Official NBA Discussion Thread

[GatorBait19]

Parity is not the reason why the NFL is popular among American fans. The NFL was already popular before it became a league of parity. The NFL's popularity grew out of its short season, the NFL championship game between the Giants/Colts, the fact that it is a violent sport. All of those factors made the NFL popular well before it became a league of parity.

 

Also, who is to say parity is good? Baseball reached new levels of post-strike popularity thanks in part to the home run chase but also thanks in part to the rise of the Yankees. People need a bad guy to root against and having the most hated franchise in baseball back to winning multiple championships in a row, has greatly helped baseball.

 

HR race is over now and they are going back to the regular way baseball was. Pitching!

 

Baseball did grow to new levels, but with out a salary cap teams like the Rays, Marlins, SD, Giants, D-Backs, KC who have had nice players have to continue to just supply the Sox, Yanks and other big market clubs because they can't afford to keep star players.

 

Salary Cap doesn't just bring parity it also helps with salary control as well. Baseball will never again be bigger than basketball and football to mainstream because of the fact that it is boring to most. If they could figure a way to cap the teams spending outside of luxury tax baseball could grow a lot better and make it a little more fun for people in KC and Pitt.

[GatorBait19]

True. But it's also limited its appeal in years when the yankees don't make the postseason

 

While with the NFL, regardless of who plays on a weekly basis, or what teams go to the playoffs...the ratings are monstrous.

 

As a comparison: the World Series averages around an 8.5-10 rating, which ends up being around 15 millions viewers

 

The NFL beats that FOR REGULAR SEASON GAMES. The SB just drew 111 million viewers. They wipe their nose with MLBs numbers

 

There's nothing saying that baseball's no cap system can't work...but having a cap that practically guarantees that every team has a chance to be competitive from year-to-year has proven more successful. You're referencing the league's popularity after the Giants/Colts game in the late 50s...that doesn't even compare to the league's popularity now.

 

The league was popular at a level that made it *arguably* the #2 or #3 sport in the US. Theres no argument now: it's the #1 Sport in America. And that happened after parity and after the cap. The fact that ALL fans can be engaged ona yearly basis helps exponentially imo

 

Also the biggest thing with a cap outside of it's stopping teams from spending money at a point also makes it to where they have to spend at least a certain amount.

[GatorBait19]

Also, whats up with the NBA playoff system?

 

A losing team makes the NFL playoffs and its SCANDAL.

 

Does no one even care anymore that the East is terrible and has been for YEARS?

 

Im in favor of allowing Chicago and Boston playing a single game to decide it and everyone else being sent home right now to contemplate how terrible they are at basketball.

 

 

Bulls pushed the C's a couple years ago when they were as good as they are now. I am fine with the 7 game first round because of those match ups that do provide great games. It would be cool though if they could do okay if you win the first 3 games you win the series in the first round, but like Peter said it will never happen because of money. Baseball will get there one day with expanding the playoffs

[BHK1978]

True. But it's also limited its appeal in years when the yankees don't make the postseason

 

While with the NFL, regardless of who plays on a weekly basis, or what teams go to the playoffs...the ratings are monstrous.

 

As a comparison: the World Series averages around an 8.5-10 rating, which ends up being around 15 millions viewers

 

The NFL beats that FOR REGULAR SEASON GAMES. The SB just drew 111 million viewers. They wipe their nose with MLBs numbers

 

There's nothing saying that baseball's no cap system can't work...but having a cap that practically guarantees that every team has a chance to be competitive from year-to-year has proven more successful. You're referencing the league's popularity after the Giants/Colts game in the late 50s...that doesn't even compare to the league's popularity now.

 

The league was popular at a level that made it *arguably* the #2 or #3 sport in the US. Theres no argument now: it's the #1 Sport in America. And that happened after parity and after the cap. The fact that ALL fans can be engaged ona yearly basis helps exponentially imo

 

You really cannot compare the NFL's numbers to that of any other. Of course the NFL is going to draw higher ratings because it only has a 16 game season. That means nearly every regular season game matters. In football if you go on a four game losing streak, you season is as good as shot.

 

However, if you lose four games in a row in the NBA, NHL, or MLB it means nothing at all. So as a fan if you miss an NBA, NHL, or MLB game it does not matter.

 

And because the Superbowl is one game a year, of course it is going to draw super ratings. Also, the fact that the NFL is more violent helps out a lot as well.

 

I am not saying that the NFL is not the number one domestic leauge. Because there is not doubt about that. I am saying the league has been in the most dominate spot before parity. I would say by the mid to late 1980's the NFL had surpassed Baseball as the dominate league.

 

 

Agreed. The reason sports follow what the NFL does so much is because of the success it has had. Back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and even part of the 90's NFL was the 3rd best sport behind Baseball and Basketball. Basketball was at it's golden age in the 80's and 90's with suck great teams as the Rockets, Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls. Baseball was in it's juiced stage and hadn't hit a strike. Then in NFL free agents and a Salary Cap with a floor hit and it took off (that and the product was better in the end). With the Cap teams became able to compete year in and year out and rebuild quickly with the right mangement.

 

In Football you have a couple clear cut favorites each and every year but a bunch of teams who could surprise. Colts, Pats, Giants, Packers, Falcons, Saints, Bucs, Eagles, Bears, Ravens, Dolphins, 49ers, Seahawks, KC

 

These are just a couple teams who did well or were picked to do well and didn't. Two big names who did extremely well last year were Bucs and KC each who picked in the top 10 the year before.

 

Besides the Giants, when has there been a surprise team winning the Super Bowl in recent years?

 

HR race is over now and they are going back to the regular way baseball was. Pitching!

 

Baseball did grow to new levels, but with out a salary cap teams like the Rays, Marlins, SD, Giants, D-Backs, KC who have had nice players have to continue to just supply the Sox, Yanks and other big market clubs because they can't afford to keep star players.

 

Salary Cap doesn't just bring parity it also helps with salary control as well. Baseball will never again be bigger than basketball and football to mainstream because of the fact that it is boring to most. If they could figure a way to cap the teams spending outside of luxury tax baseball could grow a lot better and make it a little more fun for people in KC and Pitt.

 

What does the Home Run race have to do with anything? I brought it up because I was talking about how it helped baseball get back on its feet post-strike. The Home Run race proved to be a farce anyway.

 

That has been the nature of baseball going back to the past. The Kansas City A's were considered the Yankees "farm club" back in the 1950's and 1960's because they traded away their name players to the Yankees for nothing. Baseball was popular back then, when there was less parity than there is today.

 

People complain about the lack of parity in baseball, how the same teams win over and over again. Yet when teams like the Giants and Rangers make it to the World Series the fans fail to tune in. If fans truly wanted to see parity they would watch that World Series, instead of not paying attention to it at all.

 

In the 2008-2009 sports year (sorry that was the most recent I could find), the NBA and the NHL had the same amount of games. The NBA outdrew the NHL by only 60 people in total. Therefore, you can hardly say that the NBA is more popular in North America than MLB.

 

Pirates only have themselves to balme for what has happened to them over the past two decades. Poor management wrecked that team, it has nothing to do with big market teams coming in and taking their players. Just for the simple fact that the Pirates have failed to produce many good homegrown players because they draft poorly.

[TheEdgeOfReason]

Besides the Giants, when has there been a surprise team winning the Super Bowl in recent years?

 

01 Pats, 05 Steelers, 07 Giants, 09 Saints(went from 8-8 to winning it all). Then you have the 7 win Seahawks knocking off the champs, the Cards making a run from being called the worst play off team ever to being 30 seconds away from winning it all. Dolphins going from 1 win to winning a division with the holders coming off a perfect regular season. NFL provides more shocks than any other sport.

[BHK1978]

01 Pats, 05 Steelers, 07 Giants, 09 Saints(went from 8-8 to winning it all). Then you have the 7 win Seahawks knocking off the champs, the Cards making a run from being called the worst play off team ever to being 30 seconds away from winning it all. Dolphins going from 1 win to winning a division with the holders coming off a perfect regular season. NFL provides more shocks than any other sport.

 

The truth is the truth, I cannot argue with what you said above.

[PeterHilton]

I am not saying that the NFL is not the number one domestic leauge. Because there is not doubt about that. I am saying the league has been in the most dominate spot before parity. I would say by the mid to late 1980's the NFL had surpassed Baseball as the dominate league.

 

 

I would disagree with the timeline but I understand your point

 

Now, I don't think that parity and a salary cap have EVERYTHING to do with why the NFL is more popular than MLB, but I think it has a lot to do with keeping fans engaged.

 

Going back to the original point that Capelli King brought up: fans like to think their team has a shot to win. On a local level, it's hard to market to your ticket buying customers when the league is structured so that big market teams have all the advantages.

 

The NBA does need to contract, but beyond a few obvious teams like the King, Hornets, and Bobcats (for instance) how many teams can you get rid of? Eventually a hard salary cap encourages a competitive league which is good for everyone, whereas an open market is probably good for the league on a national, "network TV deal" level, but it eventually leads to teams in smaller markts- except in rare instances - being totally irrelevant . I can't speak to a salary cap in soccer in Europe because -from my understanding - teams can spend years and year in the middle of the pack, never winning anything, never being relegated and fans will still go to the stadium almost as if it's mandatory just for the experience. That isn't really what happens in American sports.

 

And if there are fans chirping about *wanting* a cap maybe that won't continue in Europe forever.

 

Now..here's the big HOWEVER in the NBA...the system in place now actually DOES encourage more parity. That's why Cleveland had more money to spend in their effort to retain Lebron than any other team. That's why there's a luxury tax. But when players are willing to exercise their rights and sign for tens of millions of dollars less to play with a better team...and when teams are willing to blow past the luxury cap every season ..what do you do?

 

That's why I think the NBA CBA is going to take so long to negotiate. The owners are asking for checks and balances that already exist, but are simply ignored.

[GatorBait19]

You really cannot compare the NFL's numbers to that of any other. Of course the NFL is going to draw higher ratings because it only has a 16 game season. That means nearly every regular season game matters. In football if you go on a four game losing streak, you season is as good as shot.

 

However, if you lose four games in a row in the NBA, NHL, or MLB it means nothing at all. So as a fan if you miss an NBA, NHL, or MLB game it does not matter.

 

And because the Superbowl is one game a year, of course it is going to draw super ratings. Also, the fact that the NFL is more violent helps out a lot as well.

 

I am not saying that the NFL is not the number one domestic leauge. Because there is not doubt about that. I am saying the league has been in the most dominate spot before parity. I would say by the mid to late 1980's the NFL had surpassed Baseball as the dominate league.

 

 

 

 

Besides the Giants, when has there been a surprise team winning the Super Bowl in recent years?

 

 

 

What does the Home Run race have to do with anything? I brought it up because I was talking about how it helped baseball get back on its feet post-strike. The Home Run race proved to be a farce anyway.

 

That has been the nature of baseball going back to the past. The Kansas City A's were considered the Yankees "farm club" back in the 1950's and 1960's because they traded away their name players to the Yankees for nothing. Baseball was popular back then, when there was less parity than there is today.

 

People complain about the lack of parity in baseball, how the same teams win over and over again. Yet when teams like the Giants and Rangers make it to the World Series the fans fail to tune in. If fans truly wanted to see parity they would watch that World Series, instead of not paying attention to it at all.

 

In the 2008-2009 sports year (sorry that was the most recent I could find), the NBA and the NHL had the same amount of games. The NBA outdrew the NHL by only 60 people in total. Therefore, you can hardly say that the NBA is more popular in North America than MLB.

 

Pirates only have themselves to balme for what has happened to them over the past two decades. Poor management wrecked that team, it has nothing to do with big market teams coming in and taking their players. Just for the simple fact that the Pirates have failed to produce many good homegrown players because they draft poorly.

 

Let's see the Pats weren't supposed to win, Saints weren't supposed to win, Panthers weren't supposed to contend for it, Steelers weren't supposed to beat the unbeatable Pats in the playoffs. Point is that anyone any year can contend for a playoff spot or SB title at anytime in the NFL

 

I brought up the HR race because you did. While it did help the MLB at the moment it happened it also hurt it in the long run and now the MLB has to recover from that, the fact baseball is boring to watch for a full 9 innings, and the fact that like you said if it aint the Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Yanks, or another huge team no one cares. Why is this, simple the MLB doesn't market well at all. They market teams that I mentioned above, but that is it.

 

Baseball was popular so far back because it was america's past time. Basketball, Football, and NHL weren't big yet. Baseball owned because it was cheap to watch and they had such names as Ruth, Ty Cobb, Shoeless Joe Jackson and others. Those other leagues weren't at the star power yet. Also the number of teams weren't there and most of the teams were on the East Coast.

 

 

Go look at an NBA arena compared to a NHL arena on game night. NBA usually have bigger arena's and they don't sell as much. NHL teams are pretty good at selling out their arena or being close to full. Now why you can compare the NBA getting just 60 more people in attendance go look at TV ratings compare to all four leagues and it's a clear that NBA is the second most popular league.

 

 

The Pirates have had bad management I can agree with that, but names like Aramis Ramirez, Brian Giles, Jason Bay, Jason Kendall, Freddy Zanchez, Nate McLouth were going to be to expensive to resign and they traded them away for prospects. If there were a cap they would have a Cap number they have to keep to and we would see them being more competitive.

[GatorBait19]

I would disagree with the timeline but I understand your point

 

Now, I don't think that parity and a salary cap have EVERYTHING to do with why the NFL is more popular than MLB, but I think it has a lot to do with keeping fans engaged.

 

Going back to the original point that Capelli King brought up: fans like to think their team has a shot to win. On a local level, it's hard to market to your ticket buying customers when the league is structured so that big market teams have all the advantages.

 

The NBA does need to contract, but beyond a few obvious teams like the King, Hornets, and Bobcats (for instance) how many teams can you get rid of? Eventually a hard salary cap encourages a competitive league which is good for everyone, whereas an open market is probably good for the league on a national, "network TV deal" level, but it eventually leads to teams in smaller markts- except in rare instances - being totally irrelevant . I can't speak to a salary cap in soccer in Europe because -from my understanding - teams can spend years and year in the middle of the pack, never winning anything, never being relegated and fans will still go to the stadium almost as if it's mandatory just for the experience. That isn't really what happens in American sports.

 

And if there are fans chirping about *wanting* a cap maybe that won't continue in Europe forever.

 

Now..here's the big HOWEVER in the NBA...the system in place now actually DOES encourage more parity. That's why Cleveland had more money to spend in their effort to retain Lebron than any other team. That's why there's a luxury tax. But when players are willing to exercise their rights and sign for tens of millions of dollars less to play with a better team...and when teams are willing to blow past the luxury cap every season ..what do you do?

 

That's why I think the NBA CBA is going to take so long to negotiate. The owners are asking for checks and balances that already exist, but are simply ignored.

 

Owners mainly want a franchise tag.

 

I do agree with taking teams away. The Kings, Hornets, Bobcats, and Raptors. This would take the team down to 26 and I could even see Timberwolves, Nets, Clippers, Warriors be in trouble to. Clippers and Nets doubtful because of the market they are in.

[PeterHilton]

Owners mainly want a franchise tag.

 

I do agree with taking teams away. The Kings, Hornets, Bobcats, and Raptors. This would take the team down to 26 and I could even see Timberwolves, Nets, Clippers, Warriors be in trouble to. Clippers and Nets doubtful because of the market they are in.

 

There's NO WAY that happens. I mean..I totally see why owners would want that but the players would be giving away a giant chip in terms of negotiation.

 

I agree on the contraction stuff...I could see those 4 but after that you're talking some major legal headaches and financial pay-outs.

[lazorbeak]

Why would the Bobcats be a team that gets contracted? They are in the top 2/3 of attendance figures in one of the few parts of the country where basketball is equal to or greater than football- imagine the numbers they could do with a good team. I mean if we're talking bad teams with bad attendances, talk about Minnesota, the Nets, the Kings, and the Pistons. All have lower attendance figures and worse records than the Bobcats. And as bad as the Raptors record is, their attendance numbers are only 20/30 in terms of average home attendance. And some of these teams in large markets are still afterthoughts: nobody goes to 76ers or Nets games, despite the fact that Philly and Jersey dwarf a market like San Antonio (where the Spurs still sell out most games, due to being awesome every year). And one guy can turn it around for a team: the Clippers this year are suddenly selling out games despite still being terrible just because of Blake Griffin.

[GatorBait19]

Why would the Bobcats be a team that gets contracted? They are in the top 2/3 of attendance figures in one of the few parts of the country where basketball is equal to or greater than football- imagine the numbers they could do with a good team. I mean if we're talking bad teams with bad attendances, talk about Minnesota, the Nets, the Kings, and the Pistons. All have lower attendance figures and worse records than the Bobcats. And as bad as the Raptors record is, their attendance numbers are only 20/30 in terms of average home attendance. And some of these teams in large markets are still afterthoughts: nobody goes to 76ers or Nets games, despite the fact that Philly and Jersey dwarf a market like San Antonio (where the Spurs still sell out most games, due to being awesome every year). And one guy can turn it around for a team: the Clippers this year are suddenly selling out games despite still being terrible just because of Blake Griffin.

 

 

Pistons 2 years ago were the number one team in attendance. Bobcats have never finished better than 21st. When Pistons are going good no one sells tickets like them. 76ers and Nets haven't been anything worth watching in a while ever since Kidd and Iverson ran the floor around there.

[Tha Black Phenom]

The playoffs are underway and this place ain't booming.

 

Gotta say I appreicate Paul for stepping up his game and playing like a champ. D-Rose as always is off the chain but I'm afraid he's gonna start to get superstar treatment like the others. With the way he drives up to the basket so often, it may be the case.

 

Speaking of questionable calls... poor Nuggets. Everyone and their mother saw that was a bad call.

[GatorBait19]

The playoffs are underway and this place ain't booming.

 

Gotta say I appreicate Paul for stepping up his game and playing like a champ. D-Rose as always is off the chain but I'm afraid he's gonna start to get superstar treatment like the others. With the way he drives up to the basket so often, it may be the case.

 

Speaking of questionable calls... poor Nuggets. Everyone and their mother saw that was a bad call.

 

I agree, poor Nugs. Now stop crying about it and move forward. I understand it sucks when a ref blows a call that can cost you a game, but growing up I was always told one thing no matter who my coach was "Don't let the ump decide the game". Pretty much meaning limit your mistakes so the umps don't make a bad decision.

 

Also who does everyone think will be MVP. I believe it should be Howard and not because I am a Magic fan. I really looked into the battle between Rose and Howard, without Howard the Magic would probably have missed the playoffs. Without Rose the Bulls were still a solid team and more than likely made the playoffs.

 

Now I think this year is one of the harder choices because Rose did it without Noah and Boozer at times, but he still usually had a comb. of Boozer, Deng, and Rose or Noah, Deng, and Rose on the court. Rose improved greatly this year and should people a lot.

 

With Howard it's clear though, when he isn't in the game they lose. He dominated the Hawks down low in game one, but he truly has no one around him that stepped up. Howard is now getting the hack a shaq treatment, but the difference is he doesn't have anyone on that team who can step up and takeover. Howard posted career highs in PPG, Missed highest in REB by .1, career high in STL. I think what hurts Howard is his FT, if he could hit those better we are talking about a guy who probably could have avg 26 ppg this year.

 

Again I see the argument for both player. I personally believe Howard should be the MVP, but I can understand if Rose got it.

 

 

Also Adelman did a wonderful job with the Rockets. Like he said he came to coach McGrady and Yao and neither were really healthy. He still did one hell of a job for them and if Stan Van ever got fired he'd be the guy I want

[MGreene78]

I love watching someone get into the face of Zaza Pachulia because it's always going to start something. Zaza has always been known, even overseas, as someone who will start fights with people who get in his face. He does that little dumb head butt crap and people always reacts. One day he will realize though that move will get him in trouble as well.

 

Also personally I would have fouled Crawford. He had struggled at the line and even if he did hit both it's a 3 point lead with the best 3pt shooting team in the league. having 20 seconds left with time to shot a 3 is possible for the Magic. The Hawks have hit amazing 3's all series and the fact they took that chance with Crawford honestly amazed me.

 

Also Atlanta, it's one game there is no need for confetti you didn't win the series it's a game.

[GatorBait19]

So Charles Barkley was on the Dan Patrick show this morning and he said Tim Duncan and him were the best PF in the history of the game with Karl coming in 3rd. He said the only reason Karl had numbers like he did was because of Stockton.

 

He also said Rondo is extremely talented, but the only reason he is considered top 5 PG is because he plays with so much talent. He said Rondo is the PG you want if you have scorers on your team, but not the guy you want to be your leader which is why he isn't in his top 5.

[BHK1978]

So Charles Barkley was on the Dan Patrick show this morning and he said Tim Duncan and him were the best PF in the history of the game with Karl coming in 3rd. He said the only reason Karl had numbers like he did was because of Stockton.

 

He also said Rondo is extremely talented, but the only reason he is considered top 5 PG is because he plays with so much talent. He said Rondo is the PG you want if you have scorers on your team, but not the guy you want to be your leader which is why he isn't in his top 5.

 

Hard to argue with that but I think Kevin McHale and Kevin Garnett have to at least be considered in that conversation. And I am not saying that as a Celtics fan, it is just my opinion that they could be in that talk as well.

[GatorBait19]

Hard to argue with that but I think Kevin McHale and Kevin Garnett have to at least be considered in that conversation. And I am not saying that as a Celtics fan, it is just my opinion that they could be in that talk as well.

 

he said Kidd and Stockton were the best PG to (excluding Magic because he was a hybird) I couldn't believe he left out Nash. Nash hasn't been the best for his who career and he got screwed because his numbers were helped by the offense, but Nash is one of the best passers ever. I could see KG being in there, but Tim to me is the best because of his numbers and 4 Rings with a chance for more. I would choose Bob Pettit second though. Pettit played for 11 years and he was great each year.

[BHK1978]

he said Kidd and Stockton were the best PG to (excluding Magic because he was a hybird) I couldn't believe he left out Nash. Nash hasn't been the best for his who career and he got screwed because his numbers were helped by the offense, but Nash is one of the best passers ever. I could see KG being in there, but Tim to me is the best because of his numbers and 4 Rings with a chance for more. I would choose Bob Pettit second though. Pettit played for 11 years and he was great each year.

 

You will never get an arguement out of me in regards to Tim Duncan. I am a huge fan of his and I always love to see the Spurs do well (Especially if it comes at the expense of the Lakers and Phil.).

[GatorBait19]

You will never get an arguement out of me in regards to Tim Duncan. I am a huge fan of his and I always love to see the Spurs do well (Especially if it comes at the expense of the Lakers and Phil.).

 

SA is the perfect team in the NBA to model your team after. They build through the draft and even though the usually pick at the end of the draft the continue to hit on their picks.

 

Also this is just word of mouth, but a co-worker today mentioned that there is an architect out there that wants to build a retractable roof stadium for an NBA team so there can be games played outside. Now at first I don't believe this will happen, but I think that would be extremely cool. Living in Florida there is nothing like a great summer night. Watching a basketball game in Florida at night would be cool.

[BHK1978]

SA is the perfect team in the NBA to model your team after. They build through the draft and even though the usually pick at the end of the draft the continue to hit on their picks.

 

Also this is just word of mouth, but a co-worker today mentioned that there is an architect out there that wants to build a retractable roof stadium for an NBA team so there can be games played outside. Now at first I don't believe this will happen, but I think that would be extremely cool. Living in Florida there is nothing like a great summer night. Watching a basketball game in Florida at night would be cool.

 

Wouldn't it be hot? Just joking with you, maybe your friend can help make that happen after he helps Mikhail Prokhorov and Jay-Z move the Nets.

[MGreene78]

So Charles Barkley was on the Dan Patrick show this morning and he said Tim Duncan and him were the best PF in the history of the game with Karl coming in 3rd. He said the only reason Karl had numbers like he did was because of Stockton.

 

He also said Rondo is extremely talented, but the only reason he is considered top 5 PG is because he plays with so much talent. He said Rondo is the PG you want if you have scorers on your team, but not the guy you want to be your leader which is why he isn't in his top 5.

 

This has always been difficult for me to comment on because I was such a fan of Malone growing up. Pure statistics wise there is no one better at PF, but people see wins and championships as another key factor.

 

Malone faced the Lakers early in his career and then the Bulls later on. He had chance in between but him and Stockton just never had enough to finish it off. I think Malone is def in the top 5 for PF, but because of the championships I do believe Duncan will end at number one and stay there until Blake Griffin retires

[lazorbeak]

This has always been difficult for me to comment on because I was such a fan of Malone growing up. Pure statistics wise there is no one better at PF, but people see wins and championships as another key factor.

 

Malone faced the Lakers early in his career and then the Bulls later on. He had chance in between but him and Stockton just never had enough to finish it off. I think Malone is def in the top 5 for PF, but because of the championships I do believe Duncan will end at number one and stay there until Blake Griffin retires

 

I don't really see how Malone is statistically the best unless you're just looking at points and calling it a day. Duncan in his prime averaged 12.5-13 boards and 2.5-3 blocks a game, both significantly better than Malone at his peak (Malone was never much of a shot-blocker due to his size). Duncan wasn't just a reliable scorer and great passer for a big man, he was also one of the best defensive players in the NBA for over a decade. Duncan has never missed being on an all-defensive team in his career to this point, while Malone had 4 all-defense appearances vs. Duncan's 13(!).

 

It's cliche, but defense wins championships. Duncan's 4 vs. Malone's 0 is just another statistic that bears that out.

 

But yeah, Malone is probably the best offensive power forward of all time. I mean he's #2 on all-time scoring, and was able to move in transition like a small forward, something only a handful of 4's have ever been able to match (including Garnett 8+ years ago). He was in incredible shape and for being slightly undersized was a phenomenal scorer in the post or from mid-range. But that's not enough to make him "best ever."

[MGreene78]

I don't really see how Malone is statistically the best unless you're just looking at points and calling it a day. Duncan in his prime averaged 12.5-13 boards and 2.5-3 blocks a game, both significantly better than Malone at his peak (Malone was never much of a shot-blocker due to his size). Duncan wasn't just a reliable scorer and great passer for a big man, he was also one of the best defensive players in the NBA for over a decade. Duncan has never missed being on an all-defensive team in his career to this point, while Malone had 4 all-defense appearances vs. Duncan's 13(!).

 

It's cliche, but defense wins championships. Duncan's 4 vs. Malone's 0 is just another statistic that bears that out.

 

But yeah, Malone is probably the best offensive power forward of all time. I mean he's #2 on all-time scoring, and was able to move in transition like a small forward, something only a handful of 4's have ever been able to match (including Garnett 8+ years ago). He was in incredible shape and for being slightly undersized was a phenomenal scorer in the post or from mid-range. But that's not enough to make him "best ever."

 

I should have been more specific about what I was trying to say is Malone was a better scorer than Malone who was never expected to be as good as he was on Defense. This was during a time when PF were 6-10 and above and Malone was small for his size. He manged to get to the FT line 9 times a game and could score with the best of them. Tim lives up to his nickname, he is a solid all around player who has seen age catch up to him and it is a shame because like I said before he is the best PF ever to play the game.

[GatorBait19]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6437202

 

this kind of surprised me for a couple of reasons. First Smart was hand chosen by the new ownership to replace Don Nelson, Second they had a 10 game improvement, 3rd I really think they are one Defensive guy away from be extremely dangerous. I was joking around with someone the other day that if I was Dwight Howard I would work a deal with the Warriors if I was going to leave the Magic, because honestly the Warriors with the Dwight (you can even get rid of Lee) would be one of the best teams in the league with Curry, Ellis, and Howard.

 

Anyways, I think Smart will get another chance, I liked watching the Warriors this year. I don't know where he would land though