Jump to content

NBA - Rochambeau Playoffs


Rhom
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, baxus said:

And they did it 7 years after they were drafted in the same year, when they already had a fair bit of experience while still being young enough.

And Jordan said to Chicago, 'can't do it here, thanks for buying all my merch and adoring me, but i'm fucking off to somewhere sunny'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, baxus said:

Well yeah, in Jordan's era and before it was unimaginable for anyone to do what LeBron did.

Are we just going to forget how Boston did the exact same thing a few years earlier and it won them their only championship post Bird?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, baxus said:

Let's be honest, a team with 3 of top 5 picks in their prime, one of whom is a legitimate GoaT contender should go 3/3 in that case, especially considering that the guy who was widely accepted as GoaT at that point won 3/3 with a team with fewer superstars (if we're talking about 91-93 Bulls) and another 3/3 with a team that was right up there with LeBron's Miami if not above when it came to star players (96-98 Bulls).

Plenty of teams have 3 or even 4 top 5 picks and still suck, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.  When they joined Miami, Wade was a top 5 player, and Bosh was maybe 20th or so (Bosh only made one All-NBA team in his career, hard to put him higher than that). 

Should they have beaten Dallas?  Yes, they certainly had more talent, and it's unquestionably a point in Jordan's favor.  Lebron played great in the ECF against the Derrick Rose Bulls and then quite poorly in the Final.  But that alone isn't the end of the argument, you have to look at their whole careers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why does that give you any confidence that someone like Ewing could ever become good enough that you'd want him shooting threes, assuming he had all the benefits of modern coaching? 

That chart is missing 2/3rds of Ewings games.  And he was hitting 40% from inside the arc on the chart.  I don't think he becomes a 3 point shooter, but he could definitely hit the long to mid jumper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, grozeng said:

That chart is missing 2/3rds of Ewings games.  And he was hitting 40% from inside the arc on the chart.  I don't think he becomes a 3 point shooter, but he could definitely hit the long to mid jumper.

I trust that site even if it doesn't have all the data from the early years. Ewing didn't shoot very often outside of say 15 feet or so. It's hard to assume he could shoot from beyond the arc at a high percentage or at volume. Frankly I find it odd to use him as a test case. 

But back to a modern player @DMC mentioned, PB's shot chart is encouraging. He's not shooting at a high percentage, but it's not dependent on him hitting from one spot that overcompensates for everywhere else (outside of a bit from one corner). This is the exact kind of player you can believe goes from 30% to the 35%-39% range with proper coaching. I just don't believe someone who never could shoot could magically shoot now today. It would be shocking if Russell or Chamberlain could shoot from three at a league average today, and if you can't hit that bench mark why would you ever plan around that player being a benefit in that part of the court? 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are we just going to forget how Boston did the exact same thing a few years earlier and it won them their only championship post Bird?

I think that people view that differently because that superteam was put together by the Celtics front office; while all the other attempted super teams have been player driven.

And I think it’s worth noting that for the most part, other than the Heat (and an argument for the bubble Lakers) none of the player assembled teams have been successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I think that people view that differently because that superteam was put together by the Celtics front office; while all the other attempted super teams have been player driven.

And I think it’s worth noting that for the most part, other than the Heat (and an argument for the bubble Lakers) none of the player assembled teams have been successful.

Durant's Superteam in SF won two championships in three years.  His Superteam in NY was notably less successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I think that people view that differently because that superteam was put together by the Celtics front office; while all the other attempted super teams have been player driven.

And I think it’s worth noting that for the most part, other than the Heat (and an argument for the bubble Lakers) none of the player assembled teams have been successful.

So when the white executives do it it's cool, but when the black players do it it's bad? Really? 

Who gives a shit if the players do it? The end result is what matters. Finding a way to rationalize it is weird. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So when the white executives do it it's cool, but when the black players do it it's bad? Really? 

Who gives a shit if the players do it? The end result is what matters. Finding a way to rationalize it is weird. 

Hey I like race-baiting as much as the next tyrannical liberal, but come on. A front office's job is to assemble a team. They would theoretically have a more dispassionate and balanced method of roster building than Durant recruiting his friends.

Masai Ujiri builds a super team? Great. Luka decides to put together his own team? Probably headed for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Hey I like race-baiting as much as the next tyrannical liberal, but come on. A front office's job is to assemble a team. They would theoretically have a more dispassionate and balanced method of roster building than Durant recruiting his friends.

Masai Ujiri builds a super team? Great. Luka decides to put together his own team? Probably headed for disaster.

Not really sure race baiting is fair here. We largely praise front offices for doing the exact same shit players are trying to do. What's the obvious difference? 

Sure you can rationalize it as you prioritize what's good for the franchise overall long term, but in practical terms what that usually means is what's best for the rich white guy who owns the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only other example prior to The Decision I can think of where a Top 3 guy nearing his prime left his team in free agency is Shaq going to the Lakers.  That Lakers team was a good team - they won 53 games the year before he arrived.  Kobe was already on the team, but he was a rookie (he hadn't played in an NBA game at the time Shaq signed) although there were already rumors that he was a steal where they picked him and a future star.  With hindsight there's no question that the Lakers were a vastly more talented team than the Magic squad he left.  At the time, it was probably true as well, although less definitively so.  Regardless, the Lakers would only bloom into a threepeat kinda team once Kobe moved from "promising rookie" to All-NBA player, which took a few years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really sure race baiting is fair here. We largely praise front offices for doing the exact same shit players are trying to do. What's the obvious difference? 

Um, because it's their literal job? Because they have analytics people, scouts, cap managers, etc informing their decisions?

That is objectively going to lead to better outcomes than Durant deciding he wants to play with DeAndre Drummond. Obviously some front offices suck and some players are actually pretty good evaluators of talent (LeBron probably is). But those are outliers.

And of fucking course you were race-baiting. Otherwise why bring up white execs and black players?

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure you can rationalize it as you prioritize what's good for the franchise overall long term, but in practical terms what that usually means is what's best for the rich white guy who owns the team. 

The implicit purpose of every professional sports franchise is to win games and compete for championships, and it's nice if they can also do it sustainably. Team-building via players' friendships is not likely to achieve those ends. Is that a fair and accurate statement?

Sure, cynical me knows that professional sports franchises exist to provide circuses to distract the masses and funnel their money into the pockets of billionaires, but it seems pretty pointless to evaluate team building strategies from there, and we'd need to move that to the politics threads.

This is a weird and obscure hill to plant your flag, even for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Durant's Superteam in SF won two championships in three years.  His Superteam in NY was notably less successful.

I wouldn't consider the Warriors an example of a "superteam."  For my purposes, the superteam is defined as being assembled primarily through free agency or maybe trades and typically would include at least two stars that were not drafted by the team.  Most of the key pieces of the Warriors were picked up organically through the draft.  It was after they had already won a title and set a record for regular season wins that Durant then hopped on board.  So I woulnd't say that was a "superteam" in the same way that the Celtics/Heat/Nets/Lakers/Clippers have attempted, but was an example of ring chasing more akin to Barkley's move to the Rockets or Payton/Malone to the Lakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Um, because it's their literal job? Because they have analytics people, scouts, cap managers, etc informing their decisions?

That is objectively going to lead to better outcomes than Durant deciding he wants to play with DeAndre Drummond. Obviously some front offices suck and some players are actually pretty good evaluators of talent (LeBron probably is). But those are outliers.

And of fucking course you were race-baiting. Otherwise why bring up white execs and black players?

DeAndre Drummond? :P

Dude, the dirty secret is they're all just guessing. A few organizations are actually good at this, a few are bad, but most of them are just trying to decide what to do when playing Blackjack and they have 12 and the dealer is showing a 7. Sure there's a way to quantify it, however, it's still easy to fuck it up.

And I don't think it's race baiting to point out that we're overly harsh on the largely black labor pool when they try to take control. 

Quote

The implicit purpose of every professional sports franchise is to win games and compete for championships

No, it's not. It's to make money. Very few franchises across all of sports care more about winning than they do about the bottom line, and most teams if you offered them a huge bag of cash or a trophy will pick the former. It's great if you can get both, but the money comes first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2023 at 9:27 PM, Tywin et al. said:

No, it's not. It's to make money. Very few franchises across all of sports care more about winning than they do about the bottom line, and most teams if you offered them a huge bag of cash or a trophy will pick the former. It's great if you can get both, but the money comes first. 

You can't totally separate the two, can you? Sure, only one team wins the trophy at the end of the season but there are a few more who are competitive, and teams at the top are not the same year in year out. If you have a team that's crap for years and years and nothing is being done to improve it it's very likely their fanbase will wither away, not completely but enough to seriously affect the bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baxus said:

You can't totally separate the two, can you? Sure, only one team wins the trophy at the end of the season but there are a few more who are competitive, and teams at the top are not the same year in year out. If you have a team that's crap for years and years and nothing is being done to improve it it's very likely their fanbase will wither away, not completely but enough to seriously affect the bottom line.

I guess it depends. Fans of the Chicago Cubs were loyal through 100 years of sucking. But many fans of the Washington Redskins/Football Team/Commanders had a breaking point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess it depends. Fans of the Chicago Cubs were loyal through 100 years of sucking. But many fans of the Washington Redskins/Football Team/Commanders had a breaking point. 

I'm not a fan of baseball so I might be wrong here, but I doubt that Cubs sucked for 100 years straight. You know, there's a difference between not winning the championship and sucking. They must have had some period when they were competitive, though they didn't win the championship. If not, then their fans must be a very peculiar bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm not a fan of baseball so I might be wrong here, but I doubt that Cubs sucked for 100 years straight. You know, there's a difference between not winning the championship and sucking. They must have had some period when they were competitive, though they didn't win the championship. If not, then their fans must be a very peculiar bunch.

No, this specific team was stuck in the suck zone for over 100 years. The few times they were good they broke their fans hearts in some comical ways. And then they won in 2016.

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their wikipedia page can easily answer this question.  The Cubs won the NL pennant (got to the world series and lost) 7 times from 1910 to 1945.  The won the East Division twice in the 80s and lost the NL championship series both times.  They won the Central Division three times in the aughts - two times they were eliminated in the NLDS and 2003 they lost a 7 game series in the NLCS - that was the infamous Bartman incident.  Finally, they won Wild Card births in 1998 and 2015.  The lost in the NLDS is 98 and the NLCS in 2015.

All in all, that's making the postseason 14 times in 108 years, or about 13 percent of the time.  Whether you think that means they "perpetually sucked" is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...