Lillard - "No more easy looks for Curry"

[Stanley Kobrick]

"He's seeing that it's tough to get those quality looks right now... It's different than what it's looked like the last 4-5 years." (https://streamable.com/fqcqlw)

Draymond, Wiggins, Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman aren't enough talent to get stephen curry those easy looks. need more all-stars :(

[Gudo]

Imagine the pressure and defensive attention on you if you are the sole scorer on your team and what that does to your fg%.

[scuzzy]

"Steph can't find his shot without 3-4 screens and defenders gravitating towards Klay/Durant"

:yaohappy:

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Well he went to five different NBA finals and failed to win finals MVP in any of them. You actually think he's an alpha or leader? hell no

[pandiani17]

Imagine the pressure and defensive attention on you if you are the sole scorer on your team and what that does to your fg%.

The average NBA fan knows that. Actually, many predicted this was going to happen.

[Stanley Kobrick]

The average NBA fan knows that. Actually, many predicted this was going to happen.
its true, without the safety net of 3-4 other all-star teammates everyone knew stephen curry wouldn't be able to carry an average team. we predicted this

[TAZORAC]

its true, without the safety net of 3-4 other all-star teammates everyone knew stephen curry wouldn't be able to carry an average team. we predicted this

Remember when people said he was the best player in the NBA? Curry is good but even 4 years ago wasn't a top 5 player in the NBA. I remember being MOCKED for saying that WESTBROOK was a better player a few years back.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Remember when people said he was the best player in the NBA? Curry is good but even 4 years ago wasn't a top 5 player in the NBA. I remember being MOCKED for saying that WESTBROOK was a better player a few years back.
:cheers:

it really makes you respect guys like Westbrook, Harden and Lillard who have reached contention consistently with less than what stephen curry has now

[tpols]

lmao... anybody would be seeing harder looks playing with this all time bad offensive cast. Dame is playing with a legit #2, and team that's been together a long while. Chef is playing with busts, bums, and 2nd round talents.

[coin24]

I’m the second person in this thread..

[RRR3]

I’m the second person in this thread..
That seems pretty unlikely.

[tpols]

An interesting point to take in too is that from 2009 to 2016, Curry shot 45% from 3pt range. That's before any "super team". Past two years he's shot 24% and 32%, albeit on only 10 game volume. So statistically it's meaningless, but it is harder to get your shot off when you're doubled off and on ball all game and none of your teammates can make the defense pay and adjust. It's like having 4 harrison barnes spacing the floor.

[LAmbruh]

Lebron
Wiggins
Oubre
Draymond
Wiseman
Bazemore

Would be expected to reach (and win) Finals, and they would :applause:

[Stanley Kobrick]

Lebron
Wiggins
Oubre
Draymond
Wiseman
Bazemore

Would be expected to reach (and win) Finals, and they would :applause:
Wiggins was traded straight up for Kevin Love and Cavs made the finals with him as 2nd option. really puts stephen curry's incompetence and fragility into perspective

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kelly Oubre is giving warriors 8 PPG on 30% TS hahahhaha

I thought Curry's "gravity" makes everbody around him better.

[Gray GOAT]

Well he went to five different NBA finals and failed to win finals MVP in any of them. You actually think he's an alpha or leader? hell no

Still higher all time than Kawhi.

[Gus Hemmingway]

KAT gets career shamed his entirety with Wiggins in Minnesota


Wiggins goes to Golden State and Curry immediately gets sheltered from any criticism despite identical circumstance


I thought Draymond's suspension was the catalyst to 2016 Finals. He sucks now?

[DMAVS41]

Cool story.

I guess Dame thinks we all just forgot about the 2019 Conference Finals without Durant.

[StrongLurk]

Curry was great before the superteams, Lebron stans are just jealous that the Warriors prevented Bron from more chips. It's that simple, therefore they constantly slander Curry because they are weak.

[LAmbruh]

Curry was great before the superteams, Lebron stans are just jealous that the Warriors prevented Bron from more chips. It's that simple, therefore they constantly slander Curry because they are weak.

wrong account BronBron :oldlol:

[Gus Hemmingway]

wrong account BronBron :oldlol:

got em

[coin24]

You're certainly the first virgin :lol


https://i.ibb.co/cx1k10H/6r0pc.png


R3 talkin bout virgins!

[tpols]

Kelly Oubre is giving warriors 8 PPG on 30% TS hahahhaha

I thought Curry's "gravity" makes everbody around him better.

Kelly Oubre is a horrible basketball player. His name is Kelly. That should've been your first clue. Go look at his career splits. He's in the negative every year as a bench player.

:biggums:

Cmon broseph... you can do better than that. Even Kawhi would be rendered fruitless alongside wiggins and oubre lmao. They're probably the worst 2nd/3rd option tandem any star could ever hope to have, especially in today's league of team hopping and star joining.

[r0drig0lac]

Draymond, Wiggins, Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman aren't enough talent to get stephen curry those easy looks. need more all-stars :(
No Klay, No Play :(

[Stanley Kobrick]

KAT gets career shamed his entirety with Wiggins in Minnesota


Wiggins goes to Golden State and Curry immediately gets sheltered from any criticism despite identical circumstance


I thought Draymond's suspension was the catalyst to 2016 Finals. He sucks now?
great point. no one mentioned kelly oubre when people use to bash Booker. but now that he plays with stephen curry, kelly oubre is a household name to bash just like wiggins. interesting

[tpols]

Oh man.....



When they got rid of the worst player in the league Kelly oubre at 8 PPG on 27% FG and 4% from three

That helped them a lot


Kelly Oubre is giving warriors 8 PPG on 30% TS hahahhaha

I thought Curry's "gravity" makes everbody around him better.


Our resident Kawhi stan is full of shit within minutes of poasts, fellas.

[Stanley Kobrick]

No Klay, No Play :(
:(

[Gus Hemmingway]

LeBron won a championship in 2016 with K Love giving him 8ppg on 27% TS as well! :oldlol:


No excuses baby bois

[Kblaze8855]

lmao... anybody would be seeing harder looks playing with this all time bad offensive cast. Dame is playing with a legit #2, and team that's been together a long while. Chef is playing with busts, bums, and 2nd round talents.



Plenty of stars get clowned for having guys like Olden Polynice or Pat Garrity as their second options and not winning as a result. Terrell Brandon had Tyrone Hill and Bobby Phills. Andrew Wiggins, Wiseman, and Kelly are more help than a lot of guys got on bad teams or even some good teams. Besides Steph made his opinion clear on the “Hes playing with garbage” line of thinking:

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2101030459100306.jpeg

[And1AllDay]

wrong account BronBron :oldlol:

busted his ass :oldlol:

[r0drig0lac]

Plenty of stars get clowned for having guys like Olden Polynice or Pat Garrity as their second options and not winning as a result. Terrell Brandon had Tyrone Hill and Bobby Phills. Andrew Wiggins, Wiseman, and Kelly are more help than a lot of guys got on bad teams or even some good teams. Besides Steph made his opinion clear on the “Hes playing with garbage” line of thinking:

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2101030459100306.jpegboom

[Stanley Kobrick]

Plenty of stars get clowned for having guys like Olden Polynice or Pat Garrity as their second options and not winning as a result. Terrell Brandon had Tyrone Hill and Bobby Phills. Andrew Wiggins, Wiseman, and Kelly are more help than a lot of guys got on bad teams or even some good teams. Besides Steph made his opinion clear on the “Hes playing with garbage” line of thinking:

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2101030459100306.jpeg
high IQ poast :cheers:

[Kblaze8855]

That said it’s not a good team and it shouldn’t be winning much. But a lot of guys defending him need to look back at the shit they say about other people who didn’t have the best of teams.

Its hardly rare to be the only all star on a team. Lot of guys who get called losers played long portions of their career with bad help and nobody seems to give them credit for what they might have done in another situation.

He’s in a normal situation for plenty of hall of famers. It’s annoying no doubt...but a lot of guys spent stretches with teams full of guys you never heard of.

[Bronbron23]

wrong account BronBron :oldlol:
What, you think im stronglurk? I only have one account and i'm Pretty sure ive argued with dude about curry many times. I've never liked curry. I kill him on a regular.

These bron stan losers have so many accounts they think it's normal and everyone does:facepalm

[ThatCoolKid]

KAT gets career shamed his entirety with Wiggins in Minnesota


Wiggins goes to Golden State and Curry immediately gets sheltered from any criticism despite identical circumstance


I thought Draymond's suspension was the catalyst to 2016 Finals. He sucks now?

Except you'd have to be a low IQ hater to say anything bad about KAT so far. AD didn't do shit until he joined a good team, and actually had signficantly better teams that KAT. KAT is a great young talent who used to be the number 1 young player in the eyes of GMs until idiots started underatting him for playing on bad teams. Curry's supporting cast right now is literal garbage.

[PP34Deuce]

A good amount of teams have incorporated warriors offensive sets. Teams know with klay out how to defend them. Steph is still great but def needs a veteran team..this team is lower iq athletic players

[Bronbron23]

A good amount of teams have incorporated warriors offensive sets. Teams know with klay out how to defend them. Steph is still great but def needs a veteran team..this team is lower iq athletic players

It's not just offense though it's defense also. 2016 cavs provided the blue print for how to defend them. That's why the front office went out and got kd.

[red1]

curry scored more points but it was always klay that you feared more



klay is a cold-blooded clutch 3 point shooter. the warriors obviously wouldn't be the same without him.

[hold this L]

A good amount of teams have incorporated warriors offensive sets. Teams know with klay out how to defend them. Steph is still great but def needs a veteran team..this team is lower iq athletic players

That and overall defense which is also because it's a bunch of youngins is the reason right now. I know Bob wanted to get more athletic, but you need athleticism and high IQ

[ArbitraryWater]

"Steph can't find his shot without 3-4 screens and defenders gravitating towards Klay/Durant"

:yaohappy:

the stats show,


defenders gravitated towards curry


&eye test

[AlternativeAcc.]

The average NBA fan knows that. Actually, many predicted this was going to happen.

Some were earlier than others.. but yes

[Axe]

I find it funny that some folks still think the warriors are the very same team 2-6 years ago. They'll never be competitive without klay under their arsenal. And this is the only time curry got to realize how it's like to carry a team without veterans' help.

Btw where's our resident curry stan Stephonit? Still hiding inside his huge rat hole, i guess.

[CTbasketball92]

It's funny, Steph is average 26/7 on 58 TS% while shooting 32% from three. That is most definitely going to rise and he'll get over 40% or at least over 38% on 12 attempts per game. He's the greatest shooter ever. I won't completely count him out. I want the warriors to do something drastic to get him some wins now. Draymond is awful and doesn't seem to have much value in a vacuum. It's wild that we can't expect him to just get a Lamar Odom 16/5/5 and play good defense. Nope. at best he'll get 10 ppg on a little above average efficiency. IDc, he's ridiculously overrated.

[ThatCoolKid]

I find it funny that some folks still think the warriors are the very same team 2-6 years ago. They'll never be competitive without klay under their arsenal. And this is the only time curry got to realize how it's like to carry a team without veterans' help.

Btw where's our resident curry stan Stephonit? Still hiding inside his huge rat hole, i guess.

This Warriors team is trash. Swap Steph out for any star in the league and this is still a bad team.

[Axe]

This Warriors team is trash. Swap Steph out for any star in the league and this is still a bad team.
Much better if they just tank instead and be the lottery team they once were back then.

[Bronbron23]

This Warriors team is trash. Swap Steph out for any star in the league and this is still a bad team.

Nope not bron

[tpols]

Nope not bron

What?

Lebron couldn't even make the playoffs with ingram lonzo and rondo... He wouldn't be doing anything out west with oubre, wiggins, and a rookie.

[Hey Yo]

What?

Lebron couldn't even make the playoffs with ingram lonzo and rondo... He wouldn't be doing anything out west with oubre, wiggins, and a rookie.
dumb

[Stanley Kobrick]

I find it funny that some folks still think the warriors are the very same team 2-6 years ago. They'll never be competitive without klay under their arsenal. And this is the only time curry got to realize how it's like to carry a team without veterans' help.

Btw where's our resident curry stan Stephonit? Still hiding inside his huge rat hole, i guess.
:cheers:

[coin24]

What?

Lebron couldn't even make the playoffs with ingram lonzo and rondo... He wouldn't be doing anything out west with oubre, wiggins, and a rookie.

No AD, no playoffs

[Stephonit]

Kind of ironic coming from someone part of what is considered as perhaps the second best backcourt of those years.

No big deal though. Wiggins and Oubre are still clearly adjusting to the Warriors system seeing how their production is below their career averages and in Oubre's case WAY below. His 8 points on 30% efficiency that's supposed to compensate for Klay's 20 on 55% efficiency explains half the problems in one place. If Wiggins and Oubre can get back to just their career averages the guys here will shut up quickly. If they or whoever replaces them eventually get a Curry boost even if overall they are still not as good as Klay, you guys will be whining like you've been for the past 5 years.

The front office erred big time with the Oubre acquisition. Should have just kept Alec Burks who they trained in the Warriors system for a year just to let him go. What a waste of time. But that's been the Warriors development story since the core three matured: train the bench players and then let go of them for other teams to pick up so they can spend time training new guys from scratch again. Utterly baffling.

[tpols]

Plenty of stars get clowned for having guys like Olden Polynice or Pat Garrity as their second options and not winning as a result. Terrell Brandon had Tyrone Hill and Bobby Phills. Andrew Wiggins, Wiseman, and Kelly are more help than a lot of guys got on bad teams or even some good teams. Besides Steph made his opinion clear on the “Hes playing with garbage” line of thinking:

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2101030459100306.jpeg

That's Chef being PC. What do you think a leader is going to say? Yea my guys suck relative to the competition's? Your quote is referencing his opponents help though in an attempt to discredit his achievement. How's he supposed to react? Fact of the matter is that Cavs team had an MVP level player and an All NBA level player with very good role players. And they got swept. Even AD and Harden took games off the dynasty dubs in similar situation.

TMAC had a whole career to prove people wrong in the playoffs. He played on stacked Rocket teams after Orlando... and never won shit. Ironically, Ron Artest led them farther than McGrady could. Steph Curry is a multiple time champion and dynasty leader. A guy who spearheaded a team so good, people cried for ages when Durant came over. The help he has now relative to the help his competition has is awful. At least guys in the early 2000s East all had generally mediocre help so relatively speaking it wasn't as bad.

[tpols]

The Magic were also up 3-1 against Detroit in 2003. And they lost to them. Nets with Kidd swept the Pistons that same year.

[FireDavidKahn]

I've never seen someone so overrated/unaccomplished talk so much as Lillard.

[coin24]

I've never seen someone so overrated/unaccomplished talk so much as Lillard.

Dame time!! Cmon man why are you so surprised it’s the same guy who cried to be an all star

[FireDavidKahn]

Dame time!! Cmon man why are you so surprised it’s the same guy who cried to be an all star

I'm not surprised.

[coin24]

Looks like curry is pushing Dame times shit in:oldlol:

[Sportal]

Seemingly plenty of easy looks playing the Blazers.

[CtrlAltDel]

Dame - no more easy all star selection.

[ThatCoolKid]

I said in another thread this is the first real time Curry is getting to play serious basketball in 2 years and it would take him some time. Not too much time it seems :lol

[DMAVS41]

Same story as always...

The people that claim Curry isn't one of the best players ever...also have insanely high expectations for him. Coming into this game he was at like 26/5/7 58% TS (or something around that) with a brand new team that is not noteworthy and Draymond out. They were 2-3...and you have people clowning him.

It makes no sense and never will. Like I said earlier, he torched Dame and the Blazers without KD in the conference finals a couple seasons ago.

He's obviously not at his peak anymore, but he's still an elite player...which is evidenced by the idiots that claim he's not amazing while also having the highest expectations possible for him.

He just dropped 62 (his career high) against the guy that just said he'd struggle. Get owned...

[Stephonit]

Scored more on his own than the second best backcourt in the league combined. That just about sums it up.

[ImKobe]

Same story as always...

The people that claim Curry isn't one of the best players ever...also have insanely high expectations for him. Coming into this game he was at like 26/5/7 58% TS (or something around that) with a brand new team that is not noteworthy and Draymond out. They were 2-3...and you have people clowning him.

It makes no sense and never will. Like I said earlier, he torched Dame and the Blazers without KD in the conference finals a couple seasons ago.

He's obviously not at his peak anymore, but he's still an elite player...which is evidenced by the idiots that claim he's not amazing while also having the highest expectations possible for him.

He just dropped 62 (his career high) against the guy that just said he'd struggle. Get owned...

Exactly. KD, Iggy & Cousins were all injured/played hurt and he had his greatest Playoff series ever. Dame has nightmares about Steph and so do most of the NBA fans/Lebron stans who have had to watch Steph bukkake them in the Playoffs.

Look at that Warriors team in the 2019 WCF from 4-9 and tell me that Steph didn't have a similar supporting cast as he does now.

[warriorfan]

Lil d Lillard needs to stick to bullying Playoff P. There’s levels to this.

He got a reality check today though.

[ImKobe]

Lil d Lillard needs to stick to bullying Playoff P. There’s levels to this.

He got a reality check today though.

Dame was feeling himself a little too much, he's been swept out of the Playoffs more times than any other superstar in the past 15+ years I can think of.

[STATUTORY]

this didn't age well

[Kblaze8855]

That's Chef being PC. What do you think a leader is going to say? Yea my guys suck relative to the competition's? Your quote is referencing his opponents help though in an attempt to discredit his achievement. How's he supposed to react? Fact of the matter is that Cavs team had an MVP level player and an All NBA level player with very good role players. And they got swept. Even AD and Harden took games off the dynasty dubs in similar situation.

TMAC had a whole career to prove people wrong in the playoffs. He played on stacked Rocket teams after Orlando... and never won shit. Ironically, Ron Artest led them farther than McGrady could. Steph Curry is a multiple time champion and dynasty leader. A guy who spearheaded a team so good, people cried for ages when Durant came over. The help he has now relative to the help his competition has is awful. At least guys in the early 2000s East all had generally mediocre help so relatively speaking it wasn't as bad.


That “whole career” line stopped me in my tracks. For one....Tmac was never on the level of Orlando Tmac in Houston....and even if he were? He was a rocket for 5-6 years and only played 14 playoff games Yao Ming also played. They weren’t stacked....they were usually injured. He and Yao had 2 playoffs they both suited up for and were hurt in one of the two. They had a 7 game series loss he was easily the best player in(Dirk had 21 on 35% shooting) and the one vs Utah where he and Yao both played well and they lost anyway(to a team with 4 all stars not that people choose to remember it that way). They didn’t have many years to do anything together in the playoffs.

The real Mcgrady was playing with Pat Garrity and Steven Hunter. The declined Mcgrady was on teams neither he nor Yao were generally healthy for. Yao played under 60 games 3 years in a row, didn’t play in the playoffs at all for 2 seasons and went down for the year in a 3rd playoff run.


That was when his back was so bad he’d occasionally just collapse. He was literaly being removed from games on a stretcher:

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2101041841500334.jpeg




He was out where with a bad back, often no Yao, and still doing what he could. They got knocked out this game:




https://youtu.be/Fo-PmickHy4




He had 40/10/5....Jackson, Rafer, and Battier went 6-28....his starting center replacing Yao was 42...and he had an operation on both his knee and shoulder 2 days after the game because they had been draining fluid nightly for him to be able to play at all.

He had a bad back, knee, shoulder, and a hurt Yao for much of his rocket run...when his back had already put him in decline his last season in Orlando.

This is the kinda shit I’m talking about.

Nobody cares to look into why when guys lose. You can be on a mediocre team, have a list of injuries, a tough conference, a sidekick who was almost never healthy for a season and playoffs and still have people call you a loser.

The world isn’t fair. It didn’t start when Steph has a poor situation. Damn near everyone gets clowned for a lack of success even if their team and situation shouldn’t have resulted in any.

Its idiotic...but most people do it. You being one of them.

[Kblaze8855]

Pat Garrity was a role player who came off the bench. Why would you list him as if he was the 2nd option or something? Drew Gooden and Darrell Armstrong were that. And while they were mediocre, wiggins and oubre suck too.

Looking back they also had Mike Miller. And that guy is a ****ing baller.

The real McGrady was blowing 3-1 leads in the playoffs at his peak in 2003. And another fun fact, after the Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Spurs, and Nets... Orlando was the 6th most expected team to win the title in 2003. They had much better odds than Detroit. 1st round exit with a major choke though. You cant compare TMAC's level of success to Curry's. It's a joke... Curry is not only individually better, but he makes others around him better. I would take Paul Pierce over McGrady and not really think twice




You sound like such a googling ass child right now. If anyone expected the Magic to win the title it was because they thought Grant Hill might be playing instead of nearly dying from an infection after his 4th ankle surgery.

That’s how Tmac ends up on his own dropping 46 on 75% true shooting(since apparently that matters) while his teammates barely get to the arena. This is one of those losses when they were 3-1 and lost......


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2101041918000357.jpeg



But yea....what a ****ing loser.


This has nothing to do with Curry. This is common sense and about how few sports fans seem to have it. Curry, Tmac, Mitch Richmond or Jordan...whoever.

People have been taking losing at face value like morons for 70 years. I don’t see why anyone is surprised it continues.

[tpols]

Pat Garrity was a role player who came off the bench. Why would you list him as if he was the 2nd option or something? Drew Gooden and Darrell Armstrong were that. And while they were mediocre, wiggins and oubre suck too. You're just picking the whitest sounding guy on the roster and acting like that was his only help.

Looking back they also had Mike Miller. And that guy is a ****ing baller.

The real McGrady was blowing 3-1 leads in the playoffs at his peak in 2003. And another fun fact, after the Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Spurs, and Nets... Orlando was the 6th most expected team to win the title in 2003. They had much better odds than Detroit. 1st round exit with a major choke though. You cant compare TMAC's level of success to Curry's. It's a joke... Curry is not only individually better, but he makes others around him better. I would take Paul Pierce over McGrady and not really think twice.

[tpols]

That was game 2.

He shot

8/20
11/28
7/24

in the final 3 losses... Please. Curry got killed for shooting like that.

[Kblaze8855]

Tends to happen vs a team that allows 87 points a game when nobody but you is a scoring threat. Hell that team held Pierce, Kobe, and AI all below 40% in that 2 years. Not shocking Tmac only shoots 45. It was the best defensive era and guys were taking on those defenses with little help. None less than Tmac. Tmac and AI would have killed for Antione Walkers help. But I’m talking to someone who was 7 at the time so the mistake is mine really.

Far as Pat Garrity....he was often the only guy on the Magic to string together a few shots and keep people out of Mcgradys way. He was a decent stretch big we often thought was key. He was a fairly important player on those teams and unlike the others you mentioned...was always there. Two of those you mentioned were traded for each other. He was the other guy shooter they needed to produce for like 3 years. You watched those teams...you saw Tmac going in and Garrity trying to help.

He wasn’t that bad. He just shouldn’t have been as prominent as he often was.

[DMAVS41]

I'm always going to defend Tracy because he was great and he gets clowned way too much.

However, you can't just ignore what he did and didn't do.

His 07 series against the Jazz, in which they lost a game 7 at home iirc, can't be ignored. He wasn't "bad" or anything, but he also wasn't dominant in any real way either.

[Gudo]

I think the lesson is clear for the players. Don’t talk shit and just play the game.

[goozeman]

Never talk shit to a dead-eye shooter. It's ALWAYS a mistake. Bird, Ray, Reggie, etc. All those guys had memorable moments in their careers where they would just eviscerate shit talkers. It's just a bad idea to wake guys like that up because when they go off, it's like the hoop is the size of the ocean and they can't miss.

[tontoz]

Dame's comments backfired worse than 3ball's Klay/Oubre thread.

[And1AllDay]

Dame's comments backfired worse than 3ball's Klay/Oubre thread.

+1

chef cookin these bois

nO mOrE eASy lOoKs

***

62!!!!

[Kblaze8855]

I'm always going to defend Tracy because he was great and he gets clowned way too much.

However, you can't just ignore what he did and didn't do.

His 07 series against the Jazz, in which they lost a game 7 at home iirc, can't be ignored. He wasn't "bad" or anything, but he also wasn't dominant in any real way either.

Even if 07 Mcgrady was the real Tmac(it wasn’t) he had 29/13 assists game 7 on good shooting and Yao played well too. If they had more than 2 playoff runs together they may have done something. They were a potentially great duo all around. Between his own injuries and playing with the worst feet and ankles this side of Bill Walton in Grant Hill and Yao he was never gonna do anything.

Between 01 and 08 either he, Hill, or Yao were down for the season by the playoffs 6 times or so weren’t they? Sometimes the gods are cruel.

[DMAVS41]

Even if 07 Mcgrady was the real Tmac(it wasn’t) he had 29/13 assists game 7 on good shooting and Yao played well too. If they had more than 2 playoff runs together they may have done something. They were a potentially great duo all around. Between his own injuries and playing with the worst feet and ankles this side of Bill Walton in Grant Hill and Yao he was never gonna do anything.

Between 01 and 08 either he, Hill, or Yao were down for the season by the playoffs 6 times or so weren’t they? Sometimes the gods are cruel.

Never said it was the "real Tmac" although I don't even really know what that means anyway. He was 27 at the time and pretty healthy iirc...certainly healthy enough to play 40 minutes a night. Also never said he was bad in game 7 or the series. I said he wasn't dominant.

He didn't play well in that series if we are grading him on the kind of standard you do for players like that. Yea, the stats you seem to care about will look good, but he was not efficient at all. He shot sub 50% TS with 39/25/74 shooting splits for the series and lost with homecourt.

That matters, just like all the things you rightly bring up matter. But the take of "they were never going to do anything"...I don't think holds up. Maybe they could of done something in 07 if Tracy played great.

[Bronbron23]

What?

Lebron couldn't even make the playoffs with ingram lonzo and rondo... He wouldn't be doing anything out west with oubre, wiggins, and a rookie.

Come on bruh. He was out injured. Your playing dumb like alot of bron stans do

[Bronbron23]

This is awesome and how ball should be. Dame talked shit and steph responded big time and now they're going at it again tonight. It's so much better when guys aren't friends and have a healthy dislike for each other. Tonight's game should be intense.

[SATAN]

This is awesome and how ball should be. Dame talked shit and steph responded big time and now they're going at it again tonight. It's so much better when guys aren't friends and have a healthy dislike for each other. Tonight's game should be intense.

They don't dislike each other.

[Kblaze8855]

Never said it was the "real Tmac" although I don't even really know what that means anyway. He was 27 at the time and pretty healthy iirc...certainly healthy enough to play 40 minutes a night. Also never said he was bad in game 7 or the series. I said he wasn't dominant.

He didn't play well in that series if we are grading him on the kind of standard you do for players like that. Yea, the stats you seem to care about will look good, but he was not efficient at all. He shot sub 50% TS with 39/25/74 shooting splits for the series and lost with homecourt.

That matters, just like all the things you rightly bring up matter. But the take of "they were never going to do anything"...I don't think holds up. Maybe they could of done something in 07 if Tracy played great.


I mean exactly what it sounds like when I say the real Tmac. The player he was when he established himself as a star. Shawn Kemp turned 29 days before the lockout ended and had his highest scoring season after said lockout....he also came to camp 315 pounds and on drugs. 99 Kemp is not who people mean when they talk about Shawn Kemp.

Looked superficiality similar and was productive....but lacking that supreme explosiveness means it wasn’t the real Reignman even if he could still play. A player minus his game defining attributes is not the same player. Just a human with the same name.

I’m not factoring in 2015 Wade when asked how good he was. Not 08 Tmac. Not Jason Kidd in the second Dallas run. Not Larry Johnson or Steve Francis on the Knicks....Dwight Howard on Charlotte. Some were still young....none were their “real” versions and I don’t see why I’d factor them in.

Career wise obviously. But your career ranking and how good you were at basketball are barely even similar at times.

If we could remove injury, cocaine, coaching and teammates as factors a lot would be different in history. But it is what it is.

[Bronbron23]

They don't dislike each other.

Said a healthy dislike. They're civil and will even talk and laugh with each other. Deep down i'm not sure they really like each other. Dame is probably jealous and steph probably knows this.

[DMAVS41]

I mean exactly what it sounds like when I say the real Tmac. The player he was when he established himself as a star. Shawn Kemp turned 29 days before the lockout ended and had his highest scoring season after said lockout....he also came to camp 315 pounds and on drugs. 99 Kemp is not who people mean when they talk about Shawn Kemp.

Looked superficiality similar and was productive....but lacking that supreme explosiveness means it wasn’t the real Reignman even if he could still play. A player minus his game defining attributes is not the same player. Just a human with the same name.

I’m not factoring in 2015 Wade when asked how good he was. Not 08 Tmac. Not Jason Kidd in the second Dallas run. Not Larry Johnson or Steve Francis on the Knicks....Dwight Howard on Charlotte. Some were still young....none were their “real” versions and I don’t see why I’d factor them in.

Career wise obviously. But your career ranking and how good you were at basketball are barely even similar at times.

If we could remove injury, cocaine, coaching and teammates as factors a lot would be different in history. But it is what it is.

He was 27, healthy, and factually an all-star that season. So I guess by "real", you mean the absolute peak of a player...personally I think that is too narrow of a view, but as you know I'm not arguing 07 was his peak

Regardless, you have to take it all into account...especially a healthy season at age 27...and if we are actually evaluating Tracy on the level you seem to want to put him...you have to talk about efficiency...and even the "real Tmac" struggled with efficiency at times and that series was probably lost because of it....again, holding him to the all-time great standard.

[Kblaze8855]

I dont have to take anything into account just because two players share a name. I dont consider Wizards Jordan on the subject of how good Jordan was because while the two people had the same name...Wizards Jordan was not near Bulls Jordan as a player. Tmac collapsed and was taken out on a stretcher a year before what youre talking about and missed games due to back, shoulder, and knee problems for 3 years previous. He simply did not move nor play like the player he was....so why would I consider it? Id be happy to talk to you about where to rank the player he was in Houston just as id rank Barkley in Houston or Larry Johnson on the Knicks. Im just not ranking them as players as if they were at the time....the players their names suggest. Barkley as the 28th best player in the league still gets a ranking. 28th. But that isnt who any of us mean when we ask "Barkley or Kevin Garnett". David Thompson was 28, an all star, and played 75 games on the Sonics. Go ahead and rank Skywalker after he lost some of his hops, had a bad foot, was on cocaine and eventually blew out his knee. He was 27 and an all star. Fair game apparently. Go ahead and talk declined David Thompson vs say....Allen Iverson on the Pistons. Theres a riveting discussion about two people who were both all stars at the time.

Me? Im gonna rank people by who they are when they are right....not who they are years into decline.

Im not ranking Steph Curry based on how good he might be if he develops wrist issues that make him a 35% 3 point shooter or Giannis if he breaks his ankle and becomes a slow big bodied post 4 coming off the bench somewhere.

Id judge them at the moment against other players. Maybe Steph who cant shoot as well would be....Kyle Lowry level? Whatever it is...when you ask me Steph vs Steve nash im not factoring it in any more than id factor in Lakers Nash.

We are comparing players....who you are as a player changes with physical condition. You want to compare people based on names have at it. The jersey name just doesnt make the players the same to me so I dont care much about that. I dont give a shit what name he had....Raptors Hakeem is not the real Hakeem. Age, injury, drugs, or whatever the problem....it changes what youre capable of.

Im not factoring in what you can do with no kneecaps while sucking dick for heroin. Thats....probably not the guy im interested in seeing play ball. Even if his name is the same.

[DMAVS41]

How players perform at different stages of their careers in terms of circumstances and with different levels of athleticism make up the real player. One can and should weight specific parts of a career more than others though, but that honestly goes without saying and nobody worth listening to is going to argue that MJ can't be the best ever because of the Wizards years.

Comparing 07 Tracy to Raptors Hakeem and Wizards MJ is not apt in my opinion.

Regardless, who Tmac was...was an all-time great player that struggled with efficiency throughout his "real years" at times...and that needs to be mentioned when talking about him...especially if one is going to give him a pass for basically everything because he was years into decline at age 27 while pretty healthy.

[Axe]

Wait for the warriors to lose many consecutive games and curry will probably begin to make another fake injury as an excuse so he wouldn't return to play again.

[Kblaze8855]

How players perform at different stages of their careers in terms of circumstances and with different levels of athleticism make up the real player. One can and should weight specific parts of a career more than others though, but that honestly goes without saying and nobody worth listening to is going to argue that MJ can't be the best ever because of the Wizards years.

Comparing 07 Tracy to Raptors Hakeem and Wizards MJ is not apt in my opinion.

Regardless, who Tmac was...was an all-time great player that struggled with efficiency throughout his "real years" at times...and that needs to be mentioned when talking about him...especially if one is going to give him a pass for basically everything because he was years into decline at age 27 while pretty healthy.

Go ahead and talk about Glen Rice on the Lakers. Fine by me. Just dont expect me to consider it when the question is Glen Rice vs whoever....unless the question is "Glen rice in 2000 vs ____ in 2000".

And applying a new standard to basketball of 20 years ago doesnt mean those players were struggling. People obsess over "efficiency " now with little consideration of the league Tmac, Kobe, AI, Pierce, VC, and so on were playing in or how the games was played....or for most of them....the lack of talent on their teams. Pierce made 4 playoffs before 08 and shot 40, .399, and 34% in them aside from one year he shot well only taking 13 shots a game in a first round loss.

That should mean what to me when compared to the star wings of today or the era before them who traditionally shoot better vs less defensive minded teams? All these guys tracking their efficiency and being taught to take threes or layups only....bumping up shooting numbers to lose anyway. Like you get a half ring for losing shooting 57ts instead of 52 as if the higher efficiency makes you win...

Having better shooting numbers isn’t necessarily being more effective when the entire league plays a style to maximize that. Still one winner and a bunch of losers.

[DMAVS41]

Go ahead and talk about Glen Rice on the Lakers. Fine by me. Just dont expect me to consider it when the question is Glen Rice vs whoever....unless the question is "Glen rice in 2000 vs ____ in 2000".

And applying a new standard to basketball of 20 years ago doesnt mean those players were struggling. People obsess over "efficiency " now with little consideration of the league Tmac, Kobe, AI, Pierce, VC, and so on were playing in or how the games was played....or for most of them....the lack of talent on their teams. Pierce made 4 playoffs before 08 and shot 40, .399, and 34% in them aside from one year he shot well only taking 13 shots a game in a first round loss.

That should mean what to me when compared to the star wings of today or the era before them who traditionally shoot better vs less defensive minded teams? All these guys tracking their efficiency and being taught to take threes or layups only....bumping up shooting numbers to lose anyway. Like you get a half ring for losing shooting 57ts instead of 52 as if the higher efficiency makes you win...

Having better shooting numbers isn’t necessarily being more effective when the entire league plays a style to maximize that. Still one winner and a bunch of losers.

I don't agree with your comparisons to 07 Tracy. That is my point...not that Glen Rice on the Lakers or Hakeem on the Raptors were the real players or should be weighted heavily. This is obvious and everyone already factors that in one way or another.

I never said he struggled in that series overall either, I said he wasn't dominant in that series and you only talking about his raw splits in one game without taking into account efficiency isn't the whole picture...it isn't all or nothing, but you can't just ignore the rate at which teams and players actually put the ball in the basket.

Again, someone bringing up efficiency does not mean they are making the case that it is all that matters. Does that really need to be clarified?

And of course the specifics of an era should be taken into account when comparing players from different times. Again, just obvious. I do find it a bit funny though that you claim a player like Wiggins has to be something because he can get you around 20 ppg in an era you also bemoan how much of a joke the current scoring totals are. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.

[Kblaze8855]

The idea that bad players can score 20 a night in the NBA was and continues to be ridiculous. That some of them arent as good as others is clear....just as clear that not a single one of them in history has been bad. Very few if any players to even play the required minutes to do that would be bad. The whole concept is born of fans thinking their numbers make them smarter or better judges of ability than the coaches deciding such things. The worst coach in the nba knows his players and the game better than I do. That doesnt make all decisions correct obviously but it does make people using google look stupid when taking formulas and drive by observations to mean more than in person observations by qualified people with the same formulas and more at their disposal while clearly reaching different conclusions. Wiggins coaches see every dribble of his season and have all the nerd stats used against him then go play him 38 minutes over the objections of a guy reading stats after putting some chicken in the fryer at Popeyes. I dont care about those peoples opinions in the least and dont particularly care if they dont need mine either.

[Kblaze8855]

Far as "efficiency" I could give you 7000 words on why ive started caring less and less as the stat nerds care more and more(largely because of the end all nature of those conversations) but it wouldnt matter.

Bunch of people would still take shooting numbers which combine to be 45 seconds of a 39 minute performance and tell me how terrible someone is while legends they themselves respect were in awe of it. We can watch a star take 3 ill advised early clock shots down 12 with 2 minutes to go in a playoff game...crater his shooting numbers in a loss that was inevitable while missing those shots.... then report what he shot for 20 years as if the garbage time makes or misses determined anything. I dont know how many times a team concedes 2 late layups when the other team needs a 3. Does that player get more "efficient" or did he just get two free layups that did nothing to stave off defeat? Its all just thrown into a blender that spits out a shake of nearly useless information without shot by shot context.

I use it mostly to try to speak the language of stat nerds to find common ground but it isnt how I evaluate players in truth. Ive had enough of reading praise of highly efficient games with the player and his coach both bemoaning a guys lack of aggression hurting them. 22 on 12 shots is great....unless the team scores 82 and 12 extra shots went to worse players when the star could have hurt his shooting but helped his team by shooting and scoring more on worse efficiency.

People want to be objective so bad they leave out context...and it just isnt for me.

[tontoz]

Off the top of my head Barkley, Jordan, Kareem, Mullin, Price, KJ, Reggie, Magic, Bird, Stockton, DRob etc all scored efficiently a long time ago.

Taking a lot of jumpers when you shoot a bad percentage was a negative to the team then and now. Rules have made it easier to score now but that isn't an excuse for older players to take bad shots. Some guys just like to shoot even though they aren't good shooters and that has to be taken into account when evaluating them as players.

Scoring efficiency is the primary factor that determines who wins a game. That is just a fact.

[DMAVS41]

The idea that bad players can score 20 a night in the NBA was and continues to be ridiculous. That some of them arent as good as others is clear....just as clear that not a single one of them in history has been bad. Very few if any players to even play the required minutes to do that would be bad. The whole concept is born of fans thinking their numbers make them smarter or better judges of ability than the coaches deciding such things. The worst coach in the nba knows his players and the game better than I do. That doesnt make all decisions correct obviously but it does make people using google look stupid when taking formulas and drive by observations to mean more than in person observations by qualified people with the same formulas and more at their disposal while clearly reaching different conclusions. Wiggins coaches see every dribble of his season and have all the nerd stats used against him then go play him 38 minutes over the objections of a guy reading stats after putting some chicken in the fryer at Popeyes. I dont care about those peoples opinions in the least and dont particularly care if they dont need mine either.

Nothing more needs to be said that hasn't already been said between us on this, I disagree with most of the above.

My point was that you seem to factor in the differences in eras and bemoan how much easier it is to produce numbers now, but don't do it in this case....and I really don't see how a player that just takes a lot of shots and and misses most of them while doing nothing else...is automatically good...because he takes a lot of shots. Seems like circular logic to me unless you are talking about talent or potential ability...but that is hard to know.

[DMAVS41]

Far as "efficiency" I could give you 7000 words on why ive started caring less and less as the stat nerds care more and more(largely because of the end all nature of those conversations) but it wouldnt matter.

Bunch of people would still take shooting numbers which combine to be 45 seconds of a 39 minute performance and tell me how terrible someone is while legends they themselves respect were in awe of it. We can watch a star take 3 ill advised early clock shots down 12 with 2 minutes to go in a playoff game...crater his shooting numbers in a loss that was inevitable while missing those shots.... then report what he shot for 20 years as if the garbage time makes or misses determined anything. I dont know how many times a team concedes 2 late layups when the other team needs a 3. Does that player get more "efficient" or did he just get two free layups that did nothing to stave off defeat? Its all just thrown into a blender that spits out a shake of nearly useless information without shot by shot context.

I use it mostly to try to speak the language of stat nerds to find common ground but it isnt how I evaluate players in truth. Ive had enough of reading praise of highly efficient games with the player and his coach both bemoaning a guys lack of aggression hurting them. 22 on 12 shots is great....unless the team scores 82 and 12 extra shots went to worse players when the star could have hurt his shooting but helped his team by shooting and scoring more on worse efficiency.

People want to be objective so bad they leave out context...and it just isnt for me.

Sure, like I said...it isn't all or nothing and context matters.

[DMAVS41]

Off the top of my head Barkley, Jordan, Kareem, Mullin, Price, KJ, Reggie, Magic, Bird, Stockton, DRob etc all scored efficiently a long time ago.

Taking a lot of jumpers when you shoot a bad percentage was a negative to the team then and now. Rules have made it easier to score now but that isn't an excuse for older players to take bad shots. Some guys just like to shoot even though they aren't good shooters and that has to be taken into account when evaluating them as players.

Scoring efficiency is the primary factor that determines who wins a game. That is just a fact.


You've been here a long time so maybe you won't be surprised, but I'm constantly surprised, still, how much push back people get for posting something akin to the bold.

It really is just a fact. Again, not everything, but as you see in this thread here...there is somehow a negative connotation when it comes to efficiency....when it clearly is an important factor in determining who wins a game.

[tpols]

Off the top of my head Barkley, Jordan, Kareem, Mullin, Price, KJ, Reggie, Magic, Bird, Stockton, DRob etc all scored efficiently a long time ago.

Taking a lot of jumpers when you shoot a bad percentage was a negative to the team then and now. Rules have made it easier to score now but that isn't an excuse for older players to take bad shots. Some guys just like to shoot even though they aren't good shooters and that has to be taken into account when evaluating them as players.

Scoring efficiency is the primary factor that determines who wins a game. That is just a fact.

Yup... blows my mind people don't consider the rate you score at. Like these anomaly situations are present for the entirety of the 100,000 possessions in any one players career. Basketball is literally a game of how well you execute on every possession but apparently that doesn't matter. It's the easiest sport to score in to boot, but let's make excuses for guys who shot like shit or played stupid. (TMAC isn't relevant here... he is legit, but iverson and westbrook types are poison for your team)

[tpols]

The whole concept is born of fans thinking their numbers make them smarter or better judges of ability than the coaches deciding such things.

This is one of the most oft seen logical fallacies.


Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject.

Think for yourself.

[tontoz]

What drives me nuts is seeing a guy come down the floor and take a midrange shot without anyone else touching the ball. A lot of these inefficient scorers (like Westbrook and Wall currently) love to do this to build up their numbers. It is just a bad shot, especially for a weak shooter.

You could argue that it is even a bad shot for Durant and Curry. They can easily get the same shot at the end of the clock so might as well try to get a better shot when there is plenty of time on the clock.

[tpols]

What drives me nuts is seeing a guy come down the floor and take a midrange shot without anyone else touching the ball. A lot of these inefficient scorers (like Westbrook and Wall currently) love to do this to build up their numbers. It is just a bad shot, especially for a weak shooter.

You could argue that it is even a bad shot for Durant and Curry. They can easily get the same shot at the end of the clock so might as well try to get a better shot when there is plenty of time on the clock.

Yea I hate that too. I've seen Kyrie do it a lot, and even being a great shooter, there should never be a halfcourt possession where the ball doesn't get passed. Unless there's some crazy blown coverage but that's an outlier. You're gonna see westbrick do that a whole lot this year.

[Kblaze8855]

Off the top of my head Barkley, Jordan, Kareem, Mullin, Price, KJ, Reggie, Magic, Bird, Stockton, DRob etc all scored efficiently a long time ago.

Taking a lot of jumpers when you shoot a bad percentage was a negative to the team then and now. Rules have made it easier to score now but that isn't an excuse for older players to take bad shots. Some guys just like to shoot even though they aren't good shooters and that has to be taken into account when evaluating them as players.

Scoring efficiency is the primary factor that determines who wins a game. That is just a fact.

No it is not. The only factor in who wins is who has the most points. From there you get into why that’s the case which is a mix of your own teams scoring and your defense.

How efficiently you scored personally when your team has less points than the other is nothing. 7 of the people you listed were shooting well and losing and 3 of the winners were on the most talented teams in basketball history.

People just obsessed with efficiency even with it’s just another path to an L.

Doesnt matter what Chris Mullin shoots if his defense allows the other team to score more points than his team did. Not that it wild always be the case. Speaking of which....why does it matter David Robinson shot 69% in a series when his 55 win team was obliterated in the first round by a 44 win warrior team that couldn’t defend but scored too much? 7-11 shooting is great. It’s also not getting enough points when you’re the best player on the floor and the other teams primary bigs are garbage and Tom Tolbert is playing big minutes in the front court.


Yall have been praising good shooting losses like those numbers mean you did all you can for way too long for me to take it serious at this point.

If 75 combined years of the guys you talk about having good shooting losses dont make it clear the 45 seconds of basketball captured in those stats doesn’t mean you were dominant nothing I say will change it.

Shoot whatever you want. Try winning when you can’t switch on defense and see how useful an efficient 22 is when the other team scores 118 to your 96.

[dankok8]

Team efficiency is an important factor for who wins the game. Yes that's an absolute fact.

However there is a disconnect between individual and team efficiency. Just because a team has a great player putting up a lot of points on great efficiency it doesn't always translate to a good team offense. We have seen Wilt, Kareem, MJ etc. put up monster scoring numbers with high volume and high efficiency on average and sometimes even below average offensive teams. Then we've seen those same scoring GOAT's put up much worse numbers in terms of both volume and efficiency but their team offenses improved.

It doesn't matter how efficiently a player scores overall. It matters how efficient a player is in the particular shots a player is taking. For example a player attempting 10 dunks a game and scoring 7 will shoot 70% from the field but he's actually a very inefficient player because dunk opportunities are converted at a 90% clip in the NBA and converting 70% of dunks is poor efficiency and hurts his team. Likewise Kobe taking and making 30% of bailout shots late in the shot clock will lower Kobe's overall efficiency but can actually help his team's efficiency because no other player in the league can convert such difficult shots at such a high clip.

[tontoz]

The team with the better scoring efficiency wins roughly 80% of the time. The only way the team with worse efficiency can win is to get more possessions (rebounds, steals, fewer turnovers).

Obviously defense plays a role but over the course of a season the defenses a team faces will roughly even out. Obviously teams with a bad defense put that much more pressure on their offense to score efficiently.

Bringing up defense as an argument against scoring efficiency makes as much sense as a square bowling ball. If you don't understand that missed shots make it tougher to win games then you don't understand basketball.

[Kblaze8855]

This is one of the most oft seen logical fallacies.



Think for yourself.


If your opinions were formed by you there would be no need to have google to retrieve them. You don’t seem to think much of anything. You just report stats and lately...even worse nonsense like Vegas odds(funny from someone claiming not to appeal to authority). I think I lost whatever use I ever had for your opinion when you told me Vegas had the 03 Magic as contenders preseason and didn’t have the sense to think it through and realize they assumed Grant Hill was healthy and about to make the GOAT tier duo they were supposed to be.

It was a real eye opener on who I’m dealing with here. Nobody is stupid enough to think that situation through and not realize the Hill factor. You just didn’t think at all. You took Vegas odds as meaningful and couldn’t even put a moments thought into it.

Just took the data and ran with it like it proved Tmac was expected to contend with a gang of low end role players.

Perhaps you used to think things through....you don’t anymore. You’re just a hub through which googled data flows and I don’t need that. I have google if I want it.

[Kblaze8855]

The team with the better scoring efficiency wins roughly 80% of the time. The only way the team with worse efficiency can win is to get more possessions (rebounds, steals, fewer turnovers).

The team with more points has won every game in history.

And yes...defense, rebounding, turnovers and all no doubt factored into making that happen. Basketball is what it’s called. And most of it....is not actually shooting.

[tpols]

Team efficiency is an important factor for who wins the game. Yes that's an absolute fact.

However there is a disconnect between individual and team efficiency. Just because a team has a great player putting up a lot of points on great efficiency it doesn't always translate to a good team offense. We have seen Wilt, Kareem, MJ etc. put up monster scoring numbers with high volume and high efficiency on average and sometimes even below average offensive teams. Then we've seen those same scoring GOAT's put up much worse numbers in terms of both volume and efficiency but their team offenses improved.

It doesn't matter how efficiently a player scores overall. It matters how efficient a player is in the particular shots a player is taking. For example a player attempting 10 dunks a game and scoring 7 will shoot 70% from the field but he's actually a very inefficient player because dunk opportunities are converted at a 90% clip in the NBA and converting 70% of dunks is poor efficiency and hurts his team. Likewise Kobe taking and making 30% of bailout shots late in the shot clock will lower Kobe's overall efficiency but can actually help his team's efficiency because no other player in the league can convert such difficult shots at such a high clip.

Those guys all led elite offensive teams when they had decent help. MJ produced on 120 ORTG and led top offenses with only Pippen as his best mate. You can't beat that. And he took plenty of "bailout" shots just like Kobe. Still scored on very elite percentages. If he would have scored on... 105 ORTG... MJ wouldn't be MJ and the Bulls wouldn't have been a dynasty. His efficiency is a direct reflection of his innate elite ability to put the ball in the basket... hence... basketball.

The 2001 Sixers won because of their defense. You'll hear kblaze go on and on about offense, but they were very elite defensively. They had the DPOY. They had the guy who coached the 2004 Detroit Pistons. They had a slew of elite defensive role players. They were a top 5 ranked defense and only 13th offensively. The reason Iverson gets clout is because the media only highlights offense, and not defense. You will hear about Iverson non stop, despite shooting like shit... but you'll never hear about Mutumbo dropping 17/16/3 on 123 ORTG in the Conference Finals vs the Milwaukee Bucks. While AI shot like shit and had the worst defensive metrics on the team.

People are just blind to media narratives in general. Even smart people... they don't think for themselves most of them.

[tpols]

Vegas odds(funny from someone claiming not to appeal to authority)

That's probably the furthest thing from an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to public perception... which is the opposite of authority.

[Gohan]

Those guys all led elite offensive teams when they had decent help. MJ produced on 120 ORTG and led top offenses with only Pippen as his best mate. You can't beat that. And he took plenty of "bailout" shots just like Kobe. Still scored on very elite percentages. If he would have scored on... 105 ORTG... MJ wouldn't be MJ and the Bulls wouldn't have been a dynasty. His efficiency is a direct reflection of his innate elite ability to put the ball in the basket... hence... basketball.

The 2001 Sixers won because of their defense. You'll hear kblaze go on and on about offense, but they were very elite defensively. They had the DPOY. They had the guy who coached the 2004 Detroit Pistons. They had a slew of elite defensive role players. They were a top 5 ranked defense and only 13th offensively. The reason Iverson gets clout is because the media only highlights offense, and not defense. You will hear about Iverson non stop, despite shooting like shit... but you'll never hear about Mutumbo dropping 17/16/3 on 123 ORTG in the Conference Finals vs the Milwaukee Bucks. While AI shot like shit and had the worst defensive metrics on the team.

People are just blind to media narratives in general. Even smart people... they don't think for themselves most of them.

Their defense was so good they let ray allen and carter break 3 pt records in the playoffs

[tontoz]

The team with more points has won every game in history.
.

How many points have been put on the scoreboard from missed shots down through history?

The only way to put points on the board is to make a shot yet somehow he is trying to discredit shooting.:facepalm

[ArbitraryWater]

One of the great NBA backfires.

[tpols]

Their defense was so good they let ray allen and carter break 3 pt records in the playoffs

You dummy... Iverson was the SG. Those were his guys lmao. There's never been a more overrated player. Ray Allen was scoring on super elite percentages in an era they were tough to come by because HE COULD SHOOT. But he was rigged out in 2001 because he's kind of a boring guy. Really great at basketball, but boring. While Iverson with the black sleeve and tattoos and tough guy attitude was a big time money maker. You weren't around at the time young fella. I was and even I fell for it as a kid. Looking back and making an objective analysis... he was a negative impact player for his career.

[tontoz]

You dummy... Iverson was the SG. Those were his guys lmao. There's never been a more overrated player. Ray Allen was scoring on super elite percentages in an era they were tough to come by because HE COULD SHOOT. But he was rigged out in 2001 because he's kind of a boring guy. Really great at basketball, but boring. While Iverson with the black sleeve was a big time money maker. You weren't around at the time young fella. I was and even I fell for it as a kid. Looking back and making an objective analysis... he was a negative impact player for his career.

As a side note one of the best threads ever was when Iverson cut his hair. The title was something like 'Iverson cut his cornrolls' and some people didn't catch on to the typo. Comedy gold.

I tried looking for the thread but couldn't find it.

[DMAVS41]

The team with more points has won every game in history.

And yes...defense, rebounding, turnovers and all no doubt factored into making that happen. Basketball is what it’s called. And most of it....is not actually shooting.

But being able to score and dominate offensively, even if it doesn't make up the majority of the game...doesn't diminish how important it is.

This conversation is just silly...nobody thinks scoring efficiency is the only thing that matters...and if they do...they are wrong. Westbrook and Iverson were not "rat poison"...that is idiotic.

However, the same thing is true for the people that diminish scoring efficiency...it matters...and to think it doesn't...is just ignorant.

[Kblaze8855]

How many points have been put on the scoreboard from missed shots down through history?

The only way to put points on the board is to make a shot yet somehow he is trying to discredit shooting.:facepalm

The only way to win is for your team to out score the other. What you personally shoot barey even tells the story of your personal offense much less your full impact on a game.

[Kblaze8855]

Those guys all led elite offensive teams when they had decent help. MJ produced on 120 ORTG and led top offenses with only Pippen as his best mate. You can't beat that. And he took plenty of "bailout" shots just like Kobe. Still scored on very elite percentages. If he would have scored on... 105 ORTG... MJ wouldn't be MJ and the Bulls wouldn't have been a dynasty. His efficiency is a direct reflection of his innate elite ability to put the ball in the basket... hence... basketball.

The 2001 Sixers won because of their defense. You'll hear kblaze go on and on about offense, but they were very elite defensively. They had the DPOY. They had the guy who coached the 2004 Detroit Pistons. They had a slew of elite defensive role players. They were a top 5 ranked defense and only 13th offensively. The reason Iverson gets clout is because the media only highlights offense, and not defense. You will hear about Iverson non stop, despite shooting like shit... but you'll never hear about Mutumbo dropping 17/16/3 on 123 ORTG in the Conference Finals vs the Milwaukee Bucks. While AI shot like shit and had the worst defensive metrics on the team.

People are just blind to media narratives in general. Even smart people... they don't think for themselves most of them.


This wouldn’t be so funny to me if you had not spent 3 years swearing an elite defender and eventual DPOY was a bad basketball player because he doesn’t do what AI specialized in....create shots one on one. Got to the point you were praising and 1 clowns as basketball geniuses. You’re a funny guy at times. Not worth talking to for much beyond unintentional humor....but that’s something I guess.

[Kblaze8855]

But being able to score and dominate offensively, even if it doesn't make up the majority of the game...doesn't diminish how important it is.

This conversation is just silly...nobody thinks scoring efficiency is the only thing that matters...and if they do...they are wrong. Westbrook and Iverson were not "rat poison"...that is idiotic.

However, the same thing is true for the people that diminish scoring efficiency...it matters...and to think it doesn't...is just ignorant.


There are people in this topic who think Reggie was better at basketball than at least 4 modern MVPs and will defend such absurdity with nothing but advanced shooting numbers that resulted in losing....generally....while he didn’t score as much as they needed. There are absolutely people who think scoring efficiency is all that matters. Even when it’s efficiently scoring less points than required.

[dankok8]

Those guys all led elite offensive teams when they had decent help. MJ produced on 120 ORTG and led top offenses with only Pippen as his best mate. You can't beat that. And he took plenty of "bailout" shots just like Kobe. Still scored on very elite percentages. If he would have scored on... 105 ORTG... MJ wouldn't be MJ and the Bulls wouldn't have been a dynasty. His efficiency is a direct reflection of his innate elite ability to put the ball in the basket... hence... basketball.

The 2001 Sixers won because of their defense. You'll hear kblaze go on and on about offense, but they were very elite defensively. They had the DPOY. They had the guy who coached the 2004 Detroit Pistons. They had a slew of elite defensive role players. They were a top 5 ranked defense and only 13th offensively. The reason Iverson gets clout is because the media only highlights offense, and not defense. You will hear about Iverson non stop, despite shooting like shit... but you'll never hear about Mutumbo dropping 17/16/3 on 123 ORTG in the Conference Finals vs the Milwaukee Bucks. While AI shot like shit and had the worst defensive metrics on the team.

People are just blind to media narratives in general. Even smart people... they don't think for themselves most of them.

I agree with you but I'm not sure you got my point. Individual efficiency is generally correlated with but not always a determinant of team efficiency. And team efficiency is what wins games. That's why you had many players throughout NBA history who put up insane numbers for nothing. I shouldn't have even brought up Wilt and 80's MJ. How about Adrian Dantley... 30+ ppg on over 60 %TS and his teams never made it past the 1st round. In a 23-team league, his Utah teams were 15th, 18th, 13th, 20th, 9th and 21st offensively in team ORtg in his peak years.

Iverson took some bad shots but he also made a good % of very difficult shots that his inept teammates couldn't have made and he faced enormous defensive attention which gave his teammates open shots that they could make. And he played in the most defensive era in league history or at least since the 3pt era. All those factors make me look at him as a really good offensive player. The Sixers were average on offense and elite on defense. You're right about that but without AI one can easily say they would be dead last on offense and completely irrelevant. AI is the classic floor raiser that can dramatically improve a bad team. Is he also a ceiling raiser that is able to lift a good team to championship heights? Unfortunately we don't know. AI actually never played on a really good team his whole career.

[tpols]

You really want to go the Giannis route? Giannis isn't compared to Mutumbo. He's compared to fellow MVPs. Mutumbo got zero respect for what he did. Giannis has gotten all the credit for the dubs and likewise the blame for the (humiliating) loss. So there's a difference.

[tpols]

There are people in this topic who think Reggie was better at basketball than at least 4 modern MVPs and will defend such absurdity with nothing but advanced shooting numbers that resulted in losing....generally....while he didn’t score as much as they needed. There are absolutely people who think scoring efficiency is all that matters. Even when it’s efficiently scoring less points than required.

If you think Rose or Westbrook were better than Reggie your basketball card has to be revoked.

[tontoz]

The only way to win is for your team to out score the other. What you personally shoot barey even tells the story of your personal offense much less your full impact on a game.


Defense is a different topic. Obviously being a good defensive team is better than being a bad defensive team. That is a given.

The whole focus of the offense is to put the ball in the basket. You can run the best plays with great ball movement but it doesn't matter if you end up missing the shots. Conversely you can run lousy play but if a guy makes the shot then it goes on the scoreboard.

Coaches are designing their offenses to get efficient shots. The entire purpose of running plays is to get good shots as opposed to bad shots. However with only 24 seconds on the clock there isn't a lot of time to run a play. Many times it is just up to the player to make a play and some guys can do it more efficiently than others.

Curry can take shots that would be bad for most players but still make them at a high rate which makes him such a valuable player. Iverson, not so much.

[DMAVS41]

There are people in this topic who think Reggie was better at basketball than at least 4 modern MVPs and will defend such absurdity with nothing but advanced shooting numbers that resulted in losing....generally....while he didn’t score as much as they needed. There are absolutely people who think scoring efficiency is all that matters. Even when it’s efficiently scoring less points than required.

Again, read my post. I said those people are wrong. We agree there.

However, saying it doesn't matter much at all or isn't an important part of playing / winning basketball games...is honestly about just as bad given everything we know about the game...especially if that person is going to give credence to ppg, but not care much about how the points are scored or any of the other aspects of the game either.

[Kblaze8855]

You really want to go the Giannis route? Giannis isn't compared to Mutumbo. He's compared to fellow MVPs. Mutumbo got zero respect for what he did. Giannis has gotten all the credit for the dubs and likewise the blame for the (humiliating) loss. So there's a difference.

You never said he’s not as good as Lebron or Kobe or whoever. You said bad at basketball. And doubled down. And when I said he’s too good a defender to be bad in total even if he could only manage 12 a night and not 30 you persisted. You said these exact words:


analyze his skillset in a vacuum, hes not even really good at basketball.



But now we change it to “for an mvp”? That what we doing? Pretending you had that in there all along?

[tontoz]

Different topic but i like Giannis. I don't like the way they play him though. Trying to bulldoze his way to the rim from outside the 3 pt line isn't going to work against good teams in the playoffs.

They have had a lot of regular season success with it though so they might be reluctant to change. I would like to see him off the ball more, getting his touches closer to the rim.

[DMAVS41]

You never said he’s not as good as Lebron or Kobe or whoever. You said bad at basketball. And doubled down. And when I said he’s too good a defender to be bad in total even if he could only manage 12 a night and not 30 you persisted. You said these exact words:


analyze his skillset in a vacuum, hes not even really good at basketball.



But now we change it to “for an mvp”? That what we doing? Pretending you had that in there all along?

I can second this.

It was bad at basketball and it was idiotic...pretty sure also that part of the claim was that Pascal was better as well.

[tpols]

I said he was bad at basketball in context compared to other great basketball players.

If you let Mutumbo palm and travel all around the court wasting possessions especially in the post season I'd have the same opinion.

But Mutumbo did his job and his job only. And that's that.

[DMAVS41]

Different topic but i like Giannis. I don't like the way they play him though. Trying to bulldoze his way to the rim from outside the 3 pt line isn't going to work against good teams in the playoffs.

They have had a lot of regular season success with it though so they might be reluctant to change. I would like to see him off the ball more, getting his touches closer to the rim.

No player is perfect, but this is where I really agree with Kblaze...

The "right way to play" loses constantly...all the time...even with good help.

Again, Giannis isn't perfect, but you know what really doesn't work against good teams? Having average level supporting casts that lack what it takes to win historically around a single star built team.

[DMAVS41]

I said he was bad at basketball in context compared to other great basketball players.

If you let Mutumbo palm and travel all around the court wasting possessions especially in the post season I'd have the same opinion.

But Mutumbo did his job and his job only. And that's that.

Cool.

So you agree that Giannis is an all-time great basketball player then....right?

[tpols]

Cool.

So you agree that Giannis is an all-time great basketball player then....right?

He probably will end up that way. Giannis isn't westbrook dude. He's smart, and has defensive impact. Even if he never gets a jumper, he can still have tremendous impact towards a title team. Blaze and maybe you have distorted my statements when I was clearly refering to basketball skills aka shooting dribbling passing etc. which are differentiable from defense and rebounding... things that are largely athleticism and instinct based. And transferable across all sports and not specific to basketball.

[DMAVS41]

He probably will end up that way. Giannis isn't westbrook dude. He's smart, and has defensive impact. Even if he never gets a jumper, he can still have tremendous impact towards a title team. Blaze and maybe you have distorted my statements when I was clearly refering to basketball skills aka shooting dribbling passing etc. which are differentiable from defense and rebounding... things that are largely athleticism and instinct based. And transferable across all sports and not specific to basketball.

I never said he was Russ. I have simply said that he's an all-time great basketball player. Glad you now agree.

[Kblaze8855]

I said he was bad at basketball in context compared to other great basketball players.

If you let Mutumbo palm and travel all around the court wasting possessions especially in the post season I'd have the same opinion.

But Mutumbo did his job and his job only. And that's that.


No. You did not.

[tpols]

No. You did not.

I can lawyer you all day bro.


Blaze and maybe you have distorted my statements when I was clearly refering to basketball skills aka shooting dribbling passing etc. which are differentiable from defense and rebounding... things that are largely athleticism and instinct based. And transferable across all sports and not specific to basketball.

:lol

[Kblaze8855]

Lawyer all you want. I showed you what you said and that was far from the worst of it. The first time it came up I brought up defense which you quickly dismissed as not even being a factor in what you consider good. Recently you called Ben Wallace a monster goon who just beat the shit outta people. You don’t even acknowledge defense exists in evaluating player until you have to pull an appreciation for it out of your ass for a specific player who needs hating. Your standard take on defense is that it isn’t even a basketball skill.

[scuzzy]

Always get a kick watching KBlaze finesse Tpols, but then again who doesn't :lol

[tpols]

And I stand by that. Defensive greats who lack in offensive skill tend to be great at it for reasons other than basketball. You could put them on the front end of a volley ball team or a defensive line in football and they'd deal the same. Theyre just great athletes.
What basketball skill does Ben Wallace have? None. He's a great payer who thrived on his ability to knock the shit out of people and hunt the ball down. You or I could probably beat him at a skills contest. I'd put money I could beat him at a FT contest, which is just simple shooting.