If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   With his retirement fast approaching, David Stern can't resist giving one final "fark you" to the city of Seattle   (blog.seattlepi.com) divider line 130
    More: Obvious, Seattle, Adam Silver, Memphis Grizzlies, deputy commissioner, Seattle SuperSonics, Safeco Field, expansion team, Clay Bennett  
•       •       •

3672 clicks; posted to Sports » on 26 Oct 2012 at 9:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
Slu
2012-10-26 12:40:57 PM  

Decillion: Gunny Highway: Super Chronic: grinding_journalist: someone who follows the NBA right now (and I assume you do)

I do not. Haven't for four years, probably won't even if a team relocates to Seattle (I don't want to put another city through what Seattle went through), but may well if an expansion team comes to Seattle.

Missing out the leagues great right now.

Only if you live in :

New York
Chicago
Miami
LA
San Antonio
Dallas
Boston

No other city will win an NBA championship for the next 30+ years. Except maybe for rare one-off teams like OKC. The NBA is all about waiting out your first contract (maybe 2) and then signing with other stars on the super teams.


It has been like this for 30 years.
 
2012-10-26 12:48:34 PM  
No. At the start of any season in any sport if I gave you the 4 best teams against the field would you take it?

Link

Let's see, the start of the MLB season be Philly, NYY, Boston, & LA ... so I'd win

Link

NHL - Pitt, Vancouver, Boston, & Wash - Win again


Link

NFL last year - Philly, NE, Green Bay, & San Diego -- so I'm 3 for 3.
 
2012-10-26 12:49:52 PM  

IAmRight: Gunny Highway: No. At the start of any season in any sport if I gave you the 4 best teams against the field would you take it?

Honestly, I probably would, largely because the nature of those sports and playoff setups are so much more inviting for upsets. The NBA championship is far more likely than any other sport to actually have the best team win the title (except when the league decides to get all Draconian when it comes to interpreting rules for certain teams and ignore them for others in order to suspend key players for pivotal games).

In the NHL, the season doesn't matter if you get a hot goalie (Kings). 162 games of baseball don't count for sh*t if your hitters go on a cold streak in the playoffs (Yankees, apparently now Tigers). The NFL? Anyone can win a one-and-done. The No. 6 seed in the NFC has won the Super Bowl two consecutive seasons - they probably wouldn't be in the top 4 list for anyone even heading into the playoffs, much less pre-season.


True. I still think a majority of people will take the safe bet. The NBA is different and people find the boring and think it is a problem. I do not.
 
2012-10-26 12:50:11 PM  

Slu: It has been like this for 30 years.


It has been like this ever since the sport was created. Oh, the best teams actually WIN more often in basketball. BORING.

Let's change the entire game to a coin flip before each game, and whoever wins the coin flip wins the game. And then we'll do just a 32-team tournament of that instead of a season. Then EVERYONE has a chance to win! YAYYYY
 
2012-10-26 12:53:21 PM  
My local team is the Bucks. The Bucks' chief legacy to the NBA is being the place Kareem Abdul-Jabbar farked over when he said he'd only play in New York or Los Angeles and having a bearable-to-watch team maybe one season a decade. And also being the place that was so stupid in its Glenn Robinson contract that they had to make a rule to keep GM's from being that stupid in the future.

I'm pretty sure if the Bucks announced plans to relocate, the resulting Save The Bucks rally might draw, like, 30 people. We'd rather have hockey.
 
2012-10-26 12:53:34 PM  

Gunny Highway: The NBA is different and people find the boring and think it is a problem.


In real life, it's not an issue. Just with Fark's hockey-centric crowd. "Our sport isn't popular so we have to act as though we're superior to the other winter sport/arena competitor! They totally start it by crashing our threads!"

Newsflash to hockey fans: The people that make fun of how no one cares about hockey, for the most part, aren't basketball fans, either. There are a few of us who will sh*t on you and remind you that you're the fourth sport when you come and tell us how no one cares about basketball, or try to threadjack every damn thread you can find 8 hours before a game, then whine about how it's only going to be green FOUR hours before the game...meanwhile, basketball playoff threads are hit-or-miss as to whether they even happen.
 
2012-10-26 12:55:03 PM  

IAmRight: Just with Fark's hockey-centric crowd.


Hell, I like hockey a lot, but I'll never understand how the NHL and pro wrestling gets so much fanfare on this site.
 
2012-10-26 12:55:46 PM  

Gosling: I'm pretty sure if the Bucks announced plans to relocate, the resulting Save The Bucks rally might draw, like, 30 people. We'd rather have hockey.


They lost Bogut and Section 6? Yeah, they damn well might. Too bad, that was a really cool experiment/deal.
 
2012-10-26 01:00:34 PM  

BiffDangler: Dear Seattle:

Your city didn't give a shiat about your team. You lost it. Stop whining already. Also, do yourselves a favor and stop dreaming about an expansion team that isn't going to happen.


This is so wrong that I don't even know where to start. We got hit with an ultimatum that we had to bend over and pull $500 million out of our asses for a palace of an arena, and didn't take the league's bullshiat. There are many thousands of people that were/are passionate Sonics fans, and the NBA would have a ridiculous amount of support upon its return. I just hope we get an expansion team instead of taking another city's team.
 
2012-10-26 01:02:42 PM  

MugzyBrown: No. At the start of any season in any sport if I gave you the 4 best teams against the field would you take it?

Link

Let's see, the start of the MLB season be Philly, NYY, Boston, & LA ... so I'd win

Link

NHL - Pitt, Vancouver, Boston, & Wash - Win again


Link

NFL last year - Philly, NE, Green Bay, & San Diego -- so I'm 3 for 3.


Who did you put money on at the start of those season?
 
2012-10-26 01:04:47 PM  
Who did you put money on at the start of those season?

How is that relevant at all to the criticism of the predictable nature of the NBA?
 
2012-10-26 01:12:21 PM  

BiffDangler: Dear Seattle:

Your city didn't give a shiat about your team. You lost it. Stop whining already. Also, do yourselves a favor and stop dreaming about an expansion team that isn't going to happen.


This is one of the dumber things I've read in a while.
 
2012-10-26 01:25:56 PM  

MugzyBrown: Who did you put money on at the start of those season?

How is that relevant at all to the criticism of the predictable nature of the NBA?


I thought that was the original question.

As I said above I don't find the predictable nature to be a bad thing. I enjoy it.
 
2012-10-26 01:29:25 PM  
As I said above I don't find the predictable nature to be a bad thing. I enjoy it.

Because you enjoy predictability does not make it less of a criticism.

I am not sure the value of an 82 game season and 4 rounds of playoffs if the end result is almost without doubt
 
2012-10-26 01:31:29 PM  

MugzyBrown: Because you enjoy predictability does not make it less of a criticism.


And because you enjoy randomness and overall mediocrity does not make it a more enjoyable product.
 
2012-10-26 01:32:14 PM  

The Bestest: JohnBigBootay: God knows I love Pittsburgh but they already had the The Pythons but couldn't hold onto them

.. approaching that rare "obscure on Fark" threshold


please explain...we're on the edge of our seats-
 
2012-10-26 01:32:37 PM  

MugzyBrown: As I said above I don't find the predictable nature to be a bad thing. I enjoy it.

Because you enjoy predictability does not make it less of a criticism.

I am not sure the value of an 82 game season and 4 rounds of playoffs if the end result is almost without doubt


I understand your criticism. As a NBA fan I hear it all the time. What is your realistic solution to the problem?
 
2012-10-26 01:33:14 PM  

Tanukis_Parachute: The Bestest: JohnBigBootay: God knows I love Pittsburgh but they already had the The Pythons but couldn't hold onto them

.. approaching that rare "obscure on Fark" threshold

please explain...we're on the edge of our seats-


one more time...hopefully with less hotlink fail..

a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
 
2012-10-26 01:37:05 PM  
And because you enjoy randomness and overall mediocrity does not make it a more enjoyable product.

There can be some "randomness" without mediocrity. It's not about randomness, it's about teams being able to improve themselves from year to year. In the NBA if you find yourself as a mid-seed, you're typically capped out and won't get anything in the draft, so you're stuck as a 2nd round loser for several years until you fall off the map again to start over.

What is your realistic solution to the problem?

Change the salary cap rules to allow teams to escape bad contracts easily.
 
2012-10-26 01:38:11 PM  

Gunny Highway: As a NBA fan I hear it all the time. What is your realistic solution to the problem?


Clearly you have to handicap it so that you can never have more than one superstar on any team. Then, because there are fewer than 30 of those, you have to let each team borrow one for 1/3 of the season. Then, when the playoffs begin, whichever teams qualified for the playoffs can bid for the right to use that superstar in the postseason.
 
2012-10-26 01:49:01 PM  

MugzyBrown: it's about teams being able to improve themselves from year to year


Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?

I mean, if you want to go back and look at why certain teams are what they are, feel free to go back and look at that Grantland column about the Warriors. They made what, 40 of probably the worst possible moves they could make throughout the years, and that's why they never seem to have a shot at a title. Allowing people out of bad contracts rewards inept front offices. There are often big contributors throughout the first round of the draft - good teams hit on them more often than not, bad teams don't. Good teams trade for guys that fit in and have a plan for what they want their team to be, bad teams don't.
 
2012-10-26 01:52:47 PM  
The NBA Postseason has been incredibly exciting. The NBA Regular season is what it has always been: An over-long seeding process for the 10 teams we know are going to be in the post-season.
 
2012-10-26 01:55:33 PM  

IAmRight: Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?


2-3 years?

In the past 10 years, the following teams have not had a legit chance of winning a title:

Toronto
NY
Philly
Indiana
Milwaukee
Atlanta
Washington
Charlotte
Minnesota
Utah
Denver
Portland
Golden State
Sacramento
LA Clippers
Houston
Memphis
New Orleans

Wow, there are a lot of bad front offices in the NBA

Plus teams that were kinda close, but really never had a chance

Brooklyn/NJ
Phoenix
Orlando
 
2012-10-26 01:56:28 PM  

Daniels: The NBA Postseason has been incredibly exciting. The NBA Regular season is what it has always been: An over-long seeding process for the 10 teams we know are going to be in the post-season.


It's not even that, it's just to determine who wins the 7 & 8 seeds to lose in the first round.
 
2012-10-26 02:08:11 PM  

IAmRight: MugzyBrown: it's about teams being able to improve themselves from year to year

Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?


This. There is nothing magical about San Antonio that makes it a perpetual contender - they're a well run franchise with an underrated (and aging) superstar. Dallas is only a perennial contender because they have an owner who makes it a priority. And as was noted upthread there have been a growning amount of contending teams by decade.

I mean, if you want to go back and look at why certain teams are what they are, feel free to go back and look at that Grantland column about the Warriors. They made what, 40 of probably the worst possible moves they could make throughout the years, and that's why they never seem to have a shot at a title. Allowing people out of bad contracts rewards inept front offices. There are often big contributors throughout the first round of the draft - good teams hit on them more often than not, bad teams don't. Good teams trade for guys that fit in and have a plan for what they want their team to be, bad teams don't.

That article was a great read. It really is decades of mismanagement, and I don't think the article even mentions paying Kwame Brown seven million dollars. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7714701/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy -steps
 
2012-10-26 02:10:54 PM  
I still cannot believe the closed minded people who actually believe Seattle didn't support the sonics, bennett bought the team, they sent most of the talent away, demanded a $500 arena and banned the players from talking to the media.

The guy ran the team right into the ground so he could move it, that was their plan from the start, and there are emails from the owners where they admit that.

So to the people who open your holes spouting ignorant bs about Seattle not supporting the sonics please think about what your saying and maybe do even the tinyest bit of research before you open your mouth spewing that garbage. Because you really don't know what your talking about and it makes you look like a fool.
 
Slu
2012-10-26 02:12:16 PM  

IAmRight: Slu: It has been like this for 30 years.

It has been like this ever since the sport was created. Oh, the best teams actually WIN more often in basketball. BORING.

Let's change the entire game to a coin flip before each game, and whoever wins the coin flip wins the game. And then we'll do just a 32-team tournament of that instead of a season. Then EVERYONE has a chance to win! YAYYYY


Hey, I agree. I like the NBA. I don't like the notion that "competitive balance" in the NBA is any different now than it ever was. Especially in a game like basketball where one player can make a huge difference.

And this just in, people who are at the top of their profession and can choose where they work, choose cities that have a broad appeal. Film at 11.
 
2012-10-26 02:16:14 PM  
"one final 'fark you'?" More like 14 more months of it, subby.
 
Slu
2012-10-26 02:20:56 PM  

MugzyBrown: IAmRight: Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?

2-3 years?

In the past 10 years, the following teams have not had a legit chance of winning a title:

Toronto
NY
Philly
Indiana
Milwaukee
Atlanta
Washington
Charlotte
Minnesota
Utah
Denver
Portland
Golden State
Sacramento
LA Clippers
Houston
Memphis
New Orleans

Wow, there are a lot of bad front offices in the NBA

Plus teams that were kinda close, but really never had a chance

Brooklyn/NJ
Phoenix
Orlando


I know you said 10 years, but Philly was in the finals in 2001. And both the Nets and Orlando have been in the finals in the last 10 years. I'd call those "shots" at winning. But for the most part you are right. But I would argue that it doesn't matter. At least to me. I still find the games entertaining.
 
2012-10-26 02:23:31 PM  

Willas Tyrell: IAmRight: MugzyBrown: it's about teams being able to improve themselves from year to year

Teams can improve themselves from year to year pretty easily, provided that they have competent front offices. Did Miami not just recently turn from also-rans into perennial favorites? Did the Lakers not just make that jump themselves again this offseason? The cycle, more often, takes 2-3 years to get through, but why is that so terrible?

This. There is nothing magical about San Antonio that makes it a perpetual contender - they're a well run franchise with an underrated (and aging) superstar. Dallas is only a perennial contender because they have an owner who makes it a priority. And as was noted upthread there have been a growning amount of contending teams by decade.

I mean, if you want to go back and look at why certain teams are what they are, feel free to go back and look at that Grantland column about the Warriors. They made what, 40 of probably the worst possible moves they could make throughout the years, and that's why they never seem to have a shot at a title. Allowing people out of bad contracts rewards inept front offices. There are often big contributors throughout the first round of the draft - good teams hit on them more often than not, bad teams don't. Good teams trade for guys that fit in and have a plan for what they want their team to be, bad teams don't.

That article was a great read. It really is decades of mismanagement, and I don't think the article even mentions paying Kwame Brown seven million dollars. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7714701/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy -steps


Meh. Not that it was a good move, but there are far worse things that taking a one-year flier on a guy. Doesn't compare to most of the things in that article.
 
2012-10-26 02:32:58 PM  

Slu: I know you said 10 years, but Philly was in the finals in 2001. And both the Nets and Orlando have been in the finals in the last 10 years. I'd call those "shots" at winning. But for the most part you are right. But I would argue that it doesn't matter. At least to me. I still find the games entertaining.


And Memphis has lost 4-3 in each season in the playoffs, once after upsetting the Spurs. In one of those series (2011), they lost a 3OT game which means it's possible that they win the series if they hit one more bucket at any point in regulation, OT1, or OT2. Hardly "no chance". And last year in the series against the Clippers they lost two games by one point each and an OT game.

/the 10 years is specifically chosen since a few teams would be off that list if we included a couple more years
//most of the other teams, yeah, inept management

Slu: And this just in, people who are at the top of their profession and can choose where they work, choose cities that have a broad appeal. Film at 11.


Also, players, who are fully aware that their entire careers will be defined by championships or lack thereof, will go to teams that provide them a good chance of winning one.
 
2012-10-26 02:37:35 PM  
I just find it funny how the most consistent "valid criticism" of the NBA (i.e. not "too black" or "all the players are tall") is that "You already know what's going to happen, and it's not like the NFL, where every team can win, unlike basketball, where my team isn't going to be able to compete for two years." It just confirms what I'm now beginning to believe about American sports, that fans have become more interested in the act and chance of seeing their team win, rather than actually enjoying the sport itself. (I'm sure that having ESPN as an overbearing megaphone for all sports journalism has something to do with this, I just haven't been able to figure out how they do it.) That's why football is running away with the title of "most popular sport in the country", why the NCAA tournament maintains its popularity in spite of the dreadful (and decreasing) level of play, and why mixed martial arts is replacing boxing, where you have more possible options beyond "flash knockout", now expanded to "fighter winning in a completely unexpected way". (Oh, and I'm aware that the ability to easily place money on these sports no doubt fuels the fire.) It's the only reason that anyone would support instant replay, because if you're actually interested in the act of enjoying the aesthetic pleasures of your favorite sport, there is absolutely no reason that you want replay time-outs bogging down the game.

Oh, and for those of you complaining that the NBA doesn't have enough parity, the period from 1977-1979 (the period leading directly out of the ABA merger) was the epitome of parity in the sport. In 1977, only one of the 22 teams lost fewer than thirty games and the Lakers got the top seed with 53 wins. In 1978, the 44-win Washington Bullets won the title. In 1979, 11 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs were separated by nine games. And you know what? As it's been determined through the popular narrative of the sport, this period is considered the nadir of the NBA, where Kermit Washington punched a white guy and scared the shiat out of white America by doing so. And then the NBA attained its highest status through a series of dynasties and second-tier doormats, where the Los Angeles Lakers of the 80s played nearly .800 ball through the Western Conference playoffs and the Chicago Bulls won 72 games in a year where a starting lineup of Terrell Brandon, Chris Mills, Danny Ferry, Bobby Phills, and a thirty-four-year-old Michael Cage won 47. But you didn't have a national media outlet to show highlights of every game, and if you got an NBA game on Sunday afternoon, it would either feature the Celtics or the Lakers, so you didn't have to pay attention to all those lousy teams. So let's not act like the casual fan has ever wanted parity. They've just been spoiled by the NFL's marketing campaign to transform mediocrity into "OMFG ANYONE CAN WINNNNNN". Because at the end of the day, superteams beating the shiat out of superteams gives you the best level of play possible, and if you're actually a fan of a sport (and not a fan of watching your team win), that's what you want.
 
2012-10-26 02:40:19 PM  
Memphis, Minnesota, Sacramento, and Portland haven't been legit title contenders in the last 10-12 years?
 
2012-10-26 02:40:58 PM  
At some point in the last 10-12 years rather.
 
2012-10-26 02:44:04 PM  

IAmRight: I know you said 10 years, but Philly was in the finals in 2001. And both the Nets and Orlando have been in the finals in the last 10 years. I'd call those "shots" at winning. But for the most part you are right. But I would argue that it doesn't matter. At least to me. I still find the games entertaining.

And Memphis has lost 4-3 in each season in the playoffs, once after upsetting the Spurs. In one of those series (2011), they lost a 3OT game which means it's possible that they win the series if they hit one more bucket at any point in regulation, OT1, or OT2. Hardly "no chance". And last year in the series against the Clippers they lost two games by one point each and an OT game.

/the 10 years is specifically chosen since a few teams would be off that list if we included a couple more years
//most of the other teams, yeah, inept management


Just because a team makes it to the finals from a weak conference means they had a chance.

In the Early '00s the East was awful, so it didn't matter which team made it out, they would be big underdogs to the team who came out of the West.

The Nets and 6ers didn't combine to have enough wins to win the title in the 3 years they reached the finals

And Memphis? They didn't reach the conference finals.
 
2012-10-26 02:44:18 PM  

IAmRight: Also, players, who are fully aware that their entire careers will be defined by championships or lack thereof, will go to teams that provide them a good chance of winning one.


This so much. Anyone who is well-versed in basketball will tell you that LeBron James is a better player than Kobe Bryant ever was. But since Kobe has RINGZZZZZ, you have casual fans telling you that Kobe is better, regardless of what Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, and half of the media says. (The smart part of the media, of course. Not idiots like Chris Palmer who think Kobe will pass Jordan if he wins another title this year.)
 
2012-10-26 02:56:59 PM  

gtfan92: IAmRight: Also, players, who are fully aware that their entire careers will be defined by championships or lack thereof, will go to teams that provide them a good chance of winning one.

This so much. Anyone who is well-versed in basketball will tell you that LeBron James is a better player than Kobe Bryant ever was. But since Kobe has RINGZZZZZ, you have casual fans telling you that Kobe is better, regardless of what Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, and half of the media says. (The smart part of the media, of course. Not idiots like Chris Palmer who think Kobe will pass Jordan if he wins another title this year.)


I'm a Kobe fan but I'll admit that LeBron has more physical abilities than Kobe. But the difference that I see (and I know I'm bias here) is the will to win which LeBron has not always shown.

I don't like to get into debates about who's the greatest player ever in any sport because in my opinion when you get to the top 5-10 players it's a matter of style preference over anything else since most players have ring(s) and individual awards. Personally I prefer watching Magic control the flow of a game over Jordan's style or Bird's amazing shooting so I tend to maybe overvalue Magic.

sidenote but I also believe that if Shaq had the motivation of Kobe or Jordan he would have been the most dominant players to ever play the game no questions asked.
 
2012-10-26 02:57:19 PM  

MugzyBrown: Just because a team makes it to the finals from a weak conference means they had a chance.


They never had a chance, unless they won, in which case it was to be expected that they won. Such is the mindset of history revisionists. I would say that yes, the Lakers were heavy favorites, but having a 30% chance to win a title is pretty goddamn good, especially if you were to have those odds from the beginning of the year.

MugzyBrown: And Memphis? They didn't reach the conference finals.


So? Sometimes the biggest challenge for a championship team takes place before the conference finals.

I mean, if you're going to say that teams that were within one basket of potentially winning a series and having a good shot at beating the next team "had no chance" and tell everyone that Finals teams "had no chance" to win a title, then I don't see why you bother watching anything. I mean, I guess everyone in the AFC outside of New England, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh should stop watching football, because their teams have no chance to win a title.
 
2012-10-26 02:59:19 PM  

Gunny Highway: The Blazers, Pacers, Kings, Sonics all had really strong teams. Did they win titles? No.



The Sonics won a title back in 1979.
 
2012-10-26 03:00:08 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I just find it funny how the most consistent "valid criticism" of the NBA (i.e. not "too black" or "all the players are tall") is that "You already know what's going to happen, and it's not like the NFL, where every team can win, unlike basketball, where my team isn't going to be able to compete for two years." It just confirms what I'm now beginning to believe about American sports, that fans have become more interested in the act and chance of seeing their team win, rather than actually enjoying the sport itself. (I'm sure that having ESPN as an overbearing megaphone for all sports journalism has something to do with this, I just haven't been able to figure out how they do it.) That's why football is running away with the title of "most popular sport in the country", why the NCAA tournament maintains its popularity in spite of the dreadful (and decreasing) level of play, and why mixed martial arts is replacing boxing, where you have more possible options beyond "flash knockout", now expanded to "fighter winning in a completely unexpected way". (Oh, and I'm aware that the ability to easily place money on these sports no doubt fuels the fire.) It's the only reason that anyone would support instant replay, because if you're actually interested in the act of enjoying the aesthetic pleasures of your favorite sport, there is absolutely no reason that you want replay time-outs bogging down the game.

Oh, and for those of you complaining that the NBA doesn't have enough parity, the period from 1977-1979 (the period leading directly out of the ABA merger) was the epitome of parity in the sport. In 1977, only one of the 22 teams lost fewer than thirty games and the Lakers got the top seed with 53 wins. In 1978, the 44-win Washington Bullets won the title. In 1979, 11 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs were separated by nine games. And you know what? As it's been determined through the popular narrative of the sport, this period is considered the nadir of the N ...


Holy shiat, factual, relevant, not funny... someone hacked your account?

/ has you farkied as "Pocket Ninja Lite"
 
2012-10-26 03:00:24 PM  
God I wish Stern had died on 9/11.
 
2012-10-26 03:03:17 PM  

MugzyBrown: they had a chance.


Please define "a chance," because it's beginning to seem like you have to have an over 50% chance of winning the title to be considered as having had a chance. Which is impossible for more than one team to have.
 
2012-10-26 03:03:36 PM  

The_Sponge: Gunny Highway: The Blazers, Pacers, Kings, Sonics all had really strong teams. Did they win titles? No.


The Sonics won a title back in 1979.


True but they were a 1 seed and in my mind that makes you a legit title contender.

/Joe Hassett was a coach of mine growing up
//Sonar
 
2012-10-26 03:05:51 PM  

LL316: All of the sympathy I had for Sonics fans would get tossed out the window if they readily embrassed another fan base's hijacked team. The King's, which is the team I've read about most being relocated, have a very passionate fan base just so long as the team doesn't suck (which holds true with every fan base). Don't be hypocrites, Seattle.



The situations aren't the same.

Clay Bennett (Stern's lemon party buddy) kept putting out a bullshiat story about how he wanted to keep a team in Seattle.
 
Slu
2012-10-26 03:05:53 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I just find it funny how the most consistent "valid criticism" of the NBA (i.e. not "too black" or "all the players are tall") is that "You already know what's going to happen, and it's not like the NFL, where every team can win, unlike basketball, where my team isn't going to be able to compete for two years." It just confirms what I'm now beginning to believe about American sports, that fans have become more interested in the act and chance of seeing their team win, rather than actually enjoying the sport itself. (I'm sure that having ESPN as an overbearing megaphone for all sports journalism has something to do with this, I just haven't been able to figure out how they do it.) That's why football is running away with the title of "most popular sport in the country", why the NCAA tournament maintains its popularity in spite of the dreadful (and decreasing) level of play, and why mixed martial arts is replacing boxing, where you have more possible options beyond "flash knockout", now expanded to "fighter winning in a completely unexpected way". (Oh, and I'm aware that the ability to easily place money on these sports no doubt fuels the fire.) It's the only reason that anyone would support instant replay, because if you're actually interested in the act of enjoying the aesthetic pleasures of your favorite sport, there is absolutely no reason that you want replay time-outs bogging down the game.

Oh, and for those of you complaining that the NBA doesn't have enough parity, the period from 1977-1979 (the period leading directly out of the ABA merger) was the epitome of parity in the sport. In 1977, only one of the 22 teams lost fewer than thirty games and the Lakers got the top seed with 53 wins. In 1978, the 44-win Washington Bullets won the title. In 1979, 11 of the 12 teams that made the playoffs were separated by nine games. And you know what? As it's been determined through the popular narrative of the sport, this period is considered the nadir of the NBA, where Kermit Washington punched a white guy and scared the shiat out of white America by doing so. And then the NBA attained its highest status through a series of dynasties and second-tier doormats, where the Los Angeles Lakers of the 80s played nearly .800 ball through the Western Conference playoffs and the Chicago Bulls won 72 games in a year where a starting lineup of Terrell Brandon, Chris Mills, Danny Ferry, Bobby Phills, and a thirty-four-year-old Michael Cage won 47. But you didn't have a national media outlet to show highlights of every game, and if you got an NBA game on Sunday afternoon, it would either feature the Celtics or the Lakers, so you didn't have to pay attention to all those lousy teams. So let's not act like the casual fan has ever wanted parity. They've just been spoiled by the NFL's marketing campaign to transform mediocrity into "OMFG ANYONE CAN WINNNNNN". Because at the end of the day, superteams beating the shiat out of superteams gives you the best level of play possible, and if you're actually a fan of a sport (and not a fan of watching your team win), that's what you want.


This is a great post. Could not agree more.

The other stupid NBA criticism is "no defense". Whenever I hear anyone say that, I immediately stop listening because they obviously know nothing about basketball.

The fact is that the NBA is doing great. Right now there are some amazing players doing amazing things and the game is as entertaining as ever. If one doesn't like the sport fine, but saying it used to be better makes one look like an old man yelling at clouds. And I started watching basketball in the mid-80s, so I remember the Jordan/Bird/Magic era well.
 
2012-10-26 03:12:08 PM  

Slu: The other stupid NBA criticism is "no defense". Whenever I hear anyone say that, I immediately stop listening because they obviously know nothing about basketball.

The fact is that the NBA is doing great. Right now there are some amazing players doing amazing things and the game is as entertaining as ever. If one doesn't like the sport fine, but saying it used to be better makes one look like an old man yelling at clouds. And I started watching basketball in the mid-80s, so I remember the Jordan/Bird/Magic era well.


This.
 
2012-10-26 03:12:12 PM  

ddam: But the difference that I see (and I know I'm bias here) is the will to win which LeBron has not always shown.


Ah yes, because that always works so well.
 
2012-10-26 03:17:28 PM  

gtfan92: ddam: But the difference that I see (and I know I'm bias here) is the will to win which LeBron has not always shown.

Ah yes, because that always works so well.


The pre-Miami Heat LBJ would've passed to a wide open Fisher (who was wide open for a reason, as Charles Barkley would say). Then, during the loser's portion of the press conference, when asked about why he didn't take the potential game-winner, he would've talked about how he was playing within the offense and how much he trusted his teammates.

Anyway, it's a moot point now because he's tasted the champagne and wants more. The sleeping dog finally woke up and I do not think we'll hear that "lacks the will to win" talk anymore.
 
2012-10-26 03:21:51 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: The pre-Miami Heat LBJ would've passed


In LeBron's last season in Cleveland, no player in the league took as many shots as he did in the final two minutes of the game. It's not even close, really.

But please, continue to meme away.
 
2012-10-26 03:26:18 PM  

IAmRight: They never had a chance, unless they won, in which case it was to be expected that they won. Such is the mindset of history revisionists. I would say that yes, the Lakers were heavy favorites, but having a 30% chance to win a title is pretty goddamn good, especially if you were to have those odds from the beginning of the year.


30% is pretty good, but the Nets and 6ers had about a 1% chance of upsetting the Lakers. They were totally outclassed.

IAmRight: I guess everyone in the AFC outside of New England, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh should stop watching football, because their teams have no chance to win a title.


Except for the fact the the Giants did beat the Patriots and the Saints did beat the Colts. Upsets actually happen in the other sports leagues, unlike the NBA when the favorites headed into the season are usually the teams who end up in the finals.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report