Scholarship table
Not trying to take anything away from KD because he was a beast last night, but it certainly helped that he could get Love on him anytime he wanted.
Yeah but WTF kind of defense are the Cavs running? They are switching every screen which just allows them to get this sort of match up whenever they want. At the end of the first half, they had Nance guarding KD - shot right over him. Then for the dagger deep three at the end of the game, they had Rodney Hood.I understand why they are switching to some extent. But when it's just a lazy pick meant simply to get a match up, I think they need to be fighting through that a little harder.
I'll stick with my opinion on Gold. He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.
BTW, when Durant is shooting like he was last night, he is the best player on the planet. Also a very underrated defender.
Agree, in game 2 when Curry went off it was because he could get Love switched onto him whenever he wanted, in game 3 is was Love on Durant. Cavs need to figure out their defense because Curry won't have another night as bad as last night for a while.
Cavs do the same thing on offense. Try to get Curry on Lebron with switching.
From the NBA Rule Book:Section IV—Flagrant Foula. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to beunnecessary, a flagrant foul—penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to theoffender and a team foul is charged to the team.b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to beunnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul—penalty (2) will be assessed. A personal foul ischarged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.c. A flagrant foul may be assessed whether the ball is dead or alive.I'd like someone to explain how Draymond hitting LeBron in the cubes was necessary.I'll hang up and listen.
Yeah but I think the Warriors at least have a plan. They get that switch, and if Lebron shoots over Curry it's a win. Unless he gets hot, he isn't going to kill you from the outside like KD can. When he drives, they collapse because they don't fear the Cavs outside shooting.
And, after all the debates about how many HOFers each of them had on their teams, as I watched the game last night I couldn't help thinking about that "other" HOFer. Screw Pippen, Rodman, Wade, Bosh, et al. Jordan had Jackson. Game. Set. Match.
You do realize it's a team game. Paxson's 3 against Phoenix in 1993 saved the Bulls from a game 7 on the road. But Jordan gets the credit..The Bulls bench made a huge rally vs Portland in game 6. IIRC, they were down 15 heading into the 4th quarter. Jordan was on the bench while guys like Jud Buchler chipped away at the lead, setting the stage for Jordan to seal it down the stretch. But hey, let's just give all the credit to Jordan.
Also when discussing all time greats, will losing to Dallas in 2011 forever be on Kobe's, Durant's, Harden's, and Westbrook's resume, the way its plastered across Lebrons? Kobe was coming off back to back championships and was swept, and the combo in OKC lost in 5.
Also imagine how much criticism would be coming his way if Lebron had a line like Curry's last night.
Why was Lebron throwing Green to the ground necessary? Why was Lebron walking over Green necessary? Why was JR Smith undercutting (and injuring) Klay necessary in game 1? None of those were flagrant fouls, were not upgraded, but were completely unnecessary. There are a whole lot of factors you did not list that are included in determining if something is "flagrant". The very first of which is: The severity of the contact. James barely even realized he was hit, he reacted to the missed swing afterwards, not the first hit. Hence the refs not reviewing it at all during the game. That is why it was not a flagrant, not severe, and not an intentional hit to the nuts. The latter is why this would not have been a flagrant if it was reversed Lebron hitting Green in the nuts, or any other player besides Green for that matter. It would have been viewed as an unintentional hit to the nuts, with minor contact that didn't cause any issue. It was viewed as intentional with an intent to cause harm, because it was Green and his prior history. Hence, the point I made earlier.
Why was Lebron throwing Green to the ground necessary? Why was Lebron walking over Green necessary? Why was JR Smith undercutting (and injuring) Klay necessary in game 1? None of those were flagrant fouls, were not upgraded, but were completely unnecessary.
There are a whole lot of factors you did not list that are included in determining if something is "flagrant". The very first of which is: The severity of the contact.
James barely even realized he was hit, he reacted to the missed swing afterwards, not the first hit. Hence the refs not reviewing it at all during the game. That is why it was not a flagrant, not severe, and not an intentional hit to the nuts.
Well, no, because none of those players are the second-best in the history of basketball. I also don't think the 2011 Finals loss is "plastered" on LeBron's resume. Just about the only time it is brought up is when frustrated LeBron-haters, desperate to take shots at him, bring it up. It's like desperate Michael-haters -- and they're out there -- bringing up his loss to Orlando after his first comeback or his less-than-successful tenure with the Wizards.
And for some reason you've decided that a guy with an established history of intentionally punching/kicking opponents in the nuts did so totally by accident the one time he did it to LeBron.
My point was made to counter the argument that LBJ can't be the GOAT because of his bad series in 2011 (not saying that you made this point, but I have seen it multiple times). As you point out MJ had a bad series against the Magic, but it doesn't get discussed as much because it wasn't in the finals. Kobe got swept by the same Mavs that beat LBJ and he's still the #2 all time SG IMO. Duncan lost to the 8th seeded Grizzlies that same year and he's still the #1 PF all time IMO. One series good or bad should not make or break one's reputation.
Green, a guy with a reputation as a dirty player, might have brushed LBJ's shorts in his groin area as LBJ stepped over him after tackling him. Flagrant foul.Delly, a guy with a reputation as a dirty player, drills Iggy square in the balls with force from behind. Common foul.One guy played for a team going for a second snoozer title in a row, the other played for a team playing with the desperation of losing a second snoozer of an NBA Finals in a row.
1) Delly's reputation isn't nearly as bad as Green's. To compare the two is laughable.2) The obvious difference being that Delly was attempting to make a play on the basketball. 3) Show us a recent play where one player strikes another in the groin away from the play and doesn't get a flagrant called.
3) Show me Green "striking" LBJ in the groin.
Oh good lord.
1. So, you wrote a couple hundred words that made no attempt to answer the question and poorly attempted to equivocate coincidental contact (Smith hitting Klay) and stepping over someone, i.e. an attempt to avoid contact, with a flagrant foul.2. You literally just made that up. Nowhere in the rule book is there any mention of "severity of the contact." Read for yourself:https://turnernbahangtime.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/official-nba-rule-book-2015-16.pdf3. Also something you're making up. An in-game review is not necessary for something to be ruled a flagrant foul. The fact the refs chose not to review it during the game does not prove it wasn't a flagrant. It proves that refs sometimes miss things in real time (Shocking, I know).And for some reason you've decided that a guy with an established history of intentionally punching/kicking opponents in the nuts did so totally by accident the one time he did it to LeBron.Hmmm. Wonder why that is.
And for some reason you've decided that a guy with an established history of intentionally punching/kicking opponents in the nuts did so totally by accident the one time he did it to LeBron.Hmmm. Wonder why that is.
I totally get your point. However, among intelligent consumers and observers, that loss in the 2011 Finals has not made or broken LeBron's reputation. I mean, does even the biggest LeBron hater out there think that he isn't one of the top 3-5 players in history? You and I and many other intelligent observers consider him no worse than No. 2.So I just don't worry about the desperation of haters. I simply counter their silly arguments with facts. And if those don't convince them, it's no skin off my teeth. If it makes them feel better to believe that LeBron woulda been nuthin' without Udonis Haslem, that's cool!
What I find interesting in this post is something that is common to all debates. Each side thinks they support their arguments with facts, and that the other side refuses to accept them. You are right, no one in this thread has said anything but that Lebron is one of the greatest basketball players of all time. The only thing that has been said is that some of the claims regarding his greatness are overstated. For example, the ones I've discussed are:1. His teams were not as bad as many people say they were. This can and has been backed up with facts. 2. His 2016 championship was not as big an upset as people say it was. This can and has been backed up with facts. I mean, without injuries etc, Lebron was playing alongside 2 HOF players. 3. To win this series Lebron will have to step it up on defense. They lost games 1 and 3 because of crappy defense. This is also supported by facts. Now, statistics/facts can counter some of these elements, but there is no right or wrong regarding these subjective interpretations...only opinions. Much of the follow up discussion largely result from people saying that people that agree with 1, 2, 3 above are idiots, don't understand basketball etc, and the people saying 1, 2, and 3 then defending that their stances are not outlandish, but consistent with stats/facts. If one thinks that 1, 2 and 3 are not reasonable statements supported by facts; then frankly, they are being as ridiculous as anyone that thinks a reasonable argument cannot be made for Lebron to be the 1st or 2nd best all time. No one has to agree with 1, 2 and 3; or that Lebron is the greatest/2nd greatest, but to think that either is outlandish, and to attack the individual saying such things, makes reasonable discussion go awry.
On item 1. Stepping over someone is not avoiding contact. It is widely regarded as antagonistic, poor sportsmanship and has led to technicals assigned in the past. Since he makes contact with Green, and inhibits his return to play it is a foul (Sultan you are wrong that it can't be upgraded, because it is not a foul...it is. For that matter, Green hitting Lebron wasn't called a foul either. It was a no call that was assessed a flagrant after the fact).
On item 3. What am I making up? That Lebron didn't react to being hit in the nuts? He didn't, he responded and jawed with Green after the second missed swing. There is video evidence of this.
So answer me this. If it was reversed, same video, same play. Green throws Lebron to the ground, steps over him in a confrontational way, and Lebron swings his arm at Green, brushing his shorts. Do you think Lebron gets upgraded to a flagrant?