NBA Thread 2013-2014

So if OKC gets out in the first round, does Durant still get MVP?

His dismal first round display will get cancelled out by his ridiculous out-of-this-world January, and the rest of the season still holds up to a MVP standard. So yeah, still deserves it.
 
Wow, what a series.

Driving me crazy. Especially because the games are on during the day here in NZ, and it's already stressful enough trying to stream them at work without my boss catching me. Add that to the stress of overtime ALL THE TIME, my God.
 
His dismal first round display will get cancelled out by his ridiculous out-of-this-world January, and the rest of the season still holds up to a MVP standard. So yeah, still deserves it.

Yep.

Thing is LeBron, his closest contender himself had a slump after a brilliant February until the play-offs. If LeBron wouldn't have had that slump, then may be he would have had a chance of winning it. But as of now, KD is getting MVP award irrespective of what OKC do.
 
Wasn't Dirk all lined up for MVP until the Mavs went out in the first round as the 1 seed in 2007 or whatever?

I can't see the NBA giving the MVP to a player whose team loses in the first round. Has it ever happened before?
 
Shattering loss as an OKC fan. Can't see us winning the series now. Needed to come out strong and instead they dragged their feet. So many frustrating things. Westbrook clearly takes too many shots. Durant isn't playing well at all (although credit the defense by Memphis). Brooks drew up a horrible play at the end I thought. WHY get Durant to catch and shoot a 3? Drive in and look for a foul. Thought the ref was shocking too, should have been 3.1 or 3.0 seconds on the clock not 2.6 or whatever they gave - then Ibaka's final bucket would have counted. Anyway, depressing. Looks like we'll be going out in the first round. :(
 
Wasn't Dirk all lined up for MVP until the Mavs went out in the first round as the 1 seed in 2007 or whatever?

I can't see the NBA giving the MVP to a player whose team loses in the first round. Has it ever happened before?
Dirk won the MVP award in 2007 when the Mavs lost the first round series against the Warriors.
 
Dirk won the MVP award in 2007 when the Mavs lost the first round series against the Warriors.

Well, that's what I get for not looking it up.

To be fair Nash won the MVP without his Suns being serious contenders for the title, so there is some leeway in that realm as well.

Last 10 NBA MVPs

LeBron James (2012-13, 2011-12, 2009-10, 2008-9)
Derrick Rose (2010-11)
Kobe Bryant (2007-8)
Dirk Nowitzki (2006-7)
Steve Nash (2005-6, 2004-5)
Kevin Garnett (2003-4)
Tim Duncan (2002-3, 2001-2)
Allen Iverson (2000-1)
Shaquille O'Neal (1999-2000)
Karl Malone (1998-99, 1996-7)


But I'd say Nash & Nowitzki are the only one on that list who didn't seriously challenge for the title in the year they won.

Go further back and you get MJ, The Admiral, The Dream, Barkley, Magic and Bird as the only MVPs from 1983-1996. Lots of titles and title runs in those MVP seasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Most_Valuable_Player_Award
 
It simply was a nightmare match-up for the Mavs. They lost all games during the regular season against the Warriors, started the season with 4 losses and finished it with 15 losses in total, just to face the one opponent, that has all the tools to hurt them. Nowitzki playing one of his worst ever playoff games in game 6 then finished the job. I really felt sorry for Dirk back then, it all sucked so bad after the nightmare final series against the Heat the year before and I feared he will never win a title. Still, he was clearly a deserving MVP for his regular season.

As far as I know, the vote is done before the first playoff round is finished anyway, so it can't be influenced by the playoff performances?
 
Read this one tirade against the league this morning because it has taken them a little over 2 days to come to this decision. The person actually argued that two days was too much time, that it should have acted within hours. Now granted in this day and age 2 days gives everyone in the world a chance to hear the story 500 times or more, but the league did have a responsibility to do at least a little investigation into this didn't they?

I think two days is actually a pretty quick turn-around even on something this blatant.

Now it will be up to his fellow owners to step up and force him to sell the Clippers.

2 days is remarkably quick, or the alternative is a knee jerk reaction as soon as they found out, quite possibly not having all the facts and making a bad decision that might affect them being able to punish him further down the road.


In other playoff news, Raptors are going to win. :wenger:
 
It simply was a nightmare match-up for the Mavs. They lost all games during the regular season against the Warriors, started the season with 4 losses and finished it with 15 losses in total, just to face the one opponent, that has all the tools to hurt them. Nowitzki playing one of his worst ever playoff games in game 6 then finished the job. I really felt sorry for Dirk back then, it all sucked so bad after the nightmare final series against the Heat the year before and I feared he will never win a title. Still, he was clearly a deserving MVP for his regular season.

As far as I know, the vote is done before the first playoff round is finished anyway, so it can't be influenced by the playoff performances?

Seems that voting already concluded. I'm certainly surprised, thought it was later.
 
Yep.

Thing is LeBron, his closest contender himself had a slump after a brilliant February until the play-offs. If LeBron wouldn't have had that slump, then may be he would have had a chance of winning it. But as of now, KD is getting MVP award irrespective of what OKC do.
KD fully deserves the MVP award this year. Overall he had the best regular season, and was about 5 points (!) ahead of everybody else in scoring per game. 2nd best record in the NBA as well with the 1st being SA. KD MVP, Pop coach of the year.

Playoffs should not be a factor in the equation, because it's a regular season MVP award.
 
Brooks should gtfo. That play was crazy. I can't see any other team beating Miami if OKC gets eliminated.

I'm an OKC fan (after my beloved Timberwolves), and though I've never jumped on the "Brooks out" bandwagon, that last play was all sorts of stupid.
 
Surely OKC will have to re-assess things if (basically when) they do go out? You just can't have Westbrook being so selfish. I don't have an issue with him taking lots of shots, it's just some of the shot selections are atrocious. Ridiculous 3 point attempts that are just never going to work.
 
Surely OKC will have to re-assess things if (basically when) they do go out? You just can't have Westbrook being so selfish. I don't have an issue with him taking lots of shots, it's just some of the shot selections are atrocious. Ridiculous 3 point attempts that are just never going to work.

To be fair to Westbrook, he's not a traditional PG. Scott Brook's play schemes are very basic. Minimal pick and roll action (mostly when Collison is on the floor), inadequate spacing, just getting the ball into the hands of Durant and Westbrook and expecting them to make inefficient shots. Credit to the Memphis defense for their excellent man to man coverage, Durant is tiring out fast like he did last year against the same team. But Brooks is the main one at fault for not getting other members of the team involved, or at least for not reining Westbrook and Durant (who has been inefficient at times) in and making them move the ball around. Ibaka had a decent game, he should have shot more.
 
Her lawyer denies she had anything to do with the recordings, however after listening to a lot of sports radio in the last few days, many pundits and callers think she was indeed the one who recorded and released the audio.
Ah thanks. So it was not set up by a court/the league/...etc. I can see that being a potential slippery slop now, I wish Silver mentioned his previous history as a factor in the decision and not categorically deny it and stress that was wholly based on the leaked recording. That was the only thing I disagreed with in the whole announcement.
 
True. But the current Bobcats team is quite good. Considering how poor Miami were post all-star weekend, I think it was good to see that they had not gone the Pacers way and were simply pacing themselves for the postseason.
The Bobcats' best player was injured in the series, so they didn't even play full strength against the Heat.

I'm pretty sure the next series will be very different, regardless whom they face.
 
Ah thanks. So it was not set up by a court/the league/...etc. I can see that being a potential slippery slop now, I wish Silver mentioned his previous history as a factor in the decision and not categorically deny it and stress that was wholly based on the leaked recording. That was the only thing I disagreed with in the whole announcement.

I thought this was interesting.


http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

The alleged racist and misogynist rants of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling will test the leadership of new NBA commissioner Adam Silver. Sterling's apparent misconduct raises legal questions about Silver's authority and possible punishments to be assessed against Sterling:

Q: Can Silver force Sterling to say whether the voice on the tapes is his?

A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 24(m)(ii) of the "constitution" that governs the 30 owners of NBA teams and establishes the authority of the owners' commissioner, Silver can require Sterling to respond under oath to questions. The commissioner has "the right to require testimony and the production of documents and other evidence from any Member." As an owner, Sterling is a "member" of the NBA. Sterling and his lawyers could delay answering questions from Silver, but if Sterling refuses to admit or to deny that it is his voice on the tapes, he is in violation of the constitution and would face termination. He has no protection from the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination, because he is not facing any charge of any crime.

Q: What penalties can Silver issue?

A: Under the provisions of the bylaws, Silver has two sets of powers that he may use. Under either, he can issue a lifetime suspension and a substantial fine. Under Paragraph 24(l) of the constitution that was adopted by the NBA owners on Oct. 26, 2005, he can issue a fine of up to $2.5 million, can suspend an owner indefinitely and can order the forfeiture of draft picks. This provision applies to situations that are not covered by specific rules within the constitution. In another provision, Paragraph 35(A)(c), Silver can issue an indefinite suspension and a fine of $1 million to any owner who "makes ... a statement having or designed to have an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball." If Silver wants to hammer Sterling, he can assert that Sterling's statements are so egregious that they go beyond the misconduct contemplated in Paragraph 35 and allow Silver to assess the greater penalties found in Paragraph 24. Sterling can argue that he merely made a statement, but the statement at a minimum allows a lifetime suspension and a $1 million fine.

Q: Is it possible for Silver and the NBA to terminate Sterling's franchise ownership?

A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely." Silver and the owners could assert that Sterling's statements violated the constitution's requirements to conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level.

Any owner or Silver can initiate the termination procedure with a written charge describing the violation. Sterling would have five days to respond to the charge with a written answer. The commissioner would then schedule a special meeting of the NBA Board of Governors within 10 days. Both sides would have a chance to present their evidence, and then the board would vote. If three-fourths of the board members vote to terminate, then Sterling would face termination of his ownership. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the board to reduce the termination to a fine. Terminating a franchise would obviously be a drastic remedy, but the potential of the termination procedure gives Silver and the other owners vast leverage in any discussion with Sterling about an involuntary sale of his team.

Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment.
 
Mike D'Antoni has resigned. Good riddance to the fecker.
 
Caught the 4th quarter of the Rockets vs Blazers. Houston managed to keep Aldridge quiet with just 8 points but I felt like there was a lack of effort from the Blazers towards the end. James Harden was quiet throughout the game but redeemed himself towards the end with a crucial layup, 3 pointer and the block on Lillard. I'm really hoping for a game 7 to be honest but I can see the Blazers wrapping it up on Friday.
 
I'm relatively new to watching basketball avidly. I caught it sparingly for a few years and then last year got really into it. I have a question I've always wanted to ask though; why are the games always close? It's just so odd. I see a team get a decent lead but I know it's irrelevant because the other teams will always come back. Like the Brooklyn and Toronto game today. It's like they just switch off and allow it to be close again. I know there are some matches where it isn't close, like when a terrible team plays a good one, but it just seems to happen quite often.
 
I'm relatively new to watching basketball avidly. I caught it sparingly for a few years and then last year got really into it. I have a question I've always wanted to ask though; why are the games always close? It's just so odd. I see a team get a decent lead but I know it's irrelevant because the other teams will always come back. Like the Brooklyn and Toronto game today. It's like they just switch off and allow it to be close again. I know there are some matches where it isn't close, like when a terrible team plays a good one, but it just seems to happen quite often.
Are you referring to playoff ball-or in general? Regarding the playoffs-all of the teams are pretty good (some are very good) and so the difference in quality isn't that great. As a result, you'd expect close games. Moreover, during the playoffs games are spread-out, unlike in the regular season when a team may play on consecutive nights after traveling between two cities.

But-basketball, for whatever reason tends to be a game of runs--so when a team goes up by 20 it's unlikely that the team with the lead is really that much better. At some point the other team makes a run-which generally means that they're reverting back to their average shooting percentage. Also, coaches call time-outs to break up a team's momentum-which sometimes works to stop a team from pulling ahead too much.
 
Are you referring to playoff ball-or in general? Regarding the playoffs-all of the teams are pretty good (some are very good) and so the difference in quality isn't that great. As a result, you'd expect close games. Moreover, during the playoffs games are spread-out, unlike in the regular season when a team may play on consecutive nights after traveling between two cities.

But-basketball, for whatever reason tends to be a game of runs--so when a team goes up by 20 it's unlikely that the team with the lead is really that much better. At some point the other team makes a run-which generally means that they're reverting back to their average shooting percentage. Also, coaches call time-outs to break up a team's momentum-which sometimes works to stop a team from pulling ahead too much.

Yeah I do get all that. I honestly thought it was rigged at one stage though. It just seems so odd how leads never really hold up for a long time.
 
I haven't been here for ages, keep forgetting to post.

Best first round I can remember in a long time. So many great series. The unfortunate Sterling fiasco.

Miami will come out of the East barring some freak occurrence. The West is up for grabs. Memphis has provided the blueprint to beat OKC. They don't quite have the talent but they are a better team. Brooks isn't a good coach for me. Blake Griffin showing up in the postseason for the first time. Washington with Wall, Beal, Nene et al. I'm trying to watch as much as I can it has been great viewing.