NBA '17

[GGGG]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Its DJOver]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[jesmu84]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[forgetful]

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. 

[forgetful]

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. 

[MU82]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

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

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.

[Its DJOver]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[MU82]

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!

[wadesworld]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[GGGG]

3) Show me Green "striking" LBJ in the groin.

Oh good lord. 

[wadesworld]

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.

[forgetful]

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

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?

[forgetful]

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. 

[Its DJOver]

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.

[GGGG]

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

[MUBurrow]

3) Show me Green "striking" LBJ in the groin.

okay.



its possible to both acknowledge that draymond green hit lebron in the dicknballs, and still not like lebron. they aren't mutually exclusive positions.

[Pakuni]

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.

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.