MUScoop

MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: DegenerateDish on December 16, 2016, 10:14:15 PM

Title: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on December 16, 2016, 10:14:15 PM
Bucks are fun to watch, Freak is a franchise superstar, Jabari coming into his own.

Bulls are an embarrassment right now, looks like they've quit, and December is barely half way over.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 16, 2016, 11:52:48 PM
Bucks are fun to watch, Freak is a franchise superstar, Jabari coming into his own.

Bulls are an embarrassment right now, looks like they've quit, and December is barely half way over.

Agreed.  Even seasoned veteran coaches would struggle to keep this team interested.  Hoiberg is way in over his head.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on December 17, 2016, 01:04:59 PM
Instead of getting younger and faster, they got older, slower and can't shoot.  Wade choosing Chicago may have been a blessing in disguise for the Bucks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on December 17, 2016, 02:42:46 PM
Instead of getting younger and faster, they got older, slower and can't shoot.  Wade choosing Chicago may have been a blessing in disguise for the Bucks.

Wade to the Bucks would have been a colossal mistake for Milwaukee. Horrendous fit with this team. Snell hasn't been great, but he's been about replacement level for them at the 2 while not sucking up volume.

This team will be fun to watch once Middleton is back next year (or, if we're lucky, when we're the playoffs).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: #UnleashSean on December 17, 2016, 07:44:15 PM
But both teams have the same amount of wins.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 17, 2016, 08:04:41 PM
But both teams have the same amount of wins.

And one has a 25 year old guy who's their third best player that is out for (most of) the season.  And their top 2 players are 22 and 21 years old, while the Bulls top 3 are 34, 27, and 30 (or 31).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 20, 2016, 08:50:00 PM
Brogdon has now turned Wade, Kyrie, and LeBron into posters over the last 2 games. This kid is a complete steal. Showing some athleticism I didn't know he had in him.

I don't know why we signed Jason Terry in the first place, but how in the world is he going to have 12 minutes through 3 quarters? He's horrendous. Bucks up 4 when he checks in mid way through the 3rd and he doesn't leave the court until the quarter ends with the Bucks down 6.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 20, 2016, 09:05:36 PM
https://www.instagram.com/p/BOQ2RofgXrb/

Oooooooeeeeee

Kidd needs to learn when to take a technical. Refs taking this game over.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brandx on December 20, 2016, 09:55:21 PM
https://www.instagram.com/p/BOQ2RofgXrb/

Oooooooeeeeee

Kidd needs to learn when to take a technical. Refs taking this game over.

I liked him in college, but I definitely underestimated his athleticism.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 21, 2016, 03:08:05 PM
Going to be fun to see how the Bucks respond tonight.  4 of 5 Bucks starters played 39 or more minutes last night in a hard fought overtime game.  Cavs lose JR Smith and already were down Love, who is questionable for tonight.  Road game.  Spread is Cavs -5.5.  Not sure which way I'd bet.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 05, 2017, 08:43:15 AM
The Bucks really have something here...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on January 05, 2017, 09:04:49 AM
Giannis is incredible and Parker is a borderline All-Star who just knows how to score. Yet, the Bucks are only 18-16. Is Middleton going to vault them closer to Cleveland? Are they looking to make a deal next month or hold course? What could they use? A true SG? A big man?

The Bulls, on the other hand, have Jimmy Butler and need one of everything else. It's fun to see Wade in a Bulls uni, but he's not leading them anywhere at this point.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 05, 2017, 09:06:46 AM
The Bucks need shooters.  Monroe is fine for what NBA teams use big men for these days. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 05, 2017, 09:23:46 AM
I'm fine with where the Bucks are at right now and hope they don't make any moves.  When you add Middleton to this lineup and give them some time to readjust to playing with him in the lineup I think they're the 3rd best team in the East, and that's with your starting lineup (assuming Brogdon and Middleton play alongside Giannis and Jabari with I suppose Henson, Moose still comes off the bench) goes 24 years old, 25 years old, 22 years old, 21 years old, and who cares how old for whatever center is playing?  Then hopefully Thon can become something 2 years down the road and in 2 years you can legitimately hope to be challenging Cleveland in the East.

Slow start for the Bucks, Kidd was switching up his rotations every game.  Now it seems like he's figured out roles and this team is starting to mold into something.  In my opinion you have enough shooting around Giannis and a rebounding big in Middleton, Brogdon, and Parker, and you have enough coming off the bench in Telletovic, Snell, Delly, and Beasley.  I'm not even really sure what I'd like the Bucks to look to add in the draft next year.  I think it really is a case of "best available player" in this situation.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: martyconlonontherun on January 05, 2017, 10:30:48 AM
Giannis is incredible and Parker is a borderline All-Star who just knows how to score. Yet, the Bucks are only 18-16. Is Middleton going to vault them closer to Cleveland? Are they looking to make a deal next month or hold course? What could they use? A true SG? A big man?

The Bulls, on the other hand, have Jimmy Butler and need one of everything else. It's fun to see Wade in a Bulls uni, but he's not leading them anywhere at this point.

The Bucks lost a lot of games early on that they should have won. They could easily 20-14 with a 4 seed without Middleton. They aren't at clevelands level but should be top 3 in the east with Middleton back. And this is a team that is still growing. My goal for the team is to be on clevelands level next year with a light decline from James. Might be too optimistic.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 05, 2017, 10:42:06 AM
The Bucks lost a lot of games early on that they should have won. They could easily 20-14 with a 4 seed without Middleton. They aren't at clevelands level but should be top 3 in the east with Middleton back. And this is a team that is still growing. My goal for the team is to be on clevelands level next year with a light decline from James. Might be too optimistic.

I think we're 2 years away from that.  Next year hopefully on Toronto's level.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 05, 2017, 10:49:12 AM
Oh I don't want to add anyone *this* year.  I am talking about next year and in the future.  Shooters who can spread the floor would mean a huge deal to this team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on January 05, 2017, 11:01:48 AM
Oh I don't want to add anyone *this* year.  I am talking about next year and in the future.  Shooters who can spread the floor would mean a huge deal to this team.

(http://media.jrn.com/images/b99674409z.1_20160223001953_000_gpfejmif.1-0.jpg)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 24, 2017, 06:58:16 PM
http://www.si.com/nba/2017/01/24/lebron-james-frustrated

Is this guy for real?  There is no bigger clown in sports than GM/Coach/Player LeBron (no, I'm not say he's the worst human being in sports, but he certainly is the biggest clown).

"We need a f***ing playmaker." You, Kyrie, and Love (who you, Mr. GM LeBron, demanded you trade away your young future star playmaker in Wiggins to get) aren't playmakers? Fair enough.

"We top heavy as sh*t. It's me, Kyrie, Love. It's top heavy." Some teammate you are. I'm sure Shump, JR (who you, Mr. GM LeBron, made sure got paid beyond belief and are now complaining isn't enough help for you...), Korver, Thompson (who you, Mr. GM LeBron, made sure got paid beyond belief and are now complaining isn't enough help for you...), and Richardson love hearing that...

Oops!  I'm sorry!  I didn't refer to you as King James!  Fortunately for me I'm not employed by the Cleveland Cavaliers, so my job will not be terminated for such a horrendous blunder!

What a dick.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on January 24, 2017, 11:42:13 PM
http://www.si.com/nba/2017/01/24/lebron-james-frustrated

Is this guy for real?  There is no bigger clown in sports than GM/Coach/Player LeBron (no, I'm not say he's the worst human being in sports, but he certainly is the biggest clown).

"We need a f***ing playmaker." You, Kyrie, and Love (who you, Mr. GM LeBron, demanded you trade away your young future star playmaker in Wiggins to get) aren't playmakers? Fair enough.

"We top heavy as sh*t. It's me, Kyrie, Love. It's top heavy." Some teammate you are. I'm sure Shump, JR (who you, Mr. GM LeBron, made sure got paid beyond belief and are now complaining isn't enough help for you...), Korver, Thompson (who you, Mr. GM LeBron, made sure got paid beyond belief and are now complaining isn't enough help for you...), and Richardson love hearing that...

Oops!  I'm sorry!  I didn't refer to you as King James!  Fortunately for me I'm not employed by the Cleveland Cavaliers, so my job will not be terminated for such a horrendous blunder!

What a dick.

You think it's fluke that Lebron and Wade went on tirades on the same day? They know what they are doing.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2017, 08:39:29 AM
You think it's fluke that Lebron and Wade went on tirades on the same day? They know what they are doing.

Exactly. Sometimes being a leader means being the bad guy.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on January 25, 2017, 03:42:26 PM
LeBron has earned the right to say whatever he wants about his team. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 26, 2017, 08:57:10 AM
You think it's fluke that Lebron and Wade went on tirades on the same day? They know what they are doing.

Exactly. Sometimes being a leader means being the bad guy.



LeBron has earned the right to say whatever he wants about his team. 

That's all fine and good.  But if LeBron wants another playmaker and doesn't want the roster that he constructed himself to be so top heavy, then maybe he should've considered what he was doing before he demanded the front office gives guys like Tristian Thompson and JR Smith near max money to be what they are...average NBA players.

Nobody to blame but himself here.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on January 26, 2017, 09:36:45 AM
That's all fine and good.  But if LeBron wants another playmaker and doesn't want the roster that he constructed himself to be so top heavy, then maybe he should've considered what he was doing before he demanded the front office gives guys like Tristian Thompson and JR Smith near max money to be what they are...average NBA players.

Nobody to blame but himself here.

He was trying to light a fire under some guys who've been underperforming. Clearly it didn't work  as they lost at home to Sacramento last night.


Wade and Butler called out their teammates last night. The Bulls are a trainwreck right now. GarPax need to go. It's tough to get a read on whether Hoiberg can coach or not because Butler is basically the only guy on the roster who even remotely fits into the system that he was brought in to run. It'd be like hiring a pass-happy football coach and bringing in an option QB and a bunch of fullbacks to run his offense.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: RJax55 on January 26, 2017, 12:53:06 PM
Wade and Butler called out their teammates last night. The Bulls are a trainwreck right now. GarPax need to go. It's tough to get a read on whether Hoiberg can coach or not because Butler is basically the only guy on the roster who even remotely fits into the system that he was brought in to run. It'd be like hiring a pass-happy football coach and bringing in an option QB and a bunch of fullbacks to run his offense.

Hoiberg seems overwhelmed. Yes, the pieces don't fit and the bench is awful, but Fred seems more like a by-stander in this meltdown than the head coach.

What value is the head coach when his stars don't believe in him and management doesn't work to bring in players that fit his system? 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on January 26, 2017, 01:59:51 PM
Yeah, really hard to make any sense of organizational philosophy here.  Its been awhile since I sat down and watched the Bulls for a prolonged period of time, but looking at their roster, Jimmy and DWade's frustration equating results with lack of effort seems a little bit oversimplified. Outside of Rondo (everyone could see that was going to be a disaster from the moment it was announced) that roster isn't composed of low motor guys. 

I wonder if the real problem is that none of the role players actually know what their roles are, and the lack of confidence and assertiveness that grows out of that is being misinterpreted by Jimmy and DWade as just a lack of effort. Being the stars, its much easier for those two to understand what they need to do than if you're MCW, Canaan, Grant, Portis or Valentine trying to figure out what the hell to do with your 15 mpg.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 02, 2017, 01:39:56 PM
Plumlee to the Hornets for Hibbert (expiring contract) and Hawes (contract up after next year).

Leave it to MJ to save us from that joke of a contract.

Novak cut.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on February 02, 2017, 03:01:17 PM
Plumlee to the Hornets for Hibbert (expiring contract) and Hawes (contract up after next year).

Leave it to MJ to save us from that joke of a contract.

Novak cut.

Novak supposedly is likely to be resigned if they free up another roster spot in moves to come.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on February 02, 2017, 03:47:30 PM
Novak supposedly is likely to be resigned if they free up another roster spot in moves to come.

Probably a Hibbert buy out?  Don't think a team needs 5 centers
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 02, 2017, 03:50:11 PM
Probably a Hibbert buy out?  Don't think a team needs 5 centers

Hibbert has an expiring contract. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on February 02, 2017, 03:55:36 PM
Maybe der finally gonna move da Moose? Vaughn ain't much ether, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 02, 2017, 04:10:34 PM
Vaughn doesn't make anything either this year or next.  He's worth holding on to.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on February 02, 2017, 04:14:22 PM
Da Dears don't haveta bee any good dis season orr next. Just gotta represent wen the knew buildin' opens up and ducat prices sky rocket, ai na?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on February 02, 2017, 04:27:34 PM
What benefit do the Hornets get out of that trade?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on February 02, 2017, 04:30:49 PM
MJ's in bed wit Hammond, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 02, 2017, 04:52:24 PM
What benefit do the Hornets get out of that trade?

A serviceable center.  Reading the Charlotte Observer article on the trade, it sounds like desperation to hold onto a playoff spot.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 02, 2017, 05:14:43 PM
What benefit do the Hornets get out of that trade?

Plumlee was actually pretty good when he got consistent minutes last year.  But with Kidd as coach, beyond Giannis and Jabari getting 32+ minutes/night, none of these guys know if they'll play 30 minutes or 0 minutes from night to night.

Now was he worth 4 years and $44M?  Nope.  Which is why this trade is great for the Bucks, especially given that they have Henson, Thon, and probably Moose for antoher year.  But he's better than whatever he's shown this year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 08, 2017, 09:34:47 PM
Ugh. Jabari hurt his knee again...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on February 19, 2017, 11:30:02 PM
The Kings got 40 cents on the dollar for Boogie, with 4 days to spare before the trade deadline. Huh.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GoldenDieners32 on February 20, 2017, 07:36:51 AM
The Kings got 40 cents on the dollar for Boogie, with 4 days to spare before the trade deadline. Huh.
Kings made a terrible trade
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on February 20, 2017, 08:16:48 AM
That deal is complete insanity.  Even if you don't think you can win with Cousins, and even with the contract complications that kick in this summer, you just have to get more.  If they had done nothing now, not signed him to the contract that kicks in under the new CBA and then dealt him this summer, they would have gotten more, even on a one year rental. Likely a worse draft class in 2018, but who cares? The pick they got back is going to come in the high single-low double digits anyway.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 20, 2017, 08:31:49 AM
We'll see.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 20, 2017, 08:47:27 AM
I don't think the problem was trading Cousins.  I can understand why the Kings would have done that.  The problem is they really didn't get equal value in return and there were supposedly better offers out there.  Tyreke Evans is a solid player but hardly a super-star.  Hield is a 23 year old rookie who at best will be a dime a dozen NBA shooter.

Cousins is a 26 year old, 6'11" NBA all star.  That is a terrible return for someone like that when you had time to get even better offers.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on February 20, 2017, 08:51:52 AM
Cousins is a 26 year old, 6'11" NBA all star.  That is a terrible return for someone like that when you had time to get even better offers.

Yeah, it's not great. But he's eligible for the new super max contract, which I'm guessing shrunk the market for him. Teams didn't want to give up a ton of assets for a rental.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 20, 2017, 08:56:04 AM
I don't think the problem was trading Cousins.  I can understand why the Kings would have done that.  The problem is they really didn't get equal value in return and there were supposedly better offers out there.  Tyreke Evans is a solid player but hardly a super-star.  Hield is a 23 year old rookie who at best will be a dime a dozen NBA shooter.

Cousins is a 26 year old, 6'11" NBA all star.  That is a terrible return for someone like that when you had time to get even better offers.

We'll see.  Hield could be a 13-16 ppg guy in a couple years.  Tyreke averages 16 ppg for his career.  Gallaway could average 12-15 ppg as well.  Then you get a first round pick in a great draft class.  You could be adding someone like Bam Adebayo, De'Aaron Fox, TJ Leaf, Lauri Markkanen, etc.

I don't know what other offers the Kings had on the board, but if a team makes it pretty evident that they are willing to trade a player and aren't very confident they can resign him when he becomes a FA, go ahead and get what you can for him.  They very well may end up with 3 starters over the next 10 years in exchange for 1 starter for the next 15 months.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on February 20, 2017, 09:43:35 AM
We'll see.  Hield could be a 13-16 ppg guy in a couple years.  Tyreke averages 16 ppg for his career.  Gallaway could average 12-15 ppg as well.  Then you get a first round pick in a great draft class.  You could be adding someone like Bam Adebayo, De'Aaron Fox, TJ Leaf, Lauri Markkanen, etc.

I don't know what other offers the Kings had on the board, but if a team makes it pretty evident that they are willing to trade a player and aren't very confident they can resign him when he becomes a FA, go ahead and get what you can for him.  They very well may end up with 3 starters over the next 10 years in exchange for 1 starter for the next 15 months.

Doesn't matter if the starters aren't anything more than average NBA players.  You've gotta get a difference-maker back, or at least a very high draft pick, if you're going to deal someone like Cousins, even with some of the headaches he causes. And I don't think they did.     

Too bad the Bulls didn't have the assets to pull something like this off. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 20, 2017, 10:09:59 AM
Doesn't matter if the starters aren't anything more than average NBA players.  You've gotta get a difference-maker back, or at least a very high draft pick, if you're going to deal someone like Cousins, even with some of the headaches he causes. And I don't think they did.     

Too bad the Bulls didn't have the assets to pull something like this off.

I'm not sure anybody is giving up a difference maker for DeMarcus Cousins. And the 8th pick in this year's draft will be better than the 4th in next year's draft. This trade isn't amazing, but it's not as bad as people are saying it is.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brandx on February 20, 2017, 10:20:21 AM
Doesn't matter if the starters aren't anything more than average NBA players.  You've gotta get a difference-maker back, or at least a very high draft pick, if you're going to deal someone like Cousins, even with some of the headaches he causes. And I don't think they did.     

Too bad the Bulls didn't have the assets to pull something like this off.

You infer than Cousins is a difference maker. I contend that the Kings will miss the playoffs with Cousins and they will miss the playoffs without Cousins.

He is a stat machine. A 7-year player who has never been to the playoffs. A great, great guy to have on your fantasy team.

Hield, Evans, and a couple draft picks will, at minimum, be at least as successful as Cousins in leading the Kings to the playoffs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 20, 2017, 10:29:13 AM
The more I think about it the more I like it.  Between having 2 top 15 draft picks in one of the better draft classes in a long time and getting back 3 players who could all be solid, but probably will never be great, players, the Kings actually have some pieces for the future.  By this time 2 years from now they could be minus Cousins but plus 5 solid rotational guys.

But again, this is with no knowledge of what was offered.  If the Bulls offered Butler, another solid rotational guy, and their first round pick this year then maybe it is a bad trade.  But I have no idea what else they could've gotten.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on February 20, 2017, 10:45:48 AM
Doesn't matter if the starters aren't anything more than average NBA players.  You've gotta get a difference-maker back, or at least a very high draft pick, if you're going to deal someone like Cousins, even with some of the headaches he causes. And I don't think they did.     

Too bad the Bulls didn't have the assets to pull something like this off.

The Bulls would never take a chance like that, which is a big reason why they have been in NBA purgatory for so long. They don't want to tank but don't want to take a risk on a player like Cousins. They're more than happy maxing at being a middle of the pack playoff team.

Sidenote: The Kings don't want Cousins but DO want the guy who recently punched him in the junk.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 20, 2017, 01:24:20 PM
The more I think about it the more I like it.  Between having 2 top 15 draft picks in one of the better draft classes in a long time and getting back 3 players who could all be solid, but probably will never be great, players, the Kings actually have some pieces for the future.  By this time 2 years from now they could be minus Cousins but plus 5 solid rotational guys.


Part of the problem and the bias is that the Kings have shown no capability that they know what it takes to build a competent team.  So anytime they trade away an A-player like Cousins, it is going to be assumed that they are doing the dumb thing to do.

So you then think, "well let's see what happens here."

But then when the guy who covers the Kings for ESPN tweets this...

‏@BaxterHolmes
Source familiar w/ Kings’ thinking: "Vivek thinks Buddy [Hield] has Steph Curry potential.” Am told that fixation was a key driver in deal.

...you realize that you were right the first time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: martyconlonontherun on February 21, 2017, 05:40:29 AM
I'm not sure anybody is giving up a difference maker for DeMarcus Cousins. And the 8th pick in this year's draft will be better than the 4th in next year's draft. This trade isn't amazing, but it's not as bad as people are saying it is.
I think it's highly unlikely it will be a top 10 pick at this point. It's 8/9 currently. NO should win more games than the Knicks with a healthy AD/Cousins. Sacramento's own pick will fail below them now. So its at 10 at that point. Portland, Charlotte and Miami are all within 2 games. Instead of a tier 2 guy falling, you are suddenly looking at Bridges, Williams and Patton with that pick.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on February 21, 2017, 01:11:55 PM
The Bulls would never take a chance like that, which is a big reason why they have been in NBA purgatory for so long. They're more than happy maxing at being a middle of the pack playoff team.


In the late-90s and early-aughts, Reinsdorf said numerous times that the main reason he agreed with Krause to break up the dynasty was that he didn't want the Bulls to be just a middle-of-the-pack playoff team.

I'm pretty sure you are right and he was lying. The real reason is he didn't want to give Pippen, Phil and others real money. The threepeat Bulls (both sets of them) were among the best bargains in sports history.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on February 23, 2017, 02:11:39 PM
The Bulls trade to move up to get McDermott looks awful now. Hate to see Taj go, guy is a pro's pro, great guy with his time in the community, very charitable.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brandx on February 23, 2017, 02:22:35 PM
The Bulls trade to move up to get McDermott looks awful now. Hate to see Taj go, guy is a pro's pro, great guy with his time in the community, very charitable.

C'mon, Dish. It looked awful back when they drafted him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on February 23, 2017, 02:28:58 PM
GarPax just threw another pallet of quick guards that can't shoot onto this dumpster fire.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on February 23, 2017, 02:32:36 PM
The Bulls weren't asking Boston for draft picks...you, have, got, to, be, kidding, me.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on February 23, 2017, 02:47:37 PM
C'mon, Dish. It looked awful back when they drafted him.

Probably right, certainly right in hindsight. He's just not a good NBA player, and they gave up a lot to get him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 23, 2017, 03:13:11 PM
The Bulls weren't asking Boston for draft picks...you, have, got, to, be, kidding, me.


So Boston was going to give the Bulls two first round picks for Butler and the Bulls turned that down???  Including one that will almost certainly be a top three pick???
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on February 23, 2017, 03:25:33 PM
Probably right, certainly right in hindsight. He's just not a good NBA player, and they gave up a lot to get him.

It wasn't exactly a who's who of up-and-coming NBA stars who were taken after McDermott. They at least had the right idea in drafting a 6'8" shooter to spread the floor. They just took the wrong guy - Rodney Hood would have been a great fit and fell all the way to 23. 

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on February 23, 2017, 03:26:05 PM
The Bulls weren't asking Boston for draft picks...you, have, got, to, be, kidding, me.

So Boston was going to give the Bulls two first round picks for Butler and the Bulls turned that down???  Including one that will almost certainly be a top three pick???

Where's this info coming from?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 23, 2017, 03:31:50 PM
Apparently Wojnarowski said it on a recent podcast.  They didn't want the picks.  They wanted players.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on February 23, 2017, 03:41:35 PM
Apparently Wojnarowski said it on a recent podcast.  They didn't want the picks.  They wanted players.

Thanks. Just found it. Boston supposedly offered up both Brooklyn's 2017 and 2018 picks but the Bulls wanted Crowder, Bradley and more. Looks like they want to blow it up by going from the #6-9 team in the East to being the #7-10 team. Even if they're looking for young, core players, they could have taken the picks and flipped them after the season.

Without Butler, the Bulls would fall into the lottery this season, while also owning a top 3 pick. In addition, they'd have their own high pick next season (after they're terrible) along with Brooklyn's 1st. Basically, they potentially turned down the opportunity to have the #1 and #12ish pick in 2017 along with 2 more top 5-7 picks in 2018.

They also asked team for a 1st Rounder in exchange for Mirotic. Really?!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on February 23, 2017, 03:42:55 PM
Where's this info coming from?



As Vinnie said, Woj said it on The Vertical. The Bulls wanted players to build on the fly. They were asking for the likes of Jae, Thomas, Olynyk, Jaylen Brown. Boston's core.

This franchise sucks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on February 23, 2017, 07:23:35 PM
Friedell reported Celts were putting all kinds of protection on the Nets picks.

Still have no idea what the hell the Bulls are doing.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on February 23, 2017, 08:23:39 PM
"Reshape the franchise on the fly"...what an absolute joke.

Also was seeing the Pacers balked cause it was the Nets pick, Bradley, and Crowder for George and they wanted another player. And now they will get jack when he goes to the Lakers after next year. They can battle the Bulls for the 8 seed when they sign Heyward
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brandx on February 23, 2017, 09:06:23 PM
As Vinnie said, Woj said it on The Vertical. The Bulls wanted players to build on the fly. They were asking for the likes of Jae, Thomas, Olynyk, Jaylen Brown. Boston's core.

This franchise sucks.

Boston balked at giving up Crowder. They see him as the only guy they have who can play 'D' against Lebron.


I noticed that Paxson also used the McDermot trade as an excuse to bash Tibs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on February 23, 2017, 09:16:07 PM
Boston balked at giving up Crowder. They see him as the only guy they have who can play 'D' against Lebron.


I noticed that Paxson also used the McDermot trade as an excuse to bash Tibs.


Butler shuts down LBJ in a far superior manner than Jae, but whatever. I wanted Jae to stay and Jimmy join him, reach the finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brandx on February 24, 2017, 07:51:31 AM
Butler shuts down LBJ in a far superior manner than Jae, but whatever. I wanted Jae to stay and Jimmy join him, reach the finals.

Apparently, Stevens disagrees with you.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2017, 08:46:48 AM
Boston balked at giving up Crowder. They see him as the only guy they have who can play 'D' against Lebron.


I noticed that Paxson also used the McDermot trade as an excuse to bash Tibs.

Possibly in retaliation to Tibs leaking that he was clamoring for Draymond Green when the Bulls drafted Marquis Teague. The Bulls' FO can be very petty.

If the Bulls have decided that they want to build a young team around Jimmy Butler, I could get on board with that. I just have no confidence that they know how to do that. Hoiberg's system calls for athletic shooters. They could have gone hard after Harrison Barnes (connections to McDermott and Hoiberg) and/or Eric Gordon (Chicago native) in free agency, but instead they signed two 30-something former All-Stars who can't shoot. They also traded their only athletic guard who can actually shoot for a PG who can't. Who knows? They may end up tanking next season despite their intentions to be a playoff team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on February 24, 2017, 09:10:46 AM
The Bulls' FO can be very petty.



Come on, they bought pizza for the gathered media yesterday.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brandx on February 24, 2017, 09:54:07 AM
Possibly in retaliation to Tibs leaking that he was clamoring for Draymond Green when the Bulls drafted Marquis Teague. The Bulls' FO can be very petty.

If the Bulls have decided that they want to build a young team around Jimmy Butler, I could get on board with that. I just have no confidence that they know how to do that. Hoiberg's system calls for athletic shooters. They could have gone hard after Harrison Barnes (connections to McDermott and Hoiberg) and/or Eric Gordon (Chicago native) in free agency, but instead they signed two 30-something former All-Stars who can't shoot. They also traded their only athletic guard who can actually shoot for a PG who can't. Who knows? They may end up tanking next season despite their intentions to be a playoff team.

We like to blame Paxson and Gar, but the problem is the Reinsdorfs.

They have destroyed the Sox and the Bulls.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on February 24, 2017, 12:14:42 PM
Possibly in retaliation to Tibs leaking that he was clamoring for Draymond Green when the Bulls drafted Marquis Teague. The Bulls' FO can be very petty.

If the Bulls have decided that they want to build a young team around Jimmy Butler, I could get on board with that. I just have no confidence that they know how to do that. Hoiberg's system calls for athletic shooters. They could have gone hard after Harrison Barnes (connections to McDermott and Hoiberg) and/or Eric Gordon (Chicago native) in free agency, but instead they signed two 30-something former All-Stars who can't shoot. They also traded their only athletic guard who can actually shoot for a PG who can't. Who knows? They may end up tanking next season despite their intentions to be a playoff team.

As you mentioned, I don't have any confidence in the creativity of this front office.  The Rondo signing was perplexing to begin with and has turned out like everyone expected it would.

Wade fell into their laps so at that point in the offseason I really don't hold that move against them.

As for Barnes, signing him to the contract he received would have been a huge risk that the Bulls likely would have gotten ripped for at the time.  I don't recall many wanting to go after him at the beginning of last offseason. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 27, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Why did I willingly choose to watch Beasley's knee injury?  Why?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on February 28, 2017, 08:28:02 AM
Why did I willingly choose to watch Beasley's knee injury?  Why?

If you were disturbed by that, don't ever look up the Napoleon McCallum injury.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 28, 2017, 08:49:45 AM
If you were disturbed by that, don't ever look up the Napoleon McCallum injury.

I won't, thanks.  Far from the worst injury, but your leg is not made to bend like that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: LAMUfan on February 28, 2017, 04:36:40 PM
Why did I willingly choose to watch Beasley's knee injury?  Why?
I guess he's ok actually, out 3 games, negative MRI.  Would not of bet on that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on March 01, 2017, 03:51:56 AM
Possibly in retaliation to Tibs leaking that he was clamoring for Draymond Green when the Bulls drafted Marquis Teague. The Bulls' FO can be very petty.

If the Bulls have decided that they want to build a young team around Jimmy Butler, I could get on board with that. I just have no confidence that they know how to do that. Hoiberg's system calls for athletic shooters. They could have gone hard after Harrison Barnes (connections to McDermott and Hoiberg) and/or Eric Gordon (Chicago native) in free agency, but instead they signed two 30-something former All-Stars who can't shoot. They also traded their only athletic guard who can actually shoot for a PG who can't. Who knows? They may end up tanking next season despite their intentions to be a playoff team.

Good analysis here, MM.

My only nit is that Eric Gordon is not a Chicago native ... unless Indy has become one big, distant suburb!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on March 01, 2017, 08:29:16 AM
Good analysis here, MM.

My only nit is that Eric Gordon is not a Chicago native ... unless Indy has become one big, distant suburb!

You're right! I was thinking he left the state to go to IU but he actually decommitted from Illinois to go to IU. My bad.

That said, Indy is as close as to Chicago as some places that people consider suburbs  ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on March 08, 2017, 09:03:50 AM
58 points in 36 minutes...on 39 shots. Is that impressive? I mean, the point total is impressive but 39 shots in 36 minutes played? And the other 11 guys combined to take just 46 shots total? The rest of the team also had just 7 assists which means the whole game was basically Westbrook going one-on-one. He's a phenomenal talent but he's never going to win anything playing his current style.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on March 08, 2017, 09:10:29 AM
58 points in 36 minutes...on 39 shots. Is that impressive? I mean, the point total is impressive but 39 shots in 36 minutes played? And the other 11 guys combined to take just 46 shots total? The rest of the team also had just 7 assists which means the whole game was basically Westbrook going one-on-one. He's a phenomenal talent but he's never going to win anything playing his current style.

Shocking that a star like KD wouldn't want to play alongside that...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on March 08, 2017, 09:12:07 AM
58 points in 36 minutes...on 39 shots. Is that impressive? I mean, the point total is impressive but 39 shots in 36 minutes played? And the other 11 guys combined to take just 46 shots total? The rest of the team also had just 7 assists which means the whole game was basically Westbrook going one-on-one. He's a phenomenal talent but he's never going to win anything playing his current style.


Interesting box score.  In a game the Thunder lost by 5, and where Westbrook played 36 minutes, he had a plus minus of 7.  So without him on the floor, the Thunder were -12.

In 11 minutes of action, Jerami Grant was -18.  In 13, someone named Alex Abrines was -13.  In 6, Norris Cole was -7.

So my conclusion?  You are correct that they aren't going to win with this current style.  But it doesn't matter cause they're a crap team anyway.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on March 08, 2017, 11:43:41 AM
Relevant and crazy

http://deadspin.com/are-you-sure-russell-westbrook-should-be-mvp-consider-1793083400
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on March 08, 2017, 11:46:30 AM
Relevant and crazy

http://deadspin.com/are-you-sure-russell-westbrook-should-be-mvp-consider-1793083400


Uh oh.

I sense that a "best player doesn't mean most *valuable* player" discussion is right around the corner.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on March 08, 2017, 12:16:34 PM
58 points in 36 minutes...on 39 shots. Is that impressive? I mean, the point total is impressive but 39 shots in 36 minutes played? And the other 11 guys combined to take just 46 shots total? The rest of the team also had just 7 assists which means the whole game was basically Westbrook going one-on-one. He's a phenomenal talent but he's never going to win anything playing his current style.

I can appreciate the inclination to blame Westbrook for chucking, but here is a rundown of players currently on the Thunder roster averaging more than 20 mpg:

Victor Oladipo, SG      33.5   
Andre Roberson, SF      30.5   
Steven Adams, C      30.5   
Doug McDermott, SF           27.0   
Taj Gibson, PF              23.1   
Enes Kanter, C         21.7   
Domantas Sabonis, PF   21.0   
Jerami Grant, SF      20.8   

Through 7 games, McDermott's and Gibson's PERs are both substantially down from their Chi #s where they were by no means world beaters (McD from 11.5 to 5 and Taj from 15.7 to 10). They are getting a combined 50 mpg. Other than Oladipo's fine but not great PER of 14.1, every other guard or wing getting meaningful minutes has a PER hovering at about 10. Jerami Grant is averaging as many blocks as Enes Kanter and Steven Adams, who at the 4/5 are getting a combined 51 mpg. This is a bad, bad team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on March 08, 2017, 01:32:29 PM
I can appreciate the inclination to blame Westbrook for chucking, but here is a rundown of players currently on the Thunder roster averaging more than 20 mpg:

Victor Oladipo, SG      33.5   
Andre Roberson, SF      30.5   
Steven Adams, C      30.5   
Doug McDermott, SF           27.0   
Taj Gibson, PF              23.1   
Enes Kanter, C         21.7   
Domantas Sabonis, PF   21.0   
Jerami Grant, SF      20.8   

Through 7 games, McDermott's and Gibson's PERs are both substantially down from their Chi #s where they were by no means world beaters (McD from 11.5 to 5 and Taj from 15.7 to 10). They are getting a combined 50 mpg. Other than Oladipo's fine but not great PER of 14.1, every other guard or wing getting meaningful minutes has a PER hovering at about 10. Jerami Grant is averaging as many blocks as Enes Kanter and Steven Adams, who at the 4/5 are getting a combined 51 mpg. This is a bad, bad team.

Couldn't the fact that McDermott and Taj's PERs have gone down a decent amount point to Westbrook not helping teammates and not just that his teammates are bad?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on March 08, 2017, 01:34:49 PM
Couldn't the fact that McDermott and Taj's PERs have gone down a decent amount point to Westbrook not helping teammates and not just that his teammates are bad?

Bingo.

Those players aren't the greatest group of players in the NBA, but they're not terrible.  Oladipo is good, Adams is a stud, Kanter isn't bad, Roberson is a good glue guy, Taj has proven to be a good player, McDermott can score, and Grant and Sabonis will be good players in a couple years (admittedly doesn't help now).

Westbrook is an insane talent, who helps nobody be a more efficient player.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on March 08, 2017, 01:41:43 PM
Couldn't the fact that McDermott and Taj's PERs have gone down a decent amount point to Westbrook not helping teammates and not just that his teammates are bad?

Could be.  Although Durant's PER was pretty damn good playing with Westbrook.


Those players aren't the greatest group of players in the NBA, but they're not terrible.  Oladipo is good, Adams is a stud, Kanter isn't bad, Roberson is a good glue guy, Taj has proven to be a good player, McDermott can score, and Grant and Sabonis will be good players in a couple years (admittedly doesn't help now).

I'm not sure I would call Adams a stud.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on March 08, 2017, 02:13:21 PM
Couldn't the fact that McDermott and Taj's PERs have gone down a decent amount point to Westbrook not helping teammates and not just that his teammates are bad?

With Durant, Russ shot 18.1x per game vs Durant's 19.2.  Now, Russ is shooting 24.5x per game vs Durant's 16.7.  So in moving to perhaps the best offensive team in the history of the game, Durant is only shooting 2.5 less times per game, while Russ is only soaking up about 6.5 of the 19 shots per game that left with Durant.  Do you think that if that number were fewer, the Thunder would win more games? I can't agree with that. Of his surrounding cast, how many of those guys can create their own shot? Maybe Oladipo and Roberson? Even that's being generous. On a bad Magic team that did him no favors last year, Oladipo averaged 16 ppg on 13.5 shots. Roberson has never had to shoulder enough of a load to make a fair comp.

Meanwhile, Russ is also third in the NBA at 10 assists per game, which is right in line with his 10.4 from last year (dishing to Durant and Ibaka, who is probably a better finisher than anyone left on the roster). So you can't exactly say Westbrook is ignoring his teammates. His assists per game are the same and he's soaked up less than 1/3 of the shots vacated when Durant left. 

Moral of the story is that I think its a little unfair to point to that cast and assign Westbrook the narrative of failing to make that team as good as it can be.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on March 08, 2017, 02:53:50 PM
Could be.  Although Durant's PER was pretty damn good playing with Westbrook.


I'm not sure I would call Adams a stud.

I love Adams.  He might not be someone you can just throw the ball into and let him back his man down, but that's not basketball nowadays.  He wreaks absolute havoc on teams.  A much, much stronger Tristian Thompson.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on March 08, 2017, 03:00:03 PM
With Durant, Russ shot 18.1x per game vs Durant's 19.2.  Now, Russ is shooting 24.5x per game vs Durant's 16.7.  So in moving to perhaps the best offensive team in the history of the game, Durant is only shooting 2.5 less times per game, while Russ is only soaking up about 6.5 of the 19 shots per game that left with Durant.  Do you think that if that number were fewer, the Thunder would win more games? I can't agree with that. Of his surrounding cast, how many of those guys can create their own shot? Maybe Oladipo and Roberson? Even that's being generous. On a bad Magic team that did him no favors last year, Oladipo averaged 16 ppg on 13.5 shots. Roberson has never had to shoulder enough of a load to make a fair comp.

Meanwhile, Russ is also third in the NBA at 10 assists per game, which is right in line with his 10.4 from last year (dishing to Durant and Ibaka, who is probably a better finisher than anyone left on the roster). So you can't exactly say Westbrook is ignoring his teammates. His assists per game are the same and he's soaked up less than 1/3 of the shots vacated when Durant left. 

Moral of the story is that I think its a little unfair to point to that cast and assign Westbrook the narrative of failing to make that team as good as it can be.

Westbrook is also getting to the line 3.7 more times per game than with Durant, which takes away a couple of FGA/game. He ALWAYS has the ball.

Westbrook has his lowest FG% since his second year in the league. His eFG is his second-lowest since 2010-11. He has already turned the ball over more times thru 64 games than in any other season in his career. His A/TO is an underwhelming 1.84 because of all his TOs (putting him right next to Derrick Rose's 1.83).

Also, playing for triple-doubles is different than "getting teammates involved." Sure, he averages a ton of assists but, again, he ALWAYS has the ball. The Thunder are 26th in the NBA in assists per game despite Russ' 10. Maybe someone can dig this up, but I'd be curious to see how many OKC possessions involve no one touching the ball but Westbrook. I only found a note on one game earlier this season where he attempted 16 FGs on possessions without passing. I'd like to see what the whole season looks like and how it compares to other teams. Not sure if that stat is even tracked but it'd be an interesting find.

There's no doubt that Westbrook is an amazing, all-time talent but I believe that he'd rather be the superstar on a 45-win team than viewed as the sidekick on a 60-win team.


Here's my question, if a coach had given a 28yo LeBron or Jordan or Kobe or pick your superstar free rein to go out and just put up numbers, wins be damned, don't you think that any of those guys could have averaged a triple double?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on March 16, 2017, 11:58:01 AM
Wade done for the season with a fracture in his elbow. Big question now: How many of their final 14 games can the Bulls lose?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on March 16, 2017, 07:31:17 PM
I love Adams.  He might not be someone you can just throw the ball into and let him back his man down, but that's not basketball nowadays.  He wreaks absolute havoc on teams.  A much, much stronger Tristian Thompson.

I like Adams, too, and I'd want him on my team. But he certainly is not an offensive "stud" who has to have the ball to succeed. And I think you know that, based upon this response.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on March 25, 2017, 04:44:25 PM
Bingo.

Those players aren't the greatest group of players in the NBA, but they're not terrible.  Oladipo is good, Adams is a stud, Kanter isn't bad, Roberson is a good glue guy, Taj has proven to be a good player, McDermott can score, and Grant and Sabonis will be good players in a couple years (admittedly doesn't help now).

Westbrook is an insane talent, who helps nobody be a more efficient player.

I gotta disagree. There is little talent on the team - Is there even one other guy who is close to being an all-star?

This is the same that was said about Jordan during his first few years when the talent around him didn't measure up. Suddenly Pippen got a couple years under his belt and Jordan made his teammates better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on March 25, 2017, 05:07:31 PM
I gotta disagree. There is little talent on the team - Is there even one other guy who is close to being an all-star?

This is the same that was said about Jordan during his first few years when the talent around him didn't measure up. Suddenly Pippen got a couple years under his belt and Jordan made his teammates better.

Your last sentence seems to suggest that something opposite of what you're claiming in your post. Jordan didn't have the talent around him until that talent developed and he made the players around him better.

Do they have the talent to win a title? No. But they have more talent than they're given credit for. It's just hard to see it because only one guy gets to touch the ball all game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on March 26, 2017, 01:11:52 PM
I'm just not convinced that the Thunder, as currently constructed, would win many, if any, more games with Westbrook playing differently. This has been a great stat-based discussion, and MM particularly pointed out some really good numbers re his EFG% and OKC's team assist numbers. But I think a lot of the criticism of Westbrook unfairly centers around subjective analysis of his motivations - hunting for triple-doubles, wanting to be the guy/not coexisting with Durant, etc. - rather than focusing on how Westbrook should play to enable this team to win as many games as possible.  Westbrook is so much better than the rest of the team, that I don't think a "less selfish" Westbrook results in more OKC wins.

At a superficial level, every opportunity Westbrook forgoes is an opportunity that has to be swallowed by someone else, and there's no one else on the roster I'd bet on against an even less-efficient Westbrook. At a deeper level, there's the argument that a less selfish Westbrook creates more opportunities and enables the team's efficiency to improve as a whole. That's a solid and fun argument, but its also a criticism that could be lodged against the PG of any losing team, and OKC's dearth of talent (imho) makes it unfair to pin the team's failings on Westbrook because he scores it well enough to make the team more competitive than it should be.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on March 26, 2017, 01:34:48 PM
I'm just not convinced that the Thunder, as currently constructed, would win many, if any, more games with Westbrook playing differently. This has been a great stat-based discussion, and MM particularly pointed out some really good numbers re his EFG% and OKC's team assist numbers. But I think a lot of the criticism of Westbrook unfairly centers around subjective analysis of his motivations - hunting for triple-doubles, wanting to be the guy/not coexisting with Durant, etc. - rather than focusing on how Westbrook should play to enable this team to win as many games as possible.  Westbrook is so much better than the rest of the team, that I don't think a "less selfish" Westbrook results in more OKC wins.

At a superficial level, every opportunity Westbrook forgoes is an opportunity that has to be swallowed by someone else, and there's no one else on the roster I'd bet on against an even less-efficient Westbrook. At a deeper level, there's the argument that a less selfish Westbrook creates more opportunities and enables the team's efficiency to improve as a whole. That's a solid and fun argument, but its also a criticism that could be lodged against the PG of any losing team, and OKC's dearth of talent (imho) makes it unfair to pin the team's failings on Westbrook because he scores it well enough to make the team more competitive than it should be.

If Westbrook played differently Durant would probably still be on the Thunder and they would definitely have more wins if Durant was on the team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on March 30, 2017, 05:25:26 PM

Also, playing for triple-doubles is different than "getting teammates involved." Sure, he averages a ton of assists but, again, he ALWAYS has the ball. The Thunder are 26th in the NBA in assists per game despite Russ' 10. Maybe someone can dig this up, but I'd be curious to see how many OKC possessions involve no one touching the ball but Westbrook. I only found a note on one game earlier this season where he attempted 16 FGs on possessions without passing. I'd like to see what the whole season looks like and how it compares to other teams. Not sure if that stat is even tracked but it'd be an interesting find.

There's no doubt that Westbrook is an amazing, all-time talent but I believe that he'd rather be the superstar on a 45-win team than viewed as the sidekick on a 60-win team.


I believe the Thunder are 30-8 when Westbrook has a triple double. So if winning is the most important thing, Westbrook needs the ball even more.

This team is basically the Brooklyn Nets if you take away Westbrook. With him, there is a chance in every game that you can win.

And, remember he is doing this with no help. This isn't him WITH Durant or Michael WITH Scottie or Steph WITH Thompson or Lebron WITH wade or Lebron With Kyrie.

It is all Westbrook and the Thunder are in the running for the #1 overall pick without him.

One guy can make good players better. No one can make bad players better. Michael couln't. Lebron couldn't. Westbrook can't.

As far as wanting to be a star rather than wanting to win? I would love to see any speck of truth to prove your point.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 08, 2017, 07:46:21 AM
Westbrook clinched averaging a triple double by shooting 6-25 with 8 TOs in a 21-point loss to an opponent who's actively tanking. Congrats, Russ.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 08, 2017, 12:56:49 PM
Westbrook clinched averaging a triple double by shooting 6-25 with 8 TOs in a 21-point loss to an opponent who's actively tanking. Congrats, Russ.


He's surrounded by a couple average players and a bunch of junk.  He has pretty much single handedly got them in the playoffs and above .500 in the West.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on April 10, 2017, 04:52:58 PM

He's surrounded by a couple average players and a bunch of junk.  He has pretty much single handedly got them in the playoffs and above .500 in the West.

Not saying he doesn't potentially deserve the MVP but an interesting observation on some statistics nonetheless.

http://thebiglead.com/2017/03/24/is-russell-westbrook-padding-his-rebounding-stats-by-leaving-his-defender-stats-say-he-is/

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 10, 2017, 05:05:50 PM
Westbrook has contested less 3 point FGA than any player in the NBA averaging over 30 minutes per game other than Rudy Gobert and Hassan Whiteside. D'Andre Jordan has contested more 3 point attempts this year than Russ. Russ contests 3.4 FGA out of his opponents 13.1 FGA. 74% of his opponent's FGA are uncontested. He's the worst guard in the NBA in expected FG % against. The Thunder rank last in opponent guards' expected FG% against. Basically Russell doesn't play defense and goes to chase down rebounds at the expense of playing D and contesting shots. Outstanding. Number chaser at its finest.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on April 10, 2017, 07:01:01 PM
I believe the Thunder are 30-8 when Westbrook has a triple double. So if winning is the most important thing, Westbrook needs the ball even more.

This team is basically the Brooklyn Nets if you take away Westbrook. With him, there is a chance in every game that you can win.

And, remember he is doing this with no help. This isn't him WITH Durant or Michael WITH Scottie or Steph WITH Thompson or Lebron WITH wade or Lebron With Kyrie.

It is all Westbrook and the Thunder are in the running for the #1 overall pick without him.

One guy can make good players better. No one can make bad players better. Michael couln't. Lebron couldn't. Westbrook can't.

As far as wanting to be a star rather than wanting to win? I would love to see any speck of truth to prove your point.

You're absolutely right that this isn't the same as the guys that you listed. But all of those guys elevated good teams into being great ones. They all were the best teams in the NBA. Westbrook is awesome but he has elevated a very bad team to the 12th best team in the NBA. Is that more impressive than lifting the 8th best team to the best?

Also, people seem to forget that the Thunder were projected to be better than Houston in the preseason by both the writers and odds makers. Houston was projected in the 8th seed or missing the playoffs all together. Oklahoma City was projected as.....the 6 seed in the west.

And who are the ideal teammates for Russell Westbrook? If you give him Houston's roster and D'antoni does he do more than what Harden does? Debatable, but the answer is no IMO.

That said, whoever wins the MVP deserves it. I personally would vote Harden but I have no issue with Russ.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 10, 2017, 11:27:29 PM


That said, whoever wins the MVP deserves it. I personally would vote Harden but I have no issue with Russ.

I feel the same although I would put Russ first.

And it doesn't really matter. We all know who the MVP is in the NBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 11, 2017, 09:09:27 AM
Westbrook has contested less 3 point FGA than any player in the NBA averaging over 30 minutes per game other than Rudy Gobert and Hassan Whiteside. D'Andre Jordan has contested more 3 point attempts this year than Russ. Russ contests 3.4 FGA out of his opponents 13.1 FGA. 74% of his opponent's FGA are uncontested. He's the worst guard in the NBA in expected FG % against. The Thunder rank last in opponent guards' expected FG% against. Basically Russell doesn't play defense and goes to chase down rebounds at the expense of playing D and contesting shots. Outstanding. Number chaser at its finest.

Good analysis, wades. Westbrook is an incredible talent but his whole goal this season was seemingly to show people he's better than Durant and/or better without Durant. His means of doing so was to chase stats.

I believe the Thunder are 30-8 when Westbrook has a triple double. So if winning is the most important thing, Westbrook needs the ball even more.

This stat is misleading. It basically says that when the player who constantly dominates the ball plays well, his team wins. When he doesn't play well, his team loses. In losses, his efficiency numbers drop significantly while his usage increases by nearly 4%. He had an all-time great season from a traditional statistics standpoint but his usage percentage was the highest in NBA history and he was very underwhelming from an efficiency standpoint.

Big picture, I don't think he's helping the franchise improve. Do you think that any marquee free agents are going to consider joining OKC to play with a guy who dominates the ball and chases stats in that manner?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 13, 2017, 03:20:04 PM
We all know that the NBA Draft Lottery has never been rigged ( ;) ;)) but I'd love to see Miami somehow ( ;) ;)) win the lottery and get the #1 pick. While a significant number of NBA teams were blatantly tanking down the stretch, the Heat, who lost their 2 best players and easily could have checked out in mid-January, went 30-11 in the second half of the season and were battling their tales off to earn the 8-seed in the East. Instead, they'll likely be "rewarded" with the #14 pick and the opportunity to draft a mid-level role player.
 
Where's the justice in the world?! Oh yeah, Justise was on the bench with a torn labrum after just 18 games.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 13, 2017, 03:31:09 PM

Big picture, I don't think he's helping the franchise improve. Do you think that any marquee free agents are going to consider joining OKC to play with a guy who dominates the ball and chases stats in that manner?

Then you don't understand basketball. They are a top 3 lottery pick without Russ. They are a 6 seed with him.

You know as well as I, that his usage would go down if there was another marquee guy on the team.

And the reason guys would not consider the team is that it is in Bumblef**k, Oklahoma.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 13, 2017, 04:21:00 PM
We all know that the NBA Draft Lottery has never been rigged ( ;) ;)) but I'd love to see Miami somehow ( ;) ;)) win the lottery and get the #1 pick. While a significant number of NBA teams were blatantly tanking down the stretch, the Heat, who lost their 2 best players and easily could have checked out in mid-January, went 30-11 in the second half of the season and were battling their tales off to earn the 8-seed in the East. Instead, they'll likely be "rewarded" with the #14 pick and the opportunity to draft a mid-level role player.
 
Where's the justice in the world?! Oh yeah, Justise was on the bench with a torn labrum after just 18 games.



The best way to stop tanking is to create a system that doesn't reward it.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 19, 2017, 09:47:14 PM
Fourty freaking three field goal attempts for Russell Westbrook tonight. And that doesn't even include the missed shots on fouls that sent him to the free throw line (18 free throw attempts). Eighteen field goal attempts in the fourth quarter. Some of the decisions are absolutely embarrassing. And no wonder they suck with him not in. Everybody's like, "what's this orange thing you just threw to me?"

If I'm trying to win 50 regular season games and not worry one bit about the postseason Russell Westbrook is the first player I want on my team. If I want to win an NBA Title I'm not sure I wouldn't take Delly over Russ as my PG.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 19, 2017, 10:29:09 PM
Fourty freaking three field goal attempts for Russell Westbrook tonight. And that doesn't even include the missed shots on fouls that sent him to the free throw line (18 free throw attempts). Eighteen field goal attempts in the fourth quarter. Some of the decisions are absolutely embarrassing. And no wonder they suck with him not in. Everybody's like, "what's this orange thing you just threw to me?"

If I'm trying to win 50 regular season games and not worry one bit about the postseason Russell Westbrook is the first player I want on my team. If I want to win an NBA Title I'm not sure I wouldn't take Delly over Russ as my PG.


He's on a team full of crap. What do you expect?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on April 19, 2017, 11:20:23 PM
I don't blame Westbrook, they were up around a dozen late third, he sat out for what felt like not even a minute, and the lead was gone. If I remember correct, he nearly checked himself back in, he couldn't take it. Stat line in the context of how that game played out is way misleading, he assisted on 13 of the Thunder's 20 assists.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: #UnleashSean on April 19, 2017, 11:47:00 PM
Sometimes I read scoop and I get a massive head scratcher. These have included Maddon being the worst manager, Henry only getting easy rebounds, Cohen should start, Arrieta uses roids because he hit a ball 440 feet, etc. The newest one is that the Thunder would be better without Westbrook. My god you people struggle sometimes.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 20, 2017, 12:14:01 AM
Sometimes I read scoop and I get a massive head scratcher. These have included Maddon being the worst manager, Henry only getting easy rebounds, Cohen should start, Arrieta uses roids because he hit a ball 440 feet, etc. The newest one is that the Thunder would be better without Westbrook. My god you people struggle sometimes.

Couldn't agree more.

Those are only a prelude to MU's season though. It really gets crazy then.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 20, 2017, 06:38:23 AM
Sometimes I read scoop and I get a massive head scratcher. These have included Maddon being the worst manager, Henry only getting easy rebounds, Cohen should start, Arrieta uses roids because he hit a ball 440 feet, etc. The newest one is that the Thunder would be better without Westbrook. My god you people struggle sometimes.

Arrieta on roids has more to do with him being ass bad as a pitcher until he hit the age of 28 and then suddenly being the best pitcher on the face of the planet. That's not when you normally figure things out, or the extent you normally figure them out to.

I don't care who it is and who is around him. No team in the history of basketball is winning an NBA Playoff basketball game when one player shoots the ball 43 times in a game, without even taking into account the shots he took that he got fouled on. I can't tell you how many times Russ came down the court and either immediately pulled up for a contested 3 or tried to drive in a straight line to the hoop into 4 defenders and put up a contested shot. No kidding nobody else can do anything for the Thunder. No offense is ever run whatsoever. It's just get the ball to Russ and get out of the way.

What NBA player couldn't score 51 points if they shot the ball 43 times and shot 18 free throws in a game? That's a serious question.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 20, 2017, 07:57:37 AM
Here's another question I have.  What makes the Rockets supporting cast so much superior to the Thunder's?  Eric Gordon is a high volume scorer who does absolutely nothing else, Lou Williams gets passed along from team to team like a hot potato, and then you have Ryan Anderson, Clint Capela, Trevor Ariza, Patrick Beverly, Nene, Sam Dekker...  I don't see how that's much, if any, better than Oladipo, Kanter, Adams, Gibson, Roberson, and Sabonis.  The only difference I see is Harden is willing to let his relatively-average supporting cast shoot the ball sometimes while Russ isn't willing to do the same.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 20, 2017, 08:53:15 AM
Sometimes I read scoop and I get a massive head scratcher. These have included Maddon being the worst manager, Henry only getting easy rebounds, Cohen should start, Arrieta uses roids because he hit a ball 440 feet, etc. The newest one is that the Thunder would be better without Westbrook. My god you people struggle sometimes.

Where did anyone say that?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 20, 2017, 09:02:45 AM

He's on a team full of crap. What do you expect?

I'd expect him to get his teammates involved and stop trying to literally win a game all by himself.

Like wades pointed out, the Thunder's roster is very comparable to the Rockets'. Oladipo is a better all-around player than Gordon. Gibson is a better all-around PF than Anderson. Adams and Kanter are at least as good as the Rockets' bigs, if not better. The teams are obviously built differently given the Rockets' emphasis on 3-point shooting but it's not like James Harden is surrounded by anything other than role players.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 20, 2017, 09:49:19 AM
wades and Merritts:

When Harden penetrates and dishes, he has a reasonable expectation that his teammates will make shots. Westbrook? Not so much.

During the game's decisive stretch, Westbrook penetrated and dished on 5 out of 6 possessions. His teammates failed to score on all 5 - including layups by Oladipo (who blows), Sabonis and Singler. The Rockets, meanwhile, were taking control of the game with Harden on the freakin' bench, as Gordon, Beverley and Williams came through.

The Rockets have nice balance on the perimeter, with legit defensive stoppers such as Beverley and Ariza, who also happen to be able to make shots when Harden gets them the ball in scoring position.

If you saw the game, you know that Westbrook chucked up a bunch of 4th-quarter shots out of frustration and desperation after his teammates sucked big-time. I AM NOT COMPARING WESTBROOK TO MJ AS A PLAYER, but I am saying that some of the exact same criticism being levied at Westbrook right now is what was being said about Jordan when he was a one-man team in the mid-'80s.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on April 20, 2017, 09:53:30 AM
Quote
What makes the Rockets supporting cast so much superior to the Thunder's?  Eric Gordon is a high volume scorer who does absolutely nothing else, Lou Williams gets passed along from team to team like a hot potato, and then you have Ryan Anderson, Clint Capela, Trevor Ariza, Patrick Beverly, Nene, Sam Dekker...  I don't see how that's much, if any, better than Oladipo, Kanter, Adams, Gibson, Roberson, and Sabonis.

Quote
Like wades pointed out, the Thunder's roster is very comparable to the Rockets'. Oladipo is a better all-around player than Gordon. Gibson is a better all-around PF than Anderson. Adams and Kanter are at least as good as the Rockets' bigs, if not better. The teams are obviously built differently given the Rockets' emphasis on 3-point shooting but it's not like James Harden is surrounded by anything other than role players.

Westbrook objectively had an awful 4th qtr yesterday, but I'll take the bait here. The Rockets after Harden are a dramatically better team than OKC outside of Westbrook.  Adams is a good player, but its just untrue that Kanter factors into a comparison to Capela/Nene.  Kanter is so bad in space that Donovan can't play him. 

That speaks to what makes the Rockets cast so much better - and why the attack on Westbrook's motivations are so tired - there is a theory in the Rockets' roster construction, whereas OKC's current roster is built on the assumption KD would be there. The Rockets run the floor well. They have players that can spread it (don't @ me w/ Roberson and Oladipo being comparable to Gordon, Anderson and Ariza. Gordon, Anderson and Ariza were 4th, 9th and 14th respectively in 3FG made this season - and keep in mind that Westbrook only averaged 5 more FGA per game than Harden. Anderson is arguably the best shooting 4 in the game.  To say that Gibson is a better all around 4 than Anderson is like saying Mitch Moreland is a better 1B than Edwin Encarnacion because he hits for higher average and plays better defense. I'll take Anderson's effect on a game, and the freedom it gives you to put together the rest of the roster, over Taj any day.  Beverly is one of the top perimeter defenders in the league. Even if you want to say that Oladipo and Roberson aren't bad players, they aren't particularly good at anything. Houston's roster is balanced with guys that have some deficiencies, but are among the best in the league at their respective specialties.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 20, 2017, 10:03:55 AM
wades and Merritts:

When Harden penetrates and dishes, he has a reasonable expectation that his teammates will make shots. Westbrook? Not so much.

During the game's decisive stretch, Westbrook penetrated and dished on 5 out of 6 possessions. His teammates failed to score on all 5 - including layups by Oladipo (who blows), Sabonis and Singler. The Rockets, meanwhile, were taking control of the game with Harden on the freakin' bench, as Gordon, Beverley and Williams came through.

The Rockets have nice balance on the perimeter, with legit defensive stoppers such as Beverley and Ariza, who also happen to be able to make shots when Harden gets them the ball in scoring position.

If you saw the game, you know that Westbrook chucked up a bunch of 4th-quarter shots out of frustration and desperation after his teammates sucked big-time. I AM NOT COMPARING WESTBROOK TO MJ AS A PLAYER, but I am saying that some of the exact same criticism being levied at Westbrook right now is what was being said about Jordan when he was a one-man team in the mid-'80s.

Westbrook chucked up a bunch of shots in the 4th out of frustration?  Come on.  Westbrook took his first shot of the 4th quarter while they were up by 1 with 8:33 left.  He took EIGHTEEN shots in 8:33!  Just getting that many shots up in that amount of time for a single player is probably the most impressive stat of his night!  EIGHTEEN!  (He only made 4 of those.)  And 3 more that resulted in fouls!  So he shot the ball 21 times and was fouled on 3 of them over the course of the last 8:33 of the game, when they went from up 1 to down 5.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 20, 2017, 10:05:18 AM
wades and Merritts:


I AM NOT COMPARING WESTBROOK TO MJ AS A PLAYER, but I am saying that some of the exact same criticism being levied at Westbrook right now is what was being said about Jordan when he was a one-man team in the mid-'80s.

Jordan was a ball hog who only looked at his own stats. Magic and Bird made everyone around them better.

At least that was the line back in the day. Cuz we know that Kareem, Worthy, Wilkes, Scott, McHale, Parrish, Johnson, etc., etc., needed Bird and Magic to turn them into players.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: HouWarrior on April 20, 2017, 10:44:59 AM
Westbrook objectively had an awful 4th qtr yesterday, but I'll take the bait here. The Rockets after Harden are a dramatically better team than OKC outside of Westbrook.  Adams is a good player, but its just untrue that Kanter factors into a comparison to Capela/Nene.  Kanter is so bad in space that Donovan can't play him. 

That speaks to what makes the Rockets cast so much better - and why the attack on Westbrook's motivations are so tired - there is a theory in the Rockets' roster construction, whereas OKC's current roster is built on the assumption KD would be there. The Rockets run the floor well. They have players that can spread it (don't @ me w/ Roberson and Oladipo being comparable to Gordon, Anderson and Ariza. Gordon, Anderson and Ariza were 4th, 9th and 14th respectively in 3FG made this season - and keep in mind that Westbrook only averaged 5 more FGA per game than Harden. Anderson is arguably the best shooting 4 in the game.  To say that Gibson is a better all around 4 than Anderson is like saying Mitch Moreland is a better 1B than Edwin Encarnacion because he hits for higher average and plays better defense. I'll take Anderson's effect on a game, and the freedom it gives you to put together the rest of the roster, over Taj any day.  Beverly is one of the top perimeter defenders in the league. Even if you want to say that Oladipo and Roberson aren't bad players, they aren't particularly good at anything. Houston's roster is balanced with guys that have some deficiencies, but are among the best in the league at their respective specialties.
For 38 years, I have been here rooting for and dissecting the Rockets . I agree with the above post.

This years team has excelled not because of the overall skills of each player (except Harden who gives all you need at the point) . Each of the supporting cast is simply placed into the position to do what they do best...thats all we want of them. We traded Corey Brewer for Lou Williams simply to give us more 3s from the second unit . Brewer may have been better at other facets, but Rockets are committed to an all or nothing inside the paint and 3 point shooting system. We dont recruit guys with great mid range jumpers. D'Antoni's biggest challenge is to get our squad committed to enough defense to win...scoring is not our concern.

There are lots of good players on many other teams including OKC but this years Rockets are constructed to be the sum of their parts. Its been entertaining to watch, 3rd best league record, and we like them. The real test is in the Western conf to see if our system and parts are good enough against likely matchups against OKC, San Antonio and GS .

Essentially this is a pick your poison system. In game one OKC decided to step out and challenge the 3s, so we drove in for 68 paint points. In game two they tried some sagging and challenging, and the switching brought the game closer. Our 12-3 3rd quarter run was with Westbrook benched so Donovan denied him his early 4th quarter rest, played him all of 4th and he clearly pressed and shot poorly. Westbrook felt he had to take over. Harden did the same in prior years...this year Harden has rarely pressed to take over...clearly Harden has much more confidence in his cast to kick it out or alley oop in the paint. Its fun to watch
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: CTWarrior on April 20, 2017, 11:35:59 AM
Jordan was a ball hog who only looked at his own stats. Magic and Bird made everyone around them better.

At least that was the line back in the day. Cuz we know that Kareem, Worthy, Wilkes, Scott, McHale, Parrish, Johnson, etc., etc., needed Bird and Magic to turn them into players.

I always thought Jordan hurt basketball down the line, by perfecting hero ball.  The problem is not that Jordan did what he did, it is that the others who emulate him are not Jordan.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on April 20, 2017, 04:41:19 PM
Fourty freaking three field goal attempts for Russell Westbrook tonight. And that doesn't even include the missed shots on fouls that sent him to the free throw line (18 free throw attempts). Eighteen field goal attempts in the fourth quarter. Some of the decisions are absolutely embarrassing. And no wonder they suck with him not in. Everybody's like, "what's this orange thing you just threw to me?"

If I'm trying to win 50 regular season games and not worry one bit about the postseason Russell Westbrook is the first player I want on my team. If I want to win an NBA Title I'm not sure I wouldn't take Delly over Russ as my PG.

I always wondered who the Skip Bayless, First Take, Pardon the Interruption, Jason Whitlock HOT TAKE demo was, finally found out.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 20, 2017, 05:54:24 PM
I always wondered who the Skip Bayless, First Take, Pardon the Interruption, Jason Whitlock HOT TAKE demo was, finally found out.

That's fine.  I don't mind being alone in having the opinion that taking 18 shots over the last 8 minutes and 33 seconds of a basketball game, plus 3 shots that resulted in fouls, is way, way, way too much hero ball.  Russell Westbrook took 18 shots and 6 free throws in the last 8:33 while the rest of the entire Thunder team took 5 shots and 0 free throws in the last 8:33.  If thinking Russell Westbrook was hurting his team down the stretch is a hot take I'm all for being the king of hot takes.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 20, 2017, 06:19:41 PM
ESPN paying me for some fire boys.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on April 20, 2017, 06:45:21 PM
This discussion isn't black and white and almost impossible to quantify using stats without watching the games as an expert. You can argue that the Rocket's supporting cast is better, but how much of that is made better by a player who is adeptly running an efficient offense (top ten all time) vs "talent". At the same point, at what point does Westbrook's efficiency suffer (rate of scoring off passes etc) because his teammates can't hit shots. You can massage and selectively use statistics to further your points all day but at the end of the day, ain't no thing without that ring; which neither team will probably even sniff this year.

FWIW, Wades I agree that if I am trying to build an efficient and successful offensive team, I would take Harden over Westbrook based on my belief that one could coexist with another star and one cannot (Durant). However I am not a GM and have a half inch vertical so what do I know.

People are taking a LOT of valid arguments on either side of the debate out of context in this thread...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on April 20, 2017, 07:19:05 PM
This discussion isn't black and white and almost impossible to quantify using stats without watching the games as an expert. You can argue that the Rocket's supporting cast is better, but how much of that is made better by a player who is adeptly running an efficient offense (top ten all time) vs "talent". At the same point, at what point does Westbrook's efficiency suffer (rate of scoring off passes etc) because his teammates can't hit shots. You can massage and selectively use statistics to further your points all day but at the end of the day, ain't no thing without that ring; which neither team will probably even sniff this year.

FWIW, Wades I agree that if I am trying to build an efficient and successful offensive team, I would take Harden over Westbrook based on my belief that one could coexist with another star and one cannot (Durant). However I am not a GM and have a half inch vertical so what do I know.

People are taking a LOT of valid arguments on either side of the debate out of context in this thread...

Wades is arguing that he would take Delly over Russ.  Literally one of the worst takes on this board, ever.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 20, 2017, 08:34:18 PM
This discussion isn't black and white and almost impossible to quantify using stats without watching the games as an expert. You can argue that the Rocket's supporting cast is better, but how much of that is made better by a player who is adeptly running an efficient offense (top ten all time) vs "talent". At the same point, at what point does Westbrook's efficiency suffer (rate of scoring off passes etc) because his teammates can't hit shots. You can massage and selectively use statistics to further your points all day but at the end of the day, ain't no thing without that ring; which neither team will probably even sniff this year.


Couldn't agree more. The stats are nice but they don't tell the whole story. They are telling you what you already saw with your eyes.

I can watch Clayton Kershaw pitch 3 times and KNOW he is the best pitcher in the game. The advanced stats just tell me what I know. He is not great because the stats say he is great - in fact, it is the opposite. The stats just reflect who he is. Plus, they are an average - not a prediction of what he will do in any single game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 20, 2017, 08:58:35 PM
Imagine how good Thon is going to be when he finally hits puberty.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 20, 2017, 10:45:53 PM
That's fine.  I don't mind being alone in having the opinion that taking 18 shots over the last 8 minutes and 33 seconds of a basketball game, plus 3 shots that resulted in fouls, is way, way, way too much hero ball.  Russell Westbrook took 18 shots and 6 free throws in the last 8:33 while the rest of the entire Thunder team took 5 shots and 0 free throws in the last 8:33.  If thinking Russell Westbrook was hurting his team down the stretch is a hot take I'm all for being the king of hot takes.

wades, if you actually saw the game, you know it's not as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.

I know you're smarter than that, just as I know your Delly line was a joke. (Even made me chuckle.)

By the time there was about 6 mins left, and the Rockets had stolen all momentum and the lead, Westbrook had given up on his incompetent teammates and realized that if there was going to be any chance at all, he had to do it himself. He was a very willing passer the first 3-4 minutes of the quarter but his teammates failed over and over again. Hell, he was a very willing passer the first three quarters, when he had 13 assists.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 20, 2017, 10:48:22 PM
On a related note, isn't it about that time for somebody to chime in about how overrated LeBron is?

He probably will go down in history as the second-best player ever, although some will laughably insist that Bird was better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 20, 2017, 10:55:37 PM
wades, if you actually saw the game, you know it's not as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.

I know you're smarter than that, just as I know your Delly line was a joke. (Even made me chuckle.)

By the time there was about 6 mins left, and the Rockets had stolen all momentum and the lead, Westbrook had given up on his incompetent teammates and realized that if there was going to be any chance at all, he had to do it himself. He was a very willing passer the first 3-4 minutes of the quarter but his teammates failed over and over again. Hell, he was a very willing passer the first three quarters, when he had 13 assists.

I just don't agree with you here.  The Thunder were tied with 3 minutes to go in the game.  He did give up on his teammates, but that's the problem.  He shouldn't have.  18 shots and 6 free throws himself compared to 5 shots and 0 free throws from the entire rest of the team over the last 8:33 when the Thunder went from up 1 to losing by 4.  I don't care how much better of a basketball player Russell Westbrook is than their 2nd-5th best players are, that's not going to win you basketball games.  I'll take my chances with the ball moving around the court and finding the open man over Russell Westbrook trying to jump backwards while chucking the ball at the backboard from 27 feet away from the hoop.  He's going to make that shot 0% of the time.  At least if Oladipo shoots an average 3 pointer it's got a chance, or Kanter or Adams or Sabonis get a straight post there's a chance they make the shot.  The shots he took had absolutely no chance of going in.  That's not on his teammates.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 21, 2017, 12:19:21 AM
I just don't agree with you here.  The Thunder were tied with 3 minutes to go in the game.  He did give up on his teammates, but that's the problem.  He shouldn't have.  18 shots and 6 free throws himself compared to 5 shots and 0 free throws from the entire rest of the team over the last 8:33 when the Thunder went from up 1 to losing by 4.  I don't care how much better of a basketball player Russell Westbrook is than their 2nd-5th best players are, that's not going to win you basketball games.  I'll take my chances with the ball moving around the court and finding the open man over Russell Westbrook trying to jump backwards while chucking the ball at the backboard from 27 feet away from the hoop.  He's going to make that shot 0% of the time.  At least if Oladipo shoots an average 3 pointer it's got a chance, or Kanter or Adams or Sabonis get a straight post there's a chance they make the shot.  The shots he took had absolutely no chance of going in.  That's not on his teammates.

Yes, Westbrook took a few shots that, as you said, "had absolutely no chance of going in." But he also had several open 3s that just didn't go down. Given that he shoots 3s at only a 2% lower pct than Oladipo, who hasn't been able to hit the broadside of a barn lately, I'd take my chances with Westbrook. At least he isn't a scared puppy out there.

Had his teammates looked even the least bit capable in the first 4-5 minutes of the fourth quarter, I'd be agreeing with you. But they were awful and Westbrook felt he had to take over.

It's OK if we disagree sometimes; we agree on most.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 21, 2017, 08:24:14 AM
He probably will go down in history as the second-best player ever, although some will laughably insist that Bird was better.


I wasn't going to go there this year.  I'm pretty sure last year's Finals performance put that dog to sleep.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 21, 2017, 08:33:10 AM
Yes, Westbrook took a few shots that, as you said, "had absolutely no chance of going in." But he also had several open 3s that just didn't go down. Given that he shoots 3s at only a 2% lower pct than Oladipo, who hasn't been able to hit the broadside of a barn lately, I'd take my chances with Westbrook. At least he isn't a scared puppy out there.

Had his teammates looked even the least bit capable in the first 4-5 minutes of the fourth quarter, I'd be agreeing with you. But they were awful and Westbrook felt he had to take over.

It's OK if we disagree sometimes; we agree on most.

Not truly understanding how to take over is the issue. To a lot of players "taking over" means taking all the shots and scoring a bunch of points. It's the inverse to a star "getting teammates involved" simply by not shooting. It doesn't necessarily work that way. Some of the biggest, most memorable plays in Jordan's career were assists (Paxson vs LA, Wennington vs NY, Kerr vs Utah, etc). Chris Paul can take over a game both by scoring and by creating shots for others. Steve Nash could control a game without even taking a shot. LeBron has the ability to take over a game on both ends of the court. Playing out of control and forcing up wild shots because you don't trust your teammates is not taking over and it's not going to get it done, especially in the playoffs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 21, 2017, 08:37:43 AM
I said it at the time of the Harden trade, OKC moved the wrong guy. Westbrook is an inefficient volume shooter who didn't pass to Durant nearly enough, especially in the 2012 Finals. 

Plus, Westbrook had a higher trade value than Harden at the time.  I wondered if they could have made a blockbuster deal for another PG. Westbrook for Paul would have been ideal for the Thunder. But instead they went into the dustbin of dynasties that never were.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 21, 2017, 08:50:01 AM
I said it at the time of the Harden trade, OKC moved the wrong guy. Westbrook is an inefficient volume shooter who didn't pass to Durant nearly enough, especially in the 2012 Finals. 

Plus, Westbrook had a higher trade value than Harden at the time.  I wondered if they could have made a blockbuster deal for another PG. Westbrook for Paul would have been ideal for the Thunder. But instead they went into the dustbin of dynasties that never were.

I've always said Rondo with Durant and Harden would've been pretty incredible to watch.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 21, 2017, 09:17:34 AM
Not truly understanding how to take over is the issue. To a lot of players "taking over" means taking all the shots and scoring a bunch of points. It's the inverse to a star "getting teammates involved" simply by not shooting. It doesn't necessarily work that way. Some of the biggest, most memorable plays in Jordan's career were assists (Paxson vs LA, Wennington vs NY, Kerr vs Utah, etc). Chris Paul can take over a game both by scoring and by creating shots for others. Steve Nash could control a game without even taking a shot. LeBron has the ability to take over a game on both ends of the court. Playing out of control and forcing up wild shots because you don't trust your teammates is not taking over and it's not going to get it done, especially in the playoffs.

We agree in principle. I actually have made that argument many times when people got on LeBron for passing in game-ending situations or when Derrick Rose tried to do it himself instead of passing to capable, open teammates.

If Westbrook had even one teammate he could have counted on - one Paxson or Kerr or Ray Allen or Stoudemire - I'd be all over him for not passing more down the stretch and we'd agree in totality.

But again, Westbrook set up Oladipo, Singler, McDermott, Sabonis and Roberson ... and none of them could score. Would a better "leader" have kept going to them? Perhaps. But in my mind, it's hard to blame Westbrook for thinking he had to do it himself.

I guess we'll never know what would have happened had Westbrook stopped shooting. He didn't, and they lost, so it's easier to make the argument you're making. I acknowledge that.

If anybody who watched that game - not to mention many other Thunder and Rockets games this season - didn't conclude that Harden has more capable options than Westbrook does, I don't know what to say.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 21, 2017, 09:23:04 AM
I said it at the time of the Harden trade, OKC moved the wrong guy. Westbrook is an inefficient volume shooter who didn't pass to Durant nearly enough, especially in the 2012 Finals. 

Plus, Westbrook had a higher trade value than Harden at the time.  I wondered if they could have made a blockbuster deal for another PG. Westbrook for Paul would have been ideal for the Thunder. But instead they went into the dustbin of dynasties that never were.


They shouldn't have moved either one of them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 21, 2017, 07:19:27 PM
Bumstead at da United Center gettin' sprinkled wit fairy dust by da dudes who paved his driveway, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on April 21, 2017, 07:55:43 PM
Lack of Rondo completely changed this series. I don't think it's a coincidence Butler has had a terrible game, Rondo was getting him great looks in games 1 & 2. MCW is garbage, especially defensively.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 21, 2017, 09:05:50 PM
Weird things happen when more than one person is allowed to touch the ball. Thunder up 9 after one with Westbrook on pace for 20 shots. No chance they'll win if he ends up shooting over 30 shots, let alone FOURTY THREE (sorry, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how that's even possible).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 24, 2017, 04:45:39 PM
Anybody can say what they want about Westbrook, Harden, the Thunder's talent, the Rockets' talent, etc.

When Harden has gone to the bench, the Rockets actually have been able to increase leads or make up deficits. I don't think that says anything about Harden's value, because we all know he is damn valuable.

When Donovan has tried to get Westbrook a few minutes of rest, the Thunder is an aggregate -40 with him on the bench. They simply are not a very good team, and they especially are not a very good shooting team. Westbrook had an amazing regular season - one of the all-time best. He is doing most things well in this series, too, but yes, he is shooting too much and forcing things in the fourth quarter. As Jordan did before the Bulls had much around him. As LeBron did his first go-around with the Cavs. As Kobe did when there wasn't much talent surrounding him. As Iverson did. Etc. As a fan, I wish Westbrook wouldn't do it, but it's human nature for the guy who is BY FAR the best player on his team to think he has to make the big plays.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 26, 2017, 02:56:42 PM
Here's the final tally of the last 4 games of the OKC-HOU series.

Game ------------------ RW on flr ----------------- RW sit
2 ------------------------ +11 ---------------------- (-15)
3 ------------------------ +3 -----------------------  (-1)
4 ------------------------ +14 ---------------------- (-18)
5 ------------------------ +10 ---------------------- (-16)

It's easy to see why Westbrook thinks he has to be a one-man show.

That being said, when Westbrook came back into the game last night, he penetrated to set up Grant for a dunk, penetrated to set himself up for 2FTs and penetrated to set up Grant for another dunk. Then, curiously, he started firing up long jumpers.

I think part of it was because he was getting tired. But I also thinks he does take a lot of ill-advised shots.

All in all, I'd take him on my team.  Put 3 or 4 or 5 shooters around him and he will do plenty of passing and winning. I mean he did average 10+ assists this season!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2017, 11:53:48 PM
https://twitter.com/_MarcusD2_/status/858169519109550081

Brad Stevens is a class act.  Trying to figure out what the fans are chanting and asking his assistants if they're really chanting, "Fire Hoiberg."  Then you see him say, "Shut up" at the very end.

Bunch of meathead FIBs.  Getting that roster to the Playoffs is a minor miracle in and of itself.  Butler is obviously good.  Otherwise?  Wade, Rondo, Lopez, Mirotic, Portis, MCW, Cannon, Valentine, Grant?  That's a pretty awful roster, and then you lose Rondo to an injury (think the C's still would've won the series, but probably in 7).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on April 29, 2017, 10:33:42 AM
https://twitter.com/_MarcusD2_/status/858169519109550081

Brad Stevens is a class act.  Trying to figure out what the fans are chanting and asking his assistants if they're really chanting, "Fire Hoiberg."  Then you see him say, "Shut up" at the very end.

Bunch of meathead FIBs.  Getting that roster to the Playoffs is a minor miracle in and of itself.  Butler is obviously good.  Otherwise?  Wade, Rondo, Lopez, Mirotic, Portis, MCW, Cannon, Valentine, Grant?  That's a pretty awful roster, and then you lose Rondo to an injury (think the C's still would've won the series, but probably in 7).

While chanting is stupid, Hoiberg isn't a NBA coach, yet. This goes back beyond the playoffs.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 29, 2017, 11:35:45 AM
While chanting is stupid, Hoiberg isn't a NBA coach, yet. This goes back beyond the playoffs.

He wasn't great but what could he really have gotten out of this team? It's a group of aging, injury prone guys that don't fit the style of play he has coached.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on April 29, 2017, 12:02:32 PM
Doesn't help when your max player can't adjust to a new coach, either.

I love Jimmy, but he never gave Hoiberg a shot.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on April 29, 2017, 12:03:19 PM
He wasn't great but what could he really have gotten out of this team? It's a group of aging, injury prone guys that don't fit the style of play he has coached.

Not disagreeing, but the team has been running this team for the majority of the season.

Fred also thought he was coming into a rebuild, not an aging veteran patch job.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 03, 2017, 03:04:37 PM
Westbrook shot 26% from 3 on TEN attempts per game.  Absolutely absurd.

Westbrook shot 38% from the field in against the Rockets while the rest of the Thunder shot 47%.  Yet Westbrook took 35% of the Thunder's total shots.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 04, 2017, 07:51:14 AM
I have an acquaintance from Boston who, of course, idolizes Larry Bird. His main defense of Bird being better than LeBron is that "LeBron simply isn't a leader." I told him how absurd this statement was, considering all the leading LeBron has done and continues doing, but he was sticking by it. LeBron is better at pretty much everything than Bird was, but Bird ranks ahead of LeBron based solely on leadership. Hmmm.

I didn't say this to him, and maybe I'm just a hypersensitive type seeing a bogeyman, but this smacked of thinly veiled racism.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 04, 2017, 08:29:02 AM
What were his arguments that defined Bird as a better leader than Lebron?

And it is very likely more homerism than racism.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 04, 2017, 09:05:10 AM
What were his arguments that defined Bird as a better leader than Lebron?

And it is very likely more homerism than racism.

He had no arguments. He simply stated it as a fact. When I'd present evidence of LeBron's leadership, he would simply say, "I don't care. I don't think he's a leader."

You very well might be correct about it being homerism rather than racism. When he'd go on to talk about LeBron being a cocky trash-talker - and rejecting the facts that Bird's trash-talking was legendary and Bird also was extremely cocky, it made me wonder more, though.

Again, I fully allow that I might be seeing things, but I usually do have pretty decent race-dar.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 04, 2017, 09:24:56 AM
He had no arguments. He simply stated it as a fact. When I'd present evidence of LeBron's leadership, he would simply say, "I don't care. I don't think he's a leader."

You very well might be correct about it being homerism rather than racism. When he'd go on to talk about LeBron being a cocky trash-talker - and rejecting the facts that Bird's trash-talking was legendary and Bird also was extremely cocky, it made me wonder more, though.

Again, I fully allow that I might be seeing things, but I usually do have pretty decent race-dar.

Racism in Boston? Adam Jones says that is ludicrous.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 04, 2017, 09:44:56 AM
Racism in Boston? Adam Jones says that is ludicrous.

There's racism everywhere.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 04, 2017, 04:21:53 PM
Taught dat ended wit BO's election, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 04, 2017, 04:24:35 PM
Taught dat ended wit BO's election, hey?

Restarted with D Trump's.  No Muslims, no Hispanics, didn't you hear?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on May 04, 2017, 08:51:48 PM
Taught dat ended wit BO's election, hey?
That really ramped it up again.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on May 05, 2017, 11:16:47 AM
Let's wait until after then NBA finals to lock this thread.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 06, 2017, 03:25:29 PM
Copied from Twitter:

LBJ's last 10 playoff games, all wins:
41-16-7-3
41-8-11-4
27-11-11-2
36-6-13-3
25-10-7-4
41-13-12-1
33-10-4-4
35-10-4-1
39-6-4-3
35-8-7-1

But he's not a leader.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 06, 2017, 05:32:29 PM
Copied from Twitter:

LBJ's last 10 playoff games, all wins:
41-16-7-3
41-8-11-4
27-11-11-2
36-6-13-3
25-10-7-4
41-13-12-1
33-10-4-4
35-10-4-1
39-6-4-3
35-8-7-1

But he's not a leader.

Yeah, amazing.

By the time he is through, most who truly follow pro basketball will be talking about him as the second-best player of all time. At worst.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jmayer1 on May 07, 2017, 12:43:50 AM
Yeah, amazing.

By the time he is through, most who truly follow pro basketball will be talking about him as the second-best player of all time. At worst.

False. He cannot possibly pass Jordan or Wilt.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 07, 2017, 01:00:48 AM
Wilt?  Gimme a break...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on May 07, 2017, 02:31:59 AM
Career Averages:

MPG: 38.3 (MJ) 38.9 (LJ)
PPG: 30.1-27.1
RPG: 6.3-7.3
APG: 6.2-7.0
SPG: 2.3-1.6
BPG: 0.8-0.8
TPG: 2.7-3.4
FG%: .497-.501
3P%: .327-.342
eFG%: .509-.536

Jordan has his 2 years with the Wizards weighing him down and has way more hardware in the case than Lebron so I definitely give the edge to him. But if Lebron somehow wins three more championships and keeps playing at this level? Could see an argument for him taking the number 1 spot. I think he is already a comfortable #2.

Through this process I learned a fun trivia question. There is one player who has won more championships than Jordan who was not a member of the 1950s/1960s Celtics. Who is it?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on May 07, 2017, 06:34:49 AM
False. He cannot possibly pass Jordan or Wilt.

Wilt?!?


Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 07, 2017, 06:42:53 AM
Career Averages:

MPG: 38.3 (MJ) 38.9 (LJ)
PPG: 30.1-27.1
RPG: 6.3-7.3
APG: 6.2-7.0
SPG: 2.3-1.6
BPG: 0.8-0.8
TPG: 2.7-3.4
FG%: .497-.501
3P%: .327-.342
eFG%: .509-.536

Jordan has his 2 years with the Wizards weighing him down and has way more hardware in the case than Lebron so I definitely give the edge to him. But if Lebron somehow wins three more championships and keeps playing at this level? Could see an argument for him taking the number 1 spot. I think he is already a comfortable #2.

Through this process I learned a fun trivia question. There is one player who has won more championships than Jordan who was not a member of the 1950s/1960s Celtics. Who is it?


Robert Horry.

Two with the Rockets, three with the Lakers, two with the Spurs
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 07, 2017, 06:44:04 AM
Career Averages:

MPG: 38.3 (MJ) 38.9 (LJ)
PPG: 30.1-27.1
RPG: 6.3-7.3
APG: 6.2-7.0
SPG: 2.3-1.6
BPG: 0.8-0.8
TPG: 2.7-3.4
FG%: .497-.501
3P%: .327-.342
eFG%: .509-.536

Jordan has his 2 years with the Wizards weighing him down and has way more hardware in the case than Lebron so I definitely give the edge to him. But if Lebron somehow wins three more championships and keeps playing at this level? Could see an argument for him taking the number 1 spot. I think he is already a comfortable #2.

Through this process I learned a fun trivia question. There is one player who has won more championships than Jordan who was not a member of the 1950s/1960s Celtics. Who is it?

Get some tougher trivia TAMU. I'm probably the worst trivia "player" on the planet and even I knew it was Robert Horry immediately (unless they have it wrong and there's more than 1, because I know Big Shot Bob has more than MJ).

Edit: Sultan just beat me to it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 07, 2017, 09:40:22 AM
I also thought of Robert Horry pretty quickly. But I am a hoops junkie, so I am sure the general sports fan would struggle to answer it that easily.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 07, 2017, 04:07:41 PM
Career Averages:

MPG: 38.3 (MJ) 38.9 (LJ)
PPG: 30.1-27.1
RPG: 6.3-7.3
APG: 6.2-7.0
SPG: 2.3-1.6
BPG: 0.8-0.8
TPG: 2.7-3.4
FG%: .497-.501
3P%: .327-.342
eFG%: .509-.536

Jordan has his 2 years with the Wizards weighing him down and has way more hardware in the case than Lebron so I definitely give the edge to him. But if Lebron somehow wins three more championships and keeps playing at this level? Could see an argument for him taking the number 1 spot. I think he is already a comfortable #2.

Through this process I learned a fun trivia question. There is one player who has won more championships than Jordan who was not a member of the 1950s/1960s Celtics. Who is it?

I always had Jordan and Kareem as a clear .#1 and #2 and didn't see anyone who could challenge either spot.

But Lebron is now in the conversation for #2 and could soon be in the convo for #1
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 07, 2017, 06:01:44 PM
Maybe he beets Wilt in da bedroom stat, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 07, 2017, 11:32:24 PM
False. He cannot possibly pass Jordan or Wilt.

I'm a big Wilt fan, and I do think he is too casually dismissed in the greatest-ever conversation. However, LeBron already has him beat.

LeBron is 32 and he still has pretty much the perfect athletic physique. He is fanatical about taking care of himself. There is every reason to believe he can continue to play at a superduperstar level for another 3-4 years, and then still be very good for a couple/few years beyond that. If he wins another couple of championships, only a fan of the Lakers would argue Magic or Kareem were better, only a fan of the Celtics would argue Bird or Russell were better, etc.

LeBron is an all-time freak. And the fact that he doesn't just live off of his freakishness - he really, really works at his game, which is why, like Jordan, he has gotten better with age - makes him all the more special.

As for Jordan's stats being affected by his two years with the Wizards ... that was his choice. He doesn't get special dispensation for it. Nor does he get special dispensation for sitting out twice, once when he was in his absolute prime and once when he was still the best player on the planet. They were his choice.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on May 08, 2017, 07:18:48 AM
As for Jordan's stats being affected by his two years with the Wizards ... that was his choice. He doesn't get special dispensation for it. Nor does he get special dispensation for sitting out twice, once when he was in his absolute prime and once when he was still the best player on the planet. They were his choice.

Agreed. I just pointed it out because Lebron hasn't had his couple seasons as an aging superstar yet. I imagine his career averages will go down as well.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 08, 2017, 08:07:19 AM
I did have to laugh at Tyrone Lue's comments about how LeBron is like MJ in that in the 90's players weren't able to get rings because MJ was winning them all and today it's the same with LeBron.  MJ essentially won 6 straight Titles when he was actually playing in the NBA.  LeBron has won 3 total, and 2 of those came when he convinced 2 other top 20 players in the NBA (at the time) to take less money so that they could all be on the same team.

As far as where he stands in the greatest of all time, I'm pretty confident in saying MJ is one but beyond that it's really hard to "rank" these guys.  The game was so different back in the 70s than it is today and the players aren't playing against the same players.  To me it's pretty hard to rank all time.  What I can say is that LeBron is the best player of this generation.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on May 08, 2017, 12:02:58 PM
I did have to laugh at Tyrone Lue's comments about how LeBron is like MJ in that in the 90's players weren't able to get rings because MJ was winning them all and today it's the same with LeBron.  MJ essentially won 6 straight Titles when he was actually playing in the NBA.  LeBron has won 3 total, and 2 of those came when he convinced 2 other top 20 players in the NBA (at the time) to take less money so that they could all be on the same team.

As far as where he stands in the greatest of all time, I'm pretty confident in saying MJ is one but beyond that it's really hard to "rank" these guys.  The game was so different back in the 70s than it is today and the players aren't playing against the same players.  To me it's pretty hard to rank all time.  What I can say is that LeBron is the best player of this generation.

They all left $ on the table, not just Wade and Bosh.

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2010/07/10/lebron-james-dwyane-wade-chris-bosh-each-leave-15-million-on-the-table/

C'mon, take the hate glasses off Wades...they were all friends, and had the unique opportunity to make this happen, not sure about the "knock" that he somehow connived or tricked his buddies into taking less money...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 08, 2017, 12:10:37 PM
They all left $ on the table, not just Wade and Bosh.

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2010/07/10/lebron-james-dwyane-wade-chris-bosh-each-leave-15-million-on-the-table/

C'mon, take the hate glasses off Wades...they were all friends, and had the unique opportunity to make this happen, not sure about the "knock" that he somehow connived or tricked his buddies into taking less money...

That's what I meant. That 3 top 20 player in the NBA took less money than they could have in order to play together on the same team.

Who has LeBron prevented from winning a title in the way that MJ did?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on May 08, 2017, 12:18:55 PM
That's what I meant. That 3 top 20 player in the NBA took less money than they could have in order to play together on the same team.

Who has LeBron prevented from winning a title in the way that MJ did?

Nobody yet, but perhaps after beating KD and Warriors this year he might start a trend  ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 09, 2017, 10:51:19 AM
I did have to laugh at Tyrone Lue's comments about how LeBron is like MJ in that in the 90's players weren't able to get rings because MJ was winning them all and today it's the same with LeBron.  MJ essentially won 6 straight Titles when he was actually playing in the NBA.  LeBron has won 3 total, and 2 of those came when he convinced 2 other top 20 players in the NBA (at the time) to take less money so that they could all be on the same team.


This is really not good criticism of Lebron.

MJ never had to "team up" with other stars because Jerry Krause was a damn good GM who found players to run along side of him.  Scottie Pippen for example.  Toni Kukoc (before Europeans were regular) and Dennis Rodman (a pariah at the time) are the obvious, but also a ton of very good players that filled roles.

Lebron had no one in Cleveland.  Who was his best teammate in Cleveland the first go around?  In 2006-07, the year they lost in the NBA Finals, their second leading scorer was Larry Hughes.  In 2008-09, they won 66 games and their next best player was Mo Williams. 

There are very few exceptions to the rule that great players need other great players around them to win championships.  The fact that Lebron had to leave Cleveland because they were inept and finding someone else to join him isn't his fault.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on May 09, 2017, 10:58:07 AM

This is really not good criticism of Lebron.

MJ never had to "team up" with other stars because Jerry Krause was a damn good GM who found players to run along side of him.  Scottie Pippen for example.  Toni Kukoc (before Europeans were regular) and Dennis Rodman (a pariah at the time) are the obvious, but also a ton of very good players that filled roles.

Lebron had no one in Cleveland.  Who was his best teammate in Cleveland the first go around?  In 2006-07, the year they lost in the NBA Finals, their second leading scorer was Larry Hughes.  In 2008-09, they won 66 games and their next best player was Mo Williams. 

There are very few exceptions to the rule that great players need other great players around them to win championships.  The fact that Lebron had to leave Cleveland because they were inept and finding someone else to join him isn't his fault.

I will not sit back and let you besmirch the likes of these NBA all-timers.

~Eric Snow
~Zlydrunus Igalskis
~Drew Gooden
~Damon Jones
~Anderson Varejo
~Boobie Gibson
~Delonte West
~Wally Sczerbiak
~JJ Hickson
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 09, 2017, 11:00:55 AM
I will not sit back and let you besmirch the likes of these NBA all-timers.

~Eric Snow
~Zlydrunus Igalskis
~Drew Gooden
~Damon Jones
~Anderson Varejo
~Boobie Gibson
~Delonte West
~Wally Sczerbiak
~JJ Hickson



Think about this.  MJ leaves the Bulls, they win 55 games and still advance to the Eastern Conference semis only to lose on a screw job to the Knicks.

Lebron leaves the Cavs and they win 19 games.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 09, 2017, 01:58:54 PM
I will not sit back and let you besmirch the likes of these NBA all-timers.

~Eric Snow
~Zlydrunus Igalskis
~Drew Gooden
~Damon Jones
~Anderson Varejo
~Boobie Gibson
~Delonte West
~Wally Sczerbiak
~JJ Hickson

Wow. I knew that team was bad, but this really drives home the point.

A very young LeBron, who still was learning how to be great and how to lead, carried this team to the NBA Finals. Really, perhaps one of the great performances ever, when you look at this.

LeBron gets zero "blame" for going to Miami to win with two star teammates and some darn good role players, too. Some might even consider it a sacrifice in some ways.

Then to go back to Cleveland and win again ... really quite special.

I don't know how anybody could objectively say he's better than MJ, but yes, he has prevented some great players from winning - including a second title for Steph & Co.!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on May 09, 2017, 02:03:18 PM
How much blame does "GM LeBron" get for the issues in Cleveland the first time around? I'm actually a fan of LeBron, but I do remember some of the criticism for how bad the cast was fell on LeBron.

Although, my memory could be skewed by the Blatt situation and Wiggins/Love trade.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 09, 2017, 02:51:14 PM
How much blame does "GM LeBron" get for the issues in Cleveland the first time around? I'm actually a fan of LeBron, but I do remember some of the criticism for how bad the cast was fell on LeBron.

I'm going to go with very, very little.

And if we're going to hold a player's ineptitude as a GM against him in the GOAT player debate, I'm thinking LeBron just pulled ahead of MJ.   ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 09, 2017, 03:12:52 PM
I'm going to go with very, very little.

And if we're going to hold a player's ineptitude as a GM against him in the GOAT player debate, I'm thinking LeBron just pulled ahead of MJ.   ;)

Indeed, MJ was an infamously bad "GM" when he publicly lobbied for players or criticized Krause's moves. Part of that was because he wanted to surround himself with his buddies, preferring Oakley to Cartwright, for example.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 09, 2017, 03:32:03 PM
Indeed, MJ was an infamously bad "GM" when he publicly lobbied for players or criticized Krause's moves. Part of that was because he wanted to surround himself with his buddies, preferring Oakley to Cartwright, for example.

Actually, I was thinking more of his Kwame Brown time as a GM (and later years), than his Oakley/Cartwright time as a "GM."

/Not sure what title he actually held during those times.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 09, 2017, 03:41:11 PM
Actually, I was thinking more of his Kwame Brown time as a GM (and later years), than his Oakley/Cartwright time as a "GM."

/Not sure what title he actually held during those times.

Yeah ... Kwame Brown. 2001 was one heck of a draft. Brown #1, Curry #4, Diop #8, Kedrick Brown #11, Steven Hunter #15 on one end of the spectrum ... Pau #3, Joe Johnson #10, Jefferson #13, Randolph #19, all-time steal Tony Parker #28 on the other end of the spectrum.

A few years later, when MJ took over as being the guy in charge in Charlotte, he grabbed Adam Morrison #3!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 11, 2017, 07:47:20 PM
Markus's shooting form and movement around the court reminds me a lot of how Patty Mills is playing this series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 11, 2017, 10:03:07 PM
Markus's shooting form and movement around the court reminds me a lot of how Patty Mills is playing this series.

You could be right, but Patty is so much stronger physically than Markus. I'n guessing about 20 pounds worth. Hopefully Markus will get stronger as the years go on.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on May 11, 2017, 10:49:04 PM

Think about this.  MJ leaves the Bulls, they win 55 games and still advance to the Eastern Conference semis only to lose on a screw job to the Knicks.

Lebron leaves the Cavs and they win 19 games.

I just re-watched the Hollins call, and read a JA Andande retrospective on that call.

In today's NBA, they'd probably call it (?), but back in the mid 90's, no one got that call. What's amazing about that play is how far and how fast Pippen closes out on Davis. Davis is WIDE open when he catches the ball.

That was a hell of a series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 12, 2017, 08:24:59 AM
I just re-watched the Hollins call, and read a JA Andande retrospective on that call.

In today's NBA, they'd probably call it (?), but back in the mid 90's, no one got that call. What's amazing about that play is how far and how fast Pippen closes out on Davis. Davis is WIDE open when he catches the ball.

That was a hell of a series.


Yeah I am probably being biased about that.  But that series was fantastic.  It had the epic Pippen dunk over Ewing, and the last second Kukoc shot after Pippen removed himself from that game.

And then the conference finals included the Reggie Miller choke-game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 12, 2017, 08:39:18 AM

It had the epic Pippen dunk over Ewing, and the last second Kukoc shot after Pippen removed himself from that game.

There were many who thought Pippen would never live down his infamous 1.8-second quit job. That it is barely a footnote to his career, Pippen should thank Phil Jackson every day for the rest of his life. Some coaches would have made it the overriding issue, and it would have lingered for years let alone the rest of a playoff series. But Jackson handled it as well as it possibly could have been handled, both publicly and privately. Reinsdorf and Krause deserve credit for not overreacting, either. For those who weren't there, it was a HUGE media story (as it should have been).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 12, 2017, 08:47:24 AM
There were many who thought Pippen would never live down his infamous 1.8-second quit job. That it is barely a footnote to his career, Pippen should thank Phil Jackson every day for the rest of his life. Some coaches would have made it the overriding issue, and it would have lingered for years let alone the rest of a playoff series. But Jackson handled it as well as it possibly could have been handled, both publicly and privately. Reinsdorf and Krause deserve credit for not overreacting, either. For those who weren't there, it was a HUGE media story (as it should have been).


Yes.  The Kukoc game winner was in Game 3.  The Pippen dunk was in Game 6.

And this just caused me to watch that dunk again.  Everything about that was such vintage Bulls/Knicks.  The dunk...the step over...telling Spike Lee to "sit your ass down."  The 90s had some ugly basketball, but it was often compelling ugly basketball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srl2Bwh6A3I

And I forgot that the questionable call was Game 5...not Game 7.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on May 12, 2017, 09:16:34 AM

Yes.  The Kukoc game winner was in Game 3.  The Pippen dunk was in Game 6.

And this just caused me to watch that dunk again.  Everything about that was such vintage Bulls/Knicks.  The dunk...the step over...telling Spike Lee to "sit your ass down."  The 90s had some ugly basketball, but it was often compelling ugly basketball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srl2Bwh6A3I

And I forgot that the questionable call was Game 5...not Game 7.

I had forgotten that Game 6 was the last game ever at Chicago Stadium. So much happened in that series...I'm kinda glad Twitter and Hot Takes weren't around back then, it makes me appreciate that series even more looking back on it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on May 12, 2017, 09:45:10 AM

Yes.  The Kukoc game winner was in Game 3.  The Pippen dunk was in Game 6.

And this just caused me to watch that dunk again.  Everything about that was such vintage Bulls/Knicks.  The dunk...the step over...telling Spike Lee to "sit your ass down."  The 90s had some ugly basketball, but it was often compelling ugly basketball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srl2Bwh6A3I

And I forgot that the questionable call was Game 5...not Game 7.

How about that pass from Pete Meyers?

I'd watch an ugly 90s Bulls-Knicks (or Pacers or Heat) playoff game over any NBA playoff game today.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on May 17, 2017, 02:33:41 PM
The Lakers had a 53% chance of losing both their 2017 and 2019 1st Round picks last night. Fortunately, the lottery gods smiled on them and they moved up to grab the #2 pick this season and they also get to keep their 2019 pick. How fortunate for them.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/I1mDA4dGGjbnW/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 17, 2017, 02:41:07 PM
The Lakers had a 53% chance of losing both their 2017 and 2019 1st Round picks last night. Fortunately, the lottery gods smiled on them and they moved up to grab the #2 pick this season and they also get to keep their 2019 pick. How fortunate for them.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/I1mDA4dGGjbnW/giphy.gif)

Everything is a conspiracy.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 17, 2017, 07:33:09 PM
I had forgotten that Game 6 was the last game ever at Chicago Stadium.

Yes, and upon retiring the first time, Michael said he would never play another home game in Chicago except at the Stadium.

One of many not-quite-truths from MJ, which is why nobody with a brain takes seriously his statement that he only would have stayed with the Bulls had Phil remained coach. I don't know much, but I know for a fact that wasn't true.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 17, 2017, 11:42:22 PM
You know, this LeBron kid has a chance to be pretty good in a few years.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on May 18, 2017, 12:57:40 AM
You know, this LeBron kid has a chance to be pretty good in a few years.
Isaiah Thomas trying to block his drive to the lane was pure comedy.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 18, 2017, 04:43:09 PM
You know, this LeBron kid has a chance to be pretty good in a few years.

I know we have had discussions here about what makes a great coach - specifically whether Phil Jackson was a great coach or not. I think the NBA is one sport where it is very hard to judge a coach's greatness. If you don't have an all-time great, you aren't gonna win a title. Everyone knew before the season started that GS and Cleveland would be playing for the title.

So, do you think it makes a difference in Lebron's place in history that he never had the "opportunity" to play for a "great coach, but still has multiple rings?

I still have him rated #3 behind MJ and Kareem, but a couple more championships could move him to #1. While Love and Irving are nice players, neither comes anywhere close to what Scottie was.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 19, 2017, 08:22:50 PM
Uh...so about the Boston Celtics.  Holy cow Cleveland.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on May 19, 2017, 09:07:50 PM
This isn't going to help the league's goal of reducing teams resting during the regular season
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 19, 2017, 10:48:58 PM
I know we have had discussions here about what makes a great coach - specifically whether Phil Jackson was a great coach or not. I think the NBA is one sport where it is very hard to judge a coach's greatness. If you don't have an all-time great, you aren't gonna win a title. Everyone knew before the season started that GS and Cleveland would be playing for the title.

So, do you think it makes a difference in Lebron's place in history that he never had the "opportunity" to play for a "great coach, but still has multiple rings?

I still have him rated #3 behind MJ and Kareem, but a couple more championships could move him to #1. While Love and Irving are nice players, neither comes anywhere close to what Scottie was.

The championship-winning shot Irving hit last season was bigger and better than any shot Pippen ever hit in his career. I agree with you that, right now, Pippen ranks well ahead of Irving. But we'll let time be the ultimate judge.

As to the coaching question, that's an interesting one. My less-than-interesting (but very honest) answer is: I don't know.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 19, 2017, 10:49:35 PM
This isn't going to help the league's goal of reducing teams resting during the regular season

Woulda been nice if the Celtics had not decided to rest during the Eastern Conference Finals!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 23, 2017, 01:36:21 PM
Hammond "expected" to take over as GM of the Magic. Not that it matters one bit, nor should it, but I have to say I don't like this at all. When he hasn't had Kohl demanding we go all in for the 8 seed and winding up with 2 months of JJ Redick or Kidd having more pull than him with his buddy owners and winding up with MCW and Vaughn the moves Hammond has made have been pretty dang good. If I'm the Bucks and the Magic are talking to Hammond I'm doing everything I can to keep him, and if that means letting Kidd go then so be it (and in my opinion that would be a cherry on top).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on May 23, 2017, 01:43:59 PM
Hammond "expected" to take over as GM of the Magic. Not that it matters one bit, nor should it, but I have to say I don't like this at all. When he hasn't had Kohl demanding we go all in for the 8 seed and winding up with 2 months of JJ Redick or Kidd having more pull than him with his buddy owners and winding up with MCW and Vaughn the moves Hammond has made have been pretty dang good. If I'm the Bucks and the Magic are talking to Hammond I'm doing everything I can to keep him, and if that means letting Kidd go then so be it (and in my opinion that would be a cherry on top).

The most important thing will be maintaining continuity in draft philosophy. Hammond has been fine, but its drafting that has really gotten this team where it is. Taking chances on the risk-reward of Giannis and Maker with those mid-first rounders, rather than just aiming for low ceiling guys that can contribute as a 7th or 8th man, is what has gotten the Bucks where they are. The Middleton deal was very good as well, but outside of that, getting out of Plumlee's contract (which is a breakeven, since that deal was Hammond's handiwork anyway) ranks as probably his best move. Not to say Hammond has been bad at all - getting anything for MCW was probably a good trade - but I don't see Hammond moving on as overly damaging in and of itself.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 23, 2017, 01:55:28 PM
The most important thing will be maintaining continuity in draft philosophy. Hammond has been fine, but its drafting that has really gotten this team where it is. Taking chances on the risk-reward of Giannis and Maker with those mid-first rounders, rather than just aiming for low ceiling guys that can contribute as a 7th or 8th man, is what has gotten the Bucks where they are. The Middleton deal was very good as well, but outside of that, getting out of Plumlee's contract (which is a breakeven, since that deal was Hammond's handiwork anyway) ranks as probably his best move. Not to say Hammond has been bad at all - getting anything for MCW was probably a good trade - but I don't see Hammond moving on as overly damaging in and of itself.

I guess I'm more concerned with where the organization goes.  Will the owners make good decisions for the future of the organization or will we continue to see Jason Kidd's best friends (and their kids) get positions within the organization?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on May 23, 2017, 03:02:58 PM
Justin Zanik is expected to be promoted from GM-in-waiting to GM.

Was never sold on Hammon, didn't he draft Joe Alexander and Jimmer Fredette? And don't get me started on the Vasquez trade.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 23, 2017, 03:42:19 PM
Justin Zanik is expected to be promoted from GM-in-waiting to GM.

Was never sold on Hammon, didn't he draft Joe Alexander and Jimmer Fredette? And don't get me started on the Vasquez trade.

I believe I heard the Vasquez trade was a Kidd call? Although I may be misremembering that. Jimmer we drafted for the Kings.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on May 23, 2017, 04:00:19 PM
I believe I heard the Vasquez trade was a Kidd call? Although I may be misremembering that. Jimmer we drafted for the Kings.

although in hindsight, Hammond could have selected Klay Thompson or Kawhi Leonard instead (not to mention JFB)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 23, 2017, 04:06:56 PM
although in hindsight, Hammond could have selected Klay Thompson or Kawhi Leonard instead (not to mention JFB)

The Bucks were going to draft Thompson at 10 but they chose to dump John Salmons horrible contract in the Jimmer/Tobias Harris trade instead.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on May 23, 2017, 04:34:42 PM
This is being pitched as Hammond was lured away, but the reality is that Zanik was brought in as the GM-in-waiting, and that position carries significantly less value with Kidd's increased involvement.

I was not a fan of Hammond's moves early on, but he and Kidd seem to have reached alignment on the type of team that they want to build. Hopefully Zanik is equally aligned (or it was all Kidd's idea, and Hammond was basically Bills' GM Doug Whaley).

Future is bright - I hope they take a stab at another project - we've gone 2 for 2, and Maker has had returns much faster than anyone anticipated (not bad for a 30 year old rookie!).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on May 23, 2017, 04:48:38 PM
This is being pitched as Hammond was lured away, but the reality is that Zanik was brought in as the GM-in-waiting, and that position carries significantly less value with Kidd's increased involvement.

I was not a fan of Hammond's moves early on, but he and Kidd seem to have reached alignment on the type of team that they want to build. Hopefully Zanik is equally aligned (or it was all Kidd's idea, and Hammond was basically Bills' GM Doug Whaley).

Makes a lot of sense for Hammonds from a career-lengthening perspective, too. He goes out being credited with the construction of an up and coming winner in a small market, whereas he's one significant injury to Giannis or another one to Parker or Middleton away from having what would be characterized as disappointments in Detroit and Milwaukee on his resume. Buys himself at least three more years running a front office in Orlando.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 24, 2017, 12:39:59 PM
"Zanik is the GM in waiting while Hammond works through his contract."

*Hammond moves on a year early*

"No worries, Zanik will have all decision making power including firing Kidd if he sees fit."

*One day passes*

"We have decided to open up a broad search to fill our open GM position."

Classic Bucks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on May 24, 2017, 03:49:15 PM
"Zanik is the GM in waiting while Hammond works through his contract."

*Hammond moves on a year early*

"No worries, Zanik will have all decision making power including firing Kidd if he sees fit."

*One day passes*

"We have decided to open up a broad search to fill our open GM position."

Classic Bucks.

I'll be surprised if Zanik doesn't still get it. I think the illusion of a full search just gives me greater authority for having beat out "competitors".
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on May 24, 2017, 03:59:24 PM
I thought the Bucks would do this, there likely are some candidates they will consider that might not have been available when Zanik was hired. I think it is best due diligence that they do a full-on search.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on May 25, 2017, 09:17:03 AM
They're probably 90% sure that they want Zanik but it's worth bringing in some other candidates in case anyone blows them away and also just to know who else is out there. If the job does go to Zanik, they'll need to backfill the Assistant GM role anyway. Absolutely no harm in seeing what's out there.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2017, 11:13:59 PM
Adieu, Celtics.

Cavs-Warriors III.

As much as I like LeBron - which is a lot - I'm thinking the Warriors win this time. The Cavs gave up a LOT of open 3s to the Celtics and to earlier playoff opponents. That will kill them against the Warriors.

I just hope it's another great series between the NBA's two best teams.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 31, 2017, 06:02:52 PM
As good as LeBron's PR staff is, his barber is even better.  I'm pretty confident Carlos Boozer gave LBJ his barber's number.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jsglow on June 01, 2017, 09:33:54 PM
Durant is just killing them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 01, 2017, 09:45:18 PM
Durant is just killing them.

He's certainly not Harrison Barnes.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 02, 2017, 09:30:46 AM
The Warriors only need 2 of their 4 to have really great games to win going away. Last night Klay and Dray were pretty much nonexistent on O, but their mutual ability to go off for 40 if left alone is threat enough to open things up and force LBJ to spend all of his energy trying to keep up with Durant. it also helps that Thompson and Draymond both very good defenders, particularly against Cle's iso offense.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 02, 2017, 11:04:11 AM
The Warriors only need 2 of their 4 to have really great games to win going away. Last night Klay and Dray were pretty much nonexistent on O, but their mutual ability to go off for 40 if left alone is threat enough to open things up and force LBJ to spend all of his energy trying to keep up with Durant. it also helps that Thompson and Draymond both very good defenders, particularly against Cle's iso offense.

By "keep up with Durant" do you mean try to match his scoring? Because by and large Durant guarded LeBron, but LeBron did not guard Durant.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 02, 2017, 12:13:41 PM
By "keep up with Durant" do you mean try to match his scoring? Because by and large Durant guarded LeBron, but LeBron did not guard Durant.

Judging from Lue's postgame presser and most of the reactions to the game last night though, it seems the consensus is that trying Love on KD was an unmitigated failure and LeBron is going to be spending a lot more time on KD moving forward. Lue alluded to it last night (ignore the clickbaitty headline) - http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/01/nba-finals-no-more-resting-on-defense-for-lebron-james/ (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/01/nba-finals-no-more-resting-on-defense-for-lebron-james/)

and most of the analysis is suggesting that Cleveland is going to look to ugly it up in Game 2 - http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-finals-2017-how-lebron-james-cavs-must-adjust-approach-against-warriors/ (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-finals-2017-how-lebron-james-cavs-must-adjust-approach-against-warriors/)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 02, 2017, 12:35:31 PM
Judging from Lue's postgame presser and most of the reactions to the game last night though, it seems the consensus is that trying Love on KD was an unmitigated failure and LeBron is going to be spending a lot more time on KD moving forward.

One more reason I said Love was overrated when the Cavs traded for him - and I was one of the few who said that. Most here thought it was a great trade for Cleveland.

Being a star on a terrible team does not mean you are a top 10 or 20 player.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 02, 2017, 03:38:18 PM
One more reason I said Love was overrated when the Cavs traded for him - and I was one of the few who said that. Most here thought it was a great trade for Cleveland.

Being a star on a terrible team does not mean you are a top 10 or 20 player.

You'd rather have Andrew Wiggins than Kevin Love? Agree to disagree. Love was slightly overrated in Minnesota, but he has become underrated in Cleveland. The Warriors are a bad matchup for him. But they're a bad matchup for a lot of players. His roll changed from being "the man" to being a guy who spreads the floor and hits the boards. He does those things very well. The guy had 15 points and 21(!) rebounds last night.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on June 02, 2017, 05:08:39 PM
You'd rather have Andrew Wiggins than Kevin Love? Agree to disagree. Love was slightly overrated in Minnesota, but he has become underrated in Cleveland. The Warriors are a bad matchup for him. But they're a bad matchup for a lot of players. His roll changed from being "the man" to being a guy who spreads the floor and hits the boards. He does those things very well. The guy had 15 points and 21(!) rebounds last night.

Don't forget Anthony Bennett and Thadeus Young!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 02, 2017, 11:16:44 PM
One more reason I said Love was overrated when the Cavs traded for him - and I was one of the few who said that. Most here thought it was a great trade for Cleveland.

It was a great trade for Cleveland.

Next!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 03, 2017, 08:46:36 AM
Love had a double double each game of the Celtics series.  He is a good option for them when the game slows down and is more physical.  As wades said, GSW is just a poor match up for him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 03, 2017, 09:31:12 AM
It was a great trade for Cleveland.

Next!

Maybe - but I expect Wiggins will be an All-star many times over. And his defense and speed would really help Cleveland in the current series.

My point though - and I didn't state it very well - was that Love was overrated in Minnesota. At the time of the trade, most here thought he was a top 10 player in the league. He was not.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2017, 11:14:24 AM
Some thoughts:

1. Golden State may be the best basketball team I have ever witnessed.  Definitely the best offensive team I have seen.  I don't really know what can be done to stop them.

2.  ESPN's pre-game coverage with Rose, Beadle and Billups is just so awful.  And I like each of them on their own.  It's like they are trying to be something they're not.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on June 06, 2017, 12:02:54 PM
Maybe - but I expect Wiggins will be an All-star many times over. And his defense and speed would really help Cleveland in the current series.

My point though - and I didn't state it very well - was that Love was overrated in Minnesota. At the time of the trade, most here thought he was a top 10 player in the league. He was not.

I mean, he's only 22, but he hasn't really shown a dramatic improvement in the 3 years in the league. Still has a bit of a volume shooter without an outside shot. Raw numbers are there, but I don't see an all-star just yet.

Even if he ends up being better than Love, I still make the trade. For Lebron and the Cavs, the question wasn't about who will be better in hindsight...it was who is better NOW. The Cavs got a championship out of it. Maybe the Wolves "win" the trade of a player they were going to lose anyway. I think both would say they're happy with it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 06, 2017, 01:56:59 PM
I mean, he's only 22, but he hasn't really shown a dramatic improvement in the 3 years in the league. Still has a bit of a volume shooter without an outside shot. Raw numbers are there, but I don't see an all-star just yet.

Even if he ends up being better than Love, I still make the trade. For Lebron and the Cavs, the question wasn't about who will be better in hindsight...it was who is better NOW. The Cavs got a championship out of it. Maybe the Wolves "win" the trade of a player they were going to lose anyway. I think both would say they're happy with it.

Minnesota is better off with Wiggins. The Cavs have been better off with Love.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 06, 2017, 02:15:47 PM
No doubt each team ended up with the player most valuable to their current situation. Cavs with Love to win now, Min with Wiggins to build.

But that doesn't mean Cleveland couldn't have done better with that deal. When they traded for Love, he had one more year with Minnesota before he could opt out. So essentially, the assets traded were the #1 pick for 1 year of Love (Min and Phil also traded some players, picks and an exception to make the thing work).

Sure, there's the risk that Minnesota trades Love somewhere else, he likes it there, and then never signs with Cleveland. But LaMarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol, Paul Milsap, DeAndre Jordan, Goran Dragic, DeMarre Carroll, and Wes were all UFAs or had player options that offseason, so there were comparable players (or combos of players for less than the max) to be had.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2017, 02:20:42 PM
No doubt each team ended up with the player most valuable to their current situation. Cavs with Love to win now, Min with Wiggins to build.

But that doesn't mean Cleveland couldn't have done better with that deal. When they traded for Love, he had one more year with Minnesota before he could opt out. So essentially, the assets traded were the #1 pick for 1 year of Love (Min and Phil also traded some players, picks and an exception to make the thing work).

Sure, there's the risk that Minnesota trades Love somewhere else, he likes it there, and then never signs with Cleveland. But LaMarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol, Paul Milsap, DeAndre Jordan, Goran Dragic, DeMarre Carroll, and Wes were all UFAs or had player options that offseason, so there were comparable players (or combos of players for less than the max) to be had.


Didn't they have to trade for a player under contract to obtain his Bird rights?  Love wasn't going to be able to make the money elsewhere that he is currently making in Cleveland.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 06, 2017, 02:28:07 PM

Didn't they have to trade for a player under contract to obtain his Bird rights?  Love wasn't going to be able to make the money elsewhere that he is currently making in Cleveland.

Oh, yep that's totally right. Just glancing at Love's deal, its identical to Gasol's when he re-signed with Memphis that year, but the Spurs could only offer Aldridge $80M over 4. So Cle could essentially offer Love an extra year at $25M by trading for him rather than waiting him out. Certainly reduced Cleveland's leverage with Minnesota threatening to send Love (and his bird rights) somewhere else.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2017, 02:35:54 PM
Oh, yep that's totally right. Just glancing at Love's deal, its identical to Gasol's when he re-signed with Memphis that year, but the Spurs could only offer Aldridge $80M over 4. So Cle could essentially offer Love an extra year at $25M by trading for him rather than waiting him out. Certainly reduced Cleveland's leverage with Minnesota threatening to send Love (and his bird rights) somewhere else.

And Aldridge only went to SA because it was a hometown discount.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 06, 2017, 02:40:20 PM
In Love's 3 seasons in Cleveland, the Cavs have gone to 3 straight Finals and won a title. That's obviously not all because of Love, but it's tough to argue with those results.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 06, 2017, 02:42:53 PM
No doubt each team ended up with the player most valuable to their current situation. Cavs with Love to win now, Min with Wiggins to build.

But that doesn't mean Cleveland couldn't have done better with that deal. When they traded for Love, he had one more year with Minnesota before he could opt out. So essentially, the assets traded were the #1 pick for 1 year of Love (Min and Phil also traded some players, picks and an exception to make the thing work).

Sure, there's the risk that Minnesota trades Love somewhere else, he likes it there, and then never signs with Cleveland. But LaMarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol, Paul Milsap, DeAndre Jordan, Goran Dragic, DeMarre Carroll, and Wes were all UFAs or had player options that offseason, so there were comparable players (or combos of players for less than the max) to be had.

You have hit on the point perfectly as to why I feel the Cavs would be better off with Wiggins. These things don't exist in a vacuum. If the had kept Wiggins, the Cavs would then have had the money to go after Aldridge, Milsap, Horford, etc. And I don't think there is any question that Milsap/Wiggins are better than Love/JR Smith.

The mitigating factor however, is that Love helped Cleveland win a title and in today's sports climate, rings are all that matters.


As to Sultan's point, GS is the best team I have ever seen in the NBA. The '87 Lakers, '86 Celtics, and '96 Bulls are all in the picture, but I think this team exceeds them simply because there is no way to stop them at one end of the floor and they are excellent at the other end.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 06, 2017, 02:50:11 PM
In Love's 3 seasons in Cleveland, the Cavs have gone to 3 straight Finals and won a title. That's obviously not all because of Love, but it's tough to argue with those results.

Apparently just being on the bench in street clothes was enough to get the Cavs to the finals 2 years ago since he didn't even play a single minute in the Conference Semi-finals, Conference Finals, or NBA Finals.

And if Lebron wasn't there.......  Love does not have the talent to lead a team to the playoffs.

Love had a total of 18 points in the Cavs 4 wins in the Finals last year - so I think his effect is being way overplayed.

Love is a very good NBA player - nowhere near the top 20 - but very good. But he is no Chris Bosh.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2017, 02:53:23 PM
You have hit on the point perfectly as to why I feel the Cavs would be better off with Wiggins. These things don't exist in a vacuum. If the had kept Wiggins, the Cavs would then have had the money to go after Aldridge, Milsap, Horford, etc. And I don't think there is any question that Milsap/Wiggins are better than Love/JR Smith.


But the Cavs likely would not have been able to sign either Alridge (went home to San Antonio to play with a competitive team) or Millsap (signed for max to stay in Atlanta).

For them to get "win now" talent, they had to trade young guys.  They weren't going to be able to hold onto Wiggins, hope he'd develop, and sign a UFA down the road.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 06, 2017, 03:02:32 PM
As to Sultan's point, GS is the best team I have ever seen in the NBA. The '87 Lakers, '86 Celtics, and '96 Bulls are all in the picture, but I think this team exceeds them simply because there is no way to stop them at one end of the floor and they are excellent at the other end.

The '96 Bulls were better than the current Warriors team. Back when teams were allowed to play physical D, the Bulls' ORat was 115.2 compared to the Warriors' 115.6 in a much more wide-open, offense-friendly league. Surprisingly, the Bulls' team 3P% was also better than the Warriors' (40.3% vs 38.3%) and defensively, it's no contest.

The game has obviously changed a lot in the last 20 years so it's tough to say who would win a head-to-head, but in their given eras, the Bulls were the better team. Don't get me wrong, the Warriors (assuming they win it all) are an all-time team but they're not better than Michael's Bulls.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 06, 2017, 03:59:33 PM
In my lifetime, the gap between the Warriors and the 2nd best team in the NBA (Spurs) is bigger than any other season's best team in the NBA compared to 2nd best team in the NBA by a wiiiiiide margin.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 06, 2017, 04:25:34 PM
The '96 Bulls were better than the current Warriors team. Back when teams were allowed to play physical D, the Bulls' ORat was 115.2 compared to the Warriors' 115.6 in a much more wide-open, offense-friendly league. Surprisingly, the Bulls' team 3P% was also better than the Warriors' (40.3% vs 38.3%) and defensively, it's no contest.

The game has obviously changed a lot in the last 20 years so it's tough to say who would win a head-to-head, but in their given eras, the Bulls were the better team. Don't get me wrong, the Warriors (assuming they win it all) are an all-time team but they're not better than Michael's Bulls.

I'm a Bulls homer, but this is correct. The Bulls were just as good offensively, better defensively and much better at rebounding. And they had a better bench.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 06, 2017, 04:28:22 PM

But the Cavs likely would not have been able to sign either Alridge (went home to San Antonio to play with a competitive team) or Millsap (signed for max to stay in Atlanta).

Aldridge is from Dallas. Saying he went home to San Antonio is a bit like saying Dwyane Wade went home to play in Detroit.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2017, 04:33:45 PM
Aldridge is from Dallas. Saying he went home to San Antonio is a bit like saying Dwyane Wade went home to play in Detroit.


He specifically said that he was going home to Texas when he signed, but your point is well taken.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on June 06, 2017, 04:36:07 PM
I'm a Bulls homer, but this is correct. The Bulls were just as good offensively, better defensively and much better at rebounding. And they had a better bench.

The Bulls are better defensively because the rules allowed them to be and the league was terrible offensively at the time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 06, 2017, 04:36:22 PM

He specifically said that he was going home to Texas when he signed, but your point is well taken.
And unnecessarily snarky. Was too lazy to add a wink.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 06, 2017, 04:42:42 PM
The Bulls are better defensively because the rules allowed them to be and the league was terrible offensively at the time.

Was the league terrible offensively at the time?

ORtg in 1996 = 107.6
ORtg in 2017 = 108.8

 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 06, 2017, 04:49:23 PM
Was the league terrible offensively at the time?

ORtg in 1996 = 107.6
ORtg in 2017 = 108.8

The defense was overrated at the time.  Everyone wants to say nobody in today's NBA plays defense or teams are soft and nobody plays physically anymore.  If people think defenses don't play physically in today's NBA they just aren't watching.  Just because nowadays someone is ejected for elbowing someone in the head while in the 90s it was a common foul doesn't mean players don't play physically anymore.  The only differences now are ball and player movement around the court are better so teams are harder to defend and dirty plays are now penalized more strictly.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 06, 2017, 10:48:32 PM
I'm a Bulls homer, but this is correct. The Bulls were just as good offensively, better defensively and much better at rebounding. And they had a better bench.

Gotta disagree. Pakuni.

The Bulls were never this good offensively. They never had 2 of the top 5 offensive players in the league to go along with 2 other all-stars and one of the better 6th men ever. The Bulls had MJ, who could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, Pippen who is a top 50 all-timer and then a bunch of one dimensional guys.

Defensively. each team had/has 3 elite defenders, so I would rank them about even on that end of the floor.

As a matter of fact, I put the '96 Bulls at #3 all-time. I also think the '86 Celtics (5 Hall of Famers on the team) were better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 06, 2017, 11:45:18 PM
It's an interesting discussion - and a natural one, too.

Top of my head, I was going to say those Bulls wouldn't keep up with today's Warriors because they didn't have the 3-point shooting. But then I looked it up and the 1995-96 Bulls shot .403 from behind the arc while this year's Warriors shot .383. I have to admit I was pretty surprised by that! Jordan, never considered a big-time 3-point threat, shot .427, better than ANY of this season's Warriors. That was stunning to me.

But then I realized that the 3-point distance was shorter then than it is now. In 1997-98, the first year the line was moved back to where it is now, the Bulls shot .323. And Michael shot - yikes! - .238.

So I don't know if that would have been the difference or not if one could transport the 95-96 Bulls to now, but it certainly might have been.

The Bulls would have had the best player in the world, of course (just as Cleveland does now), but Durant and Curry wouldn't have been far behind, and both are better than Pippen was. Green is a modern-day Rodman - not quite the rebounder but 10x the offensive threat. Kukoc and Iguodala were/are similar. Thompson is twice the player Harper was.

Those Bulls, led by Jordan, had a single-mindedness I have not seen very often. From the first game of the season, they were laser-focused on the title. And there was no resting. Jordan played 82 games.

Always fun discussions. I'd probably give the Warriors the slight advantage in a 7-game series. Having said that ... during Jordan's prime, betting against him in the Finals - where he was 6-0 - was a terrific way to lose money.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 07, 2017, 09:13:22 AM
Gotta disagree. Pakuni.

The Bulls were never this good offensively. They never had 2 of the top 5 offensive players in the league to go along with 2 other all-stars and one of the better 6th men ever. The Bulls had MJ, who could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, Pippen who is a top 50 all-timer and then a bunch of one dimensional guys.

Defensively. each team had/has 3 elite defenders, so I would rank them about even on that end of the floor.

As a matter of fact, I put the '96 Bulls at #3 all-time. I also think the '86 Celtics (5 Hall of Famers on the team) were better.

Team-wise, the Bulls weren't quite as good as the Warriors offensively but if you think they were "about even" defensively then you either didn't watch the Bulls or you "misremembered" just how good they were . Jordan and Pippen were two of the best defenders in history and those two plus Rodman were all NBA All-Defensive 1st Team that season and Ron Harper was probably deserving as well.

True, the '86 Celtics did have 5 HOFers but Bill Walton at that stage was not playing anywhere near a HOF level, not to mention he was inducted based primarily on his college career. The 2010-11 Celtics had at least 4 future HOFers in Allen, Pierce, Garnett and Shaq, plus Rondo has an outside shot at the HOF. Does that make them an all-time team?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 07, 2017, 09:15:06 AM
Which era of officiating would this theoretical matchup be played under?  The answer to that would decide the outcome. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2017, 09:35:33 AM
The Bulls would have the best player between the 2 teams but the Warriors would have the next 2 best and 4 of the next 5 best players.

The difference between the Bulls defense and the Warriors defense would be no more than the difference between the Warriors offense and the Bulls offense.  The Warriors defense is incredibly underrated.  When KD is playing defense the way he has been the past 2 years and he's only your 4th best defensive player, your defense is pretty dang good.  Green would be the best defensive player between the 2 teams and while Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman are better than Iggy, Klay, and Durant, the difference isn't as big as Bulls fans want it to be.  Klay can continue to shoot horribly like he has and it doesn't matter one bit because he can completely take the opposition's best guard out of the game.  If Green wasn't on the Warriors Iggy would be looked at as one of the best defenders in the league.  Their defense is really good.  They were 2nd in defensive rating in the regular season (0.2 behind the Spurs) and the best in Playoff defensive rating this year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 07, 2017, 09:36:24 AM
Gotta disagree. Pakuni.

The Bulls were never this good offensively. They never had 2 of the top 5 offensive players in the league to go along with 2 other all-stars and one of the better 6th men ever. The Bulls had MJ, who could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, Pippen who is a top 50 all-timer and then a bunch of one dimensional guys.

Bulls team Ortg = 115.2.
Warriors team Ortg = 115.6.
Doesn't seem to be all that different to me.
Now, if you want to say the Warriors are a better shooting team, I'll give that to you. But in terms of putting the ball in the basket, relative to pace (which was much slower 20 years ago), they're pretty much equal.

Who are you labeling one of the best 6th men ever? Iguodala? His numbers this year pale compared to what Kukoc did as 6th man in '96, when he won the 6th Man Award (something no one on the Warriors roster has done).

Quote
Defensively. each team had/has 3 elite defenders, so I would rank them about even on that end of the floor.

Well, again, the numbers don't support this. The Bulls had a better defensive rating, were significantly better at defensive rebounding, created more turnovers and did a better job of keeping opponents from the free throw line.



Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2017, 09:41:15 AM
Statistically this is kind of fun to talk about, but the Bulls would have never seen anything like Golden State back in their day.  No team shot this much from deep, this well, and from multiple positions.  So while they obviously were a great defensive team, they did so in a league with a slower pace and lack of this many outside threats.

So the real question is, could they have adapted to Golden State? 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 07, 2017, 09:44:51 AM
Haven't seen anyone discuss matchups but 96 Bulls would be matchup hell for the Warriors.

Defensively Jordan would give Curry fits, Harper was a 6'7" PG and would have no issues with Klay's height, Pippen arguably the best wing defender of all time against Durant would be fun as all hell, Rodman and Draymond are a wash, while Zaza and Luc, are what they are.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 07, 2017, 10:32:25 AM
Statistically this is kind of fun to talk about, but the Bulls would have never seen anything like Golden State back in their day.  No team shot this much from deep, this well, and from multiple positions.  So while they obviously were a great defensive team, they did so in a league with a slower pace and lack of this many outside threats.

So the real question is, could they have adapted to Golden State?

Well, that's ultimately impossible to answer (but fun to debate).
The flip side to that argument is that Golden State has never had to deal with a team with the kind of perimeter length possessed by the '96 Bulls, which may very well have given the Warrior shooters fits.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 07, 2017, 12:51:26 PM
The Bulls would have the best player between the 2 teams but the Warriors would have the next 2 best and 4 of the next 5 best players.

The difference between the Bulls defense and the Warriors defense would be no more than the difference between the Warriors offense and the Bulls offense.  The Warriors defense is incredibly underrated.  When KD is playing defense the way he has been the past 2 years and he's only your 4th best defensive player, your defense is pretty dang good.  Green would be the best defensive player between the 2 teams and while Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman are better than Iggy, Klay, and Durant, the difference isn't as big as Bulls fans want it to be.  Klay can continue to shoot horribly like he has and it doesn't matter one bit because he can completely take the opposition's best guard out of the game.  If Green wasn't on the Warriors Iggy would be looked at as one of the best defenders in the league.  Their defense is really good.  They were 2nd in defensive rating in the regular season (0.2 behind the Spurs) and the best in Playoff defensive rating this year.

Green a better defender than Jordan and Pippen?! Is this your anti-Chicago bias coming through again? You can't actually believe that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 07, 2017, 12:54:33 PM
Statistically this is kind of fun to talk about, but the Bulls would have never seen anything like Golden State back in their day.  No team shot this much from deep, this well, and from multiple positions.  So while they obviously were a great defensive team, they did so in a league with a slower pace and lack of this many outside threats.

So the real question is, could they have adapted to Golden State?

The Bulls would have more easily adapted to the current NBA than GS would adapt to the old school NBA.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
Green a better defender than Jordan and Pippen?! Is this your anti-Chicago bias coming through again? You can't actually believe that.


It's not an extremely outlandish statement.  Green is very good.  But Pippen and Jordan are among the best defenders of all time. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2017, 01:51:20 PM
Green a better defender than Jordan and Pippen?! Is this your anti-Chicago bias coming through again? You can't actually believe that.

No, it's not.  Jordon won a single DPOY award in his 15 year career.  Pippen won 0 DPOY awards in his career.  Green is in his fifth season as a professional and might win his first DPOY award this year (one of 3 finalists for the award).  Draymond can guard anything from the 1 (on a switch, you aren't just going to match him up with the one but he can definitely guard them) to the 5.  He's as versatile of a defender as I've seen at any level of basketball.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2017, 01:59:56 PM
No, it's not.  Jordon won a single DPOY award in his 15 year career.  Pippen won 0 DPOY awards in his career.  Green is in his fifth season as a professional and might win his first DPOY award this year (one of 3 finalists for the award).  Draymond can guard anything from the 1 (on a switch, you aren't just going to match him up with the one but he can definitely guard them) to the 5.  He's as versatile of a defender as I've seen at any level of basketball.


That's because in the 1990s, the NBA kept giving the award to rim protecting centers.  Only one non-center won the award for over a decade - Gary Payton.

Jordan was nine times first team all defense.  Pippen eight times (and two times second team.)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 07, 2017, 02:02:13 PM
The Bulls would have more easily adapted to the current NBA than GS would adapt to the old school NBA.

Disagree that its a matter of adaptation - I think they're mutually exclusive. In a hypothetical game, if the Warriors found themselves trying to adjust to the old school NBA, they would lose. Similarly, if the Bulls found themselves trying to open things up as much as GSW, they would lose.

Ultimately, this is a total bar debate. I guess I'd throw my lot in with GSW while acknowledging that may be recency bias, because the current NBA had to theoretically prove competitively superior or the old school NBA would still be current NBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on June 07, 2017, 02:22:03 PM
If the 1996 Bulls played the 2017 Warriors in a seven game series, the Bulls would win in 6.

After adjusting to style/game plan back and forth, ultimate talent would take over. The '96 Bulls are vastly more talented. If the game is called in 1996 officiating, it's even easier for the Bulls to win, even Steve Kerr acknowledged that last year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2017, 03:04:35 PM
If the 1996 Bulls played the 2017 Warriors in a seven game series, the Bulls would win in 6.

After adjusting to style/game plan back and forth, ultimate talent would take over. The '96 Bulls are vastly more talented. If the game is called in 1996 officiating, it's even easier for the Bulls to win, even Steve Kerr acknowledged that last year.

Back when Harrison Barnes was shooting 5-36 over the last 3 games of the NBA Finals and Kevin Durant was sitting at home in OKC.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on June 07, 2017, 03:08:37 PM
Back when Harrison Barnes was shooting 5-36 over the last 3 games of the NBA Finals and Kevin Durant was sitting at home in OKC.

Agree. Bulls would've swept the 2006 Warriors. Durant makes this team on their level.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2017, 03:35:25 PM
Agree. Bulls would've swept the 2006 Warriors. Durant makes this team on their level.

Kerr did say at the time that it'd come down to a Curry 3 at the buzzer and nobody knows if it'd go in if it was played on Pluto. Add Durant and I don't think it gets to that 3 at the buzzer.

Jeff Van Gundy has also been saying this team is by far the best ever and has been up close and personal for both teams.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on June 07, 2017, 03:54:32 PM
I am surprised the story about reporters smelling weed in Cleveland's locker room after game 2 hasn't been mentioned here.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2017, 04:05:57 PM
I am surprised the story about reporters smelling weed in Cleveland's locker room after game 2 hasn't been mentioned here.

Probably because it surprises nobody out there.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 07, 2017, 05:13:13 PM
It's an interesting discussion - and a natural one, too.

Top of my head, I was going to say those Bulls wouldn't keep up with today's Warriors because they didn't have the 3-point shooting. But then I looked it up and the 1995-96 Bulls shot .403 from behind the arc while this year's Warriors shot .383. I have to admit I was pretty surprised by that! Jordan, never considered a big-time 3-point threat, shot .427, better than ANY of this season's Warriors. That was stunning to me.

But then I realized that the 3-point distance was shorter then than it is now. In 1997-98, the first year the line was moved back to where it is now, the Bulls shot .323. And Michael shot - yikes! - .238.



A couple of good points. All of us can see quite quickly that GS is a better 3 point team than the Bulls. Not only are they much better, but they shoot a heck of a lot more threes than the Bulls.

Steve Kerr was the only guy on the Bulls team that was considered a three point shooter and almost all that he took were wide open threes set up by Jordan or Pippen going to the hoop.

We remember Bird as being a great three-point shooter - and he was. But he never even took 1/3 of the 3-point attempts in a season that Curry has in the last 5 years since he has been healthy. As others have pointed out it is a different game now.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2017, 10:48:06 PM
Hand. Down. Man. Down.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 07, 2017, 11:19:37 PM
Hand. Down. Man. Down.

I said GS in 5 before the series started, but I see no road to a victory for the Cavs. They can't play better than tonite.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2017, 11:30:10 PM
I said GS in 5 before the series started, but I see no road to a victory for the Cavs. They can't play better than tonite.

Agreed.  I don't know what the opening line for game 4 is but I would put down money on the Warriors to cover.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Celtic Truth on June 07, 2017, 11:40:53 PM
KD was willing and able to make the big shots down the stretch, Lebron was not. That was the game and the difference from last year. Steph and klay don't compare to KD in terms of being a "closer". He can score in almost every way imaginable. Great game to watch from start to finish
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2017, 11:51:46 PM
KD was willing and able to make the big shots down the stretch, Lebron was not. That was the game and the difference from last year. Steph and klay don't compare to KD in terms of being a "closer". He can score in almost every way imaginable. Great game to watch from start to finish

I play basketball with a guy from Cleveland who loves his Cleveland sports. When LBJ was in Miami he wouldn't refer to him as anything besides "six." Now of course there's no more amazing human being on Earth than LBJ. And he now only refers to KD as "the b!tch." It's pretty funny.

People wonder how KD could leave a team when they were so close to the Finals. Any questions now? Not sure how there ever were. Do I want a PG who's going to shoot 18-43 or do I want to play with a bunch of guys who move the rock and out it in my hand when the game is on the line? Oh yeah, and do I want to play in Oklahoma friggin City or the SF Bay? Tough choice, tough choice...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 07, 2017, 11:56:27 PM
I play basketball with a guy from Cleveland who loves his Cleveland sports. When LBJ was in Miami he wouldn't refer to him as anything besides "six." Now of course there's no more amazing human being on Earth than LBJ. And he now only refers to KD as "the b!tch." It's pretty funny.

People wonder how KD could leave a team when they were so close to the Finals. Any questions now? Not sure how there ever were. Do I want a PG who's going to shoot 18-43 or do I want to play with a bunch of guys who move the rock and out it in my hand when the game is on the line? Oh yeah, and do I want to play in Oklahoma friggin City or the SF Bay? Tough choice, tough choice...

I don't blame LeBron for going to Miami. I don't blame LeBron for going back to Cleveland. And I don't blame KD for going to Golden State. Others don't like it? Tough.

Cavs choked quite badly in Game 3, but the Warriors had to be willing to accept the generosity and they were. If GS still had Harrison Barnes instead of KD, I probably would have picked Cleveland in a close series. Put KD with that other talent, and it's a no-go. I picked Warriors in 5, but if given a mulligan I'd obviously pick a sweep.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2017, 11:04:10 AM
@MichaelVPina
LeBron James was +7 in 46 minutes and his team lost by five. In a game of incredible stats, nothing touches that.


IOW, in the two minutes that he wasn't on the floor, the Cavs went -12.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 11:16:35 AM
@MichaelVPina
LeBron James was +7 in 46 minutes and his team lost by five. In a game of incredible stats, nothing touches that.


IOW, in the two minutes that he wasn't on the floor, the Cavs went -12.

Yet he was a team worst -22 in game one.  And Iggy has been +14, +9, and +10 in the 3 games so far.  And when Iggy is in the game he's guarding LeBron.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2017, 12:10:23 PM
Yet he was a team worst -22 in game one.  And Iggy has been +14, +9, and +10 in the 3 games so far.  And when Iggy is in the game he's guarding LeBron.


Yes.  The guy who was on the floor for most of a blow out loss is usually going to have a large negative number.  Thanks for that brilliant observation.

The point is that where Lebron played 95% of the minutes available, and he was +7, they lost by 5.  The opposite of what you would expect.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 12:21:05 PM

Yes.  The guy who was on the floor for most of a blow out loss is usually going to have a large negative number.  Thanks for that brilliant observation.

The point is that where Lebron played 95% of the minutes available, and he was +7, they lost by 5.  The opposite of what you would expect.

Well he was 5 points worse than anybody else, and he wasn't the only player on the floor for a bunch of minutes.  The point is +/- is one of the most meaningless stats in basketball.

LeBron was on the court over the last 3:40 of the game when the Cavs were -11.  That's what really matters.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2017, 12:32:54 PM
Well he was 5 points worse than anybody else, and he wasn't the only player on the floor for a bunch of minutes.  The point is +/- is one of the most meaningless stats in basketball.

LeBron was on the court over the last 3:40 of the game when the Cavs were -11.  That's what really matters.


So it's meaningful when it suits your agenda.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 08, 2017, 12:40:34 PM

So it's meaningful when it suits your agenda.
Well, in this case, he's right about the value of +/-.

It's odd that just as hockey people are finally realizing the worthlessness of +/-  in recent years, basketball has embraced it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 12:41:32 PM

So it's meaningful when it suits your agenda.

No.  1-0 vs. 0-1 is what's meaningful.  The +6 for Cleveland on the scoreboard that turned into -5 in that time is what's meaningful.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2017, 12:43:18 PM
Well, in this case, he's right about the value of +/-.


And usually I agree.  But outliers like this do mean something.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 08, 2017, 12:49:05 PM

And usually I agree.  But outliers like this do mean something.

The magnitude in question isn't much of an outlier...

It's hysterical to watch LeBron fans look for and twist every little thing as "unprecedented" or "unbelievable"
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2017, 12:51:06 PM
The magnitude in question isn't much of an outlier...

OK.  I might be willing to agree with that if you could show similar examples.


It's hysterical to watch LeBron fans look for and twist every little thing as "unprecedented" or "unbelievable"

Well I never said either of those things.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 01:28:34 PM
There has never been 4 All NBA players on the same roster that were all under the age of 30 until the 2017 GS Warriors.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 08, 2017, 01:32:37 PM
OK.  I might be willing to agree with that if you could show similar examples.


Well I never said either of those things.

Wasn't really directed at you, more the original tweet and those of its ilk I see constantly
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2017, 01:33:51 PM
Wasn't really directed at you, more the original tweet and those of its ilk I see constantly

Gotcha.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 08, 2017, 02:43:19 PM
Yet he was a team worst -22 in game one.  And Iggy has been +14, +9, and +10 in the 3 games so far.  And when Iggy is in the game he's guarding LeBron.

Ipso fatso, Iggy > LeBron!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 02:50:55 PM
Ipso fatso, Iggy > LeBron!

Yeah.  Just goes to show how meaningless +/- is.  Game 2 Livingston is -10 (the only Warriors player worse than -2) in a 20 point win while going 4-7 from the field, 2-2 from the line, and having 1 assist, 1 rebound, and 0 turnovers in 19 minutes.  Obviously Livingston was hurting the Warriors and his minutes should be cut to 0.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 03:02:50 PM

Yes.  The guy who was on the floor for most of a blow out loss is usually going to have a large negative number.  Thanks for that brilliant observation.

The point is that where Lebron played 95% of the minutes available, and he was +7, they lost by 5.  The opposite of what you would expect.

Also, if there is a "brilliant observation" here I would argue that the Cavs being outscored when the best player on the planet is on the bench (his +/- in game 3) is a lot less surprising than the best player on the planet having the worst +/- in the entire game in game one.  But that's just me.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 08, 2017, 03:07:05 PM
Also, if there is a "brilliant observation" here I would argue that the Cavs being outscored when the best player on the planet is on the bench (his +/- in game 3) is a lot less surprising than the best player on the planet having the worst +/- in the entire game in game one.  But that's just me.

The observation wasn't just that the Cavs were outscored with LeBron on the bench. It's that they were outscored by 12 points in 2 minutes.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 03:19:37 PM
The observation wasn't just that the Cavs were outscored with LeBron on the bench. It's that they were outscored by 12 points in 2 minutes.

So the best team, and more important the best shooting team, in the history of the NBA got hot and went on a quick run over a 2:39 period where they went 4-6.  Color me shocked.  That obviously could never happen when LeBron James is on the court like the last 3:40 seconds, he clearly would stop the Warriors from hitting 3 pointers like he did when he let KD step into an in rhythm pullup triple in transition to win the Warriors the game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 08, 2017, 03:36:41 PM
So the best team, and more important the best shooting team, in the history of the NBA got hot and went on a quick run over a 2:39 period where they went 4-6.  Color me shocked.  That obviously could never happen when LeBron James is on the court like the last 3:40 seconds, he clearly would stop the Warriors from hitting 3 pointers like he did when he let KD step into an in rhythm pullup triple in transition to win the Warriors the game.

OK, wades, we get it. You hate LeBron.

What really is your point? That LeBron is not the best player? OK ... then what is he, only No. 2? No. 3? That LeBron is not a "winner," despite his 3 rings and 7 straight Finals appearances? That LeBron is a "loser" because he and his inferior cast are about to get swept by arguably the best team in history?

Look, Jordan is the best player I have ever seen. LeBron and Magic are No. 2 and 2A, not necessarily in that order. I suppose one could argue for Wilt (almost before my time), Russell (before my time), West (pretty much before my time), Bird, Duncan and a select few others to be in that top-3, but I would respectfully disagree that any are better than Michael, LeBron and Magic.

But you are free to continually argue that LeBron stinks. That is your right.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 03:56:33 PM
OK, wades, we get it. You hate LeBron.

What really is your point? That LeBron is not the best player? OK ... then what is he, only No. 2? No. 3? That LeBron is not a "winner," despite his 3 rings and 7 straight Finals appearances? That LeBron is a "loser" because he and his inferior cast are about to get swept by arguably the best team in history?

Look, Jordan is the best player I have ever seen. LeBron and Magic are No. 2 and 2A, not necessarily in that order. I suppose one could argue for Wilt (almost before my time), Russell (before my time), West (pretty much before my time), Bird, Duncan and a select few others to be in that top-3, but I would respectfully disagree that any are better than Michael, LeBron and Magic.

But you are free to continually argue that LeBron stinks. That is your right.

Where in the world did I argue LeBron stinks?  That's my point.  +/- is the absolute worst way you could prove (or disprove) that a player is great (or awful).  I quite literally said LeBron is the best player on the planet multiple times on this page of this thread alone.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on June 08, 2017, 04:24:45 PM
Switching gears a bit, read some recent articles about KD being "unselfish", for taking less money to help keep the core of GSW together longer.

My question, is more about perception, why is that KD is unselfish for taking less money than he is owed.  If anything that is selfless, I know I know they sound similar, but cmon.

Also, why in the hell is always up to the player to take less money, when in actuality it's the owner doesn't wanna pay luxury tax? I guess that's why owners are billionaires that can con their way to making folks like us pay for their stadiums and somehow claim how poor they are when they don't want to pay a few extra mill in luxury tax.

/rant over

//get off my lawn

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 04:35:23 PM
Switching gears a bit, read some recent articles about KD being "unselfish", for taking less money to help keep the core of GSW together longer.

My question, is more about perception, why is that KD is unselfish for taking less money than he is owed.  If anything that is selfless, I know I know they sound similar, but cmon.

Also, why in the hell is always up to the player to take less money, when in actuality it's the owner doesn't wanna pay luxury tax? I guess that's why owners are billionaires that can con their way to making folks like us pay for their stadiums and somehow claim how poor they are when they don't want to pay a few extra mill in luxury tax.

/rant over

//get off my lawn

The Warriors will actually be going further into the luxury tax by KD passing up on the extra $4M this year than they would if he took the full amount.  It all has to do with the Bird Rights.  The Warriors will be able to pay their own free agents whatever they command by Durant doing this, and thus will be paying Iggy and Livingston rather than seeing them walk away in free agency because they couldn't afford them had KD taken the full max.  They can now exceed the salary cap to resign their own players.

By signing a non-Bird Rights deal, the Warriors can then sign Iggy and Livingston to Bird-rights deals.  KD will sign a 2 year contract with the 2nd year being a player option at 120% of his 2016-2017 salary, do the same thing next offseason, and then be in line for the "super max" contract the year after that.  Curry can get his super max next offseason and they can keep their core together.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2017, 04:56:05 PM
There has never been 4 All NBA players on the same roster that were all under the age of 30 until the 2017 GS Warriors.

Curious to what you mean by this.  I assume that you are meaning All NBA at some point in their career, not current All NBA players, correct?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 04:57:19 PM
Curious to what you mean by this.  I assume that you are meaning All NBA at some point in their career, not current All NBA players, correct?

Correct.  4 players who have made any All NBA Team at some point in their careers that are all currently under the age of 30.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2017, 05:04:16 PM
Correct.  4 players who have made any All NBA Team at some point in their careers that are all currently under the age of 30.

Got it.  It's interesting, but then one should ask, why is this so?

Did they just get 4 great players?  (Personally, I don't think so). 

Or do the players just make each other that much better?

I think it is the latter.  I don't think there is anyway that Klay or Green make an All NBA team playing for anyone else besides the Warriors.  The players all work tremendously together and all buy in for the good of each other.  Only Curry and KD have the talent to be All NBA on any team they are on.

In contrast, James/Irving/Love could be all NBA for any team they played on (at least at some point of their career, and likely currently). 

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 08, 2017, 05:10:08 PM
Correct.  4 players who have made any All NBA Team at some point in their careers that are all currently under the age of 30.

That might be a little unfair, because prior to 1989, the league only put out two All-NBA teams, compared with three today. Klay Thompson has "only" been on the third team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 08, 2017, 05:24:21 PM
There has never been 4 All NBA players on the same roster that were all under the age of 30 until the 2017 GS Warriors.

I believe the Celtics in the '84 may have had more - I am going by all-star teams.

Bird, McHale, Parish (I think), DJ, Ainge, plus Wedman who was 31.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on June 08, 2017, 05:48:47 PM
The Warriors will actually be going further into the luxury tax by KD passing up on the extra $4M this year than they would if he took the full amount.  It all has to do with the Bird Rights.  The Warriors will be able to pay their own free agents whatever they command by Durant doing this, and thus will be paying Iggy and Livingston rather than seeing them walk away in free agency because they couldn't afford them had KD taken the full max.  They can now exceed the salary cap to resign their own players.

By signing a non-Bird Rights deal, the Warriors can then sign Iggy and Livingston to Bird-rights deals.  KD will sign a 2 year contract with the 2nd year being a player option at 120% of his 2016-2017 salary, do the same thing next offseason, and then be in line for the "super max" contract the year after that.  Curry can get his super max next offseason and they can keep their core together.

Appreciate the extra context. Thanks
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 06:06:54 PM
That might be a little unfair, because prior to 1989, the league only put out two All-NBA teams, compared with three today. Klay Thompson has "only" been on the third team.

Fair.
I believe the Celtics in the '84 may have had more - I am going by all-star teams.

Bird, McHale, Parish (I think), DJ, Ainge, plus Wedman who was 31.

You might be right.  I took the stat from Lowe on his Lowe Post podcast.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 06:08:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k63hLZGqgus&feature=share

Here's a question.  Why aren't people up in arms about this?  This is the exact same thing that Draymond received flagrant fouls for and that the whole sports universe nearly blue up about.  No criticism for LeBron's groin kick, no flagrant foul called, no suspension.  Heck, no technical foul for slamming the ball into the ground after he kicked Iggy in the nuts.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 08, 2017, 06:21:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k63hLZGqgus&feature=share

Here's a question.  Why aren't people up in arms about this?  This is the exact same thing that Draymond received flagrant fouls for and that the whole sports universe nearly blue up about.  No criticism for LeBron's groin kick, no flagrant foul called, no suspension.  Heck, no technical foul for slamming the ball into the ground after he kicked Iggy in the nuts.

Are you serious? This is legitimately getting old. No one is up in arms because it is not remotely the same thing. There is no way there was any intent at all in that leg flail. He had the ball, was shooting and was in the process of being blocked while completely in the air when his leg whipped out. Draymond punched LBJ in the dick while on the floor during a shoving match.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 06:58:55 PM
Are you serious? This is legitimately getting old. No one is up in arms because it is not remotely the same thing. There is no way there was any intent at all in that leg flail. He had the ball, was shooting and was in the process of being blocked while completely in the air when his leg whipped out. Draymond punched LBJ in the dick while on the floor during a shoving match.

Lol.  If you say so.  But the one that gets people upset is the Steven Adams kick, which is straight up identical to what LBJ just did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCeP6_pICE

I don't know how you define a punch, but in my vocabulary you don't punch someone by ever so slightly brushing your forearm against them.

But that's neither here nor there.  The sports world went beserk over Draymond's kick to Adams's nuts and it is quite literally the identical play.  Gets stripped while going up for a shot, flails his leg out, kicks up into the groin.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 08, 2017, 07:10:08 PM
Lol.  If you say so.  But the one that gets people upset is the Steven Adams kick, which is straight up identical to what LBJ just did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCeP6_pICE

I don't know how you define a punch, but in my vocabulary you don't punch someone by ever so slightly brushing your forearm against them.

But that's neither here nor there.  The sports world went beserk over Draymond's kick to Adams's nuts and it is quite literally the identical play.  Gets stripped while going up for a shot, flails his leg out, kicks up into the groin.

Nah. Quite simply, neither the timing nor the intent is the same. But you're probably on to the fact that the only reason we're not all flipping out is some combination of LeBron's witchcraft-practicing PR team, and that everyone else that watches the NBA are LeBron homers and simps. Push another peg in the board, tie a string to the Freemason and illuminati pins, and let us know what you come up with.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2017, 07:34:23 PM
Man our own little Skip Bayless is in full form today.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 07:38:09 PM
Nah. Quite simply, neither the timing nor the intent is the same. But you're probably on to the fact that the only reason we're not all flipping out is some combination of LeBron's witchcraft-practicing PR team, and that everyone else that watches the NBA are LeBron homers and simps. Push another peg in the board, tie a string to the Freemason and illuminati pins, and let us know what you come up with.

Lol.  The timing nor the intent.  Interesting.  LeBron has a witchcraft practicing PR team and you have the ability to read minds.  Well done!

Quite simply, though, they are literally the identical play.
Man our own little Skip Bayless is in full form today.

And our own big macho man Stephen A is here to let everyone know about it, too!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2017, 07:44:57 PM
Lol.  If you say so.  But the one that gets people upset is the Steven Adams kick, which is straight up identical to what LBJ just did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCeP6_pICE

I don't know how you define a punch, but in my vocabulary you don't punch someone by ever so slightly brushing your forearm against them.

But that's neither here nor there.  The sports world went beserk over Draymond's kick to Adams's nuts and it is quite literally the identical play.  Gets stripped while going up for a shot, flails his leg out, kicks up into the groin.


Very different play.  And no one is talking about it because everyone realizes its different. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 08, 2017, 08:15:30 PM
Lol.  If you say so.  But the one that gets people upset is the Steven Adams kick, which is straight up identical to what LBJ just did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCeP6_pICE

I don't know how you define a punch, but in my vocabulary you don't punch someone by ever so slightly brushing your forearm against them.

But that's neither here nor there.  The sports world went beserk over Draymond's kick to Adams's nuts and it is quite literally the identical play.  Gets stripped while going up for a shot, flails his leg out, kicks up into the groin.

The difference is that one guy is an unrepentant repeat offender and the other guy is not.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 08, 2017, 09:45:47 PM
Where in the world did I argue LeBron stinks?  That's my point.  +/- is the absolute worst way you could prove (or disprove) that a player is great (or awful).  I quite literally said LeBron is the best player on the planet multiple times on this page of this thread alone.

All righty then, wades, still trying to figure out what put the burr in your saddle.

It's not healthy for a grown man to hate an athlete as much as you hate LeBron. Especially since LeBron, by most counts, is a good guy. Charitable. Not a wife-beater or girlfriend-beater. Not a mollester. Not a multiple adulterer. Not a child abuser. Never been in a bar fight. Willingly speaks out on social issues. Took less money to play in Miami and less money again to return to Cleveland. Just wants to win. Oh, and also a pretty fair basketball player.

You're a smart guy, so I don't think you even believe the stink you're trying to make over his inadvertent kick ... far different than Draymond green going for opponents' privates over and over and over again. Which you know. And so does everybody else. Which is why there is no stink.

And I said out loud that LeBron should have been T'd up for slamming the basketball. I also said LeBron (and Kyrie) choked down the stretch. And I'm a LeBron fan. I'm able to be objective. Aren't you?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2017, 10:10:13 PM
All righty then, wades, still trying to figure out what put the burr in your saddle.

It's not healthy for a grown man to hate an athlete as much as you hate LeBron. Especially since LeBron, by most counts, is a good guy. Charitable. Not a wife-beater or girlfriend-beater. Not a mollester. Not a multiple adulterer. Not a child abuser. Never been in a bar fight. Willingly speaks out on social issues. Took less money to play in Miami and less money again to return to Cleveland. Just wants to win. Oh, and also a pretty fair basketball player.

You're a smart guy, so I don't think you even believe the stink you're trying to make over his inadvertent kick ... far different than Draymond green going for opponents' privates over and over and over again. Which you know. And so does everybody else. Which is why there is no stink.

And I said out loud that LeBron should have been T'd up for slamming the basketball. I also said LeBron (and Kyrie) choked down the stretch. And I'm a LeBron fan. I'm able to be objective. Aren't you?

I am.  Hence why I say LeBron is the best player on the planet.  I'm not sure what's wrong with pointing out that the fact that LeBron happened to be on the bench for one of the Warriors runs isn't some spectacularly shocking stat to point out.  He was on the court during a very similar run.  The only difference was the one he was on the court for was to close the game out for the Warriors.  Of all the insane stats you can throw out there to show LeBron's greatness, +/- is not a good one at all.  The Warriors went on a quick run with him out of the game.  Was it because he was out that they went on the run?  Well, their 11-0 run to end the game with LeBron on the court suggests it might not be that.

I point out the kick and the slamming of the ball because the kick was the identical move that resulted in Draymond being crucified last Playoffs, and any other player in the NBA that slams the ball like that gets T'd up without question.  But it's golden boy LeBron so meh, it's all good.  But Draymond, now there is a horrible person!  You know, the guy who is a finalist for the NBA's community service awards and the guy you can say the very same things about outside of the bar fight as you (incorrectly) said about LeBron.  Just because LeBron doesn't let his media puppet Brian Windhorst give his illegitimate child any publicity doesn't mean it's not there.  I guess I can't say for certain that the one and only time he ever slept with someone other than his wife he ended up with an illegitimate child, but color me doubtful on that one.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 09, 2017, 11:04:43 AM
I am.  Hence why I say LeBron is the best player on the planet.  I'm not sure what's wrong with pointing out that the fact that LeBron happened to be on the bench for one of the Warriors runs isn't some spectacularly shocking stat to point out.  He was on the court during a very similar run.  The only difference was the one he was on the court for was to close the game out for the Warriors.  Of all the insane stats you can throw out there to show LeBron's greatness, +/- is not a good one at all.  The Warriors went on a quick run with him out of the game.  Was it because he was out that they went on the run?  Well, their 11-0 run to end the game with LeBron on the court suggests it might not be that.

I point out the kick and the slamming of the ball because the kick was the identical move that resulted in Draymond being crucified last Playoffs, and any other player in the NBA that slams the ball like that gets T'd up without question.  But it's golden boy LeBron so meh, it's all good.  But Draymond, now there is a horrible person!  You know, the guy who is a finalist for the NBA's community service awards and the guy you can say the very same things about outside of the bar fight as you (incorrectly) said about LeBron.  Just because LeBron doesn't let his media puppet Brian Windhorst give his illegitimate child any publicity doesn't mean it's not there.  I guess I can't say for certain that the one and only time he ever slept with someone other than his wife he ended up with an illegitimate child, but color me doubtful on that one.

I and others told you one major difference between the LeBron kick and the multiple Draymond Green infractions that made him the Grayson Allen of the NBA. If you want to ignore us, that is your right. I am a ref, and I say LeBron deserved a T for the ball slam, so we agree. We also agree about +/- as a stupid stat.

Still, you have what willie would call a "hate woody" for LeBron. Thankfully, you admit he is the best player because doing otherwise would be silly ... because he IS the best player.

I'm done with this subject for now as we are talking in circles. If you choose to respond again, you get the last word. Otherwise, I do!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on June 09, 2017, 11:39:54 AM
I and others told you one major difference between the LeBron kick and the multiple Draymond Green infractions that made him the Grayson Allen of the NBA. If you want to ignore us, that is your right. I am a ref, and I say LeBron deserved a T for the ball slam, so we agree. We also agree about +/- as a stupid stat.

Still, you have what willie would call a "hate woody" for LeBron. Thankfully, you admit he is the best player because doing otherwise would be silly ... because he IS the best player.

I'm done with this subject for now as we are talking in circles. If you choose to respond again, you get the last word. Otherwise, I do!

What do you ref?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 09, 2017, 08:48:50 PM
Do the Cavs get to 100 FTA tonight?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 09, 2017, 09:15:51 PM
Do the Cavs get to 100 FTA tonight?

The officiating has been piss poor in this game so far.

Also, Irving is playing insane in this game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 09, 2017, 09:35:42 PM
The officiating has been piss poor in this game so far.

Also, Irving is playing insane in this game.

First quarter was...interesting. Cavs playing lights out though.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 10, 2017, 11:52:50 AM
All righty then, wades, still trying to figure out what put the burr in your saddle.

It's not healthy for a grown man to hate an athlete as much as you hate LeBron. Especially since LeBron, by most counts, is a good guy. Charitable. Not a wife-beater or girlfriend-beater. Not a mollester. Not a multiple adulterer. Not a child abuser. Never been in a bar fight. Willingly speaks out on social issues. Took less money to play in Miami and less money again to return to Cleveland. Just wants to win. Oh, and also a pretty fair basketball player.

You're a smart guy, so I don't think you even believe the stink you're trying to make over his inadvertent kick ... far different than Draymond green going for opponents' privates over and over and over again. Which you know. And so does everybody else. Which is why there is no stink.

And I said out loud that LeBron should have been T'd up for slamming the basketball. I also said LeBron (and Kyrie) choked down the stretch. And I'm a LeBron fan. I'm able to be objective. Aren't you?

This is what I find so annoying about LeBron and how people talk about him. People get so bent out of shape at the slightest criticism of him that they'll say stuff like what I bolded above. 1.) LeBron gets strange constantly. 95% of the NBA does. Most pro athletes across the spectrum do. Who cares though? It wouldn't make me think any less of him, so why even bring it into the discussion? 2.) He made $31mm this year, by far the most in the league. I don't think he should take a pay cut, he deserves to be the highest paid player. But why even make that claim to make him seem like a "good guy"? Especially when the claim is easily & verifiably untrue?

He's a top 10 NBA player of all time. Where he fits on the list I don't particularly care. The annoying part is people CONSTANTLY trying to get me to feel bad for the guy for things like... having to play against good teams? Having only 2 other all-stars as teammates? And CONSTANTLY trying to convince me he's THE BEST PLAYER EVER THERE'S NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT.

Not saying you're doing all these particular things. I'm saying that's part of what people find annoying about LeBron and how he's talked about. And that's where the backlash comes from. Which then causes sensitive LeBron fans to spin with even more hyperbole in the other direction. Which causes more backlash. Tiresome.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on June 10, 2017, 01:25:02 PM
This is what I find so annoying about LeBron and how people talk about him. People get so bent out of shape at the slightest criticism of him that they'll say stuff like what I bolded above. 1.) LeBron gets strange constantly. 95% of the NBA does. Most pro athletes across the spectrum do. Who cares though? It wouldn't make me think any less of him, so why even bring it into the discussion? 2.) He made $31mm this year, by far the most in the league. I don't think he should take a pay cut, he deserves to be the highest paid player. But why even make that claim to make him seem like a "good guy"? Especially when the claim is easily & verifiably untrue?

He's a top 10 NBA player of all time. Where he fits on the list I don't particularly care. The annoying part is people CONSTANTLY trying to get me to feel bad for the guy for things like... having to play against good teams? Having only 2 other all-stars as teammates? And CONSTANTLY trying to convince me he's THE BEST PLAYER EVER THERE'S NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT.

Not saying you're doing all these particular things. I'm saying that's part of what people find annoying about LeBron and how he's talked about. And that's where the backlash comes from. Which then causes sensitive LeBron fans to spin with even more hyperbole in the other direction. Which causes more backlash. Tiresome.

So it sounds, you and Wades have much bigger issues with media, fans, and refs on how they treat LBJ, versus LBJ himself. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 10, 2017, 11:06:11 PM
The Bucks will play a regular season game at the UWM Panther Arena. That's pretty freaking sweet.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 11, 2017, 12:18:58 AM
The Bucks will play a regular season game at the UWM Panther Arena. That's pretty freaking sweet.

"Return to the Mecca" I like it. I hope they can get a replica of the old floor for the game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 11, 2017, 09:16:36 AM
#donedeal, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 12, 2017, 08:33:56 AM
What do you ref?

I ref youth basketball. Ages anywhere from 7 to 17. Mostly 10-12 year olds.

I also umpire youth baseball. I did a tournament over the weekend - 10 games over 2 days in 90 degree heat; yes, I have the strength of 10 men - and the "highlight" was this:

Parents of one of the teams started getting on my partner for a couple of borderline calls on the bases. The coach came out of the dugout and politely asked the parents to chill a little. And one of the fathers yells at the coach: "You just worry about the kids!"

How 'bout that?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 12, 2017, 09:18:34 AM
I ref youth basketball. Ages anywhere from 7 to 17. Mostly 10-12 year olds.

I also umpire youth baseball. I did a tournament over the weekend - 10 games over 2 days in 90 degree heat; yes, I have the strength of 10 men - and the "highlight" was this:

Parents of one of the teams started getting on my partner for a couple of borderline calls on the bases. The coach came out of the dugout and politely asked the parents to chill a little. And one of the fathers yells at the coach: "You just worry about the kids!"

How 'bout that?

Parent are pretty boys and idiots.  I have a friend who coaches for a living.  His dream is to field a team of orphans.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 12, 2017, 11:12:03 AM
Parent are pretty boys and idiots.  I have a friend who coaches for a living.  His dream is to field a team of orphans.

Funny.

I have been officiating for many years. By and large, the kids are great, the coaches are decent and most parents are OK. But by far those most likely to be dipshytes are parents.

I also coach, and having been an official for many years before I started coaching, it gave me some really good perspective. Refs must love the games I coach because I rarely get on their case.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 12, 2017, 11:43:47 AM
Our league had two coaches from the same team end up in a fistfight in the middle of a game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 12, 2017, 12:14:28 PM
Parent are pretty boys and idiots.  I have a friend who coaches for a living.  His dream is to field a team of orphans.

I vaguely recalled that "a$$hole$" would get filtered, but couldn't remember the specifics.  Well done, filter gods.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 12, 2017, 12:57:49 PM
Agree on the parents front. At one of my dad's games a few years ago after a hard foul, (not dirty just a hard foul) a parent from the other team yelled "throw that ni***r out of the game."

Now i'm not saying that's the norm and that's an extreme case but parents at athletic events are the worst, especially in the north shore.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 12, 2017, 01:16:42 PM
This is my third year coaching my kids' Little League team. It's been very tame so far and we have a good group of parents. Obviously, there are some coaches and parents who take things far too seriously for age 6-8 baseball, but most of them are harmless.

The only issue I've ever had with a coach or parent was when a third base coach "accidentally" got into the way of a player trying to catch a foul pop. Granted, the odds of this kid catching the ball were at best 50/50 but this coach stood completely still, hands on hips, as the ball landed a foot away from him and the 3B couldn't get around him to attempt to catch it. I later found out that this coach was removed from his coaching position for being verbally abusive to his players (again, these are ages 6-8!).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 12, 2017, 01:24:14 PM
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've coached little league for five years plus soccer for three years and I've never had a bad experience with a parent. Annoying maybe, but nothing really bad.
Other coaches, on the other hand ... The lengths some of these guys will go to for a trivial advantage in a baseball game is astonishing, i.e. illegal bats, trying to let kids pitch more than allowed, trying to rig the preseason draft, etc.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 12, 2017, 10:55:36 PM
#4-1
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 12, 2017, 10:59:44 PM
Congrats to 4ever, dentist of champions!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 13, 2017, 06:00:17 AM
After a lopsided start to the series, a very enjoyable final 3 games.

Obviously, the better team won. Every time Durant shoots, I think the ball is going in ... and it usually is. Has there ever been a smoother stroke? And when he drives, he glides to the hoop. A very graceful player, who also is tougher than he looks. He's been great for years, of course, but this was quite an official coming-out party.

And I have absolutely no problem with him choosing his team to give him a better shot at a championship. People beyotch about jocks just going for every last cent ... and then when one chooses the better chance to win over every last cent, people beyotch about that, too! If the Warriors re-sign Durant, which is likely, it's hard to imagine them not winning the next few titles.

LeBron, as usual, acquitted himself well. Van Gundy correctly criticized him for not hustling back on D once, which resulted in 2 pts for the Warriors. Guys should ALWAYS hustle, yes, but this guy does play 46-47 minutes and has so many offensive and defensive responsibilities. He had one alley-oop pass to Tristan Thompson that maybe .008% of all basketball players in the world can make. One hell of a basketball player. (This just in, right?)

Oh, and yes, LeBron pretty much whines about every call (or non-call), but so do Curry and Green (not to mention effen Zaza, who is a total hack).

Curry looks like a choir boy, but he's a "dirty-ish" player the same way Stockton was; when he sets screens in the lane to free the bigs, he grabs, sticks out his leg, shoves, the whole deal. Very hard for the refs to see, and he knows it. Which means it really isn't dirty (because he's not trying to hurt anybody), just smart!

Finally ... the Warriors were dropping the f-bomb so loud and so often in their postgame, on-court celebration that ABC had to keep killing the sound. And Mr. Choir Boy was as f-bomby as any of 'em. All in good fun, though. It's not their fault the cameras are 2 inches away.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 13, 2017, 07:48:23 AM
Lebron's whining to refs is totally out of control. It has gotten worse through the years.  The travel call where he landed before the pass was the worst.  Every call results in a WTF look, especially that one.  Dude, just admit you screwed up and move on.

Contrast that with Durant, who politely talks to the refs without the over dramatic performance.  Almost gentlemanly.  Combined with his great level of play, very easy to root for him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2017, 08:47:46 AM
Time for the next outrage.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/06/13/warriors-will-skip-white-house-visit/
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on June 13, 2017, 09:05:44 AM
LeBron doesn't believe in superteams? Never played for one? Baffling information
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 13, 2017, 09:29:10 AM
Lebron's whining to refs is totally out of control. It has gotten worse through the years.  The travel call where he landed before the pass was the worst.  Every call results in a WTF look, especially that one.  Dude, just admit you screwed up and move on.

Contrast that with Durant, who politely talks to the refs without the over dramatic performance.  Almost gentlemanly.  Combined with his great level of play, very easy to root for him.

To be honest, I didn't see an entire call that entire series where someone wasn't whining to the refs. Its part of the game now. Lebron is hardly alone.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 13, 2017, 09:37:12 AM
I'm a Kevin Durant fan. He's fun to watch and is clearly the second-best player in the world right now. That said, I didn't get that "Hey, good for him" feeling when GS won last night. I don't blame him for leaving OKC and I can understand wanting to play for the best team in the league, but there's still something that just doesn't sit well with me. It's one thing for LeBron, Wade and Bosh to team up and see what they can accomplish together, but it's another for a superstar to go to a team that's already the best in the league and win a title. It's not that he didn't "deserve" it and it's not like he didn't earn it. He's now the best player on the best team and the Finals MVP, but it still feels like he took a shortcut.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 13, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
Lebron's whining to refs is totally out of control. It has gotten worse through the years.  The travel call where he landed before the pass was the worst.  Every call results in a WTF look, especially that one.  Dude, just admit you screwed up and move on.

Contrast that with Durant, who politely talks to the refs without the over dramatic performance.  Almost gentlemanly.  Combined with his great level of play, very easy to root for him.

Not that LeBron doesn't complain, but I can't believe someone just watched a series in which Draymond Green was a participant and came out of it feeling another player's whining is out of control.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 13, 2017, 10:09:50 AM
To be honest, I didn't see an entire call that entire series where someone wasn't whining to the refs. Its part of the game now. Lebron is hardly alone.

I know it is part of the game.  I know just about everyone, especially the star players, do it.  Curry and Green are almost as bad as Lebron.  But lobbying the refs is at least somewhat effective or else they wouldn't do it.  So yeah, it is there but it's still annoying.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 13, 2017, 10:16:15 AM
Not that LeBron doesn't complain, but I can't believe someone just watched a series in which Draymond Green was a participant and came out of it feeling another player's whining is out of control.

Draymond is almost as bad as Lebron.  My original post was only comparing Lebron and Durant.  Green's complaining is also out of control.  I'd say Lebron's is slightly worse but I was more focused on him than Green.  I can see the viewpoint of anyone claiming Green is as bad, if not worse.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 13, 2017, 10:40:59 AM
Congrats to 4ever, dentist of champions!



Gotta check if I get a ring, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Badgerhater on June 13, 2017, 11:17:08 AM
Time for the next outrage.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/06/13/warriors-will-skip-white-house-visit/

Actually, that is a "tradition" I would like to see go away.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 13, 2017, 11:44:55 AM
Time for the next FAUXRAGE.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/06/13/warriors-will-skip-white-house-visit/

FIFY
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 13, 2017, 12:00:02 PM
Lebron's whining to refs is totally out of control. It has gotten worse through the years.  The travel call where he landed before the pass was the worst.  Every call results in a WTF look, especially that one.  Dude, just admit you screwed up and move on.

Contrast that with Durant, who politely talks to the refs without the over dramatic performance.  Almost gentlemanly.  Combined with his great level of play, very easy to root for him.

I didn't mention Durant whining in my post, only Green and Curry. And, as you later acknowledged, they whine a lot too.

NBA players NEVER think they travel. That one was quite egregious by LeBron - pretty easy to see with the naked eye, let alone slo-mo. But a few minutes later, Iguodala was called for traveling (and correctly so), and he whined about it.

It's what most players do. Those who don't, such as Durant (not often, anyway), are a nice change of pace!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 13, 2017, 12:04:24 PM
I'm a Kevin Durant fan. He's fun to watch and is clearly the second-best player in the world right now. That said, I didn't get that "Hey, good for him" feeling when GS won last night. I don't blame him for leaving OKC and I can understand wanting to play for the best team in the league, but there's still something that just doesn't sit well with me. It's one thing for LeBron, Wade and Bosh to team up and see what they can accomplish together, but it's another for a superstar to go to a team that's already the best in the league and win a title. It's not that he didn't "deserve" it and it's not like he didn't earn it. He's now the best player on the best team and the Finals MVP, but it still feels like he took a shortcut.

Yeah, I don't get the "warm and fuzzies" about what Durant did, either. But I can't really say, "It doesn't sit well with me," either. It just doesn't elicit any emotion from me at all. I understand why he did it ... and when he is making his Hall of Fame speech, few will be thinking about any shortcut that he might or might not have taken.

Like you, I don't begrudge LeBron for going to Miami; it was just the way he did it, with "The Decision," that was douchey. LeBron's return to Cleveland was a lot cooler.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 13, 2017, 12:06:41 PM
Let's not nominate Durant for sainthood just yet.
He has 59 technicals in 703 career games, including eight this season.
LeBron has 55 technicals in 1,061 career games, including seven the last two seasons.

Cue "LeBron gets special treatment ..."
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 13, 2017, 12:38:36 PM
Let's not nominate Durant for sainthood just yet.
He has 59 technicals in 703 career games, including eight this season.
LeBron has 55 technicals in 1,061 career games, including seven the last two seasons.

Cue "LeBron gets special treatment ..."

Good info, Pakuni.

Of course, it really is possible that LeBron has gotten a little more slack from the refs, especially after he became a veteran while Durant was the "youngster." I don't know that; just speculatin'. As wades pointed out after Game 3, LeBron certainly should have been T-ed up for spiking the basketball - Green would have been, and maybe Durant, too.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 13, 2017, 12:56:17 PM
Let's not nominate Durant for sainthood just yet.
He has 59 technicals in 703 career games, including eight this season.
LeBron has 55 technicals in 1,061 career games, including seven the last two seasons.

Cue "LeBron gets special treatment ..."

Fair observation.  I admit my observation of Durant vs Lebron is of a miniscule sample size.  Sorry if I implied more than that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 13, 2017, 01:16:53 PM
Good info, Pakuni.

Of course, it really is possible that LeBron has gotten a little more slack from the refs, especially after he became a veteran while Durant was the "youngster." I don't know that; just speculatin'. As wades pointed out after Game 3, LeBron certainly should have been T-ed up for spiking the basketball - Green would have been, and maybe Durant, too.

I have no doubt LeBron has received special treatment. All NBA stars do, and the bigger the star, the more slack they get.
I posted the numbers less as praise for LeBron than to point out the Durant isn't a choir boy with these things.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 13, 2017, 01:18:42 PM
Durant also doesn't have much patience for mascots  ;D

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8476233/gtfo.0.gif)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2017, 03:42:05 PM
Yeah, I don't get the "warm and fuzzies" about what Durant did, either. But I can't really say, "It doesn't sit well with me," either. It just doesn't elicit any emotion from me at all. I understand why he did it ... and when he is making his Hall of Fame speech, few will be thinking about any shortcut that he might or might not have taken.

Like you, I don't begrudge LeBron for going to Miami; it was just the way he did it, with "The Decision," that was douchey. LeBron's return to Cleveland was a lot cooler.


Earl the Pearl wanted out of Baltimore and got himself on a Knicks team that won a title.
Moses signed with the 76ers as a free agent when Houston couldn't get past the Lakers.
Clyde couldn't get it done in Portland and went to a team that already won a championship to collect his ring.

History treats these people well.  It doesn't give extra points to guys like Elgin Baylor who play for many years for one franchise and never get the ring.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 13, 2017, 09:29:23 PM

Earl the Pearl wanted out of Baltimore and got himself on a Knicks team that won a title.
Moses signed with the 76ers as a free agent when Houston couldn't get past the Lakers.
Clyde couldn't get it done in Portland and went to a team that already won a championship to collect his ring.

History treats these people well.  It doesn't give extra points to guys like Elgin Baylor who play for many years for one franchise and never get the ring.

Good points, Sultan. Sometimes we forget that stuff actually happened before hashtags!

I was 11 when the Knicks traded for Monroe and I didn't become a Knicks fan until the following season - I was a late bloomer who hated sports until a friend got me interested - so I didn't know the history of Monroe going to NY until I read about it right now. Here is one account ...

That ring may have never belonged to Monroe, and his teammates on the 1972-73 Knicks, if not for the biggest trade in franchise history (until, perhaps, last February's Carmelo Anthony deal) on Nov. 10, 1971, which Monroe fondly recalls was three days shy of the month and date when Felix Unger was famously asked to remove himself from his place of residence. (That request came from his wife).

In the days leading up to that trade (the Knicks sent Dave Stallworth, Mike Riordan and cash to the Baltimore Bullets for Monroe), Monroe was angling for a trade to the Lakers, Bulls or 76ers.

"Larry Fleischer was my agent at the time, and after the [1970-71] season he told the Bullets that I wanted to be traded," Monroe recalled. "In the latter part of the summer they made a trade for Archie Clark, and I remember their statement saying that now we've got the best backcourt in the league, so I kind of took that as they weren't going to trade me.

"So we got four games into the season and still hadn't heard anything, so Larry called me and said, 'Earl, stay home.'"

Monroe stayed away from the Bullets, but instead of staying home he traveled to Indianapolis to meet with the Indiana Pacers of the rival ABA to discuss switching leagues -- a leverage ploy very much in vogue at the time as the league with the red, white and blue ball was becoming quite adept at pilfering players from the older, more established NBA.

It was in Indianapolis that the phone rang in Monroe's hotel room, with Fleischer on the other line.

"He said he had a trade for me with the Knicks, and my first impression was, 'Larry, that's not going to work,'" Monroe said. "It was because we played against the Knicks all the time, and they were the hated ones as far as we were concerned. But eventually I said give me a couple of days, and I went home to Philly and talked to my good friend, Sonny Hill, and my mom, and I emerged from those conversations saying I'm a basketball player, I can play with anyone in any style, and I'm going to come to New York."

And so commenced the union of Monroe and Walt "Clyde" Frazier in the Knicks' backcourt, a pairing that helped a team constructed around Willis Reed, Bill Bradley, Dave DeBusschere and Phil Jackson make it to the NBA Finals in 1972 and '73.


So the Pearl didn't exactly angle to go to the Knicks - they weren't even close to being his team of choice - but destiny landed him there. And despite the concerns of many, the Clyde/Pearl backcourt turned out to be one of the best of that era (and maybe any era).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorFan on June 14, 2017, 04:59:50 AM
I didn't mention Durant whining in my post, only Green and Curry. And, as you later acknowledged, they whine a lot too.

NBA players NEVER think they travel. That one was quite egregious by LeBron - pretty easy to see with the naked eye, let alone slo-mo. But a few minutes later, Iguodala was called for traveling (and correctly so), and he whined about it.

It's what most players do. Those who don't, such as Durant (not often, anyway), are a nice change of pace!
I enjoyed the Warrior's win and am happy for Steph and Klay and the guys that they kept the magic formula and that Durant fit in.
What disappoints me greatly is the disintegration of some of the basic principles of the game - like traveling.  Harden is the worst, but watch LeBron inside and his "happy feet" are nearly as bad as the overweight 6th grader with glasses from the team I coached a couple years back when he gets the ball under the rim.  Kyrie, Steph, LeBron and Iguodala travel EVERY time they start a drive and nearly every time they finish.  Now 4 steps is called a "eurostep", not a travel and 5 steps is not uncommon.  6 gets called, unless your name is James Harden.  The "simulation" and swipe thru and sideways jump and the fouls off the high screen are all just crap and really ruin the game.  I know the change process will be painful, but the NBA can get rid of all this crap and make the game much better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 14, 2017, 08:09:44 AM
I enjoyed the Warrior's win and am happy for Steph and Klay and the guys that they kept the magic formula and that Durant fit in.
What disappoints me greatly is the disintegration of some of the basic principles of the game - like traveling.  Harden is the worst, but watch LeBron inside and his "happy feet" are nearly as bad as the overweight 6th grader with glasses from the team I coached a couple years back when he gets the ball under the rim.  Kyrie, Steph, LeBron and Iguodala travel EVERY time they start a drive and nearly every time they finish.  Now 4 steps is called a "eurostep", not a travel and 5 steps is not uncommon.  6 gets called, unless your name is James Harden.  The "simulation" and swipe thru and sideways jump and the fouls off the high screen are all just crap and really ruin the game.  I know the change process will be painful, but the NBA can get rid of all this crap and make the game much better.

This is not a new phenomenon.

Back in Jordan's day, opponents - and many observers of the game - say he got away with traveling all the time. Decades ago, I remember having a discussion with friends about what we liked/disliked about the pro game compared to the college game, and many said, "The NBA lets them travel, palm the ball and stand in the lane for 10 seconds."

I've gotten used to it as a "quirk" of the game; my main beef is if the refs let LeBron or Harden or whomever get away with an obvious travel ... and then call a foul to give them a 3-point play. That's adding insult to injury!

I think it goes under the "fans would rather see a travel that leads to a great basket than a traveling call." Not saying that's right; just saying that's the unwritten NBA "rule."

The thing I hate most are the moving screens. Pretty much every possession in the half-court includes multiple moving screens. And I'm not just talking about flinching or sliding 2 inches sideways. I'm talking about running into defenders, shoving defenders, hooking defenders, etc. It often takes place in the open court where anybody can see it but the refs will not call it.

Al Jefferson, when he was with the Hornets, would take both hands and either shove or grab an opponent, and it was never called. Zaza sets a moving screen on every possession. Curry sets probably 40 moving screens every game. What's funny is the reaction of a player the one time he gets called for a moving screen - he is absolutely stunned. And why shouldn't he be stunned? He got away with 15 or 20 of them already in the game!

This definitely has filtered down to the college level. I first started noticing its pervasiveness with the outstanding Illinois teams of the mid-aughts - James Augustine set a moving screen on probably 50% of their possessions and for some reason was never called for it. Now I see it all the time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 14, 2017, 08:21:40 AM
This is not a new phenomenon.

Back in Jordan's day, opponents - and many observers of the game - say he got away with traveling all the time. Decades ago, I remember having a discussion with friends about what we liked/disliked about the pro game compared to the college game, and many said, "The NBA lets them travel, palm the ball and stand in the lane for 10 seconds."

I've gotten used to it as a "quirk" of the game; my main beef is if the refs let LeBron or Harden or whomever get away with an obvious travel ... and then call a foul to give them a 3-point play. That's adding insult to injury!

I think it goes under the "fans would rather see a travel that leads to a great basket than a traveling call." Not saying that's right; just saying that's the unwritten NBA "rule."

The thing I hate most are the moving screens. Pretty much every possession in the half-court includes multiple moving screens. And I'm not just talking about flinching or sliding 2 inches sideways. I'm talking about running into defenders, shoving defenders, hooking defenders, etc. It often takes place in the open court where anybody can see it but the refs will not call it.

Al Jefferson, when he was with the Hornets, would take both hands and either shove or grab an opponent, and it was never called. Zaza sets a moving screen on every possession. Curry sets probably 40 moving screens every game. What's funny is the reaction of a player the one time he gets called for a moving screen - he is absolutely stunned. And why shouldn't he be stunned? He got away with 15 or 20 of them already in the game!

This definitely has filtered down to the college level. I first started noticing its pervasiveness with the outstanding Illinois teams of the mid-aughts - James Augustine set a moving screen on probably 50% of their possessions and for some reason was never called for it. Now I see it all the time.

I didn't see a single screen that didn't involve grabbing, shoving or hooking.  It was terrible.

My biggest complaint was Lebron's apparent new move when double teamed of palm the ball through it (at least faking it as kind of a dribble) into open space and running to it (2-3 steps) and continuing a dribble to attack the hoop.  It's disgusting...its not basketball.

You are right though that in Jordan's day we said the same thing.  But they keep letting them get away with more.  One more step, palming the ball a little longer, a little more of a shove.  Lebron's main move is to charge right through the defender...he commits an offensive foul on probably 30% of his drives, while traveling.

He's not alone in this, but because of his size (like Shaq) it's more obvious. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 14, 2017, 08:56:03 AM
The most talked about play of this year's Finals was the play were Curry dribbled around with LeBron on him until finally faking him out by picking up his dribble briefly and then dribbling again.

The NBA doesn't care about traveling, palming, carrying, etc. They care about star players and excitement.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 14, 2017, 09:00:28 AM
The announcers have also gotten the memo about not calling traveling,  palming,  moving screens etc. In the last game, Green full on shoved Kyrie in the back with two hands,  nearly sending him to the ground,  which allowed curry to make an easy layup. The announcers then praised green for setting a great screen when they showed the replay.

One of the many reasons I watch a ton more college ball than professional.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 14, 2017, 09:03:33 AM
The most talked about play of this year's Finals was the play were Curry dribbled around with LeBron on him until finally faking him out by picking up his dribble briefly and then dribbling again.

The NBA doesn't care about traveling, palming, carrying, etc. They care about star players and excitement.

There was one by Curry that was absolutely a double-dribble. 99% of refs, from grade-school on up, would have called it. Van Gundy and Jackson actually disagreed about it; one said it was a DD and the other didn't. It was SOOOO obvious.

But again, it wasn't so different from the kind of move Iverson made probably a dozen times every game. That doesn't "excuse" it, it just states a fact.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 14, 2017, 09:03:50 AM
I enjoyed the Warrior's win and am happy for Steph and Klay and the guys that they kept the magic formula and that Durant fit in.
What disappoints me greatly is the disintegration of some of the basic principles of the game - like traveling.  Harden is the worst, but watch LeBron inside and his "happy feet" are nearly as bad as the overweight 6th grader with glasses from the team I coached a couple years back when he gets the ball under the rim.  Kyrie, Steph, LeBron and Iguodala travel EVERY time they start a drive and nearly every time they finish.  Now 4 steps is called a "eurostep", not a travel and 5 steps is not uncommon.  6 gets called, unless your name is James Harden.  The "simulation" and swipe thru and sideways jump and the fouls off the high screen are all just crap and really ruin the game.  I know the change process will be painful, but the NBA can get rid of all this crap and make the game much better.

And make the players wear shorts instead of pedal pushers!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 14, 2017, 09:45:59 AM
I'd watch the NBA playoffs with its reffing every day of the week over the way the game is called in college.  I like the physicality and ethos of the league.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on June 14, 2017, 10:46:22 AM
I'd watch the NBA playoffs with its reffing every day of the week over the way the game is called in college.  I like the physicality and ethos of the league.

Agreed. Sure, they miss calls. But at least you know what you're gonna get most nights.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 14, 2017, 11:11:44 AM
I'd watch the NBA playoffs with its reffing every day of the week over the way the game is called in college.  I like the physicality and ethos of the league.

Oh, I love the NBA playoffs (although this year's involved too many blowouts). Doesn't mean I can't beyotch a little!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: CTWarrior on June 14, 2017, 11:50:38 AM
...trying to rig the preseason draft, etc.

I coached youth league baseball and basketball for around 20 years and nothing drove me more crazy than this because I refused to do it.  I've seen coaches tell kids to play terribly in the evaluation phase and have kids not show up for evaluations.  The most common thing was getting the best kid(s) dad(s) to be the assistant(s) and then not keeping them as assistants the next year to get more of the best kids the following season.  Why on Earth would you want to rig the draft and win easily?  I got a league to institute a rule that kids who don't show up for evaluation days would not be subject to the draft, and would be picked randomly out of a hat, and the next year we had kids who showed up, signed in and left so a coach could steal them without a hat pick.  I once coached in a 12 year old PONY league where our all-star team made it all the way to the PONY World Series in California.  All three of the main starting pitchers on that World Series team, and 6 of the 9 guys in the starting lineup were on the same team during the season.

Best league I ever coached in was one where the guy who ran the league got rid of the draft and just made the teams himself.  The most evenly matched and competitive league I ever coached in.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: CTWarrior on June 14, 2017, 11:55:04 AM
To be honest, I didn't see an entire call that entire series where someone wasn't whining to the refs. Its part of the game now. Lebron is hardly alone.
+100%.  There is whining in the NBA because the NBA apparently wants whining in the game.  It is the easiest thing in the world to stop.  Whine to the ref or question a call and you get a T.  Whining stops immediately.  Having the refs randomly determine when enough is enough makes it impossible.  Having a league that promotes its stars over teams makes it more difficult, since you're going to give Lebron or Curry a lot more leeway than some random 3rd guy off the bench.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: #UnleashSean on June 14, 2017, 12:22:52 PM
I coached youth league baseball and basketball for around 20 years and nothing drove me more crazy than this because I refused to do it.  I've seen coaches tell kids to play terribly in the evaluation phase and have kids not show up for evaluations.  The most common thing was getting the best kid(s) dad(s) to be the assistant(s) and then not keeping them as assistants the next year to get more of the best kids the following season.  Why on Earth would you want to rig the draft and win easily?  I got a league to institute a rule that kids who don't show up for evaluation days would not be subject to the draft, and would be picked randomly out of a hat, and the next year we had kids who showed up, signed in and left so a coach could steal them without a hat pick.  I once coached in a 12 year old PONY league where our all-star team made it all the way to the PONY World Series in California.  All three of the main starting pitchers on that World Series team, and 6 of the 9 guys in the starting lineup were on the same team during the season.

Best league I ever coached in was one where the guy who ran the league got rid of the draft and just made the teams himself.  The most evenly matched and competitive league I ever coached in.

3 years ago I coached for a school that had '' evenly'' split a basketball team into two because they had to many kids. We did an evaluation night. And did a draft afterwards. That's when I realized it was all a sham. Excuse after excuse was made for why a kid had to be on that team.
 ''he's going to help coach two games so his son is on my team''
'' that kid is best friends with my kid so he needs to be on this team''
''this kid refuses to play unless I'm the coach of him"

It was ridiculous. I think I got two actual picks out of 20 kids.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 14, 2017, 12:43:07 PM
I coached youth league baseball and basketball for around 20 years and nothing drove me more crazy than this because I refused to do it.  I've seen coaches tell kids to play terribly in the evaluation phase and have kids not show up for evaluations.  The most common thing was getting the best kid(s) dad(s) to be the assistant(s) and then not keeping them as assistants the next year to get more of the best kids the following season.  Why on Earth would you want to rig the draft and win easily?  I got a league to institute a rule that kids who don't show up for evaluation days would not be subject to the draft, and would be picked randomly out of a hat, and the next year we had kids who showed up, signed in and left so a coach could steal them without a hat pick.  I once coached in a 12 year old PONY league where our all-star team made it all the way to the PONY World Series in California.  All three of the main starting pitchers on that World Series team, and 6 of the 9 guys in the starting lineup were on the same team during the season.

Best league I ever coached in was one where the guy who ran the league got rid of the draft and just made the teams himself.  The most evenly matched and competitive league I ever coached in.

Pathetic. Adults have been ruining fun for kids since the beginning of time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 14, 2017, 12:46:10 PM
3 years ago I coached for a school that had '' evenly'' split a basketball team into two because they had to many kids. We did an evaluation night. And did a draft afterwards. That's when I realized it was all a sham. Excuse after excuse was made for why a kid had to be on that team.
 ''he's going to help coach two games so his son is on my team''
'' that kid is best friends with my kid so he needs to be on this team''
''this kid refuses to play unless I'm the coach of him"

It was ridiculous. I think I got two actual picks out of 20 kids.

I was on one of those "super-teams" for basketball one year. It was three close friends who were probably the three best players in the league.

I really shouldn't have been on that team either because the way they split up the ages I was one of the oldest and biggest kids in the entire league.

It was actually kind of annoying to play on that team as a kid as well because all they did was pass the ball to each other and take a lot of shots. I got a lot of offensive rebounds that year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 14, 2017, 12:50:47 PM

Earl the Pearl wanted out of Baltimore and got himself on a Knicks team that won a title.
Moses signed with the 76ers as a free agent when Houston couldn't get past the Lakers.
Clyde couldn't get it done in Portland and went to a team that already won a championship to collect his ring.

History treats these people well.  It doesn't give extra points to guys like Elgin Baylor who play for many years for one franchise and never get the ring.

Just fyi, Moses was traded the 76ers for Caldwell Jones and a first-round pick (which became Rodney McCray).
And Drexler also was traded.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 14, 2017, 12:58:55 PM
Just fyi, Moses was traded the 76ers for Caldwell Jones and a first-round pick (which became Rodney McCray).
And Drexler also was traded.


Moses was traded after he signed a restricted free agent offer sheet.  The Rockets matched, but then traded him.

Drexler made his desire to be traded to a contender quite clear. 

My point is that stars have done what they needed to do to get themselves on contending teams to get their rings.  Durant was a free agent, so his path was easier.  But Moses and Clyde leveraged themselves how they could.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 14, 2017, 01:24:54 PM
I am one of the coaches with a good team this year.  Between coaching these kids over the last few years in little league, travel ball through the league, and fall ball, my Co-coach and I had a situation this year where we had more parents requesting their kids be put on our team than we had room for.  We deliberately took 3 of the smallest, least talented players at the tryouts out of a sense of .... guilt?...... decency? 
  It will all change over the next year as our players move up into the next level.  Next year, our kids will take their lumps all over again.  But it will be a fun new challenge.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 14, 2017, 01:35:20 PM

Moses was traded after he signed a restricted free agent offer sheet.  The Rockets matched, but then traded him.

Drexler made his desire to be traded to a contender quite clear. 

My point is that stars have done what they needed to do to get themselves on contending teams to get their rings.  Durant was a free agent, so his path was easier.  But Moses and Clyde leveraged themselves how they could.

But the situations aren't comparable.
The Rockets, in Malone's case, and the Blazers in Drexler's willingly parted with those players and received notable assets in return  because they believed it was in their franchises' best interests.
In the case of Durant (or LeBron to South Beach), their teams desperately wanted them back and got nothing when they left. Lumping trades which (in theory) are intended to benefit both teams in with free-agent decisions which benefit only one side is just not accurate.
I'm not saying Durant, James, etc., shouldn't pursue their careers as they see fit, but how they left teams for better title chances elsewhere simply is not analogous to the examples you gave.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 14, 2017, 01:42:43 PM
But the situations aren't comparable.
The Rockets, in Malone's case, and the Blazers in Drexler's willingly parted with those players and received notable assets in return  because they believed it was in their franchises' best interests.
In the case of Durant (or LeBron to South Beach), their teams desperately wanted them back and got nothing when they left. Lumping trades which (in theory) are intended to benefit both teams in with free-agent decisions which benefit only one side is just not accurate.
I'm not saying Durant, James, etc., shouldn't pursue their careers as they see fit, but how they left teams for better title chances elsewhere simply is not analogous to the examples you gave.


???  I never meant to compare what the other teams got in return.  I was simply commenting on Merritt's statement: "It's not that he didn't "deserve" it and it's not like he didn't earn it. He's now the best player on the best team and the Finals MVP, but it still feels like he took a shortcut."

My point is that players have taken such "shortcuts" throughout the history of the NBA.  Instead of sticking around where they are, they have left to make their path to a ring easier.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 14, 2017, 02:11:58 PM

???  I never meant to compare what the other teams got in return.  I was simply commenting on Merritt's statement: "It's not that he didn't "deserve" it and it's not like he didn't earn it. He's now the best player on the best team and the Finals MVP, but it still feels like he took a shortcut."

My point is that players have taken such "shortcuts" throughout the history of the NBA.  Instead of sticking around where they are, they have left to make their path to a ring easier.

I never said that Durant was the first player to do this and I also said that I don't blame him for leaving OKC (i.e. Westbrook).

The difference between Durant and your other examples is that OKC was a legit title contender who was 1 win away from the NBA Finals when Durant left to join the team that knocked them out. If Durant left for Boston or DC or somewhere else and won a title, it would have had a different feel to it. Drexler was traded to Houston midseason because Portland wasn't very good. Malone was on an average Rockets team when he signed his offer with Philly. Durant left one contender for another.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 14, 2017, 02:14:12 PM
I am one of the coaches with a good team this year.  Between coaching these kids over the last few years in little league, travel ball through the league, and fall ball, my Co-coach and I had a situation this year where we had more parents requesting their kids be put on our team than we had room for.  We deliberately took 3 of the smallest, least talented players at the tryouts out of a sense of .... guilt?...... decency? 
  It will all change over the next year as our players move up into the next level.  Next year, our kids will take their lumps all over again.  But it will be a fun new challenge.

Let's be honest, that's also a d!ck move. "We're so good that we'll take the worst kids to give some other teams a chance to be good for a change."  ;)

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 14, 2017, 02:22:07 PM
I never said that Durant was the first player to do this and I also said that I don't blame him for leaving OKC (i.e. Westbrook).

The difference between Durant and your other examples is that OKC was a legit title contender who was 1 win away from the NBA Finals when Durant left to join the team that knocked them out. If Durant left for Boston or DC or somewhere else and won a title, it would have had a different feel to it. Drexler was traded to Houston midseason because Portland wasn't very good. Malone was on an average Rockets team when he signed his offer with Philly. Durant left one contender for another.

FWIW, the Houston team to which Drexler was traded to finished the season as a 6 seed then got hot and won the title.
Golden State was a 7-4 title favorite before adding Durant.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 14, 2017, 02:29:42 PM
Let's be honest, that's also a d!ck move. "We're so good that we'll take the worst kids to give some other teams a chance to be good for a change."  ;)

I've worked harder with them than the other kids.   We have turned one into an 8 year-old pitcher who can compete with 10 year olds.   One has turned into a complete hustling dirtbag who can be plugged in anywhere on defense.    The third..... well, he gets lots of walks.   
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 14, 2017, 02:30:07 PM
FWIW, the Houston team to which Drexler was traded to finished the season as a 6 seed then got hot and won the title.
Golden State was a 7-4 title favorite before adding Durant.


The Rockets were the defending NBA champions. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 14, 2017, 02:33:23 PM
I've worked harder with them than the other kids.   We have turned one into an 8 year-old pitcher who can compete with 10 year olds.   One has turned into a complete hustling dirtbag who can be plugged in anywhere on defense.    The third..... well, he gets lots of walks.

Nice job! Get the kids, coach 'em up, create a fun environment, send 'em to the next level. That's coaching youth sports.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 14, 2017, 02:37:26 PM

The Rockets were the defending NBA champions.

And a 6th place team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 14, 2017, 02:40:49 PM
I've worked harder with them than the other kids.   We have turned one into an 8 year-old pitcher who can compete with 10 year olds.   One has turned into a complete hustling dirtbag who can be plugged in anywhere on defense.    The third..... well, he gets lots of walks.

(http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/96331/file-16213481-gif/images/waynesworldnotworthy.gif)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 14, 2017, 02:41:47 PM
Nice job! Get the kids, coach 'em up, create a fun environment, send 'em to the next level. That's coaching youth sports.

I love that goose bump moment where a kid you have been working with takes a new skill out onto the field/court and executes it exactly like you have been working on.     The first fly ball catch, the first crossover dribble, the first time the catcher throws out the runner at second with perfect footwork, the first perfectly executed back door lay up, the first double play.      ....laughing all the way.....
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 14, 2017, 03:41:30 PM
And a 6th place team.


Fine.

You're right. Durant is the first guy to chase a ring this way. A unique case. Unprecedented.

In fact I doubt it ever happens again it's so out of this world strange.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 14, 2017, 05:27:50 PM

Fine.

You're right. Durant is the first guy to chase a ring this way. A unique case. Unprecedented.

In fact I doubt it ever happens again it's so out of this world strange.

Now now, aren't we a little piqued?
Your efforts to draw parallels between Malone, Drexler and Durant were doomed from the start. All three situations were markedly different.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 14, 2017, 11:51:10 PM
I love that goose bump moment where a kid you have been working with takes a new skill out onto the field/court and executes it exactly like you have been working on.     The first fly ball catch, the first crossover dribble, the first time the catcher throws out the runner at second with perfect footwork, the first perfectly executed back door lay up, the first double play.      ....laughing all the way.....

Yep, it's a true joy to see that light bulb come on!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 16, 2017, 07:55:06 AM
If this GM search isn't the most Bucks thing I've ever seen...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on June 16, 2017, 09:06:18 AM
If this GM search isn't the most Bucks thing I've ever seen...

You'd think after the messy Kidd hire they'd do better. Although if it ends up with a good GM, I don't think it matters much.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on June 16, 2017, 10:31:07 AM
You'd think after the messy Kidd hire they'd do better. Although if it ends up with a good GM, I don't think it matters much.

I got up to speed. What a mess.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 16, 2017, 10:33:42 AM
Let's hire someone to lead our search for us and then hire someone who wasn't even on the very initial list of potential candidates that you might even want to consider contacting about the job...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 16, 2017, 12:45:23 PM
I know nothing about this guy.  I know nothing about the other guys.  Time will tell if its a good hire or not.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on June 19, 2017, 03:59:10 PM
Will the Celtics trade that #3 (from Philly) for JFB?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 19, 2017, 04:07:19 PM
I would be surprised if they did - I think if the Celts deal for a star was going to go down this year, they just would've flipped the #1 overall as the centerpiece to the deal. I think they're going to follow the Morey model of just continuing to try to accumulate assets, and where you can't get additional assets, trade current picks for future picks to kick the can until the right deal comes along. More likely that additional Lakers/Kings pick is a piece of the package that turns into that cornerstone veteran-type player.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on June 19, 2017, 04:45:06 PM
Sounds like everyone, including Cavs, trying to get their hands on Jimmy.

Can we throw gar and pax into the deal?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 19, 2017, 05:01:35 PM
Sounds like everyone, including Cavs, trying to get their hands on Jimmy.

Can we throw gar and pax into the deal?

I'd trade them for a bag of those synthetic basketballs the NBA used for half a season that the players hated.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on June 22, 2017, 07:37:48 PM
GarPax strikes again!

https://twitter.com/AndyGlockner/status/878041165949304832

https://twitter.com/AmicoHoops/status/878048620053790720
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 22, 2017, 07:58:57 PM
Taught Kennard woulda bin a purfect pik four da Bucks, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 22, 2017, 08:11:33 PM
Taught Kennard woulda bin a purfect pik four da Bucks, hey?

No. Would've been horrendous. Thank goodness him and Bam were taken before we could've messed up and taken them. Now just hope Patten goes beforehand. Then it's all gravy.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 22, 2017, 08:16:27 PM
I was hoping for Justin Jackson.  Just missed him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 22, 2017, 08:20:25 PM
I was hoping for Justin Jackson.  Just missed him.

I agree with this analysis.

If possible to get an extra pick I'd love to trade down into the very late first or early second and get Rabb or Bell.

Wouldn't hate Giles but could also turn out to be a total bust. But at 17 I'd much rather go boom or bust.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 22, 2017, 08:30:22 PM
I'm surprised by the Wilson pick but don't hate it. Adds to the #alllengthteam
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 22, 2017, 08:31:37 PM
Sure dat wusant Derrick Wilson dey picked, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 22, 2017, 08:34:40 PM
Has size and athleticism and should be able to stretch the floor. Potential is there. Not sure I would've went that route but could pay off.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 22, 2017, 08:42:12 PM
See, hey?



Gery Woelfel: Bucks were very interested in Kennard and wanted to bring him in for workout. Kennard’s agent told them hewouldn’t get to 17. He was correct – via Twitter GeryWoelfel
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 27, 2017, 06:10:08 PM
http://www.totalprosports.com/2017/06/25/the-jimmy-butler-trade-was-so-bad-for-the-chicago-bulls-that-nba-2k-rejects-it/

Lol.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 27, 2017, 08:23:37 PM
http://www.totalprosports.com/2017/06/25/the-jimmy-butler-trade-was-so-bad-for-the-chicago-bulls-that-nba-2k-rejects-it/

Lol.

If you have ever tried to trade anyone in 2k, you would know how impossible it is.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on June 28, 2017, 07:36:39 AM
Team President Phil Jackson is supposedly getting fired by the Knicks today.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 28, 2017, 08:46:35 AM
If you have ever tried to trade anyone in 2k, you would know how impossible it is.

Man, I remember the good old days of NBA Action 98 where they had a force trade button. The 96 Bulls had nothing on my super team of Gary Payton, Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Karl Malone, and David Robinson.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on June 30, 2017, 08:51:16 PM
Paul George to OKC for Oladipo and Sabonis. They should be interesting next year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 30, 2017, 09:31:52 PM
That is a horrible move for OKC. Quite a haul for a 1 year rental.

If the rumors are correct that Boston offered 3 firsts, Jae, and another starter I have to assume the 3 firsts were Boston's firsts for the next 3 years.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 30, 2017, 09:56:18 PM
Well so far twitter has said the complete opposite in the fact that this is a great trade for OKC. Maybe you can convince Russ to stay longer and if not, you can blow the whole thing up really easily.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 30, 2017, 10:00:18 PM
You just traded away 2 young pieces for a guy who has said multiple times he's going to be playing for the Lakers in a year and has already started recruiting other players to join him there in a year in which your absolute best case scenario with him is losing in the 2nd round as a 4 seed.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on June 30, 2017, 10:08:30 PM
Some of it is getting rid of Oladipo's contract. He's making $20 million per year. It's almost a salary dump that brought back an All-Star. I doubt he resigns, but there is a possibility.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 01, 2017, 06:06:05 AM
You just traded away 2 young pieces for a guy who has said multiple times he's going to be playing for the Lakers in a year and has already started recruiting other players to join him there in a year in which your absolute best case scenario with him is losing in the 2nd round as a 4 seed.

Maybe OKC management already has determined that those young pieces cannot help put together a championship puzzle and that one of them (Oladipo) is drastically overpaid.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: drewm88 on July 01, 2017, 11:04:25 AM
That is a horrible move for OKC. Quite a haul for a 1 year rental.

If the rumors are correct that Boston offered 3 firsts, Jae, and another starter I have to assume the 3 firsts were Boston's firsts for the next 3 years.

You are literally the first person I've seen who's called this anything but a steal for OKC. A salary dump and Sabonis for an All Star who pairs very well with Russ. If it doesn't work, or if it's not looking good midseason, you can swap him for assets probably as good as what they gave up.

If it does work, maybe Russ convinces him they can both make it work there long term.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on July 01, 2017, 12:01:46 PM
The OKC trade just makes the East more dreadful and the West stronger.  It is crazy how unbalanced team talent is in the NBA.  At some point they should consider dropping East vs. West when they get to the playoffs and just seeding teams top to bottom. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 01, 2017, 12:27:48 PM
Zach Lowe pretty much agrees that this was a good deal for OKC:

"This is almost a risk-free gamble for the Thunder. Oladipo is a nice player, but he's 25, and still hasn't developed into the two-way wing monster some projected. He's an average 3-point shooter opponents leave open, an erratic drive-and-kick guy, and a so-so defender with inconsistent habits. He's coming off the worst season of his career by most measures, though playing alongside Westbrook in the highest-usage season in recorded NBA history deflated everyone's numbers. Still: The fit was awkward.

Oladipo is fine. He's also making $21 million per year, a price point at which you hope to get better than fine. Domantas Sabonis, also headed to Indiana, is a mildly intriguing prospect who might turn into a playmaking power forward with some 3-point range. He flamed out after a promising start -- not unusual for rookies -- and attempted 67 free throws all season. You give up that stuff in a second for Paul freaking George. Paul George is a boss. In the worst case, he and Westbrook leave, and you start a new tanking scheme. (Whether Presti would stick around to guide it is an interesting hypothetical.)"
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 01, 2017, 01:10:12 PM
Zach Lowe pretty much agrees that this was a good deal for OKC:

"This is almost a risk-free gamble for the Thunder. Oladipo is a nice player, but he's 25, and still hasn't developed into the two-way wing monster some projected. He's an average 3-point shooter opponents leave open, an erratic drive-and-kick guy, and a so-so defender with inconsistent habits. He's coming off the worst season of his career by most measures, though playing alongside Westbrook in the highest-usage season in recorded NBA history deflated everyone's numbers. Still: The fit was awkward.

Oladipo is fine. He's also making $21 million per year, a price point at which you hope to get better than fine. Domantas Sabonis, also headed to Indiana, is a mildly intriguing prospect who might turn into a playmaking power forward with some 3-point range. He flamed out after a promising start -- not unusual for rookies -- and attempted 67 free throws all season. You give up that stuff in a second for Paul freaking George. Paul George is a boss. In the worst case, he and Westbrook leave, and you start a new tanking scheme. (Whether Presti would stick around to guide it is an interesting hypothetical.)"

This is a reasonable viewpoint.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 01, 2017, 02:17:35 PM
You are literally the first person I've seen who's called this anything but a steal for OKC. A salary dump and Sabonis for an All Star who pairs very well with Russ. If it doesn't work, or if it's not looking good midseason, you can swap him for assets probably as good as what they gave up.

If it does work, maybe Russ convinces him they can both make it work there long term.

I would put it at about 50x more likely that Paul George convinces Russell Westbrook to head out to LA after the 18-19 season than it is that Russell Westbrook convinces Paul George to stay in Oklahoma City long term.

You just traded a 25 year old who averaged 16 and 4 next to a point guard who shot the ball 24 times per game and a promising rookie to move yourself from the 6 seed in the West to the 4 seed in the West, and 1 year later you'll be right back to the 6 seed.  And you're going to be sitting at the 4 seed, telling everyone who will listen that you're a true contender now with Russ and PG, and then trade PG midseason?  Yeah, that's not happening.

Oladipo and Sabonis will do much more for the Pacers in their careers than Paul George will do for the Thunder.

But I do hope the Thunder enjoy beating the Grizzlies in the first round and getting swept by the Warriors in the 2nd round next year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on July 01, 2017, 02:24:01 PM
You just traded a 25 year old who averaged 16 and 4 next to a point guard who shot the ball 24 times per game and a promising rookie to move yourself from the 6 seed in the West to the 4 seed in the West, and 1 year later you'll be right back to the 6 seed.

Oladipo and Sabonis will do much more for the Pacers in their careers than Paul George will do for the Thunder.

But I do hope the Thunder enjoy beating the Grizzlies in the first round and getting swept by the Thunder in the 2nd round next year.

Oladipo and Sabonis "doing more" for the Pacers over the next couple of years wouldn't be a good reason for the Thunder to not make this trade.That production isn't in a vacuum and needs to be seen as part of a greater franchise direction. If Westbrook leaves, they're in a full on rebuild with or without George. Sure, Sabonis could have been a part of that. But with his contract, Oladipo was never going to bring a useful return (or at least not for 2-3 years, until his expiring contract IS the value).

The part of your post that I underlined above is ultimately the real context for your evaluation of this trade, but we've definitely been down that road earlier in this thread.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 01, 2017, 02:30:19 PM

Oladipo and Sabonis "doing more" for the Pacers over the next couple of years wouldn't be a good reason for the Thunder to not make this trade.That production isn't in a vacuum and needs to be seen as part of a greater franchise direction. If Westbrook leaves, they're in a full on rebuild with or without George. Sure, Sabonis could have been a part of that. But with his contract, Oladipo was never going to bring a useful return (or at least not for 2-3 years, until his expiring contract IS the value).

The part of your post that I underlined above is ultimately the real context for your evaluation of this trade, but we've definitely been down that road earlier in this thread.

Not really.  The context is with or without Paul George the outcome of next season, the only season they will have Paul George for, is more or less exactly the same.  Compete in, and possibly win, a first round series and then get completely overmatched in the second round.  So why in the world would you trade away assets when you're losing the asset you got in return for them in a year?

The only teams that should've considered trading for George were the Rockets, Spurs, Cavs, and Celtics if they landed Hayward.  If you aren't going to win a title, or at least make a serious run for one, with Paul George next year, it makes no sense at all to trade him.  And the Thunder are nowhere near on par with the Warriors, or even the Rockets or Spurs.

And Oladipo's $21M is going to be just fine 3 years from now.  You aren't paying attention to what's happening with player contracts if you think $21M for a good scoring guard is something that is going to hold a franchise back.  The guy is 25 and averages 16 and 4 for his career.  He had a 51% eFG% last year (for comparison, Russell Westbrook had an eFG% of 47% last year).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 01, 2017, 02:45:55 PM
I'd have made the trade. But I respect those who feel differently. wades' explanation about why he wouldn't have done it is compelling.

If the goal is to win a championship - or at least to seriously contend for one - it's pretty easy to predict that this trade will have ended up helping neither team.

Maybe OKC will be a mediocrity as the trade deadline approaches next season and they'll send George to one of the teams wades named, and they'll get something back that's BETTER than what they gave up to get him. Or maybe not.

We'll see!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 01, 2017, 03:19:46 PM
Not really.  The context is with or without Paul George the outcome of next season, the only season they will have Paul George for, is more or less exactly the same.  Compete in, and possibly win, a first round series and then get completely overmatched in the second round.  So why in the world would you trade away assets when you're losing the asset you got in return for them in a year?

The only teams that should've considered trading for George were the Rockets, Spurs, Cavs, and Celtics if they landed Hayward.  If you aren't going to win a title, or at least make a serious run for one, with Paul George next year, it makes no sense at all to trade him.  And the Thunder are nowhere near on par with the Warriors, or even the Rockets or Spurs.

And Oladipo's $21M is going to be just fine 3 years from now.  You aren't paying attention to what's happening with player contracts if you think $21M for a good scoring guard is something that is going to hold a franchise back.  The guy is 25 and averages 16 and 4 for his career.  He had a 51% eFG% last year (for comparison, Russell Westbrook had an eFG% of 47% last year).


So what exactly would you do if you were OKC?

You have one of the best players in the league for one more year.  Do you trade him now?  During the year?  Hold onto him and hope he stays?

Or do you get better this year by acquiring George and hope that both stay?  And if it doesn't work, you have two assets to trade.

Victor Oladipo isn't the type of player you build around.  He's a complementary player and that's about it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on July 01, 2017, 05:57:33 PM
Wades, there aren't people in Oladipo's camp arguing for him as hard as you are.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 01, 2017, 06:39:22 PM
Wades, there aren't people in Oladipo's camp arguing for him as hard as you are.

That just means that after the Thunder lose in the second round and Paul George is on his way to LA next year I can be the only person that can say, "I told you so," after Oladipo averages 20, 5, and 4 next year while shooting a better percentage than Russel Westbrook and Sabonas shows some big promise as a 21 year old stretch 4.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 01, 2017, 07:20:47 PM
That just means that after the Thunder lose in the second round and Paul George is on his way to LA next year I can be the only person that can say, "I told you so," after Oladipo averages 20, 5, and 4 next year while shooting a better percentage than Russel Westbrook and Sabonas shows some big promise as a 21 year old stretch 4.

OK. Oladipo will of course average those career highs because he is playing on a dumpster fire of a team, where he will be the best player, which is actually quite sad.  Of course OKC will be better next year, but even if Paul George leaves after a year, where are the two franchises because of this trade?  OKC is likely out of the playoffs, and at absolute best Indy is sniffing a 6-8 seed, which is almost as bad, and some would argue worse.

OKC is taking a risk. OKC judged that if they could send an unproven rookie and a role player for a top 15 (top 10?) NBA talent, on the chance to resign him, is better than what they sent away.  Not too mention, Russy, your 2nd favorite player after LBJ is a free agent soon, so Presti is gambling that by bringing 2 All NBA talents together, even for season could blossom into something larger.

Obvi, only time will tell.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 01, 2017, 07:23:59 PM
That just means that after the Thunder lose in the second round and Paul George is on his way to LA next year I can be the only person that can say, "I told you so," after Oladipo averages 20, 5, and 4 next year while shooting a better percentage than Russel Westbrook and Sabonas shows some big promise as a 21 year old stretch 4.


You are correct.  If Oladipo and Sabonis turn out better than almost everyone else thinks they are, then you will be right.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 01, 2017, 07:29:37 PM
OK. Oladipo will of course average those career highs because he is playing on a dumpster fire of a team, where he will be the best player, which is actually quite sad.  Of course OKC will be better next year, but even if Paul George leaves after a year, where are the two franchises because of this trade?  OKC is likely out of the playoffs, and at absolute best Indy is sniffing a 6-8 seed, which is almost as bad, and some would argue worse.

OKC is taking a risk. OKC judged that if they could send an unproven rookie and a role player for a top 15 (top 10?) NBA talent, on the chance to resign him, is better than what they sent away.  Not too mention, Russy, your 2nd favorite player after LBJ is a free agent soon, so Presti is gambling that by bringing 2 All NBA talents together, even for season could blossom into something larger.

Obvi, only time will tell.

He averaged 18, 4, and 4 as a second year player. It's not like he was an 8 and 4 guy last year either. He averaged 16 and 4 last year. I would hope Oladipo's career high numbers are still to come for him. 25 year old, 4th year basketball players sometimes improve their numbers. Especially when they get more touches.

If Presti thinks he can convince Paul George to skip out on heading home to SoCal in order to stay with his shoot first, second, and third PG in Oklahoma City, OK despite his openly stating his intentions to head back to sunny SoCal a number of times then more power to the guy. He has some supreme confidence in himself and the beautiful city of OKC I guess.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 01, 2017, 07:58:33 PM
He averaged 18, 4, and 4 as a second year player. It's not like he was an 8 and 4 guy last year either. He averaged 16 and 4 last year. I would hope Oladipo's career high numbers are still to come for him. 25 year old, 4th year basketball players sometimes improve their numbers. Especially when they get more touches.

If Presti thinks he can convince Paul George to skip out on heading home to SoCal in order to stay with his shoot first, second, and third PG in Oklahoma City, OK despite his openly stating his intentions to head back to sunny SoCal a number of times then more power to the guy. He has some supreme confidence in himself and the beautiful city of OKC I guess.

You are much smarter than this, you know much more about the NBA than most on this board (myself included).

Don't take my word for it, literally take nearly all experts @ ESPN, the Ringer, the consensus @ NBAreddit, Deadspin, and just about everywhere else that the risk was worth it.  This is how risk, odds and probability work. Now, if in 14 months PG signs with the Lake show, does it make you right, and me /and the experts wrong?  In your head yes, but people are judging this on what could be.

Methinks you are just a contrarian by nature, or just have axes to grind against certain players.

Looking forward to watching some OKC games next year fo show.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 01, 2017, 08:07:13 PM
You are much smarter than this, you know much more about the NBA than most on this board (myself included).

Don't take my word for it, literally take nearly all experts @ ESPN, the Ringer, the consensus @ NBAreddit, Deadspin, and just about everywhere else that the risk was worth it.  This is how risk, odds and probability work. Now, if in 14 months PG signs with the Lake show, does it make you right, and me /and the experts wrong?  In your head yes, but people are judging this on what could be.

Methinks you are just a contrarian by nature, or just have axes to grind against certain players.

Looking forward to watching some OKC games next year fo show.

Lol.  So if it happens exactly as I say it is going to happen I'm only right in my head.  Got it.  Now that makes some sense.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 01, 2017, 08:09:24 PM
Lol.  So if it happens exactly as I say it is going to happen I'm only right in my head.  Got it.  Now that makes some sense.

OK, I'm now convinced you have zero knowledge of risk assessment. We can all move on.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 01, 2017, 08:40:26 PM
OK, I'm now convinced you have zero knowledge of risk assessment. We can all move on.

Paul George and the Golden State Warriors make this one pretty simple. It's really not that hard. So I'm glad we can all move on.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on July 01, 2017, 10:46:49 PM
Paul George and the Golden State Warriors make this one pretty simple. It's really not that hard. So I'm glad we can all move on.

In your opinion, should any front offices outside of Golden State, Cleveland, Houston, San Antonio or Boston be trying to win the 2018 NBA championship?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 01, 2017, 10:55:52 PM
In your opinion, should any front offices outside of Golden State, Cleveland, Houston, San Antonio or Boston be trying to win the 2018 NBA championship?

No.  I would be looking 2 years down the road.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 02, 2017, 07:55:21 AM
In your opinion, should any front offices outside of Golden State, Cleveland, Houston, San Antonio or Boston be trying to win the 2018 NBA championship?

Yes, the Minnesota Timberwolves
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 02, 2017, 08:22:14 AM
Yes, the Minnesota Timberwolves

Lol.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 02, 2017, 08:32:11 AM
The Timberwolves aren't going to win it next year, but they are trying to set themselves up for a year or two down the road.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 02, 2017, 09:57:35 AM
Lol.

JFB 4 MVP 2018!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 02, 2017, 05:13:28 PM
Was hoping the Raptors would blow it up and start the rebuild now.  Would have cleared the path for the bucks to finish in the top half of the playoffs standings.  I wonder how well Lowry will be playing at the end of this contract.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: #UnleashSean on July 02, 2017, 11:14:58 PM
You are much smarter than this, you know much more about the NBA than most on this board (myself included).

Don't take my word for it, literally take nearly all experts @ ESPN, the Ringer, the consensus @ NBAreddit, Deadspin, and just about everywhere else that the risk was worth it.  This is how risk, odds and probability work. Now, if in 14 months PG signs with the Lake show, does it make you right, and me /and the experts wrong?  In your head yes, but people are judging this on what could be.

Methinks you are just a contrarian by nature, or just have axes to grind against certain players.

Looking forward to watching some OKC games next year fo show.


Just a psa. None of those people are experts. If they were they would be in a team's front office.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 03, 2017, 06:29:34 AM

Just a psa. None of those people are experts. If they were they would be in a team's front office.

Okay, apparently the entire sports journalism business is just bullcrap then, since the only opinions that matter are the people who work for teams.  ::)

Also, still waiting to hear about the terms of our bet, that the Brewers will be out of contention by the ASG, with both the Cards and Cubs ahead of them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 03, 2017, 08:13:22 AM
Per Woj: Derrick Rose meeting with Bucks officials today.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 03, 2017, 08:38:20 AM
If George stays after this season, it's a win for OKC. Even though it wouldn't make them a legit contender, it shows Westbrook that they're trying to build around him and he's more likely to stay long-term. Keep Westbrook and you keep an exciting player in OKC and keep fans in the seats. If PG wants to go to LA, you can try to work a sign-and-trade and potentially end up with a couple decent players from LA (Randle, Clarkson, etc). Sam Presti knows that George still doesn't put OKC all that close to being on GS's level.

There's this notion that NBA team are either true contenders or they should be tanking. However, there are a lot of teams out there who's front offices (and fans) would be more than happy perennially landing in that 2 to 5 seed range and hoping to make a run to the conference finals. Teams make money, fans get to experience more playoff basketball and everybody wins on some level. When the Bulls were good in the early 2010s, they were a fun team to watch and root for even though, deep down, Bulls fans knew they weren't getting past LeBron.

Sidenote: The Celtics do offer packages of picks but they want the picks so protected that it's not worth it for the potential trade partner (i.e. they were willing to include the Nets' 2017 pick for Butler in-season, but wanted the pick to be top 3 protected). After the fact, they then let it leak that Team A turned down a seemingly great deal with a bunch of 1st Rounders. The intent is to make Ainge look like he's going for it even though the deal isn't necessarily what it seems.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on July 03, 2017, 08:40:48 AM
Per Woj: Derrick Rose meeting with Bucks officials today.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

The thought of getting out from under some bad contracts, only to sign Derrick Rose is depressing.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 03, 2017, 08:49:43 AM
The thought of getting out from under some bad contracts, only to sign Derrick Rose is depressing.

Depends on how much you pay him and for how long.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 03, 2017, 08:53:01 AM
The thought of getting out from under some bad contracts, only to sign Derrick Rose is depressing.

Eric Bledsoe is on the block in Phoenix and the Suns are looking for help at PF. Would Henson/ Teletovic/Hawes and a 1st Rounder be enough? That deal plus throw in Vaughn? Probably not. It could worth a call because I happen to think that Bledsoe would be a great fit with the Bucks and make them a top 3 team in the weakened East.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jsglow on July 03, 2017, 10:38:40 AM
Per Woj: Derrick Rose meeting with Bucks officials today.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a guy who had 'muscle memory' issues and couldn't bother to dress during the playoffs when JFB was logging 48 every night AND while active players were flu stricken, upchucking into buckets on the bench, then returning to the floor. Not that guy.  Ever.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 03, 2017, 11:02:37 AM
If George stays after this season, it's a win for OKC. Even though it wouldn't make them a legit contender, it shows Westbrook that they're trying to build around him and he's more likely to stay long-term. Keep Westbrook and you keep an exciting player in OKC and keep fans in the seats. If PG wants to go to LA, you can try to work a sign-and-trade and potentially end up with a couple decent players from LA (Randle, Clarkson, etc). Sam Presti knows that George still doesn't put OKC all that close to being on GS's level.

There's this notion that NBA team are either true contenders or they should be tanking. However, there are a lot of teams out there who's front offices (and fans) would be more than happy perennially landing in that 2 to 5 seed range and hoping to make a run to the conference finals. Teams make money, fans get to experience more playoff basketball and everybody wins on some level. When the Bulls were good in the early 2010s, they were a fun team to watch and root for even though, deep down, Bulls fans knew they weren't getting past LeBron.

Sidenote: The Celtics do offer packages of picks but they want the picks so protected that it's not worth it for the potential trade partner (i.e. they were willing to include the Nets' 2017 pick for Butler in-season, but wanted the pick to be top 3 protected). After the fact, they then let it leak that Team A turned down a seemingly great deal with a bunch of 1st Rounders. The intent is to make Ainge look like he's going for it even though the deal isn't necessarily what it seems.

Also, despite some posters' apparent belief in Oladipo's future as an NBA star, OKC is very happy to have his $21 million a year for the next four years off their books. That alone makes this trade worthwhile for them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 03, 2017, 01:57:44 PM
Also, despite some posters' apparent belief in Oladipo's future as an NBA star, OKC is very happy to have his $21 million a year for the next four years off their books. That alone makes this trade worthwhile for them.

Not a belief in Oladipo's future as an NBA star, just an understanding of the type of money that is being thrown around in the NBA in the past 2 offseasons.  Let's take a look at players who are making roughly the same, or more, money as Victor Oladipo next year.

Carmelo
McCollum
Wade
Beal
Dwight Howard
Parsons
Barnes
Brook Lopez
Steven Adams
Batum
Ryan Anderson
Allen Crabbe
Kanter
Wes Matthews
Joakim Noah
Luol Deng
Evan Turner

Some of these guys are better players, but not so much so that Oladipo for $21M is absurd compared to, say, Chandler Parson's $23M.  And with the Pacers Oladipo is going to be the man and will probably be more productive than most of these players.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 03, 2017, 02:12:32 PM
Not a belief in Oladipo's future as an NBA star, just an understanding of the type of money that is being thrown around in the NBA in the past 2 offseasons.  Let's take a look at players who are making roughly the same, or more, money as Victor Oladipo next year.

Carmelo
McCollum
Wade
Beal
Dwight Howard
Parsons
Barnes
Brook Lopez
Steven Adams
Batum
Ryan Anderson
Allen Crabbe
Kanter
Wes Matthews
Joakim Noah
Luol Deng
Evan Turner

Some of these guys are better players, but not so much so that Oladipo for $21M is absurd compared to, say, Chandler Parson's $23M.  And with the Pacers Oladipo is going to be the man and will probably be more productive than most of these players.

Not all NBA production is created equal. Putting up big numbers as "the man" on a bad team doesn't necessarily mean that a player is better than the #3 option on a contender.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 03, 2017, 02:13:58 PM
Not all NBA production is created equal. Putting up big numbers as "the man" on a bad team doesn't necessarily mean that a player is better than the #3 option on a contender.

So then that begs the question, what's the difference between Paul George putting up big numbers as "the man" on the exact same team Victor Oladipo might be doing it for next year vs. Victor Aladipo putting up those big numbers?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 03, 2017, 02:19:03 PM
So then that begs the question, what's the difference between Paul George putting up big numbers as "the man" on the exact same team Victor Oladipo might be doing it for next year vs. Victor Aladipo putting up those big numbers?

Because Paul George has proven to be the man on a team that made it to the Eastern Conference Finals.  Oladipo has yet to be the man, even on terrible Orlando teams.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 03, 2017, 02:22:01 PM
Not a belief in Oladipo's future as an NBA star, just an understanding of the type of money that is being thrown around in the NBA in the past 2 offseasons.  Let's take a look at players who are making roughly the same, or more, money as Victor Oladipo next year.

Some of these guys are better players, but not so much so that Oladipo for $21M is absurd compared to, say, Chandler Parson's $23M.  And with the Pacers Oladipo is going to be the man and will probably be more productive than most of these players.

Defending Oladipo's bad contract by pointing out other bad contracts doesn't make his contract any better.
I suppose I could just as easily point out all the players he's earning more than, in some cases significantly more, including:
Jimmy Butler
Draymond Green
Klay Thompson
Eric Bledsoe
John Wall
DeMarcus Cousins
Kemba Walker

As for his production, it's true that on a team with few other options, Oladipo likely will get a lot of shots and therefore score a lot of points. That's not necessarily a great measure of production though.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on July 03, 2017, 02:26:22 PM
If the Bucks are looking to clear space, they should go after George Hill if he's only looking for a one year deal. Granted, there may not be mutual interest as LA and Milwaukee are vastly different. Just seems like a much better fit than Rose would be.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 03, 2017, 02:30:44 PM
Defending Oladipo's bad contract by pointing out other bad contracts doesn't make his contract any better.
I suppose I could just as easily point out all the players he's earning more than, in some cases significantly more, including:
Jimmy Butler
Draymond Green
Klay Thompson
Eric Bledsoe
John Wall
DeMarcus Cousins
Kemba Walker

As for his production, it's true that on a team with few other options, Oladipo likely will get a lot of shots and therefore score a lot of points. That's not necessarily a great measure of production though.

AKA guys that were under contract prior to the giant salary cap jump last offseason.

Again, if you've been paying attention to what's gone on the last 2 offseasons you'd realize $21M/year for a 25 year old who averages 16/4/4 for his career is pretty much right where it should be for today's NBA money.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 03, 2017, 02:31:26 PM
So then that begs the question, what's the difference between Paul George putting up big numbers as "the man" on the exact same team Victor Oladipo might be doing it for next year vs. Victor Aladipo putting up those big numbers?

Paul George was "the man" on a team that twice went to the Conf Finals, once as the #1 seed in the East, and was within a game of going to the Finals. He has put up numbers that matter on very good teams. His team has been to the playoffs every year he's been healthy. When he was hurt, the Pacers dropped from 56 wins to 38 wins. On top of that, he's a bigger, better, more efficient basketball player than Victor Oladipo.

Oladipo is not going to put up 23-7-4 on .461/.393/.898.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 03, 2017, 03:19:43 PM
AKA guys that were under contract prior to the giant salary cap jump last offseason.

Again, if you've been paying attention to what's gone on the last 2 offseasons you'd realize $21M/year for a 25 year old who averages 16/4/4 for his career is pretty much right where it should be for today's NBA money.

You can find an Oladipo like player really whenever. Not a player you build around. Trading him to take a shot at George is well worth it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on July 03, 2017, 03:41:25 PM
If the Bucks are looking to clear space, they should go after George Hill if he's only looking for a one year deal. Granted, there may not be mutual interest as LA and Milwaukee are vastly different. Just seems like a much better fit than Rose would be.

That'd be great. No such thing as a bad one year contract.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 03, 2017, 04:04:56 PM
AKA guys that were under contract prior to the giant salary cap jump last offseason.

Ummm ... so was Oladipo.


Quote
Again, if you've been paying attention to what's gone on the last 2 offseasons you'd realize $21M/year for a 25 year old who averages 16/4/4 for his career is pretty much right where it should be for today's NBA money.

Huh.
Some comparables, with last year's stats. I'd welcome any others you might suggest. FWIW, Schroder, Fournier and Clarkson all signed extensions last year, just like Oladipo.

Tobias Harris, 24, 16/2/5 = $16 million
Dennis Schroder, 23, 18/6/3 = $15.5 million
Evan Fournier, 24, 17/3/3 = $17 million
Jordan Clarkson, 25, 15/3/3 = $11.5 million

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 03, 2017, 04:35:54 PM
Ummm ... so was Oladipo.


Huh.
Some comparables, with last year's stats. I'd welcome any others you might suggest. FWIW, Schroder, Fournier and Clarkson all signed extensions last year, just like Oladipo.

Tobias Harris, 24, 16/2/5 = $16 million
Dennis Schroder, 23, 18/6/3 = $15.5 million
Evan Fournier, 24, 17/3/3 = $17 million
Jordan Clarkson, 25, 15/3/3 = $11.5 million

What are you even talking about?  Oladipo signed an extension in October of 2016.  You can go all "Umm...huh..." if you'd like, but as much as you'd like it to, it doesn't change the fact that Oladipo signed his contract extension after the giant salary cap jump.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on July 03, 2017, 04:47:39 PM
Wades man, you're a bigger Oladipo fan than Tanned Tommy.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 03, 2017, 04:54:13 PM
What are you even talking about?  Oladipo signed an extension in October of 2016.  You can go all "Umm...huh..." if you'd like, but as much as you'd like it to, it doesn't change the fact that Oladipo signed his contract extension after the giant salary cap jump.

You said: "guys that were under contract prior to the giant salary cap jump last offseason."
Oladipo also was under contract prior to the giant salary cap last offseason. He was under contract when he signed his extension in October. That's why it's called an extension.

But hey, why not talk about the comparables? You said $21 million is standard for a player of Oladipo's age and production. I found four players of similar age and production who get paid much less. Three of those four signed extensions last year, like Oladipo, so they were re-upped in the same environment.
I found no similar players who are paid the same or more.
Who would you say is comparable?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 03, 2017, 05:19:55 PM
Wades man, you're a bigger Oladipo fan than Tanned Tommy.

I don't like Oladipo at all. I just have a basic understanding of what kind of money is out there in the NBA.

You said: "guys that were under contract prior to the giant salary cap jump last offseason."
Oladipo also was under contract prior to the giant salary cap last offseason. He was under contract when he signed his extension in October. That's why it's called an extension.

But hey, why not talk about the comparables? You said $21 million is standard for a player of Oladipo's age and production. I found four players of similar age and production who get paid much less. Three of those four signed extensions last year, like Oladipo, so they were re-upped in the same environment.
I found no similar players who are paid the same or more.
Who would you say is comparable?

We have been talking about Victor Oladipo's 21M/year price tag this entire time. He was under a rookie contract prior to the historic salary cap jump last offseason. He will start making that $21M/year this upcoming season. So no, his $21M/year contract was not signed prior to the cap jump. It's really not that difficult.

You don't have to like it. But players like Oladipo get the type of money he's getting with the salary cap the way it is.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 03, 2017, 05:28:26 PM
We have been talking about Victor Oladipo's 21M/year price tag this entire time. He was under a rookie contract prior to the historic salary cap jump last offseason. He will start making that $21M/year this upcoming season. So no, his $21M/year contract was not signed prior to the cap jump. It's really not that difficult.

You're very confused. Go back and re-read the thread and you might see where you went wrong.

Quote
You don't have to like it. But players like Oladipo get the type of money he's getting with the salary cap the way it is.

Name one.
I've named three who signed under the exact same circumstances and didn't get the type of money he's getting. Surely you can come up with one.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 03, 2017, 05:43:05 PM
I don't like Oladipo at all. I just have a basic understanding of what kind of money is out there in the NBA.

We have been talking about Victor Oladipo's 21M/year price tag this entire time. He was under a rookie contract prior to the historic salary cap jump last offseason. He will start making that $21M/year this upcoming season. So no, his $21M/year contract was not signed prior to the cap jump. It's really not that difficult.

You don't have to like it. But players like Oladipo get the type of money he's getting with the salary cap the way it is.

If you're not an Oladipo fan, then how could you not like this trade from OKC's point?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 03, 2017, 06:05:30 PM
You're very confused. Go back and re-read the thread and you might see where you went wrong.

Name one.
I've named three who signed under the exact same circumstances and didn't get the type of money he's getting. Surely you can come up with one.

Yeah. I'm the one that is confused. Says the guy claiming Oladipo was under his $21M/year contract during the previous cap.  :o Of course he was under contract prior to the cap jump. But not the contract paying him the $21M/Year the Thunder are getting out of, you know, the reason people are giving for making this trade worth it.

If you're not an Oladipo fan, then how could you not like this trade from OKC's point?

Because I don't think any team should be trading anything for a guy who has already publicly stated numerous times where he intends to sign as a free agent one year from the time they trade for him unless it's going to help them win a title. Which obviously it isn't going to do that for the Thunder. It doesn't help the Thunder achieve anything beyond maybe 4 extra Playoff losses.

I don't like Oladipo. I don't think $21M/year for a 25 year old who averages 16/4/4 on his career is an absurd contract in today's NBA. 4 years ago? Yup. Today? Pretty much what you'd expect. So why give up a 25 year old and a promising rookie to maybe make it to the 2nd round and then lose the piece you got? No reason to trade anything for Paul George for the Thunder.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 03, 2017, 07:11:13 PM
Yeah. I'm the one that is confused. Says the guy claiming Oladipo was under his $21M/year contract during the previous cap.  :o Of course he was under contract prior to the cap jump. But not the contract paying him the $21M/Year the Thunder are getting out of, you know, the reason people are giving for making this trade worth it.

Because I don't think any team should be trading anything for a guy who has already publicly stated numerous times where he intends to sign as a free agent one year from the time they trade for him unless it's going to help them win a title. Which obviously it isn't going to do that for the Thunder. It doesn't help the Thunder achieve anything beyond maybe 4 extra Playoff losses.

I don't like Oladipo. I don't think $21M/year for a 25 year old who averages 16/4/4 on his career is an absurd contract in today's NBA. 4 years ago? Yup. Today? Pretty much what you'd expect. So why give up a 25 year old and a promising rookie to maybe make it to the 2nd round and then lose the piece you got? No reason to trade anything for Paul George for the Thunder.


Because the upside is big.

And the downside isn't all that down.  Basically they are in a better place without the Oladipo contract if both Westbrook and George leave.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 03, 2017, 08:15:32 PM
With almost half the league expected over the luxury tax threshold next year, teams like OKC dumping bad contracts like Oladipo looks shrewd right now. The rental of George and the price next summer to take on horrendous contracts will be a great return for a team like OKC.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 03, 2017, 08:38:12 PM

Because the upside is big.

And the downside isn't all that down.  Basically they are in a better place without the Oladipo contract if both Westbrook and George leave.

I just don't see the big upside. If they are any better than 4th in the West and a 2nd round exit with George gone in a year and Oladipo isn't worth his contract and Sabonas is never more than a role guy I'll admit I was totally wrong. I just don't see anything other than that happening.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 03, 2017, 08:44:34 PM
I just don't see the big upside. If they are any better than 4th in the West and a 2nd round exit with George gone in a year and Oladipo isn't worth his contract and Sabonas is never more than a role guy I'll admit I was totally wrong. I just don't see anything other than that happening.


To be fair, I don't think either team gets a great deal out of this long-term.  I just think it is worth the shot from OKC's point of view.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 03, 2017, 10:12:24 PM
KD's 2-year, $53 million contract with the Warriors is the best deal any NBA team has gotten from an established free-agent superstar in a long effen time. Maybe since Michael got "only" $30M from the Jerrys in 1997.

I mean, some might rather have Oladipo at $21M than KD at $26.5M, but I'm gonna go crazy and say I'll take KD!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 03, 2017, 10:29:52 PM

To be fair, I don't think either team gets a great deal out of this long-term.  I just think it is worth the shot from OKC's point of view.

I don't think so either.  BUT I do think the Pacers are doing a pretty good job of putting together a team that should work well together.  You have a 25 year old slashing, athletic wing who isn't as efficient as you need him to be but hopefully with the added shooting around him and some development he becomes more efficient.  Then you have 2 bigs who can step out and spread the defense in the complete stud that is Myles Turner and what you hope Sabonas can bring.  Now they add Collison who, while he doesn't shoot a ton of 3s, makes a lot of the 3s he does shoot.

The way I see it, Turner is going to be an All Star player for a long time.  Between Oladipo, Sabonas, and Robinson you have 3 young guys who at the very least should be solid role players and at best solid starters.  Now if you draft well and/or can add one big splash free agent you can compete in the East in the next 3-5 years.

Meanwhile I just don't see the Thunder truly competing to make a run at a title in the foreseeable future.  They were the worst 3 point shooting team in the league and while George doesn't hurt, he's not an outstanding shooter either.  You need to be able to shoot the ball in today's NBA.  They don't have anybody to do that.  And then George is most likely gone, Russell quite possibly leaves the year after, and sure you have a TON of money to go out and spend, but who's going to Oklahoma City?  Players now are either going to big markets or to places they can win a title.  OKC is neither, at least not now.

KD's 2-year, $53 million contract with the Warriors is the best deal any NBA team has gotten from an established free-agent superstar in a long effen time. Maybe since Michael got "only" $30M from the Jerrys in 1997.

I mean, some might rather have Oladipo at $21M than KD at $26.5M, but I'm gonna go crazy and say I'll take KD!

Not sure who in their right mind would want Oladipo at $21M over KD at $26.5M, but maybe KD went to the Pacers and said, "Hey, I'd be interested in joining your squad if you want to dump Oladipo," and they just passed it up?  Doubtful, but, as KG once said about a roster of 4 Hall of Famers and another All Star point guard in his prime winning a title, "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!"
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 04, 2017, 01:03:36 PM
Not sure who in their right mind would want Oladipo at $21M over KD at $26.5M

I wasn't suggesting that there was any such choice, as you know. I just thought it interesting.

KD did what more superstars should. Here he is gonna get paid $26M for one season doing the thing he loves, and yet he is being viewed as a hero because he took less than he would have received from other teams to keep a championship squad together.

So he has the best of both worlds - he has gotten much, much richer as he builds wealth he couldn't spend in multiple lifetimes even as he is being celebrated as the ultimate unselfish, team-first athlete.

Should things go south in GS for some reason, he can opt out of year 2 and get his $40M per year then. Or he can get it 2 years from now. If that's even what he wants.

Smart PR move, and the rare occasion where it really "is about more than money." And yet he is guaranteed $53 million for his sacrifice!

Carmelo could have done the same thing (not to pick on him - many others could have too) but he went for the biggest payday possible rather than the chance to win.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 04, 2017, 01:15:50 PM
I wasn't suggesting that there was any such choice, as you know. I just thought it interesting.

Your last sentence said exactly that. "I mean, some might rather have Oladipo at $21M than KD at $26.5M, but I'm gonna go crazy and say I'll take KD!"

I think you'd struggle to find anyone who would take Oladipo over KD to save $5.5M, but maybe.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on July 04, 2017, 05:04:59 PM
Boston just got #DoneDeal'd
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 04, 2017, 05:07:32 PM
Hayward to Warriors for mini mid level exception, $5 million for one year.

July 4th Fools
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 04, 2017, 05:17:39 PM
Your last sentence said exactly that. "I mean, some might rather have Oladipo at $21M than KD at $26.5M, but I'm gonna go crazy and say I'll take KD!"

I think you'd struggle to find anyone who would take Oladipo over KD to save $5.5M, but maybe.

I was being sarcastic in that sentence.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 04, 2017, 06:00:12 PM
Boston just got #DoneDeal'd

Happened to them twice this offseason. Makes one wonder who the #source is
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 04, 2017, 06:41:17 PM
Boston just got #DoneDeal'd

Only kinda.

Unlike our donedeal, this one looks like it's still gonna happen.

Meanwhile, our donedeal is down in Austin, lickin' his wounds from 11-22 and trying to keep his recruits eligible.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 04, 2017, 07:00:15 PM
Only kinda.

Unlike our donedeal, this one looks like it's still gonna happen.

Meanwhile, our donedeal is down in Austin, lickin' his wounds from 11-22 and trying to keep his recruits eligible.


And apparently didn't happen because Hayward was writing a "Players Tribune" article. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 05, 2017, 08:40:52 AM
With Hayward, the Celtics may lose to Cleveland in 6 games instead of 5!

It sounds nice to pair Hayward with Thomas, but Thomas is an UFA after the season. This team is going to build around Hayward, Tatum and Brown. Along with Hayward's ~$32M, they owe Horford almost $30M for the next 3 seasons, plus Crowder and Tatum about $7M each. They also have decisions to make on Bradley and Smart. IT's gone in 2018-19.

Maybe Tatum or Brown end up being the real deal, but Hayward is, at best, on the Jimmy Butler level of star players who'd be a great #2 to a superstar player. You don't build a champion around Gordon Hayward.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on July 05, 2017, 08:43:03 AM
With Hayward, the Celtics may lose to Cleveland in 6 games instead of 5!

It sounds nice to pair Hayward with Thomas, but Thomas is an UFA after the season. This team is going to build around Hayward, Tatum and Brown. Along with Hayward's ~$32M, they owe Horford almost $30M for the next 3 seasons, plus Crowder and Tatum about $7M each. They also have decisions to make on Bradley and Smart. IT's gone in 2018-19.

Maybe Tatum or Brown end up being the real deal, but Hayward is, at best, on the Jimmy Butler level of star players who'd be a great #2 to a superstar player. You don't build a champion around Gordon Hayward.

I think some of those decisions have to happen before Hayward puts a pen to paper. They got rid of Olynk, but I think they will still have to move Smart or Crowder for financial purposes.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 05, 2017, 08:43:18 AM
With Hayward, the Celtics may lose to Cleveland in 6 games instead of 5!

It sounds nice to pair Hayward with Thomas, but Thomas is an UFA after the season. This team is going to build around Hayward, Tatum and Brown. Along with Hayward's ~$32M, they owe Horford almost $30M for the next 3 seasons, plus Crowder and Tatum about $7M each. They also have decisions to make on Bradley and Smart. IT's gone in 2018-19.

Maybe Tatum or Brown end up being the real deal, but Hayward is, at best, on the Jimmy Butler level of star players who'd be a great #2 to a superstar player. You don't build a champion around Gordon Hayward.



I do think they could have traded some of those future assets for Butler though.  I mean, if you are going to go after Cleveland, then go after them. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 05, 2017, 11:07:44 AM
With Hayward, the Celtics may lose to Cleveland in 6 games instead of 5!

It sounds nice to pair Hayward with Thomas, but Thomas is an UFA after the season. This team is going to build around Hayward, Tatum and Brown. Along with Hayward's ~$32M, they owe Horford almost $30M for the next 3 seasons, plus Crowder and Tatum about $7M each. They also have decisions to make on Bradley and Smart. IT's gone in 2018-19.

Maybe Tatum or Brown end up being the real deal, but Hayward is, at best, on the Jimmy Butler level of star players who'd be a great #2 to a superstar player. You don't build a champion around Gordon Hayward.

Butler > Hayward

Both in terms of ability and contract

Celtics should have done much more to get Butler
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 05, 2017, 12:17:33 PM
Butler > Hayward

Both in terms of ability and contract

Celtics should have done much more to get Butler

Yes, but Butler would have cost them a pick or two and a player. And he's a UFA in two years. That's not insigificnat, especially to Danny Ainge who loves having draft picks.

Hayward cost them nothing but cap space.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 05, 2017, 12:21:36 PM
I think some of those decisions have to happen before Hayward puts a pen to paper. They got rid of Olynk, but I think they will still have to move Smart or Crowder for financial purposes.

Word is out there that they're already trying to move Marcus Smart. Maybe Ainge can collect more picks that he'll be unwilling to trade without major protection  ;)

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on July 05, 2017, 12:21:47 PM
Butler > Hayward

Both in terms of ability and contract

Celtics should have done much more to get Butler

Agree. But they were able to get Hayward for no assets and Butler would have cost them some.

Also, Hayward might be a better fit in Boston's motion offense. Efficient, doesn't demand the ball like JB does. JB is a superior defender, although not by as much as you'd think.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 05, 2017, 12:25:33 PM
Yes, but Butler would have cost them a pick or two and a player. And he's a UFA in two years. That's not insigificnat, especially to Danny Ainge who loves having draft picks.

Hayward cost them nothing but cap space.


How many first round draft picks does a contending team need to have?  I think they have at least two next year and three in 2019.  You had the best record in the East last year, with a monster team in the way, and can't sacrifice a couple of those for a current All Star?  If you're going to go for it, then you go for it. 

The San Antonio Spurs have had only one top 20 pick (#20 in 2010) since they drafted Tim Duncan in 1999, and they have never had more than one first-round pick during that timeframe. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on July 05, 2017, 12:41:36 PM
Packages being discussed right now, don't know all the specifics but know Nader is talked about as one of the throw in pieces that some teams like. Jae was asked about by a few teams, don't know anything about Smart or Bradley.

I've also heard to not be shocked if Brown was a part of a deal. Still on a rookie contract obviously but Tatum and Heyward play that exact same position.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 05, 2017, 12:56:26 PM
Yes, but Butler would have cost them a pick or two and a player. And he's a UFA in two years. That's not insigificnat, especially to Danny Ainge who loves having draft picks.

Hayward cost them nothing but cap space.

Problem with this is that Hayward has a player option after year 3, so if you trade for Butler, you at least have them together for two years with Horford.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but Boston has a really odd window now. I like Tatum a lot, but Hayward is going to cut into his minutes. They have zero cap space next summer, but potentially two top 5 picks. Three of their top four guys from last year could be gone in 2018. Horford and Hayward are really good NBA players, but not superstars. Thomas is still 5'6'' and a great scorer, but he's not getting taller and is still awful on defense.

Boston is going to be really good, especially feasting on the East, I just think they have a weird mix of young guys, future assets, two FA signings that are good players over the last two summers, and their previous core group (Thomas, Bradley, Smart, Crowder) is going to have to get broken up next year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 05, 2017, 01:11:49 PM
Yes, but Butler would have cost them a pick or two and a player. And he's a UFA in two years. That's not insigificnat, especially to Danny Ainge who loves having draft picks.

Hayward cost them nothing but cap space.

They're likely going to end up moving a pick or two and a player anyway but they're definitely not going to get back anything close to Jimmy Butler.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 05, 2017, 04:00:32 PM
They're likely going to end up moving a pick or two and a player anyway but they're definitely not going to get back anything close to Jimmy Butler.

Yep

Butler was acquired by Minnesota for less than what Boston will have to give up to make the Hayward signing work
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 05, 2017, 04:31:09 PM
They're likely going to end up moving a pick or two and a player anyway but they're definitely not going to get back anything close to Jimmy Butler.

Let's not get carried away.
I agree Jimmy is the better player, but Hayward is a legit all star (in the better conference, no less).

Why would they have to move a pick? How does trading draft picks solve their cap issue? to the contrary, they're going to keep those draft picks to add young players on cap-friendly deals so they won't have to spend big to retain a guy like Marcus Smart of Avery Bradley next year.
A player, yes, but they'll get something in return for that player. And it'll likely be a player who they now view as expendable (looking at you, Jae).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 05, 2017, 04:31:42 PM
Butler was acquired by Minnesota for less than what Boston will have to give up to make the Hayward signing work
???
What do you think Boston is giving up?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 05, 2017, 05:09:20 PM
???
What do you think Boston is giving up?

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19834944/nba-forsberg-celtics-acquiring-gordon-hayward-analysis

Hayward's arrival will force the Celtics to tweak their roster in order to fund the four-year, $128 million contract he'll ink. Boston started that process Tuesday night by rescinding its qualifying offer to center Kelly Olynyk, which made the floor-stretching big an unrestricted free agent.

Boston will likely renounce its rights to a series of veteran free agents such as Jonas Jerebko and Gerald Green (players who could always come back on low-cost deals), waive the non-guaranteed salary of Jordan Mickey and waive or trade the partially guaranteed contract of Demetrius Jackson.

The harder decision looms with moving at least one key rotation player in order to fully create max cap space. The Celtics will consider the trade market for Avery Bradley (a free agent after this coming season), Marcus Smart (restricted next summer) and Jae Crowder (still on a sweetheart deal, but that could increase his trade value).

4 of the guys in bold are players I'd rather have - just one of them mind you - than both LaVine & Dunn
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on July 05, 2017, 05:12:33 PM
I'd much rather have Lavine than Crowder or Smart. Just so we can finally end this ridiculous conversation, the Celtics we're not offering the Bulls any draft picks for Butler, a Boston/Chicago trade was never going to happen.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 05, 2017, 05:58:11 PM
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19834944/nba-forsberg-celtics-acquiring-gordon-hayward-analysis

Hayward's arrival will force the Celtics to tweak their roster in order to fund the four-year, $128 million contract he'll ink. Boston started that process Tuesday night by rescinding its qualifying offer to center Kelly Olynyk, which made the floor-stretching big an unrestricted free agent.

Boston will likely renounce its rights to a series of veteran free agents such as Jonas Jerebko and Gerald Green (players who could always come back on low-cost deals), waive the non-guaranteed salary of Jordan Mickey and waive or trade the partially guaranteed contract of Demetrius Jackson.

The harder decision looms with moving at least one key rotation player in order to fully create max cap space. The Celtics will consider the trade market for Avery Bradley (a free agent after this coming season), Marcus Smart (restricted next summer) and Jae Crowder (still on a sweetheart deal, but that could increase his trade value).

4 of the guys in bold are players I'd rather have - just one of them mind you - than both LaVine & Dunn

So you're telling us you wouldn't trade Kelly Olynyk for Zach LaVine and Kris Dunn?
You wouldn't trade Marcus Smart - a guard who shoots 29 percent from behind the arc -  for Zach LaVine and Kris Dunn?
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'd be very surprised if many shares yours.
But hey, Smart or Crowder is about to be dealt. We'll see if they bring back a return comparable to Dunn and LaVine.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 05, 2017, 06:28:45 PM
When the C's trade for Marc Gasol it will have been a complete no brainer to keep the pieces they traded for him around for that trade and get Hayward in free agency over getting Butler in a trade and not having the pieces to trade for Gasol.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 05, 2017, 10:30:06 PM
When the C's trade for Marc Gasol it will have been a complete no brainer to keep the pieces they traded for him around for that trade and get Hayward in free agency over getting Butler in a trade and not having the pieces to trade for Gasol.

Well, I definitely agree with this. If Gasol to Boston happens, it will have been a nice bit of work by Ainge and Stevens. That's two fine pieces to the puzzle for a bunch of spare parts and cash.

That certainly would be an Eastern Conference championship team (as it almost was this past season). Still, if the goal is to beat the Warriors, I'm not sure how Gasol even stays on the court much. Who does he defend? KD? But I guess you worry about the Cavs first and maybe hope the Warriors get upset by somebody in the WC!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 06, 2017, 08:20:41 AM
Well, I definitely agree with this. If Gasol to Boston happens, it will have been a nice bit of work by Ainge and Stevens. That's two fine pieces to the puzzle for a bunch of spare parts and cash.

That certainly would be an Eastern Conference championship team (as it almost was this past season). Still, if the goal is to beat the Warriors, I'm not sure how Gasol even stays on the court much. Who does he defend? KD? But I guess you worry about the Cavs first and maybe hope the Warriors get upset by somebody in the WC!

There's maybe a 25% chance that Boston lands Gasol and it's more likely to happen in-season. Boston would also likely have to give up Brown or Tatum plus a few unprotected picks and they're likely going to deal Crowder and/or Bradley this offseason, plus IT would then almost certainly be gone after this season. It's an odd retooling going on in Boston right now. I think Ainge recognizes 1) the East is VERY weak and 2) Rondo's injury saved his team from getting bounced in the 1st Round by a bad team so changes were needed.

When all is said and done, I'm not sure they wouldn't have been better off just trading Crowder, Zeller's contract and Pick #3 to the Bulls for Butler.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 06, 2017, 04:43:26 PM
There's maybe a 25% chance that Boston lands Gasol and it's more likely to happen in-season. Boston would also likely have to give up Brown or Tatum plus a few unprotected picks and they're likely going to deal Crowder and/or Bradley this offseason, plus IT would then almost certainly be gone after this season. It's an odd retooling going on in Boston right now. I think Ainge recognizes 1) the East is VERY weak and 2) Rondo's injury saved his team from getting bounced in the 1st Round by a bad team so changes were needed.

When all is said and done, I'm not sure they wouldn't have been better off just trading Crowder, Zeller's contract and Pick #3 to the Bulls for Butler.

I guess we'll see. There's a lot of conjecture there in your first paragraph ... but I guess that's what all of us are doing now.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 07, 2017, 09:47:50 AM
I guess we'll see. There's a lot of conjecture there in your first paragraph ... but I guess that's what all of us are doing now.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll give you that the Gasol trade stuff was just a guess, but Bradley is headed to Detroit and Crowder is very likely going to be gone soon too.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 07, 2017, 02:35:02 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I'll give you that the Gasol trade stuff was just a guess, but Bradley is headed to Detroit and Crowder is very likely going to be gone soon too.

Crowder has the best contract:production ratio in the league and he's locked in for 3 more years. They'd be colossally stupid to let him go, other ways to make room now that Bradley is gone.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 07, 2017, 03:30:27 PM
Looks like Crowder stays now that Bradley is dealt.  Hayward will likely be the 2 with Crowder the 3.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 07, 2017, 05:31:55 PM
That was not a great trade by the Celtics, understand the salary dump, but Bradley is one tough defender. Morris + 2nd rounder...meh.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on July 13, 2017, 09:48:42 PM
Really hope Rose signs with the Bucks just for Wades.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20014101/derrick-rose-milwaukee-bucks-discussing-date-second-free-agency-meeting
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 13, 2017, 09:53:45 PM
Really hope Rose signs with the Bucks just for Wades.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20014101/derrick-rose-milwaukee-bucks-discussing-date-second-free-agency-meeting

Only difference will be whether he has a head cold, can't figure out his muscle memory, or just wants to skip out on a game he'd be watching a 2nd year player play over him anyways.  So sure, would be awesome if he won a title with the Bucks in a few years.

Heck, bring Cutler along for a ring watching Rodgers do his magic.  Maybe Arietta wants to get back on some roids and win another World Series with the Brewers in 3 years.

Just more proof that, hey, maybe it's not just blind Chicago hate and maybe someone just understands a bad athlete when he watches one.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 13, 2017, 10:03:34 PM
Only difference will be whether he has a head cold, can't figure out his muscle memory, or just wants to skip out on a game he'd be watching a 2nd year player play over him anyways.  So sure, would be awesome if he won a title with the Bucks in a few years.

Heck, bring Cutler along for a ring watching Rodgers do his magic.  Maybe Arietta wants to get back on some roids and win another World Series with the Brewers in 3 years.

Just more proof that, hey, maybe it's not just blind Chicago hate and maybe someone just understands a bad athlete when he watches one.

5 minutes and 3 seconds to respond.

Incredible.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 13, 2017, 10:49:55 PM
5 minutes and 3 seconds to respond.

Incredible.

9 minutes and 49 seconds to respond. Oddly creepy that you're into keeping track of my response times.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on July 14, 2017, 05:59:52 AM
Only difference will be whether he has a head cold, can't figure out his muscle memory, or just wants to skip out on a game he'd be watching a 2nd year player play over him anyways.  So sure, would be awesome if he won a title with the Bucks in a few years.

Heck, bring Cutler along for a ring watching Rodgers do his magic.  Maybe Arietta wants to get back on some roids and win another World Series with the Brewers in 3 years.

Just more proof that, hey, maybe it's not just blind Chicago hate and maybe someone just understands a bad athlete when he watches one.

It's mostly Chicago hate.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 14, 2017, 06:40:31 AM
It's mostly Chicago hate.

Yeah. My guess is this is the year Cutler finally reaches his potential and gets those Bears over the hump. Oh wait... Well then surely it's the year DRose finally leads the Bulls back to another title. Err...

But hey, with the All Star Break being in Miami I'm sure Jesu...I mean, Bosio invited Arietta and his new teammate Quintana to join him on a nice, relaxing vacation to watch their teammate lose the All Star Game while working out some kinks in their deliveries and we'll see the Cubs staff go from awful to the best in baseball in a solid 4 days to work those things out.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on July 14, 2017, 07:07:04 AM
I'm nervous to see the money he will get plus what we have to give up to clear salary. If we trade Henson and sign Rose to a short term deal less than 10 million a year, I think it's a decent signing. If we have to attach a first round pick or something to a player we are trading out, and it's a 3 year deal >10 million, it will be pretty bad.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 14, 2017, 07:54:09 AM
I'm nervous to see the money he will get plus what we have to give up to clear salary. If we trade Henson and sign Rose to a short term deal less than 10 million a year, I think it's a decent signing. If we have to attach a first round pick or something to a player we are trading out, and it's a 3 year deal >10 million, it will be pretty bad.

Yup.  Next year the best case for the Bucks would be Jabari comes back in the 2nd half and shows he will be able to be at least close to what he was pre-second ACL injury and the Bucks get a 3-5 seed before losing in the second round.  What is really important is unloading some of the awful contracts the Bucks have given out.  If you can rid yourself of a couple of Delly, Telly, and Henson you also have Hawes and Moose coming off the books next year.  Then hopefully they can get smart about the FA signings and not throw some money at JKidd's boys, and hopefully LBJ moves to LA and/or declines.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on July 14, 2017, 10:05:49 AM
Yeah. My guess is this is the year Cutler finally reaches his potential and gets those Bears over the hump. Oh wait... Well then surely it's the year DRose finally leads the Bulls back to another title. Err...

But hey, with the All Star Break being in Miami I'm sure Jesu...I mean, Bosio invited Arietta and his new teammate Quintana to join him on a nice, relaxing vacation to watch their teammate lose the All Star Game while working out some kinks in their deliveries and we'll see the Cubs staff go from awful to the best in baseball in a solid 4 days to work those things out.

Rose was an excellent player until the injuries but obviously has not been remotely the same player since and will never return to that level.  If you don't think he was a really good player pre-injury, well, you're just wrong. 

Cutler was a guy you were not going to win because of but that you could win with.  He was probably in the 15-20 range of starters in the years he was playing.  I would expect any Packer fan to hate Cutler.

The Arrieta stuff continues to crack me up.  The dude didn't use PEDs.  And if he had successfully used them for so many years without getting caught, why would he stop in the year prior to his free agency?   And now you have some thing for Bosio, which is equally as amusing. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 14, 2017, 10:20:13 AM
The Arrieta stuff continues to crack me up.  The dude didn't use PEDs.  And if he had successfully used them for so many years without getting caught, why would he stop in the year prior to his free agency?   And now you have some thing for Bosio, which is equally as amusing.

Arrieta was a talented Top 100 prospect who was in an organization that was notoriously bad at developing pitchers. Bosio helped straighten him out but apparently giving a pitching coach credit for being good at his job is just too much for wades to handle.

Rose's problem is that he still hasn't accepted the fact that he's no longer pre-injury Derrick Rose. He still tries to play the same style, relying on quickness and athleticism but it's just not there anymore. He had a solid season with NY last year but he's not nearly the playmaker that he used to be.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 14, 2017, 10:26:26 AM
Rose was an excellent player until the injuries but obviously has not been remotely the same player since and will never return to that level.  If you don't think he was a really good player pre-injury, well, you're just wrong. 

Cutler was a guy you were not going to win because of but that you could win with.  He was probably in the 15-20 range of starters in the years he was playing.  I would expect any Packer fan to hate Cutler.

The Arrieta stuff continues to crack me up.  The dude didn't use PEDs.  And if he had successfully used them for so many years without getting caught, why would he stop in the year prior to his free agency?   And now you have some thing for Bosio, which is equally as amusing.

In other words what you're saying is, "you were right about Cutler and Rose and I just refuse to believe that any Cub player would ever use PEDs because guys like Sammy Sosa were totally clean, the Cubs would never do that but that Eric Thames guy..."

Please explain why Arrieta's average fastball change from last year to this year were (as of earlier this season, not sure where to find the most recent number so maybe it changed) the worst in the MLB for any starter by almost a full 1 MPH?  Down 2.6 MPH on your fastball in one offseason?  Hmm...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 14, 2017, 11:41:24 AM
In other words what you're saying is, "you were right about Cutler and Rose and I just refuse to believe that any Cub player would ever use PEDs because guys like Sammy Sosa were totally clean, the Cubs would never do that but that Eric Thames guy..."

Please explain why Arrieta's average fastball change from last year to this year were (as of earlier this season, not sure where to find the most recent number so maybe it changed) the worst in the MLB for any starter by almost a full 1 MPH?  Down 2.6 MPH on your fastball in one offseason?  Hmm...

First of all, source?

Second, Arrieta pitched a then-career high 156.2 innings in 2014. He followed that up by pitching 468.3 innings over a 17-month span (throwing nearly 7,300 pitches). Also, his strikeout rate is higher than last season so it's not all about velocity for him.

Third, isn't this the NBA thread?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 14, 2017, 11:45:54 AM
First of all, source?

Second, Arrieta pitched a then-career high 156.2 innings in 2014. He followed that up by pitching 468.3 innings over a 17-month span (throwing nearly 7,300 pitches). Also, his strikeout rate is higher than last season so it's not all about velocity for him.

Third, isn't this the NBA thread?

An old FanGraphs article.  Maybe I'll take a look later but I do have off this afternoon so less time twiddling my thumbs at the office to find it.

Outstanding.  So an MLB starting pitcher threw innings as if he was an MLB starting pitcher and it evidently tired him out to the point his velocity dropped 75% more than the 2nd biggest velocity drop in the MLB.  Again, hmm...

Says the guy who has contributed to the discussion...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on July 14, 2017, 11:54:07 AM
In other words what you're saying is, "you were right about Cutler and Rose and I just refuse to believe that any Cub player would ever use PEDs because guys like Sammy Sosa were totally clean, the Cubs would never do that but that Eric Thames guy..."

Please explain why Arrieta's average fastball change from last year to this year were (as of earlier this season, not sure where to find the most recent number so maybe it changed) the worst in the MLB for any starter by almost a full 1 MPH?  Hmm...

I don't recall when your berating of Rose began.  I don't think anything I said about him or Cutler was incorrect or unrealistic.  Rose was a stud and multiple injuries derailed what was looking like a great career. 

You realize sometimes a pitcher's velocity declines as he ages, correct?  And you ignored the question.....if he had used PEDs for multiple years without getting caught why would he just stop with the potential of a huge contract on the horizon? 

FYI - You can't stop using PEDs when you didn't use them to begin with. 

BTW, you adding Thames and Sosa into the conversation is idiotic.  Way to project. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 14, 2017, 11:59:03 AM
  I would expect any Packer fan to hate Cutler.

For the record, I and many other Packers fans love Cutler.  :)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on July 14, 2017, 12:13:19 PM
Jay Cutler looks all the time like I look during conversations about Jay Cutler
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on July 14, 2017, 12:16:27 PM
For the record, I and many other Packers fans love Cutler.  :)

I agree with this analysis.  ;D
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 14, 2017, 12:17:50 PM
For the record, I and many other Packers fans love Cutler.  :)

Seconded.

Football aside, I can't wait for him in the booth, as I personally find him entertaining. I think he ends up being better than Romo. His disdain for stupid questions bodes well.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 14, 2017, 12:21:27 PM
Jay Cutler looks all the time like I look during conversations about Jay Cutler

That's a pretty good line.

Jay Cutler just might be the most underrated underachiever in NFL history. He was far more talented than his production would indicate, but he was still far more productive than he gets credit for being.

Getting back to the NBA, the Bucks should try to swing a trade for Eric Bledsoe who always seems to be on the block. Henson and a 1st Rounder might actually get it done. Phoenix could use a big and they were supposedly listening to NY's offer of a 1st Rounder and Courtney Lee's awful 3-year's remaining. Who knows?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 14, 2017, 12:33:24 PM
That's a pretty good line.

Jay Cutler just might be the most underrated underachiever in NFL history. He was far more talented than his production would indicate, but he was still far more productive than he gets credit for being.

Getting back to the NBA, the Bucks should try to swing a trade for Eric Bledsoe who always seems to be on the block. Henson and a 1st Rounder might actually get it done. Phoenix could use a big and they were supposedly listening to NY's offer of a 1st Rounder and Courtney Lee's awful 3-year's remaining. Who knows?

I think Henson is a bad contract but it's not that bad - I actually thought it was better than Plumlee's, and we traded that. He can still be a good role player.

I would like that trade. Is there a possibility of being the 2 teams that facilitate the Rockets-Knicks trade? I have no idea what the Knicks are hoping to get out of that trade. Ariza and draft assets? The problem I see is that it's a bunch of bad contracts that need to get moved (Lee, Henson, Ryan Anderson).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 14, 2017, 03:18:29 PM
I think Henson is a bad contract but it's not that bad - I actually thought it was better than Plumlee's, and we traded that. He can still be a good role player.

I would like that trade. Is there a possibility of being the 2 teams that facilitate the Rockets-Knicks trade? I have no idea what the Knicks are hoping to get out of that trade. Ariza and draft assets? The problem I see is that it's a bunch of bad contracts that need to get moved (Lee, Henson, Ryan Anderson).

Just for fun and because I enjoy the NBA Trade Machine...

To Knicks: PG Matthew Dellavedova, PF Spencer Hawes* (from Mil), C Clint Capela (from Hou)

To Rockets: F Carmelo Anthony (from NY)

To Bucks: PG Eric Bledsoe (from Phx)

To Suns: F Ryan Anderson (from Hou)

Assuming Phx and possibly NY would also get a 1st Rounder, who says no?


* - $6M expiring contract
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 14, 2017, 03:46:45 PM
Just for fun and because I enjoy the NBA Trade Machine...

To Knicks: PG Matthew Dellavedova, PF Spencer Hawes* (from Mil), C Clint Capela (from Hou)

To Rockets: F Carmelo Anthony (from NY)

To Bucks: PG Eric Bledsoe (from Phx)

To Suns: F Ryan Anderson (from Hou)

Assuming Phx and possibly NY would also get a 1st Rounder, who says no?


* - $6M expiring contract

Give Monroe to the Knicks instead and maybe you have a deal.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on July 14, 2017, 03:47:42 PM
Nm
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 15, 2017, 09:13:05 AM
Just for fun and because I enjoy the NBA Trade Machine...

To Knicks: PG Matthew Dellavedova, PF Spencer Hawes* (from Mil), C Clint Capela (from Hou)

To Rockets: F Carmelo Anthony (from NY)

To Bucks: PG Eric Bledsoe (from Phx)

To Suns: F Ryan Anderson (from Hou)

Assuming Phx and possibly NY would also get a 1st Rounder, who says no?


* - $6M expiring contract

Sure.

And after the Knicks cut Hawes, I wouldn't mind seeing the Hornets pick him back up to be their third center. He did a nice job for them in that role. Maybe Henry will be Hawes-ish someday!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 15, 2017, 11:05:56 AM
Just for fun and because I enjoy the NBA Trade Machine...

To Knicks: PG Matthew Dellavedova, PF Spencer Hawes* (from Mil), C Clint Capela (from Hou)

To Rockets: F Carmelo Anthony (from NY)

To Bucks: PG Eric Bledsoe (from Phx)

To Suns: F Ryan Anderson (from Hou)

Assuming Phx and possibly NY would also get a 1st Rounder, who says no?


* - $6M expiring contract

As a Bucks fan, it would be an absolute steal to get Bledsoe for Dellavedove and a 1st rounder (which, barring injuries would be in the 20+ range).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 15, 2017, 02:39:01 PM
Interesting Teddy Greenstein article yesterday about the new Bucks arena, and the Bucks owners trying to capture fans from Chicago. Makes sense, especially in the wealthy northern burbs where it's just as easy to get to Milwaukee (probably easier) than downtown Chicago.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on July 15, 2017, 09:40:08 PM
Interesting Teddy Greenstein article yesterday about the new Bucks arena, and the Bucks owners trying to capture fans from Chicago. Makes sense, especially in the wealthy northern burbs where it's just as easy to get to Milwaukee (probably easier) than downtown Chicago.

And ya know, the Bulls being a full on burning train car headed for the oil refinery.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 15, 2017, 10:42:48 PM
And ya know, the Bulls being a full on burning train car headed for the oil refinery.

100% yes.

Between the new building and Giannis, I'd much rather go to a Bucks game than a Bulls game in the next couple of years, not close really.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 16, 2017, 11:40:52 AM

Jay Cutler just might be the most underrated underachiever in NFL history. He was far more talented than his production would indicate, but he was still far more productive than he gets credit for being.

Not sure what "underrated underachiever" even means.

As for being "far more productive than he gets credit for being" ... well, I'm thinking he gets about the right amount of credit for his productivity.

Cutler's career interception percentage of 3.3% was slightly worse than the 3.2% of Charlie Batch - who, believe it or not, played one more season in the NFL than Cutler did. Unlike Mark Sanchez, Cutler lost more games as a starter than he won. Cutler NEVER had a 30-TD season, but he did manage to lead the league in INTs twice. He choked away seemingly sure playoff berths as a starter for both the Broncos and Bears, and he famously recorded exactly one postseason victory in 11 years. "Productive" wouldn't be my word to describe him.

Now, if you're talking about the silly folks who say Cutler is "the worst QB ever," yeah, he was underrated and relatively productive. But most sensible observers merely say Cutler had a mediocre, 11-year NFL career. With a 68-71 record and a 208-146 TD-INT breakdown, I'd say "mediocre" describe him pretty well.

So one doesn't even have to go to the eye test - those who watched him for years saw repeatedly that he not only wasn't a winner but that he had an uncanny ability to make back-breaking, boneheaded plays - because the stats paint a picture of mediocrity.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 16, 2017, 02:53:01 PM
Cutler was the best qb in Chicago since MacMahon. Unfortunately,  that's not saying a lot
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 17, 2017, 08:57:13 AM
Not sure what "underrated underachiever" even means.

He choked away seemingly sure playoff berths as a starter for both the Broncos and Bears, and he famously recorded exactly one postseason victory in 11 years. "Productive" wouldn't be my word to describe him.

This is exactly the type of stuff I'm talking about. In 2008, Denver lost 3 straight to end the season and finished 8-8, which is considered Cutler "choking" while conveniently ignoring the fact that Denver's D allowed 112 points in those 3 games. In 2013, the Bears lost their last 2 games to miss the playoffs. In one game, the D allowed 54 points and 289 rushing yards. In the other, the Bears lost because of a massively blown coverage with under a minute to play (after earlier allowing a TD when a LB didn't pick up a fumble sitting at his feet). Do you also think that Aaron Rodgers choked away the 2014 NFC Championship Game?

So one doesn't even have to go to the eye test - those who watched him for years saw repeatedly that he not only wasn't a winner but that he had an uncanny ability to make back-breaking, boneheaded plays - because the stats paint a picture of mediocrity.

Sure, Cutler made some bad plays down the stretch. On the contrary, he led the league in 4th quarter comeback wins in 2015 and he had 25 game-winning drives in his career. Goes against the "eye test" though, huh?

Cutler went 51-51 with the Bears. During that stretch, the Bears went 7-19 without him.

Now, if you're talking about the silly folks who say Cutler is "the worst QB ever," yeah, he was underrated and relatively productive. But most sensible observers merely say Cutler had a mediocre, 11-year NFL career. With a 68-71 record and a 208-146 TD-INT breakdown, I'd say "mediocre" describe him pretty well.

The "worst QB" crowd is the group to whom I'm referring. Cutler's career is the most statistically similar to guys like Ken O'Brien, Jon Kitna and Jake Plummer. Not exactly a who's who of NFL QBs, I know, but they were decent NFL QBs. Yet who is Cutler compared to most often? Jeff George, an all-time bust with a .371 career winning percentage.

Yes, Cutler was a very talented QB with mediocre results who got the reputation as being a terrible QB. That's exactly what I mean by saying he's an underrated underachiever.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 17, 2017, 10:02:50 AM
This is exactly the type of stuff I'm talking about. In 2008, Denver lost 3 straight to end the season and finished 8-8, which is considered Cutler "choking" while conveniently ignoring the fact that Denver's D allowed 112 points in those 3 games. In 2013, the Bears lost their last 2 games to miss the playoffs. In one game, the D allowed 54 points and 289 rushing yards. In the other, the Bears lost because of a massively blown coverage with under a minute to play (after earlier allowing a TD when a LB didn't pick up a fumble sitting at his feet). Do you also think that Aaron Rodgers choked away the 2014 NFC Championship Game?

Sure, Cutler made some bad plays down the stretch. On the contrary, he led the league in 4th quarter comeback wins in 2015 and he had 25 game-winning drives in his career. Goes against the "eye test" though, huh?

Cutler went 51-51 with the Bears. During that stretch, the Bears went 7-19 without him.

The "worst QB" crowd is the group to whom I'm referring. Cutler's career is the most statistically similar to guys like Ken O'Brien, Jon Kitna and Jake Plummer. Not exactly a who's who of NFL QBs, I know, but they were decent NFL QBs. Yet who is Cutler compared to most often? Jeff George, an all-time bust with a .371 career winning percentage.

Yes, Cutler was a very talented QB with mediocre results who got the reputation as being a terrible QB. That's exactly what I mean by saying he's an underrated underachiever.

For someone who asked, "Isn't this the NBA thread?" over a page ago, you sure are going on about non-NBA topics here.

In those final 3 games of 2008, Jay had 2 touchdowns to 4 interceptions.  In their second last game, while sitting at 8-6, Cutler got the ball with 8 minutes left down by a touchdown and, in as typical fashion as they ever come for Jay, threw an INT with 5 minutes left at the Buffalo 15 yard line.  But, I guess that's not Jay choking.  ::)

Congrats to Jay on leading the league in 4th quarter comebacks during a 6-10 season.  The Bears would've been better off having lost all those 4th quarter comeback games.  In that same season he threw an interception down by 4 at the Lions 35 with 2 minutes left in the game, threw a pick 6 in a game they lost in OT to the 49ers, and threw for an interception while down by 8 at the Packers 29 with 4 minutes left in the game.

And yes, Aaron Rodgers (and moreso Mike McCarthy) choked in the 2014 NFC Championship game.  19/34 for 178 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INT isn't going to get you many wins in the NFL.  Had Rodgers simply played "bad" the Packers are walking to the Super Bowl.  AND had Bostick simply blocked for Jordy on the onside kick coverage, etc.  An absurd amount of things had to go against the Packers in the last 5 minutes of that game.  But had Rodgers played better, and Mac called a better game, it never gets close to that point anyway.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 17, 2017, 10:10:58 AM
For someone who asked, "Isn't this the NBA thread?" over a page ago, you sure are going on about non-NBA topics here.

In those final 3 games of 2008, Jay had 2 touchdowns to 4 interceptions.  In their second last game, while sitting at 8-7, Cutler got the ball with 8 minutes left down by a touchdown and, in as typical fashion as they ever come for Jay, threw an INT with 5 minutes left at the Buffalo 15 yard line.  But, I guess that's not Jay choking.  ::)

Congrats to Jay on leading the league in 4th quarter comebacks during a 6-10 season.  The Bears would've been better off having lost all those 4th quarter comeback games.  In that same season he threw an interception down by 4 at the Lions 35 with 2 minutes left in the game, threw a pick 6 in a game they lost in OT to the 49ers, and threw for an interception while down by 8 at the Packers 29 with 4 minutes left in the game.

And yes, Aaron Rodgers (and moreso Mike McCarthy) choked in the 2014 NFC Championship game.  19/34 for 178 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INT isn't going to get you many wins in the NFL.  Had Rodgers simply played "bad" the Packers are walking to the Super Bowl.  AND had Bostick simply blocked for Jordy on the onside kick coverage, etc.  An absurd amount of things had to go against the Packers in the last 5 minutes of that game.  But had Rodgers played better, and Mac called a better game, it never gets close to that point anyway.

This.

Jay isn't the worst QB ever. He had a mediocre career, getting far too little out of what seemed to be a lot of talent. Merritt's comparison to the likes of Jake Plummer and Jon Kitna works for me.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 17, 2017, 10:23:53 AM
In those final 3 games of 2008, Jay had 2 touchdowns to 4 interceptions.  In their second last game, while sitting at 8-7, Cutler got the ball with 8 minutes left down by a touchdown and, in as typical fashion as they ever come for Jay, threw an INT with 5 minutes left at the Buffalo 15 yard line.  But, I guess that's not Jay choking.  ::)

Congrats to Jay on leading the league in 4th quarter comebacks during a 6-10 season.  The Bears would've been better off having lost all those 4th quarter comeback games.  In that same season he threw an interception down by 4 at the Lions 35 with 2 minutes left in the game, threw a pick 6 in a game they lost in OT to the 49ers, and threw for an interception while down by 8 at the Packers 29 with 4 minutes left in the game.

You can do that with every QB.

In 2015, Rodgers threw 4 straight incompletions from the Bears' 8 while down 17-13. Game over. Taking over near midfield and down 7, Rodgers went 3-8 on a drive, including a pointless 1-yard pass with 15 seconds left (instead of taking a shot downfield and risking an INT). Game over.

In 2016, down 1 to Atlanta, Rodgers throws 3 straight incompletions. Game over. Down 3 to Minnesota and near midfield, Rodgers throws an INT. Game over.

Last season, Tom Brady couldn't punch it in from the 1 against Seattle. In 2015, he went 1-7 passing with an opportunity to tie a game at Philly and he failed on a 2-point conversion to tie the AFC title game in Denver.

Is it considered a "choke" every time a QB doesn't finish off a potential game-winning/tying drive?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 17, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
You can do that with every QB.

In 2015, Rodgers threw 4 straight incompletions from the Bears' 8 while down 17-13. Game over. Taking over near midfield and down 7, Rodgers went 3-8 on a drive, including a pointless 1-yard pass with 15 seconds left (instead of taking a shot downfield and risking an INT). Game over.

In 2016, down 1 to Atlanta, Rodgers throws 3 straight incompletions. Game over. Down 3 to Minnesota and near midfield, Rodgers throws an INT. Game over.

Last season, Tom Brady couldn't punch it in from the 1 against Seattle. In 2015, he went 1-7 passing with an opportunity to tie a game at Philly and he failed on a 2-point conversion to tie the AFC title game in Denver.

Is it considered a "choke" every time a QB doesn't finish off a potential game-winning/tying drive?

So between 2 quarterbacks you found 1 INT in a late, close game situation over multiple years for each.  Compare that with Jay who I just found one in a 3 game sample size you brought up and 2 in a single season that you brought up.

Incompletions happen.  Turnover on downs late in games happen.  If there's a pattern of not being able to come through, there's an issue.  But throwing the ball to the other team in a late game situation in which you have an opportunity to tie or win the game?  That can't happen.  Of course it's more than likely going to once in a while.  But with Jay?  You were just waiting for it to happen.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 17, 2017, 10:58:02 AM
So between 2 quarterbacks you found 1 INT in a late, close game situation over multiple years for each.  Compare that with Jay who I just found one in a 3 game sample size you brought up and 2 in a single season that you brought up.

Incompletions happen.  Turnover on downs late in games happen.  If there's a pattern of not being able to come through, there's an issue.  But throwing the ball to the other team in a late game situation in which you have an opportunity to tie or win the game?  That can't happen.  Of course it's more than likely going to once in a while.  But with Jay?  You were just waiting for it to happen.

The Patriots don't lose very often so Brady's sample size of losses is pretty small. GB tends to go down hard when they lose (Losses of 19, 30, 14, 22 and 18 in the last couple years). Rodgers also threw an INT at Carolina when down 8 and 2 minutes to play. Point being, every QB has opportunities at game-winning drives that they fail to convert. By your rationale, it seems that if a QB takes the ball and chucks it out of bounds 4 times and loses, that's better than throwing an INT while trying to force a play downfield and losing.

I'll ask again. Is it considered a "choke" every time a QB doesn't finish off a potential game-winning/tying drive?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 17, 2017, 11:00:30 AM
I'll ask again. Is it considered a "choke" every time a QB doesn't finish off a potential game-winning/tying drive?

By your rationale, it seems that if a QB takes the ball and chucks it out of bounds 4 times and loses, that's better than throwing an INT while trying to force a play downfield and losing.

No not every time.

Is it a choke every time a QB gets the ball with 5-8 minutes left in a 1 possession game and throws it to the other team?  ABSOLUTELY!  I'd certainly rather have a quarterback who on first through third down at least keeps the possession alive.

Anyways, I know you're upset that this conversation is taking place in the NBA thread so I'll concede on this one.  Jay Cutler is "a guy you can win with" (despite never really having done a whole lot of winning over an entire career and no longer having a job).  As a Packers fan, I can only hope that Mitchell Tribusky is just as good as Jay Cutler.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 17, 2017, 11:05:46 AM
No not every time.

Is it a choke every time a QB gets the ball with 5-8 minutes left in a 1 possession game and throws it to the other team?  ABSOLUTELY!  I'd certainly rather have a quarterback who on first through third down at least keeps the possession alive.

Anyways, I know you're upset that this conversation is taking place in the NBA thread so I'll concede on this one.  Jay Cutler is "a guy you can win with" (despite never really having done a whole lot of winning over an entire career and no longer having a job).  As a Packers fan, I can only hope that Mitchell Tribusky is just as good as Jay Cutler.

Thanks for conceding. As always, it's been a pleasure reading your obtuse posts!

Cheers!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 17, 2017, 11:18:21 AM
Thanks for conceding. As always, it's been a pleasure reading your obtuse posts!

Cheers!

I'm crushed!

Do you always continue on a conversation that you complain about being in the wrong place?  And read things that you consider obtuse?  If so, you must have more time on your hands than most.  Congrats on that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 17, 2017, 11:22:36 AM
Is it a choke every time a QB gets the ball with 5-8 minutes left in a 1 possession game and throws it to the other team?  ABSOLUTELY! 

I say this as someone who thought the Cutler deal was a bad one for the Bears from day one, but you do realize that not every INT is the QB's fault, right?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 17, 2017, 11:31:10 AM
Does Dennis Smith Jr. remind anyone else of a young D-Wade attacking the rim with a lethal combination of power & creativity?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 17, 2017, 11:38:08 AM
Does Dennis Smith Jr. remind anyone else of a young D-Wade attacking the rim with a lethal combination of power & creativity?

I think Wade was more crafty but Smith is more explosive athletically.  I have thought Smith might be the best player in this draft.

I say this as someone who thought the Cutler deal was a bad one for the Bears from day one, but you do realize that not every INT is the QB's fault, right?

Sure.  The WRs gave up, Jay didn't have the offensive weapons, then he didn't have the defense to hold up, he never had the same coach year after year, etc. etc. etc.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 17, 2017, 11:44:49 AM
Sure.  The WRs gave up, Jay didn't have the offensive weapons, then he didn't have the defense to hold up, he never had the same coach year after year, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 17, 2017, 12:03:19 PM
I think Wade was more crafty but Smith is more explosive athletically.  I have thought Smith might be the best player in this draft.


Has elements of Wade, Westbrook, Rose, and Lillard in his game. I'm really high on the guy without knowing anything about him prior to a week ago. Agree that he could end up the best player from a stacked draft. I don't think history will look back fondly on the Bulls picking Markkanen while Smith was still on the board.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 17, 2017, 12:20:31 PM
At this point, Cutler should get his own Scoop board forum.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 17, 2017, 12:24:40 PM
Has elements of Wade, Westbrook, Rose, and Lillard in his game. I'm really high on the guy without knowing anything about him prior to a week ago. Agree that he could end up the best player from a stacked draft. I don't think history will look back fondly on the Bulls picking Markkanen while Smith was still on the board.

It will be interesting to see how efficient he is and how good defensively he is. He has the athleticism to be a good perimeter defender.

I like Markkanen, but they already have Mirotic and I'm not sure how different their games are.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 17, 2017, 12:30:01 PM
Has elements of Wade, Westbrook, Rose, and Lillard in his game. I'm really high on the guy without knowing anything about him prior to a week ago. Agree that he could end up the best player from a stacked draft. I don't think history will look back fondly on the Bulls picking Markkanen while Smith was still on the board.

Things that happen when you make such evaluations after summer league:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD13xOnXUAAotRa.jpg:large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD13xOsXkAA54H7.jpg)

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 17, 2017, 12:35:59 PM
Things that happen when you make such evaluations after summer league:


Someone should let ESPN know about this since they're constantly leading with Lonzo Ball's performances in what amount to a D League exhibition games.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 17, 2017, 01:55:05 PM
Things that happen when you make such evaluations after summer league:


Haha fair point, but Kris Dunn was old as hell as a rookie, his bust probability was pretty high. And it's not just about numbers in those games, the things Smith has been doing have been pretty eye popping in terms of how they translate to the NBA game
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 17, 2017, 01:58:35 PM
It will be interesting to see how efficient he is and how good defensively he is. He has the athleticism to be a good perimeter defender.

I like Markkanen, but they already have Mirotic and I'm not sure how different their games are.

Agreed. I'm guessing he'll have a high turnover rate this year which will dampen his overall efficiency, but will iron that out by year 3. Being fairly small could hurt his defensive ceiling, but being a cornerback recruited by high major schools makes me think he has the instincts to perform at a high level at then end of the court.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 17, 2017, 02:05:43 PM
Haha fair point, but Kris Dunn was old as hell as a rookie, his bust probability was pretty high. And it's not just about numbers in those games, the things Smith has been doing have been pretty eye popping in terms of how they translate to the NBA game

No, I agree Smith has looked impressive.
But summer league and THE league are very different animals, not just in the level of talent but in how the games are played.
Summer league: NBA = AAU; NCAA Division I
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 17, 2017, 02:58:50 PM
I think Wade was more crafty but Smith is more explosive athletically.  I have thought Smith might be the best player in this draft.

Sure.  The WRs gave up, Jay didn't have the offensive weapons, then he didn't have the defense to hold up, he never had the same coach year after year, etc. etc. etc.

I think we both talked about how much we loved smith before the draft. But to say that he is more explosive than Wade is quite a reach.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 17, 2017, 05:00:10 PM
I think Wade was more crafty but Smith is more explosive athletically.  I have thought Smith might be the best player in this draft.

Sure.  The WRs gave up, Jay didn't have the offensive weapons, then he didn't have the defense to hold up, he never had the same coach year after year, etc. etc. etc.

As a 21-year-old, Wade was pretty doggone explosive.

I saw Smith quite a few times in college - amazing talent. There were some "coachability" issues, and it will be interesting to see how that goes in the pros.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 19, 2017, 03:13:48 PM
OK, which of you is responsible for this? I'm guessing MUDish.

(https://suntimesmedia.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/img_4633.jpg?w=763&h=572)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on July 19, 2017, 10:31:40 PM
OK, which of you is responsible for this? I'm guessing MUDish.

(https://suntimesmedia.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/img_4633.jpg?w=763&h=572)

Dish and I went halves.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 20, 2017, 09:42:41 AM
Someone should let ESPN know about this since they're constantly leading with Lonzo Ball's performances in what amount to a D League exhibition games.

Well, yeah, but ESPN merely gives the viewers what they want. Lonzo is exciting. Now, there is some chicken-and-egg stuff going on, in that ESPN stokes up the Lonzo love with its coverage, but in general TV networks respond to consumers.

I'm not a big fan of "hype," but I will admit a fascination with Lonzo and all of his trappings (including his trip of a dad).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 20, 2017, 02:16:22 PM
OK, which of you is responsible for this? I'm guessing MUDish.

(https://suntimesmedia.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/img_4633.jpg?w=763&h=572)

Mortgaged my house to do it, but worth it!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 20, 2017, 07:06:21 PM
I think we both talked about how much we loved smith before the draft. But to say that he is more explosive than Wade is quite a reach.

As a 21-year-old, Wade was pretty doggone explosive.

I saw Smith quite a few times in college - amazing talent. There were some "coachability" issues, and it will be interesting to see how that goes in the pros.

No doubt Wade was a great athlete, but Smith has absurd athleticism.  In my opinion, Smith is already a more explosive athlete than Wade was, but Wade was infinitely more crafty.  I don't expect Smith's career to be anywhere near what Wade's was, but there are very few people in the NBA that are as explosive as Smith is.

I'm not sure how accurate the sites I'm finding are, but according to DraftExpress Wade's max vertical was measured at 35 inches with a standing vertical of 31 inches.  I can't find a standing vertical listed for Smith, but a Lakers 247 article says Smith tied an NBA record with a 48 inch vertical at a predraft workout for the Lakers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW1CVy7Un1Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h6DqMGsZ_k

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=20116485&sf99589420=1

Wade had some great dunks, but I don't know if he ever had between the legs or windmill type of hangtime like Smith does.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 20, 2017, 07:48:06 PM


Wade had some great dunks, but I don't know if he ever had between the legs or windmill type of hangtime like Smith does.

I rest my case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlymqXcruCU
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 20, 2017, 09:11:47 PM
Suspectly sourced articles are tying Rose back to Chicago. Even if it's for dirt cheap, please make this happen.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 21, 2017, 10:56:09 AM
I rest my case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlymqXcruCU

Fair enough.  Both are obviously world class athletes.  But the difference between a 35 inch vertical and a 48 inch vertical is pretty dang significant.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 21, 2017, 10:59:11 AM
I rest my case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlymqXcruCU



Wake me when Smith does this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OkP5_1qb7Y

Or this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUbQ2FMtaFI
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 21, 2017, 11:13:23 AM
Fair enough.  Both are obviously world class athletes.  But the difference between a 35 inch vertical and a 48 inch vertical is pretty dang significant.

I feel like vertical and explosiveness are related but separate. First step blow by type of athleticism is what I consider explosiveness. On that end, prime Wade has no betters, only equals (Westbrook, Rose, etc.). On pure vertical, many have him there, including obviously DSJ. The thing that's scary about DSJ is he has similar explosiveness to Wade, plus the vertical. And I saw some crafty moves by him in the paint that were astonishingly similar to a young Wade. The tool set is there, I hope he can put it together, would be fun to see.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 21, 2017, 11:15:11 AM

Wake me when Smith does this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OkP5_1qb7Y

Or this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUbQ2FMtaFI

Wade with his knees intact was incredible
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 21, 2017, 11:17:37 AM

Wake me when Smith does this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OkP5_1qb7Y

Or this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUbQ2FMtaFI

Sultan, your alarm clock is going off.

https://youtu.be/b6zmRpZcLg8

https://youtu.be/bTszAloPsYg

Keep in mind, Wade has an extra 5 inches on his standing reach over Smith, and this was when Smith was 17/18 years old.

Both are incredible athletes. I personally find Smith to be the more explosive athlete and think we'll see that in the form of highlight reel plays throughout his career. I find Wade to be the much better basketball player.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 21, 2017, 11:51:53 AM
Fair enough.  Both are obviously world class athletes.  But the difference between a 35 inch vertical and a 48 inch vertical is pretty dang significant.


I think we agree they are both elite, world-class + athletes.

About the 48"? I don't know if I believe that. The two greatest jumpers I have ever seen were David Thompson and Darrell Griffith. They weren't called Skyealker and Dr. Dunkenstein for nothing. They both had 48" verticals and their leaping abilities just jumped off the screen when you saw them because it was so obvious. I never saw that type of explosion from either Wade or Smith.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 21, 2017, 02:52:09 PM
LBJ unhappy with the front office in Cleveland, despite the fact that they are entirely handcuffed with no cap space...because LBJ demanded they pay horribly overpaid guys like Thompson and JR Smith.  Now Kyrie wants out of Cleveland and doesn't want to play with LBJ anymore.  Hmm...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 21, 2017, 03:12:07 PM
What an entertaining offseason!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on July 21, 2017, 03:19:53 PM
LBJ unhappy with the front office in Cleveland, despite the fact that they are entirely handcuffed with no cap space...because LBJ demanded they pay horribly overpaid guys like Thompson and JR Smith.  Now Kyrie wants out of Cleveland and doesn't want to play with LBJ anymore.  Hmm...

I feel like LBJ's biggest crime here was being too specific. Had he just said "they have to do something!" we all would have nodded and agreed that we wouldn't want our once in a generation talent wasted, either. But by requiring Cle to throw money at specific guys - particularly guys like Thompson and Smith - he really put them in a hard place and, turns out, made Kyrie (his Robin) feel underappreciated. But banners also fly forever, so what do I know.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on July 21, 2017, 03:20:06 PM
Rose will go ta da Cavs wit Irvin' outta da pic, ai na?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on July 21, 2017, 04:10:09 PM
Kyrie had Bulls as one of the preferred trade teams before Bulls traded Butler. Awesome.

Not that GarPax could have known that, but fire them anyway.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 21, 2017, 04:10:27 PM
LBJ unhappy with the front office in Cleveland, despite the fact that they are entirely handcuffed with no cap space...because LBJ demanded they pay horribly overpaid guys like Thompson and JR Smith.  Now Kyrie wants out of Cleveland and doesn't want to play with LBJ anymore.  Hmm...


Not entirely accurate.  He is unhappy with the owner in Cleveland when he fired the GM who was trying to do something to make them more competitive with GSW.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 21, 2017, 04:11:57 PM
LBJ unhappy with the front office in Cleveland, despite the fact that they are entirely handcuffed with no cap space...because LBJ demanded they pay horribly overpaid guys like Thompson and JR Smith.  Now Kyrie wants out of Cleveland and doesn't want to play with LBJ anymore.  Hmm...

They don't need no stinkin' Kyrie. To heck with him hitting the championship-winning trey ... they could have the great Derrick Rose coming in!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 21, 2017, 04:37:20 PM
Kyrie is probably a top 10 guy in the NBA - can do it all offensively. But I don't think a team will win a title if he is their best player.

Look at the best player on the teams that have won NBA titles over the last 10 years - Durrant, James, Curry, Duncan, Kobe, Nowitzke.

Irving is not one of those guys.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 21, 2017, 04:52:12 PM
Bucks should do whatever they can to get Kyrie. Probably need a third team, but some combo of Jabari and Monroe's expiring and go from there.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 21, 2017, 05:01:06 PM
Bucks should do whatever they can to get Kyrie. Probably need a third team, but some combo of Jabari and Monroe's expiring and go from there.

Giannis, Kyrie and Middleton would be a terrifying top 3. Would they have enough around them to be the top team in the East?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on July 21, 2017, 05:05:41 PM
Bucks should do whatever they can to get Kyrie. Probably need a third team, but some combo of Jabari and Monroe's expiring and go from there.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/wmuqpmtGeVv1K/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 21, 2017, 05:14:35 PM
If Kyrie really wants to be "the man" and he won't be that with LeBron and that's why he wants out, I'm not sure things would get much better for him in Milwaukee.  Giannis is already right there with Kyrie and is going to have the ball in his hands a lot much like LeBron does with Cleveland.  Kyrie is a superstar at a premium position, one that the Bucks haven't had a star at in a long, long time, but I think a point guard with a game more like Conley's (so if Brogdon can develop he'll be perfect) is a much better fit next to Giannis than a guy like Kyrie who spends entire possessions hunting his own shot.

Wouldn't complain with having him.  Not sold he'd be the savior for the Bucks, though.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 21, 2017, 05:34:46 PM
If Kyrie really wants to be "the man" and he won't be that with LeBron and that's why he wants out, I'm not sure things would get much better for him in Milwaukee.  Giannis is already right there with Kyrie and is going to have the ball in his hands a lot much like LeBron does with Cleveland.  Kyrie is a superstar at a premium position, one that the Bucks haven't had a star at in a long, long time, but I think a point guard with a game more like Conley's (so if Brogdon can develop he'll be perfect) is a much better fit next to Giannis than a guy like Kyrie who spends entire possessions hunting his own shot.

Wouldn't complain with having him.  Not sold he'd be the savior for the Bucks, though.

None of that should matter, you can get Kyrie for 50 cents on the dollar at what is an insanely inexpensive NBA contract. There is not a better value the Bucks will find in the next three years, figure out the rest during the season. I'd do everything possible to go get him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 21, 2017, 05:42:07 PM
None of that should matter, you can get Kyrie for 50 cents on the dollar at what is an insanely inexpensive NBA contract. There is not a better value the Bucks will find in the next three years, figure out the rest during the season. I'd do everything possible to go get him.

We'll see if you can get him for 50 cents on the dollar.  He's under contract for 3 more years.  The Cavs don't have to trade him even if he wants to be traded.  Chances are LeBron is gone after next year anyway, so if all it is is that he wants to be "the man," the Cavs could do worse than have a disgruntled Kyrie for 1 year who then gets what he wants after that with them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 21, 2017, 07:21:19 PM
Bucks should do whatever they can to get Kyrie. Probably need a third team, but some combo of Jabari and Monroe's expiring and go from there.

I would love to unload Jabari. He can and will be a great player, but his fit with Giannis isn't the best. That said, with the 2nd ACL tear, his value is at a low point. I also don't think he's a fit with the Cavs as long as Love remains there.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 21, 2017, 07:58:42 PM
Problem with this news being public is it knocks any Kyrie return from 75 cents to 50 cents. There's no way they can get a great return now (a Porzingis/Irving trade makes a ton of rational sense as an example, but the Knicks will never do it knowing what is public now).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 22, 2017, 07:02:53 AM
Kyrie for Melo?  Both teams deal disgruntled stars and get equal return.  Where else can either team get fair value back?

Kyrie played HS ball in NJ so there is regional appeal for both he and the Knicks.  Kyrie and Porzingis would be a nice core that could attract a free agent.  Plus, the foreign rookie PG becomes a trade chip.

Cavs get a star in return and a Lebron buddy that might help you re-sign the King. Can they then turn Love into a PG via trade? Maybe Phoenix sends you Eric Bledsoe and something else.

This scenario would probably be a best case for all parties.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 22, 2017, 11:31:35 AM
Kyrie for Melo?  Both teams deal disgruntled stars and get equal return.  Where else can either team get fair value back?

Kyrie played HS ball in NJ so there is regional appeal for both he and the Knicks.  Kyrie and Porzingis would be a nice core that could attract a free agent.  Plus, the foreign rookie PG becomes a trade chip.

Cavs get a star in return and a Lebron buddy that might help you re-sign the King. Can they then turn Love into a PG via trade? Maybe Phoenix sends you Eric Bledsoe and something else.

This scenario would probably be a best case for all parties.

I think this is possible, but the Cavs will need more assets back in return. It's rumored that the Knicks might be onboard with that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 23, 2017, 05:19:26 AM
fat Melo, Bledsoe, and a future #1 for Love, and Kyrie is an abomination of a trade, nearly as bad as the Harden the trade.

Kyrie is top 20 NBA player who is still 25, while Melo is 33 and Bledsoe is just average.

Cleveland honestly should just blow up it up, and yes trade both Kyrie and LBJ for boatloads of young players and draft picks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 23, 2017, 07:39:12 AM
fat Melo, Bledsoe, and a future #1 for Love, and Kyrie is an abomination of a trade, nearly as bad as the Harden the trade.

Kyrie is top 20 NBA player who is still 25, while Melo is 33 and Bledsoe is just average.

Cleveland honestly should just blow up it up, and yes trade both Kyrie and LBJ for boatloads of young players and draft picks.


So trading Kyrie is "an abomination," so you advocate trading Kyrie along with LBJ instead?  That doesn't make much sense.

They should just hang on to both.  Maybe see if you can flip Love, not because he is a poor player, but because he is a bad match up v. GSW.  Actually that in what their GM was trying to do before Gilbert decided to go cheap again.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 23, 2017, 08:10:58 AM

So trading Kyrie is "an abomination," so you advocate trading Kyrie along with LBJ instead?  That doesn't make much sense.

They should just hang on to both.  Maybe see if you can flip Love, not because he is a poor player, but because he is a bad match up v. GSW.  Actually that in what their GM was trying to do before Gilbert decided to go cheap again.

If you are gonna reset as a team, really reset.  Melo, LBJ, and Bledsoe as a core ain't makin to the Finals, let alone contend.

I see your point though, in a perfect world they flip Love and LBJ for some first rounders, and young can't miss talent, then build those pieces around the younger Kyrie.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 23, 2017, 08:18:27 AM
Why break up the second best team in the league at all?  I mean they have been to three straight Finals and won one of them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 23, 2017, 08:29:51 AM
Why break up the second best team in the league at all?  I mean they have been to three straight Finals and won one of them.

Disgruntled star PG, aging forward who can't play D, and the best player on the planet who looks like will leave in a year.

Risk/reward I guess, might just be that time that this run is over.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 23, 2017, 09:47:19 AM
I mean, the team with Lebron has made it to the Finals every year for how long? I think any team with Lebron on it has a very good chance of making it to the Finals. Maybe not beating the Warriors but making the Finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on July 23, 2017, 12:10:17 PM
I mean, the team with Lebron has made it to the Finals every year for how long? I think any team with Lebron on it has a very good chance of making it to the Finals. Maybe not beating the Warriors but making the Finals.

In the East, a team with Lebron on it will make the finals. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on July 23, 2017, 01:57:36 PM
LBJ has a full no trade clause.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 23, 2017, 02:19:47 PM
LBJ has a full no trade clause.

I imagined as such, but I was in the hypothetical world.

But honest question, what's the market for one year rental of LBJ?

Again, not gonna happen, and spare the salary cap stuff, but If I am the Wolves, would you trade Wiggins and a #1 for one year of LBJ and take a shot?  Butler, Towns, LBJ, with a supporting cast of Gibson, Teague, and Crawford is pretty formidable.

Again, never gonna happen, but just seeing what folks think of a hypothetical.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorFan on July 23, 2017, 11:27:14 PM
LBJ has a full no trade clause.
Darn... I think the best move for Cleveland is to keep Kyrie, dump (trade) LeBron for draft picks and build for the future.  Kyrie is 25, already great and has upside.  Lebron is 32 and has no more upside.  Yes, he's great and all that but he is also part of the problem.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on July 24, 2017, 08:40:33 AM
Darn... I think the best move for Cleveland is to keep Kyrie, dump (trade) LeBron for draft picks and build for the future.  Kyrie is 25, already great and has upside.  Lebron is 32 and has no more upside.  Yes, he's great and all that but he is also part of the problem.

"The problem."    Cleveland has been to 3 straight finals.     Year one, Love and Kyrie didn't play.    Year 2, Cleveland won.   Year 3, Golden State built a super team while Cleveland basically stood pat.     There is no problem.    Cleveland will probably go to the finals every year until Lebron retires.  How is that a problem?    "The Problem" is Golden State has a near all-star team level starting line up.  Dreaming up hypothetical super teams in the east to beat them.      Cleveland's only problem is that Durant joined Curry, Thompson, and Green.  And there really isn't a solution for that. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 24, 2017, 08:44:19 AM
"The problem."    Cleveland has been to 3 straight finals.     Year one, Love and Kyrie didn't play.    Year 2, Cleveland won.   Year 3, Golden State built a super team while Cleveland basically stood pat.     There is no problem.    Cleveland will probably go to the finals every year until Lebron retires.  How is that a problem?    "The Problem" is Golden State has a near all-star team level starting line up.  Dreaming up hypothetical super teams in the east to beat them.      Cleveland's only problem is that Durant joined Curry, Thompson, and Green.  And there really isn't a solution for that. 


Thank you.  I was trying to figure out how to counter the argument that LBJ is "part of the problem."  The guy's been to 7 straight NBA Finals and won three of them.

Dumping him to rebuild would be nuts, even if he leaves via free agency next year.  Rebuilding isn't easy.  Ask the Bulls how the last 20 years have gone. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 24, 2017, 09:42:24 AM
If I'm the Cavs I'm standing pat where I am.  Sure, if someone offers me a nice package for Kyrie (or Love) I'll pull the trigger, but how likely is that?  Jabari and Moose and a first for Kyrie?  Not right now, maybe in a year if Jabari shows he's healthy and a star.  Bledsoe and ??  Nope.  Melo and some picks?  Heck no.

I'll go to the Finals, lose in 5, and see if Kyrie wants to be "the man" in Cleveland going forward.  If not I'll trade him then, after LeBron leaves.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 24, 2017, 09:43:06 AM
"The problem."    Cleveland has been to 3 straight finals.     Year one, Love and Kyrie didn't play.    Year 2, Cleveland won.   Year 3, Golden State built a super team while Cleveland basically stood pat.     There is no problem.    Cleveland will probably go to the finals every year until Lebron retires.  How is that a problem?    "The Problem" is Golden State has a near all-star team level starting line up.  Dreaming up hypothetical super teams in the east to beat them.      Cleveland's only problem is that Durant joined Curry, Thompson, and Green.  And there really isn't a solution for that.


Thank you.  I was trying to figure out how to counter the argument that LBJ is "part of the problem."  The guy's been to 7 straight NBA Finals and won three of them.

Dumping him to rebuild would be nuts, even if he leaves via free agency next year.  Rebuilding isn't easy.  Ask the Bulls how the last 20 years have gone. 

My initial guess was that he believed LBJ to be "part of the problem" because of the big contracts for his guys Smith and Thompson, but I don't actually think that's what he means. Now I'm thinking that because LeBron is 32 without much upside (although, how much higher can he possibly go?) that means he's an aging superstar which is somehow a problem. Referencing the Bulls was spot-on, Sultan. You hang on to your superstars as long as possible.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on July 24, 2017, 09:57:56 AM
How can there be 'upside' remaining on a player in the GOAT conversation that has been to 7 straight finals.    LBJ will be a force of nature for a couple more years.    You ride that thoroughbred as long as you can and worry about the future when he retires. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on July 24, 2017, 10:59:17 AM
Yup yup yup. You're in outer space on a LBJ rocket - its your only ship and you have to ride it even as pieces are flying off as it re-enters the atmosphere. 

My two cents on Cleveland's nonsensical offseason is that their biggest mistake was their refusal to just acknowledge that LBJ could dictate all of their player personnel decisions.  I don't know who in the organization was the opposition to that (my guess is that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Sundays it was Gilbert, because he's totally inconsistent and unhinged) - but what really would have been the harm in it? Griffin was largely an LBJ surrogate, and that's fine. What Michael wanted back in the day, he got. Same with LBJ. You don't give a combined $95 million to Tristan Thompson, JR Smith and Iman Shumpert, and then just fire the faux-LeBron GM anyway. What the hell is the point of that?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 24, 2017, 04:27:57 PM
Maybe LeBron will waive the no-trade if he can swing a deal to Golden State!

Put him on that team and they'd win a best-of-7 series in 2 games!!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 24, 2017, 04:44:25 PM
http://deadspin.com/giannis-antetokounmpo-gently-defends-kevin-durants-okc-1797205365 (http://deadspin.com/giannis-antetokounmpo-gently-defends-kevin-durants-okc-1797205365)

Starts drinking heavily
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 24, 2017, 04:52:49 PM
Great breakdown on the potential market for Kyrie.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20144300/zach-lowe-kyrie-irving-cleveland-cavaliers-potential-trades-nba

Ones that stood to me, are an Isiah, Crowder, and one of the first rounders from Brooklyn or the Lakers, or a Bucks trade with Brogan, Middleton and some first rounders.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 24, 2017, 05:36:31 PM
http://deadspin.com/giannis-antetokounmpo-gently-defends-kevin-durants-okc-1797205365 (http://deadspin.com/giannis-antetokounmpo-gently-defends-kevin-durants-okc-1797205365)

Starts drinking heavily

He's under contract for three more seasons. Don't worry.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 24, 2017, 05:37:29 PM
Great breakdown on the potential market for Kyrie.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20144300/zach-lowe-kyrie-irving-cleveland-cavaliers-potential-trades-nba

Ones that stood to me, are an Isiah, Crowder, and one of the first rounders from Brooklyn or the Lakers, or a Bucks trade with Brogan, Middleton and some first rounders.

I would not make that trade if I were the Bucks. I don't think Kyrie is worth that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 24, 2017, 05:39:15 PM
I would not make that trade if I were the Bucks. I don't think Kyrie is worth that.

Agree. The defense each provides tips the scale.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 24, 2017, 05:39:19 PM
Darn... I think the best move for Cleveland is to keep Kyrie, dump (trade) LeBron for draft picks and build for the future.  Kyrie is 25, already great and has upside.  Lebron is 32 and has no more upside.  Yes, he's great and all that but he is also part of the problem.

I assume you mean the problem of getting to the NBA Finals every year. As I said earlier, a team that has Kyrie as its best player will not get to the Finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 24, 2017, 06:57:42 PM
I would not make that trade if I were the Bucks. I don't think Kyrie is worth that.

Fake news. You sell high on Brogdan, trade a good SG, and an unknown #1 pick for a top 20 NBA player who is only 25 with still 2 years left on their contract.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 24, 2017, 07:02:56 PM
I don't think Kyrie is as good as you do.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 24, 2017, 07:24:32 PM
I don't think Kyrie is as good as you do.

Hey, why not we fight about it for the next week, make it personal, and have it devolve into a thread that gets locked?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on July 24, 2017, 07:31:31 PM
I'm torn, on one hand I hate the Warriors and never want to see them win another title so long as Durant and Draymond are there and on the other hand I can't stand Derrick Rose and never want to see him win a ring.

Better hope someone else makes it out of the East. I'm looking at you Boston...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 24, 2017, 07:47:10 PM
Apparently, Kyrie is a complete d-bag. If you don't have an alpha dog like LeBron on your team to keep him at least reasonably in check, you've got a recipe for disaster.

As another Scooper said, you never want him to be your best player.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on July 24, 2017, 07:56:35 PM
Apparently, Kyrie is a complete d-bag. If you don't have an alpha dog like LeBron on your team to keep him at least reasonably in check, you've got a recipe for disaster.

As another Scooper said, you never want him to be your best player.

Or he sees the writing on the wall, with LBJ leaving in a year, a terrible off season, an aging roster, an average coach, a tool of an owner and an opportunity to help control his own destiny (like LBJ has done repeatedly).  Everything in the news have all been leaks from the Cavs so far, so methinks they have an agenda.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 24, 2017, 09:51:45 PM
Or he sees the writing on the wall, with LBJ leaving in a year, a terrible off season, an aging roster, an average coach, a tool of an owner and an opportunity to help control his own destiny (like LBJ has done repeatedly).  Everything in the news have all been leaks from the Cavs so far, so methinks they have an agenda.

So their agenda is to drive down the trade value of a guy who asked them to trade him? Hmm. If that's really what they're doing then my thought that there's no franchise more incompetent than the Knicks is certainly untrue.

These guys are all egomaniacs. None moreso than LeBron Blames, which makes the other giant egomaniac want out to be able to call his own shot. He sees one star get everything and anything and thinks, "Hey, why not me?" He had his opportunity to control his own destiny and chose to sign long term with the Cavs. Then LBJ came along and now here we are.

As far as Giannis's comment goes, thankfully Russell Westbrook isn't his point guard. It's one thing to be blocked from a ring by an all time great team while going down with the ball in my hands consistently. It's another to have a PG who's going to shoot the ball 43 times in the Playoffs. Kyrie will also surely fit that bill at his next stop. Bucks FO, be warned.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 24, 2017, 11:48:26 PM



These guys are all egomaniacs. None moreso than LeBron Blames, which makes the other giant egomaniac want out to be able to call his own shot. He sees one star get everything and anything and thinks, "Hey, why not me?" He had his opportunity to control his own destiny and chose to sign long term with the Cavs. Then LBJ came along and now here we are.




Maybe cuz the other guy is a guarantee to be in the NBA Finals every year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 24, 2017, 11:54:00 PM
I'm torn, on one hand I hate the Warriors and never want to see them win another title so long as Durant and Draymond are there and on the other hand I can't stand Derrick Rose and never want to see him win a ring.

Better hope someone else makes it out of the East. I'm looking at you Boston...

I understand hating certain teams. Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, the Knicks - all do it for me. I don't get the player hate, though.

By all accounts, Durant is a model citizen who gives much to charity.

Draymond is exactly the kind of guy you should love. The anti-Rose. A guy who gives 110% all the time with no excuses. A guy who will play any position asked without fail whether it is against a quicker '3' or a much bigger '4' or '5'. A guy who holds everyone on the team to a high standard whether it is Steph or KD or the 12th guy on the roster.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 25, 2017, 07:12:17 AM
I understand hating certain teams. Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, the Knicks - all do it for me. I don't get the player hate, though.

By all accounts, Durant is a model citizen who gives much to charity.

Draymond is exactly the kind of guy you should love. The anti-Rose. A guy who gives 110% all the time with no excuses. A guy who will play any position asked without fail whether it is against a quicker '3' or a much bigger '4' or '5'. A guy who holds everyone on the team to a high standard whether it is Steph or KD or the 12th guy on the roster.

I get hating Draymond.  He's a dirty player and takes cheap shots to the groin.

Durant hate I don't get.  It's like hating someone for leaving Yahoo to take a job at Google.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on July 25, 2017, 08:25:13 AM
Maybe cuz the other guy is a guarantee to be in the NBA Finals every year.

Well maybe cause without you, that other guy that gets to the Finals every year still wouldn't have his hometown ring.

He suffered through some all time terrible teams pre-Lebron, hit the biggest shot in franchise history, and has visibility into a toxic front office like reinko mentioned.  This is someone who sees that the Cavs will be a lesser version of themselves next year and then LBJ is off to LA and needs to plan the next stage of his career.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 25, 2017, 08:47:17 AM
Well maybe cause without you, that other guy that gets to the Finals every year still wouldn't have his hometown ring.

He suffered through some all time terrible teams pre-Lebron, hit the biggest shot in franchise history, and has visibility into a toxic front office like reinko mentioned.  This is someone who sees that the Cavs will be a lesser version of themselves next year and then LBJ is off to LA and needs to plan the next stage of his career.

For the sake of taking an alternative perspective...

If Kyrie really doesn't want to live in LeBron's shadow anymore and he thinks LeBron is leaving, he should want to stay in Cleveland and become the man for the Cavs beginning next year. If he thought LeBron was staying in Cleveland long-term, he'd want to go some place where he'd be the main focal point and, thus, he'd request a trade. That said, being traded to become the man on a contender sounds good in theory, but if that contender has to give up their young, valuable assets in the trade, you're basically right back where you started.

My honest opinion is that Kyrie 1) really wants to run his own team and 2) doesn't trust the Cavs' FO to improve the team whether LeBron stays or not.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 25, 2017, 09:00:31 AM
Draymond is exactly the kind of guy you should love. The anti-Rose. A guy who gives 110% all the time with no excuses. A guy who will play any position asked without fail whether it is against a quicker '3' or a much bigger '4' or '5'. A guy who holds everyone on the team to a high standard whether it is Steph or KD or the 12th guy on the roster.

Also a guy who intentionally kicks other players in the nuts, body slams opponents,  likely cost his team a championship with his selfish behavior and picks fights with college kids.
What's not to love?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 25, 2017, 09:12:41 AM
Or he sees the writing on the wall, with LBJ leaving in a year, a terrible off season, an aging roster, an average coach, a tool of an owner and an opportunity to help control his own destiny (like LBJ has done repeatedly).  Everything in the news have all been leaks from the Cavs so far, so methinks they have an agenda.

Both sides have an agenda. Is Kyrie's any more pure than the Cavs'?
And seriously ... was Dan Gilbert less of a tool in 2014 when Irving chose to sign a max contract extension? Was the roster looking like it was getting younger when they traded away young players that offseason and loaded up with James, Love, Mike Miller and Shawn Marion?

As for controlling his own destiny, he voluntarily surrendered that control two years ago in exchange for the security of a 5-year, $94 million contract. What he's trying to do is in no way similar to what LBJ has done when he's made moves as a free agent.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: PBRme on July 25, 2017, 09:35:39 AM
Also a guy who intentionally kicks other players in the nuts, body slams opponents,  likely cost his team a championship with his selfish behavior and picks fights with college kids.
What's not to love?

+1
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 25, 2017, 10:40:28 AM
LeBron doesn't just win every year, he wins big every year. This is no accident. Without LeBron, Kyrie is still a good player on a crappy team - one he chose to stay with because he wanted the security and the money.

Yes, Kyrie hit a huge shot in the Finals. So did Steve Kerr and Jon Paxson. Yes, Kyrie is an All-Star. So was Scottie.

But Kerr and Paxson were nothing without Jordan, and Scottie was just another good player who never would have sniffed a title without Jordan.

Look at the Cleveland roster that LeBron carried to the 2007 Finals - Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden were the second and third best players. Yes, LeBron had some fabulous teammates during this 7-year run of Finals, but so what?

Jordan didn't have some great teammates? Kobe? Russell? Duncan? Bird? Magic? Kareem? Shaq? Frazier? Etc, etc, etc.

LeBron is the big dog; Kyrie is a flea. Please.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 25, 2017, 10:44:56 AM
But Kerr and Paxson were nothing without Jordan, and Scottie was just another good player who never would have sniffed a title without Jordan.


Well, Pippen was on the 2000 Blazers team that blow a 16 point 4th quarter lead in Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals.  The Lakers went on to beat the Pacers that year, and the Blazers likely would have as well.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 25, 2017, 11:00:04 AM
But Kerr and Paxson were nothing without Jordan, and Scottie was just another good player who never would have sniffed a title without Jordan.


You're selling Pippen severely short. He's a top 50 player in history. In '93-94, the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan and were a phantom foul away from being in the Conf Finals (against an Indy team the Bulls went 4-1 against during the regular season).

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 25, 2017, 11:27:55 AM
You're selling Pippen severely short. He's a top 50 player in history. In '93-94, the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan and were a phantom foul away from being in the Conf Finals (against an Indy team the Bulls went 4-1 against during the regular season).

You are right. Scottie was a very, very good player - top 50 all-time - but not great in the MJ, Kobe, Duncan, LBJ mold.

He was not great enough to lead a team to a title.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 25, 2017, 11:54:58 AM
You are right. Scottie was a very, very good player - top 50 all-time - but not great in the MJ, Kobe, Duncan, LBJ mold.

He was not great enough to lead a team to a title.

How do we know? He really only had 1 shot at it and his team was one of the best in the conference that season.

I'm not putting him in the "best of the best" category but if Jordan stays retired, it's possible that Pippen gets to that level. More realistically, I'd put him in the Dirk Nowitzki category of great players who'd be good enough to be the best player on a championship team but he'd need the perfect supporting cast at the perfect time (i.e. the 2010-11 Mavs).

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 25, 2017, 12:19:02 PM
LeBron doesn't just win every year, he wins big every year. This is no accident. Without LeBron, Kyrie is still a good player on a crappy team - one he chose to stay with because he wanted the security and the money.

Yes, Kyrie hit a huge shot in the Finals. So did Steve Kerr and Jon Paxson. Yes, Kyrie is an All-Star. So was Scottie.

But Kerr and Paxson were nothing without Jordan, and Scottie was just another good player who never would have sniffed a title without Jordan.

Look at the Cleveland roster that LeBron carried to the 2007 Finals - Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden were the second and third best players. Yes, LeBron had some fabulous teammates during this 7-year run of Finals, but so what?

Jordan didn't have some great teammates? Kobe? Russell? Duncan? Bird? Magic? Kareem? Shaq? Frazier? Etc, etc, etc.

LeBron is the big dog; Kyrie is a flea. Please.

The east was also godawful that year, and the defending champs were missing their MVP (DWade). Heat would have been in that Finals no question if Wade didn't separate his shoulder. He was playing on another level that year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 25, 2017, 12:22:15 PM
How do we know? He really only had 1 shot at it and his team was one of the best in the conference that season.

I'm not putting him in the "best of the best" category but if Jordan stays retired, it's possible that Pippen gets to that level. More realistically, I'd put him in the Dirk Nowitzki category of great players who'd be good enough to be the best player on a championship team but he'd need the perfect supporting cast at the perfect time (i.e. the 2010-11 Mavs).

...and he'd also need the supposed GOAT to royally choke on the big stage
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on July 25, 2017, 12:25:54 PM
Well maybe cause without you, that other guy that gets to the Finals every year still wouldn't have his hometown ring.

He suffered through some all time terrible teams pre-Lebron, hit the biggest shot in franchise history, and has visibility into a toxic front office like reinko mentioned.  This is someone who sees that the Cavs will be a lesser version of themselves next year and then LBJ is off to LA and needs to plan the next stage of his career.

Agreed, Kyrie had some MVP-level performances that series and is viewed as a complete afterthought. And LeBron is definitely leaving after this season. Kyrie is just trying to beat him to the exit.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 25, 2017, 12:28:47 PM
Look at the Cleveland roster that LeBron carried to the 2007 Finals - Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden were the second and third best players. Yes, LeBron had some fabulous teammates during this 7-year run of Finals, but so what?

Don't sleep on a healthy Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who averaged 15.6/10.2 for the Cavs that year.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 25, 2017, 01:37:57 PM
Don't sleep on a healthy Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who averaged 15.6/10.2 for the Cavs that year.

I think you just proved 82's point.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 25, 2017, 02:03:56 PM
I think you just proved 82's point.

The point being that the Cavs' roster wasn't stacked that year? I'm not sure anyone is arguing against that.
But he said Gooden and Hughes were the best players on that team other than LeBron. I'm pointing out that Ilgauskas (a two-time all star who played reasonably well that season) probably was better than those two.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 25, 2017, 02:57:44 PM
The point being that the Cavs' roster wasn't stacked that year? I'm not sure anyone is arguing against that.
But he said Gooden and Hughes were the best players on that team other than LeBron. I'm pointing out that Ilgauskas (a two-time all star who played reasonably well that season) probably was better than those two.

Well, in your haste to try to prove me wrong, you got Ilgauskas' numbers wrong. Just looked 'em up on two sites -- 11.9 points, 7.7 rebounds in 2006-07.

In fact, he never averaged 10 rebounds.

But nice try, though!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 25, 2017, 03:09:38 PM
Well, in your haste to try to prove me wrong, you got Ilgauskas' numbers wrong. Just looked 'em up on two sites -- 11.9 points, 7.7 rebounds in 2006-07.

In fact, he never averaged 10 rebounds.

But nice try, though!

Looks like he pulled ZI's Per 36 numbers. ZI was still the second-best player on the team and that team was still incredibly underwhelming aside from LeBron.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on July 25, 2017, 03:23:21 PM
Looks like he pulled ZI's Per 36 numbers. ZI was still the second-best player on the team and that team was still incredibly underwhelming aside from LeBron.

That's exactly what I did. My mistake.
That said, Big Z still better than Hughes and Gooden.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 25, 2017, 05:30:05 PM
That's exactly what I did. My mistake.
That said, Big Z still better than Hughes and Gooden.

That's opinion, of course.

Regardless, my thesis was sound. That team SUCKED, and LeBron carried them to the NBA Finals as a 22-year-old!!!

Just the first incredible act in an incredible career.

Kyrie Irving won zip before LeBron got there, and he'd win zip again after LeBron leaves (if Kyrie stayed).

Yep, Kyrie made that big shot, but LeBron was superhuman in those three games, including one of the great blocked shots in the history of basketball.

I can't believe I actually have to argue for LeBron anymore. No-doubter top 5, probably top-2.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on July 25, 2017, 06:26:31 PM
That's opinion, of course.

Regardless, my thesis was sound. That team SUCKED, and LeBron carried them to the NBA Finals as a 22-year-old!!!

Just the first incredible act in an incredible career.

Kyrie Irving won zip before LeBron got there, and he'd win zip again after LeBron leaves (if Kyrie stayed).

Yep, Kyrie made that big shot, but LeBron was superhuman in those three games, including one of the great blocked shots in the history of basketball.

I can't believe I actually have to argue for LeBron anymore. No-doubter top 5, probably top-2.

Nobody is arguing against Lebron.  You're just doing what every spiteful Cavs fan is doing right now and thats writing off Kyrie as some supporting cast bum. 

Talking about what he did before Lebron got there, when he was 19-21, after not even getting a full college season, on a team with Anthony Parker and Antawn Jamison's corpse.

Talking about "he hit a great shot BUT Lebron was unreal".  Thats great, but Kyrie went 30, 34, and 41 in the middle of that series and got them to those late games.  Thats not taking anything away from Lebron, but Kyrie was basically unstoppable 1v1 for large chunks of the series.

You called Kyrie a flea for gods sake.  This is the classic mantra of Lebron fans.  The need to denegrate everyone around him to pump his myth.  "Lebron's supporting cast is basically D-League" is the "Bo Ryan only recruits 1 stars and turns them into All Conference" nonsense of the NBA.

Lebron is the second best player of all time.  He's a freak of nature.  But like any fan of the NBA knows, these days you need at least 2 superstars to get it done consistently.  Just because Kyrie has come into his own with Lebron's help and wants to plan his future away from the dysfunction in Cleveland when Lebron leaves, that doesnt tarnish Lebron's career at all.  Good lord.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 25, 2017, 07:04:41 PM
Nobody is arguing against Lebron.  You're just doing what every spiteful Cavs fan is doing right now and thats writing off Kyrie as some supporting cast bum. 

Talking about what he did before Lebron got there, when he was 19-21, after not even getting a full college season, on a team with Anthony Parker and Antawn Jamison's corpse.

Talking about "he hit a great shot BUT Lebron was unreal".  Thats great, but Kyrie went 30, 34, and 41 in the middle of that series and got them to those late games.  Thats not taking anything away from Lebron, but Kyrie was basically unstoppable 1v1 for large chunks of the series.

You called Kyrie a flea for gods sake.  This is the classic mantra of Lebron fans.  The need to denegrate everyone around him to pump his myth.  "Lebron's supporting cast is basically D-League" is the "Bo Ryan only recruits 1 stars and turns them into All Conference" nonsense of the NBA.

Lebron is the second best player of all time.  He's a freak of nature.  But like any fan of the NBA knows, these days you need at least 2 superstars to get it done consistently.  Just because Kyrie has come into his own with Lebron's help and wants to plan his future away from the dysfunction in Cleveland when Lebron leaves, that doesnt tarnish Lebron's career at all.  Good lord.

You're right. I didn't need to denigrate Kyrie to make my point about LeBron, and I shouldn't have done it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 25, 2017, 07:20:57 PM


You called Kyrie a flea for gods sake.  This is the classic mantra of Lebron fans.  The need to denegrate everyone around him to pump his myth.  "Lebron's supporting cast is basically D-League" is the "Bo Ryan only recruits 1 stars and turns them into All Conference" nonsense of the NBA.



Just wondering. Could you cite one reference - just one - where someone said Bo only recruits 1-stars?

Your argument loses ALL credibility when you have to make things up to further it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 25, 2017, 07:21:02 PM
You're selling Pippen severely short. He's a top 50 player in history. In '93-94, the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan and were a phantom foul away from being in the Conf Finals (against an Indy team the Bulls went 4-1 against during the regular season).

Scottie was one of the great wingmen in NBA history but he was never able to be The Man for even a conference championship team.

Mentioning his near-misses sounds like the Ewing fans talking about how the Knicks "should have" beaten the Bulls. If they should have, they would have. If Scottie could have led the Bulls and Blazers to the Finals, he would have.

Hell, even Phil called the last shot in a playoff game not for Scottie but for Kukoc ... and Pippen reacted by quitting on the team.

That top-50 NBA team was selected in 1997. A lot of damn good players have come along since then, and I'm not sure Pippen would make the cut if the vote were taken again today. Off the top of my bald head: Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Duncan, Garnett, Nash - all no-brainers ahead of Pip. Dirk, probably. Pierce and Chris Paul, quite possibly. Maybe a few others. Now, of course Pip might still make it ahead of some others from his era and earlier who were chosen for that top-50 team, but there were more than a few folks back in '97 who thought he was a borderline choice to begin with. 

I do respect what Pippen brought to those Bulls, but I think I have a pretty good fix on where he fits on the Greatness Scale.

You're allowed to disagree. That's the whole idea of fun sports discussions!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on July 25, 2017, 08:11:18 PM
Just wondering. Could you cite one reference - just one - where someone said Bo only recruits 1-stars?

Your argument loses ALL credibility when you have to make things up to further it.

It was a purposefully exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of the argument.  In neither case is it quite as bleak as its made out to be.  Both are very good at what they do without amplification of the circumstances supposedly preventing success.

And respect MU82, appreciate your honesty.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on July 25, 2017, 08:25:57 PM
Just wondering. Could you cite one reference - just one - where someone said Bo only recruits 1-stars?

Your argument loses ALL credibility when you have to make things up to further it.

It really doesn't, it was obvious hyperbole.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 26, 2017, 12:05:56 AM
It was a purposefully exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of the argument.  In neither case is it quite as bleak as its made out to be.  Both are very good at what they do without amplification of the circumstances supposedly preventing success.

And respect MU82, appreciate your honesty.

I accept that you were exaggerating for emphasis and apologize for missing your meaning, so let me go it it another way.

You said the following as a defense of Kyrie. "You called Kyrie a flea for gods sake.  This is the classic mantra of Lebron fans.  The need to denegrate everyone around him to pump his myth.  "Lebron's supporting cast is basically D-League" is the "Bo Ryan only recruits 1 stars and turns them into All Conference" nonsense of the NBA.


My response is to look at the record. In the past 3 years, LeBron has sat for 17 games that Irving started. And, Kevin Love only missed 2 of those games. The result? 4-13.

So with the same guys LBJ took to the Finals 3 years in a row, Irving lost over 3/4 of the games when James wasn't on the floor. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 26, 2017, 06:41:24 AM
I accept that you were exaggerating for emphasis and apologize for missing your meaning, so let me go it it another way.

You said the following as a defense of Kyrie. "You called Kyrie a flea for gods sake.  This is the classic mantra of Lebron fans.  The need to denegrate everyone around him to pump his myth.  "Lebron's supporting cast is basically D-League" is the "Bo Ryan only recruits 1 stars and turns them into All Conference" nonsense of the NBA.


My response is to look at the record. In the past 3 years, LeBron has sat for 17 games that Irving started. And, Kevin Love only missed 2 of those games. The result? 4-13.

So with the same guys LBJ took to the Finals 3 years in a row, Irving lost over 3/4 of the games when James wasn't on the floor.

Which is absolutely, positively meaningless in terms of whether Kyrie can be the man on his own teams. They've played 3 years together, their offense is designed around having 3 superstars, of course they're going to be horrible when the best of them is out. No matter what team it is there takes an adjustment period.

Take the Warriors for example. Early in the year people were saying, "Holy cow, they won a title 2 years ago, 73 games last year, and are struggling out of the gate. Does KD make them worse?!" (Which was absolutely laughable, but people make conclusions based on small, predictable sample sizes). Then they find their way, then KD gets hurt and they lose like 4 in a row. At that point did you think to yourself, "The Warriors can't win a game without KD!" Well, they won a title 2 years ago and set a record for the most wins in the history of the NBA a year ago. They then won 17 straight games or something, followed by 1 loss and then like 18-1 to close out the year.

When a star goes out teams' offenses change and need to adjust. When it's just one random game here or there (in LBJ's case) there's no time (or need) to adjust.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 26, 2017, 08:31:08 AM
That top-50 NBA team was selected in 1997. A lot of damn good players have come along since then, and I'm not sure Pippen would make the cut if the vote were taken again today. Off the top of my bald head: Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Duncan, Garnett, Nash - all no-brainers ahead of Pip. Dirk, probably. Pierce and Chris Paul, quite possibly. Maybe a few others. Now, of course Pip might still make it ahead of some others from his era and earlier who were chosen for that top-50 team, but there were more than a few folks back in '97 who thought he was a borderline choice to begin with. 

I do respect what Pippen brought to those Bulls, but I think I have a pretty good fix on where he fits on the Greatness Scale.

You're allowed to disagree. That's the whole idea of fun sports discussions!

I wasn't specifically referencing the Top 50 from 1997, but if re-done, Pippen would still be on there.

Dirk over Pippen? Definitely. Garnett? Doubtful. Steve Nash? No. Paul Pierce? If he didn't play in Boston, he'd be Adrian Dantley. Chris Paul? Maybe, but he's never come close to winning anything. I'd also put Durant ahead of Pippen even with a lot of years left in his career.

There are several other active players with a good chance to be all-timers as well - Davis, Curry, Leonard, Harden, Giannis, Westbrook, Towns.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on July 26, 2017, 10:30:55 AM
Which is absolutely, positively meaningless in terms of whether Kyrie can be the man on his own teams. They've played 3 years together, their offense is designed around having 3 superstars, of course they're going to be horrible when the best of them is out. No matter what team it is there takes an adjustment period.



Maybe - but do you think that the Cavs with James and without Kyrie would go 3-14?

Kyrie is a really great scorer. That is pretty much the extent of his game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 26, 2017, 10:43:42 AM
Maybe - but do you think that the Cavs with James and without Kyrie would go 3-14?

Kyrie is a really great scorer. That is pretty much the extent of his game.

For comparison, Cleveland went 20-9 without Kyrie in the 2015-16 regular season and 4-3 in the 2014-15 Playoffs without him.

If Cleveland can get Bledsoe, Jackson and a (protected) #1 from Phoenix, they should jump on it. Jared Dudley could be a good fit in Cleveland as well.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 26, 2017, 10:46:27 AM
Maybe - but do you think that the Cavs with James and without Kyrie would go 3-14?

Kyrie is a really great scorer. That is pretty much the extent of his game.

Probably not 3-14 no.  But I really don't think those records mean anything.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on July 26, 2017, 11:07:51 AM
It was a purposefully exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of the argument.  In neither case is it quite as bleak as its made out to be.  Both are very good at what they do without amplification of the circumstances supposedly preventing success.

And respect MU82, appreciate your honesty.

Can't we all just agree that talking about the Badgers in a thread about NBA-level talent is a bit off topic?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 26, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
Can't we all just agree that talking about the Badgers in a thread about NBA-level talent is a bit off topic?

Subtle.  Bravo sir
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on July 26, 2017, 12:24:52 PM
For comparison, Cleveland went 20-9 without Kyrie in the 2015-16 regular season and 4-3 in the 2014-15 Playoffs without him.

If Cleveland can get Bledsoe, Jackson and a (protected) #1 from Phoenix, they should jump on it. Jared Dudley could be a good fit in Cleveland as well.

Supposedly the Suns wont include Jackson in any deals.  So there's that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 26, 2017, 12:54:18 PM
Supposedly the Suns wont include Jackson in any deals.  So there's that.

Cleveland wasn't going to include Wiggins in a trade for Kevin Love either.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 26, 2017, 05:49:34 PM
I wasn't specifically referencing the Top 50 from 1997, but if re-done, Pippen would still be on there.

Dirk over Pippen? Definitely. Garnett? Doubtful. Steve Nash? No. Paul Pierce? If he didn't play in Boston, he'd be Adrian Dantley. Chris Paul? Maybe, but he's never come close to winning anything. I'd also put Durant ahead of Pippen even with a lot of years left in his career.

There are several other active players with a good chance to be all-timers as well - Davis, Curry, Leonard, Harden, Giannis, Westbrook, Towns.

The good news for Scottie is that the next time they do this exercise in 2022, it will be the NBA's 75th anniversary and they'll choose their All-Time 75!

Not sure why you would so casually dismiss a 2-time MVP and 8-time All-Star who carried his teams (Nash) and a 1-time MVP and 15-time All-Star who averaged 20-10-4 for 9 straight seasons (Garnett) vs a 0-time MVP and 7-time All-Star who was a career second fiddle (Pip), but we could quibble about any number of these.

Good call on Durant, who already has had a better career than Pip, and Curry, who is close if not already more impactful.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 26, 2017, 05:52:51 PM
I think a lot of people dismiss Garnett for some odd reason. He was a phenomenal player on largely marginal teams. Better than Pip?  No doubt. And I'm a Pip fan.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 26, 2017, 06:28:28 PM
KG might be the second best power forward ever to play the game behind Duncan.  Certainly others have an argument, but KG is right up there.  Only one I can say without a doubt is better is Duncan.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 26, 2017, 08:21:12 PM
Sultan and wades, we are in agreement. KG was a freakin' stud. Or a studly freak. One of the two best high school players I ever saw in person (LeBron was the other), and obviously a tremendous pro for a long time.

Once he FINALLY got on a team that had a legit chance to win, he won - and he was the driving force behind it.

The more I think about it, he was quite a bit better than Scottie. And yes, I appreciated Scottie's talent very much.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 26, 2017, 10:00:32 PM
As "the man," KG got out of the 1st Round one time in 7 playoff appearances over 12 seasons. He put up amazing numbers in the process but they didn't result in much. Not only couldn't he carry a team close to a title, he could barely get out of the 1st Round and his postseason success didn't come until he was the #3 option.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 26, 2017, 10:39:51 PM
As "the man," KG got out of the 1st Round one time in 7 playoff appearances over 12 seasons. He put up amazing numbers in the process but they didn't result in much. Not only couldn't he carry a team close to a title, he could barely get out of the 1st Round and his postseason success didn't come until he was the #3 option.

3rd option?  Who was 1 and 2 on the C's?


KG was the best player on that team.  But even if he wasn't, that argument is as lame as it gets when comparing 2 players.  I consider Giannis far better than DeMar DeRozan even though Giannis has never been out of the first round of the Playoffs and DeRozan has been "the man" on a team that has made a Conference Finals.  You could come up with thousands of examples of this in sports.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 26, 2017, 10:52:37 PM
3rd option?  Who was 1 and 2 on the C's?

  • KG: 18.8 points, 9.2 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 53.9% eFG, 1.4 steals, 1.3 blocks,
     5.5 Value Over Replacement, 12.9 Win Shares
  • Paul Pierce: 19.6 points, 5.1 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 52.9% eFG, 1.3 steals, 0.5 blocks, 4.9 VORP, 12.4 WS
  • Ray Allen: 17.4 points, 3.7 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 53.7% eFG, 0.9 steals, 0.2 blocks, 3.4 VORP, 9.7 WS
  • Rajon Rondo: 10.6 points, 4.2 rebounds, 5.1 assists, 49.6% eFG, 1.7 steals,
     0.2 blocks, 2.7 VORP, 7.2 WS

KG was the best player on that team.  But even if he wasn't, that argument is as lame as it gets when comparing 2 players.  I consider Giannis far better than DeMar DeRozan even though Giannis has never been out of the first round of the Playoffs and DeRozan has been "the man" on a team that has made a Conference Finals.  You could come up with thousands of examples of this in sports.

You're right, of course, but folks will believe whatever "facts" support their arguments.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 27, 2017, 05:39:31 AM
Garnett had a bunch of nothing as teammates in Minnesota.  In his 10 years there, he only had three teammates to make the All Star game:  Tom Gugliota, Wally Szerbiak and Sam Cassell. 

Unless I am missing something, Pippen never was without an All Star teammate.  And Pippen himself didn't make the All Star game once after Chicago.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 27, 2017, 08:48:54 AM
3rd option?  Who was 1 and 2 on the C's?

Stats are nice but the Celtics offense didn't run through Garnett. It was Pierce's team with Allen as the second option. KG was great, don't get me wrong, but he wasn't the focal point. Much like Pippen in Portland, he was one of the stars, but was past his prime in terms of being "the man."

KG was the best player on that team.  But even if he wasn't, that argument is as lame as it gets when comparing 2 players.  I consider Giannis far better than DeMar DeRozan even though Giannis has never been out of the first round of the Playoffs and DeRozan has been "the man" on a team that has made a Conference Finals.  You could come up with thousands of examples of this in sports.

This is a ridiculous example. DeRozan has played twice as many seasons as Giannis and Giannis has been "the man" for basically one season. If both retired tomorrow, DeRozan would have had a better career. If we're talking in terms of all-time greats, a category neither of those players is in (yet), then wins and titles matter. That's why Tracy McGrady is typically downgraded.

Garnett had a bunch of nothing as teammates in Minnesota.  In his 10 years there, he only had three teammates to make the All Star game:  Tom Gugliota, Wally Szerbiak and Sam Cassell. 

Unless I am missing something, Pippen never was without an All Star teammate.  And Pippen himself didn't make the All Star game once after Chicago.

Pippen didn't play with an All-Star in 1994-95.

For some reason, it seems to be held against Pippen that he was the #2 behind the greatest player in history but it's some sort of a badge of honor for KG to have put up big numbers on average teams. If Seattle kept Pippen on draft night, and he put up monster numbers for some average late-80s Sonics teams would that have made him a better player? I, personally, am just not overly impressed with big numbers that don't result in anything significant for the team. You guys are welcome to disagree...and clearly you do!  ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on July 27, 2017, 09:03:23 AM
Garnett's lack of post season success reminds me of Dominique's career.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 27, 2017, 09:08:43 AM
Stats are nice but the Celtics offense didn't run through Garnett. It was Pierce's team with Allen as the second option. KG was great, don't get me wrong, but he wasn't the focal point. Much like Pippen in Portland, he was one of the stars, but was past his prime in terms of being "the man."

This is a ridiculous example. DeRozan has played twice as many seasons as Giannis and Giannis has been "the man" for basically one season. If both retired tomorrow, DeRozan would have had a better career. If we're talking in terms of all-time greats, a category neither of those players is in (yet), then wins and titles matter. That's why Tracy McGrady is typically downgraded.

Pippen didn't play with an All-Star in 1994-95.

For some reason, it seems to be held against Pippen that he was the #2 behind the greatest player in history but it's some sort of a badge of honor for KG to have put up big numbers on average teams. If Seattle kept Pippen on draft night, and he put up monster numbers for some average late-80s Sonics teams would that have made him a better player? I, personally, am just not overly impressed with big numbers that don't result in anything significant for the team. You guys are welcome to disagree...and clearly you do!  ;)

Yeah we're definitely going to disagree on that one.  KG's usage % that season was first on the C's at 25.5%, Pierce's was third at 24.8%, and Ray's was 6th at 21.6%.  If there was a guy who was "the man" on that team, it was KG.

If you don't like that example that's fine.  Then it'd be like listing Dirk ahead of Karl Malone because Dirk proved he could be "the man" on a title team while Karl could never win a title, whether he was "the man" or not.  The list could go on and on and on and on.  The list would also be entirely useless.  Basing an individual player's place in the rankings of best individual players on how their team of 12 did in Playoffs against other groups of 12 guys is silly.  If KG was on the MJ Bulls rosters and Scottie wasn't KG has 6 rings instead.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 27, 2017, 11:18:18 AM
Nash is overrated.  How he won two MVPs is beyond me.  Amare, the Matrix, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson...hell of a team around him...don't think these guys got enough credit.

Compare that to the Heat '05 roster with Eddie Jones, Udonis Haslem, and Damon Jones starting.  The only problem was Wade and Shaq both played at MVP level and cancelled each other out.

In '06, Kobe and Lebron were both more deserving.  Phoenix only won 54 games that year, not that many more than the Lakers 45 or the Cavs 50.  But (this my theory) combine Kobe hate, Lebron being a bit too young in the minds of voters, and wanting to validate Nash's '05 MVP, Nash gets a 2nd MVP in '06.  Maybe even a little subconscious "let's vote for the white guy" mixed in.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on July 27, 2017, 11:38:52 AM
Nash is overrated.  How he won two MVPs is beyond me.  Amare, the Matrix, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson...hell of a team around him...don't think these guys got enough credit.

Compare that to the Heat '05 roster with Eddie Jones, Udonis Haslem, and Damon Jones starting.  The only problem was Wade and Shaq both played at MVP level and cancelled each other out.

In '06, Kobe and Lebron were both more deserving.  Phoenix only won 54 games that year, not that many more than the Lakers 45 or the Cavs 50.  But (this my theory) combine Kobe hate, Lebron being a bit too young in the minds of voters, and wanting to validate Nash's '05 MVP, Nash gets a 2nd MVP in '06.  Maybe even a little subconscious "let's vote for the white guy" mixed in.

Quentin Richardson played one season with Nash.  Amare and Marion made a combined 10 All Star games between them, and 9 of those came when they were playing next to Nash.  Joe Johnson is the only one who played better (or, for the rest of them, didn't take a significant decline after moving on from playing next to Nash) after playing with Nash, and I feel pretty confident in saying that had more to do with the fact that it was his first 4 years in the league as a 20-23 year old player.  It's not a coincidence that most players Nash played with had better than average years when they played with him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on July 27, 2017, 12:17:24 PM
Quentin Richardson played one season with Nash.  Amare and Marion made a combined 10 All Star games between them, and 9 of those came when they were playing next to Nash.  Joe Johnson is the only one who played better (or, for the rest of them, didn't take a significant decline after moving on from playing next to Nash) after playing with Nash, and I feel pretty confident in saying that had more to do with the fact that it was his first 4 years in the league as a 20-23 year old player.  It's not a coincidence that most players Nash played with had better than average years when they played with him.

Marion was an All-Star in 2002-03, before Nash arrived. Stoudemire averaged 21 and 9 as a 21yo the year before Nash arrived. There's no doubt Nash helped, but he was a stud regardless. He was also an All-Star in his first season in NY (before Melo arrived and injuries started to take over). D'Antoni's system also had a huge impact on those players' increased production. Nash was the ideal PG for D'Antoni's system and an excellent player but he got far too much credit.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 27, 2017, 03:41:28 PM
For some reason, it seems to be held against Pippen that he was the #2 behind the greatest player in history but it's some sort of a badge of honor for KG to have put up big numbers on average teams. If Seattle kept Pippen on draft night, and he put up monster numbers for some average late-80s Sonics teams would that have made him a better player? I, personally, am just not overly impressed with big numbers that don't result in anything significant for the team. You guys are welcome to disagree...and clearly you do!  ;)


I'm not holding anything against Pippen.  I think he is a great player worthy of being the top 50 of all time. 

I just think KG is better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 27, 2017, 09:40:10 PM

I'm not holding anything against Pippen.  I think he is a great player worthy of being the top 50 of all time. 

I just think KG is better.

This is my stance, too ... mostly.

I remember when the All-time top 50 was chosen in 1997 that Pippen and Shaq were debated picks, Pip because he was a career second fiddle and Shaq because he had only played a few seasons to that point.

But I DO think Pip was top 50 in 1997 and I'm less sure he's still top 50 all-time. At least a half-dozen players have moved past him, and that doesn't count KG, Durant and Curry, among others. But I'd have to go over all of those '97 top-50 choices, including guys from the '50s and '60s, to see who might have been passed over instead of Pip ... and I'm FAR too lazy to do that!

My advantage over some folks is that I'm neither a Bulls fan nor a Bulls hater - nor a fan of any individual team. I have no rooting interests.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on July 27, 2017, 09:51:22 PM
This is my stance, too ... mostly.

I remember when the All-time top 50 was chosen in 1997 that Pippen and Shaq were debated picks, Pip because he was a career second fiddle and Shaq because he had only played a few seasons to that point.

But I DO think Pip was top 50 in 1997 and I'm less sure he's still top 50 all-time. At least a half-dozen players have moved past him, and that doesn't count KG, Durant and Curry, among others. But I'd have to go over all of those '97 top-50 choices, including guys from the '50s and '60s, to see who might have been passed over instead of Pip ... and I'm FAR too lazy to do that!

My advantage over some folks is that I'm neither a Bulls fan nor a Bulls hater - nor a fan of any individual team. I have no rooting interests.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Greatest_Players_in_NBA_History

Oh there's a few on there I would take off long before Pip:

Bill Walton
Pete Maravich
Dave DeBusschere
Billy Cunningham
Sam Jones
James Worthy

That being said there are a lot of players from the last 20 years that need to be on that list.  Lot more than a half dozen.  Duncan, Wade, Bryant, James, Iverson, Nowitski, Kidd, Nash, Durant, Paul,Curry...

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on July 27, 2017, 11:43:20 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Greatest_Players_in_NBA_History

Oh there's a few on there I would take off long before Pip:

Bill Walton
Pete Maravich
Dave DeBusschere
Billy Cunningham
Sam Jones
James Worthy

That being said there are a lot of players from the last 20 years that need to be on that list.  Lot more than a half dozen.  Duncan, Wade, Bryant, James, Iverson, Nowitski, Kidd, Nash, Durant, Paul,Curry...

It's an interesting discussion.

For example, was Walton healthy enough long enough to really be better than Pippen, who had a long career that included a key role in 6 titles?

These are fun debates, as long as people don't take 'em too seriously!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on August 03, 2017, 08:38:41 PM
https://twitter.com/sportingnews/status/892849326296252417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigplay.com%2Fvideo-lebron-james-snaps-at-sons-aau-game%2F

Yelling this to 12 year old kids.  What a guy.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on August 03, 2017, 10:28:02 PM
https://twitter.com/sportingnews/status/892849326296252417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigplay.com%2Fvideo-lebron-james-snaps-at-sons-aau-game%2F

Yelling this to 12 year old kids.  What a guy.

I don't like that. Diminishes his stature as a dad and a human being. Doesn't diminish it all as a basketball player. I'm also guessing he doesn't care what we think about any of that!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on August 04, 2017, 08:21:07 AM
https://twitter.com/sportingnews/status/892849326296252417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigplay.com%2Fvideo-lebron-james-snaps-at-sons-aau-game%2F

Yelling this to 12 year old kids.  What a guy.

Almost 25 years ago my middle school coach (who was also the science teacher) said much worse things than that to his players and I can only imagine what some of these "frustrated athlete" AAU coaches say. I'm not saying I condone it, but it's just not all that newsworthy.

Honestly, the AAU basketball system itself is probably worse for these kids than anything a parent yells from the sidelines.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on August 04, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Honestly, the AAU basketball system itself is probably worse for these kids than anything a parent yells from the sidelines.

This +10000 I know players that the AAU circuit ruined.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on August 22, 2017, 05:38:05 PM
Huh ...

 Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn
10m
Sources: Boston, Cleveland nearing deal on Kyrie Irving, but details still working to completion. Isaiah Thomas, Crowder, pick(s) in talks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on August 22, 2017, 06:51:37 PM
kyrie to celtics for isaiah...WOW!!    interesting.  so isaiah wants to share more than kyrie or what?

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cavs-celtics-seriously-discussing-deal-swap-kyrie-irving-isaiah-thomas-223024513.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=5c839b50-00d3-37e8-a68f-7c03c48d7104&.tsrc=notification-brknews

  and JAE ??
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on August 22, 2017, 06:57:56 PM
kyrie to celtics for isaiah...WOW!!    interesting.  so isaiah wants to share more than kyrie or what?

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cavs-celtics-seriously-discussing-deal-swap-kyrie-irving-isaiah-thomas-223024513.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=5c839b50-00d3-37e8-a68f-7c03c48d7104&.tsrc=notification-brknews

  and JAE ??

I think I like this trade.  IT, Jae, Zizic and Brooklyn's first rounder.  I love Kyrie, but he didn't want to be here any longer, and everyone knew it.  Honestly, I feared that nobody would offer much for him since it seemed kind of like the Cavs "had" to move him.  Either that, or he stays but is unhappy. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on August 22, 2017, 07:00:08 PM
not real sure of the kyrie chemistry.  is he a modern day version of melo?  cheezus man, just play ball
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on August 22, 2017, 07:08:35 PM
Interesting that the Celtics traded the Nets pick in this deal but not for JFB.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on August 22, 2017, 07:15:42 PM
not real sure of the kyrie chemistry.  is he a modern day version of melo?  cheezus man, just play ball

That Kyrie chemistry stuff is really overplayed.  Dude is a HOOPER and will fit in fine with the C's.  CLE got a nice haul of IT, Crowder for 3 more years making like 8 mil a year, and a BKLN pick most likely in the top 5.

C's grade: B+
CLE grade: A
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on August 22, 2017, 07:35:52 PM
That Kyrie chemistry stuff is really overplayed.  Dude is a HOOPER and will fit in fine with the C's.  CLE got a nice haul of IT, Crowder for 3 more years making like 8 mil a year, and a BKLN pick most likely in the top 5.

C's grade: B+
CLE grade: A

kyrie is without a doubt-GOOD!   but it's a weird thing to beach when ya only won the big one once out of the last 2 years ?-(   he is going to a good team that just got a little better, but there are no guarantees.   ride the wave and squeeze the juice outta what ya have and then move on.  not familiar with boston's supporting cast/bench, but on paper, the celtics will be contendas
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on August 22, 2017, 07:51:30 PM
That Kyrie chemistry stuff is really overplayed.  Dude is a HOOPER and will fit in fine with the C's.  CLE got a nice haul of IT, Crowder for 3 more years making like 8 mil a year, and a BKLN pick most likely in the top 5.

C's grade: B+
CLE grade: A

Any chance Cleveland sends that draft pick elesewhere?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on August 22, 2017, 09:11:29 PM
As soon as the Kyrie news hit in July, I knew there was no way he was going back to play in Cleveland, not the way that franchise is set up, and the LBJ stuff that was out there was completely legit. I thought Cavs actually got really good value back, I may even argue they got $1.05 back for him, pending the Nets pick. I had heard something was going down this week just didn't expect it so soon.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on August 22, 2017, 09:50:43 PM
So the Cavs got a good scoring but absolutely atrocious defensive, 5'6" point guard who is going into the last year of his contract, a limited but tough junkyard dog, a guy nobody knows anything about, and a really good draft pick for a top 10 player in the NBA.  For as big of a mismatch as Kyrie was going to be with Thomas, he will be that same mismatch for Boston.  Boston got exactly what they needed this offseason in some scoring punch.  If I'm the C's I'm thrilled I didn't have to give up Brown or Tatum, and if I'm the Cav's I'm really disappointed one of those guys weren't included.  I like Crowder, but he is what he is.  The ceiling for Brown/Tatum is huge.  If the Nets pick turns out to be #1 that is big.  If it's 2 or 3 it's still nice, but I think the only sure fire guy in this upcoming draft is Bagley.  If the pick turns out to be Porter count me as unsatisfied if I'm the Cavs.

This just makes life easier on the C's.  The upcoming decision they had to make on what to do with Thomas is now on the C's, who are going to be losing LeBron.  Do you max out a 5'6", 28 year old point guard who can't defend anybody?  What would the C's have done with Brown/Tatum/Crowder/Hayward/Morris all playing the same positions?

If the pick turns out to be Bagley I think it's a win for both sides.  If it turns out to be someone else and you end up with a maxed out IT (or see him walk), Crowder, Zizic, and Porter and LBJ leaves...yuck.  That seems like a roster fighting for a 6-8 seed and in NBA purgatory.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on August 22, 2017, 09:53:05 PM
This trade was done for the Nets' pick. Either because Cleveland knows (or has a strong inkling) that LBJ is leaving after this season or because they think the #1 pick* will help convince him to stay. When he was 30, LeBron didn't want to play with Wiggins so I can't imagine he's going to want to play with Bagley/Porter at age 34.

* - Cleveland is landing the #1 overall pick. It hasn't been this certain since the commish mucked up NO's CP3 deal.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on August 22, 2017, 10:08:24 PM
 I like the trade for both teams.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on August 23, 2017, 07:28:07 AM
I like the trade for both teams.


Yeah I fall that way too.  Trades can be win / win.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on August 23, 2017, 07:44:35 AM
As a franchise, Cleveland is in a dramatically better position after this deal. It keeps them competitive, if not better, this year - a decently healthy IT may be a little worse than Kyrie, but the Cavs needed a flexibile D guy like Jae more than anything, so that makes up for it. Even if IT doesn't come back full strength, they can say with a straight face that they did their best for this year.

Looking ahead, they'll have a lot more financial flexibility after taking away Kyrie's max deal and with IT's contract coming off the books. They can use that cap space and potentially the pick to bring in enough talent to convince LBJ to stay - or - if LBJ leaves, they'll have a jumpstart on their rebuild (though either way, those Thompson and Smith deals are albatrosses).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on August 23, 2017, 08:06:47 AM
I like the trade for both teams.

As I said earlier in the thread (or was it the other one), I love Kyrie.  He's been an absolute blast to watch and has been instrumental in what the Cavs have accomplished over the past few years.  If this trade came out of the blue with a completely happy and content Kyrie...I'd hate it.  You just don't give up a player like Kyrie.

But, in context, I think it's a pretty good deal for the Cavs.  I also happen to think it's a great deal for the Celtics.  I think that the situation with Kyrie would have been difficult for the Cavs to deal with this year.  I think it would have affected the team quite a bit.  And I'm not suggesting that Kyrie is a chemistry problem, just that the situation -- especially after it went public -- would have created a chemistry problem.  So, all in all, I'm happy with the trade.  If Zizic is good and if the pick turns out to be a No. 1, all the better.  Oh...I almost forgot...Welcome to Cleveland, Jae!  Glad to have you.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on August 23, 2017, 11:44:56 AM
We'll have to wait and see how Brad Stevens reacts when Kyrie controls the ball for the 1st 18 seconds of the 24 second clock.

And then we'll see how Kyrie reacts after Stevens reacts.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on August 23, 2017, 11:51:11 AM
Losing Jae and Avery Bradley will hurt Boston a ton defensively, but Hayward's scoring can help balance that out a bit.

I like this move for Cleveland. It keeps them competitive this year, and if (when) LeBron opts out, the combo of a first round pick and Jae's extremely valuable contract gives them pieces to accelerate a rebuild.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on August 23, 2017, 11:53:59 AM
Losing Jae and Avery Bradley will hurt Boston a ton defensively, but Hayward's scoring can help balance that out a bit.

I like this move for Cleveland. It keeps them competitive this year, and if (when) LeBron opts out, the combo of a first round pick and Jae's extremely valuable contract gives them pieces to accelerate a rebuild.

I think your logic is spot on.

But..... once Lebron leaves (if he does), free agents will treat Cleveland just like they treat Milwaukee, Sacramento, Detroit, Brooklyn, etc.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on August 23, 2017, 12:34:35 PM
Losing Jae and Avery Bradley will hurt Boston a ton defensively, but Hayward's scoring can help balance that out a bit.

I like this move for Cleveland. It keeps them competitive this year, and if (when) LeBron opts out, the combo of a first round pick and Jae's extremely valuable contract gives them pieces to accelerate a rebuild.

Smart can be at least close to as good of a defender as Bradley is, and Morris gives you a lot of what Crowder gave you.  As you said, the addition of Hayward's scoring is big, plus, while still a bad defender, Kyrie is a defensive upgrade over IT.  The C's certainly lose some defense and toughness, but they aren't really hurting for it as a result.  Brown, Horford, Morris, and Smart can all get after you, and Ojeleye is very physical, though I'm not sure what kind of role he will have on the team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on August 23, 2017, 01:41:57 PM
Since when do NBA teams that compete against each other in conference finals make a trade?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on August 23, 2017, 04:46:45 PM
Losing Jae and Avery Bradley will hurt Boston a ton defensively, but Hayward's scoring can help balance that out a bit.

Trading away IT is addition by subtraction when it comes to defensive play, though. Kyrie is mediocre defensively, but even that's an upgrade over Thomas.

That said, I think this is a very good trade for the Cavs under the circumstances. IT and Jae give them enough that they're still only a KD/Curry injury away from a legit title shot, and when Thomas and LeBron walk next year, they'll have a top 3 or better pick to build around.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on September 23, 2017, 12:48:58 PM
It's going to be absolutely hilarious watching the Westbrook, Carmelo, and PG all trying to get their shots up.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 23, 2017, 01:57:08 PM
It's going to be absolutely hilarious watching the Westbrook, Carmelo, and PG all trying to get their shots up.

new stat line-steals from your own team mate ;D

  i don't care who the thunder had to give up, but the knicks should be partying right now.  they could have gotten the thunders 3rd best beer hawker, a thunder girl and the head towel boy for him and consider themselves up for most improved team of 2017-18.  i know there's salary cap stuff, but melo should go down as one of the most ineffective all stars of all time

  life just ain't fair though, eyn'AHHHHHHH  ?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on September 23, 2017, 05:05:15 PM
It's going to be absolutely hilarious watching the Westbrook, Carmelo, and PG all trying to get their shots up.

I'm assuming they'll petition the league to play with two balls.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on September 23, 2017, 05:23:06 PM
Ah man, why even go der, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on September 23, 2017, 05:25:54 PM
It's going to be absolutely hilarious watching the Westbrook, Carmelo, and PG all trying to get their shots up.

They flipped Oladipo, Kanter, Dougie, Sabonis and a 2nd rounder for a top 10 NBA player and and top 30 NBA player.  Presti is frackin' wizard of taking a borderline 8 seed of a team to the 2nd best team in the West, and a top 3-5 team in the league.

OKC will make the Western Conference finals, book it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on September 23, 2017, 05:33:01 PM
They flipped Oladipo, Kanter, Dougie, Sabonis and a 2nd rounder for a top 10 NBA player and and top 30 NBA player.  Presti is frackin' wizard of taking a borderline 8 seed of a team to the 2nd best team in the West, and a top 3-5 team in the league.

OKC will make the Western Conference finals, book it.

Top 30 player in the NBA?!  LOL!  Paul George is definitely not a top 10 player in the NBA either, but at least he's relatively close.  Carmelo top 30?!  Is he even top 100?  Maybe.  Purely high volume scoring?  Sure.

I would love to make a friendly wager on that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on September 23, 2017, 05:36:42 PM
Melo is well passed it. Unless it's hoodie Melo of course. There really aren't enough basketballs to go around that team.

My dad couldn't stop laughing at the thought of them sharing the court.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on September 23, 2017, 06:16:45 PM
Top 30 player in the NBA?!  LOL!  Paul George is definitely not a top 10 player in the NBA either, but at least he's relatively close.  Carmelo top 30?!  Is he even top 100?  Maybe.  Purely high volume scoring?  Sure.

I would love to make a friendly wager on that.

Wager yes, will PM you.

As for Melo, I agree, top 30 was pushing it, but definitely top 50.

As for George in the top, 10 who you got?

Going into this year, I have 9 definites in Bron, KD, Steph, Harden, Russ, Kawhi, Giannis, Davis, George.  Then it gets really subjective with Wall, Kyrie, Draymond, Towns, Butler...


Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on September 23, 2017, 09:13:41 PM
Wager yes, will PM you.

As for Melo, I agree, top 30 was pushing it, but definitely top 50.

As for George in the top, 10 who you got?

Going into this year, I have 9 definites in Bron, KD, Steph, Harden, Russ, Kawhi, Giannis, Davis, George.  Then it gets really subjective with Wall, Kyrie, Draymond, Towns, Butler...

In my opinion LBJ, KD, Steph, Kawhi, CP3, Russ, Harden, Giannis, Davis are all definitely ahead of PG.  I personally think Wall is one of the more underrated players in the NBA and would have him at 10, with PG, KAT, Kyrie, Butler, Draymond, and (another guy I think I like a lot more than most seem to) Lillard.  I'd have PG in the 11-15 range rather than the 1-10 but that's pretty much splitting hairs.

Melo I just don't see it.  Yes he can score the ball on a lot of shots, but I really don't see him making any team he plays on better.  I'd honestly rather have a Livingston or McCaw on my team over Melo.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 23, 2017, 09:37:57 PM
gotta have some isaiah love here somewhere...honorable mention at least.  he's one slippery guy
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on September 23, 2017, 09:48:10 PM
gotta have some isaiah love here somewhere...honorable mention at least.  he's one slippery guy

He said going into this year, and nobody really knows what the deal is with IT's hip.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on September 23, 2017, 11:39:25 PM
Wager yes, will PM you.

As for Melo, I agree, top 30 was pushing it, but definitely top 50.

As for George in the top, 10 who you got?

Going into this year, I have 9 definites in Bron, KD, Steph, Harden, Russ, Kawhi, Giannis, Davis, George.  Then it gets really subjective with Wall, Kyrie, Draymond, Towns, Butler...

Too lazy to look it up, but didn't George get denied the right to one of those mega-contracts because he wasn't on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd All-NBA teams? Not that the voters are 100% right, but they're usually pretty close. That would mean George is outside the top 15.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on September 24, 2017, 07:19:45 PM
In my opinion LBJ, KD, Steph, Kawhi, CP3, Russ, Harden, Giannis, Davis are all definitely ahead of PG.  I personally think Wall is one of the more underrated players in the NBA and would have him at 10, with PG, KAT, Kyrie, Butler, Draymond, and (another guy I think I like a lot more than most seem to) Lillard.  I'd have PG in the 11-15 range rather than the 1-10 but that's pretty much splitting hairs.

Melo I just don't see it.  Yes he can score the ball on a lot of shots, but I really don't see him making any team he plays on better.  I'd honestly rather have a Livingston or McCaw on my team over Melo.

I'd rather have Crowder than Melo
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on September 24, 2017, 07:20:31 PM
I'd rather have Crowder than Melo

+1
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 24, 2017, 07:44:27 PM
I'd rather have Crowder than Melo

absolutely!!  he plays great defense and passes the ball
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on September 26, 2017, 09:24:21 AM
There is some first-rate passive aggressive jabs being taken in the LeBron/Kyrie feud.

LBJ:  "I tried to do whatever I could do to help the kid out and so he could be the best player he could be.  I tried to give him everything, give him as much of my DNA as I could. As I said throughout [last] season, at some point when he was ready to take over the keys, I was ready to give them to him...I reached out to him [after hearing about the trade request] because I just wanted to get a little insight on why he felt like he wanted to move on. He basically just let me know that that was the direction that he wanted to go in. And I was OK with that. And it's a business. I understand that. ... The kid wanted to do what was best for his career, and I give credit to our GM, Koby [Altman], and our ownership for granting that for him."

KI:  ""If we ever have that conversation -- I don't think it's for anybody else but me and him...That's what I'm saying, even if there are things, it's not anybody else's business.  It's really between two men. ... That's between two men."

Man, those Cavs-Celts games are going to be awesome.  The East has been kind of boring for a while...this should spice things up considerably.  I tend to be a LeBron fan (as well as Kyrie), but those comments are gratuitously condescending.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on September 26, 2017, 02:39:27 PM
I'd rather have Crowder than Melo

So would every GM in the league.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on September 26, 2017, 02:51:18 PM
So would every GM in the league.

Fake news.

Like Infowars level fake  ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on September 26, 2017, 05:06:32 PM
Fake news.

Like Infowars level fake  ;)

Well, maybe Paxson would take Carmelo - no one else would.

Most stats aren't even that close, so unless "volume shooter" is your thing, it is Crowder hands-down. And Crowder is 6 years younger.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on October 07, 2017, 04:09:06 PM
Thq "Hawk has passed away at 75.

He, along with Dr. J and a young Jordan, were players who brought the crowd to their feet when they got the ball in the open court
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: hdog1017 on October 10, 2017, 11:29:02 PM
I have a hard believing the Bulls will win more than 14.5 games this season. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on October 11, 2017, 01:38:45 PM
Did ya forget to type “on,” hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on October 17, 2017, 07:24:00 PM
Holy effffff. Do NOT watch a replay of Gordon Hayward’s broken leg if you weren’t watching live. Absolutely awful.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JustinLewisFanClubPres on October 17, 2017, 07:42:50 PM
Holy effffff. Do NOT watch a replay of Gordon Hayward’s broken leg if you weren’t watching live. Absolutely awful.

Yeah. That's one of the worst basketball injuries I've ever seen. I feel terrible for him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on October 17, 2017, 08:04:07 PM
Holy effffff. Do NOT watch a replay of Gordon Hayward’s broken leg if you weren’t watching live. Absolutely awful.
I flipped to the game just as he was laying there and everybody was walking around looking stunned.

What happened?  Was it non-contact like the Louisville kid or did somebody roll up on it?  I do NOT want to watch it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on October 17, 2017, 08:30:15 PM
Damn that was rough to watch. Not as grotesque as the Louisville kid but still one of the worst I have seen. Even the announcers knew it right away.

I flipped to the game just as he was laying there and everybody was walking around looking stunned.

What happened?  Was it non-contact like the Louisville kid or did somebody roll up on it?  I do NOT want to watch it.

Hayward went up for an alley oop and got bodied mid-air by James. He landed funny. Hard foul by James but it wasn't a dirty hit at all.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TinyTimsLittleBrother on October 17, 2017, 08:47:47 PM
Just look at the reaction from the players and crowd

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/bzhdmy5nax6ifnitlcju.gif)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on October 17, 2017, 08:56:51 PM
Hayward went up for an alley oop and got bodied mid-air by James. He landed funny. Hard foul by James but it wasn't a dirty hit at all.

Not to nitpick but it actually wasn't a foul.

Coincidentally, there's another thread on Scoop about football being dangerous and having ugly injuries that are scaring off kids and parents.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on October 17, 2017, 08:58:07 PM
Just look at the reaction from the players and crowd

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/bzhdmy5nax6ifnitlcju.gif)

I was only half paying attention to the game when I heard Marv say, "Hayward just broke his leg!  Hayward just broke his leg!"  Instead of changing the channel I looked at the TV to see what happened.  It was still zoomed out and he didn't look to be screaming or anything, so I was like, "How can he tell that?"  Then they zoomed in and, yup...pretty obvious.  BRUTAL!  Changed the channel immediately and literally will not be turning on TNT even for the second game tonight or ESPN today or tomorrow.  Also won't be watching the Bucks game tomorrow (at Boston...helps that I'm playing basketball tomorrow night anyways).

I assume/hope they will not be showing the replay on TV, but I don't want to take any chances.  It was that bad.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on October 17, 2017, 09:39:39 PM
Two big blocks by Wade and a man's rebound by Crowder. The Cavs look like they'll be OK.

But yes, all overshadowed by that injury. I didn't see it, and I'm not going to try to see it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on October 18, 2017, 07:10:28 AM
Worse than that kid from Louisville, Jason Kendall hitting the bag at first, Mike Utley.. probably the worst for me was watching them intubate Reggie Brown in the middle of the football field.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on October 18, 2017, 07:18:48 AM
Worse than that kid from Louisville, Jason Kendall hitting the bag at first, Mike Utley.. probably the worst for me was watching them intubate Reggie Brown in the middle of the football field.

I saw a somewhat similar injury in a high school volleyball match a couple years ago.  The foot was at nearly a 90 degree angle from the leg.  They covered it with a towel so people didn't have to see it while waiting for the squad to arrive, but the worst part was even though it was covered, where I was sitting I could see the sole of her shoe even though the sole of the shoe shouldn't have been pointing that direction.  It was pretty awful.  Amazingly, we heard a couple days later that there actually wasn't a break -- just a dislocation.  I never did hear how her recovery went.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GooooMarquette on October 18, 2017, 08:08:42 AM
I only saw the long-range video of Hayward's injury.  The reaction of the players on the Cavaliers' bench is enough to tell me I don't want to see the closeup.

Hope the kid can recover.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on October 18, 2017, 08:14:04 AM
Worse than that kid from Louisville, Jason Kendall hitting the bag at first, Mike Utley.. probably the worst for me was watching them intubate Reggie Brown in the middle of the football field.

Robin Ventura and Moises Alou had some pretty ugly ankle injuries as well. At the top of the list with Kevin Ware for the worst all-time injury is Napoleon McCallum from the Raiders. His knee nearly bent entirely in the opposite direction. IIRC, there was an actual chance that it would have to be amputated.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on October 18, 2017, 11:16:55 AM
Y’all need ta grow a pair and watch da replay. Its life, man. Nothin’ to fear. Reality’s a bitch, ai na?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on October 18, 2017, 12:31:08 PM
Haven't seen it really brought up anywhere but the Allen Ray eye pop out was really tough to watch, and it seemed like they showed on super slowmo a million times
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on October 18, 2017, 01:58:40 PM
Haven't seen it really brought up anywhere but the Allen Ray eye pop out was really tough to watch, and it seemed like they showed on super slowmo a million times

Did you know that Otule only had one eye?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on October 18, 2017, 03:17:00 PM
Did you know that Otule only had one eye?

Does anyone know if OJ Mayo and Todd Mayo are related?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on October 18, 2017, 05:11:08 PM
Did you know that Otule only had one eye?

Interesting. I've also heard that Markus Howard Is Only Seventeen Years Old.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Hards Alumni on October 18, 2017, 06:03:04 PM
I flipped to the game just as he was laying there and everybody was walking around looking stunned.

What happened?  Was it non-contact like the Louisville kid or did somebody roll up on it?  I do NOT want to watch it.

Honestly, the worst part was the sound.  The sound of his leg snapping is something I will never forget.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on October 18, 2017, 06:37:01 PM
Honestly, the worst part was the sound.  The sound of his leg snapping is something I will never forget.
Yuck
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on October 18, 2017, 07:15:10 PM
Henry getting minutes early.  At one point, it was Ellenson and Leuer vs Kaminsky and Zeller
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on October 18, 2017, 08:17:23 PM
Congrats to Abdel Nader on his first NBA minutes and points tonight. Pretty cool to see.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on October 18, 2017, 08:32:45 PM
Who, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on October 18, 2017, 08:42:40 PM
This Giannas kid is okay, huh?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on October 18, 2017, 09:19:49 PM
This Giannas kid is okay, huh?

He would’ve been a senior in college last year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on October 18, 2017, 09:29:20 PM
This Giannas kid is okay, huh?

Still waiting for him to show the ability to pick and pop, but holy crap. He's gotten stronger and craftier, which is not something anyone in the league really wanted to see.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on October 19, 2017, 07:43:48 AM
Shoulda recruited Kostas harder, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jsglow on October 19, 2017, 10:58:04 AM
This Giannas kid is okay, huh?

The interesting question is still how good can he get.  Many are talking MVP numbers.  It'll take team results to get there.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on October 21, 2017, 10:45:03 PM
This Giannas kid is okay, huh?

+1 million. Unreal.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on October 23, 2017, 05:29:58 PM
ESPN reporting the Knicks are in on Bledsoe. If he is anxious to get on a contender, that should really solve the issue.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on October 23, 2017, 06:22:12 PM
ESPN reporting the Knicks are in on Bledsoe. If he is anxious to get on a contender, that should really solve the issue.

Teal?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on October 27, 2017, 10:50:11 AM
Very, very early, but I'm liking that I was high on what Indi got back for one season of Paul George.  Oladipo is what I thought he'd be and Sabonis has a really high ceiling.  When Paul George is a Laker next year and Oladiop and Sabonis get to play next to Turner for the next 5+ years, the Pacers will be coming out way ahead of the Thunder in this thing.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on October 27, 2017, 04:05:35 PM
Very, very early, but I'm liking that I was high on what Indi got back for one season of Paul George.  Oladipo is what I thought he'd be and Sabonis has a really high ceiling.  When Paul George is a Laker next year and Oladiop and Sabonis get to play next to Turner for the next 5+ years, the Pacers will be coming out way ahead of the Thunder in this thing.

But it helped the Thunder get 2 years of mid 30s Melo at the height of the Warriors powers.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_Si4BwWsAA6WHy.jpg)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on October 27, 2017, 10:39:03 PM
Westbrook signed an extension this off season.  So far OKC has succeeded to set some dominoes in motion. Trade for George opens the trade for Melo, then the Westbrook extension.  So far, so good.  Can they re-sign George and make another move to contend?

I'm going to wait and see if Oladipo can sustain this level of play.  Five games isn't a large enough sample size.  Long way to go.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on November 07, 2017, 09:37:26 AM
That is an outstanding trade for the Bucks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on November 07, 2017, 10:08:13 AM
That is an outstanding trade for the Bucks.

I've never been a big Bledsoe fan, but there is no doubt the Bucks needed more offense.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on November 07, 2017, 10:51:22 AM
Outstanding move by the Bucks. The East really is up for grabs this season. The Cavs are sputtering (though they obviously still have LeBron) and the Celtics without Hayward aren't scaring anyone. Wizards? Raptors? Pistons? You threatened by the greatness of any of those teams?

Sure, the Bucks are only 4-5 but, if healthy, they have as good a chance as anyone to make a run in the playoffs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: copious1218 on November 07, 2017, 11:11:27 AM
An offense of bledsoe, middleton, giannis, parker (when healthy), and maker would be interesting. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on November 07, 2017, 11:14:49 AM
Really good deal that MKE had to make. Bledsoe fits too many needs to pass up this cheap, even if he can be a headache. If Henson could give some decent minutes in Monroe's place, that would be great too. Teletovic's contract will become an asset this offseason/next season as an expiring, meaning that if Henson becomes a useful piece, Delly is the only real dead weight deal on the books.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on November 07, 2017, 11:27:30 AM
So they get Bledsoe, dump Monroe...all for the price of a protected first round pick?  That is quite the deal.  And I don't anticipate that he will be a problem in Milwaukee.  Phoenix is a dumpster fire that tests the hardiest of souls.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Hards Alumni on November 07, 2017, 12:39:25 PM
Need some rebounding, but this is a great deal.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on November 07, 2017, 12:44:41 PM
I wasn't a fan of the Bledsoe trade rumors. Thought we would have to give up too much to get him. But if that's the price...I'm all aboard!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on November 07, 2017, 01:03:31 PM
So they get Bledsoe, dump Monroe...all for the price of a protected first round pick?  That is quite the deal.  And I don't anticipate that he will be a problem in Milwaukee.  Phoenix is a dumpster fire that tests the hardiest of souls.

The protections are kind of crazy too. It looks like the pick won't be sent over until 2020. Unless the Bucks fall in a few spots before then.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on November 07, 2017, 01:23:29 PM
I think the Bucks still end up 4th or 5th in the East and lose in either the first or second round of the Playoffs, but heading into next season with a lineup of Bledsoe, Middleton, Giannis, Jabari, and Thon with your rotation being completed by bringing Brogdon, Snell, Henson, and Telle off the bench that's a pretty solid group assuming health.

If you can unload either Delly or Telle that would be outstanding.  I would love to see a Danny Green or Trevor Ariza brought in in free agency, but have no idea if they will have the cap space to do so if they are able to dump one of those two salaries.  It will also be interesting to see what Jabari gets in restricted free agency.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on November 07, 2017, 01:24:02 PM
Outstanding move by the Bucks. The East really is up for grabs this season. The Cavs are sputtering (though they obviously still have LeBron) and the Celtics without Hayward aren't scaring anyone. Wizards? Raptors? Pistons? You threatened by the greatness of any of those teams?

Sure, the Bucks are only 4-5 but, if healthy, they have as good a chance as anyone to make a run in the playoffs.

Is it worth it to make a bunch of moves if you're ultimately going to face GSW or Cleveland anyway?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on November 07, 2017, 01:35:16 PM
Is it worth it to make a bunch of moves if you're ultimately going to face GSW or Cleveland anyway?

Would you rather be the 2010-11 Bulls or the 2016-17 Bulls?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on November 07, 2017, 01:45:56 PM
Would you rather be the 2010-11 Bulls or the 2016-17 Bulls?

2010 bulls had the best record in the NBA, so....
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on November 07, 2017, 01:47:57 PM
Is it worth it to make a bunch of moves if you're ultimately going to face GSW or Cleveland anyway?


So no one should try to get better?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on November 07, 2017, 01:49:38 PM
The protections are kind of crazy too. It looks like the pick won't be sent over until 2020. Unless the Bucks fall in a few spots before then.

Per ESPN "Milwaukee will send its 2018 first-round pick to Phoenix if it lands between Nos. 11 and 16, league sources said. If the pick carries beyond 2018, the Suns get a loosening of protections in 2019 (Nos. 4 to 16), 2020 (Nos. 8 to 30) and 2021, when the pick would come unprotected, league sources said." 

Some good, some bad. I don't like that it opens up as high as No 4 next year, and I really don't like the possibility of it becoming totally unprotected in what could be the Bucks' first year without Giannis. If the Nets have taught us anything, its to never trade first rounders without top-3 protection. There's a possibility that is in the 4-6 range if Giannis got hurt next year. And if it somehow hasn't been moved before 2021 and Giannis walks, I shudder at the thought of it being unprotected.

I think I would have rather had it top 5 protected forever, and taken my chances it landed 5-11 this year or 5-8 2020, than the way its set up.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on November 07, 2017, 01:53:28 PM
An offense of bledsoe, middleton, giannis, parker (when healthy), and maker would be interesting.

Good thing all those guys can score cuz they'd probably need 140 points a game with those guys on defense.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: copious1218 on November 07, 2017, 01:55:19 PM
Good thing all those guys can score cuz they'd probably need 140 points a game with those guys on defense.

Agreed. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on November 07, 2017, 01:59:00 PM
Good thing all those guys can score cuz they'd probably need 140 points a game with those guys on defense.

Bledsoe is one of the best defensive point guards in the league, and the lack of on ball defense at the point of attack on the Bucks roster has been the biggest issue with the defense.  He will help the defense quite a bit.  Now we need to rebound the basketball (and get rid of Kidd and the staff so we stop conceding the most efficient shot in the NBA in the corner 3).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on November 07, 2017, 02:07:23 PM

So no one should try to get better?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer. In a sport where a single dominant player can win (LeBron) or where a "super team" (GSW) exists, what should you do as an owner without either of those situations?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on November 07, 2017, 02:08:29 PM
Good thing all those guys can score cuz they'd probably need 140 points a game with those guys on defense.

Bledsoe, Giannis and Middleton are all good defenders. Jabari is awful. Thon is pretty bad but the potential is there.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on November 07, 2017, 02:13:51 PM
That's a good question. I don't know the answer. In a sport where a single dominant player can win (LeBron) or where a "super team" (GSW) exists, what should you do as an owner without either of those situations?


Giannis is good enough.  Put a good team around him and they are Finals-worthy.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on November 07, 2017, 02:29:32 PM
I like this small ball lineup:

Bledsoe-Brogdon-Middleton-Parker-Giannis

Obviously Parker needs to come back healthy and perform like he did last year.  Parker's the only weak defender, Middleton and Brogdon are your shooters, and Giannis is point-center.  That'd be a heck of a lot of fun, especially matching up against GSW.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on November 07, 2017, 02:34:20 PM

Giannis is good enough.  Put a good team around him and they are Finals-worthy.

And hope to god he stays healthy. This is starting to have a sort of 'Orlando with Dwight Howard' feel about it. I'd love for the Bucks to land another key Giannis 1, Player X 1-A type, but that usually has to happen before this point in a team's development, either through draft picks before the #1 star develops or FA, which isn't likely in play for a team in MKE. Parker was the time and the opportunity for that other piece, but the injuries are really sapping my optimism that he'll become a cornerstone of a championship team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on November 08, 2017, 05:46:44 PM
Can't believe nobody has posted yet about LiAngelo Ball getting arrested for shoplifting in China.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/what-happens-next-following-liangelo-balls-arrest-in-china-remains-unclear/2017/11/08/06405d8e-c4c0-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html

I actually feel sorry for those Ball kids because of their father. Not excusing what the kid did one iota. But nobody is rooting against the other kids who were accused of shoplifting simply because of who their father is.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on November 08, 2017, 05:51:02 PM
Can't believe nobody has posted yet about LiAngelo Ball getting arrested for shoplifting in China.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/what-happens-next-following-liangelo-balls-arrest-in-china-remains-unclear/2017/11/08/06405d8e-c4c0-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html

I actually feel sorry for those Ball kids because of their father. Not excusing what the kid did one iota. But nobody is rooting against the other kids who were accused of shoplifting simply because of who their father is.

There's a whole thread, Chief.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on November 08, 2017, 05:53:50 PM
Can't believe nobody has posted yet about LiAngelo Ball getting arrested for shoplifting in China.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/what-happens-next-following-liangelo-balls-arrest-in-china-remains-unclear/2017/11/08/06405d8e-c4c0-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html

I actually feel sorry for those Ball kids because of their father. Not excusing what the kid did one iota. But nobody is rooting against the other kids who were accused of shoplifting simply because of who their father is.

We only post about NBA or prospective NBA players in this thread. Like Derrick Wilson.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on November 08, 2017, 06:29:56 PM
There's a whole thread, Chief.

In his defense, 82 probably just scanned the Superbar threads and saw nothing about it, checked the NBA thread and saw nothing about it, and figured nobody posted anything about it.  The thread about UCLA theft is in the Al for some reason.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on November 08, 2017, 10:52:03 PM
In his defense, 82 probably just scanned the Superbar threads and saw nothing about it, checked the NBA thread and saw nothing about it, and figured nobody posted anything about it.  The thread about UCLA theft is in the Al for some reason.

That is exactly what happened, wades.

I didn't expect it in the Al.

So never mind, everybody, and carry on.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on November 09, 2017, 08:46:55 AM
Hate what this does to Brogdon on my fantasy team, but great move for the Bucks. I wonder if they still have the ammo to go after Okafor, who could at least be a rotation player that offers offense in the post.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2017, 09:47:12 AM
Hate what this does to Brogdon on my fantasy team, but great move for the Bucks. I wonder if they still have the ammo to go after Okafor, who could at least be a rotation player that offers offense in the post.

I'm not a Bucks fan but I had Bledsoe wasting away on my fantasy bench so I'm happy about it. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2017, 09:56:25 AM
I'm a Bulls fan but this is well done by the Bucks:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/928409997209247744
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on November 09, 2017, 10:02:20 AM
I'm not a Bucks fan but I had Bledsoe wasting away on my fantasy bench so I'm happy about it.

I tried to trade overachieving LaMarcus Aldridge for Bledsoe last week. Sadly, the guy refused.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on November 09, 2017, 10:23:55 AM
Hate what this does to Brogdon on my fantasy team, but great move for the Bucks. I wonder if they still have the ammo to go after Okafor, who could at least be a rotation player that offers offense in the post.

Okafor is just another version of Monroe.  This is a team built to run and play fluid uptempo ball.  A blackhole ball stopper like Okafor isn't gonna help.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2017, 04:01:09 PM
I tried to trade overachieving LaMarcus Aldridge for Bledsoe last week. Sadly, the guy refused.

I made the mistake of drafting Chris Paul instead of Cousins at the 12/13 turn.  Cousins has been dominant and Paul has yet to play.  Oops. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on November 09, 2017, 05:21:24 PM
I made the mistake of drafting Chris Paul instead of Cousins at the 12/13 turn.  Cousins has been dominant and Paul has yet to play.  Oops.

I took Jimmy Butler & Myles Turner at the 14/15 turn. Butler's been bad and Turner has been injured. Thankfully, LMA, Evan Fournier, and Otto Porter have provided top-25 value at significantly lower picks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on November 10, 2017, 12:20:36 AM
https://youtu.be/_lcJZc1AUlE

Come on dude.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on November 10, 2017, 07:33:04 AM
https://youtu.be/_lcJZc1AUlE

Come on dude.

Oh LeBron.....
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on November 10, 2017, 09:02:23 PM
Holy God that Bledsoe to Giannis oop!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on November 15, 2017, 10:28:29 PM
Just how bad is that Clown College in Chicago?  Dunn and Grant were brutal tonight.  I went back over the years and watched the GarPax year end pressers and it is incredible these dopes keep their jobs. How did 82 and Pukini make it through these? Absolutely no accountability.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on November 15, 2017, 10:52:36 PM
Bucks 4-0 since Bledsoe suited up. Trade is playing short term dividends at least.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on November 15, 2017, 10:56:02 PM
Bucks 4-0 since Bledsoe suited up. Trade is playing short term dividends at least.

Great trade.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on November 16, 2017, 06:42:03 AM
Great trade.

Bledsoe has been fun to watch. He's really helped the second line by pushing Brogdon to the bench. That's been huge for the Bucks, as well as John Henson being very productive.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on November 16, 2017, 06:43:47 AM
I am willing to say that I was very wrong about the Kyrie trade. Boston looks like they got the much better end of that deal. I was at least right about the Bulls trade being a terrible one. 

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on November 16, 2017, 07:58:37 AM
I am willing to say that I was very wrong about the Kyrie trade. Boston looks like they got the much better end of that deal. I was at least right about the Bulls trade being a terrible one.

While I thought the C's gave up a lot of talent, I still liked the trade for a number of reasons.  One is that they got the best player in the deal in Kyrie.  Two is that it gets them out of having to decide whether they want to pay a hobbled, 5'8" score first point guard who can't guard anybody max money or else see him walk for nothing this upcoming offseason.  And three I thought the Nets would be better than most people gave them a chance to be (not a Playoff team, but also not a guaranteed top 3 pick).  In what is a very strong draft at the very top but very weak after that, that pick doesn't seem as valuable as people thought it would be.

And the biggest reason I liked it for the C's was they didn't have to give up Brown or Tatum.  I loved their potential going into the season.  Turns out that they are much closer to their potential than anybody thought they would be.  They are studs and Jae was just going to take minutes from them but isn't as good as them.

But I didn't think it would be THIS good for them.  The C's are going to be scary if Hayward comes back and is the same player he was pre-injury.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on November 16, 2017, 10:24:47 AM
I am willing to say that I was very wrong about the Kyrie trade. Boston looks like they got the much better end of that deal. I was at least right about the Bulls trade being a terrible one.

Boston definitely better off in the moment. I'll withhold total judgment until we see what the pick ends up being, though the Nets being better than in recent years does seem to further tilt it in Boston's favor.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on November 16, 2017, 10:56:31 AM
For all the trades, drafts and signings that Danny Ainge has made in Boston, his best move as GM was hiring Brad Stevens. He's already one of the top coaches in the NBA and he's only 41. He should be in Boston for a LONG time. 

All that said, I still think Cleveland will add something and LeBron wins the East again this year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on November 16, 2017, 11:23:39 AM
Bledsoe has been fun to watch. He's really helped the second line by pushing Brogdon to the bench. That's been huge for the Bucks, as well as John Henson being very productive.

Not to mention that it seems to have liberated Middleton.

Bledsoe hasn't played a "great" game yet, but he made some big plays down the stretch last night. Good to see.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on November 16, 2017, 12:09:18 PM
I am willing to say that I was very wrong about the Kyrie trade. Boston looks like they got the much better end of that deal. I was at least right about the Bulls trade being a terrible one.

I agree. So far Boston is way ahead. We'll see what happens when IT returns.


I disagree on the Butler trade. The best player on a terrible team is almost always overrated. Butler has not been very good this year. He should get somewhat better, but will never do what he did in Chicago.

Markkanen will be pretty good, Dunn will be OK and we don't know what the ceiling is for LaVine (my guess is a good scorer, but not a guy who can lead a team to the playoffs).

So I don't really see where Minny got an edge unless Jimmy becomes the leader of the team as it gets good. I don't know if that happens. I don't see Butler ever being an All-Star again.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on November 16, 2017, 12:42:57 PM
I agree. So far Boston is way ahead. We'll see what happens when IT returns.


I disagree on the Butler trade. The best player on a terrible team is almost always overrated. Butler has not been very good this year. He should get somewhat better, but will never do what he did in Chicago.

Markkanen will be pretty good, Dunn will be OK and we don't know what the ceiling is for LaVine (my guess is a good scorer, but not a guy who can lead a team to the playoffs).

So I don't really see where Minny got an edge unless Jimmy becomes the leader of the team as it gets good. I don't know if that happens. I don't see Butler ever being an All-Star again.

False premise. Butler was an excellent player on a mediocre team. The two players the Bulls got in return were mediocre players on a horrible team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on November 16, 2017, 01:22:00 PM
I agree. So far Boston is way ahead. We'll see what happens when IT returns.


I disagree on the Butler trade. The best player on a terrible team is almost always overrated. Butler has not been very good this year. He should get somewhat better, but will never do what he did in Chicago.

Markkanen will be pretty good, Dunn will be OK and we don't know what the ceiling is for LaVine (my guess is a good scorer, but not a guy who can lead a team to the playoffs).

So I don't really see where Minny got an edge unless Jimmy becomes the leader of the team as it gets good. I don't know if that happens. I don't see Butler ever being an All-Star again.

Jimmy Butler was the best player on a 50-win team in 2014-15. He was the best player on a .500 team the last couple seasons. That's very different than putting up empty numbers on a team that wins 25-30 games.

Butler's numbers are down this season because 1) he's not shooting very well and 2) he doesn't have to be the man offensively, which means he doesn't shoot as much and he's not getting to the line as much. He might never be an All-Star again but the Wolves are significantly better with him on the roster.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on November 16, 2017, 03:19:29 PM
False premise. Butler was an excellent player on a mediocre team. The two players the Bulls got in return were mediocre players on a horrible team.

Win Shares this season from recent Bulls:

Taj Gibson  1.0
Tony Snell   1.0
Etwaun Moore  0.8
Jimmy Butler  0.8
Doug McDermott  0.7

When it comes to shooting the ball, Jimmy is much, much worse than any of these guys.  29% from 3; 39% overall. Those are terrible numbers no matter how you want to spin it.

Defensively (I don't think D stats are included in Win Shares), Jimmy is probably in the same category with Taj, Snell, and Moore .

Simply put, Jimmy was a star because he dominated the ball on a bad team. What he really is - is what he is now. A decent NBA player
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on November 17, 2017, 08:25:26 AM
Win Shares this season from recent Bulls:

Taj Gibson  1.0
Tony Snell   1.0
Etwaun Moore  0.8
Jimmy Butler  0.8
Doug McDermott  0.7

When it comes to shooting the ball, Jimmy is much, much worse than any of these guys.  29% from 3; 39% overall. Those are terrible numbers no matter how you want to spin it.

Defensively (I don't think D stats are included in Win Shares), Jimmy is probably in the same category with Taj, Snell, and Moore .

Simply put, Jimmy was a star because he dominated the ball on a bad team. What he really is - is what he is now. A decent NBA player

So when Jimmy went for 20-6-4, slashed .462/.378/.834, TS% of .583 (1st on the team), accounted for 11.2 WS and was only 5th on a 50-win team in Usage %, was he just a guy who dominated the ball on a bad team?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on November 25, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
Cash considerations...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/jordan-bell-strong-game-vs-170041792.html
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on November 28, 2017, 10:10:21 AM
I know some people on here really don't like LBJ (I'm looking at you, Wades), but in many ways he is the epitome of what an athlete can be in the community.  Here's the latest. (https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/akron-school-board-approves-plans-for-lebron-jamess-i-promise-school)

I know he's got an enormous ego that needs constant feeding.  I'm a fan, but even I find him off-putting at times.  But man, he's making a difference in Akron.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on November 28, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
Win Shares this season from recent Bulls:

Taj Gibson  1.0
Tony Snell   1.0
Etwaun Moore  0.8
Jimmy Butler  0.8
Doug McDermott  0.7

Jimmy's current WS is 1.4.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/butleji01/gamelog/2018/
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 06, 2017, 12:29:55 PM
Over 25% of the way into the season and the Pacers have a better record than the Thunder. Oladipo is averaging 23, 5, and 4 and Sabonis is averaging 13, 9, and 2 and both will be around for the Pacers for a while. Thunder are sitting at the bottom of their division while Paul George averages 21, 6, and 3 and will be around for another 4 months and then he gowne.

Liked the trade for the Pacers when it happened. Like it more and more every day.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on December 06, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
Over 25% of the way into the season and the Pacers have a better record than the Thunder. Oladipo is averaging 23, 5, and 4 and Sabonis is averaging 13, 9, and 2 and both will be around for the Pacers for a while. Thunder are sitting at the bottom of their division while Paul George averages 21, 6, and 3 and will be around for another 4 months and then he gowne.

Liked the trade for the Pacers when it happened. Like it more and more every day.

So far, that was a very good call by you, wades. Nicely done.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on December 14, 2017, 11:03:08 AM
So far, that was a very good call by you, wades. Nicely done.

Yep, both sides of your argument seem to be bearing out. Oladipo is playing very well, and the Thunder...aren't.*

*Caveat that I think adding Melo makes it much harder to judge the PG-13 deal, as Melo is eating up a lot of on-ball opportunities that otherwise might have gone to George, and made it easier for him to find his role by now. But either way, the early results aren't good.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on December 14, 2017, 11:04:43 AM
https://deadspin.com/tom-thibodeau-is-destruction-1821265024 (https://deadspin.com/tom-thibodeau-is-destruction-1821265024)

Really great article by Burneko on deadspin today covering a lot of the ground discussed on scoop re Thibs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on December 14, 2017, 04:23:59 PM
https://deadspin.com/tom-thibodeau-is-destruction-1821265024 (https://deadspin.com/tom-thibodeau-is-destruction-1821265024)

Really great article by Burneko on deadspin today covering a lot of the ground discussed on scoop re Thibs.

Really interesting about how he revolutionized defense. As a Bulls fan though I know all too well the wear and tear that playing for him consists of. He does not have an off switch, which resulted in 3 of the starters limping down the court during the first round of the playoffs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on December 15, 2017, 11:20:18 PM
Hey Bulls - Stop winning games. Please and thank you.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 16, 2017, 03:50:43 PM
I would give a lot to see the Bucks get Trae Young.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on December 19, 2017, 09:26:08 PM
The Bucks / Cavs game tonight was very entertaining.  Great crowd.  Great players hitting shots.  Really a showcase for the NBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on December 19, 2017, 09:28:17 PM
Kan’t tell if this is one of them things ewe say , butt don’t meen orr knot, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on December 19, 2017, 09:31:53 PM
https://twitter.com/AndyGlockner/status/942983230663168000
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: CubillanSandwich on December 19, 2017, 09:37:10 PM
The Bucks / Cavs game tonight was very entertaining.  Great crowd.  Great players hitting shots.  Really a showcase for the NBA.

The Bucks can really D it up in spurts.  Liggins defending Korver was fun to watch.  Loudest I've seen the BC since the Darvin Ham days.  Light it up, Light it up.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 20, 2017, 07:47:54 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidDunn21/status/943356764036190208?s=09

Hey LeBron, you mad bro?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on December 20, 2017, 08:30:20 AM
Great building last night. Couldn't believe the Bucks let them back in with LeBron on the bench.

Kidd telling Midds to miss that last FT was... curious.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: copious1218 on December 20, 2017, 08:32:19 AM
Great building last night. Couldn't believe the Bucks let them back in with LeBron on the bench.

Kidd telling Midds to miss that last FT was... curious.

Was wondering if someone could explain that last play decision to me.  I thought it was a terrible decision.  Take the 4 point lead.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on December 20, 2017, 08:48:29 AM
I didn't see the game because I don't live in Wis or Ohio and I don't have NBA TV. But I did see the long highlight video that ESPN ran. It looked like it was a heck of an entertaining game, which is fairly rare this early in an NBA season but which showcases how very good the NBA can be. (And often is at playoff time.)

And yes, that missed FT? It wasn't just curious, it was stupid. Would have loved LeBron's heave to have gone in just so Kidd would have had to answer for that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on December 20, 2017, 08:50:46 AM
Was wondering if someone could explain that last play decision to me.  I thought it was a terrible decision.  Take the 4 point lead.

The guy is a total moron, that's the only explanation.

Kidd was asked the question in his post game press conference.  I watched his answer on YouTube but am struggling to find the video now.  I may miss a word here or there, but as close to word for word as I can remember, his explanation was:

"Me being a gambling guy, I'll take my chances with them needing to hit a shot from the other end of the court rather than them being able to inbound the ball to half court, hit a half court shot and get fouled and go to the line for a 4 point play."

Uhh...what?!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on December 20, 2017, 09:13:03 AM
The odds of the Cavs making a full-court heave is 1%. The odds of the Cavs inbounding, hitting a 3 and getting fouled is 1.1%. He was just playing the percentages.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on December 20, 2017, 09:57:45 AM
The guy is a total moron, that's the only explanation.

Kidd was asked the question in his post game press conference.  I watched his answer on YouTube but am struggling to find the video now.  I may miss a word here or there, but as close to word for word as I can remember, his explanation was:

"Me being a gambling guy, I'll take my chances with them needing to hit a shot from the other end of the court rather than them being able to inbound the ball to half court, hit a half court shot and get fouled and go to the line for a 4 point play."

Uhh...what?!

If you outsmart yourself on a regular basis, you're probably not that smart. But the players seem to respond well to him (personally, not defensively), so be careful what you wish for.

This was a big win. It's a long season, but 4 straight losses would be brutal. We lost to a resurgent Bulls team and put up a fight against the Rockets, but a loss is a loss is a loss. Hopefully this stops the slide a bit. Good to have Snell back.

This team will continue to struggle with bigs that can stretch the floor (who doesn't??), but I don't see a way out of that other than trying to contain the damage. Trading for someone like Jordan doesn't fit that profile, so I hope to god they don't do it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on January 08, 2018, 06:44:13 PM
I don't think Jason Kidd makes it to the all star break.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 08, 2018, 07:34:14 PM
I don't think Jason Kidd makes it to the all star break.

I pray you are right. But I won?t believe it until I see it. Way too tight with the owners.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on January 09, 2018, 09:08:20 AM
I don't think Jason Kidd makes it to the all star break.

He shouldn't, but he'll make it to the offseason before they pull the trigger.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on January 09, 2018, 10:12:56 AM
Glad to see the Bulls are losing some games again.  Lavine is coming back soon so hopefully they can trade Mirotic and get some kind of asset. 

Thus far, I will say I was wrong about the trade.  Butler has been a beast in Minnesota but Markannen and Dunn, although inconsistent, have been much better than I expected.  We'll see how Lavine plays coming off his injury. 

I'm still pessimistic about the front office and the overall rebuild but hopefully I'll be wrong again. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on January 09, 2018, 12:19:47 PM
Glad to see the Bulls are losing some games again.  Lavine is coming back soon so hopefully they can trade Mirotic and get some kind of asset. 

Thus far, I will say I was wrong about the trade.  Butler has been a beast in Minnesota but Markannen and Dunn, although inconsistent, have been much better than I expected.  We'll see how Lavine plays coming off his injury. 

I'm still pessimistic about the front office and the overall rebuild but hopefully I'll be wrong again.

Markannen has been good and Dunn has been a surprise.  But I still think this all comes down to the 16th pick.  That could be Justin Patton or Jarrett Allen, who could make Lopez much more expendable for the rebuild.  Or Anunoby who has played very well in Toronto or Ferguson who looks like another volume scorer in the making in OKC.  Sending that pick along with Butler to the TWolves was so dumb and what made me not trust the deal or the front office.  Those 3 players can all turn out well, but if Butler keeps playing the way he has, and Justin Patton comes back from injury to be a productive piece moving forward, the Bulls lose that deal unless Markannen becomes an All Star and Lavine takes a BIG leap.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 09, 2018, 12:28:56 PM
Markannen has been good and Dunn has been a surprise.  But I still think this all comes down to the 16th pick.  That could be Justin Patton or Jarrett Allen, who could make Lopez much more expendable for the rebuild.  Or Anunoby who has played very well in Toronto or Ferguson who looks like another volume scorer in the making in OKC.  Sending that pick along with Butler to the TWolves was so dumb and what made me not trust the deal or the front office.  Those 3 players can all turn out well, but if Butler keeps playing the way he has, and Justin Patton comes back from injury to be a productive piece moving forward, the Bulls lose that deal unless Markannen becomes an All Star and Lavine takes a BIG leap.

Yup. I loved Markannen, but he seemed like a second Mirotic to me and there was no way they should?ve given a pick back to the TWolves.

Plus aren?t the Bulls the team that sold Bell to the Warriors? I wanted the Bucks to trade back and take Bell late first round. I think he?s going to be a contributor in the league for a long time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on January 09, 2018, 01:30:33 PM
Markannen has been good and Dunn has been a surprise.  But I still think this all comes down to the 16th pick.  That could be Justin Patton or Jarrett Allen, who could make Lopez much more expendable for the rebuild.  Or Anunoby who has played very well in Toronto or Ferguson who looks like another volume scorer in the making in OKC.  Sending that pick along with Butler to the TWolves was so dumb and what made me not trust the deal or the front office.  Those 3 players can all turn out well, but if Butler keeps playing the way he has, and Justin Patton comes back from injury to be a productive piece moving forward, the Bulls lose that deal unless Markannen becomes an All Star and Lavine takes a BIG leap.

Absolutely agree about the 16th pick.  Minnesota and Thibs was not going to walk away from Butler if the Bulls had held firm on keeping that pick. 

I read the Bulls didn't even work Markannen out, which seems completely inept if a Butler trade was a real possibility. 

I absolutely think Markannen has All-star upside.  Lavine can score but always gave it back on the defensive end.  This offense seems much better suited to his skill set, though. 

This could turn out to be a trade that works for both sides.  I would have preferred they kept Butler but they clearly had no clue how to build around him and I doubt they were going to trade him when his contract was up. 

Yup. I loved Markannen, but he seemed like a second Mirotic to me and there was no way they should?ve given a pick back to the TWolves.

Plus aren?t the Bulls the team that sold Bell to the Warriors? I wanted the Bucks to trade back and take Bell late first round. I think he?s going to be a contributor in the league for a long time.

Yes, the Bulls sold Bell to the Warriors.  Sounded like an ownership decision but selling talent on a rebuilding team is never a good idea.  The fan base hates the front office so much though they make it seem like they sold an All-Star. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on January 09, 2018, 02:09:21 PM
I've been surprised how good Dunn has been. You see this in the NBA though, where a young player gets a quick fresh start somewhere else, and develops.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on January 09, 2018, 02:41:37 PM
Yes, the Bulls sold Bell to the Warriors.  Sounded like an ownership decision but selling talent on a rebuilding team is never a good idea.  The fan base hates the front office so much though they make it seem like they sold an All-Star.

But they seemingly sold him to raise money for buyouts of players they should have never F-ing signed in the first place.

Bell isn't an All-Star, but he's getting 15 min a game on the best team in basketball and is very active with a ton of potential and athleticism.  If you had him, Portis, and Markkanen once you trade Mirotic, thats a nice young base at the F position. Id certainly rather have him than Felicio.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on January 09, 2018, 03:50:30 PM
I love Doncic, I want him to be a Bull. I think he potentially could be one of the greatest Euro NBA players ever.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on January 09, 2018, 04:10:29 PM
But they seemingly sold him to raise money for buyouts of players they should have never F-ing signed in the first place.

Bell isn't an All-Star, but he's getting 15 min a game on the best team in basketball and is very active with a ton of potential and athleticism.  If you had him, Portis, and Markkanen once you trade Mirotic, thats a nice young base at the F position. Id certainly rather have him than Felicio.

No doubt about it.  I'd be very happy to have him on the team.  I was just saying the lack of faith in the front office exacerbates the response to moves like that. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on January 09, 2018, 06:14:46 PM
I love Doncic, I want him to be a Bull. I think he potentially could be one of the greatest Euro NBA players ever.

I remember us thinking that about Mirotic! Or maybe my close Bulls fans were delusional.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on January 11, 2018, 07:57:23 AM
Not exactly the way that we want to see MU alums in the news (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22030390/los-angeles-lakers-renege-deal-free-agent-forward-jamil-wilson).  Hopefully Jamil can get that worked out and can get back on track.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on January 11, 2018, 10:08:08 AM
I don't think Jason Kidd makes it to the all star break.

Here's the thing: Tell me who fires him. Who hires the next guy. For now, he's stability in a place where we otherwise have no guarantee of stability.

I'll wait until Jabari is back to start panicking. I'm dubious that he's an answer - he's even worse defensively than the current cast of characters - but let's see how it all gels. 

Right now, this team isn't ready to take on the big boys, but let's be honest. Sure, Toronto beat them up good, but Toronto might be pushing for the best in the East. Lots of time for guys to continue to develop.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on January 11, 2018, 11:21:52 AM
I'm curious to see if how they handle Jabari, trade him or max contract?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 11, 2018, 11:51:21 AM
He?s not really max contract worthy is he?  If he thinks so I would trade him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on January 11, 2018, 12:05:10 PM
I'm curious to see if how they handle Jabari, trade him or max contract?

I really don't want to be the one to give him a max contract, but I sense that we won't have a choice. 3-4 weeks won't be enough for him to build up sufficient trade value.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on January 11, 2018, 01:11:23 PM
He?s a Restricted Free Agent after this year right? Hopefully Horst lets the market decide and doesn?t bid against himself like Hammond would do.

I can?t imagine giving him a max with all the injuries he?s had. Unless the salary cap was going to go shooting up again, which it doesn?t sound like. Maybe the thought of playing with Giannis would lure a big free agent that can have Jabari?s money at a lower risk.

Which is too bad. I like Jabari and he seems to enjoy Milwaukee. Just too risky if he?s looking for a max deal.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on January 12, 2018, 08:45:16 AM
I believe he is restricted but would likely get some big offers the Bucks would be forced to match.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 12, 2018, 08:55:10 AM
I believe he is restricted but would likely get some big offers the Bucks would be forced to match.

Do they get compensation of some sort if they decline to match?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on January 12, 2018, 09:06:46 AM
Do they get compensation of some sort if they decline to match?

46. Does a team receive compensation when another team signs their free agent, like in some other sports?

No. A team that loses a free agent does not receive anything. It used to be the case in the NBA a long time ago, but not any longer. Perhaps the most famous example of this is when the Lakers' Gail Goodrich signed as a free agent with the New Orleans Jazz. The Lakers received a draft pick as compensation, which turned out to be Magic Johnson.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q46
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on January 12, 2018, 10:26:21 AM
Its going to be a tough call, but with the money that Jabari is likely to get from a team with cap space to burn and the willingness to take a chance on him, I will probably have a hard time rooting for the Bucks to match his top offer. With Giannis under contract for three more years, cap space is going to be at an absolute premium to surround him with good pieces, particularly on the trade market for both target players and other crappy contracts they might have to take on, given that the Bucks draft picks project to be less valuable over the next couple years.

Even a sub-max deal that would pay Jabari around $25M/yr over 4ish years is too much if you ask me - and he's likely to get more than that (reports had him looking for a $150+/5 extension in September). Sure guys can come back from ACL injuries, but the combination of that risk profile, along with the fact that Jabari doesn't really fill the most pressing needs vis-a-vis the rest of the roster makes the cap hit too risky. Each year rentals and guys with 1.5 years left come available at the deadline, and I think are a much better value proposition, with less long-term risk, than giving that kind of money to Jabari. Bucks already added Bledsoe, there is smoke around DeAndre Jordan, etc. Those guys will keep coming available on a rolling basis, and I don't know if the Bucks add that many more wins by giving Jabari a huge deal vs preserving as much space as possible, signing bench shooters and defensive stoppers to shorter, tradeable deals in FA, and waiting for big names to come available via trade.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 12, 2018, 10:34:32 AM
46. Does a team receive compensation when another team signs their free agent, like in some other sports?

No. A team that loses a free agent does not receive anything. It used to be the case in the NBA a long time ago, but not any longer. Perhaps the most famous example of this is when the Lakers' Gail Goodrich signed as a free agent with the New Orleans Jazz. The Lakers received a draft pick as compensation, which turned out to be Magic Johnson.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q46


Thank you.


Its going to be a tough call, but with the money that Jabari is likely to get from a team with cap space to burn and the willingness to take a chance on him, I will probably have a hard time rooting for the Bucks to match his top offer. With Giannis under contract for three more years, cap space is going to be at an absolute premium to surround him with good pieces, particularly on the trade market for both target players and other crappy contracts they might have to take on, given that the Bucks draft picks project to be less valuable over the next couple years.

Even a sub-max deal that would pay Jabari around $25M/yr over 4ish years is too much if you ask me - and he's likely to get more than that (reports had him looking for a $150+/5 extension in September). Sure guys can come back from ACL injuries, but the combination of that risk profile, along with the fact that Jabari doesn't really fill the most pressing needs vis-a-vis the rest of the roster makes the cap hit too risky. Each year rentals and guys with 1.5 years left come available at the deadline, and I think are a much better value proposition, with less long-term risk, than giving that kind of money to Jabari. Bucks already added Bledsoe, there is smoke around DeAndre Jordan, etc. Those guys will keep coming available on a rolling basis, and I don't know if the Bucks add that many more wins by giving Jabari a huge deal vs preserving as much space as possible, signing bench shooters and defensive stoppers to shorter, tradeable deals in FA, and waiting for big names to come available via trade.

I agree.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on January 12, 2018, 10:44:22 AM
Something to think about for Jabari is that the market for RFAs is often more muted than we initially expect. There is usually a lot of posturing by the teams with these players that they'll "match any offer". Especially in the early days of free agency, teams don't want to lock up their cap space for the duration of the time from the offer sheet to the point where the Bucks have to match or decline (I think 3 days). This is especially true for teams with cap space that will be swinging for LeBron, who isn't likely to act fast. All the while, lower tier free agents get snapped up, and teams fall out of contention for the more lucrative RFAs.

So the Bucks have two options: try to trade him proactively, which you only do if you can get a Jordan-esque player on an expiring contract (not sure I do it for Jordan, personally) OR ride it out and see what the market bears.

I don't know what the rules are of matching and how long you have to wait until you could try to trade him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: CreightonWarrior on January 22, 2018, 03:05:18 PM
Jason Kidd fired.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on January 22, 2018, 03:20:17 PM
Buzz to the Bucks
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on January 22, 2018, 03:24:56 PM
who's joe prunty?? 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on January 22, 2018, 03:25:09 PM
What's Tanned Tommy up to?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on January 22, 2018, 03:25:49 PM
who's joe prunty??




Mr. Prunty's son, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 22, 2018, 03:35:59 PM
who's joe prunty??

The interim coach of the Bucks.  They are being smart.  Have an interim until the offseason and see who becomes available.  You have to think the Bucks will be one of, if not THE, most attractive available job.  They will have their pick of available coaches.

I didn't think the owners had it in them.  Very happy with this move.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on January 22, 2018, 03:38:07 PM
Have Joe Prunty and Rand Paul ever been seen in the same room together?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on January 22, 2018, 03:38:46 PM
Wonder if there's a little infighting within the Bucks ownership. Kidd was Lasry's guy, Eden's not so much. Nonetheless, its imperative that they get the next hire correct. Look for a big splash going into the new arena.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on January 22, 2018, 03:41:51 PM
I don't think Jason Kidd makes it to the all star break.

Thought this was gonna happen two weeks ago.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on January 22, 2018, 03:42:03 PM
Very happy with this news. Agree they need to make a big splash moving into the new arena next season. Looking forward to see how this plays out and who they hire in a few months. It is an attractive job for a lot of reasons at the moment. No excuse to jag the hire up.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on January 22, 2018, 03:44:25 PM
Wonder if there's a little infighting within the Bucks ownership. Kidd was Lasry's guy, Eden's not so much. Nonetheless, its imperative that they get the next hire correct. Look for a big splash going into the new arena.

Wut da fook iz dis, hey? Sumbody steal 4ever's login?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 22, 2018, 04:06:48 PM
Wonder if there's a little infighting within the Bucks ownership. Kidd was Lasry's guy, Eden's not so much. Nonetheless, its imperative that they get the next hire correct. Look for a big splash going into the new arena.

There is no doubt there is infighting within the Bucks ownership.  There were some articles about how split they were on the GM decision.

Very happy with this news. Agree they need to make a big splash moving into the new arena next season. Looking forward to see how this plays out and who they hire in a few months. It is an attractive job for a lot of reasons at the moment. No excuse to jag the hire up.

Agreed with you and 4Never.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on January 22, 2018, 04:10:28 PM
According to ESPN, Giannis isn't happy. So this is all going accordingly to plan.

Winning cures all ills, but we haven't shown a consistent ability to do that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on January 22, 2018, 04:12:30 PM
The interim coach of the Bucks.  They are being smart.  Have an interim until the offseason and see who becomes available.  You have to think the Bucks will be one of, if not THE, most attractive available job.  They will have their pick of available coaches.

I didn't think the owners had it in them.  Very happy with this move.

I agree, no reason to rush it now.  They will limp into the playoffs as 5 seed, maybe win an opening round series.

New arena, generational talent in Giannis, weakened Eastern Conference if LBJ goes to Hou or LA.

Put me down for Fizdale..

TAKE THAT FOR DATA!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on January 22, 2018, 04:38:07 PM
According to ESPN, Giannis isn't happy. So this is all going accordingly to plan.

Winning cures all ills, but we haven't shown a consistent ability to do that.

Giannis is gonna end up a big baller in LA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on January 22, 2018, 05:04:34 PM
Giannis is gonna end up a big baller in LA.

Yup.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Hards Alumni on January 22, 2018, 05:49:49 PM
Giannis is gonna end up a big baller in LA.

:'(
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on January 22, 2018, 06:05:54 PM
Herd a roomer on Van Gundy, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on January 22, 2018, 06:23:12 PM
4ever

Heard the same and not a fan of the talk. Helluva of a coach, but not sure a good fit for this team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on January 22, 2018, 06:35:47 PM
Pitino, Cal?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on January 22, 2018, 06:36:25 PM
Herd a roomer on Van Gundy, hey?

Which one?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on January 22, 2018, 06:43:03 PM
Knot Stan, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on January 22, 2018, 06:44:33 PM
Knot Stan, hey?

If it was a Sophie's choice

Stan > Jeff
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on January 22, 2018, 07:00:31 PM
Startin' ta becum more clear. Reports are Parker and Kidd knot bin speakin' ta each utter, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on January 22, 2018, 07:35:57 PM
come on man-the real question that's got me scratchin my head-
 
      what did they order on their pizza's and who paid-ehhh'ner?  probably zaffiro's though ;D

"Kidd said he was officially informed he'd been fired about 15 minutes later when he met with general manager Jon Horst and team president Peter Feigin at a pizza restaurant."

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 22, 2018, 07:38:00 PM
Giannis is gonna end up a big baller in LA.

He has three years on his contract after this one.  Plenty of time for him to recover.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 22, 2018, 08:04:23 PM
Prunty will be interim for rest of the year according to Matty V.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on January 22, 2018, 08:04:30 PM
Giannis is gonna end up a big baller in LA.

OK ... let's see ... I believe that's now 18 All-Stars who are gonna end up playing for the Lakers, all with max contracts.

I love this story line. A star doesn't even have to be available - as others pointed out, G. Freak is under contract for several more seasons - but who cares?

Everybody to the Lakers!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 22, 2018, 08:13:43 PM
He has three years on his contract after this one.  Plenty of time for him to recover.

Yup. Whether Kidd’s the coach or Wojo or Stan or Prunty, if the Bucks are making deep Playoff runs he’ll stay. If they are 1 and done every year he gowne. Pretty simple.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on January 23, 2018, 12:29:07 PM
Cousins went nuts last night to a 40/20/10 line against the Bulls.  He's a free agent after the season.  Any chance he considers leaving New Orleans?

I know he's obviously had his issues in the past but if the Bulls can move Lopez I'd strongly consider making a max offer to Cousins and then draft a wing with wherever the first round pick ends up.  I'd be very curious to see what a Cousins/Markannen/Lavine/Dunn core could do in the East. 

Probably a very unlikely scenario but not impossible. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on January 23, 2018, 01:12:49 PM
Cousins went nuts last night to a 40/20/10 line against the Bulls.  He's a free agent after the season.  Any chance he considers leaving New Orleans?

I know he's obviously had his issues in the past but if the Bulls can move Lopez I'd strongly consider making a max offer to Cousins and then draft a wing with wherever the first round pick ends up.  I'd be very curious to see what a Cousins/Markannen/Lavine/Dunn core could do in the East. 

Probably a very unlikely scenario but not impossible.

Talent-wise, it'd be a solid fit. Personality-wise? Not so much.

Hoiberg isn't the type of coach who's going to bring the best out of a difficult personality. He couldn't earn the respect of Wade or Butler who are polite, rational rays of sunshine compared to Boogie. Hoiberg's best bet is to grow with a team of young players.

That said, it's very GarPax to acquire decent NBA talent that fits well into Hoiberg's system while attempting to build the worst team in the league. It's good thing they wanted cash over Jordan Bell. He's the type of long athlete that could have made them even better!

In all seriousness, the Bulls have actually been fun to watch the last 6 weeks or so and the Butler trade doesn't seem nearly as bad as it was initially (aside from handing over the #16 pick). Unfortunately, I have zero confidence that GarPax can build anything better than a team that consistently finishes in the 3 to 6-seed range.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on January 23, 2018, 01:23:28 PM
Talent-wise, it'd be a solid fit. Personality-wise? Not so much.

Hoiberg isn't the type of coach who's going to bring the best out of a difficult personality. He couldn't earn the respect of Wade or Butler who are polite, rational rays of sunshine compared to Boogie. Hoiberg's best bet is to grow with a team of young players.

That said, it's very GarPax to acquire decent NBA talent that fits well into Hoiberg's system while attempting to build the worst team in the league. It's good thing they wanted cash over Jordan Bell. He's the type of long athlete that could have made them even better!

In all seriousness, the Bulls have actually been fun to watch the last 6 weeks or so and the Butler trade doesn't seem nearly as bad as it was initially (aside from handing over the #16 pick). Unfortunately, I have zero confidence that GarPax can build anything better than a team that consistently finishes in the 3 to 6-seed range.

Agreed.  Cousins seems to pop up with the Bulls, even back when he was still with the Kings.  I'd love him, but you're totally right, he'd be a disaster with nice guy Fred.  He'd have been a treat with Thibs though.

The Bulls are a quandry right now.  I don't want them to win at all, but Lauri has been super fun to watch and seeing Dunn come around has been cool.  However, I HATE players like Justin Holiday.  Dudes who wouldn't even be a rotation player on a good squad, yet are gunners who love throwing up big numbers against mediocre teams and seemingly pushing the Bulls to wins in games it would behoove them to lose.  The worst.

However, I have no doubt that there will be a brutal FA signing in the offseason.  I just hope its not Rondo or Wade level bad.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on January 23, 2018, 03:17:27 PM
Agreed.  Cousins seems to pop up with the Bulls, even back when he was still with the Kings.  I'd love him, but you're totally right, he'd be a disaster with nice guy Fred.  He'd have been a treat with Thibs though.

The Bulls are a quandry right now.  I don't want them to win at all, but Lauri has been super fun to watch and seeing Dunn come around has been cool.  However, I HATE players like Justin Holiday.  Dudes who wouldn't even be a rotation player on a good squad, yet are gunners who love throwing up big numbers against mediocre teams and seemingly pushing the Bulls to wins in games it would behoove them to lose.  The worst.

However, I have no doubt that there will be a brutal FA signing in the offseason.  I just hope its not Rondo or Wade level bad.

I'd absolutely trade Mirotic, Holiday, and maybe Lopez (who has been great and seems like a really good dude) before the deadline if possible. 

So hypothetically, say Cousins actually becomes a legit option in free agency.  Do you avoid a potential top 10 talent in the league because of his baggage and potential issues with Hoiberg when the team has historically been atrocious at attracting stars via free agency? 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on January 23, 2018, 04:09:20 PM
Jalen Rose reporting that Kawhi Leonard wants out of San Antonio. He would be a huge haul
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 23, 2018, 05:27:03 PM
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/lebron-lebron-james-instagram-photo-self-congratulatory-30000-points-meme-reaction-cavs

This. Is. Incredible.

What a friggin phony.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on January 23, 2018, 11:15:17 PM
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/lebron-lebron-james-instagram-photo-self-congratulatory-30000-points-meme-reaction-cavs

This. Is. Incredible.

What a friggin phony.

As you know, I'm a big LeBron fan. My choice for second-best player ever, and, from what we know publicly anyway, a pretty decent citizen.

But this was stupid, just as The Decision was stupid. And probably a few other things he's done have been stupid, too.

Some of the other great players in NBA history who also did some pretty stupid stuff: Magic, Michael, Wilt, Kobe, McHale, etc, etc, etc.

But yes, this was self-aggrandizing and stupid of LeBron.

Meanwhile ...

Kevin Love was knocked to the floor during a rebounding scrum in Tuesday's game vs. San Antonio. After the play was over, he put out his hand for some help, but his teammates ignored him.

Jae walked right past him, totally punked him. Kinda surprised me.

Cavs in trouble.

Then again, they seem to always go through a drama-filled, losing-filled stretch or two like this, and they seem to always recover.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on January 24, 2018, 12:23:19 PM
This is kinda awesome

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22198782/nba-outlines-plan-professional-sports-leagues-pushing-national-legalized-wagering
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 24, 2018, 12:32:06 PM
As you know, I'm a big LeBron fan. My choice for second-best player ever, and, from what we know publicly anyway, a pretty decent citizen.

But this was stupid, just as The Decision was stupid. And probably a few other things he's done have been stupid, too.

Some of the other great players in NBA history who also did some pretty stupid stuff: Magic, Michael, Wilt, Kobe, McHale, etc, etc, etc.

But yes, this was self-aggrandizing and stupid of LeBron.

Meanwhile ...

Kevin Love was knocked to the floor during a rebounding scrum in Tuesday's game vs. San Antonio. After the play was over, he put out his hand for some help, but his teammates ignored him.

Jae walked right past him, totally punked him. Kinda surprised me.

Cavs in trouble.

Then again, they seem to always go through a drama-filled, losing-filled stretch or two like this, and they seem to always recover.


This one feels different.  The Cavs defense is beyond crappy.  And they are so damn old.

And I'm not sure about Boston.  I think Toronto is the team that ends up getting it done in the East.

But they will still be no match for whomever comes out of the West.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on January 24, 2018, 01:18:16 PM
As you know, I'm a big LeBron fan. My choice for second-best player ever, and, from what we know publicly anyway, a pretty decent citizen.

But this was stupid, just as The Decision was stupid. And probably a few other things he's done have been stupid, too.

Some of the other great players in NBA history who also did some pretty stupid stuff: Magic, Michael, Wilt, Kobe, McHale, etc, etc, etc.

But yes, this was self-aggrandizing and stupid of LeBron.

Meanwhile ...

Kevin Love was knocked to the floor during a rebounding scrum in Tuesday's game vs. San Antonio. After the play was over, he put out his hand for some help, but his teammates ignored him.

Jae walked right past him, totally punked him. Kinda surprised me.

Cavs in trouble.

Then again, they seem to always go through a drama-filled, losing-filled stretch or two like this, and they seem to always recover.

This is my other issue with Lebron.  He's DESPERATE to be praised and lauded.  I can't think of another great player that cared so much for what other meaningless people thought of him, outside of Dwight Howard and he sucks. 

But at the same time, the franchise he runs, he essentially controls, and he curated, tailspins and he wont stick up for his teammates.  Kevin Love has been a pariah ever since he arrived cause he wasn't one of Lebron's boys.  They don't win a title without him, yet the minute things are less than perfect, they turn on him.  He forced the Cavs to pay his buddy Tristan Thompson a monster deal and he's been absolute garbage since.  Regardless of health, IT for Kyrie is going to be a major downgrade for the Cavs.

I'm not going to besmirch Lebron's abilities, cause I've always said, while I don't think he's the GOAT, I think he's the most athletically gifted player the NBA has ever seen.  And there is no doubt he makes his teammates better on the court with his vision and his passing...HOWEVER, I think as a team leader and as someone who gets the "most" of others, he's pretty eh.  The talk of Anthony Davis to Cleveland is silly cause all Davis needs to do is look at Kyrie and Love to see what its like to be a star in Lebron's shadow.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 24, 2018, 01:42:33 PM
Lebron is proof positive that Michael Jordan needed Jerry Krause.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2018, 09:35:24 AM
Lebron is proof positive that Michael Jordan needed Jerry Krause.

Michael Jordan the NBA Executive is also proof positive that Michael Jordan needed Jerry Krause.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on January 25, 2018, 09:42:39 AM
Weird how no one seemed to care when Rose walked away from the Cavs, but Love gets torched for everything
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2018, 09:52:33 AM
This is my other issue with Lebron.  He's DESPERATE to be praised and lauded.  I can't think of another great player that cared so much for what other meaningless people thought of him, outside of Dwight Howard and he sucks. 

But at the same time, the franchise he runs, he essentially controls, and he curated, tailspins and he wont stick up for his teammates.  Kevin Love has been a pariah ever since he arrived cause he wasn't one of Lebron's boys.  They don't win a title without him, yet the minute things are less than perfect, they turn on him.  He forced the Cavs to pay his buddy Tristan Thompson a monster deal and he's been absolute garbage since.  Regardless of health, IT for Kyrie is going to be a major downgrade for the Cavs.

I'm not going to besmirch Lebron's abilities, cause I've always said, while I don't think he's the GOAT, I think he's the most athletically gifted player the NBA has ever seen.  And there is no doubt he makes his teammates better on the court with his vision and his passing...HOWEVER, I think as a team leader and as someone who gets the "most" of others, he's pretty eh.  The talk of Anthony Davis to Cleveland is silly cause all Davis needs to do is look at Kyrie and Love to see what its like to be a star in Lebron's shadow.

Look at the way that the Spurs/Popovich handled the LaMarcus Aldridge situation this offseason and compare it to the way that the Cavs handled the Kyrie Irving situation. It's not hard to figure out why one franchise has won 5 championships and had 50+ wins every season for the last 20 years and why the other struggles to keep their superstars from wanting out.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on January 25, 2018, 10:16:36 AM
Weird how no one seemed to care when Rose walked away from the Cavs, but Love gets torched for everything

You and i are remembering this differently.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on January 29, 2018, 05:35:10 PM
Guess the Pistons are going for it.

Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn
The Clippers and Pistons have agreed on a deal to trade Blake Griffin for Tobias Harris, Avery Bradley, Boban Marjanovic, a first-round and a second-round draft pick, league sources tell ESPN.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: nyg on January 29, 2018, 05:42:25 PM
Guess the Pistons are going for it.

Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn
The Clippers and Pistons have agreed on a deal to trade Blake Griffin for Tobias Harris, Avery Bradley, Boban Marjanovic, a first-round and a second-round draft pick, league sources tell ESPN.

Now that’s a trade. Pistons in downfall big time with like 10 out of 12.  Guess it had to do with Jackson being injured, but Henry continues to ride the bench. When do they just give him a chance and see what he can do, or trade him. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 29, 2018, 05:53:04 PM
I have no idea why the Pistons would do this.  Best case scenario they play very well in the second half of the season and win a first round series and then lose to Boston, Cleveland, or Toronto in the second round.  Worst case (and most likely) scenario Blake gets hurt as he always does and they gave up 3 players and 2 picks for a guy who's rarely on the court.

The Clippers are just stockpiling bodies.  Between this and the CP3 trade it feels like they've gotten 15 players in return for 2 players.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: nyg on January 29, 2018, 05:55:08 PM
Guess Detroit got Brice Johnson, a SF and Willie Reed, a C in the trade
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on January 29, 2018, 05:55:51 PM
https://twitter.com/SacramentoKings/status/957792936636239878?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.com%2Fnba%2F2018%2F01%2F29%2Fnba-power-rankings-warriors-rockets-celtics-cavaliers-stephen-curry-kyrie-irving

this is awesome.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on January 29, 2018, 06:01:57 PM
I have no idea why the Pistons would do this.  Best case scenario they play very well in the second half of the season and win a first round series and then lose to Boston, Cleveland, or Toronto in the second round.  Worst case (and most likely) scenario Blake gets hurt as he always does and they gave up 3 players and 2 picks for a guy who's rarely on the court.

The Clippers are just stockpiling bodies.  Between this and the CP3 trade it feels like they've gotten 15 players in return for 2 players.

A few thoughts:
1. There's a whole lot of empty seats in the Pistons' brand spanking new arena, and fans weren't flocking to see Tobias Harris and Avery Bradley. When not in street clothes, Griffin is a guy worth paying to see.

2. Avery Bradley is a free agent after the season. Harris has one year left on his deal. Griffin is locked up for at least three more seasons, and probably for four given the value of his player option.

3. Unless the Pistons somehow tank the rest of the way, those two draft picks aren't very valuable.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 29, 2018, 06:34:45 PM
I have no idea why the Pistons would do this.  Best case scenario they play very well in the second half of the season and win a first round series and then lose to Boston, Cleveland, or Toronto in the second round.  Worst case (and most likely) scenario Blake gets hurt as he always does and they gave up 3 players and 2 picks for a guy who's rarely on the court.

The Clippers are just stockpiling bodies.  Between this and the CP3 trade it feels like they've gotten 15 players in return for 2 players.


Guess the Pistons are going for it.

Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn
The Clippers and Pistons have agreed on a deal to trade Blake Griffin for Tobias Harris, Avery Bradley, Boban Marjanovic, a first-round and a second-round draft pick, league sources tell ESPN.


This trade isn't about this year.  Griffin just signed a five year deal this previous off-season.  This is a long-term play.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on January 29, 2018, 06:39:08 PM
I kinda get what the Pistons thought process is here. A guy like Griffin would never sign in Detroit, you'd have to acquire him via trade. He has sizzle, maybe puts some butts in seats.

However, basketball wise, it makes almost no sense. Drummond and Griffin is an odd combo, Blake's contract is terrible, especially given his injury history.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on January 29, 2018, 06:45:42 PM
Is Kendall Jenner movin' ta Motown too, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChuckyChip on January 30, 2018, 07:50:37 PM
Pistons and Cavs now on TNT - Four MU alums on the floor right now - Jae, Wade, Buycks, and Henry.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on January 30, 2018, 09:35:26 PM
Pistons and Cavs now on TNT - Four MU alums on the floor right now - Jae, Wade, Buycks, and Henry.

Yeah, that was cool.

And Buycks was the best of 'em during that stretch!

I have to totally confess that I got Buycks wrong. I did not see NBA potential there at all.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: LloydsLegs on January 30, 2018, 09:44:27 PM
Just signed in to post the same thing—turned the game on with 10:00 left in the 4th, and Henry, Dwight, DWade and Jae all in the game together - not many CBB programs get to see that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on January 31, 2018, 06:49:28 AM
Yeah, that was cool.

And Buycks was the best of 'em during that stretch!

I have to totally confess that I got Buycks wrong. I did not see NBA potential there at all.


I think if Dwight would have been a four year college guy, and didn't have to spend two at a JUCO due to an error by the high school, he would have been seen as a better prospect. 

But you are right.  I never would have guessed that.  Hard work makes a difference.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on February 01, 2018, 12:50:06 PM
Mirotic to New Orleans a done deal.
Bulls get back a 2018 first and a bunch of guys they'll probably waive (Asik, Jameer Nelson, Tony Allen).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on February 01, 2018, 03:23:49 PM
Mirotic to New Orleans a done deal.
Bulls get back a 2018 first and a bunch of guys they'll probably waive (Asik, Jameer Nelson, Tony Allen).

A good trade by GarPax? That can't be right.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on February 01, 2018, 03:46:22 PM
A good trade by GarPax? That can't be right.

To be fair, the Butler trade is looking pretty good right now. Jimmy has been his usual stellar self, but Dunn and Markannen look like legit building blocks. If LaVine gets back to pre-injury form, that trade is a very good one.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on February 01, 2018, 04:33:24 PM
To be fair, the Butler trade is looking pretty good right now. Jimmy has been his usual stellar self, but Dunn and Markannen look like legit building blocks. If LaVine gets back to pre-injury form, that trade is a very good one.

You don't have to convince me on that one. I though that was a fine trade as well. Weren't going to contend for a championship in JFB's prime window so may as well go young.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: LloydsLegs on February 01, 2018, 04:40:18 PM
That is a great trade.  And maybe even for both teams if this version (stronger, more determined, more effective) of Mirotic is not an aberration.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on February 01, 2018, 04:49:40 PM
To be fair, the Butler trade is looking pretty good right now. Jimmy has been his usual stellar self, but Dunn and Markannen look like legit building blocks. If LaVine gets back to pre-injury form, that trade is a very good one.

It is looking good but I have hard time believing a certain amount of luck wasn't involved, especially when you look at some of their other awful trades in recent history, such as the Gibson trade and the trade for the pick that became McDermott. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on February 02, 2018, 08:30:53 AM
To be fair, the Butler trade is looking pretty good right now. Jimmy has been his usual stellar self, but Dunn and Markannen look like legit building blocks. If LaVine gets back to pre-injury form, that trade is a very good one.

True...but the Bulls including the #16 pick in that trade was a head-scratcher. OG Anunoby, John Collins or a healthy Justin Patton would look good on this Bulls' team going forward. Two steps forward, one step back.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on February 02, 2018, 09:16:25 AM
Great (and geeky) read on the Bucks from Zach Lowe yesterday - http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22272947/zach-lowe-milwaukee-bucks (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22272947/zach-lowe-milwaukee-bucks)

the tl;dr version - Prunty won't be getting the full time gig next year, but his schemes have moderated some of Kidd's more extreme elements. On defense, that means less of the frantic trapping to hunt for steals, and on offense, a lot more pick and roll to run sets through Giannis, as opposed to Kidd's motion-style offense.  Lowe thinks this will result in Parker being more effective upon his return than he otherwise would have been under Kidd.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on February 02, 2018, 09:30:02 AM
Tough one for the Bucks last night. Looks like a potentially season-ending injury to Brogdon, and Giannis sprains his ankle in the fourth quarter of a 20 point game.

Really thought Prunty wouldn't pull that crap with him like Kidd did, but I guess I was wrong.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 06, 2018, 07:37:58 PM
Thing Zinger just tore his ACL, maybe MCL too. Sucks. Big fan of his game. He’s the kind of star the Knicks need to draw other players to them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 06, 2018, 08:08:54 PM
Then Giannis did this...

https://twitter.com/BucksNewsNStuff/status/961057770723213312
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 06, 2018, 08:23:09 PM
Then Giannis did this...

https://twitter.com/BucksNewsNStuff/status/961057770723213312

Yeah, that was so mean.

John McEnroe's face was awesome.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on February 06, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Hardaway got an up close and personal sniff of #34's crotch,  aina?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on February 06, 2018, 08:36:12 PM
Shouldn'tna fined Magic for tellin' da truth, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on February 06, 2018, 08:46:50 PM
Shouldn'tna fined Magic for tellin' da truth, hey?

Amen, this guy is special.

Here's a video of the play with McEnroe's reaction.  Middleton's reaction is really good too.

https://twitter.com/Bucks/status/961063031407915008
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on February 08, 2018, 11:59:32 AM
DEADLINE DAY!

Cleveland looks pretty resigned to LeBron leaving, aina?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 08, 2018, 12:03:19 PM
Jae's been traded to Utah.

Boston to Cleveland to Utah.  Not going in the right direction.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 08, 2018, 12:05:09 PM
DEADLINE DAY!

Cleveland looks pretty resigned to LeBron leaving, aina?


Actually they are completely transforming their roster to get some younger scorers around Lebron.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on February 08, 2018, 12:06:54 PM
Bulls trade Jameer Nelson to Detroit. Possibly bad news for Dwight Buycks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on February 08, 2018, 12:09:06 PM
 Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn

Cleveland is trading Dwyane Wade to Miami, league sources tell ESPN.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GoldenDieners32 on February 08, 2018, 12:14:16 PM
Jae crowder traded
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on February 08, 2018, 12:26:23 PM

Actually they are completely transforming their roster to get some younger scorers around Lebron.

Holy hell Altman, I had made my original post just before the Crowder and Wade deals.

Trying to piece this together live, so far its:

Out: IT (expiring), Wade (expiring), Crowder (2 more affordable years), Frye (expiring), Shumpert ($11M player option), DRose (expiring), Cle's (not Nets) 1st rounder -heavily protected

In: Clarkson (2 years about $12M per), Nance (1 year $2M), Hill (2 years $19M per), Hood (expiring), heavily protected Mia 2nd rounder.

I'm sure that Lowe or another NBA-knower will have a column tonight about why I'm an idiot, but to me this doesn't seem much better or worse - just different. Also much more expensive in the 2019 offseason?

So the sale to LeBron right now for 2019 is trading Crowder and Shumpert for Clarkson, Nance and Hill. Seems to me they might have been better off packaging Crowder to get rid of the Thompson or JR deals and then selling LeBron on the Nets pick and their money this offseason, rather than this Rube Goldberg?

Edit: missed Frye in outgoing
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on February 08, 2018, 12:38:13 PM
Holy hell Altman, I had made my original post just before the Crowder and Wade deals.

Trying to piece this together live, so far its:

Out: IT (expiring), Wade (expiring), Crowder (2 more affordable years), Frye (expiring), Shumpert ($11M player option), DRose (expiring), Cle's (not Nets) 1st rounder -heavily protected

In: Clarkson (2 years about $12M per), Nance (1 year $2M), Hill (2 years $19M per), Hood (expiring), heavily protected Mia 2nd rounder.

I'm sure that Lowe or another NBA-knower will have a column tonight about why I'm an idiot, but to me this doesn't seem much better or worse - just different. Also much more expensive in the 2019 offseason?

So the sale to LeBron right now for 2019 is trading Crowder and Shumpert for Clarkson, Nance and Hill. Seems to me they might have been better off packaging Crowder to get rid of the Thompson or JR deals and then selling LeBron on the Nets pick and their money this offseason, rather than this Rube Goldberg?

Edit: missed Frye in outgoing

This seems like a good series of moves. Clarkson and Nance are younger, healthier (albeit not as good, all things being equal) players at the same position as Frye and IT, and Clarkson gives them size. Add Hood (replace Wade in the lineup), which is a plus, and George Hill who can still play, this seems like they're going to go out swinging. At minimum, they'll have younger pieces if it all goes to hell this summer, and they'll have cap space.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on February 08, 2018, 12:43:03 PM
Cavs know their defense is awful, so may as well add some scoring.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: drewm88 on February 08, 2018, 01:08:19 PM
So the sale to LeBron right now for 2019 is trading Crowder and Shumpert for Clarkson, Nance and Hill. Seems to me they might have been better off packaging Crowder to get rid of the Thompson or JR deals and then selling LeBron on the Nets pick and their money this offseason, rather than this Rube Goldberg?

I think the sale is things weren't working as-is, we're committed to trying something else that can make noise this year. LeBron may be too old to be sold on a 19 year old who won't peak for another 5 years.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on February 08, 2018, 04:20:24 PM
Jae's been traded to Utah.

Boston to Cleveland to Utah.  Not going in the right direction.

This was predictable when he was traded to the Cavs.  For a chance at a title, playing with Lebron is a good idea.  For your future paychecks, it is a terrible idea.  He makes people look worse....but he does win championships.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on February 08, 2018, 04:32:54 PM
I think the sale is things weren't working as-is, we're committed to trying something else that can make noise this year. LeBron may be too old to be sold on a 19 year old who won't peak for another 5 years.

Which I get with Hill and Hood, but I don't get the Lakers trade. Clarkson is a bad volume scorer who is overpaid - he and JR will make $27.2M next year and $29.1 in 2019. That's either help convince LeBron to stay space or absorb bad contracts for draft assets if he leaves space. Then, if you don't think your own first rounder helps you keep LeBron or will be too late to be a useful rebuild piece anyway, use it to find a team for some combo of absorbing IT and/or some of your bad salaries or use it get Tyreke Evans who can play and is on an expiring from Memphis.  Then grab Tony Allen at the waiver deadline for perimeter defense. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on February 08, 2018, 05:11:59 PM
This was predictable when he was traded to the Cavs.  For a chance at a title, playing with Lebron is a good idea.  For your future paychecks, it is a terrible idea.  He makes people look worse....but he does win championships.

Not sure I buy the "makes people look worse" bit.
How many guys who looked bad alongside LeBron went on to success with other teams after getting away from him? I'm honestly drawing a blank.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on February 08, 2018, 05:37:12 PM
Not sure I buy the "makes people look worse" bit.
How many guys who looked bad alongside LeBron went on to success with other teams after getting away from him? I'm honestly drawing a blank.

Bosh went from averaging 24 ppg his last season with the Raps to 16 ppg his last year with LeBron. His first year post-LeBron, he averaged 21 before clots ended his season.

Wade went from averaging 15 ppg / 4 rpg / 3 apg in the last finals with LeBron while everyone called him washed up and blamed him for Lebron losing to then averaging 24 ppg / 6 rpg / 4 apg while dragging the Heat to game 7 of the eastern conference semis 2 years later without LeBron/Bosh/Whiteside/functioning keecaps.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on February 08, 2018, 08:24:36 PM
Not sure I buy the "makes people look worse" bit.
How many guys who looked bad alongside LeBron went on to success with other teams after getting away from him? I'm honestly drawing a blank.

Ellenson gives some examples.  Lebron's style of play is not designed to amplify others.  He has to dominate the ball, which is why Lebron/Wade playing along side each other in Miami was a problem at first.  One needed to kind of change the way they played.  Wade took a step aside, and Miami thrived.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on February 08, 2018, 11:36:04 PM
Lebron's style of play is not designed to amplify others.

Incorrect. He can take over games as a scorer, yes, but he is a tremendous passer and willing playmaker. One of the biggest criticisms of him over the years is that he has not looked for his own shot enough "like Michael and Kobe used to."

As for the trades, to me it boiled down to Cleveland adding Hill for this year's playoffs while doing an addition-by-subtraction thing with IT ... because that simply wasn't working.

I'm not sure about all the other stuff from Cleveland's standpoint, though.

Utah made a great trade for Jae. That's not a bad team at all, and Jae should contribute a lot there.

Lakers obviously making moves for a couple of serious FA signings next summer. Quite possibly LeBron.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on February 09, 2018, 09:41:53 AM
Incorrect. He can take over games as a scorer, yes, but he is a tremendous passer and willing playmaker. One of the biggest criticisms of him over the years is that he has not looked for his own shot enough "like Michael and Kobe used to."

As for the trades, to me it boiled down to Cleveland adding Hill for this year's playoffs while doing an addition-by-subtraction thing with IT ... because that simply wasn't working.

I'm not sure about all the other stuff from Cleveland's standpoint, though.

Utah made a great trade for Jae. That's not a bad team at all, and Jae should contribute a lot there.

Lakers obviously making moves for a couple of serious FA signings next summer. Quite possibly LeBron.

He's a great passer, but it's not a golden state warriors type of passing where everyone is touching the ball on a lot of possessions. It's spread out and create space for LeBron, and act as an outlet when he draws attention. Sure he'll find you, but there's a lot of standing around and ball watching, which does not exaclty highlight a player's full range of abilities. It's also a style I can't stand watching.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on February 09, 2018, 09:53:56 AM
Incorrect. He can take over games as a scorer, yes, but he is a tremendous passer and willing playmaker.

There is a very good reason why the coaching staff tried to maximize time when both Lebron and Kyrie were not on the floor at the same time, and had their success in that format, and why they did the same thing again this year is placing several of their other top players in a second group that maximized playing time without Lebron. 

He's an all time great, but his game is not necessarily conducive to amplifying the performance of other high quality players. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on February 09, 2018, 01:08:06 PM
Bosh went from averaging 24 ppg his last season with the Raps to 16 ppg his last year with LeBron. His first year post-LeBron, he averaged 21 before clots ended his season.

Wade went from averaging 15 ppg / 4 rpg / 3 apg in the last finals with LeBron while everyone called him washed up and blamed him for Lebron losing to then averaging 24 ppg / 6 rpg / 4 apg while dragging the Heat to game 7 of the eastern conference semis 2 years later without LeBron/Bosh/Whiteside/functioning keecaps.

Scottie Pippen averaged 18.6/7.7 in 1992-93.
The following two seasons, while MJ was temporarily retired, he averaged 22.0/8.7 and 21.4/8.1.
When Jordan returned, Scottie averaged 19.4/6.4.
In 1994-95, pre-Jordan, Toni Kukoc averaged 15.7/5.4. When Jordan returned the next year, he dropped to 13.1/4.0.

Ergo, Michael Jordan made players around him worse?

Or, how about the fact that playing alongside the best player in the world is obviously going to diminish one's raw stats, and that's a terrible, awful, very bad, no good way to measure how well one is playing?

I mean, of course Bosh's raw stats were lower when he was playing third fiddle to LeBron and Wade compared to a Toronto team where the next best players were Andrea Barnani and Hedo Turkoglu. He went from a 28.7 usage rate to 23.5. That's not LeBron making him worse, that's LeBron making his less necessary. And when LeBron went back to Cleveland? Bosh's usage rate was back over 28 percent.
Same with Wade. His usage went from a league high 36.2 and 34.9 in  the two seasons pre-LeBron, to 31.6, 31.3, 29.5 and 27.9 with LeBron. Guess what happened when LeBron left? Back up to 34.7, and the raw stats are a reflection of that.
Again, this is not in the least bit evidence that LeBron made Wade worse. LeBron just made him a smaller part of the offense.

In fact, in Wade's first season without LeBron in Miami, his efficiency rating fell, his true shooting percentage fell, his win shares fell and his VORP fell. So the truth is, playing alongside LeBron made him better.
Same with Bosh. His PER ticked up 0.8, but his true shooting percentage fell, his win shares fell and his VORP dropped significantly. Again, he was a better player with LeBron.

So, contrary to what you're saying, these guys were better in Miami with LeBron than without him. Their raw stats went up only because their usage went up, not because their play improved.


Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on February 09, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Scottie Pippen averaged 18.6/7.7 in 1992-93.
The following two seasons, while MJ was temporarily retired, he averaged 22.0/8.7 and 21.4/8.1.
When Jordan returned, Scottie averaged 19.4/6.4.
In 1994-95, pre-Jordan, Toni Kukoc averaged 15.7/5.4. When Jordan returned the next year, he dropped to 13.1/4.0.

Ergo, Michael Jordan made players around him worse?

Or, how about the fact that playing alongside the best player in the world is obviously going to diminish one's raw stats, and that's a terrible, awful, very bad, no good way to measure how well one is playing?

I mean, of course Bosh's raw stats were lower when he was playing third fiddle to LeBron and Wade compared to a Toronto team where the next best players were Andrea Barnani and Hedo Turkoglu. He went from a 28.7 usage rate to 23.5. That's not LeBron making him worse, that's LeBron making his less necessary. And when LeBron went back to Cleveland? Bosh's usage rate was back over 28 percent.
Same with Wade. His usage went from a league high 36.2 and 34.9 in  the two seasons pre-LeBron, to 31.6, 31.3, 29.5 and 27.9 with LeBron. Guess what happened when LeBron left? Back up to 34.7, and the raw stats are a reflection of that.
Again, this is not in the least bit evidence that LeBron made Wade worse. LeBron just made him a smaller part of the offense.

In fact, in Wade's first season without LeBron in Miami, his efficiency rating fell, his true shooting percentage fell, his win shares fell and his VORP fell. So the truth is, playing alongside LeBron made him better.
Same with Bosh. His PER ticked up 0.8, but his true shooting percentage fell, his win shares fell and his VORP dropped significantly. Again, he was a better player with LeBron.

So, contrary to what you're saying, these guys were better in Miami with LeBron than without him. Their raw stats went up only because their usage went up, not because their play improved.

Not sure I buy the "makes people look worse" bit.

You said "makes them look worse" not "makes them worse"

Yes, those guys all look worse, your examples included, and were trashed by fans (just like Kevin Love is) because they have to stand around and wait for their turn.

I didn't love watching Jordan's Bulls either for that reason.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on February 09, 2018, 11:54:51 PM
Scottie Pippen averaged 18.6/7.7 in 1992-93.
The following two seasons, while MJ was temporarily retired, he averaged 22.0/8.7 and 21.4/8.1.
When Jordan returned, Scottie averaged 19.4/6.4.
In 1994-95, pre-Jordan, Toni Kukoc averaged 15.7/5.4. When Jordan returned the next year, he dropped to 13.1/4.0.

Ergo, Michael Jordan made players around him worse?

Or, how about the fact that playing alongside the best player in the world is obviously going to diminish one's raw stats, and that's a terrible, awful, very bad, no good way to measure how well one is playing?

I mean, of course Bosh's raw stats were lower when he was playing third fiddle to LeBron and Wade compared to a Toronto team where the next best players were Andrea Barnani and Hedo Turkoglu. He went from a 28.7 usage rate to 23.5. That's not LeBron making him worse, that's LeBron making his less necessary. And when LeBron went back to Cleveland? Bosh's usage rate was back over 28 percent.
Same with Wade. His usage went from a league high 36.2 and 34.9 in  the two seasons pre-LeBron, to 31.6, 31.3, 29.5 and 27.9 with LeBron. Guess what happened when LeBron left? Back up to 34.7, and the raw stats are a reflection of that.
Again, this is not in the least bit evidence that LeBron made Wade worse. LeBron just made him a smaller part of the offense.

In fact, in Wade's first season without LeBron in Miami, his efficiency rating fell, his true shooting percentage fell, his win shares fell and his VORP fell. So the truth is, playing alongside LeBron made him better.
Same with Bosh. His PER ticked up 0.8, but his true shooting percentage fell, his win shares fell and his VORP dropped significantly. Again, he was a better player with LeBron.

So, contrary to what you're saying, these guys were better in Miami with LeBron than without him. Their raw stats went up only because their usage went up, not because their play improved.

Nicely stated.

Over the course of his amazing career, LeBron has made teammates great and not-so-great significantly better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 10, 2018, 06:04:40 AM
You said "makes them look worse" not "makes them worse"

Yes, those guys all look worse, your examples included, and were trashed by fans (just like Kevin Love is) because they have to stand around and wait for their turn.

I didn't love watching Jordan's Bulls either for that reason.

So they look worse but actually aren’t worse?  You are mixing activity with production.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 10, 2018, 08:19:23 PM
So should Prunty be given consideration for the permanent gig?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on February 10, 2018, 08:27:06 PM
Two early ta tell. 8-2 record vs weak sauce. Don't no hoos gonna bee available plus big splash possibility bye da slick NY'ers going inta new digs, aina?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 10, 2018, 08:32:58 PM
Two early ta tell. 8-2 record vs weak sauce. Don't no hoos gonna bee available plus big splash possibility bye da slick NY'ers going inta new digs, aina?

Aina.

I wouldn't do anything until the end of the season regardless.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on February 11, 2018, 10:33:39 PM
ESPN, naturally, is over-the-top ga-ga about the Cavs after their new-look lineup blew out the Celtics, but it was fun watching highlights of a younger, hungrier group teaming with the best player in the NBA.

LeBron had 10 assists - there he went, not making his teammates better again - to go with his 24 pts and 8 rebs in 28 minutes.

He's only won 8 conference titles and 3 NBA crowns in his 14 years. One of these days, he'll learn how to help a team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 12, 2018, 03:25:29 AM
Well give time for teams to adjust to the Cavs, but I think the Celtics are bound for disappointment again.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on February 13, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
L
O
L

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22423208/brandon-jennings-joins-milwaukee-bucks-g-league-team (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22423208/brandon-jennings-joins-milwaukee-bucks-g-league-team)

This is better than Jeff Fisher choosing captains of all the players acquired from the RG3 trade (really, the joke is on Jeff Fisher, but shhh no one tell him). Drives home just how viscerally we dominated that trade (other than pulling the 76ers and missing a chance at the Lakers top-3 protected pick for MCW...oops)

Gets me thinking of who I would put on the "Nostalgic Trash All-Star G-League Team". Gimme some Jennings throwing lobs to Joe Alexander and Dan Gadzuric.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on February 13, 2018, 03:53:14 PM
L
O
L

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22423208/brandon-jennings-joins-milwaukee-bucks-g-league-team (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22423208/brandon-jennings-joins-milwaukee-bucks-g-league-team)

This is better than Jeff Fisher choosing captains of all the players acquired from the RG3 trade (really, the joke is on Jeff Fisher, but shhh no one tell him). Drives home just how viscerally we dominated that trade (other than pulling the 76ers and missing a chance at the Lakers top-3 protected pick for MCW...oops)

Gets me thinking of who I would put on the "Nostalgic Trash All-Star G-League Team". Gimme some Jennings throwing lobs to Joe Alexander and Dan Gadzuric.

The Brandon Knight trade is where we missed out on the Lakers pick. Unless you were viewing that trade as an extension of this one due to Knight being in both.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on February 13, 2018, 03:59:20 PM
The Brandon Knight trade is where we missed out on the Lakers pick. Unless you were viewing that trade as an extension of this one due to Knight being in both.

I do count it  :) BUT

This led me to doing some research, and I learned that the Lakers pick from 2015 STILL hasn't conveyed. It is completely unprotected this year, but the Lakers would currently be 11th in the lottery. So the real choice is between 2 years of Tony Snell (plus every year signed thereafter, since he was restricted) vs the Lakers 11th pick this year. Straight up, you take the pick, but time-value of money, makes it kind of a wash.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on February 13, 2018, 05:34:37 PM
This led me to doing some research, and I learned that the Lakers pick from 2015 STILL hasn't conveyed. It is completely unprotected this year, but the Lakers would currently be 11th in the lottery. So the real choice is between 2 years of Tony Snell (plus every year signed thereafter, since he was restricted) vs the Lakers 11th pick this year. Straight up, you take the pick, but time-value of money, makes it kind of a wash.

Just hook this take to my veins. God the NBA transaction system rocks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on February 18, 2018, 10:42:14 PM
Outstanding All-Star Game tonight.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on February 18, 2018, 11:07:37 PM
It was a lot of fun, especially the 4th quarter.

LeBron, a stud among studs, and lots of incredible displays from some of the best athletes in the world.

The last sequence, with Steph smothered in the corner by a LeBron/KD double-team - wow!

This format was MUCH better, at least this year.

Looking forward to it coming to Charlotte in 2019. I won't pay to go because I'm too cheap, but cool to have it in my town.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on February 19, 2018, 07:33:23 AM
Outstanding All-Star Game tonight.

Agreed.  I'm not sure if it was a one-off or if the new format will result in better games, but that game last night -- particularly the fourth quarter -- was a lot of fun to watch.

Now if they'd just do the draft live during the Saturday night festivities, that would be awesome.  I know that it would create some logistical issues, but surely those could be solved.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on February 19, 2018, 07:39:09 AM
Wondered why JFB didn't play, and then saw this:

Butler chose not to play, the only player from either team who didn’t. He suggested in the weeks leading to Sunday that such a game isn’t suited for a guy built to defend and win.

After the game, he said he simply needed to prepare himself for the Wolves’ stretch run these final 21 games.

“Just rest, man,” Butler said. “I got to rest. I got to rest my body up. I know this Timberwolves season is very, very important to me. I’ve got to be ready to roll when I get back there.”


I agree with his reasons for not wanting to play. His real job is to help the Timberwolves contend for a championship. (OK, they have about 0.0001% chance of being champs, but still, that is his job.)

However, it seemed he knew that this would be his decision some time ago. Why not say so and step aside so that somebody could replace him? There is no shortage of worthy players in the league. Would have been classier to do that, IMHO, and I say that as a huge JFB fan.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on February 19, 2018, 08:01:41 AM
Wondered why JFB didn't play, and then saw this:

Butler chose not to play, the only player from either team who didn’t. He suggested in the weeks leading to Sunday that such a game isn’t suited for a guy built to defend and win.

After the game, he said he simply needed to prepare himself for the Wolves’ stretch run these final 21 games.

“Just rest, man,” Butler said. “I got to rest. I got to rest my body up. I know this Timberwolves season is very, very important to me. I’ve got to be ready to roll when I get back there.”


I agree with his reasons for not wanting to play. His real job is to help the Timberwolves contend for a championship. (OK, they have about 0.0001% chance of being champs, but still, that is his job.)

However, it seemed he knew that this would be his decision some time ago. Why not say so and step aside so that somebody could replace him? There is no shortage of worthy players in the league. Would have been classier to do that, IMHO, and I say that as a huge JFB fan.

I agree with you.  You gotta wonder whether he'll get picked in the future.  I'm sure Steph, D'Antoni and the rest of the team might have liked another horse in the stable.  It's not like the rest of those guys don't have a little something left to play for down the stretch.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on February 19, 2018, 12:06:29 PM
It was a lot of fun, especially the 4th quarter.

LeBron, a stud among studs, and lots of incredible displays from some of the best athletes in the world.

The last sequence, with Steph smothered in the corner by a LeBron/KD double-team - wow!

This format was MUCH better, at least this year.

Looking forward to it coming to Charlotte in 2019. I won't pay to go because I'm too cheap, but cool to have it in my town.



Show 'em your union card from back in da dey. It'll get ya in da house four bupkis, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on February 19, 2018, 09:20:24 PM


Show 'em your union card from back in da dey. It'll get ya in da house four bupkis, hey?

Hey.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on February 19, 2018, 10:47:37 PM
Wondered why JFB didn't play, and then saw this:

Butler chose not to play, the only player from either team who didn’t. He suggested in the weeks leading to Sunday that such a game isn’t suited for a guy built to defend and win.

After the game, he said he simply needed to prepare himself for the Wolves’ stretch run these final 21 games.

“Just rest, man,” Butler said. “I got to rest. I got to rest my body up. I know this Timberwolves season is very, very important to me. I’ve got to be ready to roll when I get back there.”


I agree with his reasons for not wanting to play. His real job is to help the Timberwolves contend for a championship. (OK, they have about 0.0001% chance of being champs, but still, that is his job.)

However, it seemed he knew that this would be his decision some time ago. Why not say so and step aside so that somebody could replace him? There is no shortage of worthy players in the league. Would have been classier to do that, IMHO, and I say that as a huge JFB fan.



Some of his ex-Bulls teammates might say he wanted to call attention to himself.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on February 20, 2018, 05:20:30 AM
There was a nice article in Milwaukee mag(I think) or whatever was in my docs office.  The story portrayed him as a really unique guy, regemented, drives an used van or suv(not an Escalade). Didn’t come across as a “ me guy”.   I’d love to find the article to read the whole thing, but he was running on time that day
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on February 20, 2018, 06:09:37 AM
There was a nice article in Milwaukee mag(I think) or whatever was in my docs office.  The story portrayed him as a really unique guy, regemented, drives an used van or suv(not an Escalade). Didn’t come across as a “ me guy”.   I’d love to find the article to read the whole thing, but he was running on time that day

What's wrong with an Escalade?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on February 20, 2018, 09:19:17 AM
There was a nice article in Milwaukee mag(I think) or whatever was in my docs office.  The story portrayed him as a really unique guy, regemented, drives an used van or suv(not an Escalade). Didn’t come across as a “ me guy”.   I’d love to find the article to read the whole thing, but he was running on time that day


That's his brand.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on February 20, 2018, 10:42:45 AM


Some of his ex-Bulls teammates might say he wanted to call attention to himself.

Likely the same ex-Bulls teammates who are out of the league/on the cusp of being out of the league due to questionable work habits and toughness, and didn't like that JFB called them out on their questionable work habits and toughness.

Though this might be the first time that being absent from one of the league's showcase events is somehow spun as an attention grab.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WayOfTheWarrior on February 24, 2018, 02:40:43 PM
Great overtime win against a top East team in Toronto last night!

Giannis hit a good deal of big jumpers. Very encouraging to see! I have been wondering whether the current run with Prunty has been something to hang our hat on but last night showed we can compete with the best of em.

Not sure how well we can maintain a high level of play in the course of 7 games against the likes of the Cavs or Celtics but I guess we'll find out in a few months.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on February 24, 2018, 09:09:59 PM
Jimmy injury update.  Torn meniscus...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/jimmy-butler-meniscus-injury-not-220428188.html
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on February 25, 2018, 06:49:01 AM
Jimmy injury update.  Torn meniscus...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/jimmy-butler-meniscus-injury-not-220428188.html

That might be the best case scenario given  I was seeing the analysis by some former team doctors that the way he went down looked like a typical ACL.

Best case is he's back for the 2nd round of the playoffs, if they make it.

Still a big blow for MN and Jimmy
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on February 25, 2018, 01:07:39 PM
That might be the best case scenario given  I was seeing the analysis by some former team doctors that the way he went down looked like a typical ACL.

Best case is he's back for the 2nd round of the playoffs, if they make it.

Still a big blow for MN and Jimmy

Injury absolutely sucks for all involved, major bummer.

For all the noise about Jimmy and his exit from Chicago and other things, he still remains one of the good guys in the league.  There is some PR around it sure, but from people I knew that had interactions with him on the Bulls and others, this sort of thing is definitely his character...

https://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2018/2/25/17050242/jimmy-butler-make-a-wish-fan-24-hours-after-tearing-meniscus
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on March 08, 2018, 09:38:37 AM
When all is said and done, will Russell Westbrook have run off 3 future MVPs while they were either in their prime (KD) or on their way to their prime but already showing signs of potential greatness (Harden and Oladipo)?

I always used to say the Thunder should trade Westbrook for Rondo when they had Westbrook, KD, and Harden.  Westbrook is an unbelievable talent who looks out for one thing...his stat sheet.  Rondo in his prime was so much fun to watch.  Not only offensively but defensively.

KD obviously went on to win an MVP, Harden will win his MVP this year, Russ already has an MVP.  Could Oladipo win an MVP someday?  Probably doubtful, but if he improves his 3 point shooting a bit, look out.  He is legit.

PS Sabonis is going to be really good for the Pacers for a long time too.  The Pacers are a fun team.  Unlike the Bucks who just add athleticism and length without any concern for how the pieces fit, they are a well constructed team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on March 08, 2018, 10:19:23 AM
When all is said and done, will Russell Westbrook have run off 3 future MVPs while they were either in their prime (KD) or on their way to their prime but already showing signs of potential greatness (Harden and Oladipo)?

I always used to say the Thunder should trade Westbrook for Rondo when they had Westbrook, KD, and Harden.  Westbrook is an unbelievable talent who looks out for one thing...his stat sheet.  Rondo in his prime was so much fun to watch.  Not only offensively but defensively.

I think Rondo could have been an all time great if he wasn't such a difficult personality to mesh with.

Westbrook has to be infuriating for Thunder fans to watch now that he has a good team again.  He's an incredibly dynamic athlete and player, but seeing him go "Russ mode" late in games and kill them, when you have Paul George on the wing, is brutal.  Westbrook shoots under 30% from 3, yet still takes almost 20% of his teams attempts from outside.

Funny that he plays with Melo now, cause they are destined to be similar stars.  Different games, but putting up gaudy numbers on bad teams.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on March 08, 2018, 05:19:05 PM
So Rose and Butler on the same team ended in disaster the first time around so Minnesota decides to give it another go? Strange signing, can't see how this works out as Rose isn't even a mediocre point guard at this point in his career.

Talk about NBA surprises though, the Pelicans on a 10 game win streak even without Cousins. Who woulda guessed that?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on March 09, 2018, 09:46:08 AM
When all is said and done, will Russell Westbrook have run off 3 future MVPs while they were either in their prime (KD) or on their way to their prime but already showing signs of potential greatness (Harden and Oladipo)?

I always used to say the Thunder should trade Westbrook for Rondo when they had Westbrook, KD, and Harden.  Westbrook is an unbelievable talent who looks out for one thing...his stat sheet.  Rondo in his prime was so much fun to watch.  Not only offensively but defensively.

KD obviously went on to win an MVP, Harden will win his MVP this year, Russ already has an MVP.  Could Oladipo win an MVP someday? Probably doubtful, but if he improves his 3 point shooting a bit, look out.  He is legit.

PS Sabonis is going to be really good for the Pacers for a long time too.  The Pacers are a fun team.  Unlike the Bucks who just add athleticism and length without any concern for how the pieces fit, they are a well constructed team.

If D-Wade never got an MVP, no way in hell Oladipo gets one
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on March 09, 2018, 10:37:39 AM
So Rose and Butler on the same team ended in disaster the first time around so Minnesota decides to give it another go? Strange signing, can't see how this works out as Rose isn't even a mediocre point guard at this point in his career.

Rose's NBA future rests entirely on his willingness to accept the fact that he's no longer 2011 Derrick Rose and adjust his game accordingly. He can be a solid back-up PG for 4-6 more years but only if he accepts that reality. The "disaster" with Jimmy had a lot to do with Rose no longer being the alpha and everyone knowing it but him.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WayOfTheWarrior on March 09, 2018, 01:55:32 PM
Rose's NBA future rests entirely on his willingness to accept the fact that he's no longer 2011 Derrick Rose and adjust his game accordingly. He can be a solid back-up PG for 4-6 more years but only if he accepts that reality. The "disaster" with Jimmy had a lot to do with Rose no longer being the alpha and everyone knowing it but him.

The sign of a TRUE alpha
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WayOfTheWarrior on March 09, 2018, 01:57:57 PM
If D-Wade never got an MVP, no way in hell Oladipo gets one

Oladipo is a perennial all-star talent but yeah wouldn't say he gets to that level of elite.

Also I'll never forgive him for losing to Cuse to give us a terrible matchup in the Elite 8...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on March 22, 2018, 08:14:05 AM
Dwight Howard, who very quietly has had a renaissance season for the crappy Hornets, had 32 points and 30 rebounds last night.

The last to go 30/30 had been Kevin Love in 2010, and before that Moses Malone in 1982.

In reading the account of the game, here's the little factoid that grabbed me:

It was the 132nd time in NBA history the feat has been accomplished. Wilt Chamberlain did it 103 times.

Think about that for a second. In the NBA's 70-year history, Chamberlain had 78% of those 30/30 performances.

I have old-timer friends who insist that Chamberlain, not Jordan, was the greatest basketball player ever. Statistically, anyway, it's not all that difficult a case to make. I mean, the man led the league in assists one year!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on March 22, 2018, 08:23:14 AM
And Howard didn't even have the most impressive performance of the night.  Lebron had 35/7/17 with zero turnovers versus an actual NBA team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on March 22, 2018, 09:08:44 AM
Dwight Howard, who very quietly has had a renaissance season for the crappy Hornets, had 32 points and 30 rebounds last night.

The last to go 30/30 had been Kevin Love in 2010, and before that Moses Malone in 1982.

In reading the account of the game, here's the little factoid that grabbed me:

It was the 132nd time in NBA history the feat has been accomplished. Wilt Chamberlain did it 103 times.


Slightly OT:

https://www.si.com/nba/2016/06/30/malcolm-gladwell-wilt-chamberlain-rick-barry-nba-free-throw-granny-shot

Read this. I find Gladwell's podcast fascinating. This episode is good for sports junkies.
Think about that for a second. In the NBA's 70-year history, Chamberlain had 78% of those 30/30 performances.

I have old-timer friends who insist that Chamberlain, not Jordan, was the greatest basketball player ever. Statistically, anyway, it's not all that difficult a case to make. I mean, the man led the league in assists one year!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on March 22, 2018, 09:21:08 AM
The Bucks dysfunction has been kind of fun/depressing to see unfold the last few days. Woelful went on the radio saying how Jabari was close to being traded and likely won’t be coming back. He also called out Alex Lasry (owner’s son and SVP for Bucks) by saying he should tone down his Twitter interactions with fans.

Fans were calling out the team for not having any sort of list and saying there wasn’t a coaching vacancy.

So Horst goes on the radio at 1130 PM Spain time while scouting so he can call out Woelful for making up rumors and say that he called the national reporters who reported any sort of coaching list that it wasn’t true.

Just an example of where I feel the new owners have done very well on the business side, but can’t get out of their own way on the basketball side.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on March 22, 2018, 09:26:03 AM
jesmu:

I actually saw that interview way back when, and it was interesting.

I was in Chicago when the Bulls got Ben Wallace, who ended up being a disaster for them. He was a horrible FT shooter and Rick Barry flat-out said he could turn Wallace into a 75% or better FT shooter if Wallace would let him. And Wallace said no, shooting granny-style wasn't "cool."
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on March 22, 2018, 12:34:50 PM
jesmu:

I actually saw that interview way back when, and it was interesting.

I was in Chicago when the Bulls got Ben Wallace, who ended up being a disaster for them. He was a horrible FT shooter and Rick Barry flat-out said he could turn Wallace into a 75% or better FT shooter if Wallace would let him. And Wallace said no, shooting granny-style wasn't "cool."

Still have a Ben Wallace Bulls jersey sitting in my closet.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on March 22, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
jesmu:

I actually saw that interview way back when, and it was interesting.

I was in Chicago when the Bulls got Ben Wallace, who ended up being a disaster for them. He was a horrible FT shooter and Rick Barry flat-out said he could turn Wallace into a 75% or better FT shooter if Wallace would let him. And Wallace said no, shooting granny-style wasn't "cool."

It's crazy. Ego/style/"cool" > points/individual and team success
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on March 22, 2018, 01:36:15 PM
It's crazy. Ego/style/"cool" > points/individual and team success

I get it. It's a dog eat dog league with a razor thin margin between making it and not. To get to that level your physical gifts have to be there, but your ego/level of self-belief also has to be world class or you won't cut it. In that respect, I could see someone not wanting to be the butt of teammates'/opponents' jokes for a metric that isn't going to move the needle all that much re: whether you make it or not when your self-confidence level matters way more.

With that said, someone is going to come in and make it cool at some point (like what Curry did for the 3 ball), and I think it has a chance to catch on from there.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on March 22, 2018, 02:01:54 PM
I get it. It's a dog eat dog league with a razor thin margin between making it and not. To get to that level your physical gifts have to be there, but your ego/level of self-belief also has to be world class or you won't cut it. In that respect, I could see someone not wanting to be the butt of teammates'/opponents' jokes for a metric that isn't going to move the needle all that much re: whether you make it or not when your self-confidence level matters way more.

With that said, someone is going to come in and make it cool at some point (like what Curry did for the 3 ball), and I think it has a chance to catch on from there.

I could see that if Wallace had been a kid trying to establish himself. He was a respected veteran.

And then he totally quit on the Bulls. THAT earned him disrespect.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 11, 2018, 09:58:31 PM
Jimmy Effen Butler comes off the DL to lead the Timbies into the playoffs.

Stud.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: real chili 83 on April 11, 2018, 10:03:43 PM
JFB met with JB pregame obviously. His ft’s were baaaad.

He played almost 45 min.  Impressive.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 11, 2018, 10:56:32 PM
With a lot on the line, the Bucks showed their character.

With a lot on the line, this is their worst loss in at least 10 years.

A complete embarrassment.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 11, 2018, 11:02:35 PM
With a lot on the line, the Bucks showed their character.

With a lot on the line, this is their worst loss in at least 10 years.

A complete embarrassment.

I think the Bucks got exactly what they wanted.  Dropped to the 7 seed to face a depleted Boston.  With Cleveland and Toronto on the other side of the bracket, the Bucks have a favorable draw to make a run at the conference finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 11, 2018, 11:07:41 PM
Shame Boogie isn't healthy. Think the Pelicans could have given the Rockets a decent second round matchup if he was.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 12, 2018, 12:39:25 AM
I think the Bucks got exactly what they wanted.  Dropped to the 7 seed to face a depleted Boston.  With Cleveland and Toronto on the other side of the bracket, the Bucks have a favorable draw to make a run at the conference finals.

Um..... No.

If they won, they would have their 1st round  draft pick. By losing, it depends on the roll of the dice.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Skitch on April 12, 2018, 12:49:31 AM
Um..... No.

If they won, they would have their 1st round  draft pick. By losing, it depends on the roll of the dice.

If they keep the pick they will have to send next year's anyway.  It's not like they would have magically gotten out of sending it.  With the Bucks luck Giannis goes down next year and they end up with a top 10 pick they would have to send away.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on April 12, 2018, 12:51:27 AM
Yeah I don't think the Bucks really cared if they won tonight. Even if they were trying I'm glad they failed. They could obviously lose to Boston but this is the best case scenario.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 12, 2018, 12:56:35 AM
Um..... No.

If they won, they would have their 1st round  draft pick. By losing, it depends on the roll of the dice.

Since striking absolute gold on a total shot in the dark on Giannis followed by the number two overall pick and being left with only one real option at that pick the Bucks have drafted Rashad Vaughn, Thon Maker, and DJ Wilson in the middle of the first round. There is no reason to believe the Bucks have a clue what they’re doing in the draft. At least they got the most favorable Playoff draw they could’ve possibly hoped for, though I expect Brad Stevens to put on a complete clinic and the C’s to win the series in 5. This roster is unbelievably poorly constructed despite having a top 5 player in the NBA to build around. A single mid round draft pick is not changing that. They need to completely restructure the roster if they want to do anything and keep Giannis around for his next contract.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 12, 2018, 01:32:21 AM
Also lol at Russ’s and LBJ’s stat chasing today.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 12, 2018, 06:47:00 AM
Um..... No.

If they won, they would have their 1st round  draft pick. By losing, it depends on the roll of the dice.

Meh. I agree with Wades. Much more likely to get the next Rashad Vaughn than the next Giannis.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on April 12, 2018, 07:16:06 AM
I want them to lose he pick this year so that they can trade future first round picks in the future. With all the weird protections, until they lose this pick, they can’t trade another first round pick until 2022 I believe. You can’t trade your first rounder two years in a row, at least for future trades.

Plus, I’d rather they use that pick for a more established player since we seem dead set on drafting the DJ Wilson’s of the world.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 12, 2018, 08:28:41 AM
With a lot on the line, the Bucks showed their character.

With a lot on the line, this is their worst loss in at least 10 years.

A complete embarrassment.


You honestly think the Bucks were trying to win that game?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 12, 2018, 12:12:56 PM
Since striking absolute gold on a total shot in the dark on Giannis followed by the number two overall pick and being left with only one real option at that pick the Bucks have drafted Rashad Vaughn, Thon Maker, and DJ Wilson in the middle of the first round. There is no reason to believe the Bucks have a clue what they’re doing in the draft. At least they got the most favorable Playoff draw they could’ve possibly hoped for, though I expect Brad Stevens to put on a complete clinic and the C’s to win the series in 5. This roster is unbelievably poorly constructed despite having a top 5 player in the NBA to build around. A single mid round draft pick is not changing that. They need to completely restructure the roster if they want to do anything and keep Giannis around for his next contract.

I agree with all you say except that getting Celtics is their most favorable draw. Using your own words, "I expect Brad Stevens to put on a complete clinic and the C’s to win the series in 5".
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 12, 2018, 12:21:31 PM
I agree with all you say except that getting Celtics is their most favorable draw. Using your own words, "I expect Brad Stevens to put on a complete clinic and the C’s to win the series in 5".


I'd rather play the Celtics rather than the Raptors, Sixers or Cavs.  And it's not even close.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 12, 2018, 02:42:38 PM

I'd rather play the Celtics rather than the Raptors, Sixers or Cavs.  And it's not even close.

And we both think it really doesn't matter.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on April 12, 2018, 07:01:18 PM
I think the Bucks have a puncher's chance in the series. Vegas has made them a +105 underdog. basically a toss up.

Smart is out two more weeks on top of Hayward and Irving. Boston really is running low on bodies.

My first round picks would be Rockets, Warriors (close series without Steph), Portland, Utah, Toronto (close series), Cleveland, Milwaukee (going with my heart) and Miami
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 12, 2018, 07:08:09 PM
Gonna say Miami helped themselves, da most, at the trade dedline, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 13, 2018, 04:55:27 PM
Bucks "lose" the tie breaker and get the 17th pick, which means they keep it instead of conveying to Phoenix.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 13, 2018, 05:02:45 PM
Bucks "lose" the tie breaker and get the 17th pick, which means they keep it instead of conveying to Phoenix.

Wow. Got lucky after that clunker on Wednesday.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 13, 2018, 05:06:59 PM
I think the Bucks have a puncher's chance in the series. Vegas has made them a +105 underdog. basically a toss up.


The team has failed to show any character or toughness. In a game Wednesday against a team missing 2 of its top 3 players, they were absolutely crushed by 35 points in a game that really wasn't even as "close" as the score.


I hope you are right, but I have a hard time seeing more than one win.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 15, 2018, 12:39:35 PM
The Bucks have to be one of the worst coached teams in NBA history. An insane amount of one and no pass possessions. I’ve never seen a team that gives up so many offensive rebounds when the opponent is conceding the defensive rebound. At least once a quarter there’s a play where 4 Bucks are in position to grab a rebound while the opponent starts retreating yet the Bucks manage to fight each other and fumble the ball away.

Then you get the ball down 8 with 25 seconds left in the first quarter and instead of taking the last shot they sprint the ball up the court, force the ball into the collapsed paint, and turn the ball over for the eighth time in the quarter to give up a 4 point play to end the quarter.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on April 15, 2018, 05:42:04 PM
I hate to admit when I'm wrong, but Wades, your Oladipo love is looking pretty good. He's been very good all year, but that was a heck of game 1.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on April 15, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Bucks "lose" the tie breaker and get the 17th pick, which means they keep it instead of conveying to Phoenix.

I've seen everywhere that retaining the pick is good for the Bucks, but isn't there some logic to wishing it had been conveyed? The only way it's a worse pick is if it falls within the protections for 2 more years, after which it becomes unprotected. So likely they end up losing a pick better than the 16th in a year or two. And while they need solid cheap bodies, the 17th may not even net them a rotation player during Giannis's run. Wouldn't it be better to convey it now so they can trade future 1sts to put players around Giannis, then buy cheap second rounders to fill out the roster?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 15, 2018, 05:57:01 PM
I hate to admit when I'm wrong, but Wades, your Oladipo love is looking pretty good. He's been very good all year, but that was a heck of game 1.


Agreed.  I actually was going to post the same thing.  (I still think the trade wasn't a bad one for OKC though.)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 15, 2018, 06:14:29 PM

Agreed.  I actually was going to post the same thing.  (I still think the trade wasn't a bad one for OKC though.)

Trades can be good for both teams. Oladipo needed a change of sceneries.

Go Pelicans.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 15, 2018, 10:29:48 PM
I happen to believe Marv Albert is the greatest basketball announcer ever. However ...

He did just sign off by saying: "Minnesota was only 10 of 37 from 3-point range but they did manage to hold on to beat the Rockets."

Nobody's prefekt!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 16, 2018, 07:38:15 AM
Trades can be good for both teams. Oladipo needed a change of sceneries.

Go Pelicans.

I never saw Oladipo becoming this good. Clearly, those PEDs are really paying off.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 16, 2018, 07:45:18 AM
Nah man, T-Cubed coached 'im up from a goof four nothin' team manager ta NBA All-Star just like he did wit Wade, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 16, 2018, 12:08:09 PM
I never saw Oladipo becoming this good. Clearly, those PEDs are really paying off.

Could be PEDs. Could also be getting away from a “point guard” who only passes to chase stats.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on April 16, 2018, 12:18:02 PM
The Bucks have to be one of the worst coached teams in NBA history. An insane amount of one and no pass possessions. I’ve never seen a team that gives up so many offensive rebounds when the opponent is conceding the defensive rebound. At least once a quarter there’s a play where 4 Bucks are in position to grab a rebound while the opponent starts retreating yet the Bucks manage to fight each other and fumble the ball away.

Then you get the ball down 8 with 25 seconds left in the first quarter and instead of taking the last shot they sprint the ball up the court, force the ball into the collapsed paint, and turn the ball over for the eighth time in the quarter to give up a 4 point play to end the quarter.

Has Eric Bledsoe ever taken a single shot that is in the rhythm of the offense? I know that it's easy to ramp on him when the buckets aren't falling, but my god. This was a game begging to be won with an even remotely competent performance.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: drewm88 on April 16, 2018, 12:43:16 PM
I happen to believe Marv Albert is the greatest basketball announcer ever. However ...

He did just sign off by saying: "Minnesota was only 10 of 37 from 3-point range but they did manage to hold on to beat the Rockets."

Nobody's prefekt!

Marv needed to retire years ago. Awful.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on April 16, 2018, 12:46:28 PM
Marv in his prime was as good as it gets, IMO. He really is/was a joy to have on a broadcast.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 16, 2018, 12:55:12 PM
Could be PEDs. Could also be getting away from a “point guard” who only passes to chase stats.


You mean the guy who has lead the NBA in Assit% the last two years, APG this year and PER the year before?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 16, 2018, 01:31:54 PM
Could be PEDs. Could also be getting away from a “point guard” who only passes to chase stats.

He only played one year with Westbrook. I never saw anything in Oladipo's time in Orlando that made me think he could be an All Star.

VO posted career highs in just about every category, including FG%, 3FG%, usage, O-rating, and D-rating.  I'll be interested to see if he can sustain this level.

But good for him and kudos to you, Wades.  You were spot on.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on April 16, 2018, 01:48:24 PM
Marv in his prime was as good as it gets, IMO. He really is/was a joy to have on a broadcast.

I think Harlan has overtaken him.  Marv Albert is great and Harlan owes a chunk of his style to him, but I would take peak Harlan over peak Albert.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on April 16, 2018, 02:36:42 PM

You mean the guy who has lead the NBA in Assit% the last two years, APG this year and PER the year before?

True, but Westbrook doesn't play very well with wings. Especially ball-dominant ones. He was absolutely negatively impacting Oladipo's game. He does play well with spot shooters and with centers in the pick and roll.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on April 16, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
True, but Westbrook doesn't play very well with wings. Especially ball-dominant ones. He was absolutely negatively impacting Oladipo's game. He does play well with spot shooters and with centers in the pick and roll.

Durant? Harden?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on April 16, 2018, 08:26:34 PM
Somebody call the proctologist, because Dwade's a $$ is on fire
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 16, 2018, 09:33:48 PM
I think Harlan has overtaken him.  Marv Albert is great and Harlan owes a chunk of his style to him, but I would take peak Harlan over peak Albert.

Not a chance, but that's OK. We're allowed to disagree.

And I really like Harlan.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 16, 2018, 09:45:34 PM
Marv is my favorite. Harlan is very good. Most underrated sports broadcaster in my opinion is Ian Eagle. Probably because he was on the call for the Vander game winner against Davidson. But I think he’s great in both basketball and football. And he does a great Marv impersonation.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 16, 2018, 11:06:52 PM

You mean the guy who has lead the NBA in Assit% the last two years, APG this year and PER the year before?

I mean the "point guard" that has led the NBA in field goal attempts per game in 3 of the past 4 seasons and has been in the top 10 in field goal attempts per game each of the past 7 years, almost all in the top 5.  The "point guard" who couldn't share a backcourt with the soon-to-be MVP of the NBA so what should've been his awesome sidekick was first brought off the bench before his team traded him.  The "point guard" who ran off what is, in my opinion, the greatest pure scorer, and top 2 offensive player, I have ever personally watched play basketball.  The "point guard" who couldn't make it work with Oladipo, who is clearly much better than he was given the opportunity to show he was when he had to play with Westbrook.

Westbrook is largely why I loved the trade for the Pacers in the first place.  I didn't think Oladipo would be THIS good, but I had no doubt whatsoever that getting out of OKC would be a great thing for him and that he was a LOT better than he had the chance to be with Westbrook on his team.  And on top of that they get a high ceiling, high upside, young big in Sabonis who is proving to be a valuable piece.  The Pacers weren't going to be able to keep George, he literally told everyone that, and the Thunder are getting a 1 year rental before George heads to the West Coast, leaving the Thunder without two really good young pieces in exchange for, at best, a second round Playoff loss.

I have said for 5+ years that no team that has Westbrook running the point guard will ever win an NBA title.

I've heard nothing but great things about him outside of NBA arenas.  He's insanely gifted athletically.  I respect that he goes 1 million miles an hour every game.  But I absolutely despise how selfishly he plays the game of basketball.  People can say KD "took the easy route to a championship."  But you can play for an all iso all the time team and live in Oklahoma City, OK, or you can play for a team that moves the ball in San Francisco, CA.  Tough choice...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on April 17, 2018, 10:24:10 AM
Mike Breen is still very, very good. Can't be easy to navigate that three man booth, but he does it quite well.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 17, 2018, 11:07:05 AM
I mean the "point guard" that has led the NBA in field goal attempts per game in 3 of the past 4 seasons and has been in the top 10 in field goal attempts per game each of the past 7 years, almost all in the top 5.  The "point guard" who couldn't share a backcourt with the soon-to-be MVP of the NBA so what should've been his awesome sidekick was first brought off the bench before his team traded him.  The "point guard" who ran off what is, in my opinion, the greatest pure scorer, and top 2 offensive player, I have ever personally watched play basketball.  The "point guard" who couldn't make it work with Oladipo, who is clearly much better than he was given the opportunity to show he was when he had to play with Westbrook.

Westbrook is largely why I loved the trade for the Pacers in the first place.  I didn't think Oladipo would be THIS good, but I had no doubt whatsoever that getting out of OKC would be a great thing for him and that he was a LOT better than he had the chance to be with Westbrook on his team.  And on top of that they get a high ceiling, high upside, young big in Sabonis who is proving to be a valuable piece.  The Pacers weren't going to be able to keep George, he literally told everyone that, and the Thunder are getting a 1 year rental before George heads to the West Coast, leaving the Thunder without two really good young pieces in exchange for, at best, a second round Playoff loss.

I have said for 5+ years that no team that has Westbrook running the point guard will ever win an NBA title.

I've heard nothing but great things about him outside of NBA arenas.  He's insanely gifted athletically.  I respect that he goes 1 million miles an hour every game.  But I absolutely despise how selfishly he plays the game of basketball.  People can say KD "took the easy route to a championship."  But you can play for an all iso all the time team and live in Oklahoma City, OK, or you can play for a team that moves the ball in San Francisco, CA.  Tough choice...

You're probably right about Westbrook never winning a title, but he came as close as one of the least-selfish PGs ever (Stockton) did.

Most of the same things you're saying about Westbrook were said about Jordan, BTW.

I absolutely am not comparing Westbrook to Jordan, except to say that for 5 or 6 years, one of the most common statements by "NBA people" was, "Michael is too selfish and will NEVER win a championship."

But again, I agree that Westbrook is a selfish PG who must be difficult to play with.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on April 17, 2018, 07:59:33 PM
I don't care how selfish someone actually is, but if you average a triple double, as a player you are the antithesis of selfish
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 17, 2018, 08:11:43 PM
I don't care how selfish someone actually is, but if you average a triple double, as a player you are the antithesis of selfish

There was an article last year on how his matchup shot the highest percentage of uncontested shots in the NBA and that at least 2 centers contested more 3 point attempts than Westbrook did last season. He literally doesn’t guard guys in order to crash the defensive boards.

Go watch his last game of the year. It was the definition of selfish.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 17, 2018, 08:42:24 PM
How 'bout them Bucks? Green and growin', aina?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 17, 2018, 08:42:34 PM
There was an article last year on how his matchup shot the highest percentage of uncontested shots in the NBA and that at least 2 centers contested more 3 point attempts than Westbrook did last season. He literally doesn’t guard guys in order to crash the defensive boards.

Go watch his last game of the year. It was the definition of selfish.

Okay, but his teammates didn't care (Watch Melo's interview) and they still won the game.

Westbrook still has more finals appearances than Steve Nash.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 17, 2018, 09:09:47 PM
Okay, but his teammates didn't care (Watch Melo's interview) and they still won the game.

Westbrook still has more finals appearances than Steve Nash.

And the best players Steve Nash played with were Sean Marion and Amare Stoudamire. Compare that to Kevin Durant and James Harden...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 17, 2018, 09:18:31 PM
And the best players Steve Nash played with were Sean Marion and Amare Stoudamire. Compare that to Kevin Durant and James Harden...

Nash's best teammate by far was Dirk Nowitski.  (Not including over the hill Kobe.)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 17, 2018, 09:24:19 PM
Nash's best teammate by far was Dirk Nowitski.  (Not including over the hill Kobe.)

That Dallas team should have won something. Dirk, Nash, Michael Finley, and Jason Terry with Don Nelson at the helm.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on April 17, 2018, 09:27:59 PM
Nash's best teammate by far was Dirk Nowitski.  (Not including over the hill Kobe.)

Correct, but that was before either of their primes.  And their last 2-3 years they were fairly successful despite having an eh supporting cast.  Peak Nash never had the teammates Westbrook has had.  They also had to deal with prime Spurs dynasty years.

Also, LOL at citing Melo as validation of him being a good teammate.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on April 17, 2018, 09:39:25 PM
That Dallas team should have won something. Dirk, Nash, Michael Finley, and Jason Terry with Don Nelson at the helm.

The Jet didn't arrive until '05 a season removed from Nash.

Point still stands though, some ridiculous good teams. However, those teams were better NBA Live teams than real life. Also, the Spurs were even better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 17, 2018, 09:46:07 PM
The Jet didn't arrive until '05 a season removed from Nash.

Point still stands though, some ridiculous good teams. However, those teams were better NBA Live teams than real life. Also, the Spurs were even better.


The 2002-03 Mavs finished tied with San Antonio and lost to them in the conference finals.    The year before, the Kings, Lakers, Spurs and Mavs all finished within four games of each other.  (And had the four best records in the NBA.)  The Mavs were the 4 seed and lost to the #1 seed Kings.

Those Mavs teams were legit good.  Probably comparable to the mid-80s Bucks teams that always seemed to be a player short.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Celtic Truth on April 17, 2018, 09:57:14 PM
Love what I’ve seen from the Celtics through 2 games. All of the roll players stepping up big time. And obviously brad Stevens just has a way of making everyone look good. Tatum, brown, T-Ro, Al, Morris have all been great. Add a healthy Hayward, Kyrie and smart and this is the best team in the league.

The bucks have been pretty bad tho. Bledsoe, snell, Jabari have been abysmal. Brogdon has been solid but not enough mins. Middleton has been excellent, very impressive. Giannis has played very well and put up great stats but he has yet to convince me he can be the #1 option on a successful playoff team. You need to be able to shoot in this league these days and he still has a lot of work to do. He’s obviously pretty shook at the ft line too.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 17, 2018, 10:08:38 PM
Love what I’ve seen from the Celtics through 2 games. All of the roll players stepping up big time. And obviously brad Stevens just has a way of making everyone look good. Tatum, brown, T-Ro, Al, Morris have all been great. Add a healthy Hayward, Kyrie and smart and this is the best team in the league.

The bucks have been pretty bad tho. Bledsoe, snell, Jabari have been abysmal. Brogdon has been solid but not enough mins. Middleton has been excellent, very impressive. Giannis has played very well and put up great stats but he has yet to convince me he can be the #1 option on a successful playoff team. You need to be able to shoot in this league these days and he still has a lot of work to do. He’s obviously pretty shook at the ft line too.

The Warriors are still the best team in the NBA even with a healthy Hayward and Kyrie. Probably the Rockets as well.

And Giannis is already a top 5 player in the NBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on April 17, 2018, 10:21:18 PM
Kinda hoping the Bucks get swept so I don't have to watch them anymore. They are such a mess.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 17, 2018, 10:29:34 PM
Add a healthy Hayward, Kyrie and smart and this is the best team in the league.

As my uncle used to say: "You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it might be."
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Celtic Truth on April 17, 2018, 11:36:46 PM
The Warriors are still the best team in the NBA even with a healthy Hayward and Kyrie. Probably the Rockets as well.

And Giannis is already a top 5 player in the NBA.

The Celtics are 3-3 vs the warriors the last 3 years with 2 of those wins being @ GS. We were way outmatched talent wise every time so don’t underestimate Brads impact. I like my chances with A healthy starting lineup of Kyrie, Tatum, Jaylen Brown, Hayward, Horford. And guys like Smart, Rozier, Morris, Monroe, Baynes coming off the bench.

I like Giannis a lot and I think he’s unbelievable but answer this: Do you think Giannis playing the way he plays now can be the #1 option on a championship team? I say no. He’d need to play alongside a Kyrie/Lillard type player who can get the buckets down the stretch.

 There was some debate on this earlier and I think that Russ is another guy who is extremely talented but definitely cannot lead a championship team. It’s all about the Russ show to him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on April 18, 2018, 02:36:04 AM
Kinda hoping the Bucks get swept so I don't have to watch them anymore. They are such a mess.

Silver lining is that for how awful Jabari has played, Bucks can probably take a wait and see approach with his RFA. Contracts might be lower than he hoped.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 18, 2018, 06:22:52 AM
The Celtics are 3-3 vs the warriors the last 3 years with 2 of those wins being @ GS. We were way outmatched talent wise every time so don’t underestimate Brads impact. I like my chances with A healthy starting lineup of Kyrie, Tatum, Jaylen Brown, Hayward, Horford. And guys like Smart, Rozier, Morris, Monroe, Baynes coming off the bench.

I like Giannis a lot and I think he’s unbelievable but answer this: Do you think Giannis playing the way he plays now can be the #1 option on a championship team? I say no. He’d need to play alongside a Kyrie/Lillard type player who can get the buckets down the stretch.

 There was some debate on this earlier and I think that Russ is another guy who is extremely talented but definitely cannot lead a championship team. It’s all about the Russ show to him.

And the Bucks were 2-2 against the C’s this season. It means absolutely nothing.

To answer your question there is no doubt in my mind that even if Giannis doesn’t improve one bit from where he is yes he can win a title. Giannis isn’t the problem. It’s the awful formation of the roster around him and the awful coaching that are the problem. He’s already a better player than a Kyrie/Lillard. But yes he needs a player like that next to him, just like LeBron needs a Wade or Kyrie or Steph needs a Klay or KD or Duncan needs a Manu or Parker next to him. Can Giannis take a team with no shooting, no rebounding, no defense, and no coaching and win a title? No. Nobody can. But if Giannis can’t be the best player on a title team then there are only about 3 players in the NBA who can have their team win a title, and 2 are on the same team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 18, 2018, 08:27:12 AM
The Celtics are 3-3 vs the warriors the last 3 years with 2 of those wins being @ GS.


Yes because if there is one thing that is relevant to the NBA post-season, it's the NBA regular season.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 18, 2018, 08:28:22 AM
Kinda hoping the Bucks get swept so I don't have to watch them anymore. They are such a mess.


Amen brother.  Watching the Celtics actually run a functioning offense is nice.  The Bucks are crap. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 18, 2018, 08:44:32 AM
Adios Joe, hello #31, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 18, 2018, 09:24:50 AM

Amen brother.  Watching the Celtics actually run a functioning offense is nice.  The Bucks are crap.

I spent about 10 possessions total (so 5 possessions for each team) simply watching just the player movement on the offensive end when the game was already decided mid 4th quarter last night.  The Bucks literally throw the ball into the high post and have 4 guys stand around the perimeter as the C's defense sags off all of them and crowd the paint.  The C's have 4 guys off the ball moving around and setting off ball screens the second the ball crosses half court.  It's remarkable the difference.

The Bucks need to hit a home run hire with this coaching move this offseason and then recreate the roster or Giannis is gone in 3 years, and he should be.  He's way too good to have this incompetent of a front office.  While every level of basketball has gone to small ball, pace and space the Bucks have gone to the extreme opposite with length and "athleticism" (I don't think guys like Henson, Thon, DJ Wilson, Snell, Middleton are all that athletic, but whatever) and no shooting.  They've botched the process of coaching changes and GM hires.  When they struck absolute gold in drafting Giannis and then got Jabari with the #2 pick, it was time to stop drafting the winner of the NBA Draft Combine measurables and start finding pieces that actually fit around their two stars (Jabari's injuries have obviously changed things).  Instead you end up following up those picks with Vaughn, Maker, and Wilson...three guys who will do absolutely nothing for your franchise.

If I'm the Bucks the only players I want to keep beyond Giannis are Middleton and Brogdon.  Everyone else should be easily available.  Guys like Danny Green would be much, much more valuable to this team than guys like Bledsoe.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 18, 2018, 09:25:57 AM
Adios Joe, hello #31, hey?

Given what they just went through with Kidd, I can't imagine the Bucks giving him the roster control he would demand.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 18, 2018, 09:32:50 AM
Der is infightin' with da owners. Big surprise der, aina? Gotta hit a homerun wit dis hire, new buildin' and such, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 18, 2018, 09:39:47 AM
Der is infightin' with da owners. Big surprise der, aina? Gotta hit a homerun wit dis hire, new buildin' and such, hey?

Amen.  Hard to mess up a roster as badly as this ownership group and front office has when you have a star like Giannis, but they've found a way to do it.  No reason to think they'll nail this hire.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 18, 2018, 09:44:18 AM
Taught Herb didn't no chit from shinola 'bout runnin' a team and meddled. Butt these dudes take it ta a 'hole knew level, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 18, 2018, 09:48:40 AM
Being a small market team in a cold weather city, the Bucks really need to nail the draft and win trades in order to become a true contender.

They obviously hit it big with Giannis. Brogdon was a solid find, especially in Round 2. The Middleton trade was a big win for the Bucks and they won the Snell deal as well, but that's not really saying a whole lot.

Their drafting has been all over the place. The Bucks have seemed to prefer high-ceiling/low-floor projects as opposed to more polished, higher-floor guys (The Giannis Strategy). Actually, the last time they went that latter route, they chose Jabari over Embiid (hindsight is 20/20 on that one). Looking at just the last two drafts, the Bucks took project Thon Maker one spot ahead of the more polished PF Domantas Sabonis. This past year, they took project D.J. Wilson a couple spots ahead of more polished PF John Collins. Don't get me wrong, Sabonis and Collins are likely not going to be that #2 guy that Giannis needs, but they're already solid, reliable NBA starters which is more than we may ever be able to say about Maker, Wilson and even Parker (emphasis on reliable).

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on April 18, 2018, 10:09:51 AM
Silver lining is that for how awful Jabari has played, Bucks can probably take a wait and see approach with his RFA. Contracts might be lower than he hoped.

Flip side, though, is that if he commands a max or something close to it, he might have sign and trade value for Milwaukee.  Looking at the roster and picks over the next couple of years, there isn't a lot of trade capital there.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 18, 2018, 10:20:33 AM
Flip side, though, is that if he commands a max or something close to it, he might have sign and trade value for Milwaukee.  Looking at the roster and picks over the next couple of years, there isn't a lot of trade capital there.


Bledsoe has an expiring contract right?  Might have to take someone else's problem in return, but it might work out.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on April 18, 2018, 10:34:40 AM

Bledsoe has an expiring contract right?  Might have to take someone else's problem in return, but it might work out.

Yep, 18-19 is Bledsoe's last year on the books. 

Interesting philosophical question for the Bucks front office. Do they continue to try to incrementally improve the team and hope that with a new coach, they find success in a model not totally unlike the Dirk-era Mavs or pre-Kyrie Cavs (one star and a good group of players around him). Or do they go for broke and blow the supporting cast up in hopes of landing a 1B to Giannis's 1A? If its the latter, they could try to trade for someone that's not happy where they're at (Kawhai, but I don't know if Milwaukee has the assets for a deal that big). Or they'd need to clear a bunch of cap (not re-signing Jabari if they don't think he's that piece would help) and/or pay a bunch of tax - but there aren't a ton of good options there, either. 2018 - Boogie (don't think Chris Paul is leaving Hou); 2019 - Paul George, Klay Thompson; 2020 - Lowry? Whiteside? none really.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 19, 2018, 11:19:02 AM
https://deadspin.com/seriously-what-the-hell-are-the-minnesota-timberwolves-1825387187
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on April 19, 2018, 07:47:41 PM
4ever

The owners better hit a home run. They got a great deal from Herb, new building and a superstar. Would be very disappointing if they step on their Johnson.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 19, 2018, 08:05:50 PM
Herd Woeful on the crystal set say rumor is da Dear wanna hire a prez of bb operations. Thru out Bird's name. Wunder if da stink wit Parker is two far down da sewer to retrieve? Anyways, da Yanks have doubled der bread in fore years. Beets stickin' it US Treasuries, aina?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on April 19, 2018, 08:20:50 PM
They knocked out of the park in regards to $$. Now they need to do same thing on the court. I think Parker’s days might be numbered, and that would be disappointing.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 19, 2018, 08:29:10 PM
Herd Woeful on the crystal set say rumor is da Dear wanna hire a prez of bb operations.


Should have done that when they took over the team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 19, 2018, 08:54:20 PM
Playoff Rondo, playoff Jrue, playoff Mirotic. Pelicans are just throttling the Blazers.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on April 19, 2018, 09:36:41 PM
Flip side, though, is that if he commands a max or something close to it, he might have sign and trade value for Milwaukee.  Looking at the roster and picks over the next couple of years, there isn't a lot of trade capital there.

Agree. Any trades the Bucks make will have draft pick riders tied to it
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on April 19, 2018, 10:05:31 PM
Agree. Any trades the Bucks make will have draft pick riders tied to it

Which is why I was hoping the pick would go to Phoenix this year. I don’t think they can trade a future first round pick until that one is gone. Plus, I don’t have a lot of faith in the Bucks making a good pick.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 22, 2018, 02:49:53 PM
Hubie Brown was professionally disgusted over how awful the Bucks' coaching was today.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 22, 2018, 02:55:26 PM
Hubie Brown was professionally disgusted over how awful the Bucks' coaching was today.

As was I.  Prunty allowed a 20 point lead to dwindle to 3 before he took a timeout.  Incredible.

Also, the Bucks went from absolutely refusing to switch anything at any point the entire regular season to suddenly switching everything anytime two offensive players crossed paths.  Morris would just be running across the court without even attempting to set a screen and suddenly Bledsoe would jump out to him and leave Middleton or Jabari on Larkin/Rozier.  Baffling.  Stevens is a good enough coach as it is, you don't need to just set mismatches all over the court up for him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on April 22, 2018, 02:57:19 PM
Herd Woeful on the crystal set say rumor is da Dear wanna hire a prez of bb operations. Thru out Bird's name. Wunder if da stink wit Parker is two far down da sewer to retrieve? Anyways, da Yanks have doubled der bread in fore years. Beets stickin' it US Treasuries, aina?

don't know if the stock market boys could pay anyone enough to drag their pull-toys around, eyn'a?  like legalized prostitution with the lights on :D
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on April 22, 2018, 03:05:43 PM
i'll admit that i am a fair weather fan, but the nba is hard too watch sometimes.  and if time is valuable, as it is, why would i waste my time watching.  for instance, what is the standard for a foul much less traveling??  did any of you guys see the game today?  at about the 6-7 minute mark, some dude from boston fell and slid with the ball from the top of the key to about half-way into the lane globetrotter style-nope-play on.  he dishes to a guy who drains a three... :o 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 22, 2018, 03:07:49 PM
As was I.  Prunty allowed a 20 point lead to dwindle to 3 before he took a timeout.  Incredible.

Also, the Bucks went from absolutely refusing to switch anything at any point the entire regular season to suddenly switching everything anytime two offensive players crossed paths.  Morris would just be running across the court without even attempting to set a screen and suddenly Bledsoe would jump out to him and leave Middleton or Jabari on Larkin/Rozier.  Baffling.  Stevens is a good enough coach as it is, you don't need to just set mismatches all over the court up for him.


I believe he did call one when the league was cut to 14.  But then never called another until it was gone.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 22, 2018, 03:14:14 PM
i'll admit that i am a fair weather fan, but the nba is hard too watch sometimes.  and if time is valuable, as it is, why would i waste my time watching.  for instance, what is the standard for a foul much less traveling??  did any of you guys see the game today?  at about the 6-7 minute mark, some dude from boston fell and slid with the ball from the top of the key to about half-way into the lane globetrotter style-nope-play on.  he dishes to a guy who drains a three... :o 


NBA refs are about a million times better than college refs.  NBA reffing has improved TREMENDOUSLY under Silver.

Honestly I don't know how anyone can watch the NBA playoffs and still somehow think college basketball is better.  Yeah the regular season can be more enjoyable because of the on-campus atmosphere, and the tournament is special because of its nature, but the quality of the basketball at this time of year is incredible.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 22, 2018, 03:15:41 PM
As was I.  Prunty allowed a 20 point lead to dwindle to 3 before he took a timeout.  Incredible.

Also, the Bucks went from absolutely refusing to switch anything at any point the entire regular season to suddenly switching everything anytime two offensive players crossed paths.  Morris would just be running across the court without even attempting to set a screen and suddenly Bledsoe would jump out to him and leave Middleton or Jabari on Larkin/Rozier.  Baffling.  Stevens is a good enough coach as it is, you don't need to just set mismatches all over the court up for him.


I should also add that Maker and Parker being as good as they have been in 3 and 4, after hardly seeing the floor in 1 and 2, is a pretty damning indictment of Prunty as well.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 22, 2018, 03:17:49 PM
Prunty, he gowne, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 22, 2018, 03:47:08 PM

NBA refs are about a million times better than college refs.  NBA reffing has improved TREMENDOUSLY under Silver.

Honestly I don't know how anyone can watch the NBA playoffs and still somehow think college basketball is better.  Yeah the regular season can be more enjoyable because of the on-campus atmosphere, and the tournament is special because of its nature, but the quality of the basketball at this time of year is incredible.

Different strokes.

I find it more obnoxious that people can hit turnaround fade away 20 footers rather then enjoyable.

Except AD. AD is the exception to the NBA rule.

Oh, and call a travel every once in awhile.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 22, 2018, 04:01:11 PM
Y burn a TO wen ya got nothin' ta say, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on April 22, 2018, 05:00:13 PM
i'll admit that i am a fair weather fan, but the nba is hard too watch sometimes.  and if time is valuable, as it is, why would i waste my time watching.  for instance, what is the standard for a foul much less traveling??  did any of you guys see the game today?  at about the 6-7 minute mark, some dude from boston fell and slid with the ball from the top of the key to about half-way into the lane globetrotter style-nope-play on.  he dishes to a guy who drains a three... :o

That was a FANTASTIC game with a monstrous comeback, and then two teams exchanging massive shots towards the finish resulting in an amazing putback and a missed buzzer beater...and you focus on a meaningless play which my uncle (a former HS and small college referee) couldn't decide if it was a travel as he never truly stopped dribbling and didn't roll on the ground with the ball in his hands?  Some people just need to find things to complain about.  Such as...

I find it more obnoxious that people can hit turnaround fade away 20 footers rather then enjoyable.

Yea, its totally obnoxious to see people truly excel at their sport, much more fun to watch bricked shots everywhere.  Give me a hard nosed B10 game with each team shooting 34% every day!


On a Bucks related note, they push a lead and shut the Cs down on offense with Delly in...then he might as well be in the concession stand selling popcorn during the second half
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 22, 2018, 05:18:09 PM

NBA refs are about a million times better than college refs.  NBA reffing has improved TREMENDOUSLY under Silver.

Honestly I don't know how anyone can watch the NBA playoffs and still somehow think college basketball is better.  Yeah the regular season can be more enjoyable because of the on-campus atmosphere, and the tournament is special because of its nature, but the quality of the basketball at this time of year is incredible.

I understand both sides of this argument. 

I think what Rocket is getting at is that clear and obvious fouls are just not called.  Grabbing, pushing, elbows, etc. are just plain allowed in the NBA.  Traveling, isn't even a thing.  I find that quite annoying, but if they called those there would be TO's galore, and both teams would foul out before the end of the first quarter.  It's usually called evenly (it's not in the NCAA), with the exception of obvious star treatment.

But the amazing thing is the NBA players so so absurdly good, they can play right through all that, which from a talent standpoint is just amazing.  They can literally do anything, and open or even contested shots are likely going in, particularly in crunch time.  That makes the NBA game much more exciting.

So in the NCAA they try to call the game like it was meant to be called, but the caliber of play is inferior.  In the NBA, the talent is absurd, but they don't call the game like it was designed. 

In the end, for an entire season, I prefer the NCAA, each game means more.  There are too many games in the NBA, that each game means nothing and often you get about 40 minutes of 75% effort, and 8 minutes of 100% effort.  NBA playoffs though, are phenomenal.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on April 22, 2018, 06:03:48 PM
I understand both sides of this argument. 

I think what Rocket is getting at is that clear and obvious fouls are just not called.  Grabbing, pushing, elbows, etc. are just plain allowed in the NBA.  Traveling, isn't even a thing.  I find that quite annoying, but if they called those there would be TO's galore, and both teams would foul out before the end of the first quarter.  It's usually called evenly (it's not in the NCAA), with the exception of obvious star treatment.

But the amazing thing is the NBA players so so absurdly good, they can play right through all that, which from a talent standpoint is just amazing.  They can literally do anything, and open or even contested shots are likely going in, particularly in crunch time.  That makes the NBA game much more exciting.

So in the NCAA they try to call the game like it was meant to be called, but the caliber of play is inferior.  In the NBA, the talent is absurd, but they don't call the game like it was designed. 

In the end, for an entire season, I prefer the NCAA, each game means more.  There are too many games in the NBA, that each game means nothing and often you get about 40 minutes of 75% effort, and 8 minutes of 100% effort.  NBA playoffs though, are phenomenal.

thank you forgets-exactly.  i mean, what is the standard?  i think it was the first bucks-celtics game-the greek freak got the ball, started dribbling, moved back to the three point line, stopped dribbling, held the ball for a few moments, then started dribbling again toward the basket and was called, rightly so, for DOUBLE DRIBBLE and he was arguing with the ref.  understand i like the guy, but...

yes, i very much appreciate the talent at the nba level.  i grew up watching the bucks from a 6th row seat off the north basket at the old arena. cigar smoke and a guy with a blow horn behind us.  it was great!  saw the big O as a player for the cincinnati royals before he came to milwaukee, etc etc today's players are sickly good. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 22, 2018, 06:31:15 PM
I think the NBA does a good job of understanding what fouls should be called - when an advantage is gained.  My frustrations with the NCAA is that they are trying to take a "zero tolerance" approach, and all that has done is break up the games completely. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 22, 2018, 10:17:41 PM
I think the NBA does a good job of understanding what fouls should be called - when an advantage is gained.  My frustrations with the NCAA is that they are trying to take a "zero tolerance" approach, and all that has done is break up the games completely.

In general, I agree with you.  But the officiating down the stretch in the Pacers vs. Cleveland game was absolute horse crap. 

That kind of officiating is why people historically say the NBA is rigged.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 22, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
In general, I agree with you.  But the officiating down the stretch in the Pacers vs. Cleveland game was absolute horse crap. 

That kind of officiating is why people historically say the NBA is rigged.

They got the last call right. If you watch the replay when Stephenson mugged Green, both refs right on the play immediately raised their hands in fists for fouls. The younger guy confused the situation a little by following his signal with a jump ball sign, but Ken Mauer (one of the best) had it as a foul all the way, and correctly so. They then went to the monitor to make sure nothing happened in the ensuing scrum.

One problem was that Marv Albert and Chris Webber did a terrible job of explaning what took place - neither noticed both refs clearly raising their fists with the foul call, and Marv actually said Green was shooting technical FTs even though both teams had players lined up along the lane because it was a common foul.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 23, 2018, 11:09:39 AM
They got the last call right. If you watch the replay when Stephenson mugged Green, both refs right on the play immediately raised their hands in fists for fouls. The younger guy confused the situation a little by following his signal with a jump ball sign, but Ken Mauer (one of the best) had it as a foul all the way, and correctly so. They then went to the monitor to make sure nothing happened in the ensuing scrum.

One problem was that Marv Albert and Chris Webber did a terrible job of explaning what took place - neither noticed both refs clearly raising their fists with the foul call, and Marv actually said Green was shooting technical FTs even though both teams had players lined up along the lane because it was a common foul.

That makes a lot more sense.  I was going by their analysis, which said Jump Ball, and then a technical on Stephenson instead.  I don't think they ever clarified that the play was originally called a foul (which is what I would have agreed with).

I thought they had decided to essentially correct their mistake (not calling a foul), by deeming the play a technical instead.  Because if anything, there should have been a technical on Green (I wouldn't have called it though).

Thanks for the clarification.  I rescind my previous statement regarding the "horse crap" calls.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 23, 2018, 11:14:00 AM
That makes a lot more sense.  I was going by their analysis, which said Jump Ball, and then a technical on Stephenson instead.  I don't think they ever clarified that the play was originally called a foul (which is what I would have agreed with).

I thought they had decided to essentially correct their mistake (not calling a foul), by deeming the play a technical instead.  Because if anything, there should have been a technical on Green (I wouldn't have called it though).

Thanks for the clarification.  I rescind my previous statement regarding the "horse crap" calls.

http://awfulannouncing.com/uncategorized/nobody-had-any-idea-what-the-hell-was-going-on-in-the-pacers-cavs-game-4-finish.html

I didn't see it.  Fell asleep on the couch.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 23, 2018, 11:26:26 AM
http://awfulannouncing.com/uncategorized/nobody-had-any-idea-what-the-hell-was-going-on-in-the-pacers-cavs-game-4-finish.html

I didn't see it.  Fell asleep on the couch.

I love the tweet in your link.  "Shocking that Weber would be clueless in the closing seconds."

Because of the announcers the officiating at the ending seemed to have all kinds of wrong present, turns out they actually did have it right from the beginning and Weber just sucks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 23, 2018, 12:01:13 PM
Hubie Brown been outstandin', old fart or knot, aina?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 23, 2018, 12:25:06 PM
They got the last call right. If you watch the replay when Stephenson mugged Green, both refs right on the play immediately raised their hands in fists for fouls. The younger guy confused the situation a little by following his signal with a jump ball sign, but Ken Mauer (one of the best) had it as a foul all the way, and correctly so. They then went to the monitor to make sure nothing happened in the ensuing scrum.

One problem was that Marv Albert and Chris Webber did a terrible job of explaning what took place - neither noticed both refs clearly raising their fists with the foul call, and Marv actually said Green was shooting technical FTs even though both teams had players lined up along the lane because it was a common foul.


I've seen very few wrestlers with a takedown move as sweet as Richardson's.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 23, 2018, 03:29:43 PM
It was such an obvious foul on Stephenson that for a few seconds I was shocked that it was going to be a jumpball. But then in the very first replay, I saw Mauer signal for a foul and I knew that's what it was going to be.

Big Marv Albert fan for several decades now, but he has had a bunch of pretty bad miscues lately. The guy's almost 77 and clearly isn't what he once was - and yet he still calls a game better than most. Webber? He was scary bad on that one. My son (who is 30) thinks he is excellent, but I prefer Reggie Miller. The Miller-Harlan tandem is hard to beat. Van Gundy is usually very good; not as enthused about Mark Jackson, though, so that 3-man-in-booth isn't my favorite even though Breen is solid. Used to really like Hubie, but I think I'm tired of listening to him talking about "the painted area." I really liked Rivers and also Steve Kerr as analysts; coaching's gain has been my ears' loss!

I enjoy both the NBA playoffs and NCAA hoops for different reasons.

I firmly believe that NBAers are the best all-around athletes in the world. I mean, they are 6-7, run like cheetahs, built like in-their-prime boxers, amazing dexterity, magicians with the ball. Even most of the "bad" players. And I like watching the best of the best go at it with the season on the line. It's great sports theater. I'm not going to let "but the refs don't call enough traveling" stop me from enjoying it. The regular season ... there are very few games worth giving a shyte about, which is one of the NBA's problems. Great teams "resting" 3 or 4 players at once, bad teams tanking it for possible draft position ... that stuff is terrible.

I watch all Marquette games, the NCAA tournament and very little other regular-season college ball. Even UNC-Duke or a non-conference matchup like Kansas-Michigan State ... I might tune in for the end if the game is close, but I'm not gonna sit there and watch some Dec. 9 or Feb. 11 game from beginning to end. Unless it's Marquette. I do watch a ton of the tournament, though I'm more engaged in the entire tourney if MU is in it. (Of course.) And even my wife watched the entire Final Four ... though this year the Women's Final Four was the really amazing entertainment.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 23, 2018, 07:59:55 PM
Kevin Harlan just called Derrick Rose, Reggie Rose. I mean, I know a lot of people are in Reggie's pocket, but never woulda thought Harlan was one of them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on April 23, 2018, 09:24:17 PM
He was talking to Reggie Miller. “Reggie, Rose has been terrific”
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 23, 2018, 10:00:18 PM
In the third quarter, Houston made every Timberwolves defender (including JFB) look like Rowsey. The Rockets did whatever they wanted whenever they wanted.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 23, 2018, 10:35:39 PM
The Bucks rebounding is like 5 Russell Westbrooks on the floor.  Just forget about that the most important thing is your team gets the ball and make sure you go absolutely all out to crash the boards yourself, no matter what your defensive assignment is.  Which leaves about 4 offensive players free to come up with an uncontested offensive rebound.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on April 23, 2018, 11:02:16 PM
I am all in on this Ingles George scuffle. Hilarious. George aught to be embarrassed.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 23, 2018, 11:13:32 PM
I am all in on this Ingles George scuffle. Hilarious. George aught to be embarrassed.

The Mormons are mentally effing with the Thunder, and it is absolutely hilarious.  Even Mitt Romney is getting in on the action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOJLrexL6c&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on April 23, 2018, 11:58:34 PM
The Mormons are mentally effing with the Thunder, and it is absolutely hilarious.  Even Mitt Romney is getting in on the action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOJLrexL6c&feature=youtu.be

They are completely in OKC’s head. Jae getting into it with Westbrook
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 24, 2018, 07:35:37 AM
Ya gotta hand it to Quin Snyder.  After he was run out of Mizzou he worked his way back up the ranks, including coaching in the D League and in Russia, and now does a lot with average NBA talent in Utah. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 24, 2018, 08:01:34 AM
Ya gotta hand it to Quin Snyder.  After he was run out of Mizzou he worked his way back up the ranks, including coaching in the D League and in Russia, and now does a lot with average NBA talent in Utah.

Yup.  A lot of good hires recently.  Have to hope the Bucks are the next in line to make a good hire this offseason.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 24, 2018, 08:45:31 AM
If Dwayne Wade and Nicky Van Exel ever were married and had a kid, he would be Donovan Mitchell.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 24, 2018, 11:09:28 AM
They are completely in OKC’s head. Jae getting into it with Westbrook

My favorite part of that scuffle was that Jae drilled Adams in the face (inadvertantly) and Adams barely flinched. I was both Jae and Adams on my team!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 24, 2018, 11:18:49 AM
My favorite part of that scuffle was that Jae drilled Adams in the face (inadvertantly) and Adams barely flinched. I was both Jae and Adams on my team!

Yup.  Adams is a big, bad dude.  If I had to choose one player off of the Thunder for my team it might be Adams.  Him or PG.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on April 24, 2018, 11:49:39 AM
Yup.  Adams is a big, bad dude.  If I had to choose one player off of the Thunder for my team it might be Adams.  Him or PG.

The thing about Adams that is incredible is that he's both terrifying and remarkably calm.  Often the peacemaker, never really flies totally off the handle, but totally has the implicit feel that "i could easily end you" and the looks at offending parties to match.  He's fantastic
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 24, 2018, 12:09:58 PM
The thing about Adams that is incredible is that he's both terrifying and remarkably calm.  Often the peacemaker, never really flies totally off the handle, but totally has the implicit feel that "i could easily end you" and the looks at offending parties to match.  He's fantastic

Great comment.

On an unrelated note, Mitchell is a stud. I'm so pissed the Hornets passed on him to take wimpy Malik Monk.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on April 24, 2018, 12:25:58 PM
(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5adeaf2519ee8624008b4718-750-375.jpg)

I have this many binders of women
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on April 24, 2018, 12:33:12 PM
The thing about Adams that is incredible is that he's both terrifying and remarkably calm.  Often the peacemaker, never really flies totally off the handle, but totally has the implicit feel that "i could easily end you" and the looks at offending parties to match.  He's fantastic

Perhaps the long-lasting effect of growing up as the youngest of 18 (!) siblings.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 24, 2018, 12:48:03 PM
Great comment.

On an unrelated note, Mitchell is a stud. I'm so pissed the Hornets passed on him to take wimpy Malik Monk.

I loved Monk before the draft. I guess it shows what I know.

But what a great rookie group. Guys who aren't even being considered for ROY this year would have won it easily last year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on April 24, 2018, 01:00:13 PM
Ya gotta hand it to Quin Snyder.  After he was run out of Mizzou he worked his way back up the ranks, including coaching in the D League and in Russia, and now does a lot with average NBA talent in Utah.

Average? Mitchell is a Wade-esque stud and Rudy Gobert is a top 5 defender in the NBA with a good argument for DPOY. Then you have Rubio/Exum/Favors/Crowder who are all above average role players.

Put it this way: the Heat won with Wade (2006 version better than Mitchell at this point obviously), an over the hill Shaq (Gobert better now than that version of Shaq) and a cast of characters I absolutely hated outside of Haslem. Stick 2006 Wade on this team and it's better than the team that won it all.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 24, 2018, 01:12:51 PM
Average? Mitchell is a Wade-esque stud and Rudy Gobert is a top 5 defender in the NBA with a good argument for DPOY. Then you have Rubio/Exum/Favors/Crowder who are all above average role players.

Put it this way: the Heat won with Wade (2006 version better than Mitchell at this point obviously), an over the hill Shaq (Gobert better now than that version of Shaq) and a cast of characters I absolutely hated outside of Haslem. Stick 2006 Wade on this team and it's better than the team that won it all.

No love for team leader in VORP, Joe Ingles?!?

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 24, 2018, 02:48:35 PM
No love for team leader in VORP, Joe Ingles?!?

If you get a chance, check out Ingles' interview after the game last night. Fun stuff
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 24, 2018, 03:49:04 PM
I loved Monk before the draft. I guess it shows what I know.

But what a great rookie group. Guys who aren't even being considered for ROY this year would have won it easily last year.

I might be guilty of judging him too early. The only way he works out is if he can play PG (and he has shown some signs that he can) and if Kemba leaves via free agency after next season (or is traded before then so the Hornets don't lose him without getting anything in return).

Paired with Kemba, he is a bad fit - two skinny little guards, one of whom plays D only slightly better than Rowsey (Monk) and the other willing to play D but too tiny.

Mitchell is taller, tougher, huge wingspan, likes playing D and has improved markedly on offense. Except for the last thing, we knew all of those on draft day. I was hoping somebody would take Monk so the Hornets wouldn't be tempted to draft him. Unfortunately, he "surprised" them by lasting to their pick.

I'm not nearly as big a Hornets fan as I am a Panthers fan, but I'd rather than win than lose. And they ain't winning, nor do they seem ready to win for quite some time. They are trapped in salary-cap hell with a bunch of not-quite-good-enough players.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 24, 2018, 04:03:48 PM



I'm not nearly as big a Hornets fan as I am a Panthers fan, but I'd rather than win than lose. And they ain't winning, nor do they seem ready to win for quite some time. They are trapped in salary-cap hell with a bunch of not-quite-good-enough players.



I only follow the Hornets (somewhat) because Kemba is my grandson's favorite player ever.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 24, 2018, 06:26:14 PM
Timberwolves gave up 50 in the third quarter last night.

If only they had a defense-minded coach!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 24, 2018, 06:51:40 PM
We're 17 minutes into the game. Giannis has played 10 minutes. Why? He should sit 7 minutes total.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on April 24, 2018, 07:05:15 PM
Great comment.

On an unrelated note, Mitchell is a stud. I'm so pissed the Hornets passed on him to take wimpy Malik Monk.

yo 82-your badger love aside ;), what is your opinion of frankie?  the main reason i ask is because he is the best friend and former h.s. classmate of my nephew.  so how is the carolina love for him out there?

  funny story-my son(MU grad 2009) absolutely hates anything badger, but when he and my nephew got out of the dave mathews concert last summer, frankie treated them all to bottle service at some downtown chicago speakeasy.  i guess the drinks and the babes trumped going to some dive bar ?-(
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 24, 2018, 07:14:31 PM
yo 82-your badger love aside ;), what is your opinion of frankie?  the main reason i ask is because he is the best friend and former h.s. classmate of my nephew.  so how is the carolina love for him out there?

  funny story-my son(MU grad 2009) absolutely hates anything badger, but when he and my nephew got out of the dave mathews concert last summer, frankie treated them all to bottle service at some downtown chicago speakeasy.  i guess the drinks and the babes trumped going to some dive bar ?-(

He was trending up last season, but he regressed a little this year.

I'd say the Hornet faithful is skeptical if he can be an NBA player with any real long-term value.

Cool story about him being a decent guy, though. I don't know him at all, but I've read a lot about him since he got here. He's an interesting guy, seems intelligent, and also dances to the beat of his own drummer.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on April 24, 2018, 07:25:39 PM
He was trending up last season, but he regressed a little this year.

I'd say the Hornet faithful is skeptical if he can be an NBA player with any real long-term value.

Cool story about him being a decent guy, though. I don't know him at all, but I've read a lot about him since he got here. He's an interesting guy, seems intelligent, and also dances to the beat of his own drummer.

I think, on the right team, he could still be dancing all the way to the bank.  Hey, is macilvaine’s agent still around? 🤩
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 24, 2018, 08:02:26 PM
I think, on the right team, he could still be dancing all the way to the bank.  Hey, is macilvaine’s agent still around? 🤩

I know a Sonics fan who is still pissed off with McIlvaine's contract.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 24, 2018, 08:04:07 PM
Keep running Snell out there Prunty. Really giving you a ton of production. Not only tonight, not only this series, but all year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 24, 2018, 08:05:16 PM
At leest Frank isn't likely ta go all fookin' Larry Sanders on da Hornets, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on April 24, 2018, 08:36:22 PM
No love for team leader in VORP, Joe Ingles?!?

Great point knew I was missing someone
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 24, 2018, 08:37:01 PM
Horford hadn’t even left the ground to start his shot when the shot clock hit 0:00. How do you possibly miss that? Not one ref realized the shot clock went off a full second before Horford got the shot off?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 24, 2018, 08:41:25 PM
Horford hadn’t even left the ground to start his shot when the shot clock hit 0:00. How do you possibly miss that? Not one ref realized the shot clock went off a full second before Horford got the shot off?

Horrible missed call. Not even close.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 24, 2018, 08:46:08 PM
Horrible missed call. Not even close.

The good thing is it’ll be a nice bulletpoint on a sheet of paper tomorrow afternoon. Thanks NBA!

I get missed calls happen. Not like that though. That shouldn’t happen with 4 minutes left in the first quarter of a preseason game. With a minute left in a 4 point game of a 2-2 Playoff series? Come on.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 24, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
Kant review dat, why, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 24, 2018, 09:10:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sECWJ3xxjz8

3 refs on the court.  Incredible.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 24, 2018, 09:30:58 PM
Kant review dat, why, hey?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/04/24/nba-playoffs-live-updates-tuesdays-first-round-games/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.10f0e316c4a8

"The play could not be reviewed. Why? Because going back and checking if the shot clock expired when it hadn’t been called in the first place is not one of the things that triggers a replay review.

Ironically, it would have been better for Milwaukee if Horford’s shot had gone in. Had it, the Bucks would have gotten the ball back, and his shot would have been looked at later, and the points would have been taken off the board."


That absolutely makes no sense.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 24, 2018, 09:41:13 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/brewhoop/status/988954981016457216/video/1

Is the ref behind Horford signaling for a 3 pointer? It looks like he forgets that he’s supposed to signal for a 3 pointer when it was so clearly a 2 point attempt, and so clearly not even close to off in time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 24, 2018, 10:09:50 PM
Durant should just start shaving his head. That bald spot is starting to become real obvious.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 24, 2018, 11:35:10 PM
Durant should just start shaving his head. That bald spot is starting to become real obvious.

That's what did it for me. One day I realized, "Shyte, I'm practically bald."
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on April 25, 2018, 04:21:16 AM
Kant review dat, why, hey?

check their bank accounts, eyn'a?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 25, 2018, 09:29:24 PM
Someday, this LeBron kid is really gonna be a decent player.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 25, 2018, 10:08:31 PM
Someday, this LeBron kid is really gonna be a decent player.

Maybe Russell Westbrook won’t shoor 20% on 30 shots in a close out game someday.

He’s a great stat chaser though.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 25, 2018, 11:07:07 PM
Man that Westbrook dude really sucks, aina? Must have read scoop during halftime for a bit of a pep talk.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 25, 2018, 11:09:47 PM
Man that Westbrook dude really sucks, aina? Must have read scoop during halftime for a bit of a pep talk.

If you like your point guard taking 40 shots and shooting about 40% from the field yeah he's awesome.  And a point guard who can make Ricky Rubio look like the second coming of John Stockton because all he cares about is getting as many rebounds as he can even if it means losing in the first round or running off 2 NBA MVPs, he's incredible.

Gotta hand it to him though.  His Playoff field goal percentage went up with his 17-39 shooting performance tonight.  Good for him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 25, 2018, 11:14:38 PM
Interestingly enough when he shot the ball 17 times or less this season the Thunder were 20-2.  Unfortunately for them he averaged 21 shots per game this season.  Weird what happens when the ball doesn't stick to one person's hands...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 25, 2018, 11:15:47 PM
I get it, he's a very polarizing player. I wouldn't use the Rubio comparison tonight though, tricky Ricky show a whopping 25% and hauled in 12 rebounds.

For the record, I hope the Jazz win the series, i'd just understand your oddly placed hatred a little more if Westbrook actually played for the Bucks instead on a team in a completely different conference.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on April 26, 2018, 01:24:27 AM
I get it, he's a very polarizing player. I wouldn't use the Rubio comparison tonight though, tricky Ricky show a whopping 25% and hauled in 12 rebounds.

For the record, I hope the Jazz win the series, i'd just understand your oddly placed hatred a little more if Westbrook actually played for the Bucks instead on a team in a completely different conference.

I'll offer a little less polarizing emotional wades take about westbrook. I think he's one of the most exciting players in the NBA but in no way do I think that translates to playoff success. The
Proof is in the pudding too. Now two (three contenders) for MVP have left his them to play the best basketball of their career. Is Westbrook a top 5 player? Yes. Will he ever win a title? No. Really if you truly want to crap on him, gotta look into the advanced stats and look at uncontested rebounds and usage vs win share.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on April 26, 2018, 01:26:28 AM
I'll offer a little less polarizing emotional wades take about westbrook. I think he's one of the most exciting players in the NBA but in no way do I think that translates to playoff success. The
Proof is in the pudding too. Now two (three contenders) for MVP have left his them to play the best basketball of their career. Is Westbrook a top 5 player? Yes. Will he ever win a title? No. Really if you truly want to crap on him, gotta look into the advanced stats and look at uncontested rebounds and usage vs win share.

#freestevenadams
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 26, 2018, 06:05:37 AM
I'll offer a little less polarizing emotional wades take about westbrook. I think he's one of the most exciting players in the NBA but in no way do I think that translates to playoff success. The
Proof is in the pudding too. Now two (three contenders) for MVP have left his them to play the best basketball of their career.


Is Durant really playing the "best basketball of his career" at GS?  Statistically his best years were his years at OKC, even when you account for lower usage.

And Harden is clearly playing better basketball at Houston.  But he was 23 when he left OKC.  So is it because he is no longer with Westbrook or because he simply matured as a basketball player?

I mean I understand why people don't think that a team with a ball dominant player like Westbrook isn't going to win anything, but I think the idea that players are better when they don't play with him isn't really accurate.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on April 26, 2018, 08:47:54 AM
Someday, this LeBron kid is really gonna be a decent player.
One of the best ever,  but he vociferously argues on seemingly every call, and that was a goaltend....
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on April 26, 2018, 09:49:56 AM
One of the best ever,  but he vociferously argues on seemingly every call, and that was a goaltend....

Def a goaltend.  Also crazy how a narrative changes, Lebron and company didn't score from about the 5 min mark until the buzzer beater, almost a brutal collapse at home.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 26, 2018, 11:12:27 AM
Maybe Russell Westbrook won’t shoor 20% on 30 shots in a close out game someday.

Odd response to my comment about a totally different player -- one of the 2 best ever IMHO, who just carried his mediocre team to an exciting playoff win.

As for Westbrook, we agree about his shortcomings and flaws.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 26, 2018, 11:49:59 AM
Def a goaltend.  Also crazy how a narrative changes, Lebron and company didn't score from about the 5 min mark until the buzzer beater, almost a brutal collapse at home.

NBA officials have indicated that the reviews show it was a goaltend.

Refs totally screwed that up.  They should have called a goaltend.  Then reviewed the play to make sure.  If it wasn't a goaltend, they can overrule it.

But if they don't call it a goaltend, there is not possibility of review.

Gifted a win to the Cavs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on April 26, 2018, 11:58:00 AM

Is Durant really playing the "best basketball of his career" at GS?  Statistically his best years were his years at OKC, even when you account for lower usage.

And Harden is clearly playing better basketball at Houston.  But he was 23 when he left OKC.  So is it because he is no longer with Westbrook or because he simply matured as a basketball player?

I mean I understand why people don't think that a team with a ball dominant player like Westbrook isn't going to win anything, but I think the idea that players are better when they don't play with him isn't really accurate.

I don't necessarily think that players are "better" when they don't play with Westbrook but I do feel like he's a very difficult guy to play with because he's SO ball-dominant that he doesn't give teammates many opportunities to do anything.

Even at the age of 23, James Harden, in his first season away from Westbrook, made his first All-Star Game and led Houston to 45 wins. For reference, the other "stars" on that Rockets team were Chandler Parsons and Jeremy Lin.   

Victor Oladipo didn't suddenly become a great player in a matter of 3 months. He had arguably the worst season of his career playing next to Westbrook and became an All-Star in the next season playing without Westbrook.

Domantas Sabonis went to Indiana and saw his PT increase by about 4 minutes per game yet his production basically doubled.

Carmelo Anthony, who we can all agree is past his prime, went from being an All-Star last season to having the worst season of his career this year (a negative VORP!) playing with Westbrook.

Maybe it's just coincidence. Maybe it's coaching system in OKC. Maybe there are examples of players joining Westbrook and seeing their production and metrics improve. It just really seems like, as naturally gifted as Westbrook is, his Russ-vs-The-World style isn't conducive to successful, team-oriented basketball.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on April 26, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
NBA officials have indicated that the reviews show it was a goaltend.

Refs totally screwed that up.  They should have called a goaltend.  Then reviewed the play to make sure.  If it wasn't a goaltend, they can overrule it.

But if they don't call it a goaltend, there is not possibility of review.

Gifted a win to the Cavs.

The Cavs would have still gotten the ball back, down two.  And they do have a player who has shown that he's capable of hitting a big shot every now and again.

Yes, it was a bad call.  No, we can't say that it decided the game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 26, 2018, 12:31:18 PM
NBA officials have indicated that the reviews show it was a goaltend.

Refs totally screwed that up.  They should have called a goaltend.  Then reviewed the play to make sure.  If it wasn't a goaltend, they can overrule it.

But if they don't call it a goaltend, there is not possibility of review.

Gifted a win to the Cavs.
So you're assuming Lebron misses due to the pressure of trailing instead of being tied?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on April 26, 2018, 12:46:00 PM
1. I believe they cannot advance the ball to halfcourt due to a goaltending call
2. Even so, the Pacer's defense would have been much different

It absolutely decided the game...
there was a foul on LeBron on the drive as well, but we won't go there
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on April 26, 2018, 12:47:56 PM
NBA officials have indicated that the reviews show it was a goaltend.

Refs totally screwed that up.  They should have called a goaltend.  Then reviewed the play to make sure.  If it wasn't a goaltend, they can overrule it.

But if they don't call it a goaltend, there is not possibility of review.

Gifted a win to the Cavs.

Still not sure why they cannot review it...the rule now is like the ancient rule of determining if a person is a witch...it they do not drown, they are a witch...if they do drown, they are not a witch...
 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 26, 2018, 12:54:53 PM
Still not sure why they cannot review it...the rule now is like the ancient rule of determining if a person is a witch...it they do not drown, they are a witch...if they do drown, they are not a witch...
 


Just like the shot-clock violation rule that hurt the Bucks earlier this week, my guess is that the NBA requires a call to be made before it can be reviewed.  Since no call was made, nothing can be reviewed.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 26, 2018, 12:56:08 PM
On the very play before the goaltend no-call, Indiana was awarded the ball even though it clearly went out of bounds off a Pacers player. Not sure why they didn't review it.

Stuff happens. There are bad calls. The rule that wouldn't let them review the goaltend is stupid.

Had goaltending been called, the Cavs absolutely could have advanced the ball to inbound it in the frontcourt with a timeout - just as if the basket had gone in.

They would have inbounded it from the exact same place and the ball would have gone to the exact same player, the Pacers would have defended it the exact same way, and he would have taken the exact same shot.

Whether the result would have been the same, we'll never know.

One thing we do know for certain: The play that "decided" the game was the last one. It was the 3-pointer that the best player on the planet swished.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on April 26, 2018, 01:20:08 PM
On the very play before the goaltend no-call, Indiana was awarded the ball even though it clearly went out of bounds off a Pacers player. Not sure why they didn't review it.

True.  Also worth noting, the player who "vociferously argues on seemingly every call" didn't argue.


One thing we do know for certain: The play that "decided" the game was the last one. It was the 3-pointer that the best player on the planet swished.

Also true.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on April 26, 2018, 01:27:39 PM
On the very play before the goaltend no-call, Indiana was awarded the ball even though it clearly went out of bounds off a Pacers player. Not sure why they didn't review it.

Stuff happens. There are bad calls. The rule that wouldn't let them review the goaltend is stupid.

Had goaltending been called, the Cavs absolutely could have advanced the ball to inbound it in the frontcourt with a timeout - just as if the basket had gone in.

They would have inbounded it from the exact same place and the ball would have gone to the exact same player, the Pacers would have defended it the exact same way, and he would have taken the exact same shot.

Whether the result would have been the same, we'll never know.

One thing we do know for certain: The play that "decided" the game was the last one. It was the 3-pointer that the best player on the planet swished.
No way the Pacer's defend that the same way if they are up 2 with that amount of time...they do not allow a 3 by LeBron...they let him drive and make him pass...granted he probable drives, makes the shot, and is fouled for the +1
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 26, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
1. I believe they cannot advance the ball to halfcourt due to a goaltending call
2. Even so, the Pacer's defense would have been much different

It absolutely decided the game...
there was a foul on LeBron on the drive as well, but we won't go there

On point one, I believe you are mistaken. As long as the Cavs call timeout before the ball is advanced, they can inbound in the front court.

On point two, I disagree that the no call decided the game. It changed the complexion of the game.  It gave the Cavs a better chance to win.  But we'll never know what would have happened.  The inbounds pass could have went to Kevin Love for a game winning corner 3.  Lebron could have caught the ball further from the basketball and hit a 35 footer.  The Cavs could've made a 2 and won in OT. Truth is that there were a lot of ways for the Cavs to still win, even if a goaltending is called.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on April 26, 2018, 03:03:19 PM
What are the statistical probabilities to win, when down 2 with 3 seconds(?) left?  It's not a 100% guarantee of winning, of course, but pretty darn close..So, that is why I say it decided the game. 
I thought I heard on the radio that the ball could not be advanced after an officiating overturn/replay...didn't actually research it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 26, 2018, 03:31:21 PM
What are the statistical probabilities to win, when down 2 with 3 seconds(?) left?  It's not a 100% guarantee of winning, of course, but pretty darn close..So, that is why I say it decided the game. 
I thought I heard on the radio that the ball could not be advanced after an officiating overturn/replay...didn't actually research it.

Don't get me started on win probabilities. They represent what has happened in the past, not what will happen in the future.  They have no bearing on the outcome of the game.

As far as the rules question, I'm giving the best answer from what rules I could find online.  But this is definitely a unique situation so, yes, we need an NBA rules expert to break down the point of order.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBBau on April 26, 2018, 03:43:19 PM
The goaltending was not the only missed call. Both teams benefited.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbvGbBcWsAIBkrO.jpg:large)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 26, 2018, 03:52:03 PM
No way the Pacer's defend that the same way if they are up 2 with that amount of time...they do not allow a 3 by LeBron...they let him drive and make him pass...granted he probable drives, makes the shot, and is fouled for the +1

We'll never know, but there is no reason to think the Pacers would have worked any harder to prevent LeBron from getting the ball 35 feet from the basket.

As for the rule, had goaltending been called, it would have been treated the exact same as a made basket. The Cavs could have called timeout and gotten the ball in the frontcourt.

Trying to rewrite history is always a fool's errand. The best player on the planet made the winning play. Actually, 2 - because goaltending wasn't called. If he hadn't made that block, as 99% of the players wouldn't have, there would be no call to debate.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 26, 2018, 03:52:23 PM
No way the Pacer's defend that the same way if they are up 2 with that amount of time...they do not allow a 3 by LeBron...they let him drive and make him pass...granted he probable drives, makes the shot, and is fouled for the +1

This. 

The defense would have been different if they were up 2.  The Cavs offensive plan would have also been different, they would have gone to the rim and tried to score, or get a foul.  They wouldn't settle for a contested 3. 

Could, the Cavs still have won, yes.  But the officials took control of the game and made a bad call.  They then put the Cavs in a low pressure situation, where if they score, they win, if not, overtime.  That is a massive gift.

I never said the Cavs couldn't have won; people take verbiage way too literally on Scoop.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on April 26, 2018, 06:37:11 PM
This. 

The defense would have been different if they were up 2.  The Cavs offensive plan would have also been different, they would have gone to the rim and tried to score, or get a foul.  They wouldn't settle for a contested 3. 

Could, the Cavs still have won, yes.  But the officials took control of the game and made a bad call.  They then put the Cavs in a low pressure situation, where if they score, they win, if not, overtime.  That is a massive gift.

I never said the Cavs couldn't have won; people take verbiage way too literally on Scoop.

Well, I won't take this post literally then. So you really mean the defense would have been exactly the same and the Cavs would have settled for a contested three.  ;D
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 26, 2018, 07:26:52 PM
I mean I love the Bucks and all, but this “offense” is just a pile of sh**.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 26, 2018, 07:29:39 PM

The defense would have been different if they were up 2.  The Cavs offensive plan would have also been different, they would have gone to the rim and tried to score, or get a foul.  They wouldn't settle for a contested 3. 

Could, the Cavs still have won, yes.  But the officials took control of the game and made a bad call.  They then put the Cavs in a low pressure situation, where if they score, they win, if not, overtime.  That is a massive gift.

I never said the Cavs couldn't have won; people take verbiage way too literally on Scoop.

Opinion. That's cool; we all have them. Certainly not fact.

There were 3 seconds left, not 6. My opinion is that LeBron would have taken the exact same shot.

Neither of our opinions matter.

LeBron won, as he usually does in the playoffs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 26, 2018, 10:19:05 PM
Well, I won't take this post literally then. So you really mean the defense would have been exactly the same and the Cavs would have settled for a contested three.  ;D

Well played. 

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 27, 2018, 11:16:25 PM
Ok Donovan Mitchell...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 28, 2018, 12:25:47 AM
Ok Donovan Mitchell...

A young D Wade.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 28, 2018, 12:28:08 AM
Paul George 2-16 from the floor with 6 TOs,

I guess Westbrook cost OKC another game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2018, 01:28:02 AM
Paul George 2-16 from the floor with 6 TOs,

I guess Westbrook cost OKC another game.

I think any coach in NBA history would be just fine with the opponent’s point guard shooting 46% of his team’s shots in a Playoff game. Especially if they’re going to have 5 turnovers to go with those 43(!) shots.

https://es.pn/2FnzM3j

At least the guy kept his cool following his 3 missed shots down 3 inside a minute left. Because this guy is the only NBA fan who has ever reached out for a high 5 as players left the court and headed to the locker rooms...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 28, 2018, 02:13:23 AM
Westbrook was the only reason they were in that game. PG13 was awful and Melo wanted no part of that game. You talk a lot about shots and I know +/- by itself is a horrible stat, but Melo took 7 shots and was a team worst -19.

Adams is a beast though, never thought he would have turned out as good as he has after watching him play for Pitt.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 28, 2018, 02:25:53 AM
Also, if you want a good laugh go to twitter and look at all the people complaining that there should have been a foul called on Paul George's last shot. The dude tried to lean into Gobert and still there was almost zero contact. The worst attempt of a Rowsey I've ever seen.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on April 28, 2018, 10:46:53 AM


At least the guy kept his cool following his 3 missed shots down 3 inside a minute left. Because this guy is the only NBA fan who has ever reached out for a high 5 as players left the court and headed to the locker rooms...

Um... he wasn't trying for a high 5
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2018, 12:22:04 PM
Um... he wasn't trying for a high 5

Well shoot. He was taking a picture. That never happens to these players!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on April 28, 2018, 06:49:15 PM
unless brogdon is still hobbled, he NEEDS to play(more) tonight for the deer to advance
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 28, 2018, 07:31:37 PM
unless brogdon is still hobbled, he NEEDS to play(more) tonight for the deer to advance

Amen.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on April 28, 2018, 07:58:04 PM
does prunty ever get his shirt wet and argue a little?  geez, show some emotion
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2018, 09:08:47 PM
I wouldn’t let Prunty assist a freshman high school basketball team. Boston gets a mismatch every time down the court and gets a wide open shot almost every time down.

Not sure who I want to coach this team next year. But what I do know is between a coaching hire and GM hire this ownership has botched both the process of finding their guy and the actual result of who they hired. So I’m not all that confident that they’ll make a quality hire despite what I have to imagine would be a lot of interest in the opening.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Hards Alumni on April 28, 2018, 09:22:55 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaadn the Bucks are dead.  Too bad.  So many great players, such awful coaching.

Better knock it out of the park this offseason.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Hards Alumni on April 28, 2018, 09:26:36 PM
I wouldn’t let Prunty assist a freshman high school basketball team. Boston gets a mismatch every time down the court and gets a wide open shot almost every time down.

Not sure who I want to coach this team next year. But what I do know is between a coaching hire and GM hire this ownership has botched both the process of finding their guy and the actual result of who they hired. So I’m not all that confident that they’ll make a quality hire despite what I have to imagine would be a lot of interest in the opening.

I'd love to suggest someone... but the best I can do is Doc.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2018, 09:32:31 PM
Prunty will bee collectin' unemployment bye Monday. Horst soon ta follow, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2018, 09:34:18 PM
Prunty will bee collectin' unemployment bye Monday. Horst soon ta follow, hey?

Prunty yes. I’d love that on Horst but think these owners will have too big of an ego to wave the white flag and admit their awful hire so quickly.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2018, 09:35:35 PM
He gowne and its possible Edens byes a large chunk of Lasry out two, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2018, 09:40:05 PM
I'd love to suggest someone... but the best I can do is Doc.

The first thing I’d do is provide a blank check to Jay Wright. When he passes I’d have a list of Fizdale, Bennett, Doc, and Monte Williams. My top choice from that would be Doc if he wouldn’t demand any type of roster control, but he would. I think he’s a great coach but bad at forming a roster.

He gowne and its possible Edens byes a large chunk of Lasry out two, hey?

They need that badly. The power struggle is awful for the franchise. And they need to hire a president of basketball ops and should have before they made their GM hire.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2018, 09:45:16 PM
Won egomaniac is enough, aina?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 28, 2018, 09:46:55 PM
The first thing I’d do is provide a blank check to Jay Wright. When he passes I’d have a list of Fizdale, Bennett, Doc, and Monte Williams. My top choice from that would be Doc if he wouldn’t demand any type of roster control, but he would. I think he’s a great coach but bad at forming a roster.

I like the idea of Monte Williams.  Not sure how good Doc is actually.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2018, 09:48:07 PM
Won egomaniac is enough, aina?

Amen.

On another note, the Bucks singlehandedly made Terry Rozier look infinitely more valuable than he is. Nice for the Celtics. Now they can sling him for another piece and get even richer. And he’ll go somewhere, not have Brad Stevens getting him looks, and be back to a solid backup quality PG.

If I’m the C’s I try giving up Brown, Rozier, and Smart for Kawhi. If I have to I’d even throw in a pick.

You could have Tatum, Hayward, and Kawhi switching everything from 2-4 with Horford and Kyrie as your 5 and 1.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2018, 09:48:37 PM
These dudes know how to make money and that's all. I'll give them credit for jump starting a stagnant, stuck in the 60's city. But 3/4 of the current basketball roster is complete thrash.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2018, 09:50:00 PM
I like the idea of Monte Williams.  Not sure how good Doc is actually.

I think Doc is a very good coach. The Clips were not a very good team this year but he kept them right in the hunt. But I don’t think he’s an absolute home run and I think the dynamics would be much like what the Bucks just had with Kidd where their head coach is constantly playing tug of war with the GM.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 28, 2018, 09:51:43 PM
These dudes know how to make money and that's all. I'll give them credit for jump starting a stagnant, stuck in the 60's city. But 3/4 of the current basketball roster is complete thrash.

Semantics but I just think the roster is just poorly constructed. Too many similar players and not enough “modern” skills (pace and space).

What the Bucks do with Jabari will be VERY interesting. With the right coach I think Giannis, Middleton, and him can work together. But as it stands he doesn’t fit with Middleton and Giannis.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2018, 09:51:51 PM
Stevens is a hell of a coach. If the Bucks learned anything in this series, it has to be making the playoffs is nothing without the homecourt advantage.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2018, 09:55:45 PM
Jabari took a risk with his public statement after game 2. But, he walked the walk and the Bucks are complete idiots if they let the #2 pick in the draft leave without compensation. I'm guessing they won't match an offer, but work out a sign and trade.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Hards Alumni on April 28, 2018, 10:03:13 PM
Jabari took a risk with his public statement after game 2. But, he walked the walk and the Bucks are complete idiots if they let the #2 pick in the draft leave without compensation. I'm guessing they won't match an offer, but work out a sign and trade.

That's pie in the sky, though.  Jabari brings nothing they don't already have and everyone knows it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2018, 10:07:40 PM
Disagree, Parker can at least shoot the ball which spreads the floor giving Giannis space to operate. Bucks don't have enough guys who can consistently knock down shots and the point guard spot is totally misconstructed.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2018, 10:11:59 PM
Larry Sanders totally bf'ed the Bucks. They are missing what he provided before he got weird. Celtics had a free ride thru the Bucks Drive-Thru lane all series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Hards Alumni on April 28, 2018, 10:25:20 PM
Disagree, Parker can at least shoot the ball which spreads the floor giving Giannis space to operate. Bucks don't have enough guys who can consistently knock down shots and the point guard spot is totally misconstructed.

Well except for Middleton and Bledsoe.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 29, 2018, 08:03:40 AM
I think some teams, and Jabari himself, are going to view his value greater than the Bucks will.  Furthermore, the Snell and Delly contracts are just killing them right now.  Also they are going to have to extend Brogden and decide what they are going to do with Bledsoe. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 29, 2018, 01:36:55 PM
A tiny piece of me is wondering if David Blair might be worth giving a chance to. Seeing that LBJ wanted Spoelstra out and we now see Spoelstra is clearly a very good NBA coach, the fact that LBJ forced Blatt out of Cleveland despite leading the Cavs to a Finals loss to the Warriors and then being in first place in the East when he was fired maybe Blatt is also a good coach. It’s clear LBJ’s hand picked Ty Lue is a horrendous coach.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 29, 2018, 01:55:22 PM
The Collison T is a good example of the absurdity of NBA officiating.  If that is a technical, then Lebron should have about 10 T's a game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 29, 2018, 02:02:47 PM
The Collison T is a good example of the absurdity of NBA officiating.  If that is a technical, then Lebron should have about 10 T's a game.


I agree...unless he said something over the line.  (But I don't think he did.)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on April 29, 2018, 02:08:49 PM

I agree...unless he said something over the line.  (But I don't think he did.)

Awesome game though so far; and in the big picture that play means nothing, but it just distracts from the game. 

And gives people like me that dislike refs more ammo.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 29, 2018, 06:11:30 PM
A tiny piece of me is wondering if David Blair might be worth giving a chance to. Seeing that LBJ wanted Spoelstra out and we now see Spoelstra is clearly a very good NBA coach, the fact that LBJ forced Blatt out of Cleveland despite leading the Cavs to a Finals loss to the Warriors and then being in first place in the East when he was fired maybe Blatt is also a good coach. It’s clear LBJ’s hand picked Ty Lue is a horrendous coach.

Not only did LeBron and Riley deny that LeBron ever tried to have Spoelstra fired, but so does the guy who was quoted as supposedly saying LeBron tried to have Spoelstra fired.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2612073-pat-riley-responds-to-claims-lebron-james-wanted-erik-spoelstra-fired

None of us really knows what's true, I guess. That includes you (and me). But if it helps you try to paint LeBron in a negative light, go ahead and think whatever fits your narrative.

All I know is that LeBron came through huge again when his team needed him most - 45-9-7 (and 4 steals) in Game 7. He is surrounded by some pretty serious garbage this season, and he keeps demonstrating why he is the best player on the planet.

Look at the players drafted in the "legendary" draft of 2003: LeBron, Darko, Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, Kaman, Hinrich, Ford, Sweetney, Hayes, Pietrus, Nick Collison, Banks, Ridnour, Gaines, Bell, Zarko, David West, Pavlovic, Dahntay Jones, Diaw, Planinic, Outlaw, Cook, Delfino, Ebi, Perkins, Barbosa, Josh Howard.

All of them are either long gone from the league or are on the serious downsides of their careers ... and then there is the guy playing his best basketball EVER. It's really quite amazing.

BTW, Mo Williams and Korver were second-round draft choices that season.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on April 29, 2018, 08:26:30 PM
Not only did LeBron and Riley deny that LeBron ever tried to have Spoelstra fired, but so does the guy who was quoted as supposedly saying LeBron tried to have Spoelstra fired.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2612073-pat-riley-responds-to-claims-lebron-james-wanted-erik-spoelstra-fired

None of us really knows what's true, I guess. That includes you (and me). But if it helps you try to paint LeBron in a negative light, go ahead and think whatever fits your narrative.

All I know is that LeBron came through huge again when his team needed him most - 45-9-7 (and 4 steals) in Game 7. He is surrounded by some pretty serious garbage this season, and he keeps demonstrating why he is the best player on the planet.

Look at the players drafted in the "legendary" draft of 2003: LeBron, Darko, Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, Kaman, Hinrich, Ford, Sweetney, Hayes, Pietrus, Nick Collison, Banks, Ridnour, Gaines, Bell, Zarko, David West, Pavlovic, Dahntay Jones, Diaw, Planinic, Outlaw, Cook, Delfino, Ebi, Perkins, Barbosa, Josh Howard.

All of them are either long gone from the league or are on the serious downsides of their careers ... and then there is the guy playing his best basketball EVER. It's really quite amazing.

BTW, Mo Williams and Korver were second-round draft choices that season.

Cool.  I'm not sure who said LBJ wasn't great, but glad you're setting whoever it was straight.  LBJ is a great basketball player, and also the biggest phony in all of sports.

LBJ left Miami because he wanted to do things his way.  He wanted to fly to and from roadtrips on his own schedule and Pat Riley said that's not how things are done in Miami so LBJ took his ball and went home.  There's something to be said about humility and LBJ has none.

But hey I'm so glad that LBJ has matured so much from this moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTeCc8jy7FI

So mature that this year he posted a congratulations to himself for reaching 30,000 points in his career before he actually reached 30,000 points so that he could be the first person to congratulate himself.  How awesome.  I'm glad people responded the only way they should:

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/lebron-lebron-james-instagram-photo-self-congratulatory-30000-points-meme-reaction-cavs

But hey I'm just glad the guy was able to get up from such a brutal blow to the head in the first quarter from Lance Stevenson.  Such a great performance from him, and it almost all came after he was dang near knocked dead!  I just hope he can pass concussion protocol before the Raptors series starts up!  Also can you believe Bogdonovic turned a 6'8" 250 lb professional athlete into a rag doll in the third quarter?  I can hardly throw a baseball as far as Bogdonovic threw  LBJ!

Also, you can't possibly bow to LBJ for "carrying" the "serious garbage" he has to play with this season (interestingly enough the game turned when LBJ went out with cramps and the Cavs pushed a 2 point game to a double digit lead in the 4th quarter) and then turn a blind eye to the fact that LBJ pretty much constructed this roster himself.  LBJ demanded JR and Tristian Thompson get paid out the a$$ and so of course they did.  LBJ demanded the Cavs trade Wiggins for Love and of course they did.  LBJ was such a pain in the a$$ to play with that Kyrie demanded a trade of his own, and then LBJ couldn't find a way to get along with the return the Cavs got in the trade so they ended up with Jordan Clarkson, George Hill, Rodney Hood, Larry Nance, and Ante Zizic for Kyrie Irving.  OOPS!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 29, 2018, 08:51:03 PM
wades is to Lebron like Ners is to Wojo.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on April 29, 2018, 09:39:56 PM
wades is to Lebron like Ners is to Wojo.

Where’s the Lebron roids connection
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on April 30, 2018, 08:30:22 AM
Cool.  I'm not sure who said LBJ wasn't great, but glad you're setting whoever it was straight.  LBJ is a great basketball player, and also the biggest phony in all of sports.

LBJ left Miami because he wanted to do things his way.  He wanted to fly to and from roadtrips on his own schedule and Pat Riley said that's not how things are done in Miami so LBJ took his ball and went home.  There's something to be said about humility and LBJ has none.

But hey I'm so glad that LBJ has matured so much from this moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTeCc8jy7FI

So mature that this year he posted a congratulations to himself for reaching 30,000 points in his career before he actually reached 30,000 points so that he could be the first person to congratulate himself.  How awesome.  I'm glad people responded the only way they should:

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/lebron-lebron-james-instagram-photo-self-congratulatory-30000-points-meme-reaction-cavs

But hey I'm just glad the guy was able to get up from such a brutal blow to the head in the first quarter from Lance Stevenson.  Such a great performance from him, and it almost all came after he was dang near knocked dead!  I just hope he can pass concussion protocol before the Raptors series starts up!  Also can you believe Bogdonovic turned a 6'8" 250 lb professional athlete into a rag doll in the third quarter?  I can hardly throw a baseball as far as Bogdonovic threw  LBJ!

Also, you can't possibly bow to LBJ for "carrying" the "serious garbage" he has to play with this season (interestingly enough the game turned when LBJ went out with cramps and the Cavs pushed a 2 point game to a double digit lead in the 4th quarter) and then turn a blind eye to the fact that LBJ pretty much constructed this roster himself.  LBJ demanded JR and Tristian Thompson get paid out the a$$ and so of course they did.  LBJ demanded the Cavs trade Wiggins for Love and of course they did.  LBJ was such a pain in the a$$ to play with that Kyrie demanded a trade of his own, and then LBJ couldn't find a way to get along with the return the Cavs got in the trade so they ended up with Jordan Clarkson, George Hill, Rodney Hood, Larry Nance, and Ante Zizic for Kyrie Irving.  OOPS!

Okey dokey. You hate LeBron, we get it. Although some of your gripes are based on speculation, some are true. This just in: LeBron is a flawed human being. Who wasn't/isn't? Michael? Russell? Wilt? Kareem? Bird? Kobe?

Kyrie wanted his own team. Nothing LeBron could have said or done could have prevented him from wanting to be The Man on his own team. That's the way it often happens in the NBA. And sometimes the guy who wanted to be The Man gets a rude awakening. I hope Kyrie heals completely from his injury and he and Hayward are fully healthy next season. We'll see then if Kyrie can be The Man for a multiple NBA championship team. One thing we all can be pretty certain of is that he wouldn't have even sniffed his one NBA title had LeBron stayed in Miami.

Wade, Bosh and Allen seem to like LeBron just fine. But what do they know? They never ascended to the heights of Kyrie Irving.

If LeBron indeed engineered the trade for Love, it helped the Cavs win an NBA title and get to the Finals 2 other times. Interesting how cavalierly some can dismiss winning championships. Stockton, Malone, Barkley, Baylor, Ewing, Dominique, Harden, Gervin and many other all-time greats would have killed for the success of the LeBron-Love pairing of 2015-17. We'll see how many times the Timberwolves get there with Wiggins.

This is all fun, wades. I'm pretty sure that if LeBron had gone into the tank in this game, you would have crowed about it. But instead, he proved again that he is the best player in the world.

As a basketball fan, I happen to think he is amazing to watch. I am thrilled that the Cavs won because I sure as heck would rather watch LeBron than Lance Stephenson. I do expect the Raptors to beat the Cavs, though, as they are a much better team. Then again, the Pacers were a better team than the Cavs, too, as were the 2016 Warriors.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on April 30, 2018, 09:24:47 AM
4ever

Spot on across the board on the Bucks. I would be quite disappointed if they gave up on Jabari this quickly. I think he is worth the risk of holding onto for three more years. The team has a lot of holes and needs a top tier coach big time. The Bucks had my attention going into the season, and they lost it by News Years Day. The amount of poor effort losses at home was terrible. They are much further away from being elite than they sold us last off season. I am hoping for wholesale changes. Hope you right on the ownership possibly be shaken up. Two many cooks in the kitchen.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on April 30, 2018, 09:46:21 AM
4ever

Spot on across the board on the Bucks. I would be quite disappointed if they gave up on Jabari this quickly. I think he is worth the risk of holding onto for three more years. The team has a lot of holes and needs a top tier coach big time. The Bucks had my attention going into the season, and they lost it by News Years Day. The amount of poor effort losses at home was terrible. They are much further away from being elite than they sold us last off season. I am hoping for wholesale changes. Hope you right on the ownership possibly be shaken up. Two many cooks in the kitchen.

Just depends on what some other team wants to pay him. I personally think he isn’t anything special. Good offense, decent athlete and needs improvement on defense. Very wary of overpaying a guy like that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on April 30, 2018, 12:25:52 PM
Just depends on what some other team wants to pay him. I personally think he isn’t anything special. Good offense, decent athlete and needs improvement on defense. Very wary of overpaying a guy like that.

If healthy, he is capable of being every bit as good as Carmelo Anthony and of being the critical piece in as many NBA Championships as Carmelo has been.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 03, 2018, 07:21:17 PM
'Bron puttin' on a clinic while spankin' da Raptors, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on May 04, 2018, 10:51:24 AM
Spot on across the board on the Bucks. I would be quite disappointed if they gave up on Jabari this quickly. I think he is worth the risk of holding onto for three more years.

I agree that I wouldn't want them to bail on Jabari if he had more time on his rookie deal, but the biggest problem with buying additional shares of Jabari is the opportunity cost of not being able to pair another star with Giannis.

Jabari made $6.8M this year, the last year of his rookie deal.  He was seeking a max contract going into this year, which for him would be about $25M/year. Now that's probably a pipe dream, and I'm far from an expert in predicting this type of thing, but I imagine he'll be able to find a bite in restricted free agency for between $15-20M/year over 4.

Looking at the Bucks cap sheet for 2019-2020 (Giannis's second to last year under contract) the Bucks have $68.5MM committed to Giannis, Middleton (player option), Snell, Henson and Delly.  Plus Tele, Hawes and Sanders represent $7.5M in dead space that year. Add another $17.5M for Jabari, and you've already got $93.5M.  With a projected cap of $115MM that year, there already wouldn't be room for another max-type player without paying significant luxury tax, and you still need to fill another 9 roster spots.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 04, 2018, 11:08:58 AM
I agree that I wouldn't want them to bail on Jabari if he had more time on his rookie deal, but the biggest problem with buying additional shares of Jabari is the opportunity cost of not being able to pair another star with Giannis.

Jabari made $6.8M this year, the last year of his rookie deal.  He was seeking a max contract going into this year, which for him would be about $25M/year. Now that's probably a pipe dream, and I'm far from an expert in predicting this type of thing, but I imagine he'll be able to find a bite in restricted free agency for between $15-20M/year over 4.

Looking at the Bucks cap sheet for 2019-2020 (Giannis's second to last year under contract) the Bucks have $68.5MM committed to Giannis, Middleton (player option), Snell, Henson and Delly.  Plus Tele, Hawes and Sanders represent $7.5M in dead space that year. Add another $17.5M for Jabari, and you've already got $93.5M.  With a projected cap of $115MM that year, there already wouldn't be room for another max-type player without paying significant luxury tax, and you still need to fill another 9 roster spots.


Not to mention, you wouldn't really have a point guard.  If you re-up Bledsoe, you aren't in further trouble luxury tax wise. 

That is why I ultimately come to the conclusion that Jabari isn't going to be worth to the Bucks what he might be to another team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 04, 2018, 11:18:03 AM
The last Eastern Conference team to defeat a Lebron team in a playoff series had Michael Finley on the active roster.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on May 04, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
The last Eastern Conference team to defeat a Lebron team in a playoff series had Michael Finley on the active roster.

And Rasheed Wallace!

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on May 04, 2018, 04:34:24 PM
The last Eastern Conference team to defeat a Lebron team in a playoff series had Michael Finley on the active roster.

I believe that was the last time UW was relevant in the NBA.

Other than this of course.

(https://m.popkey.co/2d8f44/LylVr.gif)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 04, 2018, 05:22:34 PM
Dis is absolutely pee yo sans-a-belt, roll in da aisle hilarius 'til ya realize, in spite of bein' a klutz, Dekkers' fookin' Olivia Harlan, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on May 04, 2018, 07:38:46 PM
What is the rule about throwing an inbounds pass off.of the rim?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on May 04, 2018, 07:47:31 PM
Woj reporting that the Bucks are interviewing Becky Hammon. She should be on their shortlist.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 04, 2018, 07:49:40 PM
I believe that was the last time UW was relevant in the NBA.

Other than this of course.

(https://m.popkey.co/2d8f44/LylVr.gif)

I like Sam Hauser's chances of going in for that layup without dribbling the ball off his face.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on May 04, 2018, 09:25:00 PM
Pels in 6
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on May 04, 2018, 11:53:32 PM
I like Sam Hauser's chances of going in for that layup without dribbling the ball off his face.

Come on guys, Dekker is actually one of the good ones. He had no reason being at UW and he knew it. Thanks, Brent.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on May 05, 2018, 05:41:31 AM
Come on guys, Dekker is actually one of the good ones. He had no reason being at UW and he knew it. Thanks, Brent.

I have no idea what this means at all.  I dont mind Dekker, think he seems like a pretty solid dude, but I was always under the impression he wanted to be a Badger since he was a little kid, regardless of MU status or style of play.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on May 05, 2018, 06:02:44 AM
I have no idea what this means at all.  I dont mind Dekker, think he seems like a pretty solid dude, but I was always under the impression he wanted to be a Badger since he was a little kid, regardless of MU status or style of play.

Sam had interest in MU. Buzz told Sam he wasn't athletic enough. IWB has said on his board that Dekker preferred MU's style of play over UW, all Buzz needed to do was offer.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 05, 2018, 08:54:35 AM
Sam had interest in MU. Buzz told Sam he wasn't athletic enough. IWB has said on his board that Dekker preferred MU's style of play over UW, all Buzz needed to do was offer.

I've heard this too, but why did he commit so early?  The summer before his junior year the day after he received an offer from Bo?  Not saying IWB is wrong, but he probably should have let the process play itself out a bit.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on May 05, 2018, 10:14:54 AM
I've heard this too, but why did he commit so early?  The summer before his junior year the day after he received an offer from Bo?  Not saying IWB is wrong, but he probably should have let the process play itself out a bit.

Yeah, probably.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on May 05, 2018, 11:35:59 AM
Sam had interest in MU. Buzz told Sam he wasn't athletic enough. IWB has said on his board that Dekker preferred MU's style of play over UW, all Buzz needed to do was offer.

Dekker confirmed this...

https://marquettewire.org/3983422/sports/marquette-wisconsin-rivalry-has-not-always-correlated-to-recruiting/
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 05, 2018, 04:38:06 PM
If Dekker is telling the truth about what he was told by Buzz/staff, that's pretty bad on Buzz that he couldn't see Dekker's potential.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 05, 2018, 09:27:43 PM
If Dekker is telling the truth about what he was told by Buzz/staff, that's pretty bad on Buzz that he couldn't see Dekker's potential.

Considering the size of his high school and lack of exposure at that point, I think Buzz's position made sense.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 05, 2018, 10:26:44 PM
LeBron Effen James
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 05, 2018, 11:30:01 PM
LeBron Effen James

Just enjoy it. It's like MJ or Tiger in their prime.

Harden will get MVP, but we know who the real MVP is this year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 06, 2018, 12:53:58 AM
Not sure the guy should've even been in the game at that point.  I mean, when you take a "shot" to the head so "hard" that you need to stay on the ground in agony for a minute with your head in your arms and come up all "hazy" shouldn't you at least have to go through the concussion protocol?  I thought sports were being progressive and taking these hits to the head and player safety seriously.  Weird.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 06, 2018, 06:58:24 AM
Not sure the guy should've even been in the game at that point.  I mean, when you take a "shot" to the head so "hard" that you need to stay on the ground in agony for a minute with your head in your arms and come up all "hazy" shouldn't you at least have to go through the concussion protocol?  I thought sports were being progressive and taking these hits to the head and player safety seriously.  Weird.

Dude. Seriously.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 06, 2018, 02:35:30 PM
Dude. Seriously.

Dude.  Agreed.  Brain injuries are a very serious issue and should not be taken lightly.  I have never seen a basketball player have to remain on the floor in agony with his head in his arms and have trouble standing up and make himself look all dazed as he does so, but now it has happened twice to LeBron in a week.  That's very, very concerning.  CTE is a real thing.

https://twitter.com/DefPenHoops/status/992951261740838913

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pyfbqFeqa4

Maybe these hits to the head explain why he's hiding on Fred Van Vleet and Bojan Bogdonovic defensively.  I'd think the GOAT would demand stepping up to the challenge of guarding guys like DeMar Derozan and Victor Oladipo otherwise.

Scary stuff.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on May 06, 2018, 03:14:11 PM
Dude.  Agreed.  Brain injuries are a very serious issue and should not be taken lightly.  I have never seen a basketball player have to remain on the floor in agony with his head in his arms and have trouble standing up and make himself look all dazed as he does so, but now it has happened twice to LeBron in a week.  That's very, very concerning.  CTE is a real thing.

https://twitter.com/DefPenHoops/status/992951261740838913

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pyfbqFeqa4

Maybe these hits to the head explain why he's hiding on Fred Van Vleet and Bojan Bogdonovic defensively.  I'd think the GOAT would demand stepping up to the challenge of guarding guys like DeMar Derozan and Victor Oladipo otherwise.

Scary stuff.
PED's, too, right?  You need to find a happy place.   Too much anger churning through.  King James is currently the best.    GOAT?    Maybe not.    In the conversation, though.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on May 07, 2018, 12:46:10 PM
Stan Van Gundy is back on the market. Bucks fans are effed
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 07, 2018, 02:00:10 PM
PED's, too, right?  You need to find a happy place.   Too much anger churning through.  King James is currently the best.    GOAT?    Maybe not.    In the conversation, though.

No anger at all.  Just legitimately don't understand why he wouldn't have to go through concussion protocol.  That is the reaction of someone who took a serious hit to the head.  Why even have a concussion protocol in place if you're not going to put someone through it after he's taken a hit to the head and stays down on the ground in agony for an extended period of time?  Just get rid of the protocol then.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 07, 2018, 04:33:06 PM
Considering the size of his high school and lack of exposure at that point, I think Buzz's position made sense.

Why would the size of Dekker's high school make Buzz think he wasn't athletic enough for the Big East?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 07, 2018, 05:29:54 PM
wades makes me chuckle.

The LeBron hate is silly - I think it goes to his very reluctant acceptance of LeBron being better than Bird ever was - but his justifications for it always make me chuckle.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 07, 2018, 05:58:04 PM
wades makes me chuckle.

The LeBron hate is silly - I think it goes to his very reluctant acceptance of LeBron being better than Bird ever was - but his justifications for it always make me chuckle.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, '82.  As Wades has made perfectly clear, he's just concerned for LeBron's well-being.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on May 07, 2018, 06:48:01 PM
I understand what Wade's is saying and why.

Slightly separate discussion: anyone here hate flopping in soccer? But you've got no issue with it in the NBA?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on May 07, 2018, 07:09:09 PM
I understand what Wade's is saying and why.

Slightly separate discussion: anyone here hate flopping in soccer? But you've got no issue with it in the NBA?

Feel like it manifests itself differently to the point where in soccer it actually is a hazard. No one ever got hurt in basketball flopping, though Greg Paulus and Brad Davidsons' manliness took a beating
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 07, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
wades makes me chuckle.

The LeBron hate is silly - I think it goes to his very reluctant acceptance of LeBron being better than Bird ever was - but his justifications for it always make me chuckle.


That was forgetful...not wades.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 08, 2018, 09:52:08 AM
I understand what Wade's is saying and why.

Slightly separate discussion: anyone here hate flopping in soccer? But you've got no issue with it in the NBA?

Flopping is a part of the NBA game but I don't like it.  You want to try to get a charge call, fine.  But seeing LBJ shoot his massive frame across the floor like he was shot is beyond absurd and I can't stand it.

(https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/lebron-james-flop-knicks-2012.gif?w=600)

(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5741126c1600002a00f94193.gif?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-15-2015/Zj2o9F.gif)

(http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LBJFlop1.gif)

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/3Ah6AjSVhJftS/200.gif)

(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/836554/jamesflop_medium.gif)



Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 08, 2018, 10:01:43 AM
Hating flopping/complaining to the refs and recognizing great talent are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jutaw22mu on May 08, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
i can't think of any NBA players that don't flop---they all do it.  so lebron can't do it because he is bigger and stronger than the rest?  but it's ok for steph curry or kevin durant to do it routinely?

if they actually called every time lebron is fouled in a game, the entire opposing team would probably foul out.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 08, 2018, 12:42:59 PM
Hating flopping/complaining to the refs and recognizing great talent are not mutually exclusive.

Didn't say they were mutually exclusive.

i can't think of any NBA players that don't flop---they all do it.  so lebron can't do it because he is bigger and stronger than the rest?  but it's ok for steph curry or kevin durant to do it routinely?

if they actually called every time lebron is fouled in a game, the entire opposing team would probably foul out.

They don't all do it and I certainly didn't say I think it's ok.  LBJ takes it to another level and I think it's ridiculous. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 08, 2018, 02:26:24 PM
I guess the T'wolves is an unlikely destination for Jalen Brunson.

@JonKrawczynski
Timberwolves assistant Rick Brunson, who resigned today, was facing allegations of improper interactions with several women while on the job, @TheAthleticMIN has learned. The Athletic has reached out to the Wolves and Brunson for comment.


Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 08, 2018, 02:28:35 PM
I guess the T'wolves is an unlikely destination for Jalen Brunson.

@JonKrawczynski
Timberwolves assistant Rick Brunson, who resigned today, was facing allegations of improper interactions with several women while on the job, @TheAthleticMIN has learned. The Athletic has reached out to the Wolves and Brunson for comment.


Wow.  Isn't that what got him in trouble earlier?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 08, 2018, 02:57:23 PM
Didn't say they were mutually exclusive.

I didn't say you did.  I was more responding to Wades, who hates Lebron.  I can recognize Lebron is a theatrical flopper, constantly complains to the refs, and has some weird social media situations.

Despite all that, I can recognize he's a great basketball player. Personally, I don't feel the need to hate Lebron. But haters gonna hate.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 08, 2018, 03:04:11 PM

Wow.  Isn't that what got him in trouble earlier?

He was accused of groping a fitness club masseuse in Illinois.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 08, 2018, 03:14:03 PM
I didn't say you did.  I was more responding to Wades, who hates Lebron.  I can recognize Lebron is a theatrical flopper, constantly complains to the refs, and has some weird social media situations.

Despite all that, I can recognize he's a great basketball player. Personally, I don't feel the need to hate Lebron. But haters gonna hate.

I hate LeBron because he's a whiner, phony, and flopper.

I've never said he's anything but great at basketball.

Being great at something doesn't mean I have to like them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 08, 2018, 03:36:53 PM
I hate LeBron because he's a whiner, phony, and flopper.

I've never said he's anything but great at basketball.

Being great at something doesn't mean I have to like them.

Feel free to hate away.  You're entitled to your opinion.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 08, 2018, 04:08:07 PM
I didn't say you did.  I was more responding to Wades, who hates Lebron.  I can recognize Lebron is a theatrical flopper, constantly complains to the refs, and has some weird social media situations.

Despite all that, I can recognize he's a great basketball player. Personally, I don't feel the need to hate Lebron. But haters gonna hate.

Got it - my fault. 

I can't stand Lebron.  I also think he's probably the 2nd best player of all time behind MJ. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 08, 2018, 08:46:47 PM
I'm not sure if I ever tried to paint LeBron as a paragon of virtue in any way.

He probably isn't as big a jerk as some think he is; he probably isn't the greatest person around as some also undoubtedly think he is. Like most of us, he's a flawed human being.

What he is IMHO is the second-best player ever ... and gaining fast on the first.

If he gets to the NBA Finals with this team, it will be almost as impressive as the awful Cavs group he carried to his very first Finals appearance. Certainly, Michael never reached the Finals with a supporting cast like this: Love good on a good day (but otherwise meh), and otherwise a bunch of chipped beef on stale bread. Not to mention a coach who isn't exactly Phil Jackson.

One thing that's interesting to me is that in many past seasons, LeBron was willing to be the facillitator in the biggest situations - feeding Wade or Allen or others to take the big shots. But now, he's getting the ball and he's not giving it up. He's taking every big shot, and he's delivering. His Game 3 winner was even more incredible than his Game 1 winner IMHO.

I'm a huge fan of Jordan, BTW, even though he was, by most accounts, a complete douchebag of a human being during his playing days: bully, vindictive, adulterous, disloyal, incredibly selfish, etc.

MJ wasn't a flopper, though. He was known to get away with shoving defenders out of the way, but it wasn't his fault the refs didn't call it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 08, 2018, 08:57:35 PM
I'm not sure if I ever tried to paint LeBron as a paragon of virtue in any way.

He probably isn't as big a jerk as some think he is; he probably isn't the greatest person around as some also undoubtedly think he is. Like most of us, he's a flawed human being.

What he is IMHO is the second-best player ever ... and gaining fast on the first.

If he gets to the NBA Finals with this team, it will be almost as impressive as the awful Cavs group he carried to his very first Finals appearance. Certainly, Michael never reached the Finals with a supporting cast like this: Love good on a good day (but otherwise meh), and otherwise a bunch of chipped beef on stale bread. Not to mention a coach who isn't exactly Phil Jackson.

One thing that's interesting to me is that in many past seasons, LeBron was willing to be the facillitator in the biggest situations - feeding Wade or Allen or others to take the big shots. But now, he's getting the ball and he's not giving it up. He's taking every big shot, and he's delivering. His Game 3 winner was even more incredible than his Game 1 winner IMHO.

I'm a huge fan of Jordan, BTW, even though he was, by most accounts, a complete douchebag of a human being during his playing days: bully, vindictive, adulterous, disloyal, incredibly selfish, etc.

MJ wasn't a flopper, though. He was known to get away with shoving defenders out of the way, but it wasn't his fault the refs didn't call it.

I will say the Eastern Conference is as big of a joke as it has ever been this season. If Boston was full strength they'd wipe the floor with Cleveland, IMO.

And if Cleveland does make it I don't think they have much of a chance vs Houston or Golden State.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 08, 2018, 09:01:32 PM
I'm not sure if I ever tried to paint LeBron as a paragon of virtue in any way.

He probably isn't as big a jerk as some think he is; he probably isn't the greatest person around as some also undoubtedly think he is. Like most of us, he's a flawed human being.

What he is IMHO is the second-best player ever ... and gaining fast on the first.

If he gets to the NBA Finals with this team, it will be almost as impressive as the awful Cavs group he carried to his very first Finals appearance. Certainly, Michael never reached the Finals with a supporting cast like this: Love good on a good day (but otherwise meh), and otherwise a bunch of chipped beef on stale bread. Not to mention a coach who isn't exactly Phil Jackson.

One thing that's interesting to me is that in many past seasons, LeBron was willing to be the facillitator in the biggest situations - feeding Wade or Allen or others to take the big shots. But now, he's getting the ball and he's not giving it up. He's taking every big shot, and he's delivering. His Game 3 winner was even more incredible than his Game 1 winner IMHO.

I'm a huge fan of Jordan, BTW, even though he was, by most accounts, a complete douchebag of a human being during his playing days: bully, vindictive, adulterous, disloyal, incredibly selfish, etc.

MJ wasn't a flopper, though. He was known to get away with shoving defenders out of the way, but it wasn't his fault the refs didn't call it.

MJ also never built a roster of "chipped beef on stale bread" like LBJ did.  He also never had the luxury of going through the stalwarts of a Celtics team without its top 2 players, a Raptors team that is about as mentally tough as a bunch of 4th grade YMCA league kids, and a one man team like the Pacers.  The competition isn't even remotely comparable.

Nor did Michael ever have to convince two other top 10 players in the league to take less money than they could have to join him to finally get a championship ring.  Or completely forget to show up for an entire NBA Finals en route to a team that had Dirk Nowitzki and then even worse "chipped beef on stale bread" than LBJ currently has on his team.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 08, 2018, 09:27:52 PM
MJ also never built a roster of "chipped beef on stale bread" like LBJ did.  He also never had the luxury of going through the stalwarts of a Celtics team without its top 2 players, a Raptors team that is about as mentally tough as a bunch of 4th grade YMCA league kids, and a one man team like the Pacers.  The competition isn't even remotely comparable.

Nor did Michael ever have to convince two other top 10 players in the league to take less money than they could have to join him to finally get a championship ring.  Or completely forget to show up for an entire NBA Finals en route to a team that had Dirk Nowitzki and then even worse "chipped beef on stale bread" than LBJ currently has on his team.

You're right about Michael not having the influence on the roster that LeBron reportedly has had. But Michael desperately wanted that influence and he constantly lobbied for Krause and Reinsdorf to make this trade or draft such-and-such player. He whined repeatedly about many of Krause's moves, especially the trade of Oakley for Cartwright. He did not want Rodman. He once told Reinsdorf that Pippen was too "weak" to help the Bulls win championships. He did not want Kukoc. Jordan was a terrible decision-maker as president of the Wizards, and he certainly has been nothing close to special with the Bobcats/Hornets. So it's a darn good thing for the Bulls that MJ didn't have that kind of influence.

Again, Jordan didn't have the opportunity to choose teammates who could have helped him win; that's not the way the NBA worked back then. But if he had that opportunity, he probably would have taken it. We do know he said he would retire if the Bulls didn't keep Jackson - they didn't, and he did. Some think he took the easy way out, especially since he obviously wasn't ready to retire.

It is hardly James' fault that the NBA East has been weaker. You can only beat the teams in front of you.

LeBron did not have a great 2011 Finals, absolutely correct, and Jordan never played as poorly in the Finals as LeBron did that year. And yet LeBron "showed up" enough to play 44 minutes a game. But yes, he had a poor Finals (for him: 18-7-7); I'd never claim differently.

Your arguments sound like they are meant to counter the opinions of those who actually think LeBron is better than Michael was. I don't. I clearly called LeBron the second-best player in NBA history.

And BTW, we all love Jae. Complete warrior. Nobody questions his toughness and drive. And yet with a few minutes to play in a one-possession game tonight, he flung up a terrible 3 while falling out of bounds, got up slowly, argued with the ref and trotted back on defense, and the Rockets, playing 5-on-4, scored. I don't like it, you don't like it, nobody likes it, but it happens in the NBA all the time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 08, 2018, 09:31:52 PM
You're right about Michael not having the influence on the roster that LeBron reportedly has had. But Michael desperately wanted that influence and he constantly lobbied for Krause and Reinsdorf to make this trade or draft such-and-such player. He whined repeatedly about many of Krause's moves, especially the trade of Oakley for Cartwright. He did not want Rodman. He once told Reinsdorf that Pippen was too "weak" to help the Bulls win championships. He did not want Kukoc. Jordan was a terrible decision-maker as president of the Wizards, and he certainly has been nothing close to special with the Bobcats/Hornets. So it's a darn good thing for the Bulls that MJ didn't have that kind of influence.

Again, Jordan didn't have the opportunity to choose teammates who could have helped him win; that's not the way the NBA worked back then. But if he had that opportunity, he probably would have taken it. We do know he said he would retire if the Bulls didn't keep Jackson - they didn't, and he did. Some think he took the easy way out, especially since he obviously wasn't ready to retire.

It is hardly James' fault that the NBA East has been weaker. You can only beat the teams in front of you.

LeBron did not have a great 2011 Finals, absolutely correct, and Jordan never played as poorly in the Finals as LeBron did that year. And yet LeBron "showed up" enough to play 44 minutes a game. But yes, he had a poor Finals (for him: 18-7-7); I'd never claim differently.

Your arguments sound like they are meant to counter the opinions of those who actually think LeBron is better than Michael was. I don't. I clearly called LeBron the second-best player in NBA history.

And BTW, we all love Jae. Complete warrior. Nobody questions his toughness and drive. And yet with a few minutes to play in a one-possession game tonight, he flung up a terrible 3 while falling out of bounds, got up slowly, argued with the ref and trotted back on defense, and the Rockets, playing 5-on-4, scored. I don't like it, you don't like it, nobody likes it, but it happens in the NBA all the time.

Didn’t see the end of the game. Did he look like JFK in a motorcade through Dallas?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 09, 2018, 07:40:49 AM
Didn’t see the end of the game. Did he look like JFK in a motorcade through Dallas?

Nope.

Then again, he didn't almost single-handedly carry an otherwise mediocre team to the conference finals, either.

I don't like LeBron's flopping or whining, and I laughed at the dopey production that was "The Decision."

I love LeBron's game, appreciate the amazing things he's done in a career that amazingly is still getting more amazing, and mostly admire his results.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 09, 2018, 08:30:24 AM
Nor did Michael ever have to convince two other top 10 players in the league to take less money than they could have to join him to finally get a championship ring.


He didn't have to.  He had a GM who built championship teams around him and hired a coach who understood how to get the best out of those teams - and then proceeded to insult and belittle that GM. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 09, 2018, 08:45:33 AM

He didn't have to.  He had a GM who built championship teams around him and hired a coach who understood how to get the best out of those teams - and then proceeded to insult and belittle that GM.

In addition, the "super team" team concept hadn't taken hold like it has now in the league.  In today's NBA, it's hard to imagine that anyone is going to win a ring unless he plays for a team that has been assembled with multiple top-tier superstars.  I hope that changes in the future, but it certainly doesn't seem to be heading that direction currently.

I'm an LBJ fan, and I was an MJ fan.  Like a lot of others, I'm not ready to say that LBJ is better than MJ, but for the first time since MJ retired, it's not an absurd thing to discuss.  And, given a few more years...who knows.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on May 09, 2018, 12:20:25 PM
Four teams I really don't care for are going to be in the final four. That's all the NBA viewing for me this season. Go Celtics I guess?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 09, 2018, 12:29:29 PM
Four teams I really don't care for are going to be in the final four. That's all the NBA viewing for me this season. Go Celtics I guess?

I don't like many of the individual players on the Rockets, but they are fun to watch and completely bought into how modern basketball is played.  The only individual player I like a lot is Capella.  He's awesome and very underrated.  As a Bucks fan, I admire the heck out of that given that the Bucks think they can "Buck (pun) the trend" and go no shooting, no rebounding, no defense, all length and athleticism.  Awful to watch.

The Warriors are a modern day version of a more talented Spurs.  They are the greatest team I've personally ever watched in my lifetime.

The Celtics are on their way and also built the right way.  The fact that they are doing this with Al Horford and a bunch of young guys as their main players is awesome to watch.  Fun brand of basketball to watch, the only players I don't like are Morris and Smart and they are just glue guys so whatever.  Horford and Baines can be whiny but compared to many it's modest.  I honestly still think the Sixers have a chance to win 4 in a row, and I did even after game 3.  The Sixers currently are far more talented, and totally choked away game 3.  I think the C's grind out one more win, but I wouldn't be shocked if the lack of talent left due to injury on the C's finally catches up to them.

Can't stand the Cavs.  JR is funny to watch because he's so boneheaded.  I enjoy everyone hating on Kevin Love despite him being a very good player, LBJ's passive aggressive attitude towards him has taken him from somewhat overrated in MN to one of the more underrated players in the NBA.

If it's C's vs. Cavs and (it obviously will be this one) Rockets vs. Warriors both should be very competitive, entertaining series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBBau on May 09, 2018, 01:19:30 PM
I hate LeBron because he's a whiner, phony, and flopper.

I've never said he's anything but great at basketball.

Being great at something doesn't mean I have to like them.

How is he a phony?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 09, 2018, 01:25:49 PM
I don't like many of the individual players on the Rockets, but they are fun to watch and completely bought into how modern basketball is played.  The only individual player I like a lot is Capella.  He's awesome and very underrated.  As a Bucks fan, I admire the heck out of that given that the Bucks think they can "Buck (pun) the trend" and go no shooting, no rebounding, no defense, all length and athleticism.  Awful to watch.

The Warriors are a modern day version of a more talented Spurs.  They are the greatest team I've personally ever watched in my lifetime.

The Celtics are on their way and also built the right way.  The fact that they are doing this with Al Horford and a bunch of young guys as their main players is awesome to watch.  Fun brand of basketball to watch, the only players I don't like are Morris and Smart and they are just glue guys so whatever.  Horford and Baines can be whiny but compared to many it's modest.  I honestly still think the Sixers have a chance to win 4 in a row, and I did even after game 3.  The Sixers currently are far more talented, and totally choked away game 3.  I think the C's grind out one more win, but I wouldn't be shocked if the lack of talent left due to injury on the C's finally catches up to them.

Can't stand the Cavs.  JR is funny to watch because he's so boneheaded.  I enjoy everyone hating on Kevin Love despite him being a very good player, LBJ's passive aggressive attitude towards him has taken him from somewhat overrated in MN to one of the more underrated players in the NBA.

If it's C's vs. Cavs and (it obviously will be this one) Rockets vs. Warriors both should be very competitive, entertaining series.

My friend, you sure have a lot of players you either hate, don't like or can't stand!

Agree that the upcoming series should be competitive. The West series is pretty much the NBA championship series; hard to imagine either losing to the Cavs/Celtics. Of course, I never thought the Cavs would sweep the Raptors - in fact, I thought the Raptors would win. Betting against the best player on the planet is never very smart, I guess.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 09, 2018, 01:28:42 PM
How is he a phony?

http://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4650907

What number does LBJ wear again?

https://youtu.be/RTeCc8jy7FI

But he grew up from that oh so much...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/sports/lebron-james-congratulates-himself-twitter-turns-it-into-meme/amp/
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on May 09, 2018, 04:25:02 PM
I'm not sure I understand the whole "Lebron built the team he wanted but loses" argument. Lebron is not playing with Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid, Karl Anthony-Towns, etc. Yes he dictated a say in what players he is currently playing with but lets not pretend his current lineup is his ideal lineup.

I feel that Kevin Durant does not catch nearly as much criticism as he should if people are going to insist on continuing to hate on Lebron James for the building of the Miami Heat team. Lebron recruited players to join together with him yes, but he did not flee to a team that set the single season record for wins the season before after losing to Dallas. I feel that what Durant did was far more egregious in terms of taking the easy way out than anything anyone else in NBA history has done. (Thank Draymond for crying in his car and calling the gm after game 7 for that one). Still have no idea how Silver didn't veto that one after the LA Chris Paul trade went through.

I am not saying the LBJ should be absolved of any criticism because he has acted like a clown many times in his career. But we shouldn't let our blind rage subtract from holding others to the same level of scrutiny.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on May 09, 2018, 04:38:24 PM
I'm not sure I understand the whole "Lebron built the team he wanted but loses" argument. Lebron is not playing with Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid, Karl Anthony-Towns, etc. Yes he dictated a say in what players he is currently playing with but lets not pretend his current lineup is his ideal lineup.

I feel that Kevin Durant does not catch nearly as much criticism as he should if people are going to insist on continuing to hate on Lebron James for the building of the Miami Heat team. Lebron recruited players to join together with him yes, but he did not flee to a team that set the single season record for wins the season before after losing to Dallas. I feel that what Durant did was far more egregious in terms of taking the easy way out than anything anyone else in NBA history has done. (Thank Draymond for crying in his car and calling the gm after game 7 for that one). Still have no idea how Silver didn't veto that one after the LA Chris Paul trade went through.

I am not saying the LBJ should be absolved of any criticism because he has acted like a clown many times in his career. But we shouldn't let our blind rage subtract from holding others to the same level of scrutiny.

How would Silver veto a free agency signing?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on May 09, 2018, 05:34:22 PM
How would Silver veto a free agency signing?

Apologies I misspoke. I was moreso referring to the fact that they neglected to address this issue of competitive balance in the 2017 CBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 09, 2018, 07:33:54 PM
I'm not sure I understand the whole "Lebron built the team he wanted but loses" argument. Lebron is not playing with Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid, Karl Anthony-Towns, etc. Yes he dictated a say in what players he is currently playing with but lets not pretend his current lineup is his ideal lineup.

I feel that Kevin Durant does not catch nearly as much criticism as he should if people are going to insist on continuing to hate on Lebron James for the building of the Miami Heat team. Lebron recruited players to join together with him yes, but he did not flee to a team that set the single season record for wins the season before after losing to Dallas. I feel that what Durant did was far more egregious in terms of taking the easy way out than anything anyone else in NBA history has done. (Thank Draymond for crying in his car and calling the gm after game 7 for that one). Still have no idea how Silver didn't veto that one after the LA Chris Paul trade went through.

I am not saying the LBJ should be absolved of any criticism because he has acted like a clown many times in his career. But we shouldn't let our blind rage subtract from holding others to the same level of scrutiny.

I think a lot of the issue with LBJ is not necessarily that he left Cleveland for Miami but the sh*tshow that was The Decision.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on May 09, 2018, 07:49:37 PM
I detested Jordan.    Pistons fan.   And MJ never succeeded until the right pieces were around him and he started to trust them.   As well as the Celtics and Pistons getting old.   He was also not a paragon of virtue.    And he got a lot of calls.    Having said that, any discussion of GOAT that does not include him is dumb.    The same with LbJ.   

The game is at an all time level.   The size and speed of the players is unprecedented.    The sophistication of the defenses is at an all time high, offset by the skills of the players on offense.    Yes, officiating no longer allows the physical defense of the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's.    So playoff games are again in the hundreds, not in the 70's and 80's.     Then again, nobody consistently shot 3's off of the dribble 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, either. 

BTW, Houston runs some version of a high pick and roll on almost every possession and the best basketball minds in the world can't stop it.      Imagine trying to defend it with undersized guards and slow bigs.     
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Skitch on May 09, 2018, 08:58:59 PM
I think a lot of the issue with LBJ is not necessarily that he left Cleveland for Miami but the sh*tshow that was The Decision.

I know he gets a lot of flak for "The Decision" but the show did make $6 million dollars t h at went to the Boys and Girls Club and other charities.
https://www.sbnation.com/2010/7/8/1559877/lebron-james-free-agent-espn-event-ad-sales
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 09, 2018, 09:22:13 PM
I know he gets a lot of flak for "The Decision" but the show did make $6 million dollars t h at went to the Boys and Girls Club and other charities.
https://www.sbnation.com/2010/7/8/1559877/lebron-james-free-agent-espn-event-ad-sales

Stoopid charities. LeBron is evil.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 09, 2018, 09:58:40 PM
Does anybody really think LBJ couldn’t make $6M for charities doing absolutely anything? He could sell his chewed gum after every game for a year and make $6M for charities.

But sure. The Decision was a great look. As was the much matured Instagram pose a couple months ago congratulating himself on something he hadn’t even accomplished yet.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 09, 2018, 10:53:17 PM
Also love a guy who has played 94 career basketball games in 4 seasons in the NBA constantly chirping but as soon as the series is over he exits the court without a single word to his opponent.  Adios!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BM1090 on May 09, 2018, 10:55:32 PM
The decision was corny and slightly immature but as was stated all money went to charity and I don't know how anyone could have an issue with it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 10, 2018, 12:06:37 AM
Lebron and Durant had a perfect storm that allowed them to join superteams.  They merely seized the opportunity.  I don't get the hate some people have for that.  Fans expect great players to win rings but then complain in the matter in which they're won?  Because they violated some sort of unwritten rules?  I can't think of another field where people can play within the rules, succeed, and be criticized for their success.

But enough of my soapbox rant.  Let's look at the circumstances that lead to the right environment for these opportunities.

1) Max Contracts

Max contracts make the best superstars underpaid.  Instead of stars dispersing across the league, they cluster on superteams.  Instead of players balancing winning potential with earning potential in free agency, they only factor winning because the per year money is virtually the same no matter where they sign.  It's also easier for a player to take less money when the perspective is "I'm only missing out on$2 million per year below the max" than "I'm missing out on $10 million plus per year."

Plus, teams can actually afford 2 superstars and another 1-2 all stars instead of having to choose between spending the balance of cap space on stars or aiming for a more well rounded roster.  Now they can have a well rounded roster loaded with stars!

2) Soft Salary Cap

Teams work the loopholes of a soft salary cap to add new talent through cap space, then later re-sign talent by going over the cap, and then continue to add more talent through the MLE.  Golden State is perfect example, adding Durant with cap space and then still being able to sign Curry to a huge contract.  Miami added Ray Allen with the MLE.  There are very few repercussions to forming a superteam.  As long as the owner is willing to pay what it takes, they can keep the team together and still add to it.

3) The 2003 Draft

Lebron had incredible luck to be hitting free agency at exactly the same time as Bosh and Wade.  Teams cleared cap space to make a run at signing not just one, but two or three superstars.  A lot of teams were hoping to put together a super team through free agency.  What did everyone think was going to happen?  That the players would say, "Nah, we don't wanna team up" because Jordan didn't do it that way?  Well, Karl Malone tried it when he joined the Lakers late in his career.  He just failed.

4) Cleveland wins the lottery three times after Lebron left and had cap space to re-sign him

Lebron Superteam #2.  The Cavs landed an all star (Kyrie), a good player that they traded for an all-star (Wiggins for Love), and a bust (Bennett, whom was also in the Love trade) with those three #1 overall picks.  They had cap space when Lebron happened to hit free agency again and voila!  You have a superteam.

5) The Harden trade

OKC didn't want to pay the luxury tax so they broke up the superteam.  Without the Harden trade, it's possible Durant never leaves.  Plus, OKC traded the wrong guy.  I would've traded Westbrook and I said it at the time.

6)  Curry's bargain contract

Curry was signed to a 4 year, $44 million contract and then became a top 6 player out of nowhere.  So GS had cap space to add Durant, even though they had to re-up Thompson and Green to big extensions.

7) Exploding salary cap due to TV rights

As the NBA TV rights became worth much more, the timing of a large salary cap increase worked out perfectly for Durant and GS.

8) Golden State drafting Curry #7, Thompson #11, and Green #35 in a four year span.

Pretty remarkable stretch of drafting.  Even Barnes was solid as the #8 pick in the same draft as Green.  And the highest pick they had in the stretch was #6 when they took Ekpe Udoh the year between Curry and Thompson.  Meanwhile, Gordon Hayward went 9 and Paul George went 10 in that draft.  I guess you can't get them all right, not even Golden State.





Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on May 10, 2018, 07:15:57 AM
I'm not sure I understand the whole "Lebron built the team he wanted but loses" argument. Lebron is not playing with Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid, Karl Anthony-Towns, etc. Yes he dictated a say in what players he is currently playing with but lets not pretend his current lineup is his ideal lineup.

Ty Lue and his horrible overmatched coaching is a direct result of Lebron power plays.  The recent Cavs iterations of mismatched pieces are cause of a variety of Lebron influenced factors related to perceived fit, passive aggressiveness, and expectations.  Many of the new pieces are just worse versions of players that got ran out.

Lets also not forget the Cavs are limited in what they could do cause Lebron made sure his guys TT and JR got paid absurd salaries for being average NBA talent.  Part of the reason great teams stay great for awhile is cause they find value and build intelligently around their star/stars.  Not jettison role players for worse or more expensive role players whenever their star says "go!" cause they are worried about him leaving.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 10, 2018, 09:48:39 AM
Ty Lue and his horrible overmatched coaching is a direct result of Lebron power plays.  The recent Cavs iterations of mismatched pieces are cause of a variety of Lebron influenced factors related to perceived fit, passive aggressiveness, and expectations.  Many of the new pieces are just worse versions of players that got ran out.

Lets also not forget the Cavs are limited in what they could do cause Lebron made sure his guys TT and JR got paid absurd salaries for being average NBA talent.  Part of the reason great teams stay great for awhile is cause they find value and build intelligently around their star/stars.  Not jettison role players for worse or more expensive role players whenever their star says "go!" cause they are worried about him leaving.


Yet they have been to three straight NBA Championships, winning one of them.  And they will likely be to a fourth.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 10, 2018, 10:06:59 AM
Also love a guy who has played 94 career basketball games in 4 seasons in the NBA constantly chirping but as soon as the series is over he exits the court without a single word to his opponent.  Adios!

I'm not sure your point .... is there some sort of handshake line tradition he violated? Since when did players become obligated to remain on the court to congratulate the winning team?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 10, 2018, 10:11:33 AM
Ty Lue and his horrible overmatched coaching is a direct result of Lebron power plays.  The recent Cavs iterations of mismatched pieces are cause of a variety of Lebron influenced factors related to perceived fit, passive aggressiveness, and expectations.  Many of the new pieces are just worse versions of players that got ran out.

Lets also not forget the Cavs are limited in what they could do cause Lebron made sure his guys TT and JR got paid absurd salaries for being average NBA talent.  Part of the reason great teams stay great for awhile is cause they find value and build intelligently around their star/stars.  Not jettison role players for worse or more expensive role players whenever their star says "go!" cause they are worried about him leaving.

The Cavs are likely headed for a fourth straight finals because LeBron pulled a power play before the trade deadline and got management to blow up the mismatched roster they created in the offseason. Thomas, Crowder, Rose, etc. were terrible fits in Cleveland and the team was going nowhere with them.

Beyond that, who are some of the valuable role players LeBron has had jettisoned for worse and more expensive role players?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 10, 2018, 10:36:41 AM
This is the exact LeBron discussion I can't stand. If he wins, it's wow, LeBron is amazing! I can't believe he won with teammates that bad! If he loses, it's golly willikers, his teammates blow, I can't believe he got them that far.

There has never been this storyline with another player ever.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on May 10, 2018, 11:14:25 AM
Ty Lue and his horrible overmatched coaching is a direct result of Lebron power plays.  The recent Cavs iterations of mismatched pieces are cause of a variety of Lebron influenced factors related to perceived fit, passive aggressiveness, and expectations.  Many of the new pieces are just worse versions of players that got ran out.

Lets also not forget the Cavs are limited in what they could do cause Lebron made sure his guys TT and JR got paid absurd salaries for being average NBA talent.  Part of the reason great teams stay great for awhile is cause they find value and build intelligently around their star/stars.  Not jettison role players for worse or more expensive role players whenever their star says "go!" cause they are worried about him leaving.

If memory serves me correctly, LeBron also benefitted financially from those contracts as I think they were negotiated with an agency he has equity in.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 10, 2018, 11:18:40 AM
So Dwane Casey is named coach of the year but still may get fired.  And Brad Stevens receives no votes.

Probably time to find a different body to vote for this than the current NBA coaches.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 10, 2018, 11:30:12 AM
So Dwane Casey is named coach of the year but still may get fired.  And Brad Stevens receives no votes.

Probably time to find a different body to vote for this than the current NBA coaches.

Stevens is a great coach, perhaps the best in the league, and yet I feel he's getting massively overrated this postseason.
Losing Irving and Hayward is a big blow, for sure, but that's still a really talented roster he's working with. Horford is a five-time all-star. Brown and Tatum are both #3 overall picks. Smart was the 6th overall. Morris was a lottery pick. Rozier was drafted just outside the lottery.
This isn't the Island of Misfit Toys. It's a very good group of players, with more overall talent than the two teams they just beat.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 10, 2018, 11:47:51 AM
If memory serves me correctly, LeBron also benefitted financially from those contracts as I think they were negotiated with an agency he has equity in.

Memory doesn't serve you correctly. (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/report-nba-investigated-lebron-james-to-see-if-he-had-stake-in-klutch-sports-agency/)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 10, 2018, 12:50:07 PM
Stevens is a great coach, perhaps the best in the league, and yet I feel he's getting massively overrated this postseason.
Losing Irving and Hayward is a big blow, for sure, but that's still a really talented roster he's working with. Horford is a five-time all-star. Brown and Tatum are both #3 overall picks. Smart was the 6th overall. Morris was a lottery pick. Rozier was drafted just outside the lottery.
This isn't the Island of Misfit Toys. It's a very good group of players, with more overall talent than the two teams they just beat.

The highest PER on the entire roster right now is:  17.63.  The roster is made up entirely of role players. 

Saying where players are drafted doesn't make them good NBA players.  That would suggest that Parker and Maker are both very good players, and that the Bucks roster (Maker, Parker, Bledsoe, Giannis, Henson, Muhammed (all lottery picks)) was absurdly talented.

I don't think any coach in the NBA would have made the finals with the same roster.

There is a reason the Cavs are favored to win the series; it is because the Celtics look more like a lottery team right now than a playoff team.

The Bucks and Sixers both have more talent than the current Celtic roster. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 10, 2018, 01:02:34 PM
The highest PER on the entire roster right now is:  17.63.  The roster is made up entirely of role players. 

Saying where players are drafted doesn't make them good NBA players.  That would suggest that Parker and Maker are both very good players, and that the Bucks roster (Maker, Parker, Bledsoe, Giannis, Henson, Muhammed (all lottery picks)) was absurdly talented.

I don't think any coach in the NBA would have made the finals with the same roster.

There is a reason the Cavs are favored to win the series; it is because the Celtics look more like a lottery team right now than a playoff team.

The Bucks and Sixers both have more talent than the current Celtic roster. 


Right.  Their top two players going into the season aren't playing right now either. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on May 10, 2018, 02:07:52 PM
The Cavs are likely headed for a fourth straight finals because LeBron pulled a power play before the trade deadline and got management to blow up the mismatched roster they created in the offseason. Thomas, Crowder, Rose, etc. were terrible fits in Cleveland and the team was going nowhere with them.

Beyond that, who are some of the valuable role players LeBron has had jettisoned for worse and more expensive role players?

That team was good enough to win 15 of 17 or whatever it was early in the season.  Adding players like Wade, or Rose or Deron Williams in the past, as opposed to trying to develop and work with any young talent, is just Bron wanting to play with "his guys".

They chose not to pay Delladova and have cycled through mediocre guards since.  Shumpert isnt a world beater but was coming off of one of his more efficient years in awhile.  George Hill's contract is horrific.  They have almost $60MM a year tied up in Hill, Thompson, JR, and Korver.  Not even bringing in new expensive players always, but overpaying for guys Lebron is "comfortable" with.

I just dont know how people can blame the roster for holding him back and absolve him wanting to construct things like its NBA 2K.  And thats saying nothing for Kyrie wanting out which was conveniently spun into "wanting his own team" yet not going somewhere in which he would be alpha without question.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 10, 2018, 03:20:20 PM
The highest PER on the entire roster right now is:  17.63.  The roster is made up entirely of role players. 

Respectfully,your response is littered with bad takes.
In most years, Jayson Tatum is your runaway rookie of the year. Horford was an all-star this year and has a .9 VORP in the playoffs (Giannis was a .6, for comparison's sake). Brown is blossoming. These are not role players.


Quote
Saying where players are drafted doesn't make them good NBA players.
True. But it is indicative of the level of talent Stevens is working with. Contrary to the narrative (and a certain terrible opinion that this looks like a lottery team), the Celtics are loaded with talented players. Proven, talented players.


Quote
There is a reason the Cavs are favored to win the series; it is because the Celtics look more like a lottery team right now than a playoff team.
No, it is because LeBron plays for the Cavs.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: chapman on May 11, 2018, 11:27:08 AM
Dwane Casey fired - wow.  He should have a new gig before the weekend is over.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 11, 2018, 11:30:29 AM
Really?  Because I think he's not all that good of a coach frankly.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 11, 2018, 11:32:40 AM
Dwane Casey fired - wow.  He should have a new gig before the weekend is over.

Why? He got absolutely smoked and refused to change defenses in the face of a scheme that was torching it. Zero creativity. Has underperformed in the playoffs for years. Watch Stevens design several defenses to disrupt LeBron.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on May 11, 2018, 11:38:44 AM
When you have Demar DeRegularSeason and Kyle Lowry as your stars, you already have one foot in the grave.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: BrewCity83 on May 11, 2018, 01:41:26 PM
Dwane Casey to the Bucks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 12, 2018, 08:45:42 AM
That team was good enough to win 15 of 17 or whatever it was early in the season.  Adding players like Wade, or Rose or Deron Williams in the past, as opposed to trying to develop and work with any young talent, is just Bron wanting to play with "his guys".

They chose not to pay Delladova and have cycled through mediocre guards since.  Shumpert isnt a world beater but was coming off of one of his more efficient years in awhile.  George Hill's contract is horrific.  They have almost $60MM a year tied up in Hill, Thompson, JR, and Korver.  Not even bringing in new expensive players always, but overpaying for guys Lebron is "comfortable" with.

I just dont know how people can blame the roster for holding him back and absolve him wanting to construct things like its NBA 2K.  And thats saying nothing for Kyrie wanting out which was conveniently spun into "wanting his own team" yet not going somewhere in which he would be alpha without question.

I don't know which "people" you are referring to. I have acknowledged LeBron's shortcomings as a "GM" and "coach." I also have acknowledged his role in teams that have been to 7 straight Finals (soon to be 8) and that have won 3 titles.

He is the best player on the planet, and the second-best in history, IMHO. And yes, "The Decision" was idiotic, as was him congratulating himself for reaching (or almost reaching) "milestones."
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 12, 2018, 11:52:07 AM
Dwane Casey ... even if he is a very good coach, this happens fairly often in sports.

Classic example was Doug Collins, who got the Bulls to Point A but they were convinced he couldn't get them to Point B. So out he went, despite a solid resume, and in came Phil Jackson, who to that point had accomplished nothing.

Call it a different "voice" in the locker room, change for the sake of change, or whatever ... sometimes it works. Of course, sometimes it doesn't.

It will be interesting (to me, anyway) to see what direction the Raptors go. They do have talent.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on May 12, 2018, 01:11:26 PM
I don't know which "people" you are referring to. I have acknowledged LeBron's shortcomings as a "GM" and "coach." I also have acknowledged his role in teams that have been to 7 straight Finals (soon to be 8) and that have won 3 titles.

He is the best player on the planet, and the second-best in history, IMHO. And yes, "The Decision" was idiotic, as was him congratulating himself for reaching (or almost reaching) "milestones."

Collective Lebron fans, on twitter, in my friend group, etc...

As for your second point, despite my usual distaste for him, I feel exactly the same. He’s an absolute freak of nature and an incredible baller, but has any number of tendencies, habits, and elements of his persona I can’t stand. And that’s fine.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 13, 2018, 09:44:19 AM
Dwane Casey ... even if he is a very good coach, this happens fairly often in sports.

Classic example was Doug Collins, who got the Bulls to Point A but they were convinced he couldn't get them to Point B. So out he went, despite a solid resume, and in came Phil Jackson, who to that point had accomplished nothing.

Call it a different "voice" in the locker room, change for the sake of change, or whatever ... sometimes it works. Of course, sometimes it doesn't.

It will be interesting (to me, anyway) to see what direction the Raptors go. They do have talent.

Yup.
John Fox got fired after taking the Broncos to the playoffs four consecutive seasons. Next guy came in and won a Super Bowl.
Tony Dungy got fired after taking the Bucs to the playoffs four times in five seasons. Next guy came in and won a Super Bowl.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 13, 2018, 12:11:01 PM
Yup.
John Fox got fired after taking the Broncos to the playoffs four consecutive seasons. Next guy came in and won a Super Bowl.
Tony Dungy got fired after taking the Bucs to the playoffs four times in five seasons. Next guy came in and won a Super Bowl.

Good examples. Also many example of teams that didn't fire their coaches and were rewarded when everything came together. Classic example: Chuck Daly. Pistons gradually got better and were on precipice of greatness; there were some who thought they needed to go another direction "just because," but management stuck with him and they won two titles.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on May 13, 2018, 12:40:10 PM
Ned Yost has a World Series title.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on May 16, 2018, 10:51:09 AM
Suck it, LeBron.

Also, so bush-league by JR Smith. Doesn't even get a flagrant from the refs after review. League needs to fine him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 16, 2018, 01:59:56 PM
Suck it, LeBron.

Also, so bush-league by JR Smith. Doesn't even get a flagrant from the refs after review. League needs to fine him.

He did get a flagrant 1.

I'm guessing you think it should have been a flagrant 2 and I couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 16, 2018, 02:19:36 PM
Suck it, LeBron.

Also, so bush-league by JR Smith. Doesn't even get a flagrant from the refs after review. League needs to fine him.


NBA announced no further discipline.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 16, 2018, 06:38:50 PM
Any truth ta da roomer dat Giannis and Budenholzer had breakfast @ Belair Cantina dis mornin', hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 16, 2018, 07:03:06 PM
Any truth ta da roomer dat Giannis and Budenholzer had breakfast @ Belair Cantina dis mornin', hey?

Confirmed. And Middleton ai’na?

But really. Bude is the Bucks new coach. I expected worse from this ownership group. Not sure it will be outstanding, but could’ve been far worse in my opinion.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Mr. Nielsen on May 16, 2018, 07:20:12 PM
I think this is great hire for the Bucks. Can't believe the Bucks didn't screw this up.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorFan on May 17, 2018, 05:33:43 PM
Very excited about the Buck's new coach.  Now they need a 3rd "go to" player... and some outside shooting.  Giannis and Middleton are clearly the core.  I worry that Bledsoe showed his ceiling. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 17, 2018, 06:55:07 PM
Confirmed. And Middleton ai’na?

But really. Bude is the Bucks new coach. I expected worse from this ownership group. Not sure it will be outstanding, but could’ve been far worse in my opinion.



Kinda leaves Parker and Bledsoe on da outside lookin' in, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 17, 2018, 06:55:40 PM


Kinda leaves Parker and Bledsoe on da outside lookin' in, hey?

Which is exactly how it should be if the Bucks want to move in the right direction, if you ask me.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 22, 2018, 09:19:02 AM
Steph Curry is getting some very mild rebukes - including one from his mom - for loudly cussing on the court in celebration the other night. "This is my bleeping house!"

Curry has become one of America's lovable little teddy bears, and this obviously won't hurt him one iota. In fact, it might give him a little more "street cred" with some.

Just wonder if the reaction would have been as tame if it had been one of the lightning rods who had done it: LeBron, Draymond, Cousins, etc.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 22, 2018, 09:24:21 AM
Ya kan lump Ted Bear Curry in wit da lightenin' rods four my part, Nads. Kant stand da mf'er, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 22, 2018, 09:31:58 AM
Ya kan lump Ted Bear Curry in wit da lightenin' rods four my part, Nads. Kant stand da mf'er, hey?

Y?

I'd understand not being a fan, but he seems a difficult guy to "hate."
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 22, 2018, 09:36:43 AM
Irrogant prima donna. And keep da damn mouthguard where's its ment ta bee, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 22, 2018, 09:37:09 AM
Steph Curry is getting some very mild rebukes - including one from his mom - for loudly cussing on the court in celebration the other night. "This is my bleeping house!"

Curry has become one of America's lovable little teddy bears, and this obviously won't hurt him one iota. In fact, it might give him a little more "street cred" with some.

Just wonder if the reaction would have been as tame if it had been one of the lightning rods who had done it: LeBron, Draymond, Cousins, etc.

I don't think there would be any reaction at all if it was a "lightning rod."  Dropping an F bomb in an NBA game.  Seems about as routine as a human being breathing air to me.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 22, 2018, 09:37:57 AM
Irrogant prima donna. And keep da damn mouthguard where's its ment ta bee, hey?

Translation:  He's spoken out against 45. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 22, 2018, 09:46:28 AM
I thought it was awesome.  Dude can ball.  And James Harden is a joke.  Plays defense like an old man at the Y.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 22, 2018, 09:56:01 AM
I don't think there would be any reaction at all if it was a "lightning rod."  Dropping an F bomb in an NBA game.  Seems about as routine as a human being breathing air to me.

Steph didn't just "drop" an F-bomb. He finished the play, turned to the crowd, pointed at himself, and screamed, "This is my effing house!" at the top of his lungs. But maybe you're right that it wouldn't have mattered if somebody else did it.

I actually kind of like it when a Tiger or a Brady or a Steph acts "human" like this. Teachable moments for parents, if they want them; otherwise, as you say, kind of routine.

Irrogant prima donna. And keep da damn mouthguard where's its ment ta bee, hey?

I do not find him ignorant at all. I think he's far less ignorant than the average fan ... or the below-average president. But to each his own.

And yeah, the mouthguard thing is annoying.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 22, 2018, 10:32:32 AM
Yo Doc, whut is da list of pro ballaz dat u dew like?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 22, 2018, 10:38:51 AM
Lotsa of dem. I'm down wit Giannis, Kevon, Brog, Bron, Por, KD, JFB, Jab, Book, KAT, Hayward, Jalen, Walls, et al, hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 22, 2018, 10:53:21 AM
Lotsa of dem. I'm down wit Giannis, Kevon, Brog, Bron, Por, KD, JFB, Jab, Book, KAT, Hayward, Jalen, Walls, et al, hey?

Lotsa ignorant wons dere, oona?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 22, 2018, 11:10:03 AM
Thanks fer duh response. Wuz jinuinly curious.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on May 22, 2018, 11:25:10 AM
I do not find him ignorant at all. I think he's far less ignorant than the average fan ... or the below-average president. But to each his own.

And yeah, the mouthguard thing is annoying.

I read it as "arrogant" which HOW DARE the best pure shooter in NBA history, who routinely hits circus shots against tight defense in huge game moments, act in such a way.  He should make such shots and quietly walk back to the bench, but not dare refuse any slaps of five.

The mouthguard?  Shrug.  Jordan had his tongue, baseball players have gum and chew, some people have an oral fixation, it is what it is.

Surprised 4ever is still with us.  Figured D Wade hitting the game winner and jumping on the scorers table a few years back, also letting people know whose house it was, might have turned him off from the NBA completely.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on May 22, 2018, 11:33:29 AM
Complaining about this indicates far too much time on your hands.    Holy first world issue. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 22, 2018, 12:32:16 PM
I read it as "arrogant" which HOW DARE the best pure shooter in NBA history, who routinely hits circus shots against tight defense in huge game moments, act in such a way.  He should make such shots and quietly walk back to the bench, but not dare refuse any slaps of five.

I agree completely. We must NOT let our athletes become entertainers. Sports is serious business and we need to teach our kids this every day. Do not have fun!!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 22, 2018, 12:36:10 PM
Sterling Brown is suing the Milwaukee Police. Video will be released soon, but early reports indicate it was an unprovoked assault by police.

I had thought he was just another thug like Henson :-\

Gonna be hard to get guys to come here if they are unable to go out in public.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 22, 2018, 01:56:50 PM
Yeah butt, den don't park in a handicap spot without a permit, hey?


#bringit
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on May 22, 2018, 03:14:08 PM
The NBA stays interesting when guys start crap as long as it isn't injuring people. Can't stand Draymond but he adds an electricity with his attitude and swagger. Love to hate him. Other fun ones are Embiid for his incessant s*** talking, constant player subtweeting with the KAT Thibs drama, etc. Keeps it fresh when the end result of the season seems fairly predetermined at this point.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 22, 2018, 08:52:20 PM
I thought it was awesome.  Dude can ball.  And James Harden is a joke.  Plays defense like an old man at the Y.


That dunk on Draymond though...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: drewm88 on May 22, 2018, 10:37:50 PM
Marv's gotta go. Ideally before the next game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 23, 2018, 09:17:22 AM
That was a rough final few minutes last night.

Both teams kept jacking up 3s.

Even Reggie Miller - who played a little hero ball in his day - was yelling at the Warriors to take advantage of Houston's "no-3" defense and drive to the hoop.

For the Rockets, either Paul or Harden would dribble the shot clock down to 2 and fire up a shot that had little chance to go in.

So the NBA finally got a close playoff game but the end was painful to watch.

Glad the Rockets won, though. I don't really care who wins the series, but I'd love to see a Game 7.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 24, 2018, 09:12:34 AM
LeBron was not good last night.

Not awful, not the worst I've seen or anything hyperbolic like that, just not good enough, not anywhere near as good as he usually is in such situations. He was careless with the ball, he made poor decisions, he phoned in a few possessions, he willingly took a back seat to the likes of Clarkson and Nance, and he seemed fatigued.

I am a huge LeBron fan, and I like to talk about all the great things he does on the court, so I'd better be willing to admit when the opposite is true. It was true last night.

I'm not sure if that mediocre Cavs team wins last night even with LeBron playing his A+ game ... but they probably do. The Celtics certainly were beatable.

I actually looked up Michael's playoff games over the years, and he definitely had worse games statistically than LeBron had last night. But I couldn't find a worse performance in such a meaningful playoff game - Game 5 of a 2-2 series or later.

I like to say LeBron is the second-best player I've seen - which is still true - and that he's "gaining fast." He didn't gain last night.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 24, 2018, 11:47:04 AM
LeBron was not good last night.

Not awful, not the worst I've seen or anything hyperbolic like that, just not good enough, not anywhere near as good as he usually is in such situations. He was careless with the ball, he made poor decisions, he phoned in a few possessions, he willingly took a back seat to the likes of Clarkson and Nance, and he seemed fatigued.

I am a huge LeBron fan, and I like to talk about all the great things he does on the court, so I'd better be willing to admit when the opposite is true. It was true last night.

I'm not sure if that mediocre Cavs team wins last night even with LeBron playing his A+ game ... but they probably do. The Celtics certainly were beatable.

I actually looked up Michael's playoff games over the years, and he definitely had worse games statistically than LeBron had last night. But I couldn't find a worse performance in such a meaningful playoff game - Game 5 of a 2-2 series or later.

I like to say LeBron is the second-best player I've seen - which is still true - and that he's "gaining fast." He didn't gain last night.

I've said it before.  As mediocre as the Cavs are, they have far more talent than the Celtics.  That is why the Cavs have been favored to win every game of this series. 

Lebron and Love are better than anyone on the Celtics.  The Celtics though have a great coach...the Cavs do not.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 24, 2018, 12:25:21 PM
I've said it before.  As mediocre as the Cavs are, they have far more talent than the Celtics.  That is why the Cavs have been favored to win every game of this series. 

Lebron and Love are better than anyone on the Celtics.  The Celtics though have a great coach...the Cavs do not.

Aside from LeBron and Love, the Celtics are better up and down the roster. Cleveland has no equivalent of, say, Smart - a tough guy who does everything necessary to win. But yes, LeBron and Love should be enough. And yes, Lue is in over his head.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 24, 2018, 12:47:59 PM
Aside from LeBron and Love, the Celtics are better up and down the roster. Cleveland has no equivalent of, say, Smart - a tough guy who does everything necessary to win. But yes, LeBron and Love should be enough. And yes, Lue is in over his head.

Respectfully disagree - George Hill is a big PG that can defend (he has been significantly better than Smart his entire career, what happened when he got to the Cavs?), Korver is the #6 3P% shooter of all time in an era where that is placed at a premium for floor spacing, JR Smith has proven capable in big moments, etc.

If LeBron is truly the 2nd greatest of all time, with a player by his side that is better than anyone on the opposition, he should be cleaning up against this Celtics team missing Kyrie, just like a Pacers team with Oladipo as the best player never should have taken them to 7. I just really can't stand the "LeBron's teammates suck" trope.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on May 24, 2018, 02:43:23 PM
I've said it before.  As mediocre as the Cavs are, they have far more talent than the Celtics.  That is why the Cavs have been favored to win every game of this series. 

Lebron and Love are better than anyone on the Celtics.  The Celtics though have a great coach...the Cavs do not.
Kevin Love, right now, is not better than Tatum , and might not be better than Brown (I would call Brown/Love equal). He is past his prime, and does not play defense. Tatum plays both ends of the court.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 24, 2018, 09:18:33 PM
Respectfully disagree - George Hill is a big PG that can defend (he has been significantly better than Smart his entire career, what happened when he got to the Cavs?), Korver is the #6 3P% shooter of all time in an era where that is placed at a premium for floor spacing, JR Smith has proven capable in big moments, etc.

If LeBron is truly the 2nd greatest of all time, with a player by his side that is better than anyone on the opposition, he should be cleaning up against this Celtics team missing Kyrie, just like a Pacers team with Oladipo as the best player never should have taken them to 7. I just really can't stand the "LeBron's teammates suck" trope.

We'll agree to disagree on some of this stuff.

I don't know what happened to Hill, but I'd take Smart over him in a heartbeat. Korver and Smith are role players. Teams need role players, but neither should be playing 35+ mpg.

I have already said that LeBron and Love should be enough to win this series. I also said he played poorly (for him) last night. Really seemed tired to me, which is highly unusual. Will be interesting to see him tomorrow in Cleveland.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 24, 2018, 09:28:33 PM
Respectfully disagree - George Hill is a big PG that can defend (he has been significantly better than Smart his entire career, what happened when he got to the Cavs?), Korver is the #6 3P% shooter of all time in an era where that is placed at a premium for floor spacing, JR Smith has proven capable in big moments, etc.

If LeBron is truly the 2nd greatest of all time, with a player by his side that is better than anyone on the opposition, he should be cleaning up against this Celtics team missing Kyrie, just like a Pacers team with Oladipo as the best player never should have taken them to 7. I just really can't stand the "LeBron's teammates suck" trope.

They absolutely suck. I would venture to say that not one of them will ever see an all-star game in the future unless they buy a ticket.

I would take Tatum, Brown, or Horford before I would take any Cav other than Lebrun.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 24, 2018, 09:30:24 PM
I've said it before.  As mediocre as the Cavs are, they have far more talent than the Celtics.  That is why the Cavs have been favored to win every game of this series. 


The Cavs do not have "far more talent than the Celtics."  Celtics have a bunch of talent, while the Cavs have LBJ, Love and....not much else. 

I mean George Hill is decent, but there is no one on the Celtics starting five that I would choose Hill over.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2018, 08:51:43 AM
They absolutely suck. I would venture to say that not one of them will ever see an all-star game in the future unless they buy a ticket.

I would take Tatum, Brown, or Horford before I would take any Cav other than Lebrun.

Love, when shooting well from outside, is an All-Star caliber player on the strength of his offense and rebounding. When he has one of his "disappearing act" games, he is a liability.

So I'd take "Hot Love" over those players for one game today, but I'd take any of those players over "Disappearing Love." Unfortunately for the Cavs, they never know which Love they'll get.

The rest of the team ... even the functional ones are just mid-level (at best) role players - Korver, Smith, Thompson, Nance, Clarkson, Green, Hill, Hood.

One could make a very good argument that it's LeBron's "fault" that the Cavs are him, Love and a bunch of role players. But it's still a fact.

Having said that, I'm very impressed with Stevens' coaching. The Celtics have some talent, but they are missing their two cornerstones, and they're one win from the Finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 25, 2018, 09:09:56 AM
I really can't figure out what the Warriors have been doing the last couple games.  Their offense has just gone to sh*t with a lot of slow down and isolation stuff.  For as much as I love the NBA, these conference finals have been hard to watch.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2018, 10:03:47 AM
Here's something interesting.

The gambling site bovada just updated their odds to win the NBA title ... and despite last night's results, the Warriors are still even-money favorites while the Rockets are 8/5.

Boston is 8/1 and the Cavs 12/1.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 25, 2018, 10:50:04 AM
Aside from LeBron and Love, the Celtics are better up and down the roster. Cleveland has no equivalent of, say, Smart - a tough guy who does everything necessary to win. But yes, LeBron and Love should be enough. And yes, Lue is in over his head.

Smart is not a good player.  The Cavs have good players. 

The difference is Stevens designs game plans to put his players in positions they can succeed.  The focus is on designing around each players limitations and helping them avoid mistakes/maximize benefit.

Lue has no game plan.  Does not game plan for his talent, so they look far more mediocre than they are and are not being used as they should.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 25, 2018, 11:41:34 AM
I really can't figure out what the Warriors have been doing the last couple games.  Their offense has just gone to sh*t with a lot of slow down and isolation stuff.  For as much as I love the NBA, these conference finals have been hard to watch.

Agreed.  But I don't even think the Rockets look particularly great either.  Both teams are missing open jumpers, somewhat contested but still very makeable shots at the rim, turning the ball over due to simple carelessness or getting moving too fast, etc.  I was really looking forward to these Conference Finals, but the Cavs/C's series has just been one blowout after another and the Rockets/Warriors just take turns switching off between ugly basketball and making runs.

Now CP3 is out for Game 6.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 25, 2018, 11:55:24 AM
Love, when shooting well from outside, is an All-Star caliber player on the strength of his offense and rebounding. When he has one of his "disappearing act" games, he is a liability.

So I'd take "Hot Love" over those players for one game today, but I'd take any of those players over "Disappearing Love." Unfortunately for the Cavs, they never know which Love they'll get.

The rest of the team ... even the functional ones are just mid-level (at best) role players - Korver, Smith, Thompson, Nance, Clarkson, Green, Hill, Hood.

One could make a very good argument that it's LeBron's "fault" that the Cavs are him, Love and a bunch of role players. But it's still a fact.

Having said that, I'm very impressed with Stevens' coaching. The Celtics have some talent, but they are missing their two cornerstones, and they're one win from the Finals.

All good points. I have no affinity for the Celtics whatsoever, but am rooting for them now just because it would be an insane coaching job to pull off a title at this point in the roster development
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on May 25, 2018, 12:12:58 PM
I've never really understood all the love for Stevens.  I don't think he's bad, but I don't think he's great either.  I realize that he's missing his two superstar players, but out coaching Joe Prunty and Ty Lue isn't exactly noteworthy, and Philly threw away a couple of games, and couldn't close others which isn't at all surprising given their youth.  If Bud can get the most out of Giannis, and Brett Brown continues to develop Simmons, Embiid, and/or Fultz, I'd be surprised if anyone other than Milwaukee or Philly comes out of the East for the next 2-3 years. Again, not saying that he's bad, but I would give just as much credit, if not more to Danny Ainge.   
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 25, 2018, 12:25:29 PM
I've never really understood all the love for Stevens.  I don't think he's bad, but I don't think he's great either.  I realize that he's missing his two superstar players, but out coaching Joe Prunty and Ty Lue isn't exactly noteworthy, and Philly threw away a couple of games, and couldn't close others which isn't at all surprising given their youth.  If Bud can get the most out of Giannis, and Brett Brown continues to develop Simmons, Embiid, and/or Fultz, I'd be surprised if anyone other than Milwaukee or Philly comes out of the East for the next 2-3 years. Again, not saying that he's bad, but I would give just as much credit, if not more to Danny Ainge.   

Ainge certainly deserves a lot. Trading back to pick up Taytum, who they had rated #1 anyway, over Fultz and Ball was a brilliant capper on a series of very good moves over several years (one of which was hiring Stevens)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on May 25, 2018, 01:27:04 PM
I've never really understood all the love for Stevens.  I don't think he's bad, but I don't think he's great either.  I realize that he's missing his two superstar players, but out coaching Joe Prunty and Ty Lue isn't exactly noteworthy, and Philly threw away a couple of games, and couldn't close others which isn't at all surprising given their youth.  If Bud can get the most out of Giannis, and Brett Brown continues to develop Simmons, Embiid, and/or Fultz, I'd be surprised if anyone other than Milwaukee or Philly comes out of the East for the next 2-3 years. Again, not saying that he's bad, but I would give just as much credit, if not more to Danny Ainge.   
Watch the games closely. Both his set plays and plays after time out always seem to put the right players in the right position.  He is a damn good coach. Unlike Kerr who just seems to roll the ball out there. Golden State plays "sloppy", while Boston seems to play much more disciplined.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2018, 01:28:03 PM
Smart is not a good player.  The Cavs have good players. 

Smart is tough, versatile and good defensively. So I think you're wrong about him. And, more importantly, so does Brad Stevens.

I'd rather have Smart than Hill, as one comparison.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on May 25, 2018, 01:45:00 PM
Watch the games closely. Both his set plays and plays after time out always seem to put the right players in the right position.  He is a damn good coach. Unlike Kerr who just seems to roll the ball out there. Golden State plays "sloppy", while Boston seems to play much more disciplined.

Don't get me wrong I think he's good enough to coach in the NBA, but any head coach can run good sets out of time outs.  Does he have this much success without IMO the best GM in the game building his roster?  Would he make any non-playoff team a playoff team?  Other than possibly Denver, I don't think he does. 

I think the trend right now in all sports is to apply to much praise/blame on the head coach/manager, when it should be going to the GM.  Kerr didn't build the Warriors roster, but he has certainly gotten a lot of praise for their recent success.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Cooby Snacks on May 25, 2018, 02:28:27 PM
Don't get me wrong I think he's good enough to coach in the NBA, but any head coach can run good sets out of time outs.  Does he have this much success without IMO the best GM in the game building his roster?  Would he make any non-playoff team a playoff team?  Other than possibly Denver, I don't think he does. 

I think the trend right now in all sports is to apply to much praise/blame on the head coach/manager, when it should be going to the GM.  Kerr didn't build the Warriors roster, but he has certainly gotten a lot of praise for their recent success.

The Warriors’ player development has been out of this world, coupled with smart veteran pickups (Iggy, Livingston, West) and, of course, Joe Lacob’s Basketball Disruptor AlgorithmTM that informed him signing Kevin Durant would be a good idea.

I think Kerr’s a very good coach, but let’s not forget that Luke Walton ran out like 26-0 at the helm in 2015 when Kerr was recovering from surgery. It’s a really well-run organization at all levels, similar to the Celtics and Spurs. Houston isn’t bad either.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on May 25, 2018, 02:28:37 PM
Stevens is an outstanding coach. Watch his in game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes. Moreover, watch his timeout huddles. He has the utmost attention and respect of his team. GM Ainge pulled off a real coup having him leave Butler.  I'd put Stevens up there with the finest NBA head coaches.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on May 25, 2018, 02:42:44 PM
Stevens is an outstanding coach. Watch his in game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes. Moreover, watch his timeout huddles. He has the utmost attention and respect of his team. GM Ainge pulled off a real coup having him leave Butler.  I'd put Stevens up there with the finest NBA head coaches.

If being able to make adjustments and having players attention is the only criteria for being an outstanding coach, then there are quite a few of them out there. 

If Stevens were the coach of the Raptors this year, how many games do you think they win in the series against the Cavs, going up against a much worse coach in Ty Lue? I'd put the over/under at 1.5.  End of the day, the best coach in the world could have been in Phoenix last year, but without a good GM, the Suns would have only been marginally better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 25, 2018, 02:47:00 PM
Stevens is an outstanding coach. Watch his in game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes. Moreover, watch his timeout huddles. He has the utmost attention and respect of his team. GM Ainge pulled off a real coup having him leave Butler.  I'd put Stevens up there with the finest NBA head coaches.

+1.  In my opinion the 3 best coaches in the world right now are 1) Pop 2) Stevens 3) Jay Wright.  He gets mismatches pretty much every time down the court, he has every player completely buying in and working hard as a unit, and his teams very rarely beat themselves.  Even if the talent he currently has at his disposal is as good as the Cavs (or Sixers, or Bucks), the fact that he has been able to get his team to adjust to two season ending injuries even if the talent drop off isn't as big as people think it is (I personally think it is, but Stevens's coaching minimizes it) so quickly is a testament to his coaching ability.

And as if what he's doing in the NBA doesn't show it, the guy got to back to back national title games at Butler, once with Matt Howard as his best player.  That's pretty incredible.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 25, 2018, 02:48:42 PM
If being able to make adjustments and having players attention is the only criteria for being an outstanding coach, then there are quite a few of them out there. 

If Stevens were the coach of the Raptors this year, how many games do you think they win in the series against the Cavs, going up against a much worse coach in Ty Lue? I'd put the over/under at 1.5.  End of the day, the best coach in the world could have been in Phoenix last year, but without a good GM, the Suns would have only been marginally better.

4.  The Raptors had a lot more talent available in the Playoffs than the Celtics currently have.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2018, 02:54:51 PM
Stevens is obviously a great coach. I don't understand what metrics one could find to argue otherwise.

You are judged on performance. He did a great job at Butler - got a mid-major to two consecutive NCAA championship games, for crissakes. He then took over a dumpster fire in Boston and has improved the team's record and playoff performance every single year.

Right now, his team is without its PG, who also happens to be one of the NBA's dozen best players; the Celtics also have gone the entire season without the guy who was supposed to be their leading scorer. And yet he has them within one win of the NBA Finals.

Obviously Ainge deserves a ton of credit. I know nobody who would argue otherwise. And while we're handing out credit, the players deserve most of it.

But jeesh.

I guess Stevens needs to light victory cigars to move up a notch in the eyes of some tough critics.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on May 25, 2018, 03:18:01 PM
Stevens is obviously a great coach. I don't understand what metrics one could find to argue otherwise.

You are judged on performance. He did a great job at Butler - got a mid-major to two consecutive NCAA championship games, for crissakes. He then took over a dumpster fire in Boston and has improved the team's record and playoff performance every single year.

Right now, his team is without its PG, who also happens to be one of the NBA's dozen best players; the Celtics also have gone the entire season without the guy who was supposed to be their leading scorer. And yet he has them within one win of the NBA Finals.

Obviously Ainge deserves a ton of credit. I know nobody who would argue otherwise. And while we're handing out credit, the players deserve most of it.

But jeesh.

I guess Stevens needs to light victory cigars to move up a notch in the eyes of some tough critics.

Ok, no where did I say that he was a bad coach.  I said he was good enough to be in the NBA, in order to do that, you obviously have to be good.  Getting players to play hard and smart is important, but identifying which players can do that and bringing them to your organization is more important.

Stevens deserves credit, you don't get this far without coaching ability, but Ainge making the moves that he has is a bigger reason why the C's are where they are.  You don't win 53 games, get the number one seed and then return 4 players next year and have this kind of success unless your GM is literally making ALL the right moves.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2018, 03:28:18 PM
Ok, no where did I say that he was a bad coach.  I said he was good enough to be in the NBA, in order to do that, you obviously have to be good.  Getting players to play hard and smart is important, but identifying which players can do that and bringing them to your organization is more important.

Stevens deserves credit, you don't get this far without coaching ability, but Ainge making the moves that he has is a bigger reason why the C's are where they are.  You don't win 53 games, get the number one seed and then return 4 players next year and have this kind of success unless your GM is literally making ALL the right moves.

I give them all credit: the GM, the coach and the players. Not sure how anybody can identify who deserves what percent.

I don't think I accused you of saying Stevens was a bad coach. If I did, I apologize.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on May 25, 2018, 03:41:56 PM
I give them all credit: the GM, the coach and the players. Not sure how anybody can identify who deserves what percent.

I don't think I accused you of saying Stevens was a bad coach. If I did, I apologize.

The point that I am trying to make is that at that level, all coaches are essentially Rain Man about basketball, so I think the level of coaching is just as high as it can go, and there are a bunch of coaches that are at the ceiling, or very near it.  You can call and execute a play perfectly, but if I'm out there, the shot's probably not going in.  Players make plays, but it comes down to the GM's being able to identify the best players and best trades to give their coaches the best tools to win.  Players make the shots and physical plays that none of us can.  Coaches get players to work together (to varying degrees), but the GM is the one behind the scenes making the moves that really get things done.  That's why I think Danny Ainge should be getting more credit than Stevens.  IMO he has been perfect the last 18 months.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2018, 04:19:05 PM
The point that I am trying to make is that at that level, all coaches are essentially Rain Man about basketball, so I think the level of coaching is just as high as it can go, and there are a bunch of coaches that are at the ceiling, or very near it.  You can call and execute a play perfectly, but if I'm out there, the shot's probably not going in.  Players make plays, but it comes down to the GM's being able to identify the best players and best trades to give their coaches the best tools to win.  Players make the shots and physical plays that none of us can.  Coaches get players to work together (to varying degrees), but the GM is the one behind the scenes making the moves that really get things done.  That's why I think Danny Ainge should be getting more credit than Stevens.  IMO he has been perfect the last 18 months.

Fair enough.

Although, through no fault of Ainge's, I could argue that Toronto has a better active roster than Boston (minus Irving and Hayward). And yet Stevens is one win away from beating LeBron, while Toronto barely farted in its series against LeBron.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 25, 2018, 04:37:36 PM
Smart is tough, versatile and good defensively. So I think you're wrong about him. And, more importantly, so does Brad Stevens.

I'd rather have Smart than Hill, as one comparison.

I probably shouldn't have said "not good".  I agree with what you say about him, but I think most are underestimating the importance of:

1.  Having the right types of players for the roster (as others have noted this is on the GM).
2.  Having a coach that puts those players in a position to succeed. 

My point is that the Cavs have a lot of talent, but Lue doesn't know what to do with them. 

The Celtics have no business being in the finals with what remains of their roster; the ability of Stevens to get them to buy in to his plans, and get them to execute is pretty damn amazing.  They are incredibly fun to watch, because all the players have a lot of warts, but Stevens hides them well.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2018, 07:11:07 PM
I probably shouldn't have said "not good".  I agree with what you say about him, but I think most are underestimating the importance of:

1.  Having the right types of players for the roster (as others have noted this is on the GM).
2.  Having a coach that puts those players in a position to succeed. 

My point is that the Cavs have a lot of talent, but Lue doesn't know what to do with them. 

The Celtics have no business being in the finals with what remains of their roster; the ability of Stevens to get them to buy in to his plans, and get them to execute is pretty damn amazing.  They are incredibly fun to watch, because all the players have a lot of warts, but Stevens hides them well.

We mostly agree here, except I think you are higher on the Cavs' "talent" than I am.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 25, 2018, 10:03:15 PM
No Kevin Love.

Cavs win anyway.

LeBron 46-11-9.

What more needs to be said? (Except that LeBron obviously wasn't good enough to get a triple-double)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 26, 2018, 11:43:33 AM
No Kevin Love.

Cavs win anyway.

LeBron 46-11-9.

What more needs to be said? (Except that LeBron obviously wasn't good enough to get a triple-double)


Lebron and a group of replacement level players that can be had at any time in the NBA.

I always pooh-poohed the idea that he could be better than Jordan. That has changed this year.

Durrant, Harden, Curry, Westbrook, Giannis, etc. may be great, but Lebron is clearly the MVP in this league - this year and every year. He does things on a nightly basis that these other guys cannot do. Durrant and Harden could only get to where they are at with Great players around them. James doesn't need that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 26, 2018, 11:59:26 AM

Lebron and a group of replacement level players that can be had at any time in the NBA.

I always pooh-poohed the idea that he could be better than Jordan. That has changed this year.

Durrant, Harden, Curry, Westbrook, Giannis, etc. may be great, but Lebron is clearly the MVP in this league - this year and every year. He does things on a nightly basis that these other guys cannot do. Durrant and Harden could only get to where they are at with Great players around them. James doesn't need that.

Because he didn’t leave Cleveland and take less money to join up with two other top 10 players in the NBA? And then the second those two other players showed signs of decline he didn’t leave them to go back to Cleveland and demanded a trade for Kevin Love to go along with Kyrie?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 26, 2018, 12:32:48 PM

Lebron and a group of replacement level players that can be had at any time in the NBA.

I always pooh-poohed the idea that he could be better than Jordan. That has changed this year.

Durrant, Harden, Curry, Westbrook, Giannis, etc. may be great, but Lebron is clearly the MVP in this league - this year and every year. He does things on a nightly basis that these other guys cannot do. Durrant and Harden could only get to where they are at with Great players around them. James doesn't need that.

If LeBron wins the NBA championship with this crew, it will be one of the great accomplishments in team sports history. As it is, carrying Cleveland to the Finals as a 22-year-old with a team whose next 3 best players were Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas already is one of the most incredible achievements ever ... but most people only remember champions.

I'd have voted for LeBron as MVP this season, but I certainly understand why Harden probably will win the award. Nevertheless, comparing him (and what is expected of him) to LeBron is crazy.

The last two games, Harden went 16-47 from the floor, including 3-23 from 3-point range. THREE FOR TWENTY-THREE!!! He had 8 assists and 8 turnovers. And we all know he played no defense. If LeBron or Westbrook put up those kinds of numbers, wades would be all over them - and deservedly so. Yet the Rockets won both games over the defending champions because Harden has Chris Paul and other good players around him. He doesn't have to do what LeBron does. Nobody does.

It will be interesting to see how Harden responds in Game 6 with Paul out. I hope he does well, but I'm guessing the Warriors will win easily at home.

I'm looking forward to Game 7 of Cavs-Celtics. I sure as heck wouldn't bet against the best player on the planet.



Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 26, 2018, 09:31:49 PM
As it is, carrying Cleveland to the Finals as a 22-year-old with a team whose next 3 best players were Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas already is one of the most incredible achievements ever ... but most people only remember champions.

Why was it so incredible?  The entire East was crap that year (just like this year).  Cleveland was favored to win every series, and had the 2nd best record in the East.  It wasn't particularly surprising. 

That roster, although not great, was probably the best roster in the entire East.  They had strong defensive players, and enough offense to win games. 

Whoever won the east that year was going to be swept by whichever team won the west.  Saying it was an amazing achievement fails to remember how historically bad the entire east was.

Same thing this year, roster has 2 all-stars.  He is getting accolades for doing well in a crapty conference.  He wouldn't have even made the playoffs if he was in the West. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 26, 2018, 10:00:45 PM
Why was it so incredible?  The entire East was crap that year (just like this year).  Cleveland was favored to win every series, and had the 2nd best record in the East.  It wasn't particularly surprising. 

That roster, although not great, was probably the best roster in the entire East.  They had strong defensive players, and enough offense to win games. 

Whoever won the east that year was going to be swept by whichever team won the west.  Saying it was an amazing achievement fails to remember how historically bad the entire east was.

Same thing this year, roster has 2 all-stars.  He is getting accolades for doing well in a crapty conference.  He wouldn't have even made the playoffs if he was in the West. 


You don't think the Cavs make the playoffs this year had they been in the West?  That's nonsense.

The East is better this year than it has the last few years.  The top of the West is clearly better, but it isn't as deep as it has been recently.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 26, 2018, 10:06:22 PM
The ball is moving MUCH better when Durant isn't in the game tonight.  Obviously GSW is better with him than without him, but they stop running those isolations without him on the floor and it shows.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 26, 2018, 10:16:06 PM
Same thing this year, roster has 2 all-stars.  He is getting accolades for doing well in a crapty conference.  He wouldn't have even made the playoffs if he was in the West.

Silliness. The kind of comment that strains the commenter's credibility.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 26, 2018, 10:21:06 PM

You don't think the Cavs make the playoffs this year had they been in the West?  That's nonsense.

The East is better this year than it has the last few years.  The top of the West is clearly better, but it isn't as deep as it has been recently.

The Cavs were 15-15 against the West. No team from the West that made the playoffs had a worse winning percentage against the West than that.

So, statistically speaking, they performed worse than all the playoff teams from the West. 

If you take their win percentage in the East and apply it to 30 games (as if they were in the West) and do the same for the 52 games against the west, they would have finished 46-36 and missed the playoffs.

Silliness. The kind of comment that strains the commenter's credibility.

The Cavs had two all-stars this year (true statement).  They are in a crappy conference (True statement). 

Regarding playoffs.  Arguable.  But see above, my opinion is consistent with documentable facts.

But regarding credibility?  I would never argue that I am one of the most knowledgeable posters regarding the NBA. 

In fact, I don't even think I'd venture to argue that I am even knowledgeable. 

I do think though, that my argument here is evidentiarily sound.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 27, 2018, 04:56:51 AM

In fact, I don't even think I'd venture to argue that I am even knowledgeable. 


That's quite an admission. I appreciate your honesty.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 27, 2018, 06:41:12 AM
https://twitter.com/jon_bois/status/1000580952047931393
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 27, 2018, 06:59:12 AM
The Cavs were 15-15 against the West. No team from the West that made the playoffs had a worse winning percentage against the West than that.

So, statistically speaking, they performed worse than all the playoff teams from the West. 

If you take their win percentage in the East and apply it to 30 games (as if they were in the West) and do the same for the 52 games against the west, they would have finished 46-36 and missed the playoffs.



But what about playoff teams from the West that had losing records against teams from the East?  (Jazz, TWolves)   The Raptors had a winning record against teams from the West and got swept by the Cavs in four games.  I'm just not sure that is the best way to judge this.  A lot depends on when teams are travelling inter-conference.  Who's healthy when they travel. 

A good NBA stat is the Simple Rating System that accounts for point differential and applies it to strength of schedule.  Using that stat, the Cavs are one of the top 16 teams in the NBA.  In fact, ranking teams by that stat has 15 of the 16 NBA playoff teams.  (The Bucks were the outlier - over the Nuggets.)

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 27, 2018, 10:25:10 AM

But what about playoff teams from the West that had losing records against teams from the East?  (Jazz, TWolves)   The Raptors had a winning record against teams from the West and got swept by the Cavs in four games.  I'm just not sure that is the best way to judge this.  A lot depends on when teams are travelling inter-conference.  Who's healthy when they travel. 

A good NBA stat is the Simple Rating System that accounts for point differential and applies it to strength of schedule.  Using that stat, the Cavs are one of the top 16 teams in the NBA.  In fact, ranking teams by that stat has 15 of the 16 NBA playoff teams.  (The Bucks were the outlier - over the Nuggets.)

I agree that my metric was likely not a very good one.  It was just the data I had looked at before I made the initial post (a crude effort to make sure what I said wasn't completely absurd). 

I had never heard of the Simple Rating System.  But using it, Cleveland would be the 10th best team in the West, and would have missed the playoffs.  They are 5th in the East (14th overall), which is consistent with them only making the playoffs because they are in the weaker conference. 

I'm not saying this makes me right, obviously this is pure conjecture, and opinion, and there are a million other variables that would come into play.  Not the least of which would be the fact that Lebron would have been fighting down the stretch to make sure they were team 7 or 8, instead of 9 or 10.  Rather I only made this reply to suggest/support that my statement/opinion was not as absurd as it initially came across as.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 27, 2018, 10:31:25 AM
https://twitter.com/jon_bois/status/1000580952047931393

That was quite the comeback. 

Curious what you think about officiating in the two series.  Not that it it isn't fair or balanced, but how the game is called. 

Seems like the Celtics/Warriors both win when they let the game be physical and the teams can pressure/push Harden/James when they drive.  When the officials call it tighter, the Celtics/Warriors need to back off more allowing Harden/James to score at will and they lose. 

Could be purely my imagination, but curious what other eyes are seeing. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 27, 2018, 10:41:45 AM
That was quite the comeback. 

Curious what you think about officiating in the two series.  Not that it it isn't fair or balanced, but how the game is called. 

Seems like the Celtics/Warriors both win when they let the game be physical and the teams can pressure/push Harden/James when they drive.  When the officials call it tighter, the Celtics/Warriors need to back off more allowing Harden/James to score at will and they lose. 

Could be purely my imagination, but curious what other eyes are seeing. 

Honestly I haven’t been paying that much attention. Last night was the first of the conference finals I watched from beginning to end. It’s mostly been on in the background.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 27, 2018, 09:23:10 PM
Marcus Smart and Terry Rozier have been the 2 best players for the Cavs tonight.

I’m the regular season you might take Marcus Smart over someone like George Hill because Smart doesn’t know anything other than play as hard as you can all the time while 98% of NBA players cruise for much of the first half of the season, but goodness gracious is he terrible.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 27, 2018, 10:04:54 PM
Marcus Smart and Terry Rozier have been the 2 best players for the Cavs tonight.



Really, Wades?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 27, 2018, 10:05:16 PM
"No one person has ever shouldered more of a load to get his team to the Finals. You'll never have a greater accomplishment." - Jeff Van Gundy, as the final seconds ticked down tonight.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 27, 2018, 10:05:32 PM
1 & 1A
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 27, 2018, 10:07:16 PM
"No one person has ever shouldered more of a load to get his team to the Finals. You'll never have a greater accomplishment." - Jeff Van Gundy, as the final seconds ticked down tonight.

Him wearing Morris as a cape when going in for that lay up was symbolic.

They’re gonna get trucked in the finals though.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 27, 2018, 10:07:22 PM
Really, Wades?

Really. Did you watch the game?

I’ve never seen 2 worse performances in a Playoff game.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 27, 2018, 10:09:18 PM
I have been a Bulls fan for I can't even remember how many years.  40+.  After tonight, I am finally anointing James as greatest ever.  He does things that no other player in history can do because of his size and athleticism.

This Cavs team is so void of talent, and the only halfway decent second player is Love, who did not play tonight or most of the game on Friday, but he willed his team to an 8th appearance.  They don't even belong in the same building with the Rockets or Warriors, but for them to get here is amazing.  As much as I love Michael, he played on teams better than this Cavs team and wasn't able to get them to the Finals.   Michael couldn't play center, Lebron can.  We are witnessing something amazing with this super human man.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 27, 2018, 10:13:01 PM
"No one person has ever shouldered more of a load to get his team to the Finals. You'll never have a greater accomplishment." - Jeff Van Gundy, as the final seconds ticked down tonight.

That award would go to Allen Iverson.

Carried probably the worst team to make the NBA finals on his back, and beat an extremely talented Bucks squad. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 27, 2018, 10:15:04 PM
Really. Did you watch the game?

I’ve never seen 2 worse performances in a Playoff game.

Combined 3-24 for 8 points. 

The Celtics were the worst team to ever play in an NBA Division finals. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 27, 2018, 10:20:34 PM
"No one person has ever shouldered more of a load to get his team to the Finals. You'll never have a greater accomplishment." - Jeff Van Gundy, as the final seconds ticked down tonight.

He is right.  I said the same thing to my wife with a few minutes left.  No one. This Cavs team is as untalented as any team I can recall, especially with Love out.  James took an awful Cavs team to the finals before he went to the Heat, and now he has done it again with this cast of stiffs.  A player for the ages.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 27, 2018, 10:26:05 PM
Combined 3-24 for 8 points. 

The Celtics were the worst team to ever play in an NBA Division finals.

'70-'71 Bullets were 42-40 and made the NBA Finals
'75-'76 Suns were also 42-40 and made the NBA Finals

'06-'07 Cavs, with Larry Hughes as the highest paid player on the Cavs.  You read that right.  Dreadful basketball team that James willed to the finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 27, 2018, 10:29:31 PM
That award would go to Allen Iverson.

Carried probably the worst team to make the NBA finals on his back, and beat an extremely talented Bucks squad.

Not gonna argue that Iverson didn't lift a pretty bad team, but Van Gundy would disagree with you about it being any better than this accomplishment by LeBron ... and so would I.

And of course, this is the second time he totally carried a team of borderline talent to the Finals. And he now has reached the Finals 8 straight times (and 9 overall). Zounds!

I know the LeBron haters like to pick at The Decision, and him occasionally saying dopey stuff, and him sometimes acting like he had just been shot when he had barely been touched, etc ... those are the reaches of people desperate to find fault with him that way because his basketball is basically above reproach.

It reminds me of the Jordan haters who focused on his gambling, his golf, his bullying, etc. ... because it was pretty hard to go after Michael as a basketball player.

LeBron and Jordan are/were such different basketball players that it's really just a matter of preference to say one is/was better than the other. But LeBron ... I'm pretty much out of adjectives. And the thing is, he might have 5 more great years left in him!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 07:12:53 AM
That award would go to Allen Iverson.

Carried probably the worst team to make the NBA finals on his back, and beat an extremely talented Bucks squad. 



That team had Mutombo as the NBA defensive player of the year and All-NBA second team and the sixth man of the year in Aaron McKie.

It wasn't a great team by any means, but it had more talent than you are portraying.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 28, 2018, 08:01:38 AM

That team had Mutombo as the NBA defensive player of the year and All-NBA second team and the sixth man of the year in Aaron McKie.

It wasn't a great team by any means, but it had more talent than you are portraying.

Excellent points, Sultan.

Look at LeBron's first Finals team, for example. That Iverson team was better.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 08:17:31 AM
I should have added that the 76ers acquired Mutombo at the trading deadline that year.  It was definitely seen as a enormous pick up for the Sixers and that year is usually considered the best of his career.  Forgetful has repeatedly minimized LBJ on this board so I just think this is an extension of that.

I think people have gone a little bit over the top with LBJ this year and the "no talent" description of the Cavs - the 2007 Cavs had a worse supporting case IMO.  But this is by far the least talented team of the string of eight that he has lead to the Finals. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on May 28, 2018, 09:05:11 AM
Different era and different type players. I heard someone on ESPN radio make a great point. If you are a Jordan guy, which I am, you can make the case it is Jordan my a mile. If a LBJ guy, it is that he is as good or slightly better.  That made a lot of sense to me.

Not take anything away from LBJ, but the teams he beat this year are really not very good teams. He might have almost single handily carried the Cavs, but I am not that impressed by the teams he beat.

As I stated, I am a big time Jordan guy. To me, he was much watch TV. I dosed off several times during the game last night. The second quarter was almost unwatchable to me. Boston could have put the game away and they failed miserably.

Hats off to LBJ, but I am pulling for the Warriors. Speaking of that, the Warriors were much watch TV to me a couple of seasons ago. I very much enjoyed the early part of the Warrior era.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 09:08:49 AM
Different era and different type players. I heard someone on ESPN radio make a great point. If you are a Jordan guy, which I am, you can make the case it is Jordan my a mile. If a LBJ guy, it is that he is as good or slightly better.  That made a lot of sense to me.


OK.  Make the case it is Jordan by a mile.

Because I still am more of a "Jordan guy," but I can't bend reality enough to make the case that it's by "a mile."  And you dozing off in front of the television is probably more due to age than anything else.   ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on May 28, 2018, 09:17:09 AM
Sultan

I did not say Jordan by a mile, the guy on ESPN said it. We could debate this topic for a very long time and little would be accomplished. Until further notice, I am still a Jordan guy and not really close in my mind.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 09:37:22 AM
Sultan

I did not say Jordan by a mile, the guy on ESPN said it. We could debate this topic for a very long time and little would be accomplished. Until further notice, I am still a Jordan guy and not really close in my mind.


Well "by a mile" and "not really close" are pretty much the same thing.

Again, I have no idea how someone could have that opinion.  Even if you think Jordan is better, and I would be in that camp, only romanticism can lead one to believe that it isn't close. 

I mean statistically the only things that Jordan does better is score (mostly because he shoots more) and turns the ball over less.  LBJ is a better shooter (FG%, eFG% and 3FG%), better distributor, better rebounder and has a smaller USG% in the process.  I also think Jordan was an elite defender whereas LBJ, while very good, isn't in the Jordan category.

Of course there are the titles (team accomplishment) and the "it factor" that Jordan seemed to have.  But I think I'm falling into the romanticism a little to much when I mention the latter. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on May 28, 2018, 09:41:22 AM
Sultan

Not even close in regards to defense. Couple that with scoring, less turnovers and a lot of hardware at the Jordan house, it still is not close to me. For the record, it took me quite some time to become a Jordan guy, and winning is what did it for me.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 28, 2018, 09:59:27 AM
Sultan

Not even close in regards to defense. Couple that with scoring, less turnovers and a lot of hardware at the Jordan house, it still is not close to me. For the record, it took me quite some time to become a Jordan guy, and winning is what did it for me.

Yeah, there is a lot of hardware at the Jordan house. But, only six Eastern Conference trophies. I personally think MJ has a slim lead. But, it’s close. It’s hard to argue with 6-0, but I’m not going to fault LBJ too much for carrying his team to the finals so many times. Particularly when he’s had to play against the historically good Warriors three times (and counting).

And, who knows what the next five years might bring.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 28, 2018, 10:05:22 AM

I also think Jordan was an elite defender whereas LBJ, while very good, isn't in the Jordan category.


I think Lebron is in the same class defensively - he also has defended all 5 positions at times which MJ couldn't do.

The difference is that Jordan was always great on 'D', whereas LeBron picks and chooses his spots where he becomes an elite defender.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 10:05:44 AM
Sultan

Not even close in regards to defense. Couple that with scoring, less turnovers and a lot of hardware at the Jordan house, it still is not close to me. For the record, it took me quite some time to become a Jordan guy, and winning is what did it for me.

I'd like to see Michael have to defend the guys James does.  Michael defended guards, James has had to defend every position. 

Michael had two hall of famers play next to him with the Bulls.  James, with the Cavs, has barely had even an all-star play next to him, and certainly no hall of famers. 

Russell won 11 titles, if that's what matters.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 10:09:42 AM
Excellent points, Sultan.

Look at LeBron's first Finals team, for example. That Iverson team was better.

Stop with the politics, your signature.  Why?  There are political boards all over the internet. Why bring it here?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 10:19:32 AM
I'd like to see Michael have to defend the guys James does.  Michael defended guards, James has had to defend every position. 

Michael had two hall of famers play next to him with the Bulls.  James, with the Cavs, has barely had even an all-star play next to him, and certainly no hall of famers. 

Russell won 11 titles, if that's what matters.

Have you been paying attention to who LBJ has been guarding this postseason? While Victor Oladipo was nearly single handedly carrying the Pacers to a victory over the Cavs LBJ was hiding on Bojan Bogdonovic. Against the Raptors he wasn’t guarding DeRozan or Lowry, he was guarding rookie OG Anunoby. This past series I can’t recall him ever guarding Jayson Tatum or Al Horford, he was guarding Marcus Morris or Jaylen Brown.

Maybe I’m wrong but my guess is Jordan steps up and guards Oladipo, DeRozan, and Tatum if he ever had this easy of a road through the East.

Basketball Reference has Kevin Love at a 68% chance to be a Hall of Famer. And if Kyrie stays healthy I’d guess he’ll have a very good shot at it someday too (currently at 37%, 18th best chance of any active player). So basically this is his second Finals appearance without at least two potential Hall of Famers next to him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 28, 2018, 10:55:01 AM

That team had Mutombo as the NBA defensive player of the year and All-NBA second team and the sixth man of the year in Aaron McKie.

It wasn't a great team by any means, but it had more talent than you are portraying.

Where was the talent?  You are seriously going to use Aaron McKie as a "good player".  He was 6th man of the year backing up for George f'n Lynch. 

That team sucked.  They had Iverson, a 34 year old Mutombo and absolutely nothing.  Getting to the playoffs with that squad (only had Mutombo for 26 games) was nothing short of amazing.

Lebron's team had Big Z, who was not too far removed from an All-star appearance, and at the top of his game.  They had Larry Hughes, who although not a star, was a better player than anyone on the 76ers not named AI or Mutombo.  Same with Drew Gooden.  Not a star, but better than any option on the 76ers. 

Forgetful has repeatedly minimized LBJ on this board so I just think this is an extension of that.

My problem with Lebron is that people exaggerate his accomplishments with things like "leading the worst team ever to the finals".  I'm not minimizing what LBJ has done.  I'm putting it into a realistic perspective. 

His squad this year was favored to win every series except for Toronto.  Same in 06-07 (favored to win every series).  If the Celtics had won, would you be talking about how Tatum is the greatest ever for leading the worst team ever to the NBA finals?...No, that story line is just to Chuck Norrisfy Lebron.

They go out of their way (claiming Aaron McKie is a reason the 76ers squad was better), and make absurd claims to validate their ideals of him.  Including implying it is ok if he picks and chooses when he plays elite defense (Jordan would never have done that). 

Lebron is an all-time great.  But people craft stories of him (like Chuck Norris), to glorify him for media purposes/story lines and people keep repeating them and arguing they are true, when they make no sense. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 11:04:51 AM
Where was the talent?  You are seriously going to use Aaron McKie as a "good player".  He was 6th man of the year backing up for George f'n Lynch. 

That team sucked.  They had Iverson, a 34 year old Mutombo and absolutely nothing.  Getting to the playoffs with that squad (only had Mutombo for 26 games) was nothing short of amazing.


The 2000-01 76ers were the #1 seed in the East and won 56 games.  How can you state that team getting to the playoffs was amazing?  They ran away with the Eastern Conference. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 28, 2018, 11:09:01 AM
The 2000-01 76ers were the #1 seed in the East and won 56 games.  How can you state that team getting to the playoffs was amazing?  They ran away with the Eastern Conference.

Yes and with Aaron Mckie as their 3rd best player.  If I asked you to name 3 people from that roster, you wouldn't have been able to without looking it up.  If I showed you that roster and asked if they should make the playoffs, the answer would be no.

That is the exact reason why that was such an amazing performance by Allen Iverson.  He was that team.  He didn't even have Mutombo for most of that year, but still won, night in and night out. 

Players like Hughes/Gooden made their names without Lebron, and actually played worse when they were on his team.  Players like Mckie were literally nobodies without Iverson, Iverson made them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 11:15:11 AM
Have you been paying attention to who LBJ has been guarding this postseason? While Victor Oladipo was nearly single handedly carrying the Pacers to a victory over the Cavs LBJ was hiding on Bojan Bogdonovic. Against the Raptors he wasn’t guarding DeRozan or Lowry, he was guarding rookie OG Anunoby. This past series I can’t recall him ever guarding Jayson Tatum or Al Horford, he was guarding Marcus Morris or Jaylen Brown.

Maybe I’m wrong but my guess is Jordan steps up and guards Oladipo, DeRozan, and Tatum if he ever had this easy of a road through the East.

Basketball Reference has Kevin Love at a 68% chance to be a Hall of Famer. And if Kyrie stays healthy I’d guess he’ll have a very good shot at it someday too (currently at 37%, 18th best chance of any active player). So basically this is his second Finals appearance without at least two potential Hall of Famers next to him.

When Michael was with great players, he won it all.  When he didn't, he lost in the first round or didn't make it to the finals.  The first three years of MJ the team was bad, and got killed in the first round three straight years. I cannot even remember if we won a single game in those series, maybe one.  Then the Pistons took care of us for a number of years. 

You are saying a 37% Kyrie is same as into the Hall of Fame?  And Love not even at 70%.  That's stretching.  Not to also ignore the other players MJ had next to him in the form of shooters like Paxson, Kerr, Armstrong.  The talent levels are not close to what Lebron has had on the Cavs.

James is being asked to play 45 minutes a game, that means he is going to be smart about who he guards for both foul trouble and stamina.  When the Cavs need a defensive play in the clutch, he has found a way.  He is also having to deal with the ball in his hands, the constant hand checking and bodying up, which MJ did not have to deal with as often.  I will be buried with a MJ jersey on, but James has done more with less than MJ did and he is punished for leading poor teams to the title.  MJ never could do that.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 28, 2018, 11:15:58 AM
Have you been paying attention to who LBJ has been guarding this postseason? While Victor Oladipo was nearly single handedly carrying the Pacers to a victory over the Cavs LBJ was hiding on Bojan Bogdonovic. Against the Raptors he wasn’t guarding DeRozan or Lowry, he was guarding rookie OG Anunoby. This past series I can’t recall him ever guarding Jayson Tatum or Al Horford, he was guarding Marcus Morris or Jaylen Brown.

Maybe I’m wrong but my guess is Jordan steps up and guards Oladipo, DeRozan, and Tatum if he ever had this easy of a road through the East.

Basketball Reference has Kevin Love at a 68% chance to be a Hall of Famer. And if Kyrie stays healthy I’d guess he’ll have a very good shot at it someday too (currently at 37%, 18th best chance of any active player). So basically this is his second Finals appearance without at least two potential Hall of Famers next to him.

Which is two more Finals carrying those kinds of supporting casts than just about anybody else ever has done. Name another player who carried two different mediocre teams to the Finals, let alone doing so a decade apart, let alone with a coach who couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag, let alone in a city that had been known as Losersville. The first was when he was 22 years old; this was in his 15th season. Remarkable IMHO.

Think about the state of the games of Jordan, Bird, Magic, Mailman, etc, when they were in their 15th seasons. I know that LeBron came into the league 2-4 years earlier than those guys did, but it's not his "fault" that the norms changed. Michael had the opportunity to go pro out of high school - Dawkins and Moses did it - but he chose not.

In his 15th season, with all those years of wear and tear on his body from deep playoff runs year after year after year, LeBron played all 82 regular-season games and then went for 81-26-18 in two elimination conference-finals game while Love was out with a concussion. Last night, in his 100th game of the season, he played all 48 minutes and still had the strength at the end to carry 235-pound Marcus Morris, who was trying to tackle him, to the hoop as if Morris were a mosquito. Incredible.

I do agree with you about LeBron's defense this playoff run. He has not been asked to defend studs most of the time. But the Cavs, like most other teams, do a ton of switching. So in this series, for instance, he'll be on Tatum one possession, Horford the next, Smart the next, etc. And his help defense is good.

His man-on-man defense isn't what it once was. I remember him almost singlehandedly neutralizing Derrick Rose in every key situation in the playoffs several years ago. He couldn't defend a player like that now. Then again, Michael couldn't have defended a player like that when he was an "elder statesman," either.

Overall, I'd rate Michael the superior man defender during his career and James the more versatile defender and slightly better help defender.

Of course, Michael also never won a title without two great sidekicks (Pippen/Grant and Pippen/Rodman), good role players (Paxson, Armstrong, Kerr, Harper, etc) and one of the best coaches ever. Neither did Russell or West or Bird or Magic or Kobe or Shaq or Kareem or Wade or etc, etc, etc.

I know you love to diminish LeBron's accomplishments, but it's pretty hard work to do so. He's no worse than top-3 ever, and he's really probably no worse than 1A.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 11:17:53 AM
That team sucked.  They had Iverson, a 34 year old Mutombo and absolutely nothing.  Getting to the playoffs with that squad (only had Mutombo for 26 games) was nothing short of amazing.

Lebron's team had Big Z, who was not too far removed from an All-star appearance, and at the top of his game.  They had Larry Hughes, who although not a star, was a better player than anyone on the 76ers not named AI or Mutombo.  Same with Drew Gooden.  Not a star, but better than any option on the 76ers.


That second paragraph is laughable.  Big Z and Drew Gooden?  Cmon...

First you said that AI shouldered it alone.  Then when it was pointed out that the defensive player of the year and All NBA Second team was also on that team, you shifted the goalposts and included Dikembe's age. (That matters how?)

And 2000-01 Aaron McKie is better than anyone on this Cavs' roster outside of James and Love. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 11:22:52 AM
Yes and with Aaron Mckie as their 3rd best player.  If I asked you to name 3 people from that roster, you wouldn't have been able to without looking it up.  If I showed you that roster and asked if they should make the playoffs, the answer would be no.

That is the exact reason why that was such an amazing performance by Allen Iverson.  He was that team.  He didn't even have Mutombo for most of that year, but still won, night in and night out. 

Players like Hughes/Gooden made their names without Lebron, and actually played worse when they were on his team.  Players like Mckie were literally nobodies without Iverson, Iverson made them.

I can't remember players from last year, so that isn't going to work for me.   :)

Didn't that team have Kukoc before he was traded or was that a different year?  If I recall they were a playoff team a few years prior to that year, so to suggest them making the playoffs shouldn't have happened and they did it multiple years in a row is stretching credibility.  Half the conference makes the playoffs. 

They were not a great team, maybe not even a good team, but not better than the Cavs that James has taken to the to the Finals.

This site ranks them 2nd worst to go to the finals.  Worst, the '07 Cleveland Cavs.   https://www.thesportster.com/basketball/top-15-worst-teams-to-appear-in-the-nba-finals/

This site ranks the 76ers as the 10th worst ever to make the Finals  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2775462-where-would-lebrons-cavs-rank-among-worst-modern-nba-finals-teams#slide2
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 11:25:25 AM
Yes and with Aaron Mckie as their 3rd best player.  If I asked you to name 3 people from that roster, you wouldn't have been able to without looking it up.  If I showed you that roster and asked if they should make the playoffs, the answer would be no.


Didn't even make the 50 worst teams ever to make the playoffs. 

http://www.landofbasketball.com/statistics/worst_to_make_playoffs.htm


When did Larry Hughes make a name for himself?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 11:25:36 AM
Yes and with Aaron Mckie as their 3rd best player.  If I asked you to name 3 people from that roster, you wouldn't have been able to without looking it up.  If I showed you that roster and asked if they should make the playoffs, the answer would be no.

That is the exact reason why that was such an amazing performance by Allen Iverson.  He was that team.  He didn't even have Mutombo for most of that year, but still won, night in and night out. 

Players like Hughes/Gooden made their names without Lebron, and actually played worse when they were on his team.  Players like Mckie were literally nobodies without Iverson, Iverson made them.


What?  Larry Hughes was a good player but "made a name for himself?"  He made zero all star teams and only finished in the top ten of any statstical category once.  NBA Reference Similarity Players?  Jon Berry and Brevin Knight.  Wonderful.

Drew Gooden was a decent player and good locker room guy.  Similarity players?  Anderson Varejo and Ed Pinckney. 

Pretty much slightly above average players who filled up a roster. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 28, 2018, 11:36:03 AM

That second paragraph is laughable.  Big Z and Drew Gooden?  Cmon...

First you said that AI shouldered it alone.  Then when it was pointed out that the defensive player of the year and All NBA Second team was also on that team, you shifted the goalposts and included Dikembe's age. (That matters how?)

And 2000-01 Aaron McKie is better than anyone on this Cavs' roster outside of James and Love.

You're a stats guy.  Look up stats on Big Z and Drew Gooden and their careers.

And I didn't shift the goalposts.  I was well aware of Mutumbo being on the team, but view him as a better version of Big Z in their respective points in their careers.  Mutumbo is the only player any rational human would trade for on those two rosters. 

And the bolded is an example of Lebron supporters going delusional to Chuck Norrisfy Lebron.  JR Smith, Kyle Korver and George Hill are all substantially better than Aaron Mckie.  All those 3 established themselves as good players on multiple teams.  Hell, Jordan Clarkson is statistically better than McKie.  Jeff Green is even comparable.

McKie had a couple mediocre seasons taking the ball from AI.  The fact that this is even a discussion is my biggest complaint against his proponents.  They exaggerate everything and make absurd statements to glorify him.  It isn't necessary.  He's an all-time grade without the exaggerations.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on May 28, 2018, 11:41:09 AM
For the Jordan camp - I believe the East was a tougher conference during Jordan's years. Pistons, Knicks, Supersonics, etc.

Also, someone mentioned LBJ not having played with any HOFers... isn't Wade a HOF?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 11:46:37 AM
You're a stats guy.  Look up stats on Big Z and Drew Gooden and their careers.

And I didn't shift the goalposts.  I was well aware of Mutumbo being on the team, but view him as a better version of Big Z in their respective points in their careers.  Mutumbo is the only player any rational human would trade for on those two rosters. 

And the bolded is an example of Lebron supporters going delusional to Chuck Norrisfy Lebron.  JR Smith, Kyle Korver and George Hill are all substantially better than Aaron Mckie.  All those 3 established themselves as good players on multiple teams.  Hell, Jordan Clarkson is statistically better than McKie.  Jeff Green is even comparable.

McKie had a couple mediocre seasons taking the ball from AI.  The fact that this is even a discussion is my biggest complaint against his proponents.  They exaggerate everything and make absurd statements to glorify him.  It isn't necessary.  He's an all-time grade without the exaggerations.


You claim I'm exaggerating yet you think that 2000-01 Big Z was somewhat comparable to Dikembe.   :o

And no, Korver this year isn't better than '01 McKie.  Neither is Hill.  Better careers?  No doubt. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on May 28, 2018, 11:53:13 AM
Easily settled here:

www.mjvslebron.net
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBBau on May 28, 2018, 11:53:53 AM

When did Larry Hughes make a name for himself?

When he dropped 40 on Marquette  ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 28, 2018, 11:55:00 AM

What?  Larry Hughes was a good player but "made a name for himself?"  He made zero all star teams and only finished in the top ten of any statstical category once.  NBA Reference Similarity Players?  Jon Berry and Brevin Knight.  Wonderful.

Drew Gooden was a decent player and good locker room guy.  Similarity players?  Anderson Varejo and Ed Pinckney. 

Pretty much slightly above average players who filled up a roster.

I didn't say they were all-stars.  We're comparing them to Aaron F'n Mckie.

Hughes made NBA all-defense team, led the NBA in steals, had multiple seasons averaging over 20 pts per game. 

McKie isn't even an average player.  His claim to fame is he played with AI.


You claim I'm exaggerating yet you think that 2000-01 Big Z was somewhat comparable to Dikembe.   :o

And no, Korver this year isn't better than '01 McKie.  Neither is Hill.  Better careers?  No doubt. 

Didn't say that.  You are making crap up now. 

I said Mutumbo was a better version of Big Z. 

But I'm done with this discussion. 

In my opinion, you've proven my point for me.  A Lebron champion will even go to the point of arguing that Aaron McKie is a better player than Korver, Hill, Hughes etc., to maintain a narrative of Lebron leading a band of misfits to the finals, instead of just being happy with him being one of the best ever, because his game says so.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 12:07:12 PM
I didn't say they were all-stars.  We're comparing them to Aaron F'n Mckie.

You might be.  I am not.  Never made that claim. 


In my opinion, you've proven my point for me.  A Lebron champion will even go to the point of arguing that Aaron McKie is a better player than Korver, Hill, Hughes etc., to maintain a narrative of Lebron leading a band of misfits to the finals, instead of just being happy with him being one of the best ever, because his game says so.

Look up Korver and Hill statistically *this year* and compare to 2000-01 McKie.  You will see, that while both clearly have had better careers, neither has had better seasons.  Korver by this point is a 36 year old one trick pony.  Hill has been a bit player on this team since the trade.  McKie was a 30+ MPG player.

And I actually think this is another discussion, along with that famously hilarious "Larry Bird is better than LBJ" opinion, that proves one thing you said about yourself.

I would never argue that I am one of the most knowledgeable posters regarding the NBA. 

In fact, I don't even think I'd venture to argue that I am even knowledgeable. 

Yep.  No argument here.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 28, 2018, 12:10:50 PM
Excellent points, Sultan.

Look at LeBron's first Finals team, for example. That Iverson team was better.

He didn't have to go through a healthy DWade that year though. Never would have made that first appearance had Wade not separated his shoulder. Truly a tragedy
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 12:12:07 PM
When Michael was with great players, he won it all.  When he didn't, he lost in the first round or didn't make it to the finals.  The first three years of MJ the team was bad, and got killed in the first round three straight years. I cannot even remember if we won a single game in those series, maybe one.  Then the Pistons took care of us for a number of years. 

You are saying a 37% Kyrie is same as into the Hall of Fame?  And Love not even at 70%.  That's stretching.  Not to also ignore the other players MJ had next to him in the form of shooters like Paxson, Kerr, Armstrong.  The talent levels are not close to what Lebron has had on the Cavs.

James is being asked to play 45 minutes a game, that means he is going to be smart about who he guards for both foul trouble and stamina.  When the Cavs need a defensive play in the clutch, he has found a way.  He is also having to deal with the ball in his hands, the constant hand checking and bodying up, which MJ did not have to deal with as often.  I will be buried with a MJ jersey on, but James has done more with less than MJ did and he is punished for leading poor teams to the title.  MJ never could do that.

Considering Kyrie Irving just turned 26 years old and these probabilities go up year by year, yes, I think it's pretty safe to say that as long as Kyrie doesn't have some kind of career threatening injury before he's out of his prime he will be a Hall of Famer.  And yes Love at nearly 70% is a good bet.  He has the 14th highest HOF probability of any active player, and 11 of the players ahead of him are at 95% or above.  I'm fairly confident that there will be more than 3 players beyond the 11 that are virtual locks that get into the HOF.

But if we want to play it by who is currently literally in the HOF then sure, Rodman and Pippen are Hall of Famers and Love and Kyrie are not.  You know who else isn't?  LeBron.  So I guess the debate is over.  MJ is a Hall of Famer, LeBron isn't, if that's how we want to play that argument.

I'm sure MJ's Bulls in the early years would've had a horrific time trying to navigate through the gauntlet that is a Pacers team that isn't very good, a Raptors team full of mental midgets, and a Celtics team without their two best players.

LBJ is 3-4 in NBA Finals with 2+ (given that he had more than 2 future HOFers with him on the Heat...) HOFers playing alongside him.  MJ was 6-0.  But sure, let's give LBJ extra points for getting through the East more often than MJ did.  Because LBJ's East is close to as good as it was when MJ was going through it, I guess.

PS Have you ever heard of "The Jordan Rules?"
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 28, 2018, 12:15:03 PM
Lebron is an all-time great.  But people craft stories of him (like Chuck Norris), to glorify him for media purposes/story lines and people keep repeating them and arguing they are true, when they make no sense.

This is it for me exactly
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 12:31:39 PM
LeBron has 18 NBA Finals wins in 8 NBA Finals appearances so far.  I'll give him 19 NBA Finals wins in 9 NBA Finals appearances since a gentleman's sweep in this year's NBA Finals might be the most predictable result in any sporting event ever.

MJ had 24 NBA Finals wins in 6 NBA Finals appearances.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 28, 2018, 12:38:03 PM
LeBron has 18 NBA Finals wins in 8 NBA Finals appearances so far.  I'll give him 19 NBA Finals wins in 9 NBA Finals appearances since a gentleman's sweep in this year's NBA Finals might be the most predictable result in any sporting event ever.

MJ had 24 NBA Finals wins in 6 NBA Finals appearances.

Why couldn't MJ get to more than 6 finals? :-\
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 12:43:15 PM
Why couldn't MJ get to more than 6 finals? :-\


Mostly because it took the Bulls awhile to build a decent team around him and then had to overcome the Pistons.  He was 27 before he first got to the Finals.

And of course he took two years off as well.

Look there is no doubt the East was significant better then.  The Knicks teams the Bulls had to get through were arguably the second best teams in the League.  And those Pistons teams weren't slouches either.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 01:00:41 PM
Why couldn't MJ get to more than 6 finals? :-\

Because the best player he was facing in the entire path to the Finals wasn’t DeMar DeRozan.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 01:20:08 PM
For the Jordan camp - I believe the East was a tougher conference during Jordan's years. Pistons, Knicks, Supersonics, etc.

Also, someone mentioned LBJ not having played with any HOFers... isn't Wade a HOF?

I said James as a Cav.  No HOFers.  None. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 01:20:51 PM
I said James as a Cav.  No HOFers.  None.

If you ignore the 2 that will likely be HOFers you’re right, none.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 01:26:27 PM


And the bolded is an example of Lebron supporters going delusional to Chuck Norrisfy Lebron.  JR Smith, Kyle Korver and George Hill are all substantially better than Aaron Mckie.  All those 3 established themselves as good players on multiple teams.  Hell, Jordan Clarkson is statistically better than McKie.  Jeff Green is even comparable.


37 year old Kyle Korver, a man that isn't even a double digit avg scorer and is the epitome of avg, not good.  Was an all star one year in his entire career.  JR Smith, well he was the CBA scoring champion and never an all-star in the NBA.  George Hill, never a NBA all star.

Those three guys, one all-star season COMBINED, nothing note worthy.  Aaron McKie at least was the NBA 6th man of the year. 

Substantially better than Aaron McKie?  How?  None of these four guys are very good, the difference is that Lebron has to carry three of their jock straps. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 01:34:37 PM
Considering Kyrie Irving just turned 26 years old and these probabilities go up year by year, yes, I think it's pretty safe to say that as long as Kyrie doesn't have some kind of career threatening injury before he's out of his prime he will be a Hall of Famer.  And yes Love at nearly 70% is a good bet.  He has the 14th highest HOF probability of any active player, and 11 of the players ahead of him are at 95% or above.  I'm fairly confident that there will be more than 3 players beyond the 11 that are virtual locks that get into the HOF.

But if we want to play it by who is currently literally in the HOF then sure, Rodman and Pippen are Hall of Famers and Love and Kyrie are not.  You know who else isn't?  LeBron.  So I guess the debate is over.  MJ is a Hall of Famer, LeBron isn't, if that's how we want to play that argument.

I'm sure MJ's Bulls in the early years would've had a horrific time trying to navigate through the gauntlet that is a Pacers team that isn't very good, a Raptors team full of mental midgets, and a Celtics team without their two best players.

LBJ is 3-4 in NBA Finals with 2+ (given that he had more than 2 future HOFers with him on the Heat...) HOFers playing alongside him.  MJ was 6-0.  But sure, let's give LBJ extra points for getting through the East more often than MJ did.  Because LBJ's East is close to as good as it was when MJ was going through it, I guess.

PS Have you ever heard of "The Jordan Rules?"

There is no certainty Love or Irving make the HOF.  There is absolute certainty Lebron does.  There was absolute certainty Pippen and Rodman would, and did.

Jordan on this Cavs team gets knocked out at least one series ago.  Lebron on those Bulls teams also goes 6-0.  That's the difference.

Bulls had Kukoc, Kerr, Harper, even Longley is better than the stiffs on the Cavs.  Horace Grant, BJ, all better players than what the Cavs have.  It isn't just Rodman and Pippen, they were much deeper than anything the Cavs have. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 28, 2018, 01:44:06 PM
There is no certainty Love or Irving make the HOF.  There is absolute certainty Lebron does.  There was absolute certainty Pippen and Rodman would, and did.

Jordan on this Cavs team gets knocked out at least one series ago.  Lebron on those Bulls teams also goes 6-0.  That's the difference.

Bulls had Kukoc, Kerr, Harper, even Longley is better than the stiffs on the Cavs.  Horace Grant, BJ, all better players than what the Cavs have.  It isn't just Rodman and Pippen, they were much deeper than anything the Cavs have.

Just no.  The three teams the Cavs had to face were garbage compared to what Jordan had to go through in the East.

You also can't definitively state that LeBron would have gone 6-0 on those Bulls teams. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 01:47:55 PM
LeBron has 18 NBA Finals wins in 8 NBA Finals appearances so far.  I'll give him 19 NBA Finals wins in 9 NBA Finals appearances since a gentleman's sweep in this year's NBA Finals might be the most predictable result in any sporting event ever.

MJ had 24 NBA Finals wins in 6 NBA Finals appearances.

You are admitting in your own response how much more dominant the west is, yet even Lebron found a way to beat the invincible Warriors one year.

I didn't realize the NBA was 1 player against 1 player. 

Let's compare rosters and NBA finals opponents. 

Pippen (NBA HOF), Rodman (NBA HOF), Kukoc (FIBA HOF, spent first 8 years of career internationally), Longley, Armstrong, Harper, Kerr, Grant, Paxson, King, Caffey.  Even the scrubs were good scrubs.

James' Cavs teams there is no comparison how lacking in talent compared to what Michael had. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 01:48:29 PM
If you ignore the 2 that will likely be HOFers you’re right, none.

37% is likely?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 01:50:30 PM
Just no.  The three teams the Cavs had to face were garbage compared to what Jordan had to go through in the East.

You also can't definitively state that LeBron would have gone 6-0 on those Bulls teams.

With the other options Lebron would have on those teams, absolute certainty. This is the same Lebron that beat the Golden State Warriors a few years ago.  Are you going to tell me the Warriors were trash? 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 28, 2018, 02:03:46 PM
LeBron has 18 NBA Finals wins in 8 NBA Finals appearances so far.  I'll give him 19 NBA Finals wins in 9 NBA Finals appearances since a gentleman's sweep in this year's NBA Finals might be the most predictable result in any sporting event ever.

MJ had 24 NBA Finals wins in 6 NBA Finals appearances.

This is a fair argument, and the best in favor of Michael. The man won 6 titles. Period. He was 6-for-6. And he never even faced a Game 7 in any of the Finals. Those are the facts and only a fool would argue against them.

He also faced difficult competition in each of his Finals - Drexler & Co. in Portland; Charles & Co. in Phx; Magic & Co. in LA; Kemp & Payton in Seattle; Stockton & Malone in Utah (x2). And that doesn't even count all the good Knicks, Pacers, Heat and Magic teams he had to beat in the East to get to the Finals.

That's top-notch competition, and MJ beat them all. But of course, he did beat them with the help of arguably the greatest "sidekick" in NBA history, arguably the best pound-for-pound rebounder/defender in NBA history and arguably the greatest coach in NBA history. Those also are facts.

Even with what I just said in my preceding paragraph, Michael deserves all the accolades he gets. And as much as I have made my admiration about LeBron's basketball accomplishments known, I have not once said he was better than Michael. Maybe Son of Chicos has, but I haven't.

But I would forcefully argue against any claim for second-best for anybody not named LeBron. He  is an absolute freak, and a highly accomplished freak at that. And, as I said in another post, he is nowhere near finished. He probably will be the best player in the world for 3-4-5 more years. Another couple of titles, combined with the career numbers he will have, and his case for GOAT will be bolstered considerably.

And although the East has been relatively weak, let's not label the teams LeBron has faced in the Finals as weak. Some pretty intelligent observers have called the Warriors one of the best teams ever. The Spurs were an all-time great team. OKC had three future HoFers (and Lazar!). (Dallas wasn't a great team, though, and LeBron's poor play contributed to the loss.)

wades, I might argue that your extreme disdain for James colors your viewpoint of his basktball accomplishments. Meanwhile, I greatly admire both James and Jordan, and I consider myself pretty damn objective. But you might argue differently about that, and enough of all of this is subjective enough to make the debates fun and legit.

Why couldn't MJ get to more than 6 finals? :-\

A few reasons.

1. Michael quit in his prime to go play baseball. The Bulls were obviously the best team still and almost surely would have returned to the Finals. Heck, they almost got back in '94 without him.

2. The East was strong during Jordan's first several years in the league, first with the Celtics and later with the Pistons. Michael was a famously poor team player, and his teammates/coaches weren't good enough to convince him to be anything but selfish.

3. Michael quit a championship-caliber team again after his second threepeat. Reinsdorf admittedly didn't want to pay the luxury tax, which would have been necessary to keep the championship team together; and Krause, who was incredibly jealous and resentful of Jordan, convinced Reinsdorf that he could quickly rebuild the Bulls into a title team. The Bulls have been losers ever since.

Michael shoulders some of the blame, because he kept saying he'd quit because Jackson wasn't being retained ... but I know for a fact that he would have stayed had Reinsdorf/Krause kept the team together and hired Paxson as Phil's replacement.

So Jordan's first retirement cost him probably 2 Finals appearances (and likely titles), his second retirement cost him a great shot at another couple of appearances (and maybe another title or two), and the combination of his selfish play and his lack of support early in his career cost him too.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 28, 2018, 02:04:05 PM
With the other options Lebron would have on those teams, absolute certainty. This is the same Lebron that beat the Golden State Warriors a few years ago.  Are you going to tell me the Warriors were trash?

I said the teams LeBron faced in the East this season were trash compared to the team's Jordan's Bulls had to go through.  I'm not sure how you made the leap in logic that I said the Warriors were trash.

And no, it's not an absolute certainty that those Bulls teams with James instead of MJ would have gone 6-0.  A Pippen/James combo would not have been as effective as a Pippen/Jordan combo. 

And let's not pretend Jordan was just a scorer in the finals. 

And while I am not a James fan I think he's the 2nd best to play the game. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 28, 2018, 02:08:21 PM
I said the teams LeBron faced in the East this season were trash compared to the team's Jordan's Bulls had to go through.  I'm not sure how you made the leap in logic that I said the Warriors were trash.

And no, it's not an absolute certainty that those Bulls teams with James instead of MJ would have gone 6-0.  A Pippen/James combo would not have been as effective as a Pippen/Jordan combo. 

And let's not pretend Jordan was just a scorer in the finals. 

And while I am not a James fan I think he's the 2nd best to play the game. 

This was a classic chicos ploy and apparently is favored by Son of Chicos, too.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 02:09:41 PM
37% is likely?

When you’re 26 years old, yes. He’s well on his way. It’s not that hard to follow.

I’ll put some money on this. O/U 0.5 HOFers playing alongside LeBron in his time with Cleveland. Charity of the winner’s choice. Name your price, I’m in.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 28, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
For the Jordan camp - I believe the East was a tougher conference during Jordan's years. Pistons, Knicks, Supersonics, etc.

Also, someone mentioned LBJ not having played with any HOFers... isn't Wade a HOF?

Bosh probably will be as well.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 28, 2018, 02:30:37 PM

Mostly because it took the Bulls awhile to build a decent team around him and then had to overcome the Pistons.  He was 27 before he first got to the Finals.

And of course he took two years off as well.

Look there is no doubt the East was significant better then.  The Knicks teams the Bulls had to get through were arguably the second best teams in the League.  And those Pistons teams weren't slouches either.

I wasn't being serious.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on May 28, 2018, 02:37:43 PM
I wasn't being serious.

Dang ... I answered your question seriously too. I must be slipping. Oh well ... gave y'all a good history lesson anyway.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 04:03:39 PM
I said the teams LeBron faced in the East this season were trash compared to the team's Jordan's Bulls had to go through.  I'm not sure how you made the leap in logic that I said the Warriors were trash.

And no, it's not an absolute certainty that those Bulls teams with James instead of MJ would have gone 6-0.  A Pippen/James combo would not have been as effective as a Pippen/Jordan combo. 

And let's not pretend Jordan was just a scorer in the finals. 

And while I am not a James fan I think he's the 2nd best to play the game.

Because if you are going to argue they only got to the Finals because the east was trash, you can't ignore the fact they also beat Golden State regardless of what was in the east.

James having the flexibility of actually having players that can hit shots and two HOFers next to him would have gone 6-0. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 04:06:38 PM
When you’re 26 years old, yes. He’s well on his way. It’s not that hard to follow.

I’ll put some money on this. O/U 0.5 HOFers playing alongside LeBron in his time with Cleveland. Charity of the winner’s choice. Name your price, I’m in.

Care to share your source that is predicting probability of making the hall of fame?  We know Jordan played with three Hall of Famers in Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc.  James played with one sure fire HOFer, in Wade but zero sure fired HOFers on the Cavs.

I'm not much of a betting man, but more importantly I would rather ask a straight forward question.  Do you feel the Cavs talent around James that made the Finals is equal to, worse, or better than the Bull talent that MJ had?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 28, 2018, 04:17:12 PM
Dang ... I answered your question seriously too. I must be slipping. Oh well ... gave y'all a good history lesson anyway.

Great post though. Didn't mean to make you work so hard  ;D
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 04:22:15 PM
Because if you are going to argue they only got to the Finals because the east was trash, you can't ignore the fact they also beat Golden State regardless of what was in the east.

James having the flexibility of actually having players that can hit shots and two HOFers next to him would have gone 6-0.

So you’re going to ignore that James was 2-2 when he was in Miami with Wade, Bosh, and Allen? Okay I guess.

Wade, Bosh, Allen. All 3 of them have between a 99% and 100% chance to be elected to the HOF. He was 2-2. But he for sure would’ve been 6-0 with the worse HOFers Jordan played with. Sure I’ll buy it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 04:25:05 PM
Care to share your source that is predicting probability of making the hall of fame?  We know Jordan played with three Hall of Famers in Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc.  James played with one sure fire HOFer, in Wade but zero sure fired HOFers on the Cavs.

I'm not much of a betting man, but more importantly I would rather ask a straight forward question.  Do you feel the Cavs talent around James that made the Finals is equal to, worse, or better than the Bull talent that MJ had?

I already told you. Basketball Reference is my source.

You’re changing your argument. You stated LBJ has played with 0 Hall of Famers in his time in Cleveland. You’re wrong, and now you’re changing your argument. No problem if you aren’t a betting man. But I’ll guarantee at least 1 of Love/Irving will be in the HOF, and I’d put my money on both.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: reinko on May 28, 2018, 04:32:52 PM
Good unnatural carnal knowledgein lord, reading this crap is why Skip, Whitlock, and Stephen A make so much money.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 28, 2018, 04:35:11 PM
You are admitting in your own response how much more dominant the west is, yet even Lebron found a way to beat the invincible Warriors one year.

And don’t forget it’s quite possible the Cavs would have beat them in that first match up if Love and Irving hadn’t been injured.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 28, 2018, 04:43:33 PM
This is a fair argument, and the best in favor of Michael. The man won 6 titles. Period. He was 6-for-6. And he never even faced a Game 7 in any of the Finals. Those are the facts and only a fool would argue against them.

He also faced difficult competition in each of his Finals - Drexler & Co. in Portland; Charles & Co. in Phx; Magic & Co. in LA; Kemp & Payton in Seattle; Stockton & Malone in Utah (x2). And that doesn't even count all the good Knicks, Pacers, Heat and Magic teams he had to beat in the East to get to the Finals.

That's top-notch competition, and MJ beat them all. But of course, he did beat them with the help of arguably the greatest "sidekick" in NBA history, arguably the best pound-for-pound rebounder/defender in NBA history and arguably the greatest coach in NBA history. Those also are facts.

Even with what I just said in my preceding paragraph, Michael deserves all the accolades he gets. And as much as I have made my admiration about LeBron's basketball accomplishments known, I have not once said he was better than Michael. Maybe Son of Chicos has, but I haven't.

But I would forcefully argue against any claim for second-best for anybody not named LeBron. He  is an absolute freak, and a highly accomplished freak at that. And, as I said in another post, he is nowhere near finished. He probably will be the best player in the world for 3-4-5 more years. Another couple of titles, combined with the career numbers he will have, and his case for GOAT will be bolstered considerably.

And although the East has been relatively weak, let's not label the teams LeBron has faced in the Finals as weak. Some pretty intelligent observers have called the Warriors one of the best teams ever. The Spurs were an all-time great team. OKC had three future HoFers (and Lazar!). (Dallas wasn't a great team, though, and LeBron's poor play contributed to the loss.)

wades, I might argue that your extreme disdain for James colors your viewpoint of his basktball accomplishments. Meanwhile, I greatly admire both James and Jordan, and I consider myself pretty damn objective. But you might argue differently about that, and enough of all of this is subjective enough to make the debates fun and legit.

A few reasons.

1. Michael quit in his prime to go play baseball. The Bulls were obviously the best team still and almost surely would have returned to the Finals. Heck, they almost got back in '94 without him.

2. The East was strong during Jordan's first several years in the league, first with the Celtics and later with the Pistons. Michael was a famously poor team player, and his teammates/coaches weren't good enough to convince him to be anything but selfish.

3. Michael quit a championship-caliber team again after his second threepeat. Reinsdorf admittedly didn't want to pay the luxury tax, which would have been necessary to keep the championship team together; and Krause, who was incredibly jealous and resentful of Jordan, convinced Reinsdorf that he could quickly rebuild the Bulls into a title team. The Bulls have been losers ever since.

Michael shoulders some of the blame, because he kept saying he'd quit because Jackson wasn't being retained ... but I know for a fact that he would have stayed had Reinsdorf/Krause kept the team together and hired Paxson as Phil's replacement.

So Jordan's first retirement cost him probably 2 Finals appearances (and likely titles), his second retirement cost him a great shot at another couple of appearances (and maybe another title or two), and the combination of his selfish play and his lack of support early in his career cost him too.

Overall, a really good post that articulated a lot of what I feel too.

One thing that I’ve always felt goes into the “LeBron” column of this debate is how the teams did after they left. Chicago was still a very formidable team during MJ’s hiatus. The Cavs and the Heat (and, I fear, next years Cavs) were awful without LBJ.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
And don’t forget it’s quite possible the Cavs would have beat them in that first match up if Love and Irving hadn’t been injured.

Just as possible as if the Warriors win the next year if they don’t lose Bogut.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 28, 2018, 05:14:33 PM
Just as possible as if the Warriors win the next year if they don’t lose Bogut.

Absolutely.

Although losing Bogut isn’t the same as losing two sure-fire HOFers.  ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 28, 2018, 06:05:12 PM
Because if you are going to argue they only got to the Finals because the east was trash, you can't ignore the fact they also beat Golden State regardless of what was in the east.

James having the flexibility of actually having players that can hit shots and two HOFers next to him would have gone 6-0.

You're struggling with comprehension.  I never said the East was trash each and every year LBJ went to the finals.  I said the East was trash THIS year.

Disagree.  It's possible and maybe even likely but when you say it's an "absolute certainty" you're just wrong.  It's like if I said if you replaced James with Jordan on each of his finals teams that it's an absolute certainty they would have won more than 3.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 28, 2018, 06:07:41 PM
Care to share your source that is predicting probability of making the hall of fame?  We know Jordan played with three Hall of Famers in Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc.  James played with one sure fire HOFer, in Wade but zero sure fired HOFers on the Cavs.

I'm not much of a betting man, but more importantly I would rather ask a straight forward question.  Do you feel the Cavs talent around James that made the Finals is equal to, worse, or better than the Bull talent that MJ had?

Kukoc is in the Hall of Fame?  You're counting the FIBA Hall of Fame?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Goose on May 28, 2018, 06:59:49 PM
MU82

Jordan did not quit during his Bull tenure. He served his suspension playing baseball. That said, the best I ever saw play, and I have seen every great over the last 45 years.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 07:29:06 PM
Kukoc is in the Hall of Fame?  You're counting the FIBA Hall of Fame?

Yes, the same Hall of Fame Jordan is also a member of.  Kukoc is a candidate for the NBA HOF, too.  Unfortunately he played his first 8 years of professional ball overseas, and that will hurt him for his candidacy in the NBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
I already told you. Basketball Reference is my source.

You’re changing your argument. You stated LBJ has played with 0 Hall of Famers in his time in Cleveland. You’re wrong, and now you’re changing your argument. No problem if you aren’t a betting man. But I’ll guarantee at least 1 of Love/Irving will be in the HOF, and I’d put my money on both.

Appreciate the source.  A few other sources aren't so high on either of them.  Ultimately time will tell. 

How can you say I am wrong when on one out there of any repute is saying these guys are slam dunks for the HOF?  I might be wrong, but we don't know this.

I'm not changing the argument, can you answer the question?  Who had better supporting casts to play with? The NBA is not a 1 on 1 league, there are still 12 men per team and five starters.  MJ had an outstanding cast, James with the CAVS has not. 

EDIT:

Teammates

Michael Jordan
All NBA
- Scottie Pippen ('92) 2nd
- Scottie Pippen ('93) 3rd
- Scottie Pippen ('95) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('96) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('97) 2nd
- Scottie Pippen ('98) 3rd
  All Defensive
- Scottie Pippen ('92) 2nd
- Scottie Pippen ('93) 1st
- Horace Grant ('93) 2nd
- Scottie Pippen ('95) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('96) 1st
- Dennis Rodman ('96) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('97) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('98) 1st


LeBron James
All NBA
- Dwyane Wade ('11) 2nd
- Dwyane Wade ('12) 3rd
- Dwyane Wade ('13) 2nd
- Kyrie Irving ('15) 2nd

  All Defensive
- Anderson Varejao ('10) 2nd
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 28, 2018, 07:39:16 PM
So you’re going to ignore that James was 2-2 when he was in Miami with Wade, Bosh, and Allen? Okay I guess.

Wade, Bosh, Allen. All 3 of them have between a 99% and 100% chance to be elected to the HOF. He was 2-2. But he for sure would’ve been 6-0 with the worse HOFers Jordan played with. Sure I’ll buy it.


At least one of the two losses was against a better team than Jordan ever had to face in the Finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 07:43:32 PM
Appreciate the source.  A few other sources aren't so high on either of them.  Ultimately time will tell. 

How can you say I am wrong when on one out there of any repute is saying these guys are slam dunks for the HOF?  I might be wrong, but we don't know this.

I'm not changing the argument, can you answer the question?  Who had better supporting casts to play with? The NBA is not a 1 on 1 league, there are still 12 men per team and five starters.  MJ had an outstanding cast, James with the CAVS has not.

Right.  Time will tell.  So sure right now you're correct, "I said James as a Cav.  No HOFers.  None."  You're right.

LeBron James is not a Hall of Famer right now either.  MJ is.

So let me just clarify something here, when you say that if MJ had 2 Hall of Famers (okay 3, Toni Kucoc is in a basketball HOF somewhere, lol.  Can we count their college HOFs?  I bet every Cav member is in their high school HOF, so he's playing with 12 HOFers I guess) so if you flop LBJ in for MJ on those Bulls teams they definitely go 6-0 because in his time with the Cavs he's had less support and he's gone 1-3 in NBA Finals with the Cavs?  So his added supporting cast he would be getting with the Bulls means there's no chance he loses any of those Titles MJ won because LBJ couldn't possibly lose any NBA Titles when he'd have 3 (lol) HOFers around him?  And we need to ignore the fact that, well, he did, indeed, have 3 HOFers around him in Miami and went 2-2 in NBA Finals because...?  Oh that's right, because Wade, Allen, and Bosh are not in the HOF.  They aren't HOFers.  Right...  ::)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 07:59:33 PM

At least one of the two losses was against a better team than Jordan ever had to face in the Finals.

If you add MJ to the Heat and take LBJ off that team the Heat sweep and I'm not sure a single game is even close in that series.  The Mavs' second best player in that NBA Finals was Jason Freaking Terry.  They were not a good basketball team, and they were playing a team with 3 of the top 10 players in the NBA at the time.  Awful.

The 1998 Jazz had the same record as the 2014 Spurs did.  The 1997 Jazz had a better record than the 2014 Spurs.  The 1996 SuperSonics had a better record than the 2014 Spurs.  The 1993 Suns had the same record as the 2014 Spurs did.  The 1992 Blazers had a worse record than the 2014 Spurs did.  The 1991 Lakers had a worse record than the 2014 Spurs did.

Give me a 26 year old Shawn Kemp, 27 year old Gary Payton, 33 year old Detlef Schrempf, 29 year old Hersey Hawkins, and 34 year old Sam Perkins over a 31 year old Tony Parker, 37 year old Tim Duncan, 22 year old Kawhi Leonard, 36 year old Manu Ginobli, and 27 year old Marco Belinelli.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on May 28, 2018, 08:15:38 PM
Appreciate the source.  A few other sources aren't so high on either of them.  Ultimately time will tell. 

How can you say I am wrong when on one out there of any repute is saying these guys are slam dunks for the HOF?  I might be wrong, but we don't know this.

I'm not changing the argument, can you answer the question?  Who had better supporting casts to play with? The NBA is not a 1 on 1 league, there are still 12 men per team and five starters.  MJ had an outstanding cast, James with the CAVS has not. 

EDIT:

Teammates

Michael Jordan
All NBA
- Scottie Pippen ('92) 2nd
- Scottie Pippen ('93) 3rd
- Scottie Pippen ('95) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('96) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('97) 2nd
- Scottie Pippen ('98) 3rd
  All Defensive
- Scottie Pippen ('92) 2nd
- Scottie Pippen ('93) 1st
- Horace Grant ('93) 2nd
- Scottie Pippen ('95) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('96) 1st
- Dennis Rodman ('96) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('97) 1st
- Scottie Pippen ('98) 1st


LeBron James
All NBA
- Dwyane Wade ('11) 2nd
- Dwyane Wade ('12) 3rd
- Dwyane Wade ('13) 2nd
- Kyrie Irving ('15) 2nd

  All Defensive
- Anderson Varejao ('10) 2nd


Doesn't this just indicate that MJ made his teammates better vs LBJ?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on May 28, 2018, 08:16:31 PM
Does the impact of how the games are reffed and changes in NBA rules weigh in to anyone's decision on LBJ vs MJ?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on May 28, 2018, 08:42:41 PM
I was high on him on draft night and upset when the Bulls traded him, but Jordan Bell has been awful in this series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 28, 2018, 08:55:34 PM
Does the impact of how the games are reffed and changes in NBA rules weigh in to anyone's decision on LBJ vs MJ?

Funny, I was gonna post on this exact thing earlier. Rule changes helped both guys - offenses in general.

Compare that to specific rule changes meant to control Wilt and Kareem.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on May 28, 2018, 09:01:04 PM
Officiating is different.  The number of 3 point shooters on the floor at any given time, as well as their efficiency is another huge difference from 20-25 years ago.   Protecting the paint, physical play, and help defense are dramatically different today.  You can't help off of the corner shooter.   You can't have a physical, slow big who clogs the paint.  Speed, shooting, ability to switch on defense and guard multiple positions.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on May 28, 2018, 09:10:13 PM
Durant has about as much interest in getting after a loose ball or rebound tonight as I do in getting up for work tomorrow.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on May 28, 2018, 09:26:28 PM
trying to figure which is more obnoxious-the vikings gjallarhorn(yes that's what they call that piece of...) or the rockets incessant "let's go rockets" organ sound every time they have the ball, or so it seems
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 09:38:02 PM
For two teams as talented and well constructed as these two are, this is some absolutely garbage basketball. So many missed shots, bad decisions/turnovers, mishandled balls, missed defensive assignments, etc.

And I think the reffing has been awful from the jump, both ways.

PS can the Warriors please make Harden finish with his right, just once?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 09:52:15 PM
And why would Anderson see a single second in this game? Awful. If the Warriors close this out that’s the reason. He has no business playing in this series. Total mismatch.

Also, why is every team in this Playoffs so willing to give the mismatch up on switches? I get it with Klay, KD, and Curry because those guys will just pull up and make you pay if you give them space. But when Harden is dribbling between his leg 68 times 35 feet from the basket while Ariza sets a screen on the stationary defender, why are the Warriors switching? And it’s been every team in every series this Playoffs. Sometimes the ballhandler is attacking and it’s the only option. But so many times the defender has time to fight through the screen and just gives up the switch.

My only thought is that a lot of times the offense just reverses the direction and gets another screen so maybe it’s a scout thing and they’d rather have the ball handler with the mismatch going in one direction over another. I don’t know otherwise.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 28, 2018, 10:02:31 PM
If you add MJ to the Heat and take LBJ off that team the Heat sweep and I'm not sure a single game is even close in that series.  The Mavs' second best player in that NBA Finals was Jason Freaking Terry.  They were not a good basketball team, and they were playing a team with 3 of the top 10 players in the NBA at the time.  Awful.

The 1998 Jazz had the same record as the 2014 Spurs did.  The 1997 Jazz had a better record than the 2014 Spurs.  The 1996 SuperSonics had a better record than the 2014 Spurs.  The 1993 Suns had the same record as the 2014 Spurs did.  The 1992 Blazers had a worse record than the 2014 Spurs did.  The 1991 Lakers had a worse record than the 2014 Spurs did.

Give me a 26 year old Shawn Kemp, 27 year old Gary Payton, 33 year old Detlef Schrempf, 29 year old Hersey Hawkins, and 34 year old Sam Perkins over a 31 year old Tony Parker, 37 year old Tim Duncan, 22 year old Kawhi Leonard, 36 year old Manu Ginobli, and 27 year old Marco Belinelli.

The West was nowhere near as good as the East during Jordan’s tenure. You can’t just go by the record.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 28, 2018, 10:17:27 PM
The West was nowhere near as good as the East during Jordan’s tenure. You can’t just go by the record.

Agreed it’s not as simple as just record, but no matter what league you are in if you’re 64-18 you’re a pretty dang good team. The Spurs were at the end of their dynasty that year. They were obviously as well coached and disciplined as they come, and they obviously had talent. But they were old. And the Sonics and Jazz teams the Bulls were beating were very good teams.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 10:18:41 PM
Right.  Time will tell.  So sure right now you're correct, "I said James as a Cav.  No HOFers.  None."  You're right.

LeBron James is not a Hall of Famer right now either.  MJ is.

So let me just clarify something here, when you say that if MJ had 2 Hall of Famers (okay 3, Toni Kucoc is in a basketball HOF somewhere, lol.  Can we count their college HOFs?  I bet every Cav member is in their high school HOF, so he's playing with 12 HOFers I guess) so if you flop LBJ in for MJ on those Bulls teams they definitely go 6-0 because in his time with the Cavs he's had less support and he's gone 1-3 in NBA Finals with the Cavs?  So his added supporting cast he would be getting with the Bulls means there's no chance he loses any of those Titles MJ won because LBJ couldn't possibly lose any NBA Titles when he'd have 3 (lol) HOFers around him?  And we need to ignore the fact that, well, he did, indeed, have 3 HOFers around him in Miami and went 2-2 in NBA Finals because...?  Oh that's right, because Wade, Allen, and Bosh are not in the HOF.  They aren't HOFers.  Right...  ::)

Honestly do not understand the games you are playing.  Everyone on the planet knows LBJ is a HOFer.  Everyone.   Love, might make it.  Irving, might make it.  Wade, definitely will make it.  Bosh should and likely will make it.  You are taking certainties like LBJ and saying with equal certainty that Irving and Love make it. That is wrong.

Now you are comparing a FIBA HOF induction with a high school HOF?  These games might work on the youngsters, not with me.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 10:23:49 PM
Doesn't this just indicate that MJ made his teammates better vs LBJ?

Good point and it may.  It may also indicate that those players had more raw talent and were better players, too. 

Pippen was very good when MJ didn't play during his baseball stine, so that kind of neutralizes that argument in my opinion.  Same goes for Grant, who averaged 15 a game when MJ was gone.  Armstrong also avg'd 15 with MJ's absence, Kukoc around 13.   Those were good players with our without him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 28, 2018, 10:28:20 PM
Agreed it’s not as simple as just record, but no matter what league you are in if you’re 64-18 you’re a pretty dang good team. The Spurs were at the end of their dynasty that year. They were obviously as well coached and disciplined as they come, and they obviously had talent. But they were old. And the Sonics and Jazz teams the Bulls were beating were very good teams.

Three of our championships came against teams in the west ranked as the worst ever to be in the NBA finals.   The east was tough, but the west was not up to par.

https://www.thesportster.com/basketball/top-15-worst-teams-to-appear-in-the-nba-finals/

We appear on this list a few times, too.    https://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/worst-nba-champions-in-league-history.html/?a=viewall

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on May 28, 2018, 10:40:36 PM
Good unnatural carnal knowledgein lord, reading this crap is why Skip, Whitlock, and Stephen A make so much money.

Best post in this thread
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUEng92 on May 28, 2018, 10:54:31 PM
I hated the Bad Boys Pistons with a passion but I would love to see the current Cavs team play them under the Pistons era rules.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on May 28, 2018, 11:11:25 PM
I hated the Bad Boys Pistons with a passion but I would love to see the current Cavs team play them under the Pistons era rules.

That makes two of us. It'd be a whole other world for LeBron.

I'd also love to have seen Jordan in an era when handchecking wasn't allowed.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 28, 2018, 11:45:44 PM
My takeaway from the two game 7's. The winning teams didn't do anything really to win.

The losing teams just played horrendous basketball and missed an ungodly number of open 3's. 

Apparently Houston watched the game last night and thought to themselves, you think that was a terrible 3-point shooting display by the Celtics...hold our beers.

Ugly.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on May 29, 2018, 03:14:45 AM
37% is likely?

At age 26? Yes. Only one other player that is 26 or younger has odds that are higher than 8% (Anthony Davis, 25 y/o). The next 26 or younger player is Kahwi Leonard at 7%. Compared to players his age, Irving's odds aren't just high, they are astronomically, ridiculously, five times more than anyone else,  so.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on May 29, 2018, 05:18:18 AM
I hated the Bad Boys Pistons with a passion but I would love to see the current Cavs team play them under the Pistons era rules.
I loved those Pistons teams.     LbJ is such a physical force.    Rodman, Agguire, Salley would guard him.    Help defense from Laimbeer, Mahorn, Edwards.   The Cavaliers don't have enough 3 pt shooters to stop the help defense.     I think the Pistons, playing under the 80's/90's officiating, would be OK against the Cavaliers.   Golden State, I have my doubts.   So many 3 pt shooters that help would be negated.    Laimbeer, Mahorn, and Edwards were too slow to guard anyone on the GS on the perimeter.    Yes, the other 6, Thomas, Dumars, Johnson, Agguire, Rodman, and Salley, would have a chance defensively, if they were allowed to handcheck on the perimeter.   
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on May 29, 2018, 07:01:22 AM
Yes, the same Hall of Fame Jordan is also a member of.  Kukoc is a candidate for the NBA HOF, too.  Unfortunately he played his first 8 years of professional ball overseas, and that will hurt him for his candidacy in the NBA.

You're kidding, right? Never averaged 20 ppg, never made an all-star team, career averages of 11.6/4.2/3.7, he has zero shot of making the NBA HOF. Even if you only look at the time he spent in Chicago when he was in his prime (age 25-31) he averaged 14.1/4.8/4.2. Decent numbers, but not close to HOF numbers.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBBau on May 29, 2018, 07:42:58 AM
Finals wins vs team with 70+ wins: Lebron 1, Jordan 0. Checkmate
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 08:33:26 AM
Agreed it’s not as simple as just record, but no matter what league you are in if you’re 64-18 you’re a pretty dang good team. The Spurs were at the end of their dynasty that year. They were obviously as well coached and disciplined as they come, and they obviously had talent. But they were old. And the Sonics and Jazz teams the Bulls were beating were very good teams.


So the Spurs team was "at the end of its dynasty," but they won the rematch the very next year?

Sorry, but that Sonics team was nowhere near as good as you are portraying it.  In fact I think the Suns team with Barkley was better than they were.  The Jazz teams were good, but I think the case can be made the of the teams LBJ and MJ have beaten in the Finals, the Warriors and the Spurs were the top two.  I would rank them:

1. Warriors
2. Spurs
3. Jazz
4. Suns
5. Thunder
6. Sonics
7. Blazers
8. Lakers
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 29, 2018, 09:37:37 AM
The MJ vs LeBron debate will never stop being stupid.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 29, 2018, 10:45:28 AM

So the Spurs team was "at the end of its dynasty," but they won the rematch the very next year?

Sorry, but that Sonics team was nowhere near as good as you are portraying it.  In fact I think the Suns team with Barkley was better than they were.  The Jazz teams were good, but I think the case can be made the of the teams LBJ and MJ have beaten in the Finals, the Warriors and the Spurs were the top two.  I would rank them:

1. Warriors
2. Spurs
3. Jazz
4. Suns
5. Thunder
6. Sonics
7. Blazers
8. Lakers

We were talking about who LBJ's two losses were to with the Heat.  I said the Spurs were at the end of their dynasty because they won that Title and since then have been to 1 Conference Finals and 0 NBA Finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on May 29, 2018, 12:43:33 PM
Here's my admittedly ridiculous "hot take" on LeBron...

While LeBron obviously wants to win championships, he recognizes that it has been better for his reputation to carry average Cavs teams through the (mediocre) Eastern Conference as opposed to winning another couple of titles playing along side the likes of Wade and Bosh.

Think of it this way, if the Cavs had added Chris Paul and a healthy Gordon Hayward this summer (salary cap be damned!), would LBJ be getting all the love that he's getting for going back to the Finals? No! The pressure would all be on LeBron since he built a "super team" that needs to beat Golden State in order to validate themselves. There's no pressure on LeBron/Cleveland in the Finals right now. They're an average team with one of the greatest players in history. Everyone expects them to lose. If the supporting cast was upgraded, the best player on the planet would be expected to carry them to victory. Instead, he's heaped with praise simply for getting them to the Finals. Even if Boston had won the ECF, no one would be blaming LeBron. He knows this and it's a no lose situation for him.

OK, OK. I don't necessarily believe that but it's interesting to think about, right?

End of ridiculousness.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 29, 2018, 12:54:16 PM
Here's my admittedly ridiculous "hot take" on LeBron...

While LeBron obviously wants to win championships, he recognizes that it has been better for his reputation to carry average Cavs teams through the (mediocre) Eastern Conference as opposed to winning another couple of titles playing along side the likes of Wade and Bosh.

Think of it this way, if the Cavs had added Chris Paul and a healthy Gordon Hayward this summer (salary cap be damned!), would LBJ be getting all the love that he's getting for going back to the Finals? No! The pressure would all be on LeBron since he built a "super team" that needs to beat Golden State in order to validate themselves. There's no pressure on LeBron/Cleveland in the Finals right now. They're an average team with one of the greatest players in history. Everyone expects them to lose. If the supporting cast was upgraded, the best player on the planet would be expected to carry them to victory. Instead, he's heaped with praise simply for getting them to the Finals. Even if Boston had won the ECF, no one would be blaming LeBron. He knows this and it's a no lose situation for him.

OK, OK. I don't necessarily believe that but it's interesting to think about, right?

End of ridiculousness.

Not ridiculous at all. I've never seen a player so concerned with how his legacy is perceived while he's actively playing. I truly believe he sucked in the 2011 finals when he saw Wade seizing control because he was panicked that he'd be perceived/written about as a Scottie that needed a guy like Wade to carry him to a championship. Name a healthy superstar in his prime that played worse than LeBron did in the 2011 finals. You won't find one.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 29, 2018, 12:59:39 PM
Here's my admittedly ridiculous "hot take" on LeBron...

While LeBron obviously wants to win championships, he recognizes that it has been better for his reputation to carry average Cavs teams through the (mediocre) Eastern Conference as opposed to winning another couple of titles playing along side the likes of Wade and Bosh.

Think of it this way, if the Cavs had added Chris Paul and a healthy Gordon Hayward this summer (salary cap be damned!), would LBJ be getting all the love that he's getting for going back to the Finals? No! The pressure would all be on LeBron since he built a "super team" that needs to beat Golden State in order to validate themselves. There's no pressure on LeBron/Cleveland in the Finals right now. They're an average team with one of the greatest players in history. Everyone expects them to lose. If the supporting cast was upgraded, the best player on the planet would be expected to carry them to victory. Instead, he's heaped with praise simply for getting them to the Finals. Even if Boston had won the ECF, no one would be blaming LeBron. He knows this and it's a no lose situation for him.

OK, OK. I don't necessarily believe that but it's interesting to think about, right?

End of ridiculousness.

Regarding the bolded, honestly they'd still heap praise on him.  If he won the championship with those two, they would still regard him as leading his inferior squad to defeat a super team, because Durant/Thompson/Green are far superior to his supporting cast of Paul/Hayward/(Love?).  Or at least that would be the narrative. 

They need a narrative and they will find one.  Its the NBA marketing.  Lebron is their primary brand.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 01:24:00 PM
Not ridiculous at all. I've never seen a player so concerned with how his legacy is perceived while he's actively playing. I truly believe he sucked in the 2011 finals when he saw Wade seizing control because he was panicked that he'd be perceived/written about as a Scottie that needed a guy like Wade to carry him to a championship. Name a healthy superstar in his prime that played worse than LeBron did in the 2011 finals. You won't find one.


Silliness.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on May 29, 2018, 01:30:02 PM
Jordan and LbJ are both at the top of the GOAT list.   You can argue either position all day to no avail.   

GS in 5.   
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 29, 2018, 01:33:09 PM

Silliness.

So you can't name one?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 01:41:13 PM
So you can't name one?


I didn't even get to your last sentence.  I was laughing too hard at your earlier statement.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 29, 2018, 01:55:39 PM
So you can't name one?

The fact LeBron had a bad series does not prove your odd theory. It just proves he had a bad series.

I'm sure one can say a lot of bad things about LeBron, especially the 2011 version of LeBron. But "Scared of being perceived as a complementary player" absolutely is not one of them.
This is a guy who, by that time, was already a two-time MVP, three-time all-defense, five-time all-NBA first team and who'd finished first or second in scoring four years running.
But you think that guy was panicking because he thought he'd be viewed as Robin to Wade's Batman? C'mon.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 29, 2018, 02:42:17 PM
You're kidding, right? Never averaged 20 ppg, never made an all-star team, career averages of 11.6/4.2/3.7, he has zero shot of making the NBA HOF. Even if you only look at the time he spent in Chicago when he was in his prime (age 25-31) he averaged 14.1/4.8/4.2. Decent numbers, but not close to HOF numbers.

I see this mistake very often. There is no NBA Hall of Fame.

Kukoc will be in the HOF for the same reasons that Manu Ginobli will be in it. Their careers spanned Foreign leagues, International play, and the Olympics as well as the NBA.

Arvidas Sabonis averaged 12 pts and 7 rebounds in the NBA and was easily elected.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 29, 2018, 02:48:07 PM
Jordan and LbJ are both at the top of the GOAT list.   You can argue either position all day to no avail.   

 

That's never gonna change. Others will say that Wilt, Kareem, or Bill Russell deserve the honor.

I just consider them 1 & 1A with Kareem and Wilt as a very close 2 & 2A.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on May 29, 2018, 02:48:13 PM
I see this mistake very often. There is no NBA Hall of Fame.

Kukoc will be in the HOF for the same reasons that Manu Ginobli will be in it. Their careers spanned Foreign leagues, International play, and the Olympics as well as the NBA.

Arvidas Sabonis averaged 12 pts and 7 rebounds in the NBA and was easily elected.

Why is this? This is a very interesting construct.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 29, 2018, 02:54:24 PM

I didn't even get to your last sentence.  I was laughing too hard at your earlier statement.

Okay so now that you've read it, can you name one?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 29, 2018, 02:59:56 PM
The fact LeBron had a bad series does not prove your odd theory. It just proves he had a bad series.

I'm sure one can say a lot of bad things about LeBron, especially the 2011 version of LeBron. But "Scared of being perceived as a complementary player" absolutely is not one of them.
This is a guy who, by that time, was already a two-time MVP, three-time all-defense, five-time all-NBA first team and who'd finished first or second in scoring four years running.
But you think that guy was panicking because he thought he'd be viewed as Robin to Wade's Batman? C'mon.

Okay so every time he loses, it's "his teammates suck, I feel so bad for the guy, he'd have 9 championships by now if he had any dang help" but I never hear "wow, he had the most 'help' anyone has ever had in the 2011 finals but he couldn't bring home the bacon." Why did that happen? Why was he passively standing in a corner on offense and playing lax D in crucial close losses? Is he not the indisputable greatest player of all time?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 03:00:32 PM
Okay so now that you've read it, can you name one?


If I cared enough to put thought into it maybe.  But I'm with Pakuni on this.  It's a silly theory.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 03:01:06 PM
Okay so every time he loses, it's "his teammates suck, I feel so bad for the guy, he'd have 9 championships by now if he had any dang help" but I never hear "wow, he had the most 'help' anyone has ever had in the 2011 finals but he couldn't bring home the bacon." Why did that happen? Why was he passively standing in a corner on offense and playing lax D in crucial close losses? Is he not the indisputable greatest player of all time?


Ah.  You decided to go the hyperbole route.  Never a good sign.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 29, 2018, 03:09:23 PM

If I cared enough to put thought into it maybe.  But I'm with Pakuni on this.  It's a silly theory.

Got it. So you can't. Because there isn't one.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 03:10:27 PM
Got it. So you can't. Because there isn't one.

OK dude.  Plant that flag if you want.  It's still a silly and stupid theory.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 29, 2018, 03:21:19 PM
I see this mistake very often. There is no NBA Hall of Fame.

Kukoc will be in the HOF for the same reasons that Manu Ginobli will be in it. Their careers spanned Foreign leagues, International play, and the Olympics as well as the NBA.

Arvidas Sabonis averaged 12 pts and 7 rebounds in the NBA and was easily elected.

Sabonis for a time was one the best basketball players in the world. No one would ever suggest that about Kukoc.
If Ginobli gets in the HOF, it will be because of his NBA career, not international play.

Saying Kukoc is a hall of fame player may one day be technically correct, but also terribly misleading.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on May 29, 2018, 03:25:11 PM
OK dude.  Plant that flag if you want.  It's still a silly and stupid theory.

OK I'll take that as a given then. What's the alternative? That he's not the greatest player of all time?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 29, 2018, 03:27:01 PM
Okay so every time he loses, it's "his teammates suck, I feel so bad for the guy, he'd have 9 championships by now if he had any dang help" but I never hear "wow, he had the most 'help' anyone has ever had in the 2011 finals but he couldn't bring home the bacon." Why did that happen? Why was he passively standing in a corner on offense and playing lax D in crucial close losses? Is he not the indisputable greatest player of all time?

Are you kidding? LeBron was evisceracted for his performance in the 2011 Finals.
Look, no matter how much you want to defend it, your theory is bad.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 29, 2018, 03:36:06 PM
Sabonis for a time was one the best basketball players in the world. No one would ever suggest that about Kukoc.
If Ginobli gets in the HOF, it will be because of his NBA career, not international play.

Saying Kukoc is a hall of fame player may one day be technically correct, but also terribly misleading.

You are right about Sabonis. I didn't mean to imply that Kukoc or Ginobli were in his class.

But if Ginobli gets in, it will be because of his international play. His NBA numbers won't do it. Making 2 all-star teams and 2 3rd team All-NBA doesn't cut it for the HOF.

2× NBA All-Star (2005, 2011)
2× All-NBA Third Team (2008, 2011)
NBA Sixth Man of the Year (2008)
NBA All-Rookie Second Team (2003)
EuroLeague champion (2001)
EuroLeague Finals MVP (2001)
2× EuroLeague Finals Top Scorer (2001, 2002)
All-EuroLeague First Team (2002)
Italian Cup MVP (2002)
2× Italian League MVP (2001, 2002)
2× Olimpia de Oro (2003, 2004)
Diamond Konex Award (2010)
50 Greatest EuroLeague Contributors (2008)
FIBA AmeriCup MVP (2001)


Here is what Kukoc accomplished. Again, the NBA numbers don't add up to the HOF - a step below Ginobli, as well. Taken in tandem with his Euro numbers, though, there is a very good chance.

NBA Sixth Man of the Year (1996)
NBA All-Rookie Second Team (1994)
FIBA World Cup MVP (1990)
FIBA EuroBasket MVP (1991)
FIBA's 50 Greatest Players (1991)
5× Euroscar Player of the Year (1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998)
4× Mister Europa Player of the Year (1990–1992, 1996)
3× EuroLeague champion (1989–1991)
3× EuroLeague Final Four MVP (1990, 1991, 1993)
EuroLeague Finals Top Scorer (1990)
FIBA European Selection (1991)
50 Greatest EuroLeague Contributors (2008)
Italian League champion (1992)
Italian Cup winner (1993)
4× Yugoslav League champion (1988–1991)
2× Yugoslav Cup winner (1990, 1991)
3× Croatian Sportsman of the Year (1989–1991)
Franjo Bučar State Award for Sport (1992)
FIBA Under-19 World Cup MVP (1987)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 03:48:55 PM
OK I'll take that as a given then. What's the alternative? That he's not the greatest player of all time?


I never said he was. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on May 29, 2018, 03:52:08 PM
Not ridiculous at all. I've never seen a player so concerned with how his legacy is perceived while he's actively playing. I truly believe he sucked in the 2011 finals when he saw Wade seizing control because he was panicked that he'd be perceived/written about as a Scottie that needed a guy like Wade to carry him to a championship. Name a healthy superstar in his prime that played worse than LeBron did in the 2011 finals. You won't find one.

That's taking it a bit too far.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 29, 2018, 05:55:57 PM
I see this mistake very often. There is no NBA Hall of Fame.

Kukoc will be in the HOF for the same reasons that Manu Ginobli will be in it. Their careers spanned Foreign leagues, International play, and the Olympics as well as the NBA.

Arvidas Sabonis averaged 12 pts and 7 rebounds in the NBA and was easily elected.

Toni Kukoc is in the FIBA HOF, which is what "WarriorDad" was referring to when he was calling Toni Kukoc a HOFer.  Which is beyond laughable when discussing NBA players' careers.

Toni Kukoc will never be in the Naismith HOF.

But people will go so far so far as to make themselves look foolish in order to avoid having to answer to reality.  LBJ had 3 sure fire HOFers playing next to him in Miami and did not win every Title he played in with the Heat.  But "WarriorDad" thinks that MJ got to play with "three" HOFers in Chicago because Toni Kukoc is in the FIBA HOF, so LBJ obviously would've been 6-0 if he had 3 HOF players next to him (again, ignore the fact that he did have 3 HOF players next to him and wasn't X-0).  Hysterical.

But sure, Alexander Bolov, Sergei Bolov, Jean-Jacques Conceicao, Krešimir Ćosić, Teófilo Cruz, etc. etc. etc. are all Hall of Fame basketball players but Larry Foust, Jack Sikma, Tim Hardaway, Larry Costello, Maurice Cheeks, Sidney Moncrief, etc. are not HOF basketball players.

Absolutely hilarious stuff.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 06:00:09 PM
Kukoc was never an all star and Manu was only an All Star twice. It will be an uphill battle for either of them.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 29, 2018, 07:40:06 PM
Kukoc was never an all star and Manu was only an All Star twice. It will be an uphill battle for either of them.

But is is the Basketball Hall of Fame - not the NBA Hall of Fame.

If I had to bet, I'd say Ginobli - yes and Kukoc - no although I think he has a good chance.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 08:22:13 PM
But is is the Basketball Hall of Fame - not the NBA Hall of Fame.

If I had to bet, I'd say Ginobli - yes and Kukoc - no although I think he has a good chance.


But the reality is that unless you have made a significant impact on basketball here, you aren't getting in based on your European accomplishments.  Unless you are someone like Sabonis who was universally acknowledged to be an all time great.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 29, 2018, 08:46:53 PM

But the reality is that unless you have made a significant impact on basketball here, you aren't getting in based on your European accomplishments.  Unless you are someone like Sabonis who was universally acknowledged to be an all time great.

You are correct about how this has always been. But we have never had the influx of foreign players like we do now.

Foreign players used to be like Olajuwon or Schrempf who came here to play college ball. After the Dream Team, everyone wanted to play here in the NBA. Kukoc was one of the first big names to come from Europe so he has had an influence on the NBA above just his numbers on the court.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 29, 2018, 08:58:37 PM
Now this is quite the story.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5/29/17406750/bryan-colangelo-philadelphia-76ers-twitter-joel-embiid-anonymous-markelle-fultz
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 29, 2018, 09:18:03 PM
Now this is quite the story.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5/29/17406750/bryan-colangelo-philadelphia-76ers-twitter-joel-embiid-anonymous-markelle-fultz

All part of The Process.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 30, 2018, 09:26:28 AM
You're kidding, right? Never averaged 20 ppg, never made an all-star team, career averages of 11.6/4.2/3.7, he has zero shot of making the NBA HOF. Even if you only look at the time he spent in Chicago when he was in his prime (age 25-31) he averaged 14.1/4.8/4.2. Decent numbers, but not close to HOF numbers.

No, I'm not kidding.

Neither is long time journalist Sam Smith  https://www.nba.com/bulls/news/samsmith/9-bulls-hall-fame-case

Neither is hall of famer Scottie Pippen.  https://www.facebook.com/scottiepippen/photos/a.115850581799440.18470.112743018776863/907444219306735/?type=1&theater

And others. 

https://www.thesportster.com/basketball/7-players-who-dont-belong-in-the-nba-hall-of-fame-and-8-who-do/

Shaq has an opinion on who was ultimately a better player, Pippen or Kukoc.  https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/shaq-calls-scottie-pippen-a-bum-says-toni-kukoc-was-better/



He sacrificed numbers for his team, to win.  Spent 8 years playing in Europe.  Fortunately FIBA recognized this and inducted him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 30, 2018, 09:29:56 AM
Shaq?

Dude is funny but him and Pippen have been going at it for years.  Anyone who thinks that Kukoc is better that Pippen should automatically be placed in an asylum and no longer allowed to express their views on anything.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Lennys Tap on May 30, 2018, 09:57:21 AM
Shaq?

Dude is funny but him and Pippen have been going at it for years.  Anyone who thinks that Kukoc is better that Pippen should automatically be placed in an asylum and no longer allowed to express their views on anything.

+1. Shaq also says (in the article cited by Chico) that Steve Kerr and Ron Harper meant more to the Bulls than Pippen. I love Shaq but he pulling our leg here. Toni Kucoc is like Hideki Matsui. They belong in the Hall of Fame of Europe/Japan, but here? No way.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on May 30, 2018, 10:37:11 AM
I forgot where I read it recently, but if Shaq was 20 years old, and coming into the NBA today, his career would be drastically different, and probably no where near as valuable as he was when he came into the league. He'd obviously have value as a rim protector and rebounder, but tough to imagine him being the focal point of an offense in today's NBA. For as much as Shaq would get intentionally fouled to go to the line during his career, the analytics today would keep him off the floor for most tight late game situations.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 30, 2018, 10:43:27 AM
+1. Shaq also says (in the article cited by Chico) that Steve Kerr and Ron Harper meant more to the Bulls than Pippen. I love Shaq but he pulling our leg here. Toni Kucoc is like Hideki Matsui. They belong in the Hall of Fame of Europe/Japan, but here? No way.

Agreed.
The person who started this clearly wanted to argue that Jordan played with three NBA-caliber HOF players (Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc), which is utter nonsense. Toni could get into the hall based on his international credentials, but he was nowhere close to a HOF NBA player.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 30, 2018, 11:10:58 AM
+1. Shaq also says (in the article cited by Chico) that Steve Kerr and Ron Harper meant more to the Bulls than Pippen. I love Shaq but he pulling our leg here. Toni Kucoc is like Hideki Matsui. They belong in the Hall of Fame of Europe/Japan, but here? No way.

Why wouldn't you say the same about Sabonis?  Too lazy to look, but I'd bet Kukoc had similar or better numbers. And having seen both guys many times, Toni was the better NBA player.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 30, 2018, 11:17:40 AM
Why wouldn't you say the same about Sabonis?  Too lazy to look, but I'd been Kukoc had similar or better numbers. And having seen both guys many times, Toni was the better NBA player.

Sabonis was 31-year-old shadow of his former self by the time he reached the NBA. Kukoc was 25 and in his prime. Simply not comparable.
That said, yeah, Sabonis is in the hall of fame based on his European career, not anything he did in the NBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on May 30, 2018, 11:39:12 AM
Why wouldn't you say the same about Sabonis?  Too lazy to look, but I'd been Kukoc had similar or better numbers. And having seen both guys many times, Toni was the better NBA player.

Sabonis averaged 12-7-2 with shooting splits of .500/.328/.786 (eFG .517) and a career PER of 21.2 over 7 seasons (age 31-38).

Kukoc averaged about 12-4-4 with shooting splits of .447/.335/.729 (eFG .492) and a career PER of 17.3 over 13 seasons (age 25-37).

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 30, 2018, 12:09:56 PM
Sabonis was 31-year-old shadow of his former self by the time he reached the NBA. Kukoc was 25 and in his prime. Simply not comparable.
That said, yeah, Sabonis is in the hall of fame based on his European career, not anything he did in the NBA.

Exactly. That was my point.

And I believe Ginobli, and possibly Kukoc will get in for the same reason.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 30, 2018, 12:52:45 PM
Exactly. That was my point.

And I believe Ginobli, and possibly Kukoc will get in for the same reason.

Why would Kukoc get in any more.  He has been eligible for a long time, and hasn't even sniffed getting in.  Every year, more qualified people become eligible. 

He doesn't have the stats, didn't have the impact, and has no reason making the HOF. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 30, 2018, 01:32:27 PM
I forgot where I read it recently, but if Shaq was 20 years old, and coming into the NBA today, his career would be drastically different, and probably no where near as valuable as he was when he came into the league. He'd obviously have value as a rim protector and rebounder, but tough to imagine him being the focal point of an offense in today's NBA. For as much as Shaq would get intentionally fouled to go to the line during his career, the analytics today would keep him off the floor for most tight late game situations.

Totally disagree with you on this.  20 year old Shaq was not the same as 30 year old Shaq.  20 year old Shaq was a freak athlete for his size who could get out and run.  For as much as Capella is going to be an absolute stud and was, in my opinion, the best player on the Rockets in game 7, 20 year old Shaq in today's NBA would've been a much better version of him.  20 year old Shaq would've been an absolute terror in the pick and roll.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on May 30, 2018, 01:57:38 PM
Totally disagree with you on this.  20 year old Shaq was not the same as 30 year old Shaq.  20 year old Shaq was a freak athlete for his size who could get out and run.  For as much as Capella is going to be an absolute stud and was, in my opinion, the best player on the Rockets in game 7, 20 year old Shaq in today's NBA would've been a much better version of him.  20 year old Shaq would've been an absolute terror in the pick and roll.

Capella is 6'10'', 240ish, Shaq is 7'1'', and measured 303 lbs at the combine, I have a tough time putting him and Capella in a comp. I don't disagree that young Shaq was way more athletic at 20 than 30 year old Shaq, and I didn't say he'd be a bust or anything, but I don't know what offense today is going to feed Shaq in the post every other possession. I'm not trying to comp AD to Shaq here, but you have to defend AD on the perimeter, there's zero threat of that with Shaq.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 30, 2018, 02:18:17 PM
Capella is 6'10'', 240ish, Shaq is 7'1'', and measured 303 lbs at the combine, I have a tough time putting him and Capella in a comp. I don't disagree that young Shaq was way more athletic at 20 than 30 year old Shaq, and I didn't say he'd be a bust or anything, but I don't know what offense today is going to feed Shaq in the post every other possession. I'm not trying to comp AD to Shaq here, but you have to defend AD on the perimeter, there's zero threat of that with Shaq.

I'm fairly confident a mediocre NBA coach would find a way to take advantage of Shaq's skillset, regardless of the era. If anything, minus the likes of Mourning, Robinson, Ewing and Olajuwon in today's NBA, Shaq arguably would be more dominant than ever.

I suppose it's a chicken-egg argument, but I tend to think the style of ball being played today is more a reflection of the lack of dominant centers than it is coaches who don't want or can't figure out how to use a dominant post presence.

Does that fact that DeAndre Ayton, Mo Bamba and Wendell Carter - traditional centers with little to no perimeter games - are projected top 7-8 picks in next month's draft change your thinking here at all?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 30, 2018, 02:24:19 PM
Shaq would be fine.  Wouldn't be able to isolate like he used to, but he would still be a huge presence. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 30, 2018, 02:52:13 PM
Totally disagree with you on this.  20 year old Shaq was not the same as 30 year old Shaq.  20 year old Shaq was a freak athlete for his size who could get out and run.  For as much as Capella is going to be an absolute stud and was, in my opinion, the best player on the Rockets in game 7, 20 year old Shaq in today's NBA would've been a much better version of him.  20 year old Shaq would've been an absolute terror in the pick and roll.

Agree completely about Shaq. He would dominate today as he did when he played. Let's just say that Draymond wouldn't be defending the '5' if Shaq was on the floor.

Capela will be what he is. Never ever even in the same universe as Shaq
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 30, 2018, 02:55:25 PM
Why would Kukoc get in any more.  He has been eligible for a long time, and hasn't even sniffed getting in.  Every year, more qualified people become eligible. 

He doesn't have the stats, didn't have the impact, and has no reason making the HOF.

If he gets in, it will be because it is the Basketball Hall of Fame - not the NBA HOF.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on May 30, 2018, 04:28:50 PM
I'm fairly confident a mediocre NBA coach would find a way to take advantage of Shaq's skillset, regardless of the era. If anything, minus the likes of Mourning, Robinson, Ewing and Olajuwon in today's NBA, Shaq arguably would be more dominant than ever.

I suppose it's a chicken-egg argument, but I tend to think the style of ball being played today is more a reflection of the lack of dominant centers than it is coaches who don't want or can't figure out how to use a dominant post presence.

Does that fact that DeAndre Ayton, Mo Bamba and Wendell Carter - traditional centers with little to no perimeter games - are projected top 7-8 picks in next month's draft change your thinking here at all?

I still think Shaq is a physical force and puts up numbers, all I was saying is the NBA is in a different era now, and I think both Shaq and the league would adjust to him differently today. I’m fine being incorrect here, I’m not trying to disrespect Shaq either, I just think he probably benefited a bit from being a 90’s/early 00’s guy, instead of the last 5 years. If it’s a dumb argument, I can respect what you guys are countering with.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 30, 2018, 06:21:40 PM
I still think Shaq is a physical force and puts up numbers, all I was saying is the NBA is in a different era now, and I think both Shaq and the league would adjust to him differently today. I’m fine being incorrect here, I’m not trying to disrespect Shaq either, I just think he probably benefited a bit from being a 90’s/early 00’s guy, instead of the last 5 years. If it’s a dumb argument, I can respect what you guys are countering with.

I agree it wouldn't be the same style of dominance that he showed when he was with the Lakers where they would just throw it in to him and let him physically dominate everyone by backing them down, I just think a guy as big as he was with the ability to move like he did in his time with the Magic when he was in his early 20s would be the best pick and roll big man in the NBA right now, and the pick and roll completely dominates the NBA.  Guys like Capela, Whiteside, Jordan, Adams, Drummond, and Gobert are all really, really good NBA players with no outside game at all.  I think 20 year old Shaq would've been much better than any of them in the current NBA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0grIbJ5O-8

If you skip to 3:00 you start to see some of the pick and roll, ability to catch the lob or catch the ball on the move and finish.  I think that's a hugely important skill in today's NBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on May 30, 2018, 06:34:40 PM
I think Shaq v. Anthony Davis would be incredibly entertaining.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 30, 2018, 09:36:14 PM
Shaq?

Dude is funny but him and Pippen have been going at it for years.  Anyone who thinks that Kukoc is better that Pippen should automatically be placed in an asylum and no longer allowed to express their views on anything.

Of course, and all Bulls fans know this.  That was as much a fun insert as others because the two have gone at it for a long time.

I don't know if Kukoc will make it, but he has a case.  Sam Smith isn't some 25 year old kid with no NBA journalistic bona fides.  I'm biased as behind Jordan, Toni is my favorite Bull all time slightly edging Bob Love, Normy and Artis.  He was the consummate team player and gave up stats to win.  A joy to watch. 

Glad he was honored by FIBA, he's considered a candidate for the Naismith and touted by a few strong supporters in that regard.  Wonderful career.  Some of you act as if he was a bit player, which is koo koo.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 30, 2018, 10:32:44 PM
Of course, and all Bulls fans know this.  That was as much a fun insert as others because the two have gone at it for a long time.

I don't know if Kukoc will make it, but he has a case.  Sam Smith isn't some 25 year old kid with no NBA journalistic bona fides.  I'm biased as behind Jordan, Toni is my favorite Bull all time slightly edging Bob Love, Normy and Artis.  He was the consummate team player and gave up stats to win.  A joy to watch. 

Glad he was honored by FIBA, he's considered a candidate for the Naismith and touted by a few strong supporters in that regard.  Wonderful career.  Some of you act as if he was a bit player, which is koo koo.

Basketball Reference does not even list Toni Kukoc as one of the 250 most likely people to be inducted into the HOF. Their list includes players who they have as having a 1.19% chance of making it to the HOF. It includes players like Michael Finley and Derek Fischer.

Considering him a bit player might be “koo koo” but so is considering him a HOF teammate of MJ’s because he is in the FIBA HOF. The guy was far worse for the Bulls than Love and Kyrie were for the Cavs and to glorify Kukoc as a HOFer while dismissing Kyrie’s and Love’s chances of being HOFers is beyond absurd.

And what’s worse is saying if LBJ got to play alongside “3” (it’s 2, but whatever) HOFers he’d also be 6-0 in Finals when LBJ did get to play alongside 3 (legitimate) HOFers and went 2-2 in NBA Finals next to them.

Koo koo indeed.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 31, 2018, 08:35:40 AM
Who's everyone got?

I say Warriors in 5.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 31, 2018, 08:37:21 AM
Basketball Reference does not even list Toni Kukoc as one of the 250 most likely people to be inducted into the HOF. Their list includes players who they have as having a 1.19% chance of making it to the HOF. It includes players like Michael Finley and Derek Fischer.

Considering him a bit player might be “koo koo” but so is considering him a HOF teammate of MJ’s because he is in the FIBA HOF. The guy was far worse for the Bulls than Love and Kyrie were for the Cavs and to glorify Kukoc as a HOFer while dismissing Kyrie’s and Love’s chances of being HOFers is beyond absurd.

And what’s worse is saying if LBJ got to play alongside “3” (it’s 2, but whatever) HOFers he’d also be 6-0 in Finals when LBJ did get to play alongside 3 (legitimate) HOFers and went 2-2 in NBA Finals next to them.

Koo koo indeed.


The only hedge to NBA reference is they base it solely on NBA win shares.  Not what they have done elsewhere.

But yeah, Kukoc isn't going to get in.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 31, 2018, 08:37:55 AM
Who's everyone got?

I say Warriors in 5.


If the Cavs are lucky.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on May 31, 2018, 09:24:03 AM
Jordan and LbJ are both at the top of the GOAT list.   You can argue either position all day to no avail.   

GS in 5.

My prediction
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 31, 2018, 09:53:12 AM
Who's everyone got?

I say Warriors in 5.

Warriors in 6.  Officiating and a bit of home cooking will keep the Cavs in at least two games in Cleveland. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on May 31, 2018, 10:13:17 AM
Gentlemen's sweep by the Warriors.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on May 31, 2018, 01:33:57 PM
Warriors in 6.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on May 31, 2018, 02:53:13 PM
Warriors in 3.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on May 31, 2018, 05:00:11 PM
He sacrificed numbers for his team, to win.  Spent 8 years playing in Europe.  Fortunately FIBA recognized this and inducted him.

In the 1990s, I didn't follow any team closer than the Bulls. I loved Jordan and really appreciated Kukoc. But no way was he close to a Hall of Famer. Not close. You don't get it for what you don't do (such as sacrificing numbers) you get in for what you do.

He was a nice complimentary player. But he was never an all-star, much less a Hall of Famer.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on May 31, 2018, 05:45:02 PM
Warriors in 3.

I like it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on May 31, 2018, 08:49:22 PM
Cavs in 6
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on May 31, 2018, 09:23:33 PM
Cavs in 6

I like the way you think. I think you’re nuts, but I like the way you think. I hope you’re right.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 31, 2018, 09:44:24 PM
In the 1990s, I didn't follow any team closer than the Bulls. I loved Jordan and really appreciated Kukoc. But no way was he close to a Hall of Famer. Not close. You don't get it for what you don't do (such as sacrificing numbers) you get in for what you do.

He was a nice complimentary player. But he was never an all-star, much less a Hall of Famer.

Sam Smith became the Chicago Bulls full time writer in 1987, wrote the Jordan Rules and the Second Coming.  I'm hard pressed to name many people more of an expert on the Bulls, especially of the 90's and beyond that Smith.  Lifetime Achievement award by the Pro Basketball Writers Association, not some guy writing for Bleacher Report.

Makes you wonder why Mr. Smith would risk his reputation to vouch for someone that isn't close.



10 BULLS WITH A HALL OF FAME CASE
ON NAISMITH BASKETBALL HALL OF FAME INDUCTION WEEKEND, SAM SMITH LOOKS AT 10 BULLS WHO HAVE AN ARGUMENT FOR FUTURE ENSHRINEMENT

By Sam Smith

The Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Mass. Friday night conducts its enshrinement for its Class of 2015. It is led by four-time NBA Defensive Player of the Year Dikembe Mutombo. Kentucky coach John Calipari also will be honored. The others are NBA official Dick Bavetta, NBA players JoJo White and Spencer Haywood, the latter who also played in the ABA. Louis Dampier will be enshrined from the ABA. Others will include Tom Heinsohn as a coach, the fourth to be enshrined as player and coach, Lisa Leslie from the WNBA, international coach Lindsay Gaze, the late veteran from the Rens John Isaacs and former coach George Raveling.

So who’s next?

The next few years with veteran NBA stars coming close to retirement should produce highlight Hall of Fame classes. Among those certain to be inducted are Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Shaquille O’Neal, Steve Nash and Ray Allen with the likes to Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Paul Pierce and Dirk Nowitzki soon to follow. Then there are others for whom one can make a case, like DePaul’s Mark Aguirre, a former college player of the year who won two championships with the Detroit Pistons and had a career scoring average of 20 points per game, once averaging as much as 29.5 in an NBA season. And there will be cases made for players like Vince Carter, who has scored well over 20,000 points. And though they don’t sound like Hall of Famers, what of players like Tom Chambers, who scored more than 20,000 points?

It’s always a personal and engaging debate.

But what of players, coaches and executives from the Bulls? Who should be among those considered for the Hall of Fame? Here’s a look at some worthy candidates:


JOHNNY KERR
The epochal Bulls broadcaster and first ever head coach is a long overlooked and deserving enshrinee for the breath of his basketball career. In many respects, Kerr represents the diversification and collection of excellence that defines Hall of Fame contributor status. Because the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame is not the NBA Hall of Fame. It celebrates all basketball everywhere. Kerr’s array of achievements should be a model for the contributor category, which is one of three main categories along with player and coach. Kerr has received the Bunn award, which Rod Thorn received at the Thursday night dinner. It represents the Hall’s highest achievement short of enshrinement. Consider Kerr’s career: He led Tilden High School to a city championship and the U. of Illinois to the Final Four. As an NBA rookie starter with the Syracuse Nationals, he became an NBA champion. He was a three-time All-Star center despite playing most of his career in the same conference with Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. He became the NBA’s original iron man with a consecutive games streak of 844 straight games, which was every game of his career until into his final NBA season. And even then he sat when his coach, Paul Seymour, decided the streak had become a distraction and benched him for one game. As coach of the Bulls first team in 1966-67, he led the only expansion team ever to the playoffs and was named coach of the year. After four seasons coaching, two with the expansion Phoenix Suns, he went to the ABA and the Virginia Squires, where as business manager he was the first to sign George Gervin and Julius Erving. He went on to become one of the NBA’s iconic broadcasters through six Bulls championships and one of the greatest NBA ambassadors. He died Feb. 26, 2009, just hours after the death of fellow Bulls legend Norm Van Lier.


TONI KUKOC
Kukoc is known to Bulls fans as the Sixth Man winner in 1996 with the 72-win greatest team ever and a sixth man and starter for the three-time Bulls champions from 1996-1998. But worldwide in basketball, Kukoc is regarded as one of the greatest ever and one of the pioneers that led to the globalization of the NBA. His Split team won the Euroleague three times and he was named MVP twice. Then he went to play in Italy and his team won the championship and he again was Euroleague MVP. He won multiple Euroleague player of the year awards and is regarded as the most accomplished Euroleague player ever. His teams won the FIBA junior world title, a World Championship and two Olympic silver medals. Kukoc was a clutch shot maker for those Bulls teams, generally the choice for coach Phil Jackson to take the big shot other than Michael Jordan. He played 13 seasons in the NBA and averaged 12.1 points despite being primarily a sixth man. Kukoc recently was hired as special advisor to the Bulls team president.


BOB LOVE
If overcoming adversity in life also was a consideration, Love would be a strong candidate. He turned a severe stuttering issue that even kept him from getting regular meaningful employment after his basketball career into a position with the Bulls as a motivational speaker. Love was a three-time NBA All-Star and one of the top two-way players in the game in his era as a two-time all-defensive team player. Love excelled in a magical seven-year run with the Bulls in which he averaged at least 21 points per game for six consecutive seasons and more than 25 per game in consecutive seasons when the Bulls early 1970s teams were among the best in the NBA. Love missed just four games over a five-year stretch. Among players with more than three seasons with the Bulls, he is the second highest scorer to Michael Jordan at 21.3 per game. Love played 10 seasons in the NBA with a 17.6 average.


DERRICK ROSE
Well, there’s not a lot of MVPs not in the Hall of Fame. Actually, none who are eligible. And there are going to be a lot of former MVPs getting in, like Shaq, Iverson, Duncan, Garnett, Nash, Kobe, LeBron, Dirk and probably Durant and Stephen Curry. Rose was clearly on the way to Springfield the way he started his NBA career with not only the MVP, but All-Star starts and playoff scoring records as a rookie. We obviously know about his succession of knee injuries, but he appears healthy again. And even if he doesn’t play like he did his first few years in the NBA, he can return to All-Star level as Hall of Famer Bernard King did and have a productive next five or six years, which would certainly land him in the Hall of Fame.


JERRY REINSDORF
The Bulls managing partner is the senior owner in the NBA and the only owner with a dynasty team (six or more titles) not in the Hall of Fame. The most recent team owner to be inducted was the Pistons’ Bill Davidson, whose teams won two titles. Reinsdorf also presided over one of the first major privately financed new arenas in the NBA as well as his teams starting the coaching careers of Hall of Famer Phil Jackson as well as top coaches like Doug Collins and Tom Thibodeau.


JERRY KRAUSE
The former Bulls general manager hired by Reinsdorf put together the six championship teams of the 1990s after the drafting of Michael Jordan. Krause drafted the core players Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant in the 1987 draft and then traded for Bill Cartwright with his previous draft pick, Charles Oakley. Krause also made the moves to put the second threepeat in place with the trades for Luc Longley and Dennis Rodman, drafting of Kukoc in the second round with a future pick and signing of veteran free agents like Steve Kerr.


ROD THORN
The Bulls general manager who drafted Michael Jordan received the John W. Bunn Lifetime Achievement award from the Hall of Fame at a dinner Thursday. Thorn deserves Hall of Fame enshrinement for perhaps the most varied career in NBA history as a player for eight years, coach in the NBA and ABA, general manager or team president with the Bulls, Nets and 76ers and league basketball operations director for more than 15 years in two tenures.


JERRY SLOAN
He is in the Hall of Fame as a coach for his career primarily with the Utah Jazz. But as a player for the expansion Bulls and the subsequent decade, Sloan became the face of the Bulls franchise with his relentless physical play. He was a six-time all-defensive team player and two-time All-Star while leading the Bulls’ early 70’s surge to become one of the league’s top teams. He still ranks third in franchise history in games and seasons played and minutes and is the runaway franchise leader in games fouling out. He averaged in double figures every season with the Bulls until being forced to retire with injuries.


DOUG COLLINS
The former Bulls coach has the credentials to be in the Hall of Fame as a contributor. Collins won almost 500 games as an NBA coach with four teams, all of which improved dramatically after he took over. Collins was a four-time All-Star player with the Philadelphia 76ers before injuries cut short his playing career. He was an Olympian in 1972 when his free throws should have won the famously disputed game. He then was a No. 1 overall pick in the NBA draft. Collins also has been a longtime TV broadcaster for the NBA and worldwide ambassador doing clinics.


JOHNNY BACH
The architect of the Bulls Doberman Defense that helped the Bulls win three titles between 1991 and 1993. Bach has one of the deepest and most varied careers in basketball. He played for the Boston Celtics in 1948 and was a player in the Eastern League when it was essentially a second pro league as the NBA had just 10 teams. He became one of the youngest collegiate head coaches when he took over Fordham at age 28 after decorated combat in the South Pacific in World War II. He won almost 400 games with Fordham and Penn State before becoming head coach of the Golden State Warriors while also an assistant with the U.S. Olympic team. He was an assistant with the Bulls, Hornets, Pistons and Wizards.



https://www.nba.com/bulls/news/samsmith/9-bulls-hall-fame-case

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 31, 2018, 09:54:07 PM
Basketball Reference does not even list Toni Kukoc as one of the 250 most likely people to be inducted into the HOF. Their list includes players who they have as having a 1.19% chance of making it to the HOF. It includes players like Michael Finley and Derek Fischer.

Considering him a bit player might be “koo koo” but so is considering him a HOF teammate of MJ’s because he is in the FIBA HOF. The guy was far worse for the Bulls than Love and Kyrie were for the Cavs and to glorify Kukoc as a HOFer while dismissing Kyrie’s and Love’s chances of being HOFers is beyond absurd.

And what’s worse is saying if LBJ got to play alongside “3” (it’s 2, but whatever) HOFers he’d also be 6-0 in Finals when LBJ did get to play alongside 3 (legitimate) HOFers and went 2-2 in NBA Finals next to them.

Koo koo indeed.

Your same reference has Rajon Rondo with a better chance than Kyrie Irving. 

Secondly, you are wrong.  Your 250 list already includes people that made the Hall of Fame.  So it's not a list of potential 250 candidates, you read it wrong.  Kareem and Jordan are #1 and #2 on the list, they are already in the Hall as are many others.  Derek Fischer does come in at 1.91%, but that list is not 250 players that could make the Hall of Fame when many already have.
 In fact, a number of players already did, but that model didn't have them at 100% despite them making it.  https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html

What you should have said he is actually on the list of potential candidates, but instead of 250 it is 210, it can be found here, you were just in the wrong spot apparently. 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/hof.fcgi
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on May 31, 2018, 10:03:45 PM
Sam Smith became the Chicago Bulls full time writer in 1987, wrote the Jordan Rules and the Second Coming.  I'm hard pressed to name many people more of an expert on the Bulls, especially of the 90's and beyond that Smith.  Lifetime Achievement award by the Pro Basketball Writers Association, not some guy writing for Bleacher Report.

Makes you wonder why Mr. Smith would risk his reputation to vouch for someone that isn't close.



10 BULLS WITH A HALL OF FAME CASE
ON NAISMITH BASKETBALL HALL OF FAME INDUCTION WEEKEND, SAM SMITH LOOKS AT 10 BULLS WHO HAVE AN ARGUMENT FOR FUTURE ENSHRINEMENT

By Sam Smith

The Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Mass. Friday night conducts its enshrinement for its Class of 2015. It is led by four-time NBA Defensive Player of the Year Dikembe Mutombo. Kentucky coach John Calipari also will be honored. The others are NBA official Dick Bavetta, NBA players JoJo White and Spencer Haywood, the latter who also played in the ABA. Louis Dampier will be enshrined from the ABA. Others will include Tom Heinsohn as a coach, the fourth to be enshrined as player and coach, Lisa Leslie from the WNBA, international coach Lindsay Gaze, the late veteran from the Rens John Isaacs and former coach George Raveling.

So who’s next?

The next few years with veteran NBA stars coming close to retirement should produce highlight Hall of Fame classes. Among those certain to be inducted are Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Shaquille O’Neal, Steve Nash and Ray Allen with the likes to Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Paul Pierce and Dirk Nowitzki soon to follow. Then there are others for whom one can make a case, like DePaul’s Mark Aguirre, a former college player of the year who won two championships with the Detroit Pistons and had a career scoring average of 20 points per game, once averaging as much as 29.5 in an NBA season. And there will be cases made for players like Vince Carter, who has scored well over 20,000 points. And though they don’t sound like Hall of Famers, what of players like Tom Chambers, who scored more than 20,000 points?

It’s always a personal and engaging debate.

But what of players, coaches and executives from the Bulls? Who should be among those considered for the Hall of Fame? Here’s a look at some worthy candidates:


JOHNNY KERR
The epochal Bulls broadcaster and first ever head coach is a long overlooked and deserving enshrinee for the breath of his basketball career. In many respects, Kerr represents the diversification and collection of excellence that defines Hall of Fame contributor status. Because the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame is not the NBA Hall of Fame. It celebrates all basketball everywhere. Kerr’s array of achievements should be a model for the contributor category, which is one of three main categories along with player and coach. Kerr has received the Bunn award, which Rod Thorn received at the Thursday night dinner. It represents the Hall’s highest achievement short of enshrinement. Consider Kerr’s career: He led Tilden High School to a city championship and the U. of Illinois to the Final Four. As an NBA rookie starter with the Syracuse Nationals, he became an NBA champion. He was a three-time All-Star center despite playing most of his career in the same conference with Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. He became the NBA’s original iron man with a consecutive games streak of 844 straight games, which was every game of his career until into his final NBA season. And even then he sat when his coach, Paul Seymour, decided the streak had become a distraction and benched him for one game. As coach of the Bulls first team in 1966-67, he led the only expansion team ever to the playoffs and was named coach of the year. After four seasons coaching, two with the expansion Phoenix Suns, he went to the ABA and the Virginia Squires, where as business manager he was the first to sign George Gervin and Julius Erving. He went on to become one of the NBA’s iconic broadcasters through six Bulls championships and one of the greatest NBA ambassadors. He died Feb. 26, 2009, just hours after the death of fellow Bulls legend Norm Van Lier.


TONI KUKOC
Kukoc is known to Bulls fans as the Sixth Man winner in 1996 with the 72-win greatest team ever and a sixth man and starter for the three-time Bulls champions from 1996-1998. But worldwide in basketball, Kukoc is regarded as one of the greatest ever and one of the pioneers that led to the globalization of the NBA. His Split team won the Euroleague three times and he was named MVP twice. Then he went to play in Italy and his team won the championship and he again was Euroleague MVP. He won multiple Euroleague player of the year awards and is regarded as the most accomplished Euroleague player ever. His teams won the FIBA junior world title, a World Championship and two Olympic silver medals. Kukoc was a clutch shot maker for those Bulls teams, generally the choice for coach Phil Jackson to take the big shot other than Michael Jordan. He played 13 seasons in the NBA and averaged 12.1 points despite being primarily a sixth man. Kukoc recently was hired as special advisor to the Bulls team president.


BOB LOVE
If overcoming adversity in life also was a consideration, Love would be a strong candidate. He turned a severe stuttering issue that even kept him from getting regular meaningful employment after his basketball career into a position with the Bulls as a motivational speaker. Love was a three-time NBA All-Star and one of the top two-way players in the game in his era as a two-time all-defensive team player. Love excelled in a magical seven-year run with the Bulls in which he averaged at least 21 points per game for six consecutive seasons and more than 25 per game in consecutive seasons when the Bulls early 1970s teams were among the best in the NBA. Love missed just four games over a five-year stretch. Among players with more than three seasons with the Bulls, he is the second highest scorer to Michael Jordan at 21.3 per game. Love played 10 seasons in the NBA with a 17.6 average.


DERRICK ROSE
Well, there’s not a lot of MVPs not in the Hall of Fame. Actually, none who are eligible. And there are going to be a lot of former MVPs getting in, like Shaq, Iverson, Duncan, Garnett, Nash, Kobe, LeBron, Dirk and probably Durant and Stephen Curry. Rose was clearly on the way to Springfield the way he started his NBA career with not only the MVP, but All-Star starts and playoff scoring records as a rookie. We obviously know about his succession of knee injuries, but he appears healthy again. And even if he doesn’t play like he did his first few years in the NBA, he can return to All-Star level as Hall of Famer Bernard King did and have a productive next five or six years, which would certainly land him in the Hall of Fame.


JERRY REINSDORF
The Bulls managing partner is the senior owner in the NBA and the only owner with a dynasty team (six or more titles) not in the Hall of Fame. The most recent team owner to be inducted was the Pistons’ Bill Davidson, whose teams won two titles. Reinsdorf also presided over one of the first major privately financed new arenas in the NBA as well as his teams starting the coaching careers of Hall of Famer Phil Jackson as well as top coaches like Doug Collins and Tom Thibodeau.


JERRY KRAUSE
The former Bulls general manager hired by Reinsdorf put together the six championship teams of the 1990s after the drafting of Michael Jordan. Krause drafted the core players Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant in the 1987 draft and then traded for Bill Cartwright with his previous draft pick, Charles Oakley. Krause also made the moves to put the second threepeat in place with the trades for Luc Longley and Dennis Rodman, drafting of Kukoc in the second round with a future pick and signing of veteran free agents like Steve Kerr.


ROD THORN
The Bulls general manager who drafted Michael Jordan received the John W. Bunn Lifetime Achievement award from the Hall of Fame at a dinner Thursday. Thorn deserves Hall of Fame enshrinement for perhaps the most varied career in NBA history as a player for eight years, coach in the NBA and ABA, general manager or team president with the Bulls, Nets and 76ers and league basketball operations director for more than 15 years in two tenures.


JERRY SLOAN
He is in the Hall of Fame as a coach for his career primarily with the Utah Jazz. But as a player for the expansion Bulls and the subsequent decade, Sloan became the face of the Bulls franchise with his relentless physical play. He was a six-time all-defensive team player and two-time All-Star while leading the Bulls’ early 70’s surge to become one of the league’s top teams. He still ranks third in franchise history in games and seasons played and minutes and is the runaway franchise leader in games fouling out. He averaged in double figures every season with the Bulls until being forced to retire with injuries.


DOUG COLLINS
The former Bulls coach has the credentials to be in the Hall of Fame as a contributor. Collins won almost 500 games as an NBA coach with four teams, all of which improved dramatically after he took over. Collins was a four-time All-Star player with the Philadelphia 76ers before injuries cut short his playing career. He was an Olympian in 1972 when his free throws should have won the famously disputed game. He then was a No. 1 overall pick in the NBA draft. Collins also has been a longtime TV broadcaster for the NBA and worldwide ambassador doing clinics.


JOHNNY BACH
The architect of the Bulls Doberman Defense that helped the Bulls win three titles between 1991 and 1993. Bach has one of the deepest and most varied careers in basketball. He played for the Boston Celtics in 1948 and was a player in the Eastern League when it was essentially a second pro league as the NBA had just 10 teams. He became one of the youngest collegiate head coaches when he took over Fordham at age 28 after decorated combat in the South Pacific in World War II. He won almost 400 games with Fordham and Penn State before becoming head coach of the Golden State Warriors while also an assistant with the U.S. Olympic team. He was an assistant with the Bulls, Hornets, Pistons and Wizards.



https://www.nba.com/bulls/news/samsmith/9-bulls-hall-fame-case

I don’t know that I’d be citing a list that is promoting Derrick Rose for the Hall of Fame. He had to find 10 guys somehow for this article.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2018, 10:24:28 PM
I don’t know that I’d be citing a list that is promoting Derrick Rose for the Hall of Fame. He had to find 10 guys somehow for this article.

+1000
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: lawdog77 on May 31, 2018, 10:29:36 PM
Nice play JR..I also apologize if I.have.ever.said.LBJ gets all the calls
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 31, 2018, 10:29:53 PM
JR Smith is not a smart basketball player, exemplified multiple times tonight.  WOW.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 31, 2018, 10:31:27 PM
I don’t know that I’d be citing a list that is promoting Derrick Rose for the Hall of Fame. He had to find 10 guys somehow for this article.

According to the other guy's site, Rose has an 11% to be in the Hall of Fame.  #30 of active players.  https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html

Maybe that website that is being touted as a predictor isn't so great.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 31, 2018, 10:35:37 PM
According to the other guy's site, Rose has an 11% to be in the Hall of Fame.  #30 of active players.  https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html

Maybe that website that is being touted as a predictor isn't so great.

An 11% chance as a 30+ year old player with multiple bad knees who has literally gone MIA multiple times isn’t the same as a 37% chance for a 26 year old current top 15 player in the NBA. Fair comparison though.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on May 31, 2018, 10:36:36 PM
Changing my pick to Warriors sweep.

Also would love to see the best bad beat ever if the Warriors can win this by 14+. That’d be hysterical.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 31, 2018, 10:39:30 PM
JR Smith is not a smart basketball player, exemplified multiple times tonight.  WOW.

As bad as that was by JR, the coach needs to make sure that every player knows what to do in case of a make or miss there. 

Kerr made sure his team did.  Lue did not.  That is 50% on the coach.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on May 31, 2018, 10:41:29 PM
As bad as that was by JR, the coach needs to make sure that every player knows what to do in case of a make or miss there. 

Kerr made sure his team did.  Lue did not.  That is 50% on the coach.

How do we know he didn't and JR just blew it?  Wasn't it JR at the end of the first half that went for the steal and let Curry get an open 3?  Cavs should have won tonight.  Cannot give up those opportunities.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 31, 2018, 10:43:37 PM
Tristan Thompson should be ejected for the next game too. 

Already ejected, then shoves Green, could argue he threw a punch. 

All because instead of James getting a T for trash talking, they give Thompson an ejection instead.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 31, 2018, 10:47:38 PM
Tristan Thompson should be ejected for the next game too. 

Already ejected, then shoves Green, could argue he threw a punch. 

All because instead of James getting a T for trash talking, they give Thompson an ejection instead.


James, Curry, etc. we’re just talking. No biggie.

That wasn’t a flagrant foul by Thompson. But he should have got a technical.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 31, 2018, 10:49:40 PM

James, Curry, etc. we’re just talking. No biggie.

That wasn’t a flagrant foul by Thompson. But he should have got a technical.

I agree, but think the flagrant on Thompson was called to quiet the trash talking.  If they are going to call something there, it should have been against Lebron (better no call). 

The refs should have just let it end, but they didn't. 

But Thompson should be ejected from the next game for what happened after the ejection.  The initial flagrant was a bad call, but what happened afterward is not acceptable. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on May 31, 2018, 10:53:15 PM
I agree, but think the flagrant on Thompson was called to quiet the trash talking.  If they are going to call something there, it should have been against Lebron (better no call). 

But Thompson should be ejected from the next game for what happened after the ejection.  The initial flagrant was a bad call, but what happened afterward is not acceptable. 

LeBron didn’t do anything tech worthy and they’re not going to suspend Thompson for another game. (And Curry was talking just as much anyway.) That wouldn’t even draw a regular season suspension.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 31, 2018, 10:57:17 PM
LeBron didn’t do anything tech worthy and they’re not going to suspend Thompson for another game. (And Curry was talking just as much anyway.) That wouldn’t even draw a regular season suspension.

You'd know better than me, as you follow the NBA closer.

Don't like what Thompson did at all. 
 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on May 31, 2018, 11:45:37 PM
Another point on the screw up by JR at the end of regulation.  Media is already wanting to fault him for the loss, because of that mistake.

There would have been zero opportunity for that mistake to occur if it wasn't for the fact that JR outworked Durant to get the rebound in the first place. 

He doesn't fight for the rebound, and there is no discussion about the mistake. 

Him getting the rebound, despite the error afterward, at least guaranteed them overtime.  He doesn't get the rebound the Warriors call time out and possibly win in regulation.

Dumb, yes, but the focus on it being what lost the Cavs the game (Stephen A. Smith) is a bit ridiculous. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jockey on June 01, 2018, 12:39:27 AM
It was a monumental Chris Weber-ish mistake.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 01, 2018, 05:35:46 AM
Another point on the screw up by JR at the end of regulation.  Media is already wanting to fault him for the loss, because of that mistake.

There would have been zero opportunity for that mistake to occur if it wasn't for the fact that JR outworked Durant to get the rebound in the first place. 

He doesn't fight for the rebound, and there is no discussion about the mistake. 

Him getting the rebound, despite the error afterward, at least guaranteed them overtime.  He doesn't get the rebound the Warriors call time out and possibly win in regulation.

Dumb, yes, but the focus on it being what lost the Cavs the game (Stephen A. Smith) is a bit ridiculous. 


Yep.  Also assumes that someone would have made a basket.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on June 01, 2018, 08:04:02 AM
Everyone attacking JR for a world-class mistake.

No one mentioning George Hill missing the free throw
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 01, 2018, 08:18:54 AM
Everyone attacking JR for a world-class mistake.

No one mentioning George Hill missing the free throw

This is exactly what I've been thinking. Hill has been let off the hook completely.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 01, 2018, 08:20:02 AM
You'd know better than me, as you follow the NBA closer.

Don't like what Thompson did at all.

Did you like Green waving good-bye to him then clapping and jawing at Thompson...before "being held back" once Thompson responded? Green is a good player but he's a clown.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 01, 2018, 08:31:27 AM
The last 5 seconds of OT were reffed terribly.  You know it's gonna take a lot to actually get suspended a game at this point so just let the players talk and the clock run down.  Understand why Livingston shot, understand why Thompson contested, but there was no need to blow the whistle at all at that point.

The one real gripe I had with the officiating was the reversal of the block/change call in regulation.  It's the hardest call to make in basketball, and you should be able to review to see if the defender is in the restricted area, but reversing the foul call should not be an option unless the call on the court was made with the wrong info regarding the restricted area.  Using replay to call fouls is a slippery slope IMO.  Lebron was clearly outside of the restricted area, so I don't even know why they were reviewing it at all.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 01, 2018, 08:44:25 AM
This is exactly what I've been thinking. Hill has been let off the hook completely.

Missed free throws happen.  The attempt is free, the make isn't.

I actually think the refs are the ones being left off the hook.  Changing a 50/50 call from a charge to a block had a huge impact on the game.

They also got two other key calls wrong.  One play, Lebron got hit on the arm, no call, Warriors steal.  On another play, Hill stripped Durant cleanly but they called a shooting foul.  I understand refs get calls wrong but the Cavs really got the short end of the stick in crunch time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 01, 2018, 08:50:34 AM
Missed free throws happen.  The attempt is free, the make isn't.

I actually think the refs are the ones being left off the hook.  Changing a 50/50 call from a charge to a block had a huge impact on the game.

They also got two other key calls wrong.  One play, Lebron got hit on the arm, no call, Warriors steal.  On another play, Hill stripped Durant cleanly but they called a shooting foul.  I understand refs get calls wrong but the Cavs really got the short end of the stick in crunch time.

The refs were not good throughout.  That 50-50 call reversal was NBA RIGGED CONSPIRACY THEORISTS DREAM exhibit.  Even in the OT, you do not throw a guy out for trying to block a shot.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on June 01, 2018, 09:02:54 AM
Ken Mauer is an awful referee. Tony Brothers isn't far behind. The way Brothers handled Tristan's "flagrant" was a total joke.

I don't have a problem with them changing the charge/block call. They got it right on review. I have a problem with them initiating the review on a play where LeBron was two feet outside the restricted area.

Also, nobody let college hoops know about that rule. We'll be in for 3.5 hour games.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 01, 2018, 09:17:51 AM
Missed free throws happen.  The attempt is free, the make isn't.

I actually think the refs are the ones being left off the hook.  Changing a 50/50 call from a charge to a block had a huge impact on the game.

They also got two other key calls wrong.  One play, Lebron got hit on the arm, no call, Warriors steal.  On another play, Hill stripped Durant cleanly but they called a shooting foul.  I understand refs get calls wrong but the Cavs really got the short end of the stick in crunch time.

I'm guessing you want the Cavs to win.  There were a lot more key calls wrong than that (or which could have been called wrong). 

Yes, Lebron did get hit on the hand there, but that is rarely called in the NBA, as the defender also hit the ball clearly. 

If the strip on Lebron is a foul, than the strip on Durant is certainly a foul.  He was hacked across both arms.  There was another play just like this not too long earlier that was called a clean strip that gave a steal to the Cavs that was a clear foul.

Lebron's 3-pt play, was not a foul.  He shouldn't have been shooting an and 1. 

The 50/50 call was not a 50/50 call.  It was a clear blocking foul.  The ref clearly wasn't sure which way to call it, he hesitated for a good 5 seconds, trying to consult with the other official.  Apparently the other official wasn't sure either.  That is why they allow replay.  They made a call, because it didn't matter what they choose they could over-rule it on replay. 

The Lebron drive to close it to a 4 point game was an obvious travel.  Took 3 full steps before jumping after picking up his dribble.

There are a number of other calls that are similar.  Overall, officiating benefitted the Cavs (game long) more than the warriors. 

I agree though, the refs were not good in this game. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 01, 2018, 09:23:32 AM
The last 5 seconds of OT were reffed terribly.  You know it's gonna take a lot to actually get suspended a game at this point so just let the players talk and the clock run down.  Understand why Livingston shot, understand why Thompson contested, but there was no need to blow the whistle at all at that point.

The one real gripe I had with the officiating was the reversal of the block/change call in regulation.  It's the hardest call to make in basketball, and you should be able to review to see if the defender is in the restricted area, but reversing the foul call should not be an option unless the call on the court was made with the wrong info regarding the restricted area.  Using replay to call fouls is a slippery slope IMO.  Lebron was clearly outside of the restricted area, so I don't even know why they were reviewing it at all.

Totally agree with this. Review in that situation should be an in/out of circle yes/no check, not overturning the subjective aspect. It was borderline (as with most charge/block calls), but to overturn it on replay blew my mind. Not a fan
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2018, 09:27:26 AM
Everyone attacking JR for a world-class mistake.

No one mentioning George Hill missing the free throw

Missing free throws happens to everyone. Not knowing the score with 4.7 seconds left in the game is a world class, unforgivable blunder.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on June 01, 2018, 09:53:06 AM
The refs were not good throughout.  That 50-50 call reversal was NBA RIGGED CONSPIRACY THEORISTS DREAM exhibit.  Even in the OT, you do not throw a guy out for trying to block a shot.

I didn't think the refs should throw Tristan out. But he definitely, intentionally, led with his elbow at Shaun's head.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 01, 2018, 10:35:06 AM
I'm guessing you want the Cavs to win.  There were a lot more key calls wrong than that (or which could have been called wrong). 

Yes, Lebron did get hit on the hand there, but that is rarely called in the NBA, as the defender also hit the ball clearly. 

If the strip on Lebron is a foul, than the strip on Durant is certainly a foul.  He was hacked across both arms.  There was another play just like this not too long earlier that was called a clean strip that gave a steal to the Cavs that was a clear foul.

Lebron's 3-pt play, was not a foul.  He shouldn't have been shooting an and 1. 

The 50/50 call was not a 50/50 call.  It was a clear blocking foul.  The ref clearly wasn't sure which way to call it, he hesitated for a good 5 seconds, trying to consult with the other official.  Apparently the other official wasn't sure either.  That is why they allow replay.  They made a call, because it didn't matter what they choose they could over-rule it on replay. 

The Lebron drive to close it to a 4 point game was an obvious travel.  Took 3 full steps before jumping after picking up his dribble.

There are a number of other calls that are similar.  Overall, officiating benefitted the Cavs (game long) more than the warriors. 

I agree though, the refs were not good in this game. 


Benefitted the Cavs?  Cmon...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 01, 2018, 10:43:11 AM
Missing free throws happens to everyone. Not knowing the score with 4.7 seconds left in the game is a world class, unforgivable blunder.

Yep.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 01, 2018, 11:34:30 AM

Benefitted the Cavs?  Cmon...

I think it was called pretty even.  Missed calls on both sides that impacted the game.  They largely balance out.

I say benefitted the Cavs, because the style of officiating.  Largely on missed shots.  They let the teams bang (leading to a 15 rebound advantage for the Cavs). Similarly, no whistles on contact on the perimeter, but tight whistles on drives.  Again, that style, although balanced, slightly favors the Cavs.

Style of officiating, is why I say slight overall benefit to the Cavs.  Calls wise, even.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 01, 2018, 12:34:52 PM
Missing free throws happens to everyone. Not knowing the score with 4.7 seconds left in the game is a world class, unforgivable blunder.

You're right that Smith's blunder was worse but an 80% FT shooter badly missing a potential game-winning free throw in the Finals should not just be brushed aside.

Also, I'd be willing to bet that JR wasn't the only player on the floor who was unaware the game was tied.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on June 01, 2018, 01:16:01 PM
You're right that Smith's blunder was worse but an 80% FT shooter badly missing a potential game-winning free throw in the Finals should not just be brushed aside.

Also, I'd be willing to bet that JR wasn't the only player on the floor who was unaware the game was tied.

Let's not forget that any of the players or Lue could have called a timeout.  They still could have won in OT.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 01, 2018, 01:19:26 PM
Let's not forget that any of the players or Lue could have called a timeout.  They still could have won in OT.

That's the craziest part in my opinion.  No one, not the coach, not even Lebron bothered to call timeout when it was clear he was confused. 

Even at the last second, Lebron points out Hill in the corner instead of calling TO.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 01, 2018, 01:26:43 PM
I think Lebron did try to call a timeout but the refs didn't see it in time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 01, 2018, 01:33:05 PM
I think Lebron did try to call a timeout but the refs didn't see it in time.

He did, after pointing to Hill, and JR passed it. But time had expired at that point (maybe 0.5 seconds left, but no one had possession of the ball at that point).

I'm not sure if a TO can be granted if the ball is not in possession (in air on a pass).  I didn't think it could, but if it could then Lebron did call TO.

Regardless, it does mean that Lebron tried to call TO, which makes my statement at best, incomplete.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on June 02, 2018, 07:01:48 AM
TONI KUKOC
Kukoc is known to Bulls fans as the Sixth Man winner in 1996 with the 72-win greatest team ever and a sixth man and starter for the three-time Bulls champions from 1996-1998. But worldwide in basketball, Kukoc is regarded as one of the greatest ever and one of the pioneers that led to the globalization of the NBA. His Split team won the Euroleague three times and he was named MVP twice. Then he went to play in Italy and his team won the championship and he again was Euroleague MVP. He won multiple Euroleague player of the year awards and is regarded as the most accomplished Euroleague player ever. His teams won the FIBA junior world title, a World Championship and two Olympic silver medals. Kukoc was a clutch shot maker for those Bulls teams, generally the choice for coach Phil Jackson to take the big shot other than Michael Jordan. He played 13 seasons in the NBA and averaged 12.1 points despite being primarily a sixth man. Kukoc recently was hired as special advisor to the Bulls' team president.

Everything bolded was outside his NBA career. So essentially, his case as a NBA player is a 6th Man of the Year award, not being the top option on his team to take a big shot, and averaging 12.1 ppg. If that's HOF calibur, you have some really low standards.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 02, 2018, 08:18:15 AM
You're right that Smith's blunder was worse but an 80% FT shooter badly missing a potential game-winning free throw in the Finals should not just be brushed aside.

Also, I'd be willing to bet that JR wasn't the only player on the floor who was unaware the game was tied.

An 80% FT shooter goes 2 for 2 64% of the time. Making both is the most likely outcome but not by an overwhelming margin. It's understandable.

Not know the score with 4.7 seconds left (after a stoppage in play) is IMO not understandable. If there were multiple players on the court who didn't know what the score was I would be shocked/disappointed. And if you (the coach) knows that one (or more) of his players is a space cadet and needs to be reminded of score/time/situation he should have done it.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 02, 2018, 08:47:48 AM
Everything bolded was outside his NBA career. So essentially, his case as a NBA player is a 6th Man of the Year award, not being the top option on his team to take a big shot, and averaging 12.1 ppg. If that's HOF calibur, you have some really low standards.

Well, there was that one time ...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 02, 2018, 08:50:01 AM
Well, there was that one time ...

Lol. That’s right.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on June 02, 2018, 08:50:42 AM
Well, there was that one time ...

I thought of that as I wrote the post  ;D
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 02, 2018, 10:35:20 AM


The 50/50 call was not a 50/50 call.  It was a clear blocking foul.  The ref clearly wasn't sure which way to call it, he hesitated for a good 5 seconds, trying to consult with the other official.  Apparently the other official wasn't sure either.  That is why they allow replay.  They made a call, because it didn't matter what they choose they could over-rule it on replay. 


No way.  Even on replays it was iffy. The game is reffed at real time, not slow motion.  The refs claimed they needed to see if he was outside the restricted arc, that is awful. He was way over it.  That call never should have been reviewed.  Awful awful awful. Then to reverse that call, a 50-50 call slowed down when it is a judgment call to begin with at full speed?  Terrible.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=23668696

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 02, 2018, 10:37:22 AM
Everything bolded was outside his NBA career. So essentially, his case as a NBA player is a 6th Man of the Year award, not being the top option on his team to take a big shot, and averaging 12.1 ppg. If that's HOF calibur, you have some really low standards.

Sam Smith's opinion as a professional basketball writer on his Hall of Fame credentials vs Fireman's opinion of basketball playing career

Hard to decide.   ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 02, 2018, 11:16:41 AM
No way.  Even on replays it was iffy. The game is reffed at real time, not slow motion.  The refs claimed they needed to see if he was outside the restricted arc, that is awful. He was way over it.  That call never should have been reviewed.  Awful awful awful. Then to reverse that call, a 50-50 call slowed down when it is a judgment call to begin with at full speed?  Terrible.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=23668696

It was even more obvious that it was a clear blocking foul in real time.  And regarding the restricted arc.  Lebron's foot was still on the line after Durant had already picked up his dribble.  Lebron then jumps slides underneath Durant as Durant is going up for his shot.  Had he stayed in the initial legal guarding position, he would have been in the restricted zone, which is why he slid under Durant, to make sure he was not in the restricted zone (which he wasn't, but then he slid under him which makes it a blocking call).

Lebron is both leaning and moving (crashes into the other defender, whose foot is in the restricted zone) when the collision occurs. 

Very clear blocking call.  The exact type of play the NBA had in mind when they allowed replay in these particular incidents.  But should have been called a block in real time.  The NBA reviewed it, and agrees with what I wrote.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 02, 2018, 11:21:17 AM
Sam Smith's opinion as a professional basketball writer on his Hall of Fame credentials vs Fireman's opinion of basketball playing career

Hard to decide.   ;)

I’m sure if writers found it worth their time to discuss players not worthy of the HOF plenty of people would write about Toni Kukoc, after they wrote about many other players first.

Toni Kukoc is not a HOF basketball player. But calling him such fits your agenda so that you can say MJ got to play with 3 (hilarious) HOFers and that’s why he went 6-0 in NBA Finals and is the difference between LBJ’s Finals success (or lack thereof) and MJ’s Finals success.

The obvious problem here is that your agenda is so strong it apparently blocked out your memory of LBJ going 2-2 in NBA Finals series with the Heat, where he played with 3 (no, really, 3 legitimate, not 2 and some solid 6th man who was great overseas) HOFers.

Oops?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 02, 2018, 12:18:16 PM
Sam Smith's opinion as a professional basketball writer on his Hall of Fame credentials vs Fireman's opinion of basketball playing career

Hard to decide.   ;)

Sam Smith now writes for bulls.com so he was probably asked to write that article specifically about 10 Bulls. It's a puff piece.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 02, 2018, 12:27:26 PM
Sam Smith now writes for bulls.com so he was probably asked to write that article specifically about 10 Bulls. It's a puff piece.

Outstanding.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 02, 2018, 12:44:39 PM
Sam Smith's opinion as a professional basketball writer on his Hall of Fame credentials vs Fireman's opinion of basketball playing career

Hard to decide.   ;)

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy you should have learned about in your freshman philosophy class.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 02, 2018, 01:30:43 PM
Sam Smith now writes for bulls.com so he was probably asked to write that article specifically about 10 Bulls. It's a puff piece.

Only one problem with that theory.

This paragraph at the top of the article  https://www.nba.com/bulls/news/samsmith/9-bulls-hall-fame-case

"The contents of this page have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Chicago Bulls. All opinions expressed by Sam Smith are solely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the Chicago Bulls or its Basketball Operations staff, parent company, partners, or sponsors. His sources are not known to the Bulls and he has no special access to information beyond the access and privileges that go along with being an NBA accredited member of the media."


And to summarize, not only is it not a puff piece, but you are also impugning Sam Smith's credibility as a journalist in the process. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 02, 2018, 01:40:48 PM
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy you should have learned about in your freshman philosophy class.

I'm appealing to expertise vs someone that doesn't have the same level of expertise.  I learned that in life through common sense.

It's why I hire season mechanics, why I employed (back in the day) experienced people, why I vote for people with gov't experience and not hair brains that have never done it, and so many other examples.


Outstanding

In the most non-outstanding way possible because the site calls out clearly the views and opinions have not been seen, reviewed, expressed by the Bulls.   

On further review of your 250 candidates for Hall of Fame probability that you incorrectly passed off, did you know that 109 of your 250 are already in the HOF, or 43.6% of that list.  The hint was the * next to each name, repeated 109 times.  Even that list had players like Bill Walton only having a 2% chance of getting in and he did. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 02, 2018, 01:50:05 PM
I’m sure if writers found it worth their time to discuss players not worthy of the HOF plenty of people would write about Toni Kukoc, after they wrote about many other players first.

Toni Kukoc is not a HOF basketball player. But calling him such fits your agenda so that you can say MJ got to play with 3 (hilarious) HOFers and that’s why he went 6-0 in NBA Finals and is the difference between LBJ’s Finals success (or lack thereof) and MJ’s Finals success.

The obvious problem here is that your agenda is so strong it apparently blocked out your memory of LBJ going 2-2 in NBA Finals series with the Heat, where he played with 3 (no, really, 3 legitimate, not 2 and some solid 6th man who was great overseas) HOFers.

Oops?

I like data driven facts.  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lebrons-finals-record-isnt-really-a-disappointment/

He has under delivered in two, the fact that they even got to the Finals in three others is staggering and they also managed to beat the only 73 win team in history.   He gets points deducted for losing ones he shouldn't have, he earns bonus points for bringing teams to the Finals that had no business being there even if they ended up losing.  That's the one disappointment I had in Michael. the 6-0 is amazing, but he was not able in my opinion to ever get a team that wasn't supposed to make it to the Finals, thus never having the ability to risk ultimately losing in a final.  Lebron suffers from a bit of Buffalo Bills complex where they lost 4 straight SB's but had no business being in one of them and was gifted an appearance in another, yet they got there anyway which is a great accomplishment to begin with. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 02, 2018, 02:39:24 PM
Give them both their due.    A bar stool conversation without an end.    Unless Lebron pulls this one out of his..... hat.       I give them both all of the respect in the world for their on-court accomplishments. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on June 02, 2018, 02:57:54 PM
Sam Smith's opinion as a professional basketball writer on his Hall of Fame credentials vs Fireman's opinion of basketball playing career

Hard to decide.   ;)

Hmm...has my profession been discussed since this account was created? I know public service has been mentioned, not sure about any specifics.

And you completely missed the point, which is that at no point of his career did Kukoc play at an all-star level, much less Hall of Fame. The only time he ever looked (maybe) like a HOF player was before he ever played a NBA minute. At no point of his NBA career, largely as a bench player, was he HOF caliber. I don't think that's remotely debatable, and not even Smith makes that contention in the article you cite.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 02, 2018, 03:29:47 PM
It was even more obvious that it was a clear blocking foul in real time.  And regarding the restricted arc.  Lebron's foot was still on the line after Durant had already picked up his dribble.  Lebron then jumps slides underneath Durant as Durant is going up for his shot.  Had he stayed in the initial legal guarding position, he would have been in the restricted zone, which is why he slid under Durant, to make sure he was not in the restricted zone (which he wasn't, but then he slid under him which makes it a blocking call).

Lebron is both leaning and moving (crashes into the other defender, whose foot is in the restricted zone) when the collision occurs. 

Very clear blocking call.  The exact type of play the NBA had in mind when they allowed replay in these particular incidents.  But should have been called a block in real time.  The NBA reviewed it, and agrees with what I wrote.



It was so clear that Jeff Van Gundy and Steve Javie thought the charge should have been upheld.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 02, 2018, 09:59:00 PM
It was even more obvious that it was a clear blocking foul in real time.  And regarding the restricted arc.  Lebron's foot was still on the line after Durant had already picked up his dribble.  Lebron then jumps slides underneath Durant as Durant is going up for his shot.  Had he stayed in the initial legal guarding position, he would have been in the restricted zone, which is why he slid under Durant, to make sure he was not in the restricted zone (which he wasn't, but then he slid under him which makes it a blocking call).

Lebron is both leaning and moving (crashes into the other defender, whose foot is in the restricted zone) when the collision occurs. 

Very clear blocking call.  The exact type of play the NBA had in mind when they allowed replay in these particular incidents.  But should have been called a block in real time.  The NBA reviewed it, and agrees with what I wrote.

It was so obvious that the announcers still said it was a charge.  Ha ha.  Yeah, very clear so clear that after multiple reviews they still say charge.  And his foot was on the line prior to the dribble?  Not sure how you can tell that, looks like it is right next to it but not on it.

Here's the video of the oh so clear block that none of the broadcasting experts, including the networks ref expert (Javie, a fomer NBA ref) brought in for commentary and they 100% disagree with you on on the oh so clear, obvious call.   :o

https://www.clippituser.tv/c/dggwwz


I don't know if you are aware of this, but YOU CAN MOVE and still get a charge call.  Nowhere does the rule say anything about being stationary or planted.  Nowhere.  It is about position.  In fact, it specifically does not say one has to be stationary or planted.  Yet, it does go out of its way to say even IF stationary, doesn't mean it is a charge.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: DegenerateDish on June 02, 2018, 10:12:07 PM
Haralabob posed this question on Twitter...

If the Cavs traded LBJ to the Warriors for Curry and KD, which team wins a series after the swap?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 02, 2018, 10:14:29 PM
Haralabob posed this question on Twitter...

If the Cavs traded LBJ to the Warriors for Curry and KD, which team wins a series after the swap?

The Rockets.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 02, 2018, 10:15:30 PM
Hmm...has my profession been discussed since this account was created? I know public service has been mentioned, not sure about any specifics.


Hmm, well I know I'm getting old and losing my memory, but not that bad.  Yes, 5 days ago by YOU is when it was revealed directly by you.  Give an old man credit, 5 days memory isn't that hard.  https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56297.msg1025721#msg1025721    You said "on day one of my fire academy". 

Am I wrong that after the fire academy you didn't become a fireman? 


And you completely missed the point, which is that at no point of his career did Kukoc play at an all-star level, much less Hall of Fame. The only time he ever looked (maybe) like a HOF player was before he ever played a NBA minute. At no point of his NBA career, largely as a bench player, was he HOF caliber. I don't think that's remotely debatable, and not even Smith makes that contention in the article you cite.

I trust Sam Smith and his expertise that said he had a case.  I also said I don't know if he should be, but he is in the FIBA Hall of Fame and he certainly has a case for Naismith.  I'm not the one suggesting it isn't close.  If that were the case, Smith would not make the claim nor would others like Pippen.  Are you aware that there are several players in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame that played in zero or 1 all star game? Arvydas Sabonis, Drazen Petrovic, Calvin Murphy, Bill Bradley, Don Barksdale, Dan Issel, and others.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 03, 2018, 03:14:42 AM


It was so clear that Jeff Van Gundy and Steve Javie thought the charge should have been upheld.

And Steve Javie later said the refs got it right in overturning it.

It was one of the clearer block/charge calls I've seen. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 03, 2018, 09:55:39 AM
And Steve Javie later said the refs got it right in overturning it.

It was one of the clearer block/charge calls I've seen.

In real time, even with the replay he said charge.  These are bang bang plays.  Where did Javie later say they got it right?

The whole point of Javie and Van Gundy (former coach) saying it was a charge is to point out the subjectivity of the call.  There is nothing clear cut at all if you have those guys saying it was and needing a replay in slow motion to say it wasn't.  That is the antithesis of clear cut.  Making matters worse, the ONLY reason to review that play is if the player is not in the restricted area.  James is clearly (that's the only thing clear on this play) outside of the restricted area so the review never should have happened.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 03, 2018, 09:59:27 AM
In real time, even with the replay he said charge.  These are bang bang plays.  Where did Javie later say they got it right?

The whole point of Javie and Van Gundy (former coach) saying it was a charge is to point out the subjectivity of the call.  There is nothing clear cut at all if you have those guys saying it was and needing a replay in slow motion to say it wasn't.  That is the antithesis of clear cut.  Making matters worse, the ONLY reason to review that play is if the player is not in the restricted area.  James is clearly (that's the only thing clear on this play) outside of the restricted area so the review never should have happened.


Yeah I'm not saying it was a charge, I'm just disputing that it was clear cut.  I mean, even after it was reviewed, there were disputes.

The problem I have is the charge/block call being reviewable simply because of the restricted area being reviewable.  Yet no other foul is reviewable. 

So my problem is more with the NBA allowing replay review in this case.  Not that the refs got it wrong in the end.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 03, 2018, 10:14:22 AM
In real time, even with the replay he said charge.  These are bang bang plays.  Where did Javie later say they got it right?

The whole point of Javie and Van Gundy (former coach) saying it was a charge is to point out the subjectivity of the call.  There is nothing clear cut at all if you have those guys saying it was and needing a replay in slow motion to say it wasn't.  That is the antithesis of clear cut.  Making matters worse, the ONLY reason to review that play is if the player is not in the restricted area.  James is clearly (that's the only thing clear on this play) outside of the restricted area so the review never should have happened.

You are beating a dead horse. The officials said it was a block, the NBA reviewed the call and confirmed that the refs made the right call. 

To me it was an absurdly obvious block.  Lebron was still leaning and moving from when he slid under Durant.  Even if it is 50/50 (they get to the spot at the same time; they didn't), by rule that is automatically a block; tie goes to the offensive player. Any other player than Lebron there, and 100% of officials call it a block. 

And for Sultan.  No problem with the actual charge/block being reviewable. It is not like every other call.  The officials need to simultaneously determine when the "shot motion" begins, whether the defender is in a legal guarding position, and the position of the feet of the defender when the "shot motion" begins.  All that clearly defines it as unique.  Get the call right.  They did.  That's why the rule exists.

And everyone keeps forgetting what the actual call was.  There were two officials that made a call in real time.  One called it a block.  The other called it a charge.  They discussed it and since it was reviewable wen to review.  If it was not reviewable, they very likely would have met to confer and decided to go with the block anyway.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 03, 2018, 12:03:36 PM
I'm guessing you want the Cavs to win.  There were a lot more key calls wrong than that (or which could have been called wrong). 

For the record, I have a slight preference for the Warriors but the Cavs winning wouldn't bother me.

Just thought the crunch time reffing leaned to GSW. And I don't want the block/charge call replay reviews becoming common; it would be the NBA version of "what is a catch?"
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: brewcity77 on June 03, 2018, 12:29:06 PM
Hmm, well I know I'm getting old and losing my memory, but not that bad.  Yes, 5 days ago by YOU is when it was revealed directly by you.  Give an old man credit, 5 days memory isn't that hard.  https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56297.msg1025721#msg1025721    You said "on day one of my fire academy". 

Am I wrong that after the fire academy you didn't become a fireman? 


I trust Sam Smith and his expertise that said he had a case.  I also said I don't know if he should be, but he is in the FIBA Hall of Fame and he certainly has a case for Naismith.  I'm not the one suggesting it isn't close.  If that were the case, Smith would not make the claim nor would others like Pippen.  Are you aware that there are several players in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame that played in zero or 1 all star game? Arvydas Sabonis, Drazen Petrovic, Calvin Murphy, Bill Bradley, Don Barksdale, Dan Issel, and others.

Fair.

The thing is, Kukoc was at no point of his NBA career a HOF caliber player or even close. You and Sam can throw out overseas accolades but that doesn't change that he was never at that level in this league.

Also, he's been eligible for the HOF for nearly a decade. He's never been so much as a finalist for the Naismith HOF. He is not and never was close on this side of the pond.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 03, 2018, 01:50:31 PM
Only one problem with that theory.

This paragraph at the top of the article  https://www.nba.com/bulls/news/samsmith/9-bulls-hall-fame-case

"The contents of this page have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Chicago Bulls. All opinions expressed by Sam Smith are solely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the Chicago Bulls or its Basketball Operations staff, parent company, partners, or sponsors. His sources are not known to the Bulls and he has no special access to information beyond the access and privileges that go along with being an NBA accredited member of the media."


And to summarize, not only is it not a puff piece, but you are also impugning Sam Smith's credibility as a journalist in the process.

Is Smith's job at bulls.com journalism or public relations? Maybe a hybrid of the two.

The disclaimer doesn't resolve what is a clear conflict of interest.  Smith now rights about the Bulls for the Bulls.

All the disclaimer proves is that Smith writes his own articles and they are published without the Bulls reviewing them.

We do not know how/if Smith is assigned article topics.  We do not know what repercussions Smith might face if he wrote something the Bulls do not like.

And as for the article itself, Smith does his best to appear unbiased.  He wrote several paragraphs that had nothing to do with the Bulls.  Smith also carefully chose the phrase "for consideration."  Not "deserve to be inducted." Considerations; hey think about these guys & here's why.

None of this changes Smith's credibility on his prior work.  But since he started writing for bulls.com, anything he writes about the Bulls must be taken with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 03, 2018, 08:28:20 PM
Fair.

The thing is, Kukoc was at no point of his NBA career a HOF caliber player or even close. You and Sam can throw out overseas accolades but that doesn't change that he was never at that level in this league.

Also, he's been eligible for the HOF for nearly a decade. He's never been so much as a finalist for the Naismith HOF. He is not and never was close on this side of the pond.

Will agree to disagree.  My position is he was the glue on some of those teams, sacrificed personal stats for the team.  In my view that is where Sam Smith and I are.  All we said is he has a case.  Mr. Pippen said the same and didn't say it about every other teammate.

Quote from: Lazar
s Canadian Bacon headband link=topic=52904.msg1026890#msg1026890 date=1528046946


Is Smith's job at bulls.com journalism or public relations? Maybe a hybrid of the two.

The disclaimer doesn't resolve what is a clear conflict of interest.  Smith now rights about the Bulls for the Bulls.

All the disclaimer proves is that Smith writes his own articles and they are published without the Bulls reviewing them.

We do not know how/if Smith is assigned article topics.  We do not know what repercussions Smith might face if he wrote something the Bulls do not like.

And as for the article itself, Smith does his best to appear unbiased.  He wrote several paragraphs that had nothing to do with the Bulls.  Smith also carefully chose the phrase "for consideration."  Not "deserve to be inducted." Considerations; hey think about these guys & here's why.

None of this changes Smith's credibility on his prior work.  But since he started writing for bulls.com, anything he writes about the Bulls must be taken with a grain of salt.


Not sure what his official title is, but he left the Tribune in 2008 and is a writer for the Bulls. He is not listed as an employee of the Bulls in any Media Relations or Public Relations aspect.

The deal he got with the Bulls was to continue to do what he had done with the Tribune, be allowed to critique and not be told what to do.  That was imperative of his willingness to take the job and why that particular qualifier exists on the website.  The Bulls were getting a great journalist, but in return he was not going to let his employer tell him how to write, what to write and there had to be separation of church and state there. That is how it came together.  To this day that disclaimer remains in everything he writes, though it is now at the bottom of his articles.

None of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, this is how it was setup with a career journalist. You don't change the leopard's spots, he is a journalist.  There's always the option to reach out to him and ask.

@samsmithhoops on twitter   
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 03, 2018, 08:47:32 PM
LBJ is going to have to start giving at least 50% effort defensively when he’s in any situation other than an iso and he’s guarding the ball handler or a chase down block isn’t in play if the Cavs want any chance. The dude gives no help whatsoever and will just wave his hands at his teammates but when he gets caught ball watching and his guy gets a backdoor dunk (the only thing Jordan Bell, for example, is a threat to do) and Tristian Thompson raises his hands wondering what happened LBJ tells him to settle down.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 03, 2018, 08:50:03 PM
LBJ is going to have to start giving at least 50% effort defensively when he’s in any situation other than an iso and he’s guarding the ball handler or a chase down block isn’t in play if the Cavs want any chance. The dude gives no help whatsoever and will just wave his hands at his teammates but when he gets caught ball watching and his guy gets a backdoor dunk (the only thing Jordan Bell, for example, is a threat to do) and Tristian Thompson raises his hands wondering what happened LBJ tells him to settle down.


Yeah.  He sucks.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 03, 2018, 08:56:22 PM

Yeah.  He sucks.

Your words.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 04, 2018, 10:12:56 AM
LBJ is going to have to start giving at least 50% effort defensively when he’s in any situation other than an iso and he’s guarding the ball handler or a chase down block isn’t in play if the Cavs want any chance. The dude gives no help whatsoever and will just wave his hands at his teammates but when he gets caught ball watching and his guy gets a backdoor dunk (the only thing Jordan Bell, for example, is a threat to do) and Tristian Thompson raises his hands wondering what happened LBJ tells him to settle down.

Clearly LeBron isn't pulling his weight. If only he tried a little harder the Cavs might have a chance in this series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 04, 2018, 11:15:08 AM
Clearly LeBron isn't pulling his weight. If only he tried a little harder the Cavs might have a chance in this series.

Agreed.  If the Warriors roll players aren't getting uncontested dunks the Cavs will have a shot.  If not they'll lose the next 2 by 20 and everyone can say LBJ would be undefeated in NBA Finals if he played them with 3 HOFers next to him, which wouldn't be true.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 04, 2018, 12:12:18 PM
Agreed.  If the Warriors roll players aren't getting uncontested dunks the Cavs will have a shot.  If not they'll lose the next 2 by 20 and everyone can say LBJ would be undefeated in NBA Finals if he played them with 3 HOFers next to him, which wouldn't be true.

Very Nersian.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 04, 2018, 12:30:26 PM
Agreed.  If the Warriors roll players aren't getting uncontested dunks the Cavs will have a shot.  If not they'll lose the next 2 by 20 and everyone can say LBJ would be undefeated in NBA Finals if he played them with 3 HOFers next to him, which wouldn't be true.

I feel like you're just trolling at this point.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 04, 2018, 03:17:08 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Wades does not think Lebron is the GOAT.    Or in the discussion.    Or worthy of being on an NBA team.    Or worthy of being considered human.   
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 04, 2018, 04:01:13 PM
Clearly LeBron isn't pulling his weight. If only he tried a little harder the Cavs might have a chance in this series.

This deflects from reality. 

Lebron was all world in regulation (on offense) in game 1.  He was dreadful in OT.  He plays better on D in game 1, they win. 

In game 2, he was great again on offense, nonexistent on D. 

Lebron is not going to out-shoot, Curry and Klay.  So if eFG% reigns supreme, the only way to beat the Warriors is to play great D.  Lebron is taking defense off. 

The other way is to boost the ORB% tremendously.  Since Lebron has the ball in his hands the majority of the time, he isn't going to lead that category...the role players have to.  In game 1 they did, and because of the offensive rebounding they almost won, but they need Lebron to contribute on D too.

The Cavs would likely lose even with good D (statistically the odds aren't in their favor), but if Lebron takes defense off to put more energy on O, their odds drop precipitously.


Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 04, 2018, 04:12:21 PM
I like data driven facts.  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lebrons-finals-record-isnt-really-a-disappointment/

He has under delivered in two, the fact that they even got to the Finals in three others is staggering and they also managed to beat the only 73 win team in history.   He gets points deducted for losing ones he shouldn't have, he earns bonus points for bringing teams to the Finals that had no business being there even if they ended up losing.  That's the one disappointment I had in Michael. the 6-0 is amazing, but he was not able in my opinion to ever get a team that wasn't supposed to make it to the Finals, thus never having the ability to risk ultimately losing in a final.  Lebron suffers from a bit of Buffalo Bills complex where they lost 4 straight SB's but had no business being in one of them and was gifted an appearance in another, yet they got there anyway which is a great accomplishment to begin with.

According to the article that you linked to in this post, Jordan's Bulls won 2 titles that they weren't "supposed" to win.

Additionally, LeBron had the huge upset of GS in the Finals but also lost to Dallas when his team had a 63% chance of winning. Jordan didn't pull off a significant upset in the Finals but his team never lost as heavy favorites either.

It's interesting that we've reached the point of nit-picking that we're now holding it against great players for being on great teams  ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 04, 2018, 05:32:28 PM
I’m fine not sharing the opinion that LBJ does absolutely nothing wrong. I’m sure his 5 turnovers per game and his attempt to be hidden on Javale McGhee and Jordan Bell leading to their ability to get wide open rim attacks.

I’m glad some Scoopers are great with LBJ’s defense. My guess is the Warriors share that opinion.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 04, 2018, 05:58:38 PM
I’m fine not sharing the opinion that LBJ does absolutely nothing wrong. I’m sure his 5 turnovers per game and his attempt to be hidden on Javale McGhee and Jordan Bell leading to their ability to get wide open rim attacks.

I’m glad some Scoopers are great with LBJ’s defense. My guess is the Warriors share that opinion.

Ah hyperbole. The defense of the weak.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 04, 2018, 06:11:56 PM
Ah hyperbole. The defense of the weak.

What hyperbole?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 04, 2018, 06:32:09 PM
https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2018/06/04/monday-hot-clicks-nba-finals-warriors-cavaliers-lebron-james-jr-smith-bench-video

Seems like a super fun guy to have leading the locker room.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on June 04, 2018, 08:30:45 PM
https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2018/06/04/monday-hot-clicks-nba-finals-warriors-cavaliers-lebron-james-jr-smith-bench-video

Seems like a super fun guy to have leading the locker room.

Looks like a guy realizing he should've taken the shot instead of passing.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 04, 2018, 09:17:58 PM
https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2018/06/04/monday-hot-clicks-nba-finals-warriors-cavaliers-lebron-james-jr-smith-bench-video

Seems like a super fun guy to have leading the locker room.

My question is where was the coach during all that? 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 04, 2018, 09:57:07 PM
My question is where was the coach during all that?

It’s pretty common for coaches to meet off to the side first and then address the team. The problem is the only words Coach LeBron had to say was yelling at Coach Lue after freezing out the two players who obviously feel worse than any of the other players before burying his head in his tissue the rest of the “huddle” before walking back to the court.

Looks like a guy realizing he should've taken the shot instead of passing.

Then yell at yourself not at your coach.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 🏀 on June 05, 2018, 07:16:01 AM
It’s pretty common for coaches to meet off to the side first and then address the team. The problem is the only words Coach LeBron had to say was yelling at Coach Lue after freezing out the two players who obviously feel worse than any of the other players before burying his head in his tissue the rest of the “huddle” before walkin
Then yell at yourself not at your coach.
It’s pretty common for coaches to meet off to the side first and then address the team. The problem is the only words Coach LeBron had to say was yelling at Coach Lue after freezing out the two players who obviously feel worse than any of the other players before burying his head in his tissue the rest of the “huddle” before walking back to the court.

Then yell at yourself not at your coach.

Yep. MJ wouldn't have passed.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 05, 2018, 07:51:04 AM
Yep. MJ wouldn't have passed.

One of the most iconic shots in finals history is a Jordan-assisted Kerr game winner so not sure I buy that.

I do wholeheartedly agree that the video is a horrendous display of leadership, and likely cost them overtime.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 05, 2018, 08:23:30 AM
My question is where was the coach during all that?

Where were ANY of the Cavs during all that? They might as well have gone home before OT. Someone, I don't care if it's the 14th man in street clothes, someone needed to tell JR Smith and George Hill that the team has their back and there's still ball to be played. Korver clapped a few times and may have said something but literally any coach or player needed to sit next to those guys and show some leadership. I honestly think they were all waiting for LeBron to do it but when it became clear that he wasn't going to, someone else needed to step up.

The problem is the only words Coach LeBron had to say was yelling at Coach Lue after freezing out the two players who obviously feel worse than any of the other players before burying his head in his tissue the rest of the “huddle” before walking back to the court.

Then yell at yourself not at your coach.

LeBron asked Lue if Cleveland had any timeouts left and was sickened to learn that they did. Let's be real though. That's something he should have known.


I like LeBron a lot and think he's firmly in place as the second-best player ever but that was far from being his finest moment and it's more ammo for LeBron haters.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 05, 2018, 08:36:33 AM

I like LeBron a lot and think he's firmly in place as the second-best player ever but that was far from being his finest moment and it's more ammo for LeBron haters.



Yes.  Their irrationality is enhanced by additional irrationality. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 05, 2018, 09:48:22 AM
LeBron asked Lue if Cleveland had any timeouts left and was sickened to learn that they did. Let's be real though. That's something he should have known.

I like LeBron a lot and think he's firmly in place as the second-best player ever but that was far from being his finest moment and it's more ammo for LeBron haters.

I agree; absolutely not his finest moment.  Pretty bad, actually.  A very unfortunate reaction to to what was one of the worst moments of his career.

Also, unless people are a lot better lip readers than me, I'm not going to assume that LeBron didn't know they had a time out.  Clearly, he's asking about time outs, but I certainly can't distinguish between "did we have a time out?" and "didn't we have a time out?"  Of course, that doesn't answer why he didn't call it himself.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 05, 2018, 09:59:29 AM
Where were ANY of the Cavs during all that? They might as well have gone home before OT. Someone, I don't care if it's the 14th man in street clothes, someone needed to tell JR Smith and George Hill that the team has their back and there's still ball to be played. Korver clapped a few times and may have said something but literally any coach or player needed to sit next to those guys and show some leadership. I honestly think they were all waiting for LeBron to do it but when it became clear that he wasn't going to, someone else needed to step up.

LeBron asked Lue if Cleveland had any timeouts left and was sickened to learn that they did. Let's be real though. That's something he should have known.


I like LeBron a lot and think he's firmly in place as the second-best player ever but that was far from being his finest moment and it's more ammo for LeBron haters.

Agree with all of this.  Also makes clear that it appears no one was fully aware of the entire game situation, which is unacceptable. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: cheebs09 on June 05, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
I agree; absolutely not his finest moment.  Pretty bad, actually.  A very unfortunate reaction to to what was one of the worst moments of his career.

Also, unless people are a lot better lip readers than me, I'm not going to assume that LeBron didn't know they had a time out.  Clearly, he's asking about time outs, but I certainly can't distinguish between "did we have a time out?" and "didn't we have a time out?"  Of course, that doesn't answer why he didn't call it himself.

The weird part was he did try to call a timeout. I have to think he only does that if he knows for sure they have one. Otherwise, why risk losing the game on a technical?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 05, 2018, 02:08:22 PM
According to the article that you linked to in this post, Jordan's Bulls won 2 titles that they weren't "supposed" to win.

Additionally, LeBron had the huge upset of GS in the Finals but also lost to Dallas when his team had a 63% chance of winning. Jordan didn't pull off a significant upset in the Finals but his team never lost as heavy favorites either.

It's interesting that we've reached the point of nit-picking that we're now holding it against great players for being on great teams  ;)

Curious. 

Do you think the Cavs win that series if Curry was healthy.  He was probably at 80%.  Scored 5 ppg less in the playoffs while shooting 7 percentage points lower in his eFG%.  Far less mobility that limited his ability to attack/get open, or guard Kyrie.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 05, 2018, 02:25:29 PM
Curious. 

Do you think the Cavs win that series if Curry was healthy.  He was probably at 80%.  Scored 5 ppg less in the playoffs while shooting 7 percentage points lower in his eFG%.  Far less mobility that limited his ability to attack/get open, or guard Kyrie.

It's a pointless question.
Do you think the Warriors would have won in '15 if the Cavs had Kyrie and Love?
I mean, the Cavs' starting lineup in the series featured Delly, Mozgov and Shumpert. Blecch.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 05, 2018, 02:38:57 PM
Curious. 

Do you think the Cavs win that series if Curry was healthy.  He was probably at 80%.  Scored 5 ppg less in the playoffs while shooting 7 percentage points lower in his eFG%.  Far less mobility that limited his ability to attack/get open, or guard Kyrie.

Who knows? Probably not...but the Warriors with Curry at 80% were still favored by 8 points in Game 5 and by 5 points in Game 7.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 05, 2018, 02:45:05 PM
It's a pointless question.
Do you think the Warriors would have won in '15 if the Cavs had Kyrie and Love?
I mean, the Cavs' starting lineup in the series featured Delly, Mozgov and Shumpert. Blecch.

No idea.  They did have Kyrie for 1 game (they still lost). 

But people often talk about how James would have had another championship ('15) if not for injuries. 

Why is it not ok to ponder about a healthy Curry?  It isn't a massive upset with an injured Curry.

Honestly, it is why I don't look as much at championships (or upsets), as a barometer of greatness for a player.  Too many variables playing a role, besides the player. 

Who knows? Probably not...but the Warriors with Curry at 80% were still favored by 8 points in Game 5 and by 5 points in Game 7.

Valid point.  In retrospect, I wonder how much of that was influenced still by their regular season, when Curry was healthy. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 05, 2018, 03:09:00 PM
No idea.  They did have Kyrie for 1 game (they still lost). 

But people often talk about how James would have had another championship ('15) if not for injuries. 

Why is it not ok to ponder about a healthy Curry?  It isn't a massive upset with an injured Curry.

Honestly, it is why I don't look as much at championships (or upsets), as a barometer of greatness for a player.  Too many variables playing a role, besides the player. 

Valid point.  In retrospect, I wonder how much of that was influenced still by their regular season, when Curry was healthy.

Curry wasn't all full strength but he still played all 7 games and averaged 35 minutes per. His shooting percentages were down in the series but they were still better than Kobe's in the 2010 Finals and he was named MVP. It wasn't like Curry was a complete non-factor or sitting in street clothes on the bench.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 05, 2018, 03:10:51 PM
No idea.  They did have Kyrie for 1 game (they still lost). 

But people often talk about how James would have had another championship ('15) if not for injuries. 

Why is it not ok to ponder about a healthy Curry?  It isn't a massive upset with an injured Curry.

Ponder away, but when you're willing to toss aside the Cavs' '16 title because Curry was possibly "80 percent" healthy, then it's only fair to toss aside the Warriors' '15 title because Love and Kyrie were 0 percent healthy.
Seems inconsistent to imply that the Cavs won in 2016 because Curry wasn't perfectly healthy, but argue that you have "no idea" whether the absence of Love and Irving impacted the 2015 result. You'd have to be basketball stupid to believe the absence of two all-stars didn't significantly hurt the Cavs' chances.

"Massive" is a relative term, but clearly Vegas viewed the Cavs' win in 2016 as an upset.
And no, Vegas was absolutely not setting lines in the last three games of the Finals based on what happened a couple of months prior in the regular season.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 05, 2018, 03:12:02 PM
The weird part was he did try to call a timeout. I have to think he only does that if he knows for sure they have one. Otherwise, why risk losing the game on a technical?


Called "pullin' a Webber," hey?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 05, 2018, 04:16:00 PM
Curry wasn't all full strength but he still played all 7 games and averaged 35 minutes per. His shooting percentages were down in the series but they were still better than Kobe's in the 2010 Finals and he was named MVP. It wasn't like Curry was a complete non-factor or sitting in street clothes on the bench.

I agree, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.  My point was simply, that the huge upset, is predicated upon much of Curry's regular season performance.

His regular season he average 30.1 ppg 6.7 assists 3.3 TO and an eFG% of 63%, while leading the league in steals with 2.1 per game.  That is arguably top 5 single season performance in all history. 

In the playoffs he was at 25.1 ppg 5.2 assists 4.2 TO and an eFG% of only 55.6%, while dropping to 1.4 steals per game.  That is still all-star level (if they won he would have still been MVP), but was a substantial drop-off from his otherworldly regular season. 

Their record setting regular season, was due to an all-time great performance.  The "upset" ideas are based on Curry being other-world.  He was an ordinary all-star after the injury.

It is not discounting a title for Lebron, just saying that it wasn't the massive upset he gets credit for by some people (not saying you are one of them).  Too often we forget context.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 05, 2018, 04:28:11 PM
Ponder away, but when you're willing to toss aside the Cavs' '16 title because Curry was possibly "80 percent" healthy, then it's only fair to toss aside the Warriors' '15 title because Love and Kyrie were 0 percent healthy.
Seems inconsistent to imply that the Cavs won in 2016 because Curry wasn't perfectly healthy, but argue that you have "no idea" whether the absence of Love and Irving impacted the 2015 result. You'd have to be basketball stupid to believe the absence of two all-stars didn't significantly hurt the Cavs' chances.

"Massive" is a relative term, but clearly Vegas viewed the Cavs' win in 2016 as an upset.
And no, Vegas was absolutely not setting lines in the last three games of the Finals based on what happened a couple of months prior in the regular season.

I think you are putting words into my mouth, but given my prior posting record re. Lebron, that is my fault and I deserve it.

For the record.

I'm not tossing aside any title, just asking the question to see what Merritt/others think.  I have no idea if they win with a healthy Curry or not.  If forced to make a prediction my gut says most likely.  Just like I said I have no idea who wins in 2015. But, if forced to make a prediction, it should be the Cavs with a healthy Kyrie and Love, that team (imo) had absurd talent, more talent than the Warriors.   

But injuries happen.  It is why I don't overly worry about numbers of titles, and why I actually stated that "Honestly, it is why I don't look as much at championships (or upsets), as a barometer of greatness for a player.  Too many variables playing a role, besides the player."

You are right regarding Vegas odds, but your statement is incomplete.  Vegas odds are determined based on expected/actual betting patterns.  The media portrayal of the Warriors (largely based off Curry's regular season), was one of, if not the best team ever.  They were going to command far more bets, because of that, and were favored based on the betting patterns.

My point was, given Curry's injury, that perception was not correct and the teams were pretty even.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 05, 2018, 04:31:50 PM
Ponder away, but when you're willing to toss aside the Cavs' '16 title because Curry was possibly "80 percent" healthy, then it's only fair to toss aside the Warriors' '15 title because Love and Kyrie were 0 percent healthy.
Seems inconsistent to imply that the Cavs won in 2016 because Curry wasn't perfectly healthy, but argue that you have "no idea" whether the absence of Love and Irving impacted the 2015 result. You'd have to be basketball stupid to believe the absence of two all-stars didn't significantly hurt the Cavs' chances.

"Massive" is a relative term, but clearly Vegas viewed the Cavs' win in 2016 as an upset.
And no, Vegas was absolutely not setting lines in the last three games of the Finals based on what happened a couple of months prior in the regular season.

The LeBron-haters will go to any lengths to discredit his accomplishments. It's pretty funny, actually.

Having said that, as a guy who considers LeBron to be the second-best player ever and who really enjoys watching him play, I'll throw in this:

He was the opposite of a leader on the bench between the end of regulation and OT in Game 1. To borrow MUFINY's term, he was a de-motivator! He helped cost the Cavs any sliver of a chance they had at victory.

LeBron should have been screaming: "OK, that sucked! But we're still gonna win this thing! They're not all that great! We've still got this! JR is gonna play huge for us in OT! We all are! We've got this m-f-er! Eff Golden State! Let's go kick their a$$e$!"

Could they have won if he took that attitude? We'll never know. Instead, he sulked like a little baby and acted like the game was already lost - which it was, partly because of the way he behaved.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 05, 2018, 04:35:34 PM
No idea.  They did have Kyrie for 1 game (they still lost). 

But people often talk about how James would have had another championship ('15) if not for injuries. 

Why is it not ok to ponder about a healthy Curry?  It isn't a massive upset with an injured Curry.

Honestly, it is why I don't look as much at championships (or upsets), as a barometer of greatness for a player.  Too many variables playing a role, besides the player. 

Valid point.  In retrospect, I wonder how much of that was influenced still by their regular season, when Curry was healthy.

And Bogut went down, removing any semblance of interior defense (he was 2nd team all NBA defense 2015), leading to high ball screen after high ball screen for LeBron & Kyrie to get a head of steam and finish with no challenger at the rim.

And Iggy's back was out the whole series (2015 finals MVP for guarding LeBron).

And the Draymond suspension when LeBron egregiously tripped him at midcourt (could have torn his ACL), then Draymond flailed at him.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 05, 2018, 05:38:17 PM
And Bogut went down, removing any semblance of interior defense (he was 2nd team all NBA defense 2015), leading to high ball screen after high ball screen for LeBron & Kyrie to get a head of steam and finish with no challenger at the rim.

And Iggy's back was out the whole series (2015 finals MVP for guarding LeBron).

And the Draymond suspension when LeBron egregiously tripped him at midcourt (could have torn his ACL), then Draymond flailed at him.


Lol. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 05, 2018, 05:51:49 PM

Lol.

You're right, the only player to ever have mitigating circumstances work against him is LeBron! My mistake.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 05, 2018, 06:46:50 PM
You're right, the only player to ever have mitigating circumstances work against him is LeBron! My mistake.

No I was laughing at your lack of perspective. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 06, 2018, 07:57:40 AM
No I was laughing at your lack of perspective.

Can you elaborate on the perspective I'm lacking? Or are you saying the Warriors with MVP Curry coming off post-season knee surgery, without their only interior defender (2nd team all defense), the 2015 finals MVP with a creaking back, and one of their all-stars dubiously suspended was the same team that won 73 regular season games?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2018, 08:28:07 AM
Can you elaborate on the perspective I'm lacking? Or are you saying the Warriors with MVP Curry coming off post-season knee surgery, without their only interior defender (2nd team all defense), the 2015 finals MVP with a creaking back, and one of their all-stars dubiously suspended was the same team that won 73 regular season games?


He wasn't "dubiously suspended."  It was obvious at the time and is obvious in retrospect.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 06, 2018, 11:13:03 AM

He wasn't "dubiously suspended."  It was obvious at the time and is obvious in retrospect.

If that was reversed.  Lebron wouldn't have gotten a flagrant and wouldn't have been suspended.  If it had been any other two players, it wouldn't have been a flagrant and he wouldn't have been suspended. 

If you do not realize that.  You lack perspective. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 06, 2018, 11:24:30 AM
If that was reversed.  Lebron wouldn't have gotten a flagrant and wouldn't have been suspended.  If it had been any other two players, it wouldn't have been a flagrant and he wouldn't have been suspended. 

If you do not realize that.  You lack perspective.

Actually, I think you're probably half right.  If it had been any other player, he wouldn't have been suspended.  Green was on a very short leash with the NBA after nailing Adams in the nuts twice.  And, frankly, you might be completely right and he wouldn't have been suspended if it hadn't been LeBron.  Either way, if Green had been able to control those "involuntary" kicks and knees against OKC, he probably wouldn't have been suspended in the Finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2018, 11:25:35 AM
If that was reversed.  Lebron wouldn't have gotten a flagrant and wouldn't have been suspended.  If it had been any other two players, it wouldn't have been a flagrant and he wouldn't have been suspended. 

If you do not realize that.  You lack perspective. 


You are correct that Lebron wouldn't have been suspended.  But not because of any bias or any other made up reason you can come up with.  It's because Draymond was suspended for committing FOUR flagrant fouls during the playoffs.  "Flagrant foul accumulation."  It's an objective rule.

Since Lebron didn't pick up any earlier in the playoffs (as I recall), he wouldn't have been suspended had he committed the flagrant foul.

So not only is my perspective 100% accurate, I actually understand the rule by which Draymond was suspended. 

Again, I will just add this to your pile of sh*tty Lebron takes.  It's pretty impressive.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 06, 2018, 11:26:14 AM
If that was reversed.  Lebron wouldn't have gotten a flagrant and wouldn't have been suspended.  If it had been any other two players, it wouldn't have been a flagrant and he wouldn't have been suspended. 

If you do not realize that.  You lack perspective.

Just to be clear, Green didn't get suspended simply for striking LeBron in the groin and then swinging ("flailing") at him again. The suspension came because it was Green's fourth flagrant foul point in the playoffs. LeBron was assessed an after-the-fact technical for his actions.

You're right that most players wouldn't have been suspended because very few players would have been assessed 3 flagrant foul points prior to that.

You're wrong that Green is the only player who would have been given a flagrant foul for those actions.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 06, 2018, 11:36:23 AM
Draymond Green was a multiple offender of the same violation. He had been assessed personal fouls, technical fouls and flagrant fouls for it in the past. The league had little choice but to suspend him when he did it AGAIN.

Speculation about whether another player might or might not have gotten the suspension is just that - speculation. Based purely on opinions and not facts.

I'm quite sure that any player who had done what Green did MULTIPLE times would have gotten suspended. But that, too, is an opinion.

The Warriors had a 3-1 lead in that series. They imploded for numerous reasons, and perhaps the absence of Bogut and lingering effects of Curry's injury were two of them. But ...

Bogut averaged only 13 minutes and was a minus-19 in the first 4 games - 3 of which GS won - and he played only 10 minutes with 0 pts, 1 reb and 1 blk in the victory that gave GS its 3-1 lead. He had one decent game (5 blks, 6 reb, +10 in 15 mins) in Game 2, but otherwise was a non-factor, and I have trouble calling him one of the Warriors' important players in the series even before he got hurt.

Curry, we'll never know how much he was "limited." But he did have 38 pts in G4 and 30 in G6, and he did average 39 mins in the last 4 games.

The Warriors lost their poise and pretty much gave away 2 games (G5 and G6). After that, it was a one-game series; that the team with the best player on the planet (not to mention Kyrie and Love) emerged victorious shouldn't have shocked anybody even if GS was favored at home.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 06, 2018, 09:20:42 PM
Just to be clear, Green didn't get suspended simply for striking LeBron in the groin and then swinging ("flailing") at him again. The suspension came because it was Green's fourth flagrant foul point in the playoffs. LeBron was assessed an after-the-fact technical for his actions.

You're right that most players wouldn't have been suspended because very few players would have been assessed 3 flagrant foul points prior to that.

You're wrong that Green is the only player who would have been given a flagrant foul for those actions.

I'm aware that it was not a suspension for that one play, that it was for the accumulation of 4 flagrant fouls. 

I'm simply saying that it was not a flagrant.  No way that was a flagrant foul...maybe a technical, but not a flagrant.  And in the other situations I described it would not have been called a flagrant foul.  It was done because it was Green and Lebron. 

I actually despise Green.  Don't like his game, but I think he was screwed in that call.  It was a reputation call (Green for being dirty; and star treatment for Lebron).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2018, 09:38:36 PM
I'm aware that it was not a suspension for that one play, that it was for the accumulation of 4 flagrant fouls. 

I'm simply saying that it was not a flagrant.  No way that was a flagrant foul...maybe a technical, but not a flagrant.  And in the other situations I described it would not have been called a flagrant foul.  It was done because it was Green and Lebron. 

I actually despise Green.  Don't like his game, but I think he was screwed in that call.  It was a reputation call (Green for being dirty; and star treatment for Lebron).

Sorry that’s just wrong. That’s a flagrant foul period.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2018, 10:05:42 PM
And furthermore, when the ball is in play, a technical foul cannot be called for physical contact. It’s either a regular foul or a flagrant foul.

So Green could not have simply been given a technical foul.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 06, 2018, 10:21:44 PM
And furthermore, when the ball is in play, a technical foul cannot be called for physical contact. It’s either a regular foul or a flagrant foul.

So Green could not have simply been given a technical foul. Again, learn the rules.

He most certainly could.

You do realize that they could have left it a common foul, and call technical's on both James and Green for jawing, instead of upgrading Green's to a flagrant (wrong decision) and calling a technical on James.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 06, 2018, 10:26:41 PM
He most certainly could.

You do realize that they could have left it a common foul, and call technical's on both James and Green for jawing, instead of upgrading Green's to a flagrant (wrong decision) and calling a technical on James.




So you think that they should call a nut punch a regular foul????  Cmon...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on June 06, 2018, 10:41:02 PM
MJ never got swept in the finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 06, 2018, 10:43:23 PM
“Put the kids to sleep.”

Van Gundy on point.

Where’s LBJ’s next stop?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 06, 2018, 11:11:03 PM
MJ never got swept in the finals.

MJ never lost in the Finals. Heck, he never even faced a Game 7.

It's the main reason why despite the annual "who's better" fun that folks like to have, it's really an easy call.

One could point to other things, too, but one guy went 6-for-6 ... and the other didn't.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 07, 2018, 06:40:46 AM
MJ never lost in the Finals. Heck, he never even faced a Game 7.

It's the main reason why despite the annual "who's better" fun that folks like to have, it's really an easy call.

One could point to other things, too, but one guy went 6-for-6 ... and the other didn't.

Agreed.  In my opinion, this is why Jordan is still on the top.  What bugs me is people talk like it's not even close, citing only this stat.  I think it's close.  And I also think it's not fair to LeBron to fault him for making it to the Finals more times but not winning -- particularly when two of those losses (soon to be three) were against an all-time great team.  Only the Dallas series stands out to me as completely inexcusable, and I'm willing to pin that on LeBron..

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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 07, 2018, 07:08:53 AM
MJ never lost in the Finals. Heck, he never even faced a Game 7.

It's the main reason why despite the annual "who's better" fun that folks like to have, it's really an easy call.

One could point to other things, too, but one guy went 6-for-6 ... and the other didn't.

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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 07, 2018, 08:28:07 AM
Agreed.  In my opinion, this is why Jordan is still on the top.  What bugs me is people talk like it's not even close, citing only this stat.  I think it's close.  And I also think it's not fair to LeBron to fault him for making it to the Finals more times but not winning -- particularly when two of those losses (soon to be three) were against an all-time great team.  Only the Dallas series stands out to me as completely inexcusable, and I'm willing to pin that on LeBron..

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.

I think saying it was completely inexcusable is a bit of a stretch when it wasn't even the biggest upset in the playoffs that year.  If Lebron had the 1 seed and lost in the first round to the 8 seed, Lebron haters would have a field day, yet I don't see that mentioned anywhere near Duncan's legacy.  I think the Heat were the better team so it was an upset, but it's not like that Dallas team was full of scrubs.  Dirk averaged almost 30 a game the entire playoffs.  Terry averaged almost 20.  Kidd was still dishing almost 8 assists per game.  They also had in their prime Shawn Marion and in their prime Tyson Chandler.  Not one of the all time greats by any means, but that team did have some talent on it. 

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.

The 2011 finals was disappointing no doubt for Lebron, but when it's the only loss that stands out (your words), and it gets brought up as much as it does, you know its the first thing that anti Lebron people will bring up until the end of time, followed shortly by MJ's record in the finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2018, 08:30:25 AM
Agreed.  In my opinion, this is why Jordan is still on the top.  What bugs me is people talk like it's not even close, citing only this stat.  I think it's close.  And I also think it's not fair to LeBron to fault him for making it to the Finals more times but not winning -- particularly when two of those losses (soon to be three) were against an all-time great team.  Only the Dallas series stands out to me as completely inexcusable, and I'm willing to pin that on LeBron..


This is a very fair take and I agree completely.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2018, 08:34:57 AM
BTW, when Durant is shooting like he was last night, he is the best player on the planet.  Also a very underrated defender. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 07, 2018, 08:41:21 AM
BTW, when Durant is shooting like he was last night, he is the best player on the planet.  Also a very underrated defender.

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. 

Also imagine how much criticism would be coming his way if Lebron had a line like Curry's last night.  Warriors got a big boost from AI coming back, I'm not sure they win if he has another DNP.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2018, 08:52:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 07, 2018, 08:56:22 AM
From the NBA Rule Book:

Section IV—Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary, a flagrant foul—penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the
offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul—penalty (2) will be assessed. A personal foul is
charged 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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 07, 2018, 08:59:58 AM

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.

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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 07, 2018, 09:05:02 AM
BTW, when Durant is shooting like he was last night, he is the best player on the planet.  Also a very underrated defender.

+1.  In game 1 he looked tired and then he bounced back in 2 & 3 after calling himself out. I will also add that he doesn't whine after every play.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on June 07, 2018, 09:33:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2018, 09:38:37 AM
Cavs do the same thing on offense. Try to get Curry on Lebron with switching.

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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 07, 2018, 09:41:05 AM
From the NBA Rule Book:

Section IV—Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary, a flagrant foul—penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the
offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul—penalty (2) will be assessed. A personal foul is
charged 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.


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. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 07, 2018, 09:46:12 AM
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.

Not entirely true.  They collapse off the right guys.  They will collapse off Thompson.  They will collapse off players that require a dangerous skip pass to get it to them.  They try to avoid collapsing off of Hill and Love, because they will get burned. 

The Cavs should do the same thing.  You can collapse/double if you are on Livingston/Green/Iggy/West and others.  You do not collapse off Klay/Curry because you will get burned. 

The problem is, the Cavs are not helping off of Livingston/Green others.  They stand around watching. 

There have been several very good analyses of what the Cavs are doing wrong and why.  Contrasts to what Houston did.  The main point the analysts have made is that teams like Houston, practiced, designed, schemed and executed a plan all season long, preparing for the playoffs.  Whereas the Cavs sleepwalked through the season (not my words; analysts words), to save energy for the playoffs.

Now they are trying to learn complicated schemes with not time, and no plan to work on communication. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 07, 2018, 09:50:06 AM
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.

Great point.

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.

Paxson scored 6 points in that game. Michael scored 55. The only 3 Bulls points scored in the 4th quarter by somebody not named Jordan came on Paxson's winning 3. You don't think Paxson was wide open maybe, just maybe, because the Suns were focusing on #23?

Same with Kerr's series winner in 1997. During the Grant Park celebration after that series, Kerr took the stage and gave a hilarious riff on the play:

“We called timeout with 25 seconds to go, went into the huddle, Phil told Michael ‘Michael I want you to take the last shot.’ And Michael said ‘Phil I don’t feel real comfortable in these situations, so maybe we ought to go in another direction.'”

FYI, Buechler was not on the Bulls in 1992 when they beat Portland. You're thinking of Bob Hansen, a little-used player who sparked the comeback. All those white guys look alike! MJ was on the bench as the team rallied -- with the ball in HoFer Pippen's hands most of the time, so it's not as if everyone on the court was a stiff. The Bulls still trailed when Jordan got back in the game, he took over as usual, and the rest was history.

So, not giving all the credit to Jordan, just the amount he deserves. Which is most. Maybe MJ doesn't win one or two or even three titles without great work by his supporting cast, but the Bulls win zero titles without the GOAT. And that's what always pissed off Jerry Krause, because MJ was the one guy he didn't acquire, and MJ always let him know it.


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.

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.


Also imagine how much criticism would be coming his way if Lebron had a line like Curry's last night. 

Superb point. Curry is a two-time MVP and a former Finals MVP and is considered a top-5 player in the world. And yet he is allowed to suck occasionally because he is lucky enough to have a teammate who is arguably the second-best player on the planet.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2018, 09:55:18 AM

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.


No.  It was viewed as a flagrant because he hit him in the nuts.  Lebron did get a technical foul, but he could not have been assessed a flagrant for stepping over him because stepping over him isn't a foul.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 07, 2018, 10:03:13 AM

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.   

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.

Quote
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. 

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.pdf

Quote
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. 

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.


Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 07, 2018, 10:09:22 AM

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.



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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 07, 2018, 10:14:56 AM
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.

Picasso had his blue period.  Green had his punching/kicking people in the nuts period.  Fortunately for the Warriors (and nuts throughout the NBA), it was relatively short-lived.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 07, 2018, 10:17:02 AM
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.

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!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2018, 11:39:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 07, 2018, 12:12:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2018, 01:36:33 PM
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.

1) Delly was voted the dirtiest player in the NBA by his peers that year.  Green didn't receive a vote.  Laughable.

2) Show me a single play where a defender swipes DOWN from behind to steal the basketball.  I've never seen it.

3) Show me Green "striking" LBJ in the groin.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2018, 01:50:50 PM
3) Show me Green "striking" LBJ in the groin.


Oh good lord. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2018, 01:57:05 PM

Oh good lord.

+1.  His forearm brushed up against the guy's shorts as he tried to stand up while LBJ walked over him.  If Draymond was trying to "strike LBJ's groin" he would've, well, struck LBJ's groin.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 07, 2018, 02:23:27 PM
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.pdf

3.  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.

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 2.  Never made anything up. It is in the official rules manual. 

http://www.nba.com/news/rulesregulations_2010_04_17.html (http://www.nba.com/news/rulesregulations_2010_04_17.html)

See this item:

"The League Office will consider the following factors (as well as any other relevant facts and circumstances) in determining whether to classify a foul as Flagrant "1" or Flagrant "2", to reclassify a flagrant foul, or to impose a fine and/or suspension on the player involved:

1. The severity of the contact; 2. Whether or not the player was making a legitimate basketball play (e.g., whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot; note, however, that a foul committed during a block attempt can still be considered flagrant if other criteria are present such as recklessness and hard contact to the head) 3. Whether, on a foul committed with a player’s arm or hand, the fouling player wound up and/or followed through after making contact; 4. The potential for injury resulting from contact (e.g., a blow to the head and a foul committed while a player is in a vulnerable position); 5. The severity of any injury suffered by the offended player; and 6. The outcome of the contact (e.g., whether it led to an altercation). "

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.  Also, the point that it wasn't reviewed in game is important.  It means that the severity of contact, despite an altercation ensuing afterwards was not significant enough to warrant review.  Nearly every possible egregious contact is reviewed now; that one wasn't...wonder why?  Oh yeah, it was insignificant contact. 

And the most important part:

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.

Your statement here confirms that it was because it was "Green".  Not someone else, which is exactly what I said.  It was a flagrant because it was done by Green.  Had it not been Green, it wouldn't have been called flagrant as it would have been deemed insignificant contact.

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?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 07, 2018, 02:39:58 PM
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. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 07, 2018, 02:52:52 PM
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.

Except that there are facts on both sides, please see Auburn's analysis with facts on why Lebron's greatness is not overstated.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 07, 2018, 02:54:56 PM
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).


It wasn't a foul.  Sorry.  Stepping over someone isn't a foul and it wasn't called one.  In fact considering where the ball was, it wasn't really even a bad basketball move.



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. 


Here's the video.  After he was hit in the nuts (which apparently wades can't see), he immediately turns his head while Draymond makes the second swing.  If you can't see that, I really don't know what to tell you.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/6/12/11909166/draymond-green-suspended-for-hitting-lebron-james-in-the-groin
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 07, 2018, 03:34:16 PM
3) Show me Green "striking" LBJ in the groin.

okay.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/cCLANfU3SYpwY/giphy.gif)

its possible to both acknowledge that draymond green hit lebron in the dicknballs, and still not like lebron. they aren't mutually exclusive positions.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 07, 2018, 03:45:56 PM
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).

Stepping over someone is by definition avoiding contact. Yes, it's disrespectful. No, it's not a flagrant or personal foul and never has been a flagrant or personal foul. I honestly can't think of one time it was a technical foul, but I have no idea.

Assuming your rule book is accurate, my mistake on the severity of contact. There was not a reference I could find in the rule book I linked.

Nobody is arguing that Green's reputation didn't play a role in the reason it was ruled flagrant. It was Green's reputation that convinced everyone it wasn't incidental contact. anyone who believes a guy who a well-established history of such cheap shots just happened to smack LeBron's junk in this instance is naive or allowing their dislike for LeBron to blind them to reality.






Quote
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?

Brushed his short is a misleading and inaccurate recitation of the facts.
And I have no idea.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 07, 2018, 04:04:00 PM
its possible to both acknowledge that draymond green hit lebron in the dicknballs, and still not like lebron. they aren't mutually exclusive positions.

This.

It's funny how we got here.  Pretty much everyone on this board seems to agree that MJ is the greatest ever.  Then, there is a group of us who think LBJ is a close second, and a group that think LBJ is not quite at that level, but definitely one of the greatest ever.  This leads to what I consider an interesting debate comparing the strength of the MJ-era Bulls with the strength of LBJ's teams; the strength of their opponents; etc.  Anyone can marshal a number of facts in support of their argument, but it's unavoidable to run across countless subjective opinions (e.g., were the 2013 Spurs "better than" the 1996 Sonics) on the way to the undeniably subjective opinion on where LBJ ranks.

Somehow, from that, we get into arguing whether Green intentionally hit LBJ in the balls (he did) and whether LBJ would have gotten a flagrant for the same action (he wouldn't have).

I blame Wades for tainting the MJ vs. LBJ debate with a healthy dose of "LBJ conspiracy" theories.   ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 07, 2018, 04:10:15 PM
green, although admittedly talented, just isn't a very smart player.  he's putting his needs(to assert himself, etc) ahead of the team's.  they/he needs to address his anger management or self esteem issues or whatever.  ironically, it was when the warriors were down by 10/12 in the first quarter, their comeback was more efficient when kerr sat him down. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2018, 06:08:39 PM
green, although admittedly talented, just isn't a very smart player.  he's putting his needs(to assert himself, etc) ahead of the team's.  they/he needs to address his anger management or self esteem issues or whatever.  ironically, it was when the warriors were down by 10/12 in the first quarter, their comeback was more efficient when kerr sat him down.

Couldn't disagree more, and I think if you asked anyone that is part of the Warriors organization they wouldn't be able to disagree with you more either.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2018, 06:10:26 PM
Guys have a much different reaction to getting hit in the nuts than LBJ.  See: Iggy's reaction.

Unless there's nothing there?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 07, 2018, 06:20:19 PM
Couldn't disagree more, and I think if you asked anyone that is part of the Warriors organization they wouldn't be able to disagree with you more either.

For the record, I can't stand Green,* and I also couldn't disagree more.  In my opinion, it would be hard to overstate Green's value to the Warriors.

*I'd love him if he was on the Cavs, though.  Funny how that works. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2018, 06:39:52 PM
For the record, I can't stand Green,* and I also couldn't disagree more.  In my opinion, it would be hard to overstate Green's value to the Warriors.

*I'd love him if he was on the Cavs, though.  Funny how that works.

I neither hate nor love Green, but I appreciate what he brings to the Warriors.  I think he's a clown, but I also think most of it is calculated.  He's nowhere near my favorite Warrior, and if he was on the Bucks he would be nowhere near my favorite Buck.  But the Bucks and any team int he NBA would be a heck of a lot better with Green or someone like him.

I think he's one of the smartest players in the NBA, I think he probably gets more out of himself than maybe anybody in the NBA, and I think any team in the world would happily take him in a heartbeat.  Great at nothing offensively but solid at everything and a guy who can guard 1-5 without any problem and will never get outworked.  As unselfish as they come.

He's the motivator of all motivators for the Warriors.  He allows Kerr to maintain a level composure while having someone who can get on Kerr's players without losing their trust.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 07, 2018, 06:53:41 PM
I neither hate nor love Green, but I appreciate what he brings to the Warriors.  I think he's a clown, but I also think most of it is calculated.  He's nowhere near my favorite Warrior, and if he was on the Bucks he would be nowhere near my favorite Buck.  But the Bucks and any team int he NBA would be a heck of a lot better with Green or someone like him.

I think he's one of the smartest players in the NBA, I think he probably gets more out of himself than maybe anybody in the NBA, and I think any team in the world would happily take him in a heartbeat.  Great at nothing offensively but solid at everything and a guy who can guard 1-5 without any problem and will never get outworked.  As unselfish as they come.

He's the motivator of all motivators for the Warriors.  He allows Kerr to maintain a level composure while having someone who can get on Kerr's players without losing their trust.

Aside from the first few words, I agree wholeheartedly with all of this.  And I freely acknowledge that my disdain for Green stems pretty much entirely from the fact that, as a Cavs fan, he's been driving me crazy in the Finals for the last four years.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 07, 2018, 08:43:43 PM
LeBron as a GM has to be taken into the equation.  One has to ask the question versus Michael the player who won all his championships with two sets of staid rosters.

Would the Cavs be in a better place if the roster he traded mid-season was still in place?  His penchant for demanding roster changes detracts from his claim for GOAT as it prevents the supporting cast from growing into their roles.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 07, 2018, 09:58:00 PM
Jordan was famous for demanding trades. Krause/Reinsdorf simply didn't listen to him. And thank goodness for the Bulls ... because MJ's ideas as a player were mostly stupid and he then proved to be a horrible GM.

Today's NBA is different, though. The NBA is more of a players' league than ever. Players arrange their own dynasties. Players are mostly in charge.

Even a place like San Antonio, where Popovich rules, a player pretty much ruined their season this year. They weren't going to win the West anyway, but Kawhi made sure they were going to suck.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 07, 2018, 11:00:20 PM
A Cavs' vet thinks they'd be up 3-0 if Kyrie was still around...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/cavaliers-veteran-knocks-kyrie-irving-trade-wed-3-0-kyrie-still-220759118.html
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 07, 2018, 11:12:40 PM
A Cavs' vet thinks they'd be up 3-0 if Kyrie was still around...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/cavaliers-veteran-knocks-kyrie-irving-trade-wed-3-0-kyrie-still-220759118.html

Yeah, they almost went up 3-0 on the Warriors with Kyrie last year... 🤔
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on June 07, 2018, 11:32:44 PM
A Cavs' vet thinks they'd be up 3-0 if Kyrie was still around...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/cavaliers-veteran-knocks-kyrie-irving-trade-wed-3-0-kyrie-still-220759118.html

Gotta be Kendrick Perkins.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 08, 2018, 08:26:40 AM
A Cavs' vet thinks they'd be up 3-0 if Kyrie was still around...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/cavaliers-veteran-knocks-kyrie-irving-trade-wed-3-0-kyrie-still-220759118.html

Don't you have to factor in Kyrie's injury or would he be healthy with Cleveland?  ;)


By the way, how awful was that Kyrie deal for Cleveland?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 08, 2018, 08:51:48 AM
A Cavs' vet thinks they'd be up 3-0 if Kyrie was still around...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/cavaliers-veteran-knocks-kyrie-irving-trade-wed-3-0-kyrie-still-220759118.html

Just a silly statement.  Aside from ignoring the fact that the Cavs were down 0-3 at this point last year even with Kyrie, it's just impossible to say.  I like Kyrie.  A lot.  I think that with a happy Kyrie on the team, the Cavs would be better.  But it's hard to say how an unhappy Kyrie would have affected the season.  And it's also hard to know if he would have made good on his threat to have knee surgery and miss the season.  If that had happened, there would be no Hill, Nance or Hood along with no Kyrie. 

Kyrie wanted out of Cleveland really, really badly for reasons that I'm sure a few people on this board will be eager to explain...in great detail.  And anyone who wants to make predictions about how the Cavs would be doing right now with him on the team is just guessing.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 08, 2018, 08:55:40 AM
Great point.

Paxson scored 6 points in that game. Michael scored 55. The only 3 Bulls points scored in the 4th quarter by somebody not named Jordan came on Paxson's winning 3. You don't think Paxson was wide open maybe, just maybe, because the Suns were focusing on #23?

Same with Kerr's series winner in 1997. During the Grant Park celebration after that series, Kerr took the stage and gave a hilarious riff on the play:

“We called timeout with 25 seconds to go, went into the huddle, Phil told Michael ‘Michael I want you to take the last shot.’ And Michael said ‘Phil I don’t feel real comfortable in these situations, so maybe we ought to go in another direction.'”

FYI, Buechler was not on the Bulls in 1992 when they beat Portland. You're thinking of Bob Hansen, a little-used player who sparked the comeback. All those white guys look alike! MJ was on the bench as the team rallied -- with the ball in HoFer Pippen's hands most of the time, so it's not as if everyone on the court was a stiff. The Bulls still trailed when Jordan got back in the game, he took over as usual, and the rest was history.

So, not giving all the credit to Jordan, just the amount he deserves. Which is most. Maybe MJ doesn't win one or two or even three titles without great work by his supporting cast, but the Bulls win zero titles without the GOAT. And that's what always pissed off Jerry Krause, because MJ was the one guy he didn't acquire, and MJ always let him know it.

Great history here. Stuff I've never heard. That Kerr quote is hilarious. I've never read your sportswriting but would be interested to see some of your greatest hits. Any pieces you feel particularly fond of that you would want to share?

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.

I disagree. It is often repeated "if LeBron's teammates didn't suck, he'd have 6 championships by now too." (I'm not saying you say this)

Well, Wade played as well as possible. Almost equaled his 2006 finals performance. But LeBron was so bad that it didn't matter. He got all the superstar "help" anyone could possibly want, and he didn't win. Why ignore that? It's not just a given that he'll win a championship if you stick a few all-stars (one of whom is a top 25 all-time great playing at peak performance) on his team.

Superb point. Curry is a two-time MVP and a former Finals MVP and is considered a top-5 player in the world. And yet he is allowed to suck occasionally because he is lucky enough to have a teammate who is arguably the second-best player on the planet.

Not to pick nits but Curry has never won finals MVP (and likely will not this year either)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 08, 2018, 09:23:29 AM
Don't you have to factor in Kyrie's injury or would he be healthy with Cleveland?  ;)

By the way, how awful was that Kyrie deal for Cleveland?

Yeah, the Kyrie deal really turned out pretty terribly for Cleveland. Although with the pressure Kyrie was putting on them, I'm not sure they could have done much better. That Nets pick had a lot of upside at the time, Brooklyn just ended up winning too many meaningless games and pushed them out of the upper tier of the lottery.

The real whiff in that deal was just trying to plug an injured, expiring contract IT in for Kyrie. While the expiring ended up having a little value at the deadline, Cleveland would have been better off dealing Kyrie for as much promising talent/draft capital as they could, regardless of position, and tried to make it work. (I also think that's the way to approach 99/100 transactions in the NBA).  They still could have dealt for Hill or another replacement-level PG either at the time or during the season.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 08, 2018, 09:40:45 AM
I disagree. It is often repeated "if LeBron's teammates didn't suck, he'd have 6 championships by now too." (I'm not saying you say this)

Never, in my entire life have I heard a single person say this.  Not even once.

The 2007 Cavs team was not very good.  I'm not sure that is subject to much debate.  But even if he'd had a better team, that San Antonio team was a strong opponent.  People do often say that LBJ took the easy way out when he went to Miami to play with Wade and Bosh.  I don't recall hearing people saying that those Heat teams sucked.  And, as been discussed quite a bit, LBJ rightfully takes his fair share of the blame for the 2011 loss.  And, I haven't heard too many people saying either that the 2015 and 2017 Cavs sucked.  Those were really talented teams that might well have won if they hadn't been playing historically good Golden State teams.  This year's team is good, but not great.

I think you vastly overstate how LBJ fans fault LeBron's teammates.  Of his nine  Finals appearances, I'd say that on seven occasions he was on very strong teams.  I honestly think most people would agree with that.  Of those, he won three.  Arguably, he twice lost to inferior teams with Miami, and it's fair to saddle him with the super-star's share of the blame for those.  Since his return to Cleveland he's had to face Golden State four times.  Aside from this year, I can't recall anyone saying that those teams sucked, or that LBJ would have won all those if he had better teammates.  I do hear people (like me) say that he might have won in 2015 if Love and Kyrie wouldn't have gotten injured, but that's entirely different.

Realistically, given who he played with and how his opponents were (and factoring in injuries), I think LBJ probably should have four or maybe five championships right now.  And aside from 2007, I wouldn't blame any of the Finals losses on a lack of talent surrounding LBJ.  The single largest factor for LBJ's poor finals record is that Golden State is f'ing incredible.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GB Warrior on June 08, 2018, 09:47:05 AM
I think the dawn of super teams (which, to be fair, he contributed to) leads us to look back on his past teams and say "wow, that's a pile of garbage". But he certainly did not have superstars next to him, unless you count the remnants of Shaq. Players like Ilgauskas were very good players on decent enough teams. This Cavs team is probably better than those teams. Times have changed, though, and Lebron is absolutely carrying the Cavs. Warriors are just that good.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
Here's the thing, Cleveland had Kyrie under contract both this year AND next year.  I was skeptical at the time because I just didn't think Kyrie had any leverage.  It seemed like they were both trying to build for the future AND win now, and that doesn't really work.

And it turned out to be worse because Thomas was simply not an effective player and the pick from Brooklyn lost a lot of value.

I think keeping Kyrie, even if LBJ left, would have been the better move.  You can trade him (and Love) for value next year just as easy.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUBurrow on June 08, 2018, 10:10:34 AM
Here's the thing, Cleveland had Kyrie under contract both this year AND next year.  I was skeptical at the time because I just didn't think Kyrie had any leverage.  It seemed like they were both trying to build for the future AND win now, and that doesn't really work.

And it turned out to be worse because Thomas was simply not an effective player and the pick from Brooklyn lost a lot of value.

I think keeping Kyrie, even if LBJ left, would have been the better move.  You can trade him (and Love) for value next year just as easy.

I think this makes sense, and will bear out if LBJ leaves this offseason (looking pretty likely, though destination is still unclear).  I am sympathetic to Cle's position at the time, though, in that I think they were afraid of intimating to LBJ that they "chose Kyrie" over him, and would be scapegoated for pushing LBJ out the door.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on June 08, 2018, 10:15:29 AM
Never, in my entire life have I heard a single person say this.  Not even once.

Verbatim, maybe not.  I absolutely have friends, who are fairly knowledgeable and informed basketball fans, who think that.  But certainly in the online blogging space and related commentary, there is the sentiment that the only thing that prevents Lebron from Jordan-levels of titles is his supporting cast.  AKA all his Cavs teams in the finals have been lacking.  The 2011 Miami team gets glossed over in those examples and then becomes a primary touchstone for the "anti-LBJ" set.

Related, I like the sentiment coming out, now that the finals look set, that Lebron may stay cause management "will give him anything he wants and work with him".  Seriously, Ive had 2-3 diff people tell me that.  The Cavs contract situation is a DISASTER and I dont know who they can trade to alleviate it cause its gonna be hard to move them.  I don't think Collin Sexton and whoever you can get for Jordan Clarkson is gonna tempt him to stay.  But I do think he'll need to take a paycut if he wants another ring.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 08, 2018, 10:37:50 AM
Never, in my entire life have I heard a single person say this.  Not even once.

Odd. I hear it, or some variation thereof, all the time from friends, family, co-workers, and social media.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 08, 2018, 10:40:21 AM
But certainly in the online blogging space and related commentary, there is the sentiment that the only thing that prevents Lebron from Jordan-levels of titles is his supporting cast.

I guess it's an issue of semantics.  Sure, if he had a better supporting cast, he'd have more championships.  But that's a far cry from saying that his teammates suck.  He's now faced a historically great team four times in a row.  If he'd had better teammates, he might have won more.  But I honestly don't recall ever hearing anyone say that LBJ's teammates in 2015 and 2017 sucked (or 2011 and 2014, for that matter).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 08, 2018, 10:43:10 AM
Odd. I hear it, or some variation thereof, all the time from friends, family, co-workers, and social media.

I have never heard anyone say the 2015 and 2017 Cavs rosters sucked.  Not once.  Those were extremely talented rosters.  If, by "some variation thereof" you mean people saying that after Irving and Love got injured the 2015 Cavs roster sucked...well, I'll admit to saying that.  And I honestly don't recall people saying that the 2011 and 2014 Heat rosters sucked.

Edited to add two other things:  1)  Saying that LBJ's rosters were not up to the task of beating Golden State is not the same as saying that his teammates sucked; and 2) Pointing out that MJ had great surrounding talent -- maybe even better than LBJ (although that's a fair debate) -- is not the same as saying that LBJ's teammates sucked.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2018, 10:45:41 AM
Never, in my entire life have I heard a single person say this.  Not even once.


In this very thread.  And it is a common mantra on here.

James having the flexibility of actually having players that can hit shots and two HOFers next to him would have gone 6-0.

The same poster claims that neither the Cavs teams or the Heat teams have HOFers next to him.

And regarding the 2015 team, I've been eviscerated on here in the past for pointing out that Love came to Cleveland as an MVP caliber player (finished 6th in 2012 and 11th in 2014), and that Kyrie is an MVP caliber pg (will likely finish 5th or 6th in MVP voting this year).  The arguments were that Love only racked up stats because he played on a crappy team; and that Kyrie looked good because of Lebron.

You may not have seen the posts here, but they are reasonably common. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 08, 2018, 10:49:07 AM

It is often repeated "if LeBron's teammates didn't suck, he'd have 6 championships by now too." (I'm not saying you say this)

Well, Wade played as well as possible. Almost equaled his 2006 finals performance. But LeBron was so bad that it didn't matter. He got all the superstar "help" anyone could possibly want, and he didn't win. Why ignore that? It's not just a given that he'll win a championship if you stick a few all-stars (one of whom is a top 25 all-time great playing at peak performance) on his team.

Not to pick nits but Curry has never won finals MVP (and likely will not this year either)

Agree on Wade. Oops on Curry.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 08, 2018, 10:57:00 AM

Not to pick nits but Curry has never won finals MVP (and likely will not this year either)

I think he could get it this year.  Yes he had a terrible game three, but he was the best player on the Warriors in games one and two (including setting a new record for most 3's made in a finals game).  KD could still get it if he has another monster game tonight and Curry disappoints, but through 3 games I'd probably give it to Curry.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 08, 2018, 10:59:41 AM
Agree on Wade. Oops on Curry.

NBA Finals MVP is a bit strange. Curry has never won one but Andre Iguodala has! Kobe only won it twice and one of those easily could have gone to Pau Gasol.

Additionally, it's actually crazy to think that Kobe won 5 rings and likely wasn't the most valuable player on any of those teams during the regular season. Don't get me wrong, the Lakers don't have those 5 titles without Kobe and he's the #2 SG of all time, but if you look at the PER, Win Shares and VORP numbers for those seasons, Shaq and Gasol had better/more "valuable" seasons.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 08, 2018, 11:08:57 AM
NBA Finals MVP is a bit strange. Curry has never won one but Andre Iguodala has! Kobe only won it twice and one of those easily could have gone to Pau Gasol.

Additionally, it's actually crazy to think that Kobe won 5 rings and likely wasn't the most valuable player on any of those teams during the regular season. Don't get me wrong, the Lakers don't have those 5 titles without Kobe and he's the #2 SG of all time, but if you look at the PER, Win Shares and VORP numbers for those seasons, Shaq and Gasol had better/more "valuable" seasons.

The way a lot of analysts went on and on about Iguodala's absence, one might have thought he was league MVP the last dozen seasons. Don't get me wrong; nice player. But the more games he missed, the better he got!

Kobe was a very valuable player, obviously, and took a lot of huge shots. But those Laker teams also got some enormous shots from the likes of Horry and Fisher. That happens - think of all the big shots Ray Allen hit for a Heat team that had LeBron and Wade; also  the winning shots by Paxson and Kerr that were mentioned earlier in this thread.

Shaq almost never had the ball at crunch time. The Lakers were afraid he'd get fouled.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 08, 2018, 11:13:35 AM
Just a silly statement.  Aside from ignoring the fact that the Cavs were down 0-3 at this point last year even with Kyrie, it's just impossible to say.  I like Kyrie.  A lot.  I think that with a happy Kyrie on the team, the Cavs would be better.  But it's hard to say how an unhappy Kyrie would have affected the season.  And it's also hard to know if he would have made good on his threat to have knee surgery and miss the season.  If that had happened, there would be no Hill, Nance or Hood along with no Kyrie. 

Kyrie wanted out of Cleveland really, really badly for reasons that I'm sure a few people on this board will be eager to explain...in great detail.  And anyone who wants to make predictions about how the Cavs would be doing right now with him on the team is just guessing.

I think what's important is this statement is coming from a Cavs' player., no matter if the assertion is silly or not. Why is it that his teammates either consistently want out or Lebron wants them out? The mid-year roster was in shambles. This seems to point to his lack of leadership and teamwork as a fatal flaw, and it is has been seen consistently. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 08, 2018, 11:35:07 AM
I think he could get it this year.  Yes he had a terrible game three, but he was the best player on the Warriors in games one and two (including setting a new record for most 3's made in a finals game).  KD could still get it if he has another monster game tonight and Curry disappoints, but through 3 games I'd probably give it to Curry.

KD is putting up 31-10-7 on 56% shooting. He'd have to be beyond awful and Curry would have to put up a HUUUGE Game 4 for KD to not win the Finals MVP.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 08, 2018, 11:49:27 AM
KD is putting up 31-10-7 on 56% shooting. He'd have to be beyond awful and Curry would have to put up a HUUUGE Game 4 for KD to not win the Finals MVP.

As you yourself point out, the best player doesn't always win Finals MVP.  16 points, 4 assists and 5 boards doesn't scream MVP, yet that's what AI put up to win it.  I certainly wouldn't complain if KD won it, but I think the two are closer than you presume.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 08, 2018, 01:34:49 PM
As you yourself point out, the best player doesn't always win Finals MVP.  16 points, 4 assists and 5 boards doesn't scream MVP, yet that's what AI put up to win it.  I certainly wouldn't complain if KD won it, but I think the two are closer than you presume.

I don't think either of them will be MVP after J.R. Smith leads the Cavs back to an historic series victory!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 08, 2018, 02:25:21 PM
I think the dawn of super teams (which, to be fair, he contributed to) leads us to look back on his past teams and say "wow, that's a pile of garbage". But he certainly did not have superstars next to him, unless you count the remnants of Shaq. Players like Ilgauskas were very good players on decent enough teams. This Cavs team is probably better than those teams. Times have changed, though, and Lebron is absolutely carrying the Cavs. Warriors are just that good.

I think this makes sense. I would argue that every team that has made the finals since 2012 had at least 3 players on it that you could point to as 3 of the best in the league at the time...except this year's Cleveland team. It's not that Cleveland has a bad team....but we've become so used to superstar trios being in the Finals that it seems like crap compared to recent title contenders.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 08, 2018, 02:58:49 PM
As you yourself point out, the best player doesn't always win Finals MVP.  16 points, 4 assists and 5 boards doesn't scream MVP, yet that's what AI put up to win it.  I certainly wouldn't complain if KD won it, but I think the two are closer than you presume.

You may be right but I really don't think it's all that close at this point, especially considering Curry is shooting so poorly. That said, I could also see voters deciding that it's Curry's "turn" to win it and voting for him.

Iggy was the team's second-leading scorer and rebounder and LBJ shot 38% with him on the floor. No one would have argued if Curry had won that MVP but Iggy was great all-around and his defense on the best player in the world won him that award more than his stats.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2018, 03:04:43 PM
I think this makes sense. I would argue that every team that has made the finals since 2012 had at least 3 players on it that you could point to as 3 of the best in the league at the time...except this year's Cleveland team. It's not that Cleveland has a bad team....but we've become so used to superstar trios being in the Finals that it seems like crap compared to recent title contenders.

I agree with this also.  The thing with the East this year though is, which team has 3 of the best in the league? 

Boston could have, if it wouldn't have been for injuries to Kyrie and Hayward (if you count Horford as the third).  But really no-one in the East matches that description this year. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 08, 2018, 03:09:24 PM
You may be right but I really don't think it's all that close at this point, especially considering Curry is shooting so poorly. That said, I could also see voters deciding that it's Curry's "turn" to win it and voting for him.

Iggy was the team's second-leading scorer and rebounder and LBJ shot 38% with him on the floor. No one would have argued if Curry had won that MVP but Iggy was great all-around and his defense on the best player in the world won him that award more than his stats.

I gotta disagree, especially when you break it down game by game.  Game 1, Curry scores more and shoots a higher percentage, KD goes 1-7 from 3, advantage Curry.  Game 2, Curry scores more, KD shoots a higher percentage, but Curry breaks the record for most 3's in a finals game, if you attempt 17 3s you're almost always going to have a lower shooting percentage than someone who only attempts 3, advantage Curry.  KD absolutely dominated game 3, more points, higher shooting percentage, the works, advantage Durant.  If the Warriors sweep tonight and Curry outplays KD, which would mean he would have been the best Warrior for 3 out of the 4 games, he would be very justified if he gets it, and even if Durant gets it, it will be a lot closer than your posts suggest it will be.

The overall stats are skewed by Curry's bad game 3 performance, but if you're the best player on the team for three out of the four games of a sweep, its well within reason to suggest that you're the MVP of the series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2018, 03:36:07 PM
Curry puts up 40 tonight in a clinching game, and he's likely the MVP.  There can be a lot of recency bias in these votes.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 08, 2018, 04:10:12 PM
In this very thread.  And it is a common mantra on here.

The same poster claims that neither the Cavs teams or the Heat teams have HOFers next to him.

And regarding the 2015 team, I've been eviscerated on here in the past for pointing out that Love came to Cleveland as an MVP caliber player (finished 6th in 2012 and 11th in 2014), and that Kyrie is an MVP caliber pg (will likely finish 5th or 6th in MVP voting this year).  The arguments were that Love only racked up stats because he played on a crappy team; and that Kyrie looked good because of Lebron.

You may not have seen the posts here, but they are reasonably common.

Yeah, I've been reading the thread.  I'll admit that I didn't recall seeing WarriorDad claim that LeBron would be 6-0 in the finals -- which doesn't even make sense since he's played in eight of them before this year.

I guess I'm just too literal and this is a semantic argument.  My comment was that I don't recall ever seeing anyone say that LeBron's teammates sucked in all those finals.  Honestly, I don't even interpret WarriorDad's obvious hyperbole to be saying that.  Arguing that Jordan had a better supporting cast does not equal arguing that LeBron's supporting casts sucked.  Arguing that Love and Irving might not be HOFers does not equal arguing that they suck.  As I said, perhaps I'm being too literal.

The argument is similar to how Wades feels about LeBron.  He takes a lot of heat on here from people who say he thinks LeBron sucks.  But, he's been very clear...he thinks LeBron is one of the greatest ever.  He also happens to think he's a jerk...but that's an entirely different subject.  I think people who are arguing that MJ had great teammates aren't generally arguing that LBJ's sucked.  Except for 2007, of course.  That team sucked.   ;)
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jay Bee on June 08, 2018, 07:29:42 PM
Game 2, Curry scores more, KD shoots a higher percentage, but Curry breaks the record for most 3's in a finals game, if you attempt 17 3s you're almost always going to have a lower shooting percentage than someone who only attempts 3, advantage Curry. 

Yes, that's why FG% isn't relevant. eFG%, however, is. In game 3, KD was at 78.6%; SC was at 59.6%.

For the series, KD is at 63.6%; SC is at a blah 50.0%.

Don't see a good argument for Steph unless he does some remarkable shooting the rest of the series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2018, 09:04:20 PM
Officiating is hilarious in this game.  KD gets a T for making the travel signal to a ref, because James traveled. Lebron screams at the ref and bows up to him, because the official correctly called a charge on him and nothing.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2018, 09:12:27 PM
Officiating is hilarious in this game.  KD gets a T for making the travel signal to a ref, because James traveled. Lebron screams at the ref and bows up to him, because the official correctly called a charge on him and nothing.


Do you know what KD said?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2018, 09:19:49 PM

Do you know what KD said?

No, but he was neither demonstrative or aggressive. 

James was both, bowing up, bobbing his head in an aggressive antagonistic manner, and bowing his arms up in again, an aggressive demonstrative manner. 

The latter was far more egregious. 

If any deserved a T, it was James.  He looked like the drunk guy at the bar challenging some other dude to a fight for talking to his girl.

Seriously, go watch the James interaction again.  That absolutely deserved a T.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2018, 09:26:06 PM
No,

Oh.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 08, 2018, 09:28:40 PM
Officiating is hilarious in this game.  KD gets a T for making the travel signal to a ref, because James traveled. Lebron screams at the ref and bows up to him, because the official correctly called a charge on him and nothing.

Cavs are getting all the breaks in this series
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2018, 09:29:46 PM
Yeah, I've been reading the thread.  I'll admit that I didn't recall seeing WarriorDad claim that LeBron would be 6-0 in the finals -- which doesn't even make sense since he's played in eight of them before this year.

I guess I'm just too literal and this is a semantic argument.  My comment was that I don't recall ever seeing anyone say that LeBron's teammates sucked in all those finals.  Honestly, I don't even interpret WarriorDad's obvious hyperbole to be saying that.  Arguing that Jordan had a better supporting cast does not equal arguing that LeBron's supporting casts sucked.  Arguing that Love and Irving might not be HOFers does not equal arguing that they suck.  As I said, perhaps I'm being too literal.

The argument is similar to how Wades feels about LeBron.  He takes a lot of heat on here from people who say he thinks LeBron sucks.  But, he's been very clear...he thinks LeBron is one of the greatest ever.  He also happens to think he's a jerk...but that's an entirely different subject.  I think people who are arguing that MJ had great teammates aren't generally arguing that LBJ's sucked.  Except for 2007, of course.  That team sucked.   ;)

I really don't think WarriorDad was using hyperbole there, but fully get your point.  I think part of the general problem with the internet and discussion boards is that things like hyperbole, get misunderstood, and often, because of trying to keep things short, we don't fully express our thoughts, leading to misunderstandings that devolve into each site entrenching into their camp. 

I know I'm guilty of that at times, and also realize that my statements/arguments do not come across the way in writing as I think they sound/should come off in my head.  Often leads to the thought, "how the hell did we get here."
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 08, 2018, 09:57:26 PM
In this very thread.  And it is a common mantra on here.

The same poster claims that neither the Cavs teams or the Heat teams have HOFers next to him.

And regarding the 2015 team, I've been eviscerated on here in the past for pointing out that Love came to Cleveland as an MVP caliber player (finished 6th in 2012 and 11th in 2014), and that Kyrie is an MVP caliber pg (will likely finish 5th or 6th in MVP voting this year).  The arguments were that Love only racked up stats because he played on a crappy team; and that Kyrie looked good because of Lebron.

You may not have seen the posts here, but they are reasonably common.

You are making the same mistake as the other guy.  Are you really comparing Rodman and Pippen, sure fire HOFers while they played to Love and Irving, neither of which are sure fire?  Pippen made the all NBA top 50 players of all time.  Rodman was a 7X All Defensive team, a case can be made for greatest rebounder ever to play.  https://clutchpoints.com/dennis-rodman-greatest-rebounder-nba-history/      The comparisons are not the same.  Then you go to the next level of players after the big three on each team, and the Cavs are trash compared to Kukoc, Kerr, BJ, Harper, Longley.  It isn't comparable at all.

The 2015 Cavs team was decent, it also had to go up against one of the great dynasty teams in NBA history.  In fact all four of these Cavs teams have had to do that.    And yes, Michael on these Cavs teams goes 0-4.  Lebron on our Bulls teams also goes 6-0.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2018, 10:00:18 PM
You are making the same mistake as the other guy.  Are you really comparing Rodman and Pippen, sure fire HOFers to Love and Irving, neither of which are sure fire?  Pippen made the all NBA top 50 players of all time.  Rodman was a 7X All Defensive team.  The comparisons are not the same.  Then you go to the next level and the Cavs are trash. 

The 2015 Cavs team was decent, it also had to go up against one of the great dynasty teams in NBA history.  In fact all four of these Cavs teams have had to do that.    And yes, Michael on these Cavs teams goes 0-4.  Lebron on our Bulls teams also goes 6-0.

Chicos pretending to be a Chicago sports fan is hysterical.

The Heat team with MJ in place of LBJ sweeps the Mavs.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 08, 2018, 10:08:52 PM
Yeah, I've been reading the thread.  I'll admit that I didn't recall seeing WarriorDad claim that LeBron would be 6-0 in the finals -- which doesn't even make sense since he's played in eight of them before this year.

I guess I'm just too literal and this is a semantic argument.  My comment was that I don't recall ever seeing anyone say that LeBron's teammates sucked in all those finals.  Honestly, I don't even interpret WarriorDad's obvious hyperbole to be saying that.  Arguing that Jordan had a better supporting cast does not equal arguing that LeBron's supporting casts sucked.  Arguing that Love and Irving might not be HOFers does not equal arguing that they suck.  As I said, perhaps I'm being too literal.

The argument is similar to how Wades feels about LeBron.  He takes a lot of heat on here from people who say he thinks LeBron sucks.  But, he's been very clear...he thinks LeBron is one of the greatest ever.  He also happens to think he's a jerk...but that's an entirely different subject.  I think people who are arguing that MJ had great teammates aren't generally arguing that LBJ's sucked.  Except for 2007, of course.  That team sucked.   ;)

My 6-0 claim is Lebron on Michael's Bulls teams would be 6-0, too.  Michael would not be 1-3 against these GS Warriors teams, in my opinion.  Michael had a much better supporting cast, and was the greatest every to play the game, but he wasn't able to get very good team to the top, he took great teams to the top.  Lebron has take great teams and average teams to the top.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 08, 2018, 10:10:30 PM
Chicos pretending to be a Chicago sports fan is hysterical.

The Heat team with MJ in place of LBJ sweeps the Mavs.

No Chicos here, I'll put my Chicago fandom up against anyone.  I agree, MJ with that Heat teams wins.  LBJ stunk.  Michael with this Cavs team doesn't beat Golden State, doesn't even get to the finals with some of them.  Michael never took a team to the finals that wasn't a 1 seed.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 08, 2018, 10:11:30 PM
The Heat team with MJ in place of LBJ sweeps the Mavs.


MJ's Bulls didn't sweep anyone in the Finals.  They wouldn't have swept the Mavs.

Don't get me wrong, the Mavs are the weakest team that LBJ faced in the Finals, but they weren't terrible.  They finished with just one less win than the Heat did that year. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: WarriorDad on June 08, 2018, 10:20:21 PM
Michael was 1-9 in the playoffs without Scottie Pippen.  It matters who you play with.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2018, 10:22:39 PM
Michael was 1-9 in the playoffs without Scottie Pippen.  It matters who you play with.

I guess you’ve never heard of this cat named Dwyane Wade...

You’re right. It does matter who you play with.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2018, 10:27:34 PM
So, who gets finals MVP?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 08, 2018, 10:29:28 PM
So, who gets finals MVP?

Durant
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2018, 10:30:11 PM
Durant

I agree.  See if they give it to him.  Kind of a down game scoring wise, but a triple double tonight and played great D again.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2018, 10:33:37 PM
Curry.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 08, 2018, 10:34:24 PM
Hey LeBron, what’s the Warriors record against you in NBA Finals?

#3-1
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 08, 2018, 10:40:42 PM
Cavs rolled over like a cheap hooker.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 08, 2018, 10:43:26 PM
Cavs rolled over like a cheap hooker.

That surprised me.  I thought they would come out and fight.  Thought they would win this one for sure.

Glad I don't bet on sports, I would've lost.  The Cavs didn't show up at all.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 09, 2018, 02:49:43 AM
Thank goodness that is over.    Cleveland knew they were beat. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 09, 2018, 06:11:29 AM
Interesting article about how LeBron could wind up with the Celtics.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/6/8/17440192/lebron-james-boston-celtics-offseason

If this really is possible, this is LeBron's best move by far - by far - and sets up several years of intriguing Celtics-Warriors Finals.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUEng92 on June 09, 2018, 07:41:37 AM
I'll preface this saying I did not stay up all night brooding over this. It's more observational.

I am always annoyed with the lack of travel calls in the NBA but it's always been that way and you just deal with it.

However, LeBron stepping across the free throw line before the ball reaches the rim/net on every free throw without being called for a violation is stunning.  I don't recall any other NBA player doing it.  It's so obvious, not to mention unnecessary.  I don't remember him ever gaining an advantage by doing it, but it is a clear and obvious violation.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 09, 2018, 08:19:21 AM
Lane violations aren't called all the time in the NBA.  In fact, the NBA mentioned one in the last two minute report on Hill's end of game miss in game one by Green.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 09, 2018, 10:58:21 AM
Watching the playoffs, the one thing that drives me nuts about the NBA, is the refusal to call offensive fouls (I was shocked they called 2 on Lebron in this game).  The other is the absurd grabbing, pushing etc., instead of actually setting picks in a legal manner.

Players like Lebron, Giannis, Harden, commit offensive fouls on most of their drives, by either driving their shoulder in and through a defender in position, to give them space to score, or by blatantly pushing off with the off arm, extending the arm as they push with the forearm. 

Harden/Lebron/Giannis (others) shoot so many FTs because they are actually more likely to call a defensive foul, when the offensive players lower their shoulder and initiate contact to displace a defender.  To me at least it defeats some of what I like about basketball.

To me, bully-ball, is boring, and against the rules (note I hated Shaq for the same reason).  It isn't the players fault the NBA disregards the rules, but in my opinion it partially ruins the game. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2018, 11:38:40 AM
Watching the playoffs, the one thing that drives me nuts about the NBA, is the refusal to call offensive fouls (I was shocked they called 2 on Lebron in this game).  The other is the absurd grabbing, pushing etc., instead of actually setting picks in a legal manner.

Players like Lebron, Giannis, Harden, commit offensive fouls on most of their drives, by either driving their shoulder in and through a defender in position, to give them space to score, or by blatantly pushing off with the off arm, extending the arm as they push with the forearm. 

Harden/Lebron/Giannis (others) shoot so many FTs because they are actually more likely to call a defensive foul, when the offensive players lower their shoulder and initiate contact to displace a defender.  To me at least it defeats some of what I like about basketball.

To me, bully-ball, is boring, and against the rules (note I hated Shaq for the same reason).  It isn't the players fault the NBA disregards the rules, but in my opinion it partially ruins the game.

That’s been my observation for some time as well.  It’s like when a foul is finally called, the players look aghast.

    Speaking of traveling, there was an instance between the Celtics and the. A s I believe and the Celtics dude with the “man-bun” comes down with the rebound in the middle of the lane, off balance, falls back and takes 4-5 steps backwards to regain his balance, everyone just sort of stop and wait for the whistle, there was none so he throws up a shot...sowishhhhhh.  I mean the dude was going to just toss the ball to the ref and head back  up court. Oh well, traveling...no matta eyn’a? 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 09, 2018, 07:41:14 PM
The other is the absurd grabbing, pushing etc., instead of actually setting picks in a legal manner.

This is my pet peeve. NBA players are allowed to literally grab opponents while they set screens. They stick out their legs and their butts. They shove.

Every once in awhile, a player gets called and he can't believe it - and I don't blame him because it's so rarely called. But it's NEVER called down the stretch of games, freeing the screen-setters to all but mug their opponents.

If it was just in the NBA, I'd shrug my shoulders about it, but it has filtered down to the college level. I watched every Illinois game the year they went to the national title game, and nearly every pick James Augustine set was a moving screen. That was 2005, and it's only gotten worse. And then the refs will suddenly decide to call one or two, leaving everybody baffled.

Thankfully, based on personal observations, it hasn't filtered down to HS yet. HS refs call moving screens pretty often.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 09, 2018, 08:18:01 PM
Sorry but I love the NBA.  I think pretty much everything about it is superior to anything else basketball wise.  Outside of Marquette and the NCAAs, I rarely watch college basketball.  A snoozefest. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 09, 2018, 10:01:21 PM
Sorry but I love the NBA.  I think pretty much everything about it is superior to anything else basketball wise.  Outside of Marquette and the NCAAs, I rarely watch college basketball.  A snoozefest.

I like the NBA, too. I just don't think they should let screen-setters break the rules several times every possession.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 10, 2018, 02:49:36 PM
Sorry but I love the NBA.  I think pretty much everything about it is superior to anything else basketball wise.  Outside of Marquette and the NCAAs, I rarely watch college basketball.  A snoozefest.

Sometimes great things could still improve. 

Would prefer for the game to be played and officiated according to the rules of the game. Would improve the NBA in my opinion if they cleaned up a few of the more obvious indiscretions; e.g. grabs, holds, bully-ball, whining to refs, that make it harder to watch.

Obviously other things like traveling, star-bias are never going to go away, but the things above are more recent additions and could be cleaned up pretty easily. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 11, 2018, 07:56:10 AM
NBA Finals ratings were down from other Cavs-Warriors series.

Belmont Stakes ratings were down from the last 2 bids for the Triple Crown.

NASCAR ratings well down.

Apparently, all kinds of sports fans are mad at NFL players protesting.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MUfan12 on June 11, 2018, 08:38:33 AM
I like the NBA, too. I just don't think they should let screen-setters break the rules several times every possession.

Has to be some happy medium between what the NBA allows and the college game, where if you move a quarter-inch the ref blows the whistle.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 11, 2018, 10:11:16 AM
Has to be some happy medium between what the NBA allows and the college game, where if you move a quarter-inch the ref blows the whistle.

Reasonable point.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 11, 2018, 01:09:27 PM
Interesting that just about every player that was traded to or from the Cavs in all their trades over the last 12 months was better away from the Cavs, with the exception of maybe Larry Nance Jr. whose production was pretty much the same.

Clarkson, Hill, Hood, Crowder, IT, Wade, and even Kyrie were better away from Cleveland than they were in Cleveland.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 11, 2018, 02:15:09 PM
MJ, greatest of his generation.    LeBron, greatest of his generation. 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 11, 2018, 08:15:27 PM
Interesting that just about every player that was traded to or from the Cavs in all their trades over the last 12 months was better away from the Cavs, with the exception of maybe Larry Nance Jr. whose production was pretty much the same.

Clarkson, Hill, Hood, Crowder, IT, Wade, and even Kyrie were better away from Cleveland than they were in Cleveland.

Yes ... interesting. Clearly, LeBron makes his teammates worse.

Scottie had by far his best season when Michael was playing baseball. By far. Obviously, Michael was holding him down for the rest of his career.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 11, 2018, 08:19:59 PM
Yes ... interesting. Clearly, LeBron makes his teammates worse.

Scottie had by far his best season when Michael was playing baseball. By far. Obviously, Michael was holding him down for the rest of his career.

Glad you found one example in MJ’s entire career across a number of seasons.

Compare that to 6 guys all within the same season.

Also cute that LBJ comes out to the final post season presser with a cast on his hand. Convenient.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 11, 2018, 08:29:23 PM
Now you are accusing him of faking a broken hand?   Wow.   That isn't healthy.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 11, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Accumulation stats go down cause usage goes down. Jae’s PER was about the same in Cleveland and Utah and his EFG actually decreased. Not really surprising.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 11, 2018, 08:47:59 PM
Now you are accusing him of faking a broken hand?   Wow.   That isn't healthy.

Who said anything was fake?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: tower912 on June 11, 2018, 09:31:21 PM
If you aren't accusing, what is the criticism?  He played three games with a broken hand.  Now he is getting it treated.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 11, 2018, 09:37:18 PM
Now you are accusing him of faking a broken hand?   Wow.   That isn't healthy.

Except he didn't break his hand.  He said he broke his hand, requiring 2 MRI's.  You don't use MRI's to diagnose a broken bone. 

Reports are out that he didn't suffer a broken hand, but may have had a bone bruise...which doesn't necessitate a cast. 

So the official reports is actually no broken hand.

Also, Lebron has history in "faking injuries," see 2010 and a phantom shoulder injury.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 11, 2018, 09:39:01 PM
https://youtu.be/-oIm7mUcEQA

Looks like these handshakes with the broken hand with his sons took its toll on him if he so desperately needed treatment that it went from not needing that kind of protection between games but needing it the second he went into 4 months of down time.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 12, 2018, 07:06:44 AM
https://youtu.be/-oIm7mUcEQA

Looks like these handshakes with the broken hand with his sons took its toll on him if he so desperately needed treatment that it went from not needing that kind of protection between games but needing it the second he went into 4 months of down time.

Speaking as a fan of both MJ and LBJ, I think that this situation is one of the most effective ways to illustrate the biggest difference between them.  MJ was so supremely sure of himself and had such a huge ego that people have said for years that he is an insufferable jerk.  LBJ, on the other hand, is so self conscious and concerned about what people think that he does stuff like this.

You have what I think are the two best basketball players I have ever seen.  Both extraordinarily talented.  Both flawed.  And it's interesting, that their flaws are essentially mirror images.  And, I'll note that MJ's flaw is much more acceptable in a sports hero, and is also probably why he's No. 1 and LBJ is No. 2.  MJ's ego drove him and made him even better.  LBJ's insecurity holds him back at times.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 12, 2018, 07:09:34 AM
Speaking as a fan of both MJ and LBJ, I think that this situation is one of the most effective ways to illustrate the biggest difference between them.  MJ was so supremely sure of himself and had such a huge ego that people have said for years that he is an insufferable jerk.  LBJ, on the other hand, is so self conscious and concerned about what people think that he does stuff like this.

You have what I think are the two best basketball players I have ever seen.  Both extraordinarily talented.  Both flawed.  And it's interesting, that their flaws are essentially mirror images.  And, I'll note that MJ's flaw is much more acceptable in a sports hero, and is also probably why he's No. 1 and LBJ is No. 2.  MJ's ego drove him and made him even better.  LBJ's insecurity holds him back at times.

Thumbs up to this comment. Great insight IMHO.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 12, 2018, 08:01:13 AM
Also cute that LBJ comes out to the final post season presser with a cast on his hand. Convenient.


OTOH, it was the best supporting cast he had all series.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 12, 2018, 08:13:58 AM

OTOH, it was the best supporting cast he had all series.

Touche.  Other than Love, who had a nice series.

Speaking as a fan of both MJ and LBJ, I think that this situation is one of the most effective ways to illustrate the biggest difference between them.  MJ was so supremely sure of himself and had such a huge ego that people have said for years that he is an insufferable jerk.  LBJ, on the other hand, is so self conscious and concerned about what people think that he does stuff like this.

You have what I think are the two best basketball players I have ever seen.  Both extraordinarily talented.  Both flawed.  And it's interesting, that their flaws are essentially mirror images.  And, I'll note that MJ's flaw is much more acceptable in a sports hero, and is also probably why he's No. 1 and LBJ is No. 2.  MJ's ego drove him and made him even better.  LBJ's insecurity holds him back at times.

Agreed.  But what I don't get is that why doesn't LBJ just "quietly" feed this to his personal ESPN PR guy in Windhorst and let the narrative blow up that he's this tough guy who played through this significant injury and gave it everything he could?  It's that simple.  You literally have a guy moving his entire life to follow one man's career.  You've used it to your advantage your entire career.  LBJ himself (of course it would be someone else) could have texted Windhorst and dropped this story right on his plate, told him how to shape the story, and it would've been done.  You could've even had some "random fan" posting pictures of LBJ in a cast the next day at some restaurant that he "just happened to walk into."

Showing up to a press conference minutes after your game with 4 months to recover in a cast?  Come on dude.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 12, 2018, 01:15:45 PM
Now there are reports that the Warriors knew Lebron hurt his hand.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: jesmu84 on June 12, 2018, 01:56:37 PM
Wasn't the guy on the court doing pushups before a game?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 12, 2018, 02:07:42 PM
I honestly hadn't paid too much attention to the story about LBJ's hand, other than to tell my daughter "no he didn't" after she breathlessly told me that LBJ played with a broken hand.  As I've mentioned many times, I think LBJ is a bit of a drama queen and he just seems to do this kind of crap.

However, this thread made me curious.

First a question:  not that it really matters, but was that actually a cast in the post-game presser?  Or was it black pre-wrap?  Looks like pre-wrap to me (https://www.inquisitr.com/4934333/cavaliers-lebron-james-reveals-he-played-with-a-bone-contusion-in-his-right-hand/), but everyone is calling it a cast so I may be wrong.  But, the point being made by Wades (and lots of others) remains:  what's the point of going all drama queen during the post-game presser?

Next, an interesting photographic analysis of Lebron's hand during the series.  Obviously, can't speak to the seriousness of the injury, but it does look like there was, in fact, an injury (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/06/11/lebron-james-hand-injury-photographic-investigation/). 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 12, 2018, 02:49:21 PM
I honestly hadn't paid too much attention to the story about LBJ's hand, other than to tell my daughter "no he didn't" after she breathlessly told me that LBJ played with a broken hand.  As I've mentioned many times, I think LBJ is a bit of a drama queen and he just seems to do this kind of crap.

However, this thread made me curious.

First a question:  not that it really matters, but was that actually a cast in the post-game presser?  Or was it black pre-wrap?  Looks like pre-wrap to me (https://www.inquisitr.com/4934333/cavaliers-lebron-james-reveals-he-played-with-a-bone-contusion-in-his-right-hand/), but everyone is calling it a cast so I may be wrong.  But, the point being made by Wades (and lots of others) remains:  what's the point of going all drama queen during the post-game presser?

Next, an interesting photographic analysis of Lebron's hand during the series.  Obviously, can't speak to the seriousness of the injury, but it does look like there was, in fact, an injury (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/06/11/lebron-james-hand-injury-photographic-investigation/).

That was my first thought as well, that it looked like pre-wrap.  People seem to be calling it a "soft cast."  I'm not sure what that is really.  Looks to me like something you'd see just taping an ankle before a game.

His hand was without a doubt swollen.  I think anybody who's played basketball has probably jammed a finger and/or hand, and most of the time you can play through that but when there is pressure put on it in a certain way it can certainly bother you.  I'm sure throughout the series there were catches of passes or rebounds, etc. that probably made LBJ cringe.  I just don't understand why he handles those things the way he does.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: JWags85 on June 12, 2018, 03:09:46 PM
His hand was without a doubt swollen.  I think anybody who's played basketball has probably jammed a finger and/or hand, and most of the time you can play through that but when there is pressure put on it in a certain way it can certainly bother you.  I'm sure throughout the series there were catches of passes or rebounds, etc. that probably made LBJ cringe. I just don't understand why he handles those things the way he does.

Cause he is OBSESSIVE about his image and his legacy.  Kobe and MJ were too, at least the legacy portion, but that made them ruthless competitors, with a sociopathic streak.  Lebron cares about his image and perception far more so he continually needs to separate and caveat himself from bad play and bad results, but also still seem like "the good guy".  The problem is it doesnt really work and makes him come off like this.  I really think he and Maverick Carter discuss every narrative and how it could be perceived. 

He and Durant are just both fascinating looks at "insecure" superstars.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 12, 2018, 03:20:59 PM
LeBron's psyche is closer to that of a star NFL receiver or to A-Rod than to what MJ was.

He says and does some goofy stuff, but he also has been extremely charitable, especially in the Cleveland area. He is socially conscious, which some don't like but I think is a good thing. And he's a hell of a basketball player, obviously.

But I think folks here are spot-on talking about his need to feel loved.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 12, 2018, 03:23:02 PM
Cause he is OBSESSIVE about his image and his legacy.  Kobe and MJ were too, at least the legacy portion, but that made them ruthless competitors, with a sociopathic streak.  Lebron cares about his image and perception far more so he continually needs to separate and caveat himself from bad play and bad results, but also still seem like "the good guy".  The problem is it doesnt really work and makes him come off like this.  I really think he and Maverick Carter discuss every narrative and how it could be perceived. 

He and Durant are just both fascinating looks at "insecure" superstars.

Yeah...I think that pretty much nails it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 12, 2018, 04:02:20 PM
Cause he is OBSESSIVE about his image and his legacy.  Kobe and MJ were too, at least the legacy portion, but that made them ruthless competitors, with a sociopathic streak.  Lebron cares about his image and perception far more so he continually needs to separate and caveat himself from bad play and bad results, but also still seem like "the good guy".  The problem is it doesnt really work and makes him come off like this.  I really think he and Maverick Carter discuss every narrative and how it could be perceived. 

He and Durant are just both fascinating looks at "insecure" superstars.

Well stated.

LeBron wants to be the superstar and the leader but he also wants to be one of the guys. MJ and Kobe weren't afraid to ruffle some feathers or get on a guy if it needed to be done. LeBron doesn't seem to want to be that guy. He'll occasionally take some veiled, passive aggressive shots at guys via twitter but that's about it. There aren't any crazy, behind-the-scenes stories about LeBron's obsession with winning and driving teammates to the brink like there are about some other greats.

I also think that he and Maverick attempt to control of every narrative and it often hurts their cause, such as this example and most notably The Decision. As others have mentioned, this story could have been easily leaked with LeBron saying nothing about it and not even acknowledging it publicly. Instead, it was handled in a bizarre fashion that managed to take a guy who played 3 phenomenal games with an injured (and possibly broken) hand and made him look like an attention-seeking diva.


Lost in the shuffle of discussing LeBron's "weak supporting casts" is the notion that LeBron has never played for a great coach. Mike Brown is decent. Spoelstra won 2 titles and is a good coach. Lue won a ring and has been to multiple Finals but none of those guys are anywhere near the category of Jackson or Pop or Riley or Daly or even Steve Kerr. It'd be interesting to see LBJ sign in San Antonio and see what Pop could get out of him and the team for the next few seasons.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 12, 2018, 05:42:30 PM
Well stated.

LeBron wants to be the superstar and the leader but he also wants to be one of the guys. MJ and Kobe weren't afraid to ruffle some feathers or get on a guy if it needed to be done. LeBron doesn't seem to want to be that guy. He'll occasionally take some veiled, passive aggressive shots at guys via twitter but that's about it. There aren't any crazy, behind-the-scenes stories about LeBron's obsession with winning and driving teammates to the brink like there are about some other greats.

I also think that he and Maverick attempt to control of every narrative and it often hurts their cause, such as this example and most notably The Decision. As others have mentioned, this story could have been easily leaked with LeBron saying nothing about it and not even acknowledging it publicly. Instead, it was handled in a bizarre fashion that managed to take a guy who played 3 phenomenal games with an injured (and possibly broken) hand and made him look like an attention-seeking diva.


Lost in the shuffle of discussing LeBron's "weak supporting casts" is the notion that LeBron has never played for a great coach. Mike Brown is decent. Spoelstra won 2 titles and is a good coach. Lue won a ring and has been to multiple Finals but none of those guys are anywhere near the category of Jackson or Pop or Riley or Daly or even Steve Kerr. It'd be interesting to see LBJ sign in San Antonio and see what Pop could get out of him and the team for the next few seasons.

David Blatt is a phenomenal coach his euro legacy proves that
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 12, 2018, 08:06:54 PM
David Blatt is a phenomenal coach his euro legacy proves that

If he was truly that phenomenal, he’d be coaching in the NBA right now.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: wadesworld on June 12, 2018, 08:12:51 PM
If he was truly that phenomenal, he’d be coaching in the NBA right now.

Yup. Blatt sucked. But Spoe is very, very good. LBJ just didn’t get to call every shot in the organization like he did in Cleveland so he didn’t like Spoe and the FO.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 12, 2018, 09:43:16 PM
If he was truly that phenomenal, he’d be coaching in the NBA right now.

EuroLeague champion (2014)
EuroLeague Coach of the Year (2014)
NBA Eastern Conference Finals Champion (2015)
NBA Championship (2016)[1]
EuroCup champion (2018)
FIBA EuroChallenge champion (2005)
Italian League champion (2006)
Italian Cup winner (2007)
Adriatic League champion (2012)
Russian Super League Coach of the Year (2005)
5× Israeli Super League champion (2002, 2003, 2011, 2012, 2014)
6× Israeli Cup winner (2002, 2003, 2011–2014)
4× Israeli Super League Coach of the Year (1996, 2002, 2011, 2014)
Russian Federation Order of Friendship award recipient (2014)

Simple cut and paste job, but do you really think he had the Lebron, Kyrie and Love combo equivalent for each of those leagues respective championships?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 13, 2018, 08:19:21 AM
EuroLeague champion (2014)
EuroLeague Coach of the Year (2014)
NBA Eastern Conference Finals Champion (2015)
NBA Championship (2016)[1]
EuroCup champion (2018)
FIBA EuroChallenge champion (2005)
Italian League champion (2006)
Italian Cup winner (2007)
Adriatic League champion (2012)
Russian Super League Coach of the Year (2005)
5× Israeli Super League champion (2002, 2003, 2011, 2012, 2014)
6× Israeli Cup winner (2002, 2003, 2011–2014)
4× Israeli Super League Coach of the Year (1996, 2002, 2011, 2014)
Russian Federation Order of Friendship award recipient (2014)

Simple cut and paste job, but do you really think he had the Lebron, Kyrie and Love combo equivalent for each of those leagues respective championships?

That's a highly impressive overseas resume. It's not the same as coaching sports here in the states though.

Marc Trestman has won 3 Championships in the CFL. Do you think he's a great football coach?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 08:24:52 AM
EuroLeague champion (2014)
EuroLeague Coach of the Year (2014)
NBA Eastern Conference Finals Champion (2015)
NBA Championship (2016)[1]
EuroCup champion (2018)
FIBA EuroChallenge champion (2005)
Italian League champion (2006)
Italian Cup winner (2007)
Adriatic League champion (2012)
Russian Super League Coach of the Year (2005)
5× Israeli Super League champion (2002, 2003, 2011, 2012, 2014)
6× Israeli Cup winner (2002, 2003, 2011–2014)
4× Israeli Super League Coach of the Year (1996, 2002, 2011, 2014)
Russian Federation Order of Friendship award recipient (2014)

Simple cut and paste job, but do you really think he had the Lebron, Kyrie and Love combo equivalent for each of those leagues respective championships?


Yes I'm sure coaching in the Adriatic League is very similar to the NBA.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 08:45:46 AM

Yes I'm sure coaching in the Adriatic League is very similar to the NBA.

He won in the NBA and was runner up the other year.

That's a highly impressive overseas resume. It's not the same as coaching sports here in the states though.

Marc Trestman has won 3 Championships in the CFL. Do you think he's a great football coach?


Couldn't I same about coach K? He's got a highly impressive college resume but is he a good coach? If you're winning everywhere you go with the respective talent being that of the league your in then you're the common denominator this you're a good coach.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 08:54:23 AM
He won in the NBA and was runner up the other year.


He didn't win the NBA championship.  He was fired halfway through the season.

And the fact that Tyronn Lue took the team over, and they still won the title, and made two additional Finals appearances, isn't really endorsing Blatt's coaching.

Here is an article at the time of his firing about his inability to handle NBA personalities:

https://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2016/01/why_david_blatt_got_fired_and.html

He was over his head.  Just being a good European coach doesn't mean you can coach here.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 13, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
He won in the NBA and was runner up the other year.

I'm not intending to crap on Blatt (I think he was a decent, but not great coach), but I'm struggling a little bit with your source giving him credit for the 2016 Championship when he was fired and replaced by Lue in January of that year.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 09:11:23 AM
I honestly hadn't paid too much attention to the story about LBJ's hand, other than to tell my daughter "no he didn't" after she breathlessly told me that LBJ played with a broken hand.  As I've mentioned many times, I think LBJ is a bit of a drama queen and he just seems to do this kind of crap.

However, this thread made me curious.

First a question:  not that it really matters, but was that actually a cast in the post-game presser?  Or was it black pre-wrap?  Looks like pre-wrap to me (https://www.inquisitr.com/4934333/cavaliers-lebron-james-reveals-he-played-with-a-bone-contusion-in-his-right-hand/), but everyone is calling it a cast so I may be wrong.  But, the point being made by Wades (and lots of others) remains:  what's the point of going all drama queen during the post-game presser?

Next, an interesting photographic analysis of Lebron's hand during the series.  Obviously, can't speak to the seriousness of the injury, but it does look like there was, in fact, an injury (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/06/11/lebron-james-hand-injury-photographic-investigation/). 
I'm not intending to crap on Blatt (I think he was a decent, but not great coach), but I'm struggling a little bit with your source giving him credit for the 2016 Championship when he was fired and replaced by Lue in January of that year.

Honestly forgot that happened. Mia coulpa

I still stand by my point about winning everywhere you go with the respective talent of the league then you become the common denominator
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 13, 2018, 09:31:58 AM
Couldn't I same about coach K? He's got a highly impressive college resume but is he a good coach? If you're winning everywhere you go with the respective talent being that of the league your in then you're the common denominator this you're a good coach.

Coach K is a great college basketball coach.

Blatt is a great overseas basketball coach.

The point remains that LeBron has never had a great NBA coach.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 09:39:51 AM
No but Spoelstra is a top 5 NBA coach right now IMO.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 09:42:34 AM
Coach K is a great college basketball coach.

Blatt is a great overseas basketball coach.

The point remains that LeBron has never had a great NBA coach.

Which is not what the original comment was. You said lebron has never had a great coach, Blatts a great coach you just said so yourself. Now managing egos etc that comes with the NBA it sounds like he was terrible at assuming sultans article was factual and thus he may not a great nba coach. That being said I think a record of 83-40 in the nba warrants at least decent when you've proven yourself everywhere else with players that aren't NBA Allstars
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 09:46:02 AM
Which is not what the original comment was. You said lebron has never had a great coach, Blatts a great coach you just said so yourself. Now managing egos etc that comes with the NBA it sounds like he was terrible at assuming sultans article was factual and thus he may not a great nba coach.


I think its obvious that he was talking about a "great NBA coach" considering that Lebron is actually in the NBA and that it's the entire context of the discussion.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 09:49:34 AM

I think its obvious that he was talking about a "great NBA coach" considering that Lebron is actually in the NBA and that it's the entire context of the discussion.

I just get tired of lebron excuses and any chance I can get to argue one I'll take 🤗
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MerrittsMustache on June 13, 2018, 09:51:51 AM
Which is not what the original comment was. You said lebron has never had a great coach, Blatts a great coach you just said so yourself. Now managing egos etc that comes with the NBA it sounds like he was terrible at assuming sultans article was factual and thus he may not a great nba coach. That being said I think a record of 83-40 in the nba warrants at least decent when you've proven yourself everywhere else with players that aren't NBA Allstars

My kids' basketball teams have been the best team in their rec league for the past 4 seasons. If LeBron played for me, would that count as him playing for a great coach? After all, I've won with different players in different leagues and at different levels  ;)

End of the day, would you put David Blatt in the same category as Phil, Popovich, Riley, Auerbach, etc?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 10:13:04 AM
My kids' basketball teams have been the best team in their rec league for the past 4 seasons. If LeBron played for me, would that count as him playing for a great coach? After all, I've won with different players in different leagues and at different levels  ;)

End of the day, would you put David Blatt in the same category as Phil, Popovich, Riley, Auerbach, etc?

Haha valid point. I'd say you should probably be a first ballot HoF candidate.

But more seriously I'd say that Blatt warrants more consideration, obviously not Pop Jackson etc. but I think he could've been on par with a good 3/4 or so NBA coaches had he been allowed to grow the roster he signed up for
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 13, 2018, 11:01:09 AM
While we're talking about things Lebron didn't have (great coaching), what about things he did have, but prior eras didn't...access to high end pharmaceuticals and PEDs. 

Lebron came up during the PED era.  I know he never tested positive (neither did Armstrong), but you'd have to be an idiot to think he wasn't on PEDs and most/many in the NBA also were. 

An example, when they started testing for HGH, he promptly dropped 20 pounds of muscle that offseason, and was noticeably less fit.  And of course there is the alleged association with the Bosch PED ring.

Also, many NBA athletes go to training facilities in Germany and Miami, where it is suspected a lot of experimental undetectable drugs are used.  People that are that wealthy have access to tons of things undetectable (see Edelman in the NFL that is believed to have tested positive for an unknown PED). 

Frankly, I don't care that he has likely used PEDs, because most of his peers are also likely using.  But in comparing across eras it is another factor that is not uniform, and PED usage has likely led to his extended career and fitness (no injuries).
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 13, 2018, 11:44:59 AM
While we're talking about things Lebron didn't have (great coaching), what about things he did have, but prior eras didn't...access to high end pharmaceuticals and PEDs. 

Lebron came up during the PED era.  I know he never tested positive (neither did Armstrong), but you'd have to be an idiot to think he wasn't on PEDs and most/many in the NBA also were. 

An example, when they started testing for HGH, he promptly dropped 20 pounds of muscle that offseason, and was noticeably less fit.  And of course there is the alleged association with the Bosch PED ring.

Also, many NBA athletes go to training facilities in Germany and Miami, where it is suspected a lot of experimental undetectable drugs are used.  People that are that wealthy have access to tons of things undetectable (see Edelman in the NFL that is believed to have tested positive for an unknown PED). 

Frankly, I don't care that he has likely used PEDs, because most of his peers are also likely using.  But in comparing across eras it is another factor that is not uniform, and PED usage has likely led to his extended career and fitness (no injuries).

So, based on nothing but the most speculative of speculation (rich people can get stuff + LeBron is rich = he's on PEDs!), you're arguing that LeBron is a cheater and that should be held against him when weighing his status as an all-time great.
But also, you totally don't care.
Got it.

Also, Jordan was a man of little means who wasn't playing in the late 90s when PEDs were rampant in sports. And he totally didn't bulk up in his latter years as a Bull. And he certainly doesn't come off as the kind of guy who would do anything to win.

I mean, I'm 100 percent in the MJ camp on the inane Jordan vs LeBron debate, but the lengths at which some of you are going to degrade LBJ's accomplishments are utterly asinine.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 13, 2018, 12:41:13 PM
So, based on nothing but the most speculative of speculation (rich people can get stuff + LeBron is rich = he's on PEDs!), you're arguing that LeBron is a cheater and that should be held against him when weighing his status as an all-time great.
But also, you totally don't care.
Got it.

Also, Jordan was a man of little means who wasn't playing in the late 90s when PEDs were rampant in sports. And he totally didn't bulk up in his latter years as a Bull. And he certainly doesn't come off as the kind of guy who would do anything to win.

I mean, I'm 100 percent in the MJ camp on the inane Jordan vs LeBron debate, but the lengths at which some of you are going to degrade LBJ's accomplishments are utterly asinine.

For the record.  My stance is that comparing players across eras is a fruitless exercise.  Too much changes to say anything by statistic measures, and things like championships depend too much on team makeup etc. 

Others still want to compare every detail, e.g. who had better coaches, who made their teammates better.  If you're going to look at all that, you have to consider PEDs.  Armstrong also had nothing but speculation for years, but it was obvious he was using...just using technology that couldn't be tested.

Lebron, to anyone that knows a bit about science/human physiology, is clearly using.  His body makeup before HGH was tested for was at 275 lbs and ~8% body fat, that is physiologically impossible without PEDs.  He promptly dropped 20 lbs of muscle that offseason, when they started HGH testing.  This is documented.  Incidentally, that brings him directly into the range considered "elite physical fitness" that is regarded as naturally attainable. 

He also demonstrates the hallmarks of use, bone growth in the face and skull at a late age, unusual tumor growth (Jaw tumor), and many other factors. Frankly, you have to stick your head in the sand to think he hasn't used the majority of his career.

As Tower said perfectly.  Jordan, best of his era.  Lebron, best of his era. That is the TLDR...below is what I think about PEDs more specifically.

Regarding PEDs though and all time greats (from my viewpoint), I don't disillusion myself into thinking that NBA athletes (or any other sport) are following the rules.  The majority are most likely on PEDs, just strategically dosed, or using forms not testable.  So in each era, they are all at a comparable level of competitiveness.  It only becomes relevant if you try to compare across eras.

I think Lance Armstrong was the one of the greatest athletes of all time.  Why?...didn't he cheat?  Yeah, but so was everyone else, which leveled the playing field.  On that field, he was the greatest of all time.

Regarding Jordan, some say his first retirement was a "secret suspension" for PED use (others say it was for gambling)...even that case makes a great point if true.  The NBA will protect the stars (breadwinners) even when caught, and also that we shouldn't disillusion ourselves on the "personal merits" of any athlete/star, they are great competitors, that would do anything to win...that is how they got there and we shouldn't be surprised that they are not necessarily holier than thou.

 
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 13, 2018, 01:14:16 PM
Incredible the lengths that the LeBron-haters will take. Almost funny.

As for his relationship with Spoe ... like many at the time, he thought Spoe was a lightweight at first, just a placeholder between Riley and whichever coach Riley would bring in next (many thought it would be a rejuvenated Riley himself).

Over time, though, LeBron came to respect Spoe's coaching, and Riley has gone on record numerous times saying LeBron never tried to have Spoe fired. Riley repeated that many times after LeBron had left to go back to Cleveland, so it's not as if Riley - who doesn't mince words anyway - was saying it to curry LeBron's favor.

Spoe is a fine coach, clearly the best of LeBron's career. Mike Brown wasn't bad, either, IMHO.

As another poster said ... if LeBron really cares about that, he can to go San Antonio. Or Boston, for that matter, because Stevens is a heck of a coach.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 13, 2018, 01:22:50 PM
Incredible the lengths that the LeBron-haters will take. Almost funny.

This seems to be the argument against anything that has information that is remotely negative regarding Lebron.

The funny thing is the "haters" are defined as people that think Lebron is the 2nd best ever.

If you don't think that NBA stars are using PEDs, you have your head in the sand.  Does it matter to me?  No.  Does it matter to many who argue that Lebron is the greatest ever, yes...which then raises the question regarding PEDs.

Do you honestly think Lebron, and Carmelo, and others have never used PEDs?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 01:39:50 PM
This seems to be the argument against anything that has information that is remotely negative regarding Lebron.

The funny thing is the "haters" are defined as people that think Lebron is the 2nd best ever.

If you don't think that NBA stars are using PEDs, you have your head in the sand.  Does it matter to me?  No.  Does it matter to many who argue that Lebron is the greatest ever, yes...which then raises the question regarding PEDs.

Do you honestly think Lebron, and Carmelo, and others have never used PEDs?

Information and speculation are two very different things.  Show me a positive drug test, or are people now guilty until proven innocent in this country?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 13, 2018, 01:52:32 PM
Lebron, to anyone that knows a bit about science/human physiology, is clearly using.  His body makeup before HGH was tested for was at 275 lbs and ~8% body fat, that is physiologically impossible without PEDs.  He promptly dropped 20 lbs of muscle that offseason, when they started HGH testing.  This is documented.  Incidentally, that brings him directly into the range considered "elite physical fitness" that is regarded as naturally attainable. 

I have no idea whether LeBron or Jordan for that matter has used PEDs.
But since you quite obviously know for FACT, I'm sure you have tons of scientific evidence supporting some of your claims here.
I'll hang out for a while and wait for it.


Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 13, 2018, 02:38:57 PM
I have no idea whether LeBron or Jordan for that matter has used PEDs.
But since you quite obviously know for FACT, I'm sure you have tons of scientific evidence supporting some of your claims here.
I'll hang out for a while and wait for it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846
 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846)

Numerous scientific studies on the biological limits of fitness.  Lebron pre-HGH testing falls into the PED camp, by dropping 20 lbs of muscle in that offseason, he dropped into the non-user camp. 

There are a lot of data points.  Unusual jaw tumor, bone growth in the skull at a late age, his ffmi etc.  Even reported connections to Bosch (more circumstantial) is data. 

Each is a piece of data, each has its limitations, as does the NBA drug testing regime (the weakest and easiest to beat).  Each on their own could have different causes/explanations, but the combination makes the most likely explanation PED use. 

If you want definitive, its not going to happen, there are very very few things in the world that can be determined definitively, and PED use or non-use is not one of them.

Information and speculation are two very different things.  Show me a positive drug test, or are people now guilty until proven innocent in this country?

I think too often people do not understand the difference between information/data/conclusions and speculation.  The above in response to Pakuni are all data points/information.  Not speculation.  From data one can come to a conclusion to identify the most likely explanation consistent with all data. 

Speculation is on what the consequences of those conclusions are, e.g. Lebron's PED use made him the player he is.  The latter is frowned upon, since there is no data to suggest any of it.  But the conclusion that he most likely used PEDs is indeed valid and consistent with data/information.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 02:46:02 PM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846
 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846)

Numerous scientific studies on the biological limits of fitness.  Lebron pre-HGH testing falls into the PED camp, by dropping 20 lbs of muscle in that offseason, he dropped into the non-user camp. 

There are a lot of data points.  Unusual jaw tumor, bone growth in the skull at a late age, his ffmi etc.  Even reported connections to Bosch (more circumstantial) is data. 

Each is a piece of data, each has its limitations, as does the NBA drug testing regime (the weakest and easiest to beat).  Each on their own could have different causes/explanations, but the combination makes the most likely explanation PED use. 

If you want definitive, its not going to happen, there are very very few things in the world that can be determined definitively, and PED use or non-use is not one of them.

I think too often people do not understand the difference between information/data/conclusions and speculation.  The above in response to Pakuni are all data points/information.  Not speculation.  From data one can come to a conclusion to identify the most likely explanation consistent with all data. 

Speculation is on what the consequences of those conclusions are, e.g. Lebron's PED use made him the player he is.  The latter is frowned upon, since there is no data to suggest any of it.  But the conclusion that he most likely used PEDs is indeed valid and consistent with data/information.

No proof, got it.  Until you get a positive test or confession from Lebron, none of this means anything.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 02:53:42 PM
Information and speculation are two very different things.  Show me a positive drug test, or are people now guilty until proven innocent in this country?


It's a message board.  Not a court of law.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 02:59:03 PM

It's a message board.  Not a court of law.

That makes it okay to accuse someone of cheating with any evidence?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 03:01:59 PM
That makes it okay to accuse someone of cheating with any evidence?

It makes it OK to say someone "most likely" cheated using circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 03:07:46 PM
It makes it OK to say someone "most likely" cheated using circumstantial evidence.

If he had done that it'd be fine.


Lebron, to anyone that knows a bit about science/human physiology, is clearly using.   


I have no problem with saying that because Lebron plays in the era of PED's, there is a chance that he may have used them.  That does not mean that he is "clearly using".
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 03:10:14 PM
If he had done that it'd be fine.

I have no problem with saying that because Lebron plays in the era of PED's, there is a chance that he may have used them.  That does not mean that he is "clearly using".


https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52904.msg1028204#msg1028204

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on June 13, 2018, 03:10:20 PM
No but Spoelstra is a top 5 NBA coach right now IMO.

I remember spending all that time and energy crapping on the video boy when he was hired. Boy did he prove me wrong.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 03:14:26 PM

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52904.msg1028204#msg1028204
You took exception to my post about guilty until proven innocent.  That post was a direct response to forgetful saying that Lebron was "clearly using".  "Clearly using" was an accusation that has no proof behind it.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 13, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846
 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846)

This doesn't say what you claimed, at least not the abstract you provided. It simply states that FFMI  " may represent a useful initial measure to screen for" a specific type of PED, while also stating the results are preliminary.
That's substantially different from your claim that LeBron's physique "is physiologically impossible without PEDs."

Quote
If you want definitive, its not going to happen, there are very very few things in the world that can be determined definitively, and PED use or non-use is not one of them.

Sincerely,
Ryan Braun


Quote
But the conclusion that he most likely used PEDs is indeed valid and consistent with data/information.

Complete nonsense. You're throwing out a bunch of subjective observations (jaw growth, based on no actual measurement), speculative reasoning and unrelated circumstances (he lived in Miami  ... Tony Bosch lived in Miami .... there must be a connection!)  and declaring conclusive evidence.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 13, 2018, 03:25:19 PM
You took exception to my post about guilty until proven innocent.  That post was a direct response to forgetful saying that Lebron was "clearly using".  "Clearly using" was an accusation that has no proof behind it.

To me "clearly using" and based on data/information is "most likely" using are equivalent statements.

"clearly" merely equates to "most consistent with existing information".  And such a conclusion, can by definition be only made by an individual, and hence is by definition an opinion.

Your guilty until proven innocent is a completely different matter.  Although I think he "clearly" or equivalently "most likely" was using, I would vehemently defend him from any punishment based on that information/conclusion. 

Reason being, there is equal data to suggest numerous others in the NBA and other sports are using, and they are not and should not be punished.  I was against the punishment doled out to Armstrong for similar reasons.  There are testing guidelines, and associated rules agreed upon by the governing bodies.  That is the only metric by which someone can be punished.

Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 03:33:55 PM
To me "clearly using" and based on data/information is "most likely" using are equivalent statements.

"clearly" merely equates to "most consistent with existing information".  And such a conclusion, can by definition be only made by an individual, and hence is by definition an opinion.

Your guilty until proven innocent is a completely different matter.  Although I think he "clearly" or equivalently "most likely" was using, I would vehemently defend him from any punishment based on that information/conclusion. 

Reason being, there is equal data to suggest numerous others in the NBA and other sports are using, and they are not and should not be punished.  I was against the punishment doled out to Armstrong for similar reasons.  There are testing guidelines, and associated rules agreed upon by the governing bodies.  That is the only metric by which someone can be punished.

Most likely and clearly are not the same, but as long as it is clear that it is your opinion, (which it now is) that Lebron has used PED's, by all means proceed.  I only really took exception to the accusatory manner in which you presented your argument.

As four your second point I guess we half agree.  No punishment should be handed out unless there is an admission of guilt or a positive test,(confirmed by two independent testers) but once that does happen, the penalty should be severe, Armstrong absolutely got what he deserved.  The only way to make the PED problem go away is by making the risk higher than the reward.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 13, 2018, 03:36:33 PM
This doesn't say what you claimed, at least not the abstract you provided. It simply states that FFMI  " may represent a useful initial measure to screen for" a specific type of PED, while also stating the results are preliminary.

That's substantially different from your claim that LeBron's physique "is physiologically impossible without PEDs."

Complete nonsense. You're throwing out a bunch of subjective observations (jaw growth, based on no actual measurement), speculative reasoning and unrelated circumstances (he lived in Miami  ... Tony Bosch lived in Miami .... there must be a connection!)  and declaring conclusive evidence.

You're looking at their conclusion line, and ignoring the underlying data.  Also, I linked the seminal paper, not many subsequent studies that came to similar conclusions.  The underlying data puts Lebron well above the ffmi limit for elite athletes that are non-users.

That doesn't mean that it couldn't be natural.  He could be in that 0.001% of the population, and given that he is a professional athlete, it is more likely than normal.  So it is a single data point.  He also had an unusual jaw tumor (not growth) that is typical/consistent with hormone abuse.  He had to have surgery to remove that tumor. That is another data point. 

Add to it, 20 lbs of muscle mass loss in a single summer (Carmelo had the same thing happen, weirdly in the same year), which happened to be before the first year HGH testing began.

And bone growth in the skull (see Barry Bonds).

And you have numerous pieces of information that are all consistent with the same cause...PED usage.  The likelihood that all these occur in an individual separate for PED use, is quite unlikely.  I actually can't come up with a single cause consistent with all of them, it would require multiple rare and unlikely conditions coinciding in the same person.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 13, 2018, 03:38:22 PM
Most likely and clearly are not the same, but as long as it is clear that it is your opinion, (which it now is) that Lebron has used PED's, by all means proceed.  I only really took exception to the accusatory manner in which you presented your argument.

As four your second point I guess we half agree.  No punishment should be handed out unless there is an admission of guilt or a positive test,(confirmed by two independent testers) but once that does happen, the penalty should be severe, Armstrong absolutely got what he deserved.  The only way to make the PED problem go away is by making the risk higher than the reward.

I'm not particularly known for using clear and precise language on a message board; the board is an outlet from a profession that requires constant attention to detail and clear and precise arguments.

As a result of my wanting to not have to do that all the time, I take heat on here for my verbiage, which is 100% my fault and deserved.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 13, 2018, 03:38:58 PM
I have no idea if Lebron is using PEDs or not.

But to suggest he had greater access to them than Jordan in the 90s is simply not true. PEDs have been around forever and the 90s was arguably when they were the most rampant.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 13, 2018, 03:40:26 PM
Well forgetful, if you think "clearly" and "most likely" are the same, why should anybody else even bother having a conversation with you?

Clearly is a definitive statement.

Most likely ... well that clearly is NOT a definitive statement.

It's all your opinion, and that's cool, just don't pass it off as fact. As sultan said, this ain't a court of law. You don't have to "prove" anything. But don't be surprised when your friendly Scoop brothers and sisters call you out for expressing opinion as fact.

And yes, just because you think LeBron is the No. 2 player in history, it doesn't mean you don't try to trash him at every opportunity in a desperate attempt to prove he's lesser-than.

Again, that's your prerogative. But it clearly isn't fact-based. Most likely.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 04:01:04 PM
I'm not particularly known for using clear and precise language on a message board; the board is an outlet from a profession that requires constant attention to detail and clear and precise arguments.

As a result of my wanting to not have to do that all the time, I take heat on here for my verbiage, which is 100% my fault and deserved.

We're all good.  I try not to jump on people over semantics, especially as trivial as clearly vs most likely, and the only reason I did is precisely because I believe that punishment for PED use should be much higher than it currently is.
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jay Bee on June 13, 2018, 06:32:20 PM
I'm not particularly known for using clear and precise language on a message board; the board is an outlet from a profession that requires constant attention to detail and clear and precise arguments.

As a result of my wanting to not have to do that all the time, I take heat on here for my verbiage, which is 100% my fault and deserved.

So, um... you're like super dumb if you don't try extraordinarily hard to not be and stuff? uhh..
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: forgetful on June 13, 2018, 08:37:04 PM
So, um... you're like super dumb if you don't try extraordinarily hard to not be and stuff? uhh..

I don't know why I'm addressing this at all, and will not address it directly, rather take this as an opportunity to say something else. 

We all have our takes/opinions that push us down rabbit holes, for me that is mostly Lebron and the education industry (think eFG% for you).  I know that those two topics can take me in directions, which to say it nicely, bring out undesirable traits in me.  But what I like about message boards is there are people from all walks of life that can teach us about ourselves, particularly certain posters...that we don't have to ever meet, but impact us. 

examples.

Pakuni.  Never met them, respect the hell out of how they carry theirselves on here and what they have to say.  When I get into discussions, where they seem irritated by my statements/thoughts it gets to me, because it says something I am saying is either poorly phrased, overly aggressive/hyperbole, or possibly just plain wrong, which makes me go back over what I wrote (oftentimes not as clear as I would like), or go back and research more making me a more knowledgable person.

MU82.  Generally knowledgable across multiple topics, appears to be a generally good human being, which there are not enough of anymore.  Same things as above apply; learned a lot reading his posts and at times being on the receiving end of his arguments. 

Sultan.  Admittedly, gets under my skin a bit more because of his sharp tone at times, but still greatly appreciate his insight as he is quite knowledgeable and seems like a genuinely good human being.  There are several things that I would explicitly ask his insight on (e.g. NBA), because he is far more knowledgeable than I.

There are numerous others I could say the same thing about, and others that just are inspiring (Tower, Dish...many others) I bring these up in particular, because I was arguing with them mostly in this thread.  The list of people I have the utmost respect for having never met them in my life on this board is exhaustingly long.

In general what makes me amazed at this community, is that I would go through great lengths and way out of my way to offer nearly all of them any assistance or help in real life that they needed and asked, without ever meeting them because of their genuinely great nature. 

With that said, when you make a statement like the above, is that how you want to be perceived?  Do you think it brings about your best qualities as a human being?
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Jay Bee on June 13, 2018, 09:01:36 PM
^^^ u in a dark place bruh

...comin waaay outta Left field...
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: MU82 on June 13, 2018, 10:25:00 PM
I don't know why I'm addressing this at all, and will not address it directly, rather take this as an opportunity to say something else. 

We all have our takes/opinions that push us down rabbit holes, for me that is mostly Lebron and the education industry (think eFG% for you).  I know that those two topics can take me in directions, which to say it nicely, bring out undesirable traits in me.  But what I like about message boards is there are people from all walks of life that can teach us about ourselves, particularly certain posters...that we don't have to ever meet, but impact us. 

examples.

Pakuni.  Never met them, respect the hell out of how they carry theirselves on here and what they have to say.  When I get into discussions, where they seem irritated by my statements/thoughts it gets to me, because it says something I am saying is either poorly phrased, overly aggressive/hyperbole, or possibly just plain wrong, which makes me go back over what I wrote (oftentimes not as clear as I would like), or go back and research more making me a more knowledgable person.

MU82.  Generally knowledgable across multiple topics, appears to be a generally good human being, which there are not enough of anymore.  Same things as above apply; learned a lot reading his posts and at times being on the receiving end of his arguments. 

Sultan.  Admittedly, gets under my skin a bit more because of his sharp tone at times, but still greatly appreciate his insight as he is quite knowledgeable and seems like a genuinely good human being.  There are several things that I would explicitly ask his insight on (e.g. NBA), because he is far more knowledgeable than I.

There are numerous others I could say the same thing about, and others that just are inspiring (Tower, Dish...many others) I bring these up in particular, because I was arguing with them mostly in this thread.  The list of people I have the utmost respect for having never met them in my life on this board is exhaustingly long.

In general what makes me amazed at this community, is that I would go through great lengths and way out of my way to offer nearly all of them any assistance or help in real life that they needed and asked, without ever meeting them because of their genuinely great nature. 

With that said, when you make a statement like the above, is that how you want to be perceived?  Do you think it brings about your best qualities as a human being?

Oh crap, forgetful. Now I'm blushing and I can never say anything snarky about you again! Darn you and your kind words!!!!
Title: Re: NBA '17
Post by: Pakuni on June 14, 2018, 08:56:21 AM
I don't know why I'm addressing this at all, and will not address it directly, rather take this as an opportunity to say something else. 

We all have our takes/opinions that push us down rabbit holes, for me that is mostly Lebron and the education industry (think eFG% for you).  I know that those two topics can take me in directions, which to say it nicely, bring out undesirable traits in me.  But what I like about message boards is there are people from all walks of life that can teach us about ourselves, particularly certain posters...that we don't have to ever meet, but impact us. 

Thanks for the unnecessarily kind words, but really, don't take anything I or anyone else here writes too seriously. We're all just a bunch of dopes (some of us dopier than others, I grant you) with too much time on our hands, blabbering on an online message board.
And if I've said anything that offended you, my apologies.