The numbers in a G4 for a road team up 3-0 are extremely favorable for the sweep. It’s around 65% or so iirc.Portland was -3 on Saturday for Game 3. Tonight Portland is +2.5 even with Iguadola out.
Both teams know it’s over in G5 anyway so why kill yourself in G4. That’s kinda what most of these 3-0 G4’s seem to feel like.For a conference finals elimination game it's being played with very little intensity. Good shooting though.
I don't buy that Portland is going to submit. They got this far on a grit and grind mentality. I am not saying they will even win this game but I have watched a ton of Blazers basketball this season and their success is a function of their playing great team basketball and Stotts making good adjustments.Both teams know it’s over in G5 anyway so why kill yourself in G4. That’s kinda what most of these 3-0 G4’s seem to feel like.
I love how Meyers Leonard developed a 3 point shot but Ben Simmons can’t even make a mid range jumper.Meyers Leonard. NBA superstar
Not seeing much grit and grind in this game. Leonard has 25, they're shooting 9-16 from 3 and they're only up 4. Gonna have to play some D in the 2nd half if they want to win.I don't buy that Portland is going to submit. They got this far on a grit and grind mentality. I am not saying they will even win this game but I have watched a ton of Blazers basketball this season and their success is a function of their playing great team basketball and Stotts making good adjustments.
Its about the best commentary that Van Gundy has made all postseason. We need Doris..."If you're not going to bang him now when are you going to bang him." - JVG
Simmons would respond its "by choice, man"I love how Meyers Leonard developed a 3 point shot but Ben Simmons can’t even make a mid range jumper.
Meyers always had excellent mechanics though and was a good midrange shooter out to 15-18 feet in college. Simmons is starting out like I did when I was 5.I love how Meyers Leonard developed a 3 point shot but Ben Simmons can’t even make a mid range jumper.
They pretty much gave up in G3. The thing these 0-3 teams usually struggle with is the 3rd or 4th quarter runs where they aren’t mentally able to withstand it.I don't buy that Portland is going to submit. They got this far on a grit and grind mentality. I am not saying they will even win this game but I have watched a ton of Blazers basketball this season and their success is a function of their playing great team basketball and Stotts making good adjustments.
They didn't give up. They got flat out steamrolled by the core of a modern dynasty that kicked it up a notch on both ends of the floor. Tjarks from The Ringer discusses it in brilliant detail today.They pretty much gave up in G3. The thing these 0-3 teams usually struggle with is the 3rd or 4th quarter runs where they aren’t mentally able to withstand it.
Blazers are letting them hang around despite a run of foul calls there.Doesn’t look like the Warriors night.
I feel like there's a Veneta reference waiting to be woven in here.Fans and writers often use the word “embarrassing” to describe athletes or teams. “That Sox effort was embarrassing.” It almost always strikes me as odd and misplaced. Losing is a function of so many things, including the talent on the other side. As a fan, I’ve of course felt disappointment and sadness but never really embarrassment. This year’s Celtics squad, however, with all the unrealized talent and Kyrie’s various antics, made me understand how that term might just be appropriate at times.
But there was one very big reason why the Bucks series was still not that bothersome: The Warriors. With or without Durant, the Eastern Conference playoffs seemed and still seems to me to be an inevitable death march to a 4 or 5, and in the best scenario, 6 game dumping.
What a team they are. That Bobby Weir supports them in person is nice, too.
I was listening to some national radio schmuck ranting about “Portland’s blown leads” etc etc......lol. The Blazers didn’t “blow” any leads. The Warriors flipped the switch and went on runs that the Blazers had no answer for because they aren’t remotely close to the Warriors level. Even without Iguodala on top of Durant being out they needed a 25-pt first half from Meyers Leonard to not be down double digits at the half.Interesting stat, at least to me: the Blazers led for more minutes in the series (101) than the Warriors (83). That wouldn't be too crazy if the Blazers had won a game or two... but seems pretty rare for a sweep.
Yup, without Durant, Green and Curry get to shine more. Nice double triple-doubles. Opponents shoot 40% from 3 and you still win on the road.The Warriors are an all-time great collection of talent, no doubt about it. Great team.
I'm bored with these playoffs though; at least we don't have to watch them beat LeBron again in the Finals.
I am doing some coaching with the new Canadian pro league the CeBL. Early on we played teams with no scouting and all I could do was look at past stats, et online. Of the 30-40 guys I looked at probably 6 guys were not 3 point shooters in college, but are now 3 point shooters. One guy went from a nonshooter, and now is a on rosters as a 3point specialist. That is rare, but he was good ft shooter and dunk contest type athlete as a young guy. He has stuck around pro, by changing his game. Usually you see lighting quick 3 point liabilities become passable, "will make it if ou give it to them" type guys. Very rare a guy is a bad shooter and becomes a 3 shooter. A few guys, especially bigs, may never shoot the 3 in college but to survive overseas have to add the 3. These guys were usually decent touch guys that were at a program where they didn't need to make 3s.Meyers always had excellent mechanics though and was a good midrange shooter out to 15-18 feet in college. Simmons is starting out like I did when I was 5.
This is interesting to me, as we are now seeing a lot of guys, particularly big men, specifically focus on three point shooting, well into their careers. Until the 17-18 season, Dewayne Dedmon had attempted exactly one three pointer in his career. Over the last two seasons, he has made 133 out of 359 (37 percent) attempts. The reason is obvious, guys who fringe-rotation players can get more minutes if they can also space the floor in addition to the typical big man stuff (rebound, set screens, protect the rim, etc.) that more limited players need to be able to do to make it.I am doing some coaching with the new Canadian pro league the CeBL. Early on we played teams with no scouting and all I could do was look at past stats, et online. Of the 30-40 guys I looked at probably 6 guys were not 3 point shooters in college, but are now 3 point shooters. One guy went from a nonshooter, and now is a on rosters as a 3point specialist. That is rare, but he was good ft shooter and dunk contest type athlete as a young guy. He has stuck around pro, by changing his game. Usually you see lighting quick 3 point liabilities become passable, "will make it if ou give it to them" type guys. Very rare a guy is a bad shooter and becomes a 3 shooter. A few guys, especially bigs, may never shoot the 3 in college but to survive overseas have to add the 3. These guys were usually decent touch guys that were at a program where they didn't need to make 3s.
Anyway i am struck by how the game has evolved. This is summer league with 70% Canadian players, and most of the forwards (6-10 and up) can make 3s. There are 2 7 footers that are very good 3 point shooters.
That kind of makes sense though. With guys like Deadmon and Baynes, were are not talking about incredibly skilled offensive players. Baynes is never going to be a 20 ppg scorer, he doesn't and will never have that offensive skill level. The catch-and-shoot three point shooting is a skill that is probably easier for these more limited players to learn, as compared to trying to teach them a variety of post moves. So it isn't that surprising that a player that doesn't have great offensive fundamentals can hit an open shot.It is weird for me a bit. We have a 6-10 guy that has no jumphook, We get switches with guards and ofen he gets a dunk, but other than that he struggles if the guard gets behind and pushes him out a bit. But he can make threes. He is really valuable. At one time abig that didn't crucify guards in a post up would be chased out of the game, but the fact he makes other shot blockers get out on him is so valuable.
I think it is more guys recognising where their bread is buttered. A big guy with athleticism to play pro will dunk a big number of his 2s, and maybe shoot 5 foot banks for another chunk. But if he can make 3s he can move up a level. So he spends his time shooting threes. Usually all the work on his shot transfers to the FT line too, which is something else he does more than post moves. Don't get me wrong ten minutes a day on his jumphook the last few years and these guys are better players and starter material. But the 3 is the thing. Also think it is easier on a big man's body. One fairly heavy footer was joking he saved himself a lot of miles by stopping at the 3 point line saying if he was post up guy he would be retired.That kind of makes sense though. With guys like Deadmon and Baynes, were are not talking about incredibly skilled offensive players. Baynes is never going to be a 20 ppg scorer, he doesn't and will never have that offensive skill level. The catch-and-shoot three point shooting is a skill that is probably easier for these more limited players to learn, as compared to trying to teach them a variety of post moves. So it isn't that surprising that a player that doesn't have great offensive fundamentals can hit an open shot.
These 3pt shooting BIGs are cheap/good value in the NBA.I think it is more guys recognising where their bread is buttered. A big guy with athleticism to play pro will dunk a big number of his 2s, and maybe shoot 5 foot banks for another chunk. But if he can make 3s he can move up a level. So he spends his time shooting threes. Usually all the work on his shot transfers to the FT line too, which is something else he does more than post moves. Don't get me wrong ten minutes a day on his jumphook the last few years and these guys are better players and starter material. But the 3 is the thing. Also think it is easier on a big man's body. One fairly heavy footer was joking he saved himself a lot of miles by stopping at the 3 point line saying if he was post up guy he would be retired.
Another thing to consider is that all bigs aren’t created the same. I’ve seen instances where bigs had the ability to shoot from the perimeter based on their warmups, practices, shootarounds, etc.....but the coaches (old school) system simply would not allow for it. I’m guessing that Dedmon would fall into that category as his FT% took a nice leap from his Fr to So year in college which is a great sign for a kid who didn’t begin playing the game until he was finishing up high school.That kind of makes sense though. With guys like Deadmon and Baynes, were are not talking about incredibly skilled offensive players. Baynes is never going to be a 20 ppg scorer, he doesn't and will never have that offensive skill level. The catch-and-shoot three point shooting is a skill that is probably easier for these more limited players to learn, as compared to trying to teach them a variety of post moves. So it isn't that surprising that a player that doesn't have great offensive fundamentals can hit an open shot.
This post is wonderful for multiple reasons. Thanks for that.Another thing to consider is that all bigs aren’t created the same. I’ve seen instances where bigs had the ability to shoot from the perimeter based on their warmups, practices, shootarounds, etc.....but the coaches (old school) system simply would not allow for it. I’m guessing that Dedmon would fall into that category as his FT% took a nice leap from his Fr to So year in college which is a great sign for a kid who didn’t begin playing the game until he was finishing up high school.
Two examples immediately come to mind but then with though a ton others do to. When KAT was at Kentucky some questioned his range as a face-up shooter based on his usage at UK without knowing that in HS he was a high volume and excellent 3-pt shooter. Reggie Cleveland’s example reminded me of a kid I played pro-am summer league with who went to Seton Hall named Jim Dickinson. He was a super soft 7-1 kid with NBA 3-pt range which is how he played in the summers where he was effective......yet Carlesimo was that old school coach who had him try to win minutes as a traditional low post 5. This is where I learned about coaches reputations often not representing their true abilities......PJ had no idea how to get a lethal 3-point shooter on the floor but some dude who played D-3 ball and worked at the YMCA was able to utilize him on his summer league team by playing to his strengths.