Recommended Posts

Because the NBA has the absolute most absurd CBA of all the major sports and it's damn near impossible for teams to really improve or come out of nowhere because roster overhaul is tough (which is why they trade just for expiring contracts rather than actual players) and drafting superstars is really tough.  Once a team gets great, whether it's by luck (draft picks that unexpectedly developed into superstars, a la Tom Brady), by the super rare generational superstar GM that fleeces other GMs, or by actually drafting a star, they're going to be great for a long time.  

 

You guys hate Sam Hinkie and hate the Process, but every thread like this is an endorsement of it.  As long as the current CBA is in place (and since every version of it is basically the same, it ain't going nowhere even after next negotiations) it's going to be like this, so shut up, quit complaining (because you already know the answers), and trust the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no parity in the NBA, and the league is so topheavy. As long as the NBA's Salary Cap is structured the way it is; superteams are the only way to go.

 

It's either form a superteam, or get left in the dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DG_Now said:

 

The plus for LeBron is that he's played with lesser players and coaches and managed to be a good human being while Jordan took a pass on all of that. But I can do math too and see that 6 is more than 3. And that Jordan changed the game in ways LeBron didn't (and, really, couldn't).

 

I'm fine with Jordan being 1A and James being 1B, but I don't think there's as huge gap between those two as there is those two and everybody else.

 

This guy literally changed the game more than either of these candy-ass jabronis everyone's talking about today.  The real argument is who's 2a and 2b.  For my $, I've seen enough to say that Lebron is 2a... and I saw almost all Jordan national NBC and playoff games from '91 on, so I have some frame of reference. Lebron has to fight battles that Jordan never did, whether it's playing in the era of social media (Jordan would be considered a monster if camera phones and Twitter was around back then) or playing with crummy players, or never playing for a highly-regarded coach and having to do it himself, or playing in the era of the current CBA.

220px-Wilt_Chamberlain_100-point.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dalcowboyfan92 said:

There is no parity in the NBA, and the league is so topheavy. As long as the NBA's Salary Cap is structured the way it is; superteams are the only way to go.

 

It's either form a superteam, or get left in the dust.

 

There is another way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DG_Now said:

I'll never understand LeBron hate.

Almost as bad as Brady hate, amirite?

brock-lesnar-face-gif-1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you truly think Jordan is “Head and shoulders” above Lebron, you’re either from Chicago, stuck in the Bush 1 administration, or both. And the notion that Kobe and Duncan are better than Lebron is downright laughable. Especially Kobe. 

 

Also, for how much the Warriors are “ruining the NBA!”, they sure aren’t hurting the ratings. NBA ratings are better in this current stretch than they have been in years. 

 

Ive said it before, but the NBA is the one sport where a dynasty is a good thing. There are so few players on the court at one time, and ONE GUY can completely change the dynamics of the season. The NBA has “too many dynasties”, but that’s by design. Despite what a lot of the haters are saying, these kinda of dynasties are good for the league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

This guy literally changed the game more than either of these candy-ass jabronis everyone's talking about today.  

220px-Wilt_Chamberlain_100-point.jpg

 

More people here need to consider Wilt. Rules and the fabric of the game changed because of this guy. Without Wilt, Jordan and Lebron wouldn’t have ascended in the way they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilt is absolutely in my top 3, and I could even make an argument for him being #1 of all time. You are absolutely correct on that one. 

 

And for all of the “It was a lesser era!” talk, why does that hurt Wilt but it never seems to hurt guys like Babe Ruth? Wilt is, literally, the Babe Ruth of basketball. 

 

It’s never made much sense to me how baseball takes it’s legends and celebrates them at every turn, where basketball seems to kind of vilify every single non-Jordan superstar. The optics around the NBA are so weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Also, for how much the Warriors are “ruining the NBA!”, they sure aren’t hurting the ratings. NBA ratings are better in this current stretch than they have been in years. 

 

Ive said it before, but the NBA is the one sport where a dynasty is a good thing. There are so few players on the court at one time, and ONE GUY can completely change the dynamics of the season. The NBA has “too many dynasties”, but that’s by design. Despite what a lot of the haters are saying, these kinda of dynasties are good for the league. 

Plus, it helps that basketball is the most bandwagon friendly sport. A lot of people don't follow a team as much as they do a player. I remember one of those facebook maps where it broke down all of the fans of NBA teams based on county going around, and generally, outside of a team's specific market, the favorites were the Lakers, Celtics, or Cavaliers. Then LeBron moves to Miami, and suddenly the Cavaliers support disappears and those areas become Heat territory.

 

If you think the Warriors killed basketball, then maybe you just didn't like basketball all that much in the first place. And I fully expect that when the Grizzlies inevitably win the title next year, the same people bitching about the Warriors will then bitch about the lack of star power or some other bullcrap. Just the same as when people complained about teams full of ball hogs and how they wanted more team play and passing and defense, and then bitched when they got Spurs vs. Pistons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Wilt is absolutely in my top 3, and I could even make an argument for him being #1 of all time. You are absolutely correct on that one. 

 

And for all of the “It was a lesser era!” talk, why does that hurt Wilt but it never seems to hurt guys like Babe Ruth? Wilt is, literally, the Babe Ruth of basketball. 

 

It’s never made much sense to me how baseball takes it’s legends and celebrates them at every turn, where basketball seems to kind of vilify every single non-Jordan superstar. The optics around the NBA are so weird. 

Wilt and players of the 70s suffer from the revelations of rampant drug use. Chamberlain claiming over 10,000 partners doesn't work fpr a league that wants to make itself appear as the most socially conscious league in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, OaklandIsBack said:

 

You mean a team drafting 3 hall of famers (at 7, 11, and 35) ?

And begging another MVP in his prime to sign with them when three HoFers apparently weren't enough to beat a healthy LeBron team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

:rolleyes:

 

The Warriors beat the Cavs in 2015 and the constant excuse is that “Lebron didn’t have enough of a supporting cast!”. Sorry, you can’t logically have it both ways on that one. 

 

 

Also, I seem to remember you taking a pretty hardline stance against Lebron forming the “Big 3” when it happened, too (and there were a lot of the same arguments made on that one as well). It’s interesting how you’ve kinda edited that narrative since. 

 

Really, if you like parity so much, then go watch hockey. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you expect the same from basketball. 

 

:Edited for clarity 

Edited by Bucfan56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Wilt is absolutely in my top 3, and I could even make an argument for him being #1 of all time. You are absolutely correct on that one. 

 

And for all of the “It was a lesser era!” talk, why does that hurt Wilt but it never seems to hurt guys like Babe Ruth? Wilt is, literally, the Babe Ruth of basketball. 

 

It’s never made much sense to me how baseball takes it’s legends and celebrates them at every turn, where basketball seems to kind of vilify every single non-Jordan superstar. The optics around the NBA are so weird. 

The problem with Wilt's legacy is that his level of play always seemed to get worse (by his lofty standards) in the playoffs. For instance, his career PPG went from 30.1 in the regular season to 22.5 in the playoffs to 18.8 in the Finals. His free throw shooting, which was already infamously poor, went from .511 in the regular season to .465 in the playoffs to .385 in the Finals, and was a major liability in big games and clutch moments. There were several Game 7s where he got outscored by Sam Jones and outplayed by many of his teammates. That, as well as the perception of a "lesser era" (which also hurts Russell's legacy), is why Wilt isn't usually included in GOAT discussions.

 

However, I do agree that the way the NBA media and fans treat the history and the legends of their sport is ridiculous and unfair. The Jordan worship gets more absurd by the year. From how people make it sound, you'd think Jordan never missed a shot and never lost a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that make’s sense. I think that may have something to do with the sample sizes getting smaller and smaller, but it’s still an interesting perspective, nonetheless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve said this in the other thread, but you do know the NBA being really top-heavy is by design, right? It’s structured that way because that’s what has, almost without error, drawn the biggest ratings for the league across it’s history. It sucks for teams like Milwaukee and Sacramento, but a Finals matchup like that would get absolutely killed. :censored:, I’m FROM Sacramento and even I don’t wanna see something like a damn Kings Bucks Finals Series. 

 

I used to really rally against the lack of parity in the NBA, but then I started to better understand the nature of the beast. The league isn’t about single seasons, but about decades-long runs. And it’s smart, too. It takes a story line and stretches it out for long periods of time. In terms of a narrative, that’s kinda brilliant. 

 

Parity is never comig to the NBA, and it shouldn’t, either. Just look at the ratings. Hockey would KILL to have a year even approaching the NBA’s numbers, even in a down year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

And begging another MVP in his prime to sign with them when three HoFers apparently weren't enough to beat a healthy LeBron team.

Lmao your bum ass Clips had no interest in KD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Chamberlain gets dinged for being over seven feet tall. It sounds silly, and he shouldn't be, but dominating your league is a lot easier when you're over seven feet tall. Part of the Michael Jordan mystique is that while there are no "normal guys" in professional basketball, you can intuit from looking at a mere still shot that Wilt is helpfully tall and LeBron is a roided-up freak who's going to run through everyone -- it wasn't until everyone was in motion that you saw why people thought Michael Jordan was divinely inspired.

 

It's funny how the tagline for Jordan in the '90s was "Be Like Mike," while LeBron's is "Witness." Nike actually got us to think we could emulate Michael freaking Jordan, suckers that we are. With LeBron, they just told us to behold him like a golden calf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan is better than LeBron, but because Jordan is better than LeBron, his accomplishments aren't as impressive as LeBron's, therefore LeBron is better than Jordan because he had higher hills to climb and harder battles to fight (due to not being Jordan), and that's no fairrrrrr. Plus LeBron has a better PR team is a better human being than Jordan, because that's relevant for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Wilt, he only led a team to a ring twice and he didn't start giving a s*** about defense until it was too late. Most impressive physical specimen, sure, but not even close to the best player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, who do you think said:

Plus LeBron has a better PR team is a better human being than Jordan, because that's relevant for some reason.

 

Michael Jordan called Will Perdue "Will Vanderbilt" because he didn't deserve to share a name with a good basketball school :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now