He's half right at least.
Apply all his comments to the eastern conference and he's clearly accurate. You already know the top east team will practically default into the Finals most years due to lack of compe ion. The first round is usually the equivalent of a bye. There's usually no ing reason to even watch most of the series out east. ECF and maybe one of the 2nd round series are worth watching and that's it.
The west has been entertaining for many years though. The occasional meh season thrown in but usually entertaining and having 3-4 out there capable of beating eachother rather than one obvious top team and maybe one other team who barely has a chance if lucky.
Most years if you subtract LeBron's team out east, the next best team would likely get on by the west's 4 seed and would struggle with the 5-6 seed in a series. Would barely make the playoffs in the west. It's sad as tbh. So many teams tanking for lottery picks every damn year that they never bother building teams for the long term and always playing shaky as .
The Warriors would be clowning people in most any era but the suckage elsewhere (including the Rockets) doesn't help).Is it any coincidence Warriors "historic" season happening during an equally historic season in,Today's NBA. You only as good as you compe ion, seems like Warriors are farming tanking teams to make "history", IMO TBH.
The Warriors are a great team in any context. They might not by "single season wins record" great, but that's an argument that nobody can really make. Most of the rest of the league, however, is a complete joke. All you have to do is look at the All Star teams from the last few years...
The nba has a lot of mid-level talent right now, and I'd say that the average player is better than ever, but the league is sorely lacking in superstar talent. , 4 of the top 10 players in the league are on 2 teams (Clippers and Thunder). The 90s and mid 2000s were probably the greatest eras as far as superstar talent and distribution of superstar talent are concerned.
Another issue is the lack of dominant bigs. Having a big who is a high post/low post presence and can rebound/block shots will keep almost any team compe ive, but we just don't see that anymore. Cousins is as close as we've got, and he's a psycho who doesn't make his teammates better.
It would be insulting if I was a nurse right? Its only flattering otherwise
Factor in Cousins shoots an awful percentage for a big which makes him less effective on the offensive end. Today's bigs tend to be either jump shooting bigs or bigs with superior athleticism. In some cases you have a combination of both ala Davis. The problem is none of these bigs have a traditional back to the basket game which at times hinders their dominance. Last night for example I saw Jamal Crawford guarding Ibacka in the 4th quarter but OKC couldn't really exploit the mismatch since Ibacka doesn't have a post game. During the 90's and '00s you couldn't get away with having a perimeter player guarding a big for stretches of a game.
He said in his day there was more parity. Yet there was no five year span from '80 to '99 where four different teams won championships. Five year span was the arbitrary amount of years I consider the current NBA, take it as you will, but going all the way back to 2000 is a reeeach.
We we can revisit this topic if GS runs off a five peat but right now this generation is at least just as compe ive as Charles era.
The league is always weak when there are teams pushing or surpassing 70 wins, tbh
Jordan's 2nd 3-peat Bulls played against atrocious compe ion, of course..
In Charles' MVP season on '92-'93
Eastern conf had one 60 win team(Knicks; 60 wins). Two 50 win teams (Bulls; 57 - Cavs; 54) And one team on the cusp of 50(Celtics; 48)
Western conf had one 60 win team (Suns; 62 wins). Three 50win teams(Supersonics; 55 - Rockets; 55 - Blazers; 51) And two teams on the cusp of 50(Spurs; 49 - Jazz; 47)
Lowest win mark in the league being 11(Mavs)
Compared to last year...
Eastern conf had one 60 win team(Hawks; 60 wins). Two 50 win teams(Cavs; 53 - Bulls; 50) And one team on the cusp of 50(Raptors; 49)
Western conference had one 60 win team(GS; 67). Six 50 win teams(Clippers/Rockets; 56 - Spurs/Grizzlies; 55 - Blazers; 51 - Mavs; 50)
Lowest win Mark in the league being 16(Timberwolves)
Exactly. All that talent doesn't mean as much when you're jacking up jumpers instead of drawing doubles and opening the floor for your teammates. Even Dirk, the quintessential jumpshooting big, eventually learned how to park his ass in the high post and make plays for his teammates. That's the moment that the Mavs went from pretenders to contenders.
No doctor has as much free time as you.
Coming from a guy with 23.02 posts per day
I'm not sure about 96 or 97, but in 98 the league had a lot of talented teams. You had the Spurs, Sonics, Lakers, and Jazz out west, then you had the Pacers, Knicks, Heat, and Bulls in the East. , the Suns won 50-something games that year.The league is always weak when there are teams pushing or surpassing 70 wins, tbh
Jordan's 2nd 3-peat Bulls played against atrocious compe ion, of course..
This year you've got the Warriors, Spurs,Thunder, and Clippers in the West, and virtually nobody in the East after the Cavs. Toronto is a solid team with a cute little record, but it won't mean jack come playoff time.
A handful of teams that should have been good/better this season have just imploded, and I think that was the main point that Barkley was trying to make. The Grizzlies, Rockets, Bulls, and Wizards in particular have been just awful (Bulls have been snakebitten as usual, but the rest of the teams were terrible with or without injury).
I don't claim to be a doctor. I have a ton of free time. I've said as much many many times (as you point out).Coming from a guy with 23.02 posts per day
Not an insult, simply a fact.
We have plenty of time during the day between patients. Someones been watching Grey's anatomy far too much
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
