|
The Rockets Are Either Fun to Watch
or Proof That Science Is Ruining the NBAForget about whether Houston’s brand of basketball can win a title.
It’s time to not-so-analytically answer the question that’s tearing this nation apart:
Are James Harden, Chris Paul, and the Rockets entertaining?![[image loading]](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/BVSNWCcN7d4IZ5B59kOLLIP6PM4=/0x0:3000x2000/920x613/filters:focal(1260x760:1740x1240)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/59626355/AreRocketsFun_Getty_Ringer.0.jpg)
I mean, the logic behind the Rockets’ approach makes total sense. A bunch of nerds got together at MIT or something, sifted through countless data points, and ran millions of simulations. When the dust on their extensive, decades-long study settled, the algorithm they built calculated that 3-point shots are worth more than 2-point shots. I understand that. What hurts my brain is that the Rockets have taken this information and applied it to an extreme I didn’t realize was possible, averaging an absurd 42.3 3-point attempts per game during the 2017-18 regular season. The downside to Houston’s offensive approach of hunting 3s, layups, and free throws is that “hunting free throws” is the most ridiculous three-word phrase in the NBA lexicon outside of “Evan Turner’s contract.” FUN: Harden and Chris Paul iso-ball possessions, during which they size up opposing defenders and methodically determine the most humiliating ways to ruin their basketball lives, make for a delightful viewing experience.
TheRinger
|
On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD.
He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him.
|
On May 09 2018 14:41 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 11:01 zev318 wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 andrewlt wrote:
That same media narrative is the reason why coach of the year is a garbage award. At least for MVP, they trot out stats like team wins, points, rebounds and assists even if they frequently misuse them. Coach of the year is always about the team outperforming the media's preseason predictions. That doesn't mean the coach is good. Most of the time, it means the preseason prediction sucked.
It's why Popovich only had a few coach of the year awards and didn't really start winning them until late in his career. When the "experts" start adding 10 wins to a team's prediction versus a comparable team because of coaching, the coach is going to need to win 10+ more games versus that comparable team to outperform projections. how else would u give out coach of the year? i mean u evaluate the talent on the team, and if they have less talent but win a lot of games, they would credit that to the coach. i mean pop's had, what, 3-4 HOFs on his roster at any given time throughout his tenure in san antonio, and u would expect a roster like that to win a lot of games. phil jackson falls into that too, he has had a lot of great players, and he's only won 1 coach of the year. is that fair, i dont know. its very different coaching no talent vs having to manage HOF egos. the ego management part is not something every writer would be privy to, so they base pretty much everything on wins and losses. Molding late first round and second round picks into HoFers is part of coaching. A good system makes players look more talented than ones stuck in a shitty environment. Define less talent. If a team wins more games than you expect, I would just say that your evaluation is wrong. The media is not good at talent evaluation. It's silly to assume you know which teams are more talented than others, especially with young talent that haven't had the chance to play much. Kawhi couldn't shoot when he got into the league. The Spurs had to teach him how to play offense. The media didn't foresee the leap that Golden State did after Mark Jackson got fired and now they have more talent than everybody else? Draymond Green was a second round pick who barely played before that. They were questioning the fit of having CP3 and Harden on the same team and now they're acting like it is the talent all along. So how come OKC didn't work out? There's a reason a lot of coach of the year winners get fired 2-3 seasons after winning it. The award often goes to fluke seasons and/or grossly misjudged teams that took advantage of their peers saving themselves for the playoffs.
u didnt mention how u would give out the award.
|
On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him.
1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA.
2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree.
3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA.
4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white.
This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great.
|
speaking of Coach of the Year awards... the nba coaches association made Dwane Casey their coach of the year.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/raptors-dwane-casey-voted-nbas-top-coach-peers/
it'd be a pretty big mistake for the Raptors to fire Casey. I can't see any coach taking the Raptors to 18 playoff wins in the next 3 years or 10 wins in any one year. The Raptors are #13 in payroll and have no top 5 draft picks on their team. Casey has done a nice job with low-ceiling, , hard-working players
Basically, Casey is the Cito Gaston of the 21st Century. Totally unappreciated for so many players' improved performance.
|
On May 09 2018 22:45 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 14:41 andrewlt wrote:On May 09 2018 11:01 zev318 wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 andrewlt wrote:
That same media narrative is the reason why coach of the year is a garbage award. At least for MVP, they trot out stats like team wins, points, rebounds and assists even if they frequently misuse them. Coach of the year is always about the team outperforming the media's preseason predictions. That doesn't mean the coach is good. Most of the time, it means the preseason prediction sucked.
It's why Popovich only had a few coach of the year awards and didn't really start winning them until late in his career. When the "experts" start adding 10 wins to a team's prediction versus a comparable team because of coaching, the coach is going to need to win 10+ more games versus that comparable team to outperform projections. how else would u give out coach of the year? i mean u evaluate the talent on the team, and if they have less talent but win a lot of games, they would credit that to the coach. i mean pop's had, what, 3-4 HOFs on his roster at any given time throughout his tenure in san antonio, and u would expect a roster like that to win a lot of games. phil jackson falls into that too, he has had a lot of great players, and he's only won 1 coach of the year. is that fair, i dont know. its very different coaching no talent vs having to manage HOF egos. the ego management part is not something every writer would be privy to, so they base pretty much everything on wins and losses. Molding late first round and second round picks into HoFers is part of coaching. A good system makes players look more talented than ones stuck in a shitty environment. Define less talent. If a team wins more games than you expect, I would just say that your evaluation is wrong. The media is not good at talent evaluation. It's silly to assume you know which teams are more talented than others, especially with young talent that haven't had the chance to play much. Kawhi couldn't shoot when he got into the league. The Spurs had to teach him how to play offense. The media didn't foresee the leap that Golden State did after Mark Jackson got fired and now they have more talent than everybody else? Draymond Green was a second round pick who barely played before that. They were questioning the fit of having CP3 and Harden on the same team and now they're acting like it is the talent all along. So how come OKC didn't work out? There's a reason a lot of coach of the year winners get fired 2-3 seasons after winning it. The award often goes to fluke seasons and/or grossly misjudged teams that took advantage of their peers saving themselves for the playoffs. u didnt mention how u would give out the award.
Same way they give out the MVP award, a top team with a coherent system. I would give coaches the likes of Popovich, Jackson and Kerr way more awards than what they have, especially the first two. People talk about how deep their teams are but don't remember how many of their supporting players move to other teams then fail.
|
On May 10 2018 00:18 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 22:45 zev318 wrote:On May 09 2018 14:41 andrewlt wrote:On May 09 2018 11:01 zev318 wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 andrewlt wrote:
That same media narrative is the reason why coach of the year is a garbage award. At least for MVP, they trot out stats like team wins, points, rebounds and assists even if they frequently misuse them. Coach of the year is always about the team outperforming the media's preseason predictions. That doesn't mean the coach is good. Most of the time, it means the preseason prediction sucked.
It's why Popovich only had a few coach of the year awards and didn't really start winning them until late in his career. When the "experts" start adding 10 wins to a team's prediction versus a comparable team because of coaching, the coach is going to need to win 10+ more games versus that comparable team to outperform projections. how else would u give out coach of the year? i mean u evaluate the talent on the team, and if they have less talent but win a lot of games, they would credit that to the coach. i mean pop's had, what, 3-4 HOFs on his roster at any given time throughout his tenure in san antonio, and u would expect a roster like that to win a lot of games. phil jackson falls into that too, he has had a lot of great players, and he's only won 1 coach of the year. is that fair, i dont know. its very different coaching no talent vs having to manage HOF egos. the ego management part is not something every writer would be privy to, so they base pretty much everything on wins and losses. Molding late first round and second round picks into HoFers is part of coaching. A good system makes players look more talented than ones stuck in a shitty environment. Define less talent. If a team wins more games than you expect, I would just say that your evaluation is wrong. The media is not good at talent evaluation. It's silly to assume you know which teams are more talented than others, especially with young talent that haven't had the chance to play much. Kawhi couldn't shoot when he got into the league. The Spurs had to teach him how to play offense. The media didn't foresee the leap that Golden State did after Mark Jackson got fired and now they have more talent than everybody else? Draymond Green was a second round pick who barely played before that. They were questioning the fit of having CP3 and Harden on the same team and now they're acting like it is the talent all along. So how come OKC didn't work out? There's a reason a lot of coach of the year winners get fired 2-3 seasons after winning it. The award often goes to fluke seasons and/or grossly misjudged teams that took advantage of their peers saving themselves for the playoffs. u didnt mention how u would give out the award. Same way they give out the MVP award, a top team with a coherent system. I would give coaches the likes of Popovich, Jackson and Kerr way more awards than what they have, especially the first two. People talk about how deep their teams are but don't remember how many of their supporting players move to other teams then fail.
so if the suns, who finished 21-61 this year (and obviously everyone would assume that they will still be pretty bad next year), somehow lets say improves by 20-25 games next year with their new coach. by your criteria, you would say, no that's not COTY worthy, its just the media who are bad and assumed that they would continue to be bad?
|
On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great.
Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1.
Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years. It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team).
As for #2, it's basically semantics. Of course it's not the literal easiest road of feigning injury and playing fortnite all season, but for a player of his caliber with his choice of NBA destinations, it was by far the easiest road he could've taken to a ring and anything he wins with this GS team will be lessened by it. The finals and being arguably the best player on the warriors is an argument against his legacy imo. He is so good he should've and probably could've taken on either Lebron in the East or the Warriors in the West. That way he forges a respectable career instead of piggy-backing the best team since Jordan's bulls and breaking league balance because he wanted to collect rings rather than compete for them.
|
its complete fucking bullshit that the Casey//Ujiri press conference is not on the fucking radio. The Raptors own the fucking radio station. The Radio station and TV station are under the same media ownership umbrella. This would never happen with the Maple Leafs. There'd be a revolution if the Maple Leafs' season ending presser was not on the radio.
/rant
|
On May 10 2018 01:32 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 00:18 andrewlt wrote:On May 09 2018 22:45 zev318 wrote:On May 09 2018 14:41 andrewlt wrote:On May 09 2018 11:01 zev318 wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 andrewlt wrote:
That same media narrative is the reason why coach of the year is a garbage award. At least for MVP, they trot out stats like team wins, points, rebounds and assists even if they frequently misuse them. Coach of the year is always about the team outperforming the media's preseason predictions. That doesn't mean the coach is good. Most of the time, it means the preseason prediction sucked.
It's why Popovich only had a few coach of the year awards and didn't really start winning them until late in his career. When the "experts" start adding 10 wins to a team's prediction versus a comparable team because of coaching, the coach is going to need to win 10+ more games versus that comparable team to outperform projections. how else would u give out coach of the year? i mean u evaluate the talent on the team, and if they have less talent but win a lot of games, they would credit that to the coach. i mean pop's had, what, 3-4 HOFs on his roster at any given time throughout his tenure in san antonio, and u would expect a roster like that to win a lot of games. phil jackson falls into that too, he has had a lot of great players, and he's only won 1 coach of the year. is that fair, i dont know. its very different coaching no talent vs having to manage HOF egos. the ego management part is not something every writer would be privy to, so they base pretty much everything on wins and losses. Molding late first round and second round picks into HoFers is part of coaching. A good system makes players look more talented than ones stuck in a shitty environment. Define less talent. If a team wins more games than you expect, I would just say that your evaluation is wrong. The media is not good at talent evaluation. It's silly to assume you know which teams are more talented than others, especially with young talent that haven't had the chance to play much. Kawhi couldn't shoot when he got into the league. The Spurs had to teach him how to play offense. The media didn't foresee the leap that Golden State did after Mark Jackson got fired and now they have more talent than everybody else? Draymond Green was a second round pick who barely played before that. They were questioning the fit of having CP3 and Harden on the same team and now they're acting like it is the talent all along. So how come OKC didn't work out? There's a reason a lot of coach of the year winners get fired 2-3 seasons after winning it. The award often goes to fluke seasons and/or grossly misjudged teams that took advantage of their peers saving themselves for the playoffs. u didnt mention how u would give out the award. Same way they give out the MVP award, a top team with a coherent system. I would give coaches the likes of Popovich, Jackson and Kerr way more awards than what they have, especially the first two. People talk about how deep their teams are but don't remember how many of their supporting players move to other teams then fail. so if the suns, who finished 21-61 this year (and obviously everyone would assume that they will still be pretty bad next year), somehow lets say improves by 20-25 games next year with their new coach. by your criteria, you would say, no that's not COTY worthy, its just the media who are bad and assumed that they would continue to be bad?
The Suns are actually a great example of the underlying COTY/Good Coach/ Teammate of Westbrook/Lebronmate problem. In 2014 they won 48 games! Why did this happen? Did they get super talented? Not really, its just that they figured out that you could put 2 Point Guards on the floor with decent shooting 3-5 and you can do fine. Now a lot of teams run 2 PG lineups, and also, most teams have figured how to play against it. The reason they did so well is because no one was scared of Bledsoe+Dragic, so they didn't put in hours and hours in the film room for a regular season matchup. Over the offseason, you certainly can figure out who is better to put into PnR, where to set offball screens to force a switch, etc. And Double PG has been shown to be generally unsustainable.
|
On May 10 2018 02:19 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great. Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1. Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years. It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team).As for #2, it's basically semantics. Of course it's not the literal easiest road of feigning injury and playing fortnite all season, but for a player of his caliber with his choice of NBA destinations, it was by far the easiest road he could've taken to a ring and anything he wins with this GS team will be lessened by it. The finals and being arguably the best player on the warriors is an argument against his legacy imo. He is so good he should've and probably could've taken on either Lebron in the East or the Warriors in the West. That way he forges a respectable career instead of piggy-backing the best team since Jordan's bulls and breaking league balance because he wanted to collect rings rather than compete for them.
Agreed. Comparing LBJ joining Wade and Bosh vs. Durant joining an already 73 win superstar team of Curry, Thompson, Draymond, Barnes (who gave you a solid 12 points and 38% 3pt shooting), Livingston, Iguodala, etc. is just silly IMO
|
On May 10 2018 01:32 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 00:18 andrewlt wrote:On May 09 2018 22:45 zev318 wrote:On May 09 2018 14:41 andrewlt wrote:On May 09 2018 11:01 zev318 wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 andrewlt wrote:
That same media narrative is the reason why coach of the year is a garbage award. At least for MVP, they trot out stats like team wins, points, rebounds and assists even if they frequently misuse them. Coach of the year is always about the team outperforming the media's preseason predictions. That doesn't mean the coach is good. Most of the time, it means the preseason prediction sucked.
It's why Popovich only had a few coach of the year awards and didn't really start winning them until late in his career. When the "experts" start adding 10 wins to a team's prediction versus a comparable team because of coaching, the coach is going to need to win 10+ more games versus that comparable team to outperform projections. how else would u give out coach of the year? i mean u evaluate the talent on the team, and if they have less talent but win a lot of games, they would credit that to the coach. i mean pop's had, what, 3-4 HOFs on his roster at any given time throughout his tenure in san antonio, and u would expect a roster like that to win a lot of games. phil jackson falls into that too, he has had a lot of great players, and he's only won 1 coach of the year. is that fair, i dont know. its very different coaching no talent vs having to manage HOF egos. the ego management part is not something every writer would be privy to, so they base pretty much everything on wins and losses. Molding late first round and second round picks into HoFers is part of coaching. A good system makes players look more talented than ones stuck in a shitty environment. Define less talent. If a team wins more games than you expect, I would just say that your evaluation is wrong. The media is not good at talent evaluation. It's silly to assume you know which teams are more talented than others, especially with young talent that haven't had the chance to play much. Kawhi couldn't shoot when he got into the league. The Spurs had to teach him how to play offense. The media didn't foresee the leap that Golden State did after Mark Jackson got fired and now they have more talent than everybody else? Draymond Green was a second round pick who barely played before that. They were questioning the fit of having CP3 and Harden on the same team and now they're acting like it is the talent all along. So how come OKC didn't work out? There's a reason a lot of coach of the year winners get fired 2-3 seasons after winning it. The award often goes to fluke seasons and/or grossly misjudged teams that took advantage of their peers saving themselves for the playoffs. u didnt mention how u would give out the award. Same way they give out the MVP award, a top team with a coherent system. I would give coaches the likes of Popovich, Jackson and Kerr way more awards than what they have, especially the first two. People talk about how deep their teams are but don't remember how many of their supporting players move to other teams then fail. so if the suns, who finished 21-61 this year (and obviously everyone would assume that they will still be pretty bad next year), somehow lets say improves by 20-25 games next year with their new coach. by your criteria, you would say, no that's not COTY worthy, its just the media who are bad and assumed that they would continue to be bad?
Yes. That's exactly the kind of COTY that is least deserving. Regression towards the mean exists in all sports. For a team to go 21-61, it takes some combination of tanking, injuries (real or fake), dysfunction and shitty luck. Those teams are typically full of young players they played instead of veterans the previous season. They get a high draft pick for their trouble.
Let's say the new coach has a mandate from management to stop tanking. How does that team not improve? Now imagine there are 10 of those kinds of teams in NBA. You can't expect all of them to be that bad the following year. It's unlikely for every team in the lottery to blow their draft pick. Young players improve. A few of those teams will greatly improve just by pure, random chance. It's the Wyatt Earp effect.
|
On May 10 2018 02:19 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great. Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1. Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years. It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team). As for #2, it's basically semantics. Of course it's not the literal easiest road of feigning injury and playing fortnite all season, but for a player of his caliber with his choice of NBA destinations, it was by far the easiest road he could've taken to a ring and anything he wins with this GS team will be lessened by it. The finals and being arguably the best player on the warriors is an argument against his legacy imo. He is so good he should've and probably could've taken on either Lebron in the East or the Warriors in the West. That way he forges a respectable career instead of piggy-backing the best team since Jordan's bulls and breaking league balance because he wanted to collect rings rather than compete for them.
Competitive balance and legacy are bullshit. At the end of the day, it's a job search. Employees don't look to leave their company looking for a worse situation. That's a stupid, laughable expectation. Doesn't matter how much he's paid. There are plenty of CEOs making billions more than NBA players. They don't move to terrible companies unless they get an ungodly amount of stock compensation, which is against the CBA.
The Thunder were 1 win away from the finals that year. There was only one situation that was clearly better and has him avoiding Westbrook. Everything else has him choosing to go to a lesser team to avoid playing with Westbrook. He chose the best job. Legacy is for dead people.
|
On May 10 2018 06:35 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 02:19 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great. Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1. Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years. It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team).As for #2, it's basically semantics. Of course it's not the literal easiest road of feigning injury and playing fortnite all season, but for a player of his caliber with his choice of NBA destinations, it was by far the easiest road he could've taken to a ring and anything he wins with this GS team will be lessened by it. The finals and being arguably the best player on the warriors is an argument against his legacy imo. He is so good he should've and probably could've taken on either Lebron in the East or the Warriors in the West. That way he forges a respectable career instead of piggy-backing the best team since Jordan's bulls and breaking league balance because he wanted to collect rings rather than compete for them. Agreed. Comparing LBJ joining Wade and Bosh vs. Durant joining an already 73 win superstar team of Curry, Thompson, Draymond, Barnes (who gave you a solid 12 points and 38% 3pt shooting), Livingston, Iguodala, etc. is just silly IMO
This is 100% the kind of goldfish syndrome I was talking about. Anyone who calls the pre-Durant Warriors a superstar team is heavily afflicted.
|
On May 10 2018 02:19 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great. Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1. Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years.
This is mad revisionist history. They were expected to win not 1, not 2, not 3... rings. There is a reason why Lebron was universally tagged the villain overnight (other than his brainfart "The Decision"), and a reason why people rejoiced their underperformance in the first season and Dirk's underdog fairy tale victory against them.
It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team).
This to me is evidence that people have drank the Lebron koolaid so hard. People go to great lengths to justify Lebron when they are similar in the sense that it resulted in a team tilting the competitive balance. And if you are being objective, what Lebron did was "worse". Wade and Bosh are certified superstars by 2010. GSW was an organically-grown team built on good management decisions and player development that molded a #35 (Green) and #11 (Thompson) and a aging once all-star (Iggy) and post-injury recovery player (Shaun) into a team perfectly balanced. When you talk about no guarantees of working out, Thompson and Green are the exact players that are not guaranteed to be the same stars if they are put in a different team.
I mean I get it, and I understand the arguments from both sides and it puts a smile on my face and is fun and productive up to a point. But to me it gets crazy when people wholesale dismiss KD as a bitch, snake, and weak and undermine his greatness for something that Lebron did even more egregiously and repeatedly throughout his career. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
All said, I agree with andrewlt. Competitive balance and parity is an marketing talking point. The NBA has been dominated by 2-3 teams out of 20/30 since the beginning (Lakers. Celtics), with a few special teams emerging here and there (Bulls, Spurs, and now GSW). In the end, for players it is a job, and business decisions have to be made to put them in a better position.
|
On May 10 2018 07:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 06:35 darthfoley wrote:On May 10 2018 02:19 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great. Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1. Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years. It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team).As for #2, it's basically semantics. Of course it's not the literal easiest road of feigning injury and playing fortnite all season, but for a player of his caliber with his choice of NBA destinations, it was by far the easiest road he could've taken to a ring and anything he wins with this GS team will be lessened by it. The finals and being arguably the best player on the warriors is an argument against his legacy imo. He is so good he should've and probably could've taken on either Lebron in the East or the Warriors in the West. That way he forges a respectable career instead of piggy-backing the best team since Jordan's bulls and breaking league balance because he wanted to collect rings rather than compete for them. Agreed. Comparing LBJ joining Wade and Bosh vs. Durant joining an already 73 win superstar team of Curry, Thompson, Draymond, Barnes (who gave you a solid 12 points and 38% 3pt shooting), Livingston, Iguodala, etc. is just silly IMO This is 100% the kind of goldfish syndrome I was talking about. Anyone who calls the pre-Durant Warriors a superstar team is heavily afflicted.
Idk what else you can call the team with the best record in the NBA ever. Sure, it wasn't 5 all-stars playing together, but it was a 73 win team.
Guess it was just a slightly above average team!
|
On May 10 2018 08:40 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:44 cLutZ wrote:On May 10 2018 06:35 darthfoley wrote:On May 10 2018 02:19 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great. Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1. Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years. It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team).As for #2, it's basically semantics. Of course it's not the literal easiest road of feigning injury and playing fortnite all season, but for a player of his caliber with his choice of NBA destinations, it was by far the easiest road he could've taken to a ring and anything he wins with this GS team will be lessened by it. The finals and being arguably the best player on the warriors is an argument against his legacy imo. He is so good he should've and probably could've taken on either Lebron in the East or the Warriors in the West. That way he forges a respectable career instead of piggy-backing the best team since Jordan's bulls and breaking league balance because he wanted to collect rings rather than compete for them. Agreed. Comparing LBJ joining Wade and Bosh vs. Durant joining an already 73 win superstar team of Curry, Thompson, Draymond, Barnes (who gave you a solid 12 points and 38% 3pt shooting), Livingston, Iguodala, etc. is just silly IMO This is 100% the kind of goldfish syndrome I was talking about. Anyone who calls the pre-Durant Warriors a superstar team is heavily afflicted. Idk what else you can call the team with the best record in the NBA ever. Sure, it wasn't 5 all-stars playing together, but it was a 73 win team. Guess it was just a slightly above average team!
It was an above average team in talent that happened to be the only team playing basketball "correctly". It also massively underperformed what a "73 win team" would be expected to in the playoffs, because they didn't have a KD/Lebron type that was big/physical and a go-to creator. Should they have won? Probably, but you would have been called insane if you went back 4 years in time from then and said, "this assortment is vastly more talented than Lebron, Kyrie, Love, and Thompson".
|
On May 10 2018 10:04 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 08:40 darthfoley wrote:On May 10 2018 07:44 cLutZ wrote:On May 10 2018 06:35 darthfoley wrote:On May 10 2018 02:19 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great. Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1. Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years. It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team).As for #2, it's basically semantics. Of course it's not the literal easiest road of feigning injury and playing fortnite all season, but for a player of his caliber with his choice of NBA destinations, it was by far the easiest road he could've taken to a ring and anything he wins with this GS team will be lessened by it. The finals and being arguably the best player on the warriors is an argument against his legacy imo. He is so good he should've and probably could've taken on either Lebron in the East or the Warriors in the West. That way he forges a respectable career instead of piggy-backing the best team since Jordan's bulls and breaking league balance because he wanted to collect rings rather than compete for them. Agreed. Comparing LBJ joining Wade and Bosh vs. Durant joining an already 73 win superstar team of Curry, Thompson, Draymond, Barnes (who gave you a solid 12 points and 38% 3pt shooting), Livingston, Iguodala, etc. is just silly IMO This is 100% the kind of goldfish syndrome I was talking about. Anyone who calls the pre-Durant Warriors a superstar team is heavily afflicted. Idk what else you can call the team with the best record in the NBA ever. Sure, it wasn't 5 all-stars playing together, but it was a 73 win team. Guess it was just a slightly above average team! It was an above average team in talent that happened to be the only team playing basketball "correctly". It also massively underperformed what a "73 win team" would be expected to in the playoffs, because they didn't have a KD/Lebron type that was big/physical and a go-to creator. Should they have won? Probably, but you would have been called insane if you went back 4 years in time from then and said, "this assortment is vastly more talented than Lebron, Kyrie, Love, and Thompson".
How did they underperform? They won first round 4-1, second round 4-1, and beat the Thunder (KD/Russ/Ibaka) in a 7 game series, and had a 3-1 lead on the Cavs in the finals. Should they have won? Definitely.
I just don't think any above average team wins 73 games. An above average team might win 59 games with a deep bench (like the Raptors), but 73 is a different animal
|
On May 10 2018 10:53 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 10:04 cLutZ wrote:On May 10 2018 08:40 darthfoley wrote:On May 10 2018 07:44 cLutZ wrote:On May 10 2018 06:35 darthfoley wrote:On May 10 2018 02:19 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 22:48 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 09 2018 22:00 Scarecrow wrote:On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
KD has goat potential, but has such bad PR reps that his otherwise acceptable career decision has turned him into a punching bag. This is funny, but this is below the belt, and I feel bad for KD. He had goat potential until he gave up trying to compete and joined the best team of this (and arguably any) era. All his bad PR is self-inflicted and meanwhile he's (slim) reaping the rewards of the 'easiest road'. I don't get why anyone would feel bad for him. 1. If you are serious about this, you should as well disqualify Lebron for GOAT. He started this superteam trend in modern NBA. 2. It's not as if KD bummed his stint last year in winning the finals. He was FMVP who clowned Lebron all series long, hardly "easiest road" wouldn't you agree. 3. His basketball skills is goat-level, only an irrational hater would deny this. We could even argue that he is paving new paths for the NBA. 4. "best team of this (and arguably any) era"? Do you mean the one that lost in the finals? I get what you mean, but it is not black and white. This is exactly what I'm saying. His reputation is so poorly managed that it's as if he is a puppy-kicking Satan when all he did was look out for himself. Of course his social media shenanigans doesn't help him, but he needs a Lebron-type Cambridge Analytica-level social media stanning in order to begin to rehabilitate his reputation. He may be a cupcake and a thin skinned idiot, but basketball-wise, he is great. Agreed with most of what you're saying. Yes he's incredibly skilled and a fantastic basketball player, but I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous bullshit like #1. Lebron formed a team with 2 other all stars, noone knew if it would work out. There were no guarantees as they built that team, same as with OKC's big 3 and other attempts over the years. It just doesn't compare to an MVP in his prime joining an already established, historic 73 win team that included another prime MVP. Even though the Warriors choked vs the Cavs, that team was still going to be the massive title favorite without KD the following season. If Lebron had joined Bosh and Wade after letting them play a season do you think the situation would be comparable? That team would've been decent, but nowhere near that Warrior squad. The closest equivalent to what KD did would be something akin to MVP Derrick Rose joining Bosh, Wade and Lebron after they lost to Dallas in 2011. Even then, what KD did was worse (a better player joining an even more dominant, proven team).As for #2, it's basically semantics. Of course it's not the literal easiest road of feigning injury and playing fortnite all season, but for a player of his caliber with his choice of NBA destinations, it was by far the easiest road he could've taken to a ring and anything he wins with this GS team will be lessened by it. The finals and being arguably the best player on the warriors is an argument against his legacy imo. He is so good he should've and probably could've taken on either Lebron in the East or the Warriors in the West. That way he forges a respectable career instead of piggy-backing the best team since Jordan's bulls and breaking league balance because he wanted to collect rings rather than compete for them. Agreed. Comparing LBJ joining Wade and Bosh vs. Durant joining an already 73 win superstar team of Curry, Thompson, Draymond, Barnes (who gave you a solid 12 points and 38% 3pt shooting), Livingston, Iguodala, etc. is just silly IMO This is 100% the kind of goldfish syndrome I was talking about. Anyone who calls the pre-Durant Warriors a superstar team is heavily afflicted. Idk what else you can call the team with the best record in the NBA ever. Sure, it wasn't 5 all-stars playing together, but it was a 73 win team. Guess it was just a slightly above average team! It was an above average team in talent that happened to be the only team playing basketball "correctly". It also massively underperformed what a "73 win team" would be expected to in the playoffs, because they didn't have a KD/Lebron type that was big/physical and a go-to creator. Should they have won? Probably, but you would have been called insane if you went back 4 years in time from then and said, "this assortment is vastly more talented than Lebron, Kyrie, Love, and Thompson". How did they underperform? They won first round 4-1, second round 4-1, and beat the Thunder (KD/Russ/Ibaka) in a 7 game series, and had a 3-1 lead on the Cavs in the finals. Should they have won? Definitely. I just don't think any above average team wins 73 games. An above average team might win 59 games with a deep bench (like the Raptors), but 73 is a different animal
I agree with clutz general idea but I won't say they underperformed, and they had it until the Green and Bogut shit and Curry wetting the bed in game 7. But you missed one detail clutz said, they played basketball correctly, and was a well-sycned watch with all parts moving in unison harmoniously.
|
Simmons is, on occasion, attacking these soft defenses and putting up quality 10 footers/floaters. Looks very much like a giant version of 2007 Tony Parker (who also was an ass shooter).
On May 10 2018 10:53 darthfoley wrote:
How did they underperform? They won first round 4-1, second round 4-1, and beat the Thunder (KD/Russ/Ibaka) in a 7 game series, and had a 3-1 lead on the Cavs in the finals. Should they have won? Definitely.
I just don't think any above average team wins 73 games. An above average team might win 59 games with a deep bench (like the Raptors), but 73 is a different animal
If you are a 73 win team, going to a 7 game series is, by definition, underperformance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
