Around the League: 2023-24 Season

[GoSixersBro]

Is it just me, or does it feel like the Celtics' championship didn’t get much attention? It seems to have about as much exposure as the Pacers winning the in-season tournament.

After winning a championship, the focus often shifts to the player responsible for the victory, like Jokic being discussed as a GOAT candidate or Dirk finally securing his title. However, there's no clear focal point with the Celtics. They tried to spotlight Tatum, but his poor performance in the playoffs made people question if he truly deserved the recognition.

Boston didn't face any adversity. It wasn't even exciting to root against them.

[Stanford]

Boston didn't face any adversity.

Tatum's shot selection?

[Jailblazers7]

I think the Celtics didn’t get much attention because:

1. The playoffs sucked & everyone was injured. Our series with the Knicks was the best series in the entire Eastern Conference playoffs.

2. Nobody likes them - Tatum whining about not being taken seriously & then doing NBA Legend cosplay is so embarrassing people just avert their eyes.

3. Everybody expected them to win (especially with all the injuries). It’s the same way that the KD Warriors get no respect. The only remarkable thing they can do is lose.

[skywalker33]

Hearing Davis may supplant Embiid as starting C on team USA, isn't he in top shape, not playing "team" ball, or what ?? Embiid is more dominant that AD, what's going on ?

[76ciology]

Hearing Davis may supplant Embiid as starting C on team USA, isn't he in top shape, not playing "team" ball, or what ?? Embiid is more dominant that AD, what's going on ?

Against smaller defenders and non intense competition, AD is more effective because of his wing-like traits. However, against bigger defenders and more intense competition, Embiid is more impactful as he neutralizes the opponent's size advantage and is a better scorer on tight defense.

From what I've seen on social media, Embiid often starts slow, and this might be another example of that.

Players like Bam or AD offer more defensive versatility; they can play effectively in zone defense or switch against less athletic international players. Offensively, Embiid's contributions aren't as valued because players like Curry or Ant Edwards can generate higher points per possession against non tight defense. Embiid's offensive value becomes crucial when Curry or Ant struggle to generate shots, necessitating the need to dump the ball to him.

Embiid is also called upon by Team USA not for matchups against players like Dwight Powell or Jock Landale, but for facing elite players like Jokic and potentially the twin towers of France, and most importantly for facing top teams on a do or die where these teams would lock up on our scorers and would need Embiid’s iso scoring and not for friendly matches where Tyrese Haliburton can look like an allstar.

In my perspective, it’s an overkill for Team USA to add Embiid. It might be an overreaction for their flop last summer with Walker Kessler as their starting C. And it’s just for an insurance just in case the top teams are able to lockdown guys like Ant Edwards, Kevin Durant and Steph Curry and if Jokic and France’s twin towers just proves too much for Team USA.

[x]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=bJcUtOCSwzTqqyZgysWpbQ[/x]

[76ciology]

This idea is inspired by Paul George's latest podcast, where they discussed how to make the All-Star Game more serious.

Do you think it would help if a player weren’t eligible for a supermax contract unless their team wins the All-Star Game? Additionally, if their team wins, the eligibility for a supermax would last only for 2-3 seasons, after which they would need to win the All-Star Game again to renew it.

[mjkvol]

This idea is inspired by Paul George's latest podcast, where they discussed how to make the All-Star Game more serious.

Do you think it would help if a player weren’t eligible for a supermax contract unless their team wins the All-Star Game? Additionally, if their team wins, the eligibility for a supermax would last only for 2-3 seasons, after which they would need to win the All-Star Game again to renew it.

I have a much better idea - scrap the whole tired thing and just give the players a mid-season break.

If the players don't have enough respect for the fans and the product or fear injury in what is a 'meaningless exhibition' to them, and have to be bribed to play hard, it's time to shut the whole thing down. And while you're at it, do the same with the silly in-season tournament. Or the "Lebron Cup", as it will someday be called.

[76ciology]

This idea is inspired by Paul George's latest podcast, where they discussed how to make the All-Star Game more serious.

Do you think it would help if a player weren’t eligible for a supermax contract unless their team wins the All-Star Game? Additionally, if their team wins, the eligibility for a supermax would last only for 2-3 seasons, after which they would need to win the All-Star Game again to renew it.

I have a much better idea - scrap the whole tired thing and just give the players a mid-season break.

If the players don't have enough respect for the fans and the product or fear injury in what is a 'meaningless exhibition' to them, and have to be bribed to play hard, it's time to shut the whole thing down. And while you're at it, do the same with the silly in-season tournament. Or the "Lebron Cup", as it will someday be called.

Well, my other idea is for an NBA All-Star team to go up against an international team composed of the best players in the world. This could be a great opportunity to scout international talent, attract international viewers, and expand the league's global reach.

[Lockdown504090]

This idea is inspired by Paul George's latest podcast, where they discussed how to make the All-Star Game more serious.

Do you think it would help if a player weren’t eligible for a supermax contract unless their team wins the All-Star Game? Additionally, if their team wins, the eligibility for a supermax would last only for 2-3 seasons, after which they would need to win the All-Star Game again to renew it.

I have a much better idea - scrap the whole tired thing and just give the players a mid-season break.

If the players don't have enough respect for the fans and the product or fear injury in what is a 'meaningless exhibition' to them, and have to be bribed to play hard, it's time to shut the whole thing down. And while you're at it, do the same with the silly in-season tournament. Or the "Lebron Cup", as it will someday be called.

Well, my other idea is for an NBA All-Star team to go up against an international team composed of the best players in the world. This could be a great opportunity to scout international talent, attract international viewers, and expand the league's global reach.

North America or just USA vs the world. Just try it once and see what happens. The drama of AAU v euro development storyline is just so polarizing, it would give the nba the engagement it loves so much

[76ciology]

[x]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=bJcUtOCSwzTqqyZgysWpbQ[/x]

[76ciology]

I have a much better idea - scrap the whole tired thing and just give the players a mid-season break.

If the players don't have enough respect for the fans and the product or fear injury in what is a 'meaningless exhibition' to them, and have to be bribed to play hard, it's time to shut the whole thing down. And while you're at it, do the same with the silly in-season tournament. Or the "Lebron Cup", as it will someday be called.

Well, my other idea is for an NBA All-Star team to go up against an international team composed of the best players in the world. This could be a great opportunity to scout international talent, attract international viewers, and expand the league's global reach.

North America or just USA vs the world. Just try it once and see what happens. The drama of AAU v euro development storyline is just so polarizing, it would give the nba the engagement it loves so much

Yeah, that would also be fun to watch.

[SixthStreet]

No one cares about the all star game. It exists to make the owners some money and fill some TV programming. It's not salvageable.

The weekend is slightly cool because of the 3 point contest and to a lesser degree the dunk and skills competition but the "game" is stupid.

[76ciology]

No one cares about the all star game. It exists to make the owners some money and fill some TV programming. It's not salvageable.

The weekend is slightly cool because of the 3 point contest and to a lesser degree the dunk and skills competition but the "game" is stupid.

That's why these ideas aim to make people care about the All-Star game again.

Players want to make the All-Star game to become eligible for a supermax contract. What if we take it a step further and require them to win the All-Star game to qualify for supermax eligibility?

[76ciology]

I believe that while supermax eligibility has been effective in incentivizing players, it's currently too "vanilla." We should introduce layers of eligibility: the salary boost for winning Defensive Player of the Year should be different from making an All-Defensive Team. To emphasize the value of winning, the highest incentive for the full supermax should be tied to winning the championship. If a team wins the championship, the players on that team should be eligible for the maximum salary.

Currently, making the All-NBA team offers more incentives for players, leading many stars to prioritize personal accolades over winning the championship. This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why the Finals have been less exciting recently.

[SixthStreet]

No one cares about the all star game. It exists to make the owners some money and fill some TV programming. It's not salvageable.

The weekend is slightly cool because of the 3 point contest and to a lesser degree the dunk and skills competition but the "game" is stupid.

That's why these ideas aim to make people care about the All-Star game again.

Players want to make the All-Star game to become eligible for a supermax contract. What if we take it a step further and require them to win the All-Star game to qualify for supermax eligibility?

I don't think this makes much sense. Of the 24 guys playing in the game, how many would this apply to in any given year. 4? Would those 4 players demand to play 40 minutes? And in all likelihood you wouldn't have an equal representation by conference of those players and the other 20 guys are going to f around just like they do now.

[76ciology]

No one cares about the all star game. It exists to make the owners some money and fill some TV programming. It's not salvageable.

The weekend is slightly cool because of the 3 point contest and to a lesser degree the dunk and skills competition but the "game" is stupid.

That's why these ideas aim to make people care about the All-Star game again.

Players want to make the All-Star game to become eligible for a supermax contract. What if we take it a step further and require them to win the All-Star game to qualify for supermax eligibility?

I don't think this makes much sense. Of the 24 guys playing in the game, how many would this apply to in any given year. 4? Would those 4 players demand to play 40 minutes? And in all likelihood you wouldn't have an equal representation by conference of those players and the other 20 guys are going to f around just like they do now.

Regarding some players not taking it seriously, that's inevitable. However, introducing a salary incentive, which is highly valued, could significantly change the dynamics of the All-Star game. Players wouldn't just pad stats to win All-Star MVP; they could also face peer pressure from teammates aiming to win the game for a salary increase. If they wont try to win it for their teammate, that teammate might not try to win it for them when they need it the next time.

Moreover, taking another level of financial incentive for players could also counter the growing influence of sports betting in the league.

In the bigger picture, salary increases, especially for supermax eligibility, should be geared towards enhancing a player's team's chances of winning rather than rewarding personal accolades.

[SixthStreet]

Just get the Saudi's to money whip some meaningful number to all the players to make it competitive. Something like $2m per player for the winning team. The loser gets nothing. That's a $24m expense, a rounding error for the sports-washing Saudis. They already bought the in season tournament, what's another game?

Why complicate it when your proposal has serious roster building implications and can result in competitive imbalance if one conference wins several games in a row.

[ExplosionsInDaSky]

Has the all star game ever been taken seriously by the players? I started watching the game of basketball in 1990. I seem to remember the games being more competitive back then, but even if they were, I don't ever recall guys going all in against each other. The games were just a lot less ridiculous back then. Guys weren't hoisting up half court threes and final scores weren't 209 to 204. Yes, they were still glorified exhibition games, but the silliness of the whole event wasn't as obvious as it is now. The dunk contest has bigger names participating back then which I always thought made it more exciting.

[mjkvol]

I wonder why they didn't have to resort to gimmicks and bribing players to play hard and have some pride 30-40 years ago, when the game was a blast to watch?

[SixthStreet]

Revenues have exploded. The players these days, even minimum salary guys, are making money that setup at least the next generation. If you are a Gary Trent level player, you can expect to make $100m in your career, that's like the next 3-4 generations set up on passive income if invested responsibly. That's not even getting to the guys that actually are good enough to play in all-star games, i.e. better than $300m Tobias Harris.

They will never put forth effort in an exhibition. See what happens when the next star tears an ACL or achilles in one of these games. It will happen at some point, and then it'll be over, mercifully.

The guys in the 80s were getting jobs after they retired, except the star of the stars. It's just different now.