|
On May 23 2009 05:53 MYM.Testie wrote:
Hmmmm Pau is playing fine and he's the big reason they won game one + kobe's 4th quarter play&free throws. He killed them on the boards. He's just shooting bricks for free throws. And I only caught the 2nd half of last game but Lamar at least contributed.
Gasol is doing fine.
come on Testie, when has his presence been felt? Game 1 he didn't have that "presence" no matter how well he did. He hasn't arrived yet.
|
thats nice. But Denver only has 2 all stars and 2 great role players.
Chauncey/Melo - all stars
Nene - Birdman - great role players
everyone else is either good (K Mart), or just "there" (see J.R. smith and Kleiza)
|
Gasol and disappointing?
Wat?
2009 Playoffs Statistics
PPG18.1 , RPG11.00 ,APG2.2, EFF+ 24.08 (!)
FG % 0.552
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/pau_gasol/
Do they praise Kobe and demolish other Lakers' players in the Fox News or something?
|
18ppg = bad. This is Pau Gasol we're talking about.
nevermind, you've been spouting nonsense for tons of pages why do I even bother.
|
He did fine though and kept them in the game. He had presence it just wasn't that of a shooting/dunking on fire presence, he did his job and outfought a swarm of players to get tough rebounds. He stood out and played well on the glass and defensively. He just didn't get very many shots off and definitely needs his FT% to at least get back to his regular season shooting.
But saying Gasol should wake up is a bit ludicrous considering he played fine. Game 1 he had 6 more rebounds than anyone on Denver and they were hard fought.
His career and season is 18 PPG. He might not be one of those players who can elevate their games so significantly like a few other players have. But at least he's not playing worse like some others and he's consistently being good.
|
Kenyon Martin is an All-Star who has been to Finals 2 times.
|
Kenyon Martin is not an All Star anymore - stop it.
Come on Testie, this is the same Gasol we saw last year in the Boston series. Remember that guy? He played fine but it wasn't enough. Gasol sometimes needs to have that fire surely, but he definitely needs to have that scoring thirst. His years in Memphis where he was closer to 21 PPG are probably gone because he's playing with Kobe but he NEEDS to look for his shot more - what's the point of being merely just "good" when everyone knows you can be better?
Gasol has shown flashes of being a monster but 18 ppg is just pathetic when we all know he is capable of more. Getting lots of rebounds is only a fourth of his job.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
gasol is disappointing if you measure him by the expectation of the dominant front court player. that standard is biased because he is perceived as soft due to style or origin. i think gasol has been consistently efficient, but he does not have the dominant games regularly. this may be a matter of in-game decisions/strategy. if they feed the ball to him, he does a pretty good job though. the "disappointment" charge against the lakers comes from their variance. you see games in which they play so well, and take that to be their true level. when they don't have those games, it is 'disappointing', at least to fans with expectations.
|
Ace,
Talking nonsense?
Why would I bother posting something that goes unnoticed just for it to get picked up several pages later?
The guy here who told about stuff done like that didn't lie. Things are that way here.
Pau Gasol is Power Forward. He never liked being Center. Never - ever. He likes to play when the court is "stretched" - when there is room for him to play or pass the ball. He likes to play towards the basket because he is tall and he is fast. He doesn't like to play "back towards" Centers near the basket versus bigger and stronger ones.
If Bynum would step up his game then Pau would enjoy playing his natural position - Power Forward, but since he is stuck in this position he isn't that effective. Considering that he has played Center most of the part then he's numbers have been superb.
Pau would be a lot more efficient in his natural position.
|
On May 23 2009 05:54 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2009 05:46 tonight wrote:
Cleveland had it much easier don't shit yourself. no they didn't genius. New Orleans had 5 banged up starters vs Detroit who still had their core. The non defensive Mavs who had trouble with Tony Parker as the only legit threat on a hobbled Spurs team vs the Atlanta Hawks with only Marvin Williams being their only "problem". Get your head on straight Denver had the easiest path of any team.
Taking that shit pretty defensively. Piston had their "core", but that doesn't account for how bad they really were the last 2months+ of the season into the playoffs. Yes, NO had banged up players, but they were still a better team then DET no doubt about that. The Mavs were playing great leading into the playoffs and into the playoffs. Their defense has always been a problem. The Hawks just can never play consistently aside from the few win streak spurts they'd have. Them being young and emotional played into it too.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 23 2009 05:54 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2009 05:46 tonight wrote:
Cleveland had it much easier don't shit yourself. no they didn't genius. New Orleans had 5 banged up starters vs Detroit who still had their core. The non defensive Mavs who had trouble with Tony Parker as the only legit threat on a hobbled Spurs team vs the Atlanta Hawks with only Marvin Williams being their only "problem". Get your head on straight Denver had the easiest path of any team.
Let's not kid ourselves, Detroit's core was playing at about 50% despite being 100% healthy. I haven't seen a group that unmotivated in years.
Here's a question: Are the Lakers playing better than they were last year? Obviously they've got Bynum, but he's not actually doing anything.
|
Yes, if you ignore enough information, then you end up with your qualitative assumptions. And yes, the qualitative assumptions has always been lakers > nuggets. Once you've discounted all information to the contrary, it is a huge shocker that nuggets ~ lakers on the lakers home court.
But to those of us that actually read into denver's wins, it's not a surprise that they are challenging the lakers.
And the Carmelo 30 point rubric, that's more analysis lite at work. Do the nuggets have other people who can score? Yes. Carmelo shot a lot better in game 1 then game 2, yet they ended up winning game 2.
|
On May 23 2009 06:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2009 05:54 Ace wrote:On May 23 2009 05:46 tonight wrote:
Cleveland had it much easier don't shit yourself. no they didn't genius. New Orleans had 5 banged up starters vs Detroit who still had their core. The non defensive Mavs who had trouble with Tony Parker as the only legit threat on a hobbled Spurs team vs the Atlanta Hawks with only Marvin Williams being their only "problem". Get your head on straight Denver had the easiest path of any team. Let's not kid ourselves, Detroit's core was playing at about 50% despite being 100% healthy. I haven't seen a group that unmotivated in years. Here's a question: Are the Lakers playing better than they were last year? Obviously they've got Bynum, but he's not actually doing anything.
Doesn't matter though Jibba. Can you honestly say Detroit was in worse shape than New Orleans? Thats the heart of the argument but random fucktards keep ignoring it.
Kinda hard to answer the last question because the Bynum factor just clouds everything.
|
On May 23 2009 07:10 igotmyown wrote:
Yes, if you ignore enough information, then you end up with your qualitative assumptions. And yes, the qualitative assumptions has always been lakers > nuggets. Once you've discounted all information to the contrary, it is a huge shocker that nuggets ~ lakers on the lakers home court.
But to those of us that actually read into denver's wins, it's not a surprise that they are challenging the lakers.
And the Carmelo 30 point rubric, that's more analysis lite at work. Do the nuggets have other people who can score? Yes. Carmelo shot a lot better in game 1 then game 2, yet they ended up winning game 2.
say what? Ignore what information?
Of all the people arguing for Denver NONE of you can address this argument correctly: who had the easiest path to their spot? It's like you get that look on your faces and no one wants to answer the question. I don't believe in the Denver hype because of how easy they had it - if they mop LA in game 3 then sure I'll change my stance. But winning 2 easy series does not make you a title contender. Have we all forgotten the lessons of the East a few years back?
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 23 2009 07:13 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2009 06:53 Jibba wrote:On May 23 2009 05:54 Ace wrote:On May 23 2009 05:46 tonight wrote:
Cleveland had it much easier don't shit yourself. no they didn't genius. New Orleans had 5 banged up starters vs Detroit who still had their core. The non defensive Mavs who had trouble with Tony Parker as the only legit threat on a hobbled Spurs team vs the Atlanta Hawks with only Marvin Williams being their only "problem". Get your head on straight Denver had the easiest path of any team. Let's not kid ourselves, Detroit's core was playing at about 50% despite being 100% healthy. I haven't seen a group that unmotivated in years. Here's a question: Are the Lakers playing better than they were last year? Obviously they've got Bynum, but he's not actually doing anything. Doesn't matter though Jibba. Can you honestly say Detroit was in worse shape than New Orleans? Thats the heart of the argument but random fucktards keep ignoring it. I don't know. I honestly believe the Pistons wanted their off season to start sooner. I don't think that lockerroom could've handled another 3-4 games with each other, especially the way Sheed was moving at the end.
Kinda hard to answer the last question because the Bynum factor just clouds everything.
Well that's kind of the point. Was their bench better or worse last year? I don't remember Odom's play much, but considering what he's doing now, I'd assume he played better last year. And then there's Bynum, who did nothing last playoffs and has done virtually nothing this playoffs.
|
On May 23 2009 06:37 tonight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2009 05:54 Ace wrote:On May 23 2009 05:46 tonight wrote:
Cleveland had it much easier don't shit yourself. no they didn't genius. New Orleans had 5 banged up starters vs Detroit who still had their core. The non defensive Mavs who had trouble with Tony Parker as the only legit threat on a hobbled Spurs team vs the Atlanta Hawks with only Marvin Williams being their only "problem". Get your head on straight Denver had the easiest path of any team. Taking that shit pretty defensively. Piston had their "core", but that doesn't account for how bad they really were the last 2months+ of the season into the playoffs. Yes, NO had banged up players, but they were still a better team then DET no doubt about that. The Mavs were playing great leading into the playoffs and into the playoffs. Their defense has always been a problem. The Hawks just can never play consistently aside from the few win streak spurts they'd have. Them being young and emotional played into it too.
There's plenty of doubt because it's flat out wrong.
New Orleans had Chris Paul banged up, Peja with no back, a banged up David West and 1 legged Tyson Chandler.
What do they have left?
The Mavs were playing ok - not great. They had a hell of a time with Tony Parker and as usual their defense was the culprit.
The Hawks - sure they have their problems (and I think Josh Smith is overrated) but they are a better team than Dallas.
|
On May 23 2009 07:18 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2009 07:13 Ace wrote:On May 23 2009 06:53 Jibba wrote:On May 23 2009 05:54 Ace wrote:On May 23 2009 05:46 tonight wrote:
Cleveland had it much easier don't shit yourself. no they didn't genius. New Orleans had 5 banged up starters vs Detroit who still had their core. The non defensive Mavs who had trouble with Tony Parker as the only legit threat on a hobbled Spurs team vs the Atlanta Hawks with only Marvin Williams being their only "problem". Get your head on straight Denver had the easiest path of any team. Let's not kid ourselves, Detroit's core was playing at about 50% despite being 100% healthy. I haven't seen a group that unmotivated in years. Here's a question: Are the Lakers playing better than they were last year? Obviously they've got Bynum, but he's not actually doing anything. Doesn't matter though Jibba. Can you honestly say Detroit was in worse shape than New Orleans? Thats the heart of the argument but random fucktards keep ignoring it. I don't know. I honestly believe the Pistons wanted their off season to start sooner. I don't think that lockerroom could've handled another 3-4 games with each other, especially the way Sheed was moving at the end. Even if they hate each other or are bitching for whatever reason would you rather face them or a Hornets team asking James Posey to be the superstar? Show nested quote +
Kinda hard to answer the last question because the Bynum factor just clouds everything.
Show nested quote +
Well that's kind of the point. Was their bench better or worse last year? I don't remember Odom's play much, but considering what he's doing now, I'd assume he played better last year. And then there's Bynum, who did nothing last playoffs and has done virtually nothing this playoffs.
Lakers bench is...ugh. At times they are good, then they get overhyped, then they fall back down to earth, then they do something good again. Just inconsistent. This year I'd say they are better just because they play decently on most nights. Odom was better last year, and was looking monstrous a few months ago and then god knows what happened.
And Bynum like I've stated before - is fucking overrated. He should be abusing Nene but well...yea.
|
Give denver some credit, birdman and the rest of them are playing great Defense and have plenty of offense, i mean was dallas THAT bad of a team? billups is amazing for changing denver.
|
United States4471 Posts
On May 23 2009 04:04 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think it will be a surprise if lebron repeats or nears that performance. it all depends on whether his shots are falling. the biggest worry for cleveland is not really in how they played on offense, but how orlando played. outside of the first quarter, orlando got every shot they wanted, and cleveland can't even stop that down the stretch.
I don't think Lebron will continue to shoot as well as he did in Game 1 from the perimeter. Keep in mind that his numbers were a bit inflated by the first two rounds, in which his team was playing against significantly inferior teams.
Agreed that CLE needs to worry about its defense more though. Simply trying to outscore ORL when your best weapon (Lebron in the paint) is being well-defended isn't a recipe for success.
|
United States4471 Posts
On May 23 2009 04:47 MYM.Testie wrote:
Yeah, shooting a 0.553 0.380 is really inconsistent throughout the playoffs.
He needs to work on his free throws though. If he shot 85%+ from the line...
I don't think anyone's arguing that Lebron isn't going to score at an efficient rate, but it's definitely arguable that Lebron will continue to light it up from the perimeter like he has in the playoffs. Those numbers you cited were against substantially weaker opponents than ORL and it's hard to believe that Lebron's perimeter shooting ability has permanently improved to such a degree after shooting much worse throughout the season. Plus, FG% includes Lebron's layups/dunks, which isn't what people are talking about when talking about his "shooting".
Is it possible that he continues to knock down jumpers like he's Ray Allen? Yeah. Is it probable? Not really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
