View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24484 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 08/28/17 10:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah, as I've said many times, I don't like that teams that finished as high as 3rd could be finished in the postseason after one game. I also think it defeats the purpose of the new system, because it allows a strong possibility that the top two teams end up playing weaker opponents in the semis, leading to one-sided semi-final series. They want the best teams playing in the Finals, but they also want the best teams in the best-of-five semis when they're drawing (relatively speaking) lots of eyes.
It's why I keep advocating a version of the AFL playoffs system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_final_eight_system . In troduce an element of double-elimination to somewhat protect the teams that have earned the higher spot. More than just home court in a one-off playoff. |
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12793 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
Posted: 08/28/17 10:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Bob Lamm wrote: |
Sorry, just not with you on this. You are very focused on the stats from that one game that ended our 2016 season. I'm not. I'm not disrespecting anyone and certainly not outstanding players like Taylor, Bonner, and Dupree. All I'm saying is that Taurasi and Griner are terrific and I don't like the thought of a do-or-die game against them. And I don't seem to be alone in that concern.
As for how champions shouldn't be afraid of anyone, I'm not on the Liberty roster. If I'm afraid of Taurasi and Griner, that doesn't hurt New York one bit. Bill Laimbeer and the Liberty players don't care who I'm afraid of. I'm not going to be a champion when the 2017 playoffs are over, but I hope the coaches and players of my team will be.
Similarly, as for "be careful what you wish for," it doesn't affect anything what I wish for. That doesn't decide who plays whom in the playoffs. If we play Washington in the second round and lose, is it my fault for hoping we can bypass Phoenix? I don't think so. |
Look at your original post:
Bob Lamm wrote: |
Assuming there aren't upsets in the first round, avoiding Washington in the 2nd round would mean a do-or-die game vs. Phoenix. That wasn't fun last season. I'd rather play Washington in that situation. |
I think I responded directly to your statement. You were referring specifically to last year's loss and suggesting that this year's experience could be similar. That's why I referenced that particular game and noted that 10 players are missing. That's 83% of the team, including Taylor, Dupree, and Bonner. For the experience to be similar, that could only mean that the missing players were insignificant or readily replaceable.
You also blurred the lines between yourself and the team when you said: "I'd rather play Washington." Obviously, you were never going to "play" anybody. So, when I said a champion shouldn't be afraid of anybody, I was doing the same thing. It's pretty clear that nothing in this discussion was ever about the attitude of players or coaches. This was always about what we as fans feel.
_________________ You can always do something else.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 08/28/17 10:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
root_thing wrote: |
Bob Lamm wrote: |
Sorry, just not with you on this. You are very focused on the stats from that one game that ended our 2016 season. I'm not. I'm not disrespecting anyone and certainly not outstanding players like Taylor, Bonner, and Dupree. All I'm saying is that Taurasi and Griner are terrific and I don't like the thought of a do-or-die game against them. And I don't seem to be alone in that concern.
As for how champions shouldn't be afraid of anyone, I'm not on the Liberty roster. If I'm afraid of Taurasi and Griner, that doesn't hurt New York one bit. Bill Laimbeer and the Liberty players don't care who I'm afraid of. I'm not going to be a champion when the 2017 playoffs are over, but I hope the coaches and players of my team will be.
Similarly, as for "be careful what you wish for," it doesn't affect anything what I wish for. That doesn't decide who plays whom in the playoffs. If we play Washington in the second round and lose, is it my fault for hoping we can bypass Phoenix? I don't think so. |
Look at your original post:
Bob Lamm wrote: |
Assuming there aren't upsets in the first round, avoiding Washington in the 2nd round would mean a do-or-die game vs. Phoenix. That wasn't fun last season. I'd rather play Washington in that situation. |
I think I responded directly to your statement. You were referring specifically to last year's loss and suggesting that this year's experience could be similar. That's why I referenced that particular game and noted that 10 players are missing. That's 83% of the team, including Taylor, Dupree, and Bonner. For the experience to be similar, that could only mean that the missing players were insignificant or readily replaceable.
You also blurred the lines between yourself and the team when you said: "I'd rather play Washington." Obviously, you were never going to "play" anybody. So, when I said a champion shouldn't be afraid of anybody, I was doing the same thing. It's pretty clear that nothing in this discussion was ever about the attitude of players or coaches. This was always about what we as fans feel. |
This is like a high school debate. I concede. Hardly worth it.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN
Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 14097
Back to top |
Posted: 08/28/17 10:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
J-Spoon wrote: |
I'm pretty psyched for the playoffs.
I think we've reversed our pattern from our previous two seasons. We had our injury in the beginning of the season, our confused and mediocre play in the middle of the season, and we seem to be having the putting it all together winning part of the season now. A little rest, combined with maintaining our momentum and I think we could actually make some noise in the post season. |
Me too. Anything can happen in a one and done of course. But the Libs are a better offensive team this year than they were last year. Better balance, more depth.
_________________ The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
|
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN
Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 14097
Back to top |
Posted: 08/28/17 10:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Regarding the discussion about the playoff format, I'm still at a loss why you can't have a six-team playoff with two byes and best of three first rounds. 7 and 8 have almost no chance to make the finals, and they get no home games until semis game 3 if they get there. It's absurd.
_________________ The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 08/28/17 11:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote: |
Regarding the discussion about the playoff format, I'm still at a loss why you can't have a six-team playoff with two byes and best of three first rounds. 7 and 8 have almost no chance to make the finals, and they get no home games until semis game 3 if they get there. It's absurd. |
What you've proposed here would be far better than the current system.
I believe the answer to your "why" question is simply money. The more teams that qualify for the playoffs, the more franchises where fans may come to late-season games. It's not just that the #7 and #8 teams make the playoffs. (I'd argue that they shouldn't.) The #9 and #10 teams are often still in the hunt until the end of August so those fans have reason not to stay home.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22513 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 5:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm hoping in a few years the play-offs will get changed to where to the first round is a best-of-3(#1 vs. #8, etc.) & the semis & Finals remain a best-of-5.
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 7:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote: |
Regarding the discussion about the playoff format, I'm still at a loss why you can't have a six-team playoff with two byes and best of three first rounds. 7 and 8 have almost no chance to make the finals, and they get no home games until semis game 3 if they get there. It's absurd. |
I agree letting only the top 6 in. I'd go for the top 4.
As for why - I think owners want to be able to claim their team was a playoff team for marketing purposes and to hype the playoff races as Bob says. However, marginal teams fail to draw any kind of decent crowd for playoffs and teams frequently have to find an alternate arena. The result is embarrassing crowds often in alternate arenas. Even the Lynx have to go to different arena this year. As a result, the marginal teams want in, but don't want to have series go very long.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67491 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 7:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
As a result, the marginal teams want in, but don't want to have series go very long. |
The league has perhaps found the perfect compromise in allowing eight teams in but having the first two rounds be one-and-done
_________________ The truth is like poetry
Most people hate poetry
|
|
LibFan25
Joined: 01 Sep 2012 Posts: 895 Location: NY
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 8:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Read this article, Great analysis of the eight game winning streak.
https://summitthoops.com/2017/08/29/new-york-liberty-8-game-winning-streak-wnba-playoffs/
The guards are noticing the extra attention that shades toward Charles even before she has touched the ball and catch defenses leaning with their crisp ball movement. I mentioned their spacing, which is vital to allow Charles to hit the open player out of a double team. LaChina Robinson may have beat me to it in really singing her praises, but Bria Hartley’s excellence in some of the game’s subtleties has really allowed her to shine in her starting role.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24484 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 8:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
Randy wrote: |
As a result, the marginal teams want in, but don't want to have series go very long. |
The league has perhaps found the perfect compromise in allowing eight teams in but having the first two rounds be one-and-done |
I'm fine with that for teams that finish 5-8, but it feels a bit harsh on the ones finishing 3rd/4th. The Liberty could end up winning 43 games over two years and only playing two total playoff games. Obviously it'd be their own fault for crapping the bed in two home playoff games, but anything can happen in one-off games, which is why they play series.
Maybe they should make the second round semi-double elimination. If the 3rd/4th seed wins Game 1, it's over; if they lose it goes to a deciding game back at the lower seed's arena. I just feel like the 3rd/4th needs a little more protection, more reward for the regular season performance. |
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 9:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
One of the things I believe is that in no professional sport should a team be in the playoffs if its regular season record is below .500. Any team that would qualify simply based on a seeding system would forfeit its first round do-or-die game or its first round series.
This doesn't address the issue of second round do-or-die games in the current WNBA playoff setup. It just bothers me when mediocrity is rewarded in the name of money. Even a .500 record is no great achievement. But if your team finishes a WNBA season at 16-18, why should they be in the playoffs?
Obviously what I'm proposing here is never going to happen in any professional league in the U.S. I doubt that the WNBA would even cut the number of playoff teams from eight out of 12 to six, but I wish it would.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 64255
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 9:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Richyyy wrote: |
Maybe they should make the second round semi-double elimination. If the 3rd/4th seed wins Game 1, it's over; if they lose it goes to a deciding game back at the lower seed's arena. I just feel like the 3rd/4th needs a little more protection, more reward for the regular season performance. |
Imagine the scenario where the #4 & #5 seeds are determined by the 2nd tiebreaker, and now you're the #5 seed and you're expected to win two successive games over the #4 seed to their one game. That would be total bs. Leave it the way it is now. If you can't step up and win a home playoff game over a tired opponent, you deserve your fate.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 10:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
No one will come up with a perfect playoff system, and this one is as good as any. It has improved the games in the last week of the season. At present it seems like just about every spot from 1-8 is up for grabs in the last 2 or 3 games. So that is a benefit. I agree with Bob that any team that can't win half their games probably shouldn't be in the playoffs.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11403
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 10:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I think a big issue was the really bad attendance at first-round playoff games in the past. Without time to market, and with game ones usually on a weeknight after school had started, it was pretty ugly. From an owner's perspective, why play an extra game that costs you money? The playoffs are supposed to be a chance to make up for regular season deficits, not add to them.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24484 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 11:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
I think a big issue was the really bad attendance at first-round playoff games in the past. Without time to market, and with game ones usually on a weeknight after school had started, it was pretty ugly. From an owner's perspective, why play an extra game that costs you money? The playoffs are supposed to be a chance to make up for regular season deficits, not add to them. |
But the owners clearly want to make the playoffs - or at least have the possibility of making them - or we'd have dropped below two-thirds of the league making the postseason. That's higher than any of the major US men's sports leagues. So either they're still making money from these early playoff games with crappy attendance, or the increased interest in late-season games from still having a chance to make the playoffs is enough to off-set any potential losses from the added game(s). |
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 12:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Richyyy wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
I think a big issue was the really bad attendance at first-round playoff games in the past. Without time to market, and with game ones usually on a weeknight after school had started, it was pretty ugly. From an owner's perspective, why play an extra game that costs you money? The playoffs are supposed to be a chance to make up for regular season deficits, not add to them. |
But the owners clearly want to make the playoffs - or at least have the possibility of making them - or we'd have dropped below two-thirds of the league making the postseason. That's higher than any of the major US men's sports leagues. So either they're still making money from these early playoff games with crappy attendance, or the increased interest in late-season games from still having a chance to make the playoffs is enough to off-set any potential losses from the added game(s). |
I agree with Richyyy. The issue raised by ClayK about lousy attendance for first-round games can't be viewed in isolation. It has to be seen in a larger context which includes (a) presumably increasing attendance for late-season games for every team in contention for the 7th or 8th playoff slot;
(b) TV money for the first-round games; and (c) the impact of making the playoffs on season-ticket sales for the following season. Only if we have reliable data on all of that can we begin to assess whether various franchises and the league as a whole benefit financially from having eight teams in the playoffs instead of six.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11403
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 2:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I agree with Bob and Richyyy ... I didn't make it clear that my point was more about why the first-round series are just one game. The best-of-three series tended to lose money because of bad attendance, so it made sense to drop to one game.
If the first-round single-game playoff games start to draw 8,000 actual bodies, then a move to best-of-three makes sense.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 2:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
I agree with Bob and Richyyy ... I didn't make it clear that my point was more about why the first-round series are just one game. The best-of-three series tended to lose money because of bad attendance, so it made sense to drop to one game.
If the first-round single-game playoff games start to draw 8,000 actual bodies, then a move to best-of-three makes sense. |
Thanks, Clay. Now I understand better what you were addressing. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I'd still prefer just six teams in the playoffs. Two-out-of-three in the first round, three-out-of-five in the semis, three-out-of-five in the finals.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 4:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The no less than 500 teams rule would also be easy to work out. Just give a bye to the team that would have otherwise faced them.
|
|
Nerd2
Joined: 06 Jun 2010 Posts: 7659
Back to top |
Posted: 08/29/17 5:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Bob Lamm wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
I agree with Bob and Richyyy ... I didn't make it clear that my point was more about why the first-round series are just one game. The best-of-three series tended to lose money because of bad attendance, so it made sense to drop to one game.
If the first-round single-game playoff games start to draw 8,000 actual bodies, then a move to best-of-three makes sense. |
Thanks, Clay. Now I understand better what you were addressing. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I'd still prefer just six teams in the playoffs. Two-out-of-three in the first round, three-out-of-five in the semis, three-out-of-five in the finals. |
But then that would eliminate some teams pretty early and make too many games meaningless late in the season. The Storm got 13,000 people in part because this last game mattered. Had it been 6 teams, Phoenix would have clinched early in the day and the Storm would have been out. Single elimination games are very common overseas and at the college level and I find them an acceptable compromise over people losing interest in the regular season.
|
|
LibFan25
Joined: 01 Sep 2012 Posts: 895 Location: NY
Back to top |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
Posted: 08/30/17 3:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Did Boyd lose her contact lens or is she about to run a race?
_________________ You can always do something else.
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
|
|
|