Why is the NBA so predictable year after year?

c9777666

Registered User
Aug 31, 2016
19,892
5,875
At this rate, if the Celtics/Wizards shocked the Cavs, it would be as big an upset as Islanders/Penguins 1993 or Habs/Caps 2010.

It's just not fun anymore.

LeBron basically is at the point where the NBA Finals is almost a birthright for him. Heck, god forbid he LOSES an East playoff game at this rate.

And Golden State just seems way too unstoppable even for one of the Spurs/Rockets.

You have teams like Utah/Toronto, who do a lot of good things, build up over time, draft, good front office.

And yet they can't stop these super teams which make the 1976-1978 Canadiens' dominance over the NHL look tame by comparison.

I mean, it's almost to the point where people are just dismissing the Wizards/Celtics and Spurs/Rockets to an absurd degree. Like, are they merely playing for the right to MAYBE not get swept?

It's frustrating as heck because the NBA is a great entertainment product, but way too predictable.

Contrast that with the Nashville Predators and what we just saw today.

Preds- make conference finals, it's like the greatest moment in team history.

Cavs/Warriors- make conference finals- whatever.

And it's not just compared with the NHL- MLB isn't this predictable (cold bats, bad pitching, bad bullpen can sink you no matter how much talent you have), even the NFL (Tom Brady, for all his dominance, at one point went 9 straight season without winning a Super Bowl.)

The Raptors had good intentions with the Ibaka/Tucker moves, but it's not like the NHL where Pekka Rinne or Jake Allen can singlehandedly win games or series by themselves as we've seen already.
 
Last edited:

darko

Registered User
Feb 16, 2009
70,265
7,786
Due to all the winning who do you hate more? Cavs/Warriors or Tom Brady? Maybe Bron and Steph should retire just like Brady should.
 

c9777666

Registered User
Aug 31, 2016
19,892
5,875
Due to all the winning who do you hate more? Cavs/Warriors or Tom Brady? Maybe Bron and Steph should retire just like Brady should.

Brady went 9 years in between Super Bowl titles at one stretch.

LeBron this decade has made the NBA Finals all but ONCE.
 

ryan callahan

Registered User
Jan 25, 2014
1,876
1,538
Québec,Canada
Brady went 9 years in between Super Bowl titles at one stretch.

LeBron this decade has made the NBA Finals all but ONCE.

It's what happens when the sport has next to no parity since defending as a whole in the NBA is not allowed and that luck has basically no impact on the game as well. Also no goaltenders who can steal games by themselves in Basketball
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
In the 80's,90's, and 2000's, teams were built through the draft and free agency. Over the last 10 years the super team was created pulling stars from teams and turning them into really good role players. Bosh should have been a star for one team going against Lebron on another and Wade on another. Instead they came together to all but guarantee trips to the finals. Boston with Pierce, KG, and Allen did the same in 08. Now you end up with teams who designate players as their stars but in the bigger scheme of things they are just really good players getting all the shots. Golden State with the addition of Durrant did the same although they did win a championship with their stars having been drafted by them. I wish all the stars of the league where spread out so the best "teams" would win as opposed to paying for success. The east is so thin and that is why Lebron faces little adversity and can make the finals so often. I hate how one year a team can be the worst and he next make the finals. The NBA needs a hard cap to allow the smaller markets a chance at winning.
 

Reality Check

Registered User
May 28, 2008
16,696
2,459
And yet, in the 80's, it was either Boston or LA in the finals every year. Did anyone(especially the networks) complain?

Did anyone complain about Chicago winning six times in the 90's?

The answer to both is no.

The NBA has always been a superstar league and it's hard to win without one. What the Pistons did in '04 is the exception to the rule.

That said, just because you have a superstar doesn't mean you're going to win either. You need to surround him with a great supporting cast.
 

Vamos Rafa

Registered User
Jan 11, 2010
18,342
1,526
Armenia, California
The 70s for some reason had a ton of parity.

At the end of the day, it's the structure of the sport and NBA's playoff system. The game of basketball and four best-of-7 playoff rounds just do not mix up well when it comes to creating parity.
 
Sep 19, 2008
372,091
23,945
Not surprising. NBA has the least parity in sports. Extremely superstar driven league
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,741
23,893
Boring product that will never change. I'm a fan of the Raptors and really what's the point? Feels like I'm just wasting my time.

At least in the NHL I feel like any team can win in the playoffs at any given time.

The NBA has the worst parity in all of NA major sports. It's boring, predictable and pointless as a fan of any other team not named the Cavs/Warriors.
 

c9777666

Registered User
Aug 31, 2016
19,892
5,875
And yet, in the 80's, it was either Boston or LA in the finals every year. Did anyone(especially the networks) complain?

Did anyone complain about Chicago winning six times in the 90's?

A key difference is that the Sixers/Pistons/Bucks in the 80s were more worthy/believable foils for the Celtics.
 

Virtanen18

SAMCRO
Jan 25, 2014
17,193
832
Vancouver
Boring product that will never change. I'm a fan of the Raptors and really what's the point? Feels like I'm just wasting my time.

At least in the NHL I feel like any team can win in the playoffs at any given time.

The NBA has the worst parity in all of NA major sports. It's boring, predictable and pointless as a fan of any other team not named the Cavs/Warriors.
Yet many fans of teams that aren't the Cavs and Warriors enjoy the sport immensely. Your sports teams probably have better chances in other leagues that have more parity, but it's not like those teams are always championship contenders. The Mariners haven't looked it for a long ass time, so why aren't they boring and pointless to be a fan of? It's sports. It's fun.
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,741
23,893
Yet many fans of teams that aren't the Cavs and Warriors enjoy the sport immensely. Your sports teams probably have better chances in other leagues that have more parity, but it's not like those teams are always championship contenders. The Mariners haven't looked it for a long ass time, so why aren't they boring and pointless to be a fan of? It's sports. It's fun.

Of course they enjoy the sport, it's a good sport. Teams don't have to be championship contenders to be fun. The point is other leagues, two teams don't stroll through competition with this kind of ease. How is that fun? How is that good for the league?

What other pro league is like the NBA that has two teams that stroll through opponents regularly like this? The parity is ass in the NBA, and it's not just because the Raps lost. I don't really care that much as I'm not a diehard fan, and a large portion of not caring or watching after they are eliminated is because we all know who is going to be in the finals anyways.

It just feels incredibly boring considering we all know who will be standing as the last two teams. Will either of these teams even break a sweat in the process of making the Finals?
 

Virtanen18

SAMCRO
Jan 25, 2014
17,193
832
Vancouver
Of course they enjoy the sport, it's a good sport. Teams don't have to be championship contenders to be fun. The point is other leagues, two teams don't stroll through competition with this kind of ease. How is that fun? How is that good for the league?

What other pro league is like the NBA that has two teams that stroll through opponents regularly like this? The parity is ass in the NBA, and it's not just because the Raps lost. I don't really care that much as I'm not a diehard fan, and a large portion of not caring or watching after they are eliminated is because we all know who is going to be in the finals anyways.

It just feels incredibly boring considering we all know who will be standing as the last two teams. Will either of these teams even break a sweat in the process of making the Finals?
I don't know how you change the most superstar driven league in sports without making a drastic change that not many fans are clamouring for. I don't think anyone was complaining about parity last year during the terrific Cavs/Warriors II. Jordan dominated the league for how long, yet people look back on those days so fondly.

And my point is it's not incredibly boring at all. The right matchups can make for terrific basketball. The NBA probably isn't for you if the only thing you're thinking about when two teams are playing is that Warriors and Cavs are gonna be in the final so what does this game matter?
 

Aladyyn

they praying for the death of a rockstar
Apr 6, 2015
18,092
7,213
Czech Republic
There is something really cool about watching the GOAT team go up against the GOAT player in the finals.
 

Ivan13

Not posting anymore
May 3, 2011
26,141
7,095
Zagreb, Croatia
Yep. Leicester just feels like a once in a lifetime thing.

While winning the league is the penultimate goal, soccer teams across Europe have various competitions they play in, relegation battles are also fascinating, cup matches, derbies, playing the spoiler etc. In the NBA, there's no consolation prize, you either win the title or not and unlike during the 90s or earlier decades (80s especially) there is no real bad blood between teams to create fun despite the lack of parity.
 

Big Poppa Puck

HF's Villain
Dec 8, 2009
20,530
932
D-Boss' Dungeon
The NBA has always lacked parity. It's just the nature of the sport because 1 player can make that much of a difference, unlike any other sport, and said player is on the floor for almost the entire game, then you add in the super team trend and it makes it worse.

Now of course you need more than 1 player, but putting LeBron James on the Nets makes them immediate contenders, even with the lack of talent around him. We already saw him will the 2007 Cavs to the finals alone and Allen Iverson did the same thing with the 01 Sixers. Putting Brady on the Browns or Crosby on the Avs doesn't have that same effect in their sports.
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
I don't know how you change the most superstar driven league in sports without making a drastic change that not many fans are clamouring for. I don't think anyone was complaining about parity last year during the terrific Cavs/Warriors II. Jordan dominated the league for how long, yet people look back on those days so fondly.

And my point is it's not incredibly boring at all. The right matchups can make for terrific basketball. The NBA probably isn't for you if the only thing you're thinking about when two teams are playing is that Warriors and Cavs are gonna be in the final so what does this game matter?
The Bulls didn't stack their team like the Cavs and Warriors. Their stars came from drafting them then during their 2nd run of championships the added a head case nobody wanted in Rodman to help their D. They played Utah in the finals twice and then played Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, and the LA. They beat a lot of teams to be the best and all of those teams had stars. The east was also a lot more difficult with the likes of NY, Miami, and Indiana. That is parity and the Bulls proved they were the best. The mentality then was to beat everyone, not join up with them to all but guarantee a championship. OKC was on the cusp of winning, especially if Harden didn't leave, and then Durant left for the team that bested them. That's like Jordan leaving the Bulls and going to play for Detroit because he couldn't beat them.
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
The NBA has always lacked parity. It's just the nature of the sport because 1 player can make that much of a difference, unlike any other sport, and said player is on the floor for almost the entire game, then you add in the super team trend and it makes it worse.

Now of course you need more than 1 player, but putting LeBron James on the Nets makes them immediate contenders, even with the lack of talent around him. We already saw him will the 2007 Cavs to the finals alone and Allen Iverson did the same thing with the 01 Sixers. Putting Brady on the Browns or Crosby on the Avs doesn't have that same effect in their sports.
Putting a prime Hasek does.
 

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
If I'm Commissioner for a day, here's what I do:

- lengthen the court by 20 feet to create more fast break opportunities
- widen the court by 10 feet to create bigger passing lanes
- add a 4 point line approx. 4 feet behind the current 3 point line
- award 5 points for a basket made behind half court


And to fix the lack of parity, I would have the league go full fantasy mode and at the end of every year all the players would be put in a pool and redistributed among the teams via a draft

It would solve the issue of NCAA players leaving school early

Players would get paid based on their draft position

Teams wouldn't get saddled with horrendous long term contracts

Teams wouldn't have to tank for multiple years in order to compete in the future

Teams in less than desirable locations such as Milwaukee and Minnesota would actually have a shot at winning titles

And the draft would be a huge television event


Sure, some players may not like it, but they'll get over it once they see their paychecks

Other than that, I really don't see a downside to it


Maybe the team that wins the championship could remain intact for the following season
 
Last edited:

Trap Jesus

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
28,686
13,456
The games being so high scoring massively takes away from any "luck" component. It's not like in the NHL where a couple good bounces can change a game. It's more skill/talent-based than any other sport out there. The best players will always win.

I honestly think the NBA is unwatchable due to the lack of parity. There's something to be admired about the best teams actually being the ones who win at the end of the day, but when you KNOW it is going to happen, how is that enjoyable? LeBron legitimately just paces himself at a leisurely stroll throughout the regular season so he can dominate even more come playoff time. Regular season (a massive 82-game regular season, mind you) means absolutely nothing to a team like the Cavs, because the bare minimum is more than enough to position themselves. Like, who are the Celtics/Wizards playing for right now? Who cares beyond their team's fanbase being able to say "we made it to the Conference Finals"? It's just extra revenue for the franchise.

I always laugh when I hear analysts or fans talking about adding pieces to build a championship team. Raptors are a good example. "Ah, we were so close last year, just a little bit more to put us over the top! Ibaka! Yes, just the big defensive presence we've always been lacking!" Cool, too bad it means ****-all. Unless James gets injured (and good luck with that considering basketball is a non-contact sport), you essentially have a .0000001% chance of winning, and there's nothing you can do about it unless you luck into a generational player yourself.

At the end of the day though, there's nothing they can really do about it. Unless you go to the NFL system of having a very short regular season games-wise (lol at the thought of NBA players getting a week's rest between games) and going to a 1-and-done playoff format, there's just not enough luck to make things interesting. Not that this format would make a lick of sense from a money-making standpoint. And even if you did have single-elimination, I honestly don't think it would matter. It's shocking if the Warriors or Cavs don't sweep teams.
 
Last edited:

b1e9a8r5s

Registered User
Feb 16, 2015
12,904
4,039
Chicago, IL
The NBA has always lacked parity. It's just the nature of the sport because 1 player can make that much of a difference, unlike any other sport, and said player is on the floor for almost the entire game, then you add in the super team trend and it makes it worse.

It really is that simple.

Imagine if in hockey you could have Crosby/McDavid play 90% of the game and take as high of a % of your teams shots as you wanted. The structure of basketball/NBA allows you to keep pressing your advantage every time you have the ball. So the disparity of talent is shown much more. The better team almost always wins.
 

b1e9a8r5s

Registered User
Feb 16, 2015
12,904
4,039
Chicago, IL
If I'm Commissioner for a day, here's what I do:

- lengthen the court by 20 feet to create more fast break opportunities
- widen the court by 10 feet to create bigger passing lanes
- add a 4 point line approx. 4 feet behind the current 3 point line
- award 5 points for a basket made behind half court


And to fix the lack of parity, I would have the league go full fantasy mode and at the end of every year all the players would be put in a pool and redistributed among the teams via a draft

It would solve the issue of NCAA players leaving school early

Players would get paid based on their draft position

Teams wouldn't get saddled with horrendous long term contracts

Teams wouldn't have to tank for multiple years in order to compete in the future

Teams in less than desirable locations such as Milwaukee and Minnesota would actually have a shot at winning titles

And the draft would be a huge television event


Sure, some players may not like it, but they'll get over it once they see their paychecks

Other than that, I really don't see a downside to it


Maybe the team that wins the championship could remain intact for the following season

Ignoring the ridiculousness of some of your proposals, your post seems to be born out of the idea that the NBA is struggling and needs a big shake up to get better. That might be how you personally feel, but that just isn't the case on a macro level. The league has never been more popular or more profitable.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->