|
United States4471 Posts
On May 09 2011 13:08 Tiamat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 11:46 XaI)CyRiC wrote:To be fair, Lakers fans expect championships when they have some reason to believe they should. I assure you that Lakers fans did not expect championships during the Van Exel/Elden Campbell years or the Smush/Kwame years. It was only when the Lakers traded for Gasol and everyone, not only Lakers fans, thought that they had a good shot at winning the whole thing (which they almost did). After that, the championship aspirations and expectations were understandable as they were one of the top teams in the league by everyone's estimation.
Lakers fans are definitely spoiled, but fans for any team would feel the same way under the same circumstances, i.e. great team that are legitimate contenders. Weren't Dallas fans disappointed when they lost to the Heat in the Finals? Weren't Celtics fans disappointed when they lost in the Finals? I have yet to see a fanbase that goes into a Finals series expecting to lose, or being happy with coming up second.
Lakers fans often expect championships because the Lakers are often championship contenders. Fans for any team expect the same if their team were in a similar situation. No Lakers fan just suck. There were Dallas Media at games 1 and 2 of the Lakers for this series and recorded audio of the fans at the game. People in Lakers gear saying Kobe sucks, Booing Pau off the floor, showing up late and leaving early at a playoff game. Never standing to cheer to get the Lakers into the game. Go back and look at those Laker home PLAYOFF games, they just sat there like a king waiting for their jester to entertain them.
Refer to my post talking about how it's very unfortunate that Lakers fans as a whole are represented to the rest of the world by those who attend the games. The people who show up at Lakers games are typically not going to be "good" fans as the tickets are expensive and attending a Lakers game is seen as more of a cool thing to do at night than a sporting event in LA. This only gets worse in the playoffs as the cost of tickets get ridiculous and all you get are people who buy tickets to show off to their friends, impress a girl or client, or just to go to the "coolest" event in LA that night.
|
On May 09 2011 13:49 Ace wrote:
Claiming that he's scored 2,000 points and 600 assists as if it's some ridiculous rare feat that makes you unstoppable is laughable. I'm no efficiency expert but it does matter. If you shoot 20 shots a game and only hit 8 well then you're not exactly irreplaceable when their are guys out there that can do it better. I don't even blame "all of Chicago's offensive problems" on Rose. He's clearly good but he takes the major share of it because guess what - he's the Point Guard.
I do play a lot of basketball though. Thanks for asking.
Um. It is a rare feat thats why only 3 players in the past 30 years have managed it (Rose, MJ and Lebron). Any coincidence that both MJ and Lebron have both stated publicly that Rose should be the MVP? Maybe they understand what it takes. Rose does Jack up a few bad shots during most games but you need to understand something. I've watched all 82 Bulls games this past season. Many of these missed shots are because Rose is expected to take all the last second shots. and in every situation where the shot clock winds down. His teammates have consistently passed it to him in the last 5 seconds of the shot clock.
|
He jacks up *a lot* of bad shots. And many players are going to state Rose is the MVP whether they think he is or not. He's been the overwhelming media darling of the year. How many times have you ever heard a player say someone doesn't deserve the MVP?
Lebron and MJ did it and you know WHY it's amazing? Because they aren't Point Guards. They are also far more efficient scorers than Rose which makes it amazing that they did it.
You've watched all 82 Bulls games this year but that doesn't mean you know whats going on. When Rose shoots 0/9 from 3, shoots 40% for a month, shoots 35% vs Indiana, and has bad games against the Hawks it's not his teammates fault. He just isn't at the level of the dominant elite players yet. He'll get there in a few years but right now he's just not THAT good.
|
The fact of the matter is people who complain about Rose's "efficiency" as a scorer simply aren't watching the games and are only looking at the box score. Advanced metrics are not infallible; they CAN help paint a bigger picture of a player/team/game, but not without actually watching the games first. Rose is one of two NBA players (the other being Dwight Howard) who you have to see in person to truly understand how amazing he is. His body control on those wild drives to the basket looks cool on T.V., but when they replay it and slow it down it looks way less impressive than when you're seeing it live, believe me. I can't think of another player who has been able to create so much offense with so little space, scoring 25/game despite the fact that teams know they can throw double- and triple-teams at him without worrying about the other Bulls players getting their offense going.
Then beyond his on-court skills is the fact that he bought into Thibodeau's system 110% and motivated the rest of the Bulls to buy into it, too. There are few other players in the league who have had that kind of an effect on a team. Rose (with help from Noah) is the catalyst that makes Thibodeau's system work for these Bulls--I can only imagine how the Scott Skiles Bulls teams would have performed with such a great-but-humble, lead-by-example kind of guy on the team.
Edit in response to above post: Ok, look at tonight as an example. Rose scored 34 points on 32 shots, and yes he jacked up quite a few terrible ones (he also dished a game-high 10 assists). Look at the rest of the Bulls on offense. They did NOTHING (well, except Boozer, who was inexplicably benched for an excruciating amount of time at the end of the game). Rose created almost every shot that his team took, and all that while facing double- and triple-teams from the Hawks on most possessions. Korver, the team's 3-point specialist who is supposed to space the floor for Rose and Boozer, shot an abysmal 1-8 (0-5 on 3's). Deng was an even-less-efficient 5-14, and Ronnie Brewer missed two EASY layups. The fact of the matter is this isn't exactly the first game the Bulls have looked like this; Rose (and defense) CARRIED this team to a league-high 62 wins in SPITE of the fact that opposing defenses only have to worry about guarding Rose in crunch time! You want to talk about why he's the MVP and not LeBron? Because LeBron has immense help in that teams have to worry about both him and Wade down the stretch--they're a nightmare. Yet that team has performed like shit in crunch time and the Bulls won 62 games while their two starting big men combined to miss the vast majority of the regular season.
Efficiency doesn't make you the MVP. Being the "most valuable player" is about being the best player who makes his teammates play the best, and Derrick Rose did (and does) that better than any other player in the NBA.
He certainly hasn't peaked yet (athletic guards tend to reach the height of their abilities when they're 25 and Rose is only 21) but it is ridiculous to assert that he isn't at the level of an elite player. He's the best or second-best point guard in the league (depending on how much you value CP3 as a "pure" point guard over Rose's scoring ability). MVP award aside, he's going to be named All-NBA 1st or 2nd team. How much more "elite" do you want him to be?
|
Just a fun fact while we're on the topic of D-Rose; he produced 45% of the Bulls regular season points (which means he either assisted or scored them).. Now, if your team gets a 62-win season, then you can bet he's doing something right :>
|
Efficiency doesn't make you the MVP. Being the "most valuable player" is about being the best player who makes his teammates play the best, and Derrick Rose did (and does) that better than any other player in the NBA.
Arguable, but yes he is an extremely valuable player to his team. The Bulls would be lost without him, like most key players on top teams. Ace is not questioning Rose's ability as a player, rather the common belief that Derrick Rose is God's gift to basketball and we should simply watch in awe as he sets a new standard for how the point guard position should be played.
|
On May 09 2011 13:59 Stoids wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 13:52 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 13:31 Stoids wrote:On May 09 2011 13:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 12:27 slyboogie wrote:On May 09 2011 12:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 11:51 slyboogie wrote:On May 09 2011 11:46 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On May 09 2011 11:24 igotmyown wrote:On May 09 2011 09:17 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
I'm sorry but I disagree. Teams with "true fans" languish in mediocrity/badness. The Cubs have plenty of "true fans", the Steelers have "good fans." Fans should be informed, know the game, and save criticism for when it is deserved. No that's only true for entitled fans. Red Sox lose for 86 years, they could miss the playoffs the year after 2004 and they'd still feel content. New Orleans, they probably don't mind their exit. Giants, similar, they're "happy to be there" as champions. Championships in sports are often a lucky run where everything just clicks together, and it's got to be more miraculous than a baby being born. Lakers fans feel entitled, like they're supposed to win every year. Like being mad because if Shaq stayed, they'd have won all the championships of the 2000s. You don't hear that sort of nonsense from tortured fanbases. To be fair, Lakers fans expect championships when they have some reason to believe they should. I assure you that Lakers fans did not expect championships during the Van Exel/Elden Campbell years or the Smush/Kwame years. It was only when the Lakers traded for Gasol and everyone, not only Lakers fans, thought that they had a good shot at winning the whole thing (which they almost did). After that, the championship aspirations and expectations were understandable as they were one of the top teams in the league by everyone's estimation. Lakers fans are definitely spoiled, but fans for any team would feel the same way under the same circumstances, i.e. great team that are legitimate contenders. Weren't Dallas fans disappointed when they lost to the Heat in the Finals? Weren't Celtics fans disappointed when they lost in the Finals? I have yet to see a fanbase that goes into a Finals series expecting to lose, or being happy with coming up second. Lakers fans often expect championships because the Lakers are often championship contenders. Fans for any team expect the same if their team were in a similar situation. The problem is, most of those "fans" weren't there for the 2005-2006 Smush Parker era. They weren't around for the pre-Kobe/Shaq era. Laker fans are fair weather fans that jump on a Los Angeles bandwagon and go to see a winner. They (again, I know I'm being overly broad...I'm aware there are true devoted fans) have no investment, no attachment, no sentiment. These "fans" never sweat with Kobe or tasted the ash in their mouths when the Lakers lost to the Suns in '06. They didn't even stand during game 2 when the Lakers needed them. Ugh, I will say, many Laker fans on this sit, you included, are insightful and seem to be real fans but in general....Ugh. If fans actually came out for those crappy teams what incentive would teams have to be good? The Pirates have sucked for years and the reason is that the owners have calculated that sucking is profitable for them. Wait. Are you being serious? The Pirates suck because they haven't drafted competently for two decades. You are, erroneously, associating payroll with victories. But there are still loyal Pirates fans, who believe that Andrew McCutchen will be better than Justin Upton. That a rotation of Correia, Karston and Malholm can get them to .500. Those fans have every right to rend their clothes and scream about the incompetence of their management. If people don't want to see a shitty product, then don't come. But they are watching the Los Angeles Lakers; they have no ground to stand on when they bitch and moan about "Pau's toughness" or "Odom's assertiveness." Shut up. You didn't stand with the team in the past, you aren't a fan. You're a guy who got nice playoff tickets cause you work in finance at Raytheon or Northrop Grunnam. (You is not targeted at Clutz but the "hypothetical" you.) I'm just saying that it is the "entitled" fanbases that have winning franchises. You can argue chicken or the egg all day, but I really think that fanbases that demand excellence get it way more than those that do not. If you think that the fans have any significant effect on how a team approaches the game, you are kidding yourself. Jerry Buss didn't head straight to the Laker boards and say "damn, they are mad, better go get Dwight Howard." The Laker fans have not contributed to championships in any way. I'm sorry, but that can't be true, your statement is a violation of the laws of economics I don't see how you can actually believe that teams win because they have entitled fans. Entitlement requires precedent, and precedent in sports is a consequence of winning. There is no question of the chicken or the egg, because it is quite apparent which one comes first. There are a select few Lakers fans who I call true fans, but sadly their knowledge and loyalty is overshadowed by the silence of the Staples Center when things don't go their way.
Teams win because they have DEMANDING fans. You call them entitled, but they are just demanding. The Knicks have sucked forever, and they still sell out. Coincidence? Coincidence that MSG starts cheering for Jordan/Wade/Lebron/Kobe when they have monster games AGAINST the home team?
|
On May 09 2011 14:36 Stoids wrote:Show nested quote +Efficiency doesn't make you the MVP. Being the "most valuable player" is about being the best player who makes his teammates play the best, and Derrick Rose did (and does) that better than any other player in the NBA. Arguable, but yes he is an extremely valuable player to his team. The Bulls would be lost without him, like most key players on top teams. Ace is not questioning Rose's ability as a player, rather the common belief that Derrick Rose is God's gift to basketball and we should simply watch in awe as he sets a new standard for how the point guard position should be played.
Thanks, maybe if someone else says it they'll understand. I actually like Rose. I just think he's getting way too much hype. When/if he doesn't live up to expectations he will get dogged because people were thinking he was something that he isn't.
|
Ace is not questioning Rose's ability as a player, rather the common belief that Derrick Rose is God's gift to basketball and we should simply watch in awe as he sets a new standard for how the point guard position should be played.
Maybe you're reading into his post a little much. At face-value, he says exactly what I think he did. Here it is again:
You've watched all 82 Bulls games this year but that doesn't mean you know whats going on. When Rose shoots 0/9 from 3, shoots 40% for a month, shoots 35% vs Indiana, and has bad games against the Hawks it's not his teammates fault. He just isn't at the level of the dominant elite players yet. He'll get there in a few years but right now he's just not THAT good.
He ABSOLUTELY is questioning Rose's ability as an "elite" player. It has nothing to do with Rose being "God's gift to basketball" or not (he is, by the way).
I don't think anybody knowledgeable would suggest that Rose sets or is setting a new standard for how a PG should play. In terms of PG's, you don't really want a player like Rose. You want a player like Isiah Thomas, Steve Nash, Chris Paul--players who are creative passers who can create offense for their teammates but are enough of a scoring threat that teams can't simply ignore them (*cough* Rondo *cough*). Rose is, however, the most athletic, most gifted scoring point guard since Iverson, and he has the -potential- to be one of the all-time greats, to be sure.
Edit: Again in response to above post-- Rose has already EXCEEDED expectations. All of these "new" expectations for him that are coming in the wake of the whole media-gasm over his breakout MVP season aren't exactly relevant. Chicago fans already know what a gift he is. He is the youngest league MVP ever. What other expectations do you think there were for Rose? Nobody in their right mind has title expectations for players--only for teams, and really only under special circumstances. ESPECIALLY players as young as Rose.
Another edit: I would compare Rose to Magic Johnson in the sense that he is not, by any means, a traditional point guard, but that doesn't detract from him as a player. Rather, his uniqueness at the position is an immense advantage to him and to his team.
|
On May 09 2011 14:38 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 13:59 Stoids wrote:On May 09 2011 13:52 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 13:31 Stoids wrote:On May 09 2011 13:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 12:27 slyboogie wrote:On May 09 2011 12:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 11:51 slyboogie wrote:On May 09 2011 11:46 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On May 09 2011 11:24 igotmyown wrote:
[quote]
No that's only true for entitled fans.
Red Sox lose for 86 years, they could miss the playoffs the year after 2004 and they'd still feel content.
New Orleans, they probably don't mind their exit.
Giants, similar, they're "happy to be there" as champions. Championships in sports are often a lucky run where everything just clicks together, and it's got to be more miraculous than a baby being born.
Lakers fans feel entitled, like they're supposed to win every year. Like being mad because if Shaq stayed, they'd have won all the championships of the 2000s. You don't hear that sort of nonsense from tortured fanbases. To be fair, Lakers fans expect championships when they have some reason to believe they should. I assure you that Lakers fans did not expect championships during the Van Exel/Elden Campbell years or the Smush/Kwame years. It was only when the Lakers traded for Gasol and everyone, not only Lakers fans, thought that they had a good shot at winning the whole thing (which they almost did). After that, the championship aspirations and expectations were understandable as they were one of the top teams in the league by everyone's estimation. Lakers fans are definitely spoiled, but fans for any team would feel the same way under the same circumstances, i.e. great team that are legitimate contenders. Weren't Dallas fans disappointed when they lost to the Heat in the Finals? Weren't Celtics fans disappointed when they lost in the Finals? I have yet to see a fanbase that goes into a Finals series expecting to lose, or being happy with coming up second. Lakers fans often expect championships because the Lakers are often championship contenders. Fans for any team expect the same if their team were in a similar situation. The problem is, most of those "fans" weren't there for the 2005-2006 Smush Parker era. They weren't around for the pre-Kobe/Shaq era. Laker fans are fair weather fans that jump on a Los Angeles bandwagon and go to see a winner. They (again, I know I'm being overly broad...I'm aware there are true devoted fans) have no investment, no attachment, no sentiment. These "fans" never sweat with Kobe or tasted the ash in their mouths when the Lakers lost to the Suns in '06. They didn't even stand during game 2 when the Lakers needed them. Ugh, I will say, many Laker fans on this sit, you included, are insightful and seem to be real fans but in general....Ugh. If fans actually came out for those crappy teams what incentive would teams have to be good? The Pirates have sucked for years and the reason is that the owners have calculated that sucking is profitable for them. Wait. Are you being serious? The Pirates suck because they haven't drafted competently for two decades. You are, erroneously, associating payroll with victories. But there are still loyal Pirates fans, who believe that Andrew McCutchen will be better than Justin Upton. That a rotation of Correia, Karston and Malholm can get them to .500. Those fans have every right to rend their clothes and scream about the incompetence of their management. If people don't want to see a shitty product, then don't come. But they are watching the Los Angeles Lakers; they have no ground to stand on when they bitch and moan about "Pau's toughness" or "Odom's assertiveness." Shut up. You didn't stand with the team in the past, you aren't a fan. You're a guy who got nice playoff tickets cause you work in finance at Raytheon or Northrop Grunnam. (You is not targeted at Clutz but the "hypothetical" you.) I'm just saying that it is the "entitled" fanbases that have winning franchises. You can argue chicken or the egg all day, but I really think that fanbases that demand excellence get it way more than those that do not. If you think that the fans have any significant effect on how a team approaches the game, you are kidding yourself. Jerry Buss didn't head straight to the Laker boards and say "damn, they are mad, better go get Dwight Howard." The Laker fans have not contributed to championships in any way. I'm sorry, but that can't be true, your statement is a violation of the laws of economics I don't see how you can actually believe that teams win because they have entitled fans. Entitlement requires precedent, and precedent in sports is a consequence of winning. There is no question of the chicken or the egg, because it is quite apparent which one comes first. There are a select few Lakers fans who I call true fans, but sadly their knowledge and loyalty is overshadowed by the silence of the Staples Center when things don't go their way. Teams win because they have DEMANDING fans. You call them entitled, but they are just demanding. The Knicks have sucked forever, and they still sell out. Coincidence? Coincidence that MSG starts cheering for Jordan/Wade/Lebron/Kobe when they have monster games AGAINST the home team?
No, fans become demanding because their teams continuously win. This creates entitlement. Being demanding and entitled before you have precedent is simply being irrational, which breaks your economic law of rational choice.
|
Kobe isn't Kobe anymore, but the Kobe-Pau era is not done. They are still definite title contenders. I think the obvious move is to trade Bynum for Howard. Bynum's value has risen tremendously and he has even looked dominant at times -- making the trade seem quasi-reasonable. Perhaps the Lakers could unload Fisher, Walton, Black or Barnes as well?
The main problem with Bynum is that he is incredibly injury prone and Gasol needs help down low, every game. The Lakers leaned on him way too much during the season and they paid for it in the playoffs.
One thing that always puzzled me during the season was the complete lack of play time for Derek Caracter. Though a rookie, he has a Perkins-like edge, good basketball IQ, and could have provided some much needed help down low while Bynum was hurt. Certainly beats Barnes or Blake. Artest is also basically done -- imagine if they had kept Ariza (who torched them in the first round)? The Lakers have built up way too much cruft (Artest, Blake, Barnes, Walton, and Fisher). Dunno what they can do about that. Will be interesting to see where they go from here.
|
I believe Ariza wanted to out of the Lakers though, can anyone confirm if Ariza is that much better than Shannon Brown though? without statistical proof (lazy) I'm gonna say that I think Ariza was slightly better because he was clutch with the three's. I have a hard time imagining Orlando giving up Howard for Bynum after seeing Howard shitting on everyone the whole year. Maybe the other guy is right and it would only work if they traded Pau and Bynum together.
|
Pointing out a single playoff game where Rose under-performs is simply not enough to suggest that you have been watching this team.
GG gtfo
|
On May 09 2011 14:47 Stoids wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 14:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 13:59 Stoids wrote:On May 09 2011 13:52 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 13:31 Stoids wrote:On May 09 2011 13:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 12:27 slyboogie wrote:On May 09 2011 12:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2011 11:51 slyboogie wrote:On May 09 2011 11:46 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
[quote]
To be fair, Lakers fans expect championships when they have some reason to believe they should. I assure you that Lakers fans did not expect championships during the Van Exel/Elden Campbell years or the Smush/Kwame years. It was only when the Lakers traded for Gasol and everyone, not only Lakers fans, thought that they had a good shot at winning the whole thing (which they almost did). After that, the championship aspirations and expectations were understandable as they were one of the top teams in the league by everyone's estimation.
Lakers fans are definitely spoiled, but fans for any team would feel the same way under the same circumstances, i.e. great team that are legitimate contenders. Weren't Dallas fans disappointed when they lost to the Heat in the Finals? Weren't Celtics fans disappointed when they lost in the Finals? I have yet to see a fanbase that goes into a Finals series expecting to lose, or being happy with coming up second.
Lakers fans often expect championships because the Lakers are often championship contenders. Fans for any team expect the same if their team were in a similar situation. The problem is, most of those "fans" weren't there for the 2005-2006 Smush Parker era. They weren't around for the pre-Kobe/Shaq era. Laker fans are fair weather fans that jump on a Los Angeles bandwagon and go to see a winner. They (again, I know I'm being overly broad...I'm aware there are true devoted fans) have no investment, no attachment, no sentiment. These "fans" never sweat with Kobe or tasted the ash in their mouths when the Lakers lost to the Suns in '06. They didn't even stand during game 2 when the Lakers needed them. Ugh, I will say, many Laker fans on this sit, you included, are insightful and seem to be real fans but in general....Ugh. If fans actually came out for those crappy teams what incentive would teams have to be good? The Pirates have sucked for years and the reason is that the owners have calculated that sucking is profitable for them. Wait. Are you being serious? The Pirates suck because they haven't drafted competently for two decades. You are, erroneously, associating payroll with victories. But there are still loyal Pirates fans, who believe that Andrew McCutchen will be better than Justin Upton. That a rotation of Correia, Karston and Malholm can get them to .500. Those fans have every right to rend their clothes and scream about the incompetence of their management. If people don't want to see a shitty product, then don't come. But they are watching the Los Angeles Lakers; they have no ground to stand on when they bitch and moan about "Pau's toughness" or "Odom's assertiveness." Shut up. You didn't stand with the team in the past, you aren't a fan. You're a guy who got nice playoff tickets cause you work in finance at Raytheon or Northrop Grunnam. (You is not targeted at Clutz but the "hypothetical" you.) I'm just saying that it is the "entitled" fanbases that have winning franchises. You can argue chicken or the egg all day, but I really think that fanbases that demand excellence get it way more than those that do not. If you think that the fans have any significant effect on how a team approaches the game, you are kidding yourself. Jerry Buss didn't head straight to the Laker boards and say "damn, they are mad, better go get Dwight Howard." The Laker fans have not contributed to championships in any way. I'm sorry, but that can't be true, your statement is a violation of the laws of economics I don't see how you can actually believe that teams win because they have entitled fans. Entitlement requires precedent, and precedent in sports is a consequence of winning. There is no question of the chicken or the egg, because it is quite apparent which one comes first. There are a select few Lakers fans who I call true fans, but sadly their knowledge and loyalty is overshadowed by the silence of the Staples Center when things don't go their way. Teams win because they have DEMANDING fans. You call them entitled, but they are just demanding. The Knicks have sucked forever, and they still sell out. Coincidence? Coincidence that MSG starts cheering for Jordan/Wade/Lebron/Kobe when they have monster games AGAINST the home team? No, fans become demanding because their teams continuously win. This creates entitlement. Being demanding and entitled before you have precedent is simply being irrational, which breaks your economic law of rational choice.
Fans are not the ones making the choice I am talking about, owners are. Your postulate seems to be that Atlanta would have resigned Joe Johnson for max money, OKC would have paid Kevin Durant big money, and Miami would sign 3 huge contracts to elite players if their fans didn't care about winning? That's absurd. I'm not saying that an owner who spends lots of money always means a good team (for instance the Knicks always seem to just try and get entertaining players because that is what Knicks fans care about), but an owner who does not spend can realistically ruin a team (see Clippers, Kings, Raptors). Fan pressure is what forces owners to go out and build winners.
|
United States4471 Posts
We're starting to get to the point where people are starting to toss in personal attacks/insults to their arguments. Let's keep it as a respectful debate people, and try to avoid posting in a condescending and/or insulting manner no matter what you may think of the other person's opinions.
|
On May 09 2011 15:28 scaban84 wrote:
Pointing out a single playoff game where Rose under-performs is simply not enough to suggest that you have been watching this team.
GG gtfo
Considering he's underperformed in about 7 out of 9, unless you think MVPs should be shooting below the league average then I guess you're right.
|
On May 09 2011 15:04 shmay wrote:
Kobe isn't Kobe anymore, but the Kobe-Pau era is not done. They are still definite title contenders. I think the obvious move is to trade Bynum for Howard. Bynum's value has risen tremendously and he has even looked dominant at times -- making the trade seem quasi-reasonable. Perhaps the Lakers could unload Fisher, Walton, Black or Barnes as well?
The main problem with Bynum is that he is incredibly injury prone and Gasol needs help down low, every game. The Lakers leaned on him way too much during the season and they paid for it in the playoffs.
One thing that always puzzled me during the season was the complete lack of play time for Derek Caracter. Though a rookie, he has a Perkins-like edge, good basketball IQ, and could have provided some much needed help down low while Bynum was hurt. Certainly beats Barnes or Blake. Artest is also basically done -- imagine if they had kept Ariza (who torched them in the first round)? The Lakers have built up way too much cruft (Artest, Blake, Barnes, Walton, and Fisher). Dunno what they can do about that. Will be interesting to see where they go from here.
supposedly pau got shit with kobe, his gf broke up with him because kobe's wife persuaded her to do it. supposedly.
|
On May 09 2011 15:48 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 15:28 scaban84 wrote:
Pointing out a single playoff game where Rose under-performs is simply not enough to suggest that you have been watching this team.
GG gtfo Considering he's underperformed in about 7 out of 9, unless you think MVPs should be shooting below the league average then I guess you're right.
He is MVP of the regular season. The league awards a regular season MVP and a post season MVP. Rose is not a contender for the latter. However he is still number 2 in playoff scoring in this post season. It will definitely be Nowitski at number 1.
But you know everything about basketball because you look exclusively at FG% so I guess you're right.
|
Can we stop talking about Derrick Rose until he plays at an elite level vs teams not named PACERS and HAWKS in the playoffs?
The same rehash of arguments keeps happening while what reasonable educated posters like Ace are saying are panning out 100%. Bulls are struggling and Rose is not kobe/wade/lebron elite even vs bad teams at the bottom of the east. Cyric is too generous and its kinda dumb reading the same thing over and over.
|
On May 09 2011 15:48 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 15:28 scaban84 wrote:
Pointing out a single playoff game where Rose under-performs is simply not enough to suggest that you have been watching this team.
GG gtfo Considering he's underperformed in about 7 out of 9, unless you think MVPs should be shooting below the league average then I guess you're right.
Meh... Dirk was MVP in 07 when Dallas lost first round I think that's not a very good argument >_>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
