Fact: I watch too much basketball. Way too much. I'm addicted to NBA League Pass and I'm not sure how healthy it is.
If I have free time, I'm watching NBA League Pass. Running on the treadmill or doing situps? NBA League Pass is on. Laying down on the couch? NBA League Pass is on. Lying in bed getting ready to go to sleep? NBA League Pass is on. Writing a column for SBNation.com? NBA League Pass is on (true story).
You all, I assume, will not be so obsessive. You might have an hour a week when you can conceivably watch an NBA game. There are so many of them each night and so many of them during the season that you're probably a bit overwhelmed. So how can you get the best bang for your (metaphorical) buck?
Here's one NBA addict's attempt to rank each of the 30 NBA teams in terms of "watchability," so you can make your decision on what games to watch. What is "watchability?" Much like pornography, you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. Winning is not necessarily the main determining factor. There are bad teams that are eminently watchable, and there are good teams that are really tough on the eyes.
Let's go 30 to 1. Without further ado:
30. Chicago Bulls
I know what you're thinking. Hey, that Derrick Rose guy was awesome in college! Joakim Noah is fun! Tyrus Thomas makes highlight plays. And wasn't that the same team that played in that awesome series vs. the Celtics? All true. But this is a new year, and let me tell you, this team has absolutely no cohesion. There is no organized "offense," just Rose dribbling around the perimeter and Luol Deng and John Salmons shooting contested 20-footers (the worst shot in pro basketball). Rookie forward Taj Gibson is lauded for being cerebral, which should tell you something about his entertainment value. It's the classic case of a team who is so much worse than the sum of its parts.
(Though it is funny to watch Vinny Del Negro's "coaching" in action. "We missed a couple of freethrows, they got a couple of offensive rebounds, we missed a couple of shots! NO BIG DEAL!!")
29. New Jersey Nets
I don't know about you, but I like watching talent. The New Jersey Nets don't have any, therefore I can't watch them. If Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson cloned themselves and swapped DNA in a science experiment to create the perfect coach, he still couldn't make the Nets watchable. Seriously, watch them try to execute a pick and roll. Not pretty.
If you like watching 85-80 games that have no flow and tons of missed shots, the Bobcats are for you. Oh, and if you like watching rebounds. There tend to be a lot of them when the Bobcats play.
New coach Kurt Rambis currently has the Timberwolves running the Triangle Offense. To run the Triangle Offense well, you need great wing players that can pass, cut and spot up for open jumpers from anywhere on the floor. The Minnesota Timberwolves' wing players are Damien Wilkins, Corey Brewer and Sasha Pavlovic. Watching them try to execute the Triangle Offense is kind of like watching a carpenter try to fix your computer. Maybe he can figure it out, but why even ask him to?
26. Detroit Pistons
The pros? Ben Gordon, a fascinating shot-maker that is equally thrilling and maddening to watch. Gordon's the type of guy that puts your two basketball sensibilities against each other ("oh my God, how did he make that?" vs. "What the heck is he doing shooting that shot?"). Depending on your mood, you either love him or hate him. The cons? A bunch of guards who can score, but don't pass; Charlie Villanueva (who makes me mad every time I see him for some reason); and several no-name guys that many dieharts don't even know (Jonas Jerekbo, Austin Daye, DaJuan Summers, etc.). Throw in their pitiful home atmosphere (remember the good old days), and it's just a boring team.
The Cavs are one of the league's best teams. They boast the best player in the league and the most recognizable star of the last decade (I'm talking about Shaq). So why so low for Cleveland?
On the bright side, watching Mike Brown pretend to coach can be kind of amusing. So there's that.
24. Indiana Pacers
23. New York Knicks
22. Philadelphia 76ers
Three gimmick teams that can give you a cheap thrill on the right night. All of them play up-tempo, but they also tend to miss a lot of shots too, so it's a bunch of pointless running. Philadelphia in particular was way more watchable in the past, but then Eddie Jordan brought in his weave-and-heave offense, Elton Brand morphed into the old guy who can't jump and Allen Iverson brought his "shoot at all costs" game to the mix.
(Also, there are low-IQ players, and there there's Samuel Dalembert. Case-in point: the 49-second mark of this video):
21. Portland Trailblazers
20. New Orleans Hornets
19. Miami Heat
Brandon Roy, Chris Paul and Dwyane Wade. Three of the best players in the NBA playing on three of the most boring teams in the league. Let's take this one-by-one:
Portland - Want transition play? Watch someone else. Portland is the slowest-paced team in the league. Here's a typical offensive possession for Portland: Steve Blake dribbles around for 14 seconds while getting six picks that he fails to use, then dumps it in the post to LaMarcus Aldridge, who shoots an 18-foot turnaround jumper, or gives it to Roy, who makes some breathtaking awesome move for a score. If they miss, they usually rebound it and do it again. Surprisingly, this works, but it's definitely not entertaining.
New Orleans - Paul is among my favorite players to watch in the league, because he's so crafty and so good at changing speeds. That should tell you something about the rest of this crew. If you like standstill 18-foot jumpers, then I guess you'll find David West entertaining. If you like line-drive hook shots, then you'll love Emeka Okafor. If you like watching a lot of missed three-pointers, then Peja Stojakovic, James Posey, Morris Peterson and Devin Brown are for you. They've become somewhat more watchable ever since they decided to give their two rookies, Darren Collison and Marcus Thorton, some playing time, but it's still a pretty boring mix.
Miami - They play hard at least, but their games are so low-scoring. Wade is brilliant, but floats a lot during games, which is frustrating as a fan because it means more shots for a washed-up Jermaine O'Neal, Quentin Richardson, Udonis Haslem and Mario Chalmers. Even Michael Beasley is frustrating to watch because of all the talent he squanders. But when Wade does something, it's just so brilliant that it's worth all that pain.
If these three teams didn't have those three star players, they'd be in Chicago territory. With them, they're just somewhat boring.
On the one hand, this is the team for the basketball purist in you. Tim Duncan is like the master chess player who always thinks three moves ahead of you, yet you don't know it. Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and rookie DeJuan Blair, in theory, provide the excitement. But Ginobili is nowhere near his entertaining self right now, and the rest of the team (including Richard Jefferson, who is the king of bricking contested 16-footers) is really dull. So is San Antonio's "offense," which is really just three guys standing around while Duncan sets 100 picks for Parker. Parker also has this annoying tendency to never pass, and if he played for any other team, more people would call him out for it.
So I'll let you weigh the merits here and make up your own mind. I really can't.
I thought I'd hate watching this team, but they actually are kind of interesting. I still don't get what all the fuss with O.J. Mayo is about (people, he can't drive! Hello!), and Rudy Gay and Zach Randolph remain two of the most selfish players in the league. But I love Marc Gasol (easily the NBA's most underrated player), and I love how their young bench guys (Hasheem Thabeet, Sam Young, DeMarre Carroll) come in and provide a jolt of energy, for better or for worse. So basically, tune in during the second quarter and switch around otherwise.
Two things need to happen for the Clippers to be higher on this list. One, Blake Griffin needs to come back. I have a feeling he'll be awesome to watch when healthy. Two, and more importantly, they need a new coach. This roster was not meant to play half-court basketball, yet Mike Dunleavy insists on running set play after set play. Come on, man, let us see Baron Davis running the break, with Al Thornton and Eric Gordon on the wings and Griffin trailing. Can I get an amen!
15. Utah Jazz
If the Utah Jazz played every game at home, they would be one of the five most watchable teams in the league. If they played every game on the road, they would be one of the five worst. It's incredible how a veteran team coached by Jerry Sloan can play so differently depending on their setting. Like, is the visiting locker room so much more cramped in Utah than in any other stadium? Do they poison the water? Does Andrei Kirilenko's wife give every player on the visiting team a woman to sleep with whenever they come into town? THE WORLD MUST KNOW!
14. Atlanta Hawks
I used to hate watching these guys, because they were (and often still are) squandering so much talent by running an isolation-heavy offense that always ended in Joe Johnson dribbling and shooting a bad shot. But they do play very aggressive defense that leads to transition opportunities, and it's been fun to watch Josh Smith grow from being a headcase that didn't know his strengths to one of the toughest one-on-one covers in the league. The only things holding them back are Johnson's overdribbling and Mike Woodson's stone face (seriously, every time the camera cuts to him, he's staring into space. I guess in-game coaching is overrated).
(This also gives me a chance to go on a quick tangent. With all the amazing advanced stats we have these days, how has nobody created a "dribbles per possession" stat? I need to know which players kill ball movement the most. My projected top five: Tony Parker, Joe Johnson, Allen Iverson, Corey Maggette, Earl Boykins. I have my reasons).
Here's what I can guarantee you when you watch the Wizards, no matter who they play:
What I can't guarantee is how the Wizards get to any of those points. That makes them watchable, just so you see how it all happens. Of course, if you're a fan of teams that make smart plays, you should stay away anyway. Smart plays aren't going to be found from this bunch.
(Unfortunately, this is my team. I'm going to go light myself on fire).
The Warriors have officially murdered the basketball gods. Nobody passes, which is natural when you put Monta Ellis, Anthony Randolph, Vladimir Radmanovic and Corey Maggette on the same team. Nobody rotates on defense. If you like good basketball, stay away.
(*cues Stephen A. Smith voice). HOWEVA...
On the nights when the shots are falling, they can really light it up. They push the pace and attack like crazy. Ellis in particular can be breathtaking depending on how much he feels like driving to the basket. So they can really entertain even if they do it completely the wrong way.
11. Milwaukee Bucks
10. Sacramento Kings
These teams feature the two best rookies in the league (Brandon Jennings and Tyreke Evans), but there's more to them than those guys. Some underrated pleasures: Andrew Bogut's incredible basketball IQ, Milwaukee's aggressive defense, Jodie Meeks having no conscious on his shots, Jason Thompson's aggression, Omri Casspi's smooth game and Paul Westphal's ability to just let his young guys play. There's a certain harmony to both of these teams that I just love. If only they had more talent.
(Wait, more talent? Doesn't one of these teams have a guy who scored 55 points as a rookie? What am I talking about?)
There was one point this season when the Raptors simultaneously had the league's best offense and its worst defense. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know.
Sometimes, this team is just, well, exquisite (pardon the snobbyness). Watching Jason Kidd run a fast break is still one of the most beautiful things in sports. Dirk Nowitzki is like an expert craftsman, and while Jason Terry is annoying in the same way Mo Williams is, his all-court game is criminally underrated.
But Dallas is also, well, predictable. Everything is pick-and-roll, pick-and-pop, pick-and-isolation to Dirk (okay, the last one isn't official NBA lingo, but I had to include it). They execute their plays so well, but they're still the same plays, and that can get old sometimes.
(Also, Rick Carlisle, can you please stop playing J.J. Barea? We want more Rodrigue Beaubois, aka Roddy Buckets. I mean, how many point guards can do this?
Roddy Buckets=the most electrifying player in basketball that nobody knows about. NBA fans, we need to start a movement to get Roddy Buckets more playing time. I'll call it the "Play Roddy" movement until you guys think of a better alliteration).
Two issues here. One is Dwight Howard's post game. Maybe it's effective, but man is it ugly. The other is Vince Carter's shot selection. I really do love Carter, and I think he's unfairly branded as a selfish loser when he's five years removed from his ill-fated "Yeah, I dogged it in Toronto" comments, but it can sometimes be painful to watch a lot of 18-foot fallaways.
Otherwise, though? Lots of threes, great defense, great spacing, lots of fast breaks, particularly when The Artist Once Again Known As White Chocolate After A Brief Retirement is in. What's not to like?
In Carmelo Anthony, you have possibly the game's most lethal scorer. In Chauncey Billups, you have its prototypical point guard. You have aggressive defense, tons of fast breaks, electrifying players (J.R. Smith and Ty Lawson specifically), tough guys (Nene, Kenyon Martin) and a coach that encourages the crazy.
If only they didn't make a stupid play every other possession, they'd be great. What's a stupid play? Reaching in instead of playing solid defense. Shooting a contested 30-footer (hi, J.R. Smith). Shooting jumpers even when you can't shoot (hi, Kenyon Martin). Anything Joey Graham does. Denver is exciting and frustrating, all at once. It's a fun mix, that's for sure, but you only wish they could play smarter.
(Also, Kenyon Martin, please get a new tattoo. Thanks).

There's something unbelievably satisfying about watching a veteran team just take care of business no matter what, even if everyone guns for them. Boston is 11-1 on the road this year, and watching them, you know why. They never make a mistake. All their sets are precise, though it helps that they have two great scorers in Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, along with two of the league's best screeners in Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins. On defense, they shut down everything your team likes to do. You like pick-and-roll? No problem, we'll unleash the human pick-and-roll eraser, KG, on you. Like post play? Don't worry, we only have the two best low-post defenders in basketball. Good luck, guys. Thanks to Rajon Rondo, they also have the best secondary fast break in the league, meaning they do a great job of pushing the ball on missed shots and taking advantage of the confusion that results while players try to find their man on defense.
Here's the problem: Boston is so damn unlikeable. Garnett and Rondo are punks. Perkins has developed some ridiculous fake swagger, the kind that results from riding the coattails of your four all-star caliber teammates. Rasheed Wallace needs no introduction, and Pierce is a chronic whiner that got carried off the floor by his teammates in the 2008 Finals, only to magically come back a few minutes later and be just fine.
I realize the very thing that makes them so great to watch (their intensity) also makes them annoying as hell. I also realize that without that "fire," that "intensity" or whatever, the Celtics become just an ordinary team. But goddammit, do I really have to watch Kevin Garnett bark at Jose Calderon, a guy 10 inches shorter than him, during a blowout?
Does Rajon Rondo really need to shove Kirk Hinrich into the scorers table while the ref isn't looking?
Better yet, does Rondo really need to swipe Brad Miller across the head?
You see what I mean? Just play, guys. No histrionics.
Here's a good space for a confession.
Oklahoma City was pretty much the underground "team to watch" club of the NBA blogosphere before the season. They were like that Indie band you knew before they went mainstream. Since everyone was buzzing over them, I had a healthy dose of skepticism.
But then I watched them, and I was immediately hooked. Why?
The best part about him is how efficient his movements are. Guys like LeBron, Wade and Paul spend a lot of time dribbling around waiting for an opening, but Durant doesn't waste time. He's either shooting in rhythm or driving to make a play. No probing, no "setting up the defense" or other bs. Just catch and go. That's really refreshing in this league.
They're still a couple pieces away from being title contenders - they desperately need a solid vet big man to get them some points inside, someone like Brendan Haywood, Marcin Gortat or Tyson Chandler - but they're on the rise. Catch them now before the bandwagon becomes too crowded.
What, you say? A team without it's two most marquee players is watchable?
First of all, Tracy McGrady is no fun to watch. He's lost his athleticism, and now all he does is launch bad jump shots. He's the antithesis of what Houston has built this year, and while they're giving him a raw deal by saying he can't play when he's ready, they know what we all know: he would mess up their chemistry.
But still, Houston? Allow me to respond to your question with a series of questions.
The bottom line? Houston pretty much has every quality you want in a basketball team, except starpower. But they more than make up for that with their sound, fundamenal play.
Unfortunately, because the NBA schedule makers are bozos that are in love with star power, the Rockets aren't scheduled to be on national TV once. Cleveland gets tons and tons of national TV appearances because they have LeBron, yet Houston, who works harder and smarter than any other team in the league, can't even get one look on NBATV. Obviously, GM/whizkid Daryl Morey is such a genius that he's seduced the TV executives into completely overlooking his team. That's my only explanation, because it's a damn shame that those players don't get any sort of recognition. But maybe if they did, they'd lose their edge. So, you know what, just leave them as is.
This is about as close as you can get to basketball perfection these days. Unbelievable spacing on offense, led by the league's most skilled player (Kobe Bryant), it's most skilled post player (Pau Gasol) and it's best coach. Throw in one of the most talented young center in the league (Andrew Bynum), two glue guys who fill in the blanks (Lamar Odom and, shockingly, Ron Artest), and you have true basketball harmony.
And yet, they aren't number one because ...
1. Phoenix Suns
... it sometimes comes down to the superstars after all. Kobe Bryant may be basketball perfection, in terms of being a skilled player that has the luxury to pick his spots because of the talent of his teammates, but Steve Nash is still the gold standard in terms of entertainment. Maybe it's because you still can't imagine how a guy who looks like that makes the plays he does. Maybe it's because it still feels like every single jump shot he takes is going in. But there's something about watching Nash and the Suns that makes you smile.
Think about it: look at Nash's teammates right now? Amare Stoudemire is nowhere near as explosive as he was several years ago - microfracture and eye surgeries do that to you. Grant Hill was supposed to have faded into the sunlight by now. Jason Richardson used to be the classic "good stats, bad team" player - now he's a winning player because of Nash. Channing Frye was once derided for his soft play; now, he's the prototypical shooting big man. Three of Phoenix's top bench players -- Jared Dudley, Goran Dragic and Louis Amudnson -- were D-League quality before Nash (and in the case of Amundson, he was actually in the D-League). Phoenix's coach, Alvin Gentry, has made the playoffs once in seven years as a head coach (and that was during the 1999 lockout-shortened season). This team has no business being 16-8, yet thanks to Nash, that's where they are.
As I wrote the end of this, I was watching last Saturday's Suns-Nuggets game. The Suns were playing on the second night of a back-to-back after a grueling win over Orlando on Friday, a game in which Nash played 40 minutes and Stoudemire played 41. The Nuggets hadn't played since Thursday. A second-game of a back-to-back on the road against a rested team is a tall order no matter what, but winning the second-game of a back-to-back in Denver is the toughest task in the league, because of the altitude and the fact that Denver runs you like crazy. None of that mattered to Steve Nash, who promptly came out and nailed fadeaway after fadeaway over the outstretched arms of guys like Kenyon Martin and Nene. He had 12 of Phoenix's first 13 points and the Suns eventually raced to a big lead. Eventually, Denver woke up, came back, and won a close won thanks to some questionable officiating down the stretch, but the point is, could anyone else will their team to a performance like that under those circumstances? Maybe the answer is yes, but can anyone do it while looking like Steve Nash? No way.
And that's why the Suns remain the kings of NBA entertainment. Watch them every chance you get. I implore you.
Comments
Well done Mr. Prada
And bless you for putting the wizards so high. they could use the morale boost.
twitter.com/rashad20
by rashad20 on Dec 14, 2009 11:51 AM EST reply actions
Yeah - My team, the Wizards, are fun to watch
but I also like to watch slow motion train wrecks too….
Great post -
I’ll also say this about Houston – my second favorite team in the league:
1. Love Battier – and his cerebral approach to the game. He’s ALWAYS prepared, ALWAYS in the right place defensively, NEVER takes a bad shot – and he’s a nice guy too.
2. I love the rookie Chase Budinger – if he gets better on defense, he could develop into an All-Star. Great elevation on his jumper. Tremendous athletic ability (he was a vollyball star)…Very dangerous along the baseline; and he’s smart.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Dec 14, 2009 12:18 PM EST reply actions
Such a great list. I agree with… most of them. Wizards are questionable, but they’re your team.
by Vic De Zen on Dec 14, 2009 12:19 PM EST reply actions
every season needs a villain
in the past it was the Pistons or Knicks or Heat and now it seems to be the Celtics – I can live with that
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V
by Jeff Clark on Dec 14, 2009 12:44 PM EST reply actions
I hate that you can live with that!
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 14, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
I hate that you hate
but there’s not much I can do about that either, so I can live with that too
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V
by Jeff Clark on Dec 14, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
And the voting booths were ..... where?
Just one fans opinion on every team in the league. Nothing really worth while here.
Please, just because you have a blog doesn’t make your proclamations any more ‘authoritative’, even if you spend a lot of time organizing them into lists.
Base this on a collective opinion – with a well qualified survey – and maybe I’d give it some cred. Otherwise its just you giving props to the teams you like and cutting on the teams you don’t like.
by mmmmm on Dec 14, 2009 1:01 PM EST reply actions
Ahem
So, you’re bickering, but about what? What isn’t worth while? That your team was low on the list?
Please, just because you can bicker senselessly doesn’t make your proclamations any more “authoritative,” even if you spend a lot of time trying to come up with good insults to use in your comment.
And here, let’s do this. Next time Bill Simmons throws out his NFL picks, let us all band together to thrash the value of the human opinion as we violently insult the man in the comments section. “SIMMONS, WHY DO YOU CHEAT US WITH YOUR OPINIONS! DIDN’T ESPN HIRE YOU TO SIMPLY ASK EVERYONE ELSE WHAT THEY THOUGHT!?”
(or to put it more simply, you’re an idiot)
The Dream Shake ...on Twitter.
"I think girls are probably just better shooters." - Steve Novak
by Tom Martin on Dec 14, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Amen Jake
I love this article…
by diggles14 on Dec 14, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
Lovely.
First:
No, he ranked ‘my team’ high on the list. Doesn’t make him any more authoritative. Doesn’t give him a free pass at the blatant swipes he takes at a ton of teams.
Second:
Brilliant argument.
by mmmmm on Dec 14, 2009 6:51 PM EST up reply actions
Why can't he have an opinion?
If he has the authority to publish his opinion, why can’t he?
The Dream Shake ...on Twitter.
"I think girls are probably just better shooters." - Steve Novak
by Tom Martin on Dec 14, 2009 9:09 PM EST up reply actions
What are you, his nom-de-plume?
I have just as much ‘authority’ to call his ‘article’ for what it is – a fan taking a bunch of swipes at other teams disguised as a ‘ranking’ dressed with the trappings of informed opinion.
I didn’t say anywhere that he has no right to publish whatever he wants.
by mmmmm on Dec 16, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Why, exactly, are you demanding authority?
This is clearly an editorial sort of piece. That means it is, by nature, a matter of opinion.
Tell you what, why don’t you organize some sort of “valid” “Authoritative”, “statistically sound” surrey of a completely subjective issue like watchability? The internet eagerly awaits your findings.
by Xiane on Dec 14, 2009 9:09 PM EST up reply actions
And by the way...
It really is, Isn’t it?
The Dream Shake ...on Twitter.
"I think girls are probably just better shooters." - Steve Novak
by Tom Martin on Dec 15, 2009 4:33 AM EST up reply actions
if you consider ad hom arguments 'brilliant'.
by mmmmm on Dec 16, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree
having a blog makes you the ultimate authority on anything.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 14, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
i new i should have started a log...lol
" I'm a human, not a sandwich"
by true_lakerfan on Dec 14, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
blog,
i cant even see what im typing, the comment section is all screwed up, so i apologize.
" I'm a human, not a sandwich"
by true_lakerfan on Dec 14, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Knicks at 23?
And not a word about them otherwise. Maybe you should “light yourself on fire.” How many games from any of these teams could have you have even watched? And why are you trotting out tired, exhausted, beaten down Bill Simmons cliches?
by inventor frank on Dec 14, 2009 2:19 PM EST reply actions
B-/C+ Some Strange Choices
It’s good to see the Rockets get some props, but there are some baffling choices here too. I like some semblance of defense, which Mr Prada does not. otherwise TOR doesn’t sniff my top 10, nor does OKC. OKC also suffers from a predictable offense devoted to getting the ball to KD. Otherwise, Prada hates the BOS big time and loves the LAL like a love-sick teen:
“This is about as close as you can get to basketball perfection these days.”
which rates very high on my gag factor scale. I’ll also watch the Cavs any day of the week to see if they can pull together an interesting mix of talents rather than be subjected to “entertaining” messes like the WASH or GS. Messes are boring. ATL is the #1 efficient offensive team in the NBA ahead of the Suns and deserves better too.
by colincb on Dec 14, 2009 3:04 PM EST reply actions
Oklahoma City is sixth in the league in defense, dude
Check it.
Atlanta’s a fair gripe – they probably deserve better. I still just can’t shake their boring half-court offense from previous years out of my head.
As for Boston – they were ranked fifth and the Lakers second. Really, guys, come on.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 14, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
Dude?
I stand corrected on OKC’s defense. Based on a game I saw against BOS at OKC, they were defenseless. Nonetheless, their offense is very predictable.
Putting your Bullets (or GSW) ahead of the Cavs was beyond ridiculous. You didn’t need 4 video clips ragging on the Cs, Toronto is the worst defensive team in the NBA in the last 10 years currently and is unwatcheable, the Lakers are the champs, but they’re not close to perfection and they know it.
As far as OKC they don’t make my top 10 and GSW, WAS and TOR are teams in my bottom 10 for watchability. I don’t have a problem with 4 of your top 5 or 8 of your top 10. To your credit, you gave some props to SAC and the Bucks (as well as the Rockets). But you are attuned to “stars” versus teams, offense vs defense, and you have some blatant biases and in the case of the Cavs you really blew it because of it.
by colincb on Dec 14, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for your opinion
It’s obviously a subjective exercise. We clearly value different things.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 14, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
I’d rather watch the OKC Thunder than the Cavs too…
The Cavaliers have one of the worst Offenses in the entire NBA – and their Defense is just stifling…. When I watch the Cavs, it always looks like LeBron driving against 5 defenders – and he kicks out to an open shooter. That’s an Offense? The only reason that Offense works is because it’s LeBron James….. but it’s boring. Besides; why watch the entire game when I can just tune in to Sports Center and watch them dedicate 12 minutes to LeBron replays…..
On the other hand, OKC has some really nice players – Durant, Green, etc… and I love watching Harden play. He plays like a 10-year vet, even though he’s still a rook. They’re young. They’re enthusiastic; and they’re getting better.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Dec 14, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions
Lol
You actually think that Cavs are fun to watch? That’s rich.
Sure, LeBron has the occasional brilliant play, but I don’t know how you can stand to watch guys like Varejao, Shaq and Delonte West.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 14, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
Genius!
Couldn’t agree more!
Blogging Suns Basketball . twitter: @phoenixstan
by Seth Pollack on Dec 14, 2009 3:15 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
For the most part
List isn’t too far fetched. However, putting Toronto at #9 while high scoring/suspect defenses of GSW and the Knicks much further back doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Nellie and D’Antoni plus their respected rosters have a ton more entertainment value.
I’m no Cav’s fan myself but putting them towards the end of the list because of your bias? Regardless of anything else, Lebron is arguably the leagues best talent. That alone should put his team in the top half.
Looking for in depth solid basketball analysis? Try www.basketballfreeforall.com!
by RedHopeful on Dec 14, 2009 4:06 PM EST reply actions
but that's the point
lebron is the league’s best talent, and they are not fun to watch. check them out. this year the team is less fluid offensively, and there’s more 1-on-5 with lebron than last year. if hickson improves he could add some athletic excitement. otherwise it’s bulldozer drives and 3-point jacking.
"how ironic - you came here with a mouse in a bottle, now YOU are the mouse in the bottle" - B.M. Smith
by little stevie colter on Dec 14, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
I think
it has something to do with the addition of Shaq. I didn’t mind watching them in the Playoffs, but I absolutely can’t watch another Cavs game this year.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 14, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm…stares at title…
by Fundefined on Dec 14, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
The difference is Toronto actually moves the ball
And runs crisp, efficient sets, whereas Golden State and the Knicks just chuck up bad shots. I’d rather watch the former, though I realize how subjective this exercise is.
As for Cleveland, they’re regarded as frustrating to watch even by non-Wizards fans, so I don’t think my own bias shined in too much. Again, though, it’s all subjective.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 14, 2009 4:15 PM EST reply actions
Sorry, should be a reply to RedHopeful
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 14, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
I thought it was a good list.
But calling Tyson Chandler a solid veteran is only accurate as far as the veteran part goes. His time catching lobs from Chris Paul made people vastly overrate him, imo.
"I guess killing will have to be fun enough"-Homer J. Simpson
by Diosnomeama on Dec 14, 2009 5:03 PM EST reply actions
Small correction
If I remember correctly, Ariza wasn’t “given up so the Lakers could get Ron Artest.” The Lakers always wanted to keep Ariza but couldn’t agree to terms with his agent, so they got Artest as an insurance policy because it looked like Ariza was going to bolt. Slight mix-up between cause and effect there.
by EmmaWK on Dec 14, 2009 5:11 PM EST reply actions
What a shock...
More ridiculous hate for the Celtics. First off, HInrich initiated the scuffle with Rondo. Second, Rondo was trying to make a play on the ball and he got there too late so he hit Miller’s head. Unlike what Miller did to Rondo Saturday night which was a flat out clothesline with the intent to hurt Rondo. Third, is it KG’s fault that Calderon is too much of a mental midget that he can’t handle trash talk?? Fourth, Pierce being wheeled out was the call of the medical staff, not Paul Pierce. Way to let your opinion get in the way of facts. And the Lakers are basketball perfection?? Artest is an idiot. Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, Derek Fisher, and Kobe Bryant are all as soft as Charmin. Their bench is the worst in the NBA. What exactly about watching Kobe jack up 20+ shots every game is exciting?? Have fun watching the Celtics raise Banner 18…THAT will be the most exciting thing yet.
by sexyscottish on Dec 14, 2009 5:59 PM EST reply actions
Yeah right...
Love your team all you want, but don’t expect the rest of the world to. These Celtics are one of the most hateable teams of all time. Maybe only second to the Bad Boys. Nobody is saying they aren’t good. But they sure are arrogant, dirty, and hateable. Is it not enough that they are the best team right now? You also have to make up stuff about what saints they are? Give me a break. Stop spending energy defending them, because you can’t. Just sit back and enjoy their villainy.
by henryclemente on Dec 14, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
Dirty?...
How are the Celtics dirty? What have they done this season that makes them dirty? If this is an evaluation of watchability this season, youll have trouble finding any examples of dirty play. I guess its tough for me as a Celtics fan to see whats so “hateable” about the team. I understand that teams who win a lot will be hated, but I don’t think we are punks like everyone tries to make us out to be.
Follow me @jimmy_toscano
by Jimmy Toscano on Dec 14, 2009 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
WOW
So were the T-Wolves hateable when KG was there doing the EXACT SAME THING?? Was Pierce hateable when he had no help whatsoever and was the only player worth watching?? Was Rondo hateable when he was dominating the Lakers in the Finals or when he OWNED Derrick Rose in that series??
I would think that raping a woman would be more hateable than anything the Celtics have ever done. I would think running the only reason the Lakers won a title out of town would be more hateable. It’s OK bro, your moral compass is clearly so messed up you can’t find your way out of your own house.
by sexyscottish on Dec 14, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
No.
Their success magnifies bad behavior. When a team is insignificant, that stuff is much less notable. So it’s a double standard.
And, um, a Kobe rape analogy here? What’s wrong with you? How does that in any respect change the irritating behavior of the Celtics? It’s a completely separate issue, the possible criminal behavior of one person has no bearing here. It’s like saying you shouldn’t go to jail for robbery because there are murderers out there. So what?
by Xiane on Dec 14, 2009 9:03 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
For the most part I agree, especially with your number one pick. The only reason I got into basketball is Steve Nash. His game and how the Suns are playing this season keeps me interested.
by lelele33322 on Dec 14, 2009 6:21 PM EST reply actions
Very nice MP
It’s funny, but I have a feeling you’re not alone in the guilty pleasure category. I just hope fans in Sacramento catch up to the team.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Oh, hes in the laegue two and Jayson Thomson and that Boggins dude on Milwokee, and Occur for the Jizz. Its a talented laegue.--Kfan in Korea
by pookeyguru on Dec 14, 2009 8:52 PM EST reply actions
Dribbles per possession candidates.
How about Rafer Alston? Steve Blake?
For pointless dribbling those guys are hard to beat.
by Xiane on Dec 14, 2009 9:05 PM EST reply actions
Two very good candidates as well
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 16, 2009 9:20 AM EST up reply actions
Nice work Mike
Really a great read … can’t argue with much here, cause I know you watch a shit-ton of basketball.
Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It.net and Bullets Forever.
by Kyle Weidie on Dec 14, 2009 9:28 PM EST reply actions
Great Idea for an Article
It was a very good read. Obviously this is highly subjective but I thought I’d give my two cents worth on some of the rankings.
First of all, I’m a Pistons fan so I’m obviously a bit biased, but I think they are way too low on this list. They’ve been hit hard by injuries, but they always play 48 minutes of ball. For some of the same reasons you like Houston a lot (underdog + plays hard) is why I like the Pistons.
I’d put Atlanta higher too. Tons of athletes and they have the most efficent offense in the NBA.
I know they are your team, but the Wizards are too high. To me a team can’t be entertaining to watch if they aren’t getting the most out of their talent. There’s too much talent on that team to have the record they do.
Anyways, this was a great read and brought some good discussion in the comments. Well done.
by Stones1981 on Dec 14, 2009 10:28 PM EST reply actions
LOL
I was gonna argue with your #14 ranking of my Hawks until I read your reasoning why you rank them #14. I am a huge Hawks fan and at first took offense but you’re right JJ does dribble too much and when the camera goes to Coach Woodsons the look on his face does tend to turn your stomach. And the iso offense has caused quite a stir in Hawks Nation.
I don’t think the Lakers are exciting to watch nor the Phoenix Suns. I have NBA League Pass too. I have tried watching these two teams and they just bore me.
by DPhenomenal1 on Dec 15, 2009 12:26 PM EST reply actions
LOL
Sorry anyone who says that is talking out of their ass. Is Brook Lopez just an average NBA player? Is Devin Harris a no name PG? It might be true that they’re unwatchable but it has nothing to do with not having ANY talent. Who let you write articles on this site?
by head_hunter on Dec 15, 2009 4:40 PM EST reply actions
Actually
I kinda, sorta agree here. Brook Lopez and Devin Harris are talented, CDR is one of the more underrated players in the league, and Terrence Williams and Courtney Lee, while they should not be starting, are talented as well. I think it’s more of a question of how much “ugly” you can put up with when watching the Nets. Talent doesn’t have a whole lot to do with it.
The Dream Shake ...on Twitter.
"I think girls are probably just better shooters." - Steve Novak
by Tom Martin on Dec 15, 2009 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Collectively, the Nets' talent level is really awful
That’s what I mean. Their 3-12 guys (outside of Harris, Lopez and maybe CDR) are probably the worst in the NBA.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 16, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
Talent has nothing to do with this article
That’s the title. The writer fails miserably in making talent a criteria for watching the Nets. I admit collectively they’re among the worst if not the worst. However, the basis of the article is supposed to be how watchable the team is not taking into account talent. The writer goes out to use this
as the reason why the Nets are 29th. I have no problem with them being 29th or 30th because I know they play an ugly game but the fact is the reasoning just doesn’t fit.by head_hunter on Dec 16, 2009 9:54 AM EST up reply actions
Talent definitely plays into Watchability, despite what the title may imply
Most people tend to like watching good teams, which explains why most of the top 10 at least is good teams. It’s just not the only factor, which is why the title is written that way.
I realize we’re going to disagree on what makes something watchable, but that’s kind of the point. Personally, I see the Nets’ problem being a lack of talent, not ugly basketball.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 16, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
You're missing the point.
The title says that the writer will not factor in talent into the rankings or even consider it in terms of entertainment. He goes out to say that talent is the reason why the Nets are there. This directly contradicts anything he’s trying to establish with the title because he is clearly using talent as a criteria for watchability.
by head_hunter on Dec 19, 2009 9:34 PM EST up reply actions
I am the author
The title says it’s not solely based on talent, not that talent plays no role.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 22, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
This is excellent.
As a Bulls fan, I couldn’t agree more. They are truly embarassing right now. But once Tyrus Thomas gets back we might be able to leap past the Nets!
Your offense is only as good as your bullpen.
by defensive indifference on Dec 15, 2009 6:43 PM EST reply actions
My team,
the Phoenix Suns, IS the only reason I bought LeaguePass (broadband). So, you hit the nail right on the head.
They still don’t get any beneficial calls, and it sickens me as hard and as heartfelt as they play. What does a 2-time MVP have to do to get some fouls called for him?!
Tigers love pepper; they hate cinnamon.
by Jareth Cutestory on Dec 15, 2009 7:41 PM EST reply actions
Nice Try
The Cavaliers continue to be one of the top teams in the NBA in local television and radio ratings. The team’s opening night game against Boston on October 27th at Quicken Loans Arena, which was nationally broadcast on TNT, had a 19.5 television rating and a 29.0 household share, which amounts to approximately 750,000 viewers, not including bars/restaurants and other public group viewing totals. The 19.5 rating is also the second highest regular season rating in franchise history behind the 20.5 television rating on February 8, 2009, against the L.A. Lakers on ABC. For the first time in Cavaliers history, all games broadcast this season on FOX Sports Ohio (FSO) will be presented in High Definition (HD). Also, all FSO games will be re-aired the next day or at midnight following the game for Friday and Saturday games. The team’s regional broadcast ratings on FSO have netted a 8.6 rating and a 14.0 household share so far this season, which is ahead of last season’s average of 8.5 and 14.0 share.
I think people are watching.
by kevinoc0 on Dec 16, 2009 5:44 PM EST reply actions
Doesn't mean they're entertaining from a basketball standpoint...
People watch because they want to watch LeBron, not because they want to watch the Cavs.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 17, 2009 9:16 AM EST up reply actions
once again
well then the author should go by his own ranking system and put them under “maybe because of one player” if that is the truth.
This guy contradicts himself, not very good reporting.
by kevinoc0 on Dec 17, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting analogy
On the OKC Thunder, “They were like that Indie band you knew before they went mainstream.”
Good analogy. It reminded me of one I heard before. Like the one about John Wall on this very website.
by jpmchugh77 on Dec 17, 2009 12:59 PM EST reply actions
Subjective
Obviously what you think is entertaining is very subjective. No way I watch a team with Scola, Landry and Aaron Brooks. I’d prefer to watch the Bulls just to see Derrick Rose’s quickness and shot making. Also how is Marc Gasol anymore entertaining than Horward or even Shaq? I think you’re giving unathletic, plodding, slow guys points for being able to produce despite their limited physical abilities. Great try but your bias and subjectiveness just shows how this kind of exercise can never really come up with the goods.
by airwolex on Dec 18, 2009 10:28 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed