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 0.5496 seconds
51 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.
You may (edit: or may not!) have a point about the Grizzles, but Vinnie Del Negro is a pretty convincing argument against seeing the Clippers as a contender.
Double edit:
I should justify my comment about contenders. I am skeptical of this season and how it has affected the NBA vs. a normal season. For this reason, I am higher on the Mavs than some others (but not that high). I also strongly believe that coaching matters in the NBA. The worst coach to win a championship in the last 20 years or so has been either Doc Rivers, Rudy T or Rick Carlisle, depending on how you feel about those guys.
Is it possible that their playoff failures are due in part to them fattening up win totals in a weaker conference/division?
Well, I can see that. I think if I was going to make an argument against the Clippers, it would revolve around them being a below average defensive team by the numbers. That is true of only the Clips, Nuggets, and Jazz amongst the playoff teams this year. I tend to be a bit more skeptical of the good offense, mediocre defense combo than the other way around. But of course, given the Grizzlies makeup, I would be.
On the other hand with the Clippers, Chris Paul.
I do think that is probably the strongest argument in favor of the Grizz in the playoffs, By the defensive efficiency numbers, they were the best defense in the West this year, 7th in the NBA. I read one writer, I think it was John Schuhmann, argue that if you take into account the larger than normal schedule imbalance between the conferences, they were probably more like the 4th or 5th best defense in the league. That's my 30 sec pitch for the Grizz.
The counter-argument would be that they rely on turnovers more than most great defensive teams and they may not carry over into the playoffs. That is very possibly true, particularly since they play Chris Paul in the first round.
I understand what you are saying, and agree to a large extent. I will note however, that Phil and Pop are doing a ton of work in that last sentence. Only one of those guys is still in the league, so maybe that's an argument for the Spurs this year. Mostly, I'm just not sure how much predictive value the idea that coaching matters in the NBA has right now.
Miami, Oklahoma City, Chicago, San Antonio
Challengers:
LA Lakers, LA Clippers, Boston, Memphis, Indiana
Darkhorses:
Denver, Dallas
------------
Bulls
Celtics
Heat
Pacers
East Semis
---------------
Bulls
Heat
East Finals
-----------
Heat
West 1st Round
--------------
Spurs
Grizzlies
OKC
Nuggets
West Semis
----------
Grizzlies
OKC
West Finals
-----------
OKC
NBA Finals
----------
Heat
I'm going to the Memphis games, as I mentioned. I'm also very excited. The games I went to last year were probably the greatest sporting events I've ever been a part of. We were up in the damn rafters for the clincher against the Spurs, but it was still one of the best things I've ever done.
I will say, the biggest advantage to rooting for a small market team with anemic attendance is that I've got pretty good playoff tickets and I didn't have to sell a kidney or anything.
Anybody else going to any games?
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7863321/nba-playoffs-preview
His actual predictions are in the last footnote. Given his prediction track record, I think that's wise. Column features you tube clips from Bad Santa and the old Fall Guy TV show.
Yeah, I'm not really that thrilled about it.
DAL in 6
LAL in 5
MEM in 5
CHI in 6
MIA in 5
IND in 5
BOS in 4
SAS in 7
LAL in 6
CHI in 6
MIA in 4
LAL in 6
MIA in 5
MIA in 6
Really don't know what to expect out West.
76ers/Bulls-CHI in 6
Celtics/Hawks-BOS in 6
CHI over BOS in 6
Knicks/Heat-MIA in 4
Magic/Pacers-IND in 5
MIA over IND in 6
MIA over CHI in 7
WEST
Jazz/Spurs-SAS in 4
Clippers/Grizzlies-MEM in 7
SAS over MEM in 6
Mavericks/Thunder-OKC in 5
Nuggets/Lakers-LAL in 7
OKC over LAL in 5
SAS over OKC in 6
FINALS
SAS over MIA in 6
Hollinger picked Chicago, but in 7, and sees the BOS/CHI series (assuming it occurs) as being very close. He said the same thing about the highly-likely Indiana-Miami matchup--Heat in 7, but Indiana is going to be in it and has a far better chance than many people think in his opinion.
Speaking of hypotheticals, Hollinger said he would have picked Atlanta over Boston if Horford and Pachulia could go.
Primer RT:
I'm not so sure. He got nailed pretty hard in the neck from behind without any warning. I can easily believe that would hurt like hell out of nowhere.
I assume the "dive" remark was about the earlier play, when he fell out of bounds.
Chandler's play was a pretty hard foul -- and questionable move, given that he already had three fouls and it was pretty obvious... and maybe it was a flagrant. It looked deliberate, and you can hurt somebody that way. I don't want to see anyone get hurt, even if that means calling the game so that it's "softer" than it used to be called.
That's the idea behind a flagrant, right?
OTOH, I suspect LeBron James has been playing in third gear for a while, and is ready to turn it on in the playoffs.
The same reason people think that Carmelo is a legit superstar. Which is to say I'm not sure either.
+1
I was trying to get someone to take a bet on Sixers wins vs. Knicks wins but he turned it down at last minute.
i do wonder how much of an effect his previous injuries had on this one. with the condensed schedule, it seems like he just didn't have enough time between games for his joints to recover from the pounding he routinely takes. one injury led to another, led to another, led to this.
actually this was just tweeted by sheridan:
I'm not unsure (*); he's going to dominate the postseason and lead the Heat to the NBA championship.
(*) Simmons's persistent habit of substituting "us" for "me" is quite annoying.
Heat-Celtics?
I think that if Melo pulls this series out, he can call himself a legit superstar. That's the big storyline, at least for me as a Knicks fan. So far, not so good.
Also front page of ESPN.
I think that if you're even willing to entertain the idea that Melo has even a chance of being possibly good enough to pull this series out...Melo's already won.
How do the Sixers match up against a Rose-less CHI team? And, if PHI can beat them, how did they do against BOS?
I think, though, were I a Chi-fan, I'd be more worried that this sorta seals the deal on Rose as a guy for whom injuries will have us asking, "What if?" on his career. What a huge bummer for you guys.
Stupid, stupid digression: Rose's injury is why I try not to care about the NBA as a whole, because as a whole, it's unbearable. I'm not watching the playoffs so I can learn who's the best team. I just like watching basketball games in a vacuum and judging them based off of the in-game narrative, because basketball is an awesome thing to watch. If it's really the game with the most personality with guys who can most easily transcend the game and just be spectacular athletes in the game best designed around being an amazing athlete, reducing it to "Ring or no ring?" is just totally pointless to me. If Derrick Rose is never the same after this injury and never leads his team to a title, well, who cares? He was exceptional in the moment. That's what's important.
The Bulls are still the better team. The 76ers went 19-25 to close the season (selective endpoints, I know, but I still think it's illustrative). The Bulls, on the other hand, went 18-9 without Rose (small sample size issues).
I too watch sports because of the amazing athletic feats, strategy, teamwork and competitiveness on display. I don't give a #### about legacies or rankings of players and teams.
I pretty much couldn't disagree more.
I don't think this was said well, but I think I know what you're talking about. If Rose's career were to end, it wouldn't take away the enjoyment of the transcendent athleticism that we've already seen.
I'd agree with this. Depth may not be a great playoff asset, but it helps if you need to find someone with a hot hand.
I really don't see the Celtics as a very good team. They had a 2.5 PPG margin over their opponents. They were below average in nearly every way on offense (getting to the line, offensive rebounding, turning the ball over, and middle of the pack on EFG%). They have a decent defense, but they foul more than the average.
According to SRS (which is not the be all and end all), the Celtics were 12th in the league--behind the Knicks and Pacers. I think Doc is not a very good coach, and I am tremendously skeptical of any kind of "playoff experience" magic.
Here's a GoogleSheet I made of all the Bulls games without Rose (from Basketballref).
Bulls went 18-9, yeah, yeah, but they had an average margin of 7.4 points, which, if they had done that over a full season, would have been good for second, behind the real 2011-2012 Bulls. They're a much better team than the Celtics, unless you believe in playoff magic.
Edit: Some of the margin is from some big wins against CHA and CLE, so feel free to discount the 7.4 number a bit.
Sports Guy "dream scenario" indeed.
If another big name gets hurt over the next couple of weeks, more people will start talking about the brutal lockout schedule (not that there is any way to prove it contributed to any injuries).
This is quite unfortunate for the league on a number of levels, and it may mean some people put a * on anything Miami does.
Only because people are eager to. What's different about the Heat and Bulls from last year, when the Heat ate the Bulls up?
Classic Simmons. "Oh, yeah, the Celtics have an asterisk title too!"
Of course, I'm also still hoping that someone beats Miami. That would be nice.
I didn't say it was a good idea. I said it's going to happen. And as you see above, it already has.
Bad day to be a Chicago-raised NBA guard.
I don't really have the heart to refute this at the moment, but I've done it plenty of times already (start by looking at the box scores). Besides that, neither team is exactly the same as last year so there's no reason to think it would play out the same.
In his BOS/CHI write-up, Hollinger pointed out that Boston was +10.71 per 100 possessions with Garnett on the floor. Boston finished very strong as well. I think Chicago will probably beat Philadelphia, but I doubt that they will beat Boston. Without Rose, I think Chicago will have as much if not more trouble scoring than Boston will over a playoff series against the Boston D.
I think that's just with KG at center. Zach Lowe has a bit more on the Bulls performance this year without Rose. The reasons I think the Bulls should still be favored over Boston, in no particular order: HCA (Boston was under .500 on the road this year), the Bulls size advantage (even at their best this year, the C's struggled against big teams), the Bulls offense without Rose still outperformed the C's offense this year, and Ray Allen's health (the story about the bone chips today has completely flown under the radar). I also mentioned the schedule earlier; there's supposed to be back to back games in the 2nd round, the C's age and lack of depth will hurt them in that 2nd game while the Bulls can still go 10 deep.
I think Thibs is rightfully getting a lot of heat for Rose being in the game, even though I do understand why he wanted Rose to get the minutes; then again, Philly had already waived the white flag even if they were on a mini run. This has been a criticism of Thibs all year (some last year too when it came to running Deng into the ground). OTOH, that's the type of coaching and mentality that can help the Bulls stay competitive.
Even with that, I should probably stop talking about the next round until the Bulls actually show they'll win this one.
I thought it was always at least 6 months, and possibly a few more. I had ACL reconstruction surgery and I don't think I was playing ball again for a year (though I'm sure Rose has access to better trainers and rehab equipment than I did).
Plus mine was 11 years ago, so maybe things have changed for the better.
Edit: Meant to add that this sucks. Few things kill the awesomeness of sports more than injuries to the best and most exciting players. Godspeed in your recovery, D-Rose.
Perhaps, but if so, Hollinger didn't mention it:
When Kevin Garnett plays, the Celtics are really good. Boston outscores opponents by 10.71 points per 100 possessions with KG on the court, according to basketballvalue.com; this trend is consistent across nearly all their lineup combinations.
I hope you are correct, but I am skeptical about Chicago as a playoff team, as opposed to a regular season team, with Rose unavailable. I think Philadelphia can make it a long series now and maybe even win, and if all the "look out for Boston" stuff is half-right, then I would pick them over Chicago. OTOH, you are right to point out that Allen has the ankle issue.
If today is any indicator, Miami is going to get through the first two rounds with very little trouble, and they will of course now be prohibitive favorites in ECF.
I also want to say that I have seen coaches leave stars on the floor in games that were "more over" than that one was. Last year, Phil put Pau back into a game with the Lakers--literally--up by 50 on Cleveland. Still, given all Rose's health issues this season, it is legit to question Thibodeau on this.
No one is talking about it, but it is also too bad about Horford.
Yes, it is too bad that Horford plays for the Hawks.
If by "decent defense," you mean #1 in the league in Defensive Rating, then yeah, they have a decent defense.
I'm obviously pretty bullish on the Celtics, since I said earlier I thought would beat Chicago with Rose. Who know, really -- they could lose to Atlanta, but my confidence comes from thinking they became a fairly different team after the All-Star break, once 1) KG moved to center, 2) Bradley became a starter, 3) Bass became a starter, and 4) Allen strengthened the second unit.*
Perhaps I'm wrong, and it was just a small sample size illusion, but I suspect that looking at Boston's numbers from the season as a whole undersells them a little.
* Certainly Allen's injury situation bears watching.
This is a misreading of the stats. According to basketballvalue, the Celtics are 10.7 points better with Garnett than without him, not 10.7 points better than their opponents when he's in the game. They outscore opponents by 5.9 points per 100 possessions with KG on the court.
That's the key with this Celtics team. Do you believe they're who their season-long numbers say they are, or do you think their late-season push is for real? I tend to land in the second camp. Their crazy D numbers happened once Bradley moved to starting. With KG, Rondo, and Bradley on court, they're a defensive vice. Their offense isn't great, but I think they can put up decent numbers with KG and Bass stretching and the guards attacking the rim. Not amazing, but good enough if the defense can clamp down enough to ugly up games. I think they're good enough to make a run, as long as everyone is healthy, but I certainly see why someone could see them as a paper tiger if they think it's the product of a small sample rather than a qualitatively different team.
First of all, I think it's silly to disregard the whole season. It's a short season as is. Why throw away half of it? Bradley didn't start the year at the 2 for a reason--he was terrible last year!
That said, starting from the end of the 5 game losing streak until the last game of the season (IOW, the "Boston Push"), the Celtics were 23-10, with a 4.06 margin of victory. So even if we accept that Boston "figured it out" they still wouldn't have performed as well as the Sixers have for the year--let alone the Bulls (with or without Rose).
This is why I am utterly skeptical of the Celtics as a contender. (apologies to fans)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main