2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier

PooledSilver
Sophomore
Posts: 163
And1: 123
Joined: Mar 04, 2024

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1901 » by PooledSilver » Sat Mar 9, 2024 6:57 pm

sp6r=underrated wrote:
AEnigma wrote:
The reason NBA referees have a bad reputation is well known.


Yes,
1. Fans have unrealistic expectations for what error rate is attainable.
2. Fans are extremely biased towards their team
3. Some fans on bet on games and blame the refs for them losing money.
4. The tin foil hat crowd exists

Which basketball league has better refs than the NBA?

And for all the conspiracy theorists in this thread, either stop watching the NBA or stop complaining. After all you've figure out going in the refs are fixing games



Scott foster has a realgm account
Peregrine01
Head Coach
Posts: 6,749
And1: 7,692
Joined: Sep 12, 2012

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1902 » by Peregrine01 » Sat Mar 9, 2024 7:01 pm

The problem is that there's no checks and balances. Who oversees reffing? The NBA. What's the NBA driven by? Ultimately money - it is a business after all.

I think the NBA understands that when the integrity of the league degrades enough, fans become disillusioned and interest wanes over time. The issue is that officiating by nature has a massive gray area - particularly in a sport like basketball - that the NBA can forever hide behind a spurious interpretation of the rulebook.
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 20,927
And1: 13,769
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1903 » by sp6r=underrated » Sat Mar 9, 2024 10:30 pm

PooledSilver wrote:
sp6r=underrated wrote:
AEnigma wrote:
The reason NBA referees have a bad reputation is well known.


Yes,
1. Fans have unrealistic expectations for what error rate is attainable.
2. Fans are extremely biased towards their team
3. Some fans on bet on games and blame the refs for them losing money.
4. The tin foil hat crowd exists

Which basketball league has better refs than the NBA?

And for all the conspiracy theorists in this thread, either stop watching the NBA or stop complaining. After all you've figure out going in the refs are fixing games



Scott foster has a realgm account


That's correct you got me. I am Scott Foster. I've been fixing NBA games for decades. The NBA likes to employ me to fix games because they thinks it helps their business model to sell rigged basketball games
The-Power
RealGM
Posts: 10,550
And1: 9,973
Joined: Jan 03, 2014
Location: Germany
   

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1904 » by The-Power » Sat Mar 9, 2024 10:48 pm

AEnigma wrote:Oh no not the image. Won’t someone please think about the image.

A multi-billion sports league has a great interest in not being perceived as rigged. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. So yes, the NBA does and should care about its image.
PooledSilver
Sophomore
Posts: 163
And1: 123
Joined: Mar 04, 2024

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1905 » by PooledSilver » Sat Mar 9, 2024 11:03 pm

sp6r=underrated wrote:
PooledSilver wrote:
sp6r=underrated wrote:
Yes,
1. Fans have unrealistic expectations for what error rate is attainable.
2. Fans are extremely biased towards their team
3. Some fans on bet on games and blame the refs for them losing money.
4. The tin foil hat crowd exists

Which basketball league has better refs than the NBA?

And for all the conspiracy theorists in this thread, either stop watching the NBA or stop complaining. After all you've figure out going in the refs are fixing games



Scott foster has a realgm account


That's correct you got me. I am Scott Foster. I've been fixing NBA games for decades. The NBA likes to employ me to fix games because they thinks it helps their business model to sell rigged basketball games


I am sure it’s a directive

No one is saying the nba is the WWE, but getting this defensive over refereeing and the NBAs image which isn’t going to be effected by this isolated incident everyone will forget about in a week is cornball behavior
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,978
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1906 » by AEnigma » Sat Mar 9, 2024 11:26 pm

The-Power wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Oh no not the image. Won’t someone please think about the image.

A multi-billion sports league has a great interest in not being perceived as rigged. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. So yes, the NBA does and should care about its image.

My mistake, I did not realise I was talking with an NBA representative giving us a preview of what the new policy for referee criticisms would be. Congratulations on being paid to worry about the “image” of a multibillion dollar corporation, but it should not be some apparent shock to you that the vast majority of viewers lack that financial incentive to care.
PooledSilver
Sophomore
Posts: 163
And1: 123
Joined: Mar 04, 2024

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1907 » by PooledSilver » Sun Mar 10, 2024 2:12 am

AEnigma wrote:
The-Power wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Oh no not the image. Won’t someone please think about the image.

A multi-billion sports league has a great interest in not being perceived as rigged. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. So yes, the NBA does and should care about its image.

My mistake, I did not realise I was talking with an NBA representative giving us a preview of what the new policy for referee criticisms would be. Congratulations on being paid to worry about the “image” of a multibillion dollar corporation, but it should not be some apparent shock to you that the vast majority of viewers lack that financial incentive to care.


Adam silver is on realgm too :0
The-Power
RealGM
Posts: 10,550
And1: 9,973
Joined: Jan 03, 2014
Location: Germany
   

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1908 » by The-Power » Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:39 am

AEnigma wrote:
The-Power wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Oh no not the image. Won’t someone please think about the image.

A multi-billion sports league has a great interest in not being perceived as rigged. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. So yes, the NBA does and should care about its image.

My mistake, I did not realise I was talking with an NBA representative giving us a preview of what the new policy for referee criticisms would be. Congratulations on being paid to worry about the “image” of a multibillion dollar corporation, but it should not be some apparent shock to you that the vast majority of viewers lack that financial incentive to care.

Not sure what it is with your lack of maturity and inability to hold a normal conversation these days but I'll respond one last time.

The NBA has an objective interest to care. People who care about the NBA have an incentive to care, too (unless they also believe it's rigged and they consider it speaking truth to power, but then I don't understand why they are invested enough in the NBA to post a ton on online messaging boards in the first place). If you don't care about the NBA or believe it's rigged, that's your prerogative. But someone arguing that the NBA should come down hard on its own players when they suggest that it's rigged is a pretty reasonable stance considering what's at stake for the league.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,934
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1909 » by OhayoKD » Sun Mar 10, 2024 11:32 am

The-Power wrote:
AEnigma wrote:
The-Power wrote:A multi-billion sports league has a great interest in not being perceived as rigged. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. So yes, the NBA does and should care about its image.

My mistake, I did not realise I was talking with an NBA representative giving us a preview of what the new policy for referee criticisms would be. Congratulations on being paid to worry about the “image” of a multibillion dollar corporation, but it should not be some apparent shock to you that the vast majority of viewers lack that financial incentive to care.

Not sure what it is with your lack of maturity and inability to hold a normal conversation these days but I'll respond one last time.

Getting tilted over the mild sarcasm(definitely not a part of normal conversation) and then whining about lack of maturity is funny.


The NBA has an objective interest to care.

And as everyone knows, if a company cares about an issue, the correct approach is to silence everyone who talks about it, lol.
If you don't care about the NBA or believe it's rigged, that's your prerogative.

Maturity is pretending not synonymous things are synonymous
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,184
And1: 11,985
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1910 » by eminence » Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:10 pm

On the non-fixing front.

The Spurs minus Wemby (and Vassell) waxing the Warriors without Curry was certainly something.
I bought a boat.
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,978
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1911 » by AEnigma » Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:46 pm

The-Power wrote:
AEnigma wrote:
The-Power wrote:A multi-billion sports league has a great interest in not being perceived as rigged. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. So yes, the NBA does and should care about its image.

My mistake, I did not realise I was talking with an NBA representative giving us a preview of what the new policy for referee criticisms would be. Congratulations on being paid to worry about the “image” of a multibillion dollar corporation, but it should not be some apparent shock to you that the vast majority of viewers lack that financial incentive to care.

Not sure what it is with your lack of maturity and inability to hold a normal conversation these days but I'll respond one last time.

Normal conversations for me do not involve infantile weeping over the hypothetical harm to the NBA’s image from a player pointing out the obvious.

The NBA has an objective interest to care.

Correct.

People who care about the NBA have an incentive to care, too

This does not logically track, no. You are just declaring it without a connection.

Let me rephrase for you: people who for inexplicable reason have developed an emotional attachment to the idea that the NBA is above reproach have a personal incentive to care — but that is such a minority perspective that the NBA itself is not going to bother worrying about whether those people feel the league is sufficiently harsh on any players who would dare impute the league’s neutrality.

(unless they also believe it's rigged and they consider it speaking truth to power, but then I don't understand why they are invested enough in the NBA to post a ton on online messaging boards in the first place).

This also does not logically track, and is again the product of what a person who ties enjoyment of the sport to their faith in the NBA assumes would be something that matters to most viewers. People are here because they enjoy the sport, not because they deify the corporation that runs the league with the best players. You could tell me that your local grade school league had flawless refereeing, and guess what, that does not make me more interested in children’s basketball, because the game for me is not about the referees.

This is If you don't care about the NBA or believe it's rigged, that's your prerogative. But someone arguing that the NBA should come down hard on its own players when they suggest that it's rigged is a pretty reasonable stance considering what's at stake for the league.

Neither of you have meaningfully articulated “what is at stake”. You would rather project this staid notion of optics for its own sake, to the extent you want the league actively taking steps to make its on-court product worse.
Special_Puppy
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,059
And1: 2,722
Joined: Sep 23, 2023

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1912 » by Special_Puppy » Sun Mar 10, 2024 4:17 pm

Could you imagine what the Pelican's championship chances would be if Zion actually turned out to be a true superstar
parsnips33
General Manager
Posts: 7,566
And1: 3,492
Joined: Sep 01, 2014
 

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1913 » by parsnips33 » Tue Mar 12, 2024 4:43 pm

Wembanyama is gonna be so good on both ends

That TJD poster tho
User avatar
GSP
RealGM
Posts: 19,561
And1: 16,038
Joined: Dec 12, 2011
     

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1914 » by GSP » Thu Mar 14, 2024 5:04 am

Cant remember last time playoffs and even playins now were as matchup dependent as this years West

Denver most matchup proof but i could see a team who has no chance against one team in a series beating a top seed etc etc
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,184
And1: 11,985
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1915 » by eminence » Thu Mar 14, 2024 3:26 pm

What year do you think the talent per team level caught back up to the 1967 level after expansion? Counting both NBA/ABA.

I can see a pretty broad range here.

My initial thought was quite a long time, possibly not until the 00s.
I bought a boat.
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,859
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1916 » by Colbinii » Thu Mar 14, 2024 3:46 pm

eminence wrote:What year do you think the talent per team level caught back up to the 1967 level after expansion? Counting both NBA/ABA.

I can see a pretty broad range here.

My initial thought was quite a long time, possibly not until the 00s.


Reminder the 2004 Pistons had no bench player > 15 MPG in the post-season and the bench was Corliss Williamson, 33 year-old Lyndsey Hunter and 2nd year Mehmet Okur [Started prior to Rasheed Wallace acquisition]
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,978
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1917 » by AEnigma » Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:21 pm

In 1967 there were nine teams and maybe 99 guys I would consider meaningful NBA presences (as in, removing them from the league could have some relevant effect). So eleven players per team.

At the top end, there are maybe around 10 superstar talents — so say one per team.

By the standard of “eleven conceivably relevant players per team,” I think early 2000s is an okay mark. Mind you, the standard is not, “You want to play these guys.” The 2004 Pistons do not have a good bench, but it is fine. Those are all real players who could matter if given opportunity. Milicic is their worst player, and he at least had enough “talent” to be consensus top five in a stacked draft class.

By the standard of there could be roughly one “superstar” per team (again, this does not mean high end superstar), I might let that 2003 draft class develop a little, so maybe 2005 or 2006?
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,184
And1: 11,985
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1918 » by eminence » Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:40 pm

AEnigma wrote:In 1967 there were nine teams and maybe 99 guys I would consider meaningful NBA presences (as in, removing them from the league could have some relevant effect). So eleven players per team.

At the top end, there are maybe around 10 superstar talents — so say one per team.

By the standard of “eleven conceivably relevant players per team,” I think early 2000s is an okay mark. Mind you, the standard is not, “You want to play these guys.” The 2004 Pistons do not have a good bench, but it is fine. Those are all real players who could matter if given opportunity. Milicic is their worst player, and he at least had enough “talent” to be consensus top five in a stacked draft class.

By the standard of there could be roughly one “superstar” per team (again, this does not mean high end superstar), I might let that 2003 draft class develop a little, so maybe 2005 or 2006?


Aside

Which ~10 guys would you have for that superstar level talent in '67?

Wilt
Russell
Oscar
West
Thurmond
Barry

Are the first 6 to jump out, but at first impression I'm seeing a strong leveling after that.
I bought a boat.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,228
And1: 25,497
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1919 » by 70sFan » Thu Mar 14, 2024 5:37 pm

eminence wrote:
AEnigma wrote:In 1967 there were nine teams and maybe 99 guys I would consider meaningful NBA presences (as in, removing them from the league could have some relevant effect). So eleven players per team.

At the top end, there are maybe around 10 superstar talents — so say one per team.

By the standard of “eleven conceivably relevant players per team,” I think early 2000s is an okay mark. Mind you, the standard is not, “You want to play these guys.” The 2004 Pistons do not have a good bench, but it is fine. Those are all real players who could matter if given opportunity. Milicic is their worst player, and he at least had enough “talent” to be consensus top five in a stacked draft class.

By the standard of there could be roughly one “superstar” per team (again, this does not mean high end superstar), I might let that 2003 draft class develop a little, so maybe 2005 or 2006?


Aside

Which ~10 guys would you have for that superstar level talent in '67?

Wilt
Russell
Oscar
West
Thurmond
Barry

Are the first 6 to jump out, but at first impression I'm seeing a strong leveling after that.

Let me jump in, if you don't mind. It depends on what you mean by "superstar level" - is it an MVP level? Strong all-nba guy? I think you can get Willis Reed at that level, anyone else would be a clear downgrade in value.

I don't think there are many seasons with 10 players playing at that high level to be honest. What superstar level players would you mention for a year like 1985 for example?
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,978
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: 2023-24 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#1920 » by AEnigma » Thu Mar 14, 2024 6:05 pm

70sFan wrote:
eminence wrote:
AEnigma wrote:In 1967 there were nine teams and maybe 99 guys I would consider meaningful NBA presences (as in, removing them from the league could have some relevant effect). So eleven players per team.

At the top end, there are maybe around 10 superstar talents — so say one per team.

By the standard of “eleven conceivably relevant players per team,” I think early 2000s is an okay mark. Mind you, the standard is not, “You want to play these guys.” The 2004 Pistons do not have a good bench, but it is fine. Those are all real players who could matter if given opportunity. Milicic is their worst player, and he at least had enough “talent” to be consensus top five in a stacked draft class.

By the standard of there could be roughly one “superstar” per team (again, this does not mean high end superstar), I might let that 2003 draft class develop a little, so maybe 2005 or 2006?


Aside

Which ~10 guys would you have for that superstar level talent in '67?

Wilt
Russell
Oscar
West
Thurmond
Barry

Are the first 6 to jump out, but at first impression I'm seeing a strong leveling after that.

Let me jump in, if you don't mind. It depends on what you mean by "superstar level" - is it an MVP level? Strong all-nba guy? I think you can get Willis Reed at that level, anyone else would be a clear downgrade in value.

I don't think there are many seasons with 10 players playing at that high level to be honest. What superstar level players would you mention for a year like 1985 for example?

There are tiers to this, as I hoped would have been suggested by me saying there were roughly 30 such players in the league in 2006 (if the question of listing names were raised, I honestly expected it more on that end).

Generally when I talk about superstars in the modern league I mean roughly top ten. In 1967, I would agree with the top five as true superstars and with Barry as borderline. I think those top five could be the best player on a title team, and Barry of course showcased enough talent to make you believe that would be true for him as well.

However, for the sake of this exercise, my definition was more someone a team could reasonably dedicate themselves to building a playoff team around. So there I think you could indeed include Willis Reed (would be a strong MVP contender two years later), as well as Baylor as an established (albeit fading) star and John Havlicek and Chet Walker as rising stars. I would also keep in mind the two Hawks (Wilkens and Beaty) and the high potential for Billy Cunningham (moderate MVP contender two years later once some minutes opened up).

Keep in mind that in 2006/07 we are talking… Tony Parker, Michael Redd, and Joe Johnson as some of those deeper names. Good enough that a team could build around them — and the Bucks and Hawks did for Redd and Joe respectively — but hardly names you would ever expect to truly lead a team to contention.

Return to Player Comparisons