- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Anybody else hate the fact that there's no parity in the NBA?
Posted on 2/23/11 at 2:24 pm to LSU Fan 90812
Posted on 2/23/11 at 2:24 pm to LSU Fan 90812
quote:
You guys are thinking about this all wrong.
The reason these franchises win is because their championships coincide with the careers of transcendent players.
I'm not disagreeing, but those teams seem to always have the two or three players you need to win a championship. That doesn't make parity, it's still the haves and the have nots. Orlando had Shaq who led them to a Finals apperance, then he went to LA, Miami and now Boston where he's been with DWade, Kobe and Rondo/KG/R. Allen/P. Pierce. Jordan had Pippen and always had a big man and spot up three point shooter. Kobe has had Shaq, Fisher, Gasol and/or Bynum. Duncan had David Robinson, Tony Parker and/or Ginobli.
The only team without Superstars was the '03 Pistons who just had a solid line-up, although T. Prince, Ben Wallace, R. Wallace, R. Hamilton and C. Billups were all really really good players at the time.
0
Posted on 2/23/11 at 2:45 pm to Baloo
quote:
You bring up an interesting point, though I do think it’s telling the Lakers and the Celtics seem to get that transcendent player more often. This is probably it’s own thread, but I’ve been thinking about it recently, so I’ll just kick it off here, especially because I’m not sure how to phrase it.
We tend to rate NBA players by titles for the reason you mentioned: one player has a disproportionate effect on the game like in no other sport. There are guys, personified by Bill Russell, who aren’t exactly the most talented guys (though they are talented), but they care more about winning than about anything else. They sacrifice everything to this hypercompetitive altar of winning. Now, think about that guy in your life. The most competitive, win-at-all-cost guy you know. Chances are, you hate his guts. Because he’s insufferable.
There’s another strand of players, the transcendent talents who didn’t win every title, and seemed to care more about, well, playing basketball at the highest level than actually winning (which is subtly different). My favorite player ever is Dr. J. He wanted to win, but it’s not like he was consumed by it. However, he was consumed by turning basketball into artistry. He’s the guy who transformed the game to an above-the-rim game. He was unbelievable to watch.
At the end of the day, I’m more drawn to guys like that. The ‘Niques, Pistol Petes, and LeBrons. Guys who just played out of their minds and whatever happened, happened. As a rule, these are the guys who get disparaged for not winning, as if winning is the only thing. Maybe it is.
But if I have to choose watching Duncan’s greatest 10 games or Steve Nash’s... I’m choosing Nash. I’d rather watch those guys play. You can have those pathological have to win guys, but they kind of turn me off. I’d rather watch fun basketball. Even if it means losing.
Yeah, I’ll take Wilt over Russell. I won’t win as much, but it’ll be more fun for me to watch.
I like most of this post... except where you close by calling one group pathological for being a have to win guy... and favor the other group with players like Pistol Pete or Dr J
A guy like Pistol Pete amounted to a me first guy who was more interested his polishing his own ego and his own statistics at the expense of increasing the chance of his team winning
A guy like Jordan probably falls into both categories... probably the GOAT but probably also the most insecure and narcissistic person (at teh same time) to ever lace them up. He couldn't bear to lose and he couldn't bear to hear anyone else compared favorably to him
Posted on 2/23/11 at 11:40 pm to Baloo
quote:
Why bother watching the first round of the NBA playoffs?
It's the worst, dragging on for almost 2 weeks.
I know it'll never happen, but man, going down to 4 playoff teams in each conference would be awesome.
-Shortens the playoffs
-Pretty much makes every playoff series really solid matchups
-Also would make the final month or so of the regular season pretty damn fun to watch with those 3 through 6 seed teams really fighting to finish in the top 4.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 11:50 pm to Akit1
quote:
but teams like the Celtics (and now the Knicks) with their storied history have only recently gotten good again
The Knicks aren't quite contenders yet. Not this year or next year.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 11:57 pm to shel311
The first round needs to be best out of 5
Posted on 2/24/11 at 1:29 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
The NBA has been in existence for 62 years. There never has been parity. Two teams have over 50 % of the titles. That's 33 titles among two teams (Lakers 16 and Celtics 17).
This post was edited on 2/24/11 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 2/24/11 at 3:57 pm to NoOmega18
quote:
The NBA has been in existence for 62 years. There never has been parity. Two teams have over 50 % of the titles. That's 33 titles among two teams (Lakers 16 and Celtics 17).
Yup. All of a sudden with the Big 3 in Miami and Carmelo to NYK, it's all people are talking about.
It's been like this forever. Hell, I think 8 teams have won a title in the past 30 years.
Have people just not been watching all this time? I don't know the answer to why everyone is really ranting about this now when you really didn't much about it before.
Posted on 2/24/11 at 3:59 pm to hg
quote:
The first round needs to be best out of 5
Posted on 2/24/11 at 4:02 pm to molsusports
quote:I readily admit that the majority of fans would take the "must win" guys. Guys who would rather cut off an arm than lose a game. I'm just saying, I personally am not drawn to those players. They actually kind of depress me, and seem rather unlikeable (Jordan is absolutely awesome, but he is and always has been a tremendous a-hole).
I like most of this post... except where you close by calling one group pathological for being a have to win guy... and favor the other group with players like Pistol Pete or Dr J
A guy like Pistol Pete amounted to a me first guy who was more interested his polishing his own ego and his own statistics at the expense of increasing the chance of his team winning
I don't think Pistol cared only about stats. I think he just liked scoring lots of points, because scoring is fun.
About the only "fierce competitior" I really really like is Iverson. He almost carried the biggest bunch of scrubs to a title through sheer force of will. But he was also a blast to watch. I rooted for him.
Posted on 2/24/11 at 4:06 pm to barry
Who wins a championship isn't the best measure of parity. Rather, the best measure is the gaps between the best, the average, and the worst teams in a given season, based solely on regular season accomplishments, as it's a larger sample size and truly measures the merits of every team.
Posted on 2/24/11 at 4:08 pm to Baloo
quote:
Everyone makes the playoffs it seems, but playoff upsets are fairly rare (outside of a one seed line difference). And when upsets do happen, they don't advance. So why not just limit the playoffs to the top 4 teams? Or even the top two? Why bother watching the first round of the NBA playoffs?
Right. The NBA season is long enough to iron out any anomalies. So a 1 vs 8 seed in a multiple game series is almost always going to result in the 1 seed winning. We're not talking about singular games here.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News