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

[konkmv]

If you want to win you must win the best... and sometimes superteams get destroyed... remember the kobe shaq payton karl... team

[footey]

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

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

[johnnygreen]

If you want to win you must win the best... and sometimes superteams get destroyed... remember the kobe shaq payton karl... team

Payton (36 in 2004) and Malone (41 in 2004) were shells of themselves at the time, and were strictly ring chasing. Both guys started too, so their bodies were done by the time the Finals rolled around.

[celticsclay]

If you want to win you must win the best... and sometimes superteams get destroyed... remember the kobe shaq payton karl... team

Payton (36 in 2004) and Malone (41 in 2004) were shells of themselves at the time, and were strictly ring chasing. Both guys started too, so their bodies were done by the time the Finals rolled around.

Yea Payton was mostly washed when he was here right? And if memory serves correct this Lakers stint was after that? Malone still was pretty good, but then finally succumbed to injuries that year i think.

[bdm860]

I would only lose interest if the Lakers go 82-0 and win every game by 40 points, even then I probably wouldn't lose interest until the 2nd or so season of that, though the second somebody has a competitive game/series against them I'd immediately be interested again. 

Watching history be made (72-win Bulls, 73-win Warriors) and watching/hoping giants fall (like the 73 win Warriors losing, or the C's ending the Warriors 54 home game winning streak) is always entertaining.

And personally, I'm not sure if the Lakers would be that dominate.  In the last 20 years or so, every time a "super team" has come together, the results have always been less than what people expected.

Barkley, Olajuwon, Drexler/Pippen:  Lost in conference Finals, then back-to-back first round exits.  Over the hill sure, but had high expectations they  never met.

Shaq, Kobe, Malone, Payton:  People were saying they'd go 82-0, it's not fair, only to get beat in the Finals.

Pierce, Garnett, Allen: even though they won a championship in '08, had two 7-game series that year.

LeBron, Wade, Bosh: people thought they'd steamroll the league.  Didn't even win that first year, still won 2 titles out of 4 years.  The 2 years they won they had three 7-game series and only 1 sweep in the playoffs.  The unstoppable dominance wasn't there.

Durant + Warriors (since the Warriors pre-Durant were an organic creation I won't count them):  they pretty much steamrolled the league that first year, only losing 1 playoff game, but that was also due to a Kawhi injury (I like to think that could have been a 7 game series).  But in 2018 they had a 7-game series, and in 2019 (after adding Cousins) they didn't even win the title.

Whenever the super teams have come together, they never dominate like people think they will.  Opposing teams are still able to challenge them.  The NBA will still be entertaining.

Lakers will have to deal with injuries, chemistry, lack-of-depth, LeBron's decline, etc.  Even if Kawhi signs, I'm not ready to crown them the 2020 champion just yet.

My interest in non-Celtics basketball would increase a little at first as I'd be interested to see how everything plays out with the Lakers and rooting for them to lose.

[Moranis]

   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Dr J turned 35 during the 84-85 season.

When the warriors came together Durant was 28, Steph was 28, klay was 26 and dray was 26. They were all coming of making all nba, all four made the all star team the first year I believe and Steph curry and Durant were coming off back to back mvps and healthy. There has never been anything like all of that combined in the last 49 years. I could say this to a 100 people and 99 of them would say yeah that is pretty straight forward it was a stacked team that made the nba less competitive. I found the one person that wants to argue the nba has always been like this and nothing was different. And this dude had the audacity to say it sounded strange lol

you keep repeating this yet when Moses joined the 82-83 Sixers, he was the reigning MVP.  The MVP directly before him was Dr. J.  Moses would win the MVP again their first season together (Dr. J finished 5th - they were both 1st Team All NBA) and they won 65 games and went 12-1 in the playoffs to win the title.  That team also had future HOFers Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks (they both finished tied for 3rd for DPOY that year), as well as All Star Andrew Toney.  Moses, Dr. J, and Cheeks all started the 83 All Star game and Toney was a reserve.  So they also had 4 All Stars.

Now explain to me how the Warriors are any different again?

I’ve literally provided pages and pages of evidence here including odds, elo rankings, individual accolades etc and you just choose not to accept them. We haven’t even added the fact that the warriors added a top 3 player to the team that set all the all times wins record. Your comparison for a 2 time champion warriors teamis to compare a philly team with some individual accolades (while it cool you found a team with 4 all stars, as other posters mentioned even the fact there were 8-10 less teams make that a bit less remarkable than warriors accomplishment) that never won the championship? I honestly don’t even get where you are going with this stuff, but it doesn’t seem like this is going anywhere. I guess at some level this most recent point by you strikes me as particularly humorous cause it is arguing my point. The 76ers were a very good team that year, but they lost. And you know why? There were other good teams and the league was more competitive. Thank you for coming full circle on this

The 83 Sixers won the title.  They went 12-1 in the playoffs. 

The 82 Sixers won 58 games and lost in 6 games in the NBA Finals and then added the reigning MVP to their team.  The Sixers

So to recap, the Sixers lost a close series in the NBA Finals and then added the reigning MVP to their team and won the title.   Seems pretty similar to the Warriors that lost in the Finals and then added a former MVP (not the reigning one).

So your final argument is that the 83 76ers were an extremely dominant team that was the most dominating team in the NBA (for one season) until Durant joined the Warriors? I can accept that there was another time in history 34 years ago where this happened. Thankfully the guys on the team were older and the 76ers were only able to have this two year run with one title. It was great for the NBA there will also great teams in Boston, Milwaukee and LA so the rest of the 80's had some really great matchups. The concern with this warriors team was that theyw ere all 26-28 and had a chance at a 6 or 7 year run. Thankfully for the league's competitive purposes Durant's injury stopped that from being more than back to back mostly non-competitive championships.

Um, no I was commenting on several of your statements that just weren't true that you claimed were.  No other team had back to back MVP's.  False.  No other team had 4 all stars.  False (and that has happened other times as well).  And to be clear the Sixers starting in 80 won 59, 62, and 58 games and got to the Finals twice (ECF the other year).  They then added the reigning MVP, won 65 games, and went 12-1 in the playoffs (including a sweep of the defending champion Lakers in the Finals).   

The Rockets absolutely pushed and tested the Warriors in year 2.  If not for a Chris Paul injury, the Rockets probably win that series and the Warriors end the last 3 seasons with just 1 title.  That first season they were dominant, no question, but they were absolutely beatable in year 2 (see Rockets) and lost in year 3 (and frankly if Kawhi doesn't get hurt in game 1 who knows what happens in year 1 against the Spurs, after all the Spurs were crushing the Warriors until Kawhi went down). 

The Sixers had 4 HOFers in their prime in 83.  Of those 4, 2 were the last 2 MVP's winner, one of which would win the MVP that season (and the other would finish 5th).  The other 2 HOFers were 1st Team All League defenders that finished in the top 3 for DPOY that year (that was the first year the award existed otherwise I'm pretty confident that Bobby Jones would have won several of them).  They had a young up and comer that would make the 1st of his all star teams that season (and if not for injuries might have also ended up in the HOF).  The Sixers were absolutely stacked.  They dominated the league winning 9 more games than any team in the East and 7 more than any team in the West, and then blitzed through the playoffs including a sweep of the defending champs in the Finals. 

Change a few of the names and some minor things and that is the exact description of the Warriors the past few seasons.  That is why you can objectively say the league has rarely had competitive balance.  It is built on dynasties.  No one could challenge the Shaq Lakers, or the Jordan Bulls, or the Russell Celtics.  The 80's had basically 3 dominant teams at any given time and a heck of a lot of scrubs.  That isn't competitive balance.  The league has never had it.  NEVER.

[celticsclay]

   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Dr J turned 35 during the 84-85 season.

When the warriors came together Durant was 28, Steph was 28, klay was 26 and dray was 26. They were all coming of making all nba, all four made the all star team the first year I believe and Steph curry and Durant were coming off back to back mvps and healthy. There has never been anything like all of that combined in the last 49 years. I could say this to a 100 people and 99 of them would say yeah that is pretty straight forward it was a stacked team that made the nba less competitive. I found the one person that wants to argue the nba has always been like this and nothing was different. And this dude had the audacity to say it sounded strange lol

you keep repeating this yet when Moses joined the 82-83 Sixers, he was the reigning MVP.  The MVP directly before him was Dr. J.  Moses would win the MVP again their first season together (Dr. J finished 5th - they were both 1st Team All NBA) and they won 65 games and went 12-1 in the playoffs to win the title.  That team also had future HOFers Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks (they both finished tied for 3rd for DPOY that year), as well as All Star Andrew Toney.  Moses, Dr. J, and Cheeks all started the 83 All Star game and Toney was a reserve.  So they also had 4 All Stars.

Now explain to me how the Warriors are any different again?

I’ve literally provided pages and pages of evidence here including odds, elo rankings, individual accolades etc and you just choose not to accept them. We haven’t even added the fact that the warriors added a top 3 player to the team that set all the all times wins record. Your comparison for a 2 time champion warriors teamis to compare a philly team with some individual accolades (while it cool you found a team with 4 all stars, as other posters mentioned even the fact there were 8-10 less teams make that a bit less remarkable than warriors accomplishment) that never won the championship? I honestly don’t even get where you are going with this stuff, but it doesn’t seem like this is going anywhere. I guess at some level this most recent point by you strikes me as particularly humorous cause it is arguing my point. The 76ers were a very good team that year, but they lost. And you know why? There were other good teams and the league was more competitive. Thank you for coming full circle on this

The 83 Sixers won the title.  They went 12-1 in the playoffs. 

The 82 Sixers won 58 games and lost in 6 games in the NBA Finals and then added the reigning MVP to their team.  The Sixers

So to recap, the Sixers lost a close series in the NBA Finals and then added the reigning MVP to their team and won the title.   Seems pretty similar to the Warriors that lost in the Finals and then added a former MVP (not the reigning one).

So your final argument is that the 83 76ers were an extremely dominant team that was the most dominating team in the NBA (for one season) until Durant joined the Warriors? I can accept that there was another time in history 34 years ago where this happened. Thankfully the guys on the team were older and the 76ers were only able to have this two year run with one title. It was great for the NBA there will also great teams in Boston, Milwaukee and LA so the rest of the 80's had some really great matchups. The concern with this warriors team was that theyw ere all 26-28 and had a chance at a 6 or 7 year run. Thankfully for the league's competitive purposes Durant's injury stopped that from being more than back to back mostly non-competitive championships.

Um, no I was commenting on several of your statements that just weren't true that you claimed were.  No other team had back to back MVP's.  False.  No other team had 4 all stars.  False (and that has happened other times as well).  And to be clear the Sixers starting in 80 won 59, 62, and 58 games and got to the Finals twice (ECF the other year).  They then added the reigning MVP, won 65 games, and went 12-1 in the playoffs (including a sweep of the defending champion Lakers in the Finals).   

The Rockets absolutely pushed and tested the Warriors in year 2.  If not for a Chris Paul injury, the Rockets probably win that series and the Warriors end the last 3 seasons with just 1 title.  That first season they were dominant, no question, but they were absolutely beatable in year 2 (see Rockets) and lost in year 3 (and frankly if Kawhi doesn't get hurt in game 1 who knows what happens in year 1 against the Spurs, after all the Spurs were crushing the Warriors until Kawhi went down). 

The Sixers had 4 HOFers in their prime in 83.  Of those 4, 2 were the last 2 MVP's winner, one of which would win the MVP that season (and the other would finish 5th).  The other 2 HOFers were 1st Team All League defenders that finished in the top 3 for DPOY that year (that was the first year the award existed otherwise I'm pretty confident that Bobby Jones would have won several of them).  They had a young up and comer that would make the 1st of his all star teams that season (and if not for injuries might have also ended up in the HOF).  The Sixers were absolutely stacked.  They dominated the league winning 9 more games than any team in the East and 7 more than any team in the West, and then blitzed through the playoffs including a sweep of the defending champs in the Finals. 

Change a few of the names and some minor things and that is the exact description of the Warriors the past few seasons.  That is why you can objectively say the league has rarely had competitive balance.  It is built on dynasties.  No one could challenge the Shaq Lakers, or the Jordan Bulls, or the Russell Celtics.  The 80's had basically 3 dominant teams at any given time and a heck of a lot of scrubs.  That isn't competitive balance.  The league has never had it.  NEVER.

I guess I and a number of other posters can just agree to disagree with you at this point. You can throw in a random 76ers team that had a nice year with some accolades but only one title. Writing never in caps doesn’t make your point any stronger btw. I do agree with you the Celtics dominated the league and the league was not competitive then (not sure why you keep bringing it up). Tp to footer and others that have pointed out the insanity of this

[celticsclay]

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

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

[footey]

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

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better. 

[KGs Knee]

I'll just state this again: the Warriors success the last 5 seasons was no more dominant than any other dominant team's run at the top.  Heck, 3 titles in 4 years isn't even the most dominating run we've ever seen.  2000's Lakers had a three-peat, 90's Bulls had two three-peats in 8 years, 80's Lakers also had 3 titles in 4 years.  Celtics of yore ran the league every year for entire decade.

The Warriors compare favorably, but yet never had a three-peat.  The actual results of their dynasty aren't any more dominant than any other team that dominated a decade.

[celticsclay]

I'll just state this again: the Warriors success the last 5 seasons was no more dominant than any other dominant team's run at the top.  Heck, 3 titles in 4 years isn't even the most dominating run we've ever seen.  2000's Lakers had a three-peat, 90's Bulls had two three-peats in 8 years, 80's Lakers also had 3 titles in 4 years.  Celtics of yore ran the league every year for entire decade.

The Warriors compare favorably, but yet never had a three-peat.  The actual results of their dynasty aren't any more dominant than any other team that dominated a decade.

Statistically by measurements like elo the warriors had the greatest 4 year run in modern nba history. Not sure if that counts fully cause one year was without kd. Fortunately for us and the rest of the league kd got hurt, klay got hurt and the team broke up. You are right that this is similar to the lakers because if Shaq and Kobe did not have personality issues that team could have dominated the league for 6-8 years in a row and made the league less competitive. The bulls really dominated cause Jordan was just so much better than anyone else in league history outside of maybe Russell. I would have said if Barkley signed with the bulls to play alongside mj that would have been like this warriors team.

[celticsclay]

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

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better.

84-85 Erving was like 34 and averaging 20 points a game. They had one true superstar in Malone. Cheeks was an elite role player then. Barkley was a rookie and only averaged 14 points. Quite a bit off from Durant, klay, curry and draymond all in their primes

[petbrick]

I'll just state this again: the Warriors success the last 5 seasons was no more dominant than any other dominant team's run at the top.  Heck, 3 titles in 4 years isn't even the most dominating run we've ever seen.  2000's Lakers had a three-peat, 90's Bulls had two three-peats in 8 years, 80's Lakers also had 3 titles in 4 years.  Celtics of yore ran the league every year for entire decade.

The Warriors compare favorably, but yet never had a three-peat.  The actual results of their dynasty aren't any more dominant than any other team that dominated a decade.

My suspicion is that in about a decade or so this will be the most common narrative, provided that the Warriors fail to win a title for the next few seasons.

However not even the Bulls managed to summon the same nihilistic inevitability with the game at the highest level that the post-Durant Warriors did.

[celticsclay]

I'll just state this again: the Warriors success the last 5 seasons was no more dominant than any other dominant team's run at the top.  Heck, 3 titles in 4 years isn't even the most dominating run we've ever seen.  2000's Lakers had a three-peat, 90's Bulls had two three-peats in 8 years, 80's Lakers also had 3 titles in 4 years.  Celtics of yore ran the league every year for entire decade.

The Warriors compare favorably, but yet never had a three-peat.  The actual results of their dynasty aren't any more dominant than any other team that dominated a decade.

My suspicion is that in about a decade or so this will be the most common narrative, provided that the Warriors fail to win a title for the next few seasons.

However not even the Bulls managed to summon the same nihilistic inevitability with the game at the highest level that the post-Durant Warriors did.

Yeah I was following nba pretty close during heat run and lakers run and definitely didn’t see the level of executives talking about holding onto resources cause those teams were juggernauts. You heard it a little bit in the east with the heat, but definitely not whole league. Man imagine if the pacers had beat those heat teams with Hibbert. Makes me nostalgic

[Moranis]

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

How old are you, Moranis? 12?  You clearly are not old enough to remember the mid-80's basketball landscape. For you to argue that the mid-eighties 76er team is the equivalent to the hypothetical Laker team is bogus to an insulting level. I hereby revoke your Moderator card for the next season.

If Leonard joins the Lakers (which I expect he will), they will have 3 of the top 5 players in the NBA who will be able to play next season. Since Durant and Thompson are out, they don't count.  Other than Giannis and (maybe) Embiid, there is no one else worth discussing. And forget arguing that Davis didn't make all NBA last season; we all know that if he played the entire year and avoided the Rich Paul shenanigans, he is likely a first team all NBA. Same with Lebron (whom I know you realize is still one of the top 2-3 players).

Stop this contrarian BS.

tough but fair. I’ve heard a lot of nba historians and star geeks discuss the history of the league, and this is the first time I have ever heard the 82-83 76ers as a super team in the league. The contrarian take has really gone off the rails.

This is worse, CC. He is arguing that the 84/85 Sixers (Barkley's rookie year) was better.

84-85 Erving was like 34 and averaging 20 points a game. They had one true superstar in Malone. Cheeks was an elite role player then. Barkley was a rookie and only averaged 14 points. Quite a bit off from Durant, klay, curry and draymond all in their primes

Hypothetical Lakers team is not the same as the Warriors.  I mean if you are going to quote my posts, at least read them before commenting. 

The 83 Sixers are considered one of the greatest teams in league history.  And they have that catchy Fo, Fi, Fo slogan.  Until the 01 Lakers they had the best playoff record of any team in history (which the warriors also eclipsed in 17).  They had 2 MVP's in their prime (Dr. J and Moses), perhaps the greatest defender of the generation (Jones), and another all league defender (Cheeks).  They had a rising star in Toney (injuries derailed his career).  They inexplicably lost early in the 84 playoffs (one of the greatest upsets in league history) and just got beaten by a bit better Celtics team in 85 before Malone got injured and then left and Dr. J continued the inevitable aging process.  Had Malone stayed though with the rise of Barkley who knows what the late 80's in the East would have looked like as Malone was still a beast through the end of the decade.

In any given season only 2 or 3 teams have realistic shots at winning the title (and many of those seasons there is in fact a heavy favorite - ala the Warriors, the Heat, the Lakers, the Bulls, etc.).  This has been borne out time and time again.