NBA Thread 2019-20

[🏀]

People claiming NCAA > NBA need to preface their statement by saying they enjoy bad basketball.

[Its DJOver]

People claiming NCAA > NBA need to preface their statement by saying they enjoy bad basketball.

I don't think this is accurate.  Watching James Harden take an iso step back three 20+ times a game is not what I would call "good basketball".  The Rockets may win if he does that, because the talent level is so high, but there is a strong argument to be made that watching a good college team move the ball, work the shot clock, and take a good shot is significantly "better" basketball.  I'm not ripping on either NCAA or NBA, but just because the talent level is higher (most times significantly so) does not mean that you play "better basketball" in the NBA.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

I don't think this is accurate.  Watching James Harden take an iso step back three 20+ times a game is not what I would call "good basketball".  The Rockets may win if he does that, because the talent level is so high, but there is a strong argument to be made that watching a good college team move the ball, work the shot clock, and take a good shot is significantly "better" basketball.  I'm not ripping on either NCAA or NBA, but just because the talent level is higher (most times significantly so) does not mean that you play "better basketball" in the NBA.

Comparing a good college play with a poor NBA play isn't really fair. Just like it's not fair to compare the Golden State Warriors with UW-Madison.

When the NBA is playing at pace and moving the ball, it is the best basketball on the planet. Also I think the run of the mill NBA game is way more entertaining than a run of the mill college game.

But both can be good and fun to watch in different sorts of ways. I could go the rest of my life without watching a high school game and be just fine.

[Its DJOver]

Comparing a good college play with a poor NBA play isn't really fair. Just like it's not fair to compare the Golden State Warriors with UW-Madison.

When the NBA is playing at pace and moving the ball, it is the best basketball on the planet. Also I think the run of the mill NBA game is way more entertaining than a run of the mill college game.

But both can be good and fun to watch in different sorts of ways. I could go the rest of my life without watching a high school game and be just fine.

That's the thing though it's not just one possession, it's the majority of the game.  The NBA is obviously more talented, but I think an neutral observer would say that Virginia plays "good basketball" more than the Rockets do, despite the snail like pace versus the current NBA meta.  The NBA is 100% about entertainment, which is why Harden has been getting so many headlines about the ridiculous numbers he's been putting up despite Houston being 7-6 over their last 13 games.  He's arguably the best offensive player in history, but he does not play "good basketball" most of the time, which explains the recent record.

[wadesworld]

I don't know.  I hate that Harden gets away with shoving his defender 5 feet backwards and then taking 6 steps back to the 3 point line and everyone drools over that, but the guy's court vision and passing is incredible, along with the shots he's able to hit.  When he gets by his defender and help comes there's nobody better at finding his big man at the rim or skip passing to a corner shooter as the corner shooter's man rotates to help on the vacated big.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

I didn't say it was one possession. The NBA iso game has largely fallen out of favor so watching Harden doing things like he is doing is largely the exception and not how successful teams operate.

And he isn't arguably the best offensive player in history either.

[MUfan12]

People claiming NCAA > NBA need to preface their statement by saying they enjoy bad basketball.

This.

[Pakuni]

People claiming NCAA > NBA need to preface their statement by saying they enjoy bad basketball.

Bad may be a bit harsh, but it's certainly inferior.
Love the notion that players being too good at shooting (hence the need to move back the 3-point line), the continuation rule and the lack of offensive fouls = bad basketball.

[wadesworld]

My car said the temperature went up from -26 to -25 on my 20 minute drive into work today, so that was nice.

[Its DJOver]

Bad may be a bit harsh, but it's certainly inferior.
Love the notion that players being too good at shooting (hence the need to move back the 3-point line), the continuation rule and the lack of offensive fouls = bad basketball.

You said what I was trying to say, only better.  In terms of overall talent, and entertainment value, the NBA will win out 95% of the time, but there is so much NBA where a team will run no offense for 20 seconds, and then still hit a three, just because they are THAT good at shooting.  Entertaining, yes, but IMO it is not "good" basketball.  Now this happens in college too, just less frequently and with a much lower success rate.

[The Sultan]

You said what I was trying to say, only better.  In terms of overall talent, and entertainment value, the NBA will win out 95% of the time, but there is so much NBA where a team will run no offense for 20 seconds, and then still hit a three, just because they are THAT good at shooting.  Entertaining, yes, but IMO it is not "good" basketball.  Now this happens in college too, just less frequently and with a much lower success rate.

I guess I don't understand how that isn't "good" basketball.  You just said they are more successful at the ultimate objective of the game.  Doesn't that make it "good?"

[Its DJOver]

I guess I don't understand how that isn't "good" basketball.  You just said they are more successful at the ultimate objective of the game.  Doesn't that make it "good?"

I would define "good" basketball as getting the highest percentage shot on every trip down the floor.  Due to pure shooting ability, most NBA teams have a majority of possessions that don't end this way, and yet you can still win, thus being more "successful at the ultimate objective".  Harden or Westbrook taking a contested 3, 5 seconds into the shot clock may go in, but watching a Pop team move the ball, with every player touching it on a possession that ends in a open mid-range jumper is a higher quality possession to me (even if the shot is missed).  Houston has beaten San Antonio 2 out of 3 games this year, and are higher in the standings, but the Spurs play "better" basketball.  All IMO of course.

[The Sultan]

I would define "good" basketball as getting the highest percentage shot on every trip down the floor.  Due to pure shooting ability, most NBA teams have a majority of possessions that don't end this way, and yet you can still win, thus being more "successful at the ultimate objective".  Harden or Westbrook taking a contested 3, 5 seconds into the shot clock may go in, but watching a Pop team move the ball, with every player touching it on a possession that ends in a open mid-range jumper is a higher quality possession to me (even if the shot is missed).  Houston has beaten San Antonio 2 out of 3 games this year, and are higher in the standings, but the Spurs play "better" basketball.  All IMO of course.

So making a 3 point shot isn't as "good" as moving the ball a lot and missing a mid-range 2 point shot?

[Its DJOver]

So making a 3 point shot isn't as "good" as moving the ball a lot and missing a mid-range 2 point shot?

You're twisting my words around a bit but yes.
Taking (and potentially making) a contested three point shot, early in the shot clock* is not as good of a possession as one that includes good ball movement and an open (miss-able) 2 point shot.  Whether or not the ball goes in is not the only factor in determining the quality of the possession.

*Obvious exceptions include heat checks, and 2-for-1 opportunities.

[MU82]

I like basketball.

NBA, college, high school.

Heck, during my 4 years coaching middle school, I saw a lot of talented players.

The NBA has the best athletes in the world, and I enjoy watching them. I love the passion the fans bring to college basketball, in addition to the fine athletes doing their thing; having a rooting interest in a college team makes it extra fun. HS hoops in my last two stops - NC and Chicago - is/was pretty darn good and I've enjoyed it a lot. It's great to see young stars on the rise, and that goes for athletes of each gender.

[JWags85]

You said what I was trying to say, only better.  In terms of overall talent, and entertainment value, the NBA will win out 95% of the time, but there is so much NBA where a team will run no offense for 20 seconds, and then still hit a three, just because they are THAT good at shooting.  Entertaining, yes, but IMO it is not "good" basketball.  Now this happens in college too, just less frequently and with a much lower success rate.

So you love the WNBA and women's CBB then?  Cause strip away the athleticism and strength that allows some of the ridiculous shooting and driving to the basket and you get a more pure form of basketball played in women's ball.

[Its DJOver]

So you love the WNBA and women's CBB then?  Cause strip away the athleticism and strength that allows some of the ridiculous shooting and driving to the basket and you get a more pure form of basketball played in women's ball.

I don't dislike the WNBA or NCAAW like some do.  I think the skill drop off is significant compared to the all male counterparts, which creates a less desirable game more-so than just pure athleticism as it seems that you're trying to imply. 

Look, I'm not trying to hate on the NBA, I watch and enjoy plenty of it.  I was just disputing the assertion that the NBA is always better than college ball.  Most times the NBA is more entertaining and better, sometimes college is.  I hardly think that is some over the top opinion.

[martyconlonontherun]

You said what I was trying to say, only better.  In terms of overall talent, and entertainment value, the NBA will win out 95% of the time, but there is so much NBA where a team will run no offense for 20 seconds, and then still hit a three, just because they are THAT good at shooting.  Entertaining, yes, but IMO it is not "good" basketball.  Now this happens in college too, just less frequently and with a much lower success rate.

So the difference for MU is....they pound it for 25 seconds before MH lets it fly

1. For me, it makes the game so interesting. I don't think it's horrible offense, but rather good defense that doesn't allow easy buckets. Play great defense for twenty seconds and get your heart broken from a guy nailing a step back 3.

Whereas college, there are so many easy buckets since you don't have these freak athletes at the bucket or the lanky shooter in college is to slow on his coverage on a 5'8'' guard.

[JWags85]

I don't dislike the WNBA or NCAAW like some do.  I think the skill drop off is significant compared to the all male counterparts, which creates a less desirable game more-so than just pure athleticism as it seems that you're trying to imply. 

What skill drop off?  Their shooting percentages aren't wildly different.  They score similar amounts.  The main difference between the male and female game is 100% athleticism and size.

Look, I'm not trying to hate on the NBA, I watch and enjoy plenty of it.  I was just disputing the assertion that the NBA is always better than college ball.  Most times the NBA is more entertaining and better, sometimes college is.  I hardly think that is some over the top opinion.

Thats fair.  I don't think its over the top, but your take is more nuanced.  Others earlier in the thread said the NBA sucks, college rules.  There are plenty of people who say that.

[wadesworld]

What in the hell are the Knicks doing?

[MUBurrow]

What in the hell are the Knicks doing?

It has to be Dennis Smith and picks, right? I can't imagine a combination of Mavericks assets that would be enough for me to trade Kristaps, torn ACL and all.

Edit - Not even, its the cap space. They must think they're getting Durant.

[The Sultan]

What in the hell are the Knicks doing?

What the Knicks always do. Blow it up and create cap space for max contracts, find out that nobody really wants to play there since the organization sucks and hasn't been relevant for a generation, and then overpay for the likes of Goran Dragic.

[LAMUfan]

Dennis smith, wes, jordan, draft assets maybe

[nyg]

Knicks clear salaries of Hardaway and Lee, soon Kanter.
After season release Matthews and Jordan.
Don't have to negotiate any multi year deal with Porzingis after season since he is gone.

Knicks will have an extraordinary cap space after this, I hope they have some indication that free agent players, yes plural, have made it known somehow they are in play for next year.  This is a complete blowup and leaves them with a young core:

Dennis Smith
Kevin Knox
Mitchell Robinson
Noah Vonleh
And a group of wannabes.

Hopefully they get #1 pick and Zion, then add Durant and someone else like Leonard. Don't think they have assests for Anthony Davis trade.  I liked Porzingis and he was very popular with fans.  Hope they have plan in place, otherwise this could be disaster. 

[Dish]

It's times like this I wish the Bulls were good and had competent management. Porzingis was on sale for 50 cents on the dollar. If he is fully recovered and re-ups with Dallas, that's a hell of a 1-2 punch for the Mavs.