2018 NBA Post Season

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The NHL has more parity than the NBA. 

 

Now you’re absolutely right about basketball having a bad habit of tearing down its heroes (it shares that with hockey to be honest), but why is it that when people discuss the NBA in comparison to other sports the NBA supporters always trash the NHL? 

 

I mean I said it in the NBA regular season thread around the All-Star Game. When everyone was blowing the NBA for being so “fresh and exciting” for an ASG format the NHL had pioneered and moved on from already; what’s so exciting about 29 teams fighting to see who gets to lose in five to the Warriors? 

Turns out they didn’t need five. 

 

Now look. I’m not an anti-Warriors hater. I feel kind of...I guess positively neutral about them? They were a team that sucked for most of my formative years as a sports fan, and so I still feel a tinge of positively seeing them win now. I guess they’re basketball’s version of the Blackhawks for me. I don’t mind them, and I’m even kind of happy for them. 

 

It’s just that everyone was pumping up the NBA’s tires this season, going on about how exciting it was, and how wide open it was. Only for the same Finals to happen for the fourth time in a row and for it to end in a sweep at that. 

 

And it’s like...don’t tell me the NBA is good (and better than the NHL because boo hockey) because it’s wide open and exciting only to switch to the NBA being good (and better than the NHL because boo hockey) because dynasties are healthy. It’s one or the other. It can’t be both. 

 

 

Yeah I mistyped that part. I meant if you like parity so much, go watch the NHL, because the levels of parity are the polar opposite of the NBA. But again, that’s he nature of the league. 

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, Lights Out said:

is why Wilt isn't usually included in GOAT discussions.

 

I think it's more that there wasn't as much TV coverage (his 100 point game wasn't even broadcast) and not as much cross promotion (i.e. he wasn't on McDonald's cups like Jordan was, didn't have his own shoe line, etc.)

 

It could also be that people don't consider centers "basketball players", which I get, because they don't display the same well-rounded skillset that smaller more athletic players might have.  I don't think that should be held against them, especially Wilt, who as mentioned, could only be stopped by rules changes.  They literally changed the design of the court and instituted new rules because of how dominant he was.  

 

2 hours ago, who do you think said:

 but not even close to the best player.

 

I mean... this is just dumb.  I don't think I've read any legitimate publication that has him lower than 3, and honestly it's only been in the '00s (likely due to people aging and fewer and fewer people having seen him live) that he wasn't in the 1-2 discussion.  In the '90s, the debate was Jordan v Wilt.  

 

[MDGP]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

And it’s like...don’t tell me the NBA is good (and better than the NHL because boo hockey) because it’s wide open and exciting only to switch to the NBA being good (and better than the NHL because boo hockey) because dynasties are healthy. It’s one or the other. It can’t be both. 

 

 

There's a certain type of NBA fan that is the equivalent of soccer fans using this exact argument. There's this weird pretentious thing where the sport is "so beautiful and pure," and that "anyone can win any game." Yet, whenever the fact that the same three teams win the championship every damn year is brought up, it's "Well, yeah. They're the best team! They're SUPPOSED to win the championship," which is usually followed by insulting the other sport (almost always football in the soccer context). 

 

I'm a basketball fan, and I like watching, but "NBA people" are so damn frustrating to deal with.

[Digby]

44 minutes ago, Lafarge said:

 

There's a certain type of NBA fan that is the equivalent of soccer fans using this exact argument. There's this weird pretentious thing where the sport is "so beautiful and pure," and that "anyone can win any game." Yet, whenever the fact that the same three teams win the championship every damn year is brought up, it's "Well, yeah. They're the best team! They're SUPPOSED to win the championship," which is usually followed by insulting the other sport (almost always football in the soccer context). 

 

I'm a basketball fan, and I like watching, but "NBA people" are so damn frustrating to deal with.

 

I don’t think insufferable nonsense is unique to any one sport fan base. Evidenced partially by the NHL radicals in this thread.

[Wings]

Next thing you know fans will compare who had a better parade on Tuesday: Caps or Warriors. Oh wait, they will. Idiots. 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

Evidenced partially by the NHL radicals in this thread.

[Kaz]

There is a bit of a creeping inferiority complex from some NHL-primary fans here that is, strangely, quite similar to the complex many sunbelt hockey fans have. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 6/10/2018 at 11:05 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

You guys hate Sam Hinkie and hate the Process...

 

I love Hinkie!

Anyway, for me the emergence of a set of elite teams is good for a league's identity.  It helps cement an era in history.  In the 1980s the NBA was defined by the Lakers, the Celtics, the Pistons.   The NFL when I was growing up in the 1970s was always going to come down to battles involving the Cowbows, the Vikings, the Steelers, the Dolphins, the Raiders.  And baseball in the 1970s (the best sport in the best period) was a battle of the elites such as the A's, Reds, Dodgers, Pirates, and Orioles, joined in the decade's latter half by the Yankees, Royals, and Phillies.

Too much parity is not a good thing; it makes the whole competition seem suspect.  I root for NYCFC; Toronto FC are one of our biggest rivals.  So I should be glad that they are having a bad season. But actually I find it embarassing for the league that that team, after its dominating campaign last year, could be doing so badly this season.  For the sake of the league, I wanted Toronto to do well again, and for NYCFC to attain something by reaching their level.

So, when the same set of teams dominate a league for years on end, don't knock it.  That's how a golden age is born.

[gosioux76]

On 6/10/2018 at 1:10 PM, Bucfan56 said:

 

I meant if you like parity so much, go watch the NHL, because the levels of parity are the polar opposite of the NBA. 

I did just this.

 

I used to be a huge NBA fan, but a long list of things gradually turned me off to the league. I mean, there's the parity thing, but that's always been there. And there's the move by superstars to congeal to other superstars to form these superteams, which is maddening. But the style of play is also off-putting. I used to seek out games with good big-man matchups (a la Ewing-Olajuwon), but is there even such a thing as a good big man any more? The entire game exists beyond the three-point line, or in the ridiculously boring isolation game. 

 

I eventually pulled the old-man card and came to the conclusion that the game I once enjoyed passed me by and became something different.

 

So I changed the channel from NBA TV to the NHL Network and found something else to enjoy in the winter. 

 

Even in person, watching an NBA game was like a choreographed sound and light show with a little bit of basketball in between. The one NHL game I saw this year was exciting from start to end. 

 

That's the end of my grumpy old man rant.

[Wings]

I can see fans being turned off by the style of play in the current NBA but I think most if not all fans would be happy as a clam if their favorite team had KD, Steph, Klay & Draymond and just won 3 of the last 4 NBA titles. If they deny it, I think there's a little fibbing going on. 

[Sport]

A lot of people are forgetting that Golden State was the bum-ass franchise for like 40 years before the last 4 years. They had one good moment (07) in a desert of bad luck and bad decisions and cheap ownership. Before Lebron the Cavs were among the most anonymous, hopeless, "they have an NBA team?!" franchises in the league. I think it's truly tiresome that it's been the same two teams in the finals for four straight years, but the silver lining is at least it's two "new" sets of uniforms and not like the Lakers vs. Celtics again. That first year they met in the finals was basically like if the Lions and Bengals played each other in the Super Bowl. I was happy for the Warriors in 2015. I was happy for the Cavs in 2016, but these last two have been snoozers. The Warriors celebrated this title like it was a regular season win in December. Also, this was probably the last year they'll see each other. 

 

The only thing I don't like about the Warriors is Draymond and that the fans who gave them solid support through those bum-ass years got priced to the nosebleeds and out of the building altogether by Disruptors who don't care about the game or team except for status reasons. Kevin Durant is Kevin Durant. I'll always find his decision very disappointing. He almost beat those guys in 2016 and then was just like "I can invest in apps and win some rings so Golden State here I come". It was a total business decision and I understand that, but from a competitor's standpoint it'll always ring hollow and now the entire sport feels like it's on pause until someone from that team moves on. 

[gosioux76]

9 hours ago, Wings said:

I can see fans being turned off by the style of play in the current NBA but I think most if not all fans would be happy as a clam if their favorite team had KD, Steph, Klay & Draymond and just won 3 of the last 4 NBA titles. If they deny it, I think there's a little fibbing going on. 

Of course. Who would argue that? I just can't imagine getting excited for a league in which as many as 26 of the teams, if not more, don't stand a chance from the moment they tie on their laces. At least in MLB, the NFL, NHL or MLS you can witness a franchise make an unexpected run of it. I'm a massive Twins fan and their run to the playoffs was exhilarating and gave some hope for the future.

 

In this modern NBA, it seems as if there can be no Cinderellas, which makes it far more difficult to enjoy if you're not a fan of one of those few dominant markets.

 

 

[Wings]

Since 1980 only 11 franchises have won 39 championships. 8 of those 11 franchises have won multiple titles. Philly, Dallas and Cleveland won one each. 

[OnWis97]

The NBA is probably always going to be that way.  A thread was started (and apparently deleted) about why the NBA has less postseason parody than the other sports.  And I think it's because of the enormous difference that one or two players can make.  It's set up for the best team / best players to win.  In football, you have 22 starters each playing less than half the game.  Only a QB can create an automatic contender but even then defenses and the fact that there are no seven-game series (i.e., anyone can be upset in one game) are equalizers.  In hockey, Sid Crosby plays, what, 25 out of 60 minutes, while LeBron plays 45 out of 48. A couple of stars are not as likely to bring a team to the top of the standings as in basketball.  Throw in low-scoring games, hot goalies, and puck-luck and .500 teams can have a chance against #1 seeds.  When the  Yankees signed A-rod, there was something very unsavory about it.  The team with the biggest payroll now had the two best shortstops in the league.  They contended every year, but only won it all once.  Because A-Rod's impact is being one of nine hitters/defenders and not pitching.  Durant's is being one of 5 starters.  And a 7-game series in a sport like baseball is different given that there are different starting pitchers and while and NBA star can have an off night, it's nothing compared to the impact of a starting pitcher having an off night.

 

The NBA is always going to be more prone to this.That doesn't make it any less disheartening to see something like the Durant signing or to know that a team like mine (the Timberwolves) has to have all the stars aligned (health, players that have not yet left for greener pastures, good drafting, finding undervalued free agents, mortgaging parts of the future for the present or vice versa) to even sniff a deep run.  

[Red Wolf]

I saw this on twitter and reddit today. Thought it was relevant. 

[gosioux76]

43 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

The NBA is always going to be more prone to this.That doesn't make it any less disheartening to see something like the Durant signing or to know that a team like mine (the Timberwolves) has to have all the stars aligned (health, players that have not yet left for greener pastures, good drafting, finding undervalued free agents, mortgaging parts of the future for the present or vice versa) to even sniff a deep run.  

You're right, and I acknowledge that it's nothing new. I'm sure I'm just reacting to KD's move, and how it made the divide between the haves and have-nots even greater.

 

I'm here in Portland, where I watch Blazers fans each year waste energy dreaming that Damian Lillard will guide to glory a franchise that, from Day 1 of the season, shouldn't expect anything better than a second-round exit. It just seems so futile knowing that the only path to a title is for a team to accrue three of the game's 10 best players. 

 

 

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

25 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

I saw this on twitter and reddit today. Thought it was relevant. 

 

The parallel would be if those Bulls added Barkley, Shaq, Hill, Payton or Ewing.

[OaklandIsBack]

Do people hate the Warriors or do they hate KD? If you hate the Warriors, why? Because they drafted All-Stars/HOF players 3 out of 4 years (shoutout Ekpe Udoh), won a title then positioned themselves to land the 2nd best player in the world? 

[IceCap]

11 minutes ago, OaklandIsBack said:

Do people hate the Warriors or do they hate KD? If you hate the Warriors, why? Because they drafted All-Stars/HOF players 3 out of 4 years (shoutout Ekpe Udoh), won a title then positioned themselves to land the 2nd best player in the world? 

As I explained before? I don't hate the Warriors. I'm neutral to them, leaning towards liking them.

The Durant thing, however, was obnoxious. And continues to be.

[MJWalker45]

Just now, OaklandIsBack said:

Do people hate the Warriors or do they hate KD? If you hate the Warriors, why? Because they drafted All-Stars/HOF players 3 out of 4 years (shoutout Ekpe Udoh), won a title then positioned themselves to land the 2nd best player in the world? 

My reasoning originally was the fans who showed no class when beating teams that had kicked dirt in their face the previous 30+ years, like the lady calling out Lebron after the Cavs lost the first meeting. Also it's the sudden growth of "fans" who supported them from day one but probably don't even know the team plays in Oakland. When Durant moved in 2016-2017, that just told me he didn't have the desire to try and do the things that Michael Jordan did, and Lebron tried to do in Miami and then Cleveland, where he tried to get guys to come play with him. The burner accounts to defend himself didn't help either, it made him seem like a guy that's upset that people don't like the decisions he made and he can't figure out why they don't like him. Draymond Green is another reason I don't like them. He just seems to be happy playing on the edge of what the NBA will allow instead of playing firmly within the rules.