Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 36 of 36 FirstFirst ... 26343536
Results 526 to 538 of 538
  1. #526
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23,138
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    You don't think he would have been MVP if he played today and didn't get hurt? He was on that path during his era anyway, if you dismiss that even T-Mac could win MVP in today's game and only foreigners can, it's borderline insane how deluded NBA fans have become!
    Sorry i read it wrong,

    No he wont flat out be the MVP would he be even better than PG13?
    Last edited by ldawg; 01-23-2022 at 02:32 PM.

  2. #527
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,493
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Nawh it had better players than him. Kobe was better than Tmac.
    Who cares about the players T-Mac played against? Would he have a better shot in the last five years, yes or no?

  3. #528
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23,138
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Who cares about the players T-Mac played against? Would he have a better shot in the last five years, yes or no?
    sorry i read it wrong.

    No he wont flat out be the MVP would he be even better than PG13?

  4. #529
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23,138
    one simple way to fix the illusion of a watered down league. Stop drafting kids. draft 21/22 year old that complete a 4 year college degree.

  5. #530
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,493
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    one simple way to fix the illusion of a watered down league. Stop drafting kids. draft 21/22 year old that complete a 4 year college degree.
    what would that change if it's all an illusion?

  6. #531
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23,138
    When THT is a 3 year vet at age 21 then you get an idea they are drafting these guys young.

  7. #532
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23,138
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    what would that change if it's all an illusion?
    Teams end up suiting up guys not fully develop. both mentally and physically. some are but most are not.

  8. #533
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23,138
    If i was a player and dont have money i would want to get in the league fast than risk injury in college. I also understand teams trying to beat each other out for the new talent. From a fans stand point i hurts the game because instead of weeding out the guy in college it end up being in the league. They did try to fix that with G-league but most of those guys dont become NBA players. A top draft pick is 2-3 years away from helping his team.

    Back in the day it had less teams and older players came in running off the bat.
    Last edited by ldawg; 01-23-2022 at 03:08 PM.

  9. #534
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Even KG said he wish he had done what he did earlier with Allen and Paul but i dont see why he would say that. Casell, Sprewell, KG, Kandiman, Wally was not a shabby team. Hell that is just as talented as Cavs. But it wont hit the super team bracket.
    He had them for like a year or two at full power…to have to go up against Shaq and Kobe…or even Sacramento and the Spurs…his teams were severely overmatched 95% of the time.

  10. #535
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23,138
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    He had them for like a year or two at full power…to have to go up against Shaq and Kobe…or even Sacramento and the Spurs…his teams were severely overmatched 95% of the time.
    Well that is how dominant Shaq was in his prime. Blazers, Kings, Miny, all tried. Kings came close they were one Mike Bibby nose away. People dont give the Spurs the credit but they were a very talented team More overall talent than the Lakers and had a well run system. Duncan, Kobe, Magic, Larry all came into the league on a team that could win it all right away.

    Duncan was 22 not some kid just turn 17.

  11. #536
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    42,108
    There is no single definition, and eras are not reasonably comparable.

  12. #537
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,493
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Teams end up suiting up guys not fully develop. both mentally and physically. some are but most are not.
    I agree it's an issue, but you initially called it sn illusion as if the issue was made up and didn't exist.

    In Europe you go to basketball academy from age 5 until you're ready for the first team (18-21 depending on player on average, sometimes sooner), in the USA kids just hoop without learning much. The system is corrupted by win now mentality and money.

    The college game also surfers now. It'll take a while for it to get back to what is was.
    Last edited by NYKalltheway; 01-24-2022 at 03:52 AM.

  13. #538
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    There is no single definition, and eras are not reasonably comparable.
    Eras are not comparable at all if all you're gonna do is compare the number output.
    But eras are comparable as it remains the same sport, even if the rules have made it too easy for offense and bound the hands of defense.


    As for a definition, I will go back to the bookies argument. We have the data from the 1984 preseason and on.

    I like the +1,000 limit for championship odds as an indicator of how competitive the league up top is.
    At the same time, I think any team with +500 or less at the beginning of the season is probably one of the main contenders.

    To spice things up, I'll also use the +10,000 threshold for the bottom. The "no chance' teams.

    So these three parameters will tell us how affected the league is by the top teams per season.


    1985: 23 teams total
    4 teams with +500 or less.
    9 teams with +1,000 or less
    0 teams with +10,000 or more


    1986: 23 teams total
    4 teams with +500 or less.
    8 teams with +1,000 or less
    3 teams with +10,000 or more

    1987: 23 teams total
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    4 teams with +10,000 or more

    1988: 23 teams total
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    5 teams with +10,000 or more

    1989: 25 teams total - expansion year
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    5 teams with +1,000 or less
    8 teams with +10,000 or more [2 of which were recent expansions teams]

    1990: 27 teams total - expansion year
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    8 teams with +1,000 or less
    6 teams with +10,000 or more [4 of which were recent expansion teams]

    1991: 27 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    7 teams with +1,000 or less
    6 teams with +10,000 or more [4 of which were recent expansion teams]

    1992: 27 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    7 teams with +10,000 or more [4 of which were recent expansion teams]

    1993: 27 teams total
    4 teams with +500 or less.
    8 teams with +1,000 or less
    7 teams with +10,000 or more [1 of which were recent expansion teams, I'm not counting the Magic anymore, they had 4 years and the top pick with Shaq, still +10,000 odds, whereas the Hornets were founded a year later and looked better]

    1994: 27 teams total
    4 teams with +500 or less.
    4 teams with +1,000 or less
    7 teams with +10,000 or more [not counting expansion teams anymore, T-Wolves just sucked, they had 4 years to build their team]

    1995: 27 teams total
    5 teams with +500 or less.
    7 teams with +1,000 or less
    9 teams with +10,000 or more

    1996: 29 teams total - expansion year
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    8 teams with +1,000 or less
    4 teams with +10,000 or more [2 of which were recent expansion teams]

    1997: 29 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    5 teams with +1,000 or less
    6 teams with +10,000 or more [2 of which were recent expansion teams]

    1998: 29 teams total
    1 team with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    10 teams with +10,000 or more [2 of which were expansion teams]

    1999: 29 teams total - lockout season
    7 teams with +500 or less.
    7 teams with +1,000 or less
    9 teams with +10,000 or more [2 of which were expansion teams]

    2000: 29 teams total
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    7 teams with +1,000 or less
    8 teams with +10,000 or more [Vancounver was part of this, but they had enough time to fix their team]

    2001: 29 teams total
    1 team with +500 or less.
    5 teams with +1,000 or less
    8 teams with +10,000 or more

    2002: 29 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    4 teams with +10,000 or more

    2003: 29 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    3 teams with +1,000 or less
    5 teams with +10,000 or more

    2004: 29 teams total
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    5 teams with +1,000 or less
    5 teams with +10,000 or more

    2005: 30 teams total - expansion year
    4 teams with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    7 teams with +10,000 or more [including the Bobcats as an expansion team]

    2006: 30 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    4 teams with +1,000 or less
    5 teams with +10,000 or more [including recent expansion team]

    2007: 30 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    11 teams with +10,000 or more [including recent expansion team]

    2008: 30 teams total
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    7 teams with +1,000 or less
    5 teams with +10,000 or more [Bobcats are in, but they had 4 years, so who cares by this pont]

    2009: 30 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    11 teams with +10,000 or more

    2010: 30 teams total
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    5 teams with +1,000 or less
    10 teams with +10,000 or more

    Heat sign their Big Three
    2011: 30 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    4 teams with +1,000 or less
    11 teams with +10,000 or more

    2012: 30 teams total - lockout season
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    5 teams with +1,000 or less
    13 teams with +10,000 or more

    2013: 30 teams total
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    3 teams with +1,000 or less
    13 teams with +10,000 or more

    2014: 30 teams total
    1 team with +500 or less.
    3 teams with +1,000 or less
    12 teams with +10,000 or more

    2015: 30 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    5 teams with +1,000 or less
    11 teams with +10,000 or more

    2016: 30 teams total
    3 teams with +500 or less.
    4 teams with +1,000 or less
    15 teams with +10,000 or more - half the league, for the first time ever

    2017: 30 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    3 teams with +1,000 or less
    19 teams with +10,000 or more - almost 2/3 of the league!

    2018: 30 teams total
    1 team with +500 or less.
    2 teams with +1,000 or less
    21 teams with +10,000 or more - over 2/3 of the league! [8 teams with +100,000 odds!!!]

    2019: 30 teams total
    1 team with +500 or less.
    3 teams with +1,000 or less
    23 teams with +10,000 or more [76% of the league had virtually no chance of winning]

    2020: 30 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    6 teams with +1,000 or less
    15 teams with +10,000 or more

    2021: 30 teams total
    1 team with +500 or less.
    4 teams with +1,000 or less
    14 teams with +10,000 or more

    2022: 30 teams total
    2 teams with +500 or less.
    3 teams with +1,000 or less
    14 teams with +10,000 or more



    So what's to spot here?

    First of all, the league had more perceived parity when it had less teams. More teams had a chance to win, less teams were considered very bad.
    Expansion and the way it's practiced impacted the quality, especially at the lower level.

    Eventually we had teams starting to use a method called 'tanking', which ruins the competitiveness. This started somewhere in the mid 2000s as a trend, but it was a thing that teams were doing on an individual basis in the 90s as well.

    There's an evident trend of less teams being competitive as well (+1,000 mark) which started in the 2000s but it becomes highlighted in the 2010s, mostly due to the Super Team factor.

    When factoring what's a Super Team situation and what's a Great Team situation, you have to look at the full picture. There's having super teams in a period when there's no such thing and there's having a super team because that's how the league is set up. Last 5 years, super teams are considered a must, and we can see that half of the league isn't even recognized as competition, either because all the talent is hoarded by 3-4 teams or because they're tanking, usually because they cannot have access to top talent. That's very harmful for the league.

    When the Heat first formed, they intended to be a super team, and win not 1, not 2, not 3 etc, They were intending to put a dent in the competition and win 7, to have more than the barometer Michael Jordan. It was still an era where teams tried to form 'big threes' because that's the recipe that showed success, at least based on media:
    Celtics 80s: Bird, McHale, Parish. It's indifferent to everyone that Bird's absence makes this team a 2nd round exit team
    Lakers 80s: Magic, Kareem, Worthy. This one probably qualifies, but taking out either Magic or Kareem just makes them great.
    Bulls 90s, 2nd threepeat: Jordan, Pippen, Rodman. Take Jordan out and you have a team that's not seeded #1 and cannot reach ECF.
    Spurs 00s: Duncan, Ginobili, Parker. The first proper big three of the modern era, made up of a silent, unmarketable superstar in Tim Duncan along with a top player from Europe that everyone slept on and another player from Europe that even Europe had slept on. The first great side of the modern NBA which did not rely on more than 1 star, so they called it a big 3.



    We also had the 1-2 punch fascination, so stars wanted to play with another star.
    - We had this when Magic emerged as a superstar in his rookie year after joining Kareem's team.
    - Moses Malone joining the Sixers and Julius Erving. Great team of course besides these guys.
    - Charles Barkley joining all-star Kevin Johnson's Phoenix team. One of the few big moves that failed to produce a ring.
    - Clyde Drexler joining Hakeem in Houston to win #2.
    - Tim Duncan drafted to David Robinson's team, winning in 1999.
    - Karl Malone and John Stockton duo for almost 20 years at Utah being an important side.
    - Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp.
    - Shaquille O'Neal with Penny Hardaway.
    - Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, 3peat and almost making it 4 in a row.
    - Shaq and Wade in the 2000s.

    There was this theme for a two star system. Knicks fans were crying for years to add a second star to Patrick Ewing. Pacers wanted Reggie to have a 2nd star next to him, others were calling Reggie Miller to join another star elsewhere.
    The media was all over the place saying that you cannot win with just 1 star player. So you had to join a 2nd star. Free agency enabled that. And that's fair to an extent.

    But then Boston happened, ignited by the dominant Spurs team.
    Big three at Boston, although none of them at a prime age and apart from Garnett, no one was really considered an MVP contender at any point. Just 3 very good players, similar to San Antonio, but perhaps more marketable and definitely at a more marketable side based in Boston.

    And this is where the Super teams were born. The Boston super team had a 1/3 record, 1/2 in the Finals. They lost to a team that had Kobe, Pau Gasol and people tried to hype up Artest or Bynum as a star player just to say that LA big three beat Boston's big three, but in truth it was Kobe and a vice-star in Pau Gasol who only was called a star after winning in 2009.

    Was any of those a "super team"? It's a loose term that's loosely thrown out. But was any of these sides ever called "a super team" that's going to dominate the league for years? I don't remember it being this way. No one called the Bulls a super team, they just called Michael Jordan Superman, "his airness" and stuff like that. No one said that having Pippen and Rodman was overkill.

    No other team was formed on a single night, signing two players that were the top player and a top 10-15-20 whatever you wanna say player, but it wasn't higher than top 20 with Bosh.

    Pierce was probably the 3rd or at best 2nd SF in the league, behind Lebron and I dare say Melo.
    As much as I loved Garnett at Minny, he wasn't the top PF. He hadn't even made it to at least All-NBA 2nd in 3 seasons before he joined the Celtics, with Dirk, Duncan and Amare (as center) making the 1st team in 2007 before his move, Bosh making 2nd team over him who made it to 3rd team.
    Dwyane Wade for example was 1st All-NBA along with Lebron in 2009-10.

    When was the last time an all-NBA 1st teamer joined the team of another all-NBA 1st teamer? It's actually weird to see this but Durant was all-NBA 2nd team in 2015-16 just before joining GSW, then they both didn't make 1st team.

    How many times did we see a team have two of 1st All-NBA players? It's actually the Lakers in 2020 with Lebron and Anthony Davis for the first time since Amare & Nash in 2007.
    They're usually careful not to throw in teammates. It was a thing in the early to mid 80s because there were less teams and the top teams attracted more interest. In the 90s with 29 teams for the most part, not so much.


    All-NBA 1st team selections with 2 teammates from 1979-80 and on:
    1983 Sixers: Moses Malone and Erving
    1984 Lakers: Kareem and Magic
    1986 Lakers: Kareem and Magic
    1994 Jazz: Karl Malone and Stockton
    1995 Jazz: Karl Malone and Stockton
    2002 Lakers: Shaq and Kobe
    2003 Lakers: Shaq and Kobe
    2004 Lakers: Shaq and Kobe
    2007 Suns: Nash and Amare
    2020 Lakers: Lebron and Davis

    It's basically a rare treat, unless you're the Lakers who've had 3 such combinations in 35 years.

    We also know that competitiveness has shrunk, based on the odds above, so making these lists is harder for the 2nd and 3rd names of a team when there's 3 stars.
    I mean everyone says that Curry and Durant was overkill, yet it doesn't appear to be the case with the All-NBA team selection that so many fans seek out as historic reference.
    In fact, Curry and Durant have never, ever, been on an All-NBA team selection at the same time.
    2019: Curry 1st, Durant 2nd
    2018: Durant 1st, Curry 3rd
    2017: Durant 2nd, Curry 2nd [Draymond Green 3rd]
    2016: Curry 1st, Durant 2nd [Draymond Green 2nd, Klay Thompson 3rd]
    2015: Curry 1st, Durant didn't make it [Klay Thompson 3rd]
    2014: Durant 1st, Curry 2nd

    On the other hand, Lebron and Wade:
    2012: Lebron 1st, Wade 3rd
    2011: Lebron 1st, Wade 2nd
    2010: Lebron 1st, Wade 1st
    2009: Lebron 1st, Wade 1st

    2008: Lebron 1st, Wade didn't make it
    2007: Lebron 2nd, Wade 3rd [Bosh 2nd, just for the record]
    2006: Lebron 1st, Wade 2nd
    2005: Lebron 2nd, Wade 2nd

    For another example, David Robinson made the 2nd team once and the 3rd team twice after Duncan came to the league, whereas Duncan was 1st team in all those times. David Robinson was All-NBA 1st team in 1996 before his injury and Duncan's arrival.

    As for the Bulls with Jordan:
    Jordan made the 1st team in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998 [he was injured in 1986 and not in the league in 1994 and 1995]
    Jordan made the 2nd team in 1985
    Pippen made the 1st team with Jordan present in 1996.
    Pippen made the 1st team without Jordan present in 1994 and 1995.
    Pippen made the 2nd team in 1992 and 1997.
    Pippen made the 3rd team 1993 and 1998.
    No other Bulls player made the cut.

    72 win Bulls had 2 first teamers, 73 win Warriors had 3 inductions, 1 on each team.


    What this means is that the NBA is designed in a way, with 30 teams, that having more than 2 stars is considered overkill. A great team can have up to 2 all-first NBA teams. But a super team will not have 1st teamers because there's just too much starpower to share around and not enough spots for the spotlight. A testament to this is the two Utah Jazz inductions with Malone and Stockton. Lakers in the 80s are argued as this amazing team, but the truth is that if you take away either Magic or Kareem, they're not really guaranteed to go far.
    In 1981 they lost to the 1st round as defending champions because Kareem despite his 25+ points had an off series and was outplayed by Moses Malone.
    In 1986, again as defending champions, they lost in the WCF to Hakeem's Houston team. Again, this time a rather old Kareem was outplayed by the Houston bigs.
    In 1990, as NBA finalists the previous season, they couldn't challenge for the title this time as they lost to 5th seed Phoenix. There wasn't no Kareem this time and it wasn't no super team. Just a Magic Johnson led Lakers team losing to a better team.

    Of course one could argue that by the 2013-14 season, the Heat were relying on Lebron and that's true. Wade was done, Bosh was in bad shape and Ray Allen was very old. This wasn't the case for 3/4 years though. It's also why Lebron left to create another 'super' team, back home this time. Had Lebron stuck around with Miami, I don't think anyone would have said much and maybe this "big three" or "superteam" era wouldn't have been unleashed. Instead, he moved to Cleveland to rinse, repeat what he did in 2014, with the available options of course as the 2014 free agency and salary conditions didn't allow for a similar move. Then Kawhi and Durant did a similar thing and now it's all over the place.
    This is why they're called 'super' teams. I for one don't find a lot of 'super' in it, but it's how they are branded.

    Maybe since Jordan was 'superman', a superteam probably should mean having more than 1 Jordan on a team, but there's never been even 1 Jordan ever since he retired, let alone 2 to be playing on the same team!

    Lakers 2012 was a poor big three attempt. Was it a super team? I don't know.

    Maybe the distinction should be between Super Teams and Big Threes rather than "great" vs "super". A great team doesn't even need a single superstar. The early 90s Warriors were a great side, but they didn't have starpower. They had a fancy trio, but it wasn't anything special in terms of competition. The Pacers in the early 2010s had a great team. You don't need to be a winning side to be considered great. Nor a winning player to be considered great. Charles Barkley is one of the greatest ever. Ewing was great. Michael Jordan was great before he even reached the 2nd round. T-Mac was great. Iverson was great. Winning is a team accomplishment and there are various parameters. One of the most important of which is: who you're up against and who's playing with you.

    For example the 1992 Bulls for me had a greater playoff run than anyone that followed, not only because they were weaker than their late 90s selves but because the competition was a better match and they still overcame them, making it back to back.

    First round matchup was an up and coming Heat team. Glen Rice, Steve Smith, Rony Seikaly. You don't get these kind of matchups in the first round.
    Second round was probably the best Knicks team since the 70s. Ewing, Mark Jackson, Xavier McDaniel, Starks, Gerald Wilkins, Oakley and decent bench.. Far better than the 1994 team that almost won it.
    ECF against the best Cavs team until the mid 2010s. Mark Price, Larry Nance, Brad Daugherty and a decent rotation.
    Finals vs Portland who were the best team in the West for 3 seasons running, in a season followed by the Olympics.

    Competition isn't always the same every year, not every championship weighs the same.

    The 1997 Bulls had a rather easy path. A Washington team that was lucky enough to make playoffs. An Atlanta team that was decent enough to reach playoffs but was never built for a deep run. A tough Miami squad that came off two hard series against Orlando and New York, barely end up winning, playing against a very fresh Bulls team. And a Utah Jazz team that was very competitive but had never reached the Finals before.

    Both give a championship, but the level of difficulty varies. Having superteams and having over half the league not be competitive since teams that have +10,000 odds get to make playoffs in the last 5 years, means that the championships are easier now. Especially when the odds are astronomically in your favor to begin with.

    So while the media and the players are happy to win even in this way, the truth is that their rings don't matter as much. And it shows, people are losing interest. The dopamine levels may rise after a sudden move (ie Durant to join Doncic in Dallas), but it's a quick fix for addicts, it's not sustainable.

    I'd love to see more stories like Giannis and Milwaukee. I'd love to see Lillard having this story. I'd love to see Towns have this story. But the advise they're getting is to run the hell out and go join a team with 2 all stars!
    So yeah, as it is explicitly clear, people are losing interest in the NBA. It may spike by the time the Conference Finals come, but in general, even Playoffs are dull now. Even series that you'd expect to see more competition (ie 4th vs 5th) are irrelevant as no one expects much from those teams anyway.

Page 36 of 36 FirstFirst ... 26343536

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •