The Finals

Who wins, and in how many?

  • lakers in 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • lakers in 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Heat in 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Heat in 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .
#Antics


This is completely ahistorical. The NBA is not like football: dynasties are the only thing that sell. Only fans of small market teams give a rat's ass about parity.


#Shenanigans
Not sure where you're going with your #antics and #shenanigans. Not sure I want to, since these conversations tend to be about as enjoyable as puling out a toenail.

Care to prove or provide evidence that "dynasties are the only thing that sell. Only fans of small market teams give a rat's ass about parity."? The two statements aren't even congruent - even if only fans of small market teams care about parity, that would mean dynasties are not the only thing that sell.
 
Let me know when Antetokounmpo leads a team of bums to the Finals, and then maybe we can re-visit that question.

LeBron James, to this point in his career, has never played on a team where he wasn't the best player on the team. If Antetokounmpo teamed up with Doncic and Jokic, are you positive that he's the best player on that team? 'Cause I'm not.
All Giannis has to do is crate a super team than you guys will goat him at this point you can’t blame KD for going to GSW although nobody gets all credit like lebron.
 
I don't know who "we" is, but I've been pro-player, for a very long time, even years before I got out of the "rooting for teams" business.
"We" would be fans rooting for a particular team. And no, not all fans of teams fall into the category that I found myself in. Having a laissez-faire attitude towards the team in regards to their acquiring and/or retaining players. I don’t like it as an economic policy so why should I like it in regards to the players. (Treatment of players by team)
 
Last edited:

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Care to prove or provide evidence that "dynasties are the only thing that sell. Only fans of small market teams give a rat's ass about parity."?

What would you accept as proof? Because I could show you how ratings are better when there's a dynasty, but I'm sure that you already knew that. I don't think that I'd have to look too hard to find that revenue goes up when there's a dynasty, either.

The two statements aren't even congruent - even if only fans of small market teams care about parity, that would mean dynasties are not the only thing that sell.
On the macro level, they are. The last time there was parity in the league, the Finals were airing on tape delay. The closest thing we've seen to parity in the modern NBA was 2004-05, which I believe was the lowest-watched Finals, pre-COVID, in the lottery era. The only people who actually want parity are the people who root for teams that they believe will never have a "fair" shot, because of a lack of parity.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
All Giannis has to do is crate a super team than you guys will goat him...
This is just you making stuff up.

at this point you can’t blame KD for going to GSW
Nothing about Durant going to Golden State resembles any moves that LeBron James has made in his career.

although nobody gets all credit like lebron.
What "credit" do you think LeBron James gets, that he hasn't earned? And whom do you think ought to get it, instead?
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
"We" would be fans rooting for a particular team. And no, not all fans of teams fall into the category that I found myself in. Having a laissez-faire attitude towards the team in regards to their acquiring and/or retaining players. I don’t like it as an economic policy so why should I like it in regards to the players. (Treatment of players by team)
Okaaaaay... I mean, I guess it's better that you got there late, than never got there, at all. So, congrats?
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
And I don't know what to tell you about that? It was easier for me to get there, and stay there, because I'm not burdened by the trappings of tribalism. I imagine that it has to be harder for people who want to root for a team.
 
This tells me there is something broken with the All Star selection. The 90s were a pretty weird time as the hyper expansion actually left a pretty big gap of haves and have nots in the league and the Bulls had arguably the two best players and Pippen's team the first year of MJ's absence should have beat the Knicks - they were guilty of some very questionable officiating. Was there a rule during this time that every team gets a guy at all star weekend?

Dennis Rodman
Toni Kukoc
Ho Grant

Are on most of those guys' level.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
This tells me there is something broken with the All Star selection. The 90s were a pretty weird time as the hyper expansion actually left a pretty big gap of haves and have nots in the league and the Bulls had arguably the two best players and Pippen's team the first year of MJ's absence should have beat the Knicks - they were guilty of some very questionable officiating. Was there a rule during this time that every team gets a guy at all star weekend?

Dennis Rodman
Toni Kukoc
Ho Grant

Are on most of those guys' level.
Thank you for mentioning expansion (which I've mentioned, at least a half dozen times, I think, doesn't get contextualized properly, when discussing Jordan's greatness), but yeah, there's something wild about the way that All-Stars are selected, when you can say that Jordan somehow played with two Hall of Famers (technically three, if you count Parish), but only one All-Star? That math don't math.
 
And I don't know what to tell you about that? It was easier for me to get there, and stay there, because I'm not burdened by the trappings of tribalism. I imagine that it has to be harder for people who want to root for a team.
Tribalism? How about the teams are allowed certain things based on the CBA that the Players Union agreed to. That is a given. When the players use this same CBA to their advantage, also accept that as a given. Both parties agreed to the terms. The players being talked about aren't ones that would come to the team I root for, hell, neither would I if I had their God given abilities. So I am not certain Tribalism comes into play, what does is simple hypocrisy.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Yeah, tribalism. All that "name on the front is more important than the name on the back" stuff? The mentality that makes it easier for many fans to compartmentalize or otherwise rationalize the way that teams and organizations use players, but get in their feelings when players use teams, to the point where they go on emotional screeds about "loyalty" when a player exercises their agency, but will fall back behind "It's a business" when the team spits out a player, after they've used them up? That's all rooted in tribalism.

The players being talked about aren't ones that would come to the team I root for, hell, neither would I if I had their God given abilities.
Is that what makes it easier to compartmentalize? Is it a "He ain't really that fine, anyway!" thing?
 
Is that what makes it easier to compartmentalize? Is it a "He ain't really that fine, anyway!" thing?
Nope. Just from a business standpoint. Why I rejected the Tribalism term. I was being a hypocrite holding one party to a different standard than the other. It has nothing to do with the team I root for because at this time it is not applicable.

For another, it could be that but for me, simple hypocrisy. Neither is very flattering.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Nope. Just from a business standpoint.
I'm going to have to ask for a clarification on terms, at this point, because I have no idea what you could possibly be meaning, when you talk about "a business standpoint," and in what possible context, that I would not consider to be synonymous with tribalism, when talking about sports? From my point of view, you are actually describing an aspect of tribalism, as it applies to the consumption of sports-as-entertainment, while insisting that what you're talking about is not tribalism, and I can't make that make sense.
 
I'm going to have to ask for a clarification on terms, at this point, because I have no idea what you could possibly be meaning, when you talk about "a business standpoint," and in what possible context, that I would not consider to be synonymous with tribalism, when talking about sports? From my point of view, you are actually describing an aspect of tribalism, as it applies to the consumption of sports-as-entertainment, while insisting that what you're talking about is not tribalism, and I can't make that make sense.
Simple, these players have nothing to do with my team or in your sense, my tribe. Both sides work in the confines of the CBA. There is no "Gentleman's Agreement," just each side doing what is best for themselves. I wasn't giving the player's motives the same respect.

People see things differently and come from different perspectives. If the Kings should ever win the championship, I will get up in the morning and go to work. My responsibility to put food on the table and that is who my tribe is.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Simple, these players have nothing to do with my team or in your sense, my tribe. Both sides work in the confines of the CBA. There is no "Gentleman's Agreement," just each side doing what is best for themselves. I wasn't giving the player's motives the same respect.
Yeah... that's still tribalism, to me. On two different levels:
  • On the first level, it's just tribalism shifted from the micro to the macro. In this case, the team/tribe you're "rooting" for is management. And this is because of the second level...
  • Whether consciously or subconsciously, you are (or, at least, were) still thinking about what you'd consider to be the "best interests" of your local tribe (i.e., the Kings). You want (or wanted) your team to have its right to discard the player, before the player discarded them, to be preserved. Like, you understand that LeBron James or Kevin Durant will never want to play for your team, but you also understand that the more agency the players have, the greater the possibility that the players that are on your team (likely drafted) could do the same thing to you. That's how you get to a point where you can rationalize and compartmentalize what other teams do to their players as "just business," because it ultimately comes down to, "What practices do I need to support, in order to provide my team with the greatest position of strength?"
 
Yeah... that's still tribalism, to me. On two different levels:
  • On the first level, it's just tribalism shifted from the micro to the macro. In this case, the team/tribe you're "rooting" for is management. And this is because of the second level...
  • Whether consciously or subconsciously, you are (or, at least, were) still thinking about what you'd consider to be the "best interests" of your local tribe (i.e., the Kings). You want (or wanted) your team to have its right to discard the player, before the player discarded them, to be preserved. Like, you understand that LeBron James or Kevin Durant will never want to play for your team, but you also understand that the more agency the players have, the greater the possibility that the players that are on your team (likely drafted) could do the same thing to you. That's how you get to a point where you can rationalize and compartmentalize what other teams do to their players as "just business," because it ultimately comes down to, "What practices do I need to support, in order to provide my team with the greatest position of strength?"
It's pretty uncomfortable on some level to acknowledge all this, and how counter it runs against how I feel about labor rights for people with under 7 figure net worths.

On the other hand, the amount of money being doled out, and the nature of the competition, there's something somewhat off about players taking over the FO and demanding trades to get their buddies on their team or guys they don't like off; firing coaches, etc.

There probably is no way to justify it, other than when you look at say, European soccer where the top players pretty much demand to be on 2-3 teams per country and there are 18 also rans, that basically compete for the right to be in the league with those teams so fans can see the star players 3-4 times per season... I think that's a big part of why America's big sporting leagues work fairly well. And yet they are still entirely broken.

I have no answers!
 
Yeah... that's still tribalism, to me. On two different levels:
  • On the first level, it's just tribalism shifted from the micro to the macro. In this case, the team/tribe you're "rooting" for is management. And this is because of the second level...
  • Whether consciously or subconsciously, you are (or, at least, were) still thinking about what you'd consider to be the "best interests" of your local tribe (i.e., the Kings). You want (or wanted) your team to have its right to discard the player, before the player discarded them, to be preserved. Like, you understand that LeBron James or Kevin Durant will never want to play for your team, but you also understand that the more agency the players have, the greater the possibility that the players that are on your team (likely drafted) could do the same thing to you. That's how you get to a point where you can rationalize and compartmentalize what other teams do to their players as "just business," because it ultimately comes down to, "What practices do I need to support, in order to provide my team with the greatest position of strength?"
No. My only mistake was not giving the same latitude to the employees (i.e. players) as I do management. In the world I live in, management holds the cards. I am held to follow the employee handbook and can be disciplined for violations. The company reserves the right to change it at their discretion. There is a process for that but doesn't change the fact that it is very one sided. Now if you want to call that tribalism then we can agree to disagree.
 
Except, no, it didn't, and no, he didn't. He went from a team whose previous three seasons were
  • 2nd-round loss
  • Conference Finals losst
  • 2-round loss
... to a team whose previous three seasons were
  • 1st-round loss
  • 1st-round loss
  • Missed playoffs

You're not jumping onto a bandwagon, when you go to a worse team than the team you left.


:: fake dramatic gasp ::

Oh no! Not the fabric of city/team loyalty! Anything but that!


I look at Kyrie Irving's performance in the 2016 Finals exactly the same way that I look at Tony Parker's performance in the 2007 Finals: as a direct by-product of a much better teammate's greatness allowing him to flourish.
He Bosh and Wade teamed up and they created their own bandwagon. There is no arguing that. He went there because of the big 3 they'd create, not because of the Heat, that's what helped make it look as bad as it did because what they did almost goes to the edge of what is legal in regards to possible collusion. In the end it is what it is and likely how many fans will look at him when it comes to his legacy. And to most fans that loyalty thing is pretty important and does influence their opinions.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
He Bosh and Wade teamed up and they created their own bandwagon.
What you call "bandwagon," I call exercising his power as a player, and empowering other players to exercise their power. And I am One. Hundred. Percent. here for it.

He went there because of the big 3 they'd create, not because of the Heat, that's what helped make it look as bad as it did because what they did almost goes to the edge of what is legal in regards to possible collusion.
I neither agree that it looked bad at all, nor do I stipulate to any impression or appearance of collusion. I thought that The Decision™ was corny and self-aggrandizing, but I had no problems whatsoever with the decision, itself. If LeBron had gone to Boston in 2010, I would understand why you think it looked bad. As it is, all he did was leave a dumpster fire of a franchise, because he wanted to win, and I don't see the point in holding that against him.

In the end it is what it is and likely how many fans will look at him when it comes to his legacy. And to most fans that loyalty thing is pretty important and does influence their opinions.
You appear to ascribe a level of sentiment and nobility to the concept of "loyalty" to a sports team that I do not believe in, and cannot co-sign.
 
He Bosh and Wade teamed up and they created their own bandwagon. There is no arguing that. He went there because of the big 3 they'd create, not because of the Heat, that's what helped make it look as bad as it did because what they did almost goes to the edge of what is legal in regards to possible collusion. In the end it is what it is and likely how many fans will look at him when it comes to his legacy. And to most fans that loyalty thing is pretty important and does influence their opinions.
Nailed it
 
What you call "bandwagon," I call exercising his power as a player, and empowering other players to exercise their power. And I am One. Hundred. Percent. here for it.


I neither agree that it looked bad at all, nor do I stipulate to any impression or appearance of collusion. I thought that The Decision™ was corny and self-aggrandizing, but I had no problems whatsoever with the decision, itself. If LeBron had gone to Boston in 2010, I would understand why you think it looked bad. As it is, all he did was leave a dumpster fire of a franchise, because he wanted to win, and I don't see the point in holding that against him.


You appear to ascribe a level of sentiment and nobility to the concept of "loyalty" to a sports team that I do not believe in, and cannot co-sign.
It doesn't matter what you or I think. That's likely most peoples opinion considering that's the tagline all sports imprint upon the brains of fans to take their money. I don't agree with it as a Kings fan either. We've personally seen how far that "loyalty" goes. Fans in Oakland know it better than anyone. LOL.