The Sacramento Queens Have Fired Mike Malone

[Hambombs]

They're best players never depended on the 3 ball nearly as much as steph & curry. Most of their 3s came from role players which is fine. Parker, Leonard, & Duncan obviously aren't guys who rely on the 3 ball

Not so bad being the possible GOAT of shooting otherwise I would agree. He does more than shoot. He's pretty good at getting to the rim too.

 

[Hambombs]

It's not just about having a good 3pt fg% that the Spurs have, they also can slow it down and play inside. I will have more faith, when Bogut comes back and stay healthy for the playoffs.

The achillies heal is obviously health and a healthy bogut IMO. This team no doubt has the goods to get it done. West is wide open

 

[bksballer89]

When did Bogut become some inside presence on offense? I get he's a good defender and rim protector but Bogut being healthy means nothing for the Warriors offense. They will continue to shoot 3's

 

[Hambombs]

When did Bogut become some inside presence on offense? I get he's a good defender and rim protector but Bogut being healthy means nothing for the Warriors offense. They will continue to shoot 3's

Umm cause he makes the ball movement really flawless? He's a quarterback out there. Offense is obviously better when he's in. He can score still. Kerr knows how to use bogut unlike Jackson who didn't go to him on offense at all. Bogut is an excellent big

 

[bksballer89]

Bogut numbers are almost identical to what he avg last year under Jackson. Only difference is that rebounds were slightly up last year and assist were slightly down (2.2 this year and 1.8 last year)

With or without Bogut, the Warriors rely on the 3 ball far too often

 

[bksballer89]

Just for the record the Spurs were 16th in attempts last year but shot the highest percent

 

[Hambombs]

Bogut numbers are almost identical to what he avg last year under Jackson. Only difference is that rebounds were slightly up last year and assist were slightly down (2.2 this year and 1.8 last year)

With or without Bogut, the Warriors rely on the 3 ball far too often

I hate how people say "this is how many points and rebounds he got and this is how good he is on offense" it's about team impact. His impact on offense and defense can not be denied

 

[Hambombs]

Just for the record the Spurs were 16th in attempts last year but shot the highest percent

Just for the record Houston probably relies on it much more

 

[Hambombs]

We are on pace for over 1,000 layups compared to the high 700s last year. Not that it matters

 

[bksballer89]

Just for the record Houston probably relies on it much more

I agree and they won't be winning a title this year either....even though their numbers are so ridiculous because Dwight missed about 3 weeks. I expect their avg to drop a little now that Dwight is back

 

[bksballer89]

Bogut does have a good impact on defense.

I'll believe his impact on offense when you show me a side by side compairsons of their offensive numbers with Bogut and without Bogut.

Until I see that I think you're full of shit

 

[Hambombs]

Bogut does have a good impact on defense.

I'll believe his impact on offense when you show me a side by side compairsons of their offensive numbers with Bogut and without Bogut.

Until I see that I think you're full of shit

On court= 113.6 off court=107.2 on offense

 

[Hambombs]

I agree and they won't be winning a title this year either....even though their numbers are so ridiculous because Dwight missed about 3 weeks. I expect their avg to drop a little now that Dwight is back

Warriors can definetly win it all with health and a little luck

 

[wildturkey]

Wildturkey, the Suns and Warriors example you gave, are different from each other.

A bad team winning 20 games, then winning 48 games and not making the playoffs, is an improvement. They went from a bad team, to basically a playoff team that just missed the playoffs by a game or two. They made the next step. Now, if you win 50 games and lose in the first round to winning 60 games and lose in the first round again next year, then its a wash because you didn't make that next step. When you are a good team, you are judged in the playoffs. Year, you can improve your number of wins in the regular season, but what good does that do if you are keep going to lose, in the same round.

They aren't different from each other. You're still judging the end result. There are far more ways to see if you've improved than just the end result. If it were all based on the end result (one variable), you couldn't evaluate jack about your team to see how to improve. You wouldn't know if its the coach, the roster, dumb luck (injuries, match ups, etc) or anything else.

No, I'm disagreeing. You just don't like that I have higher standards for success. Some teams have higher expectations than others. Thanks, but I'm not going to be a fan of a team that considers anything less than a championship to be a successful season. I don't want my team hanging "division champions" banners or thinking that winning a few more regular season games makes for a successful season. I'll leave that to teams that don't win championships.

Look at the Lakers this season. I know they aren't even making the playoffs, let alone winning a championship. If I see the team playing hard, improving and buying into Byron's system, I will be pleased with the progress, but I will not consider it to be a successful season.

Sorry, I'm just never going to buy into the "everybody gets a trophy and if you tried your successful" mindset.

You don't have high standards. You picked standard and you're willfully ignoring everything else. And with the bolded part, this is why you're misguided. If they do all that, how is it not successful? That's what he was brought in to do! To start to turn things around. If they're playing better and heading in a positive direction as opposed to last year, that's a success. By your logic, Bryon is either failing or doing nothing of significance until he wins a title. That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[trojanfan12]

You don't have high standards. You picked standard and you're willfully ignoring everything else. And with the bolded part, this is why you're misguided. If they do all that, how is it not successful? That's what he was brought in to do! To start to turn things around. If they're playing better and heading in a positive direction as opposed to last year, that's a success. By your logic, Bryon is either failing or doing nothing of significance until he wins a title. That's absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not misguided at all. I just understand the difference between successful and unsuccessful.

If the things I want to see happen, do happen, it doesn't make the season successful, it just means that progress has been made towards the goal of winning a championship and thus, being successful. Also, you are wrong about my logic. By my logic if those things happen, it means that Byron is making progress with the team towards the ultimate goal.

It's pretty simple logic really, not sure why you're having trouble following along. If the goal is to win a championship, then winning a championship equals success. Not winning a championship, does not equal success, since winning one is the goal.

If the team makes measurable progress towards winning a championship, then that can be considered encouraging and something to feel good about, but it doesn't become success until the goal is achieved.

Del Harris's teams improved and showed progress towards winning a championship, but they were not successful. Phil's first 3 Lakers teams achieved the goal and were therefore successful.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

As for teams that have "division winner" banners. Yeah, that's for teams like the Kings and Clippers who have never won a real championship so their fans can feel better about their team. I don't see the Lakers, Celtics or Spurs putting up division winner banners.

* takes off earrings, fake ponytail, and applies vaseline to face liberally *



You Mutha

 

[trojanfan12]

* takes off earrings, fake ponytail, and applies vaseline to face liberally *



You Mutha

 

[wildturkey]

I'm not misguided at all. I just understand the difference between successful and unsuccessful.

If the things I want to see happen, do happen, it doesn't make the season successful, it just means that progress has been made towards the goal of winning a championship and thus, being successful. Also, you are wrong about my logic. By my logic if those things happen, it means that Byron is making progress with the team towards the ultimate goal.

It's pretty simple logic really, not sure why you're having trouble following along. If the goal is to win a championship, then winning a championship equals success. Not winning a championship, does not equal success, since winning one is the goal.

If the team makes measurable progress towards winning a championship, then that can be considered encouraging and something to feel good about, but it doesn't become success until the goal is achieved.

Del Harris's teams improved and showed progress towards winning a championship, but they were not successful. Phil's first 3 Lakers teams achieved the goal and were therefore successful.

Your logic is right only if a championship the only possible measure of success for all NBA teams. But its not, and that's why its flawed. There are 30 teams in the NBA each in a different state of development. A championship is the top stage of development but obviously all teams can't occupy that spot at the same time. So each one is in a various state working to getting to the top stage. Part of how teams get there is teams in a given season set many goals for themselves and a championship is included in that. Meeting these goals is how the franchise determines if it is heading in the right direction. You even acknowledged it yourself by recognizing progress a team can make. You're just dancing around it because you've doubled down on the notion of a championship being the only measure of success. How do you measure progress in the NBA? With win/losses, stats and advanced stats, playoff victories, etc. I think everyone could agree with that, right? So when a team has goals for itself and checks off more than they don't, that's a success.

Which brings us back to the Warriors which started this whole thing. If they end up this year in the first round with a loss, that doesn't necessarily make it a wash like you said. They can still win more games, win the division, be a better offense/defense team, etc over last year. That's still progress even if the end result is the same. All of that isn't just washed away.

 

[trojanfan12]

Your logic is right only if a championship the only possible measure of success for all NBA teams. But its not, and that's why its flawed. There are 30 teams in the NBA each in a different state of development. A championship is the top stage of development but obviously all teams can't occupy that spot at the same time. So each one is in a various state working to getting to the top stage. Part of how teams get there is teams in a given season set many goals for themselves and a championship is included in that. Meeting these goals is how the franchise determines if it is heading in the right direction. You even acknowledged it yourself by recognizing progress a team can make. You're just dancing around it because you've doubled down on the notion of a championship being the only measure of success. How do you measure progress in the NBA? With win/losses, stats and advanced stats, playoff victories, etc. I think everyone could agree with that, right? So when a team has goals for itself and checks off more than they don't, that's a success.

Which brings us back to the Warriors which started this whole thing. If they end up this year in the first round with a loss, that doesn't necessarily make it a wash like you said. They can still win more games, win the division, be a better offense/defense team, etc over last year. That's still progress even if the end result is the same. All of that isn't just washed away.

I disagree. If a championship is the goal, which it should be for every team, every season, then that is what defines success. The reason some teams are always re-building and/or always looking for the right combination of players and coaches while never winning anything more than the occasional division championship is because they accept that as success.

As I said, the Lakers aren't even making the playoffs this year, let alone win a championship. So I will not consider it a successful season and I'd bet they won't either.

Also, I never said that improvement just gets washed away. I agree that if improvement is shown, it's progress. However, progress does not equal success. Success is where a teams progress eventually leads them when they finally achieve the goal of winning a championship.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. We've hijacked this thread enough.