NBA Playoffs 2020: Mamba Out

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

The Spurs looked capable before the Zaza Pachulia assassination. I thought that they were get rolled before the series started but that first game makes you wonder what could have been. 

I agree with your other comments, but on this I think the sample size is just too small. Spurs dominated a half, but the Warriors still likely take that in six at worst. This year's Clippers team was probably on par with those Spurs and the peak Warriors still destroy them. That's the best team of this era. They have no rivals. 

[Proudfeet]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree with your other comments, but on this I think the sample size is just too small. Spurs dominated a half, but the Warriors still likely take that in six at worst. This year's Clippers team was probably on par with those Spurs and the peak Warriors still destroy them. That's the best team of this era. They have no rivals. 

I agree, not saying that they would have won but at the same time it certainly looked possible even if it wasn't probable. They'd have home court advantage after taking the first game as well. I didn't think it was possible before the series started, but the injury after that start just leaves a bad taste. I'm still bitter if you couldn't tell.

Besides I did say before the Nuggets series that Kawhi didn't look as good as he did then. I think the Clippers have a better roster besides Kawhi than that Spurs team did though. Maybe.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

I agree, not saying that they would have won but at the same time it certainly looked possible even if it wasn't probable. They'd have home court advantage after taking the first game as well. I didn't think it was possible before the series started, but the injury after that start just leaves a bad taste. I'm still bitter if you couldn't tell.

But that team could erase a 20 point deficit in just a few minutes, and they often gave up huge leads early on. We'll never know, but the safer bet is the Warriors take it, and don't let last year cloud your judgement. The Kawhi Raptors could have been swept by a healthy Warriors side.

Quote

Besides I did say before the Nuggets series that Kawhi didn't look as good as he did then. I think the Clippers have a better roster besides Kawhi than that Spurs team did though. Maybe.

Kawhi may very well be declining physically. His game will still age really well, assuming he's available, but the Clippers need to move a lot of pieces around and I'm not sure they have the parts to do it, hence why I wrote above that they're about to face a really long period of being terrible while making other teams fat off their high draft picks.

[Proudfeet]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

But that team could erase a 20 point deficit in just a few minutes, and they often gave up huge leads early on. We'll never know, but the safer bet is the Warriors take it, and don't let last year cloud your judgement. The Kawhi Raptors could have been swept by a healthy Warriors side.

Kawhi looked fantastic when he was on and the Spurs completely collapsed without him. As I said, possible even if not probable. And the fact that we'll never know is why I'm bitter about it. I don't even particularly like Kawhi. 

And the only thing I remember about last year was your dumb belief in the Warriors record with Steph and without KD even though all the articles were explicit in their word usage. Seriously. There is only one way last x of y is going to go.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kawhi may very well be declining physically. His game will still age really well, assuming he's available, but the Clippers need to move a lot of pieces around and I'm not sure they have the parts to do it, hence why I wrote above that they're about to face a really long period of being terrible while make other teams fat off their high draft picks.

That's not my point though. I just want to see his suffocating defense. I've accepted that it's gone like LeBron's chase down blocks. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Kawhi looked fantastic when he was on and the Spurs completely collapsed without him. As I said, possible even if not probable. And the fact that we'll never know is why I'm bitter about it. I don't even particularly like Kawhi. 

And we'll never know if the Warriors would have won five straight without a long list of injuries....

Quote

And the only thing I remember about last year was your dumb belief in the Warriors record with Steph and without KD even though all the articles were explicit in their word usage. Seriously. There is only one way last x of y is going to go.

It wasn't dumb. What it showed is what we already knew, Steph is the straw that stirs their drink. I think the Warriors still could have taken out the Raptors if KD was their only injured player.

Quote

That's not my point though. I just want to see his suffocating defense. I've accepted that it's gone like LeBron's chase down blocks. 

I don't think either is "gone" per se, but they're not sustainable over the long run. 

[Proudfeet]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And we'll never know if the Warriors would have won five straight without a long list of injuries....

It's different. That was about the only time the Warriors with KD ever looked vulnerable and that play just didn't look good. Its another thing if it was a non-contact injury.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It wasn't dumb. What it showed is what we already knew, Steph is the straw that stirs their drink. I think the Warriors still could have taken out the Raptors if KD was their only injured player.

Stop skirting the issue. Its dumb because it showed your lack of reading comprehension. It has nothing to do with basketball. 

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think either is "gone" per se, but they're not sustainable over the long run. 

It's practically non-existent now. You might see it once per season maybe.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

It's different. That was about the only time the Warriors with KD ever looked vulnerable and that play just didn't look good. Its another thing if it was a non-contact injury.

Yeah, but again it was just a single half. The sample size is too small, and like I said, no team could erase a 20 point deficit quicker than the Warriors, even before KD arived.

Quote

Stop skirting the issue. Its dumb because it showed your lack of reading comprehension. It has nothing to do with basketball. 

I'm skirting nothing, and the opinion I'm giving is quite common. KD is the better player, but the team revolved around Steph breaking the game's math. He was shooting over 50% from beyond 30 feet while the league average at the time was around 25%. Like now with Lillard you have to guard him the moment he crosses half court and that opens up everything, and his and Klay's off ball movement just compounds the issue.

Quote

It's practically non-existent now. You might see it once per season maybe.

That's hyperbolic, and you saw it from both a number of times these playoffs. Kawhi's defense was not the problem for the Clippers. They just don't have a distributor that regularly creates open shots for others. 

[Proudfeet]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, but again it was just a single half. The sample size is too small, and like I said, no team could erase a 20 point deficit quicker than the Warriors, even before KD arived.

Sure. I'm not saying that it was definite. Its just that it was the only time they were even tested and it looked really good. 

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm skirting nothing, and the opinion I'm giving is quite common. KD is the better player, but the team revolved around Steph breaking the game's math. He was shooting over 50% from beyond 30 feet while the league average at the time was around 25%. Like now with Lillard you have to guard him the moment he crosses half court and that opens up everything, and his and Klay's off ball movement just compounds the issue.

Let me spell it out for you again. You insisted that the record which was that Curry only lost 3 or so times out of the last 20 odd times was definite, final and the entire record.

I told you that whenever anyone mentioned last x times, it means that the record is incomplete and it wouldn't look as good if you were to even look for the one game before that. You vehemently denied it and insisted and made me look for the exact games which you then shut up and pretended never existed. So yes, it was dumb.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's hyperbolic, and you saw it from both a number of times these playoffs. Kawhi's defense was not the problem for the Clippers. They just don't have a distributor that regularly creates open shots for others. 

Kawhi's defense was not the problem but it also wasn't the advantage it could have been. I'm not saying that he's bad. I'm saying that he's not otherworldly amazing and more crucially, I said it before the series started so I'm not sure why you are trying to twist my words into it being the reason for their loss.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Let me spell it out for you again. You insisted that the record which was that Curry only lost 3 or so times out of the last 20 odd times was definite, final and the entire record.

I told you that whenever anyone mentioned last x times, it means that the record is incomplete and it wouldn't look as good if you were to even look for the one game before that. You vehemently denied it and insisted and made me look for the exact games which you then shut up and pretended never existed. So yes, it was dumb.

Okay, let's look at it then. As far as I can tell, this is a close to complete picture:

That is a stark difference. Moreover, the Warriors were plus 12.1 points per 48 mins better when just Curry was playing compared to just 1.3 points when only KD played. What more do you want? I'm sure those stats are missing a game here and there, but the sample size is clearly large enough to conclude that Curry was overall the more important player. But they still needed KD because they lacked someone who could consistently create for themselves late in tight games. 

Quote

Kawhi's defense was not the problem but it also wasn't the advantage it could have been. I'm not saying that he's bad. I'm saying that he's not otherworldly amazing and more crucially, I said it before the series started so I'm not sure why you are trying to twist my words into it being the reason for their loss.

Kawhi was a top three player all season. For whatever reason he shrank at times in the playoffs. I'd still take him over almost anyone else in the league for next season. His problem is his body is breaking down on him and he wasn't super explosive to begin with.

[Proudfeet]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Okay, let's look at it then. As far as I can tell, this is a close to complete picture:

That is a stark difference. Moreover, the Warriors were plus 12.1 points per 48 mins better when just Curry was playing compared to just 1.3 points when only KD played. What more do you want? I'm sure those stats are missing a game here and there, but the sample size is clearly large enough to conclude that Curry was overall the more important player. But they still needed KD because they lacked someone who could consistently create for themselves late in tight games. 

Yes, lets look. This wasn't deleted. It was never about the basketball. It was your reading comprehension in case you missed it the past two posts. I'd give you that the third post before this wasn't that clear. I'm glad that you've come around to my position though.

 

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kawhi was a top three player all season. For whatever reason he shrank at times in the playoffs. I'd still take him over almost anyone else in the league for next season. His problem is his body is breaking down on him and he wasn't super explosive to begin with.

So what? Again, I made the observation before the Nuggets series. Who cares if he lost or shrank or was a top three player this season? My comparison is him before and him now. If you think he's better or the same then say so. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Yes, lets look. This wasn't deleted. It was never about the basketball. It was your reading comprehension in case you missed it the past two posts. I'd give you that the third post before this wasn't that clear. I'm glad that you've come around to my position though.

 

What position? They went on a 27-1 streak without him and were 32-4 overall. Your point was that if we add more games, the record isn't as impressive. Mine was it doesn't matter. Oh no, a 96% winning ratio became a 89% winning ratio. It was still a fuck ton better than when KD played while Curry was out. This cannot be denied in any way, shape or form. The metrics bear this out, which has always been my point. 

Quote

So what? Again, I made the observation before the Nuggets series. Who cares if he lost or shrank or was a top three player this season? My comparison is him before and him now. If you think he's better or the same then say so. 

I still think his window is open, so I'd say he's at about the same place, but I can acknowledge that window is closing. 

[Relic]

damn, my NBA thread names were ON POINT. 

[Proudfeet]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What position? They went on a 27-1 streak without him and were 32-4 overall. Your point was that if we add more games, the record isn't as impressive. Mine was it doesn't matter. Oh no, a 96% winning ratio became a 89% winning ratio. It was still a fuck ton better than when KD played while Curry was out. This cannot be denied in any way, shape or form. The metrics bear this out, which has always been my point. 

Your entire point was that it was 1 loss and that was final. My position was that half baked stats are dishonest and you don't know. I don't know why you are trying to spin that.

See, this was how it started. 

And how it continued

and after that you just doubled down on it being 1 loss. Despite it being explicitly not. It never was about Curry or Durant or the Warriors. It was always the phrasing used and you not getting it. Yes, 89% is not far off 96%, but the point is that it wasn't the full picture and you don't know that it was actually 89% and it could have been lower.

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I still think his window is open, so I'd say he's at about the same place, but I can acknowledge that window is closing. 

You can't even answer a yes or no question. Q: Is he as good as before? A: His window is open. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

That is some next level nitpicking. My point wasn't wrong, they did have that stretch. It's just like how the Chiefs have won 12 straight across two seasons including the playoffs or how the Twins have lost 17 straight playoff games across 16 seasons. People isolate runs for their statistical significance. It's not dishonest. 89% is a lot better than 60%, even if you think the 89% figure is still an over representation. 

And yes I did. I said he was top three and his window is still open, though it's closing quicker than I expected. I just think we're about to see a large changing of the guard over the next few seasons. There are a lot of emerging young stars and Kawhi has what appears to be a chronic injury. 

[Proudfeet]

 It is dwarfed by your dedication to obfuscate from your stubborn desire to never admit a mistake. 

And let's be clear. These statistics have their applicable scenarios. This is not one of them. You're using last x games for Curry but the entire time they played together for Durant in your first post. It's not that 89% is a lot better than 60%. It's that you don't know what it actually is. Durant might have lost his first 20 games and won his next 20 games and it'll be a run for him too. You don't know. You only know now because I put in the effort to find out. 

That is also besides the point by the way. My acrimony with you is that you were persistent in insisting that it was only one game. Its not nitpicking when its the stem of the argument. Its not nitpicking when we went through multiple posts over it.

Also, I complain a lot about other "stats". Just because its used often doesn't mean its right.

 

He could be better than before and still be top three. He could be worse than before and still be top three. He could be the same as before and still be top three. What were you answering again? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

 It is dwarfed by your dedication to obfuscate from your stubborn desire to never admit a mistake. 

 

I admit mistakes all the time, so Idk where that's coming from. 

Quote

And let's be clear. These statistics have their applicable scenarios. This is not one of them. You're using last x games for Curry but the entire time they played together for Durant in your first post. It's not that 89% is a lot better than 60%. It's that you don't know what it actually is. Durant might have lost his first 20 games and won his next 20 games and it'll be a run for him too. You don't know. You only know now because I put in the effort to find out. 

And then it would be relevant that a Curryless Warriors team still won 20 straight without him, suggesting that they can survive without him. 

This conversation has mutated so much since it started, and the original point still stands and cannot be refuted, that the Warriors had a better record by a wide margin when Steph played and KD didn't than vice versa. 

Quote

That is also besides the point by the way. My acrimony with you is that you were persistent in insisting that it was only one game. Its not nitpicking when its the stem of the argument. Its not nitpicking when we went through multiple posts over it.

Also, I complain a lot about other "stats". Just because its used often doesn't mean its right.

It was one game in a specific sample. A stat cited by many of the game's top reporters. Send your complaints to them too, please.

Quote

He could be better than before and still be top three. He could be worse than before and still be top three. He could be the same as before and still be top three. What were you answering again? 

That he's just as good as before, but he did wet the bed in game seven. He was more or less the same statistically this year as he was last year (I haven't checked the defensive metrics though). 

[Proudfeet]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I admit mistakes all the time, so Idk where that's coming from. 

Never seen that from you.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And then it would be relevant that a Curryless Warriors team still won 20 straight without him, suggesting that they can survive without him. 

And it would be a different picture painted. Hence my original point. 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This conversation has mutated so much since it started, and the original point still stands and cannot be refuted, that the Warriors had a better record by a wide margin when Steph played and KD didn't than vice versa. 

It's only mutating because you are dodging it. I've been accommodating with your tangents which is why it keeps moving and have always emphasised my original point. Again, the original point was last x of y is not a complete dataset. Not how well the Warriors do or not.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It was one game in a specific sample. A stat cited by many of the game's top reporters. Send your complaints to them too, please.

Exactly my point. Here's what I said then and quoted 2 posts above.

Quote

My post was directed to you, but it was really just bristling at the journalists and "stats analysts" in general.

And they aren't on this forum why would I send it to them.

Top reporters. Statistical analysis is different from x and o analysis or information reporting or in depth player interviews or trivia click bait. They aren't mutually exclusive and one isn't superior to the other but it's not exactly a good endorsement. People put out click bait even if they don't believe in it too. They do need to eat.

Did you see ESPN's preview of this series by the way? 

Most points in the paint in postseason since 2006. 1. LeBron. 2. Duncan (retired long ago) 3. (Someone retired long ago) 4. Parker (practically the same as Duncan) 5. Dwight (Not a feature in a postseason for awhile). I'm not even sure anyone in the Miami team has been in the NBA then outside of Haslem who is practically an assistant coach now. 

Its not per game or per possession or past maybe 3 seasons where more players would be eligible. Its total points scored since 2006 which is convenient for LeBron.  We know LeBron's good. You don't have to rig it that hard.

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That he's just as good as before, but he did wet the bed in game seven. He was more or less the same statistically this year as he was last year (I haven't checked the defensive metrics though). 

Finally. I don't know why its so hard to communicate with you. That's all I wanted to know. Without the game seven tangent. Who cares? I wasn't calling him bad because of that. I made the observation before the Nuggets series. Mentioning it for the third time this page by the way.

[KingintheNorth4]

Man I'm so happy for Jimmy Butler right now. He's been one of my favorite players since his days with the Bulls where he won the city over with his work ethic. It's so great seeing his hard work finally pay off with his first finals appearance. 

Lakers in 5.

[WarGalley]

Yeah, my bet with a friend is Lakers in 5 though the Heat games (minus the Celtics series) were the only ones I didnt watch in entirety during the playoffs. Dont know how they'll match up with the Lakers big men but dont see them pulling this off with how the Lakers played the Nuggets and with Lebron being able to dominate at times like this.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Heat in six, but I wouldn't be shocked if the Lakers blow them out tonight.