My beef wasn't on your defense of Green - I have no idea what the guy is like off the court, and I sure as hell know that players that are hated can be great people. However, your shot at Josh was completely bush-league and uncalled for - especially coming from THE mod.
I wouldn't really call it a "defense." I'm not trying to "defend" him, and he doesn't need me to "defend" him (as if any NBA player needs that from a casual fan). Just pointing that that the "facts" pointed out about him are just completely devoid of being factual. And that is only relevant because he was referred to as a POS by someone who wished him to "suffer a career-ending injury." So, sorry you feel it is "bush league" to call out someone for wishing a "career-ending injury" on someone, but I don't. I think it's pretty disgusting to wish that on somebody, and that very thing has been called out in other sports-related threads as well. So, yeah, I think your criticism is off base and I stand by feeling that that sort of reaction is completely disgusting, not to mention ill-informed when it is based on misinformation.
But on to more relevant and timely discussion...
Bosk1, we are finally getting the WCF that we've been waiting for. My Spurs. Your Warriors. The Klaw vs The Chef. Hope it's a great series 
The game deserves this match up
Game 1 did not disappoint in terms of being exciting and full of incredible twists and turns. I feel SO bad for San Antonio fans about Kawhi though. Dude is so much fun to watch, and just seems like he has ice flowing through his veins. Reminds me of when Curry went down twice with ankle and knee injuries last year. It's tough to lose your best guy and then wonder "what if" when things don't go well after that. Hope he recovers soon.
I'll also say, the resilience of this team amazes me. I thought they were going to limp into Oakland and get beat pretty bad in game 1. They came out on fire. And there were so many moments in this game where other teams would have folded, by they just kept answering back and fighting. For any other team, I think losing 20+ point leads to the Warriors twice in such a short span of time would be a dagger through the heart that would suck the life out of them. But I don't expect the Spurs to fold at all. I think the series goes 5 games, but is going to be hard-fought all the way through.
The tricky thing about the MVP Award is that the NBA intentionally leaves its criteria up to interpretation. Should the award go to the player who is most likely the best (LeBron)? Should it go to the player whose team relies on him the most offensively (Westbrook)? Should it go to the best player on the best team (Curry)?
I personally think that the award would be most historically significant if it simply went to the guy who was the most outstanding during the regular season.
One problem is that some of the voters are complete doofuses. Case in point: Chris Broussard. He was on Colin Cowherd's show near the end of the regular season, where Cowherd gave a well-thought out and nuanced argument as to why James is more valuable than Westbrook, and Broussard's only response was literally, "Yeah, but a triple double!" And that guy is an actual voter. 
Kev, I get where you are coming from, especially on voters being doofuses. Now, I don't know anything about Broussard, and I didn't see the segment you are referring to. But why is that point not valid? I mean, yeah, triple-doubles alone may not say anything. And, in fact, a single player getting triple-doubles left and right might actually be indicative of a style of play that is detrimental to his team. But the fact that he is the first guy to average that stat through an entire season is monumental. It shows a level of consistently high play that, IMO, absolutely puts Westbrook in the discussion. I'm not saying that should make him a shoe-in or that other players' accomplishments are secondary. But I don't see why it isn't a valid discussion point.
Taking the entire season up through sweeping the first two rounds in the playoffs, yeah, I might put LBJ at #1 in the MVP race too. But as of the end of the season when it was decided, it's easy to see why he was probably around #3 in the voting given that he had not been playing particularly well since the all-star break, and that his team took a nosedive and gagged away the #1 seed despite having a commanding lead for that spot. Meanwhile, Harden and Westbrook were transcending and carrying their respective teams. I mean, I'm not trying to argue decisively for any particular candidate. Just saying that I think voting for someone other than LBJ would have been perfectly legitimate. It was a four horse race between Westbrook, Harden, James, and Leonard, and I wouldn't feel that the voters got it "wrong" if ANY of those guys wins it.
Topic: NBA thread 2016-17 v. The Age of The Land? (Read 58029 times)
