NBA Thread 2013-2014

Danny1982 said:
What you said actually was more worthy of laughing at, but out of respect I replied with a serious post.

Many players have spells where they play at "superstar" level, but then fade away or fail to make it count, are we going to call them all superstars forever?! That's actually beyond silly.

Oh and by the way, your beloved Paul hasn't even played at a superstar level this year.

Durant, James, Griffin, Harden, Westbrook, and many others all played at a higher level.
Click to expand...

I could understand your argument about playoff success. I disagree with it totally because of the obvious extenuating circumstances but you are right that Paul hasn't had playoff success. That's a fact.


But when you say stuff like this, it's impossible to take your seriously.

Chris Paul averaged 19 points, 10 assists and 2.5 steals. There have been 4 such seasons in NBA history. Here they are, sorted by FG%

1. Chris Paul 08-09
2. Chris Paul 07-08
3. Chris Paul 13-14
4. Isiah Thomas 83-84



That's the entire list. If we remove steals from the criteria, we can just look at players who averaged 19/10 over a full season. This is the third time Chris Paul has done it. There are only 4 other players to have done it more than once. Isiah, Oscar Robertson, Magic and Kevin Johnson.



The only person to ever do 19/10 with 3 or less turnovers is Chris Paul. He did it 3 times. If we lower it to 15/10 with 3 or less turnovers, Jason Kidd makes it once. And literally no one else does.







I mean, come on.
 
Eboue said:
I could understand your argument about playoff success. I disagree with it totally because of the obvious extenuating circumstances but you are right that Paul hasn't had playoff success. That's a fact.

But when you say stuff like this, it's impossible to take your seriously.

Chris Paul averaged 19 points, 10 assists and 2.5 steals. There have been 4 such seasons in NBA history. Here they are, sorted by FG%

1. Chris Paul 08-09
2. Chris Paul 07-08
3. Chris Paul 13-14
4. Isiah Thomas 83-84

That's the entire list. If we remove steals from the criteria, we can just look at players who averaged 19/10 over a full season. This is the third time Chris Paul has done it. There are only 4 other players to have done it more than once. Isiah, Oscar Robertson, Magic and Kevin Johnson.

The only person to ever do 19/10 with 3 or less turnovers is Chris Paul. He did it 3 times. If we lower it to 15/10 with 3 or less turnovers, Jason Kidd makes it once. And literally no one else does.

I mean, come on.
Click to expand...
Selective stats like those will never define a superstar.

Deron Williams had an 18.8 points, 10.5 assists, 1.1 steals per game season shooting over 50% from the field (40% from 3). So? We say Deron Williams had a superstar season/he's a superstar? Is the "superstar" all about averaging one more steal per game now?! Seriously? (Williams had two other 18+ points 10+ assists 1+ steals per game shooting 47% by the way)

We're talking whether a player is a superstar (yet) or not. We're not talking about "having a superstar season" or not. You're just trying to come closer to the word "superstar", because Paul doesn't really have a case to make.

Paul is a star because of his numbers, but he's not a superstar because he achieved nothing.

And by the way, keep in mind, this season: 1- He wasn't the best player on the team that finished 3rd in the West. 2- The Clippers' record without him was similar to their record with him.
 
Danny1982 said:
Selective stats like those will never define a superstar.

Deron Williams had an 18.8 points, 10.5 assists, 1.1 steals per game season shooting over 50% from the field (40% from 3). So? We say Deron Williams had a superstar season/he's a superstar? Is the "superstar" all about averaging one more steal per game now?! Seriously? (Williams had two other 18+ points 10+ assists 1+ steals per game shooting 47% by the way)

We're talking whether a player is a superstar (yet) or not. We're not talking about "having a superstar season" or not. You're just trying to come closer to the word "superstar", because Paul doesn't really have a case to make.

Paul is a star because of his numbers, but he's not a superstar because he achieved nothing.

And by the way, keep in mind, this season: 1- He wasn't the best player on the team that finished 3rd in the West. 2- The Clippers' record without him was similar to their record with him.
Click to expand...

Chris Paul led the league in steals per game 6 times already. This is not some arbitrary cutoff. As for the rest, I'm off to go bash my head into the wall. I feel it would be more productive than continuing.
 
Eboue said:
Westbrook - 166 points, 53 assists, 11 steals, 25 turnovers, 36 rebounds
Chris Paul - 135 points, 72 assists, 15 steals, 14 turnovers, 22 rebounds


So let's start with steals and turnovers. Westbrook was -14 possessions while Paul was **. That's a 15 possession difference. The Clippers averaged 1.09 points per possession this year and the Thunder averaged 1.08. So let's say that is worth 16 points.

Now let's move to the assists plus points. Paul actually shot 2% better than Westbrook but it's close enough that I will ignore it for now. Even assuming that each extra assist was only for a two pointer (they weren't), that is another 38 points for Paul. Brings us to 54 points right now. The remaining difference is that Westbrook had an extra 14 rebounds. If I again concede that 1) Westbrook getting the rebound was a rebound that only he could get and not one that another Thunder player could get and 2) every single rebound led to a made three pointer, that is only 42 points. Even with all of those concessions, Paul still had at least a 12 point edge.
Click to expand...

I had a feeling you'd throw some stats at me. Did Westbrook single handedly choke away a game 5? Oh wait that was the game he kinda singlehandedly kept the thunder in . Only someone who disregards the eye test could say Paul has been better than Westbrook. Fortunately real life basketball is more complicated than fantasy stats.

As for the Paul is a superstar debate, I actually agree with you. Some players are just stuck on shit teams and basketball is not an individual sport. Coaching, Teamates etc are all cruicial in how much a player wins. Paul has been the best point guard in the league for a few years now. Tony parker runs him pretty close though imo. But Paul is a great distributor of the ball, a great shooter, a great teammate and pretty good defensively. @Danny1982 has a point though and that is that Rings define legacies. Dirk is now defined by his amazing 2011 run while Sir Charles is defined by the loss to the bulls and rockets. Yes it's kinda lazy to knock a player for not winning a team trophy but it has always happened and will always happen. Also the clippers with CP easily have the talent of a championship calibur team and its perfectly reasonable when they get bounced early in the playoffs to ask questions about thier leader on the court.
 
Desert Eagle said:
I had a feeling you'd throw some stats at me. Did Westbrook single handedly choke away a game 5? Oh wait that was the game he kinda singlehandedly kept the thunder in . Only someone who disregards the eye test could say Paul has been better than Westbrook. Fortunately real life basketball is more complicated than fantasy stats.

As for the Paul is a superstar debate, I actually agree with you. Some players are just stuck on shit teams and basketball is not an individual sport. Coaching, Teamates etc are all cruicial in how much a player wins. Paul has been the best point guard in the league for a few years now. Tony parker runs him pretty close though imo. But Paul is a great distributor of the ball, a great shooter, a great teammate and pretty good defensively. @Danny1982 has a point though and that is that Rings define legacies. Dirk is now defined by his amazing 2011 run while Sir Charles is defined by the loss to the bulls and rockets. Yes it's kinda lazy to knock a player for not winning a team trophy but it has always happened and will always happen. Also the clippers with CP easily have the talent of a championship calibur team and its perfectly reasonable when they get bounced early in the playoffs to ask questions about thier leader on the court.
Click to expand...

What? They aren't fantasy stats. I purposely kept it very simple. Points are assists are a record of things that actually happened. They are great because they don't forget that Paul basically won game 1 on his own by by shooting 8 for 9 from three or that Westbrook shot 4 for 15 in the closeout game or game 4 where Westbrook had 5 personal fouls, 4 turnovers and 12 missed field goals or game 1 where Westbrook had more turnovers than assists.
 
Eboue said:
What? They aren't fantasy stats. I purposely kept it very simple. Points are assists are a record of things that actually happened. They are great because they don't forget that Paul basically won game 1 on his own by by shooting 8 for 9 from three or that Westbrook shot 4 for 15 in the closeout game or game 4 where Westbrook had 5 personal fouls, 4 turnovers and 12 missed field goals or game 1 where Westbrook had more turnovers than assists.
Click to expand...

What was the free throw differential between the two? How many fouls did Westbrook draw compared to Paul? We can play this game forever. Cherry picking stats means absolutely nothing. Yes Paul played well throught the series but tied 2-2 and with 50 seconds to go he had 2 turnovers and a foul that basically lost them the series. If they had won game 5 chances are they close out at home. Russell Westbrook will never be as efficient as CP, they have different games. It's like comparing Scholes to Gerrard. But in this series he averaged something like 25-8-8 and was extremely clutch when needed. Paul was something like 23-11-2 and fecked up in the most crucial part of the series.
 
Miami in 5, Spurs in 7, Spurs in 6. I had OKC winning the championship, but with Ibaka out I don't see how they could. It's a shame, that's 2 years in a row where a key starting guy for Thunder goes down in the playoffs, after Russ last season. Unlucky.
 
I've never actually watched a full NBA game before, only highlights. Wow. So many ads. So many timeouts.
 
Last edited:
named the second best silver, mid range ,4 star safety suv of the month
also just watching because the reasonable time , downloads have the shit cut out .
Oh and anything but Miami please
 
Glad the Pacers won. Hope they can go through. Really don't want to see Miami win it again. Nervous for tomorrow. Ibaka out is such a big loss. Will be REALLY hard to win it now. Have to have Durant and Westbrook play brilliantly for 4 games probably. Still think it'll be a Spurs and Miami re-match.
 
If Spurs go through, they'll beat whoever wins the East. If OKC get through, they'll lose to whoever wins the East. And despite today's result, I still have Miami and San Antonio to duke it out in the end.
 
Lu Tze said:
I've never actually watched a full NBA game before, only highlights. Wow. So many ads. So many timeouts.
Click to expand...

Yep it's ridiculous isn't it. I love the NBA but I'll never get used to all the stoppages, not when my two favourite sports (football and rugby league) flow so freely. I usually stream NBA games online, but when games come on ESPN I record them and start watching an hour after tip-off so that I can skip all the ads. Even then, I still catch up to the live feed sometimes.
 
gooDevil said:
Spurs look more like they'll win this series 4-0 or 4-1 without Ibaka out there.
Click to expand...

I agree. So disappointed that Ibaka is out. Can't see us winning now. They got too many points in the paint and Durant being moved around just didn't work out.
 
One thing I noticed about Thunder Spurs: Brooks used a lot of different lineups today, and not all of them had the same defensive assignments. For a guy to go from uber-conservative with his 5 on the floor to being this flexible in Game 1? Methinks there was a lot of tinkering and note-taking for adjustments. Remember in 2012 when Spurs went 2-0 up against Thunder only for OKC to win 4 on the bounce and win the series? Who knows, Brooks could outcoach Pop again this time.

Probably not though, just trying to inject some intrigue into a series that looks done and dusted lol
 
okLaptop1 said:
One thing I noticed about Thunder Spurs: Brooks used a lot of different lineups today, and not all of them had the same defensive assignments. For a guy to go from uber-conservative with his 5 on the floor to being this flexible in Game 1? Methinks there was a lot of tinkering and note-taking for adjustments. Remember in 2012 when Spurs went 2-0 up against Thunder only for OKC to win 4 on the bounce and win the series? Who knows, Brooks could outcoach Pop again this time.

Probably not though, just trying to inject some intrigue into a series that looks done and dusted lol
Click to expand...

I was enjoying the positivity until that :lol:. Brooks is a moron. In the 3rd it was pretty clear that the big line-up was working the best. Then he switched back to small in the last and it was a blow out.
 
ZDwyr said:
I was enjoying the positivity until that :lol:. Brooks is a moron. In the 3rd it was pretty clear that the big line-up was working the best. Then he switched back to small in the last and it was a blow out.
Click to expand...

Brooks is slow on the uptake in terms of in-game tactical switches, and he is pretty stubborn when it comes to his starting lineup, but he isn't a moron. I referenced the 2012 series, so it's not like it's never happened before. And like I said in my previous comment, it could be that Brooks was almost throwing this game for the purpose of tinkering and discovery.
 
okLaptop1 said:
Brooks is slow on the uptake in terms of in-game tactical switches, and he is pretty stubborn when it comes to his starting lineup, but he isn't a moron. I referenced the 2012 series, so it's not like it's never happened before. And like I said in my previous comment, it could be that Brooks was almost throwing this game for the purpose of tinkering and discovery.
Click to expand...

Well if he is basically throwing a game in the conference finals then I'd say he is a moron. It is an incredibly risky thing to do. It's not just in-game tactical things though, like match-ups. The plays he draws up are just bizarre at times. He probably isn't a moron but I don't think he's the coach OKC need to win a championship. Although unfortunate injuries haven't helped the last two years.
 
ZDwyr said:
Well if he is basically throwing a game in the conference finals then I'd say he is a moron. It is an incredibly risky thing to do. It's not just in-game tactical things though, like match-ups. The plays he draws up are just bizarre at times. He probably isn't a moron but I don't think he's the coach OKC need to win a championship. Although unfortunate injuries haven't helped the last two years.
Click to expand...

That's why I said he was "almost throwing" it. By that I meant that he would take a win if it came, but the most important thing was quickly figuring out how the lineups and defense worked out going forward without Serge, and how rotations and defensive assignments would affect the game. When Russ went down this season, it took Thunder 5 or 6 games to adjust. It also took about that long to adjust back when he returned. Thunder don't have that luxury now, they have to get it right by Game 2, which is why we so much more changes than normal.

Also, don't confuse me for a Brooks lover. I don't mind him right. Of course I acknowledge that Thunder could be better with a lot of other different guys. And yes half of his plays out of timeouts are basically isos for KD or Russ. It's just that he's not as bad as most people say, and on his day, he can coach himself one hell of a game.
 
I think if Indy can take game two it'll be a spurs pacers finals and the Spurs will win it. Such a shame about Ibaka, I wanted OKC to win it this year. They really have very little chance against the Spurs though. Collison and Adams just isn't going to get it done against a Spurs team that is as savvy as they come. The draft lottery is in a few hours. Hope the NBA fixes it so the Lakers get the number one pick. They freaking owe us for the Chris Paul fiasco
 
Desert Eagle said:
I think if Indy can take game two it'll be a spurs pacers finals and the Spurs will win it. Such a shame about Ibaka, I wanted OKC to win it this year. They really have very little chance against the Spurs though. Collison and Adams just isn't going to get it done against a Spurs team that is as savvy as they come. The draft lottery is in a few hours. Hope the NBA fixes it so the Lakers get the number one pick. They freaking owe us for the Chris Paul fiasco
Click to expand...

No they don't. The NBA absolutely made the right decision re Paul, it's only butthurt Lakers fans who can't see it ;)

I know you're joking about the fix, but it obviously isn't. Only mention it because some idiots genuinely do believe it's fixed. That said, I fully expect the Lakers to move into the top 3, because you're an unbelievably jammy lot. Meanwhile I expect us (the Kings) to move down at least a spot. We're fecking cursed :(
 
Nanderson said:
No they don't. The NBA absolutely made the right decision re Paul, it's only butthurt Lakers fans who can't see it ;)

I know you're joking about the fix, but it obviously isn't. Only mention it because some idiots genuinely do believe it's fixed. That said, I fully expect the Lakers to move into the top 3, because you're an unbelievably jammy lot. Meanwhile I expect us (the Kings) to move down at least a spot. We're fecking cursed :(
Click to expand...

You can't be serious about Chris Paul. It was one of the most blatant feck ups of the stern era. I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why it was the right decision for the Commish to actively veto a trade agreed by all parties. Oh wait you're a Kings fan. I guess that's reason enough ;)
 
Just watched the Inside the NBA after the Spurs/OKC game 1 and seriously, Tim Duncan has the mannerisms and voice of a middle aged I.T salesman. On my (very lacking) knowledge of the game/league he is my favourite player off the court, seems so humble and down to earth.
 
Lu Tze said:
Just watched the Inside the NBA after the Spurs/OKC game 1 and seriously, Tim Duncan has the mannerisms and voice of a middle aged I.T salesman. On my (very lacking) knowledge of the game/league he is my favourite player off the court, seems so humble and down to earth.
Click to expand...

This is basically why I don't mind if the Spurs beat OKC. I'll be annoyed but i'll support them in the finals because I like Duncan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.