@Jermofoot:
Dude, I like hockey, but you got took by a pretty face. Not to mention you could probably turn each point she made back to the NBA.
It was more tongue-in-cheek of me than anything else and I am glad you did not take it too seriously. And the more I watched, the more I realized she wasn’t all that pretty anyway. I think she is supposed to come out with a 10 reasons the NBA playoffs are better than the NHL playoffs sometime today.
@Jermofoot:
1. Close games - 5 of the 8 first round series went to game sevens in the NBA. Sure, not individual games, but you can’t compare and average of single digit scoring to high double/low triple digit scoring. Apples to oranges.
Well, as you said, she was talking about individual games, but you are referencing close series, which are related but very different items. The scoring system and point totals of the NBA vs the NHL is totally different, so it is difficult to directly compare that. However, that does not change how close the games tend to be… which should theoretically be on some sort of equivalent ground. Objectively speaking, the NHL has games which are closer in score and in which a single goal can be the difference in a game. Hockey games pivot on a dime, but in basketball you can watch the lead expand or deflate over time like a balloon.
The only way to really compare the two point-wise would be to say that 1 NHL goal is equivalent to 20 NBA points … or whatever the number may be. But say a basketball game has 4 minutes left with the score 85 - 73. An equivalent hockey game would be something like 4 - 3 (or we could be very generous and say 4 - 2) with 4:48 left. Which game is closer? Which team behind has the better chances of coming back to tie or win? Not that a basketball team couldn’t come back from a 12 point deficit in 4 minutes, but with how possession works in basketball, every time one team gets points, the other team usually gets some too. A basketball lead of any significance is harder to overcome, particularly in the final minutes. Therefore, a little less exciting because most times you can tell who will win. Hockey, not so much. All it takes is a bounce.
@Jermofoot:
2. Pace (last minute takes forever in the NBA…) - Only in a close game. So does this invalidate point #1?
No. The final minute of a hockey game never lasts as long as the final minute of a basketball game. Ever. Unless it is particularly chippy and there are a ton of penalties or something, which is very rare anyway. Her point was a general complaint about basketball (not just NBA) which I personally share. I find it really annoying when there are 10 fouls and four team timeouts (each!) and commercial breaks all within the final minute of play. I would love to see stats that actually show what the average time is for playing the last minute of basketball games vs that in hockey. Usually, like in the link below, it is because the game is close, but that still detracts from the pace, watchability and excitement, IMHO. It is a slog.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/sports/basketball/in-nba-playoff-games-final-seconds-can-feel-like-an-eternity.html?_r=0
In the NHL, teams have only 1 (60 second) timeout for an entire 60 minute game. I personally find it ludicrous that the NBA gives each team FOUR 100-second, TWO 60-second and ONE 20-second timeouts…. PER HALF. That is 36 minutes worth of timeouts if all were used. Granted, I am sure they are never all utilized, and most in the first half are not used at all… but still, it is pretty ridiculous. You can argue that it is part of the strategy aspect and a historical element of the sport, but to me it makes games incredibly trying to watch.
@Jermofoot:
3. Team vs. Stars - I would argue the best team makes it, obviously, for each conference, and IMO, the Spurs are the more solid team. OKC had stars they had to play nearly the full duration of the game because they had an incomplete team, and didn’t make it. Additionally, I’m not sure how this makes for a “better sport” argument? Besides, the pace is fairly different for each and the NHL requires a larger group to keep up with it.
Well, I think her point was that the NHL requires contributions from a competitive, full team… even the fourth line is important. Whereas with basketball there are fewer guys who really have an impact. The team dynamics between the two sports are different and that is just the nature of it. However, I agree that it seems like in the NBA, the teams with the most stars tend to be most (continually) successful. Isn’t this year’s (repeat) matchup a confirmation of that? Not to mention all the dynasty teams that have played or been consistently at the top? These two teams in the Finals may still be the best teams, but it is more based on their star power than team performance as a whole. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I watch next to zero basketball and this is just the impression I get.
@Jermofoot:
4. Intensity/Teams playing to ability - Each game counts, both leagues. There is no “you don’t have to try until the playoffs”. That’s just stupid. You have to make the playoffs first. And the “dude broke something and had a custom mask to play in hockey”? Look:
**Competition is intense in both leagues and you have to win to play for the championship. So I agree. As for the custom mask issue and all that… that is a poor attempt at bravado of the “yeah, well, look how cool hockey is, we get custom equipment for guys who get hurt”. Stupid. Richard Hamilton wore a cool mask too… long before Derek Stepan did.
@Jermofoot:
5. Unpredictability/odds - Teams that hadn’t been in years made it; for the first time ever, the Celtics, Knicks, or Lakers were not in the playoffs. The Heat vs. Spurs rematch is slightly over 50/50 in Spurs favor, even though the Heat won last year. She sarcastically “wonders” who will win, insinuating the Heat, when it went to 7 games last year and the Spurs were within a free throw of winning the championship in game 6 (that’s what you call a close game).
6. Anyone’s game (unpredictability repeated) - I believe in parity myself, and I can concede it. But I do believe the home court advantage in the NBA is HUGE, and that makes a big difference. But does it make for a better sport, the team that barely squeaks into the championship has a shot at the title, and the dominating team during the regular season goes out in the first round? Most seem to like a cinderella story, but does that mean the sport is intrinsically better?
I cannot speak to parity in the NBA because I would not know what I was talking about, but it is alive and well in the NHL. That simply means that all teams are on basically equal footing in a monetary sense, even if not all teams are of the same caliber. There are the elites and there are the poor teams, but most have the ability to dig down and compete with anyone. That said seeding is not irrelevant, but it is not always indicative of a team’s ability. Cinderella stories rarely happen in the NHL because in a seven game series, the better team generally wins. You can’t get by on flukes and fakes for seven games, let alone the 16+ games in playing all the way through the Finals. I would imagine it works out to be the same in the NBA. The playoff systems are similar and I think they have a good model.
The Cinderella Story theme is prominent in the 1 and done playoff tournaments, like NCAA basketball and NFL football. It is less common in football, but can still occur. I have always found it to be an annoying and unrealistic aspect of the NCAA tournament, such that inferior teams only need one good game to knock out a highly superior team. Granted they will need a number of those games consecutively to play for the championship, but it still can make for a poor representation of a team’s season. I get that it is just a fact of NCAA basketball and is the recurring, glamorized theme, but I personally don’t have a taste for it and am glad the NHL/NBA are not that way.
@Jermofoot:
7. Sudden death overtime - You get 5 minutes in the NBA, it might as well be. You have 5 minutes to play your best basketball. Going into overtime is pretty big for such a high scoring sport, anyway. Hockey can be deadlocked from the first period to warrant it, but not the NBA.
**Sure, this is objective, but I like to think there is a clear winner here: NHL. While it is a rare accomplishment for NBA games to be tied and go into overtime, it is exactly like watching 5 more minutes of the game you were just watching. Yes, there is intensity and while points are important, it is not catastrophic if you give up 2, 4, or 6. You are watching the teams play very much like they did in regulation time. If someone begins to pull away in basketball OT, the winner is pretty well known before overtime actually ends. It is different in hockey where one mistake can cost you the game and the winner is made in a sudden, sometimes unexpected, moment. Basketball cannot be faulted for having the kind of overtime it does: it is necessitated by the type of scoring they play with. It is just that hockey’s is better :-D…more exciting, more thrilling, more agonizingly close and goes on potentially for a much, much longer time. The highs are higher and the lows are lower.
@Jermofoot:
8. Drama - She rails on the NBA for having character drama. Well that’s the NBA for you. Fights are a luxury, not a staple. 24 hour sportsnews cycle and a popular sport will drag out tons of “stories”. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but it’s not an actual argument to watch hockey over the NBA.
Agreed. This is really a preference for what you like in your sports and it is not really a reason that one is better. I personally don’t care for the kind of drama that basketball offers. That is a small reason I don’t watch. The NBA is much more American pop culture and mainstream than the NHL, so it is natural for there to be a greater focus on the individuals, stars and even off-the-court activities.
@Jermofoot:
9. Trophy - And? I bet more people can identify it by sight than name, but still…what’s that have to do with watching the sport? Additionally, the NBA doesn’t identify the playoffs by the trophy, but by the sport. That may have something to do with it…
In my opinion the best trophies are those with history and a classic vibe to them; as though it has been here a lot longer than you and it is an honor to win what men long ago fought over. No other sport that I know of has a trophy (or trophies) like the NHL does. I am sorry if this offends, but in all respects, the Stanley Cup is a better prize than the Larry O’Brien Championship Trophy… or the Vince Lombardi Trophy, or the Commissioner’s Trophy. Blah
All of the above are products of the 1960s or after. They have gone through significant redesigns and name changes. Each one is manufactured new every year. Such little character and history. Not to mention none of them are particularly beautiful. One is just ugly and the another gaudy.
And then we have the Stanley Cup. First awarded in 1893. Its concentric rings are engraved with the names of the championship teams, players, coaches and management who have won the trophy. There is only one Stanley Cup* which is awarded every year and remains with that team for the summer after which it returns to its private caretakers at the Hockey Hall of Fame (the NHL does not actually own the Cup, but awards it with an agreement with the Trustees of the Cup). When one band is filled with the most recent 13 champion teams and their players, the oldest band is retired in the Hall of Fame.
*The bowl was recreated in 1963 because the original bowl was becoming too brittle for continued use. The original piece is in the Hockey Hall of Fame vault. The body (bands) of the cup was redesigned in 1958 to allow for a standard size and the current retirement of bands to be implemented. The basic form and traditional aspects of the Stanley Cup have not changed since its first use in the 1800s.
@Jermofoot:
10. Ratings - “Just because a lot of people watch the NBA compared to the NHL, doesn’t mean it’s good.” Ok, so give me a reason the NHL is better? This is a wasted spot.
I really don’t care about ratings, TV or otherwise. She is right that just because a lot of people like something or a movie makes a ton of money or a song sells a ton of singles, does not make it good or better than something lesser. What is popular does not dictate what I like. The NBA, as aforementioned, is in with the culture… much more so than hockey. Of course their ratings are better. But this really has no bearing on which is objectively better. That cannot be determined by ratings so why bother mentioning it? And I don’t understand how she is trying to say hockey is better by referencing that it has inferior ratings. And then giving some sort of rationalized answer to combat the problem she brought up.
@Jermofoot:
The NBA and NHL finals playoff games are staggered, so you don’t have to choose!!!
That is the benefit for those who like both. I also do not have to choose because I really don’t care about basketball… though I may watch some of a game if it is on, because it is the Finals. I’ll see what the big deal is all about.****
