This collusion has made this league unbearable

[Mr.Kite]

There's no parity in the league...thats why the first round was much more entertaining.

[DaSeba5]

When has the NBA been known for its parity?

[stalkerforlife]

Agreed.

NBA sucks so bad with these cowards joining forces to eliminate all competition.

[russwest0]

Five years ago you could find Wade, LeBron, Bosh, and Allen all in the same conference and competing and battling with one another on separate teams. Now they are all on the same team and laughing their way to the Finals.

Shit is hilarious.

[DaSeba5]

Five years ago you could find Wade, LeBron, Bosh, and Allen all competing and battling with one another on separate teams. Now they are all on the same team and laughing their way to the Finals.

Shit is hilarious.

Wade, LeBron, and Bosh have never played each other in the playoffs.

[jlip]

When has the NBA been known for its parity?

Waiting for the answer to this question.

[VIntageNOvel]

stacked team result in weaker competition

[red1]

keep crying :roll:

[DaSeba5]

Waiting for the answer to this question.

They won't answer it because they have an agenda.

[russwest0]

When has the NBA been known for its parity?

the parity was pretty good for a slight run before Stern was commish and then Stern became commish and it all went to shit

[VIntageNOvel]

Wade, LeBron, and Bosh have never played each other in the playoffs.


when bosh decided to join wade in 2010,
you think they wouldnt meet lebron's *insert team* in the playoff?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

When has the NBA been known for its parity?

The Western conference has been deep since the mid-late 2000s. Where have you been?

[Mr.Kite]

stacked team result in weaker competition


The parity was nice from 2004-2009

[DaSeba5]

The Western conference has been deep since the mid-late 2000s. Where have you been?

And look who has won the titles. Lakers (5) and Spurs (4). Mavs once. Parity..... :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And look who has won the titles. Lakers (5) and Spurs (4). Mavs once. Parity..... :lol

:confusedshrug:

That doesn't mean the conference didn't have parity. LA and San Antonio beat some REALLY good teams..

[DaSeba5]

:confusedshrug:

That doesn't mean that the conference didn't have parity. LA and San Antonio beat some REALLY good teams..

They still won 9 titles combined. That's not parity. You don't see that in the NFL.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

They still won 9 titles combined. That's not parity. You don't see that in the NFL.

Sure it is. Whether they won titles or not doesn't discount the fact they beat legit teams.

Miami in comparison to SA/LA...has faced trash.

[red1]

The flip flopping is what really kills me. :roll: During the season all we hear is how miami sucks, lebron is overrated, heat are old etc etc. Now all of a sudden everyone on the heat is a superstar and they are the most stacked team of all time. At least until we compare to another championship team. :lol

[Mr.Kite]

The flip flopping is what really kills me. :roll: During the season all we hear is how miami sucks, lebron is overrated, heat are old etc etc. Now all of a sudden everyone on the heat is a superstar and they are the most stacked team of all time. At least until we compare to another championship team. :lol

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

The only people saying heat are garbage were heat fans...it was their excuse in case they don't win the finals.

[FLDFSU]

For The Last Time. Blame Boston For This.

Had They Not Decided To Join Up And Run Through The Eastern Conference, This Heat Team Would Not Exist.

What Should Of Happened Was That Lebron, Wade And Howard Should Have Joined Forces.

But Alas, Blame Boston.

[DaSeba5]

Sure it is. Whether they won titles or not doesn't discount the fact they beat legit teams.

Miami in comparison...has faced trash.

We know the East sucks, but they still beat a really good Bulls team in the ECF without HCA, they still beat a stacked OKC team without HCA, they still beat a really good Spurs team. And Indiana is no slouch. They might have struggled this year, but they are a good team. I don't think it's fair to discredit them like they are some scrub team. 2011 Celtics were still a good team and in 2012 they played their hearts out.

But you cannot tell me there is parity in a league where two teams have won more titles than many teams combined.

[red1]

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

The only people saying heat are garbage were heat fans...it was their excuse in case they don't win the finals.
Im not talking about the bandwagoners doe. All year we have been hearing that they are old and not that good AS A TEAM.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

We know the East sucks, but they still beat a really good Bulls team in the ECF without HCA, they still beat a stacked OKC team without HCA, they still beat a really good Spurs team. And Indiana is no slouch. They might have struggled this year, but they are a good team. I don't think it's fair to discredit them like they are some scrub team. 2011 Celtics were still a good team and in 2012 they played their hearts out.

But you cannot tell me there is parity in a league where two teams have won more titles than many teams combined.

Sure I can. Your definition of parity is just different than mine. IMO, if most are hard-fought series, the winner doesn't necessarily matter... Both squads were strong.

Far as the Heat competition.. I agree. The Bulls WERE good. Same with Oklahoma and SA. Indiana aint that bad either, its just in comparison to the guys you listed (SA/LA), they haven't beaten as many quality teams. Nowhere near..

It's pretty much a fact the Western Conference has had superiority over the league. The "parity" has never been a question, irrelevant to who wins the conference and title.

[Tmuston Beltics]

The flip flopping is what really kills me. :roll: During the season all we hear is how miami sucks, lebron is overrated, heat are old etc etc. Now all of a sudden everyone on the heat is a superstar and they are the most stacked team of all time. At least until we compare to another championship team. :lol

Heat are the most stacked team of all time but they wouldn't make the finals in the tough west (that's what someone said in here) :facepalm

[FLDFSU]

Heat are the most stacked team of all time but they wouldn't make the finals in the tough west (that's what someone said in here) :facepalm

:applause: ISH=where contradictions abound

[hahaitme]

Heat are the most stacked team of all time but they wouldn't make the finals in the tough west (that's what someone said in here) :facepalm

Yeah I know right? I'd really like to see the reasoning behind that one but no one ever follows up on it.

[Real14]

When has the NBA been known for its parity?
It was better then compared to now heat fan.

[sportjames23]

When has the NBA been known for its parity?

70s. 80s and 90s to a lesser extent. Even with teams like the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls winning, there was more and better competition.

[DaSeba5]

70s. 80s and 90s to a lesser extent. Even with teams like the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls winning, there was more and better competition.

I agree with the 70s. There is parity (in your guys' definition of it). It was the best first round of all time. The playoffs are always compeititive.

But in the grand scheme of things, the OP said the league. Not conference. The 80s were dominated by the Lakers and Celtics. 90s by the Bulls. 2000s by the Lakers and Spurs. It may have been competitive, but the same teams won the title.

I don't see that in the NFL. In fact there's never been a 3-peat in the NFL.

[Real14]

I agree with the 70s. There is parity (in your guys' definition of it). It was the best first round of all time. The playoffs are always compeititive.

But in the grand scheme of things, the OP said the league. Not conference. The 80s were dominated by the Lakers and Celtics. 90s by the Bulls. 2000s by the Lakers and Spurs. It may have been competitive, but the same teams won the title.

I don't see that in the NFL. In fact there's never been a 3-peat in the NFL.
because they fought hard and deserved it.

[russwest0]

because they fought hard and deserved it.

inb4 he ignores this :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

"bu... but, beating the bobcats, nets, and pacers is fighting hard!!!" :oldlol:

[Real14]

inb4 he ignores this :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

"bu... but, beating the bobcats, nets, and pacers is fighting hard!!!" :oldlol:
yea, you know his excuse iz coming:lol

[shadow]

They still won 9 titles combined. That's not parity. You don't see that in the NFL.

In NFL it's all down to to one game. Good teams can have bad days. If NBA were like that then we'd see more diversity in champions. I like the series format though.

[RedBlackAttack]

In NFL it's all down to to one game. Good teams can have bad days. If NBA were like that then we'd see more diversity in champions. I like the series format though.
Exactly.

Even when the NBA had the 5-game series in the first round, there was greater chance for an unexpected upsets (and it happened a few times).

[PickernRoller]

And look who has won the titles. Lakers (5) and Spurs (4). Mavs once. Parity..... :lol

You do realize that teams like the 2000 Blazers and the 2002 Kings would destroy any version of the Big 3 Heat?

This is an extremely weak era exacerbated by collusion among 2 superstars and one all-star and an extremely stacked group of role players. Notwithstanding the best three-point shooter to ever play the game, Ray Allen. The East is a joke - an absolute joke.

The Heat is playing with the Pacers and they are their ECF match up. Bobcats - LOL..., Nets...LOL. Pacers....LOL.

The only thing we need is the grandpa Spurs in the Finals once again. AARP give me a call please I got some old timers running loose in the league...

[DaSeba5]

You do realize that teams like the 2000 Blazers and the 2002 Kings would destroy any version of the Big 3 Heat?

This is an extremely weak era exacerbated by collusion among 2 superstars and one all-star and an extremely stacked group of role players. Notwithstanding the best three-point shooter to ever play the game, Ray Allen. The East is a joke - an absolute joke.

The Heat is playing with the Pacers and they are their ECF match up. Bobcats - LOL..., Nets...LOL. Pacers....LOL.

The only thing we need is the grandpa Spurs in the Finals once again. AARP give me a call please I got some old timers running loose in the league...

Then they aren't the most stacked team in history.

[DaSeba5]

In NFL it's all down to to one game. Good teams can have bad days. If NBA were like that then we'd see more diversity in champions. I like the series format though.

I understand, but the NBA still has the same teams winning all of the time.

[DaSeba5]

because they fought hard and deserved it.

But they still won. LA wasn't stacked? Spurs weren't stacked? Of course they were. That didn't factor in them winning games? Is Kobe not a HoFer? Shaq? Gasol? Phil Jackson as coach. Duncan? Manu? Tony? Pop as coach.

[RedBlackAttack]

I understand, but the NBA still has the same teams winning all of the time.
There are a lot of reasons for it, though. And, this team did take quite a lot of "heat" (no pun intended) when they originally formed because of the perceived collusion aspect.

In the past, the game of basketball happens to have so few champions because, unlike most sports, an individual can have such a massive impact. When you have the best player in the world, you're going to be a title contender. When you have the greatest player in the world surrounded by other great players, they're almost certainly going to win championships.

In the NFL, a lot of the best players are on bad teams. It's far more of a team oriented game. There is really nothing the NBA can do about this aspect of the "parity debate," but player collusion should absolutely be fought against by the league and owners.

[PickernRoller]

Then they aren't the most stacked team in history.

Relative to today's competition they are grossly stacked. It's all relative.

The most stacked teams in the history of the game are:

The Lakers and the Celtics of the 80's. But back in the day you had challengers, legitimate challengers like the 76ers, Rockets and Pistons.

Which team in the league right now can pose a legitimate challenge like those teams did back in the day - NONE.

[DaSeba5]

There are a lot of reasons for it, though. And, this team did take quite a lot of "heat" (no pun intended) when they originally formed because of the perceived collusion aspect.

In the past, the game of basketball happens to have so few champions because, unlike most sports, an individual can have such a massive impact. When you have the best player in the world, you're going to be a title contender. When you have the greatest player in the world surrounded by other great players, they're almost certainly going to win championships.

In the NFL, a lot of the best players are on bad teams. It's far more of a team oriented game. There is really nothing the NBA can do about this aspect of the "parity debate," but player collusion should absolutely be fought against by the league and owners.

We're getting off topic. I understand why the NFL is harder to win in. IJS the NBA has had stacked teams for a long time and there have been basketball teams in the past who have had easier paths to the Finals.

[red1]

Relative to today's competition they are grossly stacked. It's all relative.

The most stacked teams in the history of the game are:

The Lakers and the Celtics of the 80's. But back in the day you had challengers, legitimate challengers like the 76ers, Rockets and Pistons.

Which team in the league right now can pose a legitimate challenge like those teams did back in the day - NONE.
you really can't be this dumb

[RedBlackAttack]

We're getting off topic. I understand why the NFL is harder to win in. IJS the NBA has had stacked teams for a long time and there have been basketball teams in the past who have had easier paths to the Finals.
I don't think it's necessarily off-topic, because people who want to brush aside the complaints about player collusion immediately point to the "lack of parity" in the NBA dating back decades.

I'm pointing out the other reasons why so few teams win titles that have nothing to do with collusion or even teams being unfairly stacked. It's about individual player impact first and foremost, before anything else.

This is a tired subject that has been batted around for long enough. I agree with you there. We have our different stances on this Heat project over the last four years and nothing that anyone else says is likely to change a person's mind at this point.

[VIntageNOvel]

trolling aside, daseba,

i think what differs theepeat lakers (for example) from soon-to-be threepeat heat are:

they need both kobe and shaq to playing superstar level to win, in almost every single games

but current heat can take turn (today's bosh, last game ray, game before wade), and still leisurely steamroll the already weak competition

[PickernRoller]

you really can't be this dumb

Howdy boy...you got any examples you care to back up?.... or are you just blowing smoke like the LeStan clown that you're. Yep I forgot you think one liners are still hip and cool.

[EnoughSaid]

Obviously if each team in the league had one to two stars and a great supporting cast, it'd be really entertaining and unpredictable. Buuuut sadly only a few teams manage to even get to the Finals, much less win there.

Looking from 1989 to present. Championship count:
- 6x Bulls (91-93, 96-98)
- 5x Lakers (00-02, 09-10) Finals in 04 and 08.
- 4x Spurs (99, 03, 05, 07) Finals in 13.
- 3x Heat (06, 12, 13) Finals in 11 and most likely 14.
- 3x Pistons (89-90, 04) Finals in 03, 05.
- 2x Rockets (94-95)
- 1x Celtics (08) Finals in 10.
- 1x Mavericks (11) Finals in 06.

Through two a and a half decades, only 8 different teams have won a title. 6 teams have won 24, 5 teams have won 22!

Even after Miami is done, you'll have teams consistently making it to the Finals and winning trophies.

Until the league is able to instill a strict financial policy that would only allow for one max contract, you won't see parity at all.

Right now I don't really care to be honest. I'm just excited that Dwyane Wade is winning championships and that the Miami Heat have been on top of the basketball world for 3 years.

[NuggetsFan]

There are a lot of reasons for it, though. And, this team did take quite a lot of "heat" (no pun intended) when they originally formed because of the perceived collusion aspect.

In the past, the game of basketball happens to have so few champions because, unlike most sports, an individual can have such a massive impact. When you have the best player in the world, you're going to be a title contender. When you have the greatest player in the world surrounded by other great players, they're almost certainly going to win championships.

In the NFL, a lot of the best players are on bad teams. It's far more of a team oriented game. There is really nothing the NBA can do about this aspect of the "parity debate," but player collusion should absolutely be fought against by the league and owners.

Exactly. Parity and basketball will never go together.

It's always been like this. Only difference is the Eastern Conference is weaker than usual. The Bobcats that won 43 games didn't have a Paul Pierce like the Celtics did years ago when his team made the playoffs with 44 games.

Once your seriously in the mix, your always in the mix until your team gets blown up by some leaving, age, bad trades etc.

[red1]

Relative to today's competition they are grossly stacked. It's all relative.

The most stacked teams in the history of the game are:

The Lakers and the Celtics of the 80's. But back in the day you had challengers, legitimate challengers like the 76ers, Rockets and Pistons.

Which team in the league right now can pose a legitimate challenge like those teams did back in the day - NONE.
How the f*ck can you even post this when just last year they played one of the most competitive series, a series where the spurs were literally one shot from winning the championship. You don't think that is a legitimate challenge? How about in 2011 when they lost to the mavs? That wasnt a challenge? You are an absolute imbecile and Im not saying that solely because of this post but because of everything I have ever seen attached to your username

[Real14]

But they still won. LA wasn't stacked? Spurs weren't stacked? Of course they were. That didn't factor in them winning games? Is Kobe not a HoFer? Shaq? Gasol? Phil Jackson as coach. Duncan? Manu? Tony? Pop as coach.
I guess u don't kno your own team's roster:coleman:

[NuggetsFan]

Sure I can. Your definition of parity is just different than mine. IMO, if most are hard-fought series, the winner doesn't necessarily matter... Both squads were strong.

Far as the Heat competition.. I agree. The Bulls WERE good. Same with Oklahoma and SA. Indiana aint that bad either, its just in comparison to the guys you listed (SA/LA), they haven't beaten as many quality teams. Nowhere near..

It's pretty much a fact the Western Conference has had superiority over the league. The "parity" has never been a question, irrelevant to who wins the conference and title.

Not at all. The Western Conference was ruled by the Lakers/Spurs. Look at the Lakers playoff record on some of those runs. You had secondary teams that came close like Portland/Sac-Town and almost made it but it always the same

L.A or S.A won the West for SEVEN straight years. 7 years. Every East team was dominated by them except for the Pistons. Another team who was guaranteed to make the Eastern Conference Finals every single season during there stretch.

From 1999-11 3 franchises have made the finals from the Western Conference. Lakers, Spurs, Mavs. Teams have put up fights, made series extremely close sometimes but they still prevailed, with some help depending on how you view that Kings series.

Heat are doing exactly what those teams did. Difference is the Eastern Conference isn't stepping up. This 56 win Indiana team isn't fighting like the Western Conference teams did.

There isn't parity in the NBA. Once your good, your usually good for a long time. If your "championship" good your a lock to make playoff runs. If your a shitty team your shitty for years, usually until you land a great player which nowadays seem to have more pull in terms of what team they play for.

[greymatter]

One thing I'll a least give props to Bullstans for is that while quite a few are phags, I can't remember any of them being super-duper giant phags who like to change their handle names every few months.

Every few months, yet another whiney Kobetard changes his handle. It's as if these retards think that a new handle somehow cleans the slate and that the whole board doesn't see them for what they are.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

]quote]Heat are doing exactly what those teams did. Difference is the Eastern Conference isn't stepping up. This 56 win Indiana team isn't fighting like the Western Conference teams did.

Which is my point. The western conferences competed.. We obviously have different interpretations of parity, but the bottom line is...the Western Conference "fought".

Helped that they had better teams too.

[JT123]

Which is my point. The western conferences competed.. We obviously have different interpretations of parity, but the bottom line is...the Western Conference "fought".

Helped that they had better teams too.
This series isn't even over. Are you gonna claim last year's Pacers didn't "fight" when they pushed the Heat to 7 games? What about the 2012 Celtics? I suppose you are gonna tell me they laid down like chumps as well. :facepalm
Just be a man and admit that the only reason you are crying about lack of parity is because a team you don't like is winning in this era. :coleman:

[PickernRoller]

How the f*ck can you even post this when just last year they played one of the most competitive series, a series where the spurs were literally one shot from winning the championship. You don't think that is a legitimate challenge? How about in 2011 when they lost to the mavs? That wasnt a challenge? You are an absolute imbecile and Im not saying that solely because of this post but because of everything I have ever seen attached to your username

Granda Spurs with hobbled Parker and AARP members Duncan and Ginobili turned out to be competitive?

Ask Bron sh1tting his pants and putting up underwhelming numbers for the games that went the other way. That's like saying the 76ers in 01 had a chance because they won game one and made the series "competitive". No they didn't.

[red1]

Granda Spurs with hobbled Parker and AARP members Duncan and Ginobili turned out to be competitive?

Ask Bron sh1tting his pants and putting up underwhelming numbers for the games that went the other way. That's like saying the 76ers in 01 had a chance because they won game one and made the series "competitive". No they didn't.
no

[NuggetsFan]

Which is my point. The western conferences competed.. We obviously have different interpretations of parity, but the bottom line...is the Western Conference "fought".

Helped that they had better teams too.

Yeah guess we do. I don't see how 3 teams coming out of the West in a decade suggest there's parity just because a team occasionally put up a fight. Teams have played the Heat good at times, there's just not another once in a decade type team that rolls over competition like them in the East.

Those Laker championship teams had playoff runs of 15-1 and 15-4. People just forget.

Just like Jordan and the Bulls dominated and teams like the Pacers were always there to lose to them.

Just like this current Indiana team is currently in there "stretch" right now. Back to back ECF, 56 wins this year. Good chance to make it back next year.

Parity doesn't happen in the NBA.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This series isn't even over. Are you gonna claim last year's Pacers didn't "fight" when they pushed the Heat to 7 games? What about the 2012 Celtics? I suppose you are gonna tell me they laid down like chumps as well. :facepalm
Just be a man and admit that the only reason you are crying about lack of parity is because a team you don't like is winning in this era. :coleman:

Instead of whining like a female, re-read the last few pages of this thread.. I've said Indiania, Chicago, SA and OKC were ALL good competition.

Miss me with your zealot babble.. :oldlol:

[NuggetsFan]

This series isn't even over. Are you gonna claim last year's Pacers didn't "fight" when they pushed the Heat to 7 games? What about the 2012 Celtics? I suppose you are gonna tell me they laid down like chumps as well. :facepalm
Just be a man and admit that the only reason you are crying about lack of parity is because a team you don't like is winning in this era. :coleman:

I'd legit LOL if he was a fan of the Lakers or Spurs :oldlol:

[Just2McFly]

70s. 80s and 90s to a lesser extent. Even with teams like the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls winning, there was more and better competition.
LMFAO at you calling the 80's and 90's a period of parity. The Lakers were frolicking through the Weakstern conference in the 80's like nothing. I swear you guys dont know shit about what you discuss.

Better competition my ass, the 86 bulls made the playoffs by winning 30 games. Let that sink in..... they lost 52 games and still made the playoffs.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah guess we do. I don't see how 3 teams coming out of the West in a decade suggest there's parity just because a team occasionally put up a fight. Teams have played the Heat good at times, there's just not another once in a decade type team that rolls over competition like them in the East.

Those Laker championship teams had playoff runs of 15-1 and 15-4. People just forget.


Please re-read my initial post. I was talking about Western Conference teams from the mid-to-late 2000s. Not just the winner of the conferences either, but..

09 Lakers- 2 series that went 6 and 7 games.. Denver and Houston were both formidable.

10 Lakers- OKC and Phoenix both played them close, took em to 6..

11 Mavs- Swept the defending champs, beat the Blazers in 6 (a very close series), beat OKC (another close series)

12 Thunder- beat the Lakers in a relatively close series.. Same thing with SA

13 Spurs- faced a lot of injured teams, but every game was close vs Memphis; GSW series went the full 6, literally..

[JT123]

Instead of whining like a female, re-read the last few pages of this thread.. I've said Indiania, Chicago, SA and OKC were ALL good competition.

Miss me with your zealot babble.. :oldlol:
You clearly stated that the MAJORITY of the teams Miami faced were trash, acting as if the Heat have been sweeping their way to the Finals every year. The Heat have clearly been just as challenged as those Lakers and Spurs teams were, that is a fact. But go ahead and keep pretending that the Heat aren't the oldest team in the league, and have this super loaded roster that can't be taken down. :facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I just don't think you can ignore quality basketball because the "same" team is winning championships.

Sounds idiotic.. :oldlol:

[JT123]

Please re-read my initial post. I was talking about Western Conference teams from the mid-to-late 2000s. Not just the winner of the conferences either, but..

09 Lakers- 2 series that went 6 and 7 games.. Denver and Houston were both formidable.

10 Lakers- OKC and Phoenix both played them close, took em to 6..

11 Mavs- Swept the defending champs, beat the Blazers in 6 (a very close series), beat OKC (another close series)

12 Thunder- beat the Lakers in a relatively close series.. Same thing with SA

13 Spurs- faced a lot of injured teams, but every game was close vs Memphis; GSW series went the full 6, literally..
5 games is what you consider relatively close? :biggums:
Good god you are a moron. I guess the 2011 Heat and Sixers series was close as well. :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You clearly stated that the MAJORITY of the teams Miami faced were trash, acting as if the Heat have been sweeping their way to the Finals every year. The Heat have clearly been just as challenged as those Lakers and Spurs teams were, that is a fact. But go ahead and keep pretending that the Heat aren't the oldest team in the league, and have this super loaded roster that can't be taken down. :facepalm

I'm not "acting" like anything. The majority of teams they've faced since 2011 HAVE been trash.

If it makes you feel any better, you girly poster, I still think LeBron is the best player on the planet.

[raprap]

You cant change an opinion of ignorance. :lol

[red1]

You cant change an opinion of ignorance. :lol
or as I like to say you cant reason with retard :lol

[dreamwarrior]

KG Allen and Pierce started it first

[NuggetsFan]

Please re-read my initial post. I was talking about Western Conference teams from the mid-to-late 2000s. Not just the winner of the conferences either, but..

09 Lakers- 2 series that went 6 and 7 games.. Denver and Houston were both formidable.

10 Lakers- OKC and Phoenix both played them close, took em to 6..

11 Mavs- Swept the defending champs, beat the Blazers in 6 (a very close series), beat OKC (another close series)

12 Thunder- beat the Lakers in a relatively close series.. Same goes for SA

13 Spurs- faced a lot of injured teams, but every game was close vs Memphis; GSW series went the full 6, literally..

Didn't Miami have a 6 game series, and a 7 game series the year they beat OKC? 2 series go 7 games including the finals against S.A last year? I could be wrong. I know there 1st round matchups are usually a cakewalk.

It's obvious your agenda tho. Every game was close vs Memphis for the Spurs? Spurs swept them. I remember one game being a pretty big blowout specifically. I know some games were close, but if your giving that kinda leeway out you could probably look at certain series for the Heat differently too. I remember that Golden State/S.A being further apart too but don't remember enough about the series off the top of my head. I'd bet a few games were decided by S.A without THAT much of a fight.

For the record f*ck the Heat but let's not pretend what's happening is new or certain teams haven't ever dominated like there doing right now :oldlol:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Didn't Miami have a 6 game series, and a 7 game series the year they beat OKC? 2 series go 7 games including the finals against S.A last year? I could be wrong. I know there 1st round matchups are usually a cakewalk.

I've said SA and OKC were legit competiton.. Boston (2011 and 12), Indiana and Chicago (2011) were too. If my agenda is pointing out facts...so be it :confusedshrug:


I remember one game being a pretty big blowout specifically. I know some games were close

I guess thats the disconnect. Winning is winning, but if games are close, and there is quality basketball being played (look how many 50 win teams were in the playoffs out West), I just cant act like the loser never stood a chance.

[J Shuttlesworth]

OP, what do you want, exactly? Would you have preferred Bosh stay in Toronto, and LeBron stay in Cleveland? You want there to be not a single championship contender in the East? That would be far worse parity than we have now

[JT123]

Ah. Another "Heat" fan that started watching basketball after LeBron's first ring.. :oldlol:

FYI noobie.. 3 (you can argue 4) of the 5 games were winnable, Kobe just played like shit down the stretch. The games are available on the internet. Educate yourself :confusedshrug:
And the Sixers could have basically won every game they lost to the Heat in the 2011 first round. :biggums: So by your very own definition, the sixers were quality competition. :applause:

[oarabbus]

Guys, at some point you have to take a step back and just realize what exactly Lebron is doing on the court. You are seeing a generational player here being dominant. Heat fans should realize their team is stacked, but so are most championship winning teams. And heat haters need to realize there are other stacked teams too, Lebron's impact on the game is like nothing we've seen in a long time.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And the Sixers could have basically won every game they lost to the Heat in the 2011 first round. :biggums: So by your very own definition, the sixers were quality competition. :applause:

Anybody who watched that series knew otherwise. There was never any doubt Miami was winning the freaking Sixers, a .500 team.

You're basically comparing them to the Lakers, who had Kobe and Gasol and were coached by PJax.

Quit playing dumb, stanley.. :oldlol:

[East_Stone_Ya]

this thread should be deleted

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Would also like to know where I claimed close games was my "definition"? Point that out for me, stanley. Thanks in advance.. :oldlol:

[JT123]

Anybody who watched that series knew otherwise. There was never any doubt Miami was winning the freaking Sixers, a .500 team.

You're basically comparing them to the Lakers, who had Kobe and Gasol and were coached by PJax.

Quit playing dumb, stanley.. :oldlol:
Alright, I'll give you that one only because the Sixers were severely lacking in star power. But let's name all the other supposed "trash teams" that stood no chance at beating Miami.
2012 Knicks - Not a great team, but they still had a superstar in Melo and Amare was still pretty good at that point. This one is a toss up.
2013 Bucks - 37 win team, obviously no chance of winning the series.
2013 Bulls - No chance due to Rose being too much of a puss to get back on the court.
2014 Bobcats - Young team without their best player.

In all that is just 4 teams out of 15 playoff series in the big 3 era, and all of those teams were first round opponents. The Nets could have easily beaten the Heat if Lebron had played just slightly worse than he did. We really gonna act like MJ and Magic were facing title contenders in the first round back in their day? :coleman:

[sportjames23]

Anybody who watched that series knew otherwise. There was never any doubt Miami was winning the freaking Sixers, a .500 team.

You're basically comparing them to the Lakers, who had Kobe and Gasol and were coached by PJax.

Quit playing dumb, stanley.. :oldlol:


LOL, called him by his full name. :oldlol:

[DaSeba5]

I guess u don't kno your own team's roster:coleman:

Miami is stacked. They do have HoFers. That is why they are dominating and about to be in their 4th straight Finals. That's the point. It's nothing new in the NBA.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Alright, I'll give you that one only because the Sixers were severely lacking in star power. But let's name all the other supposed "trash teams" that stood no chance at beating Miami.

2012 Knicks - Not a great team, but they still had a superstar in Melo and Amare was still pretty good at that point. This one is a toss up.

They had superstar power, no doubt. But as you said, not a "great" team by any means (just 6 games over .500) and that series was never close..

Trash. Thats 2


2013 Bucks - 37 win team, obviously no chance of winning the series.

No argument there. 3


2013 Bulls - No chance due to Rose being too much of a puss to get back on the court.

4


2013 Bobcats - Young team without their best player.

5

Don't forget about the Nets. Only 2 games in that series were really close, imo, not to mention they won just 44 games and missed Brook Lopez. KG...was garbage and looked old.

6..

So.. That's 6/12 playoff teams in the East, which dont include the 40+ win ones that Miami struggled to beat... So while MOST was an exaggeration on my part (admittedly) there is no denying that they've had it relatively 'easy' all things considered.... compared to the West at least.

[PickernRoller]

LeStans trying to justify a weak era and a laughable East...:lol :lol

Only on ISH

[ILLsmak]

Not at all. The Western Conference was ruled by the Lakers/Spurs. Look at the Lakers playoff record on some of those runs. You had secondary teams that came close like Portland/Sac-Town and almost made it but it always the same

L.A or S.A won the West for SEVEN straight years. 7 years. Every East team was dominated by them except for the Pistons. Another team who was guaranteed to make the Eastern Conference Finals every single season during there stretch.

From 1999-11 3 franchises have made the finals from the Western Conference. Lakers, Spurs, Mavs. Teams have put up fights, made series extremely close sometimes but they still prevailed, with some help depending on how you view that Kings series.

Heat are doing exactly what those teams did. Difference is the Eastern Conference isn't stepping up. This 56 win Indiana team isn't fighting like the Western Conference teams did.

There isn't parity in the NBA. Once your good, your usually good for a long time. If your "championship" good your a lock to make playoff runs. If your a shitty team your shitty for years, usually until you land a great player which nowadays seem to have more pull in terms of what team they play for.

one thing people forget re: parity is that if two teams are dominating a conference and win the title, between them, for 7 years that means... the two teams have parity with each other. And it's not like they played in the WCF every year, either.

Just sayin, another POV.

-Smak

[Rake2204]

i think what differs theepeat lakers (for example) from soon-to-be threepeat heat are:

they need both kobe and shaq to playing superstar level to win, in almost every single games

but current heat can take turn (today's bosh, last game ray, game before wade), and still leisurely steamroll the already weak competitionI think the Lakers were able to win at times without Kobe playing very well. However, I do not think many NBA teams overall have had a longer leash than the Heat, in terms of the percentage of one's potential reached in order to succeed.

For instance, I felt the Heat played very poorly as a team (and often individually) for a very large part of the 2011 season. Still, they found themselves one crazy Mavericks comeback in game 2 from walking to an NBA title. In the years since, the Heat have improved as a team, but it still hasn't felt as if they needed to be clicking on all cylinders in order to win a ring, and that's kind of a bummer to me. I cannot say they've coasted to rings, but their victories do feel a little more like foregone conclusions than I wish they would, particularly when all their success is a result of three Dream Teamers opting to make it easy.


When you have the best player in the world, you're going to be a title contender. When you have the greatest player in the world surrounded by other great players, they're almost certainly going to win championships.Truthful. I felt any medium-talented team would be a championship competitor with LeBron James at the helm. Adding the likes of Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and Ray Allen to the mix just felt like severe overkill to me, leading to the situation quoted above where they no longer even have to be at full strength (individually or as a team) in order to win multiple rings.


This is a tired subject that has been batted around for long enough. I agree with you there. We have our different stances on this Heat project over the last four years and nothing that anyone else says is likely to change a person's mind at this point.Perhaps the most truthful aspect of this thread. Of course, I say this after I just spent multiple paragraphs discussing those same old points above.

[Rose'sACL]

i hope someone answers me this: where were these questions when 87 lakers played 37 win nuggets, 42 win warriors and 39 wins nuggets to reach the finals?
Lakers and celtics destroyed league parity the most times and yet you would find those same guys crying about parity because a team in the east finally made it a challenge for west to win the finals instead of getting pretty much a bye in the finals.
If anything, those average to above average teams in the east were destroying the league parity by being just happy to fight other average to above average teams in the east. Everyone knows that 2004 pistons won mostly because of kobe-shaq feud otherwise east would have won only when 3 (super)stars came together in boston.
East would be even worse now if not for heat because wade would probably be continuously injured and probably thinking about retirement. Bosh would be averaging 20-10 on a 6-8th seed in toronto. LeBron would have been winning 50+ games for the cavs and losing in ECF in 6/7 games or in 5/6 games in the finals to a loaded west team.
If you're a lakers/celtics fan, please don't complain about parity when you have fcked that parity the most.

[PJR]

Nobody ever cared about the "quality of competition", until LeBron and the Heat started to win championships. :oldlol:

The Showtime Lakers mowed thru a PALTRY late 80's Western Conference. Never mentioned.

The Bulls played a .500ish or worse team, in the first round for every last one of their 6 titles. Nobody cares.

It's only matters now because it's LeBron and The Heat.