PDA

View Full Version : Do NBA fans really want parity?



metswon69
06-02-2017, 03:43 AM
The obvious answer if you are a fan of any team besides the Cavs and Warriors is yes but is that really true?

Ratings for the NBA playoffs were up 5% over last year's playoffs and last year's NBA finals were the highest rated NBA finals on ABC. That will probably be surpassed with this years finals ratings as well. The league attendance record was also broken for the 3rd straight season in a row with most fans knowing when the season started that it would most likely be Cavs and Warriors in the finals.

And if you think about it some of the most watched NBA games were the Celtics/Lakers rivalry in the 80s and the Bull's dynasty in the 90s.

My point is of course you want the team you root for to win but for all "Well the lack of parity is really killing the game", it really doesn't seem that way.

More-Than-Most
06-02-2017, 04:16 AM
I want parity for one main reason... I would love to watch more teams... Meaning if the sixers/lakers/cavs/warriors aint playing I probably wont watch... I use to watch the thunder a ton but when durant left I stopped... I would want more teams with top stars and less games during the regular season. How many thunder games did people watch this year compared to last? I dont even tune in to prime time games that involve the warriors because unless they play the lakers its a blow out... Its just not fun... These playoffs have sucked dick and are only getting worse.

rhino17
06-02-2017, 05:02 AM
I don't want parity like the NFL where every champion is one and done for the most part. The NBA has always been good without parity. The problem is that until recently, there weren't just TWO stacked super teams.That kind of dominance isn't fun to watch. I have ZERO interest in these finals and won't be watching.

metswon69
06-02-2017, 05:11 AM
I don't want parity like the NFL where every champion is one and done for the most part. The NBA has always been good without parity. The problem is that until recently, there weren't just TWO stacked super teams.That kind of dominance isn't fun to watch. I have ZERO interest in these finals and won't be watching.

Not entirely true. The 1980s only had 4 teams throughout the decade win an NBA title and the Lakers/Celtics won 8 of those titles in that 10 year period (76ers in 83', Pistons in 89' being the only other two teams to win a title in the 1980s). It really wasn't that much different in the 90s either with the Bulls winning 6 titles and the Rockets winning 2. Those were super teams as well but just in a different sense.

The higher ratings tend to suggest that type of dominance is fun to watch, otherwise why are so many people watching?

rhino17
06-02-2017, 06:22 AM
Not entirely true. The 1980s only had 4 teams throughout the decade win an NBA title and the Lakers/Celtics won 8 of those titles in that 10 year period (76ers in 83', Pistons in 89' being the only other two teams to win a title in the 1980s). It really wasn't that much different in the 90s either with the Bulls winning 6 titles and the Rockets winning 2. Those were super teams as well but just in a different sense.

The higher ratings tend to suggest that type of dominance is fun to watch, otherwise why are so many people watching?
I said the lack of parity throughout NBA history has been a good thing. None of what you posted changes anything I said.

I am speaking to the only 2 super teams in the league right now who lost a combined 1 game on the way to the NBA finals. That isn't good for the league. When superstars all just join up on a 1 or 2 teams, that isn't fun. (and that didn't happen in those years).

A lot more casual fans are interested in this kind of matchup. As someone that watches a lot of basketball, this just doesn't interest me

GoferKing_
06-02-2017, 06:29 AM
Yes.

metswon69
06-02-2017, 06:43 AM
I said the lack of parity throughout NBA history has been a good thing. None of what you posted changes anything I said.

I am speaking to the only 2 super teams in the league right now who lost a combined 1 game on the way to the NBA finals. That isn't good for the league. When superstars all just join up on a 1 or 2 teams, that isn't fun. (and that didn't happen in those years).

A lot more casual fans are interested in this kind of matchup. As someone that watches a lot of basketball, this just doesn't interest me

Your point mentioned 2 stacked super teams. Well you can make the case that those teams were super teams as well just based on their dominance. That dominance having to be pretty entertaining given how popular those teams and the players on those teams were.

To be fair to the Warriors, they were dominant before Durant as well. Its not like their presence here is all based on Kevin Durant's signing. You could make the case that they probably win the West and are in the NBA finals this year without KD.

I hear a lot of how bad for the league it is but the attendance and ratings don't support that narrative. That's my point in this thread.

Saddletramp
06-02-2017, 06:45 AM
Not entirely true. The 1980s only had 4 teams throughout the decade win an NBA title and the Lakers/Celtics won 8 of those titles in that 10 year period (76ers in 83', Pistons in 89' being the only other two teams to win a title in the 1980s). It really wasn't that much different in the 90s either with the Bulls winning 6 titles and the Rockets winning 2. Those were super teams as well but just in a different sense.

The higher ratings tend to suggest that type of dominance is fun to watch, otherwise why are so many people watching?

They're called star ****ers. They'll tune in for the glitz and glamour but they don't normally follow. They'll be gone when things even out.

I'm running through in my head what I want to say but I just don't care enough to spend the time to type it up.

TL;DT(ype): When KD folded because he can't take the pressure, it really let a lot of the air out of the league for a lot of people. But they have been replaced by even more star****ers. I used to be really into baseball, but the Yankees and steroids (the McGwire/Sosa chase for 61) really turned me off and I never went back. The Yankees fans that showed up when they were winning hard with no salary cap were star****ers. People who followed the homerun chase were star****ers. And they left when things came back down to earth and MLB has been in a decline since. When the Warriors run their course, those star****ers will mostly leave and the former hardcore fans like some around here will be off to different things. It's cyclical. KD's ******** lack of competitiveness has hurt the brand to the long term fans.

Saddletramp
06-02-2017, 06:52 AM
Your point mentioned 2 stacked super teams. Well you can make the case that those teams were super teams as well just based on their dominance. That dominance having to be pretty entertaining given how popular those teams and the players on those teams were.

To be fair to the Warriors, they were dominant before Durant as well. Its not like their presence here is all based on Kevin Durant's signing. You could make the case that they probably win the West and are in the NBA finals this year without KD.

I hear a lot of how bad for the league it is but the attendance and ratings don't support that narrative. That's my point in this thread.

The Warriors might've won the next 4 titles in a row without Durant. With Durant, it's like the Bulls in the 90's added Hakeem.

Good on GS for drafting that well and then making Iggy turn on his team during a playoff series and join with them a few months later. Bad on Durant for being a ***** and joining them.

rhino17
06-02-2017, 07:32 AM
Your point mentioned 2 stacked super teams. Well you can make the case that those teams were super teams as well just based on their dominance. That dominance having to be pretty entertaining given how popular those teams and the players on those teams were.

Again, no you can't. Like I said, the 2 teams in the finals lost a combined 1 game on the way to the finals. That has never happened before. Jordan's Bulls had flaws, Hakeem's Rockets had flaws, etc. Do you also enjoy movies without conflict or where characters don't grow? Because that is the equivalent of what the league is becoming with players who have mentalities like Kevin Durant.

And popular doesn't mean good product.

hugepatsfan
06-02-2017, 07:42 AM
****.no. I just want a little bit of intrigue. I love power houses I'd love to think at least the conference and NBA finals could go either way even if one team is favored. And then I want like a team or two in each conference that seem in position to get to that level.

Honestly the type of league I want is just if KD signed with BOS or WAS. I don't mean that it has to be my team but that's the type of league I want. GS would be clear top dawg in the west but SA would be close enough that I'm still intrigued. HOU would be an up and coming team that intrigues me about making a few moves to maybe get there. CLE would be favored in the East but BOS or WAS (with Durant) would challenge and the other you'd say is a few moves away.

Durant going to GS just made it so I have absolutely no doubt in my mind how any series turns out. I'm an accountant so I've always loved NBA team building but that's the only part of the game that interests me now... just playing with the trade machine and crunching numbers. The games themselves don't really mean anything anymore. Even my Celtics I watch but always thinking about what moves they can make. The on cone ft product just isn't interested. Just my opinion.

eDush
06-02-2017, 07:44 AM
I don't want parity like the NFL where every champion is one and done for the most part. The NBA has always been good without parity. The problem is that until recently, there weren't just TWO stacked super teams.That kind of dominance isn't fun to watch. I have ZERO interest in these finals and won't be watching.Tell that to the Pats :facepalm:

metswon69
06-02-2017, 08:16 AM
Again, no you can't. Like I said, the 2 teams in the finals lost a combined 1 game on the way to the finals. That has never happened before. Jordan's Bulls had flaws, Hakeem's Rockets had flaws, etc. Do you also enjoy movies without conflict or where characters don't grow? Because that is the equivalent of what the league is becoming with players who have mentalities like Kevin Durant.

And popular doesn't mean good product.

Jordan's Bulls had flaws but there was never really a finals they were in that had super drama. Not one of those 6 championships they won went past 6 games in the finals. And there was little doubt they were going to win, specifically after they won the first 2 against the Lakers and Trailblazers.

Never suggesting the quality of the product but the interest level is certainly higher even with being able to predict who will be in the finals. League attendance being up is also indicative of that.

warfelg
06-02-2017, 08:25 AM
Yes!

This isn't about creating a league where we can have a new champion every year. What's really needed is about 4-6 top teams at any time, so that through the playoffs there's better series. The way the NBA is structured right now, there's no sense in watching the regular season unless there is intrigue in the 7-9 seeds and you like one of those teams. And there's no sense in watching the playoffs until the finals.

Sly Guy
06-02-2017, 09:28 AM
The obvious answer if you are a fan of any team besides the Cavs and Warriors is yes but is that really true?

Ratings for the NBA playoffs were up 5% over last year's playoffs and last year's NBA finals were the highest rated NBA finals on ABC. That will probably be surpassed with this years finals ratings as well. The league attendance record was also broken for the 3rd straight season in a row with most fans knowing when the season started that it would most likely be Cavs and Warriors in the finals.

And if you think about it some of the most watched NBA games were the Celtics/Lakers rivalry in the 80s and the Bull's dynasty in the 90s.

My point is of course you want the team you root for to win but for all "Well the lack of parity is really killing the game", it really doesn't seem that way.

where are you getting those numbers from? I read they were down between 10-15%


And think about it like this, if there are fewer games, there's fewer viewers and less ad revenue. Competition is good for the league, competition is good for any sport.

mavwar53
06-02-2017, 09:46 AM
Draft better, warriors built on the draft, and not even top 5 picks. Before this year Barnes and Curry at 7, Klay at 11 and Draymond at 35 or whatever.

I love McCaw too, could be Klays replacement if they start to worry about money.

Rivera
06-02-2017, 09:51 AM
yes because if i have to suffer through another playoffs like this season i am DONE with the nba. I just want good basketball games even if the talent is disperse. The Warriors are awesome, but if this finals ends in 4-5 games I would hate it for basketball

Give me competitive basketball!

da ThRONe
06-02-2017, 10:03 AM
I don't know if I want parity as much as I want rules that are fair and allow any team to compete. If ownership is terrible and hire poor management I have no problem if they are terrible for decades. If ownership is great and hire knowledgeable people I have no problem with them being great for decades. I don't want to see teams handicap by things like markets size.

Sly Guy
06-02-2017, 10:07 AM
yes because if i have to suffer through another playoffs like this season i am DONE with the nba. I just want good basketball games even if the talent is disperse. The Warriors are awesome, but if this finals ends in 4-5 games I would hate it for basketball

Give me competitive basketball!

I kinda feel the same, to be honest. I walked away from hockey after the lockout season despite the game being encoded in my DNA. Now hockey's as good as it's ever been and I found myself watching this season for the first time since. And now I find myself leaning towards walking away from the NBA for a while. Get my bball fix from college until the NBA gets it's superteams and star calls all sorted out (if ever). I prefer 'sports' to 'sports entertainment'.

da ThRONe
06-02-2017, 10:07 AM
Draft better, warriors built on the draft, and not even top 5 picks. Before this year Barnes and Curry at 7, Klay at 11 and Draymond at 35 or whatever.

I love McCaw too, could be Klays replacement if they start to worry about money.

It wasn't until the Warriors signed Durant where I feel there was something wrong with the league. I rooted for them to break the single season record last year.

hugepatsfan
06-02-2017, 10:27 AM
It wasn't until the Warriors signed Durant where I feel there was something wrong with the league. I rooted for them to break the single season record last year.

Agreed. I loved having GS last year. Was so great for the NBA. A dominant all time team. It took the defining career moment of the GOAT to barely edge them in game 7. They were so awesome and fun. The key was though that as amazing as they were, you felt like they could be knocked off by CLE, SA or OKC (with Durant). The East needed some help to challenge CLE (why I think Durant to BOS or WAS would have been amazing). But even as is, BOS is probably like 2 top of the roster moves away from pushing CLE and I think WAS is just a star and some depth pieces away. I felt like the league was in an awesome spot. Durant's decision though just pushed that already top team to heights no one can touch and now nothing else matters. You give props to GS for pulling it off and respect them for it but that doesn't make it interesting to watch.

Kyben36
06-02-2017, 11:13 AM
As a fan, i dont want to feel like no matter how good you get, your still not getting to the conference finals because team 1a) and 1b) are soo much better, i also dont want playoffs where the outcome is known, i want to see series where teams push the 1 seed, maybe even knock them off, right now, this nba is borring, we all knew who was coming out of both the east and the west, most have also already predicted who is the winner of the finals.

Its just boring as a fan. Not even just for my home team, i was more interested in the 1st round series than the rest personally, at least some of those games were competitive and close.

effen5
06-02-2017, 11:48 AM
I don't care about parity, I miss the rivalry. There is NONE right now.

Chronz
06-02-2017, 12:04 PM
Yes. I want the kind of parity the league has had plenty. Not this 1 team bs

metswon69
06-02-2017, 12:21 PM
where are you getting those numbers from? I read they were down between 10-15%


And think about it like this, if there are fewer games, there's fewer viewers and less ad revenue. Competition is good for the league, competition is good for any sport.

http://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/05/26/ratings-roundup-espns-nba-playoffs-up-5-nbcs-stanley-cup-playoffs-up-6/

Competition is good for any sport but apparently people like dynasties in the NBA. Now I heard the game last night was down in the ratings from last year's game 1 but we'll have to see how that goes as we get deeper into the series.

mngopher35
06-02-2017, 12:24 PM
Yes, as others have said even if it's just like 5 great teams competing (IMO last year was great with okc/sa/gs/cle all being there and generally good series).

We all knew this was coming in the summer though with that move. I liked kd but man has he made things boring. Congrats on easy titles though, he will get his wish.

metswon69
06-02-2017, 12:25 PM
My original question was rhetorical in some sense. Obviously unless you're a fan of the Warriors or Cavs, you don't want to see this series year after year but the NBA seems to be thriving in spite of knowing who will be in the finals before the season starts. Attendance is again up league wide.

Its easily the most predictable of the 4 major sports at the moment and its been that way the last 7 years in terms of whatever team Lebron is on will account for half of whoever plays for the NBA title.

Firefistus
06-02-2017, 01:20 PM
Draft better, warriors built on the draft, and not even top 5 picks. Before this year Barnes and Curry at 7, Klay at 11 and Draymond at 35 or whatever.

I love McCaw too, could be Klays replacement if they start to worry about money.

You mean like the Thunder did? And they couldn't afford to keep Westbrook, Harden, and Durant because the salary cap.

Utah was faced with a Deron Williams threatening to leave so they traded him and started a rebuild, now Utah is faced with everyone wanting Gordon Hayward. And Boston will probably make another super team because they have cap room for it? Ya draft better that'll fix the problem.

FOXHOUND
06-02-2017, 01:34 PM
Great teams are great for the NBA, like you pointed out with the 90's Bulls and 80's Lakers/Celtics, but you want great teams to be pushed. Even the 72-win Bulls got pushed to game 6 in a tough, defensive slug fest with the Sonics, and if George Karl was smart enough to have Payton guard Jordan the entire series they may have even won. In fact, 5 of their 6 Finals went to game 6.

This series is far from over, and I expect Cleveland to come back with that push, but if this ends in 2001 Laker fashion then it will have been a boring year. Watching that 2001 Lakers team was fun, but watching them battle the Spurs, Kings and Blazers was much more enjoyable.

LA4life24/8
06-02-2017, 01:42 PM
Id like to see a but more parity... like maybe 5 or 6 teams having a legit chance to win the chip. I mean weve kniwn since day 1 durant signed w dubs it was gonna be them n cavs in the finals.

And it will probably be those two teams again next year with little chance for another team to make it...

Chronz
06-02-2017, 01:42 PM
My original question was rhetorical in some sense. Obviously unless you're a fan of the Warriors or Cavs, you don't want to see this series year after year but the NBA seems to be thriving in spite of knowing who will be in the finals before the season starts. Attendance is again up league wide.

Its easily the most predictable of the 4 major sports at the moment and its been that way the last 7 years in terms of whatever team Lebron is on will account for half of whoever plays for the NBA title.

It sounds as if you're expecting people to tune out instantly. IDK how the average viewer sees the NBA, but among hardcore fans, I know Im not alone in how little I have cared for the NBA this year. I would think it would take the lack of competition some time before people tuned out, and even then, its still a big market team with Bron as the sole hope so it got someone like me (who has tuned out all playoffs) back into the fold.

If not for gambling I dont think I would have watched a single non-Clippers game. For the first time in my life, I actually let a ticket expire, didn't even try to sell it just plum forgot about it. Might just call it quits next year unless the off-season produces some intrigue or KD breaks his leg again.

Sly Guy
06-02-2017, 02:20 PM
http://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/05/26/ratings-roundup-espns-nba-playoffs-up-5-nbcs-stanley-cup-playoffs-up-6/

Competition is good for any sport but apparently people like dynasties in the NBA. Now I heard the game last night was down in the ratings from last year's game 1 but we'll have to see how that goes as we get deeper into the series.

it's coo, thanks for providing the link, but I think the differences come between per game ratings and overall totals. Probs where the big discrepancy comes from. Shorter series = lower overall totals.

hugepatsfan
06-02-2017, 02:21 PM
Yeah i think all year people hyped up the Finals match-up as clash of the Titans. Smart people knew all along that it really wasn't a fair fight on paper but Lebron is arguably GOAT so you gave them a puncher's chance. IF GS blows out CLE this series that won't be the expectation all next year. If CLE makes it a competitive series (6 or 7 games and they feel close) then next year can be carried by that hype again.

If GS blows out like they should though the NBA is going to need a lot of offseason action to incite that enthusiasm that GS could be knocked off.

CP3 signs w/ SA and they keep LMA

Cousins traded to WAS while they keep Wall/Beal/Morris (the rest of the roster is interchangable) and sign some good veteran depth

Hayward signs w/ BOS and then they trade Fultz, Jaylen Brown, Crowder, Ante Zizic, 2018 BRK 1st, 2018 BOS 1st, 2019 LAC 1st, 2019 MEM pick to NO for Anthony Davis (let the BOS fan in me dream!)

OKC finds some way to clear enough salary for Blake Griffin (admittedly I don't see a way)

HOU dumps Ryan Anderson and signs Millsap.

It's going to take some big power moves like this to make people think there's even a reason to watch. And GS is still insanely more talented than any of those rosters.

hugepatsfan
06-02-2017, 02:46 PM
More roster moves from what I listed above...

Jimmy Butler to the Wolves for #7 and Khris Dunn so maybe that core can take a step forward.

MIL clears some bloated contracts maybe and land a Kyle Lowry type in free agency who fits as an on ball/off ball PG with Giannis.

TOR goes into sell mode and sends DeRozen to LAL for Russell to hopefully realize his potential as a building block player. Lakers then motivated to trade Ingram for PG13 to get him right now.

Melo agrees to go to POR and they land him for a few 1sts and some bad deals. He's not great but he'd make them better than Evan Turner.

Suns trade Bledsoe to PHI and maybe he helps that young core move forward (Simmons coming back, adding Josh Jackson in the draft, Embiid hopefully healthy). They get Reddick in FA too for more help.




Basically we need every bad team to go into sell mode to load the mi tier teams as much as possible where we at least can psyche ourselves up to think maybe GS doesn't win.

likemystylez
06-02-2017, 03:05 PM
this is all BS- ive been a warriors fan since 1993. I dont remember anybody concerned about parity when the warriors were winning 20-25 games every year for like 12 yrs straight. I dont remember any big name free agents joining those teams outside of danny fortson and derek fisher. the second the warriors get a decent free agent signing- all this concern for parity.

I watched pau gasol just handed to the lakers, I watched the cavs trade ilgaskus for antawn jamison then somehow get ilgaskus back like 2 weeks later.... and nobody had a problem with that crap while my warriors definitely needed a star player or 3 to be competitive.

Warriors didnt do anything shady and neither did KD. he was a fgree agent, he met with 6 teams- he was most impressed by the warriors presentation. How many other teams had 4 core players at the meeting during the offseason? LOL spurs brought duncan who was retiring anyway.... even his brother westbrook didnt go.

Chronz
06-02-2017, 03:06 PM
More roster moves from what I listed above...

Jimmy Butler to the Wolves for #7 and Khris Dunn so maybe that core can take a step forward.

MIL clears some bloated contracts maybe and land a Kyle Lowry type in free agency who fits as an on ball/off ball PG with Giannis.

TOR goes into sell mode and sends DeRozen to LAL for Russell to hopefully realize his potential as a building block player. Lakers then motivated to trade Ingram for PG13 to get him right now.

Melo agrees to go to POR and they land him for a few 1sts and some bad deals. He's not great but he'd make them better than Evan Turner.

Suns trade Bledsoe to PHI and maybe he helps that young core move forward (Simmons coming back, adding Josh Jackson in the draft, Embiid hopefully healthy). They get Reddick in FA too for more help.




Basically we need every bad team to go into sell mode to load the mi tier teams as much as possible where we at least can psyche ourselves up to think maybe GS doesn't win.

Wish there were a basketball committee of sorts but it would totally screw players over in terms of their freedom of choice and lifestyle. I say **** it, we're paying you millions and this is good for the sport.

Clippers should merge with SAS. Boom, 2 team league.

Chronz
06-02-2017, 03:16 PM
this is all BS- ive been a warriors fan since 1993. I dont remember anybody concerned about parity when the warriors were winning 20-25 games every year for like 12 yrs straight. I dont remember any big name free agents joining those teams outside of danny fortson and derek fisher. the second the warriors get a decent free agent signing- all this concern for parity.
I see this argument alot with Dub fans. Why do you guy think your team is the problem listed? EVERYONE congrats your organization, nobody gives a **** that my Clips sucked forever and the minute they had a modicum of success they became the most hated team in the league, I dont give a **** about that either.

I love my team but I would GLADLY go back to winning 20 games if it meant the LEAGUE was more enjoyable/competitive. But the 2 dont go together, the problem isn't GS. Its whats missing in between KD's legs that the problem.


I watched pau gasol just handed to the lakers, I watched the cavs trade ilgaskus for antawn jamison then somehow get ilgaskus back like 2 weeks later.... and nobody had a problem with that crap while my warriors definitely needed a star player or 3 to be competitive.

LOL, you're honestly going to compare what had been a .500 team for years acquiring a bonafide secondary star to pair with Kobe to KD joining a historical core amidst its prime/peak?

Big Z and Antawn were aging has beens and that trade wound up backfiring as Antawn was crucified by KG.



Warriors didnt do anything shady and neither did KD. he was a fgree agent, he met with 6 teams- he was most impressed by the warriors presentation. How many other teams had 4 core players at the meeting during the offseason? LOL spurs brought duncan who was retiring anyway.... even his brother westbrook didnt go.

Cool. Congrats on signing someone who doesn't care about his legacy or the league's competitive balance. Hes a very selfless individual in some regards and its totally OK to look out for #1, just remember that when someone tries to prop him up. We're allowed to value whatever we wish and we might differ on what it means. Like I wanted mroe spine from KD, I honestly thought he could dethrone LeBron without resorting to this.

LOb0
06-02-2017, 03:20 PM
Antawn was so bad when he got to the Cavs, his first game he went like 0-12 and the rest of the time he was just flat bad.

smith&wesson
06-02-2017, 03:26 PM
I love super teams and always have..

Magics Lakers
Birds Celtics
Thomas' Pistons
Duncan's Spurs
Shaqs Lakers
Garnets Celtics
Lebrons Heat
Lebron Cavs
Durants Warriors

And many, many others. These super teams have always existed.

These teams had everyone anticipating their games with fans glued to the TV to watch .. I just want to see the best go at it and deep down everyone does.

hugepatsfan
06-02-2017, 04:04 PM
I love super teams and always have..

Magics Lakers
Birds Celtics
Thomas' Pistons
Duncan's Spurs
Shaqs Lakers
Garnets Celtics
Lebrons Heat
Lebron Cavs
Durants Warriors

And many, many others. These super teams have always existed.

These teams had everyone anticipating their games with fans glued to the TV to watch .. I just want to see the best go at it and deep down everyone does.

Super teams are great. No argument there. The issue though is that usually you have multiple. Lebron's Cavs may have been a "super team" but they aren't by the new standard. They were extremely competitive with the Durant-less Warriors. They're not on the same playing field as the Durant Warriors.

Clash of the titans series are great but we only have one titan right now... Some team needs to step up. CLE is the closest but like I said they were neck in neck with the Durant-less Warriors. It was very close then GS added an MVP. So CLE basically needs to do the same, or close. What is their path to do so though? I don't see how they could do that. No cap space, no assets with high trade value.

Golden State required years of drafting amazingly well and then a cap spike that allowed them even after extending their 3 stars on near-max deals for their tier to have cap space for another max player. In order to match them a team is going to have to draft that amazingly well and then sign a max player or two. It's doable, but it's hard because now those rookies will be on the same salary scale. You have to attract the max before they get to FA because there's no fluky cap spike that makes Curry/Green/Klay's near-max deals about half what the FA max was. And there are very few max players who want to sign with a team that has a bunch of their supposed "stars" still developing 1st/2nd/3rd/4th year players. It will be near impossible to pull off. By the time someone does manage to build a team to compete with these Warriors they probably won't be good anymore lol

smith&wesson
06-02-2017, 06:51 PM
No arguments there.. what Durant did was a cop out plain and simple. The only other team to win 70 plus games was the Bulls dynasty. What Durant did imo is the equivalent of a prime Hakeem leaving the Rockets to join that Bulls team.

What I meant was general. I enjoy watching the best of the best vs eachother. but he Warriors didn't need Durant.

JLynn943
06-02-2017, 07:47 PM
More parity would be nice. The West was fun when Denver was a 50 win 8th seed. Even if it's just a couple of legitimate contenders in each conference it would be fine. Right now there's probably a 75% chance the Warriors win in any given year. Other 25% is Cavs, Spurs or Rockets, and the Rockets would require GS to be banged up.

I also hope the play style changes. I hate watching people shoot 3 pointers all game, but right now that's what you have to do to win. It's not exciting. I don't care if Steph or anyone else is making a three from 30 feet away. It's boring basketball.

Saddletramp
06-02-2017, 07:50 PM
Draft better, warriors built on the draft, and not even top 5 picks. Before this year Barnes and Curry at 7, Klay at 11 and Draymond at 35 or whatever.

I love McCaw too, could be Klays replacement if they start to worry about money.

The difference between a team like GS and the Utahs/OKCs/Memphis'/New Orleans' teams is GS drafted really well and has deep pockets to retain guys and add more to that core whereas those smaller market teams can't keep a majority of their players. Look at Memphis last year for instance, the cap goes way up and they had to make Conley the highest paid player in the NBA to retain him and with their remaining money they had to overpay to max out Parsons. Even if the injury stuff wasn't a concern, Parsons is nowhere near a max guy but these dumpy teams have to overpay to stay competitive.

TrueFan420
06-02-2017, 08:09 PM
then making Iggy turn on his team during a playoff series and join with them a few months later.

I mean you can't really say he turned on his team. He was a 76er his whole career before they decided to move on from him and sent him to Denver. His deal was up and he walked.

Saddletramp
06-02-2017, 08:19 PM
I mean you can't really say he turned on his team. He was a 76er his whole career before they decided to move on from him and sent him to Denver. His deal was up and he walked.

The team he was on that series was Denver, so it was literally his team. He told GS players their game plan and Denver lost that series (not saying that that's why but I'm sure it didn't help Denver). He then joined them that offseason. That's shady as ****.

Jamiecballer
06-02-2017, 08:23 PM
I'd say the real fans want more even talent throughout the league. The casual observer doesn't care and has a far bigger impact on playoff ratings.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

TrueFan420
06-02-2017, 08:24 PM
The team he was on that series was Denver, so it was literally his team. He told GS players their game plan and Denver lost that series (not saying that that's why but I'm sure it didn't help Denver). He then joined them that offseason. That's shady as ****.

Vince Carter told a player mid game what plays they were running so he could still beat them even if they knew. At this level they all know what their doing.

Saddletramp
06-02-2017, 08:40 PM
Vince Carter told a player mid game what plays they were running so he could still beat them even if they knew. At this level they all know what their doing.
Bird used to do that too. But these things don't equate.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-02-2017, 09:48 PM
I always wanted a hard cap.

If you can create a monopoly with a hard cap, then I have no problem whatsoever.

Firefistus
06-03-2017, 02:39 AM
I always wanted a hard cap.

If you can create a monopoly with a hard cap, then I have no problem whatsoever.

I agree, the NFL players desperately tried to keep the hard cap out of their league, and about 5 years later the league completely changed. I think it will do the same for the NBA.

Hustla23
06-03-2017, 10:10 PM
What about viewership during the year as a whole?

This year basically amounted to the Cavs and Warriors beating up everyone while it seemed like half the league was trying to tank. Unsurprisingly, it makes for a rather uneventful season as a whole.

BKLYNpigeon
06-03-2017, 10:32 PM
It doesn't matter, super teams come and go. All of us will ***** and complain, but will watch regardless.

BKLYNpigeon
06-03-2017, 10:41 PM
The team he was on that series was Denver, so it was literally his team. He told GS players their game plan and Denver lost that series (not saying that that's why but I'm sure it didn't help Denver). He then joined them that offseason. That's shady as ****.

Reaching bruh.

George Karl wanted the nuggets to go after Currys ankles in that series vs the Warriors. Iggy, who's friends with curry was not cool with that dirty play and told someone on the warriors. Iggy probably should have kept that in house and protested it, but you can't hate on him for protecting his friends career from injury.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-03-2017, 11:04 PM
For me, the issue isn't the fact that both teams made it this far. It's just that they steamrolled the competition to get there, and that's the big concern.

crewfan13
06-03-2017, 11:06 PM
To the warriors fans, I don't think anyone is neccesarily blaming the warriors. What they did wasn't shady or illegal, but that doesn't make it good for the league. And it has nothing to do with it being the warriors either, people would be mad if this was New York or Milwaukee too.

Basketball is sort of a unique sport in the sense that it's not really regional at all. If you look at a sport like baseball, you sort of grow up with a team and are a fan of that local team in quite a few cases. A team like the Yankees or cubs can transcend that, but not very often. Basketball isn't like that, especially for young fans. Young fans follow players and will watch the good teams because the like those players.

I think he's more casual fans like having the name recognition. They like not tuning in during the season as much but flipping on the finals and seeing a bunch of names they know. So those fans probably don't want as much parity. Maybe they'd prefer 4 really good teams, so the conference finals and finals are good, but they don't care if the 4th seed doesn't have much of a chance.

I think the more hardcore fans would truly prefer parity, but those fans are still buying tickets and at least passively watch the finals, even if they aren't as entertaining, so why cater to those fans. Unfortunately that's the way sports go. To harken back to the baseball example, baseball is making changes that anger "pure" baseball fans. But those fans will still tune in and increased pace of play will pick up new fans. Basketball will likely be the same way. Super teams and lack of parity may anger the more pure basketball fans, but as long as ratings and casual fans tune in, they won't make changes.

Saddletramp
06-03-2017, 11:24 PM
Reaching bruh.

George Karl wanted the nuggets to go after Currys ankles in that series vs the Warriors. Iggy, who's friends with curry was not cool with that dirty play and told someone on the warriors. Iggy probably should have kept that in house and protested it, but you can't hate on him for protecting his friends career from injury.

I wonder if Iggy ever told Draymond to stop nut hunting. Then again, if Iggy's not friends with anyone Draymond coulda kicked, he wouldn't care.

Those guys aren't very likable unless you're a Warriors fan, I suppose.

metswon69
06-03-2017, 11:57 PM
I agree, the NFL players desperately tried to keep the hard cap out of their league, and about 5 years later the league completely changed. I think it will do the same for the NBA.

There is too much money at stake for the players to accept a hard cap. I don't see it happening.

FlashBolt
06-04-2017, 12:01 AM
I wonder if Iggy ever told Draymond to stop nut hunting. Then again, if Iggy's not friends with anyone Draymond coulda kicked, he wouldn't care.

Those guys aren't very likable unless you're a Warriors fan, I suppose.

Lmao, this double standard from Iggy is hilarious. It's 100% a mole. Coaches aren't supposed to go out and tell players to injure another player. But it's 100% fine if they tell their team to make it tough on them if they see an injury. If your ankles are delicate, I'm not going to step under you, cough cough, but I will make you run around and make it more difficult for you. That's pretty sad. I completely forgot about this incident but seeing as how Iggy got to the Warriors later, it's pretty obvious the guy cared more about Curry than his teammates.

metswon69
06-04-2017, 12:05 AM
I just dont know how much super teams and dynasties hurt the NBA. People like dominance. It's the same reason why there are so many Yankee and Cowboy fans across the country.

Aside from those Pierce's Celtics teams, has Lebron had any real competition getting to the finals the last 7 seasons? Yet I never heard a lack of competition hurting the sport then.

hugepatsfan
06-04-2017, 12:09 AM
I just dont know how much super teams and dynasties hurt the NBA. People like dominance. It's the same reason why there are so many Yankee and Cowboy fans across the country.

Aside from those Pierce's Celtics teams, has Lebron had any real competition getting to the finals the last 7 seasons? Yet I never heard a lack of competition hurting the sport then.

You're kind of making the point. We don't need parity across the whole league but we need some, to use your phrase, "real competition". Golden State has none and with the cap spike a thing of the past it probably won't be for 5 years. Barring some GM pulling off something MUCH more amazing than what GS did (since there won't be a cap spike to help) then they won't have competition.

metswon69
06-04-2017, 12:17 AM
You're kind of making the point. We don't need parity across the whole league but we need some, to use your phrase, "real competition". Golden State has none and with the cap spike a thing of the past it probably won't be for 5 years. Barring some GM pulling off something MUCH more amazing than what GS did (since there won't be a cap spike to help) then they won't have competition.

But see that's not an indication of parity imo. At least not in the Eastern conference where Lebron's teams have basically steamrolled their way to the finals 6 of the last 7 years. Yet, in spite of that, fans of Eastern conference teams were still going to and watching games knowing that insert Heat or Cavs into the NBA finals here since 2011. That probably doesn't change next season or the season after that either.

I get it. So what are fans of other NBA teams supposed to do? Give up? No but the NBA doesn't have to admit anything is wrong as long as they look at their bottom line when clearly there is a competition problem in the sport.

I guess we'll find out what GS's embarrassment of riches does for the sport going forward.

Saddletramp
06-04-2017, 12:45 AM
Lebron's teams are beatable. Always have been. Without him, they're usually awful. You take any one of the GS's Big Four off the team, they don't miss a beat.

Saddletramp
06-04-2017, 12:47 AM
Lmao, this double standard from Iggy is hilarious. It's 100% a mole. Coaches aren't supposed to go out and tell players to injure another player. But it's 100% fine if they tell their team to make it tough on them if they see an injury. If your ankles are delicate, I'm not going to step under you, cough cough, but I will make you run around and make it more difficult for you. That's pretty sad. I completely forgot about this incident but seeing as how Iggy got to the Warriors later, it's pretty obvious the guy cared more about Curry than his teammates.

Yeah, he didn't join them later, he joined them a few months after.

Then we see Durant choking a 3-1 lead to that same GS team and a few months later, he joins them too. Gotta make you at least wonder.......

BKLYNpigeon
06-04-2017, 01:59 AM
The hell with parity.

We Drafted our core players and added a Free Agent Allstar. We did it the right way.

I watched the Warriors since the early 90's they were horrible. Now they are finally awesome and Im enjoying every second. If they can win 3 championships in the next 5 years id be a happy man.

FlashBolt
06-04-2017, 02:07 AM
Lebron's teams are beatable. Always have been. Without him, they're usually awful. You take any one of the GS's Big Four off the team, they don't miss a beat.

I thought Boston was a prime example. Game 3, LeBron has a bad game. What do you know? His team lost. Game 4, bad first half by LeBron. What happened? They were down. So anyone willing to bet Cavs would have beaten the Celtics if LeBron wasn't on the team? I mean, we take out LeBron and IT, I have Boston winning. As good as Kyrie is, he's a scorer. He doesn't have the game to create a cohesive team out there. The Cavs are stacked in the East BECAUSE of LeBron. In every scenario I place LeBron in, I believe he comes out of the East. And that's not a testament to how bad the East is but look at the reality: West isn't that good either outside of the Spurs and Warriors. Warriors were stacked even without Durant. Cavs are beatable when LeBron is on the bench. When he's on the court, Cavs are almost always winning.

mngopher35
06-04-2017, 02:14 AM
The hell with parity.

We Drafted our core players and added a Free Agent Allstar. We did it the right way.

I watched the Warriors since the early 90's they were horrible. Now they are finally awesome and Im enjoying every second. If they can win 3 championships in the next 5 years id be a happy man.

Honestly if they only won 3 I would be pretty happy too.

LA_Raiders
06-04-2017, 02:21 AM
NBA is going to the toilet. I did not watch a game until the Finals. It is no fun when you already know the outcome.

Saddletramp
06-04-2017, 04:37 AM
I thought Boston was a prime example. Game 3, LeBron has a bad game. What do you know? His team lost. Game 4, bad first half by LeBron. What happened? They were down. So anyone willing to bet Cavs would have beaten the Celtics if LeBron wasn't on the team? I mean, we take out LeBron and IT, I have Boston winning. As good as Kyrie is, he's a scorer. He doesn't have the game to create a cohesive team out there. The Cavs are stacked in the East BECAUSE of LeBron. In every scenario I place LeBron in, I believe he comes out of the East. And that's not a testament to how bad the East is but look at the reality: West isn't that good either outside of the Spurs and Warriors. Warriors were stacked even without Durant. Cavs are beatable when LeBron is on the bench. When he's on the court, Cavs are almost always winning.

Yeah, people are always *****ing and moaning that Lebron has the easiest path in the East but he can't control where anyone else plays. He had nothing to do with LMA going to SA, or CP3 going to the Clippers or KD going to GS (actually, KD said he might not have went to GS if they didn't lose last year-I happen to not believe that for a second-but if true, I guess Lebron did have control on that situation because KD knows he could never beat Lebron without a super stacked team already in place).

And what team wouldn't make the Finals from the East if Lebron played for them? Orlando? Maybe Charlotte?

metswon69
06-04-2017, 05:27 AM
I thought Boston was a prime example. Game 3, LeBron has a bad game. What do you know? His team lost. Game 4, bad first half by LeBron. What happened? They were down. So anyone willing to bet Cavs would have beaten the Celtics if LeBron wasn't on the team? I mean, we take out LeBron and IT, I have Boston winning. As good as Kyrie is, he's a scorer. He doesn't have the game to create a cohesive team out there. The Cavs are stacked in the East BECAUSE of LeBron. In every scenario I place LeBron in, I believe he comes out of the East. And that's not a testament to how bad the East is but look at the reality: West isn't that good either outside of the Spurs and Warriors. Warriors were stacked even without Durant. Cavs are beatable when LeBron is on the bench. When he's on the court, Cavs are almost always winning.

I don't know how much of this really matters when Lebron is as durable as he is and plays 38-40 minutes a game throughout the playoffs. If that's the case, no one is beating them till they get to the finals anyway.

Not to say you're suggesting that but hoping injury creates competition is not parity.

FOXHOUND
06-04-2017, 08:01 AM
And what team wouldn't make the Finals from the East if Lebron played for them? Orlando? Maybe Charlotte?

This narrative is such a joke and makes no sense. When LeBron was on "bad teams" in 2004-2010 and only made the Finals once, everyone said it was because his team sucked. So, because he's been on stacked teams the last 7 years, he can just all of a sudden do this now at will? I mean this year maybe, since like 2007 the east has a pathetically weak 1 seed of a 53-win team.

Last year they needed 6 games to beat the Raptors in the ECF with that team, but you're telling me he's going to beat them playing with crap? For example, if he was in place of Melo on the Knicks last year, with Jose Calderon, Aaron Affalo, rookie Porzingis who died from January on and Robin Lopez, that team is getting to the Finals now? How about the 7 seed Pacers, with George Hill, Monta Ellis, rookie Myles Turner/CJ Miles and Ian Mahinmi?

You know what, can we flip that? Paul George with that team took the Raptors to game 7. What if we gave Paul George Kyrie Irving, JR Smith, Kevin Love and Tristan Thompson? Think he does okay or nah?

Give me a break. LeBron could have his own testament to the bible, with some of the stuff people say about him. The guy is one of the best players of all time but people still feel the need to write fairy tails about him. :laugh2:

Scoots
06-04-2017, 10:23 AM
Lebron's teams are beatable. Always have been. Without him, they're usually awful. You take any one of the GS's Big Four off the team, they don't miss a beat.

Part of that comes from the way teams are constructed around LeBron. The Warriors system makes Ian Clark look like he's worth $10M a year to some. If the Warriors lose a star there are big differences in the way it runs, but yeah, it doesn't stop running.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 10:25 AM
On topic, I don't think fans want parity ... they want THEIR team to be improving, and they want no teams to be throwing games.

warfelg
06-04-2017, 10:35 AM
I think it's funny that fans of the good teams are the ones saying that we don't want parity, and it's everyone else saying, year dominate dynasty teams are fun, but you need 4-6 top teams to really make it enjoyable.

hugepatsfan
06-04-2017, 10:38 AM
On topic, I don't think fans want parity ... they want THEIR team to be improving, and they want no teams to be throwing games.

I don't think that's true. Nothing anyone has said in this thread implies that at all. I feel like you just want that to be the case so you can dismiss it as just people jealous of your team.

Everyone in this thread has been 100% clear really. Super teams are a part of the game - always have, always will. It's a top heavy league and they understand that their team won't always be one of the super teams. It's great if they are but I think everyone understands there's a select few and your team might. It be one. People just want there to be some level of legit intrigue to who's #1. That's all.

I just do t understand at all how you've interpreted at all that people just want their team to be good. Nothing anyone has said implies that. You're totally making it up.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 11:25 AM
I think it's funny that fans of the good teams are the ones saying that we don't want parity, and it's everyone else saying, year dominate dynasty teams are fun, but you need 4-6 top teams to really make it enjoyable.

As a Warriors fan and an NBA fan in general, I can absolutely have an opinion about following a losing team. :)

I was a fan when the Lakers and Celtics were dominating, then the Pistons, then the Bulls, Rockets, Bulls, Spurs, Lakers, Heat ... and the Warriors sucked through most of it. I was happier when the Warriors were improving, and less happy when there was no hope for improvement.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 11:29 AM
I don't think that's true. Nothing anyone has said in this thread implies that at all. I feel like you just want that to be the case so you can dismiss it as just people jealous of your team.

Everyone in this thread has been 100% clear really. Super teams are a part of the game - always have, always will. It's a top heavy league and they understand that their team won't always be one of the super teams. It's great if they are but I think everyone understands there's a select few and your team might. It be one. People just want there to be some level of legit intrigue to who's #1. That's all.

I just do t understand at all how you've interpreted at all that people just want their team to be good. Nothing anyone has said implies that. You're totally making it up.

Are you assuming that this thread is representative of the "NBA fans" in the OP? I think forum commenters are a TINY sub-group.

The team I've been a fan of from the beginning of my NBA fandom (more than 30 years) has been bad FAR more than good, and I'm sure it will fade back soon enough, and through all of it I have hoped for improvement and will continue to do so.

I don't think most people want all bad teams to improve just like I don't think they want all good teams to get worse. They want THEIR team to get better.

crewfan13
06-04-2017, 11:32 AM
Exactly. It's almost as if warriors fans and cavs fans probably shouldn't be too involved in the convo. Admittedly, if the bucks were one of the super teams, I'd be the same way and would be against any scenario which would punish my team from being good.

But as for everyone else trying to be a somewhat objective fan, I think it's clear everyone just wants a little more intrigue. As a bucks fan, I tuned into all the Bucks games, but beyond that, I just tuned into games and series I thought would be good and fun to watch. A series like Washington vs Boston was fun and a good matchup, but it was pretty clear it wasn't really going to matter much. There really weren't any series that realistically meant much to the finals. Maybe San Antonio could have made it a little tough on golden state had kawhi stayed healthy, but even that might not have been enough to go more than 5 or 6 with a few blowouts.

I think as a fan, once your team is eliminated, you want series where you don't know the outcome. That didn't really happen this playoffs, especially in meaningful series. As an nba, you have to think you at least want one of the conference finals to be intriguing and ideally both would be intriguing. And ideally you'd have maybe even a 5th decent team that makes a 2/3 matchup interesting before the conference finals.

warfelg
06-04-2017, 11:49 AM
Are you assuming that this thread is representative of the "NBA fans" in the OP? I think forum commenters are a TINY sub-group.

The team I've been a fan of from the beginning of my NBA fandom (more than 30 years) has been bad FAR more than good, and I'm sure it will fade back soon enough, and through all of it I have hoped for improvement and will continue to do so.

I don't think most people want all bad teams to improve just like I don't think they want all good teams to get worse. They want THEIR team to get better.

You're still reading most peoples opinion wrong. It's not about making the good worse and the bad better.

It's about bringing in intrigue and interest to the playoffs again. Think about those classing Kings/Lakers battles. Your gut told you the Lakers would win, but there was something about the Kings. Add in the Suns who had a chance to knock teams off, the Rockets having Yao and TMac, the Spurs always right there. That was real intrigue. You knew the Lakers were the best out of the bunch, but there was a real possibility of one of those other teams knocking them off.

I loved it back then, and I watch almost every game.

I haven't watched the playoffs in 6 years. And it's because it's BORING! Sorry I've been to one game 6 years ago, game 4 Sixers v Heat in the Big 3's first year where we unexpectedly won a game, but even then if someone outside of the Big 3 did ANYTHING that's a loss. And here's the proof:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201104240PHI.html

This isn't about bringing up the bottom or lowering the top. Most fans was intrigue, drama, story, a sense of do or die.

There is none of that right now.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 11:52 AM
Exactly. It's almost as if warriors fans and cavs fans probably shouldn't be too involved in the convo. Admittedly, if the bucks were one of the super teams, I'd be the same way and would be against any scenario which would punish my team from being good.

But as for everyone else trying to be a somewhat objective fan, I think it's clear everyone just wants a little more intrigue. As a bucks fan, I tuned into all the Bucks games, but beyond that, I just tuned into games and series I thought would be good and fun to watch. A series like Washington vs Boston was fun and a good matchup, but it was pretty clear it wasn't really going to matter much. There really weren't any series that realistically meant much to the finals. Maybe San Antonio could have made it a little tough on golden state had kawhi stayed healthy, but even that might not have been enough to go more than 5 or 6 with a few blowouts.

I think as a fan, once your team is eliminated, you want series where you don't know the outcome. That didn't really happen this playoffs, especially in meaningful series. As an nba, you have to think you at least want one of the conference finals to be intriguing and ideally both would be intriguing. And ideally you'd have maybe even a 5th decent team that makes a 2/3 matchup interesting before the conference finals.

I didn't say anything about hurting or helping the "super teams". I don't even know that that's what this thread is supposed to be about. The question is do the NBA fans in general want parity. I don't think the team I follow has anything to do with that. If I'm a Wolves fan I want the Wolves to rise up and beat all comers, the same if I'm a Bucks fan or a Knicks fan.

When it comes to the playoffs that discussion changes some, and for the most part these playoffs have sucked. I don't think that's just down to the super teams though since almost all of the series sucked.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 11:59 AM
You're still reading most peoples opinion wrong. It's not about making the good worse and the bad better.

It's about bringing in intrigue and interest to the playoffs again. Think about those classing Kings/Lakers battles. Your gut told you the Lakers would win, but there was something about the Kings. Add in the Suns who had a chance to knock teams off, the Rockets having Yao and TMac, the Spurs always right there. That was real intrigue. You knew the Lakers were the best out of the bunch, but there was a real possibility of one of those other teams knocking them off.

I loved it back then, and I watch almost every game.

I haven't watched the playoffs in 6 years. And it's because it's BORING! Sorry I've been to one game 6 years ago, game 4 Sixers v Heat in the Big 3's first year where we unexpectedly won a game, but even then if someone outside of the Big 3 did ANYTHING that's a loss. And here's the proof:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201104240PHI.html

This isn't about bringing up the bottom or lowering the top. Most fans was intrigue, drama, story, a sense of do or die.

There is none of that right now.

I agree. But the I took the question to not be about just the playoffs, but about NBA fans in general. The NBA is 30 teams, the playoffs is 16.

For the playoffs, I believe most fans want their own team to destroy all opponents, and want to see good competitive series everywhere else. This year is particularly bad in both the strength of the top 2 teams, but also the weakness of the other playoff teams, including the ones who never played the Cavs or Warriors. But long term, I don't think there are any rules changes needed to get back to entertaining ball ... there were several changes in the CBA that starts next year and the Warriors/Cavs will fall back to the pack soon enough.

Saddletramp
06-04-2017, 12:15 PM
This narrative is such a joke and makes no sense. When LeBron was on "bad teams" in 2004-2010 and only made the Finals once, everyone said it was because his team sucked. So, because he's been on stacked teams the last 7 years, he can just all of a sudden do this now at will? I mean this year maybe, since like 2007 the east has a pathetically weak 1 seed of a 53-win team.

I don't think a team in the league right now is as bad as those teams without Lebron.


Last year they needed 6 games to beat the Raptors in the ECF with that team, but you're telling me he's going to beat them playing with crap?

Yeah. I can see him doing that.


For example, if he was in place of Melo on the Knicks last year, with Jose Calderon, Aaron Affalo, rookie Porzingis who died from January on and Robin Lopez, that team is getting to the Finals now? How about the 7 seed Pacers, with George Hill, Monta Ellis, rookie Myles Turner/CJ Miles and Ian Mahinmi?

But that's not what I said. I wasn't replacing anyone with him on any team. Stop changing the narrative.


You know what, can we flip that? Paul George with that team took the Raptors to game 7. What if we gave Paul George Kyrie Irving, JR Smith, Kevin Love and Tristan Thompson? Think he does okay or nah?

That's more of a question mark. He'd probably take them to the Finals, depending on where Lebron is, of course.


Give me a break. LeBron could have his own testament to the bible, with some of the stuff people say about him. The guy is one of the best players of all time but people still feel the need to write fairy tails about him. :laugh2:

How does one write a fairy tail? Seriously though, for as much as people are fairy tale writing, so many more are blatantly hating on the guy and undervaluing him.


Now go write another short story length diatribe about how the Warriors are today's 80's Lakers.

warfelg
06-04-2017, 12:46 PM
I agree. But the I took the question to not be about just the playoffs, but about NBA fans in general. The NBA is 30 teams, the playoffs is 16.

For the playoffs, I believe most fans want their own team to destroy all opponents, and want to see good competitive series everywhere else. This year is particularly bad in both the strength of the top 2 teams, but also the weakness of the other playoff teams, including the ones who never played the Cavs or Warriors. But long term, I don't think there are any rules changes needed to get back to entertaining ball ... there were several changes in the CBA that starts next year and the Warriors/Cavs will fall back to the pack soon enough.

Sports Business Journal studied 27 of 30 NBA teams this past year:
~There was a 14% drop in local ratings on average
~20 of the 27 saw the decline
~15 of the 27 saw a decline of double didgets

On a national scale:
~There were 19 more nationally broadcast games this year.
~National games noticed a 6% decline in ratings, and there is some indication that it played a factor, but not enough for a 6% dip.
~TNT had an 8% decrese in ratings
~ESPN/ABC had a 5% decrease in ratings

Now there was an uptick in streaming services, but it wasn't enough to make up for the impact of the decline in tv viewership.

In regards to in arena:
Overall attendance is up, but average attendance per game for the league is down from ~17,800 to ~17,7000.. That itself is also down from the year before.

So in conclusion even though some markets have seen upticks, all in all viewership across the NBA is down as more people are losing interest in the game with less teams able to compete and a lack of compelling storylines.

warfelg
06-04-2017, 01:11 PM
Also tied to that social media usage and streaming uptick it went from 38,000 views per minute to ~43,000 per minute, which doesn't indicate watching full or most the game and includes replay watches.

So I put it to the side some because double digit decreases in a single market could easily offset what those viewing live via a streaming service gained.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 02:52 PM
Sports Business Journal studied 27 of 30 NBA teams this past year:
~There was a 14% drop in local ratings on average
~20 of the 27 saw the decline
~15 of the 27 saw a decline of double didgets

On a national scale:
~There were 19 more nationally broadcast games this year.
~National games noticed a 6% decline in ratings, and there is some indication that it played a factor, but not enough for a 6% dip.
~TNT had an 8% decrese in ratings
~ESPN/ABC had a 5% decrease in ratings

Now there was an uptick in streaming services, but it wasn't enough to make up for the impact of the decline in tv viewership.

In regards to in arena:
Overall attendance is up, but average attendance per game for the league is down from ~17,800 to ~17,7000.. That itself is also down from the year before.

So in conclusion even though some markets have seen upticks, all in all viewership across the NBA is down as more people are losing interest in the game with less teams able to compete and a lack of compelling storylines.

But why make the assumption that the cause is a lack of parity? TV viewership in general is down more than those numbers overall so from that perspective the NBA is doing well. The price to watch the games on TV is at an all time high and more people are choosing not to watch ... that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parity or a lack of it.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 02:54 PM
The NBA has to do something about the show in general ... but again, the question was do NBA fans (NBA consumers) in general care about parity and I maintain that the majority don't.

Vee-Rex
06-04-2017, 03:39 PM
The Cavs and Warriors probably shouldn't be lumped together in this thread. KD's decision really cut down on the intrigue, since his Thunder were definitely capable of beating those Warriors (and the Spurs would be in the mix). The Cavs are clearly in that tier somewhere, and unfortunately no one else in the East is.

KD joining the Warriors pretty much made things predictable. They're not unstoppable and I don't think they'll run the league for the next 23454089243 years like the crybabies claim, but it's gonna take a lot to take them down.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 04:06 PM
The Cavs and Warriors probably shouldn't be lumped together in this thread. KD's decision really cut down on the intrigue, since his Thunder were definitely capable of beating those Warriors (and the Spurs would be in the mix). The Cavs are clearly in that tier somewhere, and unfortunately no one else in the East is.

KD joining the Warriors pretty much made things predictable. They're not unstoppable and I don't think they'll run the league for the next 23454089243 years like the crybabies claim, but it's gonna take a lot to take them down.

And LeBron going to the Cavs made the east predictable ... took down the Heat and elevated the Cavs.

I don't think the issue is, or ever has been, the super teams. Of course, I'm not allowed an opinion as I'm a Warriors fan.

crewfan13
06-04-2017, 05:05 PM
Scoots, I think you're correct that from an individual perspective, each fan wants their team to improve and be better more than they want parity. If given the option for my bucks to win 3 of the next 4 championships or to have 4 different winners over the timeframe, I'm picking my team to win.

But that's not neccesarily the question. Even in a league with more parity than the NBA, there's probably 6-8 teams that can truly win. So at any point there's 20-25 teams who probably don't stand much of a chance to even advance to the conference finals. So in that instance, what are those fans looking for from the NBA to keep the interest. It seems like the general sentiment is that super teams are fine, as long as there's 3-6 teams that have legit chances at winning a ring. Having their be 1 team that in clearly a level above everyone else, and having 1, maybe 2 teams who are the step below isn't that entertaining.

And it doesn't matter that it's the warriors. As a bucks fan, I'm happy that it's another team that hasn't been good for awhile instead of a team like Chicago, Boston or the lakers being the ones to win a bunch of rings. But that still doesn't mean it's enjoyable to watch. I enjoyed last years finals as a fan that had nothing invested in either team. The games could have been closer, but it was awesome to go to 7 and legit have it seem like either team could win. This year, it doesn't feel like that. It feels like Cleveland has to play a perfect game to win a ring. And the odds of that happening 4 times in the next 6 games is slim. So there's not much intrigue for me. And if the warriors stay together and don't suffer a major injury, that will probably be how I fee next year too.

Chronz
06-04-2017, 05:18 PM
The Cavs and Warriors probably shouldn't be lumped together in this thread. KD's decision really cut down on the intrigue, since his Thunder were definitely capable of beating those Warriors (and the Spurs would be in the mix). The Cavs are clearly in that tier somewhere, and unfortunately no one else in the East is.

KD joining the Warriors pretty much made things predictable. They're not unstoppable and I don't think they'll run the league for the next 23454089243 years like the crybabies claim, but it's gonna take a lot to take them down.

Do you envision one of them getting hurt? Maybe their depth dies to the degree that it becomes a conversation?

Scoots
06-04-2017, 06:05 PM
Scoots, I think you're correct that from an individual perspective, each fan wants their team to improve and be better more than they want parity. If given the option for my bucks to win 3 of the next 4 championships or to have 4 different winners over the timeframe, I'm picking my team to win.

But that's not neccesarily the question. Even in a league with more parity than the NBA, there's probably 6-8 teams that can truly win. So at any point there's 20-25 teams who probably don't stand much of a chance to even advance to the conference finals. So in that instance, what are those fans looking for from the NBA to keep the interest. It seems like the general sentiment is that super teams are fine, as long as there's 3-6 teams that have legit chances at winning a ring. Having their be 1 team that in clearly a level above everyone else, and having 1, maybe 2 teams who are the step below isn't that entertaining.

And it doesn't matter that it's the warriors. As a bucks fan, I'm happy that it's another team that hasn't been good for awhile instead of a team like Chicago, Boston or the lakers being the ones to win a bunch of rings. But that still doesn't mean it's enjoyable to watch. I enjoyed last years finals as a fan that had nothing invested in either team. The games could have been closer, but it was awesome to go to 7 and legit have it seem like either team could win. This year, it doesn't feel like that. It feels like Cleveland has to play a perfect game to win a ring. And the odds of that happening 4 times in the next 6 games is slim. So there's not much intrigue for me. And if the warriors stay together and don't suffer a major injury, that will probably be how I fee next year too.

Certainly if you are watching other teams (not "your" team) play then you want "good" games that show off exceptional play both ways and a close fought game. Unfortunately all of the "fix the NBA" stuff gets right back to fixing tanking, fixing the draft, fixing the cap, fixing free agency, fixing officiating. I think to me you start with fixing officiating because the inconsistent officiating turns me off more than anything else when I'm watching a random game.

Scoots
06-04-2017, 06:10 PM
If you look at the pre-season league pass rankings (viewability by team), the worst teams to watch are, for the most part, the worst teams, followed by teams with murky futures, and teams that play less entertaining ball. The top of the list are teams that are winning and doing it with offensive flair. That said they also rate teams for soap opera story lines and they were, of course, wildly wrong about several teams. Still, for the average NBA fan that list was a reasonable starting point at the beginning of the year and was, for the most part, borne out by rankings.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17681632/the-annual-nba-league-pass-rankings-part-1

metswon69
06-05-2017, 02:16 AM
Certainly if you are watching other teams (not "your" team) play then you want "good" games that show off exceptional play both ways and a close fought game. Unfortunately all of the "fix the NBA" stuff gets right back to fixing tanking, fixing the draft, fixing the cap, fixing free agency, fixing officiating. I think to me you start with fixing officiating because the inconsistent officiating turns me off more than anything else when I'm watching a random game.

If you're prioritizing inconsistent officiating, well then you wouldn't watch any sport. That's a problem for MLB, the NHL, and the NFL as well. In the end, its not really a fixable problem unless they video reviewed every call which isn't going to happen. Even that's not flawless.

I don't know what the NBA can do about tanking. If it was an easy solution to fix, I think they would have found it already. They've already made it so that there is only 1 in 4 chance of getting the #1 pick if you are the worst team. Those aren't particularly great odds. A hard cap would certainly help parity in the NBA but it would take multiple major concessions from ownership for players to even entertain the idea. Why would the players dissuade teams from going 30 or 40 million dollars over the cap?

Imo, a lot of this has to do with the indoctrination of how a player's legacy is determined. Great players know they'll be defined by how many championships they win and the NBA is unique in the sense that having 2 or 3 superstars on the same team can put you in that position year after year. Thats why it was really a no brainer for Durant to do what he did. I dont think anything you mentioned besides a potential hard cap would have changed the Warriors current position though. They've done a lot of good things without any of those things really impacting their roster.

zn23
06-05-2017, 02:47 AM
Nothing I hate more in sports, particularly team sports, than parity. Because it doesn't incentivize teams to get better. The 18th best team is content with where they are because they know on any given night can beat the no.1 ranked team and so they won't go out of there way to make their team the best possible team they can have. That's crap. That's what you get in the Premier League and it's awful to watch.

It's best when the cream rises to the top and teams set such a standard that others have to follow. The best team should be nearly impossible to beat, then teams have a choice either get better or accept failure. When everyone is the same it's like meh, why bother taking any risks?

warfelg
06-05-2017, 07:33 AM
This finals is everything that is wrong with the NBA

Quinnsanity
06-05-2017, 10:11 AM
In my time as a fan (starting right around Kobe and Shaq), I don't think the league was ever stronger than it was right when LeBron joined the Heat. I think the key to that was diversity.

Yea, you had the super team in Miami, but it was a super team with very real constraints due to a flat salary cap. The Heat had to make a choice between those stars and a complete team, so it made the playoffs very interesting because we got to see which of those compromises mattered more. We had contenders built around every style of play, the Magic with Dwight and those shooters, the Lakers around Kobe's isolation and the two man game with Pau, Chicago and their rugged defense, Boston just on their last legs, Dallas with their depth and so on.

I think it's really cool when all of the contenders look different. They have different strengths and weaknesses. That makes the strongest league for me. If you want a super team, fine, there should be downsides to it. Now we exist in a league where all of the best teams look the same and the Warriors were able to make a super team without consequences. And it sucks.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 12:20 PM
If you're prioritizing inconsistent officiating, well then you wouldn't watch any sport. That's a problem for MLB, the NHL, and the NFL as well. In the end, its not really a fixable problem unless they video reviewed every call which isn't going to happen. Even that's not flawless.

I don't know what the NBA can do about tanking. If it was an easy solution to fix, I think they would have found it already. They've already made it so that there is only 1 in 4 chance of getting the #1 pick if you are the worst team. Those aren't particularly great odds. A hard cap would certainly help parity in the NBA but it would take multiple major concessions from ownership for players to even entertain the idea. Why would the players dissuade teams from going 30 or 40 million dollars over the cap?

Imo, a lot of this has to do with the indoctrination of how a player's legacy is determined. Great players know they'll be defined by how many championships they win and the NBA is unique in the sense that having 2 or 3 superstars on the same team can put you in that position year after year. Thats why it was really a no brainer for Durant to do what he did. I dont think anything you mentioned besides a potential hard cap would have changed the Warriors current position though. They've done a lot of good things without any of those things really impacting their roster.

For some reason the bad officiating in the NBA bugs me more than in MLB or the NFL.

There is nothing the NBA can do about the Warriors, they tried with the new CBA but it may have not been enough. But I was thinking more about long term not next year.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 12:21 PM
This finals is everything that is wrong with the NBA

Yeah, it's all about tanking and one-and done players. Oh wait.

ccugrad1
06-05-2017, 12:24 PM
I know this is off topic a bit, but I think when you look at the NBA as a whole, if you were looking at the 4 major Professional sports, the NBA is the one that you could actually contract a few teams from that I really don't think would be missed all that much quite honestly.

KnicksorBust
06-05-2017, 12:35 PM
The obvious answer if you are a fan of any team besides the Cavs and Warriors is yes but is that really true?

Ratings for the NBA playoffs were up 5% over last year's playoffs and last year's NBA finals were the highest rated NBA finals on ABC. That will probably be surpassed with this years finals ratings as well. The league attendance record was also broken for the 3rd straight season in a row with most fans knowing when the season started that it would most likely be Cavs and Warriors in the finals.

And if you think about it some of the most watched NBA games were the Celtics/Lakers rivalry in the 80s and the Bull's dynasty in the 90s.

My point is of course you want the team you root for to win but for all "Well the lack of parity is really killing the game", it really doesn't seem that way.

I don't need half the league being contenders but this season was the absolute extreme opposite of parity and that is why some people are frustrated. I think if the Celtics and Cavs was more competitive (6 or 7 games) and the Spurs hadn't lost Kawhi and stolen Game 1. Then maybe things would be different. But we saw a 12-1 team (The Cavs) play a 12-0 team and even the 12-1 team can't keep the games close. The Warriors are on another planet. It has people saying that CP3/Blake/DJ needs to rebuild. That's a terrifying thought. 2 of the top 20 players in the NBA and another all-nba player needs to rebuild because they can't compete.

D Blue987
06-05-2017, 12:53 PM
I don't need half the league being contenders but this season was the absolute extreme opposite of parity and that is why some people are frustrated. I think if the Celtics and Cavs was more competitive (6 or 7 games) and the Spurs hadn't lost Kawhi and stolen Game 1. Then maybe things would be different. But we saw a 12-1 team (The Cavs) play a 12-0 team and even the 12-1 team can't keep the games close. The Warriors are on another planet. It has people saying that CP3/Blake/DJ needs to rebuild. That's a terrifying thought. 2 of the top 20 players in the NBA and another all-nba player needs to rebuild because they can't compete.

The Celtics threw in the towel the moment they stood pat at the deadline without getting an elite SF to slow down Lebron. I was laughing on some plays watching Thomas try to guard Lebron 1 on 1. Spurs and the Warriors could have been a good series but once Kawahi went down, I stopped watching completely.

Sly Guy
06-05-2017, 01:49 PM
For some reason the bad officiating in the NBA bugs me more than in MLB or the NFL.


I agree. The argument that 'it's the same in every sport' is a faulty one too. In hockey, they can get a call wrong due to the pace of the game, in baseball, it's generally balls and strikes which can be biased from one game to another, but in basketball, we're fed this narrative of 'star players have earned the respect of', or 'it's just so hard to call the game at this level'. I find reasoning like that really hard to swallow when you look at the NCAA as a basis for comparison. Yeah, the NCAA refs miss stuff too, but at least it isn't consistently biased towards one program or another, or one player vs another. If the NBA cleaned up the officiating, it'd be a step in the right direction to cleaning up 'super teams' as well. Means an average guy making $7mil/year might stand a chance of guarding a star instead of having the whistle blown every second play. Then there's less incentive for a guy like KD or 'Bron to go team up with another group of guys who consistently get the calls as well. It wouldn't be the only thing needed, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

warfelg
06-05-2017, 02:33 PM
Yeah, it's all about tanking and one-and done players. Oh wait.

When you got the two "best" teams and one has beat the other by double digits I think there might be a problem.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 02:38 PM
I don't need half the league being contenders but this season was the absolute extreme opposite of parity and that is why some people are frustrated. I think if the Celtics and Cavs was more competitive (6 or 7 games) and the Spurs hadn't lost Kawhi and stolen Game 1. Then maybe things would be different. But we saw a 12-1 team (The Cavs) play a 12-0 team and even the 12-1 team can't keep the games close. The Warriors are on another planet. It has people saying that CP3/Blake/DJ needs to rebuild. That's a terrifying thought. 2 of the top 20 players in the NBA and another all-nba player needs to rebuild because they can't compete.

I think the Clippers thing is a special case ... the Warriors have owned them for a while now. CP3/JJ/Blake just don't match up well with Curry/Klay/Green, just like the 2007 Mavs didn't match up will with the Warriors of that year. The 2007 Warriors were no where near a better team, they just matched up well. Just like this year the Celtics and Bucks gave the Warriors more trouble than the Cavs are right now.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 02:42 PM
When you got the two "best" teams and one has beat the other by double digits I think there might be a problem.

I didn't say there wasn't a problem, just using your statement to say that there are other problems in the NBA than are visible in these finals.

I think the Cavs biggest issue with the Warriors is that the Cavs have been getting by with lazy defense all year and now it is being exposed. The Cavs have enough talent to make the Warriors work a lot harder if they played aggressive cohesive defense. Blame roster makeup, coaching, or even LeBron for obviously coasting through the majority of the year causing the rest of the team to think they didn't need to work either. I heard the other day on sports radio in Cleveland that they don't ever practice transition defense ... in today's NBA that is inexcusable.

FlashBolt
06-05-2017, 02:44 PM
I didn't say there wasn't a problem, just using your statement to say that there are other problems in the NBA than are visible in these finals.

I think the Cavs biggest issue with the Warriors is that the Cavs have been getting by with lazy defense all year and now it is being exposed. The Cavs have enough talent to make the Warriors work a lot harder if they played aggressive cohesive defense. Blame roster makeup, coaching, or even LeBron for obviously coasting through the majority of the year causing the rest of the team to think they didn't need to work either. I heard the other day on sports radio in Cleveland that they don't ever practice transition defense ... in today's NBA that is inexcusable.

That's just not fair. I've seen Warriors players quit and play lazy defense also. I've seen Curry make terrible plays and turnovers. This isn't the Cavs defense but how stacked the Warriors are offensively that it's IMPOSSIBLE to guard them. You can't shake off Curry and defend KD because Curry is a better shooter than KD. You can't leave Klay because he is a top two NBA shooter in NBA history. So what can you do? Any offense THAT good will make any defense look silly. It's not even LeBron coasting. He does it exactly to prepare for the Finals. And it's not good enough. The talent disparity is too high to even sound remotely comparative. The Cavs biggest is is this: The Warriors are the better team. End of story. Cavs have enough talent to win the series, you're right. But Warriors also have enough talent to completely embarrass any team.

warfelg
06-05-2017, 02:46 PM
Yup. Blame the other team for you adding a top 3 player to an already historically great team.

FlashBolt
06-05-2017, 02:49 PM
Yup. Blame the other team for you adding a top 3 player to an already historically great team.

It's a bit stupid. It's easy to say the other team isn't doing so and so, quits on defense, plays with no energy. It's another when you're the team getting crapped on because the opposing team has two top 3 players in the NBA, a DPOY, and another guard who happens to be a damn good defender who is also the best shooter outside of Curry. Warriors have four top 15 players. Cavs have one or two. Let's be honest here.

warfelg
06-05-2017, 03:02 PM
It's a bit stupid. It's easy to say the other team isn't doing so and so, quits on defense, plays with no energy. It's another when you're the team getting crapped on because the opposing team has two top 3 players in the NBA, a DPOY, and another guard who happens to be a damn good defender who is also the best shooter outside of Curry. Warriors have four top 15 players. Cavs have one or two. Let's be honest here.

Exactly. Outside of adding AD/Giannis/Kawhi what can the Cavs exactly do?

metswon69
06-05-2017, 05:22 PM
I don't need half the league being contenders but this season was the absolute extreme opposite of parity and that is why some people are frustrated. I think if the Celtics and Cavs was more competitive (6 or 7 games) and the Spurs hadn't lost Kawhi and stolen Game 1. Then maybe things would be different. But we saw a 12-1 team (The Cavs) play a 12-0 team and even the 12-1 team can't keep the games close. The Warriors are on another planet. It has people saying that CP3/Blake/DJ needs to rebuild. That's a terrifying thought. 2 of the top 20 players in the NBA and another all-nba player needs to rebuild because they can't compete.

But wasn't it the same in the 90s with Jordan's Bulls? Fans were watching in droves then and parity really didn't exist in the NBA at the time either.

BKLYNpigeon
06-05-2017, 05:32 PM
No to Parity.

you guys remember 2005 NBA Finals - Detroit Pistons vs. San Antonio Spurs? it was Awful.


League can't make more rules until the Next CBA 7 years from now.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 08:32 PM
That's just not fair. I've seen Warriors players quit and play lazy defense also. I've seen Curry make terrible plays and turnovers. This isn't the Cavs defense but how stacked the Warriors are offensively that it's IMPOSSIBLE to guard them. You can't shake off Curry and defend KD because Curry is a better shooter than KD. You can't leave Klay because he is a top two NBA shooter in NBA history. So what can you do? Any offense THAT good will make any defense look silly. It's not even LeBron coasting. He does it exactly to prepare for the Finals. And it's not good enough. The talent disparity is too high to even sound remotely comparative. The Cavs biggest is is this: The Warriors are the better team. End of story. Cavs have enough talent to win the series, you're right. But Warriors also have enough talent to completely embarrass any team.

The problem is that the Cavs have bad defensive habits. If they had a foundation of good defensive tactics they would be in MUCH better shape against this Warriors team that makes a lot of mistakes too and has plenty of flaws.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 08:32 PM
Yup. Blame the other team for you adding a top 3 player to an already historically great team.

Who blamed anybody?

Scoots
06-05-2017, 08:38 PM
It's a bit stupid. It's easy to say the other team isn't doing so and so, quits on defense, plays with no energy. It's another when you're the team getting crapped on because the opposing team has two top 3 players in the NBA, a DPOY, and another guard who happens to be a damn good defender who is also the best shooter outside of Curry. Warriors have four top 15 players. Cavs have one or two. Let's be honest here.

So do you honestly not believe the Cavs have a chance against the Warriors? You must have voted sweep in the finals thread right? Because I voted Warriors in 6. Yes the Warriors are a better team, but the Cavs DO have a lot of talent but they are failing to maximize it on offense or defense and are good enough to really challenge the Warriors.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 08:46 PM
Exactly. Outside of adding AD/Giannis/Kawhi what can the Cavs exactly do?

Play less hero ball. Use the regular season to develop defensive habits and tactics. Move the ball. Develop players to run the team other than LeBron. Kyrie has improved as an iso scorer and he's truly great at it ... but he still plays weak defense and doesn't really even try to run the team. Kyle Korver is an elite shooter but he needs an offensive system to help him get free. The Cavs have a lot of shooters, more than the Warriors, but they rely on opposing defenses breaking themselves down trying to stop LeBron and Kyrie to get them open looks. The guards need to help rebound more. I'm sure there are many other things the Cavs could do with this roster to improve.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 08:47 PM
No to Parity.

you guys remember 2005 NBA Finals - Detroit Pistons vs. San Antonio Spurs? it was Awful.


League can't make more rules until the Next CBA 7 years from now.

The league can still make a lot of changes without a new CBA.

FlashBolt
06-05-2017, 09:09 PM
So do you honestly not believe the Cavs have a chance against the Warriors? You must have voted sweep in the finals thread right? Because I voted Warriors in 6. Yes the Warriors are a better team, but the Cavs DO have a lot of talent but they are failing to maximize it on offense or defense and are good enough to really challenge the Warriors.

Yes, Cavs have what do boxers say, a puncher's chance. What you're saying is theoretically, Cavs should win if they execute 100% correctly. But Cavs at 100% doesn't beat Warriors at 100%. These mistakes you're saying is the result of the Warriors level of talent. Their pace is only possible if they have guys who can score with THAT much talent. I had Warriors in six. I actually advocated that Cavs have a chance against MTM who said Warriors would sweep them. But Cavs need to execute perfectly and Warriors have to have bad games. That's going to be the key.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-05-2017, 09:20 PM
I wish they would implement a hard cap but it would never work now that there is all this cash. I've always believed that stars should be forced to choose between teaming up and large contracts. If you want to team up, I am all for it but you will have to pay the piper.

Scoots
06-05-2017, 09:44 PM
Yes, Cavs have what do boxers say, a puncher's chance. What you're saying is theoretically, Cavs should win if they execute 100% correctly. But Cavs at 100% doesn't beat Warriors at 100%. These mistakes you're saying is the result of the Warriors level of talent. Their pace is only possible if they have guys who can score with THAT much talent. I had Warriors in six. I actually advocated that Cavs have a chance against MTM who said Warriors would sweep them. But Cavs need to execute perfectly and Warriors have to have bad games. That's going to be the key.

Cavs at 100% don't beat the Warriors at 100% most likely ... but Warriors at 90% they'd have a shot. I've watched the Warriors screw up most of the games they've lost the last few years. They have a tendency to just go brain dead at times. And this team with this talent has not come close to 100% yet.

warfelg
06-05-2017, 09:59 PM
Yes, Cavs have what do boxers say, a puncher's chance. What you're saying is theoretically, Cavs should win if they execute 100% correctly. But Cavs at 100% doesn't beat Warriors at 100%. These mistakes you're saying is the result of the Warriors level of talent. Their pace is only possible if they have guys who can score with THAT much talent. I had Warriors in six. I actually advocated that Cavs have a chance against MTM who said Warriors would sweep them. But Cavs need to execute perfectly and Warriors have to have bad games. That's going to be the key.

If the Cavs play 100% I honestly think it takes Warriors playing 80% or less.

Heck game 1 was bad for most of the Warriors and it still was a 10+ point game.

Cracka2HI!
06-05-2017, 10:14 PM
I pretty much gave up on the NBA when the Warriors signed Durant. They are even better than I thought they could be. I don't really need parity but I do need more than 1 team having a chance to win. Thought the Cavs got lucky last year. The NBA post season reminds me of college football before the playoff....like, why are we even playing these games? The Globetrotters and WWE are also a good comparison. Sure these games are real but is the outcome not predetermined? I'm talking about it from an entertainment value prospective. I understand how incredible The Warriors are.

kobe4thewinbang
06-06-2017, 12:41 AM
The talent-packed Cavaliers and Warriors have not affected my interest in the NBA. I still keep track of all the teams and watch all the highlights, a live game if I have the time, mostly because the young players and overall talent level in the NBA is more interesting than it used to be.

KnicksorBust
06-06-2017, 03:07 PM
But wasn't it the same in the 90s with Jordan's Bulls? Fans were watching in droves then and parity really didn't exist in the NBA at the time either.

But Jordan and Pippen played with mere mortals. Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, Horace Grant, John Paxson. Then with Ron Harper, Rodman, Kukoc, and Longley. The Bulls were a better version of OKC (Durant-Westbrook and role players). Now maybe I am showing some homerism here... and anyone my age can come swoop in and correct me... but those early 90s Bulls teams felt beatable. I don't feel like looking it up and reliving the pain but I know my Knicks came close to knocking them out a few times. I remember the wars and Jordan crushing my hopes and dreams repeatedly.

Klay and Draymond are top 20 players. They have 2 of the 4 best players in the world and 4 of the top 20. That's ridiculous.

warfelg
06-06-2017, 03:55 PM
But Jordan and Pippen played with mere mortals. Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, Horace Grant, John Paxson. Then with Ron Harper, Rodman, Kukoc, and Longley. The Bulls were a better version of OKC (Durant-Westbrook and role players). Now maybe I am showing some homerism here... and anyone my age can come swoop in and correct me... but those early 90s Bulls teams felt beatable. I don't feel like looking it up and reliving the pain but I know my Knicks came close to knocking them out a few times. I remember the wars and Jordan crushing my hopes and dreams repeatedly.

Klay and Draymond are top 20 players. They have 2 of the 4 best players in the world and 4 of the top 20. That's ridiculous.

Those Bulls teams were beatable. They played plenty of game 6 and 7s that were close and came down to one shot one way or another.

And a ton of those teams they faced had really good players and good role players. The difference literally was Jordan.

Edit:

'91 against Lakers: 4-1 (ECF 4-0)
'92 against Blazers: 4-2 (ECF 4-2)
'93 against Suns: 4-2 (ECF 4-2)
'96 against Sonics: 4-2 (ECF 4-0)
'97 against Jazz: 4-2 (ECF 4-1)
'98 against Jazz: 4-2 (ECF 4-3)

Two sweeps in 6 Conference finals and finals. Only 2 others that were less than 6 games.

steelcityroller
06-06-2017, 04:27 PM
But Jordan and Pippen played with mere mortals. Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, Horace Grant, John Paxson. Then with Ron Harper, Rodman, Kukoc, and Longley. The Bulls were a better version of OKC (Durant-Westbrook and role players). Now maybe I am showing some homerism here... and anyone my age can come swoop in and correct me... but those early 90s Bulls teams felt beatable. I don't feel like looking it up and reliving the pain but I know my Knicks came close to knocking them out a few times. I remember the wars and Jordan crushing my hopes and dreams repeatedly.

Klay and Draymond are top 20 players. They have 2 of the 4 best players in the world and 4 of the top 20. That's ridiculous.

I was a huge Knicks fan growing up around that time and I don't ever remember thinking they were gonna beat the Bulls. I remember my parents giving me crap because even if it seemed close I would be saying it doesn't matter Jordan is gonna win it anyways. And he always did.... He always found a way to rip your heart out. I always expected it.

Now when he left and Reggie Miller literally pulled that out of his ***..... That was heartbreaking.

An added note. The Bulls went 55-27 and took the Eastern Conference Champion Knicks to 7 games in 1993-94 without Michael Jordan..... Pretty damn good for mere mortals.

steelcityroller
06-06-2017, 05:03 PM
I think people are blowing this out of proportion. Acting like this is the first time he league has seen a stacked team dominate.

1960s Celtics - Russell, Havlicek, Cousy, Heinsohn, Jones
1980s Lakers - Magic, Jabbar, Worthy, Scott, Cooper
1980s Pistons - Thomas, Dumars, Dantley, Laimbeer, Rodman

Hell look at Miami (James, Wade and Bosh) and the Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and Kawhi) here recently. So I guess they were just 1 good draft pick or free agent signing away from destroying the league....

Instead of crying about it teams should take it as a challenge to step up. GMs need to draft better and make better free agent decisions.... Players need to decide which is more important a max contract or to win a championship.

metswon69
06-06-2017, 05:15 PM
But Jordan and Pippen played with mere mortals. Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, Horace Grant, John Paxson. Then with Ron Harper, Rodman, Kukoc, and Longley. The Bulls were a better version of OKC (Durant-Westbrook and role players). Now maybe I am showing some homerism here... and anyone my age can come swoop in and correct me... but those early 90s Bulls teams felt beatable. I don't feel like looking it up and reliving the pain but I know my Knicks came close to knocking them out a few times. I remember the wars and Jordan crushing my hopes and dreams repeatedly.

Klay and Draymond are top 20 players. They have 2 of the 4 best players in the world and 4 of the top 20. That's ridiculous.

I don't know how those 90s Bulls teams felt beatable. They never let a final series go past 6 games and had Jordan not retired they very well could have won 8 championships in a row. 72-10 in 95-96 tells you all you need to know. Not to mention they arguably had the best coach in NBA history.

No series in the Knicks Bulls series that included Jordan went past game 6 either.

Honestly I think its just revisionist history and NBA fans refusing to see the irony. Or perhaps there are rose colored glasses when it comes to those Bull teams for a variety of reasons but that Bulls team was beatable like this Warrior's team is beatable.

KnicksorBust
06-06-2017, 05:49 PM
But Jordan and Pippen played with mere mortals. Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, Horace Grant, John Paxson. Then with Ron Harper, Rodman, Kukoc, and Longley. The Bulls were a better version of OKC (Durant-Westbrook and role players). Now maybe I am showing some homerism here... and anyone my age can come swoop in and correct me... but those early 90s Bulls teams felt beatable. I don't feel like looking it up and reliving the pain but I know my Knicks came close to knocking them out a few times. I remember the wars and Jordan crushing my hopes and dreams repeatedly.

Klay and Draymond are top 20 players. They have 2 of the 4 best players in the world and 4 of the top 20. That's ridiculous.

I don't know how those 90s Bulls teams felt beatable. They never let a final series go past 6 games and had Jordan not retired they very well could have won 8 championships in a row. 72-10 in 95-96 tells you all you need to know. Not to mention they arguably had the best coach in NBA history.

No series in the Knicks Bulls series that included Jordan went past game 6 either.

Honestly I think its just revisionist history and NBA fans refusing to see the irony. Or perhaps there are rose colored glasses when it comes to those Bull teams for a variety of reasons but that Bulls team was beatable like this Warrior's team is beatable.

Yeah that's just factually wrong sorry man. They went 7 games against the Knicks and the Pacers and had a bunch of series go 6 games

metswon69
06-06-2017, 06:10 PM
Yeah that's just factually wrong sorry man. They went 7 games against the Knicks and the Pacers and had a bunch of series go 6 games

But 5 minutes ago you didn't want to look it up?

Ok so twice in 6 championship seasons, they were tested. Still doesn't change how much they dominated or what the end result was.

They really weren't challenged very often and they were always the overwhelming favorites to be NBA champions in the 90s when Jordan played a full season.

TrueFan420
06-06-2017, 06:30 PM
Want to increase parity? Get rid of fully guaranteed contracts. Players wouldn't be happy about it though. Teams that spend dumb can get out of deals easier and rebuild easier if they miss on a FA.

metswon69
06-06-2017, 06:35 PM
If I remember correctly during that Lakers 3 peat in the early 2000s, they had a postseason run one year where they only lost one game the whole playoffs.

Its not uncommon for teams to dominate. The NBA seems more predicated on dynasties than all the other sports besides maybe soccer.

KnicksorBust
06-06-2017, 06:52 PM
But Jordan and Pippen played with mere mortals. Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, Horace Grant, John Paxson. Then with Ron Harper, Rodman, Kukoc, and Longley. The Bulls were a better version of OKC (Durant-Westbrook and role players). Now maybe I am showing some homerism here... and anyone my age can come swoop in and correct me... but those early 90s Bulls teams felt beatable. I don't feel like looking it up and reliving the pain but I know my Knicks came close to knocking them out a few times. I remember the wars and Jordan crushing my hopes and dreams repeatedly.

Klay and Draymond are top 20 players. They have 2 of the 4 best players in the world and 4 of the top 20. That's ridiculous.

I was a huge Knicks fan growing up around that time and I don't ever remember thinking they were gonna beat the Bulls. I remember my parents giving me crap because even if it seemed close I would be saying it doesn't matter Jordan is gonna win it anyways. And he always did.... He always found a way to rip your heart out. I always expected it.

Now when he left and Reggie Miller literally pulled that out of his ***..... That was heartbreaking.

An added note. The Bulls went 55-27 and took the Eastern Conference Champion Knicks to 7 games in 1993-94 without Michael Jordan..... Pretty damn good for mere mortals.

You remember the Charles Smith game?

KnicksorBust
06-07-2017, 08:03 AM
Ok so twice in 6 championship seasons, they were tested.

In 1992 they went 7 games against the Knicks, 6 games against the Cavs, and 6 games against Portland.

In 1993 they went 6 games against the Knicks and 6 games against the Suns. In the Knicks series they were down 0-2 and the Knicks had a chance to win game 5 if Charles Smith hadn't missed 4 straight layups. In the series against Phoenix they won the game 6 by 1 point after John Paxson hit a 3pter with under 5 seconds left.

In 1996 they went 6 games against the Sonics who actually won 2 games in a row after switching Payton on to MJ to make it an exciting series.

In 1997 they went 6 games against the Jazz. They won game 1 by 2 points, game 5 by 2 points, and game 6 by 4 points. That's 3 wins by a total of only 8 points. In the clinching game 6 the game was tied with 5 seconds left when Steve Kerr hit the game winning shot.

In 1998 they went 7 games against the Pacers and 6 games against the Jazz. They were even trailing 27-19 at the end of the 1st quarter in game 7 against the Pacers. In the Jazz series they were down 3 points in game 6 with under 40 seconds left in the game. This was when MJ had the historic, score/steal/score sequence where he hit the legendary push-off jumper.

By my count that is 9 competitive series. I didn't want to have to give a history lesson but I lived through it man. That was my childhood watching those playoffs. There were many examples of situations where a couple of shots breaking the wrong way for Chicago and history would have changed. Meanwhile, the Warriors are 14-0 this postseason and are winning these games easily. It's not the same. This Durant-Curry Warriors team is unstoppable.

metswon69
06-07-2017, 05:17 PM
I lived through it too. In fact I'm probably about the same age you are. That said, I never thought during that time that Jordan's Bulls were ever going to lose any of those series. Am sure a lot of NBA fans felt the same way.

And again the Lakers had a postseason during that 3 peat where they lost 1 game. The amount of people watching never seemed to be effected by how dominant a team was or how many dynasties they watched.

hugepatsfan
06-07-2017, 05:23 PM
I lived through it too. In fact I'm probably about the same age you are. That said, I never thought during that time that Jordan's Bulls were ever going to lose any of those series. Am sure a lot of NBA fans felt the same way.

And again the Lakers had a postseason during that 3 peat where they lost 1 game. The amount of people watching never seemed to be effected by how dominant a team was or how many dynasties they watched.

I mean yeah, the whole point of a favorite is that you don't expect them to. But they cam reasonably close enough to it that there's a little bit of intrigue. The Lakers did go a postseason with just one loss but they got pushed to 7 games in the WCF of the two championships that sandwiched that title.

If someone catches up to GS then we;ll all look back and say we're silly but unlike other superteams, this one had a one time advantage with the cap spike that seems to make it impossible to repeat. As amazingly as GS drafted the team that challenges them is going to need to draft even better because now they can't just add a max FA on the benefit of a cap spike making their near max deals peanuts.

warfelg
06-07-2017, 05:30 PM
I lived through it too. In fact I'm probably about the same age you are. That said, I never thought during that time that Jordan's Bulls were ever going to lose any of those series. Am sure a lot of NBA fans felt the same way.

And again the Lakers had a postseason during that 3 peat where they lost 1 game. The amount of people watching never seemed to be effected by how dominant a team was or how many dynasties they watched.

I'll be honest I didn't think they were going to lose either.


But I never though that because they had some amazing team. I just thought Jordan could always do something magical. That's why he's the GOAT. Jordan could always break your heart at just the right time if you weren't rooting for him. If Jordan were even 10% less with "it" they lose likely 2 of those finals.....at least.

Chronz
06-07-2017, 05:37 PM
I lived through it too. In fact I'm probably about the same age you are. That said, I never thought during that time that Jordan's Bulls were ever going to lose any of those series. Am sure a lot of NBA fans felt the same way.

And again the Lakers had a postseason during that 3 peat where they lost 1 game. The amount of people watching never seemed to be effected by how dominant a team was or how many dynasties they watched.
The difference is without mj they dont break records and win a title. What used to be the standard for quality support is a team capable making the playoffs without you, in mjs case push for 50+ wins. KD joined an already built powerhouse. That's a world of a difference

Scoots
06-07-2017, 07:01 PM
This thread, like all threads these days is struggling to stay on topic :)

FlashBolt
06-07-2017, 08:02 PM
This thread, like all threads these days is struggling to stay on topic :)

ISH generates like 10x the content PSD does so whatever drives activity is good at this point.

ewing
06-07-2017, 09:28 PM
Nah I like watching blowouts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sly Guy
06-07-2017, 11:49 PM
sooooo.....
where are all those guys arguing that they'd take a bad playoffs for a good finals?

thomass
06-07-2017, 11:56 PM
The NBA is letting the fans down with letting these super teams form. I mean it's gonna be cavs-warriors again next year. I just saved u guys 82 games. You're welcome