPN to that. I watched Sportscenter all the way through this morning, and there was no mention of the Blazers blowing out OKC. I was thinking we'd get at least a spot in Top 10 plays for the alley-oop to Bayless towards the end of the game.
Posted by Joey | April 14, 2009 9:50 AM
The focus is on LAL and Cleveland because a Kobe vs. King James Finals matchup would be the most watched NBA Finals of this decade. Also, you have to add in the fact that we have not seen teams as dominant as the Lakers and Cavaliers since the Jazz and Bulls. The traditional contenders (San Antonio and Detroit) will have the darndest time getting out of the first round due to injuries and crappy play going into the post season and the up and coming teams have a hard time winning on the road, thus leading to the focus on the most consistent teams (LAL, Cleveland, Boston and Orlando).
No-one talked or cared about the OKC blowout because it was a foregone conclusion. Portland is great at home. However, a 20-21 road record is not convincing any paid sports analyst that you should be taken seriously to go deep in the playoffs. Especially after the Blazers allowed the second worst team (LA Clippers) to come back and tie it after Portland had a 15 point lead at the half a couple of days ago.
Posted by YoungOregonMoonbat | April 14, 2009 10:03 AM
Weakened Spurs...I don't believe it. Everything changes in the playoffs. There will be no back-to-backs which have been the Spurs achilles heel down the stretch. Instead, there are days of rest between games and travel. Chances for Duncan to heal up. And preparing for just one opponent is a bonus for both teams. It will all come down to talent. (Having home court would be nice, too.)
Posted by Mrk Mason | April 14, 2009 10:21 AM
Hey Jack, I think you're off on your last prediction. If Houston loses, but Portland and SA win, then Portland is the 4 seed, and plays Houston in the first round.
The factor you aren't taking into account is that the division winner is the first tie-breaker. Because SA would be the division winner in that senario, they are seeded above Portland, even though Portland technically has the tie breaker over them.
It's all explained over on Blazer's Edge: http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/4/14/834639/april-14th-seeding-report
Posted by D.J. | April 14, 2009 11:14 AM
I *hate* that the NBA and NBC/TNT/ESPN focus on the Cavs and Lakers as if everyone else is an also-ran.
The fix is in for a Kobe vs. LeBron finals--it's all anyone in TV land wants. In other words, if Blazers-Lakers were to go to Game 7, you can expect the usual ref suspects to be mighty generous with the whistles whenever King Kobe gets his hands on the ball. LaMarcus will be charged with a foul on Kobe while being 8 feet away, just wait and see.
Posted by Dave J. | April 14, 2009 11:50 AM
I will always remember my first year in Portland, swept up in a sea of humanity along 4th. 1977 - how sweet that was.
They're baaack. Yipee, red hot and rollin, rip freakin city. Is this premature? Immature? I don't care. Go Blazers - one game at a time sweet Jesus.
Posted by genop | April 14, 2009 12:50 PM
Because SA would be the division winner in that senario, they are seeded above Portland, even though Portland technically has the tie breaker over them.
I don't think so. If I am reading the NBA official primer on this correctly, division record is relevant only if the two teams are from the same division.
Does anybody have a link to the complete, official league tiebreaker rules?
Posted by Jack Bog | April 14, 2009 12:58 PM
I didn't read every single comment but if Blazers, Spurs, and Rockets all win, that also means that Denver loses, and all 4 teams are tied with the same record.
Because Denver is the NW Division Champs, I guess it only affects Denver's position with the No. 2 & 3 spot and doesn't really affect the Blazers, right?
Posted by Travis | April 14, 2009 1:01 PM
Here is the link stating that "Division leader wins tie from team not leading a division" under TIEBREAKER BASIS:...(http://www.nba.com/statistics/playoff_picture.html)
Denver is all but guaranteed the no. 2 seed at this point. They wrapped up the division leader status earlier. The NBA does not award divisions early, to take them away once teams tie records after the last game.
To further complicate matters, even if Portland did beat Denver, the regular season match-up would stand tied at 2-2.
Denver is not moving anywhere.
Posted by YoungOregonMoonbat | April 14, 2009 1:14 PM
Jack I am impressed you can do that calculation on April 14 ...
Posted by paul g. | April 14, 2009 1:31 PM
It appears to me that Denver does not have the 2 seed locked up -- even Houston could still get ahead of them.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 14, 2009 5:21 PM
Jack,
That's an interesting read of the rules - I hadn't caught that but it does sound like you have a point that the language seems to give Portland a chance to still get the second seed.
But to add yet another voice to the matter, here's the NBA's official take on the matter:
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/14/scenarios0413/index.html
And of anyone, I guess it's their interpretation that's going to carry the day.
Posted by D.J. | April 14, 2009 6:06 PM