2013-2014 NBA Thread - IND @ WAS and OKC @ LAC on ESPN

[rook]

Just looking at blake griffins rookie stats, hol ****. I dont remember him taking the league by storm like that. 22 & 12 as a rookie? Wow

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

You seriously don't remember Blake's rookie year? one of the most epic seasons in recent history

 

[do work son]

 

 
 


but yeah, most of the time it doesnt work out too well

repped because I was going to do the exact same thing. Yeah Rockets stupidly lost that game against the Lakers by choosing to keep Dwight in the 4th quarter even as he bricks ft after ft and Hack-a-Howard worked.

Rockets should beware of teams like Memphis, Blazers or even OKC (perk) because those teams aren't afraid of fouling Dwight hard

the mistake that cost them the game was inbounding the ball to dwight with less than 2 minutes left, you need to keep him out there because of his defense but players need to remember not to pass to him unless its an open dunk

seemed like they learned from this game though and hack a dwight is a lot less effective. it also helps that dwight is shooting better from the line these days

I think that Lakers game is the only one where the hack a Dwight really worked. Off the top of my head, I know at minimum Dwight has won us two games because of it though. Pop went to it, Dwight was hitting, and took the spurs completely out of their rhythm and we pulled away. Then the next night, Rick Carlisle tried and the same thing happened.

 

[pmatic]

The stupidest use of the intentional fouls was last year in the playoffs when Scott Brooks kept fouling Omer Asik, even though he was shooting nearly 60% from the free throw line for the season.

 

[do work son]

It wasn't stupid. Asik really was a **** ft shooter. It became stupid when he wouldn't stop even though asik was making them

 

[pmatic]

You don't intentionally foul guys shooting over 55% from the line like Asik was.

Like DatZ mentioned, if a player is shooting around 40% it makes sense.

 

[addict4sneakers]

My main man Blake Griffin with his 3rd straight game scoring over 35

 

[lawdog1]

Off the top of my head, I know at minimum Dwight has won us two games because of it though. Pop went to it, Dwight was hitting, and took the spurs completely out of their rhythm and we pulled away. Then the next night, Rick Carlisle tried and the same thing happened.

And that's how it would go down 90% of the time it was used against Shaq when he was on the Lakers (at least as far as I remember)

 

[trynafeelmink]

So are we gonna stop saying that blake is only what he is because of CP3 ? hes played like an MVP since CP3 went down and more importantly they keep winning

 

[100027]

So are we gonna stop saying that blake is only what he is because of CP3 ? hes played like an MVP since CP3 went down and more importantly they keep winning

That was so foolish in the first place.  Blake is a really, really good player.

 

[ValarMorghulis]

I've been a big Derozan hater since he was drafted.... I'm eating crow. Dude is getting it right now.

 

[$tacy]

So are we gonna stop saying that blake is only what he is because of CP3 ? hes played like an MVP since CP3 went down and more importantly they keep winning

I was man enough to admit before I was 100% wrong about dude. Even tho I still don't like him or his sloppy unorthodox moves, he's getting it. Since cp3 went down he has been on an mvp level and deserve every award he gets this year

 

[sea manup]

Tanking typically doesn't work.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/40055/does-tanking-even-work

Losing begets losing.

most of the time tanking doesnt work, if it did then there would be no bad nba teams

but when you have a trash team with no developing young players, not tanking NEVER works

thats the difference, one side you have a small chance of landing a franchise player and on the other side you have no chance

using the article's bobcats as an example, they tanked for AD and they had a 25% chance of getting him. a 1 in 4 chance of getting what they wanted

unfortunately for them the pick went to the hornets who had a 13.7% chance and the bobcats had to settle with the second pick

but the tanking, while it didnt work out, was absolutely worth having the highest chance of getting that first pick

its the same reason offences work to get players in their most efficient spots, you always want to give yourself the highest chance of succeeding but even if you do that sometimes it wont work out.

IF the bobcats were a little luckier, they would have AD and the 3rd best team in the east right now after signing al jeff this off season

 

[awwsome]

I don't care how sloppy Blake's post game is if it's effective.

 

[do work son]

I don't care how sloppy Blake's post game is if it's effective.

THIS.

 

[lawdog1]

I don't care how sloppy Blake's post game is if it's effective.

Exactly.

Just like I don't take anything away from Reggie Miller for having an ugly-@&& jump shot. If it works, it works.

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

Exactly.

Just like I don't take anything away from Reggie Miller for having an ugly-@&& jump shot. If it works, it works.

Folks are finally starting to ease up on Blake, don't push it now comparing one of the greatest shooters of all time with Blake Griffin's post game effectiveness

 

[marath0n]

Folks are finally starting to ease up on Blake, don't push it now comparing one of the greatest shooters of all time with Blake Griffin's post game effectiveness

I believe his point simply was, it doesn't matter if it's ugly as long as it's effective, and he just used Reggie as an example. You just made it way more complicated. Now I see how senseless arguments start

 

[cj003]

Tanking typically doesn't work.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/40055/does-tanking-even-work


Losing begets losing.

most of the time tanking doesnt work, if it did then there would be no bad nba teams

but when you have a trash team with no developing young players, not tanking NEVER works

thats the difference, one side you have a small chance of landing a franchise player and on the other side you have no chance

using the article's bobcats as an example, they tanked for AD and they had a 25% chance of getting him. a 1 in 4 chance of getting what they wanted

unfortunately for them the pick went to the hornets who had a 13.7% chance and the bobcats had to settle with the second pick

but the tanking, while it didnt work out, was absolutely worth having the highest chance of getting that first pick

its the same reason offences work to get players in their most efficient spots, you always want to give yourself the highest chance of succeeding but even if you do that sometimes it wont work out.

IF the bobcats were a little luckier, they would have AD and the 3rd best team in the east right now after signing al jeff this off season

I agree w/ sea manup

Additionally, many teams that are in the lottery year after year aren't actually tanking. There's a difference btwn tanking and losing. They just have horrible front offices and therefore lose. A team like the Celtics has a good front office and will pick the right player or flip that pick (how they got ray allen). To me "tanking" is when teams have a chance to win and blow it to get a pick b/c they realize that getting the 8th seed is pointless. Losers are trying to win, but they are awful b/c they can't draft (Cleveland, Warriors before new ownership )

 

[datznasty]

I don't care how sloppy Blake's post game is if it's effective.

THIS.

I still hate that reverse pivot while jumping move he does. yes it's still 2 points, but I get so scared for his ACLs when he does that.

I agree with being anti tanking. Even if you do acquire all this first rd lottery talent and say you make all the right picks which is almost equally as unlikely, at some point you have to start the improving/winning process, since it's 99.9% unlikely you are just going to go from not in the playoffs to title in 1 season. With the exception of the Big 3 Celtics, I think in fact every team in the last decade to win a championship made the finals at least once and failed, and before that you have shorter playoff runs and get better yearly. OKC, IND, and POR made teams think it's easier and quicker than it really is.

OKC was built off tanking though kind of, if you want to call it that. Presti cleared out all that salary (Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, Kurt Thomas, Delonte West, etc.) for draft picks then letting young players just live and improve through mistakes. That's still slightly different to me then holding players out for 4 weeks with a hangnail or trading away good players who might make you win too much.

 

[frink85]

I don't care how sloppy Blake's post game is if it's effective.

i said this after the miami game, if he just had a better/softer touch around the rim on short hooks he would beast even more.

 

[100027]

 
most of the time tanking doesnt work, if it did then there would be no bad nba teams

but when you have a trash team with no developing young players, not tanking NEVER works

thats the difference, one side you have a small chance of landing a franchise player and on the other side you have no chance

using the article's bobcats as an example, they tanked for AD and they had a 25% chance of getting him. a 1 in 4 chance of getting what they wanted

unfortunately for them the pick went to the hornets who had a 13.7% chance and the bobcats had to settle with the second pick

but the tanking, while it didnt work out, was absolutely worth having the highest chance of getting that first pick

its the same reason offences work to get players in their most efficient spots, you always want to give yourself the highest chance of succeeding but even if you do that sometimes it wont work out.

IF the bobcats were a little luckier, they would have AD and the 3rd best team in the east right now after signing al jeff this off season

I really agree with you for a bunch of reasons that I don't want to get in to right now.  For one, it doesn't make sense to declare "tanking doesn't work" based on the fact that losing teams most often continue to lose...  There are a whole number of outside factors that keep bad teams down, including bad management.

It's also considering tanking in a vacuum for bad teams when tanking is actually one not-ideal option that's part of a range of not-ideal options for talentless teams.

I just want to say Henry Abbott is the classic "dumb writer who thinks he's smart".

 

[dman14]

you cant have below .500 make the playoffs and draft late in first, while a western conference team who wins 45+ have a chance in the lottery

 

[sea manup]

the cavs are a good example, they had the first pick this year could have picked a decent player like oladipo but randomly went with bennett

thats not random, thats the cavs GM being an idiot

they were fully able to pick oladipo who is turning out to be a solid player

now if they didnt "tank" and got say the 7th pick, they would not have the option of picking oladipo

cavs, knicks, twolves, michael jordan seem to NEVER end up picking good players regardless of where they are drafting, stop using their stupidity as an example for why tanking doesnt work

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

I believe his point simply was, it doesn't matter if it's ugly as long as it's effective, and he just used Reggie as an example. You just made it way more complicated. Now I see how senseless arguments start

His point was illogical. Obviously, if a guy is exceptionally effective it doesn't matter how form looks. Blake's post game should never be compared to the effectiveness of Reggie Miller's ugly three point release because Blake's post game is unproven. Again dude is proving a lot of folks wrong, let him cook without making these outlandish comments.