NBA 2014-2015 Regular Season Thread

Off Topic
241

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
So missing 3 starters, 2 of of which are all-stars, and it’s not a lucky break for the warriors? are you high?

Playing the pelicans in the first round dint hurt either…

Game 4 was not close, but every other game has been very competitive, you have to be pretty daft to think this warriors team is anything special. [/quote]

By special, if this is meant to be synonymous with “the best team in the NBA”, then call me the most daft motherfucker in the world.[/quote]

awareness is the first step to recovery

If the warriors were a “great” team this series would have been over last week. [/quote]

Don’t you dare try to throw in some bullshit comment about my sobriety, as if it’s some sort of fucking joke to toss out when the time calls for it.

Great teams win championships. Assuming they close it out, if you want to argue that they don’t stack up well against some of the great champions of all-time, I won’t argue with you on that point. These aren’t Jordan’s Bulls. But I have never made that point to begin with, so whatever issue you have with my assessment in regards to this team THIS YEAR is entirely misguided.

Actually, you’re right. Awareness IS the first step to recovery. Now that you are actually aware of my argument, you can begin to recover some of your dignity by acknowledging that luck is generally not a factor in sports, certainly not in this series to the extent that you and others have indicated.

242

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
acknowledging that luck is generally not a factor in sports, certainly not in this series to the extent that you and others have indicated.[/quote]

If you actually have addiction issues then i apologize for making light of it.

Luck is absolutely 100% part of sports, and anytime this finals is discussed in the future, the first thing mentioned will be what? The INJURIES and what a break it was for the warriors to not deal with Kyrie and Klove.

243

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
acknowledging that luck is generally not a factor in sports, certainly not in this series to the extent that you and others have indicated.[/quote]

If you actually have addiction issues then i apologize for making light of it.

Luck is absolutely 100% part of sports, and anytime this finals is discussed in the future, the first thing mentioned will be what? The INJURIES and what a break it was for the warriors to not deal with Kyrie and Klove. [/quote]

The uninformed might argue that way. You’ll notice that you don’t really ever hear professional athletes themselves chalk up losses to excuses like “luck”. People who never played sports at high levels resort to the luck argument because they don’t understand all of the hard work it takes just to be in position to benefit from any type of “luck” at all. Only good teams get “lucky”, and only great teams get “lucky” in the biggest moments.

I don’t recall a single instance of the Chicago Cubs getting lucky, or the Cleveland Browns, or the Ne York Knicks. But I can sure recall a lot of times in which the Giants or the Patriots or the Blackhawks got “lucky”.

People will be talking about whatever it is they talk about. What they WON’T be talking about is how worn down the Warriors were, or how injury-depleted they were, since they weren’t.

How lucky would people consider the Warriors right now if Irving AND Curry were out? Or Irving and Love were out for the Cavs and Curry and Iguodala were out for the Warriors? Would ANY of the narrative really revolve around luck at that point? Of course not.

And why aren’t we having THAT conversation? Is it luck that the Warriors are healthy and rested? No, it is the result of judicious planning on the part of their coaching staff.

You only think these injuries are “luck” because they are, admittedly, having an effect on the outcome of the series. And they are only having an effect on the outcome because the Warriors conversely are NOT injured. And their health is clearly not the result of blind luck.

Your argument fails to look at the entire other side of the issue, and because of this narrow, self-serving analysis of yours, you have failed miserably in your endeavor. But believe me, I will certainly be aware of just how lucky I am when I celebrate the Warriors’ championship.

edit: resorting to an ad populum fallacy isn’t exactly helping your vapid argument, either. What the narrative from the talking bobblehead dolls on ESPN and those in threads like this have to say is entirely irrelevant to the reality of the situation. And you acknowledge every single day, through your behavior, that there is certainly a way to avoid things like “bad luck”. When one avoids it where another didn’t, no one resorts to the “luck” card except for when it comes to sports. And that reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of sports on your part.

Would you ever tell the person who didn’t renew their homeowners’ insurance that it’s just luck that the thing burned down in a fire the same week their policy lapsed? Is it bad luck when a guy goes bankrupt trying to pay for his kid’s leukemia treatment because he was blowing all his “disposable” income on supplements instead of a better health insurance plan? No.

244

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

How lucky would people consider the Warriors right now if Irving AND Curry were out? Or Irving and Love were out for the Cavs and Curry and Iguodala were out for the Warriors? Would ANY of the narrative really revolve around luck at that point? Of course not.

And why aren’t we having THAT conversation? Is it luck that the Warriors are healthy and rested? No, it is the result of judicious planning on the part of their coaching staff.

[/quote]

If both teams were missing 2 all-stars (was iggy an all-star?) there would be a discussion on how both teams had bad luck, but the result of the series would not be nearly as corrupted vs. having 1 team missing players. You make no sense with that.

Based on your logic, the Cavs coaching staff was not judicious enough with their planning and that caused Klove’s shoulder be to ripped out by the lead singer of hanson.

It’s cool you love the warriors but acting as though this finals was not a gift is retarded, and there is no point arguing about it.

245

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

How lucky would people consider the Warriors right now if Irving AND Curry were out? Or Irving and Love were out for the Cavs and Curry and Iguodala were out for the Warriors? Would ANY of the narrative really revolve around luck at that point? Of course not.

And why aren’t we having THAT conversation? Is it luck that the Warriors are healthy and rested? No, it is the result of judicious planning on the part of their coaching staff.

[/quote]

If both teams were missing 2 all-stars (was iggy an all-star?) there would be a discussion on how both teams had bad luck, but the result of the series would not be nearly as corrupted vs. having 1 team missing players. You make no sense with that.

Based on your logic, the Cavs coaching staff was not judicious enough with their planning and that caused Klove’s shoulder be to ripped out by the lead singer of hanson.

It’s cool you love the warriors but acting as though this finals was not a gift is retarded, and there is no point arguing about it.
[/quote]

Based on my logic, playing Irving for 48 minutes in Game 1 and then him coming up lame is NOT a result of luck but poor planning.

Anyone who thinks Love would be much of a factor in this series simply doesn’t watch a lot of basketball. Jerry West threatened to resign if the Warriors traded Thompson for him. He’s not that good. He’s a 3-point shooting version of David Lee.

You make no sense with your comment about the outcome being “corrupted”. How is the outcome corrupted at all? The team with the best roster, the best bench, and the best record is going to win this series, and when all is said and done, it won’t even be that close. Right now their average margin of victory is about 13. Their average margin of victory this season was 11. This isn’t the #6 seed limping into the playoffs and then catching a couple of breaks. This is a dominant, well-rested team slowly exerting its will over its opponent over the course of at least 6 games.

So why don’t you give the Warriors credit when it’s due instead of assailing my logic, which you clearly aren’t familiar with, given your incessantly fallacious arguments? They’re a young, inexperienced team playing this generation’s greatest athlete, not just greatest basketball player. And they’re winning. You guys have all said as much yourself: teams are supposed to “pay their Finals dues” and all that hokey nonsense. It should speak volumes that a team that hasn’t sniffed the Finals in 39 years and is on the biggest stage against the biggest star is still establishing themselves as the obviously better collection of talent.

But I get it. You’re a necrophiliac like most of the rest of the sporting world. You’d rather dwell on the negative and the injuries and all that bullshit instead of celebrate life. Fine with me.

246

Well I see you are still using the same tactics you used in the MLB thread:

  1. Flood the the thread with massively long posts to wear the people you’re arguing with down. Incapable of writing in a succinct manner?

  2. Frame yourself as an authority since you’ve played sports at a “high level” and because you’ve watched more Warriors games than the rest of us. If you feel this way, why not log off and go to a warriors fans forum and you guys can mutually jerk each other off?

  3. Ignoring obvious factors such as luck and chalking up EVERYTHING to the team’s merit when it falls in his teams favour. I guarantee if the shoe were on the other foot, the Cavaliers had a healthy starting 5 and the Warriors were depleted he’d be all over this.

247

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If Irving doesn’t get injured, the Cavs never slow down the pace of play and the series is over in 5. Although the Cavs already played slower than almost all teams anyways, there was a marked difference in the pace of play once Irving went down. Playing slow and emphasizing post play is the one weakness of the Warriors. It just so happens that Irving getting injured forced them into that style of play even more, albeit with less bodies.[/quote]

If PG-Irving doesn’t get injured, well, we still have legit data from Game 1 to consider. And we see that CLE led basically wire-to-wire.

Of course GS still makes adjustments but here’s the thing: GS’s (only?) trump card was ultimately to play small ball – at which the hoop gods (likely) shuddered* – and any decent PG, nevermind Irving, will punish a team featuring D Green as their sole big.

*credit to TMQ’s Gregg Easterbrook for the phrase

I can mostly get on board with this, as T Thompson has filled in just fine at the pure-4. Still, Games 1-3 and 5 were all close and to ignore the effect of a stretch-4 on floor spacing, particularly in crunchtime of all those close ones, would be amateurish at best.

248

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Believe me, Warriors fans are the most sophisticated basketball fans in the country. We fucking LOVE our basketball out here. You don’t consistently sell out games with a team as shitty as the Warriors have been for most of the last 20 years without serious fans galore. You really don’t know anything at all about anything to do with the Warriors if you think us fans are not sophisticated enough to know we’ve caught a few breaks.[/quote]

I merely referred to the (mostly bandwagon) GS fans that I happen to know.

Wallowing in lottery territory for decades doesn’t count as “paying dues.” Things like giving away C-Webb how they did reflect a clueless/dysfunctional organization but again have nothing to do with paying playoff dues.

Then they damn sure need a better trump card than going small with Green + Iggy.

If this Finals has proved anything, it isn’t that “small ball wins championships.” It’s more like “lightning can strike (at opponents’ PGs) in every.single.meaningful.round”

249

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
That isn’t by accident. All season, Kerr preached the value of keeping his guys fresh for the playoffs.[/quote]

While I enjoyed the Machiavelli tie-in, let’s not go overboard neither. HC-Kerr can plan ahead all he wants and injuries will always be a part of the game. And while Kerr looks like a genius at the moment, HC-Blatt will likely lose his job over the exact same criterion. (granted, over-playing Irving in Game 1 was borderline unforgivable, though I maintain that James settling for that deep pullup at the end of regulation was at least as unforgivable)

And this actually ties into my earlier point about GS: they’re far, far better than the average NBA patsy but in the knockdown dragouts of best-of-7s versus similarly dominant teams… well, their style worked this year at least.

250

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Well I see you are still using the same tactics you used in the MLB thread:

  1. Flood the the thread with massively long posts to wear the people you’re arguing with down. Incapable of writing in a succinct manner? [/quote]

Gotta strongly disagree here.

DB’s writing style is many things and entertaining is def one of em.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
But I get it. You’re a necrophiliac like most of the rest of the sporting world. You’d rather dwell on the negative and the injuries and all that bullshit instead of celebrate life. Fine with me.[/quote]

Good stuff.

-edited-

251

Finals MVP:

Kelly olynyk

252

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
That isn’t by accident. All season, Kerr preached the value of keeping his guys fresh for the playoffs.[/quote]

While I enjoyed the Machiavelli tie-in, let’s not go overboard neither. HC-Kerr can plan ahead all he wants and injuries will always be a part of the game. And while Kerr looks like a genius at the moment, HC-Blatt will likely lose his job over the exact same criterion. (granted, over-playing Irving in Game 1 was borderline unforgivable, though I maintain that James settling for that deep pullup at the end of regulation was at least as unforgivable)

And this actually ties into my earlier point about GS: they’re far, far better than the average NBA patsy but in the knockdown dragouts of best-of-7s versus similarly dominant teams… well, their style worked this year at least.

[/quote]

You’re thinking of this team as if they’re a lucky version of D’Antoni’s Suns. The more apt comparison would be the Spurs. They have depth, they have a LOT of players who are long, good defenders at about 6’7", 6’8", which makes them versatile, they have TWO legitimate 7-foot centers in Bogut and Ezeli, and they have the best defense in the league.

Kerr said it himself: you’re going to be a very good team when you lead the league in assists and defensive efficiency.

In the knock-down, drag-out series, their style of play is exactly what wins because of their defense. Sure, they’re a bit streaky on offense, but not on defense. And they have enough weapons to find points when they need it. The worst they looked all postseason was in Game 3 and they still had everyone shitting bricks when they turned a 17-point deficit into a 1-point deficit in about 5 minutes. Depth, a balanced attack, tenacious defense from the starters AND the bench, excellent scorers, a roster loaded with unselfish, good passers, what else would you want to dominate a 7-game series?

In case you haven’t noticed, this isn’t the NBA we grew up with anymore. You’ve got guys like Durant at the small forward position, you’ve got more 7-footers with Nowitzki’s game than Shaq’s game, and every team likes to jack up threes. The game is turning into a faster-paced, 3-point oriented one, and the Warriors are the best in the league at that.

I would agree with your assessment of the Warriors if it didn’t so obviously ignore the growing trend in the NBA. It would have been a spot-on assessment 10 years ago, but not anymore. The game has changed.

253

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
That isn’t by accident. All season, Kerr preached the value of keeping his guys fresh for the playoffs.[/quote]

While I enjoyed the Machiavelli tie-in, let’s not go overboard neither. HC-Kerr can plan ahead all he wants and injuries will always be a part of the game. And while Kerr looks like a genius at the moment, HC-Blatt will likely lose his job over the exact same criterion. (granted, over-playing Irving in Game 1 was borderline unforgivable, though I maintain that James settling for that deep pullup at the end of regulation was at least as unforgivable)

And this actually ties into my earlier point about GS: they’re far, far better than the average NBA patsy but in the knockdown dragouts of best-of-7s versus similarly dominant teams… well, their style worked this year at least.

[/quote]

I see that you are also a necrophiliac.

Perhaps James settled for the pull-up jumper because his legs were too tired to get to the hoop. Even with Irving out there, he was dominating each possession and Iguodala was wearing him down. Rather than focus on how James misplayed it, why not focus on the fact that great team defense all game might have been the reason for the forced shot. Rather than focus on what James did wrong, why not focus on what the Warriors did right?

254

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If Irving doesn’t get injured, the Cavs never slow down the pace of play and the series is over in 5. Although the Cavs already played slower than almost all teams anyways, there was a marked difference in the pace of play once Irving went down. Playing slow and emphasizing post play is the one weakness of the Warriors. It just so happens that Irving getting injured forced them into that style of play even more, albeit with less bodies.[/quote]

If PG-Irving doesn’t get injured, well, we still have legit data from Game 1 to consider. And we see that CLE led basically wire-to-wire.

Of course GS still makes adjustments but here’s the thing: GS’s (only?) trump card was ultimately to play small ball – at which the hoop gods (likely) shuddered* – and any decent PG, nevermind Irving, will punish a team featuring D Green as their sole big.

*credit to TMQ’s Gregg Easterbrook for the phrase

I can mostly get on board with this, as T Thompson has filled in just fine at the pure-4. Still, Games 1-3 and 5 were all close and to ignore the effect of a stretch-4 on floor spacing, particularly in crunchtime of all those close ones, would be amateurish at best.
[/quote]

You are so off-base with your analysis. First of all, you’re operating with some sort of 1995-ish impression of the NBA. This isn’t Knicks/Heat in the mid to late 90’s. Being able to go small isn’t the sick joke it used to be.

Don’t forget, when the Warriors go small, they still have guys at 6’7" or 6’8" across the board, so their small is still bigger than most.

You say that any team with a decent PG would make them pay for this approach and that the hoops gods shudder.

First of all, there is no such thing as the hoops gods. You are simply referring to your own outdated dogma as axiomatic, and it has severely tainted your assessment of this team. Secondly, going small is the trump card the Warriors played against every single team in the NBA. And they won 67 games by an astonishing average margin of 11 points. That puts them into seriously elite company, so it isn’t like going with a small lineup wasn’t already an overwhelmingly effective approach for them.

To say that going with a smaller lineup was their only other card to play is also a joke. They’re the deepest team in the league by a long shot. They can go big or small with about a half-dozen combos each. Oh, Draymond Green isn’t playing well? Most teams would be fucked, but the Warriors just plug another guy in. Oh, Curry is having a poor shooting night? No biggie, Thompson just four straight 3’s. Oh, Bogut is getting worked down low? No problem, just pop Ezeli in there.

If Irving doesn’t get injured. Have you ever seen “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane”? But he DID get injured, chillain. He DID get injured. Besides, they may have led wire to wire, except that, well…they didn’t. The score was back and forth all game and the Warriors scored the first 10 points of overtime, because they were more well-rested. Irving went down when the game was already over with. So the only sample we have with Irving still resulted in the Warriors dominating the final period of play, just like they did in virtually every game this postseason.

I appreciate your commitment to the game of basketball, chillain. But I have to admit that everything you have said thus far in regards to the Warriors makes it clear you are working with some sort of superstition-laden, archaic impression of the NBA, and that you haven’t watched more than a handful of Warriors games all year.

255

The warriors took advantage of an injury stricken team, and still needed 6 games. There was no genius coaching decision, the other team was playing 6.5 guys and a child could have figured out theyll get exhausted at the end of the game. The only thing the warriors did right was that they did not lose the series.

256

1360×768 99.8 KB

[quote]Aggv wrote:
The warriors took advantage of an injury stricken team, and still needed 6 games. There was no genius coaching decision, the other team was playing 6.5 guys and a child could have figured out theyll get exhausted at the end of the game. The only thing the warriors did right was that they did not lose the series. [/quote]

257

enjoy your parade. Maybe next year you’ll play a whole team in finals.

258

Enjoy the Warriors Championship*

259

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Enjoy the Warriors Championship*

[/quote]

Sure thing, Mr. Bayless.

Looking back at some of the predictions you’ve made throughout this thread is absolutely hysterical!

260

[quote]Aggv wrote:
enjoy your parade. Maybe next year you’ll play a whole team in finals. [/quote]

Do you even have a team for whom you root? Or are you one of these losers who just throws negative shit toward those who are enjoying the moment because you’re jealous of the fact that it’s a feeling you’ve never enjoyed? What are you, a fucking Toronto fan?