|
On June 16 2019 16:05 Jerubaal wrote: I think a big part of the reason I enjoy basketball is because it is a system that I want to understand. I want to learn about the best way to play basketball. That's why I don't like when one of these events happens that disturbs the natural course of things. If something is not repeatable and imitable, it's basically worthless. It's junk noise. I didn't like the Heatles because I cannot learn anything from that as a way to how to build a basketball team. If I'm sitting there going "how do I build a basketball team", my answer can't be "Hope three top 20 players decide to collude to come to my team and then multiple veterans sign for under market value". Likewise, I can't tell a team "hope that a top 5 player throws a fit because his uncle wants to live in LA and allows you to trade one of the worst deals in basketball for a Finals MVP".
When this happens, it's like I'm delicately assembling a gingerbread castle and then some 4 year old comes along and smashes it to pieces. And then they make a bestselling jersey out of the ruins.
Sorry to say this Jerub, but this take is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!
There is not best way to play basketball. There is no natural course of things. And not only are systems and circumstances difficult to imitate, but even if you do so, it never guarantees similar results.
There three important ingredients to championship teams, but outside these, the teams' winning formulas are a different as can be:
- ELITE defense
(see: 90s Bulls, WadeLebron/Battier heat, 7-scheme 2011 Mavs, 2000s Lakers, SAS, GSW, ALL. CHAMPIONSHIP. TEAMS.! This is why 2x offense-1/2 defense Rockets will never win a ring, despite how magnificent Harden and the team performs on offense.
- 1 S-Class superstar and an sidekick who is at least A-Class (by performance during the series)
(This is why the 2004 Detroit team was truly special. It was the epitome of team basketball vs. what we then the universally best team that ever was!)
- Veteran support who can provide consistent effort on both ends and experience when things get rough
People sometimes add "having good organization/team chemistry but thats some immeasurable sentimental bs. the Lakers 3-peat team hated each other. Jordan was hell on earth for the team, the 2008 Celtics atmosphere was poisonous, the 2016 Cavs were practically a tragyrama. Guess what, winning makes everything ok. So those three elements are pretty much it.
Beyond that, teams can get lucky if superstars collude and join together, or when salary obligations allow teams to get. Make a good run against injured teams. Get good humble team-first players. Be a shooting team. Be a triangle team. Practically any contingency you can think of. A lot of randomness can affect a title run - injuries, player attitudes, game meta, team salary situation, quality of opponents, out of nowhere rise of random players, etc. etc,
|
On June 18 2019 21:49 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2019 21:36 ZenithM wrote:I came upon a thread on reddit called "[SERIOUS] Championship Shooting Megathread" and I took a good 20 seconds to realize it was not about a deep analysis of jumpshots in the finals Which sub? Just /r/nba. I must admit it's not terribly good (the discussion is quite poor, a lot of the same repeated jokes), but it's a good centralized way for me to keep track of what's happening in the NBA.
Btw on that topic guys, what kind of basketball-related content do you follow online, outside of the games themselves? I go on reddit for news, and I also follow BBallBreakdown and Thinking Basketball on Youtube. I sometimes catch up on podcasts like the Lowe Post too. I think "Thinking Basketball" overrates Curry a bit but his videos are really well made. Bballbreakdown's quality is uneven (he falls into the "cherry-picked plays to support your argument" trap a lot), but he has some nice stuff, like the film reviews with a referee, interviews with coaches/athletes, and he does explain well what's happening on the court on the cherry-picked plays . Ah and for highlights I watch Chris Smoove, lawl.
|
Prooblem with BBallbreakdown Nick's discussion with Ronnie Nunn is that Nunn is a corporate mouthpiece. He is not there to provide analysis of the play or explain the theory behind the referee's decisions, he is there to support the call of the refs that is being discussed and justify them, no matter how silly the justification he gives sometimes (bad angle, happened quick, gather step, etc...)
But if I may answer your question, I stopped paying attention to them since 2014 or so. Everyone hated Pop and the Spurs back then, but then they have a "beautiful game" season and suddenly all these "analysts" are quick to feast on the cake. What I mean is, to be plain and brute about it, they're hacks who don't know anything more than the normal avid fan (even less so) but do it for "content" + Show Spoiler + purposes.
So this is a oblique reply to your question, but my answer is that I dont watch these contents in order to understand the game better (because who cares, I dont aspire to be an NBA coach. I get my fill of basketball content by watching and playing the game), but I watch them for pure entertainment purposes. Thats why I love all the ridiculous Skip and Stephen A. Smith stuff.
|
I do lots of reading whether its ESPN (mostly Lowe), SI, thescore, sportsnet.ca, or cleaning the glass. Even others if I have time, I also listen to the SirisXM NBA channel.
I have no seen Smoove do highlights, but this is something I am going to need to look up!
|
On June 18 2019 22:21 Twinkle Toes wrote: Prooblem with BBallbreakdown Nick's discussion with Ronnie Nunn is that Nunn is a corporate mouthpiece. He is not there to provide analysis of the play or explain the theory behind the referee's decisions, he is there to support the call of the refs that is being discussed and justify them, no matter how silly the justification he gives sometimes (bad angle, happened quick, gather step, etc...) [...] Eh, you know, I definitely have those doubts going into this kind of videos, but I think they're generally objective enough (in that I can find myself agreeing or convinced if I have no personal engagement in the play :D). They don't hesitate to call out obvious bad calls, and sometimes you learn rules/judgings on what you think should be obvious calls/non-calls but are actually trickier. But yeah it's obvious Nunn is not there to shit on his former colleagues, he will always try to justify why a call was missed, but I find that interesting too.
|
I was looking at the star studded UFA class and I was thinking there is a lot of people I would stay away from despite their talent.
I would sign Kawhi no doubt, no question, no matter the team if he would sign the max with me I'm there.
Same with KD , even missing a year if he can get back to 85% Durrant he is still a top 10 players
Kyrie, no thanks, let someone else pay him. He has injury issues, playing within the offense issues and teammate issues. I'd let someone else have him.
Kemba, if I'm charlotte it is a no brainer since no one is planning to go there and he could end up their all time best if he stays (if he isn't already). Anyone else I'd be quite concerned, his efficiency dropped and given his size and style of play his speed is so important to him. He's still great now but I think the last 2 years it will be a over pay, depends on your window to me if you sign him.
Klay, no brainer, I don't care about his injury. At his size to be able to shoot like he can and also defend like he can. He is the perfect complimentary player to anybody for anybody. He'd be my third best UFA.
Butler, no thank you, so many minutes and injuries I could see it going bad. Then when you consider how he keeps rubbing his teammates the wrong way an injured angry Butler would be a disaster, not worth the risk for me.
Boogie, YIKES! is he going to get back to how he was before injury? If he does is that still who you want as a max player? He has personality concerns and D concerns. I would be interested on a discounted short term deal, Max deal, hell no.
Vucevic, yes but I'd be nervous, he improved so much the last 2 years he is still just 28, his D is now pretty decent can do everything you want out of a Big these days.
Tobias Harris, depends on roster construction, his d is frustrating considering his tools. But if you have the D else where and need the spacing and passing at just 26 I think he is worth it in the right roster.
Middleton same as Harris but different skill set Harris is better on O middleton is much better at D. I'f probably take Middleton of the 2 but it is super close.
JJ Redick Hell ya as long as term and money is not crazy. Shooting ages so well.
D'Angelo Russell there is warts no doubt, but he seems to have grown up a lot. He still has efficiency issues because he does not get to the line and his shoot can be so streaky. But his potential is right up there and he's just 23. A team that doesn't have a scoring star in a market that will struggle to attract could do a lot worse than Russell.
Horford Hells ya, he seems to age super well and he does everything well and makes your team better. 2 years is a slam dunk and I'd probably go to three which is probably what it takes.
Julius Randle Similar to Russel in the risk reward. But I think your worst case is that hes a great scoring big 6th man. If he could get up to passable Defense he could be a steal, not giving him the max but I think it will take a lot less than that.
J.V. He showed what he could be in memphis similar to Randle but older,
DeAngre Jordon your classic big, can't shoot but still great rebounding and rim protection. Shoots a high % because he knows what he can and can't do. But he can't pull another teams big out of the paint. A different era of basketball he's a great one in this one he is good but issues.
|
Boogie tore his achilles and he’s no longer an allstar. Durant tore his achilles . . .
Coming back from an acl tear these days is doable. Achilles is much harder, especially if you are big and jump.
|
Yeah it hasn't been pretty, I read somewhere that there is a 8% expected decline in production based on the average of people returning, but being is the high point is a improvement and the low point is out of the league I'm not sure how useful that is. The out of the league stories tend to be people older than Durrant and there is 2 great news stories Rudy Gay recently and Dominique Wilkens from back in the day.
To me durrant is worth the risk because he could fall off pretty hard and still be effective, his shooting alone at his height is enough to make him a starter even if he is slowed a lot.
|
KD can easily transition to a post up player and shoot fadeaways all day, worst case scenario
|
On June 18 2019 22:21 Twinkle Toes wrote: Prooblem with BBallbreakdown Nick's discussion with Ronnie Nunn is that Nunn is a corporate mouthpiece. He is not there to provide analysis of the play or explain the theory behind the referee's decisions, he is there to support the call of the refs that is being discussed and justify them, no matter how silly the justification he gives sometimes (bad angle, happened quick, gather step, etc...)
I think that's a pretty unfair representation of what Nunn is doing.
He OFTEN explains why he thinks a referee made the call they made, and also lays out what he felt the call should have been.
You make it sound like he's on those episodes just explaining why the refs made a correct call, but he points out their mistakes all the time. He just ALSO explains why a ref may have made the call they did, which I suppose comes across as "justification" to some people.
|
Yeah agreed with all that, that's how I view it too. People probably would like Nunn to be more of a "fuck the refs" advocate, but he's a former head of refs, he's obviously going to stick by his guys and try to make us understand how they view things.
|
its funny how the celtics went from a team that people said could challenge for a title into a rebuilding project in a year. if horford does leave, i think the celtics reputation as a franchise takes another hit after already looking bad kicking IT to the curb. does any FA sign there?
|
On June 19 2019 10:05 zev318 wrote: its funny how the celtics went from a team that people said could challenge for a title into a rebuilding project in a year. if horford does leave, i think the celtics reputation as a franchise takes another hit after already looking bad kicking IT to the curb. does any FA sign there?
Yeah I called this out before the season even started.
I didn't understand how anyone thought they were a contender, and I still don't.
|
On June 19 2019 09:42 Nemireck wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2019 22:21 Twinkle Toes wrote: Prooblem with BBallbreakdown Nick's discussion with Ronnie Nunn is that Nunn is a corporate mouthpiece. He is not there to provide analysis of the play or explain the theory behind the referee's decisions, he is there to support the call of the refs that is being discussed and justify them, no matter how silly the justification he gives sometimes (bad angle, happened quick, gather step, etc...) I think that's a pretty unfair representation of what Nunn is doing. He OFTEN explains why he thinks a referee made the call they made, and also lays out what he felt the call should have been. You make it sound like he's on those episodes just explaining why the refs made a correct call, but he points out their mistakes all the time. He just ALSO explains why a ref may have made the call they did, which I suppose comes across as "justification" to some people. Cite 3 examples and I concede my point.
|
On June 19 2019 10:31 Nemireck wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2019 10:05 zev318 wrote: its funny how the celtics went from a team that people said could challenge for a title into a rebuilding project in a year. if horford does leave, i think the celtics reputation as a franchise takes another hit after already looking bad kicking IT to the curb. does any FA sign there? Yeah I called this out before the season even started. I didn't understand how anyone thought they were a contender, and I still don't. Semi-related, I really feel bad for Hayward. I viewed him as Ginobili 2.0 who was deceptively athletic. I hope he gets back in form.
|
On June 19 2019 10:31 Nemireck wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2019 10:05 zev318 wrote: its funny how the celtics went from a team that people said could challenge for a title into a rebuilding project in a year. if horford does leave, i think the celtics reputation as a franchise takes another hit after already looking bad kicking IT to the curb. does any FA sign there? Yeah I called this out before the season even started. I didn't understand how anyone thought they were a contender, and I still don't. Because Kyrie-Hayward-Horford with trash pieces should have been better than that team.
|
On June 19 2019 11:16 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2019 09:42 Nemireck wrote:On June 18 2019 22:21 Twinkle Toes wrote: Prooblem with BBallbreakdown Nick's discussion with Ronnie Nunn is that Nunn is a corporate mouthpiece. He is not there to provide analysis of the play or explain the theory behind the referee's decisions, he is there to support the call of the refs that is being discussed and justify them, no matter how silly the justification he gives sometimes (bad angle, happened quick, gather step, etc...) I think that's a pretty unfair representation of what Nunn is doing. He OFTEN explains why he thinks a referee made the call they made, and also lays out what he felt the call should have been. You make it sound like he's on those episodes just explaining why the refs made a correct call, but he points out their mistakes all the time. He just ALSO explains why a ref may have made the call they did, which I suppose comes across as "justification" to some people. Cite 3 examples and I concede my point. Here's six... And one call he agrees with.
+ Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/a6uTaXVVwMs
|
On June 19 2019 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2019 10:31 Nemireck wrote:On June 19 2019 10:05 zev318 wrote: its funny how the celtics went from a team that people said could challenge for a title into a rebuilding project in a year. if horford does leave, i think the celtics reputation as a franchise takes another hit after already looking bad kicking IT to the curb. does any FA sign there? Yeah I called this out before the season even started. I didn't understand how anyone thought they were a contender, and I still don't. Because Kyrie-Hayward-Horford with trash pieces should have been better than that team.
No.
|
On June 19 2019 13:33 Nemireck wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2019 11:16 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 19 2019 09:42 Nemireck wrote:On June 18 2019 22:21 Twinkle Toes wrote: Prooblem with BBallbreakdown Nick's discussion with Ronnie Nunn is that Nunn is a corporate mouthpiece. He is not there to provide analysis of the play or explain the theory behind the referee's decisions, he is there to support the call of the refs that is being discussed and justify them, no matter how silly the justification he gives sometimes (bad angle, happened quick, gather step, etc...) I think that's a pretty unfair representation of what Nunn is doing. He OFTEN explains why he thinks a referee made the call they made, and also lays out what he felt the call should have been. You make it sound like he's on those episodes just explaining why the refs made a correct call, but he points out their mistakes all the time. He just ALSO explains why a ref may have made the call they did, which I suppose comes across as "justification" to some people. Cite 3 examples and I concede my point. Here's six... And one call he agrees with. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/a6uTaXVVwMs Ok I concede, and happy that Ronnie had the balls to call out such glaring mistakes.
I know I said cite 3, but I would have wanted from three different games, unlike this one.
But yeah, you are technically correct here. Though this is a 1/100 type thing for Ronnie to actually contradict referees calls.
|
On June 19 2019 22:33 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2019 13:33 Nemireck wrote:On June 19 2019 11:16 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 19 2019 09:42 Nemireck wrote:On June 18 2019 22:21 Twinkle Toes wrote: Prooblem with BBallbreakdown Nick's discussion with Ronnie Nunn is that Nunn is a corporate mouthpiece. He is not there to provide analysis of the play or explain the theory behind the referee's decisions, he is there to support the call of the refs that is being discussed and justify them, no matter how silly the justification he gives sometimes (bad angle, happened quick, gather step, etc...) I think that's a pretty unfair representation of what Nunn is doing. He OFTEN explains why he thinks a referee made the call they made, and also lays out what he felt the call should have been. You make it sound like he's on those episodes just explaining why the refs made a correct call, but he points out their mistakes all the time. He just ALSO explains why a ref may have made the call they did, which I suppose comes across as "justification" to some people. Cite 3 examples and I concede my point. Here's six... And one call he agrees with. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/a6uTaXVVwMs Ok I concede, and happy that Ronnie had the balls to call out such glaring mistakes. I know I said cite 3, but I would have wanted from three different games, unlike this one. But yeah, you are technically correct here. Though this is a 1/100 type thing for Ronnie to actually contradict referees calls. You'll find plenty of more examples in their other videos. This was just so recent and easy for me to reference I just quick-referenced it.
Edit: You'll also see better examples of him explaining why he thought the referee made the call that they did even though he doesn't agree with the call. You didn't get much, if any, of that in the video I shared. I think I remember one of the Bucks/Raptors referee review videos where he did quite a bit of that.
|
|
|
|