Talk:2007 NBA playoffs/Archive 1

message: I'm really sick of seeing people butcher the simple statement "home court advantage".  "Home court" is not one word.  It is not hyphenated.  It is a court which is hosted by the home team.  It is a home court.  Just like baseball has a home plate.  That's all.
:The phrase, depending on the style guide you're using, should be "home-court advantage." "Home court" is a compound adjective modifying the word "advantage," and so should be hyphenated according to many style guides. Somebody who writes it "home-court advantage" is not at all off base in doing so. In fact, in my own writing I try to simply phrase it "home advantage" to avoid the problem altogether. 76.10.24.245 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: *Homecourt advantage: italics
*Advancing team: bold.
--Howard the Duck 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Hello. I have just recently been working on summary tables for the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. I was wondering if it would be preferred to update the summary tables located here. In the case of updating, they would perform pretty much identically to the ones that can you can find at the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs page. Also, instead of a scoring summary in the NHL tables, a new format for the NBA Series tables could include a box with points per quarter, leading scorers or any other stats that you find helpful. If you like this idea, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Sukh17 T • C • E</sup></font></span> 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give a sample here? I'm not the biggest fan of the current setup here, although the Stanley Cup page is prettier but can be very long, especially if we reach the conference finals. --Howard the Duck 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently working on a format, I'll post it here as soon as I am done with it. --Sukh17 T • C • E</sup></font></span> 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a new , although it doesn't state which team leads the series. I may tweak this but I'll wait for the creator's permission first as I don't want to screw up other people's templates. --Howard the Duck 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series Summary Tables 

message: I see my method of putting in the number of regular season wins has been eliminated. The problem I have with this method is that it doesn't give the viewer any indication of which team would have home advantage in the next round. I think we ought to keep the number of wins there, and then eliminate it once the round is over and only carry the information forward for the teams that advance. 76.10.24.245 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My method was to italicize the team with the homecourt advantage on the brackets, but they were removed. --Howard the Duck 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't give any indication of who would have home advantage in the next round. That's why I put in the regular season wins; that allows for comparison. 76.10.24.245 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would italicize the team with homecourt advantage in the next round, if they qualify. We don't even know who'll qualify yet, so it's all speculation. --Howard the Duck 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognize that, I'm saying with the wins in parentheses, you can tell what the situation would be based on whatever contingencies you want to think about. If I am a Raptors fan, I may want to see what the home advantage situation would be against either of my team's next round opponents (Bulls or Wizards). I can't tell that looking at the current chart, but if we put regular season wins in parens, you could tell at a glance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.10.24.245 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that complicated as it was last year, though; all higher seeds get to have the homecourt advantage from the semifinals onward (unless I missed something). --Howard the Duck 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. If Chicago and Toronto met in the East Finals, Chicago would have home advantage despite being the 5th seed to Toronto's 3rd. 76.10.24.245 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See I told you I missed something, lol. However, I still don't see the valid reason why we should do that, I'd rather cross the bridge when I get there. --Howard the Duck 06:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, althought it's really not even necessary to italicize, as the home court advantage is obvious from looking at the playoff series tables. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TyrusThomas4lyf (talk • contribs) 06:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But for those who don't bother to read the rest of the article italicizing the team with homecourt advantage helps a lot, especially if one is glancing. --Howard the Duck 08:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Home Court Advantage

message: :Reindent: Can't we even have an improvement of the bulleted list? You may like it that simple, but that looked pathetic as compared to other sports-season/playoff pages. We have to be a bit sophisticated. --Howard the Duck 03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we all share your level of sophistication here.  I honestly don't think it really matters if a page looks "pathetic", as long as the information is all there.  Besides, why should WE conform to YOUR standards of sophistication anyway? Dknights411 04:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why we should conform to your standards of simplicity, too? --Howard the Duck 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <small>(another section break since I hate scrolling)</small>

message: I think we should add a series summary, not necessarily a game-by-game summary, like what happened, ejections, techs, etc. These scores are plain and are boring to read. Like the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs. --Howard the Duck 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A series summary. That's good idea. Chris 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose it would be okay it it's concise and doesn't stretch the page too much.  But what about the OFFICIAL game summaries we've already linked for each game?  Doesn't that get the job done already?  Think about this too: we have no reliable source for older games before 2001.--TyrusThomas4lyf 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about someone writing for Wikinews? That's how the Cricket World Cup worked out. We don't have to apply each and every thing that we do to each and every annual playoff page. I don't like what they did at the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, that is a very long article, with all of those stats (a quarter-by-quarter breakdown). A short paragraph on each of the home stands (first two games, next two games, game 5, game 6, game 7 would do. --Howard the Duck 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be working on this on and off throughout the week. Dknights411 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where should it be added anyway? Before or after the scores? As for the trivia, it'll be a better idea if it's incorporated in the paragraph. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf. Quadzilla99 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User RfC related to this article 

message: I am 100% confused and the article doesnt help, so, how does it work that the #2 seed faces the #3 seed, while the 4th gets the 8th seed, that hardly seems fair, someone care to explain this? Anung Mwka 00:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a playoff quirk that the NBA has yet to fully resolve.  The brackets are locked so that whoever wins the 1-8 matchup faces the winner of the 4-5 matchup.  The same thing goes for thw 2-7 and 3-6 matchups.  In previous seasons, the one seed almost always advanced anyway, so the NBA never really adressed this issue.  There are too many quirks when it comes to NBA playoff seedings, and it seems like they unfortunatly never get it right. Dknights411 01:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Even the NHL can't get it right either. The bracket's so messed up I don't how to read, edit or analyze it. Lets just draw lots, LOL. --Howard the Duck 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't as though the NBA is totally daft; locked-in pairings is how the NCAA Tournament works (which is perhaps the most famous tournament structure in sports; certainly in the United States). I agree that the NBA should change it, however. Another issue with the seeding here, though, is that putting the home team in italics to me is sub-optimal. I am used to seeing eliminated teams shown in italics, and while that's not the case here, it is done often enough that it strikes me, why go up against an alternate usage? I would say instead we should put an asterisk next to the home team in the series. 76.10.24.245 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point although most of the brackets I've seen either have the eliminated teams grayed out or stricken off. Asterisks were used to denote division champions, but it's not currently used here. But I've not seen home teams italicized, and although it's not be best method (other methods include adding the number of wins, and the NHL method of the home team on top) I think italicized works fine, and it can emphasize that the team that had the home court advantage was eliminated when they're not both boldfaced and italicized. --Howard the Duck 14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing NHL-specific about putting the home team on the top line; that is typically what is done in a bracket, at least in those rounds you can control it (usually just the 1st; the NHL's playoff format also allows for the 2nd). That's why I thought the NHL debate was so aburd; there's nothing NHL-specific about putting the home team on the top line, and although that is conventional to do so, it is only conventional in those rounds where it is something the bracket-drawer can control. Nobody bothers with going back to re-fiddle earlier rounds to make them match the home/road designations as the tournament develops. At any rate, I think you are right, usage is sufficiently inconsistent that the current method of italicizing works well enough. 76.10.24.245 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might as well cut the italicization from the conf. semis onwards since now all higher seeds get the home court advantage. --Howard the Duck 06:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It'll be needed again in the NBA Finals and there is no need to introduce inconsistencies in the formatting we're using. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.10.24.245 (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that. --Howard the Duck 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeding 

message: Just wondering if a team has ever won seven straight games without loss? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.230.65 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SportsCenter last night said the Pistons are the 11th team to do so and that 7 of the prior 10 went on to win the NBA Championship. 76.10.24.245 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last team I remember having a playoff run like the Pistons are having were the 1999 San Antonio Spurs, who lost only 2 games throughout the entire playoffs.  The Spurs did notch 2 straight sweeps in the semi-finals and the conference finals, so that makes 8 straigh right there, including the two straight to close out the T-Wolves in round 1 and the Game 1 victory in the 99 Finals, that's a win streak of 11 if I'm not mistaken. Dknights411 02:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pistons Undefeated