RealGM

That is, have you ever thought to yourself that you disagree with who the league compares a young budding star to a Hall Of Fame player.

For instance, does anyone recall when the NBA had that feature with LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony joined by "Magic" Johnson and Larry Bird? Did you shake your head? All four players have comparable talents and maybe even personalities. However, what made Bird and Johnson together so special wasn't necessarily their talent or their teams but their ongoing rivalry from the collegiate level onto the pros. I believe James and Anthony were always friends and James entered the NBA as oppose to going to college. In my opinion, the NBA was reaching on this one. I mean the last time you'd a reasonable example of two collegiate players that met one another in an important game and then established a rivalry in the NBA was Patrick Ewing and Michael Jordan.

Another example, you may recall, involved the comparison of then young Shaquille O'Neal and Alonzo Mourning to Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell by SI I believe. I think I still have that issue or maybe I don't anymore. This at least was more of an apt comparison of two players to two Hall Of Fame players. Back then, Shaq was one of the more dominant offensive threats in the league. While Mourning was developing into a dominant defensive force.

Can anyone think of any other examples of what you'd considered an off comparison of a young star of today to one of yesterday? Or an example of the the last time the NBA had two star players as rivals in college and in the NBA. I know the obvious examples people will mention are Kobe Bryant to Michael Jordan and Dirk Nowitzki to Larry Bird.

The NBA should promote more team rivalries in general. Not more violence (fighting; melee) but rivalries. Too much of an individualistic league now. Seemingly, everyone shares the same agent. All you've to do is look at today's salaries and know that it's more about the money than anything else.

That's because people are (Please Use More Appropriate Word) and they don't know the law of probability.

tombattor wrote:That's because people are (Please Use More Appropriate Word) and they don't know the law of probability.

I don't like how nbadraft.net does their comparisons. It's just a subjective view on what they personally think the players will become. I don't like how Draft Express does it though, by giving a comparative upside and downside for each player.

Everyone needs to stop taking comparisons so seriously. They're made to just give you a brief outline or feel to what that prospect could become. It's not saying something like Adam Morrison's going to definitely be the next Bird, they just said that they believed they had comparative skillsets and demeanor.

If you really have a problem with comparisons, then just read the several paragraphs each draft prospect has had written about them on each site. Comparisons are meant for a very brief, blunt overview of what that site believes they're going to be. I don't get why they're always under such scrutiny. Every player is going to be their own player, don't take them literally.

I agree that the NBA focuses too much on individuals and doesn't promote rivalries between franchises.

Mahoney_jr wrote:I agree that the NBA focuses too much on individuals and doesn't promote rivalries between franchises.

Welcome to Stern's NBA, 1993-present...sucks, don't it?

Stern would consider this a great achievement. Now when Kobe goes to MSG in NYC he hears MVP chants. He wants the stars to be global money makers not limited to regions. It's his 'vision'.

GuyClinch wrote:Stern would consider this a great achievement. Now when Kobe goes to MSG in NYC he hears MVP chants. He wants the stars to be global money makers not limited to regions. It's his 'vision'.

Well yeah, but it's not good for the league. It's Obama's vision to make us more like Europe, too...and that's not a good thing!

The team game is what has suffered the most which is why what the Celtics are doing is so refreshing...they pass! They run! They set picks! They move without the ball! They win!

Boston versus New York is the one that needs to be revived. Hopefully, Boston can clinch the top seed and have New York clinch the eighth seed.

bonsaiflipflops wrote:Boston versus New York is the one that needs to be revived. Hopefully, Boston can clinch the top seed and have New York clinch the eighth seed.

The thing is other than the hatred between cities how is this a rivalry? The Knicks only won two titles in the early 1970s because we were rebuilding during one (1970) and Hondo got hurt in the ECF during the other (1973). This is a team that absolutely IS NOT one of the great franchises in the sport, other than the fact it is located in NY!

MyInsatiableOne wrote:

bonsaiflipflops wrote:Boston versus New York is the one that needs to be revived. Hopefully, Boston can clinch the top seed and have New York clinch the eighth seed.

The thing is other than the hatred between cities how is this a rivalry? The Knicks only won two titles in the early 1970s because we were rebuilding during one (1970) and Hondo got hurt in the ECF during the other (1973). This is a team that absolutely IS NOT one of the great franchises in the sport, other than the fact it is located in NY!

I'm a little biased, but . . .

How many teams would you put in that category? The Knicks certainly don't have the number of championships that the Celts and Lakers have, but there's a big drop-off in titles after those 2 teams anyway. Aren't the Bulls 3rd with their 6? Apart from the years with Jordan, the Bulls really haven't done much at all.

Starting in the late 80's, the Knicks had a streak of 14 straight playoff appearances, making it out of the first round 11 of those years. They also made it 9 years straight in the 60's/70's, going to the finals 3 times. Prior to their current dark age, the Knicks really only had one other significant stretch of being an irrelevant team.

Throw in the fact that they were one of the league's original teams, and I think they belong in the company of the Sixers and Pistons. Don't get me wrong -- no one else is at the level of Boston and Minneapolis/LA, but if we're including other teams, I'd say those are the top 5.

But yes, as you point out, the city plays a factor as well. NY is a basketball town and the Knicks are a big deal even though the Celtics have won more titles. Just like Boston is really the better baseball town, even though the Yankees have won more titles.

The best worst comparisons in recent memory are Ammo/Bird and Brandan Wright/KG (which was available on NBADraft.net but was recanted on later on).

Boston and New York are rivals based on proximity alone. They're both major cities in the realm of professional sports in this country. How can any fan not see these two basketball franchises as being long standing rivals?

I found this, a good read. Here are some excerpts.

From the beginning of the National Basketball Association in 1946, the rivalry between the Knicks and the Celtics, the only two original franchises still in the same cities, has grown into one sport's fiercest.

Bostonians and New Yorkers have argued over their cities' respective merits and accomplishments since before the Revolution. They have tried to outdo each other in politics, science, art and almost everything else.

''I think it's an underlying city rivalry,'' Jan Volk, the Celtics' general manager, said yesterday. ''It's the cities themselves. The rivarlry is not only in basketball, but baseball and hockey also.''

The basketball rivalry can probably be laid to the personal rivalry between Walter Brown, the original Celtic owner, and Ned Irish, the Knicks' first president.

They were both intense promoters looking for an edge. But while Brown often was forced to operate the Celtics on a shoestring, playing second fiddle in popularity to the Boston Bruins, Irish had the backing of the rich ownership of Madison Square Garden. Decades of Memories

In the 1950's, when pro basketball doubleheaders were commonplace at the old Garden, Irish would pay Brown to bring the Celtics into the Garden as the second game.

Along with memorable duels between Havlicek and Bill Bradley; Jo Jo White and Walt Frazier; White, Reed and Dave Cowens, and Paul Silas and Dave DeBusschere, the rivarly has grown through other ways. Most-Viewed Visitor

In earlier times when the Knicks were in Boston, they would draw a large contingent of rooters from the New York youngsters who attended Boston area colleges. And for years Red Auerbach, as coach, general manager and now president of the Celtics, has probably been the most-booed visitor to Madison Square Garden.

Then there was the Saturday night in February 1979 when Sonny Werblin, the head of the Knicks, and John Y. Brown, the Celtics' managing partner, made the famous trade - one that Auerbach didn't know about - that sent Bob McAdoo from the Knicks to the Celtics for three first-round draft choices. Coming on top of other incidents, the deal so infuriated Auerbach that he signed a contract to become the president of the Knicks. When Auerbach cooled down, he asked Werblin let him out of the deal and he did.

Can you imagine Larry Bird a Knick? It could have happened. The Knicks had the fourth pick in the 1978 draft and the Celtics the sixth. Reed, then the Knicks' coach, and Eddie Donovan, the general manager, sought permission from Gulf and Western, which owns the Knicks, to select Bird, who had another year of college eligibility left, and wait a year before signing him. Gulf and Western did not approve the move and the the Knicks used their pick to choose Micheal Ray Richardson. The Celtics took Bird two picks later and waited a year.

In 1984, there were rumors that the Knicks would try to sign Kevin McHale, a Celtic free agent. An angry Auerbach fought back and actually signed three Knick free agents - Marvin Webster, Rory Sparrow and Sly Williams. The Knicks matched the offer and it caused them salary cap problems.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A96E948260

I don't disagree the C's have had some fierce rivalries with teams that were contending at the same time as we were...the Knicks in the early 1970s, the Philly teams in the 1960s and 1980s, the Pistons of the late 1980s, etc but the ONLY one that has spanned decades is with the Lakers.

I agree with Bonsai, we are rivals with NY (and to a slightly lesser extent), Philly but almost entirely due to location...

Celtics and Knicks are not rivals. When was the last time they faced each in the playoffs? The true rivarly is between Bulls and Knicks. I mean there was a good 4-5 year stretch in the 90's in which they went at it.

Honestly, you can't blame Stern for the Knicks sucking. You can't really blame him for any team sucking. Yah, yah..you can try to point at the lottery. You can't blame Stern for the Kobe support from fans of horrible teams.

Plus, the reason they're promoting individual players instead of teams, is that often it's because of THAT individual player that the team is good. Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, Pierce, Allen, Garnett. Take those guys out and their respective teams are bottom feeders.

^I agree on the players...the problem is as a result of this focus on the individual, the team game has suffered. Who enjoys watching Wade, Iverson, Kobe, or Carmelo do isos EVERY **** TRIP down the floor on offense? Not me!

MasterRyu wrote:Celtics and Knicks are not rivals. When was the last time they faced each in the playoffs? The true rivarly is between Bulls and Knicks. I mean there was a good 4-5 year stretch in the 90's in which they went at it.

That doesn't make any sense. When was the last time New York and Chicago matched up in the playoffs? What, the 1995-1996 season? You're speaking in past tense. You basically, contradict yourself all in one thought. New York would play Chicago, Indiana and Miami throughout the nineties during the playoffs. So, one can make the case for either one of those three teams based on your argument. Chicago is no more New York's rival anymore as say Toronto.

Bottom line is New York needs to become a competitive team who qualifies for the playoffs regularly. But, regardless, I see Boston as their natural rival. I mean the two teams still face each other four times a season. You're still facing one another more times than non division teams. How are they not rivals? You still want to defeat each other. They're rivals in the basic understanding of the word.

It's hard to keep team to team rivalry goings when there's a salary cap in place. Baseball makes it work with the Sox and the Yankees and the general perception is that anything less than that isn't a good enough rivalry. There are still subtle hints of rivalries when teams aren't competing at the same level, like there are with the Knicks and Celtics right now, but even Kobe got an MVP chant in Boston before we became prominent again. You can't force rivalries, it's basically whatever's contemporary with who's been successful, like it was/is with the Colts/Patriots, Wizards/Cavs, and Spurs/Suns. There's not use in promoting classic rivalries when the quality of the game isn't going to be that good with discrepancies in level of competitiveness.

bonsaiflipflops wrote:

MasterRyu wrote:Celtics and Knicks are not rivals. When was the last time they faced each in the playoffs? The true rivarly is between Bulls and Knicks. I mean there was a good 4-5 year stretch in the 90's in which they went at it.

That doesn't make any sense. When was the last time New York and Chicago matched up in the playoffs? What, the 1995-1996 season? You're speaking in past tense. You basically, contradict yourself all in one thought. New York would play Chicago, Indiana and Miami throughout the nineties during the playoffs. So, one can make the case for either one of those three teams based on your argument. Chicago is no more New York's rival anymore as say Toronto.

Bottom line is New York needs to become a competitive team who qualifies for the playoffs regularly. But, regardless, I see Boston as their natural rival. I mean the two teams still face each other four times a season. You're still facing one another more times than non division teams. How are they not rivals? You still want to defeat each other. They're rivals in the basic understanding of the word.

Lol I don't understand how you say that Boston is their natural rival. Really when was there a perioid of 3+ years when Boston and NY met in the playoffs? The Bulls at least met them several times, particularly on the big stages ---second round and Conference finals. So if anything, they spawned more of a rivarly than Boston/NY did.

Lol at the part that they face each other 4 times a year. So....Boston also faces other teams four times a year, and others 3. If you think that makes a rivarly, then are at least 2 or 3 rivalries in each division. That's a lot of rivalries.

Don't know about the NBA.

But if you check out draft express' 2009 player reviews,
virtually all of their projected top 15 picks are compared to All-Stars,
yet this years draft is supposed to be kaka.

That is ridiculous.

What also cracks me up is when a RealGMer quotes
someone as saying that a draft prospect is like Tracy McGrady,
but the quote they are repeating is from the player's mommy or agent.

Comedians wish they had jokes that kill like that,
and we read that crap here on RealGM everyday around draft time.