Really Good NBA Analysis: Thinking Basketball

[bdonovan]

NBAGoat brought to my attention a Youtube Channel called "Thinking Basketball". It is maybe the best thing I've seen in this category.

I wasted a good chunk of my life wading through Yahoo News comments for some useful insight on NBA games before I discovered ISH. ISH has been a HUGE improvement. But I've still been interested in additional analysis, esp. with accompanying video where the points being made become all the more clear.

There are times I flip on the TV before heading out for the day and see Stephen A Smith yelling at Max Kellerman or vice-versa about some thing or the other on basketball; high on opinion (and volume) but low on substance. It gets old.

I am binge-watching Thinking Basketball's videos because they are really done well in terms of breaking down all the dynamics on the court (ie: TOR's team defense against Giannis, Curry's value beyond scoring, etc.). And because they're all relatively short narrated videos, not paragraphs of text, they're easy to go through.

10/10 Do Recommend

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3HPbvB6f58X_7SMIp6OPYw/videos

[superduper]

Good post and this dude definitely has good and interesting analysis.

Unfortunately 95% of this board thinks basketball is played on the statsheet.

[NBAGOAT]

NBAGoat brought to my attention a Youtube Channel called "Thinking Basketball". It is maybe the best thing I've seen in this category.

I wasted a good chunk of my life wading through Yahoo News comments for some useful insight on NBA games before I discovered ISH. ISH has been a HUGE improvement. But I've still been interested in additional analysis, esp. with accompanying video where the points being made become all the more clear.

There are times I flip on the TV before heading out for the day and see Stephen A Smith yelling at Max Kellerman or vice-versa about some thing or the other on basketball; high on opinion (and volume) but low on substance. It gets old.

I am binge-watching Thinking Basketball's videos because they are really done well in terms of breaking down all the dynamics on the court (ie: TOR's team defense against Giannis, Curry's value beyond scoring, etc.). And because they're all relatively short narrated videos, not paragraphs of text, they're easy to go through.

10/10 Do Recommend

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3HPbvB6f58X_7SMIp6OPYw/videos

It’s going fall on deaf years here lol. Yahoo news may be the woat tbf but calling ish a huge improvement for discussion is hilarious to me. Ish is trash for serious discussion even compared to reddit(the main subreddit is circlejerky but nbadiscussion is solid).

It doesn’t help that elgee is very heavy on statistics too and has some controversial opinions especially for here. Kareem no1, lebron over Jordan all time after I think 2018, Kobe at 12, kg in top 10, Nash in top 20 etc. I like his work however, his book on biases fans have was illuminating. He’s decent at film analysis too. There are other maybe even better ones like bballbreakdown (not as good as it used to be) and coach Daniel. I’m overlooking some others

[RRR3]

Good post and this dude definitely has good and interesting analysis.

Unfortunately 95% of this board thinks basketball is played on the statsheet.
Ah so you agree with him on his top 40 I’m sure: http://www.backpicks.com/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/

[jstern]

How was ish a big improvement?

[Cleverness]

Great videos, thank you for posting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCks-bQbn1A

[bdonovan]

How was ish a big improvement?

The fact that ISH members actually regularly watch basketball games.

That people routinely cite stats to justify their points, including advanced stats.

That people can cite relevant facts such as Player X's defensive history against Player Y. Try finding that on Yahoo News comments.

People post relevant video snippets of what they're talking about.

Generally analyze player's weaknesses and strengths well.

It's just basic basketball knowledge that's obvious when people are making observations that is almost completely lacking on general news sites.

I realize there are things people may not like about the forum; but I wonder if people have been here too long forget what it's like elsewhere.

[jstern]

The fact that ISH members actually regularly watch basketball games.

That people routinely cite stats to justify their points, including advanced stats.

That people can cite relevant facts such as Player X's defensive history against Player Y. Try finding that on Yahoo News comments.

People post relevant video snippets of what they're talking about.

Generally analyze player's weaknesses and strengths well.

It's just basic basketball knowledge that's obvious when people are making observations that is almost completely lacking on general news sites.

I realize there are things people may not like about the forum; but I wonder if people have been here too long forget what it's like elsewhere.

That's more or less what I always say about ish. That even the trolls force people to really look deep into things with counter arguments. It's just a matter of the reader having the brains to put the whole picture together without their own bias getting in the way.

[Cleverness]

Why is it that so many retired NBA players analyze games with such low bball IQ? Half the stuff they talk about are cliches. Are they just not capable of good analysis like Thinking Basketball?


"They need to feed the hot hand"

"They need to dominate the boards/paint/3 pt line, etc to win"

"They have no answer for player x"

"That was huge" - Steve Smith

"There's contact! Certainly contact!" - Mark Jackson

"To fit my agenda, we should change the rules to..." - JVG

"lol" - Chris Webber

"Airhead speak" - Reggie Miller

etc

It's rare they actually analyze what's happening on the court. Did any of the analysts talk about the box and 1 defense they were playing on Steph in game 2? Like... ANY of them?!

"Their bench is playing well, give some credit to Steve Kerr" is the analysis we get from JVG

[ImKobe]

Why is it that so many retired NBA players analyze games with such low bball IQ? Half the stuff they talk about are cliches. Are they just not capable of good analysis like Thinking Basketball?


"They need to feed the hot hand"

"They need to dominate the boards/paint/3 pt line, etc to win"

"They have no answer for player x"

"That was huge" - Steve Smith

"There's contact! Certainly contact!" - Mark Jackson

"To fit my agenda, we should change the rules to..." - JVG

"lol" - Chris Webber

"Airhead speak" - Reggie Miller

etc

It's rare they actually analyze what's happening on the court. Did any of the analysts talk about the box and 1 defense they were playing on Steph in game 2? Like... ANY of them?!

"Their bench is playing well, give some credit to Steve Kerr" is the analysis we get from JVG

It's boring to the casual fan. They have to speak in generalities to make the product digestible for the average viewer, the average viewer doesn't care about the technical side of the game. The NBA has evolved into a soap opera with a 24/7 news cycle.

As far as box-and-1 goes, JVG mentioned it like 5 times in 5 minutes, which is why everyone started talking about it like they've coached or played against that defense before :lol .

[Cleverness]

It's boring to the casual fan. They have to speak in generalities to make the product digestible for the average viewer, the average viewer doesn't care about the technical side of the game. The NBA has evolved into a soap opera with a 24/7 news cycle.

As far as box-and-1 goes, JVG mentioned it like 5 times in 5 minutes, which is why everyone started talking about it like they've coached or played against that defense before :lol .

So true about that first point being just like the news cycle, and so many dumbed-down hypotheticals that go along with it

I guess I've tuned out JVG so much that I didn't hear him mention it once. That plus I didn't know that defensive scheme was called box and 1.

[aj1987]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Ah so you agree with him on his top 40 I

[Manny98]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Ah so you agree with him on his top 40 I

[bdonovan]

Why is it that so many retired NBA players analyze games with such low bball IQ? Half the stuff they talk about are cliches. Are they just not capable of good analysis like Thinking Basketball?


"They need to feed the hot hand"

"They need to dominate the boards/paint/3 pt line, etc to win"

"They have no answer for player x"

"That was huge" - Steve Smith

"There's contact! Certainly contact!" - Mark Jackson

"To fit my agenda, we should change the rules to..." - JVG

"lol" - Chris Webber

"Airhead speak" - Reggie Miller

etc

It's rare they actually analyze what's happening on the court. Did any of the analysts talk about the box and 1 defense they were playing on Steph in game 2? Like... ANY of them?!

"Their bench is playing well, give some credit to Steve Kerr" is the analysis we get from JVG

:lol

Spot on. Esp. Mark Jackson and Van Gundy. (you would think jackson would realize there's contact on virtually every play in the NBA & explain why he thinks the level of contact is foul-worthy)

Although to Van Gundy's credit, he does occasionally spot off-ball dynamics like pointing out Steph's flair screens for other shooters.

[LAmbruh]

Ah so you agree with him on his top 40 I’m sure: http://www.backpicks.com/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/
c-c-c-c-crickets :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[FKAri]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Ah so you agree with him on his top 40 I

[LostCause]

I like Elgee as a basketball analyst

I remember when he posted on RGM and we debated some things there, namely the importance of longevity vs peak. I didn’t agree with him, I thought he valued it too much in cases where the difference isn’t vast, but he’s always been well reasoned and backs up his points. Though everyone has biases

The backpicks list was pretty good and it’s easy to see why he ranked the Top 3 as he did. By his own words, Kareem had the GOAT longevity, Jordan’s peak was greatest but his injured season and retirements docked what would’ve easily put him as #1 on his list, LeBron has the 2nd beat peak ever (with an argument for best) while combining it with some amazing longevity. If he keeps it up and returns to championship contention, especially if he wins one, I have no doubt he’d be at the top of ElGees list

[NBAGOAT]

[QUOTE=LostCause]I like Elgee as a basketball analyst

I remember when he posted on RGM and we debated some things there, namely the importance of longevity vs peak. I didn

[RRR3]

Damn. This is military grade ether. Can't even muster a "well I don't have to agree with everything they say."
He has no response.

[Shogon]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Ah so you agree with him on his top 40 I