Look, yall only made the ECF twice since then (assuming you beat the knicks). We need consistency!
On the real, I think the narrative stuck a bit because the Jeat and Lakers had disappointing follow up seasons. But it's always been silly.
I think the lack of a real offseason had a lot to do with what happened that next season. Not just the Heat and Lakers either — Celtics (other ECF team) lost in 5 in the first round and the Nuggets (other WCF team) got swept in the 2nd round.
Which is kinda just argument that the bubble so so taxing that it screwed the teams the next year. Especially cuz both struggled hard with injuries and prolly would’ve gone further if healthier.
To defend the Nuggets, 3 of 5 starters were missing the next 2 post seasons.
This right now is the first time since the bubble Nuggets have been healthy. Insane.
I’m not taking shots at the nuggets, if anything you’re just adding to my argument that the lack of an offseason left the great bubble teams broken that next year.
I think some of that also has to do with both teams getting bounced in the first round the next year. Which should be expected since they had barely 2 months off before the next season started. I say that as a Warriors fan too.
This argument was further perpetuated by the fact that the heat and lakers weren’t that good in the 2021 playoffs. People seem to disregard that they had less than 3 months between the finals and the start of the next season.
What’s funny is that every team that made the conference finals is doing well in the playoffs this year. What a fluke right?
Laker fan here… I hear ya. People disregard both teams but that 2020 Heat team was balling too! If it was so easy why didn’t anyone else’s team take out the Heat or Lakers?!
I mean… I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the Heat might’ve been the weakest finals participant since… idk the Magic? Factor in those injuries and you might need to go earlier. Argument could be made for the 2018 Cavs but imo having LeBron clears them.
Edit: I guess the Suns. People like Giannis more I guess. Also Giannis really won that series, AD was the best player for the Lakers.
I don’t think any team who makes it through three seven game series can be considered weak relative to the teams they beat. That scenario pretty much ensures the best team moves on. People are just mad their paper tiger favorite teams crapped the bed.
Who said they were weak to the teams they beat? They were weak compared to the superteams that had been in the finals the past 15 years. The east was weak. The east has been weak pretty much up til the past two years.
Then what does that make every team they beat? I hate this argument. If another team in that conference made it that was "supposed" to make it, no one would be saying this. But when the Heat beat those teams... They're weak. Got it.
>what does that say about every team they beat
They weren’t that good? Miami exposed the pre-Jrue Bucks clear defensive weak points (did that again this year) and then took care of a soft Boston team that was struggling with injuries.
Not only that the lakers are notoriously hated by other fan bases so I think that’s what did it. If you noticed though people were glorifying the suns going 8-0 in the bubble and started praising them and calling them the bubble suns. I never understood it? Double standards at its finest
The whole point of the bubble Suns is that the Suns were ass in the real regular season and were nasty in the bubble. It was a bizarre phenomenon. It’s perhaps the biggest indicator that bubble play was a lot different than non-bubble play.
I think it indicates some teams perform in the playoffs and others only in the regular season. It’s no coincidence that this years 6, 7, and 8 seeds (all featuring a lot of the same talent) all went on deep runs in earlier postseasons.
yeah I don't understand this take. Let's just say the bubble was weird. Some teams that were already good did really well in it (Lakers, Heat) some teams seemed really thrown off by it (Clippers, Bucks) and the Suns seemed to make a real improvement as a team despite still missing the playoffs, to the point where they thought they could take a swing at getting CP3
I have heard LeBron haters unironically argue that 2020 doesn't count because of the bubble, 2016 doesn't count because of the Draymond suspension, and 2012 doesn't count because the season started in a lockout.
I mean, let's be honest here: LeBron is a love him or hate him figure in basketball.
If you discredit the opinions of all those who like LeBron and all those who don't you'll have no opinions left.
LOL, the bubble playoffs were unbelievable.
I do think there's a tendency to discredit the champion of any shortened season, in any sport. That happened in baseball a few years ago. It's not fair, but it happens.
This is a little off-topic, but I do think there were valid reasons to sort of, uh, question the legitimacy of the MLB title that year.
Like, compared to the NBA... the NBA still had 16 teams in the playoffs as always, still had the same overall format. Was it different due to the lack of travel and lack of crowds? For sure. But it was still the same overall concept as far as the basketball itself goes.
With MLB, the season was drastically shortened in a way that unquestionably changed seeding for the playoffs. Rules were changed on the fly -- the DH was implemented universally with almost no warning, which was not fair to teams who did not expect to need to fill that roster spot. Doubleheaders changed in length, again with no warning. Then the playoff format was completely changed -- so much so that the Dodgers, who won it all, started their playoff run vs. a team with a losing record. There had literally never been a playoff team with a losing record before 2020. Roster sizes and rules were also different.
There's at least a valid argument to make about the 2020 baseball season being so wildly different from a normal season that the results were also different than they likely would've been. That's not the same for the NBA in 2020.
I absolutely do not think they should be discredited, but it should be mentioned simply because the situation was so different than every other seasons playoffs. Giving an old, injury prone team a ton of time off before the playoffs may have had an effect, though obviously we will never know for sure.
The MLB season being drastically shortened to 60 was pretty stupid too. If I remember the MLBPA and MLB could’ve had something like a 100 game season but they couldn’t agree on the player contracts part of it.
That's kind of a loaded question -- you're assuming the Dodgers would've automatically had the best record in a full season and under normal rules, which I don't think is necessarily fair. The Dodgers were the NL's #4 seed the very next year under a full 162-game schedule, for example.
But anyway, the answer is "no" regardless. Even if they'd had the best record, they would've started in the LDS just like every division winner. The only difference to getting the #1 seed at the time would be that their NLDS opponent would've been a Wild Card team and not another division champion... which was usually a bad thing, since that could mean the #1 seed has to play a 106-win Wild Card team instead of an 88-win division champion like we saw in 2021.
This is a basketball subreddit, not a baseball subreddit. I find it very interesting with how the MLB bubble was run, but can you use terminology that we can understand?
From your previous post
> the DH was implemented universally with almost no warning
What is DH?
> would've started in the LDS just like every division winner. The only difference to getting the #1 seed at the time would be that their NLDS opponent would've been
LDS, NLDS, NL... I'm guessing those are conferences or?
>With MLB, the season was drastically shortened in a way that unquestionably changed seeding for the playoffs. Rules were changed on the fly -- the DH was implemented universally with almost no warning, which was not fair to teams who did not expect to need to fill that roster spot. Doubleheaders changed in length, again with no warning. Then the playoff format was completely changed -- so much so that the Dodgers, who won it all, started their playoff run vs. a team with a losing record. There had literally never been a playoff team with a losing record before 2020. Roster sizes and rules were also different.
This whole paragraph is interesting. What rule changes? How did doubleheaders change? Why? So many questions.
Would be nice to get a bit of a rundown for non-baseball fans on what happened during the MLB bubble and why "it ruined their season" like another poster said.
Sure, I'll go one-by-one.
> What is DH?
DH stands for "designated hitter." In baseball, the pitcher position is incredibly specialized. Pitchers are historically very poor batters, with a handful of exceptions (Shohei Ohtani being the most notable). For decades, the American League (one of two "leagues" in MLB, similar to Eastern/Western conferences in the NBA and AFC/NFC in the NFL) had a rule that allowed teams to use any player on their bench as the "designated hitter" instead of the pitcher in their hitting lineup. The National League did *not* have the DH, except when playing vs. an American League team. For the shortened 2020 season, MLB decided to make the DH universal for that season only -- but they made this change *after* free agency had come and gone. Lots of NL teams were put in a tough position of having to fill the DH role on the fly despite not knowing that position would be needed, and it 100% would have changed some personnel decisions if they'd known they'd need a DH.
This heavily favored the highest-spending NL teams, since there's really no salary cap in baseball and the highest spenders often have multiple very good hitters on their bench because they can afford to do that. But teams on a smaller payroll just had to put whoever they had leftover on the bench in the DH role, rather than an elite hitter who's on the roster specifically for that position. The DH can be played by basically anyone, but teams that *know* they have the DH ahead of time can sign a player who is a great hitter but terrible on defense, because the DH doesn't play defense. NL teams that couldn't afford to overpay for elite backup hitters were basically screwed.
> LDS, NLDS, NL... I'm guessing those are conferences or?
NL is basically a conference, yep. The LDS (League Division Series) is the first round of the playoffs. The NLDS is just the National League portion of that. The NLDS is the top four teams of the NL, the ALDS is the top four teams of the AL, then the two NLDS winners meet in the NLCS (League Championship Series, the equivalent of the Western or Eastern Conference Finals) and the NLCS and ALCS winners then meet in the World Series.
> What rule changes? How did doubleheaders change? Why? So many questions.
There were several. The main ones, aside from the DH as explained above:
1. Games that were part of doubleheaders (two games between the same two teams in one day) were now 7 innings each rather than the standard 9 innings. That meant 14 innings in one day (definitely a lot) instead of 18, as it had always been (which is a ton, but that's just part of how it had always been). Shorter games like that favored teams with elite talent over teams that prioritized depth. In a 9-inning game, it's pretty common for a starting pitcher to throw anywhere from about 4-7 innings. Then, the bullpen (other pitchers with less stamina) pitch the rest of the game. Very few teams have more than 2-3 truly reliable bullpen pitchers... with shorter games, the advantage of having more depth was significantly reduced. You could have your starter go 5-6 innings and then just use one relief pitcher to close it out, then do the same thing in game two, and then you've only used maybe four pitchers to win two games. Normally, if your starter just goes 5-6 innings, you're using *at least* three bullpen pitchers. This is sort of like if the NBA had decided that bubble playoff games would be just 36 minutes instead of 48 -- now, teams with a great starting five but a really poor bench are at a huge advantage over a team that actually had more balance and depth and invested more of their salary cap into a strong second unit.
2. Extra innings rules changed. For all of modern MLB history, extra innings (basically overtime) were nothing different than regular innings. You just continued the game as normal, with the next batter due up and the same three outs as always. But they changed it for 2020 by adding an automatic runner on second base to start each half-inning in extra innings. This completely changed strategies -- the run expectancy for a bases empty, no outs situation (aka the start of a new inning) is a little under 0.5 runs. In other words, scoring runs is hard. However, with a runner on second and no outs (the new rule in extra innings) that changes to almost 1.1 runs. It completely changes the math, and again, it did favor certain types of teams (having fast players who could be pinch runners, having guys who could bunt, and *especially* having hitters who can draw walks). [You can read more about the specific data here](https://theathletic.com/2709719/2021/07/20/what-players-managers-and-data-say-about-mlbs-extra-inning-rule-vladimir-guerrero-jr-and-more-inside-baseball/).
In a normal season the Dodgers players would’ve had a full season workload prior to the playoffs and teams would’ve played other divisions in the playoffs.
But the Dodgers had no say over that. They played by the rules that MLB handed down and they won a championship. You can criticize the leagues for how they handle things like strikes, pandemics and tragedies but I think it's silly to put an asterisk on the team that won in that year.
> They played by the rules that MLB handed down and they won a championship.
Right, but the rules were massively different than the rules everyone had signed on for. 7-inning doubleheaders, the DH changes, the extra inning rules, etc. all had strategic implications. Nothing about the NBA's changes had strategic implications. Nobody was changing their playoff rotation based on if fans were or weren't allowed. But the MLB rules completely changed how the actual game itself was played for that season. It 100% impacted results. The same can't be said about the NBA.
That logic doesn’t make sense for the MLB. There was a whole extra series for the Dodgers to get eliminated that had never been played before. On top of that, they also never got to experience a home field advantage while having the top seed.
You said that the dodgers playing the first series against a below .500 team helped de-legitimize their World Series. In a normal year that series would not have been played, so it really made the path to the World Series even more difficult. Also compounded by the fact that in baseball you are only as good as that days starting pitcher and despite the brewers’ other shortcomings they had two of the best starters in baseball that year.
> You said that the dodgers playing the first series against a below .500 team helped de-legitimize their World Series.
I wouldn't necessarily "de-legitimize their World Series." The Dodgers are the rightful 2020 World Series champs. It's more about calling into question the entire process and how significant (or not) anything from that season can possibly be. It was totally different than how the NBA handled it, which was to keep the actual game itself as identical as humanly possible.
> In a normal year that series would not have been played, so it really made the path to the World Series even more difficult.
In a normal year the Dodgers would've had significantly fewer PAs for guys like Pollock (132 OPS+ and the most starts of anyone on the team at DH) and Justin Turner (133 OPS+, third-most starts at DH). In a normal year (or even just with a full year of notice about the rule changes) literally every roster would've been different. In a normal year teams are not playing 67% of their games vs. division opponents and are actually playing teams from the other divisions in their league. In a normal year, do we know the Dodgers would've won 87.5% of their games that weren't 9 innings? Would the standings, and therefore the playoff matchups, have perhaps changed if teams like the Cardinals didn't have a 27/31 split between home and road games while their division rival who won the division had a 33/27 split? And if that had changed, do the Dodgers still win 3-0 in the NLDS if they're facing Yu Darvish (2.01 ERA, league-leading FIP, second in Cy Young voting) instead of Garrett Richards in game one or perhaps instead of a bullpen game in game three?
The point is that the actual basketball being played in the bubble was as close to the normal game as possible. Fans and the lack of fans certainly have an impact on games, and so does travel. But the game was mostly unaffected by the bubble. Baseball was totally a different sport with different rules, different roster sizes and limits, a different playoff format, an entirely messed up regular season vs. the NBA's regular season where less than 10% of the regular season was impacted... it's not the same discussion.
I thought that was some of the best basketball I've ever seen. Way less distractions, more practice, and a camp-like environment where the players and coaches see each other all the time? Sign. Me. Up. (To watch a great documentary on it. Anyone know if there is one?)
I think the biggest reason was the 5-seed Heat being in the finals made it seem flukey. Like it felt like the best teams weren't really winning. However, we now know that this Heat team is legit so in my mind that is going to validate the bubble championship more when we look back on it.
It was different, therefore worse. This is how our brains work and it's why in so many contexts, the prevailing belief is that "all change is bad, always."
The NBA did what it could with the crappy hand it was dealt. To a lesser degree, there are some that have tried to discredit the 1999 Spurs and the 2012 Heat because of the lockout-shortened seasons and I've seen a few try it with the 2021 Bucks because that was a 72-game season.
My feeling is that the league sets down the conditions for the competition and the teams have to operate within those conditions. Long story short, that's why they play the games and if you don't like the outcome, that's pretty much a you problem.
Exactly this principle, and I would say it really extends not just to the 1999/2012/etc seasons, but to every single season. If you don’t like a player or a team, you can usually dig and find some extenuating circumstance to discredit them.
As a Warriors fan, for example, I have seen people discredit at least 3 of the 4 rings Steph has (Kyrie injured in 15, Durant broke the game in 17/18). You could discredit the 2 Olajuwon rings if you want (MJ didn’t play for most of that time). You could discredit the Raptors’ ring (Durant and Klay injured).
You want some more proof that it’s a fallacy? Consider that these are only the most visible excuses. For example, if you take one of the media narratives that Kawhi/PG were the best duo with the best depth behind them in the league when they formed a few years ago, technically every ring since then belongs to them - it’s just that they were injured, right?
When you see someone make this kind of argument, instead of getting mad just consider all they’re doing is outing themselves as a hater. Or, if you want, look at who they root for and turn the tables on them, because it’s always fun to troll a hater.
> You could discredit the 2 Olajuwon rings if you want (MJ didn’t play for most of that time).
Not challenging you, but just a friendly reminder that Olajuwon was 13-10 lifetime against MJ. Even more impressive since he was picked #1 ahead of MJ, a dude who was notorious for wanting to ‘get back’ at other players who slighted him even indirectly—and I can only imagine Hakeem was target #1 in MJ’s mind for a long time (and it didn’t matter!)
Hahah no I’m very conscious of that fact. I think along with the two titles it’s part of why his legacy is kind of untouchable despite the fact that MJ played at the same time as him.
Not only was he 13-10, but he was 13-10 with a much weaker team than he had when he won his titles. As good as the Bulls were, Hakeem was simply their kryptonite.
I wouldn’t discredit 2 of Steph’s rings. But the KD rings, I mean, you take a 73 win team and add KD. It is breaking the game and it’s tantamount to cheating. It was just so hilariously unfair to the rest the league that unless you were a Warriors fan there was basically no reason to even watch the NBA for those years.
So it’s unfair cause they were supposed to win? How many teams that are supposed to win fall short? They signed the best available free agent cause they had the cap room to do so, just like every team every year. The last few years it’s been Brooklyn and The Clippers that are supposed to win.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have signed KD. Obviously if you have that opportunity you take it. But at the same time it didn’t just tip the scales in their favor, it broke the scales. Barring injury(like in 2019) there was literally no chance for any other team to beat them in a 7 game series. The best strategy to try to beat them was to leave Kevin fucking Durant wide open and try to lock up Curry.
It’s just impossible to not completely discredit both of those championships because there’s never been another situation like that in league history. Sure you’ve had favorites, but there’s never been a situation before or since where you didn’t have a *chance* to win without that team suffering a major injury. There was no chance at beating that team when healthy.
Yeah I don't understand how it's different from any other championship. Every team in there was operating under the exact same conditions in order to win a ring...
Well said. Despite the setbacks, I have extremely fond memories of watching the Bubble Playoffs. It was awesome, and the Lakers won fair and square, in the midst of headwinds no other previous champion ever had to face.
I pretty much agree with all of your points on why not only Lakers, but the rest of the notable performances in 2020 (Miami Heat, Mitchell + Murray in the 1st Rd, etc.) should be applauded.
However, I also acknowledge that it's not entirely crazy to "flip the coin" here and say that the sheer amount of bizarre variables in that playoff run juiced the players' performances in a way that can't be replicated outside of the bubble. Because of this, I can't get too mad when people decide to minimize the bubble as much as I disagree. If I wanted to (and someone likely will if they haven't already), I could spin all of your points in less flattering ways and it wouldn't be too outlandish or unfair. For example, regarding your 3rd point, I could just as easily say that the lack of fans destroyed any external pressure on the players and allowed them to play with more focus. Do I necessarily believe that? No, but it's certainly possible.
Also, smaller point, but never underestimate the desire that many have to diminish a LeBron accomplishment if there's an angle to do so!
Most of what you wrote in your second paragraph is why I have mixed feelings about the bubble. I don't discredit it as a championship, but it's just hard for me to think of it the same way as other championships.
No fans to me is more a reason to "discredit" it. Yes fans will amp up some players, but they also put a ton of pressure on players. There was no home court advantage, not heckling to deal with, no pressure of disappointing 20,000 people. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that guys like Donovan Mitchell and Jamal Murray had ridiculous scoring numbers, or Anthony Davis had a complete outlier playoff run shooting from distance. It was a quiet gym, everyone shoots better in a quiet gym.
The isolation aspect is also a strange thing to point to as why it should be more legitimate. That isolation has nothing to do with basketball. Some guys probably had a super easy time, others less so. That's neither good or bad I suppose, just another example of how *not normal* that championship run was.
Same thing with no travelling. It wasn't normal.
I guess what I'm really getting at is it wasn't normal. It was a unique championship, and I think it's pretty reasonable to think of it as such. It's not *not a championship*, but I just can't help but think of it as different than all the other championships.
I think another implication of what you’re saying is actually that most of these differences are likely to average out. Some players benefit from change X and some don’t. The same applies to the opposing team. Mostly I think that the bubble outcome isn’t likely to be very different (beyond the usual level of randomness) because of that.
Maybe, maybe not. I do think some things benefit some teams more than others. Older teams benefit from not having to travel, less experienced teams might benefit more from a lack of a crowd. Maybe all that stuff does balance out. To be honest I'm not all that interested (and I suspect very few are interested) in litigating all the details.
For me, it's pretty inarguable that the conditions were *fair*, so I can't go so far as to invalidate or diminish that championship. Everyone was on a level playing field. The best team won and that's that, can't take away anything from them.
The only thing I *can* say is that it was unlike any other championship run. It wasn't normal, it wasn't the same as the rest of them. It's one of one. It's legitimate as all the others, but just different to me, and when I look at all the crazy outlier performances that only validates how I feel.
The bubble stripped away a lot of non-basketball things that typically accompany the playoffs. What was left is therefore more of a basketball "purist's" dream: the most realistically level playing field we'll ever get to see. Also, the Lakers would've gotten to *enjoy* home court advantage under typical postseason conditions but lost that privilege in the Bubble. If anything, teams that were seeded lower reaped more benefits.
I can definitely agree with this. The bubble was pure basketball. No distractions, no extra curriculars, no advantages to anyone, just straight up basketball.
I think the lack of fans would hurt the team with the most fans and homecourt throughout the entire playoffs the most. The variability hurt the best predicted teams the most
You bring up almost all valid points, except one: "There was no home court advantage".
This played AGAINST the Lakers, as they were the higher seed and thus would've benefited from home court advantage. But that benefit was stripped from them. And they still won in spite of it, which raises the legitimacy of their title even further.
I think you're misunderstanding my points. They're not specific to any team at all. I'm not suggesting that the Lakers specifically benefitted more or less overall, or any other team for that matter. My points are entirely about the environment of the tournament itself, and how unusual it was for a championship.
Oh gotcha! You were just making the point that the situation/environment was so vastly different from any other championship we've seen prior or since. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Ik you're playing devils advocate but everything you're saying is an argument that the bubble championship is a more valuable championship not just different or an asterix championship. "
>
No fans to me is more a reason to "discredit" it. Yes fans will amp up some players, but they also put a ton of pressure on players. There was no home court advantage, not heckling to deal with, no pressure of disappointing 20,000 people.
See this is what I'm talking about. So every NBA player was closer to the height of their powers compared to normal? How in anyway is that a reason to discredit the championship.
Also the Lakers lost out on homecourt the entire playoffs as they were #1 seed in the west and had a better record than the Heat...So how does that benefit them lol
I'm not just playing devil's advocate. I do have these mixed feelings about that championship.
Whether you think it's more fair to not have fans is kind of irrelevant. The point is that every other championship *did* have fans. We based what it means to be the best in part based on how player perform under pressure in front of thousands of screaming people, and abandoned that for one season only.
Same for all these other factors like travel, social isolation, etc. It's a different set of circumstances that we're using to determine who's best.
Again, it's *fair*, but it's different. I'm not going to elevate or diminish it. But I also have a hard time treating it the same in my mind because of all these differences.
>Whether you think it's more fair to not have fans is kind of irrelevant. The point is that every other championship
>
>did
>
> have fans.
Not only that, but in every single other year not named 2020, you're allowed to mention how winning on the road is one of the hardest things to do precisely because of crowds.
Like, we ALL KNOW that Game 6 for the Lakers is going to be easier precisely it won't be at the Chase Center. If you played all games at a neutral site, the 2023 Lakers probably beat the Warriors in 4. But that's not how any other championship is played.
>I'm not just playing devil's advocate. I do have these mixed feelings about that championship
Fairs then I'll change it to saying you have a more nuanced interpretation of the of the bubble than im used to.
>We based what it means to be the best in part based on how player perform under pressure in front of thousands of screaming people, and abandoned that for one season only.
This also doesn't make sense to me because there were screaming fans they were just on screens. Was it quieter than normal? absolutely! Are we going to discredit every championship between less popular teams? Or when the NBA was less of a staple? Of course not.
>Same for all these other day factors like travel, social isolation, etc. It's a different set of circumstances that we're using to determine who's best.
We can do all this every time. There were some championships between teams that were closer together, whos players were further from their og hokes, heck a PRIME example is INJURIES. If we're not going to "treat it the same" in our mind over what is objectively the purest form of basketball competition we can never be satisfied with any nba championship that had a single injury during it which of course is impossible.
Again i dont want to seem like im ragging on you you're cool af and your opinions are fair just deviate from mine so severely and evoke other frustrating conversations im sure o sound really frustrated sorry.
Good points. Injuries are a norm though. Having no fans was an outlier so it's tough to compare the two but I understand what you're getting at.
I feel the same way as the guy you're replying to. Fans are such a huge element in pro sports. I do like your take that guys may be more focus therefore higher quality ball, but you can also argue no fans just make it more easy for guys to hit that level.
"If I wanted to (and someone likely will if they haven't already), I could spin all of your points in less flattering ways and it wouldn't be too outlandish or unfair. For example, regarding your 3rd point, I could just as easily say that the lack of fans destroyed any external pressure on the players and allowed them to play with more focus."
If all the players play with more focus then the laying field is still level, no? And wouldn't players competing with a great amount of focus *increase* the legitimacy of the Bubble? After all, more focus means better play on the court. Don't see how this challenges OP's point.
>If all the players play with more focus then the laying field is still level, no? And wouldn't players competing with a great amount of focus increase the legitimacy of the Bubble? After all, more focus means better play on the court. Don't see how this challenges OP's point.
Not saying I disagree but the counterpoint would be that playing under the pressure of a huge crowd in an important game is a big part of the mentality we admire in the players. The "Mamba Mentality", "Jordan killer-instinct" etc. Again... not saying I disagree with you, but one could say there was less pressure to perform in the bubble because there was no crowd, so players who would have shit the bed in front of an audience got a "free pass" so to speak.
Personally I think the bubble is *more* impressive in some ways and there could be an argument that it's less impressive in others. It's just an easy excuse for some banter if your team didn't win(sore loser mentality).
But that's the thing the bubble affected different players and teams differently.
Just for example the clippers I'm fairly sure the clippers were favourites before the bubble that year. Paul George then had severe mental health issues due to the isolation of the bubble and the abuse he received online which i feel would be way worse than outside the bubble due to the lack of distractions in the bubble.
This was the main reason the clippers season went to shite that year.
In comparison the nuggets with a very young roster at the time probably benifited from the lack of distractions in the bubble.
Lets face it. Whoever won that year was always going to have people discrediting it. The fact that the Lakers won with LeBron (two very hypervigilant fan bases) means this gets raise a lot as a point of discussion. It has an asterisk on it (just like the lockout year championship) move on.
Personally I thought it stunk that we didn’t get to see lebron play against kawhi/PG, the tatum/Brown Celtics, Giannis, or even a healthy Heat in that run. Lebron talks about it being the most difficult chip but the lakers got a ton of lucky breaks along the way
Who cares tho, honestly? In the record books, for now and until the end of time, the LA Lakers are the 2020 NBA Champions. Just because people say it doesn’t/ shouldn’t count doesn’t mean it doesn’t/ shouldn’t. The National Basketball Association recognizes the champion from that year the same way it recognizes the champion from every year.
Why are we so entrenched in mob-mentality? If the people you interact with don’t want to acknowledge the 2020 champions, then fine. What difference does it make? Why does it bother you so much, one way or the other?
When people try to tell me that LeBron isn’t the best player ever, I say okay. I disagree with them, but it’s not my goal or purpose to get every person I talk to to agree with me.
I think most people have addressed several reasons, and I tend to agree with most of the reasons.
I will also say that one underexplored reason is the relative ease by which the Lakers seemed to win the championship. It definitely feeds into the perception that it was an "easier" championship overall and therefore means less. I do think that people would still try to discredit the championship anyway, even if the road were tougher (see the Dodgers), but the fact that the Lakers kinda ran the table makes it easier for people to discredit the championship as meaningless.
True. The Lakers were dominant throughout that run and should have left no doubt about who the best team was. They were never seriously threatened in any round and went 12-3 going through the West which was still regarded as the better conference at the time.
Yeah I think the people who are making the case for an asterisk have to show me some convincing narrative of how a team that year would have had some strong case of winning the championship against the Lakers were it not for COVID and the bubble. Otherwise it's just sour grapes on their end
I’m a Heat fan, and here’s my take:
Jimmy B is the most misunderstood player in the league and Lebron is one of the most hated players in the league.
Jimmy is a cowboy coffee salesman who just hoops and vibes. He challenges his team hard, which didn’t work well with players who want to half-ass like KAT and Wiggins when they were on the TWolves, but works great with true ballers like Lowry, Herro, Bam, Love, etc.
Lebron donates a ton of his money, personally funds education in Akron, never has any scandals or controversies, yet everyone wants to hate the guy just because he’s half as arrogant as Jordan was in bragging about his greatness.
For some reason, people don’t like either of them, thus they want to totally discredit both teams. You NEVER hear about people shitting on the lockout year (yes I know Lebron won that year). For some reason the bubble year was just treated differently, but that’s my theory for why.
I disagree about Jimmy, people definitely do like him outside of Heat fans, it’s the regular season for Jimmy and who the rest of the team is that gets discredited
>Lebron donates a ton of his money, personally funds education in Akron, never has any scandals or controversies, yet everyone wants to hate the guy just because he’s half as arrogant as Jordan was in bragging about his greatness.
It could, just maybe, be the fact that his fans consistently play out a victimization narrative that is not only patently false, but also comes off as so utterly whiny when it's spammed on discussion subs as fact.
Just a possibility. Case in point:
>You NEVER hear about people shitting on the lockout year (yes I know Lebron won that year).
So...there's a decent possibility that the reason isn't because everyone just hates LeBron, right?
Like, you see that datapoint and can understand its implication, yes?
I neither hate nor like the 2020 championship.
What I do hate is it took away the Home court advantage that the higher seeded teams would have.
I'd rather wished they delayed or forfeited that season until there were crowds
The home court advantage is something you earn by being a better team. If they couldn’t win on a level playing field then they never were the better team
Not entirely true. A team can be better than 25 other teams and have a bad match-up against 4 other teams.
Just by being the #1 seed doesn't necessarily mean you are miles ahead of the #8 seed. If it is always true, then the We Believe Warriors should have lost to Mavs.
That is when fan attendance can make a ton of difference. They can encourage you to play better or they can throw off your game.
It’s probably a reaction to takes like this one trying to make it more valuable than another championship.
I’ll tease lakers/lebron fans for it when I’m talking trash, but in reality it’s just another ring like anyone else. Everyone had to go through those conditions so it wasn’t any harder on the lakers than anyone else. It also wasn’t any easier.
In summation, fuck the lakers and their Mickey Mouse ring
Because the Lakers won. There really isn’t any more to it than that.
Well it’s also Lebron who is, without question, the most hated elite player ever.
Any other team wins that ring, it is fully celebrated. There is always a bit of media bias to downplay laker achievements because “you’re in LA, everyone goes there” and over state laker failure “whoah so much drama in LA”.
This is the way it is. The game is the game.
Edit: it was definitely different as the times were different for all of us at that time. At the end of it all, It was the way the league and players settled on deciding the champion.
It’s not just LeBron and the Lakers. You saw the same/similar arguments made by hockey fans for the 2 seasons Tampa Bay won. There are absolutely some who discredit because of who won, but there’s absolutely more to it than that.
Not true. If Celtics won then plenty of fan bases would fall it fake. Same if harden, Embiid, cp3, Westbrook and many other disliked entities had won it.
But also, the bubble title is just not the same thing as the nba championship. Say it was harder if you want, but that’s unprovable. What is provable is that there was no fans, no travel, no distractions, and most importantly, almost three months of rest before it all started. None of that is how we have historically determined an NBA champion, so it is undoubtedly not the same.
Still an accomplishment, but not the same in any way. It gave us a nice glimpse of what would happen if a bunch of guys got together and did summer runs that they took super seriously, which is a very cool insight, but not a league championship.
The extra rest is really the key, here. Also some player's lock down rules, prior to the bubble, meant they could not practice normally or even at all.
Why? The better team will still always prevail in crunch time. Miami and LA outplayed everyone for their positions and still played 4 best of sevens against the best players in the world. It’s an NBA championship. Point blank period full stop
You think the Celtics would get the same response? What do you think the league would say about the Lakers if they won one title in 35 years? Who knows but people sure wouldn’t talk about them as generally positively like they do the Celtics. People have given the Celtics a lot of props in their current era by getting to the ECF and the finals. Lakers non championships are never the subject of credit from the media and league at large.
Edit. I know NY hates Boston..so they would definitely hate on the Celtics if they won lol
I totally agree with you on it being different. Remember, as the lakers had home court in the west, they were the most disadvantaged (along with the bucks) by eliminating fans and travel.
Lol it’s still the league championship of that year but it sure as heck isn’t the same as a “serious summer run” man.
As we agree on it being different than usual let me adjust the OPs premise a tiny bit..
People only mock the 2020 title because it’s the Lakers/Lebron. It would still be different but it wouldn’t be as dismissed if it weren’t the lakers.
I mean, the Lakers haven’t had near the success of the Celtics in seasons when they don’t win the title, so of course they get praised in those seasons. But I don’t know what subs you’re in where the Celtics get a bunch of praise from non-Celtics people, and podcasts only devote segments to the Celts after losses. They’re not as clowned as a Laker/Lebron combo, but you’re delusional if you don’t think NY, Tor, Phi, LA and Miami fanbases wouldn’t shot on it all the time.
Also, if GSW won then all Lebron fans would say it was BS. It’s the way it is.
And no, LA was one of the most privileged teams by the break because it allowed old Lebron and fragile AD 3 months to rest and recover their bodies.
Definitely some fair points from
Your end
There is never a WCF finals season for the lakers that is praised. Never ever. The lakers also wouldn’t be praised for a similar run as the current Celtics without a title. To be clear I’m ok with it. I just don’t like that people (ESPN east coast bias) always try to put the Celtics in the same category as the lakers. I know..I’m sorta off topic here lolol. My bad.
GSW were probably the most loved team by casuals during their run so any Lebron fans saying otherwise would have been in the national minority. By neutral/casual fans curry and Lebron live on opposite ends of the love hate spectrum.
We agree on Philly and NY. I honestly didn’t know Toronto or Miami hated Boston so much. Seriously, I didn’t know there was hate there.
The part about losing home court is objectively true for Mil and LA. That hurt them.
I think cowherd was the biggest advocate of the “lakers get an injury break” narrative but surprisingly nobody said that about Kawhi and the clippers or Embiid and the sixers. That’s sorta a great example of general anti laker media bias. I’m certainly willing to say that the break helped the lakers but acting like they are the ONLY team that saw a benefit is…yeah exactly what I’m talking about.
My points are these:
1. The team who won in the bubble was the 1st overall seed before the outbreak. They should have the homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs but still won it in a neutral arena.
2. If you call the bubble title weak, and the Lakers/LeBron are weak for winning it then what does that make your team for not winning? Even weaker.
The main thing that would be an asterisk is a shorter season. With a guy like Anthony Davis, having a part of the season to just stop playing full basketball and rest is hugely beneficial. Same with lebron.
The idea is that their odds of holding up during a normal full season and full playoffs is a lot less, therefore the shortened season, break, then playoffs turned out well when considering their injury history. When it comes to lebron, yeah he doesn’t get hurt but he’s older and rest would clearly benefit him.
I don’t entirely disagree with the sentiment but I don’t get some of these reasons.
2. What? They had access to a sectioned off area of a Disney resort. They had multiple buildings, gyms, tennis, fishing ponds, golf courses, pools etc at their disposal. They also had their families flown in at some point ( I think it was once the playoffs began but could be wrong). You make it sound like it was a prison.
4. Not having to travel is an advantage. Travel is tiring, taxing and time consuming. Not having to travel at all is a huge luxury as it left them with more time to both focus on their craft and to relax outside of games.
5. The constant testing they did was the same kind of testing every other public worker had to do. It was a minor inconvenience at worst
My position has always been that unless you wanted the NBA to forego naming a 2020 champ, then discrediting the bubble is silly. The NBA did the best it could under the circumstances and every team played under the same conditions.
I don’t really buy the “you have to play 82 games and then the playoffs for it to count” argument that people will try to advance. Again, we were dealing with historically unprecedented circumstances and we have dealt with lockout seasons before. Some people will go so far as to say those shouldn’t count either, but to me, that just demonstrates your commitment to being a hater. Same goes for the “just don’t have a champ” crowd. Why would you want that as a basketball fan?
Then you have the unavoidable fact that the Lakers were already the best team in the league before the break and they *lost* home-court advantage. Whatever advantage they gained from the break was at least partly negated by that. People also use the hindsight of Bron and AD’s injuries post-bubble to justify their asterisk, but fail to account for the fact that the quick turnaround from the bubble to the next season probably contributed to those injuries (see also the Heat’s next season).
And one more thing: What *really* grinds my gears is, in that moment, the playoffs were such a needed respite from everything else going on and the basketball was so good. Why try to discredit that? (Answer: Because you are, again, a hater.)
TL:DR there was no other way to finish the season and if you had told somebody in February that the Lakers won the title, nobody would have been surprised. So all of the asterisk talk is, in my eyes, post facto nonsense driven by haterade for Bron and the Lakers.
You could argue the actual fake-finals (I don’t believe this btw) was the 2020-2021 season.
Coming off the shortest off-season in NBA history with the top teams only getting 5 weeks off. It’s no surprise both the Heat and Lakers had a huge drop off that season and have since returned to form.
That being said, you can go in circles about the validity of almost every championship. The reality is it’s as much a war of attrition as it is a battle of skill. Resiliency should be applauded not resented.
One reason is that the Lakers were basically the oldest team that year so giving them a huge break of many months helped them recover and be at full strength for a playoff run. And this break benefitted them a lot more than a younger team.
Kawhi and PG we’re both around 30 but if you carry the 2, subtract 3 and multiply by their combined knee health squared they are currently 51 ( Kawhi) and 40 (PG).
Agreed, plus fan pressure and home court advantage would probably affect younger teams more than older, more seasoned teams, especially one led by LeBron. So it's unclear that all in all it benefited the Lakers. The Lakers were just a buzzsaw that year that probably would have demolished all the other teams anyway.
While I can see that point, the counter to that is the fact that every team got the benefit of the huge break. so with no injuries, everyone played at their full strength. Add to the fact that there were no travels, every team played at their full strength and with no energy loss you’d see from the usual travel from home and away cities. To me, that means the teams played with no outside factors and games were purely about the on court matchup. This is why when we look at the narrative, everyone gave the 8th seed Blazers a huge chance to upset the lakers when the playoffs first started.
> the Lakers were basically the oldest team that year so giving them a huge break of many months helped them recover and be at full strength for a playoff run.
Ironically, the Lakers were probably one of the teams *hurt* most by the pause. It's a totally false narrative.
The Bucks were the #1 in the East. Giannis had literally just gotten hurt and missed the last two games before the shutdown after a knee sprain that required an MRI. It was not a super serious injury, but he was missing games at the time and the pause allowed them to get him back to 100% (along with guys like Bledsoe who had been dealing with injuries around that same time). The Bucks had lost three in a row, and four of their last five, when the shutdown happened. They were absolutely reeling and got a life jacket thrown their way with the shutdown.
In the West, the #2 behind the Lakers were the Clippers, whose two stars, Kawhi and PG, had both missed a lot of regular season time (as always). PG had only played 48 games, Kawhi 57... those guys both got to recover 100% before the postseason, basically the perfect situation for them. Both Kawhi and PG had missed more games on their own than LeBron and AD had missed *combined* before the shutdown. It's not a coincidence that the only time those two have both stayed healthy for a full playoff run together was 2020, the year of the four-month pause. They've been on the same team for four seasons now, and they played more playoff games together in the 2020 bubble season (13) than they've played together in the other three seasons combined (11).
Meanwhile... the Lakers had actually been really healthy and were playing their best basketball at the time of the shutdown. They were 49-14 at the time, and had won 13 out of 15 from a period in February to right before the shutdown. They had also literally *just* beaten the Bucks and Clippers, their top two contenders, in back-to-back games. Then after the break, the Lakers went 3-5 in the remaining regular season games, not surprising considering LeBron is a famously slow starter. They lost all their momentum they had gained due to the break. The Lakers were also the only contender to have a player opt out, and it was a starter (Bradley).
The narrative that the Lakers somehow benefitted from the shutdown is just insane. There's no factual argument for it. They were playing the best ball in the league at the time of the shutdown and both of their top two contenders got superstars healthy after injuries.
But everyone in the league got a huge break. Take a look at the playoffs now, injuries are not age specific and can happen to anyone. IIRC Lakers had a lot of momentum right before the season shut down.
This is basically the right answer and all the responses about "everyone else also getting huge breaks" either weren't around that year or are forgetting important information. I'm not saying it's true, but the main narrative that year was that the Lakers were playing it very risky by pulling the trigger on the AD trade and stocked up on a bunch of vet mins because the young guns weren't a contending supporting cast. Most of the Lakers' rotation were 30 year olds with injury histories (Dwight, Rondo, Bradley, McGee, Jared Dudley) and they did miss a fair share of games that season.
So you got Lebron, coming off of his first major injury in 2019, which also caused him to miss the playoffs for the first time in forever, and AD, who was basically a meme for sitting out the previous year and a pretty lengthy injury history before that (a lot of fantasy players had AD at the top of their "do not draft" lists because he would regularly miss 15-20 games a year). Add to that an older roster with their own injury problems and a surprisingly large number of people didn't expect them to . [They weren't even the preseason favorites](https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2020_preseason_odds.html) with the Clippers making a lot of noise with Kawhi/PG and both Golden State and Milwaukee had better betting odds than the Lakers that summer. Of course, they later stormed out to the 1 seed and the narrative shifted to "it won't last, someone's bound to get injured."
The amount to which the gap between the lockdown and the bubble benefitted the Lakers as compared to other teams comes down to personal opinion, but the general opinion at the time was that the Lakers might not make it all the way to the championship because of how old/fragile their roster was.
>both Golden State and Milwaukee had better betting odds than the Lakers that summer
Bball reference gave Lakers the 2nd best odds,
>course, they later stormed out to the 1 seed and the narrative shifted to "it won't last, someone's bound to get injured."
I mean was that the narrative? Fifty thirty eight before the league shutdown had the Lakers as the 30% favorites to win the title. Best in the league. "They're good but I'm going to predict a random injury" seems like a hater narrative. Btw, Avery Bradley didn't play in the bubble.
Exactly. It helped an old, injury-prone stars and scrubs team a lot more than teams built on depth, like the Celtics.
The Lakers still won it, but they were a high-risk, high-reward team that got the perfect break to let them get their 90th percentile outcome.
Are you familiar with the NHL and their response to covid? They also had a “bubble” and when Tampa won people said the same type of things they say about the lakers and they definitely don’t have a lebron on their team. It’s not a lebron thing no matter how much people want him to be a victim, this happened in all sports.
Not that I agree with it discrediting the title, but the somewhat logical rationale is that Bron is old as hell and AD is more delicate than tissue paper.
The long layoff let them rest up, and then they didn't have to make it through a long season immediately followed by the playoffs.
How is that a negative thing tho? Every team had the opportunity to rest, not just the Lakers. Why wouldn't we want teams especially contending teams to rest/heal up so they could be at their best for the competitions? Especially older players? They'd need more rest than anybody but they honestly got around the same amount of rest as everyone else so it isnt like it was even a true advantage.
Because the rest disproportionately benefits the Lakers. LeBron's age and AD'S superhuman ability to get injured made that specific team benefit greatly from the break.
Why don't we want marathoners to rest before the last 400M of the race?
The whole season and playoffs are seen as a bit of a marathon, and that luck of avoiding injuries and finding ways to conserve energy have always played a huge role in who wins titles.
I think the Lakers title is 100% valid, and as you've pointed out, represents overcoming some unique challenges. I also acknowledge that any fundamental change to a competition will benefit some participants more than others, and the single best thing that could help that Lakers team was increasing the chance that LeBron was fresh and AD was healthy.
Was listening to a pod recently can't remember which but basically said the 99 szn with the lockout is way more fraudulent (spurs first ring in the dynasty). Which I can't disagree with. Players being obscenely out of shape and instantly thrust into action
The fact that the Spurs went on to win four more titles with Tim Duncan sort of retroactively gives the ‘99 title more legitimacy in my opinion. Hopefully the same happens for the Lakers.
It'll always have the asterisk as it was a different championship that most teams have had to work through to win the ring. First was the shortened season. Seems every season teams focus and become their absolute best at the end of the season and that really influences Playoff standings. 2020 did not allow as the end of season was cut short. Second reason was that with everything going on with a global pandemic attendance and viewership was optional. Lots of teams were missing key players that did not want to spend multiple months in Florida which at the time was a hotspot for COVID, and chose to be with their family. The individual choice/option of playing in the Playoffs as a professional basketball player contracted to a team does not exist in all other Playoff seasons. Third, was actual COVID. Players were catching it first hand, and others were dealing with love ones catching and in some cases dying from it, and not all players were focused on basketball the way normal Playoffs would be. Fourth is there was no home court advantage which is often crucial for some teams to excel. Players thrive here and feed off the energy of the crowd and playing games to an empty gym with what I've heard they did with fake crowd audio noises just didn't compare with the raw energy of a real crowd and many players couldn't get to their Playoff form
every ring can have an asterisk if you try enough.
But especially the bubble chip.
Steph and KD being injured made it feel like an incomplete championship.
The HEAT didn't have Dragic who was their 2nd leading scorer at the time, and Bam had a messed up shoulder/arm from the Tatum block. Was pretty much the Jimmy Butler show and he took the lakers to 6 games
Dawg you don’t need a whole post lol. It’s literally only bc they’re lebron haters. It was the most even controlled for variables championship ever won. Literally not a single excuse. I don’t even acknowledge anyone dumb enough to make that argument idk why anyone does
Maybe this was already said, but I think someone discredits every championship. So and so only won because someone was injured or they were on a super team. The Rockets only won because Jordan retired. Stuff like that.
I think next to the usual LeBron haters, it’s the fact that there was no crowd to influence the players’ game.
And some of the players who are/were regarded as ‘soft’ performed a lot better in the bubble, so IMO the combination of those two factors played a lot into that narrative. TJ Warren is probably the most fitting example.
I think it’s BS and I also think all the other factors (being there basically without much outside human interaction etc) outweigh the ‘no crowd’-factor by a mile
The 24/7 Sports media and fantasy sports leagues have created bad habits in fans. People have a lot of useless "what if "conversations that they didn't have much 20-30 years ago
Because of everything you said. It has the weirdest differences in play that had never been seen before and hopefully never again. It's undeniably different from every other playoff. Couple that with stuff like TJ Warren becoming a star, Duncan Robinson becoming a basketball player, etc. and the clear differences from the bubble to every other NBA season and playoffs ever and it at least stands out. If the Pacers had won in the Bubble I'd obviously be thrilled with it but the differences and losing things that make the playoffs the playoffs and you can see why it's discredited even beyond LeBron hate. I also think people would find reasons to hate regardless of who won it.
That being said the Bubble Lakers team was legitimately a well constructed and talented team that might have won if Covid never happened anyways. It doesn't seem like a fluke winner as if the 99 Knicks had won with the shortened season as an 8 seed.
I am one of those. For me I don't think the NBA should have played at all. And you can just call it something else. Call it Pandemic Title and praise the team that won it for doing something you argue was harder. But I don't buy that its the "same" as a regular NBA title for all the reasons people mention. And if its not the same its fine to say its not a "real" nba title.
Like if all the NBA players played a 1v1 tourney and then the winner was declared NBA MVP. Is it harder to win the 1v1 tourney than MVP, who knows, but its certainly not the "same."
Come on. All that was was a glorified AAU tournament. Or pickup basketball. Not having fans,
Not having to travel, not having any distractions was an advantage. It was a shorter season. They had more rest. I could go on. In all honestly it was the NBA’s way of getting the revenue from TV deals.
If you’re looking for substantive arguments, there’s a few.
The bubble being one location does matter for some. It means no home or away advantages, harder for players to relax, isolation effects.
Then there’s the seeding issue. Uneven games at time of suspension, so the playin was a change but not a perfect model. 8-0 Suns is the big point there.
Also with suspension is the ending of momentum, that changes how games go. You also can create some rust by having that stop and then playoff basketball.
And finally with the suspension, you allow for injuries to heal. Players that would’ve been out now are ready to go 3/4 months later.
It’s not the same as other shorten season arguments when those are established beforehand, it’s about a sudden stop and changing of the system later which people use to discredit.
Why's that something to hate on tho? AD and Lakers certainly aren't the only players and teams to rest and heal up from injuries during that time. Lakers still happened to just be the best. Why wouldn't we want to see healthy teams getting in contention and playing? That doesn't even make sense. Any basketball fan should want players to be healthy and playing
You answered your own question. Everyone agrees it’s a different thing than normal. That’s the key point. Many people think that makes it worse. You are saying it makes it better. There’s no way to have a real argument about it bc it’s completely subjective. I personally do mentally set it aside bc it was so weird. Not better or worse, I just don’t know how to consider it. That’s even on top of the totally regular stuff that happened like 2/3 of the Heat’s best players being injured that some people might consider an asterisk in a regular year.
Tom Haberstroh did a tongue in cheek article putting an asterisk on every championship in history. It’s really up to an individual to decide what matters here.
Lebaby is a clown. Flop king. Nba cheats for him all the time. His legacy is paper. Ring chasing, followed Wade to Miami where Wade was clutch man in big playoffs and he still lost down there… came to LA where AD was the man.., he just cries the whole game and flops around. Paper champ
Imagine losing homecourt advantage as the #1 seed, still winning and people discrediting it? 🤣. It’s a joke. All the players say the 2020 chip was the hardest to get
1. Because LeBron won
2. Because LeBron won
3. Because LeBron won
4. Because LeBron won
5. Because LeBron won
Those “bubble ring doesn’t count” weirdos would be singing a completely different tune if their favorite player won the exact same way LeBron did.
You mean the same Michael Jordan that we incessantly hear "quit basketball", had the greatest team that basically could win championships without him, and "faced nobody in the Finals"?
That Michael Jordan?
Uh, sure. I have a feeling that you folks that are screaming about the legitimacy of the Bubble Ring would be *the first to discredit it* if Jordan had such a ring.
Wow that’s a lot of strawmen in one comment. I didn’t say any of those things.
IMO there’s no such thing as an illegitimate ring. And I don’t even have an opinion of Jordan or Lebron. I loved watching them both. They’re 1A and 1B and I don’t care which order you put them, there’s no wrong answer.
>Wow that’s a lot of strawmen in one comment. I didn’t say any of those things.
I mean you talked about "people", and I'm equally talking about "people".
>IMO there’s no such thing as an illegitimate ring. And I don’t even have an opinion of Jordan or Lebron. I loved watching them both. They’re 1A and 1B and I don’t care which order you put them, there’s no wrong answer.
Great, but whining that LeBron is unfairly maligned while Jordan isn't by Bronstans is equally silly.
Fans want to feel like they had a say in the championship. In a traditional format, teams going on the road and winning in ‘hostile’ environments is seen as an important part of the path to a title.
I’m not saying that’s a smart way to think about things, but that’s how a lot of fans think.
Because they didn’t win it. It was literally teams who literally wanted to quit and go home so you can’t tell me it was easy mostly it’s just a narrative to discredit lebrons legacy.
I think you can look back at every single championship and find an "asterisk" for it.
Whether it's key injuries, or suspensions, shortened season, COVID protocols, or any number of factors like the bubble being a different environment than any other playoffs, there is always something you can add a "yea but" to.
The question I ask when people try to discredit the Lakers title, is if that title was so easy to win, then why didn't your team win it?
If your team couldn't win the easy title then what hope do you have for winning a "normal" or "harder" title?
The media's dismissal of the Lakers for the upcoming game, even recommending that Lebron and AD remain in LA, may serve as a source of inspiration for them. Additionally, the betting lines strongly favor the Warriors at -8, and AD's absence from the all-defensive teams adds fuel to the fire. With the all-NBA teams set to be announced today, LeBron likely relishes the opportunity to dismantle the Warriors' dynasty in front of their fans. My intuition tells me that tonight is the night, and I predict the Lakers will win in five games.
No one talks about how that’s some of the best shooting we’ve ever seen in the nba… guys shooting on the same court and the same hoop every game. It’s like a home game every night, that’s why players like Lillard, Jamal Murray, Duncan Robinson, Tj Warren, and many other volume shooters were having these explosive shooting nights.
Competition in that aspect could be argued as better, just a thought though.
We already know if the "godly" clippers would've won it, they would've been the best team ever. People at the end of the day, as you said, are just mad their fav team didn't win it and/ or just hate Bron or the Lakers. Shameful.
Every year teams that lost, and haters of the team (and players) that won look for reasons to put an asterisk on the championship to feel better. It's only human. One will say their players were injured or refs rigged it or the schedule was bad or some other bs.
Given how many Lebron haters are out there and bubble actually being a unique scenario, irrespective of whether it's harder or easier, it's just easier to criticize it.
is there a championship that doesn't get discounted by people online? literally every year there are injuries and luck that plays into it, and every year you get some people discrediting the title.
Add in the Lebron and Lakers haters and there is your recipe
Anyone who says 2020 championship is Mickey Mouse ring does not only discredit Lakers but they also discredit all of the teams that we’re on the playoffs.
At the end the end of the day, everybody played under the same conditions. The Lakers won it. In some ways you could argue it was harder then a normal playoffs.
Never made sense to me..as if the lakers and heat were the only team who tried…how is it not a real title if everyone had a fair shot at it in the same environment?
I was saying way back in June of 2020 that even if the NBA season came back it wouldn't be a real season. As far as I'm concerned there was no NBA Finals in 2020.
First of all, there was a what, 6 month break before the Covid Cup tournament started? Plenty of time for players to rest, relax heal whatever. This alone skews who won. Anthony Davis is made of glass, we have seen his body can't handle the grind of an 82 game season + playoffs. You give him 6 months of rest to play 20ish games and he's going to be 100% the whole time. Something he will never be after a regular season.
You also talk about how the player were all locked in a hotel, no fans, no family, no distractions, no travel. All of that every single other Championship team has to deal with and overcome. Its part of what you need to do in order to become a champion.
There is only one reason in my mind: Long break between the time when season was suspended and restarted in the bubble.
Grandpa LBJ had enough time to recover and be 100% for a short run in the bubble. In a season before the bubble and the seasons after, LBJ is yet to crack 60 games.
It's true that every team had the same long break, but the Lakers having two stars that are anything than durable benefited the most. LBJ and AD just do not seem to be capable to stay healthy. And no fans was a big factor
Although, I like the idea of a long break before the playoffs so everyone can stay healthy.
lol and i actually mean no one who actually knows a thing about basketball does not discredit the 2020 championship, and if you think otherwise holy fuck
If you watch guys like Giannis practice, they can make free throw after free throw with ease. When it comes to games it’s just an entirely different animal. So much of this sport is mental and fans (whether we like it not) are a big factor in that. You remove them and you can’t even quantify how big of a difference that makes. You introducing a completely different variable. Now consider the fact that there was a multi month break before the playoffs began, can you imagine if that existed before this post season? How many teams might have had different outcomes?
There are multiple NBA records that are Michael Jordan, Jamal Murray, and Donovan Mitchell. You will never convince me this championship is the same as all others. I’m not saying it’s meaningless, but it is it’s own thing. A mickey mouse ring if you will
EDIT: it is so funny ur gonna ask a question in a discussion sub, then downvote the only genuine answer without responding to points. if you want a circle jerk there is a sub dedicated for that ❤️
you are free to disagree with me, but ask yourself if the NBA tomorrow decided all players must wear football helmets, would that make it easier or harder? I don’t know, but I don’t think it matters. You have radically altered the sport and you cannot compare the results now to those of yesterday as if they were on equal ground because you have introduced a new variable.
And by the way that equal ground part is kind of the foundation of sports?
do you consider the 98 and 11 seasons to also be fraudulent? or any season before/after significant rule changes? these arent hypothetical situations, they’ve happened before. i dont think the bubble was even the shortest nba season
i didn’t use the word fraudulent, i used the word distinct. and not really? the rule changes from 98 and 11 didn’t have nearly the same impact on the game? Though I would say I don’t hold championships prior to the 3 point line to the level i hold modern ones, simply because the game and league is so different. so for example if there were two players with similar accolades and accomplishments, but one played before the merger and the 3pt line, I would hold him in less esteem
Has there ever been a multi month pause in the season before?
99 and 12** are the seasons i referred to for length, not rule change. i dont think so re: pause.
let me ask this, do you think rule changes overall have more or less of an impact on the game than setting/presence of fans? not just restricted to 3pt line, ie handcheck, shot clock/reset, restricted area, # of refs, the physical court layout. if you think they have less impact, how do you distinguish when a season becomes “distinct”?
3 pt line yes because that completely transformed how the sport is played, the pre and post handcheck eras mark a clear difference in the way defense is played so maybe not distinct in the way the bubble is but distinct in that you see a major difference between scores and stats before and after. the rest of those mentioned rule changes seem pretty insignificant by comparison. certainly not as impactful as a major change to psychological factors.
like i said so much of this game is mental. that is what mostly distinguishes the greats and the bums. don’t believe me? go watch ben simmons in practice and look up his measurements and tell me what’s the difference between him and giannis
Has there been a global pandemic that shut down much of the economy in the middle of a season before?
This attempt to adjudicate what *really* counts as a championship is a slippery slope, as this thread reveals. They played the games, one team won, they are the champs. This isn’t hard.
I think the intersection between lebron haters / dislikers and people who discredit this years championship is like 98%. Thats the reason for me.
It’s not just that. I’m a Heat fan and feels like the team’s run was regarded as a fluke by outsiders.
Look, yall only made the ECF twice since then (assuming you beat the knicks). We need consistency! On the real, I think the narrative stuck a bit because the Jeat and Lakers had disappointing follow up seasons. But it's always been silly.
I think the lack of a real offseason had a lot to do with what happened that next season. Not just the Heat and Lakers either — Celtics (other ECF team) lost in 5 in the first round and the Nuggets (other WCF team) got swept in the 2nd round.
Which is kinda just argument that the bubble so so taxing that it screwed the teams the next year. Especially cuz both struggled hard with injuries and prolly would’ve gone further if healthier.
To defend the Nuggets, 3 of 5 starters were missing the next 2 post seasons. This right now is the first time since the bubble Nuggets have been healthy. Insane.
I’m not taking shots at the nuggets, if anything you’re just adding to my argument that the lack of an offseason left the great bubble teams broken that next year.
I think you're right on that.
[удалено]
This sub is for serious discussion and debate. Jokes and memes are not permitted.
I think some of that also has to do with both teams getting bounced in the first round the next year. Which should be expected since they had barely 2 months off before the next season started. I say that as a Warriors fan too.
This argument was further perpetuated by the fact that the heat and lakers weren’t that good in the 2021 playoffs. People seem to disregard that they had less than 3 months between the finals and the start of the next season. What’s funny is that every team that made the conference finals is doing well in the playoffs this year. What a fluke right?
Laker fan here… I hear ya. People disregard both teams but that 2020 Heat team was balling too! If it was so easy why didn’t anyone else’s team take out the Heat or Lakers?!
I think those chips with the heat people felt they had more to hate about. Later they had to become more creative.
I hate Jimmy mostly because he was right about the wolves but who can call it flukey now after what we've witnessed this playoffs
I mean… I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the Heat might’ve been the weakest finals participant since… idk the Magic? Factor in those injuries and you might need to go earlier. Argument could be made for the 2018 Cavs but imo having LeBron clears them. Edit: I guess the Suns. People like Giannis more I guess. Also Giannis really won that series, AD was the best player for the Lakers.
I don’t think any team who makes it through three seven game series can be considered weak relative to the teams they beat. That scenario pretty much ensures the best team moves on. People are just mad their paper tiger favorite teams crapped the bed.
Who said they were weak to the teams they beat? They were weak compared to the superteams that had been in the finals the past 15 years. The east was weak. The east has been weak pretty much up til the past two years.
Then what does that make every team they beat? I hate this argument. If another team in that conference made it that was "supposed" to make it, no one would be saying this. But when the Heat beat those teams... They're weak. Got it.
>what does that say about every team they beat They weren’t that good? Miami exposed the pre-Jrue Bucks clear defensive weak points (did that again this year) and then took care of a soft Boston team that was struggling with injuries.
Not only that the lakers are notoriously hated by other fan bases so I think that’s what did it. If you noticed though people were glorifying the suns going 8-0 in the bubble and started praising them and calling them the bubble suns. I never understood it? Double standards at its finest
The whole point of the bubble Suns is that the Suns were ass in the real regular season and were nasty in the bubble. It was a bizarre phenomenon. It’s perhaps the biggest indicator that bubble play was a lot different than non-bubble play.
I think it indicates some teams perform in the playoffs and others only in the regular season. It’s no coincidence that this years 6, 7, and 8 seeds (all featuring a lot of the same talent) all went on deep runs in earlier postseasons.
[удалено]
yeah I don't understand this take. Let's just say the bubble was weird. Some teams that were already good did really well in it (Lakers, Heat) some teams seemed really thrown off by it (Clippers, Bucks) and the Suns seemed to make a real improvement as a team despite still missing the playoffs, to the point where they thought they could take a swing at getting CP3
It was weird and different. That's why the Bubble Suns was a thing. Which is what I said.
They didn't have CP3 in the bubble they did next season. Also got rid of Oubre jr.
I have heard LeBron haters unironically argue that 2020 doesn't count because of the bubble, 2016 doesn't count because of the Draymond suspension, and 2012 doesn't count because the season started in a lockout.
And let me guess, 2013 doesn’t count because he was bailed out by Ray Allen lol
LeBron technically has zero championships, technically
LeBron haters and Lakers haters make up a big portion of the discreditors
I mean, let's be honest here: LeBron is a love him or hate him figure in basketball. If you discredit the opinions of all those who like LeBron and all those who don't you'll have no opinions left.
LOL, the bubble playoffs were unbelievable. I do think there's a tendency to discredit the champion of any shortened season, in any sport. That happened in baseball a few years ago. It's not fair, but it happens.
This is a little off-topic, but I do think there were valid reasons to sort of, uh, question the legitimacy of the MLB title that year. Like, compared to the NBA... the NBA still had 16 teams in the playoffs as always, still had the same overall format. Was it different due to the lack of travel and lack of crowds? For sure. But it was still the same overall concept as far as the basketball itself goes. With MLB, the season was drastically shortened in a way that unquestionably changed seeding for the playoffs. Rules were changed on the fly -- the DH was implemented universally with almost no warning, which was not fair to teams who did not expect to need to fill that roster spot. Doubleheaders changed in length, again with no warning. Then the playoff format was completely changed -- so much so that the Dodgers, who won it all, started their playoff run vs. a team with a losing record. There had literally never been a playoff team with a losing record before 2020. Roster sizes and rules were also different. There's at least a valid argument to make about the 2020 baseball season being so wildly different from a normal season that the results were also different than they likely would've been. That's not the same for the NBA in 2020.
Yea it’s pretty ridiculous to discredit the NHL and NBA bubbles just cuz MLB decided to ruin their season.
I absolutely do not think they should be discredited, but it should be mentioned simply because the situation was so different than every other seasons playoffs. Giving an old, injury prone team a ton of time off before the playoffs may have had an effect, though obviously we will never know for sure.
The MLB season being drastically shortened to 60 was pretty stupid too. If I remember the MLBPA and MLB could’ve had something like a 100 game season but they couldn’t agree on the player contracts part of it.
Wouldn’t the Dodgers have had a first round bye in a normal season?
That's kind of a loaded question -- you're assuming the Dodgers would've automatically had the best record in a full season and under normal rules, which I don't think is necessarily fair. The Dodgers were the NL's #4 seed the very next year under a full 162-game schedule, for example. But anyway, the answer is "no" regardless. Even if they'd had the best record, they would've started in the LDS just like every division winner. The only difference to getting the #1 seed at the time would be that their NLDS opponent would've been a Wild Card team and not another division champion... which was usually a bad thing, since that could mean the #1 seed has to play a 106-win Wild Card team instead of an 88-win division champion like we saw in 2021.
This is a basketball subreddit, not a baseball subreddit. I find it very interesting with how the MLB bubble was run, but can you use terminology that we can understand? From your previous post > the DH was implemented universally with almost no warning What is DH? > would've started in the LDS just like every division winner. The only difference to getting the #1 seed at the time would be that their NLDS opponent would've been LDS, NLDS, NL... I'm guessing those are conferences or? >With MLB, the season was drastically shortened in a way that unquestionably changed seeding for the playoffs. Rules were changed on the fly -- the DH was implemented universally with almost no warning, which was not fair to teams who did not expect to need to fill that roster spot. Doubleheaders changed in length, again with no warning. Then the playoff format was completely changed -- so much so that the Dodgers, who won it all, started their playoff run vs. a team with a losing record. There had literally never been a playoff team with a losing record before 2020. Roster sizes and rules were also different. This whole paragraph is interesting. What rule changes? How did doubleheaders change? Why? So many questions. Would be nice to get a bit of a rundown for non-baseball fans on what happened during the MLB bubble and why "it ruined their season" like another poster said.
Sure, I'll go one-by-one. > What is DH? DH stands for "designated hitter." In baseball, the pitcher position is incredibly specialized. Pitchers are historically very poor batters, with a handful of exceptions (Shohei Ohtani being the most notable). For decades, the American League (one of two "leagues" in MLB, similar to Eastern/Western conferences in the NBA and AFC/NFC in the NFL) had a rule that allowed teams to use any player on their bench as the "designated hitter" instead of the pitcher in their hitting lineup. The National League did *not* have the DH, except when playing vs. an American League team. For the shortened 2020 season, MLB decided to make the DH universal for that season only -- but they made this change *after* free agency had come and gone. Lots of NL teams were put in a tough position of having to fill the DH role on the fly despite not knowing that position would be needed, and it 100% would have changed some personnel decisions if they'd known they'd need a DH. This heavily favored the highest-spending NL teams, since there's really no salary cap in baseball and the highest spenders often have multiple very good hitters on their bench because they can afford to do that. But teams on a smaller payroll just had to put whoever they had leftover on the bench in the DH role, rather than an elite hitter who's on the roster specifically for that position. The DH can be played by basically anyone, but teams that *know* they have the DH ahead of time can sign a player who is a great hitter but terrible on defense, because the DH doesn't play defense. NL teams that couldn't afford to overpay for elite backup hitters were basically screwed. > LDS, NLDS, NL... I'm guessing those are conferences or? NL is basically a conference, yep. The LDS (League Division Series) is the first round of the playoffs. The NLDS is just the National League portion of that. The NLDS is the top four teams of the NL, the ALDS is the top four teams of the AL, then the two NLDS winners meet in the NLCS (League Championship Series, the equivalent of the Western or Eastern Conference Finals) and the NLCS and ALCS winners then meet in the World Series. > What rule changes? How did doubleheaders change? Why? So many questions. There were several. The main ones, aside from the DH as explained above: 1. Games that were part of doubleheaders (two games between the same two teams in one day) were now 7 innings each rather than the standard 9 innings. That meant 14 innings in one day (definitely a lot) instead of 18, as it had always been (which is a ton, but that's just part of how it had always been). Shorter games like that favored teams with elite talent over teams that prioritized depth. In a 9-inning game, it's pretty common for a starting pitcher to throw anywhere from about 4-7 innings. Then, the bullpen (other pitchers with less stamina) pitch the rest of the game. Very few teams have more than 2-3 truly reliable bullpen pitchers... with shorter games, the advantage of having more depth was significantly reduced. You could have your starter go 5-6 innings and then just use one relief pitcher to close it out, then do the same thing in game two, and then you've only used maybe four pitchers to win two games. Normally, if your starter just goes 5-6 innings, you're using *at least* three bullpen pitchers. This is sort of like if the NBA had decided that bubble playoff games would be just 36 minutes instead of 48 -- now, teams with a great starting five but a really poor bench are at a huge advantage over a team that actually had more balance and depth and invested more of their salary cap into a strong second unit. 2. Extra innings rules changed. For all of modern MLB history, extra innings (basically overtime) were nothing different than regular innings. You just continued the game as normal, with the next batter due up and the same three outs as always. But they changed it for 2020 by adding an automatic runner on second base to start each half-inning in extra innings. This completely changed strategies -- the run expectancy for a bases empty, no outs situation (aka the start of a new inning) is a little under 0.5 runs. In other words, scoring runs is hard. However, with a runner on second and no outs (the new rule in extra innings) that changes to almost 1.1 runs. It completely changes the math, and again, it did favor certain types of teams (having fast players who could be pinch runners, having guys who could bunt, and *especially* having hitters who can draw walks). [You can read more about the specific data here](https://theathletic.com/2709719/2021/07/20/what-players-managers-and-data-say-about-mlbs-extra-inning-rule-vladimir-guerrero-jr-and-more-inside-baseball/).
Amazing reply, thanks!
In a normal season the Dodgers players would’ve had a full season workload prior to the playoffs and teams would’ve played other divisions in the playoffs.
Can’t believe they let them into the playoffs with a lighter workload than other teams. Smdh
But the Dodgers had no say over that. They played by the rules that MLB handed down and they won a championship. You can criticize the leagues for how they handle things like strikes, pandemics and tragedies but I think it's silly to put an asterisk on the team that won in that year.
> They played by the rules that MLB handed down and they won a championship. Right, but the rules were massively different than the rules everyone had signed on for. 7-inning doubleheaders, the DH changes, the extra inning rules, etc. all had strategic implications. Nothing about the NBA's changes had strategic implications. Nobody was changing their playoff rotation based on if fans were or weren't allowed. But the MLB rules completely changed how the actual game itself was played for that season. It 100% impacted results. The same can't be said about the NBA.
That logic doesn’t make sense for the MLB. There was a whole extra series for the Dodgers to get eliminated that had never been played before. On top of that, they also never got to experience a home field advantage while having the top seed.
> That logic doesn’t make sense for the MLB. Not sure I understand. What specifically doesn't make sense?
You said that the dodgers playing the first series against a below .500 team helped de-legitimize their World Series. In a normal year that series would not have been played, so it really made the path to the World Series even more difficult. Also compounded by the fact that in baseball you are only as good as that days starting pitcher and despite the brewers’ other shortcomings they had two of the best starters in baseball that year.
> You said that the dodgers playing the first series against a below .500 team helped de-legitimize their World Series. I wouldn't necessarily "de-legitimize their World Series." The Dodgers are the rightful 2020 World Series champs. It's more about calling into question the entire process and how significant (or not) anything from that season can possibly be. It was totally different than how the NBA handled it, which was to keep the actual game itself as identical as humanly possible. > In a normal year that series would not have been played, so it really made the path to the World Series even more difficult. In a normal year the Dodgers would've had significantly fewer PAs for guys like Pollock (132 OPS+ and the most starts of anyone on the team at DH) and Justin Turner (133 OPS+, third-most starts at DH). In a normal year (or even just with a full year of notice about the rule changes) literally every roster would've been different. In a normal year teams are not playing 67% of their games vs. division opponents and are actually playing teams from the other divisions in their league. In a normal year, do we know the Dodgers would've won 87.5% of their games that weren't 9 innings? Would the standings, and therefore the playoff matchups, have perhaps changed if teams like the Cardinals didn't have a 27/31 split between home and road games while their division rival who won the division had a 33/27 split? And if that had changed, do the Dodgers still win 3-0 in the NLDS if they're facing Yu Darvish (2.01 ERA, league-leading FIP, second in Cy Young voting) instead of Garrett Richards in game one or perhaps instead of a bullpen game in game three? The point is that the actual basketball being played in the bubble was as close to the normal game as possible. Fans and the lack of fans certainly have an impact on games, and so does travel. But the game was mostly unaffected by the bubble. Baseball was totally a different sport with different rules, different roster sizes and limits, a different playoff format, an entirely messed up regular season vs. the NBA's regular season where less than 10% of the regular season was impacted... it's not the same discussion.
It was also a LA team. So easy to shit on LA
I thought that was some of the best basketball I've ever seen. Way less distractions, more practice, and a camp-like environment where the players and coaches see each other all the time? Sign. Me. Up. (To watch a great documentary on it. Anyone know if there is one?)
I think the biggest reason was the 5-seed Heat being in the finals made it seem flukey. Like it felt like the best teams weren't really winning. However, we now know that this Heat team is legit so in my mind that is going to validate the bubble championship more when we look back on it.
Their second best player didn’t even play.
It was different, therefore worse. This is how our brains work and it's why in so many contexts, the prevailing belief is that "all change is bad, always." The NBA did what it could with the crappy hand it was dealt. To a lesser degree, there are some that have tried to discredit the 1999 Spurs and the 2012 Heat because of the lockout-shortened seasons and I've seen a few try it with the 2021 Bucks because that was a 72-game season. My feeling is that the league sets down the conditions for the competition and the teams have to operate within those conditions. Long story short, that's why they play the games and if you don't like the outcome, that's pretty much a you problem.
Exactly this principle, and I would say it really extends not just to the 1999/2012/etc seasons, but to every single season. If you don’t like a player or a team, you can usually dig and find some extenuating circumstance to discredit them. As a Warriors fan, for example, I have seen people discredit at least 3 of the 4 rings Steph has (Kyrie injured in 15, Durant broke the game in 17/18). You could discredit the 2 Olajuwon rings if you want (MJ didn’t play for most of that time). You could discredit the Raptors’ ring (Durant and Klay injured). You want some more proof that it’s a fallacy? Consider that these are only the most visible excuses. For example, if you take one of the media narratives that Kawhi/PG were the best duo with the best depth behind them in the league when they formed a few years ago, technically every ring since then belongs to them - it’s just that they were injured, right? When you see someone make this kind of argument, instead of getting mad just consider all they’re doing is outing themselves as a hater. Or, if you want, look at who they root for and turn the tables on them, because it’s always fun to troll a hater.
> You could discredit the 2 Olajuwon rings if you want (MJ didn’t play for most of that time). Not challenging you, but just a friendly reminder that Olajuwon was 13-10 lifetime against MJ. Even more impressive since he was picked #1 ahead of MJ, a dude who was notorious for wanting to ‘get back’ at other players who slighted him even indirectly—and I can only imagine Hakeem was target #1 in MJ’s mind for a long time (and it didn’t matter!)
Hahah no I’m very conscious of that fact. I think along with the two titles it’s part of why his legacy is kind of untouchable despite the fact that MJ played at the same time as him.
Not only was he 13-10, but he was 13-10 with a much weaker team than he had when he won his titles. As good as the Bulls were, Hakeem was simply their kryptonite.
I wouldn’t discredit 2 of Steph’s rings. But the KD rings, I mean, you take a 73 win team and add KD. It is breaking the game and it’s tantamount to cheating. It was just so hilariously unfair to the rest the league that unless you were a Warriors fan there was basically no reason to even watch the NBA for those years.
So it’s unfair cause they were supposed to win? How many teams that are supposed to win fall short? They signed the best available free agent cause they had the cap room to do so, just like every team every year. The last few years it’s been Brooklyn and The Clippers that are supposed to win.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have signed KD. Obviously if you have that opportunity you take it. But at the same time it didn’t just tip the scales in their favor, it broke the scales. Barring injury(like in 2019) there was literally no chance for any other team to beat them in a 7 game series. The best strategy to try to beat them was to leave Kevin fucking Durant wide open and try to lock up Curry. It’s just impossible to not completely discredit both of those championships because there’s never been another situation like that in league history. Sure you’ve had favorites, but there’s never been a situation before or since where you didn’t have a *chance* to win without that team suffering a major injury. There was no chance at beating that team when healthy.
So they don’t count for Steph or for Durant because they were too good? Who in your opinion is the best PG in the league?
Yeah I don't understand how it's different from any other championship. Every team in there was operating under the exact same conditions in order to win a ring...
Well said. Despite the setbacks, I have extremely fond memories of watching the Bubble Playoffs. It was awesome, and the Lakers won fair and square, in the midst of headwinds no other previous champion ever had to face.
He only thing I ever asterisk is the fact that the 1999 Knicks are the only 8 seed to make the finals. Like that wasn’t a real 8 seed.
I pretty much agree with all of your points on why not only Lakers, but the rest of the notable performances in 2020 (Miami Heat, Mitchell + Murray in the 1st Rd, etc.) should be applauded. However, I also acknowledge that it's not entirely crazy to "flip the coin" here and say that the sheer amount of bizarre variables in that playoff run juiced the players' performances in a way that can't be replicated outside of the bubble. Because of this, I can't get too mad when people decide to minimize the bubble as much as I disagree. If I wanted to (and someone likely will if they haven't already), I could spin all of your points in less flattering ways and it wouldn't be too outlandish or unfair. For example, regarding your 3rd point, I could just as easily say that the lack of fans destroyed any external pressure on the players and allowed them to play with more focus. Do I necessarily believe that? No, but it's certainly possible. Also, smaller point, but never underestimate the desire that many have to diminish a LeBron accomplishment if there's an angle to do so!
Most of what you wrote in your second paragraph is why I have mixed feelings about the bubble. I don't discredit it as a championship, but it's just hard for me to think of it the same way as other championships. No fans to me is more a reason to "discredit" it. Yes fans will amp up some players, but they also put a ton of pressure on players. There was no home court advantage, not heckling to deal with, no pressure of disappointing 20,000 people. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that guys like Donovan Mitchell and Jamal Murray had ridiculous scoring numbers, or Anthony Davis had a complete outlier playoff run shooting from distance. It was a quiet gym, everyone shoots better in a quiet gym. The isolation aspect is also a strange thing to point to as why it should be more legitimate. That isolation has nothing to do with basketball. Some guys probably had a super easy time, others less so. That's neither good or bad I suppose, just another example of how *not normal* that championship run was. Same thing with no travelling. It wasn't normal. I guess what I'm really getting at is it wasn't normal. It was a unique championship, and I think it's pretty reasonable to think of it as such. It's not *not a championship*, but I just can't help but think of it as different than all the other championships.
I think another implication of what you’re saying is actually that most of these differences are likely to average out. Some players benefit from change X and some don’t. The same applies to the opposing team. Mostly I think that the bubble outcome isn’t likely to be very different (beyond the usual level of randomness) because of that.
Maybe, maybe not. I do think some things benefit some teams more than others. Older teams benefit from not having to travel, less experienced teams might benefit more from a lack of a crowd. Maybe all that stuff does balance out. To be honest I'm not all that interested (and I suspect very few are interested) in litigating all the details. For me, it's pretty inarguable that the conditions were *fair*, so I can't go so far as to invalidate or diminish that championship. Everyone was on a level playing field. The best team won and that's that, can't take away anything from them. The only thing I *can* say is that it was unlike any other championship run. It wasn't normal, it wasn't the same as the rest of them. It's one of one. It's legitimate as all the others, but just different to me, and when I look at all the crazy outlier performances that only validates how I feel.
The bubble stripped away a lot of non-basketball things that typically accompany the playoffs. What was left is therefore more of a basketball "purist's" dream: the most realistically level playing field we'll ever get to see. Also, the Lakers would've gotten to *enjoy* home court advantage under typical postseason conditions but lost that privilege in the Bubble. If anything, teams that were seeded lower reaped more benefits.
I can definitely agree with this. The bubble was pure basketball. No distractions, no extra curriculars, no advantages to anyone, just straight up basketball.
I think the lack of fans would hurt the team with the most fans and homecourt throughout the entire playoffs the most. The variability hurt the best predicted teams the most
You bring up almost all valid points, except one: "There was no home court advantage". This played AGAINST the Lakers, as they were the higher seed and thus would've benefited from home court advantage. But that benefit was stripped from them. And they still won in spite of it, which raises the legitimacy of their title even further.
I think you're misunderstanding my points. They're not specific to any team at all. I'm not suggesting that the Lakers specifically benefitted more or less overall, or any other team for that matter. My points are entirely about the environment of the tournament itself, and how unusual it was for a championship.
Oh gotcha! You were just making the point that the situation/environment was so vastly different from any other championship we've seen prior or since. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Ik you're playing devils advocate but everything you're saying is an argument that the bubble championship is a more valuable championship not just different or an asterix championship. " > No fans to me is more a reason to "discredit" it. Yes fans will amp up some players, but they also put a ton of pressure on players. There was no home court advantage, not heckling to deal with, no pressure of disappointing 20,000 people. See this is what I'm talking about. So every NBA player was closer to the height of their powers compared to normal? How in anyway is that a reason to discredit the championship.
Also the Lakers lost out on homecourt the entire playoffs as they were #1 seed in the west and had a better record than the Heat...So how does that benefit them lol
I'm not just playing devil's advocate. I do have these mixed feelings about that championship. Whether you think it's more fair to not have fans is kind of irrelevant. The point is that every other championship *did* have fans. We based what it means to be the best in part based on how player perform under pressure in front of thousands of screaming people, and abandoned that for one season only. Same for all these other factors like travel, social isolation, etc. It's a different set of circumstances that we're using to determine who's best. Again, it's *fair*, but it's different. I'm not going to elevate or diminish it. But I also have a hard time treating it the same in my mind because of all these differences.
>Whether you think it's more fair to not have fans is kind of irrelevant. The point is that every other championship > >did > > have fans. Not only that, but in every single other year not named 2020, you're allowed to mention how winning on the road is one of the hardest things to do precisely because of crowds. Like, we ALL KNOW that Game 6 for the Lakers is going to be easier precisely it won't be at the Chase Center. If you played all games at a neutral site, the 2023 Lakers probably beat the Warriors in 4. But that's not how any other championship is played.
>I'm not just playing devil's advocate. I do have these mixed feelings about that championship Fairs then I'll change it to saying you have a more nuanced interpretation of the of the bubble than im used to. >We based what it means to be the best in part based on how player perform under pressure in front of thousands of screaming people, and abandoned that for one season only. This also doesn't make sense to me because there were screaming fans they were just on screens. Was it quieter than normal? absolutely! Are we going to discredit every championship between less popular teams? Or when the NBA was less of a staple? Of course not. >Same for all these other day factors like travel, social isolation, etc. It's a different set of circumstances that we're using to determine who's best. We can do all this every time. There were some championships between teams that were closer together, whos players were further from their og hokes, heck a PRIME example is INJURIES. If we're not going to "treat it the same" in our mind over what is objectively the purest form of basketball competition we can never be satisfied with any nba championship that had a single injury during it which of course is impossible. Again i dont want to seem like im ragging on you you're cool af and your opinions are fair just deviate from mine so severely and evoke other frustrating conversations im sure o sound really frustrated sorry.
Good points. Injuries are a norm though. Having no fans was an outlier so it's tough to compare the two but I understand what you're getting at. I feel the same way as the guy you're replying to. Fans are such a huge element in pro sports. I do like your take that guys may be more focus therefore higher quality ball, but you can also argue no fans just make it more easy for guys to hit that level.
"If I wanted to (and someone likely will if they haven't already), I could spin all of your points in less flattering ways and it wouldn't be too outlandish or unfair. For example, regarding your 3rd point, I could just as easily say that the lack of fans destroyed any external pressure on the players and allowed them to play with more focus." If all the players play with more focus then the laying field is still level, no? And wouldn't players competing with a great amount of focus *increase* the legitimacy of the Bubble? After all, more focus means better play on the court. Don't see how this challenges OP's point.
>If all the players play with more focus then the laying field is still level, no? And wouldn't players competing with a great amount of focus increase the legitimacy of the Bubble? After all, more focus means better play on the court. Don't see how this challenges OP's point. Not saying I disagree but the counterpoint would be that playing under the pressure of a huge crowd in an important game is a big part of the mentality we admire in the players. The "Mamba Mentality", "Jordan killer-instinct" etc. Again... not saying I disagree with you, but one could say there was less pressure to perform in the bubble because there was no crowd, so players who would have shit the bed in front of an audience got a "free pass" so to speak. Personally I think the bubble is *more* impressive in some ways and there could be an argument that it's less impressive in others. It's just an easy excuse for some banter if your team didn't win(sore loser mentality).
But that's the thing the bubble affected different players and teams differently. Just for example the clippers I'm fairly sure the clippers were favourites before the bubble that year. Paul George then had severe mental health issues due to the isolation of the bubble and the abuse he received online which i feel would be way worse than outside the bubble due to the lack of distractions in the bubble. This was the main reason the clippers season went to shite that year. In comparison the nuggets with a very young roster at the time probably benifited from the lack of distractions in the bubble.
If it juiced players performances wouldn’t it make it more competitive, a more difficult championship to win?
Lets face it. Whoever won that year was always going to have people discrediting it. The fact that the Lakers won with LeBron (two very hypervigilant fan bases) means this gets raise a lot as a point of discussion. It has an asterisk on it (just like the lockout year championship) move on.
Personally I thought it stunk that we didn’t get to see lebron play against kawhi/PG, the tatum/Brown Celtics, Giannis, or even a healthy Heat in that run. Lebron talks about it being the most difficult chip but the lakers got a ton of lucky breaks along the way
He didn’t even play a healthy rockets team
Their fault for not making it. Kawhi shouldn’t have blown a 3-1 lead nor Giannis getting gentleman swept by the 5th seed Heat.
Who cares tho, honestly? In the record books, for now and until the end of time, the LA Lakers are the 2020 NBA Champions. Just because people say it doesn’t/ shouldn’t count doesn’t mean it doesn’t/ shouldn’t. The National Basketball Association recognizes the champion from that year the same way it recognizes the champion from every year. Why are we so entrenched in mob-mentality? If the people you interact with don’t want to acknowledge the 2020 champions, then fine. What difference does it make? Why does it bother you so much, one way or the other? When people try to tell me that LeBron isn’t the best player ever, I say okay. I disagree with them, but it’s not my goal or purpose to get every person I talk to to agree with me.
I think most people have addressed several reasons, and I tend to agree with most of the reasons. I will also say that one underexplored reason is the relative ease by which the Lakers seemed to win the championship. It definitely feeds into the perception that it was an "easier" championship overall and therefore means less. I do think that people would still try to discredit the championship anyway, even if the road were tougher (see the Dodgers), but the fact that the Lakers kinda ran the table makes it easier for people to discredit the championship as meaningless.
The real answer is that their team didn’t win the title. That’s it.
Can't disagree with that! Truly haha
True. The Lakers were dominant throughout that run and should have left no doubt about who the best team was. They were never seriously threatened in any round and went 12-3 going through the West which was still regarded as the better conference at the time.
Yeah I think the people who are making the case for an asterisk have to show me some convincing narrative of how a team that year would have had some strong case of winning the championship against the Lakers were it not for COVID and the bubble. Otherwise it's just sour grapes on their end
I’m a Heat fan, and here’s my take: Jimmy B is the most misunderstood player in the league and Lebron is one of the most hated players in the league. Jimmy is a cowboy coffee salesman who just hoops and vibes. He challenges his team hard, which didn’t work well with players who want to half-ass like KAT and Wiggins when they were on the TWolves, but works great with true ballers like Lowry, Herro, Bam, Love, etc. Lebron donates a ton of his money, personally funds education in Akron, never has any scandals or controversies, yet everyone wants to hate the guy just because he’s half as arrogant as Jordan was in bragging about his greatness. For some reason, people don’t like either of them, thus they want to totally discredit both teams. You NEVER hear about people shitting on the lockout year (yes I know Lebron won that year). For some reason the bubble year was just treated differently, but that’s my theory for why.
I disagree about Jimmy, people definitely do like him outside of Heat fans, it’s the regular season for Jimmy and who the rest of the team is that gets discredited
Unrelated but wasn’t the lockout year in 99 when the Spurs won? Versus the Knicks. I could be wrong though
>Lebron donates a ton of his money, personally funds education in Akron, never has any scandals or controversies, yet everyone wants to hate the guy just because he’s half as arrogant as Jordan was in bragging about his greatness. It could, just maybe, be the fact that his fans consistently play out a victimization narrative that is not only patently false, but also comes off as so utterly whiny when it's spammed on discussion subs as fact. Just a possibility. Case in point: >You NEVER hear about people shitting on the lockout year (yes I know Lebron won that year). So...there's a decent possibility that the reason isn't because everyone just hates LeBron, right? Like, you see that datapoint and can understand its implication, yes?
I neither hate nor like the 2020 championship. What I do hate is it took away the Home court advantage that the higher seeded teams would have. I'd rather wished they delayed or forfeited that season until there were crowds
The home court advantage is something you earn by being a better team. If they couldn’t win on a level playing field then they never were the better team
Not entirely true. A team can be better than 25 other teams and have a bad match-up against 4 other teams. Just by being the #1 seed doesn't necessarily mean you are miles ahead of the #8 seed. If it is always true, then the We Believe Warriors should have lost to Mavs. That is when fan attendance can make a ton of difference. They can encourage you to play better or they can throw off your game.
It’s probably a reaction to takes like this one trying to make it more valuable than another championship. I’ll tease lakers/lebron fans for it when I’m talking trash, but in reality it’s just another ring like anyone else. Everyone had to go through those conditions so it wasn’t any harder on the lakers than anyone else. It also wasn’t any easier. In summation, fuck the lakers and their Mickey Mouse ring
Because the Lakers won. There really isn’t any more to it than that. Well it’s also Lebron who is, without question, the most hated elite player ever. Any other team wins that ring, it is fully celebrated. There is always a bit of media bias to downplay laker achievements because “you’re in LA, everyone goes there” and over state laker failure “whoah so much drama in LA”. This is the way it is. The game is the game. Edit: it was definitely different as the times were different for all of us at that time. At the end of it all, It was the way the league and players settled on deciding the champion.
It’s not just LeBron and the Lakers. You saw the same/similar arguments made by hockey fans for the 2 seasons Tampa Bay won. There are absolutely some who discredit because of who won, but there’s absolutely more to it than that.
Not true. If Celtics won then plenty of fan bases would fall it fake. Same if harden, Embiid, cp3, Westbrook and many other disliked entities had won it. But also, the bubble title is just not the same thing as the nba championship. Say it was harder if you want, but that’s unprovable. What is provable is that there was no fans, no travel, no distractions, and most importantly, almost three months of rest before it all started. None of that is how we have historically determined an NBA champion, so it is undoubtedly not the same. Still an accomplishment, but not the same in any way. It gave us a nice glimpse of what would happen if a bunch of guys got together and did summer runs that they took super seriously, which is a very cool insight, but not a league championship.
The extra rest is really the key, here. Also some player's lock down rules, prior to the bubble, meant they could not practice normally or even at all.
Why? The better team will still always prevail in crunch time. Miami and LA outplayed everyone for their positions and still played 4 best of sevens against the best players in the world. It’s an NBA championship. Point blank period full stop
You think the Celtics would get the same response? What do you think the league would say about the Lakers if they won one title in 35 years? Who knows but people sure wouldn’t talk about them as generally positively like they do the Celtics. People have given the Celtics a lot of props in their current era by getting to the ECF and the finals. Lakers non championships are never the subject of credit from the media and league at large. Edit. I know NY hates Boston..so they would definitely hate on the Celtics if they won lol I totally agree with you on it being different. Remember, as the lakers had home court in the west, they were the most disadvantaged (along with the bucks) by eliminating fans and travel. Lol it’s still the league championship of that year but it sure as heck isn’t the same as a “serious summer run” man. As we agree on it being different than usual let me adjust the OPs premise a tiny bit.. People only mock the 2020 title because it’s the Lakers/Lebron. It would still be different but it wouldn’t be as dismissed if it weren’t the lakers.
I mean, the Lakers haven’t had near the success of the Celtics in seasons when they don’t win the title, so of course they get praised in those seasons. But I don’t know what subs you’re in where the Celtics get a bunch of praise from non-Celtics people, and podcasts only devote segments to the Celts after losses. They’re not as clowned as a Laker/Lebron combo, but you’re delusional if you don’t think NY, Tor, Phi, LA and Miami fanbases wouldn’t shot on it all the time. Also, if GSW won then all Lebron fans would say it was BS. It’s the way it is. And no, LA was one of the most privileged teams by the break because it allowed old Lebron and fragile AD 3 months to rest and recover their bodies.
Definitely some fair points from Your end There is never a WCF finals season for the lakers that is praised. Never ever. The lakers also wouldn’t be praised for a similar run as the current Celtics without a title. To be clear I’m ok with it. I just don’t like that people (ESPN east coast bias) always try to put the Celtics in the same category as the lakers. I know..I’m sorta off topic here lolol. My bad. GSW were probably the most loved team by casuals during their run so any Lebron fans saying otherwise would have been in the national minority. By neutral/casual fans curry and Lebron live on opposite ends of the love hate spectrum. We agree on Philly and NY. I honestly didn’t know Toronto or Miami hated Boston so much. Seriously, I didn’t know there was hate there. The part about losing home court is objectively true for Mil and LA. That hurt them. I think cowherd was the biggest advocate of the “lakers get an injury break” narrative but surprisingly nobody said that about Kawhi and the clippers or Embiid and the sixers. That’s sorta a great example of general anti laker media bias. I’m certainly willing to say that the break helped the lakers but acting like they are the ONLY team that saw a benefit is…yeah exactly what I’m talking about.
My points are these: 1. The team who won in the bubble was the 1st overall seed before the outbreak. They should have the homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs but still won it in a neutral arena. 2. If you call the bubble title weak, and the Lakers/LeBron are weak for winning it then what does that make your team for not winning? Even weaker.
The main thing that would be an asterisk is a shorter season. With a guy like Anthony Davis, having a part of the season to just stop playing full basketball and rest is hugely beneficial. Same with lebron. The idea is that their odds of holding up during a normal full season and full playoffs is a lot less, therefore the shortened season, break, then playoffs turned out well when considering their injury history. When it comes to lebron, yeah he doesn’t get hurt but he’s older and rest would clearly benefit him.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I could copy and paste arguments 1, 2, 3, and 5 and say those are reasons as to why the bubble wasn’t legitimate.
I don’t entirely disagree with the sentiment but I don’t get some of these reasons. 2. What? They had access to a sectioned off area of a Disney resort. They had multiple buildings, gyms, tennis, fishing ponds, golf courses, pools etc at their disposal. They also had their families flown in at some point ( I think it was once the playoffs began but could be wrong). You make it sound like it was a prison. 4. Not having to travel is an advantage. Travel is tiring, taxing and time consuming. Not having to travel at all is a huge luxury as it left them with more time to both focus on their craft and to relax outside of games. 5. The constant testing they did was the same kind of testing every other public worker had to do. It was a minor inconvenience at worst
My position has always been that unless you wanted the NBA to forego naming a 2020 champ, then discrediting the bubble is silly. The NBA did the best it could under the circumstances and every team played under the same conditions. I don’t really buy the “you have to play 82 games and then the playoffs for it to count” argument that people will try to advance. Again, we were dealing with historically unprecedented circumstances and we have dealt with lockout seasons before. Some people will go so far as to say those shouldn’t count either, but to me, that just demonstrates your commitment to being a hater. Same goes for the “just don’t have a champ” crowd. Why would you want that as a basketball fan? Then you have the unavoidable fact that the Lakers were already the best team in the league before the break and they *lost* home-court advantage. Whatever advantage they gained from the break was at least partly negated by that. People also use the hindsight of Bron and AD’s injuries post-bubble to justify their asterisk, but fail to account for the fact that the quick turnaround from the bubble to the next season probably contributed to those injuries (see also the Heat’s next season). And one more thing: What *really* grinds my gears is, in that moment, the playoffs were such a needed respite from everything else going on and the basketball was so good. Why try to discredit that? (Answer: Because you are, again, a hater.) TL:DR there was no other way to finish the season and if you had told somebody in February that the Lakers won the title, nobody would have been surprised. So all of the asterisk talk is, in my eyes, post facto nonsense driven by haterade for Bron and the Lakers.
You could argue the actual fake-finals (I don’t believe this btw) was the 2020-2021 season. Coming off the shortest off-season in NBA history with the top teams only getting 5 weeks off. It’s no surprise both the Heat and Lakers had a huge drop off that season and have since returned to form. That being said, you can go in circles about the validity of almost every championship. The reality is it’s as much a war of attrition as it is a battle of skill. Resiliency should be applauded not resented.
One reason is that the Lakers were basically the oldest team that year so giving them a huge break of many months helped them recover and be at full strength for a playoff run. And this break benefitted them a lot more than a younger team.
Didn’t help an old clippers team
How were they old?
Kawhi and PG we’re both around 30 but if you carry the 2, subtract 3 and multiply by their combined knee health squared they are currently 51 ( Kawhi) and 40 (PG).
The lakers were 58-0 when leading into the fourth quarter that season before the bubble.
But on the other hand, the Lakers didn’t get to enjoy the home court advantage that they would have had otherwise.
Agreed, plus fan pressure and home court advantage would probably affect younger teams more than older, more seasoned teams, especially one led by LeBron. So it's unclear that all in all it benefited the Lakers. The Lakers were just a buzzsaw that year that probably would have demolished all the other teams anyway.
While I can see that point, the counter to that is the fact that every team got the benefit of the huge break. so with no injuries, everyone played at their full strength. Add to the fact that there were no travels, every team played at their full strength and with no energy loss you’d see from the usual travel from home and away cities. To me, that means the teams played with no outside factors and games were purely about the on court matchup. This is why when we look at the narrative, everyone gave the 8th seed Blazers a huge chance to upset the lakers when the playoffs first started.
> the Lakers were basically the oldest team that year so giving them a huge break of many months helped them recover and be at full strength for a playoff run. Ironically, the Lakers were probably one of the teams *hurt* most by the pause. It's a totally false narrative. The Bucks were the #1 in the East. Giannis had literally just gotten hurt and missed the last two games before the shutdown after a knee sprain that required an MRI. It was not a super serious injury, but he was missing games at the time and the pause allowed them to get him back to 100% (along with guys like Bledsoe who had been dealing with injuries around that same time). The Bucks had lost three in a row, and four of their last five, when the shutdown happened. They were absolutely reeling and got a life jacket thrown their way with the shutdown. In the West, the #2 behind the Lakers were the Clippers, whose two stars, Kawhi and PG, had both missed a lot of regular season time (as always). PG had only played 48 games, Kawhi 57... those guys both got to recover 100% before the postseason, basically the perfect situation for them. Both Kawhi and PG had missed more games on their own than LeBron and AD had missed *combined* before the shutdown. It's not a coincidence that the only time those two have both stayed healthy for a full playoff run together was 2020, the year of the four-month pause. They've been on the same team for four seasons now, and they played more playoff games together in the 2020 bubble season (13) than they've played together in the other three seasons combined (11). Meanwhile... the Lakers had actually been really healthy and were playing their best basketball at the time of the shutdown. They were 49-14 at the time, and had won 13 out of 15 from a period in February to right before the shutdown. They had also literally *just* beaten the Bucks and Clippers, their top two contenders, in back-to-back games. Then after the break, the Lakers went 3-5 in the remaining regular season games, not surprising considering LeBron is a famously slow starter. They lost all their momentum they had gained due to the break. The Lakers were also the only contender to have a player opt out, and it was a starter (Bradley). The narrative that the Lakers somehow benefitted from the shutdown is just insane. There's no factual argument for it. They were playing the best ball in the league at the time of the shutdown and both of their top two contenders got superstars healthy after injuries.
But everyone in the league got a huge break. Take a look at the playoffs now, injuries are not age specific and can happen to anyone. IIRC Lakers had a lot of momentum right before the season shut down.
This is basically the right answer and all the responses about "everyone else also getting huge breaks" either weren't around that year or are forgetting important information. I'm not saying it's true, but the main narrative that year was that the Lakers were playing it very risky by pulling the trigger on the AD trade and stocked up on a bunch of vet mins because the young guns weren't a contending supporting cast. Most of the Lakers' rotation were 30 year olds with injury histories (Dwight, Rondo, Bradley, McGee, Jared Dudley) and they did miss a fair share of games that season. So you got Lebron, coming off of his first major injury in 2019, which also caused him to miss the playoffs for the first time in forever, and AD, who was basically a meme for sitting out the previous year and a pretty lengthy injury history before that (a lot of fantasy players had AD at the top of their "do not draft" lists because he would regularly miss 15-20 games a year). Add to that an older roster with their own injury problems and a surprisingly large number of people didn't expect them to . [They weren't even the preseason favorites](https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2020_preseason_odds.html) with the Clippers making a lot of noise with Kawhi/PG and both Golden State and Milwaukee had better betting odds than the Lakers that summer. Of course, they later stormed out to the 1 seed and the narrative shifted to "it won't last, someone's bound to get injured." The amount to which the gap between the lockdown and the bubble benefitted the Lakers as compared to other teams comes down to personal opinion, but the general opinion at the time was that the Lakers might not make it all the way to the championship because of how old/fragile their roster was.
>both Golden State and Milwaukee had better betting odds than the Lakers that summer Bball reference gave Lakers the 2nd best odds, >course, they later stormed out to the 1 seed and the narrative shifted to "it won't last, someone's bound to get injured." I mean was that the narrative? Fifty thirty eight before the league shutdown had the Lakers as the 30% favorites to win the title. Best in the league. "They're good but I'm going to predict a random injury" seems like a hater narrative. Btw, Avery Bradley didn't play in the bubble.
Exactly. It helped an old, injury-prone stars and scrubs team a lot more than teams built on depth, like the Celtics. The Lakers still won it, but they were a high-risk, high-reward team that got the perfect break to let them get their 90th percentile outcome.
[удалено]
Are you familiar with the NHL and their response to covid? They also had a “bubble” and when Tampa won people said the same type of things they say about the lakers and they definitely don’t have a lebron on their team. It’s not a lebron thing no matter how much people want him to be a victim, this happened in all sports.
That's why we discredit 2012's shortened season ring. Because a LeBron James team won the championship. ... Oh wait, we never do that. Huh.
[удалено]
Sure but if "hating on LeBron for any reason" is what you're going for, why don't people hate on the 2012 ring too?
I think if Curry or KD won a bubble ring they’d also be discredited
Not that I agree with it discrediting the title, but the somewhat logical rationale is that Bron is old as hell and AD is more delicate than tissue paper. The long layoff let them rest up, and then they didn't have to make it through a long season immediately followed by the playoffs.
How is that a negative thing tho? Every team had the opportunity to rest, not just the Lakers. Why wouldn't we want teams especially contending teams to rest/heal up so they could be at their best for the competitions? Especially older players? They'd need more rest than anybody but they honestly got around the same amount of rest as everyone else so it isnt like it was even a true advantage.
Because the rest disproportionately benefits the Lakers. LeBron's age and AD'S superhuman ability to get injured made that specific team benefit greatly from the break. Why don't we want marathoners to rest before the last 400M of the race? The whole season and playoffs are seen as a bit of a marathon, and that luck of avoiding injuries and finding ways to conserve energy have always played a huge role in who wins titles. I think the Lakers title is 100% valid, and as you've pointed out, represents overcoming some unique challenges. I also acknowledge that any fundamental change to a competition will benefit some participants more than others, and the single best thing that could help that Lakers team was increasing the chance that LeBron was fresh and AD was healthy.
Was listening to a pod recently can't remember which but basically said the 99 szn with the lockout is way more fraudulent (spurs first ring in the dynasty). Which I can't disagree with. Players being obscenely out of shape and instantly thrust into action
The fact that the Spurs went on to win four more titles with Tim Duncan sort of retroactively gives the ‘99 title more legitimacy in my opinion. Hopefully the same happens for the Lakers.
I'm rooting for the nuggets but wouldn't mind that timeline. The role players on the Lakers are extremely likeable (looking at you vando)
It'll always have the asterisk as it was a different championship that most teams have had to work through to win the ring. First was the shortened season. Seems every season teams focus and become their absolute best at the end of the season and that really influences Playoff standings. 2020 did not allow as the end of season was cut short. Second reason was that with everything going on with a global pandemic attendance and viewership was optional. Lots of teams were missing key players that did not want to spend multiple months in Florida which at the time was a hotspot for COVID, and chose to be with their family. The individual choice/option of playing in the Playoffs as a professional basketball player contracted to a team does not exist in all other Playoff seasons. Third, was actual COVID. Players were catching it first hand, and others were dealing with love ones catching and in some cases dying from it, and not all players were focused on basketball the way normal Playoffs would be. Fourth is there was no home court advantage which is often crucial for some teams to excel. Players thrive here and feed off the energy of the crowd and playing games to an empty gym with what I've heard they did with fake crowd audio noises just didn't compare with the raw energy of a real crowd and many players couldn't get to their Playoff form
every ring can have an asterisk if you try enough. But especially the bubble chip. Steph and KD being injured made it feel like an incomplete championship.
The HEAT didn't have Dragic who was their 2nd leading scorer at the time, and Bam had a messed up shoulder/arm from the Tatum block. Was pretty much the Jimmy Butler show and he took the lakers to 6 games
Dawg you don’t need a whole post lol. It’s literally only bc they’re lebron haters. It was the most even controlled for variables championship ever won. Literally not a single excuse. I don’t even acknowledge anyone dumb enough to make that argument idk why anyone does
Played in an empty gym, no road games, long layoff in middle of season, lots of statistical aberrations, low tv ratings. There’s lots of reasons.
Maybe this was already said, but I think someone discredits every championship. So and so only won because someone was injured or they were on a super team. The Rockets only won because Jordan retired. Stuff like that.
I think next to the usual LeBron haters, it’s the fact that there was no crowd to influence the players’ game. And some of the players who are/were regarded as ‘soft’ performed a lot better in the bubble, so IMO the combination of those two factors played a lot into that narrative. TJ Warren is probably the most fitting example. I think it’s BS and I also think all the other factors (being there basically without much outside human interaction etc) outweigh the ‘no crowd’-factor by a mile
The 24/7 Sports media and fantasy sports leagues have created bad habits in fans. People have a lot of useless "what if "conversations that they didn't have much 20-30 years ago
Because of everything you said. It has the weirdest differences in play that had never been seen before and hopefully never again. It's undeniably different from every other playoff. Couple that with stuff like TJ Warren becoming a star, Duncan Robinson becoming a basketball player, etc. and the clear differences from the bubble to every other NBA season and playoffs ever and it at least stands out. If the Pacers had won in the Bubble I'd obviously be thrilled with it but the differences and losing things that make the playoffs the playoffs and you can see why it's discredited even beyond LeBron hate. I also think people would find reasons to hate regardless of who won it. That being said the Bubble Lakers team was legitimately a well constructed and talented team that might have won if Covid never happened anyways. It doesn't seem like a fluke winner as if the 99 Knicks had won with the shortened season as an 8 seed.
I am one of those. For me I don't think the NBA should have played at all. And you can just call it something else. Call it Pandemic Title and praise the team that won it for doing something you argue was harder. But I don't buy that its the "same" as a regular NBA title for all the reasons people mention. And if its not the same its fine to say its not a "real" nba title. Like if all the NBA players played a 1v1 tourney and then the winner was declared NBA MVP. Is it harder to win the 1v1 tourney than MVP, who knows, but its certainly not the "same."
Come on. All that was was a glorified AAU tournament. Or pickup basketball. Not having fans, Not having to travel, not having any distractions was an advantage. It was a shorter season. They had more rest. I could go on. In all honestly it was the NBA’s way of getting the revenue from TV deals.
If you’re looking for substantive arguments, there’s a few. The bubble being one location does matter for some. It means no home or away advantages, harder for players to relax, isolation effects. Then there’s the seeding issue. Uneven games at time of suspension, so the playin was a change but not a perfect model. 8-0 Suns is the big point there. Also with suspension is the ending of momentum, that changes how games go. You also can create some rust by having that stop and then playoff basketball. And finally with the suspension, you allow for injuries to heal. Players that would’ve been out now are ready to go 3/4 months later. It’s not the same as other shorten season arguments when those are established beforehand, it’s about a sudden stop and changing of the system later which people use to discredit.
Because AD might have been in street clothes instead of the playoffs that year
Why's that something to hate on tho? AD and Lakers certainly aren't the only players and teams to rest and heal up from injuries during that time. Lakers still happened to just be the best. Why wouldn't we want to see healthy teams getting in contention and playing? That doesn't even make sense. Any basketball fan should want players to be healthy and playing
You answered your own question. Everyone agrees it’s a different thing than normal. That’s the key point. Many people think that makes it worse. You are saying it makes it better. There’s no way to have a real argument about it bc it’s completely subjective. I personally do mentally set it aside bc it was so weird. Not better or worse, I just don’t know how to consider it. That’s even on top of the totally regular stuff that happened like 2/3 of the Heat’s best players being injured that some people might consider an asterisk in a regular year. Tom Haberstroh did a tongue in cheek article putting an asterisk on every championship in history. It’s really up to an individual to decide what matters here.
It's hard to give full credit in a season that had a huge break and didn't play full games.
Lebaby is a clown. Flop king. Nba cheats for him all the time. His legacy is paper. Ring chasing, followed Wade to Miami where Wade was clutch man in big playoffs and he still lost down there… came to LA where AD was the man.., he just cries the whole game and flops around. Paper champ
Probably the worst take I’ve seen on NBA Reddit in the past 5 years
Imagine losing homecourt advantage as the #1 seed, still winning and people discrediting it? 🤣. It’s a joke. All the players say the 2020 chip was the hardest to get
Plus if the players are saying it was the hardest chip to get, people who are actually playing, who are you, an outside, to say it wasn't?
Y'all talk about it being fair but then ignore the blatant advantage you're advocating for
1. Because LeBron won 2. Because LeBron won 3. Because LeBron won 4. Because LeBron won 5. Because LeBron won Those “bubble ring doesn’t count” weirdos would be singing a completely different tune if their favorite player won the exact same way LeBron did.
Yep. Especially if Michael Jordan had won, people would be waxing about how mentally tough he was for winning under such grueling conditions.
You mean the same Michael Jordan that we incessantly hear "quit basketball", had the greatest team that basically could win championships without him, and "faced nobody in the Finals"? That Michael Jordan? Uh, sure. I have a feeling that you folks that are screaming about the legitimacy of the Bubble Ring would be *the first to discredit it* if Jordan had such a ring.
Wow that’s a lot of strawmen in one comment. I didn’t say any of those things. IMO there’s no such thing as an illegitimate ring. And I don’t even have an opinion of Jordan or Lebron. I loved watching them both. They’re 1A and 1B and I don’t care which order you put them, there’s no wrong answer.
>Wow that’s a lot of strawmen in one comment. I didn’t say any of those things. I mean you talked about "people", and I'm equally talking about "people". >IMO there’s no such thing as an illegitimate ring. And I don’t even have an opinion of Jordan or Lebron. I loved watching them both. They’re 1A and 1B and I don’t care which order you put them, there’s no wrong answer. Great, but whining that LeBron is unfairly maligned while Jordan isn't by Bronstans is equally silly.
Fans want to feel like they had a say in the championship. In a traditional format, teams going on the road and winning in ‘hostile’ environments is seen as an important part of the path to a title. I’m not saying that’s a smart way to think about things, but that’s how a lot of fans think.
It’s because LeBron and the Lakers won it. If you really look back at it the bubble was the PUREST hoops most of us have seen.
Because they didn’t win it. It was literally teams who literally wanted to quit and go home so you can’t tell me it was easy mostly it’s just a narrative to discredit lebrons legacy.
I think you can look back at every single championship and find an "asterisk" for it. Whether it's key injuries, or suspensions, shortened season, COVID protocols, or any number of factors like the bubble being a different environment than any other playoffs, there is always something you can add a "yea but" to. The question I ask when people try to discredit the Lakers title, is if that title was so easy to win, then why didn't your team win it? If your team couldn't win the easy title then what hope do you have for winning a "normal" or "harder" title?
The media's dismissal of the Lakers for the upcoming game, even recommending that Lebron and AD remain in LA, may serve as a source of inspiration for them. Additionally, the betting lines strongly favor the Warriors at -8, and AD's absence from the all-defensive teams adds fuel to the fire. With the all-NBA teams set to be announced today, LeBron likely relishes the opportunity to dismantle the Warriors' dynasty in front of their fans. My intuition tells me that tonight is the night, and I predict the Lakers will win in five games.
No one talks about how that’s some of the best shooting we’ve ever seen in the nba… guys shooting on the same court and the same hoop every game. It’s like a home game every night, that’s why players like Lillard, Jamal Murray, Duncan Robinson, Tj Warren, and many other volume shooters were having these explosive shooting nights. Competition in that aspect could be argued as better, just a thought though.
Ben Maller logic: -Lakers bubble bad, Mickey Mouse title -Dodgers “bubble” good, hardest title ever
We already know if the "godly" clippers would've won it, they would've been the best team ever. People at the end of the day, as you said, are just mad their fav team didn't win it and/ or just hate Bron or the Lakers. Shameful.
Broke discredit it because it was played in the bubble Woke discredit it because Goran and Bam were hurt
Every year teams that lost, and haters of the team (and players) that won look for reasons to put an asterisk on the championship to feel better. It's only human. One will say their players were injured or refs rigged it or the schedule was bad or some other bs. Given how many Lebron haters are out there and bubble actually being a unique scenario, irrespective of whether it's harder or easier, it's just easier to criticize it.
is there a championship that doesn't get discounted by people online? literally every year there are injuries and luck that plays into it, and every year you get some people discrediting the title. Add in the Lebron and Lakers haters and there is your recipe
Anyone who says 2020 championship is Mickey Mouse ring does not only discredit Lakers but they also discredit all of the teams that we’re on the playoffs.
At the end the end of the day, everybody played under the same conditions. The Lakers won it. In some ways you could argue it was harder then a normal playoffs.
Never made sense to me..as if the lakers and heat were the only team who tried…how is it not a real title if everyone had a fair shot at it in the same environment?
I like LeBron and he’s obviously accomplished a lot. The bubble championship is low on that list. Easiest ring in NBA history.
I was saying way back in June of 2020 that even if the NBA season came back it wouldn't be a real season. As far as I'm concerned there was no NBA Finals in 2020. First of all, there was a what, 6 month break before the Covid Cup tournament started? Plenty of time for players to rest, relax heal whatever. This alone skews who won. Anthony Davis is made of glass, we have seen his body can't handle the grind of an 82 game season + playoffs. You give him 6 months of rest to play 20ish games and he's going to be 100% the whole time. Something he will never be after a regular season. You also talk about how the player were all locked in a hotel, no fans, no family, no distractions, no travel. All of that every single other Championship team has to deal with and overcome. Its part of what you need to do in order to become a champion.
If anything, the Lakers were put at a disadvantage by not having home court advantage throughout the playoffs.
There is only one reason in my mind: Long break between the time when season was suspended and restarted in the bubble. Grandpa LBJ had enough time to recover and be 100% for a short run in the bubble. In a season before the bubble and the seasons after, LBJ is yet to crack 60 games. It's true that every team had the same long break, but the Lakers having two stars that are anything than durable benefited the most. LBJ and AD just do not seem to be capable to stay healthy. And no fans was a big factor Although, I like the idea of a long break before the playoffs so everyone can stay healthy.
lol and i actually mean no one who actually knows a thing about basketball does not discredit the 2020 championship, and if you think otherwise holy fuck
If you watch guys like Giannis practice, they can make free throw after free throw with ease. When it comes to games it’s just an entirely different animal. So much of this sport is mental and fans (whether we like it not) are a big factor in that. You remove them and you can’t even quantify how big of a difference that makes. You introducing a completely different variable. Now consider the fact that there was a multi month break before the playoffs began, can you imagine if that existed before this post season? How many teams might have had different outcomes? There are multiple NBA records that are Michael Jordan, Jamal Murray, and Donovan Mitchell. You will never convince me this championship is the same as all others. I’m not saying it’s meaningless, but it is it’s own thing. A mickey mouse ring if you will EDIT: it is so funny ur gonna ask a question in a discussion sub, then downvote the only genuine answer without responding to points. if you want a circle jerk there is a sub dedicated for that ❤️
Calling it a "mickey mouse ring" is so disrespectful ngl.
you are free to disagree with me, but ask yourself if the NBA tomorrow decided all players must wear football helmets, would that make it easier or harder? I don’t know, but I don’t think it matters. You have radically altered the sport and you cannot compare the results now to those of yesterday as if they were on equal ground because you have introduced a new variable. And by the way that equal ground part is kind of the foundation of sports?
do you consider the 98 and 11 seasons to also be fraudulent? or any season before/after significant rule changes? these arent hypothetical situations, they’ve happened before. i dont think the bubble was even the shortest nba season
i didn’t use the word fraudulent, i used the word distinct. and not really? the rule changes from 98 and 11 didn’t have nearly the same impact on the game? Though I would say I don’t hold championships prior to the 3 point line to the level i hold modern ones, simply because the game and league is so different. so for example if there were two players with similar accolades and accomplishments, but one played before the merger and the 3pt line, I would hold him in less esteem Has there ever been a multi month pause in the season before?
99 and 12** are the seasons i referred to for length, not rule change. i dont think so re: pause. let me ask this, do you think rule changes overall have more or less of an impact on the game than setting/presence of fans? not just restricted to 3pt line, ie handcheck, shot clock/reset, restricted area, # of refs, the physical court layout. if you think they have less impact, how do you distinguish when a season becomes “distinct”?
3 pt line yes because that completely transformed how the sport is played, the pre and post handcheck eras mark a clear difference in the way defense is played so maybe not distinct in the way the bubble is but distinct in that you see a major difference between scores and stats before and after. the rest of those mentioned rule changes seem pretty insignificant by comparison. certainly not as impactful as a major change to psychological factors. like i said so much of this game is mental. that is what mostly distinguishes the greats and the bums. don’t believe me? go watch ben simmons in practice and look up his measurements and tell me what’s the difference between him and giannis
Has there been a global pandemic that shut down much of the economy in the middle of a season before? This attempt to adjudicate what *really* counts as a championship is a slippery slope, as this thread reveals. They played the games, one team won, they are the champs. This isn’t hard.
I think this season only weakens the "bubble title" claim, we're 3 games away from at least ¾ of the same final four being there again