Talk:2006–07 NBA season

PCT

Europe style = 50,00 or N.America style = .500 ? Spy1986 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

North American style - the NBA is a North American league. --t ALL IN c 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Dknights411 02:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My changes to the table

I noticed that my changes to the table were reverted. I gave an explanation for it in the edit, so hopefully it can get across better here. The number of games they have played on the season is not necessary. All it is is distracting, and anybody with a brain can add up the number of wins and losses to figure it out for themselves. Also, the asteriks that are placed for the teams that would be in the playoffs if they started today is completely unnecessary; who cares about who would be in the playoffs if they started today? All that matters is who actually gets into the playoffs, and we won't really know anybody for another 5 months or so. bob rulz 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Games behind

Adding a Games behind column in the results tables would be interesting for a season in progress. Moreover, the tables would then have the same format as those of the already closed seasons. Tikiwont 13:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Standings updates

While this is not a News page, the standings may still be updated frequently, but preferably only in a consistent manner, summing up everything up to a specific date which is listed above the tables. Vice versa, updates for single conferences, games or even single team records simply create an ill-defined standings table. Tikiwont 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Box Scores??

Anybody want to start doing this like the FA Premier League and have box scores for the games? Might be a little much since there are so many games nightly in the NBA, but hey, this is Wikipedia. Here's some of the pages for the FA Premier to look at for an example:

• FA Premier League 2006-07
• FA Premier League results November 2006
• FA Premier League results October 2006

--Jaysscholar 10:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I can. Spy1986 20:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Done - NBA Results November 2006. Spy1986 07:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Standings based on conferences

How about a standings like the one seen on Yahoo! Sports? --Howard the Duck 13:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Notables?

"This was also the second time a player hit at least ten in a row this season, Kobe Bryant doing this against the Utah Jazz 11 straight times for 52 points."

How does 11 straight shots add up to 52 points? Even if they were all 3-pointers the most possible points you could get out of 11 shots is 33 points. I'm going to delete this line, if someone can show citation that Kobe Bryant made 11 straight shots for 52 points against the Utah Jazz go ahead a put it back in. War wizard90 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe FTs were included? --Howard the Duck 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Draft picks

Are they necessary? --Howard the Duck 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I made some changes on the article, instead of letters, I used colors to further highlight where the teams stand and placed the West on the left. --Howard the Duck 15:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, but only when the season is still going. When the season is over, it would probably be best to change it back to refelect the rest of the NBA Seasons articles. Dknights411 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We can reformat previous season articles to conform to this one. --Howard the Duck 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My arguement here is that this setup is fine for a season still in progress, but for a season that is already done, just a simple setup of the standings would suffice. I prefer to keep things like this as simple as possible (i.e. is color coding THAT necessary), whih is why I feel like the conference standings table is a bit too much to keep after the season is over. But that's just me. Dknights411 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd want to get rid of the color red for eliminated teams once the season is done. The greens and the blues will be helpful for which teams made it as division champions, etc.

As for the conference standings, I'd like to lessen it to seed, team name and games behind, like the one found at Yahoo! Sports. --Howard the Duck

Conference Champions

Is it proper to refer to the top seed the "Conference Champion"? Isn't that what the teams in the NBA Finals are? I'm just wondering whether this is the right terminology. 76.10.24.245 02:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And Is the term 'clinched conference' ambiguous? I should note that NBA.com use the term. Thanks Chris 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "conference topnotcher"? The NHL also uses the league champion too (like the Red Wings last year). --Howard the Duck 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"League Champion" isn't what I'm talking about. In the NHL, the top-seeded team in each conference is styled as the "Conference Regular Season Champion." The NBA standings page says "Clinched [name] Division" and "Clinched [name] Conference" but it doesn't say what has been clinched. We know with respect to the Divisions, it is the Division Championship. We know this because the playoffs do not purport to name a Division Champion; instead, the Division Champions get preferential treatment in the seeding. Additionally, teams routinely hang banners in their arenas celebrating their Division Championships. I am seeking some form of evidence that uses the word "champion" with respect to the top-seeded team in each Conference (as is the usage in the NHL) or alternatively disproves that this is the usage. Media reports routinely refer to that team has having "clinched the top spot" or "clinched the No. 1 seed" but do not describe this as a "championship" per se; I can't find a single article that refers to the 2007 Pistons or Mavericks as the "champions" of their respective Conferences, presumably because this distinction is only conferred on the teams that play in the NBA Finals. I suspect the only way of finally resolving this (which is most important for future reference) is to simply contact the NBA and ask them what the proper usage is, which I will do on Monday. 76.10.24.245 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You call the NBA and find out. I am sure they will tell you the same thing they display on their website. What you said about clinched what is making me laugh. When they say clinched conference, people intuitively know what they are talking about. They don't need to express explicitly what it is. Only people with reading problem wont know what they are talking about. Chris 03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for the rude comments. Using your logic, the Dallas Mavericks are the NBA Champions, since they've clinched the best record in the league. I don't know anybody who would subscribe to that usage; the NBA Champion is the team with the Larry O'Brien Trophy at the end of June, which is why media accounts refer to Dallas as having "clinched home court advantage throughout the playoffs" or something indistinguishable. This is just one example of how equating the team in 1st place with being a "champion" is a slippery and uncertain process. I also don't appreciate your glib attitude about the "obviousness" of all this, as it was certainly enough to provoke a legitimate dispute between the Houston Astros and St. Louis Cardinals in the aftermath of the 2001 season. I am only seeking accuracy, but you're making this confrontational. 76.10.24.245 03:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not being rude, I am just being realistic. Every fluent English reader should know that ‘clinched conference’ means a team is currently in first and is going to win out. I really don’t understand what your problem is. And like I said, your so called published evidence will not work because an article is suppose to provide details while a chart is suppose to be simple. I don’t know why you are making this difficult.

I think what you said about 1st seed is right. The Mavs is in fact the first seed in the western conference. But the Mavs is also the champion is the whole western conference or the first place winner or the topnotcher of the west. The fact is there are thousand of ways to call it. What I am saying is that champion is as SAME as first place winner or even 1st seed. They are all the same. Although there are a thousand way to call it, I choose the term ‘clinched conference’ because it is OFFICIAL. NBA.com uses the term in every NBA season. And nobody calls them and tell them the term is unclear. Why? Because everyone know what they mean. So I really don’t know why you refuse to accept a widely used term.

I don’t think you are trying to achieve accuracy here. Because you keep insisting that conference 1st seed is the only term acceptable, while other terms like conference champ has the same exact meaning.

Also why are you keep talking about other sports? We are only dealing with NBA here and it doesn’t matter what term other sports might use. And whether college sports have co-champion doesn’t matter, because it ain’t professional sports. Chris 21:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion that I have a "reading problem" is rudeness as far as I'm concerned. The reference to other sports is relevant because it demonstrates that you can't merely equate "first place" with the word "champion." It's offered as evidence for the proposition that the organizing body is the one that determines what qualifies as a "championship." In college sports, organizing bodies (i.e., Conferences) don't break ties when speaking of "championships." Instead, all tied teams are "champions," can claim the same in their media guides, are recorded as champions in the league's official records, etc. On the other hand, in pro sports, typically they do apply tiebreakers in determining what team can lay claim to the championship. The point here is that you can't glibly say "1st place=champion," and if you did, you'd come up with an outcome that's wrong in either college sports or pro sports (since what they each use is mutually inconsistent). Again, I ask you, does the fact that the Mavericks will have the best record in the entire NBA make them the 2006-07 NBA Champions? Of course not! That will be determined in June. It's because the Mavericks' position of being the team with the best overall record in the NBA isn't considered by the NBA a championship; it is instead merely an ordinal distinction. Finally, I don't understand why you continue to interpret this colloquy in such a confrontational manner. At no point have I insisted on usage that is different from the compromise usage you've implemented, but I do think getting to the bottom of this matter is worthy of reasoned discussion. There is a long and distinguished history of how people (and by extension/analogy, gestalt persons such as teams) are styled, so it does matter how we construe what these teams have clinched. They certainly haven't clinched, for example, having scored the most points, or allowed the fewest, or the best home or road records, or any other conceivable distinction within their Conference they could have clinched. Instead, they have clinched 1st place in their Conference, but it is very important to determine whether being in 1st place can, in this circumstance, be styled as a bona fide "championship" or not. 76.10.24.245 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Look like the continuation of this argument is not going to go anywhere. I am not going waste my breath from now on. I am not going to use the term 'clinched conference championship' again on the page since not everyone support it. However, you shouldn't change it to 'clinched conference 1st seed' either because it is redundant to express it again whereas the table is shown it clearly. What I am going to do now is keep the term 'clinched conference' in place because it is official. If you disagree with the NBA, then send a letter to them or something. I don't care. What I do care is keeping wikipedia from turning into a battleground. Go do something else, this is not a worthy debate. I am sorry if you feel offended, but that's just my opinion. See you around. This is my last post, Out Chris 02:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reindent) People, you and me know that the Pope is Catholic but not everyone knows that, we'd have to explain these intricacies at the barest minimum. I think the term "clinched conference" means they clinched the homecourt advantage for the rest of the playoffs for their conference. How about using "clinched Division championship" (color light blue), "clinched Conference" (color green) and "clinched Playoffs berth" (color yellow)? Then get rid of the light red color when the regular season is over. --Howard the Duck 12:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ROY

Already been named? I can't find a source for it. Chensiyuan 01:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)