Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

NBA Regular Season & Playoffs 2019-20 Thread

1…2021232526…32

Comments

  • #662
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    Predictions:

    Heat in 6 for me.


  • #663
    K.O.Kiki
    Registered Users Posts: 18,697 ✭✭✭✭K.O.Kiki


    eagle eye wrote: »
    You were 11 when MJ retired for the second time from the Bulls. How could you have grown up idolising him?

    Basketball was big in Germany, I had an MJ jersey at age 7/8 & one of his biographies at 9/10.


  • #664
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    K.O.Kiki wrote: »
    Basketball was big in Germany, I had an MJ jersey at age 7/8 & one of his biographies at 9/10.

    Cool story bro.

    So now you're saying aged 7-10 you're in a position to recall and critically analyze an NBA player? Ok.

    He had no competition yesterday though, remember? :rolleyes:


  • #665
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    Predictions:

    Heat in 6 for me.

    12/1 about for that. Seems quite short to me.

    Lakers in 5 or 6 imo


  • #666
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »
    12/1 about for that. Seems quite short to me.

    Lakers in 5 or 6 imo

    12/1? Where did you see that? I'm serious.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    12/1? Where did you see that? I'm serious.

    Skybet via oddschecker. Where else would anyone check the odds of anything?


  • #668
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    Skybet actually offering another nice market. LBJ to average a triple double is 5/1 with no reference to result. That's a cracking offer.


  • #669
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »
    Skybet actually offering another nice market. LBJ to average a triple double is 5/1 with no reference to result. That's a cracking offer.

    Not a huge gambler, and when I do it tends to be through my Paddy Power account. Thanks for the heads up though.


  • #670
    K.O.Kiki
    Registered Users Posts: 18,697 ✭✭✭✭K.O.Kiki


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    Cool story bro.

    So now you're saying aged 7-10 you're in a position to recall and critically analyze an NBA player? Ok.

    He had no competition yesterday though, remember? :rolleyes:
    • MJ won during the expansion era, which diluted the NBA's overall talent pool.
    • Most of the teams he faced in the Finals weren't great TBH. '91 Lakers, '92 Blazers, '96 Sonics. Compare that to LeBron: peak Spurs (x3), peak Warriors (x4). I think you just remember the failure against the '11 Mavs.
    • 92-93 Bulls had 57 wins, 93-94 Bulls (without MJ) had 55 wins. That was a great team even without MJ. Meanwhile LeBron's Cavs dropped from 61 wins to 19 without him (2009-10 -> 2010-11). Then when he returned, he took them from 33 wins -> 53 Wins & the Finals.
    • Yeah, MJ got to 6 Finals & was undefeated. But my perspective is, his teams are 6/15 for Finals appearances. LeBron is 10/17.

    My main point being, MJ was the best individual player, but he didn't elevate his team mates the way LeBron does.


  • #671
    K.O.Kiki
    Registered Users Posts: 18,697 ✭✭✭✭K.O.Kiki


    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »
    Skybet actually offering another nice market. LBJ to average a triple double is 5/1 with no reference to result. That's a cracking offer.

    LeBron is the only player to ever average a triple-double in the Finals FYI.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    [QUOTE=K.O.Kiki;114765091

    My main point being, MJ was the best individual player,     but he didn't elevate his team mates the way LeBron does.[/QUOTE]

    Great. We agree. End of discussion.


  • #673
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    K.O.Kiki wrote: »
    [*]Yeah, MJ got to 6 Finals & was undefeated. But my perspective is, his teams are 6/15 for Finals appearances. LeBron is 10/17.
    [/LIST]

    Great. I'm sure he loves having more silver medals.


  • #674
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    K.O.Kiki wrote: »
    LeBron is the only player to ever average a triple-double in the Finals FYI.

    I know hence why I think the probability of him doing it again likely exceeds 16.7%


  • #675
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    Great. I'm sure he loves having more silver medals.

    I have no interest in getting too deep into a MJ/LBJ debate but the whole point of LBJ's finals record as some type of ammunition to be used against him is just flawed to me. Making NBA finals is a difficult task yet he never seems to be given credit for getting there, only criticised that he didn't win once there.
    It's strange given Kareem has a 50% record in finals but you never get the impression his inability to win every time is some failure on his part.

    Just interesting how the narrative for LBJ is undoubtedly different.


  • #676
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    K.O.Kiki wrote: »
    • MJ won during the expansion era, which diluted the NBA's overall talent pool.
    • Most of the teams he faced in the Finals weren't great TBH. '91 Lakers, '92 Blazers, '96 Sonics. Compare that to LeBron: peak Spurs (x3), peak Warriors (x4). I think you just remember the failure against the '11 Mavs.
    • 92-93 Bulls had 57 wins, 93-94 Bulls (without MJ) had 55 wins. That was a great team even without MJ. Meanwhile LeBron's Cavs dropped from 61 wins to 19 without him (2009-10 -> 2010-11). Then when he returned, he took them from 33 wins -> 53 Wins & the Finals.
    • Yeah, MJ got to 6 Finals & was undefeated. But my perspective is, his teams are 6/15 for Finals appearances. LeBron is 10/17.

    My main point being, MJ was the best individual player, but he didn't elevate his team mates the way LeBron does.

    Furthermore:

    You think the League isn't top-heavy now?

    You think had Jordan not gone away for 3 years his record wouldn't be better?

    I don't recall Chicago winning 3 Drafts in 4 years during Jordan's peak.

    You don't think the game has changed at all since the 80s and 90s in ways that help Lebon?

    Also, when Lebron left Cleveland, they purposely tanked. They got rid of anything resembling talent, it wasn't like the 2009-10 roster was the same as the 2009-10 bar LeBron.Chicago played. There is a difference - but surely you remember all of this from you know, when you were idolizing him as a 7 year old?

    I also like your deep analysis of teams from when you were 4 and 5 years of age. You really were ahead of the game dude.

    Trust me, I remember ALL of LeBron's failures, not just 2011. He game up big in Game 6 2013 alright when Ray Allen bailed him out of jail. Or do you forget the monster briks he threw up in the preceeding plays to that? I assume not. One of which was described by the commentary team of analysts at the time as "the worst crunch time 3 pointer in Finasl history" (or words to that effect).


  • #677
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    Or do you forget the monster briks he threw up in the preceeding plays to that? I assume not. One of which was described by the commentary team of analysts at the time as "the worst crunch time 3 pointer in Finasl history" (or words to that effect).

    Is that it though? What other failures?

    There aren't that many examples of games/series/championships where he failed to win when he should have had an edge.

    Outside of the Dallas series, it's fair to say that he was simply outgunned by far stronger teams unless I'm missing something?

    I suppose the question is, is there any championship where LBJ has lost -outside of Dallas- where you feel MJ would have won with a similar strength roster against an equally strong opponent? Personally, I can't recall any tbh.


  • #678
    chips1234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭chips1234


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    Predictions:

    Heat in 6 for me.
    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »
    12/1 about for that. Seems quite short to me.

    Lakers in 5 or 6 imo

    lakers in 5, g1 g2 for lakers g3 heat g4 g5 lakers, AD for MVP.


  • #679
    K.O.Kiki
    Registered Users Posts: 18,697 ✭✭✭✭K.O.Kiki


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    Furthermore:

    You think the League isn't top-heavy now?

    You think had Jordan not gone away for 3 years his record wouldn't be better?

    I don't recall Chicago winning 3 Drafts in 4 years during Jordan's peak.

    You don't think the game has changed at all since the 80s and 90s in ways that help Lebon?

    Also, when Lebron left Cleveland, they purposely tanked. They got rid of anything resembling talent, it wasn't like the 2009-10 roster was the same as the 2009-10 bar LeBron.Chicago played. There is a difference - but surely you remember all of this from you know, when you were idolizing him as a 7 year old?

    I also like your deep analysis of teams from when you were 4 and 5 years of age. You really were ahead of the game dude.

    Trust me, I remember ALL of LeBron's failures, not just 2011. He game up big in Game 6 2013 alright when Ray Allen bailed him out of jail. Or do you forget the monster briks he threw up in the preceeding plays to that? I assume not. One of which was described by the commentary team of analysts at the time as "the worst crunch time 3 pointer in Finasl history" (or words to that effect).

    https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/Michael-Jordan-Versus-LeBron-James
    The statistics show one thing clearly, LeBron steps up in the clutch far more strongly than Jordan did.
    [...]
    In conclusion, LeBron is much more clutch than Jordan. When the two smelled blood and had a chance to eliminate their opponents, LeBron wins 2.7% more often. When their backs are against the wall, LeBron wins 16.7% more often. Jordan only improved slightly in a few categories when facing elimination. LeBron improved in almost every single category and improved incredibly when facing elimination. To say LeBron doesn't play better and more clutch in crunch time situations is absurd. LeBron James has also hit more buzzer beaters than Jordan, and more go-ahead shots with five seconds to go in the game. His field goal percentage on these shots is also higher than Jordan's. You can see the statistics and video evidence of each of their made shots below.

    You can give me your old-man "I saw everything" spiel - stats don't lie.


  • #680
    Coneygree
    Registered Users Posts: 821 ✭✭✭Coneygree


    LeBron has been incredible but he's had the luxury of being able to coast his way through things a little, especially with Davis really going off. I wonder will he be able to go insane like he did in 2018. You'd wonder how much even LeBron has left in him after all of these years. I've never been too interested in GOAT debates, but LeBron's longevity and consistency is on another level given the era he has played in. His athleticism is still so impressive.

    Hard to see past the Lakers although I felt the Bucks would handle Miami handily enough before Game 1 so you never know. Given Covid, Kobe, and the LeBron-Davis duo it might be one of the most memorable chips ever.


  • #681
    K.O.Kiki
    Registered Users Posts: 18,697 ✭✭✭✭K.O.Kiki




    Another great "hypotheticals" series.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,486 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    K.O.Kiki wrote:
    You can give me your old-man "I saw everything" spiel - stats don't lie.
    Neither do facts.
    Fact is LeBron has three titles, two in a team with Chris Bosch and Dwayne Wade. I won't mention anybody else on that roster but it was an awesome roster both years.
    We'll give him much more credit for the Cavs one with only one other superstar on the team.
    If you put MJ in the Heat teams they win the titles.
    If you put LeBron in the Bulls teams they maybe win two out of the six.


  • #683
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    eagle eye wrote: »
    If you put LeBron in the Bulls teams they maybe win two out of the six.

    Skill sets are different so perhaps an exact swap may result in not quite as many wins but for arguments we'll assume you mean teams of equal quality.

    Can you expand on how you might arrive at that conclusion? As someone who takes MJ 100% of the time, I'm even curious as that statement seems a little outrageous to me.


  • #684
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,486 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:
    Skill sets are different so perhaps an exact swap may result in not quite as many wins but for arguments we'll assume you mean teams of equal quality.
    No I'm saying if you put MJ with Bosch and Wade they win those titles.
    I'm saying you put LeBron in the Bulls team they maybe win two of the six.
    I'm saying you put MJ in nearly any team that's won an NBA title instead of the star player and they still win.
    Not so with LeBron.


  • #685
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    eagle eye wrote: »
    No I'm saying if you put MJ with Bosch and Wade they win those titles.
    I'm saying you put LeBron in the Bulls team they maybe win two of the six.
    I'm saying you put MJ in nearly any team that's won an NBA title instead of the star player and they still win.
    Not so with LeBron.

    Yeah to be honest, I still find it an outrageous statement. It feels like the type of thing Skip Bayless might say to incite a hot take chat on YouTube.
    All you're saying -although I dont agree- is that Jordan had a skillset which was more auspicious for the Heat than the skillset LBJ would have brought to the Bulls. It doesn't necessarily mean one player is better than the other. That's an easy argument to counter with zero effort.

    On your latter point which I think is even more wrong. If anything almost any NBA analyst/HOF would agree almost unanimously that LBJ has a more malleable skillset.

    Does that in itself not lend to an ability to slot into a roster more easily than MJ?

    FWIW I wont be responding again. Little bit disappointed that I've responded this much tbh.


  • #686
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,090 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    chips1234 wrote: »
    lakers in 5, g1 g2 for lakers g3 heat g4 g5 lakers, AD for MVP.

    Bam is no joke...will be some effort from AD to end up MVP.


  • #687
    chips1234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭chips1234


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Bam is no joke...will be some effort from AD to end up MVP.

    i never said he was a joke, he has had a great playoffs much like all of the heat, but stopping AD is a whole different challenge for him and its by far the most important match up for this series.


  • #688
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    K.O.Kiki wrote: »
    https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/Michael-Jordan-Versus-LeBron-James



    You can give me your old-man "I saw everything" spiel - stats don't lie.

    Solid argument there alright, I’m guessing you weren’t captain of the debating team at school?

    You do realize the way the fans is played in 2020 is radically different from how it was in 1991, right? Or did you not notice that when you were studying the game intently and idolizing Jordan when you were 5?

    :rolleyes:


  • #689
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,486 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:
    Yeah to be honest, I still find it an outrageous statement. It feels like the type of thing Skip Bayless might say to incite a hot take chat on YouTube. All you're saying -although I dont agree- is that Jordan had a skillset which was more auspicious for the Heat than the skillset LBJ would have brought to the Bulls. It doesn't necessarily mean one player is better than the other. That's an easy argument to counter with zero effort.
    It's highly insulting to like my post to a Skip Bayless windup.
    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:
    On your latter point which I think is even more wrong. If anything almost any NBA analyst/HOF would agree almost unanimously that LBJ has a more malleable skillset.
    Defense and scoring at the level Michael Jordan did it is unbeatable. You can be better than Jordan in other areas but you still won't be anywhere close to his level.
    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:
    Does that in itself not lend to an ability to slot into a roster more easily than MJ?
    No, Jordan does his thing to such a high level he makes it easy for those around him.
    Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:
    FWIW I wont be responding again. Little bit disappointed that I've responded this much tbh.
    Good.


  • #690
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,948 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Did I not say Jordan V LeBron debates never end well, cant we just agree they have been the best players of their generation


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    xgronkjabv6pcl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭xgronkjabv6pcl


    Carcharodon wrote: »
    Did I not say Jordan V LeBron debates never end well, cant we just agree they have been the best players of their generation

    Nobody ever enters these conversations with the intention of changing their mind. Anyone entering it has already decided who they feel is the better player.

    If you can accept that anyone discussing it is effectively drawing a red line which the other party can't convince them to depart from then you can simply view it as two sides delivering points and showing a knowledge of the subject.

    You don't have to agree with them but one side might show an objectively more well rounded knowledge of the topic.

    Obviously that doesn't happen all the time and it's a topic which can plummet quite quickly but reading/watching the right people discussing it can be interesting no matter who is your own personal preference.


Advertisement