Why is it..

[prolific passer]

Some out there say they want competitive balance but trash the 70s nba as the worst decade even though they had more competitive balance then the other decades?

[70sFan]

Because people don't realize that 1970s is the real greatest era

On a serious note, most people don't know much about 1970s legends, which is why they think it was a poor era, but when you watch games it's far from the truth. There were plenty of very talented teams and most games were competitive - especially after the merger.

[Dutchball97]

It is also important to remember the 70s wasn't exactly at the same level for the entire decade. The early 70s are pretty much the same level as the mid-late 60s. Then in 73 and 74 Wilt, West, Oscar and Reed retired. That is also around the same time as the ABA getting really good and becoming a somewhat serious competitor so the level in the NBA was at a bit of a lull but I agree that after the merger it started ramping up again.

[falcolombardi]

i think because too much parity is less interesting to most thst having dominant teams to root against, but not TOO dominant

i say this from experience with my country soccer league, which unusual format makes almost any team a threat, but local fans criticize it presicesely because of that

they think that not having the same few teams be consistently dominant like what happens in European leagues is a sign of mediocrity and the volatile format rewarding lesser lucky teams

nobody leagues one team leagues, but they usually like 2-3 team leagues, is odd but frpn experience people prefer 2-4 great teams that 8-12 ones because the latter is perceived as general mediocrity and the former as a battle of titans

[Owly]

My thoughts.

1) WRT competitive balance in the 70s it should probably be noted it's very much a decade of two (roughly) halves. The NBA saw some super dominant (Milwaukee, LA) teams and some bad expansion teams in the early 70s.

2) Competitive balance can I think mean different things to different people. It and related issues can get intertwined (parity .... forgot another term ...). Are we talking outcomes or opportunities. Are we talking banding tightly around .500 or just wanting multiple plausible contenders. Or is the priority that every game is meaningful.

3) Not sure people do necessarily want balance. If you phrase it that way they probably say yes. If you say do you want elite, standout teams they probably say yes.

4) Certainly people want oher things too, probably more than balance.

5) As to the lack of respect for the early balanced era (otoh early 80s are still pretty balanced) ... many non-dominant maybe not the best team champs might hurt, some smaller, newer, less established brand champs might hurt, drugs hurt, bad tv deals hurt, perceptions of the game at the time hurt, lack of a white plausibly face-of-the-league talent hurt. Those are my guesses anyhow.

[prolific passer]

My thoughts.

1) WRT competitive balance in the 70s it should probably be noted it's very much a decade of two (roughly) halves. The NBA saw some super dominant (Milwaukee, LA) teams and some bad expansion teams in the early 70s.

2) Competitive balance can I think mean different things to different people. It and related issues can get intertwined (parity .... forgot another term ...). Are we talking outcomes or opportunities. Are we talking banding tightly around .500 or just wanting multiple plausible contenders. Or is the priority that every game is meaningful.

3) Not sure people do necessarily want balance. If you phrase it that way they probably say yes. If you say do you want elite, standout teams they probably say yes.

4) Certainly people want oher things too, probably more than balance.

5) As to the lack of respect for the early balanced era (otoh early 80s are still pretty balanced) ... many non-dominant maybe not the best team champs might hurt, some smaller, newer, less established brand champs might hurt, drugs hurt, bad tv deals hurt, perceptions of the game at the time hurt, lack of a white plausibly face-of-the-league talent hurt. Those are my guesses anyhow.

70-77 i think was some pretty good bball. You had some dominant teams and you had some upsets in that span. 78 and 79 were probably the 2 worst years of the decade and some people turned away due to some of the things you said. Especially #5. Remember seeing a documentary on that when it came to the 70s nba.

[Statlanta]

Having 2 basketball leagues seemed to invoke artificial parity where good players are split between the 2 leagues. What's the point of balance and many contenders if you know you are missing out on some of the best basketball in the world in the other league

[70sFan]

Having 2 basketball leagues seemed to invoke artificial parity where good players are split between the 2 leagues. What's the point of balance and many contenders if you know you are missing out on some of the best basketball in the world in the other league

The merger happened in 1976 and nobody calls that era strong either.

[dygaction]

Because people don't realize that 1970s is the real greatest era

On a serious note, most people don't know much about 1970s legends, which is why they think it was a poor era, but when you watch games it's far from the truth. There were plenty of very talented teams and most games were competitive - especially after the merger.

70s were a lot more balanced and competitive compared to 60s for sure.

[70sFan]

Because people don't realize that 1970s is the real greatest era

On a serious note, most people don't know much about 1970s legends, which is why they think it was a poor era, but when you watch games it's far from the truth. There were plenty of very talented teams and most games were competitive - especially after the merger.

70s were a lot more balanced and competitive compared to 60s for sure.

It was, I don't deny it. I like the 1970s the most among all NBA eras, so you won't find me disagreeing with you here

[dygaction]

Because people don't realize that 1970s is the real greatest era

On a serious note, most people don't know much about 1970s legends, which is why they think it was a poor era, but when you watch games it's far from the truth. There were plenty of very talented teams and most games were competitive - especially after the merger.

70s were a lot more balanced and competitive compared to 60s for sure.

It was, I don't deny it. I like the 1970s the most among all NBA eras, so you won't find me disagreeing with you here

The results evident itself. In 70s, you have 8 teams winning championships; In 60s, one team took 9 of them.

[70sFan]

70s were a lot more balanced and competitive compared to 60s for sure.

It was, I don't deny it. I like the 1970s the most among all NBA eras, so you won't find me disagreeing with you here

The results evident itself. In 70s, you have 8 teams winning championships; In 60s, one team took 9 of them.

Yeah, 1960s was more like 1990s in that aspect. I don't think it makes these eras worse, just different.

[dygaction]

It was, I don't deny it. I like the 1970s the most among all NBA eras, so you won't find me disagreeing with you here

The results evident itself. In 70s, you have 8 teams winning championships; In 60s, one team took 9 of them.

Yeah, 1960s was more like 1990s in that aspect. I don't think it makes these eras worse, just different.

What makes 60s more polarized is the clustering of talents. MJ had one HOFer help in his first 3peat and two HOFers on the second. Celtics in the 60s had 8 of them. As a comparison, Mavs in 42 years had only borrowed three HOF players on their roster in Adrian Dantley, Alex English, and Dennis Rodman for some short stints. None of them even played up to two years for the Mavs.

[70sFan]

The results evident itself. In 70s, you have 8 teams winning championships; In 60s, one team took 9 of them.

Yeah, 1960s was more like 1990s in that aspect. I don't think it makes these eras worse, just different.

What makes 60s more polarized is the clustering of talents. MJ had one HOFer help in his first 3peat and two HOFers on the second. Celtics in the 60s had 8 of them. As a comparison, Mavs in 42 years had only borrowed three HOF players on their roster in Adrian Dantley, Alex English, and Dennis Rodman for some short stints. None of them even played up to two years for the Mavs.

Most of 1960s Celtics HoFers went in the HoF strictly because of the number of titles though. Besides, some of them are not in the hall as players.

[falcolombardi]

Yeah, 1960s was more like 1990s in that aspect. I don't think it makes these eras worse, just different.

What makes 60s more polarized is the clustering of talents. MJ had one HOFer help in his first 3peat and two HOFers on the second. Celtics in the 60s had 8 of them. As a comparison, Mavs in 42 years had only borrowed three HOF players on their roster in Adrian Dantley, Alex English, and Dennis Rodman for some short stints. None of them even played up to two years for the Mavs.

Most of 1960s Celtics HoFers went in the HoF strictly because of the number of titles though. Besides, some of them are not in the hall as players.

how many of those guys would you way deserve to be in the hof besides russel if rings themselves were not a factor but it was just their impact as winning players ?

havlicek of course, probably sam jones, cousy but maybe more for his pre russel work?

[70sFan]

What makes 60s more polarized is the clustering of talents. MJ had one HOFer help in his first 3peat and two HOFers on the second. Celtics in the 60s had 8 of them. As a comparison, Mavs in 42 years had only borrowed three HOF players on their roster in Adrian Dantley, Alex English, and Dennis Rodman for some short stints. None of them even played up to two years for the Mavs.

Most of 1960s Celtics HoFers went in the HoF strictly because of the number of titles though. Besides, some of them are not in the hall as players.

how many of those guys would you way deserve to be in the hof besides russel if rings themselves were not a factor but it was just their impact as winning players ?

havlicek of course, probably sam jones, cousy but maybe more for his pre russel work?

Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek and Sam Jones should be in the hall. Ramsey might get voted because of his college career, but not for pro career. Heinsohn could get in there, but he was never a true star in the league. Of course he was a brilliant coach.

That gives Russell at most 3 HoF teammates at the same time. People should realize that smaller league means more condensed talent though.

[penbeast0]

Some out there say they want competitive balance but trash the 70s nba as the worst decade even though they had more competitive balance then the other decades?

There are two separate issues here.

(a) Most competitively balanced era . . . is the 70s. Maybe my favorite also as a Bullets fan and someone who was in school in that era.

(b) Most talented league . . . is not the 70s. Expansion exploded creating much weaker average teams than the 60s and cocaine, playing for contracts, etc. made the team cohesion weaker. The merger helped, the rule changes in 1980 helped, and slowing down the rate of expansion helped and the 80s were stronger than the 70s though back to the superteams. The superteams thing does help with creating a "face of the league" player and Magic and Bird, and later Jordan, Shaq, then LeBron, were more charismatic than Kareem (but not Doc).