2013-2014 NBA Thread - IND @ WAS and OKC @ LAC on ESPN

Status
Not open for further replies.
They remind of of the Hurache 2k4s. Not bad.

I wouldnt want to see contraction, but rather I want teams to move. I know that not every team can be good, but there are some cities that dont even support the team that could easily be somewhere else.

The super teams thing has never been an issue with me. 
 
Let's contract the league... it's too watered down.

Five minutes later...

Too much talent on one team is ruining the NBA.. down with super teams.



That's basically what I'm hearing, right?

It's almost 2014, I'm not having the "super teams are ruining the NBA" argument again. I'm not a hypocrite, if the Knicks landed Lebron and co. rather than Miami, I (and 99% of Knicks fans) wouldn't cry. If/when the Lakers reload, if/when the Celtics, your team, his team, whoever... no one would complain about it if they were so fortunate.

And please.. no one (other than OKB) on here was excited about Bosh and the Raps in the playoffs :lol:

I wouldn't be complaining either if it was the Knicks who landed Bron and co. I'm wasn't trying to get into the super team argument either. "LeBrons fault was a joke".

But come on BigJ. The rest of the league is watered down. You have to be a fool to think otherwise. LeBron said it himself, I'm sure he's smart enough to judge talent in the NBA. Parity in the NBA doesn't exist, it's the thing that holds the league back from higher ratings. Every year you know which teams are making the finals. This year the Eastern conference looks like a complete joke. Why is that?

Talent is watered down. If you can't admit that I don't know what to tell you.
 
The lack of parity in the NBA is a good and a bad thing. The fact that you know which teams are going to be good and which teams arent 80 percent of the time allows them to get primetime games right all the time, but at the same time it just makes watching certain teams a bore for some people and leads to people devaluing the regular season because they feel it serves little purpose. 

I cant even say that the league would benefit from partiy ratings wise, you still have to cater to the large market cities. Memphis was a force and to an extent still is, and they rarely got primetime games, the Spurs rarely get primetime games and they have been one of the best teams in the league for more than a decade. The Knicks on the other hand will get primetime games regardless of whether or not they are good or bad.

I am fine with the way things are, the lack of parity doesnt stop certain teams from playing an entertaining brand of basketball, the Kings just took the Thunder down to the wire in a great game.
 
Last edited:
Brian Shaw is 11-6.

I'm happy for Shaw, but as currently constructed, I don't see the Nuggets going any farther in the playoffs under Karl. They're still too perimeter oriented and dependent on a fast pace. (Yes, I am aware people can say the same thing about the Clippers).
 
But come on BigJ. The rest of the league is watered down. You have to be a fool to think otherwise. LeBron said it himself, I'm sure he's smart enough to judge talent in the NBA. Parity in the NBA doesn't exist, it's the thing that holds the league back from higher ratings.

The league reached it's peak popularity when one team was winning 6 rings in 8 years, though.
 
Last edited:
 D-league and college players who are on the fringe of making the league we need more of Don Ramon? Are you kidding? Give them more opportunity? Those dudes are a dime a dozen, you can find them anywhere, they aren't difference makers.
you can't say that every player on every team in the (major) league deserves to be there just as every player in the development league deserves to be stuck there either. whether because of politics, being overlooked or some other reason(s) there are lots of truly talented players who haven't gotten the proper chance/opportunities to exploit their talents in the major league

tons of old farts in the league doing not much of anything, but just taking up spots man
 
True, but still Lebron never played with nearly the same level of talent that dirks had over his career.


Dirks title team had a defensive player of the year type player. Also had a very capable quarterback in Kidd. A very battle tested Marion and hungry guys like brewer and barrea lookin for contracts
Dirk's title team was probably better than any LeBron team, but they were still not a championship level team based on talent, especially in today's era.  When you are talking about KIdd, Brewer, and Barea as positives in the first sentence that speaks volumes.

However, Dirk's 70 win team and most of the post-Nash era teams were just as bad as LeBron's contending Cleveland squads.  And they played in the West.  Josh Howard, Marquise Daniels, near-retirement Jerry Stackhouse, were the guys he was "relying" on.
On the surface, the 2011 Mavs didn't appear to be championship material but diving into the stats, they were really good (top eight in both offensive and defensive rating, joining only the Heat and Lakers that season). They just didn't appear that way at first because of the choking narrative surrounding the franchise and Dirk was hurt for a portion of the year.

More than anything I think the championship told me how great of a coach Carlise was/is.
 
The league reached it's peak popularity when one team was winning 6 rings in 8 years, though.

Right. What's your point?

It's always been a star-driven league with not enough star power to go around. But now it's gotten even worse since then.

That does nothing but fuel my argument.
 
The lack of parity in the NBA is a good and a bad thing. The fact that you know which teams are going to be good and which teams arent 80 percent of the time allows them to get primetime games right all the time, but at the same time it just makes watching certain teams a bore for some people and leads to people devaluing the regular season because they feel it serves little purpose. 

I cant even say that the league would benefit from partiy ratings wise, you still have to cater to the large market cities. Memphis was a force and to an extent still is, and they rarely got primetime games, the Spurs rarely get primetime games and they have been one of the best teams in the league for more than a decade. The Knicks on the other hand will get primetime games regardless of whether or not they are good or bad.I am fine with the way things are, the lack of parity doesnt stop certain teams from playing an entertaining brand of basketball, the Kings just took the Thunder down to the wire in a great game.


The Spurs have their share of primetime games, which I'm happy about

And in what world did you see the Knick games be televised during the Herb Williams era :lol:

We didn't get our share of primetime til Amare hopped on board
 
You said this:
When there was absolutely ZERO parity when the league was most popular.

Yea but I'm talking about potentially having higher ratings than when Jordan was playing.

I'm talking about entering the ratings world of football, or at least college football.
 
holy **** this escalator fire at the spurs timberwolves in mexico. venue totally evacuated 
roll.gif


si se puede si se puede
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom