The mainstream sports news FINALLY admitting Team Stacking is becoming a problem

[DorianRo]

Took them long enough even though its been a problem since LeBeta "Took his talents to South Beach"

Cavs/Warriors dominance presents dilemma: Should other NBA teams even bother trying?

 

[tducey]

Yeah it is becoming an issue. To few good teams. Give me parity, where any team can win, over the NBA with only 2 or 3 teams having a realistic shot of winning.

 

[CitySushi]

No one was complaining when the Celtics and Lakers dominated for years. Not the Bulls either. Hell not even the Lakers yet again when they were 3 peat champions and were book-ended by the Spurs having 2 championships out of their 5.

Since 1980, there have been only 10 different teams to win a championship in the last 37 years.

Lakers - 10 times
Celtics - 4 times
76ers - 1
Pistons - 3
Bulls - 6
Rockets - 2
Spurs - 5
Miami - 3
Mavericks - 1
Warriors - 1
Cleveland - 1


The Rockets only won their championships because MJ retired. Bulls were that dominant.
Lakers have won 10 titles in 37 years.
Lebron has won for 2 different teams, being the best player in the NBA.

There hasn't been nearly as much parity as people want to believe there has been. There have always been 2 teams that have been front runners with maybe 2 more that had shots to win it all.

I mean if you really want to whittle that down, you'd have to go back at the first formation of a "super team" with Lebron and Miami, in which they didn't even win a title that first year in 2011.

So if you're looking at it from 1980-2010, you have 7 teams that won a championship in 31 years. 31 YEARS.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

No one was complaining when the Celtics and Lakers dominated for years. Not the Bulls either. Hell not even the Lakers yet again when they were 3 peat champions and were book-ended by the Spurs having 2 championships out of their 5.

Since 1980, there have been only 10 different teams to win a championship in the last 37 years.

Lakers - 10 times
Celtics - 4 times
76ers - 1
Pistons - 3
Bulls - 6
Rockets - 2
Spurs - 5
Miami - 3
Mavericks - 1
Warriors - 1
Cleveland - 1


The Rockets only won their championships because MJ retired. Bulls were that dominant.
Lakers have won 10 titles in 37 years.
Lebron has won for 2 different teams, being the best player in the NBA.

There hasn't been nearly as much parity as people want to believe there has been. There have always been 2 teams that have been front runners with maybe 2 more that had shots to win it all.

I mean if you really want to whittle that down, you'd have to go back at the first formation of a "super team" with Lebron and Miami, in which they didn't even win a title that first year in 2011.

So if you're looking at it from 1980-2010, you have 7 teams that won a championship in 31 years. 31 YEARS.

 

[Shanemansj13]

You must be a youngster. This is how it has ALWAYS been

 

[ChrisWebber]

No one was complaining when the Celtics and Lakers dominated for years. Not the Bulls either. Hell not even the Lakers yet again when they were 3 peat champions and were book-ended by the Spurs having 2 championships out of their 5.

Since 1980, there have been only 10 different teams to win a championship in the last 37 years.

Lakers - 10 times
Celtics - 4 times
76ers - 1
Pistons - 3
Bulls - 6
Rockets - 2
Spurs - 5
Miami - 3
Mavericks - 1
Warriors - 1
Cleveland - 1


The Rockets only won their championships because MJ retired. Bulls were that dominant.
Lakers have won 10 titles in 37 years.
Lebron has won for 2 different teams, being the best player in the NBA.

There hasn't been nearly as much parity as people want to believe there has been. There have always been 2 teams that have been front runners with maybe 2 more that had shots to win it all.

I mean if you really want to whittle that down, you'd have to go back at the first formation of a "super team" with Lebron and Miami, in which they didn't even win a title that first year in 2011.

So if you're looking at it from 1980-2010, you have 7 teams that won a championship in 31 years. 31 YEARS.

BUT those teams that won the finals went through dog fights. The three peat Lakers went to 7 games vs the Blazers and Kings to even get to the finals in 2001 and 2002.

The Pistons and Bulls went 7, the Bulls and Knicks went 7, heck the 2008 Celtics went 7 vs the Hawks and Cavs.

My problem is teams like the Warriors who are so stacked that they don't have to worry about the competition.

 

[SJ76]

BUT those teams that won the finals went through dog fights. The three peat Lakers went to 7 games vs the Blazers and Kings to even get to the finals in 2001 and 2002.

The Pistons and Bulls went 7, the Bulls and Knicks went 7, heck the 2008 Celtics went 7 vs the Hawks and Cavs.

My problem is teams like the Warriors who are so stacked that they don't have to worry about the competition.

+1

 

[ChrisWebber]

Also there were no super teams. The Celtics had Bird, Bulls had MJ, the Knicks had Ewing, the Rockets had Hakeem, the Jazz had Stockton and Malone, the Sonics had the Glove and Kemp, the Blazers had Drexler, the Suns had Barkley, the Pistons had Isaiah Thomas, the Pacers had Reggie Miller and the Spurs had David Robinson and later on Timmy, and the Lakers had Shaq and Kobe. Not one team had more than 3 star players on one team with maybe the exception of the Showtime Lakers.

 

[msgkings322]

BUT those teams that won the finals went through dog fights. The three peat Lakers went to 7 games vs the Blazers and Kings to even get to the finals in 2001 and 2002.

The Pistons and Bulls went 7, the Bulls and Knicks went 7, heck the 2008 Celtics went 7 vs the Hawks and Cavs.

My problem is teams like the Warriors who are so stacked that they don't have to worry about the competition.

OK so which is it are the Warriors so stacked that they are so good at basketball that they dominate easily....or are they scrubs who can't hold the 80s Lakers and 90s Bulls jocks?

 

[msgkings322]

Also there were no super teams. The Celtics had Bird, Bulls had MJ, the Knicks had Ewing, the Rockets had Hakeem, the Jazz had Stockton and Malone, the Sonics had the Glove and Kemp, the Blazers had Drexler, the Suns had Barkley, the Pistons had Isaiah Thomas, the Pacers had Reggie Miller and the Spurs had David Robinson and later on Timmy, and the Lakers had Shaq and Kobe. Not one team had more than 3 star players on one team with maybe the exception of the Showtime Lakers.

Not to get into it but Bird had 4 HOFers on his team including himself, 5 with Walton.

Late 90s Bulls had 3 HOFers, Showtime Lakers had 4

Rockets I give you. I put Hakeem over Shaq because 1. Shaq himself said so and 2. He won 2 rings without any studs to help. Drexler for win #2 was old as hell.

 

[Shanemansj13]

BUT those teams that won the finals went through dog fights. The three peat Lakers went to 7 games vs the Blazers and Kings to even get to the finals in 2001 and 2002.

The Pistons and Bulls went 7, the Bulls and Knicks went 7, heck the 2008 Celtics went 7 vs the Hawks and Cavs.

My problem is teams like the Warriors who are so stacked that they don't have to worry about the competition.

Didnt the Warriors go 7 against OKC last year. They have dominated but this year their roster is probably the most loaded roster. Before they were great but got challenged more, well more than sweeps. This is just an unusual year. If the Spurs dont have Kawhi and play the W's it will be the 3rd straight series the opponent doesnt have a top player from injury. They are catching some breaks as well

 

[ChrisWebber]

OK so which is it are the Warriors so stacked that they are so good at basketball that they dominate easily....or are they scrubs who can't hold the 80s Lakers and 90s Bulls jocks?

Not to get into it but Bird had 4 HOFers on his team including himself, 5 with Walton.

Late 90s Bulls had 3 HOFers, Showtime Lakers had 4

Rockets I give you. I put Hakeem over Shaq because 1. Shaq himself said so and 2. He won 2 rings without any studs to help. Drexler for win #2 was old as hell.

How many of those teams had 2 players on the same team that won the MVP award? Klay Thompson could be a franchise player for any team in the league and isn't the best player on his team.

 

[msgkings322]

How many of those teams had 2 players on the same team that won the MVP award? Klay Thompson could be a franchise player for any team in the league and isn't the best player on his team.

Yes, which is why the Warriors are as good as any team in NBA history. They need to prove it with another ring or 3. But the talent level is = to any of those others.

Lakers had 2 MVPs (both Showtime and Kobe/Shaq), but none of the others did. Warriors are a superteam, it's true. Fun to watch.

 

[ChrisWebber]

Yes, which is why the Warriors are as good as any team in NBA history. They need to prove it with another ring or 3. But the talent level is = to any of those others.

Lakers had 2 MVPs (both Showtime and Kobe/Shaq), but none of the others did. Warriors are a superteam, it's true. Fun to watch.

Im a Warriors hater.. im salty.

 

[msgkings322]

Im a Warriors hater.. im salty.

LOL I get it, if I weren't a fan I might be a little pissed at where they are. But honestly, if you like the sport, isn't it great to be a fan watching the best player since Jordan working his magic and also one of the best teams of all time? Especially considering their style of play. They do everything right, passing, defense, shooting, unselfish non-ISO play, the works. This is an era people will look back on and envy you for getting to watch. I was a bit young to really appreciate the 80s Lakers and Celtics (Celtics style of play wasn't much fun though). But now I can enjoy this.

 

[CitySushi]

BUT those teams that won the finals went through dog fights. The three peat Lakers went to 7 games vs the Blazers and Kings to even get to the finals in 2001 and 2002.

The Pistons and Bulls went 7, the Bulls and Knicks went 7, heck the 2008 Celtics went 7 vs the Hawks and Cavs.

My problem is teams like the Warriors who are so stacked that they don't have to worry about the competition.

Yes, but those series if I'm not mistaken were conference finals series right? Again, like I said there have always been generally 2 teams that are finals built teams and another 2 more to challenge. Last year the Warriors went 7 against the Thunder. This year if the Warriors face say the Spurs, do you think the Warriors sweep? Not likely. It'll be a dog fight. I'm not sure can be said of a Cavs and Celtics/Wizards series, but for sure the Western conference will go at least 6 games.

Even with a super Heat team, they lost in the finals twice to the Spurs and the Mavs, when both times they were the consensus favorites. Last year the Warriors were the consensus favorites and lost.

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

It's good for the casual fans. But for hardcore basketball fans it's nonsense.

 

[trojanfan12]

There has always been "team stacking" in the NBA. It's just done differently now. Dynastic teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Bulls, etc. have always had stacked teams. At one point, the 80's Lakers were so stacked they had an all star caliber center and a nearly all star caliber 2 guard coming off the bench. Those teams were built mainly through the draft and shrewd trades.

There are, imo, 2 things that are new and that are causing all of this sudden concern about team stacking.

1.) It's now as much the players who are stacking the teams by choosing to use free agency to join teams that are already stacked or as part of stacking a team (i.e. Lebron twice and now KD) as much as it is the FO's.

and

2.) Even though there have always been stacked teams, other teams never stopped trying to make the moves necessary to unseat those teams. As @ChrisWebber points out, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers went through dogfights trying to get to the finals against teams like the Blazers and Kings. Those were teams that made changes to their roster every season looking to take down the Lakers rather than just keep getting their heads kicked in while waiting for Shaq and Kobe to get old.

The same with the 90's Bulls who faced tough competition from the Heat and Knicks, as well as the 80's Lakers and Celtics who always faced some tough challenges in every playoffs.

 

[trojanfan12]

Took them long enough even though its been a problem since LeBeta "Took his talents to South Beach"

Cavs/Warriors dominance presents dilemma: Should other NBA teams even bother trying?

Cowherd made an interesting point about this yesterday. Specifically the "should NBA teams even bother trying" part.

He said that he thinks that if the Warriors win the title in convincing fashion, it will cause less movement in FA than if they win a close series or even lose.

His theory is that, since the new CBA generally means players have to take less money if they leave their current teams, many will choose to stay put and just take the money because moving to another team is pointless if it doesn't improve their shot at a title. However, if the Warriors win a close series or lose, then they will be more likely to take less and go to another team where they feel they have a better chance to win.

 

[DorianRo]

Cowherd made an interesting point about this yesterday. Specifically the "should NBA teams even bother trying" part.

He said that he thinks that if the Warriors win the title in convincing fashion, it will cause less movement in FA than if they win a close series or even lose.

His theory is that, since the new CBA generally means players have to take less money if they leave their current teams, many will choose to stay put and just take the money because moving to another team is pointless if it doesn't improve their shot at a title. However, if the Warriors win a close series or lose, then they will be more likely to take less and go to another team where they feel they have a better chance to win.

Guess its all about what is important to many of these players. Money or championships. I wonder how many players regret giving up on multiple potential championships (like Garnett or someone) for taking less money.

Westbrook is going to get a lot of money but he wont' ever see a ring in the near future if he stays in OKC. Probably never. Garnett could have won plenty more if he left Minnesota sooner or left a team that was just missing an extra piece.

If guys stay put, Cleveland/Warriors will own this league for a very long time (Maybe another 5 years anyways, providing them make small changes here and there in the bench and a few role players changes) because it takes YEARS for these guys getting drafted to get up to speed to the game of the NBA these days it seems