Parity in the NBA a Problem?

[Madmick]

That's because theres a bunch of shitty cities in the least. Who wants to play in shitty cities like Milwaukee, Orcando or Toronto

Indeed. The only thing I'm paying to see in Orlando is Disney World & Typhoon Lagoon.

 

[PRESIDENT TRUMP]

That's because theres a bunch of shitty cities in the least. Who wants to play in shitty cities like Toronto

 

[CableandThanos]

Still technically a Super Team tho.

For people that complain about super teams (not saying you are), what fuckin difference does it make if a GM pulls off some trades or gets someone to sign or if a player says hey dog, come play with me? Also If I was a player, i sure a shit would not want my legacy or career held up in the hands of a shitty GM. Players of the past were affected by this. If I'm lebron or any decent player, you think im gonna stick around when i see that my GM cant me any decent teammates?

I love all the bullshit, the old players would never do that. BS, first of all they werent allowed to do that becuase therfe was no such things as unrestricted free agency until the late 80s. Before that time the team basically owned your ass.

Do people really think that all those old time HOFers who had to play against the celtics and kept getting their ass kicked, wouldnt of liked some help? Maybe just maybe they would of liked to be able to team up together to take on the powerhouse celtics. I'm sure they enjoyed having their careers and legacies dictated to them by shitty contracts and Gms who couldnt get them any help. LOL at the idea of old timers staying with their team out of loyalty or because they liked the competition. And of course by the time free agency rolled around, Bird was on a super team, magic was on a super team, jordan was on a super team, 76ers had a super team and the pistons had a superteam. So of course none fo those stars was worried about joining up with other players, they all had fuckin squads. Only ones that really did was Barkley, portland dude (forgot his name) and then malone and payton at the end of their careers.

 

[grimballer]

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

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

Which makes the NBA salary cap pointless.

NBA should just remove the cap n let big market teams buy their own superteams like the Yankees

 

[grimballer]

The problem is we didn't see this type of stunts before where best player in the league leaves 60 + win team to join top 3 player in the league n another all star

Or top 3 player leaving his team after losing game 7 in conference finals n joining the 70 + win team that eliminated them.

That would be like Jordan joining the pistons or Barkley teaming up with Malone n Stockton

 

[grimballer]

For people that complain about super teams (not saying you are), what fuckin difference does it make if a GM pulls off some trades or gets someone to sign or if a player says hey dog, come play with me? Also If I was a player, i sure a shit would not want my legacy or career held up in the hands of a shitty GM. Players of the past were affected by this. If I'm lebron or any decent player, you think im gonna stick around when i see that my GM cant me any decent teammates?

I love all the bullshit, the old players would never do that. BS, first of all they werent allowed to do that becuase therfe was no such things as unrestricted free agency until the late 80s. Before that time the team basically owned your ass.

Do people really think that all those old time HOFers who had to play against the celtics and kept getting their ass kicked, wouldnt of liked some help? Maybe just maybe they would of liked to be able to team up together to take on the powerhouse celtics. I'm sure they enjoyed having their careers and legacies dictated to them by shitty contracts and Gms who couldnt get them any help. LOL at the idea of old timers staying with their team out of loyalty or because they liked the competition. And of course by the time free agency rolled around, Bird was on a super team, magic was on a super team, jordan was on a super team, 76ers had a super team and the pistons had a superteam. So of course none fo those stars was worried about joining up with other players, they all had fuckin squads. Only ones that really did was Barkley, portland dude (forgot his name) and then malone and payton at the end of their careers.

That's bs excuse.

It would be one thing kd or Lebrun missing playoffs year after year or getting eliminated in 1st round, but that's not what happened.

Both were on contenders when they made their move.

Lebrun was on a 60 + win team when he took his talent to south beach n teamed up with wade.

Kd was up 3-1 in conference finals vs a team that broke record for most wins in a regular season n were themselves up 3-1 in the finals.

 

[Philo-Publius]

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.

A problem for fans. Not a problem for the league because parity creates close games and drawn out series, which results in better television ratings and advertising revenue.

 

[Buck Swope]

Indeed. The only thing I'm paying to see in Orlando is Disney World & Typhoon Lagoon.

Grab a few million and see how it feels.....

 

[Fugazy]

Been feeling this way.

Its such a Bullshit manufactured complaint.

Where has there ever been a year where 8 teams were legitimate threats to win it all?

Never, thats when.

There is usually 4 teams that can get it done. And that's the case now.

 

[Madmick]

Been feeling this way.

Its such a Bullshit manufactured complaint.

Where has there ever been a year where 8 teams were legitimate threats to win it all?

Never, thats when.

There is usually 4 teams that can get it done. And that's the case now.

There were 3 teams that had a legit chance this year: GS, San Antonio, Cleveland (not really).

That isn't at ALL the way it has been in past decades. In the past you'd see 5-7 teams that were legitimately interesting, and perhaps more saliently, you saw enough parity that they could be threatened to get knocked off by lesser teams if they didn't keep their shit together in the early rounds. It made the earlier rounds interesting because the heavyweight teams weren't safe just because they weren't playing another heavyweight. These days the lower seeds just get fucking steamrolled.