Parity in the NBA a Problem?

[GSPSAKU]

This has been a hot topic amongst basketball circles and not just between fans but also analysts and even NBA players. Many have stated, especially since Durant left the Thunder to play with the Warriors, that this will ruin the NBA; having the same team in the finals and and winning it is bad for the NBA.

On paper, this definitely sounds like a bad idea but once you look at the NBA's history, this is definitely not the case.

- From 1980-1989, between those 10 years, there were only 4 teams that won an NBA title during that decade. The Lakers won the championship 5 times, the Celtics won it 3 times and the 76ers and Pistons won it each once.

From '80-'89, JUST 5 DIFFERENT teams played in the NBA finals with the Rockets being the only team to make it to the Finals and never win it.

- From 1990-1999, there were also only 4 teams that won an NBA title during that decade. The Bulls won 6 (arguably should've won 8), the Rockets won 2 times, Pistons once, and Spurs once.

From '90-'99, ONLY 9 DIFFERENT TEAMS played in the NBA Finals.

- From 2000-2009, there were 5 teams that won an NBA title during that decade, which is one more than the 80s and 90s respectively. The Lakers won it 4 times, the Spurs 3 times, and the Heat, Celtics and Pistons each won it once.

From '00-'09, there were 11 DIFFERENT TEAMS that played in the NBA Finals.

- From 2010-2017, there are already 6 teams that have won a title in 8 years alone. Only the Warriors and Heat have won the title twice while the Cavs, Spurs, Mavs, and Lakers each won it once.

From '10-'17, there were 8 DIFFERENT TEAMS that have played in the NBA Finals.

So in all actuality, there is actually more parity in the 2000s and 2010s than the 80s and the 90s. Parity has not been decreasing but actually increasing.

The NBA has always been about Superteams and dynasties. The Lakers won 4 titles in the 80s and the Celtics won it 3 times. The Bulls won it 6 times in the 90s and the next closest is the Rockets that won it 2 times. The Lakers won it 4 times in the 2000s and the Spurs won it 3. In the 2010s thus far, the Heat and Warriors have won it twice and there are only two Finals left in this decade. EVEN IF the Warriors win it in '18 and '19, they will only have won it 4 times in the decade which will be the same as the Lakers in the 80s and the Lakers in the 2000s.

Realistically, over the past 3 decades, 1 NBA TEAM HAS WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP A MINUMUM OF 4 TIMES in the 80s, 90s and 00s. This false narrative of the NBA no longer having parity due to Durant's move is completely BS. The NBA has always been dominated by 3-4 teams each decade with one team winning 4 titles each decade.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Meh, it's one thing when it's a different team almost every year trying to knock off the same repeat team -straight boring if it's the same 2 teams year after year tho.

 

[iwhoopedbatman]

Those Laker and Celtic teams had legit competition to get to the Finals though. They rarely just cruised there. Even the Bulls had some competition in conference, except their blow out 72 win season.

Some parity existed in the West until the Durant move. The only reason we're getting different teams out of the East is because Bern switched teams.

All that said. It's a fair point that we've often had dynasties/near-dynasties.

 

[echohead]

The NBA has always been a league of showmenship and stardom, parity has never been very important.

 

[10000 Days]

- From 1990-1999, there were also only 4 teams that won an NBA title during that decade. The Bulls won 6 (arguably should've won 8), the Rockets won 2 times, Pistons once, and Spurs once.

From '90-'99, ONLY 9 DIFFERENT TEAMS played in the NBA Finals.

slight correction: it's 11.

Detroit, Portland, Chicago, LA Lakers, Phoenix, Houston, New York, Orlando, Seattle, Utah, San Antonio

 

[GSPSAKU]

slight correction: it's 11.

Detroit, Portland, Chicago, LA Lakers, Phoenix, Houston, New York, Orlando, Seattle, Utah, San Antonio

Thanks, missed the Supersonics and Pistons somehow. But anyhow, the NBA is built on dynasties with a single team winning at least 4 titles in every decade since the 80s. One team has always been the dominant team of any decade. Heck, the Lakers went to the Finals 8 times in the 80s and the Celtics 5 times. We can sit back and try to say "That's boring watching the same two teams" but before the media ran with that narrative, the fans all ate it up. We all ate it up. In the 90s, we knew the Bulls would be in the Finals every year and they would win every year yet we continued to watch.

Case in point: Game 5 of the 2017 Finals had the highest rating/viewership of any non game 7 since Bulls/Jazz 1988. In fact, the last three NBA Finals, which had Cavs/Warriors, has averaged at least 19.9 million viewers each of the last three series with the 2016 and 2017 being the only two finals to average at least 20 million viewers since the 1998 Bulls/Jazz series. So contrary to the narratives and complaints by some fans, the last three Cavs/Warriors Finals has had more viewers than any finals since Jordan and not a single Finals series since Jordan has average at least 19 million viewers except for Cavs/Warriors.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Kevin Durant is a bitch. That is all.

 

[Roljo]

The gsw warriors dominance is just starting, so the stats you used are lisleading. It's just that gsw and cle make the whole regular season and the playoffs (except the finals) useless/boring since we all already know who the 2 finalists will be. In the west it could have been 4 great contenders in GSW, OKC, SAS, HOU, instead it's just one super team that will dominate). In the east it's kind of the same since james will probably bring in another all star to try to beat gsw.

 

[KOQ24]

Due to the luxury tax the NBA was never particularly interested in parity.

NFL & NHL are certainly doing a better job with that.

 

[Huked on foniks]

Kevin Durant is a bitch. That is all.

And current champ and finals MVP!!

 

[Deleted member 196663]

And current champ and finals MVP!!

His name won't be remembered for that. This is known.

 

[Dizzy]

His name won't be remembered for that. This is known.

Once he has a handful I don't think it'll be an issue.

 

[asharak]

Meh, it's one thing when it's a different team almost every year trying to knock off the same repeat team -straight boring if it's the same 2 teams year after year tho.

It's even more exciting, as the ratings prove/

Those Laker and Celtic teams had legit competition to get to the Finals though. They rarely just cruised there. Even the Bulls had some competition in conference, except their blow out 72 win season.

Some parity existed in the West until the Durant move. The only reason we're getting different teams out of the East is because Bern switched teams.

All that said. It's a fair point that we've often had dynasties/near-dynasties.

LOL, no they didn't. Bulls had no competition(as evidenced by their win totals even without Jordan). Pistons and Celtics were done before Jordan passed them. Then, Pacers had 1 player that could shoot and the Knicks had NONE. Shaq wasn't great enough yet(but still took out Jordan in 6 in the semis)

 

[Kingz]

It won't change. That game is too dependent on a core of 2-3 guys and health permitting....The best cores will be among the best for about a decade. The game is flawed in that aspect. There isn't any turnover and if there is..it's just one guy killing a contender to create a new one. In the case of Durcant..he destroyed a legit contender only to bolster an existing one. So it didn't provide the fans with a fresh contender.

I say if the NBA has 4 different teams that actually have a prayer than that's the most fans can realistically expect. The problem right now is there is only 1 realistic contender.

It's not like NFL where a team that was nowhere all of a sudden has a dominant defense and a good rusher...now they aren't just good but actually can contend.

It's not like MLB where a team can swap out aging veterans for hot prospects and all of a sudden a shit team has a dominant pitching staff which means they can win in the playoffs.

NBA is about stars. The other games are multiple teams on one club and one unit can be the difference. In the NBA, you either got the stars or you don't.

When teams come out of nowhere in the NBA it's like the Jazz going from awful to middle of the pack. There's never surprise contenders

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

Parity is an issue but it's how the teams are constructed is what's getting on peoples nerves.

I thought Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen were bitches for going to Boston.

I thought Lebron James and Chris Bosh were bitches for going to Miami.

I think Durant is the biggest bitch of all of them for going to his arch enemy that's nearly at the peak of their prime.

Wouldn't doubt it if the GSW roll off a couple championships and all the sudden you start seeing all stars teaming up with all stars to compete with them. What will make it even worse is that there will be 3 or 4 super teams that were built with behind closed door negotiations while the rest of the league will be completely irrelevant due to not having the resources to compete. Kind of like how no one can compete with Walmart now that they are so big. Building a team through the draft will be nearly impossible unless you get incredibly lucky the way the Warriors did by getting Curry, Klay and Green. Even then, it's going to take signing a top 3 player in the league to compete with them. It's crazy to think about how difficult it's going to be for any team out there to compete for the next however many years. You need a once every couple decades type of draft(s) and then you have to sign a top 3 player to even get equal with them. It's impossible.

 

[Kingz]

Parity is an issue but it's how the teams are constructed is what's getting on peoples nerves.

I thought Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen were bitches for going to Boston.

I thought Lebron James and Chris Bosh were bitches for going to Miami.

I think Durant is the biggest bitch of all of them for going to his arch enemy that's nearly at the peak of their prime.

Wouldn't doubt it if the GSW roll off a couple championships and all the sudden you start seeing all stars teaming up with all stars to compete with them. What will make it even worse is that there will be 3 or 4 super teams that were built with behind closed door negotiations while the rest of the league will be completely irrelevant due to not having the resources to compete. Kind of like how no one can compete with Walmart now that they are so big. Building a team through the draft will be nearly impossible unless you get incredibly lucky the way the Warriors did by getting Curry, Klay and Green. Even then, it's going to take signing a top 3 player in the league to compete with them. It's crazy to think about how difficult it's going to be for any team out there to compete for the next however many years. You need a once every couple decades type of draft(s) and then you have to sign a top 3 player to even get equal with them. It's impossible.

I agree overall but

*KG and Allen were traded to Boston in two separate deals. It wasn't a chosen location for 3 stars who wanted easy winnings. No "we're all best friends in the NBA" circle jerkery(ala Miami) or front running pussy shit(ala Durcant)

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I agree overall but

*KG and Allen were traded to Boston in two separate deals. It wasn't a chosen location for 3 stars who wanted easy winnings. No "we're all best friends in the NBA" circle jerkery(ala Miami) or front running pussy shit(ala Durcant)

Still technically a Super Team tho.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Thanks, missed the Supersonics and Pistons somehow. But anyhow, the NBA is built on dynasties with a single team winning at least 4 titles in every decade since the 80s. One team has always been the dominant team of any decade. Heck, the Lakers went to the Finals 8 times in the 80s and the Celtics 5 times. We can sit back and try to say "That's boring watching the same two teams" but before the media ran with that narrative, the fans all ate it up. We all ate it up. In the 90s, we knew the Bulls would be in the Finals every year and they would win every year yet we continued to watch.

Case in point: Game 5 of the 2017 Finals had the highest rating/viewership of any non game 7 since Bulls/Jazz 1988. In fact, the last three NBA Finals, which had Cavs/Warriors, has averaged at least 19.9 million viewers each of the last three series with the 2016 and 2017 being the only two finals to average at least 20 million viewers since the 1998 Bulls/Jazz series. So contrary to the narratives and complaints by some fans, the last three Cavs/Warriors Finals has had more viewers than any finals since Jordan and not a single Finals series since Jordan has average at least 19 million viewers except for Cavs/Warriors.

What about overall ratings such as playoffs/regular season?

 

[GSPSAKU]

What about overall ratings such as playoffs/regular season?

Overall ratings for the post season was highest in years. Overall regular season tv ratings/average viewership is down this year by 6% compared to last season but still slightly higher than the 2014-2015 season.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Overall ratings for the post season was highest in years. Overall regular season tv ratings/average viewership is down this year by 6% compared to last season but still slightly higher than the 2014-2015 season.

I dunno, seems to me like they'd want to worry at least a little about the bulk of their viewership which is throughout the regular season. To me, playoffs and finals by design are always going to rope in viewers. I'd think some sort of hard salary cap to help generate better parody is at least worth investigating. I'd also scrap the fucking lottery system in their draft -its fucking dumb that the worst team in the league may not have a shot at the very top pick because of a random ball drawing (no one tunes in to the lottery either so that argument is a wash imo). Tanking is the only argument against it -and its a dumb argument.


One of the things that makes the NFL so interesting (for example) is the 'any given Sunday' factor combined with a shorter season (something I've heard the NBA has kicked around, but the loss of revenue probably kills that quick). I just think better parody makes for more intriguing viewership, but then again, as has been pointed out -the NBA has never really had amazing parody and seems to lean on star power much more than any other sport of the 'big-4' (Football-Baseball-Basketball-Hockey).


Another reason for limiting the star power on a single team via something like a salary cap is the overall improvement of the team itself. Having 3 stars on a team is great and all, but then having to turn around and sign d-level players to fill out the rest of the roster so you can field a team doesn't help either. The Cavs are a great example (as was the LBJ Miami experience) as soon as their big 3 hits the bench, the team can't do anything because they just aren't that deep. The Warriors are a bit of an anomaly in that department as they actually have a pretty deep team. But I'm willing to bet that as contracts need re-doing that team gets picked apart over time.