|
Eh, Stern's retiring next year. He probably doesn't give a shit no matter what happens it ain't his bag next year.
|
It's not just about the business; it's his legacy. All this time he's been telling us the only way for the NBA to be successful is by pandering to stars and big markets. That paradigm will become will soon become obsolete though as the population is no longer concentrated in those couple of markets and the internet reduces regional attachments.
|
On May 19 2013 14:27 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 14:26 DannyJ wrote:
Stern is going to off himself if it's a Pacers vs Grizzlies final. Anyone who still says that the league rigs it for big-city teams is going to look real stupid though.
When the Lakers FTA shot up to a league best, and the Jazz shot down to last or near last, something was going on.
|
So in my opinion the Knicks lost because they were unable to defend without fouling in the 4th. There were a couple of fouls that might not be called in other games, but they still put themselves in the position were a foul could be called.
While it is good to be able to control your nerves at the end of games, the final couple of minutes in the 4th are just a small part of the game. Scoring 30 points in the first quarter and winning by 2 is worth exactly as much as 30 points in the 4th quarter and winning by 2.
|
On May 19 2013 18:12 klaxen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 14:27 DystopiaX wrote:On May 19 2013 14:26 DannyJ wrote:
Stern is going to off himself if it's a Pacers vs Grizzlies final. Anyone who still says that the league rigs it for big-city teams is going to look real stupid though. When the Lakers FTA shot up to a league best, and the Jazz shot down to last or near last, something was going on.
![[image loading]](http://inmediares2013.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/aliens-meme.jpeg)
But seriously. This conspiracy stuff is so 2 months ago. Playoffs have the most anti-big market bias that I've seen in forever. I think that if Stern really wanted to make some big conspiracy he would've gotten OKC past the Grizzlies, plenty of opportunities with so many close games and all.
|
On May 19 2013 15:50 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 14:23 On_Slaught wrote:On May 19 2013 14:12 RowdierBob wrote:
I'd actually agree that being able to perform in the clutch is a necessary attribute for a basketballer.
It's a completely different dynamic as opposed to taking a shot in the three previous quarters. It's overrated as hell by sports writers because of the emotion associated with it but it's definitely an intangible ability a good player needs to have.
I'd correlate it to something like being able to serve out a match in a high pressure tennis game. You see players constantly tighten up in similar spots because they know everything is on the line in that one game.
Some guys tighten up in those high pressure spots and do dumb shit whereas some can shrug it off like they're still in the first minute of the game.
Maybe it's not so much the term "clutch" but how well a guy can handle high pressure spots when a game is on the line. Because no matter how good a player/team is they're always going to be in a spot where they will have to sink or swim under that pressure.
In saying that, it's stupid to look at someone like Durant in the Grizz series and say he isn't clutch. Those who watched the games saw the constant double and even triple teams he faced in the fourth quarters. The Grizz clearly were working towards making life as difficult as possible for Durant and it worked. They wanted any player but Durant to beat them and the other guys couldn't/weren't good enough to step up.
The "clutch" does exist but the way On_slaught is attributing it to Durant is a asinine IMO. Durant wasn't choking because of the pressure in the fourth, the Grizz's defence was suffocating and he wasn't good enough to beat it. The loss was not on Durant as much as it was WB's injury and a lack of depth on the Thunder outside of Durant and WB. If you want to point a finger about someone not being "clutch" in that series then you need to point your target at Kevin Martin.
So being able to handle pressure is important but we won't hold it against you if you're being defended well? Durant missed a wide open shot to send the last game into OT. Does missing that shot mean he isn't "able to handle the pressure" in general? No. But it means he failed hardcore in that situation and many similiar ones in the series. It seems the problem people in this thread are having is one of categorization. I'll agree, obviously, that you can't say somebody in general isn't good at something because they failed at it a few times. And if any of my posts came across like that then I was wrong. However there is nothing wrong with pointing out that somebody failed. These guys are supposed to be the best in the world. Durant and Melo are "superstars yo!" They should be able to make shots, especially open ones, or be able to make their own shots and be used to being double teamed since it happens literally all year in every game to them. Plus, Melo wasn't even doubled every time. Basically what I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with saying something as you see it. Prescreptions aside. But the problem is the wording. Failure is part of the game - players fail to make shots all the time, even the best players will miss a third of their shots. But you assign the word "clutch" to an arbitrary time - "winning time," I guess. But "clutch" is such a word couched in mythology and mysticism that it means nothing. It's like "athleticism" or "drive." Would you say Carmelo is in in unathletic because he got packed? Did he lack drive because his team lost the series? I dunno. The words are hazy and purposefully so.
I am okay with putting "drive" and "clutch" in the same category but disagree with athletic. The other two aren't really quantifiable or measurable, but athletic is something that is physically seen. We each have the right to judge it in our own eyes because it isn't intrinsic like the other two.
Lebron James is the best athlete in the NBA for sure.
The best pound-for-pound athlete might be Nate Robinson though, or at least you could make a case for it. If he was LBJ's size...... (heard Nate thing a few days ago so not an original thought)
|
Excited for these series. Splitter can't guard z-bo or gasol imo so should be a good one.
I also like Ind-Miami but the more I think about it the more I realize Miami probably has the best 3 guys on the floor with all the starters. Hibbert is gonna have to be huge for any Indy upset chance.
|
Ginobli flopping/lost ball and getting bailed out. Man's a master, despite how it disgusts me.
|
This is a mean spirited beat down thus far. No mercy for the poor grizzlies.
|
On May 20 2013 04:59 On_Slaught wrote:
Ginobli flopping/lost ball and getting bailed out. Man's a master, despite how it disgusts me.
for sure, from the camera view it looked totally legit. not until slowed down and upclose can you see the flop."veteran move", lol
|
If Rose/Magic says 1 thing about Grizzlies needing Gay during this halftime I'm done.
I can't stand ESPN analysts. Why can't TNT do every halftime show even when they don't air the game?
|
On May 20 2013 01:37 MassHysteria wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 15:50 slyboogie wrote:On May 19 2013 14:23 On_Slaught wrote:On May 19 2013 14:12 RowdierBob wrote:
I'd actually agree that being able to perform in the clutch is a necessary attribute for a basketballer.
It's a completely different dynamic as opposed to taking a shot in the three previous quarters. It's overrated as hell by sports writers because of the emotion associated with it but it's definitely an intangible ability a good player needs to have.
I'd correlate it to something like being able to serve out a match in a high pressure tennis game. You see players constantly tighten up in similar spots because they know everything is on the line in that one game.
Some guys tighten up in those high pressure spots and do dumb shit whereas some can shrug it off like they're still in the first minute of the game.
Maybe it's not so much the term "clutch" but how well a guy can handle high pressure spots when a game is on the line. Because no matter how good a player/team is they're always going to be in a spot where they will have to sink or swim under that pressure.
In saying that, it's stupid to look at someone like Durant in the Grizz series and say he isn't clutch. Those who watched the games saw the constant double and even triple teams he faced in the fourth quarters. The Grizz clearly were working towards making life as difficult as possible for Durant and it worked. They wanted any player but Durant to beat them and the other guys couldn't/weren't good enough to step up.
The "clutch" does exist but the way On_slaught is attributing it to Durant is a asinine IMO. Durant wasn't choking because of the pressure in the fourth, the Grizz's defence was suffocating and he wasn't good enough to beat it. The loss was not on Durant as much as it was WB's injury and a lack of depth on the Thunder outside of Durant and WB. If you want to point a finger about someone not being "clutch" in that series then you need to point your target at Kevin Martin.
So being able to handle pressure is important but we won't hold it against you if you're being defended well? Durant missed a wide open shot to send the last game into OT. Does missing that shot mean he isn't "able to handle the pressure" in general? No. But it means he failed hardcore in that situation and many similiar ones in the series. It seems the problem people in this thread are having is one of categorization. I'll agree, obviously, that you can't say somebody in general isn't good at something because they failed at it a few times. And if any of my posts came across like that then I was wrong. However there is nothing wrong with pointing out that somebody failed. These guys are supposed to be the best in the world. Durant and Melo are "superstars yo!" They should be able to make shots, especially open ones, or be able to make their own shots and be used to being double teamed since it happens literally all year in every game to them. Plus, Melo wasn't even doubled every time. Basically what I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with saying something as you see it. Prescreptions aside. But the problem is the wording. Failure is part of the game - players fail to make shots all the time, even the best players will miss a third of their shots. But you assign the word "clutch" to an arbitrary time - "winning time," I guess. But "clutch" is such a word couched in mythology and mysticism that it means nothing. It's like "athleticism" or "drive." Would you say Carmelo is in in unathletic because he got packed? Did he lack drive because his team lost the series? I dunno. The words are hazy and purposefully so. I am okay with putting "drive" and "clutch" in the same category but disagree with athletic. The other two aren't really quantifiable or measurable, but athletic is something that is physically seen. We each have the right to judge it in our own eyes because it isn't intrinsic like the other two. Lebron James is the best athlete in the NBA for sure. The best pound-for-pound athlete might be Nate Robinson though, or at least you could make a case for it. If he was LBJ's size...... (heard Nate thing a few days ago so not an original thought)
It's impossible to say whether Nate Robinson's athleticism would transfer over if he were LeBron's size though. If he added a 100 pounds and a foot of height he would be slower, have worse ball handling and less ups. LeBron is kind of a freak to be able to do what he does despite having near-Karl Malone dimensions.
|
On May 20 2013 05:37 GraFx wrote:
If Rose/Magic says 1 thing about Grizzlies needing Gay during this halftime I'm done.
I can't stand ESPN analysts. Why can't TNT do every halftime show even when they don't air the game?
Kenny Smith is my all time fav analyst/commentator he entertains every time hes on camera
|
On May 20 2013 05:41 Kuja900 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 05:37 GraFx wrote:
If Rose/Magic says 1 thing about Grizzlies needing Gay during this halftime I'm done.
I can't stand ESPN analysts. Why can't TNT do every halftime show even when they don't air the game? Kenny Smith is my all time fav analyst/commentator he entertains every time hes on camera
I can't stand Magic. He's like John Madden when it comes to commentating/analyzing.
|
On May 20 2013 05:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 01:37 MassHysteria wrote:On May 19 2013 15:50 slyboogie wrote:On May 19 2013 14:23 On_Slaught wrote:On May 19 2013 14:12 RowdierBob wrote:
I'd actually agree that being able to perform in the clutch is a necessary attribute for a basketballer.
It's a completely different dynamic as opposed to taking a shot in the three previous quarters. It's overrated as hell by sports writers because of the emotion associated with it but it's definitely an intangible ability a good player needs to have.
I'd correlate it to something like being able to serve out a match in a high pressure tennis game. You see players constantly tighten up in similar spots because they know everything is on the line in that one game.
Some guys tighten up in those high pressure spots and do dumb shit whereas some can shrug it off like they're still in the first minute of the game.
Maybe it's not so much the term "clutch" but how well a guy can handle high pressure spots when a game is on the line. Because no matter how good a player/team is they're always going to be in a spot where they will have to sink or swim under that pressure.
In saying that, it's stupid to look at someone like Durant in the Grizz series and say he isn't clutch. Those who watched the games saw the constant double and even triple teams he faced in the fourth quarters. The Grizz clearly were working towards making life as difficult as possible for Durant and it worked. They wanted any player but Durant to beat them and the other guys couldn't/weren't good enough to step up.
The "clutch" does exist but the way On_slaught is attributing it to Durant is a asinine IMO. Durant wasn't choking because of the pressure in the fourth, the Grizz's defence was suffocating and he wasn't good enough to beat it. The loss was not on Durant as much as it was WB's injury and a lack of depth on the Thunder outside of Durant and WB. If you want to point a finger about someone not being "clutch" in that series then you need to point your target at Kevin Martin.
So being able to handle pressure is important but we won't hold it against you if you're being defended well? Durant missed a wide open shot to send the last game into OT. Does missing that shot mean he isn't "able to handle the pressure" in general? No. But it means he failed hardcore in that situation and many similiar ones in the series. It seems the problem people in this thread are having is one of categorization. I'll agree, obviously, that you can't say somebody in general isn't good at something because they failed at it a few times. And if any of my posts came across like that then I was wrong. However there is nothing wrong with pointing out that somebody failed. These guys are supposed to be the best in the world. Durant and Melo are "superstars yo!" They should be able to make shots, especially open ones, or be able to make their own shots and be used to being double teamed since it happens literally all year in every game to them. Plus, Melo wasn't even doubled every time. Basically what I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with saying something as you see it. Prescreptions aside. But the problem is the wording. Failure is part of the game - players fail to make shots all the time, even the best players will miss a third of their shots. But you assign the word "clutch" to an arbitrary time - "winning time," I guess. But "clutch" is such a word couched in mythology and mysticism that it means nothing. It's like "athleticism" or "drive." Would you say Carmelo is in in unathletic because he got packed? Did he lack drive because his team lost the series? I dunno. The words are hazy and purposefully so. I am okay with putting "drive" and "clutch" in the same category but disagree with athletic. The other two aren't really quantifiable or measurable, but athletic is something that is physically seen. We each have the right to judge it in our own eyes because it isn't intrinsic like the other two. Lebron James is the best athlete in the NBA for sure. The best pound-for-pound athlete might be Nate Robinson though, or at least you could make a case for it. If he was LBJ's size...... (heard Nate thing a few days ago so not an original thought) It's impossible to say whether Nate Robinson's athleticism would transfer over if he were LeBron's size though. If he added a 100 pounds and a foot of height he would be slower, have worse ball handling and less ups. LeBron is kind of a freak to be able to do what he does despite having near-Karl Malone dimensions.
All true. I meant my last sentence more like "we'd never know" in some weird tone.
Still feeling good for the Grizz. Conley with a nice drive..
Z-bo has to turn it up though.
|
On May 20 2013 05:37 GraFx wrote:
If Rose/Magic says 1 thing about Grizzlies needing Gay during this halftime I'm done.
I can't stand ESPN analysts. Why can't TNT do every halftime show even when they don't air the game?
Agree 100%. The TNT show is more informative and funnier.
|
Duncan such a beast too though when it comes to defending Z-Bo.
|
On May 20 2013 05:57 MassHysteria wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 05:39 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2013 01:37 MassHysteria wrote:On May 19 2013 15:50 slyboogie wrote:On May 19 2013 14:23 On_Slaught wrote:On May 19 2013 14:12 RowdierBob wrote:
I'd actually agree that being able to perform in the clutch is a necessary attribute for a basketballer.
It's a completely different dynamic as opposed to taking a shot in the three previous quarters. It's overrated as hell by sports writers because of the emotion associated with it but it's definitely an intangible ability a good player needs to have.
I'd correlate it to something like being able to serve out a match in a high pressure tennis game. You see players constantly tighten up in similar spots because they know everything is on the line in that one game.
Some guys tighten up in those high pressure spots and do dumb shit whereas some can shrug it off like they're still in the first minute of the game.
Maybe it's not so much the term "clutch" but how well a guy can handle high pressure spots when a game is on the line. Because no matter how good a player/team is they're always going to be in a spot where they will have to sink or swim under that pressure.
In saying that, it's stupid to look at someone like Durant in the Grizz series and say he isn't clutch. Those who watched the games saw the constant double and even triple teams he faced in the fourth quarters. The Grizz clearly were working towards making life as difficult as possible for Durant and it worked. They wanted any player but Durant to beat them and the other guys couldn't/weren't good enough to step up.
The "clutch" does exist but the way On_slaught is attributing it to Durant is a asinine IMO. Durant wasn't choking because of the pressure in the fourth, the Grizz's defence was suffocating and he wasn't good enough to beat it. The loss was not on Durant as much as it was WB's injury and a lack of depth on the Thunder outside of Durant and WB. If you want to point a finger about someone not being "clutch" in that series then you need to point your target at Kevin Martin.
So being able to handle pressure is important but we won't hold it against you if you're being defended well? Durant missed a wide open shot to send the last game into OT. Does missing that shot mean he isn't "able to handle the pressure" in general? No. But it means he failed hardcore in that situation and many similiar ones in the series. It seems the problem people in this thread are having is one of categorization. I'll agree, obviously, that you can't say somebody in general isn't good at something because they failed at it a few times. And if any of my posts came across like that then I was wrong. However there is nothing wrong with pointing out that somebody failed. These guys are supposed to be the best in the world. Durant and Melo are "superstars yo!" They should be able to make shots, especially open ones, or be able to make their own shots and be used to being double teamed since it happens literally all year in every game to them. Plus, Melo wasn't even doubled every time. Basically what I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with saying something as you see it. Prescreptions aside. But the problem is the wording. Failure is part of the game - players fail to make shots all the time, even the best players will miss a third of their shots. But you assign the word "clutch" to an arbitrary time - "winning time," I guess. But "clutch" is such a word couched in mythology and mysticism that it means nothing. It's like "athleticism" or "drive." Would you say Carmelo is in in unathletic because he got packed? Did he lack drive because his team lost the series? I dunno. The words are hazy and purposefully so. I am okay with putting "drive" and "clutch" in the same category but disagree with athletic. The other two aren't really quantifiable or measurable, but athletic is something that is physically seen. We each have the right to judge it in our own eyes because it isn't intrinsic like the other two. Lebron James is the best athlete in the NBA for sure. The best pound-for-pound athlete might be Nate Robinson though, or at least you could make a case for it. If he was LBJ's size...... (heard Nate thing a few days ago so not an original thought) It's impossible to say whether Nate Robinson's athleticism would transfer over if he were LeBron's size though. If he added a 100 pounds and a foot of height he would be slower, have worse ball handling and less ups. LeBron is kind of a freak to be able to do what he does despite having near-Karl Malone dimensions. All true. I meant my last sentence more like "we'd never know" in some weird tone. Still feeling good for the Grizz. Conley with a nice drive.. Z-bo has to turn it up though.
Despite the score I can't help but think the grizzlies still look good...bunch of little things all happening together that don't seem sustainable, like all the 3s for the spurs, weird turnovers by the grizz, zbos scoring, etc.
|
I'd actually be a bit worried as a Grizz fan. The Spurs' offense is just shredding right now. They are not hitting tough shots, they are all easy wide open looks. If the Spurs continue to play like they are in this game (which is conceivable considering their early season form was also this good), they could actually give Miami a real series in the finals.
|
I wouldn't really, grizz defense looks uncharacteristically sloppy and guys who usually don't shoot well are shooting well, I don't think either of the two will keep up all series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
