As a life long Pacer fan I deeply respect the play of the Thunder. They wore me down and I never saw the floor š. The NBA game is better than ever and Iām looking forward to next season.
In 1977 as a 27 year old who had loved, played, & followed (NBA) basketball for 17 years, I was curious about Bill Walton's transition from UCLA to the NBA and Trail Blazers. So I kinda sorta followed the Blazers that season. Over the course of their season it became clearly apparent that they were developing into something special. By the playoffs they were playing a wonderful brand of team ball with great individual performances. Throughout the playoffs, they continued to improve. Ultimately in the Finals, you could see the getting better game by game. It was quite astonishing to watch and I don't believe I have seen any team since develop so rapidly in real time. They were an absolute joy to watch.
BTW, I recognize, appreciate, and love the Thunder's greatness, development, teamwork, etc. However, I can never root for this ex-Sonics team.
I believe that this Blazer team actually went from zero to dominant quicker than the Thunder. The three seasons before their championship, they won 27, 37, and 38 games. After their 6 game Finals win over a very good and very talented Philly team in '77, they won 50 of their first 60 games the next season. In those 60 games, they had only 1 bad loss, a 22 pt loss to those same 76ers. That is domination - at least until Walton went down, and out -with a foot injury. After that, they finished the season 8 -14, got a first round bye, and lost the Conference Finals in 6 to the Sonics.
Sports mostly matter because of the stories we create in our heads. And the Thunder, as a relatively new, uncontroversial, small market, dominant team didn't really have a compelling narrative. They didn't have the fairytale ride to the Finals like Indy. They don't have a household name.
That meant we had no time to connect with any of their players over the past few years or to be invested in their journey. So that's why it felt like kind of a shrug across the sporting world when they won.
I think most people associate dominant teams in the NBA (in my lifetime 90s Bulls, 00s Lakers, 10s Warriors) with ones that can execute in close game situations for wins and this is just not a skill the Thunder have.
At least for me during the playoffs I felt if the game was close at the end they would lose.
They felt more like a college dominant team - typically more athletic than the competition and could use that to blow teams out.
The premise of the title of this substack is confusing. How could any sports team get too good too fast? Itās a good thing to get get good fast and stay good, so Iām avoiding reading this one.
Those don't sound like real fans and those arguments sound 15 years old. Celtics (Tatum and Brown) were home grown, Nuggets (Jokic and Murray) were home grown, Bucks (Giannis and Middleton) were home grown. Lakers and Boston are always relevant, but small markets have done well all millennium dating back to the Spurs and Detroit. Defense has always won out,including being the actual true strength of the Warriors dynasty (D rating consistently outperforming their O rating. Draymond is a first ballot HOFer despite his personality). I don't know where you get your takes from, but I'd change it up. Read Tom Ziller, Neil Paine, Kelly Dwyer, and the real fans who love this beautiful game.
As a life long Pacer fan I deeply respect the play of the Thunder. They wore me down and I never saw the floor š. The NBA game is better than ever and Iām looking forward to next season.
In 1977 as a 27 year old who had loved, played, & followed (NBA) basketball for 17 years, I was curious about Bill Walton's transition from UCLA to the NBA and Trail Blazers. So I kinda sorta followed the Blazers that season. Over the course of their season it became clearly apparent that they were developing into something special. By the playoffs they were playing a wonderful brand of team ball with great individual performances. Throughout the playoffs, they continued to improve. Ultimately in the Finals, you could see the getting better game by game. It was quite astonishing to watch and I don't believe I have seen any team since develop so rapidly in real time. They were an absolute joy to watch.
BTW, I recognize, appreciate, and love the Thunder's greatness, development, teamwork, etc. However, I can never root for this ex-Sonics team.
I believe that this Blazer team actually went from zero to dominant quicker than the Thunder. The three seasons before their championship, they won 27, 37, and 38 games. After their 6 game Finals win over a very good and very talented Philly team in '77, they won 50 of their first 60 games the next season. In those 60 games, they had only 1 bad loss, a 22 pt loss to those same 76ers. That is domination - at least until Walton went down, and out -with a foot injury. After that, they finished the season 8 -14, got a first round bye, and lost the Conference Finals in 6 to the Sonics.
Sports mostly matter because of the stories we create in our heads. And the Thunder, as a relatively new, uncontroversial, small market, dominant team didn't really have a compelling narrative. They didn't have the fairytale ride to the Finals like Indy. They don't have a household name.
That meant we had no time to connect with any of their players over the past few years or to be invested in their journey. So that's why it felt like kind of a shrug across the sporting world when they won.
I think most people associate dominant teams in the NBA (in my lifetime 90s Bulls, 00s Lakers, 10s Warriors) with ones that can execute in close game situations for wins and this is just not a skill the Thunder have.
At least for me during the playoffs I felt if the game was close at the end they would lose.
They felt more like a college dominant team - typically more athletic than the competition and could use that to blow teams out.
The premise of the title of this substack is confusing. How could any sports team get too good too fast? Itās a good thing to get get good fast and stay good, so Iām avoiding reading this one.
Those don't sound like real fans and those arguments sound 15 years old. Celtics (Tatum and Brown) were home grown, Nuggets (Jokic and Murray) were home grown, Bucks (Giannis and Middleton) were home grown. Lakers and Boston are always relevant, but small markets have done well all millennium dating back to the Spurs and Detroit. Defense has always won out,including being the actual true strength of the Warriors dynasty (D rating consistently outperforming their O rating. Draymond is a first ballot HOFer despite his personality). I don't know where you get your takes from, but I'd change it up. Read Tom Ziller, Neil Paine, Kelly Dwyer, and the real fans who love this beautiful game.