User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6943 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Also, continuing from the last thread, how the hell id 30 teams pass up on Chandler Parson at least once again?
I'm inclined to believe there wasn't anything the Clips could have done during the season to convince KG to accept a trade.
What the Clippers need more than anything is real coach, it's amazing they've done as well as they have considering how seemingly inept Del Negro is at times.
I haven't seen a whole lot of criticisms of VDN this year, so I'm constantly wondering how he's doing. CP3 covers a lot of faults, but it's impossible for him to cover everything.
The Clippers should be playing Bledsoe more, but they go to Crawford a lot late in games, so unless you're going to go *really* small (i.e., with Crawford at the 3)
VDN used to love playing Rose, Gordon and Hinrich together in Chicago - the 3 of them played a ton of minutes together in that epic playoff series against the C's. The 3 of them are smaller than the Clips' 3, but Hinrich was the most suited of those 6 to guard bigger players (like Pierce).
Rose really needs to come back, they win games like tonight when he is in the lineup...
Not that I like trying to say what's in players' heads, but the team looked a lot more mentally into the game with Rose on the bench. Maybe it means....sorry, I'll stop. I think Thibs waited too long to put Noah back in (he checked back in around 3:30) and that cost them some buckets and rebounds. Noah is mainly responsible for the late TO shot clock violation. But it does feel like having Rose would have helped with execution down the stretch. Regardless, I was pleased that Butler finally had another great game.
Rodman is perfect to be the diplomat for north korea. he has enough crazy in him to understand them, and seems to have the ear of the dictator.
Am I the only one who thinks he simply got paid to go because he's broke as hell? As such, I haven't given it any more thought than that.
For one thing, he was a college senior in the draft, so he didn't have age or potential on his side. Also, he didn't really progress from his junior to senior year. His rebounds and assists improved slightly, his scoring was down (and he got to the line less) and his blocks+steals were stagnant form his sophomore year on. If you're getting a finished product, you probably want him to be able to score more than 11 PPG in college. Finally, the pre-draft scouting reports make it sound like teams were concerned about his ability to guard perimeter players and shoot consistently. Ironically, those have become his two greatest strengths, but after guarding bigger guys in college and playing more of a facilitator role, they were probably fair questions.
The Clippers have done enough so well VDN's faults don't show up as much until one of Paul or Griffin is hurt or until they play a really tough them like the Thunder. It kind of reminds me of how Mike Brown always seemed like a fine coach for Lebron's Cavs until they met up with a team with similar talent and a better coach in the playoffs.
My biggest issues with him are how he handles Jordan and Bledsoe and his sub patterns. He'll often sub out all of the starters at once and while they have have a strong bench and do ok, I think they would do better if they mixed the starters and subs more like a normal coach. Griffin and Paul both play enough minutes that one of them should almost always be out there, but that isn't the case.
With Bledsoe he just hasn't played him at much SG. Bledsoe has something like 25 PER playing next to Paul this year but VDN opted to use guys like Willie Green instead. Bledsoe played SG in college and still mostly plays like one. Paul-Bledsoe-Barnes-Griffin-Jordan are probably their five best players and have only played together about 20 minutes all season.
With Jordan, VDN tends to single him out for mistakes and flaws and keeps him stuck to the bench and uses guys like Odom, Hollins and Turiaf instead who have the same flaws and make many of the same mistakes, but less talent. When Jordan is having a tough game, VDN very rarely gives him a chance to work through it and bounce back, which he needs to learn to do and if it means using Hollins or Turiaf pulling Jordan doesn't even help them short term. There is no reason Jordan should be playing less minutes than he was two years ago, he has clearly improved since then and his backups are bad.
Does he get any credit for insulating the team from his own shortcomings by usually having two PGs on the floor?
I heard an interview in which Paul said he and Green are friends and he recruited Green to come to LAC. It would not surprise me if his continued PT has a lot to do with that relationship.
That is very convincing. It's probably the best critique of the Clippers I have heard this year.
Is there a market inefficiency of some of these guys here? They might not be superstars, but some of them could be All-Stars. I feel like there's a scouting/talent evaluation process here that doesn't cost a lot of money compared to the cost of draft mistakes / opportunities / opportunity costs.
This is interesting (as commented on above). I wonder if there's a coaching antipattern here. Jordan makes mistakes, but has the talent/potential to not make them, therefore the mistakes are a negative. The other players make the same "mistakes", but don't have that upside, so they're not "mistakes" -- they're just baseline performance.
Looking at the state of Centers in the league, I'm still not sure that that's bad advice. Unless you want to be all hindsight.
As good as Durant was, would anyone have bet large sums of money on him being a Top 10 All Time guy at the time of the draft?
In short, one guy (Oden) hit his 5% projection, and the other (Durant) hit his 95% projection. (Numbers pulled out of my ass)
Looking at the state of Centers in the league, I'm still not sure that that's bad advice. Unless you want to be all hindsight.
As good as Durant was, would anyone have bet large sums of money on him being a Top 10 All Time guy at the time of the draft?
In short, one guy (Oden) hit his 5% projection, and the other (Durant) hit his 95% projection. (Numbers pulled out of my ass)
I don't disagree that the Oden stuff was a pretty terrible break. But Durant's measurables and performance his freshman year in college had a lot of people thinking he had a very good chance of being an all-timer at the wing position.
First off, whoa there with the "Top 10 All-Time" stuff. Durant is having an amazing season, and a wonderful start to his career, but he is 24. Let's just enjoy him for a few years and check back later on the all-time ranking thing.
Also, who in history would you really have bet large sums on being an all-time top 10 guy? Wilt, Russell maybe. Kareem. Bird or Magic, *maybe*? Don't know about guys like Oscar or Jerry West.
Anyway, WRT to Durant, as far as his upside, I thought he was incredible from the start of his college career. I recall picking Texas to win the NCAA Tournament just out of dference to his talent (stupid Rick Barnes!) I mean, just the surface stats - 26 and 11, 40% from three, at 6-9 or 6-10? Yikes. Now, I don't bring this up as a "look at me, I knew how good he would be!" thing - more like, "hey, if a total amateur like me saw this coming (more or less), plenty of others must have as well." I do know I definetly wanted the Celtics (who if you recall had the 2nd worst record heading to that lottery) to draft him over Oden.
I don't remember who I preferred between Oden and Durant, I thought it was very close. Both would be an easy #1 in most drafts. (What Joe said in 17)
I love Asik, but he's not even injured Dwight yet.
13 - Long time pet peeve, though i get it more with good teams (in WS terms, play a guy with lower expected wins and losses and shift opportunities to better, high usage dudes).
Parsons was tricky also because he was a really good glue guy in college, but didn't look to have a singular skill on which he could hang his hat as a pro. Instead, it seems like he got a little bit better at almost everything (a lot better at perimeter shooting + proved that his quickness could translate into perimeter defense).
BTW, did you know he was a 61% shooter from the line in college (401 FTA)? That was a red flag for me...
Lebron probably. Jordan, not without hindsight, or else you don't draft 2 guys ahead of him. One who didn't make it, but you probably would have bet on is Bill Walton. Maybe Shaq?
Though the top 10 is pretty crowded. Shaq did everything in his career you could have hoped for, and may not be a top 10 alltimer. Though a definite top 20.
I think with him and Durant and a couple of other guys you could have bet on them being a Hall of Famer (I think this is a fair proxy for all-time great). But like AROM said, you can be a slam dunk #1 pick like Duncan or Shaq, have an insane career, and still not finish in the top 10. So in the modern game, I don't think I could ever put anyone in that class.
Shaq did do everything you reasonably could have hoped for at the start of his career for sure - he also left something on the table. Not that it really mattered, and I don't blame him, being someone who is wired more similarly to him (work hard, sure, but let's not take things TOO seriously and try to enjoy the good things in life) than, say, a Kobe or Michael (borderline sociopathic). I'm just rehashing old stuff here, I know, but Shaq *could* have been even more dominating, and clearly top 10, if he had a different personality.
I agree with that assessment and I'm neither a Shaq apologist or a Shaq detractor. He never really came into camp in that great of shape later in his career and it was clear from maybe 2002 on that Shaq was done pushing his body in the offseason to drop the 20 or so pounds needed to offset his aging. That said, brute force was always a huge part of his game (again, no value judgements here although aesthetically it was far from my basketball ideals) so maybe he felt he needed the bulk.
________________________
SIAP Rose sat on the bench last night and delivered a classic \"#### you Indy just wait until you get a load of me" GIF at the end of the game. He has to be playing this season IMO after seeing that.
-- The Heat are going to win the East unless Lebron gets hurt. (Trenchant, I know)
-- I think Indiana is the second best team in the East. I don't think the Knicks are far behind, but Indiana's got the elite defense you want in the playoffs. The Knicks do not, and they rely on J.R. Smith from night to night for scoring. You want to bet on that winning you two playoff series? I liked the Bulls the most for #2 a month ago, but man, they just can't score, and if Rose isn't coming back they have no chance against Miami even if they got there somehow. The upside for the Bulls, regardless of what Rose does (and I think he should sit, FWIW), is the Jimmy Butler Era and the impending trade of Luol Deng. Brooklyn is too inconsistent and starting to fade, Atlanta is still Atlanta, and the Celtics upside is a 1st round upset of the Knicks in the 3/6 matchup (I can't wait!) before running out of steam (I think they'd score maybe 80 per game in a matchup with Indiana).
-- Out West....there's 2.5 teams capable of making the Finals, and that's it. Sorry, Memphis, wrong conference; you'd be a clear #2 in the East, but are you really beating two of the Spurs/Clippers/Thunder? Nope. IF (big if) they can get to the three seed, I might be willing to give them a puncher's chance, but I'm really not seeing it with their offense. They'd be a 2010 Celtics type finalist (no superstars, super D with just enough offense), only coming from a stronger conference and without the pedigree. The Clippers....we've talked some about their VDN issues (not playing Bledsoe with Paul, not playing Bledsoe in general, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) - one the one hand, Chris Paul. Here's my prediction: a great 2nd round series between the Clips and Thunder, goes 7 games, and the Thunder win by 15 in game 7 while Bledsoe plays 8 minutes. Spurs/Thunder? I'll take the Thunder, but YMMV.
-- The Lakers....watched the last quarter and a half of that game last night. A few things stood out: 1) Why isn't Dwight getting the ball in the post more? 2) Dwight could NOT handle the Hawks pick and roll last night. Either of Teague/Smith and Horford were shredding the Lakers in the second half - Horford had several open shots at the rim. Only on the final play did the Lakers finally manage to get help, doubling Horford and forcing him into a game ending turnover. 3) I've never been out on the Lakers as a playoff team, and I still think they will ultimately make it in as a 7 or 8 seed. They are going nowhere once they get there, though. Again, that pick and roll defense....wow. 4) Steve Nash should be shooting more than MWP. It seems profoundly stupid that he doesn't. With all the looks the Lakers can get from three between Howard kickouts and Kobe drive-and-kicks....if I'm playing that team in NBA2k12, I have Nash posted in a corner when Kobe is handling the ball or Dwight gets it in the post, shooting 8 threes per game. 5) Did Dwight and Kwame Brown switch hands in the offseason, or was that just last night?
I went to bb-ref to look up just that exact stat, figuring that guys who work at FT shooting in college are a good bet to have a good work ethic in the pros, and are more likely to capitalize on their upside. Not a datapoint in Parsons favor there....
Kobe is my guess, without having listened. See post 26 if I'm right, and don't if I'm wrong. :-) The defense COLLAPSES on him like almost no one else, and he's a good enough passer to find the open guy for a three.
[23] Blake Griffin, though a sophomore, was in that camp of "Big 12 guys blowing out record books" as Durant and Beasley.
This is a wild guess, but I remember seeing somewhere that Monta Ellis has extremely good numbers along these lines, though his game seems purpose-built to hide that fact.
If we broaden it to "All-Time Great", I would have bet on it (barring injury). IIRC, he was playing against NBA players in pickup games before his senior year of high school, and performing at or above their level.
Think I mentioned this in the previous thread but Antoine Walker was on Simmons' podcast last month and claimed that LeBron took part in Jordan's famous secret pre-return workouts. I had never heard that before so I'm going to assume he was lying.
Several reasons:
1. His post efficiency has dropped off and he doesn't get much except cookies anymore. Ethan Sherwood Strauss broke it down at Bleacher Report in January:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1466253-breaking-down-a-difference-between-vintage-dwight-howard-and-the-current-version
I saw a number a couple of months ago pointing out that he actually gets a lot of post touches, but he doesn't do much with them and often doesn't try to convert them. He has been getting fewer lately. Both Pau and Kobe are better post players than he is.
2. His back has eroded his base and his ability to establish position. It has also drastically eroded his lateral mobility, which is exposed in PnR D.
3. On the day after D'Antoni was hired, he was quoted as saying "A straight post-up is inefficient." Howard supposedly really wanted Jackson hired.
4. Kobe shoots a lot.
5. Howard turns the ball over a lot.
As to Nash and MWP, Lakers fans have been saying that for weeks(and actually have been saying most of what you said for weeks). As Hombre pointed out when MDA was hired, the Lakers lack the speed and shooting to really run SSOL effectively. I personally thought that D'Antoni would adapt more than he has, although a lot of the issues are roster-based and not on him.
Yes. His teammates shoot 61% eFG off of his passes.
i don't remember that lebron stuff at all.
(Googled for "lebron james st vincent st mary michael jordan antoine walker")
Well we already knew she had a thing for somewhat crazy basketball players.
The aforementioned Bill Walton too.
(though the writing's on the wall anyway for the Jazz and Warriros given how their score differential have been considerably worse than the Rockets and even the Lakers all year long, and of course Rocket just padded that differential quiet a bit again yesterday.)
Between those guys and Ilyasova it's their best 6, and Ilyasova is a good long range shooter as well for a big. Really the only other guy that should be getting much burn is Mbah a Moute against top flight wings.
Like I said after the Clippers loss a week or so ago, it's REALLY hard to win when 3 of your starters go scoreless, even when the other 2 score 20+ and you have 4 bench players in double figures.
With 23 points and 22 boards last game for Kanter and another 18 and 10 tonight off the bench (plus 23 and 15 for Favors starting in Jefferson's place), whoever it was last page that wondered if maybe the Jazz would be better off if Al sat out the rest of the season with a mysterious injury may have been on to something.
And lastly, when a team is up 3 and their opponent has one last possession to launch a 3 to tie, why do teams EVER even give them the chance? Why don't they just foul as soon as they inbound and let them shoot 2 FT's instead? The Jazz allowed the Bucks to shoot the game tying 3 at the end of regulation and the Bucks let the Jazz attempt a few at the end of OT. Is this unspoken NBA etiquette or something? Seems like stupid coaching to me.
This is totally fair. My thinking rationally best case for the Grizz this year is probably something like lose in 7 in the conference finals. My wishcasting best-case is that the offense, which has shown signs of being somewhat improved post-Gay-trade, continues to gel and they finish the season with a top-2 defense and a slightly above-average offense. And get the 3 seed. If that happened, they might have a shot, if you's a gambling man.
Note: I said top-2 defense, but I actually think Memphis has the best D in the league. Indiana leads them in the efficiency measures but they have had a much easier schedule by BBREF's strength of schedule measure, so if I had to bet which team was actually the best defense, I would pick Memphis. Note 2: I will retract this if it turns out that the defensive efficiency measures are schedule adjusted, but I don't think they are.
I think coaches are just terrified that their guys will #### up and let the ballhandler get a shot up for 3 fts. Probably over-thinking it, but it's safer from a post-game press conference perspective to play it straight up. Possibly they are also affected by the fact that fouling up 3 just seems kind of lame, which it is. If I were a coach, I'd probably like my team to do it, but as a fan, I think I prefer the equilibrium where no one really does it.
It's not that hard to get good contests on 3s when they have to shoot a 3. It seems harder to purposefully defend against the alternative of making a FT and missing the 2nd on purpose for a putback.
If I were an impartial fan watching a game that I didn't care who won, I'd prefer they let the guy take the shot too, purely from an entertainment standpoint. But when it's my team, it frustrates the hell out of me when a guy like Jennings hits a game tying 3 he never should have been allowed to take.
Yeah, he was awful. I can't blame Corbin for sticking with Burks, Hayward, Carroll, Millsap, and Kanter for the 4th and OT considering how successful they were, but I would have considered Favors in for Hayward. At the least it would have been entertaining to see the Jazz bigs destroy the Bucks down low and the Bucks smalls destroy the Jazz from outside.
Especially after Garnett did it against the Jazz just a couple games ago to help clinch the Celtics a win. Of course Corbin is no Rivers...and honestly I'd probably prefer Garnett as coach...
Shaq was more than a really good big guy. He was a really good BIG guy. Extra weight--he was big even coming out of college. He looked a lot thicker than other centers. Maybe like Bob Lanier, who was a heck of a player but did not age well.
Also, Tobias Harris is averaging 17-6 on 58% shooting (67% on twos!) in 5 games since getting to Orlando. He's not a 58% shooter, but he deserved a longer look than he was getting and is making the most of it.
That echos the comment above that coaches don't necessarily trust players to execute it. If you're going to trust anyone, it would be KG.
Rick Bucher just interviewed Mark Malone to start the second half of the Warriors game and Malone had a frighteningly large cold sore on his lip. Really unfortunate camera angle.
Yep. I think we should look for a coach this offseason just as vigorously as we should look for a PG.
Not that strange, unfortunately. Happened just a little over a week ago too. And while Foye will rarely go scoreless, Marvin's done it a few times and Watson literally goes scoreless almost every other game.
We haven't talked about Robert Swift yet, have we?
So, what exactly is in the water in Philly? And why is it only infecting Sixers players and their hairstyle choices?
I was a little annoyed at that at first, considering how well he'd done up until that point (23 and 15 through 3 quarters). But Kanter ended up with his own double-double off the bench (18 and 10), so I guess it balanced out.
Last night was a night of extremes for the Jazz; no one played just okay - half the team was great (Millsap, Favors, Kanter, Burks, Carroll), and the other half was horrendous (Hayward, Foye, Watson, and Williams combined to go 3-31).
I'll be surprised if he plays in SA tomorrow night. Hinrich, Rip and Gibson will all still be out. Boozer didn't make the trip with the team, but they said it wasn't an injury and he should be there (but he sure as hell ain't flying out in today's weather). They have a home game Friday against the Jazz, and then a 3 game trip thru Cali (LA, SAC, GS). Perhaps he comes back Friday?
When I was in Philadelphia, I got this vibe that was a mix between Baltimore and NY/NJ. Which isn't surprising given its geography. But yeah, things felt...unique...there.
also apparently for the indy flight they had to turn around and come back because an engine #### out
Yes, absolutely. I still think it'd be worth the risk, even with there being about 10 seconds left on the clock, as Spivey points out. What annoyed me more, even though it probably wouldn't have made a difference on that possession, was leaving Favors, the Jazz best defender, on the bench for that possession. Millsap is weak defensively anyway and playing on a hurt ankle, but there's basically nothing that will convince Corbin to lift him or Jefferson late in games.
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/yet_another_study_about_fouling_when_up_3
Those that won by allowing the 3 most likely had better defenders than the Jazz and/or a better coach/gameplan towards defending the triple. Before the ball was even inbounded, I had little doubt Milwaukee was going to tie the game.
They're just going Ben Franklin style of course.
Interesting. I'd like to see the data for the NBA, though.
after a few weeks they're still about 3 games out , though GSW and Utah is coming down fast.
I've always thought a schedule loss was like playing the second game of a back-to-back on the road against a decent team, not this team is better than us and they're on the schedule, so we lost.
I don't think Howard is healthy. He just doesn't look good when he's around the basket.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main