|
|
Post by sukkafu on Jun 16, 2003 14:22:09 GMT -5
i agree with you totally about the admiral, ABA!
there was an interesting article titled - spurs- worst nba champs ever? they brought up the fact that the spurs had the most turnovers, poor free throw shooting, and low scoring to win every game. they said also that the ratings for these finals were the WORST EVER in history and that the nba is in serious financial dilemma. this finals ' ratings were 70 percent LOWER than the 1998 bulls/jazz finals.
there were other articles similar to that effect. they cite the high ticket costs at games, the high salaries, the negative images of some players , the low ratings of games without lakers or jordan involved, and the state of the game is in jeopardy.they hope that this year's draft with lebron james and carmelo anthony can have a similar effect that bird/magic 's draft had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dnice on Jun 16, 2003 18:24:14 GMT -5
The NBA to me does need something, there are no more star or decent centers anymore(Shaq & and you could in clude TD since he is a PF-C, are the only ones) everyone else is a power foward playin full time at the 5 or just the 4th option on offense and not even gettin 10 boards a game. The West is still superior over the Least. NJ And Detriot were about only the 5-7 best in the league. Expansion I think diminishes the talent on the rosters. You have teams with barely, or under .500 records making the playoffs. I think the league was a little better before the Craptors and the Fizzlies came along!  |
|
|
|
Post by janebse on Jun 16, 2003 18:44:40 GMT -5
Everyone respects David. I think Tim Duncan is the same kind of person, modest, classy, hard-working. I liked his comments when he was asked what he thought of the possibility of having Jason Kidd on his team.
Remember when Tim was courted as a free agent, he went back to San Antonio and talked to David. Actually David flew in from Hawaii to talk to him, or Tim flew out to Hawaii. I think both prefered the atmosphere of San Antonio.
For those who think it was a boring series, low scoring and all that. I must add that I love defense. I hated the NBA when all they did was run up and down and score. No defense at all. Defense adds more challenge, more intelligence to the game. Now you've got to find a way to make a basket. Much more skill involved than running up and down. At that time I rarely ever watched the NBA, much preferring college ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Jun 16, 2003 19:55:11 GMT -5
well, i guess you disliked the magic/worthy/kareem days then jane! showtime was the thing that saved the nba- not 72-67. i think the defense IS very important- i agree with you. how can top professionals in the world miss their free throws like that? the teams of old shot much better. defense - maybe- i think it's sloppy play and also the shooters can't shoot. passers can't pass. defense is not always the equation for poor play.
|
|
|
|
Post by janebse on Jun 16, 2003 20:58:36 GMT -5
Magic, Worthy and Kareem had defense. Pat Riley taught defense. One of the announcers last night, in referring to the tough defense of each team, said, "They both look as if they were coached by Pat Riley."
Showtime was just a name to attract viewers, colorful and all, but meaningless. Those guys played excellent defense. The term "Showtime" could be used to describe Duncan's and Robinson's powerful blocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jun 16, 2003 21:22:17 GMT -5
The only problem I saw was that neither team shot well but if you look at their rosters neither team has a bonified pure shooter. Add to the fact that Robinson and Duncan let no one near the hoop, then it turns into a jumpshooting game. If you live by the jumper, you die by the jumper. The Nets had no inside answer for Tim Duncan and that's why the Spurs won. J Kidd was good but a good big man will beat a good little man anyday. ;D. End of Story!
|
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Jun 16, 2003 23:00:16 GMT -5
dikembe mutombo was injured most of the year. a healthy dikembe would have been a big difference. k-mart(kenyon martin) played like k-mart-bankrupt!
the east doesn't have dominating centers like the west. ewing is gone, mourning is gone, mutombo is hurt, and the centers that dominate or have big impact on their teams are in the west- shaq, vlade, robinson, and the power forwards that dominate are the 7 footers like
garnett, nowitzki, webber,duncan. they can shoot outside as well as in, and are difficult to stop, plus they block shots. the nets had no one.
why were the spurs a weak champ? they won each round with a key injury to their opponent, yet barely won. dallas lost dirk nowitzki- spurs win. kings lost webber- kings lose. phoenix barely made the playoffs and almost beat the spurs ! new jersey was swept by l.a. last year and they gave the spurs a run for their money.
i beg to differ jane. i lived in los angeles 77-79, 81-87, and have been to dozens of lakers games in l.a. over the years.i also have watched the lakers for 35 years. i met mitch kupchak, jerry west, mike mcgee, and james worthy, and magic johnson in 1985. one year the lakers averaged 110 points per game!
showtime was derived from the brilliant no-look passes by magic johnson and the brilliant sky hook shots by kareem. it was not meaningless. pat riley taught defense, but when the lakers played half court ball versus the utah jazz, the jazz used to beat them. when the lakers would run the transition game, they would run you out of the building. the first yr-1984- they lost to bird/boston due to maladjustment to the half court offense. the next yr-they lost the first game huge, then adjusted to boston's game and beat them badly!
|
|
|
|
Post by tdallasw on Jun 16, 2003 23:07:38 GMT -5
ahhh.... those were the days... when the NBA was fun, exciting, classy and all about the GAME!
|
|
|
|
Post by janebse on Jun 17, 2003 20:33:44 GMT -5
Sukkafu,
I never said the Lakers weren't fun to watch or that Magic's passes weren't fun to watch or that Kareem's sky hook wasn't fun to watch. Magic knew how to attract a crowd. The term Showtime applies to the excitement they created.
I just said that Riley also taught defense. If we put a team that just knew offense against a team that just knew defense, I wonder which one would win. It's been done before. Do you remember which team won?
I remember the 1878 NCAA Championship game where Bird's Indiana State played against Magic's Michigan State. Pretty exciting. It was the kind of game you didn't want either team to lose.
High scores mean nothing to me. It's watching superior techniques and skills; it's watching exceptionally talented athletes at their best executing those skills. It's watching those exceptionally talented athletes at both ends of the court. A block is just as exciting as a dunk. It's even watching Dennis Rodman watching the ball so that he can be in the exact place to get the rebound.
And it's also knowing all the hours they spent acquiring those skills that impresses me.
It's also like listening to the Tempts coming in with their harmonies a capella as if to say, "Hey, Listen to what we can do. And we don't need any machine to get our voices at perfect pitch." And all five voices come together in an unbelievable sound. It's knowing all the aspects of whatever game you're playing.
So it doesn't have to be a #1 hit or a high scoring game of 150-148. It's watching or listening to the very best at their very best.
|
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Jun 18, 2003 2:07:23 GMT -5
and the public agreed with you-NOT! go to www.espn.go.com/nba and read the article about this being the LOWEST rated finals in the HISTORY of basketball tv ratings! the LOWEST! the average fan wants to see 3 pointers, slam dunks, reverse layups, no look passes, and that's why the sacramento /dallas games are higher rated than these finals! even though the 2002 finals were a sweep of 4 games and they weren't close, the tv ratings were DOUBLE! people like to see the lakers style of basketball. phil jackson has 9 championship rings with the bulls/lakers. defense- very important- sloppy turnovers, infighting among teammates, poor free throwing- NOT VERY ENTICING for the viewing public. no fans- NO NBA! it's that simple folks! the fans pay for the tickets, the ads, the merchandise, etc. no fans- no big bucks- no league- then the guys might have to stay in school longer and learn english and math! sophisticated fans like you are cool but the average joe is a casual fickle fan - like the casual tempt fan- if everyone was like us at this board we would have 40,000 members instead of our ever growing 334 plus members, of which 30 post regularly. so it's the casual fan that had better hear my girl! or else the tempts wouldn't survive! can you imagine if the tempts only sang songs from 1987-now? the only people that would even see the tempts would be you, ivory, jonel, aba, and tdallas. probably not- they couldn't afford to play for 5 people! |
|
|
|
Post by Dnice on Jun 18, 2003 8:38:43 GMT -5
Part of the low ratings of the finals were due to America being spoiled last 12 years or so.
Jordan(vs Magic,Clyde,Charles, Malone & Stock &GP)
NY Knicks 94-99(large market)
Lakers in 00-02
Seems like fans just didn't want to embrace TD & Kidd
|
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Jun 18, 2003 10:07:26 GMT -5
yes, dnice, you're right. if the NBA didn't think that the scoring problems weren't affecting fan viwership and attendance, then they wouldn't have changed the rules for bringing the ball up quicker, 3 point , zone defense, etc. when you have folks making 10 -15 bucks an hour watching folks making up to $250,000 per game air balls from the free throw line and throwing hissy fits at refs, and these folks can't afford the price of a ticket to see these guys, then something's got to give. lots of sportswriters felt that the spurs won 60 games in the west which was a tough thing to do with the all the good teams in the west , but later felt that the spurs struggled too much to make it through the playoffs, especially since there were key players missing from each opponent.
5 key players from the spurs are free agents and may not return- so the chances of san antonio repeating will be very tough.
|
|
