EPTNBA Playoffs 2013 - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
| ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On April 24 2013 15:41 Kiarip wrote: George Karl is the worst coach in these playoffs by a mile... god damn Mike D'Antoni... | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
No, Karl is worse. Playing against a long-range shooting team, decides to go small and give up the rebounding advantage just so that he could use his small size to trap a single player on the perimeter who has other great shooting options around him. WTF IS HE THINKING? Chandler at 4 the entire game? The advantage of having a long tall guy who can shoot and dribble is to create mismatches at the 3. That's why even Dirk who's like 7 feet tall played small forward when he was younger... What answer do the GSW have against Iggy/Chandler - Faried - Koufos/McGee front court? None. The team can ALREADY run at all positions, that's what makes them so good why do you go small against a team that shoots, when shooting is something that's notoriously inconsistent and often-times unaffected by defense? Just rebound the damn ball, and let the players at the 3 abuse their mismatches. Make Lawson put Curry to work on defense and this series should be a walk in the park. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
| ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
On April 24 2013 15:41 Kiarip wrote: George Karl is the worst coach in these playoffs by a mile... god damn Goddamn, another one? | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On April 24 2013 15:56 DystopiaX wrote: Mcgee's understanding of defense is considerably worse than that of Koufos's. Karl played entire 4th quarter with Chandler + Faried at 4+5... It should have been Faried + Koufos, Faried + McGee and Koufos + Mcgee. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
George Karl is a legit contender for COTY this year, gtfo. Stop overreacting when a team that lives and dies by its shooters getting hot wins when their shooters get hot. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On April 24 2013 15:56 DystopiaX wrote: Mcgee's understanding of defense is considerably worse than that of Koufos's. what do you mean? you put in mcgee for blocks and paint prescience. nothing else. and in that game, there were no blocks by denver, and getting destroyed in the paint in the fourth | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On April 24 2013 16:03 a176 wrote: what do you mean? you put in mcgee for blocks and paint prescience. nothing else. and in that game, there were no blocks by denver, and getting destroyed in the paint in the fourth Only 44 out of GSW's 131 points were from inside the paint. I think at some point Karl was trying to figure out how to stop the jump shooting and was willing to concede a few more points in the paint to do that, but it's hard for a coach to do anything when your players aren't following your defensive scheme. Look at who scored the points. It wasn't Bogut, Landry, Green, or Ezili. It was your jumpshooters. curry, jack, thompson, etc. Lack of paint presence wasn't a factor. | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13294 Posts
I mean, really, JaVale fucking McGee was going to be the difference between Denver winning or losing that game? He's an awful basketballer who pulls a lot of highlight reel plays that over-inflate his worth. DystopiaX summed it up. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13294 Posts
![[image loading]](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2524573/barnes.gif) | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On April 24 2013 16:01 DystopiaX wrote: The fact that you think shooting is unaffected by defense is hilarious. GSW is a team that shot 46% from 3 in the regular season against Denver using lineups like you mentioned and you suggest that they try to contest fewer shots in favor of rebounding, when those shots are going in at an alarming rate (65% this time, and you suggest they try to contest fewer shots???) and when statistically shots from 3 are more likely to be long rebounds than short ones so packing the paint with huge dudes who can rebound is not as effective? because faried and mcgee can't get long rebounds better than Chandler? Shooting teams NEED rebounding, remember Orlando Magic 2009? yeah. Did Lakers run small against Orlando Magic?... yeah no, and Lakers were even back then a TERRIBLE perimeter defensive team, I mean they had Derek Fisher, let's be serious now. Are you saying Denver actually contested shots that game? LOL no, they went small, then tried to trap Curry every possession, who swung the ball to other open shooters if the double team got there in time, and then even when the shots were contested or missed they had no one to actually rebound the basketball 1) because Karl went small and 2) because the dumb defensive rotations forced players like corey brewer and andre miller to have to try and box out Bogut and that back-up center GSW has. It's ok if GSW shoots 46% against Denver in the regular season, because when you are guarding shooters and you dominate in rebounding you get fast break opportunities, especially consider Denver's bigs can run too, so there's 2 opportunities for fast break (1 outlet pass off the rebound to Ty or Igoudala or Brewer, and 2 secondary fast break when Faried/Mcgee get there before their defender.) However, if you constantly leave 1 man completely open and then you don't rebound the ball when the other team does miss... yeah you're not gonna be able to keep up with the scoring. George Karl is a legit contender for COTY this year, gtfo. Stop overreacting when a team that lives and dies by its shooters getting hot wins when their shooters get hot. No he's not. Yes he motivates them well or w.e but he has the worst defensive rotations of any coach in the league, he threw that game for the Nuggets even though they have an overall match-up advantage. This is the second time he's done this, the first time being 2 years ago when Denver was playing first round against OKC, where they should have had a good shot at taking OKC to 6 or 7 games given their team make-up and they lost in 5 (i'm pretty sure it was 5 and most games weren't close,) the difference is that this time they actually have the BETTER team and he's once again throwing the game for his team, I'm glad it's against a team like the Warriors though who are both underdogs and can put a lot of points so that blow-outs like these can expose him. [ On April 24 2013 19:57 RowdierBob wrote: McGee sucks at basketball. It's a pretty simple explanation for why he doesn't play a lot. I mean, really, JaVale fucking McGee was going to be the difference between Denver winning or losing that game? He's an awful basketballer who pulls a lot of highlight reel plays that over-inflate his worth. DystopiaX summed it up. edit: You know what, I have to answer this post again because it's just so dumb. JaVale McGee doesn't suck at basketball, he's exactly the type of center that Denver needs, and he has done a GREAT job. Center is the easiest damn position to play in basketball and he does it pretty well... this is what a center does: 1) catches a ball in the post and makes post-plays: Irrelvant for McGee he doesn't have a great post-game but there are no post plays ran for him, they run backdoor cut lobs for him instead and he finishes those at a high clip. 2) Box out and rebound: He boxes out and rebounds, does he sometimes miss his assignment? yes but no more than any other center in the NBA, he's a ok-ishly consistent rebounder, definitely better than most on average though. 3) Help contest shots on drives with good timing to not leave his man open: He's really athletic so even when he doesn't make a good decision in terms of when to jump and gets faked out he more often than not recovers and contests again and his second contest is as good or better than a lot of other centers' first contests. +4) Denver relies on full court game to score so they need their big men to run and catch lobs and passes in the lane in transition sometimes and he does that well. That's it. That's what Nuggets need from McGee and he's basically a perfect fit for it. He's better than Wilson fucking Chandler, who's an overrated defender, has no court vision, barely plays off-ball, and gives you no chance at offensive rebounds 95% of the time because all he does is stand at the 3 point line waiting to catch a pass. Even though he's like barely an average 3-point shooter for a guy who barely gets contested. edit again: and it would be ok for Wilson Chandler to do all that if he was actually put in at the 3 as a reserve for Iggy (or when Iggy's at the 2,) because he has a size advantage and they can run plays for him offensively that either leave him wide open, or let him drive against an under-sized defender, when he's at the 4 he's a liability on offense for a team like Denver that relies on players boxing out for offensive rebounds (hence best ORB team in the league.) Good job DystopiaX. I might have been way more harsh in my reply to something that seems painfully obvious. A team that started 1 Center and 4 wings should definitely be defended by a big lineup with Mcgee and Koufus getting major minutes. Get rebounds from the 10% of the open 3 pointers they don't miss. Makes sense. Have you guys even played basketball? the reason Golden State shot SO well for all the quarters is because the Nuggets were running a zone... you don't run Zone against a great shooting team, and if you do it's definitely not the retarded "trap the ball-handler with a double team at the top of the key" George Karl zone. On April 24 2013 16:04 DystopiaX wrote: Only 44 out of GSW's 131 points were from inside the paint. I think at some point Karl was trying to figure out how to stop the jump shooting and was willing to concede a few more points in the paint to do that, but it's hard for a coach to do anything when your players aren't following your defensive scheme. Look at who scored the points. It wasn't Bogut, Landry, Green, or Ezili. It was your jumpshooters. curry, jack, thompson, etc. Lack of paint presence wasn't a factor. 44 points worth of open dunks and lay-ups is too many points off of open dunks and lay-ups. | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
| ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
1. While open layups and dunks are bad (and they weren't all 44 points, let's not be crazy here) the fact that around 90 points were scored on jumpers is more telling, and a far bigger problem given how much harder those points SHOULD be to get. 2. Yes a tall person can theoretically get long rebounds better than a short person. My point is that size matters less when they're not directly in the paint. You're misrepresenting my argument. You don't need size to grab a long rebound, not when it's getting to the free throw line or farther because guess what? The person most likely there is not the C, who (and on this point I agree with you) should be in the paint, boxing out for a rebound. The person most likely there is a guard, and so who you put at the 4 or 5 doesn't matter. 3. I'm not going to argue that Javale is a bad player cause I don't think he is. He's not the smartest and if he learned how to play bball better he'd be an elite center, but right now he does an adequate job knowing where to be, catching oops, getting rebounds and tip-ins. On your "paint presence" point I would contend that like Serge Ibaka he jumps too much on fakes trying to get blocks, which is bad defense, but I would say he's relatively effective as a C in the paint. 4. Denver's halfcourt O bread and butter is a Lawson/Chandler PnR, which works well both because Chandler knows exactly how to move in that situation and also because he's faster against a regular 4. 5. Your point about needing a bigger guy for rebounding at the 4 is stupid in this scenario when GSW played a 3/played down more often than not so Chandler was of equivalent size or bigger than his matchup. I'll also take this point to say that your contention that you want a huge dude at the 3 for a size disadvantage is stupid. There's a reason the league's 2 best teams this season (OKC/MIA in case there was any doubt in anyone's mind) play small ball more often than not, and it's not because it's dumb. Playing a guy who can spread the floor at the 4 just makes sense in today's NBA, because it either forces teams to play small as well or their regular 4 is both uncomfortable playing at the 3pt line and can't keep up with the faster guy. It's why Serge Ibaka's midrange game is so important, and why Lebron/Battier/Durant are so effective at the 4 even though traditionally they're too small for it. Your old "Dirk was amazing at the 3" simply wouldn't be true now because an average 3 can do an adequate job keeping up with him on Defense and will simply run circles around him on offense. Think about the absurdity of you suggesting that a big 4 like a lineup you suggested (including Koufos and Javale which I think would be hilarious; imagine seeing Javale trying to keep up with Barnes or Battier or any of these other small 4s in the league) being anywhere close to being able to keep up with a 4 running curls, cuts and through multiple off-ball screens. It's absurd. 6. If trapping a ballhandler on a PnR is so stupid, why do some of the team's top defenses, like LAC or MIA try to do it? Watch their PnR defense, they'll have both guys involved in the PnR come out against the ballhandler and have the weakside man rotate to cover the big guy, then have one of the 2 rotate to the weakside guy if/when the ball starts to swing around. Why do other top PnR defenses, like CHI's, do something close to trapping by having the small dude run over the screen and the big guy stay between the ballhandler and the big man/basket, again relying on the weakside defender to rotate over to the big man? I'll tell you why, it works. And I will add that these teams do it against all teams, again despite your contention that these defenses don't work against good jumpshooting teams. It didn't work against GSW yesterday because they were making all their shots and passing the ball crisply, and I will say that Denver didn't rotate the best either but that's not a flaw against the coach or the coach's gameplan. Again, don't overreact because a team got hot. No team is going to shoot 65% from the floor every game. 7. Your contention that more big men in would result in more rebounds is hilarious if you look at who was grabbing DEN's rebounds yesterday. Koufos- 2. Javale- 3.Chandler? 6. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On April 25 2013 01:19 DystopiaX wrote: Taking this point by point. 1. While open layups and dunks are bad (and they weren't all 44 points, let's not be crazy here) the fact that around 90 points were scored on jumpers is more telling, and a far bigger problem given how much harder those points SHOULD be to get. most of them were cuts for lay ups and and dunks that while may have been contested on a "catch-up" so to speak, weren't actually well defended because of the defensive rotations that discombobulated the paint for the nuggets. 2. Yes a tall person can theoretically get long rebounds better than a short person. My point is that size matters less when they're not directly in the paint. You're misrepresenting my argument. You don't need size to grab a long rebound, not when it's getting to the free throw line or farther because guess what? The person most likely there is not the C, who (and on this point I agree with you) should be in the paint, boxing out for a rebound. The person most likely there is a guard, and so who you put at the 4 or 5 doesn't matter. That's true, well not every single miss on a long shot is a long rebound first of all and you gotta box out on those. Also, in the case for long defensive rebounds having a player like Chandler playing the 3 rather than 4 will probably result in him grabbing just as many if not more of those rebounds, because like you said the person who's most likely to grab a long rebound is at 1-2-3. 3. I'm not going to argue that Javale is a bad player cause I don't think he is. He's not the smartest and if he learned how to play bball better he'd be an elite center, but right now he does an adequate job knowing where to be, catching oops, getting rebounds and tip-ins. On your "paint presence" point I would contend that like Serge Ibaka he jumps too much on fakes trying to get blocks, which is bad defense, but I would say he's relatively effective as a C in the paint. I covered that, I agree he doesn't always jump at the right time but unlike most other players he often times can recover and help with a secondary contest against the real shot even if it's by a different player, and he does that pretty well, it's not optimal but it helps his case a lot. 4. Denver's halfcourt O bread and butter is a Lawson/Chandler PnR, which works well both because Chandler knows exactly how to move in that situation and also because he's faster against a regular 4. I disagree, most of Chandler's usage comes from swing outs and shots + drives. Ty Lawson DOES have a high usage but he takes picks from everyone, note that Faried is also faster than most 4s and moves pretty well offensively. Denver's halfcourt O bread and butter imo, is Andre Miller and Andre Igoudala in the post forcing help and passing the ball, or Ty Lawson taking almost any pick and driving hard with Brewer/Galinari (now injured, so Fournier) on the wings waiting to catch the ball and the bigs fighting for position to get a good shot at an offensive rebound (highest ORB team in the league.) 5. Your point about needing a bigger guy for rebounding at the 4 is stupid in this scenario when GSW played a 3/played down more often than not so Chandler was of equivalent size or bigger than his matchup. I'll also take this point to say that your contention that you want a huge dude at the 3 for a size disadvantage is stupid. That's why Durant is so good he's as tall+long as PF and even some Centers and he can dribble and shoot. They don't play KD at the 4 all that often from what I understand, he doesn't have the passing ability that Lebron does to do that. There's a reason the league's 2 best teams this season (OKC/MIA in case there was any doubt in anyone's mind) play small ball more often than not, and it's not because it's dumb. Playing a guy who can spread the floor at the 4 just makes sense in today's NBA, because it either forces teams to play small as well or their regular 4 is both uncomfortable playing at the 3pt line and can't keep up with the faster guy. However, Chandler isn't a good shooter so he's better off giving you a size advantage in a few post plays when you overload one side and swing the ball for an entree pass, than having him shoot the 3 just because he's open. It's why Serge Ibaka's midrange game is so important, and why Lebron/Battier/Durant are so effective at the 4 even though traditionally they're too small for it. Ibaka is a solid 4. All 4's need a mid-range game, I don't see how Ibaka is relevant here. It's true that Faried doesn't really have a mid-range game, however Denver doesn't go to that anyways (not for Faried or Chandler.) As for Lebron playing the 4, the reason he's so effective there is because he has court vision and passing, and the high post is one of the best spots to distribute the basketball from (Magic Johnson used to do that very well with his size also.) Defensively a small 4 is gonna have problems against the other teams' 4 mid-range and post-game, of course this may not be the case against the Warriors, but once again the question arises if you want Chandler in the high-post and mid-range, why place him at the 4, when if you put him at the 3 he can easily get position, catch an inbound pass and create problems for the other team. Of course he can't pass all that well so that's not something you can go to often (which is another reason for him to stay at the 3.) Your old "Dirk was amazing at the 3" simply wouldn't be true now because an average 3 can do an adequate job keeping up with him on Defense and will simply run circles around him on offense. You're proving my point here, the 3's got longer and more athletic and there's a reason for it. Grant Hill couldn't guard Dirk as well as Wilson Chandler even though he's a more solid player. And with Dirk being quite slow it makes sense for him to play the 4. But the only reason he's such a great player at the 4 is because he's actually a terrific shooter which makes up for his lack of inside presence to rebound. But on top of that he also has a good post-game and sees the court well and can pass out of the post, Wilson Chandler is none of those things. He's smaller than Dirk, he's not a great passer and he's not a great shooter. Your best best with Chandler offensively is to give him a mismatch with a size advantage, so that he could take them inside and take an easy shot from mid-range or draw a foul/get the other teams' bigs to lose rebounding position. Think about the absurdity of you suggesting that a big 4 like a lineup you suggested (including Koufos and Javale which I think would be hilarious; imagine seeing Javale trying to keep up with Barnes or Battier or any of these other small 4s in the league) being anywhere close to being able to keep up with a 4 running curls, cuts and through multiple off-ball screens. It's absurd. I never suggested Javale at the 4. I think Koufos can play against a big 4, and against a smaller 4 you take Faried. 6. If trapping a ballhandler on a PnR is so stupid, why do some of the team's top defenses, like LAC or MIA try to do it? Watch their PnR defense, they'll have both guys involved in the PnR come out against the ballhandler and have the weakside man rotate to cover the big guy, then have one of the 2 rotate to the weakside guy if/when the ball starts to swing around. They were doubling him before the pick was even close, and they were doubling from the wings, then the big had to come out against the shooter which is gonna be a pretty open 3 almost every time, the only time the GSW weakside wing was involved was when there was a drive after the first pass, which resulted in a swing to the weakside from the freethrow line, or a pass to the cutting big who was the original screener, or a lay-up, and that's how the nuggets gave up 44 easy points in the paint. Why do other top PnR defenses, like CHI's, do something close to trapping by having the small dude run over the screen and the big guy stay between the ballhandler and the big man/basket, again relying on the weakside defender to rotate over to the big man? I'll tell you why, it works. And I will add that these teams do it against all teams, again despite your contention that these defenses don't work against good jumpshooting teams. It didn't work against GSW yesterday because they were making all their shots and passing the ball crisply, and I will say that Denver didn't rotate the best either but that's not a flaw against the coach or the coach's gameplan. Again, don't overreact because a team got hot. No team is going to shoot 65% from the floor every game. 65% isn't tough for a high level NBA shooter when he's wide open. You're not supposed to rotate from the man 1 pass away at the 3 and they did it consistently. 7. Your contention that more big men in would result in more rebounds is hilarious if you look at who was grabbing DEN's rebounds yesterday. Koufos- 2. Javale- 3.Chandler? 6. Ok... Koufos had 2 rebounds in 14 minutes. Chandler had 6 in 32 minutes, more importantly both had 1 offensive rebound in that time. Javale had 3 defensive rebounds in 14 minutes... Why don't we look at their +/-? Javale had +5 in 14 minutes which is the second best +/- per minute after Faried, who had +10 in 21 minutes but caught only 2 rebounds because he was largely playing during the shootout in the 4th when both teams were on fire and making everything. Chandler -20 in 32 minutes, Ty Lawson -24 in his 38 minutes on the court despite recording almost half of all the Nuggets' assists... and the most points at an acceptable clip... why? Because of the rotation that always had Igoudala and Lawson double Curry at the 3. By the way, this is according to you their "bread and butter" offense (Ty and Chandler.) Admittedly Koufos has a ridiculous +/- for playing only 14 minutes, but that's because he was the Center as this nonsense was occurring on defense. I mean you'd obviously THINK that you can't blame the rotation of the Centers for the Nuggets loss... after all you HAVE to have a center, but seriously now... You claim nuggets have to play small due to the defensive needs since warriors are playing small, but look at Warriors' centers minutes: Bogut: 22, Ezeli: 16 vs Javale, Koufos: 14, 14. Warriors had a center out there for 10 minutes more than the Nuggets. Karl only had a real center in for slightly more than half the game. The only player who played major minutes and doesn't have a retarded +/- is Igoudala (and Faried I guess which furthers my point that he needs to be in, imo at the 4) and that's because he's a player that can truly guard all positions 1-3, and he was NEVER at the 4 and 5, despite being a better rebounder than Chandler btw. edit: And once again going back to Lakers vs Magic 2009, how many times did the Lakers go small just because the Magic was a great jump-shooting team? Also, more on Chandler at the 4. If you have Chandler at 4 and Koufos at 5, it's reasonable to throw an entree pass to Koufos and run the offense through him (while Chandler stretches the floor) if he's guarded by anyone but Bogut, because he has a pretty good post-game and doesn't tunnel vision the basket, however Koufos didn't have a single play ran for him. | ||
|
kanu_knl
United States83 Posts
However, play big against GSW gives you the advantage on offense, like how the Lakers usually play against GSW. Lakers often dump the ball into Gasol, Bynum and Howard and let them operate. Keep in mind these scheme is only successful given that the team has bigs who have post-game skill (can finish and know how to pass to open shooters if being doubleteamed). Lakers have no problem since Gasol, Bynum and Howard can do it well. In the case of Denver, I dont watch Denver often so I don't know if Faried, McGee and Koufos has the necessary post-game skill to execute this offensive scheme. George Karl coach them the whole year, so he has a pretty good idea what skills they have. There is tradeoff between playing small and big. Playing big successfully gives Denver the advantage on offense, but their bigs will have a hard time contesting shot on defense. Playing small helps Denver to contest shot on defense but their offense may take a hit. Teams often emphasize defense and defense wins in playoff, so I think George Karl playing small is reasonable. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Wojo with a good essay on Cleveland, Mike Brown, Lebron and (most importantly!) Kyrie. Everyone needs to get over Lebron. He's not going back. It seems like common sense everywhere else in the country, but step foot in Ohio and they're still talking about it. | ||
| ||
