Clippers got em right where they want them.
Any word on KL or CP coming back? Those two back would really make this a classic series.
Any word on KL or CP coming back? Those two back would really make this a classic series.
Agreed. Great design and execution. Everything had to be perfect, and it was.That screen, pass and tip under those circumstances is one of the best plays I've ever seen. Three things done well with no room for error.
And no member of the media will dare ask Lue whether he was doing that intentionally.Clearly an officiating travesty with the attempted substitutions at the end, but it seems like at some point the team attempting to pull that BS should be penalized. Clippers knew exactly what they were doing, and caused a huge delay when they had no timeouts. Should be a technical.
They had already had a long review before that, how long do you think they needed to come up with a full court heave?Clearly an officiating travesty with the attempted substitutions at the end, but it seems like at some point the team attempting to pull that BS should be penalized. Clippers knew exactly what they were doing, and caused a huge delay when they had no timeouts. Should be a technical.
Yup, it turns out that being really bad for really long means you get a lot of bites at the apple, pick-wise. Then once you finally bink a few with Booker, Ayton, have a couple of the late lottery wings develop ok, you add in a few vets and you're good to go.They also drafted Booker 13th
Oh wow, didn't realize they had run literally exactly that in the same situation before.
4 years ago I think.Oh wow, didn't realize they had run literally exactly that in the same situation before.
Hey, how many times did the Pats run that same 2 point conversion play where Kevin Faulk/Danny Woodhead/Shane Vereen/James White took a direct snap from center after Brady faked receiving the snap? Worked a lot!
Any idea how the tv ratings were? That seems like a terrible way to keep casual fans invested. But I feel the NCAA Tournament has always been very slow at the end of games and that is hugely popular.
Overall these playoffs have been robust.Any idea how the tv ratings were? That seems like a terrible way to keep casual fans invested. But I feel the NCAA Tournament has always been very slow at the end of games and that is hugely popular.
If it's causing viewers to tune out, the league needs to fix the system during the offseason. I'd like them to fix it regardless, I hate watching officials stare at screens for minutes on end...put in a 24 second review clock, if it's indecisive after that the original call stands.
It generally comes down to how we rank peak vs. the counting/longevity stuff, but I can't remember anyone having a better individual playoff at both ends. He's absurd.Really good article by Zach Lowe on Durant's incredible performance in the playoffs. Lowe mentions he is borderline Top 10 all-time for him, and Simmons said he moved him into his top 10, pushing him past Hakeem. I'll go as far as say that I think Durant is better than Kobe.
https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31688736/nba-playoffs-2021-kevin-durant-jaw-dropping-playoffs-answered-perhaps-season-biggest-question
There’s nothing else on (other than hockey) that’s live (or that people watch live)Overall these playoffs have been robust.
View: https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1407523269767532553?s=21
Don’t run this take by anyone living in California. Lakers fans still have him #2 all time .Is that a debate? KD quite clearly has eclipsed Kobe, IMO.
I live in Los Angeles. I only whisper it. (And you're wrong: they have him no. 1).Don’t run this take by anyone living in California. Lakers fans still have him #2 all time .
Wrt Kobe vs Durant, the only real arguments for Kobe are based on accolades and championships. Championships are definitely a valid data point for a star player in basketball, as opposed to baseball where individuals can’t singlehandedly carry a team, but even so IMO Durant is clearly a better player than Kobe, and anyone saying otherwise is just saying so because of the wrongheaded idea that Kobe is a top 3 or so player ever (way too many people believe this)It generally comes down to how we rank peak vs. the counting/longevity stuff, but I can't remember anyone having a better individual playoff at both ends. He's absurd.
Totally fair to include championships in one's reckoning of greatness, but that's also why there's always such spirited debates on these subjects. Was just talking with my son this past week about where Durant fits and where CP3 fits (among point guards). We end up on a tangent of where Stockton and Malone fit at their positions and whether you hold their lack of titles against them. Does Wilt get dinged for a shortage of titles, relative to his greatness? Jerry West (who still has the record for finals lost iirc)? And wrt Malone, how much of his rep is based on accumulation?Wrt Kobe vs Durant, the only real arguments for Kobe are based on accolades and championships. Championships are definitely a valid data point for a star player in basketball, as opposed to baseball where individuals can’t singlehandedly carry a team, but even so IMO Durant is clearly a better player than Kobe, and anyone saying otherwise is just saying so because of the wrongheaded idea that Kobe is a top 3 or so player ever (way too many people believe this)
Yeah, didn’t think that even a debate. Statistically it’s not that close, so we’re left with Kobe’s dubious “clutchness” in his column. But even by the tired and rather silly “who do you want taking the last shot?” measure … is that even a debate?Is that a debate? KD quite clearly has eclipsed Kobe, IMO.
I don't know if I'd bump him past Hakeem. Hakeem was a destructive defensive force during an era when a rim-protecting big was the most valuable role in basketball. Durant can be a very good defensive player when he's engaged but he doesn't have anything close to Hakeem's impact on that end.Really good article by Zach Lowe on Durant's incredible performance in the playoffs. Lowe mentions he is borderline Top 10 all-time for him, and Simmons said he moved him into his top 10, pushing him past Hakeem. I'll go as far as say that I think Durant is better than Kobe.
https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31688736/nba-playoffs-2021-kevin-durant-jaw-dropping-playoffs-answered-perhaps-season-biggest-question
I realize this is a tough loss since you’re shitting on the Suns playing without CP3, but there’s nothing wrong with the rule. It is what it is. If you defend it better that doesn’t happen. If the ball goes in without being touched, it’s a turnover. Pretty simple.If it's a rule, it needs to be changed. The ball was clearly in the cylinder.
Yep. That's a cherry picked stat. I would say that interest in the league is as low as it has been since the post Jordan, pre Lebron years (Spurs 1.0).There’s nothing else on (other than hockey) that’s live (or that people watch live)
Different tv environment with DVR and streaming
Is defense in any way part of the consideration?I think Steph’s clearly ahead of Kobe, too (trying as best I can to take my obvious bias out of it). Steph crushes him by stats, plus was/is a sui generis game-changer, whereas Kobe was a remarkably good imitation of a better player (who happens to be the GOAT, but still).
Harden v. Kobe seems like more of a debate, since at least you get stats on one side of the ledger and clutchness/ringzz on the other.
It's a complicated argument. I agree that Hakeem was a dominant force at both ends and deserves proper recognition. The game he played was very different than Durant, which in the end makes these kind of arguments fruitless.I don't know if I'd bump him past Hakeem. Hakeem was a destructive defensive force during an era when a rim-protecting big was the most valuable role in basketball. Durant can be a very good defensive player when he's engaged but he doesn't have anything close to Hakeem's impact on that end.
I don't know how old you are, but as someone who bore witness to the entirety of Karl Malone's career, I feel that it incumbent upon me (and fellow witnesses) to advise those younger than us that Karl Malone was a great player but Karl Malone had a tendency to come up small when it really mattered and Karl Malone's MVP over Jordan was a joke when it happened.Totally fair to include championships in one's reckoning of greatness, but that's also why there's always such spirited debates on these subjects. Was just talking with my son this past week about where Durant fits and where CP3 fits (among point guards). We end up on a tangent of where Stockton and Malone fit at their positions and whether you hold their lack of titles against them. Does Wilt get dinged for a shortage of titles, relative to his greatness? Jerry West (who still has the record for finals lost iirc)? And wrt Malone, how much of his rep is based on accumulation?
Kobe is by far the most polarizing of these figures, as some folks won't have him in top 10 all time at all, and some have him near the top.
While I not big on trying to rank players all-time, I'm with you. Not to take anything away from KD, who was certainly the best player in the playoffs, Hakeem could do more. Plus, below is a list of teammates with whom Hakeem played more than 20 playoff games. Not exactly a group of guys that strike fear in other teams. And other than Ralph, the other big names (Drexler, Barkley, etc.) came at the tail ends of their careers. The two teams that won B2B were among the least talented NBA champions of all time.I don't know if I'd bump him past Hakeem. Hakeem was a destructive defensive force during an era when a rim-protecting big was the most valuable role in basketball. Durant can be a very good defensive player when he's engaged but he doesn't have anything close to Hakeem's impact on that end.
He’s also a piece of shit who impregnated a minor.I don't know how old you are, but as someone who bore witness to the entirety of Karl Malone's career, I feel that it incumbent upon me (and fellow witnesses) to advise those younger than us that Karl Malone was a great player but Karl Malone had a tendency to come up small when it really mattered and Karl Malone's MVP over Jordan was a joke when it happened.
Also, Karl Malone tended to refer to himself as Karl Malone.
I don't think there is any real evidence that interest in the NBA is low. It's one of the fastest growing international sports, and domestically it seems to be doing well. People using TV ratings at all are missing the point, yes Cuban is pointing to a cherry picked stat, but so are most people arguing that interest is down, and honestly Cuban's cherry picked stat is more useful than pure ratings. The article that started the conversation has some nice info on measuring audiences. We can't tell for sure, but I would guess NBA interest is the highest it's ever been because of the global growth. If I were investing in an American sports league it would be the NBAYep. That's a cherry picked stat. I would say that interest in the league is as low as it has been since the post Jordan, pre Lebron years (Spurs 1.0).
Probably, you;d need to see the rule interpretations to see if they consider an inbound a live ball, might be an exception that isn't clear via rulebookUnless I'm reading things incorrectly or they made a rule change, that play would be Basket Interference in a NCAA game. Their thinking is that BI is different from goaltending and with BI it doesn't matter how the ball got over the cylinder, it can't be touched by anyone.
I agree with your general point (although Hakeem won his titles in years where the league was relatively low in talent compared to other eras, including today) but Clyde Drexler was a very good #2 on the second title team, he averaged 21-7-5, shot the ball well (50% from the floor,36% from three, which was good back then) and was a strong and disruptive defender. He averaged a 22-10-7 in the sweep of Orlando.While I not big on trying to rank players all-time, I'm with you. Not to take anything away from KD, who was certainly the best player in the playoffs, Hakeem could do more. Plus, below is a list of teammates with whom Hakeem played more than 20 playoff games. Not exactly a group of guys that strike fear in other teams. And other than Ralph, the other big names (Drexler, Barkley, etc.) came at the tail ends of their careers. The two teams that won B2B were among the least talented NBA champions of all time.
Mario Elie
Kenny Smith
Robert Horry
Sam Cassell
Clyde Drexler
Otis Thorpe
Vernon Maxwell
Rodney McCray
Robert Reid
Jim Petersen
Allen Leavell
Ralph Sampson
Matt Bullard
Mitchell Wiggins
Chucky Brown
Carl Herrera
Charles A. Jones
Lewis Lloyd
Charles Barkley
Steve Harris
Sleepy Floyd
Matt Maloney
Eddie Johnson
Kevin Willis
Pete Chilcutt
Buck Johnson
. . . who was also gross to Vanessa Bryant. https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=1944994He’s also a piece of shit who impregnated a minor.
I don't think Kobe vs. Durant is all that close, mainly because Durant's TS% (even after adjusting for era) is so much better than Kobe's. Kobe was probably a better passer/creator, but Durant is so much more efficient as a scorer that I don't think it can make up the difference on offense. And Durant is certainly much more portable/scalable because he can play off-ball in ways Kobe could not.It's a complicated argument. I agree that Hakeem was a dominant force at both ends and deserves proper recognition. The game he played was very different than Durant, which in the end makes these kind of arguments fruitless.
Kobe vs Durant is a fairer debate since they are somewhat similar players. Kobe has the RINGZ which allows him to be in a lot of Top 10 arguments, and he had good longevity, but I also think Kobe's first three rings have to come with a bit of an asterisk, since he clearly was not the best player on those teams and shared the floor with the most dominant player in the NBA. It is similar to Kyrie on the Cavs; yes he was a very good player but he doesn't sniff a ring if he wasn't playing with LeBron.
Durant's career will be hard to evaluate given that perhaps his only two rings came when he joined the Warriors. I do think Durant forming superteams has kind of masked the fact that he at some point surpassed LeBron as the best player in the league, so in some ways he is underrated.
It’s a good point — Steph and Harden crush Kobe offensively, but Kobe (when motivated) was a way more impactful defender than either. On the other hand: basketball is played 5-on-5; and the fact that guys like Steph and Nash (and Harden to a degree) can be your primary ballhandler allows you to surround them with long defenders, whereas Kobe always needed a little guy like Fisher on the floor with him to take the regular ballhandling duties. In terms of *overall* impact (O + D), the numbers suggest Kobe didn’t rack up wins for his team at quite the level of Steph or Harden, great as he was.Is defense in any way part of the consideration?
I mean, Zubac could also have legally taken it out of the cylinder — since it’s not a legal bucket even if it goes in — so it’s not like the rule is unfair to the defending team. Indeed, Zubac was a fingertip away from knocking it away. Just a fantastically exciting play…I realize this is a tough loss since you’re shitting on the Suns playing without CP3, but there’s nothing wrong with the rule. It is what it is. If you defend it better that doesn’t happen. If the ball goes in without being you then, it’s a turnover. Pretty simple.
I wouldn’t want the league to make a rule change which would lead to fewer opportunities for exciting things to happen, especially when the rule as is isn’t causing any problems.
Cherry picked stat or not, what is your evidence that league interest is at an all time low? Ratings seem to vacillate based on the teams involved but overall the NBA seems very heathy.Yep. That's a cherry picked stat. I would say that interest in the league is as low as it has been since the post Jordan, pre Lebron years (Spurs 1.0).
Yeah, not even a question.Is that a debate? KD quite clearly has eclipsed Kobe, IMO.
94-95 weren't that low in talent, other than Jordan being gone. The real drought was more in the 1997-2002ish period. In 1994, Houston beat Portland (who had made the finals in 92), Phoenix (who had made the finals in 93 with Barkley, KJ, Majerle ), Utah (with Malone, Stockton, Hornacek), the Knicks (with Ewing, Starks, Oakley). None of the stars on the teams Houston beat were over 31.I agree with your general point (although Hakeem won his titles in years where the league was relatively low in talent compared to other eras, including today) but Clyde Drexler was a very good #2 on the second title team, he averaged 21-7-5, shot the ball well (50% from the floor,36% from three, which was good back then) and was a strong and disruptive defender. He averaged a 22-10-7 in the sweep of Orlando.
The worst supporting cast for a title team in modern history is the 2003 Spurs; that was a 25 win team without Duncan.
As Mustapha Mond tells John in Brave New World, “‘But you’ve got to stick to one set of postulates. You can’t play Electro-magnetic Golf according to the rules of Centrifugal Bumble-puppy.’” It’s a bit unfair to employ 2021 notions of analytics to reward current players and devalue former ones who operated in a different paradigm. I’m a Celtics fan, and it makes me feel dirty to defend Kobe Bryant, but any numbers that suggest that his all-around game was less than Steph Curry and James Harden would make me question the usefulness of those metrics for comparing players across eras.It’s a good point — Steph and Harden crush Kobe offensively, but Kobe (when motivated) was a way more impactful defender than either. On the other hand: basketball is played 5-on-5; and the fact that guys like Steph and Nash (and Harden to a degree) can be your primary ballhandler allows you to surround them with long defenders, whereas Kobe always needed a little guy like Fisher on the floor with him to take the regular ballhandling duties. In terms of *overall* impact (O + D), the numbers suggest Kobe didn’t rack up wins for his team at quite the level of Steph or Harden, great as he was.
Curry is essentially the reason why the game changed. It's like arguing that Wilt wasn't the all-around player that George Mikan was.As Mustapha Mond tells John in Brave New World, “‘But you’ve got to stick to one set of postulates. You can’t play Electro-magnetic Golf according to the rules of Centrifugal Bumble-puppy.’” It’s a bit unfair to employ 2021 notions of analytics to reward current players and devalue former ones who operated in a different paradigm. I’m a Celtics fan, and it makes me feel dirty to defend Kobe Bryant, but any numbers that suggest that his all-around game was less than Steph Curry and James Harden would make me question the usefulness of those metrics for comparing players across eras.
It’s really not like that at all. Mikan changed the game as much as anybody (widened lane, three second call, etc.) even if we don’t remember it because it happened a generation earlier. Kobe just happened to dominate his era in a way that neither Curry nor Harden has, including 15 All-NBA teams (11 1st) compared to their 7 and 12 All-Defensive selections (9 1st) contrasted with their zero collectively.Curry is essentially the reason why the game changed. It's like arguing that Wilt wasn't the all-around player that George Mikan was.
I give zero credit to pre-analytics era All-defense teams, half of them were like Jeter's gold gloves. Bryant was not an elite defender he had a few good defensive seasons, but overall he was more of a solid defender than All-League.It’s really not like that at all. Mikan changed the game as much as anybody (widened lane, three second call, etc.) even if we don’t remember it because it happened a generation earlier. Kobe just happened to dominate his era in a way that neither Curry nor Harden has, including 15 All-NBA teams (11 1st) compared to their 7 and 12 All-Defensive selections (9 1st) contrasted with their zero collectively.
I mean, they overlapped for seven seasons. It’s not like they’re completely different eras.As Mustapha Mond tells John in Brave New World, “‘But you’ve got to stick to one set of postulates. You can’t play Electro-magnetic Golf according to the rules of Centrifugal Bumble-puppy.’” It’s a bit unfair to employ 2021 notions of analytics to reward current players and devalue former ones who operated in a different paradigm. I’m a Celtics fan, and it makes me feel dirty to defend Kobe Bryant, but any numbers that suggest that his all-around game was less than Steph Curry and James Harden would make me question the usefulness of those metrics for comparing players across eras.