2014-15 NBA thread v. 2015-16 thread now playing

[Syzzle]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/237990/Bulls-Fire-Tom-Thibodeau

Nobody is surprised by this, but I still say it's a dumb move firing one of the 3 top coaches in the NBA.

[j]

I keep thinking statistics will catch up with GS sooner or later, but they haven't.  History and experience tells me they should be living and dying by their long contested jump shot-taking ways, but they continue to just...live by them.  It doesn't hurt that they're a pretty good defensive team too, which is often overlooked just because most teams flat out can't score with them.  It's unclear to me how much of a factor Steve Kerr is in all of this.  On the surface they don't seem much different of a team than they were under Jackson.  Also I hated Kerr as a player and analyst so I don't want to give him credit.

That said, LeBron took Boobie Gibson et al to the finals several years back so as far as I'm concerned you can never count him out.  Were they to put him on Curry, the Warriors would at least have to look elsewhere for a lot of their offense.  Plus he's putting up stupid numbers, as others have noted, albeit against relatively lame eastern conference opponents.

-J

[bosk1]

I keep thinking statistics will catch up with GS sooner or later, but they haven't.  History and experience tells me they should be living and dying by their long contested jump shot-taking ways, but they continue to just...live by them.

But the thing is, statistics are irrelevant here.  Yeah, they are WAY above the league average in terms of the things you mention.  But the thing is, they have quite a few shooters that are much better shooters than average.  These guys have proven that over the last few seasons now.  So I don't expect "statistics to catch up with them" any time soon.  They will have a bad game or two.  That's just the way it goes.  But there is no reason to expect their shooting percentage or scoring numbers to flatline because they have a lot of REALLY good shooters.

It doesn't hurt that they're a pretty good defensive team too, which is often overlooked just because most teams flat out can't score with them.

Actually, they are an exceptional team.  And that is why they have still won a lot of games where the offense has cooled down.  But defense in basketball is not as easy to recognize unless you watch a team over a long stretch, which most of the country has not, so it is not surprising that their defense has not gotten quite the recognition it probably deserves.

It's unclear to me how much of a factor Steve Kerr is in all of this.  On the surface they don't seem much different of a team than they were under Jackson.  Also I hated Kerr as a player and analyst so I don't want to give him credit.

I never really knew him as a player.  I don't really follow the NBA as a whole that closely.  But I think he is a better coach than many realize.  I thought it was a horrible idea to fire Jackson.  And I attributed the Warriors' early season success to Kerr just staying out of the team's way and letting them do their thing.  But listening to him quite a bit on local sports talk, it has become apparent that he is a pretty good coach who knows what he is doing.  Of course, he benefitted greatly from having an outstanding team with outstanding personnel already put together and handed to him on a silver platter.  So it remains to be seen whether he is a truly "great" coach.  But definitely very, very good.

That said, LeBron took Boobie Gibson et al to the finals several years back so as far as I'm concerned you can never count him out.  Were they to put him on Curry, the Warriors would at least have to look elsewhere for a lot of their offense.  Plus he's putting up stupid numbers, as others have noted, albeit against relatively lame eastern conference opponents.

You can never count out a team that has LeBron.  The other day, I was noodling through the reasons why he is so obviously not at Jordan's level and should only be considered "on the outside looking in" when having the "greatest of all time" discussion.  Despite my best efforts, I talked myself out of it by the time the "conversation" was over.  He really is that good.

[j]

But the thing is, statistics are irrelevant here.  Yeah, they are WAY above the league average in terms of the things you mention.  But the thing is, they have quite a few shooters that are much better shooters than average.  These guys have proven that over the last few seasons now.  So I don't expect "statistics to catch up with them" any time soon.  They will have a bad game or two.  That's just the way it goes.  But there is no reason to expect their shooting percentage or scoring numbers to flatline because they have a lot of REALLY good shooters.

True, you could argue that Curry and Thompson are THE two best shooters in the league.  I firmly believe that if Curry can stay healthy, he'll be the best shooter in NBA history by a number of metrics by the end of his career.

That said, I can't agree that "statistics are irrelevant" or don't apply to them for some reason.  Many of the shots they take are not only from long range, but have a high degree of difficulty on top of it.  Though Curry might make more of those than anybody else, they're still "low percentage shots."  Hypothetically, players/teams that get more shots in the paint/close to the basket are going to come out on top in the long term.  But either way, Golden State DOES do their share of scoring at short range as well.

You can never count out a team that has LeBron.  The other day, I was noodling through the reasons why he is so obviously not at Jordan's level and should only be considered "on the outside looking in" when having the "greatest of all time" discussion.  Despite my best efforts, I talked myself out of it by the time the "conversation" was over.  He really is that good.

Lately I tend to agree (as does Bill Laimbeer).  While I'd still call Jordan the GOAT if pressed, LeBron is absolutely one of about three other guys in the discussion.  He's MJ's peer, if not his equal.

-J

[KevShmev]

Since the 90s, Jordan has been the unquestioned number 1 for most, but I find it interesting that in probably the last five years, so many have been putting Magic Johnson at number 2, when I never saw him in that spot before then.  I think those years where he was on ESPN as an analyst made people remember what a likable guy he is, and many gave him the bump up to 2 on the GOAT lists.  Don't get me wrong, Magic is up there pretty high, but would I put him ahead of LeBron, Bird or Kareem?  Probably not.  But I know that for many, the nostalgia of remembering the Showtime Lakers is strong for many, and it's easy to forget that the Western Conference was as bad back then as the East is now (meaning the Lakers might as well have been given byes to the finals some years), Magic always had Kareem when winning titles, and Magic was pretty awful on defense.  Calling it picking nits, but while Magic is an all-time great, and arguably top 5, should be number 2 or 3? I say no.

[King Postwhore]

Still,  to play that many positions and to be that good at them.  Like you said Kev, Top 10 on the high end close to five for me.  He was a better point guard at 6' 9" then most point guards ever.

[j]

I agree with you guys, Magic is top 10, maybe top 5.  IMO, although it's overly simplistic as is any comparison between any two players, triple-doubles are as good a metric as we have to measure a player's well-roundedness and dominance of multiple aspects of the game.  Magic was a triple double machine, as is LeBron.  But Oscar Robertson is for some reason often left out of the GOAT discussions.  Though he played long before my day, he and Jordan are probably my picks for the two best players of all time.

-J

[black_biff_stadler]

Considering that Oscar Robertson's beyond-stellar career is reduced to him being a trivia answer as that dude whom averaged a triple-double for a whole season, I figured I'd point out how close he came to doing that for four straight seasons:

60-61: 30.5 ppg 10.1 rpg 9.7 apg (As a fuckin rookie! 20 assists away from a season-average triple-double.)

61-62: 30.8 ppg 12.5 rpg 11.4 apg (The triple-double season. This happened during Wilt's 50.4 ppg season which included his 100-point game. Just try getting noticed that year.)

62-63: 28.3 ppg 10.4 rpg 9.5 apg (42 assists shy of a season-average triple-double. 758 in 80 games.)

63-64: 31.4 ppg 9.9 rpg 11.0 apg (Literally, 7 rebounds away from the season triple-double. 783 in 79 games.)

[KevShmev]

I'll admit that it is difficult for me to put Robertson, Wilt and Russell up at the very top because a) I never saw any of them play, and more importantly b) they played in an era when there weren't a lot of teams, so being the best then didn't mean as much then as it did once the league expanded.  It's kind of like the great baseball players who excelled before blacks were allowed to play; they get docked because those who came after did it against a higher level of overall competition.

[black_biff_stadler]

The fewer teams angle is rubbish. That just means it was WAY harder to get into the NBA. At seemingly every five year stretch we have a good 5-7 teams that make the playoffs once or less during that time frame even though they have a better chance of making it (16/30 for 53.3%) than missing it (14/30 for 46.7%). Add to that the fact that only 9 different teams (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks) have even won a title since 1980 and it makes it pretty clear that the extra teams are just window dressing that create an artifical sense of parity.

[j]

Considering that Oscar Robertson's beyond-stellar career is reduced to him being a trivia answer as that dude whom averaged a triple-double for a whole season, I figured I'd point out how close he came to doing that for four straight seasons:

60-61: 30.5 ppg 10.1 rpg 9.7 apg (As a fuckin rookie! 20 assists away from a season-average triple-double.)

61-62: 30.8 ppg 12.5 rpg 11.4 apg (The triple-double season. This happened during Wilt's 50.4 ppg season which included his 100-point game. Just try getting noticed that year.)

62-63: 28.3 ppg 10.4 rpg 9.5 apg (42 assists shy of a season-average triple-double. 758 in 80 games.)

63-64: 31.4 ppg 9.9 rpg 11.0 apg (Literally, 7 rebounds away from the season triple-double. 783 in 79 games.)

If you look at that stretch as a whole, he averaged a triple double over that entire period.  Absolutely ridiculous.  Nobody's come within light years of a similar feat in his era or anytime since.

-J

[Azyiu]

Gentry must have given a very impressive interview! He is a very good offensive coach, and I hope he does well in NO. Good hire! 

Now let's see if the Lakers will first let go of B-Scott, and then hire either Tom Thib or JVG like some rumors suggested.

[Syzzle]

Kobe and Thibs on the same team? I think Thibs would lose his voice before the game instead of during it like he always does.

[KevShmev]

The fewer teams angle is rubbish. That just means it was WAY harder to get into the NBA. At seemingly every five year stretch we have a good 5-7 teams that make the playoffs once or less during that time frame even though they have a better chance of making it (16/30 for 53.3%) than missing it (14/30 for 46.7%). Add to that the fact that only 9 different teams (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks) have even won a title since 1980 and it makes it pretty clear that the extra teams are just window dressing that create an artifical sense of parity.

Has the NBA ever really claimed to be all about parity?  The NBA is a very star-driven.  If you have a star, you will contend most of the time. The teams that frequently miss the playoffs usually lack having even one star.  What's even crazier is how these teams that get lottery picks a lot still can't improve more often than not (see: the 76ers ).

[King Postwhore]

And realistically,  you need 2 stars to win in this league.

[black_biff_stadler]

The fewer teams angle is rubbish. That just means it was WAY harder to get into the NBA. At seemingly every five year stretch we have a good 5-7 teams that make the playoffs once or less during that time frame even though they have a better chance of making it (16/30 for 53.3%) than missing it (14/30 for 46.7%). Add to that the fact that only 9 different teams (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks) have even won a title since 1980 and it makes it pretty clear that the extra teams are just window dressing that create an artifical sense of parity.

Has the NBA ever really claimed to be all about parity?  The NBA is a very star-driven.  If you have a star, you will contend most of the time. The teams that frequently miss the playoffs usually lack having even one star.  What's even crazier is how these teams that get lottery picks a lot still can't improve more often than not (see: the 76ers ).

Doesn't this prove my point that the fewer teams argument is a nonfactor since the NBA's always sorely lacked parity and the fact that fewer teams meant that those whom made rosters had to clearly be the best of the best out of whom was available?

[KevShmev]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that the best of the best back then is better than the best of the best nowadays.  In every sport, it is always so difficult to compares players from different eras to one another.  Hard to have a right or wrong answer, really. 

[Fiery Winds]

Let's go Warriors!! 

[lonestar]

That's one!!!!


This is gonna be a loooooooooong two weeks for my warrior friends, this series is gonna be a bloodbath.

[bosk1]

What.  A.  Game.

Wow.  Much respect to the Cavs.  But, honestly, I think this game is a good indication of why the Warriors will win.  The Cavs are LeBron, and whichever one or two guys can step up on a given night.  The Warriors are an incredibly deep team.  You never know which guys are going to do it, and it is never just one guy.

[Azyiu]

LeBron's monster game just wasn't enough, and if Irving can't be at least 80% the rest of the series (if he can even play at all); the Dubs will win...

[King Postwhore]

That Irving injury is big. His press conference after the game did not sound promising.

[contest_sanity]

Biggest mistake was not driving the lane on that last play of regulation. You’re on the road at Oracle, OT is death. Kyrie makes an incredible block to give you the last shot attempt. All you need is even 1 point. And you take a tightly contested, falling out of bounds three? LeBron played a great game, but that decision was awful. Where was this LeBron:

https://youtu.be/HZ7E-YlJ5lo

[j]

Biggest mistake was not driving the lane on that last play of regulation. You’re on the road at Oracle, OT is death. Kyrie makes an incredible block to give you the last shot attempt. All you need is even 1 point. And you take a tightly contested, falling out of bounds three? LeBron played a great game, but that decision was awful. Where was this LeBron:

https://youtu.be/HZ7E-YlJ5lo

Exactly, this this this.  It seems silly to nitpick at the best player in the world, but it's stuff like this that holds him back from his potential (whatever that means).  When he settles and turns himself into a jump shooter, his real strengths go to waste and he gives up the many advantages he has.  If he wants to play that game, he's gonna lose, because Golden State has a team full of dudes who are better at it than he is.

Great finish by the Warriors!  Looking to be a good series.

-J

[Accelerando]

I don't think it is silly at all to nitpick the supposedly best player in the world. I been very critical of LeBron James for years, even before he went to the Heat. I see the potential in him too. There was a time a rooted for him too. He's the most athletic player in the game right now for sure. But so far in his career, I will not even put LeBron James in my 10 best players of all time.

Tim Duncan, with all of his personal accomplishments, to me, is the best player of this generation. Not LeBron. Not Kobe. Not Shaq. I'm not saying that as a Spurs fan, but a fan of the game.

[KevShmev]

Potential?  LBJ has exceeded all expectations, which is pretty unreal considering how high they were. 

Having said that, that last possession in regulation showed off the one thing I do not like about his game.  I hate when he dribbles it down to under 5 on the shot clock and then just jacks up a contested jumper.  That aside, his performance last night was incredible, but it was all for naught, and with Irving now having a broken kneecap, it will be over in 4 or 5.  I don't think the Cavs were gonna win the series anyway, but with the Cavs now missing their 2nd and 3rd best players, good luck.

[Jamesman42]

*begins being salty about Lebron leaving Miami*

I got to actually watch some of this game. God, the Warriors are so good. Lebron can certainly carry a team, and he *could* have a monster game every game this series, but that just cannot be enough to defeat the Warriors. We could get proven wrong.

[Azyiu]

Biggest mistake was not driving the lane on that last play of regulation. You’re on the road at Oracle, OT is death. Kyrie makes an incredible block to give you the last shot attempt. All you need is even 1 point. And you take a tightly contested, falling out of bounds three? LeBron played a great game, but that decision was awful. Where was this LeBron:

https://youtu.be/HZ7E-YlJ5lo

As Shaq put it, between Kobe and LeBron; he would always pick Kobe as teammate for one simple reason... killer instinct. 

[KevShmev]

Is this where we act like Bryant had more of a killer instinct cause he was a chucker and James is not? 

[King Postwhore]

Is this where we act like Bryant had more of a killer instinct cause he was a chucker and James is not?

Or he hit big shots.


But seriously, aren't all big game player taking ridiculous shots at end of games because the other team knows they will get the ball?

[KevShmev]

Most of the time, yes. 

It's cute how some people still don't get that James is not like Jordan and Bryant, in regards to him not being a volume jump shooter like those guys were.  Imagine if James had had an in-his-prime Shaq on his team for years along with a coach the caliber of Phil Jackson. The 60s Celtics records might have been in danger.

[King Postwhore]

The reason so many hate on him (including me) isn't his on court play.  It's not even his off court stuff.  He is a good father and a good guy.  It's his actions in interviews when he says "I" and things like "The Decision" that throw people off.  Most great players know to say "Us"  LeBron in interviews makes it about himself.

You and I know that all great player have that ego and need it to be honest but they are smart enough to hide it.

[KevShmev]

I rarely see him do that.  He has since admitted that The Decision was wrong, so I don't hold that against him.  But heck, given how many still refuse to acknowledge how good he is and pick nits at his game, he probably feels the need for a little self-promotion at times, but on the court, he is one of the most unselfish superstars we have ever seen in sports.  He'd rather score 20 and get 12 assists in a win than score 40 and have no assists.  He loves seeing his teammates do well because it actually makes him happy; guys like Jordan and Bryant were very selfish players who were only okay with their teammates doing well cause it was a means to their end (winning), not because they got any joy out of seeing anyone else do well.  And don't get me wrong, that kind of "me first" selfishness was a big part of why they did so well, but James is just wired differently, and some people still don't get that.  To use the cliche I have heard before, he is more Magic than Michael, and he is BETTER than Magic, but many will never say it because Magic just oozed charisma, so people love the guy.  On the charisma scale, James simply doesn't rate very high.  He's not a 2 like Tim Duncan , but he's not a 10 like Magic.

[Syzzle]

Seriously the thought of LeBron with Prime Shaq it wouldn't even be fair to the rest of the league. They most likely beat the Bulls record of 72 wins, and sweep the playoffs multiple times on their way to a 9-peat

[j]

As Shaq put it, between Kobe and LeBron; he would always pick Kobe as teammate for one simple reason... killer instinct. 

Shaq ain't the brightest bulb.  Kobe launched contested jumpers at the buzzer in lieu of getting a high percentage look at least as often (and probably a lot more often) than LeBron.  And as I recall, his percentages were terrible.  "Killer instinct" is imaginary.

Potential?  LBJ has exceeded all expectations, which is pretty unreal considering how high they were. 

The two aren't necessarily related.  I don't know what LeBron's "potential" is or what that even means, but when he throws up shots like that, I see room for improvement that calls to mind the shadow of the LeBron that could be.  That doesn't mean he hasn't exceeded the general expectations of the masses from when he came out of HS.  He definitely has.

-J