Adam Silver on KD-Warriors: Not Good For NBA

[Rockinkuwait]

I can see why parity is good for the NBA as a whole and the combo of KD + GS doesn't help that. But as a fan who doesn't follow all the teams, I like having the elite teams. And that's nothing new. NBA still today has more parity than it did in the 80's.

But for me as a basketball fan, I could care less about most of the ok teams. I'd rather watch the good games with the teams with the better stars and fewer meh players, than piles of mediocre games there.




As for overall parity. NFL and MLB are close on the big picture. Bears and Yankees both are the best win% teams at 57%.

But the Yankees stand out easily as the least parity teams, with 27 championships (next closest is 11). Packers have 13 (not best reg season record team though), and next closest there is 9. So huge lack of parity at the top in MLB.


And at the bottom, NFL has 2 teams to never make the SB (Jags and Texans, both within 20 years old). 6 teams of 32 without a title (3 of them 20 years old or less). MLB has 2 teams not getting to the WS (one is 40 years old, one is 47), and 8 of 30 teams not winning a title (all 20 plus years old).

So NFL has more parity in some aspects as well at the extreme ends..

 

[The Derski]

Yeah its unreal thag so much bitching is going on when the warriors have signed one free agent

Translation: I'm a warriors fan and I love it!

 

[thunderc]

MLB has the most parity hands down

Yes and it's not close. Just look at some of the teams that have won titles. It's just more possible in baseball.

 

[Shanemansj13]

More like:

Golden State: 70%
Cleveland: 25%
San Antonio: 3%
Boston: 1.9%- because they have so many assets to trade
Everybody else: .1%

LOL San Antonio 3%

 

[Shanemansj13]

Yes MLB has the most parity easily. I dont care about these stats. A wildcard team has a chance to win it all. How about a 4-8 seed in the NBA? Not a chance

I agree. Marlins, Angels, Giants, Red Sox, Cardinals all were wild cards if I am correct. The parity might not be with the eventually WS Champ recently but parity as a whole. You seeing different teams make the playoffs every year and like you said more of a chance a MLB team lower seed can go on to win it all. But we have also seen NFL wild-card teams win it all as well, but as far as NBA we never see a lower seed win it.

 

[CitySushi]

The reason you're unlikely to find parity in the NBA is because of the playoff formats. 7 Game series between teams of relatively good health, the better team usually finds to win 4 games. In Baseball, it's easy for a team to just get hot at the right time. While it is a team sport, it can be dominated by individuals who peak at the right time. Football is a 1 and done format, so if you have a bad game, there's no recovery for that. Add to that Football has many more significant injuries that it's hard to sustain excellence for a long period of time.

 

[The Q]

I agree. Marlins, Angels, Giants, Red Sox, Cardinals all were wild cards if I am correct. The parity might not be with the eventually WS Champ recently but parity as a whole. You seeing different teams make the playoffs every year and like you said more of a chance a MLB team lower seed can go on to win it all. But we have also seen NFL wild-card teams win it all as well, but as far as NBA we never see a lower seed win it.

The NFL has such a small sample size (literally 10% of an MLB season) that their records are less indicative, esp when it's usually 1 or 2 games from a 1/2 seed to a WC. Pick a random sampling of 16 games and the WS winner could look worse than the eventual team picking 1st in the draft.

Hockey is the other sport that a really low seed can have a chance to win it all. But that's mostly cause goalies can get hot.

Goalies can also lose series as Penguins fans can attest for years with MAF.

 

[tlance]

LOL San Antonio 3%

I think that is pretty accurate. They don't have better than a 10% chance of beating Golden State. If you think they do, you are thinking wishfully. The only reason I have Cleveland as high as they are is because you can basically pencil them into the Finals, and injuries can happen.

San Antonio is capable of losing to a handful of teams in the West, Golden State is not, unless Green is out. Even if San Antonio comes out of the West, they might lose to Cleveland.

 

[CodeBreaker]

I think that is pretty accurate. They don't have better than a 10% chance of beating Golden State. If you think they do, you are thinking wishfully. The only reason I have Cleveland as high as they are is because you can basically pencil them into the Finals, and injuries can happen.

San Antonio is capable of losing to a handful of teams in the West, Golden State is not, unless Green is out. Even if San Antonio comes out of the West, they might lose to Cleveland.

At least I give them 5% chance.

 

[Bulletz]

At least I give them 5% chance.

And the fact that the argument is whether or not the Spurs have a 3 or 5% chance, means the KD move was bad for the NBA.

 

[CodeBreaker]

And the fact that the argument is whether or not the Spurs have a 3 or 5% chance, means the KD move was bad for the NBA.

It's alright. It's fun to have a villain, and the Warriors are everyone's villain except for their fans. Every fans in the arena would watch the game just to see the Warriors lose.

 

[The Q]

And the fact that the argument is whether or not the Spurs have a 3 or 5% chance, means the KD move was bad for the NBA.

Please tell me how Pau Gasol taking $10m less is good for the NBA.

 

[Bulletz]

Please tell me how Pau Gasol taking $10m less is good for the NBA.

I never mentioned Gasol. How is this relevant again?

 

[The Q]

I never mentioned Gasol. How is this relevant again?

Do the spurs have even a 3% if they dont' get Gasol to replace Duncan?

is it good for the NBA that last year Ginobili and Duncan made a farce of the cap so that the Spurs could fit in Aldridge?

 

[Bulletz]

Do the spurs have even a 3% if they dont' get Gasol to replace Duncan?

is it good for the NBA that last year Ginobili and Duncan made a farce of the cap so that the Spurs could fit in Aldridge?

Not really. Did it destroy the fabric of the Western conference? No.

 

[The Q]

Not really. Did the destroy the fabric of the Western conference? No.

woudlnt' KD going to the spurs do the same thing?

Sorry, it's hypocritical to pick on this one move like this.

if one of those guys gets injured a team like LAC or SA could beat them (one of the Spurs biggest things is they didn't have those major setbacks with injuries during their run...while hard to say it definitely won't continue, you can't assume it will happen either).

 

[Bulletz]

woudlnt' KD going to the spurs do the same thing?

Sorry, it's hypocritical to pick on this one move like this.

if one of those guys gets injured a team like LAC or SA could beat them (one of the Spurs biggest things is they didn't have those major setbacks with injuries during their run...while hard to say it definitely won't continue, you can't assume it will happen either).

If Durant went to the Spurs, would you give GS a 3-5% chance in the West? If not, there is a significant difference.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

The NFL has such a small sample size (literally 10% of an MLB season) that their records are less indicative, esp when it's usually 1 or 2 games from a 1/2 seed to a WC. Pick a random sampling of 16 games and the WS winner could look worse than the eventual team picking 1st in the draft.

Hockey is the other sport that a really low seed can have a chance to win it all. But that's mostly cause goalies can get hot.

Goalies can also lose series as Penguins fans can attest for years with MAF.

Well that's the thing with lower scoring you can be in more games. 1 run or less separates every teams average scoring in the AL but Boston this year for example. How often are NBA games decided by 1 great shot? Much bigger chance with more scoring for the better team to come out on top. NBA in the west for example has 17 points separating the best from worst. Talking a difference of 6 shots (3's) to be competitive in a game vs. the best.

Now if the NBA's average final score was 4-5 I think you would see a lot more upsets (parity), but that's not because the teams are closer, but rather because the scoring system lends itself to parity.

Think of it like if you were 10% better at picking scores when betting than your friend. You bet 5 games, chances are you come out on top, but not that great. You bet 500 games, you'll really see your edge show up. Same with baseball. If you average a batting average 3% better than your opponent (.240 vs. .270) that difference on a given night may not show up in 35 at bats. If you shoot 3% better than your opponent in basketball, you have 2.5 times more attempts for that to show up.

 

[The Q]

Well that's the thing with lower scoring you can be in more games. 1 run or less separates every teams average scoring in the AL but Boston this year for example. How often are NBA games decided by 1 great shot? Much bigger chance with more scoring for the better team to come out on top. NBA in the west for example has 17 points separating the best from worst. Talking a difference of 6 shots (3's) to be competitive in a game vs. the best.

Now if the NBA's average final score was 4-5 I think you would see a lot more upsets (parity), but that's not because the teams are closer, but rather because the scoring system lends itself to parity.

Think of it like if you were 10% better at picking scores when betting than your friend. You bet 5 games, chances are you come out on top, but not that great. You bet 500 games, you'll really see your edge show up. Same with baseball. If you average a batting average 3% better than your opponent (.240 vs. .270) that difference on a given night may not show up in 35 at bats. If you shoot 3% better than your opponent in basketball, you have 2.5 times more attempts for that to show up.

Or you look at it like what if the NBA was decided by each team only having 9 possessions.

 

[RobToxin]

I'll say it again....

All these people bitching about this supposed superteam in Golden State must have really hated the NBA in the 90s when the Bulls won 6 titles in 8 years.

If you were a fan in the 90s of the Bulls but are whining about the Warriors....

you're a fucking joke!