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 0.7599 seconds
50 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.
from last night
Ronald Murray!
I think Collins did a good job getting him off the court before he could pick up a T. It was his 3rd foul in the first half, 2 of which were on over the back calls.
Hawes has missed about 5 layups so far this series. He doesn't look good out there at all.
I'm pretty sure that's what he is. Hollinger and Lowe have been saying the same thing for a few weeks.
Hollinger wrote about injuries and their frequency today. Long story short, there's been no increase this playoffs.
Edit: Coke to Athletic Supporter in 205.
And Jefferson is less than useless today. What an embarrassment.
Edit: 22-2 run to finish the half. Good lord. Halftime score: 53-28.
Wellll...Harris has a -27 in 14 minutes, and Tinsley has a +4 in 10 minutes... (I know its not that simple)
Did not know that.
If NJ doesn't resign Deron Williams, and I don't think they will because that team around him is garbage, they could be Bobcats bad next year.
Stephen Jackson could have been someone like Andre Iguodala I think. Basically, everyone on the Golden State team that was an 8 seed and *flat out better* than a 67 win Mavericks team proved that they were underachievers.
You do realize that Stephen Jackson was only on that Warriors team for 38 games that year, right? And that Baron Davis was injured part of that time as well? The Warriors went 16-5 down the stretch just to make the playoffs as a 42-40 team.
I think that takes it a little too far, as those blocks and other contested shots are valuable. His defensive +/- numbers for example are good, but not great. I think Ibaka and also Deandre Jordan are guys with the physical tools to be elite defenders, but are only mediocre in their mental game/effort/consistency, however those tools still go a long way, and they are solidly above average overall, despite whatever frustrating moments and lapses they may have. Guys like this can be frustrating, because they seem like they should better than they are, even if they are still good (Corey Maggette was the offensive version of this player during his prime).
Would have liked to see Rubio get some votes, his defensive was fantastic and a big reason Minnesota was much better when he was healthy. I'm surprised Duncan didn't get any votes. Taj Gibson needed some votes too.
Yes. I realize they were good late in the year, and the next year. I also realize the rest of their career.
Even if I were to accept your premise as true (which I don't. Jackson, for instance had a good run of 3p shooting, but has never been a good 3p shooter for his career), why isn't mental make-up part of talent?
Chris Paul's ability to make quick decisions is accepted as part of his talent. Kobe's determination and willingness to study for hours and hours is accepted as part of his. I don't see why it's realistic to say that at age 30 or whatever, someone is going to stop being a knucklehead.
If the Spurs sweep us and Minnesota gets a high pick from us making the playoffs and we end up losing out on the Warriors pick, I'm gonna really question whether making the playoffs was good for our long term future or not (not that it would've had any effect on the Warriors tank job).
Agreed. Granted, we wouldn't have some of those nice pieces (Favors in particular) if we'd kept Williams, but he'd actually be a perfect fit for this team.
/skill/experience.
Both those dudes have good timing (not as sure about Jordan's timing, actually) and are big, long, and crazy athletic-- if you have that combination of talents, you're going to start racking up blocks quickly. Playing 24+ seconds of team D without a single breakdown, communicating effectively while an offense comes at you at NBA speed, and shutting down a pick and roll? Those are easy to #### up, and doing them well takes a lot of time and coaching. Those two guys in particular are young and a bit raw-- if their overall defensive games haven't picked up in a few years, then it makes sense to start picking on their mental game and effort.
This really undersells how terrible the Bobcats were this year; they were the worst team of all time. Even if Deron leaves BKN, Lopez, Wallace and Brooks are all better than anyone Charlotte had this year. The Nets will be bad, but just normal bad, not historic bad.
Basically, everyone on the Golden State team that was an 8 seed and *flat out better* than a 67 win Mavericks team proved that they were underachievers.
We already had the matchup discussion. And yes, GS was better by the end of the year than their record indicated*. But in no way were the Warriors clearly better than Dallas that year, but their strengths matched up perfectly with the Mavs' weaknesses.
*How much better though? 8 wins? 10 wins?
Wallace is reportedly planning on leaving.
Yes, it was a bit hyperbole. But those teams as constructed in the playoffs... if they played 100 times Golden State would have won the majority of the games. That's just what I mean by better. I realize there were matchup factors, but they also had a lot of guys who have been questioned for effort/attitude for large parts of their career all playing hard at the same time.
Ah, I see. He has a player option for $9.5mil. I knew not to include Kris Humphries, who is an UFA.
Yes, it was a bit hyperbole. But those teams as constructed in the playoffs... if they played 100 times Golden State would have won the majority of the games. That's just what I mean by better. I realize there were matchup factors, but they also had a lot of guys who have been questioned for effort/attitude for large parts of their career all playing hard at the same time.
Fair enough. But in those 100 games, how many would Baron Davis miss and how many would guys on the Warriors not try and for how many games?
I mentioned this during the matchups discussion, but with essentially the same teams the following season the Warriors won 48 games and the Mavs 51, so there really may not have been that big a difference between them to begin with. The Warriors were better than their 2007 record and the Mavs were almost certainly worse than theirs.
I just disagree with this. I thought that GS winning was an upset. Dallas was, and should have been favored. GS hit a higher FT % and Dallas a lower one than their season averages (GS higher by 30 points, and Dallas lower by 25).
Dallas lost, but I hate the reverse narrative that claims that the team that loses was always destined to lose. The series went 6 games.
I agree about the reverse narrative thing in most cases, but even ignoring the hindsight I mentioned in 233, GS won the regular season series with Dallas too (I think it was 3-1). They played a fast paced and reckless style that Dallas had trouble defending, and even before that series started, the Warriors looked like they'd be a much tougher matchup for the Mavs than the 25 game difference in their records would indicate. I specifically remember NOT being too surprised by the upset.
I agree and skill and experience are probably a better way of describing what they are lacking. It always frustrates me when Clipper fans try to tell me Reggie Evans is a better defender than Jordan; Evans might execute better defensively, but he's short and slow and Jordan is long and quick, and makes up for the difference in skill several times over (most of the time), the situation with Ibaka compared to Collison or Mohammed is likely similar. The veterans might look better because they aren't making as many mistakes, but they aren't making as many difference making plays either. A guy like Garnett, Howard, Chandler or Duncan is able to do both.
---
So Bosh probably won't play for Miami tonight after flying home to be with his wife having their baby.
1987 (Len Bias)
1988 (Len Bias)
1989 (Len Bias)
1990 (Len Bias).
Heh. I think this really means, "Please don't get robinred started on Simmons and Abbott yet again." ;-
I looked through it. Not my kind of thing, but it is actually fairly well-balanced for what it is. As noted amusingly above, where Simmons really gets most out of hand with the hypotheticals is scenarios he has suggested about hypothetical multiple Boston titles--like literally 4 or 5 additional titles added to the three they did win in that era--based on Len Bias.
I agree, as I noted a few days ago, that this is partly a LeBron James thing. Lockout + Rose will = "LeBron still has something to prove in the playoffs" for media guys looking for "provocative" narratives if Miami does win it this time.
Hmmm. I only skimmed it.
He is crazy. I hate to be dragged back into this, because I'm still bitter about his post 2008 Finals column. The Perkins '10/Bynum '08 tradeoff that he wants to give is beyond laughable.
1) Bynum was averaging a .230 WS/48 in 2007-008 (albiet in only 35 games). Not only was that higher than Kobe's numbers that year and just below Pau, but its the highest of any non-Shaq/Dwight Center playing more than a couple of games in the past decade. He was a top 3 player for the Lakers and I'm not sure Perkins wasn't the 6th best player on the Celtics in 2010 (including Rasheed).
2) Simmons conveniently forgets that Bynum had a severe knee injury for the entire 2010 playoffs. He went from 15pts/8rbs in the reg season to 7pts/5rbs in the Finals. Even that year, you make the trade-off of Perkins for a healthy Bynum.
I feel dumber for engaging in this lunacy.
That's what amazes me about that play. You watch in realtime and think there's no way he didn't, but it's unbelievable just how clean those blocks are.
*Throws ball at NJ*
/shorter Simmons
/shorter Simmons
Number of Celtics titles he gave a footnote to in the column: 5
Number of titles for which the Celtics were the reason for the footnote (i.e. a title they could/"should" have won): 4
Number of times in the column he references himself being a homer: 3
But, whatever.
2-2 in the regular season!!! I hate David Stern and the stupid bench rule. I really do. Perhaps more than I hate Charles Smith.
To his credit, he actually did include some Celtics titles in this article too (for once).
Nah. I'll swear until the day I die that the '97 Jazz were the best team the Bulls ever played in any of their title years and up to this point they'd also get my purely unbiased vote that I'm sure has nothing to do with me being from Utah as to the best team of my lifetime that didn't win the title...and even they weren't beating the Bulls (but oh, were they close!). The '97 Knicks weren't better than the Jazz. They would've gone down in 5 or 6 at the most.
So were the Heat that year. What else have you got?
I'm not saying they were better than the Jazz, but I do think they matched up fairly well to the Bulls. In the 4 regular season matchups the Bulls won by 1 at home, lost in NY by 4, won in NY by 2, and lost at home by 2.
The Heat got blown out in one of those games though, CHI-NY always came down to the final minute.
Agreed, hence my comment in [250].
Well, mostly agreed - it's fun to spitball that stuff, but at the end of the day, yeah, lucky AND good wins NBA championships, unless you have Jordan or Shaq or Magic or Bird or Moses plus other stars. So maybe "good and lucky" or "just really ####### awesome".
One of the Heat's wins was by 10 - in a game they led by 13 at the half and 17 after 3. Your turn.
No one likes a bully.
Simmons' caveats-within-caveats:
The 1968 Celtics: In other words, yes, Cunningham, Chamberlain, Greer, and Jackson were all hurt, but... you know, you always wagered on Russell over Wilt. So even though he says "I don't know", he knows.
In 1965, sure Elgin Baylor was lost, but So there's that." In other words, he knows.
In 1974, Allen, Robertson, and McGlocklin (the entire Bucks backcourt) were hurt but, you know, it was really about Heinsohn double-teaming Kareem, soIn other words, he knows.
Meanwhile, he's got Boston also winning in 1958, 1973, 1987, 2009, and 2010 but for cruel, uncaring fate. He writes at the top, "We make excuses when we lose; we overlook those same excuses when we win." Thus, this awesome column became basically a list of excuses why the Celtics either should have or shouldn't have won the title (except that even when they shouldn't have, they should have).
What about the previous and next seasons?
IMO it's inexcusable for teams to lose cuz of bad officiating, but I agree completely about injuries and timing. They always have and always will be a big part of sports. It's pointless to make note of it every time it happens when it happens pretty much every other season.
And for those who think Simmons was too hard on the Lakers, he also put a "footnote" on all 4 Spurs title teams.
Meanwhile, he's got Boston also winning in 1958, 1973, 1987, 2009, and 2010 but for cruel, uncaring fate. He writes at the top, "We make excuses when we lose; we overlook those same excuses when we win." Thus, this awesome column became basically a list of excuses why the Celtics either should have or shouldn't have won the title (except that even when they shouldn't have, they should have).
Clearly you don't have any biases yourself.
I was hoping one of you Bulls fans would show up.
1993, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012...
7 of the last 8 seasons and 13 of the last 20. Sorry, but it's not a "footnote" worth mentioning when it's the type of thing that happens 65 (or 88!) percent of the time.
I liked this post.
Agreed. It's sad to say, but at this point winning a title because Derrick Rose got hurt* isn't any more footnotey than winning a title because John Starks goes 2 for 18 or Chris Webber shrinks from the moment.
* Not conceding at all that a healthy Rose would have won the title
The insane comeback in game 1 gives them a good chance to win the series, but if they don't clean up the turnovers I think it's going to be Memphis.
Pushing the Celtics is his Thing, and it's always been his Thing. I'm just saying that he's doing his Thing again.
Apparently we have differing definitions of 'footnote'.
I mean, in theory since in every postseason there are reasons one can point to why the result turned out the way it did, every season should have a footnote. The footnote helps explain what happened.
In the previous season the 72-win Bulls lost to the Knicks by 32. In their other 9 regular season losses the total margin was 45. Glad you asked.
/unbiased reporting
The Knicks couldn't beat the Bulls when they actually played (save the footnoted 94 series), so I might as well let him have the imaginary series (including last year and this year).
Exactly. And if EVERY season has an equal reason for including a footnote, I think it's more logical if NONE of them do.
I like narrative and knowing why teams did what they did just as much as the next person, but I don't think most the teams listed in the article deserve any special mention over dozens of other teams that won (or lost) depending on whatever factors were going on that postseason.
Those games were misleading, which is why I left them out of the analysis so as not to corrupt the data.
"I haven't seen this many footnotes since I read Infinite Jest!"
(drops microphone, walks off stage)
And The Peach Pit on 90210.
I would disagree that every season has an equal reason. Some reasons are more equal than others.
I mean, a goodly portion of those footnotes have been the subject of debate in this very thread. It's not like the selection was arbitrary.
The '99 Spurs being on the list, much less #2 on the list, is just silly. Robinson still pretty much in his prime; Duncan a total beast -- that team was borderline juggernaut. And, as noted above -- Cokes to all -- Camby was better in those playoffs than Ewing would have been and the Knicks were not a true 8 seed.
Fair enough, can't really disagree with that.
So "Number 1" and "Number 2" are both silly. Simmons is pretty much just trollin' at this point.
Of course, Tiny Archibald got hurt in game 3 of the ECF for the Celtics that year and they narrowly lost to the Sixers, in a year in which the Celtics had the best record in the NBA and 63-19 and went on an 18 game winning streak. SI has this to say about them that April:
"The only question to be settled by the Eastern Conference playoffs is not which team is the best—the Boston Celtics are—but whether the defending champions should field a second entry composed of their bench."
"Then, when the NBA finals are over, look for the Celtics to be riding down Boston's Commonwealth Avenue in their second straight ticker-tape parade. Paper covers rock."
Does this mean the Celtics would have won in 1982 if Tiny was healthy? No. Just pointing out the problem with this sort of analysis.
WCF was between two .500 teams
In the 80s, the Western Conference was the Lakers and a bunch of .500 teams. Who else was there? The Gervin Spurs? The Doug Moe Nuggets? The Mark Aguirre Mavs? From 1980-89, there were 35 50 win teams in the East, compared with only 24 in the West. Let's just footnote all of the Lakers' titles in 80s while we're at it, shall we? ;-)
"I haven't seen this many footnotes since I read Infinite Jest!"
(drops microphone, walks off stage)
I liked this post as well.
How about that. I don't remember him saying he had a vote for MVP, but I do remember him writing about voting for another award (can't remember if it was ROY or COY or DPOY).
EDIT: I don't listen to podcasts, and the article linked there mentions he recorded himself filling out the ballot.
I wasn't defending the premise. See [250]. My response to your [266] was that the column wasn't actually biased toward the Celtics - but you chose to read it that way. You chose only to post about those years - when you could have chosen to post about 2009, where all he says is "That would have been a phenomenal Finals rematch".
How about 1973? "The Knicks won by 16. It's hard to believe anyone would have beaten Frazier that day. Just don't tell my father this."
1958? "...it would have been the flukiest fluke of flukes if Russell made it through that 13-year run without suffering one Finals-compromising injury."
I get why people, ESPECIALLY Lakers fans, have trouble with Simmons. As a Celtics fan, I have trouble with J.A. Adande, and he's not half the homer Simmons is. That said, I think a lot of you read what you want to read in his columns. I am guessing, if I had certain other allegiances, that I might often do the same thing.
Not to mention the asterisk of all asterisks -- the fact that the Nets and Nuggets were in the ABA. Either of them could have (**) beat the Celtics. The Nuggets were a 50-win team in the NBA the next year; the Celtics were a 44-win team; we'll unfortunately never know what the Nets could have been with Dr. J.
The '78 Bullets are #1; a very good case could be made for the '76 Celtics at #2.
(*) Nice jump forward for Silk, huge jump forward for Phil Smith, addition of Gus Williams, 59 wins.
(**) But might not have.
From Simmons: Obviously, he's blaming the series loss on Russell's injury.
I'm sure I do read into Simmons' writing my own biases, but in this case I don't have to because he wrote them right in, and I've been quoting directly from his column. I didn't put the 'yeah, but' stuff about the Celtics in his footnotes, he did. I'm not distorting his POV and I'm not twisting his words; I've been quoting directly and in context. I'm not being unfair to him. Everything that I've pointed out about his column, he wrote it in his column.
######## ... but who cares? The '73 team -- with Pearl and Lucas -- was better. The ECF was 1-1, both blowouts, when Havlicek hurt his shoulder and the Knicks won game 3 by 7 at Boston Garden in the game that he did.
The Knicks then blew out a 60-win, fully healthy, defending champion Laker team in the Finals. It's ridiculous to assume the Celtics would have beat the Knicks even with Havlicek.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main