NBA '17

[WarriorDad]

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. 

[tower912]

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. 

[brewcity77]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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.   

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.

[DegenerateDish]

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?

[wadesworld]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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.

[forgetful]

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. 

[WarriorDad]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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?"

[brewcity77]

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.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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.

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   

[wadesworld]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[wadesworld]

Yeah.  He sucks.

Your words.

[Pakuni]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[tower912]

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.   

[forgetful]

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.