Talk:2008–09 NBA season

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:


 * 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)

Unindent: Currently, NBA.com uses the following format: Yahoo Sports does it this way: 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:

Compare to the current convention:

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:


 * 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:


 * 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: – Howard  the   Duck  13:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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)

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?

or this

Notable Trades
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)
 * User:Syjytg and GeniusAcameldeSatosta were sockpuppets of the same user. They have been blocked and the article should be more stable now. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Scores
How about adding the scores but in a tabular format? Since the NBA is doesn't have an equal strength of schedule, I suggest having an intradivision, intraconference and interconference tables. For example for the Southeast Division:

Interconference matchups can be placed in one table:

– Howard  the   Duck  10:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is excessive and doesn't really add to the value of the article. On the contrary it makes the readability worse as I find it hard to imagine anyone being that interested in the result of a specific game. In addition it's a bitch to update and all the results are available in other sources. Not encyclopedia material in my opinion. Antti29 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about instead of scores, the regular season series? For example, for Denver vs. Dallas it's 4-0 in favor of Denver. – Howard  the   Duck  12:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Like this:


 * – Howard  the   Duck  12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone oppose this? – Howard  the   Duck  15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No oppose, but just a comment, I think the colors are a bit excessive and why does Utah Jazz is spelled Utah in the table, while the others are abbreviated. - Martin tamb (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can ditch the colors, as for Utah on TV the name "Utah" is spelled completely so I did the same. We can go with "UTA" though. – Howard  the   Duck  06:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it is difficult to see clearly at first glance and it provides nothing else other than the score. A game log, like those in team season article, works better imo.— Chris!  c t 02:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really a score but the result of the regular season series. I can split it into two 30x15 tables, though. – Howard  the   Duck  06:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it may works. But I do have plans to take this to FA at some points, so I don't know if this will work.— Chris!  c t 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many season articles have a table of results, see [[Premier League 2008-09] for example.
 * I'd like to keep the colors though. At first glance you can the that Boston's only regular season series loss came from the Lakers. – Howard  the   Duck  05:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, I didn't notice that the first time I see the table. Another suggestion, I think it is a good idea to group the teams by conference like this:


 * This way, the tables would have the intraconference matchups (3-4 games) separated from the inter conference matchups (2 games each). This could also came in handy when the article need to mention that each teams meet their conference rivals 3-4 times and inter-conference rivals only 2 times. About team abbreviations, nba.com abbreviates Utah as UTA, San Antonio as SAS, New Orleans as NOH, New York as NYK, New Jersey as NJ and Washington as WAS while basketball-reference.com has some different abbreviations such as Utah as UTH and Phoenix as PHO. You may want to consider these 2 websites as a source to the teams abbreviation. - Martin tamb (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like two sections, "Teams vs. the Eastern Conference" and "Teams from the Western Conference" since all 30 teams won't fit in regular resolutions. As for the colors I'd use more washed out ones so that it won't be that of an eyesore. And for abbreviations, I'd use the ones used at the NBA.com URLs for game recaps. – Howard  the   Duck  11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: NBA.com uses these: UTA for the Jazz and WAS for the Wizards, NJN for the Nets, NYK for the Knicks, SAS for the Spurs, NOH for the Hornets, PHX for the Suns and GSW for the Warriors.

Reindent: This is how it'll look like: – Howard  the   Duck  12:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tied Teams
How about adding a small section explaining how the tied teams were ordered? Especially that 3-way tie in the west for second place. I'm talking about displaying the season series among the tied teams, and not just repeating the tie-breaking rules.Juve2000 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to do this in the way it was handled at the 2008 NFL season. – Howard  the   Duck  12:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I could've done for non-playoff teams but apparently the ties are not broken that way in the draft so I left them out. – Howard  the   Duck  12:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! That is exactly the information that I was looking for.  I am assuming that Portland cannot finish ahead of San Antonio by virtue of the fact that in case of an identical record, a division champion will always finish ahead of a non-champion, regardless of other tie-breakers.Juve2000 (talk)
 * Actually, if two teams from different divisions are tied for #2, and one is a division champ, they division champ doesn't always finish first, if the one it is tied with is the best division runner-up. The only reason Portland was #4 is that the Denver-Portland was broken first, after the tie was broken, Portland's tie with San Antonio was not broken anymore and they were relegated to #4; the Denver-SA tie was broken instead. See a similar discussion at 2009 NBA Playoffs. – Howard  the   Duck  18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I am confused. If Denver wins tie-breakers against both Portland and San Antonio, then we know Denver is the number 2 seed.  There must be a reason why Portland cannot be seeded 3rd and San Antonio 4th.Juve2000 (talk)
 * The DEN-POR tie was broken first. With that resolved, POR automatically goes to 4th, while the winner of the DEN-SA tie (in this case DEN) would be #2. – Howard  the   Duck  04:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep on saying that, and I don't disagree. But my question is "Why does Portland automatically go to fourth?" You just SAY IT without explaining it.  I figured that given identical records, non-division champions are always seeded lower than division champions of any division, but you have disagreed with that.  So I'm still waiting for some answer from anyone. Juve2000 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NBA.com: "(1) (a) Since the three division winners are guaranteed a spot in the top four, ties to determine the division winners must be broken before any other ties.
 * (b) When a tie must be broken to determine a division winner, the results of the tie-break shall be used to determine only the division winner and its playoff position, not any other playoff position(s)." The DEN-POR tie is broken first. Now if that's resolved, POR can't/shouldn't affect SA's seeding, hence they're automatically #4; if we'd include POR in the mix, it'll "determine other playoff positions". POR and SA's tie won't be "broken" anymore, considering POR was beaten by DEN in the first breaking of the tie; it eliminates POR from the rest of the tiebreaking procedure. – Howard  the   Duck  20:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To you its clear but to me its not, and maybe, its my problem. Thanks for trying.Juve2000 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try some example for you, if Denver win their division with 54-18 and tied with Phoenix who is second in their division (below Lakers), then the tiebreaker goes to head-to-head, where Phoenix as non-division winner may finish #2 if they win the tiebreaker. Different things happen when Denver is tied with team from their own division such as Portland, where Portland automatically relegated below their division winner. This explains why Portland finished #4 because they can't finish higher than Denver who might be #2 or #3 depending on Denver-San Antonio head-to-head record. Well, this is as far as I understand from various references in NBA.com or ESPN.com and some discussion topics on RealGM.com forum. Please correct me if I made a mistake. Martin tamb (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no one has explained why the seedings can't be 2-Denver, 3-Portland, and 4-San Antonio. Saying that Denver wins the division in a tie-breaker against Portland and, thus Portland is forced to be 4th is not just good enough for me.Juve2000 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your questions, but I'm afraid I didn't have any explanations for it. But I guess that's probably NBA automatically relegated Portland to 4th just to make sure that they finished lower than Denver who may be 3rd if Denver lose the tiebreaker against San Antonio (which isn't the case for this season). Or probably in three-teams tie, there is a rule that states that the division winner automatically gets higher seed than non-division winner. Sorry if this isn't really clear as I'm not really an expert on this subject. Martin tamb (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the reason why Portland was 4th was because they shouldn't affect San Antonio's seeding. – Howard  the   Duck  16:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Northwest Division Title Shared
The Portland Trail Blazers share this title with The Denver Nuggets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.87.149 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable Occurences
I don't think Stephon Marbury signing with the Celtics and Shaun Livingston signing with the Heat (before he was waived and signed by the Thunder) are notable enough. There are plenty of free agency signing that resulted in the players who made more impacts than these two. 125.161.247.198 (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also if the 'Noche Latina' event was mentioned, I think NBA Green week need to be mentioned as well. 125.161.247.198 (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

More suggestions about notable events
How about a separate section for records broken this season? There seems to be a lot and it takes up a good portion of the "Notable Events" category. I think the "readability" of the article would be better if large blocks of text were broken into smaller sections. You guys agreed with that when I took off the player transactions and coaching changes and gave them their own sections, but I want to make sure. Yea or nay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.26.104 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

attendance
Shouldn't there be something about team and league-wide attendance figures? --Ttownfeen (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 2008–09 NBA season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008030229_sonitrial02.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standard.net/live/sports/166635/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/2009/03/15/20090315spt-suns.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/04/mvp.release.20090504/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090424052818/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/21/dpoy.20090421/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/21/dpoy.20090421/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425041956/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/22/rose.roy.release/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/22/rose.roy.release/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427072410/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/24/terry.20090424/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/24/terry.20090424/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515083047/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/12/most.improved/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/12/most.improved/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505034003/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/03/executive/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/03/executive/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430100453/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/28/sportsman.award.billups.nba/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/28/sportsman.award.billups.nba/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426052721/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/23/citizenship.award.nba/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/23/citizenship.award.nba/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516110654/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/12/allnba.team.release/ to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/12/allnba.team.release/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508060828/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/06/defensive.team/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/06/defensive.team/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2008–09 NBA season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008030229_sonitrial02.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standard.net/live/sports/166635/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/2009/03/15/20090315spt-suns.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409101920/http://www.nba.com/green/greenweek2009.html to http://www.nba.com/green/greenweek2009.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309213528/http://www.aolnews.com/2009/04/22/dikembe-mutumbo-retires-after-injury-for-me-basketball-is-over/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2009/04/22/dikembe-mutumbo-retires-after-injury-for-me-basketball-is-over/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106024140/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/21/wizards.assistants.ap/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/21/wizards.assistants.ap/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502160939/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/30/rookie.team.release/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/30/rookie.team.release/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115124954/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/01/02/010209rom.release/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/01/02/010209rom.release/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109123020/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/03/rookies.month/index.html?rss=trueg to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/03/rookies.month/index.html?rss=trueg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)