I'm sure this is the type of parity Adam Silver would have loved to envision for our NBA

[CitySushi]

Keep disrespectin. I fondly remember the former legends like Tom Gugliotta, Larry Hughes, Joe Smith, or the triple-threat of Dunleavy/Murphy/Richardson.

Seriously. The highlight of the org before this run was knocking off the Mavs with Baron Davis. That was literally the high point of the franchise since the Chris Webber debacle. And just about every player on the Warriors right now not named Durant could be on some other team if they really wanted to go after the guy.

Jason Richardson is one of my top 5 favorite Warriors of all time. Murph dog has a special place in my heart because the first game I saw him play, he dunked on Dale Davis, stared him down then got ejected. Legend.

The Warriors went through so many shit players its ridiculous. There was a season where Chris Mills was our best player. Chris friggin Mills. Then you have Vonteego Cummings, Todd Fuller, Bimbo Coles, Bill Curley, Marc Jackson and the list goes on and on.

 

[Pattersonca65]

I feel like everyone has forgotten how much of a shit organization the Warriors were for DECADES before our run right now. It seems like everyone assumes we've been some dynasty for a long time. GTFO.

I sat through so many damn 20 win seasons it's ridiculous. Draft pick after draft pick being a bust. Then the Warriors got sold to a legit owner, who hired the right people, who drafted the right people and look what happened.

I mean, just look at the damn teams that the Warriors had before Steph. They had one season of We Believe where the Warriors made the playoffs. Then they traded away Jason Richardson for Brandan Wright. Then they blew up the team.

Exactly. I have been a fan since 77. I saw them go 42-40 that year. make the playoffs, and then fall into obscurity until Fitzgerald/Nelly came along. Then the Cohan/Rowell disaster years. It has been way more bad than good the last four decades.

 

[Pattersonca65]

yah....

i mean- when has the NBA ever had parity?

star power wins- no sport gives the team with the best players more of an advantage.

as long as the NBA has been around the best players have dominated the league.

How many years in the leagues history have more than 3-5 teams have had a legit chance to win a title on Day 1 of the season?

There has never been parity since I have been watching basketball. Every decade has had its dominant teams. Lakers/Celtics, Detroit, Bulls, etc

 

[Pattersonca65]

^^^This^^^

Basketball is the one sport where literally 1 guy can make all of the difference and the best player in the league can drag otherwise terrible rosters to the playoffs. Heck, one role player, playing out of his mind can completely change a playoff series.

Mike Bibby?

 

[HurricaneDij39]

So might this year's champion be.

I honestly doubt Golden State wins the finals in any more than five.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

yah....

i mean- when has the NBA ever had parity?

star power wins- no sport gives the team with the best players more of an advantage.

as long as the NBA has been around the best players have dominated the league.

How many years in the leagues history have more than 3-5 teams have had a legit chance to win a title on Day 1 of the season?

I'm sorry but I just don't agree. With all of you.

When I grew up with the late 90's Bulls, I was never taught that they were above the game. When I spent Saturday nights watching them with my dad I saw every single opponent giving them their best shot. It was never a mindset back then that you needed "this player or that player" in order to win.

When LeBron retires in five years, which he will, what's next for the NBA? What's to say that we're going to have the next great superstar player?

I see from the language of this thread that just about all of you didn't watch the video in the OP and are missing the basic point as it is...

But, whatev.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Again, people who actually know what the hell they are talking about explaining why Cavs-Warriors dominance is kind of normal for the NBA

https://theringer.com/2017-nba-playoffs-warriors-cavaliers-nba-finals-boring-3ca6c2d0a455

The Warriors have started this postseason 12-0. That has literally never happened before. So try again.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I'm sorry but I just don't agree. With all of you.

When I grew up with the late 90's Bulls, I was never taught that they were above the game. When I spent Saturday nights watching them with my dad I saw every single opponent giving them their best shot. It was never a mindset back then that you needed "this player or that player" in order to win.

When LeBron retires in five years, which he will, what's next for the NBA? What's to say that we're going to have the next great superstar player?

I see from the language of this thread that just about all of you didn't watch the video in the OP and are missing the basic point as it is...

But, whatev.

hmmm....i mean- i think you bring up some good points

but once Jordan hit his prime- he was 6/6.........the Jordan did only have 6 years though- and while his Finals matchups were never that great- he did have more competition in the East than LeBron.

I agree that their will be a void when LeBron leaves- there was when Jordan retired as well.

But- i mean- back then-----when you were watching Jordan- how many teams on Day 1 of the season had a legit chance to win a title? 3 or 4?

thats not much different than today.

 

[WiggyRuss]

The Warriors have started this postseason 12-0. That has literally never happened before. So try again.

its normal but its not normal---

there is a reason why 2 teams have NEVER met 3 straight times in the NBA Finals.

The NBA has had dominant teams before- but its been a long time since they have had teams this dominant- and 2 teams at the same time this dominant- esp. in different conferences.

that IS a rarity....as evidenced by the fact that NOT EVEN the Celtics and Lakers met in the Finals 3 straight times.

if and when the Cavs finish off the Celtics this will be the FIRST time it has ever happened in NBA history.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I honestly doubt Golden State wins the finals in any more than five.

i think they better win in 5 if they want to win. a longer series favors the Cavs....esp. when it gets to 6 and 7.


Cavs need to split those first two games in SF....if they do that they will be in solid shape.

If the Warriors win those first two- itll be very very hard.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

hmmm....i mean- i think you bring up some good points

but once Jordan hit his prime- he was 6/6.........the Jordan did only have 6 years though- and while his Finals matchups were never that great- he did have more competition in the East than LeBron.

I agree that their will be a void when LeBron leaves- there was when Jordan retired as well.

But- i mean- back then-----when you were watching Jordan- how many teams on Day 1 of the season had a legit chance to win a title? 3 or 4?

thats not much different than today.

It's not that there wasn't parity in the 90's, Jordan just willed his way through all of it.

'92 Blazers were making their second finals appearance in the Drexler era when they faced the Bulls.
'93 Suns finished with the league's best record with league MVP Charles Barkley.
'96 Sonics won 64 games.
'97 Jazz won 64 games.
'98 Jazz finished with league's best record.

All of these are championship caliber teams that were all on the cusp of beating the Bulls with a few more breaks or adjustments. '96 Sonics may have been the exception, but when they fell behind 3-0 George Karl made the switch to use Gary Payton on Jordan. Only problem is that it was too little too late. The '97 finals especially were tight and any of those games could have gone either way. Jordan made a buzzer-beater in one, after Malone had choked on his free throws. In another game, Jordan played ill. And of course in the clincher, the Bulls rallied from a 10-point second half deficit before Jordan hit Kerr for the game-winner.

Switching gears to the early 2000's...

Do you think the 2002 Kings entered their conference finals matchup with the Lakers think they had no chance since they didn't have Shaq and/or Kobe??? Bullshit. That series went seven, with Game 7 needing overtime. I was rooting for the Lakers simply because I thought Sacramento was the whiniest team in the NBA at the time, but that was as tightly contested a series as their has been in the new millenium. In fact, it could be argued that if Peja Stojakovic, arguably their best player, wasn't hindered by a sprained ankle that series, we would have seen the Kings advance to face the Nets in those 2002 Finals.

 

[tlance]

91 Bulls - 15-2
93 Bulls - 15-4
96 Bulls - 15-3
97 Bulls - 15-4 (no series went to 7 games)


Only 2 tough series they had in the 6 years were against the Knicks in 92, and the Pacers in 98.

No other team made it to 7 games, and only the Jazz I believe made it to 6 in 97/98.

The stars were spread out in that era, which made it relatively easy for Jordan and Pippen to dominate. There were no great teams aside from the Bulls.

I was a huge Jordan fan when I was a kid, but 2-3 dominant teams is closer to parity than 1. Just because the Bulls were pushed to 6 a couple times does not mean they were seriously threatened. The only series in that entire run where I felt they legitimately could have lost was '98 against the Jazz. That was more because Jordan was past his prime and Pippen was starting to break down.

 

[Inimical]

See video:

Damn Bucks...

DJ i cant stress enough how the foundational aspects of basketball are so much different than the other Major team sports.

For instance.

A smaller playing surface/field.
A smaller team

Those two simple differences make parity in the NBA lower by its very nature. The game of basketball has always been this way. Look at the list of champions by team from its inception. One player can make a huge difference in this league in a way that no other sport allows.

 

[flyerhawk]

 

[trojanfan12]

A lot of truth in this. The Lakers and Celtics combined have won something like 45% of the championships in league history.

There are more teams that have never won a championship than there are who have. The nature of the game lends itself to this moreso than any other sport.

 

[flyerhawk]

A lot of truth in this. The Lakers and Celtics combined have won something like 45% of the championships in league history.

There are more teams that have never won a championship than there are who have. The nature of the game lends itself to this moreso than any other sport.

Yup. Although technically 17 teams have won an NBA title since the league was formed in 1950. So slightliy over half of the current number.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

The stars were spread out in that era, which made it relatively easy for Jordan and Pippen to dominate. There were no great teams aside from the Bulls.

I was a huge Jordan fan when I was a kid, but 2-3 dominant teams is closer to parity than 1. Just because the Bulls were pushed to 6 a couple times does not mean they were seriously threatened. The only series in that entire run where I felt they legitimately could have lost was '98 against the Jazz. That was more because Jordan was past his prime and Pippen was starting to break down.

If you think there was only one-championship level team in the 90's, then frankly you don't know basketball. It couldn't be any more simple than that.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

DJ i cant stress enough how the foundational aspects of basketball are so much different than the other Major team sports.

For instance.

A smaller playing surface/field.
A smaller team

Those two simple differences make parity in the NBA lower by its very nature. The game of basketball has always been this way. Look at the list of champions by team from its inception. One player can make a huge difference in this league in a way that no other sport allows.

I could see your point, but good management wins more often than not regardless of what kind of star power a said team has.

 

[flyerhawk]

If you think there was only one-championship level team in the 90's, then frankly you don't know basketball. It couldn't be any more simple than that.

Well there were 2.

 

[Clayton]

I'm sorry but I just don't agree. With all of you.

When I grew up with the late 90's Bulls, I was never taught that they were above the game. When I spent Saturday nights watching them with my dad I saw every single opponent giving them their best shot. It was never a mindset back then that you needed "this player or that player" in order to win.

When LeBron retires in five years, which he will, what's next for the NBA? What's to say that we're going to have the next great superstar player?

I see from the language of this thread that just about all of you didn't watch the video in the OP and are missing the basic point as it is...

But, whatev.

I agree.

I think the game as a whole has regressed to its form before MJ. The Bulls did run the league for a bit but they had a ton of clutch plays and there were a couple of other teams in the West that couldn't consistently get to the next level. Only 1 year of the Bulls run was on a stacked superteam imo.

Lack of parity works for casual fans. But if the Warriors blow out the Cavs then this might go down as the worst playoffs in any sport that I can remember.