By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
hershel_layton said:
"OMG nba is so rigged" ~warriors fans

How about we forget the nut kicker Draymond, who didn't get suspended for continuing to kick Steven Adam's balls? Or how they magically beat OKC when down 3 to 1? Or is it that the nba is rigged when the Warriors are losing?

Think the cavs will gain the benefit? Look at all the money GS will get by this game. Average ticket cost of 2000(know this from bleach report), about 20000 seats... fourty million from that one game.

People should just enjoy the game. Refs are allowing both sides to be physical and let the game unfold. I only want the cavs to win so that LeBron can finally complete his legacy and shut up warrior band wagon fans.

Either way though, it's just a game in the end. I'd rather have fun than be a baby(like cryesha curry).

Soon enough my franchise will have a load of band wagon fans though. Gonna suck when the majority of Timberwolves fan will only come a few years later. Ticket sales will probably spike too. Gonna miss the day when getting front row seats is less than 400 bucks

I can't see the Timberwolves being dramatically better anytime soon the roster still isn't that great and they still lack chemisty plus they have a hard time singing their own free agent and never really got a significant free agent to sign with them since no one really wants to play in Minnesota.  The Celtics on the other hand could be significantly better pretty soon they already have a halfway decent core they have cap space and they have a ton of future picks they can use in aquiring free agents or making future draft deals.



Around the Network

James is the best player of all time. Dare I say it James is better than Jordan. James has tougher competition to compete against and he dominates. Jordan dominated weak opposition.



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
James is the best player of all time. Dare I say it James is better than Jordan. James has tougher competition to compete against and he dominates. Jordan dominated weak opposition.

How old are you?



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
James is the best player of all time. Dare I say it James is better than Jordan. James has tougher competition to compete against and he dominates. Jordan dominated weak opposition.

LMFAO

 

Ah, you're hilarious. Take a good look at the teams Jordan faced and I dare you to say that again 



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Chris Hu said:
burninmylight said:

Those two expansion teams were in it to win it. The Sixers and Lakers were not. Philly's former GM felt the need to write a 13-page memento explaining why his philosophy and plan to tank year in and year out was justified. The Laker's took the entire year off to dedicate it to a long washed up Kobe. The '96 Grizzlies and Raptors were just plain bad with no way around it. Damon Stoudamire didn't do shit with his career after padding stats on a horrible team. That team had Zan Tabak starting at center, FFS. Stoudamire is comparable to Brandon Jennings at best.

Also, please explain what makes the NBA better then than it is now.

So you pretty much agree with me that those two expansion teams where better then this years Lakers and 76ers.  The NBA is better then it is now because the overall talent pool was better and most teams actually still played defense and didn't really heavily on the 3 point shot to get wins.  Pippen said earlier this year that the '96 Bulls would sweep this years Warriors team in a seven game series and I totally agree with him.  Also one position that is clearly a lot better in the mid 90's then it is now is centers there is no one playing right now that is even close to being as good as David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Shaquile O'Neal, Alonozo Mourning and Hakeem Olajuwon and the '96 Bulls eliminated three of those in the playoffs (Ewing, Mouring and O'Neal).  Plus they eliminated the defensive player of the year Gary Payton in the finals.

Just because I said the Lakers and Sixers weren't trying to win doesn't mean that I agree with you. You can have your words back, but you might want to wipe off my saliva first. Either way, why are you still arguing this? Both the Bulls and the Warriors played and lost to some very bad teams. The '96 expansion teams only had nine more wins than the '16 teams designed to lose. If you really want to pit those four teams against each other, it'd look something like this:

 

Pippen said earlier this year that the '96 Bulls would sweep this years Warriors team in a seven game series and I totally agree with him.

"WE WOULD BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF THOSE YOUNG CATS!"

-Every former player ever

Also one position that is clearly a lot better in the mid 90's then it is now is centers there is no one playing right now that is even close to being as good as David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Shaquile O'Neal, Alonozo Mourning and Hakeem Olajuwon and the '96 Bulls eliminated three of those in the playoffs (Ewing, Mouring and O'Neal).  Plus they eliminated the defensive player of the year Gary Payton in the finals.

The 90's NBA favored centers and post games. The modern NBA favors pace, space and perimeter shooting, so one position that is clearly a lot better in 2016 than the mid-90s are point guards. The Warriors eliminated Damien Lillard and Russell Westbrook, ran roughshod over the Rockets (who didn't have an elite PG) and lost in the finals to an elite PG in Kyrie Irving. Having a dominant center in the NBA these days just ain't what it used to be. Demarcus Cousins and Karl Anthony-Towns sat at home for the playoffs, while Lemarcus Aldridge lost in the second round to the Thunder.



Around the Network

The watered down 1990s was a huge step down from the great 1970s/80s basketball era. Greats like Kareem-Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson, James Worthy, Julius Erving, Bernard King, Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin Mchale, George Gervin, etc. Jordan was a stand out star in a weak 1990s era featuring 6 expansion teams. Marketing and media hype pushed the Jordan is God in Nike sneakers myth.



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
The watered down 1990s was a huge step down from the great 1970s/80s basketball era. Greats like Kareem-Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson, James Worthy, Julius Erving, Bernard King, Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin Mchale, George Gervin, etc. Jordan was a stand out star in a weak 1990s era featuring 6 expansion teams. Marketing and media hype pushed the Jordan is God in Nike sneakers myth.

So you think the 80s was better than the 90s is because there were more hall of famers and legends. And you also think todays era is better than the 90s? The level of elite superstars in the nba was higher in the 90s than it is today. At least 20 players in the top 50 greatest of all time played in the 90s. It seems to me you're just a jordan hater because he was the standout among the all time greats in the 90s



Pinkie_pie said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
The watered down 1990s was a huge step down from the great 1970s/80s basketball era. Greats like Kareem-Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson, James Worthy, Julius Erving, Bernard King, Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin Mchale, George Gervin, etc. Jordan was a stand out star in a weak 1990s era featuring 6 expansion teams. Marketing and media hype pushed the Jordan is God in Nike sneakers myth.

So you think the 80s was better than the 90s is because there were more hall of famers and legends. And you also think todays era is better than the 90s? The level of elite superstars in the nba was higher in the 90s than it is today. At least 20 players in the top 50 greatest of all time played in the 90s. It seems to me you're just a jordan hater because he was the standout among the all time greats in the 90s

Well I don't think the 2000s are unanimously better.  Nor the 80s myself.  But I do feel that nearly every era has it's area where it is stronger than most others when you look at it's elites list.  90s certainly has better centers than the 2000s and onwards.  But better than the 80s, 70s, or even the late 60s?  I should think not.  Kareem, Wilt, Russell are the big three of those eras and all make it on to top 10 lists regularly with ease.  Kareem and Wilt are the most common proposed alternatives to Jordan as the GOAT. 

I'll say the current era has the better sharpshooters, that's pretty much undeniable.  90s is actually a big jack of all trades era.  There's Shaq that came in to rep the centers, Jordan for the shooting guards.  But other than them not many primarily 90s players have a snowballs chance for a top 10 spot on most lists that I can think of.  But a lot of them make top 50s or 100s.  Every era is different, with officiating and chance changing the make up of the league.  Unanimously declaring one era better in every single way than all others and then using that to venerate one set of players and then downplay all others is a narrowminded and simplistic way of approaching a highly complex discussion.



Nuvendil said:
Pinkie_pie said:

So you think the 80s was better than the 90s is because there were more hall of famers and legends. And you also think todays era is better than the 90s? The level of elite superstars in the nba was higher in the 90s than it is today. At least 20 players in the top 50 greatest of all time played in the 90s. It seems to me you're just a jordan hater because he was the standout among the all time greats in the 90s

Well I don't think the 2000s are unanimously better.  Nor the 80s myself.  But I do feel that nearly every era has it's area where it is stronger than most others when you look at it's elites list.  90s certainly has better centers than the 2000s and onwards.  But better than the 80s, 70s, or even the late 60s?  I should think not.  Kareem, Wilt, Russell are the big three of those eras and all make it on to top 10 lists regularly with ease.  Kareem and Wilt are the most common proposed alternatives to Jordan as the GOAT. 

I'll say the current era has the better sharpshooters, that's pretty much undeniable.  90s is actually a big jack of all trades era.  There's Shaq that came in to rep the centers, Jordan for the shooting guards.  But other than them not many primarily 90s players have a snowballs chance for a top 10 spot on most lists that I can think of.  But a lot of them make top 50s or 100s.  Every era is different, with officiating and chance changing the make up of the league.  Unanimously declaring one era better in every single way than all others and then using that to venerate one set of players and then downplay all others is a narrowminded and simplistic way of approaching a highly complex discussion.

I'd put a prime Hakeem or a late 90s/early 2000s Shaq against any center in any era. They'd more than hold their own IMO. 

Hakeem is the most skilled center ever with great size and agility to go with it, Shaq is the most relenetlessly powerful center ever even Wilt said he would not attack the rim the way Shaq does. 



Soundwave said:
Nuvendil said:

Well I don't think the 2000s are unanimously better.  Nor the 80s myself.  But I do feel that nearly every era has it's area where it is stronger than most others when you look at it's elites list.  90s certainly has better centers than the 2000s and onwards.  But better than the 80s, 70s, or even the late 60s?  I should think not.  Kareem, Wilt, Russell are the big three of those eras and all make it on to top 10 lists regularly with ease.  Kareem and Wilt are the most common proposed alternatives to Jordan as the GOAT. 

I'll say the current era has the better sharpshooters, that's pretty much undeniable.  90s is actually a big jack of all trades era.  There's Shaq that came in to rep the centers, Jordan for the shooting guards.  But other than them not many primarily 90s players have a snowballs chance for a top 10 spot on most lists that I can think of.  But a lot of them make top 50s or 100s.  Every era is different, with officiating and chance changing the make up of the league.  Unanimously declaring one era better in every single way than all others and then using that to venerate one set of players and then downplay all others is a narrowminded and simplistic way of approaching a highly complex discussion.

I'd put a prime Hakeem or a late 90s/early 2000s Shaq against any center in any era. They'd more than hold their own IMO. 

Hakeem is the most skilled center ever with great size and agility to go with it, Shaq is the most relenetlessly powerful center ever even Wilt said he would not attack the rim the way Shaq does. 

Wilt wasn't as bulky as Shaq, no, so he couldn't muscle in on the rim as easily.  He was a better passer, shooter (he had a midrange game and could even drain fade aways from almost where the 3 point line would have been), at least as good a defender (he could shut down strong centers entirely like Kareem and Walt Bellamy), and on top of all that he was stronger (benched over 500 lbs), faster (he could outrun many if not most guards being a track and field star before coming to basketball), jumped higher (vertical was in the area of 48 inches at his prime (that is, right around Jordan)), had far FAR greater endurance (Shaq averaged less than 35 minutes in his career and 40 minutes a game at his peak; Wilt averaged 45 for his career and 48.5 (that's more minutes than a game) at his peak and Wilt played in a high-pace league and was a primary factor on both ends while being pulverized in ways that would get you ejected in Shaq's day), and was overall more agile. 

You give me a choice of any center from any era to start a dynasty, my choices will be between Wilt, Kareem, and Russel.  Russel cause he got 11 rings so he clearly knows something about winning; Kareem because of the consistency and longevity of his greatness and his unstoppable hook; and Wilt cause he was just a freak of nature with astonishing skill and ridiculous endurance. 

Shaq is a close fourth, but the more you learn about Wilt Chamberlain, the more you realize how ridiculously good he was.  Same with Russel, but no one denies him credit since he has more rings than fingers :P.