EPTNBA Playoffs 2012 - Page 138
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13295 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13295 Posts
It's like I'm watching the Wiz vs the Lolcats. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Washed up franchise. Miami without Bosh would beat both teams in 4 or 5. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
| ||
|
thuracine
United States582 Posts
| ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13295 Posts
The Celtics are just really streaky at the moment. It's hard to get a read on them from game to game. If they can shoot at somewhere near 45% I can't see them losing game 7. | ||
|
Chunhyang
Bangladesh1389 Posts
| ||
|
Man with a Plan
United States401 Posts
That said, San Antonio is a beast, poor Lakers, Durant is a monster, meh about Boston or Sixers, and Miami will finish strong! | ||
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On May 24 2012 13:29 Chunhyang wrote: Point differential, the most accurate indicator of playoff success, has Philly pretty high up. 4th iirc. They're better than their record dictates. Is that true? Do you have an article or something on that? That would be very interesting to read because I, initially, don't believe it. But I haven't done any research. | ||
|
icystorage
Jollibee19350 Posts
His shoulder most likely will pop out again and might have surgery. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On May 24 2012 15:00 slyboogie wrote: Is that true? Do you have an article or something on that? That would be very interesting to read because I, initially, don't believe it. But I haven't done any research. He's somewhat right. Point Differential for the regular season says how strong your team is overall in relation to the league. Super teams usually have a monster PD + a decent record. Philly had a massive PD going into the middle of the season, lost Hawes, then started losing a lot of games. But once you hit the playoffs your PD (vs the entire league) can be a "false" indicator: what matters is how you matched up vs the team you are playing. You can go 0-4 vs a team, but have a PD of -1.2 vs them and the PD tells you the matchup is very close. So you wouldn't do something like say Team X has Team Y's # - look at the record! You need to see how close the games were. This is the only thing that anyone rooting for San Antonio needs to be wary of vs OKC. They've beaten them without Manu and won 2 out of 3 but we have no idea how the matchups will go in this series. Duncan being way better than his RS self is a mega plus for SA but Durant and Westbrook being better is also a game changer. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/25/great-debates-christmas-edition-kobe-v-wade/ | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On May 24 2012 19:34 Ace wrote: He's somewhat right. Point Differential for the regular season says how strong your team is overall in relation to the league. Super teams usually have a monster PD + a decent record. Philly had a massive PD going into the middle of the season, lost Hawes, then started losing a lot of games. But once you hit the playoffs your PD (vs the entire league) can be a "false" indicator: what matters is how you matched up vs the team you are playing. You can go 0-4 vs a team, but have a PD of -1.2 vs them and the PD tells you the matchup is very close. So you wouldn't do something like say Team X has Team Y's # - look at the record! You need to see how close the games were. This is the only thing that anyone rooting for San Antonio needs to be wary of vs OKC. They've beaten them without Manu and won 2 out of 3 but we have no idea how the matchups will go in this series. Duncan being way better than his RS self is a mega plus for SA but Durant and Westbrook being better is also a game changer. For the sake of discussion, how do you think the additions of Diaw and SJax will affect this matchup? Arguably, the two represent some quality veteran depth that fit very well into what the Spurs are doing. I think Diaw will have less of an impact due to one of his main contributions being post defense, which will not be needed much against the OKC frontcourt. SJax may end up being very useful by providing tough physical defense against Durant. I think both will continue to contribute significantly on offense as they're both smart players who are good playmakers/passers for their positions, and are 3pt threats. | ||
|
Cloud9157
United States2968 Posts
Lakers lost the series, and they were the best team... Yeah right. They were so outclassed and would have been outclassed by the hottest team in the NBA if they had somehow beaten OKC. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On May 24 2012 20:17 Ace wrote: 2 of the best 3 SGs of all time. Love this article: http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/25/great-debates-christmas-edition-kobe-v-wade/ On May 24 2012 20:17 Ace wrote: 2 of the best 3 SGs of all time. Love this article: http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/25/great-debates-christmas-edition-kobe-v-wade/ A very good article indeed. Personally, I love both players and think they're amongst the best we've ever seen in the league at any position. As a Lakers fan though, I do have to question the comparison and argument to some extent. The relative age differences and the rule changes affect the analysis, which isn't really factored in that well. For example, Kobe was in his most athletic and quickest shape before the rule changes that took away hand-checking, and was playing alongside Shaq who dominated and plugged up the paint. This isn't to say that he would have ever attacked the basket the way Wade does (I don't think he's built as strong and tough as Wade), but he arguably was playing under circumstances that promoted more perimeter-oriented (and less efficient) play at his athletic peak. By the time he was playing under the new rules without Shaq, Kobe had already developed into a more perimeter-oriented player, and was beginning to lose some of his speed and athleticism during the Gasol years. Wade has been playing under the new rules basically his whole career, and Shaq was very different on the Heat both in terms of how he played and how he was used on offense. The circumstances (and his style of play) promoted higher efficiency in scoring because the paint was more open to him throughout his career and defenders weren't allowed to touch him. It's arguable that his less-than-stellar outside shooting would have negatively impacted him more if he had been playing under the hand-checking rules and played alongside the Shaq that dominated his team's offense like he did during his Lakers years. Then again, who knows if Wade would have worked on his perimeter shot more if he had. Who knows. I'm not arguing that one player is better than the other because of the above, but it may add more to the picture and make the efficiency argument not as clear cut as the article makes it seem. They play differently and have played in significantly different circumstances throughout their careers. To just point at their efficiency and TS% doesn't say everything. I think everyone would agree that Kobe is more versatile than Wade offensively, which arguably makes him easier to build around and pair up with another dominant player. It should be considered whether being a more perimeter-oriented player allowed Kobe to win more championships because it allowed his game to mesh better with post players like Shaq and Gasol. Personally, I think Kobe would even pair up better with Wade or Lebron better than they pair up with each other now, as he has the perimeter shooting to compliment their drive to the basket games better. Wade is much more efficient, but is also more limited in the ways he can score. It's a give-and-take that shouldn't really detract from either player, but this article uses to argue against Kobe. One area in which I do agree with the article is in the mentalities and trustworthiness of the two. I think Wade has just as much of a killer/closer mentality as Kobe, but is a less selfish player. There's no way to really quantify or really prove it, but my sense is that Kobe has always been, and always will be, out for personal glory only, and only works within the team framework because it's the only way to achieve greatness in basketball, which is ultimately still a team sport. That drive has provided him with the insane drive and work ethic to make himself one of the most complete basketball players skills-wise, but it has also hurt him a lot in terms of being a teammate and leader. I don't think Wade has the same level of insane drive and work ethic as Kobe does, which has prevented him from being as complete and skilled as an individual player (still not a good perimeter shooter and only recently developed a post game that he should have a while ago with his physical abilities), but he is much more of a team player and a better leader (although I think Wade should be seizing leadership of the team from Lebron because he's just better at it and Kobe would likely have already done so). In the end, basketball is a team sport and no single player can win a championship by himself, so Wade is cleary superior in this respect in my opinion. More to say, but I think that's more than enough for one post. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On May 25 2012 04:02 Cloud9157 wrote: I love how arrogant Artest was. Lakers lost the series, and they were the best team... Yeah right. They were so outclassed and would have been outclassed by the hottest team in the NBA if they had somehow beaten OKC. It's a good mentality to have as a player confidence-wise and PR-wise, but it's definitely far-fetched. I would argue though that they weren't "outclassed" by OKC in the series as the games were pretty close for the most part and the Lakers could easily have been up 3-2 if they hadn't blown two late-game leads. The Thunder were very beatable in that series. If you want to talk about outclassed, that was the Clippers and the Spurs. Agreed that the Lakers would likely have been creamed by the Spurs. That team might outclass the rest of the league right now. | ||
| ||
