Finding it hard to care about the playoffs

[Rastapopoulos]

I'm not sure what the solution is. I haven't been in favor of moving the 3-pt line out, as it penalizes players for getting better at a fundamental skill. Maybe change the point system, making 2's count as 3's and 3's count as 4's? The game itself would remain unchanged, but the risk-reward balance of each shot would shift. Scoring numbers would explode, of course. You could adjust the point system each year based on the previous year's 2pt:3pt ratio.

That makes sense but wouldn't happen for political reasons (people care about past scoring records, etc.).

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I think part of this is not the 3 pt shot's fault but the lack of quality post players and guys who drive the lane and finish.....teams have stopped using old school bigs to spread the floor for the most part and now the most important skill it seems a center needs is making a free throw....Shaq would make 3 pt shooters pay by owning the paint and commanding double teams ....now, nobody owns the paint anymore. The league is filled with long ball shooters and seriously lacks guys who can finish in the paint

As I said to Orion, I disagree. As somebody pointed out to me the other day, twenty years ago Giannis would have been a center (he's about the same size as Olajuwon). So it's not like there aren't amazing players, it's just that they're not low post players. So (says Orion) that's the coach's fault - MAKE them play low post. They do - in college! Look at Okafor. He was drafted second because of a GM who was stuck in the past. And he can ONLY play low post, so of course his coach sticks him there. And the Sixers get killed! Back in the day Okafor would've been a perennial all-star. Different rules, different time.

(And the mighty Boban would have been a healthy Yao Ming!)

 

[oldfisherman]

I have no idea if this is a good idea, just throwing shit on the wall (AKA brainstorming).

Each blocked shot without fouling the O player is worth 2 points for the defensive player; 3 points if a D player blocks a 3 point shot.

That rewards defense, but what does it do to change offense?

Fair question.

A. I’m not sure, just thinking outside of the box on how to make the NBA game more entertaining.

One thought I had is. There is little reward for blocking a shot in the NBA other than a stat. But there is a risk of fouling the O player which results in easy points for the O player.

Often the blocked shot is controlled by the O team. So what reward is there to block a shot for the player taking the risk of picking up a foul? The D team only gets control of the ball from 50-71% of the time depending on where the blocked shot was taken.

Giving the D points for blocking a shot might force the O to pass more to the open man, making the game more entertaining. It might also open up the floor more for the players that have good handles, and can drive around their defender if he gets too close, resulting in more paint play and fewer 3 attempts.

Then again, it might make the game less entertaining. I was hoping for input for others.

 

[BigGameDamian]

I've watched a few games. San Antonio and Houston Rockets is a good series and Golden State Warriors Houston Rockets might be fun. At the end of the day (with no injury to the big Time players) you pretty much know who's going to win. I don't go out of my way to watch the games. It's a shame you can pretty much predict what teams will be in the finals before the season even starts.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm honestly pretty surprised that a lot of people here don't like the current game. I wonder how much of it is judging "good" (or fun, enjoyable, whatever) by what you "grew up" (in a basketball fandom sense) watching. If you came of basketball fandom age when the game was a grind-it-out affair with centers on the low block ruling the game, perhaps it's hard to see anything else as a legitimately positive way to play.

I think the quality of the game has never been higher and the ball-movement, hunt-the-best-shot style that the Spurs and now the Warriors exemplify is fantastic--it's similar to what the Lakers and Celtics in the 1980s embodied, except now the three-point threat has "widened/lengthened" the playing field.

I think the defense is also much more sophisticated than it's ever been. It's easy to think that defense is no longer played due to the amount of scoring happening and the up-and-down pace but, really, defenses are just in a much tougher situation due to both the movement/passing based offenses and the fact that the floor is spaced so much more than it was in the '80s or '90s. I think watching an athletic switch-heavy defense that plays together really well, like the Warriors, is extremely enjoyable.

 

[Voodoo]

I'm honestly pretty surprised that a lot of people here don't like the current game. I wonder how much of it is judging "good" (or fun, enjoyable, whatever) by what you "grew up" (in a basketball fandom sense) watching. If you came of basketball fandom age when the game was a grind-it-out affair with centers on the low block ruling the game, perhaps it's hard to see anything else as a legitimately positive way to play.

I think the quality of the game has never been higher and the ball-movement, hunt-the-best-shot style that the Spurs and now the Warriors exemplify is fantastic--it's similar to what the Lakers and Celtics in the 1980s embodied, except now the three-point threat has "widened/lengthened" the playing field.

I think the defense is also much more sophisticated than it's ever been. It's easy to think that defense is no longer played due to the amount of scoring happening and the up-and-down pace but, really, defenses are just in a much tougher situation due to both the movement/passing based offenses and the fact that the floor is spaced so much more than it was in the '80s or '90s. I think watching an athletic switch-heavy defense that plays together really well, like the Warriors, is extremely enjoyable.

I don't think the quality of the game itself is bad, in fact I agree with most of your assessment. What I don't enjoy is the imbalance of talent, and thus an imbalance of parity which removes any risk of real competition. While the Warriors are indeed a spectacle to watch, they are also incredibly boring to watch because it feels like you're watching the US dream team from 1992 play most games. There's no uncertainty who will win, which thus ruins the entertainment value of the overall product that is basketball. That isn't to say the game itself is worse, I think that is arguable because of how ticky tacky they call fouls now. That said I think the overall product of the NBA is far worse right now than it was even 3-4 years ago when there was more parity in the league, just my two cents.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think the quality of the game itself is bad, in fact I agree with most of your assessment. What I don't enjoy is the imbalance of talent, and thus an imbalance of parity which removes any risk of real competition. While the Warriors are indeed a spectacle to watch, they are also incredibly boring to watch because it feels like you're watching the US dream team from 1992 play most games. There's no uncertainty who will win, which thus ruins the entertainment value of the overall product that is basketball. That isn't to say the game itself is worse, I think that is arguable because of how ticky tacky they call fouls now. That said I think the overall product of the NBA is far worse right now than it was even 3-4 years ago when there was more parity in the league, just my two cents.

But is it worse than the 1990s, when the Bulls were even more inevitable every year (except the two years that Jordan was fully or partially retured)? Or the 1980s, when there were a couple of superteams in the Lakers and Celtics, with other teams every so often finding their way through?

Both those eras are viewed very nostalgically, and featured similar dominance, of either one or two teams. Dominance doesn't generally seem to be damaging to the league.

 

[tlongII]

I'm not watching until the Finals. And Cleveland WILL win the title again this year.

 

[illmatic99]

I'm not watching until the Finals. And Cleveland WILL win the title again this year.

That would be hilarious if they beat this GS team. Would cement Lebron's legacy more than it already is.

 

[santeesioux]

It's probably the fault of our teams not being able to compete, but I think the parity in the nba stinks compared to the NFL and MLB. Outside of the Patriots, if feels like any football team that makes the playoffs has a shot, and in baseball the Cubs of all teams just won. You don't really get that feeling in the nba because you can pick one of about 3 teams that has a chance before the season starts and almost certainly be right.

These are the most boring playoffs I've seen though.

 

[riverman]

I wasn't a fan of the Jordan era Bulls for the same reason.....I felt they were treated differently from other teams..honestly, I'm probably the only guy on the planet that thinks Jordan hurt the direction of the game....people stopped loving teams and started loving stars..every team thought they had to pay a fortune to one or two stars and fill out the roster with cheap role players......Jordan would scream at refs and never get ejected.....yet people get on Sheed's case....Sheed was right to point it out....you sell enough product, you get on TV a whole lot.

 

[blue9]

I'm honestly pretty surprised that a lot of people here don't like the current game. I wonder how much of it is judging "good" (or fun, enjoyable, whatever) by what you "grew up" (in a basketball fandom sense) watching. If you came of basketball fandom age when the game was a grind-it-out affair with centers on the low block ruling the game, perhaps it's hard to see anything else as a legitimately positive way to play.

I think the quality of the game has never been higher and the ball-movement, hunt-the-best-shot style that the Spurs and now the Warriors exemplify is fantastic--it's similar to what the Lakers and Celtics in the 1980s embodied, except now the three-point threat has "widened/lengthened" the playing field.

I think the defense is also much more sophisticated than it's ever been. It's easy to think that defense is no longer played due to the amount of scoring happening and the up-and-down pace but, really, defenses are just in a much tougher situation due to both the movement/passing based offenses and the fact that the floor is spaced so much more than it was in the '80s or '90s. I think watching an athletic switch-heavy defense that plays together really well, like the Warriors, is extremely enjoyable.

I'm not going to argue that yesteryear's game was more sophisticated - but you literally used the only two examples of teams that employ a sophisticated system. Every other team is pretty standard in what they do, to the point that Tater Totts is considered an offensive genius for running the weave above the 3-point line (sophisticated!). But again, I'm not interested in whether today's game is more or less sophisticated.

What makes today's game worse is the talent of the players. Back in the 80s/90s/early-00s half the league had a dynamic duo. Outside of a small handful, most of today's top players would be role players alongside the powers of the 90s:

Payton/Kemp
Drexler/Porter
Drexler/Hakeem
Jordan/Pippen
Malone/Stockton
Thomas/Dumars
KJ/Barkley
Kobe/Shaq
Shaq/Hardaway
Mullins/Hardaway

I'm sure I'm forgetting some other great duos. And that doesn't even take into account players like Rodman, Reggie, Ewing, Hawkins, Mourning, etc.

Today you've got:
LBJ
Westbrook
Harden (no D, fake-ass basketball)
Kawhi
Durant/Curry (no D) /Draymond
Giannis?
Wall?

 

[BigGameDamian]

I'm not going to argue that yesteryear's game was more sophisticated - but you literally used the only two examples of teams that employ a sophisticated system. Every other team is pretty standard in what they do, to the point that Tater Totts is considered an offensive genius for running the weave above the 3-point line (sophisticated!). But again, I'm not interested in whether today's game is more or less sophisticated.

What makes today's game worse is the talent of the players. Back in the 80s/90s/early-00s half the league had a dynamic duo. Outside of a small handful, most of today's top players would be role players alongside the powers of the 90s:

Payton/Kemp
Drexler/Porter
Drexler/Hakeem
Jordan/Pippen
Malone/Stockton
Thomas/Dumars
KJ/Barkley
Kobe/Shaq
Shaq/Hardaway
Mullins/Hardaway

I'm sure I'm forgetting some other great duos. And that doesn't even take into account players like Rodman, Reggie, Ewing, Hawkins, Mourning, etc.

Today you've got:
LBJ
Westbrook
Harden (no D, fake-ass basketball)
Kawhi
Durant/Curry (no D) /Draymond
Giannis?
Wall?

It won't be long before Giannis is with the Cavs, Warriors or Lakers. He'll probably be Iguodala replacement

 

[Minstrel]

What makes today's game worse is the talent of the players. Back in the 80s/90s/early-00s half the league had a dynamic duo. Outside of a small handful, most of today's top players would be role players alongside the powers of the 90s:

Payton/Kemp
Drexler/Porter
Drexler/Hakeem
Jordan/Pippen
Malone/Stockton
Thomas/Dumars
KJ/Barkley
Kobe/Shaq
Shaq/Hardaway
Mullins/Hardaway

I'm sure I'm forgetting some other great duos. And that doesn't even take into account players like Rodman, Reggie, Ewing, Hawkins, Mourning, etc.

Today you've got:
LBJ
Westbrook
Harden (no D, fake-ass basketball)
Kawhi
Durant/Curry (no D) /Draymond
Giannis?
Wall?

I mean, you're comparing nearly two decades worth of stars to the ones today (and, really, Porter? You're going to call Porter a superstar the likes of which is hard to match up with today?).

You have deep nostalgia glasses on to say that Curry has "no D" (both the eye test and the stats say otherwise) but not bothering to write off Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway and Chris Mullin the same way, all of whom were much worse defensively.

If we even compare a full decade to the near-two decades you used above (late-80s through mid-00s), we have:

Kobe Bryant
Dwyane Wade
Chis Bosh
Dirk Nowitzki
LeBron James
Tim Duncan
Kevin Love
Tony Parker
Manu Ginobili
Kevin Garnett
Giannis Antetokounmpo
Russell Westbrook
Kevin Durant
Stephen Curry
Draymond Green
Kawhi Leonard
James Harden
John Wall
Damian Lillard
CJ McCollum
Kyrie Irving
Chris Paul
Blake Griffin
Paul George
Jimmy Butler
Karl-Anthony Towns
Nikola Jokic
Anthony Davis

I could go on. And before you scoff at players like Ginobili or Love (Minnesota version), you set the bar at players like Chris Mullin--a fine player, but not excessively dominant. If I actually used Terry Porter (good player, never a star let alone superstar) as the bar, this list would be 10x as long.

If your only point is how the stars are distributed (evenly, with neat duos), then I don't know. A lot of those players are or were teammates with others on the list. It's not that interesting to me, though, to work out how the NBA today compares in terms of "duos." But the talent level has certainly not dipped, right now or over the past 10 years.

 

[blue9]

Dwyane Wade
Chis Bosh
Dirk Nowitzki
Tim Duncan
Tony Parker
Manu Ginobili
Kevin Garnett
Chris Paul

Kevin Love
John Wall
Damian Lillard
CJ McCollum
Kyrie Irving
Blake Griffin
Paul George
Jimmy Butler
Karl-Anthony Towns
Nikola Jokic
Anthony Davis

I deleted the names I already accounted for in my original post. What's left is a top group that defined themselves in the early-aughts (or 90s in the case of KG), and a bottom group that are Reggie-level players at best - VERY good players, but none of them are good enough to lead a team to a Game 7 vs the Jordan-era Bulls, let alone lead a team to the Playoffs for many of them, or past the 1st round for the others. This bottom list actually illustrates my point for me - the fact that these are today's top players is kinda sad.

 

[Orion Bailey]

As I said to Orion, I disagree. As somebody pointed out to me the other day, twenty years ago Giannis would have been a center (he's about the same size as Olajuwon). So it's not like there aren't amazing players, it's just that they're not low post players. So (says Orion) that's the coach's fault - MAKE them play low post. They do - in college! Look at Okafor. He was drafted second because of a GM who was stuck in the past. And he can ONLY play low post, so of course his coach sticks him there. And the Sixers get killed! Back in the day Okafor would've been a perennial all-star. Different rules, different time.

(And the mighty Boban would have been a healthy Yao Ming!)

We shall have to disagree.

Sorry but 6'11 and 225 is not the same as 7' and 255.

When we see a dominant POST player, the three will back off the game.

DMC isnt a dominant post player and neither is Drummond. In years past they would take their teams to the playoffs, but would they win? No. And Today Gianniss took his team tot he playoffs jsut like in the past, as you assert.

None of those guys dominate in the paint like Shaq and Hakeem.

Again. When we see a dominant big man in the paint, the three wiill dissipate.

 

[handiman]

We shall have to disagree.

Sorry but 6'11 and 225 is not the same as 7' and 255.

When we see a dominant POST player, the three will back off the game.

DMC isnt a dominant post player and neither is Drummond. In years past they would take their teams to the playoffs, but would they win? No. And Today Gianniss took his team tot he playoffs jsut like in the past, as you assert.

None of those guys dominate in the paint like Shaq and Hakeem.

Again. When we see a dominant big man in the paint, the three wiill dissipate.

Modern zone defenses have made it a lot tougher for post players to dominate. Remember, Shaq didn't win college player of the year, largely because zones were able to swarm him and keep his efficiency in check.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Modern zone defenses have made it a lot tougher for post players to dominate. Remember, Shaq didn't win college player of the year, largely because zones were able to swarm him and keep his efficiency in check.

And its on the coach to find a way to use the dominant man in the post around the Zone. There are ways to break all defenses down with the right strategy. Not saying I have one, but I would think there should be one, just like there has been for everything else.

NOw the hand check rule changes might be the biggest detriment to my opinion...in my opinion.

 

[Minstrel]

I deleted the names I already accounted for in my original post. What's left is a top group that defined themselves in the early-aughts (or 90s in the case of KG), and a bottom group that are Reggie-level players at best - VERY good players, but none of them are good enough to lead a team to a Game 7 vs the Jordan-era Bulls, let alone lead a team to the Playoffs for many of them, or past the 1st round for the others. This bottom list actually illustrates my point for me - the fact that these are today's top players is kinda sad.

Sure, since you cut out all the best players of this era (due to "having already accounted for them"). If you remove all the best players from any year, it's going to look pretty sad.

Again, comparing players today to entire eras doesn't make any sense--Kobe Bryant in no way overlapped with Isiah Thomas and only with past-prime versions of Barkley or Olajuwon. That's why I went back 10 years--to make this a fair comparison. I think both the prime talent today and the young talent today (so, counting players like Pozingas, Jokic, etc, who haven't yet defined their careers) is at a very high level.

 

[Voodoo]

But is it worse than the 1990s, when the Bulls were even more inevitable every year (except the two years that Jordan was fully or partially retured)? Or the 1980s, when there were a couple of superteams in the Lakers and Celtics, with other teams every so often finding their way through?

Both those eras are viewed very nostalgically, and featured similar dominance, of either one or two teams. Dominance doesn't generally seem to be damaging to the league.

No, I said the league is worse today than it was 4-5 years ago when there was more parity and I stand by that statement as I never argued with you about the 80's or 90s, I only remember the 90's and I don't look back on those years too nostalgically personally. You may be right in the fact that dominance doesn't damage the brand in terms of viewership I don't know as I haven't looked. But in my opinion it affects the product of the game and my personal enjoyment of the game, and yes I would agree it is just as boring as it was in the 1990's with the dominant Bulls teams. I specifically stated that I enjoyed the NFL because there is greater parity and more unpredictability and competition, and if one team gets hot they could conceivably win the championship. In the NBA it is all but inconceivable that the two super teams on each conference aren't going to make it to the finals, thus that removes the drama and thus the enjoyment for me in watching the game as it is just too boring and predictable.

 

[Minstrel]

No, I said the league is worse today than it was 4-5 years ago when there was more parity and I stand by that statement as I never argued with you about the 80's or 90s, I only remember the 90's and I don't look back on those years too nostalgically personally.

Yes, I wasn't saying you were being inconsistent or that you compared this season/era to the '80s or '90s, I was just curious, since lots of people seem to love those eras but still talk about liking parity.

 

[Voodoo]

Yes, I wasn't saying you were being inconsistent or that you compared this season/era to the '80s or '90s, I was just curious, since lots of people seem to love those eras but still talk about liking parity.

Gotchya, I am not one of those people, I admire MJ's skill just as I admire how good the Warriors are. But that doesn't mean I enjoy watching either of them crush their "competition" with very little actual, well, competition.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[BBert]

I can't stand those two arrogant fuckers. I hope they lose; then lose in hell.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Almost every game is a blowout. Adam Silver has got to see that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. He can't be this blind.