NBA Playoffs 2012

Off Topic
841

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
If there was a one on one tournament with every guy in NBA history at their prime, you know some non-legend like JR smith would win… some guy who wasn’t a hall of famer at 5-on-5 but has 1-on-1 on lockdown.[/quote]

I’m on board with this logic, similar to those And1 tapes with dudes doing crazy ass shit, but their game just doesnt translate to 5-5 nba play. [/quote]

They’re doing “crazy shit” 'cause there’s absolutely zero defense being played. Some of those dudes can play, but most are just trick artists with relatively little game.[/quote]

You cant play defense on some of those moves. Good offense beats good defense everytime in basketball.
[/quote]

I really hope you’re joking. Those “moves” aren’t even legal as defined by the rules and are no more than parlor tricks.[/quote]

Yeah I’m actually on board with WF here… I wouldn’t extend my original statement to And-1 type players. I just mean some NBA players would be better at 1-on-1 than in a team game. Jamal Crawford comes to mind.

I shouldn’t even have to say this, but, the obvious caveat is I am NOT saying Jamal Crawford could beat any of those guys listed above, just that he’d be better at 1-on-1 than he is in an actual game.

842

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

James won the finals 'cause the league handed it to him. Let’s be real here.[/quote]

Ok, well, agree to disagree, you sure do have a vendetta against James though.

[quote]
Bryant would destroy these dudes, and just in case you didn’t realize this, Luther Head has defended both of these dudes. SEVERAL TIMES. Shane Battier told me the exact same thing a couple of years ago. Your arguement about players being shitty gm’s has absolutely no bearing when evaluating players they’re plaing/have played against. You know numbers that relate to the game but don’t know much about the actual game.[/quote]

Luther Head is a fucking awful player (by NBA standards) - you said this yourself in an earlier post that you couldn’t believe how bad he was - and can’t defend his own shadow.

Also, whether Head or Battier or any one particular player is better at defending Kobe or LBJ is irrelevant - what’s relevant is how the two particular players in a 1-on-1 defend each other.

I don’t have to have played basketball to know that James taking a Heat team with an injured Bosh and Wade (and nothing else) to an NBA ring is more impressive than Kobe flaming out in the 2nd round with 2 of the best 10 bigs in the league on his team for the second year in a row. And save your tired excuses about the refs.

No one has yet explained to me why the Spurs won and played in so many finals if the league rigs everything for revenue. They’re a team in a small market that the average fan finds incredibly boring to watch, and the TV ratings from each of their finals proves it.

843

Also, I would consider those players’ evaluations of James’ offense irrelevant because neither of them had to defend him this year, and IMO he had his most complete offensive game last year. He cut down on his 3PA, settled for jumpers less and got more shots in the post (career high FG% by a wide margin as a result of this).

844

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

James won the finals 'cause the league handed it to him. Let’s be real here.[/quote]

Ok, well, agree to disagree, you sure do have a vendetta against James though.

[quote]
Bryant would destroy these dudes, and just in case you didn’t realize this, Luther Head has defended both of these dudes. SEVERAL TIMES. Shane Battier told me the exact same thing a couple of years ago. Your arguement about players being shitty gm’s has absolutely no bearing when evaluating players they’re plaing/have played against. You know numbers that relate to the game but don’t know much about the actual game.[/quote]

Luther Head is a fucking awful player (by NBA standards) - you said this yourself in an earlier post that you couldn’t believe how bad he was - and can’t defend his own shadow.

Also, whether Head or Battier or any one particular player is better at defending Kobe or LBJ is irrelevant - what’s relevant is how the two particular players in a 1-on-1 defend each other.

I don’t have to have played basketball to know that James taking a Heat team with an injured Bosh and Wade (and nothing else) to an NBA ring is more impressive than Kobe flaming out in the 2nd round with 2 of the best 10 bigs in the league on his team for the second year in a row. And save your tired excuses about the refs.

No one has yet explained to me why the Spurs won and played in so many finals if the league rigs everything for revenue. They’re a team in a small market that the average fan finds incredibly boring to watch, and the TV ratings from each of their finals proves it.[/quote]

Jesus fucking Christ dude. I’ve explained to you SEVERAL times why the Spurs were getting pushed through as a dynasty. I shouldn’t have to keep explaining. And, I never said Head was bad, I said he was off. What I haven’t said is that that was the first time he’d touched a ball in months, and since then he doesn’t miss. I mean he’s literally shooting at a 90% clip out there. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and it’s horribly irritating reading your opinion on something you have no experience with.

845

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote: it’s horribly irritating reading your opinion on something you have no experience with.
[/quote]

Sorry, I forgot about that illustrious NBA career of yours.

You have explained your opinion of the Spurs dynasty, and it’s made no sense jiving with the theme that the NBA manufactures finals matchups according to dollar figures.

I am going to FINALLY put to rest the notion that NBA players have any clue what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to evaluating guys they play against

NBA Players vote Wesley Johnson better pure shooter than Kevin Durant: http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/150995975.html

DERRICK ROSE voted 15th best Pure Shooter in the league by players: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1205/nba.poll.best.pure.shooter/content.15.html

NBA Player Vote on which player you most want to start a team with:

11: Pau Gasol (good player, but 11th best to START A TEAM with?): http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1203/nba.poll.franchise.player/content.11.html

15: Andrew Bynum. Just listing this because they think 3 Lakers are in the top 15 players you would build a team with, but they got bounced in the 2nd round two years in a row with those three guys, so no way should all three be there.

Rondo was # 12, some people hate him, I thought that was a good choice.

In January 2011, 69% of players voted Lakers to win the title (not a single of the 157 players correctly guessed the Mavs): http://lakers.ocregister.com/2011/01/11/69-of-nba-players-predict-lakers-win-title/46540/

They lost in the 2nd round, as did the only other team receiving more than 3 % of the vote (Celtics at 22 % , lost in rd 2 to Heat).

Players show over and over that they believe in reputation over substance. You can’t blame them, they only see each team/player a few times a year (3 times/year nonconference, 4 times/year conference, more in division). But their view is skewed by reputation and by single game performances since they see so little of everyone.

846

There you go talking numbers again. Believe whatever you want dude. I’m done arguing.

847

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There you go talking numbers again.[/quote]

I love when you have no response. Classic Flash.

“What, they players said stupid things? It’s just numbers it can’t mean anything”

Translation: I can’t understand the point you’re trying to make, so it’s wrong.

848

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There you go talking numbers again.[/quote]

I love when you have no response. Classic Flash.

“What, they players said stupid things? It’s just numbers it can’t mean anything”

Translation: I can’t understand the point you’re trying to make, so it’s wrong.[/quote]

Good god you’re a jackass. It’s not that I don’t have a response dickhead, it’s that there’s no point in arguing with you. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and you go to meaningless surveys to back your point, even when it doesn’t. IF THE DUDES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PLAYING SAY SOMETHING, LISTEN 'CAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU OR I. Whether you agree with it is irrelevant.

849

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

Wrong question raj. Of course people are going to be paying attention to Lin. The better question is anyone going to give a fuck about the Knicks now that Lin is gone. Jeremy Lin was the only reason the Knicks were relevant last season, sans Lin and with Brooklyn in the spotlight they likely won’t be grabbing headlines anymore (maybe if J. Kidd turns up to a game tipsy or wasted). [/quote]

LOL, Lin wasn’t event the best player on the Knicks. Or the 2nd best. Or the 3rd best.

He might surpass Chandler or Amare in the next couple years but lets be honest with ourselves about his accomplishments thus far.

I liked him and wish the Knicks would’ve signed him but saying no one is going to give a fuck about the Knicks because he’s gone is ridiculous. There were more Knicks fans than Nets fans in New Jersey before Linsanity. This is in a state with 8 million people alone where basketball is popular.

[/quote]

Didn’t say anything on how good he was only reiteraed what analysts have said in that with Lin gone the Knicks have lost the “casual fan” who was interested in Linsanity and made the Knicks relevant again (supported by the wins Lin brought them).

Obviously I don’t live in NY so I don’t know how it really is over there and I’m relying on fan reaction (on boards and in the media) and commentator predictions.

There is no way you can deny Lin sparked a new level of interest in the Knicks that hasn’t been seen for a while. Not only did he become insanely popular but he actually helped them win games. He gave the Knicks hope and now he’s gone - there is no doubt there won’t be the same level of interest for the Knicks as seen last season.

850

If they win there will be major interest, NYC is a basketball town.

KNICKS NETS NOVEMBER 1…gotta get tickets ASAP!

851

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

There is no way you can deny Lin sparked a new level of interest in the Knicks that hasn’t been seen for a while. Not only did he become insanely popular but he actually helped them win games. He gave the Knicks hope and now he’s gone - there is no doubt there won’t be the same level of interest for the Knicks as seen last season. [/quote]

I’m definitely not denying that. My Asian wife and all her Asians friends were buzzing about the guy during “Linsanity” along with my co-workers who aren’t really basketball fans. They still ask about him. But calling Knick’s irrelevant is way too far. They’ve still got the 3rd best team in the East Conference on paper IMO. Whether they execute will be a different story. They would’ve been a much better team with Lin and I question the move to start recruiting senior citizens to the lineup. However, while fans maybe disappointed they didn’t pickup Lin, I don’t think any are giving up hope in their team. If Amare stays healthy and Schumpert doesn’t lose any quickness due to surgery, they’ll be solid.

852

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There you go talking numbers again.[/quote]

I love when you have no response. Classic Flash.

“What, they players said stupid things? It’s just numbers it can’t mean anything”

Translation: I can’t understand the point you’re trying to make, so it’s wrong.[/quote]

Good god you’re a jackass. It’s not that I don’t have a response dickhead, it’s that there’s no point in arguing with you. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and you go to meaningless surveys to back your point, even when it doesn’t. IF THE DUDES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PLAYING SAY SOMETHING, LISTEN 'CAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU OR I. Whether you agree with it is irrelevant. [/quote]

Ok, so, Derrick Rose is the 15th best PURE SHOOTER in the league because players say so?

What I’m arguing against is blindly believing them. They don’t see all teams/players an equal amount of times. They may be right 90% of the time but not 100%.

The experts in any given field are not always right about their field.

853

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

Wrong question raj. Of course people are going to be paying attention to Lin. The better question is anyone going to give a fuck about the Knicks now that Lin is gone. Jeremy Lin was the only reason the Knicks were relevant last season, sans Lin and with Brooklyn in the spotlight they likely won’t be grabbing headlines anymore (maybe if J. Kidd turns up to a game tipsy or wasted). [/quote]

LOL, Lin wasn’t event the best player on the Knicks. Or the 2nd best. Or the 3rd best.

He might surpass Chandler or Amare in the next couple years but lets be honest with ourselves about his accomplishments thus far.

I liked him and wish the Knicks would’ve signed him but saying no one is going to give a fuck about the Knicks because he’s gone is ridiculous. There were more Knicks fans than Nets fans in New Jersey before Linsanity. This is in a state with 8 million people alone where basketball is popular.

[/quote]

Didn’t say anything on how good he was only reiteraed what analysts have said in that with Lin gone the Knicks have lost the “casual fan” who was interested in Linsanity and made the Knicks relevant again (supported by the wins Lin brought them).

Obviously I don’t live in NY so I don’t know how it really is over there and I’m relying on fan reaction (on boards and in the media) and commentator predictions.

There is no way you can deny Lin sparked a new level of interest in the Knicks that hasn’t been seen for a while. Not only did he become insanely popular but he actually helped them win games. He gave the Knicks hope and now he’s gone - there is no doubt there won’t be the same level of interest for the Knicks as seen last season. [/quote]

The thing is, if you’re gonna say you can’t afford Lin for 5/5/15 mil next 3 yrs, how are you gonna sign aging/crappy Kidd-Camby-Felton combo to 10mil/yr? I’d much rather have Lin than those 3. At least Lin is young w/ upside. Those 3 are past their prime and coming off bad years. And Felton is a shorter Eddy Curry.

854

Being an NBA player is not necessary to understand the NBA. Gregg Popovich is probably the best coach, 0 games played.

855

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

Wrong question raj. Of course people are going to be paying attention to Lin. The better question is anyone going to give a fuck about the Knicks now that Lin is gone. Jeremy Lin was the only reason the Knicks were relevant last season, sans Lin and with Brooklyn in the spotlight they likely won’t be grabbing headlines anymore (maybe if J. Kidd turns up to a game tipsy or wasted). [/quote]

LOL, Lin wasn’t event the best player on the Knicks. Or the 2nd best. Or the 3rd best.

He might surpass Chandler or Amare in the next couple years but lets be honest with ourselves about his accomplishments thus far.

I liked him and wish the Knicks would’ve signed him but saying no one is going to give a fuck about the Knicks because he’s gone is ridiculous. There were more Knicks fans than Nets fans in New Jersey before Linsanity. This is in a state with 8 million people alone where basketball is popular.

[/quote]

Didn’t say anything on how good he was only reiteraed what analysts have said in that with Lin gone the Knicks have lost the “casual fan” who was interested in Linsanity and made the Knicks relevant again (supported by the wins Lin brought them).

Obviously I don’t live in NY so I don’t know how it really is over there and I’m relying on fan reaction (on boards and in the media) and commentator predictions.

There is no way you can deny Lin sparked a new level of interest in the Knicks that hasn’t been seen for a while. Not only did he become insanely popular but he actually helped them win games. He gave the Knicks hope and now he’s gone - there is no doubt there won’t be the same level of interest for the Knicks as seen last season. [/quote]

The thing is, if you’re gonna say you can’t afford Lin for 5/5/15 mil next 3 yrs, how are you gonna sign aging/crappy Kidd-Camby-Felton combo to 10mil/yr? I’d much rather have Lin than those 3. At least Lin is young w/ upside. Those 3 are past their prime and coming off bad years. And Felton is a shorter Eddy Curry.[/quote]

Thats overboard, for their impending roles they were good moves. I would have rather have Lin than Felton as well FTR. But having Camby off the bench to backup the 4 and 5 is an excellent move, Kidd as a backup for 15 minutes a game is also a good move and he can still distribute. Felton is not a PG version of Eddy Curry, he is nothing more than a solid PG, albeit nothing special, yeah I get it hes chubby. This is a 3 year plan if it doesent work they will start all over. The knicks were not expected to make any real moves in the offseason, and they somehow did and overall their roster is improved, and deeper. Camby and Kidd will stil be on the knicks even if they had signed Lin, it was never those 3 or Lin.

856

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There you go talking numbers again.[/quote]

I love when you have no response. Classic Flash.

“What, they players said stupid things? It’s just numbers it can’t mean anything”

Translation: I can’t understand the point you’re trying to make, so it’s wrong.[/quote]

Good god you’re a jackass. It’s not that I don’t have a response dickhead, it’s that there’s no point in arguing with you. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and you go to meaningless surveys to back your point, even when it doesn’t. IF THE DUDES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PLAYING SAY SOMETHING, LISTEN 'CAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU OR I. Whether you agree with it is irrelevant. [/quote]

Ok, so, Derrick Rose is the 15th best PURE SHOOTER in the league because players say so?

What I’m arguing against is blindly believing them. They don’t see all teams/players an equal amount of times. They may be right 90% of the time but not 100%.

The experts in any given field are not always right about their field.[/quote]

You gotta take things in context. I personally wouldn’t put Rose up there, but I’m not sure how the question was asked, or if we’re taking into account minutes played. For example, Mike Miller is obviously a lights out shooter, but his effectiveness gets greatly diminished when he plays anything over 20 minutes. You could sub any of the leagues marksmen in place of Miller there. And, these dudes don’t just see each other a few times a year. These cats play ALL YEAR ROUND. Most of the big names workout with one another in the off-season. There is also ridiculously detailed scouting reports on EVERYONE. These dudes know who can play. So, when they say Wesley Johnson is a better spotter than Durant, I might not agree, but I’ll listen. And, they obviously don’t mean player or scorer, they mean standstill shooter even if the percentages don’t reflect it.

857

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

Wrong question raj. Of course people are going to be paying attention to Lin. The better question is anyone going to give a fuck about the Knicks now that Lin is gone. Jeremy Lin was the only reason the Knicks were relevant last season, sans Lin and with Brooklyn in the spotlight they likely won’t be grabbing headlines anymore (maybe if J. Kidd turns up to a game tipsy or wasted). [/quote]

LOL, Lin wasn’t event the best player on the Knicks. Or the 2nd best. Or the 3rd best.

He might surpass Chandler or Amare in the next couple years but lets be honest with ourselves about his accomplishments thus far.

I liked him and wish the Knicks would’ve signed him but saying no one is going to give a fuck about the Knicks because he’s gone is ridiculous. There were more Knicks fans than Nets fans in New Jersey before Linsanity. This is in a state with 8 million people alone where basketball is popular.

[/quote]

Didn’t say anything on how good he was only reiteraed what analysts have said in that with Lin gone the Knicks have lost the “casual fan” who was interested in Linsanity and made the Knicks relevant again (supported by the wins Lin brought them).

Obviously I don’t live in NY so I don’t know how it really is over there and I’m relying on fan reaction (on boards and in the media) and commentator predictions.

There is no way you can deny Lin sparked a new level of interest in the Knicks that hasn’t been seen for a while. Not only did he become insanely popular but he actually helped them win games. He gave the Knicks hope and now he’s gone - there is no doubt there won’t be the same level of interest for the Knicks as seen last season. [/quote]

The thing is, if you’re gonna say you can’t afford Lin for 5/5/15 mil next 3 yrs, how are you gonna sign aging/crappy Kidd-Camby-Felton combo to 10mil/yr? I’d much rather have Lin than those 3. At least Lin is young w/ upside. Those 3 are past their prime and coming off bad years. And Felton is a shorter Eddy Curry.[/quote]

Thats overboard, for their impending roles they were good moves. I would have rather have Lin than Felton as well FTR. But having Camby off the bench to backup the 4 and 5 is an excellent move, Kidd as a backup for 15 minutes a game is also a good move and he can still distribute. Felton is not a PG version of Eddy Curry, he is nothing more than a solid PG, albeit nothing special, yeah I get it hes chubby. This is a 3 year plan if it doesent work they will start all over. The knicks were not expected to make any real moves in the offseason, and they somehow did and overall their roster is improved, and deeper. Camby and Kidd will stil be on the knicks even if they had signed Lin, it was never those 3 or Lin. [/quote]

A) Kidd was awful last year. He will probably represent an improvement over Baron at backup PG though.
B) I object to the years on Kidd’s contract moreso than the dollars. 3 year deal for 3 mil/yr is waaaay too much. Who were they bidding against that would even have offered him 2 yrs?

858

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There you go talking numbers again.[/quote]

I love when you have no response. Classic Flash.

“What, they players said stupid things? It’s just numbers it can’t mean anything”

Translation: I can’t understand the point you’re trying to make, so it’s wrong.[/quote]

Good god you’re a jackass. It’s not that I don’t have a response dickhead, it’s that there’s no point in arguing with you. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and you go to meaningless surveys to back your point, even when it doesn’t. IF THE DUDES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PLAYING SAY SOMETHING, LISTEN 'CAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU OR I. Whether you agree with it is irrelevant. [/quote]

Ok, so, Derrick Rose is the 15th best PURE SHOOTER in the league because players say so?

What I’m arguing against is blindly believing them. They don’t see all teams/players an equal amount of times. They may be right 90% of the time but not 100%.

The experts in any given field are not always right about their field.[/quote]

You gotta take things in context. I personally wouldn’t put Rose up there, but I’m not sure how the question was asked, or if we’re taking into account minutes played. For example, Mike Miller is obviously a lights out shooter, but his effectiveness gets greatly diminished when he plays anything over 20 minutes. You could sub any of the leagues marksmen in place of Miller there. And, these dudes don’t just see each other a few times a year. These cats play ALL YEAR ROUND. Most of the big names workout with one another in the off-season. There is also ridiculously detailed scouting reports on EVERYONE. These dudes know who can play. So, when they say Wesley Johnson is a better spotter than Durant, I might not agree, but I’ll listen. And, they obviously don’t mean player or scorer, they mean standstill shooter even if the percentages don’t reflect it.
[/quote]

Fair enough, I just hate the “players say this so therefore you’re wrong”. Players are people and people aren’t foolproof. Especially when taken one player at a time - Battier might have a harder time guarding Kobe because of some specific things he hates guarding against, for example. It doesn’t mean every player shares his opinion.

Most of the guys you talk to in HOU are Western Conference players I assume, so they are also playing against and scouting against Kobe much more often.

Not too long ago, all the top astronomers KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe, ya know? You can’t take the experts at their word just because they agree on something.

859

^ I get what you’re saying, and everybody’s entitled to their own opinion. Still, I’m taking Bryant every time. And, I’d say the players I’ve spoken with are split pretty evenly between conferences. You’d be surprised how many pro athletes either have homes or just like to kick it here in Houston.

860

Post got eaten.

Someone actually made a 34minute video of Jordan highlights. What amazes me about him is that no matter how sure the defense is that he’ll take the shot - frequent double teams - somehow 90 % of his shots are uncontested or poorly contested. To me that’s the difference between him and Kobe. Kobe takes tough shots (and is great at hitting them) but MJ somehow always finds a spot of daylight to take an uncontested shot.

If someone is slightly out of position, he goes up too quickly to react. He has a super quick pump fake. If you stand your ground on his pump fake he is immediately going up because he knows you’re looking for the fake and will be late. Also he goes from a full-speed to drive to a stop-and-pullup-jumper so damn quickly it’s insane.

Fun to have up in the background and glance at every 5 minutes or so while at work.