2024 NBA Offseason News

[MattyIce]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

[Kernewek]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

But the question is - why did the break benefit the Lakers more than other teams? Because they're relying more on fragile superstars? Because LeBron's PED guy is still based in Florida?

[Surferdad]

Woj:  5 years, $270 million for Scottie Barnes.

Did they get a discount?

I don't think I'd bother giving him an early extension if I wasn't getting a discount. He hasn't proved enough. Too much empty stats / empty returns / stats not resulting in wins.

5/270 is the 30% max, which he'll only get if he makes All-NBA next year. If he doesn't make All-NBA he'll get the 25% max which would be 5/225. So no, this isn't in any way a discount. Its his max. 

He was actually a very high regarded player advanced stats wise last season.

Barnes isn?t likely to make all-NBA so it is probably 5/225 which makes more sense.

[Moranis]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

But the question is - why did the break benefit the Lakers more than other teams? Because they're relying more on fragile superstars? Because LeBron's PED guy is still based in Florida?

And again the Lakers were healthy while many teams were not when the season went on hold. And the Lakers lost their starting SG who refused to play in the Bubble.  This talk is all because it was the Lakers who are the C's main rival for titles. It is silly. The Lakers earned that title. It wasn't a fluke and it shouldn't have an asterisk

Edit; BTW, Jaylen Brown was out when the season went on hold. He missed the 4 games before the stoppage and was back healthy for the bubble.

[celticsclay]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

But the question is - why did the break benefit the Lakers more than other teams? Because they're relying more on fragile superstars? Because LeBron's PED guy is still based in Florida?

And again the Lakers were healthy while many teams were not when the season went on hold. And the Lakers lost their starting SG who refused to play in the Bubble.  This talk is all because it was the Lakers who are the C's main rival for titles. It is silly. The Lakers earned that title. It wasn't a fluke and it shouldn't have an asterisk

Edit; BTW, Jaylen Brown was out when the season went on hold. He missed the 4 games before the stoppage and was back healthy for the bubble.

I know it is fun for you to act like it is only Celtics fans that point out the bubble title was different, but it is literally fans of the entire NBA that point that out. That is because objectively WAS different because it is the only title that didn't have road games or travel round by round. The Lakers very well could have won the title in normal circumstances, and probably had a decent chance because as you point out they had the best record went it shut down. But to stick your head in the sand act like it wasnt a very unusual title that IS different it pretty silly. Personally, I think the shut down and no travel does help older teams or injury prone players for the most part because traveling around on planes and changing time zones is more grueling than not doing them. At this point it is very old news so not worth debating forever. One thing that isn't debatable though is it was unique. So that shouldn't be debated either.

[Moranis]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

But the question is - why did the break benefit the Lakers more than other teams? Because they're relying more on fragile superstars? Because LeBron's PED guy is still based in Florida?

And again the Lakers were healthy while many teams were not when the season went on hold. And the Lakers lost their starting SG who refused to play in the Bubble.  This talk is all because it was the Lakers who are the C's main rival for titles. It is silly. The Lakers earned that title. It wasn't a fluke and it shouldn't have an asterisk

Edit; BTW, Jaylen Brown was out when the season went on hold. He missed the 4 games before the stoppage and was back healthy for the bubble.

I know it is fun for you to act like it is only Celtics fans that point out the bubble title was different, but it is literally fans of the entire NBA that point that out. That is because objectively WAS different because it is the only title that didn't have road games or travel round by round. The Lakers very well could have won the title in normal circumstances, and probably had a decent chance because as you point out they had the best record went it shut down. But to stick your head in the sand act like it wasnt a very unusual title that IS different it pretty silly. Personally, I think the shut down and no travel does help older teams or injury prone players for the most part because traveling around on planes and changing time zones is more grueling than not doing them. At this point it is very old news so not worth debating forever. One thing that isn't debatable though is it was unique. So that shouldn't be debated either.

apparently you are incapable of reading so im not sure why you bothered to respond. I said it was different. Just said it wasn't a fluke and they earned it. If you are going to respond, at least read what I wrote.

[Moranis]

The reality is there are a lot of seasons that are different. I mean Boston's 1st title came in a league with 8 teams, they played 72 regular season games, and had to win just 7 games in the playoffs.  That is pretty clearly different than this past title.  They both count though. They were both earned and they weren't a fluke.  That is the point.  Every single season has oddities and weirdness to them. Some are more different than others and this board going out of its way to discredit prior titles of other teams is just sad.

[MattyIce]

The reality is there are a lot of seasons that are different. I mean Boston's 1st title came in a league with 8 teams, they played 72 regular season games, and had to win just 7 games in the playoffs.  That is pretty clearly different than this past title.  They both count though. They were both earned and they weren't a fluke.  That is the point.  Every single season has oddities and weirdness to them. Some are more different than others and this board going out of its way to discredit prior titles of other teams is just sad.

it's not just this board, does that make you sad?

[BitterJim]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

But the question is - why did the break benefit the Lakers more than other teams? Because they're relying more on fragile superstars? Because LeBron's PED guy is still based in Florida?

And again the Lakers were healthy while many teams were not when the season went on hold. And the Lakers lost their starting SG who refused to play in the Bubble.  This talk is all because it was the Lakers who are the C's main rival for titles. It is silly. The Lakers earned that title. It wasn't a fluke and it shouldn't have an asterisk

Edit; BTW, Jaylen Brown was out when the season went on hold. He missed the 4 games before the stoppage and was back healthy for the bubble.

It very clearly should have an asterisk, the season was a completely different than a normal season because of the hold and then the bubble. That doesn't mean that the title should count as less than any other title, but it's a complete outlier of a season and that shouldn't be forgotten/ignored.

A Barry Bonds-style asterisk that discredits the accomplishment isn't the only kind of asterisk.

[BitterJim]

The reality is there are a lot of seasons that are different. I mean Boston's 1st title came in a league with 8 teams, they played 72 regular season games, and had to win just 7 games in the playoffs.  That is pretty clearly different than this past title.  They both count though. They were both earned and they weren't a fluke.  That is the point.  Every single season has oddities and weirdness to them. Some are more different than others and this board going out of its way to discredit prior titles of other teams is just sad.

it's not just this board, does that make you sad?

God forbid we hold ourselves to a higher standard 

[Moranis]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

But the question is - why did the break benefit the Lakers more than other teams? Because they're relying more on fragile superstars? Because LeBron's PED guy is still based in Florida?

And again the Lakers were healthy while many teams were not when the season went on hold. And the Lakers lost their starting SG who refused to play in the Bubble.  This talk is all because it was the Lakers who are the C's main rival for titles. It is silly. The Lakers earned that title. It wasn't a fluke and it shouldn't have an asterisk

Edit; BTW, Jaylen Brown was out when the season went on hold. He missed the 4 games before the stoppage and was back healthy for the bubble.

It very clearly should have an asterisk, the season was a completely different than a normal season because of the hold and then the bubble. That doesn't mean that the title should count as less than any other title, but it's a complete outlier of a season and that shouldn't be forgotten/ignored.

A Barry Bonds-style asterisk that discredits the accomplishment isn't the only kind of asterisk.

Well sure, but you could asterisk half the seasons, which is why it is silly. 

Put it this way, what seasons should not have an asterisk?  I mean this season was

30 teams
82 regular season games
4 full rounds of best of 7
Play-in
In season tournament

It is the only season in the history of the sport with all of those things.  Now next year, we should get another one, so if that is the new standard, do all prior seasons get an asterisk.

Or do we take a more general approach and say 82 game regular season and a full 4 rounds of playoffs (so no byes)? But then what do we do about 5 games vs. 7 games in the 1st round. The first season of 4 full rounds was the 1983-84 season. The 1st round went to best of 7 starting in the 2002-2003 season. Since that 03 season there have been 3 seasons that weren't 82 games (2011-12 was 66 games, and then the Covid year and the year after it).  And of course we didn't add the 30th team until the 2004-05 season.

But this is why I just don't put any stock into this.  You could literally asterisk just about every season because every season is different.  That is sort of the point.  There are teams being added or moving cities, there are less games, there is the play-in, there is the in season tournament, etc. They continually adjust the schedule and rest rules. The game continually adapts.

[radiohead]

Just saw on X that John Wall is willing to do the Udonis Haslem role for any team willing to give him a chance. Which team should get him?

[green_bballers13]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

But the question is - why did the break benefit the Lakers more than other teams? Because they're relying more on fragile superstars? Because LeBron's PED guy is still based in Florida?

And again the Lakers were healthy while many teams were not when the season went on hold. And the Lakers lost their starting SG who refused to play in the Bubble.  This talk is all because it was the Lakers who are the C's main rival for titles. It is silly. The Lakers earned that title. It wasn't a fluke and it shouldn't have an asterisk

Edit; BTW, Jaylen Brown was out when the season went on hold. He missed the 4 games before the stoppage and was back healthy for the bubble.

It very clearly should have an asterisk, the season was a completely different than a normal season because of the hold and then the bubble. That doesn't mean that the title should count as less than any other title, but it's a complete outlier of a season and that shouldn't be forgotten/ignored.

A Barry Bonds-style asterisk that discredits the accomplishment isn't the only kind of asterisk.

Well sure, but you could asterisk half the seasons, which is why it is silly. 

Put it this way, what seasons should not have an asterisk?  I mean this season was

30 teams
82 regular season games
4 full rounds of best of 7
Play-in
In season tournament

It is the only season in the history of the sport with all of those things.  Now next year, we should get another one, so if that is the new standard, do all prior seasons get an asterisk.

Or do we take a more general approach and say 82 game regular season and a full 4 rounds of playoffs (so no byes)? But then what do we do about 5 games vs. 7 games in the 1st round. The first season of 4 full rounds was the 1983-84 season. The 1st round went to best of 7 starting in the 2002-2003 season. Since that 03 season there have been 3 seasons that weren't 82 games (2011-12 was 66 games, and then the Covid year and the year after it).  And of course we didn't add the 30th team until the 2004-05 season.

But this is why I just don't put any stock into this.  You could literally asterisk just about every season because every season is different.  That is sort of the point.  There are teams being added or moving cities, there are less games, there is the play-in, there is the in season tournament, etc. They continually adjust the schedule and rest rules. The game continually adapts.

One season was way different than the others: the bubble season.

I think it should be included in the Lakers' championship total. I also think the bubble season was the reason the asterisk was created.

[celticsclay]

The reality is there are a lot of seasons that are different. I mean Boston's 1st title came in a league with 8 teams, they played 72 regular season games, and had to win just 7 games in the playoffs.  That is pretty clearly different than this past title.  They both count though. They were both earned and they weren't a fluke.  That is the point.  Every single season has oddities and weirdness to them. Some are more different than others and this board going out of its way to discredit prior titles of other teams is just sad.

it's not just this board, does that make you sad?

It makes him quite sad honestly. When you got 200 posts defending the lakers bubble championship, 900 about lebrons accomplishments, 1300 bashing jaylens plus minus and zero saying you are happy we won a championship obviously you have some different motivations than other forum members.

[celticsclay]

LeBron tenure in LA had been a D for me if grading him there & only reason not an F is he won a title albeit a bubble one..

weird grade. The 5 seasons before Lebron got there, the Lakers won 27, 21, 17, 26, and 35 games.  His first season they won 37, though Lebron played just 55 games and they were 28-27 with him.  Next season they acquired Davis, were the best team in the West all year, and won the title. They traded away som key vets, but wee still 42-30 the next year. Went up 2-1 on the Suns and then Davis got hurt in Game 4 and they ended up losing the series. Lebron and Davis both hurt the next year as they won just 33 games. But then ended up in the WCF last year and playoffs this year both with mid 40's wins. Lebron is in his upper 30's.  Not exactly sure what you were expecting, but they were significantly better woth Lebron than without him.

I think Lebron's tenure in LA has been disappointing.  I don't blame Lebron the player for that.  Lebron the GM and Lebron the Coach Killer?  Perhaps.  That Westbrook trade killed them, and they haven't found any consistency since.

But, it's not a failing grade or a D-.  I think almost every franchise in the NBA would be happy with one title in six seasons, even if the expectations were greater.  Worst case, it's a C+/B-.

and players don?t respect that mickey mouse

I'm not sure how I feel about the Bubble Title.  The games certainly didn't resemble anything like NBA basketball, but arguably the Lakers suffered as much as anybody due to HCA being meaningless.

Is that title more or less flukey than the 50 game season?

I don't think either was a fluke. The Lakers were the best team in the West when the season went on hold and were also one of the healthier ones.  Several western teams ended up getting stats healthy during the break. 

The Spurs had the best record in the sport. The Knicks weren't great, but they beat 70% win rate Blazers and 62% win rate Lakers in the playoffs.  And that was a Shaq/Kobe team. Even the 1st round Wolves was the best Wolves team till the Spreewl/Cassell team.

Those seasons were different but neither champion was a fluke.

sorry incorrect, thats how most players regard it, lakers wouldn't have won w/o a long break

But the question is - why did the break benefit the Lakers more than other teams? Because they're relying more on fragile superstars? Because LeBron's PED guy is still based in Florida?

And again the Lakers were healthy while many teams were not when the season went on hold. And the Lakers lost their starting SG who refused to play in the Bubble.  This talk is all because it was the Lakers who are the C's main rival for titles. It is silly. The Lakers earned that title. It wasn't a fluke and it shouldn't have an asterisk

Edit; BTW, Jaylen Brown was out when the season went on hold. He missed the 4 games before the stoppage and was back healthy for the bubble.

It very clearly should have an asterisk, the season was a completely different than a normal season because of the hold and then the bubble. That doesn't mean that the title should count as less than any other title, but it's a complete outlier of a season and that shouldn't be forgotten/ignored.

A Barry Bonds-style asterisk that discredits the accomplishment isn't the only kind of asterisk.

Well sure, but you could asterisk half the seasons, which is why it is silly. 

Put it this way, what seasons should not have an asterisk?  I mean this season was

30 teams
82 regular season games
4 full rounds of best of 7
Play-in
In season tournament

It is the only season in the history of the sport with all of those things.  Now next year, we should get another one, so if that is the new standard, do all prior seasons get an asterisk.

Or do we take a more general approach and say 82 game regular season and a full 4 rounds of playoffs (so no byes)? But then what do we do about 5 games vs. 7 games in the 1st round. The first season of 4 full rounds was the 1983-84 season. The 1st round went to best of 7 starting in the 2002-2003 season. Since that 03 season there have been 3 seasons that weren't 82 games (2011-12 was 66 games, and then the Covid year and the year after it).  And of course we didn't add the 30th team until the 2004-05 season.

But this is why I just don't put any stock into this.  You could literally asterisk just about every season because every season is different.  That is sort of the point.  There are teams being added or moving cities, there are less games, there is the play-in, there is the in season tournament, etc. They continually adjust the schedule and rest rules. The game continually adapts.

Perhaps the least well thought out post I have read In my 15 years here. Some seasons add a team. Others have an extra tournament game added or a play in added. This means a full playoffs with no crowds or travel is the same. lol. Like have a little self respect here