NBA 2017: The Kings of Comedy

[Ramsay B.]

I just saw that Pistons shot 3-17 from the charity stripe yesterday(Drummond was 1-10). Simply amazing.

[briantw]

1 minute ago, Ramsay B. said:

I just saw that Pistons shot 3-17 from the charity stripe yesterday(Drummond was 1-10). Simply amazing.

That's actually more impressive than shooting 10-17.

[Jaime L]

11 hours ago, briantw said:

Evan Turner and a conditional second was probably enough, to be honest.

This never stops being funny. 

4 hours ago, Ramsay B. said:

I just saw that Pistons shot 3-17 from the charity stripe yesterday(Drummond was 1-10). Simply amazing.

That's unreal. No wonder the Pistons were willing to dump Drummond. Not sure how you can win consistently when your best player shoots 38% from the line for his career. At least Shaq was over 50%. 

[Argonath Diver]

Someday, some sweet, glorious day, an NBA player is going to march up to that free throw line and make one under-handed. Then another, and another. And he'll be a 75% FT shooter instead of a 40, 50, 60 etc, and be proud of it. He'll help his team win. Twitter and Shaq will eat it up. And that player will say "Fuck you, I'm here to win games, grandma form just made me another 20 million on my contract. It's great."

And the world will be a better place.

Seriously, though, some of these guys with truly embarrassing free throw percentages need to get off this stupid-ass Shaq mentality. When he said he'd rather shoot 0% and still 'look cool' was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard him say. You big bastard, if you had adopted the under-hand toss and brought up your % about fifteen or twenty points, you would have significantly changed the way you were guarded, helped your teams win, and been resoundingly complimented and imitated. The insistence that shooting like that is uncool is just asinine. 

Obviously, Drummond isn't guaranteed to learn the Rick Barry toss overnight and double his percentage, but under 1 for 10 calls for something drastic. Just turn around and toss it over your fucking head, that way you're faster down the court for defense.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Argonath Diver said:

Someday, some sweet, glorious day, an NBA player is going to march up to that free throw line and make one under-handed. Then another, and another. And he'll be a 75% FT shooter instead of a 40, 50, 60 etc, and be proud of it. He'll help his team win. Twitter and Shaq will eat it up. And that player will say "Fuck you, I'm here to win games, grandma form just made me another 20 million on my contract. It's great."

 Some day is today! (Well, actually back in December of last year)

http://mashable.com/2016/12/28/chinanu-onuaku-free-throws/#GSogVIaWqqqa

[Rhom]

This clip of Jahlil Okafor really feels like that terrible looping GIF of Anthony Bennett looking lost.

(Okafor is number 8 wandering around aimlessly in the paint.)

 

[Rhom]

Edit: Nevermind

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I don't think it's smart to judge a team based on one game, but maybe I should slow down with the Jazz. The Wolves smashed them by nearly 30 in the Jazz's own building.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

So, what's everyone's thought on whether or not Westbrook will pull off the triple-double for the season? I say yes. Here's the thing, I still think he is not the MVP. Harden is the clear cut MVP. Man, if they add a complimentary piece in the off-season, beware...there will be a new dog in the West.

I'm boggled by Boston. I know that Nets pick is valuable, but if I'm them I would have gave it up for George in a second, even Butler. They are one piece from being a real threat to the Cavs. And those two are proven studs in the NBA. As I said before, nothing is a sure thing in the draft. I think Ball will be a mediocre NBA player (I know others don't agree, you heard it here first). Fultz is built better for the NBA, but who knows. I'm taking a sure thing everytime, especially with the roster the Celtics have. 

[Ramsay B.]

Nice win by the Bulls. Warriors missed literally every open shot at the end of the game...lucky really.

ETA: I'm watching Portland-OKC and I almost didn't recognize Shabazz Napier. His face is completely free of acne or shrapnel and I'm seriously happy for him...how I miss him.

Also watching Westbrook vs Lillard is incredibly fun. 

[Jaime L]

3 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

So, what's everyone's thought on whether or not Westbrook will pull off the triple-double for the season? I say yes. Here's the thing, I still think he is not the MVP. Harden is the clear cut MVP. Man, if they add a complimentary piece in the off-season, beware...there will be a new dog in the West.

I agree with both. I think Westbrook gets the triple double but Harden is still more deserving of the MVP. Harden is the way more efficient scorer, making the bigger difference for his team's better win-loss record. And he's at 8 RPG...how much are 2 more rebounds a game worth? 

I find Westbrook more fun to watch but can't deny Harden's been better. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

18 hours ago, Calibandar said:

If Golden State wins that, there can be no more talk of them lucking out in the Western playoffs anymore, which has been the case in the last two seasons. I want to see them take on the Spurs. And preferably Clippers in the second round.

Lucked out last season? The main reason they lost to the Cavs is that OKC took them to Game 7. Hell, I think OKC might have taken the Cavs. 

[Ramsay B.]

Taj!!

Westbrook is unstoppable. Incredible to watch.

[briantw]

56 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Lucked out last season? The main reason they lost to the Cavs is that OKC took them to Game 7. Hell, I think OKC might have taken the Cavs. 

I don't think OKC would have taken the Cavs.  Durant just has a horrendous record against LeBron teams since coming into the league.  I don't think that would have changed.

[Calibandar]

7 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Lucked out last season? The main reason they lost to the Cavs is that OKC took them to Game 7. Hell, I think OKC might have taken the Cavs. 

We've been over this surely, it's widely accepted that Golden State has had tremendous luck in the last two series because they faced underhanded opponents or did not even need to face them because another team ejected them when they were injured.

Doesn't mean that GS wouldn't still have made the NBA finals, but their path was strewn with good fortune. I want to see that changed this year, with them playing full strength sides, and finally a match-up with the Spurs.

I also don't see how going 7 games to OKC ( the sole competitive series GS had btw) is *the* reason they were beaten by the Cavs.

 

11 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

So, what's everyone's thought on whether or not Westbrook will pull off the triple-double for the season? I say yes. Here's the thing, I still think he is not the MVP. Harden is the clear cut MVP. Man, if they add a complimentary piece in the off-season, beware...there will be a new dog in the West.

 

I think it needs to go to Westbrook, because what he is doing is phenomenal.

Harden has also been superb but I can't get past the fact that he also has a much better team around him in Houston. Westbrook is really playing in a team where there is little production outside of himself. Adams is not producing much offensively, Oladipo has performed much like I thought he would ( which is why I didn't rave about the Ibaka-Oladipo trade) and... that's it.

I would not mind Co-MVP, but if it has to go to 1 guy, then Westbrook.

 

11 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I'm boggled by Boston. I know that Nets pick is valuable, but if I'm them I would have gave it up for George in a second, even Butler. They are one piece from being a real threat to the Cavs. And those two are proven studs in the NBA. As I said before, nothing is a sure thing in the draft. I think Ball will be a mediocre NBA player (I know others don't agree, you heard it here first). Fultz is built better for the NBA, but who knows. I'm taking a sure thing everytime, especially with the roster the Celtics have. 

Thing is, we don't really know what was offered and asked by Bulls/Pacers.

There is this idea that they can more easily trade for either of these guys when the draft comes up in June.

But that does not help them this year, and as such this season also seems one in which they are guaranteed to be knocked out by the Cavs. Then again that would still happen with Butler IMO, but it would be much closer. I also think Butler is the sort of spirited guy that fits with this Boston team.

[Rhom]

Did you see that Ty Lawson registered a DNP - Bad Tacos

 

(Image on the left is from Lawson's Instagram the day before the game... the image on the right is the injury update for the next day.)   

[DanteGabriel]

13 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I'm boggled by Boston. I know that Nets pick is valuable, but if I'm them I would have gave it up for George in a second, even Butler. They are one piece from being a real threat to the Cavs. And those two are proven studs in the NBA. As I said before, nothing is a sure thing in the draft. I think Ball will be a mediocre NBA player (I know others don't agree, you heard it here first). Fultz is built better for the NBA, but who knows. I'm taking a sure thing everytime, especially with the roster the Celtics have. 

I was a little disappointed that they didn't do anything. But I don't think it's as simple as wanting to keep the Brooklyn pick over Butler or George. By all accounts, the asking price for those guys went beyond just the pick -- they would have had to throw in Crowder or Smart or Bradley or maybe even a couple of those guys. I don't think Jimmy Butler is enough to beat the Cavs in a playoff series, let alone the Warriors, and especially if they had to give up Bradley or Smart to get him. I think Paul George brings them closer, but George would be gone for LA in a year, and fuck if I want to see the Celtics sell the farm for a guy who's going to jump to the fucking Lakers.

Not sure what they'll get in the draft either, but I don't think they were going to get a decent deal on a true star this year. What I'm most disappointed about was that they didn't swing a smaller deal for a guy like Ibaka. All the other East contenders got better on paper, so the Celtics lost ground on deadline day.

I'm starting to think the Celtics could be real contenders in two or three years, not this year or next. But the injury situation with the Warriors and Cavs provides a better opening than expected...

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I was a little disappointed that they didn't do anything. But I don't think it's as simple as wanting to keep the Brooklyn pick over Butler or George. By all accounts, the asking price for those guys went beyond just the pick -- they would have had to throw in Crowder or Smart or Bradley or maybe even a couple of those guys. I don't think Jimmy Butler is enough to beat the Cavs in a playoff series, let alone the Warriors, and especially if they had to give up Bradley or Smart to get him. I think Paul George brings them closer, but George would be gone for LA in a year, and fuck if I want to see the Celtics sell the farm for a guy who's going to jump to the fucking Lakers.

Not sure what they'll get in the draft either, but I don't think they were going to get a decent deal on a true star this year. What I'm most disappointed about was that they didn't swing a smaller deal for a guy like Ibaka. All the other East contenders got better on paper, so the Celtics lost ground on deadline day.

I'm starting to think the Celtics could be real contenders in two or three years, not this year or next. But the injury situation with the Warriors and Cavs provides a better opening than expected...

You're right, in hindsight with all the pieces they have, all the picks  (Brooklyns, and I can see why they don't wanna come off it, loaded draft). Plus when they hit their peak, Cavs should be on a bit of a decline. I just like to see everyone teams that are right there, make a move to help them now. But, I guess that's why I'm not a GM.

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

You're right, in hindsight with all the pieces they have, all the picks  (Brooklyns, and I can see why they don't wanna come off it, loaded draft). Plus when they hit their peak, Cavs should be on a bit of a decline. I just like to see everyone teams that are right there, make a move to help them now. But, I guess that's why I'm not a GM.

The problem with the two or three year plan is that Horford will probably have declined and Isaiah Thomas's contract is up after next year and he will definitely be looking for a max contract. They may have to contend without those guys. I've not been as sold on IT's long-term viability as others. He's exceeded my expectations this year, so what do I know? But I've never believed they could contend with him as their best player, and I'm not convinced he can be the second best player on a championship team either, unless the best player is Durant level.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The problem with the two or three year plan is that Horford will probably have declined and Isaiah Thomas's contract is up after next year and he will definitely be looking for a max contract. They may have to contend without those guys. I've not been as sold on IT's long-term viability as others. He's exceeded my expectations this year, so what do I know? But I've never believed they could contend with him as their best player, and I'm not convinced he can be the second best player on a championship team either, unless the best player is Durant level.

So, why are you against them making a move? And, the possibility of winning now? With a  depleted Cavs, who knows about Durant. IMHO, it was time to make the move now.