Jump to content

How can you not like the NBA?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Admittedly, I am watching the NBA, and have been watching these later round playoff games. And while I prefer the NHL, college basketball, etc. there is definite entertainment value. With that said, here's a few comments:

1. Golden State should have have this Series in 4 or 5 games but obviously has just not played well as the Cavs simply lack offensive weapons due to injuries.

2. Both the recent Miami Heat and San Antonio Spurs teams would crush this year's Golden State team.

3. Lebron James has been amazing - the best of this generation - and the constant comparisons to Michael Jordan are tiresome. Jordan was a guard with size while Lebron is a forward with guard skills.

4. Lebron is simply not like any prior player and the new term of "point forward" to describe him is appropriate. If anything, Lebron is more like a smaller Shaq more mobile and with guard skills.

5. Adding 6 seconds to the shot clock would make the NBA more interesting to me. Right now, it is run a set and look for 1 or 2 guys, and if not open, then put your head down and go one or one to the basket or throw up a 3 pointer. Not looking forward to the 30 second shot clock in college.

6. Another rule change is order: teams should not be able to use up 9 seconds getting the ball over the halfcourt line and then be able to call a time and have the 10 second rule go away as the refs hand you the ball to inbound the same across the halfcourt line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as lquarles said, its only fun because the GS is a lot like a college team.. NBA is horrible.

NBA is "horrible" if you don't like watching the world's best players play the game at the highest level.

Watching the Memphis Redbirds is so much better than watching the St. Louis Cardinals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly, I am watching the NBA, and have been watching these later round playoff games. And while I prefer the NHL, college basketball, etc. there is definite entertainment value. With that said, here's a few comments:

1. Golden State should have have this Series in 4 or 5 games but obviously has just not played well as the Cavs simply lack offensive weapons due to injuries.

2. Both the recent Miami Heat and San Antonio Spurs teams would crush this year's Golden State team.

3. Lebron James has been amazing - the best of this generation - and the constant comparisons to Michael Jordan are tiresome. Jordan was a guard with size while Lebron is a forward with guard skills.

4. Lebron is simply not like any prior player and the new term of "point forward" to describe him is appropriate. If anything, Lebron is more like a smaller Shaq more mobile and with guard skills.

5. Adding 6 seconds to the shot clock would make the NBA more interesting to me. Right now, it is run a set and look for 1 or 2 guys, and if not open, then put your head down and go one or one to the basket or throw up a 3 pointer. Not looking forward to the 30 second shot clock in college.

6. Another rule change is order: teams should not be able to use up 9 seconds getting the ball over the halfcourt line and then be able to call a time and have the 10 second rule go away as the refs hand you the ball to inbound the same across the halfcourt line.

Just wanted to say that golden state was an all time historically great team. Not sure they would have gotten crushed by anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say that golden state was an all time historically great team. Not sure they would have gotten crushed by anyone.

Historical, yes, because there a more playoff games today than in even the more recent past. Not impressed by that comment.

Magic Johnson was interviewed on Mike & Mike ESPN this morning and said Golden State was a good team, that they brought the NBA to the next/younger generation who follow Curry, that Curry may be the best shooter ever but that Golden State could not stop the Cavs inside and would not have had success against the better historical teams who were strong on the inside. Magic mentioned the Celtics of Parrish, Maxwell and McHale as well as the Bulls teams (which really didn't have a dominant center/power forward). I'd also suggest more recent teams such as Tim Duncan's Spurs teams and the recent Heat teams. If Lebron had Love and Irving or Chris Bosch, Dwayne Wade and Ray Allen, Golden State would have lost and there would no talk about their being a great historical team. Even so, Golden State won the first game of the Series in a close overtime game and their other 3 wins each involved an essentially tie game after 3 quarters before they were able to take advantage of Cleveland's lack of depth as opposed to demonstrating their own greatness. Golden State should just be thankful that Cleveland was so injured and for their win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say that golden state was an all time historically great team. Not sure they would have gotten crushed by anyone.

pardon me, I think I must have misunderstood. Say what ?!?!

This board is so rife with irony, sometimes it's just hard to tell. Are you kidding??

if so, sorry I disagree heartily, they are not an "all time historically great team." I agree that they were quite weak on the inside and I think you must be fairly young to say such nonsense. Just my humble opinion...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I will just put this right here.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-year-of-the-warriors/

During the regular season, Golden State crushed their competition in a way that hadn’t been seen since the Michael Jordan-era Chicago Bulls. Golden State won 67 games, tied for the sixth-most in league history, and its schedule-adjusted points-per-game margin (as measured by Basketball-Reference.com’s Simple Rating System, also known as SRS) ranked seventh all-time. The team became just the fourth in NBA history to outperform the league average by 6 points of efficiency on one side of the ball — in the Warriors’ case, offense — and by 4 points on the other. Moreover, the team’sElo rating at the end of the regular season was second only to that of therecord-setting 1996 Bulls.

neil-warriors-1-0617.png?w=610&h=882

The Warriors hopefully put those myths to rest with a championship run that counts among the best of the past three decades. It wasn’t without its moments of concern. Golden State trailed 2 games to 1 against bothMemphis and Cleveland. But on the whole, the Warriors’ postseason performance ranks eighth among champions since 1984 after accounting for their scoring margin, the SRS ratings of their opponents and the location andleverage index of each game:

neil-warriors-2-0617.png?w=610&h=1096

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curry may be the best shooter ever but that Golden State could not stop the Cavs inside and would not have had success against the better historical teams who were strong on the inside.

By the same token, here's the list of guys that have a better career effective field goal percentage than Stephen Curry (.563) while scoring at least 15/game:

Shaquille O'Neal
Artis Gilmore
Dwight Howard
Jeff Ruland!?!?
When you can make threes in such high volume like Curry (and Klay Thompson) and benefit from lots of long offensive rebounds on misses, not having much of an inside game doesn't hurt as much.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird how some people think any modern team is the best ever and how some refuse to believe that any modern team can even stack up with other great teams.

This Warriors team is not the greatest ever, but it is pretty damn good historically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify: I'm applying the eye test: that is an eminently beatable team. If the stats say they are somehow "historical," more power to 'em. they just do not seem all that historical, except maybe game 4 where they were historically lousy. we can agree to disagree, if you wish.

I'm not so convinced by the stats, but thanks for those. If that's supposed to represent the great teams, it's not compelling. Plus: Golden State played lousy teams. You gotta love the effort and unreal talent of Lebron, but look at the leftovers on that roster, wow, pretty lousy for a finals team. So the "championship run" stuff may not mean much, if the teams, in general, are just not that great. I see the 1987-88 Lakers ranked #32 on there. Starters: Magic Johnson, Byron Scott,Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, A.C. Green. Bench: MychalThompson, Orlando Woolridge, Michael Cooper. So why aren't they higher?? Well, they met the Pistons with Isiah, who had already beaten the Celtics. those were terrific, "historical" teams in a way that I just don't compare, stats or not...

ps: It's really not about the "good ole days" and young uns and such -- not completely. Non sequitur aside, it's just a conversation stopper... but the game is much different, and many would argue, not always for the better. Still fun to watch, and really who doesn't see how amazing curry and Lebron are, no argument there. But there's not much new under the sun. And so, you might take a minute to consider the fact that, it's just possible, older fanatics may know a tiny bit more about this than younger fanatics. I love Curry's game. But this "best shooter ever" stuff means very little if you never even saw a dozen other guys, in their prime. Again, I'm sure now some wizard will pull out a bunch of stats ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify: I'm applying the eye test: that is an eminently beatable team. If the stats say they are somehow "historical," more power to 'em. they just do not seem all that historical, except maybe game 4 where they were historically lousy. we can agree to disagree, if you wish.

I'm not so convinced by the stats, but thanks for those. If that's supposed to represent the great teams, it's not compelling. Plus: Golden State played lousy teams. You gotta love the effort and unreal talent of Lebron, but look at the leftovers on that roster, wow, pretty lousy for a finals team. So the "championship run" stuff may not mean much, if the teams, in general, are just not that great. I see the 1987-88 Lakers ranked #32 on there. Starters: Magic Johnson, Byron Scott,Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, A.C. Green. Bench: MychalThompson, Orlando Woolridge, Michael Cooper. So why aren't they higher?? Well, they met the Pistons with Isiah, who had already beaten the Celtics. those were terrific, "historical" teams in a way that I just don't compare, stats or not...

ps: It's really not about the "good ole days" and young uns and such -- not completely. Non sequitur aside, it's just a conversation stopper... but the game is much different, and many would argue, not always for the better. Still fun to watch, and really who doesn't see how amazing curry and Lebron are, no argument there. But there's not much new under the sun. And so, you might take a minute to consider the fact that, it's just possible, older fanatics may know a tiny bit more about this than younger fanatics. I love Curry's game. But this "best shooter ever" stuff means very little if you never even saw a dozen other guys, in their prime. Again, I'm sure now some wizard will pull out a bunch of stats ...

Surely you recognize the condescending tone of your original (and subsequent) post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify: I'm applying the eye test: that is an eminently beatable team. If the stats say they are somehow "historical," more power to 'em. they just do not seem all that historical, except maybe game 4 where they were historically lousy. we can agree to disagree, if you wish.

I'm not so convinced by the stats, but thanks for those. If that's supposed to represent the great teams, it's not compelling. Plus: Golden State played lousy teams. You gotta love the effort and unreal talent of Lebron, but look at the leftovers on that roster, wow, pretty lousy for a finals team. So the "championship run" stuff may not mean much, if the teams, in general, are just not that great. I see the 1987-88 Lakers ranked #32 on there. Starters: Magic Johnson, Byron Scott,Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, A.C. Green. Bench: MychalThompson, Orlando Woolridge, Michael Cooper. So why aren't they higher?? Well, they met the Pistons with Isiah, who had already beaten the Celtics. those were terrific, "historical" teams in a way that I just don't compare, stats or not...

ps: It's really not about the "good ole days" and young uns and such -- not completely. Non sequitur aside, it's just a conversation stopper... but the game is much different, and many would argue, not always for the better. Still fun to watch, and really who doesn't see how amazing curry and Lebron are, no argument there. But there's not much new under the sun. And so, you might take a minute to consider the fact that, it's just possible, older fanatics may know a tiny bit more about this than younger fanatics. I love Curry's game. But this "best shooter ever" stuff means very little if you never even saw a dozen other guys, in their prime. Again, I'm sure now some wizard will pull out a bunch of stats ...

I'm getting old. I watched the NBA a lot in the 80's

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I'll bite (and probably regret it later)... a boring afternoon, I guess.

In truth, I was surprised by the comments: it had never occurred to me that some people were saying Golden State was somehow "an all time historically great team." I do not listen to the talking heads pre- or post-game. So I was seriously surprised someone actually thought that. I meant no condescension at all, I just could not believe someone, anyone, was making that argument. so I apologize for the sarcasm if it offended you.

But now you got me genuinely curious: how old are you, and the others making those claims? Because I'm in my 50s and I would seriously doubt you would hear older fans think that. It's not a condescending question, I'm just curious and I'm asking out of sheer curiosity; perhaps if you grew up after the great teams of the 80s or 90s, this really is as good as it gets. No disrespect.

ps: my subsequent post was fair and in fact pretty bland, if you really think it is condescending. I read it twice and discern little or no guile, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I'll bite (and probably regret it later)... a boring afternoon, I guess.

In truth, I was surprised by the comments: it had never occurred to me that some people were saying Golden State was somehow "an all time historically great team." I do not listen to the talking heads pre- or post-game. So I was seriously surprised someone actually thought that. I meant no condescension at all, I just could not believe someone, anyone, was making that argument. so I apologize for the sarcasm if it offended you.

But now you got me genuinely curious: how old are you, and the others making those claims? Because I'm in my 50s and I would seriously doubt you would hear older fans think that. It's not a condescending question, I'm just curious and I'm asking out of sheer curiosity; perhaps if you grew up after the great teams of the 80s or 90s, this really is as good as it gets. No disrespect.

ps: my subsequent post was fair and in fact pretty bland, if you really think it is condescending. I read it twice and discern little or no guile, sorry.

DocB.

Agree with most all your comments but want to clarify two (2) items. First, it was Magic Johnson, during the interview I heard this morning, who said that Curry was OR probably was (I cannot recall which he said) the best shooter of all time. Whether or not Curry is the best shooter or not, Magic Johnson certainly is entitled to his opinion and Magic Johnson is certainly a guy who might be considered "old" and would know having watched and played with/against guys in the NBA for years.

Second, the historical comparisons regarding Golden State is all media driven. In short, the segment I watched this morning on ESPN said that only 2 other NBA teams (both being Chicago Bulls team) had more wins in a season than did this year's Golden State team - therefore Golden State's championship is "historic". I agree with you that modern day teams are not necessarily better because they won more games in a given year if it is also true that they played more games and that the competition is watered down with more bad opponents. For instance, hockey used to play 50 games in a season with only 8 teams. That's why 50 goals in 50 games is still a measuring stick even though the current NHL has 30 teams and plays 82 game per year. Same with MLB which now plays 162 instead of 154 games and has a talent pool spread over 30 teams as well.

Again, Golden State had a very good regular season posting some gaudy numbers (see Brian's above stats) but I sure was not all that impressed by them in the post season. Maybe Curry is still suffering from the blow to his head but he really only showed his impressive shooting skills at the end of the 4th quarter in last 2 games -- and it was very impressive. How Golden State won games 2 and 3, though, is still a mystery. And, I might add, that Cleveland missed the chance to win Game 1 at the buzzer before destroying Cleveland in OT so Cleveland came very close to taking a 3 to 0 lead!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Golden State beat the teams on their schedule soundly, which is all they can do. The problem is that league has been watered down for at least 20 years. This year's Atlanta Hawks would have gotten mauled by the 50 win 1988 Hawks. But in this league the 2015 Hawks wins 60 games and get to the conference finals. Same with the 1993 Rockets (pre-championship) vs. this year's Rockets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...