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 0.6590 seconds
54 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.
baudib, here's the best explanation that Jim's given. I don't think you'll have much of a problem with the new setup.
I'm glad the Thunder have come back and taken the lead in the series, it has sort of restored my faith in humanity. Nothing against the Spurs but it seemed depressing to think that they would just roll to another title with three very good players, two of whom were past their peak, and a bunch of no-name role players. I mean, when you have Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc and a bunch of good role players and a great coach, I can understand how you dominate teams. I love Pop but I feel that the NBA is too over-coached as it is.
This is the first time I've really watched the Thunder, and it's impossible not to like this team on many levels. Nothing against San Anton, but OKC is just more fun to watch. Seeing them against the Celtics would give me two teams I like, and seeing them against the Heat would be like seeing Superman against Lex Luther, which is always a good matchup.
BTW this has got to be the first conference finals involving two teams from cities that have no other professional sports team in the four major U.S. sports. Just thought I'd throw that out for no reason at all, and if I'm mistaken it's because I'm too lazy to look it up. And if either of them turns out to have a hockey team, I give up.
What we've learned from this series and it's just a confirmation of everything we know in sports: You look good when you're winning and you look bad when you're losing. The Spurs may be done, but they may also have another streak in them.
Thabeet never had much of a chance given his age. Drummond is raw, but has some definite NBA-level skills (offensive rebounding, shot blocking).
Drummond is really raw. He's a guy that will definitely get you fired. I wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole. Who else would he compare to if not Thabeet? Eddy Curry? Diop?
Offensive rebounding is not something I'd actively go out and draft early. It's one skill that's easy to project, and guys that can offensive rebound can be found late in the draft (or undrafted). If that's the selling point, then he's going to be a massive overdraft.
@KevinArnovitz: Just filed to ESPN.com: Neil Olshey will not be returning to Clippers. Sources close to negotiations say he'll be POR GM.
Wow. He must keep himself in shape if Allen's going to hire him.
It's fascinating how quickly that's turned. I think people here were right not to say they were as good as they looked after game 2. In the same vein, I think it might be premature to write them off. OTOH, the Thunder seem to have an answer for everything now. I haven't seen anyone on this thread give Brooks credit for that yet.
Or what JC said.
Not true. He could also draw fouls and hit free throws with the best of them.
Surprisingly, no. The WCF featured Portland/Utah in 1992, San Antonio/Portland in 1999, and San Antonio/Utah in 2007.
The reason why I said that they looked done is that they have nothing they can point to. Pop made the adjustments (burying Danny Green at the end of the bench, playing Ginobili higher minutes). They shot more FT's than the Thunder (something that isn't likely to continue in OKC), and they shot the 3p ball well. OKC shut down Parker's penetration and none of the role players can create on their own. Duncan is giving San Antonio very little.
What's the adjustment for San Antonio? Hit more jumpshots?
(and kudos to Brooks for making the adjustment on Parker. He is the key to these Spurs)
I was thinking about this today on my drive into work. Our thread seemed to agree as a consensus that Brooks is a terrible coach (I questioned that at one point), and yet this guy's got a very young team on the verge of the Finals. In addition, all his very young players are developing very well and meshing quite well. So, what makes him terrible? Obviously, some of what we say is just shorthand, beer-in-hand sports fan talk, but maybe some of you meant he makes certain kinds of mistakes? And that got me thinking: is a young coach "terrible" b/c he makes mistakes, or, is he simply making mistakes that he will learn from? Has Brooks learned from prior mistakes and grown as a coach? Or, as John Thompson would point out, is he a good coach b/c he has good players, and when he doesn't have good players, he'll go back to being a bad coach again?
A positive comparison could be to Andrew Bynum. If he develops into JaVale McGee or D'Andre Jordan then he's a useful player. I wouldn't take him high in this draft, but since he's only 18 you never know. That's the major thing he has going for him.
True on that. While Thabeet is a bust, looking at his career rates per 36 minutes he averages 3.2 ORB, 9.3 TRB, and 3.0 blocks. Also 6.7 fouls, which obviously gives him no chance to get to 36 minutes. Those rebounding rates are a good match for Ian Mahinmi's 2011-12 season, and the blocks are a match for McGee. He can block shots as well as anybody and rebound decently, yet he still can't play basketball. It takes a lot of skills to be able to play at this level.
The big non-scorers who specialize in rebounds and shot blocking who are able to contribute still have to do some other things. Like knowing an offense well enough to set picks in the right places, at least some minimal passing skills, and being able to do that while not committing too many fouls and turnovers. I have no idea if Drummond will be able to do this. I might take that gamble after the 10th pick, but not before it.
This is highly subjective, though I'd guess it's mostly true among casual fans. OKC is clearly the more athletic team which leads to more conventional highlight-reel plays. However, OKC's style involves a lot of isolation and free throw shooting (on both offense and defense), whereas SA's does not. The Spurs rely much more on ball movement, off-the-ball action, and executing set plays, which can be exciting to watch in a different way. I've probably had more fun watching the Spurs than any other team this season. When they're hot, they seem to get great shots as a team on every possession, rather than having one or two guys who look unguardable.
Surprisingly, no. The WCF featured Portland/Utah in 1992, San Antonio/Portland in 1999, and San Antonio/Utah in 2007.
Of course, and now that I think about it I should have remembered the first finals I ever saw, the Syracuse Nats** and the Ft. Wayne Zollner Pistons.*** It was decided on a one shot free throw in the final seconds, and it extended Syracuse's all-time Onondaga County War Memorial Coliseum record against the Pistons to 28 and 0---that Syracuse home court advantage was always a killer.
The early NBA was an amazing league, with cities as big as New York and Chicago and as tiny as Anderson, Waterloo or Sheboygan. Washington fans in the 1949-50 season could see the Bullets, the Caps, and the Nats all in one division, and the Redskins lurking out west.
**now the 76ers---the GS Warriors were then in Philadelphia
***named after their owner
This is highly subjective, though I'd guess it's mostly true among casual fans.
And that's a fair description of my level of fandom at this point. If the Celtics or the Heat are playing, I've got a rooting interest for or against, but if they're not, I tend to go for the overall narrative. I like and admire San Antonio, but I've seen them a lot, whereas Oklahoma City's story seems a lot fresher. Plus I like their Old School, almost throwback-looking uniforms.
This is highly subjective, though I'd guess it's mostly true among casual fans. OKC is clearly the more athletic team which leads to more conventional highlight-reel plays. However, OKC's style involves a lot of isolation and free throw shooting (on both offense and defense), whereas SA's does not. The Spurs rely much more on ball movement, off-the-ball action, and executing set plays, which can be exciting to watch in a different way. I've probably had more fun watching the Spurs than any other team this season. When they're hot, they seem to get great shots as a team on every possession, rather than having one or two guys who look unguardable.
I agree with you. OKC can be really fun to watch, but really I think of them more as a team that makes great highlights. They take a lot of iso-jump shots and their games can be very stop and start with all of the fouls.
As for the Drummond/Thabeet comp, I still don't see why that isn't the best comp out there. Thabeet did some things better, too, like JC mentioned. Like not shoot free throws at an embarrassing clip. Yes, Drummond is 18 and Thabeet is 22. That said, I believe Thabeet picked up basketball at a pretty late age so there was reason to think he could develop, he seemed (seems?) like a good guy with a good work ethic too. It's just really difficult to make the kind of serious offensive strides these guys needed to when you're riding the bench every game. And which ones do develop seems like a crapshoot.
By the way, Fisher is only playing because Maynor is out for the year, right? Is Maynor supposed to be back next year?
Are you from Syracuse? I'm guessing you saw that live as I don't think they televised many NBA games back then, not to mention in 1955 I think only about half of households had a TV.
Are you from Syracuse? I'm guessing you saw that live as I don't think they televised many NBA games back then, not to mention in 1955 I think only about half of households had a TV.
Not from Syracuse, and I should've been more clear. NBC only televised Saturday afternoon games back then, and so while I did see game six, the deciding game was on a Sunday afternoon and it wasn't televised. The practice of televising all the final round games nationally didn't begin until sometime between 1967 (when they weren't) and 1970 (when they were). What probably held it back was that between 1962 and 1970, the Western Conference team was always from California.
OTOH TV ownership exploded after 1950, and by 1955 well over half of the U.S. households had sets. I was in a typical middle class DC neighborhood**, and pretty much everyone had one.
**That neighborhood's insanely wealthy now, but in 1955 the demographics were much more mixed and there were more than a few blue collar households.
I agree that Brooks has improved. There is always a tension between having the most intricate strategies and being able to communicate them such that your players can execute them effectively. Poppovich has used his FO role to get really heady players who can comprehend the fluidity of his system and employ it on the court. It is hard to say where Brooks was coming up short the last couple of years, but it is clear that he has either improved his schemes or his ability to get his players to execute those schemes because they are much more organized and seem to have a better concept of 2nd and 3rd options than they used to. Of course, introducing James Harden into the mix as a highly intelligent creator has probably helped with that a great deal.
I did find the end of that game 7 on youtube. Pretty cool.
That's supposed to be the Miami offense too, right? Which I realize is hindered without Bosh.
I did find the end of that game 7 on youtube. Pretty cool.
I can't believe you found that video, and what made it even better was that the first announcer (for what must have been an earlier game) was clearly the great Marty Glickman, and the final seconds of game 7 were called in an overvoice by Johnny Most. And then you've got Dolph Schayes in a 2007 interview. Quite a find you had there.
Durant is listed at 6'9 in socks, 6'10.25 in shoes. He may have grown a bit since being drafted at 19. But I'm fairly certain, after seeing them right next to each other yesterday, that Durant is at least an inch taller than Perkins.
I think these are great points. Everyone (here and elsewhere) was clamoring for him to bench Perkins and that non-move may have saved OKC's season.
The one you linked is awesome too.
I love watching the old NBA, and trying to make sense of how much the sport has changed. Players did not play as physically as they are now. Is that because nobody really tried that style yet or because it would not have been tolerated? Take a 2011 post player (I especially have in mind the kind of wrestling Lebron and Garnett were doing towards the end of game 4), put him into 1955, and assume he's stubborn enough to play that style. Does he dominate the smaller, weaker competition? Or does he just foul out in 3 minutes?
Conventional Wisdom seems to be that Durant is 6'11" in shoes.
Perkins has that height in his DX profile, but he's absent from their measurements history database, which makes me wonder if that's just a media height.
Durant is what you'd get if you take Reggie Miller, make him the height of a center, and also give him better ball handling skills. As someone said earlier, he's like a video game player with maxed out sliders.
Basically, WW2 happened, and then he played professionally for a different league than the one we have stats for on bb-ref.
"Cervi succeeded George Senesky as coach of the Philadelphia Warriors in 1958,[8] but left after one season to accept a more lucrative job in the trucking business as an area manager for Eastern Freightways, Inc. in Rochester, New York. In 1960 he declined to accept a two-year offer to coach the Lakers in its first campaign in Los Angeles because his wife was reluctant to leave the Rochester area. He lived in the suburb of Brighton for the last 58 years of his life."
Somehow I can't see Phil Jackson taking that kind of career path.
I'll add the NHL Western Conference Finals:
2004 -- Calgary vs. San Jose
2011 -- Vancouver vs. San Jose
San Jose only fits on a technicality, but that's good enough for trivia.
I have seen it written a few times that "deep depth" is less important in the playoffs, in that big post-season games are usually decided by how the first 5-6 guys do. That is one of the main reasons I thought this series was a toss-up, rather than a SA (river)walk. "Going 11 deep" with guys like Danny Green and Gary Neal is great in March, but I am not sure it matters as much in May and June (there may be studies that show the opposite--this is not something I can prove). Popovich played Green and Bonner 4 minutes total last night.
That makes it more about Parker/Duncan/Ginobili vs. Durant/Harden/Westbrook. Finally, I don't think it is as simple as "getting Duncan in the right positions" so he can go to work. Ibaka, Perkins and Collison provide some pretty tough obstacles on D and while Duncan is still a hell of a player, he is 35 years old now. I noted that TO numbers were not helping SA, and that happened again in Game 5. SA had 21 last night and OKC had 16. Ginobili had 11 TOs and 11 AST in Games 4 and 5, and as pointed out, OKC has contained Parker, putting more of a burden on Ginobili.
But some in the media are predictably overreacting and counting out the Spurs, and that is very premature. I expect a close game in Game 6.
Was that the (perceived) perception before the series, or after game 2? I'm trying to figure out how the "deep depth" is applying to this particular series and the perception of it over time.
I think there is too much focus on the last game and not on the series as a whole. Both teams have looked unstoppable or clueless for streches, and they've both looked evenly matched for stretches.
Hollinger has written variations of it several times over the last 3-4 years and I was actually thinking about things written 10 years ago in some cases. For me, and I think for others, it was one reason we saw the series as even, rather than as a series in which SA was going to steamroll OKC. Not everybody was predicting that SA would win in a walk, but a fair number of people in the media were.
As to the emphasis on Game 5, a couple of points: Parker has had two mediocre games in a row by his standards. As tshipman noted, Popovich made a big adjustment in Game 5, and they lost.
Like Spivey and others have said, the teams are basically even. Usually when that happens (2010 Finals, 2005 Finals) the team with HCA wins. Game 5 was a big deal, and worthy of extra attention, because OKC took away HCA and can close it at home. But the Spurs still have a really good chance and are not out of the series.
The best player in the series
The majority of the best 3, 5, 7, 9 players
..and also with which number the correlation peaks (or flattens)
Somehow I can't see Phil Jackson taking that kind of career path.
Not now, of course, but Jackson grew up in the 1950's in rural Montana and North Dakota, and back then Cervi's story wouldn't have seemed so out of the ordinary. If anyone wants to get a real glimpse of the life of an early NBA player, Leonard Koppett's description of a 24 plane trip that the Knicks took in 1955 from Syracuse to St. Louis is a classic in the genre. I don't know whether it's online, but it's on pp. 184-190 of his classic book, The Essence of the Game is Deception ($2.20 on Amazon). There's no better writer on the early NBA than Leonard Koppett, and trust me, Phil Jackson growing up would've taken this account totally in stride.
That would require stats sufficiently precise to tell the 6th best player in a game from the 7th best. Those don't exist (unless the gap between the 6th and 7th best player is huge.)
So, for those in the thread fed up with/concerned about the popualar perception of James, winning and playing big tonight is a pretty big step along the road to his changing it.
Joke?
I didn't like Avery Johnson just cuz I thought his voice was annoying. I disliked Nick Van Exel cuz his face looked like a grasshopper.
"They got us just a little bit twisted in the mind" -- words of something else from Eric Spoelstra
That play was on Rondo. That was total carelessness with the ball.
I agree. But, he seems to do that every fast break and that very rarely happens. So I'm giving credit to the defender.
He's been really good this series, but I feel like if they switched teams that Boston would have likely swept.
He's been really good this series, but I feel like if they switched teams that Boston would have likely swept.
I'm a huge Rondo fan, but this sounds about right to me.
As discussed a few nights ago, 3PT% is the absolute wild card in any series. Whereas the Heat, with no good three point shooters, have taken 24 tonight so far, predictably shooting poorly. Insane.
But a bigger wild card is a team playing great defense, and then the offensive team having a player get a wide open corner 3 for no reason other than luck. It was a perfectly even game, but in my opinion those were the difference in the game. I suppose Boston deserves credit for playing Miami even and getting a chance for the luck to get them the win.
When Hitler fights Stalin, you just wanna see a good fight.
There are random bounces in every game -- the ball is made of rubber after all. Choosing to focus on those two is a little silly, in my humble and biased opinion.
That wasn't Spoelstra?
Seriously, I thought the same thing as you. I thought LBJ was going to punch him in the mouth.
[Same pic on SI.com]
One starts to wonder if Wade has Derek Jeter vs. ARod disease.
That Pietrus technical flop ended up being huge. Booooooooooooooo.
I'm focusing on them because they were in the 4th quarter and felt like 2 of the biggest plays of the game. In particular the first, which was maybe the most freak bounce I've seen in the playoffs, happened right when Miami was going on a run and Boston couldn't seem to run any offense.
They'd better get hope Bosh gets up to speed quickly, or it's going to be yet another long offseason for the "Dream Team".
Lose in the Finals
Lose in the ECF
Lose in the 2nd round
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main