In 17 of the past 18 seasons, the Western Conference has beaten the east in head-to-head matchups. This, of course, is in perfect tune with the familiar "Leastern conference" refrain, stating that the East, in short, sucks. So far in the 2017-18 season, the East has managed to get the jump, even if the gap is closing. It begs an important question: Is the East actually good?

To really look into it, there are two main factors. The first is talent; the second is public perception. A quick look at each should probably tell us what we're trying to find out.

How far behind is the East in terms of talent?

This topic came up when a friend of mine emailed and pointed out that the east was 72-59 against the west as of December 3rd. It turns out his math was wrong, but it suggested that the East has been pretty solid so far this season: In fact, if you throw out the Bulls, who are 0-12 against the West and are just 3-20 overall, the East is 78-61 against the west as a whole going into Friday night's games.

But how many really good players are in the Eastern conference? How can this be any more than just a fluke? Go team by team and look for superstars, or maybe look for guys who you'd put in your NBA top 20, what's their conference breakdown?

From the East, you have no-doubt superstar players in LeBron, Kyrie, Giannis, John Wall, Healthy Isaiah Thomas, and obviously Dion Waiters. There are "you could make the argument for putting these guys in the 15-25th range" guys like Porzingis (yes), Embiid (yes), Kemba, Lowry/DeRozan, Kevin Love, Beal/Porter...is that it? Whiteside on a good day? Horford? Drummond? Oladipo-in-his-current-form? Eric Bledsoe? I feel like I'm reaching with those last guys.

  Photo taken by Erik Drost

Out West, your no-doubt superstars are about as plentiful if you only look at Houston and Golden State. Ignoring KD/Steph/Klay/Dray/CP/Harden, you have Kawhi, Towns, Griffin, Cousins, Davis, Gasol, Jimmy Buckets, Russ, and Paul George. Those "maybe" guys then include Conley, Melo (on career achievement, admittedly), Gobert, DeAndre, LaMarcus, Lillard/McCollum, and of course Lonzo Ball, the legend.

That's a pretty big disparity. Every off-season has stud free agents going from East to West and the internet explodes in "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!" because they've just made their lives harder, but maybe there's a chance that it's not true?

Nah. It is true. The Western Conference has an absurd talent level when it comes to their studs. The more interesting argument would be to determine if the East's role players are more efficient than the West's, suggesting that the West is star-based while the East is team-oriented. It could be true, but it would be awfully hard to prove unless, say, you named an entire team as Player of the Month. Imagine the perception of that conference if that team got swept in the playoffs. Huh. What a segue!

Is Public Perception Correct?

Often times, perception is a reality, so the answer here is mostly yes. If everyone thinks the Eastern Conference sucks, then the Eastern Conference sucks. When guys like Rudy Gobert, Karl Anthony Towns, and Damian Lillard don't make your conference's All-Star team, you're probably the more talented conference. When LeBron James has free reign and a cake-walk to the Finals every year, that's probably the less talented conference, and that's been happening for a long time. Do you remember the 2007 Cavaliers roster?

But on the other hand, and hear me out on this one, what legitimately good team is afraid of middle-of-the-pack teams in either conference? If you're the Warriors, Rockets, Spurs, Celtics, or Cavs, who are you keeping an eye on that's not a top-tier playoff team? In years past, a top Western Conference team might be afraid of the Grizzlies, Blazers, or Jazz. This year though, who is it? Maybe the Jazz again? Maybe the T'Wolves, but their superstar center is suddenly allergic to defense. Maybe the Pels or Thunder based solely on their best players, but who's actually convinced those teams will win a playoff series? The Thunder have been struggling all year and just got beat by a Nets team without its two best players - are they keeping the Spurs up at night? Call me crazy, but I doubt it.

When you look at the East, it's not much different, except that Wizards are currently 7th and Philadelphia is exciting enough to be a threat. A dominant Jojo game is enough to beat almost anyone at this point, even if the chance of beating a top team in a series is almost non-existent. The Pacers can fight a bit, and the Bucks have Giannis, but last year's Cavs showed that nobody could even partly compete with them. This year's Celtics are the obvious "but maybe!" team, but the East is LeBron's until proven otherwise.

What skews everything an extra bit is that the two worst teams in the NBA are in the East. Chicago and Atlanta are genuinely terrible. It brings down the conference a little, but it also means easy wins for some Eastern teams who play these two a bit more often. 

Have we Made a Decision?

Yes, we have. The East is not as good as the West. It's circumstantial at this point, and by season's end, the West will have the winning record for the 18th time in 19 seasons. Think of it this way: who are the four best teams in the NBA? In some order, it's the Warriors, Cavs, Rockets, and Spurs, right? Even with the Celtics winning a ton of games early, they're still well behind Cleveland on the sportsbooks for winning a title. The Spurs have won almost 70% of their games and their best player has missed all of them.

If three of the top four teams in the league - and probably 18 of the top 25 players - are in the same conference, that's it. No more debate for now. 

Unless the East keeps winning, of course. Then we can overreact all season long!