2020/21 NBA season + Olympics

LuckyLloyd

Surely 3 stars is always better than 2 stars?!

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Surely 3 stars is always better than 2 stars?!

Well yes all else equal but I meant 3 stars + weaker support cast vs 2 stars + stronger support cast.

Generally that’s viewed as the two routes to a championship team, in the modern era.
The Nets were faced with that prior to the Harden trade.
GSW just happened to have 4.

Nets is the former model, Lakers/Clippers is the latter. Mins go up, rotations get smaller, burden on stars becomes bigger.

In the current circumstances I tend to think the 3 star model is even more valuable

LuckyLloyd

Yeah GS in 2017 just showed that keep adding HoFs however you can is the route to certain victory. Adding Harden was the best thing the Nets could have done to beat LeBron this year. I agree the pandemic makes it even more prudent.

Corvo

Watched Lakers vs Nets early this morning.

Obviously Anthony Davis missing for the Lakers, but also Schroeder. Think the 11 point differential in the end probably flattered the Lakers, offensively were very patchy (three point shooting is terrible, again) and defensively failed to guard the perimeter with Joe Harris going off for 6/7. Gasol looks a real problem (in general, not just this game) and they'll be hoping he does a Rondo on it and picks it up for the play-offs, but you can certainly see why they want another big.

I'm a big LeBron James fan so Kyries jibe after the missed technical FT means I wish only the worst for the Nets going forward

Sweet.Science

Corvo wrote: »

Watched Lakers vs Nets early this morning.

Obviously Anthony Davis missing for the Lakers, but also Schroeder. Think the 11 point differential in the end probably flattered the Lakers, offensively were very patchy (three point shooting is terrible, again) and defensively failed to guard the perimeter with Joe Harris going off for 6/7. Gasol looks a real problem (in general, not just this game) and they'll be hoping he does a Rondo on it and picks it up for the play-offs, but you can certainly see why they want another big.

I'm a big LeBron James fan so Kyries jibe after the missed technical FT means I wish only the worst for the Nets going forward

Haha i liked it from Kyrie. A throwback to the 80s and 90s

I said it previously in this thread. The Nets are the worst possible match up for the Lakers . They dont have the defence required . They are great at protecting the paint etc but the Nets have too many weapons . Thats with Kyrie having an awful night and no KD. Its been a good few days for the Nets supporting cast

pjohnson

The Lakers have bodies but the quality of that depth is very dodgy. Davis injury has stretched and exposed them, supposedly they are monitoring both Griffin and Drummond in case one/both are bought out. Griffin wants to go to LA so should be easy to sort if the chance arises. Drummond would also be wanted by many teams once free of his current deal so harder for the Lakers to get him.

If the Nets got Drummond its game over.

ButtersSuki

On Blake seeing as he was mentioned above, it was mentioned on more than one podcast in the last 2 weeks that it's over a year since he dunked in a game. From the dizzying heights and peaks of athleticism that's some come down. It's such a shame how injuries have taken away this aspect of his game.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

ButtersSuki wrote: »

On Blake seeing as he was mentioned above, it was mentioned on more than one podcast in the last 2 weeks that it's over a year since he dunked in a game. From the dizzying heights and peaks of athleticism that's some come down. It's such a shame how injuries have taken away this aspect of his game.

That's an incredible stat.

The shame is that he really did try to get out ahead of the fading athleticism. He's always been a decent passer but the shot & general movement is just robotic.

Coneygree

Griffin gave zero ****s about his body. His dunks were ridiculous but he'd be a freak not to be crippled from them. Seems Zion has learned from Blake's neglect of his body, he's barely had a jaw dropping dunk all year.

ButtersSuki

Coneygree wrote: »

Griffin gave zero ****s about his body. His dunks were ridiculous but he'd be a freak not to be crippled from them. Seems Zion has learned from Blake's neglect of his body, he's barely had a jaw dropping dunk all year.

Actually there’s another stat about Zion - and this was true up to about 2 weeks ago, don’t know if it’s changed since then. In his first NBA game he made 4 3s.

Guess how many he’s made since combined in all games?






















2

Sweet.Science

What you reckon Joe harris ppg would be with a different team ?

The man is a walking bucket working off very limited amount of shots per game

For Forks Sake

Of course Aaron Baynes was in the vicinity, but for once not the victim

https://twitter.com/WorldWideWob/status/1362972211540348931

ButtersSuki

Sweet.Science wrote: »

What you reckon Joe harris ppg would be with a different team ?

The man is a walking bucket working off very limited amount of shots per game

He’s a very limited player offensively aside from being excellent at one thing. You have to remember if he was the primary offensive option he’d be guarded much more closely.the reason he gets the looks he does if you have 3 All Star level players to guard and account for defensively before him - he’s not getting that on any other team. I couldn’t ever see him averaging more than the 15ppg he’s averaging right now tbh. Don’t get me wrong, he could have nights where he’s hot 30-40+ and make 10 3s, but I couldn’t ever see him averaging 20. The real shock for me is how poor (relatively) a FT shooter he is. I would have expected him to be in the 87.5 and above range. He’s nowhere near it, which is very weird as there’s normally a strong correlation between good technical shooters and FT%.

You also have to remember points are through the roof this year - there’s 41 players averaging 20+ per game, and that’s the highest ever. And scoring is way up - Covid phenomena. Take all that into account when evaluating him.

ButtersSuki

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Of course Aaron Baynes was in the vicinity, but for once not the victim

https://twitter.com/WorldWideWob/status/1362972211540348931

Saw that this morning. Insane athleticism.

Itssoeasy

ButtersSuki wrote: »

On Blake seeing as he was mentioned above, it was mentioned on more than one podcast in the last 2 weeks that it's over a year since he dunked in a game. From the dizzying heights and peaks of athleticism that's some come down. It's such a shame how injuries have taken away this aspect of his game.

That’s a mad stat that it’s over a year but I’ve been watching basketball for years in person(in the Irish league with terry Strickland mostly) and on TV with the nba for as long as yes a dunk is special but it counts the same as a basket inside the three point line. I much like an and one after a rally by a team who’s behind.

Itssoeasy

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Saw that this morning. Insane athleticism.

Very Jordan like. Amazing dunk in fairness.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

ButtersSuki wrote: »

He’s a very limited player offensively aside from being excellent at one thing. You have to remember if he was the primary offensive option he’d be guarded much more closely.the reason he gets the looks he does if you have 3 All Star level players to guard and account for defensively before him - he’s not getting that on any other team. I couldn’t ever see him averaging more than the 15ppg he’s averaging right now tbh. Don’t get me wrong, he could have nights where he’s hot 30-40+ and make 10 3s, but I couldn’t ever see him averaging 20. The real shock for me is how poor (relatively) a FT shooter he is. I would have expected him to be in the 87.5 and above range. He’s nowhere near it, which is very weird as there’s normally a strong correlation between good technical shooters and FT%.

You also have to remember points are through the roof this year - there’s 41 players averaging 20+ per game, and that’s the highest ever. And scoring is way up - Covid phenomena. Take all that into account when evaluating him.

If he was the lead guard, he’d be guarded more closely but that wouldn’t be enough to offset the massive increase in usage rate of probably double the 16% he currently has.

Take Beal, he’s leading the league on 36% usage, if Harris had that level of usage he’d average almost certainly 20ppg even controlling for extra coverage and reduced efficiency.

He’s shooting a league leading yet unsustainable 50% from 3 and leads the league in eFG% at almost 70% so I’d guess a drop of PPG before end of the season anyway as that can’t be sustained.

If you assume that normalises to something closer to high 13s or low 14s combined with a further reduction to the coverage you suggested, I’d still imagine he comfortably enters the 20ppg if his efficiency was below league average but he had a usage rate around 30%+

ButtersSuki

Livia Scarce Peppercorn wrote: »

If he was the lead guard, he’d be guarded more closely but that wouldn’t be enough to offset the massive increase in usage rate of probably double the 16% he currently has.

Take Beal, he’s leading the league on 36% usage, if Harris had that level of usage he’d average almost certainly 20ppg even controlling for extra coverage and reduced efficiency.

He’s shooting a league leading yet unsustainable 50% from 3 and leads the league in eFG% at almost 70% so I’d guess a drop of PPG before end of the season anyway as that can’t be sustained.

If you assume that normalises to something closer to high 13s or low 14s combined with a further reduction to the coverage you suggested, I’d still imagine he comfortably enters the 20ppg if his efficiency was below league average but he had a usage rate around 30%+

Honestly, what’s the highest level you’ve played at? or have you even played at all?

Because your logic is straight out of the mouth of someone who’s never played the game at a decent level but thinks they know tonnes about the game from analysts and wherever you’re getting your info.

No he wouldn’t as per your Beal analogy. Because he doesn’t play like Beal. For all intents and purposes he’s a one trick pony offensively. Beal has a full arsenal by comparison - he drives (crucial), and can shoot inside the as well as out. Andy’s I pointed out in my earlier reply, he goes from having the 4th best defender marking him to the best, which believe it or not :rolleyes: changes things dramatically.

Your argument is full of “if”s. It doesn’t work that way.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Honestly, what’s the highest level you’ve played at? or have you even played at all?

Because your logic is straight out of the mouth of someone who’s never played the game at a decent level but thinks they know tonnes about the game from analysts and wherever you’re getting your info.

No he wouldn’t as per your Beal analogy. Because he doesn’t play like Beal. For all intents and purposes he’s a one trick pony offensively. Beal has a full arsenal by comparison - he drives (crucial), and can shoot inside the as well as out. Andy’s I pointed out in my earlier reply, he goes from having the 4th best defender marking him to the best, which believe it or not :rolleyes: changes things dramatically.

Your argument is full of “if”s. It doesn’t work that way.

My personal experience in basketball isn’t relevant. I don’t find I played x basketball as a useful counter point to anything.

If you don’t want to respond to my counter point, then that’s fine but try to stay on point and away from the ad hominem.

My response is perfectly logical and contains no more or less if or buts than yours

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

On your actual point regarding the Beal analogy, it wasn’t an analogy it was a comparison between Harris usage of 16% and the league leader of 36%.

If it was an analogy, I’d have said something closer to Harris will average what Beal averages but I didn’t say that

I said Harris would average above 20 ppg -probably- nowhere did I say he gets close to the 33ppg of Beal.

eagle eye

Livia Scarce Peppercorn wrote:

On your actual point regarding the Beal analogy, it wasn’t an analogy it was a comparison between Harris usage of 16% and the league leader of 36%.

You never considered the change in coverage if he had that high of usage though.
Huge difference in being guarded by the best defenders to being guarded by at best the fourth guy.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

eagle eye wrote: »

You never considered the change in coverage if he had that high of usage though.
Huge difference in being guarded by the best defenders to being guarded by at best the fourth guy.

I did, I understand that his efficiency would go down further due to the increased coverage:

Livia Scarce Peppercorn wrote: »

If you assume that normalises to something closer to high 13s or low 14s combined with a further reduction to the coverage you suggested, I’d still imagine he comfortably enters the 20ppg if his efficiency was below league average but he had a usage rate around 30%+

I acknowledged his point and agree but as I said I don’t think the further reduction in efficiency is offset by a massive increase in usage.

pjohnson

Nah he just wouldn't get past 16/17 ppg at an absolute max.

Could hit 40ish a few times a year but overall nah.

And Harris is nowhere near Beal's standard either.

pjohnson

Rockets are moving Cousins on ASAP. Thats himself/Drummond/Griffin all actively on the trade block.

ButtersSuki

Livia Scarce Peppercorn wrote: »

On your actual point regarding the Beal analogy, it wasn’t an analogy it was a comparison between Harris usage of 16% and the league leader of 36%.

If it was an analogy, I’d have said something closer to Harris will average what Beal averages but I didn’t say that

I said Harris would average above 20 ppg -probably- nowhere did I say he gets close to the 33ppg of Beal.

Sure. And if a guy playing 1 minute of garbage time averages 2 points and 1 rebound in that time gets his minutes upped to 36mins a game he’ll average 72 points and 36 rebounds a game. :rolleyes:

ButtersSuki

Livia Scarce Peppercorn wrote: »

My personal experience in basketball isn’t relevant. I don’t find I played x basketball as a useful counter point to anything.

If you don’t want to respond to my counter point, then that’s fine but try to stay on point and away from the ad hominem.

My response is perfectly logical and contains no more or less if or buts than yours

You’ve clearly never played the game with the stuff you come out with, it would be hilarious if you were trolling, but I don’t think you are. Stick to the golf dude, it suits you better.

pjohnson

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Sure. And if a guy playing 1 minute of garbage time averages 2 points and 1 rebound in that time gets his minutes upped to 36mins a game he’ll average 72 points and 36 rebounds a game. :rolleyes:

Thanasis may be better than Giannis if he got the minutes

ButtersSuki

Livia Scarce Peppercorn wrote: »

My personal experience in basketball isn’t relevant. I don’t find I played x basketball as a useful counter point to anything.

If you don’t want to respond to my counter point, then that’s fine but try to stay on point and away from the ad hominem.

My response is perfectly logical and contains no more or less if or buts than yours

Guess who got dictionary toilet paper for Christmas!

Seriously? Like you use that regularly. I’m so impressed!

LuckyLloyd

That's quite the gear switch to attacking the poster rather than the post BS because he, what, had the temerity to disagree with you?! I don't agree with golf either on this particular point, but I have no idea why you'd start personalising that.

ButtersSuki

Actual playing experience is relevant because if you actually played the game at any decent level you’d understand the difference between theory (your thesis in this case) and practice (the reasons it would fail due to the variables outlined).

Why isn’t the 1500m world record down at circa 2 minutes and 30 seconds or thereabouts when we have sub 10second 100m runners? It should be by your logic.