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

[Going Commando]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

As nuts as ^this seemed a couple weeks ago, I'm honestly starting to think you might be a genius (don't let thus go to your head)

 

Tired of seeing fast breaks and dudes ending it with dickless 3 pointers. Or shooting 50 million of them and missing them all, giving away possessions. Nah, dunks for everybody. Candy yams, shattered souls, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy 

 

I watched a ho hum Warriors vs Rockets regular season game about five years ago, just before the beginning of Golden State's championship run, and it just kind of dawned on me that this Western style of play sucked.

 

I lied to myself for a while that the three ball chucking contest was just a temporary cycle in the game due to a lack of quality scoring bigs (there was a time when LaMarcus Aldridge and Brook Lopez were the only 20 PPG scoring bigs in the NBA).  That style was dictated by the availability of talent and that an incoming crop of dominant bigs would fix things.  I think it's clear that's not happening, DeMarcus Cousins and Joel Embiid are chucking crap threes too.  The math justifies the style of play.  What used to be bad basketball is now good basketball and it is hateful to watch.  And it's only going to get more annoying as the influence of the Warriors on the league becomes more profound and expert chuckers like Trae Young start coming up from the NCAA.

 

We need a rebalancing back towards inside play.  I'm not sure what the best way to do this is.  My idea is the three point dunk because it feels like the simplest and yet most expansive way to do it.  It'd make the game so dynamic.  And entertaining.  But I would be open to other reforms.  I don't love the idea of tightening up foul calls on post positioning though, that Peter suggested.  Post position battles are one of the last remaining vestiges of Old School physicality in the NBA and I would be sorry to see them go.

[PeterMP]

28 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I don't love the idea of tightening up foul calls on post positioning though, that Peter suggested.  Post position battles are one of the last remaining vestiges of Old School physicality in the NBA and I would be sorry to see them go.

 

You aren't old school enough:

 

 

(Ignore the plays against the Pistons for the most part and look at how little contact there is.)

 

Another idea would be to weight FTs.  The current rules if you get fouled on a 3, you actually get more of an advantage than being fouled at the rim, despite the fact that you were less likely to make the shot.

 

People fouled close to the rim, since they were more likely to make the shot, should get more FTs.  A foul at the rim is more likely to impact the score than a foul 21 feet from the basket.

 

If you fouled somebody in the paint and they got 3 FTs that would, that would change the efficiency of post-play vs. perimeter play. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

3 hours ago, drowland said:

 

Doesn't matter, the call never should have been reviewed in the first place.  

It absolutely should have been reviewed.  Especially in a tight game in the finals.  Plus, when the play happened in real time speed, for the officials where they are positioned, it probably was hard to tell if LeBron was completely outside of the restricted area.  And it is within the rule book since 2012-13 season.  They reviewed the play, then were able to reverse the call because LeBron clearly was still moving into Durant as they collided.  

 

Extremely close, but the right call at the end of the day.  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

(Though, this is also a game where the Cavs really can't blame the refs.  You've got the ball tied with 5 seconds left in the game and your player doesn't know the game is tied, that's on you.)

 

 

They lost that game three times in the final minute. 

 

1) Fouling Curry but not FOULING Curry leading to a one-point deficit (at worst you should be tied with the ball in that spot)

2) Missing a free throw to take the lead

3) Not knowing the game situation when the missed free throw was bad enough to give you an offensive rebound and 4-5 seconds to work with

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

He normally attempts to block shots with his arm bent and his elbow flying at the shooter's head?

Did you see both angles shown during the game? One made it look like what you describe, the other angle shows something far different. If he was trying to elbow Livingston in the head, he was going to miss by 4 feet with the weakest looking attempt to elbow someone ever. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, drowland said:

 

It was a 50/50 call on the court.  Anyone sitting in the nose bleeds of Oracle could see Lebron wasn't close to being in the restricted area.  It should not have been reviewed.  If they're going to review that then they should have reviewed the Warriors lane violation on the Hill missed FT.  

 

Looking down onto the court or watching on TV it's easy to see.  Being on the court spaced out behind the players, who by the way are massive and the play happening in a split second, makes it harder to know how close he was or wasn't from the restricted area.  The officials have to watch EVERYTHING going on at the same time, and the fact that plays like that happen so fast, they need to make sure to get the right call, especially late in the game.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

We need a rebalancing back towards inside play.  I'm not sure what the best way to do this is.  My idea is the three point dunk because it feels like the simplest and yet most expansive way to do it.  It'd make the game so dynamic.  And entertaining.  But I would be open to other reforms.  I don't love the idea of tightening up foul calls on post positioning though, that Peter suggested.  Post position battles are one of the last remaining vestiges of Old School physicality in the NBA and I would be sorry to see them go.

 

Baseball in 1968. Lower the mound.

 

The three point line is not a fundamental part of the game. It was a gimmick the ABA created. And it took 40some years for someone to really figure out the math on how to exploit it.

 

So, if it knocks the game out of balance, alter the gimmick. Move it back a foot and completely eliminate corner threes. The 1-4 spacing can't work without the 3 and D guys standing in the corner. It also makes no sense for that shot to be rewarded in the first place.

 

If you have the arc just extend to the baseline above the key, you are still rewarding the incredible shooters. The Warriors would still have an advantage because of Curry, Klay, and Durant. But you pretty much end the possibility of Trevor Ariza going 0-10 in a game 7. If the deep two from the corner is now worth the same as spin move in the paint, the game will sort itself out.

 

If you do that, you can also widen the paint to international sizes.

The idea of reviewing a charge/block is as asinine as reviewing a strike/ball. It's a split second judgment call that frankly doesn't get easier in super-slow mode. Review should be used for things that are clear to the naked eye- three point shots, out of bounds, maybe back court. That's it.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

42 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Did you see both angles shown during the game? One made it look like what you describe, the other angle shows something far different. If he was trying to elbow Livingston in the head, he was going to miss by 4 feet with the weakest looking attempt to elbow someone ever. 

 

Nobody said he was smart. He did marry a Kardashian

[Dan T.]

42 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Looking down onto the court or watching on TV it's easy to see.  Being on the court spaced out behind the players, who by the way are massive and the play happening in a split second, makes it harder to know how close he was or wasn't from the restricted area.  The officials have to watch EVERYTHING going on at the same time, and the fact that plays like that happen so fast, they need to make sure to get the right call, especially late in the game.

 

Bull****. The C had a perfect, unobstructed view of the play in his primary area of responsibility.  The lead had an equally good, unobstructed view from the baseline. And they don’t have to watch everything. They SHOULDN’T watch everything. They should be watching their primary area of court responsibility. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Dan T.

[Hersh]

43 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Looking down onto the court or watching on TV it's easy to see.  Being on the court spaced out behind the players, who by the way are massive and the play happening in a split second, makes it harder to know how close he was or wasn't from the restricted area.  The officials have to watch EVERYTHING going on at the same time, and the fact that plays like that happen so fast, they need to make sure to get the right call, especially late in the game.

 

Why is that part of the game more critical than with 2 minutes left or 4 minutes left in an NBA finals game? That's my biggest issue with replay. Why is it good for some things but not others. This is across all sports that use it. 

4 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Nobody said he was smart. He did marry a Kardashian

 

I think he was trying to foul him by hitting his arm but I didn't see any intent of throwing elbow. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

4 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I think he was trying to foul him by hitting his arm but I didn't see any intent of throwing elbow. 

 

Probably right. Regardless, the idiot lost his cool and threw a ball in someone’s face because he got ejected with 2 seconds left in a 10pt game. So I have no sympathy for him if he’s suspended for game 2 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Momma There Goes That Man

[Dan T.]

In high school anyway, clapping and waving bye bye in an opponent’s face ala Draymond Green is an instant technical. It should be so at all levels, IMO. 

[Hersh]

3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Probably right. Regardless, the idiot lost his cool and threw a ball in someone’s face because he got ejected with 2 seconds left in a 10pt game. So I have no sympathy for him if he’s suspended for game 2 

 

 

 

Shouldn't he be applauded for throwing the ball in Draymond Green's face?  

[Mr. Sinister]

9 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Probably right. Regardless, the idiot lost his cool and threw a ball in someone’s face because he got ejected with 2 seconds left in a 10pt game. So I have no sympathy for him if he’s suspended for game 2 

 

 

 

I thoroughly enjoyed all of that. After the Harden dunk and this, I am ready for the next step, which is him getting mercilessly body slammed 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Mr. Sinister

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

19 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

In high school anyway, clapping and waving bye bye in an opponent’s face ala Draymond Green is an instant technical. It should be so at all levels, IMO. 

 

Why do you people hate fun?

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Why do you people hate fun?

 

 

 

What's not fun about seeing him get tossed into the 2nd row like Jazz at Uncle Phil's house???

[Going Commando]

31 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

So, if it knocks the game out of balance, alter the gimmick. Move it back a foot and completely eliminate corner threes. The 1-4 spacing can't work without the 3 and D guys standing in the corner. It also makes no sense for that shot to be rewarded in the first place.

 

I can get behind this idea, but I'm not totally sure I want to kill the value of Trevor Arizas though.  I don't love it when a team runs a break with numbers and one of the fillers goes to the corner for the three and the ball handler kicks it out to him instead of taking it inside.  But corner threes aren't the worst offenders for me.  I can't stand the walk up and step back three from the top of the key out to the FT line extended.  At least in the corner, someone's catching a pass and presumably someone had some action that involved breaking the defense before the shot.

 

And I like the idea of rewarding guys for taking it inside, where it is now about as difficult to score as shooting from three.  That way you increase the scoring potential of guys like Giannis and Westbrook and LeBron, as well as low post bigs.

 

I can get behind Peter's idea of weighting free throws to favor inside play, as I think this is another way of rewarding the hard work of getting the ball inside on the defense.  But it also creates a very powerful incentive for Harden-esque BS artistry so it needs to come with simultaneous reforms that punish offensive players for initiating contact on drives.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

42 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Baseball in 1968. Lower the mound.

 

The three point line is not a fundamental part of the game. It was a gimmick the ABA created. And it took 40some years for someone to really figure out the math on how to exploit it.

 

So, if it knocks the game out of balance, alter the gimmick. Move it back a foot and completely eliminate corner threes. The 1-4 spacing can't work without the 3 and D guys standing in the corner. It also makes no sense for that shot to be rewarded in the first place.

 

If you have the arc just extend to the baseline above the key, you are still rewarding the incredible shooters. The Warriors would still have an advantage because of Curry, Klay, and Durant. But you pretty much end the possibility of Trevor Ariza going 0-10 in a game 7. If the deep two from the corner is now worth the same as spin move in the paint, the game will sort itself out.

 

If you do that, you can also widen the paint to international sizes.

The idea of reviewing a charge/block is as asinine as reviewing a strike/ball. It's a split second judgment call that frankly doesn't get easier in super-slow mode. Review should be used for things that are clear to the naked eye- three point shots, out of bounds, maybe back court. That's it.

 

This post...

 

[Mr. Sinister]

8 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I can get behind this idea, but I'm not totally sure I want to kill the value of Trevor Arizas though.  I don't love it when a team runs a break with numbers and one of the fillers goes to the corner for the three and the ball handler kicks it out to him instead of taking it inside.  But corner threes aren't the worst offenders for me.  I can't stand the walk up and step back three from the top of the key out to the FT line extended.  At least in the corner, someone's catching a pass and presumably someone had some action that involved breaking the defense before the shot.

 

And I like the idea of rewarding guys for taking it inside, where it is now about as difficult to score as shooting from three.  That way you increase the scoring potential of guys like Giannis and Westbrook and LeBron, as well as low post bigs.

 

I can get behind Peter's idea of weighting free throws to favor inside play, as I think this is another way of rewarding the hard work of getting the ball inside on the defense.  But it also creates a very powerful incentive for Harden-esque BS artistry so it needs to come with simultaneous reforms that punish offensive players for initiating contact on drives.

 

I'd start with moving the 3 pt line back, to account for the absurd range of even your avg 21st century 3 pt shooter. That is the most sensible ruling that would meet less resistance than others, and help rebalance the league.

 

What Houston did (unapologetically I might add) was very destuctive, and something has to be done.

 

Back when only 2-3 teams played like this it was fine, but it's cannibalizing the sport

Edited June 1, 2018 by Mr. Sinister

[Going Commando]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

I'd start with moving the 3 pt line back, to account for the absurd range of even your avg 21st century 3 pt shooter. That is the most sensible ruling that would meet less resistance than others, and help rebalance the league.

 

Moving it back makes sense, and you're right, it's the least radical.  But every move has unintended consequences, and one of the unintended consequences of getting rid of the corner three could be killing off the three and D player.  And I don't think that's a good change, because fewer good wing defender specialists means defense would get softer league-wide.

 

I actually like the Trevor Arizas of the world and want to preserve a space for them in the game.  Defense is too hard to play as is.  Rather than bringing down the value of the three and D wing, I want to find a solution that brings up the value of bigs to match theirs.

 

That's the beauty of the three point dunk.  It doesn't really punish anyone.  And unlike increasing the number of free throws on shots in the lane & punishing offensive players for initiating contact, it's easy to officiate.  Your not forcing officials to make a ton of tough calls about where an offensive player's shot started on the floor, nor about whether he was the first one to make contact (although I still wouldn't mind this rule change anyway--initiation of contact by the offensive player results in a no call, except if the defender makes flagrant contact with the head).  99% of in game dunks are no-doubters and you're giving out a simple reward to a player for finishing a tough and exciting shot, just like we did with the three point line.

 

Changing point values seems extreme, but it's really just one change to implement.  It's a Millennial's solution--rather than nerfing one overpowered style of min-maxing the game, you're creating space for new styles to match them in value.  Creates a more dynamic game that way.

[justice98]

The funny thing about the aftermath of this game is the notion that a Cavs win would have fundamentally changed the series.  Most people gave the Cavs a chance to win one game, I dont think it mattered which one that was. 

 

Even if they win Game 2, is anybody gonna be surprised if GS runs off 3 in a row?  Or 4 in a row of they woulda lost last night?

 

To me, it just woulda been Philly/Lakers from '01 where Philly stole Game 1 and that was it.

[The Evil Genius]

Personally, I'd dislike a league where Clint Capella (whose range is 4 feet max) has more value than Klay Thompson.

 

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The league has always had and will always need wing defenders. The 3+D is a farily new phenomenom. I don't ever remember this being a thing until Bruce Bowen.

[Mr. Sinister]

Just now, justice98 said:

The funny thing about the aftermath of this game is the notion that a Cavs win would have fundamentally changed the series.  Most people gave the Cavs a chance to win one game, I dont think it mattered which one that was. 

 

Even if they win Game 2, is anybody gonna be surprised if GS runs off 3 in a row?  Or 4 in a row of they woulda lost last night?

 

To me, it just woulda been Philly/Lakers from '01 where Philly stole Game 1 and that was it.

 

Really, that's all I wanted. A sweep is ugly for all parties involved, and doesn't help on an overall brand scale.

[Going Commando]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Personally, I'd dislike a league where Clint Capella (whose range is 4 feet max) has more value than Klay Thompson.

 

And I don't want a league where Kyle Lowry is far more valuable than Andre Drummond.

 

There is so much more to basketball than shooting.  Changing the point values to boost inside scoring doesn't punish a shooter like Klay Thompson either.