NBA playoffs: Your thoughts.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
The Warriors/Denver series has been fun to watch. GS suprised everyone by winning in Denver in game two to even the series. GS shot 64% from the field the entire game. Curry, Thompson, Jack and Barnes combined for about 100 of the Warrior's 131 points. With David Lee out for the series due to a game 1 injury GS will have to win games on its outside shooting. Last night it worked. Game 3 - who knows, but Oracle will be rocking this Friday.
0
Comments
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
the O/U line is a hefty 212 1/2.
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
Being at a sold out sporting event during the playoffs with highly energized fans is amazing. If the two teams are evenly matched, with both playing at a high level, in a close game with multiple lead changes a single exciting play can cause the crowd to go off the charts loud (yelling, screaming, stomping their feet, clapping, etc.). In an outdoor stadium (football, baseball, soccer) the noise a large crowd can make is impressive but the sound can escape into the sky. In an enclosed arena (basketball, hockey, certain football stadiums) the noise can't escape and it bounces around the arena as more noise is added on top of it. It is a fun thing to experience.
now that Westbrook is out.
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
Westbrook goes down ...
Can this really be the year the Clippers win???
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
Again, who'd a thunk it.
Tomorrow night in Denver will be do or die for the Nuggets. I wonder if Stephan Curry will have another stellar night. That young man can play. He can be simply electrifying. Some of the other players for GS are also shooting the lights out.
Such a series would be fun to watch with lots of fast paced full court offense; and intense defense.
The Warriors seem to have an edge on the Spurs so far. The series could easily be 2-0 Warriors heading to Oakland for two games this weekend. If GS wins the next two at home, it would be likely that GS would win the series and advance to the Western Conference Finals. If GS does advance, I suspect that it would have better luck playing OKC instead of Memphis. With OKC not having Westbrook (injury) or Hardin (playing in Houston), Durant alone may not be able to get his team back to the Finals. Memphis is a beast and is may be the most likely winner of the West. For the East, still looks like the Heat will not be beaten and will play in the Finals to defend its title.
I had to look it up. Before this season, they were in the playoffs once in 18 seasons! I've lost a lot of interest in the NBA in the past few years, not sure if I'll watch anything in the conference finals or finals this year.
Heat look like they will close out the Bulls next game to win 4-1 and advance to the Eastern Conference Finals. Bulls do not have the bodies to compete with Miami.
Knicks-Pacers - Pacers lead the series and there is trouble in the Big Apple as Chandler is calling out his team (i.e. Mello and J.R. Smith) as one on one gunners who do not play as a team. Unlikely that the winner of this series will have success against Miami in the next round.
Western Conference:
OKC-Memphis - OKC can't get it done with KD alone. Injuries have hurt and no one other than KD is stepping up. Memphis is playing well and has some clydesdales down on the block and some racehorses on the perimeter. Memphis will likely advance to the Western Conference Finals.
Spurs-Warriors - One of the more competitive and interesting series. GS blew game 1, losing in double OT after leading by 16 with 4 minutes to go in regulation. GS won game 2 convincingly to take home court advantage away from the Spurs. GS shot very well both games in Texas. The Spurs took game 3 in Oakland and lost game 4 when GS shut down the Spurs in the final 5 minutes of regulation and in OT. Game 5 tonight in Texas. If GS shoots well like it did in the first two games and runs, it could take Game 5. At times the Spurs look old and slow. But they still have the talent and experience to win. This series may go 7 games.
What would be very funny to see would be a Memphis-Golden State Western Conference Finals.
If so, Marc Gasol and Andrew Bogut (both playing very well at the center position) would square off against each other. When was the last time that two 7 foot white centers played against each other in a Conference Finals series?????????????? Would you have to go back to the 60's or 50's to see such a match up? A local sports talk show today talked about this potential match up and since both players are very hard nosed and aggressive on defense, the radio host mentioned that watching these two players compete against each other would be an example of "white on white" crime
In any event, if anyone cares about the NBA playoffs this year I invite you to give your thoughts.
Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
aconte
(1) no Rose
(2) no Westbrook
(3) no Rondo
(4) no Kobe
(5) no David Lee (effectively)
Those aren't All Stars, those are super stars. There's wasted talent in Dwight and Kevin Love- they're wonderful, but not on teams they belong in.
I really don't mean to sound like a cliche LeBron hater, but he's going to easily grab this one. It took no work. Who does he have to beat, the Pacers? Then what? Then nothing. It's not his fault those people are injured- I'm just saddened that such a flopper will have to get away with a prize that so many superstars before him labored hard for- many who never really won it all, either. I really hope San Antonio put up a good fight.
Interests:
Pre-Jump Grade Project
Toned Commemoratives
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
Just to add......Lebron is incredible.
<< <i>I think Bill Simmons is a terrible on-air analyst. Yeah, I said it.
It's not that he's a terrible analyst (he knows as much about the NBA as anyone on any network), it's the format they have him in is terrible. If they'd get rid of that Chicago homer Wilbon, and Magic, and let Simmons and Jalen Rose do their thing with ESPN writer Zach Lowe, then *that* would be something.
However, ESPN is far to indebted to the whole 'ex-superstar athlete turned analyst' to ever let that happen.
If you want some great NBA analysis, listen to Simmons' podcast, especially when he has Lowe on. It's really, really great breakdown of the NBA game.
As far as the series goes? Indiana is only playing with Miami because Wade is playing on one leg. Miami will win this series handily, in 5 or 6, then blow out the Spurs in 5 games. While Miami may not have an answer for Hibbert when he's playing well, nobody has an answer for Lebron at any point, who is playing at a completely different level than any of us have seen since the days of Jordan. His entire game (offensively and defensively) have elevated to the point where there no discussion over who the best player is in the game, again, something that hasn't happened since Jordan.
The Heat will be lucky to get by the Pacers. And Wade is not playing on one leg....you need to watch the game closer.
<< <i>James is good....but give me Jordan anytime in a heartbeat.
The Heat will be lucky to get by the Pacers. And Wade is not playing on one leg....you need to watch the game closer.
Why would you take Jordan in a heartbeat?
James is a better passer, a better teammate, and a better rebounder. Throw in the fact that he can guard the 1-4 easily and the 5 if need be, and you have a real discussion over which player you'd really want. But 1985, you say, Jordan won 6 rings! Of course he did, but let's not forget he won them with one of the top 50 players of all time with him too. Lebron has elevated his game to 'we need this game and I am *not* going to let us lose' level, something I've only seen Jordan ever do, but Lebron is able to do it in so many more ways than just scoring.
And Wade isn't playing hurt? That's why he only took 8 shots tonight (and only made 3?) He's logging minutes, but he's clearly not the same player he was in the regular season.
Heat will be lucky to get by the Pacers? So what if they go to 6, it's not like Jordan's Bulls didn't regularly face game 6's. Indiana, let's not forget, while not playing with a bunch of household names, did manage to win nearly 50 games and are widely regarded as the toughest defense in the NBA.
Dwayne Wade isn't as good as Scottie Pippen, but he has probably cracked the Top 50 players all-time . And James has Chris Bosh, who is a perennial All-Star. Jordan never had a 3rd All-Star playing with him. It's virtually impossible to win a title by yourself, something LeBron learned in Cleveland.....so everybody has help.
Basketball is the only sport where rings matter in these "who's better" discussions, since one player can influence a game so much. When LeBron gets to 4 rings, we can start the discussion in earnest.
And don't forget, if Jordan didn't leave the sport for 18 months, the bar may have been set at 7 or 8 rings.
Let's not forget, that until he went to Miami, Lebron never even had an all-star to play with, let alone a top 50 guy, yet he drug those terrible Cavs teams to the playoffs nearly every year. That to me is as much a testament to his greatness as the 4 MVPs, soon to be back to back titles, etc. etc.
Or does his 11 rings not count because he played in the 1950's and 1960's?
1985 - I think we are making the same point about the surrounding cast.
Everyone seems to be anointing the Heat as champs for this year. The Spurs have been sitting home for a week resting, and Pop has had a week to devise a game plan. If the Heat can't handle Roy Hibbert, what are they going to do with a rested Tim Duncan?
George Gervin, Larry Kenon, James Silas, and the big whopper Billy Paultz.
An all former ABA teams final: Spurs vs. Pacers would be ideal. I don't think it's ever happened
where two ABA teams met in the NBA finals. You got the Spurs, Nuggets, Nets, and Pacers.
This 'could' be the first time since the NBA/ABA merger in 1976.
But in the end I know the NBA will want Lebron and the Heat to win the title again
so they can ride his star into the ratings heaven.
Still, I'm pulling for the old school Spurs to win it all. I'd love to see Duncan get a fifth ring,
Parker and Ginobili a fourth one.
I know that the media and the league and many fans would like to see the Heat back in the finals to showcase King James.
However, I think it would be great to have a Pacers v. Spurs final, simply because it would be (to my knowledge) the first time that two franchises that started out as teams in the old ABA would play in an NBA final.
Of the four ABA franchises that joined the NBA in the summer of 1976 to begin playing in the NBA for the 1976-1977 season (New Jersey Nets, Indiana Pacers, San Antonio Spurs and Denver Nuggets), only the Spurs have won an NBA title (4-0). The Nets played twice in the finals and lost (0-2-). Indiana has played once in the finals and lost (0-1). Denver has never made it to the finals.
If Indiana plays the Spurs int he finals this year, I think it would be great to have retro red, white and blue ABA style balls used by both teams in pre game warm ups or even in the games. Retro uniforms with short shorts, plus big afros would be cool also.
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
<< <i>Sanction - Rings aren't the be all and end all, they are part of the conversation, just like any other statistic.
1985 - I think we are making the same point about the surrounding cast.
Everyone seems to be anointing the Heat as champs for this year. The Spurs have been sitting home for a week resting, and Pop has had a week to devise a game plan. If the Heat can't handle Roy Hibbert, what are they going to do with a rested Tim Duncan? >>
Because Duncan is old, tired, and has thousands and thousands more minutes under him than Hibbert does. Miami will beat the Spurs more handily than the Pacers. Rest is a double-edged sword, it's nice, but to lose all the momentum from how well they played against a good Memphis team, as well as the inevitable rust that is going to set in after a week off.
The Heat are infinitely more athletic than the Spurs, and let's not forget the Heat have the greatest player to play in decades on their side.
The game has changed too much since 1996, 97, 98. The ratings bear this out. I actually get excited seeing an old game on ESPN Classic. The other day, they had the Lakers vs Sixers in 1983.
I didn't appreciate the game nearly enough as a kid, or in my teens in the 90's. Now, I wish I had seen Jordan play in person with the Bulls, or Magics comeback with the lakers, etc. I can remember when the NBA on NBC was an "EVENT".
People forget in 1996, 97, Jordan left on an almost mythical note. That last shot against Utah in 98? He was right there with Babe Ruth or Ali in terms of sports mythology. Hard for Lebron or anyone to top that. Jordans retirement changed the direction of the NBA. I don't think Lebrons retirement (or Kobe) or anyone would change it the same now.
The game is faster, with better athletes, and more super stars than at any time in the last 25 years.
<< <i>It seems like the farther away we get from the 80's and 90's, the less interest I have in the NBA.
The game has changed too much since 1996, 97, 98. The ratings bear this out. I actually get excited seeing an old game on ESPN Classic. The other day, they had the Lakers vs Sixers in 1983.
I didn't appreciate the game nearly enough as a kid, or in my teens in the 90's. Now, I wish I had seen Jordan play in person with the Bulls, or Magics comeback with the lakers, etc. I can remember when the NBA on NBC was an "EVENT".
People forget in 1996, 97, Jordan left on an almost mythical note. That last shot against Utah in 98? He was right there with Babe Ruth or Ali in terms of sports mythology. Hard for Lebron or anyone to top that. Jordans retirement changed the direction of the NBA. I don't think Lebrons retirement (or Kobe) or anyone would change it the same now. >>
Agreed and I feel lucky that I appreciated the game back then. The 90s were a blast to watch in person or on TV, especially the nationally televised afternoon games. I started to lose interest after the strike and even after all of these years, the passion never came back. Meh.
<< <i>What don't you like about the game now?
The game is faster, with better athletes, and more super stars than at any time in the last 25 years. >>
1. The lack of intensity. The lack of real rivalries, where the guys are trying to maul each other, kill each other. I.e. Like the bulls and knicks in the playoffs in the early 90's. Bulls, pacers. The bad boy pistons in the playoffs.
There is nothing like that now. The crowd was much more intense then. The whole game was, watching on tv.
2. Some of the rule changes. I.e. the number of 19, 20, 21 year olds in the league. It equals poorer fundamentals. I miss the centers and power forwards of the 90's.
3. Team depth. I didn't even think about this, watching games in the 90's. A team like the 96 sonics. The early 90's suns team. The knicks. Where you had 4-5-6 guys who could really play.
The game seemed more spread out. You could get quality minutes from a lot of guys. The game now is more individualized (for better or for worst).
4. More variety of play in general. Centers who could hit 15-17 foot jump shots. Better post up play. Harder rebounding, defensive follow up.
TheCARDkid favorably remembers and prefers the NBA in the 1990's.
Me, I prefer the NBA of the 60's, 70's and 80's, plus I really liked the ABA of the 60's and 70's.
Of course I watched more hoops in the 60's, 70's and 80's; and I played high school and small college hoops in the 70's.
Once I got to the 90's and continuing through today other things popped up to take my time and energy, including kids and self employment. So the hoops of the 1990's forward do not have the same connection with me as the hoops of the 80's on back to the 60's. I am sure that hoops fans who are 20 years older than me are partial to the hoops played in the 40's, 50' and 60's.
I will say that while the players of today are generally bigger, faster, quicker than the players of the 70's and earlier, I suspect that the best of the best pro ball players for each of the decades would be very competitive playing against the best players of other decades. There would be few blowouts and most games would be close.
Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Connie Hawkins, Rick Barry, Oscar Robertson, Kareem, Bill Walton in his prime, Calvin Murphy, Tiny Archibald, Dr. J, Moses Malone, Magic, Bird, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, MJ, etc. would all perform well if they played against the stars of today.
<< <i>
<< <i>What don't you like about the game now?
The game is faster, with better athletes, and more super stars than at any time in the last 25 years. >>
1. The lack of intensity. The lack of real rivalries, where the guys are trying to maul each other, kill each other. I.e. Like the bulls and knicks in the playoffs in the early 90's. Bulls, pacers. The bad boy pistons in the playoffs.
There is nothing like that now. The crowd was much more intense then. The whole game was, watching on tv.
>>
One could argue (and I would agree with) that the mauling of guys isn't basketball. You sure as heck didn't see that style of play in the 50s and 60s, and it's not basketball trying to kill someone in the paint.
<< <i>2. Some of the rule changes. I.e. the number of 19, 20, 21 year olds in the league. It equals poorer fundamentals. I miss the centers and power forwards of the 90's. >>
You realize that they changed the rules to make players go to college for at least one year now? In the past kids could come right out of high school. Centers are a dead and dying breed because the players have gotten so fast and so athletic, the idea of needing an anchor big is a gone. You talk about Jordan, what dominant big man did he play with?
<< <i>3. Team depth. I didn't even think about this, watching games in the 90's. A team like the 96 sonics. The early 90's suns team. The knicks. Where you had 4-5-6 guys who could really play. >>
Team depth is why the Pacers didn't win the series against the Heat.
<< <i>The game seemed more spread out. You could get quality minutes from a lot of guys. The game now is more individualized (for better or for worst). >>
The players are so fast and so athletic the court seems tiny. Lebron, for instance, is one of the, if not the, fastest guy in the league and can cover the court in mere seconds.
<< <i>4. More variety of play in general. Centers who could hit 15-17 foot jump shots. Better post up play. Harder rebounding, defensive follow up. >>
You continue to bring up centers, but realize that the league no longer needs them. Players can shoot so well now (especially from 3) that you don't need a center any more.
<< <i> One could argue (and I would agree with) that the mauling of guys isn't basketball. You sure as heck didn't see that style of play in the 50s and 60s, and it's not basketball trying to kill someone in the paint. >>
I think the competition brought out great play. Look at Jordan in the 92 or 93 playoffs vs the knicks (on youtube). He would hustle back on almost every possession. You had to fight for every point in those series.
To be fair, basketball was still in its infancy in the 50's and 60's. Very different style of game.
<< <i> You realize that they changed the rules to make players go to college for at least one year now? In the past kids could come right out of high school. Centers are a dead and dying breed because the players have gotten so fast and so athletic, the idea of needing an anchor big is a gone. You talk about Jordan, what dominant big man did he play with? >>
I don't think centers/power forwards have to be dead. There have always been guys 7 foot coming out of college, since Kareem, Chamberlain or Russell. The lack of innovation, and fundamentals at the center position is glaring. For example....David Robinson was maybe the 3rd or 4th best center of the 90's. After Olajuwon, Shaq, and Ewing. Now, he would have better skills on both ends of the court than 95 or 99% of centers now.
<< <i> The players are so fast and so athletic the court seems tiny. Lebron, for instance, is one of the, if not the, fastest guy in the league and can cover the court in mere seconds. >>
I think what makes comparisons strange in my mind....you did have many guys who were athletic 20-25 years ago. Dominique. Shawn Kemp. Who would you rather have as a dunker, Blake or Kemp? You had great defenders like Payton. There were many players then who could hold their own today.
The guards and shooting guards/small forwards now would obviously crush the guys 20 years ago. Rose, Paul, Wade, etc would run over Mark Price or KJ.
What happened to the enforcers like Anthony Mason or Charles Oakley? I wonder how some of the smaller guards now would score against them.
Expansion and the rash of underclassmen entering the draft only allows for (on average) 3 or 4 good-to-great basketball players per team (and that number may be generous). If we are comparing eras, I don't think there is much question that, stylistically, the 1980-1988 era was the best the league has seen, with the current era being right behind it. The thug-ball era completely turned me off, although it does bother me that if any defender today shows the slightest bit of aggression in committing a foul that it is now a flagrant foul. The thug-ball era led the NBA to adopt all these new rules that has wussified the game.
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
The game is evolving, and is more of an open (and to me, much more fun) style of play. The 'enforcer' style of player would sit on the bench 99% of the time and only come in for mop up duty. Charles Oakley, for instance, would have a tough time finding a job in today's NBA. Mauling guys isn't 'passion' or 'desire' it was a way for teams who were short athletes and shooters to be competitive, and nearly ruined the NBA.
It's completely reasonable for folks to think the days gone by produced better players, or teams, or style of play, as natural human tendencies are to forgot the bad and remember the good.
When you look at teams that have never won a title, many of them came into the league during or after the 70's (i.e. the ABA merger). Nuggets, Pacers, Nets, Jazz.
The bulk of NBA titles have gone to the Celtics, 76'ers, Pistons, Lakers, Bulls. Old franchises. With the exceptions being Dallas, Miami, San Antonio and a few others.
The modern expansion teams like the Timberwolves, Magic, Grizzlies, Raptors, have obviously never won.
-Another reason I miss the 90's. I enjoyed many of the shooters then.....guys like Ricky Pierce, Dale Ellis. Mullin will never be a top hall of famer, top 20 or 30, but the guy was deadly in his prime.
I don't think its just 3 point shooters. The number of guys that can't shoot over 50% FG in a season I think is pretty shocking. For example, you look at the Nuggets 5 top scorers this season, none cracked 50%. And that was a team that won 57 games.
Similar with Memphis, only two guys cracked 50% FG out of 20 listed! And one of those guys averaged 1.8 points a game (Jon Leuer). That's crazy. No team in the league 20 years ago that won 56 games had such poor shooters.
The pacers didnt have 1 guy this season shoot 50% Fg.
Contrast it with the pacers of 93/94 and it's like night and day. The pacers of 94 had 5 of their top 7 guys shooting over 50%. Miller, Smits, Mckey, Dale Davis, Antonio Davis. How does that happen?