EPTOn June 15 2017 11:40 zev318 wrote:
at 34? who cares
at 34? who cares
Yeah he trash.
NBA Finals 2017 - Page 18
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Yeah he trash. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
Garbage player. | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On June 15 2017 11:08 Twinkle Toes wrote: Whooosh. In the context of our exchange, and the discourse on this topic in general, "pretty ridiculous teams" meant those stacked with superstars. The teams I mentioned defeating James were not. So my objection was that it does not take a super-stacked team to beat James. It's been done many times before by good old basketball strategy and teamwork. In this case, this comparison is the only valid thing to do. I don't know if you're trolling or you do not understand the discussion at all. In good conscience, let me explain this in simple terms. When discussing which are superteams, it is important to identify which teams were created with clear talents already in place, and which ones needed development. Besides, how many #35 pick superstars can you name? Failing to understand this is the real idiocy. Boston Big4 had superstars, so that's out. Spurs had TD and TP(maybe on the fringe there, but he was better then for the Spurs than Klay is now for the Warriors, not as a shooter but overall for sure), Manu was an all-star as well. Kawhi in the 2014 finals. That again leaves the Magic and the Mavs, as discussed. As to your other point, you're the first person to begin throwing around 'superstars' here. The statement you initially responded to say 'it takes a pretty ridiculous team to beat him.' There's nothing inherent to 'pretty ridiculous team' that requires X number of 'superstars'(which is itself a subjective label). Draymond Green is one of the top20 players in the NBA and that's probably selling him short, his draft status as the #35 pick doesn't mean shit at this point because he has developed into an all-star, all-nba, DPOY player. Indulging you anyways: Deandre Jordan coincidentally was also exactly #35 pick, he's a multiple time all-nba player. Manu #57(Parker #28) Jimmy Butler was #30(a little ahead but not that much) Marc Gasol #47 IT4 last pick Gilbert Arenas #31 We can grab more all-stars/6th man type players and toss in here too, but those are some studs that came way after the lottery was finished. | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On June 16 2017 07:08 red_ wrote: Boston Big4 had superstars, so that's out. Spurs had TD and TP(maybe on the fringe there, but he was better then for the Spurs than Klay is now for the Warriors, not as a shooter but overall for sure), Manu was an all-star as well. Kawhi in the 2014 finals. That again leaves the Magic and the Mavs, as discussed. Oh you sweet sweet summer child. The discussion was clear to everyone except you. Superteams in the context of the discussion are prime superstars from different teams deciding to join together in one team. This is why Lebron 's legacy was tarnished then when he joined the Heat in 2010. There are teams with multiple all stars across the NBA, across eras, we have 90s Bulls, Kobe-Shaq Lakers, Kobe-Shaq Lakers + Payton + Malone, or even Late Kobe Lakers. Now, why are these team not considered superteams in the sense of Lebron Heat and Lebron Cavs superteam? Because these teams were not formed by 3 or more superstars joining together in a team. Lebron-Wade-Bosh + Allen + Battier + Lewis and Lebron + Kyrie + Love + Korver =/= great 1+2 duo Jordan/Pippen + Rodman + Kukoc, or Kobe/Shaq + Fox etc OR superstars late in their careers forming to get a chance to win a ring, e.g Kobe/Shaq/Malone/Payton OR Kobe/Gasol/Nash + Dwight, AND PP/KD/RA. No one in their right mind thought those teams would blow the rest of the league out of the water for years to come in the same way Lebrons superteams did and the present GSW team now does. I literally blew coffee off my nose when you said the Spurs were a superteam. On June 16 2017 07:08 red_ wrote: Indulging you anyways: Deandre Jordan coincidentally was also exactly #35 pick, he's a multiple time all-nba player. Manu #57(Parker #28) Jimmy Butler was #30(a little ahead but not that much) Marc Gasol #47 IT4 last pick Gilbert Arenas #31 You are not indulging me. You are parading ignorance as knowledge. Now I know for sure you failed at understanding the discussion completely. Here, I'll give you the chance to learn for yourself - Now, name other teammates of these players who developed alongside them to form a good team (beside Spurs) | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On June 16 2017 09:41 Twinkle Toes wrote: Oh you sweet sweet summer child. The discussion was clear to everyone except you. Superteams in the context of the discussion are prime superstars from different teams deciding to join together in one team. This is why Lebron 's legacy was tarnished then when he joined the Heat in 2010. There are teams with multiple all stars across the NBA, across eras, we have 90s Bulls, Kobe-Shaq Lakers, Kobe-Shaq Lakers + Payton + Malone, or even Late Kobe Lakers. Now, why are these team not considered superteams in the sense of Lebron Heat and Lebron Cavs superteam? Because these teams were not formed by 3 or more superstars joining together in a team. Lebron-Wade-Bosh + Allen + Battier + Lewis and Lebron + Kyrie + Love + Korver =/= great 1+2 duo Jordan/Pippen + Rodman + Kukoc, or Kobe/Shaq + Fox etc OR superstars late in their careers forming to get a chance to win a ring, e.g Kobe/Shaq/Malone/Payton OR Kobe/Gasol/Nash + Dwight, AND PP/KD/RA. No one in their right mind thought those teams would blow the rest of the league out of the water for years to come in the same way Lebrons superteams did and the present GSW team now does. I literally blew coffee off my nose when you said the Spurs were a superteam. You are not indulging me. You are parading ignorance as knowledge. Now I know for sure you failed at understanding the discussion completely. Here, I'll give you the chance to learn for yourself - Now, name other teammates of these players who developed alongside them to form a good team (beside Spurs) You're literally making up 'the discussion' as we go along, go read your own posts(and the one you replied to initially). I'll be here if you want to discuss my actual post content instead of moving the goals. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On June 16 2017 10:39 red_ wrote: You're literally making up 'the discussion' as we go along, go read your own posts(and the one you replied to initially). I'll be here if you want to discuss my actual post content instead of moving the goals. Here's what happened: 1. Zenith brought up pretty ridiculous team to beat Lebron 2. In the context of the present discussion, and this specific "excuse" for Lebron losing again has been brought up millions of times this finals season, I retorted about superteams 3. Zenith clarified and elaborated 4. All is good and the miscommunication is resolved, notwithstanding the superteam issue 5. Peace and quiet in the land 6. And voila! Here you come barging in once again claiming Spurs et al were superteams. (to be honest, I dont know how old you are, but that is the funniest dumbest shit in the worst possible way that has been said in the history of basketball) So, let us have a more focused and rigorous discussion. Premise P1. Superteams - prime (3 or more) superstars joining together in a team intending to dominate the league for a long time P2. Duos are an NBA staple, (Wilt/Baylor, Bird/McHale, MJ/Pip, Kobe/Shaq) so they are not superteams. P3. Old superstars joining together are not superteams, since they happen only because old stars want to win a ring at the twilight of their carreers (see Kobe/Shaq/Malone/Payton and KG/RA/PP) Conclusion C1. Lebron's 2017 Cavs is a superteam, as well as 2010 Heat (the first one arguably) C2. GSW + Durant is a superteam, with a few nuances, but a superteam nonetheless C3. It does not take a superteam to beat Lebron. So, whats your argument? If you are working on a different premise or definition of superteam, then we have no discussion and we could just as well move on. | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On June 16 2017 13:10 cLutZ wrote: I'm sorry, but the Spurs in 2013-14 were written off as dead going into the season. That Duncan is awesome, Kawhi got good, and the Spurs system makes old AF Parker & Ginobili look good even when they are dead doesn't magically change that for the next two years. Very true. And I really literally spat coffee when he said they were a superteam. The Spurs success comes from decades-long discipline and team management. They were perennially good/great because of Duncan + Pop + knowing how to maximize their potential and always being one step ahead of the league. But no iteration of the Spurs has ever made people think "yeah, they will be champions for at least 3 or four years." | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
C1. Lebron's 2017 Cavs is a superteam, as well as 2010 Heat (the first one arguably) C2. GSW + Durant is a superteam, with a few nuances, but a superteam nonetheless Which "nuances" are you talking about? Seems to me that GSW Durant Edition is the most glaring example you can think of. Two MVPs in their primes, a defensive superstar and the best two-way guard? If we're pushing it, they might literally have the #1 at each of the 1-to-4 positions. More realistically #1, #2, #2, #3. But you'll certainly find people saying that Klay is the best SG, that Durant is better than Lebron (some say it in this very thread), and that Draymond is the best PF (if you decide to shift AD to center for some reason). | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On June 16 2017 20:48 ZenithM wrote: Which "nuances" are you talking about? Seems to me that GSW Durant Edition is the most glaring example you can think of. Two MVPs in their primes, a defensive superstar and the best two-way guard? If we're pushing it, they might literally have the #1 at each of the 1-to-4 positions. More realistically #1, #2, #2, #3. But you'll certainly find people saying that Klay is the best SG, that Durant is better than Lebron (some say it in this very thread), and that Draymond is the best PF (if you decide to shift AD to center for some reason). Nuances in the sense that they are homegrown superstars who were acquired in the draft and developed into the superstars that they are now. Good team management and key acquisitions of crucial supporting casts such as Iggy and Shaun built this teeam from the ground up. This stands in direct contrast to the Lebron superteams. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On June 16 2017 20:48 ZenithM wrote: Which "nuances" are you talking about? Seems to me that GSW Durant Edition is the most glaring example you can think of. Two MVPs in their primes, a defensive superstar and the best two-way guard? If we're pushing it, they might literally have the #1 at each of the 1-to-4 positions. More realistically #1, #2, #2, #3. But you'll certainly find people saying that Klay is the best SG, that Durant is better than Lebron (some say it in this very thread), and that Draymond is the best PF (if you decide to shift AD to center for some reason). Players on teams with great teamwork get overrated as individual players (see GSW, Spurs). Klay has great defense, but his offense comes and goes so much that he'd struggle on most other teams. Draymond has great defense but a huge part of his game is calling defensive assignments and making plays for other people in offense, something that doesn't necessarily translate well to another team. They are low draft picks for stars with skill sets that are highly leveraged to GSW's style of play. Even Steph Curry's success is partly a product of Kerr's system. This was a middling playoff team with Mark Jackson, remember? Food for thought, if the Cavs had the same level of teamwork as GSW, how close would the finals be? Who would actually be the better team? | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On June 17 2017 00:04 andrewlt wrote: Players on teams with great teamwork get overrated as individual players (see GSW, Spurs). Klay has great defense, but his offense comes and goes so much that he'd struggle on most other teams. Draymond has great defense but a huge part of his game is calling defensive assignments and making plays for other people in offense, something that doesn't necessarily translate well to another team. They are low draft picks for stars with skill sets that are highly leveraged to GSW's style of play. Even Steph Curry's success is partly a product of Kerr's system. This was a middling playoff team with Mark Jackson, remember? Food for thought, if the Cavs had the same level of teamwork as GSW, how close would the finals be? Who would actually be the better team? People always miss this fact in their blind defense of Lebron's legacy. Im a Lebron fan, but the man has flaws. Way before joining the Heat, he has already consistently campaigned for superteams to be formed in the NBA.He might be right or wrong in that regard, it doesnt matter anyway. What is undeniable is his Heat team and Cavs homecoming team are unique and blatant cases of superteam formation. Talking about plays, GSW and Cavs are teams with identical schemes but use the opposite strategy. The Cavs three point shooters are set up by Lebron's attack. The GSW on the other hand construct their points from the threats of the threes, which then allow motion offense to generate points from the inside. JVG mentioned at least twice, and Hubie Brown as well via radio, why Lebron is so reluctant in posting up and generate his assists from that position instead of dribble-penetration coming from beyond the arc. The latter is all figured out by GSW. They'll single cover him all game and allow him to shoot three or even from the perimeter. And with KD facing him, these will not be easy shots. Him rolling and passing is not the best option against a switch-heavy team like GSW since they can easy cover assignments and minimize any weak spots. His interior point are not created off the dribble, which at this point in this career is really his weakest weapon already as most star-level players assigned against him can more or less manage not to be blown by. His interior points are rather created by baseline to hammer plays that he loves to run with Mo Williams as the confusion in the baseline creates wide open lanes for Lebron to cut in and receive the ball, or by high-post screens where he can take advantage of momentary lapses in switch defense and ram his way into the ring. However, as Hubie repeatedly pointed out, if Lebron goes for the classic back-to basket low-post play, he could easily manhandle Iggy or even Green (as evident in parts of Games 3 and 4) and even KD offers no definite forceful opposition but is only problematic for Lebron because of his length. GSW then will be forced to double, and there, Lebron's playmaking could truly shine. Maybe the David West experience in the ECF a few years ago made Lebron realize that Barkley-style low-post moves are too physically demanding and might increase chances of injuries or might hasten the deterioration of his body. Anyway, PG13 to Cavs seems likely, for a 1 year player option, and then what? Win or lose, both of them move to Lakers in 2019? That's be the day! | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On June 17 2017 00:04 andrewlt wrote: Players on teams with great teamwork get overrated as individual players (see GSW, Spurs). Klay has great defense, but his offense comes and goes so much that he'd struggle on most other teams. Draymond has great defense but a huge part of his game is calling defensive assignments and making plays for other people in offense, something that doesn't necessarily translate well to another team. They are low draft picks for stars with skill sets that are highly leveraged to GSW's style of play. Even Steph Curry's success is partly a product of Kerr's system. This was a middling playoff team with Mark Jackson, remember? Food for thought, if the Cavs had the same level of teamwork as GSW, how close would the finals be? Who would actually be the better team? Come on now, Curry is dangerous from 30 feet and Durant is Durant. Klay scored 37 in one quarter, can single-handedly win games by making literally every shot he takes out of nowhere. I'm just saying that GSW is a superteam, end of story, no "nuances" to it. The reverse narrative that suddenly GS is actually not a superteam is just preposterous. We can all rave about teamwork, motion offense, gameplan and all that. You don't do what GS does with midtier players. A lot of it comes down to players actually making the shots, not just getting the looks. | ||
|
nVme
952 Posts
On June 17 2017 03:06 ZenithM wrote: Come on now, Curry is dangerous from 30 feet and Durant is Durant. Klay scored 37 in one quarter, can single-handedly win games by making literally every shot he takes out of nowhere. I'm just saying that GSW is a superteam, end of story, no "nuances" to it. The reverse narrative that suddenly GS is actually not a superteam is just preposterous. We can all rave about teamwork, motion offense, gameplan and all that. You don't do what GS does with midtier players. A lot of it comes down to players actually making the shots, not just getting the looks. ye GS is a "super" team, but i think their argument is that gs was built organically besides the kd acquisition whereas boston/miami/clips* were all from players joining a team | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On June 17 2017 03:47 nVme wrote: ye GS is a "super" team, but i think their argument is that gs was built organically besides the kd acquisition whereas boston/miami/clips* were all from players joining a team I mean, you can craft whatever definition of superteam you need to fit only the teams you want and not the others, I get it. This "superteam" word is only used to diminish the achievements of the team, like they had some sort of cheat code or something. That's why players are coming out in strength in the media outright denying that they're playing for a superteam. It doesn't change the facts though. Warriors were huge favorites to win this series. And they will be the favorite to win next season, probably regardless of whatever crazy off-season moves happen. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On June 17 2017 03:06 ZenithM wrote: Come on now, Curry is dangerous from 30 feet and Durant is Durant. Klay scored 37 in one quarter, can single-handedly win games by making literally every shot he takes out of nowhere. I'm just saying that GSW is a superteam, end of story, no "nuances" to it. The reverse narrative that suddenly GS is actually not a superteam is just preposterous. We can all rave about teamwork, motion offense, gameplan and all that. You don't do what GS does with midtier players. A lot of it comes down to players actually making the shots, not just getting the looks. There is a huge difference between a superteam that forms from multiple superstars joining the same team versus a superteam that forms from a bunch of homegrown players getting better together. The second path is available to every single team in the league. With the exception of Durant, GSW did do it with midtier players. They made their midtier players great. Every single team in the league has the potential to do that. Make your midtier players great. Plenty of players take a leap every year. What I take exception is this narrative that it takes a historical joining of players on one team to beat Lebron. Two of the "superteams" that beat him (GSW, Spurs) did it with mostly homegrown stars. Teams developing their own drafted players is not some crazy freak occurrence. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
2017 Warriors is a superteam. Lock it. 2015-2016, IMO not to much, those were good teams with a clear weakness (as old guys would say "jump shooting team", that also somehow had to play 2-3 bad shooters most of the time). This is why the 73 wins was a mirage, that team was built to win regular season games easily, and it became really hard tor them in the Playoffs. IMO OKC was a better playoff team then them. 2011 Mavs? No. 2013-14 Spurs? No. 2007 Spurs, yes, if you also consider 2015-17 Cavs and 2000-02 Lakers, because Tim Duncan in 2007 was better than Lebron today, and Parker/Ginobili as good as Love/Kyrie. | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On June 17 2017 05:18 cLutZ wrote: This superteam thing is absurd. 2017 Warriors is a superteam. Lock it. 2015-2016, IMO not to much, those were good teams with a clear weakness (as old guys would say "jump shooting team", that also somehow had to play 2-3 bad shooters most of the time). This is why the 73 wins was a mirage, that team was built to win regular season games easily, and it became really hard tor them in the Playoffs. IMO OKC was a better playoff team then them. 2011 Mavs? No. 2013-14 Spurs? No. 2007 Spurs, yes, if you also consider 2015-17 Cavs and 2000-02 Lakers, because Tim Duncan in 2007 was better than Lebron today, and Parker/Ginobili as good as Love/Kyrie. The secret spurs fan in me smiled | ||
| ||
