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

[KGs Knee]

I cannot for the life of me understand what the infatuation with Vegas odds is all about.  They are completely meaningless in terms of the actual reality of just how dominant a team is.

Did the Warriors win games at a pace greater than any other dominant team?  How about scoring margin?  How about playoff dominance?  Those would be better measures of what you are trying to prove, Clay.  I couldn't care less how much money was laid based on potentially flawed perceptions.

[celticsclay]

I cannot for the life of me understand what the infatuation with Vegas odds is all about.  They are completely meaningless in terms of the actual reality of just how dominant a team is.

Did the Warriors win games at a pace greater than any other dominant team?  How about scoring margin?  How about playoff dominance?  Those would be better measures of what you are trying to prove, Clay.  I couldn't care less how much money was laid based on potentially flawed perceptions.

Kg there were other measures I listed. Not sure why you are only focusing on the vegas one. When Durant joined the warriors they had 4 guys that made all nba the previous season on the same team. I couldn’t find any other examples of this (but I admit it is hard to look up). The warriors also had the back to back mvps on their team. I remember hearing sportscasters say this was the only time this had happened in nba history. This year the team had 5 all stars which I believe the announcers also said was some kind of modern day record. The warriors were objectively a juggernaut that not been seen in the modern nba. I don’t know how many other different way I can prove this, but I don’t get why people are arguing this pretty commonly accepted point. If the lakers join Leonard, James and Davis there will be all kinds of records set like the ones I just mentioned. This is a newer thing in the nba. There was no talk of magic joining the Celtics to play with bird and Mchale and parish. It is a different time. Bo point not being realistic about it and making weird convuleted arguments to deny it. I do appreciate you not completely changing the conversation though kg. Tp for that

[NKY fan]

I cannot for the life of me understand what the infatuation with Vegas odds is all about.  They are completely meaningless in terms of the actual reality of just how dominant a team is.

Did the Warriors win games at a pace greater than any other dominant team?  How about scoring margin?  How about playoff dominance?  Those would be better measures of what you are trying to prove, Clay.  I couldn't care less how much money was laid based on potentially flawed perceptions.

Vegas odds also reflect smart money to some extent ... it’s very hard to figure out if the odds are driven down by people betting a lot of $$$ and having inside info or just fans of popular teams and wishful thinking

[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.).

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.

And that is where odds get you in trouble because FIVE teams made the NBA Finals in the 80's.  That is both conferences, 2 from the west and 3 from the east.  There just wasn't competitive balance.  The league was dominated by the same teams for basically an entire decade. 

These are the Final 4 teams every year of the 80's (champion, runner-up, ecf  loser, wcf loser)

80 - Lakers, Sixers, Celtics, Sonics
81 - Celtics, Rockets, Sixers, Kings
82 - Lakers, Sixers, Celtics, Spurs
83 - Sixers, Lakers, Bucks, Spurs
84 - Celtics, Lakers, Bucks, Suns
85 - Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Nuggets
86 - Celtics, Rockets, Bucks, Lakers
87 - Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Sonics
88 - Lakers, Pistons, Celtics, Mavericks
89 - Pistons, Lakers, Bulls, Suns

Are you really arguing that is a league that was competitively balanced?  Sure you get the WCF loser changing a fair amount as the Rockets weren't a consistent contender, but no one ever truly challenged the Lakers out west (the 2 years the Rockets made the Finals, the Lakers were in the WCF).  5 of the first 6 years of the decade the Sixers and Celtics were in the final 4 with the Bucks making the other 2.  The Celtics hit the next 3 overlapping with the Pistons run and only falling out when the Bulls finally broke through to the final 4 in 89.  The Bucks were a consistently good team, but were never really a contender as they just weren't on the same level as the Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers.  From the Sixers last appearance in the finals in 83 until MJ retired for the first time after the 93 season only 3 teams from the East made the NBA Finals and they all had consecutive seasons runs with the Celtics the first 4, then the Pistons for 3, then the Bulls first 3-peat.  That is not competitive balance.  That is a league dominated by a couple of teams.   

EDIT: BTW, the Bucks in those 3 ECF appearance won exactly 2 games.  That is why I said they just weren't on the same level and weren't a real contender.  Also, the Knicks were +500 and had the 4th best pre-season title odds in the 84-85 season according to your link.  They won 24 games and were the 3rd worst team in the conference.  They were also Bernard King and a bunch of players no one has ever heard of.  This pretty clearly represents the problem with odds, especially pre-season ones.  They don't really give an accurate picture of whether or not a team is a contender.

This is a really weird way of admitting you were wrong. You brought up the 80’s. Said the league was always non competitive. I proved to you that there were consistently 8-12 teams given a decent chance of winning the title each year in the 80’s. There have been two the last three years with the warriors. There will be about 2 if Leonard signs with the lakers. This is objectively less competitive. You were wrong. Game over

Come on.  There weren't 8-12 teams with a decent chance of winning.  There were 2 or 3 in any given season, which just happens to be the same as right now and would be the same if Leonard joined the Lakers.  I mean in the last 2 seasons there have been 7 different teams in the final 8 with GS being the only repeat joined by Toronto, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Boston, Portland, and Houston.  That didn't happen a single time in the 80's (there were always at least 2 repeats in every single season).

Hey man. I’ll try to make this shorter and simpler for you otherwise I may give up. This is a conversation about whether people dislike having one super team that is objectively dominate over the rest of the league. You said the league has “always been like this.”Here are the facts:
The warriors were bigger favorites to win the league than any team in the 80s fact
The warriors were biggest single season favorite since one of mjs teams to win the title. Fact
There were only two teams given a great chance than 10 to 1 to win the title for the Durant years. Fact
The 80’s consistently had 7-12 teams given a greater than 10 to 1 chance to win the title each season. Fact
The 80’s were a more competitive league than it has been since Durant join the warriors to create a steroid super team. Fact.

you are basing your reasoning on preseason odds which are historically garbage. I'm basing it on the actual results.  The 1980's quite simply had less competitive balance than the 2010's.

What’s pretty funny is if you used the preseason odds with arguments with me in the past to show that your beloved cavs were more of a contender than the Celtics. We had a really long discussion about it and I told you I probably knew quite a bit more about odds cause I had done some semi professional wagering. Do you remember that? Now when they disagree with the point you want to make they are “garbage”.

I’m sorry man. Your point is objectively wrong. I think you would probably earn the respect of quite a few people if you just said “hey your right, Objectively it was a bit more competitive”. Alas, I guess that would be the proverbial when “pigs fly”

objectively less teams made the NBA Finals in the 1980's than the 2010's.  Objectuvely only 4 teams win a NBA championship in the 80's while 7 different teams won NBA championships in the 10's. Objectively 7 teams made the final 4 teams the last 2 seasons and that never happened in any 2 year period in the 80's.  Objectively the Los Angeles Lakers went to 8 NBA Finals in the 80's which has only happened 1 other time in league history (the Celtics in the 60's). 

Preseason betting odds aren't predictions and they aren't reality.  Also, the 80's were a completely different animal when it comes to betting. The internet and the 24 hour sports news cycles have significantly changed sports and sports betting by giving everyone the same information.  There is no way a team equivalent to the 84-85 Knicks would ever have the 4th best title odds (at least the Lakers last summer had Lebron with their 4th best title odds, of course even with Lebron there was no way they should have had odds that high as that team was quite simply not a contender which goes to the point that odds aren't predictions and certainly aren't indicative of what actually happens).

We have clearly been talking about the NBA since Durant signed with the warriors to create a super team on steroids. Please do not bring in the early 2010’s before that to make an argument. That is absolute garbage. I can’t  stress enough what a garbage attempt that was by your move the goalposts on the 5th page of a discussion. Shameful

That may be the worst slither I have ever seen on this board.

so that wasn't you that brought up the Heat superteam when first bringing up the strange odds argument? Strange I don't recall a Heat superteam in the last 3 seasons.  Also, strange that you ignored the part about 7 teams reaching the final 4 the last 2 seasons which never happened at all in the 80's.  I wonder why that is?  Also, why would you compare an entire decade to a 3 season run? Seems like a strange thing to do.

Lots of strangeness from you in this thread.

The heat were not the overwhelming title favorites. I was not talking about them at all. This is disgusting moranis. Don’t just change our debate 4 pages in cause you don’t like the numbers

This is your post on page 5 when you first went on this strange odds tangent.

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?

Odd, I see pretty clearly that you mention the heat super teams being significantly bigger favorites than any other team of the last 20 years.  Now maybe you mean there is some difference between overwhelming and significantly bigger favorites, but that is just a strange distinction.

[Moranis]

I cannot for the life of me understand what the infatuation with Vegas odds is all about.  They are completely meaningless in terms of the actual reality of just how dominant a team is.

Did the Warriors win games at a pace greater than any other dominant team?  How about scoring margin?  How about playoff dominance?  Those would be better measures of what you are trying to prove, Clay.  I couldn't care less how much money was laid based on potentially flawed perceptions.

Kg there were other measures I listed. Not sure why you are only focusing on the vegas one. When Durant joined the warriors they had 4 guys that made all nba the previous season on the same team. I couldn’t find any other examples of this (but I admit it is hard to look up). The warriors also had the back to back mvps on their team. I remember hearing sportscasters say this was the only time this had happened in nba history. This year the team had 5 all stars which I believe the announcers also said was some kind of modern day record. The warriors were objectively a juggernaut that not been seen in the modern nba. I don’t know how many other different way I can prove this, but I don’t get why people are arguing this pretty commonly accepted point. If the lakers join Leonard, James and Davis there will be all kinds of records set like the ones I just mentioned. This is a newer thing in the nba. There was no talk of magic joining the Celtics to play with bird and Mchale and parish. It is a different time. Bo point not being realistic about it and making weird convuleted arguments to deny it. I do appreciate you not completely changing the conversation though kg. Tp for that

the All NBA and All Star arguments are strange ones to make because they weren't all on the same team.  As we've seen, Klay Thompson is not an All NBA player went he doesn't get touches.  And there were only 2 All NBA Teams until the 88-89 season, which makes that even harder to use as a comparison.  Bird, Parish, McHale, Tiny, and Johnson all made All NBA Teams in the 80's (again with 1 less team).  Not all the same season, but they were all in their primes while on the C's (and all but DJ made at least 1 All NBA while on the C's). Which of course makes sense, when you put that many great players on the same team they cannibalize their stats, which is why the Warriors have never had more than 3 All NBA players in any given season (the year before KD and his 1st season there).  The Celtics in the 60's had Bill, Cousy, Heinsohn, Hondo, and Sam Jones all make multiple All NBA Teams and just about every year 3 of them made at least 1 of the 2 teams (Sharman made some as well joining Cousy and Bill for a couple of seasons early on - Jones and Heinsohn were also on those teams). 

[celticsclay]

1) The Warriors were the biggest favorite to win the title in 20 years and much much bigger favorite than any team in the 80's. -Moranis response odds are bad and don't mean much (subquestion you didn't answer, why did you do extensive posting on the cavs title odds against the celtics after the kyrie trade to prove they were a more serious contender, this completely contradicts your viewpoint on odds. If you have any self respect never used odds to support your arguments again.

2) Every year in the 80's there were 3-4 times as many teams given a chance to win the title compared to the last few years (note this is one of the most commonly cited ways the media and commentators discuss the league as being competitive) Moranis - Odds are garbage irrelevant

3) The Warriors were the first team in history of NBA from anything I can find to have active back to back MVPs on their team (a pretty clear sign of a dominant team) - Moranis reply - not answered

4) The Warriors had 4 players that made all NBA season the previous season on their roster, best I can tell never done before in history of NBA - Moranis reply - tries to compare teams all-nba players over entire decade to one season of warriors Bizarre. Brings in the 60's for the first time on the 8th page of the thread. Bizarre

Look man. Objectively the NBA has been the least competitive it has been in 40 years because there are were 4 all-nba guys on one team and 2 of the those guys were on the same team also. Of all the teams you were talking about in the 80's none of them were that stacked, and that is why this whole 80's premise was wrong. Worse, the NBA could have been more competitive if there were 3-4 other great teams to at least make the title competitive. But I mean we almost made the finals with terry rozier and brown and tatum. There just weren't many good teams. [/quote]That just isn't true.  You claim it is objective, but it isn't objective at all. 

Also since you decided to randomly bring in the 60's Celtics, I would agree with you that was less competitive than it is now. There were way less teams and the Celtics absolutely dominated. If you say something that is accurate I am going to be the first one to admit, which is a difference between you and I in these debates. You tried to make comparison to the 80's and the numbers were just not on your side, but instead of actually realizing this you just kept moving the goalposts and changing what we could consider as valid evidence in the argument. It is quite disappointing. Its not going to kill you to be like, yea I guess this has been a more extreme the last few years than other eras. Or maybe it would.

Also this is pretty funny, Warriors had highest Elo score across 4 consecutive seasons in NBA History. Worse for this 80's arguments a bunch of teams from the 80's made the list at the same time. What makes a league more competitive one great team dominating the rest of the league, or a bunch of heavy weight contenders competing against each other. I think even a toddler could understand a league with a bunch of good teams competing for the title is literally, by definition, competitive:

Highest average* blended Elo across four consecutive seasons for NBA franchises, 1948-18

TEAM   SEASONS   TITLES   4-YEAR BLENDED ELO
Golden State Warriors   2015-18   3   1789
Chicago Bulls   1995-98   3   1745
San Antonio Spurs   2013-16   1   1736
San Antonio Spurs   2003-06   2   1719
Chicago Bulls   1991-94   3   1717
Boston Celtics   1984-87   2   1716
Los Angeles Lakers   1985-88   3   1715
Los Angeles Lakers   2008-11   2   1706
Los Angeles Lakers   2000-03   3   1703
Miami Heat   2011-14   2   1702
Utah Jazz   1995-98   0   1702
Milwaukee Bucks   1971-74   1   1701
Philadelphia 76ers   1980-83   1   1698
Detroit Pistons   1987-90   2   1695
Oklahoma City Thunder   2011-14   0   1692

[Moranis]

1) The Warriors were the biggest favorite to win the title in 20 years and much much bigger favorite than any team in the 80's. -Moranis response odds are bad and don't mean much (subquestion you didn't answer, why did you do extensive posting on the cavs title odds against the celtics after the kyrie trade to prove they were a more serious contender, this completely contradicts your viewpoint on odds. If you have any self respect never used odds to support your arguments again.

Both gross mischaracterizations of the arguments I made.  As for this thread, being a favorite doesn't mean a thing when you have actual results to look at.  Last year the Lakers had the 4th best title odds entering the season.  Those odds were clearly garbage and show the fallacy of using them to prove a lack of competitive balance.  Those are the points I'm making. The Warriors did not win the title last year and only clinched home-court the last week of the season.  Now sure maybe if Durant doesn't go down they win again, but maybe not.  After all, they barely beat Houston the year before that. 

2) Every year in the 80's there were 3-4 times as many teams given a chance to win the title compared to the last few years (note this is one of the most commonly cited ways the media and commentators discuss the league as being competitive) Moranis - Odds are garbage irrelevant

You've basically summarized my argument correctly, you know since it is based on actual results.  Given a chance before a season absolutely 100% doesn't mean a thing when you have the actual season results to look at.  The bottom line is the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Rockets, and Pistons were the only 5 teams to make the NBA Finals for an entire decade and the Lakers and the Celtics were the only teams to be good for basically the entire decade.  The Rockets had 2 fluke seasons, the Sixers were good the first half, and the Pistons were good the last few.  I don't think you could make a realistic argument that any team could have actually won the title in any season in the 80's.  A team like the Bucks, for example, that in the strange year actually competed with the Celtics got blitzed by the Sixers.  That isn't necessarily true of the NBA the last few years, where yeah, the Warriors were the heavy favorites, but the Rockets won 5 playoff games against them the last 2 years and were perhaps a Chris Paul injury away from taking them out 2 seasons ago and of course the Raptors won the title this year (and the Sixers and Bucks were clear contenders.  The Cavs 2 years ago were in the Finals (and it obviously wasn't close), but had the Warriors had an injury, the Cavs certainly could have won.  So in the last 2 seasons you had the Warriors, Rockets, Cavs, Raptors, Sixers, and Bucks that all could have won a title.  That makes the league more competitive than any given season in the 80's when quite simply there just wasn't that sort of swing.     

3) The Warriors were the first team in history of NBA from anything I can find to have active back to back MVPs on their team (a pretty clear sign of a dominant team) - Moranis reply - not answered

to be fair Durant was 2 seasons removed from winning the MVP.  But again this is a strange argument since players while playing on the same team don't generally win MVP's. That said, Dr. J and Moses were both on the 83 Sixers and they were back to back MVP's.  Moses won again in 83, meaning those 2 teammates held the last 3 MVP's including 1 when they were actually teammates (something the Warriors never did).   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Also for the record,   Kareem and Magic both won MVP's for the Lakers in the 80's, though they weren't back to back (they also were joined by a past his prime McAdoo so another MVP and HOFer).

Going back a long time, Russell and Cousy won back to back MVP's. 

4) The Warriors had 4 players that made all NBA season the previous season on their roster, best I can tell never done before in history of NBA - Moranis reply - tries to compare teams all-nba players over entire decade to one season of warriors Bizarre. Brings in the 60's for the first time on the 8th page of the thread. Bizarre

What is bizarre?  My argument has been that the league has never had competitive balance.  Why wouldn't that extend to the entire history of the league?  The Warriors didn't have 4 All NBA members on the same team, as they've never had more than 3 in any given season.  That was the point I was making.  Taking things before they joined up seems strange.  As for why I brought up the C's, it was because they were all on All NBA teams (again only 2 teams and not 3) within a few years of each other.  That is important because it shows the quality of play and also shows that things like All NBA Teams are stat driven.  It is hard to get stats when your stats are cannibalized.  That is why, with Durant, the Warriors had 3, 2, and 2 members on All NBA Teams.  They never had 4.  Not even close.  They never had more than 2 on the 1st or 2nd team.  Plenty of teams in NBA history had at least 2 players make the 1st or 2nd Team All NBA. 

Look man. Objectively the NBA has been the least competitive it has been in 40 years because there are were 4 all-nba guys on one team and 2 of the those guys were on the same team also. Of all the teams you were talking about in the 80's none of them were that stacked, and that is why this whole 80's premise was wrong. Worse, the NBA could have been more competitive if there were 3-4 other great teams to at least make the title competitive. But I mean we almost made the finals with terry rozier and brown and tatum. There just weren't many good teams.

That just isn't true.  You claim it is objective, but it isn't objective at all. 

Also since you decided to randomly bring in the 60's Celtics, I would agree with you that was less competitive than it is now. There were way less teams and the Celtics absolutely dominated. If you say something that is accurate I am going to be the first one to admit, which is a difference between you and I in these debates. You tried to make comparison to the 80's and the numbers were just not on your side, but instead of actually realizing this you just kept moving the goalposts and changing what we could consider as valid evidence in the argument. It is quite disappointing. Its not going to kill you to be like, yea I guess this has been a more extreme the last few years than other eras. Or maybe it would.

My argument has the NBA has never had competitive balance.  In fact, the first post you responded to talked about the entire league history.  I focused on the 80's because I think everyone would agree the 60's and the 90's weren't competitive at all.  They had a dominant team.  The 80's had 2 dominant teams and 2 other teams that were dominant for half the decade.  In fact, the 70's and the mid to late 00's (6 different champs in a 9 year period) have really been the only time when the league has had any sort of real competitive balance.  That was brought on for different reasons each time, but is in fact the objective reality given the actual results.  Frankly, if a team that is not the Warriors, Raptors, or Cavs wins the next title that would be 4 different champions in a 5 year season, which just hasn't happened all that often in league history until recently or the 70's (didn't happen at all in the 80's or 90's).

Also this is pretty funny, Warriors had highest Elo score across 4 consecutive seasons in NBA History. Worse for this 80's arguments a bunch of teams from the 80's made the list at the same time. What makes a league more competitive one great team dominating the rest of the league, or a bunch of heavy weight contenders competing against each other. I think even a toddler could understand a league with a bunch of good teams competing for the title is literally, by definition, competitive:

Highest average* blended Elo across four consecutive seasons for NBA franchises, 1948-18

TEAM   SEASONS   TITLES   4-YEAR BLENDED ELO
Golden State Warriors   2015-18   3   1789
Chicago Bulls   1995-98   3   1745
San Antonio Spurs   2013-16   1   1736
San Antonio Spurs   2003-06   2   1719
Chicago Bulls   1991-94   3   1717
Boston Celtics   1984-87   2   1716
Los Angeles Lakers   1985-88   3   1715
Los Angeles Lakers   2008-11   2   1706
Los Angeles Lakers   2000-03   3   1703
Miami Heat   2011-14   2   1702
Utah Jazz   1995-98   0   1702
Milwaukee Bucks   1971-74   1   1701
Philadelphia 76ers   1980-83   1   1698
Detroit Pistons   1987-90   2   1695
Oklahoma City Thunder   2011-14   0   1692

That doesn't actually prove the dominance you think it does.  If anything, that shows that while the Warriors have performed the best, they haven't performed significantly better than many other teams throughout history and that includes overlap with the Spurs (and frankly if Leonard stays, I bet the Raptors enter that list with a 2 season overlap just like the Spurs had a 2 season overlap).  And if Jordan hadn't retired, I suspect the Bulls would have been higher than the Warriors adding in a much better 95 season.

[celticsclay]

1) The Warriors were the biggest favorite to win the title in 20 years and much much bigger favorite than any team in the 80's. -Moranis response odds are bad and don't mean much (subquestion you didn't answer, why did you do extensive posting on the cavs title odds against the celtics after the kyrie trade to prove they were a more serious contender, this completely contradicts your viewpoint on odds. If you have any self respect never used odds to support your arguments again.

Both gross mischaracterizations of the arguments I made.  As for this thread, being a favorite doesn't mean a thing when you have actual results to look at.  Last year the Lakers had the 4th best title odds entering the season.  Those odds were clearly garbage and show the fallacy of using them to prove a lack of competitive balance.  Those are the points I'm making. The Warriors did not win the title last year and only clinched home-court the last week of the season.  Now sure maybe if Durant doesn't go down they win again, but maybe not.  After all, they barely beat Houston the year before that. 

2) Every year in the 80's there were 3-4 times as many teams given a chance to win the title compared to the last few years (note this is one of the most commonly cited ways the media and commentators discuss the league as being competitive) Moranis - Odds are garbage irrelevant

You've basically summarized my argument correctly, you know since it is based on actual results.  Given a chance before a season absolutely 100% doesn't mean a thing when you have the actual season results to look at.  The bottom line is the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Rockets, and Pistons were the only 5 teams to make the NBA Finals for an entire decade and the Lakers and the Celtics were the only teams to be good for basically the entire decade.  The Rockets had 2 fluke seasons, the Sixers were good the first half, and the Pistons were good the last few.  I don't think you could make a realistic argument that any team could have actually won the title in any season in the 80's.  A team like the Bucks, for example, that in the strange year actually competed with the Celtics got blitzed by the Sixers.  That isn't necessarily true of the NBA the last few years, where yeah, the Warriors were the heavy favorites, but the Rockets won 5 playoff games against them the last 2 years and were perhaps a Chris Paul injury away from taking them out 2 seasons ago and of course the Raptors won the title this year (and the Sixers and Bucks were clear contenders.  The Cavs 2 years ago were in the Finals (and it obviously wasn't close), but had the Warriors had an injury, the Cavs certainly could have won.  So in the last 2 seasons you had the Warriors, Rockets, Cavs, Raptors, Sixers, and Bucks that all could have won a title.  That makes the league more competitive than any given season in the 80's when quite simply there just wasn't that sort of swing.     

3) The Warriors were the first team in history of NBA from anything I can find to have active back to back MVPs on their team (a pretty clear sign of a dominant team) - Moranis reply - not answered

to be fair Durant was 2 seasons removed from winning the MVP.  But again this is a strange argument since players while playing on the same team don't generally win MVP's. That said, Dr. J and Moses were both on the 83 Sixers and they were back to back MVP's.  Moses won again in 83, meaning those 2 teammates held the last 3 MVP's including 1 when they were actually teammates (something the Warriors never did).   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Also for the record,   Kareem and Magic both won MVP's for the Lakers in the 80's, though they weren't back to back (they also were joined by a past his prime McAdoo so another MVP and HOFer).

Going back a long time, Russell and Cousy won back to back MVP's. 

4) The Warriors had 4 players that made all NBA season the previous season on their roster, best I can tell never done before in history of NBA - Moranis reply - tries to compare teams all-nba players over entire decade to one season of warriors Bizarre. Brings in the 60's for the first time on the 8th page of the thread. Bizarre

What is bizarre?  My argument has been that the league has never had competitive balance.  Why wouldn't that extend to the entire history of the league?  The Warriors didn't have 4 All NBA members on the same team, as they've never had more than 3 in any given season.  That was the point I was making.  Taking things before they joined up seems strange.  As for why I brought up the C's, it was because they were all on All NBA teams (again only 2 teams and not 3) within a few years of each other.  That is important because it shows the quality of play and also shows that things like All NBA Teams are stat driven.  It is hard to get stats when your stats are cannibalized.  That is why, with Durant, the Warriors had 3, 2, and 2 members on All NBA Teams.  They never had 4.  Not even close.  They never had more than 2 on the 1st or 2nd team.  Plenty of teams in NBA history had at least 2 players make the 1st or 2nd Team All NBA. 

Look man. Objectively the NBA has been the least competitive it has been in 40 years because there are were 4 all-nba guys on one team and 2 of the those guys were on the same team also. Of all the teams you were talking about in the 80's none of them were that stacked, and that is why this whole 80's premise was wrong. Worse, the NBA could have been more competitive if there were 3-4 other great teams to at least make the title competitive. But I mean we almost made the finals with terry rozier and brown and tatum. There just weren't many good teams.

That just isn't true.  You claim it is objective, but it isn't objective at all. 

Also since you decided to randomly bring in the 60's Celtics, I would agree with you that was less competitive than it is now. There were way less teams and the Celtics absolutely dominated. If you say something that is accurate I am going to be the first one to admit, which is a difference between you and I in these debates. You tried to make comparison to the 80's and the numbers were just not on your side, but instead of actually realizing this you just kept moving the goalposts and changing what we could consider as valid evidence in the argument. It is quite disappointing. Its not going to kill you to be like, yea I guess this has been a more extreme the last few years than other eras. Or maybe it would.

My argument has the NBA has never had competitive balance.  In fact, the first post you responded to talked about the entire league history.  I focused on the 80's because I think everyone would agree the 60's and the 90's weren't competitive at all.  They had a dominant team.  The 80's had 2 dominant teams and 2 other teams that were dominant for half the decade.  In fact, the 70's and the mid to late 00's (6 different champs in a 9 year period) have really been the only time when the league has had any sort of real competitive balance.  That was brought on for different reasons each time, but is in fact the objective reality given the actual results.  Frankly, if a team that is not the Warriors, Raptors, or Cavs wins the next title that would be 4 different champions in a 5 year season, which just hasn't happened all that often in league history until recently or the 70's (didn't happen at all in the 80's or 90's).

Also this is pretty funny, Warriors had highest Elo score across 4 consecutive seasons in NBA History. Worse for this 80's arguments a bunch of teams from the 80's made the list at the same time. What makes a league more competitive one great team dominating the rest of the league, or a bunch of heavy weight contenders competing against each other. I think even a toddler could understand a league with a bunch of good teams competing for the title is literally, by definition, competitive:

Highest average* blended Elo across four consecutive seasons for NBA franchises, 1948-18

TEAM   SEASONS   TITLES   4-YEAR BLENDED ELO
Golden State Warriors   2015-18   3   1789
Chicago Bulls   1995-98   3   1745
San Antonio Spurs   2013-16   1   1736
San Antonio Spurs   2003-06   2   1719
Chicago Bulls   1991-94   3   1717
Boston Celtics   1984-87   2   1716
Los Angeles Lakers   1985-88   3   1715
Los Angeles Lakers   2008-11   2   1706
Los Angeles Lakers   2000-03   3   1703
Miami Heat   2011-14   2   1702
Utah Jazz   1995-98   0   1702
Milwaukee Bucks   1971-74   1   1701
Philadelphia 76ers   1980-83   1   1698
Detroit Pistons   1987-90   2   1695
Oklahoma City Thunder   2011-14   0   1692

That doesn't actually prove the dominance you think it does.  If anything, that shows that while the Warriors have performed the best, they haven't performed significantly better than many other teams throughout history and that includes overlap with the Spurs (and frankly if Leonard stays, I bet the Raptors enter that list with a 2 season overlap just like the Spurs had a 2 season overlap).  And if Jordan hadn't retired, I suspect the Bulls would have been higher than the Warriors adding in a much better 95 season.

Moranis did you delete my post? You are now responding to a post that is no longer there? I really hope this is not what happened..

Update:Just so people don't think I was being crazy, I had someone else restore my post. I will assume it was deleted as an accident.

[angryguy77]

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.

And that is where odds get you in trouble because FIVE teams made the NBA Finals in the 80's.  That is both conferences, 2 from the west and 3 from the east.  There just wasn't competitive balance.  The league was dominated by the same teams for basically an entire decade. 

These are the Final 4 teams every year of the 80's (champion, runner-up, ecf  loser, wcf loser)

80 - Lakers, Sixers, Celtics, Sonics
81 - Celtics, Rockets, Sixers, Kings
82 - Lakers, Sixers, Celtics, Spurs
83 - Sixers, Lakers, Bucks, Spurs
84 - Celtics, Lakers, Bucks, Suns
85 - Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Nuggets
86 - Celtics, Rockets, Bucks, Lakers
87 - Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Sonics
88 - Lakers, Pistons, Celtics, Mavericks
89 - Pistons, Lakers, Bulls, Suns

Are you really arguing that is a league that was competitively balanced?  Sure you get the WCF loser changing a fair amount as the Rockets weren't a consistent contender, but no one ever truly challenged the Lakers out west (the 2 years the Rockets made the Finals, the Lakers were in the WCF).  5 of the first 6 years of the decade the Sixers and Celtics were in the final 4 with the Bucks making the other 2.  The Celtics hit the next 3 overlapping with the Pistons run and only falling out when the Bulls finally broke through to the final 4 in 89.  The Bucks were a consistently good team, but were never really a contender as they just weren't on the same level as the Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers.  From the Sixers last appearance in the finals in 83 until MJ retired for the first time after the 93 season only 3 teams from the East made the NBA Finals and they all had consecutive seasons runs with the Celtics the first 4, then the Pistons for 3, then the Bulls first 3-peat.  That is not competitive balance.  That is a league dominated by a couple of teams.   

EDIT: BTW, the Bucks in those 3 ECF appearance won exactly 2 games.  That is why I said they just weren't on the same level and weren't a real contender.  Also, the Knicks were +500 and had the 4th best pre-season title odds in the 84-85 season according to your link.  They won 24 games and were the 3rd worst team in the conference.  They were also Bernard King and a bunch of players no one has ever heard of.  This pretty clearly represents the problem with odds, especially pre-season ones.  They don't really give an accurate picture of whether or not a team is a contender.

This is a really weird way of admitting you were wrong. You brought up the 80’s. Said the league was always non competitive. I proved to you that there were consistently 8-12 teams given a decent chance of winning the title each year in the 80’s. There have been two the last three years with the warriors. There will be about 2 if Leonard signs with the lakers. This is objectively less competitive. You were wrong. Game over

Come on.  There weren't 8-12 teams with a decent chance of winning.  There were 2 or 3 in any given season, which just happens to be the same as right now and would be the same if Leonard joined the Lakers.  I mean in the last 2 seasons there have been 7 different teams in the final 8 with GS being the only repeat joined by Toronto, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Boston, Portland, and Houston.  That didn't happen a single time in the 80's (there were always at least 2 repeats in every single season).

Hey man. I’ll try to make this shorter and simpler for you otherwise I may give up. This is a conversation about whether people dislike having one super team that is objectively dominate over the rest of the league. You said the league has “always been like this.”Here are the facts:
The warriors were bigger favorites to win the league than any team in the 80s fact
The warriors were biggest single season favorite since one of mjs teams to win the title. Fact
There were only two teams given a great chance than 10 to 1 to win the title for the Durant years. Fact
The 80’s consistently had 7-12 teams given a greater than 10 to 1 chance to win the title each season. Fact
The 80’s were a more competitive league than it has been since Durant join the warriors to create a steroid super team. Fact.

you are basing your reasoning on preseason odds which are historically garbage. I'm basing it on the actual results.  The 1980's quite simply had less competitive balance than the 2010's.

What’s pretty funny is if you used the preseason odds with arguments with me in the past to show that your beloved cavs were more of a contender than the Celtics. We had a really long discussion about it and I told you I probably knew quite a bit more about odds cause I had done some semi professional wagering. Do you remember that? Now when they disagree with the point you want to make they are “garbage”.

I’m sorry man. Your point is objectively wrong. I think you would probably earn the respect of quite a few people if you just said “hey your right, Objectively it was a bit more competitive”. Alas, I guess that would be the proverbial when “pigs fly”

It's funny, normally Moranis is the one to die on the strangest of hills, so it's interesting to see you take a turn at it.

Your entire argument here is based on the folly of perception vs reality.  The fact that Vegas sets odds where they do is really nothing more than a byproduct of marketing.  The average betting fan is clueless and simply bets by name recognition and media hype. Vegas doesn't set odds based on who actually stands the best chance of winning, they set odds based on who clueless fans think will win but are only willing to wager on at a certain price point. Of course, it stands to reason that as media influence goes up bets gravitate towards the team being hyped the most.

The simple, undeniable reality of the matter is that the NBA throughout its history has gone through cycles where one or two teams are head and shoulders above everyone else. Every once in a while there will be a gap between 'superteams', but those are outlier seasons, not the norm.

If it wasn't the Lakers, it would be someone else.  The NBA is most profitable when these types of teams exist, like it or not.

kg it is not really about perception versus reality. There is actually a lot of ways to prove the Durant led warriors made the league less competitive than other eras, including the 80s. However showing the odds in my mind was the easiest, fastest and most objective way to do it. And while what you say about odds is true, you can’t really get away from the fact that they are, based on what is expected to happen more than anything else. If the warriors are -500 to win a game against the blazers, it is more about them winning the game than anything else.

I didn’t really think I had to dig into this deeper to show how the warriors dominated the league more than the rest of the league (and how a hypo Leonard Davis Lebron team would too)  but if people actually still don’t get it I can. Off mind without researching I believe that the warriors were the first team to join back to back mvps. That is another way of showing their dominance. Going into the 2016-2017 season when Durant joined the warriors they had 4 guys that made all nba teams the previous year on their roster. I would have to do dog into the 80’s to see if that happened then, but my guess would be no. And while the teams of the 80’s often did have a lot of allstars, they actually should because there were a lot less teams back then. The fact that warriors had these 4 all nba guys when there was a 30 team league really is unprecedented. Kg I know you would give me a more thoughtful response, so what do you think would be a fair way to show the warriors Durant super team made the league less competitive than other eras for other teams?

This is the only point that needs to be made in your favor. When you have super teams forming in an era where the talent is more diluted than in decades past, you're going to see a less competitive league.

[PhoSita]

As with KD going to the Warriors, it would make the playoffs less interesting in that the ultimate outcome would seem to be much less in doubt unless the Lakers run into injuries.

I would still happily watch the regular season and the first few rounds of the playoffs.


Bottom line, the Celtics aren't winning a title in the next 2-3 years anyway.  But I am really excited by the parity that seems to exist in the league as of this moment and I hope Kawhi's free agency decision doesn't undermine that, which would be the result if he joins up with LeBron and AD.

[Rondo9]

As with KD going to the Warriors, it would make the playoffs less interesting in that the ultimate outcome would seem to be much less in doubt unless the Lakers run into injuries.

I would still happily watch the regular season and the first few rounds of the playoffs.


Bottom line, the Celtics aren't winning a title in the next 2-3 years anyway.  But I am really excited by the parity that seems to exist in the league as of this moment and I hope Kawhi's free agency decision doesn't undermine that, which would be the result if he joins up with LeBron and AD.

Wait, the Celtics aren’t winning a title?  the new season hasn’t even started yet!

[celticsclay]

As with KD going to the Warriors, it would make the playoffs less interesting in that the ultimate outcome would seem to be much less in doubt unless the Lakers run into injuries.

I would still happily watch the regular season and the first few rounds of the playoffs.


Bottom line, the Celtics aren't winning a title in the next 2-3 years anyway.  But I am really excited by the parity that seems to exist in the league as of this moment and I hope Kawhi's free agency decision doesn't undermine that, which would be the result if he joins up with LeBron and AD.

Phosita,

Curious for your take on this, 1) if Leonard signs with Lakers would you think they have 3 of top 6 players in the league for next season? (I personally rank Lebron lower but this is the ranking I generally hear.

2) If so, do you think a team has had 3 of the top 6 players in their NBA anytime in the last 40 years?

[PhoSita]

As with KD going to the Warriors, it would make the playoffs less interesting in that the ultimate outcome would seem to be much less in doubt unless the Lakers run into injuries.

I would still happily watch the regular season and the first few rounds of the playoffs.


Bottom line, the Celtics aren't winning a title in the next 2-3 years anyway.  But I am really excited by the parity that seems to exist in the league as of this moment and I hope Kawhi's free agency decision doesn't undermine that, which would be the result if he joins up with LeBron and AD.

Phosita,

Curious for your take on this, 1) if Leonard signs with Lakers would you think they have 3 of top 6 players in the league for next season? (I personally rank Lebron lower but this is the ranking I generally hear.

2) If so, do you think a team has had 3 of the top 6 players in their NBA anytime in the last 40 years?

Leonard clearly qualifies.  He'd probably be the MVP for last season if you took the playoffs into account.

Davis is harder to place.  His raw numbers are amazing and his talent is undeniable. He was awesome a couple years ago in the playoffs (and leading his team to a playoff berth).  Yet we've also seen that just having him on a team doesn't guarantee a trip to the playoffs, let alone contention.  It's true the Pelicans did not have many NBA caliber rotation players around Davis, but it's not like he never had any help.

I would say that Davis has not shown that he's on the same level as Giannis, Curry, Harden, Kawhi, etc.  The talent is there but the impact is not.  I'm not sure if I'd put Davis in the top 5-6 or whatever, but he's clearly in the upper echelon of the league.  He's a superstar in his prime.  Is he clearly better than Embiid or Jokic?  I'm not sure.


LeBron doesn't play defense anymore in the regular season.  In the playoffs, he still theoretically has it, but will that still be true in April, May, and June 2020?  He has so many miles on his legs.  Really the only other players to play deep into the playoffs for as long as LeBron has are Kareem and Malone.

Kareem was still an elite player at age 37/38/39.  Malone was as well.  But they were big men, without the same perimeter / ballhandling responsibilities as LeBron.  They could rely on a post-up game.  LeBron has a nice post-up game but that's not where the league is now.


On balance, can you say that LeBron is still in that uppermost tier?  In a single game or in a single playoff series I think the answer is almost certainly yes.  Not sure if you can say that if you're talking about the full extent of a regular season and a deep playoff run.  All bets are off with LeBron but it just seems a bit presumptuous to assume that he'll still be LEBRON at age 35 in his 17th season playing deep into June again.



If you're trying to compare it to another team, I'm not sure I can think of an example of a team that had 3 guys who all had been in the MVP conversation within the last couple of seasons.

I don't know if that means they'll be more imposing than the 2017/2018 Warriors were with a healthy Curry, Klay, Durant, and Draymond.  For one thing I think the talent fit was more obvious.  For another they were all younger than LeBron and had fewer nagging durability concerns than Kawhi and Davis.


I don't know if it really matters.  Winning a title is about being better than any of the teams that can go against you in a playoff series.  If the Lakers add Kawhi to LeBron and AD, all they will need is a handful of NBA-caliber veterans with a passable mix of useful skills to be the prohibitive favorite.  No other team in the league will be able to put out a lineup featuring more than one healthy MVP-caliber talent. 

Probably only the Sixers would have the upside to beat a healthy Lakers team if that happens, and I'm going to continue to be skeptical of the Sixers so long as they have non-shooting Ben Simmons in a major role.

[celticsclay]

As with KD going to the Warriors, it would make the playoffs less interesting in that the ultimate outcome would seem to be much less in doubt unless the Lakers run into injuries.

I would still happily watch the regular season and the first few rounds of the playoffs.


Bottom line, the Celtics aren't winning a title in the next 2-3 years anyway.  But I am really excited by the parity that seems to exist in the league as of this moment and I hope Kawhi's free agency decision doesn't undermine that, which would be the result if he joins up with LeBron and AD.

Phosita,

Curious for your take on this, 1) if Leonard signs with Lakers would you think they have 3 of top 6 players in the league for next season? (I personally rank Lebron lower but this is the ranking I generally hear.

2) If so, do you think a team has had 3 of the top 6 players in their NBA anytime in the last 40 years?

Leonard clearly qualifies.  He'd probably be the MVP for last season if you took the playoffs into account.

Davis is harder to place.  His raw numbers are amazing and his talent is undeniable. He was awesome a couple years ago in the playoffs (and leading his team to a playoff berth).  Yet we've also seen that just having him on a team doesn't guarantee a trip to the playoffs, let alone contention.  It's true the Pelicans did not have many NBA caliber rotation players around Davis, but it's not like he never had any help.

I would say that Davis has not shown that he's on the same level as Giannis, Curry, Harden, Kawhi, etc.  The talent is there but the impact is not.  I'm not sure if I'd put Davis in the top 5-6 or whatever, but he's clearly in the upper echelon of the league.  He's a superstar in his prime.  Is he clearly better than Embiid or Jokic?  I'm not sure.


LeBron doesn't play defense anymore in the regular season.  In the playoffs, he still theoretically has it, but will that still be true in April, May, and June 2020?  He has so many miles on his legs.  Really the only other players to play deep into the playoffs for as long as LeBron has are Kareem and Malone.

Kareem was still an elite player at age 37/38/39.  Malone was as well.  But they were big men, without the same perimeter / ballhandling responsibilities as LeBron.  They could rely on a post-up game.  LeBron has a nice post-up game but that's not where the league is now.


On balance, can you say that LeBron is still in that uppermost tier?  In a single game or in a single playoff series I think the answer is almost certainly yes.  Not sure if you can say that if you're talking about the full extent of a regular season and a deep playoff run.  All bets are off with LeBron but it just seems a bit presumptuous to assume that he'll still be LEBRON at age 35 in his 17th season playing deep into June again.



If you're trying to compare it to another team, I'm not sure I can think of an example of a team that had 3 guys who all had been in the MVP conversation within the last couple of seasons.

I don't know if that means they'll be more imposing than the 2017/2018 Warriors were with a healthy Curry, Klay, Durant, and Draymond.  For one thing I think the talent fit was more obvious.  For another they were all younger than LeBron and had fewer nagging durability concerns than Kawhi and Davis.

I generally agree with this all, but I am fully expecting Davis to have a monster year playing alongside Lebron (whether or not they get Leonard). I also agree with you that Leonard, for the full season including playoffs, was the MVP's. The fact that the strongest teams we can think of for top end talent in the last 40 years (if leonard signs) are all in the last 5 seasons really does show the league has not always been like this.

That being said, the NBA already seems like they are trying to address this to have the very top players spread out more like they were in the 2000's, 90's and 80's (I am not saying it was great and parity the, but obviously better than now).

I have seen many speculate that the NBA gets rid of the max and allows the teams to pay up to 80% of the cap to one player. If Lebron, Davis and Leonard could all make 60-70 million on their own, I can't see the three of them playing for 95 to be together. I think this was the thinking behind the supermax, but that just hasn't worked out as planned.

[Moranis]

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the mid-80's Sixers were fairly equivalent to this hypothetical Lakers team.  They had an aging, but still very good Dr. J.  They had Malone still in his prime.  They had a rising star in Barkley.  They had HOF role players in Cheeks and Jones.  They had an old former MVP in McAdoo riding their bench.  As well as some other quality depth (guys like Sedale Threatt).  For Barkley's rookie year they also had recent all star Andrew Toney (though Barkley wasn't as good that year).