Wow, the NBA sucks.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:33 pm

sf_z wrote:Prejudice (noun) a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

Z, I didn't say I have NEVER watched the NBA, just not this year. I have seen plenty of the playoffs and regular season games the past couple of years. I can't believe anything has changed since last season.

Not that you care, but here are some of the reasons why I have stopped watching:

- Too many thugs. Say what you want about other sports, but the NBA IN MY OPINION has the worst image in terms of player character.
- travelling and carrying. Players today break the written rules of basketball every game.
- Foul calls. Thye seem random most of the time, and too many players resort to "flopping". Also, way too much complaining every time they do get called. My biggest gripe is a move Sam Cassell uses frequently. Fake to get eh defender up in the air, and then jump right into him in order to draw the foul.....and he gets the call.
- Star treatment. Guys like Shaq get away with murder because they are the stars who put butts in the seats.
- Too much turnover. Every year it's like 50% of the players have changed teams. As soon as a team forms an identity, 25% of the team is traded of lost via free agency.

I'm not saying anything about any other sports, luts just stick to basketball. I know other sports have issues, but these are the biggest reasons for my not liking the NBA.
-

WillHunting · Post by **WillHunting** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:41 pm

My only interest in the NBA is NBA Street Vol 2. I used to be a huge fan of the NBA in the late 80's, early 90's. Used to watch all the Celtics televised game and any Sunday games that are televised as well... I was so excited back then when I can sit back on Sunday afternoon and watch a triple header featuring the best teams. Ahhhh those were the days.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:49 pm

sf_z,
Sorry if I got riled up but that credibility statement really chapped my ass. I didn't think it was called for whether it was directed towards me or not.

Like others have stated there are some problems in the NBA that makes me feel as if it sucks.

Blatant fouls not being called, minor things getting called

Players consistently take more than 2 steps (especially Shaq) and never get called for travelling

Big-named players are able to do anything they want on offense and not get called for a foul and on defense the refs usually pin the foul on the closest non-star teammate

The last 3 minutes of a close game takes 30 minutes to play

I used to watch the NBA playoffs religiously but now I have no interest. Especially considering several teams will make the playoffs with sub-.500 records. If there were sub-.500 teams in the NHL playoffs I would have no interest in them either. And when I see them wanting to expand to a city they already tried and failed in it makes me scratch my head at wtf is going on?

So when I start a post stating that the NBA sucks I don't mean to piss off NBA fans, I mean to start a conversation about why people think it sucks and why they don't. I haven't heard much about why it doesn't, just statements in defense of many of the arguments against the NBA.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:52 pm

Its all personal preference .
I find the NBA completely unwatchable.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:07 pm

These college players you love so much don't lose their mid-range jumper as soon as they "graduate".

No, Z, they don't. But they leave offensive systems in college that encourage the use of the midrange jumper for the NBA, where it's not a part of many team's repertoire.

I also find it disputable that all of the sudden defenses get way tougher in the NBA than in college, leading to the drastic decline in scoring and field-goal percentage. Players are bigger and stronger and better, but there still is good D being played in college, yet players score and shoot the ball.

Why? Because successful college offensive systems emphasize teamwork over individual basketball, unlike the NBA.

You mentioned ESPN Classic showing games from the 80s. That, to me, was the golden era of the NBA, before the Pistons invented "thugball." Watching a "Showtime" fast break, where the ball hardly hit the floor from rebound to Magic to Rambis finishing the break, was beautiful.

Or watching McHale and Bird actually pass the ball instead of simply trying some one-on-one street garbage or a "hop" step in a vain effort to score.

That was pro basketball. Call me an anachronist, but today's NBA isn't. It's very dull and lacks any entertainment value because of the lack of fundamentals and team play. It's glorified street ball.

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:18 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:sf_z,
I used to watch the NBA playoffs religiously but now I have no interest. Especially considering several teams will make the playoffs with sub-.500 records. If there were sub-.500 teams in the NHL playoffs I would have no interest in them either. And when I see them wanting to expand to a city they already tried and failed in it makes me scratch my head at wtf is going on?

Did you question the NFL's expansion to Houston? How about the NFL allowing the Rams to move to St. Louis? The Seattle Mariners seem to be doing pretty well in baseball. As are the Colorado Avalanche and the Thrashers. Didn't the Hornets lead the NBA in attendance for many years? It seems like the fans base and support is there.

Isn't this the first season since 1996-97 that any sub-.500 teams will make the playoffs? I just don't see it as a big problem.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:22 pm

pk500 wrote: Or watching McHale and Bird actually pass the ball instead of simply trying some one-on-one street garbage or a "hop" step in a vain effort to score.

Ironically, wasn't that a "hop" step that won the game last night for Georgia Tech?

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:42 pm

pk500 wrote:You mentioned ESPN Classic showing games from the 80s. That, to me, was the golden era of the NBA, before the Pistons invented "thugball." Watching a "Showtime" fast break, where the ball hardly hit the floor from rebound to Magic to Rambis finishing the break, was beautiful.

Or watching McHale and Bird actually pass the ball instead of simply trying some one-on-one street garbage or a "hop" step in a vain effort to score.

That was pro basketball. Call me an anachronist, but today's NBA isn't. It's very dull and lacks any entertainment value because of the lack of fundamentals and team play. It's glorified street ball.
Take care,
PK

That's what happens when there is too much expansion. Of course you enjoyed the Celtics and Lakers in the 1980s. Those rosters were filled with Hall-of-Famers. Now you are lucky to get two All-Stars on the same team let alone 3 Hall-of-Famers and if you do you win 3 titles in a row or 2 in 5 years.

Is scoring in NCAA hockey down as much as the NHL? Just curious.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:49 pm

matthewk wrote:- Foul calls. Thye seem random most of the time, and too many players resort to "flopping". Also, way too much complaining every time they do get called. My biggest gripe is a move Sam Cassell uses frequently. Fake to get eh defender up in the air, and then jump right into him in order to draw the foul.....and he gets the call.
-

The flopping bothers me too. But these players are so good offensively that the only way you can stop without getting in foul trouble is to try to draw offensive fouls.

I especially hate the dotted circle, which just encourages players to run under players jumping towards the hoop. This is a dangerous tactic and if people did it on the street, they'd get into fights. Even at the YMCA gym, where you're falling on wood floors instead of concrete, it would be an objectionable thing. But there is no other way to stop or discourage some of the high fliers.

As for Cassell's move, that's smart and old school. Mullin used to do that all the time. The fault is with the defender for biting on the fake. If the defender never leaves his feet, then the shooter who jumps into the defender should get the foul. But we know in the NBA that the officiating is uneven sometimes.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:00 pm

I really can't think of too many midrange shooters in college hoops. If anything, it would be harder since the 3-point line is closer to the hoop, making the area which teams have to defend more compressed.

Last night, GTech used the same inside-out play which is the staple of many NBA offenses. Tony Allen, when he wasn't in foul trouble, went to the hole several times, drew the big men and created easy shots for the OSU big men, so it started with one-on-one play. As Leebo mentioned, that game was decided by Bynum breaking down his man off the dribble.

In the other game, for Duke, down the stretch, you had Ewing taking his man off the dribble repeatedly and you had Ben Gordon "breaking ankles." UConn finally came back with Okafor beating his man on key possessions. I didn't see too many double-screens or the kind of plays that Bobby Knight would approve of.

The Princeton backdoor cut offense hasn't gotten far in the NCAA, mainly because of the lack of talent by teams who rely on fundamentals. Instead, it's alive and well at Sacramento where Peter Carrill is an assistant.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 5:40 pm

Leebo33 wrote:
pk500 wrote: Or watching McHale and Bird actually pass the ball instead of simply trying some one-on-one street garbage or a "hop" step in a vain effort to score.
Ironically, wasn't that a "hop" step that won the game last night for Georgia Tech?

Yep, and I hate it in college, too.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 5:41 pm

>>>Is scoring in NCAA hockey down as much as the NHL? Just curious.<<<

Why do the NBA defenders need to bring up the sad state of offense in the NHL to defend their sport?

Funny, I don't recall comparing hockey to basketball once. I compared college hoop to the NBA.

Oh, well.

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 6:09 pm

pk500 wrote:>>>Is scoring in NCAA hockey down as much as the NHL? Just curious.<<<

Why do the NBA defenders need to bring up the sad state of offense in the NHL to defend their sport?

Funny, I don't recall comparing hockey to basketball once. I compared college hoop to the NBA.

Oh, well.

Take care,
PK

I'm not defending "my" sport. I'm just wondering since you are comparing the scoring in pro basketball to college basketball if you can do the same thing in another sport which has a similar drop in scoring. Sorry if I touched a nerve. I'm just wondering how much of a correlation there is between college sports and their pro counterparts. You can't really look at it in baseball due to the difference in bats and football really doesn't seem to have a scoring problem.

I do admit to finding it funny that some people are bothered by the decline in offense in one sport but not another or the hoods in one sport and not another or the hip-hop culture in one sport and not another. In the NBA when scoring goes down it is assumed that it is due to selfish play and lack of skills where in other sports it is due to some other factor. I don't buy it. I think main reason scoring is down in the NHL for the same reasons it is down in the NBA. There just aren't that many good players on each team.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 6:27 pm

>>>I'm not defending "my" sport. I'm just wondering since you are comparing the scoring in pro basketball to college basketball if you can do the same thing in another sport which has a similar drop in scoring. Sorry if I touched a nerve.<<<

I don't dislike the NBA for the drop in scoring. I dislike it for the drop in fundamentals and team play.

You touched no nerves. I only get jumpy over things that I care about. I could care less about the NBA.

But since you've brought hockey into the debate, there's no question that the dilution of talent has diminished offense in hockey. And so have the neutral-zone trap and the excess clutching and grabbing.

But equipment also has played a huge part, something you can't say about the NBA. Look at goalie pads from 1980s compared to those of today. Today's goalies look like f*cking sides of barns compared to the 1980s.

Stick technology never has been more advanced than today, yet scoring is down. One of the main reasons is because the goalie equipment is ridiculously big.

That's an excuse the NBA can't use. The basket isn't any higher, the ball isn't any bigger, the court has changed size.

Of course, NBA zealots will point to improved defense, and there's no question that the defense and increased thuggery disguised as defense have cut scoring since the "Showtime" 80s. But so has a lack of emphasis on fundamentals.

And no one ever brings up the fact that the diminished amount of team play on offense in the NBA fails to create the kinds of open looks you see in the college game.

But of course, that's because there's such great "in your face" defense being played, not because offensive players without the ball or more apt to stand around and watch a teammate go one-on-one in the NBA than in the college game ...

No one ever will convince me any different, and I have watched more than 10 minutes of the NBA this year. The early season intrigued me because of 'Melo and LeBron, and then I realized they were just new pawns in the same boring game.

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:11 pm

I'm just not convinced the college game is much better. Of course, my favorite team is Pitt and I routinely had to suffer through many games like the Pitt/SU games where Pitt shot 39% and 44% and SU shot 27% and 36%. Pitt plays great defense, but I saw some horrendous shooting in college basketball this year.

In the last 6 games of the current tourney here are the shooting percentages:

.500
.490
.483
.480
.472
.446
.440
.417
.400
.389
.386
.349

Jeesh. Whatever happened to the college mid-range game?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:18 pm

It's much harder to have a midrange game when the area of play is compressed by the shorter 3 point lines.

Not only that, to get those in-between jumpers, a perimeter player often has to take a hard dribble and then jump stop to get a jump shot between the defender he left behind him and the help defenders, often big men, stepping up to contest the shot.

Hop-steps or jump stops aren't only for dunks

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:45 pm

Twelve players in the Big 12 -- one of the toughest college hoop conferences in the country -- shot 50 percent or better for the season in all games, not just conference games.

Twelve players in the Big 10 -- another top-notch college hoop conference in most years -- shot 50 percent or better for the season in all games, not just conference games.

Five players in the Big East -- which has 14 teams and some of the best and thuggish defenses in the country -- shot 50 percent or better from the floor this year. That's all games, not just Big East games.

Eight players in the NBA -- which has 29 teams -- are shooting 50 percent or better from the floor.

So there's your midrange game and better fundamental basketball. Shooting percentage isn't the only measure of quality hoops, but one of my biggest beefs in the pros is that no one can shoot anything other than dunks or threes.

Surprisingly, the ACC -- considered the gold standard of college hoop by many -- only had two 50-percent shooters for the season, Julius Hodge and Elton Brown.

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:25 pm

Considering the amount of cupcakes on team's schedules it isn't surprising that each league has some players shooting over 50%. When you start looking at the tourney stats, especially when you get to the sweet 16 or even 32, shooting percentages are much closer to those in the NBA.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:34 pm

Leebo33 wrote:Considering the amount of cupcakes on team's schedules it isn't surprising that each league has some players shooting over 50%. When you start looking at the tourney stats, especially when you get to the sweet 16 or even 32, shooting percentages are much closer to those in the NBA.

Right. And there are no bad teams in the NBA. None at all.

Dallas shot 61 percent against the Suns last night, but the Suns aren't a cupcake at 26-51? I'd love to see teams' shooting percentage against the Magic compared to, say, the Lakers or Indiana.

At least there's a bit more parity in the NBA than when the Bulls were winning 60 to 70 games per year while there were three teams winning fewer than 20 games, such as the Clippers, Cavs and Nuggets.

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:56 pm

The field goal percentage after the first round in the NCAA tourney (I didn't count the first round because I just wanted to capture an approximation of the best 32 teams in college basketball):

43.8% (1505/3434)

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:06 pm

I have been away from the NBA for a while, but it doesn't have as much to do with the league as it does with what happened to the Bulls. If that team hadn't tanked so badly, I would definitely have watch more pro hoops in the last few years.

However, if you don't think the league is getting better, I think you haven't been watching closely. There are still a lot of crappy teams and selfish players, but I think the league is starting to pick up again. And LeBron has been a great kick to the league. While I still don't watch much of the regular season, I will wacth the playoffs this year as I think the intensity level is back up considerably.

Honestly, I think the only real problem with the NBA is the same problem with every other team sport in the US: overexpansion. Too many teams, stretching the talen too thinly. But I don't think the NBA has gotten any worse than any of the other leagues. They also need to stop drafting high schoolers or start an actual minor league. I think that change alone would solve a lot of their problems.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:09 pm

The NBA fails to entertain me as it used to, so in that regard, it's gotten worse to me.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:22 pm

You're missing out on two terrific young players in Crawford and Hinrich. They will have growing pains but they are already displaying brilliance.

I watch the Warriors to see the improvements in their players. Richardson wanted to assume a bigger burden for the team and has often delivered. Claxton was dominating other point guards regularly before being injured. Dunleavy is playing with a lot more confidence after sitting most of his rookie year. Lately, Pietrus is showing flashes of brilliance and sustained effort as a defender.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:36 pm

Leebo33 wrote:
ScoopBrady wrote:sf_z,
I used to watch the NBA playoffs religiously but now I have no interest. Especially considering several teams will make the playoffs with sub-.500 records. If there were sub-.500 teams in the NHL playoffs I would have no interest in them either. And when I see them wanting to expand to a city they already tried and failed in it makes me scratch my head at wtf is going on?
Did you question the NFL's expansion to Houston? How about the NFL allowing the Rams to move to St. Louis? The Seattle Mariners seem to be doing pretty well in baseball. As are the Colorado Avalanche and the Thrashers. Didn't the Hornets lead the NBA in attendance for many years? It seems like the fans base and support is there.

Isn't this the first season since 1996-97 that any sub-.500 teams will make the playoffs? I just don't see it as a big problem.

I didn't question Houston or St. Louis for football since it had been many years since either city had a franchise. And over the past several years St. Louis has been considered one of the best, if not the best, sports cities in the country.

It had been many years since Seattle had a baseball franchise and it had been many years since Colorado or Atlanta had hockey franchises.

I question the reasoning to bring Charlotte another NBA franchise so soon after the Hornets left. Maybe I just don't know the full story behind the departure of the Hornets but it seems to me that their first love will always be college basketball and it makes no sense bringing another franchise there so soon.

As far as this being the first season of any sub-.500 teams making the playoffs, it's a huge problem. The Playoffs, in any sport, is supposed to showcase the best that the league has to offer and provide intriguing matchups to help promote the sport. Now if it was 1 franchise that was under .500 it wouldn't necessarily be a problem, it would be a fluke. We're talking at least 4 and possibly 5 teams that will be at or under .500. That is a huge problem.

The NBA needs to fix many things about their sport for me to gain back interest in it. I'm not saying I'll never watch basketball again but for now I have no interest. The same thing happened with baseball to me. After the cancellation of the World Series I didn't watch baseball for several seasons but I eventually came back to it. I want to see changes to the NHL but the NHL still intrigues me. Just looking at some of the first-round playoff matches has me giddy in anticapation of the playoffs.

That's all I meant by starting this post, I didn't mean to offend NBA fans. I wanted to know if I was alone or not in my lack of NBA interest. Apparently I am not.