Anyone see Wes nail the three and then steal from Kobe at the end? I mean it's not like the Jazz are gonna win but again he is coming up big.
Anyone see the background when the camera panned Kirilenko in street clothes? :o
Wes is not backing down from Kobe. Gotta love that.
But Kobe's got a lot of tricks and tons of skill to use Wes at times.
On ESPN's front page:
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0504/nba_g_kobe-matthews01_576.jpg)
But that three towards the end was big. If he had made the other one that DWill set up for him, that would have be monumental.
Quote from: KC2016 on May 05, 2010, 12:33:53 AM
Anyone see the background when the camera panned Kirilenko in street clothes? :o
Yes. ;)
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2010/05/500x_custom_1273033179188_jazzboobs.jpg)
Poor AK.
He'd cheer up if he just turned his head a little more.
It took me awhile to notice that AK was even in the picture. :-X
Quote from: T-Bone on May 05, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2010/05/500x_custom_1273033179188_jazzboobs.jpg)
Poor AK.
He'd cheer up if he just turned his head a little more.
He doesn't need the temptation, as he has already used his "get out of jail free" card this year.
Quote from: T-Bone on May 05, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2010/05/500x_custom_1273033179188_jazzboobs.jpg)
Poor AK.
He'd cheer up if he just turned his head a little more.
Yes he would. he could drink from the straw--or the preferred nipple!
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 05, 2010, 12:40:43 AM
Wes is not backing down from Kobe. Gotta love that.
But Kobe's got a lot of tricks and tons of skill to use Wes at times.
On ESPN's front page:
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0504/nba_g_kobe-matthews01_576.jpg)
But that three towards the end was big. If he had made the other one that DWill set up for him, that would have be monumental.
Kobe still had 30 points.
Kobe puts up 30 with regularity though on some of the best. To be honest I think if Kobe scored less than 25 it would say a lot more about Wesley's defense than it would that he's giving up 30+. As long as Kobe isn't going for 40+ then I don't think it makes Wesley look like a bad defender. I watched some of the first game and he was in his face whenever he guarded him, Kobe just hit some unbelievable shots that Kobe makes look almost routine.
Quote from: cheebs09 on May 05, 2010, 09:59:47 AM
Kobe puts up 30 with regularity though on some of the best. To be honest I think if Kobe scored less than 25 it would say a lot more about Wesley's defense than it would that he's giving up 30+. As long as Kobe isn't going for 40+ then I don't think it makes Wesley look like a bad defender. I watched some of the first game and he was in his face whenever he guarded him, Kobe just hit some unbelievable shots that Kobe makes look almost routine.
That, and they were using Miles, and even Millsap a couple of times on him. It wasn't like Wes covered him the entire game. In fact, the stretch where Kobe got going was when he was on the bench.
Kobe burnt Wes badly twice, once with that ridiculous long pivot toward the baseline then back toward the basket as the 24 seconds expired. Wes was only human to think there was no way he had time to pivot back with no time left. The second time Wes did make a mistake and just tried a routine fadeway with Kobe all over him and got rejected.
However, no question he is in Kobe's grill and doing a better job than anyone else against him. The great part of picking Kobe was that Kobe got frustrated again and fouled him. 4 for 6 on three-pointers, 3 more steals, 5 rebounds - couldn't ask for more from Wesley.
Wes has done a phenomonal job defending Kobe, especially when you consider how blatantly NBA officials cater to star players...not to mention that Stern would never allow the NBA's current marquee franchise to get knocked out of the playoffs by some small market team.
Right, because "big market" teams like Orlando, San Antonio, Cleveland etc. are given free passes to advance.
You'd be on more stable footing if you made the "Stern only lets superstars advance" argument. But they're all fallacies. Teams like the Jazz in the late '90s and the Spurs and Pistons throughout '00-10 advanced deep into the playoffs despite the fact that they weren't particularly popular teams-- and they certainly weren't from big markets. The Spurs played the Pistons and the Cavs in the finals in the last decade. Not exactly Lakers v. Celtics.
The best teams almost always win and advance. It's not fixed.
Quote from: bartmiller#1 on May 05, 2010, 01:14:29 PM
Right, because "big market" teams like Orlando, San Antonio, Cleveland etc. are given free passes to advance.
You'd be on more stable footing if you made the "Stern only lets superstars advance" argument. But they're all fallacies. Teams like the Jazz in the late '90s and the Spurs and Pistons throughout '00-10 advanced deep into the playoffs despite the fact that they weren't particularly popular teams-- and they certainly weren't from big markets. The Spurs played the Pistons and the Cavs in the finals in the last decade. Not exactly Lakers v. Celtics.
The best teams almost always win and advance. It's not fixed.
I never said anyone was given a "free pass" or that only big market teams win championships. I actually believe that it's more impressive when a team like the Spurs or Pistons wins the Championship considering the league would prefer they didn't even make the Finals. It's a testament to just how good those team were when they are able to overcome the factors working against them.
The NBA prefers to have big name teams and/or big name players advance (like any other league) but the difference is that the NBA does what they can to help out the bigger name or to prolong a series ('93 Finals, Game 3 comes to mind) or sometimes both. Stern and the commisioner's office knows which refs are homers and which prefer to be the bad guy. He also knows which refs have ill feelings towards certain teams and that knowledge is used when assigning officials to specific games.
Watch a replay of the 4th quarter of the 2002 Western Conference Finals and tell me there was nothing fishy about that.
2001 Eastern Conference Semifinals.
I rest my case.
dont forget that Tim Donaghy made a ton of money simply betting with the referee's bias against particular teams. no matter what you think of the guy, the results of his methods speak for themselves. given some of the phantom calls and continuing trends this year (vs the mavericks, etc) its not like those biases have gone anywhere.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 05, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
2001 Eastern Conference Semifinals.
I rest my case.
Didn't the Bucks get jobbed in the Conf Finals, not the Semis? Either way, I suppose the point stands.
It was the Eastern Conference Finals vs. Philadelphia.
-Scott Williams Suspended.
-No foul call on Ray Allen as hes horse collard to the ground going up for a dunk.
-Big Dog missing a 6-footer to ice the series.
oh, yes, i mistyped it, my mistake.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on May 05, 2010, 03:48:54 PM
It was the Eastern Conference Finals vs. Philadelphia.
-Scott Williams Suspended.
-No foul call on Ray Allen as hes horse collard to the ground going up for a dunk.
-Big Dog missing a 6-footer to ice the series.
Fear the Deer fans never forget
Quote from: MU_B2002 on May 05, 2010, 09:36:22 AM
He doesn't need the temptation, as he has already used his "get out of jail free" card this year.
That game's gotta be in LA. Those ain't Mormon Mams!
Quote from: mudimitri on May 05, 2010, 03:59:41 PM
Fear the Deer fans never forget
http://assets.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2001/2001/0531/1208098.html (http://assets.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2001/2001/0531/1208098.html)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=48hBvprymgs (http://youtube.com/watch?v=48hBvprymgs)
I will never forget that pile of crap series. It took me almost 10 years to forgive the NBA.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 05, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
2001 Eastern Conference Semifinals.
I rest my case.
The Bucks absolutely got jobbed in that series, but is it part of a league sponsored conspiracy of some kind? Would the league really prefer Iverson to move on before Ray Allen?
The 76ers are the like the Indiana University of pro franchises. They were relevant 30 years ago, but they haven't been a top-tier team in a long, long time.
I agree wholeheartedly that the Bucks got screwed, but I don't think it was because the league preferred the 76ers-- who were a really boring team featuring one really good player-- to advance in the playoffs.
Quote from: bartmiller#1 on May 07, 2010, 10:19:14 AM
The Bucks absolutely got jobbed in that series, but is it part of a league sponsored conspiracy of some kind? Would the league really prefer Iverson to move on before Ray Allen?
The 76ers are the like the Indiana University of pro franchises. They were relevant 30 years ago, but they haven't been a top-tier team in a long, long time.
I agree wholeheartedly that the Bucks got screwed, but I don't think it was because the league preferred the 76ers-- who were a really boring team featuring one really good player-- to advance in the playoffs.
The idea behind the conspiracy theory doesn't have so much to do with the Bucks versus the 76ers as it does with TV.
Philly is one of the Top 5 TV markets in the country, Milwaukee is outside of the Top 30. Couple that with the fact that Iverson was one of the biggest stars in the game that people all over the country would watch, while Bucks had no one like that. The conspiracy goes, the Bucks got jobbed because the NBA wanted to make sure to get the highest ratings possible, and you don't get those ratings with the Bucks in the finals.
Quote from: bma725 on May 07, 2010, 10:23:51 AM
The idea behind the conspiracy theory doesn't have so much to do with the Bucks versus the 76ers as it does with TV.
Philly is one of the Top 5 TV markets in the country, Milwaukee is outside of the Top 30. Couple that with the fact that Iverson was one of the biggest stars in the game that people all over the country would watch, while Bucks had no one like that. The conspiracy goes, the Bucks got jobbed because the NBA wanted to make sure to get the highest ratings possible, and you don't get those ratings with the Bucks in the finals.
Exactly. Not to mention that Iverson was a polarizing player. Theoretically, people would watch hoping to see him win a title or they'd watch hoping to see him fall on his face. Either way, they'd be watching.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 07, 2010, 10:59:47 AM
Exactly. Not to mention that Iverson was a polarizing player. Theoretically, people would watch hoping to see him win a title or they'd watch hoping to see him fall on his face. Either way, they'd be watching.
I understand the theory, I just don't buy it. How do you explain when it applies and when it doesn't?
San Antonio beats the Lakers in '03? Or PHX in '05? Those are larger TV markets and teams that certainly have more polarizing players and/or more popularly appealing players, yet the Spurs win. Is it because SA is clearly better in those years and the series isn't close enough for the NBA minions to sway the outcome?
Detroit beat Miami, Philly, New Jersey, etc. in its deep playoff runs. Again-- those teams had star power-- Kidd, Iverson, Wade-- and bigger TV markets.
My problems with all of these theories isn't that they're not interesting-- they are, I think it's fascinating stuff. I just don't buy that there could be such a relatively large number of people in on the plan without it being revealed in some sort of tell-all interview.
Crappy calls happen, as do really crappy matchups. The '07 Finals, for example, are probably the least palatable TV matchup in recent years-- despite the fact that LeBron was playing-- that series was virtually unwatchable. Teams get screwed-- '01 Bucks, '03 Kings, '94 Bulls, '05 Mavs, etc. Bad calls are part of the game. I don't see a pattern or a plan in them-- they happen all the time.
Just my two cents. The opinion you guys share is way more interesting.
Quote from: bartmiller#1 on May 07, 2010, 02:57:34 PM
I understand the theory, I just don't buy it. How do you explain when it applies and when it doesn't?
San Antonio beats the Lakers in '03? Or PHX in '05? Those are larger TV markets and teams that certainly have more polarizing players and/or more popularly appealing players, yet the Spurs win. Is it because SA is clearly better in those years and the series isn't close enough for the NBA minions to sway the outcome?
Detroit beat Miami, Philly, New Jersey, etc. in its deep playoff runs. Again-- those teams had star power-- Kidd, Iverson, Wade-- and bigger TV markets.
My problems with all of these theories isn't that they're not interesting-- they are, I think it's fascinating stuff. I just don't buy that there could be such a relatively large number of people in on the plan without it being revealed in some sort of tell-all interview.
Crappy calls happen, as do really crappy matchups. The '07 Finals, for example, are probably the least palatable TV matchup in recent years-- despite the fact that LeBron was playing-- that series was virtually unwatchable. Teams get screwed-- '01 Bucks, '03 Spurs, '94 Bulls, '05 Mavs, etc. Bad calls are part of the game. I don't see a pattern or a plan in them-- they happen all the time.
Just my two cents. The opinion you guys share is way more interesting.
Well said, and I agree.
Crappy calls happen, an I'm not a Bucks fan, but for Big Dog to go an entire game without getting fouled once is laughable. Supported the Bulls all my life, but if that wasn't a screwjob, then the officials must have been working with forks in their eyes.
Quote from: bartmiller#1 on May 07, 2010, 02:57:34 PM
I understand the theory, I just don't buy it. How do you explain when it applies and when it doesn't?
San Antonio beats the Lakers in '03? Or PHX in '05? Those are larger TV markets and teams that certainly have more polarizing players and/or more popularly appealing players, yet the Spurs win. Is it because SA is clearly better in those years and the series isn't close enough for the NBA minions to sway the outcome?
My problems with all of these theories isn't that they're not interesting-- they are, I think it's fascinating stuff. I just don't buy that there could be such a relatively large number of people in on the plan without it being revealed in some sort of tell-all interview.
Just my two cents. The opinion you guys share is way more interesting.
Good points. I understand where you're coming from, but you're missing the point a little bit (my point, at least). I don't think that the NBA has officials flat-out fix games. Like you said, there would be too many people involved and someone would squeal. I do, however, firmly believe that the league assigns certain officials to certain games (ie homers, bad guys, refs with a "vendetta" against a team, etc) in an attempt to give a specific team an advantage. It's not a "perfect" system, so to speak, because you do end up with Spurs-Pistons Finals from time to time, but IMO there are far too many instances for it to be merely coincidental.
How apropos that I read this thread tonight.
Wes had at least three shots to help put Utah in a winning position.
Great to see him excel at the next level but man it was tough to see the final minute...
He was in the perfect position for that tip at the buzzer and it just didn't fall. He deserves to be in the floor at the end of the game and did a great job denying Kobe the inbounds with under ten to play. Too bad it didn't fall.