[tuq]

Fly,

Regarding Denver, their chances of winning were fairly remote but not impossible, which they were for GSW and the Lakers. They played the Spurs tough in the first round series and get past Phoenix and they have a pretty even matchup against the Jazz. The fact is when the playoffs started they were most certainly considered a team that could go somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
Games against bad teams count just the same in the standings and losing to bad teams is certainly not "irrelevant" to team evaluation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a newsflash: they don't play bad teams in the playoffs. Well in the east they do in the first and sometimes second rounds, but generally playoff teams are good. Thus I would think that results against playoff-caliber teams are more relevant than how they do against the Grizzlies of the league. Are you really giving roughly the same weight to a win or loss against Portland as a win or loss against Dallas?

[ QUOTE ]
If the West was really OMGBBQWTF so much better than the East, the Cavs wouldn't be able to beat up on the bad Western teams because the bad Western teams would be mediocre Eastern teams, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you being serious? The following WC teams were clearly better or as good as Cleveland last year:

1. Dallas
2. San Antonio
3. Phoenix
4. Houston
5. Utah
6. Denver (finished the season 16-6 in their last 22)

THAT is why the WC was WAY better than the EC, it has nothing to do with the quality of the bottom-feeders.