Okay, so on the one hand, I kind of want to see these two teams run it back. They’re clearly the two best teams, and without Ibaka at 100%, I think the Thunder would have been fodder. On the other hand, isn’t it bad for a sport when the same teams are in the playoffs and finals every year? <\/p>\n
I used to love the NBA. It was a simpler time, when defense was legal, and superstars couldn’t take 4 steps without being called for a travel. Palming was called with some regularity, except on Jordan, on who I only saw it called once. When was the last time you saw a palming call in the NBA? I think I was in college. <\/p>\n
By the way, I don’t want to get into a whole thing here, but people who say LeBron is better than Jordan literally don’t know sh*t. Jordan did what he did when defense was allowed and you couldn’t palm or travel. The second best player on his team was Pippen, the third best was Rodman, who couldn’t shoot or score a lick. LeBron plays with Wade and Bosh and, when he didn’t, he didn’t win anything. Jordan played in a stacked East; Lebron plays in the worst East in my lifetime. Hell, the Pacers were a one seed and made the finals, and they were a hot mess. <\/p>\n
But back to my main point. Do we want to see another Heat\/Spurs final? Are how these two teams got here good for the sport? <\/p>\n
San Antonio may be smarter than everybody else, but they only got Tim Duncan because David Robinson got hurt. If David Robinson doesn’t get hurt, there is absolutely NO way the Spurs get Tim Duncan, and they don’t win all those games regardless of how smart they are. The Heat win because three of the leagues best players made a collusive agreement to win a bunch of championships together. Injuries and collusive nonsense swing an entire decade of the NBA? Is that good? <\/p>\n
Pick 3 NFL players who, if they made a collusive agreement to all play on the same team, could swing the entire league. <\/p>\n
Pick 3 MLB players who, if they made a collusive agreement to all play on the same team together, could swing the entire league. <\/p>\n
Football and Baseball have more guys on the field at more time, and they require more coordination. I submit that NO three players in either sport could swing the entire league. <\/p>\n
The rules in baseball have been the same forever. The rules in football have changed slightly over time to favor more offense, but it is still POSSIBLE to assemble a dominating defense. Teams try, with varying success, every year. Seattle won it all with a dominating defense, in particular, their secondary. In the NBA, defense is now all but illegal. Case in point — name a team in the NBA with a dominating defense. Maybe, kinda, on the right nights, the pacers or bulls assuming that they’re getting the benefit of some calls. The idea of a defense dominating their way to a championship like the seahawks did in the nfl this year? Laughable. <\/p>\n
So, I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t really like how either of these teams got here, and I don’t particularly like that we’re watching them in the finals AGAIN. Don’t get me wrong, they deserve to be here, because I think these are clearly the two best teams. I just don’t like HOW they became the two best teams, or what that means for the league. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Okay, so on the one hand, I kind of want to see these two teams run it back. They’re clearly the two best teams, and without Ibaka at 100%, I think the Thunder would have been fodder. On the other … Continue reading