Can you have a winning team but be unwatchable ?

[Coxy]

The Harden Rockets will go down as some of the most putrid seasons of NBA basketball ever to be seen. However, when they added Chris Paul into that mix, I would have preferred drinking rat poison than watch a minute of that muck.

[picc]

Everyone knows its the Harden/Morey Rockets, we don't have to put on the charade of pretending anyone else comes close.

[bearadonisdna]

Anyone saying they dislike watching their team win due to stylistic issues is lying.

This is the point of the thread to determine that it is a reality .

If this were the nfl I would give your point more merit .
Most nfl will not care if their teams style if they are are winning .
In that sport I feel winning is the coup de gras. You can pass for 50 yards run for 50 , but if win you had a good game . And fans will flock .
In basketball that is trash .

For analogy I use the dunk contest .
It’s not the final result of the basketball being dunked that makes the score.

It’s all the other subjective stuff that makes the score where the ball going through is just a technicality . It needs to have style , never been seen before , landings , etc.

The objective occurrence of the ball going through the hoop is probably what is remembered least .

Seems like you’re trying way too hard to make this deep or controversial. There isn’t a single fan of any team in any sport that would rather lose in style than win unremarkably. It’s just not a thing. That’s not to say that fans can’t be snobbish about their teams style of play (Barca) but they’re not willing lose over it.

we arent talking about preferring losing. we are talking about preferring not watching.
Or hating what you are watching. its clear there is a precedent, if you want to believe that every fan buys winning hook line and sinker and style isnt a factor of watchability you are wrong.

If you are not a seasoned fan than winning games is the holy grail but its not to some people. what if you had a team full of floppers , it might win games but i would not enjoy that.

also people have said morey rockets. Like trading capela and playing tucker at center. that is essentially ugly basketball and win or not is usually scattered and actually is the epitome of what im trying to convey.

nothing against the rockets of the era but upon further review it resonates that there can be a bastardization of the game only to win and not all fans are ok with it.

[dhsilv2]

I hated the Warriors when they started winning and I still despise their style, because I cannot stand that much 3pt shooting.

2015 warriors were a high 3 point shooting team but they were like 6th or something in the league and like 1 per 100 attempts out of 10th...

[dhsilv2]

I hated the Warriors when they started winning and I still despise their style, because I cannot stand that much 3pt shooting.

IMO Warriors are as good a passing team as a shooting team. They use the same principles from the triangle and Pop's 14 Spurs. If they played the exact same but with midrange instead of 3s no one would hate it. Feel like there's this unfair notion they play like the Rockets. Outside last year where they had some really low IQ guys they don't chuck and many of their 3s generated are off of all the great team fundamentals that made the 90s Bulls, 10 Spurs and even the 80s Celtics great to watch.

They certainly are and were a great passing team, but I've always liked different styles more. I prefer the Spurs' version of basketball (from their golden Duncan years, of course).

By 07 spurs were 6th in 3's per 100...about where the warriors were relative to the league. Of course the league's continued to shoot even more 3's, gut the warrior's system very much was ~06 forward spurs motion with the triangle as the underlying concept. Heck even before 06 the spurs were leaders in things like the push towards corner 3's are better shots with Bowen and using stretch bigs with Horry.

[dhsilv2]

I'd find it really hard pressed to find someone outside Texas that wanted to watch the early 2000's Spurs. Great team, but holy crap. I couldn't watch them for four quarters.

I guess off topic, but I hated watching the SF Giants during the 2010's. If the other team ever scored 3 runs, it was an automatic loss.

My favorite team from the era, they had the most exciting player in the league in Manu. And I've never been anywhere close to Texas.

[dhsilv2]

90s Cavs under Mike Fetallio.

Terrel Brandon walking the ball up....this is a great example of actual boring and just bad basketball!

[Jables]

Duncan’s Spurs weren’t considered entertaining

Yeah there's some revisionism with that Spurs documentary that made their teamwork look sexy (and they were more entertaining then), but people hated watching them for a lot of different reasons, I don't really remember it now but I remember the 2007 Cavs/Spurs finals were incredibly dull. LeBron was a more exciting player back (?) then but he was sucking badly, Spurs were being professional sweeping them and that's all you can say really.

But over full seasons I would say the Heatles era really bored me, I was tuning out of basketball and I am convinced it was the worst **** since the 70's.

[TravisScott55]

As a fan of the team you will find winning fun no matter the style. As a neutral viewer you can definitely find any team boring.

[bearadonisdna]

As a fan of the team you will find winning fun no matter the style. As a neutral viewer you can definitely find any team boring.

This is the point it’s not true .
At the end of the game you can have a headache .
Without naming names , I seen a team have more moral energy from a good loss than from a bad win .

Bad win equal struggling vs a bottom feeder but winning .

Good loss equals fighting a top team to the wire .

People would think this is not possible but it is .

[CS707]

This is the point of the thread to determine that it is a reality .

If this were the nfl I would give your point more merit .
Most nfl will not care if their teams style if they are are winning .
In that sport I feel winning is the coup de gras. You can pass for 50 yards run for 50 , but if win you had a good game . And fans will flock .
In basketball that is trash .

For analogy I use the dunk contest .
It’s not the final result of the basketball being dunked that makes the score.

It’s all the other subjective stuff that makes the score where the ball going through is just a technicality . It needs to have style , never been seen before , landings , etc.

The objective occurrence of the ball going through the hoop is probably what is remembered least .

Seems like you’re trying way too hard to make this deep or controversial. There isn’t a single fan of any team in any sport that would rather lose in style than win unremarkably. It’s just not a thing. That’s not to say that fans can’t be snobbish about their teams style of play (Barca) but they’re not willing lose over it.

we arent talking about preferring losing. we are talking about preferring not watching.
Or hating what you are watching. its clear there is a precedent, if you want to believe that every fan buys winning hook line and sinker and style isnt a factor of watchability you are wrong.

If you are not a seasoned fan than winning games is the holy grail but its not to some people. what if you had a team full of floppers , it might win games but i would not enjoy that.

also people have said morey rockets. Like trading capela and playing tucker at center. that is essentially ugly basketball and win or not is usually scattered and actually is the epitome of what im trying to convey.

nothing against the rockets of the era but upon further review it resonates that there can be a bastardization of the game only to win and not all fans are ok with it.

Everyone wants their team to win while playing a pleasing style. Nobody prefers style over winning. The people mentioning Houston and San Antonio aren’t actually fans of those teams.

[Slim Charlez]

Ok we hear about a few teams : The key factor is what if this were your team . Your team being unwatchable .

————————
Harden rockets - So I’m guessing that the sticking points is that 1 man spamming the ball and also relying a majority on officiating .

There is a lot of reason why that would not be entertaining in the competitive world. You also playing a lot of positionless ball. Playing with 3-4 guards every possession .

On a scale of 1-10 I will put this at a 7 in watchability as a home fan. On a nights where the star is struggling it would be lower , on nights he is on that is topping at 9 or higher .

———————-
Duncan’s Spurs-
known as the sterns . Of course other fans hated this , couldn’t watch . But what about a Spurs fan ? Fairly decent position basketball , favored by officiating . A team known for ball movement and fundamental play . The differentiator here is that it is championship level. Hard to determine that a home fan says a championship level team isn’t watchable .

Watchability - As a home fan I give an 8 +.

———————

Prime GSwarriors -
This one I understand as a neutral fan but as a home fan . As a home fan this stupid thing topping out at 10.
Once you got Durant and you see your team regress in the regular season etc . Sure that probably frustrating , drop watchability to an 8 or so but it basically a historically great team so generally as a home fan im sticking to 10.

Funny that you call them "The Sterns" when most Spurs fans would argue that Stern would've preferred anyone else to win multiple titles in that era because of the low ratings Spurs finals usually brought with them. They were boring even if as Spurs fans we could care less as long as they were winning rings.

[BHF]

Raps fans are gonna get on me for saying this, i wouldn't say i hated it but i didn't like the basketball that was played with Kawhi during the regular season. The playoffs and the championship run on the other hand was really good.

[FreeSpiritNY]

Knicks right now. Randle all about himself

[Clay Davis]

Raps fans are gonna get on me for saying this, i wouldn't say i hated it but i didn't like the basketball that was played with Kawhi during the regular season. The playoffs and the championship run on the other hand was really good.

I don't disagree. The team didn't peak until the play-offs because Gasol was a midseason pickup and Kawhi was taking a lot of games off. The board was unbrowsable whenever we lost a game. If you guys think that the Raps fans on TGB are insufferable...

Sent from my moto g(8) power lite using RealGM mobile app

[LukaTheGOAT]

Or you understand what was practised, what wasm't allowed under the rules, what wasn't conceivable. Yes the game is built on the backs of giants.

The trouble for the old school with the modern three point shooting is that it eliminates a lot of post play and the one-on-one battles that occurred below the free throw line.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

What he said was categorically ridiculous. There are definitely more shooters today than ever, nobody can argue that but coaches coach to the trends of the league they grow up in and I don't think fans of today understand that it goes beyond skill, it's culture as well. Many coaches would've given Lillard the greenlight..... at SG or some other position that doesn't involve running an offense. Many coaches would've harped heavily on his defense, on his assist totals and the fact that at PG he's out here scoring 30 while the next best player is averaging 15. That would've been a problem back then. Many 3pt shooters wouldn't even get the opportunity to realize thier 3pt shooting greatness because for many coaches it would be like a QB throwing a hail Mary on every play.

I'm not trying to say today's player isn't really as good or that yesterdays player is any better. I just can't understand why fans of today can't understand that many behaviors weren't favored or fans of old can't acknowledge how much bigger and more athletic even a guy you might find soft is to yesterdays player. I think the difference between Bird of yesteryear and Bird today is that today he may never have played a minute of SF and played PF exclusively and yes, at stretch 4 I imagine him to be just as dominant. Good shooter, good passer, good rebounder. Maybe not a great defender but people out here acting like Luka plays any defense, like Harden plays any defense. He'd be to me in the same class of player. Maybe too slow at SF but then again, Luka isn't all that fast, Luka ain't all that athletic. He's crafty and that's what Bird was. The difference is today in practice, coach would be applauding him for extending his range not criticizing him for it.

It wasn't considered a good shot folks. And because it wasn't considered a good shot it wasn't valued. The moment it became valued everybody got better at it. There are guys in this league that started out not taking 3s and now take 3s. Brook Lopez is a solid 3pt shooter. You gonna tellme Larry Bird wouldn't become a good 3py shooter? Cmon. Have some ability to project, to extrapolate.

It wasn’t considered a good shot and was undervalued because shooters weren’t out of this world at shooting it like todays players are. Its that simple. If players back then could’ve, the coaches would’ve been thrilled to let them.
Jordans fadeaway is no different, coaches always thought players that its bad for your shot to do that, until a player showed them wrong and became elite at it. Sports evolve, they get better, especially a sport as young as basketball. And a lot of time its players with unreal work ethic that change things like this, like MJ, like Curry.
The Dame scenario is just ridiculous, back to back champs Pistons had a PG that lead them in scoring ( scored a lot less than Dame too ), was a worst passer than Dame and they did just fine winning championships and such. That coach was just fine with this.

I do agree with Prophets point about fans not liking less post play, i don’t understand why, but i do know its a sore point with old school fans. For me its good ridance. I much prefer bigs like Giannis that are becoming skilled all over the floor instead. Imagine if Hakeems coaches hadn’t limited him to only post play and we couldve seen him fly up the court fonding open shooters or throwing it down full speed like Giannis. Instead he become an absolute god at post play but to me that’s limiting this players potential, and the game has finally phased that out. A well rounded 7 footer is much better than a 7 foot stiff that has an amzing 2-5 foot bank shot lay up.

And just so there’s no confusion, I am not a “today fan”. Been a huge fan since the early 90, favourite player was Reggie, but I don’t mind saying that todays players are better, since its true. Its true in every sport, especially when a young sport blows up globally like Bball did because of our old school heros. MJs and the Bird changed the game, and its even better. Point guards in the 80s and before weren’t all very good at finishing with their left, Mark Jackson admitted he never even attempted a left hand layup his whole NBA career, today you won’t even get looked at if you have no left. The game is completely different AND better, and its not just shooting, its everything in it ( minus post gods like Hakeem, Shaq, D-Rob/Duncan… rip )

It's about what you practice

Watch on YouTube

[Topofthekey]

The jailblazers?

Also, the PG era Pacers

They were challenging LeBron for the east, but for some reason I just really disliked watching them, to the point I stopped watching the NBA altogether

[art_tatum]

Maybe the Yao rockets when Yao was heavy and Tmac injured.
Pretty sure the offense was dump it into Yao to score a midrange/paint or he passes out for a roleplayer 3 or cutter. I mean its not Bad to watch lol. Just predictable