RealGM

At least those are clearly the odds now. Celtics, Warriors, and certainly Nuggets could still win this year, but, e.g., ESPN BPI has ~96% that there will be a new champion.

• Raptors
• Lakers
• Bucks
• Warriors
• Nuggets
• Celtics
• Thunder/Pacers/Knicks/Timberwolves?

A string that long with that many different champions hasn't happened since...well...ever.

I’ll take this over the bulls/lakers/spurs/celts days of same teams over and over again.

If the Pacers or T-Wolves win, does that make Haliburton/Edwards those franchises' best player ever? It would be kind of hard to argue with the results.

That's actually pretty remarkable. Not only no back-to-backs, but 7 different organizations over 7 seasons. Let's go for 30!

JK THUNDER DYNASTY INCOMING

Also quit jinxing OKC, they haven't beat Denver yet.

Patches Perry wrote:Also quit jinxing OKC, they haven't beat Denver yet.

I'm kinda cheering for OKC. But, ya know, I don't actually care.

Good

I've said it before, but there's a lot of talk about the scoring inflation, but no talk about the rings deflation. The only team to have won many championships in recent years is the Warriors and it wouldn't have happened without the market cap jumping right as Durant was there for the taking. Then there's Lebron who had to join 3 different teams to win 4.

There's much much more parity than ever before and multiple championships will be less common.

A much needed break from the Cavs/Warriors years.

I think I will not see a Suns Championship in my lifetime.
Evn the great Al McCoy could not live long enough to do so.

Silver has brought parity. As promised

Something that I heard brought up from an NBA vet. All these guys are rich now, in the past players needed the playoff money a lot more.

Manufacturing excitement like how NASCAR has stage racing now, I guess.

This kinda proves how weak Jokics case is among other ATG players. All of the all time greats won multiple, and usually they won back to backs. Jokic is struggling to separate himself from the field with just a single title.

Fans of less popular franchises seemingly complain now more than ever about the Lakers and other historically great franchises (some valid complaints but also some not so valid) but the irony is that their franchise probably has the best chance to win in this era than any other era prior.

Raptors (1st chip ever), Bucks (1st chip in 50 years), Nuggets (1st chip ever), Thunder (1st chip ever)/Knicks (1st chip in 50 years)/Wolves (1st chip ever)/Pacers (1st chip in 50 years) all just in the last 7 years.

Certainly many things to still improve but parity seems to be at an all time high and properly run franchises can retool relatively quick with quality drafting, player empowerment/mobility, proper asset management, largest available salaries ever to entice free agents, etc

Again, the league certainly still has a lot to work on, public perception being one of them, but parity seems to be at an all time high and I like it.

Chuck Everett wrote:If the Pacers or T-Wolves win, does that make Haliburton/Edwards those franchises' best player ever? It would be kind of hard to argue with the results.

No way are either one on them as good as Reggie & KG respectively.

This has been the best era of basketball I've ever watched, and I've been watching since the late 90s. The only blemish was the league sending Luka to LAL this year, but that move didn't have an immediate impact on competitive balance.

That's awesome. I think Denver still has a shot, so they could put the streak to an end. 70s NBA for as bad as it was, had good parity with 8 different champs, just the Celtics and Knicks won multiple titles that decade.

Kinda happens when everyone plays the 3 point shooting game. You go cold, you go home.

NO-KG-AI wrote:Kinda happens when everyone plays the 3 point shooting game. You go cold, you go home.

Although the Warriors and Cavs were in the Finals against each other four years in a row when both were shooting near the top of the league in threes.