NBA Finals 2017: Warriors vs Cavs

[Indy]

Warriors in 6.

Story after game 2 about LeBron wanting more from Kevin Love.

Story in the offseason about Irving being frustrated about his lack of touches in the Finals.

That being said, this is probably the least interested I have been in the finals in several years. I don't find a lot of joy in watching the same 2 teams go at it a 3rd time in a row. Wish the NBA could try to create more parity.

Without screwing the players by getting rid of guaranteed contracts, I think the best way they could do that would be to make it easier for marquee players to switch teams often, and heavily punish teams for having too many marquee players (but not financially since NY/LA types can always pay more taxes/fines). Maybe if they did a much higher revenue share between teams, too?

Its an interesting idea, but wouldn't making it easier for marquee players to switch teams lead to more stars trying to create superteams?

Not if you make it hard for teams to have more than 1. If you don't allow players to move freely, and encourage each team to be basically just as good as the rest, you won't have parity.

[Nodack]

Everybody expected the Cavs and the Warriors to be in the finals a long time ago. Now three years in a row. If you are a Cavs/Warriors fan it's great. If you are a fan of any other team you are sick of them.

Parody in the NBA? Nope. All we can do is to hope one day we make the playoffs and get beat by some stacked team. What fun.

[Superbone]

Parody in the NBA? Nope.

Have you not seen Game of Zones? Now parity on the other hand, I agree with you.

[Indy]

Parody in the NBA? Nope.

Have you not seen Game of Zones? Now parity on the other hand, I agree with you.

8/10

[O_Gardino]

Warriors in 6.

Story after game 2 about LeBron wanting more from Kevin Love.

Story in the offseason about Irving being frustrated about his lack of touches in the Finals.

That being said, this is probably the least interested I have been in the finals in several years. I don't find a lot of joy in watching the same 2 teams go at it a 3rd time in a row. Wish the NBA could try to create more parity.

Without screwing the players by getting rid of guaranteed contracts, I think the best way they could do that would be to make it easier for marquee players to switch teams often, and heavily punish teams for having too many marquee players (but not financially since NY/LA types can always pay more taxes/fines). Maybe if they did a much higher revenue share between teams, too?

Its an interesting idea, but wouldn't making it easier for marquee players to switch teams lead to more stars trying to create superteams?

I think so. If it was easier for players to switch, good owners and GMs would always be able to draw in better talent.

I think the parity issue in the NBA is rooted in ownership. Some teams just don't have good owners, and we know how much a difference that can make. Should the NBA make more changes to help bad front offices compete? Maybe the answer is to require ownership changes if a team isn't competitive in 10 years.

I don't know if this would work IRL, but if I was making a video game, I would remove owners altogether. The League would own all teams and cities would lease them. You get a 5 year lease, and the League has the right to move the team to any other city if they like. The city wants the team, because profit from the team goes straight into the city coffers.

[O_Gardino]

I should also say that I come to this discussion from a different place. I don't mind the super teams, and I don't think 3 years in a row is too long for a couple of teams to be dominant. What bothers me is the 10 or so teams in the nba who you know for sure will never compete without a Cleveland Miracle. I don't care that the good teams are good, but it bothers me that the bad teams are bad.

[Mori Chu]

I should also say that I come to this discussion from a different place. I don't mind the super teams, and I don't think 3 years in a row is too long for a couple of teams to be dominant. What bothers me is the 10 or so teams in the nba who you know for sure will never compete without a Cleveland Miracle. I don't care that the good teams are good, but it bothers me that the bad teams are bad.

The two phenomena are not unrelated.

[Superbone]

I don't know if this would work IRL, but if I was making a video game, I would remove owners altogether. The League would own all teams and cities would lease them. You get a 5 year lease, and the League has the right to move the team to any other city if they like. The city wants the team, because profit from the team goes straight into the city coffers.

Sorry OG, but I think moving teams around potenially every 5 years is a terrible idea. I'm not following the Suns anymore if they move. How many Supersonic fans do you think root for OKC? These teams have deep histories and fan bases with their cities.

[O_Gardino]

I don't know if this would work IRL, but if I was making a video game, I would remove owners altogether. The League would own all teams and cities would lease them. You get a 5 year lease, and the League has the right to move the team to any other city if they like. The city wants the team, because profit from the team goes straight into the city coffers.

Sorry OG, but I think moving teams around potenially every 5 years is a terrible idea. I'm not following the Suns anymore if they move. How many Supersonic fans do you think root for OKC? These teams have deep histories and fan bases with their cities.

I agree that it probably wouldn't work irl.

But for the sake of discussion, in your example we are dealing with 2 teams with deep winning traditions, which is exactly the kind of team that would not move in my hypocritical world. The Sonics moved because of a crooked owner. And the move from Vancouver to Memphis has been good for parity in the league, because a team that was always bad is now in a new city with new management and they are always kind of good.

[jonh]

I should also say that I come to this discussion from a different place. I don't mind the super teams, and I don't think 3 years in a row is too long for a couple of teams to be dominant. What bothers me is the 10 or so teams in the nba who you know for sure will never compete without a Cleveland Miracle. I don't care that the good teams are good, but it bothers me that the bad teams are bad.

The two phenomena are not unrelated.

Ultimately, I think that the biggest issue with the current configuration in the NBA stems from being such a star-driven league. The current rules/salary cap/social capital favor the best performing players so much that the top talent really dictates their team's roster and has a disproportionate influence on whether a team wins or loses. This ensures that (a) teams with stars stay on top of the NBA as long as the star(s) stay healthy (or dont demand a trade) and (b) teams without a star are left scrambling to maintain a holding pattern with developing a competitive roster as they wait to acquire a star either through trade/free agency/draft.

If you really wanted to fix the parity of the NBA, I think you would first crack down on foul enforcement to make sure that Lebron fouls out more than 8 times out of 1061 games, and to ensure fouls called on stars are actually worthy of fouls. Second, they have to remove the incentive to tank, if only to promote competition within the non-playoff teams. Give the teams a chance to play for some pride again.

Neither of them would really fix the problem, but thats where I would probably start.

[Indy]

But the NFL is widely regarded as doing a wonderful job on parity (New England aside). But it is clearly driven by stars, primarily QBs. If you have a top 5 QB, even if the other 54 players on the team are not great, you have a chance. I don't see the NBA as all that different when it comes to star players, except maybe even less dependent on a single player (or NOP might make the playoffs with just AD).

[Flagrant Fowl]

Which would be more impressive; 73 wins or 16-0 in the playoffs?

[carey]

Which would be more impressive; 73 wins or 16-0 in the playoffs?

16-0, especially if going through the current Cavs.

[Mori Chu]

I don't think 16-0 is that impressive this season. I think 73 wins is by far the more impressive statistical achievement.

[In2ition]

Both are impressive, and both are thought of as one of the most dominate teams ever, but one ends in with a ring and the other is discounted because it didn't.

[Hermen]

Second, they have to remove the incentive to tank, if only to promote competition within the non-playoff teams. Give the teams a chance to play for some pride again.

This. Why punish teams like the Heat for doing their best, to favor teams that don't even try? Also, right now if you're a very good team without a top superstar, you're likely stuck: capped out and with a bad draft position but not a contender. Teams like Atlanta, Memphis, Utah, Portland. Or even teams with a superstar and some role players, like Indiana. How can they get better?

If teams like that have to blow it up if they want to contend, well, guess where their stars are going? Or when they get tired of stagnation. With something like the wheel system, they can get better without a rebuild.

[jonh]

But the NFL is widely regarded as doing a wonderful job on parity (New England aside). But it is clearly driven by stars, primarily QBs. If you have a top 5 QB, even if the other 54 players on the team are not great, you have a chance. I don't see the NBA as all that different when it comes to star players, except maybe even less dependent on a single player (or NOP might make the playoffs with just AD).

In my (admittedly ignorant) opinion, the difference is that the probably of injuries is the great equalizer in the NFL, where the average player has a 4.1% chance to getting injured each game. I don't know the injury probability for the average NBA player, but I feel confident in saying that it is significantly less than 4.1%. The injuries in the NFL mean that a great team has a much greater probability of being worse the next season as a result of losing 2 or 3 star players, whereas in the NBA, those types of injuries are more rare (unless you are Penny Hardaway). I

n addition, although I don't have numbers to back this up right now, Id be willing to bet that the duration in which an NFL player can play at an elite level is much shorter than the window for NBA players. That allows teams to ride stars for longer stretches of time.

[Indy]

But the NFL is widely regarded as doing a wonderful job on parity (New England aside). But it is clearly driven by stars, primarily QBs. If you have a top 5 QB, even if the other 54 players on the team are not great, you have a chance. I don't see the NBA as all that different when it comes to star players, except maybe even less dependent on a single player (or NOP might make the playoffs with just AD).

In my (admittedly ignorant) opinion, the difference is that the probably of injuries is the great equalizer in the NFL, where the average player has a 4.1% chance to getting injured each game. I don't know the injury probability for the average NBA player, but I feel confident in saying that it is significantly less than 4.1%. The injuries in the NFL mean that a great team has a much greater probability of being worse the next season as a result of losing 2 or 3 star players, whereas in the NBA, those types of injuries are more rare (unless you are Penny Hardaway). I

n addition, although I don't have numbers to back this up right now, Id be willing to bet that the duration in which an NFL player can play at an elite level is much shorter than the window for NBA players. That allows teams to ride stars for longer stretches of time.

I can't argue with that. Well, I can argue with it, but I agree with most of it. It is clear that the NFL really sucks for the average player, of all the major sports. Shortest career, lowest guaranteed $$, awful post-career health.

[O_Gardino]

I should also say that I come to this discussion from a different place. I don't mind the super teams, and I don't think 3 years in a row is too long for a couple of teams to be dominant. What bothers me is the 10 or so teams in the nba who you know for sure will never compete without a Cleveland Miracle. I don't care that the good teams are good, but it bothers me that the bad teams are bad.

The two phenomena are not unrelated.

Ultimately, I think that the biggest issue with the current configuration in the NBA stems from being such a star-driven league. The current rules/salary cap/social capital favor the best performing players so much that the top talent really dictates their team's roster and has a disproportionate influence on whether a team wins or loses. This ensures that (a) teams with stars stay on top of the NBA as long as the star(s) stay healthy (or dont demand a trade) and (b) teams without a star are left scrambling to maintain a holding pattern with developing a competitive roster as they wait to acquire a star either through trade/free agency/draft.

If you really wanted to fix the parity of the NBA, I think you would first crack down on foul enforcement to make sure that Lebron fouls out more than 8 times out of 1061 games, and to ensure fouls called on stars are actually worthy of fouls. Second, they have to remove the incentive to tank, if only to promote competition within the non-playoff teams. Give the teams a chance to play for some pride again.

Neither of them would really fix the problem, but thats where I would probably start.

Removing the incentive to tank is tough without burying the bad teams. If you are terrible, how do you get better without good draft picks? Maybe the non-playoff teams all have equal chance to get any draft position? That could be interesting. For me, I go to the root of tanking, which is owners who are hoping to strike gold instead of building on success. I would love for the NBA to find a way to make bad owners relinquish their teams.

[O_Gardino]

Second, they have to remove the incentive to tank, if only to promote competition within the non-playoff teams. Give the teams a chance to play for some pride again.

This. Why punish teams like the Heat for doing their best, to favor teams that don't even try? Also, right now if you're a very good team without a top superstar, you're likely stuck: capped out and with a bad draft position but not a contender. Teams like Atlanta, Memphis, Utah, Portland. Or even teams with a superstar and some role players, like Indiana. How can they get better?

If teams like that have to blow it up if they want to contend, well, guess where their stars are going? Or when they get tired of stagnation. With something like the wheel system, they can get better without a rebuild.

Middling teams can improve by bringing in players who are up for sale by other middling teams. The Spurs do it, the Celtics did it, the Lakers used to do it all the time, even the Suns used to be kings of the rebuild while still making the first round of the playoffs. It's about talent in the front office. I wouldn't want to create a rule set where front office talent didn't matter. Some teams are going to be stuck because they don't have the talent to do better.