- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Lets look at how deep the NBA has been historically
Posted on 3/2/16 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 3/2/16 at 2:16 pm
given the recent comments that chuck made about how the NBA isnt great right now due to the lack of parity and depth, lets take decade by decade look at how deep and how much parity the NBA has had historically
titles won in the 1940s:
philadelphia warriors (now the golden state warriors): 1 (1947)
balitmore bullets (defunct for over 60 years): 1 (1948)
minneapolis lakers (now the los angeles lakers): 1 (1949)
fairly balanced even though we only get three years
1950s:
minneapolis lakers (now the los angeles lakers): 4 (1950, 1952, 1953, 1954)
boston celtics: 2 (1957, 1959)
rochester royals (now the sacarmento kings): 1 (1951)
syracuse nationals (now the philadelphia 76ers): 1 (1955)
philadelphia warriors (now the golden state warriors): 1 (1956)
st louis hawks (now the atlanta hawks): 1 (1958)
one team has double the amount of championships than the next closest. i wouldnt call this the most balanced decade
1960s:
boston celtics: 9 (1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
philadelphia 76ers: 1 (1967)
lol
1970s:
new york knicks: 2 (1970, 1973)
boston celtics: 2 (1974, 1976)
milwaukee bucks: 1 (1971)
los angeles lakers: 1 (1972)
golden state warriors: 1 (1975)
portland trailblazers: 1 (1977)
washington bullets (now the washington wizards): 1 (1978)
seattle supersonics (now the oklahoma city thunder): 1 (1979)
this was a very balanced decade. however, interesting note, its also considered by basically every single sport historian that this was the worst decade in the leagues history
1980s:
los angeles lakers: 5 (1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988)
boston celtics: 3 (1981, 1984, 1986)
philadelphia 76ers: 1 (1983)
detroit pistons: 1 (1989)
not a very balanced decade. two teams combined for 8 of the titles and one of those won half of the decades titles
1990s:
chicago bulls: 6 (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998)
houston rockets: 2 (1994, 1995)
detroit pistons: 1 (1990)
san antonio spurs: 1 (1999)
not a very balanced decade
2000s:
los angeles lakers: 4 (2000, 2001, 2002, 2009)
san antonio spurs: 3 (2003, 2005, 2007)
detroit pistons: 1 (2004)
miami heat: 1 (2006)
boston celtics: 1 (2008)
two teams won 7 titles. not very balanced
2010s:
miami heat: 2 (2012, 2013)
los angeles lakers: 1 (2010)
dallas mavericks: 1 (2011)
san antonio spurs: 1 (2014)
golden state warriors: 1 (2015)
first half of the decade has been very balanced
titles won in the 1940s:
philadelphia warriors (now the golden state warriors): 1 (1947)
balitmore bullets (defunct for over 60 years): 1 (1948)
minneapolis lakers (now the los angeles lakers): 1 (1949)
fairly balanced even though we only get three years
1950s:
minneapolis lakers (now the los angeles lakers): 4 (1950, 1952, 1953, 1954)
boston celtics: 2 (1957, 1959)
rochester royals (now the sacarmento kings): 1 (1951)
syracuse nationals (now the philadelphia 76ers): 1 (1955)
philadelphia warriors (now the golden state warriors): 1 (1956)
st louis hawks (now the atlanta hawks): 1 (1958)
one team has double the amount of championships than the next closest. i wouldnt call this the most balanced decade
1960s:
boston celtics: 9 (1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
philadelphia 76ers: 1 (1967)
lol
1970s:
new york knicks: 2 (1970, 1973)
boston celtics: 2 (1974, 1976)
milwaukee bucks: 1 (1971)
los angeles lakers: 1 (1972)
golden state warriors: 1 (1975)
portland trailblazers: 1 (1977)
washington bullets (now the washington wizards): 1 (1978)
seattle supersonics (now the oklahoma city thunder): 1 (1979)
this was a very balanced decade. however, interesting note, its also considered by basically every single sport historian that this was the worst decade in the leagues history
1980s:
los angeles lakers: 5 (1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988)
boston celtics: 3 (1981, 1984, 1986)
philadelphia 76ers: 1 (1983)
detroit pistons: 1 (1989)
not a very balanced decade. two teams combined for 8 of the titles and one of those won half of the decades titles
1990s:
chicago bulls: 6 (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998)
houston rockets: 2 (1994, 1995)
detroit pistons: 1 (1990)
san antonio spurs: 1 (1999)
not a very balanced decade
2000s:
los angeles lakers: 4 (2000, 2001, 2002, 2009)
san antonio spurs: 3 (2003, 2005, 2007)
detroit pistons: 1 (2004)
miami heat: 1 (2006)
boston celtics: 1 (2008)
two teams won 7 titles. not very balanced
2010s:
miami heat: 2 (2012, 2013)
los angeles lakers: 1 (2010)
dallas mavericks: 1 (2011)
san antonio spurs: 1 (2014)
golden state warriors: 1 (2015)
first half of the decade has been very balanced
This post was edited on 3/2/16 at 3:30 pm
14
Posted on 3/2/16 at 2:17 pm to WestCoastAg
interesting that the NBA has only really had one full decade that we can actually call balanced. however, the first half of the 2010s has probably been as balanced as the league has ever been. which is interesting because people continue to claim the league currently is not very deep
Posted on 3/2/16 at 2:19 pm to WestCoastAg
Begone with your numbers, stats, and facts, you stupid millenial 
Posted on 3/2/16 at 2:21 pm to TbirdSpur2010
i havent looked at conference championship numbers but i have a feeling they will be very similar
Posted on 3/2/16 at 2:27 pm to WestCoastAg
From 1999-2011, only three teams won the Western Conference.
Three. In 13 years.
Up until last year, either the Spurs, Lakers, or Mavericks won the Western Conference 15 out of 16 years.
Three. In 13 years.
Up until last year, either the Spurs, Lakers, or Mavericks won the Western Conference 15 out of 16 years.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 2:28 pm to WestCoastAg
Damn, did Charles strike a nerve 
Posted on 3/2/16 at 2:29 pm to RLDSC FAN
Not really. It's a notion that gets thrown around all the time and it needs to be addressed. I've been thinking about making this thread for a while
This post was edited on 3/2/16 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:09 pm to WestCoastAg
I'm guessing this is a veiled Steph Curry thread.
This post was edited on 3/2/16 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:10 pm to WestCoastAg
The Bullets aren't defunct. The Bullets moved to Washington in the late 70s and changed their name to Wizards in the earl 90s. Just sayin'
Also, the NBA was a podunk, fly-by-night, piece of garbage fringe league until 1980 or so. The 1960s had essentially two good teams. That era sucked balls. There's also a pretty massive reason the 70s were such a weak decade, it's called the ABA. The ABA invented modern basketball.
So, really, we're talking about a limited history 80s-present. The NBA has never been a bastion of parity, nor is it now.
The Lakers 2010 title clearly belongs in another era, as it was the end of a back to back from 2009. The Mavs won a title for Dirk, who's been a star for years, but it was against the LeBron Heat, who would win the next two. Since then, we've had the Spurs continue their run, and now the rise of a new dynasty it seems, the Warrior. Which is pretty cool, the Warriors are fun as hell.
But at the start of the season, how many teams have a legit chance to win a title? When the Bulls went on their historic run they beat in the Finals: the Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Sonics, Jazz, Jazz. And in the Eastern finals: Pistons, Cavs, Knicks, Magic, Heat, Pacers (with a brief window of Rockets beating the Knicks then the Magic).
So, in a run of six titles in 8 years, the Bulls beat 6 different teams in the ECF and 5 different teams in the Finals. That's nearly half the NBA that had a legit title shot in an 8 year period.
However, there was a big changing of the guard last year, as all four finalists last year were new. So it seems an odd complaint right now.
Also, the NBA was a podunk, fly-by-night, piece of garbage fringe league until 1980 or so. The 1960s had essentially two good teams. That era sucked balls. There's also a pretty massive reason the 70s were such a weak decade, it's called the ABA. The ABA invented modern basketball.
So, really, we're talking about a limited history 80s-present. The NBA has never been a bastion of parity, nor is it now.
The Lakers 2010 title clearly belongs in another era, as it was the end of a back to back from 2009. The Mavs won a title for Dirk, who's been a star for years, but it was against the LeBron Heat, who would win the next two. Since then, we've had the Spurs continue their run, and now the rise of a new dynasty it seems, the Warrior. Which is pretty cool, the Warriors are fun as hell.
But at the start of the season, how many teams have a legit chance to win a title? When the Bulls went on their historic run they beat in the Finals: the Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Sonics, Jazz, Jazz. And in the Eastern finals: Pistons, Cavs, Knicks, Magic, Heat, Pacers (with a brief window of Rockets beating the Knicks then the Magic).
So, in a run of six titles in 8 years, the Bulls beat 6 different teams in the ECF and 5 different teams in the Finals. That's nearly half the NBA that had a legit title shot in an 8 year period.
However, there was a big changing of the guard last year, as all four finalists last year were new. So it seems an odd complaint right now.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:17 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
Damn, did Charles strike a nerve
I threw the stupid millenial out there because I knew exactly what posters would get crazy butthurt about all of this. Boy was I right.
Every time an old player comes and says something negative about the current league (right or wrong), the same group of characters lose their minds.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:20 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I threw the stupid millenial out there because I knew exactly what posters would get crazy butthurt about all of this.
Same old curmudgeonly posters trotting out their shite, too
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:23 pm to Baloo
quote:that's exactly what I said
The Bullets aren't defunct. The Bullets moved to Washington in the late 70s and changed their name to Wizards in the earl 90s. Just sayin'
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:24 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Same old curmudgeonly posters trotting out their shite, too
Honestly, I don't really care one way or the other. The League is an entirely different animal now than it was then. Its almost a different game.
The young guys who have no fricking clue refuse to admit that some things might actually have been different or better back then, and on the flip side the old geezers fail to acknowledge that some things are better now.
CWeb, who played sort of played in both eras, has some pretty good thoughts on the subject.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:24 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
this was a very balanced decade. however, interesting note, its also considered by basically every single sport historian that this was the worst decade in the leagues history
I think it was considered that because of the serious drug problems, fighting, and loads of off the court stuff.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:25 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:what? This has been a narrative that gets thrown out on here all the time. Charles is just the most recent one to say so. How does arguing against a stupid fricking narrative that gets perpetuated all the time equate to losing someone's mind?
Every time an old player comes and says something negative about the current league (right or wrong), the same group of characters lose their minds.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:26 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:I have never argued against this. I have only argued that what we are getting right now from the NBA is at least on par from what we have had in the past
The young guys who have no fricking clue refuse to admit that some things might actually have been different or better back then,
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:27 pm to WestCoastAg
It's impossible for the NBA to have a ton of parity due to the nature of the sport. One player can possess the ball as many times as he wants and have a huge impact in the game. However, the NBA has done a fantastic job to make the field as even as possible with the salary cap, Bird exception, restricted free agency and more.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:30 pm to WestCoastAg
No, it isn't what you said. You said the Baltimore Bullets have been, and I quote, "defunct for over 60 years". they are nit defunct. the franchise still exists, and were still the Bullets until the early 1990s. That isn't what defunct means.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:33 pm to Baloo
The baltimore bullets that folded in 1954 had a completely different history from the Baltimore bullets that led to the Washington bullets and I clearly put that the Washington bullets are now the wizards. The original baltimore bullet franchise folded in 1954. The current Washington wizard franchise didn't adopt the bullet name until the 60s
This post was edited on 3/2/16 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 3/2/16 at 3:36 pm to WestCoastAg
The 70s were balance because of the ABA
This decade is balanced because of tighter salary cap restrictions.
Which is why they are the worst decades
This decade is balanced because of tighter salary cap restrictions.
Which is why they are the worst decades
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News