Quote:
Originally Posted by tap2390
I understand the frustration with the superteam narrative, but just take a look at a list of NBA champs by year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions
There have always been superteams in the sense that power/ talent has always historically condensed in just a handful of teams. |
This. 1000x this. We always look at the past through rose-tinted lenses. Russell's Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years. In the 80s, every single finals featured either the Lakers, Celtics or both. Magic's Lakers went to nine finals in 12 years and won 5 titles. Jordan's Bulls won 6 titles in 8 years. In the 21st century, the Lakers and Spurs have won 11 titles between them.
The league has never had anything resembling parity, except perhaps in the 70s- and not coincidently, that is generally considered the league's dark age. It's fine when owners and GMs build dynasties that dominate for entire decades. That's apparently the "right" way. But for some reason that has never made sense to me, people get really mad when players do it for themselves.
Quote:
|
Does it matter that players are now taking matters into their own hands to team up now? I would argue that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme.
|
I would go even further than that, and argue that we might actually be better off now, and "player empowerment" might actually make the league more competitive, not less. "Superteams" might win titles, but on the flipside, superteams don't seem built to last. Either because of salary cap issues, shorter contracts, or just egos, they seem to have a maximum shelf life of 3-4 years. I don't think we'll see another team dominate an entire decade again anytime soon.