PeterMP

It is difficult to take people criticizing Lebron's off the ball play considering they don't know what his assignment is off the ball on most plays. In basketball, you don't want everybody cutting to the basket. You have people that are cutters, you have people that are spot shooters/release valves (I want a guy that I know where he's going to be so that if I get in trouble I know where somebody is going to be to make a pass; it isn't an accident on so many drives there also happens to be a guy standing in the corner an you have another guy out high that you can throw the ball way out too), and you have people who have to be positioned to get long rebounds and control the fast break going the other way (some of these jobs do over lap, especially the last one and the previous one). Without knowing Lebron's objective in the context of the Heat offense off the ball criticizing Lebron's off the ball movement is like criticizing a DL that crashed down the line on the backside of a run and didn't maintain outside without knowing if his job was to crash down the line.

I'm a big Malone fan. In my opinion, there is no question that Malone was a better player then Barkley. I'm not sure he's better than Duncan though. But this just isn't true. This Day In History (1.27.90): Karl Malone scored 61 points on 26 shots in 33 minutes of a 48 point victory http://ballislife.com/this-day-in-history-1-27-90-karl-malone-scored-61-points-on-26-shots-in-33-minutes-of-a-48-point-victory/ Oh and: http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/page/BestFinalsGame-Individual-5/best-single-game-performances-no-5-karl-malone

There is a mass to surface area issue in terms of cooling down. He's tall (so surface area), but also built and big. It almost certainly takes more time for his internal mass to cool than many of the other players, and his body almost certainly has to work harder to do it (e.g. sweet more) and so will have more issues with hydration and electrolyte levels. In football training camps, it is almost always the OL/DL that die from heat exhaustion. Your body is mostly water and water has a high heat capacity. It is slow to cool and to get hot. That works for us in most cases, but once you get it hot, it is hard to cool it down. And the less surface area by mass you have to release the heat, it is going to take that much longer.

Even on like the lights in the SB, they actually had some time to prepare here. They knew the AC was out. You have to hydrate, stretch, take breaks accordingly, etc. If it were a situation where all of the sudden the heat went to 100 degrees, it would be more understanding. (In sports in general, especially in basketball, I've never understood the idea of come out of a game and go sit on a bench, and then get up off the bench and go back in the game.) Looks like Gatorade is trying to get some mileage out of this. http://nba.si.com/2014/06/06/lebron-james-gatorade-cramps-twitter-nba-finals-heat/?eref=sihp Though, I wouldn't really say they were trolling him.

Cleveland had very little cap space. Not enough to sign a big FA. There was talk about a sign and trade between Cleveland and Toronto. Cleveland has a set of expiring contracts that were thought to have value. But the consensus was that Bosh didn't want to go to Cleveland or Toronto might have decided to just let Bosh walk without taking a bunch of bad contracts for a year.

The two most relevant questions for me going in is can Pop win a game for the Spurs. Presumably, the Heat are going to be ready for that, we are going to play off and under screens and give Wade and Lebron that 18 ft. jump shot that the Spurs used effectively last year. Can Pop come up with something else after having played the same team last year in the finals that confuses the Heat? And can the Heat, without Miller this year and Battier and Allen a year older, get enough perimeter shooting to make the Spurs pay if they try and help when Wade and Lebron drive?

In the context of their offense, Bosh shot more 3's, a higher percentage of 3's (i.e. a lower percentage of 2's. He's moved from taking that long 2 to taking the 3), and his FG% on 3's went up. As a result his effective FG% is also up. For them, that's better. If you look at his stats, the only things he isn't doing as well or better are things related to him being a stretch player this year that's taking and making 3's at a reasonable rate and not a player playing center/closer to the basket (offensive rebounds and blocks). And that's carried through the playoffs too. He really is a different player this year and better suited for what they need. Cole is inconsistent, but that tends to be the nature of bench players. Do you really want to claim that Splitter isn't inconsistent? That doesn't mean he's not better though. He's playing more minutes, he's still bringing good defense despite the more minutes, and he's doing a better job of running the offense (his assist/TO ratio is up and his effective FG% is up). Now, he might play really badly in this series, but over all he's better. (Realistically, Bosh might play really badly too. Bosh isn't the type of 3 pt. shooter where I wouldn't be shocked if he goes 2-21 from 3. pt. land and the Heat lose in 6.) But they are both better.

Cole and Bosh are both better for the Heat. Bosh is more of a threat with the 3, and Cole is just an all around better player. I also think that given the break that both teams are getting and the spacing between games that depth isn't as important as it could be and maybe even should be. If they had to play some games on consecutive days it would matter more. I guess if there is an injury that would make it more important. I think for the Heat to win they are going to have to get at least one big game from the 3 pt. line from Battier, Bosh, and/or Coles.

I don't think so. The problem isn't really Durant then, but the complementary players, which are heavily 3 pt. shooters. If you take away Lebron, you lose a versatile offensive and defensive player that can faliciate and get to the basket making those jump shooters extra effective. I guess maybe you could say then you'd move Bosh to the low post and leave Durant on the perimeter and run an offense inside out, but I don't really have any reason to believe that could be done with Bosh at a championship level. The other option would be to move Duran to the post and do the same, and while I think Durant might be able to do something like that, I certainly wouldn't say he could. Riley did an excellent job building an offense specifically around James. taking him out leaves a gaping holes. I'll also say the flip is true. I don't think the Thunder are really (much) better if you take Durant off and put on James. They aren't really a good perimeter shooting team now, and you've removed their best shooter. Teams are going attack James heavily any time he gets close to the paint, and there is nobody that would reliably make them pay.

Well, I think KD would be better if he had a real post game. But I'm not sure how much better the team would be because they seem to lack shooters (to carry over what LKB has been saying), without Sefolosha acting as a credibile corner 3 shooter, I'm not sure taking the guy that is realistically your best 3 pt. shooter and putting him in the post makes much sense.

I actually think you can argue that he's the best. I'd take Lebron over him, but I wouldn't deny that it was an argument that could be made. I wouldn't say that somebody that thought that KD was the best was just stupid or ignorant. Especially on the offensive end in terms of scoring (which would be most relevant in terms of demanding the ball when his team needs buckets). It is an interesting situation. Though I'm less sure how much of that was really their problem vs. the injury to Ibaka and their lack of bench (though others seem to want to blame that on not utilizing their bench properly by the coach, but I'm not sure). Though, it does seem likely that they would be better if Westbrook looked to penetrate and pass more. Realistically, when you need buckets, I'd actually put the ball in Westbrook's hand, BUT have him more often draw/distract the defense and then get it into Durant's hands. But I also think Westbrook likely is who he is and that's a very good basketball player in his own right, but not somebody that is a great passer. (I'll also point out that I think even currently, with the ball in Westbrook's hands, KD is more of a threat, then Westbrook is when the ball is in KD's hands. KD doesn't seem like he does a good job of getting the ball to Westbrook in a position where Westbrook wants to score (and partly that is because Westbrook doesn't seem to be a good catch and shoot (3 pt. shooter) player). Westbrook more frequently gets the ball to KD where he can score from than the other way around. Now, the solution to that problem might be that KD needs to become a better passer, Westbrook needs to do a better job of playing off the ball offense/spacing (e.g. learn to shoot better) or they need a new coach that does a better job of creating an offense that integrates them together more fully.)

The thing with Kareem is that it was a base line hook shot, which is different than most other hook shots and makes it hard to double (well really Kareem shot it from everywhere at any time, but he used extensively to the base line). I think the biggest difference is probably the lower body contact allowed in the post. It actually takes an incredible amount of balance to hit a hook shot like that and is very hard with somebody leaning on you. I can make hook shots all day (even base line ones) if I don't have anybody leaning on me. Put me in a game where you have normal lower body contact, and it becomes a distraction to keep people from properly defending the fade away jumper going the other way. The nice thing about a good hook shot, at least in pick up games, is if you make a good one early, it gets remembered, and you can have your defender worrying about a shot that in terms of in a game you consider your 2nd option. Despite the plethorea of quality good men in that era, I think Jordan was actually very well suited for playing at that time. There was so much contact allowed in the paint and around the basket that it was hard on big men to score efficiently. The great pull up jumper was the perfect shot for the era.

This has come up before. I didn't up date the numbers so they are now not correct, but you can see the general idea.

I doubt McDermott will be a star, but he's a better shooter than Morrison (Morrison was a high volume shooter in college, yeah he could score, but he needed the ball in his hands a lot and needed a lot of shots he wasn't particularly effecient), and he's bigger than Fredette. The other thing is the lottery is the top 14 picks. Do you think there are 14 stars in this draft? I doubt it. I think McDermott will be a solid player IF he stays healthy. He won't be a star, but he's got decent size, especially given his ability to shoot. Yeah, he'll struggle on defense, but he'll find a spot. I don't think it is that outrageous to suggest that he'll be one of the best 14 players in this draft. I wouldn't take him top 5 for sure and probably not even a good bit after that given how good this draft is, but if he stays healthy, I wouldn't be shocked if you go back and look at history, most people would conclude that he was a top 14 player in this draft.

Are you saying you actually like the style of basketball played during much of the 1990s? Basketball is easily much better now to watch than it was then. I literally stopped watching NBA basketball for years and now am just starting to go back to watching it some. There are things that I think they should do to make the game less of a guard oriented game, but the NBA is so much better now than it was.

I think some cradle to grave programs are necessary. There are going to be people that can't/won't take care of themselves and their children. Whether is a diagnosable physical or mental issue something like addiciton (which I actually consider a disease) or for whatever reason a lack of incentive and a willingness to live near the poverty level. Based on my experience with the foster care system (not as a child in it, but what I've seen in my interactions as an adult), what I'd like to see more of is the restriction of reproductive rights/ability based on the ability/willingness to provide for children independent of the government. But I don't think that is going to happen in my lifetime and the left and right would fight it. Right now, we have people that don't seem to have an issue with having kids they can't provide for, and I don't think that is going to change if you take away the government programs designed to assist them (I think those people will continue to have kids in many cases and just provide that much less for them), and I'm not comfortable saying you're a waste so we are going to let your kids die/live unhealthy lives. The other thing, I think we need to talk about in terms of incentiving work is the emphasis/value our system through some government actions like the tax code currently puts on capital vs. labor.

Because living pretty close to the poverty level is a pretty miserable existence and while federal progams do provide services there tend to be issues with quality and the hoops to jump through, which means your doing "work" for poor services.

The CBO is still projecting that the law total will lower the deficit and have minimal impacts on labor demand (i.e. jobs availible) long term. The two things aren't contradictory. You can lose older/low income workers from the work force because it makes sense for them now not to work and if you gain higher income jobs, then more educated workers that make more money will be able to find jobs raising the employment numbers. The disincentive to work is for a pretty small subset of workers. Thought I do agree we need to look at practices/policies that do encourage work, but part of that is putting things in place that allows low income workers to gain skills that will make them higher income workers, which is hard to do if they can't have health insurance while doing things to gain those skills. If you have to work 3 jobs so you can get health insurance, it is hard to take part in job training programs/classes that make you are more valuable worker. Finding a balance is key.

1. As always, prices don't necessarily reflect costs. 2. I'd have to see some evidence that prices are going up like crazy. 3. Some of the issue is related to the coverage required under Obamacare. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/02/fact-check-premiums-will-go-up/ And issues of what insurance companies can do in terms of advertising rates. From what I can see, JMSs' salent points are right. The rate at which health care costs are going up is slowing down. And the person making $50,000 K will probably be paying in in terms of the tax even if he doesn't buy insurance so he's paid some to the "system" that helps "us" cover his catastrophic care if he needs it.

I don't know anybody that counts doctors visits for runny noses, but if you look at all doctor visits, the US is actually pretty low compared to many other countries and is below OECD average: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/04/01/g4-01-02.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-29-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/04/01/g4-01-01.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-29-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html The number of people that think they know facts that just aren't true, especially on this topic, is shocking.

There is evidence that it might already bend the costs curve: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/ Longer term, I think the IPAB is a very promising idea: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616543 (To be fair on the other side, there is also work by academic economists in terms of de-centivizing work so that would be an unoptomistic out come.)

Thanks! I'm not a big fan of Obamacare either in terms of a health care law or fixing the issues with medical and insurance costs (I suspect its affect on such things will be small and will be over come by equally small, but bad economic affects (e.g. discentivizing work)), but I am very pro-reduce deficit and long term balance budget, and if Obamacare will help hold people's feet to the fire and help get that done, I support it. (I should point out, I'm not pro-use the idea of a balance budget and reducing deficit as way to force the federal goverment back to its functions in the 1950s OTHER than military spending, which is what many Republicans seem to support today and what they really mean when they talk about balancing the budget.)

In terms of the costs, do you have link for that? The latest thing I can find from the CBO is that the net costs will actually DECREASE the deficit: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176 "Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade." Is this a case where if we assume A, B, and C do happen, and X, Y, and Z don't happen it costs (where the law actually says that A, B, C, X, Y, and Z all will happen)?

The players seem to disagree with the announcers. Westbrook was clearly mad and Beverly was throwing elbows over it. Wouldn't be the first time announcers were wrong. The difference between the play that Westbrook got hurt on and the attempted pick of Lin by Westbrook certainly seem to be negligible. Westbrook times it a little bit better, but it also seems like the ref is quick to give him the TO from the view you posted. I can't see the TO signal and it seems like the ref in that you see in the video isn't likely to see it either, which makes me wonder where it came from or the ref granted it w/o ever seeing the TO signal. But there certainly isn't a big difference between the plays. It does seem if Westbrook doesn't think it is a dirty play and he can do it on others, like Lin, then he should be fair game too.

Sixers are going to plan on tanking a year. Noel will play very little to none. They'll be really bad. Clear some cap space and come back in two years with Noel (plus MCW will have a year as an NBG PG under his belt), two high first round picks, and major money to play in the FA market (Bynum money+). A Sixers fan perspective of the trade: http://www.libertyballers.com/2013/6/27/4472530/nerlens-noel-jrue-holiday-trade-sixers-pelicans-news-nba-draft