Poll: Would you lose interest in the NBA if Leonard went to Lakers

[celticsclay]

Just to stop the tired and false argument that nba was always like this 20 years between Jordan’s bulls and warriors as preseason outright favorite. Also fairly unprecedented across the major sports https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/warriors-rare-odds-favorites-win-nba-title/story?id=42891374

If Leonard joined lakers they would be even bigger favorites than the warriors were

[BringToughnessBack]

Stein just said they are now frontrunners. Posted article in rumors as well.

https://celticswire.usatoday.com/2019/06/29/report-los-angeles-lakers-emerge-as-frontrunners-for-kawhi/?utm_source=smg&utm_medium=wasabi&utm_content=recirc-more-site

[Moranis]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?

The entire decade of the 80's just 5 teams made the Finals.  FIVE.  The Lakers 8 times, the Celtics 5 times, the Sixers 3 times, and the Rockets and Pistons 2 times each (the Rockets were the only team that didn't win the title that made the finals).  From 1984 through 2005 just 5 different teams won the championship.  Just 5 teams in 21 years.

The decade that just ended (2010 playoffs through 2019 playoffs) there were 8 different teams in the Finals with 7 different champions.  The Warriors 5 times, the Heat and Cavs 4 times each, the Spurs 2 times, and the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, and Raptors 1 time each. 

This notion that the league isn't actually more competitive now seems strange to me.  There are always a dominant team or two and there always will be because basketball is the one sport where all you need is 1 dominant player to find a great deal of success. 

[celticsclay]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?

The entire decade of the 80's just 5 teams made the Finals.  FIVE.  The Lakers 8 times, the Celtics 5 times, the Sixers 3 times, and the Rockets and Pistons 2 times each (the Rockets were the only team that didn't win the title that made the finals).  From 1984 through 2005 just 5 different teams won the championship.  Just 5 teams in 21 years.

The decade that just ended (2010 playoffs through 2019 playoffs) there were 8 different teams in the Finals with 7 different champions.  The Warriors 5 times, the Heat and Cavs 4 times each, the Spurs 2 times, and the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, and Raptors 1 time each. 

This notion that the league isn't actually more competitive now seems strange to me.  There are always a dominant team or two and there always will be because basketball is the one sport where all you need is 1 dominant player to find a great deal of success.

I literally just post objective mathematical odds that the warriors have been the biggest favorite in the nba the last few years in more than 20 years. What’s strange the article?

[BringToughnessBack]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?

The entire decade of the 80's just 5 teams made the Finals.  FIVE.  The Lakers 8 times, the Celtics 5 times, the Sixers 3 times, and the Rockets and Pistons 2 times each (the Rockets were the only team that didn't win the title that made the finals).  From 1984 through 2005 just 5 different teams won the championship.  Just 5 teams in 21 years.

The decade that just ended (2010 playoffs through 2019 playoffs) there were 8 different teams in the Finals with 7 different champions.  The Warriors 5 times, the Heat and Cavs 4 times each, the Spurs 2 times, and the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, and Raptors 1 time each. 

This notion that the league isn't actually more competitive now seems strange to me.  There are always a dominant team or two and there always will be because basketball is the one sport where all you need is 1 dominant player to find a great deal of success.

You are right with valid stats to back it up. Plus, more then a few of those teams were not made from big trades but rather good drafting. Still will get me sick to see Lebron in the finals time and time again once again. I hope we can get there and upset him once and get some good old fashioned finals revenge on him and that new  town of his.

[celticsclay]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?

The entire decade of the 80's just 5 teams made the Finals.  FIVE.  The Lakers 8 times, the Celtics 5 times, the Sixers 3 times, and the Rockets and Pistons 2 times each (the Rockets were the only team that didn't win the title that made the finals).  From 1984 through 2005 just 5 different teams won the championship.  Just 5 teams in 21 years.

The decade that just ended (2010 playoffs through 2019 playoffs) there were 8 different teams in the Finals with 7 different champions.  The Warriors 5 times, the Heat and Cavs 4 times each, the Spurs 2 times, and the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, and Raptors 1 time each. 

This notion that the league isn't actually more competitive now seems strange to me.  There are always a dominant team or two and there always will be because basketball is the one sport where all you need is 1 dominant player to find a great deal of success.

You are right with valid stats to back it up. Plus, more then a few of those teams were not made from big trades but rather good drafting. Still will get me sick to see Lebron in the finals time and time again once again. I hope we can get there and upset him once and get some good old fashioned finals revenge on him and that new  town of his.

He is not right. He actually couldn’t be more wrong. The nba having one team being the favorite against the field in the nba has happened 4 times in the last 28 years from what I can find. (It’s very likely it goes back 45 years but the state get harder to find. Of the 4 teams that were favorites 3 of them were the warriors the last three years and the other was the Jordan bulls at the peak of their run. The 80’s he is referencing the Celtics and lakers and pistons  were not dominant favorites over the rest of the league. I don’t think there was even a single clear cut favorite most years. He literally could not be more wrong. This, in the history of the nba, are among the biggest favorites in the history of nba. Full stop

[Moranis]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?

The entire decade of the 80's just 5 teams made the Finals.  FIVE.  The Lakers 8 times, the Celtics 5 times, the Sixers 3 times, and the Rockets and Pistons 2 times each (the Rockets were the only team that didn't win the title that made the finals).  From 1984 through 2005 just 5 different teams won the championship.  Just 5 teams in 21 years.

The decade that just ended (2010 playoffs through 2019 playoffs) there were 8 different teams in the Finals with 7 different champions.  The Warriors 5 times, the Heat and Cavs 4 times each, the Spurs 2 times, and the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, and Raptors 1 time each. 

This notion that the league isn't actually more competitive now seems strange to me.  There are always a dominant team or two and there always will be because basketball is the one sport where all you need is 1 dominant player to find a great deal of success.

You are right with valid stats to back it up. Plus, more then a few of those teams were not made from big trades but rather good drafting. Still will get me sick to see Lebron in the finals time and time again once again. I hope we can get there and upset him once and get some good old fashioned finals revenge on him and that new  town of his.

He is not right. He actually couldn’t be more wrong. The nba having one team being the favorite against the field in the nba has happened 4 times in the last 28 years from what I can find. (It’s very likely it goes back 45 years but the state get harder to find. Of the 4 teams that were favorites 3 of them were the warriors the last three years and the other was the Jordan bulls at the peak of their run. The 80’s he is referencing the Celtics and lakers and pistons  were not dominant favorites over the rest of the league. I don’t think there was even a single clear cut favorite most years. He literally could not be more wrong. This, in the history of the nba, are among the biggest favorites in the history of nba. Full stop

My point was competitive balance, which is what you were posting about.  You took that to some weird extreme, because the main point is that the NBA has never had competitive balance.  NEVER.  It has always been dominated by a team (or two) at any given time.  And of course the Lakers or Celtics in the 80's weren't favored more than the field because they were both in the 80's, but I suspect they were both heavily favored to make the Finals just about every year, which is indicative of the lack of competitive balance of the league overall.  And for as great as the Warriors were, they were a Chris Paul injury from not winning last year and didn't win this year. 

[celticsclay]

I’ll just leave this here
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=1984-1985&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

[celticsclay]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?

The entire decade of the 80's just 5 teams made the Finals.  FIVE.  The Lakers 8 times, the Celtics 5 times, the Sixers 3 times, and the Rockets and Pistons 2 times each (the Rockets were the only team that didn't win the title that made the finals).  From 1984 through 2005 just 5 different teams won the championship.  Just 5 teams in 21 years.

The decade that just ended (2010 playoffs through 2019 playoffs) there were 8 different teams in the Finals with 7 different champions.  The Warriors 5 times, the Heat and Cavs 4 times each, the Spurs 2 times, and the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, and Raptors 1 time each. 

This notion that the league isn't actually more competitive now seems strange to me.  There are always a dominant team or two and there always will be because basketball is the one sport where all you need is 1 dominant player to find a great deal of success.

You are right with valid stats to back it up. Plus, more then a few of those teams were not made from big trades but rather good drafting. Still will get me sick to see Lebron in the finals time and time again once again. I hope we can get there and upset him once and get some good old fashioned finals revenge on him and that new  town of his.

He is not right. He actually couldn’t be more wrong. The nba having one team being the favorite against the field in the nba has happened 4 times in the last 28 years from what I can find. (It’s very likely it goes back 45 years but the state get harder to find. Of the 4 teams that were favorites 3 of them were the warriors the last three years and the other was the Jordan bulls at the peak of their run. The 80’s he is referencing the Celtics and lakers and pistons  were not dominant favorites over the rest of the league. I don’t think there was even a single clear cut favorite most years. He literally could not be more wrong. This, in the history of the nba, are among the biggest favorites in the history of nba. Full stop

My point was competitive balance, which is what you were posting about.  You took that to some weird extreme, because the main point is that the NBA has never had competitive balance.  NEVER.  It has always been dominated by a team (or two) at any given time.  And of course the Lakers or Celtics in the 80's weren't favored more than the field because they were both in the 80's, but I suspect they were both heavily favored to make the Finals just about every year, which is indicative of the lack of competitive balance of the league overall.  And for as great as the Warriors were, they were a Chris Paul injury from not winning last year and didn't win this year.

I’m talking about a dominant team being incredible favorites over the rest of the league. I hate it (And apparently a lot of people in the poll do too) You want to make a separate argument that in most years before the super team on steroids the nba has only 5 teams that could realistically win a title. Sure that is true, but that is not what anyone is talking about. And if you don’t think this is true I got the receipts on this and could bury you on how wrong you are.

[NKY fan]

I wouldn’t mind them joining forces if the warriors were still intact. Durant and Klay being also healthy. It would be cool to see them fight for the western conference

[celticsclay]

I wouldn’t mind them joining forces if the warriors were still intact. Durant and Klay being also healthy. It would be cool to see them fight for the western conference

Yeah while I would prefer there be many teams that could be competitive, I would at least like to have 4-5 teams that could conceivably win like it has been throughout history. I couldn’t even tell you who the 4th best team was the last few years. Look at this: https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=2017-2018&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

[Moranis]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?

The entire decade of the 80's just 5 teams made the Finals.  FIVE.  The Lakers 8 times, the Celtics 5 times, the Sixers 3 times, and the Rockets and Pistons 2 times each (the Rockets were the only team that didn't win the title that made the finals).  From 1984 through 2005 just 5 different teams won the championship.  Just 5 teams in 21 years.

The decade that just ended (2010 playoffs through 2019 playoffs) there were 8 different teams in the Finals with 7 different champions.  The Warriors 5 times, the Heat and Cavs 4 times each, the Spurs 2 times, and the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, and Raptors 1 time each. 

This notion that the league isn't actually more competitive now seems strange to me.  There are always a dominant team or two and there always will be because basketball is the one sport where all you need is 1 dominant player to find a great deal of success.

You are right with valid stats to back it up. Plus, more then a few of those teams were not made from big trades but rather good drafting. Still will get me sick to see Lebron in the finals time and time again once again. I hope we can get there and upset him once and get some good old fashioned finals revenge on him and that new  town of his.

He is not right. He actually couldn’t be more wrong. The nba having one team being the favorite against the field in the nba has happened 4 times in the last 28 years from what I can find. (It’s very likely it goes back 45 years but the state get harder to find. Of the 4 teams that were favorites 3 of them were the warriors the last three years and the other was the Jordan bulls at the peak of their run. The 80’s he is referencing the Celtics and lakers and pistons  were not dominant favorites over the rest of the league. I don’t think there was even a single clear cut favorite most years. He literally could not be more wrong. This, in the history of the nba, are among the biggest favorites in the history of nba. Full stop

My point was competitive balance, which is what you were posting about.  You took that to some weird extreme, because the main point is that the NBA has never had competitive balance.  NEVER.  It has always been dominated by a team (or two) at any given time.  And of course the Lakers or Celtics in the 80's weren't favored more than the field because they were both in the 80's, but I suspect they were both heavily favored to make the Finals just about every year, which is indicative of the lack of competitive balance of the league overall.  And for as great as the Warriors were, they were a Chris Paul injury from not winning last year and didn't win this year.

I’m talking about a dominant team being incredible favorites over the rest of the league. I hate it (And apparently a lot of people in the poll do too) You want to make a separate argument that in most years before the super team on steroids the nba has only 5 teams that could realistically win a title. Sure that is true, but that is not what anyone is talking about. And if you don’t think this is true I got the receipts on this and could bury you on how wrong you are.

No I'm saying in any given season there is always a heavy favorite and maybe 2 other teams with a realistic shot at winning.  It has always been that way.  The Bulls of the 90's had by far the best player in the world and a top 5 player, as well as good and quality depth on both of the 3-Peats.  The Lakers and Celtics had top 2 players and at least 2 other HOFers flanking them.  The Sixers weren't far behind in that regard as well (Moses, Dr. J, etc.).

[footey]

Hard to argue that the NBA has historically been competitively balanced. The record does not bear this out.

Still, it does render watching the games far less interesting, unless you happen to be a fan of the team that is stacked. 

Like the Warriors recently.

Like the Lakers, now, if Kawhi signs with them.

I hope this is addressed in the next CBA negotiations.  Maybe following the NFL hard cap model.  It might be difficult to implement, however, with no cut contracts.

[celticsclay]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?

The entire decade of the 80's just 5 teams made the Finals.  FIVE.  The Lakers 8 times, the Celtics 5 times, the Sixers 3 times, and the Rockets and Pistons 2 times each (the Rockets were the only team that didn't win the title that made the finals).  From 1984 through 2005 just 5 different teams won the championship.  Just 5 teams in 21 years.

The decade that just ended (2010 playoffs through 2019 playoffs) there were 8 different teams in the Finals with 7 different champions.  The Warriors 5 times, the Heat and Cavs 4 times each, the Spurs 2 times, and the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, and Raptors 1 time each. 

This notion that the league isn't actually more competitive now seems strange to me.  There are always a dominant team or two and there always will be because basketball is the one sport where all you need is 1 dominant player to find a great deal of success.

You are right with valid stats to back it up. Plus, more then a few of those teams were not made from big trades but rather good drafting. Still will get me sick to see Lebron in the finals time and time again once again. I hope we can get there and upset him once and get some good old fashioned finals revenge on him and that new  town of his.

He is not right. He actually couldn’t be more wrong. The nba having one team being the favorite against the field in the nba has happened 4 times in the last 28 years from what I can find. (It’s very likely it goes back 45 years but the state get harder to find. Of the 4 teams that were favorites 3 of them were the warriors the last three years and the other was the Jordan bulls at the peak of their run. The 80’s he is referencing the Celtics and lakers and pistons  were not dominant favorites over the rest of the league. I don’t think there was even a single clear cut favorite most years. He literally could not be more wrong. This, in the history of the nba, are among the biggest favorites in the history of nba. Full stop

My point was competitive balance, which is what you were posting about.  You took that to some weird extreme, because the main point is that the NBA has never had competitive balance.  NEVER.  It has always been dominated by a team (or two) at any given time.  And of course the Lakers or Celtics in the 80's weren't favored more than the field because they were both in the 80's, but I suspect they were both heavily favored to make the Finals just about every year, which is indicative of the lack of competitive balance of the league overall.  And for as great as the Warriors were, they were a Chris Paul injury from not winning last year and didn't win this year.

I’m talking about a dominant team being incredible favorites over the rest of the league. I hate it (And apparently a lot of people in the poll do too) You want to make a separate argument that in most years before the super team on steroids the nba has only 5 teams that could realistically win a title. Sure that is true, but that is not what anyone is talking about. And if you don’t think this is true I got the receipts on this and could bury you on how wrong you are.

No I'm saying in any given season there is always a heavy favorite and maybe 2 other teams with a realistic shot at winning.  It has always been that way.  The Bulls of the 90's had by far the best player in the world and a top 5 player, as well as good and quality depth on both of the 3-Peats.  The Lakers and Celtics had top 2 players and at least 2 other HOFers flanking them.  The Sixers weren't far behind in that regard as well (Moses, Dr. J, etc.).

Are you even looking at the links I am posting. What you are saying is just wrong and you keep repeating it.
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=2017-2018&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

The second best team here is rockets at +350. The third best team is the spurs at +1250 (which is a pretty decent long shot and not a contender)

Here is your vaunted 80’s, there are 12 teams with odds better than +1250! This is not even close man.

https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=1984-1985&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

Here is it 8
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=1985-1986&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

Every year there are basically 7-12 teams with 10-1  odds to win title in your vaunted 80’s. There have been two the last couple years and also an actual negative odds favorite. You are mind blowingly wrong on this. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[slamtheking]

If it happens, I Will continue following the Celtics, watching the games when I can, but I won't be checking anything else, like stats of other players, box score of other games, standings etc. So, I Will keep interested in the celtics, but not the NBA in general

this is where I've been in regards to the NBA since the 80's.  unless it's something to do with the Celtics, I couldn't care less what happens in the NBA.  I'd be p---ed at the Lakers and Lebron but I already think they're scum so not much change there.

so for me, no change.