Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
Just get rid of the one and done rule. Lower that age back to 18.
Just get rid of the one and done rule. Lower that age back to 18.
-
-
San Antonio Spurs 5 - Time ('99, '03, '05, '07, '14) NBA Champions
Official OS Bills Backers Club Member
Comment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
And to add to this. If you want to play college ball. You have to stay 3 years. For the good of both leagues. I want guys that want to play for their university. And kids ready to make that next step. Go on ahead. You should be free to do that.
I'm a big college basketball fan too. And I want guys on my team that truly want to be there. But also can make their NIL money to the side as well.
Sent from my SM-G991U using TapatalkLast edited by DamnYanks2; 12-06-2023, 04:26 PM.Comment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
I wish guys would stay long longer, but I also get it, they are way more likely to get drafted as a one and done based on their recruiting ranking. It's weird that we do it that way, you don't even have to produce. The second you come back to school, you drop as a prospect.
This is sorta why the women's CBB has been ascending lately, Cameron Brink STILL plays for Stanford, she's 100 years old! I know it's different money wise, but man I'd love to find a way to get men's CBB back to having multi-year players.
But also, Paige Bueckers would've been the top pick 3 years ago straight out of her freshman year, but wasn't afforded the option, then shredded her knees, she's still good, but it's like damn, a 6' point guard in the women's game with her skills was something special, Caitlin Clark sorta fits that mold but I wouldn't consider her the same playmaker Paige was, her freshman season was obscene
I lost track of my point lol what thread am I inWolverines Wings Same Old Lions Tigers Pistons Erika ChristensenComment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
There's this weird duality where people are rooting for guys to get drafted and get paid and "generational wealth" changing lives and workers rights or whatever, but then went they're actually playing, particularly guys getting drafted young and inexperienced at any level, the same people are gonna be cold and critical when they don't pan out.
It goes from being treated like a human rights issue, "you're taking money away from these kids," to "oh right, this is sports, this kid is actually trash at basketball at this level." Odd to me.Comment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
My instinct tells me that teams who are projected to finish around 4th-6th in their conference will likely perform better than that in the NBA Cup. My reasoning is that they know they aren't quite at championship contender level so they will play harder than the top teams because those top teams have their eyes on the NBA Finals and at least in the short term won't care as much for the in-season tournament. But for those tier 2 teams lifting up any trophy always feels good. Does that sound reasonable?
Originally that wasn't my main thought or reaction to the tournament. My initial knee-jerk reaction was that the Lakers won the tournament by beating up teams in the paint. And it made me wonder what are the chances that some team defies popular wisdom and builds a championship team around being bigger and stronger and playing inside out. The preceding paragraph was my internal counterargument I guess you could say. "Don't overreact to the Lakers winning by playing inside-out because the top teams didn't care about the tournament" was what I thought to myself. Still nice to see the Lakers beat the gunslinging Pacers by playing bully ball though.
Figure I'd put the question(s) to you guys.
1. Do you think we could see a team turn back the clock and play inside-out and make it to the finals?
2. Is the in-season tournament a secondary prize and because of that the teams that are just outside of championship contention should be almost viewed as favorites for the tourney?
(I'm not ready to entertain the option that Pacers/Lakers made it to the final because they are amongst the top teams in the league)Comment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
Pacers have been the top scoring team in the league the whole season. In a single game elimination format all it takes is a couple hot games to knock off better teams like Milwaukee/Boston. Especially with Boston down a starter and Milwaukee still adjusting by mixing up their roster and hiring a new coach. I think the whole “outside contention teams being favorites” is just over-thinking the whole thing. Favorites every year are going to largely be teams who are on a hot streak and are healthy in November/December. And it’s one game, you can’t compare one game to a playoff series. Even 1 seeds drop a game almost every year.
Lakers just made the WCF with a like 80% version of this LeBron with that nagging foot injury last season. They are likely better this year, have experience together, and had a pretty easy schedule in this tournament. They still haven’t played a single game with a fully healthy roster, and while their shooting is a bit up and down they have a top tier defense when locked in like this and are just 1 game out of 2nd place in the West.
Not saying the Lakers finish the season as a “top” team by seasons end but I’m much more confident in them getting back to a WCF or even finals with a healthy Bron/AD than I am “top teams” like current conference leaders Minnesota or OKC getting it done when they’ve never really been there before. I think you’re over-selling them a bit on being average if they are healthy.
As far as the other stuff, Lakers went with what was working. AD was dominant early, the bench unit couldn’t keep Reaves out of the middle of the floor. They just spammed that. I don’t think this was a complete turn back the clock, Lakers largely rolled the last game because of how hot they were from outside. They hit 17 threes vs 2 tonight, they are just streaky and have the ability to play both ways.
If we are being real 3 of the last 4 champions (Lakers, Bucks, Nuggets) have been largely built on being able to survive streaky outside shooting because of how well they can dominate inside as well. A lot of their shooting came from an inside-out attack to begin with given the majority of their offense steams from Bron, Giannis, Joker drawing help. Idk that I would consider the Lakers a full on “turn back the clock” type of team because in this game that’s what worked. They have some principals of both.Comment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
LeBron and Lakers were too good against Pacers last night to win the NBA In-Season Tournament. They've looked a really strong unit throughout the tournament.FanAmp - A Fun Place for All the F1 Fans!Comment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
It was 2 am so there was definitely some overthinking going on.
Still though, I think it may be something to watch for in future seasons:
Pacers IST record: 6-1
Pacers non-IST games: 6-7
Lakers IST record: 7-0
Lakers non-IST games: 7-9
And its more than just one game; Lakers are dead last in 3PM on the season. For comparison sake their 3 point numbers look a lot like the Dwight led Magic (10/27 from 3 a night). So not turn back the clock 30 years, but maybe 15 years (still interesting how much the league has changed in that time span)Comment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
Along the same lines as what OJ was saying, I wouldn't say that the "outsiders" are favorites. We see this every year during March Madness. Favorites get beat by teams they shouldn't be losing to. The format just allows for upsets to happen because...math. Small sample sizes (ie one game) are not as accurate as large ones (playoff series). Same way that the first 12 minutes of the game mean very little with 36 minutes left to play. So upsets in this format are bound to happen. That's what makes things fun.
One thing I will say is the questioning about players motivation affecting their play, specifically about this tournament, always seems odd to me. They already have the same incentive to win as before, as these games count toward the regular season like normal (final game notwithstanding). Now we have just added an extra incentive of half a million dollars and being part of NBA history. I know the players have money, but $500K is $500K. I'm pretty sure players aren't rolling their eyes at that money just because they have millions.
On top of that, we've all played sports. And we've all been extremely competitive in these sports when it meant absolutely nothing in the end. Think about all the times you've almost (or have lol) gotten into a fight or argued for 10 minutes over a stupid call. Not in the NBA. Not at the college level. Not even a rec league. Just at the park playing pick up. That's because we cared. A LOT even though it didn't matter AT ALL. Hell, we get hella competitive playing 2K man [emoji23]
Now apply that to NBA players. Who have future contracts they're playing for. They are playing in front of thousands of people at the stadium, some hotties sitting courtside and millions of people watching them at home (shout-out to HHH). Replays will be shown and people will critique their play after every game. Add on top of that they have teammates and coaches who they care about, whose opinion of them matters too.
And if that wasn't enough, you are talking about some of the most competitive people on the planet! You don't get to the level they are on without that competitive edge. Most are narcissists who bust their *** for hours every day to get to where they are at now. This has been their entire lives. Basketball is the thing they care about more than anything else.
So I refuse to believe that there's some sort of lack of motivation for any team in any regard to this tournament or otherwise.
And we saw that manifest itself during the tournament. Players cared for sure
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using TapatalkComment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
We have players that acknowledge the regular season is something of a slodge. Its why they absolutely had to add the money incentive. You can refuse to believe it or not, but its there.
But more importantly, effort in this context isn't limited to hustle on the court or competitive nature. It can be other things. We saw a prime example in the final with how the Lakers had laser focus on Tyrese. Thats something we typically don't see during the regular season. The Lakers basically had some "Tyrese rules" in effect and I loved seeing it. Thats effort, not just from the players but for the coach from an X and O perspective. Everything is not about the players.
You can give 100% effort on the court, while at the same time saying "I'm not going to use my full bag of tricks."
Yes upsets happen. You can minimize upsets by preparation and focus. How much you prepare is 100% going to be a product of how much importance you place on something. I don't think its a stretch to say that not every team placed the same importance on the tournament.
Last note and I'll let this topic die because it stems from a 2 AM random thought, but yall can look across the pond to England and the FA Cup to see what I'm getting at here. Its not a perfect 1:1 comparison but not every team places the same level of importance on the FA Cup. Sometimes the direction is reversed from what I'm wondering here in that the very top teams really want to make a go at the FA Cup because of the prestige of winning the Double, while lower EPL teams place less importance on it due to relegation. But it establishes that whenever you have a secondary league prize you will see varying levels of importance placed on it. And I'm curious to see if any patterns develop with the NBA Cup.Comment
-
Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
Silver told them boys to put a Tournament banner up in Staples or else lol.#RespectTheCultureComment
-
NBA Off Topic Thread
I’m not following still.. you pointed out the Lakers basically game-planned for Haliburton and they might not normally give that much energy towards that in a regular season game… which is true.. but you’re ignoring that they were already in the finals at that point too. The rest of your argument sorta insinuates that it *insert whichever top team in the standings* wouldn’t game-plan a bit extra when they were already in the finals but because the Lakers are a 4 seed they tried harder.. it just isn’t correlating to me.
You don’t think a team like Milwaukee if they made the finals would have game-planned like it was a playoff game? Hell they supposedly got into in their lock room after their loss because of the frustration in losing to Indy.
And do we even know what a “top team” is with such small sample size? A chunk of teams at the top of the standings are in the same boat as Indiana, a young breakout star with good pieces around him. Those teams are already playing hard with youthful legs, that’s why they are overachieving. Teams like Orlando, OKC, Minnesota..
Boston was down a starter, Nuggets without Murray.. we just watched a Milwaukee team with more chemistry than this one go down to the 8 seed Heat or are we saying that only happened because they didn’t try as hard too.. on top of all that the teams in the finals, Lakers are 1 game out of 2nd in the West, Pacers 2 games out of 2nd in the East. It’s not like any of the team above them have been substantially better than they have.. we are barely 20 games into the season.
On top of all that this is largely determined by point differential too. A “better” team could finish a point or two behind another team giving the team in the next round an “easier” opponent. Or in the Lakers example, their pool was incredibly easy. Had to beat Phoenix twice, but Portland, Utah, Memphis are all *** right now.
Idk I just don’t really follow. I don’t think unless you just know of some top tier team that folded and didn’t try where that really comes from. We already know any time Bron and AD are healthy and flip that “switch” they are as good as anybody. We have 8 seeds making the finals just last season. I don’t think this tells us that mediocre teams are likely to try harder, I think you just need to be healthy, hot at the right time, draw the right opponents, etc.Last edited by ojandpizza; 12-12-2023, 12:02 AM.Comment
Comment