Talk:2008–09 NBA season
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008–09 NBA season article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | National Basketball Association Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Standings
I replaced the inline standings with transclusions of the already-existing standings templates. I did this so the standings do not need to be updated in multiple places at the conclusion of a game. It looks a little bit different because the templates have a few more columns than what was inline. If people do not like the current layout, my suggestion is to remove some of the columns from the template (games played can go first, IMO). – X96lee15 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest using this format:
| Team | W | L | PCT | GB | Div | Conf |
|---|
–Howard the Duck 11:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so. ● 8~Hype @ 08:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would you even say why? Road and away records don't matter in playoff seedings anyway. –Howard the Duck 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- What does Home, Road, Div and GP stand for?--Dany3000 (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Home = record @ home, road = record on the road, Div = divisional standings, GP = games played? I dunno why we should even add home, road and GP. –Howard the Duck 05:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- What does Home, Road, Div and GP stand for?--Dany3000 (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would you even say why? Road and away records don't matter in playoff seedings anyway. –Howard the Duck 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so. ● 8~Hype @ 08:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Unindent: Currently, NBA.com uses the following format:
| Team | W | L | PCT | GB | Conf | Div | Home | Road | L 10 | Streak |
|---|
Yahoo Sports does it this way:
| Team | W | L | PCT | GB | Home | Road | Div | Conf | Streak | L10 |
|---|
I also ripped off Yahoo Sports' conference standings and applied to the previous season's article and I was pleasantly surprised to see it on this article until right before the playoffs start.
ESPN's regular version:
| Team | W | L | PCT | GB | Home | Road | Conf | Div | PF | PA | Diff | Streak | L10 |
|---|
Compare to the current convention:
| Team | W | L | PCT | GB | Home | Road | Div | GB | GP |
|---|
If you'd notice, GB always comes after PCT. Check out my proposed table above to see the differences and similarities. I proposed ditching home and away records since they don't matter in playoff seedings, unless the NBA proposes a rule similar to the Away goals rule in soccer. –Howard the Duck 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I like the suggestions, HtD, but can you add column space for a link to the respective teams' 08-09 season details page, a la the current NFL season page? Like this:
| Team | W | L | T | PCT | PF | PA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New England Patriots | 5 | 2 | 0 | .714 | 153 | 132 | Details |
- Thoughts?
- –Whatisthenatrix (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that'll be highly recommended especially if all teams have one (I think every team has one for the current season). –Howard the Duck 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- What if we replace the team name with their 2008-09 article? Such as:
| Team | W | L | T | PCT | PF | PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New England Patriots | 5 | 2 | 0 | .714 | 153 | 132 |
- That way the team will show up bolded on the season article. It also reduces the number of columns. "Details" isn't that intuitive to mean "08-09 season" — X96lee15 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- That was my initial thought too X, and I still think it makes the most sense - in the game logs as well. But it does involve breaking from the format that the NFL page uses (ideally major sports would use roughly the same format for these tables), and also making considerable changes to existing pages that use a particular team's main organization page as the default. I'd vote for it, though, since it seems most logical and intuitive for the pages we're talking about. After all, it's the 08-09 teams in particular that have these records/results, and not the organization as a whole (which includes last year's team too, as well as any that have come before it). –Whatisthenatrix (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) The baseball WikiProject had a workaround on this so that on a team season article, that team's row is highlighted. But since once the playoffs approach, the table will become colorful, I guess some other way of distinguishing it must be used (like italicizing it perhaps?)
- Plus if I see "New England Patriots", I expect to be taken to that team's article, not its season article. The "details" link at the end seems plausible for it to refer to the season article.
- BTW, have you suggested this to the NFL WikiProject? Since we're ripping off their idea, we might as well follow with what they'd do with their original idea and apply it here. –Howard the Duck 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean, HD, regarding baseball or football. I'll try to respond to the issues you bring up:
- WRT the baseball project, it seems like you're referring to the standings pages that exist on pages like 2008 Boston Red Sox season. And while I take your point, and an updated divisional standings excerpt would be a nice thing to have on each NBA team's page, I don't think it achieves what X96 and I are suggesting, which is this: on the main 08-09 NBA season page, there should be an easy and intuitive way to travel from the team listings in the Div/Conf/League standings to each respective team season page, where users will be able to find the current coaching staff, roster, depth chart, game log, etc. for the appropriate team.
- I'm not sure the NFL WP 'Details' route is the best way to go, since the team info that I think is most relevant to the current season is the stuff I just mentioned, and not the stuff you'd find on the team article, such as organization history, owners, color schemes, etc.
- Also WRT NFL, I'm not sure it's ripping off NFL WP's idea if we're trying to find a good way to list current season info for individual teams on the main 08-09 season page. If we end up using their specific format, then I suppose we should work in concert with them, but I'm not sure how to achieve that - any suggestions? I looked around a bit for any discussions they've had dealing with the standings template we're discussing, and I couldn't find any. I apologize for the ignorance; this is my first attempt at helping out with a WikiProject. Thanks. –Whatisthenatrix (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- In baseball, the standings for every division is on a separate template. To transclude the template, you'd have to add another code syntax for the team to be highlighted in its season article page.
- Also for all of the league season articles, when you click the team name, it goes to the team's main article, not its season article. The team's main article should always be linked to the league season page. The team's season article, if it exists, should also be included in the league season article.
- If the standings were to be edited, I'd highly recommend W-L-PCT-GB as the first four to be seen, with PCT-GB appearing side-by-side. Div and Conf standings may be included, while Home and road standings may not be included. So if we'd go through my proposal, it's W-L-PCT-GB-DIV-CONF, 6 headings. –Howard the Duck 04:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think nobody will object if I'll put PCT and GB together again, isn't it? –Howard the Duck 12:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I placed them together. I also added tooltips to make easier for non-NBA followers to know what Div and GB means. –Howard the Duck 12:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've added {{tnavbar}} to make it more accessible to be edited. You guys can practically do anything you want with the standings templates but please keep PCT and GB together. You people can ditch the tooltips or remove the tnavbar but keep PCT and GB together. Thanks. –Howard the Duck 12:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Playoff qualification
Since the templates use colors to highlight the team on its own season article, I suggest we use the traditional method of labeling teans that qualified for the playoffs. Like this:
- x- Cleveland Cavaliers (4)
The (4) is optional. The letters used will mean:
- z- clinched home court advantage throughout the playoffs
- y- clinched division title (I prefer using "y" instead of "a" or "c" or "sw" since it'll be uniform for every team.)
- x- clinched playoff berth
- e- eliminated
–Howard the Duck 13:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well it appears that somebody is going ahead and color coding the Conference standing templates anyway, ignoring the initial use for the color coding. Is there pretty much a consensus here at least not to use colors to highlight playoff qualifying teams? Shamedog18 (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- The reason why we don't color code the division standings tables is because the color is used for highlighting teams in the team season articles. Since we don't use the conference standings table to highlight the different teams, someone added color but I will suggest to use the letters to be consistent. –Howard the Duck 03:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well it appears that somebody is going ahead and color coding the Conference standing templates anyway, ignoring the initial use for the color coding. Is there pretty much a consensus here at least not to use colors to highlight playoff qualifying teams? Shamedog18 (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Turnover/Fouls
In the statistic leaders section, why do we need to have the turnover/personal fouls leaders? It just doesn't seem to go together with the rest of statistics in the section. If we are going to include these somewhat uncommon stats, will we also include the leader in technical fouls per game or minutes per game?Henry talk 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"Notable" Occurrences
I think it needs to be said that there is a definite glut of "notable" occurrences in this article. With everyone's blessing, I'm gonna try and trim that section's length down. Dknights411 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Question
How many games does each team get to play? 24.12.249.201 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Each team plays 82 games. Shamedog18 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
OK 24.12.249.201 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Trade Table?
I'm thinking about turning the several first "notable" events, the trades on June 26th into a table.
Would this be suitable?
| Teams Involved | Players Traded | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Milwaukee Bucks / New Jersey Nets | Bobby Simmons, Yi Jianlian | for | Richard Jefferson |
| Indiana Pacers / Portland Trail Blazers | Jerryd Bayless, Ike Diogu | for | Brandon Rush, Jarret Jack, Josh McRoberts |
| Indiana Pacers / Toronto Raptors | Jermaine O'Neal, Natha Jawai | for | T. J. Ford, Rasho Nesterovič, Roy Hibbert, Maceo Baston. |
| Memphis Grizzlies / Minnesota Timberwolves | Kevin Love, Mike Miller, Brian Cardinal Jason Collins |
for | O. J. Mayo, Antoine Walker, Marko Jaric, Greg Buckner |
or this
Notable Trades
| Three-way Trades | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | Team | Recieves | Team | Recieves | Team | Recieves |
| August 13, 2008 | Cleveland Cavaliers | Mo Williams | Milwaukee Bucks | Damon Jones, Luke Ridnour, Adrian Griffin | Oklahoma City Thunder | Joe Smith, Desmond Mason |
| December 10, 2008 | Washington Wizards | Mike James, Javaris Crittenton | New Orleans Hornets | Antonio Daniels, conditional second-round pick | Oklahoma City Thunder | conditional first-round pick |
| February 19, 2009 | Orlando Magic | Rafer Alston | Houston Rockets | Kyle Lowry, Brian Cook | Memphis Grizzlies | Adonal Foyle, Mike Wilks, first-round pick from Orlando |
I'm just thinking about doing this for all the trades this year and creating a "Trades" section so the "notable occurences" section seems less inflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyogunAW (talk • contribs) 08:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll just go ahead and do it. If it itself becomes distracting, turn into a separate page or have the option to hide/show it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyogunAW (talk • contribs) 08:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Decimals in the statistics section
User:Syjytg keeps changing the stat section into using five decimal numbers in each stat. This is excessive and it makes no difference as to the informativeness of the table. In fact, the stats are harder to read this way. It is a common policy to use one decimal for figures over 10, two decimals for under 10 and three for percentages. NBA.com uses this policy and unless the aforementioned user (or anyone else for that matter) manages to provide valid reasons for using five instead, we should stick to the one that is generally used. Antti29 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- 3O WP:MOSNUM states: "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context". I would suggest that unless greater precision is warranted as a result of there being closely-ranked teams being indistinguishable on the basis of the prevailing standard on previous seasons' articles, that this prevailing standard likewise apply to this page. If articles for other seasons use 3 decimal places of precision and there's no reason to increase precision for this season, this article should also use 3 decimal places. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Given the on-going edit wars over this issue, I would suggest that page protection be requested until consensus is established and the article stabilizes. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- The stats changes everyday, by asking protection, the stats cannot be changed and hence it would be inaccurate. GeniusAcameldeSatosta (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've filed the request. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- The stats changes everyday, by asking protection, the stats cannot be changed and hence it would be inaccurate. GeniusAcameldeSatosta (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Given the on-going edit wars over this issue, I would suggest that page protection be requested until consensus is established and the article stabilizes. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)