[Grades] Grades v. Lakers 12/3/10

I have to agree with kingsboi on this one. I hate when the same 4 teams year in and year out are the favorites. Change is always healthy. I like when the less "fancy" team is a tough team to beat (Spurs, Blazers, Jazz and up and coming OKC Thunder). In the NBA an upset rarely occurs. In the NFL everyone has a chance to win. Look at baseball in the last 10 seasons. The D-backs won in 01; (my) Angels won 02; Marlins in 03; Bosox in 04; in 05 the White Sox beat the ASTROS and the Giants won this season. All new teams. This is great for the cities, the fans and the sport.

That will NEVER happen in the NBA, unless your salary cap is so restrictive it causes the loss of franchise players, which would be disastrous. In fact any truly hard cap is already damaging enoguh -- people associate with NBA players much more than they associate with suits of armor in the NFL. Large numbers of fans can't even name their team's nickelback, let alone pick him out of a lineup. Very few wouldn't know their team's 6th man, and recognize him. Much different sport. Any system that forces teams to shuffle all but their top 3 or 3 players, routinely shipping fan fovorites out, is not doing the sport any favor. And the difference would not be that much. Forcing NFL teams to churn a) hasn't been nearly as effective as you might think (say hello to the normal dynasties in Indy, New England, Pittsburgh); and b) to the degree it has been effective has been so because its more of a collective effort. 22 starting players, restrictive widely disparate positions that can't easily be covered fo by other positions. In the NBA there are 5 starting players, they play both ways, and a single dominant player is FAR more critical to his team's success than any single player in football...except possibly a starting QB (and note who leads those dynasty teams in football -- the great player breaks any balancing system). As long as a team has the best stars, its always going to dominate teams with lesser stars.
 
Last edited:
We could improve quite a lot and still come in last right now. I admit I watched only throught mid second quarter but one three or four minute period I saw the Kings on offense come down, get squeezed, deperately reel in a circle protecting the ball, then jumping in the air with an awful shot or an awful attempt to pass and of course nothing. At first I thought that good coaching would offer a dependable way out of situations but as I thought about it more I realized that almost any gifted basketball player can usually do that on their own. Conclusion: some lousy coaching for some generally lousy ball players leads to what I just saw. Hey guys, keep on coaching and playing. With continued effort and experience you'll get better. Go Kings!!
 
Yes, you see it from my point of view. There are fans that just want some variety, not same ol' predictable, dull, boring basketball.
Predictable? Maybe. Boring and dull? Hell no. The 2010 finals were probably the best since the Bulls/Jazz finals. Two great teams battling to the final minutes. I don't know how any basketball fan could find that boring and dull. Other than the fact that The GD Lakers won, the 2010 finals were awesome.
 
That will NEVER happen in the NBA, unless your salary cap is so restrictive it causes the loss of franchise players, which would be disastrous. In fact any truly hard cap is already damaging enoguh -- people associate with NBA players much more than they associate with suits of armor in the NFL. Large numbers of fans can't even name their team's nickelback, let alone pick him out of a lineup. Very few wouldn't know their team's 6th man, and recognize him. Much different sport. Any system that forces teams to shuffle all but their top 3 or 3 players, routinely shipping fan fovorites out, is not doing the sport any favor. And the difference would not be that much. Forcing NFL teams to churn a) hasn't been nearly as effective as you might think (say hello to the normal dynasties in Indy, New England, Pittsburgh); and b) to the degree it has been effective has been so because its more of a collective effort. 22 starting players, restrictive widely disparate positions that can't easily be covered fo by other positions. In the NBA there are 5 starting players, they play both ways, and a single dominant player is FAR more critical to his team's success than any single player in football...except possibly a starting QB (and note who leads those dynasty teams in football -- the great player breaks any balancing system). As long as a team has the best stars, its always going to dominate teams with lesser stars.

It's not often that we're on the same page, Brick, but we're in total agreement here. Good points.
 
Predictable? Maybe. Boring and dull? Hell no. The 2010 finals were probably the best since the Bulls/Jazz finals. Two great teams battling to the final minutes. I don't know how any basketball fan could find that boring and dull. Other than the fact that The GD Lakers won, the 2010 finals were awesome.

Oh, I admit. The 2010 Finals were fun to watch, don't get me wrong. The Finals where the Celtics won was great to see because LA finally lost, I also enjoyed Miami vs Mavs because those were two teams that were good and championship caliber, but not expected to meet in the finals. The worst finals in the last couple of years were Spurs vs Cavs & Magic vs Lakers.
 
Yea there is no parity in NBA but I think the game is just designed that way. Whoever gets the top 10 or so players in league will always have a shot at winning and the other teams will just keep trying to find players. Thats why the Miami bothered me so much, 2 alpha dog players like Dwade and Lebron shouldn't be on the same team. There is parity in football because you can coach mediocre players into a good team.
 
Yea there is no parity in NBA but I think the game is just designed that way. Whoever gets the top 10 or so players in league will always have a shot at winning and the other teams will just keep trying to find players. Thats why the Miami bothered me so much, 2 alpha dog players like Dwade and Lebron shouldn't be on the same team. There is parity in football because you can coach mediocre players into a good team.

I agree that there should not be two of the best players in the league on the same team. It takes away the competitiveness between the two when they used to face each other on seperate teams, which was fun to watch. Now, it's just about chasing jewelry.
 
Back
Top