NBA thread

14Red

14Red

Well-known member
This will be a general thread on NBA happenings...

Not sure how many caught this because the game just ended about 7 hours ago, but there was the ultimate "ball don't lie" moment at Oracle last night at the end of the Warriors/ Rockets game.

With time running out in OT, there was a scramble for a loose ball, the Warriors Kevin Durrant went running for a loose ball, had two feet out of bounds, dove for a loose ball that was still in bound and batted it back in, clearly a violation. No whistle. Steph Curry ended up with the ball a few seconds later and put the Warriors up 2 with under 10 seconds. During a time out there was a little discussion on the play, but no replay. It wasn't even discussed? Now if you're going to have replay in the last minute, on what occasion would you not use it? Obviously all 3 officials didn't see the play, they couldn't have.

Anyway, the Rockets James Harden bailed out he officials and the NBA by sinking a 40 foot 3 pointer to win the game with 1 second left.

I'm simply amazed that in 2018, with all the technology available, there wouldn't had been at least a look at that play? It's certainly moot because Harden hit the shot, but if he misses, it's a travesty of the game. This is one of the reasons, people question the integrity of the NBA. :help:
 
 
NBA is unwatchable right now. Nobody plays defense. Everybody launching 3s. It's basically played like the All-Star game now. Cavs/Blazers set an NBA record last night for fewest combined turnovers in a game (not a surprise since nobody actually guards anybody).
 
Watched the Warriors/ Pelicans last night, both teams combined to make 34 3's and the 3rd quarter wasn't over yet.
 
Michael Bluth said:
Just stopping by to say the Rockets attempted SEVENTY threes last night.

70
Click to expand...

That's incredible. The game is so much about spacing the floor and an uncontested 3 is, today, a very good shot. The Nets, who the Rockets played, hit 44% of their 3's last night. You have to shoot over 60% to keep up with that points wise.
 
mcm.1019 said:
NBA is unwatchable right now. Nobody plays defense. Everybody launching 3s. It's basically played like the All-Star game now. Cavs/Blazers set an NBA record last night for fewest combined turnovers in a game (not a surprise since nobody actually guards anybody).
Click to expand...

I don't know that I can agree with that. I think the ability to space the floor has made defense very difficult. You can play great defense, a player helps on defense and kicks it to a wide open shooter and it's 3 points. Is that bad defense or better offense?
I think we are in a different era of NBA basketball. Just because guys aren't taking charges and he scores aren't in the 80's doesn't mean no one is playing defense. Watch a game and see how many uncontested layups there are? Almost none. Everything is contested at the rim. Therefore, what is a better shot attempt, a shot around the rim with 2-3 guys trying to block it, or an uncontested 3 point shot?
 
mcm.1019 said:
NBA is unwatchable right now. Nobody plays defense. Everybody launching 3s. It's basically played like the All-Star game now. Cavs/Blazers set an NBA record last night for fewest combined turnovers in a game (not a surprise since nobody actually guards anybody).
Click to expand...

I get your drift. I'm not sure I would call it unwatchable, but it does seem like the game is turning in to a 3-point shooting contest. Right now there is still some balance top the game, but the tendency is clear; the teams that make the most 3's will be the most successful.

Basketball is much more fun to watch when the game is balanced between outside (yes, 3-pointers) play as well as tough play down low and getting the ball into the post. Sadly, this may be going the way of the horse and buggy.
 
Monclova Steve said:
I get your drift. I'm not sure I would call it unwatchable, but it does seem like the game is turning in to a 3-point shooting contest. Right now there is still some balance top the game, but the tendency is clear; the teams that make the most 3's will be the most successful.

Basketball is much more fun to watch when the game is balanced between outside (yes, 3-pointers) play as well as tough play down low and getting the ball into the post. Sadly, this may be going the way of the horse and buggy.
Click to expand...

But this is what makes the Warriors so fun to watch. Curry and Thompson spread the floor, but yet they get alot of layups because the lane is open because the defense has to honor the shooters. Even Curry gets more layups than you think because he handles the ball so well and can finish. Durrant and Thompson have great mid range games.

The regular season can be difficult because teams have very little prep time, it's mostly just do what we do and not worry about game planning. Players are sitting some now and there are always a couple of new faces in the rotation. But it's still fun to see basketball played at the highest level. We are witnessing the best shooting guard of all time right now in Curry. His shooting numbers, including the distances he shoots from is simply ridiculous. His game is just on a different level.
 
So a check on our good friend Lonzo Ball through about 100 games in his NBA career. He's shooting 40% from the field, 33% from 3 point land and 48% from the free throw line. 10 points per game/ 5 and a half rebounds and 5 and a half assists per game. Now these aren't awful numbers, but for a guy who was proclaimed to take the Lakers to a championship level, he's not much more than a below average starting guard.
 
Absolutely sad to hear that New Orleans star center Anthony Davis has asked for a trade from the Pelicans.

I don't know what the answer is, but when you have the best players from teams, in their primes, moving, it's bad for the league.
 
They can't carry the load alone,want to hold hands with other BIG TIME players to take the pressure off of them...NBA is no fun to watch.
 
Arrogate said:
Talent usually attracts other talent. Those Lakers Bulls Celtics teams of the past were one man shows
Click to expand...

No one touts individualism more than the NBA. It all started when they started promoting Bird and Magic, then Jordan. Basketball is and will always be a team game. The Warriors win because they are a TEAM.

The Bulls, Lakers and Celtics were not one man shows. They were teams made up of one or two stars, and a bunch of guys who knew how to play. Sadly, today, these young guys just look at the winning, and not what it takes to get there. All NBA teams have talent, it's about playing together and playing defense.
 
No surprise you missed the sarcasm. Of course those teams werent one man shows. Just laugh at the rose colored memory of the glory days.
 
14Red said:
No one touts individualism more than the NBA. It all started when they started promoting Bird and Magic, then Jordan. Basketball is and will always be a team game. The Warriors win because they are a TEAM.
Click to expand...

Warriors fan here, they won a Championship and then Durant went there and won some more. Now Cousins is there and they have 5 legit All-Star caliber plays in their starting 5. Sure they play as a team but they start 5 extremely good players. Two of them are great. The Warriors win because of their talent/stars and their system.
 
adselder09 said:
Warriors fan here, they won a Championship and then Durant went there and won some more. Now Cousins is there and they have 5 legit All-Star caliber plays in their starting 5. Sure they play as a team but they start 5 extremely good players. Two of them are great. The Warriors win because of their talent/stars and their system.
Click to expand...

But here's the elixir...they guys they add WORK in their system. They don't bring in bad apples. Durrant, while a great player, fits in their motion game passing scheme. Don't know yet on Cousins, but the thing he does do is space the floor even more for Curry and Thompson.

I would say most NBA teams have 5 pretty good players that start. The difference is if they have a super star, and what kind of bench they have. NBA games are so long, that you can't win without at least a decent bench. The Warriors and the Spurs have been the two long term dynasty type teams over the last 20-25 years, and they play team basketball.
 
Going forward, how does the NBA make franchises in smaller less deserved cities relevant?

IMO, they have allowed the players to have too much control and I am afraid the long term effects will not be good.
 
People act like this is a new issue. Big market teams have always been attractive for a multitude of reasons.
 
14Red said:
But here's the elixir...they guys they add WORK in their system. They don't bring in bad apples. Durrant, while a great player, fits in their motion game passing scheme. Don't know yet on Cousins, but the thing he does do is space the floor even more for Curry and Thompson.

I would say most NBA teams have 5 pretty good players that start. The difference is if they have a super star, and what kind of bench they have. NBA games are so long, that you can't win without at least a decent bench. The Warriors and the Spurs have been the two long term dynasty type teams over the last 20-25 years, and they play team basketball.
Click to expand...
I literally said they succeed because of their star players AND their system. The system is great and sure they play like a team, but they win because of their stars/talent. Plug in 5 other guys into the system, say one All Star and one former All Star and 3 role players - it isn't remotely the same. They don't win each of the last 2 championships without adding Durant.
 
Arrogate said:
I think you can make the argument Cousins is a "bad apple" maybe even draymond as well
Click to expand...

If I were GS, I'd be looking for the next Draymond. Don't think there's any way you can pay that guy the max. He's too much of a liability offensively as is his overall attitude. His defense is great in that he can play against all 5 spots on the floor but that isn't max level contract worthy IMO.

Cousins is absolutely a hot-head/bad apple, but he'll only be around for one year. I do see him losing it and potentially blowing a playoff game for them at some point because he gets himself tossed. Or something stupid like Draymond going after Bron's nuts in Game 4 of '16.
 
Arrogate said:
People act like this is a new issue. Big market teams have always been attractive for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...


It may not be a new issue, but players now operate with an AAU mentality more then ever. The approach of taking less money to play in a bigger market or with your friends is not good for the overall game. Sure you may end up with a few stacked teams, but at some point it turns into the Globetrotters vs Generals.

I know the owners in those smaller cities get the revenue splits from luxury taxes and TV deals, but eventually the fans in those markets will stop supporting the teams that have little to no chance of ever winning.
 
We have people complain they make too much and are eelfish. When players decide to take less money and less of a role for the betterment of the team, we still have people complaining. Cant please em all :laugh:
 
adselder09 said:
I literally said they succeed because of their star players AND their system. The system is great and sure they play like a team, but they win because of their stars/talent. Plug in 5 other guys into the system, say one All Star and one former All Star and 3 role players - it isn't remotely the same. They don't win each of the last 2 championships without adding Durant.
Click to expand...

And the Cavs don't win in '16 if Draymond doens't get suspended, making Bogut play more minutes and wrecking his knee in game 6?
If, if, if...
Their star players are willing participants. Steph Curry may be the most selfless superstar we've ever seen. He could hunt for stats like Harden and score 40 points per game. But he doesn't. He knows in the long run, he needs Thompson, Durrant, Green, Iggy and Livingston to win titles. In fact, I would say that Iggy and Livingston are the reasons they've won all their titles. They are good enough to start for most teams, but they want to be part of something bigger. Very few NBA teams have that culture. The Spurs had it with Duncan and company.
 
ceebass13 said:
It may not be a new issue, but players now operate with an AAU mentality more then ever. The approach of taking less money to play in a bigger market or with your friends is not good for the overall game. Sure you may end up with a few stacked teams, but at some point it turns into the Globetrotters vs Generals.

I know the owners in those smaller cities get the revenue splits from luxury taxes and TV deals, but eventually the fans in those markets will stop supporting the teams that have little to no chance of ever winning.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's taking less money, but it's still a ton of money, and this generally happens after they've already had one big contract. There is enough young talent coming in the league that the teams that are down can be competitive, but it takes a year or two. Fans support winners, so if a team wins, the fans will show up. Philly was awful 3-4 years ago, now they sell out. People are always fair weather fans.

Speaking of PHilly, my team, I'll be real interested to see how they stack up with the Warriors tomorrow night. I don't think they can seriously contend for a title, but if they can get a couple more guys to come of the bench, they can get out of the east.

The matchup is interesting because the Warriors have an advantage in the backcourt, and Philly has an advantage in the front court. If Embiid can stay healthy, he can be one of the leagues best players. He's got all the tools, He can post up and score, he can shoot the 3 ball, he's got a mid range, he can pass, he rebounds and hits free throws. The Sixers just struggle with guarding other teams guards, although Butler has helped in that area. My guess is Butler guards Thompson, not sure who gets Curry. Reddick is great offensively, but he struggles guarding people. I really like the addition of Corey Brewer, he's a guy who can guard multiple positions. Now the Warriors will have a tough time matching up with Simmons and Embiid.
 
14Red said:
And the Cavs don't win in '16 if Draymond doens't get suspended, making Bogut play more minutes and wrecking his knee in game 6?
If, if, if...
Click to expand...
Maybe. Draymond was back for Game 6 and 7 (went off and had a triple double in Game 7) they still lost both.

Their star players are willing participants. Steph Curry may be the most selfless superstar we've ever seen. He could hunt for stats like Harden and score 40 points per game. But he doesn't. He knows in the long run, he needs Thompson, Durrant, Green, Iggy and Livingston to win titles.
Click to expand...
This is probably the most accurate statement you've ever made.

In fact, I would say that Iggy and Livingston are the reasons they've won all their titles. They are good enough to start for most teams, but they want to be part of something bigger. Very few NBA teams have that culture. The Spurs had it with Duncan and company.
Click to expand...
Part of that is fair to say, the other is not. They don't win without their stars, though Iguodala and Livingston definitely stabilize the bench. Then there's the whole adding Durant component. Like I said before, they don't win the last two titles without Durant. You can say the rest of the Warriors are team players because they allowed him to come in and take points/shots away from others, but they still had a top 3 player in the league choose to "join up" with them to win titles.
 
Philly now has to rely too much on Reddick to be their outside threat after the Butler trade and he's not that kind of horse. I think they're starting to see Butler can be a divisive diva.

Anyone else notice how the gripe about NBA players was that they were money grubbing egotists that were more concerned with money than championships. Now the gripe is that they manipulate the system to fashion all star teams to win championships. Funny how things change.
 
adselder09 said:
Maybe. Draymond was back for Game 6 and 7 (went off and had a triple double in Game 7) they still lost both.


This is probably the most accurate statement you've ever made.


Part of that is fair to say, the other is not. They don't win without their stars, though Iguodala and Livingston definitely stabilize the bench. Then there's the whole adding Durant component. Like I said before, they don't win the last two titles without Durant. You can say the rest of the Warriors are team players because they allowed him to come in and take points/shots away from others, but they still had a top 3 player in the league choose to "join up" with them to win titles.
Click to expand...

Fair, I'll debate you that Durrant is a top 3 player. Do we judge players by winning, or talent? Many claim Giannis Antetokounmpo is "one of" the top players in basketball. This it the issue with evaluating individual players in a team game. By the time we get through the list of "one of" the best players, we're 12-15 players deep. Do you consider DeMarcus Cousins as a top player? He's got the stats for it, but he's never won anywhere.
Adding Durrant certainly didn't hurt them, but you can't say they don't win titles without him, because they did. Harrison Barnes was a very good piece of the puzzle for the Warriors. Do you suppose Barnes would had rather stayed with the Warriors, or go paid in Dallas where his numbers are up some, but so are the loss totals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top