[QUOTE][B]On July 31 2017 05:24 Jerubaal wrote:[/B] Thanks for the nightmares. [/QUOTE] Did you say nightmares?
LEBORN READY [img]http://i.imgur.com/9fZ9xo8.jpg
RICHARD FRYE
SWAGGY MAMBA
GUESS WHO #1
GUESS WHO AGAIN #2
Keyboard Warrior posts stat on game winning/tying final possession scorers vs. passers >link
Keyboard Warrior posts stat proving Kobe is clutch and Lebron is not >link
JimmiC challenges JimmyJRaynor re: Heat >link [Details: JimmiC - Heat is not top 2 in East vs. JimmyJRaynor - Heat is top 2 in East. Loser gets thread banned entire postseason and offseason 2018. JimmyJRaynor hides, avoids the challenge]
xwoGworwaTsx challenges JimmyJRaynor re: analytics >link1 >link2 [Details: xwoGworwaTsx claims JimmyJRaynor is ignorant about sports analytics, challenges him to a debate. JimmyJRaynor mutters a incoherent response, ultimately surrenders in humiliation]
JimmyJRaynor claims to know the reason of Kobe's "shortened career" and landing mechanics after watching a kid's youtube videolink [Details: JimmyJRaynor casually claims Kobe's landing mechanics shortened his career in a discussion about Kobe vs. Lebron clutch. Keyboard Warrior calls him out, linking the youtube video. JimmiC calls him out for using invalid statistics and the length of Kobe's so-called shortened career. JimmyJRaynor doubles down, claims he and his buddies noticed Kobe's wrong landing mechanics long before the video, and is finally caught in a sticky web of inconsistency, stupidity, and lies of his own doing.]
JimmyJRaynor boasts about watching games live in person, boasts further that he gains deep insights from that.link [Details: This exchange you should experience live, on the pages of the NBA Finals 2017 thread >link]
NBA Offseason Schedule
June 22 — NBA Draft June 24 — deadline for RFA player options June 26 — NBA Awards June 29 — deadline for players/team termination options June 30 — deadline for teams to make qualifying offers to players eligible for RFA July 1 — Official start of 2017/18 league year; July moratorium begins. Free agents can begin reaching verbal agreements with teams. July 1-17 — NBA Summer League July 6 — July moratorium ends (11:00am CT); teams can begin officially signing players and making trades. July 13 — Last day for teams to unilaterally withdraw qualifying offers to restricted free agents. July 15 — Last day for teams to issue required tenders to unsigned first-round picks; those players become free agents on July 16 if not tendered. August 31 — Last day teams may waive players and apply the stretch provision to their 2017/18 salaries. September 5 — Last day for teams to issue required tenders to unsigned second-round picks; those players become free agents on September 6 if not tendered. Late September (specific dates TBA) — Training camps open.
NBA Draft 2017
NBA Awards 2017
Free Agency
CHI out - Butler / MIN out - Lavine, Dunn, 2017 round pick CP3 to HOU Hayward to BOS PG13 to OKC Me7o to ??? Kyrie to ???
NBA Summer League 2017
Miscellaneous
- Phil Jackson kicked out ot NYK - How will the Cavs adjust to remain competitive vs. GSW next year? - Adjustments for other playoff teams: Spurs? Houston? OKC? Celtics? - Key player acquisitions: Paul George, Chris Paul, Gordon Hayward
I hope to god that PG13 doesn't magically end up on the Cavs (not like their cap space leaves them any flexibility anyways). I'm curious what the Spurs are gonna do in the off season too, seeing as their cap/roster flexibility isn't that great either.
Is Chris Paul a legit full 72 inches tall? cause Lowry ain't no 72 inches tall. i ask these questions because the tendency is that short point guards do not age well. Short being under 6'1".
i'd definitely steer clear of Lowry. I don't know enough about Paul to make a definitive comment. George Hill is the safe bet.
I think the Spurs could do with a ball-dominant PG like CP3. Kawhi is becoming very good at playing off-ball, coming off screens and taking positions for post-ups (honestly his playstyle looks more and more second-3peat-Jordan-esque as time passes). And I feel like CP3 is low maintenance in term of needing the ball at all times, he's clearly alright to let someone like Griffin make plays sometimes, and he's a decent catch&shooter. I could see those 2 playing well together.
I wonder if the master plan for Lebron to get another ring is: get traded, play with a young team for 1 year to groom them (Lakers?), and then opt-out of contract to re-sign with them for a discount and bring in another top free agent. Would that be possible?
Jerry West leaving the Warriors to join the Clippers. Changing of the guard! Haha. I wonder if his championship pedigree is enough to overcome the lingering stink of Donald Sterling.
It's hard for Lebron to overcome the master plan he put in place in Cleveland. In the four years he played in Miami, they had 3 no. 1 overall picks.
Embiid with never be a full time starter capable of playing a full NBA season. His landing mechanics are bad ; changing those mechanics is possible but they are so instinctive that a substantial positive change would require him to put in more work and 24/7 dedication than any other player in the NBA. So I don't see it happening. I see a continued string of injury shortened seasons with limited playing time when he is uninjured.
some injuries are purely accidental. a substantial portion of injuries are not pure accidents.
i dont for 1 second think george will go to the cavs, unless the pacers really cant get anything more than shumpert + channing fyre or something like that
On June 19 2017 12:21 zev318 wrote: i dont for 1 second think george will go to the cavs, unless the pacers really cant get anything more than shumpert + channing fyre or something like that
On June 19 2017 12:21 zev318 wrote: i dont for 1 second think george will go to the cavs, unless the pacers really cant get anything more than shumpert + channing fyre or something like that
Even when considering three-way deals?
well i think the problem is that the cavs just dont have anything to trade tho, picks wise i believe they cant trade a 1st until 2021. and i think the only player they could trade in your scenario that's worth a damn is kevin love, maybe shumpert. i dont think anyone would want to take on JR smith and his contract, esp if the cavs have no picks to send out.
would replacing love with george be enough to beat the warriors?
On June 19 2017 12:21 zev318 wrote: i dont for 1 second think george will go to the cavs, unless the pacers really cant get anything more than shumpert + channing fyre or something like that
Even when considering three-way deals?
well i think the problem is that the cavs just dont have anything to trade tho, picks wise i believe they cant trade a 1st until 2021. and i think the only player they could trade in your scenario that's worth a damn is kevin love, maybe shumpert. i dont think anyone would want to take on JR smith and his contract, esp if the cavs have no picks to send out.
would replacing love with george be enough to beat the warriors?
I think it might be worth considering for them. Currently Love's offensive skills are underused and he's out of his depth defensively. Cleveland is essentially using him as a floor spacer and a decent rebounder and that's it. The piece that the Cavs needs is a guy that can slow down Durant 1-on-1, that isn't Lebron (because Lebron will still have to be the main playmaker all throughout a potential series and will have to save energy to do that). Paul George can be that guy. Plus, he is a decent playmaker which the Cavs need badly. Not to mention, he's a good spot-up shooter too.
I don't think this is what brings the Cavs above the Warriors, but it gets closer than with Love imo. I think other teams would also really like Love because I find him underrated (as I said in another thread, he's not used well in the Cavs offense).
A Cavs with PG would allow James to stay on Draymond again and play center-field/safety/libero which he's elite at. There are few pieces in the NBA that the Cavs can switch with Love that improve their chances, most of them are untradable (like Davis and Kawhi :D), but PG is a top choice, and wants out anyway. If the Cavs can do it they will.
On June 19 2017 12:21 zev318 wrote: i dont for 1 second think george will go to the cavs, unless the pacers really cant get anything more than shumpert + channing fyre or something like that
Even when considering three-way deals?
well i think the problem is that the cavs just dont have anything to trade tho, picks wise i believe they cant trade a 1st until 2021. and i think the only player they could trade in your scenario that's worth a damn is kevin love, maybe shumpert. i dont think anyone would want to take on JR smith and his contract, esp if the cavs have no picks to send out.
would replacing love with george be enough to beat the warriors?
I think it might be worth considering for them. Currently Love's offensive skills are underused and he's out of his depth defensively. Cleveland is essentially using him as a floor spacer and a decent rebounder and that's it. The piece that the Cavs needs is a guy that can slow down Durant 1-on-1, that isn't Lebron (because Lebron will still have to be the main playmaker all throughout a potential series and will have to save energy to do that). Paul George can be that guy. Plus, he is a decent playmaker which the Cavs need badly. Not to mention, he's a good spot-up shooter too.
I don't think this is what brings the Cavs above the Warriors, but it gets closer than with Love imo. I think other teams would also really like Love because I find him underrated (as I said in another thread, he's not used well in the Cavs offense).
A Cavs with PG would allow James to stay on Draymond again and play center-field/safety/libero which he's elite at. There are few pieces in the NBA that the Cavs can switch with Love that improve their chances, most of them are untradable (like Davis and Kawhi :D), but PG is a top choice, and wants out anyway. If the Cavs can do it they will.
theyd have to get a massive guarantee (like signing a letter with his blood and shit) with PG that he'll resign tho.
I actually think they would be okay with just having him 1 year. Because Lebron. Lebron wants to defeat GWS now because he knows he's declining and his chances will only get worse anyway. Might even just leave the Cavs at the same time as PG (if that was the deal but I don't think it will happen).
All the rumors that are going around the Celtics are just wild :D.
There was a guy just on with Cowherd(can't recall who) that said he totally believes that LeBron could be working a hush hush agreement with PG to play for Cleveland for 1 year then book to either the Lakers or the Clippers in 2018, whichever looks more promising.
Obviously it's a full on rumor, but it's spicy. I would hate it as a Cleveland fan, but at my core I'm a LeBron fan(1 year younger than him, grew up 15 minutes away, played against him a bunch, watched him in person even more) and it's getting rough to think we can supply him what he needs most for his legacy long term(rings), so I wouldn't begrudge him leaving; he got us the 1 for the land he promised.
Edit: He mentioned West being a huge boon for the Clips, saying that sources around the league believe LeBron has so much respect for history that the Logo will at minimum get LeBron in for an interview, and once that happens anything can happen. They say it's believed to be pretty much the entire reason Ballmer made the hire.
I find it hard to believe that the Cavs getting either George or Butler for only Love would amount to an equal trade, even if it is a three way trade. More likely the NBA is asking some shitty team to help the Cavs to make the GSW-Cle rivalry more spicy for $$$.
On June 20 2017 06:53 red_ wrote: There was a guy just on with Cowherd(can't recall who) that said he totally believes that LeBron could be working a hush hush agreement with PG to play for Cleveland for 1 year then book to either the Lakers or the Clippers in 2018, whichever looks more promising.
Obviously it's a full on rumor, but it's spicy. I would hate it as a Cleveland fan, but at my core I'm a LeBron fan(1 year younger than him, grew up 15 minutes away, played against him a bunch, watched him in person even more) and it's getting rough to think we can supply him what he needs most for his legacy long term(rings), so I wouldn't begrudge him leaving; he got us the 1 for the land he promised.
Edit: He mentioned West being a huge boon for the Clips, saying that sources around the league believe LeBron has so much respect for history that the Logo will at minimum get LeBron in for an interview, and once that happens anything can happen. They say it's believed to be pretty much the entire reason Ballmer made the hire.
for this to work, essentially lebron will tell everyone that he has gotten a guarantee from PG (or PG will say it himself) that he will resign with the cavs, because i dont think anyone in that organization would be ok with trading love who has 3 more years (2 + player option) for a 1 year rental, that would just be idiotic, because if they both left and love is not there, its just kyrie with no future.
and then after saying all this, lebron and PG just bolt out of cleveland which would make both of them look like complete assholes, and i dont think lebron would ruin his own legacy in cleveland like that, that'd probably be even worse than the first time he left.
This is what's happening with the cavs this postseason...
I think after the last three years, or four years if you count 2014 spurs, gilbert sees that leboron is clearly on the decline and is not anymore a player that he can build the team around. Last year was courtesy of irving, not lebron. Gilbert is making hard boss moves, but i think one that will work out fine in the end. He has two options - keeping lebron and scavenging assets, or trading lebron and suddenly be a team with enough salary space to build a competitive with.
The only thing holding this back is the idea that lebron is crucial to get to the finals. The management no longer thinks this is the case. If they keep lebron, the best asset they have in the offseason is shumpert and love. Shumpert is useful on defense. Love is a great player who was victimized by lebron's "playmaking", being downgraded along with korver as ball watchers all game. They could compete with gsw if only lebron was a better player and did actual playmaking like real playmakers stockton and kidd etc., instead of forcing the ball inside and kicking out and call is playmaking. Also, he is not deadly anymore, if he ever has been. He disappears in the final stretches of the game, and it is difficult for management to justify such a huge money drain when it is not anymore working and there are way better options.Also what happened to pat riley in miami being gutted by lebron, and with all the lebron groupies getting max with the cavs, is all on his mind. He has won his ring, and is now making the move, which leads us to the second option - which i think they are doing now, is make the most of lebron's remaining value while the rest of the league is still unaware of his decline, and build on Irving who is young and is a real scoring threat and other young prospects like pg13, and butler.
griffin was the first of lebrons people to go. I wouldnt be surprised if there was a coaching shakeup any time soon.
On June 20 2017 06:53 red_ wrote: There was a guy just on with Cowherd(can't recall who) that said he totally believes that LeBron could be working a hush hush agreement with PG to play for Cleveland for 1 year then book to either the Lakers or the Clippers in 2018, whichever looks more promising.
Obviously it's a full on rumor, but it's spicy. I would hate it as a Cleveland fan, but at my core I'm a LeBron fan(1 year younger than him, grew up 15 minutes away, played against him a bunch, watched him in person even more) and it's getting rough to think we can supply him what he needs most for his legacy long term(rings), so I wouldn't begrudge him leaving; he got us the 1 for the land he promised.
Edit: He mentioned West being a huge boon for the Clips, saying that sources around the league believe LeBron has so much respect for history that the Logo will at minimum get LeBron in for an interview, and once that happens anything can happen. They say it's believed to be pretty much the entire reason Ballmer made the hire.
for this to work, essentially lebron will tell everyone that he has gotten a guarantee from PG (or PG will say it himself) that he will resign with the cavs, because i dont think anyone in that organization would be ok with trading love who has 3 more years (2 + player option) for a 1 year rental, that would just be idiotic, because if they both left and love is not there, its just kyrie with no future.
and then after saying all this, lebron and PG just bolt out of cleveland which would make both of them look like complete assholes, and i dont think lebron would ruin his own legacy in cleveland like that, that'd probably be even worse than the first time he left.
Or the GM leaves first, giving an excuse for Lebron to leave soon after without looking too much like a ring-chasing ass but rather disappointed with his owner!
On June 20 2017 18:24 Keyboard Warrior wrote: This is what's happening with the cavs this postseason...
I think after the last three years, or four years if you count 2014 spurs, gilbert sees that leboron is clearly on the decline and is not anymore a player that he can build the team around. Last year was courtesy of irving, not lebron. Gilbert is making hard boss moves, but i think one that will work out fine in the end. He has two options - keeping lebron and scavenging assets, or trading lebron and suddenly be a team with enough salary space to build a competitive with.
The only thing holding this back is the idea that lebron is crucial to get to the finals. The management no longer thinks this is the case. If they keep lebron, the best asset they have in the offseason is shumpert and love. Shumpert is useful on defense. Love is a great player who was victimized by lebron's "playmaking", being downgraded along with korver as ball watchers all game. They could compete with gsw if only lebron was a better player and did actual playmaking like real playmakers stockton and kidd etc., instead of forcing the ball inside and kicking out and call is playmaking. Also, he is not deadly anymore, if he ever has been. He disappears in the final stretches of the game, and it is difficult for management to justify such a huge money drain when it is not anymore working and there are way better options.Also what happened to pat riley in miami being gutted by lebron, and with all the lebron groupies getting max with the cavs, is all on his mind. He has won his ring, and is now making the move, which leads us to the second option - which i think they are doing now, is make the most of lebron's remaining value while the rest of the league is still unaware of his decline, and build on Irving who is young and is a real scoring threat and other young prospects like pg13, and butler.
griffin was the first of lebrons people to go. I wouldnt be surprised if there was a coaching shakeup any time soon.
LBJ is just fine. its his team mates that are not good enough. Source: Vanilla Plus/Minus of the Cavs players, Adjusted Plus/Minus of the Cavs players and xRAPM of the Cavs players. LBJ makes every player around him better. Source: basketballvalue.com ( which is down right now LOL). Every player you pair up LBJ with improves in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Every player gets worse when LBJ is gone.
LBJ is the best play maker on the team so they make him the playmaker.
Basketball is a team game and GSW has 5 guys that are almost as good as LBJ. the Cavs have LBJ and 4 guys who are a substantial step down from GSW's "gang of 5". I'm referring to the gang of 5 GSW players sitting at the top of the Vanilla +/- chart.
all players eventually decline in their 30s. LBJ showed few signs of aging this year and every # bares that out. Maybe I'll get ahead of the curve too. Fultz's days are numbered guys.
On June 20 2017 06:53 red_ wrote: There was a guy just on with Cowherd(can't recall who) that said he totally believes that LeBron could be working a hush hush agreement with PG to play for Cleveland for 1 year then book to either the Lakers or the Clippers in 2018, whichever looks more promising.
Obviously it's a full on rumor, but it's spicy. I would hate it as a Cleveland fan, but at my core I'm a LeBron fan(1 year younger than him, grew up 15 minutes away, played against him a bunch, watched him in person even more) and it's getting rough to think we can supply him what he needs most for his legacy long term(rings), so I wouldn't begrudge him leaving; he got us the 1 for the land he promised.
Edit: He mentioned West being a huge boon for the Clips, saying that sources around the league believe LeBron has so much respect for history that the Logo will at minimum get LeBron in for an interview, and once that happens anything can happen. They say it's believed to be pretty much the entire reason Ballmer made the hire.
for this to work, essentially lebron will tell everyone that he has gotten a guarantee from PG (or PG will say it himself) that he will resign with the cavs, because i dont think anyone in that organization would be ok with trading love who has 3 more years (2 + player option) for a 1 year rental, that would just be idiotic, because if they both left and love is not there, its just kyrie with no future.
and then after saying all this, lebron and PG just bolt out of cleveland which would make both of them look like complete assholes, and i dont think lebron would ruin his own legacy in cleveland like that, that'd probably be even worse than the first time he left.
Or the GM leaves first, giving an excuse for Lebron to leave soon after without looking too much like a ring-chasing ass but rather disappointed with his owner!
I think these decisions might be completely stalled now... The owner didn't want to pay for whatever craziness Griffin had in mind to try to win this year but would have crushed the franchise for years after (especially if Lebron left with PG in FA after 1 year).
I'm disappointed because I want to see a competitive team against the Warriors, but I can also see not wanting to gut yourself to death just to have a slight chance to match them for only 1 year.
On June 21 2017 00:07 ZenithM wrote: I think these decisions might be completely stalled now... The owner didn't want to pay for whatever craziness Griffin had in mind to try to win this year but that would have crushed the franchise for years after (especially if Lebron left with PG in FA after 1 year).
I'm disappointed because I want to see a competitive team against the Warriors, but I can also see not wanting to gut yourself to death just to have a slight chance to match them for only 1 year.
would not be the first time cleveland destroyed themselves. they had a owner who traded 5 straight 1st round picks away and the NBA had to step in.
Unless Lebron gets injured or suddenly falls off the cliff, they are still the favorites to make the Finals. I do agree with the mediocre season. I think they went 0-10 or something ridiculous on the road on the 2nd game of a back to back. They have some really old role players and their stars play a tiring style of basketball. Part of me thinks that the schedule change in the last two finals were to help them compete with GSW.
What I'm afraid of is Lebron's mindset going into this season if his roster doesn't change (or worsens...). These finals showed him that his team has very little chance of beating the Warriors in a Bo7. He's getting older. Probably out of Cleveland in 1 year. At odds with the owner. Owner not in win-now mode anymore.
That's not really motivating for a guy who wants to catch MJ in the GOAT rankings. I can really see him at the very least step off the gas pedal (like, not your usual LeCoasting, but really not doing anything to make the team win) and resting this season to try to get rings somewhere else with another cast of stars. I hope I underestimate Lebron's competitive spirit though.
The one cheap way I see the Cavs becoming better is with another coach.
On June 21 2017 06:28 ZenithM wrote: What I'm afraid of is Lebron's mindset going into this season if his roster doesn't change (or worsens...). These finals showed him that his team has very little chance of beating the Warriors in a Bo7. He's getting older. Probably out of Cleveland in 1 year. At odds with the owner. Owner not in win-now mode anymore.
That's not really motivating for a guy who wants to catch MJ in the GOAT rankings. I can really see him at the very least step off the gas pedal (like, not your usual LeCoasting, but really not doing anything to make the team win) and resting this season to try to get rings somewhere else with another cast of stars. I hope I underestimate Lebron's competitive spirit though.
The one cheap way I see the Cavs becoming better is with another coach.
which coach could they possibly get 1) that has the balls to move away from a lebron-centric offense to more of a team ball offense (thus resting lebron a bit more and that the team does not just collapse w/o lebron on the floor) 2) that the organization thinks can accomplish #1
btw russell + mozgov to the net for lopez and 27th pick in the works apparently
On June 21 2017 06:28 ZenithM wrote: What I'm afraid of is Lebron's mindset going into this season if his roster doesn't change (or worsens...). These finals showed him that his team has very little chance of beating the Warriors in a Bo7. He's getting older. Probably out of Cleveland in 1 year. At odds with the owner. Owner not in win-now mode anymore.
That's not really motivating for a guy who wants to catch MJ in the GOAT rankings. I can really see him at the very least step off the gas pedal (like, not your usual LeCoasting, but really not doing anything to make the team win) and resting this season to try to get rings somewhere else with another cast of stars. I hope I underestimate Lebron's competitive spirit though.
The one cheap way I see the Cavs becoming better is with another coach.
which coach could they possibly get 1) that has the balls to move away from a lebron-centric offense to more of a team ball offense (thus resting lebron a bit more and that the team does not just collapse w/o lebron on the floor) 2) that the organization thinks can accomplish #1
btw russell + mozgov to the net for lopez and 27th pick in the works apparently
I don't think the offense is the problem actually, the defense is. Lebron has the reigns on the offense anyway.
If the Cavs don't get Butler and the Celtics do, I'd be curious to know what Lebron thinks of that :D.
On June 21 2017 06:28 ZenithM wrote: What I'm afraid of is Lebron's mindset going into this season if his roster doesn't change (or worsens...). These finals showed him that his team has very little chance of beating the Warriors in a Bo7. He's getting older. Probably out of Cleveland in 1 year. At odds with the owner. Owner not in win-now mode anymore.
That's not really motivating for a guy who wants to catch MJ in the GOAT rankings. I can really see him at the very least step off the gas pedal (like, not your usual LeCoasting, but really not doing anything to make the team win) and resting this season to try to get rings somewhere else with another cast of stars. I hope I underestimate Lebron's competitive spirit though.
The one cheap way I see the Cavs becoming better is with another coach.
which coach could they possibly get 1) that has the balls to move away from a lebron-centric offense to more of a team ball offense (thus resting lebron a bit more and that the team does not just collapse w/o lebron on the floor) 2) that the organization thinks can accomplish #1
btw russell + mozgov to the net for lopez and 27th pick in the works apparently
There is probably no such coach on the market, except maybe if Carlisle and the Mavs had a falling out. IDK, isn't Jerry Sloan like 90?
On June 21 2017 06:28 ZenithM wrote: What I'm afraid of is Lebron's mindset going into this season if his roster doesn't change (or worsens...). These finals showed him that his team has very little chance of beating the Warriors in a Bo7. He's getting older. Probably out of Cleveland in 1 year. At odds with the owner. Owner not in win-now mode anymore.
That's not really motivating for a guy who wants to catch MJ in the GOAT rankings. I can really see him at the very least step off the gas pedal (like, not your usual LeCoasting, but really not doing anything to make the team win) and resting this season to try to get rings somewhere else with another cast of stars. I hope I underestimate Lebron's competitive spirit though.
The one cheap way I see the Cavs becoming better is with another coach.
which coach could they possibly get 1) that has the balls to move away from a lebron-centric offense to more of a team ball offense (thus resting lebron a bit more and that the team does not just collapse w/o lebron on the floor) 2) that the organization thinks can accomplish #1
btw russell + mozgov to the net for lopez and 27th pick in the works apparently
I don't think the offense is the problem actually, the defense is. Lebron has the reigns on the offense anyway.
If the Cavs don't get Butler and the Celtics do, I'd be curious to know what Lebron thinks of that :D.
Why would the Bulls do a trade with the Cavs that had KLove as a centerpiece? They both are, essentially, on 2 year contracts and Butler is the better player. Unless they got Cleveland's 1st round picks, unprotected in 2021 + 2023, I don't see how they CLE could swing that deal.
On June 21 2017 07:18 zev318 wrote: that the team does not just collapse w/o lebron on the floor) 2) that the organization thinks can accomplish #1 btw russell + mozgov to the net for lopez and 27th pick in the works apparently
huh? the offense is a lot better with LBJ on the floor because LBJ is a really good offensive player. removing him makes the offense worse. Full Stop.
removing him will not all of a sudden turn so-so playmakers into john stockton and then somehow make the offense almost as good as it is with LBJ on the floor. that ain't happenin'
Cleveland has got lots of problems... offense ain't one of 'em.
On June 21 2017 07:18 zev318 wrote: that the team does not just collapse w/o lebron on the floor) 2) that the organization thinks can accomplish #1 btw russell + mozgov to the net for lopez and 27th pick in the works apparently
huh? the offense is a lot better with LBJ on the floor because LBJ is a really good offensive player. removing him makes the offense worse. Full Stop.
removing him will not all of a sudden turn so-so playmakers into john stockton and then somehow make the offense almost as good as it is with LBJ on the floor. that ain't happenin'
Cleveland has got lots of problems... offense ain't one of 'em.
i think their offense without lebron is a problem, it is way too dependent on him, and that's my point, not sure why u needed to cut out the first part of what i said. if it didnt drop off so much, they can afford to rest him more. of course the defense is a problem too. strictly looking at their offensive rating, without lebron, it is bottom 10 in the league in the reg season and bottom 6 in the playoffs, i dont think that's acceptable with players like love and kyrie.
On June 21 2017 13:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The primary problem for the Cavs is that GSW's starting line up is far better.
The thing to keep in mind about the 2017 Finals is that the Warriors did not have a game where they had all of their starters firing on all cylinders. Durant was consistently good, but everyone else had at least one off game, if not multiple off games. Even then, the Cavs had to have ridiculous shooting percentages to even threaten the Warriors. The Warriors have another gear that wasn't shown.
I think GSW bought the 2nd round pick that became McCaw. Those are normally sold for cheap by teams with full rosters and the players are cheap until their rookie deal ends. It's just good scouting to find a usable player in that round. The Cavs had Liggins but they had no patience to develop rookies and decided to go with over the hill veterans.
I looked up Mozgov's deal. 3 years remaining makes it more defensible to sacrifice Russell to get rid of it. It takes a while for rookies to develop, however, and his deal might be over by the time their no. 2 pick becomes a star. The Lakers just seem too impatient in general. I'm also not sure about the wisdom of chasing a star who will be on the wrong side of 30 by the time their young guys develop. They might surprise me but I think this team is at least 3 years away from contention. Paul George might carry them to the playoffs faster than that but how much will the younger guys be able to contribute?
I feel like the Celtics and Lakers need to swap management strategies. The Lakers need to slow their roll, whereas it is probably time for the Celtics to start cashing their chips to acquire some talent that they can use now.
Yes, I agree with all that but just taking this trade in a vacuum, my problem is the selling-low on 21-year-old former #2 pick. Opinions on the trade from Lakers fans, etc. really comes down to how high(or low) you value DAR. The FO obviously really didn't like Russell's "attitude"
And then all for what? Trying/hoping to get a 34-year old James or w/e next year? Trading for PG, who is gonna be peeking right at the time that the Warriors are peeking? I am not for tearing down the team for PG.
Then they peddle that lame narrative again thru Kevin Ding about "Believing stars will flock to the bright lights of Tinseltown". Way to go out-of-the-box Front-Office and trying to rebuild this thing through innovation /s ...Not inspiring as of right now (/end rant).
On June 21 2017 14:48 cLutZ wrote: I think the plan, is quite clear: 1. Suck again. 2. Get Paul George. 3. Get Lebron or another guy. 4. Trade away everything for person #3.
FO showing some real creativity.
edit: To answer seriously though...If they are planning to suck w/o trading for PG then why do this now (in a season where their pick goes to BOS and when the cost of trading Moz contract goes down with the less time remaining on it). It actually seems like they have something else lined up and I realize the bolts and nuts aren't in yet but I am simply having a hard time giving up on young DAR coming into his own, while adjusting to the hardest position in the league and actually putting up good #'s for an age-20 season...
I think they jumped at the chance to trade away Mozgov and they legit are super low on Russell. If they thought Russell would be decent this year they would have waited, but clearly they think the Nets are getting a player that isn't going to improve at all.
I dont know if they are right/wrong because I never watch the Lakers. Seeing as how both teams are generally incompetent, and Magic is historically incompetent, I guess its prolly even.
On June 21 2017 13:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The primary problem for the Cavs is that GSW's starting line up is far better.
I disagree. I think GSW's offensive & defensive systems are far better, and their talent is mildly better.
I agree with the system with slight disagreement with the talent. Imo, GSW's system is such that the players skill level is massively improved and augmented, and the stats bear this out, but when you compare pure talent individually, Cavs are ahead. James vs. durant, kyrie vs. curry, love vs. klay, tristan vs. mcgee, and even veteran jefferson vs. iguodala, The cavs players statistics suffer dramatically and this results to team performance partly because the coach and management failed to form them into a cohesive unified unit similar to the warriors, this is why you get kyrie 20 dribble lol And the most important reason for this failure is Lebron. This is what Lebron nuthuggers fail to realize. Heat championship Lebron was a monster at offense and demanded attention. But this version of lebron is not the same threat. He has literally 1 playmaking move lolwut! He would barrel down the lane usually of a switch and kick it out to the shooters. GSW didnt even respect his penetration anymore and let him attack at will, which is not as strong as a weapon before. The warriors then forced the cavs shooters cold with smothering defense that on the times they get the ball, they would be so cold from ball-watching and not making their shots. Guys, basketball 101. This is not playmaking, at least not in the reliable and effective sense that most legit playmakers do. Compare how the warriors shooters get their shots. Their system allows shooters to be in motion always looking for the best looks. This is also the reason why Cavs fail. They are too lebron-centric. The offense fails when james is out because of all the ball watching took them out of rhythm already. Irving is the only one who can force the offense.
Which is funny. Gilbert must have planned this all along. The decision was humiliating. He already milked lebron with a ring, and he knows that he cannot win against the warriors not with lebron, and he is paying repeater luxury tax for lebron and his gang. He knows lebron is not anymore the player to build a team around, and he is making great moves to acquire future assets and build on Irving. As for lebron, well he could continue on looking for teams that could give him instant rings at the expense of their development.
Lebron not a monster in offense? He's not KD in 1v1 but dude, what? I could answer point by point but eh, no time for that.
So I'll just say that I do think GSW is significantly more talented than the Cavs, if only on the defensive end. In term of talent I think Durant-Curry and Lebron-Kyrie roughly cancel each other. Then you're looking at Draymond + Klay vs Love. I'm the first to admit that Love's offensive talent isn't tapped by the Cavs, but defensively there is no doubt that this is an abysmal gap. Then who's the best remaining player for the Cavs? Tristan Thompson? Bleh... Then you got Iguodala for GS.
Only looking at perimeter defense, I'd argue that Durant, Klay, Iguodala are all better than Lebron, and wayyy better than the rest of the Cavs roster. And that's without accounting for the fucking DPOY. I don't think these guys being good defenders is a product of GW's system either, they were always good defenders to begin with. Cavs have neither good perimeter defense, nor a rim protector. That's the talent discrepancy I see there.
On June 21 2017 15:17 cLutZ wrote: I think they jumped at the chance to trade away Mozgov and they legit are super low on Russell. If they thought Russell would be decent this year they would have waited, but clearly they think the Nets are getting a player that isn't going to improve at all.
I dont know if they are right/wrong because I never watch the Lakers. Seeing as how both teams are generally incompetent, and Magic is historically incompetent, I guess its prolly even.
To be honest, I can't see Russell becoming any better. I watched several games with Russell, and he's got flashes of greatness in him, but his athleticism is holding him back. That's something that is going to take years to develop, if he manages to become any more athletic at all. In addition, his defense is rather lackluster, which hurts a lot when his streaky shot is not falling. He was also praised for his passing abilities, but it seems like his passes rarely leads to any assists or net-positive possessions. Even if trading Russell was a mistake, getting rid of Mozgov for another first-round pick + Brook Lopez is very worth it.
DLo is not good. Walton and Magic know it. They did the right thing. That guy is going to trade on his potential for another few years before joining the Beijing Ducks. The return isn't great but palatable given they moved Mozgov too.
On June 21 2017 17:46 Keyboard Warrior wrote: As for lebron, well he could continue on looking for teams that could give him instant rings at the expense of their development.
as far as stunting player development.. every 30+ year old ball handler stunts the development of players with some ball handling skills. Look at how Kyle Lowry stunted the development of James Johnson. That fat, injury prone, finger-pointing midget outta be thrown in lake ontario or hung from the CN Tower right?
Now, had James Johnson and Kyle Lowry both been drafted by Toronto many years ago and played on the same team their entire careers a system probably could've been crafted to feature both their skill sets. However, they were 2 hired gunslingers passing through the highest paying town. So its really neither guys "fault". Furthermore, management never looks at guys they "buy"/acquire in the same way as guys they draft ( in any sport ). So they never invest the kind of time and organizational energy into guys they buy. I wouldn't say its Casey's "fault" either.
the probability of the Toronto Raptors developing a team better than Lebron James by avoiding adding him to their team is zero. i recommend the Raptors add LBJ to their team in a nano-second if LBJ wants to play in the great white north.
GSW's player development, coaching is already locked in long term and won't be impacted by adding LBJ. They'll just keep on improving because Kerr et al are developmental geniuses. Adding LBJ to GSW is both a good short term and long term move for them.
On June 21 2017 13:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The primary problem for the Cavs is that GSW's starting line up is far better.
I disagree. I think GSW's offensive & defensive systems are far better, and their talent is mildly better.
And the most important reason for this failure is Lebron. This is what Lebron nuthuggers fail to realize. Heat championship Lebron was a monster at offense and demanded attention. But this version of lebron is not the same threat. .
This was arguably one of Lebron's best seasons and playoffs. I'm not a 'nuthugger' but to say he's not an offensive monster is fucking ridiculous unless you're doing a bad Skip Bayless impersonation. They dropped 1 game coming out of the east, then were the only team in the playoffs to take a game off the stacked GS squad. Coming 2nd to golden state is not failure... unless you're one of those idiots who thinks rings are everything, regardless of context. Swap durant and lebron and the finals would've been four massive blowouts. Besides the cavs' problem for the series wasn't really scoring (they did well enough vs a #1 defense), it was all the easy baskets they gave up cause they had love, korver, jr and kyrie trying to guard some of the best shooters/scorers ever. Did you not see how many backdoor dunks iggy got? or how easily durant blew by defenders the entire series? But sure, they obviously lost because lebron doesn't demand attention and is not the monster he used to be -.-
I think it would work with different pieces around Lebron. There is not even 1 so-called "3-and-D" guy around him. For how the Cavs use Love, they could replace him with any tall dude that shoots 3s and you wouldn't have lost much. Just 2 of many issues (issues when talking about their matchup with GS obviously, who cares about the rest of the league :D).
And I know the trend right now is to point at GSW and say "oh look this style of basketball is so much better"! But the fact is, the Cavs don't have the right pieces to emulate that. Not even talking about talent. If you think the Cavs are as good or even better talent-wise that's fine, but they just don't have the right players to play this way.
I'm not sure how useful discussions about a more perfect Cavs team are, considering it's clear even this team hasn't been coached to its full potential.
On June 22 2017 01:41 ZenithM wrote: I think it would work with different pieces around Lebron. There is not even 1 so-called "3-and-D" guy around him. For how the Cavs use Love, they could replace him with any tall dude that shoots 3s and you wouldn't have lost much. Just 2 of many issues (issues when talking about their matchup with GS obviously, who cares about the rest of the league :D).
And I know the trend right now is to point at GSW and say "oh look this style of basketball is so much better"! But the fact is, the Cavs don't have the right pieces to emulate that. Not even talking about talent. If you think the Cavs are as good or even better talent-wise that's fine, but they just don't have the right players to play this way.
Its not just the Warriors, the Spurs also run a better system, and the only person on the Cavs that doesn't "fit" a Spurs-y system is Lebron. The same Lebron that people claim has developed a 3 pointer, and a post game at various points of his career (which would make him perfect for a Spurs-y system). JR Smith and Korver do as well, its not like Danny Green, Pau Gasol, and Patty Mills are some sick defenders .
u have no idea how several guys will mesh together. a guy that seems like he fits into a certain team's system might clash with the personality of the team in ways impossible to predict until he is inserted into the system. very generally speaking, why do you think companies hate hiring? any time you bring in any one new its a real crapshoot.
in this area draft and develop is better. you get a guy adapted to your system/org from age 20. the guy has no other experience except in your system and you can mold and shape the player in ways you never can with a 28 year old whose played for 3 teams.
who predicted Miami would go 30-11 to end the season? who had James Johnson becoming Miami's #2 playmaker? when u add a new guy you just never know.
On June 21 2017 13:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The primary problem for the Cavs is that GSW's starting line up is far better.
I disagree. I think GSW's offensive & defensive systems are far better, and their talent is mildly better.
And the most important reason for this failure is Lebron. This is what Lebron nuthuggers fail to realize. Heat championship Lebron was a monster at offense and demanded attention. But this version of lebron is not the same threat. .
This was arguably one of Lebron's best seasons and playoffs. I'm not a 'nuthugger' but to say he's not an offensive monster is fucking ridiculous unless you're doing a bad Skip Bayless impersonation. They dropped 1 game coming out of the east, then were the only team in the playoffs to take a game off the stacked GS squad. Coming 2nd to golden state is not failure... unless you're one of those idiots who thinks rings are everything, regardless of context. Swap durant and lebron and the finals would've been four massive blowouts. Besides the cavs' problem for the series wasn't really scoring (they did well enough vs a #1 defense), it was all the easy baskets they gave up cause they had love, korver, jr and kyrie trying to guard some of the best shooters/scorers ever. Did you not see how many backdoor dunks iggy got? or how easily durant blew by defenders the entire series? But sure, they obviously lost because lebron doesn't demand attention and is not the monster he used to be -.-
Well, a lot of the backdoor dunks Iggy got were partly Lebron's fault. He looks like he needs to conserve some energy on defense even during the finals. Or it could just be that they are missing a loudmouth like Draymond to communicate on defense.
On June 22 2017 01:41 ZenithM wrote: I think it would work with different pieces around Lebron. There is not even 1 so-called "3-and-D" guy around him. For how the Cavs use Love, they could replace him with any tall dude that shoots 3s and you wouldn't have lost much. Just 2 of many issues (issues when talking about their matchup with GS obviously, who cares about the rest of the league :D).
And I know the trend right now is to point at GSW and say "oh look this style of basketball is so much better"! But the fact is, the Cavs don't have the right pieces to emulate that. Not even talking about talent. If you think the Cavs are as good or even better talent-wise that's fine, but they just don't have the right players to play this way.
Its not just the Warriors, the Spurs also run a better system, and the only person on the Cavs that doesn't "fit" a Spurs-y system is Lebron. The same Lebron that people claim has developed a 3 pointer, and a post game at various points of his career (which would make him perfect for a Spurs-y system). JR Smith and Korver do as well, its not like Danny Green, Pau Gasol, and Patty Mills are some sick defenders .
He shot .363 on 4.6 attempts per game in the regular season(3rd to his '12-'13 and '13-'14 Miami seasons) and .411 on 5.9 in the playoffs(career high). His 3 pt shot is fine.
Im so confused by people who talk about Lebron stats "in the paint" and "3 Pointers"
He is really good at both in the post handcheck era regular season sense. However, he lacks a consistent offense from either position.
I would argue that Lebron is the most referee-dependent player of all time. He makes Harden look like an amateur, not only on flopping, but also on his committing of obvious fouls that are not called.
I think it's more correct to say that he's tricky to referee rather than referee-dependent. You make it sound like he would be completely neutered if the game was called a different way...
On June 22 2017 03:18 cLutZ wrote: [...]JR Smith and Korver do as well, its not like Danny Green, Pau Gasol, and Patty Mills are some sick defenders .
I don't know how you can mention Danny Green in the same sentence as those guys. He's regularly mentioned as one of the best perimeter defenders in the league. If you want some advanced stats, he's in the top 5 SGs in DRPM. He's like, the prototypical 3-and-D player.
On June 22 2017 15:45 cLutZ wrote: Im so confused by people who talk about Lebron stats "in the paint" and "3 Pointers"
He is really good at both in the post handcheck era regular season sense. However, he lacks a consistent offense from either position.
I would argue that Lebron is the most referee-dependent player of all time. He makes Harden look like an amateur, not only on flopping, but also on his committing of obvious fouls that are not called.
This. so much this. i mean name me another superstar of his so-called caliber who shamelessly resorts to flopping and would even dare challenge the no calls and look innocent. and let us not get started with the offensive fouls. dude cant post up without locking up and fouling defenders, and let us not even talk about the traveling violations. dude is a product of the stat-era greatness.
Derozan relies on officials more. There is hardly any flopping in the NBA these days. LBJ being an older player he is one of the few guys that still does it.
On June 22 2017 15:45 cLutZ wrote: Im so confused by people who talk about Lebron stats "in the paint" and "3 Pointers"
He is really good at both in the post handcheck era regular season sense. However, he lacks a consistent offense from either position.
I would argue that Lebron is the most referee-dependent player of all time. He makes Harden look like an amateur, not only on flopping, but also on his committing of obvious fouls that are not called.
name me another superstar of his caliber
More like. That would be my answer if I was the Lebron-stan to your Lebron-hater.
On June 22 2017 15:45 cLutZ wrote: Im so confused by people who talk about Lebron stats "in the paint" and "3 Pointers"
He is really good at both in the post handcheck era regular season sense. However, he lacks a consistent offense from either position.
I would argue that Lebron is the most referee-dependent player of all time. He makes Harden look like an amateur, not only on flopping, but also on his committing of obvious fouls that are not called.
This. so much this. i mean name me another superstar of his so-called caliber who shamelessly resorts to flopping and would even dare challenge the no calls and look innocent. and let us not get started with the offensive fouls. dude cant post up without locking up and fouling defenders, and let us not even talk about the traveling violations. dude is a product of the stat-era greatness.
I have to ask - if not for stats (which is the direct result of performance), what would you base greatness on?
the drop in the salary cap was caused by a low # of playoff games. people were complaining about too many lopsided series. Welp, this will negatively impact the players pay....if only slightly.
On June 22 2017 22:55 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Are you saying westbrook is the best player?
Other than the basic stats, there are others, such as NUMBER OF CHAMPIONSHIPS
So robert horry is the goat?
Who's your current top 5 in the NBA?
This is irrelevant to my point as all im saying is lebron is great, but only in the sense of the present nba values hollow stats over actual performance. but to answer your question, in no particular order: durant, leonard, curry, james, jr smith lol j/k, harden, and i could name a few others of similar level
On June 22 2017 22:55 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Are you saying westbrook is the best player?
Other than the basic stats, there are others, such as NUMBER OF CHAMPIONSHIPS
That lbj is overrated. real all-time-greats such as jordan, shaq, kobe, jabar, and others will take over the game in crucial moments. lbj is too conscious of his stats, his legacy is suffering because of it. lucky him he won three already mostly because of his teammates ray allen, irving, and wade, but without them, he is nothing more than a more efficient westbrook who has more control over his team
Lebron just made 7 finals in a row. Just on the back of "hollow" stats I guess? Inb4 "but James Jones did as well hurr durr".
"Nothing more than a more efficient Westbrook"... What a ridiculous thing to say. That's like saying that Jordan was nothing more than a more efficient Kobe.
On June 22 2017 22:55 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Are you saying westbrook is the best player?
Other than the basic stats, there are others, such as NUMBER OF CHAMPIONSHIPS
That lbj is overrated. real all-time-greats such as jordan, shaq, kobe, jabar, and others will take over the game in crucial moments. lbj is too conscious of his stats, his legacy is suffering because of it. lucky him he won three already mostly because of his teammates ray allen, irving, and wade, but without them, he is nothing more than a more efficient westbrook who has more control over his team
There's no point talking to this guy, clearly a troll. Just look at his username
On June 22 2017 22:55 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Are you saying westbrook is the best player?
Other than the basic stats, there are others, such as NUMBER OF CHAMPIONSHIPS
That lbj is overrated. real all-time-greats such as jordan, shaq, kobe, jabar, and others will take over the game in crucial moments. lbj is too conscious of his stats, his legacy is suffering because of it. lucky him he won three already mostly because of his teammates ray allen, irving, and wade, but without them, he is nothing more than a more efficient westbrook who has more control over his team
Really? That's it? It's clear to everyone here that you're not a Lebron fan, but what I'm asking is if Lebron's accolade is not measurement for you, then what is? And additionally, who would you consider are greats, present or retired, and on what basis?
I may be opinionated but i am not a troll. i mean its difficult to realize at first, considering all the media hype that's been shoved down our throats. but consider the facts. the cavs are a great team, and lebron single handedly held them back from winning against gsw. 7 straight years in the east you say? thats because the east is a fucking amateur party. Put any top 4-5 teams in the east and they would make it out of the east ezpz
On June 22 2017 23:36 Keyboard Warrior wrote: I may be opinionated but i am not a troll. i mean its difficult to realize at first, considering all the media hype that's been shoved down our throats. but consider the facts. the cavs are a great team, and lebron single handedly held them back from winning against gsw. 7 straight years in the east you say? thats because the east is a fucking amateur party. Put any top 4-5 teams in the east and they would make it out of the east ezpz
You got some valid points but you gotta do better than this man. You have very poor arguments supporting your point. Answer this, how is Lebron holding the Cavs back?
lebron single handedly held them back from winning against gsw
Usually you'd say that about someone you can just remove from the roster and the roster becomes better... You don't say "single-handedly holds back" of the best player on the team...
And anyway, even without looking at stats, when I watched the finals I thought Lebron played very well. He just wasn't able to be effective enough defensively.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
Keyboard Warrior indeed. And that Spurs argument is funny considering the Warriors were losing by a lot when Kawhi luckily went down.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
That's your CLAIM. Now where is your EVIDENCE for that claim?
lebron single handedly held them back from winning against gsw
Usually you'd say that about someone you can just remove from the roster and the roster becomes better... You don't say "single-handedly holds back" of the best player on the team...
And anyway, even without looking at stats, when I watched the finals I thought Lebron played very well. He just wasn't able to be effective enough defensively.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
Keyboard Warrior indeed. And that Spurs argument is funny considering the Warriors were losing by a lot when Kawhi luckily went down.
I really wonder how young these guys are. Someone last time even boasted about watching games live or something like that. I mean, youth is not a crime, but when your ignorance is a result of your being too young to understand, then it's a bad thing.
Anyways, good thing this is brought up, the thing about SAS vs. GSW. Are we just talking about game one of hypothetically the entire series? Who here believes the Spurs could have won against the Warriors?
We'll be diving into speculation here since the point is moot, but this is a good topic nonetheless. The threeish quarters domination of the Spurs was more of a Pop thing than an indicator that the Spurs would win the series. If there is a time to beat a strong opponent in a series, it is usually in the first game(s), when you can catch them offguard. The Spurs really strangled Golden State's three up until Kawhi went down, and KD was virtually hand held by the defense. Spurs may have won that game, but eventually though, I think the Warriors would have won merely on the account of their firepower. Moreoiver, their sets can wreck havoc on the Spurs with guys like Gasol and Mills. Finally, GSW would have figured out a way to attack LMA. I can't wait to see roster improvements over the offseason. The Spurs are making a run for Porzingis as well, that would be nice.
lebron single handedly held them back from winning against gsw
Usually you'd say that about someone you can just remove from the roster and the roster becomes better... You don't say "single-handedly holds back" of the best player on the team...
And anyway, even without looking at stats, when I watched the finals I thought Lebron played very well. He just wasn't able to be effective enough defensively.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
Keyboard Warrior indeed. And that Spurs argument is funny considering the Warriors were losing by a lot when Kawhi luckily went down.
If you had a valid reply against me, you wouldnt resort to ad hominem. All you lebron stan should not be butthurt about his failures
GSW's best players all have amazing +/- because they play together. LBJ has far and away the best +/- on the Cavs because he is far and away the best player on the Cavs.
No other player separates himself in +/- on the positive side from his team mates as much as LBJ does. The concept that he somehow is wrecking everyone else on teh team is absurd.
The only comparable to LBJ and his spread away from his team mates in Raw +/- and adjusted +/- is in another sport. That'd be Bobby Orr. xRAPM has not been around long and its too much of a black box to make reliable historical conclusions. However, LBJ is the xRAPM leader because he is the best player in the league.
LBJ is the best player in the NBA by a small margin. imo, LBJ has declined a small amount from age 28 to 32. We can keep arguing this for 5 years and then when he is 38 you can say.. "see i told you he isn't that good.. and i predicted it before any one else".
forgetting all stats. i've watched ~50 games live in the past 5 years including ~10 LBJ games. based on what i see with my own eyes LBJ is the best player in the NBA by a small margin. someone could argue a certain other player might be slightly better; and its possible they could be; i have not watched enough games to say for sure.
the notion that several NBA-ers are substantially better than LBJ does not pass the eye test. It also does not pass the +/- test.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
That's your CLAIM. Now where is your EVIDENCE for that claim?
He is not a finisher. he is a one-dimensional scorer. he is a horrible one-trick "playmaker". he chokes and cramps on important plays. he is a bad defender. he is a unabashed ringchaser. if you put him in gsw, what he did to stagnate korver, love, smith, and irving, he will do to he warriors.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
That's your CLAIM. Now where is your EVIDENCE for that claim?
He is not a finisher. he is a one-dimensional scorer. he is a horrible one-trick "playmaker". he chokes and cramps on important plays. he is a bad defender. he is a unabashed ringchaser. if you put him in gsw, what he did to stagnate korver, love, smith, and irving, he will do to he warriors.
ya this doesn't pass the +/- test, the APM test, or xRAPM test. sry man. doesn't pass the eye test either.
On June 23 2017 00:33 JimmiC wrote: That the Knicks are even listening to the Porzingus offers is incredible to me. He gives them some hope for the future which they have last had... ???? Knicks are not only the owrst run team in the NBA they are in the running for worst run team in sports now that the oilers turned the corner and the browns look to have stabilized.
Phil Jackson is ulcer to this team. He is hell bent on destroying the Knicks. He is putting ego ahead of the team's welfare.
lebron single handedly held them back from winning against gsw
Usually you'd say that about someone you can just remove from the roster and the roster becomes better... You don't say "single-handedly holds back" of the best player on the team...
And anyway, even without looking at stats, when I watched the finals I thought Lebron played very well. He just wasn't able to be effective enough defensively.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
Keyboard Warrior indeed. And that Spurs argument is funny considering the Warriors were losing by a lot when Kawhi luckily went down.
If you had a valid reply against me, you wouldnt resort to ad hominem. All you lebron stan should not be butthurt about his failures
That's your username, dude.
Anyway Twinkle Toes I don't think the Spurs would have won the series either. I actually rewatched Game 1 up to the injury 2 days ago (what a series that would have been...). I was trying to remember if the Spurs were doing something particularly well, but when rewatching, it wasn't that obvious. Aldridge was playing well, Kawhi was his usual self but was probably not the reason they were up by that much. What impresses me the most out of these Spurs is the value they bring out of their role guys like Simmons, he was defending Curry nicely. But overall I'd say the Warriors starting slow and would probably have picked their game up eventually.
lebron single handedly held them back from winning against gsw
Usually you'd say that about someone you can just remove from the roster and the roster becomes better... You don't say "single-handedly holds back" of the best player on the team...
And anyway, even without looking at stats, when I watched the finals I thought Lebron played very well. He just wasn't able to be effective enough defensively.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
Keyboard Warrior indeed. And that Spurs argument is funny considering the Warriors were losing by a lot when Kawhi luckily went down.
I really wonder how young these guys are. Someone last time even boasted about watching games live or something like that. I mean, youth is not a crime, but when your ignorance is a result of your being too young to understand, then it's a bad thing.
Im old enough to have seen real greatness in jordan, shaq, kobe, hell even ai. which is why i cringe everytime fans worship lbj and especially when lbj himself places himself in the level of jordan. cmon now!
lolreally? bragging about watching the games live is so dorky. like a brat bum kid in college bragging about his car which his daddy bought him. that's hilarious if true.
In other news: because of fewer playoffs games, salary cap is down from 101 to 99, with huge league implications. another victim of the gsw and cavs parity issue
On June 23 2017 00:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: In other news: because of fewer playoffs games, salary cap is down from 101 to 99, with huge league implications. another victim of the gsw and cavs parity issue
I won't pass moral judgment on the Warriors or Cavs, but I think everyone agrees that the salary structure needs some improvement. Cavs are getting the worst end of it too.
lebron single handedly held them back from winning against gsw
Usually you'd say that about someone you can just remove from the roster and the roster becomes better... You don't say "single-handedly holds back" of the best player on the team...
And anyway, even without looking at stats, when I watched the finals I thought Lebron played very well. He just wasn't able to be effective enough defensively.
On June 22 2017 23:54 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Replace lbj with durant or curry and they become champions. lbj to the warriors sends them packing vs. spurs, and maybe even the rockets
Keyboard Warrior indeed. And that Spurs argument is funny considering the Warriors were losing by a lot when Kawhi luckily went down.
If you had a valid reply against me, you wouldnt resort to ad hominem. All you lebron stan should not be butthurt about his failures
That's your username, dude.
Anyway Twinkle Toes I don't think the Spurs would have won the series either. I actually rewatched Game 1 up to the injury 2 days ago (what a series that would have been...). I was trying to remember if the Spurs were doing something particularly well, but when rewatching, it wasn't that obvious. Aldridge was playing well, Kawhi was his usual self but was probably not the reason they were up by that much. What impresses me the most out of these Spurs is the value they bring out of their role guys like Simmons, he was defending Curry nicely. But overall I'd say the Warriors starting slow and would probably have picked their game up eventually.
That's how you know a coach is good, making the individual cogs work as a unified whole. Even LMA's erratic performance had room in the Spurs system, as found made ways for him to succeed. It's just unfortunate that LMA greatly underperformed this year that even a glimmer of hope for him next season is unjustified. Spurs 3.0 with Kawhi-LMA would have been juicy, if only LMA made an effort to put power with his post ups and refrained from going for his away-from the basket fadeaways when posting up against small players. I died a little inside everytime he did that.
According to a Knicks source, Jackson is asking for the third overall pick in Thursday's draft as well as next year's Brooklyn pick along with Jaylen Brown and Jae Crowder. This version of the deal would not include Boston taking on Joakim Noah's contract.
If Phil can get this, even without Crowder, I would give him props.
On June 22 2017 20:27 ZenithM wrote: I think it's more correct to say that he's tricky to referee rather than referee-dependent. You make it sound like he would be completely neutered if the game was called a different way...
On June 22 2017 03:18 cLutZ wrote: [...]JR Smith and Korver do as well, its not like Danny Green, Pau Gasol, and Patty Mills are some sick defenders .
I don't know how you can mention Danny Green in the same sentence as those guys. He's regularly mentioned as one of the best perimeter defenders in the league. If you want some advanced stats, he's in the top 5 SGs in DRPM. He's like, the prototypical 3-and-D player.
Lebron is both tricky to referee, and his performance changes a lot based on it. It is very similar to Shaq. There were the "Shaq rules" because he committed an offensive foul on nearly every possession. The refs didn't call every one, so they compensated by not calling minor hacks on Shaq.
Lebron also commits an offensive foul on almost every possession where he drives, these are also almost never called. The difference between "Shaq rules" and "Lebron rules" is sometimes the refs don't apply the second half of "Shaq rules" and call the hacks on Lebron and award him FTs. Game 3 was a pretty egregious version of this.
On June 22 2017 15:45 cLutZ wrote: Im so confused by people who talk about Lebron stats "in the paint" and "3 Pointers"
He is really good at both in the post handcheck era regular season sense. However, he lacks a consistent offense from either position.
I would argue that Lebron is the most referee-dependent player of all time. He makes Harden look like an amateur, not only on flopping, but also on his committing of obvious fouls that are not called.
name me another superstar of his caliber
More like. That would be my answer if I was the Lebron-stan to your Lebron-hater.
Lol.
On June 22 2017 22:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i use +/- and its variants to assess over all player performance.
The problem with advanced stats is that they are indirect measurements. They are highly susceptible to contextual and statistical quirks. You need to corroborate them with more direct observations. Otherwise, your explanation for why that player is so strong is "fairy dust".
On June 23 2017 04:56 Jerubaal wrote: The problem with advanced stats is that they are indirect measurements. They are highly susceptible to contextual and statistical quirks. You need to corroborate them with more direct observations. Otherwise, your explanation for why that player is so strong is "fairy dust".
+/- isn't an advanced stat. APM is all about context and not about anything the player does individually so it nicely compliments individual stats. the people bringing forward APM 10+ years ago are still building their analytical empires on APM while working for NBA teams. ESPN licensed xRAPM which came from APM.
had the stat been chucked into the garbage years ago i'd agree its more trouble than its worth. that is not what is happening however. the stat is being refined and improved upon in both hockey and basketball by many academics and analytics specialists ( who had an academic background in analytics before being hired ) in the NBA and NHL.
standard regression isn't "fairy dust".
APM and xRAPM is now very very good at identifying extremes. Who are the very best and very worst. We're discussing whether or not LBJ is amongst the best in the league. This is where APM and xRAPM shine. What they can't do is tell you if Kyle Lowry is a better defender than Delon Wright.
A great example of how well xRAPM held up was in the curious case of Andrew Wiggins. The colinearity between Wiggins and Lavine was finally pulled apart when Lavine went down with a knee injury. and Wiggins xRAPM held up very well.
On June 23 2017 04:56 Jerubaal wrote: There's no need to be snide. It's not like we're not all reading the exact same shit here. You should cite your sources no matter how trivial.
i did. look up a few posts. i'm not reposting the same link 10 minutes later.
I don't know what it is that you consider an advanced stat. I would say that an advanced stat is not a counting stat or a facile derivation of a counting stat but an analysis of these other stats. And, sure, it is a nice complement to the other stats, but it doesn't make the case on its own.
Earlier in the thread we used Lebron as an example. You said he was clearly still the best player in the league because xRAPM. I said that none of the other stats really seemed to support this. I asked you to tell me what it was that Lebron did that was clearly better than the other players. I don't think you obliged me.
APM and xRAPM is now very very good at identifying extremes. Who are the very best and very worst. We're discussing whether or not LBJ is amongst the best in the league.
No, we're not. You'd be daft to think he wasn't among the best in the league. We're arguing about whether or not he is the best and could he be better. You're saying that it's great for identifying extremes. Well, we're not exactly comparing Lebron to D'Angelo Russell here.
+/- is not an advanced stat. xRAPM is an advanced stat.
LBJ's +/- along with those of his team mates indicates he is far and away the best player on the team. the individual stats anyone can look up indicate the same thing. Examining the teams performance over the past 3 years i'd say the Cavs are the #2 team in the NBA. So LBJ is far and away the best player on the 2nd best team. Therefore, LBJ is, at minimum, close to the best player in the NBA if not the best.
i do not make enough observations of the NBA to make a more granular assessment than the one provided above.
Idk. Did the 76ers really have to trade up for Fultz? It's clear the Cs didn't really want him. Were the Cs going to draft him anyway for value? Or did the 76ers not really give anything up of value to move up?
On June 23 2017 08:50 JimmiC wrote: Holy shit. Dunn lavine and 7th for jimmy butler and first.
Twolves finish top 4 west next year!
HOLY FUCK! Bulls got fleeced!
GarPax is so incompetent. There is no way Butler is worth 9 slots (and not 10 to 1 mind you, 16 to 7, and you pick the guy who screams bust?!) and Dunn+LaVine. If the Bulls got another 1st with top 10 protection we MIGHT be getting close to a deal id make.
On June 23 2017 10:20 Jerubaal wrote: Idk. Did the 76ers really have to trade up for Fultz? It's clear the Cs didn't really want him. Were the Cs going to draft him anyway for value? Or did the 76ers not really give anything up of value to move up?
Fultz could provide the crucial piece in the backcourt to finally materialize the process. Boston also could keep collecting assets and hopefully cash them in post Warriors era. Its a kinda low-risk-high-reward for both PHI and BOS, so essentially a win-win.
The Bulls, on the other hand. The Butler trade does not make sense practically, tactically, rationally, astronomically, emotionally, graphically, stoically, geometrically, sarcastically, culinarily, grammatically, tyranically, organically, geriatrically, and not even ironically. I think it is good for Butler and the wolves though.
The Warriors also bought the pick that became Patrick McCaw, who gave them decent minutes this year.
I got a laugh looking at ESPN's list of team needs. They listed the Warriors, Spurs, Cavs, Rockets and Celtics as "needing" a center and 4/5 of them as "needing" a PF. In fact, they list the Cavs' needs as PG, PF and C while the Cavs are desperately trying to add depth to their SG and SF positions. Do these guys watch NBA games?
On June 23 2017 12:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: The Bulls, on the other hand. The Butler trade does not make sense practically, tactically, rationally, astronomically, emotionally, graphically, stoically, geometrically, sarcastically, culinarily, grammatically, tyranically, organically, geriatrically, and not even ironically. I think it is good for Butler and the wolves though.
my guess is: this is Chicago going into tank mode. They're halfway there now. They'll have a lot of money to spend next year and the next few years.
its a gutsy move by Forman. Barely making the playoffs in the eastern conference is a road to nowhere.
On June 23 2017 10:20 Jerubaal wrote: Idk. Did the 76ers really have to trade up for Fultz? It's clear the Cs didn't really want him. Were the Cs going to draft him anyway for value? Or did the 76ers not really give anything up of value to move up?
Fultz could provide the crucial piece in the backcourt to finally materialize the process. Boston also could keep collecting assets and hopefully cash them in post Warriors era. Its a kinda low-risk-high-reward for both PHI and BOS, so essentially a win-win.
The Bulls, on the other hand. The Butler trade does not make sense practically, tactically, rationally, astronomically, emotionally, graphically, stoically, geometrically, sarcastically, culinarily, grammatically, tyranically, organically, geriatrically, and not even ironically. I think it is good for Butler and the wolves though.
It only makes sense if it was the best offer out there and they figure capitalize now while he's worth the most. If Pacers get more for PG then its awful, but they get nothing or dick all it looks better.
I think this looks bad for the celtics. like they couldn't put up a better package then that?
The Celtics are dicking around their fans and the media. Just like the Bulls will be for the next 5 years. If you aren't on my wavelength, let me explain:
The Celtics do not have, and have not had any player that will lead them to an Eastern Conference title. Its not likely that anyone currently on the team will be a top 3-4 player on a potential Celtics title team. The only players they have that are likely to be on such a team are Brown and Tatum. Everyone else on the team is a 0 when it comes to titles, and is only on the team so that Ainge can attempt to trade them for someone who is not mediocre.
The same is true of the Bulls. GarPax will attempt to sell Chicago on LaVine and Dunn and Markkannen, but none of them will be a starter on a future Bulls team that wins the East (maybe Markannen, I dont watch Europe enough).
On June 23 2017 10:20 Jerubaal wrote: Idk. Did the 76ers really have to trade up for Fultz? It's clear the Cs didn't really want him. Were the Cs going to draft him anyway for value? Or did the 76ers not really give anything up of value to move up?
Fultz could provide the crucial piece in the backcourt to finally materialize the process. Boston also could keep collecting assets and hopefully cash them in post Warriors era. Its a kinda low-risk-high-reward for both PHI and BOS, so essentially a win-win.
The Bulls, on the other hand. The Butler trade does not make sense practically, tactically, rationally, astronomically, emotionally, graphically, stoically, geometrically, sarcastically, culinarily, grammatically, tyranically, organically, geriatrically, and not even ironically. I think it is good for Butler and the wolves though.
It only makes sense if it was the best offer out there and they figure capitalize now while he's worth the most. If Pacers get more for PG then its awful, but they get nothing or dick all it looks better.
I think this looks bad for the celtics. like they couldn't put up a better package then that?
The Celtics are dicking around their fans and the media. Just like the Bulls will be for the next 5 years. If you aren't on my wavelength, let me explain:
The Celtics do not have, and have not had any player that will lead them to an Eastern Conference title. Its not likely that anyone currently on the team will be a top 3-4 player on a potential Celtics title team. The only players they have that are likely to be on such a team are Brown and Tatum. Everyone else on the team is a 0 when it comes to titles, and is only on the team so that Ainge can attempt to trade them for someone who is not mediocre.
The same is true of the Bulls. GarPax will attempt to sell Chicago on LaVine and Dunn and Markkannen, but none of them will be a starter on a future Bulls team that wins the East (maybe Markannen, I dont watch Europe enough).
He played for ARizona state last year. Looks like his upside is a better ryan anderson. So he could be a component. I agree with you that the celts are not there yet. But when you have as many B+ assets as they have they need to leverage them for some A's other wise they will just continue to be a top hlaf of the east team. Which I think is basically what you are saying as well. The big advantage tehy have. Is they can keep swinging for the fences hoping a draft pick or two hit while competing because the nets made the worst trade in NBA history.
I don't evaluate any player on the Bulls or Celtics as B+ at the moment.
Regarding Markannen, if he is Ryan Anderson, that is a failure. If he is Ryan Anderson who is a Draymond/Durant level defender, then we have something. That is a player that can contribute to a real team.
That is the real thing about today's NBA, defense. A drunken 50 year old Chris Mullen could play offense for most teams now, the problem is defense. The league is 2-way players, and at the 4/5 it seems to be much easier to teach good defenders to shoot 3s (they get wide open 3s!) than it is to mold shitty defenders into players. That is why, IMO, this draft is overrated. Who can play defense? Fox & Jackson, maybe Fultz. The rest of the top 10 is a crapshoot.
On June 23 2017 13:41 andrewlt wrote: The Warriors also bought the pick that became Patrick McCaw, who gave them decent minutes this year.
I got a laugh looking at ESPN's list of team needs. They listed the Warriors, Spurs, Cavs, Rockets and Celtics as "needing" a center and 4/5 of them as "needing" a PF. In fact, they list the Cavs' needs as PG, PF and C while the Cavs are desperately trying to add depth to their SG and SF positions. Do these guys watch NBA games?
Ya I def remember that b/c I was hoping the Lakers would get him too haha. There were even reports of Kupchak trying to buy a 2nd round pick (which I thought would be used on him) but he supposedly took too long/ the opportunity closed.
On June 23 2017 13:41 andrewlt wrote: The Warriors also bought the pick that became Patrick McCaw, who gave them decent minutes this year.
I got a laugh looking at ESPN's list of team needs. They listed the Warriors, Spurs, Cavs, Rockets and Celtics as "needing" a center and 4/5 of them as "needing" a PF. In fact, they list the Cavs' needs as PG, PF and C while the Cavs are desperately trying to add depth to their SG and SF positions. Do these guys watch NBA games?
Ya I def remember that b/c I was hoping the Lakers would get him too haha. There were even reports of Kupchak trying to buy a 2nd round pick (which I thought would be used on him) but he supposedly took too long/ the opportunity closed.
Thanks for the link. You have to wonder. Boston wasnt able to make a fair offer. They turned down Cavs offer as well. But they traded Butler for this...
Glad to help man. boston is playing it very conservatively see: #1 - #3 trade. and the cavs have nothing. lbj gutted them out. they are a bunch of overpaid underperforming incohesive talents led by a selfish brand conscious player. they have nowhere to go and no realistic moves in the future with their cap situation and luxury tax. lbj left them high and dry as he did with pat riley et al when the team got old.
I don't like that aspect of Lebron as well, but let me give you an alternative perspective.
Professional athletes are in an insecure situation since they are dispensable and could be traded/waived/cut off all the time. The power is always with the owner and the management. Now, this era of Lebron, Durant, CP3 and company, the players are taking control of their business. It might leave a bad taste in the mouth for some, but, and I don;t know if you're old enough to have witnessed it, players, great and loyal ones at that, have suffered horrible embarrassment when owners get rid of them for business reasons. Cases in point, Raptors Hakeem and Sonics Ewing.
This is good development that players are starting to manage their careers more closely. I don't like it though when it becomes all about the brand and players become too friendly with each other in the court. Otherwise, there is a valid explanation for this phenomenon.
On June 23 2017 21:55 ZenithM wrote: And he brought them a championship too. What a douche.
I beg you. OPEN YOUR EYES. It was IRVING who brought them the championship. lbj was ready to surrender in game 5 last year, until irving carried them and went insane for games 5,6, and 7. the same thing happened in miami. wade was reported to scream at him "you will not again cost me this championship" as he disappeared late in 2012. And who could forget how allen handed him his second championship? lbj has got to be the luckiest of all superstars.
On June 23 2017 22:06 ZenithM wrote: Can't we say both Lebron and Kyrie brought them a championship?
I would agree, if lbj showed that he had the courage to win it. he is all party and highlights when they steamroll their opponents, peacocking and highfiving like middle school bullies. but when the game and series is on the line, he bricks his shots, he fails on his responsibilities, and defers to kyrie. i would like to point out duncan manu and tp. yes, you could say duncan was monumental in their championship, but you could make a noncontroversial argument that all three of them won it because all three of them made the effort. the same thing also applies to shaq and kobe.
So I imagine I can't bring up stats either to show that Lebron indeed contributed ever so slightly to this championship? Because he's a stat-chaser and stats are hollow and all that?
I mean this when i say this - im neither a troll nor a lebron hater. and im not dogmatic about it, its just a great game that i passionately follow. based on my watching the nba closely in the last half decade, he is nowhere near as great as people say he is. he is barely in my top 5 to be honest. this based on the aforementined games and data that i read and saw here and there. but, i am willing to consider a good argument when i see one. so your stats, lets have it...
On June 23 2017 22:06 ZenithM wrote: Can't we say both Lebron and Kyrie brought them a championship?
I would agree, if lbj showed that he had the courage to win it. he is all party and highlights when they steamroll their opponents, peacocking and highfiving like middle school bullies. but when the game and series is on the line, he bricks his shots, he fails on his responsibilities, and defers to kyrie. i would like to point out duncan manu and tp. yes, you could say duncan was monumental in their championship, but you could make a noncontroversial argument that all three of them won it because all three of them made the effort. the same thing also applies to shaq and kobe.
Yes, but there are better ways to do it than becoming a mercenary and gutting teams in the process
On June 23 2017 22:23 Keyboard Warrior wrote: I mean this when i say this - im neither a troll nor a lebron hater. and im not dogmatic about it, its just a great game that i passionately follow. based on my watching the nba closely in the last half decade, he is nowhere near as great as people say he is. he is barely in my top 5 to be honest. this based on the aforementined games and data that i read and saw here and there. but, i am willing to consider a good argument when i see one. so your stats, lets have it...
What data? Because if you've been following closely as you say you do, all data points to his greatness
Guy made 1 play and suddenly he is the hero goat lol. is he also goat because he made 6 or 8 straight points down the last few seconds of game 5 in this years finals? no, not when he fails on defensive assignments and allow iguodala and durant to dunk and shoot in his face all game especially in crucial moments.
On June 23 2017 22:06 ZenithM wrote: Can't we say both Lebron and Kyrie brought them a championship?
I would agree, if lbj showed that he had the courage to win it. he is all party and highlights when they steamroll their opponents, peacocking and highfiving like middle school bullies. but when the game and series is on the line, he bricks his shots, he fails on his responsibilities, and defers to kyrie. i would like to point out duncan manu and tp. yes, you could say duncan was monumental in their championship, but you could make a noncontroversial argument that all three of them won it because all three of them made the effort. the same thing also applies to shaq and kobe.
Imagine what great player he would be if he had a game saving come from no where superior athleticism block to secure the win in a game 7 of the finals. That would be a dude i could get behind as the best of his generation. That would show heart and determination
Anyways as keyboard warrior continues to troll for fights about lbj, i cant stop being excited about the twolves. This is there best roster since Garnett and starbury! I wonder how much their team d will improve with butler.
My only regret is that they play in the West. They would legitimately improve the NBA a hundredfold if they were an East team. Read somewhere that they are still shopping for pgs for Rubio, anyone knowledgeable here confirm. Thanks.
Yeah being in the West really makes it way harder for budding teams to even make it to the playoffs. I was watching the draft yesterday (first time I do that, probably last as well, not really interesting :D) and Lavar Ball said something like "the Lakers will make the playoffs this year!". I know he's a boastful guy when it comes to his sons, but I actually thought he could have a point if the Lakers were in the East :D. Especially if Paul George and Jimmy G. Buckets go to West teams (or Boston for PG). Unless I missed something, the East will be ridiculously weak this year.
Let me share something funny. While watching the draft last night, something clicked. I suddenly liked Lavar Ball. I used to hate his guts and ugly face to hell. But last night, suddenly it all made sense. Lavar Ball might be an insufferable egotistical attention whore douchebag, but it's all a show, all so that Lonzo and his children can have the best opportunity to succeed. I even empathize with Skip saying that he can't blame Lavar for overloving his sons. Damn Skip. Last night he was genuinely a proud parent and was humble and respectful, He was selfying around Coach K and other sports celebrities. ESPN, that vile bottom dweller, egged him on BBB, but he handled it very well. The clincher was the hat throw when they exited.
And now to focus a bit, we may ridicule and hate him for BBB, but it's honestly a good move. He may believe his sons are the second coming of Jesus or not, but taking full control the merchandise element of his sons careers. It is unprecedented, brash, and ill-advised. It may torpedo and the Balls may be forced later to bargain with Nike or any takers at a lower price, but no matter, he is in the NBA now and the opportunities are endless. But imagine, just imagine, if Lonzo blows up. Nike and Adidas would be rushing to buy the brand for at least at $2B.
And now, more than ever, regardless of the result, the spotlight is on Lonzo - which is what Lavar wanted all along.
On June 23 2017 22:06 ZenithM wrote: Can't we say both Lebron and Kyrie brought them a championship?
I would agree, if lbj showed that he had the courage to win it. he is all party and highlights when they steamroll their opponents, peacocking and highfiving like middle school bullies. but when the game and series is on the line, he bricks his shots, he fails on his responsibilities, and defers to kyrie. i would like to point out duncan manu and tp. yes, you could say duncan was monumental in their championship, but you could make a noncontroversial argument that all three of them won it because all three of them made the effort. the same thing also applies to shaq and kobe.
Imagine what great player he would be if he had a game saving come from no where superior athleticism block to secure the win in a game 7 of the finals. That would be a dude i could get behind as the best of his generation. That would show heart and determination
Anyways as keyboard warrior continues to troll for fights about lbj, i cant stop being excited about the twolves. This is there best roster since Garnett and starbury! I wonder how much their team d will improve with butler.
My only regret is that they play in the West. They would legitimately improve the NBA a hundredfold if they were an East team. Read somewhere that they are still shopping for pgs for Rubio, anyone knowledgeable here confirm. Thanks.
The T-Wolves just suck at drafting pgs. Why do they keep drafting pgs?
On June 23 2017 22:06 ZenithM wrote: Can't we say both Lebron and Kyrie brought them a championship?
I would agree, if lbj showed that he had the courage to win it. he is all party and highlights when they steamroll their opponents, peacocking and highfiving like middle school bullies. but when the game and series is on the line, he bricks his shots, he fails on his responsibilities, and defers to kyrie. i would like to point out duncan manu and tp. yes, you could say duncan was monumental in their championship, but you could make a noncontroversial argument that all three of them won it because all three of them made the effort. the same thing also applies to shaq and kobe.
Imagine what great player he would be if he had a game saving come from no where superior athleticism block to secure the win in a game 7 of the finals. That would be a dude i could get behind as the best of his generation. That would show heart and determination
Anyways as keyboard warrior continues to troll for fights about lbj, i cant stop being excited about the twolves. This is there best roster since Garnett and starbury! I wonder how much their team d will improve with butler.
My only regret is that they play in the West. They would legitimately improve the NBA a hundredfold if they were an East team. Read somewhere that they are still shopping for pgs for Rubio, anyone knowledgeable here confirm. Thanks.
The T-Wolves just suck at drafting pgs. Why do they keep drafting pgs?
Only problem right now is they still don't have enough outside/3 pt. shooting. Rubio, Wiggins, Butler don't really do that.
Wiggins is definitely the worst starter they have now too, but they will probably try to trade Ricky.
On June 23 2017 23:15 Twinkle Toes wrote: Let me share something funny. While watching the draft last night, something clicked. I suddenly liked Lavar Ball. I used to hate his guts and ugly face to hell. But last night, suddenly it all made sense. Lavar Ball might be an insufferable egotistical attention whore douchebag, but it's all a show, all so that Lonzo and his children can have the best opportunity to succeed. I even empathize with Skip saying that he can't blame Lavar for overloving his sons. Damn Skip. Last night he was genuinely a proud parent and was humble and respectful, He was selfying around Coach K and other sports celebrities. ESPN, that vile bottom dweller, egged him on BBB, but he handled it very well. The clincher was the hat throw when they exited.
Don't get fooled. Think about how much of the spotlight he stole from the other players. The draft is about the families only when the player gets interviewed and takes the opportunity to honor their family. The fact that he's orchestrated for so much of the draft coverage to be about him instead of the players is despicable. Doesn't matter that he composed himself last night.
Being a jackass for your own gain is reprehensible but the idea that doing the exact same harm to society with your jackass behavior becomes okay if the benefit is for your kids is just wrong. People aren't expected to be perfect -- they can care more about themselves than others, they can care more about their family than strangers, they can care more about their country than other countries. But there are reasonable amounts of selfishness and preferential treatment allowed and then there are unreasonable amounts. He crosses the line. Just clear your mind and think "has this guy been a jackass?" and if the answer is yes, then don't let his motivations ameliorate his behavior. He's just a jackass.
Not saying everything he does crosses the line. Not saying the media isn't responsible too. Etc etc there are a ton of angles to cover. Point is that he doesn't get a pass for bad behavior just because he's doing it for his kids.
edit: btw, what's the point of phil jackson if he can't get the most out of porzingis? wasn't jackson some legendary player-tamer? i don't think he's playing mind games to get the optimal result for the knicks. he's lost touch and it's ego controlling his mouth now.
On June 23 2017 22:06 ZenithM wrote: Can't we say both Lebron and Kyrie brought them a championship?
I would agree, if lbj showed that he had the courage to win it. he is all party and highlights when they steamroll their opponents, peacocking and highfiving like middle school bullies. but when the game and series is on the line, he bricks his shots, he fails on his responsibilities, and defers to kyrie. i would like to point out duncan manu and tp. yes, you could say duncan was monumental in their championship, but you could make a noncontroversial argument that all three of them won it because all three of them made the effort. the same thing also applies to shaq and kobe.
Imagine what great player he would be if he had a game saving come from no where superior athleticism block to secure the win in a game 7 of the finals. That would be a dude i could get behind as the best of his generation. That would show heart and determination
Anyways as keyboard warrior continues to troll for fights about lbj, i cant stop being excited about the twolves. This is there best roster since Garnett and starbury! I wonder how much their team d will improve with butler.
My only regret is that they play in the West. They would legitimately improve the NBA a hundredfold if they were an East team. Read somewhere that they are still shopping for pgs for Rubio, anyone knowledgeable here confirm. Thanks.
The T-Wolves just suck at drafting pgs. Why do they keep drafting pgs?
Only problem right now is they still don't have enough outside/3 pt. shooting. Rubio, Wiggins, Butler don't really do that.
Wiggins is definitely the worst starter they have now too, but they will probably try to trade Ricky.
Id say their worst is who ever they put at tge 4/5 i know you are all low on wiggins. But he is the same age as some of the guys drafted he still has upside, putting up 25 a night constantly is a skill. If he can play better d which he has shown he can at the 2 and if his 3 stroke improves he can be a great 3rd best player on this roster.
The main problem isn't his offense though, its his horrendous defense. 2nd worst defender behind I. Thomas last season. I am assuming Dieng is at 4, and KAT is at 5 btw.
edit: I agree JimmyJ, I feel like they type of player he is is undervalued right now in the league.
if Colangelo is being honest in the quote below then i think he has been reading to many power of positive thinking books. he somehow thinks if he creates an expectation then a player ( embiid ) will meet it. he did this same kind of shit with Bosh in Toronto. Its probably Colangelo's biggest weakness as GM/Prez/BBOps Guy.
The key word in BC's comment is "expects". Let's see if common sense prevails and Embiid plays with restrictions.
IMO, If Embiid plays next year without minutes restrictions he is going to sustain an injury that will knock him out for 4+ weeks.
Last year Embiid played 29 games out of 40; never played back-to-back and played under 30 minutes every game.
i found a great way to "smell test" these advanced defense stats. Take Player X. Examine every team mate of player X and their defensive efficiency with player X on the floor. Then examine the same team mate's defensive efficiency in general.
If every player on the team has their defensive efficiency decline in the presence player X then Player X is very bad ( Irving, Korver, Jamal Crawford) . If every team mate has their defensive efficiency improve in the presence of Player X then the guy is a very good defender ( Paul , Green , Beverley, Davis) .
If the majority of team mates ( but not all ) have worse defensive efficiency in the presence of Player X then Player X is below average ( Derozan ).
i found a great way to "smell test" these advanced defense stats. Take Player X. Examine every team mate of player X and their defensive efficiency with player X on the floor. Then examine the same team mate's defensive efficiency in general.
If every player on the team has their defensive efficiency decline in the presence player X then Player X is very bad ( Irving, Korver, Jamal Crawford) . If every team mate has their defensive efficiency improve in the presence of Player X then the guy is a very good defender ( Paul , Green , Beverley, Davis) .
If the majority of team mates ( but not all ) have worse defensive efficiency in the presence of Player X then Player X is below average ( Derozan ).
Ya that's definitely the best way to do it b/c defense is of course a team-strategy and the stats don't necessarily tell the whole story. In this case though, if you rank that low and in the bottom 2, there is usually something to it that makes it harder to overlook (and less motivating to delve deeper).
Good thing is that after the trade, you would assume Butler will get the assignment on the other team's best offensive players so that will definitely help Wiggins in this "stat"-sense. I would be surprised at seeing him this low next season, but it will definitely make it much more interesting to look deeper into it like you explained above.
edit:That's true JimmiC, I think ppl were definitely trying to troll/bait you previously so I get you. And I don't but that would be something else that would be interesting to look into.
On June 24 2017 02:12 JimmiC wrote: 99% of players will never be a top 5 player. Butler who we are all gushing about is not a top 5 player. All wiggins needs to do to be a huge asset for the twolves is be a great 3rd best player. Which I think he can do. Do you have the advanced stats on wiggins post Lavine? What has been posted so far is his full season numbers.
i love aggressive agreement posts. i'd say 5% of players make it into the top-5 for 1 year of their career. Wiggins will be a Derozan level of All Star.
his defensive xRAPM got worse after Lavine got hurt. its his worst defensive performance of his career. he went from -2.5 to -3.16 in the ~2.5 months Lavine was hurt.
Edit: The second point is 2016-2017 Harden. The graph says that it's from all individual seasons since 1973 but that's just wrong, not enough points, the guy just reused the same template. It's just the 2016-2017 regular season.
Edit: The second point is 2016-2017 Harden. The graph says that it's from all individual seasons since 1973 but that's just wrong, not enough points, the guy just reused the same template. It's just the 2016-2017 regular season.
Yup, WB and Harden, it was just for the last season.
not every team carried 15 this year and in previous years. they dress 12 though, the CBA is allowing 2-way contracts next year so those #s will change as well. but this is all nit-picky stuff.
TLDR; Wiggins will evolve into an above average player and make the all star team once and a while. that's my projection. Right now he is below average player. Nash will remain the best Canadian ever to play in the NBA.
Edit: The second point is 2016-2017 Harden. The graph says that it's from all individual seasons since 1973 but that's just wrong, not enough points, the guy just reused the same template. It's just the 2016-2017 regular season.
Yup, WB and Harden, it was just for the last season.
I mean the outlier in the top right, who also has to be good on defense. There's no way that is either Westbrook or Harden. I'm more inclined to believe that Harden is the outlier on the bottom right, though that could be IT2.
Looking at the raw numbers, the one on the top right is indeed Westbrook, which is incredibly odd. Only thing I can think about is that the defensive numbers overrate the defensive rebounds his big men gift to him and are not about playing defense at all. A glance at the top "defensive" players on that ranking shows that it puts too much weight to raw defensive rebounding stats.
They go really into detail in their glossary stuff if interested but it's based on bball reference's BPM... So it's plus/minus and based on boxscore stats per possession . It is not a perfect stat or even the best out there but it's main use is being able to compare players from different eras (past eras is probably more correct).
edit:since based on box-score it is obviously a better gauge for offense than defense
Edit: The second point is 2016-2017 Harden. The graph says that it's from all individual seasons since 1973 but that's just wrong, not enough points, the guy just reused the same template. It's just the 2016-2017 regular season.
Yup, WB and Harden, it was just for the last season.
I mean the outlier in the top right, who also has to be good on defense. There's no way that is either Westbrook or Harden. I'm more inclined to believe that Harden is the outlier on the bottom right, though that could be IT2.
Looking at the raw numbers, the one on the top right is indeed Westbrook, which is incredibly odd. Only thing I can think about is that the defensive numbers overrate the defensive rebounds his big men gift to him and are not about playing defense at all. A glance at the top "defensive" players on that ranking shows that it puts too much weight to raw defensive rebounding stats.
One thing worth mentioning is that Westbrook isn't a terribly bad defender according to metrics like DRPM. He's slightly in negative but Harden is way worse. Harden just doesn't expand any effort at all in defense. Westbrook at least gambles for steals and jumps for rebounds :D.
Interesting gamble by the Raptors on their 23rd pick, In general, I like the calculated risks Ujiri takes. Anunoby tore his right ACL in the middle of January this year.
Speaking of gambles: Caboclo is running out of time. On the positive side: he was the best player in the D-League finals this year.
Edit: The second point is 2016-2017 Harden. The graph says that it's from all individual seasons since 1973 but that's just wrong, not enough points, the guy just reused the same template. It's just the 2016-2017 regular season.
Yup, WB and Harden, it was just for the last season.
I mean the outlier in the top right, who also has to be good on defense. There's no way that is either Westbrook or Harden. I'm more inclined to believe that Harden is the outlier on the bottom right, though that could be IT2.
Looking at the raw numbers, the one on the top right is indeed Westbrook, which is incredibly odd. Only thing I can think about is that the defensive numbers overrate the defensive rebounds his big men gift to him and are not about playing defense at all. A glance at the top "defensive" players on that ranking shows that it puts too much weight to raw defensive rebounding stats.
One thing worth mentioning is that Westbrook isn't a terribly bad defender according to metrics like DRPM. He's slightly in negative but Harden is way worse. Harden just doesn't expand any effort at all in defense. Westbrook at least gambles for steals and jumps for rebounds :D.
I disagree. Harden was horrible in the last couple of years, but made good improvements on his defense this year, and he has his stats to show for it. Westbrook on the other hand has the worst possible defense for a franchise star. The steals and the rebound you mentioned are analytically detrimental to his team as a matter of fact. Westbrook always goes for those risky reaches and steals that often lead to 4 on 3 advantage for his opponents. They are not the Ginobili or Chris Paul type defensive reads that anticipate passing lanes and force players towards help. They are often wild irrational attempts that hurt the Thunders defensive schemes, whatever scheme they are running.
His rebounds are also a negative. Notice this trend in the present guard-based teams to clear out the paint for guards to rebound. OKC runs a similar scheme, but on steroids. Kanter and Adams box out deliberately for Westbrook regardless of the situation for a couple of reasons. It allows the team to hit the ground running and proceed with their run and gun quicker than the defense could react. How much this Westbrook-rebound system hastens and improves this is still debatable. Second, it is allows for the Westbrook triple-double season. This is not a problem in and of itself. as there are advantages to running transition offense this way. But it can be abused, and Westbrook does not possess enough maturity nor IQ to avoid such abuses. How many times have we seen Westbrook leave his man early in order to clog the lane for the rebound? He also has the tendency to ball watch while he is looking for ways to pad his triple-double.
On June 23 2017 23:15 Twinkle Toes wrote: Let me share something funny. While watching the draft last night, something clicked. I suddenly liked Lavar Ball. I used to hate his guts and ugly face to hell. But last night, suddenly it all made sense. Lavar Ball might be an insufferable egotistical attention whore douchebag, but it's all a show, all so that Lonzo and his children can have the best opportunity to succeed. I even empathize with Skip saying that he can't blame Lavar for overloving his sons. Damn Skip. Last night he was genuinely a proud parent and was humble and respectful, He was selfying around Coach K and other sports celebrities. ESPN, that vile bottom dweller, egged him on BBB, but he handled it very well. The clincher was the hat throw when they exited.
Don't get fooled. Think about how much of the spotlight he stole from the other players. The draft is about the families only when the player gets interviewed and takes the opportunity to honor their family. The fact that he's orchestrated for so much of the draft coverage to be about him instead of the players is despicable. Doesn't matter that he composed himself last night.
Being a jackass for your own gain is reprehensible but the idea that doing the exact same harm to society with your jackass behavior becomes okay if the benefit is for your kids is just wrong. People aren't expected to be perfect -- they can care more about themselves than others, they can care more about their family than strangers, they can care more about their country than other countries. But there are reasonable amounts of selfishness and preferential treatment allowed and then there are unreasonable amounts. He crosses the line. Just clear your mind and think "has this guy been a jackass?" and if the answer is yes, then don't let his motivations ameliorate his behavior. He's just a jackass.
Not saying everything he does crosses the line. Not saying the media isn't responsible too. Etc etc there are a ton of angles to cover. Point is that he doesn't get a pass for bad behavior just because he's doing it for his kids.
I'm trying to read what you said carefully. I agree, yes, he is a loud mouth egotistical jackass. Yes, he is annoying, Yes, he is doing it for personal gain.
But in what way is he harming society by being a jackass?
On June 24 2017 11:39 Twinkle Toes wrote: Westbrook on the other hand has the worst possible defense for a franchise star. The steals and the rebound you mentioned are analytically detrimental to his team as a matter of fact. Westbrook always goes for those risky reaches and steals that often lead to 4 on 3 advantage for his opponents. They are not the Ginobili or Chris Paul type defensive reads that anticipate passing lanes and force players towards help. They are often wild irrational attempts that hurt the Thunders defensive schemes, whatever scheme they are running.
interesting insight. do you watch a lot of OKC? i watch ~3 OKC games a year so its hard for me to get that granular.
On June 24 2017 07:52 JimmiC wrote: I think the key with all these stats is not to overate and not ignore. For some reason it feels like most people pick a side on advanced stats and either treat them like the bible or competently ignore. I think they are a tool that can tell you some things but the eye test still matters
Well, I read up on the creator's description of bpm on bkref.com. He pretty much flat out says that the metric is pretty good on offense but extremely limited (read: useless) on defense. Most NBA advanced stats are generally more useful and accurate on offense.
Defense is still much more dependent on the eye test. There are trackers nowadays that can measure contests but the popular advanced stats don't really use them. The stats still overuse defensive rebounds, steals and blocks which are notorious for putting stat chasers woefully out of position to actually play defense.
On June 24 2017 07:52 JimmiC wrote: I think the key with all these stats is not to overate and not ignore. For some reason it feels like most people pick a side on advanced stats and either treat them like the bible or competently ignore. I think they are a tool that can tell you some things but the eye test still matters
Well, I read up on the creator's description of bpm on bkref.com. He pretty much flat out says that the metric is pretty good on offense but extremely limited (read: useless) on defense. Most NBA advanced stats are generally more useful and accurate on offense.
Defense is still much more dependent on the eye test. There are trackers nowadays that can measure contests but the popular advanced stats don't really use them. The stats still overuse defensive rebounds, steals and blocks which are notorious for putting stat chasers woefully out of position to actually play defense.
On June 24 2017 07:52 JimmiC wrote: I think the key with all these stats is not to overate and not ignore. For some reason it feels like most people pick a side on advanced stats and either treat them like the bible or competently ignore. I think they are a tool that can tell you some things but the eye test still matters
Well, I read up on the creator's description of bpm on bkref.com. He pretty much flat out says that the metric is pretty good on offense but extremely limited (read: useless) on defense. Most NBA advanced stats are generally more useful and accurate on offense.
Defense is still much more dependent on the eye test. There are trackers nowadays that can measure contests but the popular advanced stats don't really use them. The stats still overuse defensive rebounds, steals and blocks which are notorious for putting stat chasers woefully out of position to actually play defense.
I would say box-score stats, not necessarily advanced stats, are a better gauge of offense than defense. But I agree with everything else. I actually edited that into my previous post a few minutes before you posted this too, great point.
edit: JimmyJ did also post the RPM (non box) stats, where Wiggins is also in the bottom 10 fwiw ..and WB and Harden's defensive impact is more attuned to where you probably think
On June 24 2017 07:52 JimmiC wrote: I think the key with all these stats is not to overate and not ignore. For some reason it feels like most people pick a side on advanced stats and either treat them like the bible or competently ignore. I think they are a tool that can tell you some things but the eye test still matters
Well, I read up on the creator's description of bpm on bkref.com. He pretty much flat out says that the metric is pretty good on offense but extremely limited (read: useless) on defense. Most NBA advanced stats are generally more useful and accurate on offense.
Defense is still much more dependent on the eye test. There are trackers nowadays that can measure contests but the popular advanced stats don't really use them. The stats still overuse defensive rebounds, steals and blocks which are notorious for putting stat chasers woefully out of position to actually play defense.
Also, the "contested shot" stat is very dubious. For example, it has Durant's' famous G3 shot as contested. That might as.well have been pregame warmups.
Thing is, it's a good development that we are finding new and more complex ways of valuing players and performance other than the traditional P/R/A/S/B/TO/F. It is not complete, and it is not perfect, but improvements are being made and this is a step to the right direction.
Magic Johnson: "D'Angelo is an excellent player. He has the talent to be an All-Star. We want to thank him for what he did for us. But what I needed was a leader. I needed somebody also that can make the other players better and also [somebody] that players want to play with."
On June 24 2017 12:50 andrewlt wrote: Defense is still much more dependent on the eye test. There are trackers nowadays that can measure contests but the popular advanced stats don't really use them. The stats still overuse defensive rebounds, steals and blocks which are notorious for putting stat chasers woefully out of position to actually play defense.
defensive adjusted plus/minus does not incorporate rebounds, blocks, steals etc. defensive adjusted plus/minus is very effective at identifying the very best and very worst defenders that play 30+ minutes/game.
On June 24 2017 14:50 Twinkle Toes wrote: Thing is, it's a good development that we are finding new and more complex ways of valuing players and performance other than the traditional P/R/A/S/B/TO/F. It is not complete, and it is not perfect, but improvements are being made and this is a step to the right direction.
yep, new stats are slowly improving how players can be objectively judged. with any new stat many people do not understand its limits and where its weakest and why its at its weakest so they'll just throw the stat away as meaningless.
Adjusted plus minus takes into account the quality of all other 9 people on the court. There are several Timberwolves with very good defensive APM. In fact, when Minnie's #2 defender went down late in the year as i noted in last year's thread Minnie's defense collapsed. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sports/515339-nba-2016-17-season?page=61#1205
Adjusted +/- is basically a system of 600+ equations with the # of unknowns being the players who played in the NBA. You solve for the unknowns in an analogous way that you solve for a system of 2 equations and 2 unknowns in grade 9 math. Because there are more equations than unknowns, an overdetermined system, you solve for the unknowns ( which are the individual NBA players ) via Regression. Every NBA line up playing against each other is an equation with 10 unknowns with a (+) on the side of the team that scored more points during their time on the court.
As a "smell test" for the results on Wiggins check out his impact on team mates. There is a mountain of data on Wiggins playing with all levels of team mates over his 3 year career. He has yet to make any team mate better defensively. The vast majoritty of his mate's defensive efficiency declines in Wiggins presence. There are a few Wiggins team mates whose defensive efficiency stays the same. http://www.82games.com/1617/1617MIN2.HTM
On the contrary, many Minnesota players experienced an improvement in their defensive efficiency in the presence of Nemanja Bjelica and Ricky Rubio.
Wiggins is 1 of the worst defenders in the NBA and finding that is the easiest thing for any advanced stat. The hard part of an advanced defensive stat is to determine whether or not a very slightly below average defender is as good as a dead-on average defender. That is a tough problem. Determining the worst in the league is easy and its been a solved problem for ~10 years now. The guy who solved this issue using Adjusted +/- was at the forefront of research in this area 14 years ago and he is now employed by Cleveland. http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
Wiggins is a bad defender and that is part of his evaluation as a player. Watching him play defense in ~20 games this year he looked horrible. Not surprisingly , this season, every team mate defends worse in his presence.. examine the 82games.com 5 player lineup data to verify this fact with cold hard #s. In his career he has improved no one defensively.. a few team mates stayed the same. Wiggins is a defensive black hole.
where am i "bragging"? i use new statistical methods. try them out. if those methods make good predictions i hold on to them. if the new stats make lousy predictions i stop using them. The credit goes to guys like Dan Rosenbaum... not me.
my Raptor projections turn out to be more correct than any one else in the thread because i watch the Raptors more than any one else in the thread. this does not make me some kind of savant. more observations makes a huge difference.
i'm cautious with how i use advanced stats and default right back down to vanilla +/- as another smell test.
I'd rather hear other's opinions because you swing from not a top 5 player but multiple allstar. Pretty damn good. To one of the worst players and everywhere in between.
I've never said Wiggins was one of the worst players. I said he is one of the worst defenders. You are mischaracterizing my posts on Wiggins. players improve as they move into their late 20s. Derozan was a below average player 5 years ago. He is now an all star. Wiggins will ascend along a similar path of improvement going from below average player to allstar. its a projection i've made several times and it has not changed. For completeness, I am not claiming he is a Derozan clone.
without a rebuttal to the "smell test" i employ this convo can't go any further.
again you are mischaracterizing my comments. right now, Wiggins is a below average player because his defense is very bad.
On June 25 2017 09:03 JimmiC wrote: "the super advanced stats are going to look bad because Minnesota is a sub .333 team. everything u measure will look bad."
i said that when minnesota was a sub .333 team. they are no longer a sub .333 team. furthermore, that quote was discussing team advanced stats drawn from the small sample size of the very start of the year when minnie started 6-19. not individual stats drawn across several years of Wiggins playing in the NBA. Several Timberwolves have solid individual advanced stats last year.
according to advanced stats minnesota has 3 good defenders (Gorgui Dieng , Rubio, and that guy that got hurt late in the year), 3 very bad defenders ( lavine, wiggins, townes), and the rest of the roster muddled between below average and above average.
the lower the # of the group of 3 good defenders (Rubio, Dieng or Bjelica) on the floor the worse Minnie's defense got last year. this was apparent and observable in games which is why i said their defense was fucked when Bjelica got hurt. which it was.
Lavine's exit will improve minnesota's defense. it'll interesting to see if Lavine's defense improves under a different system in chicago.
So you have allowed to him be a 4out10 to the 6th best player in the league and you can still feel like you were right!
the probability of Wiggins evolving into the 6th best player in the league is close to zero. after seeing giannis antetokounmpo in the playoffs he looks to be on that path to being a top 6 player in the league. i can not make a more granular projection than what i've provided due to the limited # of observations i've made of Wiggins. My more granular projections occur with the Raptors.
I have to say I'm with team JimmyJ on this one, but for disclosure sake I'm a big proponent of RAPM.
Wiggins is flashy but not a good NBA player as of now. I think Derozan is a good comparison for him, particularly when compared to early years of DeMar. Wiggins could develop into a good NBA player but I don't see him cracking top 20 type player. I could be wrong.
But he needs to get a shitload more efficient relative to his usage and improve his D a lot. Best case I see for Wiggins is a Derozan or Michael Redd but I think his career will be more Rudy Gay.
Not good may be a little harsh. Wiggins makes a positive impact on offensive end but needs to get more efficient to take his game up a notch. Particularly if he's going to maintain a usage rate near 30.
His defensive impact is diabolical though. It's up there with worst in the NBA, which is super frustrating as he has the physical tools to be so much better but just doesn't seem to care.
I wouldn't disagree that he still has room to grow but it's concerning that he isn't improving as much as he needs to an both ends of the floor.
I see a Rudy Gay/Michael Redd career for Wiggins. I think he'll be a guy who puts up good numbera but doesn't really impact games the way the best players do. That's just my hot take though. He could be a lot better and good luck to him--I hope he makes it. Just don't see it happening.
Jimmy gonna Jimmy but he makes some fair points about the Wiggster I agree with.
The hype does work both ways for him though because that plus his raw numbers are going to get him a max when he hits RFA. Once he's making $150 mill a year then we'll really see the blowtorch applied to his game.
On June 24 2017 15:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: Magic Johnson: "D'Angelo is an excellent player. He has the talent to be an All-Star. We want to thank him for what he did for us. But what I needed was a leader. I needed somebody also that can make the other players better and also [somebody] that players want to play with."
magic stahp! he ded already!
On June 24 2017 23:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Adjusted plus minus takes into account the quality of all other 9 people on the court. There are several Timberwolves with very good defensive APM. In fact, when Minnie's #2 defender went down late in the year as i noted in last year's thread Minnie's defense collapsed. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sports/515339-nba-2016-17-season?page=61#1205
Adjusted +/- is basically a system of 600+ equations with the # of unknowns being the players who played in the NBA. You solve for the unknowns in an analogous way that you solve for a system of 2 equations and 2 unknowns in grade 9 math. Because there are more equations than unknowns, an overdetermined system, you solve for the unknowns ( which are the individual NBA players ) via Regression. Every NBA line up playing against each other is an equation with 10 unknowns with a (+) on the side of the team that scored more points during their time on the court.
As a "smell test" for the results on Wiggins check out his impact on team mates. There is a mountain of data on Wiggins playing with all levels of team mates over his 3 year career. He has yet to make any team mate better defensively. The vast majoritty of his mate's defensive efficiency declines in Wiggins presence. There are a few Wiggins team mates whose defensive efficiency stays the same. http://www.82games.com/1617/1617MIN2.HTM
On the contrary, many Minnesota players experienced an improvement in their defensive efficiency in the presence of Nemanja Bjelica and Ricky Rubio.
Wiggins is 1 of the worst defenders in the NBA and finding that is the easiest thing for any advanced stat. The hard part of an advanced defensive stat is to determine whether or not a very slightly below average defender is as good as a dead-on average defender. That is a tough problem. Determining the worst in the league is easy and its been a solved problem for ~10 years now. The guy who solved this issue using Adjusted +/- was at the forefront of research in this area 14 years ago and he is now employed by Cleveland. http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
As a math "geek" who got interested in basketball because of moreyball, advanced stat, and big data, i've got to say this is one of the most laughably ignorantly idiotic statements ever.
I'm willing to bet you do not understand the normative and operative functions of these formulas in evaluating players.
Heck, I'm even willing to bet you barely understand half of them.
I'm loving it. One know-it-all name drops and terms drops about something he knows nothing about, then another know-it-all makes his own claim of arrogance/ignorance!
On June 25 2017 23:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm loving it. One know-it-all name drops and terms drops about something he knows nothing about, then another know-it-all makes his own claim of arrogance/ignorance!
Hey, I'm taking exception if you are talking about me.
It is he after all who throws out all these big stat words and waive it around people's faces as if they were words uttered by god himself. I would like to explain why he is wrong, in full mathematical detail, but the ball is on his court since all throughout this thread he is the one doing all the term dropping.
NOTE: No self-respecting mathematician or statistician would make bold absolute claims without any context
NOTE 2: Not specially since the methods and equations are relatively new
NOTE 3: And not most especially without providing consideration for regression ridges and other variations.
TLDR: He is the one making all this absolute claims which are biased and are an abuse of data. He barely even understands it and would make for a good leader of the "iamveysmart" group
anyone think if houston actually trying to get cp3 is a good idea? i feel like the money could/should be better spent elsewhere or do you think that harden can be just as effective off the ball?
On June 25 2017 23:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm loving it. One know-it-all name drops and terms drops about something he knows nothing about, then another know-it-all makes his own claim of arrogance/ignorance!
Hey, I'm taking exception if you are talking about me.
It is he after all who throws out all these big stat words and waive it around people's faces as if they were words uttered by god himself. I would like to explain why he is wrong, in full mathematical detail, but the ball is on his court since all throughout this thread he is the one doing all the term dropping.
NOTE: No self-respecting mathematician or statistician would make bold absolute claims without any context
NOTE 2: Not specially since the methods and equations are relatively new
NOTE 3: And not most especially without providing consideration for regression ridges and other variations.
TLDR: He is the one making all this absolute claims which are biased and are an abuse of data. He barely even understands it and would make for a good leader of the "iamveysmart" group
No offense, but this is a rather "Jimmy-like" post. You've made a lot of theses, but you haven't really explained exactly what you mean or given any evidence.
We're all extremely interested to hear what you have to say about it.
So the general consensus seems to be that Love is on the table for George if the Pacers want it, which they seem not to.
Am I the only one who would be jumping at that if I'm Indy? Love is still a really good player IMO who has sacrificed a lot of his game to fit in with Irving/LBJ.
I get they want to rebuild/go young, but sh%t, get Love for a year and let him remind the league how good he can be and then flip him for a good package of picks/young players. Love was a legit MVP candidate when on Minny. Can't believe the Pacers have no interest.
On June 25 2017 23:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm loving it. One know-it-all name drops and terms drops about something he knows nothing about, then another know-it-all makes his own claim of arrogance/ignorance!
Hey, I'm taking exception if you are talking about me.
It is he after all who throws out all these big stat words and waive it around people's faces as if they were words uttered by god himself. I would like to explain why he is wrong, in full mathematical detail, but the ball is on his court since all throughout this thread he is the one doing all the term dropping.
NOTE: No self-respecting mathematician or statistician would make bold absolute claims without any context
NOTE 2: Not specially since the methods and equations are relatively new
NOTE 3: And not most especially without providing consideration for regression ridges and other variations.
TLDR: He is the one making all this absolute claims which are biased and are an abuse of data. He barely even understands it and would make for a good leader of the "iamveysmart" group
No offense, but this is a rather "Jimmy-like" post. You've made a lot of theses, but you haven't really explained exactly what you mean or given any evidence.
We're all extremely interested to hear what you have to say about it.
It's cool none taken.
We should give him a chance though, since it's him blabbering about APM advanced stats and all. Once we have a clear idea what he is actually talking about and his level of knowledge on the subject matter, then I will immediately respond.
If he does not respond on this topic before the Nba award show tomorrow, then he is effectively surrendering his point and admitting that he has no knowledge about how advanced statistics is and should be used in the Nba.
In other news, 3-team IND-CLE-DEN trade involving PG and Love is bad for Indiana. We have enough known redflags for Love despite his remarkable Minnie stint, and PG is heavy on the upside. Pacers should decline if only because teams could be hustled for a PG trade even on a rental.
On June 26 2017 11:13 RowdierBob wrote: I've been spitballing a Love trade on another forum that would send Love to the Bucks and PG to the Cavs. How goes:
Indy out: PG Indy in: Jabari/Mil 2018 first/Brog/filler if need be
Cavs out: Love Cavs in: PG
Bucks out: Jabari/2018 first/Brogdon/filler Bucks in: Love
Would this be enough for Indy or can they do better? What if the Bucks threw in a 2019 right to swap picks?
I don't believe the Bucks are going to trade Jabari and Brogdon just for Love tbh.
Brogdon has a promising rookie season and Jabari played really well before he got injured.
On June 25 2017 23:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm loving it. One know-it-all name drops and terms drops about something he knows nothing about, then another know-it-all makes his own claim of arrogance/ignorance!
Hey, I'm taking exception if you are talking about me.
It is he after all who throws out all these big stat words and waive it around people's faces as if they were words uttered by god himself. I would like to explain why he is wrong, in full mathematical detail, but the ball is on his court since all throughout this thread he is the one doing all the term dropping.
NOTE: No self-respecting mathematician or statistician would make bold absolute claims without any context
NOTE 2: Not specially since the methods and equations are relatively new
NOTE 3: And not most especially without providing consideration for regression ridges and other variations.
TLDR: He is the one making all this absolute claims which are biased and are an abuse of data. He barely even understands it and would make for a good leader of the "iamveysmart" group
No offense, but this is a rather "Jimmy-like" post. You've made a lot of theses, but you haven't really explained exactly what you mean or given any evidence.
We're all extremely interested to hear what you have to say about it.
It's cool none taken.
We should give him a chance though, since it's him blabbering about APM advanced stats and all. Once we have a clear idea what he is actually talking about and his level of knowledge on the subject matter, then I will immediately respond.
If he does not respond on this topic before the Nba award show tomorrow, then he is effectively surrendering his point and admitting that he has no knowledge about how advanced statistics is and should be used in the Nba.
In other news, 3-team IND-CLE-DEN trade involving PG and Love is bad for Indiana. We have enough known redflags for Love despite his remarkable Minnie stint, and PG is heavy on the upside. Pacers should decline if only because teams could be hustled for a PG trade even on a rental.
The thought is Den give pacers stuff because there chance of ever getting a FA the quality of love is low and they would have him for 3 years. So Love wouldn't be in Indy. It sort of makes sense but who knows how much den is willing to give up for love.
As for the stats talk I agree with both you and Jeru. JJ is clearly reading the thread so he could easily respond and his silence does speak volumes. That being said if you explained the specifics of your argument it would also hold more water.
Fair enough.
But in the interest of a proper debate on this matter, I want to give him a chance to defend himself. I worry that once I put out a thorough demonstration of why he is wrong, he will simply resort to moving the goal post or claim that his earlier statements were misunderstood.
He can do this easily since I have seen him do this a couple of times earlier, and all he makes are general statements that it is difficult to respond to him with rigor unless he makes his points very clear. He continuously drops terms like xAPM this, VORP that et cetera et cetera, and people let him off the hook for lack of energy or knowledge on the subject matter.
If he is indeed a fan of sports analytics, then he can do no worse than by refusing to engage in this argument.
Believe me, I am as excited as you are to read his response. It's his move now.
Interesting. I searched the thread and the Finals thread and realized he is the same person who bragged about watching game lives. Now it's too funny. Anyway, Nike/Jordan just released a Kawhi ad:
On June 25 2017 23:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm loving it. One know-it-all name drops and terms drops about something he knows nothing about, then another know-it-all makes his own claim of arrogance/ignorance!
Hey, I'm taking exception if you are talking about me.
It is he after all who throws out all these big stat words and waive it around people's faces as if they were words uttered by god himself. I would like to explain why he is wrong, in full mathematical detail, but the ball is on his court since all throughout this thread he is the one doing all the term dropping.
NOTE: No self-respecting mathematician or statistician would make bold absolute claims without any context
NOTE 2: Not specially since the methods and equations are relatively new
NOTE 3: And not most especially without providing consideration for regression ridges and other variations.
TLDR: He is the one making all this absolute claims which are biased and are an abuse of data. He barely even understands it and would make for a good leader of the "iamveysmart" group
No offense, but this is a rather "Jimmy-like" post. You've made a lot of theses, but you haven't really explained exactly what you mean or given any evidence.
We're all extremely interested to hear what you have to say about it.
It's cool none taken.
We should give him a chance though, since it's him blabbering about APM advanced stats and all. Once we have a clear idea what he is actually talking about and his level of knowledge on the subject matter, then I will immediately respond.
If he does not respond on this topic before the Nba award show tomorrow, then he is effectively surrendering his point and admitting that he has no knowledge about how advanced statistics is and should be used in the Nba.
In other news, 3-team IND-CLE-DEN trade involving PG and Love is bad for Indiana. We have enough known redflags for Love despite his remarkable Minnie stint, and PG is heavy on the upside. Pacers should decline if only because teams could be hustled for a PG trade even on a rental.
The thought is Den give pacers stuff because there chance of ever getting a FA the quality of love is low and they would have him for 3 years. So Love wouldn't be in Indy. It sort of makes sense but who knows how much den is willing to give up for love.
As for the stats talk I agree with both you and Jeru. JJ is clearly reading the thread so he could easily respond and his silence does speak volumes. That being said if you explained the specifics of your argument it would also hold more water.
Fair enough.
But in the interest of a proper debate on this matter, I want to give him a chance to defend himself. I worry that once I put out a thorough demonstration of why he is wrong, he will simply resort to moving the goal post or claim that his earlier statements were misunderstood.
He can do this easily since I have seen him do this a couple of times earlier, and all he makes are general statements that it is difficult to respond to him with rigor unless he makes his points very clear. He continuously drops terms like xAPM this, VORP that et cetera et cetera, and people let him off the hook for lack of energy or knowledge on the subject matter.
If he is indeed a fan of sports analytics, then he can do no worse than by refusing to engage in this argument.
Believe me, I am as excited as you are to read his response. It's his move now.
My only hope is that he (and his various other nicknames) gets to taste the banhammer again like in the NHL thread back in the day.
Maybe then the discussion here would be more varied and not about Wiggins and "advanced statistics" every other page.
In other news, new rumours sending Griffin to Heat. I like it, offensively they would get better.. I dunno with overall team chemistry especially in defense. BG would be playing in a free flowing offense, and actually have a legit backup big man (Bam Adebayo).
On June 17 2017 15:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote: How many live games have people in here seen of LBJ, Leonard, KD, Curry, and Westbrook in the past 4 years.
I've seen LBJ about 10 times. Curry twice. KD twice. Westbrook 3 times and Leonard 1 time.
I think LBJ is still the best in the world by a slim margin, but i have not seen the other players enough to state for 100% certain. I have seen enough games of eastern conference teams that i'd say LBJ is the best player in the eastern conference by a big margin.
i think live game observation is a critical component in player evaluation.
This is too funny to pass up.
In an era of abundant live television/livestream broadacst, analysts and sports journalists going the full spectrum ranging from ESPN Simmons to SAS/Skip and all the other two-bit "journalists", comprehensive scouting reports, predraft combines and thorough physicals, advanced metrics and big data anuhlitics, to frothy social media that lets us know when Klay is high, what Lebron is jamming to, where and what Booker ate for dinner, and all the other impertinent and irreverent sports drama, all available through this magical world of the cyber - please, oh pretty please, educate us unwashed plebeians what "critical component in player evaluation" can be gleaned through live games that are not available in any of the above? And might I also inquire as to which seats provide the best viewpoint in conducting such evaluations?
i like to be within 15 rows of the court. however, any where in the building and then later going home and watching it on TV still provides more information. obviously the closer to the action the more info the LIVE experience adds.
anyhow, you want snarky , fuck you attitude.. here you go.
i didn't fully appreciate LBJ's game until i went to the Air Canada Centre 2 hours before game time. If the difference between the top 5 players were large it'd be easy to say who is the best. I think the difference between these guys is small enough that live game evaluation is crucial.
my uncle has scouted for 3 NHL teams. every scout will tell you that you get the most info by actually being there. When Dana White looks for new fighting talent his attitude is... "tv is ok" .. "physically being at ringside tells you far more." This also applies to the NBA and every other sport.
when advanced scouts stop going to the building and just sit on their couch .. .. lemme know.
more and many diverse forms of information are valuable.... and 1 of those forms includes live game observation.
This is the most elaborate (only in the sense that an inebriated man finds the space between his door and the living room couch elaborate) use of the English language in order to say exactly nothing. No other configuration of English words delivered a more dedicate, precise, and effective utterance of senselessness.
Let me simplify this for you: When you claimed "critical component in player evaluation", I did not exactly expect some multiverse-forming, life-changing, zero-dividing truth to be revealed before us. A little sensible explanation would have been enough.
Instead, what do we get? A verbal diarrhea of self-repetitions, anecdotes, humblebrags, logical fallacies, weasel words, incoherent rambling, internal contradictions, hollow statement, and complete nonsense. You could have made better use of the three hours you spent composing your reply by typing down "I don't know what I'm talking about" in all of ten seconds and we would all have gone on with our lives with little remark.
If you are still confused, let me simplify it even further:
i didn't fully appreciate LBJ's game until i went to the Air Canada Centre 2 hours before game time. If the difference between the top 5 players were large it'd be easy to say who is the best. I think the difference between these guys is small enough that live game evaluation is crucial.
What is this difference then that can only be seen by watching the game live in person instead of the other platforms I mentioned before (such as live tv/net broadcast, youtube, advanced analytics, expert analysis and punditry, comprehensive scouting reports, industry-standard physical evaluation, and social media posts)? I'm not saying that there aren't. as there might very well be. All I'm saying is that since YOU claimed there are "critical component in player evaluation" available through watching the game in person that is nor available elsewhere, YOU provide the evidence for such. In this case, you have failed to do so. Merely saying so doesn't make it so.
my uncle has scouted for 3 NHL teams. every scout will tell you that you get the most info by actually being there. When Dana White looks for new fighting talent his attitude is... "tv is ok" .. "physically being at ringside tells you far more." This also applies to the NBA and every other sport.
This is neither here nor there. I could also go to great lengths about my uncle and and talk about how he scouts and evaluates which wrestler in WWE is the best. Mighty Mouse would also have you know about Dana to "Don't believe his lies". I think I've made my point clear on this specific retort. BESIDES, did I not already include "comprehensive scouting" in one of the methods to evaluate players? So unless we (not general "we" but actual you and me) are scouts, it is best that we leave the actual scout-level evaluation to professional scouts, and make our informed opinion based on their reports. Besides again, this still does not answer the question of What "critical component in player evaluation have you gathered by being physically being present during games that you cannot otherwise? You just said your uncle says so, Dana White says so, etc. etc, so it must be true.
more and many diverse forms of information are valuable.... and 1 of those forms includes live game observation.
I'm stretching a bit on this one, but since I've gone this far, I might as well. This one is is poorly-constructed. I think you meant to write "more and many diverse formsmethods of information-gathering are valuable.... and 1 of those forms includes live game observation." And then again, you run the same problem of doing wild ramblings instead of supporting your claim.
Listen kiddo, I don't mean to be harsh, but unless you really have some support for your claim, learn from this exchange and suck it in. I mean you no harm, and you should take none. Let's go and enjoy the rest of the day.
PS. I know you are a kid for many reasons, such as but not limited to, your diction, grammar, punctuation, and writing style, the quality of your arguments, and not very many Americans in their twenties and older would refer to Lebron James as LBJ. So please don't tell me you're not a kid anymore.
Oh well, he lived by the sword, and died by the sword. Anyway, dude xwoG, do you mind (via PM if you don't want to post it here yet) providing an explanation of analytics that could be helpful to average Joe fan. I get in similar debates a lot, and it's difficult to parse through the discussion when they resort to mathematical gobbledygook Would greatly appreciate it, thanks.
Griffin to the Heat? Hmmnnn. I don't know but I seriously think Griffin's career is done. He will go down as a could have been like Grant Hill, only three or four notches lower, and without the talent and niceness, and all the frat boy assholeness.
Eh, when he's playing he ouputs a solid 22/8/5 per game, that's not really a player that's "done". My concern about him is if he continues to get these random-ass injuries. Maybe that's just bad luck, this will be only his 8th season. If he can stay healthy, and even with most of his explosiveness gone, he has evolved really well as a PF. Can shoot reliably (even extending to 3pt range), can handle and pass, has some decent post-ups.
He doesn't have much upside left, but he's still a top 3 PF in the league.
I exaggerate. But I meant his random injuries remove him as an all-star level player and make him fringe good player who can still make solid contributions.
if my posts are mis-characterized i will correct the poster. Fortunately, the poster acknowledged they mischaracterized my post. This poster has directly misquoted me in the past.
On June 24 2017 15:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: Magic Johnson: "D'Angelo is an excellent player. He has the talent to be an All-Star. We want to thank him for what he did for us. But what I needed was a leader. I needed somebody also that can make the other players better and also [somebody] that players want to play with."
On June 24 2017 23:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Adjusted plus minus takes into account the quality of all other 9 people on the court. There are several Timberwolves with very good defensive APM. In fact, when Minnie's #2 defender went down late in the year as i noted in last year's thread Minnie's defense collapsed. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sports/515339-nba-2016-17-season?page=61#1205
Adjusted +/- is basically a system of 600+ equations with the # of unknowns being the players who played in the NBA. You solve for the unknowns in an analogous way that you solve for a system of 2 equations and 2 unknowns in grade 9 math. Because there are more equations than unknowns, an overdetermined system, you solve for the unknowns ( which are the individual NBA players ) via Regression. Every NBA line up playing against each other is an equation with 10 unknowns with a (+) on the side of the team that scored more points during their time on the court.
As a "smell test" for the results on Wiggins check out his impact on team mates. There is a mountain of data on Wiggins playing with all levels of team mates over his 3 year career. He has yet to make any team mate better defensively. The vast majoritty of his mate's defensive efficiency declines in Wiggins presence. There are a few Wiggins team mates whose defensive efficiency stays the same. http://www.82games.com/1617/1617MIN2.HTM
On the contrary, many Minnesota players experienced an improvement in their defensive efficiency in the presence of Nemanja Bjelica and Ricky Rubio.
Wiggins is 1 of the worst defenders in the NBA and finding that is the easiest thing for any advanced stat. The hard part of an advanced defensive stat is to determine whether or not a very slightly below average defender is as good as a dead-on average defender. That is a tough problem. Determining the worst in the league is easy and its been a solved problem for ~10 years now. The guy who solved this issue using Adjusted +/- was at the forefront of research in this area 14 years ago and he is now employed by Cleveland. http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
As a math "geek" who got interested in basketball because of moreyball, advanced stat, and big data, i've got to say this is one of the most laughably ignorantly idiotic statements ever.
I'm willing to bet you do not understand the normative and operative functions of these formulas in evaluating players.
Heck, I'm even willing to bet you barely understand half of them.
my background in dealing with adjusted +/- includes running an adjusted +/- analysis of NHL teams using Visual Foxpro for data crunching, and a COM object feeding R for the regression on the data. if you want me to go into more detail i can.
i've already posted several items showing how long +/- and APM has been around and the research going on behind the statistic. If people want to have a direct discusion about the value of these stats great. my posts are there.
However,
On June 26 2017 19:11 TropicalHaze wrote: Maybe then the discussion here would be more varied and not about Wiggins and "advanced statistics" every other page.
(1) +/-, APM , and xRAPM are all useless (2) advanced stats are discussed too much and i'm sick of them. if you combine (1) and (2) then there is no point in moving forward.
On June 24 2017 23:43 JimmiC wrote: There is a reason why some teams hire analytics departments and then fire them shortly after.
Dan Rosenbaum a leading pioneer in adjusted plus/minus has been employed as a consultant by cleveland for 10+ years. the guy is good and his research is solid. i've posted his most influential early work. Some analytics is bad. Some is good. Rosenbaum is still around after 10+ years because he and his work are solid.
if i post the entire quote my post would be 300 lines long. for brevity i include the relevant parts.
you brought it up so... not enough scoring in the NHL. i like hockey. the year i did it i had access to the NHL data and not the NBA data and in the initial research stages APM for hockey and basketball are the same and vanilla +/- is still identical in both sports.
my posts are still there and if any one wants a direct discussion about their strengths and weakness great.
I respect the use of advanced anulytics erneh. But the idea that you would switch from Sport A to Sport B because the advanced data was finally publicly made available for Sport B is pretty funny.
How naive of me to just like playing and watching basketball. If xRAPMORP one day becomes available for gaelic football, you won't see me here anymore guys.
Despite the sillyness and unintentional comedy, I think it is a good discussion to be having nonetheless. May I suggest that both of you Jimmy and xwaG (and to everyone else for that matter) elaborate and clarify the jargons so that everyone have a good chance to be on the same page and can assess what's what.
What you are doing right now is what everyone has been hating about you. Stop beating around the bush, dodging, and talking generic technical nonsense. I am sure you can feel now that everyone can already see through you. You have been directly challenge. You have to respond honestly in defending yourself. Post that 300 post here now so we can see your side of the story.
On June 27 2017 02:20 ZenithM wrote: I respect the use of advanced anulytics erneh. But the idea that you would switch from Sport A to Sport B because the advanced data was finally publicly made available for Sport B is pretty funny.
How naive of me to just like playing and watching basketball. If xRAPMORP one day becomes available for gaelic football, you won't see me here anymore guys.
i did not switch sports. i still watch hockey just not the NHL due to a lack of scoring. back in 2007 i watched both sports. and vanilla +/- is identical in both. and when you take the first baby steps forward in developing APM it remains identical in both sports.
On June 27 2017 02:24 Twinkle Toes wrote: Post that 300 post here now so we can see your side of the story.
what is a "300 post" ?
JARGON "R" is an open source product for doing regression on a set of data. Visual Foxpro manipulates large tables of data. its simple and easy to use. COM Objects can be built with Visual Foxpro and allow Visual Foxpro to communicate with other Windows EXE files. this requires some programming skills but nothing more than 1 year of college.. its not some in depth computer science research.
if i post the entire quote my post would be 300 lines long
Are you interested in an honest discussion?
yep, do you want me to include the entire quote that i'm providing for a rebuttal in all its entirety then?
if you want me to post it i will. but it'll be long. i think by only including the relevant parts it kept my post shorter and more to the point. but if you want it all... i can do that.
Go ahead, post it here please. I asked if you are genuinely interested in an honest discussion because it will make things easier for all of us. May I request that in your succeeding posts, please let go of all the baggage and treat the discussion as a new one and make your thesis statement clear. Thanks.
if my posts are mis-characterized i will correct the poster. Fortunately, the poster acknowledged they mischaracterized my post. This poster has directly misquoted me in the past.
On June 24 2017 15:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: Magic Johnson: "D'Angelo is an excellent player. He has the talent to be an All-Star. We want to thank him for what he did for us. But what I needed was a leader. I needed somebody also that can make the other players better and also [somebody] that players want to play with."
On June 24 2017 23:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Adjusted plus minus takes into account the quality of all other 9 people on the court. There are several Timberwolves with very good defensive APM. In fact, when Minnie's #2 defender went down late in the year as i noted in last year's thread Minnie's defense collapsed. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sports/515339-nba-2016-17-season?page=61#1205
Adjusted +/- is basically a system of 600+ equations with the # of unknowns being the players who played in the NBA. You solve for the unknowns in an analogous way that you solve for a system of 2 equations and 2 unknowns in grade 9 math. Because there are more equations than unknowns, an overdetermined system, you solve for the unknowns ( which are the individual NBA players ) via Regression. Every NBA line up playing against each other is an equation with 10 unknowns with a (+) on the side of the team that scored more points during their time on the court.
As a "smell test" for the results on Wiggins check out his impact on team mates. There is a mountain of data on Wiggins playing with all levels of team mates over his 3 year career. He has yet to make any team mate better defensively. The vast majoritty of his mate's defensive efficiency declines in Wiggins presence. There are a few Wiggins team mates whose defensive efficiency stays the same. http://www.82games.com/1617/1617MIN2.HTM
On the contrary, many Minnesota players experienced an improvement in their defensive efficiency in the presence of Nemanja Bjelica and Ricky Rubio.
Wiggins is 1 of the worst defenders in the NBA and finding that is the easiest thing for any advanced stat. The hard part of an advanced defensive stat is to determine whether or not a very slightly below average defender is as good as a dead-on average defender. That is a tough problem. Determining the worst in the league is easy and its been a solved problem for ~10 years now. The guy who solved this issue using Adjusted +/- was at the forefront of research in this area 14 years ago and he is now employed by Cleveland. http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
As a math "geek" who got interested in basketball because of moreyball, advanced stat, and big data, i've got to say this is one of the most laughably ignorantly idiotic statements ever.
I'm willing to bet you do not understand the normative and operative functions of these formulas in evaluating players.
Heck, I'm even willing to bet you barely understand half of them.
my background in dealing with adjusted +/- includes running an adjusted +/- analysis of NHL teams using Visual Foxpro for data crunching, and a COM object feeding R for the regression on the data. if you want me to go into more detail i can.
i've already posted several items showing how long +/- and APM has been around and the research going on behind the statistic. If people want to have a direct discusion about the value of these stats great. my posts are there.
On June 25 2017 23:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm loving it. One know-it-all name drops and terms drops about something he knows nothing about, then another know-it-all makes his own claim of arrogance/ignorance!
Hey, I'm taking exception if you are talking about me.
It is he after all who throws out all these big stat words and waive it around people's faces as if they were words uttered by god himself. I would like to explain why he is wrong, in full mathematical detail, but the ball is on his court since all throughout this thread he is the one doing all the term dropping.
NOTE: No self-respecting mathematician or statistician would make bold absolute claims without any context
NOTE 2: Not specially since the methods and equations are relatively new
NOTE 3: And not most especially without providing consideration for regression ridges and other variations.
TLDR: He is the one making all this absolute claims which are biased and are an abuse of data. He barely even understands it and would make for a good leader of the "iamveysmart" group
No offense, but this is a rather "Jimmy-like" post. You've made a lot of theses, but you haven't really explained exactly what you mean or given any evidence.
We're all extremely interested to hear what you have to say about it.
It's cool none taken.
We should give him a chance though, since it's him blabbering about APM advanced stats and all. Once we have a clear idea what he is actually talking about and his level of knowledge on the subject matter, then I will immediately respond.
If he does not respond on this topic before the Nba award show tomorrow, then he is effectively surrendering his point and admitting that he has no knowledge about how advanced statistics is and should be used in the Nba.
In other news, 3-team IND-CLE-DEN trade involving PG and Love is bad for Indiana. We have enough known redflags for Love despite his remarkable Minnie stint, and PG is heavy on the upside. Pacers should decline if only because teams could be hustled for a PG trade even on a rental.
The thought is Den give pacers stuff because there chance of ever getting a FA the quality of love is low and they would have him for 3 years. So Love wouldn't be in Indy. It sort of makes sense but who knows how much den is willing to give up for love.
As for the stats talk I agree with both you and Jeru. JJ is clearly reading the thread so he could easily respond and his silence does speak volumes. That being said if you explained the specifics of your argument it would also hold more water.
Fair enough.
But in the interest of a proper debate on this matter, I want to give him a chance to defend himself. I worry that once I put out a thorough demonstration of why he is wrong, he will simply resort to moving the goal post or claim that his earlier statements were misunderstood.
He can do this easily since I have seen him do this a couple of times earlier, and all he makes are general statements that it is difficult to respond to him with rigor unless he makes his points very clear. He continuously drops terms like xAPM this, VORP that et cetera et cetera, and people let him off the hook for lack of energy or knowledge on the subject matter.
If he is indeed a fan of sports analytics, then he can do no worse than by refusing to engage in this argument.
Believe me, I am as excited as you are to read his response. It's his move now.
My only hope is that he (and his various other nicknames) gets to taste the banhammer again like in the NHL thread back in the day.
Maybe then the discussion here would be more varied and not about Wiggins and "advanced statistics" every other page.
In other news, new rumours sending Griffin to Heat. I like it, offensively they would get better.. I dunno with overall team chemistry especially in defense. BG would be playing in a free flowing offense, and actually have a legit backup big man (Bam Adebayo).
(1) +/-, APM , and xRAPM are all useless (2) advanced stats are discussed too much and i'm sick of them. if you combine (1) and (2) then there is no point in moving forward.
On June 24 2017 23:43 JimmiC wrote: Your post is a good example of why the "old school" people hate analytics people. You give a bad name to it. Whether it is the arrogance of the bragging about one of your predictions possibly (not bothering to look back but often when I have after one of your brags you were at best half right) being correct (even a broken clock is right twice a day).
But the analytics give one piece of the pie not the whole story. There is a reason why some teams hire analytics departments and then fire them shortly after. Their needs to be a balanced approach. There also needs to have circumstances taken into why the numbers show up as they have.
TBH I'd rather hear other's opinions because you swing from not a top 5 player but multiple allstar. Pretty damn good. To one of the worst players and everywhere in between. I guess the bonus is in a few years you can cherry pick the post that fits and give yourself a another big pat on the back. I'm now going to go back to ignoring you. If you could ignore my posts as well that would be appreciated because they are never directed at you. And your "knowledge" could be better served for others.
The question is not are Wiggins advanced stats bad. Clearly they are it takes one look on any website that puts them out their to figure that out. The question is does the bad stats mean he is a bad player.
Dan Rosenbaum a leading pioneer in adjusted plus/minus has been employed as a consultant by cleveland for 10+ years. the guy is good and his research is solid. i've posted his most influential early work. Some analytics is bad. Some is good. Rosenbaum is still around after 10+ years because he and his work are solid.
Is this guy fucking serious? He said he was gonna post his 300-line explanation. He just copied his post #250! Post #250 and #259 are the same. What the fuck is going on?
On June 27 2017 02:45 JimmiC wrote: I will make bold projections and speak down to anyone who watches the sports or has participated in them for a lack of advanced understanding)
i've already stated that my Raptors projections over the long term turn out to be better than others in this thread partly because i watch the team more than any one in the thread. that is not a brag. it is difficult for 1 person to follow all 30 teams as closely as i can follow 1 cherry picked team that plays their games close to where i live.
if someone's favourite team is phoenix and they watch all their games and live in Phoenix their projections about the Suns will be better than mine and far more detailed.
one of my co-workers was born and raised in chicago and went to northwestern. he goes back to chicago 10 weeks a year. when i want to know WTF is going on with the bulls. i ask him.1
does any one have time to follow all 30 teams?
On June 27 2017 02:53 Twinkle Toes wrote: Is this guy fucking serious? He said he was gonna post his 300-line explanation. He just copied his post #250! Post #250 and #259 are the same. What the fuck is going on?
i accommodated JimmiC's concern that i was removing only 1 line of his entire post. now his entire post is there.
its coherent logical rebuttals to the issues discussed. please note in the previous post i included a "Jargon Table" covering what "R" , "COM Objects" and "Visual Foxpro" do.
if you want me to go into greater depth and detail i can do that after i'm done working today. following the development and improvement of the Adjusted Plus/Minus stat is a bit of a hobby of mine.
Lol. Seriously??!!! This is going to be way easier that I expected.
In one post he is championing APM and in another he is saying it is useless. Boasts about his use of stats and then say that he is sick of it. He is all over the place and I think he is being deliberately obscure in order to hide his ignorance.
I don't want to waste anyone's time, so I'll be direct -
JimmyJRaynor, I challenge you to a debate. Pls write in a clear, organized and specific language a statement that characterizes your understanding of sports analytics as it is used in the NBA so I can respond properly.
On June 26 2017 19:11 TropicalHaze wrote: Maybe then the discussion here would be more varied and not about Wiggins and "advanced statistics" every other page.
(1) +/-, APM , and xRAPM are all useless (2) advanced stats are discussed too much and i'm sick of them. if you combine (1) and (2) then there is no point in moving forward.
On June 27 2017 02:53 Twinkle Toes wrote: Is this guy fucking serious? He said he was gonna post his 300-line explanation. He just copied his post #250! Post #250 and #259 are the same. What the fuck is going on?
On June 27 2017 03:27 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: Lol. Seriously??!!! This is going to be way easier that I expected.
In one post he is championing APM and in another he is saying it is useless. Boasts about his use of stats and then say that he is sick of it. He is all over the place and I think he is being deliberately obscure in order to hide his ignorance.
I don't want to waste anyone's time, so I'll be direct -
JimmyJRaynor, I challenge you to a debate. Pls write in a clear, organized and specific language a statement that characterizes your understanding of sports analytics as it is used in the NBA so I can respond properly.
I admit it was amusing to watch him crash and burn. But no one is going to get the satisfaction we desire because he will just keep being him. Which is never admitting a mistake, moving the goal posts and keeping his comments so broad and varied that at some later date he can copy paste what ever worked out and claim he was right all along.
I had tons of fun the last few says when he kept posting and everyone just ignored his shit. That is probably the best solution to as he says "keep the discussion moving". When we ignore him and post there is often some good discussion and you learn some shit and have a good time. When we engage him it becomes a shit storm that he seems to thrive/love.
Yes, I'm done giving him attention. Although I'd be intently watching him getting beaten up by another person.
great, to summarize, IMO. Dan Rosenbaum and Engelmann do solid analytics work for basketball and i've included why that is the case in my previous posts.
Why do the Raptors play so badly in the playoffs. " the Raptors don’t fail when Lowry’s on the court in the playoffs; they fail when someone else is." "Using Jonas Valanciunas as a constant, the lineups are best without DeRozan entirely, and the ones with just him are worse offensively and are a disaster on defense. "
What would be a good starting point would have been for JimmyJRaynor to explain what is APM and xAPM. I had to look for myself (at first I found "APM" fucking confusing, with us being on a Starcraft forum and all). This is explained here: http://fansided.com/2014/09/25/glossary-plus-minus-adjusted-plus-minus/ (original work from some math guys, you can find their OP/paper on the internet). What you should have done, JimmyJ, is to summarize this shit for us all to follow your anulytics ramblings. In fact, let me do it for you (the article still goes into more detail than necessary).
We all know what basic +/- is (what JJ calls Vanilla +/-). You count the point differential with and without the player on the court. Problem is, in the NBA, teams tend to play certain sets of players consistently together, such that if a scrub is exclusively paired with awesome players, he will still have a great +/-. This is mostly why 5 of GSW's guys comfortably sit in the top 10 of this metric (or something absurd like that). Adjusted +/-, or APM, basically assesses the plus/minus of a player if you removed the personal impact of the 4 other dudes playing with him at all times.
The above article has a nice low-dimension example to start with. You play 2v2 street ball, and you have 3 guys on your team (1 on the bench). You compute the collective plus/minus of each possible lineup as they perform together on the court, to get something like this:
P1 + P2 = +10 P1 + P3 = +3 P2 + P3 = -1
The vanilla +/- of these 3 guys are all positive (13, 9, 2), so if you only looked at this number the 3 players would look pretty good. But what you'd prefer is the personal contribution from each player to each of the lineups they take part in. That's basically APM. If you look above, this is actually a system of 3 linear equations with 3 variables P1, P2, P3 which are this APM we're looking for. What's left for you is just to solve the system. With this many variables it's still high-school level math, so something like Gaussian elimination will make short work of it:
P1 = 7, P2 = 3, P3 = -4 (P3 is not looking so good after all)
But when you have 5 players on the floor, and all the potential lineups they form (imagine how many lineups there are over the course of a game, or even a season), AND if you actually take into account their different defenders as well (so 10 players for one game, but all the other players from the other teams over a season), the system quickly becomes unmanageable to solve using your usual "optimal solution" algorithms, and we enter the realm of "linear regression" (which in theory only approximates the solution). We happen to know several good methods to solve linear regression, capable of handling all of these player combinations, but the detail of those doesn't really matter.
Overall this is indeed an interesting metric but I love how JimmyJ makes it sound fucking complicated, likely on purpose to hide his real understanding of these statistics. APM is in fact pretty intuitive.
On June 27 2017 04:15 ZenithM wrote: Overall this is indeed an interesting metric but I love how JimmyJ makes it sound fucking complicated, likely on purpose to hide his real understanding of these statistics. APM is in fact pretty intuitive.
i posted your same explanation previously from Nylon Calculus. its a good explanation. would you like the link of that previous TL.Net post? i also stated the only real "hocus pocus" in APM was the regression step. then someone disagreed with that comment.
i can provide either a short synopsis or a thorough analysis. any how, i think its a useful stat .. i basically agree with ur perspective on how adjusted plus/minus works.
On June 27 2017 03:53 JimmiC wrote: Did you see some gave Isiah Thomas a vote for DPOY, clearly a troll but that guy should lose his vote Rolf. Yes watching him get roasted is fun but maybe we could just vote him off the island like in the hockey thread.
Who votes for these awards this year? Still the media?
They changed all star voting this year to add a players' vote but they didn't take it seriously. At least the media takes it seriously. Many players and ex-players complain frequently that they know more than the media does but the amount of joke votes that players submitted this year is ridiculous.
All you did here was "do you want me to post my explanation here? its long" or "i posted it earlier" or "yeah o said that". All bullshit.
Thanks ZenithM. That JimmyJRaynor fails to even discuss elementary-level stat concepts is proof that he knows nothing about this at all.
Then add all the dodging, misquoting, gross generalizations, and hiding in jargon. then it becomes clear that he is the worst kind of ignorant person - one who pretends that he is an expert and talks down others.
I was reluctant to really push the issue after the way Twinkle Toes destroyed JimmyJRaynor after he bragged about watching games live. You could see it on page 13 here, post 245. I mean seriously who brags about this thing? And he retreats to his hole like a filthy sewer rat after he is called out on it. No reply to that until now.
But I have to call him out too since it is clear he is bluffing. So, my challenge still stands until the award shows start -
JimmyJRaynor debate me.
Since you have trouble providing a summary of your knowledge of this subject matter, let me help you by making you answer this relevant, specific, on-point questions IN YOUR OWN WORDS -
1. What is the absolute measurement to a players value?
2. How do you account for secondary factors in the computation of stints?
3. Why is your version of APM better than all the other variations?
4. In your version of APM, what regression ridges are prioritized, and why are they being prioritized over others?
5. Could your version of APM be wrong or insufficient to the point of being inaccurate?
There. If you do not answer these questions, everyone here will be happy if you admit you are wrong, or at least never bring up sports analytics ever again/
guaranteed Engelmann's xRAPM ( ESPN Real Plus Minus) is light years ahead of the hobby level stuff i did in 2007 using a 2004 article published by Rosenbaum.
here is the 2004 article i used as the basis for the APM analysis i did of NHL players 10 years ago. http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
some of the code is in Visual Foxpro, some of it is in "R". i'll dig through it when i have time. I'm not even sure if its Visual Foxpro 8 or 9.
On June 27 2017 08:57 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: 5. Could your version of APM be wrong or insufficient to the point of being inaccurate?
i do not think it is "wrong". however, its no where near as good as the stuff Engelmann, Rosenbaum and other Adjusted Plus/Minus analytics people are doing today. Its been 10 years.
Guaranteed Rosenbaum had already improved on his methods before he published his stuff for the general public to examine in 2004.
"Its been 10 years. Other people do it. You misunderstand me. Here read the website. Im not sure if its X, Y or Z. Here is a name, so believe me. Its just a hobby. "
MAJOR AWARDS KIA Sixth Man of the Year Eric Gordon NBA Cares Community Assist Award Isaiah Thomas Twyman-Stokes Teammate of the Year Dirk Nowitzki Sportsmanship Award Kemba Walker KIA Most Improved Player of the Year Giannis Antetokounmpo Executive of the Year Bob Myers Coach of the Year Mike D'Antoni KIA Defensive Player of the Year Draymond Green KIA Most Valuable Player Russell Westbrook
FAN AWARDS Assist of the Year Stephen Curry and Draymond Green Block of the Year Kawhi Leonard Best Style Award Russell Westbrook Dunk of the Year Victor Oladipo Game Winner of the Year Russell Westbrook Performance of the Year Klay Thompson Best Playoff Moment Kevin Durant
SPECIAL AWARDS Lifetime Achievement Award Bill Russell Sager Strong Award Monty Williams
On June 27 2017 10:00 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: "Its been 10 years. Other people do it. You misunderstand me. Here read the website. Im not sure if its X, Y or Z. Here is a name, so believe me. Its just a hobby. " TROLLOLOLLOLOL.
here is ur question.
On June 27 2017 08:57 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: 3. Why is your version of APM better than all the other variations?
i never said my APM stat i made in 2007 ( by using someone else's published work) was better than guys that have been paid for the last 15 years from 2002 to 20017 to create improvements on APM. its a ridiculous claim. and i never made that claim.
u think something i made in 2007 would be better than licensed product Engelmann sells to ESPN?
Most Valuable Player G: Russell Westbrook (OKC) Runner-Ups: James Harden (HOU), Kawhi Leonard (SAS), LeBron James (CLE), Stephen Curry (GSW), Isaiah Thomas (BOS)
Rookie of the Year F: Dario Saric (PHI) Runner-Ups: Joel Embiid (PHI), Malcolm Brogdon (MIL), Buddy Hield (SAC), Jaylen Brown (BOS)
Coach of the Year Mike D'Antoni (HOU) Runner-Ups: Brad Stevens (BOS), Erik Spoelstra (MIA), Gregg Popovich (SAS)
Most Improved Player F: Giannis Antetokounmpo (MIL) Runner-Ups: Nikola Jokic (DEN), Rudy Gobert (UTA), Isaiah Thomas (BOS)
Sixth Man of the Year G: Eric Gordon (HOU) Runner-Ups: Lou Williams (HOU), Andre Iguodala (GSW), Enes Kanter (OKC)
Defensive Player of the Year C: Rudy Gobert (UTA) Runner-Ups: Draymond Green (GSW), Kawhi Leonard (SAS)
What is this?? Brogdon just won RotY. Pretty sure the complete award voting results won't be released until the winners are announced.
Arbitrary stat-line achieved through padding and a meh record apparently gets MVP. Really thought media voters would have more integrity but I guess hype and Trump america doesn't value precedence, efficiency or defense.
On June 27 2017 08:54 ZenithM wrote: I did called him out on that one :D.
If you take away that faux pas, his point is still reasonable. Kawhi is great and Green is pretty good, but they are not filled with amazing defensive players. It's their team D that makes them strong.
I can see why Silver NBA would deem an awards show necessary. Their most prestigious awards indeed deserve a posh and special evening, in contrast to the traditional method of being just announced in the middle of a game with the MVP profusely sweltering while receiving the award. The problem is that it is far too removed from the regular season that all the drama and thunder is already stale.
Maybe they can move it somewhere between rounds 1 and 2 next year, Surely a couple of weeks is enough to prepare for the event. All in all, solid 8/10.
On June 27 2017 12:20 Scarecrow wrote: Arbitrary stat-line achieved through padding and a meh record apparently gets MVP. Really thought media voters would have more integrity but I guess hype and Trump america doesn't value precedence, efficiency or defense.
The RW MVP vote makes sense in the present sports zeitgeist. When you have an anomaly year of Lebron breaking stats no matter how arbitrary or padded, and players breaking the mold like Giannis and KD, it's hard to deny a historically statistical anomaly of a season that RW just had, regardless of context.
Kawhi is a transcendental 2-way powerhouse, but we had that already in Jordan and Kobe. Harden is a lethal scoring genius who serves as the grand conductor of his entire teams offense. That is not unique as well. What Westbrook did this season is historical, and has only happened once before in the league, and it happened so long ago when the game was so young still that the it was easier to accomplish then. But no one remembers that. All that matters is that is was a historical triple-double season. The same is true for Westbrook. Ten or twenty years from now, no one will remember the details - that he bankrupted his teams defense, he semi-blocked a teammate to get his 10th rebound, he drained any offensive energy away from his teammates, his stat chasing practically destroyed his team, all in the pursuit of a season triple double average.
I'm not saying it is the correct vote. But the Westbrook MVP is representative of where NBA is right now.
I dont like the mvp award to RW. I understand MVP has something to do with the team youre playing on and that there is some kind of inconsistency in how it is decided (you cant get it more than three times, you have to stay healthy the whole season etc.). But I'm positive there is not a single coach in the NBA who would rather have RW play for him than LeBron, KD, Kawhi Leonard or maybe even Paul George, James Harden or Kyrie Irving.
On another note. I saw CP3 got voted into the all defensive first team. Is he that good on defense? I know hes got good hands and fights hard but he is so small! Hard to believe he is a + player on defence in the NBA.
On the one hand, I find it kind of funny that Harden and Westbrook aren't even top 4 best players in the league. On the other hand, I like that this is a "best season" award, or, at least, best story award. I don't like the idea that we just give the award to whoever is "the best player" regardless of how they played that year.
On June 27 2017 16:39 Elroi wrote: [...] On another note. I saw CP3 got voted into the all defensive first team. Is he that good on defense? I know hes got good hands and fights hard but he is so small! Hard to believe he is a + player on defence in the NBA.
For what it's worth, CP3 is the number 1 guard in term of DRPM (which JimmyJ said is just the defensive oriented xRAPM?), and by quite a huge margin. For me the eye test confirms that he's still an amazing defender (I watch a lot of Portland's games, I always feel bad for Lillard when he plays vs CP3). He's one of the very few players who combines constant elite 1on1 defense, with the amount of effort it requires, and great team defense IQ.
But I'll say this. If you're constantly playing with the same set of dudes, and those dudes are not playing with anyone else themselves, it's quite easy to fool APM/RPM/xAPM/whatever. And my feeling is that CP3 shares a lot of his minutes with DeAndre Jordan and Luc Mbah-a-Moute and it's boosting that number (those are also coincidentally 2 players that woudn't do anything offensively if CP3 wasn't on the court). When 3 players all share the court exactly at the same time, they become essentially the same 3 guys in the face of this type of lineup-adjusted metrics. That being said, CP3 is also number 3 in steals per game. The All-Defensive First is legit.
As for MVP I think Westbrook deserves it. "A for Effort" kind of thing :D. I would have been also fine with Harden as the other stat-sheet stuffing storyline MVP. But as Jerubaal said, especially after the off-season it's quite clear these 2 don't belong at the very top.
Yeah, I've been trying to think about APM and I don't see how you can get past the niggle that there's only so much info. If every player did play with every other player it would be one thing, but players only play with whoever's on their team.
Myself I don't really understand the craze for advanced analytics. If you're just a fan, I don't see a near-future where these numbers matter. They aren't going to become barber-shop talk material anytime soon (imagine that: "Kobe is outside my top 20 all-time because of that VORP dawg!"). And awards are not decided on their basis (case in point, these awards). If you're a professional, a scout or a coach, then this would obviously seem like a good set of extra tools to use to prepare better. But what good are aggregate numbers like WS/VORP/whateverPM? JimmyJ says it's good at identifying the very best and very worst players, and I think that's fair. Problem is, we don't really need metrics for that :D. You can make some mistakes, but overall the top players are quite clearly identified. And for all the other players, what you need is understand WHY they bring some value or not when they're on the court, you don't really need that single number.
On June 27 2017 16:39 Elroi wrote: I dont like the mvp award to RW. I understand MVP has something to do with the team youre playing on and that there is some kind of inconsistency in how it is decided (you cant get it more than three times, you have to stay healthy the whole season etc.). But I'm positive there is not a single coach in the NBA who would rather have RW play for him than LeBron, KD, Kawhi Leonard or maybe even Paul George, James Harden or Kyrie Irving.
On another note. I saw CP3 got voted into the all defensive first team. Is he that good on defense? I know hes got good hands and fights hard but he is so small! Hard to believe he is a + player on defence in the NBA.
On June 27 2017 18:21 ZenithM wrote: Myself I don't really understand the craze for advanced analytics. If you're just a fan, I don't see a near-future where these numbers matter. They aren't going to become barber-shop talk material anytime soon (imagine that: "Kobe is outside my top 20 all-time because of that VORP dawg!"). And awards are not decided on their basis (case in point, these awards). If you're a professional, a scout or a coach, then this would obviously seem like a good set of extra tools to use to prepare better. But what good are aggregate numbers like WS/VORP/whateverPM? JimmyJ says it's good at identifying the very best and very worst players, and I think that's fair. Problem is, we don't really need metrics for that :D. You can make some mistakes, but overall the top players are quite clearly identified. And for all the other players, what you need is understand WHY they bring some value or not when they're on the court, you don't really need that single number.
Analytics is crucial and very important for management and coaches. In a game of constant adjustments, constant roster match-ups, and billions of dollars, any and all advantage is welcome.
For early adapters such as the Spurs, it allowed Pop and the players to cycle players across the duration of the entire season, to take advantage of 3 and D players despite his vehement media protests, and to design offensive and defensive plays that maximizes their players.
This system is put on steroids by the warriors who in turn even methodically manage players based on court mileage, lactic levels, and o2/co2 ratio. I am talking about the medical and physiological aspect of the game that uses sophisticated metrics.
Let me go back to performance analytics. Like I said, coaches and management take full advantage of it, and use it to bridge the gap between eye test and box scores. It provides a robust explanation as to why otherwise middle tier guys like battier, ariza, and horford are premium players when used properly.
It also provides deeper appreciation of the games of curry and kawhi other than their normal point production and defense.
For example, other than the fact that currys long range threes are traditionally bad shots and should and will never be taught to young players, his value is more than the fact that he can consistently make these shots above the minimal threshold of efficienvy, even if we place the baseline at the league average of 40%.
Analytics could explain why curry MIGHT be a more potent offensive option than jordan. This is were it gets a bit messy. But this is a good thing because it means that the system has value and can still be improved.
For us regular fans however, the game is about enjoyment and the spectacle. And for that, box scores are often enough. Which is why it is retarded and stupid for people like JimmyJRaynor to flaunt analytics here when it is obvious that he knows nothing about it and is not even asked about it.
On June 27 2017 21:20 JimmiC wrote: If you read articles by someone like zach lowe who integrates the advanced stats with basketball knowledge to take a comprehensive look at players ot teams it can be very interesting. Other wise its just people puking out numbers to try to feel smart. There is a weird subset of people that dont even enjoy the sport, never played, and cant apply the numbers but think they know everything because they cab look up advanced stats.
What I meant is that the single aggregate type of measures is probably almost completely useless for the coaching/scouting staff. No point trying to assign a single number to assess a guy's production, because first, that number will always have its biases and flaws, and second, the way you use that player on the court is the most important thing, especially for players who won't touch the ball that often. Single aggregates don't allow you to troubleshoot why something is working well or not.
The more interesting stats imo are the ones that take into account the plays and situations. Like, Player X makes 30% more 3s from the left wing than the right, or the opponent scores 0.3 ppp less when Player Y is involved in the P&R defense.
On June 27 2017 23:20 ZenithM wrote: What I meant is that the single aggregate type of measures is probably almost completely useless for the coaching/scouting staff. No point trying to assign a single number to assess a guy's production, because first, that number will always have its biases and flaws, and second, the way you use that player on the court is the most important thing, especially for players who won't touch the ball that often. Single aggregates don't allow you to troubleshoot why something is working well or not.
The more interesting stats imo are the ones that take into account the plays and situations. Like, Player X makes 30% more 3s from the left wing than the right, or the opponent scores 0.3 ppp less when Player Y is involved in the P&R defense.
I would agree, but the math person in me hopes that the mythical number exists and can be found.
But realistically speaking, there is a lot of truth in what you say. The fact that not eveybody plays the same way or even assumes the same role makes this very difficult. If you add other ridges such as fatigue and non-game factors, it is clear that at best, at present, analytics is best used only as a guide and not as a hard rule.
Which is why absolute statements about player values like the ones JimmyJRaynor makes is laughable in its ignorance.
On June 27 2017 23:20 ZenithM wrote: What I meant is that the single aggregate type of measures is probably almost completely useless for the coaching/scouting staff. No point trying to assign a single number to assess a guy's production, because first, that number will always have its biases and flaws, and second, the way you use that player on the court is the most important thing, especially for players who won't touch the ball that often. Single aggregates don't allow you to troubleshoot why something is working well or not.
The more interesting stats imo are the ones that take into account the plays and situations. Like, Player X makes 30% more 3s from the left wing than the right, or the opponent scores 0.3 ppp less when Player Y is involved in the P&R defense.
Those are the ones I like. Writers like Zach Lowe frequently use those kinds of numbers in their articles. It's a management adage that good numbers are actionable. If management sees that players shoot X% less accurately near the rim when Draymond Green or Rudy Gobert is nearby, that is something that can affect game planning and roster building.
On June 27 2017 12:20 Scarecrow wrote: Arbitrary stat-line achieved through padding and a meh record apparently gets MVP. Really thought media voters would have more integrity but I guess hype and Trump america doesn't value precedence, efficiency or defense.
Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask the ghosts if honor matters.
I have an unpopular opinion: Lavar Ball is actually a hero. I am not saying he is a good person (he may or may not be, I don't have enough information about that and that is another topic), but what I'm saying is he is doing the correct moves.
Thesis Statement - Lavar is just being a good father and businessman, and is doing all he can to hype and bring the attention to his talented son/s (who indeed has/have immense potential) and to maximizing their family's financial gains form such talent.
- His loud-mouthed omnipresence in the months and weeks before the draft were all aimed to draw attention to Lonzo Ball and to generate enough traction for the Lakers goal.
His egotistical megalomaniac self-obsession and self promotion are all attempts to draw attention to his brand. The mere fact that everyone is talking about it, even in the height of the playoffs and finals, for better or for worse, is proof that this marketing effort is successful
Demanding $1billion for his sons contract from Nike and other sports brands might be an overreach, but it is a product of his belief in the talent, potential, and value of his sons... which brings us to
Putting out their own brand of shoes and apparel is a brave if not insane move. But he truly believes in his sons and, I paraphrase him "I created him, trained him, and I will sit back and let others profit off of him?" To be sure, there is ample precedence of superstars (who have way more potential than Lonzo) who put themselves under the safe umbrella of international corporations. This is a plus for Lavar, the guy is crazy. It's a long shot the BBB will succeed on its own in the long run (I believe sooner rather than later, no matter what happens to Lonzo's career, Nike will buy them out), but imagine if they succeed. We would all look back on it as a genius move. In case they don't succeed, depending on the degree of nonsucess/failure, BBB will still be of minor interest to the big companies.
I used to hate him a lot, but even casual fans who watch his interviews can see that it is partially for show, much like Conor McGregor in the UFC. He is genuinely trolling, showboating, being as ridiculous as he could be, all for the sake of getting eyes and ears to turn to him. He is even chuckling to his antics during interviews. He is a self conscious troll with a big marketing idea.
And after reading that he has been consistently putting up training programs for kids and is a relatively beloved character in his town, it makes his case more interesting
My opinion of him has changed recently too. I just knew he was a douchebag and an attention whore from talk on the Internet, but I respect him because he genuinely seems like he cares a lot for his sons. And I think it's also a smart move from him to sacrifice his public image/reputation by being so loud everywhere. That way his sons both share that Ball brand attention AND keep their own reputation clean because they don't need to do much. It's quite douchy for the other young dudes in the draft because the talk is all about Lonzo and even Lavar himself, but I respect the "family-first" mentality.
If I was in a position where I can further my children's careers if I just act like a clown on TV with little to no repercussion for them I'd probably do it.
It still remains to be seen if Lonzo will live up to the expectations though, it would fall a bit flat if he was absolutely terrible in the NBA :D. I think the other father-son approach of letting your kid grab what he deserves on his own has merits too.
I don't care much for BBB though. It won't go far if Lonzo himself isn't good.
On June 28 2017 22:40 ZenithM wrote: My opinion of him has changed recently too. I just knew he was a douchebag and an attention whore from talk on the Internet, but I respect him because he genuinely seems like he cares a lot for his sons. And I think it's also a smart move from him to sacrifice his public image/reputation by being so loud everywhere. That way his sons both share that Ball brand attention AND keep their own reputation clean because they don't need to do much. It's quite douchy for the other young dudes in the draft because the talk is all about Lonzo and even Lavar himself, but I respect the "family-first" mentality.
Ah yeah. I missed this one. He is acting like a shock absorber to all the hate so that his sons get all the attention but none of the negativity, I would be surprised if they have discussed this thoroughly already. Watching WWE last night with Lavar going batshit crazy for show, and you can see the children obviously enjoying it, thinking "i wonder how far dad will take it this time." The "Stay in yo lane" incident was rude, but I give it a pass as an emotional father protecting the reputation of his children after being attacked by the media. But everytime I see them, it seems like they are all on the same page, having fun, Even in the rare interviews with Lopnzo, you can't really say that this is a douchey family like the Kardashians, which Lavar is trying to copy for sports television.
On June 28 2017 22:40 ZenithM wrote: I don't care much for BBB though. It won't go far if Lonzo himself isn't good.
And this I think is the end game. Lavar has such confidence in his son that he is willing to take it all just so his son can do his thing and prove that he is indeed worth they hype and the $499.
Come on now, the triangle is a really nice scheme when you have the absolute best offensive threat in the game. It's even better when you have the two best, in fact! Get me Durant and Anthony Davis to the Knicks and let Jackson work his magic.
Can Dolan convince Masai Ujiri that he'll get the same level of autonomy in New York as he has in Toronto? Ujiri is about to fill the Raptors GM position with a 32 year old internal guy who has precious little NBA exec experience. Ujiri has total control of everything in Toronto.
Ujiri's track record indicates he does not like doing the team president PR type work and prefers to stick to nuts and bolts basketball. He got handed more of the PR type "team figurehead" work in Toronto when Lewieke left.
Chris Paul to Houston though, how do we feel about that? Honestly I'm a bit disappointed to see Chris Paul next to Harden (I don't like Harden too much, and that's some weird ball-handling redundancy), but this should be interesting at least.
In the last 30 years how many guys under 6'1" and had great seasons after their 32nd birthday?
This is some random-as-fuck, low sample-size stat. There aren't that many great players under 6'1 in the first place... Jerry West, Stockton and Iverson were playing pretty well at that age, and Chris Paul is in that category of talent. And CP3 isn't looking like he's slowing down on the court at all, his playstyle isn't too reliant on athletic ability anymore.
The fit is questionable. Harden became an MVP candidate sliding into the PG position. Now he has to play more off the ball again in the SG position. We'll see if he can be as effective.
On June 29 2017 01:46 ZenithM wrote: Inb4 the Clippers sweep the Rockets in the first round.
no griffin no paul no reddick, nobody's gonna sign there. i mean i guess griffin COULD resign.
starting lineup is gonna be something like, jordan, johnson/griffin(?), dekker?, williams, beverley. maybe some variation but its gonna be pretty terrible. im not sure playoffs are a sure thing if no griffin.
In the last 30 years how many guys under 6'1" and had great seasons after their 32nd birthday?
This is some random-as-fuck, low sample-size stat. There aren't that many great players under 6'1 in the first place... Jerry West, Stockton and Iverson were playing pretty well at that age, and Chris Paul is in that category of talent. And CP3 isn't looking like he's slowing down on the court at all, his playstyle isn't too reliant on athletic ability anymore.
He is referencing the data there is about point-guards and their prime years in relation to their height, specifically over/under 6'2. I am not sure if I've linked this before but I'll quote it for those w/o Insider.
"Is there empirical evidence that smaller point guards decline faster than their larger peers? Lowry and CP3 seem to be going against this line of thinking, but almost every point guard historically seems to have been borderline unstartable after age 34, excepting Stockton, Nash, Kidd, Cassell and Mark Jackson (surprisingly solid age-36 season)."
-- Nick Kogan
The way I've studied this in the past is to look at ratio compared to peak winning percentage, the per-minute version of my wins above replacement player (WARP) metric. A few years ago, I put together a list of players who had played at least nine seasons and at least 10,000 minutes and ended their careers between 2005 and 2010.
That list had 21 players I labeled point guards. They divide rather evenly into 10 players 6-foot-2 or taller (the tall group) and 11 who were 6-foot-1 or shorter (the short group, and at 5-foot-9 I mean nothing disparaging by that). While those sample sizes are smaller (shorter) than ideal for this kind of study, the results are fascinating.
While the smaller point guards were for the most part effective immediately -- Brevin Knight's best season was his rookie year at age 22, while Damon Stoudamire's came in year three at age 24 -- the larger guards generally took longer to develop. Rod Strickland peaked at age 29, Gary Payton peaked at age 30, and Cassell did not reach his peak until age 34.
So as a group, the taller point guards didn't hit their peak until age 30, much later than the smaller point guards (age 26, a little younger than the typical age-27 peak across all positions). Every year after age 27, the taller point guards were relatively better, often substantially so.
That's the thing tho zenithm, if there is one point-guard who can be worth it, you wouldl think it would be CP3 right? It's tough to ask any wing to be worth it at 38 but some players would be worth the risk more than others, and I think CP3 would be up on that list.
But going back to what is actually happening, there is no way CP3 does it w/o getting assured he is getting the 5-year extension. It is the whole reason, as president of the players' union, he pushed for the over-38 rule (you can sign a multiyear contract up to 38 instead of 36).
It will be interesting to see what other stuff Morey has lined up since they still have to add stuff to make the salaries work. The Clippers do at least get something instead of nothing, so it is worth it for them. Jamal Crawford and Lou Williams on the same team though?? :D :D
In the last 30 years how many guys under 6'1" and had great seasons after their 32nd birthday?
This is some random-as-fuck, low sample-size stat. There aren't that many great players under 6'1 in the first place... Jerry West, Stockton and Iverson were playing pretty well at that age, and Chris Paul is in that category of talent. And CP3 isn't looking like he's slowing down on the court at all, his playstyle isn't too reliant on athletic ability anymore.
it is not a stat. its a question to find out if there is any track record of short point guards having even 1 great season as they age. i suspect there are almost none.
West , Stockton, Iverson.
Jerry West: 6'2" and stopped playing in the early 70s. That was 40+ years ago... game was too different. Stockton: 6'1" and he was solid but no where near as good as he was in his prime. Iverson: "ok" at 32, 33 and terrible after that. In hindsight, signing Iversion to a deal 2 years or less at moderate money makes sense if he were 32 like Paul is. 32/33 Iverson does not deserve max level money for those 2 years.
so far Stockton is the only candidate where a 3+ year deal makes some sense.
Scoring drops a lot and quickly as point guards hit age 32. https://playbook.draftkings.com/nba/a-look-at-aging-for-nba-guards Scoring is a lot bigger part of Lowry's and Paul's game compared to Stockton. And its the most vulnerable element of a PGs game as they age.
after digging a bit more, I'd still stay away from any deal over 2 years for either Lowry or Paul.
On June 29 2017 01:57 MassHysteria wrote: But going back to what is actually happening, there is no way CP3 does it w/o getting assured he is getting the 5-year extension. It is the whole reason, as president of the players' union, he pushed for the over-38 rule (you can sign a multiyear contract up to 38 instead of 36).
that's hilarious.
that chart you posted was on ESPN's public site some time ago for free. now its behind a paywall? oh well.
You were definitely talking about a stat. How many guys scored 20+ ppg for a season? That's a stat. How many guys whose first name is Lebron and last name is James have made 7 straight finals? Another stat. How many guys are returned by my intentionally way-too-constrained query? Oh, not many!
It's a bit hard to speak of track record when we're talking about exceptional players. You don't need a precedent for everything, especially not if you're taking a risk on an all-time top 10 PG (Lowry isn't that, btw). I said Jerry West, you said the game was too different back then. Well I say the conditioning today is also different. Looking at his stat line, CP3 has been consistent for his whole stay at LAC, not showing any obvious sign of decline. I definitely understand your point that it is a risk in some form (CP3 has been a bit injury-prone too), but maybe that's a risk worth taking.
i asked a question. you responded. thanks for ur input it sparked a bit of digging on my part. i woulda swore on a stack of bibles Iverson sucked balls after age 32. and he was alright.
On June 29 2017 01:57 MassHysteria wrote: That's the thing tho zenithm, if there is one point-guard who can be worth it, you wouldl think it would be CP3 right?
thinking your 1 guy is the 1 and only guy that can be the exception to the rule is what gets GMs fired. The same thinking is going on in both Clipper-land and Raptor-ville.
i hate to see Lowry go... watching 20 playoff games in 40 nights as Lowry struggled with his messed up elbow was magic.. but its over.. and it ain't ever happening again.
On June 29 2017 02:43 ZenithM wrote: maybe that's a risk worth taking.
On June 29 2017 01:57 MassHysteria wrote: That's the thing tho zenithm, if there is one point-guard who can be worth it, you wouldl think it would be CP3 right?
thinking your 1 guy is the 1 and only guy that can be the exception to the rule is what gets GMs fired. The same thinking is going on in both Clipper-land and Raptor-ville.
IF you are saying no way he stays the same player until 38 then that's a pretty easy thing to agree with. There is no way the last few years are going to be worth it on per-year basis, he is 37-38. If HOU or whoever for that matter does that for CP3 or any player (lebron), they are accepting that and knowingly going all-out the next few seasons. When the time to pay come in those last few years, they will know what they are really paying for at that point. Judgement will come down to how things went...did they win a championship? Did they knock out GS in one of the playoffs? etc
edit: ya Lowry is a tough one JimmyJ! Well both are tough really... CP3 could just sit on the outside and shoot for a few minutes per game later on
On June 29 2017 02:43 ZenithM wrote: You don't need a precedent for everything, especially not if you're taking a risk on an all-time top 10 PG
true, there are exceptions, the data on PGs at 32+ years of age experiencing drop off in scoring in comprehensive. the data MassHysteria provided about short PGs is important and valuable but only 21 players.
Taken from MassHysteria's quote of the ESPN article
While the smaller point guards were for the most part effective immediately -- Brevin Knight's best season was his rookie year at age 22, while Damon Stoudamire's came in year three at age 24 -- the larger guards generally took longer to develop. Rod Strickland peaked at age 29, Gary Payton peaked at age 30, and Cassell did not reach his peak until age 34.
i'm pretty sure that in all sports tall athletes take longer to mature and peak than short athletes.
^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact.
Going by raw numbers, Stockton peaked before he made it to the NBA Finals. He was around 35-36 when he made it and he peaked much earlier. Houston doesn't care if CP3 is past his peak if he can make them better.
But what really solidified Paul’s dissatisfaction with Doc was a proposed trade involving Carmelo Anthony last season. New York offered Carmelo and Sasha Vujacic to the Clippers in exchange for Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce and Austin Rivers, a deal to which Rivers ultimately said no. That event led Paul to feel that keeping his son on the roster was more important to Doc than improving the team. So, ultimately, Paul lost both trust and faith in Doc. As one league executive put it, “Chris despises Doc.
But what really solidified Paul’s dissatisfaction with Doc was a proposed trade involving Carmelo Anthony last season. New York offered Carmelo and Sasha Vujacic to the Clippers in exchange for Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce and Austin Rivers, a deal to which Rivers ultimately said no. That event led Paul to feel that keeping his son on the roster was more important to Doc than improving the team. So, ultimately, Paul lost both trust and faith in Doc. As one league executive put it, “Chris despises Doc.
Ummm... Wow? LOL
doc single handedly destroying a franchise for his son lelz
On June 29 2017 06:44 Disregard wrote: Michael Eaves@ SportsCenter
But what really solidified Paul’s dissatisfaction with Doc was a proposed trade involving Carmelo Anthony last season. New York offered Carmelo and Sasha Vujacic to the Clippers in exchange for Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce and Austin Rivers, a deal to which Rivers ultimately said no. That event led Paul to feel that keeping his son on the roster was more important to Doc than improving the team. So, ultimately, Paul lost both trust and faith in Doc. As one league executive put it, “Chris despises Doc.
Ummm... Wow? LOL
doc single handedly destroying a franchise for his son lelz
doesn't help that he is also the pres, a shitshow like this was bound to happen, thats why there is a thing called a segregation of duties
Phil Jackson seems to have drafted decently for the Knicks. It's the trades for veterans and free agent signing of veterans that he completely fucked up. IIRC, the notorious Isiah Thomas had a few good draft picks as well, when he wasn't trading them away like toxic radioactive material. At least Jackson didn't trade away all their future picks.
But what really solidified Paul’s dissatisfaction with Doc was a proposed trade involving Carmelo Anthony last season. New York offered Carmelo and Sasha Vujacic to the Clippers in exchange for Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce and Austin Rivers, a deal to which Rivers ultimately said no. That event led Paul to feel that keeping his son on the roster was more important to Doc than improving the team. So, ultimately, Paul lost both trust and faith in Doc. As one league executive put it, “Chris despises Doc.
Ummm... Wow? LOL
I still think Carmelo could be useful, especially if he had CP3 with him. But maybe this is all for good. Rivers is one of the most overrated shittiest coach in the NBA. His Celtics win was due to the Big 3, even Drake could have coached that team to a championship. He destroyed a franchise due to nepotism.
How are the clippers 'destroyed' and how is Austin Rivers to blame? Rivers is overrated but he's not THAT shitty a coach, feels like you're just caught up in hater hyperbole.
How about this. You're a coach and you know that the best pure guard in the league is in your team, and he is in very real danger of leaving the team, and you block a trade that could improve your team just so you could save your son.
I've bandwaggoned on a lot of things, but I've hated him since Orlando.
The Genius of the Morey/CP3 trade: - Harden fronted the "negotiations" as FO cannot do so. - FO dangled Houston's non tax-equalization, thereby 6.5% tax rate, allowing CO3 to earn more than the contract - S/T allows CP3 to fall within the CBA 38-yo rule, as his 5th max year fall on his 38th year - Technically the trade in financial value would have had to include either Ariza or Gordon. Houston worked under the cap and packaged it with players salary in order to give room for the ~18m needed to get CP3, thus saving Ariza and Gordon
On June 29 2017 12:17 Twinkle Toes wrote: How about this. You're a coach and you know that the best pure guard in the league is in your team, and he is in very real danger of leaving the team, and you block a trade that could improve your team just so you could save your son.
I've bandwaggoned on a lot of things, but I've hated him since Orlando.
All rumors though.
Reports even indicate jackson rejected the trade first.
This is a valid topic for debate. The Same can be said of Winter-triangle - did it work because of superstars MJ and Pip + Kukoc, Rodman, or does the system make the players great. We can speculate all day and night but fact of the matter is, he won 11 rings and tamed and harnessed young Jordan, Rodman, early Kobe, and prime Kobe and Shaq ego. For that alone, he is definitely a great coach
Rivers has a history of choking, bad rotations, and just terrible decision making. I wouldn't necessarily call that "plain incompetent", but definitely he is overrated because of that one championship.
I agree. Which is why this year's Spo, Boston coach, and take-that-for-data coach are all wothy of COTY. D'Antoni is revolutionary though, can't really argue with that win.
On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote: ^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact.
I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy.
I personally like coaches like Pop and Kerr who turn good teams into great teams. Jackson was great as a coach in doing that. Jordan was considered a selfish scorer who wasn't a winner before he came along. His failings as a gm shouldn't detract from that. They are two different skill sets.
Turning good into great is much harder than turning bad/mediocre into good. In the NBA, championship contenders pace themselves in the regular season. Plenty of coaches turn mediocre teams into good by simply going all out during the regular season and playing their starters more minutes (Hi, Thibs). And considering most of the teams are jumbled in the middle, breaking out of the pack in a random year is just due to randomness.
On June 29 2017 22:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: Dan Tony: "All your PGs are belong to us!"
The Genius of the Morey/CP3 trade: - Harden fronted the "negotiations" as FO cannot do so. - FO dangled Houston's non tax-equalization, thereby 6.5% tax rate, allowing CO3 to earn more than the contract - S/T allows CP3 to fall within the CBA 38-yo rule, as his 5th max year fall on his 38th year - Technically the trade in financial value would have had to include either Ariza or Gordon. Houston worked under the cap and packaged it with players salary in order to give room for the ~18m needed to get CP3, thus saving Ariza and Gordon
ya, that was in the reddit post about abusing the CBA... thx for copying it over. to flesh that out and fully quote the reddit post i'll add his comment "This is why lawyers have positions in front offices." reddit user WaswereV2 knows his stuff. his reddit posts are worth a read. he also follows the Raptors and provides some good insights.
On June 29 2017 01:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i'd stay away from any point guard under 6'1", over 32 years old and wanting a long term deal. In the last 30 years how many guys under 6'1" had great seasons after their 32nd birthday? i'd stay away from both Paul and Lowry if they want a deal longer than 2 years. Let someone else screw up their salary cap.
Another one of your "analytics"? Stop already dude. You are a known ignoramus, coward, and liar.
the discussion proved fruitful; you ignored it and arrived late.
i might not have a big fancy B.Math degree but i did take 2.5 years of university math as part of my program from a university with a good reputation in math. do you have any input regarding the math in Rosenbaum's technique for calculating APM? If not , then i'm moving it to the math thread.
Chris Paul didn't get signed to a deal longer than 2 years. Houston gets a full year to see him up close and come up with reasons to lower his pay on an extension. Lowry is still available. I wouldn't go near that guy for anything longer than 2 years. He will probably get a deal longer than 2 years for more than 20M+/year and that will be a mistake.
On June 29 2017 02:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i'm pretty sure that in all sports tall athletes take longer to mature and peak than short athletes.
On June 29 2017 22:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: Define tall and short?
i use "tall" and "short" to state things simply. In the same way you'll hear baseball people say "Tall pitchers take longer to mature than short pitchers".
however, i'll be more precise in my language: the age where peak level performance begins ...increases with height. treat height as a variable measured it in millimeters. do it across all sports and check the results. taller athletes peak at a later age.
Mike Tyson (for a heavyweight) , Wayne Gretzky (for a hockey player), and Marcus Stroman ( for a pitcher) are short. Roy Halladay, Noah Syndergaard, Zdeno Chara, and Lennox Lewis are tall.
On June 29 2017 22:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: Dan Tony: "All your PGs are belong to us!"
The Genius of the Morey/CP3 trade: - Harden fronted the "negotiations" as FO cannot do so. - FO dangled Houston's non tax-equalization, thereby 6.5% tax rate, allowing CO3 to earn more than the contract - S/T allows CP3 to fall within the CBA 38-yo rule, as his 5th max year fall on his 38th year - Technically the trade in financial value would have had to include either Ariza or Gordon. Houston worked under the cap and packaged it with players salary in order to give room for the ~18m needed to get CP3, thus saving Ariza and Gordon
ya, that was in the reddit post about abusing the CBA... thx for copying it over. to flesh that out and fully quote the reddit post i'll add his comment "This is why lawyers have positions in front offices." reddit user WaswereV2 knows his stuff. his reddit posts are worth a read. he also follows the Raptors and provides some good insights.
On June 29 2017 22:22 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
On June 29 2017 01:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i'd stay away from any point guard under 6'1", over 32 years old and wanting a long term deal. In the last 30 years how many guys under 6'1" had great seasons after their 32nd birthday? i'd stay away from both Paul and Lowry if they want a deal longer than 2 years. Let someone else screw up their salary cap.
Another one of your "analytics"? Stop already dude. You are a known ignoramus, coward, and liar.
the discussion proved fruitful; you ignored it and arrived late.
i might not have a big fancy B.Math degree but i did take 2.5 years of university math as part of my program from a university with a good reputation in math. do you have any input regarding the math in Rosenbaum's technique for calculating APM? If not , then i'm moving it to the math thread.
Chris Paul didn't get signed to a deal longer than 2 years. Houston gets a full year to see him up close and come up with reasons to lower his pay on an extension. Lowry is still available. I wouldn't go near that guy for anything longer than 2 years. He will probably get a deal longer than 2 years for more than 20M+/year and that will be a mistake.
On June 29 2017 02:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i'm pretty sure that in all sports tall athletes take longer to mature and peak than short athletes.
On June 29 2017 22:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: Define tall and short?
i use "tall" and "short" to state things simply. In the same way you'll hear baseball people say "Tall pitchers take longer to mature than short pitchers".
however, i'll be more precise in my language:
age of peak level performance increases with height. treat height as a variable measured it in millimeters. do it across all sports and check the results. taller athletes peak at a later age.
Mike Tyson (for a heavyweight) , Wayne Gretzky (for a hockey player), and Marcus Stroman ( for a pitcher) are short. Roy Halladay, Noah Syndergaard, Zdeno Chara, and Lennox Lewis are tall.
Great examples. How about some on the other side Dwight Gooden youngest pitcher to get 20 wins (6'3) Mario Lemiux (6'4) Dominated juniors, first shirt first goal as good as anyone at any age Lebron james, 6'8 Not a bad player Ali was 6'3 won a gold medal at 18. Also Gretzky is 6 feet tall. For hockey that is about average. You can find short and tall people who develop early and late. Listing a few "short guys" who developed early and few tall guys who developed late does not prove anything.
its pretty much established taller athletes take longer to get to peak performance because the taller you are the later in life you reach your peak height. one's nervous system is still adjusting and not fully settled in while one's body is still changing.
So a short athlete who stopped growing at 15 can have their nervous system fully settle into their body for 3+ years while an athlete who will eventually grow to over 6'5" is still growing and their nervous system is still trying to catch up.
On June 30 2017 00:18 andrewlt wrote: I personally like coaches like Pop and Kerr who turn good teams into great teams. Jackson was great as a coach in doing that. Jordan was considered a selfish scorer who wasn't a winner before he came along. His failings as a gm shouldn't detract from that. They are two different skill sets.
Turning good into great is much harder than turning bad/mediocre into good. In the NBA, championship contenders pace themselves in the regular season. Plenty of coaches turn mediocre teams into good by simply going all out during the regular season and playing their starters more minutes (Hi, Thibs). And considering most of the teams are jumbled in the middle, breaking out of the pack in a random year is just due to randomness.
Pop is a conundrum to me though. I have always wondered, but not enough to go on an in-depth research on it, why he was unable to at least repeat despite being perennial contenders.
On June 29 2017 22:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: Dan Tony: "All your PGs are belong to us!"
The Genius of the Morey/CP3 trade: - Harden fronted the "negotiations" as FO cannot do so. - FO dangled Houston's non tax-equalization, thereby 6.5% tax rate, allowing CO3 to earn more than the contract - S/T allows CP3 to fall within the CBA 38-yo rule, as his 5th max year fall on his 38th year - Technically the trade in financial value would have had to include either Ariza or Gordon. Houston worked under the cap and packaged it with players salary in order to give room for the ~18m needed to get CP3, thus saving Ariza and Gordon
ya, that was in the reddit post about abusing the CBA... thx for copying it over. to flesh that out and fully quote the reddit post i'll add his comment "This is why lawyers have positions in front offices." reddit user WaswereV2 knows his stuff. his reddit posts are worth a read. he also follows the Raptors and provides some good insights.
Where did I state that this is my own deep meditation and thorough analysis of the topic?
This shit is common knowledge, it was mentioned by webber as soon as the trade went public. heck kellerman was blabbing about it as well. It is a good point that is worth posting here since no one mentioned it yet.
On June 29 2017 01:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i'd stay away from any point guard under 6'1", over 32 years old and wanting a long term deal. In the last 30 years how many guys under 6'1" had great seasons after their 32nd birthday? i'd stay away from both Paul and Lowry if they want a deal longer than 2 years. Let someone else screw up their salary cap.
Another one of your "analytics"? Stop already dude. You are a known ignoramus, coward, and liar.
the discussion proved fruitful; you ignored it and arrived late.
I present to you, fruitful discussion - all effectively contradicting YOUR BULLSHIT NONSENSE
andrewlt Going by raw numbers, Stockton peaked before he made it to the NBA Finals. He was around 35-36 when he made it and he peaked much earlier. Houston doesn't care if CP3 is past his peak if he can make them better.
Jerubaal ^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
ZenithM You were definitely talking about a stat. How many guys scored 20+ ppg for a season? That's a stat. How many guys whose first name is Lebron and last name is James have made 7 straight finals? Another stat. How many guys are returned by my intentionally way-too-constrained query? Oh, not many!
On June 30 2017 00:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i might not have a big fancy B.Math degree but i did take 2.5 years of university math as part of my program from a university with a good reputation in math. do you have any input regarding the math in Rosenbaum's technique for calculating APM? If not , then i'm moving it to the math thread.
Who the fuck cares about your degree??!!!
No one brought that up, stay on topic.
Remember, it all started with you proclaiming your grand knowledge of analytics.
I called you out after I read and realized you know nothing about it. I challenged you. What did you do?
You crawled back to your filthy hole.
I repeat this as it needs to be emphasized - You know nothing about analytics, so stop using it in your defense
At best, you could say that, "here, read this article that I liked" and leave it at that. Stop pretending that you actually understand anything about it.
On June 29 2017 22:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: Define tall and short?
i use "tall" and "short" to state things simply. In the same way you'll hear baseball people say "Tall pitchers take longer to mature than short pitchers".
however, i'll be more precise in my language:
age of peak level performance increases with height. treat height as a variable measured it in millimeters. do it across all sports and check the results. taller athletes peak at a later age.
Mike Tyson (for a heavyweight) , Wayne Gretzky (for a hockey player), and Marcus Stroman ( for a pitcher) are short. Roy Halladay, Noah Syndergaard, Zdeno Chara, and Lennox Lewis are tall.
PERFECT. I asked you a specific question and you dodge it, like the true coward that you are. Why? because you know that once you answer it honestly, empirical data will prove you wrong.
I am not very articulate with insults, and I can be very rough, so I'll just quote what was said about you:
no dodge, i increased the precision of my statement. you can pick any height as the dividing point and put the tall guys in 1 group and the short guys in another group and the short guys hit peak performance first. So, let's choose 6'2" point guards and use the ESPN investigation as one example.
so i'll move the Rosenbaum adjusted plus/minus stuff to the math thread. glad that is out of the way.
Suddenly this page became a wall of post. I had a question earlier that I'm curious to know the answer to, I'll just repost for visibility:
Pop is a conundrum to me though. I have always wondered, but not enough to go on an in-depth research on it, Why was he unable to at least repeat despite being perennial contenders?
On June 30 2017 00:18 andrewlt wrote: I personally like coaches like Pop and Kerr who turn good teams into great teams. Jackson was great as a coach in doing that. Jordan was considered a selfish scorer who wasn't a winner before he came along. His failings as a gm shouldn't detract from that. They are two different skill sets.
Turning good into great is much harder than turning bad/mediocre into good. In the NBA, championship contenders pace themselves in the regular season. Plenty of coaches turn mediocre teams into good by simply going all out during the regular season and playing their starters more minutes (Hi, Thibs). And considering most of the teams are jumbled in the middle, breaking out of the pack in a random year is just due to randomness.
Moreover, it is easier to perform well in the playoffs with marginally good players and get 50+ wins because mostly games are 1-shot.
Games are normally isolated and opponents cannot fully prepare against you.
It is during the playoffs when talent and strategy are exposed that the great ones emerge.
2015 Pacers, 2016 Hawks, 2017 Celtics are examples of this.
Pop never builds , "now and only-now and screw-the-future" , super dominant teams. Most repeat winners have at least 1 year where they are super dominant.
And IIRC, Spurs were practically one win away from championship a few times. Spurs would have seriously been the most dominant team had they won 7 or 8 in the entire 00s and 10s. Shaq/Kobe Lakers were the only legitimate threats.
In other news, how will D'Antoni work Harden and CP3? Other than Capella, surely they'll need a good 4 or 5 to take advantage of all the point guard power?
"Dolan said he would not be involved in the operation of the team, adding that general manager Steve Mills would run the day-to-day business in the short term and that former Toronto executive Tim Leiweke would advise him and help develop a plan going forward."
Lewieke hired Ujiri away from Denver and gave Ujiri his first monster deal. Seeing how Ujiri reacted upon Lewieke's exit it appeared to me Ujiri genuinely liked working for Lewieke.
Lewieke did a great job in Toronto while spending a mother-fuck-tonne of cash. If Dolan gives Lewieke the same license to spend like crazy... look out.
EDIT: if Dolan gives Lewieke a similar full-time position to what he had with MLSE then i say Ujiri is going to NY. If Lewieke is just a part time guy around for emergency purposes then i say Ujiri stays in Toronto and Lewieke is just using the Ujiri gossip to make it seem like everyone wants to work for the Knicks.
The West is just too loaded and I don't think the Spurs have had the really dominant teams the Lakers and Warriors have put out.
Bad injury luck and bad timing luck have also played a part in it. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Kobe/Gasol Lakers and current Warriors team all started after a Spurs championship. Injuries to Duncan after their first championship and Ginobili among others a few times after that played a role too.
The current incarnation of the Spurs has really only won one championship. The previous four were during the pound the post with Tim Duncan era. The fourth championship is a bit in the middle as Tony Parker was really great during that run. They were already in the process of copying some D'Antoni principles from facing his Suns regularly during the playoffs.
On the rivers discussion from a page back. I have only followed the nba a couple of years, but I have always thought Doc looked incompetent because he never got his second line up to work. They tried different trades over and over, but the guys couldnt play as a team. Let jamal crawford do his thing and hope for the best seemed to be the only "strategy". I feel like a more competent coach would have gotten better synergy.
The Blue Jays and Raptors have always coveted non-American players because they're afraid US born players will always want to leave and play closer to home. Age fraud has always been a problem for both teams when dealing with players born outside US and Canada.
On June 30 2017 05:56 Elroi wrote: On the rivers discussion from a page back. I have only followed the nba a couple of years, but I have always thought Doc looked incompetent because he never got his second line up to work. They tried different trades over and over, but the guys couldnt play as a team. Let jamal crawford do his thing and hope for the best seemed to be the only "strategy". I feel like a more competent coach would have gotten better synergy.
That has always been a headscrathcer. I'm sure Crawford is a good dude. Isiah Thomas, Grant Hill, and even most rookies speak highly of him, but he is the worst player to depend your offense on.
He is like the worst non-weed version of JR Smith. He may be flashy and my be deadly in stretches, but he is as likely to shoot and dribble his team out of games than win them. When he is on the floor with the second unit, the team automatically stagnates.
I'm interested to see where the Clippers go with their trade, especially now that they have Williams + Crawford... As far as Doc goes, I really think him and Jackson are proving that great coaches aren't always great GMs. I don't know what it is, whether it's the stress of the two jobs put together or if its the decisions Doc is making, but in my opinion, I think coaches should just focus on coaching and trust the management to do their jobs.
On June 30 2017 07:03 imBLIND wrote: I'm interested to see where the Clippers go with their trade, especially now that they have Williams + Crawford... As far as Doc goes, I really think him and Jackson are proving that great coaches aren't always great GMs. I don't know what it is, whether it's the stress of the two jobs put together or if its the decisions Doc is making, but in my opinion, I think coaches should just focus on coaching and trust the management to do their jobs.
On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote: ^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact.
I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy.
Thanks for forcing me to think about this more.
I'm sure many of you had an initial distaste for Ball's antics. Many also probably dismissed such revulsion as being irrational. It's become fashionable to poopoo the idea of social etiquette in the light of a rationalism. All these mores are just rules for transactions, ok. As quickly as you clarify the situation, though, you realize the futility of trying to get out from underneath it. If you reduce social behavior to mere transactionalism, you strip it of all other human affections. Thus, such behavior is usually shunned.
Mr. Ball is essentially making the Transactional argument. He's trying to maximize his value and so is everyone else. It's really not the bombasticness of him that's questionable, it's his directness. It is true that everyone else is trying to maximize their value as well, but Markelle Fultz and De'aaron Fox are leaving open the possibility of being a human being beyond their market value. Ball is trying to strip his interaction to a transaction, but what he's done is make himself only a transaction.
As for whether he can change, you're looking at the wrong thing. If I have some sort of value system, then I can pivot. I can say I've changed my mind or that I'm making a decision for practical reasons. If my only values are ego and money, people are going to assume that that's always my goal. If I'm loud, it's ego and money. If I'm quiet, probably money.
And to respond to your question about Nony's post, it's important for no other reason than that if people see it, they will imitate it. The reason cultures tend to get more polite is because, as much handwringing as there is about "honesty" and "being real", life is generally better when everyone isn't an abrasive blowhard.
As for Coach Pop: I I hope I'm not being too self serving, but I'd like to think that the Spurs are a product of good team building while most of the other champions are simply an overwhelming accumulation of talent. It's kind of depressing really to think that the champion is pretty predictable most years and only the paragon of teamwork Spurs have stood up to them most years. The Mavericks are really the only blip in the last few years. The interesting thing about it is that even as good as they have been, there's a ton of luck involved...unless you're one of the aforementioned overwhelming collections of talent.
It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league.
On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote: ^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact.
I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy.
Thanks for forcing me to think about this more.
I'm sure many of you had an initial distaste for Ball's antics. Many also probably dismissed such revulsion as being irrational. It's become fashionable to poopoo the idea of social etiquette in the light of a rationalism. All these mores are just rules for transactions, ok. As quickly as you clarify the situation, though, you realize the futility of trying to get out from underneath it. If you reduce social behavior to mere transactionalism, you strip it of all other human affections. Thus, such behavior is usually shunned.
Mr. Ball is essentially making the Transactional argument. He's trying to maximize his value and so is everyone else. It's really not the bombasticness of him that's questionable, it's his directness. It is true that everyone else is trying to maximize their value as well, but Markelle Fultz and De'aaron Fox are leaving open the possibility of being a human being beyond their market value. Ball is trying to strip his interaction to a transaction, but what he's done is make himself only a transaction.
As for whether he can change, you're looking at the wrong thing. If I have some sort of value system, then I can pivot. I can say I've changed my mind or that I'm making a decision for practical reasons. If my only values are ego and money, people are going to assume that that's always my goal. If I'm loud, it's ego and money. If I'm quiet, probably money.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, let me repay in kind.
I agree with your framework of analysis but I disagree on the conclusion. If I understand you correctly, we both agree that Ball's modus operandi is excessive unabashed self-promotion for monetary gain. You then proceed by reducing this phenomenon to the fact that this is a product of his bankrupt moral system. (Please correct any misappropriations. Volumes upon volumes are written on this topic, and they barely cover it satisfactorily. I am sure with out limitation in time and space here, much will be lost in translation.)
The question to mind, assuming all of this as true, is so what?! What you see as an irredeemable flaw, I see as a mere wrinkle in the face of modern civilizarion, no more threatening or significant than all the other things modern media and society in general churns out on a daily basis. In cultural theory, we learn of the power of agency. The degrees of this power range the full spectrum, from Foucault's dispersion of (non)centric power, to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomatic revolution, and even to Feyerabend's disavowal of structure. Let me emphasize once again the question of "so what?". The flaw in your analysis is you fail to account for the power of agency. You, me, and anybody else are not passive subjects that absorb and emulate whatever is out there. The effects of such external stimuli vary greatly, mostly as an indication of educational and socioeconomic status, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a simple equation of cause and effect, stimulus and response. Ball can talk and act all crazy as he wants, it does not mean that you or me or anybody else should normalize or be affected by such behavior.
Which brings me to a more important point. Ball is nothing more than what and where we are as a society right now. We live in the era of Kardashians, fake tv dramas, alternative facts, pictures of breakfast on instragram, memes, covfefes, and selfies. Ball fits perfectly right in. We may all frown upon the brashness, indiscretion, bombasticness, egotism, and stupidity of it all, but it's all on him, and not on us.
Warhol once said, in defense of the Campbell Soup: "If you want to make great art, you must first have a great society". We live in a shitty society, hence we have shitty people and stunts like these. The real question is, which side of the equation are you?
With all this in mind, we really cannot begrudge Ball for doing what he thinks is best for his interest. At the very least, we have for ourselves live and ongoing entertainment.
And to respond to your question about Nony's post, it's important for no other reason than that if people see it, they will imitate it. The reason cultures tend to get more polite is because, as much handwringing as there is about "honesty" and "being real", life is generally better when everyone isn't an abrasive blowhard.
Again, you are subscribing to the magic bullet theory. I have touched on this above, but let me summarize once more:.Ball may be shitty, we do not have to imitate him.
As for Coach Pop: I I hope I'm not being too self serving, but I'd like to think that the Spurs are a product of good team building while most of the other champions are simply an overwhelming accumulation of talent. It's kind of depressing really to think that the champion is pretty predictable most years and only the paragon of teamwork Spurs have stood up to them most years. The Mavericks are really the only blip in the last few years. The interesting thing about it is that even as good as they have been, there's a ton of luck involved...unless you're one of the aforementioned overwhelming collections of talent.
To add to this, the Spurs have two decades of excellence, with a consistent batch of always classy and anti-ego.players. JVG summed up Manu perfectly, saying something like "in all his years, Manu has never cheated the game. He has always come out to give it his all." I almost cried listening to the truth of this statement. Good thing though, reports indicate Manu may still be on for a year.
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league.
Not mediocre. Above average talent (Green, Klay) + transcendental talent who skyrocketed at his peak (Curry) + acquisition of significant talents who complement the core (Shaun, Iggy) + players who fill the gaps, + currently #1 player in the NBA, all playing as a coherent efficient whole.
Kerr himself credits M.Jackson as the one who got the team going, Kerr's contribution is that he provided the sane voice and leadership that the players could subscribe to.
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league.
Not mediocre. Above average talent (Green, Klay) + transcendental talent who skyrocketed at his peak (Curry) + acquisition of significant talents who complemented the core (Shaun, Iggy) + players who filled the gaps, + currently #1 player in the NBA (you know who) who all play as a coherent efficient whole.
Kerr himself credits M.Jackson as the one who got the team going, Kerr's contribution is that he provided the sane voice and leadership that the players could subscribe to.
I think the most (one of) impressive thing is the lack of ego. All willing to share ball, share glory, do little things on d to win. Most people you give them this amount of money fame coddling, they dont tend to do Great at taking the backseat or teamwork in general.
Very true. Although I think Klay and Iggy are the ones most likely to leave first, if ever. Klay because I assume he would want some spotlight all by himself. And Iggy because I think he is in the old mature statesman phase and he has done more than he should have for the Warriors, and in the twilight of his career, he might want to help another team get a championship.
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league.
Not mediocre. Above average talent (Green, Klay) + transcendental talent who skyrocketed at his peak (Curry) + acquisition of significant talents who complement the core (Shaun, Iggy) + players who fill the gaps, + currently #1 player in the NBA, all playing as a coherent efficient whole.
Kerr himself credits M.Jackson as the one who got the team going, Kerr's contribution is that he provided the sane voice and leadership that the players could subscribe to.
Hmm, your assessment of their talent now is quite higher than a few pages ago iirc. Weren't you arguing that the Cavs were more talented, and by a good margin? Or was that someone else?
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league.
Not mediocre. Above average talent (Green, Klay) + transcendental talent who skyrocketed at his peak (Curry) + acquisition of significant talents who complement the core (Shaun, Iggy) + players who fill the gaps, + currently #1 player in the NBA, all playing as a coherent efficient whole.
Kerr himself credits M.Jackson as the one who got the team going, Kerr's contribution is that he provided the sane voice and leadership that the players could subscribe to.
Hmm, your assessment of their talent now is quite higher than a few pages ago iirc. Weren't you arguing that the Cavs were more talented, and by a good margin? Or was that someone else?
Maybe, but I've never called them mediocre. And honestly, yes the Cavs are equally if not more talented (rough unscientific assessment, but I stand by it). Their problem is that they fail to work as a team.
Top 3 vs top 3 is fine, but it's top 4 vs top 4 which tilts the balance for GSW by quite a lot. You would rather have one of Green/Klay rather than Thompson. Then top 5 vs top 5 is even worst for the Cavs. GSW's fifth best is Iguodala, I wouldn't even know who's the 5th best for the Cavs...
I honestly think the Big 3 from the Cavs is more talented than the top 3 players from GSW (with whomever you want to include at third). Because Love is really underrated and underused in the Cavs. But if you go past 3 and go up to 5 then it's just laughable how better the Warriors are.
That's where we disagree. If the Cavs played like a team like GSW, they could have won against them: - Lebron - Kyrie was having his way against any defender GSW threw at him - Love and Korver were greatly limited by the Kyrie-iso and Lebron-kickout plays - Thompson wet the bed - JR Smith was underutilized when he was feelin it
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy).
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league.
I guess it's the business school grad in me, but I think that that makes Kerr a greater leader than people think. He changed the offensive philosophy from an isolation based offense to a motion and ball sharing offense. He refined the switching defense. He changed the culture from toxic to the fun, hippie love culture they currently have. The vast majority of the sports world considers micromanagement to be the pinnacle of leadership, something I vehemently disagree with. If Pop decides to take a two week vacation in the Bahamas in mid- December, do the Spurs suddenly forget how to run his offense?
Apple today is still a function of Steve Jobs' leadership. He's been dead for a while. That the company can run itself without him for this long is a credit to him.
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy).
Iggy gets thrown in way before Shaun and McGee. He was on the brink of irredeemable decline after being considered the 76ers franchise. He is the silent superglue of this team.
On July 01 2017 00:32 Twinkle Toes wrote: That's where we disagree. If the Cavs played like a team like GSW, they could have won against them: - Lebron - Kyrie was having his way against any defender GSW threw at him - Love and Korver were greatly limited by the Kyrie-iso and Lebron-kickout plays - Thompson wet the bed - JR Smith was underutilized when he was feelin it
Well, once again, the Cavs' offense was mostly fine. I'm bad at searching for stats but I'm guessing their team TS% was alright? Talent also includes defensive ability though. And basically everybody on the Cavs is a terrible 1on1 defender. I'm not even talking about their team defense. Just individually, they have nothing to throw at Curry and Durant. Jefferson on Durant, are you kidding me? GS has multiple great 1v1 defenders in Klay, Iguodala, Green and even Durant.
I guess you could argue that the Cavs' players defend poorly because they don't buy into the team spirit or they're not involved enough in offense to care about defense or something. There is probably some truth to that, but having an extra defensive wing to put on Durant would still have been key for me.
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy).
I was specifically talking about Kerr's role in this team. And Kerr had absolutely no part in the building of the team, starting 2014-15. Even starting Draymond can be seen as a natural product of David Lee being hurt. I'm not denying any of the good points about GSW being homegrown and having a good team mindset and direction and all that, I'm past that :D. I'm even willing to not call them a superteam by the "mercenary recruiting" criterion. The following point you made about Kerr kickstarting the ball-sharing spirit and turning the culture into a fun one, this I can see being true. He does seem like a person you would like to play your hardest for, honestly.
I agree then. I'm an idiot for believing them they'd "make the switch" (Lebron can be high-school dramatic at times). Turns out, Lebron is far from the defensive monster he once was, Kyrie is ok when motivated, horrible when not, JR Smith makes it looks like a 6 vs. 4 all the time, and I haven't followed anyone else closely to make a valid comment. Yeah, Cavs D sucks.
On July 01 2017 01:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I was so busy watching Durant vs. Lebron that I missed a lot of details. TT was a monster last year, what happened to him?
It came down to GS planning well for him and had several potential hungry guys to box him out consistently every possession. I didn't realize it until the finals, but TT's size prevents him from outrebounding motivated taller guys. That's the thing TT has over most everybody, he's more motivated for rebounds than them, because that's almost his sole designated role. But Durant wanted that ring bad so he did his part boxing TT out :D, and a lot of other guys did too.
And on Durant vs Lebron, to me it was clear that Lebron just can't deal with Durant 1on1 anymore. Lebron is the defensive mind of the team and is always thinking about the next play, especially the next offensive possession that he will likely have to lead. You don't want that guy on Durant, you want a guy who will pester him and hound him to no end, be constantly physical on him off-ball to tire him out. You want the pure 1on1 defender that will come back harder when he gets scored on. It just seemed like Lebron gave up after Durant scored a few times on him and just thought "well, we'll have to accept that Durant is scoring at will then..."
The thing is, if good team defense can mostly deal with Curry, with good trapping, good hedges on screens, you absolutely need a smothering 1v1 defender on Durant because of his size alone. Or double team him constantly (but with all the commitment they had on Curry already, that's not easy, they can't very well double team 2 guys at once :D). Also, the Cavs were defaulting to switching a bit too easily. They don't have the personel to switch everything like this without a fight. I always find this so weird in the modern NBA when I see teams giving up the switch like it's a rule of the pick&roll now.
On July 01 2017 00:32 Twinkle Toes wrote: That's where we disagree. If the Cavs played like a team like GSW, they could have won against them:
To create the team dynamic GSW has you need a high degree of team continuity. Cleveland didn't have that. its very hard to create that kind of team dynamic in any circumstance. Its impossible when you're swapping players in and out all year long the way Cleveland did. second, Korver and Irving are bad defenders and have been for the vast majority of their careers. I don't think better team chemistry makes that go away.
you can't acquire a bad defender like Korver half way through the year and expect him to gel with your defense. From the time Korver was acquired Cleveland's defense was average or worse.
imo, Cleveland's average defense makes a win against GSW impossible unless GSW players get hurt.
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy).
I was specifically talking about Kerr's role in this team. And Kerr had absolutely no part in the building of the team, starting 2014-15. Even starting Draymond can be seen as a natural product of David Lee being hurt. I'm not denying any of the good points about GSW being homegrown and having a good team mindset and direction and all that, I'm past that :D. I'm even willing to not call them a superteam by the "mercenary recruiting" criterion. The following point you made about Kerr kickstarting the ball-sharing spirit and turning the culture into a fun one, this I can see being true. He does seem like a person you would like to play your hardest for, honestly.
Well, as a coach, he's supposed to get out of the GM's way. I suppose with all the egos in professional sports, it's harder than it looks (see: Mark Jackson, Larry Brown, Jason Kidd, Thibs, and so on).
On D, the Cavs couldn't even do switching or offense to defense transition correctly. Multiple times, Klay ran past Durant and both Cavs players chased him. Easy dunk. And who could forget game 1, when Durant had multiple coast to coast dunks because the Cavs had too many people watching Curry on the wing. The Cavs need a vocal defensive leader who will bark out directions.
On July 01 2017 01:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I was so busy watching Durant vs. Lebron that I missed a lot of details. TT was a monster last year, what happened to him?
It came down to GS planning well for him and had several potential hungry guys to box him out consistently every possession. I didn't realize it until the finals, but TT's size prevents him from outrebounding motivated taller guys. That's the thing TT has over most everybody, he's more motivated for rebounds than them, because that's almost his sole designated role. But Durant wanted that ring bad so he did his part boxing TT out :D, and a lot of other guys did too.
And on Durant vs Lebron, to me it was clear that Lebron just can't deal with Durant 1on1 anymore. Lebron is the defensive mind of the team and is always thinking about the next play, especially the next offensive possession that he will likely have to lead. You don't want that guy on Durant, you want a guy who will pester him and hound him to no end, be constantly physical on him off-ball to tire him out. You want the pure 1on1 defender that will come back harder when he gets scored on. It just seemed like Lebron gave up after Durant scored a few times on him and just thought "well, we'll have to accept that Durant is scoring at will then..."
The thing is, if good team defense can mostly deal with Curry, with good trapping, good hedges on screens, you absolutely need a smothering 1v1 defender on Durant because of his size alone. Or double team him constantly (but with all the commitment they had on Curry already, that's not easy, they can't very well double team 2 guys at once :D). Also, the Cavs were defaulting to switching a bit too easily. They don't have the personel to switch everything like this without a fight. I always find this so weird in the modern NBA when I see teams giving up the switch like it's a rule of the pick&roll now.
That was tough as a Lebron fan to watch. Not really the part the he is getting destroyed by KD, but that he knows it and he gave up. There were a lot of times that he is refuses to even engage with Durant anymore. Two of Duant's dunks was on him. JR is an idiot for leaving too early to shadow Curry, but Lebron should have exerted more effort in covering the switch and at last provide and obstacle to KD's entry to the paint. But you can see his it in his face as he watches by, as if he's saying "Fuck I won't get posterized by that maniac tarantula". There were also plenty of times that he yells at opponents after he blows a defensive assignment, when the error was solely on him.
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy).
I was specifically talking about Kerr's role in this team. And Kerr had absolutely no part in the building of the team, starting 2014-15. Even starting Draymond can be seen as a natural product of David Lee being hurt. I'm not denying any of the good points about GSW being homegrown and having a good team mindset and direction and all that, I'm past that :D. I'm even willing to not call them a superteam by the "mercenary recruiting" criterion. The following point you made about Kerr kickstarting the ball-sharing spirit and turning the culture into a fun one, this I can see being true. He does seem like a person you would like to play your hardest for, honestly.
Well, as a coach, he's supposed to get out of the GM's way. I suppose with all the egos in professional sports, it's harder than it looks (see: Mark Jackson, Larry Brown, Jason Kidd, Thibs, and so on).
On D, the Cavs couldn't even do switching or offense to defense transition correctly. Multiple times, Klay ran past Durant and both Cavs players chased him. Easy dunk. And who could forget game 1, when Durant had multiple coast to coast dunks because the Cavs had too many people watching Curry on the wing. The Cavs need a vocal defensive leader who will bark out directions.
Lebron was that guy. The team was purely terrible at defense in general.
"Rubio, 26, averaged 16.0 points and 10.5 assists per game after the All-Star break this past season."
Minnesota is gonna miss Rubio... the guy is a good defender and a really good dribbler. It was hard for me to get a full sense of Rubio's entire game until i watched him play a lot this year.
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy).
I was specifically talking about Kerr's role in this team. And Kerr had absolutely no part in the building of the team, starting 2014-15. Even starting Draymond can be seen as a natural product of David Lee being hurt. I'm not denying any of the good points about GSW being homegrown and having a good team mindset and direction and all that, I'm past that :D. I'm even willing to not call them a superteam by the "mercenary recruiting" criterion. The following point you made about Kerr kickstarting the ball-sharing spirit and turning the culture into a fun one, this I can see being true. He does seem like a person you would like to play your hardest for, honestly.
Well, as a coach, he's supposed to get out of the GM's way. I suppose with all the egos in professional sports, it's harder than it looks (see: Mark Jackson, Larry Brown, Jason Kidd, Thibs, and so on).
On D, the Cavs couldn't even do switching or offense to defense transition correctly. Multiple times, Klay ran past Durant and both Cavs players chased him. Easy dunk. And who could forget game 1, when Durant had multiple coast to coast dunks because the Cavs had too many people watching Curry on the wing. The Cavs need a vocal defensive leader who will bark out directions.
Lebron was that guy. The team was purely terrible at defense in general.
That's why Draymond is perfect for that role with the Warriors. His role on offense saves his energy on defense while still being a positive contributor on offense. The Cavs just have a problem with building their entire offense around Lebron. One of the first things Phil Jackson did when he coached the Bulls was to give ball handling duties to Pippen. Jordan doesn't get the ball until he is in position.
We've seen plenty of players save energy on defense when they need to expend so much energy on offense to create shots. Durant used to be one of those players as well. The league's pace has been increasing in recent years and I believe the tracking cameras show that players are running more miles on the court compared to all past seasons.
0.76 is the 6th best Defensive Real Plus Minus amongst starting point guards. 2.49 is the 9th best real plus minus amongst starting point guards.
On July 01 2017 06:43 JimmiC wrote: Twolves lookin at george hill almost a swap but wolves get a first
based on what i saw of Hill in the 2016 playoffs.. i think the guy is really good. He ate up Lowry. Hill would be a good replacement for next year. Long term i like Rubio better though.
On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote: ^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact.
I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy.
Thanks for forcing me to think about this more.
I'm sure many of you had an initial distaste for Ball's antics. Many also probably dismissed such revulsion as being irrational. It's become fashionable to poopoo the idea of social etiquette in the light of a rationalism. All these mores are just rules for transactions, ok. As quickly as you clarify the situation, though, you realize the futility of trying to get out from underneath it. If you reduce social behavior to mere transactionalism, you strip it of all other human affections. Thus, such behavior is usually shunned.
Mr. Ball is essentially making the Transactional argument. He's trying to maximize his value and so is everyone else. It's really not the bombasticness of him that's questionable, it's his directness. It is true that everyone else is trying to maximize their value as well, but Markelle Fultz and De'aaron Fox are leaving open the possibility of being a human being beyond their market value. Ball is trying to strip his interaction to a transaction, but what he's done is make himself only a transaction.
As for whether he can change, you're looking at the wrong thing. If I have some sort of value system, then I can pivot. I can say I've changed my mind or that I'm making a decision for practical reasons. If my only values are ego and money, people are going to assume that that's always my goal. If I'm loud, it's ego and money. If I'm quiet, probably money.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, let me repay in kind.
I agree with your framework of analysis but I disagree on the conclusion. If I understand you correctly, we both agree that Ball's modus operandi is excessive unabashed self-promotion for monetary gain. You then proceed by reducing this phenomenon to the fact that this is a product of his bankrupt moral system. (Please correct any misappropriations. Volumes upon volumes are written on this topic, and they barely cover it satisfactorily. I am sure with out limitation in time and space here, much will be lost in translation.)
The question to mind, assuming all of this as true, is so what?! What you see as an irredeemable flaw, I see as a mere wrinkle in the face of modern civilizarion, no more threatening or significant than all the other things modern media and society in general churns out on a daily basis. In cultural theory, we learn of the power of agency. The degrees of this power range the full spectrum, from Foucault's dispersion of (non)centric power, to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomatic revolution, and even to Feyerabend's disavowal of structure. Let me emphasize once again the question of "so what?". The flaw in your analysis is you fail to account for the power of agency. You, me, and anybody else are not passive subjects that absorb and emulate whatever is out there. The effects of such external stimuli vary greatly, mostly as an indication of educational and socioeconomic status, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a simple equation of cause and effect, stimulus and response. Ball can talk and act all crazy as he wants, it does not mean that you or me or anybody else should normalize or be affected by such behavior.
Which brings me to a more important point. Ball is nothing more than what and where we are as a society right now. We live in the era of Kardashians, fake tv dramas, alternative facts, pictures of breakfast on instragram, memes, covfefes, and selfies. Ball fits perfectly right in. We may all frown upon the brashness, indiscretion, bombasticness, egotism, and stupidity of it all, but it's all on him, and not on us.
Warhol once said, in defense of the Campbell Soup: "If you want to make great art, you must first have a great society". We live in a shitty society, hence we have shitty people and stunts like these. The real question is, which side of the equation are you?
With all this in mind, we really cannot begrudge Ball for doing what he thinks is best for his interest. At the very least, we have for ourselves live and ongoing entertainment.
And to respond to your question about Nony's post, it's important for no other reason than that if people see it, they will imitate it. The reason cultures tend to get more polite is because, as much handwringing as there is about "honesty" and "being real", life is generally better when everyone isn't an abrasive blowhard.
Again, you are subscribing to the magic bullet theory. I have touched on this above, but let me summarize once more:.Ball may be shitty, we do not have to imitate him.
As for Coach Pop: I I hope I'm not being too self serving, but I'd like to think that the Spurs are a product of good team building while most of the other champions are simply an overwhelming accumulation of talent. It's kind of depressing really to think that the champion is pretty predictable most years and only the paragon of teamwork Spurs have stood up to them most years. The Mavericks are really the only blip in the last few years. The interesting thing about it is that even as good as they have been, there's a ton of luck involved...unless you're one of the aforementioned overwhelming collections of talent.
To add to this, the Spurs have two decades of excellence, with a consistent batch of always classy and anti-ego.players. JVG summed up Manu perfectly, saying something like "in all his years, Manu has never cheated the game. He has always come out to give it his all." I almost cried listening to the truth of this statement. Good thing though, reports indicate Manu may still be on for a year.
These theories of influence notwithstanding, I can't discount the most basic theory of cultural transmission, monkey-see, monkey-do. I'm not even sure that refuting the action is enough. If that feeling is even the air, it's going to influence some people. You can hold the individual to account for his individual actions, but you can't deny the impact over the whole culture.
You said an interesting phrase, "morally bankrupt". I don't think Ball is a horrible person, but he's making one mistake and that's indicative of the problem of the culture and this discussion, Ball's (and our) mistake is simply that he's not asking what is good. As I said, he's focused purely on the transaction and this has completely deprived him of a moral compass. I can't think of a better way to take a basically decent person and make them feel comfortable with any action. That's why I detest the phrase "as long as it isn't hurting anyone". I'd beg to differ. It's hurting Ball himself, at any rate.
To reiterate, I think in large part what the problem is is that we've lost the ability to simply say "this is good and this is not good". Ball is not the cause of this and he's not the hill you want to die on. If you can't simply say "this is not good" without someone coming up to you and telling you that you have no right to tell them what is good or not good. And I think you're acting like a classic liberal right now, not because you hold this position but because you don't agree with his behavior but feel compelled to defend it. It's like you're trying to rationalize why you've put up with such bullshit for so long. Part of that might be because (I don't know about your case in particular) everyone says that anyone who tries to make a moral judgement is a) wrong because there's no such thing as morality and b) a budding tyrant.
To pose a question, what else should I do besides quietly note and propound that this is less good than I would want it to be. Isn't that how you start to push back?
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy).
I was specifically talking about Kerr's role in this team. And Kerr had absolutely no part in the building of the team, starting 2014-15. Even starting Draymond can be seen as a natural product of David Lee being hurt. I'm not denying any of the good points about GSW being homegrown and having a good team mindset and direction and all that, I'm past that :D. I'm even willing to not call them a superteam by the "mercenary recruiting" criterion. The following point you made about Kerr kickstarting the ball-sharing spirit and turning the culture into a fun one, this I can see being true. He does seem like a person you would like to play your hardest for, honestly.
Well, as a coach, he's supposed to get out of the GM's way. I suppose with all the egos in professional sports, it's harder than it looks (see: Mark Jackson, Larry Brown, Jason Kidd, Thibs, and so on).
On D, the Cavs couldn't even do switching or offense to defense transition correctly. Multiple times, Klay ran past Durant and both Cavs players chased him. Easy dunk. And who could forget game 1, when Durant had multiple coast to coast dunks because the Cavs had too many people watching Curry on the wing. The Cavs need a vocal defensive leader who will bark out directions.
Lebron was that guy. The team was purely terrible at defense in general.
That's why Draymond is perfect for that role with the Warriors. His role on offense saves his energy on defense while still being a positive contributor on offense. The Cavs just have a problem with building their entire offense around Lebron. One of the first things Phil Jackson did when he coached the Bulls was to give ball handling duties to Pippen. Jordan doesn't get the ball until he is in position.
We've seen plenty of players save energy on defense when they need to expend so much energy on offense to create shots. Durant used to be one of those players as well. The league's pace has been increasing in recent years and I believe the tracking cameras show that players are running more miles on the court compared to all past seasons.
There is truth to what you say, but we could also look at it this way - that despite the superficial similarities, Green and James play a different role. Green is a defensive specialist who serves as an anchor in offense once teams double on their shooters, and with the ball on Green, you can be sure that the best decision is always made on 4-3 plays as a result of any said double team sequence. For Lebron though, he has always managed this offense-defense responsibilities with flying colors, UNTIL this year when he is obviously a step slower on defense than he used to be. This is not a knock on Lebron, it is simply a matter of fact. Everyone gets old and the game is getting faster and the top players more skilled. It takes a youth and genius skills to perform excellently on both ends.
In the case of Jordan, it has more to do with Jackson and Winters dogmatic devotion to triangle than Jordan was moved to the 2 position. It was also the reason why it was impossible for any one player to dominate on assists and rebounds as the system allows for an even distribution of responsibilities. The only exception was Rodman, who was a genius at what he did, and was therefore a valid exception to the rule.
This is a really weird offseason lol This is the hardest wtf curveball so far. What does IND get? The East is practically wide open. Time for MIL, TOR, and PHI to level up
OKC doesn't have a starting SG, right? They have no hope of doing anything with PG with this team so I guess it's just to dump Oladipo's salary. Good move :D. And at least it won't look weird for PG to leave next year. It really doesn't seem like it would be enjoyable to play with Westbrook, as great as he is.
No one predicted this. Oladipo salary dump + Sabonis + punishing PG. I feel bad for PG having to play with Brodie now. maybe they both go to LA next year.
With the city of Toronto in full panic mode Ujiri never did offer a denial on the NYK rumours. Ujiri hung MLSE out to dry. Weltman, his long time colleague, left for a "so-so" situation in Orlando. There is no clear path to a championship for the Raptors. I think MLSE is no longer willing to spend the kind of money they were during Lewieke's tenure and Ujiri is not happy about that. No upcoming all-star game to plan for .. no new basketball initiatives ... this "we the north" thing is old. And no new marketing genius like Lewieke to come up with something new and totally kick-ass.
I don't think Ujiri is 100% happy with MLSE. If another team takes a run at Ujiri he'll be open to offers. Now that Ujiri has played his hand the rest of the league knows he is willing to leave the Raptors.
I will say , Lewieke got some measure of revenge against MLSE.
On July 01 2017 12:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: With the city of Toronto in full panic mode Ujiri never did offer a denial on the NYK rumours. Ujiri hung MLSE out to dry. Weltman, his long time colleague, left for a "so-so" situation in Orlando. There is no clear path to a championship for the Raptors. I think MLSE is no longer willing to spend the kind of money they were during Lewieke's tenure and Ujiri is not happy about that. No upcoming all-star game to plan for .. no new basketball initiatives ... this "we the north" thing is old. And no new marketing genius like Lewieke to come up with something new and totally kick-ass.
I don't think Ujiri is 100% happy with MLSE. If another team takes a run at Ujiri he'll be open to offers. Now that Ujiri has played his hand the rest of the league knows he is willing to leave the Raptors.
I will say , Lewieke got some measure of revenge against MLSE.
Source?
At this point, the NBA championship belongs to the west.
On July 01 2017 12:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: With the city of Toronto in full panic mode Ujiri never did offer a denial on the NYK rumours. Ujiri hung MLSE out to dry. Weltman, his long time colleague, left for a "so-so" situation in Orlando. There is no clear path to a championship for the Raptors. I think MLSE is no longer willing to spend the kind of money they were during Lewieke's tenure and Ujiri is not happy about that. No upcoming all-star game to plan for .. no new basketball initiatives ... this "we the north" thing is old. And no new marketing genius like Lewieke to come up with something new and totally kick-ass.
I don't think Ujiri is 100% happy with MLSE. If another team takes a run at Ujiri he'll be open to offers. Now that Ujiri has played his hand the rest of the league knows he is willing to leave the Raptors.
I will say , Lewieke got some measure of revenge against MLSE.
Source? At this point, the NBA championship belongs to the west.
Leiweke's exit from Toronto was acrimonious.
` Leiweke pried Ujiri out of Denver in the first place, and as one MLSE official put it, “don’t forget that (Leiweke) wants to stick it to these guys.” `
On July 01 2017 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote: at this point, lelbron can just coast again for another finals appearance and finals loss
Assuming the Cavs keep their lineup intact or at least not slide down in talent level so much, yes, they can coast to the playoffs, and even to the finals, but I think a stronger West will only improve their chances. With the Thunders, Warriors, Rockets, Wolves, Grizzlies, and Spurs all battling out of 4-3 series at each round, the winner will be so banged up and softened to still compete for another series in the finals.
On July 01 2017 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote: at this point, lelbron can just coast again for another finals appearance and finals loss
Assuming the Cavs keep their lineup intact or at least not slide down in talent level so much, yes, they can coast to the playoffs, and even to the finals, but I think a stronger West will only improve their chances. With the Thunders, Warriors, Rockets, Wolves, Grizzlies, and Spurs all battling out of 4-3 series at each round, the winner will be so banged up and softened to still compete for another series in the finals.
meh. lebron will be older and chokier and will even be more terrible. and i dont see any team beating the warriors. and the cavs definitely cannot beat the warriors even on their best day
On July 01 2017 13:47 Keyboard Warrior wrote: lebron will be older and chokier and will even be more terrible.
good point. i must agree, Lebron is terrible right now. he'll be even more terrible as he ages. /s i agree with ur overall point though.. the Cavs are screwed.
is Gilbert going to continue to spend like this in order to guarantee the right to get smashed in the finals?
Any chance Paul George signs on to stay with OKC after this year? Or are they just banking on the fact that they play decent and he decides to give them a blessing and continue to stay.
Paul George's opinion may shape the rest of Russ's career. If he comes away saying he's selfish and no fun to play with, nobody will ever want to on his team.
On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote: ^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact.
I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy.
Thanks for forcing me to think about this more.
I'm sure many of you had an initial distaste for Ball's antics. Many also probably dismissed such revulsion as being irrational. It's become fashionable to poopoo the idea of social etiquette in the light of a rationalism. All these mores are just rules for transactions, ok. As quickly as you clarify the situation, though, you realize the futility of trying to get out from underneath it. If you reduce social behavior to mere transactionalism, you strip it of all other human affections. Thus, such behavior is usually shunned.
Mr. Ball is essentially making the Transactional argument. He's trying to maximize his value and so is everyone else. It's really not the bombasticness of him that's questionable, it's his directness. It is true that everyone else is trying to maximize their value as well, but Markelle Fultz and De'aaron Fox are leaving open the possibility of being a human being beyond their market value. Ball is trying to strip his interaction to a transaction, but what he's done is make himself only a transaction.
As for whether he can change, you're looking at the wrong thing. If I have some sort of value system, then I can pivot. I can say I've changed my mind or that I'm making a decision for practical reasons. If my only values are ego and money, people are going to assume that that's always my goal. If I'm loud, it's ego and money. If I'm quiet, probably money.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, let me repay in kind.
I agree with your framework of analysis but I disagree on the conclusion. If I understand you correctly, we both agree that Ball's modus operandi is excessive unabashed self-promotion for monetary gain. You then proceed by reducing this phenomenon to the fact that this is a product of his bankrupt moral system. (Please correct any misappropriations. Volumes upon volumes are written on this topic, and they barely cover it satisfactorily. I am sure with out limitation in time and space here, much will be lost in translation.)
The question to mind, assuming all of this as true, is so what?! What you see as an irredeemable flaw, I see as a mere wrinkle in the face of modern civilizarion, no more threatening or significant than all the other things modern media and society in general churns out on a daily basis. In cultural theory, we learn of the power of agency. The degrees of this power range the full spectrum, from Foucault's dispersion of (non)centric power, to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomatic revolution, and even to Feyerabend's disavowal of structure. Let me emphasize once again the question of "so what?". The flaw in your analysis is you fail to account for the power of agency. You, me, and anybody else are not passive subjects that absorb and emulate whatever is out there. The effects of such external stimuli vary greatly, mostly as an indication of educational and socioeconomic status, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a simple equation of cause and effect, stimulus and response. Ball can talk and act all crazy as he wants, it does not mean that you or me or anybody else should normalize or be affected by such behavior.
Which brings me to a more important point. Ball is nothing more than what and where we are as a society right now. We live in the era of Kardashians, fake tv dramas, alternative facts, pictures of breakfast on instragram, memes, covfefes, and selfies. Ball fits perfectly right in. We may all frown upon the brashness, indiscretion, bombasticness, egotism, and stupidity of it all, but it's all on him, and not on us.
Warhol once said, in defense of the Campbell Soup: "If you want to make great art, you must first have a great society". We live in a shitty society, hence we have shitty people and stunts like these. The real question is, which side of the equation are you?
With all this in mind, we really cannot begrudge Ball for doing what he thinks is best for his interest. At the very least, we have for ourselves live and ongoing entertainment.
And to respond to your question about Nony's post, it's important for no other reason than that if people see it, they will imitate it. The reason cultures tend to get more polite is because, as much handwringing as there is about "honesty" and "being real", life is generally better when everyone isn't an abrasive blowhard.
Again, you are subscribing to the magic bullet theory. I have touched on this above, but let me summarize once more:.Ball may be shitty, we do not have to imitate him.
As for Coach Pop: I I hope I'm not being too self serving, but I'd like to think that the Spurs are a product of good team building while most of the other champions are simply an overwhelming accumulation of talent. It's kind of depressing really to think that the champion is pretty predictable most years and only the paragon of teamwork Spurs have stood up to them most years. The Mavericks are really the only blip in the last few years. The interesting thing about it is that even as good as they have been, there's a ton of luck involved...unless you're one of the aforementioned overwhelming collections of talent.
To add to this, the Spurs have two decades of excellence, with a consistent batch of always classy and anti-ego.players. JVG summed up Manu perfectly, saying something like "in all his years, Manu has never cheated the game. He has always come out to give it his all." I almost cried listening to the truth of this statement. Good thing though, reports indicate Manu may still be on for a year.
These theories of influence notwithstanding, I can't discount the most basic theory of cultural transmission, monkey-see, monkey-do. I'm not even sure that refuting the action is enough. If that feeling is even the air, it's going to influence some people. You can hold the individual to account for his individual actions, but you can't deny the impact over the whole culture.
You said an interesting phrase, "morally bankrupt". I don't think Ball is a horrible person, but he's making one mistake and that's indicative of the problem of the culture and this discussion, Ball's (and our) mistake is simply that he's not asking what is good. As I said, he's focused purely on the transaction and this has completely deprived him of a moral compass. I can't think of a better way to take a basically decent person and make them feel comfortable with any action. That's why I detest the phrase "as long as it isn't hurting anyone". I'd beg to differ. It's hurting Ball himself, at any rate.
To reiterate, I think in large part what the problem is is that we've lost the ability to simply say "this is good and this is not good". Ball is not the cause of this and he's not the hill you want to die on. If you can't simply say "this is not good" without someone coming up to you and telling you that you have no right to tell them what is good or not good. And I think you're acting like a classic liberal right now, not because you hold this position but because you don't agree with his behavior but feel compelled to defend it. It's like you're trying to rationalize why you've put up with such bullshit for so long. Part of that might be because (I don't know about your case in particular) everyone says that anyone who tries to make a moral judgement is a) wrong because there's no such thing as morality and b) a budding tyrant.
To pose a question, what else should I do besides quietly note and propound that this is less good than I would want it to be. Isn't that how you start to push back?
One, your position on this matter is typical media-conditioned response to media-created/enabled stimuli. Think of this along the lines of political hypercorrectness and self-victimhood that is prevalent in society today. Media and popular culture produce and enable these things (the aforementioned Kardashian phenomenon, memes, CNN-type 24 hour breaking news,etc.) and, in an act of cynical self-referential feedback loop, encourages us "subjects" to protest or otherwise demonstrated our impassioned response to such stimuli, so that the stimulus is reinforced and thereby propagating the media-audience relationship, "satisfying" our need for content, and the media's need for viewers, and the gravy train of advertising and other profit continues, until we move to the next hot button issue. In short, we are exaggerating, when in fact we need to have a disinterested and critical reflection on this matters.
Two, let us conduct an activity to prove this point. Pool together two sets of people, your friend who are into basketball (group A), and friends who are not (group B). Ask both groups if they know who Lavar Ball is? Then ask them what they think of him? Then ask them how he has affected their lives? I am certain that except for the special few who follow the NBA close enough to know about Ball as we both do, the best reaction you'll get is a cold "Ok". My point is, Balls antics is an infinitesimal speck in the grand scheme of things. There is no need to be so worked up about it to the point of hating.
Three, you are subscribing to an obsolete framework of communication. The magic bullet theory of "monkey-see-monkey-do" has long been rendered deficient, along with Mcluhan determinism, in making sense of something as complex as social interaction. It may hold some ground in child developmental psychology where the variables are limited ans easily identifiable, but no one has been brave enough to academically summon such frameworks since the late 60s. You might be familiar with studies on television, and more recently video games, and violence among children. More than half a decade of academic work has been on this and there is no direct causative or even correlative relationship between the two. Television and games may be one of the factor, but there is such a rigid structure in place that shapes personal and social knowledge and behavior like parental influence, geography, peers, socio-economic background, and religion that violent television and games are rarely if ever the tipping point in determining violent behavior. People have been violent and nonviolent as well all throughout history, and it is simplistic to reduce the matter to a simple "monkey-see-monkey-do" equation, no matter how apparently self-evident it is.
Four, How is Ball hurting himself? By any measure, he is succeeding. Lonzo is playing for the Lakers, he owns his own brand, he has prominent B-level media exposure, and by the looks of it, he is having the time of his life. No matter how Lonzo Ball turns out, as long as he manages an average NBA career. he is either in zero or positive position. The only negative scenario is when Lonzo Ball turns out to be a gun-carrying mass murdering maniac, or something along these lines.
Five, and let me use this point by way of summation. Our discussion/disagreement is an attempt to understand the Ball phenomenon. Ball may or may not be a moral person, and from your perspective, his shameless self-promotion and egotism is a wrong/not good, and we should do something about it. I can not however tell from our discussion so far what you propose to do about it. Do we stage organized protests in LA games? Twitter bomb him? To my mind, the correct course of action is to let the whole phenomenon play. I have already expressed how I have changed my mind after learning that all of this is for Ball is a spectacle to promote his agenda, and unless he is doing any damage, say threatening economic sustainability, building divisive walls, putting incompetent people in power, threatening net neutrality, making access to affordable health care difficult for people, let him be. Boycott all BBB products and boo at Lonzo Ball's games, all you want, but never yourself get caught in the charade as the serious fool amidst the clowns.
On July 01 2017 17:59 Elroi wrote: This is insane. They have to get rid of the east - west system. Or boston for the love of god make some moves.
geography and travel time are a real thing. you can't have NYK playing the Lakers as much as they play Boston. The schedule will always be imbalanced. The only sports where a balanced schedule between East and West is even conceivable is NFL and MLB.
^i came to this thread for NBA stuff and not for political manifestos lol
seriously now, why is everybody going to the west. the east is the ideal conference to be at now because of low quality opponents, and the west is a bad decision because all superstars are there. gilbert is overpaying the team to be destroyed in the finals, and the cavs is as weak as ever. i wont be surprised if philly or bucksie make it to the finals next year
On July 01 2017 17:59 Elroi wrote: This is insane. They have to get rid of the east - west system. Or boston for the love of god make some moves.
i agree. that way lebum cant anymore cruise his way to the finals. he'd get dad dicked by curry first round. and i think nba is rich enough to cover travel expenses. and the schedule can be worked to give teams 3 or so days break between change home teams. do it silver
On July 01 2017 17:59 Elroi wrote: This is insane. They have to get rid of the east - west system. Or boston for the love of god make some moves.
i agree. that way lebum cant anymore cruise his way to the finals. he'd get dad dicked by curry first round. and i think nba is rich enough to cover travel expenses. and the schedule can be worked to give teams 3 or so days break between change home teams. do it silver
It will be such a downer for fans who expect daily playoffs game. It will also extend the playoffs to until, maybe, August
On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote: ^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact.
I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy.
Thanks for forcing me to think about this more.
I'm sure many of you had an initial distaste for Ball's antics. Many also probably dismissed such revulsion as being irrational. It's become fashionable to poopoo the idea of social etiquette in the light of a rationalism. All these mores are just rules for transactions, ok. As quickly as you clarify the situation, though, you realize the futility of trying to get out from underneath it. If you reduce social behavior to mere transactionalism, you strip it of all other human affections. Thus, such behavior is usually shunned.
Mr. Ball is essentially making the Transactional argument. He's trying to maximize his value and so is everyone else. It's really not the bombasticness of him that's questionable, it's his directness. It is true that everyone else is trying to maximize their value as well, but Markelle Fultz and De'aaron Fox are leaving open the possibility of being a human being beyond their market value. Ball is trying to strip his interaction to a transaction, but what he's done is make himself only a transaction.
As for whether he can change, you're looking at the wrong thing. If I have some sort of value system, then I can pivot. I can say I've changed my mind or that I'm making a decision for practical reasons. If my only values are ego and money, people are going to assume that that's always my goal. If I'm loud, it's ego and money. If I'm quiet, probably money.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, let me repay in kind.
I agree with your framework of analysis but I disagree on the conclusion. If I understand you correctly, we both agree that Ball's modus operandi is excessive unabashed self-promotion for monetary gain. You then proceed by reducing this phenomenon to the fact that this is a product of his bankrupt moral system. (Please correct any misappropriations. Volumes upon volumes are written on this topic, and they barely cover it satisfactorily. I am sure with out limitation in time and space here, much will be lost in translation.)
The question to mind, assuming all of this as true, is so what?! What you see as an irredeemable flaw, I see as a mere wrinkle in the face of modern civilizarion, no more threatening or significant than all the other things modern media and society in general churns out on a daily basis. In cultural theory, we learn of the power of agency. The degrees of this power range the full spectrum, from Foucault's dispersion of (non)centric power, to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomatic revolution, and even to Feyerabend's disavowal of structure. Let me emphasize once again the question of "so what?". The flaw in your analysis is you fail to account for the power of agency. You, me, and anybody else are not passive subjects that absorb and emulate whatever is out there. The effects of such external stimuli vary greatly, mostly as an indication of educational and socioeconomic status, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a simple equation of cause and effect, stimulus and response. Ball can talk and act all crazy as he wants, it does not mean that you or me or anybody else should normalize or be affected by such behavior.
Which brings me to a more important point. Ball is nothing more than what and where we are as a society right now. We live in the era of Kardashians, fake tv dramas, alternative facts, pictures of breakfast on instragram, memes, covfefes, and selfies. Ball fits perfectly right in. We may all frown upon the brashness, indiscretion, bombasticness, egotism, and stupidity of it all, but it's all on him, and not on us.
Warhol once said, in defense of the Campbell Soup: "If you want to make great art, you must first have a great society". We live in a shitty society, hence we have shitty people and stunts like these. The real question is, which side of the equation are you?
With all this in mind, we really cannot begrudge Ball for doing what he thinks is best for his interest. At the very least, we have for ourselves live and ongoing entertainment.
And to respond to your question about Nony's post, it's important for no other reason than that if people see it, they will imitate it. The reason cultures tend to get more polite is because, as much handwringing as there is about "honesty" and "being real", life is generally better when everyone isn't an abrasive blowhard.
Again, you are subscribing to the magic bullet theory. I have touched on this above, but let me summarize once more:.Ball may be shitty, we do not have to imitate him.
As for Coach Pop: I I hope I'm not being too self serving, but I'd like to think that the Spurs are a product of good team building while most of the other champions are simply an overwhelming accumulation of talent. It's kind of depressing really to think that the champion is pretty predictable most years and only the paragon of teamwork Spurs have stood up to them most years. The Mavericks are really the only blip in the last few years. The interesting thing about it is that even as good as they have been, there's a ton of luck involved...unless you're one of the aforementioned overwhelming collections of talent.
To add to this, the Spurs have two decades of excellence, with a consistent batch of always classy and anti-ego.players. JVG summed up Manu perfectly, saying something like "in all his years, Manu has never cheated the game. He has always come out to give it his all." I almost cried listening to the truth of this statement. Good thing though, reports indicate Manu may still be on for a year.
These theories of influence notwithstanding, I can't discount the most basic theory of cultural transmission, monkey-see, monkey-do. I'm not even sure that refuting the action is enough. If that feeling is even the air, it's going to influence some people. You can hold the individual to account for his individual actions, but you can't deny the impact over the whole culture.
You said an interesting phrase, "morally bankrupt". I don't think Ball is a horrible person, but he's making one mistake and that's indicative of the problem of the culture and this discussion, Ball's (and our) mistake is simply that he's not asking what is good. As I said, he's focused purely on the transaction and this has completely deprived him of a moral compass. I can't think of a better way to take a basically decent person and make them feel comfortable with any action. That's why I detest the phrase "as long as it isn't hurting anyone". I'd beg to differ. It's hurting Ball himself, at any rate.
To reiterate, I think in large part what the problem is is that we've lost the ability to simply say "this is good and this is not good". Ball is not the cause of this and he's not the hill you want to die on. If you can't simply say "this is not good" without someone coming up to you and telling you that you have no right to tell them what is good or not good. And I think you're acting like a classic liberal right now, not because you hold this position but because you don't agree with his behavior but feel compelled to defend it. It's like you're trying to rationalize why you've put up with such bullshit for so long. Part of that might be because (I don't know about your case in particular) everyone says that anyone who tries to make a moral judgement is a) wrong because there's no such thing as morality and b) a budding tyrant.
To pose a question, what else should I do besides quietly note and propound that this is less good than I would want it to be. Isn't that how you start to push back?
One, your position on this matter is typical media-conditioned response to media-created/enabled stimuli. Think of this along the lines of political hypercorrectness and self-victimhood that is prevalent in society today. Media and popular culture produce and enable these things (the aforementioned Kardashian phenomenon, memes, CNN-type 24 hour breaking news,etc.) and, in an act of cynical self-referential feedback loop, encourages us "subjects" to protest or otherwise demonstrated our impassioned response to such stimuli, so that the stimulus is reinforced and thereby propagating the media-audience relationship, "satisfying" our need for content, and the media's need for viewers, and the gravy train of advertising and other profit continues, until we move to the next hot button issue. In short, we are exaggerating, when in fact we need to have a disinterested and critical reflection on this matters.
Two, let us conduct an activity to prove this point. Pool together two sets of people, your friend who are into basketball (group A), and friends who are not (group B). Ask both groups if they know who Lavar Ball is? Then ask them what they think of him? Then ask them how he has affected their lives? I am certain that except for the special few who follow the NBA close enough to know about Ball as we both do, the best reaction you'll get is a cold "Ok". My point is, Balls antics is an infinitesimal speck in the grand scheme of things. There is no need to be so worked up about it to the point of hating.
Three, you are subscribing to an obsolete framework of communication. The magic bullet theory of "monkey-see-monkey-do" has long been rendered deficient, along with Mcluhan determinism, in making sense of something as complex as social interaction. It may hold some ground in child developmental psychology where the variables are limited ans easily identifiable, but no one has been brave enough to academically summon such frameworks since the late 60s. You might be familiar with studies on television, and more recently video games, and violence among children. More than half a decade of academic work has been on this and there is no direct causative or even correlative relationship between the two. Television and games may be one of the factor, but there is such a rigid structure in place that shapes personal and social knowledge and behavior like parental influence, geography, peers, socio-economic background, and religion that violent television and games are rarely if ever the tipping point in determining violent behavior. People have been violent and nonviolent as well all throughout history, and it is simplistic to reduce the matter to a simple "monkey-see-monkey-do" equation, no matter how apparently self-evident it is.
Four, How is Ball hurting himself? By any measure, he is succeeding. Lonzo is playing for the Lakers, he owns his own brand, he has prominent B-level media exposure, and by the looks of it, he is having the time of his life. No matter how Lonzo Ball turns out, as long as he manages an average NBA career. he is either in zero or positive position. The only negative scenario is when Lonzo Ball turns out to be a gun-carrying mass murdering maniac, or something along these lines.
Five, and let me use this point by way of summation. Our discussion/disagreement is an attempt to understand the Ball phenomenon. Ball may or may not be a moral person, and from your perspective, his shameless self-promotion and egotism is a wrong/not good, and we should do something about it. I can not however tell from our discussion so far what you propose to do about it. Do we stage organized protests in LA games? Twitter bomb him? To my mind, the correct course of action is to let the whole phenomenon play. I have already expressed how I have changed my mind after learning that all of this is for Ball is a spectacle to promote his agenda, and unless he is doing any damage, say threatening economic sustainability, building divisive walls, putting incompetent people in power, threatening net neutrality, making access to affordable health care difficult for people, let him be. Boycott all BBB products and boo at Lonzo Ball's games, all you want, but never yourself get caught in the charade as the serious fool amidst the clowns.
Im 50/50 on this one.
I hate that idiot's face and gimmick.
At the same time, i also see your point.
And wasnt there a tweet by Magic being impressed by Lavar being just a proud and supportive father when the cameras are away
On July 01 2017 22:39 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: And wasnt there a tweet by Magic being impressed by Lavar being just a proud and supportive father when the cameras are away
for all those writing off the entire Eastern Conference.. do not count out the Miami Heat. They got out from under the Bosh contract so they have cap space. Riley knows what he is doing.. they finished the year 30-11 and while Dion Waiters was healthy they were fucking awesome.
Actually, after much deep thinking about it, I think the east aint that bad. milwaukee is a head-strong team with a Durant 2.0 player. Philly has completed theProcess and are now legit contenders. toronto is still a monster. boston is strong with a lot of assets. And let us not forget the heat. everyone is counting them out, but they finished strong last season. pat riley is mafia-level genius, and knows the game pretty well. bosh being out now, riley can make bold maneuvers to improve the team. and with everyone healthy, the heat is surely on.
On July 01 2017 22:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote: for all those writing off the entire Eastern Conference.. do not count out the Miami Heat. They got out from under the Bosh contract so they have cap space. Riley knows what he is doing.. they finished the year 30-11 and while Dion Waiters was healthy they were fucking awesome.
they couldn't even qualify over one of the worst bulls team in history. I really really really doubt they'll be championship's contender next year. Unless they add lebron of course...
On July 01 2017 23:02 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Actually, after much deep thinking about it, I think the east aint that bad. milwaukee is a head-strong team with a Durant 2.0 player. Philly has completed theProcess and are now legit contenders. toronto is still a monster. boston is strong with a lot of assets. And let us not forget the heat. everyone is counting them out, but they finished strong last season. pat riley is mafia-level genius, and knows the game pretty well. bosh being out now, riley can make bold maneuvers to improve the team. and with everyone healthy, the heat is surely on.
even one of the most connected raptors analysts can not get much of a handle on the deal Lowry is getting. http://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/kyle-lowry-raptors-will-soon-learn-things-going-change/ "The only real consensus among the league insiders is that Lowry won’t be getting a max deal out in the market, and his ceiling will top out at $30 million annually, although that would most likely be on a shorter deal."
On July 01 2017 23:02 Keyboard Warrior wrote: toronto is still a monster.
true, they're looking to repeat for the D-League championship. oh right, that was mississauga... not toronto. mississauga is a monster.
On July 01 2017 22:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote: for all those writing off the entire Eastern Conference.. do not count out the Miami Heat. They got out from under the Bosh contract so they have cap space. Riley knows what he is doing.. they finished the year 30-11 and while Dion Waiters was healthy they were fucking awesome.
they couldn't even qualify over one of the worst bulls team in history. I really really really doubt they'll be championship's contender next year. Unless they add lebron of course...
if they bring back everyone from last year and everyone stays healthy i think they can improve on last year's 2nd half. that is a lot of IFs though. let's see what happens during the off-season. i just wanna see James Johnson running the offense again
On July 01 2017 23:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: even one of the most connected raptors analysts can not get much of a handle on the deal Lowry is getting. http://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/kyle-lowry-raptors-will-soon-learn-things-going-change/ "The only real consensus among the league insiders is that Lowry won’t be getting a max deal out in the market, and his ceiling will top out at $30 million annually, although that would most likely be on a shorter deal."
On July 01 2017 23:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: even one of the most connected raptors analysts can not get much of a handle on the deal Lowry is getting. http://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/kyle-lowry-raptors-will-soon-learn-things-going-change/ "The only real consensus among the league insiders is that Lowry won’t be getting a max deal out in the market, and his ceiling will top out at $30 million annually, although that would most likely be on a shorter deal."
On July 01 2017 23:02 Keyboard Warrior wrote: toronto is still a monster.
I wanted to believe Toronto had a shot this past year, I want to believe they have a better shot this COMING year. Alas, alack... 1on1 ISO Chuck-up-ball and 1980's defensive schemes (OMG People actually shoot 3s?!) can only carry a team so far
just to add some data to the point you are making Poeltl and Nogueira were the 2 least used players on offense. TOs guard-centric ball rarely includes the center position. considering what JV can do ... he is underused. At least, Lowry trusts him a little bit. Poeltl with 14.8 touches per 36 minutes and Nogueira with 16.7 touches. It is interesting that Tristan Thompson is in that list as well.
Toronto has zero chance. Lowry's string of injuries isn't going to stop as he ages .. its going to get worse. Lowry's weight problems will only be increased as he ages. Derozan's defense in the playoffs is god awful.
On July 02 2017 00:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: ^plenty
lecramp to gsw kawhi to magic hayward to nuggets lowry to clippers clippers fire rivers igoudala to lakers
lebron and kawhi arent even free agents, how exactly are they going anywhere? and i dont think lakers signs anyone to a big contract this offseason, they have to keep cap available for george and lebron.
welp, our collection of 31+ year old point guards Chris Paul, Kyle Lowry, and George Hill have not exactly set the marketplace ablaze with amazing deals.
it looks like the Raptors have got Lowry where they want him. i'm not inviting Masai Ujiri to my next poker game.
On July 02 2017 01:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote: welp, our collection of 31+ year old point guards Chris Paul, Kyle Lowry, and George Hill have not exactly set the marketplace ablaze with amazing deals.
it looks like the Raptors have got Lowry where they want him. i'm not inviting Masai Ujiri to my next poker game.
raptors need lowry more than he needs them imo. w/o lowry where do the raptors go? i understand he's not the greatest option but i think he's toronto's ONLY option at staying near the top of the east.
On July 01 2017 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote: at this point, lelbron can just coast again for another finals appearance and finals loss
Assuming the Cavs keep their lineup intact or at least not slide down in talent level so much, yes, they can coast to the playoffs, and even to the finals, but I think a stronger West will only improve their chances. With the Thunders, Warriors, Rockets, Wolves, Grizzlies, and Spurs all battling out of 4-3 series at each round, the winner will be so banged up and softened to still compete for another series in the finals.
This was always CLE's hope. They won in 2016 because GSW was torn up by OKC.
Yeah, the other western teams just need to keep it close until Draymond hits somebody in the nuts. That's the opening the Cavs need.
For all the talk about the Warriors superteam, the other teams in the west are trying to knock them off. The east meanwhile is just waiting for Lebron to retire.
On July 02 2017 05:25 JimmiC wrote: Celts are pussies. Like how they didnt out bid that shit offer from okc is mind boggling. And with pg they could contend in the east
On July 02 2017 01:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote: welp, our collection of 31+ year old point guards Chris Paul, Kyle Lowry, and George Hill have not exactly set the marketplace ablaze with amazing deals. it looks like the Raptors have got Lowry where they want him. i'm not inviting Masai Ujiri to my next poker game.
raptors need lowry more than he needs them imo. w/o lowry where do the raptors go? i understand he's not the greatest option but i think he's toronto's ONLY option at staying near the top of the east.
this was probably true up until about 16 hours ago. now with many of the available starting PG spots taken who has enough cap space to sign Lowry and needs a starting point guard? the new york knicks perhaps?
EDIT : Philly just signed Redick to a 1-year, $23 million deal putting Philadelphia is within $14 million of the cap. So I don't think Philadelphia can sign Lowry.
On July 02 2017 05:25 JimmiC wrote: Celts are pussies. Like how they didnt out bid that shit offer from okc is mind boggling. And with pg they could contend in the east
http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0672795324686802304-4 "Most of the NBA execs I have talked to since Paul George trade feel that Kevin Pritchard was just too hell-bent on keeping George out of Eastern Conference; made it emotional instead of taking the best offer."
Philly signed Amir Johnson for $11 million for 1 year. For the cost that's a good pick up by Philly. I like Amir, he is a smart player, if limited offensively, he knows how to keep his mouth shut. Amir and Colangelo have history from his years Toronto.. so Colangelo prolly knows a lot about him. It'll be interesting to see what kind of role he gets in Philly.
On July 02 2017 05:25 JimmiC wrote: Celts are pussies. Like how they didnt out bid that shit offer from okc is mind boggling. And with pg they could contend in the east
why waste assets on a rental? They're in a great spot and I don't see IT getting them past 2018 lebron and GS, even with PG's help. I don't know why people blame ainge for being patient. Unless there's a legit chance of keeping who you trade for, use the picks and make the team so attractive that they get FA's and don't give up anything.
Philly now with Fultz, Reddick, Simmons, Saric, Embiid, Covington, Okafor and Amir.... definitely the team I'm most excited to see this season
So with all these leaks and sources, where are reporters getting all this info from? Aren't these trades and signings, as well as how execs and GMs feel about a player or a trade that went down, supposed to be top secret unless revealed publicly to the public?
On July 02 2017 05:25 JimmiC wrote: Celts are pussies. Like how they didnt out bid that shit offer from okc is mind boggling. And with pg they could contend in the east
why waste assets on a rental? They're in a great spot and I don't see IT getting them past 2018 lebron and GS, even with PG's help. I don't know why people blame ainge for being patient. Unless there's a legit chance of keeping who you trade for, use the picks and make the team so attractive that they get FA's and don't give up anything.
ya, good points. i don't get why Ainge traded away a shot at Fultz though. IT is too weak on defense to be a championship level starting PG.
pretty sure Ainge was a point guard during his career.. maybe he sees something wrong with Fultz no one else sees.
On July 02 2017 09:03 Scarecrow wrote: Philly now with Fultz, Reddick, Simmons, Saric, Embiid, Covington, Okafor and Amir.... definitely the team I'm most excited to see this season
great move by Philly to keep Reddick and Amir on 1 year deals.
On July 02 2017 05:25 JimmiC wrote: Celts are pussies. Like how they didnt out bid that shit offer from okc is mind boggling. And with pg they could contend in the east
Celts aren't pussies, just realistic about how bad their roster is.
If you're going to let go of the likes of Bradley, Smart and Thomas in free agency, why not get PG for them? It's not like the Celtics are going to lose anything if he bolts if the players they trade for him will be gone as well.
On July 02 2017 11:38 andrewlt wrote: If you're going to let go of the likes of Bradley, Smart and Thomas in free agency, why not get PG for them? It's not like the Celtics are going to lose anything if he bolts if the players they trade for him will be gone as well.
From what I understand, the decision was more the Pacers wanting to punish Paul by throwing him out of the East without considering the best offer than the Celtics choosing to pass on George,
as the Raptors seem to have been doing under the Ujiri regime they let the player announce they were signed. Lowry just announced he is in TO next year. No terms revealed. EDIT: LOL , josh lewenberg screwing with people. no news on Lowry.
On July 02 2017 07:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Philly signed Amir Johnson for $11 million for 1 year. For the cost that's a good pick up by Philly. I like Amir, he is a smart player, if limited offensively, he knows how to keep his mouth shut. Amir and Colangelo have history from his years Toronto.. so Colangelo prolly knows a lot about him. It'll be interesting to see what kind of role he gets in Philly.
We sure miss his work on the pick'n'roll here in Toronto. He's got a soft touch in the mid-short range, a pretty reliable score within 12 feet of the basket.
You just worry about the guy because his ankles are being held together with sticky-tack and crossed fingers.
On July 02 2017 13:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: as the Raptors seem to have been doing under the Ujiri regime they let the player announce they were signed. Lowry just announced he is in TO next year. No terms revealed. EDIT: LOL , josh lewenberg screwing with people. no news on Lowry.
Awesome to see Iggy re-sign, pencil in another championship for GSW.
Don't worry about that cap though, Durant is good guy, he'll take league minimum if it means more championships. (jk, but he wants those W's and will take a hit to get 'em)
What happens when Klay and Draymond hit the market? Talk about a scary Luxury Tax bill...
On July 02 2017 23:45 Nemireck wrote: You just worry about the guy because his ankles are being held together with sticky-tack and crossed fingers.
ya, good point about Amir's ankle problems.
And now Lowry with 3yr/100 million ...wau!
The Raps are overpaying for relatively short 3 year deals for these guys. Really overpaying for Ibaka though IMO.
But not sure if you were the one JimmyJ that said that Raps ownership didn't wanna overpay for the team or something to that effect, but they going deep in the pockets now.
with Lewieke gone and the Canadian dollar weak i'm surprised they are spending like this.
nice move by Ujiri to limit the Lowry deal to 3 years though. My thoughts on 32+ year old Point Guards under 6'2" are well documented.
if the Raptors are to take the "next step" its in the hands of Delon Wright, Bruno Caboclo and Norman Powell. 3 guys prolly no one on this board knows anything about; i only know a little.
i hope they keep Pat Patterson... i think Casey hates him for some of his social media shenanigans but the guy is extremely under rated. If Patterson gets away... any team that signs him is a getting a diamond in the rough.
isn't there some kind of "salary floor". last time i checked Sacramento had the lowest committed payroll for next year in the league. maybe Sac is just trying to get to the salary floor?
There is a salary floor, but you have all year to get up to it. It can only be a minor factor in this offer because there are many different ways you get can up to the floor. It's not something teams would concern themselves before the season even starts. Also there isn't a real penalty for being below the floor beyond lost opportunity cost. You just have to pay the difference between your payroll and the floor among your players. The only reason I can think of to make a bid on someone you didn't want would be to screw another team over or maybe as a favor to a player agent, but I think it's more likely they just wanted him and the market for wings is pretty tight.
Putting Washington to the test on how deep they want to go into luxury tax with a non-contending team is a reasonable gamble. Some owners in that spot may balk and you get your guy. It sounds like they are going to match though. In that case all SAC has done is tied up some of their abundant cap space for a week, really no cost to them.
edit: If I think about what SAC can do with their cap space when premier free agents are clearly not going anywhere near them making big offers to restricted free agents is probably the best option as those players are young and may still be around to play with the young players SAC is drafting if they ever get their shit together. The other option for that cap space is basically to use it as a dumping ground for bad contracts like Brooklyn did with Mozgov. I think I'd rather get young talents like KCP or Otto Porter even on a slight overpay than the draft picks + horrible multi year contracts.
raptors had a choice, sign these players to massive contracts or start the rebuild. im just glad i dont really follow the raptors/leafs living in toronto.
What would be funny is if the SAC offer pushes Washington so deep into the tax they need to dump Mahinmi even more desperately, and SAC can take him off their hands for the right price
The salary floor is super fake. For example, assume it is 100 million, but your team has a salary of 10 million. All that happens is the team takes $90 Million and distributes it to its own players according to their % of the overall salary cap.
On July 04 2017 03:51 ZenithM wrote: Billups removing his candidacy from Cavs' GM. The Cavs are going nowhere but the East is emptying itself, so I guess they'll make another finals :D.
if Miami brings back everyone i think they're the Cavs #1 challenger next year and they got an outside shot at knocking them off.
@Twinkletoes Spoilered as not a subject of general interest. Although, to answer a question posed several pages back, I think one major draw to sports is its function as a microcosm of real life. We can relieve tension by getting upset about our favorite team. We can debate things. We can use statistics to examine the enclosed world. That's why so many statisticians love baseball. We can do all of these things in a relatively safe and unimportant environment, instead of the draining and high stakes worlds of politics, epidemiology, etc.
On July 01 2017 21:07 Twinkle Toes wrote: Ok now...
On July 01 2017 08:33 Jerubaal wrote:
On June 30 2017 23:22 Twinkle Toes wrote:
On June 30 2017 13:46 Jerubaal wrote:
On June 30 2017 00:16 Twinkle Toes wrote:
On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote: ^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact.
I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy.
Thanks for forcing me to think about this more.
I'm sure many of you had an initial distaste for Ball's antics. Many also probably dismissed such revulsion as being irrational. It's become fashionable to poopoo the idea of social etiquette in the light of a rationalism. All these mores are just rules for transactions, ok. As quickly as you clarify the situation, though, you realize the futility of trying to get out from underneath it. If you reduce social behavior to mere transactionalism, you strip it of all other human affections. Thus, such behavior is usually shunned.
Mr. Ball is essentially making the Transactional argument. He's trying to maximize his value and so is everyone else. It's really not the bombasticness of him that's questionable, it's his directness. It is true that everyone else is trying to maximize their value as well, but Markelle Fultz and De'aaron Fox are leaving open the possibility of being a human being beyond their market value. Ball is trying to strip his interaction to a transaction, but what he's done is make himself only a transaction.
As for whether he can change, you're looking at the wrong thing. If I have some sort of value system, then I can pivot. I can say I've changed my mind or that I'm making a decision for practical reasons. If my only values are ego and money, people are going to assume that that's always my goal. If I'm loud, it's ego and money. If I'm quiet, probably money.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, let me repay in kind.
I agree with your framework of analysis but I disagree on the conclusion. If I understand you correctly, we both agree that Ball's modus operandi is excessive unabashed self-promotion for monetary gain. You then proceed by reducing this phenomenon to the fact that this is a product of his bankrupt moral system. (Please correct any misappropriations. Volumes upon volumes are written on this topic, and they barely cover it satisfactorily. I am sure with out limitation in time and space here, much will be lost in translation.)
The question to mind, assuming all of this as true, is so what?! What you see as an irredeemable flaw, I see as a mere wrinkle in the face of modern civilizarion, no more threatening or significant than all the other things modern media and society in general churns out on a daily basis. In cultural theory, we learn of the power of agency. The degrees of this power range the full spectrum, from Foucault's dispersion of (non)centric power, to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomatic revolution, and even to Feyerabend's disavowal of structure. Let me emphasize once again the question of "so what?". The flaw in your analysis is you fail to account for the power of agency. You, me, and anybody else are not passive subjects that absorb and emulate whatever is out there. The effects of such external stimuli vary greatly, mostly as an indication of educational and socioeconomic status, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a simple equation of cause and effect, stimulus and response. Ball can talk and act all crazy as he wants, it does not mean that you or me or anybody else should normalize or be affected by such behavior.
Which brings me to a more important point. Ball is nothing more than what and where we are as a society right now. We live in the era of Kardashians, fake tv dramas, alternative facts, pictures of breakfast on instragram, memes, covfefes, and selfies. Ball fits perfectly right in. We may all frown upon the brashness, indiscretion, bombasticness, egotism, and stupidity of it all, but it's all on him, and not on us.
Warhol once said, in defense of the Campbell Soup: "If you want to make great art, you must first have a great society". We live in a shitty society, hence we have shitty people and stunts like these. The real question is, which side of the equation are you?
With all this in mind, we really cannot begrudge Ball for doing what he thinks is best for his interest. At the very least, we have for ourselves live and ongoing entertainment.
And to respond to your question about Nony's post, it's important for no other reason than that if people see it, they will imitate it. The reason cultures tend to get more polite is because, as much handwringing as there is about "honesty" and "being real", life is generally better when everyone isn't an abrasive blowhard.
Again, you are subscribing to the magic bullet theory. I have touched on this above, but let me summarize once more:.Ball may be shitty, we do not have to imitate him.
As for Coach Pop: I I hope I'm not being too self serving, but I'd like to think that the Spurs are a product of good team building while most of the other champions are simply an overwhelming accumulation of talent. It's kind of depressing really to think that the champion is pretty predictable most years and only the paragon of teamwork Spurs have stood up to them most years. The Mavericks are really the only blip in the last few years. The interesting thing about it is that even as good as they have been, there's a ton of luck involved...unless you're one of the aforementioned overwhelming collections of talent.
To add to this, the Spurs have two decades of excellence, with a consistent batch of always classy and anti-ego.players. JVG summed up Manu perfectly, saying something like "in all his years, Manu has never cheated the game. He has always come out to give it his all." I almost cried listening to the truth of this statement. Good thing though, reports indicate Manu may still be on for a year.
These theories of influence notwithstanding, I can't discount the most basic theory of cultural transmission, monkey-see, monkey-do. I'm not even sure that refuting the action is enough. If that feeling is even the air, it's going to influence some people. You can hold the individual to account for his individual actions, but you can't deny the impact over the whole culture.
You said an interesting phrase, "morally bankrupt". I don't think Ball is a horrible person, but he's making one mistake and that's indicative of the problem of the culture and this discussion, Ball's (and our) mistake is simply that he's not asking what is good. As I said, he's focused purely on the transaction and this has completely deprived him of a moral compass. I can't think of a better way to take a basically decent person and make them feel comfortable with any action. That's why I detest the phrase "as long as it isn't hurting anyone". I'd beg to differ. It's hurting Ball himself, at any rate.
To reiterate, I think in large part what the problem is is that we've lost the ability to simply say "this is good and this is not good". Ball is not the cause of this and he's not the hill you want to die on. If you can't simply say "this is not good" without someone coming up to you and telling you that you have no right to tell them what is good or not good. And I think you're acting like a classic liberal right now, not because you hold this position but because you don't agree with his behavior but feel compelled to defend it. It's like you're trying to rationalize why you've put up with such bullshit for so long. Part of that might be because (I don't know about your case in particular) everyone says that anyone who tries to make a moral judgement is a) wrong because there's no such thing as morality and b) a budding tyrant.
To pose a question, what else should I do besides quietly note and propound that this is less good than I would want it to be. Isn't that how you start to push back?
One, your position on this matter is typical media-conditioned response to media-created/enabled stimuli. Think of this along the lines of political hypercorrectness and self-victimhood that is prevalent in society today. Media and popular culture produce and enable these things (the aforementioned Kardashian phenomenon, memes, CNN-type 24 hour breaking news,etc.) and, in an act of cynical self-referential feedback loop, encourages us "subjects" to protest or otherwise demonstrated our impassioned response to such stimuli, so that the stimulus is reinforced and thereby propagating the media-audience relationship, "satisfying" our need for content, and the media's need for viewers, and the gravy train of advertising and other profit continues, until we move to the next hot button issue. In short, we are exaggerating, when in fact we need to have a disinterested and critical reflection on this matters.
Two, let us conduct an activity to prove this point. Pool together two sets of people, your friend who are into basketball (group A), and friends who are not (group B). Ask both groups if they know who Lavar Ball is? Then ask them what they think of him? Then ask them how he has affected their lives? I am certain that except for the special few who follow the NBA close enough to know about Ball as we both do, the best reaction you'll get is a cold "Ok". My point is, Balls antics is an infinitesimal speck in the grand scheme of things. There is no need to be so worked up about it to the point of hating.
This first paragraph seems impossible to respond to since apparently I am a part of the system. I have a comment regarding what level of exaggeration or level of disinterestedness I'm displaying, but I'll save that for later.
Yes, this is a fairly insignificant issue, but it's a reasonable test case. Moreover, there's a serious issue if I can't just the truth about a fairly straightforward case. To plagiarize Orwell, it's a sign of the times if you can't make these basic statements and it's an important build up. If we can't just say we don't like this, what makes you think we can do that with major society-wide issues? More on this later.
Three, you are subscribing to an obsolete framework of communication. The magic bullet theory of "monkey-see-monkey-do" has long been rendered deficient, along with Mcluhan determinism, in making sense of something as complex as social interaction. It may hold some ground in child developmental psychology where the variables are limited ans easily identifiable, but no one has been brave enough to academically summon such frameworks since the late 60s. You might be familiar with studies on television, and more recently video games, and violence among children. More than half a decade of academic work has been on this and there is no direct causative or even correlative relationship between the two. Television and games may be one of the factor, but there is such a rigid structure in place that shapes personal and social knowledge and behavior like parental influence, geography, peers, socio-economic background, and religion that violent television and games are rarely if ever the tipping point in determining violent behavior. People have been violent and nonviolent as well all throughout history, and it is simplistic to reduce the matter to a simple "monkey-see-monkey-do" equation, no matter how apparently self-evident it is.
OK, let's not pretend that these frameworks are some sort of gospel that invalidated everything that came before. (Frankly, they seem as much an indictment of the monumental dullness of the Moderns as anything.) They are comments and useful observations, but don't make the mistake of thinking your one slice of pie is the whole universe. As for the theories themselves, if anything, what I took away is the complexity and unpredictability of influence. I don't know if you thought I was asserting Ball as the top of an influence hierarchy. He can be small potatoes and still be impactful, or maybe he is just the result of something impactful. The violent TV/videogames studies seems like a poor example because it seems like as much a test of whether people can differentiate between media and real life. I would be more interested in whether kids who watched TV/games with cursing cursed more.
"Monkey-see, monkey-do" is a simplification, but probably not in the way you think. It could actually be way worse than that. There could be an action that will be imitated no matter how forcefully it's decried. The mere whisper of the action could lead some to investigate it. You've given me some descriptions of how influence has spread and then told me not to worry about influence spreading. Classical factors like the ones you described are important and a good base, but they also don't describe change very well, which is always happening.
All of these isolated events and individual focused factors are not my main concern, however. I'm criticizing the reaction to Ball more than Ball. I'm sure you've noticed that your attitude is fairly commonplace. There's no need to consider vectors of influence; it's already done.
Four, How is Ball hurting himself? By any measure, he is succeeding. Lonzo is playing for the Lakers, he owns his own brand, he has prominent B-level media exposure, and by the looks of it, he is having the time of his life. No matter how Lonzo Ball turns out, as long as he manages an average NBA career. he is either in zero or positive position. The only negative scenario is when Lonzo Ball turns out to be a gun-carrying mass murdering maniac, or something along these lines.
If you go back to my first post, I explained it in more detail. Briefly, his style is the product of an underlying idea that has been stripped of moral consideration. I guess it comes down to whether you think being moral or not is helpful or harmful. As I said before, the danger here is that it's taken a probably essentially decent person and convinced them that they do not need to pay any heed to the potential goodness of their actions, only the benefit.
Has he really gained anything? His son was drafted 2nd, as was long predicted, and he has a brand which has sold a few shoes and whose success will largely depend on his son's success on the court. All of this would happen or could happen without all the bluster. I would take issue with the idea that the only dangerous ideas are the one that immediately cause some material harm, but I'll just comment in passing that by the time you get to the "gun-carrying maniac" phase, it's usually to late to address underlying issues.
Five, and let me use this point by way of summation. Our discussion/disagreement is an attempt to understand the Ball phenomenon. Ball may or may not be a moral person, and from your perspective, his shameless self-promotion and egotism is a wrong/not good, and we should do something about it. I can not however tell from our discussion so far what you propose to do about it. Do we stage organized protests in LA games? Twitter bomb him? To my mind, the correct course of action is to let the whole phenomenon play. I have already expressed how I have changed my mind after learning that all of this is for Ball is a spectacle to promote his agenda, and unless he is doing any damage, say threatening economic sustainability, building divisive walls, putting incompetent people in power, threatening net neutrality, making access to affordable health care difficult for people, let him be. Boycott all BBB products and boo at Lonzo Ball's games, all you want, but never yourself get caught in the charade as the serious fool amidst the clowns.
I'm not really criticizing Ball, though. He's just the subject of our discussion. What I'm criticizing is the attitude that, even as you are still able to distinguish what is good and what is not so good, you are unable to even make a passing statement about it's morality. I can't speak to you specifically, but this is the classic liberal idea that everything should either be illegal or be above reproach. Since I'm criticizing Ball, I must then think that what he's doing is illegal. That's why you're ascribing this massive overreaction to me. You also only consider that the only real harm is if violence is being done. I would respectfully disagree with that. Ball is small potatoes and not evil, but it's telling if we can't even just matter o' factly assert that he's doing less than good and move on. That's all that really needs to be done.
You and others have agreed with me that Ball is not acting his best and you have waxed a few times on the state of (at least part of) the culture. Do you not think that your attitude makes you complicit then? If not, what is it that you think needs to be done to reverse this culture?
Hi Jerubaal, I'll try to tidy up and focus it a little bit, the quote chain is getting long and the discussion out of hand.
OK, let's not pretend that these frameworks are some sort of gospel that invalidated everything that came before. (Frankly, they seem as much an indictment of the monumental dullness of the Moderns as anything.) They are comments and useful observations, but don't make the mistake of thinking your one slice of pie is the whole universe.
The violent TV/videogames studies seems like a poor example because it seems like as much a test of whether people can differentiate between media and real life. I would be more interested in whether kids who watched TV/games with cursing cursed more.
"Monkey-see, monkey-do" is a simplification, but probably not in the way you think. It could actually be way worse than that. There could be an action that will be imitated no matter how forcefully it's decried. The mere whisper of the action could lead some to investigate it.
This statement is false, bordering on the illiterate. Theories and frameworks are attempts at describing and explaining social phenomena. The more systematic and rigorous the framework, the more widely acceptable it is. Those that are proven wrong or deficient are discarded. Being social constructs themselves, theories and frameworks are subject to temporal and cultural changes. What was once true may not anymore be the case, because of changes in social interaction and technology, and often because we simply find better tools and ways to analyze things that expose the falsity of our earlier methods and conclusions.
Your enthusiastic defense of the "monkey-see-monkey-do" concept betrays your fundamental ignorance on the matter. Despite its self-apparent nature, that concept remains only as a niche in child psychology and has long been debunked and abandoned in cultural and communication theory. You are at least four decades late on your reading list on this issue. I will detail a more academic response on this matter once you answer the related questions in the section below.
He can be small potatoes and still be impactful, or maybe he is just the result of something impactful.
If you go back to my first post, I explained it in more detail. Briefly, his style is the product of an underlying idea that has been stripped of moral consideration. I guess it comes down to whether you think being moral or not is helpful or harmful. As I said before, the danger here is that it's taken a probably essentially decent person and convinced them that they do not need to pay any heed to the potential goodness of their actions, only the benefit.
I would take issue with the idea that the only dangerous ideas are the one that immediately cause some material harm, but I'll just comment in passing that by the time you get to the "gun-carrying maniac" phase, it's usually to late to address underlying issues.
What I'm criticizing is the attitude that, even as you are still able to distinguish what is good and what is not so good, you are unable to even make a passing statement about it's morality. I can't speak to you specifically, but this is the classic liberal idea that everything should either be illegal or be above reproach. Since I'm criticizing Ball, I must then think that what he's doing is illegal. That's why you're ascribing this massive overreaction to me. You also only consider that the only real harm is if violence is being done. I would respectfully disagree with that. Ball is small potatoes and not evil, but it's telling if we can't even just matter o' factly assert that he's doing less than good and move on. That's all that really needs to be done.
I assume by the sentence in bold you mean to say that my assessment of you overreacting on this matter is not true because you are not overreacting? Is this a correct assumption?
If so, then I concede that point. But maybe we are operating on a different reaction scale. That you have to make the above statement, at one point, meditating on the impact of Ball and his actions, and then jumping on the conclusion that this influences people to emulate him, is proof to me that you are taking him too seriously. You even make the fatal mistake of sliding down the slippery slope of Ball's actions specifically as a representative of an act "stripped of moral consideration" to irreversible violent result (I don't know what you propose specifically in Ball's case, but in the general scope of society, this is where gun violence falls in).
In reference to the first question, here are the questions 1. Can you name specific cases of people being influenced by Ball's actions/words? 2. In present society, is Ball's brashness and self-aggrandizement unique? 3. Throughout history, is Ball's brashness and self-aggrandizement unique?
That Ball is moral or immoral, good or not good, is not the argument. That can or cannot comment on this phenomenon is not the argument as well. The mere fact that we have been engaged in this discussion is proof that it is natural and encouraged. All I am remarking is that you are overreacting on this matter. If from your perspective going on a lengthy tirade demonizing ball and fearing the effects of his actions on society is not an exaggeration, then,as I said earlier, I concede my point. But from my point of view, as a previous rabid hater of Lavar Ball, it is all a show and all that he deserves is a guilty chuckle and a meh.
Has he really gained anything? His son was drafted 2nd, as was long predicted, and he has a brand which has sold a few shoes and whose success will largely depend on his son's success on the court. All of this would happen or could happen without all the bluster.
Let's see:
Scenario 1: Lavar is a loudmouth showoff (current scenario)
Lonzo Ball gathers massive attention before the draft.
BBB gets free promotion. Nike and all other big brands turned him down, but the fact that BBB is in the same sentence as those giants is an accomplishment. Anta, Lining, World Balance, and other fringe sports brands would pay millions to get that kind of publicity, good or bad.
Lavar Ball promotes himself through interviews, media appearances, and stupid shows like WWE. Until the draft, Lonzo was jokingly considered as Lavar's son first and draft #2 second.
Scenario 2: Lavar is out of spotlight, like the usual NBA draftee dad
Lonzo will gather attention, but on a far lower magnitude.
BBB will be a no-name.
Lavar Ball will be as popular as KD's father, or Duncan's father, or Kidd's father, or Beverley's father, or Scalabrine's father, or Lowry's father, or all the other fathers of NBA players who were not on the spotlight.
I think we can agree that he is moderately successful.
To summarize:
The truth of the matter is, you could go on and on and summon obscure examples of "monkey-see-monkey-do" concept but it is an academically obsolete and deficient concept
This is not an issue of can we criticize him or not. Far from it, and this is the most important point that I think you fail to understand - it is all a show. Lavar is just being the proud and happy father who is playing the loud-mouth fool in an effort promote his interest and maximize his profit. Unless you can prove that people are abandoning their moral compass because they want to emulate Ball's cynical Machiavellian pragmatism, then you are being overly dramatic. The best thing to do is call his ugly egg-face out on his foolishness, enjoy the theatrics while it lasts, and move on to more important things in life.
Durant could have made at least ~$32-35M this year, and even more next year. Instead he chose to take $53M for 2 years, sacrificing ~$10M per year in the next 2 years. Reports indicate that he would have even accepted less if they could have acquired Rudy Gay. All this is to ensure that GSW could accomodate Curry's $201M 5-year salary as well as those of the other superstars and players in order to keep the team together. In addition, this also allows the GSW to avoid an expensive luxury tax and overpay like the Cavs.
Part of me applauds KD for taking the hardest road and making sure the teams continues to be competitive, and by sacrificing so much thereby also shows leadership. (Although with various endorsement money, $10M is not too much of a blow for KD). On the other hand, from the political economic perspective, this is horrible. It shows that when it is needed. it is always the players and not the owners who must make the sacrifice. Lebron and CP3 must be livid. This is a horrible blow to the CBA. If this continues, I expect a lockout this season or the next.
I don't really know what to think about this move. It follows the same direction as his signing to GSW, in the sense that he wants to win in the most enjoyable (and least competitive) setting he can, but on the other hand, it's indeed a non-negligible sacrifice from him so you have to respect that. You can't argue that KD isn't a team player at least. You can argue that he's "still a bitch tho".
I'm totally over that bitch and cupcake thing already. What bothers me is that behind all these "selflessness" and "sacrifice" narrative, it undermines all the progress in the CBA that puts the players interests first. This move gives the power right back to the owners. It is not as cut and dry as it seems, but it definitely could be prone to abuse.
On July 04 2017 23:46 JimmiC wrote: I guess chris paul is a bitch for joining the rockets after thry beat him after being up 3-1. Funny how some people get certain storey lines and others dont
I didn't realize it until you mentioned it lol. Maybe because the Clippers are expected to do Clippers thing? I don't know. But yeah, funny that no one even brought that up.
On July 04 2017 23:46 JimmiC wrote: I guess chris paul is a bitch for joining the rockets after thry beat him after being up 3-1. Funny how some people get certain storey lines and others dont
I didn't realize it until you mentioned it lol. Maybe because the Clippers are expected to do Clippers thing? I don't know. But yeah, funny that no one even brought that up.
everyone who has ever joined a better team is, by the definition placed on durant, a bitch. everyone would do what durant did, i mean if pay is relatively the same, it comes down to is the working conditions and gsw is definitely a better system to work in than OKC's.
On July 04 2017 23:46 JimmiC wrote: I guess chris paul is a bitch for joining the rockets after thry beat him after being up 3-1. Funny how some people get certain storey lines and others dont
I could argue the various differences between those moves, I'm sure you see them as well, but point taken. People see some story lines and don't see some others, but maybe that's only because they're different stories.
On July 04 2017 23:55 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm totally over that bitch and cupcake thing already. What bothers me is that behind all these "selflessness" and "sacrifice" narrative, it undermines all the progress in the CBA that puts the players interests first. This move gives the power right back to the owners. It is not as cut and dry as it seems, but it definitely could be prone to abuse.
How does this undermine the CBA?
It's not as if he was stuck in GS no matter what and his owner/GM said "Eff you, you're taking $53m over 2 seasons or you're not playing at all!" A move like that WOULD undermine the CBA, but in this case, a player made the decision that he felt was right for him... That's the whole POINT of Free Agency. The player can make whatever decision he likes to make himself happy.
KD had all the power in this situation. Did he want to sacrifice a bit of pay (which is really peanuts compared to his endorsement deals) and continue to play on (one of) the greatest team(s) ever assembled? Or did he want to take a pay increase that is fairly meaningless to him and "put it to the man?" For what gain? To whose benefit?
The way I see it: Demanding a raise would put a few extra dollars in his bank account, but then he'd have to play for a worse team, or a different team... Maybe a team with a shitty culture, or a terrible coach, or fucking James L Dolan as the team owner. If I were KD, and I already had my millions, and I had the chance to play for a Dynasty in the prime of my career... That's not a very difficult decision to make. And while I'm thinking about it, did anyone in the Players Union criticise Duncan, Parker or Ginobli when they took lesser deals to help the Spurs continue to be a perennial Championship contender? I don't remember hearing it.
Granted, not every player is driven by a desire to win, some just want to score 20-30 a night and collect their $35mil/y (Lookin at you Melo), but we see how well that's working out for those teams... Don't we?
Fucking finally a good player going east. At this point the conference could almost just as well disband and have the cavs actually earn a spot in the finals...
Part of me applauds KD for taking the hardest road and making sure the teams continues to be competitive, and by sacrificing so much thereby also shows leadership. (Although with various endorsement money, $10M is not too much of a blow for KD). On the other hand, from the political economic perspective, this is horrible. It shows that when it is needed. it is always the players and not the owners who must make the sacrifice. Lebron and CP3 must be livid. This is a horrible blow to the CBA. If this continues, I expect a lockout this season or the next.
This is simply untrue. Under the CBA 1 player or a team of players/ 1 owner makes a sacrifice. The players/owners as a collective never sacrifice. Every dollar that Durant doesn't earn is a dollar in another players pocket.
On July 04 2017 23:55 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm totally over that bitch and cupcake thing already. What bothers me is that behind all these "selflessness" and "sacrifice" narrative, it undermines all the progress in the CBA that puts the players interests first. This move gives the power right back to the owners. It is not as cut and dry as it seems, but it definitely could be prone to abuse.
The CBA puts crappy veterans interests first. It gives the shaft to rookies and elite superstars. Everyone knew that when it was signed.
On July 05 2017 04:31 cLutZ wrote: The CBA puts crappy veterans interests first. It gives the shaft to rookies and elite superstars. Everyone knew that when it was signed.
it cuts both ways. in baseball, we had guys who had never thrown a pitch in the Majors getting massive deals.
a compromise has to be made somewhere as long as total pay for all players is tied to the NBA's over all revenue.
On July 05 2017 03:59 Elroi wrote: Fucking finally a good player going east. At this point the conference could almost just as well disband and have the cavs actually earn a spot in the finals...
What do you guys think about Cavs vs Celtics? I still have Cavs but probably not a sweep :D. Edit: Haha Hayward to the Celtics is NOT confirmed.
On July 05 2017 03:59 Elroi wrote: Fucking finally a good player going east. At this point the conference could almost just as well disband and have the cavs actually earn a spot in the finals...
What do you guys think about Cavs vs Celtics? I still have Cavs but probably not a sweep :D. Edit: Haha Hayward to the Celtics is NOT confirmed.
Cavs in 5 if they play average Cavs ball. Cavs in 4 if they learn a motion offense. Cavs in 6 if they play like they did this year during the playoffs.
On July 05 2017 03:59 Elroi wrote: Fucking finally a good player going east. At this point the conference could almost just as well disband and have the cavs actually earn a spot in the finals...
What do you guys think about Cavs vs Celtics? I still have Cavs but probably not a sweep :D. Edit: Haha Hayward to the Celtics is NOT confirmed.
celtics havent done anything that would make it seem like they would get a better shot, hayward would be great but i dont think he would swing it that much. if they had gotten george tho?...
On July 05 2017 03:59 Elroi wrote: Fucking finally a good player going east. At this point the conference could almost just as well disband and have the cavs actually earn a spot in the finals...
What do you guys think about Cavs vs Celtics? I still have Cavs but probably not a sweep :D. Edit: Haha Hayward to the Celtics is NOT confirmed.
celtics havent done anything that would make it seem like they would get a better shot, hayward would be great but i dont think he would swing it that much. if they had gotten george tho?...
Yeah I don't think he's impactful enough to beat the Cavs either.
On July 05 2017 11:43 MassHysteria wrote: sam presti continues with the good offseason and signs Patterson on a great deal for him even with the 3rd year player-option. OKC on a roll.
good deal for OKC. i've already posted my thoughts on P. Patterson... the guy is a very smart player.
On July 05 2017 03:59 Elroi wrote: Fucking finally a good player going east. At this point the conference could almost just as well disband and have the cavs actually earn a spot in the finals...
What do you guys think about Cavs vs Celtics? I still have Cavs but probably not a sweep :D. Edit: Haha Hayward to the Celtics is NOT confirmed.
No chance. Cavs is a "superteam", which means they win witout trying and without deserving it and that they in fact are worse than their opponents. + Show Spoiler +
On July 05 2017 18:30 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Nice catch, but it doesnt matter a bit. east is a joke as it is now, and any one of the top 4 teams in the east can easily beat the cavs
Easily take a game in the regular season, you mean, I hope? Four teams "easily" beat the Cavs in the playoffs? They'll have to work a bit harder than "easily" :D.
What about a wager? gsw, hou, spurs, and whoever else is in top 4 whether wolves, okc, or kings lol will all have winning record against your cavs and lechoke. 1 year ban starting end of last game of the season?
On July 05 2017 21:49 Keyboard Warrior wrote: What about a wager? gsw, hou, spurs, and whoever else is in top 4 whether wolves, okc, or kings lol will all have winning record against your cavs and lechoke. 1 year ban starting end of last game of the season?
you accept?
u realize ur original post said "top 4 teams in the east", right?
any how, i assume this is a cumulative 8 game record against all 4 top west teams combined rather than each and every top 4 west team going 2-0 versus the Cavs?
I didn't even get what the wager was... I also thought we were talking about East teams. Now I realize he might have meant "the top 4 teams in the West can easily beat the Cavs". You can understand my confusion.
Sorry zenith, i mistyped. i meant west, mistype was understandable since the previous statemnent was "east is a joke". the wager still stands if you accept
Even if we're talking about the West teams, if you want to wager you have to define "easy". Your claim was "easily beats". Do I think the Rockets can beat the Cavs. Sure, absolutely. Do I think they sweep them in a Bo7, or even 4-1? I have a harder time seeing it.
So what would be the wager KW? Top 4 record West teams go 8-0 vs the Cavs? If that's it, I think I'm favored in this bet, this season the Cavs were 3-3 vs (Rockets, Warriors, Spurs), splitting with each. But I won't wager a 1-year ban with a low-postcount guy who's been trolling the NBA thread to no end, I hope you'll understand :D. The bet outcome is in my favor, but I'm risking more too. I like posting on this forum, I'm quite sure I would miss it more than you.
earlier in the thread i provided a rebuttal to someone stating something like "Ainge not going after PG13 was a bad move." i said something like "hayward will only cost Boston money..." welp, that's wrong... the Hayward signing won't just cost Boston money...
" With Gordon Hayward now agreeing to a four-year $127M max contract, Celtics management now has a series of transactions to do in order to create cap space. The Celtics would have to pull the qualifying offer on Kelly Olynyk, renounce free agents Jonas Jerebko, James Young, Gerald Green and waive the contracts of Jordan Mickey and Demetrius Jackson (or trade). The Celtics would be left with $27.6M in room and likely need to move the contract of Jae Crowder, Terry Rozier or Marcus Smart. Trading Rozier would have the Celtics short $1M of a max salary a lot."
We have to amend the original condition since we won't know the top 4 until the playoffs. So I win if either: 1. cavs do not win more than 2 games against consensus top 4 gsw, hou, san, wolves to satisfy the "easy" win of 6-2, or cavs lose in the finals against top 4 teams then by 4-2 or better. you choose which one. Accept?
^who the fuck cares. let the teams worry about management stuff. this is the offseason, let us talk offseason things. trades, summer league, and preseason games. you do not control how they will manage their teams, so theres no use jerking armchair managing it here on tl.
and no one really cares about the atlantic division at this point. al;l we care about is the nba in general. no need to justify your shitty post with that disclaimer. lol
On July 05 2017 23:49 Keyboard Warrior wrote: ^who the fuck cares. let the teams worry about management stuff. this is the offseason, let us talk offseason things. trades, summer league, and preseason games. you do not control how they will manage their teams, so theres no use jerking armchair managing it here on tl
Raptor followers care ... as the team embarks on their quest to regain the coveted atlantic division crown.
now you are hurting my feelings. the double-entendre troll call-out by a troll.
it is a serious discussion though... about whether Boston will be better or not. I think they'll certainly be better in 2+ years. Next year they might be worse due to the Hayward signing.
i'm thinking the Atlantic division will not be the worst division in the NBA next year.
On July 05 2017 23:41 Keyboard Warrior wrote: We have to amend the original condition since we won't know the top 4 until the playoffs. So I win if either: 1. cavs do not win more than 2 games against consensus top 4 gsw, hou, san, wolves to satisfy the "easy" win of 6-2, or cavs lose in the finals against top 4 teams then by 4-2 or better. you choose which one. Accept?
All of this is way more likely to happen than my 8-0 thing (I mean, wtf, the Cavs just lost 4-1 in the finals, why would I bet they will do 2+ games better next year...). Which I wouldn't have accepted anyway . Like I said, a lot more riding on this for me than for you. If Kyrie or Lebron is injured I ban myself 1 year from TL? That's silly :D. Anyway I don't tend to bet on things outside of my control (I really like to bet when I'm involved though ).
We can still amend it further. 8-0 is not easy, its annihilation. 3 out of 8 is a good number i think? and lets agree, injuries on the starting five and bets are off. lets do this!
the chance of 4 teams in the west and the Cavs keeping their starting 5 intact for all 8 games is pretty much 0. what if the worst starter on the 4th place team loses his job to the 6th man in the rotation half way through the year?
TL;DR : this bet will just get called off... the bet is unwieldy and poorly defined and could end up in giant shouting matches all year long about the "rules" of the bet.
On July 06 2017 00:40 Keyboard Warrior wrote: We can still amend it further. 8-0 is not easy, its annihilation. 3 out of 8 is a good number i think? and lets agree, injuries on the starting five and bets are off. lets do this!
I remind you that you started this off talking about East teams. I won't be baited into a crappy bet just because you don't even know what you're posting.
On July 06 2017 13:14 dsyxelic wrote: oh hey just realized otto porter is born literally on the same day as me
also that seems like an insane salary
i understand salaries rose but holy moly that much for him?
There is a not-so-small chance that people will be talking about "trading Otto Porter's shit contract" in a few seasons. $104 million for 4? For Otto Porter? Damn.
1- D'Angelo Russell becomes an All-Star. 2- Otto Porter becomes an All-Star. 3- Timofey Mozgov's contract ends and they snatch a big name free agent, like Karl Anthony Towns, and Nets become a fucking super team.
Anyway, here's a more relevant and meaningful post. I saw it on reddit and conducted an investigation myself, the results are eyeopening and completely shocking. Comparison of kobe and lebron in clutch situations. clutch here is defined as 2 minutes with at most 3 points. Op limited it to playoffs and finals,
Playoffs: Kobe - 40/96 in clutch situations. - FT 67/79 - TS 58 % - Assists per 36: 4.3 assists - TO per 36: 1.7 turnovers
Lebron - 40/106 in clutch situation - FT 49/67 - TS 49.8% - Assist per 36: 4.2 assists - TO per 36: 4.2 turnovers
Finals:
Kobe - 10/20 in clutch situations - FT 4/5 - TS 56.4% - Assists per 36: 7.5 assists - TO per 36: 1.5TO
Lebron - 4/23 in clutch situations - TS 10/14 - TS 31% - Assists per 36: 3.7 assists - TO per 36: 3.7 assists
In addition, i found out the following valuable "clutch" statistics as well
Number of game winners/equalizers taken in clutch situations: Kobe: 18/24 lebron: 4/15
tldr: 1. Kobe is more clutch than lebron in clutch situations 2. Kobe is a BETTER PLAYMAKER than lebron in clucth situations 3. Kobe becomes more aggressive in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 4. lebron wilts in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 5. Kobe rises to the challenge to take the last shot in clutch situations: 75% 6. lebron is cowardly and hides from the challenge of taking the last shot in clutch situations: 27%
stlsdr Kobe is clutch, lelbron is not. Kobe >>> lebron
I too saw that in a youtube video. Lemme find it. Here it is:
You really are a troll arent you. Posting irrelevant threads as if you were paid by the click, still posting about statistics after everyone destroyed you on it, and now claiming as if that knowledge if yours lol gtfo.
JimmiC, ignore him. He is an internet troll who coppies what he sees mindlessly and baiting us all in a heated discussion, smdh
You really are a troll arent you. Posting irrelevant threads as if you were paid by the click, still posting about statistics after everyone destroyed you on it, and now claiming as if that knowledge if yours lol gtfo.
JimmiC, ignore him. He is an internet troll who coppies what he sees mindlessly and baiting us all in a heated discussion, smdh
careful, if you keep this up people are going to start claiming that you are me. thanks for reposting the video i posted months ago.
On July 06 2017 23:37 JimmiC wrote: So with kobe playing 1346 reg season and 220 playoff games over 20 years, Damn injury shortened Career! I guess based on this we can expect Lebron to played 40 years?
after age 34 bryant was a shadow of his former self due to knee and achilles injuries caused by bad landing mechanics. so yep injuries shortened his career.
Your general trolly style aside, there is truth to this.
As a Lebron fan, I admit his greatness lies elsewhere. I realized something while I was watching the finals with friends. In sure-to-win games, or in the first three quarters, Lebron will produce monster numbers. But when the game is on the line, Lebron is not deadly at all. He is a great player, but he does not command the same fear and respect other killers do, like MJ, Kobe, and Durant. Coaches and players have long known Kobe as a deadly clutch player, hence the automatic double and triple teams. We are lucky that Kobe has the ego to shoot and make difficult shots over double and triple teams, the classic Kobe shot. It's good for "spectatorship". The great JVG said it best, "The GOAT argument is controversial, the most skillful player argument is debatable, but there is no doubt that Kobe is the greatest difficult shotmaker of all time." Mike Breen and Mark J could barely contain their awe and laughter after hearing that.
Although the thing that surprises me from your post is the assist-to ratio. I think this has to do with Kobe being wiser and having better handles. Lebron's playmaking is different from traditional playmaking of say Stockton and CP3 in the sense that they manipulate, bend, and unravel the defense on the dribble while actively forcing and allowing the play to develop and make the best pass. In Lebron's case, no one is threatened of being crossed or shimmied by him so most perimeter coverage is single. Lebron makes his plays by pounding hard into the paint and attracting the double and from there, it is simply a matter of finding the open man.
bad landing mechanics cause leg injuries. we've been over it before.
Bryant had right knee surgeries in 2003, 2006 and 2010. He started landing more and more on his left leg only as the right knee surgeries piled up. He has a lot of work done on that knee in general.. long before age 35.
On July 07 2017 00:22 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Where is your proof that lbj has good landing mechanics???
same video series that i've already posted. and you reposted. so just for nostalgic purposes i'll repost it.
13 minutes.
also, my own observations indicate his landing mechanics are good. someone else doesn't have to say it for me to say it. but, the video provides actual examples so i posted it.
me and my Kobe-fan-boy friends all noticed Kobe's left leg only landings years before the video of it was made. its hard to miss if you watched Kobe game-in and game-out.
Kobe was awesome and always put on a great show when he came 1 time per year to Toronto. In today's NBA he'd probably be encouraged to take a "rest day".
About that yt video, yeah, I saw that too. But I think it's insufficient.
After watching that, I became more conscious in watching landing mechanics of players after layups and dunks. From my non-comprehensive observation, none consistently have what that video would call a good landing mechanics of landing with the ball first. Carter, Jordan, Barkley, Duncan, Shaq, Sonics Ray Allen, Iverson, and a few others have bad landing mechanics, but it really didn't cause significant injuries similar to Kobe's. Maybe it's a factor (I doubt the creator of the video is a physiotherapist or whatever medical professional is knowledgeable in landing mechanics), but it is not THE factor.
i watched Kobe predominantly do the left leg only landing later in his career. no big surprise here:when you injure your right leg you favour your left leg...
compensating for an injured joint is why starting pitchers are instantly pulled... and when they are not the manager is in hell if the pitcher gets any other kind of injury later in the year. the slightest change in mechanics leads to injuries.
For completeness,
aging is always factor. as you age your tissues lose some degree of flexibility. add all these factors together and you get a torn achilles tendon and a totally messed up left leg.
On July 07 2017 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: bad landing mechanics cause leg injuries. we've been over it before.
Bryant had right knee surgeries in 2003, 2006 and 2010. He started landing more and more on his left leg as the right knee surgeries piled up.
Yes you have posted videos where they show highlights of people landing poorly. There could be some truth to it. But Kobe is the worst example in the world since he was durable as hell. It is also not something you came up with and is unrelated to what was posted above where you posted it. It's just one of the go too stupid things you post when you feel the need to "contribute"
On July 07 2017 00:17 Twinkle Toes wrote: Your general trolly style aside, there is truth to this.
As a Lebron fan, I admit his greatness lies elsewhere. I realized something while I was watching the finals with friends. In sure-to-win games, or in the first three quarters, Lebron will produce monster numbers. But when the game is on the line, Lebron is not deadly at all. He is a great player, but he does not command the same fear and respect other killers do, like MJ, Kobe, and Durant. Coaches and players have long known Kobe as a deadly clutch player, hence the automatic double and triple teams. We are lucky that Kobe has the ego to shoot and make difficult shots over double and triple teams, the classic Kobe shot. It's good for "spectatorship". The great JVG said it best, "The GOAT argument is controversial, the most skillful player argument is debatable, but there is no doubt that Kobe is the greatest difficult shotmaker of all time." Mike Breen and Mark J could barely contain their awe and laughter after hearing that.
Although the thing that surprises me from your post is the assist-to ratio. I think this has to do with Kobe being wiser and having better handles. Lebron's playmaking is different from traditional playmaking of say Stockton and CP3 in the sense that they manipulate, bend, and unravel the defense on the dribble while actively forcing and allowing the play to develop and make the best pass. In Lebron's case, no one is threatened of being crossed or shimmied by him so most perimeter coverage is single. Lebron makes his plays by pounding hard into the paint and attracting the double and from there, it is simply a matter of finding the open man.
I always find it funny when people say LBJ sucks because Kobe/MJ did this or vice versa. None of them suck they are all stratospheres above your average player. But yes others did somethings better then the other ones, it makes the GOAT discussion both interesting and impossible.
I agree with the first comment. That conclusion is completely not scholarly. I'm sure someone diligent enough could compile footage of players with bad landing mechanics but do not suffer injury late in their careers. And conversely, players with good mechanics who have significant foot injuries.
I agree wholeheartedly to your second comment. GOAT argument is never objective. It is silly to compare players who never played against each other, as it is even difficult to compare players who are contemporaries. It is a fun discussion though.
On July 07 2017 00:37 Twinkle Toes wrote: conclusion is completely not scholarly. I'm sure someone diligent enough could compile footage of players with bad landing mechanics but do not suffer injury late in their careers. And conversely, players with good mechanics who have significant foot injuries.
it doesn't need to be scholarly. i'm just a kobe fan who watched him compensate for his oft injured right leg for years... and surprise surprise.. his left leg broke down.
This guy is a walking logical fallacy encyclopedia. If it's not false data that he does not understand, it's anecdotes, rumors, and blatant lies. Just ignore him.
Lol JimmyC. I was planning on doing something like that, glad you did it better than I would have. Could you believe it, HE HAS BEEN WATCHING KOBE LAND ON HIS LEFT LEG WAY BEFORE THAT VIDEO. Damn liar. I'd rather a loud mouth offensive troll than an ignorant know-it-all.
if you want to claim i didn't watch Bryant closely during his career you're just speculating. he was a big star; polarizing and fascinating to watch. so i watched him intently. very entertaining player.
or is it compensating for injured joints that has u riled up this badly?
1. no idea what you think i'm lying about. 2. most adults are liars which is why match-fixing in sports and esports happens so much and so even if i'm lying its not that big a deal
i'd rather talk about the NBA than me though. so i prefer this go to PM.
On July 07 2017 01:02 Keyboard Warrior wrote: kobe played 20 fruitful years of competitive basketball. that is the reason for his injuries, and not some whack 2-bit shit you found on the internet
do not pull my comments out of context. aging is always a factor as i've stated. and to play that long.. you of course get older.
On July 07 2017 01:07 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Going back, 4th quarter, 15 seconds left, opponents up by 1, who would you rather have the ball, kobe or lebron?
On July 07 2017 00:38 JimmiC wrote: The thing I find offensive that goes completely over JJ's head is KOBE was hella durable.
do not remove my comments from their context. i am discussing the cause of his severe injuries from age 31 to 34 and then his decline after age 34. i'm not talking about all the full seasons he played in his 20s.
On July 07 2017 01:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Pat Patterson will thrive in OKC
On July 07 2017 00:38 JimmiC wrote: The thing I find offensive that goes completely over JJ's head is KOBE was hella durable.
do not remove my comments from their context. i am discussing the cause of his severe injuries and from age 31 to 34 and then his decline after age 34. i'm not talking about all the full seasons he played in his 20s.
we know what you are discussing dum dum. What you don't get is that all those full seasons and minutes break down the body and caused his injuries, bad landings good landings, not to mention the millions of minutes a legendary hard working like Kobe puts in the gym. If you have ever heard the saying better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are dumb then open your mouth and remove all doubt. The truth of that statement remains in forums.
more moving goal posts and context dropping. bad landing mechanics are a contributing factor in ankle and knee injuries.
This is the best time for Giannis+Bucks and Philly to step up and dethrone Lebron. This is the best time to do it: 1. Wide open East 2. Plenty of 1 year contracts expiring next year, as well as FAs who could once again turn the tide 3. Cleveland is in disarray
On July 07 2017 01:35 JimmiC wrote: Yeah I'm jumpin off the JJ merry go round he's just repeating his stupid now.
good move because you can't keep moving the goal posts and dropping contexts. its just name-calling now.
On July 07 2017 00:38 JimmiC wrote: It would take me a long time to find it, but when this BS first came up I watched a bunch of videos of Kobe's big scoring games, shockingly (not at all) he landed all sorts of ways. It's pretty easy to take a couple of highlights and build a theroy based on it. The thing I find offensive that goes completely over JJ's head is KOBE was hella durable.
watch any NBA game after 2010 with Kobe in it and you'll notice his bad landing mechanics. watching Kobe drop 88 on the Raptors in 2006 and you won't notice it because he hadn't had 3 right knee surgeries and all sorts of other work done on his right knee.
to conclude:
factors in Kobe's injury riddled decline in his 30s. 1. bad landing mechanics 2. aging.
On July 07 2017 01:35 JimmiC wrote: Yeah I'm jumpin off the JJ merry go round he's just repeating his stupid now.
regarding some previous goal-post moves and context drops.
On July 07 2017 00:38 JimmiC wrote: It would take me a long time to find it, but when this BS first came up I watched a bunch of videos of Kobe's big scoring games, shockingly (not at all) he landed all sorts of ways. It's pretty easy to take a couple of highlights and build a theroy based on it. The thing I find offensive that goes completely over JJ's head is KOBE was hella durable.
watch any NBA game after 2010 with Kobe in it and you'll notice his bad landing mechanics. watching Kobe drop 88 on the Raptors in 2006 and you won't notice it because he hadn't had 3 right knee surgeries and all sorts of other work done on his right knee.
Gotcha, so he had no bad landing mechanics, then he had surgeries, then the bad landing mechaincs that caused his injuries. Totally makes sense now because time is not linear, next level shit you got there.
the severe left leg injuries in his 30s is what i am discussing. check previous post.
He was around 50000 minutes played when he started breaking down. He was old and he played through injuries when just about every team is sitting even younger players with the same type of injuries. Bad landing mechanics is a very minuscule part of it.
For top 10, I'm thinking: GSW, SAS, HOU, CLE, OKC, BOS, MIN, POR, DEN, MIL
I'm kinda shaky on the last 5 and I just threw the last 3 in.
I don't even know why JJ talks about post-2013 Kobe. Nobody who calls himself a "Kobe fan" would even mention those years as anything remotely significant in Kobe's carreer. That fucking "Lebron is clutchier than injury-years Kobe"... Like, no shit? "But I saw Kobe chuck a lot of airballs and come down on his left foot when he was really old and tired!!!! Plus-Minus vanilla-chocolate XAPMVORPMPHOMG agree with me." You just sound like a very young basketball fan, JJ. Kobe was arguably still the best player in the world in 2012-13. He had a nice long career, with a lot of season and playoff mileage, and his #8 and #24 years are both separate HoF careers. Why must you always bring up this "coming down on left foot" thing? Literally no other perimeter player played as many years as well as Kobe.
If marc gasol goes to celtics, do you think they could take down cleveland? I dont think it would be likely, but they would have a chance. Marc is insane.
On July 07 2017 02:52 andrewlt wrote: He was around 50000 minutes played when he started breaking down. He was old and he played through injuries when just about every team is sitting even younger players with the same type of injuries. Bad landing mechanics is a very minuscule part of it.
For top 10, I'm thinking: GSW, SAS, HOU, CLE, OKC, BOS, MIN, POR, DEN, MIL
I'm kinda shaky on the last 5 and I just threw the last 3 in.
Denver really? I'm kinda OOTL, but did they land any major FA?
On July 07 2017 05:06 ZenithM wrote: I don't even know why JJ talks about post-2013 Kobe. Nobody who calls himself a "Kobe fan" would even mention those years as anything remotely significant in Kobe's carreer. That fucking "Lebron is clutchier than injury-years Kobe"... Like, no shit? "But I saw Kobe chuck a lot of airballs and come down on his left foot when he was really old and tired!!!! Plus-Minus vanilla-chocolate XAPMVORPMPHOMG agree with me." You just sound like a very young basketball fan, JJ. Kobe was arguably still the best player in the world in 2012-13. He had a nice long career, with a lot of season and playoff mileage, and his #8 and #24 years are both separate HoF careers. Why must you always bring up this "coming down on left foot" thing? Literally no other perimeter player played as many years as well as Kobe.
He is a stupid troll. What surprises me is that he is not a kid anymore, what a shame. He just idiotically repeats things that he reads and watches. Another guy destroyed him because of the analytics. He hid from the challenge when he got called out. And now he is back using XAPM and shit again. Remember, this is the same guy who boasted about watching the games in person. Shameless, I say, shameless.
On July 07 2017 22:51 JimmiC wrote: JJ since you have been convinced that if the heat kept there core together they would compete for the top of the east I bet you a playoff and off season thread ban they don't finish top 2 in the east. You down?
Shit is going down! The JJ exile is coming! But knowing that troll, he'll just hide and lie again.
In other news, I guess Vinsanity will never be a champion... I was really hoping he could get a slot in spurs, warriors, or houston
Haha are we now throwing ban bets to whomever we don't like in this thread? I don't want to see you guys banned :O. Not even JJ and KW!
Btw, that Heat top 2 East bet is crazy... They only gained a .127 WS/48, 1.0 VORP, 0.50 RPM player. JJ isn't taking that bet. Unless he went to watch live Celtics games, in which case he would have insights we don't get with our puny League Pass.
On July 07 2017 23:37 ZenithM wrote: Haha are we now throwing ban bets to whomever we don't like in this thread? I don't want to see you guys banned :O. Not even JJ and KW!
Btw, that Heat top 2 East bet is crazy... They only gained a .127 WS/48, 1.0 VORP, 0.50 RPM player. JJ isn't taking that bet. Unless he went to watch live Celtics games, in which case he would have insights we don't get with our puny League Pass.
Hahaha. And he could ask for tips from his scout uncle.
On July 07 2017 23:37 ZenithM wrote: Haha are we now throwing ban bets to whomever we don't like in this thread? I don't want to see you guys banned :O. Not even JJ and KW!
Btw, that Heat top 2 East bet is crazy... They only gained a .127 WS/48, 1.0 VORP, 0.50 RPM player. JJ isn't taking that bet. Unless he went to watch live Celtics games, in which case he would have insights we don't get with our puny League Pass.
Hahaha. And he could ask for tips from his scout uncle.
I hear Olynyk is adept at two foot landings too (which, granted, is easier if you never jump). This looks more and more promising by the minute.
On July 07 2017 23:37 ZenithM wrote: Haha are we now throwing ban bets to whomever we don't like in this thread? I don't want to see you guys banned :O. Not even JJ and KW!
Btw, that Heat top 2 East bet is crazy... They only gained a .127 WS/48, 1.0 VORP, 0.50 RPM player. JJ isn't taking that bet. Unless he went to watch live Celtics games, in which case he would have insights we don't get with our puny League Pass.
Hahaha. And he could ask for tips from his scout uncle.
I hear Olynyk is adept at two foot landings too (which, granted, is easier if you never jump). This looks more and more promising by the minute.
On July 07 2017 02:52 andrewlt wrote: He was around 50000 minutes played when he started breaking down. He was old and he played through injuries when just about every team is sitting even younger players with the same type of injuries. Bad landing mechanics is a very minuscule part of it.
For top 10, I'm thinking: GSW, SAS, HOU, CLE, OKC, BOS, MIN, POR, DEN, MIL
I'm kinda shaky on the last 5 and I just threw the last 3 in.
Denver really? I'm kinda OOTL, but did they land any major FA?
On July 07 2017 05:06 ZenithM wrote: I don't even know why JJ talks about post-2013 Kobe. Nobody who calls himself a "Kobe fan" would even mention those years as anything remotely significant in Kobe's carreer. That fucking "Lebron is clutchier than injury-years Kobe"... Like, no shit? "But I saw Kobe chuck a lot of airballs and come down on his left foot when he was really old and tired!!!! Plus-Minus vanilla-chocolate XAPMVORPMPHOMG agree with me." You just sound like a very young basketball fan, JJ. Kobe was arguably still the best player in the world in 2012-13. He had a nice long career, with a lot of season and playoff mileage, and his #8 and #24 years are both separate HoF careers. Why must you always bring up this "coming down on left foot" thing? Literally no other perimeter player played as many years as well as Kobe.
He is a stupid troll. What surprises me is that he is not a kid anymore, what a shame. He just idiotically repeats things that he reads and watches. Another guy destroyed him because of the analytics. He hid from the challenge when he got called out. And now he is back using XAPM and shit again. Remember, this is the same guy who boasted about watching the games in person. Shameless, I say, shameless.
Den got milsap, who is roundly underrated. I'm not sure that it pushes em to top 10. This has been a crazy offseason.
Like I said, I'm iffy on the last teams in my top 10. If memory serves correctly, Denver made a run in the second half of the season to barely miss the west playoffs. I'm guessing Utah and LAC slides back behind them. I'm thinking MEM slides back because their injury situation seem to keep getting worse every year. Then I'm thinking maybe DEN's young players improve more and the addition of Milsap give them a few more wins.
I supposed TOR or WAS could be better but I don't know if I want 4 east teams in my top 10.
On July 07 2017 23:37 ZenithM wrote: Haha are we now throwing ban bets to whomever we don't like in this thread? I don't want to see you guys banned :O. Not even JJ and KW!
Btw, that Heat top 2 East bet is crazy... They only gained a .127 WS/48, 1.0 VORP, 0.50 RPM player. JJ isn't taking that bet. Unless he went to watch live Celtics games, in which case he would have insights we don't get with our puny League Pass.
Hahaha. And he could ask for tips from his scout uncle.
I hear Olynyk is adept at two foot landings too (which, granted, is easier if you never jump). This looks more and more promising by the minute.
NBA should try to have an Olynyk vs Pachulia dunk contest.
On July 07 2017 02:52 andrewlt wrote: He was around 50000 minutes played when he started breaking down. He was old and he played through injuries when just about every team is sitting even younger players with the same type of injuries. Bad landing mechanics is a very minuscule part of it.
For top 10, I'm thinking: GSW, SAS, HOU, CLE, OKC, BOS, MIN, POR, DEN, MIL
I'm kinda shaky on the last 5 and I just threw the last 3 in.
Denver really? I'm kinda OOTL, but did they land any major FA?
On July 07 2017 05:06 ZenithM wrote: I don't even know why JJ talks about post-2013 Kobe. Nobody who calls himself a "Kobe fan" would even mention those years as anything remotely significant in Kobe's carreer. That fucking "Lebron is clutchier than injury-years Kobe"... Like, no shit? "But I saw Kobe chuck a lot of airballs and come down on his left foot when he was really old and tired!!!! Plus-Minus vanilla-chocolate XAPMVORPMPHOMG agree with me." You just sound like a very young basketball fan, JJ. Kobe was arguably still the best player in the world in 2012-13. He had a nice long career, with a lot of season and playoff mileage, and his #8 and #24 years are both separate HoF careers. Why must you always bring up this "coming down on left foot" thing? Literally no other perimeter player played as many years as well as Kobe.
He is a stupid troll. What surprises me is that he is not a kid anymore, what a shame. He just idiotically repeats things that he reads and watches. Another guy destroyed him because of the analytics. He hid from the challenge when he got called out. And now he is back using XAPM and shit again. Remember, this is the same guy who boasted about watching the games in person. Shameless, I say, shameless.
Den got milsap, who is roundly underrated. I'm not sure that it pushes em to top 10. This has been a crazy offseason.
Like I said, I'm iffy on the last teams in my top 10. If memory serves correctly, Denver made a run in the second half of the season to barely miss the west playoffs. I'm guessing Utah and LAC slides back behind them. I'm thinking MEM slides back because their injury situation seem to keep getting worse every year. Then I'm thinking maybe DEN's young players improve more and the addition of Milsap give them a few more wins.
I supposed TOR or WAS could be better but I don't know if I want 4 east teams in my top 10.
On July 07 2017 23:37 ZenithM wrote: Haha are we now throwing ban bets to whomever we don't like in this thread? I don't want to see you guys banned :O. Not even JJ and KW!
Btw, that Heat top 2 East bet is crazy... They only gained a .127 WS/48, 1.0 VORP, 0.50 RPM player. JJ isn't taking that bet. Unless he went to watch live Celtics games, in which case he would have insights we don't get with our puny League Pass.
Hahaha. And he could ask for tips from his scout uncle.
I hear Olynyk is adept at two foot landings too (which, granted, is easier if you never jump). This looks more and more promising by the minute.
NBA should try to have an Olynyk vs Pachulia dunk contest.
I really wonder about this too. How could some people play in the NBA and have neither skills nor athleticism.
I really hope he accepts your bet. He is like a child at school who hears a nice joke from people at the back row, then proceeds to tell the joke to the entire class, claiming it is his. Problem for him is, the joke is bad, he is the joke, and he is not a child anymore.
I feel disgusted, sorry, and sad for him at the same time.
On July 07 2017 02:52 andrewlt wrote: He was around 50000 minutes played when he started breaking down. He was old and he played through injuries when just about every team is sitting even younger players with the same type of injuries. Bad landing mechanics is a very minuscule part of it.
For top 10, I'm thinking: GSW, SAS, HOU, CLE, OKC, BOS, MIN, POR, DEN, MIL
I'm kinda shaky on the last 5 and I just threw the last 3 in.
Denver really? I'm kinda OOTL, but did they land any major FA?
On July 07 2017 05:06 ZenithM wrote: I don't even know why JJ talks about post-2013 Kobe. Nobody who calls himself a "Kobe fan" would even mention those years as anything remotely significant in Kobe's carreer. That fucking "Lebron is clutchier than injury-years Kobe"... Like, no shit? "But I saw Kobe chuck a lot of airballs and come down on his left foot when he was really old and tired!!!! Plus-Minus vanilla-chocolate XAPMVORPMPHOMG agree with me." You just sound like a very young basketball fan, JJ. Kobe was arguably still the best player in the world in 2012-13. He had a nice long career, with a lot of season and playoff mileage, and his #8 and #24 years are both separate HoF careers. Why must you always bring up this "coming down on left foot" thing? Literally no other perimeter player played as many years as well as Kobe.
He is a stupid troll. What surprises me is that he is not a kid anymore, what a shame. He just idiotically repeats things that he reads and watches. Another guy destroyed him because of the analytics. He hid from the challenge when he got called out. And now he is back using XAPM and shit again. Remember, this is the same guy who boasted about watching the games in person. Shameless, I say, shameless.
Den got milsap, who is roundly underrated. I'm not sure that it pushes em to top 10. This has been a crazy offseason.
Like I said, I'm iffy on the last teams in my top 10. If memory serves correctly, Denver made a run in the second half of the season to barely miss the west playoffs. I'm guessing Utah and LAC slides back behind them. I'm thinking MEM slides back because their injury situation seem to keep getting worse every year. Then I'm thinking maybe DEN's young players improve more and the addition of Milsap give them a few more wins.
I supposed TOR or WAS could be better but I don't know if I want 4 east teams in my top 10.
On July 07 2017 23:54 ZenithM wrote:
On July 07 2017 23:44 Twinkle Toes wrote:
On July 07 2017 23:37 ZenithM wrote: Haha are we now throwing ban bets to whomever we don't like in this thread? I don't want to see you guys banned :O. Not even JJ and KW!
Btw, that Heat top 2 East bet is crazy... They only gained a .127 WS/48, 1.0 VORP, 0.50 RPM player. JJ isn't taking that bet. Unless he went to watch live Celtics games, in which case he would have insights we don't get with our puny League Pass.
Hahaha. And he could ask for tips from his scout uncle.
I hear Olynyk is adept at two foot landings too (which, granted, is easier if you never jump). This looks more and more promising by the minute.
NBA should try to have an Olynyk vs Pachulia dunk contest.
I really wonder about this too. How could some people play in the NBA and have neither skills nor athleticism.
On July 07 2017 02:52 andrewlt wrote: He was around 50000 minutes played when he started breaking down. He was old and he played through injuries when just about every team is sitting even younger players with the same type of injuries. Bad landing mechanics is a very minuscule part of it.
For top 10, I'm thinking: GSW, SAS, HOU, CLE, OKC, BOS, MIN, POR, DEN, MIL
I'm kinda shaky on the last 5 and I just threw the last 3 in.
Denver really? I'm kinda OOTL, but did they land any major FA?
On July 07 2017 05:06 ZenithM wrote: I don't even know why JJ talks about post-2013 Kobe. Nobody who calls himself a "Kobe fan" would even mention those years as anything remotely significant in Kobe's carreer. That fucking "Lebron is clutchier than injury-years Kobe"... Like, no shit? "But I saw Kobe chuck a lot of airballs and come down on his left foot when he was really old and tired!!!! Plus-Minus vanilla-chocolate XAPMVORPMPHOMG agree with me." You just sound like a very young basketball fan, JJ. Kobe was arguably still the best player in the world in 2012-13. He had a nice long career, with a lot of season and playoff mileage, and his #8 and #24 years are both separate HoF careers. Why must you always bring up this "coming down on left foot" thing? Literally no other perimeter player played as many years as well as Kobe.
He is a stupid troll. What surprises me is that he is not a kid anymore, what a shame. He just idiotically repeats things that he reads and watches. Another guy destroyed him because of the analytics. He hid from the challenge when he got called out. And now he is back using XAPM and shit again. Remember, this is the same guy who boasted about watching the games in person. Shameless, I say, shameless.
Den got milsap, who is roundly underrated. I'm not sure that it pushes em to top 10. This has been a crazy offseason.
Like I said, I'm iffy on the last teams in my top 10. If memory serves correctly, Denver made a run in the second half of the season to barely miss the west playoffs. I'm guessing Utah and LAC slides back behind them. I'm thinking MEM slides back because their injury situation seem to keep getting worse every year. Then I'm thinking maybe DEN's young players improve more and the addition of Milsap give them a few more wins.
I supposed TOR or WAS could be better but I don't know if I want 4 east teams in my top 10.
On July 07 2017 23:54 ZenithM wrote:
On July 07 2017 23:44 Twinkle Toes wrote:
On July 07 2017 23:37 ZenithM wrote: Haha are we now throwing ban bets to whomever we don't like in this thread? I don't want to see you guys banned :O. Not even JJ and KW!
Btw, that Heat top 2 East bet is crazy... They only gained a .127 WS/48, 1.0 VORP, 0.50 RPM player. JJ isn't taking that bet. Unless he went to watch live Celtics games, in which case he would have insights we don't get with our puny League Pass.
Hahaha. And he could ask for tips from his scout uncle.
I hear Olynyk is adept at two foot landings too (which, granted, is easier if you never jump). This looks more and more promising by the minute.
NBA should try to have an Olynyk vs Pachulia dunk contest.
I really wonder about this too. How could some people play in the NBA and have neither skills nor athleticism.
Tallness
I think one of the biggest advantages of the modern game is that it is decreasing the value of tall stiffs. At least Olynyk can hit 3s and Pachulia has decent passing. I remember tall stiffs in the 90s and they are not even coordinated, never mind being athletic.
On the subject of last second shots, I would rate Jordan low if you require a 3 to be hit. That's not his game at all and he was a mediocre to below average 3-pt shooter, with the exception of those years where the NBA experimented with the shorter line.
1. Horry 2. Allen 3. Kobe 4. Jordan 5. Miller (because he looks weird lol)
But, if it not a 3 point shot that they have to make and just a regular game winner, I think the order changes a lot:
1. Jordan 2. Kobe 3. Allen 4. Bob 5. Mr. Pun
I guess though, if its just a regular game winning shot, the choices would be different. So here is another list of I had to choose from anyone from the 90s until now
1. Jordan 2. Kobe 3, Durant 4. Allen 5. Nowitzki
Why no Lebron? I said it before and I'll say it again. Lebron is great, but he is not clutch. If you were a hater, you would even say that he actively avoids high pressure game winning shots or free throw situations. He defers to Irving, KLove, and Korver. I'm sure that if he were teammates with any of the above, he'd defer to all of them.
Whoa, Morris (DET) for Bradley (BOS). I feel bad for Bradley. All those sick game winners mean nothing. Loyalty is overrated. That's why I really can't feel bad about Lebron and KD situation. You could only fault Lebron for making such a spectacle out of it, but it was the right decision.
His rubbish shooting form and shitty driving abilities is basically gonna ruin him against any decent defender in the league. Dude shoots like a 10 year-old that doesn't have enough strength or height, how the hell is he a top-10 pick is beyond me.
I watched some highlights from the game, and Lonzo just looked painfully slow in pretty much every regard -- his shot, his footwork on defense and offense, and his overall speed on the court. I'm not sure how he's going to adjust to the pace of the NBA game without some serious training and help on fundamentals.
JimmiC challenges JimmyJRaynor re: Heat >link [Details: JimmiC - Heat is not top 2 in East vs. JimmyJRaynor - Heat is top 2 in East. Loser gets thread banned entire postseason and offseason 2018. JimmyJRaynor hides, avoids the challenge]
Keyboard Warrior posts stat proving Kobe is clutch and Lebron is not >link
xwoGworwaTsx challenges JimmyJRaynor re: analytics >link1 >link2 [Details: xwoGworwaTsx claims JimmyJRaynor is ignorant about sports analytics, challenges him to a debate. JimmyJRaynor mutters a incoherent response, ultimately surrenders in humiliation]
JimmyJRaynor claims to know the reason of Kobe's "shortened career" and landing mechanics after watching a kid's youtube videolink [Details: JimmyJRaynor casually claims Kobe's landing mechanics shortened his career in a discussion about Kobe vs. Lebron clutch. Keyboard Warrior calls him out, linking the youtube video. JimmiC calls him out for using invalid statistics and the length of Kobe's so-called shortened career. JimmyJRaynor doubles down, claims he and his buddies noticed Kobe's wrong landing mechanics long before the video, and is finally caught in a sticky web of inconsistency, stupidity, and lies of his own doing.]
JimmyJRaynor boasts about watching games live in person, boasts further that he gains deep insights from that.link [Details: This exchange you should experience live, on the pages of the NBA Finals 2017 thread >link]
lol sick op edit. i reakky wish that idiot troll debated me so i can destroy him once and for all.
i see he still posts about abalytics here and there, but i can see that he is afraid someone will call him out again, so he is doing it in the most discreet way
On July 06 2017 22:48 Keyboard Warrior wrote: ^lol
Anyway, here's a more relevant and meaningful post. I saw it on reddit and conducted an investigation myself, the results are eyeopening and completely shocking. Comparison of kobe and lebron in clutch situations. clutch here is defined as 2 minutes with at most 3 points. Op limited it to playoffs and finals,
Playoffs: Kobe - 40/96 in clutch situations. - FT 67/79 - TS 58 % - Assists per 36: 4.3 assists - TO per 36: 1.7 turnovers
Lebron - 40/106 in clutch situation - FT 49/67 - TS 49.8% - Assist per 36: 4.2 assists - TO per 36: 4.2 turnovers
Finals:
Kobe - 10/20 in clutch situations - FT 4/5 - TS 56.4% - Assists per 36: 7.5 assists - TO per 36: 1.5TO
Lebron - 4/23 in clutch situations - TS 10/14 - TS 31% - Assists per 36: 3.7 assists - TO per 36: 3.7 assists
In addition, i found out the following valuable "clutch" statistics as well
Number of game winners/equalizers taken in clutch situations: Kobe: 18/24 lebron: 4/15
tldr: 1. Kobe is more clutch than lebron in clutch situations 2. Kobe is a BETTER PLAYMAKER than lebron in clucth situations 3. Kobe becomes more aggressive in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 4. lebron wilts in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 5. Kobe rises to the challenge to take the last shot in clutch situations: 75% 6. lebron is cowardly and hides from the challenge of taking the last shot in clutch situations: 27%
stlsdr Kobe is clutch, lelbron is not. Kobe >>> lebron
TAKE THAT FOR DATA!
nice post.
i think its pretty clear even from simple eye test how kobe has a lot more attempts at game winning situations than lebron. i can think of at least 10 game winning shots from kobe just from memory, while i can recall only 1 from lebron, and i recall that one only because there was much post-game talk about how he undermined blatts play (it was vs bulls iirc)
regarding this post, this data will be greatly improved if we include his playmaking plays, ie, his drive and kickouts and contextualize his percentages had he proceeded to take the shot/layup himself.
that will provide information on whether his playmakling passes such as the one where he passed to korver or irving recently were correct playmaking calls at all.
this particular points highlights some room for improvement in analytics. kobe once stated that he would rather go 0/30 than 0/9. sports is as much about efficiency and mentality.
i didnt watch kobe live, i was too young prime kobe early in 2000s, but my brother is a kobe fanatic. he is a chubby kid at the y who dares pull shimmies and turn around fade aways. or pump fake, pivot, throw the ball towards the board, rebound it and make the layup.
and he would end up with friendship-ending debates with his close friends for the sake of defending kobe. he is that kind of a kobe fan.
i am neutral on the issue, but kobe, as well as other clutch/killer mentality players demonstrate that not all stats points are equal. another player like this is ginobili. they are players who may go cold all game, but would make 2-3 straight buckets that would turn the game around or secure the win.
Sean Marks doing work since taking over the Nets. They are making some great moves considering the kind of circumstances they are working with. They realize where they are relative to the rest of the league and have used that as an advantage.
I don't think a salary dump trade like this really can look bad for the Raps either but it does seem like they gave up just a little too much. They of course went through all their options, I am sure, and decided this was the best way for them to get rid of salary. Let's see who they can get instead of Carroll now.
On July 06 2017 22:48 Keyboard Warrior wrote: ^lol
Anyway, here's a more relevant and meaningful post. I saw it on reddit and conducted an investigation myself, the results are eyeopening and completely shocking. Comparison of kobe and lebron in clutch situations. clutch here is defined as 2 minutes with at most 3 points. Op limited it to playoffs and finals,
Playoffs: Kobe - 40/96 in clutch situations. - FT 67/79 - TS 58 % - Assists per 36: 4.3 assists - TO per 36: 1.7 turnovers
Lebron - 40/106 in clutch situation - FT 49/67 - TS 49.8% - Assist per 36: 4.2 assists - TO per 36: 4.2 turnovers
Finals:
Kobe - 10/20 in clutch situations - FT 4/5 - TS 56.4% - Assists per 36: 7.5 assists - TO per 36: 1.5TO
Lebron - 4/23 in clutch situations - TS 10/14 - TS 31% - Assists per 36: 3.7 assists - TO per 36: 3.7 assists
In addition, i found out the following valuable "clutch" statistics as well
Number of game winners/equalizers taken in clutch situations: Kobe: 18/24 lebron: 4/15
tldr: 1. Kobe is more clutch than lebron in clutch situations 2. Kobe is a BETTER PLAYMAKER than lebron in clucth situations 3. Kobe becomes more aggressive in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 4. lebron wilts in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 5. Kobe rises to the challenge to take the last shot in clutch situations: 75% 6. lebron is cowardly and hides from the challenge of taking the last shot in clutch situations: 27%
stlsdr Kobe is clutch, lelbron is not. Kobe >>> lebron
TAKE THAT FOR DATA!
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 24 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
Playoffs
LeBron - 8/24 (.333) Kobe - 6/24 (.250)
Regular season
LeBron - 34/111 (.306) Kobe - 47/157 (.299)
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 60 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
On July 06 2017 22:48 Keyboard Warrior wrote: ^lol
Anyway, here's a more relevant and meaningful post. I saw it on reddit and conducted an investigation myself, the results are eyeopening and completely shocking. Comparison of kobe and lebron in clutch situations. clutch here is defined as 2 minutes with at most 3 points. Op limited it to playoffs and finals,
Playoffs: Kobe - 40/96 in clutch situations. - FT 67/79 - TS 58 % - Assists per 36: 4.3 assists - TO per 36: 1.7 turnovers
Lebron - 40/106 in clutch situation - FT 49/67 - TS 49.8% - Assist per 36: 4.2 assists - TO per 36: 4.2 turnovers
Finals:
Kobe - 10/20 in clutch situations - FT 4/5 - TS 56.4% - Assists per 36: 7.5 assists - TO per 36: 1.5TO
Lebron - 4/23 in clutch situations - TS 10/14 - TS 31% - Assists per 36: 3.7 assists - TO per 36: 3.7 assists
In addition, i found out the following valuable "clutch" statistics as well
Number of game winners/equalizers taken in clutch situations: Kobe: 18/24 lebron: 4/15
tldr: 1. Kobe is more clutch than lebron in clutch situations 2. Kobe is a BETTER PLAYMAKER than lebron in clucth situations 3. Kobe becomes more aggressive in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 4. lebron wilts in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 5. Kobe rises to the challenge to take the last shot in clutch situations: 75% 6. lebron is cowardly and hides from the challenge of taking the last shot in clutch situations: 27%
stlsdr Kobe is clutch, lelbron is not. Kobe >>> lebron
TAKE THAT FOR DATA!
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 24 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
Playoffs
LeBron - 8/24 (.333) Kobe - 6/24 (.250)
Regular season
LeBron - 34/111 (.306) Kobe - 47/157 (.299)
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 60 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
On July 06 2017 22:48 Keyboard Warrior wrote: ^lol
Anyway, here's a more relevant and meaningful post. I saw it on reddit and conducted an investigation myself, the results are eyeopening and completely shocking. Comparison of kobe and lebron in clutch situations. clutch here is defined as 2 minutes with at most 3 points. Op limited it to playoffs and finals,
Playoffs: Kobe - 40/96 in clutch situations. - FT 67/79 - TS 58 % - Assists per 36: 4.3 assists - TO per 36: 1.7 turnovers
Lebron - 40/106 in clutch situation - FT 49/67 - TS 49.8% - Assist per 36: 4.2 assists - TO per 36: 4.2 turnovers
Finals:
Kobe - 10/20 in clutch situations - FT 4/5 - TS 56.4% - Assists per 36: 7.5 assists - TO per 36: 1.5TO
Lebron - 4/23 in clutch situations - TS 10/14 - TS 31% - Assists per 36: 3.7 assists - TO per 36: 3.7 assists
In addition, i found out the following valuable "clutch" statistics as well
Number of game winners/equalizers taken in clutch situations: Kobe: 18/24 lebron: 4/15
tldr: 1. Kobe is more clutch than lebron in clutch situations 2. Kobe is a BETTER PLAYMAKER than lebron in clucth situations 3. Kobe becomes more aggressive in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 4. lebron wilts in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 5. Kobe rises to the challenge to take the last shot in clutch situations: 75% 6. lebron is cowardly and hides from the challenge of taking the last shot in clutch situations: 27%
stlsdr Kobe is clutch, lelbron is not. Kobe >>> lebron
TAKE THAT FOR DATA!
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 24 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
Playoffs
LeBron - 8/24 (.333) Kobe - 6/24 (.250)
Regular season
LeBron - 34/111 (.306) Kobe - 47/157 (.299)
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 60 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
can u compare them up to their age 32 season only? i doubt the playoffs number would change much, more curious for reg season numbers
Kobe would be about 39-123 (.317). None of these numbers include his first few seasons because afaik basketball reference doesn't have play-by-play statistics for years before 2000.
On July 06 2017 22:48 Keyboard Warrior wrote: ^lol
Anyway, here's a more relevant and meaningful post. I saw it on reddit and conducted an investigation myself, the results are eyeopening and completely shocking. Comparison of kobe and lebron in clutch situations. clutch here is defined as 2 minutes with at most 3 points. Op limited it to playoffs and finals,
Playoffs: Kobe - 40/96 in clutch situations. - FT 67/79 - TS 58 % - Assists per 36: 4.3 assists - TO per 36: 1.7 turnovers
Lebron - 40/106 in clutch situation - FT 49/67 - TS 49.8% - Assist per 36: 4.2 assists - TO per 36: 4.2 turnovers
Finals:
Kobe - 10/20 in clutch situations - FT 4/5 - TS 56.4% - Assists per 36: 7.5 assists - TO per 36: 1.5TO
Lebron - 4/23 in clutch situations - TS 10/14 - TS 31% - Assists per 36: 3.7 assists - TO per 36: 3.7 assists
In addition, i found out the following valuable "clutch" statistics as well
Number of game winners/equalizers taken in clutch situations: Kobe: 18/24 lebron: 4/15
tldr: 1. Kobe is more clutch than lebron in clutch situations 2. Kobe is a BETTER PLAYMAKER than lebron in clucth situations 3. Kobe becomes more aggressive in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 4. lebron wilts in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 5. Kobe rises to the challenge to take the last shot in clutch situations: 75% 6. lebron is cowardly and hides from the challenge of taking the last shot in clutch situations: 27%
stlsdr Kobe is clutch, lelbron is not. Kobe >>> lebron
TAKE THAT FOR DATA!
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 24 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
Playoffs
LeBron - 8/24 (.333) Kobe - 6/24 (.250)
Regular season
LeBron - 34/111 (.306) Kobe - 47/157 (.299)
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 60 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
can u compare them up to their age 32 season only? i doubt the playoffs number would change much, more curious for reg season numbers
Kobe would be about 39-123 (.317). None of these numbers include his first few seasons because afaik basketball reference doesn't have play-by-play statistics for years before 2000.
Would you mind watching every game pre 2000 and adding them for our entertainment and curiosity?
Here's some entertainment - our MVP is 17/78 in his reg. season career for a whopping .218 FG%. How many of those shots should have gone to KD? More importantly, how many more games would the Thunder have won if they did go to KD? Is there any wonder why he peaced out?
Actually if we take out WB's numbers from last season (since KD wasn't there anyway) then he's 9/51 as a Thunder with KD as a teammate. That's .176 FG%. That's pretty bad. Even for the games that KD was injured there had to have been a towel boy or a trainer or a mascot that could have subbed in and at least gotten 10 makes out of 51.
Still a shame we never got to see them with horford(was going to sign there instead of BOS if KD resigned). When they were up 3-1 on GS and lost, a lot of blame goes to KD also. If they had closed that out, what they would have done since then would be all that matters now.
Tatum of the Celtics looks the real deal. Smooth jumper and just looks like he belongs in the league. You can tell Kobe was his fav player. Also like the way he comes off in interviews. Damn you celtics.
On July 10 2017 01:08 MassHysteria wrote: Sean Marks doing work since taking over the Nets. They are making some great moves considering the kind of circumstances they are working with. They realize where they are relative to the rest of the league and have used that as an advantage.
I don't think a salary dump trade like this really can look bad for the Raps either but it does seem like they gave up just a little too much. They of course went through all their options, I am sure, and decided this was the best way for them to get rid of salary. Let's see who they can get instead of Carroll now.
Westbrook is the first NBA player to win both the regular season NBA MVP and Shaqtin a Fool MVP in the same season. That is a feat that might never be repeated.
On July 06 2017 22:48 Keyboard Warrior wrote: ^lol
Anyway, here's a more relevant and meaningful post. I saw it on reddit and conducted an investigation myself, the results are eyeopening and completely shocking. Comparison of kobe and lebron in clutch situations. clutch here is defined as 2 minutes with at most 3 points. Op limited it to playoffs and finals,
Playoffs: Kobe - 40/96 in clutch situations. - FT 67/79 - TS 58 % - Assists per 36: 4.3 assists - TO per 36: 1.7 turnovers
Lebron - 40/106 in clutch situation - FT 49/67 - TS 49.8% - Assist per 36: 4.2 assists - TO per 36: 4.2 turnovers
Finals:
Kobe - 10/20 in clutch situations - FT 4/5 - TS 56.4% - Assists per 36: 7.5 assists - TO per 36: 1.5TO
Lebron - 4/23 in clutch situations - TS 10/14 - TS 31% - Assists per 36: 3.7 assists - TO per 36: 3.7 assists
In addition, i found out the following valuable "clutch" statistics as well
Number of game winners/equalizers taken in clutch situations: Kobe: 18/24 lebron: 4/15
tldr: 1. Kobe is more clutch than lebron in clutch situations 2. Kobe is a BETTER PLAYMAKER than lebron in clucth situations 3. Kobe becomes more aggressive in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 4. lebron wilts in clutch situations in the postseason compared to the regular season 5. Kobe rises to the challenge to take the last shot in clutch situations: 75% 6. lebron is cowardly and hides from the challenge of taking the last shot in clutch situations: 27%
stlsdr Kobe is clutch, lelbron is not. Kobe >>> lebron
TAKE THAT FOR DATA!
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 24 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
Playoffs
LeBron - 8/24 (.333) Kobe - 6/24 (.250)
Regular season
LeBron - 34/111 (.306) Kobe - 47/157 (.299)
FGs to tie or lead the game in the final 60 seconds of 4th quarter/OT (2000-present)
can u compare them up to their age 32 season only? i doubt the playoffs number would change much, more curious for reg season numbers
Kobe would be about 39-123 (.317). None of these numbers include his first few seasons because afaik basketball reference doesn't have play-by-play statistics for years before 2000.
Would you mind watching every game pre 2000 and adding them for our entertainment and curiosity?
Here's some entertainment - our MVP is 17/78 in his reg. season career for a whopping .218 FG%. How many of those shots should have gone to KD? More importantly, how many more games would the Thunder have won if they did go to KD? Is there any wonder why he peaced out?
Actually if we take out WB's numbers from last season (since KD wasn't there anyway) then he's 9/51 as a Thunder with KD as a teammate. That's .176 FG%. That's pretty bad. Even for the games that KD was injured there had to have been a towel boy or a trainer or a mascot that could have subbed in and at least gotten 10 makes out of 51.
Andre Roberson would find a way to shoot less than that.
On July 10 2017 01:08 MassHysteria wrote: Sean Marks doing work since taking over the Nets. They are making some great moves considering the kind of circumstances they are working with. They realize where they are relative to the rest of the league and have used that as an advantage.
I don't think a salary dump trade like this really can look bad for the Raps either but it does seem like they gave up just a little too much. They of course went through all their options, I am sure, and decided this was the best way for them to get rid of salary. Let's see who they can get instead of Carroll now.
On July 10 2017 01:08 MassHysteria wrote: Sean Marks doing work since taking over the Nets. They are making some great moves considering the kind of circumstances they are working with. They realize where they are relative to the rest of the league and have used that as an advantage.
I don't think a salary dump trade like this really can look bad for the Raps either but it does seem like they gave up just a little too much. They of course went through all their options, I am sure, and decided this was the best way for them to get rid of salary. Let's see who they can get instead of Carroll now.
i dont think this is a good off season for the raps at all. what makes u say that? i dont think the team has improved
I don't think their team has necessarily improved either but they 'did work' working around the salary cap limits and how many free-agents they had to make decisions on. This was the cost of signing those 3 guys to their market-rates but they did a nice job working around the ramifications.
EDIT: I still do think it was a little much for Ibaka and depending on what you think of Carroll, maybe a little too much in that trade. But it makes sense with Miles coming in and then dealing from a position they were deep at in PG.
Nick Young is a luxury. What is the point of Swaggy if he's just going to launch open catch-and-shoot 3-pointers? Once every few games, he should pump fake, take one useless dribble inside the arc, and heave a dumbass fadeaway long 2-pointer. Every artist has to perform the old standards.
On July 10 2017 17:15 RowdierBob wrote: On the flip side, the Raps could be wasting three years they could instead be using to rebuild.
But I get why they did it. It's not easy to build a perennial 50 win squad and if LeBron does go down they're a legit final chance.
I think the championship or bust thing is such a meme, its like fan's treating the pro-sports like Ricky Bobby treated Nascar. I think you rebuild basically when you have to, there is no reason to throw away a top 2-4 team in the east just because you don't think you can beat the warriors. What are we going to have 29 rebuilding teams?
Lets not forget that most rebuilding teams fail, even with all the hype around the 76'rs how confident are you that they will stay healthy? And if they do who knows how good they will be. I for one would always want my team to go for it, but not all out sell off everything like the nets did. Just a balance of win now and later. Nothing is worse as fan than cheering for your team to lose. The season is a lot longer then the draft.
Its not about "Championship or bust" its a question of what the team is. The Raptors are a 3-5 seed in the East, solely because the East is terrible. Even given that, they are at least 2 key injuries from being Eastern conference champions. That even overstates the quality of the team because they also would need 3+ injuries in the West (or 2 that happen in the Finals) to become NBA champions. They also have no room for improvement as they are capped out and have no obvious candidates for "making the leap". This means they are, just as much as a team that is tanking, giving up. Their fans know it, I know it, you know it.
That can be contrasted with teams like the Rockets or Spurs they are 1 injury, maybe 2 from being Western Conference Champions, and also favorites for the title.
That said, the Raptors plan isn't horrible because they have traded away draft picks so they cant really go young, and have an out in 3 years. The key is that they must be disciplined and not try to extend that 3 year "window" and also do everything to maximize the ability to go for a youth movement starting in year 3 or 4.
On July 10 2017 17:15 RowdierBob wrote: On the flip side, the Raps could be wasting three years they could instead be using to rebuild.
But I get why they did it. It's not easy to build a perennial 50 win squad and if LeBron does go down they're a legit final chance.
I think the championship or bust thing is such a meme, its like fan's treating the pro-sports like Ricky Bobby treated Nascar. I think you rebuild basically when you have to, there is no reason to throw away a top 2-4 team in the east just because you don't think you can beat the warriors. What are we going to have 29 rebuilding teams?
Lets not forget that most rebuilding teams fail, even with all the hype around the 76'rs how confident are you that they will stay healthy? And if they do who knows how good they will be. I for one would always want my team to go for it, but not all out sell off everything like the nets did. Just a balance of win now and later. Nothing is worse as fan than cheering for your team to lose. The season is a lot longer then the draft.
Its not about "Championship or bust" its a question of what the team is. The Raptors are a 3-5 seed in the East, solely because the East is terrible. Even given that, they are at least 2 key injuries from being Eastern conference champions. That even overstates the quality of the team because they also would need 3+ injuries in the West (or 2 that happen in the Finals) to become NBA champions. They also have no room for improvement as they are capped out and have no obvious candidates for "making the leap". This means they are, just as much as a team that is tanking, giving up. Their fans know it, I know it, you know it.
That can be contrasted with teams like the Rockets or Spurs they are 1 injury, maybe 2 from being Western Conference Champions, and also favorites for the title.
That said, the Raptors plan isn't horrible because they have traded away draft picks so they cant really go young, and have an out in 3 years. The key is that they must be disciplined and not try to extend that 3 year "window" and also do everything to maximize the ability to go for a youth movement starting in year 3 or 4.
Your whole key is point is exactly what they are doing, hence the length of the contracts they handed out. And for a team that has never made the finals and was awful for a long time there is nothing wrong with going for that.
The thing is that I have no faith that the front office will be that disciplined. They traded a first this year for Ibaka, they sent out the 2018 picks for cap relief (Carroll's contact expires at a great time for the 3 year plan), then they stretched a 3 million dollar contract?
On July 10 2017 19:57 Diabolique wrote: Jayson Tatum looks very dangerous. I am not happy about that - Boston might get to the ECF again.
To me, a lot of what he does in summer league looks really hard to pull off against better offense though.
Honestly with this kind of postmoves and fadeaways it can go both ways. You can also argue that it will work no matter the defender. At least Tatum seems to have the physical tools to make it work at this level. He will certainly have to develop something else though, the modern NBA isn't really fond of these. The catch&shoot 3s and draw fouls on drives are eventually always more efficient.
Well I guess I'll put it this way then. What is the point of this Raptors team?
I'd be pretty disappointed if my team didn't have championship or bust aspirations. The Raptors will of course say they're in to win it, but are they really? It's plainly obvious this team has hit its ceiling so I think it's fair to ask what the point of the next three years is?
Philly may find themselves in the same spot in a few years - a good but not good enough roster. But I would argue that franchise has a clear goal and direction at the moment. I'm not sure the Raptors do beyond milking a 50 wins team for a few more years before the inevitable happens. The cynic in me says they know they can't win it all, but winning enough is still good for business in a way rebuilding is not.
On July 11 2017 10:51 RowdierBob wrote: Well I guess I'll put it this way then. What is the point of this Raptors team?
I'd be pretty disappointed if my team didn't have championship or bust aspirations. The Raptors will of course say they're in to win it, but are they really? It's plainly obvious this team has hit its ceiling so I think it's fair to ask what the point of the next three years is?
Philly may find themselves in the same spot in a few years - a good but not good enough roster. But I would argue that franchise has a clear goal and direction at the moment. I'm not sure the Raptors do beyond milking a 50 wins team for a few more years before the inevitable happens. The cynic in me says they know they can't win it all, but winning enough is still good for business in a way rebuilding is not.
I think it's a conundrum all East teams will find themselves facing. As Cuban said, some West teams would not be rebuilding if they were in the East. The best East teams have more or less an even record vs West, so you can't really say that a 50-win East team is good.
So the problem is: East teams feel like they have to capitalize on being in the East, especially if they have some pieces, but they have no real chance at competing for anything other than a conference finals, let alone a championship.
At least in the West it's more binary now. If you want to do well in the playoffs you basically have to be contending :D. Otherwise might as well tank.
How do you pick a favorite team if you are new to basketball D: watched lots of games during Summer League but tons of teams and I already felt that the level during summer league was quiet good .. :S so I enjoy good basketball but without a team to cheer for its kind of dull
I guess most of US people pick their own city as their favorite team :D. Myself being from Europe like you, I became a fan of my team (Portland) simply because that's the team I starting playing with in NBA 2K when I got into that. Kind of like if I picked Protoss in SC and then rooted for noble warrior-like mouthless aliens when they come to invade us.
Honestly if I were you I would just watch some games between very good teams (Warriors, Cavs, Rockets, Spurs, maybe Timberwolves, OKC), there are frequently good matchups in the NBA with the pace it has. And then see from there.
On July 11 2017 19:57 NarutO wrote: How do you pick a favorite team if you are new to basketball D: watched lots of games during Summer League but tons of teams and I already felt that the level during summer league was quiet good .. :S so I enjoy good basketball but without a team to cheer for its kind of dull
I've always picked favorite players and then rooted for the team they were on by default. If they left/retired/got traded then I'd no longer care about the team. My favorite players growing up were Stockton/Malone so my team was the Jazz, now I don't give 2 shits about the Jazz. Since LeBron came on the scene he's been my guy so I was a Cavs fan then a Heat fan then a Cavs fan. Unless your team is the Packers it's not really your team, it's the team of some rich dude. Just watch some games and as you get to know and appreciate the sport eventually you will gravitate to a particular team or player.
I'm a bit sad that I don't have a defined favorite player anymore since Kobe has left the NBA . When I started watching growing up, I was all about Tmac and Kobe. Now I have a colder, more distant relationship with players, I just admire any good 2-way player with a wide scoring range, like Kawhi.
I'd say it's a good idea indeed to start watching your favorite players first, but it can be hard to pick favorite players too when you're new to basketball.
Edit: Well, I also like all Portland players, they're my boys. But they're not Kobe :D. Goddamn I miss that man.
On July 11 2017 19:57 NarutO wrote: How do you pick a favorite team if you are new to basketball D: watched lots of games during Summer League but tons of teams and I already felt that the level during summer league was quiet good .. :S so I enjoy good basketball but without a team to cheer for its kind of dull
Root for the Kings. That way, when they become good, you'll look like a legitimate fan. It's always fun to root for the underdog.
Or the Spurs, because they play the most beautiful type of basketball
I was a Sonics (RIP) fan from way back and became a BlackJack style of supporter once they were moved to OKC. Being and Aussie I fell into supporting Bogut on the Bucks/Warriors. The Bucks have a really strong online community so I've somewhat stuck with them and the Warriors since.
I don't think I count as a Warriors bandwagoner since I was on them when Bogut was traded in 2012 in the good old Mark Jackson years.
Here's an intersting tidbit though: there's a reliable rumour in 2012 that the Bucks were originally offered Curry instead of Monta in the Bogut trade. However as Curry was injured at the time (so was Bogut when he busted his ankle) the Bucks instead asked for Monta as they were chasing the Playoffs.
So while the Warriors FA does deserve a lot of credit for what they've built today, they almost made a move in 2012 that would've ruined any prospect of them becoming what they have. NBA sliding doors!
my favorite player was kobe and he was the one that got me into basketball and the NBA.
I didn't have any loyalty to the lakers but nearing the end of his career I really started to appreciate the organization and the amount of effort they put into building a culture of winning. Even if they suck for a few years I have no doubt in my mind they will become really good again soon. So I'm pretty much a lakers fan right now despite being mostly a resident of Massachusetts and New York for most of my life. Funny enough I lived in NY the longest and I don't root for a single New York team in any sport. I guess I'll generally root for an NY team against any other team besides my favorite team but otherwise don't give 2 hoots. Especially the knicks.
On July 10 2017 19:57 Diabolique wrote: Jayson Tatum looks very dangerous. I am not happy about that - Boston might get to the ECF again.
To me, a lot of what he does in summer league looks really hard to pull off against better offense though.
DeRozan pulls it off against better defense on a regular basis. True, it is really hard to pull off shit like this against the best defense in basketball, but if it does work, it will be a guy like DeRozan to make it work... Or Tatum.
On July 10 2017 19:57 Diabolique wrote: Jayson Tatum looks very dangerous. I am not happy about that - Boston might get to the ECF again.
To me, a lot of what he does in summer league looks really hard to pull off against better offense though.
DeRozan pulls it off against better defense on a regular basis. True, it is really hard to pull off shit like this against the best defense in basketball, but if it does work, it will be a guy like DeRozan to make it work... Or Tatum.
Yeah. He does look a lot like DeRozan from what I have seen. Beautiful way of playing basketball. They probably can use him in Bradleys role?
They should stay on the program for 20 second timeouts. I may be mistaken, but sometimes I think they throw it to commercials even with those. Spots in the US are 30 seconds long. Once the station throws it to commercial, even one ad is longer than the timeout.
Not to bring up old discussions, but I watched an old pre-injury DRose highlight video, and jesus his landing form is hard to look at when I actually sitdown and concentrate on how he's landing.
On July 14 2017 12:38 sung_moon wrote: Not to bring up old discussions, but I watched an old pre-injury DRose highlight video, and jesus his landing form is hard to look at when I actually sitdown and concentrate on how he's landing.
On July 14 2017 12:38 sung_moon wrote: Not to bring up old discussions, but I watched an old pre-injury DRose highlight video, and jesus his landing form is hard to look at when I actually sitdown and concentrate on how he's landing.
Care to elaborate?
rose has some of the worst landings out there, when he was mvp rose. im not sure if that's a speed/drive thing, how does for example, john wall land? he goes pretty fast too.
Anyway, my nonscientific take on these landing kerfuffle. I believe than any athlete, especially NBA ones, know instinctively to land on the balls of their feet to cushion the landing. Even if you are not into sports of any kind, jumping would naturally instruct your body to do so as landing on your heels not only fees awkward, but it is also uncomfortable. So, as a general rule, athletes know the "proper landing mechanics" instinctively
Now, isolate a particular jumping sequence. Multiply the velocity five times. Double the height of jump three times. Include three of four people on the landing area. Add in adrenaline and hype of the moment and surely the entire mechanics changes a bit.
This is not to say that the idea is false. It has probative value, more rigid study is needed and the manner JimmyJ used it in this thread is completely ridiculously wrong. Kobe is definitely a bad example to use. The formula of X then Y, where X is bad landing mechanics, and Y is career shortening leg injury does not apply to him. The guy practically played all his 20 year career at a high level. It is more X + A + B + C ...then Y in his case.
Rose, on the other hand, offers a good opportunity to investigate this idea. (Wade and maybe Westbrook fits the picture also.) All of them are high-flying, human-life-desregardig, players who suffered significant injuries early in their careers who could provide good data 1) IF they consistently have bad landing mechanics; and 2) IF consistent bad landing mechanics are a significant cause of career changing injuries.
JimmyJ doesn't always make indefensible comments, he just takes what should be observations or possibilities and makes them into giant theories he defends way too hard. I guess he's just a postmodernist. :p
On July 15 2017 14:47 Jerubaal wrote: JimmyJ doesn't always make indefensible comments, he just takes what should be observations or possibilities and makes them into giant theories he defends way too hard. I guess he's just a postmodernist. :p
He is an uneducated troll who thinks he is smart. There is nothing postmodern about it, just good old plain idiocy.
Highlight reel I seen from reddit that brought his landing form into question.
TLDW:
14 plays total - 13 dunks/layups, 1 DRose pass. 2 of the 13 dunks/layups had completely obscured landing, and along with the pass, were not included here.
ALL had had clear tip-toe/ball of foot landing, with varying degrees of cushion and impact.
In #3, the actual landing was obscured, but the preparation for the landing was ball first
In #4, the Suns player cut across Rose affecting his balance. Rose still managed to land ball first but with only split second delay to full heel landing that there was considerable impact on his sole. Bent knees didn't help either.
CONCLUSION: These are mostly good landing mechanics. Insufficient data.
What Rose could have done better is hang on the rim a bit to lower the impact on the ground. Instead it seemed he really liked these "drop" type of dunks. I can't blame him, they do look ridiculously sick, let's be honest ;D.
On July 15 2017 19:27 Twinkle Toes wrote: Who's following the Summer League? Lonzo Ball is doing fine
I'd argue he actually isn't looking that great. Right now he looks like Ricky Rubio without the defense. Shot looks pretty bad and better defenders are eat it up off the dribble.
Yeah, the real question is what his scoring is going to look like. Right now he's the 3rd option on a Summer league and his FG% has been pretty garbo. His FTs have been pretty good, though, so that's an encouraging sign.
Poll: Are you a WNBA fan? Please Explain your answer.
1 (Don't care, never watch) (13)
81%
5 (Super fan, like watching fave NBA team) (1)
6%
3 (Know a few names a teams, watch games and highlights sometimes) (1)
6%
2 (Watch when it's on, out of curiousity maybe) (1)
6%
4 (Know whats up, but not really NBA-level fandom) (0)
0%
16 total votes
Your vote: Are you a WNBA fan? Please Explain your answer.
(Vote): 5 (Super fan, like watching fave NBA team) (Vote): 4 (Know whats up, but not really NBA-level fandom) (Vote): 3 (Know a few names a teams, watch games and highlights sometimes) (Vote): 2 (Watch when it's on, out of curiousity maybe) (Vote): 1 (Don't care, never watch)
Count me as sceptical about Lonzo translating effectively to the NBA. I'm worried about his athleticism. He'll look good against bad teams but will struggle against good defenders. Wish him well though.
On July 15 2017 19:27 Twinkle Toes wrote: Who's following the Summer League? Lonzo Ball is doing fine
It's either Lonzo Ball is looking pretty fine because Kuzma fucking converts every single one of his passes or Kuzma had a monster summer league because Lonzo sets him up perfectly. I think it's a little bit of both. His summer league performance would not look as good if it wasn't for Kuzma, because Ball isn't scoring at all.
I applaud the Rockets for being aggressive, but eventually you don't have the same team, even if you think you have equivalent parts. You don't quite know what you're going to get.
I'm positively surprised that so many teams are making contending moves, despite the Warriors being seemingly unbeatable at this point. I'm even more surprised they're stacking up in the West :D. I guess in the end it doesn't matter where you are, you eventually have to beat the Warriors anyway to win it all.
I don't quite get all these moves to be honest. Are teams like the Wolves and the Rockets in win-now mode? Or win in 1-2 years? The Rockets especially don't seem to have what it takes to beat GSW, even if they bring Anthony in. I could see the Wolves matching up well, just not right away.
Meanwhile, Cleveland did nothing aside from firing the GM. Lebron is not happy.
How long is GSW predicted to keep their core? Not too aware of contracts timeline and stuff. I know that Klay and Draymond's free agencies are coming up in like, 2018 and 2019 or something?
Well, for the Rockets, part of it could be the owner wanting to sell the franchise. They have certainly generated buzz and being labelled a championship contender could up their price.
Would be funny if the owner told the GM: "Dude, get me a bunch of popular stars over there so I can sell this shit." Would explain why it seems like on paper Paul+Harden+Anthony doesn't make much sense :D.
Last time, I made a post that undeniably explained why lebron is a bad clutch player and is clearly not as good as kobe during clutch time in terms of both scoring, making the game winning/equalizing shot AND playmaking.
Now, I make this post to focus on lebron fans saying that he may not be clutch but he always makes the right plays. but does he? Enjoy the data!
A. Total Passes on clutch game winning/ game tying situations: 26 B. Miss/made shots out of 26: 19 misses / 7 makes C. Successful game winning/tying assist percentage 7/26 or 26.9%
D. Distance from rim during pass (Out of 26) D1. Passes from the 3pt line and beyond: 4/26 D2. Passes from 20-23 ft (long 2): 4/26 D3. Passes from 15-20 ft (perimeter) :4/26 D4. Passes from 8-15 ft (short range) : 5/26 D5. Passes from withing 8 ft (practically below the rim) : 9/26
E. Pass receiver distance from rim (Out of 26) E1. 3pt line and beyond: 12/26 E2. 20-23 ft (long 2): 6/26 E3. 15-20 ft (perimeter) :5/26 E4. 8-15 ft (short range) : 3/26 E5. withing 8 ft (practically below the rim) : 0/26
F. Pass receiver shot quality (Out of 26) F1. Passes to wide open teammates (at least 6 feet of nearest defender) : 5/26 F2. Passes to open teammates (at least 3 feet of nearest defender) : 7/27 F3. Passes to defended teammates (defender can potentially block the shot) : 11/26 F4. Passes to closed teammates (teammate cannot make the shot) : 3/26
G. Odds and Ends G1. Majority of passess to 3 point line are to Kyrie (2016 Championship shot) and Love G2. Only 4/26 include double teams. All of them are single coverage defense on lebron G3. Data does not include situation of lebron's defender (is he in good position to block/challenge, or out of position, or in foul trouble)
tldr;
lebron is a BAD PLAYMAKER.
He passed up on 26 potential game winners. just let that sink in. If kobe is a clutch shot ball hog, lebron is a clutch host avoider.
Only 26% [C] of his "playmaking" result in game winners
He passes 35% of potential game winning shot when he is already within 8ft of the rim where he has a career FG% of 75-80%
Consider the Korver pass, Draymond had 5 fouls and was reluctant to even meet him full on, yet he still made the pass to Korver who was cold all game. To make matters worse, curry saw it a mile away and began covering the passing lane and gaining defensive position even before the pass was made.
His so-called "playmaking" does not really translate to consistent wide open shots for his teammates. only 5/26 or 19% are wide open while majority 11/26 or 42% are blockable shots. [F] Compare this to the way Stockton, Kidd, Nash, and other real playmakers create openings and shots for their teammates and lebrons "playmaking" is exposed as a joke
Consider the busted 2 for 1 Kyrie play in game 3. We all remember how Kyrie went stupid going for the challenged stepback 3 instead of driving for the win which he was unstoppable at all game long, but upon closer inspection, that play included lebron and his "playmaking". kyrie is a genius 1on1 player. As that possession developed, lelbron went 5-10 ft beyond the arc, hands on waist, and motioned jr smith to set for irving. this delayed kyrie's rhythm and gave the opportunity for the defense to settle and effectively negating kyrie's 1on1 advantage. that is clear poor understanding of teammates strengths and quick high IQ thinking when needed.
CONCLUSION: No, lebron is not a good playmaker. He is bad and has makes poor decisions in clutch time.
This has been a tough effort but totally worth it. I'm interested in doing lebron's defensive skills next whether its really good, average, or overrated. Would you be interested in that?
On July 19 2017 00:39 Keyboard Warrior wrote: What does it mean for the houston players? is it simply a change of management? or will player contracts be affected?
just the owner. unless the owner decides to do random shit, then, ya it could affect management/players
As up and coming Rockets fan - but also doing a shitton for HSC I am trying to soak up all the news. Should I be worried? Got sucked up into Rockets by Harden (obviously...) - not keeping track of all the players super close and being quiet new to basketball D:
Can someone maybe explain the process pre-season? :/
Edit: Also is there a cheaper way than 29€/month to watch NBA? In Germany we have Sport 1US but doesnt show all the games I believe. DAZN I tried but they dont even show summer league..
Nbahd.net. If youre ok with obnoxious popups. I actually had the league pass but the quality was so bad and i disliked the app for my ipad so much that i started streaming the games on that site instead.
On July 19 2017 00:40 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Last time, I made a post that undeniably explained why lebron is a bad clutch player and is clearly not as good as kobe during clutch time in terms of both scoring, making the game winning/equalizing shot AND playmaking.
Now, I make this post to focus on lebron fans saying that he may not be clutch but he always makes the right plays. but does he? Enjoy the data!
A. Total Passes on clutch game winning/ game tying situations: 26 B. Miss/made shots out of 26: 19 misses / 7 makes C. Successful game winning/tying assist percentage 7/26 or 26.9%
D. Distance from rim during pass (Out of 26) D1. Passes from the 3pt line and beyond: 4/26 D2. Passes from 20-23 ft (long 2): 4/26 D3. Passes from 15-20 ft (perimeter) :4/26 D4. Passes from 8-15 ft (short range) : 5/26 D5. Passes from withing 8 ft (practically below the rim) : 9/26
E. Pass receiver distance from rim (Out of 26) E1. 3pt line and beyond: 12/26 E2. 20-23 ft (long 2): 6/26 E3. 15-20 ft (perimeter) :5/26 E4. 8-15 ft (short range) : 3/26 E5. withing 8 ft (practically below the rim) : 0/26
F. Pass receiver shot quality (Out of 26) F1. Passes to wide open teammates (at least 6 feet of nearest defender) : 5/26 F2. Passes to open teammates (at least 3 feet of nearest defender) : 7/27 F3. Passes to defended teammates (defender can potentially block the shot) : 11/26 F4. Passes to closed teammates (teammate cannot make the shot) : 3/26
G. Odds and Ends G1. Majority of passess to 3 point line are to Kyrie (2016 Championship shot) and Love G2. Only 4/26 include double teams. All of them are single coverage defense on lebron G3. Data does not include situation of lebron's defender (is he in good position to block/challenge, or out of position, or in foul trouble)
tldr;
lebron is a BAD PLAYMAKER.
He passed up on 26 potential game winners. just let that sink in. If kobe is a clutch shot ball hog, lebron is a clutch host avoider.
Only 26% [C] of his "playmaking" result in game winners
He passes 35% of potential game winning shot when he is already within 8ft of the rim where he has a career FG% of 75-80%
Consider the Korver pass, Draymond had 5 fouls and was reluctant to even meet him full on, yet he still made the pass to Korver who was cold all game. To make matters worse, curry saw it a mile away and began covering the passing lane and gaining defensive position even before the pass was made.
His so-called "playmaking" does not really translate to consistent wide open shots for his teammates. only 5/26 or 19% are wide open while majority 11/26 or 42% are blockable shots. [F] Compare this to the way Stockton, Kidd, Nash, and other real playmakers create openings and shots for their teammates and lebrons "playmaking" is exposed as a joke
Consider the busted 2 for 1 Kyrie play in game 3. We all remember how Kyrie went stupid going for the challenged stepback 3 instead of driving for the win which he was unstoppable at all game long, but upon closer inspection, that play included lebron and his "playmaking". kyrie is a genius 1on1 player. As that possession developed, lelbron went 5-10 ft beyond the arc, hands on waist, and motioned jr smith to set for irving. this delayed kyrie's rhythm and gave the opportunity for the defense to settle and effectively negating kyrie's 1on1 advantage. that is clear poor understanding of teammates strengths and quick high IQ thinking when needed.
CONCLUSION: No, lebron is not a good playmaker. He is bad and has makes poor decisions in clutch time.
This has been a tough effort but totally worth it. I'm interested in doing lebron's defensive skills next whether its really good, average, or overrated. Would you be interested in that?
Wow! These are horrible numbers. I knew there was something wrong with passing instead of making the shot himself, but if Lebron's assists are not as good as we thought it was, this is really bad. I think adding Lebron's FG% on the areas where he passed would give us a more complete picture.
Regardless of comparisons, passing for a lower percentage shot than your own (under clutch situations), when you're already most likely close to the basket, is not really "clutch".
For me the eye-test confirms it too. Sometimes Lebron is not aggressive enough as a scorer, goes into this pass-first mindset and will prefer to make what he feels is the "correct" play. I'm even talking about in the middle of a game as well, not just the end. It's fine that you want to get your teammates going, but the scariest Lebron is the one who bullies his way to the rim, posts up dudes and draws fouls. It's so weird when you see him being isolated on Curry in the post 10 ft from the basket, and he decides to do a skip pass to a shooter who's not actually that open... It's a nice skip pass, but how about scoring on the smaller guy?
He's not that good at scoring on little guys. He's basically dependent on getting a cheap whistle or hitting a crazy layup because he has no post moves.
On July 21 2017 04:14 JimmiC wrote: I believe the general thought is Lebron gets less whistles compared to other stars because of how big and strong he is. I think on the D end they often don't call him when maybe they should but there are a lot of hacks missed because of his strength.
Its a double edged sword with LBJ and the officials. Yes he does get hacked more for less whistles like Shaq, on the other hand, they don't foul him out in the 1st even though he commits about 5 offensive fouls a quarter .
On July 17 2017 09:44 Twinkle Toes wrote: Serious question:
Are you a WNBA fan? Please Explain your answer.
Don't Care, have never watched. For the same reasons I don't watch AHL Hockey, D-League Basketball, or the CFL.
I'm one of those sports fans that watch the box scores until the playoffs start, because I only care about the highest level of competition. I watch sports because I want to watch the absolute best in the world apply their trade against the rest of the absolute best. I don't watch for "entertainment" (in quotes, because in reality, I am entertained by high level play) or for any other reason but to see the best in the world compete against each other. I don't care how "entertaining" the game is, as long as what I'm watching is the highest level of competition. For example, while people were complaining about the "Trap" in hockey, I was saying "Ok, so figure out how to beat it!" When people complain about "boring" technical fights in UFC or Boxing, I respond the same way.
As much as I respect that any professional female athlete could wipe the floor with me at any sport, I simply have no interest in watching the play of a group of players who (so far) have not been able to compete with the also-ran's of any of the men's leagues that I know of. Hell, Serena Williams, the greatest female tennis player of all time, would not place in the top 250 (and I'm being conservative on that assessment) on the Men's ATP circuit. The men simply have too many physical advantages for her to be able to compete. The USA Women's World Cup Soccer and Canadian Women's Hockey teams have to practice against 16 year olds, and often LOSE their games for the same reasons.
Given the results up til now, I just consider the women's leagues another CFL, or AHL, or OHL, or MLS... I just don't care about watching people play sports when they are nowhere close to the very highest levels of competition.
Where is this narrative of small defenders in the post are more difficult to score against than big guys? All things being equal, height and size is always an advantage in the post. player A player has good post moves will always dominate a small guy with equal skills.The problem with Lebron is that he never really developed any post moves. I recognize Lebron's greatness where he is great, but making excuses for his weaknesses is absurd.
The case where small players are made to defend the post instead of centers is I think a matter of zone and positioning. Malik Rose was assigned the post first because he is a good defender (similar cases include Klay, J.Green, Leonard, Hornacek, Martin, etc) and so that the center can cover for help eventually.
No coach or even player is retarded enough to think "hey, destroying us at the post, lets go put our small men out there because that in itself will give us the advantage!"
IIRC, all instances where Lebron gets a smaller guy put on him is because they were confident of their help defense (Tyson Chandler in Dallas for instance) and confident Lebron didn't know how/was unwilling to back down smaller guys. That way, all you need is enough speed that he doesn't get a dunk, and your big man will alter the layup attempt/force him to make a mediocre pass.
On July 21 2017 11:16 cLutZ wrote: IIRC, all instances where Lebron gets a smaller guy put on him is because they were confident of their help defense (Tyson Chandler in Dallas for instance) and confident Lebron didn't know how/was unwilling to back down smaller guys. That way, all you need is enough speed that he doesn't get a dunk, and your big man will alter the layup attempt/force him to make a mediocre pass.
Exactly. Its a scheme to bring him to stronger help D. As long as he doesn't receive the pass while ramming from behond the arc towards the rim, I think elite defenses have figured him out in the post. His problem really is he doesn't have a back to the rim game.
On July 20 2017 14:11 RowdierBob wrote: Bingo. It'd be interesting to compare that to other MVP caliber guys like Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, CP3, Curry and Durant.
Ask and you shall receive
GAME WINNING/TYING POSSESSIONS STATISTICS
notes:
I might add curry and leonard later, probably much later since my head is full of replays and stats of basketball from the last couple days of binging
While looking at durants games, I had a hard time looking for currys records, maybe because the warriors are rarely in game winning or tying situations???
Stockton is underrated. he is legendary level, way beyond any passer. Malone made his numbers look good as well
Jason kidd is a sneaky intelligent passer. Now i can really see the lonzo ball comparison.
the thing i notice while watching the last second plays, the traditional playmakers (bottom group in the chart), they all effortlessly manipulate defenses and either wait for the mistake and make the pass, or force rolls and switches allow the play to develop and ,make the pass. in lebrons case, majority of it is 5-8 seconds dribbling beyond the arc, surveying his shooters, then speeding towards the paint and making the pass to the open man. A lot of his later plays this way are easily telegraphed by the warriors, and even boston had some success reading them.
CONCLUSION: lebron among superstars is a epic bad clutch situation scorer (33%) (bryant 53%, durant 62%, harden 50%, westbrook 20% LOL), and is epic terrible playmaker at clutch vs. other playmakers (26%) (Kidd 50%, Nash 52%, Stockton 61%, Paul 44%)
You should have seen Stockton in his prime. He is the very definition of a point guard. Plus, he does it like its the easiest thing in the world, no fancy dribble, no barking and whining, he just goes to work. I've also watched plenty of interviews, IIRC from Thomas and Hill that Stockton is very lowkey clever on defense, grabbing and pushing and holding, but all impossible to see from the referees perspective.
Stockton, of all elite NBA players, is the guy who I think probably would be the GOAT Soccer player if he has started playing at 3 like Brazilians do. Like a more even keeled Zidane.
Totally expected and understandable. When you look at the 2016 win and this year's loss, Kyrie was the more influential player for the Cavs. Lebron had monster numbers, but Kyrie was the one taking over when the game was getting out of hand. In last year's championship win, Kyrie single handedly brought them,brought them back from the dead when Lebron was wilting in games 5-7. It must suck for Kyrie to play as he does and live in the shadows of Lebron, when he knows fully well he is equal to and have more upside than him.
That being said, Kyrie to Rockets for point guard mardi gras, or to Warriors to #deathofNBA
On July 22 2017 06:14 Twinkle Toes wrote: @cLutZ, why Stockton in soccer?
His size is perfect and he already has miraculous footwork and change of pace ability. Also his court vision is something that translates well, and his attacking attitude on both ends would make him a great attacking midfielder.
Re: Kyrie. I get it. I don't think hes going anywhere, but it has to be super annoying to deal with Lebron's passive-aggressiveness. Also Lebron is so influential in the media that they lap up his narratives, so when the Cavs win its all Lebron, when they lose its always his teammates (who Kyrie feels he gets lumped in with). Combine that with CLE being a bad location generally, Gilbert increasingly seen as an incompetent control freak, and the "we have to beat the Warriors or the season is a failure" mentality (which is probably unlikely) and you have a situation that sucks to be in if you are Kyrie.
The problem with Kyrie is that the Cavs haven't been exactly great when Lebron sits. He has had clutch moments in games but he hasn't been able to do it or carry the team whenever Lebron is resting.
none of those 4 teams have the parts (knicks/heat) or would want to trade for kyrie (spurs/wolves), not that he's a bad player, but that he's not the kind of player they need.
spurs would almost be guaranteed to want to send LMA the other way, but would the cavs want him? i think they want to get faster, not slower.
On July 22 2017 13:46 andrewlt wrote: The problem with Kyrie is that the Cavs haven't been exactly great when Lebron sits. He has had clutch moments in games but he hasn't been able to do it or carry the team whenever Lebron is resting.
For sure, but look at the team. It basically has 2 defenders, and 1 is Lebron, and no competent wing aside from him. Also thier offensive "system" is nearly indistinguishable from the old "toilet bowl" offense OKC would run with Durant + Westbrook, just more effective because they have more spot up 3 pt shooters.
On July 22 2017 15:09 zev318 wrote: none of those 4 teams have the parts (knicks/heat) or would want to trade for kyrie (spurs/wolves), not that he's a bad player, but that he's not the kind of player they need.
spurs would almost be guaranteed to want to send LMA the other way, but would the cavs want him? i think they want to get faster, not slower.
On July 22 2017 13:46 andrewlt wrote: The problem with Kyrie is that the Cavs haven't been exactly great when Lebron sits. He has had clutch moments in games but he hasn't been able to do it or carry the team whenever Lebron is resting.
For sure, but look at the team. It basically has 2 defenders, and 1 is Lebron, and no competent wing aside from him. Also thier offensive "system" is nearly indistinguishable from the old "toilet bowl" offense OKC would run with Durant + Westbrook, just more effective because they have more spot up 3 pt shooters.
And now, rumors are that Lebron's camp leaked the Kyrie trade request to the media, and Kyrie's camp is livid at Lebron, calling him "lying fuck boy" on IG. Welcome to E!NBA!
On July 20 2017 14:11 RowdierBob wrote: Bingo. It'd be interesting to compare that to other MVP caliber guys like Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, CP3, Curry and Durant.
Ask and you shall receive
GAME WINNING/TYING POSSESSIONS STATISTICS
notes:
I might add curry and leonard later, probably much later since my head is full of replays and stats of basketball from the last couple days of binging
While looking at durants games, I had a hard time looking for currys records, maybe because the warriors are rarely in game winning or tying situations???
Stockton is underrated. he is legendary level, way beyond any passer. Malone made his numbers look good as well
Jason kidd is a sneaky intelligent passer. Now i can really see the lonzo ball comparison.
the thing i notice while watching the last second plays, the traditional playmakers (bottom group in the chart), they all effortlessly manipulate defenses and either wait for the mistake and make the pass, or force rolls and switches allow the play to develop and ,make the pass. in lebrons case, majority of it is 5-8 seconds dribbling beyond the arc, surveying his shooters, then speeding towards the paint and making the pass to the open man. A lot of his later plays this way are easily telegraphed by the warriors, and even boston had some success reading them.
CONCLUSION: lebron among superstars is a epic bad clutch situation scorer (33%) (bryant 53%, durant 62%, harden 50%, westbrook 20% LOL), and is epic terrible playmaker at clutch vs. other playmakers (26%) (Kidd 50%, Nash 52%, Stockton 61%, Paul 44%)
Can you give me the source?
I don't agree with your conclusion. In fact, your sample size is quite small, so it's very difficult to conclude lebron is bad clutch.
On July 22 2017 15:09 zev318 wrote: none of those 4 teams have the parts (knicks/heat) or would want to trade for kyrie (spurs/wolves), not that he's a bad player, but that he's not the kind of player they need.
spurs would almost be guaranteed to want to send LMA the other way, but would the cavs want him? i think they want to get faster, not slower.
Pop could be the Kyrie whisperer
Tony Parker is a scorer who is not known for his defense either. Kyrie could actually work there if the Spurs have the assets.
On July 20 2017 14:11 RowdierBob wrote: Bingo. It'd be interesting to compare that to other MVP caliber guys like Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, CP3, Curry and Durant.
Ask and you shall receive
GAME WINNING/TYING POSSESSIONS STATISTICS
notes:
I might add curry and leonard later, probably much later since my head is full of replays and stats of basketball from the last couple days of binging
While looking at durants games, I had a hard time looking for currys records, maybe because the warriors are rarely in game winning or tying situations???
Stockton is underrated. he is legendary level, way beyond any passer. Malone made his numbers look good as well
Jason kidd is a sneaky intelligent passer. Now i can really see the lonzo ball comparison.
the thing i notice while watching the last second plays, the traditional playmakers (bottom group in the chart), they all effortlessly manipulate defenses and either wait for the mistake and make the pass, or force rolls and switches allow the play to develop and ,make the pass. in lebrons case, majority of it is 5-8 seconds dribbling beyond the arc, surveying his shooters, then speeding towards the paint and making the pass to the open man. A lot of his later plays this way are easily telegraphed by the warriors, and even boston had some success reading them.
CONCLUSION: lebron among superstars is a epic bad clutch situation scorer (33%) (bryant 53%, durant 62%, harden 50%, westbrook 20% LOL), and is epic terrible playmaker at clutch vs. other playmakers (26%) (Kidd 50%, Nash 52%, Stockton 61%, Paul 44%)
On July 24 2017 22:55 ghostmaster93 wrote: Can you give me the source?
I don't agree with your conclusion. In fact, your sample size is quite small, so it's very difficult to conclude lebron is bad clutch.
Lol you idiot. Do you even know what you are talking about? The conclusion is the direct result of the statistics. And what small sample size are you blabbing over? The data that i posted is all the data there is.
Sources are nba.com stats, bballreference, and nba league pass and yt vids. first i looked for ALL po games that had 1 or 2 pt win margin, and overtime. the i looked at game distribution is there was a game winning or tying shot. then i watched the game to see the possession.
And have you seen the other post about lebron in clutch situations?
2M/1yr is waaaaay below the market value, but I think Rose is on a redemption tour and will either come out blazing or have a career-ending injury (I sincerely wish this does not happen to him). I do not see him being lowballed and practically humbled this much and simply go gently into the night.
In other news, just as we all expected before the offseason started, OKC will have Westbrook, PG13, and Me7o!!! Epic wtff moment for all of us. Although news is Me7o will make the announcement later this afternoon, and Rockets is still a preferred destination.
On July 20 2017 14:11 RowdierBob wrote: Bingo. It'd be interesting to compare that to other MVP caliber guys like Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, CP3, Curry and Durant.
Ask and you shall receive
GAME WINNING/TYING POSSESSIONS STATISTICS
notes:
I might add curry and leonard later, probably much later since my head is full of replays and stats of basketball from the last couple days of binging
While looking at durants games, I had a hard time looking for currys records, maybe because the warriors are rarely in game winning or tying situations???
Stockton is underrated. he is legendary level, way beyond any passer. Malone made his numbers look good as well
Jason kidd is a sneaky intelligent passer. Now i can really see the lonzo ball comparison.
the thing i notice while watching the last second plays, the traditional playmakers (bottom group in the chart), they all effortlessly manipulate defenses and either wait for the mistake and make the pass, or force rolls and switches allow the play to develop and ,make the pass. in lebrons case, majority of it is 5-8 seconds dribbling beyond the arc, surveying his shooters, then speeding towards the paint and making the pass to the open man. A lot of his later plays this way are easily telegraphed by the warriors, and even boston had some success reading them.
CONCLUSION: lebron among superstars is a epic bad clutch situation scorer (33%) (bryant 53%, durant 62%, harden 50%, westbrook 20% LOL), and is epic terrible playmaker at clutch vs. other playmakers (26%) (Kidd 50%, Nash 52%, Stockton 61%, Paul 44%)
On July 24 2017 22:55 ghostmaster93 wrote: Can you give me the source?
I don't agree with your conclusion. In fact, your sample size is quite small, so it's very difficult to conclude lebron is bad clutch.
Lol you idiot. Do you even know what you are talking about? The conclusion is the direct result of the statistics. And what small sample size are you blabbing over? The data that i posted is all the data there is.
Sources are nba.com stats, bballreference, and nba league pass and yt vids. first i looked for ALL po games that had 1 or 2 pt win margin, and overtime. the i looked at game distribution is there was a game winning or tying shot. then i watched the game to see the possession.
And have you seen the other post about lebron in clutch situations?
Seriously? You have to relax man. It was a valid reply. I mean you hae a good post, and based on your reply, I think your method is valid as well, but calm down.
As someone who works in the media as well, I am fully aware of the economic dimension of this clickbait sensational brand of "journalism", but it takes a special garbage like Stephen A. Smith to go out of his way and "report" on "James beating Kyrie's ass if they were face to face". And now unfollowing someone on IG is news.
I agree JimmyC, it's a strange sad world we live in.
On July 20 2017 14:11 RowdierBob wrote: Bingo. It'd be interesting to compare that to other MVP caliber guys like Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, CP3, Curry and Durant.
Ask and you shall receive
GAME WINNING/TYING POSSESSIONS STATISTICS
notes:
I might add curry and leonard later, probably much later since my head is full of replays and stats of basketball from the last couple days of binging
While looking at durants games, I had a hard time looking for currys records, maybe because the warriors are rarely in game winning or tying situations???
Stockton is underrated. he is legendary level, way beyond any passer. Malone made his numbers look good as well
Jason kidd is a sneaky intelligent passer. Now i can really see the lonzo ball comparison.
the thing i notice while watching the last second plays, the traditional playmakers (bottom group in the chart), they all effortlessly manipulate defenses and either wait for the mistake and make the pass, or force rolls and switches allow the play to develop and ,make the pass. in lebrons case, majority of it is 5-8 seconds dribbling beyond the arc, surveying his shooters, then speeding towards the paint and making the pass to the open man. A lot of his later plays this way are easily telegraphed by the warriors, and even boston had some success reading them.
CONCLUSION: lebron among superstars is a epic bad clutch situation scorer (33%) (bryant 53%, durant 62%, harden 50%, westbrook 20% LOL), and is epic terrible playmaker at clutch vs. other playmakers (26%) (Kidd 50%, Nash 52%, Stockton 61%, Paul 44%)
Define your parameters. "Game winning/tying possessions statistics" means different things to different people. If a player makes a shot with 3 minutes left in the game to take the lead and the other team never scores again is that a game winning shot that he made? Are we talking strictly buzzer beaters that go in the basket with 0.0 seconds remaining? Are we talking regular season? Playoffs? How are we supposed to verify your numbers when we don't even know what your numbers are saying?
As you see in my reply to your last post http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sports/523843-nba-offseason-2017?page=34#674 I have clearly defined my parameters. Oddly enough my data with clearly defined parameters show LeBron as having a better conversion rate on game tying/leading shots with 24 and 60 seconds remaining in a game.
I look forward to your reply because I'm really curious what parameters you used that would make LeBron 3/9 and Kobe 23/43. Kobe is a 45% shooter on his career and every statistic I have seen of his crunch time numbers has him shooting even lower than his average. Your numbers are hard to believe.
ESPN Stats & Information's Alok Pattani dug through 15 years of NBA data (see table below) -- Bryant's entire career, regular season and playoffs -- and found that Bryant has attempted 115 shots in the final 24 seconds of a game in which the Lakers were tied or trailed by two or fewer points. He connected on 36, and missed 79 times.
Bryant shoots more than most, passes less and racks up misses at an all-time rate. There is no measure, other than YouTube highlights and folklore, by which he's the best scorer in crunch time.
{edit--I see your numbers seem to focus on just game winning/tying shots, but just curious where those numbers come from. Is there a source you can cite?]
Thanks to Balckjack and RowdeBob for asking. i really wanted to share this since a lot of effort is put into it, and i hope i did the correct method, as I am not a science of statistics person. anyway, i explained it last page.
my sources are nba play by play stats, basketball reference, league pass, and youtube videos. what i intended to find out was final possessions that are game winning or tying shots. my method was i looked at all the games where there was a 1pt, 2pt, 3pt, 4pt lead, or tied and went to ot. i then looked at the play by play data and looked at the final point, then, when the game falls within the category, i watched the videos to evaluate the final possession.
looking at your statistics, i realized that i should have extended beyond the literal buzzer beater since the final point could happen 20 or 30 or 60 seconds before end of game. if i did this, i would have gotten the same numbers you posted.
but i think my method and results is valid as it is, only that clutch here is definitely buzzer beater possession. I might do the final 24 second data when i have time for it.
Your numbers for kobe don't even remotely match up with any other clutch study I've seen (done by actual stats guys). There's just no way he's 23 makes and 20 misses when his overall clutch numbers are so bad, he'd have to be shooting some ridiculously low % on shots outside your parameters to even get close to 54%. At best it seems like you are cherry picking to make Lebron look bad in the clutch, and to make Kobe look like some sort of clutch god, which he's not.
Your conclusion is also pretty bad, looking at %'s by guys on sample sizes of less than 10... I'm no Westbrook fan, but 20% shooting on 5 shots doesn't mean anything. You do know what variance is right?
On July 27 2017 22:23 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Thanks to Balckjack and RowdeBob for asking. i really wanted to share this since a lot of effort is put into it, and i hope i did the correct method, as I am not a science of statistics person. anyway, i explained it last page.
my sources are nba play by play stats, basketball reference, league pass, and youtube videos. what i intended to find out was final possessions that are game winning or tying shots. my method was i looked at all the games where there was a 1pt, 2pt, 3pt, 4pt lead, or tied and went to ot. i then looked at the play by play data and looked at the final point, then, when the game falls within the category, i watched the videos to evaluate the final possession.
looking at your statistics, i realized that i should have extended beyond the literal buzzer beater since the final point could happen 20 or 30 or 60 seconds before end of game. if i did this, i would have gotten the same numbers you posted.
but i think my method and results is valid as it is, only that clutch here is definitely buzzer beater possession. I might do the final 24 second data when i have time for it.
I appreciate the effort but when your numbers are off it's a wasted effort. Your method seems very laborious. It took me 1-2 hours to put together Kobe/LeBrons numbers using basketball reference's shot finder. Just set the parameters and run the search.
For example I can search for shots to tie or take the lead with :10 left in 4th/OT for players on the Cavs and I get
Instantly we can see LeBron was 1-3 last season on shots in the final 10 seconds to win/tie the game. Takes 5 seconds to get that stat and you don't have to watch any video.
On July 28 2017 00:05 Scarecrow wrote: Your numbers for kobe don't even remotely match up with any other clutch study I've seen (done by actual stats guys). There's just no way he's 23 makes and 20 misses when his overall clutch numbers are so bad, he'd have to be shooting some ridiculously low % on shots outside your parameters to even get close to 54%. At best it seems like you are cherry picking to make Lebron look bad in the clutch, and to make Kobe look like some sort of clutch god, which he's not.
Your conclusion is also pretty bad, looking at %'s by guys on sample sizes of less than 10... I'm no Westbrook fan, but 20% shooting on 5 shots doesn't mean anything. You do know what variance is right?
I am sorry but what are you referring to? As far as I have explained all throughout, my goal was to post the data and I made no conclusions about Westbrook, who is my idol since we have a similar game (1-2 guard who is ball dominant). In my previous post of Kobe vs. Lebron in clutch, many people made the suggestion to include score-first players, and I think it is a reasonable suggestion that is why I included him, Durant and other scorers who would provide context for Lebron's bad numbers.
Also, I do not understand why you are claiming Kobe is clutch god? Care to elaborate? Maybe you are misinterpreting my point and thus making your confused answer based on this? As I have previously respectfully stated, I openly expressed the goal was to look for gamewinning/tying final possessions. No cherry picking was done, and I can say that objectively and the data will show it..
Finally, I agree with RowderBob. Maybe i have to extend it to the final shot, which could extend further back 20 or so seconds. To RowderBob, thanks for the constructive suggestion mate. Maybe i missed some numbers, but I've looked at them all and the data aligns. My hypothesis for this discrepancy is that, i think, for example when Kobe's shot is taken and missed and there is say 10 more seconds left, and then there is another shot by at the end of regulation, Kobe's miss won't be recorded since in this measurement it is not considered as the final possession of the game. But i wholeheartedly agree and thanks for that, I will update the data accordingly.
Also, i really had to watch the vids, as that was the primary goal of this statistics, to see the "playmakers" and how they deal with final possessions, the quality of their offense, how they manipulate defense, and the quality of their passes.it was indeed laborious but it was necessary since no statistics will reflect that. I'm glad I did it as well, since I saw firsthand that Stockton and Kidd are playmaking gods! Lebron on the otherhand is meh to good. His "playmaking" is practically just ram to the paint and whip pass to the wing. that's it 99% of the time. He has no sneaky defense dismantling like Stockton or Kidd, and definitely no passes that are 3 steps ahead of the development of the play that we usually when we talk about real playmakers - see Stockton, Kidd, Magic, Paul, etc. He might as well just proceed with the layup being that close to the hoop already.
That's my honest and respectful comment. I hope we can have a decent and anger/insult-free discussion on this matter and avoid childish trollish terminologies like "lol" "noob". Thanks in advance.
How I wish Kyrie will join the Spurs. As we all know that Spurs is a good defensive team and what they lacking is some offensive power. Kyrie will be a perfect match to them, plus his attitude being humble fit the team.
On July 29 2017 11:57 khouji wrote: How I wish Kyrie will join the Spurs. As we all know that Spurs is a good defensive team and what they lacking is some offensive power. Kyrie will be a perfect match to them, plus his attitude being humble fit the team.
almost certainly a 3rd team will be needed for that to happen. which team would want LMA?
On July 20 2017 14:11 RowdierBob wrote: Bingo. It'd be interesting to compare that to other MVP caliber guys like Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, CP3, Curry and Durant.
Ask and you shall receive
GAME WINNING/TYING POSSESSIONS STATISTICS
notes:
I might add curry and leonard later, probably much later since my head is full of replays and stats of basketball from the last couple days of binging
While looking at durants games, I had a hard time looking for currys records, maybe because the warriors are rarely in game winning or tying situations???
Stockton is underrated. he is legendary level, way beyond any passer. Malone made his numbers look good as well
Jason kidd is a sneaky intelligent passer. Now i can really see the lonzo ball comparison.
the thing i notice while watching the last second plays, the traditional playmakers (bottom group in the chart), they all effortlessly manipulate defenses and either wait for the mistake and make the pass, or force rolls and switches allow the play to develop and ,make the pass. in lebrons case, majority of it is 5-8 seconds dribbling beyond the arc, surveying his shooters, then speeding towards the paint and making the pass to the open man. A lot of his later plays this way are easily telegraphed by the warriors, and even boston had some success reading them.
CONCLUSION: lebron among superstars is a epic bad clutch situation scorer (33%) (bryant 53%, durant 62%, harden 50%, westbrook 20% LOL), and is epic terrible playmaker at clutch vs. other playmakers (26%) (Kidd 50%, Nash 52%, Stockton 61%, Paul 44%)
On July 24 2017 22:55 ghostmaster93 wrote: Can you give me the source?
I don't agree with your conclusion. In fact, your sample size is quite small, so it's very difficult to conclude lebron is bad clutch.
Lol you idiot. Do you even know what you are talking about? The conclusion is the direct result of the statistics. And what small sample size are you blabbing over? The data that i posted is all the data there is.
Sources are nba.com stats, bballreference, and nba league pass and yt vids. first i looked for ALL po games that had 1 or 2 pt win margin, and overtime. the i looked at game distribution is there was a game winning or tying shot. then i watched the game to see the possession.
And have you seen the other post about lebron in clutch situations?
@Keyboard Warrior: After reading all of your posts, firstly thank you for putting time to creat those tables. I hope that you could keep your manner in all posts (since you call me idiot in your reply)
As for my part, when I said your sample size is quite small, what I really mean is that you cannot conclude the result if your total shots or pass of each player is less than 30. In your case, only Kobe Byrant has the number of total shots >30. Therefore, your comparision of Lebron and other players has no statistical meaning at all.
Final words, I'm working as a data analyst and I have been in your situation several times, have assumptions, collect data to prove, process data, analyse data from multiple angles and then realize that I could not draw out any conclusions since the data set is too small. Your source is fine, your methodology of collecting data is good, however, you need to reconsider the definitions more broader, since your current definitions make your data set not big enough.
Yeah, I'd love to see some sort of FG/Assist % by seconds. What you really need though is some sort of factor that accounts for both time and score. Very tricky.
On July 29 2017 11:57 khouji wrote: How I wish Kyrie will join the Spurs. As we all know that Spurs is a good defensive team and what they lacking is some offensive power. Kyrie will be a perfect match to them, plus his attitude being humble fit the team.
This is serious? Kyrie is humble? I honestly have no idea and he sure doesn't give off the Grant Hill/Ray Allen/Mike Conley/Shane Battier humble vibe.
half of these trades are terrible for the 3rd team, the jazz trading away their starting PG for LMA? the magic trading away 2 young players for LMA? that doesnt even get them any closer to the playoffs the suns maybe if knight didnt go down for the season i suppose
maybe its just me but i dont think any of the teams uve put in would actually want LMA, or even view him as that valuable that they would trade away starters that they really have no replacements for.
If LMA's value was as low as people say he's be out of the league. In reality he's an upgrade for just about every team at the 4. He's on one of 3-4 teams that are elite and need to pack value into every position that gets paid, and he's like 80-90% of what he needs to be to fit that.
im not saying he wouldnt be an upgrade, just that teams are not going to trade starting point guards/small forwards which they have no means of replacing just for the sake of getting LMA and helping to get kyrie out of cleveland.
Yeah, I can see the Knicks trading Carmelo for Kyrie. They are not interested in making smart long term decisions, they're interested in keeping their franchise from becoming a dumpster fire.
On July 30 2017 14:24 Jerubaal wrote: Yeah, I can see the Knicks trading Carmelo for Kyrie. They are not interested in making smart long term decisions, they're interested in keeping their franchise from becoming a dumpster fire.
I mean, that is good long term for them. The question is whether the Cavs do it and melo does. Cle gets screwed in all deals I've seen
I was looking for some stats earlier, then I stumbled upon team rosters. The 76ers look legitimately playoffs ready. I wonder if they could make that leap out of the process and into actually being a thing:
Okafor, Simmons, Embiid, Amir Johnson, Fultz, with Redick, Splitter, and some good casts.
On August 01 2017 09:44 Twinkle Toes wrote: I was looking for some stats earlier, then I stumbled upon team rosters. The 76ers look legitimately playoffs ready. I wonder if they could make that leap out of the process and into actually being a thing:
Okafor, Simmons, Embiid, Amir Johnson, Fultz, with Redick, Splitter, and some good casts.
over under on games played before embiid is injured again?
On August 02 2017 10:45 Twinkle Toes wrote: Also, what's up with Houston recently. Everyone seems to want to get their hands on that pie - Lebron/Klutch, Hakeem, Beyonce...
Its the only team that is on the market at the moment. A lot of people think they are a license to print money.
Its the 4th biggest city in America, and the fasted growing of the top 5. In the fastest growing state. #8 Media Market, also fastest growing in the top 10 among media markets.
It is on the Gulf of Mexico, so its got coastline not as bad heat wise as some parts in TX. Also AC exists.
Hey guys. I've run two different TL Fantasy leagues for quite a while now: football is entering its 11th year, hockey recently had its last (10th) season in 2015-2016. Got the itch again for a small buy-in ($15 per manager) for fantasy basketball - 10 to 12 managers in all. League is roto with FAAB.
I actually like the trade for the Cavs. I wonder if they're going to keep that pick for rebuilding or if they're going to trade it to maximize Lebron's title window.
Meh. Kyrie is a good piece, but it won't make the Celts competitive unless IT3's injury persists. They were 2 non-Lebron players away from beating the Cavs, and they remain so unless Brown and Tatum are way better than we'd expect for rookie/2nd year guys. This is a "we have no faith in IT" play.
On August 23 2017 11:18 cLutZ wrote: Meh. Kyrie is a good piece, but it won't make the Celts competitive unless IT3's injury persists. They were 2 non-Lebron players away from beating the Cavs, and they remain so unless Brown and Tatum are way better than we'd expect for rookie/2nd year guys. This is a "we have no faith in IT" play.
it3 certainly wasnt gonna take them any further, and they sure werent gonna resign him, not at the max.
i think kyrie will get booed back in cleveland, while it3 will get a standing ovation in boston
I think this really gives boston a good chance to win the east. Kyrie is for some reason always underrated. And this must surely mean that the little chances cleveland had to beat warriors are gone as well. Thomas is going to be a liability on defence (which you cant afford against warriors) and I really wonder how they are going to play with such a ball dominant guard together with lebron james.
I don't think there's a "losing" team in this one but Cleveland got a great return. IT is on his last contract year so CLE should get more in return b/c of that but still great. You could argue that Cleveland not only got better next season with the 3 players added, but they also got better long-term with the pick.
As for Irving, he is going to a team with the most turnover in player-minutes + Show Spoiler +
but they are mostly built on a good system and coaching so should be fine. They are also one of the best 3-pt. shooting teams in the league going back the past 3 years (even on a team-stat recognized for its variability yr to yr).
Boston did overachieve record-wise last season according to their more "advanced stats" so I think them matching their success would be the peak of their outcomes. I think it is more likely they fall off a little to start but pick it up more towards the end depending on how their young guys do (Brown/Tatum).
Irving also the best shooter in the last 3 minutes of close games. Only one over 50% eFG + Show Spoiler +
i think cle def got worse this season, they got a decent rotation player, and probably a slight downgrade at PG. i dont think the rookie is gonna contribute anything valuable, altho the cavs are rather thin at C/PF, so maybe if an injury happens, they may need to give him more minutes than they would like to
to be honest i think the cavs would be better with it3 as a 6 man or coming off the bench. i know rose prob wont last a whole season, but this can give lebron more rest. also it3 isnt built to last the road to the finals, would be too banged and busted up
Rose/IT is a perfectly adequate replacement. I don't think he's hard to replace on that team. The problem is Rose/IT will both be injured at some point.
Cleveland looks better against worse opposition now with a deeper line up I think. But this takes away a lot from their highest level and the highest level is what matters in the finals. To me this looks like cleveland gave up on beating the warriors and made a trade that is good for the future. But I dont know how much Irving saying that he wanted out forced their hand though.
Well, Irving is a liability on defense as well but his offense is less likely to drop off in the playoffs compared to IT2's. I think Crowder is a decent enough wing to give them more depth. 2018 Nets pick won't be ready for a while.
If the Cavs want to match up against GSW again, and not just look at the future, they can make some additional moves with the pick they got. The thing I'm doubtful about is their starting lineup vs GSW. I think they'd want to put Crowder on Durant. Lebron having to guard such a threat 1on1 might be the single reason why they couldn't compete evenly, he's a better team defender than he's a man-to-man defender now, and he's obviously the offensive engine of the team so he needs the energy. So they put Crowder on Durant, Durant gets his points anyway, but at least maybe Crowder can make him work for it a little instead of him shooting like 110 TS%.
So what would be the lineup if we assume Crowder starts? Imo they should try moving away from TT at Center and try Love, for a IT-JR-Crowder-Lebron-Love lineup. TT was ineffective anyway in the finals. The only plus he adds compared to Love is his ability to decently switch on perimeter players. They still have to learn how to play defense though, with 2 easy "score-all-you-want-buffet" type of targets for switches in the lineup...
Maybe love plus the pick for a really good player. Love is really good of course but i dont think the cavs get everything out of him because of his role in the team.
On August 25 2017 23:30 JimmiC wrote: I think a fair bit. Like if PG doesn't work in OKC I could see them. For sure melo. Perhaps bledsoe but they don't need that. I would think the magic would be happy to trade just about anyone.
None of those represent a great return though. Only PG is really worth it and he's no guarantee to re-sign, particularly if LeBron goes.
I think it's more and more likely this pick will be LeBron leaving insurance. Cavs might squeeze an extra second or late first out but I think deal still gets done.
On August 28 2017 02:17 Nemireck wrote: Cavs found the one starting PG in the league with worse defense than Kyrie, lol.
Sure the guy can score 30 a game, but he's costing ya 36 on the other end!
They got another 3&D out of it tho. Also somewhat improves their future with the BKN pick
Oh for sure, I'm just having a laugh at how IT seems to rated so highly, yet he ends up an overall negative on whatever team he plays for. When Lowry makes you look like a midget, you ain't stopping any shots.
This CLE balking at the trade "after the physical" has been, imo, bush-league. His MRIs and XRays haven't changed, CLE is just having buyers remorse, and don't seem to understand how good of a deal they got even if he can't play in the first 50 games
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9fZ9xo8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wMQRWtn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/g47EC1q.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KdpyF8f.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZvyIVtz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MKvD7xG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UPUJg90.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iYl3XnR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Tf8BSUv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CMGSTv4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5jicKb9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/he8c5TW.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lqnhZm81dFI/hqdefault.jpg)
).![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iPIMg1I.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U8SMksl.png)
![[image loading]](https://preview.ibb.co/cA69FF/zzz.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tFYIzgO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JlFNrjD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S23PrCw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pAaNhsQ.jpg)
