Biggest transition year in NBA history?

SaveOurBullets · Post #1 » by **SaveOurBullets** » Tue May 10, 2011 2:40 am

Where do you think 2011 fits into this?

1970 - Most teams remain about the same, but the Celtics' decline alone makes this the dawn of a new era.
1980 - The emergence of Magic and Bird alone makes this a brand new era, but the collapse of some of the Eastern powers also marks a massive shift.
1994/1999 - MJ's two retirements opened things up for everyone else, but the core of contending teams otherwise remained the same. 1999 has a stronger case since it immediately ushered in the Spurs era.
2011 - San Antonio sort of re-emerged but their playoff elimination closed the book, the Lakers and Celtics look like they're about done, and a brand new core of future contenders emerged pretty much out of the blue.

You could argue for 1989 or 1991, but the transition from the '80s dynasties to Detroit to Chicago was very gradual. So which was the biggest in our opinion?

8 Mile Ilic · Post #2 » by **8 Mile Ilic** » Tue May 10, 2011 2:45 am

Spurs and Celtics are done, Lakers are not. Unless we are to assume Pau plays like he does for the playoffs for the rest of his career.

SaveOurBullets · Post #3 » by **SaveOurBullets** » Tue May 10, 2011 2:47 am

8 Mile Ilic wrote:Spurs and Celtics are done, Lakers are not. Unless we are to assume Pau plays like he does for the playoffs for the rest of his career.

Unless they do something drastic (which would mark a transition as well), the Lakers won't be winning any more titles in this era.

8 Mile Ilic · Post #4 » by **8 Mile Ilic** » Tue May 10, 2011 2:49 am

SaveOurBullets wrote:
8 Mile Ilic wrote:Spurs and Celtics are done, Lakers are not. Unless we are to assume Pau plays like he does for the playoffs for the rest of his career.

Unless they do something drastic (which would mark a transition as well), the Lakers won't be winning any more titles in this era.

And what are the lottery numbers? :roll:

Ace1 · Post #5 » by **Ace1** » Tue May 10, 2011 2:52 am

Lock out in '99 as well...

SaveOurBullets · Post #6 » by **SaveOurBullets** » Tue May 10, 2011 2:56 am

8 Mile Ilic wrote:
SaveOurBullets wrote:
8 Mile Ilic wrote:Spurs and Celtics are done, Lakers are not. Unless we are to assume Pau plays like he does for the playoffs for the rest of his career.

Unless they do something drastic (which would mark a transition as well), the Lakers won't be winning any more titles in this era.

And what are the lottery numbers?

I don't know, but come on, it should be pretty clear at this point. They're an old team that's already peaked. Building around the same core isn't going to do it.

ChuckTheD · Post #7 » by **ChuckTheD** » Tue May 10, 2011 5:49 am

Not really. The Spurs have been done since 08, this season ended just as I expect their next season to end (with a first round exit.) The Lakers aren't done. Kobe's still an impact player and a legitimate #1 option, Gasol's not too old and after a full summer of people questioning his manhood he'll be ready to go (see 09 after the Boston series.) They'll make some moves, probably get a new point guard and maybe move Bynum. But they're definitely not done being a title contending team. Boston probably is, but I believe the door closed for them once the Perkins deal went down.

Basketology · Post #8 » by **Basketology** » Tue May 10, 2011 5:55 am

Pau had a terrible playoffs, they were ice cold from 3, and they literally gave 2 games to the Mavs, whereas the Mavs were dynamite from 3, and could not miss contested jumpers. Classic case of arrogant, elite team going cold at wrong time while meeting a very good jumpshooting team that was amazingly, historically hot for 4 games.

Alex Trevelyan · Post #9 » by **Alex Trevelyan** » Tue May 10, 2011 7:53 am

Basketology wrote:Pau had a terrible playoffs, they were ice cold from 3, and they literally gave 2 games to the Mavs, whereas the Mavs were dynamite from 3, and could not miss contested jumpers. Classic case of arrogant, elite team going cold at wrong time while meeting a very good jumpshooting team that was amazingly, historically hot for 4 games.

And what was the Lakers' excuse in the Hornets' series? They lost 5 of their last 7 games in the regular season too. This team has systemic problems that are not going to be solved in the off-season. Too many bad contracts on the books and no assets that can be moved without making the team worse. Aging teams that lose the crown don't get it back. The NBA isn't a Rocky movie.

Wavy Q · Post #10 » by **Wavy Q** » Tue May 10, 2011 8:09 am

Alex Trevelyan wrote:
Basketology wrote:Pau had a terrible playoffs, they were ice cold from 3, and they literally gave 2 games to the Mavs, whereas the Mavs were dynamite from 3, and could not miss contested jumpers. Classic case of arrogant, elite team going cold at wrong time while meeting a very good jumpshooting team that was amazingly, historically hot for 4 games.

And what was the Lakers' excuse in the Hornets' series? They lost 5 of their last 7 games in the regular season too. This team has systemic problems that are not going to be solved in the off-season. Too many bad contracts on the books and no assets that can be moved without making the team worse. Aging teams that lose the crown don't get it back. The NBA isn't a Rocky movie.

The team figured out they had systemic problems at the end of the season? What happened to the 17-1 streak after the all-star game?

noido · Post #11 » by **noido** » Tue May 10, 2011 9:30 am

Teams are too good right now, Lakers cant do it like this, especially without Phil next year.

Id like to see them with an athleticism upgrade at the point and the three. With one of the bigs being expendable.

We always talk about how their bigs are so skilled and such a mismatch, but how often do they both play up to their abilities together? And even if they are both playing well how often do the lakers capitalise on it by going to them primarily for extended periods? Spreading the ball around doesnt just mean that Kobe cant dominate the ball as much as he otherwise would, it also means they dont force advantages as much as they arguably could.

Having said that, retooling could definitely see the lakers win more titles.

I would also say it is a transition year just because the depth we thought was there wasnt. So we thought it was gonna be crazy deep, but instead there has been a changing of the guard.

Flash Falcon X · Post #12 » by **Flash Falcon X** » Tue May 10, 2011 10:57 am

Derrick Rose winning the MVP award shows a big sign of transition.

Over the years we've been used to seeing experienced, dominate elite players like Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, etc. get consideration for the award, but now that Rose has won it at only 22 years of age it really shows signs of a new era emerging. Even Blake Griffin becoming an All-Star as a rookie and getting the unanimous votes for the Rookie of the Year award says something.

commadoor 64 · Post #13 » by **commadoor 64** » Tue May 10, 2011 2:30 pm

Memphis Grizzlies are actually being included in finals appearance discussions .... End of discussion. :lol: