Q12543 wrote:Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.
yep may bad, I saw the tape delayed finals in 1982 end and mistakenly thought Stern was Commish in 1980, but he was just the Vice. Who gets credit for shooing away the cocaine craze though?
Only Chris Paul can save us now
Bloop, The cocaine craze diminished as Stern introduced drug testing and guys started dying (e.g. Len Bias).
But Bird and Magic took over a league that was largely seen as somewhat selfish and "me-first" oriented and turned it back into more of a team-oriented sport. Obviously the prominence of their NCAA Finals matchup spilled over to the NBA as well.
I agree, Q. It was a combination of Stern work cleaning of the seedy side of the game and his marketing savvy along with all the things Bird and Magic brought to the game, including extraordinary skills that were competitively compelling and aesthetically pleasing, interesting personalities, and a preexisitng rivalry that both continued to fuel with their highly competitive personalities. Stern did a great job of building the narrative around these two guys. The Pistons then delivered a villain that everyone could hate. Finally, MJ arrived on the scene and took the beauty and excitement of NBA basketball to another level with his incredible talent and winning personality.
Q12543 wrote:Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.
Even though the examples aren't the same. GS is bringing up feelings I had in the 90s finals. I remember asking myself I was even watching when it seemed like a foregone conclusion that the Bulls were going to win. That feeling is coming back, I just wish I saw a little more heart from Cleveland in this final. Abe is right that we shouldn't be lamenting yet, but it does similar similar to the 90s,
Doper -- I grew up in Chicago and was a Bulls fan. I never thought the Bulls were sure-fire champion in any of the Jordan years. The Bulls always had tough challengers, including initially the Pistons with I. Thomas, Lambeer, Dumars, etc. After that it was Jazz with Stockton and Malone, the Suns with Barkley, Marley and KJ, the Rockets with Hakeem and Drexler, and the Knicks with Ewing, Starks, etc. The Cavs and Hawks were also very good teams eight elite players. Yes, the Bulls were the team to beat those years after knocking off the Pistons on route to their first championship, but it was nothing like the current Warriors with Durant who have no viable challengers who could realistically stop them from winning a championship.
I did. None of their finals went 7 games. The one that was a mystery to me was the Lakers, but once Magic got the injury it over. I had a lot of faith in many of those teams, but once they stepped on the court with the Bulls it always seemed like a forgone conclusion to me. By 96 I was a little tired of watching. I thought the following era was really interesting. Even though there was some Lakers dominance in there, the parity made it a really great era of competition in my mind.
Q12543 wrote:Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.
yep may bad, I saw the tape delayed finals in 1982 end and mistakenly thought Stern was Commish in 1980, but he was just the Vice. Who gets credit for shooing away the cocaine craze though?
Only Chris Paul can save us now
Bloop, The cocaine craze diminished as Stern introduced drug testing and guys started dying (e.g. Len Bias).
But Bird and Magic took over a league that was largely seen as somewhat selfish and "me-first" oriented and turned it back into more of a team-oriented sport. Obviously the prominence of their NCAA Finals matchup spilled over to the NBA as well.
You mean "me first" like when Magic got his head coach (Paul Westhead) fired? If you ask me Magic and Bird were just the beginning of the me-first athletes. Magic never committed a foul, and ALWAYS got fouled (according to him). The big market teams dominated because the league wanted them to. It brought in the casual fan and allowed the league to grow exponentially. But in my opinion the Magic / Bird era wasn't all good. If I was a Laker, Celtic, or 6ers fan I would have liked it. But I wasn't. I was a diehard fan of a small market franchise (Milwaukee), and looking back I realize it was just a waste of time and money. The league was more show than competition. I'll never deny the 80's built the league into what it is today in terms of popularity. But in my opinion that came at a huge price. In the past 37 years here are the teams who have won an NBA championship:
Only 11 franchises in 37 years. And let's be honest, only San Antonio and Cleveland would be considered smaller market teams. And 4 of those teams have won in the last 10 years in an era where the league can make money no matter who wins. Competitive imbalance is nothing new for the NBA. I've learned to accept it.
I'd put Detroit, Dallas and Houston in the non-glamorous markets category along with Cleveland and San Antonio. So just under half of the 11 championships you listed have gone to cities other than what I would consider the NBA glamor towns of LA, New York, Chicago, Philly and Miami. I'm looking beyond market size. I'll add that a number of relatively smaller or non-glamour cities have had teams that made the finals or have been considered viable championship contenders, including Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Portland, Seattle, and Oklahoma City.
I'm quibbling a bit because I agree with your overall point that competitive balance in the NBA has never run as deep as in the NHL, NFL or Major League Baseball. But there's been enough competitive balance over the last 37 years to help drive the success and widespread popularity of the League. It's only the the last 5 years or so, since LeBron went to Miami, that I've grown concerned about the lack of competitive balance in the NBA. Durant's decision to take the easy road to a ring has take the League off the cliff in my view. As age and weak ankles catch up with the Warriors, things may improve. But I see a disturbing pattern that bodes ill for the League. Free agency, along with the ability and willingness of several big market teams to pay the luxury tax, threaten to further diminish the already limited competitive balance in the League.
Q12543 wrote:Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.
yep may bad, I saw the tape delayed finals in 1982 end and mistakenly thought Stern was Commish in 1980, but he was just the Vice. Who gets credit for shooing away the cocaine craze though?
Only Chris Paul can save us now
Bloop, The cocaine craze diminished as Stern introduced drug testing and guys started dying (e.g. Len Bias).
But Bird and Magic took over a league that was largely seen as somewhat selfish and "me-first" oriented and turned it back into more of a team-oriented sport. Obviously the prominence of their NCAA Finals matchup spilled over to the NBA as well.
You mean "me first" like when Magic got his head coach (Paul Westhead) fired? If you ask me Magic and Bird were just the beginning of the me-first athletes. Magic never committed a foul, and ALWAYS got fouled (according to him). The big market teams dominated because the league wanted them to. It brought in the casual fan and allowed the league to grow exponentially. But in my opinion the Magic / Bird era wasn't all good. If I was a Laker, Celtic, or 6ers fan I would have liked it. But I wasn't. I was a diehard fan of a small market franchise (Milwaukee), and looking back I realize it was just a waste of time and money. The league was more show than competition. I'll never deny the 80's built the league into what it is today in terms of popularity. But in my opinion that came at a huge price. In the past 37 years here are the teams who have won an NBA championship:
Only 11 franchises in 37 years. And let's be honest, only San Antonio and Cleveland would be considered smaller market teams. And 4 of those teams have won in the last 10 years in an era where the league can make money no matter who wins. Competitive imbalance is nothing new for the NBA. I've learned to accept it.
But there's been enough competitive balance over the last 37 years to help drive the success and widespread popularity of the League.
This is the point that I disagree with you on. The fans that have brought the league widespread popularity are not like you and me. They are the casual fans who are only brought in by the formation of super teams and familiar big market rivalries. The league doesn't care so much about us. They have our interest no matter what. They want the people that normally wouldn't watch, and they have done a tremendous job of attracting this demographic. So I would argue that the lack of competitive balance has actually done more for the league's popularity.
I just listened to the latest Raised by Wolves podcast and they said what they liked about the NBA and they liked that when it comes to the Finals you typically get the best teams. The other sports have parity but they said it would be like the Grizzlies VS Portland or something. They want to see Lebron make his case as the greatest player ever again one of the best teams ever. I thought they made some compelling points. I probably would love to see some of those other teams but they said yeah sure that sounds good in short term but in the long term seeing the best teams is the way to go. Personally I am a bit conflicted.
Anyway there is a lot of good discussion here though.
thedoper wrote:Imagine if Tim Thomas and Darius Miles were prospects this year. They'd be the surefire 1 and 2 picks with their length and athleticism. If only all 7 footers were like KG, Dirk, and KD.
Right. Skills are first and foremost, then body type/athletic profile is secondary. Dirk and Durant's length allowed them to utilize their feathery outside touch in more situations than if they were shorter. But it wouldn't have mattered much if they didn't have the shooting touch to begin with.
It's funny though because I was actually thinking about this with those two players in mind. In the same way there was a rush on these types of builds in players in the post KG drafts, there is a rush on a certain type of big man now. I really actually think that there are a lot of teams that are going to get burned because they are drafting for style of play rather than core basketball talent in the next few years. Which is why I still suspect there will be opportunities later in drafts.
Right, I think Isaac will be the biggest beneficiary in this draft. I could see him going as high as #3 now. And deservedly so perhaps. But if he doesn't put on some weight and his shot doesn't translate and.....etc.....you just don't know for sure who will bust and who will surprise.
Isn't part of his allure that he doesn't have the same floor as other players? That size isn't going anywhere... and unless he fools teams completely... his will to defend should find him a place in the league.
Marvin Williams as his floor?
I think that is part of it. I for one am not sure his athleticism (or more accurately lack of athleticism) sets his floor that high though. I see him as much more of a project than people are making him out to be.
I was listening to A podcast with Woj talking with the new Kings head of basketball Scott Perry. He asked him what guy fell to them when he was working for a team. He said that was a good question. He said after Tayshaun Prince played well hitting a key shot for UK...there was no way they were going to get him. They looked at how they could jump up a few spots but nothing really worked and they didn't even think they could get up high enough. Prince was skinny and sort of a tweeter not particularly athletic. He wasn't a star player but very valuable and very versatile as he could do a little of everything. If Marvin Williams is an optimistic floor for Isaac (that's pretty good you could do much worse) then going up the next level getting a longer version of Prince would be a nice get because that type of player can play with almost anyone.
Q12543 wrote:Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.
yep may bad, I saw the tape delayed finals in 1982 end and mistakenly thought Stern was Commish in 1980, but he was just the Vice. Who gets credit for shooing away the cocaine craze though?
Only Chris Paul can save us now
Bloop, The cocaine craze diminished as Stern introduced drug testing and guys started dying (e.g. Len Bias).
But Bird and Magic took over a league that was largely seen as somewhat selfish and "me-first" oriented and turned it back into more of a team-oriented sport. Obviously the prominence of their NCAA Finals matchup spilled over to the NBA as well.
You mean "me first" like when Magic got his head coach (Paul Westhead) fired? If you ask me Magic and Bird were just the beginning of the me-first athletes. Magic never committed a foul, and ALWAYS got fouled (according to him). The big market teams dominated because the league wanted them to. It brought in the casual fan and allowed the league to grow exponentially. But in my opinion the Magic / Bird era wasn't all good. If I was a Laker, Celtic, or 6ers fan I would have liked it. But I wasn't. I was a diehard fan of a small market franchise (Milwaukee), and looking back I realize it was just a waste of time and money. The league was more show than competition. I'll never deny the 80's built the league into what it is today in terms of popularity. But in my opinion that came at a huge price. In the past 37 years here are the teams who have won an NBA championship:
Only 11 franchises in 37 years. And let's be honest, only San Antonio and Cleveland would be considered smaller market teams. And 4 of those teams have won in the last 10 years in an era where the league can make money no matter who wins. Competitive imbalance is nothing new for the NBA. I've learned to accept it.
But there's been enough competitive balance over the last 37 years to help drive the success and widespread popularity of the League.
This is the point that I disagree with you on. The fans that have brought the league widespread popularity are not like you and me. They are the casual fans who are only brought in by the formation of super teams and familiar big market rivalries. The league doesn't care so much about us. They have our interest no matter what. They want the people that normally wouldn't watch, and they have done a tremendous job of attracting this demographic. So I would argue that the lack of competitive balance has actually done more for the league's popularity.
Cool -- This is why you're one of the best posters on this Board. Very insightful and I think I agree with you to a point. The casual fan is attracted to stars and to battles between titans. But I think the lack of competitive balance can cross a threshold where those casual fans quickly lose interest. I'm talking about the point where there is only one titan as there is today. Even two titans is too few even for the casual fan. As both Cleveland and Golden State blow through their respective conference opponents I think the casual fan loses interest. In fact, the casual fans I know around the office and elsewhere are saying just that. Recall that when the Bulls won their last championship against the Utah Jazz, they first had to go 7 games against the Pacers in the Eastern Conference finals. The finals between the Bulls and Jazz that year set a new ratings record for an NBA playoff game. There has to be enough competitive matchups to get and keep the interest of the masses to drive ratings.
You and I would prefer to have competitive balance run much deeper than typically experienced in the NBA. I like the depth of balance in the NHL. But I'm still OK when you have a number of teams with at least a reasonable chance. In the more distant past, you had the Pacers, Knicks, Cavs, Hawks and Celtics as Eastern Conference rivals to the Bulls during their reign. And the Bulls always faced the prospect of a formidable Western Conference foe in the Jazz, Suns or Rockets. Things have deteriorated since then and with Durant joining the Warriors it's become intolerable for both casual and most serious fans.
Q12543 wrote:Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.
Even though the examples aren't the same. GS is bringing up feelings I had in the 90s finals. I remember asking myself I was even watching when it seemed like a foregone conclusion that the Bulls were going to win. That feeling is coming back, I just wish I saw a little more heart from Cleveland in this final. Abe is right that we shouldn't be lamenting yet, but it does similar similar to the 90s,
Doper -- I grew up in Chicago and was a Bulls fan. I never thought the Bulls were sure-fire champion in any of the Jordan years. The Bulls always had tough challengers, including initially the Pistons with I. Thomas, Lambeer, Dumars, etc. After that it was Jazz with Stockton and Malone, the Suns with Barkley, Marley and KJ, the Rockets with Hakeem and Drexler, and the Knicks with Ewing, Starks, etc. The Cavs and Hawks were also very good teams eight elite players. Yes, the Bulls were the team to beat those years after knocking off the Pistons on route to their first championship, but it was nothing like the current Warriors with Durant who have no viable challengers who could realistically stop them from winning a championship.
I did. None of their finals went 7 games. The one that was a mystery to me was the Lakers, but once Magic got the injury it over. I had a lot of faith in many of those teams, but once they stepped on the court with the Bulls it always seemed like a forgone conclusion to me. By 96 I was a little tired of watching. I thought the following era was really interesting. Even though there was some Lakers dominance in there, the parity made it a really great era of competition in my mind.
At least three of the Bulls finals went 6 games I believe. For the 2nd championship, the Bulls went 7 games against the Knicks and 6 games against the Pacers. In the Bulls' last championship season, the Pacers took the Bulls to game 7 and the Jazz took them to game 6, which the Bulls barely won on last-second heroics by His Airness. And of course, the Bulls 6 championships were interrupted by Jordan's temporary retirement for two seasons during which the Bulls didn't even appear in the NBA finals. Yes, the Bulls were a tremendous team and the "team to beat" for six of 8 seasons in the 90s, but they had multiple rivals during that period who could be counted on to push them to 6 or 7 hard-fought games. This season is completely different. There were no legitimate challengers to the Cavs in the East or to the Warriors in the West. And the Cavs can't give the Warriors a decent battle. We're not only seeing sweeps or near-sweeps, but we're seeing lopsided scores the likes of which we never used to see so consistently in the NBA playoffs. We're at a low ebb in my view.
Q12543 wrote:Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.
yep may bad, I saw the tape delayed finals in 1982 end and mistakenly thought Stern was Commish in 1980, but he was just the Vice. Who gets credit for shooing away the cocaine craze though?
Only Chris Paul can save us now
Bloop, The cocaine craze diminished as Stern introduced drug testing and guys started dying (e.g. Len Bias).
But Bird and Magic took over a league that was largely seen as somewhat selfish and "me-first" oriented and turned it back into more of a team-oriented sport. Obviously the prominence of their NCAA Finals matchup spilled over to the NBA as well.
You mean "me first" like when Magic got his head coach (Paul Westhead) fired? If you ask me Magic and Bird were just the beginning of the me-first athletes. Magic never committed a foul, and ALWAYS got fouled (according to him). The big market teams dominated because the league wanted them to. It brought in the casual fan and allowed the league to grow exponentially. But in my opinion the Magic / Bird era wasn't all good. If I was a Laker, Celtic, or 6ers fan I would have liked it. But I wasn't. I was a diehard fan of a small market franchise (Milwaukee), and looking back I realize it was just a waste of time and money. The league was more show than competition. I'll never deny the 80's built the league into what it is today in terms of popularity. But in my opinion that came at a huge price. In the past 37 years here are the teams who have won an NBA championship:
Only 11 franchises in 37 years. And let's be honest, only San Antonio and Cleveland would be considered smaller market teams. And 4 of those teams have won in the last 10 years in an era where the league can make money no matter who wins. Competitive imbalance is nothing new for the NBA. I've learned to accept it.
But there's been enough competitive balance over the last 37 years to help drive the success and widespread popularity of the League.
This is the point that I disagree with you on. The fans that have brought the league widespread popularity are not like you and me. They are the casual fans who are only brought in by the formation of super teams and familiar big market rivalries. The league doesn't care so much about us. They have our interest no matter what. They want the people that normally wouldn't watch, and they have done a tremendous job of attracting this demographic. So I would argue that the lack of competitive balance has actually done more for the league's popularity.
Cool -- This is why you're one of the best posters on this Board. Very insightful and I think I agree with you to a point. The casual fan is attracted to stars and to battles between titans. But I think the lack of competitive balance can cross a threshold where those casual fans quickly lose interest. I'm talking about the point where there is only one titan as there is today. Even two titans is too few even for the casual fan. As both Cleveland and Golden State blow through their respective conference opponents I think the casual fan loses interest. In fact, the casual fans I know around the office and elsewhere are saying just that. Recall that when the Bulls won their last championship against the Utah Jazz, they first had to go 7 games against the Pacers in the Eastern Conference finals. The finals between the Bulls and Jazz that year set a new ratings record for an NBA playoff game. There has to be enough competitive matchups to get and keep the interest of the masses to drive ratings.
You and I would prefer to have competitive balance run much deeper than typically experienced in the NBA. I like the depth of balance in the NHL. But I'm still OK when you have a number of teams with at least a reasonable chance. In the more distant past, you had the Pacers, Knicks, Cavs, Hawks and Celtics as Eastern Conference rivals to the Bulls during their reign. And the Bulls always faced the prospect of a formidable Western Conference foe in the Jazz, Suns or Rockets. Things have deteriorated since then and with Durant joining the Warriors it's become intolerable for both casual and most serious fans.
Q12543 wrote:Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.
yep may bad, I saw the tape delayed finals in 1982 end and mistakenly thought Stern was Commish in 1980, but he was just the Vice. Who gets credit for shooing away the cocaine craze though?
Only Chris Paul can save us now
Bloop, The cocaine craze diminished as Stern introduced drug testing and guys started dying (e.g. Len Bias).
But Bird and Magic took over a league that was largely seen as somewhat selfish and "me-first" oriented and turned it back into more of a team-oriented sport. Obviously the prominence of their NCAA Finals matchup spilled over to the NBA as well.
You mean "me first" like when Magic got his head coach (Paul Westhead) fired? If you ask me Magic and Bird were just the beginning of the me-first athletes. Magic never committed a foul, and ALWAYS got fouled (according to him). The big market teams dominated because the league wanted them to. It brought in the casual fan and allowed the league to grow exponentially. But in my opinion the Magic / Bird era wasn't all good. If I was a Laker, Celtic, or 6ers fan I would have liked it. But I wasn't. I was a diehard fan of a small market franchise (Milwaukee), and looking back I realize it was just a waste of time and money. The league was more show than competition. I'll never deny the 80's built the league into what it is today in terms of popularity. But in my opinion that came at a huge price. In the past 37 years here are the teams who have won an NBA championship:
Only 11 franchises in 37 years. And let's be honest, only San Antonio and Cleveland would be considered smaller market teams. And 4 of those teams have won in the last 10 years in an era where the league can make money no matter who wins. Competitive imbalance is nothing new for the NBA. I've learned to accept it.
But there's been enough competitive balance over the last 37 years to help drive the success and widespread popularity of the League.
This is the point that I disagree with you on. The fans that have brought the league widespread popularity are not like you and me. They are the casual fans who are only brought in by the formation of super teams and familiar big market rivalries. The league doesn't care so much about us. They have our interest no matter what. They want the people that normally wouldn't watch, and they have done a tremendous job of attracting this demographic. So I would argue that the lack of competitive balance has actually done more for the league's popularity.
Cool -- This is why you're one of the best posters on this Board. Very insightful and I think I agree with you to a point. The casual fan is attracted to stars and to battles between titans. But I think the lack of competitive balance can cross a threshold where those casual fans quickly lose interest. I'm talking about the point where there is only one titan as there is today. Even two titans is too few even for the casual fan. As both Cleveland and Golden State blow through their respective conference opponents I think the casual fan loses interest. In fact, the casual fans I know around the office and elsewhere are saying just that. Recall that when the Bulls won their last championship against the Utah Jazz, they first had to go 7 games against the Pacers in the Eastern Conference finals. The finals between the Bulls and Jazz that year set a new ratings record for an NBA playoff game. There has to be enough competitive matchups to get and keep the interest of the masses to drive ratings.
You and I would prefer to have competitive balance run much deeper than typically experienced in the NBA. I like the depth of balance in the NHL. But I'm still OK when you have a number of teams with at least a reasonable chance. In the more distant past, you had the Pacers, Knicks, Cavs, Hawks and Celtics as Eastern Conference rivals to the Bulls during their reign. And the Bulls always faced the prospect of a formidable Western Conference foe in the Jazz, Suns or Rockets. Things have deteriorated since then and with Durant joining the Warriors it's become intolerable for both casual and most serious fans.
Well put Lip.
Legitimately good stuff.I am not dismissing anything that was said here because I think Cool makes some really great points. Lets remember again this was a terrible playoffs not just because the Cavs and the Warriors were so good, but their competition was either lower than them to begin with AND or had a significant player injured. There is no way the Warriors sweep the Spurs if Leonard was healthy. We all pretty much expected the outcome we got but it was even more pathetic than we expected because of key injuries. If these two teams would have been tested more I think some of the frustrated folks would be at least a little less aggravated. Honestly these teams come into the Finals sorely woefully untested. We didn't even get a 5 game series with the Spurs Warriors. That sucks. I think a lot of folks were interested to see how that series would have played out even if the Warriors won it and the Spurs were taking it to GS in game 1 before Leonard got hurt again. All that just magnifies even more the somewhat justified angst about these uber talented teams especially GS adding Durant because they din't have to play anyone. The only test they have to face is Lebron and the Cavs. IF the Cavs come back and make this some sort of interesting series it will be pretty amazing. I wouldn't completely rule it out. Its so hard to know what to expect in this series because again neither team is really tested, but GS is more talented and has been the better defensive team by a significant margin. Can Lebron elevate to a higher level yet in this series? Will some of the other guys on that roster do some more good stuff? We will see. I'll keep tuning in.
