Author Topic: NBA thread (2010-2011)  (Read 3925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #75: December 23, 2010, 10:58:02 PM »
In other news, LeBron James is an idiot.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #76: December 24, 2010, 12:32:45 PM »
In other news, LeBron James is an idiot.


I was gonna post this.

He's such a freaking idiot. Yeah, Lebron, you're on one of the best teams with 2 other superstars. Of course you're gonna say there should be a contraction. Go Eff yourself!!

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15120
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #77: December 24, 2010, 03:26:34 PM »
He does have a point. At the start of the season, the majority of teams have no shot. Unless you are a celtics or lakers fan, you team doesn't have a winning tradition aside from blips associated with individual player's careers. The NBA actually makes baseball look like a league based on parity and that's hard to do

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 26780
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #78: December 24, 2010, 06:07:00 PM »
He does have a point. At the start of the season, the majority of teams have no shot. Unless you are a celtics or lakers fan, you team doesn't have a winning tradition aside from blips associated with individual player's careers. The NBA actually makes baseball look like a league based on parity and that's hard to do

Agree ... When Andre Blatche starts, you got issues.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #79: December 24, 2010, 06:21:31 PM »
Yeah, but that could be the teams/owners problems. Not saying it is for us, but a lot of teams may not dish out the money. Think about it. Everyone had a legit option at LeBron, Wade, etc... but it seems that since all these talks of the Heat having the money to do it, they would go there. It's not the NBA's fault. I blame it on some of the teams. I mean crap, the Kings were a pretty damn good team in the early 2000's. Then they just fell off. I think we could've had a great team if we shelled out an enormous contract for LeBron or something. I'm not bringing LAC into this, I'm just saying teams have some of the blame. I think 30 teams is fine. Why downgrade. It ruins some of the diversity, IMO. I really don't know what I'm trying to get here anymore.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15120
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #80: December 24, 2010, 08:55:19 PM »
Other teams offered lebron a max deal, it's nit the money, it the necessity of having a level of player to compete, and the scarcity of those players

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #81: December 24, 2010, 09:05:55 PM »
He does have a point. At the start of the season, the majority of teams have no shot. Unless you are a celtics or lakers fan, you team doesn't have a winning tradition aside from blips associated with individual player's careers. The NBA actually makes baseball look like a league based on parity and that's hard to do

There are reasons for contraction, but LeBron's reasons are not valid. He basically wants 10 super-teams in the league. The point of sports teams are that they're for the fans... not to mention that super teams are usually cyclical. A team like the Pistons that was dominant in the 80s is pretty miserable right now. Bad teams will become good teams - that's the way this works. Pro sports aren't capitalist, and they're not meant to be.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15120
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #82: December 24, 2010, 09:10:35 PM »
How many NBA teams have ever been 'super'? Certainly less than a third. For all the talk of cyclical, the celtics and lakers tend to be super teams pretty frequently

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #83: December 25, 2010, 03:36:10 AM »
Oh right. I forgot there is max contracts. Doh! :doh:

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #84: December 25, 2010, 01:54:01 PM »
How many NBA teams have ever been 'super'? Certainly less than a third. For all the talk of cyclical, the celtics and lakers tend to be super teams pretty frequently

Are you forgetting that the Celtics were crap for 15 years? They've got a small run here, but they'll go back to the middle of the pack after the Big 3 retire. Let's see... not super per se, but the Rockets and Bulls classified as such in the 90s. Before, the Celtics and Lakers were dynasties because there was no cap and stuff.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15120
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #85: December 25, 2010, 02:44:45 PM »
So, one or two per decade with another team maybe making a run? That leaves the majority of teams with no shot, contract and concentrate the talent and basketball might be more competitive

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #86: December 25, 2010, 03:06:09 PM »
c'mon magic.  freak boston.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #87: December 25, 2010, 08:15:24 PM »
So, one or two per decade with another team maybe making a run? That leaves the majority of teams with no shot, contract and concentrate the talent and basketball might be more competitive

You don't have to be a superteam to have a shot at winning. For example, I wouldn't classify the Spurs as a super team, they've won quite a few. Heat won in 06. Pistons in 04. Stuff like that.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15120
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #88: December 25, 2010, 09:09:01 PM »
You don't have to be a superteam to have a shot at winning. For example, I wouldn't classify the Spurs as a super team, they've won quite a few. Heat won in 06. Pistons in 04. Stuff like that.

really, I would say 4 championships between 1999 and 2007 would make them a super team. I would call them the team of the 2000s along with the lakers. In the MLB you can have a team get hot and win it all, most people would say the giants weren't the best team in baseball last year, but they won. The same goes for the NFL where an undefeated patriots team can loose the super bowl. In basketball, the best team almost always wins the championship and the result is a very predictable season. It's fine if you live in a city with a team that can win, but realistically, that's less than five per year.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #89: December 25, 2010, 09:44:06 PM »
You're defining superteam as a top team though, there's a difference. LeBron's idea is to have 12 versions of the Heat. Just because a team is really good doesn't make them a super team.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15120
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #90: December 25, 2010, 09:49:49 PM »
Maybe it's a different issue, my problem with the NBA is that I have no hope my team has a shot, and the same goes for fans in 20+ cities every year

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #91: December 26, 2010, 10:45:07 AM »
Well that also deals with the playoffs - they're so long, that talent wins out. In the NFL, the Giants can beat the Patriots once, but the Patriots would beat the Giants 4/5 times. With so many 7 game series, a team can afford to get behind.

Online PC

  • Posts: 41023
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #92: January 06, 2011, 10:43:34 PM »
DeShawn Stevenson is starting for the Mavericks???!!! :shock:

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #93: January 13, 2011, 03:49:48 AM »
Blake Griffin and the Clippers just beat the Heat.  Why couldn't we have gotten the number one pick one year earlier :(

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 26780
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #94: January 30, 2011, 03:11:32 PM »
Surfing through the channels and came across the 1977 All Star game on the NBA Channel ...    Damn, what line-ups.

www.basketball-reference.com/allstar/NBA_1977.html

Offline EdStroud

  • Posts: 8758
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #95: January 30, 2011, 04:11:28 PM »
Surfing through the channels and came across the 1977 All Star game on the NBA Channel ...    Damn, what line-ups.

www.basketball-reference.com/allstar/NBA_1977.html

10 of the 24 players played in the ABA at one time

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #96: February 04, 2011, 09:17:31 AM »
Did anyone catch LeBron's game last night?  Jesus...

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28210
  • Hell yes!
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #97: February 05, 2011, 09:57:10 PM »
Surfing through the channels and came across the 1977 All Star game on the NBA Channel ...    Damn, what line-ups.

www.basketball-reference.com/allstar/NBA_1977.html

Elvin Hayes gets fewest minutes of any player in the East  :? but still is 3rd leading scorer with 12 points in 11 minutes. 

No respect for the guy who led Houston to one (and, the most important one) of UCLA's only two   :shock: losses during Alcindor's tenure there. 

Online PC

  • Posts: 41023
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #98: February 05, 2011, 10:09:10 PM »
Cavaliers set record for most consecutive losses, 24.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: NBA thread (2010-2011)
« Reply #99: February 09, 2011, 12:01:42 AM »
People have probably already seen this but talks between the Lakers and Nuggets have sparked. A trade would be revolved around Andrew Bynum.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/news/story?id=6101304&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Can you say amazing? Who would you take?

Wade, Lebron, Bosh
Kobe, Carmelo, Gasol


TBH, I'd take Lakers.