PDA

View Full Version : Why, in spite of salary cap, is there hardly any parity in this sport?



TheHoopsProphet
09-29-2010, 07:58 PM
Nearly 70% of the franchises in the league have no idea what it feels like to be crowned an NBA champion over the past 30 years. In spite of salary caps, lottery drafts, Larry Bird rights, and the 14+ years of NBA service from Joe Smith only a handful of teams are getting their greedy little hands on the Holy Grail.

Something is missing here, because leagues like the NFL who hand out super bowl invitations more freely than koalas hand out chlamydia (Saints, Ravens, Giants, Patriots, Rams, Steelers, Seahawks, Cardinals, Bucs, Raiders, Colts, Bears, Eagles, Panthers, Titans, and Bruce Springsteen's receded hairline all know what it feels like to be a super bowl entree within this decade alone).

And then you look at MLB. Where there isn't even a salary cap, and half the teams are qualified for playoffs than the NBA, yet we have seen the Marlins, Mets, Yankees, Diamondbacks, Angels, Giants, Red Sox, Rockies, White Sox, Astros, Cardinals, Phillies, Rays, Tigers all be part of the Joe Buck-Tim McCarver experience.

Who is this blame for this totalitarian environment? Is it David Stern? Maybe. Anyone who knows anything about him knows his place in the Patrick Ewing lottery, Tim Donaghy, Rubber Basketballs, Lebron James' flubber basketball shoes, etc.

But here's my theory, what is the most significant change in the sport over the last 30 years while these few teams have been champions?

The 3 point line.

Painted onto the wooden floors of NBA arenas around the league since the 1979-80 season, this white strip of terror has made the careers of Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, Downtown Brown, Steve Kerr, Peja Stojakovic, Larry Bird, and Mike Miller.

Every team in the NBA has had at least one 3 point shooter who shot above 33%, and every single player there mentioned (except for Peja, but he has a hot wife as his trophy he can polish with his 5 o'clock shadow and bags of money). Yet, during drafts, lottery teams never want to draft 3 point shooters. They would rather have franchise players. Yet only 7 of the past 30 draft picks have been able to lead teams to Finals appearances.

I conclude that if more teams draft great shooters, they will be part of the championship glory that players like Adam Morrison, Mehmet Okur, and Brian Scalabrine know so well.

IBleedPurple
09-29-2010, 08:02 PM
It's more than good shooting IMO.

Mostly it's because of many players such as Artest, almost every Heat player, and many Spurs vets a couple years ago (not even close to all the examples).....that take smaller contracts to superload a team.

Wade>You
09-29-2010, 08:10 PM
Don't think it has much to do w/ 3pt shooting. The two teams in the Finals usually aren't the best 3pt shooting team. They just have above average 3pt shooting and rely on the other facets of the game to get them to where they are.

I guess I'm in the minority when I point the finger rightfully where it deserves to be pointed: Owners/GMs.

h2r09
09-29-2010, 08:34 PM
management, coaching, ethics and overall greatness of an organization. simply put, some organizations are better than others. the heat for example are a great organization from top to bottom, even when they dont do well, they know how to run a team and make a great event. unfortunately a lot of teams dont know how to do this. for example the following teams come to mind- clippers, bucks, grizzlies, and t'wolves.

daleja424
09-29-2010, 08:36 PM
free will. good players gravitate to the larger markets, better coaches, etc. Give everyone the same money and some people are going to spend it better...

h2r09
09-29-2010, 08:37 PM
also it has tyo do with the leaders of organizations and the fact that the NBA, unlike all other sports, is a superstar game unlike any other. Superstars can take over games singlehandedly in the nba. they cant do that in any other sport

THE MTL
09-29-2010, 08:44 PM
Well, basketball is a game where a single person can take over and if you have an ABSOLUTE franchise player then that's what happens. Basketball gets the dynasty effect frequently.

NBA also has seven game series which the BETTER team usually wins.

NFL has single-elimination playoffs. So you can have one bad game and be completely SCREWED! MLB gets caught in Yankee's dynasties though.

kArSoN RyDaH
09-29-2010, 09:06 PM
good management with the top teams. its not a secrret that the teams that continue to be successful in this league have good front offices.

kArSoN RyDaH
09-29-2010, 09:08 PM
plus its not really a team sport in basketball. one player can single handedly lead a team to the playoffs. in football one player does not carry a team on his back. on any given day in football the underdog can come out and upset the best team in the nfl. i think if the NBA got rid of the 7 game series then it would be like football. that is the beauty of football. playoffs starts a whole new season and its one game win or go home. in basketball its not like that.

netsgiantsyanks
09-29-2010, 09:14 PM
david stern

/thread

netsgiantsyanks
09-29-2010, 09:15 PM
lol

Wilson
09-29-2010, 09:15 PM
Too many NBA teams are just poorly run. Half the teams in the league have no direction, they just put a different coach out every year with the same group of players who have shown no indication of being able to have success as a unit.

Don Starks
09-29-2010, 09:33 PM
such a long winded claim that holds no water. what it comes down to is that there are too many teams in the league period. the talent pool gets diluted because guys make the league that aren't worthy of playing professionally. If they reduced the league to 25 teams (which would never happen, too much money would be lost) the NBA would be more competitive and the draft wouldn't be such a crap shoot.

DenButsu
09-29-2010, 09:33 PM
The salary "cap" is softer than a baby's bottom, for one thing. Teams with ultrarich owners in big markets can still pretty much spend at will as long as they play their exceptions right.

SteveNash
09-29-2010, 09:37 PM
How to create parity in the NBA:

Have 16 game season.

Have the playoffs be 1 and done.

Problem solved.

Sandman
09-29-2010, 09:39 PM
There's more of a marginal impact for one player in the NBA than any other sport.

The teams are smaller, so one player is 1/5 on the floor or 1/12 on the roster. A guy that plays 40 mpg accounts for 1/6 of the team's total 240 minutes. A good player has the ball more than other teammates.

Lu's Dynasty
09-29-2010, 10:03 PM
I think it is a combination of poorly run franchises and the fact that the most talented teams (or the team with the most talented 1 or 2 players) almost always comes away with the title. If you take a look at the best players in the league across each decade they have multiple titles. Those teams had the advantage of building around the best player in the league. Bird, Magic, MJ, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan. The cream always rises to the top.

There are so many players in this league that are more or less gifted on the same level. The absolute best in the NBA are just that much better and if you can surround them with even a little talent you have a tremendous advantage. Teams that are in the lottery seemingly perennially (the Clippers if you will) typically have to get lucky in two ways 1) get that top pick and hope they pan out/stay healthy and 2) have that top pick be a legit top 5 player of his era.

If you want parity in the NBA...contract 10 teams.

RaiderLakersA's
09-29-2010, 10:05 PM
Last I checked, not many great 3-point shooting teams have won the title.

On the other hand, we can probably run off a list of top defensive teams that won.

You mention Larry Bird. The Celtics of the 80s didn't win because he could drain threes like it's no one's business. They won because they played cutthroat defense.

In fact, look at all of the multiple title winning franchises and you'll see the pattern.

As for parity, like others have said, if the NBA really wants parity, they'll alter the playoff format making it 1 game, win or go home. Then again, considering what Phil Jackson's record is winning the first game of a playoff series, maybe not?

Raoul Duke
09-29-2010, 10:30 PM
The people running the show realized that they didn't need to have parity in order to turn a profit. I mean... it's all about money, right?

Theres also the previous comments about ultrarich owners, huge media markets vs smaller ones, and the fact that the talent is spread pretty darn thin.

iFYouSeekAmy
09-29-2010, 10:42 PM
Anthony Morrow.

llemon
09-29-2010, 10:47 PM
Top tier talent can many times dictate where they will play.

tredigs
09-29-2010, 10:58 PM
The salary "cap" is softer than a baby's bottom, for one thing. Teams with ultrarich owners in big markets can still pretty much spend at will as long as they play their exceptions right.



There's more of a marginal impact for one player in the NBA than any other sport.

The teams are smaller, so one player is 1/5 on the floor or 1/12 on the roster. A guy that plays 40 mpg accounts for 1/6 of the team's total 240 minutes. A good player has the ball more than other teammates.

I was about to write a response just after reading the OP, but figured I'd read the other posts first. These two did a good job summarizing what I was going to say.

The underlying point is that many of the games superstars (and elite role players) gravitate towards the big cities/winning franchises/rich owners come free agency. This has nothing to do with Stern, but it does indeed have to do with economics or the relative ease of "chasing rings" in a sport where the outcome is much easier to predict than a more widely spread team sport like baseball.

For those reasons, I will always root for the program that tries to tackle the current system and go about it their own way (the better way, if successful, imo). Most people notice how much respect I have for the OKC Thunder, and that is why.

DenButsu
09-29-2010, 11:03 PM
Last I checked, not many great 3-point shooting teams have won the title.

This much is definitely true. On average, the 3-point shooting of championship teams has been very, well, average.


Season Champion 3pt Ranking
2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers 24
2008-09 Los Angeles Lakers 19
2007-08 Boston Celtics 5
2006-07 San Antonio Spurs 3
2005-06 Miami Heat 20
2004-05 San Antonio Spurs 9
2003-04 Detroit Pistons 15
2002-03 San Antonio Spurs 11
2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers 15
2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers 20
1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers 25
1998-99 San Antonio Spurs 19
1997-98 Chicago Bulls 25
1996-97 Chicago Bulls 6
1995-96 Chicago Bulls 3
1994-95 Houston Rockets 14
1993-94 Houston Rockets 15
1992-93 Chicago Bulls 2
1991-92 Chicago Bulls 22
1990-91 Chicago Bulls 3
1989-90 Detroit Pistons 13

Average 13.71

beasted86
09-29-2010, 11:31 PM
Championship parity and playoff parity are two different things.

The NBA is actually one of the better ranked leagues in terms of playoff parity from what I've read. If I remember right the average is no longer than 5 years out of the playoffs most of the time... and that includes expansion teams, they usually make it in their first 5 years. There are only 2 teams right now outside the 5 yr average: Knicks & Wolves.

But when you look at other leagues like NFL, let's think of all the teams that haven't made the playoffs in at least 5 seasons: Bills, Texans, Lions, 49ers, Raiders, Broncos, Browns.... pretty long list.

commonsense12
09-29-2010, 11:35 PM
The salary "cap" is softer than a baby's bottom, for one thing. Teams with ultrarich owners in big markets can still pretty much spend at will as long as they play their exceptions right.

This MLE give teams the ability to supercharge their teams and make it impossible for other teams to win.

beasted86
09-29-2010, 11:50 PM
This MLE give teams the ability to supercharge their teams and make it impossible for other teams to win.

This is kind of false... because most of the time teams get "MLE tier talents" with "MLE money". There are a few exceptions like Payton + Malone to L.A. in '04... but other than that not a whole lot.

The only reason any of those MLE signings matter is because the team was already good and they are just filling in their weaknesses, or replacing weaker players.

If the Sacramento Kings signed Steve Blake and Matt Barnes... let's all be honest here... nobody would give a crap. It only transforms to: "OMG!!! they just signed Steve Blake & Matt Barnes!!!!" because it was the Lakers. Those players didn't become any better because an MLE was available to sign them with... and the single most important fact is no team was ever put over the top by signing an MLE player.

DerekRE_3
09-29-2010, 11:52 PM
Because there is a huge difference between a hard cap and soft cap.

Iceman_9
09-29-2010, 11:57 PM
some teams are not afraid to pay the luxury tax while other good players are willing to take a pay cut to form a formidable team..

kArSoN RyDaH
09-30-2010, 01:14 AM
you get what you pay for, in most cases, in the nba. teams who are not afraid to go after big name players and take their franchise to the playoffs/ championship will not make it.


personally, i would love to see the nba establish an uncapped season to see how that goes. so far it is working for the nfl.

i think the trading in the nba needs to be fixed as well. they shouldnt have to have matching contracts in order to trade. they should do it like the nfl. also get rid of the lottery. have it go by the rankings.

mvb815
09-30-2010, 01:19 AM
one player can make more of an impact in the nba then in any other sport.

recent examples:

nhl, penguins, who could be compared to this years heat get ousted by 8th seeded montreal

mlb, basically every year is an example

nfl, honestly if it wasn't for single game elimination i think it would be a lot more one sided

JiffyMix88
09-30-2010, 01:43 AM
David Stern 3 pt line has nothing to do with it lol

commonsense12
09-30-2010, 01:49 AM
This is kind of false... because most of the time teams get "MLE tier talents" with "MLE money". There are a few exceptions like Payton + Malone to L.A. in '04... but other than that not a whole lot.

The only reason any of those MLE signings matter is because the team was already good and they are just filling in their weaknesses, or replacing weaker players.

If the Sacramento Kings signed Steve Blake and Matt Barnes... let's all be honest here... nobody would give a crap. It only transforms to: "OMG!!! they just signed Steve Blake & Matt Barnes!!!!" because it was the Lakers. Those players didn't become any better because an MLE was available to sign them with... and the single most important fact is no team was ever put over the top by signing an MLE player.

Really? Wasnt Artest a MLE? How about the the Heat. I believe Halsem signed a MLE, talk about destroying their depth even more.

It also allows teams to continue to add salary which allows trades to become that much easier. Large salary players are much easier to fit on teams that have 90 mill in payroll as apposed to teams with 60 mill. Meaning less players to trade compared to half the team.

bholly
09-30-2010, 03:34 AM
Firstly, it's the nature of the sport. Like someone said, basketball is a sport where one brilliant individual can affect the game far more than in other team sports. Combine that with relatively long primes, and one great player can lead to championships or contention for years and years, which just doesn't happen as easily in the large-team sports.
So that's why there's a concept of a lack of parity. It's not that it's unfairly weighted to a few select teams, it's just that a good team can often contend for 5+ years, so you get a sport dominated by dynasties. In a sport that favours dynasties like that, of course there're going to be relatively few champions over a timeframe as short at 30 years. Look again after 100+ years and see what's different.

So the question isn't why there's a lack of parity, because that's unavoidable, but whether it favours certain teams. Honestly, for the most part, I don't think it does. I think it's the draft - so part skill, and a whole lot of luck. By my count, 23 of the last 30 MVPs, and 24 of the last finals MVPs, were playing for the only team they'd ever played for (although Dirk and Kobe weren't drafted by their teams, it's pretty close to the same thing). That's 80% of finals MVPs. So I think, really, it's just that certain teams have gotten lucky with picks, or assessed talent well, or had MJ drop to them at 3rd - and that's been enough to create the vast majority of champions we've had.

Of course, that's not the whole story. You need to be able to build a team around the centre-piece otherwise it won't work (eg LBJ's Cavs), and that requires good management and ownership. It also helps to have an attractive city to lure free agents (eg the Lakers' bright lights luring Kareem and Shaq), and (although this is often overlooked) hold on to the players you already have.

So overall, of course having an attractive city helps, and good ownership/management is often vital to see a team reach its potential, but I think a huge amount of the disparity comes down to the luck of the draft. Things look consistently unfair because the same teams dominate for years and years, but that's just the nature of the sport. Some teams have had more than one great player (Boston got both Russell and Bird, LA got Kareem/Magic/Shaw/Kobe), but beyond that there have been very few teams with multiple dynasties. Essentially, it's just an unavoidable fact of the way the sport is.

abe_froman
09-30-2010, 03:39 AM
Firstly, it's the nature of the sport. Like someone said, basketball is a sport where one brilliant individual can affect the game far more than in other team sports. Combine that with relatively long primes, and one great player can lead to championships or contention for years and years, which just doesn't happen as easily in the large-team sports.
So that's why there's a concept of a lack of parity. It's not that it's unfairly weighted to a few select teams, it's just that a good team can often contend for 5+ years, so you get a sport dominated by dynasties. In a sport that favours dynasties like that, of course there're going to be relatively few champions over a timeframe as short at 30 years. Look again after 100+ years and see what's different.

So the question isn't why there's a lack of parity, because that's unavoidable, but whether it favours certain teams. Honestly, for the most part, I don't think it does. I think it's the draft - so part skill, and a whole lot of luck. By my count, 23 of the last 30 MVPs, and 24 of the last finals MVPs, were playing for the only team they'd ever played for (although Dirk and Kobe weren't drafted by their teams, it's pretty close to the same thing). That's 80% of finals MVPs. So I think, really, it's just that certain teams have gotten lucky with picks, or assessed talent well, or had MJ drop to them at 3rd - and that's been enough to create the vast majority of champions we've had.

Of course, that's not the whole story. You need to be able to build a team around the centre-piece otherwise it won't work (eg LBJ's Cavs), and that requires good management and ownership. It also helps to have an attractive city to lure free agents (eg the Lakers' bright lights luring Kareem and Shaq), and (although this is often overlooked) hold on to the players you already have.

So overall, of course having an attractive city helps, and good ownership/management is often vital to see a team reach its potential, but I think a huge amount of the disparity comes down to the luck of the draft. Things look consistently unfair because the same teams dominate for years and years, but that's just the nature of the sport. Some teams have had more than one great player (Boston got both Russell and Bird, LA got Kareem/Magic/Shaw/Kobe), but beyond that there have been very few teams with multiple dynasties. Essentially, it's just an unavoidable fact of the way the sport is.
this.

exactly my sentiments,spot on...and couldnt have said it better myself

TheHoopsProphet
09-30-2010, 04:03 AM
Great Franchise Players Who Didn't See Much Success: Pau Gasol, Tracy McGrady, Mitch Richmond, Wilt Chamberlain, Nick Van Axel, Dikembe Mutumbo, Alonzo Mourning, Vince Carter, Steve Nash, Paul Pierce (pre-2008), Chris Paul, Derron Williams, Pistol Pete, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Bernard King, Wes Unseld, Kevin Garnett (pre 2008).

I think having a "great player" on your team is the least of reasons. Beside, the lottery pick has allowed many cellar teams rise from the ashes.

abe_froman
09-30-2010, 04:15 AM
Great Franchise Players Who Didn't See Much Success: Pau Gasol, Tracy McGrady, Mitch Richmond, Wilt Chamberlain, Nick Van Axel, Dikembe Mutumbo, Alonzo Mourning, Vince Carter, Steve Nash, Paul Pierce (pre-2008), Chris Paul, Derron Williams, Pistol Pete, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Bernard King, Wes Unseld, Kevin Garnett (pre 2008).

I think having a "great player" on your team is the least of reasons. Beside, the lottery pick has allowed many cellar teams rise from the ashes.

alot of that had to do with the opposition which you completely leave out of the eqation.

3pt shooting is important,but it alone isnt why some teams win and others dont

...if that were the case than the magic would be on their 2nd title right now

commonsense12
09-30-2010, 04:19 AM
Obviously you need star players surrounding you, but at the same time its no concidence that the Lakers and Celts have 2 of the highest payrolls in the NBA. The abilty to go out and sign guys to the MLE (artest and i think Sheed) were all MLE's and they helped their teams big time.

If i could find a list of all MLE's i would.

Sorry but for the most part having a much higher payroll is a huge advantage. If i remeber correctly the top 5 payrolls are Lakers, Celts, Mavs, Magic and Nuggets. If i was a betting man i would say all those Teams have a pretty good chance of not only making the playoffs but going far and winning it.

ShakeN'Bake
09-30-2010, 07:53 AM
Nearly 70% of the franchises in the league have no idea what it feels like to be crowned an NBA champion over the past 30 years. In spite of salary caps, lottery drafts, Larry Bird rights, and the 14+ years of NBA service from Joe Smith only a handful of teams are getting their greedy little hands on the Holy Grail.

Something is missing here, because leagues like the NFL who hand out super bowl invitations more freely than koalas hand out chlamydia (Saints, Ravens, Giants, Patriots, Rams, Steelers, Seahawks, Cardinals, Bucs, Raiders, Colts, Bears, Eagles, Panthers, Titans, and Bruce Springsteen's receded hairline all know what it feels like to be a super bowl entree within this decade alone).

And then you look at MLB. Where there isn't even a salary cap, and half the teams are qualified for playoffs than the NBA, yet we have seen the Marlins, Mets, Yankees, Diamondbacks, Angels, Giants, Red Sox, Rockies, White Sox, Astros, Cardinals, Phillies, Rays, Tigers all be part of the Joe Buck-Tim McCarver experience.

Who is this blame for this totalitarian environment? Is it David Stern? Maybe. Anyone who knows anything about him knows his place in the Patrick Ewing lottery, Tim Donaghy, Rubber Basketballs, Lebron James' flubber basketball shoes, etc.

But here's my theory, what is the most significant change in the sport over the last 30 years while these few teams have been champions?

The 3 point line.

Painted onto the wooden floors of NBA arenas around the league since the 1979-80 season, this white strip of terror has made the careers of Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, Downtown Brown, Steve Kerr, Peja Stojakovic, Larry Bird, and Mike Miller.

Every team in the NBA has had at least one 3 point shooter who shot above 33%, and every single player there mentioned (except for Peja, but he has a hot wife as his trophy he can polish with his 5 o'clock shadow and bags of money). Yet, during drafts, lottery teams never want to draft 3 point shooters. They would rather have franchise players. Yet only 7 of the past 30 draft picks have been able to lead teams to Finals appearances.

I conclude that if more teams draft great shooters, they will be part of the championship glory that players like Adam Morrison, Mehmet Okur, and Brian Scalabrine know so well.

Right...3-point shooting was what made Larry a star...

Meaze_Gibson
09-30-2010, 09:49 AM
Its management. Majority of teams or superstar players who don't make it have had questionable management and just bad injury luck. It's not Stern's fault that portland picked Oden over Durant. Or that Twolves messed up their future for Joe Smith. Or that Cleveland picked Luke Jackson as a lottery pick. Alot of these small-market teams are just terrible at assessing talent like someone stated. I mean, at the time, Atlanta needed a pg like cp3 or dwill and they selected marvin williams. lol..Its the decision-making processes in drafts and trades that make powerhouses.

Another issue is player development. I remember when players came back stronger with improved skills and new confidence. Bynum was groomed by Kareem, Howard was groomed by Ewing lol. i remember payton developing one of the sickest post and midrange games for a pg. Payton was a developed superstar. Billups is a developed star. Nash is a developed star. Boozer is a developed star. Zach randolph is a developed star. Some players may not have it when they come in but can develop it under the right management.

mikantsass
09-30-2010, 10:56 AM
There are a few reasons IMO:

1) Luxury tax. Some teams are willing to spend, some are not.

2) Reputation. If you were a free agent, would you sign with the Grizz or the Lakers?

3) Location. Again, if you were a free agent would you want to live in charlotte or manhattan?

4) Stars. Teams with stars already on the roster are more likely to land stars via free agency and most likely at a discounted rate.

5) Fan bases. Some fan bases are dedicated enough to want to win every year. They sell out home games, purchase apparel etc... Driving revenue up for ownership. More money to spend on players

Sly Guy
09-30-2010, 12:01 PM
I conclude that if more teams draft great shooters, they will be part of the championship glory that players like Adam Morrison, Mehmet Okur, and Brian Scalabrine know so well.

ha ha ha ha hahahahahahaha.....oh man.

shooting is a skill any player can learn. Propelling a human body 40" into the air is not.

ccugrad1
09-30-2010, 12:15 PM
There are a few reasons IMO:

1) Luxury tax. Some teams are willing to spend, some are not.

2) Reputation. If you were a free agent, would you sign with the Grizz or the Lakers?

3) Location. Again, if you were a free agent would you want to live in charlotte or manhattan?

4) Stars. Teams with stars already on the roster are more likely to land stars via free agency and most likely at a discounted rate.

5) Fan bases. Some fan bases are dedicated enough to want to win every year. They sell out home games, purchase apparel etc... Driving revenue up for ownership. More money to spend on players

Don't forget #6, WINNING! If you look at a team like the Minnesota Timberwolves, how exactly do you "pitch" your team as a contender to a top free agent? After all, you haven't made the playoffs in 6 years; you haven't won more 33 games 5 years in a row; you've lost 50 or more in each of the past 4 seasons; and finally, you are on your 5th different head coach in 6 seasons. Not exactly what I would call a hot bed for a top free agents.

RaiderLakersA's
09-30-2010, 01:21 PM
But when you look at other leagues like NFL, let's think of all the teams that haven't made the playoffs in at least 5 seasons: Bills, Texans, Lions, 49ers, Raiders, Broncos, Browns.... pretty long list.

Yeah, but some of those guys are repeat offenders...which tells you the issue is more than likely management/coaching-related, not competition/parity-related. :)

Supa
09-30-2010, 02:09 PM
NFL has more disparity because of single game elimination (one bad game, and you're done).

MLB has more disparity because of low scoring nature of the game.

Slight advantages tend to manifest in games with high scoring and long series like the NBA games.

---

Derick713
09-30-2010, 02:34 PM
In the NBA it only takes a Generational Talent to dominate a decade. The NBA Draft is strong at the top and unknown at the bottom.

Maybe the NBA should create a Franchise Tag System. Maybe the NBA needs to only allow the 7 worst teams in the lottery.

It's easier to build a championship team in Football and Hockey. The NBA Draft is full of busts at the top. The other Drafts have more rounds which allows for better team building. You can't find players like Pujols and Brady in the 2nd Round of an NBA Draft.

Maybe the NBA can implement a more creative cap to help teams keep talent.

AntiG
09-30-2010, 02:35 PM
Team management.

mikantsass
09-30-2010, 02:51 PM
Don't forget #6, WINNING! If you look at a team like the Minnesota Timberwolves, how exactly do you "pitch" your team as a contender to a top free agent? After all, you haven't made the playoffs in 6 years; you haven't won more 33 games 5 years in a row; you've lost 50 or more in each of the past 4 seasons; and finally, you are on your 5th different head coach in 6 seasons. Not exactly what I would call a hot bed for a top free agents.

That is what I meant by REPUTATION...

8kobe24
09-30-2010, 04:53 PM
well, basketball is a game where a single person can take over and if you have an absolute franchise player then that's what happens. Basketball gets the dynasty effect frequently.

Nba also has seven game series which the better team usually wins.

Nfl has single-elimination playoffs. So you can have one bad game and be completely screwed! Mlb gets caught in yankee's dynasties though.

bingo!

TheHoopsProphet
09-30-2010, 07:39 PM
Right...3-point shooting was what made Larry a star...

Some of his greatest moments came from his pull up jumpers. Not layups or postups. And didnt he win the 3 point shooting contest? He was a good player, but an even greater 3point shooter!


ha ha ha ha hahahahahahaha.....oh man.

shooting is a skill any player can learn. Propelling a human body 40" into the air is not.

I doubt that Gerald Green is more coveted then a skilled shooter.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 07:45 PM
ha ha ha ha hahahahahahaha.....oh man.

shooting is a skill any player can learn. Propelling a human body 40" into the air is not.

I will have to respectfully disagree... there are WAY more athletes in the league than elite shooters...