ronnymac2 wrote:The 1971 Chicago Bulls were a 7.91 SRS team for goodness' sakes.
As opposed to the juggernaut 1986 Bucks team?
ronnymac2 wrote:The 1971 Chicago Bulls were a 7.91 SRS team for goodness' sakes.
Special_Puppy wrote:ronnymac2 wrote:This mini-era is also weak,
Any particular reason you think this is the case?
ronnymac2 wrote:The post-Russell, pre-ABA Merger NBA is by far the weakest mini-era in NBA history. It's always been a travesty that the 1972 Lakers and 1971 Bucks get celebrated by real analysts as GOAT-level teams. The 1971 Chicago Bulls were a 7.91 SRS team for goodness' sakes.
This mini-era is also weak, thought not nearly as weak as the aforementioned one. OKC and CLE are getting overrated in a historical sense by SRS and other metrics.
That said, neither is a "pretender." Both are legit contenders. OKC should be the favorites to win the title. Honestly, I think Cleveland, if healthy, will clown the true imposter team, which is Boston. To be honest though, I don't even think Boston gets to Cleveland. All Boston has to do is face a healthy team, and they are done.
My hope for Cleveland is that when the going gets tough in the playoffs, they give the reigns to Darius Garland. Garland got deserved hype in Year 3, then had to contend w/ a high-USG% low-iq chucker in Mitchell sucking oxygen from the offense, and it somewhat stymied Garland's confidence, creativity and certainly his primacy. I feel Cleveland has improved that dynamic, and it should make them more resilient in the playoffs this year.
TheGOATRises007 wrote:
How are Boston a true imposter team when they were a 10+SRS team last season and rolled through the playoffs?
That makes no sense at all.
Statlanta wrote:TheGOATRises007 wrote:
How are Boston a true imposter team when they were a 10+SRS team last season and rolled through the playoffs?
That makes no sense at all.
All the injuries(Miami, Cleveland, Indiana all injured), almost reminiscient of the 2015 Warriors. Credit to Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown for being durable players(and dealing with their own injuries with Porzingis) but that was not an all-time team that played in the playoffs last year.
tlee324 wrote:
Lebron made it to the finals with that cleveland team.
Bird would have won 4 rings with that team, in this weak ass era of basketball.
TheGOATRises007 wrote:Pretty big game tonight between the Warriors/Nuggets.
Curious to see how it plays out. The Nuggets are slipping lately. If the Warriors win, their momentum might carry them to a top 4 seed which seemed unfathomable before the Butler trade.
TheGOATRises007 wrote:Statlanta wrote:TheGOATRises007 wrote:
How are Boston a true imposter team when they were a 10+SRS team last season and rolled through the playoffs?
That makes no sense at all.
All the injuries(Miami, Cleveland, Indiana all injured), almost reminiscient of the 2015 Warriors. Credit to Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown for being durable players(and dealing with their own injuries with Porzingis) but that was not an all-time team that played in the playoffs last year.
So you think the 2015 Warriors were also an imposter team?
And I don't think any of those injuries change anything. Celtics went 16-3 in the postseason with a good net rating.
jalengreen wrote:TheGOATRises007 wrote:Pretty big game tonight between the Warriors/Nuggets.
Curious to see how it plays out. The Nuggets are slipping lately. If the Warriors win, their momentum might carry them to a top 4 seed which seemed unfathomable before the Butler trade.
Just tuned in to see that Jokic and Murray aren't playing lmao, so much for that (though the Nuggets are still winning but I imagine that won't last)
TheGOATRises007 wrote:ronnymac2 wrote:The post-Russell, pre-ABA Merger NBA is by far the weakest mini-era in NBA history. It's always been a travesty that the 1972 Lakers and 1971 Bucks get celebrated by real analysts as GOAT-level teams. The 1971 Chicago Bulls were a 7.91 SRS team for goodness' sakes.
This mini-era is also weak, thought not nearly as weak as the aforementioned one. OKC and CLE are getting overrated in a historical sense by SRS and other metrics.
That said, neither is a "pretender." Both are legit contenders. OKC should be the favorites to win the title. Honestly, I think Cleveland, if healthy, will clown the true imposter team, which is Boston. To be honest though, I don't even think Boston gets to Cleveland. All Boston has to do is face a healthy team, and they are done.
My hope for Cleveland is that when the going gets tough in the playoffs, they give the reigns to Darius Garland. Garland got deserved hype in Year 3, then had to contend w/ a high-USG% low-iq chucker in Mitchell sucking oxygen from the offense, and it somewhat stymied Garland's confidence, creativity and certainly his primacy. I feel Cleveland has improved that dynamic, and it should make them more resilient in the playoffs this year.
How are Boston a true imposter team when they were a 10+SRS team last season and rolled through the playoffs?
That makes no sense at all.
Doctor MJ wrote:So a note on the parity of the lack of dominance demonstrated by having a different champion every year:
It can be caused by stagnant mediocrity,
but it can also be caused by a rapid tactical arms race.
What we're seeing is the latter, and it's causing a situation where champions aren't just getting better era-to-era, but much better as new leaps forward in approach are made not even year-to-year, but game-by-game in an era where each NBA team can afford to have every other NBA game scouted on video, and any new approaches identified and stolen if useful.
I would suggest that it cannot be reasonably argued that this era represents any kind of competitive weakness, and those who think they spot it, are using the narrative of the former as proxy for direct basketball evaluation.
Mind you as I say this, I think we all use proxies in our analysis, and often we don't realize it
Special_Puppy wrote:I said this before, but teams shouldn't be allowed to make the play-in or playoffs unless they have a winning record. If there's an instance like this year in the East where there are only 6 teams over 0.500 then they should just give the 1st+2nd seed first round byes
Special_Puppy wrote:I said this before, but teams shouldn't be allowed to make the play-in or playoffs unless they have a winning record. If there's an instance like this year in the East where there are only 6 teams over 0.500 then they should just give the 1st+2nd seed first round byes