2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

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

Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,865
And1: 22,805
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2161 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:27 pm

MartinToVaught wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:I find what I see in this "late stage Buss administration" to be incredibly insightful. Why is it the first generation guy was so good despite not having a basketball background while his kids are not despite being groomed their entire lives for this purpose?

I don't think the main answer is "Jerry was just much smarter than his kids".

I think there's two clear differences between the Jerry era and the post-Jerry era:

1. When Jerry was still alive, there was no question that he was in charge. Now that his kids have inherited the Lakers, there's already been some dysfunction and drama involved in who runs the team. Jim kept screwing up, so Jeanie decided it was her turn to run the Lakers. If Jeanie keeps screwing up even worse, you just know at least one of the other kids is waiting in the wings to take their turn as owner. You can't run a successful organization when the people who are supposed to be leaders aren't on the same page with each other and are more interested in playing politics than improving or even maintaining the company. Unfortunately for Laker fans, it seems the one thing that the Buss kids can agree on is keeping the franchise within the family rather than selling it to a wealthier and more competent owner.

2. Jerry surrounded himself with great basketball minds like Jerry West, Pat Riley, and Phil Jackson. Jim hired Chaz the bartender. Jeanie asks her friends from spin class what to do with the roster.

It's not that Jerry was necessarily smarter than his kids. He was just normal. He operated the way that normal sports owners do. The freakshow that has followed his era has been anything but normal.


Good point here, but I would quibble about some things.

What was made explicitly clear at the time - and you may be aware of this but skeptical it's true - is that Jim's regime was about Jim running basketball inside Jeanie's business, and now Jeanie's regime is about hiring basketball professionals to run the basketball while she runs her business. I'm largely inclined to believe this, and thus unless Jeanie has a mental breakdown, I don't see any reason to think anyone else is going to be able to force her out of the way. Of the Buss siblings, she's the professional of the bunch - the one who you could plausibly hire at some other company and expect her to be a reliable worker rather than just entitled rich kid.

Of course, this is why it's all the more disheartening to see what's come from her leadership to this point. The professionals she's hired are all people she already knew for years because of their proximity to the Laker organization, some of whom were adults when she was a kid.

To become an effective owner, she needs to get to a point where she can actually go from not knowing someone to knowing whether they are right for the job she herself cannot do. This is not an easy thing, and it's important not to be too negative when someone struggles with this in particular instances. All organizations make bad hires sometimes. But you have to develop a process, and you're not developing that process when you're just hiring guys you met through your dad.

I would advise Jeanie that the next time she is looking to hire a choice position - like a GM or a coach - she seriously put the word out that she wants the best lieutenants from the best NBA organizations to be interviewing, and that she try to avoid hiring anyone with Laker blood. I wouldn't be looking to gut the entire organization, but if ever there was a time where an outsider's voice in leadership would be necessary, this is it.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 20,927
And1: 13,769
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2162 » by sp6r=underrated » Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:36 pm

MartinToVaught wrote:Not denying that the Cowboys are popular, they very obviously are. Just saying that the Lakers/Yankees comparisons don't really work because they've been nowhere near as successful or dominant over their sport.

The NFL is weird in that their closest analogue to the Lakers/Celtics/Yankees/Habs is located in tiny Green Bay and is community-owned, so Jeff Bezos can't really wake up one morning and decide to buy the Packers and move them to San Diego. I'd imagine this all puts a hard cap on their value compared to the other sports' historic dynasties (Forbes only ranks them 13th), which amplifies the effects of other factors like the Cowboys' merchandise deal or the Patriots' recent success.


The NFL doesn't have an on-field equivalent to the Yankees/Lakers or what the Canadiens were to the NHL up until 1993. You can make the argument for several franchises.

There are a lot of reasons for it but the biggest is the fundamentals of the game and the business.

The business of the NFL is unlike the other North American sports leagues, revenue is overwhelming generated at the national level which dilutes the importance of markets. There are no local TV deals. Every game basically sells out and there aren't many home games so ticket sale differences aren't substantial in revenue. This is way different than the NBA were a substantial amount of revenue is local and totally different than MLB were most revenue is local.

A lot of people hate this but there is no solution. There is no way to effectively nationalize this revenue. Moving to all national TV deals is only viable with dramatic reductions in the number of games. Given basketball's relative popularity this is a money loser.

The NFL roster is enormous in comparison to other sports. The small number of games and single elimination tournament also adds significant randomness year to year. The shorter season, 2-3 months less than the other leagues, also makes playing in the hinterlands more tolerable. Living in Buffalo would be a much harder sell with an extra 2 months in the city.

All of these factors dilute the ability of one franchise to move far ahead on the field. They are also far more important than the hard cap. The hard cap mainly allows the owners to steal more money from the players. I wouldn't consider the hard cap a major factor at all in NFL's franchise balance.

As an aside, the NFL's twenty year decision to tailor rules to preserve QBs will make forming dynasties easier and shift power to QBs in their dealings with management. It will never be like the NBA but it will be different. Watson is the canary in the coal mine.

But on the popularity end Cowboys are the most popular franchise by almost all metrics.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,865
And1: 22,805
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2163 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:51 pm

sp6r=underrated wrote:
MartinToVaught wrote:Not denying that the Cowboys are popular, they very obviously are. Just saying that the Lakers/Yankees comparisons don't really work because they've been nowhere near as successful or dominant over their sport.

The NFL is weird in that their closest analogue to the Lakers/Celtics/Yankees/Habs is located in tiny Green Bay and is community-owned, so Jeff Bezos can't really wake up one morning and decide to buy the Packers and move them to San Diego. I'd imagine this all puts a hard cap on their value compared to the other sports' historic dynasties (Forbes only ranks them 13th), which amplifies the effects of other factors like the Cowboys' merchandise deal or the Patriots' recent success.


The NFL doesn't have an on-field equivalent to the Yankees/Lakers or what the Canadiens were to the NHL up until 1993. You can make the argument for several franchises.

There are a lot of reasons for it but the biggest is the fundamentals of the game and the business.

The business of the NFL is unlike the other North American sports leagues, revenue is overwhelming generated at the national level which dilutes the importance of markets. There are no local TV deals. Every game basically sells out and there aren't many home games so ticket sale differences aren't substantial in revenue. This is way different than the NBA were a substantial amount of revenue is local and totally different than MLB were most revenue is local.

A lot of people hate this but there is no solution. There is no way to effectively nationalize this revenue. Moving to all national TV deals is only viable with dramatic reductions in the number of games. Given basketball's relative popularity this is a money loser.

The NFL roster is enormous in comparison to other sports. The small number of games and single elimination tournament also adds significant randomness year to year. The shorter season, 2-3 months less than the other leagues, also makes playing in the hinterlands more tolerable. Living in Buffalo would be a much harder sell with an extra 2 months in the city.

All of these factors dilute the ability of one franchise to move far ahead on the field. They are also far more important than the hard cap. The hard cap mainly allows the owners to steal more money from the players. I wouldn't consider the hard cap a major factor at all in NFL's franchise balance.

As an aside, the NFL's twenty year decision to tailor rules to preserve QBs will make forming dynasties easier and shift power to QBs in their dealings with management. It will never be like the NBA but it will be different. Watson is the canary in the coal mine.

But on the popularity end Cowboys are the most popular franchise by almost all metrics.


Great points, but wanted to note a distinction between baseball and basketball.

In baseball, the MLB lets the rich teams spend tons and tons of money, whereas in basketball, the NBA has traditionally worked to really enforce more parity on that front. Yet, despite this difference in approach, basketball actually has less parity than baseball. Why?

My answer: Because one player in basketball is much, much more valuable than one player in baseball. It means that a small market basketball team can make a dynasty if they get lucky, but it also that leveling the financial playing field makes it easy for the players to just go wherever the hell they want.

Last note: I think consider how much luck is allowed into competition is a critical thing to understand.

The NBA is one of the least luck-driven professional team sports around.
It's post-season is not determined by exciting single-eliminate but round after round of tedious fortnightly affair.
There is no goalie whose body volume takes up roughly 99% of the size of the goal.
It's not a game whose game-to-game skill-to-luck ratio is poor.

There are certainly both pros and cons to this.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 20,927
And1: 13,769
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2164 » by sp6r=underrated » Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:18 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
sp6r=underrated wrote:
MartinToVaught wrote:Not denying that the Cowboys are popular, they very obviously are. Just saying that the Lakers/Yankees comparisons don't really work because they've been nowhere near as successful or dominant over their sport.

The NFL is weird in that their closest analogue to the Lakers/Celtics/Yankees/Habs is located in tiny Green Bay and is community-owned, so Jeff Bezos can't really wake up one morning and decide to buy the Packers and move them to San Diego. I'd imagine this all puts a hard cap on their value compared to the other sports' historic dynasties (Forbes only ranks them 13th), which amplifies the effects of other factors like the Cowboys' merchandise deal or the Patriots' recent success.


The NFL doesn't have an on-field equivalent to the Yankees/Lakers or what the Canadiens were to the NHL up until 1993. You can make the argument for several franchises.

There are a lot of reasons for it but the biggest is the fundamentals of the game and the business.

The business of the NFL is unlike the other North American sports leagues, revenue is overwhelming generated at the national level which dilutes the importance of markets. There are no local TV deals. Every game basically sells out and there aren't many home games so ticket sale differences aren't substantial in revenue. This is way different than the NBA were a substantial amount of revenue is local and totally different than MLB were most revenue is local.

A lot of people hate this but there is no solution. There is no way to effectively nationalize this revenue. Moving to all national TV deals is only viable with dramatic reductions in the number of games. Given basketball's relative popularity this is a money loser.

The NFL roster is enormous in comparison to other sports. The small number of games and single elimination tournament also adds significant randomness year to year. The shorter season, 2-3 months less than the other leagues, also makes playing in the hinterlands more tolerable. Living in Buffalo would be a much harder sell with an extra 2 months in the city.

All of these factors dilute the ability of one franchise to move far ahead on the field. They are also far more important than the hard cap. The hard cap mainly allows the owners to steal more money from the players. I wouldn't consider the hard cap a major factor at all in NFL's franchise balance.

As an aside, the NFL's twenty year decision to tailor rules to preserve QBs will make forming dynasties easier and shift power to QBs in their dealings with management. It will never be like the NBA but it will be different. Watson is the canary in the coal mine.

But on the popularity end Cowboys are the most popular franchise by almost all metrics.


Great points, but wanted to note a distinction between baseball and basketball.

In baseball, the MLB lets the rich teams spend tons and tons of money, whereas in basketball, the NBA has traditionally worked to really enforce more parity on that front. Yet, despite this difference in approach, basketball actually has less parity than baseball. Why?

My answer: Because one player in basketball is much, much more valuable than one player in baseball. It means that a small market basketball team can make a dynasty if they get lucky, but it also that leveling the financial playing field makes it easy for the players to just go wherever the hell they want.

Last note: I think consider how much luck is allowed into competition is a critical thing to understand.

The NBA is one of the least luck-driven professional team sports around.
It's post-season is not determined by exciting single-eliminate but round after round of tedious fortnightly affair.
There is no goalie whose body volume takes up roughly 99% of the size of the goal.
It's not a game whose game-to-game skill-to-luck ratio is poor.

There are certainly both pros and cons to this.


Agree with you, another way to put it is all sports have natural parity levels and it differs by sports.

Let's compare baseball to basketball. Baseball is extremely high parity as a sport for a lot of factors. For the non-baseball fans these some of the factors:

1. Game to Game balls hit into play are totally random on whether they're hits. It takes an enormous sample size for the best hitters to reveal themselves. In basketball the best shooters are much more consistent game to game.
2. The most important players are pitchers. They are extremely injury prone, have severe resting requirements, severe workload limitation requirements and year to year performance is far less consistent than elite players in other sports.
3. Even a starting pitcher means less than an NBA superstar.
4. Scouting is much harder in baseball than basketball.

All of that makes baseball inherently pro-parity. If it didn't have those factors and had the MLB economic system the top teams would win 155-7 seasons given the spending disparities.\

Out of topic, MLB hates the fact teams can spend as much as they want. The MLBPA is much more powerful than the NBAPA which is much more powerful than NFLPA. The 94 Strike permanently damaged baseball's popularity but it sent a powerful message to the owners. We're willing to cancel the World Series and the following season (until the courts intervened) rather than accept your demands. After that the owners have had to genuinely bargain with the players.

In the NFL, the owners dictate terms to the players in every negotiation. In NBA, the owners don't have quite as much power but can still mostly dictate terms by dividing the union.
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 20,927
And1: 13,769
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2165 » by sp6r=underrated » Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:30 pm

And I've always said if you hate superstars pairing up on teams together blame the owners.

The owners are the ones who came up with maximum salaries as a way to divide the union. The owners were able to get the players to accept a lower share of basketball related income by promising the majority of players they'll still make more with the owners deal because they'll put an extremely low cap on superstar/rookie salaries. In math terms, the owners stole 100 dollars from the players. A 120 dollars came out of superstars/rookies and the surplus 20 dollars were re-distributed to the majority of the workforce.

Superstars and rookies are grossly underpaid. Rookies can't go anywhere but superstars can. And since superstars can't get paid more they take their compensation in the form of greater amenities: picking their co-workers.

If you hate superstars pairing together it is entirely a product of decisions owners made.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,626
And1: 7,224
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2166 » by falcolombardi » Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:31 am

off topic but the amount of people who thinl the nba is rigged or is just like wwe then go on to root for their teams to win after saying is all a show weird me out

not only is pretty cynical and honestly fairly unrealistic (if it was fixed or at least corrupt to the degree people suggest it would become pretty obvious quickly, we have had actual refs/players scandals that became known )

the level of rigging and work needed to make it work without it ever being discovered would make 9/11 conspiracy theories seem plausible by occam razor

like the degree of conspiracy needed

but then thet still get invested in the results (and i mean the same people here)of a sport league they call a fraud?

like, if you actually thought it was fake and fixed i would imagine you would care less about who wins at that point ?

i dont know is pretty odd to me
Fadeaway_J
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 28,700
And1: 7,692
Joined: Jul 25, 2016
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
   

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2167 » by Fadeaway_J » Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:43 am

falcolombardi wrote:off topic but the amount of people who thinl the nba is rigged or is just like wwe then go on to root for their teams to win after saying is all a show weird me out

not only is pretty cynical and honestly fairly unrealistic (if it was fixed or at least corrupt to the degree people suggest it would become pretty obvious quickly, we have had actual refs/players scandals that became known )

the level of rigging and work needed to make it work without it ever being discovered would make 9/11 conspiracy theories seem plausible by occam razor

like the degree of conspiracy needed

but then thet still get invested in the results (and i mean the same people here)of a sport league they call a fraud?

like, if you actually thought it was fake and fixed i would imagine you would care less about who wins at that point ?

i dont know is pretty odd to me

Been wondering the same thing for many years. Not only does it not make sense to be invested in a league you believe is rigged, but some of the conspiracies make no damn sense either. I mean we had people suggesting the league was rigging things in favour of the Spurs some years back.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 63,018
And1: 16,450
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2168 » by Dr Positivity » Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:47 am

46 Ws for Timberwolves is a pretty solid carry job for KAT
It's going to be a glorious day... I feel my luck could change
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,626
And1: 7,224
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2169 » by falcolombardi » Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:48 am

Fadeaway_J wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:off topic but the amount of people who thinl the nba is rigged or is just like wwe then go on to root for their teams to win after saying is all a show weird me out

not only is pretty cynical and honestly fairly unrealistic (if it was fixed or at least corrupt to the degree people suggest it would become pretty obvious quickly, we have had actual refs/players scandals that became known )

the level of rigging and work needed to make it work without it ever being discovered would make 9/11 conspiracy theories seem plausible by occam razor

like the degree of conspiracy needed

but then thet still get invested in the results (and i mean the same people here)of a sport league they call a fraud?

like, if you actually thought it was fake and fixed i would imagine you would care less about who wins at that point ?

i dont know is pretty odd to me

Been wondering the same thing for many years. Not only does it not make sense to be invested in a league you believe is rigged, but some of the conspiracies make no damn sense either. I mean we had people suggesting the league was rigging things in favour of the Spurs some years back.


i am not even saying the league or has always been perfectly clean, donaghi happened, i am sure point shaving has happened, refs can be biased, etc

but the degree of conspiracy that people suggest is just unrealistic, "covid is a bill Gates microchip conspiracy" level of convoluted
User avatar
MartinToVaught
RealGM
Posts: 15,743
And1: 17,808
Joined: Oct 19, 2014
     

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2170 » by MartinToVaught » Mon Apr 11, 2022 3:02 am

There's tanking, and then there's this:

Read on Twitter
Image
User avatar
GSP
RealGM
Posts: 19,561
And1: 16,038
Joined: Dec 12, 2011
     

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2171 » by GSP » Mon Apr 11, 2022 3:40 am

Dr Positivity wrote:46 Ws for Timberwolves is a pretty solid carry job for KAT


??? Trolling?? Carryjob??? Whaaaaaat the Wolves this season have a great supporting cast. Dlo, Bev, Antman, Vanderbilt. Beasly, Naz, Prince, Mcdaniels is a nice bench too.

If Kat was capable of a "46 win carryjob" wed have seen it already. Hes not that guy we know that and hes not much more impactful than Dlo who might be the most underrated player of the season
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 63,018
And1: 16,450
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2172 » by Dr Positivity » Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:11 am

GSP wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:46 Ws for Timberwolves is a pretty solid carry job for KAT


??? Trolling?? Carryjob??? Whaaaaaat the Wolves this season have a great supporting cast. Dlo, Bev, Antman, Vanderbilt. Beasly, Naz, Prince, Mcdaniels is a nice bench too.

If Kat was capable of a "46 win carryjob" wed have seen it already. Hes not that guy we know that and hes not much more impactful than Dlo who might be the most underrated player of the season


He has improved but still sure how sold I am on D Lo, same with Edwards. I think Twolves would be their usual 20-25 W team without KAT.
It's going to be a glorious day... I feel my luck could change
Peregrine01
Head Coach
Posts: 6,751
And1: 7,693
Joined: Sep 12, 2012

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2173 » by Peregrine01 » Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:21 am

sp6r=underrated wrote:And I've always said if you hate superstars pairing up on teams together blame the owners.

The owners are the ones who came up with maximum salaries as a way to divide the union. The owners were able to get the players to accept a lower share of basketball related income by promising the majority of players they'll still make more with the owners deal because they'll put an extremely low cap on superstar/rookie salaries. In math terms, the owners stole 100 dollars from the players. A 120 dollars came out of superstars/rookies and the surplus 20 dollars were re-distributed to the majority of the workforce.

Superstars and rookies are grossly underpaid. Rookies can't go anywhere but superstars can. And since superstars can't get paid more they take their compensation in the form of greater amenities: picking their co-workers.

If you hate superstars pairing together it is entirely a product of decisions owners made.


Say there was no cap and the market decided what superstars should be paid…you don’t think superstars wouldn’t still try to dictate terms? Maybe they take as much money as possible in lieu of trying to field a better team.

Also, the rest of the league would be paid a fraction of what they are getting now so I doubt the 99% would be happy with this. This is as much about the union as it is about the owners.
User avatar
MartinToVaught
RealGM
Posts: 15,743
And1: 17,808
Joined: Oct 19, 2014
     

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2174 » by MartinToVaught » Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:26 am

Yeah, blaming the owners for certain players' total lack of dignity or competitive spirit is a copout in my opinion. The owners didn't brainwash Durant into joining Steph's 73-win team he had just choked against, that was his own decision. The owners didn't make Harden quit on two teams in the span of a year, that was his decision. Some guys really are just frontrunners and it's not any deeper than that.
Image
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 20,927
And1: 13,769
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2175 » by sp6r=underrated » Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:27 am

Peregrine01 wrote:
sp6r=underrated wrote:And I've always said if you hate superstars pairing up on teams together blame the owners.

The owners are the ones who came up with maximum salaries as a way to divide the union. The owners were able to get the players to accept a lower share of basketball related income by promising the majority of players they'll still make more with the owners deal because they'll put an extremely low cap on superstar/rookie salaries. In math terms, the owners stole 100 dollars from the players. A 120 dollars came out of superstars/rookies and the surplus 20 dollars were re-distributed to the majority of the workforce.

Superstars and rookies are grossly underpaid. Rookies can't go anywhere but superstars can. And since superstars can't get paid more they take their compensation in the form of greater amenities: picking their co-workers.

If you hate superstars pairing together it is entirely a product of decisions owners made.


Say there was no cap and the market decided what superstars should be paid…you don’t think superstars wouldn’t still try to dictate terms? Maybe they take as much money as possible in lieu of trying to field a better team.

Also, the rest of the league would be paid a fraction of what they are getting now so I doubt the 99% would be happy with this. This is as much about the union as it is about the owners.



If there was no team salary cap yes superstars would try to team up.

But no maximum salaries while maintaining the soft cap/luxury tax they would not try to superteam.
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 20,927
And1: 13,769
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2176 » by sp6r=underrated » Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:37 am

MartinToVaught wrote:Yeah, blaming the owners for certain players' total lack of dignity or competitive spirit is a copout in my opinion. The owners didn't brainwash Durant into joining Steph's 73-win team he had just choked against, that was his own decision. The owners didn't make Harden quit on two teams in the span of a year, that was his decision. Some guys really are just frontrunners and it's not any deeper than that.


Describing players signing up for teams with talented players as having a lack of dignity or competitive spirit is unreasonable.

Every person in the world prefers having more talented co-workers than less. Every person in the world prefers working with people they like rather than people they don't. Every person in the world prefers having a greater chance of occupational success than less. All of that can be furthered by joining superteams. It is self-interest driving the superteam creation.

And that self-interest is a product of the Owner created CBA. Post 1999 superstars are paid the exact same salary without any difference. A Jokic cannot earn more than a Tatum. Obviously under that system players are going to make signing decisions on factors other than money. And one of the factors will be the the quality of teammates.

Get rid of maximum individual contracts, players can start making signing decisions based on money. And if you keep the soft cap your concerns about everyone signing in NY aren't legitimate.
User avatar
MartinToVaught
RealGM
Posts: 15,743
And1: 17,808
Joined: Oct 19, 2014
     

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2177 » by MartinToVaught » Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:47 am

Read on Twitter


It's like the Lakers were trying to fire Vogel in the most meanspirited way possible. Regardless of your opinions on Vogel's coaching, he at least seems like a nice guy and didn't deserve to be treated like this.
Image
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,865
And1: 22,805
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2178 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Apr 11, 2022 5:24 am

MartinToVaught wrote:
Read on Twitter


It's like the Lakers were trying to fire Vogel in the most meanspirited way possible. Regardless of your opinions on Vogel's coaching, he at least seems like a nice guy and didn't deserve to be treated like this.


4 years of LeBron, 2 coaches down, the second for only winning 1 championship with a miraculous defense and being unable to replicate it after LeBron forced an impossible situation.

I hope Vogel gets a new job as soon as he wants one. I'm not going to say he'd be my #1 choice out of any coach in the world, but he's good and not the problem here.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,828
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2179 » by HeartBreakKid » Mon Apr 11, 2022 5:41 am

sp6r=underrated wrote:
MartinToVaught wrote:Not denying that the Cowboys are popular, they very obviously are. Just saying that the Lakers/Yankees comparisons don't really work because they've been nowhere near as successful or dominant over their sport.

The NFL is weird in that their closest analogue to the Lakers/Celtics/Yankees/Habs is located in tiny Green Bay and is community-owned, so Jeff Bezos can't really wake up one morning and decide to buy the Packers and move them to San Diego. I'd imagine this all puts a hard cap on their value compared to the other sports' historic dynasties (Forbes only ranks them 13th), which amplifies the effects of other factors like the Cowboys' merchandise deal or the Patriots' recent success.


The NFL doesn't have an on-field equivalent to the Yankees/Lakers or what the Canadiens were to the NHL up until 1993. You can make the argument for several franchises.

There are a lot of reasons for it but the biggest is the fundamentals of the game and the business.

The business of the NFL is unlike the other North American sports leagues, revenue is overwhelming generated at the national level which dilutes the importance of markets. There are no local TV deals. Every game basically sells out and there aren't many home games so ticket sale differences aren't substantial in revenue. This is way different than the NBA were a substantial amount of revenue is local and totally different than MLB were most revenue is local.

A lot of people hate this but there is no solution. There is no way to effectively nationalize this revenue. Moving to all national TV deals is only viable with dramatic reductions in the number of games. Given basketball's relative popularity this is a money loser.

The NFL roster is enormous in comparison to other sports. The small number of games and single elimination tournament also adds significant randomness year to year. The shorter season, 2-3 months less than the other leagues, also makes playing in the hinterlands more tolerable. Living in Buffalo would be a much harder sell with an extra 2 months in the city.

All of these factors dilute the ability of one franchise to move far ahead on the field. They are also far more important than the hard cap. The hard cap mainly allows the owners to steal more money from the players. I wouldn't consider the hard cap a major factor at all in NFL's franchise balance.

As an aside, the NFL's twenty year decision to tailor rules to preserve QBs will make forming dynasties easier and shift power to QBs in their dealings with management. It will never be like the NBA but it will be different. Watson is the canary in the coal mine.

But on the popularity end Cowboys are the most popular franchise by almost all metrics.



I don't think this last sentence has much to do with the rest of your post. I also don't think it's correct.

How do you define popularity, and what are the metrics that support that? Based on the popularity of basketball world wide, social media,the fame of individual basketball players and merchandise sales - I find it highly unlikely that the Cowboys are anywhere near as more popular than the Lakers. I don't think there is any sports franchises outside of 5-10 soccer teams that are more recognizable or in some way supported than the Lakers.

People wear Yankees hats in places that do not even know how baseball is played (which is like 97% of the world), their brand is much more recognizable than the Cowboys....which isn't recognizable at all really outside of USA and to an extent Canada.

In fact, I would argue that even in big cities, like NYC no one would give a crap about the Cowboys. I can't picture anyone in New York in some way supporting Tony Romo or having any type of positivity said toward the Cowboys, in a city with 20 million people I have never observed that even once. The same is not said about the Lakers, where plenty of people are fans of the Lakers in New York or at least follow them, or buy their merchandise, or might be rooting for them. Again, I'm not sure how we are defining popularity, but in many places I see the Cowboys more as hated or indifferent.

New York for example is not USA, but then again USA isn't the world. Like I said, the Cowboys are not really the equivalent of the Lakers or the Yankees. The gap in reach between the Lakers and all the other franchises is significantly bigger than the gap between the Cowboys and all the other franchises. The Lakers and Yankees by far the biggest iconic franchises in their sports, which have more reach than the NFL does - the Cowboys are the most iconic in the NFL franchise but not by a lot.


Even within USA, if we go down to key demographics, which are essentially Males under 40 years old being the most valuable one, the Dallas Cowboys are not particularly popular if I can recall. Which makes a lot of sense, because like, why would they be? Why would a 26 year old from Buffalo or Detroit care about Troy Aikman? They'd have plenty of reason to like Kobe Bryant or wear Yankee hats.

The Dallas Cowboys popularity is highly a generational thing. The Lakers and Yankees have been relevant across more generations, and it will take their fandom much longer to die out.



It is true that the Cowboys are on big American talk shows, people talking about why they suck and stuff - but that's true of the Knicks as well. The Knicks also are worth more than the Lakers, but it'd be weird to say the Knicks are more popular than the Lakers.

Heck, Washington gets talked about all the time and I can't even remember the last time they were good. Not to the extent of the Cowboys, but they've been even crappier than the Cowboys - but again their fan base outside of their region is aging as well. The same thing will/is happening to Dallas, I don't think enough people are going to "inherit" their Dad's sports team to keep the Cowboy's legacy outside of its region highly relevant.


Don't mean to come off as hostile, I'm just thinking about it, and I really think the Cowboys are an actual sinking ship. It's easy to say the most popular franchise in the most popular American sport >>> everything, but their visibility for me anecdotally is not that high. The topic interest me - defining teams popularity across different sports.
LukaTheGOAT
Analyst
Posts: 3,276
And1: 2,994
Joined: Dec 25, 2019
 

Re: 2021-22 NBA Season Discussion 

Post#2180 » by LukaTheGOAT » Mon Apr 11, 2022 9:12 am

Zavier Simpson is the 6th rookie to win their first start in the NBA while playing 40+ minutes.

The other 5?
Oscar , Jerry West , Wilt , Bill Walton , and Jerry Lucas. All HOF guys.

Return to Player Comparisons