Jump to content

NBA - What the hell is going on?


Red Tiger

Recommended Posts

I thought that if the Bucks were healthy that they would have a good chance against Phoenix, but going into the series I didn't think Giannis would be healthy enough to prove me right.  In game 1 he was clearly still injured but still very good, and it wasn't enough.  If he's been like that all series, it's Suns in 5.  But somehow he got healthy over the course of the Finals, and once he did, the Suns could not compete.  Phoenix was the better shooting team, but the Bucks were stronger, more athletic, and more experienced.  Having the best player on the court obviously helps a lot. 

I do go back to experience being the key because the Suns really only had two guys with real playoff experience:  Paul and Crowder.  The Bucks on the other hand didn't have any Finals experience but had plenty of experience with the playoff grind and how series adjustments are made.  And in games 4, 5 and 6, I felt like both Booker and Ayton made some mistakes that come down to experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hard not to like this guy:

 

I like how he doesn't filter at all, remember when he upset Harden before the all star game. 

How many players have been champion, MVP, finals MVP, defensive MVP in their careers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

 

I like how he doesn't filter at all, remember when he upset Harden before the all star game. 

How many players have been champion, MVP, finals MVP, defensive MVP in their careers? 

Hakeem, Giannis and Jordan.  Robinson and Garnett were both the #2 guys on championship teams, but didn't win Finals MVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a particularly high opinion of Holiday or Middleton as players. So I want to ask, is this one of the worst supporting casts (as in all players except their best guy) to win a championship in the past 20 years?  I think the non-Giannis Bucks are better than the 2011 Mavs minus Dirk, but other than that...I'm not sure I like them against anybody.  Maybe the 2006 Heat without Wade?  That team is basically Shaq and I guess Haslem, but mostly a bunch of nobodies; I'd probably take Milwaukee over them. 

Nonetheless, it's a short list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Heat sans Wade is probably the worst supporting cast. Shaq was past his prime and there wasn’t much after him. The Heat won primarily because of bad officiating and the Mavs bad strategy. The 2011 Mavs team sans Dirk has no stars, but if you look at that roster it’s actually not too bad and the pieces fit well together.

 

Really curious to see what Paul does. Does he opt in or out, and if it’s the latter, does he resign on a max deal or goring chasing in LA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I don't have a particularly high opinion of Holiday or Middleton as players. So I want to ask, is this one of the worst supporting casts (as in all players except their best guy) to win a championship in the past 20 years?  I think the non-Giannis Bucks are better than the 2011 Mavs minus Dirk, but other than that...I'm not sure I like them against anybody.  Maybe the 2006 Heat without Wade?  That team is basically Shaq and I guess Haslem, but mostly a bunch of nobodies; I'd probably take Milwaukee over them. 

Nonetheless, it's a short list.

I mean the Lakers last year were awful other than LBJ and AD.   I suppose the ask is if one AD is better than Holiday and Middleton combined?  At this point I'd say no because AD is made out of porcelain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

I mean the Lakers last year were awful other than LBJ and AD.   I suppose the ask is if one AD is better than Holiday and Middleton combined?  At this point I'd say no because AD is made out of porcelain.

In that Finals though?  I don't think so, Davis was very good.  His injury history is irrelevant, we're just talking the teams they had at the time.  And while there's nobody who could be called a star, the other guys were at least good defenders and capable floor spacers.  They'd obviously have trouble making things happen without Lebron, but then so would a full series of the Bucks without Giannis.

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the Heat sans Wade is probably the worst supporting cast. Shaq was past his prime and there wasn’t much after him. The Heat won primarily because of bad officiating and the Mavs bad strategy. The 2011 Mavs team sans Dirk has no stars, but if you look at that roster it’s actually not too bad and the pieces fit well together.

Perhaps, although Haslem is a good player and was right in his prime then.  But beyond that we're talking Jason Williams and whatever Alonzo Mourning and Gary Payton had left (not much). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Perhaps, although Haslem is a good player and was right in his prime then.  But beyond that we're talking Jason Williams and whatever Alonzo Mourning and Gary Payton had left (not much). 

Haslem was just a role player. His best season he averaged 12/9, though he did have a PER of 54.6 this year (:P). He's probably the worst third option of any team this century that ended up winning the title. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the futures odds for next season according to Vegas.  These are moneylines, so this is the amount you'd win if you bet $100 on them today to win next year's championship. 

  • Quote
    • Brooklyn Nets +210
      Los Angeles Lakers +450
      Milwaukee Bucks +800
      Golden State Warriors +1200
      Phoenix Suns +1300
      Utah Jazz +1400
      Philadelphia 76ers +1600
      Los Angeles Clippers +2000
      Denver Nuggets +2000

    IMO the Warriors are a great value at +1200.  They still have their big 3 and #2 pick Wiseman will be another year bigger and stronger.  Yes, they need to stay healthy, but plenty of teams on this list have struggled with that, such as the Lakers and Nets.  Not to mention that a lot of people are talking about GSW being the favorites in any Lillard trade, if it comes to pass.  They have a lot of assets to offer, and a team of Curry, Lillard, Thompson and Green could outscore anyone.  Not that I'm rooting for that to happen, but it's easy to imagine the team that won the West five straight years in 2015-19 could win the conference (and the title) again in 2022. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slurktan said:

Is there an opposite of that bet? Like could I bet that the warriors at best are out in the first round? I'd say that's far more likely at 12-1

I'd agree with you, but that's not really a fair comparison. There's only one champion each year, while 22 of the 30 teams will fail to advance past the first round. 

You can bet on the warriors making the playoffs or not.  I'm not sure if Vegas had bets on advancing past the first round specifically, although there's a good chance you could find that bet somewhere.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weird thing IMO about the futures bets is that the impacts of this injury marred season are still being felt.  The Clippers, Warriors and Nuggets all have guys that will be coming back from very serious injuries that might impact their play.  The Nets and Lakers are the two favorites, but both teams are very top heavy and relying on increasingly injury prone guys.  Maybe a real offseason and regular season will make the 2022 playoffs more normal injury wise (I certainly hope so).  But it's also quite possible that we are just at a period where an unusual number of the star players in the NBA are injury prone, whether due to aging (Lebron, Paul) or just the way their bodies are (Kawhi, Davis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lakers cap situation is pretty dire, so they have very limited options on how to improve their team going forward.  It is virtually impossible to make the money work to bring in a big talent like Lillard or Paul, even if the other teams were willing to cooperate (Paul is not going to sign a way below market deal just to play with Lebron). 

Apparently there's a rumor that the Lakers could do a sign and trade with Schroder and Kuzma for Russell Westbrook.  Which you can make work from a money perspective, but it's hard to really see how Westbrook fits (at all) with what the Lakers are trying to do.  Westbrook is a bad 3 point shooter and a bad off-ball player.  This would take pressure off Lebron, but not much else.  I see Westbrook having two roles in the NBA at this point.  He can take a poor team and make them better, so you reach the playoffs (see Washington last year) or he can lead the 2nd unit of a contender.  The problem is that his contract is way too rich for the latter role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...