Celtics vs 76ers, Round 2 Discussion

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,759
Pittsburgh, PA
One thing about Belichick is for all the complaining in-game about calls you never saw this kind of thing from him - he is always focused on the players and executing. Doc and Morey probably would do well to do the same.
Belichick did / does two things with respect to the refs:

(1) During the pre-game talks that every head coach has with the refs, he identifies things to look for that he's seen with his upcoming opponent and prepares them to better identify and call them. And the man is pretty good at film study, so the few times I've heard this being remarked upon, it's like remarks from anonymous refs saying things like "it's as if he had a crystal ball".

(2) In the actual game, he is relentlessly respectful to the refs. Listening respectfully when they're explaining a call, making sure he keeps a tight sideline that doesn't encroach on the side judge running up and down, telling them "good call" from time to time. He will get a little heated when he feels he's getting the short end of the stick, but that's rare, and exclamations like "what the hell is going on over there?" I can count like on one hand the number times I've seen that directed at an official. At the end of SB46, when the Giants were taking intentional 12-men penalties to run clock in an unsportsmanlike way, he lost his shit over it, but there are just so few of those they stand out in the memory. 19 times out of 20, when he's yelling that, it's to his own players. So the refs basically talk to him as an equal before and during the game, in a very good-natured way.

In short, I don't think Belichick "works the refs" the way we describe NBA coaches doing. The majority of calls in the NFL are obvious must-calls like false starts and offsides, a bunch of the rest are 50/50 judgment calls that he can't really make a case are wrongly decided (e.g. most DPIs), and he goes out of his way to coach his teams to not take penalties like offensive holding such that his teams are usually close to the league lead in fewest penalties conceded.

When I compare to the NBA, there are so many more 50/50 calls happening every game, and it's SO much easier to feel screwed by the general momentum of them, or assume that a good remark or discussion about them will add sympathy or make them more vigilant about calling stuff to your benefit. I don't think it's true - I think a Belichick deferential approach would generally be the right decision - but I'm not sure there's much to learn from how Belichick behaves. If the Celtics players were super zen about every officiating decision, taking everything in stride, would that help them? It'd certainly help Grant "hardwood lawyer" Williams, but I'm not sure it would make much of a difference to the team outcomes in either direction.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I do believe that working the refs/league is a useful activity for teams - and the degree to which Spo, Phil Jackson, Pop, etc. do so suggests really serious, succesful NBA folks feel the same way. But that isn't what is going on when you leak a couple hours before gametime---it's too late to matter then substantively. The refs may or may not even see it, and the league isn't giving new/different guidance at that point, or identifying new points of emphasis. At that point, it is excuse-making and I agree, it really felt like a pre-concession that they might not be good enough on the court. That's not helpful and speaks to a mentality that is not ideal.

One thing about Belichick is for all the complaining in-game about calls you never saw this kind of thing from him - he is always focused on the players and executing. Doc and Morey probably would do well to do the same.
I don't really know if I agree with this. The officials are in communication with their superiors and surely were aware of these numbers prior to being publicly released. Does it have an affect? I'm sure it doesn't hurt but I do agree that working refs in the heat of battle is what really moves the needle. The other part is how veterans, both players and coaches, have a tremendous advantage in this area both in their prior relationship with the officials and their savvy in selling them on their POV.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
I don't really know if I agree with this. The officials are in communication with their superiors and surely were aware of these numbers prior to being publicly released. Does it have an affect? I'm sure it doesn't hurt but I do agree that working refs in the heat of battle is what really moves the needle. The other part is how veterans, both players and coaches, have a tremendous advantage in this area both in their prior relationship with the officials and their savvy in selling them on their POV.
Yes---what I'm saying is that Morey leaking them to Woj to report a couple hours before the game doesn't change anything (in part because the league and refs already knew the numbers!) It's a media play, not a substantive play to change officiating.

There are substantive moves front offices and coaches make which can impact officiating - what they do in-game (where credibility does matter, fully agreed), what they say post-game, etc. (which shapes how people look at later-developed numbers and reviews, and the media narrative about the next game). It's just that the leak to Woj used none of those levers - it was pre-excuse making not actually trying to change how a game was called.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I am seeing more than a few criticisms of Harden Embid trying to flop their way to wins.
Hopefully one result of their failure will be a reduction in flopping. It really isn't a strategy that works in the clutch.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
Kyle Neubeck, who covers the Sixers, is one of the better NBA writers. He files these stories moments after the games end, and they're almost always worth reading.
Yep, he’s been doing great work for years now, back to his Liberty Ballers days. The post game write ups are great, he’s increasingly plugged in with the team, has a great sense of the fan base, and he’s done some really good longer-form stuff.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
I am seeing more than a few criticisms of Harden Embid trying to flop their way to wins.
Hopefully one result of their failure will be a reduction in flopping. It really isn't a strategy that works in the clutch.
Grifting for fouls probably doesn't work with higher-rated NBA refs in the playoffs and might explain Embiid/Harden underperformance on the biggest stages.

Scott Foster, for all his flaws, doesn't go for nonsense.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
A few fun factoids:
  • Joel Embiid is the only MVP to never advance past the second round of the playoffs.
  • Joel Embiid averaged 33.1 PPG in the regular season and 23.7 PPG in the playoffs. That drop-off (-9.4) is the largest by that year's MVP in NBA history.
  • The only instances in NBA history of a scoring leader making the playoffs and not being top-10 in PPG in those playoffs : ’22 Embiid and ’23 Embiid.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Jeez, thanks.

That wasn't fucking obvious during the in-game review? Having Brown and the instigator suffer the same penalty was absurd.

View: https://twitter.com/NBAOfficial/status/1658211119562129408
I believe that a taunting technical can't be overturned in game... as far as I know the only one that can be reversed is if it was a technical that is automatic and it turns out the act didn't happen. Only one I know of that ever got overturned in-game was one on Boogie Cousins for throwing his mouthpiece into the opponent's bench.... because it turned out it just fell out of his mouth and got kicked over or something, I don't remember the details. So I think a kicked ball, thrown mouthpiece, and maybe entering the stands technical can be overturned if the review shows that the player didn't actually meet the requirement, but a dissent, language or taunting can't be. I think that's why Foster announced post-review that it was a taunting technical
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
I believe that a taunting technical can't be overturned in game... as far as I know the only one that can be reversed is if it was a technical that is automatic and it turns out the act didn't happen. Only one I know of that ever got overturned in-game was one on Boogie Cousins for throwing his mouthpiece into the opponent's bench.... because it turned out it just fell out of his mouth and got kicked over or something, I don't remember the details. So I think a kicked ball, thrown mouthpiece, and maybe entering the stands technical can be overturned if the review shows that the player didn't actually meet the requirement, but a dissent, language or taunting can't be. I think that's why Foster announced post-review that it was a taunting technical
If true, it's too bad they can't decide that it wasn't actually taunting. Because in context, it really wasn't, but I can understand why a ref running into the situation cold would slap an auto T for what they saw.

Hey, they could have just called it an inadvertent whistle, just like they did when they realized they were going to mistakenly toss Draymond Green from the game with a 2nd T (last year?). The refs can do and do whatever they want.

But if they really couldn't rescind Brown's T, then it only emphasizes how ridiculous it was that Niang wasn't tossed. That whole exchange was a net benefit for the 76ers.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
If true, it's too bad they can't decide that it wasn't actually taunting. Because in context, it really wasn't, but I can understand why a ref running into the situation cold would slap an auto T for what they saw.

Hey, they could have just called it an inadvertent whistle, just like they did when they realized they were going to mistakenly toss Draymond Green from the game with a 2nd T (last year?). The refs can do and do whatever they want.

But if they really couldn't rescind Brown's T, then it only emphasizes how ridiculous it was that Niang wasn't tossed. That whole exchange was a net benefit for the 76ers.
In general I think the NBA needs to re-assess the idea / definition / application of technical fouls. I assume the origin was something of a technical variety, yes? I hate what T’s have become in terms of just slapping on one a guy if he says something bad or gives a bad look or hangs on the rim. It is the refs trying to interpret intent. They shouldn’t have that kind of control. If a guy kicks the ball in the stands, that could be a technical foul. If a guy intentionally bumps an official, that can be a technical foul. If a guy goes crazy, but I am talking truly crazy, going after the ref based on a call, maybe that could be a technical foul. What Niang did could be a technical foul.

But these taunting or bad looks or yapping to refs about calls? I don’t think the refs should be able to just T guys up at will.

Am I on an island on this?
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
If true, it's too bad they can't decide that it wasn't actually taunting. Because in context, it really wasn't, but I can understand why a ref running into the situation cold would slap an auto T for what they saw.

Hey, they could have just called it an inadvertent whistle, just like they did when they realized they were going to mistakenly toss Draymond Green from the game with a 2nd T (last year?). The refs can do and do whatever they want.

But if they really couldn't rescind Brown's T, then it only emphasizes how ridiculous it was that Niang wasn't tossed. That whole exchange was a net benefit for the 76ers.
In game flow the call didn't make any sense.. why would Brown have stopped on a fast break to taunt the other team's bench? It's not like he'd just scored or even got a really beautiful stop.. Foster was watching the ball up court, turned and saw Brown walking towards the Philly bench and without knowing at all what had happened decided to give Jaylen a T.. because he was actually closer to Jaylen than he was to the Philly bench...so he probably heard what he said.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,031
NBA front offices are jammed packed with a collection of owners & executives sons/nephews/family friends plus a heavy dose of jock sniffers, ex-athletes & woke hires. I just don't have unbridled reverence for them...
LOL WUT? The nepotism—understood broadly to include friends—is definitely a thing, but for other positions? Not even close, and we’ve had people here whom I’ve talked to who have been on the 13th floor or whatever we call it. Organizations at the top of the heap have amazing talent pools to pick from for those non-nepotism appointments and the idea that, even if they want a woman or person of color, the idea that they are choosing unqualified people is utter nonsense.

I’ve learned tons from you in this forum, but, in turn, trust me on this: That’s just not how this shit works, not at that level of business. It’s like saying they don’t want to make money.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,031
Dunking on the team that drafted him before the much better player they passed up (Jaylen Brown), who is a major player on the team that beat the Sixers, is an interesting flex. Comfort game is on point though, with the red wine and a nice blanket.
so Simmons checked out on the Sixers and the NBA, content to cash checks
Don’t be sleepin’ on the coffee table book he’s got there; here’s one of the publisher’s description:

64820

:oops:

:p

I have two Sixer fans I know who blow their gasket when it's brought up that the Sixers could have had Tatum. Their position is that the trade never happens if Boston didn't already know Philly wanted Fultz. I'm unsure if this line of thinking requires medication or is terminal so you just let it ride out.
This is… fascinating to me. I mean, you seem like the kind of guy who knows what “poker” is, right?

This is a fantastic anecdote… assuming I’m reading it correctly… though that seems… almost inpossible?

That’s awesome. Thanks for sharing. :D
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,031
I have greatly enjoyed and found edifying the technical moves the Celtics made on defense, but which thread has the discussion of the fact that they played like their hair was on fire on D in the fourth?

Which, of course, reaffirms the point often made in this forum: This is a thing they can do. But don’t always do, yeah?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
I believe that a taunting technical can't be overturned in game... as far as I know the only one that can be reversed is if it was a technical that is automatic and it turns out the act didn't happen. Only one I know of that ever got overturned in-game was one on Boogie Cousins for throwing his mouthpiece into the opponent's bench.... because it turned out it just fell out of his mouth and got kicked over or something, I don't remember the details. So I think a kicked ball, thrown mouthpiece, and maybe entering the stands technical can be overturned if the review shows that the player didn't actually meet the requirement, but a dissent, language or taunting can't be. I think that's why Foster announced post-review that it was a taunting technical
There's nothing like that in the NBA rules, and there's nothing I am aware of which prevents officials from reversing a technical foul. They simply chose not to in this situation, which the league has subsequently confirmed was a bad decision.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
There's nothing like that in the NBA rules, and there's nothing I am aware of which prevents officials from reversing a technical foul. They simply chose not to in this situation, which the league has subsequently confirmed was a bad decision.
It's unclear, but they can only determine whether an unsportsmanlike act occurred or did not occur. See below:
https://official.nba.com/rule-no-13-instant-replay/
. That has as far as I can tell been interpreted to mean literally... did an act occur, rather than to re-litigate whether or not the act should be punished with a technical. So in Brown's case... the act occurred, now if the ref had known WHY it occurred he might not have made the call, but once he did, based on how they have traditionally interpreted the language of rule 13, he can't really retract it.

The league rescinding technicals is a separate process, and one in which they determine if the call was correct and justified, so it follows a different set of rules, the league office has a broader authority and purview than the official reviews in-game.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
LOL WUT? The nepotism—understood broadly to include friends—is definitely a thing, but for other positions? Not even close, and we’ve had people here whom I’ve talked to who have been on the 13th floor or whatever we call it. Organizations at the top of the heap have amazing talent pools to pick from for those non-nepotism appointments and the idea that, even if they want a woman or person of color, the idea that they are choosing unqualified people is utter nonsense.

I’ve learned tons from you in this forum, but, in turn, trust me on this: That’s just not how this shit works, not at that level of business. It’s like saying they don’t want to make money.
Many are very run well, some aren't. I can only tell you what was conveyed to me several years ago at NBA Summer League ...BUT I've deleted it
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,031
Many are very run well, some aren't. I can only tell you what was conveyed to me several years ago at NBA Summer League ...BUT I've deleted it
Hey man, don’t get me wrong: Professional sports teams are, as a whole, phenomenally poorly run. But the reason why is not mysterious: The leagues are a monopoly with a fantastic product that is in high demand with incentives for observable “talent” to work their asses off to perform at the highest level. Econ 101 (maybe a bit of 102) tells us that there is no real market discipline to force teams to be well run.

Go to a sports conference on research and analytics and you’ll find young doctoral level quantitative economists and mathematicians hurling themselves at the teams to take pay cuts just to work for them because: pro sports. And then, if they get the job, oftentimes the heads of their departments, or their bosses, don’t listen to them, often because they don’t actually understand what the hell they’ve been given—you’ve got guys whose qualifications are being an ex-player looking at statistical models. It’s kinda bonkers if you think about it. But at the same time, it’s not mysterious and doesn’t require any social theory outside of: No market pressure on management. (Hell, why can some of these people keep bouncing around the league after failure and failure?) But it definitely explains why it took baseball so long to work out that OBP matters as much as AVG and why there are still football execs who think you have to establish the run to make the passing game work.

It’s fucking nuts. But it doesn’t have to not be nuts because it’s a monopoly. And in that vein, I heartily agree that we are incredibly lucky to have such good management with the Celtics. In large measure, thought, that’s because the people at the top want to win, not because they have to. And yeah, again: That’s pretty fucking cool for us fans here.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
Hey man, don’t get me wrong: Professional sports teams are, as a whole, phenomenally poorly run. But the reason why is not mysterious: The leagues are a monopoly with a fantastic product that is in high demand with incentives for observable “talent” to work their asses off to perform at the highest level. Econ 101 (maybe a bit of 102) tells us that there is no real market discipline to force teams to be well run.

Go to a sports conference on research and analytics and you’ll find young doctoral level quantitative economists and mathematicians hurling themselves at the teams to take pay cuts just to work for them because: pro sports. And then, if they get the job, oftentimes the heads of their departments, or their bosses, don’t listen to them, often because they don’t actually understand what the hell they’ve been given—you’ve got guys whose qualifications are being an ex-player looking at statistical models. It’s kinda bonkers if you think about it. But at the same time, it’s not mysterious and doesn’t require any social theory outside of: No market pressure on management. (Hell, why can some of these people keep bouncing around the league after failure and failure?) But it definitely explains why it took baseball so long to work out that OBP matters as much as AVG and why there are still football execs who think you have to establish the run to make the passing game work.

It’s fucking nuts. But it doesn’t have to not be nuts because it’s a monopoly. And in that vein, I heartily agree that we are incredibly lucky to have such good management with the Celtics. In large measure, thought, that’s because the people at the top want to win, not because they have to. And yeah, again: That’s pretty fucking cool for us fans here.
We have whatever Minnesota, Dallas and Atlanta are doing in real time to see how poorly teams are operated.

I guess Dallas can dream on Wemby tonight, since they worked so hard to lose the last week of the season to avoid the PLAY-IN game. Which we all know is a waste of time, those teams never go anywhere in the NBA playoffs.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
We have whatever Minnesota, Dallas and Atlanta are doing in real time to see how poorly teams are operated.
Are we referring to the actual operations of the organization or the specific directives from ownership? There is a big difference between the two. I think most/all teams operate very well in such a competitive environment....but sometimes their work is negated by these directives. For years, Chris Wallace was ridiculed and a laughingstock by anyone who didn't recognize that his moves were financially motivated by the agenda given to him. There are a ton of examples on the other end as well....Nets, Wolves, etc.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,862
Hey man, don’t get me wrong: Professional sports teams are, as a whole, phenomenally poorly run. But the reason why is not mysterious: The leagues are a monopoly with a fantastic product that is in high demand with incentives for observable “talent” to work their asses off to perform at the highest level. Econ 101 (maybe a bit of 102) tells us that there is no real market discipline to force teams to be well run.

Go to a sports conference on research and analytics and you’ll find young doctoral level quantitative economists and mathematicians hurling themselves at the teams to take pay cuts just to work for them because: pro sports. And then, if they get the job, oftentimes the heads of their departments, or their bosses, don’t listen to them, often because they don’t actually understand what the hell they’ve been given—you’ve got guys whose qualifications are being an ex-player looking at statistical models. It’s kinda bonkers if you think about it. But at the same time, it’s not mysterious and doesn’t require any social theory outside of: No market pressure on management. (Hell, why can some of these people keep bouncing around the league after failure and failure?) But it definitely explains why it took baseball so long to work out that OBP matters as much as AVG and why there are still football execs who think you have to establish the run to make the passing game work.

It’s fucking nuts. But it doesn’t have to not be nuts because it’s a monopoly. And in that vein, I heartily agree that we are incredibly lucky to have such good management with the Celtics. In large measure, thought, that’s because the people at the top want to win, not because they have to. And yeah, again: That’s pretty fucking cool for us fans here.
Now do the "woke hires" part.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
Are we referring to the actual operations of the organization or the specific directives from ownership? There is a big difference between the two. I think most/all teams operate very well in such a competitive environment....but sometimes their work is negated by these directives. For years, Chris Wallace was ridiculed and a laughingstock by anyone who didn't recognize that his moves were financially motivated by the agenda given to him. There are a ton of examples on the other end as well....Nets, Wolves, etc.
All three of those teams are having different issues. BUT the common thread is they are getting turned over by the sharper NBA teams. Money always matters in every situation, but they have been overpaying & making some questionable decisions at every turn.

ATL owner, Tony Ressler, has his 27-yr old son firing seasoned basket ops execs & making the calls
Cuban's Dallas Mavericks had a culture problem (besides having Jason Kidd as their HC). They hired a Nike exec that wasn't qualified to be a GM and had to quickly hire a new one within 12-months.
Minnesota just took a young & growing roster and boxed themselves in for a while with what may be the worst trade in NBA history.

https://theathletic.com/4274014/2023/03/03/atlanta-hawks-owner-tony-ressler-q-and-a/

https://sports.yahoo.com/ex-mavericks-executive-haralabos-voulgaris-describes-dysfunction-calls-gossip-like-a-sewing-circle-151326875.html

https://clutchpoints.com/2-reasons-timberwolves-rudy-gobert-trade-is-one-of-the-worst-deals-in-nba-history
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,103
This is true. Same may have also been said for Durant>Oden if he ever had the opportunity.

I have two Sixer fans I know who blow their gasket when it's brought up that the Sixers could have had Tatum. Their position is that the trade never happens if Boston didn't already know Philly wanted Fultz. I'm unsure if this line of thinking requires medication or is terminal so you just let it ride out.
I think the question is whether Ainge was just so low on his evaluation of Fultz (or so high on his evaluation of Tatum) that he would have taken Tatum at #1 anyways (in which case there’s no chance Philly ever gets Tatum since Ainge only makes that deal if he’s sure Philly is taking Fultz), or he thought the talent was close enough that he’d rather just take the extra asset to trade down and grab whoever was still there at #3 as a value play (in which case theoretically Philly could have traded up to grab Tatum if their evaluation of him was high enough, and Ainge would still have made the trade even without assurances of who Philly was taking).

Ultimately we may never know, but I’m of the mind that Ainge was just out on Fultz after his workout. Everything we hear now is going to be spin to some degree, but here’s what Weitzman wrote in “Tanking to the Top”:
By the end of the college season, nearly every evaluator in and around the league had Fultz ranked as the top prospect in the class. There were, however, a few exceptions. Danny Ainge, the president of basketball operations for the Boston Celtics, the team that happened to own the draft's No. 1 pick, was among them. “He thought Jayson Tatum”-a smooth 6-foot-8 forward out of Duke-“was the draft's best player,” said a confidant. Ainge had given Fultz a chance in early June, bringing him in for a private workout, only to watch Fultz struggle. "There was no music, the gym was quiet, and there were just all these older white men staring at him," said Keith Williams, a longtime Fultz mentor who also worked as his chief representative for the majority of the pre-draft process. “He was nervous.”
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
I am certain that after the Fultz trade Ainge made a comment on the radio or in an interview to the effect of "I believe we're going to get the same player at 3 I'd have taken at 1" consistent with the quote above.

I also believe Ainge was out on Fultz after his Boston workout (that's when trade happened). I don't know if Brain Doctor was still a Celts employee at the time, but the Celts correctly read something in that in-person which got them to being out on Fultz, and either confirmed their preference for Tatum or created it. Either way, for all the mid-first round picks Danny missed on they don't add up to nearly as much value as completely nailing Tatum vs Fultz/Ball.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,758
I find it amusing that the author had some pretty kind words for Maxey, who ended up being -31 on the day. I guess he had to say something nice about someone. :)
17 points on 12 shots, with 4 assists to 1 turnover looks stellar compared to 9 points on 11 shots with 7 assista to 5 turnovers for Harden, and 15 points on 18 shots, with 1 assist to 4 turnover for the MVP
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
Are we referring to the actual operations of the organization or the specific directives from ownership? There is a big difference between the two. I think most/all teams operate very well in such a competitive environment....but sometimes their work is negated by these directives. For years, Chris Wallace was ridiculed and a laughingstock by anyone who didn't recognize that his moves were financially motivated by the agenda given to him. There are a ton of examples on the other end as well....Nets, Wolves, etc.
Someday I want somebody to look at me the way that you look at Chris Wallace.

Sure, some of his stupid basketball moves were cost-driven. You could write a college thesis on ones that he made out of cleverness or just plain poor judgment. The 2001 draft alone was a master class in suck. He hung his shingle on Kedrick Brown himself.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,496
17 points on 12 shots, with 4 assists to 1 turnover looks stellar compared to 9 points on 11 shots with 7 assista to 5 turnovers for Harden, and 15 points on 18 shots, with 1 assist to 4 turnover for the MVP
Sure he looked better than Harden. Rody Giuliani looks better than Harden did on Sunday.

But it was just kind of amusing to me that Neubeck was writing how stable he was, how great his understanding of the game was, and that PHI should have run the offense through him when he was a complete non-factor (at best) on defense and ended up - after a +6 1Q - -37 from the 2Q on, a team low.

That's all.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
17 points on 12 shots, with 4 assists to 1 turnover looks stellar compared to 9 points on 11 shots with 7 assista to 5 turnovers for Harden, and 15 points on 18 shots, with 1 assist to 4 turnover for the MVP
Not sure what the Sixers are doing with Harden or if the Doc firing is a reflection of James' wishes?

If I'm Philly I hand the PG keys to Maxey, and start him alongside Melton. Let Harden walk and wait a season for the Harris contract to end. Then have Joel recruit for a Free Agent the following season...Re-process on the fly

BUT highly doubt they will go in that direction, and go all out for James Harden, thus burning the rest of Embiid's prime years
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,758
Not sure what the Sixers are doing with Harden or if the Doc firing is a reflection of James' wishes?

If I'm Philly I hand the PG keys to Maxey, and start him alongside Melton. Wait for the Harris contract to end and have Joel recruit for a Free Agent the following season...Re-process on the fly

BUT highly doubt they go in that direction.
Harden was always a bad idea to pair with Embiid, who needs to play with four deep threats. Maxey, Tucker, Harris, Melton and Niang all shot the long ball at 39% or better this season. Harden actually had his best year from three ever, at 38.5%, with the majority of his threes, 60%, not assisted, while everyone else are catch and shooters. The guy dominating the ball every possession needs to be Embiid, not Harden.

I agree on going with Maxey as your PG. Try to spin Harris’ expiring deal into two rotation contributors, and hope Embiid doesn’t get injured in the playoffs again next year. Him coming back in great shape for a change would probably be a good idea.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
Harden was always a bad idea to pair with Embiid, who needs to play with four deep threats. Maxey, Tucker, Harris, Melton and Niang all shot the long ball at 39% or better this season. Harden actually had his best year from three ever, at 38.5%, with the majority of his threes, 60%, not assisted, while everyone else are catch and shooters. The guy dominating the ball every possession needs to be Embiid, not Harden.

I agree on going with Maxey as your PG. Try to spin Harris’ expiring deal into two rotation contributors, and hope Embiid doesn’t get injured in the playoffs again next year. Him coming back in great shape for a change would probably be a good idea.
Agreed that going long on Harden seems to be a terrible idea here. If Maxey is being used in a "bring it over halfcourt and get it to Joel, then wait at the arc like everyone else" role, that could work. Maxey is not a guy that will make guys better, but he has nice spotup shooting and secondary scoring chops.

Oddly enough, Embiid as back line protection (assuming his knee improves) is also not a terrible idea. He hides people's flaws back there.

Tl:dr; Harden seems toast
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,159
So in Brown's case... the act occurred, now if the ref had known WHY it occurred he might not have made the call, but once he did, based on how they have traditionally interpreted the language of rule 13, he can't really retract it.
It's semantics and hair-splitting, but in my opinion the act did not occur. Foster thought that Brown was taunting the bench, but what he was actually doing was reacting to being grabbed (as anyone would).
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,275
All three of those teams are having different issues. BUT the common thread is they are getting turned over by the sharper NBA teams. Money always matters in every situation, but they have been overpaying & making some questionable decisions at every turn.

ATL owner, Tony Ressler, has his 27-yr old son firing seasoned basket ops execs & making the calls
Cuban's Dallas Mavericks had a culture problem (besides having Jason Kidd as their HC). They hired a Nike exec that wasn't qualified to be a GM and had to quickly hire a new one within 12-months.
Minnesota just took a young & growing roster and boxed themselves in for a while with what may be the worst trade in NBA history.

https://theathletic.com/4274014/2023/03/03/atlanta-hawks-owner-tony-ressler-q-and-a/

https://sports.yahoo.com/ex-mavericks-executive-haralabos-voulgaris-describes-dysfunction-calls-gossip-like-a-sewing-circle-151326875.html

https://clutchpoints.com/2-reasons-timberwolves-rudy-gobert-trade-is-one-of-the-worst-deals-in-nba-history
I think that T’Wolves deal was definitely owner driven. Tim Connolly was one of the best executives in the game when he worked for Denver. I highly doubt he went to Minnesota and just lost his mind
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I think the question is whether Ainge was just so low on his evaluation of Fultz (or so high on his evaluation of Tatum) that he would have taken Tatum at #1 anyways (in which case there’s no chance Philly ever gets Tatum since Ainge only makes that deal if he’s sure Philly is taking Fultz), or he thought the talent was close enough that he’d rather just take the extra asset to trade down and grab whoever was still there at #3 as a value play (in which case theoretically Philly could have traded up to grab Tatum if their evaluation of him was high enough, and Ainge would still have made the trade even without assurances of who Philly was taking).

Ultimately we may never know, but I’m of the mind that Ainge was just out on Fultz after his workout. Everything we hear now is going to be spin to some degree, but here’s what Weitzman wrote in “Tanking to the Top”:
I am firmly of the belief that anything Ainge said publicly specific about Fultz was GM-PR Speak to hide his cards. It was obvious that Fultz was not his guy when the first thing Team Fultz did after leaving Boston was scramble to schedule other workouts. We discussed this at the time that this only occurs if they knew or at least were confident that Ainge was going in another direction.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,275
Someday I want somebody to look at me the way that you look at Chris Wallace.

Sure, some of his stupid basketball moves were cost-driven. You could write a college thesis on ones that he made out of cleverness or just plain poor judgment. The 2001 draft alone was a master class in suck. He hung his shingle on Kedrick Brown himself.
Maybe I am stepping into something here but I thought Chris Wallace was almost universally ridiculed (fans/media/smart people) for his performance with the Celtics?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I think that T’Wolves deal was definitely owner driven. Tim Connolly was one of the best executives in the game when he worked for Denver. I highly doubt he went to Minnesota and just lost his mind
100%! Same with Utah hiring Ainge....he wasn't hired to sit back and watch Gobert and Mitchell. His hire was to enact change.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Someday I want somebody to look at me the way that you look at Chris Wallace.

Sure, some of his stupid basketball moves were cost-driven. You could write a college thesis on ones that he made out of cleverness or just plain poor judgment. The 2001 draft alone was a master class in suck. He hung his shingle on Kedrick Brown himself.
More than some. He was considered a financial genius in cap management to save his bosses a shit ton of money. After he was run out of Boston because of how "awful" he was as he saved his owners a shit ton of money he was then lured by Memphis to do same which he did there too. The only thing people bring up is how he gave up Iso Joe when he could have moved Kedrick instead. Even if this is true which we will never be certain of it being that is one personnel blunder....when personnel wasn't the directive from his owners at the time.


Maybe I am stepping into something here but I thought Chris Wallace was almost universally ridiculed (fans/media/smart people) for his performance with the Celtics?
Only from those who didn't understand the luxury tax savings he created for his owners when this was clearly the motivation behind his moves.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
More than some. He was considered a financial genius in cap management to save his bosses a shit ton of money. After he was run out of Boston because of how "awful" he was as he saved his owners a shit ton of money he was then lured by Memphis to do same which he did there too. The only thing people bring up is how he gave up Iso Joe when he could have moved Kedrick instead. Even if this is true which we will never be certain of it being that is one personnel blunder....when personnel wasn't the directive from his owners at the time.



Only from those who didn't understand the luxury tax savings he created for his owners when this was clearly the motivation behind his moves.
It wasn't one personnel blunder. There were two ridiculously bad draftees in that draft alone. Then moving Joe (the one smart pick who fell to them) on top of it. Just in that draft.

I'll buy that he was a financial wizard. Orgs have guys for that job. He should have done it. And I'll buy that some orgs care more about the bank accounts than others (Memphis, previous Celtics owners). But that's like complimenting late Harry Sinden for putting together shitbum teams in an original 6 town because Jeremy Jacobs was Montgomery Burns. That doesn't make you a good GM. That makes you an effectively shitty GM.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
Sure he looked better than Harden. Rody Giuliani looks better than Harden did on Sunday.

But it was just kind of amusing to me that Neubeck was writing how stable he was, how great his understanding of the game was, and that PHI should have run the offense through him when he was a complete non-factor (at best) on defense and ended up - after a +6 1Q - -37 from the 2Q on, a team low.

That's all.
This shows how flawed +- can be, especially for a role player in a game where the starts suck and the players stays on the court while the star's backup plays even worse. Maxey wasn't great but he played hard all game and battled long after Embid and Harden had given up.