NBA Master Thread

[Dan]

Why? B/c they stomped over a pathetic eastern conference while losing a game to a team without their mvp?

Celtics played much better ball without Thomas.

[Dan]

I agree KD took it to a whole diffrent level. But the concept of players building a star studded team started with Lebron bringing his talents to mia.

It's just not comparable. Adding arguably the 2nd best player in basketball to a 73 win team is more like if Magic Johnson would have joined Jordan with the Bulls. Doesn't make good basketball.

[elit]

It's just not comparable. Adding arguably the 2nd best player in basketball to a 73 win team is more like if Magic Johnson would have joined Jordan with the Bulls. Doesn't make good basketball.

agree. everytime I hear ppl talking about basketball I feel.like it's the emperor's clothes. the whole thing is one huge farce all the storylines are meaninglessness...

[jj1000]

It's just not comparable. Adding arguably the 2nd best player in basketball to a 73 win team is more like if Magic Johnson would have joined Jordan with the Bulls. Doesn't make good basketball.

It is certainly comparable.

I just hope Lebron joins GS in the off season so we may get a solution after they win the next 5 seasons undefeated.

[skyguy918]

This whole argument about superteams being some sort of new invention is a farce. Russell's Celtics had something like 8 hall of famers over the course of their insane run. The showtime Lakers had 5 hall of famers over the course of there stretch of dominance. It goes on and on. The way in which any of the great teams were created should be irrelevant.

The bottom line is that for a number of reasons, the results in basketball - both each individual game and the season/playoffs as a whole - better reflect the differences in the quality of the two teams than other sports. That magnifies any talent disparity issue around the league as a whole.

[keemster26]

I just hope Lebron joins GS in the off season so we may get a solution after they win the next 5 seasons undefeated.

Lol. Maybe Jordan will come out of retirement to win another championship

[ChaimMoskowitz]

This whole argument about superteams being some sort of new invention is a farce. Russell's Celtics had something like 8 hall of famers over the course of their insane run. The showtime Lakers had 5 hall of famers over the course of there stretch of dominance. It goes on and on.

That's what happens when you get a bunch of young grasshoppers talking about sports. They only understand what is currently going on. A great example was last year before the finals all the talk about that GS team being the GOAT. Now all the talk is about Durant being the next challenger for GOAT. This stuff is laughable. As much as I hate LB he is still the best player in the NBA today.

[elit]

That's what happens when you get a bunch of young grasshoppers talking about sports. They only understand what is currently going on. A great example was last year before the finals all the talk about that GS team being the GOAT. Now all the talk is about Durant being the next challenger for GOAT. This stuff is laughable. As much as I hate LB he is still the best player in the NBA today.

it's all meaningless sports talk hype.  sound bites that compete for being the most absurd and outlandish so that person will get attention.  I'll say it again the NBA is one big farce its almost as bad as professional wrestling. 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I'll say it again the NBA is one big farce its almost as bad as professional wrestling.

After Dick the Bruiser days I stop watching.
@Freddie

[yuneeq]

This whole argument about superteams being some sort of new invention is a farce. Russell's Celtics had something like 8 hall of famers over the course of their insane run. The showtime Lakers had 5 hall of famers over the course of there stretch of dominance. It goes on and on. The way in which any of the great teams were created should be irrelevant.

The bottom line is that for a number of reasons, the results in basketball - both each individual game and the season/playoffs as a whole - better reflect the differences in the quality of the two teams than other sports. That magnifies any talent disparity issue around the league as a whole.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Interesting but 100% subjective and meaningless.

[Freddie]

After Dick the Bruiser days I stop watching.
@Freddie

Wow. Now you went deep enough that you even lost me.

[yuneeq]

Interesting but 100% subjective and meaningless.

What's subjective?
Underdogs don't do better in hockey?
There's not more parity in hockey?

Though the video doesn't go through the many methods of quantifying luck and the creator acknowledges that it was simplified for the video.

[skyguy918]

it's all meaningless sports talk hype.  sound bites that compete for being the most absurd and outlandish so that person will get attention.  I'll say it again the NBA is one big farce its almost as bad as professional wrestling.

The storylines are meaningless and manufactured in all sports. Not sure how a lack of parity makes it any worse.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

What's subjective?
Underdogs don't do better in hockey?
There's not more parity in hockey?

Though the video doesn't go through the many methods of quantifying luck and the creator acknowledges that it was simplified for the video.

You can't just go by favorite or not. The main factor is how big of a favorite. They should take the money line Vegas puts out and analyze that.
Example: Vegas has GS as a 3-1 favorite to win the series (-300 money line). How often does 3-1 favorites actually win in each of the sports?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Poor LB is tired. 
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/lebron-admits-he%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98drained%E2%80%99-both-mentally-and-physically/ar-BBCjHkc?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

[skyguy918]

You can't just go by favorite or not. The main factor is how big of a favorite. They should take the money line Vegas puts out and analyze that.
Example: Vegas has GS as a 3-1 favorite to win the series (-300 money line). How often does 3-1 favorites actually win in each of the sports?

Where in that whole video did they mention favorites once? It has nothing to do with favorites. Statistically speaking, if there was absolutely no skill involved, you'd expect a certain distribution of the teams W-L records based on how many games that sport has. Fewer games means a wider spread of distribution from .500 records, and more games means a tighter distribution of W-L records. If a sport has a wider distribution of W-L records than you'd expect based on the number of games they play, that suggests that skill plays a larger role in that sport than in a sport where the distribution is pretty close to what you'd expect from its number of games.

ETA: I realize that the title mentions underdog, but that doesn't play a part in the calculation. Once you've determined that luck plays a larger role in some sports, that intrinsically means that more underdogs will win - hence the title.

[elit]

The storylines are meaningless and manufactured in all sports. Not sure how a lack of parity makes it any worse.

true.  they are really independent points but when there are no real story lines everything is manufactured as oppose to only some of it

[ChaimMoskowitz]

ETA: I realize that the title mentions underdog, but that doesn't play a part in the calculation. Once you've determined that luck plays a larger role in some sports, that intrinsically means that more underdogs will win - hence the title.

You can't lump all underdogs together. A 2-1 underdog is not the same as a 10-1 underdog.

[skyguy918]

What's subjective?
Underdogs don't do better in hockey?
There's not more parity in hockey?

Though the video doesn't go through the many methods of quantifying luck and the creator acknowledges that it was simplified for the video.

There aren't many methods. They're not referring to what a layman might call luck - they essentially mean random chance, ie statistical randomness. You can quantify random chance, because in a sport where there was absolutely no skill, and it was all random chance, the odds in each game are always 50-50. From there, you can calculate the odds of each full season record occurring for any team, and multiply by the number of games to create the expected distribution of records.