Parity or mediocrity?

[Cavsfansince84]

It's both imo. The top teams this year are not really close to the top teams from 15-20 imo. While there's also not quite as many terrible teams as usual so the result is parity. Which is fine with me.

[JRoy]

No more Superfriends is good for the league

[GeorgeSears]

Right now, it's definitely mediocrity. That's mainly due to injuries and players sitting out. At full strength, it's obvious which teams are at the top and which aren't.

This is the result of cramming 3 seasons back-to-back-to-back with little time in between.

[NRSV]

It is unhealthy for the spirit of the game for 25 teams to know they are effectively non title contenders going into a season. It’s **** up for the fans and the players.

The Cavaliers, for example, are gonna take 3/4s of the league into the fourth quarter actually competing. It makes me actually want to watch, rather than counting losses and hoping for ping pong balls.

League has never been better.

[Statlanta]

I mean wtf. You assert that the league is talent rich and that this talent is well dispersed (parity). Then you proceed to shoot yourself in the dick by claiming that this somehow translates to mediocrity. I'd love to know how this actually makes sense in your mind

The league is more international than any other season making it talent rich. The parity doesn't make it more watchable than any of the early seasons which didn't have the international talent pool.

What are the memorable games of this season?

Besides a few Curry games and the opening Celtics vs. Knicks I don't remember any game too fondly. Lots of 30 point blowouts.
No dominant watchable team. Season ending injuries and personal decision making(Simmons/Irving) affecting the season.

Washington, Chicago and most especially Cleveland coming to Earth.

[_qubik]

The league is the most talented its ever been but the parity makes it mediocre.

This is sig worthy

I mean wtf. You assert that the league is talent rich and that this talent is well dispersed (parity). Then you proceed to shoot yourself in the dick by claiming that this somehow translates to mediocrity. I'd love to know how this actually makes sense in your mind

Theres no team dominating, no dynasty on the making, no star playing well above others. Fans dont like parity, and thats not the point in sports, its all about domination, and we arent seeing it this year
The Dubs might be for real, they are playing very well, but I'm not excited about teams like Jazz or Suns.

Cant complain though, my team is playing nice, and we dont have blowouts every single nights. Though it looks like no team is playing at top level due one or more factors, healthy, bad chemistry, front office turmoil... We need more super teams

[Pachinko_]

There's some injuries and slow starts, eventually the good teams will pull ahead and the really good teams will win in the play offs. It's too early still.

Parity is fun but lack of parity has its own appeal as well.
It's harder and rare to beat a superteam, but it's worth more when you do.

[bbalnation]

There are indeed more injuries or players that are absent from their teams.

Imo: its in the leagues best interest to act now within scheduling games (and rest) so that injuries happen less frequently, and less intensely.

In the perceptions of many fans (and sometimes mine, at least imo), there is also an absence of what absolute dominant basketball between two stacked ass teams (relative to the rest of the league) looks like. Its a consequence when talent organically spreads out, and there's a more even competitive balance.

When Klay comes back, it may feel different for you imo. If Kyrie were playing, perhaps it'd feel different. There are a lot of variables at play that make a more competitive league (relative to five years ago) even more competitive.

Personally, its something I appreciate. A consequence is it feels like a lot of people has a fair shot. A lot of players around the league are gaining some valuable playtime, all fighting for these top spots. What more can I as a sports fan ask for?

[Parataxis]

This is SO much better. Games, except for the tanking teams, are competitive, there's no easy wins, no team that is getting crowned as champions before the season begins.

Quality players on lots of teams, and teams all actually fighting for position.

Yes please.

[SA37]

Right now there's 20 teams with positive or 50% w-l. 2 teams more are 9-10.
Only 3 teams have 5 or less losses.

Is this parity or mediocrity.
Or it's parity due to mediocrity?

I think I’d tend to call it parity via injury.

I think folks right now seem to be skeptical the Warriors are real, and I’d be inclined to say they absolutely are, it’s just a question of which other teams can figure out how to “get real” themselves.

In a league with true parity you’d expect a finals between two mediocrities - a la Bullets v Sonics in the late 70s. In this league, all of these mediocre teams right now need to see themselves as nowhere near contention unless they get a hell of a lot better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is confusing 2 ideas. The idea of parity is that every team or close to it is capable of winning any game on any given night; however, two average teams making the Finals is not what parity is, at least as far as the NBA goes.

If the NBA didn't have 7-game series and had a single-elimination tournament like the NCAA does, it would be much more difficult to guess who might make the Final 4 or win the title. The more games that are played between 2 teams, the more difficult it is for the weaker of the two teams to triumph.

Also, I agree: The Warriors are absolutely for real.

[SA37]

I mean wtf. You assert that the league is talent rich and that this talent is well dispersed (parity). Then you proceed to shoot yourself in the dick by claiming that this somehow translates to mediocrity. I'd love to know how this actually makes sense in your mind

The league is more international than any other season making it talent rich. The parity doesn't make it more watchable than any of the early seasons which didn't have the international talent pool.

What are the memorable games of this season?

Besides a few Curry games and the opening Celtics vs. Knicks I don't remember any game too fondly. Lots of 30 point blowouts.
No dominant watchable team. Season ending injuries and personal decision making(Simmons/Irving) affecting the season.

Washington, Chicago and most especially Cleveland coming to Earth.

I wouldn't say the regular season ever really produces memorable games unless a player has a record-breaking performance of some kind. I'd think people tended to remember playoff series more than anything.

To me, I think there are two "measures" that show just how good the league is:

1) there is no talk of "the next face of the league"

Previously, people would talk about who would be the next face of the league, but you don't hear that conversation anymore. There is just so much talent you don't need a singular "face" of the league. You have about 8 players who, in any given season, could be considered the best player in basketball: LeBron, Harden, Durant, Curry, Doncic, Giannis, Jokic, or Kawhi.

2) There almost aren't any unwatchable teams.

I'd argue there are only 3 "unwatchable" teams: Orlando, Houston, and Detroit. If those teams are playing each other or if they are playing some team I enjoy watching, I'd consider not watching, However, most games and most matchups are quite entertaining and feature really good players.

[Alatan]

The league is the most talented its ever been but the parity makes it mediocre.

This is sig worthy

I mean wtf. You assert that the league is talent rich and that this talent is well dispersed (parity). Then you proceed to shoot yourself in the dick by claiming that this somehow translates to mediocrity. I'd love to know how this actually makes sense in your mind

He probably likes to see 2-3 stacked teams demolish everyone only playing competitive basketball once they reach the NBA finals.

[Karate Diop]

Mediocrity, nobody has really separated themselves from each other. You have some teams going all out every game and not pacing themselves and others who are treating this like an extended preseason.

My guess is that some teams will separate from the pack by the third quarter of the season though...

[Chuck Everett]

Still too early in the season. Come back at the half-way point.

[WarriorGM]

At the beginning of this season there were at least two teams that were billed as prospective juggernauts (Lakers, Nets) with two players that were recently mentioned as possibly top 5 and then rosters filled out with perennial all-stars as supporting players. Then you had the champion last year and the finalist.

Now we're being told this season is full of mediocre teams! Keep spinning narratives.

[coldfish]

IMO, most of the teams in the NBA would smash the average team from 25 years ago.

Its parity.

[Doctor MJ]

Right now there's 20 teams with positive or 50% w-l. 2 teams more are 9-10.
Only 3 teams have 5 or less losses.

Is this parity or mediocrity.
Or it's parity due to mediocrity?

I think I’d tend to call it parity via injury.

I think folks right now seem to be skeptical the Warriors are real, and I’d be inclined to say they absolutely are, it’s just a question of which other teams can figure out how to “get real” themselves.

In a league with true parity you’d expect a finals between two mediocrities - a la Bullets v Sonics in the late 70s. In this league, all of these mediocre teams right now need to see themselves as nowhere near contention unless they get a hell of a lot better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is confusing 2 ideas. The idea of parity is that every team or close to it is capable of winning any game on any given night; however, two average teams making the Finals is not what parity is, at least as far as the NBA goes.

If the NBA didn't have 7-game series and had a single-elimination tournament like the NCAA does, it would be much more difficult to guess who might make the Final 4 or win the title. The more games that are played between 2 teams, the more difficult it is for the weaker of the two teams to triumph.

Also, I agree: The Warriors are absolutely for real.

I would suggest that the idea of "parity" not only refers to both of these phenomena, but that one of these contributes to the other.

Completely agree that the 7-game series decrease effective parity, but I think the late '70s in the NBA works as an example because it shows that when the parity is truly extreme, you can get champions who just aren't that good.

[SA37]

Spoiler:

I think I’d tend to call it parity via injury.

I think folks right now seem to be skeptical the Warriors are real, and I’d be inclined to say they absolutely are, it’s just a question of which other teams can figure out how to “get real” themselves.

In a league with true parity you’d expect a finals between two mediocrities - a la Bullets v Sonics in the late 70s. In this league, all of these mediocre teams right now need to see themselves as nowhere near contention unless they get a hell of a lot better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is confusing 2 ideas. The idea of parity is that every team or close to it is capable of winning any game on any given night; however, two average teams making the Finals is not what parity is, at least as far as the NBA goes.

If the NBA didn't have 7-game series and had a single-elimination tournament like the NCAA does, it would be much more difficult to guess who might make the Final 4 or win the title. The more games that are played between 2 teams, the more difficult it is for the weaker of the two teams to triumph.

Also, I agree: The Warriors are absolutely for real.

I would suggest that the idea of "parity" not only refers to both of these phenomena, but that one of these contributes to the other.

Completely agree that the 7-game series decrease effective parity, but I think the late '70s in the NBA works as an example because it shows that when the parity is truly extreme, you can get champions who just aren't that good.

Yes, that is true to some degree.

I do think, though, that it is difficult to compare teams from the 70s to now for 2 major reasons: 1) the global game has given the NBA a much larger talent pool to choose from and 2) the NBA is full of players who have dedicated their lives to basketball in a way that I think goes beyond what was possible in the 70s.

Teams in today's NBA tend to be much deeper across the league. Plus you have super friend teams that attract good veterans who sign up for the ride.

[Marmoset]

Not knowing who is going to the Finals from day one is great for the league. It's anecdotal but everyone I know who watches consistently thinks this year has been an improvement on the last few seasons. The rule changes are part of it, but so is the fact only a handful of teams seem truly dreadful at this stage.

There is plenty of talent to go around and the title is very much up in the air even with the Brooklyn/LAL super teams in the equation. It's going to be exciting to see which of the new generation of stars seizes the moment and becomes a champion this year like Giannis did in June, or if the super teams rebound and pull away from the pack.

I 100% prefer parity to knowing Cavs/Warriors will be the Finals matchup from day one like 2015-2018. No hate for Lebron or the Dubs, but it made the regular season a slog when you know exactly how things will end except for the last few games.

This is a key for why I have enjoyed the NBA perhaps the most ever in the last few seasons. Obviously the Raptors winning a championship was amazing for me as a Raptors fan, but entering that season it wasn't predicted to be as wide open as it turned out to be. Since then, in every season there have been many teams with a realistic chance to win. Yes, the Lakers won a title with LeBron and AD, but it wasn't like it was the Lakers and everyone else - other teams could have won.

In the current season the Warriors are off to an outstanding start but I hardly think they can be penciled in as an overwhelming favorite. They will get Klay back, but other teams will get other stars back, and still other teams that have struggled early will figure things out. It's also great that almost every night there are good, competitive games that you can tune into.

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

I think this is confusing 2 ideas. The idea of parity is that every team or close to it is capable of winning any game on any given night; however, two average teams making the Finals is not what parity is, at least as far as the NBA goes.

If the NBA didn't have 7-game series and had a single-elimination tournament like the NCAA does, it would be much more difficult to guess who might make the Final 4 or win the title. The more games that are played between 2 teams, the more difficult it is for the weaker of the two teams to triumph.

Also, I agree: The Warriors are absolutely for real.

I would suggest that the idea of "parity" not only refers to both of these phenomena, but that one of these contributes to the other.

Completely agree that the 7-game series decrease effective parity, but I think the late '70s in the NBA works as an example because it shows that when the parity is truly extreme, you can get champions who just aren't that good.

Yes, that is true to some degree.

I do think, though, that it is difficult to compare teams from the 70s to now for 2 major reasons: 1) the global game has given the NBA a much larger talent pool to choose from and 2) the NBA is full of players who have dedicated their lives to basketball in a way that I think goes beyond what was possible in the 70s.

Teams in today's NBA tend to be much deeper across the league. Plus you have super friend teams that attract good veterans who sign up for the ride.

Fair enough, but to be clear I'm not singling out the entirety of the '70s. I'm talking about specifically the end of the '70s where the league lost its last great team when Walton got hurt, and didn't get any great new teams until Bird & Magic showed up.

At any given point you can have a relative lull in talent contributing to a dearth of truly great teams, and when you do, you get more parity than you would otherwise have.

I'll also say this:

I do think people radically underestimate how long basketball has been around at an elite level. Nat Holman in the '20s understood the game of basketball vastly better than most players around today because he was a smart guy playing professionally.

The Great Depression followed by World War II really pushed pro basketball backwards and that's the only reason why we tend to think of the game as being so nascent in the '50s.

But even in the '40s they were talking about how every able bodied young man in America was playing basketball. It wasn't a thing where no one liked the sport until the NBA came around, rather it was the BAA that swooped in with real money after World War II to jump on the bandwagon.

I do think the talent pool is undeniably bigger today than it was in the '70s and that training evolution has made a qualitative difference, but really I think the biggest changes to top level basketball in the past century come from strategic advances which then changed what a basketball prospect looked like, with the most obvious moment of this happening in the '40s.