|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 14, 2018 7:10:40 GMT -5
The NBA has always had a lack of parity tho OK, but why? Wilt Chamberlain Bill Parish Kareem Abdul Jabbar Magic Johnson Michael Jordan Kobe Bryant Lebron James Steph Curry There are 5 people on an NBA court at a time. Most of the players are very, very good, but there are a few that are head and shoulders above the others. The superstars have historically been able to elevate whatever team they're on to being a contender. Naturally, those superstars will pick up a second superstar, either in the draft or free agency, that will make them a title team. Because there are only 5 players on the court at a time, it's harder to unseat a champion in the NBA then it is in any other sport, because the superstar needs fewer good pieces around them. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Nov 14, 2018 14:15:09 GMT -5
There's a lack of parity in the NBA because unlike the other sports, one generational player can make the difference between a perennial championship contender and basement dwellers. It's just the nature of the game. The only other player that comes close to that is the American Football QB and even then the best QB's are reliant on good skill players and a solid offensive line so he even gets a chance to throw.
Look at how successful the Cavs were with LeBron versus how awful they are without him.
|
|
MolotovMocktail
Grimlock
Home of the 5-time, 5-time, 5-time, 5-time 5-time Super Bowl Champion 49ers-and Wrestlemania 31
Posts: 13,954
|
Post by MolotovMocktail on Dec 1, 2018 0:14:00 GMT -5
In a word: Ownership. Good teams have owners who are engaged and look to be competitive. Bad teams have owners who are disinterested, cheap, and micro-manage.
The Warriors are a classic case study. We are a powerhouse now, but were a laughingstock for nearly 20 years, all down to Chris Cohan. He was a notorious penny-pincher, ended up suing anyone he felt wronged him, had the worst basketball minds imaginable (we wanted to make sure our top draft pick was a "good citizen", so we pass on Kobe and draft Todd Fuller), and let talented players he did have slip through his fingers time and again (Gilbert Arenas, Jason Richardson, Baron Davis), largely because he had to pay out obscene contracts on mediocre players (Erick Dampier). Then Joe Lacob buys the team, and voila, 3 championships and should have won a fourth.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 1, 2018 2:19:20 GMT -5
In a word: Ownership. Good teams have owners who are engaged and look to be competitive. Bad teams have owners who are disinterested, cheap, and micro-manage. The Warriors are a classic case study. We are a powerhouse now, but were a laughingstock for nearly 20 years, all down to Chris Cohan. He was a notorious penny-pincher, ended up suing anyone he felt wronged him, had the worst basketball minds imaginable (we wanted to make sure our top draft pick was a "good citizen", so we pass on Kobe and draft Todd Fuller), and let talented players he did have slip through his fingers time and again (Gilbert Arenas, Jason Richardson, Baron Davis), largely because he had to pay out obscene contracts on mediocre players (Erick Dampier). Then Joe Lacob buys the team, and voila, 3 championships and should have won a fourth. I disagree. The ownership has very little to do with it. I mean, how bad has Dan Gilbert been without LeBron, meanwhile with him they owned an entire conference. You need a superstar player, you need decent drafting and coaching. And then people will want to come to your city, no matter if it is getting Kevin Love to come to Cleveland, Durant or Boogie to GS, or Paul George to OKC. Things have to break right first, scouting and drafting and development. And THEN the spending comes into play. Owners are just putting good money after good money because they see the growth potential. If you have ownership willing to spend and no superstar and poor coaching, you're going nowhere. The Lakers are willing to spend right now, but they're going to languish in mediocrity unless they develop a well-rounded team. Unless of course a superstar like Durant goes there. Because the stars rule the league. While it is very difficult to overcome poor ownership like the Clippers, it is relatively easy to put money into the machine when you're one of the leagues haves as opposed to the numerous have nots. Of course it is easier said than done, but it takes much less to become a good owner than it does to become a great player, great coach, great scouting team. And it has a much greater impact when you have a great coach like Pop or Stevens or a superstar like Giannis or loaded with young talent like Philly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 9:59:39 GMT -5
The '70s was the one decade where it was wide open because either:
1) (Most of) your potential game-changers started signing with the ABA (the "Hardship Case" where the ABA allowed -were forced to by the courts - signing of players before completing their Senior year), or,
2) After the 75-76 season, the ABA had 4 teams absorbed into the NBA (it wasn't a merger, it was "expansion") and the rest of the players all came in at once. There was a separate draft for former ABA players. (Using "ABA logic", the Chicago Bulls - a Western conference finalist the previous season - got the first pick because they were willing to pay top dollar for Kentucky Colonels center Artis Gilmore. Then it was in order of worst to best; some teams passing because they weren't interested.)
In '75, the playoffs expanded from 8 to 10 teams, top 2 teams received a bye.
In '77, the playoffs expanded to 12. Top 4 teams received a bye. (1983 was the last year teams got a bye in the playoffs. In 1984, they expanded to 16.)
|
|
