***2021-2022 NBA Season Thread***

[Momma There Goes That Man]

He’s probably already put this game behind him. 

 

This game sucks. I’m changing to TPC to see if Tiger can snag the lead. He’s 4 back and in 2nd now. 

[Mr. Sinister]

34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Ya, why I was suprised so many people were picking the Cavs in this one.  

 

I get caught up on the retarded media Bron love instead of trusting my basketball instincts. They struggled mightily against the Pacers, and needed a nightly performance from the ages from him to beat them. Then they beat a psychologically damaged 1 seed, capping it on a generational shot, but for every Bron lover out there, that was their smoking gun

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

I get caught up on the retarded media Bron love instead of trusting my basketball instincts. They struggled mightily against the Pacers, and needed a nightly performance from the ages from him to beat them. Then they beat a psychologically damaged 1 seed, capping it on a generational shot, but for every Bron lover out there, that was their smoking gun

It's hard not to when the results look the way they do.  He was in straight GOAT mode, so ya, even I expected that to continue.

 

In regards to the Celtics and being underdogs again:

 

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Renegade7

[Renegade7]

Hmm... pretty quiet in here.  Ya'll aren't entertained?  LeBron probably losing control of the East right before our eyes, and its like some of you are sad its a blow out? 

[Destino]

We still sure Tatum has no chance of being better than either Simmons or Embiid?  

[Llevron]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Hmm... pretty quiet in here.  Ya'll aren't entertained?  LeBron probably losing control of the East right before our eyes, and its like some of you are sad its a blow out? 

 

Fear. Dont wanna see the Wiz play the celtics in the first round next year. Gonna get that broom treatment. 

[Warhead36]

Until he loses 4, I'm not counting out Lebron.

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Until he loses 4, I'm not counting out Lebron.

 

This.  It’s only game one.

[Renegade7]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

Fear. Dont wanna see the Wiz play the celtics in the first round next year. Gonna get that broom treatment. 

 

Cross that bridge when we get there, draft a center first round and hope we hit.

 

At same time, what's happening in Boston is one of the best things that could happen to the NBA.  Not only is LeBron losing his grip on the East, we're seeing how coaching absolutely matters.  Beating Gannis, beating Embiid, beating LeBron, I can't wait to see what they do against the Warriors.  Hopefully the rest of the NBA looks at that situation and look at the need for talent, solid coaching, and solid front office as a whole instead of shortcuts.

[Destino]

16 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

This.  It’s only game one.

And it's a bad shooting night blowout, Cavs shot 36% versus the Celtics 50+%.  These types of games happen in basketball, but they aren't the sort of thing you can rely on happening very often.  Can't expect Lebron to be held to 15 points again either. 

 

Media is going all in on this "Morris defended Lebron" storyline.  That pretty much guarantees Lebron is going to go off in game two. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Well, not every team can expect to hire a coach even close to as good as Stevens or completely fleece idiotic franchises into over half a decade worth of top 5 picks. Boston wasn’t built thru normal processes that other teams can really aspire to do

Edited May 13, 2018 by Momma There Goes That Man

[Mr. Sinister]

All true, but I can only be made to look stupid so many times before I conform. These youngins been getting it in since the Fall, and haven't sweat anybody all year.

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Until he loses 4, I'm not counting out Lebron.

 

3 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

This.  It’s only game one.

 

I can respect that, but let's not act like we've never seen LeBron in this position before.

3 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Well, not every team can expect to hire a coach even close to as good as Stevens or completely fleece idiotic franchises into over half a decade worth of top 5 picks. Boston wasn’t built thru normal processes that other teams can really aspire to do

True, but as I've mentioned before, you can get talent, but you have to build around it.  Then you have to have a coach that can hold his own enough to keep your team in position to win a championship, it can't be someone you know you can't win a title with and then expect to win a title with.  And most importantly, you need a front office to have a clear vision and stick to it.  Boston and San Antonio are prototypes for how to do that, I would be annoyed if the rest of the league said "that's too hard" and went the Sixers route anyway.  If it was easy, everyone would be doing it, but dammit that's their job.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Renegade7

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, Destino said:

And it's a bad shooting night blowout, Cavs shot 36% versus the Celtics 50+%.  These types of games happen in basketball, but they aren't the sort of thing you can rely on happening very often.  Can't expect Lebron to be held to 15 points again either. 

 

Media is going all in on this "Morris defended Lebron" storyline.  That pretty much guarantees Lebron is going to go off in game two. 

This was definetly a "best of times, worst of times" type game, but really believe Boston deserves a lot of credit for their defense and hustle.  

 

We know the Cavs defense is suspect, if they don't want it more then Boston, they're going to lose, especially in Boston.  With the celtics having home court in this series, Cavs have to come correct.  

 

There's no way I'd expect LeBron to come out with 15 points and 7 turnovers in game 2.  Same time, it was another coaching clinic, it was like watching that Spurs team completely overwhelm that Miami team in the Finals that one year.  There's only so much LeBron can do to win in that scenario (one that he didn't win).

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, Destino said:

All of these things would seem to favor perimeter players driving with the ball more than three point attempts.  Threes are largely assisted shot attempts.  There aren't many players in the league specializing in unassisted threes off the dribble.  What the analytics movement has focused on reducing is long twos and contested shots that are not at the rim.  

 

Driving has open the 3 in two manners:

 

1.  Certainly, many players do take 3s off the dribble.  Many players in the league shoot step back 3s.

2.  Drive and kick.

3.  Just in terms of space.  What is the primary defense against the drive?  Back off and build the wall.  The ability of players to drive is directly related to people leaving them space to shoot 3s.

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, Destino said:

This ignores several components of basketball.  The league is full of 36% three point shooters that can't create their own shot.  Those guys are not more valuable than a big, or any player, that can score efficiently when defended.  

 

Otto Porter is a great example.  Hes much better than a 36% three point shooter, but he can't dribble or reliably create his own shot.  The result is that defenses can take him away.  Despite being 6'8 he was effective defended by Isaiah Thomas and Kyle Lowry in several instances during the playoffs this season and the previous.  

 

Effect on the opposing defense, something basketball heads are calling "gravity" now, is a significant consideration that's hard to quantify through stats.  Embiid catching the ball in the post warps the opposing defense and leaves shooters open.  Reddick, an excellent shooter, may have wonderful numbers but his impact on the game is much smaller.  

 

It is hard to argue that's true after the Celtic series.  The Celtics choose to single Embiid in the post and guard the shooters.

 

Are you saying Stevens made the wrong choice?

 

Now, is it better to have a 36% 3 point shooter that can also create their own?  Yes

 

What we are seeing in the NBA is that it is essentially impossible to be an efficient enough 2 point scorer to warrant double teaming a player.  Even take a historically good shooting percentages from bigs and warping them over a large number of post ups (which is what I did with Howard), it doesn't make sense to leave the 36% 3 point shooter open.

 

Maybe a guy like Shaq where I suspect in his prime he would have been even more effecient than Howard, but for even for people that shot excellent FG%, it doesn't make sense.

 

The net effect is that a center can't warp a defense.  Otto actually has more gravity than a center that shoots at a very high percentage because he pulls a defender away from the basket, while the center pulls the defender to the basket, which limits everybody else's ability to drive.

 

I didn't see the game this afternoon, but I actually think that was a big game for the Cavs.

 

Not a must win, but I think their chances to win this series just feel below 50/50.

Edited May 13, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

And let me be clear, there is a line somewhere.  Is a 31% point shooter that can create their own shot worth more valuable than a 36% 3 point shooter that can't.

 

Maybe.

 

But with traditional centers, we are talking about people that essentially didn't shoot the 3 at all.  Embiid in today's game as 30% 3 point shooter, but not really a very good post game has more value than except for maybe the best few centers in their prime in the history of the league.

 

And the gap gets even larger if Embiid doesn't improve his post game at all and becomes an even better 3 point shooter.

 

And if he improves his 3 point shooting, he improves his gravity even more in the most positive way (away from the rim) as compared to if he becomes a better 3 point shooter.

Edited May 14, 2018 by PeterMP

[Bozo the kKklown]

10 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

The only reason that Dwight Howard didn't score more was because he didn't take more shots.   I took a year he lead the NBA in FG%.  The underlying math is sound.

 

Even a big man that leads the NBA in FG% in an era where the rules limited the use of double teams in the paint is less valuable than a 36% 3 point shooter.

He didn’t score more because he wasn’t a scorer. He didn’t have good post moves, bad footwork. He was a PnR scorer who hated running PnR.

 

Not in the same world of Olajuwon or Embiid, offensively.

[Destino]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

It is hard to argue that's true after the Celtic series.  The Celtics choose to single Embiid in the post and guard the shooters.

Its not hard to argue at all.  Embiid is good, but he's not a superstar yet though.  If he stays healthy for a few years the same strategy will result in Embiid scoring 40 instead of 20.  Not there yet.  

 

Teams don't want to sabotage their own defense.  They all avoid sending early doubles unless they feel the benefit greatly outweighs the risk.  Lebron isn't doubled because he's a good enough passer to make that strategy hurt.  They will against Beal though, because he doesn't know what to do and Scott Brooks is a garbage coach.  

 

Quote

Now, is it better to have a 36% 3 point shooter that can also create their own?  Yes

Then the question becomes what else can the big do.  A perimeter player that can shoot and create, which is the most valuable skill in basketball, should be more valuable than a big man that can only be effective if they get the ball when isolated in the low post.  

 

Bigs today aren't asked not to score around the rim, they are asked to do more than just that.  This is a good thing.  There just hasn't been a dominate big man in a long time.  Howard had very few moves and his impact was so great he dragged Orlando all the way to the finals. 

 

Quote

What we are seeing in the NBA is that it is essentially impossible to be an efficient enough 2 point scorer to warrant double teaming a player.  Even take a historically good shooting percentages from bigs and warping them over a large number of post ups (which is what I did with Howard), it doesn't make sense to leave the 36% 3 point shooter open.

If that were true defenses wouldn't rotate or help, they'd just stay home on shooters.  Yet, they still won't give up easy 2s on drives if they can help it.  They'll send weakside help.

 

Howard was never a great low post scorer.  He was an extremely limited player offensively that benefitted from playing in a weak center era. 

 

Quote

The net effect is that a center can't warp a defense. 

Shaq would score 40 if teams didn't dedicate themselves to slowing him down.  That would warp a defense today.  It warped things so badly during Shaqs prime that team's starting sending stiffs out there just to foul him.  Not exactly a traditional strategy.  

 

Do you think Stevens would leave Shaq (in his prime) with a single defender on him in the low post today in a tie game situation or give up an open three?  

 

Quote

Otto actually has more gravity than a center that shoots at a very high percentage because he pulls a defender away from the basket, while the center pulls the defender to the basket, which limits everybody else's ability to drive.

If that center can only function when allowed to park himself in the low post, sure.  Why anyone would think that's better for basketball though I don't understand.  Look at how the Celtics use Horford to force opposing defenses to pick their poison.  If they send their center out to the perimeter they give up drives.  If they switch a smaller player onto him, he takes them down into the low post.  

 

How is that bad for basketball. There is no rule that states good low post players must be unable to do anything else.   

[PeterMP]

42 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

He didn’t score more because he wasn’t a scorer. He didn’t have good post moves, bad footwork. He was a PnR scorer who hated running PnR.

 

Not in the same world of Olajuwon or Embiid, offensively.

 

Right, the key to scoring more than people that score more than you is never to shoot the ball more, especially when you are shooting at a much higher percent than them anyway and leading the NBA in FG% (which suggest it is going to be very hard for you to be more efficient with your shots).

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by PeterMP

[Kosher Ham]

12 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Top five movies with NBA players in them who aren't playing themselves:

 

1 - He Got Game

2 - Airplane!

3 - Conan the Destroyer

4 - My Giant

5 - Kazaam

 

Honorable mentions:

Juwanna Man

Steel

Holes

 

Umm...

 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Right, the key to scoring more than people that score more than you is never to shoot the ball more, especially when you are shooting at a much higher percent than them anyway and leading the NBA in FG% (which suggest it is going to be very hard for you to be more efficient with your shots).

 

 

 

Yeah bruh, you watch box scores and stats. The rest of us actually watch the game. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

Its not hard to argue at all.  Embiid is good, but he's not a superstar yet though.  If he stays healthy for a few years the same strategy will result in Embiid scoring 40 instead of 20.  Not there yet.  

 

Teams don't want to sabotage their own defense.  They all avoid sending early doubles unless they feel the benefit greatly outweighs the risk.  Lebron isn't doubled because he's a good enough passer to make that strategy hurt.  They will against Beal though, because he doesn't know what to do and Scott Brooks is a garbage coach.  

 

Then the question becomes what else can the big do.  A perimeter player that can shoot and create, which is the most valuable skill in basketball, should be more valuable than a big man that can only be effective if they get the ball when isolated in the low post.  

 

Bigs today aren't asked not to score around the rim, they are asked to do more than just that.  This is a good thing.  There just hasn't been a dominate big man in a long time.  Howard had very few moves and his impact was so great he dragged Orlando all the way to the finals. 

 

If that were true defenses wouldn't rotate or help, they'd just stay home on shooters.  Yet, they still won't give up easy 2s on drives if they can help it.  They'll send weakside help.

 

Howard was never a great low post scorer.  He was an extremely limited player offensively that benefitted from playing in a weak center era. 

 

Shaq would score 40 if teams didn't dedicate themselves to slowing him down.  That would warp a defense today.  It warped things so badly during Shaqs prime that team's starting sending stiffs out there just to foul him.  Not exactly a traditional strategy.  

 

Do you think Stevens would leave Shaq (in his prime) with a single defender on him in the low post today in a tie game situation or give up an open three?  

 

If that center can only function when allowed to park himself in the low post, sure.  Why anyone would think that's better for basketball though I don't understand.  Look at how the Celtics use Horford to force opposing defenses to pick their poison.  If they send their center out to the perimeter they give up drives.  If they switch a smaller player onto him, he takes them down into the low post.  

 

How is that bad for basketball. There is no rule that states good low post players must be unable to do anything else.   

 

1.  There is a difference between easy 2's on drives (dunks) and 1-1 for a big man in a paint.  I'm not claiming any team would ever leave a big man unguarded in the post.  My fundamental point is that the post up is not an easy 2 (today) and even historically (when the illegal defense rule was in place).  Even given Howard's FG% shooting (at the rim and from 3-10 feet), your better off taking a 3 point shot with 36% shooting

 

2.  Irregardless of why Howard was successful (an era with weak centers), he clearly was successful in his prime.  His team was successful, he had higher FG% than people like Hakeem and even Shaq.

 

3.  He'd double Shaq, but Shaq in his prime was maybe the best center in the league.  He's also send help to any guard that had a clear path to the basket. And that's a very specific case.  Would he double Shaq the whole game?

 

4.  It doesn't create much gravity though because you are sending people to the basket vs. pulling them away from the basket (and your ignoring part of the issue with Shaq and the fouls was that Shaq was a bad FT shooter, to pretend like Shaq's post offense alone created the fouls is dishonest).

 

5.  You are also acting like a post player can't create.  Certainly, historically, some post players have created.  They've beaten their man, drawn double teams, and made beautiful passes to their open teammates.  Is there a reason creating can only happen 28 feet from the basket and not 10 feet from the basket?

 

6.  It is a problem if you enjoy quality post play.  Embiid has some limited time to practice.  Given the current rules, it makes much more sense for him to practice his perimeter game than his post play.  If you like seeing everybody stationed around the 3 point line looking for the 3 point shot or the drive to the basket, then you enjoy it is good.  If you don't, it isn't.

 

Even if Embiid shot at the rim and within 10 feet of the basket with Howard's FG% in his prime, he'd be better off becoming a 36% 3 point shooter.

 

I enjoy watching quality low post moves, and given the current NBA rules, it doesn't make much sense to spend time learning a low post offense.

Edited May 14, 2018 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

13 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Yeah bruh, you watch box scores and stats. The rest of us actually watch the game. 

 

 

"God, this box score is soooo boring, what else is on?"

 

What happened here?  Did we go from whether to have dunks be worth 3 points to if the problem Steve was proposing his solution for is even a problem?  Two different discussions, really.

[PeterMP]

47 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Yeah bruh, you watch box scores and stats. The rest of us actually watch the game. 

 

When he was with the Magic, Howard had a low post game and while he was never a finese player with the moves of an Hakeem (and really, in my time watching the NBA, there has been one Hakeem so that's an awfully high bar to climb).  He had the ability to use his strength, size, and quickness (in a manner similar to Shaq (not the same as Shaq because again, in my time watching basketball, there has been one Shaq)) to get to the rim and get quality shots out of the low post.

 

I know this might be hard for you to believe, but it is possible to not only watch basketball, but to have actually played (and still play at 45 years old) and understand stats and the box scores. I mean, I can understand if you can only do one of those things, but some of us don't have those limitations.

 

(Again, I'm only using Howard's FG% at the rim and from 3-10 feet as an indication of what is historically a good out come where Hakeem's FG% in those areas isn't available and Howards FG% that year was better than Hakeem's ever was.)

Edited May 14, 2018 by PeterMP