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

[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. 

[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.

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

[gouki88]

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

I admire you for bothering

[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). 

[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.

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

I admire you for bothering

Thanks Gouki. I appreciate it. I can understand people having different opinions on stuff (that’s the whole point of the board), but  when something is objectively right or wrong on math you would expect it to be a shorter conversation.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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”

[BringToughnessBack]

Really hoping Durant and Kawhi join forces on the Clippers. It will effectively negate the Lakers. I would bet on those two to beat Lebron/ Davis combo all day long. Maybe we can finally see a Stevens vs Doc coaching battle too. Kyrie would then wait for Lebron to retire and demand trade to Lakers to join Davis...Let it happen NBA Gods!

[KGs Knee]

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.

[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.

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?

[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).

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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