What's the tougher path to a title?

[3ball]

The top heavy league assumes that you're 1 of the 2 super-teams

And the parity league has many more Finals-caliber teams because only 1 or 2 stars are required make it (not a super-team)

[3ball]

Is this a sensitive topic or something?

Am I gonna get cancelled

[Axe]

Winning rings in a superior era is far more impressive than winning rings in an inferior era.

[3ball]

Winning rings in a superior era is far more impressive than winning rings in an inferior era.





Lebron's "decision" created a top-heavy league where 3 stars were required to make the Finals, so the only Finals-caliber teams were the Cavs/Warriors from 15-17', or the Heat/Spurs in 13/14..

Otoh, the 90's had many Finals-caliber teams every year because the talent was evenly-spread and only 1 or 2 stars were required to make the Finals.

Obviously, it's tougher path to be 1 of many Finals-caliber teams, than 1 of the 2 super-teams with passes to the Finals.

Ultimately, Jordan went 6/6 with 1 other star, which is better than anything you could do with a super-team

[Axe]

Lebron's "decision" created a top-heavy league where 3 stars were required to make the Finals, so the only Finals-caliber teams were the Cavs/Warriors from 15-17', or the Heat/Spurs in 13/14..

Otoh, the 90's had many Finals-caliber teams every year because the talent was evenly-spread and only 1 or 2 stars were required to make the Finals.

Obviously, it's tougher path to be 1 of many Finals-caliber teams, than 1 of the 2 super-teams with passes to the Finals.

Ultimately, Jordan went 6/6 with 1 other star, which is better than anything you could do with a super-team
In other words, the older era was a joke compared to the new one right?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It was harder to win in the 80s than in the 90s. Superteams in Philly, LA, Boston.

Then really good teams like Milwaukee and Detroit, the eventual champs.

Thought this was common knowledge?

[3ball]

It was harder to win in the 80s than in the 90s. Superteams in Philly, LA, Boston.

Then really good teams like Milwaukee and Detroit, the eventual champs.

Thought this was common knowledge?


It wasn't harder to win in the 80's if you were 1 of the 2 super-teams - then it was much easier to win

Similarly, Lebron's "decision" created a top-heavy league where 3 stars were required to make the Finals, so there were few Finals-caliber teams (the Cavs/Warriors from 15-17', or the Heat/Spurs in 13/14).

Otoh, the 90's had many Finals-caliber teams each year because the talent was evenly-spread and only 1 or 2 stars were required to make the Finals...

Obviously, it's tougher path to be 1 of many Finals-caliber teams, than 1 of the 2 super-teams with passes to the Finals..

And there's statistical backup - the preseason odds show numerous teams with a chance in the 90's, while the 2010's show less teams.

[KD7]

LeBron had to go through this

https://i.postimg.cc/SRKvkxH7/83c3754b0c273ad7112f4a2bf9cd3882-crop-exact.jpg

Jordan had to go through this

https://i.postimg.cc/CLXQpY7k/f183bf6af84d49e4ce11956f3f9d495430f0ba64-hq.jpg

Big difference

[3ball]

LeBron had to go through this

https://i.postimg.cc/SRKvkxH7/83c3754b0c273ad7112f4a2bf9cd3882-crop-exact.jpg

Jordan had to go through this

https://i.postimg.cc/CLXQpY7k/f183bf6af84d49e4ce11956f3f9d495430f0ba64-hq.jpg

Big difference


Lebron had his own super-teams to face Curry, and they featured the Curry-killer, so he rarely faced a talent deficit

super-team vs super-team = 2-star team vs 2-star team (90's)

Btw, the 98' Jazz defeated the most comp ever to make a Finals.. they beat Hakeem, Shaq's 4 all-star Lakers, and Duncan/Popovich, so they would destroy any Lebron team.

[3ball]

.
Thread Cliffs

it's a tougher path to be 1 of many Finals-caliber teams (the parity 90's), than 1 of the 2 super-teams with passes to the Finals (top-heavy/super-team 80's or 2010's)

[SATAN]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9c/6c/87/9c6c8788607d50d52a64f97b40022eef.gif

[kawhileonard2]

How did they beat Hakeem, Barkley, Drexler and then Duncan/Robinson and then Shaq/Kobe/Jones/Van Exel? Lebron was losing to Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowitzki as single stars with HCA.

[SATAN]

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qNuUDEG9Tbk/S2ZucliyxEI/AAAAAAAAABA/eets_FaBRhY/S730/Talking+Bird.gif

[3ball]

.
Revised Thread Cliffs


being one of many 2-star teams vying to make the Finals is a harder path than being 1 of 2 super-teams (big 3's)

[light]

Obviously if you're like the Bulls of the 90s and you are the most loaded team in the league it is not going to be too difficult to win.

When the odds were evened and Horace Grant went to the Magic and the Bulls no longer had a Big 3 what was the result? They lost in the 2nd round.

Jordan needed to have the most stacked team in the league in order to win in the 90s.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3355544d7741444e35416a4d316b7a4e786b444f31457a6333 566d54/img/11b739781f1442aa9c634d673b33ed49/11b739781f1442aa9c634d673b33ed49.jpg

[Full Court]

The top heavy league assumes that you're 1 of the 2 super-teams

And the parity league has many more Finals-caliber teams because only 1 or 2 stars are required make it (not a super-team)

In those two scenarios, it's tougher in the parity league. In the 2 super-team scenario, the only challenge is winning the finals series. In the parity league, a team has to slog and fight its way to the playoffs just to get to the finals. So instead of 3 easy series and 1 hard one, there's potentially 4 tough series. Much more chance for injuries, flukes, or other factors that could cause you to lose.

[jalbert009]

Horace Grant was never a player you would consider a star. He peaked at 15ppg the one year he was named an all star. If we gonna do that then we might as well say Lebron had a big 3 with Big Z and Mo Williams 😂

[AussieSteve]

Is this a sensitive topic or something?

Am I gonna get cancelled

For building straw men. Yes.

[Axe]

Horace Grant was never a player you would consider a star. He peaked at 15ppg the one year he was named an all star. If we gonna do that then we might as well say Lebron had a big 3 with Big Z and Mo Williams 😂
Rofl this just reminds me that op actually said mo williams is a better player than scottie pippen. Talk about being delusional. :rolleyes:

[mehyaM24]

80s had more firepower & parity. the early 90s were great too, but after expansion, chicago was better than everyone else & it wasn't close.

95-98 was their playground

[Mr.GOAT2408]

It was harder to win in the 80s than in the 90s. Superteams in Philly, LA, Boston.

Then really good teams like Milwaukee and Detroit, the eventual champs.

Thought this was common knowledge?
Technically true but this is very misleading

It was harder for guys like Erving before Moses/Barkley (those early 80s 76ers were def NOT a superteam) or guys like Moncrief, Isiah, and MJ to win in the early/mid 80s BECAUSE they weren't on those superteams. For Magic and Bird it should have been relatively easy to reach the finals not because of their own greatness (both obviously great) but because the margin for error with their teams was too damn high

Both teams were similarly stacked, it wasn't like the late 00s Lakers vs Celtics where there was an obvious gap in overall talent between both teams, or on the flipside the early 00s Lakers vs Pacers/76ers/Nets which obviously greatly favored the Lakers - those 3 had a much tougher road than the 80s Lakers/Celtics ever did but for the Lakers it didn't really matter who was in front of them because they had 2 top 3-4 players (well, that's def the case in 01/02)

When the league is balanced up top there isn't an unfair competitive advantage in place, you won out of your own merit. What I loved about the 90s and mid-late 00s period, if a dynasty or mini-dynasty can get formed (as was the case for both periods) even better

In other words, if Erving managed to win in 1980 or 1982 having to get through both Lakers/Celtics that would have been >> winning a title in a parity league, but it didn't happen, it would be hard to **** up the teams Magic/Bird were on and as mentioned earlier they were pretty evenly matched whereas in a parity league most playoff teams are evenly matched so most teams go through at least 3 tough series before finally winning the title. Those are tougher and obviously more impressive

I don't know why people have a hard time grasping this, it's literally all relative

Some would argue the Pistons did this in 1989 but let's be real that wasn't anywhere near what it would have been in the mid 80s. 1989 Pistons giving prime Lakers/Celtics fits (1988 Pistons should have won vs 1988 Lakers fwiw) but they definitely not favored to win, beating them in that context would be one of the toughest ever but that didn't happen at all. The Bulls were the best team they faced and it was basically just Jordan and a still raw Pippen/Grant

[Axe]

80s had more firepower & parity. the early 90s were great too, but after expansion, chicago was better than everyone else & it wasn't close.

95-98 was their playground
In the west, only houston got the opportunity to win more than one ring in that decade.

[Manny98]

Obviously if you're like the Bulls of the 90s and you are the most loaded team in the league it is not going to be too difficult to win.

When the odds were evened and Horace Grant went to the Magic and the Bulls no longer had a Big 3 what was the result? They lost in the 2nd round.

Jordan needed to have the most stacked team in the league in order to win in the 90s.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3355544d7741444e35416a4d316b7a4e786b444f31457a6333 566d54/img/11b739781f1442aa9c634d673b33ed49/11b739781f1442aa9c634d673b33ed49.jpg
MJ needed all that just to beat John Stockton?

Smh that's why he's not my GOAT

[Stanley Kobrick]

90's had parity but none were consistent dynasties, that's why bulls were always playing a new team every year in the finals who would never make it back. they weren't consistently good enough. historically teams who are labeled dynasties are for the most part are top heavy teams with decent role players. showtime, boston, badboys, top heavy teams in top heavy league and they all gave michael jordan the work.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Technically true but this is very misleading

It was harder for guys like Erving before Moses/Barkley (those early 80s 76ers were def NOT a superteam) or guys like Moncrief, Isiah, and MJ to win in the early/mid 80s BECAUSE they weren't on those superteams. For Magic and Bird it should have been relatively easy to reach the finals not because of their own greatness (both obviously great) but because the margin for error with their teams was too damn high

Both teams were similarly stacked, it wasn't like the late 00s Lakers vs Celtics where there was an obvious gap in overall talent between both teams, or on the flipside the early 00s Lakers vs Pacers/76ers/Nets which obviously greatly favored the Lakers - those 3 had a much tougher road than the 80s Lakers/Celtics ever did but for the Lakers it didn't really matter who was in front of them because they had 2 top 3-4 players (well, that's def the case in 01/02)

When the league is balanced up top there isn't an unfair competitive advantage in place, you won out of your own merit. What I loved about the 90s and mid-late 00s period, if a dynasty or mini-dynasty can get formed (as was the case for both periods) even better

In other words, if Erving managed to win in 1980 or 1982 having to get through both Lakers/Celtics that would have been >> winning a title in a parity league, but it didn't happen, it would be hard to **** up the teams Magic/Bird were on and as mentioned earlier they were pretty evenly matched whereas in a parity league most playoff teams are evenly matched so most teams go through at least 3 tough series before finally winning the title. Those are tougher and obviously more impressive

I don't know why people have a hard time grasping this, it's literally all relative

Some would argue the Pistons did this in 1989 but let's be real that wasn't anywhere near what it would have been in the mid 80s. 1989 Pistons giving prime Lakers/Celtics fits (1988 Pistons should have won vs 1988 Lakers fwiw) but they definitely not favored to win, beating them in that context would be one of the toughest ever but that didn't happen at all. The Bulls were the best team they faced and it was basically just Jordan and a still raw Pippen/Grant

Sure, but superteams are always within a time frame. They don't last an entire decade or anything. Not sure why you felt the need to bring up anything but. Back in the 90s, MJ's Bulls and Ewing's Knicks were really the only few stable teams. New playoff contenders and finalists emerged every other year though.

Totally disagree with 80s Boston having an "easy" road. Depending on the year in question, they faced elite clubs like the Sixers/Bucks/Pistons who were all pretty much loaded. When Philly was a superteam, the Bucks weren't that far off in the regular-season and made back-to-back conference finals. With LA's West comp you could definitely make that claim though and I wouldn't argue with you.

In theory more competition up top equals more parity. But if there are multiple superteams in one year, say in '83 or '86, with 3-4 juggernauts and a few just outside of that, then it makes winning just as difficult. And showcases more starpower in big games. That's another reason 80s ball was considered the golden era. Like some have also mentioned, expansion diluted and watered down a large portion of the 90s. We saw run of the mill playoff teams along with fluke contenders.

Personally I like balance across the league. Long as its not '17 Golden State in their OWN tier then I am cool with it.

[Kiddlovesnets]

I think we have to consider that teams with better or even historically great regular season records may not be necessarily as good as they are advertised coming into the playoffs. A good example is 2016 Warriors and Spurs, which won 73 and 67 games respectfully. They both struggled against the 55 wins Thunder, and the Warriors lost to 57 wins Cavs. The playoffs are very different games compared to regular season, and some fans dont even remember that the Cavs team went 66 wins in 2009 and they team looked so vulnerable against the Magic team. The KD-Warriors won only 67/58/57 games in their 3 superteam seasons, but every sane NBA fan would acknowledge that they were much better than the 73 wins season.

This is why I use pre-season odds as metric to determine the strength/talent-level on each team, and I've even proved that pre-season odds are much better at predicting the winners of each season than regular season records. We need to actually look at how a team performs in each playoffs series as well as their pre-season odds rather than comparing the regular season records in order to determine how tough their path to title is.

[mehyaM24]

In the west, only houston got the opportunity to win more than one ring in that decade.

ya phoenix & the blazers were good teams though. late 80s dallas took the lakers to 7 games in 88.

[ShawkFactory]

I don’t care about the topic at all but the fact that you were the first response in your own thread 4 hours later is extremely funny.

[bison]

Obviously if you're like the Bulls of the 90s and you are the most loaded team in the league it is not going to be too difficult to win.

When the odds were evened and Horace Grant went to the Magic and the Bulls no longer had a Big 3 what was the result? They lost in the 2nd round.

Jordan needed to have the most stacked team in the league in order to win in the 90s.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3355544d7741444e35416a4d316b7a4e786b444f31457a6333 566d54/img/11b739781f1442aa9c634d673b33ed49/11b739781f1442aa9c634d673b33ed49.jpg

1 star, 1 sidekick and 3 role players does not equal a super team :no: in fact most good teams in the 90s had this format. Jordan went 6/6 despite the equal competition.

Now superteams are required to win chips. Dirk was the last to win with the 90s style format of 1 star, 1 sidekick, 2-3 role players. (LeBron has never won in this format; Kobe did it twice with Gasol

[EagleFang]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6XsZVb-ZE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIF8zcj_J4Y






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1micMNnFhs