So the short answer is three?When a player has taken more than three steps without the ball being dribbled, a traveling violation is called.
don't lose hope, dude. I grant you, that was a tough loss. gotta capitalize on the extremely rare night where Steph goes 0-for from 3.I think this series is over.
strength of the league needs to be considered as well. If warrior get this one I think theres a strong argument to have them on that mt rushmore already via combination of that and peak dominance.and if they were to close this out and then repeat next year you probably have to start talking about Mt Rushmore
currently 60 Celtics, Showtime Lakers, MJ Bulls for sure, and then an iffier 4th spot
between Bird Celtics, Kobe/Shaq threepeat, and Duncan/Pop Spurs
probably has to be Spurs, bc 5 title > 3 titles (and winning them 15 years apart is incredible)
but I can hear counterarguments for peak dominance > longevity
arguably Ws already on that tier but this title would solidify that
next tier down is considerably murkier but contains Hakeem Rockets, Bad Boy Pistons, Heatles, etc
and you can make arguments for special cases like the Walton Trailblazers, a one-season would be dynasty cut short by injury
tbh I don't think comparisons across eras as very useful, both bc of the general difficulty of comparing eras, and bc with a truly dominant team it's hard to say where their dominance ends and the league's strength or lack thereof begins. statistical analysis doesn't really help - extremely powerful when comparing teams of a given era (the more recent i.e. the more available data, the more powerful) or describing a given era's style of play, but it faces the same problems when trying to compare teams across eras, let alone entire eras to each other. anything like is essentially a "bar debate".strength of the league needs to be considered as well
Id say we are already admitting its of some use by not framing the conversation as a race for second place with the 60's Celtics on an unreachable pedestal.tbh I don't think comparisons across eras as very useful, both bc of the general difficulty of comparing eras, and bc with a truly dominant team it's hard to say where their dominance ends and the league's strength or lack thereof begins. statistical analysis doesn't really help - extremely powerful when comparing teams of a given era (the more recent i.e. the more available data, the more powerful) or describing a given era's style of play, but it faces the same problems when trying to compare teams across eras, let alone entire eras to each other. anything like is essentially a "bar debate".
and I don't buy that greater average skill level necessarily leads to greater average volatility - is there any evidence for that? I know I just disparaged comparing across eras, but here it would work, since we're talking only quantitative and not qualitative. if anything increased scoring should - which granted is related to pace a well as average skill - lead to lower average volatility, i.e. more scoring opportunities should == decreased influence of random chance.
that's true - to clarify, I don't think era comparisons are of no use, I think they're of limited useId say we are already admitting its of some use by not framing the conversation as a race for second place with the 60's Celtics on an unreachable pedestal