2013-14 - Around the League Thread

[MHSL82]

There's also the thought that close games are just noise (in the standings), and blowouts are more meaningful.

There have been a lot of average teams with exceptional records in close games.

One year, an 8th seed Milwaukee team was 13-0 in games decided by 3 points or less. But they're were just an 8th seed, and lost in 4 or 5 games in the 1st round like most 8th seeds.

But that 13-0 shows some grit... or luck. But maybe they were really as good as a 6 or 7 seed but played the 1 seed?

 

[nuraman00]

But that 13-0 shows some grit... or luck. But maybe they were really as good as a 6 or 7 seed but played the 1 seed?

Maybe they were a 7th seed and not an 8th seed.

But regardless, their results in the playoffs wouldn't differentiate themselves from most other low seeds.

That grit in the regular season didn't matter, because they're not involved in close games, and they're not playing those opponents.

Ok, found which season:

+++++++++++++++++

ESPN.com - NBA - SPECIAL WEEKEND EDITION<BR>Nash, Kobe have different value

Hold the panic, San Antonio. It's not all bleak in the Alamo City.

The Spurs can't avenge their two losses to Detroit until June, but they did become the first team this season to beat Milwaukee in a close game with Wednesday's 95-92 triumph. The Bucks, going in, were an astounding 13-0 in games decided by six points or less.

Not that rookie center Andrew Bogut was terribly proud of the habit.

"Within that positive, there's a negative," Bogut said. "It's not that we're so good when the [margin] is under six. We've either been winning close games or getting blown out. So we need to change that. I don't think it's the best thing for us."

++++++++++++++++++

So they were 13-0 at one point, but didn't finish the season that way. Regardless, as previously mentioned, they lost IN THE PLAYOFFS, where it counts, by 18, 11, 10, and 29.

Game 1 Sun, April 23 Milwaukee Bucks 74 @ Detroit Pistons 92
Game 2 Wed, April 26 Milwaukee Bucks 98 @ Detroit Pistons 109
Game 3 Sat, April 29 Detroit Pistons 104 @ Milwaukee Bucks 124
Game 4 Mon, May 1 Detroit Pistons 109 @ Milwaukee Bucks 99
Game 5 Wed, May 3 Milwaukee Bucks 93 @ Detroit Pistons 122

 

[MHSL82]

Nuraman, I need your help. I have a question that would have been seen as totally valid until he came out and now could be confused to be related to his sexuality. Believe me, it's not.

Why is Collins in the NBA, now or ever?

He's a 7'0 center, so he clogs the lane and appears to move alright. I'm sure his screens work and he can probably box out well, but as a center, whose shots should all be around the basket, he:

Doesn't shoot well: 41% career shooting
Doesn't rebound well: 3.7 per 20.6 minutes (6.4 per 36 minutes)
Doesn't block well: 0.5 per game (0.9 per 36)
Doesn't score well: 3.6 pg (6.3/36)
Doesn't shoot free throws well: 64.7 but this is to be expected.

I kjnow he's earned it, so it is an honest question, why has he been in the NBA so long? I know you can't teach height, but that height doesn't produce. Is it the small things like taking up space, boxing out, screens, fouls, etc.?

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/987/jason-Collins

He fouled well, here: http://espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=400489817&period=3 (all in third quarter with a lead.)

 

[MHSL82]

I know he wasn't serious, or at least I assume he'd second guess it if they implemented what he said (slows the game at best and much worse at worst). He's now on my clown list or not-to-fond-of list.

Marcin Gortat suggests NBA allow in-game player fights | ProBasketballTalk

What a stupid idea that would ruin basketball. I can barely stand that NHL allows fights let alone the NBA. I'll watch the fight like anyone else, but is one of the reasons I can't follow soccer or hockey much. I'm there to watch a game and regular tempers, not to see a fight.

It's similar to how I'm not as big of fan of big hits in the NFL. I'm ok with it because it comes with the territory, just not a fan of it. I understand the reasoning, but I fear one of my team players getting hurt and us losing. That's not football to me. I want people to tackle to stop the other team from advancing, not to hurt them or send a message, within reason. Line up the two teams and pit the passing with the coverage and the running with the physical force of the defensive line. I'm ok with being physical a bit with receivers just like people try to dissuade players from driving to the hoop, but it isn't, "don't come here or something dirty will happen or your career will end." Thankfully, careers don't end that often this way. The message should be, that's not going to work, and damn, was that worth it?

I accept the big hits in the NFL because sometimes my team is on the healthy side (we do the hitting) and because it comes with the territory. This isn't the same as allowing fights. It's a strategy to be physical. Physical leads to injury - as long as the goal is to be physical and not just to injure.

 

[MHSL82]

I want to take this time to apologize to Gobert for ever calling him Gortat. I should bump Gobert up a spot on my list of favorite current Jazz players.

 

[MHSL82]

I think offensive rebounds won this game, did it not? Three pointers helped.

Brooklyn Nets vs. Miami Heat - Box Score - March 12, 2014 - ESPN

The Nets got 10 more shots in the game despite only two fewer turnovers.

 

[nuraman00]

Why is Collins in the NBA, now or ever?

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/utah-jazz/141207-best-screen-setters.html

 

[nuraman00]

I know he wasn't serious, or at least I assume he'd second guess it if they implemented what he said (slows the game at best and much worse at worst). He's now on my clown list or not-to-fond-of list.

Marcin Gortat suggests NBA allow in-game player fights | ProBasketballTalk

What a stupid idea that would ruin basketball. I can barely stand that NHL allows fights let alone the NBA. I'll watch the fight like anyone else, but is one of the reasons I can't follow soccer or hockey much. I'm there to watch a game and regular tempers, not to see a fight.

It's similar to how I'm not as big of fan of big hits in the NFL. I'm ok with it because it comes with the territory, just not a fan of it. I understand the reasoning, but I fear one of my team players getting hurt and us losing. That's not football to me. I want people to tackle to stop the other team from advancing, not to hurt them or send a message, within reason. Line up the two teams and pit the passing with the coverage and the running with the physical force of the defensive line. I'm ok with being physical a bit with receivers just like people try to dissuade players from driving to the hoop, but it isn't, "don't come here or something dirty will happen or your career will end." Thankfully, careers don't end that often this way. The message should be, that's not going to work, and damn, was that worth it?

I accept the big hits in the NFL because sometimes my team is on the healthy side (we do the hitting) and because it comes with the territory. This isn't the same as allowing fights. It's a strategy to be physical. Physical leads to injury - as long as the goal is to be physical and not just to injure.

I don't watch enough NHL to know what I think of the fighting.

But I agree with you about the NBA.

 

[MHSL82]

If Jason Kidd had been traded from a different team, I would have considered getting a Van Horn jersey from his new team. He never played after the trade, so it would be an inside joke but since it was to the Nets, where he already played, it lost its appeal. I liked Van Horn because he played for the Utah Utes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...ceives-assist-keith-van-horn-article-1.309875

 

[MHSL82]

I was afraid Majerus (the coach) was going to have a heart attack. That must have been his highest jump ever.

My favorite jump? Do you even have to ask? I was going to post it... but can you guess?

 

[nuraman00]

Cavs court projections:

Cleveland Cavaliers PreGame Court Projection on Vimeo

 

[nuraman00]

Van Horn was great for the Knicks in 2003-2004. He finally played consistently, with scoring and rebounding. In the middle of the best stretch of his career, they traded him to Milwaukee. He was on vacation with his kids, to Disney World, when he found out.

New York screwed up. You can repeat that statement a lot, for the past 11 years.

 

[nuraman00]

 

[MHSL82]

Stockton would win that, but no one from this generation would know that. Of course, that's not true. You and I are from this generation - but sort of not.

 

[nuraman00]

I was afraid Majerus (the coach) was going to have a heart attack. That must have been his highest jump ever.

My favorite jump? Do you even have to ask? I was going to post it... but can you guess?

Stockton but when that, but no one from this generation would know that. Of course, that's not true. You and I are from this generation - but sort of not.

Why wouldn't people from this generation know that Stockton's jump is your favorite? You've already mentioned how it was also one of your top sporting moments, so the fact that the specific jump is a favorite, would make sense.

People from older generations than you would also know that, because you've told them about your favorite moments.

People from younger generations would also know that, because you've told them about your favorite moments.

People from any generation who know you would know about your favorite moments.

 

[MHSL82]

I was referring to Stockton versus Williams. Stockton would win that. But nowadays, points are so valued, over assists and steals, despite that point advantage being less then the impact of the assist difference. Then, add in the steels and it should be no contest. Neither Stockton nor Williams won a championship and Williams never got to the Finals. Boozer is not Malone, but that doesn't excuse Williams if comparing him to Stockton. Even though Stocton not winning with Malone as help is negative, Stockton is still better.

 

[nuraman00]

I was referring to Stockton versus Williams. Stockton would win that. But nowadays, points are so valued, over assists and steals, despite that point advantage being less then the impact of the assist difference. Then, add in the steels and it should be no contest. Neither Stockton nor Williams won a championship and Williams never got to the Finals. Boozer is not Malone, but that doesn't excuse Williams if comparing him to Stockton. Even though Stocton not winning with Malone as help is negative, Stockton is still better.

That's your opinion.

Perimeter defense value is high, especially since the perimeter players can do more than they used to. So being able to stop that is even more important.

That's why having LeBron James being able to guard Tony Parker for stretches was so important, so they could take away Parker's getting in the paint and setting up the offense.

And that's where Deron shows his worst qualities. Deron is a terrible defender. During the 2007 playoffs, especially the 1st two rounds, Derek Fisher was playing better than him. Deron would allow Baron Davis, then Manu Ginobili, to do whatever they wanted. I don't know why Deron is so terrible, but he is. Maybe his anticipation sucks. Maybe he's too slow.

Deron got a lot of praise for his offense in the 2007 playoffs, especially against GSW. But from what I saw, his poor defense made him less valuable overall than Derek Fisher. Deron was giving up more than he was helping create offense.

Game 4 of the 2007 WCF was Manu blowing past Deron all game long, as the Jazz couldn't stop the Spurs at all.

Deron was compared to Chris Paul a lot, but Paul was always better at FT%, steals, turnovers, and defense, and Deron is bad at most of those.

So when Deron is then compared to a legendary defender like Stockton, or Payton, or Kidd, it's even more glaring.

So when Deron is compared to other good PGs, it's his turnovers, and defense, that set him back, and why he's not a hall of famer, or a perennial all-star.

And it's someone like Michael Carter William's ability to play both sides of the ball, which have me intrigued.

And why he's more valuable, if he can play at a consistent high level, than Lillard, or Irving, or Curry.

So perimeter defense is valuable, and few players right now can defend like Pippen/Kidd/Payton/Stockton.

Lebron James only does it for stretches in close games near the end, he doesn't do it all game long like the above HOFs would. There's few star players that defend the perimeter all game long like those HOFs.

Rondo is an ok defender, but not as good as his high steals would suggest. Plus, it's debatable whether he goes for offensive rebounds a little too much, at the expense of getting back on defense.

I think Billups was a better defender than Rondo, and he would do it all game long.

Perimeter defense is valuable, but there's not many who are great at it right now, and not many who do it all game long. I wish Lebron James would.

I like Ray Allen's defense. Smart player who uses his head to get in good position, to make up for his lack of quick athleticism.

For example, compare these pics:

Here's how much space Tyreke Evans allows Ray Allen:

And here's how much Ray Allen allows Tyreke, on the next possession:

I know, most media won't recognize Ray Allen's defense. It's like they have to stick to some narrative about how he's a bad defender.

But these pics illustrate differently.

Also, go back and watch game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals. Kobe Bryant shot 6-24 in that game, and Ray Allen was guarding him all night long. I loved watching Allen defend Bryant like that.


The other narrative that annoys me is how Boozer is a bad defender. No, he's not bad. He uses his body and is decent. Plus, rebounding is a part of defense, and if he's on the floor getting all of those rebounds, he must be doing something right to allow that other team to miss a shot.

Same thing with Zach Randolph. Both of these guys, their rebounding IS their defense, they hold their position, box out, use their body, then get the rebound. And they're ok at it.

Being able to stop the ball is valuable, and I was annoyed at the Jazz last year, since it seemed like the opposing team would have a shot at the rim within 5 seconds of crossing halfcourt. I think the Jazz aren't as bad at that this year, even though their DRTG dropped 4 points, from 21st in the league to 29th in the league.

So back to Deron, all you have to see is how all the teams he's been on have never been good defensively.

While Stockton's teams were great defensively some years.

Also, comparing Deron to Kidd, one can see the difference defensively. When Kidd was traded to New Jersey, they went from 23rd defensively with Marbury, in 2000-2001, to 1st with Kidd, in 2001-2002. Kidd didn't help New Jersey's offense, the 2001-2002 team was still only 17th in offense. But he helped them defensively, and that's why the Nets were so great.

I think that the Kidd-Kittles defensive backcourt was the best defensive backcourt I've seen. Better than Jordan-Pippen. Partly because Jordan-Pippen could still win games with offense. But the Nets didn't have that kind of talent, so Kidd-Kittles had to be sharp defensively all game long in order for the Nets to win games. Jordan-Pippen could save it until the 4th, then turn it on defensively. Kidd-Kittles had to turn it on as soon as the game started.

So, the fact that Deron is a bad defense, one of the worst defensive PGs I've EVER seen, is disappointing. So is Tyreke Evan's defense. Tyreke is capable of athletic plays on defense every now and then, and he can cause deflections. But he never guard's the opposing teams' best player. Not in Sacramento, not in New Orleans. To me, the fact that Tyreke guards a weaker offensive player, is disappointing. That would never happen with Stockton/Payton/Kidd, they would defend great PGs all game long.

 

[nuraman00]

And Nash gets criticized for his defense too. Always has.

That's why some can't group him with the other HOF PGs, because of how bad he was at the defensive end.

I do think Nash hustles and tries though, for what it's worth. It's just he doesn't have the physical ability to do better.

I remember when Don Nelson coached the Warriors, he would have whoever Nash was guarding, attack Nash, all game long. Whether it was Baron Davis, or some SF.

The media would acknowledge Nash's poor defense, and how he was being attacked.

So this shows that the media values perimeter defense too, and one can't describe what Steve Nash is like, without adding the "but . . ." and mentioning his defense.

 

[nuraman00]

And these pics show why Curry isn't as good as the HOF PGs, because of his defense. Same with Lillard and Irving.

 

[nuraman00]

And Nash gets criticized for his defense too. Always has.

That's why some can't group him with the other HOF PGs, because of how bad he was at the defensive end.

I do think Nash hustles and tries though, for what it's worth. It's just he doesn't have the physical ability to do better.

I remember when Don Nelson coached the Warriors, he would have whoever Nash was guarding, attack Nash, all game long. Whether it was Baron Davis, or some SF.

The media would acknowledge Nash's poor defense, and how he was being attacked.

So this shows that the media values perimeter defense too, and one can't describe what Steve Nash is like, without adding the "but . . ." and mentioning his defense.

Here's an example of what I mean by Nash at least hustling and trying on defense.